---

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

             Tuesday, February 15, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 32

                            Headlines

CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: FL Court Grants Arbitration in Student Suit
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: CA Court Orders Stock Lawsuits Consolidated
FIRST COMMAND: Military Personnel Launch Suits Over Mutual Funds
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL: Eco Suit Spawns Outbreak Of Litigation
ILLINOIS: Judge Grants Certification To Downers Grove Lawsuit

IMPAC MEDICAL: Shareholders Launch Suit V. Elekta Merger in CA
IMPAC MEDICAL: Plaintiffs Dismiss Securities Suits in N.D. CA
INFONET SERVICES: Settles Suits Over BT's Proposed Acquisition
MICHIGAN: Appeals Court Allows Female Prisoner's Suit To Proceed
MICROMUSE INC.: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Consolidated Stock Suit

MICROSOFT CORPORATION: MN Groups Get Share Of $182M Settlement
MONTANA: Bozeman City, SWMBIA Reach Impact Fee Suit Settlement
RAPISCAN SECURITY: CA Inmates' Wives Sue Over Illegal Searches
SOUTH DAKOTA: Controllers To Join Age Discrimination Suit V. FAA
TYSON FOODS: Discovery Proceeds in Labor Dept. Wage Complaint

TYSON FOODS: Discovery Proceeds in AL FLSA Violations Lawsuit
TYSON FOODS: Asks PA Court To Stay Workers FLSA Violations Suit
TYSON FOODS: DE Court Yet To Rule on Appeal of Summary Judgment
TYSON FOODS: TN Court Refuses Summary Judgment For Employee Suit
TYSON FRESH: High Court Yet To Rule on Certiorari For IBP Suit

UNITED STATES: WA Coalition Applauds Passage Of S.5 Reform Bill
WISCONSIN: UW Students' Price-Fixing Suit Awaits Ruling Upon
WMS INDUSTRIES: Faces Indemnification Claim in Gambler's Lawsuit

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

BOMBARDIER CAPITAL: Schoengold Sporn Files Securities Suit in NY
DIRECT GENERAL: Barrett Johnston Lodges Securities Suit in TN
DIRECT GENERAL: Stull & Stull Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in TN
DIRECT GENERAL: Ademi & O'Reilly Lodges Securities Lawsuit in TN
EPIX PHARMACEUTICALS: Wold Haldenstein Lodges Stock Suit in MA

EPIX PHARMACEUTICALS: Shapiro Haber Lodges Securities Suit in MA
GANDER MOUNTAIN: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Lawsuit in MN
INPUT/OUTPUT INC.: Emerson Poynter Lodges Securities Suit in TX
MERIT SECURITIES: Schoengold Sporn Lodges Stock Fraud Suit in NY
PHARMOS CORPORATION: Stull Stull Lodges NJ Securities Fraud Suit

SHURGARD STORAGE: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in WA
SIERRA WIRELESS: Ademi & O'Reilly Lodges Securities Suit in NY
SIERRA WIRELESS: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Fraud Suit in NY
SIPEX CORPORATION: Lasky & Rifkind Lodges Securities Suit in CA
SIPEX CORPORATION: Smith & Smith Lodges Securities Suit in CA

SYSTEMATIC INVESTMENT: Blumenthal & Markham Lodges CA Stock Suit
TOWER AUTOMOTIVE: Stull Stull Commences ERISA Investigation


                            *********

CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: FL Court Grants Arbitration in Student Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Florida State Court granted Corinthian Colleges, Inc.'s motion
to compel arbitration in the class action filed against it
styled "Satz v. Rhodes Colleges, Inc., Corinthian Colleges, Inc.
and Florida Metropolitan University."  Two other motions to
compel arbitration are pending in the suits, styled:

     (1) Travis v. Rhodes Colleges, Inc., Corinthian Colleges,
         Inc., and Florida Metropolitan University, and

     (2) Jennifer Baker et al. v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc. and
         Florida Metropolitan University, Inc.

The named plaintiffs in these lawsuits are current and former
students in the Company's Florida Metropolitan University (FMU)
campuses in Florida and online.  The plaintiffs allege that FMU
concealed the fact that it is not accredited by the Commission
on Colleges of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools
(SACS) and that FMU credits are not transferable to other
institutions.  Plaintiffs seek certification of the lawsuits as
a class action and recovery of compensatory damages and
attorneys' fees under Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices Act for themselves and all similarly situated people.

The Company has filed motions to compel arbitration in all three
cases, and the court has granted the Company's motion in the
Satz case.  The motions in the other two cases are pending.
Additionally, due to improper activities by Plaintiff Satz and
by his attorney, Peter Price, the Company has filed a complaint
in arbitration against Satz before the American Arbitration
Association alleging breach of contract and seeking declaration
relief.


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: CA Court Orders Stock Lawsuits Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California ordered consolidated the securities class actions
filed against Corinthian Colleges, Inc. and certain of its
current and former executive officers, David Moore, Dennis Beal,
Paul St. Pierre and Anthony Digiovanni.

Since July 8, 2004, various putative class action lawsuits were
filed by certain alleged purchasers of the Company's common
stock on behalf of all persons who acquired shares of the
Company's common stock during a specified class period from
August 27, 2003 through either June 23, 2004 or July 30, 2004,
depending on the complaint.

The complaints allege that, in violation of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by the SEC, the defendants made certain material
misrepresentations and failed to disclose certain material facts
about the condition of the Company's business and prospects
during the putative class period, causing the respective
plaintiffs to purchase the Company's common stock at
artificially inflated prices.  The plaintiffs further claim that
Messrs. Moore, Beal, St. Pierre and Digiovanni are liable under
Section 20(a) of the Act.  The plaintiffs seek unspecified
amounts in damages, interest, and costs, as well as other
relief.

On November 5, 2004, a lead plaintiff was chosen and these cases
will now be consolidated into one action.  A consolidated
complaint is expected to be filed in February 2005.


FIRST COMMAND: Military Personnel Launch Suits Over Mutual Funds
----------------------------------------------------------------
Three Navy lieutenants and four soldiers have initiated lawsuits
in federal district courts in California and Kentucky against
First Command Financial Planning, alleging that the Company used
misleading sales practices to gain the trust of military members
and sell them high-cost investments, the Army Times reports.

The class-action complaints, which was filed in late January,
asks for restitution and damages in unspecified amounts.  The
suits contend that First Command used former military officers
as sales representatives to gain the trust and confidence of
commissioned and non-commissioned officers, then sold them
investments called systematic investment plans or contractual
mutual funds, which cost them half their first year's
investment.

The lawsuits follow in the wake of a December 15 settlement
between First Command and the National Association of Securities
Dealers that included a $12 million fine levied on the Company.
In that settlement, half that money is earmarked for paying
restitution to customers who bought and terminated a systematic
investment plan between January 1, 1999, and December 15, 2004,
and paid an effective sales charge of more than 5 percent.

On December 3, even before the settlement was finalized, First
Command announced it would no longer sell systematic investment
plans and would expand its client base outside the military
community, where it counts more than 297,000 current and former
military families as customers.

The Kentucky suit alleges First Command committed "affinity
fraud" in that it tailored its sales approach to members of an
identifiable group - in this case, military personnel. Larry
Franklin, a retired Navy admiral and attorney with Franklin &
Hance in Louisville, Kentucky said, "We in the military have a
responsibility for those under our command - they trust us, and
we owe them the responsibility of earning that trust, not taking
half of their investment up front." Mr. Franklin's firm is one
of three representing a dual-military Army couple and two other
soldiers and their spouses in their complaint, filed January 28
in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky.

The other lawsuit was filed three days later in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California. Three
Navy officers who bought into First Command's systematic
investment plans seek restitution even though they do not
qualify under the December 15 settlement between the NASD and
First Command. The officers are contending that the agreement
didn't give them a chance to terminate their plans, thus
depriving them of the ability to escape from the investment
plans and receive refunds under the settlement.

First Command spokesman Paul Cozby told the Army Times the
Company believes both complaints "contain numerous factual
inaccuracies and erroneous conclusions, and we intend to
vigorously defend these matters."

Legal observers pointed out that since the two complaints are
both filed as class action lawsuits representing essentially the
same group of people, they probably would be combined into a
single case and assigned to a single judge in the coming weeks.


HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL: Eco Suit Spawns Outbreak Of Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys from around the nation filed six class action lawsuits
in state courts charging New Jersey-based Honeywell
International, Inc. used deception to obtain the trademark for
its ubiquitous round thermostat and then used its lock on the
round-thermostat market to overcharge customers, the IBJ
Reporter reports.

The legal attack is a result of litigation two years ago between
Honeywell and Eco Manufacturing LLC a startup formed by Lebanon
businessmen Bill Daniels and Steve Peabody to bring a competing
round thermostat to market.

According to court documents, when the duo debuted their round
thermostat at a Chicago trade show in January 2003, Honeywell
fired back with a harshly worded fax accusing Eco of infringing
a 1988 trademark that protected the round design of its
thermostat into perpetuity. However, instead of backing down,
the duo sued Honeywell in federal court here, seeking a
declaration they were doing nothing wrong. That summer, Judge
David Hamilton refused to grant an injunction to block Eco, and
he ruled that a federal panel erred when it granted the
trademark protection in the first place.

Providing plenty of grist for class action attorneys, the
backbone of Judge Hamilton's 70-page ruling had stated that in
reaching its decision, the trademark panel had relied on "false
statements" by Honeywell, the IBJ Reporter states.  He also
stated that the Company used "careful phrasing and hedging" and
provided information that "seems to have been designed to leave
the wrong impression."

Henry Price, a class-action attorney with the Indianapolis firm
Price Waicukauski & Mellowitz, who has no tie to the Honeywell
litigation, told the IBJ Reporter, "I think it is a very
creative use of this prior ruling to bring some benefit ... to
the consumers who may have paid in excess of a fair price
because of the monopoly."

Honeywell attorneys referred calls to Company spokesman Larry
Splett, who said in a statement, according to IBJ reporter "We
believe our business practices with regard to the round
thermostat are sound and we will defend our position
vigorously."

