CAR_Public/050426.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, April 26, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 81

                         Headlines

AMERICAN FINANCIAL: SEC Amends Ponzi Scheme Complaint in Alabama
ARIZONA: Attorney General Reaches Settlement With Telemarketers
AURORA BIOSCIENCES: Directors Continue To Face CA Stock Lawsuit
BLOCKBUSTER INC.: Alabama AG Forges Late Fee Settlement in March
BROWN & BROWN: Named As Defendant in OptiCare Insurance Lawsuit

CARDIAC SCIENCE: Shareholders Launch DE Suits V. Quinton Merger
COTT CORPORATION: Faces Canadian Consumer Recycling Fee Lawsuits
DENTSPLY INTERNATIONAL: Notices Sent To Class Members in CA Suit
DOMINICK'S FINER: IL Appeals Court Upholds Fraud Suit Dismissal
DSW SHOE: Arizona AG Warns Consumers Of Possible Identity Theft

FISERV SECURITIES: SEC Lodges PA Suit Over Market Timing Scheme
HARMONIC INC.: Court Hears CA Securities Suit Dismissal Appeal
HEWLETT-PACKARD CO.: Consumer Files Suit Over Printer Technology
HO'S TRADING: Recalls Soup Mixes Due To Undeclared Sulfites
IAC/INTERACTIVECORP: NY Court Orders Stock Lawsuits Consolidated

IMCLONE SYSTEMS: Reaches Settlement for NY Securities Fraud Suit
INPUT OUTPUT: Shareholders Lodge Stock Fraud Lawsuits in S.D. TX
IVAX PHARMACEUTICALS: FL Court Preliminarily OKs Suit Settlement
IVAX PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Litigation For Medicaid Overcharging
LATTICE SEMICONDUCTOR: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Suit in OR

LEXISNEXIS: Attorney General Warns AZ Residents Of Data Theft
MICHIGAN: Federal Government Launches Inquiry Over Jail's Policy
NEW YORK: Hearing Set For $31.5M Refinanced Mortgages Settlement
OBERLE MEATS: Recalls Meat Products For Listeria Contamination
OCWEN FINANCIAL: Asks IL Court To Dismiss Consolidated Lawsuit

PARADYNE NETWORKS: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Lawsuit Settlement
PENN ENGINEERING: Shareholders Launch DE Suits V. Tinicum Merger
PFIZER INC.: Recalls Neurontin Due To Manufacturing Failure
REHABCARE GROUP: Appeals Court Upholds Securities Suit Dismissal
SCIENTIFIC GAMES: CA Court Dismisses Horse Race Fraud Lawsuit

SECOND CHANCE: Plaintiffs Establish Web Site, Provides Updates
SELECT COMFORT: Asks MN Court To Dismiss Consumer Fraud Lawsuit
SG COWEN: SEC Lodges Insider Trading, Fraud Charges Ex-Director
ST. PAUL: Continues To Face Consolidated MN Securities Lawsuit
ST. PAUL: Faces 4 Insurance Fraud Lawsuits in NJ, CA, IL Courts

TEXAS: Activists Converge on Hearne To Support Resident's Suit
TEXAS: Court Allows Men To Sue Strip Clubs Over Extra Surcharges
TRANSKARYOTIC THERAPIES: MA Court To Hear Certification Motion
TRAVELERS PROPERTY: Parties Evaluate Next Step in CT Fraud Suits
TYSON FOODS: Web Site Opened To Identify Possible Class Members

VERTEX PHARMACEUTICALS: MA Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Suit
WATTS WATER: MD Court Hears Appeal of Suit Certification Denial
VIRGINIA: Couple Plans Suit Over Popular Peer-To-Peer Software
WISCONSIN: Judge Dismisses UW Band Member's Suit Over $41 Fine

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

DORAL FINANCIAL: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Fraud Suit
DORAL FINANCIAL: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Fraud Suit in PR
DORAL FINACIAL: Scott + Scott Lodges Securities Fraud Complaint
DORAL FINANCIAL: Wechsler Harwood Lodges Securities Suit in NY
DORAL FINANCIAL: Wolf Popper Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY

ELAN CORPORATION: Krislov & Associates Lodges Stock Suit in IL
WATCHGUARD TECHNOLOGIES: Pomerantz Haudek Files Stock Suit in WA

                           *********

AMERICAN FINANCIAL: SEC Amends Ponzi Scheme Complaint in Alabama
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed a First Amended
Complaint in the U.S.  District Court in Birmingham, Alabama
which added Paul D. Carter and American Financial Business, LLC
as defendants and The Carter Group, Inc. as a relief defendant
in its ongoing litigation of an alleged Ponzi scheme perpetrated
by Timothy R. Heyman and Heyman International, Inc. The
Commission's First Amended Complaint alleges that Carter and AFB
defrauded approximately 100 investors from Colorado, Kentucky,
Michigan, Pennsylvania and Virginia out of nearly $2 million
through the unregistered offer and sale of "Depository Loan
Agreements" as part of the Mr. Heyman International Ponzi
scheme.

According to the First Amended Complaint, Mr. Carter and AFB
misrepresented to investors AFB's experience in foreign currency
transactions and that Carter would send the proceeds of the
investments to Mr. Heyman, who would invest their funds in
foreign currencies. Mr. Carter also misrepresented to investors
that they would earn a minimum of 3% per month on their fully
refundable principal investment.  The Commission's First Amended
Complaint alleged that in reality, Mr. Carter and Mr. Heyman
were operating a Ponzi scheme.  The proceeds from Mr. Carter and
AFB's offering were commingled with funds raised from Mr. Heyman
International investors which used to pay AFB investors their
purported  monthly  "interest."  Some of the commingled investor
funds were also transferred to a Carter Group bank account and
used to pay for Mr. Carter's personal expenses.
     
The Commission seeks, among other things, a permanent injunction
against further violations of the federal securities laws and
appropriate civil penalties against Mr. Carter and AFB and
disgorgement plus prejudgment interest against Mr. Carter, AFB
and Carter Group. The action is titled, SEC v. Timothy R.
Heyman, et al., USDC, ND AL, Case Number CV-04-CO-0686-S (LR-
19198).
     

ARIZONA: Attorney General Reaches Settlement With Telemarketers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard reached a settlement with
a Phoenix telemarketing operation that includes refunds to
consumers and a $100,000 civil penalty. The telemarketers
claimed to sell low-interest credit cards, but in fact were
selling a list of banks that provided credit cards. The cards
were available to only those consumers who met a particular
bank's qualifications.

The companies involved in the telemarketing were known as the
Institute for Financial Advantage, Inc., Select Research
Institute, For Your Information, Airtime Communications, FYI
Consulting Services, Inc., Fortune IV and Research America. The
businesses were owned by William R. Crosby, Sr. His children,
William R. Crosby, Jr. and Paula M. Crosby, worked for one or
more of these companies during the time they were in operation.

The Attorney General's Office complaint alleged that the
defendants violated the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act and the
Arizona Telephone Solicitations statute by leading consumers to
believe that they could provide low-interest credit cards or
directly assist them in obtaining low-interest credit cards
which would allow them to realize substantial savings on monthly
credit card payments.

Consumers paid hundreds of dollars to defendants, and instead of
receiving a credit card, they were sent a 92-page booklet that
contained a list of banks that provided credit cards.

The consent judgment includes that:

     (1) The defendants admitted that they falsely led consumers
         to believe that they were pre-qualified to receive a
         low-interest credit card from their companies.

     (2) The defendants admitted that they falsely told
         consumers that the savings realized through the use of
         the new credit card would cover the fee being charged
         for the service.

     (3) The defendants did not fully explain to consumers that,
         in order to receive a lower rate credit card, they were
         obligated to apply to and be approved by one of the
         banks on the list in the booklet.

The consent judgment requires the defendants to refund monies to
all individuals who filed complaints with the Attorney General's
Office, the Better Business Bureau and/or the Federal Trade
Commission. In addition, defendants will pay to the State a
$100,000 civil penalty. The consent judgment also prohibits the
defendants from engaging in any future deceptive acts and
practices, and from operating any business, within the next five
years, that charges a consumer's credit card without first
obtaining the consumer's written authorization.


AURORA BIOSCIENCES: Directors Continue To Face CA Stock Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Aurora Biosciences Corporation's directors continue to face a
class action filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of San Diego, styled "Marguerite Sacchetti v.
James C. Blair et al.," filed in relation to the merger of the
Company with Vertex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.  The suit names as
defendants all of the Company's directors who approved the
merger, which closed in July 2001.  

Goldman, Sachs & Co. LLP, a financial advisor to the Company
in the merger transaction, was initially named as a defendant
but the lawsuit has now been dismissed as to Goldman Sachs. The
plaintiffs claim that the Company's directors breached their
fiduciary duty to the Company by, among other things,
negligently conducting a due diligence examination of Vertex by
failing to discover alleged problems with VX-745, a Vertex drug
candidate that was the subject of a development program which
was terminated by Vertex in September 2001.  The plaintiff seeks
certification as a class action, compensatory damages in an
unspecified amount and unspecified equitable or injunctive
relief.


BLOCKBUSTER INC.: Alabama AG Forges Late Fee Settlement in March
----------------------------------------------------------------
Attorney General Troy King announced that he and the Attorneys
General of 46 other states and the District of Columbia have
reached an agreement with Blockbuster Inc., to settle
allegations that the company misled consumers in the advertising
of its "No Late Fee" program. The settlement requires that
Blockbuster change allegedly misleading practices and make
refunds available to certain consumers who state that they were
misled by the program.  The deadline to apply for refunds is
April 28, 2005.

The Attorneys General alleged that the advertising campaign was
misleading because it failed to clearly and conspicuously
disclose that if a consumer who rented a video or game from
Blockbuster kept the item out more than seven days after its
return due date, the consumer would be charged for the selling
price of the video. The company's advertising further failed to
disclose that after seven days, if the consumer wanted to return
the video the consumer would be charged a "restocking" fee of
$1.25, or higher at some franchise stores. The Attorneys General
also alleged there was insufficient disclosure of the fact the
program was offered only at participating stores, and that some
customers of nonparticipating franchise stores thought they
would not have to pay late fees. Blockbuster began advertising
the "The End of Late Fees" and "No Late Fees" on December 15,
2004, with the program starting on January 1, 2005. The program
is available at all company-owned stores and those franchise
stores that chose to participate. In Alabama, there are 31
corporate stores and 40 franchise stores, with 35 franchise
stores participating in the program.

"This settlement sends an important message to companies that
they will not be allowed use a catchy slogan to entice customers
if the message is misleading," said Attorney General King. "Such
advertisements may be in violation of the law if they do not
fully and accurately disclose the complete terms and conditions
attached to an offer. Consumers deserve straightforward
information to decide whether to participate in a transaction."

