CAR_Public/050406.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Wednesday, April 6, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 67

                         Headlines

ASK JEEVES: CA Court Hears Motion To Dismiss Consumer Fraud Suit
ASK JEEVES: NY Court Approves Preliminary Stock Suit Settlement
BANK LEUMI: Tel Aviv Judge Dismisses Processing Fees Complaint
BEVERLY ENTERPRISES: DE Court Consolidates Shareholder Lawsuits
BIOVAL CORPORATION: U.S. Court Ruling in Tiazac Suit Favors Firm

BJ'S RESTAURANTS: Reaches Settlement For CA Employee Wage Suit
BJ'S RESTAURANT: Enters Arbitration For CA Employee Wage Lawsuit
C.H. ROBINSON: Female Employees Launch Gender Bias Lawsuit in MN
C.H. ROBINSON: Employees Commence FLSA Violations Lawsuit in MN
CISCO SYSTEMS: SEC Lodges Suit V. Former Employee, Two Brothers

CORE LABORATORIES: TX Court Orders Filing of Second Amended Suit
DADE BEHRING: Recalls Inoculum Broth Due To Possible Defects
FOOTSTAR INC.: Securities Settlement Hearing Set May 11, 2005
GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls 2,536 2004-2005 SUVs For Faulty Manuals
GUAM: Lawyer Says All Parties Are Active in EITC Mediation Talks

IMPATH INC.: SEC Charges Seven Former Executives With Fraud
INTERNET COMPANIES: Advertisers Launch "Click Fraud" Complaint
KNIGHT TRADING: Shareholders Launch Securities Fraud Suit in NY
MACK TRUCKS: Recalls 127 2004 CV/DM Trucks Due To Crash Hazard
MASTERCARD INTERNATIONAL: Court Dismisses Paycom Billing's Suit

MIRANT CORPORATION: Ratepayer Suits Remanded To CA State Court
MIRANT CORPORATION: Continues To Face Eight CA Rate Payer Suits
MIRANT CORPORATION: High Court Yet To Rule on Writ of Certiorari
MISSION PETROLEUM: AL Tanker Crash, Chemical Spill Prompts Suit
NATIONSBANK: SEC Launches Amended Fraud Complaint V. Defendants

NEVADA: Krystle Sands Buyers File Suit Over Condo's Cancellation
PENNZOIL-QUAKER: Faces Five Injury Suits Due To Jan. 2000 Fire
RAYTHEON COMPANY: MA Court Approves Investor Lawsuit Settlement
RAYTHEON COMPANY: Discovery Proceeds in ID Shareholder Lawsuit
RAYTHEON COMPANY: Asks MA Court To Dismiss ERISA Fraud Lawsuits

ROYAL DUTCH: In Settlement Talks On Some U.S. ERISA Complaints
TERAYON COMMUNICATION: Discovery Proceeds in CA Securities Suit
TOYOTA NORTH: Recalls 5,726 2004-2005 Tundras Due To Defects
US UNWIRED: Shareholders Launch Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. LA
VISHAY INTERTECHNOLOGY: Shareholders Launch Fraud Lawsuit in DE

VIGNETTE CORPORATION: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Suit Settlement
WELLS REAL: Asks GA Court To Dismiss Shareholder Fraud Lawsuit


              Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences

                  New Securities Fraud Cases

CAREER EDUCATION: Goodkind Labaton Lodges Securities Suit in IL
CELL THERAPEUTICS: Scott + Scott Lodges Securities Suit in WA
ELECTRONIC ARTS: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Fraud Suit in CA
TOWER AUTOMOTIVE: Vianale & Vianale Lodges Securities Suit in NY


                          *********


ASK JEEVES: CA Court Hears Motion To Dismiss Consumer Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of the State of California, County of San
Francisco heard on January 27,2005 Ask Jeeves, Inc.'s and other
defendants' motion to dismiss the consumer class action filed
against them, styled "Mario Cisneros et al. vs. Yahoo! Inc., et
al."  The suit also names as defendants Google, Inc., Yahoo!
Inc., and several other Internet media companies.

The complaint alleges that the defendants engaged in unfair
business practices and aided, abetted and conspired with
operators of illegal online gambling enterprises by selling and
displaying ads for online gambling operations that allegedly
violate California law.  The complaint purports to be brought on
behalf of the general public and a class of all California
residents who incurred losses in the prior four years at any
illegal Internet gambling site allegedly advertised on
defendants' Web pages.  The complaint seeks declaratory and
injunctive relief prohibiting Ask Jeeves and the other
defendants from selling or displaying such ads.  The complaint
also seeks to hold Ask Jeeves and the other defendants liable
for an unspecified amount of monetary restitution equal to:

     (1) all of the revenue that defendants allegedly earned by
         displaying ads for illegal gambling operations;

     (2) all of the gambling losses suffered by persons using
         computers in California to access the advertised sites;

     (3) all other revenues received by the gambling site
         operators from such computer users; and

     (4) certain State taxes and fees allegedly avoided by the
         gambling site operators.

The complaint was filed against Internet media companies and
does not specifically name the gambling site operators
themselves as defendants.  Defendants, including the Company,
have filed a motion to strike plaintiffs' claims for restitution
of gambling losses and a demurrer to the entire complaint based
on defendants' belief that plaintiffs lack standing to bring the
action (i.e., they do not presently engage in the type of
conduct that is challenged in this action).


ASK JEEVES: NY Court Approves Preliminary Stock Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against Ask Jeeves,
Inc. and two of its officers and directors.  Also named as
defendants were:

     (1) Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.,

     (2) FleetBoston Robertson Stephens,

     (3) Goldman Sachs & Co.,

     (4) U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray, and

     (5) Dain Rauscher, Inc.

The above defendants were the underwriters of the Company's
initial public offering, or IPO.  The complaint alleges
violations of Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 against
all defendants, and violations of Section 15 of the Securities
Act against the Individual Defendants in connection with the
Company's IPO.  An amended complaint was filed on December 6,
2001, which includes the same allegations in connection with the
Company's second public offering in March 2000.  The complaint
seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class of
purchasers of common stock between June 30, 1999 and December 6,
2000.

This case is similar to, and has been coordinated with, over
three hundred other cases filed in the Southern District Court
of New York concerning the IPO market of the late 1990's.  In
June 2003, a proposed settlement of this litigation was
structured between the plaintiffs, the issuer defendants in the
consolidated actions, the issuer officers and directors named as
defendants, and the issuers' insurance companies.  On June 24,
2003, a special committee of the Company's board of directors
approved the Company's participation in this settlement and on
July 9, 2003, the Individual Defendants approved the settlement.
In June 2004, the proposed settlement was submitted to the court
for preliminary approval.

The underwriter defendants formally objected to the settlement
on July 14, 2004.  The plaintiffs and issuer defendants
separately filed replies to the underwriter defendants'
objections on August 4, 2004.  The court granted the preliminary
approval motion on February 15, 2005, subject to certain
modifications and directed the parties to report back to the
court regarding the modifications.  If the parties are able to
agree upon the required modifications, and such modifications
are acceptable to the court, notice will be given to all class
members of the settlement, a "fairness" hearing will be held and
if the court determines that the settlement is fair to the class
members, the settlement will be approved.  


BANK LEUMI: Tel Aviv Judge Dismisses Processing Fees Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tel Aviv District Court Judge Magen Altuvia had refused to
recognize the motion filed by attorney Arie Reizel as a class
action, sparing Bank Leumi NIS 50 million ($11.44 million) class
action over charging too much for processing loan documents, the
Ha'aretz reports.

In his motion, Mr. Reizel claimed that Leumi had no right to
charge a fee for processing documents signed to obtain a bridge
loan. The plaintiff estimated the class action to be worth about
NIS 50 million.  When he received the loan, Mr. Reizel alleged,
he had not known about the fee. The name of the charge -
"preparing legal documents for a credit transaction" - is
misleading, Mr. Reizel stated.  He also wondered why clients
should pay extra for that, when documentation is an integral
part of a loan transaction.

Judge Magen ruled that Leumi had merely been adhering to banking
regulations, and proper banking procedure. He also rejected Mr.
Reizel's position, that the size of the fee is unwarranted, and
accepted Leumi's stance that few fees are regulated, and most
are set by the free market, where service providers may set fees
as they see fit.  Judge Magen also stated that Mr. Reizel used
to work at Bank Leumi as its legal counsel, and he knew
perfectly well how to bargain with the bank and get a 70 percent
discount on its fee, thus the judge instead hit the lawyer with
NIS 50,000 court costs.


BEVERLY ENTERPRISES: DE Court Consolidates Shareholder Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Delaware Chancery Court in New Castle County consolidated
the shareholder class actions filed against Beverly Enterprises,
Inc., on behalf of all of its shareholders.  The suits also name
as defendants each of the Company's directors.

On January 26, 2005, a putative class action complaint was
filed, captioned "Chaya Perlstein v. William R. Floyd, et.
al., Civil Action No. CA1050-N."  The suit asserts a claim for
breach of fiduciary duty in connection with our response to an
unsolicited expression of interest by a group of investors that
collectively had purchased 8.1% of the Company's common stock on
the open market prior to January 24, 2005.

A second, substantially identical, putative class action
complaint was filed in the same court on February 1, 2005,
bearing the caption "Robert Strougo v. Beverly Enterprises,
Inc., et. al., Civil Action No. CA1067-N."  On February 23,
2005, the Delaware Chancery Court consolidated these cases under
the caption "In re Beverly Shareholders Litigation, Civil Action
No. CA1050-N," and designated the "Floyd" complaint as
operative.  In addition, the Chancery Court extended the
defendants' time to respond to the operative complaint to
May 9, 2005.  The plaintiffs seek preliminary and permanent
injunctive relief, an unspecified amount of compensatory
damages, an accounting, as well as an award of attorneys' fees,
expert fees, and costs.


BIOVAL CORPORATION: U.S. Court Ruling in Tiazac Suit Favors Firm
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Columbia
has ruled in favor of Canadian drug maker Biovail Corporation
(NYSE: BVF)(TSX: BVF) in class-action cases asserting antitrust
claims by purchasers of Biovail's Tiazac(R) product, which is
used to treat angina and hypertension, the Reuters News Agency
reports.

According to Biovail, Canada's largest drug maker, the court had
agreed with the company that the plaintiffs had been unable to
prove that they had suffered any damages for which Biovail could
be responsible.  The plaintiffs had launched complaints in 2001
and 2003 alleging that Biovail's listing with the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration of a patent for Tiazac had improperly
delayed the entry of a generic Tiazac.  In addition the
plaintiffs alleged that the delay in entry of a generic product
into the market caused them to pay more to buy Biovail's brand-
name product.

However, in its summary judgment motion, Biovail contended that
the reason why the owner of generic Tiazac(R) had not marketed
its product on a timely basis was due to its inability to obtain
final FDA approval rather than through any action or omission on
the part of Biovail, Reuters reports.


BJ'S RESTAURANTS: Reaches Settlement For CA Employee Wage Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
BJ'S Restaurants, Inc. paid in full the settlement for the
employee class action filed against it in the Superior Court of
California for the County of Orange.

On March 10, 2003, a former employee of the Company, on behalf
of himself and other employees and former employees of ours
similarly situated and working in California, filed the suit,
alleging that the Company violated provisions of the California
Labor Code covering meal and rest beaks for employees, along
with associated acts of unfair competition and seeks payment of
wages for all meal and rest breaks allegedly denied to the
Company's California employees for the period from October 1,
2000 to the present.

The Company reached an agreement with the class counsel to
settle the meal and rest break class action case pending in
California, and the settlement has been approved by the court.
The amount of the settlement was developed from mediation, which
was concluded in December of 2003.  The amount of the settlement
was reduced to $900,000 based upon subsequent court
determination and the $50,000 reversal was reflected in the
second quarter ended June 27, 2004.


BJ'S RESTAURANT: Enters Arbitration For CA Employee Wage Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
BJ'S Restaurants, Inc. entered arbitration for a class action
filed by a former employee, on behalf of herself, and all others
similarly situated, in Los Angeles County Superior Court in
California.  The suit alleges causes of action for:

     (1) failure to pay reporting time minimum pay;

     (2) failure to allow meal breaks;

     (3) failure to allow rest breaks;

     (4) waiting time penalties;

     (5) civil penalties;

     (6) reimbursement for fraud and deceit;

     (7) punitive damages for fraud and deceit; and

     (8) disgorgement of illicit profits.

On June 28, 2004, the Plaintiff stipulated to dismiss her
second, third, fourth, and fifth causes of action. During
September 2004, the Plaintiff stipulated to arbitration of the
action.  No further court action has been taken since that date.


C.H. ROBINSON: Female Employees Launch Gender Bias Lawsuit in MN
----------------------------------------------------------------
C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. faces a class action filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Minnesota by a
number of the Company's present and former female employees.

The lawsuit alleges a hostile working environment, unequal pay,
promotions and opportunities for women and failure to pay
overtime. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary and non-
monetary damages and class action certification.


C.H. ROBINSON: Employees Commence FLSA Violations Lawsuit in MN
---------------------------------------------------------------
C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. faces a class action filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Minnesota by
its former employees, alleging systematic failure by the company
to pay for overtime hours worked by the Company's male employees
under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act.

The suit seeks payment of the overtime wages earned, as well as
double damages and other relief, on behalf of the plaintiffs and
potential collective members who join in the lawsuit.  The
Company denies all allegations and is vigorously defending the
suit, the Company said in a disclosure to the Securities and
Exchange Commission.  Currently, the amount of any possible loss
to the company cannot be estimated; however, an unfavorable
result could have a material adverse effect on the Company's
financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows.


CISCO SYSTEMS: SEC Lodges Suit V. Former Employee, Two Brothers
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission initiated a securities
fraud lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California against three brothers, Anthony C. Sudol
III, Michael G. Sudol and Richard J. Sudol. The Commission's
complaint alleges that Anthony Sudol, a former employee of Cisco
Systems, Inc., repeatedly passed material, non-public
information that he learned during the course of his employment
to his brothers who then traded on that information prior to its
public release.
     
According to the Commission's complaint, Anthony Sudol learned
of Cisco's acquisition plans by virtue of positions he held at
Cisco where he assisted with the integration of newly acquired
businesses into Cisco's physical space and operations.   After
learning of five impending acquisitions between 1999 and 2003,
Anthony Sudol provided that information to one or both of his
brothers. Acting on his brother's tips, Michael Sudol purchased
the stock of five publicly traded companies just prior to
acquisition announcements by Cisco and Richard Sudol traded in
the stock of four. In total, the brothers realized profits of
more than $400,000.
                              
The Commission's action charges the three brothers with
violations of Section  10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and seeks permanent injunctive
relief, disgorgement,  and civil monetary penalties.
     
The Commission acknowledges the assistance of the NASD in this
matter. The action is titled, SEC v. Anthony C. Sudol III,
Michael G. Sudol and Richard J. Sudol, Civil Action No. C-05-
1299 (N.D. Cal.)] (LR-19162).


CORE LABORATORIES: TX Court Orders Filing of Second Amended Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Texas ordered plaintiffs to file a second amended consolidated
securities class action against Core Laboratories NV and certain
of its officers.

In April 2003, four putative class action lawsuits were filed
against the defendants in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York; these cases have since been
consolidated and transferred to the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas.  

On March 22, 2004, lead plaintiffs filed their consolidated
amended complaint, which generally alleges, among other things,
that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making false and misleading
statements about the Company's financial results for 2001 and
2002 and by employing inadequate internal controls. The amended
complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on May 21, 2004.  On March
8, 2005, the Court denied without prejudice defendants' motion
to dismiss subject to Plaintiffs filing a Second Amended
Complaint that sets forth with particularity allegations that
meet the heightened pleading requirements of Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 9(b) and the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995.   The order requires the Second Amended
Complaint to be filed by May 9, 2005 and requires the defendants
to answer or otherwise respond by July 8, 2005.  If defendants
file a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint,
plaintiffs must respond by August 22, 2005 and defendants shall
reply by September 12, 2005.  Discovery will remain stayed.  

The suit is styled "In Re: Core Laboratories, N.V. Securities
Litigation, case no. 03-CV-3114," filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Texas, under Judge
Kenneth M. Hoyt.  The plaintiff firms in the litigation are:

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

     (2) Cauley Geller Bowman Coates & Rudman, LLP (New York),
         200 Broadhollow, Suite 406, Melville, NY, 11747, Phone:
         631.367.7100, Fax: 631.367.1173,

Representing the Company are Scott Fletcher, David T. Harvin and
Michael C. Holmes of Vinson & Elkins, 1001 Fannin St Ste 2300
Houston, TX 77002-6760 Phone: 713-758-3234 Fax: 713-615-5168;
and Steven Wolowitz, Mayer Brown et al 1675 Broadway New York,
NY 10019-5820 Phone: 212-506-2500.


DADE BEHRING: Recalls Inoculum Broth Due To Possible Defects
------------------------------------------------------------
Dade Behring, the world's largest company solely dedicated to
clinical diagnostics, initiated a product recall of six lots of
B1015-14 MicroScanr Rapid Pos inoculum broth to prevent health
risk to patients due to potential false antibiotic
susceptibility results. The possibility of inaccurate
susceptibility results for a pathogen could lead a physician to
prescribe incorrect or suboptimal therapy. In rare instances
this could result in severe or life-threatening consequences. By
taking immediate action and notifying the 68 laboratories that
received the recalled product, Dade Behring mitigated the risk
to patients and to date no injuries have been reported as a
result of this problem. Each laboratory was notified both by an
overnight letter and either received a personal visit or a
telephone call from Dade Behring to clarify actions to be taken
by the laboratory regarding the product recall.

"Dade Behring's number one focus is on our customers, and we are
deeply committed to providing quality products and resolving any
customer concerns immediately," said Dave Edelstein, Chief
Regulatory Officer. "The root cause has been identified to be a
variation of the raw material in the broth manufactured for Dade
Behring by a third party -- that can impact QC and clinical
isolate performance. We have confirmed that each of our
customers affected has been provided replacement product and
should have no further concerns related to this recall.
Additionally, Dade Behring is working on actions to prevent
recurrence and has implemented increased quality control testing
of this product to increase assurance of acceptability."

Dade Behring recommended that laboratories use an alternative
method for susceptibility testing of Gram positive bacterial
isolates (e.g., MicroScanr Dried overnight Gram Positive
panels), and review the susceptibility results obtained with the
affected broth lots to determine if additional corrective
actions should be taken in the affected institutions.
Laboratories were instructed to contact physicians when
appropriate. Dade Behring has notified the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration and is working with them to coordinate activities
for this Class I recall. Customers with questions may contact
the Dade Behring MicroScan technical assistance center at
1-800-677-7226.


FOOTSTAR INC.: Securities Settlement Hearing Set May 11, 2005
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for Southern the District of
New York will hold a fairness hearing for the proposed $14.3
million settlement in the matter: Footstar, Inc. Securities
Litigation on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased
the common stock of the company during the period from February
16, 200 through and including April 30, 2004.

The fairness hearing will be held before the Honorable Stephen
C. Robinson in Courtroom 621 of the United States Courthouse,
300 Quarropas Street, White Plain, New York 10601-4150, at 10:00
a.m., on May 11, 2005.

For more details, contact Gilardi & Co. LLC by Phone:
(800) 447-7657 or Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP by
Phone: (212) 594-5300.


GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls 2,536 2004-2005 SUVs For Faulty Manuals
---------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Corporation in cooperation with the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Office of Defects
Investigation is voluntarily recalling about 2536 2005 Toyota
GMC Sierra Denalis.

According to the ODI, certain sport vehicles fail to comply with
the requirement of federal motor vehicle safety standard no 255,
"Child restraint anchorage systems," the requirements for
location and instructions for properly attaching child
restraints. The manuals in these vehicles indicate the incorrect
seat locations with upper and lower tether anchors, and provide
incorrect installation instructions for the top tether
anchorage. Improper use of the child restraint anchorage could
result in personal injury to the seat occupant.

As a remedy, dealers will mail an owners manual update that
describes the location and proper use of the tether anchors. For
more details, the NHTSA Auto Safety Hotline: 1-888-327-4236.


GUAM: Lawyer Says All Parties Are Active in EITC Mediation Talks
----------------------------------------------------------------
All the parties involved in the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC)
settlement have been in mediation talks since last week,
according to attorney Mike Phillips, who represents the
plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit that brought about the
settlement, the KUAM News reports.

Though Mr. Phillips couldn't say how much longer the mediation
would last, he did tell KUAM News, "We've been in mediation and
participating extensively. I don't know how much longer its
going to go, you know, technically we're still in the process."
He also added, "Of course, we have a confidentially agreement
that we've all signed that prohibits any of us from releasing
any information and I guess what I can say is we're still in
that process today."

The mediation comes after Governor Felix Camacho intervened in
the settlement brokered by Attorney General Douglas Moylan and
Lieutenant Governor Kaleo Moylan, the latter of which was, at
the time, acting governor.

As previously reported in the July 20, 2004 edition of the Class
Action Reporter, Julie Babauta Santos, represented by Mr.
Phillips, filed a class-action lawsuit in February 2004 to force
the government to pay up and to resume yearly payments of the
ETIC, which was suspended by the government since 1998. The
government then agreed to a settlement and promised to pay about
half of what is currently owed over the next nine years and by
agreeing to pay the tax credits in full from now on. The tax
credit, which was created in 1973, is an incentive for the
working poor. The settlement would pay about $60 million, about
half of the estimated $120 million owed to taxpayers.

Gov. Camacho had originally filed documents in the District
Court of Guam opposing the settlement with concerns that making
a payment commitment would violate the Illegal Expenditures Act.
However, Magistrate Judge Joaquin Manibusan recently signed an
order approving the request by the parties to enter mediation.


IMPATH INC.: SEC Charges Seven Former Executives With Fraud
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed a civil injunctive
action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York charging seven former executives of IMPATH Inc.
(Impath) with securities fraud and related violations. One
defendant has agreed to settle the Commission's charges by
paying a total of over $250,000 in disgorgement and civil
penalties and consenting to permanent injunctive relief.
     
The SEC's complaint alleges that from 1999 until 2003, the
defendants engaged in fraudulent accounting practices and
undisclosed self-dealing in violation of the applicable proxy
rules. As a result of the accounting fraud, Impath falsely
reported multimillion-dollar profits when it had actually
suffered huge losses. To meet financial projections and boost
Impath's stock price, the defendants made, or directed others to
make, phony accounting entries that artificially increased
revenue and improperly reduced operating expenses. Formerly
based in New York City, Impath was a public company that
provided diagnostic and other laboratory services used in the
treatment of cancer and its stock was traded on the Nasdaq
National Market. Impath filed for bankruptcy in September 2003
and is in the process of being liquidated.
     
The Commission's complaint names the following defendants who
worked at Impath during the relevant period: Anuradha D. Saad,
age 48, former CEO and Chairman of the Board; Richard P.
Adelson, age 39, former COO and President; David J. Cammarata,
age 40, former CFO; Peter Torres, age 35, former Senior Vice
President of Corporate Finance; Robert McKie, age 40, former
Vice President, Finance and Operations at Impath Predictive
Oncology, Inc.; Karin Gardner, age 33, former Controller;
Kenneth Jugan, age 43, former National Billing Director
     
The complaint alleges that the defendants engaged in a
fraudulent scheme to inflate Impath's financial results,
including revenue and net income, without any regard for
generally accepted accounting principles or their financial
reporting obligations.  Mr. Saad, Mr. Adelson and Mr. Cammarata
directed the fraud, while Mr. Torres, Mr. McKie, Ms. Gardner and
Mr. Jugan implemented the accounting schemes.
     
Torres, Gardner and Jugan were senior members of Impath's
corporate finance department and implemented the fraud by
making, and directing members of their staff to make, the
improper journal entries needed to carry out the scheme. Each
quarter, Torres conferred with Mr. Saad, Mr. Adelson or Mr.
Cammarata about the gap between actual and projected results,
and they told Mr. Torres how much phony revenue they wanted the
finance department to record. Mr. McKie was in charge of
Predictive Oncology, one of Impath's subsidiaries, and together
with other defendants, he fraudulently capitalized his unit's
operating expenses to inflate net income and recognized revenue
on a large transaction that never occurred. Each defendant also
engaged in misconduct designed to deceive Impath's outside
auditor and conceal the fraud.
     
While the accounting fraud was occurring, Mr. Saad, Mr. Adelson
and Mr. Cammarata also engaged in undisclosed self-dealing. Not
only did they exercise stock options and sell Impath stock
during the fraud, they used over $850,000 in corporate funds to
pay for option exercises without obtaining board approval or
making the required proxy statement disclosures. Saad also used
corporate funds to pay for other personal expenses without the
requisite approval or disclosure, including vacations, country
club dues and artwork.
     
The Commission's complaint alleges that by engaging in this
conduct, the defendants violated the antifraud provisions of the
federal securities laws and are secondarily liable for Impath's
violations of reporting, record-keeping, internal control and
proxy solicitation provisions. Specifically, the complaint
alleges that each defendant violated Sections 10(b) and 13(b)(5)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) and Rules
10b-5 and 13b2-1.  In addition, each defendant is alleged to be
liable for Impath's violations of Sections 13(a) and 13(b)(2) of
the Exchange Act and Rules 12b-20, 13a-1 and 13a-13. Mr. Saad,
Mr. Adelson, Mr. Cammarata and Torres are alleged to have also
violated Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 (Securities
Act), and to have made, or directed others to make, false
statements to Impath's accountants in violation of Exchange Act
Rule 13b2-2.  Mr. Saad, Mr. Adelson and Mr. Cammarata are also
alleged to be liable for Impath's violations of Section 14(a) of
the Exchange Act and Rules 14a-3 and 14a-9.  Finally, the
complaint alleges that Mr. Saad also violated Exchange Act Rule
13a-14.
     
The complaint seeks final judgments enjoining violations of
these provisions of the federal securities laws; ordering all
defendants to pay disgorgement and civil money penalties; and
barring Mr. Saad, Mr. Adelson, Mr. Cammarata and Torres from
acting as an officer or director of any public company.
     
Mr. McKie, without admitting or denying the allegations in the
complaint, has agreed to a permanent injunction against future
violations of the relevant antifraud, reporting, books and
records and internal controls provisions of the federal
securities laws disgorgement of the $100,000 in performance
bonuses he received as result of the conduct alleged in the
complaint, plus prejudgment interest and a civil penalty in the
amount of $150,000.  The Commission's claims against the other
defendants are pending.
     
The Commission acknowledges the assistance and cooperation of
the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York
and the Federal Bureau of Investigation in this matter. The
action is entitled, SEC v. Anuradha D. Saad, Richard P.  
Adelson, David J. Cammarata, Peter Torres, Robert  McKie, Karin
Gardner and Kenneth Jugan, 05 CV 03308, SDNY, LTS] (LR-19159;  
AAE Rel. 2219).


INTERNET COMPANIES: Advertisers Launch "Click Fraud" Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
In a potentially important legal test of those companies'
liability for a form of online-advertising fraud, a group of
advertisers have quietly filed a lawsuit in February against
Google Inc., Yahoo Inc. and other Internet companies, the Wall
Street Journal reports.

Led by Lane's Gifts & Collectibles LLC, a Texarkana, Arkansas,
retailer, the advertisers allege that the Internet companies
knowingly overcharged for advertisements they sold and conspired
with each other to continue doing so. Thus, they are seeking to
have their suit, which hasn't received widespread attention,
certified as a class action.

Specifically, the suit revolves around a growing search-industry
problem of "click fraud," in which someone clicks on online ads
with ill intent. Advertisers generally pay Google, Yahoo and
others based on the number of times people click on their ads
displayed alongside Web-search results, with each click costing
roughly 50 cents on average. The suit points out that by
repeatedly clicking on the ads or using software programs to
automate the clicking, fraudsters can run up ad charges for
rivals.

The suit, which was filed in Circuit Court in Miller County,
Arkansas, thus alleges that the search companies improperly
charged the plaintiffs for such fraudulent clicks. The Lane's
suit also names as defendants Time Warner Inc. and its America
Online unit, Ask Jeeves Inc., Walt Disney Co.'s online unit,
Daum Communications Corp. subsidiary Lycos Inc., LookSmart Ltd.
and FindWhat.com Inc.

According to an Internet expert, the search engines usually have
antifraud systems and sometimes issue refunds for bogus clicks.  
The search companies though declined to comment in detail on the
scope of the problem, exactly how they are fighting it, and any
specific instances of click fraud, in part because they don't
want to tip off fraudsters.  That action though has fed some
advertisers' fears that the problem is bigger than the search
companies acknowledge with estimates of click fraud running as
high as 20% of all clicks on search ads.


KNIGHT TRADING: Shareholders Launch Securities Fraud Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
Knight Trading Group, Inc. faces a class action filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, styled "Gurfein etc. v. Ameritrade, Inc. et al."  The suit
also names as defendants various specialist firms, broker
dealers and the American Stock Exchange.

The suit alleges the defendants violated common law and the
securities laws by, among other things, failing to execute limit
orders for options at quoted prices and by executing market
orders for options at prices less favorable than the actual
market price.  The plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages
and injunctive relief.


MACK TRUCKS: Recalls 127 2004 CV/DM Trucks Due To Crash Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mack Trucks, Inc. in cooperation with the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration's Office of Defects Investigation
is voluntarily recalling about 127 2004 Mack / CV and 2004 Mack
/ DM Trucks.

According to the ODI, on certain heavy-duty, class 8 trucks, the
lower and upper steering shaft pinch bolts were improperly
tightened. As a result of this condition, the steering shaft
could possible become loose, which could then lead to a sudden
loss of vehicle control and thus result in a crash.

As a remedy, dealers will inspect the torque at the susceptible
joints. For more details, contact Mack by Phone: 1-610-709-2131
or the NHTSA Auto Safety Hotline: 1-888-327-4236.


MASTERCARD INTERNATIONAL: Court Dismisses Paycom Billing's Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
MasterCard International reports that a U.S. District court
judge has dismissed all claims brought against MasterCard
International by Paycom Billing Services, Inc. The judge ruled
that Paycom suffered no antitrust harm as a result of
MasterCard's rules or policies.

"MasterCard is pleased that the court agreed that the plaintiff,
an aggregator of payment services, failed to demonstrate that
the policies at issue in this case do not harm competition. The
judge also recognized that the plaintiff has multiple options
for accepting payment, and could choose not to participate in
our network," said Eileen Simon, MasterCard associate general
counsel.

Aggregators provide payment card services to multiple merchants,
including online adult content websites.

The ruling was made in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York by Judge David G. Trager. Paycom was
represented by Lloyd Constantine's firm, which also represented
the merchants in the class action relating to debit.

The plaintiff, Paycom Billing Services, Inc. is an aggregator of
sales for Internet businesses. Paycom contracts with Internet
merchants, most of which, according the court's ruling, provide
online digital adult content. Paycom's primary challenge was to
MasterCard's chargeback system protecting against fraudulent
purchases.

The court's ruling recognized that Paycom is free to stop
accepting MasterCard on behalf of its clients, or to urge its
clients' customers to pay with other payment cards. The judge
ruled that the plaintiff could not demonstrate that MasterCard's
policies harmed competition.

"We are pleased that Judge Trager recognized that antitrust laws
are designed to protect competition, not individual
competitors," Ms. Simon said.

The plaintiff brought other antitrust claims, which the court
dismissed, against additional MasterCard policies: its
Competitive Programs Policy (CPP), Cross-Border Acquiring Rules,
and Internet Merchant Qualification Mandates. The court ruled
that Paycom had no standing to bring antitrust claims relating
to any of these policies.

Specifically regarding the CPP claim, Judge Trager ruled that in
addition to the lack of standing on its antitrust theory,
plaintiffs' damages are "highly speculative" because in order to
determine plaintiff's damages, a court would first have to
determine, for example, how many additional fraudulent
transactions on any other payment network would have occurred if
the CPP did not exist. This would amount to pure speculation.

We agree with the court's decision that determining any damages
under this theory would be hopelessly speculative," said Ms.
Simon.

For more details contact Sharon Gamsin of MasterCard
International by Phone: 914-249-5622 or by E-mail:
sgamsin@mastercard.com.  


MIRANT CORPORATION: Ratepayer Suits Remanded To CA State Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Six ratepayer lawsuits filed against Mirant Corporation and some
of its subsidiaries have been remanded to California State
Court.

Various lawsuits are pending that assert claims under California
law based on allegations that certain owners of electric
generation facilities in California and energy marketers,
including the Company, Mirant Americas Energy Marketing and
several Mirant Americas Generation subsidiaries, engaged in
various unlawful and anti-competitive acts that served to
manipulate wholesale power markets and inflate wholesale
electricity prices in California.

Six such suits were filed between November 27, 2000 and May 2,
2001 in various California Superior Courts. Three of these suits
seek class action status, while two of the suits are brought on
behalf of all citizens of California.  One lawsuit alleges that,
as a result of the defendants' conduct, customers paid
approximately $4 billion more for electricity than they
otherwise would have and seeks an award of treble damages as
well as other injunctive and equitable relief.  One lawsuit also
names certain of the Company's officers individually as
defendants and alleges that the state had to spend more than $6
billion purchasing electricity.  The other suits likewise seek
treble damages and equitable relief. One such suit names Mirant
itself as a defendant.  A listing of these six cases is as
follows:

     (1) People of the State of California v. Dynegy, et al,
         filed January 18, 2001, Superior Court of California,
         San Francisco County;

     (2) Gordon v. Reliant Energy, Inc., et al., filed November
         27, 2000, Superior Court of California, San Diego
         County;

     (3) Hendricks v. Dynegy Power November 29, 2000, Superior
         Court of California San Diego County;

     (4) Sweetwater Authority, et al. v. Dynegy, Inc., et al.,
         January 16, 2001, Superior Court of California, San
         Diego County;

     (5) Pier 23 Restaurant v. PG&E Energy Trading, et al.,
         January 24, 2001, Superior Court of California, San
         Francisco County;

     (6) Bustamante, et al. v. Dynegy, Inc., et al., filed May
         2, 2001, Superior Court of California, Los Angeles
         County

These six suits (the "Six Coordinated Suits") were coordinated
for purposes of pretrial proceedings before the Superior Court
for San Diego County. In the spring of 2002, two of the
defendants filed crossclaims against other market participants
who were not parties to the actions.  Some of those crossclaim
defendants then removed the Six Coordinated Suits to the United
States District Court for the Southern District of California.
The plaintiffs filed a motion seeking to have the actions
remanded to the California state court, and the defendants filed
motions seeking to have the claims dismissed.  On December 13,
2002, the United States District Court for the Southern District
of California granted the plaintiffs' motion seeking to have the
six cases remanded to the California state court.  The
defendants that filed the crossclaims appealed that decision
remanding the Six Coordinated Suits to the California state
courts to the Ninth Circuit.  On December 8, 2004, the Ninth
Circuit affirmed the district court's remand decision. These
actions are stayed with respect to the Mirant entities that are
defendants by the filing of the Chapter 11 proceedings of those
entities, but are proceeding with respect to the other
defendants.

Two plaintiffs in the Six Coordinated Suits, Oscar's Photo Lab
and Mary L. Davis (the "Claimants"), filed proofs of claim (the
"Oscar Claims") in the bankruptcy proceedings against the
Company, Mirant Americas Energy Marketing, Mirant Americas
Generation and other subsidiaries of Mirant on behalf of
themselves and a purported class of all persons or entities in
California who purchased electricity or natural gas for purposes
other than resale or distribution at any time since January 1,
1999.  Claimants alleged that various misconduct by Mirant and
several of its subsidiaries caused inflated prices in the
California wholesale power markets. Claimants listed the damage
amount of their claims as "unliquidated."  On October 18, 2004,
the Mirant Debtors filed an objection to the Oscar Claims.  On
November 5, 2004, the Mirant Debtors filed a motion requesting
that the Bankruptcy Court strike the portions of the Oscar
Claims that purported to have been filed on behalf of unnamed
absent members of a purported class.

On January 26, 2005, the Bankruptcy Court issued an order
embodying a ruling made orally on December 1, 2004 granting this
motion and disallowing the Oscar Claims with prejudice to the
extent they sought to recover on account of any claims other
than the claims of Oscar Photo Labs and Mary L. Davis in their
individual capacities.  The Claimants have filed a motion to
amend their claims to add allegations of improper conduct by
Mirant entities with respect to the reporting of information
about natural gas transactions to trade publications that
publish price indices, and the Mirant Debtors have also filed a
motion to disallow the Oscar Claims. The Bankruptcy Court has
not acted upon either motion.

The Mirant Debtors have entered into a stipulation with the
Claimants entitling each plaintiff to receive an allowed,
general, prepetition unsecured claim against Mirant Americas
Energy Marketing in the amount of $1,000 without the Mirant
Debtors' admission of the validity of the Oscar Claims or any of
the factual or legal assertions of these Claimants and with a
full reservation of any rights, claims and defenses any of the
Mirant Debtors may have against any person asserting the same or
similar factual or legal assertions as those contained in the
Oscar Claims.  On March 9, 2005, the Bankruptcy Court entered
the order and approved the stipulation.


MIRANT CORPORATION: Continues To Face Eight CA Rate Payer Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mirant Corporation continues to face eight rate payer lawsuits
filed in California State Courts between April 23, 2002 and
October 18, 2002 alleging that certain owners of electric
generation facilities in California, as well as certain energy
marketers, including the Company, Mirant Americas Energy
Marketing and several Mirant Americas Generation subsidiaries,
engaged in various unlawful and fraudulent business acts that
served to manipulate wholesale markets and inflate wholesale
electricity prices in California during 1999 through 2002.

Each of the complaints alleges violation of California's Unfair
Competition Act. One complaint also alleges violation of
California's antitrust statute. Each of the plaintiffs seeks
class action status for their respective case. Some of these
suits also allege that contracts between the California
Department of Water Resources (DWR) and certain marketers of
electricity, including a nineteen month power sales agreement
entered into by Mirant Americas Energy Marketing with the DWR in
May 2001 that terminated in December 2002, contain terms that
were unjust and unreasonable. The actions seek, among other
things, restitution, compensatory and general damages, and to
enjoin the defendants from engaging in illegal conduct. The
captions of each of these eight cases follow:

     (1) T&E Pastorino Nursery, et al. V. Duke Energy Trading
         and Marketing, LLC, et al., filed April 23, 2002,
         Superior Court of California, San Mateo County;

     (2) RDJ Farms, Inc., et al. v. Allegheny Energy Supply,
         Company, LLC, et al., Superior Court of California, San
         Joaquin County;

     (3) Century Theatres, Inc., et al. v. Allegheny Energy
         Supply Company, LLC, et al. filed May 14, 2002 Superior
         Court of California, San Francisco County;

     (4) El Super Burrito, Inc., et al. v. Allegheny Energy,
         Supply Company, LLC, et al., May 15, 2002, Superior
         Court of California, San Mateo County;

     (5) Leo's Day and Night Pharmacy, et al. v. Duke Trading
         and Marketing, LLC, et al., filed May 21, 2002,
         Superior Court of California, Alameda County;

     (6) J& M Karsant Family Limited Partnership, et al. v. Duke
         Energy Trading and Marketing, LLC, et al., filed May
         21, 2002, Superior Court of California, Alameda County;

     (7) Bronco Don Holdings, LLP, et al. v. Duke Energy Trading
         and Marketing, LLC, et al., filed on May 24, 2002,
         Superior Court of California, San Francisco County;

     (8) Kurtz v. Duke Energy Trading et al.; filed October 18,
         2002; Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County

These suits were initially filed in California state courts by
the plaintiffs and removed to United States district courts.
These eight cases were consolidated for purposes of pretrial
proceedings with the Six Coordinated Suits described above.
These actions are stayed with respect to the Mirant defendants
by the filing of the Chapter 11 proceedings of those entities,
but are proceeding with respect to the other defendants.  On
August 28, 2003, the district court granted the motions to
dismiss filed by the defendants in the Pastorino, RDJ Farms,
Century Theatres, El Super Burrito, Leo's Day and Night
Pharmacy, J& M Karsant and Bronco Don Holdings suits, finding
that the plaintiffs' claims were barred by the filed rate
doctrine and federal preemption.  The plaintiffs have appealed
that dismissal to the Ninth Circuit.  The plaintiff in the Kurtz
suit voluntarily dismissed his case without prejudice on
February 18, 2004. None of the plaintiffs in these eight cases
have filed proofs of claim in the bankruptcy proceedings.


MIRANT CORPORATION: High Court Yet To Rule on Writ of Certiorari
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Supreme Court has yet to rule on plaintiffs'
petition for writ of certiorari to appeal a lower court ruling
dismissing the rate payer lawsuit filed against Mirant
Corporation and various owners of electric generation facilities
in California, styled "Public Utility District No. 1 of
Snohomish Co. v. Dynegy Power Marketing, et al.  The suit was
filed in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California

The Public Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish County, which is
a municipal corporation in the state of Washington that provides
electric and water utility service.  The plaintiff public
utility district alleges that defendants violated California's
antitrust statute by conspiring to raise wholesale power prices,
injuring plaintiff through higher power purchase costs. The
plaintiff also alleges that defendants acted both unfairly and
unlawfully in violation of California's Unfair Competition Act
through various unlawful and anticompetitive acts, including the
purportedly wrongful acquisition of plants, engagement in
"Enron-style" trading and withholding power from the market. The
plaintiff seeks restitution, disgorgement of profits, injunctive
relief, treble damages and attorney's fees.

The Snohomish suit was consolidated for purposes of pretrial
proceedings with the other ratepayer suits pending before the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
California.  On January 6, 2003, the district court granted a
motion to dismiss filed by the defendants. On September 10,
2004, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
upheld the dismissal of the suit by the district court. The
court of appeals ruled that the plaintiff's claims under
California's antitrust statute and Unfair Competition Act are
barred by the doctrine of preemption and the filed rate
doctrine, concluding that if prices in the California wholesale
electricity markets were not just and reasonable or if the
defendants sold electricity in violation of the applicable
tariffs, the plaintiff's only option was to seek a remedy before
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) under the
Federal Power Act. On November 5, 2004, the plaintiff filed a
petition for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme
Court seeking to appeal the Ninth Circuit's decision. The
plaintiff in the Snohomish suit has not filed a claim in the
bankruptcy proceedings.


MISSION PETROLEUM: AL Tanker Crash, Chemical Spill Prompts Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A business owner and a homeowner, who were located near the site
of a tractor-trailer crash and chemical spill in Mobile,
Alabama, launched a class-action federal lawsuit against Mission
Petroleum Carriers, a Texas trucking company that was hauling
the hazardous cargo, the Associated Press reports.

Filed in U.S. District Court in Mobile by homeowner Yvette
Lockwood and Heavenly H2O owner Anthony Burgman, the suit seeks
financial damages for all of the residents who were forced to
evacuate and all of the businesses that had to close. Others
affected by the crash could be eligible to collect possible
damages if the judge agrees.

According to police, the tractor-trailer overturned as it was
exiting Interstate 10 in Tillman's Corner. Authorities have said
that as much as 100 gallons of epichlorohydrin, a toxic and
explosive chemical, which was bound for the Degussa Corp.,
escaped from the overturned tanker.

The lawsuit though quotes earlier estimates of 400 gallons in
the spill. It also states that residents suffered mental anguish
and emotional distress as a result of the crash. Additionally,
according to the suit, businesses lost profits due to the forced
closings.


NATIONSBANK: SEC Launches Amended Fraud Complaint V. Defendants
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed its First Amended
Complaint (Amended Complaint) against defendants Richard A
Svoboda (Svoboda) and Michael A. Robles (Robles), in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.   The
Amended Complaint in this insider trading case alleges that
defendant Svoboda, formerly an employee of NationsBank, N.A.
(NationsBank), traded in the securities of nine companies on the
basis of material nonpublic information that he stole from
NationsBank and its customers.  The Amended Complaint also
alleges that Svoboda schemed with and tipped his long-time
friend, defendant Robles, who traded in the securities of twenty
companies on the basis of material nonpublic information stolen
from NationsBank and its customers.  According to the Amended
Complaint, Svoboda's and Robles' combined ill-gotten gains (not
including interest) from their illegal insider trading were
approximately $1.25 million.  The Amended Complaint alleges that
the defendants' insider trading violated Section 17(a) of the
Securities Act of 1933, Sections 10(b) and 14(e) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Exchange Act Rules 10b-5
and 14e-3, and seeks injunctive relief, disgorgement, and civil
money penalties.
     
The Commission filed its original complaint on Nov. 7, 2000, the
same day Mr. Svoboda and Mr. Robles were indicted in a related
criminal case in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.
          
In the criminal case, Svoboda pleaded guilty to conspiracy,
securities fraud, and tender offer fraud, and was sentenced to
be incarcerated for 12 months and one day, and to pay a $200,000
fine.  After a merits trial, a federal jury convicted Robles of
conspiracy, securities fraud, and tender offer fraud.  He was
sentenced to be incarcerated for 41 months, and to pay a
$300,000 fine.  The Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Nr.
Robles' conviction on Oct. 24, 2003. The action is titled, SEC
v. Richard A. Svoboda and Michael A. Robles, Civil Action No. 00
Civ. 8557 (MBM) SDNY] (LR-19157).
          

NEVADA: Krystle Sands Buyers File Suit Over Condo's Cancellation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Some buyers of the scuttled Krystle Sands condo-hotel project
have initiated lawsuits against the developer and the project's
limited liability company, seeking at least $70 million in
damages and return of escrow money to them, the Las Vegas Sun
reports.  

Five of the lawsuits, including one that is seeking class action
status, were filed in Clark County District Court against F.W.
"Freddie" Schinz, Krystle Sands LLC, Krystle Towers LLC and
Fidelity National Title Agency of Nevada. Among the lawsuits'
claims are allegations of fraud, deceptive trade practices and
civil conspiracy.

Florida-based Mr. Schinz had announced last spring his plans to
build the $400 million Krystle Sands, a 45-story condominium-
hotel on the 3.6-acre site of the now-demolished Algiers hotel.
But, those plans were canceled last month after Mr. Schinz said
he sold the limited liability company, Krystle Towers LLC
(formerly Krystle Sands LLC), formed in Florida, to Turnberry
Associates.

According to Will Kemp, one of the attorneys for the plaintiffs,
Turnberry Associates is not specifically named as a defendant
because it allegedly purchased the limited liability company
from Mr. Schinz. Another attorney for the plaintiffs though,
Mark James, said he and other plaintiffs' attorneys are looking
into exactly how the deal was structured.

Reached at his Florida office, Mr. Schinz said he did not know
anything about the lawsuits and referred calls to Mario Romaine,
an attorney with Turnberry. Mr. Romaine though declined comment.

The five lawsuits all basically levy the same accusation: that
Mr. Schinz never planned to build the tower and that, while
selling 600 condo units he had sought a buyer for the land.

That buyer, according to the lawsuit that is seeking class-
action status alleges was Turnberry Associates, which bought the
limited liability company, and subsequently the land, for $97
million. Mr. Schinz bought the land July 2004 for $26.2 million,
Clark County Assessor Records show.

"In our opinion, this is outrageous conduct," said Mr. James.
Who also adds, "We find it extremely outrageous that someone
would breach their contract with our clients to reach a massive,
reportedly over $50 million, profit for themselves."

The lawsuit, which is seeking the alleged $70 million profit
from the sale of the company, alleges that in a March 25 letter
to buyers, John Riordan, vice president of sales for Turnberry,
falsely represented that the Krystle Sands project was canceled
because it was unable to get construction financing.

That is despite the fact that Turnberry Associates announced
four days prior to the letter that it was able to get
construction financing to build a separate 636-unit condo
project in Las Vegas, the lawsuit further states.

Mr. James said the announcement came via a press release that
was dated March 21 from Turnberry Associates, which said it
plans to begin sales for its Turnberry Place, a 636-unit
community at Paradise Road and Karen Avenue, in late March with
construction slated to begin this spring.

Additionally, Mr. James said that some of his clients have
received refunds on their escrow deposits, relating to the
Krystle Sands project, while others have not. "There appears to
be an attempt to tender back checks and wash their hands of the
whole thing," he adds.

The Krystle Sands property is behind Turnberry Place, a luxury
high-rise condo complex and next door to vacant land, once the
site of the El Rancho, also owned by Turnberry.


PENNZOIL-QUAKER: Faces Five Injury Suits Due To Jan. 2000 Fire
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pennzoil-Quaker State Company (PQS) faces five consolidated
class actions filed by neighbors living in the vicinity of the
PQS Shreveport, Louisiana refinery, in relation to a fire and
explosion that occurred at the refinery on January 18, 2000. The
Company claimed the fire and explosion were caused, in part, by
Genesis Energy's selling to PQS crude oil that was contaminated
with organic chlorides.

The suits are filed in the First Judicial District Court, Caddo
Parish, Louisiana, and designated as case nos. 455,647-A.
455,658-B, 455,655-A, 456,574-A, and 458,379-C.  The Company has
brought third party claims demand against Genesis and others for
indemnity with respect to the fire and explosion of January 18,
2000.


RAYTHEON COMPANY: MA Court Approves Investor Lawsuit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts granted final approval to the settlement of the
consolidated class action filed against Raytheon Company and two
of its officers.

Several suits were initially filed and later consolidated into a
single complaint in June 2000, when four additional former or
present officers were named as defendants in a Consolidated and
Amended Class Action Complaint with the caption, "In re:
Raytheon Securities Litigation (Civil Action No. 12142-PBS)."  
The Consolidated Complaint principally alleged that the
defendants violated federal securities laws by purportedly
making misleading statements and by failing to disclose material
information concerning the Company's financial performance
during the class period.

In March 2002, the court certified the class of plaintiffs as
those people who purchased Raytheon stock between October 7,
1998 through October 12, 1999. On March 17, 2003 the named
plaintiff filed a Second Consolidated and Amended Complaint
which did not change the claims against the Company or the
individual defendants, but which added the Company's independent
registered public accounting firm as an additional defendant.
Without admitting any liability or wrongdoing, in May 2004, the
Company reached an agreement to settle this class action lawsuit
on behalf of the Company and all individual defendants.

The terms of the settlement included a cash payment of $210
million and the issuance of warrants for the Company's stock
with a stipulated value of $200 million.  The warrants will have
a five-year term with a strike price of $37.50 and will be
issued when the settlement proceeds are distributed to the
claimants.  On December 6, 2004, the Court issued an Order
granting Final Approval of the settlement and, on December 10,
2004, Final Judgment was entered resolving all claims asserted
against the Company and the individual defendants.  In May 2004,
the Company's independent registered public accounting firm
reached a settlement with the plaintiff, which was also approved
on December 6, 2004.


RAYTHEON COMPANY: Discovery Proceeds in ID Shareholder Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in the class action filed against
Raytheon Company in the United States District Court in Boise,
Idaho, "Muzinich & Co., Inc. et al v. Raytheon Company, et. al.,
(Civil Action No. 01-0284-S-BLW)."

The suit was filed on behalf of all purchasers of common stock
or senior notes of Washington Group International, Inc. (WGI)
during the period April 17, 2000 through March 1, 2001 (the
class period).  The plaintiff class claims to have suffered harm
by purchasing WGI securities because the Company and certain of
its officers allegedly violated federal securities laws by
purportedly misrepresenting the true financial condition of
Raytheon Engineering & Construction (RE&C) in order to sell RE&
C to WGI at an artificially inflated price.

An amended complaint was filed on October 1, 2001 alleging
similar claims.  The Company and the individual defendants filed
a motion seeking to dismiss the action in mid-November 2001.  On
April 30, 2002, the Court denied the Company's and the
individual defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint.
Thereafter, the defendants filed a petition with the District
Court requesting permission to seek an immediate appeal of the
District Court's decision to the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit, which the District Court granted on July
1, 2002.

In August 2002, the Ninth Circuit issued an order denying the
petition for interlocutory appeal.  In April 2003, the District
Court conditionally certified the class and defined the class
period as that between April 17, 2000 and March 2, 2001,
inclusive.  Defendants have filed their answer to the amended
complaint and discovery is proceeding.


RAYTHEON COMPANY: Asks MA Court To Dismiss ERISA Fraud Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Raytheon Company asked the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts to dismiss the consolidated securities
class action, filed against it, alleging violations of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

In May 2003 two purported class action lawsuits entitled,
"Benjamin Wall v. Raytheon Company et al. (Civil Action No. 03-
10940-RGS)" and "Joseph I. Duggan, III v. Raytheon Company et
al. (Civil Action No. 03-10995-RGS)," were filed on behalf of
participants in the Company's savings and investment plans who
invested in the Company's stock between August 19, 1999 and May
27, 2003.

The two class action complaints are brought pursuant to the
ERISA.  Both complaints allege that the Company and certain
officers and directors breached ERISA fiduciary and co-fiduciary
duties arising out of the Company's savings and investment
plans' investment in the Company stock.  In September 2003,
these actions were consolidated.  In April 2004, a second
consolidated amended complaint was filed on behalf of
participants and beneficiaries in the Company's savings and
investment plans who invested in the Company's stock since
October 7, 1998.  In October 2004, the defendants filed a motion
to dismiss the Second Consolidated Amended ERISA Complaint.


ROYAL DUTCH: In Settlement Talks On Some U.S. ERISA Complaints
--------------------------------------------------------------
In a recently released filing, Royal Dutch/Shell (RD,SC)
reported that it was in settlement talks on some of the class
action litigation in United States, which were unleashed after
it was forced to reclassify its oil reserves, the Dow Jones
Newswires reports.

In its 20-F filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission,
the oil giant reported that it was in talks with holders of
various Shell Oil Company pension plans, which had been launched
in the U.S. under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974.  The filing specifically stated: "The Group is in
settlement discussions with counsel for plaintiffs, which it
hopes will lead to a successful resolution of the case without
the need for further litigation." The company though in that
same filing did not disclose any estimated amount it may have to
pay in any settlement and said no financial provisions have been
taken.

In addition to the settlement talks, the filing also disclosed
that the company has lent $12 million to former board members to
cover litigation costs.  The filing did not contain information
on whether the group is in talks on any of the other class
action lawsuits launched in the wake of the reserves'
reclassification, in which the company revealed its oil reserves
were substantially smaller than it had earlier reported and led
to the departure of Chief Executive Philip Watts.  


TERAYON COMMUNICATION: Discovery Proceeds in CA Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in the consolidated securities class
action filed against Terayon Communication Systems, Inc. and
certain of its officers and directors in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California as "In re
Terayon Communication Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation."

The Court then appointed lead plaintiffs who filed an amended
complaint. In 2001, the Court granted in part and denied in part
defendants' motion to dismiss, and plaintiffs filed a new
complaint.  In 2002, the Court denied defendants' motion to
dismiss that complaint, which, like the earlier complaints,
alleges that the defendants violated the federal securities laws
by issuing materially false and misleading statements and
failing to disclose material information regarding the Company's
technology.

On February 24, 2003, the Court certified a plaintiff class
consisting of those who purchased or otherwise acquired the
Company's securities between November 15, 1999 and April 11,
2000.  On September 8, 2003, the Court heard defendants' motion
to disqualify two of the lead plaintiffs and to modify the
definition of the plaintiff class. On September 10, 2003, the
Court issued an order vacating the hearing date for the parties'
summary judgment motions, and, on September 22, 2003, the Court
issued another order staying all discovery until further notice
and vacating the trial date, which had been November 4, 2003.

On February 23, 2004, the Court issued an order disqualifying
two of the lead plaintiffs. The order also states that
plaintiffs' counsel must provide certain information to the
Court about counsel's relationship with the disqualified lead
plaintiffs, and it provides that defendants may serve certain
additional discovery.  On March 24, 2004, plaintiffs submitted
certain documents to the Court in response to its order, and, on
April 16, 2004, the Company responded to this submission.  The
Company also has initiated discovery pursuant to the Court's
February 23, 2004 order.

On October 16, 2000, a lawsuit was filed against the Company and
the individual defendants (Zaki Rakib, Selim Rakib and Raymond
Fritz) in the California Superior Court, San Luis Obispo County,
styled "Bertram v. Terayon Communications Systems, Inc."  The
factual allegations in the Bertram complaint were similar to
those in the federal class action, but the Bertram complaint
sought remedies under state law. Defendants removed the Bertram
case to the United States District Court, Central District of
California, which dismissed the complaint and transferred the
case to the United States District Court, Northern District of
California.  That Court eventually issued an order dismissing
the case.  Plaintiffs have appealed this order, and their appeal
was heard on April 16, 2004.  On June 9, 2004, the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the order
dismissing the Bertram case.


TOYOTA NORTH: Recalls 5,726 2004-2005 Tundras Due To Defects
-----------------------------------------------------------
Toyota North America, Inc. in cooperation with the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Office of Defects
Investigation is voluntarily recalling about 5726 2004-2005
Toyota Tundras.

According to the ODI, on certain pickup trucks equipped with
both vehicle stability control (VSC) and the TRD dual exhaust
system met all clearance specifications on models without the
VSC, however the driver's side exhaust located in a position
where contact between a brake line found only on vehicles with
VSC and the TRD exhaust pipe might occur. In this condition, the
exhaust pipe flange may rub against the right brake line, which
could cause brake fluid leakage. This could lead to an increase
of vehicle stopping distance, which could result in a crash.

As a remedy, dealers will inspect and is so equipped replace the
TRD system. At the same time the dealer will also inspect the
specific brake line to assure it has not been damaged and
replace it if necessary. For more details, the NHTSA Auto Safety
Hotline: 1-888-327-4236.


US UNWIRED: Shareholders Launch Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. LA
----------------------------------------------------------------
US Unwired, Inc. faces a securities class action filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana by Clodile Romero, Jr., individually and on behalf of
all purchasers of the Company's common stock between May 23,
2000 and August 13, 2002.  The suit also names as defendants
three of the Company's executive officers.

The suit alleges that the Company and the other named defendants
issued false and misleading statements to the investing public
during the Class Period regarding the Company's financial
condition, which resulted in the artificial inflation of the
price of the Company's common stock during the Class Period.

More specifically, the plaintiffs in this case allege that the
defendants knowingly or recklessly failed to disclose and/or
misrepresented that:

     (1) the Company was increasing its subscriber base by
         signing up high credit risk customers;

     (2) accounting changes implemented by the Company were done
         in order to conceal its declining revenues;

     (3) the Company had been experiencing high involuntary
         disconnections related to its high credit risk
         customers;

     (4) the Company experienced lower subscription growth as a
         result of its policy that required credit-challenged
         customers to pay substantial deposits upon initiation
         of services; and

     (5) the Company was engaged in a significant dispute with
         Sprint regarding its business relationship with that
         entity.

The plaintiffs in this case seek compensatory damages against
all defendants for all damages alleged to have been sustained as
a result of the defendants' alleged wrongdoing; an award to the
plaintiffs for their reasonable costs and expenses incurred in
this action; and other relief customarily sought in a class
action lawsuit.

The suit is styled "Clodile Romero, Jr. Individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, v. US Unwired, Inc.,
William L. Henning, Jr., Robert W. Piper and Jerry E. Vaughn,"
filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana.  The plaintiff firms in this litigation
are:

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

    (ii) Federman & Sherwood, 120 North Robinson, Suite 2720,
         Oklahoma City, OK, 73102, Phone: 405-235-1560, E-mail:
         wfederman@aol.com

   (iii) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins (San
         Diego), 401 B Street, Suite 1700, San Diego, CA, 92101,
         Phone: 619.231.1058, Fax: 619.231.7423, E-mail:
         info@lerachlaw.com;

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

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

    (vi) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
         (Melville), 200 Broadhollow, Suite 406, Melville, NY,
         11747, Phone: 631.367.7100, Fax: 631.367.1173, E-mail:
         info@lerachlaw.com


VISHAY INTERTECHNOLOGY: Shareholders Launch Fraud Lawsuit in DE
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vishay Intertechnology, Inc. faces a class action filed in the
Delaware Court of Chancery for New Castle County, on behalf of
all non-Vishay shareholders of the Company's 80.4% owned
subsidiary, Siliconix, Inc.  The suit also names as defendants:

     (1) Ernst & Young LLP (independent registered public
         accounting firm that audits the Company's consolidated
         financial statements),

     (2) Dr. Felix Zandman, Chairman and Chief Technical and
         Business Development Officer of Vishay, and

     (3) Siliconix, Inc. as a nominal defendant,

The suit purports to state various derivative and class claims
against the defendants, including:

     (i) the purported taking by the Company of Siliconix sales
         subsidiaries and the profits of those subsidiaries;

    (ii) the purported taking by the Company of Siliconix's SAP
         software system without compensation to Siliconix;

   (iii) the alleged use by the Company of Siliconix's assets as
         security for Vishay loans without compensation to
         Siliconix;

    (iv) the purported misappropriation by the Company of
         Siliconix's identity;

     (v) the alleged taking by Vishay of Siliconix testing
         equipment;

    (vi) the alleged use by Vishay of Siliconix to save Vishay
         certain credits made available by an Israeli business
         development agency;

   (vii) the alleged misuse by Vishay of Siliconix's patents to
         help Vishay acquire General Semiconductor; and

  (viii) the allegedly improper identification of Dr. Zandman as
         a co-inventor on certain Siliconix patents.

The action seeks injunctive relief and unspecified damages.  


VIGNETTE CORPORATION: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against Vignette
Corporation and certain of its current and former officers and
directors.

On October 26, 2001, a class action lawsuit was filed against
the Company and certain of its current and former officers and
directors, styled "Leon Leybovich v. Vignette Corporation, et
al.," seeking unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class
that purchased the Company's common stock between February 18,
1999 and December 6, 2000.  Also named as defendants were four
underwriters involved in the Company's initial public offering
of Vignette stock in February 1999 and the Company's secondary
public offering of Vignette stock in December 1999:

     (1) Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, Inc.,

     (2) Hambrecht & Quist, LLC,

     (3) Dain Rauscher Wessels and

     (4) U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray, Inc.

A Consolidated Amended Complaint, which is now the operative
complaint, was filed on April 19, 2002. The complaint alleges
violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act
of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, based on, among other
things, claims that the four underwriters awarded material
portions of the shares in the Company's initial and secondary
public offerings to certain customers in exchange for excessive
commissions. The plaintiff also asserts that the underwriters
engaged in "tie-in arrangements" whereby certain customers were
allocated shares of Company stock sold in its initial and
secondary public offerings in exchange for an agreement to
purchase additional shares in the aftermarket at pre-determined
prices.

With respect to the Company, the complaint alleges that the
Company and its officers and directors failed to disclose the
existence of these purported excessive commissions and tie-in
arrangements in the prospectus and registration statement for
the Company's initial public offering and the prospectus and
registration statement for the Company's secondary public
offering.  The action seeks damages in an unspecified amount.

The action is being coordinated with approximately 300 other
nearly identical actions filed against other companies. On
October 9, 2002, the Court dismissed the Individual Defendants
from the case without prejudice based upon Stipulations of
Dismissal filed by the plaintiffs and the Individual Defendants.
On February 19, 2003, the Court denied a motion to dismiss the
complaint against the Company. On October 13, 2004, the Court
certified a class in six of the other nearly identical actions
and noted that the decision is intended to provide strong
guidance to all parties regarding class certification in the
remaining cases.  Plaintiffs have not yet moved to certify a
class in the Company's case.

The Company has approved a settlement agreement and related
agreements which set forth the terms of a settlement between the
Company, the Individual Defendants, the plaintiff class and the
vast majority of the other issuer defendants.  Among other
provisions, the settlement provides for a release of the Company
and the Individual Defendants for the conduct alleged in the
action to be wrongful. The Company would agree to undertake
certain responsibilities, including agreeing to assign away, not
assert, or release certain potential claims the Company may have
against its underwriters. The settlement agreement also provides
a guaranteed recovery of $1 billion to plaintiffs for the cases
relating to all of the approximately 300 issuers. To the extent
that the underwriter defendants settle all of the cases for at
least $1 billion, no payment will be required under the issuers'
settlement agreement. To the extent that the underwriter
defendants settle for less than $1 billion, the issuers are
required to make up the difference. It is anticipated that any
potential financial obligation of the Company to plaintiffs
pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement and related
agreements will be covered by existing insurance. The Company
currently is not aware of any material limitations on the
expected recovery of any potential financial obligation to
plaintiffs from its insurance carriers.  Its carriers are
solvent, and the company is not aware of any uncertainties as to
the legal sufficiency of an insurance claim with respect to any
recovery by plaintiffs.

Therefore, the Company does not expect that the settlement will
involve any payment by the Company. Even if material limitations
on the expected recovery of any potential financial obligation
to the plaintiffs from the Company's insurance carriers should
arise, the Company's maximum financial obligation to plaintiffs
pursuant to the settlement agreement is less than $3.4 million.
The settlement agreement has been submitted to the Court for
approval. Approval by the Court cannot be assured.

On February 15, 2005, the court granted preliminary approval of
the settlement agreement, subject to certain modifications
consistent with its opinion. Judge Shira Scheindlin ruled that
the issuer defendants and the plaintiffs must submit a revised
settlement agreement which provides for a mutual bar of all
contribution claims by the settling and non-settling parties and
does not bar the parties from pursuing other claims.


WELLS REAL: Asks GA Court To Dismiss Shareholder Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wells Capital, Inc. asked the Gwinnett County Superior Court in
Georgia to dismiss the class action filed against it, Wells
Management Company, Inc. and Leo. F. Wells, III, the president
and a director of Wells Real Estate Investment Trust, Wells
Capital, and Wells Management.

ON March 12, 2004, a putative class action complaint was filed
by four individuals against Wells Real Estate Fund I (Wells Fund
I), and Wells Fund I's general partners, the Company and Leo F.
Wells, III, who is the president and a director of Wells REIT,
as well as Wells Management and Wells Investment Securities,
Inc. (WIS).  The suit is styled "Hendry et al. v. Leo F. Wells,
III et al., Civil Action No. 04-A-2791 2."

Wells Fund I is a public limited partnership. The plaintiffs
filed the Original Complaint purportedly on behalf of all
limited partners holding B units of Wells Fund I as of January
15, 2003.  The Original Complaint alleged, among other things,
that:

     (1) the general partners, WIS, and Wells Fund I negligently
         and fraudulently made false statements and material
         omissions in connection with the initial sale
         (September 6, 1984 - September 5, 1986) of the B units
         to investors of Wells Fund I by making false statements
         and omissions in sales literature relating to the
         distribution of net sale proceeds to holders of B
         units, among other things;

     (2) the general partners and Wells Fund I negligently and
         fraudulently misrepresented and concealed disclosure
         of, among other things, alleged discrepancies between
         such statements and provisions in the partnership
         agreement for a period of time in order to delay such
         investors from taking any legal, equitable or other
         action to protect their investments in Wells Fund I,
         among other reasons;

     (3) Mr. Wells and Wells Management breached an alleged
         contract arising out of a June 2000 consent
         solicitation to the limited partners; and

     (4) the general partners and Wells Fund I breached
         fiduciary duties to the limited partners.

On June 3, 2004, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion to
permit voluntary dismissal, and the Original Complaint was
dismissed without prejudice.

On November 24, 2004, the plaintiffs filed a second putative
class action complaint against Mr. Wells, Wells Capital, Wells
Management, and Wells Fund I, styled "Hendry et al. v. Leo F.
Wells, III et al., Superior Court of Gwinnett County, Georgia,
Civil Action No. 04A-13051 6."  The plaintiffs filed the
Complaint purportedly on behalf of all limited partners holding
B units of Wells Fund I as of January 9, 2002.

The Complaint alleges, among other things, that the general
partners breached their fiduciary duties to the limited partners
by, among other things:

     (i) failing to timely disclose alleged inconsistencies
         between sales literature and the partnership agreement
         relating to the distribution of net sale proceeds;

    (ii) engaging in a scheme to fraudulently conceal alleged
         inconsistencies between sales literature and the
         partnership agreement relating to the distribution of
         net sale proceeds; and

   (iii) not accepting a settlement offer proposed by a holder
         of A units and a holder of A and B units in other
         litigation naming Wells Fund I as a defendant, in which
         other litigation the court subsequently granted summary
         judgment in favor of Wells Fund I.

The Complaint also alleges that misrepresentations and omissions
in an April 2002 consent solicitation to the limited partners
caused that consent solicitation to be materially misleading. In
addition, the Complaint alleges, among other things, that the
general partners and Wells Management breached an alleged
contract arising out of a June 2000 consent solicitation to the
limited partners relating to an alleged waiver of deferred
management fees.

The plaintiffs seek, among other remedies, the following:
judgment against the general partners of Wells Fund I, jointly
and severally, in an amount to be proven at trial; punitive
damages; disgorgement of fees earned by the general partners
directly or through their affiliates; a declaration that the
consent obtained as a result of an April 2002 consent
solicitation is null and void; enforcement of an alleged
contract arising out of the June 2000 consent solicitation to
waive Wells Management's deferred management fees; and an award
to plaintiffs of their attorneys' fees, costs and expenses. The
Complaint states that Wells Fund I is named only as a necessary
party defendant and that the plaintiffs seek no money from or
relief at the expense of Wells Fund I.  On January 28, 2005, the
defendants filed motions to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims.  The
Court has not yet ruled on those motions.



              Meetings, Conferences & Seminars



* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
-------------------------------------------------


April 7-8, 2005
THE 4TH NATIONAL ADVANCED GUIDE TO CONSUMER FINANCE LITIGATION
AND CLASS ACTIONS
American Conferences
Le Meridien , Chicago, IL
Contact: http://www.americanconference.com

April 11-12, 2005
BAD FAITH AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES
American Conferences
San Francisco
Contact: http://www.americanconference.com

April 13-16, 2005
INSURANCE INSOLVENCY AND REINSURANCE ROUNDTABLE
Mealey Publications
The Fairmont Scottsdale Princess, Scottsdale AZ
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

April 18-19, 2005
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Four Seasons Hotel, Houston
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

April 21-22, 2005
PRESENTING PSYCHOLOGICAL AND NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL EVIDENCE IN
PERSONAL INJURY AND MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASES
The American Bar Association
Tort Trial & Insurance Practice Section, Health Law Section and
The ABA Center for Continuing Legal Education
American Bar Association, Chicago
Contact: 800-285-2221; abacle@abanet.org

April 22, 2005
CLASS ACTION LITIGATION
Bridgeport Continuing Education
Los Angeles
Contact: 818-783-7156

May 7, 2005
2005 CRITICAL ISSUES IN EMPLOYMENT LITIGATION
Continuing Education of the Bar
PLI California Center, San Francisco, CA
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

May 11, 2005
BROKER AND INSURANCE COMPANY PRACTICES AND LIABILITIES
CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Boston
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

May 12-13, 2005
ADDITIONAL INSURED CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Boston
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

May 12-13, 2005
OPINION AND EXPERT TESTIMONY IN FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS
ALI-ABA
Boston Tuition
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

April 22, 2005
CLASS ACTION LITIGATION
Bridgeport Continuing Education
San Francisco
Contact: 818-783-7156

May 16-17, 2005
RUN-OFFS SEMINAR
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Boston
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

May 16-17, 2005
ADDITIONAL INSURED CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Huntington Hotel & Spa, Pasadena CA
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

May 19-20, 2005
DIGITAL DISCOVERY AND ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE
ALI-ABA
Chicago
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

May 21, 2005
2005 CRITICAL ISSUES IN EMPLOYMENT LITIGATION
Continuing Education of the Bar
Irvine Crowne Plaza/OC Airport, Catalina Ballroom, Irvine, CA
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

May 24-25, 2005
PREVAILING OVER CUSTOMER CLAIMS
American Conferences
The Warwick Hotel, New York, NY, United States
Contact: http://www.americanconference.com

June 2005
INTERNATIONAL ASBESTOS CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
London, England
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

June 3-5, 2005
United States v. Philip Morris: Jumpstarting Private Tobacco
Litigation
22nd Conference of the Tobacco Products Liability Project
Boston, MA
Contact: conference@tplp.org

June 4, 2005
2005 CRITICAL ISSUES IN EMPLOYMENT LITIGATION
Continuing Education of the Bar
Wilshire Grand Hotel & Centre, Los Angeles, CA
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

June 4, 2005
2005 CRITICAL ISSUES IN EMPLOYMENT LITIGATION
Continuing Education of the Bar
Red Lion Hotel, Sierra Room,  Sacramento, CA
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

June 8, 2005
ASBESTOS INSURANCE CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The University of Chicago Gleacher Center, Chicago
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

June 8-9, 2005
CLASS ACTION LITIGATION SUMMIT
Northstar Conferences
New York City
Contact: http://www.northstarconferences.com/

June 9-10, 2005
NURSING HOME LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Amelia Island
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

June 9-10, 2005
ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Chicago
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

June 13-14, 2005
PPA & EPHEDRA LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, New Orleans
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

June 13-14, 2005
PHARMACEUTICAL LITIGATION 101
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, New Orleans
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

June 16-17, 2005
MOLD LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Marina Del-Ray, CA
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

June 20-21, 2005
THE 2ND NATIONAL FORUM ON WELDING ROD LITIGATION
American Conferences
Omni Chicago Hotel, Chicago, IL, United States
Contact: http://www.americanconference.com

June 22, 2005
THE 2ND NATIONAL FORUM ON WELDING ROD LITIGATION: POST-
CONFERENCE WORKSHOP
American Conferences
Omni Chicago Hotel, Chicago, IL, United States
Contact: http://www.americanconference.com

June 22-23, 2005
VIOXX LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Intercontinental, New Orleans
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

June 20-21, 2005
REACT 2005
American Conferences
Hyatt Regency Newport, Newport, Rhode Island
Contact: http://www.americanconference.com

July 21-22, 2005
ASBESTOS LITIGATION 101 CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, New Orleans
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

June 27-28, 2005
LITIGATING EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION & SEXUAL HARASSMENT CLAIMS
2005
Practising Law Institute
New York, NY
Contact: 800-260-4PLI; 212-824-5710; info@pli.edu

July 28 - 29, 2005
CLASS ACTION LITIGATION: PROSECUTION & DEFENSE STRATEGIES 2005
Practising Law Institute
New York, NY
Contact: 800-260-4PLI; 212-824-5710; info@pli.edu

August 18-19, 2005
PRODUCTS LIABILITY: PHARMACEUTICAL AND MEDICAL DEVICE ISSUES
ALI-ABA
San Francisco
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

August 25-26, 2005
CLASS ACTION FAIRNESS ACT OF 2005 AND OTHER EMERGING CLASS
ACTION ISSUES
ALI-ABA
Chicago
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

September 8-9, 2005
CLASS ACTION LITIGATION: PROSECUTION & DEFENSE STRATEGIES 2005
Practising Law Institute
Chicago, IL
Contact: 800-260-4PLI; 212-824-5710; info@pli.edu

September 26-27, 2005
REINSURANCE SUMMIT
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Boston
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

September 27, 2005
ARBITRATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Boston
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

October 2005
ASBESTOS LIABILITY FORUM
Mealey Publications
London, England
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

October 2005
LAW CLIENT DEVELOPMENT CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

October 6-7, 2005
ASBESTOS LITIGATION IN THE 21ST CENTURY
ALI-ABA
Chicago
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

November 3-4, 2005
CONFERENCE ON LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY PRODUCTS
ALI-ABA
Washington DC
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

November 17-18, 2005
Mass Torts Made Perfect Seminar
MassTortsMadePerfect.Com
Las Vegas, Nevada
Contact: 800-320-2227; 850-436-6094 (fax)

TBA
FAIR LABOR STANDARDS CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

TBA
AIRLINE BANKRUPTCY LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

TBA
FASTFOOD INDUSTRY LIABILITY CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

November 3-4, 2005
Conference on Life Insurance Company Products: Current
Securities, Tax, ERISA, and State Regulatory Issues CL043
Washington, D.C. Tuition $995

February 16-17, 2006
ACCOUNTANTS' LIABILITY
ALI-ABA
Coral Gables, Miami, Florida
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

September 28-30, 2006
LITIGATING MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CLAIMS
ALI-ABA
Boston
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614


* Online Teleconferences
------------------------

April 01-30, 2005
HBA PRESENTS: AUTOMOBILE LITIGATION: DISPUTES AMONG
CONSUMERS, DEALERS, FINANCE COMPANIES AND FLOORPLANNERS
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

April 01-30, 2005
CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION DEFECT
LIABILITY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com  

April 01-30, 2005
HBA PRESENTS: ETHICS IN PERSONAL INJURY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

April 01-30, 2005
IN-HOUSE COUNSEL AND WRONGFUL DISCHARGE CLAIMS:
CONFLICT WITH CONFIDENTIALITY?
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

April 01-30, 2005
BAYLOR LAW SCHOOL PRESENTS: 2004 GENERAL PRACTICE INSTITUTE --
FAMILY LAW, DISCIPLINARY SYSTEM, CIVIL LITIGATION, INSURANCE
& CONSUMER LAW UPDATES
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

April 19, 2005
VLR: THE CLASS ACITON FAIRNESS ACT OF 2005: A DRAMATIC CHANGE IN
FEDERAL-STATE CLASS ACTIONS
ALI-ABA
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614


June 27-28, 2005
LITIGATING EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION & SEXUAL HARASSMENT CLAIMS
2005
Practising Law Institute
Contact: 800-260-4PLI; 212-824-5710; info@pli.edu

TORTS PRACTICE: 18TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS #1
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

TORTS PRACTICE: 18TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS #2
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

TORTS PRACTICE: 18TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS #3
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444


TORTS PRACTICE: 19TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 21ST ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS #1
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 21ST ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS #2
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 21ST ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS #3
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 22ND ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

PUNITIVE DAMAGES: MAXIMIZING YOUR CLIENT'S SUCCESS OR MINIMIZING
YOUR CLIENT'S EXPOSURE
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

EFFECTIVE DIRECT AND CROSS EXAMINAITON
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

STRATEGIC TIPS FOR SUCCESSFULLY PROPOUNDING & OPPOSING WRITTEN
DISCOVERY
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

CACI: CALIFORNIA'S NEW CIVIL JURY INSTRUCTIONS
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

ADVERSARIAL PROCEEDINGS IN ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCIES
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY - PANEL OF CREDITORS COMMITTEE MEMBERS
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

EXPERT WITNESS ADMISSIBILITY IN MOLD CASES
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

INTRODUCTION TO CLASS ACTIONS AND LARGE RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

NON-TRADITIONAL DEFENDANTS IN ASBESTOS LITIGATION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

PAXIL LITIGATION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS INVOLVING BAYCOL
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com  

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

SELECTION OF MOLD LITIGATION EXPERTS: WHO YOU NEED ON YOUR TEAM
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

SHOULD I FILE A CLASS ACTION?
LawCommerce.Com / Law Education Institute
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

THE EFFECTS OF ASBESTOS ON THE PULMONARY SYSTEM
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

THE STATE OF ASBESTOS LITIGATION: JUDICIAL PANEL DISCUSSION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

TRYING AN ASBESTOS CASE
LawCommerce.Com
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com  

THE IMPACT OF LORILLAR ON STATE AND LOCAL REGULATION OF TOBACCO
SALES AND ADVERSTISING
American Bar Association
Contact: 800-285-2221; abacle@abanet.org

________________________________________________________________
The Meetings, Conferences and Seminars column appears in the
Class Action Reporter each Wednesday.  Submissions via e-mail to
carconf@beard.com are encouraged.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

CAREER EDUCATION: Goodkind Labaton Lodges Securities Suit in IL
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP initiated
an amended complaint in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on behalf of persons who purchased
or otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of Career
Education Corporation ("Career Education" or the "Company")
(Nasdaq:CECO) between January 28, 2003, and February 15, 2005.
The lawsuit was filed against Career Education and John M.
Larson, and Patrick K. Pesch.

The complaint alleges that Defendants violated sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.

Specifically the complaint alleges that certain of the
defendants' public statements were false or contained material
omissions in terms of their financial and business results. As a
result, the company historically was publicized as "never
missing," and usually surpassing, analysts' projections of its
operations. The allegations include that revenue and earnings
were overstated, and the Company's bad debt ratio was
understated. Individual defendants named in the allegations sold
their personally held CEC stock at artificially inflated prices,
reaping aggregate proceeds of more than $46 million.

CEC recently announced that it would restate its previously
reported financial results for 2000 through 2004 to reduce
revenues and earnings for these periods and that it would take a
$19 million charge in the 2004 fourth quarter to increase its
estimate of its allowance for doubtful accounts. On this news,
the price of CEC stock fell, from a closing price on February
15, 2005, of $39.21, to close at $37.19 on February 16, 2005.
The stock continued to fall as analysts became further aware of
the extent of the Company's problems, closing on March 15, 2005,
at $32.74 per share.

For more details, contact Louis Gottlieb Esq., Emily C. Komlossy
Esq. or Chris C. Keller Esq. of the Law Firm of Goodkind Labaton
Rudoff & Sucharow LLP by Phone: (800)-321-0476 OR Jennifer
Tetefsky by Phone: 212-907-0659 by E-mail: jtetefsky@glrslaw.com
or visit their Web site:
http://www.glrslaw.com/index.cfm/hurl/SectionID=96/getGlobalID=2
3827.  


CELL THERAPEUTICS: Scott + Scott Lodges Securities Suit in WA
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Scott + Scott, initiated a class action
securities fraud case on behalf of shareholders in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Washington.
Those who purchased publicly traded securities or otherwise
acquired securities in Cell Therapeutics, Inc. (the "Company")
(Nasdaq: CTIC) from June 7, 2004 and March 4, 2005 (the current
"Class Period") are those who are alleged to have purchased
during the time fraud took place. Any shareholder may make
inquiry of this case. On March 7, 2005, the Company announced
that its study of a product had missed its primary goal and the
stock, which had traded as high as $10.49 during the Class
Period, fell almost 50% to close at $5.25 per share on volume of
33 million per share.

According to its website, Cell Therapeutics, Inc. develops,
acquires and commercializes treatments for cancer. The research
and inlicensing activities are focused on identifying ways to
treat cancer. The Company markets TRISENOX (arsenic trioxide)
for the treatment of relapsed or refractory acute promyelocytic
leukemia (APL) in the United States and in Europe. It is
developing XYOTAX (paclitaxel poliglumex) for the potential
treatment of non- small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and ovarian
cancer. The Company has completed enrollment of more than 1,700
patients in three pivotal Phase III trials of XYOTAX, known as
STELLAR 2, 3 and 4, for the treatment of NSCLC. It also develops
pixantrone, a compound in the class of drugs known as
anthracyclines, for the potential treatment of non-Hodgkin's
lymphoma (NHL) and has several clinical trials ongoing,
including a pivotal Phase III trial for the potential treatment
of relapsed aggressive NHL.

The complaint alleged that the Company made false and misleading
statements about the success of the clinical trials for a drug
to be used for treatment of a type of lung cancer. The true
facts that were allegedly concealed from the investors but known
to the defendants about this drug, XYOTAX, were that while
claiming this drug would meet its endpoint goal, it was known by
defendants that it would not; the Company's untrue statement s
that it would conduct "pre-launch" activities or submit a new
application for this drug were highly overstated and in fact,
the veracity of these statements is questionable; and finally,
the success rate for those sing this drug was not superior to
those taking another medication used for the same purpose.

For more details, contact Neil Rothstein of Scott + Scott, LLC
by Phone: +1-800-404-7770 or +1-619-251-0887 or visit their Web
site: http://www.scott-scott.com.


ELECTRONIC ARTS: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Fraud Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP announces
that a class action lawsuit was filed on March 31, 2005, on
behalf of purchasers of the securities of Electronic Arts, Inc.
("Electronic Arts" or the "Company") (Nasdaq: ERTS) between
January 26, 2005 through March 21, 2005, inclusive, (the "Class
Period") seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The action is pending in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California against defendants
Electronic Arts, Warren C. Jenson (CFO) and Lawrence F. Probst
III (CEO and Chairman).

The complaint alleges that disseminated knowingly false
favorable projections for the Company's fourth quarter, ending
on March 31, 2005, so that they could sell their personally held
Electronic Arts stock at artificially inflated prices. On
January 25, 2005, defendants issued a press release that
reiterated previously issued, and very positive, performance
projections for the Company's fourth quarter of 2004. In
reaction to this announcement, the price of Electronic Arts
stock jumped by $5.30 per share in one day. Beginning on January
28, 2005, and over the course of only a few days, Electronic
Arts insiders sold a total of 926,739 shares of the Company's
common stock for gross proceeds of $58,460,483. On March 21,
2005, prior to the open of trading, Electronic Arts announced
that its results for the quarter would be materially less than
was reiterated. In a telephone interview with Bloomberg News,
defendant Jenson, who sold 200,000 shares during the Class
Period, attributed the shortfall to poor sales of holiday
releases. In reaction to this announcement, the price of
Electronic Arts common stock plummeted, falling $11.20 per
share, or 16.8%, on unusually high trading volume of over 39.5
million shares. The complaint further alleges that defendants
knew, on January 25, 2005, that the 2004 holiday releases did
not meet expectations and that the quarter's results would be
below the reiterated projected amounts. Rather than disclose
this fact at the time, defendants waited until insiders unloaded
more than $58 million in stock while Electronic Arts stock was
inflated by the positive representations.

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


TOWER AUTOMOTIVE: Vianale & Vianale Lodges Securities Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Vianale & Vianale LLP commenced a securities
fraud class action lawsuit on April 4, 2005, in Manhattan
federal court on behalf of all purchasers of the securities of
Tower Automotive, Inc. ("Tower" or the "Company") (OTC: TWRAQ)
between August 14, 2000 and February 1, 2005, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that during the class period, defendants
violated the federal securities laws by falsely telling
investors in Tower's SEC filings that the Company's long-term
supply contracts with auto makers might be subject to price
decreases over the life of the contracts, when in fact,
defendants then knew that Tower was selling product under these
contracts at below cost, as CEO Ligocki conceded after Tower
filed for bankruptcy on February 2, 2005. Defendants also knew
that Tower was unable to achieve sufficient cost savings to
offset the supply-contract price decreases, thus jeopardizing
the Company's future working capital and profitability. In
particular, defendants knew or recklessly ignored that Tower had
failed to obtain its claimed cost savings from Tower's numerous
corporate acquisitions, as Ligocki conceded post-bankruptcy:
"This company has been run where each plant acted like its own
$100 million to $300 million unit....All these plants should
have been integrated earlier as they were bought."

Meanwhile, Tower insiders profited through their ownership
interests in Hidden Creek Industries ("Hidden Creek"), a related
party, and J.L. French Automotive Castings, Inc. ("J.L.
French"), an undisclosed related party. Tower paid substantial
fees to Hidden Creek and lent money to J.L. French -- loans
Tower later was forced to write off. Burdened by debt, unable to
reap real cost savings from acquisitions, and losing money on
long-term supply contracts, defendants hid Tower's true
financial crisis and falsely assured investors of Tower's
liquidity. On January 20, 2005, however, Tower announced that it
faced "significant challenges in meeting ongoing liquidity
requirements." On February 2, 2005, the final shoe fell with
Tower's announced bankruptcy.

For more details, contact Vianale & Vianale LLP by Phone: 888-
657-9960 or visit their Web site: http://www.vianalelaw.com.


                            *********


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

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

                            *********


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

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

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

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

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

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

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *