CAR_Public/050413.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, April 13, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 72

                         Headlines

ALLFIRST FINANCIAL: MD Court Resurrects Suit, Faces Litigation
AMERUS GROUP: Couple Files Suit For RICO Violations, Elder Abuse
APPLE COMPUTER: Appeals Court Sides With Firm in Investor Suit
CALIPER LIFE: NY Court Preliminarily Approves Lawsuit Settlement
CANADA: Class Proceeding Certified V. Cooperatives' Pension plan

CANADA: Producers' Lawyers Blame Government For Mad Cow Outbreak  
CERUS CORPORATION: CA Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit
CNET NETWORKS: Faces Suit V. Illegal Gambling Sites in Searches
CNET NETWORKS: NY Court Approves Securities Lawsuit Settlement
CNL HOTELS: RFS Shareholders Launch Lawsuit V. RFS Merger in TN

CNL HOTELS: Asks FL Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Lawsuit
CORNELL COMPANIES: Asks TX Court To Dismiss Securities Lawsuit
CYTYC CORPORATION: Judge Dismisses Suit, Plaintiffs Won't Appeal
GLOBAL CROSSING: Settles SEC Fraud Charges, Executives Pay Fines
GOLD BANC: Farm Borrowers Initiate Two Suits in OK State Courts

GOOGLE INC.: Files Court Documents To Dismiss "Click Fraud" Suit
ICT GROUP: Reaches Settlement For WV Wage Law Violations Lawsuit
ICT GROUP: CA Court Refuses To Dismiss Consumer Fraud Lawsuit
LOUISIANA: Pace Picks Up For Settlement Of Gaylord Chemical Case
MICHIGAN: Lawyer Asks Officials Not To Talk About Stripping Case

MICROSOFT CORPORATION: FL Appeals Court Upholds $202M Settlement
NEW JERSEY: Experts Say Ruling on Foster Kids Could Stir Suits
OHIO: Several Sex Offenders File Complaint V. New Residency Rule
PACKETEER INC.: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Securities Settlement
PFIZER INC.: Kenneth B. Moll Lodges Bextra Complaint in N.D. IL

POST APARTMENT: Shareholder Appeals Approval of Suit Settlement
RELIABLE LIFE: Wants Policyholder's Suit Moved To Federal Court
UNION PACIFIC: NE Judge Allows Suit Over Birth Control Coverage
UNITED STATES: FDA Reveals Important Changes in NSAID Labeling
VALICERT INC.: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Securities Suit Pact

VAXGEN INC.: Provides Updates On CA Stock Litigation, Settlement
VERISIGN INC.: Consolidated Securities Suit Still Pending in CA
VERISIGN INC.: Plaintiffs Drop Remaining Lawsuits V. Site Finder
WEIGHT-LOSS ADS: FTC Report Bares 50% Drop in Fraudulent Claims
WYOMING: Bush Administration Appeals Wind River Indian Lawsuit


              Meetings, Conferences & Seminars


* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

BLUE COAT: Roy Jacobs Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.D. CA
MBIA INC.: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
RHODIA S.A.: Scott + Scott Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in NJ
WATCHGUARD TECHNOLOGIES: Brian Felgoise Lodges Stock Suit in WA
WATCHGUARD TECHNOLOGIES: Charles J. Piven Files Stock Suit in WA

WATCHGUARD TECHNOLOGIES: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Stock Suit in WA
WATCHGUARD TECHNOLOGIES: Stull Stull Files Securities Suit in WA

                          *********

ALLFIRST FINANCIAL: MD Court Resurrects Suit, Faces Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
A shareholder lawsuit against former executives and officers of
Allfirst Financial Inc., where a rogue trader perpetrated one of
the largest bank frauds in history, has been resurrected after
the Maryland Court of Appeals agreed to hear the case later this
year, The Baltimore Sun reports.  The state's highest court
agreed to review the case, more than two years after it was
dismissed by a Baltimore Circuit Court judge.

The $691 million currency trading scandal has been the subject
of much litigation, though the only person who has been
convicted of a crime is the trader, John M. Rusnak, who is in
federal prison in West Virginia serving a 7 1/2-year sentence.  
The lawsuit seeks to force Company officials including former
Chairman Frank P. Bramble and former Chief Executive Officer
Susan C. Keating to repay the money lost. Allfirst has since
been sold to M&T Bank Corp. of Buffalo, N.Y., and Allfirst's
former parent, Allied Irish Banks PLC, retains the right to any
monetary recovery in court.

Cy Smith, the plaintiff's attorney, told the Baltimore Sun
"We're very pleased that the court has decided to revive the
case. This is an opportunity to assess responsibility for the
fourth-largest loss due to bank fraud in the history of the
world."

Attorney Mark Gately, who represents former Allfirst Treasurer
David Cronin in the matter, told the Sun that the court's
decision doesn't mean that the case will go to trial.  He said,
"It means that the Court of Appeals for reasons unknown decided
that it would hear the case. It doesn't by any means indicate
what the outcome would be."

Mr. Smith, whose client Tomran Inc. of Jarrettsville owned 4,800
American depositary shares in Dublin, Ireland-based Allied
Irish, said the directors and senior managers at Allfirst were
negligent in their supervision of Mr. Rusnak and oversight of
the trading department.

Tomran brought the case on behalf of all shareholders in a so-
called derivative suit. Baltimore Circuit Judge Albert J.
Matricciani Jr. ruled in 2002 that Irish law applies in the case
and wouldn't allow shareholders to bring such actions against
corporations. Mr. Smith said the lower court made a mistake and
he argued that New York law should govern and that even under
Irish law the case would be allowed to move forward.

In another related matter, Allfirst, Allied Irish and Company
officials have also been named in a shareholder class action
lawsuit alleging securities fraud. In a recently filed brief in
federal court in New York, the defendants' attorney, Robert
Mazur, said those claims "defy reason and should be dismissed."  
Mr. Mazur argued that the Company and its officers were hapless
victims of Mr. Rusnak's scheme. Had Company officials known
about Rusnak's fraud, Mr. Mazur said, "their motivation would
have been to terminate his trading immediately so as to minimize
Allfirst's losses," the Sun reports.

He also said that Eugene A. Ludwig, a former U.S. comptroller of
the currency hired by Allied Irish to investigate the losses,
absolved his clients. That same report, which was released
publicly, was quoted frequently by the shareholders' class
action complaint to buttress their claims. Mr. Ludwig said at
the time that he didn't consider his inquiry "definitive."


AMERUS GROUP: Couple Files Suit For RICO Violations, Elder Abuse
----------------------------------------------------------------
A national class-action was filed in federal court by plaintiffs
Edward A. Inferrera and his wife Gloria A. Inferrera on behalf
of themselves and all other senior citizens sixty-five and older
against AmerUs Group Co., AmerUs Life Insurance Company,
American Investor Life Insurance Company Inc., and their
affiliates AmerUs Annuity Group and Family First Insurance
Services.

The class action complaint alleges that AmerUs Group Co., a
publicly traded Company on the New York Stock exchange
(NYSE:AMH), AmerUs Life and its affiliates' sales practices are
in violation of the federal Racketeering Influence Corrupt
Organizations Act or RICO, and California's elder abuse laws.  
According to the complaint, the companies designed a scheme to
exploit senior citizens by the deceptive marketing of estate
planning services, commonly call "trust mills," to obtain the
financial information of seniors in order to target them as
purchasers of deferred annuities. The complaint further alleges
that in many cases the annuities have maturity dates well beyond
the seniors' life expectancy and have significant surrender
charges, even on death benefits -- which most seniors did not
understand. The annuities had huge up-front premiums, in some
cases over $100,000, which in many cases represented significant
portions of the seniors' life savings.

William Shernoff, a nationally-recognized attorney in
representing insurance policyholders of Shernoff Bidart & Darras
in Claremont, California and his co-counsel Howard Finkelstein
and Mark Knutson of Finkelstein & Krinsk in San Diego,
California, represent plaintiffs Edward and Gloria Inferrera,
who were 78 and 74 years of age, respectively, when they were
sold two AmerUs Life Insurance Company deferred annuities. Both
annuities sold to the Inferreras are not scheduled to mature
until 2029; well beyond their respective actuarial life
expectancies at the time of sale.

Recently, the California Attorney General filed a similar action
on behalf of California seniors alleging that living trust mills
tricked seniors into using retirement assets to purchase
annuities.


APPLE COMPUTER: Appeals Court Sides With Firm in Investor Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A federal appeals court upheld a lower court decision that Apple
Computer investors cannot sue the Company over the fact that the
Power Mac G4 Cube and other products didn't live up to Apple
expectations, The CNET News.com reports.

Filed on behalf of those who purchased Apple shares between July
19 and September 28 of 2000, the attempted class action suit
also alleged that Apple knew some of its sales projections were
false at the time they made them, a charge the appeals court
said was not supported by the facts presented in the case.

The suit referred specifically to projections made in the summer
of 2000 by Apple's then-CFO Fred Anderson that Apple sales would
grow that quarter by 10 percent. Additionally the suit cites
comments by former controller and current CFO Peter Oppenheimer
that a transition in Apple's education sales force was
"progressing nicely." Apple later reported sales that fell short
of expectations and said its sales force transition had been
more difficult than it anticipated.

In its ruling, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals pointed out
that companies are to be given leeway because forecasts are by
their nature only estimates. The court also upheld the lower
court's ruling that the plaintiffs did not present evidence to
show that any problems in the education sales force transition
would translate into lower sales for the Company.

As for the G4 Cube, the lawsuit said Apple CEO Steve Jobs touted
sales projections that did not materialize and that he was aware
early on of problems with the computer, including an "overly
sensitive power switch" and cracks, or as Apple termed them,
"mold lines," that detracted from the aesthetics of the
computer's clear case.

To this regard, the appeals court stated in its ruling, "Because
design, marketing and manufacturing problems are common to
business, a securities fraud claim must do more than allege the
existence of such problems. Plaintiffs must allege with
particularity that a speaker knew that the severity, timing and
extent of such problems rendered the statement false when made,"
CNET News reports.

The court ruled that there was no evidence that Mr. Jobs knew of
the problem when he introduced the Cube. Furthermore, the court
said, "although plaintiffs do allege that Mr. Jobs learned that
Apple was having significant problems in the manufacture of the
Cube during the fourth quarter of 2000, they fail to allege with
specificity when Mr. Jobs learned this information, exactly what
information was conveyed to Mr. Jobs, or that Mr. Jobs knew the
extent of the problems."

An Apple representative was not immediately available for
comment, according to CNET news.  Representatives of the firm
that brought the suit, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman &
Robbins did not immediately respond to an e-mail seeking
comment.


CALIPER LIFE: NY Court Preliminarily Approves Lawsuit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against Caliper Life
Sciences, Inc. and three of its officers and directors - David
V. Milligan, Daniel L. Kisner and James L. Knighton, styled "In
re Caliper Technologies Corp. Initial Public Offering Securities
Litigation, Case no 01 Civ. 5072 (SAS) (GBD)."

Similar complaints were filed against approximately 300 other
public companies that conducted initial public offerings (IPOs)
of their common stock during the late 1990s (the "IPO
Lawsuits").  On August 8, 2001, the IPO Lawsuits were
consolidated for pretrial purposes before United States Judge
Shira Scheindlin of the Southern District of New York.  
Together, those cases are denominated "In re Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92(SAS)."

