CAR_Public/050415.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Friday, April 15, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 74

                          Headlines

AMERICAN INTERCONTINENTAL: Seeks Summary Judgment in IL Lawsuit
ANTI-SPAM LITIGATION: FTC, CA AG Seeks Halt To Illegal Operation
ARM FINANCIAL: Securities Settlement Hearing Set July 12, 2005
ASHLAND INC.: Shareholder Launches Suit Over Marathon Oil Deal
AUGUST TECHNOLOGY: Shareholders Sue V. Nanometrics Merger in MA

BROADWING CORPORATION: NY Court Preliminarily Okays Settlement
CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Asks DE Court To Dismiss Rainbow Media Suit
CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Teachers Move To Vacate Stay of NY Lawsuit
CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: New York Jets Launches Antitrust Complaint
CALIFORNIA: Suit Accuses Police Of Vienna Convention Violations

CAMPBELL SOUP: Recalls Spaghettios Due To Mislabeling, Allergen
CANYON LAKE: Settles EEOC Sexual Harassment Complaint For $285T
CAREER EDUCATION: IL Court Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit
CAREER EDUCATION: Plaintiffs File Amended CA Consumer Fraud Suit
CAREER EDUCATION: Sued For Violating FL Deceptive Practices Act

CAREER EDUCATION: Consumers Commence Fraud, Antitrust Suit in CA
COVENTRY HEALTH: High Court Nixes Review of Certification Ruling
DIGITAL RIVER: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Stock Suit Settlement
DIVERSA CORPORATION: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Suit Settlement
DOUBLECLICK INC.: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Lawsuit Settlement

DOUBLECLICK INC.: CA Court Approves Unfair Trade Suit Settlement
FLORIDA: Suit Accuses Alcohol Industry of Marketing to Minors
FRANCE: U.S. Chamber Official Asks For Nixing Class Action Suits
FRIENDLY'S: Inoculated Persons in MA Entitled To Compensation
GETTY REALTY: Faces Lawsuit For MTBE Contamination in NY Court

GLOBAL CROSSING: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Suit in NY
GLOBAL CROSSING: Appeals Court Reverses Suit Settlement Approval
GOLD FIELDS: Faces Lawsuits Over Former Operations in Oklahoma
IMPOL TRADING: Recalls Roleski Majonez Due to Undeclared Eggs
KRAFT FOODS: Recalls Instant Pudding Due To Undeclared Pistachio

LANDMARK FORD: IL Lawyer Resolves Charges Over "Opt Out" Letters
LOUISIANA: School Board Staff To Gain Tax Suit Settlement Money
MISSISSIPPI: Settlement Worked Out in Medicaid Nursing Home Suit
MISSOURI: Police Department Wins Appeal, Might Recoup $1M
PIONEER ELECTRONICS: CA Court Sides With Firm in Olmstead Case

PRESIDENT'S CHOICE: Recalls Baby Foods Due To Compromised Jars
SALEM COMMUNICATIONS: Shareholders Launch Fraud Suit in CA Court
SIMON PROPERTY: Faces Several Suits Opposing Gift Card Program
SKECHERS USA: Reaches Settlement For CA Employee Wage Lawsuits
SKECHERS USA: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Shareholder Fraud Lawsuit

T & H SUPERMARKET: Recalls Pound Cake Due To Undeclared Milk
UNITED STATES: FTC Testifies on Security of Consumers' Data
VICURON PHARMACEUTICALS: Asks PA Court To Dismiss Stock Lawsuit
WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION: Faces Suits Over 2/2005 Dishwasher Recall

                        Asbestos Alert

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Expert Says UK Asbestos Law Mostly Ignored
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: RPM Posts 3rd Qtr. Loss on Asbestos Charge
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Daughter Reveals Teacher's Cause of Death
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MA Council Ensures Residents Know the Risks
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: IL Judges Wary of Federal Trust Fund Bill

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: More SA Deaths Linked to Home Renovations
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: US Chamber Seeks Probe of Fraudulent Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: WA Jury Orders $242T Ruling for Mill Worker
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Find at AU Bay Draws Quick Action
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Aid Launches Free Service Campaign

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ASARCO Files Chapter 11 to Slow Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Alfa Laval Faces 175 Suits in the 4th Qtr.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Owens-Illinois Ends 2004 with 35,000 Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Metropolitan Life's Settlements Hit $85.5M
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ameron Corp.'s Injury Claims Down to 14,873

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Electrolux Faces 842 Asbestos-related Suits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Maine Court Orders Remand of Case V. Viacom
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Trust Fund Proposal Stalled for Refinements
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Deal Reached to Include Montana's Victims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CA Agency Recommends Road Resurfacing

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: WA City Digs Up Debris to Clear Controversy
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NATO Orders Tests at HQ After Asbestos Find
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Veterans Urge Senate to Pass Asbestos Bill
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Derbyshire Asbestos Disposal Given Go-Ahead
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lawmakers Weigh Merits of Senate Bill 15

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: British Rail Worker Dies of Mesothelioma
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Health Chief Urged to Subsidize Cancer Drug
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Firm's Owners Serve Jail Sentence
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: OR Court Favors Mechanic V. Muffler Makers
ASBESTOS ALERT: Asbestos Scare Erupts at Aussie Defense Training

ASBESTOS ALERT: CT School District Faces 11 Asbestos Violations
ASBESTOS ALERT: IA Resident Sued Over Environmental Violations
ASBESTOS ALERT: British Leyland Workers Urged to Monitor Health
ASBESTOS ALERT: Ex-workers Sue IL Central Railroad Over Exposure

                  New Securities Fraud Cases

BLUE COAT: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. CA
COLLINS & AIKMAN: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Suit in NY
ELECTRONIC ARTS: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Lawsuit in CA
GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: Charles J. Piven Lodges Stock Lawsuit in NY
GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Suit in NY

GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Lawsuit in NY
MOSSIMO INC.: Brualdi Law Lodges Suit in DE Over Proposed Buyout
NEFF CORPORATION: Brualdi Law Launches Fiduciary Lawsuit in DE


                            *********


AMERICAN INTERCONTINENTAL: Seeks Summary Judgment in IL Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
American InterContinental University Online (AIU Online) asked
the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division to
grant summary judgment in its favor in the class action styled
"Finnigan, et al. v. American InterContinental University
Online."

Former Admissions Advisors of AIU Online, Jane Finnigan, Michael
Barrett and D'Andre Stinnette filed the suit on behalf of
current and former Admissions Advisors who were purportedly
similarly denied overtime pay in 2002 and continuing to the
present.  Plaintiffs allege that AIU Online violated the
Illinois Minimum Wage Law by failing to pay them overtime wages
for work they performed.  Plaintiffs further allege that AIU
Online violated the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act by
failing to pay for overtime work pursuant to an alleged contract
or agreement.  Plaintiffs claim lost wages for the class in
excess of $800,000, plus punitive damages, attorneys' fees and
injunctive relief.

The Company filed its answer denying the material allegations of
this complaint and denying the existence of a class. The parties
have concluded the discovery phase of the litigation relating to
whether the suit should be allowed to proceed as a "class
action" lawsuit or whether claims need to be brought
individually.  On February 28, 2005, AIU Online filed a motion
for summary judgment and supporting memorandum, as to all claims
of Plaintiffs Finnigan, Barrett and Stinnette; and a Memorandum
in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification.
Plaintiffs will have an opportunity to file responsive papers
prior to a court ruling on these issues.

The suit is styled "Finnigan, et al. v. American
InterContinental University Online, case no. 2003-CH-18335,"
filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois under Judge
Peter Flynn.  Representing the plaintiffs is Robin B. Potter,
208 S. Lasalle #1615, Chicago IL 60604, Phone: (312) 759-2500.
Representing the Company is Katten Muchin Zavis Rosenman, 575
Madison Avenue New York, New York 10022-2585 Phone: 212.940.8800
Fax: 212.940.8776, Website: http://www.kmzr.com.


ANTI-SPAM LITIGATION: FTC, CA AG Seeks Halt To Illegal Operation
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Federal Trade Commission and the Attorney General of
California have asked a U.S. District Court Judge to order a
halt to an operation that sent millions of illegal spam messages
touting mortgage loans and other products and services. The
agencies charge that the operation violates federal and state
laws, and have asked the court to freeze the defendants' assets
pending trial and order a permanent halt to the illegal
spamming.

According to papers filed with the court, the defendants use
third-party affiliates or "button pushers" to send spam hawking
mortgage loans and other products and services. Hyperlinks in
the spam take consumers to Web sites operated by the defendants.
Consumers fill in data and the information is passed along to
lead companies and by them to lenders. One mortgage broker
sought, and was given assurances by the defendants that they
were complying with provisions of the CAN-SPAM Act. In fact,
most of the 1.8 million e-mail messages sent to the FTC by the
public demonstrate that they were violating almost every
provision of the Act, the law enforcers allege.

The agencies charged that the defendants:

     (1) used false or misleading header information in the
         "from" or "reply to" lines;

     (2) used deceptive subject headings;

     (3) failed to notify consumers that they had a right to opt
         out of receiving the e-mail;

     (4) did not provide an opt-out mechanism;

     (5) failed to honor opt-out requests by consumers;

     (6) failed to identify e-mail as an advertisement; and

     (7) did not provide a valid physical postal address.

Each is a violation of the CAN-SPAM Act.  Defendants named by
the law enforcement agencies are Optin Global, Inc., also doing
business as Vision Media Limited Corp.; USA Lenders Network, USA
Lenders, and USA Debt Consolidation Service; Vision Media
Limited Corp.; Rick Yang, also known as Qing Kuang Yang; and
Peonie Pui Ting Chen.

The Commission vote authorizing staff to file the complaint was
5-0. The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, San Francisco Division.  Copies
of the complaint are available from the FTC's Web site at
http://www.ftc.govand 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.  For more information, contact Claudia Bourne Farrell
Office of Public Affairs by Phone: 202-326-2181 or Daniel R.
Salsburg, Bureau of Consumer Protection by Phone: 202-326-3402


ARM FINANCIAL: Securities Settlement Hearing Set July 12, 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firms of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP and Wolf
Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP reports that pursuant to
Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of
the United States District Court for the Western District of
Kentucky at Louisville, that the case known as In re ARM
Financial Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, Civil Action No.
3:99-CV-539-H, has been certified as a class action and that a
settlement with certain Defendants has been proposed.

The lawsuit was brought on behalf of a class consisting of all
persons and entities who purchased ARM Financial Group, Inc.
common stock (symbol: ARM (now traded as ARMGQ), CUSIP
001944107) during the period February 10, 1998 through and
including August 3, 1999 and who were damaged thereby (the
"Settlement Class").

A hearing will be held before the Honorable John G. Heyburn II
in the United States Courthouse, 601 West Broadway, Louisville,
Kentucky 40202, at 1:30 p.m., on July 12, 2005 to determine
whether the proposed partial settlement should be approved by
the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate, and to consider the
application of Plaintiffs' counsel for attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses.

For more details, contact In re ARM Financial Group, Inc.
Securities Litigation Exclusions, c/o The Garden City Group,
Inc., Claims Administrator by Mail: P.O. Box 9000 #6277,
Merrick, NY 11566-9000 by Phone: (800) 276-1243 or visit their
Web site: http://www.gardencitygroup.comOR Elaine S. Kusel,
Esq. of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP by Mail: One
Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY 10119-0165 by Phone:
(212) 594-5300 OR Fred T. Isquith, Esq. of Wolf Haldenstein
Adler Freeman & Herz LLP by Mail: 270 Madison Avenue, New York,
NY 10016 by Phone: (212) 545-4600.


ASHLAND INC.: Shareholder Launches Suit Over Marathon Oil Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ashland Inc. (ASH) faces a shareholder class action lawsuit that
involves its proposal to transfer the Company's 38% interest in
Marathon Ashland Petroleum LLC to Marathon Oil Corp. (MRO),
according to a recent a filing with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, The MarketWatch reports.

The industrial materials manufacturer stated in its regulatory
filing that the suit also lists individual members of its board,
Marathon Oil, Marathon Ashland and Credit Suisse First Boston as
defendants. It also sated in the filing that the suit alleges
breach of fiduciary duty and negligence, and it seeks an
unspecified amount of damages and that the suit seeks to enjoin
Ashland's proposed transaction as it currently stands, among
other things.  According to Ashland, the Company and Marathon
Oil are discussing possible alternatives to the proposed deal,
however it can't guarantee that it will reach any alternate
agreement, Marketwatch reports.


AUGUST TECHNOLOGY: Shareholders Sue V. Nanometrics Merger in MA
---------------------------------------------------------------
August Technology Corporation and each of its directors, Jeff
O'Dell, James Bernards, Roger Gower, Michael Wright and Linda
Hall Whitman, have been named as defendants in two separate
lawsuits that purport to be class actions claims on behalf of
the Company's shareholders.

The Company received a summons and complaint with respect to the
first of these proceedings on February 4, 2005 and the second on
February 14, 2005.  Both lawsuits are brought in Minnesota State
Court and claim that the directors have breached their fiduciary
duties to the Company's shareholders in connection with their
actions in agreeing to the proposed merger with Nanometrics
Incorporated.  The plaintiffs in both actions seek various forms
of injunctive relief including an order enjoining the Company
and its directors from consummating the merger with Nanometrics.


BROADWING CORPORATION: NY Court Preliminarily Okays 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 Broadwing
Corporation, its directors and officers who signed the
registration statement in connection with its initial public
offering, and certain of the underwriters that participated in
the Company's initial public offering.

Between May 7, 2001 and June 15, 2001, nine class action
lawsuits were filed relating to the Company's initial public
offering on behalf of all persons who purchased our stock
between July 28, 2000 and the filing of the complaints.  The
Company's directors and officers have since been dismissed from
the case, without prejudice.  The complaints allege that the
registration statement and prospectus relating to our initial
public offering contained material misrepresentations and/or
omissions in that those documents did not disclose that certain
of the underwriters had solicited and received undisclosed fees
and commissions and other economic benefits from some investors
in connection with the distribution of the Company's common
stock in the initial public offering and that certain of the
underwriters had entered into arrangements with some investors
that were designed to distort and/or inflate the market price
for the Company's common stock in the aftermarket following the
initial public offering.  The complaints ask the court to award
to members of the class the right to rescind their purchases of
the Company's common stock (or to be awarded rescissory damages
if the class member has sold the Company's stock) and
prejudgment and post-judgment interest, reasonable attorneys'
and experts witness' fees and other costs.

By order dated October 12, 2001, the court appointed an
executive committee of six plaintiffs' law firms to coordinate
their claims and function as lead counsel.  Lead plaintiffs have
been appointed in almost all of the IPO allocation actions,
including the Company's action. On October 17, 2001, a group of
underwriter defendants moved for Judge Shira Scheindlin's
recusal. Judge Scheindlin denied that application.  On December
13, 2001, the moving underwriter defendants filed a petition for
writ of mandamus seeking the disqualification of Judge
Scheindlin in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit.  On April 1, 2002, the Second Circuit denied the moving
underwriter defendants' application for a writ of mandamus
seeking Judge Scheindlin's recusal from this action.

On April 19, 2002, plaintiffs filed amended complaints in each
of the actions, including the Company's action.  On May 23,
2002, a conference was held at which the court set a briefing
schedule for the filing of motions to dismiss the amended
complaints.  On July 1, 2002, the underwriter defendants filed
their motion to dismiss the amended complaints. On July 15,
2002, the issuer defendants filed their motion to dismiss the
amended complaints. The briefing on the motions to dismiss has
been completed, and the judge heard oral arguments on the
motions on November 1, 2002. On February 19, 2003, the issuer
defendants' motion to dismiss was granted with regard to certain
claims and denied with regard to certain other claims. As to the
Company, the Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claims, alleging that
the Company participated in a scheme to defraud investors by
artificially driving up the price of the securities, were
dismissed with prejudice, but the Section 11 claims, alleging
that the registration statement contained a material
misstatement of, or omitted, a material fact at the time it
became effective, survived the motion to dismiss.

On June 14, 2004, the plaintiffs and issuer defendants presented
the executed settlement agreement to Judge Scheindlin during a
court conference. Subsequently, the plaintiffs and issuer
defendants made a motion for preliminary approval of the
settlement agreement. On July 14, 2004, the underwriter
defendants filed a memorandum of law in opposition to
plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of the settlement
agreement. Reply briefs have been submitted and the parties are
awaiting the court's decision on the motion. The settlement
agreement is subject to the approval of the district court. On
February 15, 2005, Judge Scheindlin granted preliminary approval
of the proposed settlement agreement between the plaintiffs and
defendants, including the Company.

The proposed settlement is a $1 billion dollar guaranteed
settlement. The insurance companies for the defendants agreed to
pay up to $1 billion dollars in total to the extent that
judgment is rendered for the plaintiffs. If investors succeed in
recovering more than $1 billion from the banks, the companies
that went public, such as the Company, will not have to pay any
additional amounts. The defendants' insurance companies will be
paying the settlement, subject to the final approval of the
district court.

The suit is styled "In re Broadwing Corp. Initial Public
Offering Sec. Litigation," 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


CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Asks DE Court To Dismiss Rainbow Media Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cablevision Systems Corporation asked the Delaware Chancery
Court to dismiss the amended consolidated class action filed
against it and each of its directors, alleging breach of
fiduciary duties and breach of contract with respect to the
exchange of the Rainbow Media Group tracking stock for
Cablevision NY Group common stock.

In August 2002, purported class actions filed on behalf of all
holders of publicly traded shares of Rainbow Media Group
tracking stock.  The actions sought to:

     (1) enjoin the exchange of Rainbow Media Group tracking
         stock for Cablevision NY Group common stock,

     (2) enjoin any sales of "Rainbow Media Group assets," or,
         in the alternative, award rescissory damages,

     (3) if the exchange is completed, rescind it or award
         rescissory damages,

     (4) award compensatory damages, and

     (5) award costs and disbursements

The actions were consolidated into one action on September 17,
2002, and on October 3, 2002, the Company filed a motion to
dismiss the consolidated action.  The action was stayed by
agreement of the parties pending resolution of a related action
brought by one of the plaintiffs to compel the inspection of
certain books and records of the Company.  On October 26, 2004,
the parties entered into a stipulation dismissing the related
action, and providing for the Company's production of certain
documents.  On December 13, 2004, plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended complaint. The Company has filed a motion
to dismiss the amended complaint, which is currently pending
before the court.


CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Teachers Move To Vacate Stay of NY Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Teachers Retirement System of Lousiana filed a motion in New
York Supreme Court to vacate the stay of a class action filed
against Cablevision Systems, Corporation, its directors and
officers and certain current and former officers and employees
of the Company's Rainbow Media Holdings and American Movie
Classics subsidiaries.

In August 2003, a purported class action was filed, relating to
the August 2002 Rainbow Media Group tracking stock exchange.
The suit alleged, among other things, that the exchange ratio
was based upon a price of the Rainbow Media Group tracking stock
that was artificially deflated as a result of the improper
recognition of certain expenses at the national services
division of Rainbow Media Holdings. The complaint alleges
breaches by the individual defendants of fiduciary duties.  The
complaint also alleges breaches of contract and unjust
enrichment by the Company.  The complaint seeks monetary damages
and such other relief as the court deems just and proper.

On October 31, 2003, the Company and other defendants moved to
stay the action in favor of the previously filed actions pending
in Delaware or, in the alternative, to dismiss for failure to
state a claim.  On June 10, 2004, the court stayed the action on
the basis of the previously filed action in Delaware.  The
Teachers Retirement System of Louisiana has filed a motion to
vacate the stay in the New York action, and has simultaneously
filed a motion to intervene in the Delaware action and to stay
that action. The Company has opposed both motions.


CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: New York Jets Launches Antitrust Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cablevision Systems Corporation faces a class action filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York.  The suit also names as defendants CSC Holdings, Inc.,
and Madison Square Garden LP.

On March 16, 2005, the New York Jets LLC and Jets Development
LLC ("Jets") filed a complaint, relating to various actions
allegedly taken by defendants in connection with a proposed
football stadium for the Jets on the West Side of Manhattan.
Specifically, the complaint alleges:

     (1) that the Company "possesses monopoly power in the
         markets for facility rental and ticket sales for large-
         scale events in enclosed spectator facilities and suite
         rentals in Manhattan" and has acted anti-competitively
         in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act;

     (2) that defendants have tortiously interfered with the
         Jets' prospective business relations by making a "sham
         bid" for the MTA land that is the site of the proposed
         stadium "to injure the Jets and deprive them of an
         advantageous existing and prospective business
         relationship";

     (3) that defendants have tortiously interfered with the
         Jets' prospective business relations with networks
         carried on defendants' cable system; and

     (4) that defendants have "engaged in deceptive and
         misleading conduct, including dissemination of
         deceptive and materially misleading advertising and
         preventing dissemination of accurate information," in
         violation of New York General Business Law Section 349.


CALIFORNIA: Suit Accuses Police Of Vienna Convention Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
A federal lawsuit is accusing local law enforcement officers of
violating an international treaty by failing to advise Mexican
citizens of their right to contact the Mexican consulate after
they have been arrested, The North County Times reports.

Vista attorney Genaro Lara filed the lawsuit on behalf of a
Fallbrook resident serving a year in jail on drug charges on
behalf of all Mexican citizens arrested locally between May 1,
2003, and April 1, 2005.

Capt. Glenn Revell, a spokesman for the San Diego County
Sheriff's Department, told the North County Times he could not
comment on the lawsuit, but he did state that jail staff
determine where a suspect is from when he or she is booked and
arrange quickly for a suspect to speak to a diplomatic
representative from the consulate if a suspect requests it. Lt.
David Mankin, a spokesman for the Escondido Police Department,
told the North County Times he could not comment because the
lawsuit is pending. Officials at the Oceanside Police Department
could not be reached for comment as well. Carlsbad police Lt.
Bill Rowland referred questions to City Attorney Ronald Ball,
who also could not be reached for comment.

The lawsuit alleges that sheriff's deputies violated the
constitutional rights of Ezequiel Nunez Cornejo, 39, of
Fallbrook, when they did not tell Mr. Cornejo at the time of his
arrest about his right to contact the Mexican consulate, as
specified in the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.  The
suit also alleges that Mr. Cornejo and others like him were
deprived of information that "would have resulted in a different
outcome of their case had they been provided with consular
assistance."

Mr. Lara told The North County Times that the consulate would
have given Mr. Cornejo legal assistance and advised him not to
make statements to sheriff's deputies. Mr. Lara also said that
he could not say whether Mr. Cornejo is in the United States
legally, but that citizens of other countries must be advised of
their right to contact their country's consulate regardless of
whether they are legal residents.  Superior Court criminal case
records showed Mr. Cornejo pleaded guilty March 1 to marijuana
transportation, possessing a firearm while possessing
methamphetamine, and driving under the influence of drugs.
Superior Court Judge K. Michael Kirkman promptly sentenced Mr.
Cornejo on March 29 to one year in jail and three years on
probation, court records showed.

The new lawsuit comes at a time when the U.S. Supreme Court is
considering a Texas death row inmate's case that could determine
how a recent international court ruling applies to death row
inmates who allege they were denied the right to contact
consular officials.


CAMPBELL SOUP: Recalls Spaghettios Due To Mislabeling, Allergen
---------------------------------------------------------------
Campbell Soup Supply Company, a Maxton, N.C., firm is
voluntarily recalling approximately 473,500 pounds of
Spaghettios Plus Calciumr because the products are mislabeled
and contain an undeclared allergen (soy), the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS)
announced.

The products subject to recall contain meatballs, but the
product labels do not list meatballs as an ingredient.
Furthermore, the meatballs are made with soy protein, a known
allergen. Persons who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to
soy protein run the risk of possible allergic reactions if they
consume this product.

The products subject to recall are 15 oz. cans of "Campbell's
SPAGHETTIOS PLUS CALCIUMr, Pasta in Tomato & Cheese Sauce." Each
can bears the date code, "AUG 2006 02105." The top of each can
also bears the package code that begins: "EST 4R U5 5M."  The
Spaghettios Plus Calciumr were produced on Feb. 9 and 10, 2005
and were distributed to retail stores nationwide and Puerto
Rico.

The problem was discovered by the Company. FSIS has received no
reports of illnesses or allergic reactions associated with
consumption of these products.

Media with questions about the recall should contact John
Faulkner, Campbell's director of brand communications, at
(856) 342-3738 or (302) 383-4536. Consumers with questions about
the recall should contact Campbell Consumer Hotline at
(800) 796-3484.  Consumers with food safety questions can phone
the toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline at 1-888-MPHotline
(1-888-674-6854). The hotline is available in English and
Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time)
Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety messages are
available 24 hours a day.


CANYON LAKE: Settles EEOC Sexual Harassment Complaint For $285T
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission reached a
$285,000 settlement with the Canyon Lake Property Owners
Association in a class-action lawsuit that charged male
supervisors and co-workers of sexually harassing female
employees at the association's Country Club Restaurant, The
North County Times report.

The federal agency originally filed the suit in late 2003 after
two female employees registered complaints with the commission.
According to a news release from the commission, the women
alleged that they had been the victims of crude, sexually
suggestive comments and unwanted touching, such as being kissed
on the neck. Furthermore, the women contended that the
association retaliated against them for complaining about the
alleged abuse by reducing their work hours and subsequently
forcing them to leave their jobs.

An attorney representing the association confirmed the terms of
the settlement but as always denied any improper conduct or
retaliation. "This is a settlement. There is no judgment,"
Richard Marca of Riverside-based law firm of Gresham, Savage,
Nolan & Tilden, told the North County Times.  "The settlement
consent decree says it is not an admission of any wrongdoing."

Under the settlement, the association will be required to pay a
combined $75,000 to the two complainants. Attorneys in the case
though told The North County Times that they could not release
the names of the women without their permission. The settlement
also calls for setting up a class-action fund of $210,000 "for
eligible but so far unidentified claimants."  Mr. Marca added
that any money that is not paid out to alleged victims would be
donated to the Riverside YMCA for its youth opportunity center.

The commission's news release also stated that the settlement
would also require:

     (1) Posting the terms and conditions of the lawsuit at
         association facilities.

     (2) Revising the Company's sexual harassment and anti-
         retaliation policy.

     (3) Hiring an outside commission consultant to review or
         establish the association's policies for investigating
         any complaints of discrimination or retaliation.


     (4) Establishing a centralized tracking system for
         discrimination complaints.

     (5) Providing extensive, annual, equal-employment-
         opportunity training for managers, supervisors and
         employees in both English and Spanish.

     (6) The association to report progress on the changes to
         the commission.

Mr. Marca also told The North County Times that two of the
stipulations in the settlement already have been satisfied and
that the association had begun sexual harassment training for
employees. That training, according to him, complies with a
state law that went into effect January 1 requiring all
employers with 25 or more employees to provide such instruction.
The association also had an anti-retaliation policy in place
before the lawsuit was even filed. That policy later was
revised, Mr. Marca said, but "that was unrelated to the
lawsuit."

Commission Attorney Connie Liem also told The North County Times
that one other woman has already officially stepped forward,
claiming that she also was sexually harassed while working at
the restaurant and that after complaining she was forced to
leave her job. The woman, according to Ms. Liem, was a teenager
at the time of the alleged harassment and will also receive a
yet-to-be-determined amount from the class-action fund.

Other women who claim to have been victims of sexual harassment
also have spoken with the commission, although some of those
women have said they are worried about retaliation if they step
forward, Ms. Liem said. "There is basically a culture of
retaliation and fear in that work force," she pointed out and
added, "Also, there are witnesses we spoke to that saw other
folks being harassed."

However, Mr. Marca denied the existence of a climate of fear at
any association work site saying, "The POA's existing policy
does not tolerate any form of retaliation." He also contends
that the association has no knowledge of any other claims of
harassment by other employees, and encouraged anyone with claims
of discrimination or harassment to come forward with their
concerns "so that they may be promptly and effectively
resolved."

Ms. Liem told The North County Times that in recent years the
commission has seen a growing number of sexual harassment
complaints filed against restaurants. "The commission has made
an effort to target these businesses because of teens working in
that industry. They are just vulnerable, especially when there
is alcohol involved and they are young and pretty," she said.

She added that female association employees who believe they
were sexually harassed at the workplace should contact her
office at (619) 557-7241. "Attorneys will interview them and
make sure that their claims appear legitimate," she added.


CAREER EDUCATION: IL Court Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois dismissed the consolidated securities class action
filed against Career Education Corporation and certain of its
executive officers, John M. Larson and Patrick K. Pesch.

Between December 9, 2003 and February 5, 2004, six purported
class action lawsuits were on behalf of all persons who acquired
shares of the Company's common stock during a specified class
period in 2003.  The complaints allege that in violation of
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Act")
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the Securities and
Exchange Commission, the defendants made certain material
misrepresentations and failed to disclose certain material facts
about the condition of the Company's business and prospects
during the putative class period, causing the respective
plaintiffs to purchase the Company's common stock at
artificially inflated prices.  The plaintiffs further claim that
Mr. Larson and Mr. Pesch are liable under Section 20(a) of the
Act.  The plaintiffs ask for unspecified amounts in damages,
interest, and costs, as well as ancillary relief.

Five of these lawsuits were found to be related to the first
filed lawsuit, captioned "Taubenfeld v. Career Education
Corporation et al. case no. No. 03 CV 8884," and have been
reassigned to the same judge.  On March 19, 2004, the court
ordered these six cases to be consolidated and appointed Thomas
Schroeder as lead plaintiff.  On April 6, 2004, the court
appointed the firm of Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP,
which represents Mr. Schroeder, as lead counsel. On June 17,
2004, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint.  On
July 30, 2004, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint filed in these related actions.
Plaintiffs filed their response to the motion to dismiss on
September 17, 2004.  The Company filed its reply in support of
its motion to dismiss on October 8, 2004.  On February 11, 2005,
the Company's motion to dismiss was granted, without prejudice.
The court granted plaintiffs until April 1, 2005 to file an
amended complaint.

The suit is styled "Taubenfeld v. Career Education Corporation,
et al, case no. 1:03-cv-08884," filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, under
Judge Joan Humphrey Lefkow.  Representing the Company are Karl
Richard Barnickol, Mary Ellen Hennessy, Joni S. Jacobsen, David
H. Kistenbroker, Katten Muchin Zavis Rosenman, 525 West Monroe
Street Suite 1600 Chicago, Il 60661-3693 Phone: (312) 902-5200.
Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Anthony F. Fata and Marvin Alan Miller, Miller Faucher
         and Cafferty, LLP 30 North LaSalle Street Suite 3200
         Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: (312) 782-4880;

     (2) Joshua Lifshitz, Bull & Lifshitz, LLP 18 East 41st
         Street New York, NY 10017 Phone: (212) 213-6222

     (3) Andrei V. Rado, Steven G. Schulman, Peter Seidman,
         Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP One Pennsylvania
         Plaza 49th Floor New York, NY 10119-0165 Phone:
         (212)594-5300


CAREER EDUCATION: Plaintiffs File Amended CA Consumer Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a second amended class action against Career
Education Corporation and American InterContinental University
Online (AIU) in the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Los Angeles, styled "Outten, et al v. Career Education
Corporation et al."

On October 6, 2004, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint
which added individuals who are current and former employees of
AIU.  The second amended complaint alleges that AIU violated the
California Unfair Competition Law, the California Consumer Legal
Remedies Act, the California Education Code, and engaged in
common law consumer fraud by allegedly misleading potential
students regarding AIU's placement, retention, and matriculation
rates, engaging in financial aid improprieties, and engaging in
admission improprieties.  The suit appears to have been brought
on behalf of all current and prior attendees of AIU residing in
California. The plaintiffs, on behalf of the putative class,
purport to seek unspecified damages, interest, and costs, as
well as injunctive relief.  On March 10, 2005, the Company filed
an answer to the amended complaint as well as a cross-complaint.


CAREER EDUCATION: Sued For Violating FL Deceptive Practices Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
Career Education Corporation and one of its subsidiaries
Ultrasound Technical Services, Inc. (UDS, also currently known
as Sanford Brown Institute) face a class action filed in Broward
County Circuit Court in Florida, styled "Viles v. Ultrasound
Technical Services, Inc, et al."

The class action is brought on behalf of all persons who
attended UDS' Diagnostic Medical Sonography Program or
Cardiovascular Technology Program in the State of Florida at any
time during the period of October 12, 2000 to the present.  The
complaint alleges that UDS violated the Florida Trade and
Deceptive Practices Act by misrepresenting placement rates,
potential salaries and accreditation, falsifying clinical
training records, failing to properly supervise students,
failing to provide competent faculty and proper equipment, and
by admitting more students than UDS had room to properly
educate.


CAREER EDUCATION: Consumers Commence Fraud, Antitrust Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Career Education Corporation and its subsidiary Brooks Institute
of Photography face a class action filed in the Court of the
State of California, County of Santa Barbara, styled "Nilsen v.
Career Education Corporation et al."

The complaint appears to have been brought on behalf of all
individuals who attended Brooks from February 4, 2001 to the
present.  The complaint alleges that Brooks violated the
California Education Code, Consumer Legal Remedies Act and
California Unfair Competition Law by allegedly misleading
potential students regarding Brooks' placement rates, and by
engaging in false and misleading advertising. The plaintiffs
seek injunctive relief, disgorgement of profits, punitive
damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs.  Defendants are
not yet required to respond to the complaint.


COVENTRY HEALTH: High Court Nixes Review of Certification Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Supreme Court refused Coventry Health Care,
Inc.'s and other health management organizations' petition to
review a ruling granting class certification to the multi-
district litigation pending against them, styled "In re Managed
Care Litigation MDL No. 1334."

The Company was named as a defendant in the provider track in
the Managed Care Litigation filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Florida, Miami Division.
This lawsuit was filed by a group of physicians as a class
action against the Company and twelve other companies in the
managed care industry.  The plaintiffs have alleged violations
of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
(RICO), conspiracy to violate RICO and aiding and abetting a
scheme to violate RICO.  In addition to these federal law
claims, the complaint includes state law claims for breach of
contract, violations of various state prompt payment laws and
equitable claims for unjust enrichment and quantum meruit.

The trial court has dismissed several of the state law claims
and ordered that all physicians who have an arbitration
provision in their provider contracts must submit their direct
RICO claims and all of their remaining state law claims to
arbitration.  As a consequence of this ruling, all the
plaintiffs who have arbitration provisions voluntarily dismissed
all of their claims that are subject to arbitration.  The trial
court however has ordered that the plaintiffs' claims of
conspiracy, conspiracy to violate RICO and aiding and abetting
violations of RICO are not subject to arbitration.  The
defendants' appeal to the 11th Circuit challenging the trial
court's arbitration decision was denied.  The trial court has
certified various subclasses of physicians; however, the Company
was not subject to the class certification order because the
motion to certify was filed before the Company was joined as a
defendant. The plaintiffs have now filed a motion to certify
various subclasses as to the Company.  The Company has filed its
opposition to that motion which remains pending before the trial
court.  The defendants who were subject to the class
certification order filed an appeal to the 11th Circuit Court of
Appeals. The Court of Appeals has overturned the class
certification order as to the plaintiffs' state law claims but
affirmed the certification with respect to the plaintiffs'
federal law claims.  The U.S. Supreme Court has denied the
defendants' petition to review the 11th Circuit's class
certification decision.

Two defendants have entered into settlement agreements with the
plaintiffs.  Both settlement agreements have been filed with the
Court and have received final approval.

This MDL lawsuit has triggered the filing of copycat class
action complaints by other health care providers such as
chiropractors, podiatrists, acupuncturists and other licensed
health care professionals. Each of these actions has been
transferred to the MDL and has been designated as "tag-along"
actions. The court has entered an order staying all proceedings
in the tag-along actions until all pre-trial proceedings in the
MDL action have been concluded.

The suit is styled "In Re Humana Inc. Managed Care Litigation,
MDL 1334," filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, Miami Division, under Judge
Federico Moreno.  The suit names as defendants Humana, Inc.,
Aetna, Inc., Aetna-USHC, Inc., Cigna, Health Net, Inc., Human
Health Plan, Inc., Pacificare Health Systems, Inc., Prudential
Insurance Company of America, United Health Group, United Health
Care and Wellpoint Health Networks, Inc.  Cigna and Aetna have
entered settlements with the plaintiffs.  Lead Plaintiffs'
Attorneys are Barry Meadow of Podhurst, Orseck, et al., Harley
Tropin of Kozyak, Tropin & Throckmorton and Archie Lamb.


DIGITAL RIVER: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Stock Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against Digital
River, Inc. and certain of its officers and directors, styled
"In re Digital River, Inc. Initial Public Offering Securities
Litigation, Case No. 01-CV-7355."

Similar complaints, referred to here as the IPO Lawsuits, were
filed in the same court against hundreds of other public
companies, referred to here as the Issuers. In the consolidated
amended complaint against the Company, the plaintiffs allege
that the defendants and the underwriters of its initial public
offering, or IPO, violated Section 11 of the Securities Act of
1933 based on allegations that the Company's IPO registration
statement and prospectus failed to disclose material facts
regarding the compensation to be received by, and the stock
allocation practices of, the IPO underwriters. The complaint
also contains a claim for violation of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on allegations that this
omission constituted a deceit on investors.  The plaintiffs seek
unspecified monetary damages and other relief.

In July 2002, the Company joined in a global motion to dismiss
the IPO Lawsuits filed by all of the Issuers (among others).  In
October 2002, the parties agreed to toll the statute of
limitations with respect to certain of the named officers and
directors until September 30, 2003 and on the basis of this
agreement, the Company's officers and directors were dismissed
from the lawsuit without prejudice. In February 2003, the court
issued a decision denying the motion to dismiss the Section 11
claims against the Company and almost all of the other Issuers
and denying the motion to dismiss the Section 10(b) claims
against the Company and many of the Issuers.

During the summer of 2003, the Company, along with a substantial
majority of Issuers, indirectly participated in discussions with
the plaintiffs and the Issuers' respective insurers regarding a
tentative settlement of the IPO Lawsuits. The terms of the
tentative settlement would provide for, among other things, a
release of the Issuers and their officers and directors from all
further liability resulting from plaintiffs' claims, and the
assignment to plaintiffs of certain potential claims that the
Issuers may have against their IPO underwriters. The tentative
settlement also provides that, in the event that plaintiffs
ultimately recover less than a guaranteed sum of $1 billion from
the IPO underwriters, plaintiffs would be entitled to payment by
each participating Issuer's insurer of a pro rata share of any
shortfall in the plaintiffs' guaranteed recovery.

In June 2003, pursuant to the authorization of a special
litigation committee of the Company's board of directors, the
Company entered into a non-binding memorandum of understanding
reflecting the settlement terms described above.  In September
2003, in connection with the possible settlement, its officers
and directors who had entered tolling agreements with plaintiffs
(described above) agreed to extend those agreements so that they
would not expire prior to any settlement being finalized.  In
June 2004, the Company executed a final settlement agreement
with the plaintiffs consistent with the terms of the memorandum
of understanding.  On February 15, 2005, the Court issued a
decision certifying a class action for settlement purposes and
granting preliminary approval of the settlement, subject to
modification of certain bar orders contemplated by the
settlement.  In addition, the settlement is still subject to
statutory notice requirements as well as final judicial
approval.

The suit is styled "In re Digital River, Inc. Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, Case No. 01-CV-7355," 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


DIVERSA CORPORATION: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against Diversa
Corporation and certain of its officers and directors, styled
"In re Diversa Corp. Initial Public Offering Sec. Litig., Case
No. 02-CV-9699."

In the amended complaint, the plaintiffs allege that the Company
and certain of its officers and directors, and the underwriters
of its initial public offering, or IPO, violated Sections 11 and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, based on
allegations that the Company's registration statement and
prospectus prepared in connection with the Company's IPO failed
to disclose material facts regarding the compensation to be
received by, and the stock allocation practices of, the
Underwriters.  The complaint also contains claims for violation
of Sections 10(b) and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, based on allegations that this omission constituted
a deceit on investors.  The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary
damages and other relief.

This action is related to "In re Initial Public Offering Sec.
Litig., Case No. 21 MC 92," in which similar complaints were
filed by plaintiffs against hundreds of other public companies
(collectively, the "Issuers") that conducted IPOs of their
common stock in the late 1990s and 2000 (collectively, the "IPO
Cases").  On January 7, 2003, the IPO Case against the Company
was assigned to United States Judge Shira Scheindlin of the
Southern District of New York, before whom the IPO Cases have
been consolidated for pretrial purposes.

In February 2003, the Court issued a decision denying the motion
to dismiss the Sections 11 and 15 claims against the Company and
its officers and directors, and granting the motion to dismiss
the Section 10(b) claim against the Company without leave to
amend. The Court similarly dismissed the Sections 10(b) and 20
claims against two of its officers and directors without leave
to amend, but denied the motion to dismiss these claims against
one officer/director.

In June 2003, Issuers and Plaintiffs reached a tentative
settlement agreement and entered into a memorandum of
understanding providing for, among other things, a dismissal
with prejudice and full release of the Issuers and their
officers and directors from all further liability resulting from
Plaintiffs' claims, and the assignment to Plaintiffs of certain
potential claims that the Issuers may have against the
Underwriters. The tentative settlement also provides that, in
the event that Plaintiffs ultimately recover less than a
guaranteed sum of $1 billion from the Underwriters in the IPO
Cases and related litigation, Plaintiffs would be entitled to
payment by each participating Issuer's insurer of a pro rata
share of any shortfall in the Plaintiffs' guaranteed recovery.
In the event, for example, the Plaintiffs recover nothing in
judgment against the Underwriter defendants in the IPO Cases and
the Issuers' insurers therefore become liable to the Plaintiffs
for an aggregate of $1 billion pursuant to the settlement
proposal, the pro rata liability of our insurers, with respect
to the Company, would be $4 million, assuming that 250 Issuers
which approved the settlement proposal, and their insurers, were
operating and financially viable as of the settlement date.

In June 2004, the Company executed a settlement agreement with
the plaintiffs pursuant to the terms of the memorandum of
understanding. On February 15, 2005, the Court issued a decision
certifying a class action for settlement purposes and granting
preliminary approval of the settlement subject to modification
of certain bar orders contemplated by the settlement. In
addition, the settlement is still subject to statutory notice
requirements as well as final judicial approval.

The suit is styled "In re Diversa Corp. Initial Public Offering
Sec. Litig., Case No. 02-CV-9699," 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


DOUBLECLICK INC.: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Lawsuit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against Doubleclick,
Inc. and certain of its officers and directors, alleging
violations of the federal securities laws in connection with its
follow-on offerings.  The suit also names as defendants certain
underwriters of the Company's follow-on offerings as defendants.

The Company and some of its officers and directors are named in
the suit pursuant to Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933
and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on the
basis of the alleged failure to disclose the underwriters'
alleged compensation and manipulative practices.  This action
seeks, among other things, unspecified damages and costs,
including attorneys' fees.

Approximately 300 other issuers and their underwriters have had
similar suits filed against them, all of which are included in a
single coordinated proceeding in the Southern District of New
York.  In October 2002, the action was dismissed against the
Company's officers and directors without prejudice. However,
claims against the Company remain.

In July 2002, the Company and the other issuers in the
consolidated cases filed motions to dismiss the amended
complaint for failure to state a claim, which was denied as to
the Company in February 2003.  In June 2003, the Company's Board
of Directors conditionally approved a proposed partial
settlement with the plaintiffs in this matter.  In June 2004, an
agreement of settlement was submitted to the court for
preliminary approval.  The court granted the preliminary
approval motion on February 15, 2005, subject to certain
modifications.  If the parties are able to agree upon the
required modifications, and such modifications are acceptable to
the court, notice will be given to all class members of the
settlement, a "fairness" hearing will be held and if the court
determines that the settlement is fair to the class members, the
settlement will be approved.

The suit is styled "In re DoubleClick, Inc. Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation" 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


DOUBLECLICK INC.: CA Court Approves Unfair Trade Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court for the State of California in San Joaquin
County approved the settlement of the class action filed against
DoubleClick, Inc., alleging unfair trade practices.

Two suits are pending against the Company, one filed in
September 2003 in the Court of Common Pleas in Allegheny County,
Pennsylvania, and another filed in January 2004 in the Superior
Court for the State of California in San Joaquin County,
California. Both cases allege, among other things, deceptive
business practices, fraud, misrepresentation, invasion of
privacy and right of association relating to allegedly deceptive
content of online advertisements that plaintiffs assert the
Company delivered to consumers, and seek, among other things,
injunctive relief, compensatory and punitive damages and
attorneys' fees and costs.

In April 2004, the court in the California action entered an
order dismissing several claims against the Company. The parties
have since entered into a settlement agreement dismissing with
prejudice the case on behalf of the named plaintiffs only and
dismissing without prejudice all other class claims. Under the
terms of the settlement of the California case the Company is
not required to make any payments and no restraints are imposed
on its business practices.  The court approved the settlement of
the California case on January 27, 2005.


FLORIDA: Suit Accuses Alcohol Industry of Marketing to Minors
-------------------------------------------------------------
The country's largest alcoholic-beverage makers have been
accused in a Broward Circuit Court lawsuit of marketing booze to
underage drinkers with images like the Budweiser frogs and
Captain Morgan, The Miami Herald reports.  The legal action
follows lawsuits filed in six other states and the District of
Columbia and seems to be model after claims that were brought
against the tobacco industry for promoting smoking to children.

Court documents show that the Broward suit seeks to force the
companies including Bacardi, whose U.S. subsidiary is based in
Miami, Diageo, which makes Captain Morgan, Anheuser-Busch and
Coors Brewing to give up billions in alleged profits from
illegal sales to minors.

According to several experts in product-liability litigation,
industry executives have expressed concerns that they are going
to become targets in courts across the country just like major
tobacco companies in recent decades. However, the experts would
not comment on the Broward suit and said it's premature to say
whether these types of cases will gain momentum or be dismissed
as frivolous.

Industry officials though blasted the 80-page suit, which was
filed on March 30. In an e-mailed statement Lisa Joley,
Anheuser-Busch's general counsel wrote, "This action seeks to
reward teenagers and their parents with the money the teens
spent drinking illegally and would censor constitutionally
protected free speech. That's wholly inconsistent with Florida
law," the Herald states. The St. Louis company's beverages
include Budweiser and Bud Light.

Waging the legal battles against the industry is David Boies III
of the Fairfax, Virginia law firm of Straus & Boies. He is the
son of David Boies II, the lawyer who led Al Gore's challenge of
the 2000 presidential election in Florida.  The sole plaintiff
in the Broward suit is Craig Konhauzer, a Cooper City interior
designer and president of Davie's David Posnack Jewish Community
Center. His lawyers want the suit certified as a class action,
which would include parents or guardians of minors who purchased
alcoholic beverages from 1982 to the present.

The suit describes Mr. Konhauzer as a parent whose children
"have consumed one or more of the defendants' products while
still underage." The suit, which does not provide any additional
personal details, states that defendants' marketing efforts
directed at minors generate a substantial portion of their
revenues and profits and are crucial to their overall corporate
strategy. The suit thus seeks relief under Florida's Deceptive
and Unfair Trade Practices Act.  Mr. Konhauzer recounted in the
suit numerous examples of what he contends is marketing geared
to minors. They include Budweiser's animated frogs and lizards
and the Spuds McKenzie dog. The suit also referred to the Coors
Light twins appearing in Scary Movie 3, which was rated PG-13,
and magazine ads featuring "young snowboarders" to promote
Captain Morgan rum.  The suit also attacked Bacardi's website
for offering a "selection of arcade games designed to appeal to
minors." The games mentioned include a drinking game called
"virtual quarters."

Patricia Neal, a spokeswoman for Bacardi USA told the Herald,
"These lawsuits are without merit and they should be dismissed.
Bacardi USA does not target underage consumers." She further
added that the industry reviews its own advertisements through
the Distilled Spirits Council of the United States. Distillers
also fund the Century Council, a not-for-profit organization
that combats underage drinking, a spokeswoman for the group
said.

"The federal government has looked into this issue of alcohol
advertising three times within the past five years, and after
each review, [it] concluded that alcohol advertising is directed
to adults," Ms. Neal told the Herald. The Federal Trade
Commission, which issued the reports, couldn't be reached by
phone.

The lawsuits have drawn comparisons to those brought against the
tobacco industry, for, among other things, ads like the Joe
Camel cartoon used to promote Camel cigarettes.  Mr. Konhauzer's
suit seeks unspecified damages but claims the alcoholic-beverage
industry's profits exceed $1 billion a year. None of the eight
Boies suits has gone to trial yet, said Mark Dover, a Kansas
City, Missouri lawyer representing Miller Brewing, which is a
party to five of the cases, including the one in Broward County.


FRANCE: U.S. Chamber Official Asks For Nixing Class Action Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
At a conference sponsored by the Paris Chamber of Commerce and a
French business-lobbying group, U.S. Chamber Chief Legal Officer
Stanton Anderson warned French business and political leaders
not allow U.S.-style class action lawsuits, The United Press
International reports.

According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce official, "The
American class action system has turned into a litigation
'business' designed to squeeze money out of companies, whether
or not those companies have really done anything wrong."

"My most fundamental piece of advice about the possibility of
establishing class actions in France would be quite simple --
don't do it," Mr. Anderson said, adding if France does decide to
allow class action suits, it should establish safeguards to
prevent frivolous claims, UPI reports.

As previously reported in the January 10, 2005 edition of the
Class Action Reporter, France's president, Jacques Chirac,
shocked business leaders by announcing that he had instructed
his government to introduce class action lawsuits, a move that
was welcomed by French consumer groups, but fiercely criticized
by big companies.

Consumer groups, who support such a move by that government
pointed out that introduction of collective lawsuits would help
redress the balance of economic power, currently weighted in
favor of producers, since unlike the United States, France has
few powerful consumer champions or shareholder rights groups and
independent pension funds capable of taking on powerful
companies.  The government stressed though that it would learn
from the American's experience and prevent any abuses of the
system by unscrupulous lawyers.

However, Ernest-Antoine SeilliŠre, president of Medef, the
French employers' federation, warns that class action lawsuits
could have "catastrophic consequences" and added "We are very
active in trying to limit these measures," UPI reports.

Under current statutes, consumers in France must file lawsuits
against corporations individually. While consumer groups can sue
companies, the judgments in such cases are on their rights in
principle.

Francis Caballero, a Paris-based lawyer and a professor of civil
law at Nanterre University who drafted a bill to introduce
class-action lawsuits in France in 1986, stresses that a class-
action law would enable courts to decide issues more quickly and
less expensively by judging them once and distributing any
damages to everyone affected.


FRIENDLY'S: Inoculated Persons in MA Entitled To Compensation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Individuals who had received an inoculation shot after the
hepatitis A scare surrounding Arlington's now-closed Friendly's
might be entitled to compensation thanks to the settlement of a
class-action lawsuit, The Arlington Advocate reports.

Notification for that settlement, whose terms were approved by
the Middlesex Superior Court in February, and if finalized in
June, would allow qualifying individuals to receive a lump sum
of $200 from Friendly's were sent by attorneys to effected
individuals just recently.

In the letter, attorneys stated that the proposed settlement
"provides for prompt, efficient and fair relief" considering
"the relative risks, costs and benefits" to individuals who
received inoculations because of the hepatitis A case. It
further stated that qualified individuals are requested to
submit claims by May 30 to be included in the settlement class.

Last year, town health officials discovered that a Friendly's
employee, not from Arlington, had been diagnosed with hepatitis
A, a liver disease that is not life-threatening but is highly
contagious and can cause flu-like symptoms, jaundice and in rare
instances, more serious liver complications. The illness can be
spread through contaminated food or drink if an infected
individual does not wash his or her hands after using the
restroom.

As a precaution, the Arlington Board of Health hosted a three-
day clinic to administer immune globulin shots to the nearly
3,000 people, who said they had eaten at the Friendly's on
Broadway from June 4 to 15, the time in which they might have
been exposed to the disease.

Then later that month, lawyers from Marler Clark of Seattle, and
Sabra and Aspden of Somerset, filed the class-action suit
against Friendly's on behalf of plaintiff Frederick C. Foster, a
Boston resident, and all others who had been potentially exposed
to the illness and would have had to receive the immune globulin
shots. In his suit, Mr. Foster contended that he and others had
missed work to get the needed inoculation and should be
compensated for lost wages, emotional distress and any other
medical-related expenses.

On February 8, the Middlesex County Superior Court approved a
proposed settlement between the two parties, determining that
anyone who had received an inoculation shot because they had
either eaten food from Friendly's between June 4 and 15, or been
exposed to individuals infected with hepatitis A from Friendly's
food, would be entitled to file a claim.

The court required the Board of Health to release the names of
all individuals who had received immune globulin shots at any of
the three days of the clinic. In addition, the court also
ordered that the number of claimants in the suit should not
exceed 3,000 and appointed Marler Clark and Sabra and Aspden as
counsel to the class.

According to Steven P. Sabra, the attorney from Sabra and Aspden
handling the Friendly's case, Friendly's has been cooperative in
trying to compensate effected individuals by saying, "Friendly's
has acted very professionally and responsibly. In this whole
case, from the beginning, they worked cooperatively with us to
try and resolve this."

Mr. Sabra told The Arlington Advocate that at a fairness hearing
set for June 22, the court would consider all submitted claims
and also determine whether to award an attorney fee of $45,000.
This, according to him, is the last stage of approval in the
suit and he is optimistic of the results. "Trying to predict
what is going to happen in court is a very dangerous thing, but
when you have both groups in favor of a proposed agreement, that
is a positive thing," he said.

Friendly's has already reimbursed the town $55,000 for the costs
of running the clinics, which includes a $40,000 reimbursement
for supplies, the hiring of nurses and overtime pay, and $15,000
for the police details. The immune globulin was provided free of
charge by the state.

After the hepatitis A scare and the eatery subsequently failed
two Board of Health inspections, Friendly's closed the Broadway
location last August.

For more details, regarding the settlment, contact Steven Sabra,
of Sabra and Aspden by Mail: 1026 County St., Somerset, MA 02726
or by Phone: 508-674-0890 by Fax: 508-679-5998 or by E-mail:
stevensabra@aol.com.


GETTY REALTY: Faces Lawsuit For MTBE Contamination in NY Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Getty Realty Corporation faces a class action, filed in New York
Supreme Court in Dutchess County, NY, arising out of alleged
contamination of ground water with methyl tertiary butyl ether
(a fuel derived from methanol, which the Company refers to as
MTBE).

The Company served an answer that denied liability and asserted
numerous affirmative defenses. The plaintiffs have not responded
to the Company's demands and there has not been any activity in
the case for a considerable period, the Company stated in a
disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission.


GLOBAL CROSSING: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Suit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated securities class action
against Global Crossing Ltd. and certain of its officers and
directors in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

Following the Company's s April 27, 2004 announcement that the
Company expected to restate certain of its consolidated
financial statements as of and for the year ended December 31,
2003, eight separate class action lawsuits all purporting to be
brought on behalf of Company shareholders were commenced against
the Company and certain of its officers and directors in the
United States District Courts in New Jersey, New York and
California.  The cases were consolidated and transferred by the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to Judge Gerard Lynch
of the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York based on his past involvement in prior cases involving
the Company.

On February 18, 2005, lead plaintiffs filed an amended
consolidated class action complaint against the Company and two
of its past and present officers.  The consolidated amended
complaint alleges that the Company defrauded the public
securities markets by issuing false and misleading statements
that failed to disclose or indicate:

     (1) that the Company had materially understated its accrued
         cost of access liabilities by as much as $80 million,

     (2) that the Company lacked sufficient internal controls to
         prevent material misstatements,

     (3) that the Company lacked sufficient internal controls to
         properly record and report accrued cost of access
         liabilities and operating expenses,

     (4) that its financial statements were not prepared in
         accordance with generally accepted accounting
         principles,

     (5) that the Company did not, contrary to its
         representations, consistently monitor the accuracy of
         its systems that measured cost of access,

     (6) that the Company's results were materially inflated,
         and

     (7) that the Company did not have a "clean" balance sheet.

The consolidated amended complaint, on behalf of a class of
persons who purchased or acquired the Company's common stock
between December 9, 2003 and April 26, 2004, asserts claims
under the federal securities laws, specifically Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  Plaintiffs contend that the
Company's misstatement or omissions artificially inflated the
price of the Company's stock, which declined when the "true"
costs were disclosed.  Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages as
well as other relief.  If the case is not settled, defendants
anticipate filing a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint.


GLOBAL CROSSING: Appeals Court Reverses Suit Settlement Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the
approval of the settlement of the class action filed against
three of Global Crossing Ltd.'s subsidiaries and remanded the
suit to federal court.

In May 2001, a purported class action was commenced against
three of the Company's subsidiaries in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Illinois.  The
complaint alleges that the Company had no right to install a
fiber optic cable in rights-of-way granted by the plaintiffs to
certain railroads.

Pursuant to an agreement with Qwest Communications Corporation,
the Company has an indefeasible right to use certain fiber
optical cables in a fiber optic communications system
constructed by Qwest within the rights-of-way.  The complaint
alleges that the railroads had only limited rights-of-way
granted to them that did not include permission to install fiber
optic cable for use by Qwest or any other entities.  The action
has been brought on behalf of a national class of landowners
whose property underlies or is adjacent to a railroad right-of-
way within which the fiber optic cables have been installed.
The action seeks actual damages in an unstated amount and
alleges that the wrongs done by the Company involve fraud,
malice, intentional wrongdoing, willful or wanton conduct and/or
reckless disregard for the rights of the plaintiff landowners.
As a result, plaintiffs also request an award of punitive
damages.

The Company made a demand of Qwest to defend and indemnify the
Company in the lawsuit. In response, Qwest has appointed defense
counsel to protect the Company's interests.  The Company's North
American network includes capacity purchased from Qwest on an
indefeasible rights of use (IRU) basis. Although the amount of
the claim is unstated, an adverse outcome could have an adverse
impact on the Company's ability to utilize large portions of the
Company's North American network.

This litigation was stayed against the Company pending the
effective date of the Plan of Reorganization, and the
plaintiffs' pre-petition claims against the Company were
discharged at that time in accordance with the Plan of
Reorganization.  By agreement between the parties, the Plan of
Reorganization preserved plaintiffs' rights to pursue any post-
confirmation claims of trespass or ejectment.  If the plaintiffs
were to prevail, the Company could lose its ability to operate
large portions of its North American network, although it
believes that it would be entitled to indemnification from Qwest
for any losses under the terms of the IRU agreement under which
the Company originally purchased this capacity.

As part of a global resolution of all bankruptcy claims asserted
against the Company by Qwest, Qwest agreed to reaffirm its
obligations of defense and indemnity to the Company for the
assertions made in this claim.  In September 2002, Qwest and
certain of the other telecommunication carrier defendants filed
a proposed settlement agreement in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois.  On July 25, 2003,
the court granted preliminary approval of the settlement and
entered an order enjoining competing class action claims, except
those in Louisiana.  The settlement and the court's injunction
were opposed by a number of parties who intervened and an appeal
was taken to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit.  In a decision dated October 19, 2004, the Court of
Appeals reversed the approval of the settlement and lifted the
injunction.  The case has been remanded to the District Court
for further proceedings.


GOLD FIELDS: Faces Lawsuits Over Former Operations in Oklahoma
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gold Fields Corporation faces several class actions filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Oklahoma in various court alleging property damages caused by
operations of two lead mills near Picher, Oklahoma prior to the
1950's.  A predecessor of the Company formerly operated these
facilities.

The Company was named in June 2003 as a defendant, along with
five other companies, in a class action lawsuit filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma.  The
plaintiffs have asserted nuisance and trespass claims predicated
on allegations of intentional lead exposure by the defendants,
including the Company, and are seeking compensatory damages for
diminution of property value, punitive damages and the
implementation of medical monitoring and relocation programs for
the affected individuals. The plaintiff classes include all
persons who have resided or owned property in the towns of
Cardin and Picher within a specified time period.  The Company
has agreed to indemnify one of the other defendants, which is
its former subsidiary.

The Company is also a defendant, along with other companies, in
five individual lawsuits arising out of the same lead mill
operations involved in the class action.  Plaintiffs in these
actions are seeking compensatory and punitive damages for
alleged personal injuries from lead exposure.

In December 2003, the Quapaw Indian tribe and certain Quapaw
owners of interests in land filed a class action lawsuit against
the Company and five other companies in the same court, seeking
compensatory and punitive damages based on public and private
nuisance, trespass, unjust enrichment, Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA), Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), strict
liability and deceit claims.  The Company has denied liability
to the plaintiffs, has filed counterclaims against the
plaintiffs seeking indemnification and contribution and has
filed a third-party complaint against the United States, owners
of interests in chat and real property in the Picher area.  The
Quapaw tribe also filed a notice of intent to sue the Company
and the other mining companies under CERCLA regarding alleged
damages to natural resources held in trust by the Tribe and RCRA
for an alleged abatement of an imminent and substantial
endangerment to health and the environment.

In February 2004, the town of Quapaw filed a class action
lawsuit against the Company and other mining companies asserting
claims similar to those asserted by the towns of Picher and
Cardin as well as natural resource damage claims.  In July 2004,
two lawsuits were filed, one in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Oklahoma and one in Ottawa County, Oklahoma
(subsequently removed to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Oklahoma), against the Company and three
other companies in which 48 individuals are seeking compensatory
and punitive damages and injunctive relief from alleged personal
injuries resulting from lead exposure.  The allegations relate
to the same two lead mills located near Picher, Oklahoma. The
trials for a few of the individual plaintiffs have been set for
November 2005.


IMPOL TRADING: Recalls Roleski Majonez Due to Undeclared Eggs
-------------------------------------------------------------
Impol Trading Inc. located at 943 McDonald Ave, Brooklyn, N.Y.
11218, is recalling ROLESKI brand MAJONEZ because it contains
undeclared eggs. Consumers who are allergic to eggs, may run the
risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reactions if they
consume this product.

The recalled MAJONEZ, with code 22.05.2005.13:15L2.B.1 packed in
a glass jar with a blue metal lid, net wt. 170 g. were sold in
NY, CT, PA, NJ.  The recall was initiated after routine sampling
by New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets Food
Inspectors and subsequent analysis of the product by New York
State Food Lab personnel revealed the presence of undeclared
eggs.  No illnesses have been reported to date in connection
with this problem.

Consumers who are allergic to eggs and purchased MAJONEZ are
urged to return them to the place of purchase. Consumers with
questions may contact the Company at 718-854-6109.


KRAFT FOODS: Recalls Instant Pudding Due To Undeclared Pistachio
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kraft Foods of Northfield, IL, is recalling 1.4 oz. Jell-O Brand
Sugar Free Fat Free Reduced Calorie Instant Pudding & Pie
Filling in White Chocolate with the 05 MAR 07 D8 and 06 MAR 07
D8 code dates, Chocolate with the 06 MAR 07 D8 code date and
Chocolate Fudge with the 07 MAR 07 D8 code date because the
products may contain pistachio nuts which are not listed in the
ingredients on the package. People who have an allergy or severe
sensitivity to pistachio nuts run the risk of serious or life-
threatening allergic reactions if they consume these recalled
products. No illnesses or allergic reactions have been reported
to date. The product was distributed nationally.

No other Jell-O products are part of the recall, and there is no
health risk for consumers who are not allergic to pistachio
nuts.

Kraft estimates that approximately 148,500 packages of the
recalled product were produced. The recalled product has been
distributed nationally. The "Best When Used By" code dates are
printed on the end flap for the recalled 1.4 oz. Jell-O Brand
Sugar Free Fat Free Reduced Calorie Instant Pudding & Pie
Filling in White Chocolate with the 05 MAR 07 D8 and 06 MAR 07
D8 code dates, Chocolate with the 06 MAR 07 D8 code date and
Chocolate Fudge with the 07 MAR 07 D8 code date.

The Company learned of the error when it found that some of the
boxes still under its control contained pistachio nuts. The
Company has taken steps to prevent a recurrence. No other Jell-O
products are part of the recall.

Consumers who purchased the recalled product may return the
product to the store where purchased for a full refund.

Consumers with questions about the recall should call
1-800-323-4243 from 9:00 am EDT to 9:00 pm EDT, or visit the
Company's website at http://www.kraft.com/specialreport/Jell-O.


LANDMARK FORD: IL Lawyer Resolves Charges Over "Opt Out" Letters
----------------------------------------------------------------
An attorney agreed to pay $24,500 to resolve contempt charges
over a letter that was sent last fall to Illinois sheriffs and
police chiefs urging them to "opt out" of a class-action suit
over the safety of Ford police cruisers, The St. Louis Post-
Dispatch reports.

Edward T. "Ted" Graham a lawyer from Taylorville, Illinois,
represented Landmark Ford, a dealership in Springfield,
Illinois, that sells cars to law enforcement agencies across the
state.   According to court documents, Mr. Graham will pay
plaintiff attorney Patricia Murphy and her associates $22,000
for investigating the letter and preparing the contempt
citation. He also agreed to contribute $2,500 to the local
Court-Appointed Special Advocate program in Belleville that
represents abused and neglected children. Circuit Judge Lloyd
Cueto approved the agreement in circuit court in Belleville
recently.  Even with that payment, Mr. Graham though could still
face disciplinary action by the Illinois Attorney Registration
and Disciplinary Commission.

Ms. Murphy worked out the agreement with Mr. Graham's attorney,
David R. Fines and Russell K. Scott, who represented Landmark
Ford. Under the agreement Landmark must send another letter to
its fleet buyers telling them the first letter was wrong and
asking that they disregard it and ignore a legal form that was
enclosed.

Court documents revealed that the first letter went out in the
middle of the five-week trial over the safety of Ford's Crown
Victoria Police Interceptor. Recipients of that letter included
the St. Clair County Sheriff's Department and Centreville Police
Department, who were the lead plaintiffs in the case.

As previously reported in the October 12, 2004 edition of the
Class Action Reporter, Belleville Circuit Judge Lloyd A. Cueto
ordered an inquiry into a letter sent by the Springfield,
Illinois, Ford dealership to law enforcement agencies across the
state that have filed suit claiming Ford police cruisers are
unsafe.  The judge had warned that the inquiry could lead to
civil or criminal contempt proceedings and to action by the
Illinois Registration and Disciplinary Commission, a state
agency that disciplines attorneys.

During the trial, which started its fifth week in circuit court
in Belleville, Judge Cueto put Landmark Ford's fleet sales
manager, Lyle Snow, under oath and grilled him about a letter
dated September 23 to local sheriffs and police chiefs. It
suggests they "opt out" of the suit and keep buying from
Landmark, an option that had already expired last December 15.
According to court documents, the Landmark letters included "opt
out" forms that were startlingly similar to those sent to
Illinois police agencies last year in preparation for trial,
which Landmark is a defendant.  Mr. Snow acknowledged he had
consulted with the dealership's attorney, Edward T. "Ted"
Graham, before sending the letter. Judge Cueto was not pleased
with the revelation and told Mr. Graham he should have known
that contact with opposing parties in the suit was improper.

The Illinois case is a statewide class-action suit over whether
Ford should pay $62 million to install better fire protection on
about 14,000 Crown Victoria Police Interceptors driven by
hundreds of police agencies. The suit contends the Interceptor
can erupt in flames if hit from behind because the gas tank is
behind the rear axle. Plaintiffs say at least 21 officers have
burned to death across the country.

A Ford attorney was in the courtroom when the judge ordered the
inquiry into Landmark's action. Judge Cueto questioned Mr. Snow
about whom he had talked to at Ford Motor Co. before sending the
letter, which he promptly replied to by saying that the only
Ford representative he contacted had refused to talk to him
because of the suit.

After the cross-examination of Mr. Snow, the judge authorized
plaintiff lawyers in the case to take sworn statements from Mr.
Graham, the attorney for Landmark, and others who might have
been involved in preparing and sending the letter.  In the end,
the trial ended with a verdict in Ford's favor, in which jurors
concluded the Crown Victoria Police Interceptor was reasonably
safe, despite the deaths of at least 20 officers across the
country in fiery crashes.


LOUISIANA: School Board Staff To Gain Tax Suit Settlement Money
---------------------------------------------------------------
East Feliciana Parish School Board employees will receive about
$290 each under a settlement of a September 2000 lawsuit, which
had alleged that the School Board misused sales tax and property
tax revenues dedicated to salaries for teachers and other
personnel, 2theadvocate.com reports.

When the legal action was approved as a class-action suit in
20th Judicial District Court, all East Feliciana Parish
taxpayers, current school employees and former employees who
were on the payroll after 1988 were plaintiffs in the case.

However, according to a settlement, which was approved by
retired Judge Benjamin C. Bennett, the proceeds from a cash
settlement put up by the school board will be divided equally
among all employees who were working on December 31, 2004.
Under the terms of the settlement the School Board will be
required to put up $184,000 to settle the claims and agree to no
longer put dedicated sales or property tax income into its
general fund.

Judge Bennett awarded plaintiffs' attorneys Scott Wilson and
Michelle Duncan $61,333, or one-third of the settlement amount,
and $10,000 for expenses associated with the litigation, leaving
$112,667 to be divided among the employees.

The School Board recently fired its superintendent, Robert
Galvan, but the school system's personnel director and payroll
employees estimated that about 380 people were employed on
December 31. The board has scheduled a meeting to name an
interim superintendent.

The lawsuit was originally filed in 1999, after a group of
school employees began questioning why salary supplements had
not increased from a sales tax fund although revenues reaching
the fund had increased. The board decided in April 2000 to
revise its budget to reflect that a $1,000 bonus for teachers
came from the sales tax fund, rather than from state-
appropriated funds as originally approved. The board also began
monitoring the balance in the account on a monthly basis.
Employees then began questioning why salary supplements funded
by dedicated property taxes had not increased in 12 years, but
tax revenues had increased over the years.


MISSISSIPPI: Settlement Worked Out in Medicaid Nursing Home Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A proposed settlement of a 2002 class-action lawsuit against
Medicaid and the Department of Rehabilitation Services is
pending in federal court, The Associated Press reports.
According to state officials, the deal would give more than
14,000 Mississippi nursing home residents on Medicaid a chance
to receive care at home.

Court documents revealed that several disabled Mississippians
sued the agencies when they could not obtain special waivers to
allow them to receive home medical care. In their suit, they
alleged discrimination because they were segregated into nursing
homes and not allowed to live on their own.

The proposed settlement was reached last month, but U.S.
District Judge Henry Wingate must hold another hearing to
approve the deal. No date though has been set for that hearing,
according to Maureen O'Connell, an attorney with the Southern
Disability Law Center in Austin, Texas.

Ms. O'Connell, one of the attorneys for the plaintiffs told The
Associated Press, "It's (the deal) really looking to put a
system in place that will respond to the needs of people with
disabilities."

Butch McMillan, executive director of the Department of
Rehabilitation Services, also told The Associated Press that the
agency is looking at the settlement "as an opportunity to
provide more services.

The plaintiffs, ranging in ages from 36 to 50, had contended in
their suit that they could not obtain waivers to live at home or
were about to lose their personal care attendant because of low
pay.  Medicaid pays more than $50,000 per year for a person's
nursing home care, compared to at least $20,000 for at-home
care, said Mary Troupe, executive director of the Coalition for
Citizens with Disabilities, also a plaintiff.

Mr. McMillan also said that the state could save more than $15
million by moving some nursing home residents. The raise for
personal attendants and waivers is estimated to cost $3 million
for fiscal 2006, which starts in July, he added.


MISSOURI: Police Department Wins Appeal, Might Recoup $1M
----------------------------------------------------------
The Kansas City Police Department won a court appeal that could
help it recoup more than $1 million lost in a class-action
lawsuit, The Kansas City Star reports.

A group of private investigators won the lawsuit in 2000 in Cole
County Circuit Court. In that case the judge ruled that the
Police Department had illegally collected fees and had to refund
the money. The department deposited $2.3 million into an account
for repayment, but after all claims were paid in 2002, more than
$1 million remained.  Without consulting either the police or
private investigators, Cole County Judge Thomas J. Brown III
ordered the remaining money distributed to children's charities
in the county.

Douglas S. Stone, who represents the Kansas Association of
Private Investigators, told the Star he called the judge as soon
as he received that ruling. According to Mr. Stone, Judge Brown
"said the checks have already been sent."

The Police Department and investigators promptly appealed and
last week the Missouri Court of Appeals agreed with them. In
that ruling the appeals court ruling stated, "We hold that the
trial court erred twice. First in not giving the parties notice
and an opportunity to be heard on how the funds should be
distributed and second in how the trial court distributed the
funds."  The appeals court pointed out that unclaimed funds can
be returned or redistributed and that if the latter course is
chosen, the money should be distributed "for a purpose as near
as possible" to the lawsuit's objectives. The court also pointed
out, "Distributing the funds to children's charities in Cole
County . does not meet this requirement."

Mr. Stone told The Kansas City Star that he did not know how the
investigators would retrieve the money, since much of it may
have already been spent. He also said that he favored having the
money distributed in the Kansas City area, but the Police
Department wants the money returned.

Additionally, the appeals court stated that it could be
appropriate to return the money since the police board acted
without malice or bad faith when it raised its fees. The court
thus ordered Judge Brown to conduct a hearing on proper
distribution of the money, but a date though has not been set.

Court documents indicate that the Kansas Association of Private
Investigators, which objected to a 1997 fee increase, filed the
original suit in 1998.

The Board of Police Commissioners regulates and licenses private
security personnel who work in Kansas City. The board increased
the fee in 1997 from $35 to $225, an amount similar to what
other large Missouri cities charge, to cover costs of regulation
and licensing duties. Police officials said they thought the
process was lawful, but the private investigators said the board
did not give proper notice of the increase.


PIONEER ELECTRONICS: CA Court Sides With Firm in Olmstead Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
The California Court of Appeal ruled in Pioneer Electronics
(USA) Inc.'s favor to protect the privacy rights of Pioneer's
consumers. The Court confirmed that consumers have the right to
decide whether personal information, such as their names,
addresses, telephone numbers and e-mail addresses, should be
automatically released to plaintiff attorneys in lawsuits.

The ruling relates to a putative class action lawsuit, known as
Olmstead v. Pioneer, in which the plaintiff alleges that Pioneer
should be held liable for distributing DVD players that cannot
flawlessly play each and every of the approximately 60,000 pre-
recorded DVD movie titles released in the United States.
Preliminary information shows that at least one or more of
Pioneer's DVD players may have difficulty with about 60 out of
the 60,000 DVD titles. Pioneer offers an extended manufacturer's
limited warranty that provides free upgrades to consumers for
these playback problems.

The plaintiff in the lawsuit requested that Pioneer divulge
consumers' personal information provided to Pioneer, for
instance, during a telephone call to Pioneer's call center.
Pioneer refused to do so. The plaintiff then requested the trial
court to order the release of the personal information. The
trial court, siding with the plaintiff, ordered Pioneer to
automatically divulge personal information unless a consumer
affirmatively responded to a notification letter that described
the lawsuit and informed consumers that their personal
information would be released unless they objected by sending in
the response card. In other words, a failure to respond to the
letter would be treated as automatic consent for the release of
personal information. Pioneer sought appellate review of that
decision by the trial court because of the importance of
consumer privacy. The Court of Appeal agreed with Pioneer.

"We believe that each consumer has the right to grant or
withhold consent to the release of their personal information.
That means actively granting consent, not simply failing to
respond to a notice," said Paul M. Smith, general counsel,
Pioneer North America. "We're pleased that the Court of Appeal
agrees."

As part of its commitment to provide consumers with an
outstanding DVD viewing experience, Pioneer offers a limited
warranty that continues to provide for three years free firmware
upgrades in the United States and Canada for all of its home
entertainment DVD players, DVD recorders and DVD-based home-
theater-in-a-box systems for playback of pre-recorded DVD video
discs manufactured in accordance with DVD Video specifications.
These free upgrades, which have been offered since the Company
began distributing DVD players in the United States and Canada,
increase playability of pre-recorded DVD discs that utilize
advanced DVD authoring technology to provide enhanced viewing
features.

Pioneer's Home Entertainment Division is a leading distributor
of plasma televisions and monitors, DVD players and DVD
recorders, A/V receivers, speakers and other audio and video
accessories. Its focus is on the development of new digital
technologies. The Company markets its products under the Pioneer
and Pioneer Elite brand names. When purchased from an authorized
dealer, consumers receive a limited warranty for one year with
Pioneer products and two years with Pioneer Elite products.


PRESIDENT'S CHOICE: Recalls Baby Foods Due To Compromised Jars
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) is warning the public
not to consume certain President's Choice Baby Foods described
below.

This recall is being conducted because the seals on some jars
have been found to be seriously compromised. The loss of seal
may permit the entry of harmful bacteria into the product. While
no harmful bacteria have been found in the product, this recall
is being conducted as a precautionary measure.

All codes of the following President's Choice products sold in
128 mL glass jars are affected by this alert:

Product - UPC

     (1) Organics Strained Carrots - 6038369269

     (2) Organics Strained Sweet Potato - 6038369271

     (3) Organics Strained Peas & Brown Rice - 6038369276

     (4) Organics Strained Peas - 6038369277

     (5) Organics Strained Squash - 6038369278

     (6) Organics Strained Vegetable & Pasta - 6038369280

     (7) Organics Strained Mixed Vegetable - 6038370860

     (8) Organics Strained Carrot & Peas - 6038370861

     (9) Organics Strained Sweet Potato & Chicken - 6038370862

    (10) Organics Strained Vegetable & Turkey - 6038370863

    (11) Beginner Strained Carrots - 6038371258

    (12) Beginner Strained Sweet Potato - 6038371259

    (13) Beginner Strained Squash - 6038371260

    (14) Beginner Strained Peas - 6038371263

    (15) Strained Mixed Vegetable -6038371269

    (16) Strained Carrots & Peas - 6038371270

    (17) Strained Sweet Potato & Chicken - 6038371271

    (18) Strained Vegetable & Turkey - 6038371272

    (19)Strained Vegetable & Lentils - 6038369281

Sunfresh Limited, Toronto, Ontario is voluntarily recalling the
affected product from the marketplace. These products have been
distributed across Canada. These products can be returned at
point of purchase.

One of the potential harmful bacteria could be Clostridium
botulinum. Botulism is a life-threatening illness caused by the
build-up of toxins produced by Clostridium botulinum bacteria.
Food contaminated with C. botulinum may or may not look or smell
spoiled. There have been no reported illnesses associated with
the consumption of these products.

The CFIA is monitoring the effectiveness of the recall. For more
information, consumers and industry can call 1-800-903-7274,
8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., local time.

For information on receiving recalls by electronic mail, or for
other food safety facts, visit our web site at
http://www.inspection.gc.ca.


SALEM COMMUNICATIONS: Shareholders Launch Fraud Suit in CA Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Salem Communications Corporation faces a securities class action
filed in the Superior Court of California for the County of
Ventura.  The suit also names as defendants the Company's
directors, certain of its officers and certain underwriters of
its April 2004 public offering of Class A common stock.

On March 9, 2005, Pipefitters, Locals 522 & 633 Pension Trust
Fund filed the suit, alleging claims under the Securities Act on
behalf of a putative class of all persons who purchased the
Company's equity securities pursuant or traceable to that
offering.  The complaint alleges that the offering documents
failed to disclose that the Company's financial statements
overstated its fixed assets and that the Company's internal
controls were flawed with respect to its ability to value fixed
assets and, that the offering documents contained misstatements
regarding the Company's fixed assets and internal controls. The
complaint seeks rescission or damages in excess of $5 million,
interest, attorneys fees and other costs, as well as equitable
and injunctive relief.  The complaint was served on the Company
on March 15, 2005.

The suit is styled "Pipefitters Locals 52 & 633 Pension v. Salem
Communications Corporation, case no. CIV-232456," filed in
California Superior Court for the County of Ventura.
Representing the plaintiffs is Darren J. Robbins of Lerach
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP, 9601 Wilshire Blvd,
Suite 510 Los Angeles, CA 90210 Phone: (310) 859-3100 Fax:
(310) 278-2148 Website: http://www.lerachlaw.com.


SIMON PROPERTY: Faces Several Suits Opposing Gift Card Program
--------------------------------------------------------------
Simon Property Group, Inc. faces several state class actions
filed in relation to its co-branded, bank-issued gift cards.
The suits are styled:

     (1) Lisa Corbiles and Dana Walicky vs. Simon Property
         Group, Inc. d/b/a Simon Malls, Superior Court of New
         Jersey, County of Essex, Docket No: ESX-L-224-04, filed
         January 6, 2004;

     (2) Betty Benson and Andrea Nay-Richardson vs. Simon
         Property Group, Inc., and Simon Property Group, L.P.,
         Superior Court of Cobb County, State of Georgia, Case
         No.: 04-1-9617-42, filed December 9, 2004;

     (3) Christopher Lonner vs. Simon Property Group, Inc.,
         Supreme Court of the State of NY, County of
         Westchester, Case No.: 04-2246, filed February 18,
         2004,

     (4) Erin Reilly, individually and on behalf of all others
         similarly situated vs. SPG, Inc., SPG, L.P. and SPGGC,
         Inc., Lee County Circuit Court, Florida, filed February
         8, 2005; and

     (5) Aliza Goldman, individually and on behalf of all others
         similarly situated vs. Simon Property Group, Inc.,
         Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of
         Nassau, filed February 7, 2005

Each of these proceedings has been brought by a private
plaintiff as a purported class action and alleges violation of
state consumer protection laws, state abandoned property and
contract laws or state statutes regarding gift certificates or
gift cards and seeks a variety of remedies including unspecified
damages and injunctive relief.


SKECHERS USA: Reaches Settlement For CA Employee Wage Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Skechers USA, Inc. reached a settlement for the class actions
filed against it in California State courts, alleging violations
of the state's Labor Code and wage laws.

On December 2, 2002, a class action complaint entitled "OMAR
QUINONES v. SKECHERS USA, INC. et al., case no. 02CC00353," was
filed in the Superior Court for the State of California for the
County of Orange.  The complaint, as amended, alleges overtime
and related violations of the California Labor Code on behalf of
managers of Skechers' retail stores and seeks, inter alia,
damages and restitution, as well as injunctive and declaratory
relief.  On February 25, 2003, another related class action
complaint entitled "MYRNA CORTEZ v. SKECHERS USA, INC. et al.,
case no. BC290932," was filed in the Superior Court for the
State of California for the County of Los Angeles, asserting
similar claims and seeking similar relief on behalf of assistant
managers.  On July 7, 2004, a third class action complaint
entitled "MYRNA CORTEZ et al. v. SKECHERS USA, INC. et al., case
no. BC318101," was filed in the Superior Court for the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles.  The complaint alleges
wage violations of the California Labor Code and unfair business
practices relating to deductions for uniforms on behalf of
employees of Skechers' retail stores and seeks, inter alia,
damages and civil penalties, as well as injunctive relief.

On December 20, 2004, the parties agreed to a preliminary
settlement that fully resolves all claims brought by the
plaintiffs in each of the three lawsuits. Under the terms of the
preliminary settlement, which is still subject to court
approval, the Company will pay a potential maximum settlement
amount of $1.8 million, which was recorded to other expense in
the consolidated statement of operations during the fourth
quarter of 2004, to cover claims made by eligible class members,
plaintiff attorneys' fees and costs, and costs of a third-party
administrator.


SKECHERS USA: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Shareholder Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Skechers USA, Inc. asked the United States District Court for
the Central District of California to dismiss the consolidated
securities class action filed against it and certain of its
officers and directors.

On March 25, 2003, a shareholder securities class action
complaint captioned "HARVEY SOLOMON v. SKECHERS USA, INC. et
al., case no. 03-2094 DDP," was filed against the Company and
certain of its officers and directors.  On April 2, 2003, a
shareholder securities class action complaint captioned "CHARLES
ZIMMER v. SKECHERS USA, INC. et al., case no. 03-2296 PA" was
filed.  On April 15, 2003, a shareholder securities class action
complaint captioned "MARTIN H. SIEGEL v. SKECHERS USA, INC. et
al., case no. 03-2645 RMT" was filed.  On May 6, 2003, a
shareholder securities class action complaint captioned "ADAM D.
SAPHIER v. SKECHERS USA, INC. et al., case no. 03-3011 FMC" was
served on the Company and certain of its officers and directors.
On May 9, 2003, a shareholders securities class action complaint
captioned "LARRY L. ERICKSON v. SKECHERS USA, INC. et al., case
no. 03-3101 SJO," was filed.

Each of these class action complaints alleged violations of the
federal securities laws on behalf of persons who purchased
publicly traded securities of the Company between April 3, 2002
and December 9, 2002.  In July 2003, the court in these federal
securities class actions, all pending in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California, ordered
the cases consolidated and a consolidated complaint to be filed
and served. On September 25, 2003, the plaintiffs filed a
consolidated complaint entitled "In re SKECHERS USA, Inc.
Securities Litigation, Case No. CV-03-2094-PA."

The complaint names as defendants the Company and certain
officers and directors and alleges violations of the federal
securities laws and breach of fiduciary duty on behalf of
persons who purchased publicly traded securities of the Company
between April 3, 2002 and December 9, 2002.  The complaint seeks
compensatory damages, interest, attorneys' fees and injunctive
and equitable relief.

The Company moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint in its
entirety.  On May 10, 2004, the court granted the motion to
dismiss with leave for plaintiffs to amend the complaint.  On
August 9, 2004, plaintiffs filed a first amended consolidated
complaint for violations of the federal securities laws. The
allegations and relief sought were virtually identical to the
original consolidated complaint.  The Company has moved to
dismiss the first amended consolidated complaint and the motion
was set for hearing on December 6, 2004.  The court took the
hearing off calendar and has the motion under submission as of
the filing date of this annual report.


T & H SUPERMARKET: Recalls Pound Cake Due To Undeclared Milk
------------------------------------------------------------
State Agriculture Commissioner Nathan L. Rudgers alerts
consumers that T & H Supermarket, Inc., d/b/a T & H Supermarket,
2502 86 th St., Brooklyn, New York 11214 is recalling 4 oz.
packages of pound cake due to an undeclared milk ingredient.
People who have allergies to milk may run the risk of serious or
life-threatening allergic reactions if they consume this
product.

The recalled pound cake comes in an uncoded, plastic-wrapped,
tin package. It was sold in Brooklyn, New York.

The problem was discovered as a result of routine sampling by
New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets Food
Inspectors and subsequent analysis by the Department's Food
Laboratory personnel revealed the presence of a milk ingredient
in product packages, which did not declare a milk ingredient on
the label. No illnesses have been reported to date to this
Department in connection with the problem.

Consumers who have purchased pound cake should return it to the
place of purchase.


UNITED STATES: FTC Testifies on Security of Consumers' Data
-----------------------------------------------------------
Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Chairman Deborah Platt Majoras
testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee, saying despite
the fact that data brokers may provide a valuable service both
to business and government entities, "There are concerns about
the aggregation of sensitive consumer information and whether
this information is protected adequately from misuse and
unauthorized disclosure. In particular, recent security breaches
have raised questions about whether sensitive consumer
information collected by data brokers may be falling into the
wrong hands, leading to increased identity theft and other
frauds."

Ms. Majoras said the FTC enforces three laws that restrict the
disclosure of consumer information and require companies to
ensure the security and integrity of the data in certain
contexts:

     (1) the Fair Credit Reporting Act restricts disclosure of
         consumer reports except for specified `permissible
         purposes';

     (2) the Graham-Leach-Bliley Act imposes privacy and
         security obligations on financial institutions; and

     (3) the FTC Act prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or
         practices in or affecting commerce.

"Prohibited practices include deceptive claims that companies
make about privacy, including claims about the security they
provide for consumer information," the testimony says.

Ms. Majoras told the Committee that the FTC has implemented a
program to help combat identity theft. The agency collects
complaints from consumers and provides victim assistance through
a telephone hotline and a dedicated Web site; maintains a
centralized database of victim complaints that acts as an tool
for more than 1,100 law enforcement agencies; and provides
education tools for consumers, law enforcers, and industry.

According to the testimony, the Commission receives between
15,000 and 20,000 contacts a week from victims of identity theft
and consumers who want to learn how to avoid becoming a victim.
"Victims are advised to:

     (i) obtain copies of their credit reports and have a fraud
         alert placed on them;

    (ii) contact each of the creditors or service providers
         where the identity thief has established or accessed an
         account, to request that the account be closed and to
         dispute any associated charges; and

   (iii) report the identity theft to the police, and if
         possible, obtain a police report."

"A police report is helpful both in demonstrating to would-be
creditors and debt collectors that the consumers are victims of
identity theft, and also serves as an `identity theft report'
that can be used for exercising various rights under the newly
enacted Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act. The FTC's
identity theft Web site, www.consumer.gov/idtheft, has an online
complaint form in which victims can enter their complaint into
the clearinghouse," Ms. Majoras said in the testimony.

The testimony states that the FTC has taken the lead in
producing and promoting educational materials to increase
consumer awareness and to provide tips for minimizing identity
theft. The agency has developed two publications, "ID Theft:
What's It All About," and "Take Charge: Fighting Back Against
Identity Theft," that consumers can access at
http://www.consumer.gov/idtheft/

The FTC, in cooperation with the Department of Justice, the U.S.
Postal Inspection Service, and the U.S. Secret Service, has
instituted identity theft training seminars for state and local
law enforcement officers. "More than 2,200 officers have
attended these seminars, representing over 800 different
agencies," the testimony notes.

"The Commission is committed to ensuring the continued safety of
consumers' personal information," Ms. Majoras said.

The Commission vote authorizing the testimony was 5-0.

Copies of the testimony are available from the FTC's Web site at
http://www.ftc.govand 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.  For more details, also contact Claudia Bourne Farrell,
Office of Public Affairs by Phone: 202-326-2181.


VICURON PHARMACEUTICALS: Asks PA Court To Dismiss Stock Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vicuron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. asked the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to dismiss the
consolidated securities class action filed against it and
certain of its senior officers

Beginning on June 15, 2004, six shareholder securities class
action complaints were filed, namely:

     (1) Perry Paragamian vs. Vicuron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et
         al. (Case No. 04cv2627);

     (2) John H. Taylor vs. Vicuron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al.
         (Case No. 04cv2685);

     (3) Security Police-Fire Professionals of America vs.
         Vicuron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. (Case No.
         04cv2708);

     (4) Fred Zucker vs. Vicuron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al.
         (Case No. 04cv2745);

     (5) Brian B. Steketee vs. Vicuron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et
         al. (Case No. 04cv3365); and

     (6) Brad Staton vs. Vicuron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Case No.
         04cv3422)

On August 18, 2004, counsel for all parties involved in the
Federal Class Actions stipulated to consolidation of the six
actions.  Under the stipulation, defendants are not required to
respond to the six individual complaints. Rather, defendants
will respond to an amended, consolidated class action complaint
that will be filed by the court-appointed lead plaintiff and
lead plaintiff counsel, or the "Consolidated Complaint."  The
District Court approved the Consolidation Stipulation on August
23, 2004.  The Court's order provides that:

     (i) the designated lead plaintiff will have 60 days to file
         the Consolidated Complaint once appointed by the
         District Court;

    (ii) defendants will file a responsive pleading within 60
         days of service of the Consolidated Complaint; and

   (iii) in the event defendants' responsive pleading is a
         motion to dismiss, plaintiffs' opposition papers will
         be due 60 days from the filing of the motion, and any
         reply papers by defendants will be due 30 days
         thereafter.

Three motions were filed with the District Court pursuant to 15
U.S.C. 78u-4(a)(3)(A)(i)(II) proposing a lead plaintiff and lead
plaintiff counsel. On October 7, 2004, the Court entered an
order appointing the group of institutional investors
(Massachusetts State Guaranteed Annuity Fund, Massachusetts
State Carpenters Pension Fund, and Greater Pennsylvania
Carpenters Pension Fund) as lead plaintiffs, the law firm of
Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins as lead plaintiffs
counsel, and the law offices of Marc S. Henzel as liaison
counsel.

Based on the Court's order of August 23, 2004, plaintiffs filed
the Consolidated Complaint on December 6, 2004. The Consolidated
Complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Section 11 of the Securities
Act of 1933, arising from the Company's May 24, 2004 press
release announcing the issuance of an approvable letter by the
FDA indicating that our proposed pharmaceutical, anidulafungin,
does not currently support a labeling claim for initial
treatment of esophageal candidiasis.  The Consolidated Complaint
alleges a putative class period from January 6, 2003 through May
24, 2004.

The Sections 10(b) and 20(a) claims are based on the allegation
that defendants artificially inflated the price of the Company's
stock during the class period by making allegedly false and
misleading statements concerning anidulafungin, the prospects
that the FDA would approve the drug for initial treatment of
esophageal candidiasis, and the prospects for the drug's
marketing success.  The Section 11 claim is based on the
allegation that the Company's July 2003 Registration Statement
and Prospectus for a secondary public stock offering contained a
false statement about anidulafungin's expected competitive
advantages over existing therapies.  The complaints seek
compensatory damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and injunctive
and equitable relief.

Pursuant to the District Court's first scheduling order entered
on November 2, 2004, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Consolidated Complaint on January 20, 2005. Lead plaintiffs
filed an opposition on February 22, 2005. The Defendants' reply
was filed on March 9, 2005. Defendants' motion to dismiss stayed
all discovery, pending the District Court's resolution of the
motion.

The lead case is styled "Paragamian v. Vicuron Pharmaceuticals
Incorporated, et al. case no. 2:04-cv-02627-HB," filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania under Judge Harvey Bartle III.  Representing the
plaintiffs are Leslie Weaver, Nicholas J. Licato of LERACH
COUGHLIN STOIA GELLER RUDMAN & ROBBINS 100 Pine St. Ste 2600 San
Francisco, CA 94111, Phone: 415-288-4545 and Marc S. Henzel LAW
OFFICES OF MARC S. HENZEL 273 Montgomery Avenue Suite 202, Bala
Cynwyd, PA 19004 Phone: 610-660-8000 Email: mhenzel182@aol.com.
Representing the Company is O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP 400 S. Hope
St., Los Angeles CA 90071 Email: asmith@omm.com.


WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION: Faces Suits Over 2/2005 Dishwasher Recall
----------------------------------------------------------------
Whirlpool Corporation faces two purported national class action
lawsuits, one filed in a Missouri state court and one in an
Illinois state court, related to the February 25, 2005 recall of
approximately 162,000 under-the-counter plastic tall tub
dishwashers due to a potential safety issue.

The suits alleging breach of warranty, fraud, and violation of
state consumer protection acts in selling these tall tub
dishwashers.  There are no allegations of any personal injury or
property damage and the complaints seek unspecified compensatory
damages.



                        Asbestos Alert


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Expert Says UK Asbestos Law Mostly Ignored
---------------------------------------------------------------
Many businesses are ignoring the law, which took effect in May,
requiring property owners and tenants to manage asbestos in
their premises, claimed Scottish asbestos management specialist
Sureclean.

The Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations imposes a duty to
have an up-to-date asbestos survey and management plan for all
non-domestic buildings. A plan must be put in place to manage
the risk and to ensure that any materials containing asbestos
are kept in a good state of repair or, if necessary, removed.
Also, to avoid potentially harmful exposure, information on the
location and condition of any asbestos-containing materials must
be given to those who could be at risk.

According to government figures, there are some 3,000 deaths per
year from asbestosis and mesothelioma, an asbestos-related lung
cancer. This is expected to rise to 10,000 by 2010. About half a
million buildings in the UK that were built or renovated between
1950 and 1980 still contain asbestos.

Sureclean said too many firms are not following the rules
contained in the Government's health and safety campaign.
Effective compliance with the legislation could potentially save
thousands of lives.

Doug Courts, Sureclean's asbestos manager, said, "From the
nature of inquiries we are receiving it is clear many companies
are ignoring the current asbestos legislation. Many have neither
instigated an asbestos survey nor are aware of the new
responsibilities. Urgent action needs to be taken by duty
holders to address this."

Failure to comply with the duty could lead to fines of up to
GBP20,000 in the magistrates court and unlimited fines if the
matter is dealt with in a crown court.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: RPM Posts 3rd Qtr. Loss on Asbestos Charge
---------------------------------------------------------------
RPM International Inc., maker of home-repair products, posted a
third-quarter loss due to asbestos liability expenses, and
warned that higher raw materials costs could slow full-year
profit growth.

Headquartered in Medina, OH, RPM reported a loss of US$4.8
million, or 4 cents a share, in the fiscal third quarter ended
Feb. 28, including a US$15 million pretax charge to boost legal
reserves for asbestos claims. Consolidated earnings before
interest and taxes were US$0.8 million compared with US$17.1
million in the year-ago quarter. The latest period also included
charges from accounting changes and higher interest payments.

The Company believes this level sufficiently supports a
conservatively estimated valuation of existing claims in light
of the Company's more aggressive defense strategy, which entails
higher legal costs, but has produced ultimately lower resolution
costs.

A year earlier, the Company reported net income of US$6 million,
or 5 cents a share.

Quarterly sales, meanwhile, climbed nearly 9 percent to US$516.3
million, spurred by organic growth, acquisitions and a favorable
currency exchange.

The Company said balance sheet reserves for its asbestos
liability now total US$96.3 million, enough to pay estimated
existing claims.

RPM said several factors, including the early adoption of
accounting for stock-based compensation and higher raw material
costs contributed to the slide. Higher raw material costs could
reduce earnings growth to 8 percent to 10 percent from an
earlier forecast of 10 percent to 12 percent. The Company also
announced it changed the accounting treatment of its 2.75
percent senior convertible notes due 2033, effective in the
fiscal third quarter.

As a result, 8.03 million shares of RPM's common stock related
to the debt will be included in the Company's calculation of
earnings per share. That will reduce 2005 fiscal year earnings
by 6 cents per share, RPM said.

Nine-month cash flow from operations was US$97.2 million, a
decrease of US$23.5 million compared with fiscal 2004 nine-month
cash flow. After-tax asbestos-related payments during the first
nine months of fiscal 2005 were US$35.2 million versus last
year's US$24.2 million; however, last year had the benefit of
the remaining third-party insurance supplement, amounting to
US$9.4 million on a pre-tax basis. Before taxes and before
insurance, total asbestos-related payments of US$56.3 million
through nine months this year compared with US$47.9 million last
year.

RPM, which evaluates the adequacy of its asbestos liability
reserves each quarter and adjusts these reserves when
appropriate, said changes in U.S. state laws were not having the
anticipated positive effects, partly because its more aggressive
defense strategy has slowed the resolution of a number of cases,
and some state courts are backed up.

"We continue to expect high-single-digit revenue growth for the
full 2005 fiscal year compared with year-ago results," President
and Chief Executive Frank C. Sullivan in a statement.

RPM International Inc., a holding Company, owns subsidiaries
that are world leaders in specialty coatings and sealants
serving both industrial and consumer markets. RPM's industrial
products include roofing systems, sealants, corrosion control
coatings, flooring coatings and specialty chemicals.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Daughter Reveals Teacher's Cause of Death
--------------------------------------------------------------
The daughter of a Queensland teacher, who died last year of an
asbestos-related cancer, came forward to relate the events that
led to her mother's tragic death. She is now taking the risk of
publicizing the story since she believes more people are being
put at risk.

The State Government had agreed to a WorkCover payout to the
female teacher before she died, but has yet to remove all the
asbestos from roofs at Townsville's Heatley State School. Also,
the parents and former students of a Queensland school have not
been told of the link between an asbestos-riddled classroom and
the death of a teacher last year.

The woman's daughter, Karen Brown, aged 40, recounted how her
mother had a daily routine of wiping gray dust from her school
desks in the 1980s and 1990s. She said her mother had not wanted
to divulge her diagnosis because she believed others might feel
they had a death sentence hanging over them. Ms. Brown said,
"I'm really afraid Mum is going to be the first of what is going
to be many deaths."

The head of Heatley Parents and Citizens Association, Mick
Cutler, said he was now aware of the issue but teachers, parents
and former and present day students were not. The wider school
community was going to be informed of the teacher's death within
a week, he said.

A total of 1171 of Queensland's 1300 state schools are on the
Government's asbestos register. Education Queensland, the agency
responsible for all the government schools in this territory,
has been criticized recently for its failure to prioritize
replacement of the roofing at Moggill State School.

A spokesman for Education Queensland said details of WorkCover
claims were subject to strict privacy provisions. He said
several of Heatley's blocks, including the administration,
library, and a teaching area, had asbestos roofs. The block,
which had presumably caused the teacher's illness, had already
been replaced prior to 1995. The other roofs are being monitored
under the three-year rolling maintenance assessment program.

"WorkCover did advise Education Queensland of this case and the
department acted on the advice by continually assessing the
buildings with asbestos roofs, the spokesman added."

Mr. Cutler said he was "extremely satisfied with the way
Education Queensland is handling this issue." He believes there
is no present danger to anyone.

Education Minister Anna Bligh said replacing every school roof
that contained asbestos would cost up to US$100 million and the
money would be better spent on other services. This comment came
after Education Queensland issued a directive to state school
principals reminding them to check their asbestos registers
prior to maintenance work.

Townsville City councilor David Crisafulli believed governments
had a duty to be open about the asbestos situation in schools.

"The State Government has a responsibility to immediately name
and begin fixing those buildings that are dangerous and in the
process allay the fears of all those parents currently wondering
if their children are in a safe environment," he said.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MA Council Ensures Residents Know the Risks
----------------------------------------------------------------
In a move that earned the approval of its residents, North
Cambridge councilors passed four separate orders to make sure
that residents are informed before any digging is done at an
asbestos-riddled site near Russell Field.

The 27-acre site is owned by W.R. Grace & Co., a chemicals maker
based in Columbia, MD. Flooded with claims of asbestos
contamination at its vermiculite mining operation in Libby,
Montana, the Company filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy protection
in 2001. It joined a succession of companies since the 1980s to
declare bankruptcy in order to prepare a strategy to deal with
those claims.

The first order called on the Department of Environmental
Protection to require at least three months' notice to residents
before the soil is disturbed. A second order urged the DEP to
consider a 40-point list of recommendations developed by North
Cambridge residents.

A third asked the DEP to wait until the City Council completes
hearings about lifting state oversight of the property. And a
fourth order asked the DEP to keep in mind W.R. Grace's history
as the department considers whether to lift state oversight of
the property.

Mike Nakagawa of Madison Street, one of the more vocal residents
regarding the issue, said that although he applauded the
council's efforts, the council should go further.

Vice Mayor Marjorie Decker had sympathy for that idea, hinting
the city might eventually take legal action. She said, "The
current standards [at the DEP] are not enough to protect our
citizens."

"I do fear it will take more than these resolutions. It may mean
targeting the DEP more than we have," added Ms. Decker.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: IL Judges Wary of Federal Trust Fund Bill
--------------------------------------------------------------
A couple of Illinois local judges have ordered changes to
control the asbestos dockets in their own courtrooms, Madison
Record reports.

Under an order signed Feb. 25 by 20th Circuit Chief Judge Jan
Fiss, asbestos-related cases in St. Clair County will proceed
only if the plaintiffs exhibit measurable impairment or
disability as a result of asbestos exposure. Cases that don't
fulfill this requirement would be placed in a registry and held
inactive until cases involving actual impairment or disability
are resolved.

Judge Fiss's order follows similar moves by Madison County Judge
Daniel Stack to tighten the criteria for asbestos cases. In
January, Judge Stack dismissed 25 asbestos lawsuits with no ties
to Illinois. As previously disclosed in the Class Action
Reporter edition last Feb. 4, 2005, shortly after Judge Stack
took over as the court's asbestos judge, he criticized out-of-
state asbestos cases. He called them "cash cows" for the county,
for the filing fees they produce.

Judge Fiss stated that creating the registry would allow serious
cases to be reached first. Cases placed on the registry will be
dealt with once these meet certain criteria, which are based on
the American Bar Association's Standard for Non-Malignant
Asbestos-Related Disease Claims, adopted in 2003. Cases filed
before Dec. 20, 2004, when the court held a hearing to decide to
move forward with the plan creating the registry, will stay on
the active docket.

"My order simply mirrors what's already happened in New York
City, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Cook County (Ill.), Madison
County and the federal system, which has created a registry for
non-mesothelioma cases," said Judge Fiss in his order.

A RAND Institute for Civil Justice study last year found that
almost 90 percent of recent claimants have no asbestos-related
illness or disability. About US$60 billion in damages have been
paid in asbestos cases since the 1980s, half of it to trial
lawyers. In 2003-04, 1,430 asbestos cases were filed in Madison
County, about four times more than in Cook County, which has
nearly 20 times the population, according to the Illinois Civil
Justice League.

Meanwhile, Rep. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) several weeks ago introduced
the Fairness in Asbestos Injury Resolution Act or HR 1360 to
create a US$140 billion national trust fund to pay asbestos
claims and reduce costly litigation. This act would make
asbestos dockets in Madison, St. Clair and other jurisdictions
around the country to dry up, as most cases would fall under the
trust fund provisions.

Commenting on the delays victims face due to clogged state
courts, Mr. Kirk said, "It is time to put patients ahead of
plaintiffs and dramatically reduce the cost of asbestos
litigation."

Judge Stack, who took over the Madison County asbestos docket
last August, said he has yet to read the proposed bill and even
then, he would have plenty of considerations. "I think it's
another of those areas where, before we create a new
bureaucracy, we need to look hard to see if it will have the
desired effect," Judge Stack said.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: More SA Deaths Linked to Home Renovations
--------------------------------------------------------------
As Health Department figures show that there are more South
Australian asbestos victims now than ever before, more deaths
are being linked to exposure during home renovations. This group
of victims was almost non-existent five years ago.

From an average of eight people reported to suffer from the
illness in 1977, it now peaks at more than 50 annually, bringing
the figure to a total of 742 South Australians diagnosed with
the asbestos-related cancer mesothelioma. Only Western Australia
has a higher rate of mesothelioma per capita than SA.

SA Asbestos Victims Association secretary Terry Miller said
renovators from the 1970s and their children were now starting
to develop the respiratory disease, which took about 30 years to
develop. Thousands of properties, including schools, office
buildings, houses and Housing Trust properties contain the
carcinogenic asbestos, which can be dangerous if disturbed
without care.

Asbestos law firm, Slater and Gordon, says renovators are the
"third wave" of asbestos victims, following miners and
manufacturers.

Jane McDermott, an asbestos specialist with the firm, said about
30 percent of the firm's current clients were exposed in the
home, often to asbestos sheeting made at the James Hardie
factory at Elizabeth after 1960.

Law firm Turner Freeman is representing 10 South Australians who
are dying of mesothelioma after being exposed to asbestos while
renovating.

Tanya Segelov, a partner in the firm, said, "Up to a quarter of
mesothelioma cases would now be home renovation cases. When we
were doing this work 10 years ago it was all workers. It's not
so much the asbestos in the industry now that will kill people
it's the asbestos in the home."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: US Chamber Seeks Probe of Fraudulent Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Marking a new business offensive against asbestos injury claims,
the head of the US Chamber of Commerce has asked the Justice
Department to investigate "compelling evidence of fraud" in
suits filed across the country, Reuters reports.

"I request that the Department of Justice immediately open a
formal investigation into the conduct of lawyers, doctors and
others who are responsible for the explosion in meritless and
abusive asbestos claims across the country in recent years,"
wrote Tom Donohue, the group's president, in a letter to
Attorney General Albert Gonzales.

Partly as a result of the congressional interest in asbestos
claims, "considerable evidence has come to light indicating the
existence of substantial and systematic fraud in asbestos
litigation," the chamber noted.

The Chamber points to recent testimony in a Texas federal court
regarding silica litigation, where several doctors openly
disclaimed their prior findings. Last month, those doctors
testified that they had diagnosed silicosis, a respiratory
disease, in patients they never met. Some of those same doctors
also diagnosed asbestosis in thousands of other cases.

The group cited an independent study published in the academic
journal of Johns Hopkins School of Medicine last year. After
reviewing 492 X-rays, only 4.5% showed abnormalities. But
medical experts who testified in behalf of plaintiffs found
abnormalities in 90% of those same X-rays. The researchers cast
serious doubt on whether hundreds of chest X-rays offered as
evidence in asbestos injury lawsuits were properly interpreted
by radiologists.

"This and other evidence of fraud in asbestos litigation is an
issue of national importance because the litigation has already
involved the payment of more than US$70 billion in judgments or
settlements and driven more than 70 companies into bankruptcy,"
the Chamber said in a press release.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: WA Jury Orders $242T Ruling for Mill Worker
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Seattle jury delivered a US$242,500 verdict in favor of Ernest
Coulter, a 75-year old Port Hadlock paper mill worker with
asbestosis, and his wife, LeRose (Ernest Coulter and Lerose
Coulter v. ACandS, Inc. et al., 2005, Case No. 01-2-34675-0SEA,
King County Superior Court, WA). Mr. Coulter was diagnosed with
asbestosis, a scarring of the lung linings from exposure to
asbestos, in June 2000.

Mr. Coulter worked at the paper mill of Crown Zellerbach, also
known as Port Townsend Paper Co., in Port Townsend, WA from 1946
through 1992. During this time, he was exposed to various
asbestos dryer felts. Among his many duties, Mr. Coulter
assisted with the changing of dryer felts on paper machines.

Asten Johnson manufactured and distributed asbestos-containing
dryer felts, which were used inside large paper machines during
the paper-making process. The dryer felts were made from woven
asbestos yarn. Today, dryer felts are made with new synthetic
yarns and fabrics, rather than with asbestos yarn. Huge rolls of
felts are run through paper machines daily.

Dryer felt machine records showed that Port Townsend Paper used
Asten asbestos dryer felts during the years that Mr. Coulter
worked there. Mr. Coulter's counsel showed that the felts
contained asbestos, and that Mr. Coulter's work with the felts
was a substantial factor in causing his asbestosis. The jury
rejected the defendant's claims that the felts did not release
asbestos into the air, that they did not degrade, and that any
released asbestos was washed away.

Gilbert L. Purcell of the Novato, California office of Brayton
Purcell, and Zachary Herschensohn of the law firm's Portland,
Oregon office, represented Mr. Coulter.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Find at AU Bay Draws Quick Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
After the Environmental Protection Agency confirmed the material
discovered on the shore of the bay near Corio Quay was asbestos,
the city is now working with the Department of Sustainability
and Environment to establish management authority for the site.

Gary Hayes, a fisherman, discovered the dangerous building
material, which is believed to have been at the site for about
50 years. He found about 25 square meters of asbestos clearly
exposed on the foreshore behind International Malting Company
Australia while fishing. He said about 2,000 people have
probably walked past the site, including many kids who fish
there.

The EPA investigated the area and confirmed the corrugated
material was asbestos, but passed the clean-up job on to the
City of Greater Geelong. At DSE's request, the city has arranged
for a local contractor to secure the site immediately.

"What is even more important is to ensure that the site is
secured in terms of public safety," Sustainable Development
general manager Stuart Walker said.

Lee Grainger from North Shore's Asbestos Clear Away said the
asbestos should be cleaned up straight away. He said, "It's
probably all broken up in small parts, and that's when it's
dangerous. With all the stuff in the open, the wind blows by it
and it causes problems."

Mr. Grainger, who cleans up dumped asbestos about 25 times a
year, said asbestos is often dumped illegally since a license
would be required to take the material to a public rubbish tip.

Department spokesman Doug Miller said the area has been used
over generations as a dumping ground for unwanted material such
as asbestos.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Aid Launches Free Service Campaign
----------------------------------------------------------------
A free service campaigning for law reforms and medical research
into the effects of asbestos poisoning will be launched in
Stratford this week. Research has cited Newham as one of the
capital's blackspots with some of the highest numbers of
asbestos-related deaths in the UK.

Asbestos Aid's first meeting was held at the University Of East
London, in Duncan House, Stratford High Street.

The campaign has been set up to help the victims of asbestos and
their families. The launch will include free advice on
compensation issues, social security benefits, Government
compensation schemes and support agencies.

A spokesman said, "With evidence now indicating that the UK is
on the verge of an asbestos epidemic [British Medical Journal],
victims need support more than ever. To exacerbate the problem,
it can take 50 years for the symptoms of asbestos disease to
reveal themselves, making claims against former employers that
much harder."

The spokesman said that workers, including laggers, factory
workers, electrical engineers and men employed in the dockyard
have died due to the ignorance and negligence of their
employers. He emphasized that the perception concluding that
asbestos strictly afflicts blue-collar workers is wrong; victims
have also included doctors, teachers and even children.

For more information on the service call Andrew Morgan on
0800 358 5581 or visit http://www.asbestosaid.co.uk.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ASARCO Files Chapter 11 to Slow Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
To deal with asbestos-related claims, several of Tucson, AZ-
based ASARCO Inc.'s non-operational and dormant subsidiaries
have filed Chapter 11 proceedings. The filing subsidiaries
include Lake Asbestos of Quebec Ltd., which was sold in 1989,
and CAPCO Pipe Company Inc., which was sold in 1994, Dow Jones
reports.

ASARCO, the U.S. unit of Mexican diversified mining firm Grupo
M‚xico S.A. de C.V. (Mexican: GMEXICOB), said in a press release
that the filing in Corpus Christi, Texas, would not affect
customers, suppliers, employees or any of its operational units.

Although both businesses were discontinued, ASARCO says they
face personal injury claims stemming from the widespread
"asbestos crisis" of the late 1990s.

"In order to dispose of thousands of claims in an expeditious
and fair manner, Asarco has turned to the congressionally
authored solution, and will seek a permanent injunction under
section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code in which all asbestos-
related claims will be channeled to a trust for an equitable
resolution and payment," the Company said.

Section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code gives temporary protection
to parent companies from asbestos-related personal injury claims
against their subsidiaries. All claims have to be heard at the
same court.

Grupo Mexico, which has operations in Mexico, Peru and the U.S.,
is the world's third-largest copper producer. Its subsidiary,
ASARCO, is a leading miner, refiner, and smelter of various
malleable metals. ASARCO's mines are primarily in the
southwestern US.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Alfa Laval Faces 175 Suits in the 4th Qtr.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alfa Laval Inc., the US unit of Sweden-based Alfa Laval AB, was
as of Dec. 31, 2004, named as co-defendant in a total of 175
asbestos-related lawsuits with about 13,800 plaintiffs. The
Richmond, VA-based firm, which manufactures specialized
equipment, believes these claims have no merit and intends to
vigorously contest each lawsuit.

During the fourth quarter 2004, Alfa Laval Inc. was named as co-
defendant in an additional 29 lawsuits with about 50 plaintiffs.
In the same period, the Company resolved 12 lawsuits involving
about 680 plaintiffs. In addition, Alfa Laval has been dismissed
from the proceedings in respect of 840 plaintiffs in ongoing
multiple plaintiffs lawsuits.

Meanwhile, the pending claims of about 5,700 plaintiffs in
Mississippi were, during the fourth quarter 2004, transferred to
a federal court in Pennsylvania responsible for asbestos
matters. The transferred claims are in addition to the claims of
522 plaintiffs, which were previously transferred to the same
federal court. The court will administratively treat these
claims as inactive unless the plaintiffs are able to demonstrate
that they have been injured by asbestos. Alfa Laval will treat
these claims as effectively dismissed, although it cannot be
ruled out that one or more of the claims might be reinstated.

Alfa Laval Inc. has insurance coverage for the asbestos-related
claims under a large number of insurance policies issued by
several insurance companies. Primary insurance policies issued
in favor of Alfa Laval Inc. provide for coverage of defense
costs. Most of these insurance carriers have confirmed that they
will, taken together, provide coverage for a substantial
majority of the costs arising from the claims. Alfa Laval is in
the process of negotiating settlement agreements with certain of
its insurance carriers. These negotiations primarily relate to
the extent of coverage and the documentation concerning the
existence of certain insurance policies.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Owens-Illinois Ends 2004 with 35,000 Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturer of packaging products Owens-Illinois Inc. (NYSE:
OI) estimates that at the beginning of 2004, the Company had
29,000 pending asbestos-related claims. Around 9,000 claims were
disposed but another 15,000 were filed. That brings the year-end
figure of pending claims at 35,000. These suits name the Toledo,
OH-based Company along with a number of defendants and are filed
in various state and federal courts by persons alleging bodily
injury or death as a result of exposure to asbestos fibers.

From 1948 to 1958, one of the Company's former business units
commercially produced and sold about US$40 million of a high-
temperature, calcium-silicate based pipe and block insulation
material containing asbestos. The traditional asbestos personal
injury lawsuits and claims relating to such production and sale
of asbestos material allege various theories of liability,
including negligence, gross negligence and strict liability and
seek compensatory and in some cases, punitive damages in various
amounts.

Based on an analysis of the claims and lawsuits pending as of
Dec. 31, 2004, about 94% of plaintiffs and claimants either do
not specify the monetary damages sought or, in the case of court
filings, claim an amount sufficient to invoke the jurisdictional
minimum of the trial court. About 5% of plaintiffs specifically
plead damages of US$15 million or less. Less than 1% of
plaintiffs specifically plead damages greater than US$15 million
but less than US$100 million. Less than 1% of plaintiffs
specifically plead damages US$100 million or greater but less
than US$123 million.

Owens-Illinois Inc. is also a defendant in other asbestos-
related lawsuits or claims involving maritime workers, medical
monitoring claimants, co-defendants and property damage
claimants.

Since receiving its first asbestos claim, the Company, as of
Dec. 31, 2004, has disposed of the asbestos claims of about
315,000 plaintiffs and claimants at an average indemnity payment
per claim of about US$6,200. Certain of these dispositions have
included deferred amounts payable over periods ranging up to
seven years. Deferred amounts payable totaled about US$91
million and are included in the foregoing average indemnity
payment per claim.

Beginning with the initial liability of US$975 million
established in 1993, Owens-Illinois Inc. has accrued a total of
about US$2.85 billion through 2004, before insurance recoveries,
for its asbestos-related liability.

Owens-Illinois Inc. expects that the total asbestos-related cash
payments will be moderately lower in 2005 compared to 2004 and
will continue to decline thereafter as the preexisting but
presently unasserted claims withheld under the claims handling
agreements are presented to Owens-Illinois Inc. and as the
number of potential future claimants continues to decrease.

In the fourth quarter of 2004, Owens-Illinois Inc. recorded a
charge of US$152.6 million (US$84.9 million after tax) to
increase its accrued liability for asbestos-related costs. This
amount was significantly reduced from the 2003 charge due in
part to its decision to conduct a comprehensive review annually.

The Company's reported results of operations for 2004 were
materially affected by the US$152.6 million fourth-quarter
charge and asbestos-related payments continue to be substantial.
However, the Owens-Illinois Group believes that its operating
cash flows and other sources of liquidity will be sufficient to
fund its asbestos-related payments and to fund the Group's
working capital and capital expenditure requirements on a short-
term and long-term basis.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Metropolitan Life's Settlements Hit $85.5M
---------------------------------------------------------------
One of the U.S.'s largest insurers, Metropolitan Life Insurance
Co. is a defendant in thousands of lawsuits seeking compensatory
and punitive damages for personal injuries allegedly caused by
exposure to asbestos or asbestos-containing products. At the end
of 2004, asbestos personal injury claims totaled about 108,000,
23,500 of which represented new claims. Settlement payments
during 2004 reached US$85.5 million.

According further to the regulatory filing submitted to the
Securities and Exchange Commission, Metropolitan Life asserted
that it has never engaged in the business of manufacturing,
producing, distributing or selling asbestos or asbestos-
containing products nor has it issued liability or workers'
compensation insurance to companies in the business of asbestos
or asbestos-containing products. Rather, these lawsuits
principally have been based upon allegations relating to certain
research, publication and other activities of one or more of the
Company's employees during the period from the 1920s through
about the 1950s and have alleged that Metropolitan Life learned
or should have learned of certain health risks posed by asbestos
and, among other things, improperly publicized or failed to
disclose those health risks. Metropolitan Life believes that it
should not have legal liability in such cases.

Legal theories asserted against Metropolitan Life have included
negligence, intentional tort claims and conspiracy claims
concerning the health risks associated with asbestos. Although
it believes it has meritorious defenses to these claims, and has
not suffered any adverse monetary judgments in respect of these
claims, due to the risks and expenses of litigation, almost all
past cases have been resolved by settlements.

In the past three years, trial courts in California, Utah,
Georgia, New York, Texas, and Ohio granted motions dismissing
claims against Metropolitan Life. Other courts have denied
motions brought by the Company to dismiss cases without the
necessity of trial.

Bankruptcies of other companies involved in asbestos litigation,
as well as advertising by plaintiffs' asbestos lawyers, may be
resulting in an increase in the cost of resolving claims and
could result in an increase in the number of trials and possible
adverse verdicts. Plaintiffs are seeking additional funds from
defendants, including Metropolitan Life, in light of such
bankruptcies by certain other defendants. In addition, publicity
regarding legislative reform efforts may result in an increase
or decrease in the number of claims.

Metropolitan Life increased its recorded liability for asbestos-
related claims by US$402 million from about US$820 million to
US$1,225 million at December 31, 2002. This total recorded
asbestos-related liability was within the coverage of the excess
insurance policies.

The foregone loss reimbursements were about US$8.3 million with
respect to 2002 claims, US$15.5 million with respect to 2003
claims and are estimated to be US$10.2 million with respect to
2004 claims and estimated to be about US$54 million in the
aggregate, including future years.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ameron Corp.'s Injury Claims Down to 14,873
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ameron International Corp. (NYSE: AMN) divulged in the filing it
submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission that as of
Feb. 27, 2005, it was a defendant in asbestos-related cases
involving 14,873 claimants, compared to 18,298 claimants as of
November 30, 2004. For the quarter ended Feb. 27, 2005, there
were new claims involving 1 claimant, dismissals or settlements
involving 3,426 claimants and no judgments. The Company incurred
no net costs and expenses for this quarter in connection with
asbestos-related claims.

The Pasadena, CA-based pipe manufacturer is one of numerous
defendants in various asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits.
These cases generally seek unspecified damages for asbestos-
related diseases based on alleged exposure to products
previously manufactured by the Company and others. At this time,
the Company is generally not aware of the extent of injuries
allegedly suffered by the individuals or the facts supporting
the claim that injuries were caused by the Company's products.

Based upon the information available to it at this time, the
Company is not in a position to evaluate its potential exposure,
if any, as a result of such claims. Hence, no amounts have been
accrued for loss contingencies related to these lawsuits. The
Company continues to vigorously defend all such lawsuits.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Electrolux Faces 842 Asbestos-related Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
As of Dec. 31, 2004, there were 842 lawsuits pending against
Electrolux entities representing about 16,200 plaintiffs. During
2004, 457 new cases with about 5,600 plaintiffs were filed and
199 pending cases with about 10,500 plaintiffs were resolved.
About 15,100 of the plaintiffs relate to cases pending in the
State of Mississippi.

According further to the filing submitted by Aktiebolaget
Electrolux, the leading producer of household appliances, almost
all the cases relate to externally supplied components used in
industrial products manufactured by discontinued operations of
the Company prior to the early 1970s. Many of the cases involve
multiple plaintiffs who have made identical allegations against
many other defendants who are not part of the Sweden-based
Electrolux Group.

Electrolux believes its predecessor companies may have had
insurance coverage applicable to some of the cases during some
of the relevant years. Electrolux is currently in discussions
with those insurance carriers.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Maine Court Orders Remand of Case V. Viacom
----------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court of Maine on Feb. 22, 2005 ruled to remand the
case filed by the widow of a former pipefitter against Viacom
Inc., including other defendants.

Case No. CIV. 04-219-P is a wrongful death and products
liability claim stemming from workplace exposure to asbestos
that the defendant companies manufactured and supplied to Bath
Iron Works Corp., the husband's former employer.

Marie Snowdon, acting as her husband Frederick Snowdon's
executor, claimed that Viacom was guilty of negligence in
producing and supplying asbestos-containing products to Bath
Iron Works. She said that this was in violation of a duty owed
to Mr. Snowdon to provide a product not unreasonably dangerous
and to exercise reasonable care in the production and marketing
of such products.

In response, Viacom cited the government contractor defense,
sometimes referred to as the military contractor defense. From
records describing the particular asbestos-insulated turbines
and components that Mr. Snowdon may have been exposed to, Viacom
pointed out that these were manufactured and supplied by its
predecessor-in-interest, Westinghouse Electric Corporation.
Viacom subsequently filed a notice of removal on Oct. 12, 2004.

In support of its notice of removal, Viacom submitted two
affidavits. Those affidavits reflect that the turbines
Westinghouse constructed and supplied to the Navy for the
vessels on which Mr. Snowdon worked were constructed in
accordance with navy regulations and specifications. The
construction process itself was subject to the ongoing control,
direction and oversight of the Navy.

Mrs. Snowdon contended that Viacom Inc. did not timely file its
notice of removal. She also argued that Viacom failed to
establish that it or Westinghouse Electric Corp. was acting
under a federal officer. She said that Viacom couldn't prove
that the Navy "ordered Westinghouse to use asbestos thermal
insulation or controlled any warnings given by Westinghouse in
connection with the sale or use of its product."

Magistrate Judge Margaret J. Kravchuk concluded that the removal
petition was timely filed since it came 28 days after Viacom
received the supplemental interrogatory response, but fails to
establish that this court has jurisdiction under Sec.
1442(a)(1), the federal officer removal statute.

The affidavit of Roger B. Home, Jr., a retired Rear Admiral of
the United States Navy, reflected that turbine design,
construction, repair and inspection were subject to Navy
control, oversight, and monitoring, including on-site inspection
of Westinghouse's turbine manufacturing facility in Sunnyvale,
California.

Judge Kravchuk stated that Viacom failed to highlight anything
in either the Home affidavit or the exhibits attached to the
affidavit that demonstrates that any Navy contracts -- or
regulations or specifications incorporated into any Navy
contract -- required the utilization of asbestos insulation in
conjunction with turbine construction. She therefore concluded
that Viacom failed to carry its burden of proving that
Westinghouse was acting under a federal officer or agency when
it incorporated asbestos into its products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Trust Fund Proposal Stalled for Refinements
----------------------------------------------------------------
In anticipation of clinching the deal on legislation to
compensate asbestos victims and finally putting an end to
liability lawsuits, shares of companies facing these claims
soared. However, Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter now
clarified that the bill would take a one-week hiatus.

Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the highest-ranking Democrat on
the Judiciary Committee, had earlier expressed support of a
draft asbestos trust fund bill, which Sen. Specter circulated
early Tuesday. Since both Republicans and Democrats would
require time to read the 400-page bill, Sen. Specter said talks
would resume the following week to resolve any technical
changes. He stressed that these are only refinements and do not
involve any of the core principles of the bill.

Sen. John Cornyn said one issue that needs to be decided on is
what to do with the victims while the fund is being set up.
These people could either be allowed to continue to pursue
compensation through the legal system or wait for the
establishment of the trust fund. Even with these issues, he
believes however, that the committee is "moving in the right
direction."

The proposed bill seeks to create a US$140 billion industry-
funded trust fund from which to compensate workers with
asbestos-related injuries while ending their rights to sue.
Exposure to asbestos has been linked to various respiratory
diseases, including a rare cancer called mesothelioma. Injury
claims have driven around 70 companies into bankruptcy and
threatening many more.

Among the affected companies, W.R. Grace & Co (GRA) closed the
trading day up 32% at US$10.63, USG Corp. (USG) surged 25% to
close at US$43.90, and Owens Corning (OWENQ.OB) rocketed 85% to
close at US$4.68.

Sen. Specter has exerted tremendous effort to get bipartisan
support for his plan, saying this was needed to secure the 60
votes required to overcome Senate procedural hurdles.
Republicans have echoed business concerns that the bill might
not finally cap their asbestos liability, while Democrats have
expressed worries the fund might run out of money.

During negotiations, insurers lost a significant battle in final
negotiations on the bill, with Sen. Specter deciding that awards
from the trust fund won't be offset by the amount of awards
given to workers from other sources -- such as workers'
compensation benefits.

Democrats also agreed to cap attorney's fees in the trust funds
awards to between 5% to 10%, depending on whether an appeal had
been filed.

Key Democrats have agreed to deny awards to workers who had been
exposed to asbestos and developed lung cancer but had no other
signs of asbestos-related injuries.

Insurers and defendant corporations had objected to providing
awards to these workers, many of whom were smokers or ex-
smokers, because they may not have contracted their disease
strictly from asbestos. Sen. Specter said that as a general
rule, the legislation excludes from awards those who cannot
demonstrate that "their cancer was caused by asbestos."

Labor groups and defendant corporations also objected to a
provision allowing workers to re-open litigation if the trust
fund runs out of money.

Money saved by excluding those workers, estimated to be as much
as US$30 billion, will go back into the trust fund to provide
higher awards to those with greater injuries from asbestos.

"If we get out of the Judiciary Committee then I think there are
enough people interested [in the bill] on both sides of the
aisle to give it a good prospect for passage," said Sen. Cornyn.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Deal Reached to Include Montana's Victims
--------------------------------------------------------------
A provision to cover asbestos victims in Libby, MT will be
included in the version of the asbestos reform bill when it goes
before the Senate Judiciary Committee for review, said Barrett
Kaiser, an aide to Sen. Max Baucus.

As previously reported in the Feb. 4, 2005 edition of the Class
Action Reporter, a medical specialist and a law firm both
worried that the current asbestos trust fund bill would leave
out more than 90% of Libby's victims. Since the bill makes
payments based on the progression of lung disease caused by
exposure to chrysotile asbestos, Libby residents who were
exposed to tremolite asbestos released by the WR Grace
vermiculite mine will die before they reach the level of lung
damage required for payment under the act.

The current legislation, sponsored by Sen. Arlen Specter, R-
Penn., Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, ensures that Libby
residents who have suffered health problems caused by tremolite
asbestos will get at least US$400,000 in compensation, Mr.
Kaiser said.

"The reason this is a victory is that we got that stipulation in
the bill in the initial stages," explained Mr. Kaiser.

Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., the top democrat on the Senate Finance
Committee, has been withholding support for the legislation
unless it ensures Libby residents get the compensation and the
special attention they deserve.

In a written statement, Sen. Baucus said including Libby
residents in the legislation was vital because the previous
owner of the vermiculite mine, W.R. Grace and Co., has filed for
bankruptcy.

There are about 1,500 current and former Libby residents living
with asbestos-related disease. Hundreds have already died,
mostly from respiratory problems resulting from asbestos
contamination at Grace's vermiculite mine in Libby.

Tremolite asbestos is an especially dangerous form of the
mineral. The fibers can easily become embedded in the lungs and
cause such illnesses as asbestosis, a scarring of the lung
linings, and mesothelioma, a rare and lethal lung cancer.

In addition to ensuring asbestos victims in Libby receive
compensation, the measure exempts them from strict qualifying
criteria. It also extends compensation to family members and
Libby residents, not just former mine workers.

The provision also allows people to be compensated from the
asbestos trust fund as well as other sources such as Medicaid
and Medicare. It also gives Sen. Baucus the opportunity to
advance his proposal establishing a new Libby Health Care Fund.

The US$400,000 compensation award would go to victims diagnosed
with severe asbestosis. Those with disabling asbestosis would
get US$850,000, and patients with mesothelioma would be entitled
to US$1.1 million under the new provisions. Victims suffering
from lung cancer and asbestosis would be entitled to US$600,000
for smokers and US$1.1 million for nonsmokers.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CA Agency Recommends Road Resurfacing
----------------------------------------------------------
California's Department of Toxic Substances Control recommended
for some of its roads and driveways to be resurfaced after
health risks from broken serpentine containing asbestos fibers
became known.

The agency based its proposal on a 2002 study of a serpentine
gravel road near Garden Valley in northeastern El Dorado County.
After testing the air near Slodusty Road, it revealed there were
significant concentrations of airborne asbestos at all points
near the road whenever traffic was present. At those levels,
DTSC estimated the risk of cancer to be 3 in 1,000 five feet
from the road and 3 in 100,000 190 feet from the road.

Several months after, resurfacing of the road was done with
limestone aggregate. Further testing then showed that a 98%
reduction in airborne asbestos concentrations.

Serpentine, California's state rock, occurs naturally in 44 of
58 counties. The greenish rock contains asbestos, a carcinogenic
silicate mineral. Amphibole asbestos, which has been found in El
Dorado County, is particularly potent. When serpentine rock is
broken or crushed, it can release minute fibers that can lodge
deep in the lungs.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency considers stone
containing more than one percent of asbestos to be unsafe.
California law states serpentine gravel can't have more than
five percent asbestos.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: WA City Digs Up Debris to Clear Controversy
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amid a resurgence of asbestos dumping allegations, Vancouver
city officials are now hiring an environmental firm to check the
10-acre area, The Oregonian reports.

The work to begin in May is expected to put to rest charges that
Battle Ground city workers had dumped asbestos pipes, oil
barrels and other hazardous debris behind the town's Public
Works building. However, there remains the issue of whether city
officials responded adequately to reports that hazardous debris
was being dumped there as early as 1997. The city has no records
of what has been dumped behind the building, and notes and
photos of debris at the site taken eight years ago and given to
a city official are said to have been destroyed.

The Washington Department of Ecology is conducting a second
investigation of the site. In 2004, the department reviewed the
debris area and found a piece of asbestos pipe jutting from the
wetland. It reported its finding to the Southwest Clean Air
Agency, which fined the city US$1,100.

The Public Works Department has for years legally dumped broken
concrete, street sweepings and other non-hazardous materials in
it. But to prevent contamination, disposal of asbestos requires
a certified Company equipped to handle the material. Asbestos
can scar the lungs and cause lung cancer, according to the
American Lung Association.

Asbestos pipes were used by cities for years. Buried
underground, they pose no hazard to the public, but when they're
replaced or moved, fibers can be released into the air, said
Randy Peltier, operations manager for the Southwest Clean Air
Agency.

Although the piece of pipe found by the Department of Ecology on
the site posed little danger to nearby residents as it sat in
the wetland, Mr. Peltier said, workers and others could have
been in danger when it was moved to the site.

Sam Adams, Battle Ground Public Works director, who took over in
2002, said that the city responded to the dumping concerns with
an administrative investigation. He said that the city had
investigated improper waste disposal "to the maximum extent
possible."

In April 2004, Washington Department of Ecology compliance
specialist Pat Bailey visited the site after receiving an
anonymous call. She reported seeing big barrels tipped over,
truck batteries on the ground and evidence of a small amount of
sewage spilled in the area, in addition to the asbestos pipe,
which she reported to another agency. Ecology called on the
Clark County Health Department to assist, and neither agency
found enough evidence to warrant further scrutiny. Neither
agency took soil samples.

So far, drinking water tests show acceptable samples, but the
Washington Office of Drinking Water said it could take years for
contaminants to flow upstream as they would to reach the
drinking water wells in Battle Ground.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NATO Orders Tests at HQ After Asbestos Find
----------------------------------------------------------------
The North Atlantic Treat Organization ordered checks on its
Brussels headquarters after asbestos was found in the 1960s-era
building, Reuters reports. A full inquiry began on the express
orders of NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer.

NATO spokesman James Appathurai insisted there was no need of an
evacuation. He also stressed that there have been no recorded
cases of asbestos-related illnesses in the building.

Since these structures were built in a period when asbestos was
a commonly used material, Mr. Appathurai said he has no doubt
that more will turn up in the group's investigation. The
Brussels headquarters of the Transatlantic Alliance was
constructed in haste when it moved to Belgium in 1967 after
France withdrew from NATO's military structure.

While waiting for the results of the tests due in three months,
the areas where asbestos traces were found will be isolated from
the around 4,000 on-site staff. Asbestos was found in boiler and
electricity rooms and in the doorways.

Built during the Cold War as a temporary home, NATO's
headquarters in the northern Brussels suburb of Evere have been
in service for 35 years.

The discovery comes only months after the headquarters of the
European Commission reopened after years of reconstruction when
its Berlaymont building was found to be riddled with asbestos in
1991. While the EU Commission was keen to get back into its
landmark star-shaped Berlaymont building, the fate of NATO's
unloved HQ is less clear should any health risk be confirmed.

NATO is planning to move into a new headquarters near its
current suburban location, but construction work has not yet
started and it won't be ready before 2012.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Veterans Urge Senate to Pass Asbestos Bill
---------------------------------------------------------------
Three seniors organizations earlier this week sent a letter to
all members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, urging them to
adopt a trust find solution to the current broken system. They
lamented the long wait for court dates, saying that those with
terminal asbestos-related illnesses mostly die without ever
receiving any compensation.

The Seniors Coalition, RetireSafe, and 60 Plus Association
jointly wrote, "A trust fund solution is the only solution that
will guarantee that sick victims receive certain and timely
compensation."

These groups assert that since the seniors dominated the
workforce at a time when asbestos was commonly used for
fireproofing and insulation, a large number suffer from
asbestos-related diseases.

The seniors groups urged the senators not to let this important
legislation be influenced by trial lawyers and other special
interests. Under the current system, they wrote that as much as
60% of the awards goes to legal fees. Approving the bill would
ultimately eliminate lawyer profiteering, allowing victims and
their families to get the funds they deserve.

The bill is expected to include an industry-financed trust fund
worth US$140 billion that would pay asbestos claims on a no-
fault basis, and take the current backlog of asbestos cases out
of the court system.

"Sick asbestos victims simply can't wait any longer for a
solution to this growing crisis," the groups said.

Meanwhile, the plan has picked up an important labor endorsement
from the United Auto Workers, one of the largest labor unions in
North America. Its legislative director Alan Reuther sent a
letter to all U.S. senators expressing its support of the plan,
which the union believes will "provide more equitable, timely
and certain compensation to the victims of asbestos-related
diseases."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Derbyshire Asbestos Disposal Given Go-Ahead
----------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos disposal will be allowed to proceed on a site in South
Derbyshire even after more than 80 nearby residents had opposed
the move. Developers reasoned it will be far less risky than
transporting the dangerous material across the country by road.

Engineering firm Roger Bullivant is gradually demolishing the
former Drakelow power station. It intends to store asbestos
waste from the cooling towers under the old turbine hall 500
meters away.

The six cooling towers have asbestos lining, creating around
30,000 tons of waste, which is currently taken by road to a
special landfill site on Tyneside. The former power station is
next to the engineering Company's own site near Burton.

County council planners, who have imposed a range of safety and
environmental conditions, insisted that it is the best option.

The Jan. 21, 2005 edition of the Class Action Reporter had
revealed that councilors had weighed two options. If the waste
remains at Drakelow, the asbestos will be stored permanently in
an airtight vault. If not, it will be carried along public
highways to Tyneside.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lawmakers Weigh Merits of Senate Bill 15
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nearly two years after legislature failed to pass a law curbing
lawsuits seeking damages for asbestos-related diseases, a
committee of state senators began discussing a bill this week
that would place new limits on these lawsuits.

Current law doesn't restrict people from seeking damages for
injuries related to asbestos or silica exposure. Senate Bill 15
would require people who claim they became sick from asbestos to
present detailed medical evidence before filing a suit. They
would need to undergo a series of tests finding lung damage. It
also broadens a trial judge's ability to dismiss such cases.

If a filed claim doesn't meet the criteria, the trial court must
dismiss the claim at the defendant's request.

SB 15 also calls for two other changes that are being applauded
by consumer advocates. It would remove the two-year time limit
that people have to file suit after being diagnosed with
asbestosis. It would also prohibit insurance companies from
denying health insurance to someone diagnosed with asbestosis.

N. Alex Winslow, executive director of the nonprofit consumers'
group Texas Watch, said the new law would deny legal recourse to
people afflicted with either lung cancer or asbestosis from
exposure to asbestos. He believes this law is influenced by
special interests and by insurance companies to take away the
rights of consumers in Texas.

However, another nonprofit group Texans for Lawsuit Reform
disagrees. Spokesman Ken Hoagland said the proposed changes
would not harm those with legitimate damage, but would prevent
those with frivolous claims from getting very far.

Sen. Kyle Janek authored the Senate version of the bill, which
Winslow said was almost identical to the House version penned by
State Rep. Joe Nixon (R-Houston). State Sen. Mike Jackson sits
on the committee discussing the bill.

Sen. Janek said, "This is as much about protecting Texas
businesses from going bankrupt as it is about protecting Texas
workers and their health."

If the measure is passed, it would take effect in September. The
new standards would apply to all suits that haven't gone to
trial within 90 days. The Texas Trial Lawyers Association calls
this "retroactivity" as unconstitutional. The group also said
the flow of lawsuits has shrunk and there's no need to tighten
judicial access

More asbestos-related lawsuits were filed in Texas than any
other state from 1988 to 2000; thousands are pending.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: British Rail Worker Dies of Mesothelioma
-------------------------------------------------------------
A former British Rail employee died of cancer caused by exposure
to asbestos, an inquest heard earlier this week in Derby
Coroner's Court.

Derek Trelfa, aged 66, of Locko Road, Spondon, died at the
Macmillan Continuing Care Unit in London Road, Derby, on Jan. 4,
2005. He worked for British Rail between 1954 and 1964 before
working for various other firms.

According to a statement written by Mr. Trelfa in September
2003, he was of the firm conviction that he was exposed to
asbestos while working for British Rail.

Dr. Rahul Deb, a consultant pathologist at Derbyshire Royal
Infirmary, carried out the post-mortem examination. He told the
court that there was evidence of asbestos.

Derby and South Derbyshire deputy coroner Dr Turlough Farnan
recorded a verdict that Mr. Trelfa died of the industrial
disease malignant mesothelioma, a rare form of lung cancer.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Health Chief Urged to Subsidize Cancer Drug
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Asbestos Diseases Society is pressuring Australian Federal
Health Minister Tony Abbott to expand the Pharmaceutical
Benefits Scheme to include a drug that helps alleviate suffering
in people with mesothelioma, ABC NewsOnline reports.

Alimta (Pemetrexed) extends the life expectancy of patients with
malignant pleural mesothelioma an average of 12 months, compared
with six to eight months on existing treatments. It has been
shown to manage symptoms, reduce pain and treat shortness of
breath. However, the cost of the drug is said to be prohibitive
for most people.

The president of the Asbestos Diseases Society in Perth, Robert
Vojakovic, said he has written to Mr. Abbott reminding him of a
promise he made in the lead up to the last federal election.

"Last year when he was on the election trail he made
unbelievable election promises, pledging some $20 million to
asbestos diseases and cancer treatments and post-election he
totally forgot about it," he said.

"A full treatment, which is about six months or a little bit
longer, would cost about $20,000. On PBS it would cost, for the
full treatment, I guess about $1,000," added Mr. Vojakovic.

Mr. Vojakovic is urging the health minister to take the matter
seriously, stating that about 3,000 people die each year from
asbestos diseases and that this number will likely escalate and
continue for another 20 years.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Firm's Owners Serve Jail Sentence
---------------------------------------------------------------
Convicted last December of massive asbestos fraud, the father
and son tandem, Raul and Alexander Salvagno, only reported to
federal prison in Orange County this week after a federal judge
allowed them several months to tend to ailing relatives and get
their affairs in order.

Alex, aged 38, owner of AAR Contractor of Latham, began serving
a sentence of 25 years, while his father Raul, 72, began serving
19 years, the longest terms ever handed out for environmental
crimes in the United States. They are at the Federal
Correctional Institute in Otisville, a medium-security prison
for men. They were also ordered to pay US$25 million in fines
and restitution.

Raul and Alexander Salvagno were convicted in March 2004 for
directing a cleanup scam in their asbestos removal business that
put people at more than 1,500 locations at risk. Former
employees testified during a five-month trial that the Company
did "rip and run" cleanups and falsified as many as 75,000
tests.

Efforts are under way to seize assets owned by the Salvagnos.
Raul Salvagno and his wife, Susan, sold their Florida home, and
Susan Salvagno is now in a Saratoga County nursing home.

In December, the Salvagnos filed a notice of appeal. The family
and friends contend their sentence was too harsh. They vowed to
continue to support the Salvagnos, including raising money for
the appeal.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: OR Court Favors Mechanic V. Muffler Makers
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Oregon on Feb. 9, 2005 reversed a
ruling, which had granted summary judgment in favor of multiple
defendants who were manufacturers and suppliers of mufflers
containing asbestos.

On Oct. 23, 2000, Patricia Keller and her husband, Lawrence, an
automobile mechanic, brought the product liability action
against PA-based building products maker, Armstrong World
Industries Inc., including other companies. Mrs. Keller also
sought compensation based on loss of consortium.

The trial court ruled that since Mr. Keller knew that he was
suffering from an asbestos-related illness before October 1998,
his action to file was untimely. In deciding on its reversal,
the Court of Appeals held that the statute of limitations faced
a dispute on whether the mechanic actually discovered the cause
of his disease more than two years before filing the action.

Lloyd F. Leroy, Novato, CA, argued the cause for the Kellers.

Alan Gladstone, Portland, argued the cause for respondent Borg-
Warner Automotive, Inc., and Thomas W. Sondag, Portland,
represented the respondent Tenneco Automotive Operating Company,
Inc.

The case was argued before Chief Judge David Brewer, and Judges
Edmonds, Landau, Haselton, Armstrong, Linder, Wollheim, Schuman,
and Ortega, and Judge Pro Tempore Deits.

Mr. Keller worked as an automobile mechanic beginning in the
early 1960s. He specialized in muffler and exhaust work; part of
the time he owned a small muffler business. At that time, it was
common for mufflers to be wrapped in asbestos. As a result, he
was exposed to asbestos when he replaced old, crumbling
mufflers. He also worked for a Company that made mufflers. Part
of his job involved cutting sheets of asbestos and wrapping them
around muffler cores, again exposing him to asbestos fibers. In
addition, Mr. Keller was exposed to exhaust fumes on the job and
was a smoker.

Court records indicate that Borg-Warner Automotive, Inc., and
Tenneco Automotive Operating Company, Inc., manufactured or
supplied some of the mufflers on which Mr. Keller worked.

In the early 1980s, Mr. Keller began experiencing shortness of
breath. In 1986, he saw Dr. Patterson, a pulmonologist, who
diagnosed interstitial lung disease. He performed a bronchoscopy
that showed mild interstitial fibrosis and black lung but no
asbestos bodies. Dr. Patterson did not tell Mr. Keller that
asbestos exposure was the cause of his lung problems, but he did
indicate that asbestos might be the cause.

In 1991, Mr. Keller was referred to Dr. Kintz because of
continuing lung problems. After conducting an examination and
reviewing pulmonary function studies and a chest x-ray, Dr.
Kintz noted that the he had "a ten-year history of restrictive
lung disease related to prior asbestos or muffler fume
exposure."

In December 1991, Mr. Keller filed an application for social
security disability benefits. In November 1992, Dr. Kintz
supported the claim, stating that he had pulmonary fibrosis but
he did not indicate a cause of that condition.

In 1993, Mr. Keller visited the emergency room at Providence
Medical Center because of abdominal pain. The chart notes from
that visit indicate that, in discussing his medical history with
the examining physician, Mr. Keller reported that he was being
treated for asbestosis.

While Mr. Keller had surgery for an aortic aneurysm in 1994, he
saw Dr. Patterson again for a preoperative evaluation. In that
evaluation, the doctor stated that Mr. Keller had interstitial
lung disease, but the cause remained uncertain. He noted that
tests indicated no asbestos exposure.

Later in 1994, Mr. Keller submitted a "reconsideration
disability report" in connection with his application for social
security disability benefits. Dr. Kintz had advised him that,
because of his "asbestos lungs" and psychological problems
related to his illness, he should not try to carry on his
regular work duties.

In January 1995, Mr. Keller filed a claim for workers'
compensation benefits, asserting that he had "asbestos lung"
from exposure to asbestos from manufacturing and installing
exhaust systems. As part of the evaluation of that claim, Mr.
Keller was referred to Dr. Smith for examination. After
reviewing the medical records and chest x-rays spanning a 20-
year period, he concluded that plaintiff's condition was not
asbestos-related.

In 2000, Dr. Schaumberg, a pulmonologist, reviewed CT scans of
plaintiff's chest performed in August and November 1999, as well
as the results of plaintiff's pulmonary function tests. In a
letter to plaintiff's attorney, Dr. Schaumberg wrote that Mr.
Keller "clearly has a[n] interstitial lung disease with a
restrictive pulmonary defect. Given his history of asbestos
exposure, the most likely etiology is because of asbestosis."

The defendants argued that the Kellers' legal action was barred
by the applicable statute of limitations. However, the Court of
Appeals held that in light of conflicting evidence, there is a
genuine issue of material fact as to when Mr. Keller knew or
should have known that he had an asbestos-related disease.
Because of this point, it said the trial court erred in granting
summary judgment.


ASBESTOS ALERT: Asbestos Scare Erupts at Aussie Defense Training
----------------------------------------------------------------
A counter-terrorism exercise in a disused Melbourne building led
to an asbestos scare after police and defense personnel
accidentally dislodged the material, possibly releasing fibers
into the air.

Professional consultants, however, made an assessment of the
situation right away and effectively contained the asbestos. The
exercise at the inner-north building near Smith Street, in
Collingwood, was part of the National Counter-Terrorism
Committee's nationwide training program.

Commander Dennis Henry said, "Victoria Police have been advised
by professional consultants that the site poses minimal risk to
the community."

The training ran for four days at the Collingwood site and at
the Victoria Police Academy in Glen Waverley, in suburban
Melbourne. Commander Henry said the exercise aimed to assess
police officer's ability to work with other agencies during a
security threat.

"Exercises of this nature need to be as realistic as possible
and with that comes certain risks," he said.


ASBESTOS ALERT: CT School District Faces 11 Asbestos Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Connecticut's Department of Health slapped Amity Regional School
District with 11 asbestos violations almost a year after its
asbestos-remediation program.

Division of Environmental Health Director Ellen Blaschinski
wrote that the district failed to keep accurate records
regarding its asbestos management plan and that it did not
inspect the newly purchased modular classrooms for middle school
students and freshmen. According to this letter sent in
February, the district failed to notify parents, teachers and
employees of inspection and surveillance efforts.

Another item that did not meet Occupational Safety and Health
Administration requirements was a warning that the district
posted on a suspect boiler at Amity Junior High in Orange. It
was a small handwritten sign that read, "warning, asbestos."

According to the notice of noncompliance, the Department of
Public Health said that the district failed to identify the
person responsible for asbestos monitoring between 1997 and
October 2003. It also reprimanded the district for not having
inspection reports from 1996 available, that it couldn't find
records of parent and teacher annual asbestos notifications, and
for failing to conduct periodic surveillance in each building
that it owns after 1993.

The letter did suggest, however, that Amity officials may have
felt that notifications and surveillance wasn't necessary
because the district believed its buildings were free of the
hazardous material.

The Department of Public Health told the New Haven Register that
it has contacted the state attorney general for possible
"enforcement options," but it would not comment further on the
alleged violations.

The district had until April 13 to respond to the violations.


ASBESTOS ALERT: IA Resident Sued Over Environmental Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Iowa Attorney General's Office filed an environmental
lawsuit over violations involving the handling of asbestos,
wastewater and solid waste in Clinton County. The suit asks the
court to order R. Victor Hanks, aged 84, and Mobile Ward L.C. to
pay US$22,250 in penalties already ordered by the Iowa
Department of Natural Resources for the violations at Buffalo
Bill Estates, located near Folletts, Iowa.

Alleged asbestos-handling violations include failure to inspect,
clean up and remove asbestos-containing material. The lawsuit
claims junk trailers were brought to the site and burned,
leaving metal, ash, frames and debris that included asbestos in
the burn pile.

The suit also asks the court to issue a permanent injunction
against Mr. Hanks, of Moline, that would prevent further
violations and impose civil penalties.

The attorney general's office claims a sewage wastewater lagoon,
which leads to a tributary of the Wapsipinicon River, was
discharging continuously, rather than being operated as a
controlled-discharge lagoon with only periodic discharge. It
also claims the lagoon was poorly maintained, and the facility
failed to retain a certified operator and comply with other
wastewater monitoring and reporting requirements.

The lawsuit claims large quantities of construction debris,
garbage, discarded appliances and abandoned trailers have been
dumped illegally at the site for several years.


ASBESTOS ALERT: British Leyland Workers Urged to Monitor Health
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amid reports of a rising number of asbestos-related illnesses
afflicting former workers, thousands previously employed at the
British Leyland plant in Bathgate are urged to have health
checks to ensure they are clear of symptoms. It is widely
believed this could lead to a flood of compensation claims from
ex-BL staff and their families.

The former truck, tractor and van assembly factory employed more
than 6,000 people before it closed in 1986. Workers at the
factory's B-Block, which was never sealed off, are at particular
risk since the area was exposed to contamination from dust
particles swept through the heat treatment area. It was where
pipefitters carried out repairs on gaskets made from asbestos.

Four employees, who were diagnosed with asbestos-related cancer
mesothelioma, are currently pursuing compensation from the
Company. Specialist personal injury solicitor Thompsons is
representing these employees in their claim to get around
GBP50,000 in compensation for each victim.

One of the sufferers was 63-year-old Madalene Kerr. She worked
as a secretary with the firm for ten years since the 1960s and
claims she was exposed daily to the dangerous material. She had
a lung removed after being diagnosed with the illness 11 years
ago. She said the Company had never divulged the risks or gave
them any protective devices during her entire stay there.

Jim Swan, secretary of the West Lothian Trade Union Council,
said the new cases were "the past catching up with us. It can
take up to 40 years before the symptoms of mesothelioma show up
in people who were unfortunate enough to have breathed in the
fibers."

Mr. Swan recalled a dispute between the Pipefitters Trade Union
and the BL management in the 1970s. The union demanded to be
provided with respirators and protective clothes before they did
repair that would require them to handle asbestos products. The
management gave in but nothing was done about the rest of the
workers in the vicinity. It now appears that the emerging
victims comprise those who did not deal with the asbestos but
only breathed them in as they carried out their tasks in the
area.

Viv Towsey, coordinator of the Workers' Benefit Advice Project,
is encouraging everyone who is experiencing symptoms associated
with an asbestos-related disease to contact the group at Unity
House, 36 King Street, Bathgate immediately.


ASBESTOS ALERT: Ex-workers Sue IL Central Railroad Over Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eight former employees of the Illinois Central Railroad are
filing a lawsuit against the Company for allegedly exposing them
to hazardous products, including asbestos, coal dust, and silica
dust, during the course of their jobs. Court records state that
the exposure caused them to contract various diseases and
injuries.

The lawsuits filed last week in Black Hawk County District Court
involve rail facilities Illinois Central had run in Waterloo,
Fort Dodge, Council Bluffs, Cherokee, Cedar Rapids, Sioux City,
Dubuque and Omaha, Neb. Dating back to 1851, it expanded service
from Illinois to much of the Midwest before merging with the
Canadian National Railway Company in 1999.

Canadian National isn't named in the lawsuits.

Plaintiffs who worked in Waterloo include Frank H. Eastman, 91,
Norman E. Andersen, 72, Roy D. Dishman, 78, Harold G.
Christeson, 78, Gerald D. McInville, 64, Gerald William Wagner,
75, Kenneth L. Newberry, 69, and Ralph R. Ewing, 73.

Most of the plaintiffs worked in more than one place during
their careers. They worked for Illinois Central during various
periods between 1942 to 1994 in jobs such as engineer,
boilermaker, telegraph operator, yardmaster. The brake shoes in
the rail cars and insulation around the steam pipes contained
asbestos.

Represented by attorney Thomas Staack of Waterloo, the
plaintiffs claimed that the Company failed to provide a safe
workplace and didn't furnish protective masks or proper
ventilation systems.

Court records show a number of the plaintiffs also filed
asbestos litigation lawsuits in U.S. District Court in Virginia
in 2003 and 2004 against manufacturers of asbestos-related
products.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

BLUE COAT: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C. initiated a lawsuit seeking
class action status in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of all persons who
purchased the publicly traded securities of Blue Coat Systems
(Nasdaq: BCSI) ("Blue Coat" or "the Company") between February
20, 2004 and May 27, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that Blue Coat and certain of its officers
and directors violated federal securities laws by issuing
material misrepresentations. Specifically, defendants announced
an unprecedented increase in sales and Blue Coat's first
profitable quarter. The defendants, knowing that gross margins
impact profitability, stated that gross margins would fall into
the range of 68 to 69% in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2004.
While defendants knew that their gross margin levels were
unrealistic, CEO NeSmith sold 127,877 shares for proceeds of
$5.57 million and CFO Verheeke sold 21,400 shares for proceeds
of $1,009,000.

On May 27, 2004, Blue Coat announced that its 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%. On this news, Blue Coat shares
plummeted $11.45 per share to close at $27.80 on May 28, 2004.
During the Class Period, Blue Coat traded as high as $65.71.

In the summer of 2004, the SEC launched an informal inquiry into
trading in Blue Coat's stock concerning the fourth quarter of
2004. On February 28, 2005, the SEC subpoenaed two unidentified
Company executives to testify. Recently, the SEC upgraded its
informal investigation to a formal investigation.

For more details, contact Wayne T. Boulton or Nancy A. Kulesa of
Schatz & Nobel by Phone: +1-800-797-5499 by E-mail:
sn06106@aol.com or visit their Web site: http://www.snlaw.net.


COLLINS & AIKMAN: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Suit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
LLP ("Lerach Coughlin") initiated a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York on behalf of purchasers of Collins & Aikman ("the Company")
(NYSE:CKC) common stock during the period between May 6, 2004
and March 17, 2005 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Collins & Aikman and certain of its
officers and directors with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. The Company supplies automotive interior
systems, including textile and plastic products, acoustics and
convertible top systems.

The Complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements concerning the
Company's financial performance. Specifically, the complaint
alleges that these statements were materially false and
misleading because defendants knew, but failed to disclose
and/or misrepresented:

     (1) that Collins & Aikman was materially overstating its
         financial results by engaging in improper accounting
         practices. As detailed in the complaint, Collins &
         Aikman has admitted that its prior financial reports
         are materially false and misleading and has announced
         that it is going to restate its results for the first
         three quarters of 2004 and possibly other periods. The
         Company has admitted that it was improperly accounting
         for supplier rebates;

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

     (3) that as a result of the foregoing, the values of the
         Company's revenue and net income were materially
         overstated at all relevant times.

Then, on March 17, 2005, Collins & Aikman issued a press release
announcing that it had initiated an internal review of how it
was accounting for supplier rebates. This review revealed that
the Company was prematurely or inappropriately recognizing
revenue. Due to the review, the Company expects to restate its
results for the nine months ended September 30, 2004 to reflect
the correct accounting for these rebates and is continuing to
evaluate whether a restatement of its 2003 results will be
necessary. The Company expects to reduce its previously reported
operating income by $10 - $12 million for the nine months ended
September 30, 2004. Upon this news, shares of the Company's
stock fell $0.39 per share, or over 30%, to close at $1.24 per
share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

For more details, contact Samuel H. Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld
of Lerach Coughlin by Phone: 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058 by E-
mail: wsl@lerachlaw.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.lerachlaw.com/cases/collinsaikman/.


ELECTRONIC ARTS: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Lawsuit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
LLP ("Lerach Coughlin") initiated a class action in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California on
behalf of purchasers of Electronic Arts, Inc. ("Electronic
Arts") (NASDAQ:ERTS) publicly traded securities during the
period between December 6, 2004 and March 21, 2005 (the "Class
Period").

The complaint charges Electronic Arts and certain of its
officers and directors with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. Electronic Arts develops, markets,
publishes and distributes interactive software games.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
made false and misleading statements about Electronic Arts'
business and prospects. As a result of the defendants' false
statements, Electronic Arts stock traded at inflated levels
during the Class Period, increasing to as high as $69.46 on
March 9, 2005, allowing the Company's top officers and directors
to sell more than $56 million worth of their own shares at
inflated prices. Specifically, the complaint alleges that during
the Class Period defendants knew but concealed from the
investing public the following adverse facts:

     (1) the Company was experiencing a dramatic adverse trend
         in the Company's sales of its holiday releases;

     (2) the Company's internal sales reports were revealing
         that contrary to growth, the Company was actually
         experiencing year-over-year decline in revenue and
         market share in the Company's Q4 2005 (this followed
         similar results in Q3 2005);

     (3) due to a lack of game consoles (which were necessary
         for utilizing defendants' products) defendants knew
         that consumer demand would dramatically deteriorate
         while the Company's public forecasting actually called
         for increasing sales growth; and

     (4) as a result, the Company's claim of achieving Q4 2005
         earnings per share growth reaching $1.82-$1.87 per
         share was materially overstated.

On March 21, 2005, Electronic Arts announced "revised estimates
for the Company's fiscal year ending March 31, 2005," stating
that the "changes are primarily the result of lower than
expected sales in both North America and Europe." For its year
ending March 31, 2005, Electronic Arts revealed that it now
expected earnings per share between $1.62 and $1.64, badly
missing its prior guidance of $1.82 to $1.87. The Company's
revenue projections were also reversed and lowered to between
$3.100 billion and $3.125 billion, from between $3.275 billion
and $3.325 billion. In response to these revelations, the
Company's shares fell $11.20 per share, to close at $55.15 per
share.

For more details, contact Samuel H. Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld
of Lerach Coughlin by Phone: 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058 by E-
mail: wsl@lerachlaw.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.lerachlaw.com/cases/electronicarts/.


GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: Charles J. Piven Lodges Stock Lawsuit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
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 and ADRs of
GlaxoSmithKline plc (NYSE: GSK) between February 21, 2001, and
August 5, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against defendant GlaxoSmithKline
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 the Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven,
P.A. by Phone: The World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt
Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore, Maryland 21202 by Phone:
410/986-0036 or by E-mail: hoffman@pivenlaw.com.


GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C. initiated a lawsuit seeking
class action status in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons who
purchased the publicly traded securities of GlaxoSmithKline plc
(NYSE: GSK) ("GlaxoSmithKline") between February 21, 2001 and
August 5, 2004 (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that GlaxoSmithKline violated federal
securities laws by issuing false or misleading public
statements. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that
GlaxoSmithKline improperly concealed deficiencies with its
selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor ("SSRI") drug, Paxil, in
treating adolescent depression. On August 5, 2004, The Wall
Street Journal published an article that reported that a new
analysis by the FDA had confirmed the link between SSRIs
(including Paxil) and suicidal tendencies in young people.

For more details, contact Wayne T. Boulton or Nancy A. Kulesa of
Schatz & Nobel by Phone: +1-800-797-5499 by E-mail:
sn06106@aol.com or visit their Web site: http://www.snlaw.net.


GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Lawsuit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Stull, Stull & Brody initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, against GlaxoSmithKline plc
("GlaxoSmithKline" or the "Company") (NYSE:GSK), on behalf of
purchasers of the publicly traded securities of GlaxoSmithKline
between February 21, 2001 and August 5, 2004, inclusive (the
"Class Period").

The complaint alleges that GlaxoSmithKline violated federal
securities laws by issuing false or misleading public
statements. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that
GlaxoSmithKline improperly concealed deficiencies with its
selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor ("SSRI") drug, Paxil, in
treating adolescent depression. On August 5, 2004, the Wall
Street Journal published an article that reported that a new
analysis by the FDA had confirmed the link between SSRIs
(including Paxil) and suicidal tendencies in young people.

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 visit their Web site: http://www.ssbny.com.


MOSSIMO INC.: Brualdi Law Lodges Suit in DE Over Proposed Buyout
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Brualdi Law Firm initiated a class action lawsuit on behalf
of all public common stockholders of Mossimo, Inc. ("Mossimo" or
the "Company") (Nasdaq:MOSS).

The action is pending in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware against the Company and its directors; Brett White,
Robert Martini, William R. Halford, Edwin G. Lewis, and Mossimo
G. Giannulli ("Defendants").

The Complaint seeks to enjoin a proposed buyout by the Company's
founder, Mossimo G. Giannulli, of the outstanding shares of the
Company's common stock not currently owned by him for a price of
$4.00 per share in cash.

For more details, contact Richard B. Brualdi, Esq. or Gaitri
Boodhoo, Esq. of The Brualdi Law Firm by Mail: 29 Broadway,
Suite 2400, New York, NY, 10006 by Phone: (212) 952-0602 or by
E-mail: rbrualdi@brualdilawfirm.com.


NEFF CORPORATION: Brualdi Law Launches Fiduciary Lawsuit in DE
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Brualdi Law Firm initiated a class action lawsuit on behalf
of all public common stockholders of Neff Corporation, ("Neff or
the "Company") (Pink Sheets:NFFCA).

The action is pending in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware against the Company, its directors (Jorge Mas, Jose R.
Mas, Juan Carlos Mas, and Steven D. Scheiwe), and Odyssey
Investment Partners, LLC ("Odyssey").

The Complaint alleges that the Company's directors, aided and
abetted by Odyssey, breached their fiduciary duties to Neff's
public common stockholders by causing the Company to enter into
a definitive agreement under which an affiliate of Odyssey will
acquire the equity of Neff for $240.5 million, less expenses
incurred in connection with the transaction, and pursuant to
which the Company's existing management will retain a
significant stake in the resulting private Company.

For more details, contact Richard B. Brualdi, Esq. or Gaitri
Boodhoo, Esq. of The Brualdi Law Firm by Mail: 29 Broadway,
Suite 2400, New York, NY, 10006 by Phone: (212) 952-0602 or by
E-mail: rbrualdi@brualdilawfirm.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  * * *