Court records show the attorneys have so far filed cases in
California, Maine, Massachusetts, New York, Tennessee and
Vermont, each of which is charging Honeywell of violations of
state consumer protection laws and is thus seeking to recover
damages for purchasers of the round thermostats since 1986. The
suits though don't say how many customers in each state would be
part of the class nor do they quantify damages, which represent
the difference between what customers paid and what they
allegedly would have paid in a competitive marketplace.

However, many millions of dollars seem at stake for millions of
customers. The round thermostats retail for about $40 at home
improvement stores, about twice the price of rectangular
thermostats with similar features.

In a court filing, Honeywell says it wants to transfer all the
state suits into a single federal court and calls its request
"an effort to bring some order to this rapidly expanding
quagmire of litigation." But legal observers point out that
federal courts are widely perceived to treat class action
plaintiffs less favorably than do state courts.

Eco Manufacturing CEO Bill Daniels declined to discuss the class
actions, IBJ Reporter states. He cited a confidentiality
agreement he signed when settling the Honeywell litigation in
May 2004, three months after the U.S. Court of Appeals in
Chicago affirmed Judge Hamilton's decision.  Whatever the
settlement stipulates, it doesn't bar Eco from charging into the
round thermostat market. Daniels said Eco completed testing of
its round thermostat last October and began shipping it in
December.


ILLINOIS: Judge Grants Certification To Downers Grove Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge John Darrah granted class-action status to
hundreds of homeowners living in an unincorporated area near
Downers Grove, who alleged that eight businesses in the
Ellsworth Industrial Park dumped chemicals that entered the
groundwater and contaminated their drinking water, the Chicago
Tribune reports.

The federal judge ruled that the class-action status applies to
all those who lived at or owned property within an area bounded
by Inverness Avenue to the north, 63rd Street to the south,
Dunham Road to the east and Interstate Highway 355 to the west
"whose properties may have been impacted, or a threat exists
that it will be impacted," by the hazardous substances.

According to the suit, which was filed in the U.S. District
Court in Chicago last April in 2001, state Environmental
Protection Agency tests found that hundreds of private wells in
the area had levels of trichloroethylene and tetrachloroethylene
above maximum federal safety standards. The EPA traced the
pollutants, which are contained in solvents, to the industrial
park, the suit stated.


IMPAC MEDICAL: Shareholders Launch Suit V. Elekta Merger in CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
IMPAC Medical Systems, Inc. faces a class action filed in
California Superior Court for the County of Santa Clara, styled
"Stakely v. IMPAC Medical Systems, Inc., et al."  The complaint
also names as defendants each member of the Company's board of
directors.

The complaint alleges that, in pursuing the merger with Elekta
AB and approving the merger agreement, the directors violated
their fiduciary duties to the holders of IMPAC common stock by,
among other things, failing to implement a process designed to
maximize stockholder value, engaging in self-dealing and
securing benefits for certain officers and directors of IMPAC at
the expense of the plaintiffs and other stockholders.  The
complaint seeks a preliminary and permanent injunction to enjoin
the Company from consummating the merger, as well as attorneys'
fees and other remedies.


IMPAC MEDICAL: Plaintiffs Dismiss Securities Suits in N.D. CA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed three securities class actions
filed against IMPAC Medical Systems, Inc. in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California.

On September 8, 2004, an alleged shareholder of the Company
filed a putative securities class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California,
styled "Operating Engineers Construction Industry and
Miscellaneous Pension Fund (Local 66 Pittsburgh), on Behalf of
Itself and All Others Similarly Situated v. IMPAC Medical
Systems, Inc., Joseph K. Jachinowski and Kendra A. Borrego."

The lawsuit alleged, among other things, that during the period
from November 20, 2002 to May 13, 2004 (the "class period"), the
Company falsely reported its results for fiscal years 2000 to
2003 through improper revenue recognition, and thereby
artificially inflated the price of the Company's stock.  The
plaintiff purported to have brought this lawsuit as a class
action on behalf of all persons who purchased the Company's
securities on the open market during the class period.

On September 14, 2004, two individuals filed a second purported
securities class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California that was
substantively identical to the one filed on September 8, 2004,
styled "Alan Lerner and Marvin Rogers, on Behalf of Themselves
and All Others Similarly Situated v. IMPAC Medical Systems,
Inc., Joseph K. Jachinowski and Kendra A. Borrego."   The second
lawsuit alleged the same claims against the same defendants on
behalf of the same purported class of shareholders (those who
purchased the Company's securities on the open market during the
period from November 20, 2002 to May 13, 2004) as the earlier-
filed lawsuit.

On September 21, 2004, another individual filed a third putative
securities class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, styled "John
Maras, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. IMPAC Medical Systems, Inc., Joseph Jachinowski,
Kendra Borrego, David Auerbach, and James Hoey."  This lawsuit
alleged the same claims under the federal securities laws as the
two earlier-filed lawsuits, and named as defendants, in addition
to the Company and the two executives named in the two earlier-
filed lawsuits, two other executive officers of the Company.
This lawsuit alleged the same class period as the two earlier-
filed actions (i.e., November 20, 2002 to May 13, 2004), and
likewise alleged that during the class period the Company
overstated its financial results for fiscal years 2000 to 2003
through improper revenue recognition, allegedly resulting in
artificial inflation of the price of the Company's stock during
the class period.  This action further alleged that each of the
four individual defendants sold shares of the Company's stock
during the class period while in possession of material
nonpublic information.

On January 11, 2005, the plaintiff in the Maras action filed a
notice of voluntary dismissal of his complaint.  In view of this
notice of voluntary dismissal, the Court on January 12, 2005,
entered an order directing the clerk of the court to close the
case file and terminate all motions.  On January 24, 2005, the
plaintiff in the Operating Engineers action, and the plaintiffs
in the Lerner action, filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of
their respective complaints.  On January 26, the Court entered
an order in each of these cases directing the clerk to close the
case file and terminate all motions.

The suits are pending in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California under Judge Vaughn R. Walker
and are styled:

     (1) Maras v. Impac Medical Systems, Inc., et al, case no.
         3:04-cv-03988-VRW

     (2) Operating Operating Engineers Construction Industry and
         Miscellaneous Pension Fund (Local 66 - Pittsburgh) v.
         Impac Medical Systems, Inc., et al, case no. 04-cv-
         03773-VRW

     (3) Lerner et al v. IMPAC Medical Systems Inc. et al., case
         no. 3:04-cv-03866-VRW

Lawyer for the defendants is Peter Edward Root, Orrick
Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Old Federal Reserve Bank Building
400 Sansome Street, San Francisco, CA 94111, Phone:
415-392-1122, Fax: 415-773-5759, E-mail: PEROOT@Orrick.com.  The
plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

     (i) Charles J. Piven, World Trade Center-Baltimore,401 East
         Pratt Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD, 21202, Phone:
         410.332.0030, E-mail: pivenlaw@erols.com

    (ii) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbin (San
         Francisco), 100 Pine Street, Suite 2600, San Francisco,
         CA, 94111, Phone: 415.288.4545, Fax: 415.288.4534, E-
         mail: info@lerachlaw.com

   (iii) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
         (Philadelphia), 1845 Walnut St., Suite 945,
         Philadelphia, CA, 19103, Phone: 215.988.9546, Fax:
         215.988.9885, E-mail: info@lerachlaw.com

    (iv) Schatz & Nobel, P.C., 330 Main Street, Hartford, CT,
         06106, Phone: 800.797.5499, Fax: 860.493.6290, E-mail:
         sn06106@AOL.com

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


INFONET SERVICES: Settles Suits Over BT's Proposed Acquisition
--------------------------------------------------------------
Infonet Services Corporation (NYSE:IN) reached tentative
settlement for three purported class action lawsuits filed in
California Superior Court, County of Los Angeles, against
Infonet and certain of its directors and officers.

The three purported class action lawsuits relate to BT Group
plc's proposed acquisition of Infonet and have been consolidated
as In re Infonet Services Corporation Shareholder Litigation,
Lead Case No. BC324238. The plaintiffs and the named defendants
as of February 11, 2005 entered into a memorandum of
understanding setting forth the terms of the settlement. Among
other conditions, the settlement is subject to negotiation of
final settlement documentation and court approval.

In connection with the settlement, Infonet agreed to provide
certain additional information regarding the merger in a Current
Report on Form 8-K, which is being filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.


MICHIGAN: Appeals Court Allows Female Prisoner's Suit To Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In a recently released opinion, the Michigan Court of Appeals
panel decided that an 8-year-old class action filed in Washtenaw
County by female prisoners alleging sexual assault and abuse at
the hands of male staff at state prisons can go forward, the Ann
Arbor News reports.

The three-member panel sent the complex case back to Circuit
Court Judge Timothy Connors.  The Michigan Department of
Corrections had appealed Judge Connors' ruling on several
matters in the case.

Deborah LaBelle of Ann Arbor, an attorney representing the
plaintiffs, told Ann Arbor News "The court of appeals decision
allows all of the women to go forward and present their claims
of abuse by the MDOC, something they've been trying to do since
1996," She adds that the plaintiffs are "anxious to get back to
the trial court to try and stop the ongoing problem in
Michigan's women's prisons."

Ms. LaBelle also stated that based on the appeals court
decision, the plaintiffs can proceed with their claims either as
violations of the Michigan Civil Rights Act or the Michigan
Constitution.

Most of Ms. LaBelle's clients include about 500 female
prisoners, who claim they had been victims of sexual misconduct
since 1993. Many of them, according to her, are currently housed
at the Huron Valley Center in Pittsfield Township.

Allison Pierce, spokeswoman for the state Attorney General's
Office, which represents the Department of Corrections, told the
Ann Arbor News the state was pleased with "two substantive
parts" of the court's decision. One was a ruling that Judge
Connors should have dismissed the plaintiffs' constitutional
claims for money damages against each individual defendant. The
second, Ms. Pierce said, was the decision to dismiss claims made
by the women after March 10, 2000, when a state Civil Rights Act
amendment went into effect.

The state Legislature had amended the Civil Rights Act to
exclude prisoners, meaning that prisoners are not protected from
discrimination under the state civil rights laws.  However, in
their 15-page opinion Judges Kathleen Jansen, Christopher M.
Murray and Pat M. Donofrio, wrote that any claims made by the
women prior to the Civil Rights Act amendment could remain. They
also directed Judge Connors to decide whether the case will
continue as a class action since some claims were dismissed and
because the state made changes in its policy regarding female
prisoners.