On April 19, 2002, a Consolidated Amended Complaint was filed
alleging claims against the Company and the individual
defendants under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933, and under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as well as Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.  The Consolidated Amended Complaint also names
certain underwriters of the Company's December 1999 initial
public offering of common stock.  The Complaint alleges that
these underwriters charged excessive, undisclosed commissions to
investors and entered into improper agreements with investors
relating to aftermarket transactions.  The Complaint seeks an
unspecified amount of money damages.

The Company and the other issuers named as defendants in the IPO
Lawsuits moved on July 15, 2002, to dismiss all claims on
multiple grounds. By Stipulation and Order dated October 9,
2002, the claims against Mr. Milligan, Mr. Kisner and Mr.
Knighton were dismissed without prejudice.  On February 19,
2003, the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss all
claims against it.  Plaintiffs were not given the right to
replead the claims against the Company.  The time to appeal the
dismissal has not yet expired.

In May 2003, a Memorandum of Understanding was executed by
counsel for plaintiffs, issuers and their insurers setting forth
the terms of a settlement that would result in the termination
of all claims brought by plaintiffs against the issuers and
individual defendants named in the IPO Lawsuits.  On July 7,
2003, a Special Litigation Committee of the Caliper Board of
Directors approved the settlement terms described in that
Memorandum of Understanding, which was subsequently set forth in
definitive Settlement Agreement among the settling parties.  On
February 15, 2005, Judge Scheindlin issued an order granting
preliminary approval of the settlement, subject to the condition
that the settling parties agree to modify the terms of the
settlement to limit the scope of the bar order contemplated by
the settlement.  The Company is in the process of determining
whether the condition contained in Judge Scheindlin's order
granting conditional approval of the settlement is acceptable to
it.

The suit is styled "In re Caliper Technologies Corp. Initial
Public Offering Securities Litigation, Case no 01 Civ. 5072
(SAS) (GBD)," related to "In re Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation, Master File No. 21 MC 92 (SAS)," filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York under Judge Shira A. Scheindlin.  The plaintiff firms
in this 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) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP (New York,
         NY), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY, 10119-1065,
         Phone: 212.594.5300,

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

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

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

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


CANADA: Class Proceeding Certified V. Cooperatives' Pension plan
----------------------------------------------------------------
In a recent order, the Honorable Justice Warren Winkler, of the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice, certified a class action on
behalf of members of a pension plan regarding serious investment
losses suffered by the Participating Cooperatives of Ontario
Trusteed Pension Plan and affecting about 2,300 current and
former employees of 26 Ontario farm cooperatives.

The proceeding names as defendants the pension plan trustees,
its former investment manager and consultant, the actuaries, the
former and current custodians of the pension fund and the fund's
legal counsel. The action alleges that the defendants were
negligent and breached their fiduciary duties owed to plan
members.

A 2002 internal report by the Financial Services Commission of
Ontario raised serious questions about the plan's lack of
operational policies and procedures in the area of investment
policies and practices, particularly in dealings involving
derivatives. The report also stated that there did not seem to
be adequate supervision of agents, areas of potential conflicts
of interests regarding these agents and potential contraventions
of the Ontario Pension Benefits Act in that the assets of one
investment do not appear to be held in the name of the pension
fund.

The trustees of the plan have decided to terminate the plan as
at March 31, 2003. The Wind-Up Actuarial Valuation as at March
31, 2003 states that the wind-up funded ratio is in the range of
46.6% to 49.8%. In the Wind-Up Notices and in subsequent
newsletters provided to all affected plan members by the
trustees, it is stated that members' accrued benefits, after
reflecting any adjustments due to amendments adopted by the
trustees and effective as at the wind-up date, will be subject
to reduction by the wind-up funded ratio. Member benefits,
including pensions in pay, have been reduced by 50%.

The order certifying the proceeding as a class action defines
the class as all persons, wherever resident who, after June 1,
1994, were entitled to payments, current or deferred, under the
Plan. A notice of certification will be mailed out to all class
members shortly.

Any judgment ultimately obtained in these proceedings will bind
all members of the class, unless they have opted out of the
proceeding. This proceeding is receiving financial support from
the Class Proceedings Fund.

For more details, contact Kirk Baert by Phone: (416) 595-2117 by
Fax: (416) 204-2889 OR Michael Mazzuca by Phone: (416) 595-2101
or by Fax: (416) 204-2881.


CANADA: Producers' Lawyers Blame Government For Mad Cow Outbreak  
----------------------------------------------------------------
The BSE crisis, the closing of the U.S. border to Canadian
cattle and beef, and the loss of billions of dollars by the
Canadian cattle industry, was the result of gross incompetence
and negligence on the part of the Canadian Government, says a
group of lawyers representing cattle producers from across
Canada who have launched what could become the largest class
action in Canadian legal history.

The cattle producers, represented by Clint Docken, Q.C. of
Calgary, Reynold Robertson of Saskatoon, Gilles Gareau of
Montreal and Cameron Pallett of Toronto, claim that Agriculture
Canada failed to consider safety issues when compiling a list of
permitted animal feed ingredients in 1988-1990 and lost track of
80 cattle that had been imported from the UK and Ireland,
allowing them to be ground up into cattle feed. As a
consequence, BSE infected a number of Canadian cattle, which in
turn led to devastating consequences for the Canadian cattle
industry.

"Two years after Great Britain banned the feeding of cattle
remains to other cattle in 1988, Agriculture Canada enacted a
Regulation specifically allowing it in Canada. Then, in 1990,
they banned the importation of cattle from the UK and Ireland,
and catalogued the 191 cattle imported since 1982", said Mr.
Pallett. "Agriculture Canada then put those cattle into what
they called a 'monitoring' program." When Agriculture Canada
decided to have a closer look at those cattle in December 1993,
after one of them was found to have BSE, Department staff
discovered that 80 of them had been ground up and turned into
cattle feed that had been sold to Canadian cattle farmers. "By
the government's own admission one or more of those 80 cattle
are the most likely source of BSE in Canada," said Mr. Pallett.
"Where was the monitoring? Where was the government's concern
for the health of Canadians? Why did the Government fail so
badly in the exercise of its regulatory responsibilities?"

In addition to the Federal Government, the claim also targets
Ridley Corporation Limited, a multinational manufacturer of
animal feeds. Ridley apparently stopped using cattle remains in
their parent Company's cattle feed in Australia in May of 1996,
but continued to use cattle remains in their Canadian feed
products until the practice was finally banned by the Government
of Canada in August 1997. The claim alleges that the diseased
cow that caused the closing of the US border to Canadian cattle
and beef, contracted BSE in the spring of 1997 as a result of
eating calf starter manufactured by Ridley which contained
rendered cattle remains contaminated with the BSE prion.

"Ridley knew the risks they were taking. They voluntarily
stopped using cattle remains in their feed products in Australia
in May of 1996 after discussions with Australian government
representatives concerning the potential disaster that would
result if BSE became an issue for the Australian cattle and beef
export industry, which is the largest in the world. Ridley
figured they could get away with it here" said Mr. Pallett, "and
hopefully they will be proven wrong".

"Canadian cattle producers have lost seven billion dollars and
counting as a result of the BSE crisis and they deserve to be
fully compensated", said Mr. Pallett. He and his colleagues urge
all Canadian cattle producers to visit the BSE class action
website for more information: http://www.bseclassaction.ca.

For more details, contact Cameron Pallett, Barrister & Solicitor
by Mail: 800-65 St. Clair Ave. E., Toronto, Ontario, M4T 2Y3, by
Phone: (416) 923-1776 by Fax: (416) 925-5344 or by E-mail:
cpallett@leggeandlegge.com.


CERUS CORPORATION: CA Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California dismissed the consolidated securities class action
filed against Cerus Corporation and certain of its current and
former directors, alleging violations of federal securities
laws.

On December 8, 2003, a class action complaint was filed alleging
that the defendants violated the federal securities laws by
making certain alleged false and misleading statements regarding
the compound used in the Company's red blood cell system.  The
plaintiff seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a purported
class of purchasers of the Company's securities during the
period from October 25, 2000 through September 3, 2003.  As is
typical in this type of litigation, several other purported
securities class action lawsuits containing substantially
similar allegations have since been filed against the
defendants.

On May 24, 2004, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint.
The consolidated complaint abandons the allegations raised in
the original complaints. Instead, the plaintiffs claim that the
defendants issued false and misleading predictions regarding the
initiation and completion of clinical trials, submission of
regulatory filings, receipt of regulatory approval and other
milestones in the development of the INTERCEPT Blood Systems for
platelets, plasma and red blood cells. The consolidated
complaint retains the same class period alleged in the original
complaints.

On June 17, 2004, the plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated
complaint substantially similar to the previous consolidated
complaint with additional allegations attributed to a
confidential witness.  On July 20, 2004, the defendants moved to
dismiss the amended consolidated complaint. On January 20, 2005,
the Court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend within 60
days.


CNET NETWORKS: Faces Suit V. Illegal Gambling Sites in Searches
---------------------------------------------------------------
CNET Networks, Inc. faces a class action filed in the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco by
Mario Cisneros and Michael Voigt on behalf of themselves, all
others similarly situated and the general public.  The suit also
names other defendants who provide Internet search services,
including Google, Yahoo!, Overture, AskJeeves and others.

The complaint alleges that certain search results displayed by
the defendants facilitate illegal Internet gambling in violation
of California state law. The complaint does not specify an
amount of damages.  The proceeding is in its early stages, and
accordingly, the Company cannot predict the impact of this
litigation on its business, financial condition or results of
operations.

The suit is styled "Mario Cisneros et al, v. Yahoo! Inc., et al,
case no. CGC-04-433518," filed in the California Superior Court
in San Francisco County, under Judge Richard A. Kramer.
Representing the plaintiffs are Kathrein R. Reed and Ira P.
Rothken.  Lawyers for the Company are David T. Biderman, Robert
Harvey Binzel, Janet L. Cullum, Charles H. Dick, Jr., Albert
Gidari, Richard Jay Idell, Matthew P. Kanny, David H. Kramer,
Thomas P. Laffey, Ryan M. Malone, Laurence F. Pulgram, John C.
Rawls, David O. Stewart.  


CNET NETWORKS: NY Court Approves Securities Lawsuit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against Ziff-Davis,
Eric Hippeau, former Chief Executive Officer of Ziff-Davis,
Timothy O' Brien, former Chief Financial Officer of Ziff-Davis,
and investment banks that were the underwriters of the public
offering of ZDNet series of Ziff-Davis stock (the ZDNet
Offering).  CNET Networks was named as a defendant, as successor
in liability to Ziff-Davis.

Two complaints were initially filed, similarly alleging
violations of the Securities Act of 1933.  One of the complaints
also alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  
The complaints allege the receipt of excessive and undisclosed
commissions by the underwriters in connection with the
allocation of shares of common stock to certain investors in the
ZDNet Offering and agreements by those investors to make
additional purchases of stock in the aftermarket at pre-
determined prices.  Plaintiffs allege that the prospectus for
the ZDNet Offering was false and misleading and in violation of
the securities laws because it did not disclose the
arrangements.

A Consolidated Amended Complaint, which is now the operative
complaint, was filed in the Southern District of New York on
April 19, 2002. The action seeks damages in an unspecified
amount.  The action is being coordinated with over 300 nearly
identical actions filed against other companies and their
underwriters.  On February 19, 2003, the Court granted the
Company's motion to dismiss the Section 10(b) claim with leave
to re-plead, and denied the motion to dismiss the Section 11
claim.  Plaintiffs did not re-plead the Section 10(b) claim, and
the time to re-plead that claim has expired. On October 13,
2004, the Court certified a class in six of the approximately
300 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 CNET Networks case.

The majority of the issuers, including CNET Networks, and their
insurers have approved a settlement agreement and related
agreements.  The agreements set forth the terms of a settlement
between the Company, the plaintiff class and the vast majority
of the other approximately 300 issuer defendants. Pursuant to
those agreements, the Company's insurers would participate in an
undertaking to guarantee a minimum recovery by the plaintiffs.
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 for a "back-stop" guarantee from the
issuers and their insurers pursuant to which they will pay the
plaintiffs any shortfall between $1 billion and the amounts
recovered in the ongoing litigation against the underwriters.  
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.  Therefore, the Company does not expect that the
settlement will involve any payment by it.  Based on the amount
of the Company's insurance and the agreement of the insurers to
cover legal expenses after June 1, 2003, CNET Networks does not
anticipate additional expenses or liability if the settlement is
approved.  

On February 15, 2005, the court granted preliminary approval of
the settlement agreement, subject to certain modifications
consistent with its opinion. The requested modifications would
provide for a mutual bar of all contribution claims by the
settling and non-settling parties and would not bar the parties
from pursuing other claims.  The Court held a hearing on March
18, 2005 to discuss the status of the revised settlement terms
and to determine the date on which the revised settlement
agreement will be submitted as well as the deadline for the
underwriter defendants to object to the revised settlement
agreement.  There is no assurance that the parties to the
settlement will be able to agree to a revised settlement
agreement consistent with the court's opinion, or that the court
will grant final approval to the settlement to the extent the
parties reach agreements.


CNL HOTELS: RFS Shareholders Launch Lawsuit V. RFS Merger in TN
---------------------------------------------------------------
CNL Hotels & Resorts, Inc. continues to face a class action
filed in the Circuit Court of Shelby County, Tennessee, 30th
Judicial District, relating to a proposed merger with RFS
Partnership L.P.

On May 13, 2003, A. Bruce Chasen, as class representative, filed
the suit against the Company, RFS Partnership L.P. and RFS's
directors. On June 6, 2003, the complaint was amended.  The
amended putative class action complaint alleges a variety of
charges, including:

     (1) the merger consideration to be received by RFS's
         shareholders is significantly less than the intrinsic
         value of RFS,

     (2) the RFS directors breached their fiduciary duties to
         shareholders on a variety of grounds including failing
         to ascertain the true value of RFS, failing to
         determine whether there were any other bidders for RFS,
         and failing to avoid certain alleged conflicts of
         interest shared by members of the RFS Board and its
         financial advisor,

     (3) the Company aided and abetted the RFS Board in
         connection with their breach of fiduciary duties,

     (4) the RFS Board violated portions of the Tennessee
         Investor Protection Act, and

     (5) the RFS proxy statement is false and misleading.

Among other things, the amended complaint seeks certification of
the class action, an injunction enjoining RFS and the Company
from completing the merger, monetary damages in an unspecified
amount, the payment of attorney's fees, and rescissory damages.

On July 1, 2003, the Company filed an answer to the amended
complaint setting forth an affirmative defense and its general
denials of the allegations set forth therein. The plaintiff's
motion for a temporary restraining order for purposes of
enjoining the transaction was denied on July 8, 2003 by the
Court.  


CNL HOTELS: Asks FL Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
CNL Hotels & Resorts, Inc. asked the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Florida to dismiss the
consolidated securities class action filed against it, its
advisor, CNL Hospitality Corporation, certain of the Company's
affiliates and certain of its officers and directors.

On August 16, 2004, a shareholder filed a complaint, asserting
claims on behalf of two separate classes, those persons who
purchased Company shares during the class period pursuant to
certain registration statements and those persons who received
and were entitled to vote on the 2004 Proxy statement dated May
7, 2004, as amended.  The complaint alleges violations of
Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act and Section
14(a), including Rule 14a-9 hereunder, and Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act, based upon, among other things, allegations that:

     (1) the defendants used improper accounting practices to
         materially inflate the Company's earnings to support
         the payment of dividends and bolster the Company's
         share price;

     (2) conflicts of interest and self-dealing by the
         defendants resulted in excessive advisor fees,
         overpayment for certain properties and the proposed
         merger of the Company and CHC;

     (3) the proxy statement and certain registration statements
         and prospectuses contained materially false and
         misleading statements; and

     (4) the individual defendants and the Advisor breached
         their fiduciary duties to the members of the class.

The complaint seeks, among other things, certification of the
class action, unspecified monetary damages, rescissory damages,
to nullify the various shareholder approvals obtained at the
2004 annual meeting, payment of reasonable attorneys' fees and
experts' fees, and an injunction enjoining the proposed
underwritten offering and listing until the court approves
certain actions, including the nomination and election of new
independent directors and retention of a new financial advisor.

On September 8, 2004, a second putative class action complaint
was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida containing allegations that are
substantially similar to those contained in the class action
lawsuit filed on August 16, 2004.

On November 10, 2004, the two complaints were consolidated and
lead plaintiffs were assigned for each of the two purported
classes. On December 23, 2004, the plaintiffs served a
corrected, consolidated and amended complaint asserting
substantially the same claims and allegations. On February 11,
2005 the Company and the other defendants filed separate motions
to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint.


CORNELL COMPANIES: Asks TX Court To Dismiss Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cornell Companies, Inc. asked the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division to dismiss
the consolidated securities class action filed against it and
certain of its officers and directors.

In March and April 2002, the Company, Steven W. Logan (its
former President and Chief Executive Officer), and John L.
Hendrix (its former Chief Financial Officer), were named as
defendants in four federal putative class action lawsuits
styled:

     (1) Graydon Williams, On Behalf of Himself and All Others
         Similarly Situated v. Cornell Companies, Inc, et al.,
         case no. H-02-0866, in the United States District
         Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston
         Division;

     (2) Richard Picard, On Behalf of Himself and All Others
         Similarly Situated v. Cornell Companies, Inc., et al.,
         case no. H-02-1075, in the United States District
         Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston
         Division;

     (3) Louis A. Daly, On Behalf of Himself and All Others
         Similarly Situated v. Cornell Companies, Inc., et al.,
         case No. H-02-1522, in the United States District Court
         for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division,
         and

     (4) Anthony J. Scolaro, On Behalf of Himself and All Others
         Similarly Situated v. Cornell Companies, Inc., et al.,
         case No. H-02-1567, in the United States District Court
         for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division

The aforementioned lawsuits were putative class action lawsuits
brought on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's common
stock between March 6, 2001 and March 5, 2002 and relate to the
Company's restatement in 2002 of certain financial statements.  
The lawsuits involved disclosures made concerning two prior
transactions executed by the Company: the August 2001 sale
leaseback transaction and the 2000 synthetic lease transaction.  
These four lawsuits were consolidated into the "Graydon
Williams" action and Flyline Partners, LP was appointed lead
plaintiff.  As a result, a consolidated complaint was filed by
Flyline Partners, LP.  Richard Picard and Anthony Scolaro were
also named as plaintiffs.

Since then, the court has allowed plaintiffs to file an amended
consolidated complaint. The amended consolidated complaint
alleges that the defendants violated Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), Rule 10b-5
promulgated under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act, Section 11 of the Securities Act of
1933 (the "Securities Act") and/or Section 15 of the Securities
Act.  The amended consolidated complaint seeks, among other
things, restitution damages, compensatory damages, rescission or
a rescissory measure of damages, costs, expenses, attorneys'
fees and expert fees.  


CYTYC CORPORATION: Judge Dismisses Suit, Plaintiffs Won't Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------   
A U.S. District Court judge has dismissed a consolidated federal
class action lawsuit accusing Cytyc Corporation (Nasdaq: CYTC)
of making misleading financial statements, The Boston Business
Journal reports.  According to the Marlborough Company, which is
a maker of women's health care tests and other products, the
plaintiffs will not appeal the court ruling.

The suit, which had been filed in the District of Massachusetts,
was on behalf of shareholders who purchased Cytyc stock between
July 25, 2001, and June 25, 2002. It had claimed that the
Company didn't disclose important facts about its financial
performance and gave misleading statements about past and
current financial expectations for the Company.

The ruling is at least the second legal dispute that Cytyc, has
seen resolved over the last month.

In March, Cytyc revealed that an arbitration panel had resolved
a licensing dispute between the Company and DEKA Products
Limited Partnership, which designed a filter that Cytyc uses for
its ThinPrep Pap Test. The panel ruled that the licensing
agreement between both parties required a 1-percent royalty to
DEKA based on sales of the entire kit retroactive from late 2000
through the end of 2004.


GLOBAL CROSSING: Settles SEC Fraud Charges, Executives Pay Fines
----------------------------------------------------------------
Global Crossing Ltd. has reached a settlement with federal
regulators, wherein three former executives have agreed to pay
fines but with no finding of fraud in the "capacity swap" deals
made before the telecommunications Company collapsed in
bankruptcy, The Associated Press reports.

Under the agreement, the Company pays nothing but former CEO
Thomas Casey, ex-chief financial officer Dan Cohrs and former
executive vice president of finance Joseph Perrone each pay a
$100,000 civil fine.

The Securities and Exchange Commission had been investigating
Global Crossing's swaps of fiber-optic network capacity with
other companies for more than two years. The SEC previously
alleged that Qwest Communications International Inc., one of the
companies that engaged in the deals with Global Crossing, used
them to artificially boost revenue by hundreds of millions of
dollars. Qwest agreed to pay $250 million to settle SEC fraud
charges last fall without admitting wrongdoing.

The SEC had charged that Global Crossing deceived investors by
failing to fully disclose information about the swaps, which it
allegedly booked as revenue and used to pump up its financial
position in 2001. In its statement on the settlement, the agency
said Mr. Casey, Mr. Cohrs and Mr. Perrone ``knew material
information regarding the (swap) transactions and their past and
likely future effect on the Company's financial condition and
results of operations.  It also alleged that three executives
reviewed and approved the Company's financial reports, which
failed to disclose this information.

In a press statement, Randall Lee, director of the SEC's Los
Angeles office, said, ``Global Crossing's senior executives
failed to discharge one of their most important responsibilities
-- to communicate with investors in a clear and straightforward
manner about the Company's business and financial condition.''

Commenting on the settlement, Global Crossing CEO John Legere
said, ``We're happy to have reached a settlement with the SEC
and that we can put these issues solidly behind us without a
finding of fraud or a financial penalty against the Company.''

Jeffrey Cunard, an attorney representing Mr. Casey, Mr. Cohrs
and Mr. Perrone, told AP they "are grateful to have it all
behind them." He also adds, "There was no finding that the
transactions were sham or that they were without business
justification."

The Company, registered in Bermuda and based in Florham Park,
N.J., emerged from bankruptcy protection in December 2003 with
new top executives, a work force cut in half and all but $200
million of its $11 billion in debt erased. Its majority
shareholder now is Singapore Technologies Telemedia Pte.


GOLD BANC: Farm Borrowers Initiate Two Suits in OK State Courts
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gold Banc Corporation faces two class actions filed in Oklahoma
state courts, on behalf of farm borrowers under its Farm Service
Agency (FSA) guaranteed loan programs.

