---

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

             Tuesday, April 12, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 71

                         Headlines

ARKANSAS: Four Districts Opt To Settle 1997 Amendment 59 Lawsuit
ASPEN TECHNOLOGY: MA Court Consolidates Securities Fraud Suits
CANADA: B.C. Retired Government Workers Sue To Regain Benefits
CONNECTICUT: Bridgeport Pays Firm $1.1M For Defense Of Bias Suit
DELPHI CORPORATION: MI Court Certifies Water Contamination Suit

ECHOSTAR COMMUNICATIONS: Investors Launch CO Securities Lawsuits
ECHOSTAR COMMUNICATIONS: CA Court Denies Certification For Suit
ECHOSTAR COMMUNICATIONS: Limited Discovery Concludes in CO Suits
ECHOSTAR COMMUNICATION: Appeals Court Upholds TX Suit Dismissal
GENERAL MOTORS: Wants Lawsuit Over Brakes Moved To Federal Court

I2 TECHNOLOGIES: Texas Shareholder Suit Settlement Deemed Final
I2 TECHNOLOGIES: TX Court Refuses To Lift Automatic Stay of Suit
ITT EDUCATIONAL: Plaintiffs File Consolidated IN Securities Suit
ITT EDUCATIONAL: Plaintiffs Dismiss ERISA Violations Suit in IN
KVH INDUSTRIES: Asks RI Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit

MEDTRONIC: Rheingold Valet Files Suit Over Faulty Defibrillators
MICHIGAN: U-M Students, Professors Lodge Suit Over Denied Parole
PENNSYLVANIA: Jury Rules Wyeth Not Liable For Fen-Phen Damages
PFIZER INC.: German Lawyer Prepares Lawsuit Over Arthritis Drug
PRG SCHULTZ: Fairness Hearing For Suit Settlement Set May 2005

PRIMUS TELECOMMUNICATIONS: VA Court Dismisses Securities Lawsuit
SECOND CHANCE: LA Law Firm Seeks Class Action Over Faulty Vests
SEQUA CORPORATION: Working To Settle PA Contamination Lawsuit
SOUTH KOREA: Families Sue Maker, Government For Soju Negligence  
SOUTHERN PERU: Shareholders Launch Suit V. Minera Mexico Merger

STEWART TITLE: Reaches Settlement For NY Consumer Fraud Lawsuit
UAL CORPORATION: IL Court Certifies Suit V. Stock Ownership Plan
UNISOURCE ENERGY: AZ Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit
UNITED STATES: Attorney Says Suing Under RICO Hurts Other Groups
UNITED STATES: Plaintiffs Appeal NY Ruling On Agent Orange Case

WASHINGTON: $500T Brain Harvesting Claim Launched V. King County
WASHINGTON: Latina Childcare Workers Launches Lawsuit V. DSHS
WEBMD CORPORATION: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Lawsuit Settlement

                  New Securities Fraud Cases

BRADLEY PHARMACEUTICALS: Berger & Montague Lodges NJ Stock Suit
COLLINS & AIKMAN: Berman DeValerio Lodges Securities Suit in MI
IMERGENT TECHNOLOGIES: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Stock Suit in UT
MBIA INC.: Brian M. Felgoise Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
MBIA INC.: Glancy Binkow Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY

RHODIA S.A.: Brian M. Felgoise Files Securities Fraud Suit in NJ
RHODIA S.A.: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NJ
RHODIA S.A.: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in NJ
RHODIA S.A.: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NJ
WATCHGUARD TECHNOLOGIES: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Fraud Suit in WA

                         *********

ARKANSAS: Four Districts Opt To Settle 1997 Amendment 59 Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Bentonville, Gravette, Rogers and Siloam Springs school
districts reached agreements to settle a 1997 class-action
lawsuit that claims the schools received more tax money than
they should have, The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette reports.

According to figures in a news release from Lowell attorney
David Matthews, who is representing the districts, the Gravette,
Siloam Springs and Rogers school districts will offer
settlements of $210,534, $310,534 and $2.26 million,
respectively.  Bentonville School District Superintendent Gary
Compton told the Democrat-Gazette he would recommend that the
Bentonville School Board approve offering a $1.99 million
settlement, a figure negotiated by the district's attorney,
George Spence.

The Benton County school districts were among several taxing
entities sued by a group of taxpayers seeking the rollback of
millage rates and the refund of taxes collected in excess of
amounts permitted by Amendment 59 of the state Constitution.  As
previously reported in the February 22, 2005 edition of the
Class Action reporter, the suit was filed in 1997 and alleges
that property owners in Benton County were overtaxed. According
to Dale Evans, one of the attorneys who filed the class-action
suit, as soon as it was filed, property taxes in the county were
considered "paid under protest" allowing them to be questioned
in court.

Taxes paid before then traditionally could not be challenged,
however attorneys are protesting that fact, and the state
Supreme Court in 2000 said they can pursue their argument: That
taxpayers had no way of knowing the assessments were illegal.

Mr. Dale Evans and Kent Hirsch both of whom filed the lawsuit
back in 1997, claims local school districts and governments
violated Amendment 59 to the Arkansas Constitution by over
collecting property taxes for several years in the 1990s.
Amendment 59 limits the increase in property tax revenue from
reappraisals to 10 percent per year for each taxing entity such
as a school district or city. When a taxing entity's revenue
collection would increase more than 10 percent because of
property reappraisal, Amendment 59 triggers a mileage rollback
though the limit does not apply to increases resulting from new
construction or improvements.

If the settlements are accepted, it will fall way below what
plaintiffs in the case requested. Originally, plaintiffs had
asked for $24.34 million from the Rogers School District, $11.22
million from the Bentonville School District, $2.63 million from
the Siloam Springs School District and $2.33 million from the
Gravette School District, plus interest from excess taxes
collected between 1991 and 2003.  The settlement amounts were
drawn from half of the sum of property taxes assessed in 1996
with interest added, Mr. Matthews said.

Mr. Evans, who filed the lawsuit along with Mr. Hirsch, told the
Democrat-Gazette that the proposed settlements a "respectful
amount the taxpayers will enjoy the benefits of."  He also
complimented the school districts for rolling back the millage
in 1997 but said the settlement will account for more of the
money owed. "We don't agree they did everything they should
have, and now they've agreed to put more in the pot to make it
right," Mr. Evans adds. "That's what we want our government to
do. To recognize they made a boo-boo and fix it."

The cities of Rogers and Lowell, Benton County and Northwest
Arkansas Community College in Bentonville also were named in the
lawsuit. All except Rogers, which recently reached a settlement,
according to a news release from Mayor Steve Womack's office,
had settled previously.  The Rogers City Council will vote on
whether to offer $369,717 to plaintiffs in the lawsuit, a
spokesman from the mayor's office said. The city was sued for
$4.37 million. Northwest Arkansas Community College trustees had
already voted last March to offer $603,342 to plaintiffs in the
lawsuit. The college was asked to pay back $9.9 million. The
Lowell City Council also voted recently to pay $55,901 to settle
its portion of the lawsuit. The city was sued for $1.4 million.

Taxing entities engaged in a protracted legal battle fighting
the Amendment 59 case, which was previously dismissed by a
Benton County Circuit Court judge. Plaintiffs appealed twice to
the Arkansas Supreme Court, which remanded the case back to
trial court.  The Arkansas Department of Finance and
Administration and a Benton County judge though must first
approve the settlement agreements before the cases are declared
officially settled.


ASPEN TECHNOLOGY: MA Court Consolidates Securities Fraud Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court of Massachusetts ordered
consolidated two securities class actions filed against Aspen
Technology, Inc. and certain of its officers and directors,
captioned "Fener v. Aspen Technology, Inc., et. al., Civil
Action No. 04-12375 (filed November 9, 2004)" and "Stockmaster
v. Aspen Technology, Inc., et. al., Civil Action No. 04-12387
(filed November 10, 2004)."

The suits allege, among other things, that the Company violated
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder in connection with various statements about its
financial condition for fiscal years 2000 through 2004.  The
time for the defendants to move, answer or otherwise respond to
the complaints has been extended to sixty days following the
filing of a consolidated amended complaint.

On February 2, 2005, the Court consolidated the cases under the
caption "Aspen Technology, Inc. Securities Litigation, Civil
Action No. 04-12375 (D. Mass.)," and appointed The Operating
Engineers and Construction Industry and Miscellaneous Pension
Fund (Local 66) and City of Roseville Employees' Retirement
System as lead plaintiff, purporting to represent a putative
class of persons who purchased the Company's common stock
between January 25, 2000 and October 29, 2004.  No consolidated
amended complaint has been filed and no class has been
certified.

The suit is styled "Aspen Technology, Inc. Securities
Litigation, case no. 1:04-cv-12375-JLT," filed in the United
States District Court in Massachusetts, under Judge Joseph L.
Tauro.  Representing the Company is Thomas J. Dougherty of
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP One Beacon Street
Boston, MA 02108 Phone: 617-573-4800 Fax: 617-573-4822, E-mail:
dougherty@skadden.com.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Mario Alba, Jr., David A. Rosenfeld, Samuel Rudman of
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP 200
         Broadhollow Road Suite 406 Melville, NY 11747 Phone:
         631-367-7100 Fax: 631-367-1173;

     (2) Theodore M. Hess-Mahan, Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP 53
         State Street Boston, MA 02108 Phone: 617-439-3939 Fax:
         617-439-0134 E-mail: ted@shulaw.com


CANADA: B.C. Retired Government Workers Sue To Regain Benefits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Thirty thousand retired British Columbia government employees
are seeking class-action status for a legal fight to regain
their full medical benefits, The Vancouver Sun reports.

Terry Prentice, who speaks for the B.C. Government Retired
Employees Association, told the Sun the group has legal recourse
to seek a reinstatement of full coverage for its members.  He
says that the retirees were told the benefits would be paid 100
per cent by the government. However, the B.C. Liberals cut
funding to the body that makes the actual decisions on benefits,
forcing the trustees to sign off on the rollback of the
association's coverage plan.  Mr. Prentice is hoping to hear a
decision on class-action status by November, which would allow
everyone's benefits to be addressed together instead of case-by-
case.


CONNECTICUT: Bridgeport Pays Firm $1.1M For Defense Of Bias Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In what is to be the highest legal fee paid by the city in
recent years, Bridgeport is paying the law firm of Pullman and
Comley about $1,060,130 for successfully defending a federal
discrimination lawsuit filed by disgruntled firefighters, The
Connecticut Post reports.  City Attorney Mark Anastasi, who had
hired Pullman and Comley to handle the far-reaching legal
action, said, "They tried to make this a class-action suit. They
were looking for serious relief. We took this very seriously."

City records show that the city had attempted to force the
plaintiffs to pay Pullman and Comley's fees, but a federal judge
rejected that request.  The law firm, which is well connected
with city government, has served as the city's bond counsel for
years. After Mayor John M. Fabrizi took office two years ago,
the city decided to seek bids for the bond counsel position, and
Pullman and Comley won the first competitive round for the job.  
John Stafstrom, a long-time member of the law firm, serves as
the bond counsel. Additionaly, he is also the chairman of the
Bridgeport Democratic Town Committee.

The suit, which was successfully defended by the firm was filed
in U.S. District Court on March 21, 2001, by city firefighters
Johanna Georgia and Elizabeth Shiller. The two women claimed
they were victims of ongoing discrimination.


DELPHI CORPORATION: MI Court Certifies Water Contamination Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit against Delphi Corporation (NYSE: DPH) over a leak at
a Michigan plant was granted class action status by Kent County
Circuit Judge Dennis Kolenda, despite the objections of the
company, according to a recently published report, The
MarketWatch reports.

The report by the Associated Press stated that Vinyl chloride
began leaking from the former General Motors (GM) plant more
than 20 years ago, spreading to the groundwater beneath a nearby
neighborhood.

Court documents revealed that despite assurances from the
Environmental Protection Agency that the tainted water is too
far underground to contaminate the area's drinking water, about
290 homeowners have sued, claiming that the contamination will
lower the value of their homes and make it difficult to sell.

General Motors had opened the 45-acre diesel equipment facility
nearly 60 years ago. GM spun off its Delphi unit in 1999 and the
plant went with the auto parts supplier.


ECHOSTAR COMMUNICATIONS: Investors Launch CO Securities Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Echostar Communications Corporation and certain of its current
and former officers face various securities class actions filed
in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado
on behalf of purchasers of DISH securities during the period
between August 10, 2004 and March 9, 2005.

The complaints allege, among other things, that the Company made
material misstatements and omissions by issuing financial
statements and "reports on operations" that were not in
accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP),
through inadequate internal controls, failure to disclose
related party transactions and improperly booking certain
transactions, resulting in violations of several federal
securities law provisions.  The suits specifically allege that
the Company lacked internal controls adequate to ensure that the
information contained in the Company's financial reports fairly
presented in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company and the Company improperly
booked certain transactions with vendors and engaged in improper
accounting, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (March
17,2005) states.

Two suits are pending in the United States District Court in
Colorado, namely "Hesabi-Cartwright v. EchoStar Communications
Corporation, case no. 1:05-cv-00044-EWN-OES" filed 01/10/05; and
"Dowdy v. EchoStar Communications Corporation et al, case no.
1:05-cv-00448-RPM" filed 03/11/05.  The plaintiff firms in this
litigation are:

     (1) Brodsky & Smith, LLC, 11 Bala Avenue, Suite 39, Bala
         Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610.668.7987, Fax:
         610.660.0450, E-mail: esmith@Brodsky-Smith.com;

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

     (3) Chitwood & Harley, 7945 East Paces Ferry Road, 1400
         Resurgens Plaza, Atlanta, GA, 30326 Phone:
         404.266.1650;

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


ECHOSTAR COMMUNICATIONS: CA Court Denies Certification For Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The California State Superior Court for Los Angeles County
refused to grant class certification to a lawsuit filed against
Echostar Communications Corporation, relating to the use of
terms such as "crystal clear digital video," "CD-quality audio,"
and "on-screen program guide," and with respect to the number of
channels available in various programming packages.

David Pritikin and Consumer Advocates, a nonprofit
unincorporated association, filed the suit in 1999, alleging
breach of express warranty and violation of the California
Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Civil Code Sections 1750, et seq.,
and the California Business & Professions Code Sections 17500 &
17200.  

A hearing on the plaintiffs' motion for class certification and
the Company's motion for summary judgment was held during 2002.
At the hearing, the Court issued a preliminary ruling denying
the plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  However, before
issuing a final ruling on class certification, the Court granted
the Company's motion for summary judgment with respect to all of
the plaintiffs' claims.  Subsequently, the Company filed a
motion for attorneys' fees which was denied by the Court.  The
plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the court's granting of
the Company's motion for summary judgment and the Company cross-
appealed the Court's ruling on the Company's motion for
attorneys' fees.

During December 2003, the Court of Appeals affirmed in part; and
reversed in part, the lower court's decision granting summary
judgment in the Company's favor.  Specifically, the Court found
there were triable issues of fact whether the Company may have
violated the alleged consumer statutes "with representations
concerning the number of channels and the program schedule."  
However, the Court found no triable issue of fact as to whether
the representations "crystal clear digital video" or "CD
quality" audio constituted a cause of action.  Moreover, the
Court affirmed that the "reasonable consumer" standard was
applicable to each of the alleged consumer statutes.  Plaintiff
argued the standard should be the "least sophisticated"
consumer. The Court also affirmed the dismissal of Plaintiffs'
breach of warranty claim.  Plaintiff filed a Petition for Review
with the California Supreme Court and the Company responded.

During March 2004, the California Supreme Court denied
Plaintiff's Petition for Review. Therefore, the action has been
remanded to the trial court pursuant to the instructions of the
Court of Appeals.  Hearings on class certification were
conducted on December 21, 2004 and on February 7, 2005.  The
Court denied Plaintiff's motion for class certification on
February 10, 2005.  It is uncertain whether the Plaintiff will
appeal this decision.


ECHOSTAR COMMUNICATIONS: Limited Discovery Concludes in CO Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Limited discovery for the consumer class actions filed against
Echostar Communications in Colorado federal and state courts has
ended November 15,2004.

Retailers filed two separate lawsuits were filed in the Arapahoe
County District Court in the State of Colorado and the United
States District Court for the District of Colorado,
respectively, by Air Communication & Satellite, Inc. and John
DeJong, et al. on behalf of themselves and a class of persons
similarly situated.  The plaintiffs are attempting to certify
nationwide classes on behalf of certain of the Company's
satellite hardware retailers. The plaintiffs are requesting the
Courts to declare certain provisions of, and changes to, alleged
agreements between the Company and the retailers invalid and
unenforceable, and to award damages for lost incentives and
payments, charge backs, and other compensation.

The United States District Court for the District of Colorado
stayed the Federal Court action to allow the parties to pursue a
comprehensive adjudication of their dispute in the Arapahoe
County State Court. John DeJong, d/b/a Nexwave, and Joseph
Kelley, d/b/a Keltronics, subsequently intervened in the
Arapahoe County Court action as plaintiffs and proposed class
representatives.

The Company has filed a motion for summary judgment on all
counts and against all plaintiffs. The plaintiffs filed a motion
for additional time to conduct discovery to enable them to
respond to our motion. The Court granted a limited discovery
period which ended November 15, 2004.  The Court is hearing
discovery related motions and the Company expect the Court to
follow with a briefing schedule for the motion for summary
judgment.


ECHOSTAR COMMUNICATION: Appeals Court Upholds TX Suit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the
dismissal of a class action filed against Echostar
Communications Corporation by Satellite Dealers Supply, Inc.
(SDS), on behalf of itself and a class of persons similarly
situated.

The plaintiff, who filed the suit in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Texas, was attempting to
certify a nationwide class on behalf of sellers, installers, and
servicers of satellite equipment who contract with the Company
and who allege that the Company:

     (1) charged back certain fees paid by members of the class
         to professional installers in violation of contractual
         terms;

     (2) manipulated the accounts of subscribers to deny
         payments to class members; and

     (3) misrepresented, to class members, the ownership of
         certain equipment related to the provision of the
         Company's satellite television service.

During September 2001, the Court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss.  The plaintiff moved for reconsideration of the Court's
order dismissing the case.  The Court denied the plaintiff's
motion for reconsideration.  The trial court denied the
Company's motions for sanctions against SDS.  Both parties
perfected appeals before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.  On
appeal, the Fifth Circuit upheld the dismissal.  The Fifth
Circuit vacated and remanded the District Court's denial of the
Company's motion for sanctions.  The District Court subsequently
issued a written opinion containing the same findings.  The only
issue remaining is the Company's collection of costs, which were
previously granted by the Court.


GENERAL MOTORS: Wants Lawsuit Over Brakes Moved To Federal Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors has filed court documents that seek to move a
national class action lawsuit over GM's parking brakes on
numerous makes and models of sports utility vehicles, which was
filed against it on February 8 in circuit court in Miller
County, to federal court in Texarkana, Arkansas, The Texarkana
Gazette reports.

According to legal experts, it is now up to U.S. District Judge
Harry F. Barnes to decide if the lawsuit should stay in his
court or be sent back to Circuit Judge Jim Hudson of Texarkana,
Arkansas.

In its motion to have the suit moved to federal court, GM
attorney Darby Doan, of Haltom & Doan law firm, bases his
argument to move the lawsuit on the overall value of the case,
which he considers to be interstate in nature. He also argued
that, under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, moving the
case is proper because the aggregate amount of the lawsuit is
expected to exceed $5 million and the people suing and the
corporation came from different states. He points out that in
this case, the lead plaintiff or GM customer is Boyd Bryant, of
Texarkana, Arkansas, while GM is based in Michigan.

Court documents revealed that the lawsuit revolves around faulty
parking brakes in certain makes of GM vehicles made from 1998
through 2004, with as many as three million vehicles affected.  
The lawsuit contends, "At some point after it began selling
vehicles with the defective parking brake, (GM) received many
reports from automobile owners and dealerships that the parking
brakes failed and/or had to be replaced."

State inspections brought the problems to light when the
vehicles failed to pass the customary annual checks. Mr.
Bryant's lawyer, James Wyly of Patton, Roberts, McWilliams &
Capshaw, believes that the vehicles' owners paid about $500 to
replace the parking brakes.

Additionally court documents revealed that "Despite the fact
that (GM) was on notice as to the parking brake's defective
design, it did not correct the design defects, but rather
continued to sell the vehicles with these defective brakes to
the public. Likewise, (GM) did not warn consumers and
dealerships about the design and manufacture defects in its
parking brakes, but instead concealed from the public the fact
that its parking brakes were defective and needed replacement."

The lawsuit though does, exclude anyone who suffered a personal
injury or property damage because of the allegedly faulty
brakes. Furthermore, those who at any time prior to 2002 knew
that the brakes were allegedly defective also are excluded,
according to the suit.


I2 TECHNOLOGIES: Texas Shareholder Suit Settlement Deemed Final
---------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement of the securities class actions and shareholder
derivative suits filed in Texas Courts against i2 Technologies,
Inc. and certain of its officers and directors is deemed final.

Beginning in March 2001, a number of purported class action
complaints were filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Texas (Dallas Division) against the
Company and certain of our officers and directors. The cases
were consolidated, and in August 2001 the plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended complaint.

The consolidated amended complaint alleged that the Company and
certain of its officers and directors violated the federal
securities laws, specifically Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, by making purportedly false and
misleading statements concerning the characteristics and
implementation of certain of its software products.  The
consolidated amended complaint sought unspecified damages on
behalf of a purported class of purchasers of our common stock
during the period from May 4, 2000 to February 26, 2001.  By
stipulation, in December 2002, the court certified the plaintiff
class.

Beginning in April 2003, additional purported class action
complaints were filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Texas (Dallas Division) against the
company and certain of its current and former officers and
directors.  The complaints brought claims under the federal
securities laws, specifically Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, relating to the 2003
restatement of the Company's consolidated financial statements.
Specifically, these actions alleged that the Company issued a
series of false or misleading statements to the market during
the class period that failed to disclose that:

     (1) the Company had materially overstated its revenue by
         improperly recognizing revenue on certain customer
         contracts,

     (2) the Company lacked adequate internal controls and were
         therefore unable to ascertain its true financial
         condition, and

     (3) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial
         statements issued during the class period were
         materially false and misleading.

Plaintiffs contended that such statements caused the Company's
stock price to be artificially inflated. The complaints sought
unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class of purchasers
of the Company's common stock during the period from April 18,
2000 to January 24, 2003.

In July 2003, all of these class action complaints were
consolidated for purposes of pre-trial matters only.

In April 2001, a purported shareholder derivative lawsuit was
filed in Dallas County, Texas, against certain of the Company's
officers and directors, naming the company as a nominal
defendant.  The complaint alleged that certain of the Company's
officers and directors breached their fiduciary duties to the
company and its stockholders by selling shares of common stock
while in possession of material adverse non-public information
regarding the Company's business and prospects, and
disseminating inaccurate information regarding its business and
prospects to the market and/or failing to correct such
inaccurate information.  

This lawsuit was removed to the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Texas (Dallas Division). A motion to
dismiss the action was filed, and on October 8, 2002, the motion
was granted. Plaintiffs filed an appeal of that decision on
October 15, 2002 and, following oral arguments, plaintiffs moved
for voluntary dismissal of their appeal. On January 5, 2004, the
appellate court granted plaintiffs' voluntary dismissal motion
and judgment against the plaintiffs became final.

In April and May 2003, two additional purported shareholder
derivative lawsuits were filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Texas (Dallas Division)
against certain of the Company's officers and directors, naming
the company as a nominal defendant.  The complaints alleged that
certain of our officers and directors breached their fiduciary
duties to the company and its stockholders by causing the
Company to improperly recognize revenue in violation of
generally accepted accounting principles to artificially inflate
its stock price in order to complete acquisitions in which its
stock was used as consideration, selling shares of its common
stock while in possession of material adverse non-public
information regarding its financial statements and securing
personal loans using its allegedly artificially inflated stock
price.

In July 2003, these lawsuits were consolidated for all purposes.
Plaintiffs amended their consolidated complaint to add a claim
that the Company's Chief Executive Officer and its former Chief
Financial Officer violated Section 304 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, seeking recovery from them of bonuses, equity-based
compensation and profits realized from sales of securities of
the company. A motion to dismiss the actions was filed, and on
January 26, 2004, the motion was granted and judgment was
entered against the plaintiffs. An appeal of that decision was
filed on February 24, 2004.

In May 2003, another purported shareholder derivative lawsuit
was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Texas (Dallas Division) against the Company's Chief
Executive Officer, its former Chief Financial Officer and its
directors, naming the company as a nominal defendant. The
complaint alleges that the Company's Chief Executive Officer and
our former Chief Financial Officer violated Section 304 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and seeks recovery from them of
bonuses, equity-based compensation and profits realized from
sales of securities of the company.  The lawsuit also names the
Company's directors for failing to seek recovery of the
aforementioned bonuses, equity-based compensation and trading
profits.  A motion to dismiss was filed, and on February 26,
2004, the motion was granted and judgment was entered against
the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs did not appeal that decision, and the
judgment against them is final.

As stated, these lawsuits are or were derivative in nature; they
do not and did not seek relief from the company. However, the
Company entered into indemnification agreements in the ordinary
course of business with certain of the defendant officers and
directors, and it advanced payment of legal fees and costs
incurred by the defendants pursuant to its obligations under the
indemnification agreements and/or applicable Delaware law.

On May 7, 2004, the Company reached a definitive agreement to
settle the class action and derivative litigation referred to
above. Under the agreement, the total settlement amount was
$85.0 million, which included $43.0 million that was covered by
the Company's insurance policies and $42.0 million that was paid
by the company.  To fund a portion of the $42.0 million payable
by the company in connection with this settlement, the company
entered into definitive agreements providing for the issuance
and sale by the company, after the satisfaction of certain
conditions, of $20.0 million of common stock to Sanjiv Sidhu,
its current Chairman and former Chief Executive Officer and
President, and $2.0 million of common stock to Gregory Brady,
its former Chief Executive Officer and President, both of whom
were individual defendants in the actions.  On May 26, 2004, the
sale of common stock to Sanjiv Sidhu closed and funded.  On
December 14, 2004, the sale of common stock to Gregory Brady
closed and funded.

The settlement, which does not reflect any admission of
wrongdoing by the Company or its directors and officers, was
subject to certain conditions including approval by the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Texas following
notice to class members of an opportunity to object or exclude
themselves from the settlement.  On June 24, 2004, the court
entered an order, inter alia, preliminarily approving the
settlement, authorizing the distribution of notice of the
settlement to potential class members and setting a hearing for
final approval of the settlement for October 1, 2004. On October
1, 2004, the court entered an order and final judgment approving
the settlement. Approximately 0.015% of potential class members,
who claim to have purchased a total of approximately 0.3% of the
shares of our stock eligible to participate in the class action,
excluded themselves from the settlement. Two parties who
objected to the settlement solely on grounds relating to the
award of attorneys' fees filed a notice of appeal on October 27,
2004. On November 22, 2004, the appellants filed a Notice of
Withdrawal of Appeal. On November 29, 2004, the court entered an
order granting the motion to withdraw the appeal and the
settlement is now final.  


I2 TECHNOLOGIES: TX Court Refuses To Lift Automatic Stay of Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Texas, Dallas Division refused plaintiffs' motion seeking the
lifting of the automatic stay of the lawsuit filed against i2
Technologies, Inc. and certain of its current and former
officers and directors, styled "Baldridge v. Sidhu, case no.
3:04CV-319-D."

On February 13, 2004, a complaint was filed against certain of
the Company's current and former officers and directors, but the
Company was not initially named as a defendant in this action.
The complaint asserts claims under the federal securities laws,
specifically Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, relating to the 2003 restatement of the Company's
consolidated financial statements.  Plaintiffs contend that such
consolidated financial statements caused the Company's stock
price to be artificially inflated.  The complaint seeks
unspecified damages on behalf of four purported purchasers of a
total of 610,250 shares of the Company's common stock from March
2001 through August 2002.  On June 24, 2004, plaintiffs filed a
first amended complaint seeking substantially the same relief as
sought in the original complaint. On August 6, 2004, motions on
behalf of all of the defendants to dismiss the first amended
complaint were filed. On February 16, 2005, the court granted a
motion to add the company as a defendant in this action.  On
February 17, 2005, the court denied the plaintiff's motion to
lift the automatic discovery stay.


ITT EDUCATIONAL: Plaintiffs File Consolidated IN Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a consolidated securities class action against
ITT Educational Services, Inc. and ten of its current and former
directors and executive officers in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Indiana, styled "City of
Austin Police Retirement System, Individually And On Behalf Of
All Others Similarly Situated v. ITT Educational Services, Inc.,
et al."

This action is a result of the court's June 18, 2004 order to
consolidate 13 separate securities class action lawsuits filed
from February 26, 2004 through April 23, 2004.  The consolidated
complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by engaging in an unlawful course
of conduct, pursuant to which the defendants knowingly or
recklessly engaged in acts, transactions, practices and courses
of business to conceal adverse material information about the
Company's financial condition, and that this conduct operated as
a fraud and deceit upon the plaintiffs.  

The complaint also alleges that the defendants made various
deceptive and untrue statements of material facts and omitted to
state material facts necessary in order to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which they were made,
not misleading to the plaintiffs, causing the plaintiffs to
purchase the Company's securities at artificially inflated
prices.  The putative class period in this action is from
October 17, 2002 through March 8, 2004.  The plaintiffs seek,
among other things, an award of unspecified compensatory
damages, interest, costs, expenses and attorney's fees.

The suit is styled "CITY OF AUSTIN POLICE RETIREMENT SYSTEM v.
ITT EDUCATIONAL SERVICES, INC. et al., case no. 1:04-cv-00380-
DFH-TAB," filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana, under Judge David Frank Hamilton.  
Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) 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;

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

     (3) The Brualdi Law Firm, 29 Broadway - Suite 1515, New
         York, NY, 10006, Phone: 212.952.0602, Fax:
         212.952.0608


ITT EDUCATIONAL: Plaintiffs Dismiss ERISA Violations Suit in IN
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the class action filed against
ITT Educational Services, Inc., its internal committee that
administers its 401(k) retirement savings plan (the "Plan"), the
chairperson of that committee and a number of other unnamed
entities and individuals, in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Indiana, styled "William Curry,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
ITT Educational Services, Inc., et al."

The complaint alleged, among other things, that the defendants
breached their fiduciary duties under Section 502 of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) that are owed to
the participants and beneficiaries of the Plan by failing to
prudently manage the Plan's assets.  Allegedly, the breach arose
from the Plan's holding and acquisition of its common stock when
the defendants knew or should have known that its common stock
was not a suitable and appropriate investment for the Plan.  The
complaint alleged that the Company's common stock was an
inappropriate investment, because the Company supposedly
misrepresented its operational success and the subsequent
disclosure of those misrepresentations caused the price of the
Company's common stock to decrease.

As a result of this decrease in the price of the Company's
common stock, the complaint alleged that the value of the Plan
assets suffered losses.  The plaintiff sought to certify this
action as a class action to include all participants in the Plan
and their beneficiaries, excluding the defendants and their
immediate family members, for whose accounts the Plan
fiduciaries made or maintained investments in the Company's
common stock from October 17, 2002 through March 18, 2004.  The
plaintiff also sought, among other things:

     (1) a declaration that the defendants breached their
         fiduciary duties under ERISA to the Plan;

     (2) to require the defendants to restore to the Plan all
         losses resulting from the alleged imprudent investment
         of the Plan's assets;

     (3) to require the defendants to restore to the Plan all
         profits that the defendants made through their use of
         the Plan's assets;

     (4) to require the defendants to restore to the Plan all
         profits that the Plan would have realized had the
         defendants fulfilled their fiduciary obligations under
         ERISA;

     (5) other unspecified equitable restitution and monetary
         relief;

     (6) a constructive trust with respect to any unjust
         enrichment received by the defendants at the expense of
         the Plan as a result of the defendants' alleged breach
         of their fiduciary duties under ERISA;

     (7) to enjoin the defendants from further violating their
         fiduciary duties under ERISA;

     (8) the appointment of independent fiduciaries to
         administer the Plan; and

     (9) costs and attorneys' fees.

The plaintiff filed a notice to voluntarily dismiss this action
on January 25, 2005, and the court dismissed this action without
prejudice on the same date.

The suit is styled "CURRY v. ITT EDUCATIONAL SERVICES, INC. et
al, case no. 1:04-cv-02038-DFH-TAB," filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, under Judge
David Frank Hamilton.  Representing the plaintiffs are;

     (i) Joseph Gentile and Ronnen Sarraf, SARRAF GENTILE LLP,
         111 John Street 8th Floor New York, NY 10038 Phone:
         212-433-1312 Fax: 212-406-3677;

    (ii) Charles J. Piven, The Law Offices of Charles J. Piven,
         P.A. The World Trade Center-Baltimore Suite 2525 401
         East Pratt Street Baltimore, MD 21202 Phone: 410-332-
         0030

   (iii) John R. Price, JOHN R PRICE & ASSOCIATES 9000 Keystone
         Crossing Suite 150 Indianapolis, IN 46240 Phone:
         (317)844-8822 Fax: (317)844-7766 E-mail:
         john@johnpricelaw.com  

    (iv) Kenneth J. Vianale, VIANALE & VIANALE LLP The Plaza
         Suite 8015355 Town Center Road Boca Raton, FL 33486
         Phone: 561-391-4900 Fax: 561-368-9274

Representing the defendants are:

     (a) Daniel K. Burke, Thomas Eugene Mixdorf, Philip A.
         Whistler, ICE MILLER One American Square P O Box 82001
         Indianapolis, IN 46282 Phone: (317) 236-2181 Fax: (317)
         592-4815 E-mail: daniel.burke@icemiller.com,
         thomas.mixdorf@icemiller.com or
         philip.whistler@icemiller.com

     (b) Joseph P. Busch, III, Erich D. Schiefelbine, Wayne W.
         Smith, GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP Jamboree Center 4
         Park Plaza, Suite 1400 Irvine, CA 92614-8557, Phone:
         949-451-4108 or 949-475-5709, E-mail:
         eschiefelbine@gibsondunn.com, wsmith@gibsondunn.com  


KVH INDUSTRIES: Asks RI Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
KVH Industries, Inc. asked the United States District Court for
the District of Rhode Island to dismiss the consolidated
securities class action filed against it and certain of its
officers.

The suit asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 under that
statute, as well as claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15
under the Securities Act of 1933, on behalf of purchasers of our
securities in the period between October 1, 2003 and July 2,
2004. The Teamsters Affiliates Pension Plan has been appointed
lead plaintiff.  This matter consolidates into one action eight
separate complaints filed between July 21, 2004 and September
15, 2004.

On January 14, 2005, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss
the consolidated complaint for failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted. The court has not yet acted on the
defendants' motion.


MEDTRONIC: Rheingold Valet Files Suit Over Faulty Defibrillators
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Rheingold, Valet, Rheingold, Shkolnik &
McCartney LLP commenced a class action on behalf of users of
several types of defibrillators made by Medtronic (NYSE: MDT), a
Minnesota manufacturer of medical devices. The devices have
batteries in them, which can fail without warning, due to
shorting. They would then not be able to deliver the electrical
jolt required if a user developed potentially life-threatening
arrhythmias.

The suit has been commenced in the federal court in Brooklyn New
York, by Raymond Manners, who had to have his Medtronic
defibrillator replaced, and is on behalf of all persons who have
had one of these potentially defective devices inserted. It
seeks the costs of removal and replacement of the devices, which
must be done surgically; a fund for medical monitoring of
persons who have the device in them; and other relief including
making a firmer warning to physicians and the public about the
risks of the devices.

The devices involved are:

     (1) implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: Marquis VR
         (7230) and DR (7274), and Maximo VR (7278)

     (2) cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillators:  
         InSync I /II /III Marquis and Insync III Project (7277,
         7289)

The defective batteries were in some 87,000 units sold in the
period 2001 to 2003.

Medtronic issued a public statement about these devices in
February but did not couch it as a warning and did not inform
doctors that the devices should be replaced. Nor did it offer in
the statement to pay for replacement. Its conduct in the United
States is to be compared with its statement in Canada, as guided
by that country's health agency, where Medtronic offered to pay
for a replacement and gave physicians specific directions about
how to detect a failing battery.

For more details, contact Paul Rheingold of Rheingold, Valet,
Rheingold, Shkolnik & McCartney LLP by Phone: +1-212-684-1880 or
212-684-1880 or visit their Web site:
http://www.rheingoldlaw.com.


MICHIGAN: U-M Students, Professors Lodge Suit Over Denied Parole
----------------------------------------------------------------
In a recently filed class action lawsuit, University of Michigan
students and professors charge that hundreds of Michigan
prisoners sentenced to life with the possibility of parole in
the 1970s and 1980s have been wrongly denied any real
consideration of early release, The Detroit News reports.

According to the suit, about 800 Michigan prisoners are serving
life sentences and believed there was a possibility of parole,
most of whom were convicted of second-degree murder. The suit
also states that until 1992, a life sentence for any serious
crime except first-degree murder meant inmates would typically
serve 10 to 25 years and be released if they behaved well in
prison. However, since the law changed, the parole board has
repeatedly refused to consider release for nearly all offenders
serving life offenses.

Some Michigan judges say they never intended to sentence
criminals to life in prison reasoning that they only gave them a
life sentence to ensure that they would have to reform in prison
to be released, rather than give them a fixed sentence. The
judge also stated that what makes the situation more unfair, is
today people convicted of second-degree murder rarely draw a
life sentence because the state uses sentencing guidelines.

The U-M students and professors who have spent a decade
researching the issue had filed the class-action lawsuit last
week on behalf of seven inmates who have been repeatedly denied
parole in U.S. District Court in Detroit.

"It's terribly unfair to keep people in prison for far longer
than the judges who sentenced them intended," David Moran, a
Wayne State University law professor told the Detroit News.

Wayne County Circuit Judge Brian Sullivan echoes the same
sentiment regarding the board's actions. Mr. Sullivan, a former
prosecutor, has presided over more than 500 criminal trials,
including more than 100 murder trials in the past seven years on
the bench. He told the Detroit News, "What the parole board has
done is unilaterally convert a parolable sentence into an
unparolable one. That is an extreme position that can deprive
people of hope. That doesn't mean they should get parole - but
they should have the chance." Today, almost no one convicted of
second-degree murder draws a life sentence, he adds.

The parole board is "very selective" in who it is willing to
release, Leo LaLonde, a spokesman for the state Department of
Corrections, told the Detroit News which is also named in the
suit. He said, "They look at the sentence and it was life. Life
means life. The judges could have given him or her a sentence of
15 or 30 years."

The change in the parole laws can be traced back to the case of
paroled sex offender Leslie Allen Williams, who admitted to
killing four teenage girls in Oakland and Genesee counties after
his release from prison in 1990. After that tragic incident then
Governor John Engler and the state Legislature replaced the
civil service board with a 10-member board made up of political
appointees who have been far more reluctant to grant parole.
Inmates now receive only a review every five years, aren't
guaranteed an in-person hearing and often get a form stamped "No
Interest," which doesn't include any written opinion explaining
the denial.

The U-M suit highlights a number of cases in which judges or
wardens have sought the release of model prisoners who have
served lengthy sentences. In some cases, according to the suit,
defense lawyers recommended their clients plead guilty and
accept a life sentence, rather than a 20- to 40-year sentence.

John Alexander, a plaintiff in the class-action suit, was
convicted of second-degree murder in 1981 and Wayne County
Circuit Judge Michael Sapala sentenced him to life with a chance
of parole. " If you show some kind of progress some years down
the line that indicates you should be released, they will
release you," he told the Detroit News. In 2002, Judge Sapala
re-sentenced Mr. Alexander, saying the parole board had ignored
the law in not releasing him. In an interview, Judge Sapala said
the parole board's actions aren't rational. "This is a tragedy,
a complete waste to keep these people locked up," he said.

William Sleeper pled guilty to second-degree murder charges in
1966 in Oakland County when he was 17. The Farmington ninth-
grade dropout admitted to stabbing an 80-year-old widow 58 times
and stealing $65 from her purse. Today, Mr. Sleeper, 57, has
completed prison educational and rehabilitation programs. In
1988, the full parole board voted unanimously that he should
have a public hearing. However, for unexplained reasons later
described as a clerical error, the board didn't vote to process
his case until July 1992. Then the new parole board vetoed his
parole. In 1998, the board expressed "no interest" in his
request and again in 2003.


PENNSYLVANIA: Jury Rules Wyeth Not Liable For Fen-Phen Damages
--------------------------------------------------------------
In a decisive victory for Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, a unanimous
Philadelphia jury ruled that the pharmaceutical manufacturer
doesn't have to pay $5.5 million in potential damages that the
same jury had assessed in phase one of a trial for two Utah
women who claimed the diet-drug compound fen-phen damaged their
aortic heart valves, The Legal Intelligencer reports.

According to attorneys not involved with the trial, the verdict
is yet another discouraging result for the thousands of fen-phen
plaintiffs with cases pending in state court in Philadelphia.  
As previously reported in the April 1, 2005 edition of the Class
Action Reporter, the same Philadelphia state court jury had
ruled that two former users of Wyeth's Pondimin, which is part
of the fen-phen diet drug combination, deserve $5.5 million in
damages, while two others weren't seriously injured and
therefore should not get anything.  In that ruling, the jury
stated that the four plaintiffs, Utah residents who took the
diet drug for varying periods, showed symptoms of heart-valve
leakage. The liability phase of the trial, whose purpose is to
determine whether Wyeth must pay the damages, was set to follow
the jury verdict.

The trials are the latest in Philadelphia to focus on claims
concerning Wyeth's now-withdrawn diet drugs. Over the past eight
months, other Philadelphia juries have rejected claims by former
users or said individuals who once used the appetite suppressant
deserved as much as $780,000. The company still faces thousands
of other claims in the court.

Wyeth "needs to reconsider trying these cases," Houston-based
lawyer Rand Nolen, who represents Stephen Schultz, Marilyn
Lyman, Camille Olsen and Isabel Vega, the plaintiffs in the
Philadelphia cases, told the Intelligencer.  "What juries hear
is that these people have been hurt, and juries respond and
react to that."

Wyeth removed the diet drugs Pondimin and Redux from the market
in 1997 after researchers linked them to heart and lung problems
in some users. Those drugs were used with the generic
phentermine in the fen-phen combination. Doctors wrote more than
6 million prescriptions for the diet-pill combination, which
included Wyeth's Pondimin or Redux drugs and the generic drug
phentermine, before the products were pulled off the market in
1997. The company withdrew the drugs from pharmacies after
researchers linked them to heart problems and a fatal lung
disease in some users.

After nearly four days of testimony in the liability phase of
the trial, the eight-member jury concluded that Wyeth
negligently failed to provide reasonable information concerning
the risk of heart-valve damage to the doctors who prescribed the
diet drug Pondimin to the plaintiffs.  The plaintiffs' elation
at the first ruling was short lived, however, since the same
jury found out that this failure did not cause the plaintiffs'
doctors to prescribe them the drug.  

Wyeth's trial counsel, Robert Limbacher of the Dechert firm,
told the Intelligencer the verdict significant because "it
clearly validates what we've been saying all along -- that we
acted promptly and responsibly once we became aware of the
potential connection between the diet drug and valvular heart
disease."  Mr. Limbacher tried the case with a Dechert
colleague, Andrew Gaddes, before Common Pleas Judge Gary Glazer.

The most recent verdict was announced after the jurors
deliberated for approximately five hours following the liability
portion of a two-phase trial.  At the conclusion of the first
phase, the jury awarded $5 million to Isabel Vega, 54, who took
Pondimin for 13 months, and $500,000 to Camille Olsen, who took
Pondimin for a year. Lawyers for the plaintiffs said the $5
million award issued March 31 was the largest verdict for a fen-
phen plaintiff alleging heart-valve damage since the national
multibillion-dollar class action settlement of fen-phen
litigation in 1999.  In the second, or liability, phase, which
began a week ago, the jury considered whether Wyeth should be
responsible for the damages.

The plaintiffs' attorneys were Rand P. Nolen and Scott A. Love
of Fleming & Associates in Houston and Cynthia A. Clark of
Bochetto & Lentz in Philadelphia. George Fleming, who works with
Nolen and Love, said they would file a motion asking Judge
Glazer to enter a judgment of $5.5 million against Wyeth.


PFIZER INC.: German Lawyer Prepares Lawsuit Over Arthritis Drug
---------------------------------------------------------------
German lawyer Michael Witti and the U.S. law firm Nagel Rice &
Mazie are preparing a class action lawsuit against drugs giant
Pfizer Inc. (NYSE: PFE) over claims relating to its arthritis
drug Bextra, The Reuters News Agency reports.

Mr. Witti told Reuters by telephone from Munich, "We have 12 to
15 persons from Europe claiming that they had skin problems
after taking Bextra. We expect many more European patients
coming forward in the next weeks, but overall numbers will be
fairly small." He also said that his U.S. partners had "a few
very strong cases, enough to file a class action" that would be
filed in the next few days in New Jersey.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration had singled out Bextra for
suspension because it gave no added advantage as a painkiller
and could cause a potentially life-threatening skin condition
called Stevens-Johnson syndrome, an allergic reaction that
usually begins as a blistering of the mouth and lips and can
spread to the rest of the body. The U.S. Food and Drug
Administration also asked Pfizer to add a "black box" warning,
which is the strongest possible, to the label of its painkiller
Celebrex.

Bextra and Celebrex belong to a class of drugs known as COX-2
inhibitors, which also include Merck & Co.'s Vioxx, a drug
withdrawn last year because it increased the risk of stroke and
heart attack.

In addition Mr. Witti told Reueters taht he was also involved in
contributing European cases to a class action suit by the same
U.S. law firm on Vioxx.


PRG SCHULTZ: Fairness Hearing For Suit Settlement Set May 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------
Final fairness hearing for the settlement of the consolidated
securities class action filed against PRG Schultz International,
Inc. is set for May 26,2005 in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division.

Beginning on June 6, 2000, three putative class action lawsuits
were filed against the Company and certain of its present and
former officers.  These cases were subsequently consolidated
into one proceeding styled "In re Profit Recovery Group
International, Inc. Sec. Litigation, Civil Action File No. 1:00-
CV-1416-CC."  On November 13, 2000, the Plaintiffs in these
cases filed a Consolidated and Amended Complaint.  In that
Complaint, Plaintiffs allege that the Company, John M. Cook,
Scott L. Colabuono, the Company's former Chief Financial
Officer, and Michael A. Lustig, the Company's former Chief
Operating Officer, violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by allegedly disseminating false and misleading
information about a change in the Company's s method of
recognizing revenue and in connection with revenue reported for
a division.  Plaintiffs purport to bring this action on behalf
of a class of persons who purchased the Company's stock between
July 19, 1999 and July 26, 2000.  Plaintiffs seek an unspecified
amount of compensatory damages, payment of litigation fees and
expenses, and equitable and/or injunctive relief.

On January 24, 2001, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the
Complaint for failure to state a claim under the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act, 15 U.S.C. 78u-4 et seq.  The
Court denied Defendant's Motion to Dismiss on June 5, 2001.  
Defendants served their Answer to Plaintiffs' Complaint on June
19, 2001.  The Court granted Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification on December 3, 2002.

On February 8, 2005, the Company entered into a Stipulation of
Settlement of the Securities Class Action Litigation.  On
February 10, 2005, the Court preliminarily approved the terms of
the Settlement.  If approved by the Court, the Settlement is not
expected to require any financial contribution by the Company.  
Consistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the class
will be provided notice of the Settlement and given the right to
object or opt-out of the Settlement. Final settlement of the
consolidated class action is subject to final approval by the
Court.


PRIMUS TELECOMMUNICATIONS: VA Court Dismisses Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia dismissed the consolidated securities class action
filed against Primus Telecommunications Group, Inc. and four of
its officers, styled "In re Primus Telecommunications Group,
Incorporated Securities Litigation."

Plaintiffs sued on behalf of certain purchasers of Company
securities between February 14, 2003 and July 29, 2004.  In
December 2004, the plaintiffs filed their Consolidated and
Amended Complaint.  Plaintiffs alleged that the Primus
Defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act
and Rule 10b-5. Plaintiffs sought damages, among other things,
on the theory that the Primus Defendants fraudulently published
false and misleading statements and/or fraudulently concealed
adverse, non-public information about the Company, thereby
artificially inflating the price of its securities.

The suit also covered matters related to:

     (1) PTI's acquisition in 2002 of Cable & Wireless's
         customers in the United States and migration and
         attrition of such customers;

     (2) VOIP initiatives and challenges faced by Primus with
         respect to launching the various VOIP products; and

     (3) the Company's network and decisions to lease capacity
         versus purchase capacity.

The Primus Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the suit in
January 2005.  On March 11, 2005, the court dismissed the suit
with prejudice. The court ruled that plaintiffs would not be
permitted to amend further their complaint.


SECOND CHANCE: LA Law Firm Seeks Class Action Over Faulty Vests
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Louisiana law firm is seeking a class-action claim against
Second Chance Body Armor over the alleged faulty performance of
some models of its bulletproof vests, The Traverse City Record
Eagle reports.

The claim, if approved by the federal judge overseeing Second
Chance's Chapter 11 bankruptcy case, would allow any police
officer or agency nationwide to join the class and seek
compensation from Second Chance if they purchased, used or still
use company vests containing the synthetic Zylon.

Attorney Allan Kanner told the Eagle the action "is certainly
the most efficient and fair way to get a global resolution" of
vest-owner claims against Second Chance. Mr. Kanner's firm
already represents a nationwide class action against Zylon
manufacturer Toyobo Corporation of Japan and its American
subsidiary. A similar action against Second Chance in that
Oklahoma court proceeding was forestalled when the vest-maker
filed for bankruptcy, Mr. Kanner said.

Second Chance had recalled its 100 percent Zylon vests in
September 2003, after testing revealed they prematurely lost
bullet resistance. The move came less than three months after a
California police officer was killed and a Pennsylvania officer
seriously injured when bullets penetrated their Second Chance
Zylon vests.

In his court motion, Mr. Kanner stated that Second Chance
executives recognized by fall 2001 that company vests
prematurely degraded. "However, instead of recalling the vests
as they should have, Second Chance continued to sell the vests
to make a profit," Mr. Kanner's motion further stated.

Second Chance announced a remedial program for officers using
possibly ineffective vests at the same time it pulled its Zylon
vests from the market in September 2003. However, that program,
featuring vest insert panels and discount credits toward the
purchase of other Second Chance vests, violated the five-year
warranty officers received when they purchased vests for up to
$1,350 each, Mr. Kanner said. He told the City Eagle, "The
remedial program was telling the world, 'We're not going to
honor our warranty unless you sue.'"

Mr. Kanner told the City Eagle that a class action is
appropriate because claimants all face the same problem with
similarly degrading vests. He also explains that handling all
claims in one suit, rather than thousands of individual officers
or departments attempting litigation, is more efficient and
cost-effective for all involved, including the court and Second
Chance.

Officers may only receive "pennies on the dollar" in
compensation, but Mr. Kanner's firm intends to go after both
Second Chance and Toyobo vigorously, he said. He told the City
Eagle, "The only argument Second Chance has is, 'It's all
Toyobo's fault.' And the only argument Toyobo has is, 'It's the
other guy's fault.' I think a jury is going to crucify both of
them. You don't play it this way when you're dealing with cops."


SEQUA CORPORATION: Working To Settle PA Contamination Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sequa Corporation is still working for the final remedy for the
class action filed against it in Pennsylvania State Court, in
connection with alleged groundwater contamination in the
vicinity of a predecessor corporation site which operated during
the 1960s and early 1970s in Dublin, Pennsylvania.  The Borough
of Dublin filed the suit, seeking remediation of alleged
contamination of the Borough's water supply and damages in an
unspecified amount.

A settlement was reached in the class action in which Sequa paid
$1.8 million in 1997. The Borough action was settled in 1998
when Sequa paid $2.0 million to the Borough and agreed to
transfer to the Borough the water treatment system it
constructed. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection entered into a Consent Decree with Sequa in 1990
providing for the performance of a remedial investigation and
feasibility study with respect to the same alleged groundwater
contamination in Dublin. The US Environmental Protection Agency
placed the site on the Superfund List in 1990 and, in
conjunction therewith, entered into a Consent Agreement with
Sequa on December 31, 1990.  The negotiation for the final
remedy is still in progress.


SOUTH KOREA: Families Sue Maker, Government For Soju Negligence  
---------------------------------------------------------------
The families of deceased alcoholics and other victims of
alcoholism are suing Korea's largest manufacturer of soju or
traditional liquor and the Korean government for damages, The
Digital Chosun Ilbo reports.

Lee Myeong-sun and 59 other members of the Alcohol Consumer
Rights Protection Center recently filed a class action lawsuit,
demanding W217 million ($217,000) in compensation for pain and
suffering.  According to the group, the warning message on
Jinro's soju bottles is vague and does not indicate the amount
it is safe to consume, which they say, "creates more victims of
alcoholism." They say the safe amount for men is four shots of
soju or three and one-third of a can of beer.

In addition, the center holds the Korean government liable for
not taking steps to reduce the production and sale of alcoholic
beverages although it is "fully aware that alcohol consumption
in Korea ranks first or second in the world, harming the health
of the citizens." It goes on to say that the government is
negligent in its duty to protect citizens from threats to their
life and property. Government and alcohol producers must
advertise the harmfulness of alcohol in order to minimize the
drinking population, the center adds, the Digital Chosun Ilbo
reports.


SOUTHERN PERU: Shareholders Launch Suit V. Minera Mexico Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Southern Peru Copper Corporation faces a consolidated class
action derivative lawsuit filed in the Delaware Court of
Chancery, New Castle County, relating to the proposed merger
transaction between the Company and Minera Mexico, S.A. de C.V.
(the "Transaction").

Three purported class action derivative lawsuits were initially
filed late in December 2004 and early January 2005, styled:

     (1) Lemon Bay, LLP v. Americas Mining Corporation, et al.,
         Civil Action No. 961-N,

     (2) Therault Trust v. Luis Palomino Bonilla, et al., and
         Southern Peru Copper Corporation, et al., Civil Action
         No. 969-N, and

     (3) James Sousa v. Southern Peru Copper Corporation, et
         al., Civil Action No. 978-N

The suits were later consolidated into one action titled, "In re
Southern Peru Copper Corporation Shareholder Derivative
Litigation, Consol. C.A. No. 961-N and the complaint filed in
"Lemon Bay" was designated as the operative complaint in the
consolidated lawsuit.

The consolidated action purports to be brought on behalf of the
Company's common stockholders.  The consolidated complaint
alleges, among other things, that the Transaction is the result
of breaches of fiduciary duties by the Company's directors and
is not entirely fair to the Company and its minority
stockholders.  The consolidated complaint seeks, among other
things, a preliminarily and permanent injunction to enjoin the
Transaction, the award of damages to the class, the award of
damages to the Company and such other relief that the court
deems equitable, including interest, attorneys' and experts'
fees and costs.


STEWART TITLE: Reaches Settlement For NY Consumer Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Stewart Title Insurance Company reached a settlement for the
class action filed in the Supreme Court State of New York,
against it, alleging that it directly and through its agencies
routinely collected excess premiums in connection with refinance
transactions.  Similar actions were brought against seven other
underwriters.

The Company denied culpability on a number of grounds.  In
February 2005, the Company reached a settlement with the
plaintiffs, subject to approval by the court, which would fully
and finally resolve all purposed claims of the plaintiffs.


UAL CORPORATION: IL Court Certifies Suit V. Stock Ownership Plan
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois granted class certification to the lawsuit filed
against the UAL Corporation Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP)
and the ESOP Committee by certain ESOP participants seeking
monetary damages.

The suit alleges that that the ESOP Committee breached its
fiduciary duty by not selling UAL stock held by the ESOP
commencing as of July 19, 2001.  The complaint cites numerous
events and disclosures that allegedly should have alerted the
ESOP Committee to the need to sell the shares. The ESOP
Committee appointed State Street Bank and Trust Company ("State
Street") in September 2002 to act as fiduciary, and State Street
started selling the shares in September 2002 when the stock was
trading between $1 and $5 per share.

Members of the purported class have also filed claims against
the Company in the Chapter 11 proceeding asserting that the
Company also is liable for the failure to sell the ESOP shares.
The Company has $10 million in fiduciary insurance in place to
cover some portion of any liability and has a pre-petition
obligation to indemnify the ESOP Committee members beyond that
coverage, which indemnification obligation may or may not be
assumed as part of the Company's plan of reorganization. The
parties have entered into a stipulation under which the
plaintiffs have agreed to proceed only against the insurance
proceeds. The plaintiffs have also added State Street as a
defendant. State Street has a pre-petition indemnification
claim against the Company under its Investment Manager Agreement
as Trustee of the ESOP and has filed a contingent indemnity
claim in the Bankruptcy Court.  On February 17, 2005, the
District Court certified this matter to proceed as a class
action on behalf of all participants in the ESOP.


UNISOURCE ENERGY: AZ Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of the State of Arizona dismissed the class
action filed against UniSource Energy Corporation and its
directors on behalf of the holders of the Company's Common
Stock, styled "Pennsylvania Ave. Event Driven Fund v. UniSource
Energy Corp., et al."

The Pennsylvania Avenue Event Driven Fund filed the suit in
August 2004 on behalf of the holders of the Company's common
stock, relating to the proposed acquisition of the Company by an
affiliate of Saguaro Utility.  The plaintiff alleges, among
other things, that members of UniSource Energy's board of
directors breached their fiduciary duties to UniSource Energy's
shareholders in connection with the proposed acquisition by
tailoring the acquisition to meet the specific needs of Saguaro
Utility and basing the acquisition on financial results of
UniSource Energy that were subsequently restated to recognize
additional net income, an earlier Class Action Reporter story
(November 26,2004) states.

The plaintiff sought to enjoin the acquisition, which was
approved by shareholders of UniSource Energy in March 2004.  The
lawsuit requests an order:

     (1) declaring that the action is properly maintainable as a
         class action;

     (2) decreeing that the acquisition agreement was entered
         into in breach of the directors' fiduciary duties and
         is therefore unlawful and unenforceable;

     (3) enjoining the consummation of the acquisition until a
         new sale process is adopted;

     (4) ordering directors to exercise their fiduciary duties
         to obtain a transaction that is in the best interest of
         UniSource Energy's shareholders;

     (5) rescinding, to the extent implemented, the acquisition;
         and

     (6) awarding the plaintiff the costs of its action,
         including attorney's and experts' fees



UNITED STATES: Attorney Says Suing Under RICO Hurts Other Groups
----------------------------------------------------------------
A protracted class action lawsuit attempts to use racketeering
laws against anti-abortion groups, The Aberdeen American News
reports.

Thomas Brejcha of Chicago, a noted anti-abortion lawyer, who is
the lead defense attorney in the case of NOW vs. Scheidler,
which has been in litigation since 1986, told the Aberdeen
American those laws actually pose a bigger threat to civil
rights and animal rights groups.

Originally, the National Organization for Women and a chain of
abortion clinics had brought the suit against a number of
abortion protesters.  Mr. Brejcha asserts that the issue is
whether a federal statute called the Hobbs Act, which typically
applies to robbery or extortion affecting interstate commerce,
can apply to any kind of attempted or threatened violence
against persons or property. If there were a pattern of those
acts, a group could be sued under RICO (the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations statute).

Even though anti-abortion forces are "supposedly a conservative
or right-wing" movement, "we're side by side here with civil
rights groups," peace groups and animal rights groups, Mr.
Brejcha told the Aberdeen American.  He also said that he
himself went out and recruited many of those groups to support
the defendants before the Supreme Court, and "RICO is more of a
danger to those groups than to the pro-life movement."

Anti-abortionists are already regulated by FACE, the Freedom of
Access to Clinic Entrances Act. "It says they cannot block
access to a facility where abortions are performed, and if they
do, it's a federal crime," and a violation of the FACE act, Mr.
Brejcha continued. "That act is uniquely applicable to abortion
protest," he says. "It's not applicable to the animal rights and
civil rights and peace groups."

The NOW vs. Scheidler lawsuit has "been up to the U.S. Supreme
Court twice, and believe it or not, we're knocking on the door
again with the likelihood that we'll be there for a third time
in a matter of a few months," said Mr. Brejcha, who's the head
of the Thomas More Society.

That organization takes up a lot of cases around the country,
but NOW vs. Scheidler "still remains the flagship, as the Boston
Globe called it, of the efforts to suppress abortion protest in
the country," Mr. Brejcha told the Aberdeen American.


UNITED STATES: Plaintiffs Appeal NY Ruling On Agent Orange Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers for the Vietnamese plaintiffs whose lawsuit against U.S.
chemical manufacturers of Agent Orange was dismissed last month
have appealed the ruling, The Associated Press reports.

According to Tran Xuan Thu, general secretary of the Vietnam
Association for Victims of Agent Orange, the appeals were filed
in federal court in Brooklyn, New York. He told AP, "We appealed
because the ruling by the U.S. federal judge was irrational."

As previously reported in the March 12, 2005 edition of the
Class Action Reporter, Judge Jack Weinstein of the U.S. District
Court in the New York borough of Brooklyn dismissed the class
action lawsuit, which was filed on behalf some 4 million
Vietnamese that charged American chemical companies with
committing war crimes by supplying the military with the
defoliant Agent Orange.

Filed the year before, the suit had sought what could have been
billions of dollars in damages and the environmental cleanup of
Vietnam. The case had drawn international attention for its
charges about Agent Orange, a widely used defoliant by the U.S.
military to clear the Vietnam's jungles until 1971. U.S.
aircraft sprayed more than 21 million gallons of the chemical
from 1962 to 1971 in attempts to destroy crops and remove
foliage used as cover by communist forces.

In the suit, plaintiffs charge that the defoliant, which
contained the highly toxic substance dioxin, left a legacy of
poison in Vietnam that caused birth defects, cancer and other
health problems and amounted to a violation of international
law.

However, Judge Weinstein, sided with the chemical companies and
the Justice Department, which had argued that supplying the
defoliant did not amount to a war crime.  In his ruling the
judge specifically wrote, "No treaty or agreement, express or
implied, of the United States operated to make use of herbicides
in Vietnam a violation of the laws of war or any other form of
international law until at the earliest April of 1975."  The
judge also found that the plaintiffs could not prove that Agent
Orange had caused their illnesses, largely because of a lack of
large-scale research.

By 1975, President Gerald Ford had adopted a national policy
renouncing the first use of herbicides in warfare. In that same
year, the Senate also ratified an international Geneva accord
dating from 1925, which outlawed the use of poisonous gases
during war.

The lawsuit was the first attempt by Vietnamese plaintiffs to
seek compensation for the effects of Agent Orange, which is
laden with the highly toxic chemical dioxin and has been linked
to cancer, diabetes and birth defects among Vietnamese soldiers,
civilians and American veterans.

Attorneys for Monsanto, Dow Chemical and more than a dozen other
companies had said they should not be punished for following
what they believed to be the legal orders of the nation's
commander in chief, AP reports.  They argued that international
law generally exempts corporations, as opposed to individuals,
from liability for alleged war crimes.

Mr. Thu though said their attorneys are compiling data on
another 300 victims of Agent Orange that would be added to the
appeal. The Vietnamese government has said the United States has
a moral responsibility for damage to its citizens and
environment but has never sought compensation for victims.


WASHINGTON: $500T Brain Harvesting Claim Launched V. King County
----------------------------------------------------------------
A North Carolina woman initiated a $500,000 claim against King
County alleging that its medical examiner's office harvested her
dead brother's brain for research without permission seven years
ago, The Associated Press reports.

Bobbi Amaker of Fayetteville, N.C, filed the claim, which is the
first step toward suing the county. It is, according to experts,
the first legal action in the state of Washington concerning a
brain-collection program at the Stanley Medical Research
Institute in Bethesda, Maryland. Lawsuits have already been
filed in Maine alleging that brains were taken there without
full consent.

Court documents show that the nonprofit Stanley institute
awarded the King County Medical Examiner's Office in Seattle
$147,500 a year from 1995-2002, and $204,000 in 2003, to hire a
pathologist and technical support to provide brain and other
tissue from the bodies of schizophrenic or bipolar people to its
laboratory, which researches mental illness and provides brain
tissue samples to other researchers worldwide.

The documents further show that over the course of the grant,
which ended in mid-2004, the office provided Stanley with 255
brains, one of which was that of Bradley Gierlich, Mrs. Amaker's
brother, who died in October 1998, according to James Apa, a
spokesman for the county health department. Mr. Apa acknowledged
that the county reviewed 186 cases of brain harvesting from 1998
to 2004, and Mr. Gierlich's was the only one for which the
medical examiner's office could not find a written consent form.

The office did find, however, a record of a follow-up interview
with Mr. Gierlich's aunt a month or so later to determine more
information about his mental condition - and that interview
would never have been conducted had the office not believed it
had consent, Mr. Apa told AP. According to him "We do not have
the consent form on file. It appears there was a
misunderstanding with the family. The medical examiner made
several attempts to contact the family to express our regret."

Mr. Apa also told AP that he could not comment on the claim
itself or whether the county intended to pay it. He emphasized
though that, contrary to a recent Seattle television news
report, the medical examiner's office was not paid for the
brains it collected and in no way profited from the program. The
grant money merely covered the cost of the pathologist and
technical support.

Mr. Gierlich, who was labeled mentally retarded as a child and
began using drugs in early adulthood, died of a heroin overdose
at age 41. Mrs. Amaker, an occupational therapist who suspects
her brother was actually autistic, told AP she did not learn his
brain had been removed until she was contacted recently by a
reporter from the Portland Press Herald in Maine - long after
she had her brother's remains cremated.


WASHINGTON: Latina Childcare Workers Launches Lawsuit V. DSHS
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nine Latina childcare workers from Mattawa launched a lawsuit
seeking class action status against Washington's Department of
Social and Health Services (DSHS), charging that investigators
from the agency barged into their homes and seized personal
records in violation of the women's constitutional rights, The
Seattle Post Intelligencer reports.

The suit, which was filed in Thurston County Superior Court,
also alleges that the department discriminates against childcare
workers on the basis of ethnicity and language.  Represented by
Columbia Legal Services, the workers are seeking damages from
Mattawa and the state social services agency contending that the
mayor of Mattawa falsely accused them of billing the state for
"phantom children" after using town employees to spy on the
Latina caregivers.

According to the suit, those actions, culminated in a 2002 raid
on the homes of 47 workers, organized by DSHS. In it, undercover
immigration agents intimidated the women by demanding their
immigration records, even though no such documents were listed
on any department subpoena.

In a press statement, Maria Chavez, 58, who is one of the
caregivers told the Post Intelligencer, "They were shouting at
me and intimidating me. The kids were crying and crying, holding
onto me. They were terrified."

The suit is thus asking a judge to demand that DSHS
investigators present a warrant when entering family homes of
licensed child care providers, and advise home day care
providers of their right to counsel. "This would protect all day
care workers around the state," said Joe Morrison, a lawyer
representing the women.  Several other childcare workers from
the Mattawa raid are involved in a previously filed federal
suit, seeking damages from the state.


WEBMD CORPORATION: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Lawsuit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against WebMD
Corporation, certain of its former officers and directors and
the underwriters of the Company's (then known as Healtheon)
initial public offering, namely Morgan Stanley & Co. and Goldman
Sachs & Co.

In the summer and fall of 2001, seven purported class action
lawsuits were filed in the wake of reports of governmental
investigations of the underwriters' practices in the
distribution of shares in certain initial public offerings.
Similar suits were filed in connection with over 300 other
initial public offerings that occurred in 1999, 2000 and 2001.

The complaints against the Company and its former officers and
directors alleged violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 under that Act and Section
11 of the Securities Act of 1933 because of failure to disclose
certain practices alleged to have occurred in connection with
the distribution of shares in the Healtheon IPO.  Claims under
Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 were also brought
against the underwriters.

These claims were consolidated, along with claims relating to
over 300 other initial public offerings, in the Southern
District of New York.  The plaintiffs have dismissed the claims
against the four former officers and directors of WebMD without
prejudice, pursuant to Reservation of Rights and Tolling
Agreements with those individuals.

On July 15, 2002, the issuer defendants in the consolidated
action, including the Company, filed a joint motion to dismiss
the consolidated complaints.  On February 18, 2003, the District
Court denied, with certain exceptions not relevant to the
Company, the issuer defendants' motion to dismiss.  After a
lengthy mediation under the auspices of former United States
District Judge Nicholas Politan, the issuer defendants in the
consolidated action (including WebMD), the affected insurance
companies and the plaintiffs reached an agreement on a
settlement to resolve the matter among the participating issuer
defendants, their insurers and the plaintiffs. The settlement
calls for the participating issuers' insurers jointly to
guarantee that plaintiffs recover a certain amount in the IPO
litigation and certain related litigation from the underwriters
and other non-settling defendants. Accordingly, in the event
that the guarantee becomes payable, the agreement calls for the
Company's insurance carriers, not the Company, to pay its pro
rata share.

The Company and virtually all of the approximately 260 other
issuer defendants who are eligible have also elected to
participate in the settlement.  Although the Company believes
that the claims alleged in the lawsuits were primarily directed
at the underwriters and, as they relate to the Company, were
without merit, it believes that the settlement is beneficial to
the Company because it reduces the time, expense and risks of
further litigation, particularly since virtually all of the
other issuer defendants will participate and its insurance
carriers strongly support the settlement.

On June 10, 2004, plaintiffs submitted to the court a
Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement with Defendant Issuers
and Individuals.  On February 15, 2005, the court certified the
proposed settlement class and preliminarily approved the
settlement, subject to certain modifications by the parties.  
Assuming these modifications are made, notice of the settlement
will be provided to the class members and the Court will
schedule a hearing for final approval of the settlement.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

BRADLEY PHARMACEUTICALS: Berger & Montague Lodges NJ Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Berger & Montague, P.C. initiated a class action
suit against Bradley Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Bradley" or the
"Company") (NYSE: BDY) and certain of its officers, in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on
behalf of all persons or entities who purchased Bradley
securities from October 8, 2003 through February 25, 2005 (the
"Class Period").

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 by the SEC 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.

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

For more details, contact Berger & Montague, P.C. by Mail: 1622
Locust Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103 by Phone: 800-424-6690 by
Fax: 215-875-4604 by E-mail: info@bm.net or visit their Web
site: http://www.bergermontague.com.  


COLLINS & AIKMAN: Berman DeValerio Lodges Securities Suit in MI
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo
initiated a class action in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan against Collins & Aikman
Corporation ("C&A" or the "Company") (NYSE: CKC), claiming that
the auto parts maker misled investors about its finances. The
lawsuit seeks damages for violations of federal securities laws
on behalf of all investors who purchased C&A common stock from
May 15, 2003 through and including March 17, 2005 (the "Class
Period").

The lawsuit claims that the defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the rules
and regulations promulgated thereunder, including U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") Rule 10b-5.

Although C&A reported steady revenues throughout the Class
Period, the Company's seemingly optimistic financial prospects
were the direct result of artificially inflated revenues caused
by improper accounting for supplier credits and rebates, the
complaint alleges.

On March 17, 2005, C&A shocked the investing public by
announcing a delay in its 2004 earnings report for a second time
due to improper accounting practices related to supplier
rebates, which would likely result in a restatement for Fiscal
Year 2004. The Company further announced that its internal
investigation was ongoing and that the accounting improprieties
may result in the Company restating its financial results for
Fiscal Year 2003. In particular, C&A reviewed its accounting
practices dating back to 2002 and discovered that it had
overstated revenues by approximately $12 million.

On the heels of those revelations, C&A's common stock fell
nearly 24% from a closing price of $1.63 on March 16, 2005 to
close at $1.24 on March 17, 2005.

For more details, contact Leslie R. Stern, Esq. or Bryan A.
Wood, Esq. by Mail: One Liberty Square, Boston, MA 02109 by
Phone: (800) 516-9926 by E-mail: law@bermanesq.com or visit
their Web site:
http://www.bermanesq.com/pdf/CollinsAikman_Cplt.pdf.


IMERGENT TECHNOLOGIES: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Stock Suit in UT
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP filed
a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for
the District of Utah, on behalf of all persons who purchased the
securities of iMergent, Inc. ("iMergent" or the "Company")
[Amex: IIG] between October 26, 2004 and February 25, 2005,
inclusive, (the "Class Period") against defendants iMergent and
certain officers and directors of the Company.

The case name is Enuganti v. iMergent, 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 defendants were aware of but
concealed from the investing public during the Class Period,
were as follows:

     (1) the Company's storefront software was defective;
    
     (2) iMergent was extorting from its customers thousands of
         dollars in additional fees for technical support,
         characterized as "executive mentoring," above and
         beyond what customers contracted to pay as part of
         their service packages when they purchased the
         storefront software;

     (3) since at least 2000, numerous customers had lodged
         complaints with various state agencies concerning
         defects with the storefront software and the exorbitant
         "executive mentoring" fees charged;

     (4) the Company's storefront software and service packages
         were being illegally marketed as "franchises" or
         "business opportunities" because iMergent was not
         registered to engage in this type of business in the
         states in which it was operating and was not following
         the statutes applicable to companies that market
         franchises and business opportunities in those states;

     (5) the Company was extending credit to customers with
         subprime credit without disclosing that the Company did
         not require these customers to meet the Company's
         credit criteria;

     (6) the Company was entering into installment sale
         contracts for defective storefront software packages,
         with the knowledge that the defects in the software,
         the difficulty of its use, and the refusal of some
         customers to purchase so-called "executive mentoring"
         (needed to operate the software) would lead to higher
         customer dissatisfaction, product rejections, refusals
         to pay for product packages being financed by the
         Company, and complaints to and legal action by federal
         and state authorities; and

     (7) defendants had concealed that iMergent had been
         subjected to a lawsuit and a cease and desist order by
         the State of Washington in early 2004 concerning
         misconduct similar to that alleged by the State of
         Texas in its February 2005 lawsuit.

For more details, contact Fred Taylor Isquith, Esq., Gregory M.
Nespole, Esq., Christopher S. Hinton, Esq., 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.


MBIA INC.: Brian M. Felgoise Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C. launched a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who acquired MBIA
Incorporated (NYSE: MBI) securities between August 5, 2003, and
March 30, 2005, inclusive (the Class Period).

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, against the company and certain
key officers and directors.

The action charges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing a series of materially false and
misleading statements to the market throughout the Class Period
which statements had the effect of artificially inflating the
market price of the Company's securities. No class has yet been
certified in the above action.

For more details, contact Brian M. Felgoise, Esq. by Phone: 261
Old York Road, Suite 423, Jenkintown, Pennsylvania, 19046 by
Phone: (215) 886-1900 or by E-mail: FelgoiseLaw@aol.com.  


MBIA INC.: Glancy Binkow Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP initiated a Class
Action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York on behalf of a class (the
"Class") consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired securities of MBIA Inc. ("MBIA" or the
"Company") (NYSE:MBI) between August 5, 2003 and March 30, 2005,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint charges MBIA and certain of the Company's
executive officers with violations of federal securities laws.
MBIA provides financial guarantee insurance, investment
management services, and municipal and other services to public
finance, and structured finance clients on a global basis. The
Complaint alleges that during the Class Period defendants failed
to disclose and/or misrepresented that MBIA:

     (1) was overleveraged, substantially under-reserved against
         possible credit defaults, and overly exposed to
         guaranteeing risky structured financings;

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

     (3) improperly booked a $70 million payment from Converium
         Re (formerly Zurich Reinsurance North America) in 1998;

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

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

     (6) MBIA's low loss ratios resulted from the Company
         deferring recognition of problems rather than providing
         layers of excess collateral or other underwriting
         protection;

     (7) MBIA set forth an illegal scheme to cover the loss from
         the failed Allegheny Health, Education and Research
         Foundation ("Aherf") bond issuance;

     (8) MBIA was dumping performing but troubled policies from
         its existing portfolio onto Channel Reinsurance Ltd. -
         a Bermuda reinsurer of which MBIA owns a 17.4% interest
         -- in order to bolster its financial results; and

     (9) MBIA lacked adequate internal controls and was,
         therefore, unable to ascertain the Company's true
         financial condition.

On November 18, 2004, an MBIA press release announced that it
received identical document subpoenas from the SEC and the New
York Attorney General's office (NYAG) requesting information
concerning non-traditional or loss-mitigation insurance products
developed, offered or sold by MBIA to third parties dating from
January 1, 1998.

On March 8, 2005, MBIA announced a restatement of its financial
statements for 1998 and subsequent years to correct the
accounting treatment for two reinsurance agreements that MBIA
entered into in 1998 with Converium Re. Then on March 9, 2005,
MBIA announced that it had received a subpoena from the U.S.
Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York seeking
information related to the reinsurance agreements it entered
into in connection with the loss it incurred in 1998 on bonds
insured by MBIA Insurance Corp. -- MBIA's main operating unit --
that were issued by AHERF. These matters are currently under
investigation by the SEC and the NYAG.

Finally, on March 30, 2005, MBIA announced that it had received
additional requests from the NYAG and the SEC, supplementing the
subpoenas served on the Company in late-2004. The requests
sought documents relating to the Company's accounting treatment
of advisory fees, its methodology for determining loss reserves
and case reserves, instances of purchase of credit default
protection on itself, and documents relating to Channel
Reinsurance Ltd. This new shocked the market, and shares of MBIA
fell $4.36 per share, or 7.7 percent, to close at $52.28 per
share on unusually heavy trading volume.

For more details, contact Lionel Z. Glancy or Michael Goldberg
of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP by Phone: (310) 201-9150 or
(888) 773-9224 by E-mail: info@glancylaw.com or visit their Web
site: http://www.glancylaw.com.


RHODIA S.A.: Brian M. Felgoise Files Securities Fraud Suit in NJ
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C. launched a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who acquired Rhodia S.A.
(NYSE: RHA) securities between April 26, 2001, and March 23,
2004, inclusive (the Class Period).

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey, against the company and certain key
officers and directors.

The action charges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing a series of materially false and
misleading statements to the market throughout the Class Period
which statements had the effect of artificially inflating the
market price of the Company's securities. No class has yet been
certified in the above action.

For more details, contact Brian M. Felgoise, Esq. by Phone: 261
Old York Road, Suite 423, Jenkintown, Pennsylvania, 19046 by
Phone: (215) 886-1900 or by E-mail: FelgoiseLaw@aol.com.  


RHODIA S.A.: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NJ
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of purchasers of Rhodia S.A. (NYSE:RHA)
securities between April 26, 2001 and March 23, 2004, inclusive
(the "Class Period").

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

For more details, contact Charles J. Piven by Phone:
(410) 986-0036 by E-mail: hoffman@pivenlaw.com.


RHODIA S.A.: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in NJ
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Stull, Stull & Brody initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey, against Rhodia S.A. ("Rhodia" or the "Company")
(NYSE:RHA), on behalf of purchasers of Rhodia publicly traded
securities between April 26, 2001 and March 23, 2004, inclusive
(the "Class Period").

The complaint alleges that Rhodia violated federal securities
laws by issuing false or misleading information. Specifically,
defendants overstated Rhodia's financial results by failing to
record impairment on a timely basis in order to:

     (1) protect their executive positions and compensation;

     (2) raise EUR 1 billion in Notes in a private placement on
         May 28, 2003, as well as EUR 290 million in a private
         placement of Notes with American investors in 2001; and

     (3) enhance the value of their personal Rhodia holdings.

During the Class Period, defendants knew, but concealed that:

     (i) Rhodia's ChiRex unit was impaired and had not been
         written down in a timely fashion;

    (ii) Rhodia failed to write down deferred tax assets to
         recoverable values in 2002 and failed to do so until
         the end of 2003;

   (iii) Rhodia failed to properly report its outstanding debt;
         and

    (iv) Rhodia failed to include disclosures necessary for
         investors to understand the trends in its business.

On March 23, 2004, it was revealed that French securities
regulators were conducting an inquiry into Rhodia's financial
reporting. On this news, Rhodia fell to $1.50 per share.
Subsequently, it was reported that France's stock market
regulator had found that Rhodia had failed to disclose important
information in a timely fashion beginning in 2001.

For more details, contact Tzivia Brody, Esq. at Stull, Stull &
Brody 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.


RHODIA S.A.: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NJ
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C., initiated a suit seeking
class action status has been filed in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of all persons
who purchased the publicly traded securities of Rhodia S.A.
(NYSE: RHA) ("Rhodia" or "the Company") between April 26, 2001
and March 23, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint alleges that Rhodia violated federal securities
laws by issuing false or misleading information. Specifically,
defendants overstated Rhodia's financial results by failing to
record impairment on a timely basis in order to:

     (1) protect their executive positions and compensation;

     (2) raise EUR 1 billion in Notes in a private placement on
         May 28, 2003, as well as EUR 290 million in a private
         placement of Notes with American investors in 2001; and

     (3) enhance the value of their personal Rhodia holdings.

During the Class Period, defendants knew, but concealed that:

     (i) Rhodia's ChiRex unit was impaired and had not been
         written down in a timely fashion;

    (ii) Rhodia failed to write down deferred tax assets to
         recoverable values in 2002 and failed to do so until
         the end of 2003;

   (iii) Rhodia failed to properly report its outstanding debt;
         and

    (iv) Rhodia failed to include disclosures necessary for
         investors to understand the trends in its business.

On March 23, 2004, it was revealed that French securities
regulators were conducting an inquiry into Rhodia's financial
reporting. On this news, Rhodia fell to $1.50 per share.
Subsequently, it was reported that France's stock market
regulator had found that Rhodia had failed to disclose important
information in a timely fashion beginning in 2001.

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


WATCHGUARD TECHNOLOGIES: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Fraud Suit in WA
----------------------------------------------------------------
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 Western District of Washington on
behalf of purchasers of WatchGuard Technologies, Inc.
("WatchGuard") (NASDAQ:WGRD) common stock during the period
between February 12, 2004 and March 15, 2005 (the "Class
Period").

The complaint charges WatchGuard and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. WatchGuard provides Internet security solutions designed
to protect small to medium-sized enterprises that use the
Internet for e-commerce and secure communications.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
caused WatchGuard's shares to trade at artificially inflated
levels through the issuance of false and misleading financial
statements. As a result of this inflation, the Company's FY 2004
revenues were overstated.

On March 15, 2005, the Company announced that it was delaying
its Q4 2004 and FY 2004 earnings call, would file a Notification
of Late Filing with the SEC with respect to its annual report on
Form 10-K and that it was restating its financial results for FY
2004. On this news, the stock fell below $3 per share.

According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known by
the defendants during the Class Period but concealed from the
investing public, were as follows:

     (1) the Company's Q1-Q3 2004 reported financial results
         were materially false and misleading due to inaccurate
         income statement classification of early pay incentive
         discounts taken by customers, under-accrual of customer
         rebate obligations and timing of revenue recognition
         associated with specific products and services
         (resulting from an overstatement of product revenue and
         an understatement of deferred revenue);

     (2) the Company's February 12, 2004 projections were
         materially false and misleading;

     (3) the functionality and value of the Company's "Firebox
         X" product was grossly overstated and this product did
         not materially or accurately improve the Company's
         gross margins, streamline the Company's management or
         otherwise reduce its reliance on custom components; and
  
     (4) contrary to defendants' statements, the Firebox X was
         not tracking as defendants claimed.

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


                            *********


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

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

                            *********


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

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

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

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

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

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

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *