CAR_Public/050404.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, April 4, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 65


                            Headlines

ARTHUR ANDERSEN: Lawsuit Settlement Hearing Set For May 26, 2005
BARR PHARMACEUTICALS: Court Rejects Dispute Over 1997 Settlement
BETTER BUDGET: Reaches Settlement For FTC Consumer Fraud Lawsuit
CALIFORNIA: Laws Curbing Class Actions Could Encourage Surge
COACHMEN RV: Recalls 251 Class A Motorhomes Due To Crash Hazard

DEBT MANAGEMENT: Reaches Settlement For FTC Consumer Fraud Suit
DIRECT GENERAL: TN Court Orders Consolidation Of Stock Lawsuits
ELAN CORPORATION: Johnson & Perkinson Lodges Amended Complaint
FIFTH THIRD: Plaintiffs' Attorneys proposes $17M Suit Settlement
FOOD TREE: Settlement Reached For Water Contamination Case in WI

FOUR WINDS: Recalls 384 Class B,C Motorhomes For Crash Hazard
GEORGIE BOY: Recalls 151 Motorhomes Due To Brake System Defect
JAPAN: Lawsuit Launched Over Controversial Japanese History Book
KN ENERGY: Securities Suit Settlement Hearing Set May 20, 2005
MERCURY INSURANCE: Files Demurrer in CA Insurance Premium Suit

MERCURY INSURANCE: Files Demurrer V. CA Consumer Fraud Lawsuit
MERCURY INSURANCE: LA Court Rules in Company's Favor in Lawsuit
MERCURY INSURANCE: To Seek Summary Judgment in CA Consumer Suit
MORGAN STANLEY: Income Trust Settlement Hearing Set May 26, 2005
MR. HEATER: Recalls 55,000 Propane Heaters Due To Fire Hazard

NATIONAL CONSUMER: Forges Settlement For FTC Consumer Fraud Suit
NORTHWESTERN CORPORATION: Working To Settle SD Securities Suit
NORTHWESTERN CORPORATION: Court Stays Touch America ERISA Suit
NORTHWESTERN CORPORATION: Dropped From CA CornerStone Fraud Suit
NORWEGIAN CRUISE: Agency Files CA Breach Of Contract, Fraud Suit

OHIO: AEP, Defendants Respond To Suit Over River Barge Accident
PHOENIX AVATAR: Reaches Settlement of FTC CAN-SPAM Act Complaint
POLARIS INDUSTRIES: Recalls 774 Motorcycles Due To Crash Hazard
PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS: Settles Safety-Kleen Investors' Lawsuit
REWARDS NETWORK: Consumers File CA Unfair Trade Practices Suit

SMITH BARNEY: Female Consultants Launch Sexual Bias Suit in CA
UNION PACIFIC: NE Court Gives Class Status To Contraception Case
UNITED STATES: Flight Service Employees Files DC Age Bias Suit
UNUMPROVIDENT CORPORATION: MA Court OKs Consumer Suit Settlement
UNUMPROVIDENT CORPORATION: TN Court Sets Schedule For ERISA Suit

VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA: Recalls 9,965 Cars Due To Crash Hazard
WEST VIRGINIA: Court Justice Recuses Himself From Lending Case
WESTCORP: Reaches Settlement For CA Securities Fraud Lawsuit
WESTERN WORLD: Recalls 57 Goosenecks Trailers For Crash Hazard
WYETH: PA Court OKs Amendment To Nationwide Fen-Phen Settlement

WYETH: Faces Litigation Due To PREMPRO Hormone Therapy Product
WYETH: Faces Litigation Due To DURACT Analgesic Pain Reliever
WYETH: Litigation Pending Due To Cough/Cold Products With PPA
WYETH: Continues To Face Suits Due To Vaccines With Thimerosal
WYETH: EFFEXOR Patients Commence Personal Injury Suit in N.D. OK

WYETH: Consumers File Suits Over Recalled Vet Product PROHEART 6
WYETH: Continues To Face Average Wholesale Pricing Litigation
WYETH: Continues To Face PREMARIN Antitrust Fraud Litigation
YAHOO JAPAN: Individuals Launch Fraud Suit V. Online Auctions

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

MOLEX INC.: Much Shelist Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. IL
MOLEX INC.: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in IL


                            *********


ARTHUR ANDERSEN: Lawsuit Settlement Hearing Set For May 26, 2005
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Texas - Dallas Division will hold a fairness hearing for the
proposed $2.9 million settlement with defendant Arthur Anderson
in the matter: In Re: i2 Technologies, Inc. Securities
Litigation on behalf of all persons who purchased the common
stock of the company during the period March 22, 2000 and July
21, 2003.

According to the court, a fairness hearing will be held before
the Honorable Barefoot Sanders in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Texas - Dallas Division, 1100
Commerce Street, Room 1504, Dallas, Texas 75242-1003, at 2:00
p.m., on May 26, 2005.

For more details, contact In Re: i2 Technologies, Inc.
Securities Litigation c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC - Claims
Administrator by Mail: P.O. Box 990, Corte Madera, CA 94976-0990
by Phone: (800) 654-5763 or visit their Web site:
http://www.gilardi.com.    


BARR PHARMACEUTICALS: Court Rejects Dispute Over 1997 Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York has
granted summary judgment in Barr Pharmaceuticals, Inc.'s (NYSE:
BRL) favor and rejected a challenge to the lawfulness of its
1997 settlement with Bayer Corporation of patent litigation
related to the antibiotic Cipro(C).

In his decision, the Honorable David Trager rejected the
plaintiffs' claims that the 1997 settlement violated antitrust
and consumer protection laws by delaying the entry of a generic
version of Cipro. Judge Trager noted in his opinion that the
settlement was not an unlawful restraint on trade, and instead
allowed Barr to introduce a competing version of ciprofloxacin a
year earlier than Bayer's Cipro patent otherwise would have
permitted.

Today's ruling follows the Court's May 20, 2003 ruling that the
1997 settlement did not constitute a per se violation of the
antitrust laws. At that time, the Court had rejected two of
plaintiffs' three legal theories. Judge Trager's decision today
concluded that plaintiffs' remaining legal theory was also
insufficient as a matter of law.

"Today's decision vindicates Barr's assertion that our
Ciprofloxacin settlement with Bayer was a valid settlement to a
patent suit and cannot be used as the basis of an antitrust
claim," said Bruce L. Downey, Barr's Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer. "This ruling, as well as the dismissal of the
Tamoxifen antitrust litigation lawsuits in 2003, provides legal
precedent that will allow companies to settle patent challenge
cases under terms that are both pro-competitive and pro-
consumer."

In 1997, after several years of litigation and shortly before
trial, Barr (as well as its litigation partners, the Rugby Group
and subsequently Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc.) and Bayer agreed
to settle the pending lawsuit concerning the validity of Bayer's
compound patent on Cipro. The parties reached a settlement in
which Barr acknowledged the validity and enforceability of
Bayer's patent. As consideration, Barr received a settlement
payment of $24.5 million and signed a contingent, non-exclusive
supply agreement requiring Bayer to supply Barr with
ciprofloxacin for resale no later than six months before patent
expiry -- or earlier -- unless Bayer instead chose to make fixed
quarterly payments to Barr. Barr began distributing
ciprofloxacin in June 2003 and other generic competitors entered
the market in June 2004, upon expiration of Cipro's exclusivity.

In 2000, approximately 38 class action complaints were filed by
direct and indirect purchasers of ciprofloxacin in state and
federal courts against Bayer, Barr, and Barr's litigation
partners in the 1997 settlement. All of the federal complaints
were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York and are subject to Judge Trager's ruling in
Barr's favor.

Of the state court lawsuits, two cases in New York and one case
in Wisconsin were dismissed at the outset, and appeals are now
pending. Lawsuits remain pending in California, Kansas, and
Florida state courts, and all raise similar challenges to the
same 1997 settlement for which Judge Trager's ruling has
rejected antitrust and consumer protection claims as a matter of
law. A prior investigation into the 1997 settlement by the Texas
Attorney General's Office on behalf of a group of state
Attorneys General was closed without further action in December
2001.

Barr Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a holding company that operates
through its principal subsidiaries, Barr Laboratories, Inc. and
Duramed Pharmaceuticals, Inc., is engaged in the development,
manufacture and marketing of generic and proprietary
pharmaceuticals.


BETTER BUDGET: Reaches Settlement For FTC Consumer Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Better Budget Financial Services reached a settlement for the
Federal Trade Commission's complaint, charging it and its
principals with falsely claiming they could reduce consumer debt
by 50 to 70 percent and shorten the time period necessary to pay
off the debt, in exchange for a monthly fee of $29.95 to $39.95
plus 25 percent of any money a consumer saved in a settlement
with a creditor.

The stipulated final order requires Better Budget Financial
Services, Inc., John Colon, Jr., and Julie Fabrizio-Colon to
turn over assets totaling approximately $1.3 million to a court-
appointed receiver. They are barred from misrepresenting that
they can reduce consumers' debts; settle with consumers'
creditors once consumers accumulate a certain percentage of the
total debt; and stop creditors from attempting to collect on
overdue payments. Each of the individual defendants also is
barred from marketing debt management services without first
obtaining a $2 million performance bond, and from selling
customer data. If it is found that the defendants misrepresented
their financial situation, they will be held liable for
$11,978,249, the estimated amount they took from consumers.

According to the FTC's complaint, the defendants advised
consumers to stop paying their creditors and save their money in
an ordinary bank account from which the defendants withdrew
their monthly fee. The defendants promised to settle consumers'
debts with their creditors once the consumers accrued a certain
amount, such as one-half the debt, in their BBFS account. The
defendants further claimed that they would contact consumers'
creditors and get them to stop collection attempts. The FTC
charged that few consumers had all of their debts settled by the
defendants. In fact, consumers' debts increased due to the
imposition of late fees and penalties onto their accounts. Many
consumers were sued by their creditors and many were forced to
file for bankruptcy. Despite the defendants' promises,
collection efforts continued for consumers who followed BBFS's
instructions and stopped communicating with their creditors.

All the stipulated final orders announced today also contain
standard recordkeeping and reporting requirements to assist the
FTC in monitoring the defendants' compliance.

The FTC also recently announced a settlement with AmeriDebt,
Inc., a Maryland-based credit counseling firm that collected
nearly $200 million in hidden fees from consumers across the
country. AmeriDebt will shut down its operation and transfer all
existing accounts to a reputable third party. For more
information on the AmeriDebt case, see the press release dated
March 21, 2005.

The Commission vote to authorize staff to file the settlement
agreements was 5-0. All of the settlement agreements for NCC
were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California on March 29, 2005. The order for DMFS was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida,
Tampa Division, on March 29, 2005. The order for BBFS was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on
March 10, 2005.

For more details, contact the FTC's Consumer Response Center,
Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580,
by Phone: 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357), or use the complaint
form at the Website: http://www.ftc.gov. Also contact Jen  
Schwartzman, Office of Public Affairs, 202-326-2674 or contact
Jennifer Larabee or Faye Chen Barnouw, FTC Western Region, Los
Angeles by Phone: 310-824-4343.


CALIFORNIA: Laws Curbing Class Actions Could Encourage Surge
------------------------------------------------------------
Despite the region's reputation among business executives as one
of the nation's most judicially unfair districts, the new rules
aimed at curbing the number of class action lawsuits by shifting
them to federal court are expected to have a limited impact in
Los Angeles, the Los Angeles Business Journal reports.

Legal experts point out that the Class Action Fairness Act of
2005 may create a surge of class action lawsuits filed within
California and possibly burden local federal courts with
increased workloads.  Passed by Congress and signed into law by
President Bush last month, the legislation essentially
establishes a complex set of jurisdictional rules that allow
more class action cases to be heard in federal, rather than
state court.

According to plaintiff's firms, which prefer state courts to
federal ones, the class action law is designed to support
businesses that lobbied for the bill, the Business Journal
reports.

Over the year, businesses have complained that class action
suits have been filed in venues with a history of high verdicts,
primarily in state courts in Texas and Illinois. Add to that a
survey released this month by the Institute for Legal Reform, in
which Los Angeles Superior Court was mentioned more than any
other local jurisdiction as the "least fair and reasonable
litigation environment."

Local attorneys agree that business interests believe they get a
fairer shake at the federal level, pointing to a larger jury
pool, which in the Central District of California reaches from
San Luis Obispo to Orange County.


COACHMEN RV: Recalls 251 Class A Motorhomes Due To Crash Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
Coachmen RV Company, LLC is cooperating with the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) by voluntarily
recalling 251 motorhomes, namely:

     (1) COACHMEN / AURORA, model 2005

     (2) COACHMEN / EPIC, model 2005

     (3) COACHMEN / MIRADA, model 2005

     (4) COACHMEN / SANTARA, model 2005

On certain Class A motor homes, the rear hitch attachment
brackets that connect the hitch assembly to the chassis frame
may crack at the 90-degree bend.  If this were to occur, a
complete separation of the hitch assembly from the chassis could
occur, resulting in a crash due to a loss of control of the
towed vehicle or trailer.

Dealers will repair the hitch assembly attachment brackets.  The
recall is expected to begin on March 31,2005.  For more details,
contact the Company by Phone: 1-800-453-6064 or the NHTSA's auto
safety hotline: 1-888-327-4236.


DEBT MANAGEMENT: Reaches Settlement For FTC Consumer Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Debt Management Foundation Services (DMFS) reached a settlement
for the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) complaint charging it,
four related corporations, and the three individuals that
control them with falsely representing that DMFS and its
predecessors provided debt management services and that DMFS is
a nonprofit corporation.

The FTC alleged that DMFS and its affiliates falsely represented
that they could reduce consumers' debts by 50 percent, reduce or
eliminate interest on the debts, and provide assistance before
consumers' next credit card billing cycle. The FTC charged that
the defendants deceived consumers into paying up-front fees as
high as $1,000 and monthly fees of $20 to $49. The FTC also
alleged that the defendants violated the TSR by calling
consumers whose phone numbers were registered on the National Do
Not Call Registry.

The stipulated final order provides that the court-appointed
receiver who took over DMFS and the four related corporations
last summer will liquidate the companies. The order also
provides that the individuals who operated DMFS must surrender
their interest in these companies, and that two of the
individuals must make additional payments. Defendant Dale Buird,
Sr., must pay $200,000, and defendant Dale Buird, Jr., must
transfer assets in several accounts, totaling an estimated
$58,000, to the court-appointed receiver.

The order permanently prohibits the defendants from making false
claims about debt management services, including representing
that they can reduce consumers' debt or interest rates, that
they provide services before consumers' next billing cycle, or
that they are a nonprofit organization; billing customers
without fully disclosing material terms; and failing to provide
required privacy notices under the GLB Act. The order also
permanently prohibits the defendants from charging advance fees
and failing to provide the written contracts and notices of the
right to cancel required by the Credit Repair Organizations Act.
In addition, the order bars the defendants from selling consumer
data and from calling consumers in violation of the National Do
Not Call Registry. If the individual defendants ever own or
manage a business that uses telemarketing, the order requires
that they monitor their telemarketers to ensure that they are
not making illegal calls.

The stipulated final order includes a suspended monetary
judgment of $11,035,065 in funds that were taken from consumers.
If the defendants fail to make the payments required by the
order, or if it is found that they misrepresented their
finances, the court may enter an order making the entire balance
immediately due.

The complaint and stipulated final order name DMFS, One Star
Marketing, Inc., Debt Specialist of America, Inc. (a/k/a Debt
Management Foundation, Inc.), Ameridebt Group, Inc., Credit
Counseling Specialists of America, Inc., Dale Buird, Jr., Dale
Buird, Sr., and Shawn Buird as defendants.

For more details, contact the FTC's Consumer Response Center,
Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580,
by Phone: 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357), or use the complaint
form at the Website: http://www.ftc.gov. Also contact Jen  
Schwartzman, Office of Public Affairs, 202-326-2674 or contact
Jennifer Larabee or Faye Chen Barnouw, FTC Western Region, Los
Angeles by Phone: 310-824-4343.


DIRECT GENERAL: TN Court Orders Consolidation Of Stock Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Several pending shareholder lawsuits in federal court against
car insurer Direct General Corporation have been combined, while
certain of its executives and directors also are facing separate
suits in state court, The Tennessean reports.

Federal Magistrate Judge Juliet Griffin of Nashville recently
ordered that cases filed last month be merged pending a period
ending Friday through which additional cases can be filed.  Paul
Bramlett, a Nashville plaintiff attorney, told the Tennesseean
other filings this week will be merged into the single case, and
the shareholder claiming the largest loss and their lawyer
probably will be named lead plaintiff and counsel.

The suits, which seek class-action status, accused executives of
Direct of misleading investors about trends in the insurer's
business while executives and others profited from selling
shares.  They were filed after Direct shares plunged 31% in one
day because the insurer cut its fourth-quarter profit forecast.
The change came after the company said it was increasing
reserves to cover losses largely because of a 2003 change in
Florida law related to personal injury protection coverage.


ELAN CORPORATION: Johnson & Perkinson Lodges Amended Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
Recent announcements by Elan Corporation, PLC ("Elan")
(NYSE:ELN) have caused Johnson & Perkinson ("J&P") to enlarge
the Class Period in their first-filed Complaint, which has been
amended to include all purchasers of Elan Corp., PLC ("Elan")
(NYSE:ELN) securities during the period between January 29, 2004
and March 30, 2005 (the "Class Period").

J&P, on March 4, 2005, filed the first class action lawsuit on
behalf of purchasers of Elan securities during the period
between February 18, 2004 and February 25, 2005.

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

     (1) that TYSABRI posed serious immune-system side effects;

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

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

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

On February 28, 2005, Elan shocked the market by reporting that
they were withdrawing TYSABRI from the market following reports
of patients contracting PML, with at least one instance
resulting in death. The announcement caused Elan's shares to
plummet, declining over 70% to approximately $8 per share on
February 28, 2005. On March 30, 2005, Elan continued to disclose
the truth by reporting that a patient during the Tysabri trials
regarding Crohn's Disease had contracted PML and died in
December, 2003, confirming that Elan's prior announcements had
been half-truths.

J&P is a litigation boutique with expertise in prosecuting
investor class actions dedicated to maximizing shareholders'
returns and keeping the lead plaintiffs involved in the
litigation. Attorneys Johnson and Perkinson are both former
employees of the Securities and Exchange Commission. Members of
the firm have prosecuted complex class actions on behalf of
plaintiffs in the areas of securities and consumer fraud since
1985. Based in South Burlington, Vermont, the firm has
prosecuted leading actions on behalf of defrauded investors
against numerous public companies resulting in the recovery of
many millions of dollars and has been singled out for its
excellence by various courts. The firm is currently lead or co-
lead counsel in securities class actions pending against Xerox,
Priceline, i2, Allaire, and Exchange Applications and serves on
the Executive Committee in the Global Crossing case.

The Complaint seeks to recover damages on behalf of all
purchasers of Elan securities during the Class Period (the
"Class"). If you bought Elan securities between January 29, 2004
and March 30, 2005 you may, no later than May 3, 2005, move the
Court to serve as lead plaintiff of the Class. In order to serve
as lead plaintiff, however, you must meet certain legal
requirements. If you wish to discuss this action or have any
questions concerning this Notice or rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact: Robin Freeman, Esq. at
Johnson & Perkinson, toll free at 1-877-266-2133, via e-mail at
email@jpclasslaw.com, or write to Johnson & Perkinson, P.O. Box
2305, South Burlington, Vermont 05403.

For more details, contact Robin Freeman, Esq. of Johnson &
Perkinson by Phone: 1-877-266-2133 by E-mail:
email@jpclasslaw.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.jpclasslaw.com.  


FIFTH THIRD: Plaintiffs' Attorneys proposes $17M Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The attorneys who launched a class action lawsuit against the
Fifth Third Bancorp for allegedly issuing false and misleading
statements that artificially inflated the value of its stock
recently filed a proposed $17 million settlement in federal
court, The Cincinnati Post reports.

According to documents filed by the plaintiffs, Fifth Third,
three of its top executives, and the accounting firm Deloitte &
Touche, who are all named as defendants in the lawsuit do not
oppose the proposed settlement.  Under the proposal, a
settlement fund of $17 million plus interest, but minus lawyers'
fees and expenses would be established. It, the proposal further
said, would be divided among investors who bought Fifth Third
Bancorp stock between September 21, 2001 and January 31, 2003.
Lawyers' fees would be limited to a maximum of 28 percent of the
fund plus about $300,000 for expenses, according to a proposed
order submitted for court approval.

The amount to which any investor would be entitled would depend
on how many investors sign up for the settlement, the number of
Fifth Third shares they bought and how much they paid for those
shares. The plaintiffs' lawyers estimated that 116 million
shares were traded during the class period and that the average
amount recovered per share would be 14.6 cents. Individual
investors could reject the settlement and pursue actions on
their own, the lawyers added.  Under terms of the proposed
settlement, Fifth Third and the other defendants don't admit to
the validity of any claims made by the plaintiffs.

Several lawsuits, later consolidated under a single class
action, were filed in 2003 after Fifth Third's stock price
declined following its disclosure in 2002 of a bookkeeping error
and regulatory investigations related to an earlier acquisition.
The stock price never fully recovered and has declined further
in the past year.


FOOD TREE: Settlement Reached For Water Contamination Case in WI
----------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement was recently reached in a protracted legal dispute
over contamination of drinking water in the town of Rudolph in
the state of Wisconsin after a gasoline spill at a nearby
service station, the Associated Press reports.

Under the agreement, which was approved by Circuit Judge John
Finn, the station's owners must construct two wells to serve the
affected area, guarantee the wells for 10 years, incorporate a
water softener in the new water system and pay $8,300 for a
private septic mound affected by the pollution.

the Judge Finn, a Portage County judge who was assigned the case
by courts in Wood County, where Rudolph is located, told AP
"This proposal appears to be a reasonable solution to what is a
very difficult problem."

Court documents state that residents filed the class action
lawsuit in 2002 against current and former owners of the Food
Tree over the discovery of gasoline additives in their well
water.  Tom Hvizdak, a hydrogeologist with the state Department
of Natural Resources, suspected the water problems resulted from
a gasoline spill in spring of 2001 at the service station.  The
station owners fixed the broken line, but several months later
neighbors began experiencing water problems. The DNR found days
later that eight wells were indeed contaminated.  

Pamela Schaefer, attorney for current Food Tree owners Inderbans
and Kuljeet Brar, drafted the settlement, with the neighbors
helping to adjust the terms during a court recess that lasted
about an hour.  Ms. Schaefer told AP that since her clients
bought the station in 2000, they have made sure the gasoline
storage tanks are tight and equipment is in good condition. She
also contended that spills didn't happen under the Brars'
ownership.

There was a gasoline spill in 1991 under the previous ownership.
It was cleaned up and monitored for the nine years until the DNR
found that contaminant levels were at acceptable levels in
August 2000.  Mr. Hvizdak told AP the water in the wells has
been improving in the last couple years, but no one can predict
when it will be free of benzene and other contaminants.


FOUR WINDS: Recalls 384 Class B,C Motorhomes For Crash Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------
Four Winds International is cooperating with the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) by voluntarily
recalling 394 motorhomes, namely:

     (1) FOUR WINDS / CHATEAU, model 2005-2006

     (2) FOUR WINDS / CHATEAU CITATION, model 2005-2006

     (3) FOUR WINDS / CHATEAU SPORT, model 2005-2006

     (4) FOUR WINDS / DUTCHMEN, model 2005-2006

     (5) FOUR WINDS / DUTCHMEN DORADO, model 2005-2006

     (6) FOUR WINDS / DUTCHMEN EXPRESS, model 2005-2006

     (7) FOUR WINDS / FOUR WINDS, model 2005-2006

     (8) FOUR WINDS / FOUR WINDS 5000, model 2005-2006

     (9) FOUR WINDS / FOUR WINDS SIESTA, model 2005-2006

    (10) FOUR WINDS / FUN MOVER, model 2005-2006

On certain class B and class C motorhomes, the spare wheels
contain an incorrect offset.  The center of the wheel has welded
in the wrong position.  The wheel may rub against the brake
caliper, which could result in a brake failure increasing the
risk of a crash.

The spare wheels will be replacied.  For more details, contact
the Company by Phone: 1-574-266-1111 or the NHTSA's auto safety
hotline: 1-888-327-4236.


GEORGIE BOY: Recalls 151 Motorhomes Due To Brake System Defect
--------------------------------------------------------------
Georgie Boy Manufacturing, LLC is cooperating with the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration by voluntarily recalling
151 motorhomes, namely:

     (1) GEORGIE BOY / CRUISE MASTER, model 2003-2005

     (2) GEORGIE BOY / LANDAU, model 2003

     (3) GEORGIE BOY / PURSUIT, model 2003-2004

These motor homes built on Workhorse chassis, fail to comply
with the requirements of federal motor vehicle safety standard
no. 101, "controls and display" and standard no. 105 "hydraulic
and electric brake systems."  Models with Actia instrument
cluster, the incorrect software programmed into the cluster such
that certain warnings are not displayed.  

Incorrect software may not have the ability to illuminate
warning lamps indicating brake system failures.  The standards
require driver warning when brake failure codes are set.  

Workhorse is conducting the Owner notification and remedy for
this campaign.  For more details, contact Worhorse by Phone: 1-
877-294-6773 or contact the Company by Phone: 877-876-9024, or
contact the NHTSA's auto safety hotline: 1-888-327-4236.


JAPAN: Lawsuit Launched Over Controversial Japanese History Book
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action suit was filed against Gov. Moriyuki Kato of the
Ehime prefecture over alleged slurs against China and North
Korea in new school history books, the United Press
International reports.

Filed in the Matsuyama District Court in Japan by some 260
people, the suit seeks about $120,000 for each plaintiff, and
demands a public apology for allowing the use of the text that
blames China and North Korea for "causing injury to Japan,"
according to the Kyodo news agency.

The plaintiffs claim that the Ehime board of education's
adoption of the junior high school history textbook, edited
mainly by the Japanese Society for History Textbook Reform,
caused them mental anguish. Major Japanese corporations such as
Asahi Brewery and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries funded much of the
research for the book.

In China, news of the book sparked an impromptu boycott of the
popular Japanese beer, the People's Daily reported from Beijing.
While supermarket chains were reportedly pulling Asahi from its
shelves, and bars also were moving the popular Japanese beer out
of view, the newspaper said.


KN ENERGY: Securities Suit Settlement Hearing Set May 20, 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Colorado
will hold a fairness hearing for the proposed $5.25 million
settlement in the matter: In Re: KN Energy, Inc. Securities
Litigation on behalf of all persons who purchased the common
stock of the company during the period October 30, 1997 and June
21, 1999.

According to the court, a fairness hearing will be held before
the Honorable Edward M. Nottingham in the United States District
Court for the District of Colorado, Alfred A. Arraj United
States Courthouse, Room A1041/Courtroom A1001, 90119th street,
Denver, Colorado 80294-3589 at 2:45 p.m. on May 20, 2005.

For more details, contact Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt &
Pucillo by Phone: 615-542-8300 or visit their Web site:
http://www.bermanesq.com.


MERCURY INSURANCE: Files Demurrer in CA Insurance Premium Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Mercury Insurance Company filed a demurrer against the class
action filed against it in Orange County Superior Court in
California, styled "Kate Steinbeck vs. Mercury Insurance
Company, Mercury Casualty Company, and California Automobile
Insurance Company."

The plaintiff alleges that billing service fees charged in
connection with installment payments made by insureds constitute
premium and that Section 381 of the California Insurance Code
bars the charging of premium not specified in the policy.  The
Complaint states claims for breach of contract, violations of
the California Unfair Competition Law, violation of the
California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and common count claims
for unjust enrichment and money had and received under this
theory. The Complaint also seeks class action status,
unspecified damages and restitution, injunctive relief, and
unspecified attorneys' fees.

On January 19, 2005, the Company filed a Demurrer to the
Complaint seeking its dismissal with prejudice for failure to
state a claim and a Motion to Strike Certain Allegations in the
Complaint. The latter motion seeks to strike the class and
representative allegations in the Complaint in the event the
Demurrer is not sustained, with prejudice, as to all of the
plaintiff's alleged individual causes of actions. April 2005
Demurrer and Motion to Strike hearings are scheduled.


MERCURY INSURANCE: Files Demurrer V. CA Consumer Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mercury Insurance Company filed a demurrer to the amended class
action filed against it in the Los Angeles Superior Court in
California, styled "Sam Donabedian, individually, and on behalf
of those similarly situated vs. Mercury Insurance Company."

The suit involves a dispute over insurance rates/premiums
charged to the plaintiff and the legality of persistency
discounts.  The action was dismissed when the Company's Demurrer
to the plaintiff's First Amended Complaint was sustained without
leave to amend.  The dismissal of this case was appealed and
then overruled by an Appellate Court on the basis that there are
factual issues as to whether the persistency discounts as
applied comply with the Company's class plan and the California
Insurance Code.  The California Supreme Court declined to grant
review.

The plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint in December 2004,
which specifically alleges that the Company violated California
Business and Professional Code 17200 et seq. and California
Civil Code Section 1750 et seq. and that it breached the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Second Amended
Complaint seeks relief in the form of an injunction to cease the
alleged unfair business acts, notification to policyholders of
the alleged acts, unspecified restitution and monetary damages
including punitive damages and unspecified attorney's fees and
costs.  The plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint in
February 2005, which was substantially the same as the Second
Amended Complaint.  The Company filed Demurrers to the Amended
Complaints.  A hearing is scheduled for April 22, 2005.  No
trial date has been scheduled and the Plaintiff has not filed a
motion seeking to certify the putative class.


MERCURY INSURANCE: LA Court Rules in Company's Favor in Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Los Angeles Superior Court in California confirmed an award
in favor of Mercury Insurance Company in the class action filed
against it, styled "Dan O'Dell, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. Mercury Insurance Company, Mercury
General Corporation."

The suit, filed July 12, 2002, involves a dispute over whether
the Company's use of certain automated database vendors to help
determine the value of total loss claims is proper. The
plaintiff (along with plaintiffs in other coordinated cases
against other insurers) is seeking class certification and
unspecified damages for breach of contract and bad faith,
including punitive damages, restitution, an injunction
preventing us from using valuation software and unspecified
attorneys' fees and costs.

In 2003, the court granted the Company's motion to stay the
action pending compliance with a contractual arbitration
provision.  The arbitration was completed in August 2004 and the
award in the Company's favor has been confirmed by the court in
January 2005.  Based upon the arbitration result and other
defenses, the Company intends to challenge the pleadings and
seek dismissal.  


MERCURY INSURANCE: To Seek Summary Judgment in CA Consumer Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mercury Insurance Company intends to ask for summary judgment in
relation to the plaintiff's claims in the class action filed
against it in the Los Angeles Superior Court in California,
styled "Marissa Goodman, on her own behalf and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Mercury Insurance Company."

The plaintiff is challenging the Company's use of certain
automated database vendors to assist in valuing claims for
medical payments.  The plaintiff is seeking to have the case
certified as a class action.  Plaintiff alleges that these
automated databases systematically undervalue medical payment
claims to the detriment of insureds. The plaintiff is seeking
unspecified actual and punitive damages.

Similar lawsuits have been filed against other insurance
carriers in the industry. The case has been coordinated with two
other similar cases, and also with ten other cases relating to
total loss claims. The Company and the other defendants were
successful on demurrer.  The plaintiffs filed a Second Amended
Complaint on June 28, 2004, which was substantially the same as
the original complaint.  The Company has answered the Second
Amended Complaint and will file a Motion for Summary Judgment as
to the claims of Ms. Goodman.  The Company expects the Motion to
be heard in May 2005.  


MORGAN STANLEY: Income Trust Settlement Hearing Set May 26, 2005
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firms of Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP and
Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP announce a
proposed class action settlement on behalf of persons or
entities, who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Morgan
Stanley Prime Income Trust between November 1, 1998 and
April 26, 2001.

The Defendants in the case, which was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, are Morgan
Stanley & Co., Morgan Stanley Dean Witter Advisors Inc., Morgan
Stanley Dean Witter Prime Income Trust (the "Fund"), Charles A.
Fiumefreddo, Mitchell M. Merin, Michael Bozic, Edwin J. Garn,
Wayne E. Hedien, Manuel H. Johnson, Michael E. Nugent, Sheila A.
Finnerty, and Peter Gewirtz.

The Settlement provides for the creation of a ten million dollar
($10,000,000.00) Settlement Fund to be distributed to Authorized
Claimants pursuant to a proposed Plan of Allocation. The
proposed Settlement resolves each and every claim, known or
unknown, arising out of or relating, directly or indirectly, to
investments in shares of the Fund between November 1, 1998 and
April 26, 2001 that has been, might have been, or could have
been asserted against the Defendants and certain affiliated
persons and entities.

A fairness hearing will be held before the Hon. Richard J.
Holwell, United States District Judge, on May 26, 2005 at 2:30
p.m. at the United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street,
Courtroom 17D, New York, New York 10007.

For more details, contact Hicks v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Class
Notices, c/o Complete Claim Solutions, Inc. by Mail: P.O. Box
24719, West Palm Beach, FL 33416 or by Phone: (866) 873-4826 OR
Joel H. Bernstein, Esq. of Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow
LLP by Mail: 100 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10017 by Phone:
(866) 873-4826 or by E-mail: hicks@glrslaw.com OR Paul J.
Geller, Esq. of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
LLP by Mail: 197 South Federal Highway, Boca Raton, FL 33432 or
by Phone: (866) 873-4826.


MR. HEATER: Recalls 55,000 Propane Heaters Due To Fire Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------
In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC), Mr. Heater, Inc., of Cleveland, Ohio is voluntarily
recalling about 55,000 Mr. Heater "Big Buddy" and "Tough Buddy"
portable propane heaters.

The valve on the propane heaters can leak, posing a fire hazard
if an ignition source is present. Mr. Heater has received 26
reports of propane leaks. No injuries have been reported.

Only model number MH18B Mr. Heater "Big Buddy" and "Tough Buddy"
propane heaters are included in the recall. The model number is
located on the rear panel of the unit. The heaters are either
black with yellow accents around the burner tiles or light gray
with red accents around the burner tiles. "Mr. Heater" is
printed in the lower right hand corner of the heaters.

Manufactured in China, the heaters were sold at Home centers,
sporting goods, and hardware stores nationwide from September
2004 through December 2004 for between $120 and $149.

Contact Mr. Heater for instructions on receiving a replacement
heater.  Contact Mr. Heater Inc. at
http://www.regcen.com/heaterrecallor call (800) 385-2605  
between 8 a.m. and 7 p.m. ET Monday through Friday.


NATIONAL CONSUMER: Forges Settlement For FTC Consumer Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A group of companies and individual defendants, fronted by
"National Consumer Council" (NCC), a purported nonprofit
organization, reached a settlement for the Federal Trade
Commission (FTC) complaint, alleging that the Company solicited
customers through an aggressive telemarketing and direct mail
advertising campaign that falsely promised free debt counseling,
reached a settlement for the Federal Trade Commission's
complaint.

The complaint states that the Company's role in the scheme was
simply to generate leads for the other defendants, who then
charged consumers thousands of dollars in fees to enroll in
their debt negotiation programs.  The defendants deceptively
claimed these programs were an effective way to stop creditors'
collection efforts and eliminate their debts.  The FTC alleged
that the defendants failed to disclose important information to
consumers before they enrolled, including the fact that very few
people were able to reduce their debts through the debt
negotiation programs; consumers would suffer late fees,
penalties, and other charges; and that participation in the
program might hurt their credit rating.  A court-appointed
receiver determined that less than two percent of the consumers
who enrolled in the defendants' debt negotiation programs - 638
out of 44,844 consumers - actually completed them.

The FTC's complaint also alleged that the defendants violated
the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR), including the National Do
Not Call Registry provisions, by calling consumers who had
placed their phone numbers on the Registry and claiming that NCC
was a nonprofit organization exempt from the Do Not Call
requirements. The complaint further alleged that some of the
defendants violated the Gramm-Leach-Bliley (GLB) Act by failing
to inform consumers how their personal financial information
would be used.

At the FTC's request, a federal district court appointed a
receiver over defendants National Consumer Council, an Arizona
corporation; National Consumer Council, a California
corporation; National Consumer Council, a Nevada corporation,
London Financial Group; National Consumer Debt Council, LLC;
Solidium, LLC; J.P. Landis, LLC; Financial Rescue Services, Inc.
(FRS); Signature Equities, LLC; M&L Springfield Trust; PC Hailey
Trust; Via Lido Trust; and United Consumers Law Group. The
receiver has returned approximately $24 million in consumer
funds held in defendants' trust accounts. The receiver also is
winding down the corporations' business operations.

The FTC entered into separate settlements with the receivership
defendants and each of the individual defendants. The stipulated
settlement orders bar the defendants from making false claims
for debt negotiation services or any other product or service.
The orders require that, prior to enrolling any consumer in a
debt negotiation plan, the defendants must clearly disclose
that:

     (1) late fees, penalties, and interest will continue to
         accrue on the consumer's debt until the consumer's
         creditors accept and receive a settlement;

     (2) a consumer's creditors may still sue to collect on the
         debts and garnish the consumer's wages;

     (3) interest rates applicable to the consumer's debt may
         increase;

     (4) any money a consumer saves in negotiating a settlement
         with a creditor must be treated as income for tax
         purposes; and

     (5) a debt settled for less than the full amount owed may
         result in a negative notation on the consumer's credit
         report.

The orders also prohibit the defendants from engaging in abusive
telemarketing practices, including violations of the National Do
Not Call Registry, and require them to comply with the GLB Act.

In addition, settlements with the corporate receivership
defendants require them to pay $1 million in consumer redress.
The stipulated orders against defendants Walter Haines, Paul
Kardos, and Walter Ledda require them to pay $605,000,
$1,860,000, and $1,356,000, respectively. The orders against
each of these defendants include a suspended judgment of $84.3
million, the amount of fees these defendants received from
consumers. If any of these defendants fail to make their
payments within the time allotted in the order, or if it is
found that they misrepresented their financial status, they will
be held liable for the entire $84.3 million. The stipulated
orders against defendants Mary Beth Harper and Martha Levitsky
include a suspended monetary judgment of $17.8 million for the
fees their company, defendant FRS, received from consumers; they
will be liable for the entire $17.8 million if it is found that
they misrepresented their financial condition to the FTC. The
stipulated order against defendant Harvey Warren includes a
suspended monetary judgment of $84.3 million for the fees
received from consumers; Warren will be liable for the entire
$84.3 million if it is found that he misrepresented his
financial condition to the FTC.

For more details, contact the FTC's Consumer Response Center,
Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580,
by Phone: 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357), or use the complaint
form at the Website: http://www.ftc.gov. Also contact Jen  
Schwartzman, Office of Public Affairs, 202-326-2674 or contact
Jennifer Larabee or Faye Chen Barnouw, FTC Western Region, Los
Angeles by Phone: 310-824-4343.


NORTHWESTERN CORPORATION: Working To Settle SD Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
NorthWestern Corporation is working to settle the consolidated
securities class action filed against it, and certain of its
present and former officers and directors in the United States
District Court for the District of South Dakota, Southern
Division.

Several suits were initially filed, alleging violations of
Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  In June 2003, the
complaints were consolidated in the United States District Court
for the District of South Dakota and given the caption "In Re
NorthWestern Corporation Securities Litigation, Case No. 03-
4049, and Carpenters Pension Trust for Southern California,
Oppenheim Investment Management, LLC, and Richard C. Slump were
named as co-lead plaintiffs.

In July 2003, the Lead Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
class action complaint naming the Company, NorthWestern Capital
Financing II and III, Blue Dot, Expanets, certain of the
Company's present and former officers and directors, along with
a number of investment banks that participated in the securities
offerings as defendants.  The amended complaint alleges that the
defendants misrepresented and omitted material facts concerning
the business operations and financial performance of the
Company, Expanets, Blue Dot and CornerStone, overstated the
Company's revenues and earnings by, among other things,
maintaining insufficient reserves for accounts receivable at
Expanets, failing to disclose billing problems and lapses and
data conversion problems, failing to make full disclosures of
problems (including the billing and data conversion issues)
arising from the implementation of Expanets' EXPERT system,
concealing losses at Expanets and Blue Dot by improperly
allocating losses to minority interest shareholders, maintaining
insufficient internal controls, and profiting from improper
related-party transactions.

The Company, and certain of its present and former officers and
directors, were also named as defendants in two complaints
purporting to be class actions which were filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
entitled "Sanford & Beatrice Golman Family Trust, et al.
v. NorthWestern Corp., et al., Case No. 03CV3223," and "Arthur
Laufer v. Merle Lewis, et al., Case No. 03CV3716," which were
brought on behalf of the purchasers of the Company's 7.20%,
8.25%, and 8.10% trust preferred securities which were offered
and sold pursuant to the Company's registration statement on
Form S-3 filed on July 12, 1999.

The plaintiffs' claims are based on similar allegations of
material misrepresentations and omissions of fact relating to
the registration statement in violation of Sections 11 and 12 of
the Securities Act of 1933, and they seek unspecified
compensatory damages, rescission and attorneys', accountants'
and experts' fees.

In July 2003, Arthur Laufer v. Merle Lewis, et al. was
transferred to the District of South Dakota and consolidated
with the consolidated actions pending in that court. In
September 2003, Sanford & Beatrice Golman Family Trust, et al.
v. NorthWestern Corp., et al. was also transferred to the
District of South Dakota and consolidated with the consolidated
actions.  In February 2004, the Golman Family Trust action was
also consolidated with the actions pending in that court.  The
actions have been stayed as to the Company due to its bankruptcy
filing.  In October 2003, Expanets, Blue Dot, and certain of
NorthWestern's present and former officers and directors filed
motions to dismiss the consolidated amended class action
complaint for failure to state a claim, which are currently
pending in the District of South Dakota.

Certain of the Company's present and former officers, former
directors and the Company, as a nominal defendant, have been
named in two shareholder derivative actions commenced in the
United States District Court for the District of South Dakota,
Southern Division, entitled "Deryl Lusty, et al. v. Richard R.
Hylland, et al., Case No. CIV034091" and "Jerald and Betty
Stewart, et al. v. Richard R. Hylland, et al., Case No.
CIV034114."  These shareholder derivative lawsuits allege that
the defendants breached various fiduciary duties based upon the
same general set of alleged facts and circumstances as the
federal shareholder suits.  The plaintiffs seek unspecified
compensatory damages, restitution of improper salaries, insider
trading profits and payments from the Company, and disgorgement
under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.  In July 2003, the
complaints were consolidated in the United
States District Court for the District of South Dakota and given
the caption "In re NorthWestern Corporation Derivative
Litigation, Case No. 03-4091."

In October 2003, the action was stayed pending a ruling on
defendants' motions to dismiss in the related securities class
action, "In re NorthWestern Corporation Securities Litigation."
On November 6, 2003, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order
preliminarily enjoining the plaintiffs in "In Re NorthWestern
Corporation Derivative Litigation" from prosecuting the
litigation against the Company, its subsidiaries and its current
and former officers and directors until further order of the
Bankruptcy Court.  On February 15, 2005, the Bankruptcy Court
vacated its preliminary injunction order.  The federal court has
been advised of the Bankruptcy Court's order.

On February 7, 2004, the parties to the above consolidated
securities class actions and consolidated derivative litigation,
together with certain other affected persons and parties,
reached a tentative settlement of the litigation.  On April 19,
2004, the parties and other affected persons signed a memorandum
of understanding (MOU) which memorialized the tentative
settlement.  On June 16, 2004, the parties and other affected
persons signed a settlement agreement memorializing the
tentative settlement and addressing various issues necessary for
federal court approval.  The Company obtained approval of the
MOU in the NorthWestern and Netexit bankruptcy cases on October
7, 2004 and September 15, 2004, respectively. Prior to those
approvals from the Bankruptcy Court in both the NorthWestern and
Netexit bankruptcy cases, the federal court in Sioux Falls
granted preliminary approval of the settlement agreement pending
a fairness hearing on December 13, 2004.  On January 14,
2004 the federal court finally approved the settlement and no
timely appeals have been filed.  The federal court delayed its
final approval on "In Re NorthWestern Derivative Litigation"
pending bankruptcy court dismissal of its stay of the derivative
litigation.  

Among the terms of the settlement, the Company, Expanets, Blue
Dot and other parties and persons are released from all claims
to these cases, a settlement fund in the amount of $41 million
(of which approximately $37 million would be contributed by the
Company's directors and officers liability insurance carriers,
and $4 million would be contributed from other persons and
parties) is established, and the plaintiffs have a $20 million
liquidated securities claim against Netexit. Claims by the
Company current and former officers and directors for
indemnification for these proceedings will be channeled into the
Directors and Officers Trust under the Plan.

On October 26, 2004 Magten filed a notice of appeal of the
Bankruptcy Court's approval of the MOU.  Magten's appeal of the
confirmation order and the order approving the MOU have been
consolidated.  In March 2005, the Company moved to dismiss both
appeals on equitable mootness grounds.


NORTHWESTERN CORPORATION: Court Stays Touch America ERISA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court in Montana stayed the class
action, styled "In Re Touch America ERISA Litigation," of which
NorthWestern Corporation is named as a defendant.

The lawsuit was filed by participants in the former Montana
Power Company retirement savings plan and alleges that there was
a breach of fiduciary duty in connection with the employee stock
ownership aspects of the plan.  The court has recently entered
orders indefinitely staying the Employee Retirement Income
Securities Act (ERISA) litigation because of Touch America
Holdings Inc.'s bankruptcy filing.


NORTHWESTERN CORPORATION: Dropped From CA CornerStone Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
NorthWestern Corporation has been dropped as a defendant in the
consolidated class action filed against CornerStone Propane
Partners, LP in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California.

The Company, and certain of its former officers and directors,
were named as defendants in certain complaints filed against
CornerStone Propane Partners, LP and other defendants purporting
by purchasers of units of CornerStone Propane Partners alleging
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

Through November 1, 2002, the Company held an economic equity
interest in a subsidiary that serves as the managing general
partner of CornerStone Propane Partners, LP. Certain former
officers and directors of NorthWestern who are named as
defendants in certain of these actions have also been sued in
their capacities as directors of the managing general partner.
These complaints allege that defendants sold units of
CornerStone Propane Partners based upon false and misleading
statements and failed to disclose material information about
CornerStone Propane Partners' financial condition and future
prospects, including overpayment for acquisitions, overstating
earnings and net income, and that it lacked adequate internal
controls.

All of the lawsuits have now been consolidated and Gilbert H.
Lamphere has been named as lead plaintiff. The actions have been
stayed as to the Company due to its bankruptcy filing.  On
October 27, 2003, the plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated
class action complaint. The new complaint does not name the
Company as a defendant, although it alleges facts relating to
its conduct.  Certain of our former officers and directors are
named as defendants in the amended consolidated complaint.  The
plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, prejudgment and
postjudgment interest and costs, injunctive relief, and other
relief.

On November 6, 2003, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order
approving a stipulation between the Company and plaintiffs in
this litigation. The stipulation provides that litigation as
against the Company shall be temporarily stayed for 180 days
from the date of the stipulation. The stay has been extended.
Pursuant to the stipulation and after providing notice to the
Company, the plaintiffs may move the Bankruptcy Court for
termination of the temporary stay.  On March 2, 2004, the
plaintiffs filed a corrected consolidated amended complaint
against CornerStone and the individual defendants, which also
did not name the Company.  In June 2004, CornerStone Propane
Partners, LP along with its subsidiaries and affiliates filed
for bankruptcy protection under Chapter 11 of the U.S.
Bankruptcy Code. As a result of that filing this case is now
stayed against CornerStone Propane Partners and other named
subsidiaries and affiliates.


NORWEGIAN CRUISE: Agency Files CA Breach Of Contract, Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Blue World Travel Corporation, a California-based travel agency
launched a suit in San Francisco against Norwegian Cruise Line,
alleging breach of contract and fraud and claiming damages, the
Pacific Business News reports.

According to court documents, the travel agency had chartered
the Pride of Aloha last August for two consecutive weeks for its
annual Festival at Sea targeted at African Americans. Nearly
4,200 people came for the trip at a cost of $1,300 per person.  
Court documents also revealed that the passengers were so
unhappy with the trip that they filed a class-action lawsuit
against Blue World earlier this year in the San Francisco County
Superior County, thus in response, the agency filed a
counterclaim against NCL.

Despite the accusations, the cruise line though blames some its
startup troubles last year to the fact that it had to hire an
inexperienced, all-American crew learning the ropes of sea life.
But they reiterated that since those times passenger complaints
have dwindled, due to improvements made and experienced gained
by the crew.

However, in the lawsuit passengers and the travel agency draw a
graphic picture of what they call their "Disaster at Sea." The
complaint said, "Blue World Travel Corp. bargained for a luxury
cruise to the Hawaiian Islands to sell to its clients. Instead,
what it received was a week of hell, crippling the fine
reputation it took years to build within its primary special
interest client base, the African American community."  It
further adds, "Poor service, understaffing, filthy living
conditions, inedible and/or insufficient food, and the like were
so extreme that Blue World Travel Corp.'s President Patricia
Yarborough flew to Hawaii during the August 1st charter to meet
the ship and attempt to rectify the situation as best she
could," the Pacific Business News reports.


OHIO: AEP, Defendants Respond To Suit Over River Barge Accident
---------------------------------------------------------------
The corporate defendants in a class-action suit stemming from an
Ohio River barge accident have asked a federal court to free
them from all liability in the case, or at least limit how much
they may have to pay, The Athens News reports.

In a complaint filed in U.S. District Court in West Virginia,
attorneys for electric utility American Electric Power and
tugboat company B&H Towing have asked for "exoneration from or
limitation of liability" in two federal lawsuits filed in
February.  The suits, which were initiated by a handful of
landowners who have properties along a 13-mile stretch of the
river near Hockingport, charge that a tugboat hauling barges for
AEP was responsible for widespread erosion damages along the
riverbank.

As previously reported in the February 2, 2005 edition of the
Class Action Reporter, three loaded coal barges slammed into the
Belleville Lock and Dam on January 6 after breaking loose from a
12-barge tow. A fourth barge sank near the dam.  The barges
jammed open the gates that regulate the pool above the dam, and
the water has fallen about 14 feet below normal.

Court documents state that as the water receded in a stretch of
the Ohio and its tributaries, riverbanks battered by earlier
flooding began eroding and collapsing. The dropping water level
also has halted river traffic between Belleville and the Willow
Island Lock and Dam, about 21 miles above Parkersburg, stranding
more than 290 barges and costing an estimated $4.5 million a day
in economic damages. The towboat is owned by Memco and leased to
B & H Towing.

In the recent defendants' filing, AEP denies that it is legal
owner of the tugboat that was involved in the accident. If it is
found to be the legal owner, however, the utility's lawyers
argue, it should have its liability limited under the federal
Limitation of Liability Act.  The defendants' complaint claims
that the barge accident was caused partly by "an unexpected and
unusually severe build-up of drift in the forebay, caused by...
persons or entities for whom (the defendants) have no legal
responsibility." The complaint also states that the blockage
caused the tugboat's engine to stall out and the current pushed
the vessel into the lock wall, causing the barge breakaway.

The company in its complaint is therefore asking the court to
either rule that the defendants have no liability in the case,
or to limit the highest possible liability to the post-accident
value of the boat, the Jon J. Srong, which it sets at $1,035,350
including its cargo. They also asked for a court order setting a
deadline after which no further legal actions can be filed
against the defendants.

In a press release, plaintiff's attorney Dennis M. O'Bryan
called the complaint "a divide-and-conquer strategy," designed
to isolate potential claimants and deal with them individually,
in the hopes that they or their attorneys will not be
knowledgeable about admiralty law, under which the class-action
suit has been filed. He urged any home- or business owners who
believe they suffered damages from the barge accident to contact
him.


PHOENIX AVATAR: Reaches Settlement of FTC CAN-SPAM Act Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
Phoenix Avatar reached a settlement for charges filed by the
Federal Trade Commission (FTC), alleging that it sent millions
of illegal e-mail messages to market their bogus diet patch,
violating federal laws, including the CAN-SPAM Act.  

The settlement bars the defendants from violating CAN-SPAM.  It
also bars them from making false or misleading claims for their
products or services and bars unsubstantiated health, efficacy,
or safety claims.  It also provides for a suspended judgment of
$230,000, the total amount of diet patch sales.

In April 2004, the FTC filed suit in U.S. District Court
charging that Phoenix Avatar and its principals were violating
the CAN-SPAM Act and the FTC Act by marketing their bogus diet
patches using massive amounts of illegal spam.  The court issued
a temporary restraining order to halt the unsubstantiated claims
and freeze the defendants' assets pending trial.  The
individuals challenged the suit claiming they could not be held
liable under CAN-SPAM because the FTC could not prove that they
sent the spam. The FTC argued that the defendants were
responsible because they had either sent the messages or caused
the message to be sent by affiliates.

In July, U.S. District Court Judge James Holderman issued an
order finding that CAN-SPAM liability "is not limited to those
who physically cause spam to be transmitted, but also extends to
those who `procure the origination' of offending spam." The
court held that the FTC had amassed a "persuasive chain of
evidence" connecting the defendants to violations of the CAN-
SPAM Act and the FTC Act.

The settlement ends the litigation with a stipulated order for
permanent injunction and final judgment as to defendants Daniel
J. Lin, Mark M. Sadek, James Lin and Christopher M. Chung and a
default judgment and order for permanent injunction and monetary
relief as to defendants Phoenix Avatar, LLC and DJL, LLC.

The final orders bar the defendants from violating the CAN-SPAM
Act, including by using false header information or by failing
to provide a mechanism by which consumers can opt-out of further
e-mail messages. The orders bar the defendants from making false
or misleading statements in marketing any product or service.
The orders further bar them from making any unsubstantiated
health, performance, efficacy, or safety claims and bar
misrepresentations that any diet patch causes weight loss,
increases metabolism, decreases appetite, or reduces food
craving.

Based on financial statements submitted by the defendants, the
settlement with the individual defendants suspends a judgment of
$230,000 - the total amount of diet patch sales. Instead, the
defendants will pay $20,000. Should the court find
misrepresentations in the financial statements, the entire
$230,000 will be due. The court orders contain bookkeeping and
record-keeping requirements to allow the FTC to monitor the
defendants compliance.

The case was filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division, in Chicago.

For more details, contact the FTC's Consumer Response Center,
Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580,
by Phone: 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357), or use the complaint
form at the Website: http://www.ftc.gov. Also contact Claudia  
Bourne Farrell, Office of Public Affairs, Phone: 202-326-2181 or
Steven Wernikoff, FTC Midwest Region by Phone: 312-960-5634.


POLARIS INDUSTRIES: Recalls 774 Motorcycles Due To Crash Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
Polaris Industries, Inc. is cooperating with the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) by voluntarily
recalling 774 motorcycles, namely:

     (1) VICTORY / NESS KINGPIN, model 2005

     (2) VICTORY / NESS VEGAS, model 2004-2005

On certain motorcycles, the throttle twist grip may not return
to the fully closed position due to metal to metal contact or
debris between the throttle twist grip and the handlebar.  
Restricted throttle movement could result in a loss of control,
increasing the risk of a crash.

Dealers will disassemble the throttle mechanism, clean the twist
grip assembly and handlebar, lubricate moving parts and
reassemble.  Any worn or damaged parts will be replaced.  The
recall began on April 1,2005.  For more information, contact the
Company by Phone: 1-763-417-8650 or contact the NHTSA's auto
safety hotline: 1-888-327-4236.


PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS: Settles Safety-Kleen Investors' Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Accounting firm, PricewaterhouseCoopers, which is accused of
overlooking financial trouble at Safety-Kleen Corp. must pay out
$48 million after settling a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in
Columbia, The State reports.

According to court documents, the accounting firm has agreed to
pay $28.8 million to two plaintiffs, America High Income Trust
and State Street Research Income Trust, who were the major
bondholders of Safety-Kleen, a hazardous waste disposal company.
The remaining $19.2 million of the settlement, court documents
revealed, will be paid to participants in a class-action lawsuit
against the accounting firm.

The settlement, which was filed March 15, puts an end to all
claims against PricewaterhouseCoopers for its role in accounting
problems that brought down its client, Safety-Kleen. As a side
note, two other lawsuits against Safety-Kleen and its accounting
firm were settled for $30 million in February 2004.

Safety-Kleen was based in Columbia until it moved to Plano,
Texas, in 2002 in the wake of the trouble that sank its stock
and eventually landed the company in bankruptcy court.

Three of the company's top officials were suspended in the
scandal, and several of its directors were accused of U.S.
securities fraud with a civil trial for five of Safety-Kleen's
former directors already in its third week in U.S. District
Court in Columbia. That trial is expected to last two months,
said U.S. District Judge Joe Anderson.

In 1998, Laidlaw Environmental Services for $1.8 billion bought
Safety-Kleen, but since that acquisition, the company has lost
millions, and creditors have filed about $1.6 billion in claims
against company.


REWARDS NETWORK: Consumers File CA Unfair Trade Practices Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rewards Network, Inc. faces a class action filed in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California by
Bistro Executive, Inc., Westward Beach Restaurant Holdings, LLC
and MiniBar Lounge, all of which were participants in our Dining
Credits Purchase Program (the "Dining Plan"), and their
respective owners.  The suit also names as defendants certain of
the Company's subsidiaries.

On May 25, 2004, a complaint was filed in the Los Angeles County
Superior Court on behalf of a class consisting of all
restaurants located in California who participated in the Dining
Plan and all persons in California who provided personal
guaranties of obligations under the Dining Plan.  The complaint
claims that amounts we paid under the Dining Plan constituted
loans, and asserts claims for damages and equitable and
injunctive relief for violations of California usury laws and
the California Unfair Business Practices Act and declaratory
relief.  The complaint seeks, among other relief, disgorgement
of all purported "interest" and profits earned by us from the
Dining Plan in California, which plaintiffs allege to be a
significant portion of an amount in excess of $300 million, and
treble damages for all purported "interest" paid within one year
prior to the filing of the complaint.  The suit was later
removed to federal court.


SMITH BARNEY: Female Consultants Launch Sexual Bias Suit in CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Four female financial consultants filed a class-action lawsuit
in federal court in the Northern District of California,
charging sex discrimination at Smith Barney, the retail
brokerage arm of Citigroup, which is the nation's largest
financial institution.

The lawsuit, Fassbender Amochaev v. Citigroup Global Markets,
Inc., d/b/a Smith Barney, Case No. C051-298 (PJH) (N.D. Cal.),
derives from the Women on Wall Street Project announced in
Washington, DC in early April 2004 by the National Council of
Women's Organizations (NCWO) in partnership with Mehri & Skalet,
PLLC, a plaintiffs' side civil-rights law firm in DC. This
lawsuit is the latest in a series of legal actions against Wall
Street financial firms on gender discrimination issues.

At the announcement of the Women on Wall Street Project last
year, Dr. Martha Burk, Chair of NCWO, made public a letter she
sent to certain CEOs, including Citibank's Sanford Weill (Smith
Barney's parent company), in response to complaints she had
received about gender discrimination at financial sector
companies. Cyrus Mehri partnered with Burk to investigate claims
of systemic gender discrimination made to NCWO over the course
of the year.

The four plaintiffs in this case, Renee Fassbender-Amochaev,
Deborah Orlando, Kathryn N. Varner and Judy Weil, charge that
they were discriminated against with respect to promotions and
compensation at Smith Barney.

The initial focus of the Women on Wall Street investigation was
financial firms whose executives are members of the male only
golf club, including American Express (Kenneth E. Chenault,
Chairman & CEO); Bank of America (Kenneth Lewis, CEO; James H.
Hance, Jr, Vice Chairman & CFO); Berkshire Hathaway (Warren E.
Buffett, CEO); CitiGroup (Sanford I. Weill, Chairman); Franklin
Templeton (Charles B. Johnson, CEO); JP Morgan Chase (William
Harrison, Chairman & CEO); Morgan Stanley (Phillip J. Purcel
III, Chairman & CEO); and Prudential (Arthur F. Ryan, Chairman &
CEO).

The new case is only the most recent sex bias legal action
against a Wall Street company and only one of the many suits
filed against Smith Barney. Specifically:

     (1) In 2004 Morgan Stanley agreed to pay a $54 million
         settlement rather than face an EEOC sex discrimination
         suit.

     (2) Last year an arbitration panel awarded a former female
         employee of Merrill Lynch $2.2 million.  About 40 other
         women, including some of Merrill Lynch's most
         successful brokers, still have outstanding claims
         against the company.

     (3) In April 2004 a district court judge ruled that a 1997
         finding of 'a pattern and practice of discrimination'
         was relevant in their actions against Merrill Lynch.

      (4) American Express and Citigroup's Smith Barney each
          settled a major class action sex discrimination
          lawsuit in the past six years.
  
      (5) Employees at Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan
          Chase and Prudential have filed sex discrimination
          cases each year over the past ten years.

      (6) As part of previous litigation against Smith Barney,
          it was revealed that drinking parties were held
          regularly for mainly male brokers in a basement space
          dubbed the "boom-boom room," which featured a toilet
          bowl hanging from the ceiling. Male brokers were
          accused of referring to women in their presence as
          "whores" and "c---s."

"Over the last year, women who work on Wall Street have sent us
one message loud and clear: sex discrimination in their firms
does not stop at Augusta's gates. The clubhouse extends to their
firms -- and affects jobs from the entry-level to the executive
suites. Women on Wall Street are less likely to receive
promotions, equal pay packages, stock option equity or the
opportunity to serve on the board of directors," said Dr. Burk.

For more details, contact Martha Burk, Cell: +1-202-247-1300, or
Alison Stein, +1-202-293-4505, both of the National Council of
Women's Organizations.


UNION PACIFIC: NE Court Gives Class Status To Contraception Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Two female plaintiffs, one from Missouri and another from Idaho,
won an important preliminary victory when the U.S. District
Court for the District of Nebraska granted plaintiffs' motion
for multi-state class action status in the Union Pacific
Railroad Employment Practices Litigation. The ruling makes this
the first case for prescription contraception coverage to be
certified as a federal multi-state class action.

The plaintiffs are current and former Union Pacific employees
who allege Union Pacific's decision to exclude prescription
contraception coverage in its health plans for unionized
employees is sex discrimination in violation of Title VII of the
Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII is the nation's
foremost law against race and sex discrimination in employment.

"We are pleased with the court ruling today, which means that no
matter where they live, the women who work for this multi-state
company will all be impacted by the court's ruling in this
case," said Roberta Riley, one of the attorneys for plaintiffs
and a staff attorney for Planned Parenthood. The class is
estimated to include more than 400 female employees of
childbearing age located throughout the westernmost two thirds
of the nation.

The plaintiff class representatives are: Brandi Standridge, a
25-year-old trainman and engineer for Union Pacific who lives in
Pocatello, Idaho, and Kenya Phillips, a 32-year-old engineer who
lives near Kansas City, Mo.

In a legal battle spanning three years, the company has refused
to provide contraceptive benefits to its unionized employees.
Union Pacific opposed class treatment, claiming that union-
represented women could get insurance coverage for birth control
pills with a doctor's letter verifying a non-contraceptive
purpose for the prescription, such as for acne.

"Contraception prevents unplanned pregnancy, making it essential
health care for women. A prescription alone should be all it
takes, women shouldn't be forced to play games to get this basic
need met," said Ms. Riley.

Union Pacific has covered contraceptives in its management
employee health benefits plans for more than a decade.

"I don't understand why Union Pacific refuses to treat the basic
health needs of women like me who work out on the line on the
same, non-discriminatory terms that it treats the health needs
of its female managers," said Kenya Phillips, one of the named
plaintiffs, who lives in Oak Grove, a suburb of Kansas City,
Missouri. "We simply want Union Pacific to cover all FDA-
approved methods of prescription contraception and reimburse
employees who had to pay for their contraception out-of-pocket."

Currently 21 states have enacted laws requiring private
insurance coverage of contraception. Recent studies show that
88% of employer health plans currently provide coverage for all
methods of prescription contraception. Erickson v. Bartell Drug
Co. in 2001 was the first federal court ruling on this issue. In
that class action, the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington ruled that Bartell's exclusion of
prescription contraception in its health care plan constituted
unlawful sex discrimination.

In its ruling, issued late today, the court stated: "The record
shows that Union Pacific Railroad has 'acted or refused to act
on grounds generally applicable to the class' in that the
Agreement Plans continue to exclude coverage for drugs, devices,
and related medical services prescribed solely for the purpose
of preventing pregnancy, despite the named plaintiffs' personal
requests for coverage, their filing of charges with the EEOC,
and the EEOC's findings of cause...this company-wide policy
affects all women who are covered by an Agreement Plan."

Union Pacific, a publicly traded Fortune 500 company and the
largest railroad in North America, has 50,000 employees.
Approximately, 3,000 managers are located predominantly in
Omaha, where the company is headquartered. The company has
47,000 unionized workers.

Attorneys for the plaintiff class are Roberta Riley and Kelly
Reese staff attorneys at Planned Parenthood of Western
Washington, David Copley and Claire Cordon at the Seattle-based
firm Keller Rohrback, LLP, Missouri attorneys Rex Sharp, Rick
Holtsclaw and Sly James and Michael Schleich, of the Omaha-based
law firm Fraser Stryker.


UNITED STATES: Flight Service Employees Files DC Age Bias Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In a bid to stop the Federal Aviation Administration from
contracting out their jobs, approximately 800 flight service
specialists filed an age discrimination lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia, the GovExec.com
reports.

Filed by attorneys from the firm Gebhardt & Associates on behalf
of 796 federal employees, the suit alleges that age was a major
factor in the FAA's decision to hold a public-private
competition for roughly 2,500 flight services jobs and award the
work to Lockheed Martin Corp. The 1967 Age Discrimination in
Employment Act prohibits such treatment, points out Joseph
Gebhardt, the lead attorney for the specialists.

According to the complaint, the transfer of work to Lockheed
Martin on October 1 will mean that older workers close to
retirement, but not yet eligible, will see significant
reductions in government pension benefits unless they are able
to find another federal job. Members of the class action suit
are seeking relief from any harm the decision has caused them,
including back pay, record correction and attorney fees.

Attorneys for the federal employees pointed out that 1,900 of
the affected employees worked directly in flight service
controller positions, providing weather briefings, navigational
assistance and information on flight restrictions, primarily to
pilots of noncommercial aircraft. There was about 500 other
flight service positions encompassed in the contest for work at
58 flight service stations across the country, the attorneys
added.

Of the roughly 1,900 employees the complaint defines as "flight
service controllers," 92 percent were older than 40 at the time
the FAA decided to outsource the work, Mr. Gebhardt said. In
materials posted on the Internet at the time of the decision and
in prior public appearances, FAA officials cited the aging
flight service specialist workforce as one of the reasons the
jobs made good candidates for a competitive sourcing study, the
specialists' legal team alleged.  "There is no reasonable factor
other than the age of the workforce that is motivating this
contracting-out decision," the complaint reiterates.

However, Greg Martin, a spokesman for FAA, defended the public-
private contest, telling GovExec.com that it was only about one
thing: providing "better service at a better value." Much of the
equipment used at the flight services stations was antiquated
and in need of repair and at a price tag of more than $500
million a year, the service was also too costly for taxpayers,
he contends. The FAA has said awarding Lockheed Martin the $1.9-
billion, 10-year contract will save more than $2 billion over
that time.  He added that more than half of the 2,500 flight
service specialists involved in the competition were eligible to
retire on February 1, the date of the decision.

The members of the class action lawsuit claim a contractor would
not provide the same quality of service as the federal
employees. "Once the federal flight service specialists are
gone, they're gone," Kate Breen, president of the National
Association of Air Traffic Specialists, the union representing
the flight service employees, told GovExec.com.

A recent Supreme Court ruling that allows the filing of age
discrimination cases in instances where older workers are
disproportionately harmed by a workplace action will bolster the
federal employees' case. The previous threshold for proving age
discrimination required lawyers to show intent.  Mr. Gebhardt
said he thinks he could have shown intent in the FAA case, but
noted that he will not have to do that after the Supreme Court
decision.


UNUMPROVIDENT CORPORATION: MA Court OKs Consumer Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court in Worchester, Massachusetts approved the
settlement of the class actions filed against UnumProvident
Corporation and several of its subsidiaries, namely:

     (1) The Paul Revere Corporation (Paul Revere),

     (2) The Paul Revere Life Insurance Company,

     (3) The Paul Revere Variable Annuity Insurance Company, and

     (4) Provident Life and Accident Insurance Company

In 1997, two alleged class action lawsuits were filed.  One
purported to represent independent brokers who sold certain
individual disability income policies with benefit riders that
were issued by subsidiaries of Paul Revere and who claimed that
their compensation had been reduced in breach of their broker
contract and in violation of the Massachusetts Consumer
Protection Act (the Massachusetts Act).

A class was certified in February 2000.  In April 2001, the jury
returned a complete defense verdict on the breach of contract
claim. Notwithstanding the jury verdict, the judge was obligated
to rule separately on the claim that the Company and its
affiliates violated the Massachusetts Act. In September 2002,
the judge ruled that Paul Revere violated the Massachusetts Act
and awarded double damages plus attorneys' fees.

Complicating the matter was the unexpected death of the trial
judge.  In March 2003, a new judge was assigned to the case so
the parties could proceed to conclude matters before the trial
court. Subsequently, in November 2004, the parties executed a
Memorandum of Understanding agreeing in principle to settle all
issues in the case. The settlement of $4.99 million dollars,
which includes all damages, fees, expenses and interest was
approved by the court on January 12, 2005 after a fairness
hearing on January 7, 2005.  The settlement has been completed,
and the action dismissed with prejudice.


UNUMPROVIDENT CORPORATION: TN Court Sets Schedule For ERISA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Tennessee set a schedule providing for the completion of all
pretrial proceedings in the consolidated class action filed
against UnumProvident Corporation by December 2005.

On May 22, 2003, the Company, several of its subsidiaries, and
some of their officers and directors filed a motion with the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation seeking to transfer
more than twenty class actions and derivative suits now pending
against them in various federal district courts to a single
district for coordinated or consolidated pre-trial proceedings.  
Each of these actions contends, among other things, that the
defendants engaged in improper claims handling practices in
violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
or various state laws or failed to disclose the effects of those
practices in violation of the federal securities laws.

On September 2, 2003, the Judicial Panel on the Multidistrict
Litigation entered an order transferring these cases, described
below, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Tennessee for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

On February 12, 2003, the first of five virtually identical
alleged securities class action suits styled "Knisley v.
UnumProvident Corporation, et al.," was filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee.  On
February 27, 2003, a sixth complaint entitled "Martin v.
UnumProvident Corporation, et al.," was filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York, and
later was transferred to the Eastern District of Tennessee by
agreement of the parties.  In two orders dated May 21, 2003 and
January 22, 2004, the district court consolidated these actions
under the caption "In re UnumProvident Corporation Securities
Litigation."

On November 6, 2003, the district court entered an order
appointing a Lead Plaintiff in the consolidated action. On
January 9, 2004, the Lead Plaintiff filed its consolidated
amended complaint.  The Lead Plaintiff seeks to represent a
putative class of purchasers of Company publicly traded
securities between March 30, 2000 and April 24, 2003. The
plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the Company issued
misleading financial statements, improperly accounted for
certain impaired investments, failed to properly estimate its
disability claim reserves, and pursued certain improper claims
handling practices.  The complaint asserts claims under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 thereunder.  On March 19, 2004, the defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint, which has
not as of yet been ruled upon by the court.

On May 7, 2003, "Azzolini v. CorTs Trust II for Provident
Financial Trust, et al.," was filed in the Southern District of
New York.  This is a federal securities law class action brought
by the plaintiff on behalf of himself and a purported Class
consisting of all persons who purchased UnumProvident Corporate-
Backed Trust Securities (CorTs) certificates pursuant to an
initial public offering by an entity unaffiliated with the
Company on or about April 18, 2001 through March 24, 2003.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages caused by the Company and
certain underwriter defendants alleged violations of the
Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Plaintiff asserts that the Company issued and/or failed to
correct false and misleading financial statements and press
releases concerning the Company's publicly reported revenues and
earnings directed to the investing public.

Three additional actions alleging similar claims and purporting
to be class actions were filed, two in the Southern District of
New York, "Strahle v. CorTs Trust II for Provident Financing
Trust I, et al.," and "Finke v. CorTs Trust II for Provident
Financing Trust I, et al.," filed on March 23, 2003 and May 15,
2003, respectively, and the third in the Eastern District of New
York, "Bernstein v. CorTs for Provident Financing Trust I, et
al.," filed on July 7, 2003. These actions all have been
transferred to the Eastern District of Tennessee for coordinated
pre-trial proceedings.  On February 18, 2004, the court
consolidated each of these actions other than the "Bernstein"
action under the "Azzolini" caption.  The "Bernstein" action
makes identical allegations as the other actions, but with
respect to a different series of CorTs securities.

On March 19, 2004, amended complaints were filed in both the
"Azzolini" and "Bernstein" actions.  The amended complaints
assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder against the
Company and one of its officers.  The "Azzolini" plaintiff seeks
to represent a putative class of purchasers of certain CorTs
certificates between March 21, 2001 and March 24, 2003.  The
"Bernstein" plaintiff seeks to represent a putative class of
purchasers of a different series of CorTs certificates between
February 8, 2001 and March 10, 2003.  On April 19, 2004, the
defendants moved to dismiss the complaints in each of these
actions.  The court has not as of yet ruled on those motions.
Discovery is stayed in each of these actions pursuant to the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. The court
entered a schedule providing for the completion of all pretrial
proceedings in these actions by December 2005.

On July 15, 2002, the case of "Rombeiro v. Unum Life Insurance
Company of America, et al.," was filed in the Superior Court of
Sonoma County, California. It was subsequently removed to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California. On January 21, 2003, a First Amended Complaint was
filed, purporting to be a class action. This complaint alleges
that plaintiff individually was wrongfully denied disability
benefits under a group long-term disability plan and alleges
breach of state law fiduciary duties on behalf of himself and
others covered by similar plans whose disability benefits have
been denied or terminated after a claim was made. The complaint
seeks, among other things, injunctive and declaratory relief and
payment of benefits.

On April 30, 2003, the court granted in part and denied in part
the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint. On May 14,
2003, the plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint seeking
injunctive relief on behalf of a putative nationwide class of
long-term disability insurance policyholders.  This action was
transferred to the Eastern District of Tennessee as part of the
multidistrict litigation transfer order.

On November 4, 2002, the case of "Keir, et al. v. UnumProvident
Corporation, et al.," was filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York. This case purports
to be a class action on behalf of a putative class of group
long-term disability participants insured under ERISA plans
whose claims were denied or terminated on or after June 30,
1999. The amended complaint alleges that these claimants had
their claims improperly challenged and allege that the Company
and its insurance subsidiaries breached certain fiduciary duties
owed to these participants in ERISA plans in which the Company
is the claims adjudicator. The Company maintains that the
allegations are false and that the claims, as framed, are not
permissible under ERISA's carefully structured avenues of
relief.  On April 29, 2003, the court denied the defendants'
motion to dismiss the complaint. The Company denies the
allegations in the complaint and will vigorously defend the
litigation and any attempt to certify the putative class.  This
action was transferred to the Eastern District of Tennessee as
part of the multidistrict litigation transfer order.

On February 11, 2003, the case of "Harris, et al. v.
UnumProvident Corporation, et al.," was filed in the Circuit
Court of St. Clair County, Illinois. This case purports to be a
class action. The complaint alleges that individuals were
wrongfully denied benefits and alleges causes of action under
breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and
fair dealing, violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act,
common law fraud, intentional misrepresentation, and breach of
fiduciary duty on behalf of a putative class of policyholders.
Alternatively, the complaint alleges violations of ERISA.  The
complaint seeks injunctive and declaratory relief as well as
restitution and punitive damages.  On April 4, 2003, the case
was removed to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois.  This action was later transferred to the
Eastern District of Tennessee as part of the multidistrict
litigation transfer order.

On February 25, 2003, the case of "Davis, et al. v.
UnumProvident Corporation, et al.," was filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
The plaintiffs are seeking representative status as a class of
disability participants insured under ERISA plans.  The
complaint alleges that these claimants had their claims
improperly denied or terminated and that the Company breached
certain fiduciary duties owed to these participants in ERISA
plans.  The complaint also alleges violations under the federal
Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).  The
complaint seeks reversal of claim denials or contract
rescissions and re-determination by an independent person of
claims of the named plaintiffs and others similarly situated,
appointment of a master to oversee certain claim handling
matters, and treble damages under RICO. This action was
transferred to the Eastern District of Tennessee as part of the
multidistrict litigation transfer order.

On April 30, 2003, the case of "Taylor v. UnumProvident
Corporation, et al.," was filed in the Circuit Court for Shelby
County, Tennessee in the Thirteenth Judicial District at
Memphis. The plaintiff seeks to represent all individuals who
were insured by long-term disability policies issued by
subsidiaries of UnumProvident and who did not obtain their
coverage through employer sponsored plans and who had a claim
denied, terminated, or suspended by a UnumProvident subsidiary
after January 1, 1995. Plaintiff alleges that UnumProvident
Corporation and its subsidiaries employed various unfair claim
practices in assessing entitlement to benefits by class members
during this period and, as a result, wrongfully denied
legitimate claims. The plaintiff and the class seek contractual,
equitable, and injunctive relief. On June 9, 2003, the
defendants removed this action to the United States District
Court for the Western District of Tennessee.  This action was
transferred to the Eastern District of Tennessee as part of the
multidistrict litigation transfer order.

On July 18, 2003, "Contreras v. UnumProvident Corporation, et
al.," was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York. Plaintiffs allege claims on
behalf of a putative class of ERISA plan participants,
beneficiaries, third-party beneficiaries, or assignees of group
long-term disability insurance issued by the insuring
subsidiaries of UnumProvident, who have had a disability claim
denied, terminated, or suspended by UnumProvident on or after
June 30, 1999.  Plaintiffs assert bad faith claims practices by
UnumProvident in violation of ERISA.  Plaintiffs seek equitable
and injunctive relief to require, among other things, that
UnumProvident re-evaluate all previously denied, terminated, or
suspended claims.  This action was transferred to the Eastern
District of Tennessee as part of the multidistrict litigation
transfer order.

On September 17, 2003, the case of "Rudrud, et al. v.
UnumProvident Corporation, et al.," was filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The
plaintiffs assert claims on behalf of a putative class of
disability participants insured under ERISA plans. The complaint
alleges that these claimants had their claims improperly denied
or terminated and that the Company breached certain fiduciary
duties owed to these participants in ERISA plans. The complaint
also alleges violations under RICO and Massachusetts state law.
The complaint seeks payment of benefits, reversal of claim
denials or contract rescissions and re-determination by an
independent person of claims of the named plaintiffs and others
similarly situated, appointment of a master to oversee certain
claim handling matters, restitution and damages, and treble
damages under RICO. This action was transferred to the Eastern
District of Tennessee as part of the multidistrict litigation
order.

On November 13, 2003, the case of "Dauphinee, et al. v.
UnumProvident, et al.," was filed in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee.  This action is
brought as a putative class action lawsuit on behalf of
representative plaintiffs and all disabled individuals insured
under a UnumProvident long-term disability plan.  The complaint
alleges that UnumProvident and its subsidiaries fraudulently and
otherwise unlawfully denied and terminated long-term disability
insurance benefits. Additionally, the complaint alleges misuse
of authority as an ERISA claims fiduciary.  The complaint seeks
injunctive and declaratory relief to require, among other
things, that UnumProvident re-evaluate all previously denied,
terminated, or suspended claims.

On December 22, 2003, the Tennessee Federal District Court
entered an order consolidating all of the above actions other
than the "Taylor" action for all pretrial purposes under the
caption "In re UnumProvident Corp. ERISA Benefit Denial
Actions."  Among other things, the court in that order appointed
a lead counsel in the actions and directed lead counsel to file
a consolidated amended complaint in the "ERISA Benefit Denial
Actions," which was filed on February 20, 2004. On March 26,
2004, the defendants answered the complaints in these actions,
and simultaneously filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings
in the litigation.  The court has not yet ruled upon that
motion.

The parties have engaged in certain limited discovery in
connection with ongoing court-ordered mediation, as well as
certain discovery on the merits of the claims asserted in the
actions.  On April 9, 2004, the plaintiffs in Taylor and in the
ERISA Benefit Denial Actions separately filed motions seeking
certification of a plaintiff class.  The defendants opposed each
of those motions.  The court has not yet ruled upon the motions.

The suit is styled "In re UnumProvident Corporation ERISA
Benefit Denial Actions, case no. 1:03-md-01552," filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Tennesee, under Judge Curtis L. Collier.  


VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA: Recalls 9,965 Cars Due To Crash Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------
Volkswagen of America, Inc. is cooperating with the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) by voluntarily
recalling 9,965 passenger cars, namely:

     (1) AUDI / A4 CABRIOLET, model 2003-2004

     (2) AUDI / S4 CABRIOLET, model 2003-2004

On certain passenger vehicles, there is a possibility of xenon
headlamp coating degradation over time.  The luminous
transmittance of the headlamp may decrease over a period of
time.  This condition could affect a driver's field of view,
increasing the risk of a crash.

Dealers will replace the left and right xenon headlamp
reflectors.  The recall is expected to begin on April 2005.  For
more information, contact the Company by Phone: 1-800-822-2834
or contact the NHTSA's auto safety hotline: 1-888-327-4236.


WEST VIRGINIA: Court Justice Recuses Himself From Lending Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Supreme Court Justice Brent Benjamin has filed formal recusal
memo with Court Clerk Rory L. Perry that recuses him from a
consumer case against a lending company that his former law firm
represents, the Charleston Gazette reports.

In that memo, Justice Benjamin said that he "is not concerned
about his ability to be fair to the litigants, as he believes he
can be." He, however, wrote, that he "is troubled" that the
court's ruling has been tied to the outcome of another case in
which his former firm, Robinson & McElwee, is involved.

A few weeks ago, Charleston lawyers Bren Pomponio and Dan Hedges
asked Judge Benjamin to sit out the case, which is scheduled for
a hearing on April 6.  Mr. Pomponio and Mr. Hedges represent
Rita and Jennifer Herrod, Clarksburg residents, who allege that
they were ripped off on a loan from Washtenaw Mortgage Co.
Though Robinson & McElwee does not represent Washtenaw in the
Herrods' case, the firm does represent the company in another,
larger case in Calhoun County Circuit Court. Before he joined
the court, Justice Benjamin was a partner in the firm. The
justice's chief law clerk is Charles R. McElwee, who helped
found Robinson & McElwee.

The Calhoun County case is a class-action lawsuit involving
about 280 borrowers who are suing Washtenaw.  In their recusal
motion, Mr. Hedges and Mr. Pomponio said, Robinson & McElwee
lawyers have told the Calhoun County judge that the Supreme
Court's ruling in the Herrod appeal "controls the outcome" of
the class-action suit. They also stated that those lawyers are
"anxiously watching the court's decision" in the Herrod case and
"are awaiting its impact as determinative" in the Calhoun case.

The Herrod case and the related case in Calhoun County are among
dozens of lawsuits that Mr. Hedges and his Mountain State
Justice have filed on behalf of West Virginia consumers who
allege they were ripped off by mortgage companies and home
equity lenders.

Rita and Jennifer Herrod are mother and daughter, who allege in
their suit that they were enticed to take out a large loan by a
broker who obtained "a bogus appraisal" that inflated the worth
of their home by 150 percent. Washtenaw is now the holder of
their loan, and is seeking to foreclose, they claim.

In their appeal petition, Ms. Pomponio and Mr. Hedges state that
Kanawha Circuit Judge Jim Stucky ruled in the lenders' favor
"despite a mountain of evidence establishing that the Herrods'
loan was induced by fraud and unconscionable conduct."

Though the Supreme Court has not yet decided if it will take the
case, at next week's hearing, the court will hear arguments on
that issue.

In his recusal memo, Justice Benjamin noted that his former law
partners are not involved in the Herrod case. Addiitonally,
Justice Benjamin wrote that state rules would require his
recusal only if his former partners were involved in the "matter
in controversy" before the court, not a different case.

Under the state Code of Judicial Conduct, a judge "shall avoid
impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all the judge's
activities, and shall act at all times in a manner that promotes
public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the
judiciary." Among other things the rules state that judges
should disqualify themselves if they "served as a lawyer in the
matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom the judge
previously practiced law served during such association as a
lawyer concerning the matter."


WESTCORP: Reaches Settlement For CA Securities Fraud Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Westcorp reached a settlement for the consolidated securities
class action filed in the Orange County, California Superior
Court, styled "In re WFS Financial Shareholder Litigation, case
no. 04CC00559."

Beginning on May 24, 2004 and continuing thereafter, a total of
four separate purported class action lawsuits relating to the
announcement by the Company and WFS Financial, Inc. (WFS) that
they were commencing an exchange offer for WFS's outstanding
public shares.  The suit also names as defendants WFS, thje
Company's individual board members, and individual board members
of WFS.  On June 24, 2004, the actions were consolidated.

On July 16, 2004, the court granted a motion by plaintiff Alaska
Hotel & Restaurant Employees Pension Trust Fund, in Case No.
04CC00573, to amend the consolidation order to designate it the
lead plaintiff in the litigation.  The lead plaintiff filed a
consolidated amended complaint on August 9, 2004, and then filed
the present "corrected" consolidated amended complaint on
September 15, 2004.  All of the shareholder-related actions
allege, among other things, that the defendants breached their
respective fiduciary duties and seek to enjoin or rescind the
transaction and obtain an unspecified sum in damages and costs,
including attorneys' fees and expenses.

The parties have tentatively agreed to a full and final
resolution of the Action and, on January 19, 2005, the parties
entered into a Memorandum of Understanding, also known as the
MOU, concerning the terms of the tentative settlement. The
parties are in the process of preparing a formal settlement
agreement based on the terms of the MOU and will present it to
the Court for approval.

Pursuant to the terms of the MOU, the parties have agreed, among
other things, that additional disclosures will be made in our
Registration Statement on Form S-4 (as filed with the SEC on
July 16, 2004), the claims asserted in the Action will be fully
released, and the Action will be dismissed with prejudice.
Further, pursuant to the MOU, WFS has agreed to pay plaintiffs'
attorneys' fees and expenses in the amount of $675,000, or in
such lesser amount as the Court may order.


WESTERN WORLD: Recalls 57 Goosenecks Trailers For Crash Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
Western World, Inc. is cooperating with the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration by voluntarily recalling 57 CIRCLE
J / LIVING QUARTER GOOSENECKS trailers, model 2003-2004.

On certain trailers, the wheels and nuts may not maintain a
solid clamp due to decreased length of engagement.  Wheels might
separate from the axle hub because of thick rims and limited
thread engagement.  A crash may occur without prior notice.

Dealers should replace the wheel.  The recall began on January
9,2005.  For more details, contact the Company by Phone: 801-
978-0317 or the NHTSA's auto safety hotline: 1-888-327-4236.


WYETH: PA Court OKs Amendment To Nationwide Fen-Phen Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania granted trial court approval to the amendment of
the nationwide settlement of the litigation filed against Wyeth
relating to the diet drugs PONDIMIN (which in combination with
phentermine, a product that was not manufactured, distributed or
sold by the Company, was commonly referred to as "fen-phen") or
REDUX, which the Company estimated were used in the United
States, prior to their 1997 voluntary market withdrawal, by
approximately 5.8 million people.  

These actions allege, among other things, that the use of REDUX
and/or PONDIMIN, independently or in combination with
phentermine, caused certain serious conditions, including
valvular heart disease and primary pulmonary hypertension
("PPH").

On October 7, 1999, the Company announced a nationwide class
action settlement (the "settlement") to resolve litigation
brought against the Company regarding the use of the diet drugs
REDUX or PONDIMIN.  The settlement covered all claims arising
out of the use of REDUX or PONDIMIN, except for PPH claims, and
was open to all REDUX or PONDIMIN users in the United States.  

As originally designed, the settlement was comprised of two
settlement funds.  Fund A (with a value at the time of
settlement of $1 billion plus $200.0 million for legal fees) was
created to cover refunds, medical screening costs, additional
medical services and cash payments, education and research
costs, and administration costs.  Fund A has been fully funded
by contributions by the Company.  Fund B (which was to be funded
by the Company on an as-needed basis up to a total of $2.55
billion) would compensate claimants with significant heart valve
disease.  Any funds remaining in Fund A after all Fund A
obligations were met were to be added to Fund B to be available
to pay Fund B injury claims.  

In December 2002, following a joint motion by the Company and
plaintiffs' counsel, the Court approved an amendment to the
settlement agreement which provided for the merger of Funds A
and B into a combined Settlement Fund which now will cover all
expenses and injury claims in connection with the settlement.  
The merger of the two funds took place in January 2003.  
Payments in connection with the nationwide settlement were
$822.7 million in 2002.  There were no payments made in 2003.  
Payments in connection with the nationwide settlement were $26.4
million in 2004.  Payments may continue, if necessary, until
2018.

On August 26, 2004, U.S. District Judge Harvey Bartle III, the
federal judge overseeing the settlement, granted a motion for
preliminary approval of the proposed Seventh Amendment to the
settlement.  If approved by the District Court and upheld on any
appeals that might be taken, the proposed Seventh Amendment
would include the following key terms:

     (1) The amendment would create a new Supplemental Fund, to
         be administered by a Fund Administrator who will be
         appointed by the District Court and who will process
         most pending Level I and Level II matrix claims (as
         defined below);

     (2) After District Court approval, the Company would make
         initial payments of up to $50.0 million to facilitate
         the establishment of the Supplemental Fund and to begin
         reviewing claims. Following approval by the District
         Court and any Appellate Courts, the Company would make
         an initial payment of $400.0 million to enable the
         Supplemental Fund to begin paying claims. The timing of
         additional payments would be dictated by the rate of
         review and payment of claims by the Fund Administrator.
         The Company would ultimately deposit a total of $1.275
         billion, net of certain credits, into the Supplemental
         Fund;

     (3) All participating matrix Level I and Level II claimants
         who qualify under the Seventh Amendment, who pass the
         Settlement Fund's medical review and who otherwise
         satisfy the requirements of the settlement ("Category
         One" class members) would receive a pro rata share of
         the $1.275 billion Supplemental Fund, after deduction
         of certain expenses and other amounts from the
         Supplemental Fund. The pro rata amount would vary
         depending upon the number of claimants who pass medical
         review, the nature of their claims, their age and other
         factors. A participating Category One class member who
         does not qualify for a payment after such medical
         review would be paid $2,000 from the Supplemental Fund;

     (4) Participating class members who might in the future
         have been eligible to file Level I and Level II matrix
         claims ("Category Two" class members) would be eligible
         to receive a $2,000 payment from the Trust; such
         payments would be funded by the Company apart from its
         other funding obligations under the nationwide
         settlement;

     (5) If the participants in the Seventh Amendment have heart
         valve surgery or other more serious medical conditions
         on Levels III through V of the nationwide settlement
         matrix by the earlier of 15 years from the date of
         their last diet drug ingestion or by December 31, 2011,
         they would remain eligible to submit claims to the
         existing Trust and be paid the current matrix amounts
         if they qualify for such payments under terms modified
         by the Seventh Amendment. In the event the existing
         Trust is unable to pay those claims, the Company would
         guarantee payment; and

     (6) All class members who participate in the Seventh
         Amendment would give up any further opt out rights as
         well as the right to challenge the terms of and the
         binding effect of the nationwide settlement. Approval
         of the Seventh Amendment also would preclude any
         lawsuits by the Trust or the Company to recover any
         amounts previously paid to class members by the Trust,
         as well as terminate the Claims Integrity Program
         (discussed below) as to all claimants who do not opt
         out of the Seventh Amendment.

Pursuant to the terms of the proposed Seventh Amendment, the
Company retained the right to withdraw from the Seventh
Amendment if participation by class members was inadequate or
for any other reason.  Less than 5% of the class members who
would be affected by the proposed Seventh Amendment
(approximately 1,900 of the Category One class members and
approximately 5,100 of the Category Two class members) elected
to opt out of the Seventh Amendment and remain bound by the
current settlement terms.  

On January 10, 2005, the Company announced that it would not
exercise its right to withdraw from the proposed Seventh
Amendment.  The terms of the Seventh Amendment were thereupon
reviewed by the District Court at a fairness hearing, which took
place on January 18-19, 2005.  The parties now are awaiting a
decision by the District Court on approval of the proposed
Seventh Amendment.  There can be no assurance that the amendment
will be approved by the Court and upheld on appeal.

Counsel representing approximately 8,600 class members have
filed a motion with the District Court seeking a ruling that the
nationwide settlement agreement is void. The motion asserts that
there was inadequate representation of the class when the
settlement agreement was negotiated, that the parties and their
experts made mutual mistakes in projecting the amount of money
that would be needed to pay all valid claims, that the original
notice to the class was inadequate and that the Court had lacked
subject matter jurisdiction over some of the class members'
claims. The motion seeks an opportunity for all class members to
decide a second time whether or not to be included in the class
and therefore bound by the settlement agreement.

The District Court has stayed briefing and consideration of the
motion until after its decision on approval of the proposed
Seventh Amendment, which as discussed above would preclude such
claims on behalf of class members who participate. Counsel for
the plaintiff class supported the stay but have stated that if
the Seventh Amendment is not approved by the District Court,
they intend to seek similar relief from the preclusive effect of
the settlement agreement for uncompensated matrix claimants.

Certain class members also have filed a number of other motions
and lawsuits attacking both the binding effect of the settlement
and the administration of the Trust, some of which have been
decided against class members and currently are on appeal.  The
Company cannot predict the outcome of any of these motions or
lawsuits.


WYETH: Faces Litigation Due To PREMPRO Hormone Therapy Product
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wyeth continues to face litigation relating to the effects of
its hormone therapy product PREMPRO.

In July 2002, the hormone therapy ("HT") subset of the Women's
Health Initiative ("WHI") study, involving women who received a
combination of conjugated estrogens and medroxyprogesterone
acetate (PREMPRO), was stopped early (after the patients were
followed in the study for an average of 5.2 years) because,
according to the predefined stopping rule, certain increased
risks exceeded the specified long-term benefits.  Additional
analyses of data from the HT subset of the WHI study were
released during 2003, and further analyses of WHI data may be
released in the future.

In early March 2004, the National Institutes of Health ("NIH")
announced preliminary findings from the estrogen-only arm of the
WHI study and that it had decided to stop the study because they
believed that the results would not likely change during the
period until completion of the study in 2005 and the increased
risk of stroke seen in the treatment arm could not be justified
by what could be learned in an additional year of treatment.  
NIH concluded that estrogen alone does not appear to affect
(either increase or decrease) coronary heart disease and did not
increase the risk of breast cancer.  In addition, NIH found an
association with a decrease in the risk of hip fracture.  This
increased risk of stroke was similar to the increase seen in the
HT subset of the WHI study.  NIH also stated that analysis of
preliminary data from the separate Women's Health Initiative
Memory Study ("WHIMS") showed an increased risk of probable
dementia and/or mild cognitive impairment in women age 65 and
older when data from both the PREMARIN and PREMPRO arm were
pooled.  The study also reported a trend towards increased risk
of possible dementia in women treated with PREMARIN alone.  
WHIMS data published in The Journal of American Medical
Association (JAMA) in June 2004 and in a separate report
published in JAMA at the same time indicated that HT did not
improve cognitive impairment and may adversely affect it in some
women.  

The Company is currently defending eight state putative court
medical monitoring class action lawsuits relating to PREMPRO,
styled:

     (1) Albertson, et al.  v. Wyeth, No. 002944, Ct. Comm.
         Pleas, Philadelphia Cty., PA;

     (2) Balita, et al v. Wyeth, No. ATL-L-2138-04, Sup. Ct.,
         Atlantic Cty., NJ;

     (3) Gottlieb, et al. v. Wyeth, No. 02-18165CA 27, Cir. Ct.,
         11th Jud. Cir., Dade Cty., FL;

     (4) Katzman, et al. v. Wyeth, No. L-1285-03, Sup. Ct.,
         Morris Cty., NJ;

     (5) Luikart, et al. v. Wyeth, No. 04-C-127, Cir. Ct.,
         Putnam Cty., WV;

     (6) Phillips, et al. v. Wyeth, No. CV-03-005, Cir. Ct.,
         Jefferson Cty., AL;

     (7) Tiedemann, et al. v. Wyeth, No. 110063/04, Supreme Ct.,
         NY; and

     (8) Vitanza, et al. v. Wyeth,  No. ATL-L-2093-04, Superior
         Ct., Atlantic Cty., NJ

The plaintiffs in these cases seek to represent statewide
classes of women who have ingested the drug and seek purchase
price refunds and medical monitoring expenses on their behalf.  
Plaintiffs in the Albertson, Gottlieb, Luikart, Phillips and
Tiedemann cases are seeking this relief on behalf of putative
classes of Pennsylvania, Florida, West Virginia, Alabama and New
York, users of PREMPRO, respectively.  The Balita, Katzman and
Vitanza cases all seek this relief on behalf of New Jersey
PREMPRO users.  

On February 1, 2005, in the Gottlieb case, the Florida Circuit
Court certified a statewide medical monitoring class of
asymptomatic PREMPRO users who have used the product for longer
than six months.  The Company plans to appeal this decision.  A
class certification hearing in the Albertson matter took place
on January 10-13, 2005 in the Pennsylvania Court of Common
Pleas, Philadelphia County.  That case is now under
consideration.  A class action hearing in the New Jersey cases,
Katzman, Balita and Vitanza, will likely not take place until
mid-2005.  The remaining cases remain inactive.

Two putative medical monitoring class actions have now been
dismissed.  These suits are styled "Gallo, et al. v. Wyeth, No.
02857, Ct. Comm. Pleas, Phil. Cty., PA" and "Lewers, et al. v.
Wyeth, No. 02C 4970, U.S.D.C., N.D. Ill."  The Company is also
defending two putative personal injury class actions.  The
plaintiff in Michael, et al. v. Wyeth, No. 2:04-0435, U.S.D.C.,
S.D., WV, seeks to represent a nationwide class of PREMPRO users
who have suffered injuries from the product.  The plaintiff in
Barker, et al. v. Wyeth, No. 04-C-1932, Cir. Ct., Kanawha Cty.,
WV, seeks to represent a class of West Virginia users who have
suffered personal injuries.  Both of these cases have been
transferred to the federal multi-district litigation ("MDL")
proceedings in Little Rock, Arkansas.

Finally, the federal Judicial Panel on MDL has ordered that all
federal PREMPRO cases be transferred for coordinated pretrial
proceedings to the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Arkansas, before United States District Judge
William R. Wilson, Jr.  Plaintiffs have filed a Master Class
Action Complaint in the MDL.  That complaint seeks to represent
PREMPRO users seeking to collect damages for purchase price
refunds and medical monitoring costs.  The complaint seeks to
certify a consumer fraud subclass of PREMPRO users in 29 states,
an unfair competition subclass of users in 29 states and a
medical monitoring subclass purportedly covering PREMPRO users
in 24 states.  The states allegedly involved are not consistent
between each subclass.  This MDL Master Class Action Complaint
subsumes all of the other putative class action complaints
except those discussed above.  The MDL class certification
hearing is currently scheduled for June 2005.

In addition to the class actions, the Company is defending 3,274
individual actions and 180 multi-plaintiff actions in various
courts for personal injuries, including claims for breast
cancer, stroke, ovarian cancer and heart disease.  Together,
these cases assert claims on behalf of 5,315 women alleged
injured by PREMPRO or PREMARIN.


WYETH: Faces Litigation Due To DURACT Analgesic Pain Reliever
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wyeth face a class action filed in the District Court, St.
Bernard Parish Louisiana involving DURACT, its non-narcotic
analgesic pain reliever, which was voluntarily withdrawn from
the market in 1998.  The suit is styled "Chimento, et al. v.
Wyeth-Ayerst, et al., No. 982488, Dist. Ct. St. Bernard Parish,
LA."  

The suit seeks the certification of a class of Louisiana
residents who were exposed to and who allegedly suffered injury
from DURACT.  Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages,
the refund of all purchase costs, and the creation of a court-
supervised medical monitoring program for the diagnosis and
treatment of liver damage and related conditions allegedly
caused by DURACT.  In 2004, plaintiffs moved to dismiss the
class allegations.  

There is also a putative class action filed by third party
payors for economic damages, styled "Blue Cross and Blue Shield
of Alabama, et al. v. Wyeth, CV-03-6046, Cir. Ct. Jefferson
Cty., Ala., seeks the certification of a nationwide class of
third-party payers to recover monies paid for DURACT that would
have been used after the withdrawal of DURACT from the market.  
The class certification hearing is scheduled for April 2005.

Additionally, there are four individual lawsuits pending
involving approximately 134 former DURACT users alleging various
injuries, including kidney failure, hepatitis, liver transplant
and death.


WYETH: Litigation Pending Due To Cough/Cold Products With PPA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wyeth continues to face litigation relating to its DIMETAPP and
ROBITUSSIN cough/cold products, containing the ingredient
phenylpropanolamine (PPA).

In November 2000, the Company withdrew DIMETAPP and ROBITUSSIN
cough/cold products from the market, at the request of the Food
and Drug Administration (FDA).  The FDA's request followed the
reports of a study that raised a possible association between
PPA-containing products and the risk of hemorrhagic stroke.  
Effective November 6, 2000, the Company announced that it would
no longer ship products containing PPA to its retailers.  

The Company is currently a named defendant in approximately 500
individual PPA lawsuits with approximately 775 plaintiffs filed
in federal and state courts throughout the United States.  In
addition, there is one putative economic damage class action,
which also contains personal injury allegations as to the class,
pending in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Canada.  In
every instance to date in which class certification has been
decided in a PPA case, certification has been denied.  26 Wyeth
cases are currently scheduled for trial in 2005 and five Wyeth
cases are currently scheduled for trial in 2006.


WYETH: Continues To Face Suits Due To Vaccines With Thimerosal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wyeth has been served with approximately 380 lawsuits, eleven of
which are putative class actions, alleging that the cumulative
effect of thimerosal, a preservative used in certain vaccines
manufactured and distributed by the Company as well as by other
vaccine manufacturers, causes severe neurological damage,
including autism in children. The class actions and relief
sought are as follows:

     (1) Daigle, et al. v. Aventis Pasteur Inc., et al., No. 02-
         2131F, Super. Ct., Suffolk Cty., MA (statewide class
         for medical monitoring, a fund for research and
         compensation for personal injuries);

     (2) Demos, et al. v. Aventis Pasteur, et al., No. 01-
         22544CA15, Circ. Ct., Dade Cty., FL (nationwide class
         for medical monitoring, personal injuries and
         injunctive relief against future sales);

     (3) Cyr, et al. v. Aventis Pasteur, Inc., et al., No. 01-C-
         663, Super. Ct., Hillsborough Cty., NH (statewide class
         for personal injuries and injunctive relief);

     (4) King, et al. v. Aventis Pasteur, Inc., et al., No. 01-
         CV-1305, U.S.D.C., D. Ore. (nationwide class for
         personal injuries and injunctive relief);

     (5) Mead, et al. v. Aventis Pasteur, Inc., et al.,No. 01-
         CV-1402, U.S.D.C., D. Ore. (nationwide class for
         medical monitoring);

     (6) Garcia, et al. v. Abbott, et al., No. C02-168C,
         District Court, Western District of Seattle, WA
         (nationwide class on behalf of all individuals who
         purchased any childhood vaccine containing thimerosal);

     (7) Shadie, et al. v. Abbott, et al., No. 3-CV-02-0702,
         U.S.D.C., M.D., Pa. (nationwide class on behalf of all
         children vaccinated with thimerosal-containing vaccines
         from 1990 to present);

     (8) Ashton, et al. v. Aventis Pasteur Inc., et al., Class
         Action Complaint 004026, Ct. Comm. Pleas, Philadelphia
         Cty., PA (nationwide class action for medical
         monitoring, personal injuries and injunctive relief);

     (9) Wax, et al. v. Abbott, et al., No. CV 02 2018,
         U.S.D.C., E.D.N.Y. (nationwide class on behalf of all
         persons residing in the U.S. who were exposed to
         thimerosal);

    (10) Castaldi et al. v. Aventis Pasteur Inc., et al., Master
         Complaint No. 2, Coordination Proceeding, The Vaccine
         Cases, No. 4246, Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., CA
         (statewide class for medical monitoring);
          
    (11) Ferguson v. Aventis Pasteur, Inc., et al., No, 04-CI-
         2048, U.S.D.C., E.D. Ky., (nationwide class for a fund
         for research and compensation for personal injuries).

The Company generally files motions to dismiss in all of the
cases for failure of the minor plaintiffs to file in the first
instance under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program
(the "Vaccine Act").  The Vaccine Act mandates that plaintiffs
alleging injury from childhood vaccines first bring a claim
under the Vaccine Act.  At the conclusion of that proceeding,
the plaintiff may bring a lawsuit in state or federal court.  

In July 2002, the United States Court of Federal Claims, (the
"Vaccine Court") which handles all cases brought under the
Vaccine Act, issued Autism General Order #1 (the "Order")
accepting jurisdiction of the thimerosal matters by establishing
an Omnibus Autism Proceeding, which allows petitioners who claim
to suffer from autism or autism spectrum disorder as a result of
receiving thimerosal-containing childhood vaccines the chance to
proceed pursuant to a two-step procedure. The first step will be
an inquiry into the general causation issues involved in the
cases; the second step will entail the application of the
general causation conclusions to the individual cases.  In an
Order issued September 24, 2003, the Special Master indefinitely
postponed future calendar dates originally set in the Omnibus
Autism Proceeding, including the date for the hearing on the
issue of general causation.

Under the terms of the Vaccine Court, if a claim has not been
adjudicated by the Vaccine Act within 240 days, the claimant has
30 days to decide whether to opt out of the proceeding and
pursue a lawsuit against the manufacturer; a claimant receives a
second 30-day window to opt out of the proceeding if the claim
is not adjudicated after 420 days.  After this second window has
passed, claimants must remain in Vaccine Court until a final
decision is obtained.  Thirty-three claimants who have elected
to opt out of Vaccine Court under these provisions have active
lawsuits against the Company.  Approximately 415 other claimants
have not yet passed the two opt out windows described above.  
There are approximately 4,300 claimants in Vaccine Court
alleging injury from thimerosal-containing vaccines.

In addition to the claims brought by or on behalf of children
allegedly injured by exposure to thimerosal, certain of the
approximately 380 thimerosal cases have been brought by parents
in their individual capacities, for loss of services and loss of
consortium of the injured child.  These claims are not currently
covered by the Vaccine Act.  Additional thimerosal cases may be
filed in the future against the Company and the other companies
that marketed thimerosal-containing products.  Two thimerosal
cases are currently scheduled for trial, with the first
scheduled for July 2005.


WYETH: EFFEXOR Patients Commence Personal Injury Suit in N.D. OK
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wyeth faces a purported class action filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma, on behalf
of all former or present EFFEXOR patients who, after August 20,
1997, suffered from an alleged dependency or withdrawal syndrome
following the reduction or termination of their dosage of
EFFEXOR, the Company's drug approved to treat depression and
anxiety disorders.  

The suit styled "Carolina, et al. v. Wyeth, et al., No. 04CV-
608P, U.S.D.C.," asserts causes of action for strict liability,
failure to warn, negligent failure to warn, fraud intentional
infliction of emotional distress and violations of the federal
Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act and seeks compensatory and punitive
damages on behalf of the class.  

The suit is styled "Carolina v. Wyeth, et al, case no. 4:04-cv-
00608-JHP," filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, under Judge James H. Payne.  
Representing the Company are Kenneth Lloyd Morgan, 601 S.
Boulder Ste 700, Tulsa OK 74119, Phone: 918-295-8787 Fax: 295-
8706; and Rohit C. Sharma 7107 S Yale Ave Ste 318 Tulsa, OK
74136, Phone: 918-683-3288.


WYETH: Consumers File Suits Over Recalled Vet Product PROHEART 6
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wyeth faces two putative class action lawsuits have been filed
involving the veterinary product PROHEART 6, which the Company's
Fort Dodge Animal Health subsidiary voluntarily recalled from
the market in September 2004.  

The first suit, styled "Dill, et al. v. American Home Products,
et al., No. CJ 1004 05879, was filed in the District Court,
Tulsa City, Oklahoma on behalf of all Oklahoma individuals whose
canines have been injured or died as a result of being injected
with PROHEART 6. Compensatory and punitive damages are sought.

The second suit, styled "Deter v. Fort Dodge Animal Health,
Inc., et al, No. 04-CP-40-5750," was filed in Richland County
Superior Court in South Carolina on behalf of all South Carolina
individuals whose canines have been injured or died as a result
of administration of PROHEART 6. That suit also seeks costs for
testing and medical monitoring for the alleged effects of
PROHEART 6. Compensatory and punitive damages are sought.


WYETH: Continues To Face Average Wholesale Pricing Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wyeth continues to face ten lawsuits in which plaintiffs allege
that the Company and other defendant pharmaceutical companies
artificially inflated the Average Wholesale Price ("AWP") of
their drugs.

AWP is the basis for determining the Medicare reimbursement rate
and the co-payment amount. It is also usually the basis for
determining Medicaid reimbursement rates under state Medicaid
plans. The overstatement of AWP allegedly results in overpayment
by, among others, Medicare and Medicare beneficiaries and by
state Medicaid plans.  Plaintiffs involved in these lawsuits
allege that this "scheme" is fraudulent, violates the Sherman
Antitrust Act and constitutes a civil conspiracy under the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act.

Two of these lawsuits are private class actions filed on behalf
of Medicare beneficiaries who make co-payments, as well as
private health plans and the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act (ERISA) plans that purchase drugs based on AWP - "Swanston
v. TAP Pharmaceuticals Products, Inc., et al. No. CV2002-
004988," filed in the Superior Court for Maricopa County,
Arizona and "International Union of Operating Engineers, et al.
v. Astra Zeneca PLC, et al., No. 03-3226 JEI," filed in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.  
Two other previously pending cases making similar claims against
the Company, "Thompson v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al., No.
C02-4450MJJ," filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California and "Turner v. Abbott
Laboratories, Inc., et al., No. 412357," filed in the Superior
Court for San Francisco County, California; have now been
dismissed. No activity is occurring in the International Union
suit. In the Swanston case, the court has denied defendants'
motion to dismiss and directed the parties to begin fact
discovery.

In addition to the two suits described above, the Company is
currently a defendant in six government entity lawsuits claiming
injuries on behalf of both the government entity and its
citizens, allegedly due to Medicaid reimbursement fraud.  These
cases are as follows:

     (1) State of California v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc. et
         al., No. BC 287198 A, filed in the Superior Court, Los
         Angeles County, California;

     (2) County of Suffolk v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al.
         No. CV03-229, filed in the United States District Court
         for the Eastern District of New York;

     (3) County of Rockland v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al.
         No. CV03-7055, filed in the United States District
         Court for the Southern District of New York;

     (4) County of Westchester v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et
         al. No. CV03-6178, filed in the United States District
         Court for the Southern District of New York;

     (5) County of Nassau v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al.,
         No. CV 04 5126, filed in the United States District
         Court for the Eastern District of New York; and

     (6) City of New York v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al.,
         No. 04 CV 6054 (BSJ) filed in the United States
         District Court for the Southern District of New York.

All six of these actions have been removed to federal court and
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts where they are pending under the caption: "In re:
Pharmaceutical Industry AWP Litigation, MDL-1456." The New York
City and various New York county cases make identical claims
based on the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations (RICO) Act, the Social Security Act, the New York
Social Services Law and the New York General Business Law. They
seek recovery for damages suffered as a result of alleged
overcharging for prescription medication paid for by Medicaid.
By stipulation, no activity is occurring in these matters
pending the court's resolution of defendants' motion to dismiss
in the County of Suffolk matter.

The MDL judge has dismissed certain counts of the Complaint and
directed plaintiff to make more definitive allegations against
numerous defendants (including Wyeth) against whom they had
previously made only conclusory allegations. The motion to
dismiss remains pending and will likely be decided in the first
half of 2005.

The Company is also a defendant in two recently filed AWP
matters pending in state courts: "State of Alabama v. Abbott
Laboratories, Inc., et al., No. CV 2005-219," filed in the
Circuit Court of Montgomery County, Alabama and "The People of
Illinois v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al., No. 05CH0274,"
filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois.

In the State of Alabama case, the plaintiff alleges that
defendants provided false and inflated AWP, Wholesale
Acquisition Cost ("WAC") and/or Direct Price information for
their drugs to various nationally known drug industry reporting
services. In The People of Illinois case, the Attorney General
brought the lawsuit on behalf of the State for itself and on
behalf of its citizens, to recover damages and injunctive relief
under similar theories. Both of these cases are in their
earliest stages, with no answers yet having been filed.


WYETH: Continues To Face PREMARIN Antitrust Fraud Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------
Wyeth faces litigation alleging violations of the Sherman
Antitrust Law, in its marketing of its PREMARIN hormone therapy
drug.

In September 2000, Duramed Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Duramed"),
which markets a hormone therapy drug called CENESTIN, filed a
complaint against the Company, styled "Duramed Pharmaceuticals,
Inc. v. Wyeth-Ayerst Labs, Inc., No. C-1-00-735," in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.  The
suit alleges that the Company violated the antitrust laws
through the use of exclusive contracts and "disguised exclusive
contracts" with managed care organizations and pharmacy benefit
managers concerning PREMARIN.

Duramed, which has since been acquired by Barr Laboratories,
Inc., also alleged that the Company monopolized the hormone
therapy market in violation of the antitrust laws through the
use of such exclusive contracts.  The Company and Barr settled
this litigation in June 2003 and the action has since been
dismissed with prejudice.

Following the filing of the Duramed case, several purported
class action lawsuits were filed on behalf of "end-payors"
(defined as the last persons and entities in the chain of
distribution) and direct purchasers in federal district courts
in Ohio and New Jersey, and California state courts. These
plaintiffs allege that the Company's alleged anticompetitive
exclusive contracts with managed care organizations and pharmacy
benefit managers concerning PREMARIN allowed the Company to
charge higher prices for PREMARIN than the Company would have
charged in the absence of the alleged anticompetitive exclusive
agreements.  The complaints seek injunctive relief, damages and
disgorgement of profits.  Due to certain consolidations, six
actions are presently pending against the Company.

A lawsuit with a certified class consisting of direct
purchasers, styled "J.B.D.L. Corp. v. Wyeth-Ayerst
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Civ. A. No. C-1-01-704," and a lawsuit
with a certified class consisting of indirect purchasers, styled
"Ferrell v. Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories, Inc., Civ. A. No. C-1-01-
447," are filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio.  Additionally, two direct purchasers
of PREMARIN during the relevant time period (CVS Meridian, Inc.
and Rite Aid Corporation) have opted out of the federal direct-
purchaser class action and have filed a separate action, styled
"CVS Meridian, Inc. et al. v. Wyeth, Civil A. No. C-1-03-781,
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio.  The J.B.D.L. and CVS Meridian actions are
scheduled for trial in August 2005. The Company has filed a
motion for summary judgment in the J.B.D.L. and CVS Meridian
actions.

Moreover, one certified class of indirect purchasers and one
putative class of indirect purchasers are pending in California
state courts, styled "Blevins v. Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories, Inc.
et al., Case No. 324380, Cal. Sup. Ct., San Francisco Cty.,
Cal.;" "Sullivan v. Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories, Inc., Case No.
GIC796997, Cal. Sup. Ct., San Diego Cty., Cal.," respectively.
Also, a purported class action was recently filed in Vermont
Superior Court on behalf of all Vermont end-payors, which raises
substantially the same allegations as the Ferrell indirect-
purchaser action, styled "Deyo v. Wyeth, No. 735-12-04 (Vt. Sup.
Ct.)."


YAHOO JAPAN: Individuals Launch Fraud Suit V. Online Auctions
-------------------------------------------------------------
A group of 572 individuals on lodged a class action against
Yahoo Japan Corp., seeking compensation worth a total of 100
million yen ($932,424) for damages incurred through a series of
frauds in online auctions operated by the company, the Jiji
Press reports.

The suit, which was filed with the Nagoya District Court,
alleges that the firm's sloppy management of its auction site
led to the frauds.  Additionally, the plaintiffs allege that
they were swindled out of money over fictitious offers to sell
car navigation systems and other goods posted on the auction
site from around 2001.

Yahoo Japan though has declined comment, saying it has yet to
confirm details of the suit, the Jiji Press reports.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

MOLEX INC.: Much Shelist Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. IL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Much Shelist Freed Denenberg Ament & Rubenstein,
P.C. initiated a class action lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against
Molex Incorporated, ("Molex" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:MOLX)
(formerly MOLXE) and certain of its officers and directors on
behalf of all persons and entities who purchased the securities
of Molex Incorporated between April 15, 2004 and February 14,
2005, inclusive ("Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that Molex, along with certain of its
officers and directors, violated the federal securities laws by
issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements
to the market. These misstatements have had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price of Molex's securities
and as a result of this inflation, certain Molex officers and
directors were able to sell over $34 million worth of the
Company's common stock at inflated prices.

According to the complaint, on November 11, 2004, Molex
announced that it had replaced and demoted its Chief Financial
Officer ("CFO"), delayed its latest quarterly report to federal
securities regulators, and said it would report a charge against
earnings because of inventory accounting issues. It is alleged
that the Company's press release indicated that its independent
auditors, Deloitte & Touche LLP ("Deloitte"), faulted the
Company's Chief Executive Officer ("CEO") and CFO, stating that
problems regarding inventory accounting information should have
been disclosed by them to the auditor earlier. Further, it is
alleged that the Company's press release stated that Deloitte
would never again accept the signature of the Company's CFO on
the Company's financial results and was reviewing whether it
would ever again accept the signature of the Company's CEO on
future financial filings. The complaint claims that on November
15, 2004, Deloitte resigned, citing Molex's refusal to oust its
CEO or its CFO (who had merely been demoted to Treasurer).
Thereafter, it is alleged that in a regulatory filing, Deloitte
disputed many of Molex's characterizations of what happened
during the chain of events leading up to Deloitte's resignation.
Likewise the complaint claims that as a result of Deloitte's
resignation, the Company's first quarter 2005 financial results
were filed without being audited. Thereafter the complaint
claims that Molex was notified by the Nasdaq it was not in
compliance with Nasdaq Marketplace Rule 4310(c)(14), which
required Molex to file audited financial statements with the
Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"), and the Company's
securities were, therefore, subject to delisting from the Nasdaq
National Market. On December 10, 2004, both Molex's CEO and CFO
were terminated at the insistence of the new auditors hired to
replace Deloitte.

Finally, the complaint claims that on February 14, 2005, Molex
revealed that its results for its first quarter 2005, and
possibly other quarters, were false when issued and that the SEC
was investigating and did not agree with the Company's
accounting treatment. Following this news, the Company's stock
dropped below $25.00 per share, erasing millions of dollars of
shareholder value.

For more details, contact Carol V. Gilden, Esq. of Much Shelist
Freed Denenberg Ament & Rubenstein, P.C. by Phone: (800) 470-
6824 or by E-mail: investorhelp@muchshelist.com.


MOLEX INC.: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in IL
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Stull, Stull & Brody initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, against Molex Incorporated ("Molex" or the
"Company") (Nasdaq:MOLX) (Nasdaq:MOLXA), on behalf of purchasers
of Molex publicly traded securities between July 27, 2004 and
February 14, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint alleges that Molex violated federal securities
laws by issuing false or misleading information. Specifically,
the Complaint alleges that Molex hid $5.8 million in inventory
expenses, it improperly accounted for accrual in vacation pay
and it engaged in other accounting chicanery so that its
reported financial results were in violation of Generally
Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP"). On November 11, 2004,
Molex announced that it was delaying the filing of its Form 10-Q
and that Diane S. Bullock had been replaced as its Chief
Financial Officer. On November 15, 2004, Molex announced that
Deloitte & Touche LLP had resigned as its independent auditor.
On February 14, 2005, Molex released its quarterly financial and
operational results and more fully disclosed the extent of its
accounting issues and corresponding investigations by the
Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"). On this news, Molex
stock fell from a close of $28.79 per share on February 14,
2004, to close at $25.45 per share on February 15, 2005.

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