On September 10, 2004, a class action case was filed in the
District Court of Kingfisher County, Oklahoma. On September 23,
2004, a second class action case was filed against the Company
in United States District Court for the Western District of
Oklahoma.  Both class actions contained various claims related
to the Company's operation of such loan program.
    
The federal case was dismissed on January 26, 2005, but on
February 2, 2005, the same plaintiffs re-filed their claims in
the District Court of Washita County Oklahoma. Both state cases
remain pending.


GOOGLE INC.: Files Court Documents To Dismiss "Click Fraud" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Google Inc., the Internet search engine Company, has made a plea
to U.S. District Judge Harry F. Barnes to dismiss a national
lawsuit against them alleging "click fraud," The Texarkana
Gazette reports.

According to the class action suit, click fraud occurs when a
Company with an advertisement on Google or other search engines
is subject to hefty bills as rival companies click repeatedly on
the advertisement to drive up advertising costs.

As previously reported in the April 6, 2005 edition of the Class
Action Reporter, the suit is being led by Lane's Gifts &
Collectibles LLC, a Texarkana, Arkansas retailer on behalf of
advertisers and other retailers, it alleges 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 by the Texarkana firm, Keil & Goodson, thus alleges
that the search companies improperly charged the plaintiffs for
such fraudulent clicks. It is now pending in federal district
court in Texarkana, Arkansas though.  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. Also named in the lawsuit are Yahoo! Inc., Overture
Services, Netscape Communications Corp., and Buena Vista
Internet group.

An Internet expert points out that 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.  However,
according to observers, the action 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.

"Defendants engaged in a conspiracy to bill and/or collect
advertising revenue for services which were not actually and/or
legitimately provided to plaintiffs ... Defendants conspired to
conceal the fact that they were overcharging and/or over-
collecting revenue for advertisements which were not actually
provided to the plaintiffs from bonafide customers," according
to the lawsuit.

In its motion to dismiss the lawsuit, Google's lawyer, Jennifer
Haltom Doan of the Texarkana, Texas, firm Halton & Doan, reminds
Judge Barnes that the plaintiffs-led by Lane's Gifts and
Collectibles of Texarkana, Arkansas-alleged a breach of their
advertising contract. She pointed out that this allegations
don't stand up, since Lane's and the other companies that
advertise on the search engine agreed to their contracts before
beginning their advertising campaigns. In the written legal
arguments used to back up her motion, Ms. Doan argues that the
advertisers were forum shopping, the Texarkana Gazette reports.  
"No forum selection clause in any of the contracts calls for the
venue in this district," according to Google's brief.

Where the lawsuit should be fought, if it were allowed to remain
alive-is up to Google, according to its contract. An exception
has not been made by the Company to allow a lawsuit such as
Lane's to be tried against Google in the Western District of
Arkansas, which the Texarkana, Arkansas, federal court is a part
of.  The lawyers also argue that there is no legal way that
Lane's can press forward with its case in Texarkana, Arkansas,
either in state or federal court.


ICT GROUP: Reaches Settlement For WV Wage Law Violations Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
ICT Group, Inc. reached a settlement for the class action filed
against it in the Circuit Court of Berkeley County, West
Virginia, alleging violations of the West Virginia Wage Payment
and Collection Act.

William Shingleton filed the suit in 1998, alleging that the
Company and twelve current and former members of its management
violated the West Virginia Wage Payment and Collection Act (the
Wage Act) for failure to pay promised signing and incentive
bonuses and wage increases, failure to compensate employees for
short breaks or "transition" periods, production hours worked
and improper deductions for the cost of purchasing telephone
headsets.

On March 1, 2005, the Company announced a settlement with the
plaintiffs to this litigation.  Under the terms of the
settlement, the Company, while continuing to dispute the
plaintiffs' allegations and without admitting liability or
wrongdoing, agreed to pay $14.75 million to the plaintiff class
to settle all allegations relating to unpaid wages, bonuses and
other claims, as well as potential payments for liquidated
damages allowed by West Virginia law of thirty days pay plus
interest, which was being sought for all class members
regardless of the amount of wages allegedly unpaid.


ICT GROUP: CA Court Refuses To Dismiss Consumer Fraud Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California refused to dismiss the consolidated class action
filed against ICT Group, Inc., Time Warner Inc. and/or America
Online.

Twelve putative consumer class action lawsuits were initially
filed in various state and federal courts during the period from
July 2003 to December 2004.  No class has been certified in any
of these suits. All of these suits allege that America Online, a
customer of the Company, violated consumer protection laws by
charging members for accounts they purportedly did not agree to
create and that America Online and the Company violated consumer
protection laws in the handling of subscribers' calls seeking to
cancel accounts and obtain refunds of amounts paid for such
accounts.  America Online contracted with the Company to answer
customer service calls from America Online subscribers in
accordance with instructions provided by America Online.  
America Online employees and other call center contractors also
answered customer service calls from subscribers using the same
instructions.

Nine of the lawsuits that were filed in, or removed to, Federal
court have been centralized in the Central District of
California for consolidated or coordinated pretrial proceedings
pursuant to a February 27, 2004 order of the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation.  The defendants' Motion to Dismiss
these complaints was denied by the court on September 20, 2004.
The three remaining lawsuits were filed and remain in state
courts.

The suit is styled "In re America Online Spin-Off Accounts
Litigation, case no. 2:04-ml-01581-RSWL-PLA," filed in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California, under Judge Ronald S.W. Lew.  Representing the
defendants is Joseph M. Graham, Jr. of Kirkland & Ellis 777 S
Figueroa St, Ste 3700 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: 213-680-8515
Fax: 213-680-8500.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Shannon P. Cereghino, Finkelstein Thompson and Loughran
         601 Montgomery Street, Suite 665 San Francisco, CA
         94111 Phone: 415-398-8700

     (2) C. Brooks Cutter, Stuart Talley, Mark J. Tamblyn of
         Kershaw Cutter Ratinoff & York 980 9th St, 19th Fl
         Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: 916-448-9800 Fax: 916-669-
         4499

     (3) Eric H. Gibbs, Jonathan K. Levine, Sanjay M. Ranchod,
         Girard Gibbs & De Bartolomeo 601 California St, Ste
         1400 San Francisco, CA 94108 Phone: 415-981-4800 Fax:
         415-981-4846 E-mail: smr@girardgibbs.com  


LOUISIANA: Pace Picks Up For Settlement Of Gaylord Chemical Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Though distribution date for the first settlement in the Gaylord
Chemical Release of 1995 case has not yet been set, the pace is
reportedly picking up and plaintiffs are growing guardedly
optimistic that attorneys will resolve the few remaining
obstacles in the not too distant future, The Bogalusa Daily News
reports.

James "Pete" Farmer, liaison counsel for the plaintiffs in the
Louisiana class action suit, attended a meeting of the Community
Action Organization recently to give an update on the case.  In
January, Mr. Farmer told the group that the issues that were not
yet resolved included: six or seven interventions, 10
successions for suits filed in Mississippi and 110 unsigned
releases left from a total of 4,500 in Mississippi. In the days
after he provided that information, the defendants reportedly
came up with 185 more people from whom they wanted records and
releases.

According to Mr. Farmer, that "additional portion" got worked
out fast when the Mississippi attorneys "took action in
connection with an appeal," and now, all of the six or seven
interventions and eight of the 10 successions have been resolved
and only 90 of the 110 unsigned releases remain to be signed,
the Bogalusa Daily News reports.

By February, Mr. Farmer concluded that the 90 unsigned claimants
would never be found, and that at least one of the successions
could never be resolved. He also stated that in a Covington
court, attorneys for the plaintiffs and for the defendants came
to an agreement that they would "resolve the unfinished items"
by the creation of an additional reserve fund that would protect
the defendants against items the Mississippi litigation group
could not resolve, the Bogalusa Daily News reports.  In
addition, according to Mr. Farmer, the judge in the case has
required weekly "face-to-face" meetings in which attorneys on
both sides of the case would report to him on their progress
toward a distribution. The liaison in those meetings, who said
he is "very much encouraged," would not speculate on a
distribution date, but said it is "in the foreseeable future."

Joel Miller, president of the COA, told the Daily News the
claimants in attendance at the meeting generally seemed to "feel
much better" about the prospect of getting their first
settlement checks before too much longer. He encouraged everyone
to ignore rumors and to "focus on what Mr. Farmer says."

"The bottom line is that when they see in the newspaper that the
judge has signed the distribution order, they can add about 30
days from the date the judge signed the distribution order, and
there will be a distribution," Mr. Farmer told the Daily News.
"And it will take place in Bogalusa."


MICHIGAN: Lawyer Asks Officials Not To Talk About Stripping Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Saginaw County attorney Andre Borrello is suggesting that
elected officials not talk about a high-profile legal battle
over a Sheriff's Department policy of stripping unruly jail
inmates, The Saginaw News reports.

According to several board members, the county attorney recently
forwarded an e-mail to members of the County Board of
Commissioners, asking them not to discuss the case. "(It's) not
a gag order," Commissioner Kenneth P. Horn, a Frankenmuth
Republican, told the Saginaw News.  "It didn't say, 'Don't talk
about it.' It was posed as friendly advice."

Commissioner Thomas A. Basil, a Saginaw Township Republican,
said the recommendation doesn't change his plans.  He told the
Saginaw News, "It was something I wasn't going to comment on
because I didn't know anything about it. At this point, I'm
assuming, like everybody else, that it has stopped, and I'm
appalled that it happened."

Although Mr. Borrello is not representing the county in this
case, he told Saginaw News he asked officials to refrain from
comment until Bloomfield Hills attorney James I. DeGrazia has a
chance to prepare the defense.

Commissioner James M. Graham, a James Township Democrat and
chairman of the board's Appropriations Committee, exchanged
harsh words with former Sheriff Tom McIntyre, whom Mr. Graham
blamed for starting the policy. Sheriff McIntyre, who is now
head of Saginaw County Central Dispatch, denied the accusation
and further claimed county officials ignored the warnings of a
previous lawyer that the practice of taking inmates' clothes was
grounds for a lawsuit.

As previously reported in the March 31, 2005 edition of the
Class Action Reporter, the American Civil Liberties Union has
joined two lawsuits against the Saginaw County Jail in Michigan
over a policy of stripping rowdy detainees and keeping them
naked in solitary confinement.   Though U.S. District Judge
David M. Lawson has already ruled in one of the cases that the
policy is unconstitutional he has as of late not yet awarded
damages. Lawyers though say that the ruling is leading to what
could become a class-action lawsuit with "several hundred"
plaintiffs.

Wendy Wagenheim, a spokeswoman for the ACLU of Michigan, told
Saginaw News the two cases could be consolidated and certified
as a class-action suit with lawyers estimating that the total
number of plaintiffs could number about 200.

Saginaw County Sheriff Charles L. Brown defended the policy as
an effort to balance inmate safety with privacy rights. But he
told Saginaw News the practice was discontinued in 2001 or 2002,
a claim that the plaintiffs' lawyers and the ACLU dispute.  
Sheriff Brown claimed that the policy ended "in 2001 or 2002,"
but a lawyer for one of the plaintiffs, Christopher J. Pianto
stated that he has heard from former detainees who say it
happened in 2003 and possibly 2004.


MICROSOFT CORPORATION: FL Appeals Court Upholds $202M Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Florida appeals court has upheld Microsoft Corporation's $202
million settlement of a class action suit that provides benefits
to consumers who purchased licenses for Microsoft operating
system, productivity suite, spreadsheet or word-processing
software between November 16, 1995 and December 31, 2002 for use
in the state, The Silicon.com reports.

Rejecting the claims of those who objected to the settlement,
the court noted in its ruling the deal's similarities to
agreements reached and approved in other states.  Under terms of
the deal, class action members will receive vouchers for future
technology purchases. The settlement provides a maximum amount
of $202 million, with a portion of any unclaimed funds will go
to Florida schools.


NEW JERSEY: Experts Say Ruling on Foster Kids Could Stir Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
A recent ruling by a New Jersey federal judge will open the
courthouse doors to many more lawsuits by children in foster
care who have suffered harms ranging from inadequate medical
care to an inferior education, according to legal experts, The
Newark Star Ledger reports.

The ruling, by U.S. District Judge Stanley Brotman, allowed
three South Jersey boys to sue the state Division of Youth and
Family Services for being denied the most basic of life's
necessities: food. Their lawyers claim DYFS caseworkers ignored
obvious signs that the foster parents who later adopted them
were starving the boys.

Experts point out that by allowing their lawsuit to go forward,
Judge Brotman put teeth into a 1991 law that guarantees children
under state care a wide range of rights, ranging from food,
clothing and housing to "an educational program which will
maximize the child's potential." It includes rights to
appropriate medical care, regular contact with their caseworkers
and freedom from "physical or psychological abuse and repeated
changes in placement."

Randi Mandelbaum, director of the Child Advocacy Clinic at
Rutgers School of Law in Newark, told the Star Ledger "It's
quite a long list. That could open up potential lawsuits for
other children. Not every child in DYFS care is getting
everything they should be getting."

"I would think it opens the door to a lot of lawsuits," Madeline
Marzano-Lesnevich, chair of the New Jersey State Bar
Association's family law section told the Star Ledger. "There
have been other instances of children where DYFS has missed
signs of abuse or neglect."

"It certainly opens the door much wider than it was yesterday,"
Marcia Lowry, the court-appointed guardian for the three starved
youngsters, told the Star Ledger. "I wouldn't say that it opens
the floodgates."

Howard Davidson, director of the American Bar Association Center
on Children and the Law in Washington, D.C., told the Star
Ledger a child will have to be "badly harmed" in order to bring
a successful lawsuit.  He added, "Being in foster care is
stressful, but just being in foster care is not a cause of
action. There has to be some serious malfeasance of state
responsibility that gives rise to a claim for damages."

However, with some 9,500 children in a foster care system that
state officials admit needs overdue repairs, experts believe
that successful lawsuits by even a small percentage of them
could be costly for taxpayers.  "Depending on the remedy the
court orders, there could be a substantial budgetary impact,"
Attorney General Peter Harvey told the Star Ledger.

Part of the reason for that is the very expansive list of rights
that the 1991 Child Placement Bill of Rights created. They
include requirements for DYFS to use its "best efforts" to keep
siblings together and a right to "services of a high quality" to
"advance the child's mental and physical well-being."  In court
papers, A.G. Harvey's office argued such rights "are so vague
and amorphous" that they cannot be enforced in a court of law.
However, Judge Brotman disagreed and ruled, for the first time,
that children denied those rights can sue for money damages.

"We don't agree with the court," Attorney General Harvey told
the Star Ledger, adding that his office is evaluating whether to
appeal Judge Brotman's ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the 3rd Circuit in Philadelphia.

As previously reported in the April 11, 2005 edition of the
Class Action Reporter, court records revealed that in October
2003, Collingswood police found 19-year-old Bruce Jackson
rummaging through a garbage can for food, then discovered his
three emaciated brothers, ages 10 to 14, in their home. None of
the four weighed more than 45 pounds.  Their adoptive parents,
Raymond and Vanessa Jackson, were indicted on charges of
aggravated assault and endangering the welfare of children.
Vanessa Jackson is awaiting trial, while her husband died of a
stroke late last year.

The state had sought to dismiss the lawsuit filed on behalf of
the three juveniles. However, U.S. District Court Judge Stanley
Brotman in Camden rejected the state's claim of immunity and
ruled the children can sue for violations of their rights under
the U.S. Constitution and state law. Furthermore, the judge
pointed out that a 1991 law entitling children under state care
to appropriate food, clothing, housing, medical care and
education allows them to sue when those rights are denied.

Judge Brotman also wrote in his ruling that the case represents
an exception to the general rule that government has no
constitutional duty to guarantee the rights of citizens. The
state entered into "a special relationship" with the children
when it took them from their natural parents; it then placed
them in "a state-created danger," Judge Brotman wrote. He said
that entitles them to sue. The judge also ruled the children can
sue under the state's Child Placement Bill of Rights Act of
1991. Prior to his ruling, that had been an open question.  
Finally, Judge Brotman said the case raised "disconcerting
questions about DYFS' involvement in child placement cases in
New Jersey."


OHIO: Several Sex Offenders File Complaint V. New Residency Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------
Several unnamed sex offenders have asked a judge to put on hold
an Ohio law that forces them to move if their homes are within
1,000 feet of a school just three weeks before it goes into
effect, The Toledo Blade reports.

Among the plaintiffs, known only as John Does 1 through 8, is a
23-year-old Lucas County man who said he was 18 when he had
consensual sex with a 16-year-old female friend. The man pleaded
guilty to a fifth-degree felony after the girl's parents learned
of the relationship.  In a complaint, which is before U.S.
District Judge Sandra Beckwith in Cincinnati, the unnamed Lucas
County man stated that he is currently living with his
grandmother near a school.

The American Civil Liberties Union and the Cincinnati-based
Prison Reform Advocacy Center filed the suit on behalf of the
plaintiffs. Saying they will ask a judge to certify the
complaint as a class-action suit, both groups argue that the law
is both impractical and unconstitutional.

Jeff Gamso, a Toledo lawyer and legal director for the Ohio
ACLU, told the Blade "The underlying goal I don't have a problem
with: Protect children. [That's a] good idea. We should protect
our children. But the assumption that we will protect our
children by prohibiting anyone convicted of a sex crime from
living within 1,000 feet of a school is nonsense."

Mr. Gamso points out that the law is unconstitutional because it
unfairly limits where sex offenders may live, and treats all
offenders the same no matter what level of risk they pose to
others.

Under current law, most convicted sex offenders in Ohio must
register work and home addresses with a local sheriff. Failing
to do so can be a felony.  Recent studies, including a review by
The Toledo Blade of sex offenders' addresses, indicate that a
high percentage of offenders live within the prohibited 1,000
feet of schools. Although the 1,000-foot rule has been on the
books for more than a year, it's not until later this month that
law directors and local prosecutors will have the ability to ask
judges to force a sex offender to move.

Others named in the lawsuit are Ohio Attorney General Jim Petro
and representatives from Hamilton County, where the first John
Doe came forward with his complaint against the law, and from
Delaware County, where letters have been sent to sex offenders
ordering them from homes within 1,000 feet of a school.


PACKETEER INC.: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Securities 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 Packeteer,
Inc., certain of its officers and directors and the underwriters
of its initial public offering, styled "In re Packeteer, Inc.
Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 01-CV-10185
(SAS)."

The amended complaint alleges violations of the federal
securities laws on behalf of a purported class of those who
acquired the Company's common stock between the date of the
Company's initial public offering, or IPO, and December 6, 2000.
The amended complaint alleges that the description in the
prospectus for the Company's IPO was materially false and
misleading in describing the compensation to be earned by the
underwriters of the Company's IPO, and in not describing certain
alleged arrangements among underwriters and initial purchasers
of the Company's common stock.  The amended complaint seeks
damages and certification of a plaintiff class consisting of all
persons who acquired shares of the Company's common stock
between July 27, 1999 and December 6, 2000.

A special committee of the board of directors has authorized the
Company to negotiate a settlement of the pending claims
substantially consistent with a memorandum of understanding
negotiated among class plaintiffs, all issuer defendants and
their insurers. The parties have negotiated a settlement, which
is subject to approval by the Court.

The suit is styled "In re Packeteer, Inc. Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, 01-CV-10185 (SAS)," related to
"In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, Master
File No. 21 MC 92 (SAS)," filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge Shira A.
Scheindlin.  The plaintiff firms in this 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) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP (New York,
         NY), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY, 10119-1065,
         Phone: 212.594.5300,

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

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

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

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


PFIZER INC.: Kenneth B. Moll Lodges Bextra Complaint in N.D. IL
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kenneth B. Moll & Associates, LTD. initiated the
first worldwide class action lawsuit against Pfizer, Inc. on
behalf of all persons who died or were injured by the pain
medication, Bextra.

The suit accuses pharmaceutical giant of failing to properly
research the known risks of Bextra, warn consumers of the fatal
side effects, and withdraw the drug from the market even when
the dangers became widely known. The lawsuit was filed in the
Federal District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

On April 7, Pfizer suspended sales of Bextra in the United
States and the European Union. "The decision of the FDA to
withdraw Bextra from the market is a victory for consumers, and
affirms that the risks of these drugs outweigh the benefits,"
said Kenneth B. Moll. "However, countless individuals have
already suffered severe or fatal injuries including heart
attacks, strokes, embolisms, gastrointestinal bleeding, ulcers,
and skin reactions such as Stevens-Johnson syndrome. This drug
did not carry sufficient warnings regarding the potentially
fatal side effects it can cause."

A study presented to the American Heart Association in November
2004 showed that patients taking Bextra were more than twice as
likely to suffer a stroke or heart attack than those taking
placebos. Two post-heart bypass surgery trials showed that
Bextra triples the risk of cardiovascular events.

The lawsuit will seek compensation for those who have died and
been injured as a result of their use of Bextra.

For more details, contact Kenneth B. Moll & Associates, Ltd. by
Mail: 70 W. Madison Ave., 50th Floor, Chicago, Illinois or by
Phone: (312) 558-6444.


POST APARTMENT: Shareholder Appeals Approval of Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Post Apartment Homes LP shareholder opposed the Superior Court
of Fulton County, Atlanta, Georgia's ruling granting approval to
the settlement of the shareholder derivative and class action
lawsuits against the Company (as a nominal defendant) and the
members of its board of directors.

On May 5, 2003, the Company received notice that a shareholder
derivative and purported class action lawsuit was filed against
members of the board of directors of the Company and the Company
as a nominal defendant.  This complaint alleged various breaches
of fiduciary duties by the board of directors of the Company and
sought, among other relief, the disclosure of certain
information by the defendants.  This complaint also sought to
compel the defendants to undertake various actions to facilities
a sale of the Company.  On May 7, 2003, the plaintiff made a
request for voluntary expedited discovery.

On May 13, 2003, the Company received notice that a similar
shareholder derivative and purported class action lawsuit was
filed against certain members of the board of directors of the
Company and against the Company as a nominal defendant. The
complaint was filed in the Superior Court of Fulton County,
Atlanta, Georgia on May 12, 2003 and alleged breaches of
fiduciary duties, abuse of control and corporate waste by the
defendants.  The plaintiff sought monetary damages and, as
appropriate, injunctive relief.

These lawsuits were settled, and in October 2004, the Superior
Court of Fulton County entered an order approving the settlement
and related orders dismissing the litigation. An alleged Company
shareholder, who has filed a separate purported derivative and
direct action against the Company and certain of its officers
and directors, has appealed from the Superior Court's orders
approving the settlement, overruling the shareholder's objection
to the settlement, denying the shareholder's motion to
intervene, and dismissing the litigation with prejudice.  The
Company plans to contest the shareholder's appeal.


RELIABLE LIFE: Wants Policyholder's Suit Moved To Federal Court
---------------------------------------------------------------   
Reliable Life Insurance Co. is making a bid to have its national
class action lawsuit moved from circuit court in Miller County
to federal district court in Texarkana, Arkansas, a move that
would put the case into the lap of U.S. District Judge Harry F.
Barnes, The Texarkana Gazette reports.

According to court documents, Reliable is named in a class
action lawsuit with Capital County Mutual Fire Insurance Co.,
Prudential General Insurance & Casualty Insurance Co., Old
Reliable Insurance Co. and Hartford Insurance Co. of the
Midwest.

Hawley Holman, Reliable's Texarkana lawyer with the Holman &
Langdon law firm, filed the court documents that moved the case
into federal court. According to him, they wanted to move the
case in part because the plaintiffs and the insurance companies
live in various states and federal courts are designed to handle
cases that cross state lines.

Attorneys with the law firm of Patton, Roberts, McWilliams &
Capshaw, of Texarkana, Texas, as well as local residents claim
that the insurance companies improperly profited at the expense
of policyholders when paying claims for loss or damage to real
estate.

In the suit, the policyholders say that the companies allegedly
underpaid its policyholders and benefited from extensive profits
because it is customary for general contractors, who will
oversee work done on a construction project, to add a percentage
to the total estimate for a job. Their attorneys point out that
industry-wide, 20 percent is usually assessed for profit and
overhead to cover the general contractors' fees.

Policyholders contend that they were never told that they were
entitled to an allowance for the general contractors' fees. The
lawyers say this means that policyholders paid the general
contractors out of their own pockets, went without the services
of a general contractor or served as their own general
contractors for free.

According to the filing by Reliable and Holman, the dollar
amount of the lawsuit will likely meet the federal threshold of
$75,000. They argued that the lawsuit's value would likely
surpass that amount.


UNION PACIFIC: NE Judge Allows Suit Over Birth Control Coverage
---------------------------------------------------------------
As a matter of tradition, Utah lawmakers balked at adopting
legislation to force companies to cover birth control during the
2005 Legislature, however at least one Utah-based Company could
be forced to change its prescription policy, The Salt Lake
Tribune reports.

A federal judge in Nebraska has allowed Planned Parenthood to
sue Union Pacific Railroad on behalf of 47,000 unionized workers
including nearly 2,000 in Utah, who have to pay the cost of
contraception out of their own pockets. Salt Lake City-based
Union Pacific Railroad Employees Health Systems manages medical
insurance for about half of those workers.

Planned Parenthood attorney Roberta Riley told the Salt Lake
Tribune, the class-action lawsuit shows women will challenge
businesses' inconsistent health care policies even if government
leaders won't. She adds that Utah legislators' unwillingness to
pass "contraceptive equity" legislation this year leaves
businesses in the state vulnerable to sex-discrimination
litigation.
   
As in years past, conservative Utah lawmakers in their 2005
session declined to debate the bill, which has been introduced
annually.  Taylorsville Republican Sen. Mike Waddoups told the
Tribune that lawmakers are reluctant to meddle in the corporate
world by forcing a standardized insurance policy on Utah
companies. "We'd be telling them how to run their businesses,"
Sen. Waddoups said, adding he doubts threat of a lawsuit would
change that stance.

Twenty-one other states have adopted contraceptive equity
legislation and supporters believe the lawsuit is evidence of
the risk businesses are taking.

"Refusal to cover birth control like other prescription drugs is
discrimination, plain and simple," Planned Parenthood lobbyist
and executive Bev Cooper told the Tribune. "The writing's on the
wall for Utah and other states. It's just a matter of time."

In the case of Union Pacific, Ms. Riley sued on behalf of four
female railroad employees living in Idaho, Oregon, Missouri and
Washington, charging that the Company's refusal to cover women's
birth control is sexual discrimination.

Union Pacific covers the cost of prescription birth control for
its 3,000 managers, but will not cover rank-and-file employee's
prescriptions. Women who have a note from a doctor proving they
will use the pill for acne treatment can get an exception to the
policy. At the same time, Union Pacific pays for male employees'
Viagra prescriptions.

Union Pacific Railroad Employees Health Systems' Kevin Potts
said his insurance Company is simply following the Omaha-based
railroad's policies not to cover prescription birth control for
unionized workers. "It has historically been a railroad decision
that we follow suit on," Mr. Potts told the Tribune.


UNITED STATES: FDA Reveals Important Changes in NSAID Labeling
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced a series of
important changes pertaining to the marketing of the non-
steroidal anti-inflammatory class of drugs, including COX-2
selective and prescription and non-prescription (over-the-
counter (OTC)) non-selective NSAID medications.  A list of these
products is available on the Internet at the FDA Website:
http://www.fda.gov/cder/drug/infopage/cox2/default.htm.

"Today's actions protect and advance the health of the millions
of Americans who rely on these drugs everyday," said Dr. Steven
K. Galson, Acting Director of FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation
and Research (CDER). "FDA is providing the public information
based on the latest available scientific data to guide the
careful and appropriate use of these drugs aimed at maximizing
their potential benefits and minimizing their risks."

FDA has asked Pfizer, Inc. to withdraw Bextra (valdecoxib) from
the market because the overall risk versus benefit profile for
the drug is unfavorable. FDA has also asked Pfizer to include a
boxed warning in the Celebrex (celecoxib) label. Pfizer has
agreed to suspend sales and marketing of Bextra in the U.S.,
pending further discussions with the agency. Pfizer has agreed
to work with FDA on the boxed warning for Celebrex. FDA is
asking manufacturers of all other prescription NSAIDs to revise
their labels to include the same boxed warning highlighting the
potential for increased risk of cardiovascular (CV) events and
gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding associated with their use.
Manufacturers of Celebrex and all other prescription NSAIDs will
be asked to revise their labeling to include a Medication Guide
for patients to help make them aware of the potential for CV and
GI adverse events associated with the use of this class of
drugs.

In addition, FDA is asking the manufacturers of all OTC NSAIDs
to revise their labels to include more specific information
about the potential CV and GI risks, and information to assist
consumers in the safe use of the drugs. FDA is also asking
manufacturers of OTC NSAIDs to include a warning about potential
skin reactions. The labeling of the prescription NSAIDs already
addresses potential skin reactions.

This current reexamination of the CV risks of NSAIDs began after
Merck conducted a voluntary worldwide withdrawal of its COX-2
selective NSAID, Vioxx (rofecoxib), in September 2004. FDA will
carefully review any proposal from Merck for resumption of
marketing of Vioxx.

These actions are based on the available scientific data,
including data accumulated since the drugs were approved. The
FDA has carefully considered the presentations, discussions, and
recommendations from the joint meeting of the Agency's Arthritis
and Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory Committee held on
February 16-18, 2005.

To inform the public and healthcare community of its decisions,
FDA today issued a Public Health Advisory (PHA) and updated
patient and healthcare practitioner fact sheets. Additional
information about today's announcements is available on FDA's
Web site: http://www.fda.gov/cder. Information can also be  
obtained by calling 1-888-INFO-FDA (888-463-6332).


VALICERT INC.: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Securities Suit Pact
--------------------------------------------------------------
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 Valicert,
Inc., its former chief executive officer, its chief financial
officer as well as an investment banking firm that served as an
underwriter for the IPO.

In December 2001, certain plaintiffs filed a class action
lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of the
Company, alleging violations of federal securities laws.  The
suit was later amended and labeled "In re Valicert, Inc. Initial
Public Offering Securities Litigation, No. 01-CV-10889 (SAS)
(S.D.N.Y.)," related to "In re Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation, No. 21 MC 92 (SAS)."

The operative amended complaint is brought on purported behalf
of all persons who purchased the Company's common stock from the
date of its July 27, 2000 initial public offering through
December 6, 2000.  The complaint alleges liability under
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, on the
grounds that the registration statement for the IPO did not
disclose that:

     (1) the underwriter agreed to allow certain customers to
         purchase shares in the IPO in exchange for excess
         commissions to the paid to the underwriter; and

     (2) the underwriter arranged for certain customers to
         purchase additional shares in the aftermarket at
         predetermined prices.

The complaint also appears to allege that false or misleading
analyst reports were issued. The complaint does not claim any
specific amount of damages. Similar allegations have been made
in lawsuits relating to more than 300 other initial public
offerings conducted in 1999 and 2000, all of which have been
consolidated for pretrial purposes. In February 2003, the Court
issued a ruling on all defendants' motions to dismiss, denying
the Company's motion to dismiss the claims under the Securities
Act of 1933, but granting its motion to dismiss the claims under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

In June 2003, the Company accepted a settlement proposal
presented to all issuer defendants in this case.  Under the
proposed settlement, the plaintiffs will dismiss and release all
claims against the Valicert Defendants in exchange for a
contingent payment guaranty by the insurance companies
collectively responsible for insuring the issuers in all the
consolidated cases, and the assignment or surrender of control
to the plaintiffs of certain claims the issuer defendants may
have against the underwriters. Under the guaranty, the insurers
will be required to pay the amount, if any, by which $1 billion
exceeds the aggregate amount ultimately collected by the
plaintiffs from the underwriter defendants in all of the cases.  
If the plaintiffs fail to recover $1 billion and payment is
required under the guaranty, the Company would be responsible to
pay its pro rata portion of the shortfall, up to the amount of
the deductible retention under its insurance policy, which is
$500,000. The timing and amount of payments that the Company
could be required to make under the proposed settlement will
depend on several factors, principally the timing and amount of
any payment required by the insurers pursuant to the $1 billion
guaranty.  The proposed settlement is subject to approval of the
Court, which cannot be assured.

The suit is styled "In re Valicert, Inc. Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation, No. 01-CV-10889 (SAS)," related to "In re
Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, Master File No.
21 MC 92 (SAS)," filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York under Judge Shira A.
Scheindlin.  The plaintiff firms in this 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) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP (New York,
         NY), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY, 10119-1065,
         Phone: 212.594.5300,

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

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

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

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


VAXGEN INC.: Provides Updates On CA Stock Litigation, Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
VaxGen, Inc. (Pink Sheets: VXGN.PK) reports that the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California
has entered an Order dismissing the Amended Complaint in In re
VaxGen, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. C 03-01129 JSW (the
"Class Action") without prejudice to plaintiffs' filing a
further amended Complaint.

Separately, the Company also reports that the California
Superior Court for San Mateo County has scheduled a hearing for
April 29, 2005 to consider a proposed settlement in a related
shareholders' derivative lawsuit, captioned In re VaxGen, Inc.
Derivative Litigation, No. CIV 430087 (the "Derivative
Lawsuit"). Both lawsuits relate to certain public disclosures
concerning an experimental AIDS vaccine that the Company is no
longer developing.

The Class Action was filed in March 2003 against VaxGen, its CEO
and its former President. By Order dated March 30, 2005, the
Federal District Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the
Amended Class Action Complaint, but afforded plaintiffs another
chance to amend their Complaint. VaxGen does not know whether
plaintiffs will attempt to further amend their Complaint.

The Derivative Lawsuit was filed in March 2003 against VaxGen,
certain of its directors and officers, Vulcan Ventures, Inc. and
Paul Allen. The Superior Court has set an April 29, 2005 hearing
to consider a request for approval of the parties' proposed
settlement as fair, adequate, reasonable and in the best
interests of VaxGen and its shareholders. The Superior Court has
also directed plaintiffs' counsel to submit by April 22, 2005 a
supplemental brief setting forth further evidence in support of
the value of their work, as reflected in the negotiated
attorneys' fees and expenses component of the proposed
settlement. Under the terms of the proposed settlement filed
with the Superior Court, the parties have agreed that the
Derivative Lawsuit will be dismissed with prejudice; VaxGen will
ensure that certain disclosure measures are in place; Vulcan
Ventures and Mr. Allen will use reasonable and good faith
efforts to comply with applicable securities laws in connection
with any future purchases of VaxGen stock; and plaintiffs'
attorneys will be reimbursed for their incurred fees and
expenses in the aggregate amount of $600,000 ($500,000 of which
VaxGen has agreed to cause to be paid and $100,000 of which
Vulcan Ventures and Mr. Allen have agreed to cause to be paid).
The proposed settlement will become effective only if approved
by the Superior Court. VaxGen does not know whether the Superior
Court will approve the proposed settlement.


VERISIGN INC.: Consolidated Securities Suit Still Pending in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Verisign, Inc. and certain of its current and former officers
and directors continue to face a consolidated securities class
action filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, styled "In re VeriSign, Inc.
Securities Litigation, Case No. C-02-2270 JW(HRL)."

The consolidated action seeks unspecified damages for alleged
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, on
behalf of a class of persons who purchased VeriSign stock from
January 25, 2001 through April 25, 2002.  An amended
consolidated complaint was filed on November 8, 2002.  On April
14, 2003, the court granted in part and denied in part the
defendants' motion to dismiss the amended and consolidated
complaint.

On May 5, 2004, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint that
is substantially identical to the amended consolidated complaint
except that it purports to add a claim under Sections 11 and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933 on behalf of a subclass of persons
who acquired shares of VeriSign pursuant to the registration
statement and prospectus filed October 10, 2001 and amended
October 26, 2001 for the acquisition of Illuminet Holdings, Inc.
by VeriSign.

The suit is styled "In re: Verisign Corp Securities Litigation,
case no. 5:02-cv-02270-JW," filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, under Judge James
Ware.  Representing the defendants is O'Melveny & Myers LLP,
Embarcadero Center West 275 Battery Street, Suite 2600 San
Francisco, CA 94111-3344 Phone: 415-984-8900 Fax: 415-984-8701.  
The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

     (1) Bernard M. Gross, 1500 Walnut Street, Suite 600,
         Philadelphia, PA, 19102, Phone: 215.561.3600, Fax:
         215.561.3000, E-mail: bmgross@BernardMGross.com;

     (2) Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. (Washington,
         DC), 1100 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 500, West Tower,
         Washington, DC, 20005, Phone: 202.408.4600, Fax:
         202.408.4699, E-mail: lawinfo@cmht.com;

     (3) Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Hynes & Lerach, LLP (S.F.,
         CA), 100 Pine Street - Suite 2600, San Francisco, CA,
         94111, Phone: 415.288.4545, Fax: 415.288.4534;

     (4) Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Hynes & Lerach LLP (San Diego,
         CA), 600 West Broadway, 1800 One America Plaza, San
         Diego, CA, 92101, Phone: 800.449.4900, E-mail:
         support@milberg.com;

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


VERISIGN INC.: Plaintiffs Drop Remaining Lawsuits V. Site Finder
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the two remaining lawsuits
filed against Verisign, Inc., relating to its Site Finder
service.

Four lawsuits were initially filed since September 18, 2003.  
Two of these lawsuits were brought by alleged competitors of the
Company.  The remaining suits, one class action suit and one
representative suit, were filed on behalf of consumers and
commercial Internet users.  The Company filed motions to dismiss
both of the alleged competitor lawsuits. In one of those
competitor lawsuits, the plaintiff did not oppose the Company's
motion to dismiss the original complaint and subsequently filed
an amended complaint, which the Company also moved to dismiss.
The courts have ruled on the Company's motions in these two
competitor cases by granting the motions in part and denying
them in part.

In both competitor lawsuits, after the Company responded to the
complaint and before substantive discovery was exchanged, the
plaintiffs agreed to dismiss their cases without prejudice in
return for confidentiality agreements and no monetary payment.
The Company also moved to dismiss the amended complaints filed
in the class action and the representative action.  In response
to the Company's motions to dismiss, the plaintiffs voluntarily
dismissed the class action and representative action without
prejudice to re-filing.  Dismissals have been entered by the
courts in both cases.


WEIGHT-LOSS ADS: FTC Report Bares 50% Drop in Fraudulent Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
According to a Federal Trade Commission staff report, the number
of obviously false weight-loss claims in television, radio, and
print advertisements for dietary supplements, topical creams,
and diet patches appears to have dropped from almost 50 percent
in 2001 to 15 percent in 2004.

With the rapid increase in obesity in America, many Americans
look to weight-loss ads for products to trim pounds. Industry
sources estimate that consumers spend billions of dollars each
year on products and services that purport to promote weight
loss. Many of these products, however, do not deliver what they
promise.

In a 2002 report, the FTC staff had found that nearly half of
weight-loss ads surveyed in 2001 made claims that clearly were
false. To help stem this tide of deceptive weight-loss
advertising, in 2003, the FTC asked the media not to run ads
containing obviously false weight-loss claims. To judge the
effectiveness of its call for media screening, the FTC staff
conducted the non-scientific Weight-Loss Advertising Survey:
2004. Although the decline in deceptive ad claims is
significant, the survey results show there are still areas for
improvement. The FTC will continue its efforts to encourage the
media voluntarily to screen out clearly false weight-loss
advertisements.

"Good media screening is good business," said FTC Chairman
Deborah Platt Majoras. "I encourage the media to continue their
efforts to identify and reject clearly false weight-loss
advertising."

The survey reviewed the nature and frequency of weight-loss
advertising for certain products available over-the-counter
running on television and radio or in newspapers and magazines -
all media that can screen out ads before running them. In
general, the 2004 survey results show a significant decline in
clearly false weight-loss product claims in the advertisements
surveyed.

In September 2001, the FTC conducted a non-scientific survey of
weight-loss ads in selected print, television, and radio media.
The FTC released a staff report entitled Weight-Loss
Advertising: An Analysis of Current Trends, which analyzed the
claims and techniques used in more than 300 weight-loss
advertisements that ran throughout all media. The 2001 survey
found that nearly half of the ads for dietary supplements,
creams, wraps, devices, and patches that appeared in radio,
television, or print media contained at least one clearly false
claim.

In November 2002, the FTC held a workshop to explore new
approaches to reducing deceptive weight-loss advertising.
Following the workshop, the FTC issued a staff report, Deception
in Weight-Loss Advertising Workshop: Seizing Opportunities and
Building Partnerships to Stop Weight-Loss Fraud. The report
contained a list of seven claims that are not scientifically
feasible for non-prescription weight-loss products. The
Commission also announced its "Red Flags" initiative, which,
through outreach and business education, encourages the media to
reject weight-loss product advertising that contains any of
these seven false claims, called "Red Flag" claims.

In 2004, after working with the media on the Red Flag
initiative, the FTC staff conducted a new survey, and analyzed
ads in broadcast and cable television (including infomercials),
radio, magazines, newspapers, supermarket tabloids, and free-
standing inserts from February to May 2004. The 2004 report
released today provides the results of that survey.

The 2004 survey results cover advertisements for certain non-
prescription products: dietary supplements, creams, wraps,
devices, and patches. The survey results found that 15 percent
of the ads reviewed in 2004 made one or more of the clearly
false Red Flag claims - a significant drop from the 2001 survey
that showed 49 percent of similar ads contained at least one Red
Flag claim. In addition, FTC staff compared ads that appeared in
the February through May 2004 issues of certain national
magazines with ads that appeared in the same magazines in 2001.
This comparison showed that while the volume of weight-loss ads
increased slightly from 2001, fewer of those ads contained Red
Flag claims.

The report shows that:

     (1) five percent of the ads contained the Red Flag claim
         that users could lose two pounds or more per week (over
         four or more weeks) without reducing caloric intake
         and/or increasing their physical activity. In the 2001
         survey, 43 percent of the ads contained such claims;

     (2) four percent of the ads contained claims that consumers
         who use the product could lose substantial weight while
         enjoying unlimited amounts of high calorie foods;

     (3) Four percent of the ads contained claims that weight
         loss would be permanent (even when the user stops using
         the product);

     (4) Three percent of the ads contained claims that the
         weight-loss product would cause substantial weight loss
         by blocking the absorption of fat or calories;

     (5) Three percent of the ads made claims that users could
         safely lose more than three pounds per week without
         clearly conveying the need for medical supervision;

     (6) Four percent of the ads stated that users could lose
         substantial weight through use of the advertised
         product that is worn on the body or rubbed into the
         skin;

     (7) Four percent of the ads stated that the product causes
         substantial weight loss for all users

Although the survey gives a positive report card, the FTC staff
concludes that there is still work to be done. The report also
provides several caveats: neither the 2001 nor the 2004 survey
was designed to produce results that can be generalized to all
weight-loss advertising; the absence of Red Flag claims does not
mean that the advertisements contained no deceptive weight-loss
claims at all; and although the results suggests that there has
been significant improvement in the occurrence of Red Flag
claims since 2001, they do not prove that this improvement is
the result of the Red Flags initiative. Nevertheless, the FTC
staff believes that report results support the FTC's continuing
to encourage the media to screen out clearly false weight-loss
advertisements.

The Commission vote authorizing the issuance of the staff report
entitled Weight-Loss Advertising Survey: 2004 was 5-0. Copies of
the staff report entitled Weight-Loss Advertising Survey: 2004
are available from the FTC's Web site: http://www.ftc.gov and  
also from the FTC's Consumer Response Center, Room 130, 600
Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580. The FTC works
for the consumer to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair
business practices in the marketplace and to provide information
to help consumers spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a
complaint in English or Spanish (bilingual counselors are
available to take complaints), or to get free information on any
of 150 consumer topics, call toll-free, 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-
382-4357), or use the complaint form at http://www.ftc.gov.The  
FTC enters Internet, telemarketing, identity theft, and other
fraud-related complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure,
online database available to hundreds of civil and criminal law
enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad.


WYOMING: Bush Administration Appeals Wind River Indian Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Two years ago, federal courts ruled in favor of the Wind River
Indian Reservation tribes, finding the U.S. government liable
for mismanagement of oil, gas and other trust assets, The Casper
Star-Tribune reports.

However, in an attempt to limit the federal government's
fiduciary responsibilities and liabilities, the Bush
administration recently filed documents asking the U.S. Supreme
Court to overturn those earlier decisions.

Back in 2003, the Bush administration argued that its trust
duties were lessened because the Eastern Shoshone Tribe and the
Northern Arapaho Tribe signed a cooperative audit agreement with
the federal Minerals Management Service. In court papers at the
time, government attorneys argued, "Somewhere along the line,
the United States should be entitled to rely on obligations that
the tribes assumed."  Judge Emily C. Hewitt of the U.S. Court of
Claims, however, denied the government's defense saying that the
agreement "does not diminish the trust duty owed" to the tribes
because it was meant to "enhance" and not replace the trust
relationship.

The two tribes, which share the Wind River reservation in
Wyoming, filed the suit in 1979, alleging that the Minerals
Management Service failed to collect the full amount of
royalties from a settlement between oil and gas companies.

The new Department of Justice appeal could affect 20 other
tribes' accounting lawsuits in the federal court system, as well
as the biggest case of all, Cobell v. Norton, a class-action
lawsuit filed in 1996. That lawsuit seeks to force the federal
government to account for billions of dollars belonging to about
half a million American Indians and their heirs since the late
19th century.

Justice Department lawyers wrote on March 25 that the lower
court decisions now being appealed "will substantially increase
the volume and complexity of Indian trust litigation, as well as
the potential monetary exposure of the United States in suits
alleging breach of the government's trust obligations."

U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, in congressional
testimony last month, said he needs an additional $7.4 million
and 18 more lawyers to fight the Indian lawsuits. "The United
States' potential exposure in these cases is more than $200
billion," A.G. Gonzales explains. Also, he adds that about 55
million pages of documents need to be reviewed and that some
$6.1 million of the $7.4 million is needed to address these
document management-related expenses.

The Supreme Court justices will consider the appeal at a
conference meeting on April 15 with the decision of whether they
will take the case being announced the following week.



              Meetings, Conferences & Seminars



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

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


BLUE COAT: Roy Jacobs Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Roy Jacobs & Associates filed a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of all purchasers who purchased
Blue Coat Systems, Inc. securities during the period February
20, 2004 to May 27, 2004 (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit was
filed against Blue Coat Systems, Inc. ("Blue Coat" or "the
Company") (Nasdaq:BCSI), its Chief Executive Officer Brian M.
NeSmith, and the Chief Financial Officer Robert Verheecke, and
alleges fraud involving the statements made to investors as
described below.

The Complaint alleges that Blue Coat had been an unprofitable
Company for the 8 years since its founding in 1996. However, on
February 19, 2004, Blue Coat announced an unprecedented increase
in sales, and its first profitable quarter, which ended January
31, 2004. This good news drove the stock price up to $38.27 on
February 20, 2004. The individual defendants, knowing that gross
margins impact profitability stated their belief that gross
margins in the following quarter, ending April 30, 2004, would
fall in the range of 68 to 69%, when they knew these gross
margin levels were unrealistic. Almost immediately following the
February 19, 2004, announcement, the individual defendants began
selling large blocks of shares. CEO NeSmith sold 127,877 shares
for gross proceeds of $5.57 million and CFO Verheeke sold 21,400
shares for gross proceeds of $1,009,000. The prices at which
these insiders sold ranged from $40-52 per share.

Blue Coat shares continued to sell at high prices through the
fourth quarter of 2004, which was due to end on April 30, 2004.
Toward the end of the quarter, however, with no adverse news
having been announced. Blue Coat shares began falling
precipitously. On April 27-29, 2004, shares dropped almost $10
per share on unusually high volume.

On May 27, 2004, Blue Coat made a surprise announcement that its
purported gross margin calculations had fallen short for the
fourth quarter of fiscal 2004, and that profitability was lower
than that achieved in the third quarter. Instead of increasing
only 2-3%, operating expenses increased 8.5%. The next trading
day, May 28, 2004, Blue Coat shares plummeted $11.45 per share
to close at $27.80 per share. By August 2004, Blue Coat shares
fell as low as $10 per share.

In the summer of 2004, the SEC began an informal inquiry into
trading in Blue Coat's stock concerning the fourth quarter of
fiscal 2004, which the Company initially characterized as only
involving "individuals or organizations outside the Company." On
February 28, 2005, however, the SEC asked for additional
information, and subpoenaed two unidentified Company executives
to testify. Following this, the SEC upgraded its informal
investigation into a formal investigation. Blue Coat admitted on
April 7, 2005 that the SEC insider trading investigation was now
focusing on whether certain present or former officers,
directors, employees, affiliates or others made selective
disclosure of material nonpublic information, traded in the
Company's stock while in possession of such information, or
communicated such information to others who then traded in the
Company's stock.

For more details, contact Roy Jacobs & Associates by Phone:
888-884-4490 by E-mail: classattorney@pipeline.com.


MBIA INC.: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP initiated a
class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the securities of MBIA Inc. ("MBIA" or the
"Company") (NYSE:MBI) between August 5, 2003 and March 30, 2005,
inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The action, case number 05-cv-3709, is pending in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against defendants MBIA, Joseph W. Brown (Chairman), Gary C.
Dunton (President and CEO), Nicholas Ferreri (CFO), Neil G.
Budnick (former CFO), and Douglas C. Hamilton (Principal
Accounting Officer). According to the complaint, defendants
violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule
10b-5, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the
market during the Class Period.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, MBIA engaged
in an unlawful and deceitful course of conduct involving MBIA's
improper use and fraudulent accounting for reinsurance policies
and related services to conceal the Company's massive losses, to
artificially inflate its financial results, and to smooth its
earnings. As alleged in the complaint, the Company conceded that
it had materially overstated its financial results for failure
to properly account for a $70 million payment it received
pursuant to two reinsurance agreements with Converium Holding AG
(formally known as Zurich Re). The Company stated that as a
result of the improper accounting, it would have to restate its
results for 1998 and subsequent years. Defendants were motivated
to engage in the fraudulent conduct to complete a Class Period
offering of 30-year bonds for proceeds of $350 million.

The truth began to emerge on November 18, 2004. On that day,
MBIA issued a press release after the market closed announcing
that it had received subpoenas from the SEC and the New York
Attorney General seeking information about non-traditional or
loss mitigation insurance products developed, offered, or sold
to third parties since January 1, 1998. In reaction to this
news, the price of MBIA stock fell $1.72, or 2.7%, from its
closing price of $61.46 per share on November 18, 2005 to close
at $59.74 per share on November 19, 2005. On March 8, 2005, MBIA
announced that it would restate its financial results for 1998
and subsequent years for failure to properly account for the $70
million payment it received in 1998 pursuant to the two
reinsurance agreements. On March 9, 2005, the Company announced
that it had received a subpoena from the U.S. Attorney's Office
for the Southern District of New York relating to the Company's
reinsurance agreements with Converium. On March 30, 2005, the
last day of the Class Period, MBIA issued a press release after
the close of the market announcing that it had received
additional subpoenas from the SEC and the New York Attorney
General requesting information relating to

     (1) the Company's accounting treatment of advisory fees;

     (2) the Company's methodology for determining loss reserves
         and case reserves;

     (3) purchases of credit default protection on itself; and

     (4) documents relating to Channel Reinsurance Ltd., a
         reinsurance Company of which MBIA is a 17.4% owner.

In reaction to this news, the price of MBIA stock dropped $4.36
per share, or 7.6%, from its closing price of $56.64 on March
30, 2005 to close at $52.28 on March 31, 2005, on trading volume
of 8.38 million shares.

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.


RHODIA S.A.: Scott + Scott Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in NJ
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Scott + Scott, LLC initiated on behalf of client
shareholders a securities class action against Rhodia S.A.
(NYSE: RHA) in the United District Court for the District of New
Jersey on behalf of those who purchased securities in Rhodia
from April 26, 2001 to March 23, 2004.

The complaint charges Rhodia and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the federal securities laws
(Securities Exchange Act of 1934). Rhodia develops, manufactures
and markets chemical products. It is the successor-in-interest
to Rhone-Poulenc.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
overstated Rhodia's reported financial results by failing to
record impairment on a timely basis; this was allegedly done by
individual defendants in order to protect and enhance their
executive positions and substantial compensation. It is alleged
that this scheme was further carried out to raise EUR 1 billion
in Notes in a private placement on May 28, 2003, as well as EUR
290 million in a private placement of Notes with American
investors in 2001 and to enhance the value of their personal
Rhodia securities holdings and options.

True facts concealed from shareholders during the Class Period
included that Rhodia was carrying an overvalued asset on its
books in the form of its ChiRex unit which was impaired and
should have been written down in a timely fashion but was not.
Further, Rhodia failed to write down its deferred tax assets to
recoverable values in 2002 and failed to do so in 2003 until the
end of the year. Additionally, the Company failed to properly
report its outstanding debt; and it failed to make disclosures
in a manner in order to make it possible for investors to
understand the trends in its business. As a result of Rhodia's
false statements, its securities traded at artificially inflated
levels during the Class Period.

On March 23, 2004, it was revealed that French securities
regulators were conducting an inquiry into the Company's
financial reporting. Following this news, Rhodia's stock
collapsed to below $1.50 per share. Subsequently, in March 2005,
it was reported that France's stock market regulator had found
that the Company had failed to disclose important information in
a timely fashion beginning in 2001.

For more details, contact Neil Rothstein by Phone: 800/332-2259
or 619/251-0887 by E-mail: nrothstein@scott-scott.com or visit
their Web site: http://www.scott-scott.com.


WATCHGUARD TECHNOLOGIES: Brian Felgoise Lodges Stock Suit in WA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C. launched a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who acquired WatchGuard
Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: WGRD) securities between February
12, 2004 and March 15, 2005, inclusive (the Class Period).

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington, against the Company and certain
key officers and directors.

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

For more details, contact Brian M. Felgoise, Esquire by Mail:
261 Old York Road, Suite 423, Jenkintown, Pennsylvania, 19046 by
Phone: (215) 886-1900 or by E-mail: securitiesfraud@comcast.net.  


WATCHGUARD TECHNOLOGIES: Charles J. Piven Files Stock Suit in WA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of WatchGuard
Technologies, Inc. (Nasdaq:WGRD) between February 12, 2004 and
March 15, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

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

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


WATCHGUARD TECHNOLOGIES: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Stock Suit in WA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C. initiated a lawsuit seeking
class action status in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington on behalf of all persons who
purchased the common stock of WatchGuard Technologies, Inc.
(Nasdaq: WGRD) ("WatchGuard" or "the Company") between February
12, 2004 and March 15, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint alleges that WatchGuard, a provider of internet
security solutions, and certain of its officers and directors
violated federal securities laws. Specifically, defendants
concealed that:

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

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

     (3) the functionality and value of WatchGuard's "Firebox X"
         product was grossly overstated and did not materially
         or accurately improve the Company's gross margins,
         streamline the Company's management or otherwise reduce
         its reliance on custom components; and

     (4) contrary to defendants' statements, the Firebox X was
         not tracking as defendants claimed.

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

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


WATCHGUARD TECHNOLOGIES: Stull Stull Files Securities Suit in WA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Stull, Stull & Brody initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Washington, against WatchGuard Technologies, Inc.
("Rhodia" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:WGRD), on behalf of
purchasers of WatchGuard common stock between February 12, 2004
and March 15, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint alleges that WatchGuard, a provider of Internet
security solutions, and certain of its officers and directors
violated federal securities laws. Specifically, defendants
concealed that:

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

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

     (3) the functionality and value of WatchGuard's "Firebox X"
         product was grossly overstated and did not materially
         or accurately improve the Company's gross margins,
         streamline the Company's management or otherwise reduce
         its reliance on custom components; and

     (4) contrary to defendants' statements, the Firebox X was
         not tracking as defendants claimed.

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

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


                            *********


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

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

                            *********


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

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

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

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

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

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

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *