CAR_Public/050420.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, April 20, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 77

                         Headlines

AIRSPAN NETWORKS: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Lawsuit Settlement
AMERICAN HONDA: Recalls 220T ATVs Due To Crash, Injury Hazard
AMERICAN PHARMACEUTICALS: Plaintiffs Withdraw Securities Suits
AMERICAN PHYSICIANS: MI Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit
ARKANSAS: Bentonville School Board Asked To Approve $1.9M Deal

ATHEROGENICS INC.: Shareholders Lodge Securities Suits in NY, GA
BA-2003 LIMITED: Tenants File IL Suit Over Mold, Fungus Growth
CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Continues To Face CA Energy Antitrust Suits
CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Two State Suits Removed To TX Federal Court
COCA-COLA CO.: Settles SEC Charges Over Japanese Gallon Pushing

COSI INC.: Seeks Dismissal of Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
CROSS COUNTRY: Employees Launch CA Wage Law Violations Lawsuit
CROSS COUNTRY: Plaintiffs Withdraw Securities Fraud Suits in FL
COCA-COLA CO.: Settles SEC Charges Over Japanese Gallon Pushing
eFUNDS CORPORATION: FL Court Stays Proceedings in Privacy Suit

FLORIDA: County Reaches $4.5M Settlement For Strip-Search Suit
HUB INTERNATIONAL: JPMDL Transfers Insurance Fee Lawsuits To NJ
HUB INTERNATIONAL: Law Firm Launches Consumer Fraud Suit in IL
MAYTAG CORPORATION: Firms Settle IL Suit Over Defective Machines
MEDSTAFF INC.: Employees Launch CA Wage Law Violations Lawsuit

MICROSOFT CORPORATION: MD Judge Dismisses CA Antitrust Claims
NETGEAR INC.: Consumers Launch Two Fraud Lawsuits in CA Court
NETGEAR INC.: Reaches Settlement in 4Q2004 For Consumer Lawsuit
PURINA MILLS: Recalls Deer Feed Due To Monensin Sodium Content
RELIANT ENERGY: TX Court Grants Certification To Securities Suit

RELIANT ENERGY: Plaintiff Withdraws ERISA Fraud Suit in S.D. TX
RELIANT ENERGY: 45 Claims Remain in Franchise Fee Lawsuit in TX
SEASPECIALITIES, INC.: FDA Extends Alert On Nova Salmon Products
SOUTH AFRICA: Congo Refugees Set To Receive Foster Care Grants
SUPPORTSOFT INC.: Shareholders Lodge Securities Suits in N.D. CA

TEXAS GENCO: Forges Settlement For TX Suit V. CenterPoint Merger
UNITED STATES: Appeals Court Reinstates Lawsuit V. Vatican Bank
VISTEON CORPORATION: Shareholders Launch Stock Fraud Suit in MI

               Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences

                  New Securities Fraud Cases

BLUE COAT: Berman DeValerio Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CA
CITIGROUP GLOBAL: Sauer & Wagner Lodges Securities Lawsuit in CA
COLLINS & AIKMAN: Federman & Sherwood Lodges Stock Lawsuit in MI
DELPHI COPRORATION: Berger & Montague Lodges ERISA Lawsuit in MI
PETCO ANIMAL: Lerach Stoia Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in CA

SHARPER IMAGE: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Fraud Suit in CA
SHARPER IMAGE: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CA
VEECO INSTRUMENTS: Goodkind Labaton Lodges Amended NY Stock Suit
WATCHGUARD TECHNOLOGIES: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Stock Suit in WA

                           *********

AIRSPAN NETWORKS: 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 Airspan
Networks, Inc., certain of the underwriters of its initial
public offering, and:

     (1) Eric D. Stonestrom (President and Chief Executive
         Officer),

     (2) Joseph J. Caffarelli (former Senior Vice President and
         Chief Financial Officer),

     (3) Matthew Desch (Chairman) and

     (4) Jonathan Paget (Executive Vice President and Chief
         Operating Officer)

On and after July 23, 2001, three Class Action Complaints were
filed.  These suits were later consolidated.  The Consolidated
Amended Complaint, which is now the operative complaint, was
filed on April 19, 2002. The complaint alleges violations of
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for
issuing a Registration Statement and Prospectus that contained
materially false and misleading information and failed to
disclose material information.

In particular, Plaintiffs allege that the underwriter-defendants
agreed to allocate stock in the Company's initial public
offering to certain investors in exchange for excessive and
undisclosed commissions and agreements by those investors to
make additional purchases of stock in the aftermarket at pre-
determined prices. The action seeks damages in an unspecified
amount.

This action is being coordinated with approximately three
hundred other nearly identical actions filed against other
companies. On July 15, 2002, the Company moved to dismiss all
claims against it and the Individual Defendants. On October 9,
2002, the Court dismissed the Individual Defendants from the
case without prejudice based upon Stipulations of Dismissal
filed by the plaintiffs and the Individual Defendants. This
dismissal disposed of the Section 15 and 20(a) control person
claims without prejudice, since these claims were asserted only
against the Individual Defendants. On February 19, 2003, the
Court dismissed the Section 10(b) claim against the Company, but
allowed the Section 11 claim to proceed.  

On October 13, 2004, the Court certified a class in six of the
approximately 300 other nearly identical actions. In her
Opinion, Judge Shira Scheindlin noted that the decision is
intended to provide strong guidance to all parties regarding
class certification in the remaining cases. Judge Scheindlin
determined that the class period for Section 11 claims is the
period between the IPO and the date that unregistered shares
entered the market. Judge Scheindlin also ruled that a proper
class representative of a Section 11 class must have purchased
shares during the appropriate class period; and have either sold
the shares at a price below the offering price or held the
shares until the time of suit. In two of the six cases, the
class representatives did not meet the above criteria and
therefore, the Section 11 cases were not certified.  Plaintiffs
have not yet moved to certify a class in the Airspan case.

The Company has approved a settlement agreement and related
agreements which set forth the terms of a settlement between it,
the Individual Defendants, the plaintiff class and the vast
majority of the other approximately 300 issuer defendants and
the Individual Defendants currently or formerly associated with
those companies.  Among other provisions, the settlement
provides for a release of the Company and the individual
defendants for the conduct alleged in the action to be wrongful.
The Company would agree to undertake certain responsibilities,
including agreeing to assign away, not assert, or release
certain potential claims it may have against its underwriters.
The settlement agreement also provides a guaranteed recovery of
$1 billion to plaintiffs for the cases relating to all of the
approximately 300 issuers. To the extent that the underwriter
defendants settle all of the cases for at least $1 billion, no
payment will be required under the issuers' settlement
agreement.  To the extent that the underwriter defendants settle
for less than $1 billion, the issuers are required to contribute
the difference.

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

The suit is styled "In re Airspan Networks, Inc. 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


AMERICAN HONDA: Recalls 220T ATVs Due To Crash, Injury Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------
In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC), American Honda Motor Co. Inc., of Torrance, California
is voluntarily recalling about 200,000 Honda 2004-2005 FourTrax
All-Terrain Vehicles (ATVs)

The steering rods can separate, causing the driver to lose
steering control. This could cause the ATV to crash and pose a
risk of serious injury or death. Honda has received 27 reports
of steering rod separation. No injuries have been reported.

The recall includes 2004-2005 FourTrax Honda ATVs. The ATVs are
red, olive, yellow or blue and have "Honda" written on the fuel
tank. The following models are included in recall:

Year = Model No. = Model Name = VIN Range
2004 = TRX350TE = Rancher ES = 478TE244*44300003 through
       478TE244*44310382
     = TRX350TM = Rancher= 478TE240*44300006 through
       478TE240*44310445
     = TRX350FE = Rancher 4x4 ES = 478TE254*44300010 through
       478TE254*44323289
     = TRX350FM = Rancher 4X4 = 478TE250*44300005 through
       478TE250*44315544
     = TRX400FA = Rancher AT = 478TE290*44000055 through
       478TE290*44019249
     = TRX400FGA = Rancher AT GPS = 478TE294*44000016 through
       478TE294*44008055

2005 = TRX250TE = Recon ES = 1HFTE214*54500014 through
       1HFTE214*54510334
     = TRX250TM = Recon = 1HFTE210*54500010 through
       1HFTE210*54509249
     = TRX350TE = Rancher ES = 1HFTE244*54400001 through
       1HFTE244*54412240
     = TRX350TM = Rancher = 1HFTE240*54400001 through
       1HFTE240*54410980
     = TRX350FE = Rancher 4x4 ES = 1HFTE254*54400001 through
       1HFTE254*54415180
     = TRX350FM = Rancher 4x4 = 1HFTE250*54400001 through
       1HFTE250*54416860
     = TRX400FA = Rancher AT = 1HFTE290*54100005 through
       1HFTE290*54115657
     = TRX400FGA = Rancher AT GPS = 1HFTE294*54100004 through
       1HFTE294*54103423
     = TRX500TM = Foreman = 1HFTE314*54000012 through
       1HFTE314*54002112
     = TRX500FM = Foreman 4x4 = 1HFTE310*54000015 through
       1HFTE310*54002715
     = TRX500FE = Foreman 4x4 ES = 1HFTE317*54000026 through
       1HFTE317*54003486
     = TRX500FA = Foreman Rubicon = 1HFTE260*54400010 through
       1HFTE260*54402169  
     = TRX500FGA = Foreman Rubicon GPS = 1HFTE264*54400012
       through 1HFTE264*54400555
     = TRX650FA = Rincon 4x4 = 1HFTE280*54000009 through
       1HFTE280*54011239
     = TRX650FGA = Rincon 4x4 GPS = 1HFTE284*54000002 through
       1HFTE284*54002521

The model numbers can be found on the identification label
located on the left side of the frame down tube. The VIN number
is stamped on the front side of the frame.

Manufactured in the United States, the ATVs were sold at Honda
motorcycle dealers nationwide from August 2003 through February
2005 for between $3,600 and $8,000.

Consumers should stop using the recalled ATVs immediately.
Registered owners of the vehicles will be notified directly by
American Honda about the recall. All recalled vehicles will be
repaired free of charge.

Consumer Contact: For more information, consumers should call
Honda toll-free at (866) 784-1870 between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m.
PT Monday through Friday, or visit their Web site:
http://www.powersports.honda.com.


AMERICAN PHARMACEUTICALS: Plaintiffs Withdraw Securities Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the securities class actions
filed against American Pharmaceutical Partners, Inc., four of
its officers and American BioScience, Inc. in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.  

The complaints allege violations of Section 10(b) and Section
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and rule 10b-5,
principally relating to purportedly false and misleading
statements made by the Company regarding ABRAXANE.  The action
alleges that defendants made materially false and misleading
statements with respect to the drug Abraxane, a reformulated
version of Taxol, under development for the treatment of breast
cancer. Throughout the Class Period, defendants touted Abraxane
as a safer and more effective alternative to Taxol, the world's
best-selling chemotherapy drug for cancer.


AMERICAN PHYSICIANS: MI Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Michigan dismissed the consolidated securities class action
filed against American Physicians Capital, Inc., its former
President and Chief Executive Officer, and its Chief Financial
Officer.

On December 30, 2003 an February 20, 2004, separate putative
shareholder class action complaints were filed, alleging
violations of federal securities laws for certain disclosures
made by the Company between February 13, 2003 and November 6,
2003 regarding its operating results and the adequacy of its
reserves.  The suits sought monetary damages in an unspecified
amount.

On March 23, 2004, the Court dismissed the first case and
entered an Order approving a lead plaintiff in the second case.
The lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint on May
7, 2004.  On June 28, 2004, the Company and the individual
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.  The motion
was successful and the complaint was dismissed with prejudice on
January 12, 2005, and no appeal was filed prior to the now
expired deadline.

The suit is styled "Kanner v. American Physicians Capital, Inc.,
et al, case no. 1:03cv914," filed in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Michigan, under Judge Gordon
J. Quist.  Representing plaintiff Richard Kanner, is Seth D.
Gould, Wienner & Gould, PC 1301 W Long Lake Rd, Ste 135 Troy, MI
48098-6336 USA Phone: (248) 267-6500 Fax: (248) 267-6536 Email:
Sgould@wiennergould.com.  Representing the Company is Lori
McAllister, Dykema Gossett PLLC (Lansing), 124 W Allegan, Ste
800 Lansing, MI 48933-1472 USA Phone: (517) 374-9100 E-mail:
Lmcallister@dykema.com


ARKANSAS: Bentonville School Board Asked To Approve $1.9M Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Bentonville School Board has been asked to approve a $1.9
million settlement in a class-action lawsuit involving Amendment
59, concluding a more than eight-year court battle, The Arkansas
Democrat-Gazette reports.

As previously reported in the April 14, 2005 edition of the
Class Action Reporter, the board had set out to review the
possible settlement in a lawsuit seeking refunds of over
collected property taxes.

Superintendent Gary Compton told the Democrat-Gazette that Board
members initially planned a special meeting within this week but
two members could not attend, thus the board will now review the
settlement during its regular monthly meeting.  The meeting is
scheduled for 5:30 p.m. in the Board of Education building.  In
a memo contained in the meeting agenda, Mr Crompton told the
board, "As difficult as it is for me to recommend this
settlement, I do believe the amount to be fair and
proportionate."

The settlement is connected to the class action lawsuit that
claims local school districts and governments violated Amendment
59 of the Arkansas Constitution by over collecting property
taxes.

As previously reported in the February 22, 2005 edition of the
Class Action Reporter, the suit was filed in 1997 and alleges
that property owners in Benton County were overtaxed. According
to Dale Evans, one of the attorneys who filed the suit, as soon
as it was filed, property taxes in the county were considered
"paid under protest" allowing them to be questioned in court.  
Taxes paid before then traditionally could not be challenged,
however attorneys are protesting that fact, and the state
Supreme Court in 2000 said they can pursue their argument: That
taxpayers had no way of knowing the assessments were illegal.

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

Mr. Evans told the Springdale Morning News that representatives
of the Bentonville School District tentatively agreed to a $1.9
million settlement.

The entities named in the suit were the cities of Rogers and
Lowell, Northwest Arkansas Community College, Benton County and
the school districts of Bentonville, Rogers, Siloam Springs and
Gravette. The school districts, city of Rogers, Benton County
and NWACC have settled.


ATHEROGENICS INC.: Shareholders Lodge Securities Suits in NY, GA
----------------------------------------------------------------
AtheroGenics, Inc. and some of its executive officers and
directors face several securities class actions filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York on January 5, 2005 and February 8, 2005 and in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia,
Atlanta division on January 7, 2005, January 10, 2005, January
11, 2005 and January 25, 2005.

The allegations in these lawsuits relate to the Company's
disclosures regarding the results of the CART-2 clinical trial
for AGI-1067.   The suits allege the Company misled the public
about AGI-1067's effectiveness.  The lawsuits seek damages for
violations of federal securities laws on behalf of all investors
who bought Company securities from after hours trading on
September 27, 2004 through and including December 31, 2004.  The
suits claim that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the rules and
regulations promulgated thereunder, including U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission ("SEC") Rule 10b-5, an earlier Class
Action Reporter story (January 13,2005) states.

The complaints also name as defendants:

     (1) Russell Medford, M.D., who was at all relevant times
         the Company's President, Chief Executive Officer, and
         Director;

     (2) Mark Colonnese, who at all relevant times served as the
         Company's Chief Financial Officer, Senior Vice
         President of Finance and Administration, and Secretary;
         and

     (3) Robert Scott, who at all relevant times served as
         Senior Vice President of Clinical Development and
         Regulatory Affairs and Chief Medical Officer

The first identified complaint is styled "Purisma Andrada, et
al. v. Atherogenics, Inc., et al., case no. 05-CV-00061," filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York.  The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

     (1) Berman, DeValerio, Pease, Tabacco Burt & Pucillo (MA),
         One Liberty Square, Boston, MA, 2109, Phone:
         617.542.8300, Fax: 617.230.0903, E-mail:
         info@bermanesq.com

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

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

     (5) Chitwood & Harley, 1230 Peachtree Street, N.E., 2900
         Promenade II, Atlanta, GA, 30309, Phone: 888.873.3999,

     (6) Dyer & Shuman, LLP 801 East 17th Avenue, Denver, CO,
         80218-1417, Phone: 303.861.3003, Fax: 800.711.6483, E-
         mail: info@dyershuman.com

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

     (8) Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (New York), One
         Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor, New York, NY, 10119,
         Phone: 212.594.5300, Fax: 212.868.1229, E-mail:
         info@milbergweiss.com

     (9) Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP, 275 Madison Ave 34th Flr,
         New York, NY, 10016 Phone: 212.682.1818, Fax:
         212.682.1892, E-mail: email@rabinlaw.com

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

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

    (12) Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC, 35 East State
         Street, Media, PA, 19063, Phone: 877.891.9880, E-mail:
         jshah@classactioncounsel.com

     (13) Wolf Popper, LLP 845 Third Avenue, New York, NY,
         10022-6689Ave Phone: 877.370.7703, Fax: 212.486.2093,
         E-mail: IRRep@wolfpopper.com
  

BA-2003 LIMITED: Tenants File IL Suit Over Mold, Fungus Growth
--------------------------------------------------------------
BA-2003 Limited Partnership and Independent Management Services,
the owners of the Bissel Apartments in Venice, Illinois face a
class-action suit filed in Madison County Circuit Court of
allowing mold and fungus to grow on their property, posing a
health hazard to residents, The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports.

The suit was filed on behalf of lead plaintiffs Kesha Manning
and her two minor children and Claude Taylor against owners.
Filed by the Alton law firm of Schrempf, Blaine, Kelly & Darr,
is also identifies additional plaintiffs who are "similarly
situated."  

According to the complaint, mold was on surfaces and airborne at
the complex. The management of the complex declined to comment
other than to say that 77 people reside there, the Post-Dispatch
reports.  The suit stipulates that all members of the class are
citizens of Illinois, that no class member is seeking damages in
excess of $75,000 and that the total of all damages does not
exceed $5 million.  Those elements would allow the suit to be
filed in a state court. Under a new law enacted in February,
class actions involving defendants from multiple states must be
filed in federal courts.


CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Continues To Face CA Energy Antitrust Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
CenterPoint Energy, Inc. continues to face a large number of
lawsuits filed in both federal and state courts in California
and Nevada in connection with the operation of the electricity
and natural gas markets in California and certain other western
states in 2000-2001, a time of power shortages and significant
increases in prices.  The suits also names other energy and
natural gas companies as defendants.

These lawsuits, many of which have been filed as class actions,
are based on a number of legal theories, including violation of
state and federal antitrust laws, laws against unfair and
unlawful business practices, the federal Racketeer Influenced
Corrupt Organization Act, false claims statutes and similar
theories and breaches of contracts to supply power to
governmental entities.  Plaintiffs in these lawsuits, which
include state officials and governmental entities as well as
private litigants, are seeking a variety of forms of relief,
including recovery of compensatory damages (in some cases in
excess of $1 billion), a trebling of compensatory damages and
punitive damages, injunctive relief, restitution, interest due,
disgorgement, civil penalties and fines, costs of suit,
attorneys' fees and divestiture of assets.

To date, some of these complaints have been dismissed by the
trial court and are on appeal, several of which dismissals have
been affirmed by the appellate courts, but most of the lawsuits
remain in early procedural stages. The Company's former
subsidiary, Reliant Resources, Inc. (RRI), was a participant in
the California markets, owning generating plants in the state
and participating in both electricity and natural gas trading in
that state and in western power markets generally.  RRI, some of
its subsidiaries and, in some cases, corporate officers of some
of those companies have been named as defendants in these suits.

The Company or its predecessor, Reliant Energy, have been named
in approximately 30 of these lawsuits, which were instituted
between 2001 and 2004 and are pending in California state courts
in Alameda County, Los Angeles County, San Francisco County, San
Mateo County and San Diego County, in Nevada state court in
Clark County, in federal district courts in San Francisco, San
Diego, Los Angeles, Fresno, Sacramento and Nevada and before the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. However, the Company,
CenterPoint Houston and Reliant Energy were not participants in
the electricity or natural gas markets in California.  The
Company and Reliant Energy have been dismissed from certain of
the lawsuits, either voluntarily by the plaintiffs or by order
of the court and the Company believes it is not a proper
defendant in the remaining cases and will continue to seek
dismissal from such remaining cases. On July 6, 2004 and on
October 12, 2004, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the Company's
removal to federal district court of two electric cases brought
by the California Attorney General and affirmed the federal
court's dismissal of these cases based upon the filed rate
doctrine and federal preemption.


CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Two State Suits Removed To TX Federal Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Two Texas State class actions filed against CenterPoint Energy,
Inc. with respect to rates charged to certain consumers of
natural gas in the State of Texas were removed to two separate
Texas federal courts.

In October 2002, a suit was filed in state district court in
Wharton County, Texas against the Company, CenterPoint Energy
Resources Corporation (CERC), Entex Gas Marketing Company, and
certain non-affiliated companies alleging fraud, violations of
the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, violations of the Texas
Utilities Code, civil conspiracy and violations of the Texas
Free Enterprise and Antitrust Act.  Subsequently the plaintiffs
added as defendants:

     (1) CenterPoint Energy Marketing Inc.,

     (2) CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Company,

     (3) United Gas, Inc.,

     (4) Louisiana Unit Gas Transmission Company,

     (5) CenterPoint Energy Pipeline Services, Inc., and

     (6) CenterPoint Energy Trading and Transportation Group,
         Inc.

The plaintiffs allege that defendants inflated the prices
charged to certain consumers of natural gas.

In February 2003, a similar suit was filed in state court in
Caddo Parish, Louisiana against CERC with respect to rates
charged to a purported class of certain consumers of natural gas
and gas service in the State of Louisiana.  In February 2004,
another suit was filed in state court in Calcasieu Parish,
Louisiana against CERC seeking to recover alleged overcharges
for gas or gas services allegedly provided by Southern Gas
Operations to a purported class of certain consumers of natural
gas and gas service without advance approval by the Louisiana
Public Service Commission (LPSC).

In October 2004, a similar case was filed in district court in
Miller County, Arkansas against the Company, CERC, Entex Gas
Marketing Company, CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Company,
CenterPoint Energy Field Services, CenterPoint Energy Pipeline
Services, Inc., Mississippi River Transmission Corp. and other
non-affiliated companies alleging fraud, unjust enrichment and
civil conspiracy with respect to rates charged to certain
consumers of natural gas in at least the states of Arkansas,
Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma and Texas.  

At the time of the filing of each of the Caddo and Calcasieu
Parish cases, the plaintiffs in those cases filed petitions with
the LPSC relating to the same alleged rate overcharges. The
Caddo and Calcasieu Parish cases have been stayed pending the
resolution of the respective proceedings by the LPSC. The
plaintiffs in the Miller County case seek class certification,
but the proposed class has not been certified.  In November
2004, the Miller County case was removed to the United States
District Court in Texarkana, Arkansas. In February 2005, the
Wharton County case was removed to the United States District
Court in Houston, Texas, and in March 2005, the plaintiffs in
the Wharton County case moved to dismiss the case and agreed not
to refile the claims asserted unless the Miller County case is
not certified as a class action or is later decertified.

The range of relief sought by the plaintiffs in these cases
includes injunctive and declaratory relief, restitution for the
alleged overcharges, exemplary damages or trebling of actual
damages, civil penalties and attorney's fees. In these cases,
the Company, CERC and their affiliates deny that they have
overcharged any of their customers for natural gas and believe
that the amounts recovered for purchased gas have been in
accordance with what is permitted by state regulatory
authorities.


COCA-COLA CO.: Settles SEC Charges Over Japanese Gallon Pushing
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission initiated an enforcement
action against The Coca-Cola Company relating to its failure to
disclose certain end-of-quarter sales practices used to meet
earnings expectations. Coca-Cola simultaneously agreed, without
admitting or denying the Commission's findings, to settle the
proceedings by consenting to a cease-and-desist order finding
violations of the antifraud and periodic reporting requirements
of the federal securities laws. Coca-Cola also voluntarily has
undertaken steps to strengthen its internal disclosure review
process to prevent future violations.
     
Richard Wessel, District Administrator of the Commission's
Atlanta District Office, stated, "MD&A requires companies to
provide investors with the truth behind the numbers. Coca-Cola
misled investors by failing to disclose end of period practices
that impacted the company's likely future operating results."
     
Katherine Addleman, Associate Director of Enforcement for the
Commission's Atlanta District Office, stated, "In addition,
Coca-Cola made misstatements in a January 2000 Form 8-K
concerning a subsequent inventory reduction and in doing so
continued to conceal the impact of prior end of period practices
and further mislead investors."
     
In its order, the Commission found that, at or near the end of  
each reporting period between 1997 and 1999, Coca-Cola  
implemented an undisclosed "channel stuffing" practice in Japan
known as "gallon pushing" for the purpose of pulling sales
forward into a current period. To accomplish gallon pushing's
purpose, Japanese bottlers were offered extended credit terms to
induce them to purchase quantities of beverage concentrate the
bottlers otherwise would not have purchased until a following
period. As Coca-Cola typically sells gallons of concentrate to
its bottlers corresponding to its bottlers' sales of finished
products to retailers, typically bottlers' concentrate inventory
levels increase approximately in proportion to their sales of
finished products to retailers.
     
However, as a result of gallon pushing, from 1997 to 1999, Coca-
Cola's Japanese bottlers' concentrate inventory levels increased
at a rate more than five times greater than that of finished
product sales to retailers. Gallon pushing pulled forward sales
from subsequent periods and made it likely that Coca-Cola's
bottlers would purchase less concentrate in subsequent periods.
This practice contributed approximately $0.01 to $0.02 to Coca-
Cola's quarterly earnings per share and was the difference in 8
out of the 12 quarters from 1997 through 1999 between Coca-Cola
meeting and missing analysts' consensus or modified consensus
earnings estimates. Despite the impact to current earnings and
the likely impact to future earnings, Coca-Cola failed to
disclose its gallon pushing practice in its periodic reports.
     
On Jan. 26, 2000, Coca-Cola filed a Form 8-K with the
Commission, which disclosed, among other things, a worldwide
concentrate inventory reduction planned to occur during the
first half of the year 2000. The impact on Coca-Cola's earnings
for the first and second quarter of 2000 was estimated to be
between $0.11 and $0.13 per share. The Form 8-K did not disclose
that more than $0.05 of the estimated earnings impact would be
attributable to an anticipated reduction of sales for Japan with
a corresponding gross profit impact more than five times greater
than that of any other operating division in the world.
     
In describing the inventory reduction, Coca-Cola stated that:
(a) "[t]hroughout the past several months, [Coca-Cola had]
worked with bottlers around the world to determine the optimum  
level  of bottler inventory;" (b) the management of Coca-Cola  
and its bottlers, specifically including bottlers in Japan, had
jointly determined "that opportunities exist to reduce  
concentrate inventory carried by bottlers;" and (c) certain
bottlers throughout the world, specifically including those in
Japan, had "indicated that they intend to reduce their inventory
levels during the first half of the year 2000."
     
The Commission found that these statements were false and
misleading because a review of inventory levels had not occurred
throughout the past several months but began, at the earliest,
in January 2000. Moreover, prior to the Form 8-K being filed,
bottlers were not aware of any planned inventory reduction. The
Form 8-K further is misleading in that, despite its language
describing the inventory reduction as a joint proactive
efficiency measure between Coca-Cola and its bottlers, the
inventory reduction was in fact solely a Coca-Cola initiative.
     
Although Coca-Cola's accounting treatment for sales made in
connection with gallon pushing was found to be without issue,
the Commission still found that Coca-Cola's failure to disclose
the impact of gallon pushing on current and future earnings, as
well as the false statements and omissions within the Form 8-K,
violated the antifraud and periodic reporting requirements of
the federal securities laws.
     
Ms. Addleman commented, "Prior to and during the investigation,
Coca-Cola took laudable and substantial steps to enhance and
strengthen its disclosure review process to prevent similar
failures from occurring in the future."
     
The Commission acknowledges the substantial assistance of the
U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Georgia, the
Atlanta Field Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and
the Japanese Financial Services Agency in the investigation of
Coca-Cola's conduct.


COSI INC.: Seeks Dismissal of Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cosi, Inc. asked the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York to dismiss the consolidated
securities class action filed against it, various of its
officers and directors and the underwriter of its IPO.

Nine suits were initially filed, alleging that the defendants
violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933, as amended, by misstating, and by failing to disclose,
certain financial and other business information.  These actions
have been consolidated in "In re Cosi, Inc. Securities
Litigation."

On July 7, 2003, lead plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended
Complaint, alleging on behalf of a purported class of purchasers
of Company stock allegedly traceable to its November 22, 2002
IPO, that at the time of the IPO, its offering materials failed
to disclose that the funds raised through the IPO would be
insufficient to implement the Company's expansion plan; that it
was improbable that the Company would be able to open 53 to 59
new restaurants in 2003; that at the time of the IPO, the
Company had negative working capital and therefore did not have
available working capital to repay certain debts; and that the
principal purpose for going forward with the IPO was to repay
certain existing shareholders and members of the Board of
Directors for certain debts and to operate the Company's
existing restaurants.  The plaintiffs in the Securities Act
Litigation generally seek to recover recessionary damages,
expert fees, attorneys' fees, costs of Court and pre- and post-
judgment interest.  

On August 22, 2003, lead plaintiffs filed a Second Consolidated
Amended Complaint, which was substantially similar to the
Consolidated Amended Complaint.  On September 22, 2003, the
Company filed motions to dismiss the Second Consolidated Amended
Complaint in the Securities Act Litigation. Plaintiffs filed
their opposition to the Company's motion to dismiss on October
23, 2003.  The Company filed reply briefs on November 12, 2003.

On July 30, 2004, the Court granted plaintiffs permission to
replead their complaint against the Company.  On September 10,
2004, plaintiffs filed their Third Consolidated Amended
Complaint.  Plaintiffs abandoned their claim that the Company
misled investors about its ability to execute its growth plans.  
Instead, plaintiffs claim that the Company's offering materials
failed to disclose that, at the time of the IPO, the Company was
researching the possibility of franchising its restaurants.

On October 12, 2004, the Company filed a motion to dismiss
plaintiffs' Third Consolidated Amended Complaint.  On November
19, 2004, plaintiffs filed their opposition to the Company's
motion to dismiss.  On January 11, 2005, the Company filed a
reply brief in further support of our motion to dismiss
plaintiffs' Third Consolidated Complaint.  The Company has
requested that the court hear an oral argument on the matter. If
the request for oral argument is granted, the judge will take
the arguments under submission.


CROSS COUNTRY: Employees Launch CA Wage Law Violations Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cross County TravCorps, Inc. faces a purported class action
captioned "Theodora Cossack, et. al. v. Cross Country TravCorps,
Inc. and Cross Country Nurses, Inc.," filed pending in the
Superior Court of the State of California, Orange County.  The
suit alleges, among other things, that the defendants failed to
pay plaintiffs, and the class they purport to represent,
properly under California law.

On August 26, 2003, Theodora Cossack and Barry S. Phillips,
C.P.A., filed suit, pleading causes of action for:

     (1) Violation of California Business and Professions Code
         Section 17200, et. seq;

     (2) Violations of California Labor Code Section 200, et.
         seq;

     (3) Recovery of Unpaid Wages and Penalties;

     (4) Conversion;

     (5) Breach of Contract;

     (6) Common Counts - Work, Labor, Services Provided; and

     (7) Common Counts - Money Had and Received

Plaintiffs, who purport to sue on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, allege that Defendants failed to pay
plaintiffs, and the class they purport to represent, properly
under California law.  Plaintiffs claim that defendants failed
to:

     (i) pay nurses hourly overtime as required by California
         law;

    (ii) failed to calculate correctly their employees' regular
         rate of pay used to calculate the rate at which
         overtime hours are to be compensated;

   (iii) failed to calculate correctly and pay a double time
         premium for all hours worked in excess of 12 in a
         workday;

    (iv) scheduled some of its employees on an alternative
         workweek schedule, but failed to pay them additional
         compensation when those employees did not work such
         alternative workweek, as scheduled;

     (v) failed to pay for missed meal and rest breaks; and

    (vi) failed to pay employees for the minimum hours
         defendants had promised them.

Plaintiffs seek (among other things) an order enjoining
defendants from engaging in the practices challenged in the
complaint; for an order for full restitution of all monies
Defendants allegedly failed to pay Plaintiffs (and their
purported class); for pre-judgment interest; for certain
penalties provided for by the California Labor Code; and for
attorneys' fees and costs.


CROSS COUNTRY: Plaintiffs Withdraw Securities Fraud Suits in FL
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed three class actions filed
against Cross Country Healthcare, Inc. in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Florida, namely:

     (1) Peter A. Cohen, individually and on behalf of all other
         similarly situated v. Cross Country Healthcare, Inc.,
         Joseph Boshart and Emil Hensel;

     (2) City of Ann Arbor Employees Retirement System v. Cross
         Country Healthcare, Inc., Joseph A. Boshart and Emil
         Hensel; and

     (3) Robert Husted and Marcella Husted, individually and on
         behalf of all other similarly situated v. Cross Country
         Healthcare, Inc., Joseph Boshart and Emil Hensel

The suits were filed in August 2004 on behalf of the plaintiffs
in those lawsuits and all other persons who acquired the
Company's Common Stock during the period October 25, 2001
through August 6, 2002.  The lawsuits were brought against
Joseph Boshart (President and CEO of Cross Country and a
director) and Emil Hensel (Chief Financial Officer of Cross
Country and a director) and the Company.

Plaintiffs in these lawsuits alleged, among other things, that
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by,
among other things, issuing public documents and statements that
were materially false and misleading concerning the Company's
business, operations and prospects which artificially inflated
the price of the Company's Common Stock.  The complaints further
alleged that:

     (i) defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that
         hospitals were hiring fewer of the Company's nurses;

    (ii) the shortage of nurses was no longer creating as strong
         a demand for temporary nurses; and

   (iii) the Company had problems with staffing orders being
         received from hospitals and then abruptly cancelled


COCA-COLA CO.: Settles SEC Charges Over Japanese Gallon Pushing
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission initiated an enforcement
action against The Coca-Cola Company relating to its failure to
disclose certain end-of-quarter sales practices used to meet
earnings expectations. Coca-Cola simultaneously agreed, without
admitting or denying the Commission's findings, to settle the
proceedings by consenting to a cease-and-desist order finding
violations of the antifraud and periodic reporting requirements
of the federal securities laws. Coca-Cola also voluntarily has
undertaken steps to strengthen its internal disclosure review
process to prevent future violations.
     
Richard Wessel, District Administrator of the Commission's
Atlanta District Office, stated, "MD&A requires companies to
provide investors with the truth behind the numbers. Coca-Cola
misled investors by failing to disclose end of period practices
that impacted the company's likely future operating results."
     
Katherine Addleman, Associate Director of Enforcement for the
Commission's Atlanta District Office, stated, "In addition,
Coca-Cola made misstatements in a January 2000 Form 8-K
concerning a subsequent inventory reduction and in doing so
continued to conceal the impact of prior end of period practices
and further mislead investors."
     
In its order, the Commission found that, at or near the end of  
each reporting period between 1997 and 1999, Coca-Cola  
implemented an undisclosed "channel stuffing" practice in Japan
known as "gallon pushing" for the purpose of pulling sales
forward into a current period. To accomplish gallon pushing's
purpose, Japanese bottlers were offered extended credit terms to
induce them to purchase quantities of beverage concentrate the
bottlers otherwise would not have purchased until a following
period. As Coca-Cola typically sells gallons of concentrate to
its bottlers corresponding to its bottlers' sales of finished
products to retailers, typically bottlers' concentrate inventory
levels increase approximately in proportion to their sales of
finished products to retailers.
     
However, as a result of gallon pushing, from 1997 to 1999 Coca-
Cola's Japanese bottlers' concentrate inventory levels increased
at a rate more than five times greater than that of finished
product sales to retailers. Gallon pushing pulled forward sales
from subsequent periods and made it likely that Coca-Cola's
bottlers would purchase less concentrate in subsequent periods.
This practice contributed approximately $0.01 to $0.02 to Coca-
Cola's quarterly earnings per share and was the difference in 8
out of the 12 quarters from 1997 through 1999 between Coca-Cola
meeting and missing analysts' consensus or modified consensus
earnings estimates. Despite the impact to current earnings and
the likely impact to future earnings, Coca-Cola failed to
disclose its gallon pushing practice in its periodic reports.
     
On Jan. 26, 2000, Coca-Cola filed a Form 8-K with the
Commission, which disclosed, among other things, a worldwide
concentrate inventory reduction planned to occur during the
first half of the year 2000. The impact on Coca-Cola's earnings
for the first and second quarter of 2000 was estimated to be
between $0.11 and $0.13 per share. The Form 8-K did not disclose
that more than $0.05 of the estimated earnings impact would be
attributable to an anticipated reduction of sales for Japan with
a corresponding gross profit impact more than five times greater
than that of any other operating division in the world.
     
In describing the inventory reduction, Coca-Cola stated that:
(a) "[t]hroughout the past several months, [Coca-Cola had]
worked with bottlers around the world to determine the optimum  
level  of bottler inventory;" (b) the management of Coca-Cola  
and its bottlers, specifically including bottlers in Japan, had
jointly determined "that opportunities exist to reduce  
concentrate inventory carried by bottlers;" and (c) certain
bottlers throughout the world, specifically including those in
Japan, had "indicated that they intend to reduce their inventory
levels during the first half of the year 2000."
     
The Commission found that these statements were false and
misleading because a review of inventory levels had not occurred
throughout the past several months but began, at the earliest,
in January 2000. Moreover, prior to the Form 8-K being filed,
bottlers were not aware of any planned inventory reduction. The
Form 8-K further is misleading in that, despite its language
describing the inventory reduction as a joint proactive
efficiency measure between Coca-Cola and its bottlers, the
inventory reduction was in fact solely a Coca-Cola initiative.
     
Although Coca-Cola's accounting treatment for sales made in
connection with gallon pushing was found to be without issue,
the Commission still found that Coca-Cola's failure to disclose
the impact of gallon pushing on current and future earnings, as
well as the false statements and omissions within the Form 8-K,
violated the antifraud and periodic reporting requirements of
the federal securities laws.
     
Ms. Addleman commented, "Prior to and during the investigation,
Coca-Cola took laudable and substantial steps to enhance and
strengthen its disclosure review process to prevent similar
failures from occurring in the future."
     
The Commission acknowledges the substantial assistance of the
U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Georgia, the
Atlanta Field Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and
the Japanese Financial Services Agency in the investigation of
Coca-Cola's conduct.


eFUNDS CORPORATION: FL Court Stays Proceedings in Privacy Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida stayed proceedings in the class action filed against
eFunds Corporation and other defendants, case pending the
decision by the Eleventh Circuit of Appeals in "Kehoe v.
Fidelity Federal Bank & Trust.

The complaint in this action alleges that the Company purchased
motor vehicle records from the State of Florida and used that
data for marketing and other purposes that are not permitted
under the Federal Driver's Privacy Protection Act.  The
plaintiffs are seeking liquidated damages of not less than
$2,500 for each affected member of a purported class, plus costs
and attorney's fees.  The plaintiffs are also asking for
injunctive relief to prevent further alleged violations of the
Federal Act.

In March 2004, the Company joined in a motion to dismiss this
case filed by a co-defendant and the Company filed its own
further motion to dismiss a portion of this case and a motion
for summary judgment in June 2004.  All of these motions are
pending before the Court.


FLORIDA: County Reaches $4.5M Settlement For Strip-Search Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Three women, who were strip searched after being arrested during
the 2003 free-trade protests, have forced Miami-Dade County to
end indiscriminate searches and to pay $4.5 million to settle a
class-action lawsuit, The Associated Press reports.  The
tentative settlement of the suit, which was filed by activists
Judith Haney, Liat Mayer and Jamie Loughner was signed recently
by U.S. District Judge Adalberto Jordan in Miami.

Terry Coble, president of the Greater Miami Chapter of the ACLU,
told The South Florida Sun-Sentinel, "Body cavity searches are
extremely violating for anyone but particularly for women."

According to the newspaper, which is published in Fort
Lauderdale, the terms of the settlement apply to those arrested
between March 5, 2000 and February 28, 2005, which could involve
up to 100,000 people, although many would get only $10.  
Court documents revealed that the women were arrested in 2003
during a Free Trade Area of the Americas meeting in downtown
Miami. The women claimed that while in county jail they were
invasively searched.

The practice, which the jail had been doing for years, didn't
come to the notice of the plaintiffs' lawyers until after police
arrested 234 people during the meeting. Randall Berg, executive
director of the Florida Justice Institute and a lawyer for the
women told the Sun-Sentinel, "That's how we found out about it,
the FTAA."

Miami-Dade County denied any wrongdoing and agreed to the
settlement because it's a favorable resolution, said Assistant
County Attorney Jeffrey Ehrlich. He also said that the county
has changed its procedures and agreed to comply with state law,
which bars jail officials from strip-searching people who have
been arrested for minor offenses unless the person is arrested
on a drug charge, is suspected of having contraband or is booked
on a violent offense. The law requires supervisors to give
written authorization for such a search.

Ms. Haney, 50, a project manager at a California biotech firm
told The South Florida Sun-Sentinel from Tampa that she felt
attacked when jail officials ordered her to take off her
clothes, bend over and hop as she was being booked. The
procedure is supposed to dislodge any hidden weapon or
contraband. "It was a small room with a door facing a hallway
where anyone on legitimate business could walk by and see me
naked," she said.

Four other plaintiffs later joined the three women. According to
the payout formula, the seven will divide $300,000.  Anyone
arrested on a charge dealing with violence, drugs or weapons
that was strip-searched without the approval of a supervising
officer is entitled to $10, according to the settlement.


HUB INTERNATIONAL: JPMDL Transfers Insurance Fee Lawsuits To NJ
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Federal Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPMDL)
transferred the class action filed against Hub International,
Inc. and 29 other insurance brokers and insurance companies to
the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.

In October 2004, the Company was named as a defendant in a class
action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court in New
York against 30 different insurance brokers and insurance
companies. The lawsuit alleges that the defendants used the
contingent commission structure to deprive policyholders of
"independent and unbiased brokerage services, as well as free
and open competition in the market for insurance."

In December 2004, the Company was also named as one of multiple
defendants in two identical class actions filed in the United
States District Court in Illinois, with allegations
substantially similar to those in the first case.  In January
2005, the Company was named as one of several defendants in a
third class action filed in the United States District Court in
Illinois, containing allegations substantially similar to those
in the first case and the other Illinois federal class actions.

In the complaints, plaintiffs allege, among other things, that
the defendants were involved in a scheme to manipulate the
market for commercial insurance by steering clients to the
insurer defendants for the purpose of obtaining undisclosed
additional compensation in the form of commissions from insurers
and by engaging in a bid-rigging scheme using false and/or
inflated bids from insurers to clients.  The plaintiffs allege
violations of federal and state antitrust laws, conspiracy and
violation of 18 U.S.C. 1962(c) and (d), fraudulent concealment,
misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment
and violation of state unfair and deceptive practices statutes.
The plaintiffs seek monetary relief, including treble damages,
an injunction, costs and other relief, an earlier Class Action
Reporter story (April 11,2005) reports.  

On February 17, 2005 the JPMDL transferred the first case as
well as three other class actions in which the Company is not
named to the District of New Jersey.  The Company expects that
the three class actions filed in the United States District
Court in Illinois will also be transferred to New Jersey.

The OptiCare suit is styled "In Re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust
Litigation, case no. 2:05-cv-01168-FSH," filed in the United
States District Court in New Jersey, under Judge Faith S.
Hochberg.  Representing the Company is Shawn Patrick Regan,
HUNTON AND WILLIAMS, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166 Phone:
212-309-1046.

Representing the plaintiffs are Joseph P. Guglielmo and Edith M.
Kallas, MILBERG WEISS BERSHAD & SCHULMAN LLP (NYC) One
Pennsylvania Plaza, New York NY 10119 Phone: 212-594-5300; and
Mark C. Rifkin, WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP, 270
Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016 Phone: 212 545-4600 E-mail:
rifkin@whafh.com.


HUB INTERNATIONAL: Law Firm Launches Consumer Fraud Suit in IL
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hub International, Inc. faces a class action filed in the
Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois.  The named plaintiff is
a Chicago law firm that obtained its professional liability
insurance through the Company's Chicago hub and claims that an
undisclosed contingent commission was received with respect to
its policy.

In a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the
Company denied this and the other allegations of the complaint
and said it intended to vigorously defend this case.

The suit is styled "Marren Hogan v. Hub International, Inc., et
al., case no. 2005-CH-01355," filed in the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois under Judge Philip L. Bronstein.  Representing
the plaintiff is NISEN & ELLIOTT, 200 W. Adams #2500, Chicago IL
60606, Phone: (312) 346-7800.  Representing the Company is LOWIS
& GELLEN, 200 W. Adams St., #1900 Chicago IL, 60606 Phone:
(312) 364-2500.


MAYTAG CORPORATION: Firms Settle IL Suit Over Defective Machines
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Philadelphia-based law firm of Sheller Ludwig & Badey and
the Ambler, PA-based law firm of Kimmel & Silverman, have
resolved a class action law suit against the Maytag Corporation,
alleging odor, mold and mildew problems with Maytag Neptune
Wasters. More than two million consumers are included in the
class, and may receive repair reimbursements, replacement costs
up to $500, and/or washing machine purchase certificates up to
$1000. Jonathan Shub of the Sheller firm served as one of three
co-lead counsel in the Maytag case.

According to documents filed in the Circuit Court for the State
of Illinois, many Maytag consumers have complained of their
machine functioning improperly and clothing covered in mold, as
a result of problems with the door latch, wax motor, motor
control, and related circuit boards.

"The number of complaints coming in from across the nation to
our firm was quite high, among the most we've ever received. It
was clear that a number of problems needed to be addressed by
Maytag. Thanks to all co-counsel and the relative speed with
which Maytag responded, consumers were able to use the class
action the way it was intended, for the benefit of all, more
quickly, and at a significant reduced cost than if each consumer
sued individually," according to Craig Thor Kimmel, Esq. for
Kimmel & Silverman.

Under the settlement, those who purchased a Maytag Neptune
Front-Load Washing Machine (any model, including stackables) any
time between April 1, 1997 to August 9, 2004 are entitled to one
or more of the following remedies:

     (1) Repair Reimbursements, defined as any reasonable out-
         of-pocket costs related to repairs prior to August 9,
         2004 for problems mentioned in the suit.

     (2) Replacement Costs of up to $500, subject to
         depreciation, for each Maytag customer who replaced
         their Maytag Neptune Washer prior to August 9, 2004 as
         a result of the problems mentioned in the suit.

     (3) Washing Machine Purchase Certificates of up to $1000,
         if class member suffer the problems mentioned in the
         suit, and Maytag can't repair the condition.  The value
         of the certificate is based on the age of the machine.  
         The certificates may be used for the purchase of a new
         Neptune Washer.  Maytag will also cover delivery of the
         new machine and disposal of the old unit.

For more details, contact the settlement administrator by Phone:
866-288-0515 or visit their Web site:
http://www.maytagfrontloadsettlement.comOR Michael J. Sacks of  
Kimmel & Silverman by Phone: +1-800-536-6652, ext. 131 or visit
their Web site: http://www.lemonlaw.com.


MEDSTAFF INC.: Employees Launch CA Wage Law Violations Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
MedStaff, Inc. is a defendant in a purported class action
captioned "Maureen Petray and Carina Higareda, et al. v.
MedStaff, Inc." filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California, for the County of Riverside.

On February 18, 2005, Maureen Petray and Carina Higareda, two
former MedStaff, Inc. corporate employees, filed suit, pleading
causes of action for:

     (1) Violations of California Labor Code Sections 200, et
         seq.;

     (2) Recovery of Unpaid Wages and Penalties;

     (3) Violation of California Business and Professions Code
         Sections 17200, et seq;

     (4) Conversion; and

     (5) Accounting

Plaintiffs, who purport to sue on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, allege that Defendant failed to pay
plaintiffs, and the class they purport to represent, properly
under California law. Plaintiffs claim that defendant failed to
provide meal period and rest breaks and pay for those missed
meal periods and rest breaks; failed to compensate the employees
for all hours worked; failed to compensate the employees for
overtime worked more than eight hours in a day or forty hours in
a week; and failed to keep appropriate records to keep track of
time worked.

Plaintiffs seek, among other things, an order enjoining
defendant from engaging in the practices challenged in the
complaint; for an order for full restitution of all monies
Defendants allegedly failed to pay Plaintiffs and their
purported class; for interest; for certain penalties provided
for by the California Labor Code; and for attorneys' fees and
costs.


MICROSOFT CORPORATION: MD Judge Dismisses CA Antitrust Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Court Judge J. Frederick Motz in Baltimore,
Maryland dismissed a claim by five California cities and
counties that Microsoft Corporation, the world's largest
software maker, had overcharged them for software, The Reuters
News Agency reports.

According to the federal judge, he granted Microsoft's motion to
dismiss the lawsuit, because some of the plaintiffs were not
allowed to sue due to their status as municipal corporations and
that the statute of limitations had expired on several of the
claims.

The plaintiffs, which included the City and County of San
Francisco, city of Los Angeles and the counties of Santa Clara,
San Mateo and Los Angeles, had sued the Redmond, Washington-
based software maker last August for violating antitrust and
unfair competition laws in California.

In a press statement Microsoft spokeswoman Stacy Drake said,
"Today's decision granting Microsoft's motion to dismiss is
welcome news. We look forward to continuing to work with
California government agencies to help deliver technology
solutions to their communities," Reuters reports.


NETGEAR INC.: Consumers Launch Two Fraud Lawsuits in CA Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
NETGEAR, Inc. faces two class actions filed in the Superior
Court of California, county of Santa Clara, on behalf of all
persons or entities in the United States who purchased the
Company's wireless products other than for resale.

In June 2004, a lawsuit, entitled "Zilberman v. NETGEAR, Civil
Action CV021230," was filed, alleging that the Company made
false representations concerning the data transfer speeds of its
wireless products when used in typical operating circumstances,
and is requesting injunctive relief, payment of restitution and
reasonable attorney fees.  Limited discovery is currently under
way and no trial date has been set.

In February 2005, a lawsuit, entitled "McGrew v. NETGEAR," was
filed in the same court, making the same allegations and
purports to represent the same class of persons and entities as
the Zilberman suit.  


NETGEAR INC.: Reaches Settlement in 4Q2004 For Consumer Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
NETGEAR, Inc. reached a settlement for the class action filed in
the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, styled
"Weaver v. NETGEAR, Civil Action RG04161382."  The complaint
purported to be a class action on behalf of persons who obtained
any consumer product manufactured by the Company and sold in
California on or after January 1, 2004. Plaintiff alleged that
the Company violated California law because it did not disclose
on its website that the failure to register a product does not
diminish the product's warranty.

In the fourth quarter of 2004, the Company and the plaintiff
settled the lawsuit that provided for a payment of $17,500 by
the Company, and the Court approved the settlement resulting in
the dismissal of the matter.


PURINA MILLS: Recalls Deer Feed Due To Monensin Sodium Content
--------------------------------------------------------------
Purina Mills, LLC, is voluntarily recalling a specific lot of
50-pound bags of Antlermax Deer 20 deer feed. The affected
product was manufactured in Lubbock, Texas, February 15, 2005,
and sold after that date. It was shipped to seven feed and
supply retail stores in west Texas and distributed in west Texas
and eastern New Mexico.

The specific packages within the lot included in this limited
recall have the lot number 5FEB15LUB1 printed on the sewing
strip of each bag. Laboratory testing found a potentially
harmful level of monensin sodium (Rumensin) in some bags from
this lot.

Monensin sodium is a drug compound that is approved for use in
some livestock species. It is not approved for use in deer feed.
The FDA has limited information to assess the safety of this
drug when consumed by deer and limited information to assess the
potential for hazardous residues in edible tissues.
Additionally, inadvertent feeding of this product to horses can
be fatal because horses are especially sensitive to Monensin.
You should not continue to store or use this product.

Customers who have purchased the Antlermax Deer 20 with the
specified lot number are asked to return the product to their
dealer for replacement.

Purina Mills discovered this issue as the result of a complaint
from a deer rancher. The problem has been corrected and this
voluntary recall does not include any other Purina Mills
products, or other lots of Antlermax Deer 20.

Questions or concerns may be directed to the company's Lubbock
Feed Plant Customer Service Department toll free at
(800) 375-8766.


RELIANT ENERGY: TX Court Grants Certification To Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Texas, Houston Division granted class certification to the
consolidated lawsuit filed against Reliant Energy, Inc., Reliant
Resources, Inc. (RRI), underwriters of the initial public
offering of RRI's common stock in May 2001 (RRI Offering), and
RRI's and the Company's independent auditors.

Fifteen class action lawsuits filed in May, June and July 2002
on behalf of purchasers of securities of RRI and/or the Company,
and were later consolidated in federal district court in
Houston. The consolidated amended complaint seeks monetary
relief purportedly on behalf of purchasers of common stock of
the Company or RRI during certain time periods ranging from
February 2000 to May 2002, and purchasers of common stock that
can be traced to the RRI Offering.  The plaintiffs allege, among
other things, that the defendants misrepresented their revenues
and trading volumes by engaging in round-trip trades and
improperly accounted for certain structured transactions as
cash-flow hedges, which resulted in earnings from these
transactions being accounted for as future earnings rather than
being accounted for as earnings in fiscal year 2001.

In January 2004 the trial judge dismissed the plaintiffs'
allegations that the defendants had engaged in fraud, but claims
based on alleged misrepresentations in the registration
statement issued in the RRI Offering remain. In June 2004, the
plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, which the
court granted in February 2005. The defendants have appealed the
court's order certifying the class.

The suit is styled "Boca Raton Police &, et al v. Reliant
Resources, et al, case no. 4:02-cv-01810," filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, under
Judge Ewing Werlein, Jr.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Thomas E. Bilek, 1000 Louisiana Suite 1302 Houston, TX
         77002 Phone: 713-227-7720 Fax: 713-227-9404 E-mail:
         tbilek@hb-legal.com;

     (2) John G Emerson, Jr., Emerson Poynter LLP 830 Apollo
         Lane Houston, TX 77058 Phone: 713-488-8854 Fax: 713-
         488-8867

     (3) Steven G. Schulman, Milberg Weiss et al., One
         Pennsylvania Plaza New York, NY 10119-0165 Phone: 212-
         594-5300 Fax: 212-868-1229

Representing the Company is James Edward Maloney, Baker & Botts
910 Louisiana Ste 3000 Houston, TX 77002 Phone: 713-229-1255
Fax: 713-229-7755.


RELIANT ENERGY: Plaintiff Withdraws ERISA Fraud Suit in S.D. TX
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed one of the two class actions
filed against Reliant Energy, Inc. in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, on
behalf of participants in various employee benefits plans
sponsored by the Company.

Three suits were initially filed.  Two of the lawsuits have been
dismissed without prejudice.  The Company and certain current
and former members of its benefits committee are the remaining
defendants in the third lawsuit.  The lawsuit alleges that the
defendants breached their fiduciary duties to various employee
benefits plans, directly or indirectly sponsored by the Company,
in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants permitted the
plans to purchase or hold securities issued by the Company when
it was imprudent to do so, including after the prices for such
securities became artificially inflated because of alleged
securities fraud engaged in by the defendants.  The complaint
seeks monetary damages for losses suffered on behalf of the
plans and a putative class of plan participants whose accounts
held the Company's or RRI securities, as well as restitution.

In July 2004, another class action suit was filed in federal
court on behalf of the Reliant Energy Savings Plan and a class
consisting of participants in that plan against the company and
the Reliant Energy Benefits Committee.  The allegations and the
relief sought in the new suit are substantially similar to
those in the previously pending suit; however, the new suit also
alleges that the Company and its Benefits Committee breached
their fiduciary duties to the Savings Plan and its participants
by investing plan funds in Company stock when Reliant Energy or
its subsidiaries were allegedly manipulating the California
energy market. On October 14, 2004, the plaintiff voluntarily
dismissed the newly filed lawsuit.


RELIANT ENERGY: 45 Claims Remain in Franchise Fee Lawsuit in TX
---------------------------------------------------------------
Reliant Energy, Inc. continues to face claims of 45 cities in
litigation related to the underpayment of municipal franchise
fees, pending in the District Court in Harris County, Texas.

In February 1996, the cities of Wharton, Galveston and Pasadena
(Three Cities) filed suit in state district court in Harris
County, Texas for themselves and a proposed class of all
similarly situated cities in the Company's electric service
area, against the Company and Houston Industries Finance, Inc.
(formerly a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company's
predecessor, Reliant Energy).  The plaintiffs claimed that they
were entitled to 4% of all receipts of any kind for business
conducted within these cities over the previous four decades.

After a jury trial, involving the Three Cities' claims (but not
the class of cities), the trial court entered a judgment on the
Three Cities' breach of contract claims for $1.7 million,
including interest, plus an award of $13.7 million in legal
fees.  It also decertified the class.  Following this ruling, 45
cities filed individual suits against the Company in the
District Court of Harris County.

On February 27, 2003, a state court of appeals in Houston
rendered an opinion reversing the judgment against the Company
and rendering judgment that the Three Cities take nothing by
their claims. The court of appeals held that all of the Three
Cities' claims were barred by the jury's finding of laches, a
defense similar to the statute of limitations, due to the Three
Cities' having unreasonably delayed bringing their claims during
the more than 30 years since the alleged wrongs began. The court
also held that the Three Cities were not entitled to recover any
attorneys' fees. The Three Cities filed a petition for review to
the Texas Supreme Court, which declined to hear the case. Thus,
the Three Cities' claims have been finally resolved in the
Company's favor, but the individual claims of the 45 cities
remain pending in the same court.


SEASPECIALITIES, INC.: FDA Extends Alert On Nova Salmon Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) extended its
previous alert of possible Listeria monocytogenes contamination
of SeaSpecialities, Inc., smoked nova salmon products.

Today's nationwide alert applies to SeaSpecialities product
packaged in 8-oz vacuum-packed bags under the "Mama's" and "King
Salmon" brands. The Mama's brand products are sold in individual
8-oz. packages marked: "SELL BY AUG 22 2005 32178". They may
also be in shipping cartons labeled: "08/22/05 SELL BY 32178".
No coding or packaging information on the King Salmon brand
product is available.

Recently both FDA and the State of Florida have issued public
alerts about other potentially contaminated products from the
firm. The contamination was noted after routine testing by the
Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services revealed
the presence of Listeria monocytogenes.

Listeria monocytogenes is an organism that sometimes causes
fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and
others with weakened immune systems. Although healthy
individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms such a high
fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and
diarrhea, Listeria infection can cause miscarriages and
stillbirths among infected pregnant women.

Both products are distributed by SeaSpecialties, Inc., (d.b.a.
Florida Smoked Fish) of Miami, Florida.

Consumers who have purchased this product are urged to return it
to the place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers with
questions may contact the Recall Coordinator at (305) 621-7600
ext. 211.


SOUTH AFRICA: Congo Refugees Set To Receive Foster Care Grants
--------------------------------------------------------------
The South African government will not oppose a Pretoria High
Court application by political refugees seeking immediate access
to foster care grants for children in their care, according to
Selwyn Jehoma, the Department of Social Development's chief
director for grants systems and administration, The Sunday Times
reports.

Mr. Jehoma told The Sunday Times, "The government... will not
oppose the matter. In fact, we made a submission to court
outlining the work we intend to do towards ensuring we process
the applications."

Three refugees from the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) have
lodged an application for access to the government's R570
monthly foster care grant for each of nine children in their
combined care.  

The case was brought in the form of a class action on behalf of
all refugees experiencing problems accessing the grant in South
Africa. Legal Resources Centre lawyer Sheldon Magardie, who
represents the three, said that if the case is won, the ruling
would apply to all refugee foster parents.  The Minister,
Director-General and KwaZulu-Natal MEC for Social Development,
as well as the Minister and Director-General of Home Affairs are
cited as the five respondents in the case.

The applicants are part-time hairdresser Coco Bishogo, who looks
after two foster children, informal trader Musenge Langa, who
looks after five and unemployed Maulu Baangi, who looks after
two. They fled the DRC between 1999 and 2002, claiming they
feared being killed because of the political situation in that
country. The children that they look after are aged between four
and 16, all orphans taken in by friends and relatives.

In a founding affidavit, the three applicants say they had been
trying to access the foster grant, which they claim to be
legally entitled to, for one and two years respectively. But,
the government's computer system rejected the identity numbers
assigned to each of the three on their so-called refugee
identity documents, and was therefore unable to process their
applications.

The affidavit states, "We are compelled to use identity
documents issued by the respondents themselves. The fact that
they contain identity numbers that are not compatible with their
computers is a predicament of their own making." In their
affidavit, the applicants set out in detail their financial
difficulties, claiming to face "manifold difficulties every day
of our lives in this foreign land". They further claim that many
days they had to seek assistance from relief agencies and said,
"Our foster children are near to being impoverished," the Sunday
Times reports

By volunteering themselves as foster parents, they say, "we
effectively assumed a responsibility that fell on the
respondents." They further said, according to the Sunday Times,
"We did it out of a sense of compassion and commitment to the
foster children who are our compatriots. Respondents and their
functionaries have rewarded our benevolence by shoving us
contemptuously from pillar to post."

In addition, the three say they had not anticipated this fate
when accepting responsibility for the children. "Our dignity has
lost its luster," they add.  They are now seeking an order
compelling the government to put mechanisms in place to allow
their applications to be processed, and for the grants to become
payable within 10 days of the court's judgment. Additionally,
they also seek a combined R66,100 what they claim are arrears
payable since their applications were first made, plus 15.5%
interest, the Sunday Times reports.


SUPPORTSOFT INC.: Shareholders Lodge Securities Suits in N.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
SupportSoft, Inc. faces several securities class actions filed
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.  The suits also names as defendants officers Radha
R. Basu, and Brian M. Beattie.  The suits are styled:

     (1) Autumn Partner LLC v. SupportSoft, Inc., et al, (Case
         No. 04-5222 SI),

     (2) Lane v. SupportSoft, Inc., et al (Case No. 04-5319
         CRB),

     (3) Bray v. SupportSoft, Inc., et al (Case No. 05-80
         CRB),

     (4) Halpren v. SupportSoft, Inc., et al, Case No. 05-283
         SBA, and

     (5) Parent v. SupportSoft, Inc., et al (Case No. 05-310
         PJH)

The complaints allege generally violations of certain federal
securities laws and seek unspecified damages on behalf of a
class of purchasers of the Company's common stock between
January 20, 2004 and October 1, 2004. Plaintiffs allege, among
other things, that defendants made false and misleading
statements concerning the Company's business and guidance for
the third quarter 2004, purportedly violating Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.  The cases will likely be consolidated
into one action.


TEXAS GENCO: Forges Settlement For TX Suit V. CenterPoint Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Texas Genco Holdings, Inc. reached a settlement for the
consolidated shareholder class action filed against it and each
of its directors in the District Court of Harris County, Texas.

On July 23, 2004, two plaintiffs, both Company shareholders,
filed virtually identical lawsuits on behalf of holders of
Company common stock.  Both plaintiffs allege, among other
things, self-dealing and breach of fiduciary duty by the
defendants in entering into the July 2004 agreement to sell the
Company.  As part of their allegations of self-dealing, both
plaintiffs claim that the board of directors of the Company is
controlled by CenterPoint Energy, that the defendants improperly
concealed results of the Company's results of operations for the
second quarter of 2004 until after the transaction agreement was
announced and that, in order to aid CenterPoint Energy, the
Texas Genco board only searched for acquirers who would offer
all-cash consideration. Plaintiffs seek to enjoin the
transaction or, alternatively, rescind the transaction and/or
recover damages in the event that the transaction is
consummated.

In August 2004, the cases were consolidated in state district
court in Harris County, Texas. Although the defendants continue
to deny liability, in February 2005, all parties entered into a
Memorandum of Understanding to settle the lawsuit based upon
supplemental disclosures made by the Company and the extension
of the deadline for the exercise of shareholder dissenters'
rights. The settlement is subject to the parties' preparation of
a stipulation of settlement and court approval of the
settlement.


UNITED STATES: Appeals Court Reinstates Lawsuit V. Vatican Bank
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated a lawsuit
brought by Holocaust survivors who had sued the Vatican Bank on
charges it laundered assets stolen from victims of Croatia's
pro-Nazi World War Two regime, The Reuters News Agency reports.

The federal appeals court decision reversed a lower court ruling
that had dismissed the case on grounds that foreign policy
rather than lawsuits should address such historical claims.  In
its ruling the three-judge panel pointed out that some of the
plaintiffs' key claims such as ones relating to lost and looted
property did not fall under the political question doctrine.
They also pointed out that even the U.S. Supreme Court has left
open the door to lawsuits that touch upon foreign diplomacy.  In
addition the panel wrote in its ruling, "We conclude that some
of the claims are barred by the political question doctrine and
some of the claims are justifiable. Although the parties have
multiple procedural and substantive challenges to overcome down
the road, they are entitled to their day - or years - in court
on the justifiable claims."

The elderly Holocaust survivors originally filed the class
action lawsuit in U.S. federal court in San Francisco in 1999
against the Vatican Bank and the Franciscan Order. The survivors
who are the named plaintiffs in the suit accused the Vatican
Bank of receiving hundreds of millions of dollars of gold and
other assets looted from victims of Croatia's brutal Ustasha
regime from 1941-1945. By some estimates about 700,000 people
most of them Serbs were killed at death camps run by the Nazi-
allied government. Furthermore, they also alleged that the
illicit funds may have been funneled to groups working to
smuggle Nazis out of Europe after the war, including Adolf
Eichmann, Reuters reports.   The lawsuit though, which the lower
court dismissed in 2003, did not seek any specific monetary
amount but instead asked for, at least initially, a review of
how much money was involved.

The Vatican Bank, which has denied the allegations, had argued
foreign policy, not lawsuits, should address such historical
claims.  However, the U.S. appeals court upheld the lower
court's dismissal of some of the plaintiffs' allegations such as
charges the Vatican Bank assisted the Nazi-allied Ustasha
political movement, saying the issue was outside judicial
jurisdiction.

The lawyer though, who represented the original 24 plaintiffs
many of whom live in San Francisco expressed hope the case would
move forward quickly as some of the survivors have been waiting
more than 50 years for restitution.

Kathryn Lee Boyd, who is a professor at Pepperdine University
Law School, told Reuters "We're very pleased, very happy to have
this case resurrected. We were successful on many of the claims
- the property claims were the meat of the case."


VISTEON CORPORATION: Shareholders Launch Stock Fraud Suit in MI
---------------------------------------------------------------
Visteon Corporation faces a securities class action filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.  The
suit also names as defendants certain of the Company's current
and former officers, namely:

     (1) Peter Pestillo,

     (2) Michael Johnston,

     (3) Glenda J. Minor,

     (4) Daniel R. Coulson and

     (5) James Palmer

The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the Company made
misleading statements of material fact or omitted to state
material facts necessary in order to make the statements made,
in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not
misleading. The named individual plaintiff seeks to represent a
class consisting of purchasers of the Company's securities
during the period between January 23, 2004 and January 31, 2005.  
Class action status has not yet been certified in this
litigation.  The Company is in the process of evaluating the
claims in this lawsuit.

The suit is styled "Ley v. Visteon Corporation, et al, case no.
2:05-cv-70737-RHC-VMM," filed in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, under Robert H.
Cleland.  Representing the plaintiffs are E. Powell Miller and
Marc L. Newman of Miller Shea (Rochester) 950 W. University
Drive Suite 300 Rochester, MI 48307 Phone: 248-841-2200 E-mail:
emiller335@aol.com; and Marc A. Topaz, Schiffrin & Barroway
(Radnor) 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087



                 Meetings, Conferences & Seminars


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

BLUE COAT: Berman DeValerio Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo
initiated the class action in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California against Blue Coat Systems, Inc.
("Blue Coat" or the "Company") (Nasdaq: BCSI), claiming that the
Company misled investors about its finances.

The lawsuit seeks damages for violations of federal securities
laws on behalf of all investors who purchased Blue Coat common
stock from February 20, 2004 through and including May 27, 2004
(the "Class Period").

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

The complaint alleges that Blue Coat issued false and misleading
financial statements during the Class Period, artificially
inflating the Company's stock price.

Since its founding in 1996, Blue Coat never turned a profit.
Then, on February 19, 2004, Blue Coat announced an unprecedented
increase in sales and its first profitable quarter. During the
Company's conference call held after the close of trading that
same day, Blue Coat stated a belief that gross margins in the
following quarter would fall in the range of 68-69%.

This news caused the Company's stock to increase $6.75, to close
at $38.27 on February 20, 2004. Almost immediately following the
Company's positive earnings announcement, defendants started
selling massive amounts of Blue Coat stock, at prices ranging
from $40-$52 per share.

On May 27, 2004, the Company shocked investors by announcing
that the purported gross margin calculation had fallen short for
the fourth quarter of fiscal 2004 and that profitability was
lower than that achieved in the prior quarter.

On this news, shares of the Company's common stock plummeted
from $39.27, on May 27, 2004, to close at $27.80 on May 28,
2004, a drop of $11.47, or 29%.

On April 7, 2005, Blue Coat announced that the SEC had commenced
a formal investigation into the Company, focusing on "whether
certain present or former officers, directors, employees,
affiliates or others made intentional or non- intentional
selective disclosure of material nonpublic information, traded
in the Company's stock while in possession of such information,
or communicated such information to others who thereafter traded
in the Company's stock."

For more details, contact Nicole Lavallee, Esq. by Mail: 425
California Street, Suite 2100, San Francisco, CA 94104 by Pone:
(415) 433-3200 OR Jeffrey C. Block, Esq. or Julie A. Richmond,
Esq. by Mail: One Liberty Square, Boston, MA 02109 by Phone:
(800) 516-9926 or by E-mail: law@bermanesq.com or visit their
Web site: http://www.bermanesq.com/pdf/BlueCoat-Cplt.pdf.


CITIGROUP GLOBAL: Sauer & Wagner Lodges Securities Lawsuit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Sauer & Wagner LLP initiated a Class Action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California against Citigroup Global Markets Inc.
F/K/A Salomon Smith Barney Inc. ("Citigroup") on behalf of
former clients of Paul Joseph Sheehan D/B/A Paul J. Sheehan &
Associates ("Sheehan"), who maintained investment accounts at
Citigroup, from April 1, 1999 to September 30, 2000, inclusive
(the "Class Period").

The lawsuit charges Citigroup with violations of federal
securities and California law as a direct result of enabling
Sheehan, an investment advisor, to engage in a fraudulent "trade
allocation" or "cherry-picking" scheme whereby Sheehan
improperly allocated profitable day trades of securities to his
personal investment accounts maintained at Citigroup at the
expense of his clients' personal investment accounts also
maintained at Citigroup. The Complaint alleges that during the
Class Period, Citigroup permitted Sheehan to initiate day trades
at Citigroup through the use of a trade allocation account (the
"Sheehan Allocation Account") and to provide allocation
instructions electronically to Citigroup at the end of each
trading day. As a direct result of allowing Sheehan to allocate
trades in this manner, Sheehan knew which of the day trades had
been profitable before transmitting allocation instructions to
Citigroup, and he was able to allocate profitable trades to his
personal investment accounts to the detriment of his clients.

The Complaint further alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Citigroup made material misrepresentations in documents and
statements issued to Sheehan's clients by omitting material
facts concerning the following:

     (1) the commingling of client assets in the Sheehan
         Allocation Account;

     (2) the inherent conflict of interest in allowing Sheehan
         to dictate the allocation of day trades for his own
         benefit and for his clients' benefit at the end of each
         day when the outcome of each trade was known by
         Sheehan;

     (3) the risks created by the procedures utilized at
         Citigroup in allocating trades by Sheehan; and

     (4) the inequitable allocation of profits from day trades
         to Sheehan's personal accounts to the detriment of his
         clients.

For more details, contact Gerald L. Sauer, Esq. of Sauer &
Wagner LLP by Mail: 1801 Century Park East, Suite 520, Los
Angeles, California 90067 by Phone: (310) 712-8100 by Fax:
(310) 712-8108 by E-mail: gsauer@swattys.com.


COLLINS & AIKMAN: Federman & Sherwood Lodges Stock Lawsuit in MI
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Federman & Sherwood initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan against Collins & Aikman Corp. (NYSE: CKC).

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of
material misrepresentations to the market which had the effect
of artificially inflating the market price. The class period is
from May 6, 2004 through March 17, 2005.

For more details, contact William B. Federman of Federman &
Sherwood by Mail: 120 N. Robinson, Suite 2720, Oklahoma City, OK
73102 by Phone: (405) 235-1560 by Fax: (405) 239-2112 by E-mail:
wfederman@aol.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.federmanlaw.com.


DELPHI COPRORATION: Berger & Montague Lodges ERISA Lawsuit in MI
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Berger & Montague, P.C. initiated a class action
lawsuit, in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan, on behalf of participants and
beneficiaries of the Delphi Corporation's (NYSE: DPH) pension
plans.

The lawsuit, brought pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), is on behalf of those
participants since May 28, 1999, in the Delphi Savings-Stock
Purchase Program for Salaried Employees in the U.S., Delphi
Personal Savings Plan for Hourly-Rate Employees in the U.S.,
ASEC Manufacturing Savings Plan and Delphi Mechatronic Systems
Savings-Stock Purchase Program.

The lawsuit alleges that plan fiduciaries breached their duties
and responsibilities by, among other things, failing to
investigate the prudence of an investment in Delphi stock and by
making misrepresentations about the Company's accounting
practices dating back to 1999.

The complaint charges fiduciaries of the plans with violations
of ERISA, and alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
knew or should have known that Delphi issued materially false
and misleading financial statements caused by Delphi's improper
accounting for off-balance sheet financing and vendor rebates.
As a result of these false statements, the Company's stock
climbed to as high as $17.40 per share during the Class Period.
Upon the disclosures of the need to revise its financial
statements, Delphi's stock dropped to as low as $5.41 per share
before closing at $5.46 per share on March 4, 2005, some 68%
below the Class Period high of $17.40 per share and a one-day
drop of 14%, on volume of 24 million shares.

For more details, contact Berger & Montague by Phone:
888-891-2289 or by E-mail: InvestorProtect@bm.net.  


PETCO ANIMAL: Lerach Stoia Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
LLP ("Lerach Coughlin") initiated a class action on behalf of an
institutional investor in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of California on behalf of purchasers of
PETCO Animal Supplies, Inc. ("PETCO") (NASDAQ:PETC) common stock
during the period between November 18, 2004 and April 14, 2005
(the "Class Period").

The complaint charges PETCO and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. PETCO is a specialty retailer of premium pet food,
supplies and services with 654 stores in 43 states and the
District of Columbia.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
caused PETCO's shares to trade at artificially inflated levels
through the issuance of false and misleading financial
statements. On November 18, 2004, PETCO announced Q3 2004
results and raised its guidance for FY 2004. The Company
subsequently issued very favorable results for FY 2004. As a
result, by April 2005, the Company's stock was trading above $37
per share. Then, on April 15, 2005, before the market opened,
the Company issued a press release entitled "PETCO to Delay
Filing of Form 10-K." The release stated that PETCO would delay
the filing of its Form 10-K with the Securities and Exchange
Commission and that it had requested a 15-day extension after it
discovered accounting errors related to certain under-accrued
expenses in its distribution operations. The Company anticipated
its Q4 2004 earnings would be reduced by $3.0-$4.5 million and
expected that FY 2005 earnings would be reduced by a similar
amount, as it took into consideration the nature of the under-
accrual of expenses. The stock dropped 15% to close at $30.36
per share on these revelations of accounting improprieties.

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


SHARPER IMAGE: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Fraud Suit 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 Sharper Image Corporation ("Sharper
Image") (NASDAQ:SHRP) common stock during the period between
February 5, 2004 and August 4, 2004 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Sharper Image and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Sharper Image is a specialty retailer of products in the
electronics, recreation and fitness, personal care, houseware,
travel, toy, gifts and other categories.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
made false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
business and prospects. As a result of these false statements,
Sharper Image stock traded at inflated levels during the Class
Period, whereby the Company's top officers and directors sold
more than $18 million worth of their own shares. According to
the complaint, the true facts, which were known by each of the
defendants but concealed from the investing public during the
Class Period, were as follows:

     (1) the Company businesses, including wholesale, Internet
         and catalog, were cannibalizing the Company's retail
         and infomercial sales;

     (2) the Company's profitability was being adversely
         affected by a drastic slow down in the Company's key
         product, the Ionic Breeze family of air purifiers;

     (3) when defendants attempted to acquire infomercial blocks
         of time in early 2004, they learned that these extra
         blocks of time had already been acquired as a result of
         the Olympics and the Presidential election, and the
         additional costs associated with infomercial time were
         seriously impacting the Company's margins associated
         with the Ionic Breeze family of products; and

     (4) as a result, the Company's Q2 2004 projections of
         earnings per share of $0.09-$0.11 were grossly
         overstated.

On August 5, 2004, Sharper Image announced that Q2 2004 results
would be much worse than previously represented, with EPS of
only $0.03-$0.05 versus prior representations of $0.09-$0.11. On
this news, Sharper Image shares fell 23%.

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


SHARPER IMAGE: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C., which has significant
experience representing investors in prosecuting claims of
securities fraud, announces that a lawsuit seeking class action
status has been filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California on behalf of all persons who
purchased the common stock of Sharper Image Corporation (Nasdaq:
SHRP) ("Sharper Image" or "the Company") between February 5,
2004 and August 4, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that Sharper Image and certain of its
officers and directors violated federal securities laws.
Specifically, defendants made false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business condition. As a result, Sharper
Image stock traded at inflated levels during the Class Period,
whereby Company insiders sold over $18 million worth of their
own shares. It is alleged that defendants failed to disclose
that:

     (1) the Company businesses were cannibalizing the Company's
         retail and infomercial sales;

     (2) the Company's profitability was being adversely
         affected by a drastic slow down in the Company's key
         product, the Ionic Breeze family of air purifiers;

     (3) when defendants attempted to acquire infomercial blocks
         of time in early 2004, they learned that these extra
         blocks had already been acquired as a result of the
         Olympics and the Presidential election, and the
         additional costs associated with infomercial time were
         seriously impacting the Company's margins associated
         with the Ionic Breeze family of products; and

     (4) as a result, the Company's Q2 2004 projections of
         earnings per share of $0.09-$0.11 were grossly
         overstated.

On August 5, 2004, Sharper Image announced that Q2 2004 results
would be worse than previously represented, with EPS of only
$0.03-$0.05 versus prior representations of $0.09-$0.11. On this
news, Sharper Image shares fell 23%.

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

VEECO INSTRUMENTS: Goodkind Labaton Lodges Amended NY Stock Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP filed an
amended class action lawsuit in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of
Veeco Instruments, Inc. ("Veeco" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:VECO)
between November 3, 2003 and February 10, 2005, inclusive, (the
"Class Period"). The amended lawsuit was filed against Veeco,
Edward H. Braun and John F. Rein Jr. ("Defendants").

Since the filing of the initial complaint, Goodkind Labaton has
conducted an investigation of the issues initially alleged and
has uncovered significant material findings. These findings
include that Veeco

     (1) may have violated Export Administration Regulations by
         making multiple improper shipments of classified
         equipment to China and Malaysia restricted based upon
         national security and anti-terrorism grounds,

     (2) failed to disclose that its export privileges were at
         risk given this improper conduct, and

     (3) omitted material information from its classification
         requests to the Bureau of Industry and Security, which
         if it had been disclosed, would have resulted in
         adverse events for the Company.

In addition, the amended complaint contains the allegations in
the original complaint related to Defendants' statements which
were false and misleading because Defendants

     (i) knowingly or recklessly failed to disclose that it had
         improperly valued the inventory and accounts payable at
         its TurboDisc division in order to make the acquisition
         look more attractive to the market,

    (ii) falsely recognized revenue at TurboDisc during the
         class period, and

   (iii) improperly overvalued its deferred tax assets.

For more details, contact Christopher Keller, Esq. of The Law
Firm of Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP by Phone:
800-321-0476 or visit their Web site:
http://www.glrslaw.com/get/?case=Veeco.


WATCHGUARD TECHNOLOGIES: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Stock Suit in WA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a class action suit
in the United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington on behalf of purchasers of WatchGuard Technologies,
Inc. (NASDAQ: WGRD) common stock during the period between
February 12, 2004 and March 15, 2005 (the "Class Period").

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For more details, contact the Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel by
Mail: 273 Montgomery Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by
Phone: 610-660-8000 or 888-643-6735 by Fax: 610-660-8080 or by
E-Mail: mhenzel182@aol.com.   


                            *********


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

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

                            *********


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

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland
USA.   Glenn Ruel 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  * * *