CAR_Public/050331.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, March 31, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 63

                         Headlines

ACCURIDE CORPORATION: Recalls 640 Wheels Due To Product Defect
ADJMI APPAREL: Recalls 8T Jackets, Pants Due To Choking Hazard
AGILE SOFTWARE: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Stock Suit Settlement
BLOCKBUSTER INC.: Customer Launches Suit Over Late Fees Program
BLOCKBUSTER VIDEO: NC AG Bares Refunds From No Late Fee Program

BRUSH WELLMAN: Continues To Face Beryllium Disease Litigation
CARRIER TRANSPORT: Recalls Mounting Bracket Kits Due To Defect
CLECO CORPORATION: LA Court Dismisses Power Consumer Fraud Suit
CLECO CORPORATION: Court To Rule on Stock Suit Dismissal Appeal
CONNECTICUT: Union, City To Return $45T Deducted From Nonmembers

COPPER MOUNTAIN: NY Court Approves Securities Lawsuit Settlement
COVAD COMMUNICATIONS: Asks DE Court To Dismiss Shareholder Suit
COVAD COMMUNICATIONS: NY Court Okays Securities Suit Settlement
DUCATI NORTH: Recalls MTS 1000 Motorcycles Due To Crash Hazard
EAGLE PICHER: Quapaw Tribe Commences Property Damage Suit in OK

FIRST COMMUNITY: CA Court Sustains Demurrer V. Unfair Trade Suit
FORD MOTOR: Madison County Judge Dismisses Dormant F-150 Lawsuit
GOREMOTE INTERNET: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Stock Lawsuit Pact
GUITAR CENTER: Hourly Employees Launch Overtime Wage Suit in CA
JANUS CAPITAL: Market Timing Litigation Consolidated in MD Court

JANUS CAPITAL: Faces Investment Advisory Fees Suit in CO Court
JANUS CAPITAL: Fund Investors Launch Securities Fraud Suit in CO
KEYSTONE RV: Recalls 88 Fifth Wheel Trailers Due To Fire Hazard
LAKE CHAMPLAIN: Recalls Five Star Bars Due To Undeclared Nuts
LORAL SPACE: NY Court Certifies Consolidated Securities Lawsuit

LORAL SPACE: NY Court Stays Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit
LORAL SPACE: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Consolidated ERISA Lawsuit
LORAL SPACE: Discovery Ongoing in NY Securities Lawsuit V. CEO
LORAL SPACE: Discovery Begins in NY Securities Lawsuit V. Execs
LOUISIANA: Group Disputes Election Method For 5th Circuit Court

MERCK & CO.: Lawyer Lodges Suit On Behalf Of ID Vioxx Purchasers
MGA ENTERTAINMENT: Recalls 297T Scooters Due To Injury Hazard
MICHIGAN: ACLU Joins Suit V. Saginaw County's Stripping Practice
MICROSOFT CORORATION: ND School To Receive Money From Settlement
MIDWAY GAMES: IL Court Junks Consolidated Investor Fraud Lawsuit

NATURE'S FINEST: Recalls 727T Gel Candles Due To Fire Hazard
NEW YORK: Montgomery County Faces Suit Over Strip Search Policy
NEW YORK: Publishers Reach Settlement With Freelance Writers
OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Stock Lawsuit
PACER INTERNATIONAL: CA Court Orders Trial in Unfair Trade Suit

PENNSYLVANIA: Suit Filed Over University's New Ticketing Policy
PINNACLE MANAGEMENT: Superintendents Join Racial, Age Bias Suit
RETEK INC.: NY Court Preliminarily Approves Lawsuit Settlement
RETEK INC.: MN Court Dismisses in Part Securities Fraud Lawsuit
RETEK INC.: Shareholders Launch MN Suits V. SAP America Merger

SOCIAL SECURITY: Female Employees Launch Racial Bias Suit in MD
SOUTHWESTERN OREGON: Retirement Suit Sent Back To County Court
THOMSON INC.: Recalls 47T DVD Player Batteries Due To Fire Risk
TOWN SPORTS: NY Sports Club Trainers Launch Overtime Wage Suit

                 New Securities Fraud Cases

BRADLEY PHARMACEUTICALS: Scott + Scott Lodges NJ Securities Suit
ELECTRONIC ARTS: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Suit in CA
ELECTRONIC ARTS: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Suit in N.D. CA
FOREST LABORATORIES: Marc S. Henzel Files Stock Fraud Suit in NY
ORANGE 21: Marc S. Henzel Files Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. CA

VIISAGE TECHNOLOGY: Kaplan Fox Files Securities Fraud Suit in MA


                        *********


ACCURIDE CORPORATION: Recalls 640 Wheels Due To Product Defect
--------------------------------------------------------------
Accuride Corporation is cooperating with the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) by voluntarily recalling
640 Accuride 29644ANP wheels.

Certain Accuride Brand 22.5X8.25 15-degree aluminum wheels, P/N
29644ANP, manufactured between January 15 and 17,2005 may not
have been properly pre-stressed and may experience premature
cracking on the disc face that could result in failure.  Should
the wheel fail while the vehicle is in use, a vehicle crash
could occur, possibly resulting in injury or death.

Accuride will notify its customers and replace the wheels free
of charge.  Owners who take their vehicles to an authorized
dealer on an agreed upon service date and do not receive the
free remedy within a reasonable time should contact the Company
by Phone: 1-800-869-2275 or contact the NHTSA's auto safety
hotline: 1-888-327-4236.


ADJMI APPAREL: Recalls 8T Jackets, Pants Due To Choking Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC), Adjmi Apparel Group, of New York, N.Y. (Adjmi is an
authorized licensee of children's apparel products of Reebok, of
Canton, Mass.) is voluntarily recalling about 8,000 Reebok
Children's Windwear and Fleece Jacket and Pant Sets.

The zipper slider and pull on the jackets can detach, if pulled
when the jacket is open. The detached zipper slider and pull can
pose a choking hazard to young children. Reebok has received
three reports of zipper sliders/pulls that detached. No injuries
have been reported.

The recalled jacket/pant sets were sold in royal blue, pink,
pink/blue, purple/green, pink, purple, red/blue, and gray/dark
gray color combinations in sizes up to children's size 7.
"Reebok" is printed across the front of the hooded jackets. The
style numbers were printed on the store tag only and end in:
451, 449, 448, 447, 446, 444, 435, 433, 429, 428, 424, 412, 537,
531, 530 and 526.

Manufactured in Taiwan, the recalled jacket/pant sets were sold
exclusively at Gordmans, Fred Meyer, Kids R Us, Ross,
Gottschalks and Reebok Corporate Headquarters retail store in
Canton, Massachusetts between August 2004 and February 2005 for
between $15 and $20. All other jacket/pant sets purchased at any
other retailer are not included in this recall.

Consumers should immediately take the recalled product away from
young children and contact Adjmi recall hotline to receive a
replacement product.  For more information or to receive
instructions on receiving a replacement product contact Adjmi
recall hotline at (800) 873-5570, or visit the Reebok Web site:
http://www.reebok.com.


AGILE SOFTWARE: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Stock Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted preliminary approval to the consolidated
securities class action filed against Agile Software
Corporation, Bryan D. Stolle and Thomas P. Shanahan and others
including underwriters Morgan Stanley and Deutsche Bank
Securities.  The case is now captioned "In re Agile Software,
Inc. Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 01 CIV 9413
(SAS)," related to "In re Initial Public Offering Securities
Litigation, 21 MC 92 (SAS)."

On April 19, 2002, plaintiffs electronically served an amended
complaint. The amended complaint is brought purportedly on
behalf of all persons who purchased the Company's common stock
from August 19, 1999 through December 6, 2000.  It names as
defendants the Agile Defendants; and several investment banking
firms that served as underwriters of the Company's initial
public offering and secondary offering.

The complaint alleges liability under Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, on the grounds that the
registration statement for the offerings did not disclose that:

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

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

The amended complaint also alleges that false analyst reports
were issued. No specific damages are claimed.

The Company is aware that similar allegations have been made in
other lawsuits filed in the Southern District of New York
challenging over 300 other initial public offerings and
secondary offerings conducted in 1999 and 2000.  Those cases
have been consolidated for pretrial purposes before the
Honorable Judge Shira A. Scheindlin. On July 15, 2002, the Agile
Defendants (as well as all other issuer defendants) filed a
motion to dismiss the complaint. On February 19, 2003, the Court
ruled on the motions to dismiss. The Court denied the motions to
dismiss claims under the Securities Act of 1933 in all but 10 of
the cases. In the case involving the Company, these claims were
dismissed as to the initial public offering, but not the
secondary offering.

The Court denied the motion to dismiss the claim under Section
10(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company
and 184 other issuer defendants, on the basis that the amended
complaints in these cases alleged that the respective issuers
had acquired companies or conducted follow-on offerings after
the initial public offerings.  As a consequence, the Court
denied the motion to dismiss the Section 20(a) claims against
the individual defendants.  The motion to dismiss the Section
10(a) claims was granted with prejudice as to the individual
defendants.

The Company has decided to accept a settlement proposal
presented to all issuer defendants. In this settlement,
plaintiffs will dismiss and release all claims against the Agile
Defendants, in exchange for a contingent payment by the
insurance companies collectively responsible for insuring the
issuers in all of the IPO cases, and for the assignment or
surrender of control of certain claims the Company may have
against the underwriters.  The Agile Defendants will not be
required to make any cash payments in the settlement, unless the
"pro rata" amount paid by the insurers in the settlement exceeds
the limits of the insurance coverage, a circumstance which the
Company does not believe will occur.  The settlement will
require approval of the Court, which cannot be assured, after
class members are given the opportunity to object to the
settlement.

On February 15, 2005, the Court issued an order providing
preliminary approval of the settlement except insofar as the
settlement would have cut off contractual indemnification claims
that underwriters may have against securities issuers, such as
the Company.  The Court set for hearing on March 18, 2005, a
conference to determine the final form, substance and program of
class notice and the scheduling of a fairness hearing for final
approval of the settlement.

The suit is styled "In re Agile Software, Inc. Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, 01 CIV 9413 (SAS)," related to
"In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, Master
File No. 21 MC 92 (SAS)," filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge Shira A.
Scheindlin.  The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

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

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

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

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

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

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


BLOCKBUSTER INC.: Customer Launches Suit Over Late Fees Program
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Blockbuster Inc. customer initiated a lawsuit against the
video rental chain charging that it failed to adequately
disclose terms of the "end of late fees" program, breached its
contract with customers and violated state business law, the
Sun-Sentinel.com reports.

The new class action joins a court action already filed by New
Jersey's attorney general, Peter Harvey, who is charging the
video chain of failing to properly inform customers of the new
policy's terms and could be misleading. The suit, filed by
Nassau County resident Gary Lustberg, it had originated in State
Supreme Court in Nassau last month, but was moved this month to
federal court in Brooklyn after Blockbuster filed a motion under
the new Class Action Fairness Act.

Court Documents reveal that Mr. Lustberg's suit takes issue with
the video chain's policy, which took effect January 1 that
allows customers to keep a movie or game for one week past the
due date. If it isn't returned by the eighth day, the store
charges them for the full retail price, which in reality is less
the original rental fee. Customers who return the rental within
30 days after the due date have the charge credited back to
their account, but must pay a $1.25 "restocking" fee.

Mr. Lustberg's suit also charges, "Despite a massive marketing
campaign touting 'the end of late fees,' class members are still
subject to significant fees." His suit is thus seeking a court
injunction to stop Blockbuster from assessing sales and
restocking fees, to stop marketing "no more late fees," to
reclaim profits Blockbuster has earned from the program,
compensatory and punitive damages and attorney's fees. In it's
filing, Blockbuster estimated that the suit seeks more than $5
million.

In a filing, Dallas-based Blockbuster, denied that "any of its
customers were injured" by the policy, but spokesman Randy
Hargrove, said the company was "open to suggestions about better
explaining our programs."

According to a source close to the discussions, most of the
states' attorneys general that had questioned the chain's
promotions and disclosures regarding late-fee polices are close
to settling the matter. Details are expected soon, perhaps as
early as today, the source told the Sun-Sentinel.


BLOCKBUSTER VIDEO: NC AG Bares Refunds From No Late Fee Program
---------------------------------------------------------------
Blockbuster Video must pay refunds or credits to consumers who
were billed during the company's "No Late Fees" campaign and
change the way it promotes the program, North Carolina Attorney
General Roy Cooper announced in a statement.

"People rent movies to be entertained, not to be misled about
charges and fees," said Attorney General Cooper.  "Blockbuster's
catchy slogan may have brought in business but it turned out to
have a surprise ending, as some customers found out."

Attorney General Cooper's office, along with Attorneys General
of 47 other states, announced an agreement with the Company to
resolve claims that the movie and video game rental chain misled
consumers about its "No Late Fee" program.

The Company began promoting the program in December 2004 with
promises that consumers wouldn't face late fees if they returned
rented videos, DVDs or video games within seven days of the due
date.  However, Attorney General Cooper and the other Attorneys
General contend that the Company failed to make it clear to
customers that they would owe the entire cost of the item rented
if they turned it in more than seven days after the due date.
If customers then decided to return the purchased product,
Blockbuster charged them an additional "restocking" fee of $1.25
or more.

The Attorneys General also allege that the Company did not
sufficiently disclose that the program was offered only at
participating stores, causing some customers of non-
participating franchise stores to think they wouldn't face late
fees.  In North Carolina, the Company operates 143 company-owned
stores and has one franchise store.

Under the terms of the agreement, the Company must change all
future advertising about no late fees or limited late fees so
that it includes a clear and conspicuous explanation of charges
that consumers may face.  In addition, the Company's rental
return policy and charges for late returns must be clearly
displayed at all Blockbuster stores. For the next six months,
the Company has agreed to meet other conditions, including
posting the terms and conditions of its "No Late Fees" program
at multiple spots in all Blockbuster stores, removing all window
and internal signs advertising the program, and asking
franchised stores not to advertise the "No Late Fee" program
unless they are participating in it.

The Company also agreed to provide a full refund or credit to
any customers who purchased a video or paid a restocking fee
under the "No Late Fee" program.  Customers can seek restitution
for any item they rented and then had to purchase before they
learned about the Blockbuster policy.  Rented items must be
returned in good condition.   Customers who already returned
late items and paid a restocking fee can also request a refund
of that fee.

Customers who rented from a non-participating franchise stores
that did not make it clear that they weren't a part of the "No
Late Fee" program can write to the Company to receive rental
coupons equal to the number of rentals on which such charges
were assessed.  Consumers are eligible if they rented videos
after December 31, 2004 and prior to March 29, 2005.  To claim
their refunds or coupons, consumers should put their request in
writing and explain that they did not understand the "No Late
Fee" program.  Customers can claim their refund by writing to
Blockbuster at 1201 Elm Street, Suite 2100, Dallas, TX 75270,
Attention: Mr. Steve Krumholz, Sr. Vice President, by April 28,
2005 or within seven days of discovering the extra charges.
Complaint forms are available at Blockbuster stores and from
Attorneys General's offices.  The restitution period ends
September 29, 2005.

Consumers who feel they are entitled to a refund from the
Company can also file a complaint with Attorney General Cooper's
Consumer Protection Division by calling 1-877-5-NO-SCAM or by
downloading a complaint form at the Website:
http://www.ncdoj.com.

"Consumers deserve straight talk from businesses, not clever
advertisements that gloss over important details like extra
fees," he said.  `I'm pleased that people will get an
opportunity to get their money back, and I hope people here in
North Carolina will take the company up on its refund offer."

For more details, contact Noelle Talley Public Information
Officer, N.C. Department of Justice by Phone: (919) 716-6484 or
(919) 716-6413 by Fax: (919) 716-0803 or by E-mail:
ntalley@ncdoj.com.


BRUSH WELLMAN: Continues To Face Beryllium Disease Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brush Wellman Inc., continues to face 12 proceedings in various
state and federal courts brought by plaintiffs alleging that
they have contracted, or have been placed at risk of
contracting, chronic beryllium disease or other lung conditions
as a result of exposure to beryllium.  Plaintiffs in beryllium
cases seek recovery under negligence and various other legal
theories and seek compensatory and punitive damages, in many
cases of an unspecified sum. Spouses of some plaintiffs claim
loss of consortium.

During 2004, the number of beryllium cases changed from 15
(involving 33 plaintiffs) as of December 31, 2003 to 12 cases
(involving 56 plaintiffs) as of December 31, 2004. During 2004,
an aggregate of six cases (involving 10 plaintiffs) were settled
and dismissed. Three cases (involving eight plaintiffs) were
voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs. Five cases involving 36
plaintiffs were filed in 2004. In one case (involving one
plaintiff) which was previously reported as being voluntarily
dismissed by the plaintiff, the plaintiff's employer filed a
motion to intervene, which was granted by the court, although
the court also granted the voluntary dismissal by the plaintiff.
In one purported class action that was previously reported on,
an amended complaint was filed (involving five additional named
plaintiffs). In one purported class action that was previously
reported on, class certification was denied, although the case
remains pending as a third-party claim. In that case, the
Company learned during the year that a Suggestion of Death of
one plaintiff was filed during a previous reporting period.

The 12 pending beryllium cases as of December 31, 2004 fall into
two categories: nine cases involving third-party individual
plaintiffs, with 17 individuals (and five spouses who have filed
claims as part of their spouse's case and two children who have
filed claims as part of their parent's case); and three
purported class actions, involving 32 plaintiffs, as discussed
more fully below. Claims brought by third party plaintiffs
(typically employees of the Company's customers or contractors)
are generally covered by varying levels of insurance.

The first purported class action is Manuel Marin, et al. v.
Brush Wellman Inc., filed in Superior Court of California, Los
Angeles County, case number BC299055, on July 15, 2003. The
named plaintiffs are Manuel Marin, Lisa Marin, Garfield Perry
and Susan Perry. The defendants are Brush Wellman, Appanaitis
Enterprises, Inc. and Doe Defendants 1 through 100. A First
Amended Complaint was filed on September 15, 2004, naming five
additional plaintiffs. The five additional named plaintiffs are
Robert Thomas, Darnell White, Leonard Joffrion, James Jones and
John Kesselring.

The plaintiffs allege that they have been sensitized to
beryllium while employed at the Boeing Company.  The plaintiffs'
wives claim loss of consortium. The plaintiffs purport to
represent two classes of approximately 250 members each, one
consisting of workers who worked at Boeing or its predecessors
and are beryllium sensitized and the other consisting of their
spouses. They have brought claims for negligence, strict
liability -- design defect, strict liability -- failure to warn,
fraudulent concealment, breach of implied warranties, and unfair
business practices. The plaintiffs seek injunctive relief,
medical monitoring, medical and health care provider
reimbursement, attorneys' fees and costs, revocation of business
license, and compensatory and punitive damages. Messrs. Marin,
Perry, Thomas, White, Joffrion, Jones and Kesselring represent
current and past employees of Boeing in California; and Ms.
Marin and Ms. Perry are spouses.

The second purported class action is Neal Parker, et al. v,
Brush Wellman Inc., filed in Superior Court of Fulton County,
State of Georgia, case number 2004CV80827, on January 29, 2004.
The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia, case number 04-CV-606, on March 4, 2004.
The named plaintiffs are Neal Parker, Wilbert Carlton, Stephen
King, Ray Burns, Deborah Watkins, Leonard Ponder, Barbara King
and Patricia Burns. The defendants are Brush Wellman; Schmiede
Machine and Tool Corporation; Thyssenkrupp Materials NA Inc.,
d/b/a Copper and Brass Sales; Axsys Technologies, Inc.; Alcoa,
Inc.; McCann Aerospace Machining Corporation; Cobb Tool, Inc.;
and Lockheed Martin Corporation. Messrs. Parker, Carlton, King
and Burns and Ms. Watkins are current employees of Lockheed. Mr.
Ponder is a retired employee, and Ms. King and Ms. Burns are
family members.  The plaintiffs have brought claims for
negligence, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, civil
conspiracy and punitive damages. The plaintiffs seek a permanent
injunction requiring the defendants to fund a court-supervised
medical monitoring program, attorneys' fees and punitive
damages.

The third purported class action is George Paz, et al. v. Brush
Engineered Materials Inc., et al., filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, case number
1:04CV597 on June 30, 2004. The named plaintiffs are George Paz,
Barbara Faciane, Joe Lewis, Donald Jones, Ernest Bryan, Gregory
Condiff, Karla Condiff, Odie Ladner, Henry Polk, Roy Tootle,
William Stewart, Margaret Ann Harris, Judith Lemon, Theresa
Ladner and Yolanda Paz. The defendants are Brush Engineered
Materials Inc; Brush Wellman Inc.; Wess-Del, Inc.; and the
Boeing Company. Plaintiffs seek the establishment of a medical
monitoring trust fund as a result of their alleged exposure to
products containing beryllium, attorneys' fees and expenses, and
general and equitable relief.  The plaintiffs purport to sue on
behalf of a class of present or former Defense Contract
Management Administration (DCMA) employees who conducted
quality assurance work at Stennis Space Center and the Boeing
Company at its facility in Canoga Park, California; present and
former employees of Boeing at Stennis; and spouses and children
of those individuals. Messrs. Paz and Lewis and Ms. Faciane
represent current and former DCMA employees at Stennis. Mr.
Jones represents DCMA employees at Canoga Park. Messrs. Bryan,
Condiff, Ladner, Park, Polk, Tootle and Stewart and Ms. Condiff
represent Boeing employees at Stennis. Ms. Harris, Ms. Lemon,
Ms. Ladner and Ms. Paz are family members. The Company filed a
Motion to Dismiss on September 28, 2004.

The Company had one purported class action that has now been
finally decided. That case was John Wilson, et al. v. Brush
Wellman Inc., originally filed in Court of Common Pleas,
Cuyahoga County, Ohio, case number 00-401890-CV, on February 14,
2000. The named plaintiffs were John Wilson, Daniel A. Martin,
Joseph A. Szenderski, Larry Strang, Hubert Mays, Michael Fincher
and Reginald Hohenberger. Mr. Szenderski was voluntarily
dismissed by the court on September 27, 2000. Mr. Szenderski
filed a separate claim, which is now settled and dismissed. A
Suggestion of Death for Mr. Mays was filed in May 2002. The only
defendant is Brush Wellman. The trial court denied class
certification on February 12, 2002, and the Court of Appeals,
Ohio 8th District, remanded on October 17, 2002. The case was
appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court, case number 03-0048, and
oral arguments were heard on December 16, 2003. The Ohio Supreme
Court reversed the appellate court judgment and reinstated the
trial court's order denying class certification on November 17,
2004. The plaintiffs purported to sue on behalf of a class of
workers who belonged to unions in the Northwestern Ohio Building
Construction Trades Council who worked in Brush Wellman's Elmore
plant from 1953-1999. They brought claims for negligence, strict
liability, statutory product liability, ultrahazardous
activities and punitive damages and sought establishment of a
fund for medical surveillance and screening. The plaintiffs were
seeking that Brush Wellman pay for a reasonable medical
surveillance and screening program for plaintiffs and class
members, punitive damages, interest, costs and attorneys' fees.
The case has been remanded to the trial court, where it
remains pending as a third-party case (involving five
plaintiffs).

From January 1, 2005 to February 28, 2005, three third-party
cases (involving four plaintiffs) were filed. In addition, the
Company received a summons and class action initiation order in
one case, although no complaint has been filed; however, the
Company has filed a motion to vacate the class action initiation
order and to strike the praecipe for writ of summons and summons
itself, on the ground that no class action was commenced because
plaintiff did not file a complaint. In one purported class
action, George Paz, et al. v. Brush Engineered Materials Inc.,
et al., the Company's Motion to Dismiss was granted and judgment
was entered on January 11, 2005; however, the plaintiffs have
filed an appeal.


CARRIER TRANSPORT: Recalls Mounting Bracket Kits Due To Defect
--------------------------------------------------------------
Carrier Transport Air Conditioning Co. is cooperating with the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) by
voluntarily recalling 839 Carrier air conditioner mounting
bracket kits manufactured between January 1 and September 1,
2004, model no. P/N 86-62400-00.  These kits are designed for
use on certain Ford E-series chassis with 6.0L diesel engines.
The weldment can break or fall off.

If the weldment breaks or falls off, the carrier supplied
compressor and the Ford original equipment vacuum pump could
shift, causing the misalignment and eventual loss of the drive
belt, which could eventually lead to the loss of the primary
braking system, possibly resulting in a vehicle crash.

Carrier will notify customers and inspect the weldments for
cracking and replace the weldment as necessary, free of charge.
The recall is expected to begin during March 2005.  Owners who
do not receive the free remedy within a reasonable time should
contact Carrier Service Department by Phone: 1-800-450-2211 or
contact the NHTSA's auto safety hotline: 1-888-327-4236.


CLECO CORPORATION: LA Court Dismisses Power Consumer Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The 27th Judicial District Court, Parish of St. Landry, State of
Louisiana dismissed with prejudice the class action filed
against Cleco Corporation on behalf of several Cleco Power
customers.  The suit also names as defendants:

     (1) Cleco Power, LLC

     (2) Cleco Midstream Resources, LLC

     (3) Cleco Marketing & Trading, LLC

     (4) Cleco Evangeline, LLC

     (5) Acadia Power Partners, LLC and

     (6) Westar Energy, Inc.

The plaintiffs were seeking class action status on behalf of all
Cleco Power's retail customers, and their petition centered
around the Company's trading activities first disclosed by Cleco
in November 2002.  The plaintiffs alleged, among other things,
that the defendants' conduct was in violation of Louisiana
antitrust law.

On July 6, 2004, the Company announced that it had reached a
preliminary settlement regarding these issues, as well as the
related issues raised in the fuel audit by the Louisiana Public
Service Commission (LPSC).  On July 14, 2004, Cleco, the LPSC
Staff and these plaintiffs entered into a settlement in
connection with the LPSC settlement of the fuel audit and
related trading issues.  On July 21, 2004, the LPSC issued an
order approving the settlement.


CLECO CORPORATION: Court To Rule on Stock Suit Dismissal Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has yet to rule
on plaintiffs' appeal of a lower court dismissal of the class
action filed against Cleco Corporation on behalf of a class of
persons or entities who purchased the Company's common stock
during a specified period of time.

On November 22, 2002, a lawsuit was filed in the Ninth Judicial
District Court, Parish of Rapides, State of Louisiana, alleging
that the Company issued a number of materially false and
misleading statements during the Class Period, among other
purposes, in order to cause the price of the Company's stock to
rise artificially.  The plaintiff alleges that, during the Class
Period, the Company failed to disclose the existence of the
round-trip trades that it disclosed in its Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2002.
The plaintiff also alleges that the Company's financial
information was not prepared in conformity with generally
accepted accounting principles during the Class Period.

The Company removed the lawsuit to the United States District
Court for the Western District of Louisiana.  In May 2003, the
lawsuit was dismissed without prejudice, allowing the plaintiff
to re-file the lawsuit subject to certain stipulations and
restrictions.  On November 12, 2003, the plaintiff again filed
suit in the Ninth Judicial District Court, Parish of Rapides,
State of Louisiana.  The Company again removed the suit to the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Louisiana and moved that the suit be dismissed pursuant to
federal law.  On March 19, 2004, the United States District
Court heard oral arguments on the Company's Motion to Dismiss
and the plaintiff's Motion to Remand.  On April 9, 2004, the
court denied the plaintiff's Motion to Remand and granted the
Motion to Dismiss, dismissing this matter with prejudice.  The
plaintiff filed an appeal with the United States Fifth Circuit
Court of Appeals on May 14, 2004.


CONNECTICUT: Union, City To Return $45T Deducted From Nonmembers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Under a federal court settlement, the Bridgeport firefighters
union and city officials have agreed to return $45,000 deducted
from the pay of nonunion members between June 2002 and October
2004, the Associated Press reports.

The settlement, which stems from a class action lawsuit that was
filed by six firefighters, directs Local 834 of the
International Association of Fire Fighters to comply with
federal rules governing the deduction of agency fees used to
operate union locals. Legal experts explain that under current
laws, unions are not permitted to take from nonmembers full
union dues that are used for political and other purposes.
According to the settlement, the city, the union and others
named in the lawsuit, which was settled in U.S. District Court
in Hartford, Connecticut denied all the claims, but agreed to
the settlement "to put to an end such risk and the expense of
pending litigation as well as the risk of future litigation
regarding the collection of agency fees."

Ron Mackey, a retired lieutenant in the Bridgeport Fire
Department and president of a black and Hispanic firefighters
organization, was among those who sued said that an underlying
issue in the legal battle was racial. Mr. Mackey told AP that he
and about 50 co-workers objected to dues to the International
Association of Fire Fighters being used to "fight blacks being
hired and promoted." "We will not send a penny to fight blacks
and Puerto Ricans in the country," he said.

The firefighters sought legal help from the National Right to
Work Legal Defense Foundation, a Springfield, Virginia-based
group that opposes what it calls "compulsory unionism."

Commenting on the collection of fees, Stefan Gleason, vice
president of the National Right to Work Foundation said, "IAFF
union officials simply want nonunion firefighters to shut up and
pay up. Union operatives should not be allowed to trample on
firefighters' constitutional rights by unlawfully seizing dues
from their paychecks."

Daniel P. Hunsberger, the union's lawyer, contended that
collecting agency fees "was not done intentionally to harm
anyone at all. We represent vigorously anyone in the bargaining
unit," AP reports.  He added, "In my representation of the union
and knowing the last few presidents I think the union tries in
everything it does to take a position that represents all
parties that are members of the local, including any minority."
Additionally, he points out that the union is developing a
procedure that conforms to federal rules and that the union put
the money in escrow when it was notified by firefighters who
chose to not join.

Bridgeport Mayor John Fabrizi told AP that the issue predated
his tenure, which began in April 2003. Union dues of nonmembers
were deducted and put in escrow because the firefighters union
had not established an agency fee, he adds.


COPPER MOUNTAIN: NY Court Approves Securities Lawsuit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against Copper
Mountain Networks, Inc. and certain of its officers and
directors.

In December 2001, the Company and certain of its officers and
directors were named as defendants in a class action shareholder
complaint filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, now captioned "In re Copper
Mountain Networks, Inc. Initial Public Offering Securities
Litigation, Case No. 01-CV-10943."

In the amended complaint, the plaintiffs allege that the
Company, certain of its officers and directors and the
underwriters of its initial public offering (IPO) violated
section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 based on allegations
that the Company's IPO registration statement and prospectus
failed to disclose material facts regarding the compensation to
be received by, and the stock allocation practices of, the IPO
underwriters.  The amended complaint also contains a claim for
violation of section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 based on allegations that this omission constituted deceit
on investors.  The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages
and other relief.

Similar complaints, collectively referred to here as the "IPO
Lawsuits," were filed in the same court against hundreds of
other public companies ("Issuers") who conducted IPOs between
1998 and 2000.  On August 8, 2001, the IPO Lawsuits were
consolidated for pretrial purposes before United States Judge
Shira Scheindlin of the Southern District of New York. On July
15, 2002, the Company joined in a global motion to dismiss the
IPO Lawsuits filed by all of the Issuers (among others). On
October 9, 2002, the Court entered an order dismissing our named
officers and directors from the IPO Lawsuits without prejudice,
pursuant to an agreement tolling the statute of limitations with
respect to these officers and directors until September 30,
2003.  On February 19, 2003, the Court issued a decision denying
the motion to dismiss the Section 11 claims against the Company
and almost all of the Issuers, and denying the motion to dismiss
the Section 10(b) claims against the Company and many of the
other issuers.

In June 2003, the Issuers reached a tentative settlement
agreement with the plaintiffs that would, among other things,
result in the dismissal with prejudice of all claims against the
Issuers and their officers and directors in the IPO Lawsuits. In
addition, the tentative settlement guarantees that, in the event
that the Plaintiffs recover less than $1 billion in settlement
or judgment against the Underwriter defendants in the IPO
Lawsuits, the Plaintiffs will be entitled to recover the
difference between the actual recovery and $1 billion from the
insurers for the Issuers.  In September 2003, in connection with
the tentative settlement, those officers and directors who had
entered tolling agreements agreed to extend those agreements so
that they would not expire prior to any settlement being
finalized.  In June 2004, the Company executed a final
settlement agreement with the plaintiffs.

On February 15, 2005, the Court issued a decision certifying a
class action for settlement purposes, and granting preliminary
approval of the settlement subject to modification of certain
bar orders contemplated by the settlement. In addition, the
settlement is still subject to statutory notice requirements as
well as final judicial approval.

The suit is styled "In re Copper Mountain Networks, Inc. Initial
Public Offering Securities Litigation, Case No. 01-CV-10943, "
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


COVAD COMMUNICATIONS: Asks DE Court To Dismiss Shareholder Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Covad Communications Group, Inc. asked the Court of Chancery for
the State of Delaware, New Castle County to dismiss the class
action filed against its current and former directors by the
Company's former general counsel and secretary Druv Khanna.

In June 2002, Dhruv Khanna was relieved of his duties as the
Company's General Counsel and Secretary.  Shortly thereafter,
Mr. Khanna alleged that, over a period of years, certain current
and former directors and officers had breached their fiduciary
duties to the Company by engaging in or approving actions that
constituted waste and self-dealing, that certain current and
former directors and officers had provided false representations
to the Company's auditors and that he had been relieved of his
duties in retaliation for his being a purported whistleblower
and because of racial or national origin discrimination.

Based on the events mentioned above, in September 2003, Mr.
Khanna filed a purported class action and a derivative lawsuit
against the Company's current and former directors.  On August
3, 2004, Mr. Khanna amended his Complaint and two additional
purported shareholders joined the lawsuit.  In this action the
plaintiffs seek recovery on behalf of the Company from the
individual defendants for their purported breach of fiduciary
duty.  The plaintiffs also seek to invalidate the Company's
election of directors in 2002, 2003 and 2004 because they claim
that the Company's proxy statements were misleading.

On October 11, 2004, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint in its entirety and a motion to disqualify Mr.
Khanna and the additional plaintiffs as class representatives.
The motions have not yet been scheduled for hearing.


COVAD COMMUNICATIONS: NY Court Okays Securities Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against Covad
Communications Group, Inc., certain of its former and current
officers and directors in addition to some of the underwriters
who handled the Company's s stock offerings.

Several lawsuits were initially filed, challenging practices
allegedly used by certain underwriters of public equity
offerings during the late 1990s and 2000.  On April 19, 2002,
the plaintiffs amended their complaint and removed the Company
as a defendant.  Certain directors and officers are still named
in the complaint.  The plaintiffs claim that the Company and
others failed to disclose the arrangements that some of these
underwriters purportedly made with certain investors.

The plaintiffs and the issuer defendants have reached a
tentative agreement to settle the matter, and the Company
believes the tentative settlement will not have a material
adverse effect on its consolidated financial position or results
of operations.

The suit is styled "In re Covad Communications Group, Inc.
Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, Case No. 01-CV-
10943, " 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


DUCATI NORTH: Recalls MTS 1000 Motorcycles Due To Crash Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ducati North America is cooperating with the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) by voluntarily recalling
475 Ducati MTS 1000 motorcycles, models 2003-2004.

On certain motorcycles, the oil cooler delivery and return hose
could leak oil.  This leakage condition could direct oil to the
rear wheel and tire, which can cause the vehicle to crash
without prior warning.

Dealers will inspect and replace the oil cooler delivery and
return lines.  The manufacturer has not yet provided with an
owner notification schedule.  For more details, contact the
Company by Phone: 408-253-0499 or contact the NHTSA's auto
safety hotline: 1-888-327-4236.


EAGLE PICHER: Quapaw Tribe Commences Property Damage Suit in OK
---------------------------------------------------------------
Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc. faces a class action filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Oklahoma on behalf of approximately 600 members of the Quapaw
Tribe of Oklahoma owning or possessing lands within the Quapaw
Reservation near Miami, Oklahoma.  The suit also names six other
corporate defendants.  The lawsuit alleges liability for
property damage resulting from historical mining activities
prior to 1959.

The lawsuit specifies no specific damage amount and the Company
has no reasonable basis for any estimation of such damage
amount.  The Company believes that any possible liability to
members of the Quapaw Tribe was discharged in connection with
its bankruptcy reorganization in 1996, the Company said in a
disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The suit is styled "Quapaw Tribe of OK, et al v. Asarco
Incorporated, et al, case no. 4:03-cv-00846-CVE-PJC," filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Oklahoma, under Judge Claire V. Eagan.  Representing the Company
is Ronald N. Ricketts, Gable & Gotwals (Tulsa) 100 W 5TH ST STE
1100, TULSA, OK 74103-4217, Phone: 918-595-4800, Fax: 918-595-
4990, E-mail: rricketts@gablelaw.com.  Representing the
plaintiffs are:

     (1) Elizabeth E. Teel, Elizabeth B. Cowen, Allan Kanner,
         Kelli Markelwitz Leger, Allan Kanner & Associates PC,
         701 Camp St New Orleans, LA 70130 Phone: 504-524-57777
         Fax: 524-5763

     (2) Jason Bjorn Aamodt, Rayanne Griffin Tobey, Aamodt &
         Tobey PC, 406 S BOULDER STE 101 TULSA, OK 74103, Phone:
         918-583-6100, Fax: 918-583-6104, E-mail:
         Jason@a-t-law.com


FIRST COMMUNITY: CA Court Sustains Demurrer V. Unfair Trade Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Los Angeles Superior Court in California sustained First
Community Bancorp, Inc.'s demurrer against the amended class
action filed against it and Pacific Western National Bank.

On June 8, 2004, the defendants were served with an amended
complaint filed in Los Angeles Superior Court pending as Case
No. BC310846.  The defendants were named in their capacity as
alleged successors to First Charter Bank, N.A., which the
Company acquired in October 2001.  A former officer of First
Charter, who left First Charter in May of 1997, is also named as
a defendant.

The amended complaint alleges that a former officer of First
Charter who later became a principal of Four Star Financial
Services, LLC (Four Star), an affiliate of 900 Capital Services,
Inc. (900 Capital), improperly induced several First Charter
customers to invest in 900 Capital or affiliates of 900 Capital
and further alleges that Four Star, 900 Capital and some of
their affiliated entities perpetuated their fraud upon investors
through various First Charter accounts with First Charter's
purported knowing participation in and/or willful ignorance of
the scheme.  The key allegations against First Charter in the
amended complaint date back to the mid-1990s and the amended
complaint alleges several counts for relief including aiding and
abetting, conspiracy, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, relief
pursuant to the California Business and Professions Code,
negligence and relief under the California Securities Act
stemming from an alleged ponzi scheme and sale of securities
issued by Four Star.

In disclosures provided to the parties, plaintiffs have asserted
that the named plaintiffs have suffered losses well in excess of
$3.85 million, and plaintiffs have asserted that "losses to the
class total many tens of millions of dollars."  While the
Company understands that the plaintiffs intend to seek to
certify a class for purposes of pursuing a class action, a class
has not yet been certified and no motion for class certification
has been filed.

On July 7, 2004, the Company removed the action to U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California.  On July 26, 2004,
the Company filed proofs of claim in the federal bankruptcy
proceedings of Four Star and 900 Capital for contribution and
indemnity.  On October 14, 2004, the Court remanded most of the
action to the Los Angeles Superior Court, and transferred the
fraudulent transfer claim and a request for disgorgement to the
U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California.
In December 2004, plaintiffs dismissed, without prejudice, the
fraudulent transfer claim and request for disgorgement pending
before the U.S. Bankruptcy Court.  On November 8, 2004, the
Company filed a demurrer to each of the remaining counts in the
amended complaint.  A hearing on the demurrer was held on
February 17, 2005.  At this hearing, the Court sustained the
Company's demurrer to the amended complaint as to each of the
counts therein, granting the plaintiffs leave to amend.


FORD MOTOR: Madison County Judge Dismisses Dormant F-150 Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Madison County Circuit Judge George Moran dismissed a dormant
class action lawsuit against Ford Motor Co. and Roberts Motors
of Wood River, the Madison County Record reports.

Originally brought by Rodney Miller of Wood River against Ford
and Roberts Motors, the lawsuit was filed in October of 2001
claiming Ford F-150 pick-up trucks were deceptively marketed
with an option identified as the "Trailer Towing Group, Class
III." Mr. Miller contends that the radiator's size and
performance, an essential component of the trailer package were
misrepresented.  The Lakin Law Firm of Wood River, Freed & Weiss
of Chicago, and the Edwards Law Firm of Corpus Christi, Texas
represented Mr. Miller in this case.

According to the complaint, Ford promised that the optional
trailer package, which was sold at a price between $300 and $400
was to have included a "heavy duty" radiator, but instead
committed fraud when they used a smaller, lower capacity
radiator.  In February of 2002, Roberts filed a motion to
dismiss the case and it was granted. However, the case still
remained active for almost three years.


GOREMOTE INTERNET: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Stock Lawsuit Pact
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against GoRemote
Internet Communications, Inc. (formerly GRIC Communications,
Inc.) and certain of its officers and directors, styled "In re
GoRemote Internet Communications, Inc. Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation, No. 01 Civ 6771 (SAS)."  The suit has
been consolidated with more than three hundred substantially
identical proceedings as "In re Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation, Master File No. 21 MC 92 (SAS)."

The Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint for Violation of
the Federal Securities Laws was filed on April 19, 2002, and
alleges claims against certain of the Company's officers and
against CIBC World Markets Corporation, Prudential Securities
Incorporated, DB Alex. Brown, as successor to Deutsche Bank, and
U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray Inc., underwriters of the Company's
December 14, 1999 initial public offering ("underwriter
defendants"), under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933, as amended, and under Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

Citing several press articles, the Consolidated Complaint
alleges that the underwriter defendants used improper methods in
allocating shares in initial public offerings, and claim the
underwriter defendants entered into improper commission
agreements regarding aftermarket trading in the Company's common
stock purportedly issued pursuant to the registration statement
for the initial public offering.  The Consolidated Complaint
also alleges market manipulation claims against the underwriter
defendants based on the activities of their respective analysts,
who were allegedly compromised by conflicts of interest.  The
plaintiffs in the Consolidated Complaint seek damages as
measured under Section 11 and Section 10(b) of the Securities
Act of 1933, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and
reasonable attorneys' and expert witnesses' fees and other
costs; no specific amount is claimed in the plaintiffs' prayer
in the Consolidated Complaint.

By Order of the Court, no responsive pleading is yet due,
although motions to dismiss on global issues affecting all of
the issuers have been filed.  In October 2002, certain of the
Company's officers and directors who had been named as
defendants in the "In re Initial Public Offering Securities
Litigation" were dismissed without prejudice upon order of the
presiding judge.  In February 2003, the presiding judge
dismissed the Section 10(b) claims against the Company and its
named officers and directors with prejudice.

From September 2002 through June 2003, the Company participated
in settlement negotiations with a committee of issuers'
litigation counsel, plaintiffs' executive committee and
representatives of various insurance companies (the "Insurers").
The Company's Insurers were actively involved in the settlement
negotiations, and strongly supported a settlement proposal
presented to the Company for consideration in early June 2003.
The settlement proposed by the plaintiffs would be paid for by
the Insurers and would dispose of all remaining claims against
the Company.

After careful consideration, the Company decided to approve the
settlement proposal in July 2003. Although the Company believes
that plaintiffs' claims are without merit, it has decided to
accept the settlement proposal (which does not admit wrongdoing)
to avoid the cost and distraction of continued litigation.
Because the settlement will be funded entirely by its Insurers,
the Company does not believe that the settlement will have any
effect on its financial condition, results of operations or cash
flows, the Company said in a disclosure to the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

The settlement was presented to the Court for approval in June
2004.  The Court preliminarily approved most of the settlement
in February 2005, but requested a few minor modifications be
made to its terms.  The parties are currently negotiating these
modifications and intend to present the revised settlement
agreement to the Court shortly.

The suit is styled ""In re GoRemote Internet Communications,
Inc. Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, No. 01 Civ
6771 (SAS)" related to "In re Initial Public Offering Securities
Litigation, Master File No. 21 MC 92 (SAS)," filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
under Judge Shira A. Scheindlin.  The plaintiff firms in this
litigation are:

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

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

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

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

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

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


GUITAR CENTER: Hourly Employees Launch Overtime Wage Suit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Guitar Center, Inc. faces two overtime wage class actions
filed in the Los Angeles County Superior Court in California, on
behalf of the Company's hourly retail store employees.

On October 13, 2004, a putative class action lawsuit entitled
"Carlos Rodriguez v. The Guitar Center, Inc. [sic], Case No.
GC322958," was filed on behalf of all hourly retail store
employees within the State of California.  On December 15, 2004,
a putative class action lawsuit entitled "James McClain et. al.
v. Guitar Center Stores, Inc., Case No. BC326002," was filed in
the same court on behalf of all hourly retail store employees
within the State of California.

Among other things, the lawsuits allege that the Company
improperly failed to document and enforce break-time and
lunchtime periods for such employees and seek an unspecified
amount of damages, penalties and attorneys' fees.  In the
Rodriguez case, the Company filed an answer to the plaintiff's
complaint and are in the process of responding to the
plaintiff's requests for discovery.  The McClain complaint has
not been served on the Company, and it has not responded to the
complaint.


JANUS CAPITAL: Market Timing Litigation Consolidated in MD Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Janus Capital Group, Inc. continues to face several class
actions and other litigation, alleging violations of securities
laws by engaging in market-timing trades in Janus funds.

In September 2003, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
and the Office of the New York State Attorney General (NYAG)
publicly announced that they were investigating trading
practices in the mutual fund industry.  The investigations were
prompted by the NYAG's settlement with a hedge fund, Canary
Capital, which allegedly engaged in irregular trading practices
with certain mutual fund companies.  While the Company was not
named as a defendant in the NYAG complaint against the hedge
fund, the Company was mentioned in the complaint as having
allowed Canary Capital to "market time" certain Janus funds.
Market timing is an investment technique involving frequent
short-term trading of mutual fund shares that is designed to
exploit market movements or inefficiencies in the way mutual
fund companies price their shares.  The NYAG complaint against
Canary Capital alleged that this practice is in contradiction to
policies stated in the prospectuses for certain Janus funds.

As a result of the investigations, more than 60 civil lawsuits
were filed in various state and federal courts against the
Company, and related entities and individuals, based on
allegations similar to those contained in the NYAG complaint
against Canary Capital.  In general, these lawsuits allege that
the Company allowed certain hedge funds and other investors to
engage in market timing trades in Janus funds.  Such lawsuits
assert a variety of theories for recovery, including, but not
limited to, alleged violations of the federal securities laws,
other federal statutes, including Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA) and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act (RICO), and various common law doctrines.

Almost all of the market timing lawsuits filed against the
Company that were filed in, or removed to, federal court have
been finally or conditionally transferred to the U.S. District
Court in Baltimore, Maryland, for coordinated proceedings (Case
Number MDL No. 1586, 04-MD-15863, U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland).  On September 29, 2004, five consolidated
amended complaints were filed in that court.  These complaints
are the operative complaints in the coordinated proceedings and,
as a practical matter, supersede the previously filed
complaints.  The five complaints include:

     (1) claims by a putative class of Janus fund investors
         asserting claims on behalf of the investor class,

     (2) derivative claims by investors in the Janus funds
         ostensibly on behalf of the Janus funds,

     (3) claims on behalf of participants in the Janus 401(k)
         plan,

     (4) claims brought on behalf of shareholders of Janus
         Capital Group Inc. on a derivative basis against the
         Board of Directors of Janus Capital Group Inc., and

     (5) claims by a putative class of shareholders of Janus
         Capital Group Inc. asserting claims on behalf of the
         shareholders.

Each of the five complaints names Janus Capital Group Inc.
and/or Janus Capital Management LLC as a defendant.  In
addition, named as defendants in one or more of the actions are:

     (i) Janus Investment Fund,

    (ii) Janus Aspen Series,

   (iii) Janus Adviser Series,

    (iv) Janus Distributors LLC,

     (v) INTECH,

    (vi) Bay Isle,

   (vii) PWM,

  (viii) the Advisory Committee of the Janus 401(k) plan, and

    (ix) the current or former directors of Janus Capital Group
         Inc.

One market timing lawsuit, based on allegations that the Company
failed adequately to implement fair value pricing was remanded
to the Illinois state circuit court for Madison County,
Illinois, and is not currently subject to federal transfer
procedures.  The Company has appealed the decision to the
Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

In early 2005, another lawsuit was filed in the State of Kansas
alleging violations under Kansas law based on the Company's
involvement in the market timing allegations.  The suit is
styled "Allison v. Janus, et al. 05CV00873."


JANUS CAPITAL: Faces Investment Advisory Fees Suit in CO Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Janus Capital Group, Inc. faces a consolidated class action
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado, challenging the investment advisory fees charged by
the Company to certain of the funds that it manages.

Three lawsuits were filed in April 2004 against the Company and
related entities, namely:

     (1) Fleisher, et al. v. Janus Capital Management, LLC, et
         al., Case Number 04-4062-SOW, United States District
         Court for the Western District of Missouri;

     (2) Sins, et al. v. Janus Capital Management, LLC, et al.,
         Case Number 04-WM-1647), filed in the United States
         District Court for the Southern District of Illinois,
         and

     (3) Dressel, et al. v. Janus Capital Corporation Case
         Number 04-00303-DRH, filed in the Madison County State
         Court in Illinois

"Fleisher" and "Sins" asserted breach of fiduciary duty under
Section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act, and "Dressel"
asserted a claim for breach of contract.  The "Dressel" action
has been voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff, and the
"Fleisher" and "Sins" actions have been consolidated and
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Colorado.  Discovery is required to be completed by November
2005.  The plaintiffs in the consolidated case seek declaratory
and injunctive relief and an unspecified amount of damages.


JANUS CAPITAL: Fund Investors Launch Securities Fraud Suit in CO
----------------------------------------------------------------
Janus Capital Group, Inc. and several related entities face a
class action filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado, styled "Davis v. Bailey, et al. Case
Number 05-MK-42."

The suit relates to the submission of claims as class members
under numerous class actions.  The Davis action was filed on
behalf of fund investors and alleges that the Company failed to
make appropriate filings to ensure that its mutual funds
participated in various class action settlements, and that the
Company and others thereby breached fiduciary duties owed to
mutual fund shareholders.  The action asserts claims under
Sections 36(a) and (b), and 47(b) of the Investment Company Act
and for breach of fiduciary duty.


KEYSTONE RV: Recalls 88 Fifth Wheel Trailers Due To Fire Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
Keystone RV Company is cooperating with the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration by voluntarily recalling 88
Keystone Cambridge Fifth Wheel Trailers, model 2006.

On certain fifth wheel trailers, the dimmer switch may have been
wired with reverse polarity.  This will cause the lights on the
switched circuit to either not function at all or the dimmer
switch will not dim or shut off the lights.  The switch may
become very hot and melt the plastic housing of the switch,
possibly resulting in a fire.

Dealers will inspect and verify the switch is wired correctly,
the switch will be tested to determine if it turns the lights
on, dims the lights and shuts them off.  If the switch does not
pass this function test, it will need to be replaced and wired
accordingly.  The manufacturer has not yet provided an owner
notification schedule.  For more details, contact the Company by
Phone: 866-425-4369 or contact the NHTSA's auto safety hotline:
1-888-327-4236.


LAKE CHAMPLAIN: Recalls Five Star Bars Due To Undeclared Nuts
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lake Champlain Chocolates (LCC) is issuing a voluntary product
recall for Five Star Fruit & Nut Bars because they may contain
undeclared peanuts. People who have an allergy or sensitivity to
peanuts or peanut butter run the risk of a serious or life
threatening allergic reaction if they consume this product.

This lot of Lake Champlain Chocolates Five Star Fruit & Nut
Bars, with a weight of 2 ounces and a lot number of 05056
printed on the side of the bar wrapper, was distributed through
retail stores in the following states: California, Colorado,
Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey,
New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode
Island, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Washington DC, and
Wisconsin.  Consumers are urged to return the product to the
place of purchase for a full refund or replacement. For more
information, please call Lake Champlain Chocolates at
1-800-634-8105.

The issue was discovered when LCC received three customer
comments that the Five Star Fruit & Nut Bars they purchased did
not contain the hazelnut, pecans, cherries, and dark chocolate
expected, but instead contained peanut butter and milk
chocolate. Subsequent investigation indicated the wrong wrapper
being used caused the issue. No illnesses have been reported in
conjunction with this product.

Lake Champlain Chocolates declares that the problem has been
corrected and emphasizes that no other LCC products or batch
codes of Five Star Fruit & Nut Bars were affected.  Lake
Champlain Chocolates apologizes for any inconvenience to its
consumers and customers.


LORAL SPACE: NY Court Certifies Consolidated Securities Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted class certification to the consolidated
securities class action filed against Loral Space &
Communications Ltd., Globalstar Telecommunications Limited
(GTL), Bernard L. Schwartz, the Company's chief executive
officer and chairman of the board of directors and other
defendants, styled "In re Globalstar Securities Litigation."

On September 26, 2001, the nineteen separate purported class
action lawsuits filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York by various holders of
securities of GTL and Globalstar L.P. (Globalstar) were
consolidated.  In November 2001, plaintiffs in the consolidated
action filed a consolidated amended class action complaint,
alleging:

     (1) that all defendants (except Loral) violated Section
         10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
         10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by making material
         misstatements or failing to state material facts about
         Globalstar's business and prospects,

     (2) that defendants Loral and Mr. Schwartz are secondarily
         liable for these alleged misstatements and omissions
         under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act as alleged
         "controlling persons" of Globalstar,

     (3) that defendants GTL and Mr. Schwartz are liable under
         Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the
         "Securities Act") for untrue statements of material
         facts in or omissions of material facts from a
         registration statement relating to the sale of shares
         of GTL common stock in January 2000,

     (4) that defendant GTL is liable under Section 12(2)(a) of
         the Securities Act for untrue statements of material
         facts in or omissions of material facts from a
         prospectus and prospectus supplement relating to the
         sale of shares of GTL common stock in January 2000, and

     (5) that defendants Loral and Mr. Schwartz are secondarily
         liable under Section 15 of the Securities Act for GTL's
         primary violations of Sections 11 and 12(2)(a) of the
         Securities Act as alleged "controlling persons" of GTL.

The class of plaintiffs on whose behalf the lawsuit has been
asserted consists of all buyers of securities of Globalstar,
Globalstar Capital and GTL during the period from December 6,
1999 through October 27, 2000, excluding the defendants and
certain persons related to or affiliated with them.

In December 2003, a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in
its entirety was denied by the court insofar as GTL and Mr.
Schwartz are concerned, and discovery has commenced and is
ongoing.  In December 2004, plaintiffs' motion for certification
of the class was granted. In June 2004, Globalstar was
dissolved, and in October 2004, GTL was liquidated pursuant to
chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code.

The suit is styled "In re Globalstar Securities Litigation, Case
No. 01-CV-1748 (SHS)," filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York, under Judge P. Kevin
Castel.

Representing the plaintiffs is Eric James Belfi of Murray, Frank
& Sailer, LLP, 275 Madison Avenue, Ste. 801, New York, NY 10016,
Phone: 212-682-1818, Fax: 212-682-1892, E-mail:
ebelfi@murrayfrank.com.  Representing the Company and Bernard
Schwartz are Jeanne Marie Luboja, Francis James Menton of
Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP (NY), 787 Seventh Avenue, New York,
NY 10019, Phone: (212) 728-8000, Fax: (212) 728-8111, E-mail:
maosdny@willkie.com


LORAL SPACE: NY Court Stays Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The consolidated securities class action filed against Loral
Space & Communications, Ltd. in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York remains stayed as a result
of the Company's filing for reorganization under Chapter 11 of
the Bankruptcy Code.

On March 2, 2002, the seven separate purported class action
lawsuits filed by various holders of the Company's common stock
against the Company, Bernard L. Schwartz and Richard J. Townsend
were consolidated into one action titled "In re: Loral Space
Communications Ltd. Securities Litigation."  On May 6, 2002,
plaintiffs in the consolidated action filed a consolidated
amended class action complaint alleging that all defendants
violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by making material misstatements or
failing to state material facts about the Company's s financial
condition and its investment in Globalstar Telecommunications
Limited (GTL) and that Mr. Schwartz is secondarily liable for
these alleged misstatements and omissions under Section 20(a) of
the Exchange Act as an alleged "controlling person" of the
Company.

The class of plaintiffs on whose behalf the lawsuit has been
asserted consists of all buyers of the Company's common stock
during the period from November 4, 1999 through February 1,
2001, excluding the defendants and certain persons related to or
affiliated with them.  After oral argument on a motion to
dismiss filed by the Company and Mr. Schwartz and Mr. Townsend,
in June 2003, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint alleging
essentially the same claims as in the original amended
complaint.  In February 2004, a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint was granted by the court insofar as Mr. Schwartz and
Mr. Townsend are concerned.

As a result of the commencement of the Chapter 11 Cases,
however, this lawsuit is subject to the automatic stay, and
further proceedings in the matter have been suspended, insofar
as the Company is concerned but continued as to the other
defendants.  The Company is obligated to indemnify Mr. Schwartz
and Mr. Townsend for any losses or costs they may incur as a
result of this lawsuit, subject to the effect of the Chapter 11
Cases.


LORAL SPACE: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Consolidated ERISA Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Loral Space & Communications, Ltd. asked the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York to dismiss
the consolidated class action filed against it by its former
employees and participants in the Loral Savings Plan (the
"Savings Plan"), styled "In re: Loral Space ERISA Litigation."

In July 2004, plaintiffs in the consolidated action filed an
amended consolidated complaint against the members of the Loral
Space & Communications Ltd. Savings Plan Administrative
Committee and certain existing and former members of the Board
of Directors of SS/ L, including Bernard L. Schwartz.  The
amended complaint alleges:

     (1) that defendants violated Section 404 of the Employee
         Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), by breaching
         their fiduciary duties to prudently and loyally manage
         the assets of the Savings Plan by including Loral
         common stock as an investment alternative and by
         providing matching contributions under the Savings Plan
         in Loral stock,

     (2) that the director defendants violated Section 404 of
         ERISA by breaching their fiduciary duties to monitor
         the committee defendants and to provide them with
         accurate information,

     (3) that defendants violated Sections 404 and 405 of ERISA
         by failing to provide complete and accurate information
         to Savings Plan participants and beneficiaries, and

     (4) that defendants violated Sections 404 and 405 of ERISA
         by breaching their fiduciary duties to avoid conflicts
         of interest.

The class of plaintiffs on whose behalf the lawsuit has been
asserted consists of all participants in or beneficiaries of the
Savings Plan at any time between November 4, 1999 and the
present and whose accounts included investments in Loral stock.

The suit is styled, "In Re Loral Space ERISA Litigation, case
no. 1:03-cv-09923-LTS," filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, under Judge Laura
Taylor Swain.  Representing the plaintiffs is Evan J. Smith,
Brodsky & Smith, L.L.C., Two Bala Plaza, Suite 602 Bala Cynwyd,
PA 19004, Phone: 610.667.6200, Fax: 610.667.9029, E-mail:
esmith@brodsky-smith.com.


LORAL SPACE: Discovery Ongoing in NY Securities Lawsuit V. CEO
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in the class action filed against Loral
Space & Communications, Ltd.'s chief executive officer and
chairman of the board of directors Bernard Schwartz in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.

In August 2003, plaintiffs Robert Beleson and Harvey Matcovsky
filed the suit, alleging that:

     (1) that Mr. Schwartz violated Section 10(b) of the
         Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by
         making material misstatements or failing to state
         material facts about the Company's financial condition
         relating to the sale of assets to Intelsat and Loral's
         Chapter 11 filing and

     (2) that Mr. Schwartz is secondarily liable for these
         alleged misstatements and omissions under Section 20(a)
         of the Exchange Act as an alleged "controlling person"
         of Loral.

The class of plaintiffs on whose behalf the lawsuit has been
asserted consists of all buyers of Loral common stock during the
period from June 30, 2003 through July 15, 2003, excluding the
defendant and certain persons related to or affiliated with him.

In February 2004, a motion to dismiss the complaint in its
entirety was denied by the court.  Defendant filed an answer in
March 2004.

The suit is styled "Beleson, et al. v. Schwartz, case no. 1:03-
cv-06051-JES," filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, under Judge John E. Sprizzo.
Representing the plaintiffs are Jules Brody of Stull Stull &
Brody, 6 East 45th Street, 5th Floor, New York, NY 10017, Phone:
(212) 687-7230, Fax: (212) 490-2022; and Joseph H. Weiss, Weiss
& Yourman, The French Building 551 Fifth Avenue 1600 New York,
NY 10176, Phone: (212) 682-3025.  Representing Mr. Schwartz are
Jeanne Marie Luboja and Francis James Menton, Jr., Willkie Farr
& Gallagher LLP (NY), 787 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019,
Phone: (212) 728-8000 Fax: (212) 728-8111, E-mail:
maosdny@willkie.com


LORAL SPACE: Discovery Begins in NY Securities Lawsuit V. Execs
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery has commenced in the class action filed against two
Loral Space & Communications Ltd. executives in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

In November 2003, plaintiffs Tony Christ, individually and as
custodian for Brian and Katelyn Christ, Casey Crawford, Thomas
Orndorff and Marvin Rich filed a purported class action
complaint against Bernard Schwartz, the Company's chief
executive officer and chairman of the board of directors and
Richard J. Townsend, the Company's executive vice president.
The complaint alleges:

     (1) that defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange
         Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by making
         material misstatements or failing to state material
         facts about the Company's financial condition relating
         to the restatement in 2003 of the financial statements
         for the second and third quarters of 2002 to correct
         accounting for certain general and administrative
         expenses and the alleged improper accounting for a
         satellite transaction with APT Satellite Company Ltd.
         and

     (2) that each of the defendants are secondarily liable for
         these alleged misstatements and omissions under Section
         20(a) of the Exchange Act as an alleged "controlling
         person" of Loral.

The class of plaintiffs on whose behalf the lawsuit has been
asserted consists of all buyers of Company common stock during
the period from July 31, 2002 through June 29, 2003, excluding
the defendants and certain persons related to or affiliated with
them.  In October 2004, a motion to dismiss the complaint in its
entirety was denied by the court. Defendants filed an answer to
the complaint in December 2004.

The suit is styled "Hull v. Schwartz, case no. 1:03-cv-07829-
JES," filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, under Judge John E. Sprizzo.  Representing
the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Lauren D. Antonino, Martin D. Chitwood, Chitwood &
         Harley, 2300 Promenade II 1230 Peachtree Street, NE
         Atlanta, GA 30309, Phone: (404) 873-3900

     (2) Christopher Scott Hinton, Frederick Taylor Isquith,
         Sr., Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP 270
         Madison Avenue New York, NY 10017, Phone: (212) 545-
         4600, E-mail: isquith@whafh.com


LOUISIANA: Group Disputes Election Method For 5th Circuit Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class-action lawsuit which charges that Jefferson Parish's
method of electing appellate court judges in at-large races
discriminates against blacks and violates the nation's voting
laws was initiated in Louisiana federal court, the Associated
Press reports.

Filed on behalf of seven black voters by the New York-based
NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund and two Louisiana
lawyers, the suit is asking a federal judge to strike down the
state Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal's election system and order
the state to come up with a system that would enable a black
person to get on the court.  The suit asserts that blacks make
up about 23 percent of voters and whites 70 percent in
Jefferson, the state's second most populous parish after Orleans
Parish. Jefferson, the suit further states, makes up a good
chunk of New Orleans' suburbs.

According to the plaintiffs, since the Fifth Circuit was created
in 1981, the plaintiffs say no black judge has been elected to
the court. The eight-judge court hears appeals from Jefferson,
Saint Charles, Saint James and Saint John the Baptist parishes.
Six of the eight judges are elected in Jefferson Parish in at-
large elections.  In their suit, the plaintiffs argue that the
parish could be divided into six districts with one judge coming
from each district. They further argue that blacks should be the
majority in at least one of the districts.


MERCK & CO.: Lawyer Lodges Suit On Behalf Of ID Vioxx Purchasers
----------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit filed in the Fourth Idaho District Court in Boise,
Idaho seeks to represent thousands of state residents who used
the prescription painkiller Vioxx, the IdahoStatesman.com
reports.  The suit, which is the first proposed class action
suit filed in Idaho against the drug's manufacturer, Merck &
Co., centers around the company's withdrawal of the painkiller
off the market last year, when medical studies revealed that it
doubled the user's chances of having a heart attack or stroke.

The complaint is asking the court to force Merck to reimburse
Idaho residents who purchased the drug between May 1999 and
September 30, 2004, but who have not suffered a heart attack or
stroke. Additionally, it wants Merck to cover doctor visits and
any tests required to determine if anyone involved in the class
action lawsuit, had been harmed by taking the drug.

LaDawn Marsters, an attorney with the Boise firm of Greener
Banducci Shoemaker, which filed the suit on behalf of Jefferson
County resident Calvin Kinghorn, told the Statesman "The least
Merck can do is let these people (in Idaho) know, health-wise,
where they stand. That way they can get help if they need it."
Ms. Marsters also said it is not certain how many Idahoans have
used Vioxx, since at present, only the company's records would
show how many prescriptions for the drug were written in the
state.

Ms. Marsters' proposed class action lawsuit though would not
cover Idahoans who have suffered heart attacks or strokes after
taking Vioxx, she pointed out, adding that those individuals
should consult an attorney to explore the possibility of
individual legal action.  Though she is certain that Merck may
attempt to have the class action suit transferred to a federal
court in Louisiana that has been assigned to handle pretrial
motions and discovery in Vioxx-related liability cases, Ms.
Marsters told the Statesman, "But we'll fight that, not because
an Idaho jury would be more protective of Idaho citizens, but
because we think it would go to trial faster here."

According to published reports, expert predictions of Merck's
potential liability in the Vioxx cases range anywhere from $4
billion to $30 billion.


MGA ENTERTAINMENT: Recalls 297T Scooters Due To Injury Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------
In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC), MGA Entertainment Inc., of Van Nuys, California and
Jurong Dumar Bicycle, Inc. of China is voluntarily recalling
about 297,000 BratzT Stylin' ScooterT.  This recall does not
include BratzT Stylin' ScootersT manufactured for MGA by any
manufacturer other than Jurong Dumar Bicycle, Inc.

The wheels of the scooter can break or become damaged, and users
of the scooters can fall and suffer injuries. MGA has received
six reports of cracked wheels on the recalled scooters. All six
incidents resulted in cuts, scrapes, and bruises. In one case, a
9 year old suffered a broken arm.

The product is a non-motorized two-wheeled scooter with a
folding hinge and an adjustable handlebar. The scooter platform
is purple with a bright pink Bratz logo on the top surface.
Scooters containing information identifying the product as Item
No. 266563, with a date of manufacture prior to July 2004, and
manufactured by Jurong Dumar Bicycle, Inc. are included in this
recall. This identification information can be located either in
the area directly beneath the scooter platform or at the bottom
of the scooter near the rear wheel.

Manufactured in China, the scooters were sold at all toy and
discount chain stores nationwide from September 2003 through
November 2004 for about $30.

Consumers should stop using the scooter immediately and contact
MGA for a refund or a replacement scooter.  For additional
information, contact MGA toll-free at (800) 222-4685 anytime or
visit the company's Web site: http://www.mgae.com.


MICHIGAN: ACLU Joins Suit V. Saginaw County's Stripping Practice
----------------------------------------------------------------
The American Civil Liberties Union has joined two lawsuits
against the Saginaw County Jail in Michigan over a policy of
stripping rowdy detainees and keeping them naked in solitary
confinement, the Associated Press reports.

Wendy Wagenheim, a spokeswoman for the ACLU of Michigan, told aP
the two cases could be consolidated and certified as a class-
action suit with lawyers estimating that the total number of
plaintiffs could number about 200.

Saginaw County Sheriff Charles L. Brown defended the policy as
an effort to balance inmate safety with privacy rights.
However, he told AP the practice was discontinued in 2001 or
2002, a claim that the plaintiffs' lawyers and the ACLU dispute.

One of the plaintiffs in the suit, Amanda White, says male
guards at the jail undressed her and left her in the "hole" when
she was detained on a drunken driving charge four years ago. Ms.
White, now 25, told The Saginaw News, "There were guards and men
that came up and peered, and viewed, while I was in there naked
-- anywhere from seven to 10 different faces. I felt humiliated
and completely violated the entire time I was there."

Court documents revealed that Ms. White was fleeing the house of
her boyfriend, who had thrown her onto the pavement, cracking a
rib and splitting open her head, when Saginaw police arrested
her on a drunken driving charge. She later pleaded guilty. That
night, she said, Saginaw police first took her to a hospital,
where doctors stapled her head and braced her rib. After she was
taken to the county jail, Ms. White said she repeatedly asked to
use the bathroom, but was not permitted to, but suddenly, male
guards dragged her into a solitary concrete cell. In the cell,
male guards pulled off her tennis shoes and blue jeans, they
also undid her handcuffs to remove her tank top, and removed her
rib brace, she said. In the process, one of the staples in her
head became undone. Ms. White said that she sat there for hours,
naked and bleeding, AP reports.

Mr. Brown declined to comment specifically on Ms. White's case,
but he said the policy forbade opposite-gender guards from
stripping inmates. He also defended his guards as
"professionals," and said the policy of stripping unruly
detainees started after an inmate hanged himself with his orange
prison uniform, AP reports.

Mr. Brown claimed the policy ended "in 2001 or 2002," but Ms.
White's lawyer, Christopher J. Pianto AP he has heard from
former detainees who say it happened in 2003 and possibly 2004.
Court documents also show that jail records had portrayed Ms.
White as "insolent" because she kept blaming the county for the
city arrest. When guards grabbed her, she began "flailing her
arms in a threatening motion" and gave a deputy the finger and
spit on him, according to court documents.


MICROSOFT CORORATION: ND School To Receive Money From Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
A small North Dakota school has won its fight in a antitrust
class action lawsuit against Microsoft Corporation, the
Associated Press reports.

Wolford, a Pierce County school with 49 students in its 12
grades, is expected to get about $20,000 in vouchers to go
toward a new computer lab, school superintendent Larry Zavada
said.  The school was listed in the original settlement as one
of the schools to receive vouchers to buy computer equipment,
however the school was bumped from that list when the criterion
was changed.  A law firm representing plaintiffs in the case
told school officials that Wolford was back on the list.

According to Mr. Zavada, the settlement could provide up to
$20,000 dollars for a new computer lab. He also told AP that the
school should receive the money by this fall.

Lynn Walsh, president of the Wolford School Board says Mr.
Zavada was persistent in pursuing the money. She also adds that
he had spent countless hours contacting lawyers, legislators and
anyone else that would listen to his case, AP reports.

More than two-dozen states and the federal government have
registered antitrust claims against Microsoft in recent years.
The lawsuit, filed by Henry Howe of Grand Forks and Michael
Simonson of Fargo on behalf of Microsoft customers, alleged that
the company had used its market power to force customers to pay
higher prices for its Windows operating system.


MIDWAY GAMES: IL Court Junks Consolidated Investor Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois dismissed the
consolidated class action filed against Midway Games, Inc.,
Sumner M. Redstone, the majority owner of the Company's stocks
and certain Company directors.

In June 2004, four putative class action lawsuits were filed
against the Company, Sumner M. Redstone and specified Midway
directors in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, and two
putative class action lawsuits were filed against Midway, Mr.
Redstone and specified Midway directors in the Court of Chancery
for the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County.
These six putative class actions were brought on behalf of all
persons, other than defendants, who own the Company's securities
and allege, among other things, that the Company and its
directors breached their fiduciary duties to the Company's other
shareholders by allowing Sumner M. Redstone to purchase a
substantial amount of its common stock from other shareholders.
The lawsuits seek injunctive relief to prevent Mr. Redstone from
acquiring the remaining outstanding shares of the Company in
order to take the Company private, imposition of a constructive
trust and other relief for the alleged breach of fiduciary duty.

A motion to consolidate the four putative class actions pending
in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois was granted, and
plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint under the
caption "David Shaev Profit Sharing Account F/B/O David Shaev,
on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. Sumner
M. Redstone, Harold H. Bach, Jr., William C. Bartholomay, Neil
D. Nicastro, Louis J. Nicastro, Ira S. Sheinfeld, Robert N.
Waxman and Midway Games, Inc."

On October 6, 2004, defendants filed motions to dismiss these
consolidated actions, asserting that none of plaintiffs'
allegations state a legally viable claim against any of the
defendants.  On January 26, 2005, the motion was granted with
prejudice with respect to the Company and without prejudice with
respect to the individual defendants, and the plaintiffs were
granted leave to file an amended complaint by February 22, 2005.
The plaintiffs did not file an amended complaint by that date.
The two Delaware class action complaints have not been served on
the Company or its directors.

The suit is styled ""David Shaev Profit Sharing Account F/B/O
David Shaev, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated v. Sumner M. Redstone, Harold H. Bach, Jr., William C.
Bartholomay, Neil D. Nicastro, Louis J. Nicastro, Ira S.
Sheinfeld, Robert N. Waxman and Midway Games, Inc., case no.
2004-CH-09234," filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois, under Judge John K. Madden.  Law firm for the
plaintiffs is Miller Faucher Chertow, 30 N. Lasalle St. 3630,
Chicago IL 60602, Phone: (312) 782-4485.


NATURE'S FINEST: Recalls 727T Gel Candles Due To Fire Hazard
------------------------------------------------------------
In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC), Nature's Finest, of Marble Falls, Texas is voluntarily
recalling about 727,000 Nature's Finest Gel Candles.

The gel used in these candles can catch fire, creating a high
flame. This can result in nearby combustibles catching fire and
burns to consumers. Nature's Finest has received four reports of
the surface layer of gel burning, creating high flames. There
are two reported burn injuries to consumers' hands, which
required medical treatment.

The gel candles come in a glass container in either 5.5-oz or
11-oz. sizes. They were sold in multiple colors and scents.
There is a label on the front of the candle reading "Nature's
Finest Candles." The UPC codes of the recalled candles, located
on a sticker on the bottom of the candles, are 3863300100
through 3863300114 and 3863300200 through 3863300214. This
recall includes only Nature's Finest gel candles. Other Nature's
Finest candles are not involved in this recall.

Manufactured in United States, the candles were sold by drug and
grocery stores nationwide from June 2001 though February 2005
for between $8 and $11.

Consumers should stop using these candles immediately and
contact Nature's Finest to receive a full refund.  Call Nature's
Finest at (800) 964-6804 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. CT Monday
through Friday, or go to the firm's Web site:
http://www.naturesfinestcandles.com.


NEW YORK: Montgomery County Faces Suit Over Strip Search Policy
---------------------------------------------------------------
Montgomery County has been ordered to suspend a policy in which
all detainees, including those arrested on misdemeanor and
traffic charges, are required to strip naked in front of a
corrections officer, the New York Law Journal reports.

In his ruling, Northern District Judge David N. Hurd temporarily
enjoined the county from enforcing its security policy and also
granted class action status to plaintiffs alleging violations of
their Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and
seizures. Judge Hurd also said in his ruling that the plaintiffs
have "demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the
merits" and are therefore entitled to preliminary injunctive
relief.

Court documents revealed that Montgomery County, as a matter of
jail policy, requires everyone admitted to the jail to strip in
view of an officer of the same sex. The county had claimed that
since officials were merely observing detainees and not
performing body cavity examinations they were not conducting a
search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Judge Hurd
disagreed and found that the argument is "one of semantics" and
inconsistent with Second Circuit precedent.

Marriott v. County of Montgomery, 5:03-CV-531, arose from
complaints that Montgomery County was routinely subjecting
arrestees to strip searches without reasonable suspicion that
the detainee was secreting a weapon or other contraband.   The
lead plaintiff, Paul Marriott, was arrested on September 13,
2001, and charged with violating state Agriculture and Markets
Law in relation to the care of five horses. Since Mr. Marriott
was to be detained in lieu of bail, he was required to strip and
shower in front of a corrections officer, lift his arms, open
his mouth and spread the lobes of his buttocks. Only then was he
permitted to dress in a jail uniform. Mr. Marriott though was
released on bail the next day. Two other plaintiffs, a woman
arrested for failure to pay $2,000 in child support and a man
arrested on a misdemeanor aggravated harassment charge also
related similar stories, the New York Law Journal states.

Montgomery County's stated justification for the "change-out" is
to keep contraband out of the jail. However, current and former
corrections officials testified to various reasons for carrying
out the policy. For instance, one corrections officer said the
"observation" was strictly for hygiene, while another said it
was to detect tattoos that would reveal gang affiliations. Some
also said that it was to examine prisoners for injuries. Still,
whatever the objective, Judge Hurd said the county couldn't
carry out what he deems a strip search without a reasonable
suspicion.

The judge points out in his ruling, "Defendant's insistence that
no strip search occurs is contrary to all the factual testimony,
of both corrections officers and plaintiffs. Using different
terminology, such as change-out, does not change the observation
of a naked admittee to anything other than what it is - a strip
search," the New York Law Journal states.

Judge Hurd rejected as a misstatement of Second Circuit law the
defendant's contention that a search or observation becomes a
strip search only if the anus, genitals and/or breast areas are
targeted. Montgomery County had relied on Weber v. Dell, 804
F.2d 796 (1986) in advancing that argument.  In response to that
argument the judge pointed out, "The [Second Circuit's] finding
that a strip/body cavity search is unconstitutional absent
reasonable suspicion does not equate to a holding that any less
intrusive search comports with the Fourth Amendment."

One of the attorneys for the plaintiffs, Elmer R. Keach III of
Albany, said the policy adopted by Montgomery County is
commonplace and expects the affected class will include about
2,500 plaintiffs.  Also appearing for plaintiffs were Bruce E.
Menken and Jason J. Rozger of Beranbaum Menken Ben-Asher &
Bierman in Manhattan and Gary E. Mason of Washington, D.C.
Theresa B. Marangas and Thomas W. Hyland of Wilson Elser
Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker on the other hand represent the
defendants.


NEW YORK: Publishers Reach Settlement With Freelance Writers
------------------------------------------------------------
In a copyright infringement case that involves work posted
online or in databases, The New York Times Co. and other
defendants, reached an estimated $18 million settlement with
freelance writers, according to the writers' representatives,
MSNBC reports.

According to Gerard Colby, president of the National Writers
Union, one of several writers' groups that brought the class-
action lawsuit, a motion for approval of the settlement was
filed last week in federal court in New York. He told MSNBC, "We
are going for preliminary approval before the judge, which we
expect to get. All the defendants and all the plaintiffs are in
agreement on the terms."

The lawsuit had contended that stories by thousands of freelance
writers appeared in online databases without their consent. The
case was further reinforced by a 2001 Supreme Court ruling that
said the principles of copyright protection also applied to
online distribution of editorial content.

In a press release, the writers' representatives said that under
the settlement, publishers including The New York Times, Time
Warner Inc.'s Time Inc. unit and Dow Jones & Co Inc.'s Wall
Street Journal have agreed to pay writers up to $1,500 for
stories in which the writers had registered the copyrights. On
the other hand, writers who failed to register their copyrights
will receive up to $60 per article, the writers' group adds.

Nick Taylor, president of the Authors Guild, another writers'
group involved in bringing the case, told MSNBC "This is a
substantial settlement, and, if approved, it will vindicate
freelance writers who deserve compensation and control for their
work in the electronic marketplace."

For its part, The New York Times in a press statement said it is
"pleased that this issue has been resolved and believes the
agreement is fair to all parties involved," MSNBC reports.


OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Stock Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
OmniVision Technologies, Inc. asked the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California to dismiss the
consolidated securities class action filed against it, styled
"In re OmniVision Technologies, Inc., No.C-04-2297-SC."

On June 10, 2004, the first of several putative class actions
filed against the Company and certain of its present and former
directors and officers on behalf of investors who purchased the
Company's common stock at various times from February 2003
through June 9, 2004.  Those actions were later consolidated.

The consolidated complaint asserts claims on behalf of
purchasers of the Company's common stock between June 11, 2003
and June 9, 2004, and seeks unspecified damages.  The
consolidated complaint generally alleges that defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 by allegedly engaging in improper accounting practices
that purportedly led to the Company's financial restatement.


PACER INTERNATIONAL: CA Court Orders Trial in Unfair Trade Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The California Superior Court for Los Angeles County ordered the
class action filed against two of Pacer International, Inc.'s
subsidiaries to proceed to trial.  The subsidiaries - Interstate
Consolidation, Inc., which was subsequently merged into Pacer
Cartage, Inc., and Intermodal Container Service, Inc. - are
involved in local cartage and harbor drayage operations.

The suit, filed on July 1997 in the State of California, Los
Angeles Superior Court, Central District (the "Albillo" case),
alleges among other things, breach of fiduciary duty, unfair
business practices, conversion and money had and received in
connection with monies (including insurance premium costs)
allegedly wrongfully deducted from truck drivers' earnings.

The plaintiffs and defendants entered into a Judge Pro Tempore
Submission Agreement in October 1998, pursuant to which they
waived their rights to a jury trial, stipulated to a certified
class, and agreed to a minimum judgment of $250,000 and a
maximum judgment of $1.75 million.  In August 2000, the trial
court ruled in the Company's favor on all issues except one,
namely that in 1998 its subsidiaries failed to issue to the
owner-operators new certificates of insurance disclosing a
change in our subsidiaries' liability insurance retention
amount, and ordered that restitution of $488,978 be paid for
this omission.

Plaintiffs' counsel then appealed all issues except one (the
independent contractor status of the drivers), and the Company
subsidiaries appealed the insurance retention disclosure issue.
In December 2003, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's
decision as to all but one issue, reversed the trial court's
decision that the owner-operators could be charged for the
workers compensation insurance coverage that they elected to
obtain through the Company's subsidiaries, and remanded back to
the trial court the question of whether the collection of
workers compensation insurance charges from the owner-operators
violated California's Business and Professions Code and, if so,
to determine an appropriate remedy.

The Company sought review at the California Supreme Court of
this workers compensation issue, and the plaintiffs sought
review only of whether the Company's subsidiaries' providing
insurance for the owner-operators constituted engaging in the
insurance business without a license under California law.  In
March 2004, the Supreme Court of California denied both parties'
petitions for appeal, thus ending all further appellate review.
As a result, the only remaining issue is whether the
subsidiaries' collection of workers compensation insurance
charges from the owner-operators violated California's Business
and Professions Code and, if so, what restitution, if any,
should be paid to the owner-operator class.  The schedule for
this new trial, which will be litigated in the same trial court
that heard the original case, was set in the fourth quarter of
2004.  At the court's request, the parties will submit the
evidence in the form of briefs, affidavits and other documents
on a specific briefing schedule the court has established, as
opposed to convening a full evidentiary trial.  The Company
expects the court will issue its holding sometime in the first
half of 2005.

The same law firm prosecuting the "Albillo" case has filed a
separate class action lawsuit in the same jurisdiction on behalf
of a putative class of owner-operators (the "Renteria" class
action) who are purportedly not included in the "Albillo" class.
The claims in the "Renteria" case, which is being stayed pending
full and final disposition of the remaining issue in "Albillo",
mirror those in "Albillo", specifically, that the subsidiaries'
providing insurance for their owner-operators constitutes
engaging in the insurance business without a license in
violation of California law and that charging the putative class
of owner-operators in "Renteria" for workers compensation
insurance that they elected to obtain through the Company's
subsidiaries violated California's Business and Professions
Code.


PENNSYLVANIA: Suit Filed Over University's New Ticketing Policy
---------------------------------------------------------------
Attorney John Stember has filed a class-action lawsuit
challenging the University of Pittsburgh's new basketball season
ticket policy, which lets the school reassign some seats
depending on how much a ticket holder donates to the school, the
Associated Press reports.

According to the attorney, who is a season ticket holder, "Many
hardworking people, who have been loyal supporters of Pitt for
decades could lose their seats or have their seats changed every
year under this new plan." He also said that before the Petersen
Events Center opened in 2002, the university promoted a plan
that promised season ticket holders the same seats every year,
if they maintained or increased their contributions to a
fundraising program then known as "Team Pittsburgh" and now
called "The Panther Club."

Additionally, Mr. Stember stated Pitt announced last month that
all non-Club season tickets will be reassigned annually based on
a point score which includes, among other things, how much money
ticket holders give to a new sports fundraising drive. The
plaintiffs are comparing that process to a silent auction,
saying that people could lose their seats to others who gave
more money, AP reports.

Mr. Stember told AP that he was suing on behalf of 500 to 1,000
people who bought tickets in a general seating area that will
likely be affected by the new policy. "They advertised this as a
once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to get your seats assigned," Mr.
Stember said of the 2002 policy, which he wants the court to
enforce. "I guess a lifetime passes quickly."

Court documents revealed that Mr. Stember is asking an Allegheny
County judge to order the school to let current season ticket
holders keep their seats, which are set to be reassigned in May,
regardless of their donations.

The University had announced the new program as part of a $45
million campaign to fund more athletic scholarships and build
better facilities for some secondary sports. In that
announcement, Pitt Athletic Director Jeff Long told AP, "It's
not our goal to force the common man out, nor do we believe this
new structure does that. By the same token, we feel as though we
need to tap into what I believe to be tremendous potential for
growth."


PINNACLE MANAGEMENT: Superintendents Join Racial, Age Bias Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Eight more Latino and black apartment superintendents have
signed on to discrimination suit against their new building
owner, Pinnacle Management, alleging that they were fired and
replaced with mostly white, younger workers, the New York Post
Online reports.

According to their attorneys, the plaintiffs opted for class-
action status because they claim the alleged racial and age
discrimination affects potentially more than 300 workers in
buildings throughout the city.  Specifically, the discrimination
complaint accuses the company of ousting many black and Latino
building superintendents in their 50s and 60s. In some
buildings, the veterans were dumped and replaced with
Yugoslavian immigrants, the suit charges.  Many of the
defendants have been building superintendent for decades.


RETEK INC.: NY Court Preliminarily Approves Lawsuit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against Retek, Inc.,
certain of its current and former officers and directors and
certain underwriters of its initial public offering (IPO).

Between June 11 and June 26, 2001, three class action complaints
alleging violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act
of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended were filed.  On August 9, 2001, these
actions were consolidated for pre-trial purposes before a single
judge along with similar actions involving IPOs of numerous
other issuers.

On February 14, 2002, the parties signed and filed a stipulation
dismissing the consolidated action without prejudice against the
Company and the Individual Defendants, which the Court approved
and entered as an order on March 1, 2002.  On April 20, 2002,
the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in which they elected
to proceed with their claims against the Company and the
Individual Defendants only under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act.  The amended complaint alleges that the prospectus
filed in connection with the IPO was false or misleading in that
it failed to disclose:

     (1) that the underwriters allegedly were paid excessive
         commissions by certain of the underwriters' customers
         in return for receiving shares in the IPO and

     (2) that certain of the underwriters' customers allegedly
         agreed to purchase additional shares of the Company's
         common stock in the aftermarket in return for an
         allocation of shares in the IPO.

The complaint further alleges that the underwriters offered to
provide positive market analyst coverage for the Company after
the IPO, which had the effect of manipulating the market for our
stock.  Plaintiffs contend that, as a result of the omissions
from the prospectus and alleged market manipulation through the
use of analysts, the price of the Company's common stock was
artificially inflated between November 18, 1999 and December 6,
2000, and that the defendants are liable for unspecified damages
to those persons who purchased the Company's common stock during
that period.

On July 15, 2002, the Company and the Individual Defendants,
along with the rest of the issuers and related officer and
director defendants, filed a joint motion to dismiss based on
common issues. Opposition and reply papers were filed.  The
Court rendered its decision on February 19, 2003, which
granted dismissal in part of a claim against one of the
Individual Defendants and denied dismissal in all other
respects.

On June 30, 2003, a Special Litigation Committee of the Board of
Directors of the Company approved a Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) reflecting a tentative settlement in which the plaintiffs
agreed to dismiss the case against the Company with prejudice in
return for the assignment by the Company of certain claims that
we might have against the Company's underwriters.  The same
offer of settlement was made to all issuer defendants involved
in the litigation. No payment to the plaintiffs by the Company
was required under the MOU. After further negotiations, the
essential terms of the MOU were formalized in a Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement ("Settlement"), which has been executed
on the Company's behalf and on behalf of the Individual
Defendants.  The settling parties presented the proposed
Settlement to the Court on June 15, 2004 and filed formal
motions seeking preliminary approval on June 25, 2004.

The underwriter defendants, who are not parties to the proposed
Settlement, filed a brief objecting to the Settlement's terms on
July 14, 2004.  On February 15, 2005, the Court granted
preliminary approval of the settlement conditioned on the
agreement by the parties to narrow one of a number of the
provisions intended to protect the issuers against possible
future claims by the underwriters.

In the meantime, the plaintiffs and underwriters have continued
to litigate the consolidated action. The litigation is
proceeding through the class certification phase by focusing on
six cases chosen by the plaintiffs and underwriters ("Focus
Cases"). Retek is not a Focus Case. On October 13, 2004, the
Court certified classes in each of the six Focus Cases. The
underwriter defendants have sought review of the Court's
decision. The Company, along with the other non-Focus Case
issuer defendants, has not participated in the class
certification phase. There can be no assurance that the
Court will grant final approval of the proposed Settlement.

The suit is styled "In re Retek, Inc. Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation, No. 01 Civ 6771 (SAS)" related to "In re
Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, Master File No.
21 MC 92 (SAS)," filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York under Judge Shira A.
Scheindlin.  The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

     (i) 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

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

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

    (iv) 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

     (v) 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

    (vi) 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


RETEK INC.: MN Court Dismisses in Part Securities Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota
granted in part Retek, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the consolidated
securities class action filed against it, styled "IN re Retek
Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. CV 02-4209 JRT/ SRN."

Between October 30, 2002 and December 12, 2002, the Company was
named in six substantially similar federal securities class
action complaints.  Thereafter, the plaintiffs voluntarily
dismissed one of the complaints without prejudice, and the Court
consolidated the other five actions into a single proceeding
before Judge John R. Tunheim.

On February 20, 2003, the Court appointed as co-lead plaintiff
in the consolidated proceedings the Louisiana Municipal Police
Employees' Retirement System (LMPERS); and Mr. Steven B.
Paradis.  The appointed lead plaintiffs served a consolidated
complaint on April 15, 2003.  On May 30, 2003, the Company and
the individual defendants served a motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint.  The Court heard oral argument on this
motion on January 27, 2004.  On March 30, 2004, the Court
granted defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated
complaint, with leave to file an amended consolidated complaint.
Thereafter, plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint
and defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended
consolidated complaint.  On September 28, 2004, the Court heard
oral arguments on the motion to dismiss.  On March 7, 2005, the
Court issued an order granting in part and denying in part
defendants' motion to dismiss the amended consolidated
complaint. As a result of the Court's Order, co-lead plaintiffs
may pursue some of their allegations, while others have been
dismissed.


RETEK INC.: Shareholders Launch MN Suits V. SAP America Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Retek, Inc. and its directors face two shareholder class actions
filed in Hennepin County State Court in Minnesota, over the
merger agreement the Company entered with SAP America, Inc.

On March 1, 2005, a stockholder initiated a purported class
action lawsuit against the Company's directors in state court in
Hennepin County, Minnesota, titled "Braverman v. Leestma et al."
The action is brought by an individual stockholder named Ira
Braverman purportedly on behalf of all of the Company's
stockholders.  The Company was not named as a defendant in this
action.  The complaint alleges that the defendants breached
their fiduciary duties to the Company's stockholders in
connection with the negotiation and approval of the merger
agreement the Company entered into with SAP America, Inc.  The
plaintiff seeks, among other relief, an injunction preventing
the consummation of the merger, rescission of the merger to the
extent already implemented, and an award of attorneys' fees.
The plaintiff in this matter is not at this time seeking money
damages.

On March 2, 2005, a second purported class action was initiated
against the company and its directors also in the same court,
entitled Blakstad v. Retek, Inc. et al."  The action is brought
by an individual stockholder named Don Blakstad purportedly on
behalf of the Company's stockholders.  The complaint alleges
that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the
Company's stockholders in connection with the negotiation and
approval of the merger agreement with SAP America, Inc. The
plaintiff seeks among other relief, an injunction preventing the
consummation of the merger, rescission of the merger to the
extent already implemented, and an award of attorneys' fees.
The plaintiff in this matter is not at this time seeking money
damages.


SOCIAL SECURITY: Female Employees Launch Racial Bias Suit in MD
---------------------------------------------------------------
An estimated 110 black women have banded together to support a
class-action lawsuit against the Social Security Administration
alleging discrimination at its headquarters in Woodlawn,
Maryland, the Baltimore Sun reports.

The women's suit began less than a year after Social Security
settled for $7.75 million a similar discrimination case
involving nearly all of the black men employed at the agency's
headquarters between 1987 and 2002. That settlement, which was
agreed upon in January 2002 after a seven-year legal battle,
created a seven-member oversight committee that reviews
quarterly data on promotions, disciplinary actions and awards,
and meets with a deputy commissioner. It also created a group of
employee volunteers who observe managers discussing candidates'
applications and making decisions.

Paulette Taylor, 51, and Debra Harley, 57, two longtime agency
employees leading the women's suit contend that those changes
have had little effect, since according to them they are still
being denied promotions based on their race and sex.  Ms.
Harley, who has worked at Social Security since 1967 told the
Baltimore Sun, "I'm one of those volunteer observers. And I
cannot say I've seen any improvements yet."

Both women have been in Grade 12 positions on the general
schedule for more than 12 years without promotions. The scale
goes from 1 to 15. Ms. Taylor herself has applied for almost 20
promotions since 2002.

A spokesman for Social Security said that the agency could not
comment on pending litigation, the Baltimore Sun reports.
Though the agency refused not comment on pending litigation, a
judge's ruling in Ms. Harley and Ms. Taylor's favor outlined
some of the agency's arguments, including which stated that the
women's complaints pertained only to their unique circumstances
and didn't contain any evidence of wrongdoing against the group
as a whole. The agency also argued that their effort was
"untimely."

When both women were asked why they filed suit only after the
men's victory, their lawyer, David Wachtel of Rose & Rose in
Washington, immediately stepped into the conversation and said,
"[The men's victory] might be a factor, but there were a lot of
other factors. Debra and Paulette see the situation getting
worse. They see black women being dispersed to low-profile jobs
at sites outside headquarters. And they see white contractors
moving ahead of longtime black employees."

In the case, the class is defined as nearly all black women in
general schedule grades 7 through 13 working at Social Security
headquarters after December 2000 who have not been promoted. It
is estimated that is about 3,035 people.

An administrative judge at the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission certified Ms. Harley and Ms. Taylor's cases as a
class-action suit last month, but only on the issue of
promotions.

Ms. Harley told the Baltimore Sun, that the 110 women supporting
the suit are each paying $350 annually in legal fees. These
women, according to her will also stand to get a larger portion
of the award, if the group wins. She also adds, "We get a lot of
encouragement from other black females, but many don't want to
join because of fears of retaliation. But a lot of black women
have been promoted since we filed the case. It's good to know
we're having some good effects already."

Social Security will decide whether to appeal the class
certification next month. If it does so, a backlog of cases at
the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission will delay a hearing
on the appeal for about 18 months, Mr. Wachtel pointed out.


SOUTHWESTERN OREGON: Retirement Suit Sent Back To County Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
In a legal proceeding that stretches back to 2002, a class-
action lawsuit that was instigated by 20 Southwestern Oregon
Community College faculty members against their employer has
been sent back to Coos County Circuit Court, where it had
originated, the Coos Bay World reports.

Gene Mechanic, the attorney representing the college faculty
told Coos Bay World, "We are pleased. We did not think that the
Supreme Court would take the case, so we are pleased to have an
opportunity to present it back at the circuit court level."

The original breach of contract lawsuit was filed in Coos County
in the spring of 2002, after the college raised the age at which
an employee can seek early retirement, required employees to pay
for 25 percent of their medical costs and increased from 10 to
20 years the length of employment required to be eligible for
early retirement.

According to Mr. Mechanic, employees hired under the pre-
existing early retirement policy took issue with the board's
changes, claiming the college had broken a contract with them by
changing the rules in the middle of the game.  Southwestern
argued it changed the policy due to rapidly rising health care
costs. The college's attorney, Dian Rubanoff contended that if a
change were not made to the policy, Southwestern might not be
able to grant early retirement to anyone.

In October 2002, Coos County Circuit Court Judge Michael
Gillespie dismissed the case ruling that the policy was not a
contract between the college and its employees. Ms. Rubanoff
said the court ruled the policy was an invitation for employees
to seek early retirement, and not a contractual agreement where
employees had a vested right to early retirement benefits after
they became eligible.

However, on December 9, the appeals court reversed Judge
Gillespie's opinion, ruling the policy was indeed, a contract.
On January 26, the appeals court denied Southwestern's petition
to reconsider its ruling.

Mr. Mechanic expects the next step in the process will be
determined in the next 30 days or so. He told Coos Bay World,
"There will be a discussion with the trial court on how it will
proceed - whether a judgment will be issued, or a need for a
trial."

When asked by the if the college was willing to consider a
settlement with the faculty, Ms. Rubanoff said, "We are willing
to consider it on terms that would be acceptable to the
college."


THOMSON INC.: Recalls 47T DVD Player Batteries Due To Fire Risk
---------------------------------------------------------------
In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC), Thomson Inc., of Indianapolis, Ind. is voluntarily
recalling about 47,000 Portable DVD player batteries.

The battery can overheat and explode while recharging, posing a
burn and fire hazard to consumers. Thomson Inc. has received 11
reports of batteries overheating and five reports of batteries
exploding. There are two reports of consumers suffering burned
fingers from picking up a battery after it overheated.

Only batteries used with the RCA portable DVD players with model
number DRC600N are being recalled. The DRC600N model DVD player
with the battery attached is about 7-inches wide, 5-inches
deep, and 2-inches high. The cabinet housing is plastic, except
for a metal "skin" on the top of the player. The metal "skin" is
silver colored, and the rest of the DVD player is tan or dark
gray. The logo "RCA LiFE," along with the words "DVD VIDEO" are
printed on the top of the DVD Player. The battery attaches to
the bottom of the DVD player.

Manufactured in China, the batteries were sold at all electronic
and department stores nationwide from September 2002 through
July 2003 for between $340 and $490.

Consumers should stop using and stop recharging the battery
immediately and contact Thomson Inc. for a free replacement
battery. The portable DVD player is not being recalled, and
consumers can continue to use it without the battery until they
receive a replacement battery. The player can be used with the
AC Power Adapter by simply unplugging the battery from the unit
and plugging the AC Power Adapter into the 9-volt jack on the
unit.

Contact Thomson Inc. at (800) 821-5875 anytime or visit the
company's Web site at http://www.rca.com/recall,
Consumers also can contact the company by mail at Thomson Inc.,
Portable DVD Battery Recall, P.O. Box 1490, Durant, Okla. 74702-
1490. Please do not send products or batteries to this address.


TOWN SPORTS: NY Sports Club Trainers Launch Overtime Wage Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys for personal trainers, Sarah Cruz of Union City, N.J.,
and Mathew Dockswell of Forest Hills, who both work for the New
York Sports Club chain, have initiated a lawsuit against the
Company's parent, claiming they were cheated out of overtime,
the Newsday.com reports.

The plaintiffs contend that they and many other employees
routinely worked more than 40 hours in a week but didn't earn
overtime because the parent company, Town Sports International,
deliberately misclassified them as managers.  According to court
documents, the lawyers are seeking class-action status for the
lawsuit, which they say could involve hundreds of personal
trainers and assistant fitness managers at 65 New York Sports
Clubs in the state, including in New York City and on Long
Island.

"I think this is a case about basic fairness," the plaintiffs'
lawyer, Linda Nielan of Outten & Golden in Manhattan told
Newsday.

The complaint, which was filed in State Supreme Court in
Manhattan on February 24 and covers a period of the past six
years, states that Ms. Cruz, 30, who has worked for the chain
since 1999, often has worked 13-hour days, five days a week, or
about 65 hours, and Mr. Dockswell, who has worked for New York
Sports Club since 2002, has regularly worked more than 40 hours
a week.

The plaintiffs' lawyers contend that even when Ms. Cruz worked
as an assistant manager over the years, she was a manager in
title only. They pointed out that she earned an hourly rate, not
a salary as labor laws require for managers, and she didn't have
the power to hire or fire.  The lawsuit, which doesn't stipulate
a dollar amount, seeks unpaid overtime wages, interest and
attorney's fees, among other things.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

BRADLEY PHARMACEUTICALS: Scott + Scott Lodges NJ Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Scott + Scott, LLC initiated on behalf of
client/shareholders a class action for securities fraud
violations in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey against Bradley Pharmaceuticals (NYSE:BDY).

The case is on behalf of those who purchased securities in
Bradley between October 8, 2003 and February 25, 2005 (the
"Class Period"). On March 22, 2005, Bradley Pharmaceuticals,
Inc. (the "Company") entered into a Forbearance Agreement with
the lenders that are party to its $125 million credit facility
under which Wachovia Bank, National Association, serves as
administrative agent. Under the Forbearance Agreement, the
lenders agreed to forbear from exercising, for a period of 30
days, their remedies under certain provisions of the credit
facility as a result of the Company's failure to file its Annual
Report on Form 10-K and furnish audited financial statements for
2004.

Effective March 16, 2005, Michael Bernstein resigned as a member
of the Company's board of directors, which resignation it stated
is not due to any disagreement with the Company. There is also a
temporary suspension of trading under registrant's employee
benefit plans. On March 17, 2005, the Company sent a notice to
its directors and executive officers informing them of a
temporary suspension of certain transactions by such persons
involving the Company's equity securities as a result of the
required imposition of a blackout period under the Company's
401(k) Savings Plan.

The complaint alleges that from October 8, 2003 and February 25,
2005, defendants issued materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's financial performance and
future business prospects. As alleged in the complaint, these
statements were materially false and misleading because they
failed to disclose and misrepresented various negative facts
that were known to defendants, or recklessly disregarded by
them, at all relevant times. These alleged facts include that
the Company was materially overstating its financial results by
engaging in improper accounting practices. The Company's future
sales growth from its Keralac franchise would be hindered by
generic competition, and that as a result, there was no
reasonable basis for the Company's revenue and earnings
guidance.

On February 28, 2005, the Company issued a press release
announcing that the staff of the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) is conducting an informal inquiry to determine
whether there have been violations of the federal securities
laws by the Company. In connection with the inquiry, the SEC
staff has requested that the Company provide it with certain
information and documents concerning issues related to revenue
recognition and capitalization of certain payments. In light of
the ongoing SEC staff inquiry and separate counsel's review, the
Company also announced that it would be delaying the release of
its 2004 earnings. Market reaction to the above was swift. On
February 28, 2005, Bradley stock fell almost 30% per share.

For more details, contact Scott + Scott by Phone: 800-404-7770
or 800-332-2259 or by E-mail: nrothstein@scott-scott.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 the
Company and certain officers and/or directors 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: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Suit in N.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
Northern District of California on behalf of all persons who
purchased the publicly traded securities of Electronic Arts Inc.
(Nasdaq: ERTS) ("Electronic Arts") between January 25, 2005 and
March 21, 2005 (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that Electronic Arts violated federal
securities laws by issuing false or misleading public
statements. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that certain of
Electronic Arts' financial projections were lacking in
reasonable basis when they were made. On March 21, 2005,
Electronic Arts announced a downward revision of its estimates
for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2005. On this news,
Electronic Arts fell from a close of $66.35 per share on March
21, 2005, to close at $55.15 per share on March 22, 2005.

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.


FOREST LABORATORIES: Marc S. Henzel Files Stock Fraud Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a class action
lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Forest
Laboratories, Inc. (NYSE: FRX) common stock during the period
between August 15, 2002 and September 1, 2004 (the "Class
Period").

The complaint charges Forest Labs and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Forest Labs develops, manufactures and sells prescription
drug products, as well as non-prescription pharmaceutical
products.

According to the complaint, during the Class Period, defendants
caused Forest Labs' stock price to be overstated by concealing
deficiencies with its Celexa/Lexapro drugs in treating
adolescent depression. When Forest Labs ultimately disclosed an
agreement with the New York State Attorney General to make
available summaries of previously undisclosed studies on the
drugs to the public, the price of Forest Labs stock dropped to
as low as $36 per share.

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


ORANGE 21: Marc S. Henzel Files Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California on behalf of those who acquired Orange
21, Inc. (NASDAQ: ORNG) common stock pursuant to the Company's
Registration Statement and Prospectus (collectively,
"Registration Statement") issued in connection with its initial
public offering ("IPO") on December 14, 2004.

The complaint charges Orange 21 and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Act of 1933. Orange
21 designs, develops and markets premium products for the action
sports and youth lifestyle markets. Its principal products,
sunglasses and goggles, are marketed under the brand Spy Optic.

The complaint alleges that on December 14, 2004, Orange 21
accomplished its IPO of 3.48 million shares at $8.75 per share
(including 2.48 million shares sold by Orange 21 and 1 million
shares sold by No Fear, Inc.) for net proceeds of $20.2 million
to Orange 21 and $8.1 million to No Fear, pursuant to the
Registration Statement. The Registration Statement failed to
disclose that Orange 21 was engaging in copyright infringement
and that its European operations were under-performing and would
have to be restructured, which costs would adversely affect 2005
results.

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 collapsed
to around $6.00 per share. Subsequently on March 7, 2005, Orange
21 disclosed it had received a cease-and-desist letter from
Oakley, Inc. In response, the Company would be required to make
changes based on the alleged infringements.

According to the complaint, the Registration Statement omitted
the following:

     (1) the Company's European operations were under-performing
         and lacked the requisite infrastructure necessary to
         perform consistent with defendants' representations and
         expectations and that as a result the Company would
         need to restructure these operations and incur material
         costs, thereby materially adversely affecting the
         Company's operating performance for 2005;

     (2) the Company was violating patents and trademarks
         associated with its key product, fashion frames, and
         that the Company would halt the production of certain
         products, including the New Meteor New Espador and 42
         fashion frames; and

     (3) the Company was modifying its distribution policies
         which necessarily would increase the Company's cost
         structure and erode the Company's margins and net
         income by $700,000 for FY 2005.

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


VIISAGE TECHNOLOGY: Kaplan Fox Files Securities Fraud Suit in MA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP initiated a class
action suit in the United States District Court for the District
of Massachusetts against Viisage Technology, Inc. ("Viisage" or
the "Company") (NASDAQ: VISG) and certain of its officers and
directors, on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased
the publicly traded securities of Viisage between October 25,
2004 and March 2, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange
Act of 1934 by publicly issuing a series of false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's financial condition.

Specifically, the complaint alleges Defendants issued statements
that were materially false and misleading when made because
defendants failed to disclose or indicate the following:

     (1) that in order to make the Company more attractive to
         outside lenders and relieve the controlling shareholder
         from its role as the Company's creditor, Viisage
         artificially inflated its third quarter profit and made
         baseless earnings projections;

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

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

On February 7, 2005, Viisage announced that earnings and net
income fell below guidance. In reaction to Viisage's shocking
disclosures, shares of Viisage fell $1.36 per share or 18.71
percent, on February 8, 2005, to close at $5.91 per share.

On March 2, 2005, the Company announced that they had a net loss
of $5.2 million for the fourth quarter of 2004, and also
reported that "it had an internal control deficiency that
constitutes a material weakness." On this news shares of Viisage
fell another $0.97 per share or 17.73 percent, on March 3, 2005,
to close at $4.50 per share.

For more details, contact Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP by Mail:
805 Third Avenue, NY, NY 10022 by Phone: (800) 290-1952 or
(212) 687-1980 or visit their Web site:
http://www.kaplanfox.com.


                            *********


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

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

                            *********


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

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

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

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

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

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

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *