CAR_Public/050330.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, March 30, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 62

                         Headlines

BEST BRANDS: Recalls Cookie Dough Products Due To Undeclared Egg
BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Recalls Motorcycles Due To Crash Hazard
CALIFORNIA: Deceptive Advertising Suit Launched V. Cereal Makers
CASA IMPORTS: Recalls Dried Tomatoes Due To Undeclared Sulfites
CHICAGO TRANSIT: Rider Lodges IL Suit Over Discontinued Bonuses

COMPUTER SCIENCES: Reaches $24M Settlement For CA Overtime Suit
DAY-LEE FOODS: Recalls Chicken Because of Listeria Contamination
EINSTEIN AND NOAH: CA Court To Rule on Wage Suit Pact Approval
FORD MOTOR: Recalls 43,626 Passenger Cars Due To Crash Hazard
GENERAL MOTORS: Former Workers Launch 401K Plans Lawsuit in MI

GUAM: Parties Involved in ETIC Case To Meet For Mediation Talks
HARLEY-DAVIDSON: Plaintiffs Appeal To Re-file Cam Bearings Suit
HARMONY BRANDS: Recalls Home Tests For Safety, Efficacy Concerns
ILLINOIS: Attorneys Want Justice Off Case Due To Contributions
KENTUCKY: Sanitation Agency Asks Judge To Drop Homeowners' Suit

KEYSTONE RV: Recalls 2,168 Trailers Due To C01 Poisoning Risk
KRYPTONITE LOCKS: Settlement Offers Three Options To Consumers
LABOR READY: Dismissal of NY Consumer Fraud Lawsuit Deemed Final
LABOR READY: Discovery Proceeds in CA Gender Discrimination Suit
LABOR READY: Discovery Proceeds in Overtime Wage Lawsuit in CA

LABOR READY: Discovery Proceeds in Overtime Wage Lawsuits in CA
LANDAMERICA FINANCIAL: Parties in MI Lawsuits To Enter Mediation
MEREX CORPORATION: Recalls Apricots Due To Undeclared Sulfites
MGM MIRAGE: Dismissal of MI Slot Machine Lawsuit Deemed Final
MIRAGE RESORTS: Trial in NV Gaming Machines Suit Set Sept. 2005

NORTH AMERICAN: OOIDA Files Suit For Truth-in-Leasing Violations
NOVELL INC.: NY Court Preliminarily OKs SilverStream Settlement
NOVELL INC.: Reaches Settlement For UT Securities Fraud Lawsuit
ORKIN EXTERMINATING: Faces Consumer Fraud Lawsuits in FL, GA, TX
PENTAIR INC.: Working To Settle M/V Horizon Disease Litigation

PORTLAND GENERAL: Seeks Dismissal of Consumer Fraud Suits in IL
PORTLAND GENERAL: Customers Commence Amended Fraud Lawsuit in OR
PORTLAND GENERAL: Continues to Face CA Energy Antitrust Lawsuit
PPG INDUSTRIES: High Court Rejects Appeal For Price Fixing Suit
PWR PROCESSING: Barred From Making False Home Mortgage Claims

REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS: NY Court Nixes Stock Suit Dismissal
SBC COMMUNICATIONS: Court Hears Antitrust Suit Dismissal Appeal
SCHWAN'S FOOD: Recalls Stuffed Sandwiches Due To Mislabeling
SMART & FINAL: CA Court Orders Mediation in Overtime Wage Suit
SPITZER MANAGEMENT: Settles Car Fee Suit, To Give Cash, Coupons

STERICYCLE INC.: Discovery Proceeds in Seven UT Antitrust Suits
SOUTHLAND TITLE: Mediation in Representative Suit Set For April
STERICYCLE INC.: LA Investor Suit Trial Set Sept-Oct 2005
UNITED STATES: Female Agents Lodge Sexual Bias Complaint V. CIA
VAIL PRODUCTS: FDA Seizes Hospital Beds For Suffocation Hazard

VISX INCORPORATED: Shareholders Commence Lawsuit V. AMO Merger
WISCONSIN: Appeals Court Dismisses Beneficiaries' Complaint
WORLDCOM LITIGATION: Selected Jury Set To Hear Investors' Case


                Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

AUDIBLE INC.: Zwerling Schachter Lodges Securities Suit in NJ
CELL THERAPEUTICS: Murray Frank Lodges WA Securities Fraud Suit
ELAN CORPORATION: Johnson & Perkinson Lodges MA Securities Suit
ELECTRONIC ARTS: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Suit in CA
ELECTRONIC ARTS: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges CA Securities Suit

FANNIE MAE: Frank J. Johnson Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in DC
FOREST LABORATORIES: Glancy Binkow Lodges Securities Suit in NY
ORANGE 21: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CA
ORANGE 21: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CA
ORANGE 21: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. CA

                          *********

BEST BRANDS: Recalls Cookie Dough Products Due To Undeclared Egg
----------------------------------------------------------------
Best Brands Corp. of Eagan, Minnesota is recalling all lots of
Custom Sugar Pre-cut Frozen Cookie Dough products because they
contain undeclared egg. People who have an allergy or severe
sensitivity to egg run the risk of serious or life-threatening
allergic reaction if they consume these products. The products
are not harmful unless the consumer is allergic to eggs.

The sugar cookie dough was sold to retail and grocery store
bakeries and other foodservice outlets. Consumers may have
purchased the product as baked cookies of various shapes and
sizes, either decorated or plain. Cookies may have been sold
from trays in the bakery counter or in individual packages with
grocery store labels. The name "Best Brands" or "Custom Sugar
Pre-cut Frozen Cookie Dough" would not appear on the consumer
package.

The sugar cookie dough was distributed to retail bakeries,
grocery store bakeries and other foodservice outlets in Alabama,
Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa,
Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska,
North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina,
Tennessee, Texas, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

The recall was initiated after it was discovered that product
containing egg was distributed in packaging that did not reveal
the presence of egg. In the future, the product will be
distributed with the correct ingredient listing.

Consumers with allergen concerns who have purchased sugar
cookies are urged to contact the place of purchase to determine
if their cookies were made from the Best Brands Corp. sugar
cookie dough and are part of this recall. The cookies may be
disposed of or returned to the place of purchase for a full
refund. Consumers with questions may contact the Company at
1-800-328-2068.

Best Brands Corp. is taking this voluntary action to ensure the
safety of its consumers and is working closely with the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration in the recall process. Best Brands
Corp. is committed to the quality and safety of its products and
sincerely regrets any inconvenience that this incident may have
caused.


BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Recalls Motorcycles Due To Crash Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------
BMW of North America, LLC is cooperating with the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) by voluntarily
recalling 1,160 BMW / R 1200 GS motorcycles, models 2004.

On certain motorcycles, the defect involves a water leak around
the fuel pump that is integrated within the fuel tank.  An O-
ring seal attached to the pump's electronic housing does not
meet specifications and water can bypass this seal and contact
the pump electronics.  Engine stalling or a failure to start
could occur without prior warning.  If stalling were to occur
while the motorcycle was being driven, the rider would be unable
to maintain speed or accelerate and a crash could occur with
prior warning.

Dealers will replace a sealing ring.  If the fuel pump
electronic unit is corroded, it will be replaced.  The recall is
expected to begin March 31,2005.  For more details, contact the
Company by Phone: 800-831-1117 or contact the NHTSA's auto
safety hotline: 1-888-327-4236.


CALIFORNIA: Deceptive Advertising Suit Launched V. Cereal Makers
----------------------------------------------------------------
A San Diego mother initiated a lawsuit against three big cereal
companies claiming that the lower-sugar versions of Cocoa Puffs
and Froot Loops may seem healthier, but they're really a bunch
of Trix, the Associated Press reports.

Jennifer Hardee, who was surprised to learn from an Associated
Press story that the new cereals have no significant nutritional
advantage to regular versions of the popular kids' breakfast
cereals, specifically accuses them of misleading advertising
through prominent "low sugar" packaging.  Mrs. Hardee, a Navy
wife and the mother of two young daughters who enjoy Trix
cereal, is suing Kraft Foods Co., General Mills Cereals, and
Kellogg USA Inc., saying they intentionally misrepresent their
products.

Marybeth Thorsgaard, a spokeswoman for General Mills told AP
that the Company "never made specific health claims" for its
reduced sugar cereals. She also adds, "Consumers wanted less
sugar, so we gave them less sugar. Our packaging is clearly
labeled with nutritional information that complies" with
government regulations.

Miami lawyer Howard Rubinstein, one of the lawyers representing
Mrs. Hardee, told AP that the companies have intentionally
misled consumers by displaying low-sugar labels prominently on
the packages. Consumers don't always understand the details in
nutritional labels, he adds.  

Mrs. Hardee's lawsuit, which was recently filed in San Diego
County Superior Court, seeks to force the companies to surrender
profits from low-sugar cereals and to stop them from marketing
the products as nutritionally superior.  It also seeks class-
action status on behalf of all California consumers who bought
the new cereals believing they were healthier, attorney Harold
M. Hewell of San Diego told AP.  According to Mr. Hewell, Mrs.
Hardee heard a broadcast report of the AP story last week that
found there was no real advantage from the lower-sugar cereals.
In that story, the AP had asked nutrition experts at five
universities to review the new reduced-sugar cereals to see how
they stacked up with the regular versions.

The nutrition scientists found both the old and new cereals had
the same amount of calories, carbohydrates, fat, fiber and other
nutrients. The AP story reported that manufacturers replaced the
sugar with other refined carbohydrates to preserve the crunch.  
The cereals examined were Kellogg's Frosted Flakes and Froot
Loops, General Mills' Cocoa Puffs, Cinnamon Toast Crunch, and
Trix, and Post's Fruity Pebbles. Only one, Cinnamon Toast
Crunch, had fewer calories than the full-sugar version - 120
calories compared to 130 per three-fourths cup serving.

Mr. Hewell told AP that Mrs. Hardee "was extremely upset" to
find that most of the reduced-sugar cereals had the same
calories as the regular versions.


CASA IMPORTS: Recalls Dried Tomatoes Due To Undeclared Sulfites
---------------------------------------------------------------
Casa Imports Inc. is recalling Casale Sun-Dried Tomatoes because
it may contain undeclared sulfites. People who have severe
sensitivity to sulfites run the risk of serious or life-
threatening allergic reactions if they consume this product.

The recalled Casale Sun-Dried Tomatoes are packed in five-pound
bags and labeled crop: 2003. They are a product of Turkey and
were sold in New York State.

The recall was initiated after routine sampling by the New York
State Department of Agriculture and Market Food Inspectors and
subsequent analysis of the product by Food Laboratory personnel
revealed the presence of undeclared sulfites in Casale Sun-Dried
Tomatoes in packages which did not declare sulfites on the
label. The consumption of ten milligrams of sulfites per serving
has been reported to elicit severe reactions in some asthmatics.
Anaphylactic shock could occur in certain sulfite sensitive
individuals upon ingesting 10 milligrams or more of sulfites.

Consumers who have purchased Casale Sun-Dried Tomatoes should
return it to the place of purchase. Consumers with questions may
contact the Company at 1-800-851-8509.


CHICAGO TRANSIT: Rider Lodges IL Suit Over Discontinued Bonuses
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against the Chicago
Transit Authority, which alleges that it had defrauded its
riders by failing to make it clear that it was discontinuing the
10 percent bonus on its paper fare cards, the Associated Press
reports.

The bonus used to give riders the bonus on the cards when they
paid in $10 increments a dollar added on a $10 purchase, for
instance, and $2 on a $20 purchase.  The bonuses were eliminated
when the CTA increased promotion of its "smart" Chicago cards
last year.

According to the lawsuit, which was filed by rider Gregory
Eidukas, the CTA did not adequately publicize the fact that the
bonuses had been dropped. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of an
undisclosed number of transit riders, AP reports.


COMPUTER SCIENCES: Reaches $24M Settlement For CA Overtime Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Computer Sciences Corporation has agreed to a $24 million
settlement in a lawsuit brought by technical support workers,
according to an attorney representing the class action's
plaintiffs, the CNET News.com reports.

Todd Jackson, an attorney at Oakland, California-based law firm
Lewis Feinberg Renaker & Jackson, said the agreement settles
overtime wage claims and covers roughly 30,000 tech support
workers at CSC.  That would amount to nearly 40 percent of the
total staff at the El Segundo, California-based Company, which
employs 79,000 and provides a variety of technology services,
including systems integration, help desk services and
application outsourcing.

Meanwhile, CSC faces another suit accusing it of failing to pay
proper overtime wages to tech support workers. The Company, in
the past, has declined to comment on either overtime suit.


DAY-LEE FOODS: Recalls Chicken Because of Listeria Contamination
----------------------------------------------------------------
Day-Lee Foods, Inc., a Santa Fe Springs, California, firm, is
voluntarily recalling approximately 12,500 pounds of chicken
products that may be contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes,
the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection
Service announced today.

The products subject to recall are approximately 32 lb. boxes of
"TRADER JOE'S, TERIYAKI CHICKEN WINGS & DRUMMETTES." The boxes
contain sixteen two-pound bags. Each bag is labeled, "TRADER
JOE'S, Teriyaki Chicken Wings & Drummettes." The bags also bear
the establishment code "EST. P-17309" inside the USDA mark of
inspection and the code "2404DL1."

The chicken products were produced on Aug. 27, 2004, and were
distributed to retail stores in Arizona, California, Nevada, New
Mexico, Oregon and Washington.  The problem was discovered
through Company sampling. FSIS has received no reports of
illnesses associated with consumption of these products.

Consumption of food contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes can
cause listeriosis, an uncommon but potentially fatal disease.
Healthy people rarely contract listeriosis. However, Listeriosis
can cause high fever, severe headache, neck stiffness and
nausea. Listeriosis can also induce miscarriages and
stillbirths, as well as serious and sometimes fatal infections
in those with weakened immune systems. Infants, elderly and
persons with chronic disease, such as HIV infection and those
undergoing chemotherapy are most vulnerable.

Media and consumers with questions about the recall may contact
Company recall coordinator, Mark Miller at (562) 802-6801.  
Consumers with food safety questions can phone the toll-free
USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline at 1-888-MPHotline
(1-888-674-6854). The hotline is available in English and
Spanish and can be reached from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time)
Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety messages are
available 24 hours a day.


EINSTEIN AND NOAH: CA Court To Rule on Wage Suit Pact Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court for the State of California, County of San
Francisco has yet to approve the settlement of the class action
filed against Einstein and Noah Corporation, by its former
employees.

On July 31, 2002, Tristan Goldstein, a former store manager, and
Valerie Bankhordar, a current store manager, filed a putative
class action, alleging that the Company failed to pay overtime
wages to managers and assistant managers of its California
stores who were improperly designated as exempt employees.  In
April 2004, the Company reached an agreement in principle to
settle the litigation, subject to court approval.


FORD MOTOR: Recalls 43,626 Passenger Cars Due To Crash Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Ford Motor Company is cooperating with the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) by voluntarily recalling
43,626 passenger cars, namely:

     (1) FORD / CROWN VICTORIA, model 1997

     (2) MERCURY / MARQUIS, model 1997

On certain passenger vehicles built with electronic traction
control, the rear brake line may chafe due to contact between it
and a floor pan stiffening rib, and a brake fluid leak may
occur.  The brake pedal may develop a "spongy" feel and drops of
brake fluid may be observed beneath the vehicle.  Over time
brake performance may be compromised and stopping distances
could be extended which could lead to a crash.

Dealers will inspect the subject vehicles for contact between
the brake tube and floor pan stiffening rib.  If contact is
evident but no abrasion or leaks exist, the brake tube will be
repositioned to preclude further contact and potential abrasion.

If indication of abrasion or a leak is evident, dealers will
repair the brake line.  This campaign is expected to begin on
May 2,2005.  For more details, contact the Company by Phone:
1-800-392-3673.


GENERAL MOTORS: Former Workers Launch 401K Plans Lawsuit in MI
--------------------------------------------------------------
Two former General Motors' workers initiated a lawsuit in
Michigan against the automaker claiming it improperly invested
billions of dollars of employees' 401K plans in GM stock, the
Associated Press reports.

Specifically, the suit claims that GM ignored signs that should
have indicated the Company's stock was not a wise investment.
The red flags included the Company's $2 billion payment to Fiat
to end a failed partnership and the possible downgrading of GM's
credit rating.  The suit, which the Company calls as being
absurd, seeks class-action status on behalf of all current and
former employees who have lost money. It was filed on behalf of
former employees Al Balnius and Michael Pyrka, AP reports.


GUAM: Parties Involved in ETIC Case To Meet For Mediation Talks
---------------------------------------------------------------
All the parties involved in the Earned Income Tax Credit
settlement in Guam are scheduled to be meeting one another in a
set of mediation talks, the KUAM.com reports.

Mike Phillips, who represents the plaintiffs in the class action
lawsuit, says he is optimistic about the mediation. In an
interview with the KUAM News, he states, "I anticipate that
we're going to be able to resolve this matter. I don't think the
parties would agree to mediation only to find out there was no
real intent to settle and so I'm anticipating that it will speed
up the process and everyone will win as a result of it."

On March 11 District Court Magistrate Judge Joaquin Manibusan
approved an order allowing for mediation. California-based
mediator Catherine Yanni was chosen to facilitate the
negotiations.

As previously reported in the July 20, 2004 edition of the Class
Action Reporter, Julie Santos, represented by attorney Mr.
Phillips, filed a class-action lawsuit in February 2004 to force
the government to pay up and to resume yearly payments of the
ETIC, which was suspended by the government since 1998. The
government then agreed to a settlement and promised to pay about
half of what is currently owed over the next nine years and by
agreeing to pay the tax credits in full from now on. The tax
credit, which was created in 1973, is an incentive for the
working poor.


HARLEY-DAVIDSON: Plaintiffs Appeal To Re-file Cam Bearings Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed a Wisconsin court's refusal to their
petition seeking to re-file a class action against Harley-
Davidson, Inc., relating to its 1999 and early-2000 model year
Harley-Davidson motorcycles equipped with Twin Cam 88 and Twin
Cam 88B engines.

In January 2001, the Company, on its own initiative, notified
each owner of the motorcycles that the Company was extending the
warranty for a rear cam bearing to 5 years or 50,000 miles.
Subsequently, on June 28, 2001, a putative nationwide class
action was filed against the Company in state court in Milwaukee
County, Wisconsin, which was amended by a complaint filed
September 28, 2001. The complaint alleged that this cam bearing
is defective and asserted various legal theories.  This
complaint and a second lawsuit filed on April 12, 2002 in state
court in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin were dismissed.

On April 12, 2004, the same attorneys filed a third action in
state court in Milwaukee County on behalf of the same plaintiffs
from the action dismissed by the Wisconsin Supreme Court.  This
third action was dismissed by the court on July 26, 2004.  In
addition, the plaintiffs in the original case moved to reopen
that matter and amend the complaint to add new causes of action,
which motion was denied on August 23, 2004.  A notice of appeal
to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals from the latter dismissal has
now been filed.  


HARMONY BRANDS: Recalls Home Tests For Safety, Efficacy Concerns
----------------------------------------------------------------
Harmony Brands, Oak Park, Michigan, a national distributor of
health, cosmetic and other consumer products, is voluntarily
recalling its B-Sure brand One-Step Home Pregnancy Test.,
because its safety and efficacy can no longer be assured.

Consumers who have unused and unexpired B-Sure brand One-Step
Home Pregnancy Tests in their possession should not use the
product and should return the product to the point of purchase
for a refund. Additionally, women who have used the test may
wish to contact their health care provider to verify the test
results.

Harmony also announced that there have been no reports of
failures of the product, and there have been no reports of
injury or illness associated with their use. FDA has been
apprised of this action.

The tests subject of the recall were sold throughout the United
States in a variety of retail outlets, including Dollar Stores
and convenience stores. The tests can be identified by the
product label notation "B-Sure." Additional information
identifying the product can be found on the Harmony Brands
website at www.harmonybrands.com.

A Harmony spokesman stated: "Even though we have had no reports
of any deficiencies in the product, to insure strict compliance
with FDA regulations, we believe this recall is in the best
interest of our customers. We regret any inconvenience caused by
the recall, and will take all necessary steps to insure the
complete satisfaction of purchasers of Harmony Brand products."


ILLINOIS: Attorneys Want Justice Off Case Due To Contributions
--------------------------------------------------------------
The campaign contribution that helped Justice Lloyd Karmeier
reach the Illinois Supreme Court is now raising big ethical
questions especially with plaintiffs in a major lawsuit that the
justice handles, the Chicago Sun-Times reports.

Specifically, the plaintiffs argue that they want him to step
aside from the case, since he may not be able to rule
impartially after accepting donations from business executives
and groups involved in the lawsuit.

The court already is scheduled to hear a challenge to state fee
increases from the Illinois Chamber of Commerce, a Justice
Karmeier backer in last year's record-breaking judicial
campaign. Many of Justice Karmeier's donors have a deep interest
in malpractice cases and state legislation that someday also may
reach the Supreme Court.

Gregory Ogden, an expert on legal ethics at Pepperdine
University, told the Sun-Times "This is a real murky area for
judges. So long as we have elected judges, we're going to have
many issues of this type."

Some experts worry the growing cost of judicial races is
reducing public trust in the courts. One recent poll found that
87 percent of Illinois voters think judges' decisions are
influenced by campaign contributions.

Justice Karmeier, a Republican, and his Democratic opponent,
Gordon Maag, spent a combined $9.3 million last year in their
battle for the southern Illinois seat on the Supreme Court.
According to experts, it was the most expensive judicial race in
American history.  Most of Mr. Maag's money came from trial
lawyers, while doctors and business groups, who were looking to
prevent frivolous lawsuits and limit awards in cases that go to
court backed Justice Karmeier. The donors included participants
in the second-largest lawsuit in Illinois history, a $1.2
billion judgment against State Farm Insurance Co. over the use
of inferior parts to repair damaged automobiles. State Farm, its
executives and a law firm representing the Company gave money,
either directly or through groups, to Justice Karmeier.

The plaintiffs in the class-action lawsuit say Justice Karmeier
should not take part in deciding the case. While not alleging
that Justice Karmeier would be swayed by the donations, they say
in motions filed with the court that it would look bad and
judicial ethics require judges to recuse themselves even over
the appearance of impropriety, the Sun-Times reports.


KENTUCKY: Sanitation Agency Asks Judge To Drop Homeowners' Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sanitation District No. 1 has asked a Boone County judge to
dismiss a lawsuit against its $46.08-per-year storm-water fee
homeowners pay, on the grounds that the suit failed to include
36 key defendants, 32 Northern Kentucky cities, three counties
and the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, the Cincinnati Enquirer
reports.

Arguing that it lacked legal authority to charge the fees, and
should have to repay more than $9.2 million that had been
collected from Northern Kentucky residents and businesses since
August 2003, the Wessels Co. LLC of Fort Mitchell and Florence
businessman Thomas Seiter filed the suit against the district
last month.  Wessels and Mr. Seiter hope the lawsuit, which is
now before Boone Circuit Court Judge Stan Billingsley, will
become a class action, representing many businesses and
residents.

The sanitation district this month asked that Judge Billingsley
throw out the lawsuit because it failed to name the cities,
counties and transportation cabinet as defendants, the Enquirer
reports.  According to attorney Gerald Dusing, representing the
sanitation district, "I feel like the law requires they be made
parties, because the standard is if the consequences of the
suit, if successful, are going to go to the cities, not S.D. 1.
In other words, if S.D. 1 is out of the storm-water business,
that doesn't mean the program, goes away. It just means each
individual city and county has to comply."

Todd McMurtry, representing Wessels and Mr. Seiter, said it
wasn't necessary to include the other parties. He contends that
he wants to "limit the scope of the lawsuit, so every city in
Northern Kentucky is not immediately burdened by a need to hire
an attorney." That could mean three-dozen more lawyers, "and we
don't think that's necessary. We think that that's an undue
burden on the cities, and the counties, to have to all respond
to this lawsuit that deals just with S.D. 1, and not with all
these other cities," he said, according to the Enquirer. "Having
that many lawyers involved is almost never a good thing."

The district will fight to keep the program operating, because
cities could not efficiently do it themselves." Mr. Dusing said,
"It's a great program. It's the only way that is practical, and
we'll see it through."


KEYSTONE RV: Recalls 2,168 Trailers Due To C01 Poisoning Risk
-------------------------------------------------------------
Keystone RV Company is cooperating with the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) by voluntarily recalling
2,168 recreational vehicles, namely:

     (1) KEYSTONE / SPRINGDALE, model 2005

     (2) KEYSTONE / SPRINTER, model 2005

     (3) KEYSTONE / TAIL-GATOR, model 2005

On certain travel trailers and fifth wheel recreational
vehicles, during production it was discovered that the furnace
may not be secured and the gasket that seals the furnace to the
floor duct system may be missing.  The furnace could move away
from the outside wall and disconnect from the exhaust outlet.  
If this occurs, exhaust gasses will enter the interior of the
vehicle when the furnace is operating which could lead to injury
or death from carbon monoxide poisoning.  

Dealers will inspect and install the furnace correctly, securing
it to the floor and adding the missing gasket.  The manufacturer
has not yet provide an owner notification schedule.  For more
information, contact the Company by Phone: 1-866-425-4369 or
contact the NHTSA's auto safety hotline: 1-888-327-4236.


KRYPTONITE LOCKS: Settlement Offers Three Options To Consumers
--------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement for a class action lawsuit over a flaw that
allowed anyone with a ballpoint pen to open a very popular
tubular-keyed, U-shaped locks that was manufactured by
Kryptonite is set give consumers three options, according to a
settlement notice, the Minnesota Daily reports.

Joe Alston, a customer service representative for Georgeson
Shareholder Communications, told the Minnesota Daily the Company
responsible for the Kryptonite settlement's customer service,
one option is a free product exchange. He explains that the
product exchange is a continuation of the exchange started in
September, when the Company first reached the settlement. He
adds that owners of Kryptonite U-shaped locks with tubular keys
may exchange their locks for nontubularstyle locks for free.

The notice explains that after a consumer contacts the Company,
Kryptonite sends him or her a postage-paid UPS call tag. The
person must then send the lock and a working key to the Company
before he or she will receive a new lock, the notice further
states.

Another option the Company's customers have is to keep their
Kryptonite U-shaped locks and receive vouchers, Mr. Alston told
Minnesota Daily. According to the settlement notice, proof of
purchase must be provided to receive a voucher. Each voucher has
"a face value of $10," which can be used "toward the purchase of
any Kryptonite product, redeemable for a period of one year from
the date of issuance," the settlement notice reads. Up to $40 in
vouchers can be used for one Kryptonite purchase.

People who have had their bikes stolen because of faulty
Kryptonite U-shaped locks can be reimbursed for amounts between
$250 and $3,000, according to the notice. To make such a claim,
according to the settlement notice, people need to include proof
of purchase for the lock and stolen bike, proof the lock was
responsible for the theft, a copy of the police report and a
number of other criteria.  The Kryptonite settlement states that
only people who lawfully acquired a Kryptonite U-shaped lock
between September 20, 1998, and September 20, 2004, can make
claims. The claims though will not be processed until an
official decision is made April 21, Mr. Alston said.

As previously reported in the September 24, 2004 edition of the
Class Action Reporter, thieves can open the Kryptonine U-Locks
with a hollow shaft of a Bic pen, due to a design flaw. The pens
can beat the tubular cylinders used in some Kryptonite locks,
including the Evolution and KryptoLok series.


LABOR READY: Dismissal of NY Consumer Fraud Lawsuit Deemed Final
----------------------------------------------------------------
The dismissal of the class action filed against Labor Ready,
Inc. in the New York State Court for Kings County is deemed
final, after plaintiffs failed to appeal the dismissal.

On October 3, 2000, Anthony Flynn, Robert Hampton and Eugene
Tonissen filed the suit, seeking class action certification for
alleged violations of state law in connection with the fees
charged by the Company for the voluntary use of the cash
dispensing machines (CDMs).

On November 25, 2002, the court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss the lawsuit, based on the arbitration agreement signed
by each of our temporary employees.  The plaintiffs filed an
appeal of the dismissal with the Appellate Division of the New
York Supreme Court, which denied the appeal on April 16, 2004.


LABOR READY: Discovery Proceeds in CA Gender Discrimination Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in the class action filed against Labor
Ready, Inc. and one of its customers in California State Court
for Los Angeles County.

Marisol Balanderan and 55 other plaintiffs filed the suit on
July 9,2002.  The plaintiffs are temporary employees and job
applicants who seek unquantified compensatory and punitive
damages based on allegations that they were subjected to
discrimination in dispatch to jobs on the basis of their female
gender, throughout a period from September 2001 through January
2002.  They also seek certification of a class of similarly
situated temporary employees.


LABOR READY: Discovery Proceeds in Overtime Wage Lawsuit in CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in the class action filed against Labor
Ready, Inc. in California State Court for Los Angeles County, by
its former employees Scott Romer and Shawna Clark.

The plaintiffs allege that they were wrongfully exempted from
overtime pay during their employment. They seek unquantified
compensatory damages and certification of a class of similarly
situated employees.  On January 6, 2004, Patricia Huntley and
Brandon McCall filed a complaint in intervention and have been
included as plaintiffs in this lawsuit.


LABOR READY: Discovery Proceeds in Overtime Wage Lawsuits in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in the class actions filed against Labor
Ready, Inc. in California courts, alleging violation of the
state's overtime wage laws.

On July 16, 2003, Alecia Recio, Elizabeth Esquivel, Debbie Owen
and Barry Selbts, each a current or former employee, jointly
filed an action in United States District Court for the Central
District of California, alleging failure to pay overtime under
state and federal law and seeking unspecified damages and
certification of a class of similarly situated employees.  On
September 23, 2003, the court dismissed the case for improper
venue.

On October 1, 2003, Ms. Recio re-filed her case in California
State Court, Los Angeles County, seeking similar relief on
behalf of the Company's employees employed in the State of
California.  On October 21, 2003, Ms. Owen re-filed her case in
the United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington, seeking similar relief on behalf of the Company's
employees employed in all states except California. The Owen
case has been stayed pending resolution of the Huntley/McCall
case filed against the Company.  On December 30, 2003, Patricia
Huntley filed an action in the United States District Court for
the Western District of Washington seeking similar relief on
behalf of Company employees employed in all states except
California, and consolidated her claims with those of Ms. Owen.


LANDAMERICA FINANCIAL: Parties in MI Lawsuits To Enter Mediation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the consolidated class action filed against two of
Landamerica Financial Group, Inc.'s subsidiaries in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
agreed to enter mediation, starting in May 2005.

On May 9, 2000, Romeo Jergess filed a putative class action
suit, designated as Case No. 00-72124, against Transnation Title
Insurance Company, a subsidiary of the Company.  The suit
alleges that Transnation's rate for an owner's title insurance
policy, charged in accordance with rates for new construction
filed with the Insurance Bureau of the State of Michigan, are
less than the rate paid by the lender for a simultaneously
issued lender's title insurance policy, and that the lower rate
paid by the builder/developer for the owner's policy involves an
illegal kickback for a referral and an illegal splitting of fees
in violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act
(RESPA).

On April 27, 2001, a similar suit was filed by Elaine Miller in
the same court, designated as Case No. 01-71647 against Lawyers
Title Insurance Corporation, another subsidiary of the Company.
The plaintiffs in both suits seek an unspecified amount of
damages equal to three times the amount of the charge for each
simultaneously issued lender's title insurance policy in
connection with a new home purchase commencing with the period
one year before the filing of each complaint, plus costs,
interest and attorneys' fees.  Transnation and Lawyers Title
have engaged a forensic accountant to review plaintiffs'
estimate that the charges collected for such policies by
Transnation and Lawyers Title from the class as originally
defined is approximately $15 million.  The Jergess Suit and the
Miller Suit were consolidated on July 18, 2002 with cases
pending against First American Title Insurance Company and
Chicago Title Insurance Company.  

On December 5, 2002, the court certified a class defined as all
individuals who, during the period commencing prior to one year
of the filing of the applicable suit and ending on October 30,
2002, purchased a newly constructed one to four family dwelling
or condominium and were charged for a lender's title insurance
policy allegedly in violation of RESPA.  On February 12, 2003,
the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied
Transnation's and Lawyers Title's petitions for an interlocutory
appeal of the class certification order.  On October 30, 2003,
the judge ordered that individuals otherwise meeting the class
definition, but who closed transactions involving relevant
policies between October 31, 2002 through October 30, 2003,
would not be subject to a statute of limitations defense raised
by Transnation Title or Lawyers Title between October 30, 2003
and October 31, 2004.

On October 28, 2004, Transnation and Lawyers Title stipulated to
an order that individuals otherwise meeting the class
definition, but who closed transactions involving relevant
policies between October 31, 2002 through October 30, 2004,
would not be subject to a statute of limitations defense raised
by Transnation or Lawyers Title between October 30, 2004 and
October 31, 2005. The court currently has under consideration a
Motion to proceed to trial with the certified class as
originally defined.

On January 13, 2005, the court denied Transnation's and Lawyers
Title's motion to dismiss the case for lack of standing. On
February 7, 2005, the court dismissed without prejudice
Transnation's and Lawyers Title's Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment with respect to those members of the class covered by
the affiliated business exception under RESPA with the court
indicating that the parties could resubmit the motion with
additional information. The court has not yet ruled on the
parties' cross Motions for Summary Judgment on Count II of
plaintiffs' complaint alleging an illegal splitting of fees
under RESPA.  The parties have agreed to participate in non-
binding mediation scheduled for May 3-4, 2005.  A trial date has
been set for July 18, 2005.


MEREX CORPORATION: Recalls Apricots Due To Undeclared Sulfites
--------------------------------------------------------------
Merex Corporation, 1120 Saw Mill River Road, Yonkers, NY 10710
is recalling 1 lb. containers of dried apricots because they may
contain undeclared sulfites. People who have severe sensitivity
to sulfites run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic
reactions if they consume this product.

The recalled 1 lb. dried apricots in plastic containers, dated
3-7 through 3-14 and labeled product of Turkey and contains no
preservatives, were sold in the New York Metro area.

The recall was initiated after routine sampling by New York
State Department of Agriculture and Markets Food Inspectors and
subsequent analysis by Department Food Laboratory personnel,
revealed the presence of undeclared sulfites in dried apricots
in packages which did not declare sulfites on the label. The
consumption of 10 milligrams of sulfites per serving has been
reported to elicit severe reactions in some asthmatics.
Anaphylactic shock could occur in certain sulfite sensitive
individuals upon ingesting 10 milligrams or more of sulfites.

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
problem.

Consumers who have purchased the dried apricots should return it
to the place of purchase. Consumers with questions may contact
the Company at 1-800-513-3335.


MGM MIRAGE: Dismissal of MI Slot Machine Lawsuit Deemed Final
-------------------------------------------------------------
The dismissal of the class action filed against a subsidiary of
MGM Mirage, Inc. and other casino operators in the Wayne County
Circuit Court in Detroit, Michigan is deemed final after
plaintiffs failed to appeal.

On July 18, 2001, an individual, Mary Kraft, filed a complaint
against International Game Technology, Anchor Gaming, Inc. and
the three operators of casinos in Detroit, Michigan, including a
subsidiary of the Company. The plaintiff claims the bonus wheel
feature of the Wheel of Fortune and I Dream of Jeannie slot
machines, which are manufactured, designed and programmed by
International Game Technology and/or Anchor Gaming, Inc., are
deceptive and misleading.  Specifically, plaintiff alleges that
the bonus wheels on these games do not randomly land on a given
dollar amount but are programmed to provide a predetermined
frequency of pay-outs.  The complaint alleges violations of the
Michigan Consumer Protection Act, common law fraud and unjust
enrichment and asks for unspecified compensatory and punitive
damages, disgorgement of profits, injunctive and other equitable
relief, and costs and attorney's fees.  The plaintiff seeks to
certify a class of any individual in Michigan who has played
either of these games since June of 1999.  The machines and
their programs were approved for use by the Michigan Gaming
Control Board, the administrative agency responsible for
policing the Detroit casinos.

The Company, along with the other casino operators, filed a
motion for summary disposition arguing that the plaintiff's
complaint fails to state a claim as a matter of law.  
Additionally, the Company, along with the other casino
operators, filed motions for summary disposition arguing that
the plaintiff's common law claims are preempted by the Michigan
Act, that the court has no jurisdiction to decide this matter
and that all the allegations in the complaint regarding the
alleged deceptive nature of the machines are directed to the
manufacturers of the machines and are not the casinos'
responsibility.  In April 2002, the Wayne County Circuit Court
granted the motion for summary disposition.  The plaintiff
appealed and, after a full briefing of the case, oral argument
was held in November 2003.

In April 2004, the Michigan Court of Appeals, an intermediate
appellate court, affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the
plaintiff's claims. The Michigan Court of Appeals held that the
plaintiff's claims are exempt from the Michigan Consumer
Protection Act because the operation of the slot machines was
specifically authorized by the Michigan Gaming Control Board,
and that the plaintiff's common law claims are pre-empted by the
Michigan Act. The plaintiff did not seek review of the appellate
court decision by the Michigan Supreme Court and, therefore, the
decision of the Michigan Court of Appeals is final.


MIRAGE RESORTS: Trial in NV Gaming Machines Suit Set Sept. 2005
---------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the class action filed against Mirage Resorts, Inc. and
other manufacturers, distributors and casino operators of video
poker and electronic slot machines is set for September 2005 in
the United States District Court for the District of Nevada.

The consolidated complaint claims that the Company and the other
defendants have engaged in a course of fraudulent and misleading
conduct intended to induce people to play video poker and
electronic slot machines based on a false belief concerning how
the gaming machines operate, as well as the chances of winning.
Specifically, the plaintiffs allege that the gaming machines are
not truly random as advertised to the public, but are pre-
programmed in a predictable and manipulative manner.  The
complaint alleges violations of the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act, as well as claims of common law
fraud, unjust enrichment and negligent misrepresentation, and
asks for unspecified compensatory and punitive damages.

In December 1997, the court granted in part and denied in part
the defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint for failure to
state a claim and ordered the plaintiffs to file an amended
complaint, which they filed in February 1998.  The Company,
along with most of the other defendants, answered the amended
complaint and continues to deny the allegations contained in the
amended complaint.  The parties have fully briefed the issues
regarding class certification, which are currently pending
before the court.

In June 2002, the court ruled that the plaintiffs met the
prerequisite requirements for class-action status, but the Court
denied the plaintiffs' motion for class action certification,
saying that the proposed class lacked the cohesiveness required
to settle common claims against the casino industry.  The court
had previously stayed discovery pending resolution of these
class certification issues.  In August 2004, the 9th Circuit
Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's ruling denying
class-action status for the case. In November 2004, the District
Court set a discovery deadline of April 2005 and a trial date in
September 2005.

The suit is styled "William H. Poulos v. Caesar's World, Inc.,
et al., case no. CV-S-94-1126 - RLH-RJJ," filed in the United
States District Court in Nevada, under Judge Roger L. Hunt.  
Representing the plaintiffs:

     (1) David Chesnoff, Goodman & Chesnoff, 520 S. Fourth St.,
         Las Vegas, 89101, Phone: 702-384-5563

     (2) Caryl Boies, PRO HAC VICE FIRM, 401 E. Las Olas Blvd.,
         Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301, Phone: 954-356-0011  

     (3) David Barrett, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, 570
         Lexington Ave, New York NY 10022, Phone: 212-446-2300  

     (4) Mary Boies, Boies & McInnis, P.O. Drawer 67, Bedford NY
         10506, Phone: (914) 234-3700  


NORTH AMERICAN: OOIDA Files Suit For Truth-in-Leasing Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) and
six of its owner-operator members initiated a class action
lawsuit against North American Van Lines in federal court in
Roanoke, Virginia on behalf of all owner-operators moving
freight under North American's federal operating authority, the
Layover.com reports.

The complaint, which seeks injunctive relief and damages for
wide ranging violations of the federal truth-in-leasing
regulations, challenges North American's business practices
toward its independent drivers. At the most fundamental level,
federal law requires that the relationship between the carrier
and driver must be governed by a written agreement. According to
the suit, hundreds of owner-operators have driven for North
American for many years with no written agreement.

The complaint also alleges that North American unlawfully
reduces the revenue base from shipments on which owner-operator
compensation is calculated, and that North American does not
provide drivers with required information and documentation that
would allow them to check the accuracy of amounts paid to them
for their services.

North American, like most motor carriers, reports state fuel use
taxes on a fleet-wide basis. Drivers pay the fuel tax at the
pump, and receive credits for amounts overpaid in various
states. In this regard, the complaint alleges that North
American confiscates driver credits if the credit is not offset
within 30 days, which is in violation of the escrow provisions
of the federal leasing regulations.

Additionally, the complaint states that North American requires
drivers to contribute to a fund that North American uses to pay
its public liability insurance and to cover the cost of certain
government required safety and compliance programs. Thus, the
plaintiffs contend that federal law places the obligation for
those payments solely on the motor carrier, and that passing
through or charging back the cost of them to drivers is
improper. It is further alleged that unused funds are forfeited
to North American, violating the requirement that such money be
returned to drivers.

Lastly, the complaint alleges that owner-operators are forced to
purchase certain products and services from the Fort Wayne, IN-
based carrier as a condition of receiving freight assignments.
It also states that drivers must purchase through North American
public liability and property damage insurance, full valuation
cargo insurance, credit card services and Qualcomm
communications equipment, which according to the plaintiffs, is
prohibited under the federal truth-in-leasing regulations.

For more details, contact Paul D. Cullen, Sr. or Joyce E. Mayers
of The Cullen Law Firm by Phone: 202-944-8600.


NOVELL INC.: NY Court Preliminarily OKs SilverStream Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the
securities class action filed against SilverStream, which
Novell, Inc. acquired in July 2002, and several of its former
officers and directors, as well as the underwriters who handled
SilverStream's two public offerings.

Several suits were initially filed on behalf of certain former
stockholders of SilverStream who purchased shares of
SilverStream common stock between August 16, 1999 and December
6, 2000.  These complaints are closely related to several
hundred other complaints that the same plaintiffs have brought
against other issuers and underwriters.  These complaints all
allege violations of the Securities Act, as amended and the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.  

In particular, they allege, among other things, that there was
undisclosed compensation received by the underwriters of the
public offerings of all of these issuers, including
SilverStream's.  The plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages,
statutory compensation and other relief that may be deemed
appropriate by the court.

A Consolidated Amended Complaint with respect to all of these
companies was filed in the U.S. District Court, Southern
District of New York, on April 19, 2002. While the Company
believes that SilverStream and its former officers and directors
have meritorious defenses to the claims, a tentative settlement
has been reached between many of the defendants and the
plaintiffs, which contemplates a settlement of the claims.  The
settlement, agreement, however, has not been finally approved by
the Court.

The suit is styled "In Re SilverStream Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation, 01 Civ. 6001 (Sas) (Dc)," 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


NOVELL INC.: Reaches Settlement For UT Securities Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Novell, Inc. reached a settlement for the class action filed
against it and certain of its officers and directors in the
United States District Court, District of Utah, alleging
violation of federal securities laws.  The suit, filed on behalf
of purchasers of the Company's common stock from November 1,
1996 through April 22, 1997, alleges the Company concealed the
true nature of its financial condition.  The suit seeks
unspecified damages.  

After a first dismissal of the suit on November 3, 2000 and a
subsequent amendment to the complaint filed on February 20,
2001, the court dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice
for failure to state a claim.  Much of the court's Order of
Dismissal was recently affirmed by the Tenth Circuit Court of
Appeals while certain claims were remanded for the court's
further review.

Recently, the Company along with its directors and officers
liability insurance carriers agreed to a proposed settlement
that includes a settlement payment of $13.9 million to a
settlement fund for the class members.  Of this amount, and
assuming the settlement agreement is ultimately approved by the
Court and class members, the Company will contribute $0.6
million toward the settlement payment.  Final approval of the
proposed settlement is anticipated during the summer of 2005.


ORKIN EXTERMINATING: Faces Consumer Fraud Lawsuits in FL, GA, TX
----------------------------------------------------------------
Orkin Exterminating Company faces several class actions filed in
various state courts, alleging that plaintiffs have been damaged
as a result of the rendering of services by Orkin personnel and
equipment.  The suits are styled:

     (1) Ernest W. Warren and Dolores G. Warren et al. v. Orkin
         Exterminating Company, Inc., et al.; filed in Georgia
         state court

     (2) Francis D. Petsch, et al. v. Orkin Exterminating
         Company, Inc. et al.; filed in Florida state court and

     (3) Bob J. Stevens v. Orkin Exterminating Company, Inc. and
         Rollins, Inc., filed in Texas State Court.

An arbitration has also been filed in Jacksonville, Florida, by
Cynthia Garrett against Orkin, styled "Cynthia Garrett v. Orkin,
Inc.) in which the plaintiff is seeking certification of a
class.  


PENTAIR INC.: Working To Settle M/V Horizon Disease Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pentair Inc. is working on the resolution of all litigation
filed against Essef Corporation, which it acquired in August
1999, and certain of Essef's subsidiaries, relating to the
Legionnaire's disease infections on the M/V Horizon from
December 1993 through July 1994.

The Company faces twenty-eight separate lawsuits involving 29
primary plaintiffs, a class action, and claims for indemnity by
Celebrity Cruise Lines, Inc. (Celebrity), alleging that
Celebrity sustained economic damages due to loss of use of the
M/V Horizon while it was dry-docked.

The claims against the Company and its involved subsidiaries
were based upon the allegation that the Company designed,
manufactured, and marketed two sand swimming pool filters that
were installed as a part of the spa system on the Horizon, and
allegations that the spa and filters contained Legionnaire's
disease bacteria that infected certain passengers on cruises
from December 1993 through July 1994.

The individual and class claims by passengers were tried and
resulted in an adverse jury verdict finding liability on the
part of the Essef defendants (70%) and Celebrity and its sister
Company, Fantasia (together 30%).  After exhaustion of post-
trial appeals, the Company paid all outstanding punitive damage
awards of $7.0 million in the Horizon cases, plus interest of
approximately $1.6 million in January 2004.  The Company had
reserved for the amount of punitive damages awarded at the time
of the Essef acquisition. A reserve for the $1.6 million
interest cost was recorded in 2003.

All of the personal injury cases have now been resolved through
either settlement or trial. The only remaining unresolved case
is that brought by Celebrity for interruption of its business.
In 2004, Celebrity filed an amended complaint seeking attorney
fees and costs for prior litigation and damages for out-of-
pocket losses, lost profits, and loss of business enterprise
value. Discovery commenced late in 2004.


PORTLAND GENERAL: Seeks Dismissal of Consumer Fraud Suits in IL
---------------------------------------------------------------
Portland General Electric Company filed a petition for a writ of
mandamus with the Oregon Supreme Court relating to two class
actions filed against it on behalf of two classes of electric
service customers.

On January 17, 2003, two class action suits were filed in Marion
County Circuit Court, seeking to represent current customers of
the Company that were customers during the period from April 1,
1995 to October 1, 2001 (Current Class).  One case, called the
Morgan case, seeks to represent customers of the Company that
were customers during the period from April 1, 1995 to October
1, 2001, but who are no longer customers (Former Class, together
with the Current Class, the Class Action Plaintiffs).  The suits
seek damages of $190 million for the Current Class and $70
million for the Former Class, from the inclusion of a return on
investment of Trojan in the rates the Company charges its
customers.

On April 28, 2004, the plaintiffs filed a Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment and on July 30, 2004, the Company also moved
for Summary Judgment in its favor on all of Class Action
Plaintiffs' claims. On December 14, 2004, the Judge granted the
Plaintiffs' motion for Class Certification and Partial Summary
Judgment and denied the Company's motion for Summary Judgment.
The Company filed a proposed order certifying the issue for an
interlocutory appeal.  An order rejecting the proposed order was
entered on February 1, 2005.  On March 3, 2005, the Company
filed a Petition for a Writ of Mandamus with the Oregon Supreme
Court asking the Court to take jurisdiction and command the
trial Judge to dismiss the complaints or to show cause why they
should not be dismissed.


PORTLAND GENERAL: Customers Commence Amended Fraud Lawsuit in OR
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed an amended class action against Portland
General Electric Company in Multnomah County Circuit Court in
Oregon, on behalf of all the Company's customers who were billed
on their electric bills and paid amounts for Multnomah County
Business Income Taxes (MBIT) after 1996.

On January 18, 2005, David Kafoury and Kafoury Brothers, LLC
filed the suit, alleging that during the period 1997 through the
third quarter 2004, the Company collected in excess of $6
million from its customers for MBIT that was never paid to
Multnomah County.  The charges were billed and collected under
Oregon Public Utility Commission (OPUC) rules that allow
utilities to collect taxes imposed by the county.

As a member of Enron's consolidated income tax return, the
Company paid the tax it collected to Enron. The plaintiffs seek
a judgment against the Company for restitution of MBIT collected
from customers. Plaintiffs also seek interest, recoverable
costs, and reasonable attorney fees. The Plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint on February 25, 2005, adding claims for fraud,
unjust enrichment, conversion, statutory violations, and seeking
punitive damages. On February 24, 2005, the Company requested a
declaratory ruling from the OPUC on this matter.


PORTLAND GENERAL: Continues to Face CA Energy Antitrust Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Portland General Electric Company remains as a defendant in the
consolidated class action filed in California court, alleging
violations of antitrust laws.  

On December 24, 2001, numerous individuals, businesses, and
California cities, counties, and other governmental entities
filed a consolidated Master Complaint in their class action law
suits (Wholesale Electricity Antitrust Cases) in California
state court against various individuals, utilities, generators,
traders, and other entities, including:

     (1) Duke Energy Trading and Marketing, LLC;

     (2) Duke Energy Morro Bay, LLC;

     (3) Duke Energy Moss Landing, LLC;

     (3) Duke Energy South Bay, LLC;

     (4) Duke Energy Oakland, LLC;

     (5) Reliant Energy Services, Inc.;

     (6) Reliant Ormond Beach, Inc.;

     (7) Reliant Energy Etiwanda, Inc.;

     (8) Reliant Energy Ellwood, Inc.;

     (9) Reliant Energy Mandalay, Inc.; and

    (10) Reliant Energy Coolwater, Inc.

The suit alleges that activities related to the purchase and
sale of electricity in California in 2000 and 2001 violated
California antitrust and unfair competition laws. The complaint
seeks, among other things, restitution of all funds acquired by
means that violate the law and payment of treble damages,
interest, and penalties.

On April 23, 2002, the Duke Parties filed a cross complaint
against the Company and other utilities, generators, traders and
other entities not named in the Wholesale Electricity Antitrust
Cases (Cross-defendants), alleging that they participated in the
purchase and sale of electricity in California during 2000-2001
and seeking complete indemnification and/or partial equitable
indemnity on a comparative fault basis for any liability that
the Court may impose on the Duke Parties under the Wholesale
Electricity Antitrust Cases.  Legal and equitable relief is
sought, with no specific monetary amount claimed.

The Reliant Parties have filed a similar cross complaint against
PGE and the other Cross-defendants. The cases were removed to
Federal Court by certain parties. The Duke Parties, Reliant
Parties, and Cross-defendants have stipulated to place the cross
complaints in abeyance until 30 days after a ruling on their
motions to dismiss the Master Complaint by either the California
state courts or the federal courts.

On December 13, 2002, the United States District Court signed an
order granting the plaintiff's motions to remand the cases to
the California State Court. The Duke and Reliant Parties filed
an appeal to the United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
On February 20, 2003, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit issued an Order deciding it had jurisdiction to
hear the appeals from the District Court's December 13, 2002
remand order. The Ninth Circuit also issued a stay of the remand
order pending the outcome of the appeals. The Ninth Circuit
issued its opinion affirming the District Court's order on
remand on December 8, 2004, but ordered the District Court to
dismiss the federal defendants.  The Company is not one of those
defendants.

As stated above, the cross complaint against the Company will be
continued in abeyance until 30 days after a ruling is entered on
the Reliant and Duke Parties' motions to dismiss the Master
Complaint.

The suit is styled "In re California Wholesale Electricity
Antitrust Litigation, 02-CV-990," filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California, under
Judge Robert H. Whaley.  Representing the plaintiffs is Lerach
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP, 9601 Wilshire Blvd,
Suite 510, Los Angeles, CA 90210 Phone: (310) 859-3100 Fax:
(310) 278-2148


PPG INDUSTRIES: High Court Rejects Appeal For Price Fixing Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In a decision that will return the case to a federal court in
Pittsburgh and that could eventually lead to trial by next year,
the U.S. Supreme Court rejected an appeal by PPG Industries Inc.
to stop a class-action lawsuit that accuses it of fixing glass
prices, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports.

Court documents revealed that the Pittsburgh-based Company was
one of several companies sued by glass installers over the price
of glass from 1991 through 1995. The others, which have since
settled claims, were Libbey-Owens-Ford Co., of Toledo, Ohio, and
its parent firm, Pilkington PLC of England, AFG Industries Inc.,
of Kingsport, Tenn. and Guardian Industries Corp., of Auburn
Hills, Mich.

Last year, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia
had ruled that the case could proceed but it threw out claims
that focused on the automotive replacement glass market. The
remaining claims involve price-fixing of flat glass products
used in windows and other items.


PWR PROCESSING: Barred From Making False Home Mortgage Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
A federal district court has barred a Colorado-based mortgage
broker from making false claims about home mortgage financing
services and ordered him to pay consumer redress following
Federal Trade Commission (FTC) charges that he violated federal
laws. According to the FTC, the defendant and his Company
deceptively claimed they could refinance consumers' mortgages at
the lowest available rates at no cost to consumers.

In May 2004, the FTC filed a complaint against Phillip W. Ranney
and a group of corporate defendants, operating as PWR
Processing, Inc., charging that the defendants promised
consumers "no-fee," low-interest home mortgages following a
process of multiple refinances. According to the FTC's
complaint, the defendants told consumers that if they applied
for two loans, one at a competitive rate and one at a higher-
than-market rate, lenders on the higher-than-market rate loans
would pay a premium to the mortgage broker that in turn would be
used to pay fees associated with the lower-interest loan. The
defendants allegedly claimed that the low-interest loan would
then be used to pay the higher-interest loan, leaving the
consumer with a low-interest, "no-fee" loan.

The FTC charged that instead of receiving the promised loan,
consumers were stuck with high-interest loans, often at rates
higher than they wanted to refinance. The FTC also alleged that
the defendants did not pay appraisal fees, leaving many
consumers with liens on their properties. The FTC's complaint
also named Kathleen A. Ranney as a relief defendant - the
Commission subsequently dismissed its case against her.

In August 2004, the court entered a default judgment against the
corporate defendants, Armor Mortgage; Abacus Mortgage; Community
Homebanc Mortgage Services, Inc.; Harbor Pacific Funding, Inc.;
High Center, Inc.; Lending Strategies of Colorado, Inc.; Lite
Realty Corp.; PWR Processing, Inc., dba First Source America
Mortgage Corp. dba NexLoan; PWR Press, Inc.; and Source Funding
Company, Colorado corporations; Kace, LLC dba Aristocrat
Mortgage, a Colorado limited liability Company; and Mortgage
Watch, a California corporation. The judgment barred the
defendants from misrepresenting:

     (1) that they can provide home mortgage financing at
         competitive, low-interest rates;

     (2) that the fees associated with processing consumers'
         loan applications will be paid at no cost to the
         consumers;

     (3) that consumers will not be required to make any
         payments on an interim loan because they will be funded
         by a lower-interest loan or paid by the lender; and

     (4) that they are a licensed mortgage broker.

The judgment also prohibited the defendants from violating the
Truth in Lending Act (TILA) or Regulation Z by advertising
credit terms other than those that actually will be offered.

The terms of the litigated judgment announced today are similar
to those in the default judgment against the corporate
defendants. The judgment bars Phillip Ranney from making
misrepresentations about home mortgage financing and violating
TILA and Regulation Z and orders him to pay $128,300 in consumer
redress.

For more details, visit 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 (media) or contact Sarah
Schroeder or Kerry O'Brien, FTC Western Region - San Francisco
by Phone: 415-848-5100 (consumers).


REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS: NY Court Nixes Stock Suit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York refused to dismiss the consolidated securities class
action filed against Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and certain
of its officers and directors.

Several suits were initially filed in May 2003, and a
consolidated amended class action complaint was filed in October
2003.  The complaint, which purports to be brought on behalf of
a class consisting of investors in the Company's publicly traded
securities between March 28, 2000 and March 30, 2003, alleges
that the defendants misstated or omitted material information
concerning the safety and efficacy of AXOKINE, in violation of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of
1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  Damages are sought
in an unspecified amount.


SBC COMMUNICATIONS: Court Hears Antitrust Suit Dismissal Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Second Circuit Court of Appeals heard
arguments for plaintiffs' appeal of the dismissal of two
consumer antitrust class actions filed against SBC
Communications, Inc.

The suits, which also name other telephone companies, namely
Verizon Communications, BellSouth Corporation and Qwest
Corporation as defendants, were initially filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
alleging that the defendants violated federal and state
antitrust laws by agreeing not to compete with one another and
acting together to impede competition for local telephone
services.  In October 2003, the court granted the joint
defendants' motion to dismiss these suits on the ground that the
plaintiffs' complaints failed to state a claim under the
antitrust laws.

The lead case is titled "Twombly v. Bell Atlantic, et al, case
no. 1:02-cv-10220-GEL," filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, under Judge Gerard
E. Lynch.  The member case is styled "Marcus v. Bell Atlantic
Corporation, case no. 1:03-cv-01567-GEL."

Counsel for the plaintiffs in the lead case is J. Douglas
Richards of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (NYC), One
Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY 10119 Phone: (212) 946-9390
Fax: (212) 244-5423 E-mail: drichards@milbergweiss.com.  
Representing the Company are:

     (1) Aaron M. Panner, Mark C. Hansen, Michael J. Guzman, and
         Michael K. Kellogg, Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd &
         Evans, PLLC Sumner Square, 1615 M Street, N.W. Suite
         400 Washington, DC 20036, E-mail: mkellogg@khhte.com

     (2) Maria T. Galeno, Pillsbury Winthrop LLP (NY), 1540
         Broadway, New York, NY 10004 Phone: 212-858-1833 Fax:
         212-298-8407 E-mail: mgaleno@pillsburywinthrop.com  


SCHWAN'S FOOD: Recalls Stuffed Sandwiches Due To Mislabeling
------------------------------------------------------------
Schwan's Food Manufacturing, Inc is cooperating with the United
States Food and Drug Administration by voluntarily recalling
approximately 74,810 pounds of cheeseburger stuffed sandwiches,
due to misbranding.  There is no health or safety hazard
associated with the mislabeling.

The products subject to recall are 9.0 oz packages of "Tony'sr
Pouchesr Stuffed Sandwiches, 2 Cheeseburger Seasoned Beef and
Cheese in a Cheddar Cheese Sauce Wrapped in a Soft Bread Crust".
Each package bears the code A44351 stamped on the side. Each
package also bears the establishment code "EST. 1999A" inside
the USDA mark of inspection.

The establishment discovered that pepperoni stuffed sandwiches
were mistakenly placed in packages labeled as containing
cheeseburger stuffed sandwiches.

For more details, contact Schwan's Food Manufacturing, Inc.
1602 Superior Road, Marshall, MN 56258, or contact the FDA's
Customer Product Support, Contact Services, by Phone:
1-800-934-6399, or contact Steve Linstrom, Vice-President of
Corporate Relations, by Phone: (507) 537-8517


SMART & FINAL: CA Court Orders Mediation in Overtime Wage Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Orange County Superior Court for the State of California
ordered parties in the class action filed against Smart & Final,
Inc., styled "Olivas v. Smart & Final, Inc.," to enter
mediation.

A former hourly store employee filed the suit in May 2001 on her
behalf and on behalf of all hourly store employees in
California, alleging that the Company failed to pay proper
overtime and other compensation.  The action seeks to be
classified as a "class action" and seeks unspecified monetary
damages.

On August 9, 2001, the Company filed a general denial to these
claims and asserted numerous defenses.  A hearing on plaintiff's
motion for class certification was heard and certification as to
nine sub-classes was granted on January 22, 2004.  The Company
continues to believe the merits of this action do not warrant
class action status and believes it has certain defenses to the
claim. Discovery is now underway in the case.  In February 2005,
the court ordered the parties to commence mediation by May 1,
2005.  No trial date has been set by the court.


SPITZER MANAGEMENT: Settles Car Fee Suit, To Give Cash, Coupons
---------------------------------------------------------------
In order to settle a class-action lawsuit that alleged thousands
of customers paid the dealerships an illegal $97.50 fee when
they bought a motor vehicle, the Spitzer auto group may have to
pay more than $1.5 million and offer more than $9.2 million in
goods and services, the Akron Beacon Journal reports.

A tentative settlement in the case calls for Spitzer Management
Inc., which owns and operates more than 20 dealerships in Ohio,
Pennsylvania and Florida, to pay customers $19.20 in cash and a
coupon worth $115 in goods and services at any of its
dealerships. A judge is set to rule on the settlement on June 2.

According to lawyers representing the plaintiffs and Elyria-
based Spitzer Management, between 75,000 to 100,000 customers
may be eligible for the settlement, though a lawyer representing
the auto dealer group said the actual number of eligible people
may be significantly fewer than that.

The chairman and CEO of Spitzer Management is Alan Spitzer,
grandson of dealership founder George Spitzer. Alan Spitzer, who
also is a real estate developer and entrepreneur for years, has
proposed bringing casino gambling to the region and at one time
wanted to be a minority owner of the Cleveland Browns.

Under the terms of the settlement, Spitzer Management does not
admit any wrongdoing. Spitzer Management agreed to settle for
economic reasons, emphasizes Chris Cook, one of the lawyers
representing the business.  The lawsuit was filed in August 2000
in Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas in Cleveland.

The tentative settlement reached in February covers people who
bought new or used vehicles from a Spitzer dealership between
August 7, 1998, and December 31, 2004, and who were charged a
pre-printed $97.50 on the buyer's agreement for ``dealer
overhead.'' The agreement does not cover businesses that bought
vehicles, people who leased vehicles, or where the ``dealer
overhead'' fee was crossed out.  Additionally, the lawyers
representing the complainants are asking the judge to approve
that they be paid $1.25 million from Spitzer.

Mark Paris, one of the lawyers representing the original
complainants, told the Beacon Journal they took the position
that the ``dealer overhead'' charge was illegal, based on
previous rulings by the Ohio attorney general's office.
According to Mr. Paris, ``It was a hotly contested case. The
idea was to work something out that gave value to customers
without Spitzer admitting fault.... We think it was a good
settlement on behalf of the class members.''  Mr. Paris also
said Spitzer Management had charged similar fees, using
different names, dating back to the 1970s.

Ohio Attorney General Jim Petro's office was not involved in the
class-action lawsuit, possibly because it appears no one
formally complained to the state in recent years, a spokeswoman
for A.G. Petro told the Akron Beacon Journal.  

To be eligible for a share of the current settlement, Spitzer
customers who meet the criteria do not have to do anything
special, Mr. Paris said. People do have the option to exclude
themselves from the lawsuit, he adds.


STERICYCLE INC.: Discovery Proceeds in Seven UT Antitrust Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in the remaining seven antitrust class
actions filed against Stericycle, Inc. in the United States
District Court for the District of Utah.

In January 2003, a private plaintiff filed the first suit
against the Company, claiming anti-competitive conduct in
Arizona, Colorado and Utah from November 1997 to the present and
seeking certification of the lawsuit as a class action on behalf
of all customers of the Company and of BFI Medical Waste, Inc.
in the three-state area during the period in question.  Over the
next three months, four similar suits were filed in federal
court in Utah, Arizona, Colorado and New Mexico.  In February
and May 2003, two additional suits were filed, in federal court
in Utah and Arizona, claiming substantially the same
anticompetitive conduct but not seeking class action
certification.  In December 2003, an eighth suit was filed in
federal court in Utah claiming monopolistic and other
anticompetitive conduct in California during the prior four
years and seeking certification of the suit as a class action on
behalf of all California customers of ours during this four-year
period.

These eight suits were subsequently consolidated before the same
judge in federal court in Utah. The first five suits were
consolidated under one consolidated class action complaint; the
next two suits were consolidated for discovery purposes; and the
eighth suit was coordinated for discovery purposes.  In June
2004 the Company settled, for an immaterial amount, the suit
filed in May 2003, which, as noted, did not seek class action
certification.


SOUTHLAND TITLE: Mediation in Representative Suit Set For April
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mediation in the representative suit filed against Southland
Title Corporation in the Los Angeles Superior Court in
California is set for April 2005.

On September 5, 2002, Thomas Branick and Ardra Campbell filed a
representative suit on behalf of the general public against the
Company, designated as case no. BC 280961.  The complaint, as
amended, pleads causes of action for unfair competition
(California Business and Professions Code 17200, et. seq.) and
unfair business practices (California Business and Professions
Code 17500, et. seq.) and generally alleges that the Company
improperly charged its customers for recording documents
incident to real estate transactions and overcharged its
customers for administrative fees.  Plaintiffs seek injunctive
relief and restitution.  On September 3, 2004, the trial court
granted the Company's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and
on September 16, 2004 entered a final judgment dismissing this
case.  On November 15, 2004, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal
of the judgment and the matter is currently pending in the
Second District of the California Court of Appeal.  

The parties are exploring opportunities for potential settlement
and have agreed to participate in non-binding Court of Appeal
sponsored mediation scheduled for April 4, 2005.  Based on the
fact that the suit is still in its initial stages, at this time
no estimate of the amount or range of loss that could result
from an unfavorable outcome can be made.


STERICYCLE INC.: LA Investor Suit Trial Set Sept-Oct 2005
----------------------------------------------------------
The trial for the class action filed against Stericycle, Inc.
and four of its officers and directors is set for September and
October 2005 in First Judicial District Court in Caddo Parish,
Louisiana.

On June 20, 2002, Larry F. Robb, individually, on behalf of a
class comprised of the Company's minority stockholders, and
derivatively on behalf of the Company, filed cause no. 467704-A,
"Robb et al. v. Stericycle, Inc. et al."  Larry Robb is a
shareholder of the Company's majority-owned subsidiary,
3CI Complete Compliance Corporation.  This suit, which was filed
on behalf of the minority shareholders of 3CI and derivatively
on behalf of 3CI itself, alleges, among other claims, that the
Company and the four directors of 3CI who are or were serving as
the Company's designees (and who are or were also officers or
directors of the Company) unjustly enriched the Company at the
expense of 3CI and its other shareholders. The plaintiff seeks,
among other relief, actual and punitive damages and an order
requiring the buyout of 3CI's minority shareholders.

In September 2003, the full board of 3CI appointed a special
committee consisting of 3CI's three independent directors (one
of whom later resigned) to act on 3CI's behalf in respect of the
dispute with the Company and its wholly-owned subsidiary Waste
Systems, Inc. (WSI), regarding the conversion rate of 3CI's
preferred stock.  In January 2004, the full board expanded the
special committee's authority to include an investigation of all
claims by the plaintiff in the Louisiana lawsuit and by the
third-party plaintiffs in the Texas lawsuit, and to act on 3CI's
behalf in respect of both lawsuits.

After purporting to conduct an investigation of these claims,
the special committee concluded that the claims in the Louisiana
lawsuit had merit, and in December 2004, 3CI, at the special
committee's s direction, filed a joint petition with the
plaintiff superseding the plaintiff's prior petition but seeking
substantially the same relief as the prior petition. Prior to
filing the joint petition, 3CI, again at the special committee's
direction, entered into a joint prosecution agreement with the
plaintiff and his law firm pursuant to which two-thirds of the
work in prosecuting the suit would be performed by the plaintiff
and his law firm and one-third by 3CI and its counsel, and two-
thirds of any monetary recovery would be allocated to the
plaintiff (or plaintiff class) and one-third to 3CI.

In January 2005, the Company filed a third-party complaint for
contribution from various former officers and directors of 3CI
who had participated in approving the actions complained of in
the joint petition.  The Company also filed a counterclaim
against the members of the special committee on the grounds,
among others, that they breached their fiduciary duties as
directors by failing to conduct a thorough investigation and
analysis of the plaintiff's claims before entering into the
joint prosecution agreement.

In February 2005, the court granted class certification,
approved the plaintiff's law firm as class counsel, and
preliminarily approved the joint prosecution agreement subject
to the objections of members of the plaintiff class.  The court
has set the suit for trial in September 2005 if it is tried
before a jury and in October 2005 if it is tried before the
judge.


UNITED STATES: Female Agents Lodge Sexual Bias Complaint V. CIA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Janine Brookner, a former CIA station chief in Jamaica, who has
become one of Washington's most intrepid lawyers, representing
spies who have fallen out with the government, recently launched
a class action lawsuit on behalf of women agents alleging sexual
discrimination by the agency, The Sunday Times reports.

The case arises from a clause in the CIA's code of operational
conduct. That clause states that American undercover agents are
prohibited from entering "close and continuing" relationships
with any foreign national. Any sexual contact with foreigners
must be reported and agents are subjected to regular lie-
detector tests about their behavior.

Ms. Brookner, 63, who won a $400,000 payoff more than 20 years
ago in a suit against the agency wherein she had claimed that
the CIA ruined her career, represents seven women who have
allegedly been fired or reprimanded for becoming involved in
illicit affairs. She told The Sunday Times, "What they are
looking for is people having sexual relations with foreigners
and becoming vulnerable to blackmail. But we know a lot of men
who have done this and not been punished. The women are getting
fired, the men are not. The fact is they just don't trust women
and pillow talk."

According to Ms. Brookner, her clients includes a former
undercover agent who is said to have been one of only two Arab-
speaking female operatives in the CIA's clandestine directorate
of operations.  "I read her record. It was fantastic," Ms.
Brookner told the Sunday Times. "And they fired her because she
had sexual relations with a foreign national. So stupid."

Asked for a statement regarding the suit, a CIA spokeswoman said
the agency does not comment on pending litigation, the Sunday
Times reports.


VAIL PRODUCTS: FDA Seizes Hospital Beds For Suffocation Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
In a response to ongoing concerns about manufacturing quality
and labeling, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the
Department of Justice initiated seizures of all finished Vail
500, 1000, and 2000 Enclosed Bed Systems made by Vail Products,
Inc., located in Toledo, Ohio, on March 22,2005.  Use of these
systems poses a public health risk because patients can become
entrapped and suffocate, resulting in severe neurological damage
or death.

FDA advises consumers to stop using Vail 500, 1000 and 2000
Enclosed Bed Systems until they receive additional instructions
from Vail Products.  FDA is aware of approximately 30
entrapments resulting from use of the Vail Enclosed Bed Systems,
of which at least 7 resulted in death.  The U.S. Marshal's
Office also seized welded in-process components and all labeling
and promotional materials for the Vail 500, 1000, and 2000
products.

FDA believes the Vail products seized today do not meet with the
Quality System regulations of the Federal Food, Drug and
Cosmetic Act and pose significant health risk for consumers.  
The Enclosed Bed Systems are misbranded because they are
dangerous to health when used in the manner, or with the
frequency or duration prescribed, recommended, or suggested in
the labeling. They are further misbranded because they lack
adequate directions for use and adequate warnings, thereby
placing patients at an increased risk of entrapment and
asphyxiation.

Additionally, Vail Products failed or refused to furnish
material or information to the FDA as required by Medical Device
Reporting regulation and the Reports of Corrections and Removals
regulation.  FDA inspections of Vail Products, Inc., revealed
that the firm has continually failed to follow the requirements
of the Quality System regulation when manufacturing enclosed bed
systems. Vail Products has previously received two FDA Warning
Letters outlining unacceptable practices. The firm was given an
opportunity to correct the violations, but failed to take
appropriate actions.

FDA has initiated this action as part of its responsibility for
promoting and protecting the public health by enforcing the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. FDA's mission includes
ensuring the safety or safety and effectiveness of a broad
spectrum of regulated products, including food, human and animal
drugs, vaccines, blood products, medical devices, devices that
emit radiation, and cosmetics.

For more details, contact Catherine McDermott (media) by Phone:
301-827-6242 or 301-443-4190 (consumer inquiries).


VISX INCORPORATED: Shareholders Commence Lawsuit V. AMO Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
VISX, Incorporated faces a consolidated class action filed in
the Superior Court of the State of California, county of Santa
Clara.  The suit also names as defendants the Company's board of
directors.

On November 12, 2004, two putative class action lawsuits were
filed, captioned " William Kinchy vs. VISX, Incorporated, et
al., Case No. 104CV030447" and "Douglas Shearer vs. VISX,
Incorporated, et al., Case No. 104CV030452."  On January 27,
2005, the court ordered the two cases consolidated under the
Kinchy case.  On January 28, 2005, William Kinchy filed an
amended complaint that alleges, among other things, that the
Company's board of directors and certain executive officers
breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty and due care by
approving the merger agreement with Advanced Medical Optics,
Inc. and the merger contemplated by the merger agreement without
undertaking sufficient efforts to obtain the best offer possible
for stockholders.

The complaint further alleges that the consideration to be paid
in the merger is unfair and inadequate, and that the defendants
breached their fiduciary duties of care, loyalty and candor to
the Company's public stockholders in connection with the merger.
The complaint seeks an injunction prohibiting the Company from
consummating the merger and rights of rescission against the
merger and any of the terms of the merger agreement, as well as
attorneys' fees and costs.


WISCONSIN: Appeals Court Dismisses Beneficiaries' Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------
A Wisconsin appeals court dismissed a class action lawsuit
brought by beneficiaries of dead state workers seeking interest
on their benefits, the Associated Press reports.

The case hinges on the story of Mary Fazio, whose husband, a
University of Wisconsin System professor, died in January 1999.
Mrs. Fazio did not file a claim for benefits until November
2000, almost two years later. In December 2000, a month later,
she received a $507,395 lump sum.  In their suit, the 278
beneficiaries argued they were entitled to interest that grew on
the workers retirement accounts between the time of their death
and when the beneficiaries applied for the benefits.

However, the 4th District Court of Appeals disagrees and instead
pointed out that the beneficiaries' right to the retirement
accounts begins not when the state worker dies but when they
file the application.  The appeals court said the case came down
to when Mrs. Fazio's right to her husband's account began. The
court ruled it didn't begin until she had given the state her
application.


WORLDCOM LITIGATION: Selected Jury Set To Hear Investors' Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
A jury of 11 people is set to hear WorldCom investors accuse the
Company's former outside auditor, Arthur Andersen, of violating
securities laws by failing to protect them from WorldCom's
historic $11 billion accounting fraud back in 2002, which is the
largest bankruptcy in U.S. history, the New York Newsday
reports.

Before the trial, major investment banks had agreed to pay more
than $6 billion in settlements and a dozen former board members
settled the case for $24.75 million, thus leaving Arthur
Andersen as the sole defendant.

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.

After the jury was chosen, U.S. District Judge Denise Cote in
Manhattan told jurors that the investors had bought WorldCom
stocks or bonds between April 29, 1999, and June 25, 2002. She
also said WorldCom itself was not a defendant because of its
bankruptcy.

Additionally, the judge told jurors that to find in favor of the
plaintiffs, they must conclude that Arthur Andersen's conduct
was "highly unreasonable" and that WorldCom's fraud was known to
Arthur Andersen or was so obvious that the auditor must have
been aware of it. She also said that Arthur Andersen maintains
that each of its audit opinions from 1999 through 2001 was
generated in good faith and with no intent to deceive,
manipulate or defraud.

WorldCom, which collapsed when the accounting fraud to inflate
earnings and hide expenses was revealed, has re-emerged as MCI
Inc., based in Ashburn, Virginia.



                Meetings, Conferences & Seminars


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

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


AUDIBLE INC.: Zwerling Schachter Lodges Securities Suit in NJ
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP ("Zwerling
Schachter") initiated a class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf
of all persons and entities who purchased the common stock of
Audible, Inc. ("Audible" or the "Company") (Nasdaq: ADBL) during
the period from November 2, 2004 through February 15, 2005 (the
"Class Period"). The deadline to file a motion seeking to be
appointed lead plaintiff is April 25, 2005.

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. Specifically, it alleges that the
defendants failed to disclose and misrepresented the following
material adverse facts, known to defendants or recklessly
disregarded by them, that:

     (1) Audible's growth could not be maintained without
         material investments in strategic initiatives,

     (2) Audible intended to pursue these cash-intensive
         business initiatives;

     (3) Audible's strategy, through these initiatives, would
         severely undermine Audible's future margins and
         earnings; and

     (4) as a consequence of the foregoing, Audible's plan for
         aggressive expansion posed a substantial risk to the
         future stability of the Company and on the price of its
         common stock.

On February 15, 2005, after the close of trading, the Company
announced initiatives requiring substantial investments in
infrastructure, new business units and marketing, among other
areas, that would materially reduce its earnings and cash flow
for the foreseeable future. On this disclosure, the price of the
Company's common stock fell approximately 35% to $17.32 per
share.

For more details, contact Shaye J. Fuchs, Esq. or Jayne Nykolyn
by Phone: 1-800-721-3900 or by E-mail: sfuchs@zsz.com or
jnykolyn@zsz.com.


CELL THERAPEUTICS: Murray Frank Lodges WA Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington on behalf of shareholders who
purchased or otherwise acquired 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 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 Eric J. Belfi or Aaron D. Patton of
Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP by Phone: 800-497-8076 or
212-682-1818 by Fax: 212-682-1892 by E-mail:
info@murrayfrank.com.


ELAN CORPORATION: Johnson & Perkinson Lodges MA Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Johnson & Perkinson ("J&P") initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts on behalf of purchasers of Elan Corp.,
plc ("Elan") (NYSE:ELN) securities during the period between
February 18, 2004 and February 25, 2005 (the "Class Period").
J&P has since been contacted by and discussed the Complaint with
hundreds of potential class members.

The complaint charges Elan and certain of its officers with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Throughout
the Class Period, defendants caused Elan to make a number of
positive statements about the status of its clinical trials and
the commercial potential of TYSABRI, a vaccine designed to treat
patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), causing Elan's stock to
trade at artificially inflated prices. The Complaint alleges
that Elan violated federal securities laws by issuing false or
misleading information, such as:

     (1) that TYSABRI(r) (natalizumab), a monoclonal antibody
         for the treatment of Multiple Sclerosis ("MS"), posed
         serious immune-system side effects;

     (2) that TYSABRI, like other MS drugs, made patients
         susceptible to progressive multifocal
         leukoencephalopathy ("PML") by changing the way certain
         white blood cells function;

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

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

On February 28, 2005, Elan shocked the market by reporting that
they were withdrawing TYSABRI from the market following reports
of patients contracting PML, with at least one instance
resulting in death. The announcement caused Elan's shares to
plummet, declining over 70% to approximately $8 per share on
February 28, 2005.

For more details, contact Robin Freeman of Johnson & Perkinson
by Phone: 1-877-266-213 or by E-mial: email@jpclasslaw.com.


ELECTRONIC ARTS: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Suit in CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of those who acquired securities of
Electronic Arts Inc. (Nasdaq:ERTS) ("Electronic Arts" or the
"Company") between January 25, 2005 and March 21, 2005,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

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

For more details, contact the Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven,
P.A. by Phone: 410/986-0036 or by E-mail: hoffman@pivenlaw.com.


ELECTRONIC ARTS: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges CA Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of all securities
purchasers of Electronic Arts Inc. (Nasdaq: ERTS) ("EA" or the
"Company") between January 25, 2005 and March 21, 2005,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges EA, Lawrence Probst, III, and Warren
Jenson with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed
to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse
facts, known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) that increased competition from its competitors was
         eroding EA market share;

     (2) that hardware shortages were material;

     (3) that EA continued to suffer from operating margin
         compression; and

     (4) that as a result of the above, the Company's statements
         about its financial performance were lacking in any
         reasonable basis when made.

On March 21, 2005, after the market closed, EA announced revised
estimates for the Company's fiscal year ending March 31, 2005.
News of this shocked the market. Shares of EA fell $11.20 per
share or 16.88 percent, on March 22, 2005, to close at $55.15
per share.

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


FANNIE MAE: Frank J. Johnson Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in DC
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Office of Frank J. Johnson commenced a securities fraud
class action lawsuit in District of Columbia federal court on
behalf of those persons and entities who purchased "call"
options or sold "put" options in the common stock of Federal
National Mortgage Association ("Fannie Mae") (NYSE:FNM) between
April 17, 2001 and September 22, 2004. A consolidated class
action was previously filed in District of Columbia federal
court on behalf of purchasers of Fannie Mae common stock during
this same period, but excluded option traders.

After an extensive investigation into Fannie Mae's accounting
practices, the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight
("OFHEO") and the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC")
uncovered serious improprieties in Fannie Mae's 2001 through
mid-2004 financial statements. The OFHEO and SEC have ordered
Fannie Mae to restate those financial statements in accordance
with generally accepted accounting principles. As a result,
Fannie Mae will have to restate approximately $12 billion in
revenue for this period.

The Complaint alleges that Fannie Mae and its top officers
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange
Act of 1934. Defendants issued numerous public statements in
which they misrepresented or failed to disclose the true picture
of Fannie Mae's financial condition.

For more details, contact Frank J. Johnson, Esq. or Brett M.
Weaver, Esq. by Mail: 402 West Broadway, 27th Floor, San Diego,
California, 92101 by Phone: (619) 230-0063 or by e-mail:
fjohnson@frankjohnsonlaw.com.


FOREST LABORATORIES: Glancy Binkow Lodges Securities Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP initiated a Class
Action lawsuit was filed 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 Forest Laboratories, Inc.
("Forest Labs" or the "Company") (NYSE:FRX) between August 15,
2002 and September 1, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint charges Forest Labs 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.
Forest Labs develops, manufactures and markets prescription drug
products and non-prescription pharmaceutical products. The
Complaint alleges that defendants caused the price of Forest
Labs' shares to be artificially inflated by concealing
deficiencies with the Company's Celexa/Lexapro drugs for
treating adolescent depression. When Forest Labs ultimately
disclosed an agreement with the New York State Attorney General
to make summaries of previously undisclosed studies of the drugs
publicly available, the price of Forest Labs stock dropped to as
low as $36 per share.

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.  


ORANGE 21: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CA
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC initiated a securities
class action lawsuit on behalf of shareholders who purchased the
common stock and other securities of Orange 21, Inc. ("Orange
21" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:ORNG), pursuant to the Company's
Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with
its initial public offering ("IPO") on December 14, 2004. The
class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of California.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market, thereby artificially inflating
the price of Orange 21 securities. No class has yet been
certified in the above action.  

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


ORANGE 21: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of Orange 21,
Inc. (Nasdaq:ORNG) pursuant to the Company's Registration
Statement Prospectus issued in connection with its initial
public offering on December 14, 2004 (the "Class Period").

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California against defendant Orange 21 and
one or more of its officers and/or directors. The action charges
that defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a
series of materially false and misleading statements to the
market throughout the Class Period, which statements had the
effect of artificially inflating the market price of the
Company's securities. No class has yet been certified in the
above action.

For more details, contact the Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven,
P.A. by Phone: 410/986-0036 or by E-mail: hoffman@pivenlaw.com.


ORANGE 21: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C., initiated a lawsuit
seeking class action status in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California on behalf of all persons
who purchased the publicly traded securities of Orange 21, Inc.
(Nasdaq: ORNG) ("Orange 21") pursuant to the Registration
Statement and Prospectus (collectively, "Registration
Statement") issued in connection with the initial public
offering ("IPO") on December 14, 2004 (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that Orange 21 violated federal securities
laws by issuing false or misleading public statements in its IPO
Registration Statement. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that
Orange 21 failed to disclose problems with its European
operations and the existence of copyright violations. On
February 17, 2005, Orange 21 announced reduced earnings
expectations for 2005 due in part to changes in its European
infrastructure. On this news, Orange 21's stock price fell from
a close of $9.50 per share on February 17, 2005 to close at
$6.60 per share on February 18, 2005. Then, on March 7, 2005,
Orange 21 disclosed that it had received a cease-and-desist
letter from Oakley, Inc. and that Orange 21 would have to make
changes based on alleged copyright infringements.

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


                            *********


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  * * *