The changes were part of a settlement agreement of a lawsuit
filed in March 1997 by the U.S. Department of Justice against
the state. Under the agreement, the Department of Corrections
had to ensure that female inmates were protected from sexual
assault by prison guards and staff.


MICROMUSE INC.: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Consolidated Stock Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Micromuse, Inc. asked the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California to dismiss the consolidated
securities class action filed against it and certain of its
current and former officers and directors.

Between January 12, 2004 and March 5, 2004, seven securities
class action complaints were filed, by individuals who allege
that they purchased the Company's common stock during a
purported class period and seek an unspecified amount of
damages.  The complaints assert causes of action for alleged
violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5, arising out of the Company's
decision to restate its previously issued financial statements
for the fiscal years ended September 30, 2001 and 2002 and for
the quarters ended December 31, 2000 through June 30, 2003 and
the Company's decision to adjust its preliminary consolidated
financial statement information for the quarter and fiscal year
ended September 30, 2003, as initially announced on October 29,
2003.

The Court has granted plaintiffs' motion to consolidate those
actions and name the law firm of Berman, DeValerio, Pease,
Tabacco, Burt & Pucillo as Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel.  Plaintiffs
have filed a consolidated amended complaint in accordance with
the court-ordered schedule.  In response, the Company has filed
its Motion to Dismiss the amended complaint.  A hearing on the
Company's Motion to Dismiss is currently scheduled in March
2005.

The suits are filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California under Judge Saundra Brown
Armstrong.  Representing the Company is Dale E. Barnes, Jr.,
McCutchen Doyle Brown & Enersen LLP, Three Embaracadero Center,
San Francisco, CA 94111-4067, Phone: 415-393-2000, E-mail:
dbarnes@mdbe.com.

Lead plaintiffs counsel are Jeffrey C. Block, N. Nancy Ghabai,
and Michael G. Lange of Berman Devalerio & Pease LLP, One
Liberty Square, Boston, MA 02109, Phone: 617-542-8300, Fax:
617-542-1194 or Christopher T. Heffelfinger, Nicole Lavallee and
Joseph J. Tabacco, Jr., Berman DeValerio Pease & Tabacco, P.C.,
425 California Street, Suite 2025, San Francisco, CA 94104,
Phone: 415/433-3200, Fax: 415-433-6382, E-mail:
cheffelfinger@bermanesq.com, nlavallee@bermanesq.com,
jtabacco@bermanesq.com.


MICROSOFT CORPORATION: MN Groups Get Share Of $182M Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Legal aid organizations across the state will be able to serve
more low-income Minnesotans as a result of a $2.5 million
payment that is a portion of a $182 million settlement in a
class action suit against Microsoft Corporation alleging that
Microsoft overcharged Minnesota consumers and businesses for
certain of its products.

The $2.5 million will be placed in an existing permanent
endowment at Minnesota Community Foundation, which was
established in 1998 as part of a long-term strategy to build
stable funding for legal assistance nonprofits statewide. Based
on current market performance, this additional money could
generate more than $100,000 annually for legal assistance to
low-income Minnesotans facing civil matters that affect basic
needs like housing and health.

"Minnesota's legal aid nonprofits have had to cut back services
due to reduced government and private funding," said Jerry Lane,
executive director of Mid-Minnesota Legal Assistance and an
advisor for the Minnesota Legal Aid Foundation Fund. "Currently,
we can only meet the needs of about 20 percent of the low-income
Minnesotans who seek our services. The annual distribution from
the $2.5 million supplement to our endowment at Minnesota
Community Foundation will allow our network of legal aid staff
and volunteer organizations to serve more Minnesotans."

Richard M. Hagstrom, lead counsel for Minnesota consumers and
businesses, commented, "We are pleased to have been able to
negotiate this payment as part of the settlement. We strongly
believe in the work of Legal Aid." For more information about
the suit call 1-800-928-1638 or visit
http://www.microsoftMNsettlement.com.


MONTANA: Bozeman City, SWMBIA Reach Impact Fee Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bozeman city commissioners and the Southwest Montana Building
Industry Association (SWMBIA) have reached a mediated agreement
in the 1999 lawsuit over the city's impact fee ordinance, the
Bozeman Daily Chronicle reports.

Though still needing approval from District Judge Ted Mizner,
the agreement requires the city to return $5 million to about
1,000 people who paid the impact fee. It also requires a 10
percent reduction in impact fees for two years after court
approval, and a study to help determine the appropriate fee
amount.  The settlement upholds the authority of the city to
charge impact fees, which was contended in the lawsuit.

Impact fees are paid by builders and remodelers of homes and
businesses and by those who connect to city services. The fees
pay for the extra cost of roads, water, sewer and fire
protection driven by growth.

Bozeman City Manager Chris Kukulski told the Chronicle, "I am
extremely excited about getting the issue resolved. But until
the judge approves it, we're still not there yet." He also said
that without the mediated agreement, the litigation might have
gone on for four more years, at great cost to the city.
Furthermore, he said, "With 4 to 6 percent (housing) growth and
without impact fees, the community would have been to a point
where we wouldn't have been able to provide infrastructure for
our growth."

Mediation of the agreement took place January 26, in a session
lasting 16 hours. Commissioners Jeff Krauss and Steve Kirchhoff,
City Attorney Tim Cooper, Special Counselor Bob Planalp and
Kukulski represented the city before mediator Jack Mudd, while
attorney Art Wittich represented SWMBIA, the plaintiffs in the
case, and all those who paid the impact fees.

Bozeman enacted impact fees in 1996, but builders didn't sue
until voters narrowly approved Initiative 19 in 1998,
significantly raising the fees.  The lawsuit, which was
certified as a class action in 2000, had challenged both the
authority of the city to charge the impact fees under its self-
governing authority and the "constitutionally excessive level"
of those fees.

Mr. Wittich told the Chronicle, "It was a hard-fought battle.
There was compromise by both sides. Each side wanted more, but
that's the nature of compromise."


RAPISCAN SECURITY: CA Inmates' Wives Sue Over Illegal Searches
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rapiscan Security Products (U.S.A.). Inc. continues to face a
class action suit filed in Los Angeles Superior Court against it
and others, on behalf of the wives of men incarcerated in
California prisons.  The other defendants in the action include
the State of California, the California Department of
Corrections, its Director and other Department of Corrections
personnel.

The plaintiffs allege that while attempting to visit their
husbands in prison, as a condition to such visits, prison
personnel have subjected them, and other members of the putative
class, to scans by Rapiscan's Secure 1000 product, as well as
strip searches, and body cavity searches, all of which
plaintiffs allege to have been illegal searches and have caused
them emotional injuries.

The complaint asserts, among other things, that these types of
searches are illegal and intrusive and have caused emotional
injury to the plaintiffs. In addition to alleging that the
Company is responsible for illegal searches conducted by prison
personnel, the complaint alleges that the Company is negligent,
that the Secure 1000 product is defective in design and
manufacture, that the Company failed to properly train the
prison personnel in using the Secure 1000 product, that the
Company failed to warn subjects that they might be subjected to
illegal searches using the Secure 1000 product, and that the
scans are more intrusive than manual searches.  Plaintiffs seek
general, special and punitive damages in unspecified amounts and
declaratory relief against illegal searches.


SOUTH DAKOTA: Controllers To Join Age Discrimination Suit V. FAA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Specialists at the Huron automated flight service station, who
provide weather conditions and other information to pilots, are
planning to join a class action age-discrimination complaint
filed against the Federal Aviation Administration, according to
a union member, the Associated Press reports.

As previously reported in the February 11, 2005 edition of the
Class Action Reporter, the complaint, which was filed with the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission by the National
Association of Air Traffic Specialists (NAATS), is in response
to the FAA decision to close 38 flight service stations,
including the Huron facility, and transfer operation of 20 other
stations to Lockheed Martin.

Donavon Decker, assistant union spokesman of the National
Association of Air Traffic Specialists and a flight service
employee in Huron, told AP he and other local specialists would
be involved in the lawsuit, which has currently identified 1,935
Controllers that were adversely affected by the FAA's recent
decision.  He also states that the complaint will remain with
the EEOC for 30 days and that if it is not remedied within that
period, it will then be filed with the U.S. District Court.

The union told AP the FAA decided to close or privatize the
flight service stations because a large percentage of the work
force is or will soon be "retirement eligible."

Flight Service Controllers are crucial to the safe and secure
function of the nation's airspace and national security. During
every national crisis Flight Service has stepped up and provided
professional, safe and exemplary service. During the barrage of
hurricanes across the southeast last year, the FAA closed air
traffic facilities in the region with the exception of Flight
Service. Many of these Controllers were directly affected by the
damage of the hurricanes, yet they remained on duty and
performed their jobs.

Attorney Joseph D. Gebhardt of Gebhardt & Associates is
representing NAATS in this case.  For more details, contact Kate
Breen of the National Association of Air Traffic Specialists by
Mail: 11303 Amherst Avenue, Suite 4, Wheaton, MD 20902 by Phone:
301 933-6228 or by Fax: 301-933-3902.


TYSON FOODS: Discovery Proceeds in Labor Dept. Wage Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in the civil complaint filed against
Tyson Foods, Inc. in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama, styled "Elaine L. Chao,
Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor v. Tyson
Foods, Inc."

In 2000, the Wage and Hour Division of the U.S. Department of
Labor (DOL) conducted an industry-wide investigation of poultry
producers, including the Company, to ascertain compliance with
various wage and hour issues.  As part of this investigation,
the DOL inspected 14 of the Company's processing facilities.

On May 9, 2002, the complaint was filed alleging that the
Company violated the overtime provisions of the federal Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA) at the Company's chicken-processing
facility in Blountsville, Alabama.  The complaint does not
contain a definite statement of what acts constituted alleged
violations of the statute, although the Secretary of Labor has
indicated in discovery that the case seeks to require the
Company to compensate all hourly chicken processing workers for
pre- and post-shift clothes changing, washing and related
activities and for one of two unpaid 30-minute meal periods.
The Secretary of Labor seeks unspecified back wages for all
employees at the Blountsville facility for a period of two years
prior to the date of the filing of the complaint, an additional
amount in unspecified liquidated damages, and an injunction
against future violations at that facility and all other chicken
processing facilities operated by the Company.

No trial date has been set.  The matter has been stayed pending
the outcome of the petitions for certiorari presently before the
U.S. Supreme Court in two other similar matters involving the
donning and doffing of certain personal protective clothing and
equipment, styled "Alvarez, et al. v. IBP" and "Tum,
et al. v. Barber Foods, Inc."

The suit is styled "Chao v. Tyson Foods, Inc., case no. 2:02-cv-
01174-VEH, filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama, under Judge Virginia Emerson
Hopkins."

Lawyers for the United States Department of Labor are John A.
Black, Jaylyn Fortney, E. Wade Green, Jr. and George B. O'Haver
and Howard M. Radzely.  For more details, contact the US
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR-OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR, Atlanta Federal
Center, 61 Forsyth Street, SW, Room 7T10, Atlanta, GA 30303 by
Phone: 1-404-562-2057 or Fax: 1-404-562-2073 or by E-mail:
black.john@dol.gov

Representing the Company is Joel M. Cohn and Michael J. Mueller
of AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD, LLP, 1333 New Hampshire
Avenue, NW, Suite 400, Washington, DC 20036, Phone:
1-202-887-4000, Fax: 1-202-887-4288 E-mail:
mmueller@akingump.com; and Tony G. Miller and David M. Smith of
MAYNARD COOPER & GALE PC, AmSouth Harbert Plaza, Suite 2400,
1901 6th Avenue North, Birmingham, AL 35203-2618, Phone:
254-1000, Fax: 254-1999, E-mail: tmiller@mcglaw.com and
dsmith@mcglaw.com.


TYSON FOODS: Discovery Proceeds in AL FLSA Violations Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in the lawsuit filed against Tyson
Foods, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Alabama, styled "M.H. Fox, et al. v. Tyson Foods,
Inc.," by 11 current and former employees of the Company.

The suit alleges the Company violated requirements of the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA).  The suit alleges the Company failed
to pay employees for all hours worked and/or improperly paid
them for overtime hours.  The suit specifically alleges that:

     (1) employees should be paid for time taken to put on and
         take off certain working supplies at the beginning and
         end of their shifts and breaks and

     (2) the use of "mastercard" or "line" time fails to pay
         employees for all time actually worked.

Plaintiffs seek to represent themselves and all similarly
situated current and former employees of the Company, and
plaintiffs seek reimbursement for an unspecified amount of
unpaid wages, liquidated damages, attorney fees and costs.  To
date, approximately 5,100 consents have been filed with the
District Court.

Plaintiff's motion for conditional collective treatment and
court-supervised notice to additional putative class members was
denied on February 27, 2004.  The plaintiffs re-filed their
motion for conditional collective treatment and court-supervised
notice to additional putative class members on April 2, 2004,
and the District Court has not ruled on this motion.

No trial date has been set.  The matter has been stayed pending
the outcome of the petitions for certiorari presently before the
U.S. Supreme Court in two other similar matters involving the
donning and doffing of certain personal protective clothing and
equipment, styled "Alvarez, et al. v. IBP" and "Tum,
et al. v. Barber Foods, Inc."


TYSON FOODS: Asks PA Court To Stay Workers FLSA Violations Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tyson Foods, Inc. asked the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania to stay the employees' class
action filed against Tyson Foods, Inc., styled "De Asencio v.
Tyson Foods, Inc."

On August 22, 2000, seven employees of the Company filed the
case, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
for allegedly failing to pay for time taken to put on, take off
and sanitize certain working supplies, and violations of the
Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law.

Plaintiffs seek to represent themselves and all similarly
situated current and former employees of the poultry processing
plant in New Holland, Pennsylvania, and plaintiffs seek
reimbursement for an unspecified amount of unpaid wages,
liquidated damages, attorney fees and costs.  There are
approximately 560 additional current or former employees who
have filed consents to join the lawsuit.

The District Court, on January 30, 2001, ordered that notice of
the lawsuit be issued to all potential plaintiffs at the New
Holland facilities.  On July 17, 2002, the District Court
granted the plaintiffs' motion to certify the state law claims.
On September 23, 2002, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals agreed
to hear the Company's petition to review the District Court's
decision to certify the state law claims.  On September 8, 2003,
the Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's certification
of a class under the Pennsylvania Wage Payment & Collection Law,
ruling that those claims could not be pursued in federal court.
The Court of Appeals further ruled that the Company must reissue
notice of their potential FLSA claims to approximately 2,170
employees who did not previously receive notice.  The Court of
Appeals remanded the matter to the District Court to proceed
accordingly on September 30, 2003, and notice was reissued.
Further proceedings in the District Court are pending, and no
trial date has been set.  The Company has requested the District
Court to stay the proceedings in this matter pending the outcome
of the petitions for certiorari presently before the U.S.
Supreme Court in "Alvarez" and "Tum."

The suit is styled "De Asencio et al v. Tyson Foods, Inc., case
no. 00-cv-04294-RK," filed in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, under Judge Robert F.
Kelly.


TYSON FOODS: DE Court Yet To Rule on Appeal of Summary Judgment
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Delaware
has yet to rule on plaintiffs' appeal of summary judgment
granted to Tyson Foods, Inc. in the securities class action
filed against it, styled "In Re Tyson Foods, Inc. Securities
Litigation."

Between June 22 and July 20, 2001, various plaintiffs commenced
actions against the Company, Don Tyson, John Tyson and Les
Baledge, seeking monetary damages on behalf of a purported class
of those who sold IBP, inc. (IBP) stock from March 29, 2001,
when the Company announced its intention to terminate its merger
agreement with IBP, through June 15, 2001, when a Delaware state
court rendered its Post-Trial Opinion ordering the merger to
proceed.  Plaintiffs in the various actions alleged that the
defendants violated federal securities laws by making, causing
or allowing to be made, certain allegedly false and misleading
statements in a March 29, 2001, press release issued in
connection with the Company's attempted termination of the
merger agreement.

The plaintiffs alleged that, as a result of the defendants'
alleged conduct, purported class members were harmed by an
alleged artificial deflation in the price of IBP's stock during
the proposed class period.  The various actions were
subsequently consolidated under the caption "In re Tyson Foods,
Inc. Securities Litigation" and, on December 4, 2001, the
plaintiffs in the consolidated action filed a Consolidated Class
Action Complaint.

On January 22, 2002, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss
the consolidated complaint.  By memorandum order dated October
23, 2002, the District Court granted in part and denied in part
the defendants' motion to dismiss.  On October 6, 2003, the
District Court certified a class consisting of those who
purchased IBP securities on or before March 29, 2001, and
subsequently sold such securities from March 30 through June 15,
2001, inclusive, and sustained damages as a result of such
transaction.

Following the conclusion of discovery in the case, plaintiffs
and defendants each filed motions for summary judgment.  On June
17, 2004, the District Court rendered an opinion in favor of
defendants and against plaintiffs on all of plaintiffs' claims,
and entered an order to that effect.  On June 28, 2004,
defendants filed a motion requesting the District Court to
modify its order to include judgment in defendants' favor
against the class and on July 30, 2004, the District Court
entered such an order.  On August 6, 2004, plaintiffs filed a
Notice of Appeal.  Plaintiffs filed their brief on the appeal on
December 8, 2004, and defendants filed their response on January
24, 2005.  Plaintiffs have until February 10, 2005, to file a
reply brief.  No date for oral arguments on the appeal has been
set.


TYSON FOODS: TN Court Refuses Summary Judgment For Employee Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of
Tennessee refused Tyson Foods, Inc.'s motion for summary
judgment in the class action filed against it and IBP, Inc.,
styled "Emily D. Jordan, et al. v. IBP, Inc. and Tyson Foods,
Inc."

On November 21, 2002, ten current and former hourly employees of
Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc.'s (formerly IBP, Inc.) case-ready
facility in Goodlettsville, Tennessee, on behalf of themselves
and other unspecified, allegedly "similarly situated" employees,
claiming that the defendants have violated the overtime
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The suit alleges that defendants failed to pay employees for all
hours worked from the plant's commencement of operations in
April 2001.  In particular, the suit alleges that employees
should be paid for the time it takes to collect, assemble and
put on, take off and wash their health, safety and production
gear at the beginning and end of their shifts and during their
meal period.  The suit also alleges that the Company deducts 30
minutes per day from employees' paychecks regardless of whether
employees obtain a full 30-minute period for their meal.
Plaintiffs are seeking a declaration that the defendants did not
comply with the FLSA, and an award for an unspecified amount of
back pay compensation and benefits, unpaid entitlements,
liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest,
attorney fees and costs.

On January 15, 2003, the Company filed an answer to the
complaint denying any liability.  On January 14, 2003, the named
plaintiffs filed a motion for expedited court-supervised notice
to prospective class members.  The motion sought to
conditionally certify a class of similarly situated employees at
all of TFM's non-union facilities that have not been the subject
of FLSA litigation.

Plaintiffs then withdrew a request for conditional certification
of similarly situated employees at all of TFM's non-union
facilities and rather sought to include all non-exempt employees
that have worked at the Goodlettsville facility since its
opening.  On June 9, 2003, the Company filed a Motion for
Summary Judgment seeking the applicability of the injunction
entered by the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas
and affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
"(Metzler v. IBP, inc. 127 F. 3rd 959, 10th Cir. 1997)," which
the Company contends has a preclusive effect as to plaintiffs'
claims based on pre- and post-shift activities.  The plaintiffs
conducted discovery limited to that issue and responded to said
Motion on June 18, 2004.  The Company filed its reply on July 2,
2004.  On October 12, 2004, the District Court denied the
Company's motion for summary judgment.

On November 17, 2003, the District Court conditionally certified
a collective action composed of similarly situated current and
former employees at the Goodlettsville facility based upon
clothes changing and washing activities and unpaid production
work during meal periods, since the plant operations began in
April 2001.

Class Notices to approximately 4,500 prospective class members
were mailed on January 21, 2004.  Approximately 525 current and
former employees have opted into the class.  The District Court
stayed discovery on November 8, 2004, pending the U.S. Supreme
Court's decision on petitions for certiorari in "Alvarez" and
"Tum."

The suit is styled "Jordan, et al v. IBP, Inc., et al., case no.
02-CV-1132," filed in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division, under Judge
Judge Aleta A. Trauger.

The plaintiffs are represented by:

     (1) Charles P. Yezbak, III, 144 Second Avenue North, Suite
         200, Nashville, TN 37201, Phone: (615) 250-2000

     (2) Molly A. Elkin, Gregory K. McGillivary, Heidi R.
         Burakiewicz of Woodley & McGillivary, 1125 15th Street,
         NW Suite 400, Washington, DC 20005 by Phone: (202) 833-
         8855

Representing the Company are:

     (i) John Randolph Bibb, Jr., Jonathan Jacob Cole of Baker,
         Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC, Commerce
         Center, 211 Commerce Street, Suite 1000, Nashville, TN
         37201, Phone: (615) 726-5600

    (ii) Michael John Mueller, Joel Mark Cohn, Evangeline G.
         Paschal of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, 1333 New
         Hampshire Avenue, NW, Suite 400, Washington, DC 20036,
         Phone: (202) 887-4000


TYSON FRESH: High Court Yet To Rule on Certiorari For IBP Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Supreme Court has yet to rule on the petition
for certiorari for the lawsuit filed against IBP, Inc. (now
known as Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc.), styled "Alvarez et al. v.
IBP."

In 1998, the lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Washington against IBP (n/k/a Tyson
Fresh Meats, Inc. or TFM) by employees of its Pasco, Washington
beef slaughter and processing facility.  Plaintiffs brought this
action on behalf of themselves and TFM's Pasco employees
alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C.
Sections 201-219; the Washington Minimum Wage Act, Revised Code
of Washington (RCW) Chapter 49.46; the Industrial Welfare Act,
RCW Chapter 49.12; the Wages-Reductions-Contributions Rebates
Act, RCW Chapter 49.52; and related regulations.  Eight hundred
fifteen plaintiffs sought additional compensation principally
for the time required to:

     (1) don and doff protective clothing at the beginning and
         the end of the workday and at meal periods;

     (2) walk between lockers or other locations where
         protective clothing was stored or distributed and their
         workstations; and

     (3) wash protective clothing and other equipment items at
         the end of the work shift.

Trial was held from September 27, 2000, until October 27, 2000.
On September 14, 2001, the District Court entered its Findings
of Fact and Conclusions of Law, which resulted in a $3.1 million
judgment against TFM, comprised of back wages, exemplary
damages, and liquidated damages, with as yet no specified amount
for prejudgment interest.  On December 14, 2001, the District
Court awarded an additional $2 million for attorney fees and
costs.  TFM filed a timely Notice of Appeal and Plaintiffs filed
a timely notice of Cross-Appeal.  On August 5, 2003, the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's decision
in part and reversed in part, and remanded the case to the
District Court for recalculation of damages.  If the ruling of
the Court of Appeals is upheld in its entirety, TFM will have
additional exposure in "Alvarez" of approximately $5 million.

TFM filed a petition for rehearing by the panel of the Court of
Appeals or, in the alternative, a rehearing en banc, which was
denied on December 2, 2003.  It also filed a petition to certify
state law claims to the Washington Supreme Court, which was
denied on September 23, 2003.  On December 5, 2003, TFM filed a
Petition to Stay the Mandate stating it would file a Petition
for Certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking the Court's
review of the Ninth Circuit's adverse opinion.  A Stay of the
Mandate was ordered by the Ninth Circuit on December 10, 2003.
A Petition for Certiorari was filed with the U.S. Supreme Court
on February 26, 2004.  Briefing on the Petition was completed by
the parties, and, on May 3, 2004, the Court invited the U.S.
Solicitor General to express its views on the pending Petition.
On October 25, 2004, the Solicitor filed its response,
acknowledging the issues warranted further review but advising
that a First Circuit case ("Tum") would be better suited for the
Court's consideration of the issues.  The U.S. Supreme Court has
not yet determined to accept or deny either the "Alvarez" or
"Tum" petitions.

On November 5, 2001, a follow-on lawsuit to "Alvarez", entitled
"Maria Chavez, et al. v. IBP, Lasso Acquisition Corporation and
Tyson Foods, Inc." (Chavez) was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington by employees of TFM's
Pasco, Washington beef slaughter, processing and hides
facilities, again alleging violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. Sections 201 - 219, as well as
violations of the Washington State Minimum Wage Act, RCW chapter
49.46, Industrial Welfare Act, RCW chapter 49.12, and the Wage
Deductions-Contribution-Rebates Act, RCW chapter 49.52.

The Chavez lawsuit similarly alleges TFM and/or the Company
required employees to perform unpaid work related to the donning
and doffing of certain personal protective clothing and
equipment, both prior to and after their shifts, as well as
during meal periods.  Plaintiffs further allege the holdings in
Alvarez support a claim of collateral estoppel and/or res
judicata as to many of the issues raised in this litigation.

Chavez initially was pursued as an opt-in, collective action
under 29 U.S.C. 216(b), but the District Court granted
Plaintiff's motion seeking certification of a class of opt-out,
state law plaintiffs under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23
and notice was sent to potential state law claim class members.
The state-law class contains approximately 3,900 class members,
including approximately 1,200 on the federal claim.

The trial was held from September 7, 2004, through October 4,
2004.  The District Court issued its proposed findings of fact
and conclusions of law on December 8, 2004.  The District Court
has now informed the parties they have until February 21, 2005,
to provide the District Court with objections to the proposed
findings of fact and conclusions of law and a trial brief on
damages, and until March 7, 2005, to file reply briefs.  The
District Court intends to hear oral arguments on March 29, 2005,
before issuing its final order.  The damages phase of the trial
will then commence before a judgment is entered.


UNITED STATES: WA Coalition Applauds Passage Of S.5 Reform Bill
---------------------------------------------------------------
Washington State businesses and consumers won a major victory
recently, thanks in large part to the support of U.S. Senator
Maria Cantwell, according to the Class Action Fairness
Coalition, a group committed to reforming the class action
system.

"Senator Cantwell stood with other Democrats and supporters of
thoughtful legal reform in the Senate's overwhelming support to
reform the system," said coalition spokesperson Ben Gitenstein.
"Yesterday's successful 72 - 28 vote in favor of S.5, The Class
Action Fairness Act, represents a moderate but important step
forward in the fight to create a more stable business
environment and to return the class action system to its
original intent -- a means by which consumers can effectively
seek fair settlements."

Mr. Gitenstein called the reform "critically important,"
pointing what it calls a "perfect storm of badly served justice
and business uncertainty" due to the sharp rise in class action
filings in state courts coupled with a change in the way Class
Action settlements are administered.

Under the former system, companies and lawyers have been able to
create "coupon settlements" instead of administering judgments.
This system allows the defendant to pay damages to the small
minority of claimants that redeem them, while at the same time
allowing lawyers to value their fees based on the full coupon
amount, according to the reform group.

In a statement issued February 10, Senator Cantwell said she
stands by the moderate reforms of the Class Action Fairness Act:
"The Class Action Fairness Act improves the process of
organizing and trying class action cases, by moving most of the
larger cases into federal court. I value efficiency and common
sense in our justice system, and a single federal court can
better streamline and manage a large multi-state lawsuit, than
can numerous state courts all over the country," the statement
says.

"The Class Action Fairness Act benefits plaintiffs, defendants
and consumers. It provides more certainty to plaintiffs about
the courts that will hear their cases. It provides checks on the
abuses in the current system, such as net loss settlements where
class members actually lose money, the more egregious coupon
settlements where class members receive little or nothing of
value, and outcomes where the lawyers receive huge windfalls at
the expense of their clients and defendants. I believe that
reforming the class action system is good for all Americans,
including consumers and businesses. Today I joined a bipartisan
group of 72 Senators in passing a balanced bill that ensures the
injured their day in court, and creates a more efficient, just
and effective class action system."

The Washington State Class Action Fairness Coalition is made up
of reform advocates from around the state. For more information,
contact Coalition Manager Ben Gitenstein at 206-282-1990.


WISCONSIN: UW Students' Price-Fixing Suit Awaits Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
A new lawsuit could force most downtown Madison bars into
bankruptcy, according to an attorney connected to the anti-trust
case, the Channel3000 reports.

Three University of Wisconsin students teamed up with a high-
powered Minneapolis law firm and filed a class action anti-trust
suit last year, which has a very strong chance of forcing most
downtown Madison bars into bankruptcy, alleging price fixing
against 24 downtown bars.

Though few gave the case much attention when it was first filed,
city officials, including downtown council member Mike Verveer
and colleague Tom Bruer are now saying that they are enduring
hours of depositions regarding the case.

The plaintiffs assert damages will be "in the tens of millions
of dollars" and have asked the court to certify a class
"consisting of all persons who have purchased alcoholic
beverages from one or more of the defendant drinking
establishments . on Friday or Saturday nights since September
12, 2002." The plaintiffs alleged that the bar owners formed a
cartel, a clear violation of anti-trust laws.

However, the defendants present a much different case, and their
lead attorney Kevin O'Connor used to be the state attorney
general's top anti-trust prosecutor, the Channel3000.com
reports. Mr. O'Connor writes that the bars were under extreme
pressure from Mr. Bruer, who at the time, headed up the powerful
Alcohol License Review Committee, Channel3000 reports.

Court documents reveal that Mr. Bruer had told bar owners they
needed to "police themselves, clean up their acts, ... to come
up with a solution to the city's drink special concerns and
explained if they didn't the city would take care of the issue
itself ... by passing a seven day a week drink special ban."
"We're not regulating prices -- we're regulating the sales of
drink specials," Mr. Bruer told Channel3000.

Mr. O'Connor told Channel3000 the defendants' conduct was
completely and unequivocally the result of the regulatory
demands of the city of Madison, which would be an exception to
anti-trust laws, thus he has asked Judge Angela Barbell to issue
a summary judgment, dismissing the case without trial.

The plaintiffs argue everything that happened was voluntary and
are ready to proceed. At least one more legal brief must be
filed before Judge Bartell determines whether the case should
move forward or be tossed out, the Channel3000 reports.


WMS INDUSTRIES: Faces Indemnification Claim in Gambler's Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
WMS Industries, Inc. and Video Lottery Consultants, Inc., a
subsidiary of IGT (VLC) face an indemnification claim from the
La Societe de Loteries du Quebec (Loto-Quebec) filed in the
Superior Court of the Province of Quebec, relating to a lawsuit
filed against Loto-Quebec.

The class action lawsuit discussed in Loto-Quebec's claim was
brought on May18, 2001 against Loto-Quebec in the Superior Court
of the Province of Quebec.  It alleges that the members of the
class developed a pathological gambling addiction by using Loto-
Quebec's VLTs and that Loto-Quebec, as owner, operator and
distributor of VLTs, failed to warn players of the alleged
dangers associated with VLTs.  Class status was granted by the
Court on May 6, 2002, authorizing Jean Brochu to act as the
representative plaintiff. The class of 119,000 members is
requesting damages totaling almost $700 million Canadian
dollars, plus interest.

The pleadings allege that Loto-Quebec would be entitled to be
indemnified by the manufacturers of Loto-Quebec's VLTs,
specifically WMS and VLC, if the class action plaintiffs are
successful in the pending class action lawsuit against Loto-
Quebec.

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

BOMBARDIER CAPITAL: Schoengold Sporn Files Securities Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schoengold Sporn Laitman & Lometti, P.C.
("SSL&L") initiated a class action lawsuit on behalf of all
persons and entities that purchased Bombardier Capital Mortgage
Securitization Pass-Through Certificates Series 2000A (the
"Certificates") during the period January 27, 2000 through May
6, 2003 (the "Class Period") in the Southern District of New
York.

The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, the
prospectus disseminated by Bombardier Capital, in connection
with the offering of the Certificates, contained materially
false and misleading statements concerning the quality of the
manufactured housing loans, which served as collateral for the
Certificates. The misstatements included that the loans were
issued only after careful scrutiny of borrower credit -- when,
in fact, borrower creditworthiness was regularly disregarded.
The truth only began to be partially revealed as extraordinarily
high foreclosure rates persisted leading to a series of rating
downgrades, such as the February 2, 2004, when Fitch downgraded
the Certificates, noting "a combination of underwriting problems
have resulted in the highest cumulative losses of any
manufactured housing lender."

The asserted claims arise, inter alia, under Sections 10 and 20
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The named defendants in
the action are Bombardier Inc., Bombardier Capital Inc.,
Bombardier Capital Mortgage Securitization Corp., Laurent
Beaudoin, Brian Peters, Robert Gillespie, Lawrence F. Assell,
Credit Suisse First Boston, JPMorgan Chase and Prudential Equity
Group. The case is pending in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York. Any subsequently filed
cases, seeking similar relief and relating to the same facts as
alleged herein, are expected to be consolidated into this case.

For more details, contact Joel P. Laitman, Esq. or Frank R.
Schirripa, Esq. of Schoengold Sporn Laitman & Lometti, P.C. by
Mail: 19 Fulton Street, Suite 406, New York, New York 10038 by
Phone: (212) 964-0046 or (866) 348-7700 by Fax: (212) 267-8137
or by E-Mail: shareholderrelations@spornlaw.com.


DIRECT GENERAL: Barrett Johnston Lodges Securities Suit in TN
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Barrett, Johnston & Parsley initiated a class
action in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee on behalf of purchasers of Direct General
Corporation ("Direct General") (Nasdaq:DRCT) publicly traded
securities during the period between November 4, 2003 and
January 26, 2005 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Direct General and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Direct General is a financial services holding Company
whose principal operating subsidiaries provide non-standard
personal automobile insurance, term life insurance, premium
finance and other consumer products and services through
neighborhood sales offices staffed primarily by employee-agents.

The complaint alleges that Direct General's financial statements
and defendants' disclosures throughout the Class Period
regarding the Company's financial statements were materially
false and misleading in that Direct General was failing to
properly adjust for loss reserves with respect to a change in
the law related to personal injury protection coverage in
Florida. Beginning with policies issued on or after October 1,
2003, Florida mandated that the maximum personal injury
protection coverage deductible be reduced from $2,000 per
occurrence to $1,000 and that the limit be increased to $10,000
in excess of the deductible as opposed to $10,000 less the
deductible. On January 26, 2005, Direct General announced that
it would be adjusting its loss reserves and changing its reserve
analysis. On this news, Direct General's stock price dropped
more than 31% on January 27, 2005, on heavy trading volume.

For more details, contact Timothy L. Miles of Barrett, Johnston
& Parsley by Phone: 615/244-2202 or by E-mail:
tmiles@barrettjohnston.com.


DIRECT GENERAL: Stull & Stull Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in TN
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Stull, Stull & Brody initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee, on behalf of all persons who purchased
the publicly traded securities of Direct General Corp. ("Direct
General") (NasdaqNM:DRCT) between August 11, 2003 and January
26, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that Direct General violated federal
securities laws by issuing false or misleading public
statements. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that Direct
General improperly concealed the negative effect that changes in
the Florida Personal Injury Protection ("PIP") system would have
on its business and failed to properly reserve for such a
contingency. Moreover, the Complaint alleges that certain
corporate insiders sold $108 million worth of their personal
holdings of Direct General stock before the substantial impact
of the PIP changes was disclosed on January 26, 2005.

For more details, contact Tzivia Brody, Esq. of Stull, Stull &
Brody by Mail: 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY 10017 by Phone:
1-800-337-4983 by Fax: 212/490-2022 by E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com or
visit their Web site: http://www.ssbny.com.


DIRECT GENERAL: Ademi & O'Reilly Lodges Securities Lawsuit in TN
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP initiated a class action
in the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Tennessee on behalf of purchasers of Direct General Corporation
("Direct General") publicly traded securities during the period
between November 4, 2003 and January 26, 2005 (the "Class
Period").

The complaint charges Direct General and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. The complaint alleges that Direct General's financial
statements and defendants' disclosures throughout the Class
Period regarding the Company's financial statements were
materially false and misleading in that Direct General was
failing to properly adjust for loss reserves with respect to a
change in the law related to personal injury protection coverage
in Florida. Beginning with policies issued on or after October
1, 2003, Florida mandated that the maximum personal injury
protection coverage deductible be reduced from $2,000 per
occurrence to $1,000 and that the limit be increased to $10,000
in excess of the deductible as opposed to $10,000 less the
deductible. On January 26, 2005, Direct General announced that
it would be adjusting its loss reserves and changing its reserve
analysis. On this news, Direct General's stock price dropped
more than 31% on January 27, 2005, on heavy trading volume.

For more details, contact Guri Ademi of Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP by
Phone: 866-264-3995 by E-mail: gademi@ademilaw.com or visit
their Web site: http://www.ademilaw.com/cases/DirectGeneral.php.


EPIX PHARMACEUTICALS: Wold Haldenstein Lodges Stock Suit in MA
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
initiated a class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts, on behalf of all
persons who purchased the securities of EPIX Pharmaceuticals,
Inc. ("EPIX" or the "Company") (Nasdaq: EPIX) between March 18,
2002 and January 14, 2005, inclusive, (the "Class Period")
against defendants EPIX and certain officers and directors of
the Company.

The case name is Doraville Management II Corp. v. EPIX
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading
statements throughout the Class Period that had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price of the Company's
securities.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, statements
made by the defendants were materially false and misleading
because they failed to disclose and misrepresented the following
adverse facts:

     (1) defendants failed to adopt and implement clinical
         quality management practices to deal with test and
         control scan problems which were ultimately responsible
         for difficulties in the statistical analysis and
         determination of efficacy of MS-325, the Company's lead
         product under development;

     (2) the EPIX Phase III protocol for MS-325 permitted
         clinical investigators to substitute their own
         standards for MRI imaging;

     (3) clinical investigators were substituting their own
         standards for MRI imaging resulting in the use of non-
         standard, and non-uniform, imaging methods to acquire
         the non-contrast MRA comparator "control" scans;

     (4) failure to implement appropriate clinical quality
         management practices with regard to the method of
         acquiring non-contrast MRA comparator scans resulted in
         sufficient variability from study site to site;

     (5) clinical investigators generated a statistically
         significant greater number of uninterpretable images
         during the Phase III trials than is otherwise expected,
         a result rooted in the absence of clear instruction and
         defective clinical quality standards as to the
         requirements for performance of test and non-contrast
         MRA comparator scan controls;

     (6) problems with uninterpretable images, multiple
         standards for acquisition of control scans, deficient
         clinical quality practices, and difficulties in the
         statistical analysis and determination of efficacy of
         MS- 325 were known to defendants prior to the
         submission of the clinical data and results to the FDA;
         and

     (7) the problems with the quality of the underlying
         clinical data and results for the MS-325 New Drug
         Application, caused by the failure to implement
         appropriate clinical quality management practices, were
         so serious so as to prevent the Company from making a
         case for the efficacy of MS-325, cause resulting
         diminished prospects for MS-325 to be approved for use
         by the FDA at the end of the regulatory review cycle.

For more details, contact Fred Taylor Isquith, Esq., Christopher
S. Hinton, or Derek Behnke of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman &
Herz LLP by Mail: 270 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016
by Phone: (800) 575-0735 by E-mail: classmember@whafh.com or
visit their Web site: http://www.whafh.com.


EPIX PHARMACEUTICALS: Shapiro Haber Lodges Securities Suit in MA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP initiated a securities
fraud class action against EPIX Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("EPIX" or
the "Company") (NASDAQ: EPIX) and certain of its officers and
directors in the United States District Court for the District
of Massachusetts on behalf of purchasers of EPIX securities
during the period between July 10, 2003 and January 14, 2005
(the "Class Period").

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Specifically, the complaint
alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants were aware
of clinical quality issues with the underlying data for their
MS-325 Phase III program which made the proper control of their
clinical test results and statistical analysis of the data and
results difficult, if not impossible. On December 16, 2003,
defendants announced the submission of the Company's New Drug
Application ("NDA") for MS 325 to the U.S. Food & Drug
Administration ("FDA") for approval. Defendants continued to
conceal the serious problems with the clinical tests and
analysis of MS 325, and instead made positive and encouraging
remarks about their "extensive scientific and clinical
development" activities and prospects for product approval.
Then, on January 14, 2005, as alleged in the Complaint, the
Company reported it had received an action letter from the FDA,
in which the FDA had determined that problems with the Phase III
clinical trials were so serious that it was impossible to come
to a conclusion about the efficacy of MS-325. In addition, the
FDA noted problems with the underlying data that could not be
resolved simply on the basis of re-analysis. Based on this news,
the price of EPIX stock plunged 27%.

For more details, contact Ted Hess-Mahan, Esq., or Alyssa
Petroff, Paralegal of Shapiro Haber & Urmy, LLP by Mail: 53
State Street, Boston, MA 02109 by Phone: (800) 287-8119 by Fax:
(617) 439-0134 by E-mail: cases@shulaw.com or visit their Web
site: http://www.shulaw.com.


GANDER MOUNTAIN: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Lawsuit in MN
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
LLP ("Lerach Coughlin") initiated a class action in the United
States District Court for the District of Minnesota on behalf of
purchasers of Gander Mountain Company ("Gander Mountain")
(NASDAQ:GMTN) common stock pursuant to the Company's Initial
Public Offering ("IPO") and on the open market between April 20,
2004 and January 13, 2005 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Gander Mountain and certain of its
officers and directors with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and the Securities Act of 1933. Gander
Mountain is a specialty retailer offering an assortment of
merchandise that caters to outdoor lifestyle enthusiasts, with a
particular focus on hunting, fishing and camping.

The complaint alleges that prior to going public (and even
afterward) Gander Mountain was controlled by the Erickson family
(including certain of the defendants named in the complaint)
through their individual ownership in the Company as well as
their holdings in the Company's major shareholders. Defendants
knew that unless the Company went public, their shares in the
Company would remain illiquid, and virtually worthless. Further,
defendants were also keenly aware that unless the Company went
public prior to revelations of lowered earnings expectations in
November 2004 and January 2005, the Company would be prevented
from going public altogether. This possibility would not only
jeopardize defendants' ability to infuse value and liquidity
into their shares via the IPO, but also would jeopardize the
Company's ability to repay a $9.8 million debt owed to a Company
owned by the Erickson family.

On April 26, 2004, Gander Mountain closed its IPO of 6,583,750
shares of its common stock and converted existing preferred
stock to common stock, raising in excess of $105 million. On
November 9, 2004, the Company announced it had "lowered its
outlook for pretax income for fiscal 2004 to a range of $8
million to $13 million, compared with the Company's prior
guidance of $16 million to $21 million." Then, on January 14,
2005, the Company issued a press release lowering its outlook
for pretax income for fiscal 2004 even further, "to a range of
$2.0 million to $4.0 million, compared with the Company's prior
guidance of $8 million to $13 million." On this news, the
Company's shares plunged to an all time low of $9.30 per share,
more than a 60% drop from the Class Period high of $24.65 on
June 7, 2004.

According to the complaint, the truth, known to each of the
defendants during the Class Period and concealed from the
public, entailed:

     (1) the Company's co-branded credit card program was
         faltering;

     (2) the value of the Company's inventory was overstated,
         requiring massive reductions and causing the Company's
         future margins to be negatively impacted as a result;

     (3) the Company's debt capacity was jeopardized and was
         inconsistent with defendants' own growth plans;

     (4) the Company was actually experiencing average trends
         with respect to its sales; and

     (5) as a result of the above, defendants' own projections
         of positive comparable sales growth of 3%-5% and pretax
         income of $8-$13 million were materially false and
         misleading.

For more details, contact William Lerach or Darren Robbins of
Lerach Coughlin by Phone: 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058 by E-
mail: wsl@lerachlaw.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.lerachlaw.com/cases/gandermountain/.


INPUT/OUTPUT INC.: Emerson Poynter Lodges Securities Suit in TX
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Emerson Poynter LLP initiated a class action in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Texas on behalf of purchasers of Input/Output, Inc.
("Input/Output") (NYSE:IO) publicly traded securities during the
period between May 10, 2004 and January 4, 2005 (the "Class
Period"), including those who acquired their shares pursuant to
the Company's June 2004 Secondary Stock Offering.

The complaint charges Input/Output and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Input/Output is a provider of seismic acquisition imaging
technology for exploration, production and reservoir monitoring
in land and marine, as well as shallow water and marsh
environments.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's financial results and its business and prospects.
According to the complaint, during the Class Period defendants
failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material
adverse facts, known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by
them:

     (1) that the Company's products were defective;

     (2) that customers were wrongfully induced into buying the
         Company's products;

     (3) that the integration of GX Technology ("GXT"), acquired
         by the Company in May 2004, and Input/Output was
         suffering from massive problems, preventing the
         acquisition from being as accretive as claimed;

     (4) that the GXT project pipeline was not on track, as
         defendants had claimed; and

     (5) that as a result of the above, the defendants'
         statements about the Company were lacking in any
         reasonable basis when made.

On January 4, 2005, Input/Output issued a press release wherein
it announced that fourth quarter results would be significantly
below the low end of the Company's guidance of $0.08 per share,
primarily because two high margin GXT data library sales were
not completed as expected. On this news, shares of Input/Output
fell $1.41 per share, or about 17%, to close at $6.90 per share,
on unusually high trading volume.

For more details, contact Charles Gastineau, Tanya Autry or
Michelle Raggio of Emerson Poynter LLP by Phone: (800) 663-9817
or (281) 488-8854 by Fax: (281) 488-8867.


MERIT SECURITIES: Schoengold Sporn Lodges Stock Fraud Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schoengold Sporn Laitman & Lometti, P.C.
("SSL&L") initiated a class action lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of all persons and entities that purchased Merit Securities
Corporation Collateralized Bonds Series 13 (the "Bonds") during
the period August 11, 1999 through May 11, 2004 (the "Class
Period").

The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, the
prospectus disseminated by Merit, in connection with the
offering of the Bonds, contained materially false and misleading
information concerning the manufactured housing loans originated
during 1997 through 1999, which were pooled together to serve as
collateral for the Bonds. These misstatements included that the
Bonds were originated in compliance with underwriting standards,
when in fact, those procedures were largely disregarded. These
misstatements resulted in an artificially high credit ratings
and pricing. It is further alleged that the Bonds prices were
inflated due to misrepresentations of the true repossession
rates. The truth only began to emerge, following the disclosure
of corrected repossession and foreclosure rates on February 24,
2004, as the Bonds were dramatically downgraded. Moreover,
ensuing disclosures in April 2004 revealed that even Merit's
"current manufactured housing collateral may be deemed
impaired."

The claims asserted arise under Sections 10 and 20 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Named as defendants in the suit
are Dynex Capital, Inc. (Merit's parent corporation), Merit
Securities Corp., Stephen J. Benedetti, Thomas H. Potts, Lehman
Brothers Inc., and Greenwich Capital Markets, Inc. Any
subsequently filed cases seeking similar relief and relating to
the same facts as alleged herein are expected to be consolidated
into this case.

For more details, contact Joel P. Laitman, Esq. or Frank R.
Schirripa, Esq. of Schoengold Sporn Laitman & Lometti, P.C. by
Mail: 19 Fulton Street, Suite 406, New York, New York 10038 by
Phone: (212) 964-0046 or (866) 348-7700 by Fax: (212) 267-8137
or by E-Mail: shareholderrelations@spornlaw.com.


PHARMOS CORPORATION: Stull Stull Lodges NJ Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Stull, Stull & Brody initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey, on behalf of all persons who purchased the publicly
traded securities of Pharmos Corp. ("Pharmos") (Nasdaq:PARS)
between August 23, 2004 and December 17, 2004, inclusive (the
"Class Period").

The Complaint charges Pharmos, Haim Aviv and Gad Riesenfeld 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 defendants knew or recklessly disregarded the fact
         that dexanabinol was ineffective in treating severe
         traumatic brain injury ("TBI");

     (2) that the defendants maintained the appearance that
         dexanabinol was effective for the sole purpose of
         allowing the Company's executives to sell their own
         shares at artificially inflated prices; and

     (3) that the Company's statements regarding the
         effectiveness of the drug were lacking in any
         reasonable basis when made.

On December 20, 2004, Pharmos announced top-line results of its
pivotal Phase III trial of dexanabinol to treat severe TBI. The
Company drug, dexanabinol did not demonstrate efficacy as
measured by the primary clinical outcome endpoint, the Extended
Glasgow Outcome Scale. News of this shocked the market. Shares
of Pharmos fell $2.32 per share, or 66.29 percent, on December
20, 2004 to close at $1.18 per share, on unusually high volume.

For more details, contact Tzivia Brody, Esq. of Stull, Stull &
Brody by Mail: 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY 10017 by Phone:
1-800-337-4983 by Fax: 212/490-2022 or by E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com
or visit their Web site: http://www.ssbny.com.


SHURGARD STORAGE: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in WA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Stull, Stull & Brody initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Washington, on behalf of all persons who purchased
the publicly traded securities of Shurgard Storage Centers, Inc.
("Shurgard") (NYSE:SHU) between May 9, 2001 and March 26, 2004,
inclusive (the "Class Period"), including purchasers in the July
10, 2003 and June 25, 2002 stock offerings and the March 24,
2003 debt offering.

The Complaint alleges that Shurgard violated federal securities
laws by issuing false or misleading public statements. On May
17, 2004, Shurgard announced that it was restating its financial
results after a re-audit of its financial statements for the
years ended December 31, 2001 and 2002 and for the first three
quarters of 2003. Shurgard indicated that its new auditors,
PricewaterhouseCoopers, had identified accounting errors
impacting prior periods, which had to be restated.

For more details, contact Tzivia Brody, Esq. of Stull, Stull &
Brody by Mail: 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY 10017 by Phone:
1-800-337-4983 by Fax: 212/490-2022 or by E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com
or visit their Web site: http://www.ssbny.com.


SIERRA WIRELESS: Ademi & O'Reilly Lodges Securities Suit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP initiated a class action
lawsuit on February 7, 2005 in the United States District Court,
Southern District of New York, against Sierra Wireless, Inc.
(Nasdaq:SWIR) (TSE:SW) (``Sierra' or the ``Company') and certain
of its officers and directors, on behalf of purchasers of the
common stock of Sierra during the period from January 28, 2004
to January 26, 2005, inclusive (the ``Class Period').

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
defendants knowingly or recklessly misrepresented the Company's
prospects, financial results and operations, causing the
Company's stock price to trade at artificially inflated prices
in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The true facts, which were known to each of the defendants but
concealed from the investing public, were that

     (1) introduction of Sierra's Voq-branded professional
         phones, which would comprise only 2% of Sierra's
         revenues, was likely to dramatically decrease PalmOne's
         purchases of Sierra's embedded modules, which accounted
         for approximately 33% of Sierra's business;

     (2) due, in large part, to its out-dated technology, Sierra
         was facing increasing competition in the PC Card
         market, resulting in the discontinuation of purchases
         by Sierra's largest customer, Verizon Wireless; and

     (3) many of Sierra's major customers had excess inventory
         of Sierra's products.

For more details, contact Guri Ademi of Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP by
Phone: 866-264-3995 by E-mail: gademi@ademilaw.com.


SIERRA WIRELESS: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Fraud Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP announces
that a class action lawsuit was filed on February 7, 2005, on
behalf of purchasers of the securities of Sierra Wireless, Inc.
("Sierra Wireless" or the "Company") (Nasdaq: SWIR) between
January 28, 2004 and January 26, 2005, inclusive, (the "Class
Period") seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The action, case number 05-CV-1924, is pending in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against defendants Sierra Wireless, David B. Sutcliffe (CEO) and
David G.McLennan (CFO).

The complaint alleges that Sierra Wireless, at all relevant
times, purported to be a leading provider of communications
hardware and software products designed to enable wireless
Internet access from mobile devices such as laptops and hand-
held computers. The complaint further alleges that, throughout
the Class Period, defendants made highly positive statements
concerning demand for the Company's AirCard wireless modem,
embedded modules and about its newly introduced Voq Smartphone.
These statements were materially false and misleading because
they misrepresented or failed to disclose the following facts,
among others:

     (1) the Company's reportedly strong financial performance
         was achieved by stuffing the channels with inventory
         far in excess of end-user demand;

     (2) the Company was not "well-positioned to capitalize on
         opportunities for further growth" but, on the contrary,
         was losing market share to competitors;

     (3) the Voq Smartphone was generating sluggish sales at
         best;

     (4) although the defendants disclosed that sales of
         embedded modules to a major customer would end in the
         fourth quarter of 2004, they failed to disclose the
         extent of the negative impact this would have on the
         Company's financial performance and prospects; and

     (5) for these reasons, the Company's financial and
         operational performance and prospects were, at all
         times, materially overstated.

The truth began to emerge on January 26, 2005. On that date, the
Company, citing sharply lowered demand for its flagship AirCard
products and embedded modules, stated that it expected to report
a massive drop in earnings and revenue in the first quarter of
2005, i.e., a loss of $0.35 to $0.38 per share on revenue of $19
million compared with analysts' Company-guided expectations of
$0.20 per share profit on revenue of $54 million. (In
comparison, Sierra Wireless's direct competitor, Novatel
Wireless, Inc., announced that it expected first-quarter
revenues of between $32 million and $34 million-more than double
its revenues from the same quarter a year ago.) Sierra Wireless
reported fourth quarter revenue of $58 million and net earnings
of $7.3 million compared to its guidance of net earnings of $7.7
million, or $0.29 per diluted share, on revenues of $63 million.
This announcement was so extraordinary that one analyst at first
thought it was a hoax. In reaction to the Company's
announcement, shocked investors drove the Company's share price
down by 38%, or $5.16, to $9.34, wiping out a third of the
Company's market capitalization.

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


SIPEX CORPORATION: Lasky & Rifkind Lodges Securities Suit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd. initiated a lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired publicly traded securities of Sipex Corporation
("Sipex" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:SIPX) between April 10, 2003
and January 20, 2005, inclusive, (the "Class Period"). The
lawsuit was filed against Sipex and Douglas M. McBurnie, Walid
Maghribi, Phillip A. Kagel and Clyde R. Wallin ("Defendants").

The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. Specifically, the complaint alleges that
Defendants failed to disclose or misrepresented that the Company
inappropriately recognized revenue on sales for which price
protection, stock rotation and or return rights were granted,
that the Company's financial results were in violation of
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP") and that the
Company lacked adequate internal controls.

On January 20, 2005, Sipex announced that the Company may
restate its financial statements for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2003 and the fiscal quarters ended April 3, 2004,
July 3, 2004 and October 2, 2004 due to the possible improper
recognition of revenue during these periods. Shares of Sipex
reacted negatively to the news, sending the shares $0.90 per
share, or 23.4% lower on January 21, 2005 to close at $2.94 per
share.

For more details, contact Lasky & Rifkind by Phone:
(800) 495-1868 by E-mail: investorrelations@laskyrifkind.com.


SIPEX CORPORATION: Smith & Smith Lodges Securities Suit in CA
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Smith & Smith LLP initiated a securities
class action lawsuit on behalf of shareholders who purchased
securities of Sipex Corporation ("Sipex" or the "Company")
(Nasdaq:SIPX), between April 10, 2003 and January 20, 2005,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). The class action lawsuit was
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California.

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 operations and financial performance,
thereby artificially inflating the price of Sipex securities. No
class has yet been certified in the above action.

For more details, contact Smith & Smith LLP by Phone:
(866) 759-2275 or by E-mail: howardsmithlaw@hotmail.com.


SYSTEMATIC INVESTMENT: Blumenthal & Markham Lodges CA Stock Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firms of Blumenthal & Markham, Brewer & Carlson LLP and
Greco, Traficante & Edwards initiated a class action the United
States District Court for the Southern District of California.
The complaint seeks to recover, on behalf of all persons who
still owned their Systematic Investment Plan ("SIP") on December
15, 2004 ("Class Members"), all amounts paid into First
Command's Systematic Investment Plan for indirect interests in
mutual-fund shares which had not been withdrawn as of December
15, 2004 ("Class Period"). This case is entitled McPhail, et al.
v. First Command Financial Planning, Inc., Case No. 05 CV 0179
IEG (JMA).

The complaint alleges that First Command and certain of its
officers and directors violated the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and the Investment Advisers Act. The complaint further
alleges that the defendants' conduct also violated the Texas
Deceptive Trade Practices Act, California's Unfair Competition
Act and First Command's fiduciary duties to investors. First
Command is a seller of investment plans and insurance
principally to military personnel.

The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants
through an affinity marketing scheme made false and misleading
statements regarding First Command's investment plans and
insurance. Specifically, the case involves First Command's
marketing and sales of indirect interests in mutual-fund shares
through an SIP. The defendants are alleged to have made false
statements and concealed the truth with respect to the SIP, the
effect of the charges associated with this investment, and the
investment alternatives. The facts, known by each of the
defendants, but concealed from the investing public during the
Class Period are alleged to be as follows:

     (1) the First Command SIP was among the worst, if not the
         worst, investment of its kind for the Class Members;

     (2) First Command's SIPs have no redeeming financial upside
         potential and the same minimum downside risks as
         comparable investments;

     (3) an investment in a Thrift Savings Plan ("TSP") was an
         undisputedly better investment alternative for military
         personnel than First Command's SIP;

     (4) only 43% of First Command clients retained their SIP
         long enough to even receive their principal back;

     (5) the recommended whole life insurance plans coupled with
         the SIP were inappropriate for the Class Members;

     (6) First Command did not tailor investment plans to the
         specific needs of each Class Member;

     (7) First Command steered Class Members to SIPs based
         solely on fact that First Command received
         substantially more in fees (50% of the first year's
         deposit) from the SIPs;

     (8) the majority of First Command customers have not
         completed the 15-year period of the SIP;

     (9) the Family Financial Plan ("FFP") was not an objective
         and truthful investment plan;

    (10) the long-term costs of owning no-load funds are
         substantially lower than the costs of owning load funds
         such as SIPs;

    (11) the no-load investment index funds offered by the TSP
         had substantially lower net expense ratios than even a
         no-load fund and most certainly the SIPs sold by First
         Command; and,

    (12) there was no empirical evidence to support the
         inference that SIPs will outperform other funds due to
         low "cash-flow volatility."

As a result of the defendants' false and misleading statements,
and concealment of facts known to them, Class Members were
placed into unsuitable investments and paid excessive sales
commissions and fees to defendants in connection with the
purchase of publicly traded securities.

On December 15, 2004 the Securities & Exchange Commission
("SEC") instituted a public administration and cease and desist
proceeding against First Command. In response to the SEC
proceeding and related disciplinary actions by the National
Association of Securities Dealers ("NASD"), First Command
submitted an Offer of Settlement which the SEC accepted, and
submitted a Letter of Acceptance, Waiver, and Consent to the
NASD which provided for restitution only to those customers who,
as of December 15, 2004, had already terminated their First
Command SIP. As a result, no relief was provided to the Class
Members.

For more details, contact Norman Blumenthal of Blumenthal &
Markham by Phone: 858/551-1223, ext. 120 or by E-mail:
Bam@bamlawlj.com OR Mark Brewer or Dan Carlson of Brewer &
Carlson LLP by PhoneL 858/558-7766 or by E-mai:
gmbrewer@brewercarlson.com OR Peter Shulz of Greco, Traficante &
Edwards by Phone: 619/234-3660 or by E-mail: pjs@gtelaw.com or
visit their Web site: http://www.bamlawca.com.


TOWER AUTOMOTIVE: Stull Stull Commences ERISA Investigation
-----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Stull, Stull & Brody commenced an investigation
relating to the 401(k) defined contribution plans of Tower
Automotive, Inc. (NYSE: TWR) ("Tower Automotive" or the
"Company").

Among other things, Stull, Stull & Brody is investigating
whether fiduciaries of the 401(k) plans of the Company may have
violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
("ERISA") by failing to disclose the Company's true financial
and operating condition to participants and beneficiaries of the
plans and/or by offering Tower Automotive stock as an investment
option under the plans when it was not prudent to do so. Tower
Automotive and its domestic subsidiaries recently filed
voluntarily petitions in the United States Bankruptcy Court for
the Southern District of New York seeking reorganization relief
under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. The Company also
recently announced that it has elected not to appeal an
application by the Staff of the New York Stock Exchange to the
Securities and Exchange Commission to delist Tower Automotive
common stock from the NYSE.

For more details, contact Edwin J. Mills, Esq. or Tzivia Brody,
Esq. by Phone: 1-800-337-4983 by Fax: (212) 490-2022 or by E-
mail: ssbny@aol.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 Se¤orin, 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  * * *