CAR_Public/050407.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, April 7, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 68

                         Headlines

AEROSONIC CORPORATION: Settles Securities Litigation For $5.35M
ALLIANCE CAPITAL: Plaintiffs Appeal NJ Securities Suit Dismissal
ALLIANCE CAPITAL: Plaintiffs Oppose Move To Appeal Suit Remand
ALLIANCE CAPITAL: Plaintiffs File Amended MD Mutual Fund Suits
ALLIANCE CAPITAL: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Stock Suit in NY

ALLIANCE CAPITAL: AllianceBerstein Investors Launch Suit in NY
ARKANSAS: Lowell Council Approves Amendment 59 Suit Settlement
CANADA: Ontario Government Asks Judge To Dismiss $600M SARS Suit
DESA HEATING: Recalls 88T Propane Heaters Due To Fire Hazard
DIGITAS INC.: NY Court Preliminarily Approves Lawsuit Settlement

DIRECT REVENUE: IL Spyware Complaint Alleges Computer Hijacking
EVANSTON NORTHWESTERN: Reaches Consent Order For FTC Fraud Suit
GENERAL REINSURANCE: Faces Lawsuits Due To Relationship With ROA
GERMANY: E.ON Hanse Customers Lodges Suit Over Undue Price Hikes
HUNTER'S VIEW: Recalls 500T Safety Harnesses For Injury Hazard

IDT CORPORATION: Nears Settlement Of Prepaid Phone-Card Lawsuits
INDONESIA: Newmont Nusa Denies Charges Of Polluting Senunu Bay
MAGNA ENTERTAINMENT: To Seek Dismissal of CA, DE Stock Lawsuits
MICHIGAN: AG Mike Cox Warns Against VoIP Technology Limitations
MODEM MEDIA: NY Court Preliminarily Approves Lawsuit Settlement

NEBRASKA: Judge Rules That Decision To Cut Benefits Unlawful
NETFLIX INC.: Plaintiffs Launch Consolidated CA Securities Suit
NETFLIX INC.: Consumers File Fraud Suit Over DVD Delivery in CA
NETFLIX INC.: Firm Says Securities Suit Has Not Been Dismissed
ODYSSEY HEALTHCARE: Asks TX Court To Dismiss Securities Lawsuit

OKLAHOMA: Senate Committee Amends, Passes Lawsuit Reform Bill
PLUG POWER: Suit Fairness Hearing Set April 19 in NY Court
PRICELINE.COM: Consumers Launch Antitrust Suits in DE, CA Courts
PRICELINE.COM: NY Court Approves Securities Lawsuit Settlement
PRICELINE.COM: Plaintiffs Seek CT Securities Suit Certification

PROFIT RECOVERY: Securities Settlement Hearing Set May 26, 2005
SONUS NETWORKS: NY Court Preliminarily Approves Suit Settlement
SONUS NETWORKS: MA Court Mulls Adequacy of Class Representative
SONUS NETWORKS: Asks MA Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
ST. THOMAS DEVELOPMENT: Anti-Quarry Groups Losses $49M Complaint

UNITED STATES: FDA Halts Sales of Inhalers With CFC Propellants
UNOCAL CORPORATION: Stockholder Lodges Suit Over Acquisition
VERISIGN INC.: Jamster Service Sued in CA Over Selling Practices
VIRGINIA: Industry Asks Appeals Court To Rehear Headset Lawsuits
YANKEE CANDLE: Employees Launch Labor Laws Violations Suit in CA

                  New Securities Fraud Cases

BRADLEY PHARMACEUTICALS: Kaplan Fox Lodges Securities Suit in NJ
COLLINS & AIKMAN: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Stock Suit in MI
COLLINS AIKMAN: Smith & Smith Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in MI
DELPHI CORPORATION: Keller Rohrback Lodges Securities Suit in MI
DELPHI CORPORATION: Murray Frank Lodges Stock Fraud Suit in NY

MBIA INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY

                            *********


AEROSONIC CORPORATION: Settles Securities Litigation For $5.35M
---------------------------------------------------------------
Aerosonic Corporation (AMEX:AIM) and the other parties to the
Aerosonic Corporation Securities Litigation filed a Notice of
Settlement with the court on April 1, 2005, confirming that all
parties had executed a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") to
settle its pending class action litigation. The MOU defines a
total settlement of $5.35 million, of which Aerosonic will pay
$800,000. This settlement is contingent upon preliminary and
final court approval and could be voided if opt-outs exceed a
certain agreed-upon threshold.

"This agreement brings us much closer to resolving this
litigation and will allow us to more fully concentrate on
growing our business. Our Company's performance has allowed us
to adequately prepare for this settlement, and we anticipate
being able to satisfy this obligation without adversely
affecting our liquidity. We are proud of the manner in which we
have conducted our affairs during this difficult process and we
sincerely appreciate the confidence and support shown to us by
our shareholders, customers and employees throughout this
period," stated David A. Baldini, Chairman, President and Chief
Executive Officer.


ALLIANCE CAPITAL: Plaintiffs Appeal NJ Securities Suit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey's dismissal of the class action filed
against Alliance Capital Management L.P., styled `Patrick J.
Goggins, et al. v. Alliance Capital Management L.P., et al."  
The suit also names as defendants Alliance Premier Growth Fund
and individual directors and certain officers of Premier Growth
Fund.

The suit was originally filed in federal court in New York.  On
August 13, 2003, the court granted the Company's motion to
transfer the Complaint to the United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey.  On December 5, 2003, plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint, which alleges that defendants
violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act
because the Fund's registration statements and prospectuses
contained untrue statements of material fact and omitted
material facts.

More specifically, the Amended Complaint alleges that the Fund's
investment in Enron was inconsistent with the Fund's stated
strategic objectives and investment strategies.  Plaintiffs seek
rescissionary relief or an unspecified amount of compensatory
damages on behalf of a class of persons who purchased shares of
Premier Growth Fund during the period October 31, 2000 through
February 14, 2002.  On January 23, 2004, the Company moved to
dismiss the complaint.  On December 10, 2004, the court granted
the Company's motion and dismissed the case. On January 5, 2005,
plaintiff appealed the court's decision.


ALLIANCE CAPITAL: Plaintiffs Oppose Move To Appeal Suit Remand
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs moved to dismiss Alliance Capital Management L.P.'s
appeal of a court ruling remanding a class action entitled "Erb,
et al. v. Alliance Capital Management L.P." to the the Circuit
Court of St. Clair County, Illinois.

The plaintiff, purportedly a shareholder in Alliance Premier
Growth Fund, alleges that the Company breached unidentified
provisions of Premier Growth Fund's prospectus and subscription
and confirmation agreements that allegedly required that every
security bought for Premier Growth Fund's portfolio must be a
"1-rated" stock, the highest rating that the Company's research
analysts could assign.  Plaintiff alleges that the Company
impermissibly purchased shares of stocks that were not 1-rated.

On June 24, 2004, plaintiff filed an amended complaint in the
Circuit Court of St. Clair County, Illinois.  The suit
allegations are substantially similar to those contained in the
previous complaint, however, the amended complaint adds a new
plaintiff and seeks to allege claims on behalf of a purported
class of persons or entities holding an interest in any
portfolio managed by the Company's Large Cap Growth Team.
The Amended Complaint alleges that the Company breached its
contracts with these persons or entities by impermissibly
purchasing shares of stocks that were not 1-rated.  Plaintiffs
seek rescission of all purchases of any non-1-rated stocks the
Company made for Premier Growth Fund and other Large Cap Growth
Team clients' portfolios over the past eight years, as well as
an unspecified amount of damages.

On July 13, 2004, the Company removed the Erb action to the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
Illinois on the basis that plaintiffs' claims are preempted
under the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act.  On
August 30, 2004, the District Court remanded the action to the
Circuit Court.  On September 15, 2004, the Company filed a
notice of appeal with respect to the District Court's order.  On
December 23, 2004, plaintiffs moved to dismiss the Company's
appeal.  These motions are pending.


ALLIANCE CAPITAL: Plaintiffs File Amended MD Mutual Fund Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed amended class actions against Alliance Capital
Management L.P., according to four claim types, in the United
States District Court of Maryland.

On October 2, 2003, a purported class action complaint entitled,
"Hindo, et al. v. AllianceBernstein Growth & Income Fund, et
al.," was filed against the Company, Alliance Capital Management
Holding, L.P., Alliance Capital Management Corporation (ACMC),
AXA Financial Corporation, the AllianceBernstein Funds, the
registrants and issuers of those funds, certain officers of the
Company and certain other defendants not affiliated with the
Company, as well as unnamed Doe defendants.

The Hindo Complaint was filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York by alleged
shareholders of two of the AllianceBernstein Funds.  The
Complaint alleges that certain of the Alliance defendants failed
to disclose that they improperly allowed certain hedge funds and
other unidentified parties to engage in "late trading" and
"market-timing" of AllianceBernstein Fund securities, violating
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act, Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act and Sections 206 and 215 of the
Investment Advisers Act.  Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount
of compensatory damages and rescission of their contracts with
the Company, including recovery of all fees paid to Alliance
Capital pursuant to such contracts.


Since October 2, 2003, forty-three additional lawsuits making
factual allegations generally similar to those in the Hindo
Complaint were filed in various federal and state courts against
the Company and certain other defendants, and others may be
filed. Such lawsuits have asserted a variety of theories for
recovery including, but not limited to, violations of the
Securities Act, the Exchange Act, the Advisers Act, the
Investment Company Act, the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974 (ERISA), certain state securities statutes and
common law.  All of these lawsuits seek an unspecified amount of
damages.

On February 20, 2004, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation ("MDL Panel") transferred all federal actions to the
United States District Court for the District of Maryland
("Mutual Fund MDL"). On March 3, 2004 and April 6, 2004, the MDL
Panel issued orders conditionally transferring the state court
cases against the Company and numerous others to the Mutual Fund
MDL. Transfer of all of these actions subsequently became final.
Plaintiffs in three of these four actions moved to remand the
actions back to state court.  On June 18, 2004, the Court issued
an interim opinion deferring decision on plaintiffs' motions to
remand until a later stage in the proceedings.  Subsequently,
the plaintiff in the state court individual action moved the
Court for reconsideration of that interim opinion and for
immediate remand of her case to state court, and that motion is
pending.  Defendants are not yet required to respond to the
complaints filed in the state court derivative actions.

On September 29, 2004, plaintiffs filed consolidated amended
complaints with respect to four claim types: mutual fund
shareholder claims; mutual fund derivative claims; derivative
claims brought on behalf of Alliance Holding; and claims brought
under ERISA by participants in the Profit Sharing Plan for
Employees of Alliance Capital.  All four complaints include
substantially identical factual allegations, which appear to be
based in large part on the SEC Order.  The claims in the mutual
fund derivative consolidated amended complaint are generally
based on the theory that all fund advisory agreements,
distribution agreements and 12b-1 plans between the Company and
the AllianceBernstein Funds should be invalidated, regardless of
whether market timing occurred in each individual fund, because
each was approved by fund trustees on the basis of materially
misleading information with respect to the level of market
timing permitted in funds managed by the Company.  The claims
asserted in the other three consolidated amended complaints are
similar to those that the respective plaintiffs asserted in
their previous federal lawsuits.


ALLIANCE CAPITAL: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Stock Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs file a consolidated amended class action against
Alliance Capital Management LP in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, styled "Aucoin, et
al. v. Alliance Capital Management L.P., et al."  The suit also
names as defendants:

     (1) Alliance Capital Management Holding L.P.,

     (2) Alliance Capital Management Corporation,

     (3) AXA Financial Corporation,

     (4) Alliance Bernstein Investment Research and Management,
         Inc. (ABIRM),

     (5) certain current and former directors of the
         AllianceBernstein Funds, and

     (6) unnamed Doe defendants

The first suit filed names the AllianceBernstein Funds as
nominal defendants. The Complaint was filed by an alleged
shareholder of the AllianceBernstein Growth & Income Fund.  The
Aucoin Complaint alleges, among other things:

     (i) that certain of the defendants improperly authorized
         the payment of excessive commissions and other fees
         from AllianceBernstein Fund assets to broker-dealers in
         exchange for preferential marketing services,

    (ii) that certain of the defendants misrepresented and
         omitted from registration statements and other reports
         material facts concerning such payments, and

   (iii) that certain defendants caused such conduct as control
         persons of other defendants.

The Complaint asserts claims for violation of Sections 34(b),
36(b) and 48(a) of the Investment Company Act, Sections 206 and
215 of the Advisers Act, breach of common law fiduciary duties,
and aiding and abetting breaches of common law fiduciary duties.
Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of compensatory damages
and punitive damages, rescission of their contracts with
Alliance Capital, including recovery of all fees paid to
Alliance Capital pursuant to such contracts, an accounting of
all AllianceBernstein Fund-related fees, commissions and soft
dollar payments, and restitution of all unlawfully or
discriminatorily obtained fees and expenses.

Since June 22, 2004, nine additional lawsuits making factual
allegations substantially similar to those in the first suit
were filed against the Company and certain other defendants. All
nine of the lawsuits were brought as class actions filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, assert claims substantially identical to the Aucoin
Complaint, and are brought on behalf of shareholders of
AllianceBernstein Funds.

On February 2, 2005, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
class action complaint that asserts claims substantially similar
to the lawsuits referenced above.  


ALLIANCE CAPITAL: AllianceBerstein Investors Launch Suit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alliance Capital Management LP faces a class action filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, styled "Charles Davidson and Bernard Samson, et al. v.
Bruce W. Calvert, et al."  The suit also names as defendants
Alliance Bernstein Investment Research and Management, Inc.
(ABIRM), various current and former directors of Alliance
Capital Management Corporation (ACMC), and unnamed Doe
defendants.

Alleged shareholders of AllianceBernstein Funds filed the suit,
which alleges that the Company, as investment adviser to the
AllianceBernstein Funds, and the other defendants breached their
fiduciary duties arising under Sections 36(a), 36(b) and 47(b)
of the Investment Company Act by failing to ensure that the
AllianceBernstein Funds participated in certain securities class
action settlements for which the Funds were eligible. Plaintiffs
seek an unspecified amount of compensatory damages and punitive
damages, and forfeiture of all commissions and fees paid to the
defendants.

Two additional lawsuits making factual allegations substantially
similar to those in the Davidson Complaint were filed against
the Company and certain defendants not affiliated with the
Company, and others may be filed.  One of the lawsuits was
brought as a class action in the United States District Court
for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of alleged
shareholders of the Mass Mutual family of funds. The other
lawsuit was brought as a class action in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on
behalf of alleged shareholders of the Vanguard family of funds.
Both additional lawsuits:

     (i) assert claims against the Company in connection with
         sub-advisory services provided by the Company to the
         respective fund families;

    (ii) assert claims substantially identical to the Davidson
         Complaint; and

   (iii) seek relief substantially identical to the Davidson
         Complaint.


ARKANSAS: Lowell Council Approves Amendment 59 Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The city of Lowell in Arkansas became the third of eight
defendants to approve a settlement in a lawsuit seeking refunds
for over-collected property taxes by area schools and
governments, the Springdale Morning News reports.

The Lowell City Council approved the settlement of $55,901.18
without discussion. According to Mary Mason, city finance
director, the council still must approve an appropriation memo
to describe from where in the budget the money will come.

As previously reported in the April 1, 2005 edition of the Class
Action Reporter, NorthWest Arkansas Community College, who is
one of the defendants had approved its own settlement in the
Amendment 59 class-action lawsuit March 29, and Benton County
approved a settlement in November. With the settlements, the
only remaining defendants in the lawsuit are the city of Rogers
and school districts in Rogers, Bentonville, Siloam Springs and
Gravette. The Amendment 59 lawsuit is set for trial April 26 in
Benton County Circuit Court for those remaining in the suit.

Stephen Lisle, the attorney representing the city, told the
Morning News Lowell could have faced paying back up to $1.4
million, but that number was reduced to $820,000 since the suit
was filed.

Filed in 1997, the lawsuit had claimed that the local school
districts and governments violated Amendment 59 of the Arkansas
Constitution by over-collecting property taxes. Voters had
enacted the amendment back in 1980, requiring school districts,
local governments or other taxing entities to roll back tax
collections when the entities' revenue collection increases by
more than 10 percent.  Specifically, attorneys Dale Evans and
Kent Hirsch had filed the lawsuit in April 1997 on behalf of
taxpayers claiming that Benton County and the other taxing
entities overcharged them by not rolling back millage rates
enough to satisfy Amendment 59.

The Lowell council unanimously accepted Lowell's settlement on
Mr. Lisle's recommendation. According to him, the current amount
is based on a series of negotiations, which whittled the
original settlement offer by the plaintiffs from $320,000 to
$55,901.  Mr. Leslie told the Morning News that final settlement
terms require approval by the state and trial court. Twenty-five
percent of the money Lowell pays will go to attorney fees, while
the rest will go to a refund pool and will be divvied among the
taxpayers.


CANADA: Ontario Government Asks Judge To Dismiss $600M SARS Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys for the Ontario government are attempting to persuade
a judge to dismiss a class-action lawsuit that alleges health
officials called a premature halt to their efforts to stop the
spread of SARS before the deadly 2003 outbreak had taken its
course, the Associated Press reports.

Nurse Andrea Williams, who contracted SARS during the second
phase of the Toronto outbreak in May 2003, launched the $600-
million suit against the province, the federal government and
the city of Toronto last year.  In her suit, Ms. Williams
alleges that officials, believing the end of the outbreak to be
at hand, ceased protective measures for health-care workers when
they ought to have known the risk and potential for another
fatal flare-up of the disease.

However, provincial lawyer Kim Twohig argued that governments
are already accountable to the public through the democratic
process and public health officials can't be held liable for
damages in cases such as SARS, AP reports. He told Superior
Court Justice Maurice Cullity, "The law does not hold
governments liable in damages to individuals who contract a
disease."


DESA HEATING: Recalls 88T Propane Heaters Due To Fire Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------
In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC), DESA Heating Products, of Bowling Green, Kentucky and
Scheu Manufacturing Co., of Upland, California is voluntarily
recalling about 88,000 "ALL-PRO", "Reddy Heater" and "MASTER"
Infrared (Tank Top) Propane Heaters.

The plastic ring on the heater's regulator can crack, causing
gas to leak out if the propane tank and heater regulator are
turned on. This can create a fire hazard if an ignition source
is present. The firms have received four reports of incidents
involving minor burns to the hand and two cases of minor
property damage.

DESA and Scheu portable propane infrared (tank top) heaters with
the following model names and number are involved in this
recall: All-Pro (SPC-15R & SPC-30R), Reddy Heater (HD15A &
HD30A) and MASTER (TT15A & TT30A). Reddy, ALL-PRO and Master
Heaters imported by DESA have serial numbers between 016,000,000
and 016,159,999. All-Pro heaters imported by Scheu have serial
numbers beginning with a "C" or "D" prefix. The model and serial
numbers are on the carton and on the heater. The designation
"Made in China" is on the carton and warning label attached to
the heater. This recall involves only heaters made in China with
the serial numbers listed above and does not include those made
in Mexico or in China with different serial numbers. The heaters
made in Mexico have the same or similar model numbers, but show
"Made in Mexico" on the carton and warning label and use the
prefix "M" in the serial number. There have been no problems
with the Mexican heaters and they are not to be returned.

Manufactured in China, the heaters were sold at all home centers
and hardware stores nationwide from September 2002 through
January 2005 for between $45 and $120.

Consumers should stop using this heater immediately and return
it to the location where you purchased it to obtain a free
replacement. If consumers have any questions concerning this
recall, they should contact their local retailer or DESA.

Consumer Contact: Contact DESA toll-free at (866) 279-3225
between 7:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. CT Monday through Friday.


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

Between June 26, 2001 and August 16, 2001, several stockholder
class action complaints were filed on behalf of purchasers of
the Company's common stock since March 13, 2000, the date of the
Offering.  The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the
Company's prospectus, incorporated in the Registration Statement
on Form S-1 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission,
was materially false and misleading because it failed to
disclose that the underwriters had engaged in conduct designed
to result in undisclosed and excessive underwriters'
compensation in the form of increased brokerage commissions and
also that this alleged conduct of the underwriters artificially
inflated the Company's stock price in the period after the
Offering.  The plaintiffs claimed violations of Section 11 of
the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by
the Securities and Exchange Commission and seek, among other
things, damages, statutory compensation and costs of litigation.

Effective October 9, 2002, the claims against the Company's
officers and directors were dismissed without prejudice.  
Effective February 19, 2003, the Section 10(b) claims against
the Company were dismissed.  The terms of a settlement have been
tentatively reached between the plaintiffs in the suits and most
of the defendants, including the Company, with respect
to the remaining claims.  If completed and if then approved by
the court, the settlement would dismiss those claims against the
Company and is expected to result in no material liability to
it.  

The suit is styled "In Re Digitas, Inc. Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation, 01 Civ. 5948 (Sas) (Mgc)," pending in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, under Judge Shira N. Scheindlin, related to the "IN RE
INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERING SECURITIES LITIGATION, Master File No.
21 MC 92 (SAS)."  For more information, please visit
http://securities.stanford.edu/1018/DTAS01/20020419_r01c_015948.
pdf.  The members of the plaintiff's executive committee are:

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

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

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

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

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

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


DIRECT REVENUE: IL Spyware Complaint Alleges Computer Hijacking
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alleged spyware king Direct Revenue of New York faces a class
action, alleging that the company has deceptively downloaded
harmful and offensive spyware to unsuspecting users' computers,
the eWEEK.com reports.

Filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, the lawsuit
alleges that DirectRevenue LLC "unlawfully used and damaged
plaintiffs' computers to make money for themselves while
willfully disregarding plaintiffs' rights to use and enjoy their
personal property."   According to the suit, the spyware
infiltrated users' computers to learn their Internet browsing
habits and track their Internet use. In addition, the suit also
states that DirectRevenue deceptively prevents users from
removing its spyware, thus overwhelming computers with
unsolicited advertisements.

The suit contends that DirectRevenue's business model is to pay
independent distributors, which are often small companies that
dropped out of the spam business or that develop peer-to-peer
file sharing or screensavers, several cents per installation to
install its software.

Benjamin Edelman, a researcher studying spyware and a Ph.D.
candidate at Harvard University told eWEEK.com, "Those guys love
to bundle additional software that tracks what people are
doing." Additionally, he said, "Sometimes we see that the
affiliates that sign up design software that exploits security
holes in Windows and Internet Explorer, and so as you are
surfing a Web page, it installs the DirectRevenue software."  

Sometimes, Mr. Edelman asserts, the way the company goes about
its business is downright offensive.  In one video he made last
month, a DirectRevenue ad on Yahooligans, a children's Web site,
showed an American Express ad, while the Cartoon Network's Web
site showed a gambling ad.

Spyware has proliferated a great deal recent years, according to
research from Meta Group Inc. (now part of Gartner) of Stamford,
Connecticut. Research by Meta reveals that spyware is one of the
most significant Internet-based security threats today,
representing up to 40 percent of help desk calls. It even
predicts that spyware will continue to remain a serious problem
until at least 2008.

Distinguishing the suit against DirectRevenue, Mr. Edelman told
eWeek.com that it is somewhat different from other spyware
cases, which have mainly been brought by Web sites protesting
pop-up ads.  "This case is different, because it's about
sneaking on to people's computers in truly underhanded ways,"
Mr. Edelman said. He also adds, "In some senses, though, that
makes it an easier case. It's easy to prove that they are
installing without permission. It's a lot like trespassing."

Mr. Edelman added that the case has a good chance of succeeding,
and if it does, it should serve as a warning to others with
similar business models.  More importantly, a win could open the
floodgates for lawsuits against similar companies, he points
out.


EVANSTON NORTHWESTERN: Reaches Consent Order For FTC Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Under the terms of a consent order with the Federal Trade
Commission (FTC), a Chicago-area physicians' group has agreed to
stop collectively bargaining on behalf of its members, as such
joint negotiations allegedly led to reduced competition and
higher prices paid by health plans and other payors to the
group's salaried and independent doctors.

The order settles the FTC's complaint against Evanston
Northwestern Healthcare Corporation (ENH) and ENH Medical Group,
Inc. (ENH Medical Group). The allegations against the
respondents are contained in Count III of the Commission's
larger complaint concerning ENH's acquisition of Highland Park
Hospital in Highland Park, Illinois. Counts I and II of the
complaint, which charge that the hospital acquisition was
illegal and anticompetitive, have not been settled. A hearing on
the merits of these charges is currently pending before an
independent administrative law judge.

ENH is a nonprofit corporation that owns ENH Faculty Practice
Associates (Faculty Practice Associates), which also is a
nonprofit corporation. Faculty Practice Associates employs about
460 salaried doctors who practice medicine in several offices in
Cook and Lake Counties, Illinois, and primarily serve ENH's
patients. Faculty Practice Associates is the sole shareholder of
ENH Medical Group, a for-profit corporation that represents
member physicians, negotiating on their behalf and entering into
contracts with health plans and other third-party payors. The
doctors then provide their medical services to patients insured
by payors for the fees set by the Group.

ENH Medical Group jointly represented two categories of doctors
in its contract negotiations with payors: Faculty Practice
Associates' salaried physicians and about 450 other doctors who
also practiced in the counties but were considered independent
practitioners.  Without the contracts negotiated on their behalf
by ENH, the FTC contends, the Group's physicians would compete
in the same geographic area for the sale of comparable
healthcare services.

According to the Commission's complaint, the respondent violated
Section 5 of the FTC Act by facilitating and implementing
agreements among rival physicians to fix prices and other terms
of dealing with health plans and other third-party payors, and
by refusing to deal with such payors except on jointly
determined terms. There was no physician practice integration
that may have led to increased efficiency, the complaint states.
As a result, the FTC contends, ENH Medical Group deprived
payors, employers, and individuals of the benefits of physician
competition. By eliminating this competition, ENH Medical Group
was able to increase the prices that payors paid to the salaried
and independent physicians in the Group.

The consent order settles all allegations in Count III of the
Commission's complaint against ENH and ENH Medical Group. It
bars the respondent from entering into or facilitating any
agreement between or among physicians:

     (1) to negotiate with payors on any physician's behalf;

     (2) to deal, not to deal, or threaten not to deal with
         payors;

     (3) to designate the terms on which to deal with any payor;
         or

     (4) to refuse to deal individually with any payor, or to
         deal with any payor only through the respondent's
         arrangements.

The order reinforces these general provisions by prohibiting the
respondent from facilitating information exchanges between or
among any physicians concerning whether, or on what terms, to
contract with a payor; and banning them from attempting to
engage in any other actions prohibited by the order.

The order provides that the respondents are not prohibited from
participating in a "qualified risk-sharing joint arrangement" or
a "qualified clinically integrated joint arrangement." As
defined in the order, a "qualified risk-sharing joint
arrangement" must satisfy two conditions. First, all physician
participants must share substantial financial risk through the
arrangement and thereby create incentives for the physician
participants to jointly control costs and improve quality by
managing the provision of services. Second, any agreement
concerning reimbursement or other terms or conditions of dealing
must be reasonably necessary to obtain significant efficiencies
through the joint arrangement.

As defined in the order, a "qualified clinically-integrated
joint arrangement" also must satisfy two conditions. First, all
physician participants must participate in active and ongoing
programs to evaluate and modify their clinical practice
patterns, creating a high degree of interdependence and
cooperation among physicians, in order to control costs and
ensure the quality of services provided. Second, any agreement
concerning reimbursement or other terms or conditions of dealing
must be reasonably necessary to obtain significant efficiencies
through the joint arrangement.

Finally, the consent order contains a number of record-keeping
and reporting requirements designed to assist the FTC in
monitoring compliance with its terms. It also requires the
respondent to notify the FTC before entering into certain
contracting or negotiating agreements, and to distribute the
complaint and order to all doctors that have participated in ENH
Medical Group since January 1, 2000, as well as to selected
payors. ENH also is required to terminate its current contracts
with any payor at the payor's request within one year after the
order becomes final. The order will expire in 20 years.

The Commission vote to place the consent order on the public
record for comment and publish a copy in the Federal Register
was 4-0-1, with Chairman Deborah Platt Majoras not
participating. The Commission is accepting comments on the order
for 30 days, until May 2, 2005, after which it will decide
whether to make it final. Comments should be sent to: FTC Office
of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Washington, DC
20580.

A consent agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not
constitute an admission of a law violation. When the Commission
issues a consent order on a final basis, it carries the force of
law with respect to future actions. Each violation of such an
order may result in a civil penalty of $11,000.

For more details, contact the FTC's Consumer Response Center,
Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580
or visit the Website: http://www.ftc.gov. Also contact Mitchell  
J. Katz, Office of Public Affairs by Phone: 202-326-2161 or
Elizabeth A. Piotrowski, Bureau of Competition by Phone:
202-326-2623


GENERAL REINSURANCE: Faces Lawsuits Due To Relationship With ROA
----------------------------------------------------------------
General Reinsurance Corporation and four of its current and
former employees, along with numerous other defendants, faces a
number of civil actions related to Reciprocal of America (ROA),
a Virginia-based reciprocal insurer of physician, hospital and
lawyer professional liability risks.  The Company provided
various reinsurance coverages to ROA from the late 1970's
through 2002.

The litigation includes seven purported class actions initiated
by doctors, hospitals and lawyers that purchased insurance
through ROA or certain of its risk retention groups, and actions
brought by the Virginia Commissioner of Insurance, as Deputy
Receiver of ROA, and the Tennessee Commissioner of Insurance, as
Liquidator for three Tennessee risk retention groups, which are
collectively assigned to the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Tennessee.  The first of these actions was filed in
March 2003 and additional actions were filed in late March 2003
through July 2004.  

The Company is also a defendant in several lawsuits filed in
Alabama state courts by hospital groups or doctors, including
two lawsuits filed in the Circuit Court of Montgomery County in
April 2004 and July 2004 and one lawsuit filed in the Circuit
Court of Jackson County in February 2005.

Plaintiffs assert various claims in these ROA-related civil
actions, including breach of contract, unjust enrichment, fraud
and conspiracy, against the Company and others, arising from the
various reinsurance coverages the Company provided to ROA and
related matters.  The relief sought in these actions includes
compensatory damages and, in some case, treble and punitive
damages.


GERMANY: E.ON Hanse Customers Lodges Suit Over Undue Price Hikes
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fifty-two customers of the north German gas supplier E.ON Hanse,
a subsidiary of energy giant E.ON, have filed a class-action
suit with the Hamburg regional court against the firm for what
they claim are excessive price hikes, according to the Hamburg's
consumer association, the TurkishPress.com reports.  

In their suit, which the association is coordinating, the
customers contend that a 10-percent price hike last October and
a further increase of 2.8 percent with effect from February this
year were unjustified and were hoping to force E.ON Hanse to
publish its calculations.  The class-action suit is believed to
be the first of its kind filed against an energy supplier in
Germany.

At the end of last year, a series of steep price hikes for
electricity and gas sparked fierce debate in Germany. Utilities
though had argued that runaway oil prices were to blame for the
price increases. However, critics suggest that energy suppliers
are notching up their prices ahead of the creation of a new
sector-wide regulatory body this year.


HUNTER'S VIEW: Recalls 500T Safety Harnesses For Injury Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC), Hunter's View, of Peoria, Illinois is voluntarily
recalling about 500,000 Safety Harnesses Sold with Tree Stands.

The harnesses could fail during use, resulting in consumers
falling from tree stands and suffering serious injuries or
death.

These 2004 model year Fall Arrest Systems (harnesses) have model
number 3333 and Model Year 2004 written on a white label
attached to the harness or the tree strap. They were included
with every Hunters View and every Comfort Zone brand tree stand
sold.
    
Manufactured in China the harnesses were sold at all hunting and
sporting good stores nationwide beginning in January 2004 for
between $100 and $300.

Consumers should stop using these harnesses immediately and
contact Hunters View to receive a free replacement harness.  
Contact the Company by Phone: (888) 878-0440 between 8 a.m. and
4:30 p.m. CT Monday through Friday.


IDT CORPORATION: Nears Settlement Of Prepaid Phone-Card Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
IDT Corporation (NYSE: IDT) tentatively agreed to settle four
lawsuits that claim the company charged hidden fees on its
prepaid phone cards, the Newark Star Ledger reports.

According to a recent filing IDT made with the Securities and
Exchange Commission, a "settlement in principle" was reached
during court-ordered mediation. The matter though, the filing
stated, still requires approval in federal court in Newark, New
Jersey. "We hope to get it done sooner than later," Krishnan
Chittur, a Manhattan attorney who represents one of the
plaintiffs, told the Star Ledger.  

The suits sought class-action status and estimated damages of
more than $100 million.  The suits had alleged that IDT failed
to disclose certain service charges or connection fees that made
per-minute calling rates much higher than advertised on the
cards' packaging.

Though calling cards are IDT's lifeblood, the Newark-based phone
company also dabbles in a range of other activities, including
the production of animated movies and radio broadcasting.
However, 54 percent of its sales last year, which is around
$1.19 billion, came from prepaid cards.  


INDONESIA: Newmont Nusa Denies Charges Of Polluting Senunu Bay
--------------------------------------------------------------
Copper and gold miner PT Newmont Nusa Tenggara (NNT) along with
local villagers, have rejected claims by a group that calls
itself the People's Lawyers Union (SPR) that its tailings have
damaged the environment in the area around its operations, The
Jakarta Post reports.

In a press statement, Senior External Relations Manager Malik
Salim said that there was no evidence that the two West Sumbawa
residents, Salamudin Daeng and Heri Zakaria, who plan to file a
class action through the SPR, represented the local community.
"The people here support NNT's operation," Mr. Salim adds.  

Endang Arianto, the head of Jereweh district in West Sumbawa,
West Nusa Tenggara, told the Jakarta Post where the open pit
mine is located, none of the local residents had suffered from
any sort of "strange ailment", similar to that reported in Buyat
Bay in North Sulawesi.

Several media outlets reported that Habiburokhman, a member of
the SPR, had said that it planned to file a US$10 million class
action against NNT with the South Jakarta District Court for
causing environmental damage around Senunu Bay, where the
company has been disposing of its tailings in a trench 3,000
meters under the water.

SPR said the huge volume of the tailings estimated to be around
43.2 million tons a year had resulted in the majority of
villagers in Keruak district, East Lombok regency, suffering
from itching and other skin ailments. It also pointed out that
fishermen along the regency's coast had seen a drop in fish
catches over the past two years, the Post reports.

However, Endang Arianto, who was accompanied by a number of
other villagers at a press conference held at the NNT
concession, countered the accusation by saying that the fish in
Senunu Bay were not contaminated and were consumed on a daily
basis by the villagers. "We should be the ones to feel the
effects first," he stressed, the Post states.  According to NNT,
East Lombok is located 50 kilometers away from Senunu Bay.

NNT, a local unit of U.S.-based mining giant Newmont, is
currently trying to renew its license to dump tailings at sea,
since its current license is only valid for three years and is
set to expire next month.  Non-governmental organizations have
been urging the government to reconsider submarine tailing
disposal, claiming that the method is unsafe, particularly in
the light of the high profile case involving another Newmont
subsidiary, Newmont Minahasa Raya, last year.


MAGNA ENTERTAINMENT: To Seek Dismissal of CA, DE Stock Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Magna Entertainment Corporation intends to seek the dismissal of
six class actions filed in Delaware and California courts, in
connection with MI Developments Inc.'s intention to make an
unsolicited offer to acquire all of the Company's outstanding
shares of Class A Subordinate Voting Stock not already owned by
it.  The suits name as defendants the Company, MI Developments
Inc. and/or one or more of MI Developments and the Company's
directors.  The suits are styled:

     (1) Weisz v. Campbell, et al., filed on July 13, 2004 in
         the Delaware Chancery Court

     (2) Bedford v. Magna Entertainment Corp., et al., filed on
         July 13, 2004 in the Delaware Chancery Court;

     (3) Pill, et al v. Jerry D. Campbell, et al., filed on July
         14, 2004 in the Delaware Chancery Court;

     (4) Alaska Electrical Pension Fund v. Magna Entertainment
         Corp., et al., filed on July 22, 2004 in the Delaware
         Chancery Court;

     (5) Cronk, et al. v. Campbell, et al., filed on July 22,
         2004 in the Delaware Chancery Court;

     (6) Tolwin v. Frank Stronach, et al., filed on July 30,
         2004 in the Superior Court, State of California, County
         of Los Angeles

Each of these lawsuits seeks injunctive relief to stop any
proposed acquisition of the Company's outstanding Class A
Subordinate Voting Stock by MI Developments Inc. and, in certain
cases, damages if such transaction is completed as proposed by
MI Developments Inc.  All of the Delaware actions were
consolidated by order dated August 30, 2004.

As a result of the announcement by MI Developments Inc. on
September 16, 2004, of its withdrawal of the offer, the Company
believes that the lawsuits are moot and should be dismissed.  On
October 1, 2004, the plaintiffs in the previously announced
class action lawsuit in California captioned "Feldman v. Magna
Entertainment Corp. et al," filed a notice of dismissal of this
action with the Superior Court, State of California, County of
Los Angeles.


MICHIGAN: AG Mike Cox Warns Against VoIP Technology Limitations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox advised consumers about
possible limitations regarding "Voice Over the Internet," or
VoIP, technology.  Advertised in Michigan, VoIP technology may
not offer access to 9-1-1 emergency services.

"While VoIP may offer less expensive telephone service,
consumers should be seriously concerned about the possible risks
of not having access to 9-1-1 emergency services," the Attorney
General said. "I encourage every Michigan consumer to become
informed about this new technology and the important differences
between it and traditional telephone service, especially in
regards to proper access to the 9-1-1 emergency system."

VoIP technology allows consumers to make telephone calls using a
broadband Internet connection instead of a regular telephone
line. Some VoIP services do not provide access to emergency
9-1-1. A Consumer Alert detailing Mr. Cox's concerns is
available at the Attorney General's Web site:
http://www.michigan.gov/ag.

"If the advertising, brochure, or other marketing materials are
silent on this issue, it is likely that 9-1-1 is not being
provided," he said.

Even for those companies that do provide 9-1-1 service, it may
not be the full service on which consumers rely. For example,
the landline telephone system automatically provides 9-1-1
operators with the caller's location, while the VoIP service may
not. Landline telephone systems also route 9-1-1 calls through
emergency phone lines while VoIP may route these calls to a
general call center. Even when the VoIP service includes
traditional 9-1-1 access, it may not be automatically activated
and consumers must take proactive steps in order to place a
9-1-1 call.

Attorney General Cox advised VoIP subscribers to:

     (1) Verify that he can access 9-1-1 with his telephone by
         checking his VoIP provider's Web site, and not to dial
         9-1-1 to test his access to the emergency response
         network;

     (2) be sure to activate the emergency calling feature of
         his service plan, if applicable;

     (3) consider purchasing a back up power supply, because
         the VoIP service may run out if the power is out;

     (4) Inform children, babysitters, and visitors about his
         VoIP service and relevant limitations;

     (5) Consider keeping a landline telephone to access 9-1-1
         emergency services.

Consumers with a questions or a complaint about VoIP may contact
the Attorney General's Consumer Protection Division toll- free
at 1-877-765-8388, by writing to P.O. Box 30213, Lansing, MI
48909, or by visiting the Website: http://www.michigan.gov/ag.


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

Beginning in August 2001, several stockholder class action
complaints were filed on behalf of purchasers of Modem’s
common stock since the date of the Company Offering.  The
plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the Company's
prospectus, incorporated in the Registration Statement on Form
S-1 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, was
materially false and misleading because it failed to disclose
that the underwriters had engaged in conduct designed to result
in undisclosed and excessive underwriters' compensation in the
form of increased brokerage commissions and also that this
alleged conduct of the underwriters artificially inflated the
Company's stock price in the period after the Modem Offering.  
The plaintiffs claim violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by the Securities and Exchange Commission and seek,
among other things, damages, statutory compensation and costs of
litigation.

The suit is styled "In Re Modem Media, Inc. Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation," pending in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, under
Judge Shira N. Scheindlin, related to the "IN RE INITIAL PUBLIC
OFFERING SECURITIES LITIGATION, Master File No. 21 MC 92 (SAS)."  
For more information, please visit
http://securities.stanford.edu/1018/DTAS01/20020419_r01c_015948.
pdf.  The members of the plaintiff's executive committee are:

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

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

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

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

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

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


NEBRASKA: Judge Rules That Decision To Cut Benefits Unlawful
------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Laurie Smith-Camp ruled in a class action
lawsuit, stating that the state of Nebraska was wrong to cut
Medicaid payments to scores of single working parents last year,
the WOWT reports.  In her ruling, the judge stated that state
wrongfully cut so-called "transitional Medicaid benefits" to
Kelly Bowlin of Ogallala and others in similar situations.

The lawsuit, which was initiated by the Nebraska Appleseed
Center for Law in the Public Interest, had accused the state of
refusing to give Ms. Bowlin and other parents their temporary
Medicaid benefits. Court records revealed that Ms. Bowling had
actually lost her Medicaid in January 2004 as a result of a 50-
cent-per-hour raise from her employer.

According to the class-action lawsuit, Medicaid recipients who
get new jobs, raises or begin working enough hours that they
exceed income limits must be given "transitional benefits" so
they can find an alternative to meet their medical needs.  
Removing the people from the Medicaid program was done during a
special budget-cutting legislative session in 2002.


NETFLIX INC.: Plaintiffs Launch Consolidated CA Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a consolidated securities class action against
certain of Netflix, Inc.'s officers and directors in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California.  
The officers named in the suit are:

     (1) Reed Hastings,

     (2) W. Barry McCarthy, Jr., and

     (3) Leslie J. Kilgore

The consolidated complaint was filed on February 24, 2005,
alleging violations of certain federal securities laws and
seeking unspecified damages on behalf of a class of purchasers
of the Company's common stock between October 1, 2003 and
October 14, 2004.  The plaintiffs allege that the Company made
false and misleading statements and omissions of material facts
based on the Company's disclosure regarding churn and delivery
speed, claiming alleged violations by each named defendant of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and alleged violations by
certain of its officers of Section 20A of Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.

The suit is styled "In re Netflix, Inc. Securities Litigation,
case no. 3:04-cv-02978-FMS," filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, under Judge Fern
M. Smith.  Representing the Company are Cynthia A. Dy and
Cameron Powers Hoffman of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, 650
Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050 Phone: 650/493-9300 Fax:
650-565-5100 E-mail: cdy@wsgr.com, choffman@wsgr.com.  
Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Arthur L Shingler, III, David R. Scott, Neil R.
         Rothstein, Scott + Scott, LLC 401 B Street Suite 401
         San Diego, CA 92101 USA Phone: 619-233-4565 Fax: 619-
         233-0508 E-mail: Ashingler@scott-Scott.com,
         Drscott@scott-Scott.com;

     (2) Brian O O'Mara, William S. Lerach, Lerach Coughlin
         Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP 401 B Street, Suite
         1700 San Diego, CA 92101 USA Phone: 619/ 231-1058 Fax:
         (619) 231-7423 Email: Briano@lerachlaw.com or
         Billl@lerachlaw.com


NETFLIX INC.: Consumers File Fraud Suit Over DVD Delivery in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Netflix, Inc. faces a class action filed in California Superior
Court, City and County of San Francisco by Frank Chavez,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated.

The complaint asserts claims of, among other things, false
advertising, unfair and deceptive trade practices, breach of
contract as well as claims relating to the Company's statements
regarding DVD delivery times.  The complaint seeks restitution,
disgorgement, damages, and injunction and specific performance
and other relief.

Case management conference was held on March 23,2005 before
Judge Thomas J. Mellon, Jr.  The conference will be continued to
May 11,2005.  

The suit is styled "FRANK CHAVEZ VS. NETFLIX, INC., A FOREIGN
CORPORATION et al, case no. CGC-04-434884."  Representing the
Company is Keith Eggleton of WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI,
650 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto CA 94304-1050 USA Phone: (650)
493-9300.  Representing the plaintiffs are Adam Gutride LAW
OFFICES OF ADAM GUTRRIDE 835 Douglass Street, San Francisco CA
94114 USA Phone: (415) 271-6469; and Seth Safire, 6467
California, San Francisco CA 94121 USA Phone: (415) 876-4345.


NETFLIX INC.: Firm Says Securities Suit Has Not Been Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Due to client and public reaction to an article dated March 15,
2005 stating, "that Netflix Inc. on Tuesday said a federal judge
in California has dismissed a shareholder lawsuit brought
against current and former members of the company's board of
directors", Scott + Scott, LLC, Lead Counsel for the Netflix
shareholders in the federal securities class action are advising
its client shareholders, a substantial number of people and
entities, and all absent class members who purchased Netflix
stock from October 1, 2003 through October 14, 2004 that their
case has not been dismissed.

Scott + Scott, LLC had announced that it had filed a complaint
in the Northern District of California against Netflix, Inc.
("Netflix") (Nasdaq: NFLX) for alleged acts in violation of U.S.
securities fraud laws.

The article in Reuters stated: "In its annual report, Netflix
said the lawsuit accusing Netflix Chief Executive Reed Hastings
and other officers of insider trading and making false
statements about churn, or the rate at which Netflix loses
subscribers, was dismissed on Feb. 25.

A similar case filed in Santa Clara Superior Court in October
was stayed pending resolution of the federal case, the company
said."

While this statement is factually correct in that the Netflix
annual report accurately states that a federal case as described
was dismissed, Scott + Scott advises that it was not the class
case brought for securities fraud violations brought by
shareholders under the Securities Act of 1934 and that the other
case has no bearing on this case.

For more details, contact Neil Rothstein of Scott + Scott, LLC,
by Phone: +1-800-404-7770 or +1-619-251-0887.


ODYSSEY HEALTHCARE: Asks TX Court To Dismiss Securities Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Odyssey Healthcare, Inc. asked the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division to dismiss
the class action filed against it, certain of its current and
former Chief Executive Officers and its current Chief Financial
Officer.

Plaintiff Francis Layher filed the first suit, Individually and
On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, purportedly on
behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the
Company's publicly traded securities between May 5, 2003 and
February 23, 2004.  The complaint alleges violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  The plaintiff seeks an order
determining that the action may proceed as a class action,
awarding compensatory damages in favor of the plaintiff and the
other class members in an unspecified amount, and reasonable
costs and expenses incurred in the action, including counsel
fees and expert fees.

Six similar lawsuits were also filed in May and June of 2004 in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Texas, Dallas Division, by plaintiffs Kenneth L. Friedman, Trudy
J. Nomm, Eva S. Caldarola, Michael Schaufuss, Duane Liffrig and
G.A. Allsmiller on behalf of the same plaintiff class, making
substantially similar allegations and seeking substantially
similar damages. As of the date of this Form 10-K, the lawsuits
have been transferred to a single judge and consolidated into a
single action. Lead plaintiffs and lead counsel have been
appointed.  The consolidated complaint was filed on December 20,
2004, which, among other things, extended the putative class
period to October 18, 2005.


OKLAHOMA: Senate Committee Amends, Passes Lawsuit Reform Bill
-------------------------------------------------------------
A Senate committee amended, and then approved a lawsuit reform
bill that has passed the state House, the Associated Press
reports.  The reform bill, which was heavily backed by
Democrats, included changes such as a $300,000 limit on pain and
suffering damages, restricting testimony by expert witnesses and
putting limits on class-action lawsuits.

Originally authored by House Speaker Todd Hiett, the newly
passed bill also included a 10-year limit for liability and
limited contingency fees that are common when a lawyer takes a
case with a promise of a share of any money awarded. Democrats
said that the bill would reduce frivolous lawsuits, but would
still give Oklahomans the chance to go to court when they're
injured. The changes being advocated are similar to a bill
supported by Oklahoma Gov. Brad Henry, which had been killed in
the Senate earlier.

Meanwhile, Republican lawmakers in the Senate were not as
enthusiastic about the measure's passing. In fact, just hours
after the bill passed, Sen. Glenn Coffee, the Senate's minority
leader, issued a press release saying that the Democrats
"gutted" the original proposals brought forth by House
Republicans, AP reports.


PLUG POWER: Suit Fairness Hearing Set April 19 in NY Court
----------------------------------------------------------
Fairness hearing for the settlement of the consolidated
securities class action filed against Plug Power, Inc. and
certain of its officers and directors is set for April 19,2005
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
New York.

In September 2000, a shareholder class action complaint was
filed, alleging that the Company and various of its officers and
directors violated certain federal securities laws by failing to
disclose certain information concerning our products and future
prospects.  The action was brought on behalf of a class of
purchasers of Company stock who purchased the stock between
February 14, 2000 and August 2, 2000.

Subsequently, fourteen additional complaints with similar
allegations and class periods were filed.  By order dated
October 30, 2000, the court consolidated the complaints into one
action, entitled Plug Power Inc. Securities Litigation, CV-00-
5553(ERK)(RML).  By order dated January 25, 2001, the Court
appointed lead plaintiffs and lead plaintiffs' counsel.
Subsequently, the plaintiffs served a consolidated amended
complaint.  The consolidated amended complaint extends the class
period to begin on October 29, 1999 and alleges claims under the
Securities Act and the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
under the Exchange Act.  Subsequently, plaintiffs withdrew their
claims under the Securities Act.  Plaintiffs allege that the
defendants made misleading statements and omissions regarding
the state of development of the Company's technology in a
registration statement issued in connection with our initial
public offering (IPO) and in subsequent press releases.

The Company served its motion to dismiss the claims in May 2001.
By order dated January 21, 2003, the Court dismissed all claims
relating to pre-IPO press releases, the IPO prospectus and all
but three post-IPO press releases. The Court ruled that the
three remaining press releases raised questions of fact that
could not be resolved on a motion to dismiss.  The Court also
denied the motion to dismiss the claims against the individual
defendants at this time.

On December 29, 2004, the plaintiffs and the defendants entered
into a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, which is subject
to final approval by the Court.  The settlement does not call
for payment by the defendants and would be covered by directors
and officers insurance.  The Stipulation and Agreement of
Settlement was submitted to the Court on January 5, 2005. On
January 19, 2005, the Court entered an order certifying the
class for the purposes of settlement pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23, setting forth procedures for notice to the
plaintiff class, and scheduling a settlement fairness hearing
for April 29, 2005.  Pursuant to the Court's January 19, 2005
order, members of the plaintiff class who wish to be excluded
from the class must mail a request to be excluded no later than
April 11, 2005.

The suit is styled "In re Plug Power Securities Litigation, case
no. 1:00-cv-05553-ERK-RML," filed in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York, under Judge Edward
R. Korman.

Representing the Company are Gregory A. Markel, Ronit Setton,
Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft, LLP One World Financial Center
New York, NY 10281 Phone: 212-504-6000 Fax: 212-504-6666, E-
mail: greg.markel@cwt.com, ronit.setton@cwt.com; and Nancy I.
Ruskin Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton One Liberty Plaza
New York, NY 10006 Phone: 212-225-2000 Fax: 212-225-3499, E-
mail: nruskin@cgsh.com.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Lionel Z. Glancy, Law Offices of Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
         1801 Avenue of the Americas Los Angeles, CA 90067

     (2) Mel E. Lifschitz 10 East 40th Street New York, NY 10016
         Phone: 212-779-1414

     (3) Samuel H. Rudman, Steven G. Schulman Milberg, Weiss,
         Bershad, Hynes & Lerach, L.L.P. One Pennsylvania Plaza
         New York, NY 10119 Phone: (212) 594-5300


PRICELINE.COM: Consumers Launch Antitrust Suits in DE, CA Courts
----------------------------------------------------------------
priceline.com, Inc. and other online travel agencies face
several antitrust class actions in various state courts over its
taxes and services fees charged to its consumers.

On December 30, 2004, the City of Los Angeles filed a putative
class action complaint in Superior Court for the County of Los
Angeles, on behalf of itself and other allegedly similarly
situated cities in California.  The suit names as defendants the
Company and:

     (1) Hotels.com, L.P.;

     (2) Hotels.Com GP., LLC;

     (3) Hotwire, Inc.;

     (4) Cheaptickets, Inc.;

     (5) Cendant Travel Distribution Services Group, Inc.;

     (6) Expedia, Inc.;

     (7) Internetwork Publishing Corporation (d/b/a
         Lodging.com);

     (8) Lowestfare.com, Inc.;

     (9) Maupintour Holding LLC;

    (10) Orbitz, Inc.;

    (11) Orbitz, LLC;

    (12) priceline.com, Inc.;

    (13) Site59.com, LLC;

    (14) Travelocity.com, Inc.;

    (15) Travelocity.com LP;

    (16) Travelweb, LLC;

    (17) Travelnow.com, Inc.

The suit, styled "City of Los Angeles v. Hotels.com, Inc. et
al," alleges, among other things, that each of these defendants
violated the Uniform Transient Occupancy Tax Ordinance of the
City of Los Angeles, and allegedly similar ordinances of other
California cities, with respect to the charging and remittance
of amounts to cover taxes under such ordinances, and that such
violations also constitute acts of unfair competition under
California Business and Professions Code Section 17200 et seq.
("Section 17200").  The complaint seeks payment of alleged
unpaid taxes owed, relief from conversion, including punitive
damages, and imposition of a constructive trust.  

On February 17, 2005, a putative class action complaint was
filed in the same court by Ronald Bush and three other
individuals on behalf of themselves and other allegedly
similarly situated California consumers against several of the
same defendants as named in the City of Los Angeles action,
including the Company.  The suit, styled "Bush et al. v.
Cheaptickets, Inc. et al.," alleges each of the defendants
engaged in acts of unfair competition in violation of Section
17200 relating to their respective disclosures and charging
customers to cover taxes under the above ordinances of City of
Los Angeles and other California cities, and service fees.  The
complaint seeks restitution under Section 17200, relief for
alleged conversion, including punitive damages, injunctive
relief, and imposition of a constructive trust.

On February 17, 2005, a putative class action complaint was
filed in the Superior Court of Delaware for New Castle County by
Jeanne Marshall and three other individuals on behalf of
themselves and a putative class of allegedly similarly situated
consumers nationwide against the Company.  The complaint alleges
that the Company violated the Delaware Consumer Fraud Act, Del.
Code Ann. Tit. 6, 2523 relating to its disclosures and charging
customers to cover taxes under city hotel occupancy tax
ordinances nationwide, and service fees.  The complaint seeks
damages, including punitive damages, injunctive relief, and
imposition of a constructive trust.


PRICELINE.COM: NY Court Approves Securities Lawsuit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against
priceline.com, Inc. and:

     (1) Richard S. Braddock,

     (2) Jay Walker,

     (3) Paul Francis,     

     (4) Nancy B. Peretsman,

     (5) Timothy G. Brier,

     (6) Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co.,

     (7) Goldman Sachs & Co.,

     (8) Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.,

     (9) Robertson Stephens, Inc. (as successor-in-interest to
         BancBoston),

    (10) Credit Suisse First Boston Corp. (as successor-in-
         interest to Donaldson Lufkin & Jenrette Securities
         Corporation),

    (11) Allen & Co., Inc. and Salomon Smith Barney, Inc.

Four suits were initially filed, alleging that that the Company
and the individual defendants violated the federal securities
laws by issuing and selling priceline.com common stock in
priceline.com's March 1999 initial public offering without
disclosing to investors that some of the underwriters in the
offering, including the lead underwriters, had allegedly
solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions
from certain investors.

By Orders of Judge Mukasey and Judge Scheindlin dated August 8,
2001, these cases were consolidated for pre-trial purposes with
hundreds of other cases, which contain allegations concerning
the allocation of shares in the initial public offerings o
companies other than priceline.com, Inc.  By Order of Judge
Scheindlin dated August 14, 2001, the suits were consolidated
for all purposes.

On April 19, 2002, plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Class
Action Complaint in these cases.  This Consolidated Amended
Class Action Complaint makes similar allegations to those
described above but with respect to both the Company's March
1999 initial public offering and its August 1999 second public
offering of common stock.  

The defendants together with other issuer defendants in the
consolidated litigation, filed a joint motion to dismiss on July
15, 2002.  On November 18, 2002, the cases against the
individual defendants were dismissed without prejudice and
without costs.  In addition, counsel for plaintiffs and the
individual defendants executed Reservation of Rights and Tolling
Agreements, which toll the statutes of limitations on
plaintiffs' claims against those individuals.

On February 19, 2003, Judge Scheindlin issued an Opinion and
Order granting in part and denying in part the issuers' motion.  
None of the claims against the Company were dismissed.  On June
26, 2003, counsel for the plaintiff class announced that they
and counsel for the issuers had agreed to the form of a
Memorandum of Understanding (the "Memorandum") to settle claims
against the issuers.  The terms of that Memorandum provide that
class members will be guaranteed $1 billion dollars in
recoveries by the insurers of the issuers and that settling
issuer defendants will assign to the class members certain
claims that they may have against the underwriters.  Issuers
also agree to limit their abilities to bring certain claims
against the underwriters.  If recoveries in excess of $1 billion
dollars are obtained by the class from any non-settling
defendants, the settling defendants' monetary obligations to the
class plaintiffs will be satisfied; any amount recovered from
the underwriters that is less than $1 billion will be paid by
the insurers on behalf of the issuers.

The Memorandum, which is subject to the approval of each issuer,
was approved by a special committee of the Company's Board of
Directors on Thursday, July 3, 2003.  Thereafter, counsel for
the plaintiff class and counsel for the issuers agreed to the
form of a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement with Defendant
Issuers and Individuals ("Settlement Agreement").  The
Settlement Agreement implements the MOU and contains the same
material provisions.  On June 11, 2004, a special committee of
the Company's Board of Directors authorized its counsel to
execute the Settlement Agreement on the Company's behalf.  The
Settlement Agreement is subject to final approval by the Court
and the process to obtain that approval is still pending.

The suit is styled "In Re: Priceline.com IPO Securities
Litigation, 1:01-cv-02261-SAS," filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, under
Judge Shira A. Scheindlin.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Andrew B. Clubok of Kirkland & Ellis, 655 Fifteenth
         Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20005, Phone: (202) 879-
         5000, representing Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co.,
         Incorporated

    (ii) Brendan Joseph Dowd of O'Melveny & Myers, L.L.P., 153
         East 53rd Street, New York, NY 10022-4611 Phone: (212)
         326-2000, E-mail: bdowd@omm.com, representing Robertson
         Stephens, Inc.

   (iii) Howard Fetner of Kirkland & Ellis, 153 East 53rd
         Street, New York, NY 10022, Phone: 212-446-4800,
         representing Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co.,
         Incorporated

    (iv) Andrew Jay Frackman, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Seven Times
         Square, New York, NY 10036, Phone: 212-326-2000, Fax:
         212-326-2061, E-mail: afrackman@omm.com, representing
         Robertson Stephens, Inc.

     (v) Mark Holland, Clifford Chance US LLP, 200 Park Avenue,
         New York, NY 10166, phone: (212) 878-8000, representing
         Merrill, Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated

    (vi) Penny Shane, Sullivan & Cromwell, 125 Broad Street, New
         York, NY 10004-2498, Phone: (212) 558-4000,
         representing Goldman Sachs & Co.

   (vii) Kevin J. Toner, Heller, Ehrman, White & McAuliffe,
         L.L.P., 120 West 45th Street, New York, NY 10036,
         Phone: (212) 832-8300, E-mail: ktoner@HEWM.com,
         representing Allen & Co., Incorporated

The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

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

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

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

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

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

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


PRICELINE.COM: Plaintiffs Seek CT Securities Suit Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs asked the United States District Court for the
District of Connecticut to grant class certification to the
class actions filed against priceline.com, Inc. and certain of
its officers and directors, following its announcement on
September 27, 2000 that revenues for the third quarter 2000
would not meet expectations.

The suits are styled:

     (1) Weingarten v. priceline.com Incorporated and Jay S.
         Walker, 3:00 CV 1901

     (2) Twardy v. priceline.com, Inc., Richard S. Braddock,
         Daniel H. Schulman and Jay S. Walker, 3:00 CV 1884

     (3) Berdakina v. priceline.com, Inc., Richard S. Braddock,
         Daniel H. Schulman and Jay S. Walker, 3:00 CV 1902

     (4) Mazzo v. priceline.com, Inc., Richard S. Braddock,
         Daniel H. Schulman and Jay S. Walker, 3:00 CV 1924

     (5) Fialkov v. priceline.com, Inc., Richard S. Braddock,
         Daniel H. Schulman and Jay S. Walker, 3:00 CV 1954

     (6) Ayach v. priceline.com, Inc., Richard S. Braddock,
         Daniel H. Schulman and Jay S. Walker, 3:00 CV 2062

     (7) Zia v. priceline.com, Inc., Richard S. Braddock, Daniel
         H. Schulman and Jay S. Walker, 3:00 CV 1968

     (8) Mazzo v. priceline.com, Inc., Richard S. Braddock,
         Daniel H. Schulman and Jay S. Walker, 3:00 CV 1980

     (9) Bazag v. priceline.com, Inc., Richard S. Braddock,
         Daniel H. Schulman and Jay S. Walker, 3:00 CV 2122

    (10) Breier v. priceline.com, Inc., Richard S. Braddock,
         Daniel H. Schulman and Jay S. Walker, 3:00 CV 2146

    (11) Farzam et al. v. priceline.com, Inc., Richard S.
         Braddock, Daniel H. Schulman and Jay S. Walker, 3:00 CV
         2176

    (12) Caswell v. priceline.com, Inc., Richard S. Braddock,
         Daniel H. Schulman and Jay S. Walker, 3:00 CV 2169

    (13) Howard Gunty Profit Sharing Plan v. priceline.com,
         Inc., Richard S. Braddock, Daniel H. Schulman and Jay
         S. Walker, 3:00 CV 1917

    (14) Cerelli v. priceline.com, Inc., Richard S. Braddock,
         Daniel H. Schulman and Jay S. Walker, 3:00 CV 1918

    (15) Mayer v. priceline.com, Inc., Richard S. Braddock,
         Daniel H. Schulman and Jay S. Walker, 3:00 CV 1923

    (16) Anish v. priceline.com, Inc., Richard S. Braddock,
         Daniel H. Schulman and Jay S. Walker, 3:00 CV 1948

    (17) Atkin v. priceline.com, Inc., Richard S. Braddock,
         Daniel H. Schulman and Jay S. Walker, 3:00 CV 1994

    (18) Lyon v. priceline.com, Inc., Richard S. Braddock,
         Daniel H. Schulman and Jay S. Walker, 3:00 CV 2066

    (19) Kwan v. priceline.com, Inc., Richard S. Braddock,
         Daniel H. Schulman and Jay S. Walker, 3:00 CV 2069

    (20) Krim v. priceline.com, Inc., Richard S. Braddock,
         Daniel H. Schulman and Jay S. Walker, 3:00 CV 2083

    (21) Karas v. priceline.com, Inc., Richard S. Braddock,
         Daniel H. Schulman and Jay S. Walker, 3:00 CV 2232

    (22) Michols v. priceline.com, Inc., Richard S. Braddock,
         Daniel H. Schulman and Jay S. Walker, 3:00 CV 2280

All of these cases have been assigned to Judge Dominick J.
Squatrito.  On September 12, 2001, Judge Squatrito ordered that
these cases be consolidated under the Master File No. 3:00cv1884
(DJS), and he designated lead plaintiffs and lead plaintiffs'
counsel.  On October 29, 2001, plaintiffs served a Consolidated
Amended Complaint.  On February 5, 2002, Amerindo Investment
Advisors, Inc., who was one of the lead plaintiffs in the
consolidated action, made a motion for leave to withdraw as lead
plaintiff.  The Court granted that motion on May 30, 2002.  On
February 28, 2002, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
Consolidated Amended Complaint.  On October 7, 2004, the Court
issued a Memorandum of Decision granting, in part, and denying,
in part, the Company's motion.  A scheduling order was entered
by the Court on November 2, 2004 and the parties are now
proceeding with discovery.  Plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification on January 7, 2005, to which the Company's
opposition is due on April 8, 2005.

The master complaint is styled "Twardy, et al v. Priceline.com,
Inc, et al, case no. 3:00-cv-01884-DJS," filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Connecticut under
Judge Dominic J. Squatrito.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (i) Michael D. Donovan, Donovan Searles 1845 Walnut St.
         Suite 1100 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: 215-732-6067
         Fax: 215-732-8060 E-mail: mdonovan@donovansearles.com;

    (ii) Justin Scott Kudler, Schatz & Nobel-Htfd One Corporate
         Center 20 Church St., Suite 1700 Hartford, CT 06103
         Phone: 860-493-6292 Fax: 860-493-6290 E-mail:
         justin@snlaw.net

   (iii) Patrick A. Klingman, Sheperd Finkelman Miller & Shah-
         Chester 65 Main St. Chester, CT 06412 Phone: 860-526-
         1100 Fax: 860-526-1120 E-mail: pklingman@sfmslaw.com

Representing the Company are:

     (a) Evan R. Chesler, Kevin J. Kehoe, Daniel Slifkin,
         Cravath, Swaine & Moore 825 8Th Ave., Worldwide Plaza
         New York, NY 10019-7415 Phone: 212-474-1000 E-mail:
         dslifkin@cravath.com;   

     (b) Joseph L. Clasen, William J. Kelleher Robinson & Cole
         Financial Centre, 695 E. Main St., Pobx 10305 Stamford,
         CT 06904-2305 Phone: 203-462-7510 Fax: 203-462-7599 E-
         mail: jclasen@rc.com;


PROFIT RECOVERY: Securities Settlement Hearing Set May 26, 2005
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia - Atlanta Division will hold a fairness hearing for the
proposed $6.75 million settlement in the matter: In re Profit
Recovery Group International, Inc. Securities Litigation (Civil
Action FILE No. 1:00-CV-1416-CC) on behalf of all persons or
entities who brought Profit Recovery Group International, Inc.
common stock between July 19, 1999 and
July 26, 2000, inclusive.

The Court will hold a Settlement Fairness Hearing at 8:30 a.m.
on Thursday, May 26, 2005, at the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, Richard
B. Russell Federal Building and Courthouse, 75 Spring Street,
SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303.

For more details, contact In re Profit Recovery Group
International, Inc. Securities Litigation c/o The Garden City
Group, Inc. - Claims Administrator by Mail: P.O. Box 9000 #6143
Merrick, NY 11566-9000 by Phone: 1(866) 354-7993 or David
Brower, Esq., Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP by Mail: One
Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, New York 10119-0165 by Phone:
(212) 594-5300.


SONUS NETWORKS: NY Court Preliminarily Approves Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against the Company,
two of its officers and the lead underwriters alleging
violations of the federal securities laws in connection with the
Company's initial public offering (IPO) and seeking unspecified
monetary damages.

The purchaser seeks to represent a class of persons who
purchased our common stock between the IPO on May 24, 2000 and
December 6, 2000. An amended complaint was filed in April 2002.  
The amended complaint alleges that the Company's registration
statement contained false or misleading information or omitted
to state material facts concerning the alleged receipt of
undisclosed compensation by the underwriters and the existence
of undisclosed arrangements between underwriters and certain
purchasers to make additional purchases in the after market.  
The claims against the Company are asserted under Section 10(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Section 11 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and against the individual defendants
under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act and Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  

Other plaintiffs have filed substantially similar class action
cases against approximately 300 other publicly traded companies
and their IPO underwriters which, along with the actions against
the Company, have been transferred to a single federal judge for
purposes of coordinated case management. On July 15, 2002, the
Company, together with the other issuers named as defendants in
these coordinated proceedings, filed a collective motion to
dismiss the consolidated amended complaints on various legal
grounds common to all or most of the issuer defendants.  The
plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the claims against many of the
individual defendants, including our officers named in the
complaint.  On February 19, 2003, the court granted a portion of
the motion to dismiss by dismissing the Section 10(b) claims
against certain defendants including the Company, but denied the
remainder of the motion as to the defendants.  

In June 2003, a special committee of the Company's Board of
Directors authorized the Company to enter into a proposed
settlement with the plaintiffs on terms substantially consistent
with the terms of a Memorandum of Understanding negotiated among
representatives of the plaintiffs, the issuer defendants and the
insurers for the issuer defendants.  On February 15, 2005, the
court preliminarily approved the terms of the proposed
settlement contingent on modifications to the proposed
settlement.  The settlement is subject to final approval by the
court.  No hearing date has been scheduled for final approval.


SONUS NETWORKS: MA Court Mulls Adequacy of Class Representative
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts will consider on April 29,2005 filings regarding
the adequacy of the class representative in the class action
filed against Sonus Networks, Inc. and certain of its officers
and directors and a former officer.

Several of its shareholders filed suits in June 2002 under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  The purchasers seek to represent a class
of persons who purchased the Company's common stock between
December 11, 2000 and January 16, 2002, and seek unspecified
monetary damages.  The complaints were essentially identical and
alleged that the Company e made false and misleading statements
about our products and business.  

On March 3, 2003, the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended
Complaint.  On April 22, 2003, the Company filed a motion to
dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint on various grounds.
On May 11, 2004, the court held oral argument on the motion, at
the conclusion of which the court denied the Company's motion to
dismiss. The plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification
on July 30, 2004, and the Company filed its opposition on
September 10, 2004, to which the plaintiffs replied on September
30, 2004.  On February 16, 2005, the court certified the class
and appointed a class representative.  On March 9, 2005, the
court appointed the law firm of Moulton & Gans as lead counsel,
and the court also ordered additional filings as to the adequacy
of the class representative and has scheduled a further hearing
on April 29, 2005.


SONUS NETWORKS: Asks MA Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sonus Networks, Inc. asked the United States District Court for
the District of Massachusetts to dismiss the consolidated
securities class action filed against it and certain of its
current officers and directors.

On December 1, 2004, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
amended complaint.  The complaint asserts claims under the
federal securities laws, specifically Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Sections 11, 12(a),
and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, relating to the Company's
restatement of its financial results for 2001, 2002, and the
first three quarters of 2003.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that the Company issued a
series of false or misleading statements to the market
concerning its revenues, earnings, and financial condition.
Plaintiffs contend that such statements caused our stock price
to be artificially inflated.  The complaint seeks unspecified
damages on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the
Company's common stock during the period from March 28, 2002,
through March 26, 2004.

On January 28, 2005, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
Section 10(b) and 12(a) claims and joined the motion to dismiss
the Section 11 claim filed by the individual defendants.  No
hearing date for this motion has been scheduled.


ST. THOMAS DEVELOPMENT: Anti-Quarry Groups Losses $49M Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit from a citizens group
seeking $49 million in damages from a company proposing to dig a
quarry in St. Thomas Township, the Public Opinion reports.

The case, which was filed by Friends and Residents of St. Thomas
Township Inc. (FROST), alleges injuries that are "hypothetical,
indirect and . largely ephemeral," according to U.S. District
Judge Yvette Kane's ruling.  

Court documents state, FROST had claimed that St. Thomas
Development Inc. used its corporate constitutional rights to
deny the civil rights of township residents and sought damages
of $8,500 for each resident.  Plaintiffs alleged that Bryan
Salzmann, a Chambersburg attorney representing St. Thomas
Development, wrote to the St. Thomas Township Supervisors on
February 18, 2004, and asked Frank Stearn, who was elected to
the post of township supervisor in 2003 to recuse himself from
quarry matters because of bias. Mr. Salzmann hinted that the
company might sue if Mr. Stearn voted on quarry matters.

"Democracy in America requires that everyone is treated fairly
and impartially," Mr. Salzmann said during the hearing, Public
Opinion reports. He added, "The request was made to ensure that
my client was treated fairly and impartially. Everyone, no
matter where they are from or what their business involves, has
the right to be treated fairly and impartially by public
officials. I believe the court recognizes that."

With the recent decision, FROST will still meet to decide
whether to appeal the decision, according to Thomas A. Linzey, a
Chambersburg attorney representing FROST.  St. Thomas Township
supervisors meanwhile asked Franklin County Court in June to
offer an opinion on whether Mr. Stearn can vote on quarry
matters.  

FROST and St. Thomas Township residents Michael Urban, Winfred
Walls and Gloria Saberin had filed the class action suit a year
ago in U.S. Middle District Court of Pennsylvania in Harrisburg
against St. Thomas Development and its corporate officers Peter
DePaul, Anthony DePaul and Donna DePaul-Bartynski and the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

Judge Kane indicated she came "very close" to declaring the case
frivolous and nearly required FROST to pay St. Thomas
Development's attorneys' fees.

Mr. Linzey ignored scores of decisions in constitutional law
establishing that corporations do enjoy rights, Judge Kane
stated. "Many . (of his) arguments regard fundamental
constitutional concerns about which there has been long-standing
(scholarly) debate, albeit settled law contrary to (his)
arguments," she adds, Public Opinion reports.


UNITED STATES: FDA Halts Sales of Inhalers With CFC Propellants
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), an agency within the
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), has
announced that albuterol metered-dose inhalers (MDIs) using
chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) propellants must no longer be produced,
marketed or sold in the United States after December 31, 2008.

In a final rule published today in the Federal Register, HHS
said sufficient supplies of two approved, environmentally
friendly albuterol inhalers will exist by December 31, 2008 to
allow the phasing out of similar less environmentally friendly
versions.

HHS is encouraged that the manufacturers of three
environmentally friendly albuterol inhalers are implementing
programs to help assure access to these albuterol MDIs for
patients for whom price could be a significant barrier to access
to this important medicine. These programs include MDI
giveaways, coupons for reducing the price paid and patient-
assistance programs based on financial need.

CFC-containing albuterol MDIs, as with other CFC-based MDIs for
asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (which includes
emphysema and chronic bronchitis) were previously exempted from
a general ban of CFC production and importation under an
international agreement established through the Montreal
Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer and the U.S.
Clean Air Act.

The final rule also forms the basis for the phase-out of the
CFC-containing albuterol products through the withdrawal of
their "essential use" status as of December 31, 2008. This
change in status is based on HHS' determination that:

     (1) At least two non-CFC products with the same active drug
         are marketed with the same route of administration, for
         the same indication, and with approximately the same
         level of convenience of use as the CFC product that
         contains that active ingredient;

     (2) Supplies and production capacity for the non-CFC
         product will exist by December 31, 2008 at levels
         sufficient to meet patient needs;

     (3) Adequate U.S. post marketing use data are available for
         the non-CFC product; and

     (4) Patients who are required to use the CFC product for
         medical reasons will be adequately served by the
         alternative non-CFC product and other available
         products.

HHS sought and received public comment from a proposed rule in
June 2004. This public comment, combined with feedback from a
Pulmonary Allergy Drugs Advisory Committee meeting in June 2004,
as well as consultation with other Federal agencies, helped the
agency develop the final rule.

For additional information, visit the Website:
http://www.fda.gov/cder/mdi/default.htm.


UNOCAL CORPORATION: Stockholder Lodges Suit Over Acquisition
------------------------------------------------------------
A Unocal Corporation stockholder initiated lawsuit against the
El Segundo-based oil company, alleging that Unocal's agreement
to be acquired by ChevronTexaco Corporation was unfair to
Unocal's investors, the Los Angeles Times reports.

Unocal had recently agreed to be bought for cash and
ChevronTexaco stock totaling $16.4 billion, or about $62 a
share.  The suit was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court on
behalf of Unocal shareholder Michael Lieb and other investors,
who are seeking class-action status.


VERISIGN INC.: Jamster Service Sued in CA Over Selling Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jamster, a service owned by VeriSign Inc. that sells ring tones
and other content to mobile phone subscribers, is facing a
lawsuit seeking class action status for allegedly misleading
young consumers into paying for expensive text messages, the The
Industry Standard reports.

Filed in Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, the
lawsuit accuses Jamster of fraud and false advertising, saying
it falsely advertises that mobile customers can get a free ring
tone by sending a text message to the company. However,
according to the complaint, which was brought by Charles Ford,
who has claimed that his daughter was lured into the service,
those customers then get text messages from Jamster that each
cost $1.99 plus the mobile operator's standard per-message
charge. Mr. Ford's lawyers at Callahan, McCune & Willis APLC are
seeking to make it a class action on behalf of Jamster customers
around the world.

Jamster is the U.S. name of Jamba AG, a German mobile content
provider that VeriSign acquired in June 2004. The suit names
VeriSign, Jamster, Jamba, and three U.S. mobile operators that
Jamster says carry the service: T-Mobile USA Inc., AT&T Wireless
Services Inc. and Cingular Wireless LLC.

According to the complaint, which actually came after numerous
gripes from consumers in the U.S. and Europe, some of it posted
on Web sites, the Jamster service was launched in the United
States late last year. The complaint goes on to states that
Jamster advertises on TV and other media that mobile customers
can get a free ring tone, if they send a text message to the
number displayed on the ad. In fact, those who sent the text
message got multiple messages back notifying them that content
was available for download. The customers had to pay for all
those messages though. Consumers who have contacted the company
have reported monthly charges totaling as much as $75 for
content they didn't want or even download, said Charles Russell,
one of the attorneys representing Mr. Ford.

In addition the complaint contends that, the service is
advertised heavily on TV channels such as Nickelodeon that are
aimed at children. It thus alleges that the company depended on
young mobile users getting drawn into the service and on their
parents paying the charges, which appear on the monthly cell
phone bill.


VIRGINIA: Industry Asks Appeals Court To Rehear Headset Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wireless carriers and manufacturers have asked the full 4th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals to rehear arguments in class-action
headset lawsuits that was sent back to various state courts by a
divided three-judge panel last month, the RCR Wireless News
reports.

According to the groups' 24-page rehearing petition, the
Richmond, Virginia-based federal appeals court's 2-1 decision
conflicts with other circuit court rulings and "seriously
threatens the regulatory uniformity mandated by Congress" for
the cell phone industry. The petition appears to lay the
groundwork for a possible Supreme Court appeal.

As previously reported in the March 18, 2005 edition of the
Class Action Reporter, a divided federal appeals court in
Richmond, Virginia reinstated five lawsuits claiming that the
cell phone industry has failed to protect consumers from unsafe
levels of radiation.

The class-action lawsuits demand that cell phone manufacturers
to provide headsets, which they say could reduce risks of brain
tumors. In addition, they also seek punitive damages. The suits
were originally filed in state courts in Maryland, Pennsylvania,
New York, Georgia and Louisiana, but were consolidated and
transferred to federal court in Baltimore.

Ruling that federal standards regulating wireless phones
including uniform national limits on radiation emissions pre-
empt the state law claims, Judge Catherine Blake dismissed the
lawsuits last March.

However, a panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
reversed Judge Blake's ruling in a recent 2-1 decision, thus
four of the cases were returned to state courts while one was
sent to federal district court for further proceedings.

Though several studies have found no adverse health effects from
cell phones, plaintiffs' claims included allegations that the
industry's actions violated various state laws on consumer
protection, product liability, implied warranty, negligence,
fraud and civil conspiracy.

According to Judge M. Blane Michael, who wrote in the majority
opinion, which was also joined by Judge Michael Luttig, "We have
thoroughly examined the claims ... and one thing is clear: the
elements of each of the claims depend only on the resolution of
questions of state law."

Dissenting against the ruling was Judge Jackson L. Kiser, who
said that the claims require the courts to explore the adequacy
of the Federal Communications Commission's radiation emission
standards. Additionally, he wrote in his opinion, "It is well-
settled that a suit to invalidate a federal regulation arises
under federal law." "... This thinly disguised attack on the
validity of the FCC standards raises a substantial federal
question."

Neither Michael R. Allweiss, lawyer for the plaintiffs or cell
phone industry attorney Kenneth W. Starr immediately returned
phone calls seeking comment, RCR News reports.


YANKEE CANDLE: Employees Launch Labor Laws Violations Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Yankee Candle Co., Inc. faces a class action filed in California
State Court, charging it with violations of certain California
state wage and hour and employment laws with respect to certain
employees in its California retail stores.

This complaint was filed in February 2005 and the Company has
therefore only begun to investigate the allegations and have yet
to file its answer.  While the Company intends to vigorously
defend ourselves against the allegations, it is too early in the
litigation process for it to fully evaluate or predict the
outcome of the litigation, the Company said in a disclosure to
the Securities and Exchange Commission.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

BRADLEY PHARMACEUTICALS: Kaplan Fox Lodges Securities Suit in NJ
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP initiated a class
action suit in the United States District Court for the District
of New Jersey against Bradley Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Bradley"
or the "Company") (NYSE: BDY) and certain of its officers and
directors, on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased
the publicly traded securities of Bradley between October 8,
2003 and February 25, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

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

On February 25, 2005, Bradley issued a press release in which it
disclosed that the staff of the Securities and Exchange
Commission ("SEC") was conducting an informal inquiry relating
to the Company to determine whether there had been violations of
the federal securities laws and that in connection with such
inquiry, the SEC had requested that the Company provide it with
certain information and documents concerning revenue recognition
and the capitalization of certain payments. The Company also
stated that in light of the SEC inquiry and a review being
conducted by Bradley's Audit Committee, Bradley would not be
releasing its 2004 earnings numbers as scheduled. On this
shocking news, the price of the Company's stock dropped on
massive trading volume to close on February 28, 2005 at $9.75
per share, down more than 26% from the closing price for the
stock on the prior trading day of $13.25 per share on February
25, 2005.

For more details, contact Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP by E-mail:
mail@kaplanfox.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.kaplanfox.com.  


COLLINS & AIKMAN: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Stock Suit in MI
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan on behalf of all securities
purchasers of Collins & Aikman Corp. (NYSE: CKC) ("Collins &
Aikman" or the "Company") between May 6, 2004 and March 17, 2005
inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Collins & Aikman, David Stockman, J.
Michael Stepp, and Bryce Koth with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. More specifically, the complaint alleges
that the Company failed to disclose and misrepresented the
following material adverse facts known to defendants or
recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) that the Company improperly accounted for certain
         supplier rebates;

     (2) that the Company's financial statements required net
         adjustments of approximately $10 - $12 million;

     (3) that the Company's financial statements were not
         prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted
         Accounting Principles ("GAAP");

     (4) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls and
         was therefore unable to ascertain the true financial
         condition of the Company; and

     (5) that as a consequence of the foregoing, the Company's
         net income and financial results were materially
         overstated at all relevant times.

On March 17, 2005, Collins & Aikman announced that after the
review of vendor rebates covered an aggregate of approximately
$88 million of vendor transactions in fiscal years 2002 through
2004, the company's management believes that net adjustments of
approximately $10 - $12 million are required primarily occurring
during fiscal 2004. News of this shocked the market. Shares of
Collins & Aikman fell $0.39 per share or 23.93 percent, on March
17, 2005, to close at $1.24 per share.

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


COLLINS AIKMAN: Smith & Smith Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in MI
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Smith & Smith LLP initiated a securities class
action lawsuit on behalf of shareholders who purchased
securities of Collins & Aikman Corp. ("Collins & Aikman" or the
"Company'') (NYSE:CKC), between May 6, 2004 and March 17, 2005,
inclusive (the "Class Period''). The class action lawsuit was
filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period
concerning the Company's financial performance, thereby
artificially inflating the price of Collins & Aikman securities.
No class has yet been certified in the above action.

For more details, contact Howard Smith, Esq. of Smith & Smith
LLP by Mail: 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem,
Pennsylvania 19020 by Phone: (866) 759-2275 or by E-mail:
howardsmithlaw@hotmail.com.  


DELPHI CORPORATION: Keller Rohrback Lodges Securities Suit in MI
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Keller Rohrback L.L.P. initiated a class action
lawsuit against Delphi Corporation ("Delphi" or the "Company")
(NYSE:DPH) for violations of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). The lawsuit was filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan. The class action focuses on investments in DPH stock
by the Delphi Savings-Stock Purchase Program for Salaried
Employees (the "Plan") from May 28, 1999, through March 11, 2005
(the "Class Period").

Specifically, the Plaintiffs allege in the Complaint:

     (1) the Defendants who administered the Plan had a duty to
         disclose to and inform the other fiduciaries of the
         Plan of information, which the other fiduciaries
         reasonably needed to know to fulfill their fiduciary
         duties to Plan participants and beneficiaries;

     (2) that Defendants who communicated with participants
         regarding the Plan's assets, or had a duty to do so,
         failed to provide participants with complete and
         accurate information regarding DPH stock sufficient to
         advise participants of the true risks of investing
         their retirement savings in DPH stock;

     (3) that Defendants made affirmative, material
         misrepresentations to the participants and
         beneficiaries of the Plan about the appropriateness of
         investing in Company stock and about Delphi's financial
         condition through incorporation of the material,
         untruthful information contained in the Company's SEC
         filings into the Plan's summary plan description; and

     (4) that Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to
         Plaintiffs in violation of ERISA by failing to
         prudently and loyally manage the Plan's investment in
         DPH stock when the stock was no longer a prudent
         investment for participants' retirement savings.

For more details, contact Jennifer Tuato'o, Paralegal at Keller
Rohrback L.L.P. by Phone: 800/776-6044 by E-mail:
investor@kellerrohrback.com or visit their Web sites:
http://www.erisafraud.comor http://www.seattleclassaction.com.   


DELPHI CORPORATION: Murray Frank Lodges Stock Fraud Suit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of shareholders who
purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Delphi
Corporation ("Delphi" or the "Company") (NYSE:DPH) between
January 17, 2001 and March 3, 2005, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

The Complaint charges Delphi and certain of the Company's
executive officers with violations of federal securities laws.
Plaintiff claims defendants' omissions and material
misrepresentations during the Class Period artificially inflated
the Company's stock price, inflicting damages on investors.
Delphi is a global supplier of vehicle electronics,
transportation components, integrated systems and modules, and
other electronic technology to vehicle manufacturers. The
Complaint alleges that defendants issued materially false and
misleading financial statements as a result of Delphi's improper
accounting for off-balance sheet financing and vendor rebates.

On March 4, 2005, the Company reported to the Securities and
Exchange Commission that the preliminary results of an ongoing
internal investigation by the Company's Audit Committee indicate
"certain prior transactions involving the receipt of rebates,
credits or other lump-sum payments from suppliers and off-
balance sheet financing of certain indirect materials and
inventory were accounted for improperly." The Company further
stated that, based on information to date, the improper
accounting for off-balance sheet financing transactions may have
resulted in the Company overstating cash flow from operations
for 2000 by approximately $200 million, and that the improper
accounting for rebate transactions resulted in the Company
overstating its 2001 pre-tax income under Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles by approximately $61 million. The Company
also reported that the Audit Committee has concluded, as a
result of its continuing investigation, that "audited financial
statements and related independent auditors' reports for 2001
and subsequent periods as a result of the unwinding of the
improperly recorded transactions, should no longer be relied
upon and a restatement will be required." This news shocked the
market, causing Delphi stock to fall 14% on March 4, 2005,
closing at $5.46, which was 68% below the Class Period high of
$17.40.

For more details, contact Eric J. Belfi or Aaron D. Patton of
Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP by Phone: (800) 497-8076 or (212)
682-1818 by Fax: (212) 682-1892 or by E-mail:
info@murrayfrank.com.


MBIA INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of all securities
purchasers of MBIA Inc., (NYSE: MBI) ("MBIA" or the "Company")
between August 5, 2003 and March 30, 2005, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

The complaint charges MBIA, Joseph W. Brown, Gary C. Dunton,
Nicholas Ferreri, Neil G. Budnick, and Douglas C. Hamilton with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. More
specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed to
disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts
which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by
them:

     (1) that MBIA, during the Class Period, overleveraged
         itself, deeply under-reserved against possible credit
         defaults, and overly exposed to guaranteeing risky
         structured financings;

     (2) that MBIA accelerated its recognition of current
         income, by classifying many of its upfront guarantee
         fees as advisory fees taken at closing, rather than as
         accounted for over the life of the bonds insured;

     (3) that MBIA improperly booked a $70 million payment
         received from Converium Re (then called Zurich
         Reinsurance North America) in 1998, which at the time
         was depicted as a loss-reducing reinsurance recovery
         for MBIA, but was, in substance, a loan;

     (4) that as a result of this, MBIA financial statements
         were materially overstated by $60 million;

     (5) that MBIA artificially inflated premium income and
         portfolio credit quality by insuring bonds in the
         secondary market that were attracting prices lower than
         their stale credit ratings would dictate;

     (6) that MBIA's low loss ratios resulted from the Company's
         practice to defer recognizing problems rather than
         providing layers of excess collateral, other
         underwriting protection, and its self-proclaimed
         prowess at restructurings;

     (7) that MBIA set forth an illegal scheme of covering the
         loss, from the failed Allegheny Health, Education and
         Research Foundation ("AHERF") bond issuance, with a
         retroactive reinsurance policy, giving it a reinsurance
         recovery of $170 million to cover the present value of
         the future AHERF interest and principal payments, which
         resulted in MBIA showing a better than 40% jump in
         pretax income that year -- $565 million over what the
         income figure would have been without resort to the
         reinsurance;

     (8) that MBIA was dumping on Channel Reinsurance Ltd., a
         Bermuda reinsurer where MBIA owns a 17.4% interest,
         performing but troubled policies from its existing
         portfolio, with the proviso that it could make up any
         quality problems later so that MBIA could buy time by
         getting potential workout loans off its balance sheet
         in order make its financial results appear better; and

     (9) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls and
         was therefore unable to ascertain the true financial
         condition of the Company.

On November 18, 2004, MBIA issued a press release wherein it
announced that "it received identical document subpoenas today
from the Securities and Exchange Commission and the New York
Attorney General's office requesting information with respect to
non-traditional or loss mitigation insurance products developed,
offered or sold by MBIA to third parties from January 1, 1998 to
the present." On March 8, 2005, MBIA announced that it had
decided to restate its financial statements for 1998 and
subsequent years. The restatement was being made to correct the
accounting treatment for two reinsurance agreements that MBIA
entered into in 1998 with Converium Re (previously known as
Zurich Reinsurance North America). Then on March 9, 2005, MBIA
announced that it had received a subpoena from the U.S.
Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York seeking
information related to the reinsurance agreements it entered
into in connection with the loss it incurred in 1998 on bonds
insured by MBIA Insurance Corp. that were issued by Allegheny
Health, Education and Research Foundation ("AHERF"). On March
30, 2005, after the market closed, MBIA announced that it
received additional requests from the New York Attorney
General's Office (NYAG) and the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) that supplement the subpoenas it received in
late 2004. On this news, shares of MBIA fell $4.36 per share, or
7.7 percent, to close at $52.28 per share on unusually heavy
trading volume.

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


                            *********


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  * * *