Under the terms of the settlement, Blockbuster has agreed that
in future advertising for the "No Late Fee" program it will:

     (1) Not represent directly or by implication in any of its
         advertising that there are no late fees or only limited
         late fees unless such representation is accompanied by
         and appears next to a clear and conspicuous disclosure
         of the existence of any charge (including, without
         limitation, any rental fee, restocking fee, or charge
         associated with a rental transaction that has been
         converted to a sale), and

     (2) Advise of any limitation on the stores participating in
         the offer. Advertising is defined to include any e-
         newsletters, email and Internet advertisements, any
         direct mail pieces, any large out-of-home advertising
         such as on billboard or buses, any television or radio
         advertising, any print advertising, any large signage
         on the outside of stores, and any large signage on the
         inside of stores such as banners, floor decals and
         signs, all of which must clearly and conspicuously
         display its policy for return of rental product and
         applicable charges if product is not returned.

Blockbuster also agreed that all stores will clearly and
conspicuously display Blockbuster's policy for return of rental
product and applicable charges if product is not returned.

For the next six months, Blockbuster also will:

     (i) Post a notice in each store in multiple locations in
         areas reasonably calculated to inform customers of the
         terms and conditions of the "No Late Fee" program. The
         notice is to be one-sided, 8-1/2 by 11 inches, in 26
         point font, and in addition to other locations, it must
         be placed on or immediately adjacent to the entrance
         door to the store facing out and the exit door facing
         in and in at least one location which can be viewed by
         all customers in advance of customers concluding rental
         transactions;

    (ii) Clearly and conspicuously include the terms and
         condition of the "No Late Fee" program on policy
         statements that appear at the end of some of the aisles
         in every store;

   (iii) Provide brochures containing the terms and conditions
         of the offer in every store, which are prominently
         available for customers to read at the store and/or
         take home (along with a clear and conspicuous sign
         indicating the brochures contain important information
         if they are not otherwise placed in close proximity to
         one of the other corrective disclosures);

    (iv) Remove from its stores the current external window
         signage and the current internal signage advertising
         the "No Late Fee" program and request and recommend
         that participating franchise stores do the same;

     (v) Require any franchise store that is not participating
         in the "No Late Fee" program to remove any contrary
         advertising;

    (vi) Have a hyperlink in at least 14 point font on its
         website (blockbuster.com) which explains the terms and
         conditions of the offer; and,

   (vii) Tell consumers who are sent written notification by
         Blockbuster that a rental has been converted to a sale
         that to put credit back on a credit card the card must
         be produced.

Blockbuster also agreed to provide a full refund or credit to
any customer of a corporate store or a franchise store that
participated in the "No Late Fee" program equal to the selling
price of any rental items converted to a sale under the "No Late
Fee" program which rental items were not returned within thirty
days from the sale date, upon the return in good condition of
the items rented. The restitution shall be on a one-time per
customer basis but will cover all items rented which were
converted to a sale before the customer learned on the first
rental transaction that a sale would occur. If the customer
already returned the item but paid a "restocking" fee, the
customer can obtain a refund of the "restocking" fee. A request
for restitution must have been or be made in writing and allege
a failure to understand the "No Late Fee" program.

Blockbuster customers who believe they are entitled to a refund
because they did not understand the program may get a refund
form at a corporate owned or participating franchise store.
Blockbuster has asked its personnel and suggested to franchise
stores that requests be resolved on the spot if possible.
Customers may also send their request to Blockbuster, 1201 Elm
Street, Suite 2100, Dallas, TX 75270, Attention: Steve Krumholz,
by April 28, 2005, or if after that, within 7 days of first
discovering an expenditure in addition to the initial rental sum
is or was required. Customers may also contact Attorney General
Troy King's Office of Consumer Affairs for a refund form by
calling toll-free 1-800-392-5658, by writing to 11 South Union
Street, Montgomery, Alabama 36130, or through the office's web
page at www.ago.state.al.us .

Customers who rented from a non-participating franchise store
which did not have signs saying it was not participating in the
"No Late Fee" program, who allege a lack of understanding and
were charged a late fee beyond the initial rental fee may ask
for a coupon request form at the store. Customers may send the
form to Blockbuster at the above address to receive rental
coupons equal to the number of rented movies on which such
charges were assessed. Blockbuster has requested these stores
resolve complaints on the spot if possible. Eligible customers
are those who rented product after December 31, 2004 and prior
to March 29, 2005. Refund coupons only apply to late fees on
items in the initial rental transaction after December 31, 2004.
Requests must be made by April 28, 2005, or if after that,
within 7 days of first discovering that late fees were being
charged. Customers may also the contact Attorney General King's
Office of Consumer Affairs for a coupon request form.

The restitution period concludes September 29, 2005. As part of
the settlement, which Blockbuster entered into without any
admission of wrongdoing, Blockbuster will pay the states a total
of $630,000 for attorneys fees, costs of investigation and
consumer protection.


BROWN & BROWN: Named As Defendant in OptiCare Insurance Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brown & Brown, Inc. faces several class actions, related to an
action that was filed against insurance firm Marsh & McLennan by
New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer on October 14,
2004.

On October 29, 2004, the Company was served with a First Amended
Complaint (the Complaint) in a putative class action lawsuit
pending in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, styled "OptiCareHealth Systems, Inc. v.
Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 04 CV
06954 (DC)."  The Complaint added the Company, as well as six
other insurance intermediaries and four commercial insurance
carriers and their affiliates, as defendants in a case initially
filed against three of the largest U.S. insurance intermediaries
(Marsh & McLennan, AON Corporation and Willis Group).

The Complaint and alleges various improprieties and unlawful
acts by the various defendants in the pricing and placement of
insurance, including alleged manipulation of the market for
insurance by, among other things:

     (1) "bid rigging" and "steering" clients to particular
         insurers based on considerations other than the
         customers' interests;

     (2) alleged entry into unlawful tying arrangements pursuant
         to which the placement of primary insurance contracts
         was conditioned upon commitments to place reinsurance
         through a particular broker; and

     (3) alleged failure to disclose contingent commission and
         other allegedly improper compensation and fee
         arrangements.

The Complaint includes the Company in a group together with the
other defendant insurance intermediaries, and does not allege
that any separate, specific act was committed only by the
Company.  The action asserts a number of causes of action,
including violations of the federal antitrust laws, multiple
state antitrust and unfair and deceptive practices statutes, and
the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
(RICO), as well as breach of fiduciary duty, misrepresentation,
conspiracy, aiding and abetting, and unjust enrichment, and
seeks injunctive and declaratory relief.  The Complaint also
contains a separate breach of contract claim directed only at
the Marsh & McLennan affiliates.  The plaintiff, allegedly a
client of a Marsh & McLennan subsidiary, seeks to represent a
putative class consisting of all persons who, between August 26,
1994 and the date a class is certified in the case, engaged the
services of any of the insurance intermediary defendants or any
of their subsidiaries or affiliates, and who entered into or
renewed a contract of insurance with any of the insurance
carrier defendants.  The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages,
including treble damages, as well as attorneys' fees and costs.

On December 6, 2004, two additional putative class actions were
filed against the Company and other brokers and insurers in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
(Eastern Division), styled "Stephen Lewis v. Marsh & McLennan
Companies, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 04 C 7847," and "Diane
Preuss v. Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc., et al., Civil Action
No. 04 C 7853" (together with the OptiCare Action, the
"Policyholder Actions").  The allegations of both of the
complaints in these actions largely mirror the allegations in
the OptiCare Action, but include Robinson-Patman Act price
discrimination claims.  Both plaintiffs, Stephen Lewis and Diane
Preuss, allege that they "purchased an insurance policy from one
of the defendants or defendants' co-conspirators.

On or about February 17, 2005, the Judicial Panel on Multi-
District Litigation ("MDL Panel") transferred the OptiCare
Action, and other similar actions in which the Company is not
named as a defendant, to the District of New Jersey to be
coordinated in a single jurisdiction for pre-trial purposes
before U.S. District Court Judge Faith S. Hochberg. On or about
March 10, 2005, the MDL Panel issued a "Conditional Transfer
Order" which will transfer the "Lewis" and "Preuss" actions
along with other "tag-along" actions in which the Company is not
named as a defendant to the District of New Jersey to be
coordinated with the previously transferred actions unless a
party files an objection within fifteen days from the date of
the Order.

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.


CARDIAC SCIENCE: Shareholders Launch DE Suits V. Quinton Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cardiac Science, Inc. faces several class actions filed in the
Chancery Court of Delaware concerning the recent Merger
Agreement it entered into with Quinton Cardiology Systems, Inc.

The complaints allege that the board breached its fiduciary
obligations with respect to the transaction in two ways. First,
the board purportedly did not negotiate for sufficient
compensation for the Company, as opposed to the compensation
received by Quinton.  Second, the board allegedly engaged in
self-dealing because the senior note holders purportedly are
entitled to receive more than their fair share in the Mergers,
as opposed to the common stockholders.  The complaints seek,
inter alia, an injunction enjoining the proposed Mergers,
rescissionary damages if the Mergers are completed, and an order
that the board hold an auction to obtain our best value.


COTT CORPORATION: Faces Canadian Consumer Recycling Fee Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cott Corporation was named as one of many defendants in a class
action claim, styled "The Consumers' Association of Canada and
Bruce Cran v. Coca-Cola Bottling Ltd. et al.," filed in the
Supreme Court of British Columbia.

The plaintiffs are suing over 30 defendants, consisting of
beverage manufacturers, retailers and Encorp Pacific (Canada),
the government-approved steward of British Columbia's container
deposit program, alleging the unauthorized use by the defendants
of container deposits collected from consumers and the
imposition of an unlawful container recycling fee on consumers.  
The relief sought by the plaintiffs includes a declaration that
C$70 million in container deposits were unlawfully converted by
the defendants and are held on constructive trust for consumers
and the repayment of C$60 million collected as container
recycling fees.

In February 2005, similar class action claims, styled "Kruger et
al. v. Pepsi-Cola Beverage Ltd. et al.," were filed in the
Superior Courts of a number of other Canadian provinces, naming
essentially the same defendants, including the Company, plus the
other regional stewardship agencies.

The Company is investigating these matters; however, legal
proceedings are subject to uncertainties, and the outcomes are
difficult to predict. Since the litigation is at a very
preliminary stage, sufficient information regarding the merits
of these claims is not yet available to the Company, it stated
in a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission.


DENTSPLY INTERNATIONAL: Notices Sent To Class Members in CA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Notices were sent to class members in the class action filed
against Dentsply International, Inc. in Los Angeles County
Superior Court, in California.  Bruce Glover, D.D.S. filed the
suit, alleging, inter alia, breach of express and implied
warranties, fraud, unfair trade practices and negligent
misrepresentation in the Company's manufacture and sale of
Advance(R) cement.  The Complaint seeks damages in an
unspecified amount for costs incurred in repairing dental work
in which the Advance(R) product allegedly failed.

The Judge has entered an Order granting class certification, as
an Opt-in class (this means that after Notice of the class
action is sent to possible class members, a party will have to
determine they meet the class definition and take affirmative
action in order to join the class) on the claims of breach of
warranty and fraud.  In general, the Class is defined as
California dentists who purchased and used Advance(R) cement and
were required, because of failures of the cement, to repair or
re-perform dental procedures.  The Notice of the class action
was sent on February 23, 2005 to dentists licensed to practice
in California during the relevant period.  The Advance(R) cement
product was sold from 1994 through 2000 and total sales in the
United States during that period were approximately $5.2
million. The Company's insurance carrier has confirmed coverage
for the breach of warranty claims in this matter.


DOMINICK'S FINER: IL Appeals Court Upholds Fraud Suit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Illinois Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a class
action filed against Dominick's Finer Foods, Inc., a subsidiary
of Safeway, Inc., and Jewel Food Stores, Inc., a subsidiary of
Albertson's, Inc., styled "Baker, et al. v. Jewel Food Stores,
Inc., et al."

The suit was filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois, alleging, among other things, that the Company and
Jewel conspired to fix the retail price of milk in nine Illinois
counties in the Chicago area, in violation of the Illinois
Antitrust Act.  The court certified the lawsuit as a class
action on behalf of all persons residing in the nine-county area
who purchased milk from the defendants' retail stores in these
counties during August 1996 to August 2000.

In January 2003, trial began before a judge, without a jury. At
trial plaintiffs' expert calculated damages against both
defendants in amounts ranging from $51 million to $126 million,
which amount would be trebled under applicable law. The judge,
after hearing three weeks of testimony, dismissed the action at
the end of plaintiffs' case, without requiring the Company and
Jewel to present the defense case. Plaintiffs filed an appeal in
the Illinois Appellate Court, which affirmed the trial court's
judgment on January 12, 2005. Plaintiffs have sought leave to
appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court.


DSW SHOE: Arizona AG Warns Consumers Of Possible Identity Theft
---------------------------------------------------------------
Consumers who shopped at two Phoenix, Arizona area DSW Shoe
Warehouse stores between November 2004 and February 2005 may be
victims of identity theft, Arizona Attorney General Terry
Goddard announced in a statement.  DSW Shoe Warehouse revealed
the results from its fraud investigation results.  The company
originally announced a much smaller data theft last month.

The two Arizona stores affected are located at 3411 W. Frye Road
in Chandler and 21001 N. Tatum Boulevard in Phoenix.  The
investigation revealed that transaction information from 1.4
million credit card purchases completed at 108 stores nationally
was compromised. In addition, transaction information involving
96,000 checks was also stolen. The thefts occurred between mid-
November 2004 and mid-February 2005.

"This type of announcement is becoming all too familiar," Mr.
Goddard said. "The security lapses by ChoicePoint, Bank of
America, LexisNexis and other companies that store consumer's
personal data announced over the last three months emphasize the
need for more adequate protection."

DSW Shoe Warehouse indicated that information stolen in the
credit card or debit card transactions included the card number,
name and transaction amount. If a check was involved, the
information stolen included the checking account number and
driver's license numbers.  DSW Shoe Warehouse is working to
contact customers who used checks as payment. So far the company
has contact information for about 88 percent of those customers,
and they will receive a letter from DSW Shoe Warehouse in the
next few days, Goddard said.

"My office supported a bill in the State Legislature this year
that would have required companies to notify consumers when a
data theft happens," Mr. Goddard said. "The legislation failed
to receive a hearing and died in committee. Congress is now
looking to impose this basic requirement. If the Congress fails
to act, we may need to come back to the Legislature."

For more information regarding the data theft from DSW Shoe
Warehouse, please visit their Web site:
http://www.dswshoe.com/pressRelease.jsp.


FISERV SECURITIES: SEC Lodges PA Suit Over Market Timing Scheme
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed a civil action in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
against Thomas J. Gerbasio, of Ocean City, New Jersey, and
Raymond L. Braun, Jr., of New York, New York, two former
employees of Fiserv Securities, Inc. (Fiserv), a broker-dealer
headquartered in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Without admitting
or denying the allegations of the complaint, Braun agreed to the
settlement described below.
     
The Commission's complaint alleges that, from August 2002 until
April 2004, Gerbasio was in charge of a Fiserv office in New
York City that placed tens of thousands of market timing trades
for certain hedge fund customers (New York Market Timing
Office).  Gerbasio also was the Vice President of the Mutual
Fund Department for Fiserv in Philadelphia. Mr. Braun was the
Mutual Funds Operations Supervisor of Fiserv's New York
Market Timing Office, and reported directly to Gerbasio.
     
The complaint alleges that, from at least August 2002 until
October 2003, Gerbasio and Braun participated in a scheme to
defraud hundreds of mutual funds and their shareholders by
engaging in deceptive practices in connection with market  
timing  by  two  hedge fund customers. Specifically, in response
to hundreds of notifications from mutual funds monitoring and
restricting excessive trading, including "kick-out letters"
rejecting market timing trades, defendants employed a variety of
deceptions and evasions on behalf of the hedge fund customers,
including misrepresenting the nature of their trades to the
funds, opening dozens of accounts under different names to
conceal the customers' identities from the funds, entering
trades in amounts that would avoid the funds' detection
triggers, trading in funds that were less likely to detect the
unwanted market timing, and advising the customers on strategies
to conceal their market timing from funds that objected to
and/or prohibited this trading.
     
The complaint further alleges that, using these fraudulent
tactics, defendants placed thousands of market timing trades for
the hedge fund customers that would have otherwise been rejected
by the fund companies. Between August 2002 and October 2003, the
two hedge fund customers placed 37,965 market timing trades. As
a result of their conduct, Mr. Gerbasio and Mr. Braun received
at least $454,797 and $125,318, respectively, in ill-gotten
gains.
     
The complaint alleges that Gerbasio and Braun violated Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5  
thereunder, and seeks permanent  injunctions, disgorgement  
together with prejudgment interest, and civil penalties against  
both defendants. Mr. Braun has consented to the entry of a final
judgment permanently enjoining him from engaging in the
violations set forth above, and ordering him to pay disgorgement
together with prejudgment interest in the amount of $133,576.
The final judgment waives payment of all but $20,000, and does
not impose a civil penalty, based on Mr. Braun's sworn financial
statements submitted to the Commission.  The action is entitled,
SEC v. Thomas J. Gerbasio, et al., Civil Action No. 05 1833
(BWK)(E.D. Pa.) (LR-19197).


HARMONIC INC.: Court Hears CA Securities Suit Dismissal Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral
arguments on plaintiffs' appeal of the dismissal of the
consolidated securities class action filed against Harmonic,
Inc. and certain of its officers and directors.

Between June 28 and August 25, 2000, several actions alleging
violations of the federal securities laws by the Company and
certain of its officers and directors (some of whom are no
longer with the Company) were filed in or removed to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.  
The actions subsequently were consolidated.

A consolidated complaint, filed on December 7, 2000, was brought
on behalf of a purported class of persons who purchased the
Company's publicly traded securities between January 19 and June
26, 2000.  The complaint also alleged claims on behalf of a
purported subclass of persons who purchased C-Cube securities
between January 19 and May 3, 2000.  In addition to the company
and certain of its officers and directors, the complaint also
named C-Cube Microsystems Inc. and several of its officers and
directors as defendants.

The complaint alleged that, by making false or misleading
statements regarding the Company's prospects and customers and
its acquisition of C-Cube, certain defendants violated sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The
complaint also alleged that certain defendants violated section
14(a) of the Exchange Act and sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933 by filing a false or misleading
registration statement, prospectus, and joint proxy in
connection with the C-Cube acquisition.

On July 3, 2001, the Court dismissed the consolidated complaint
with leave to amend. An amended complaint alleging the same
claims against the same defendants was filed on August 13, 2001.
Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on September
24, 2001. On November 13, 2002, the Court issued an opinion
granting the motions to dismiss the amended complaint without
leave to amend. Judgment for defendants was entered on December
2, 2002. On December 12, 2002, plaintiffs filed a motion to
amend the judgment and for leave to file an amended complaint
pursuant to Rules 59(e) and 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.  On June 6, 2003, the Court denied plaintiffs' motion
to amend the judgment and for leave to file an amended
complaint. Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on July 1, 2003.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit heard oral
arguments on February 17, 2005, but has not ruled on the appeal
yet.

The suit is styled "Smith et al v. Harmonic, Inc., et al., case
no. 00-CV-2287," filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California, under Judge Phyllis J.
Hamilton.  Representing the plaintiffs are William S. Lerach and
Patrick J. Coughlin, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman &
Robbins LLP, 401 B Street, Suite 1700, San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: 619-231-1058.  Representing the Company are Terri A.
Garland, Margaret L. Wu, Melinda S. Blackman, Morrison &
Foerster LLP 425 Market St San Francisco, CA 94105-2482 Phone:
(415) 268-7000.


HEWLETT-PACKARD CO.: Consumer Files Suit Over Printer Technology
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Valley Stream resident initiated a class action lawsuit in
U.S. District Court in Brooklyn against Hewlett-Packard Co. on
behalf of New York consumers, alleging that the printer giant's
"smart chip" technology, which alerts users of an ink
cartridge's need to be replaced, sends "premature" and "false"
messages aimed at lining HP's pockets, Newsday.com reports.

The suit, which was filed by attorney David Buchanan, who
represents consumer Dennis Just, alleges breach of good faith,
unjust enrichment and violation of New York business law, and
seeks in excess of $5 million for the class and attorneys' fees.  
Court documents show that the suit takes aim at a controversial
technology that HP's Web site presents as a convenience.

Critics of the technology, say it's primarily designed to stifle
competition from companies that recycle old HP cartridges with
new ink. The cartridges "expire" and can't be used in printers
between 2 1/2 and four years after manufacture.  According to a
2002 article in PC Buyer's Guide, "The primary function of this
impressive-sounding technology is to make it difficult or
impossible to refill that cartridge."

However, HP spokeswoman Jean Shimoguchi called Mr. Just's suit
"without merit" and noted that the smart-chip technology in
question is used in 3 percent of HP's ink-based printers. The
suit, Newsday.com reports.

The suit alleges that HP, the world's largest maker of printers
and accessories, "claimed to consumers that the smart chip would
improve printer performance." Instead, it says, "the smart chip
appears to be designed to secretly and deceptively increase the
sale of HP replacement ink cartridges, whether or not ink
remains in the cartridge and replacement is necessary."  Mr.
Just's suit, which contends that all HP ink cartridges contain
the smart chips, alleges the technology warns that replacements
are needed when cartridges are "far from empty," then
"immediately" steers them to an HP-sponsored Web site to buy
replacements.

Ms. Shimoguchi, however told Newsday that the cartridges on the
shelf have a four-year expiration date, aimed at preventing
"degradation of print quality" and adds that those in use in
printers expire after about 2 1/2 years.

Gary Peterson, an analyst with research firm GAP Intelligence in
San Diego, said Mr. Just's suit represents the latest assault
against what he called a cartel of printer-ink makers that
controls the high-profit market. Mr. Peterson pointed out to
Newsday, "A lot of people feel the ink industry is very much
like the oil cartels." Though he called the HP cartridge alert
system "harmless," he told Newsday that the notion that
cartridges can expire over time, rendering them useless when
they still contain ink, has been controversial.


HO'S TRADING: Recalls Soup Mixes Due To Undeclared Sulfites
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ho's Trading Inc., 1010 Dean Street, Brooklyn, NY 11238 is
recalling Home Special Soup Mix because it may contain
undeclared sulfites. People who have severe sensitivity to
sulfites run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic
reactions if they consume this product.

The recalled Home Special Soup Mix are packed in 4 oz., uncoded
plastic bags. The products were sold nationwide.

The recall was initiated after routine sampling by New York
State Department of Agriculture and Markets Food Inspectors and
subsequent analysis of the product by Food Laboratory personnel
revealed the presence of undeclared sulfites in Home Special
Soup Mix in packages which did not declare sulfites on the
label. The conumption of 10 milligrams of sulfites per serving
has been reported to elicit severe reactions in some asthmatics.
Anaphylactic shock could occur in certain sulfite sensitive
individuals upon ingesting 10 milligrams or more of sulfites.

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
problem.

Consumers who have purchased Home Special Soup Mix should return
it to the place of purchase. Consumers with questions may
contact the company at 1-718-622-2288.


IAC/INTERACTIVECORP: NY Court Orders Stock Lawsuits Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York ordered consolidated the securities class actions filed
against IAC/InterActiveCorp and certain of its officers, and one
outside director.

On September 20, 2004, a purported shareholder class action,
styled "Steven Malasky, on Behalf of Himself and All Others
Similarly Situated v. IAC/InterActiveCorp et al., case no. 04
Civ. 7447," was commenced, alleging violations of the federal
securities laws.  Thereafter, eleven other such lawsuits
containing substantially similar allegations were filed in the
same court.

The complaints in these cases generally allege that the value of
the Company's stock was artificially inflated by statements
about its financial results and forecasts made prior to its
August 4, 2004 announcement of its earnings for the second
quarter of 2004, that were false and misleading due to the
defendants' alleged failure to disclose various problems faced
by the Company's travel businesses. The complaints purport to
assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder and seek damages in an unspecified
amount.  The plaintiffs in most of these lawsuits seek to
represent a class of shareholders who purchased IAC common stock
between March 19, 2003 and August 4, 2004.

In rulings on December 20, 2004 and March 7, 2005, the district
court consolidated the twelve lawsuits into a single action
captioned "In re IAC/InterActiveCorp Securities Litigation,"
appointed co-lead plaintiffs, and designated co-lead counsel. A
consolidated amended complaint is expected to be filed in the
second quarter of 2005.


IMCLONE SYSTEMS: Reaches Settlement for NY Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York is expected to hold a fairness hearing for the
settlement of consolidated securities class action filed against
ImClone Systems, Inc. and certain of its officers and directors,
styled "Irvine v. ImClone Systems Incorporated, et al., No. 02
Civ. 0109 (RO)."

In the corrected consolidated amended complaint, filed on
October 22, 2002, plaintiffs asserted claims against the
Company, its former President and Chief Executive Officer, Dr.
Samuel D. Waksal, its former Chief Scientific Officer and then-
President and Chief Executive Officer, Dr. Harlan W. Waksal, and
several of the Company's other present or former officers and
directors, for securities fraud under sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Securities and
Exchange Commission Rule 10b5-1, on behalf of a purported class
of persons who purchased the Company's publicly traded
securities between March 27, 2001 and January 25, 2002.  The
complaint also asserted claims against Dr. Samuel D. Waksal
under section 20A of the Exchange Act on behalf of a separate
purported sub-class of purchasers of the Company's securities
between December 27, 2001 and December 28, 2001.

The complaint generally alleged that various public statements
made by or on behalf of the Company or the other defendants
during 2001 and early 2002 regarding the prospects for FDA
approval of ERBITUX were false or misleading when made, that the
individual defendants were allegedly aware of material non-
public information regarding the actual prospects for ERBITUX at
the time that they engaged in transactions in the Company's
common stock and that members of the purported stockholder class
suffered damages when the market price of the Company's common
stock declined following disclosure of the information that
allegedly had not been previously disclosed.  The complaint
sought to proceed on behalf of the alleged classes described
above, sought monetary damages in an unspecified amount and
sought recovery of plaintiffs' costs and attorneys' fees.

On June 3, 2003, the court granted, in part, a motion to dismiss
filed by all defendants and dismissed plaintiff's claims except
those asserted against the Company, Dr. Samuel D. Waksal, and
Dr. Harlan W. Waksal.  On April 14, 2004, the court granted
plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  On January 24,
2005, the Company announced that it had reached an agreement in
principle to settle the consolidated class action for a cash
payment of $75 million, a portion of which will be paid by the
Company's insurers.  The settlement is subject to the
negotiation and execution of definitive settlement documents and
to Court approval.  The Company anticipates that a hearing to
consider approval of the settlement will be held in late April
or early May 2005.  Settlement conference is set for June
24,2005.

The suit is styled "Irvine v. ImClone Systems Incorporated, et
al., No. 02 Civ. 0109 (RO)," filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, under Judge Richard
Owen.  Representing the Company are John J. Clarke, Jr., DLA
Piper Rudnick Gray Cary US LLP(NYC) 1251 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020 Phone: 212-835-6120 Fax: 212-835-6001 E-mail:
john.clarke@dlapiper.com; and Dennis E. Glazer, Patrick J.
Murray and Jocelyn Emily Strauber, Davis Polk & Wardwell 450
Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017 Phone: (212)450-4000.  
Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Ken H. Chang, Robert Craig Finkel, Marian Probst
         Rosner, Wolf Popper LLP 845 Third Avenue New York, NY
         10022 Phone: (212) 451-9667 Fax: (212) 486-2093 E-mail:
         kchang@wolfpopper.com, rfinkel@wolfpopper.com,
         mrosner@wolfpopper.com;  

     (2) Erin Green Comite, Edmund Scott, David Searby, Scott
         and Scott LLC 108 Norwich Avenue P.O.Box 192
         Colchester, CT 06415 Phone: 860-537-5537

     (3) William C. Fredericks, Ann Meredith Lipton, Peter
         Sloane, Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (NYC) One
         Pennsylvania Plaza New York, NY 10119 Phone: (212) 594-
         5300 Fax: (212) 868-1229 E-mail: alipton@milberg.com,
         psloane@milberg.com


INPUT OUTPUT: Shareholders Lodge Stock Fraud Lawsuits in S.D. TX
----------------------------------------------------------------
Input Output, Inc., its chief executive officer, its chief
financial officer and the president of GX Technology Corporation
(GXT) faces several securities class actions filed in the United
States District court for the Southern District of Texas,
Houston Division.

On January 12, 2005, a purported class action lawsuit was filed,
styled "Harold Read, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Input/ Output, Inc, Robert P. Peebler, J.
Michael Kirksey, and Michael K. Lambert."   The suit alleges
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.  The action
claimed to be filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
common stock who purchased shares during the period from May 10,
2004 through January 4, 2005.  The complaint seeks damages in an
unspecified amount plus costs and attorneys' fees.

The complaint alleges misrepresentations and omissions in public
announcements and filings concerning the Company's business,
sales and products.  On February 4 and 10, 2005, and March 15,
2005, three similar lawsuits were filed in the same court,
styled:

     (1) Matt Brody, individually and on behalf of all others
         similarly situated v. Input/ Output, Inc, Robert P.
         Peebler and J. Michael Kirksey,

     (2) Giovanni Arca vs. Input/Output, Inc., Robert P.
         Peebler, J. Michael Kirksey, and Michael K. Lambert,
         and

     (3) Schneur Grossberger, individually and on behalf of all
         others similarly situated v. Input/Output, Inc., Robert
         P. Peebler, J. Michael Kirksey, and Michael K. Lambert,

These suits contain factual allegations similar to those in the
"Read" complaint.  The "Brody" complaint, however, contains
additional allegations that the defendants failed to disclose or
misrepresented that:

     (i) the Company's products were defective,

    (ii) customers were wrongfully induced into buying the
         Company's products and

   (iii) the Company violated Generally Accepted Accounting
         Principles and SEC rules by failing to properly report
         and disclose the allegedly illegal nature of its
         revenue during the proposed class period.

The Brody case is the only of the purported class action cases
where the defendants have been served with process.  A
stipulation of the parties has been filed in the Brody case that
provides the plaintiffs shall move pursuant to the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act for appointment of lead
plaintiff and lead counsel on or before March 14, 2005, the
plaintiffs shall file a consolidated class action complaint
within 45 days after the entry of an order appointing lead
plaintiff and lead counsel, the defendants shall answer or
otherwise respond within 45 days after a consolidated complaint
is filed, and if any defendant moves to dismiss the consolidated
complaint, then the response to the motion will be filed within
45 days and the defendants will have 30 days to file a reply. No
discovery has been conducted by the parties in any of the cases,
and discovery will be stayed should the defendants file a motion
to dismiss until there is a ruling on that motion.


IVAX PHARMACEUTICALS: FL Court Preliminarily OKs Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida granted preliminary approval to the settlement of a
class action filed against Ivax Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and
others, styled "Louisiana Wholesale Drug Co. vs. Abbott
Laboratories, Geneva Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Zenith Goldline
Pharmaceuticals, Inc."

The suit alleges a violation of Section 1 of the Sherman
Antitrust Act.  Plaintiffs purport to represent a class
consisting of customers who purchased a certain proprietary drug
directly from Abbott Laboratories during the period beginning on
October 29, 1998.  Plaintiffs allege that, by settling patent-
related litigation against Abbott in exchange for quarterly
payments, the defendants engaged in an unlawful restraint of
trade.  The complaint seeks unspecified treble damages and
injunctive relief.

Eighteen additional class action lawsuits containing allegations
similar to those in the "Louisiana Wholesale" case were filed in
various jurisdictions between July 1999 and February 2001, the
majority of which have been consolidated with the "Louisiana
Wholesale" case.

On March 13, 2000, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced
that it had issued complaints against, and negotiated consent
decrees with, Abbott Laboratories and Geneva Pharmaceuticals
arising out of an investigation of the same subject matter that
is involved in these lawsuits. The FTC took no action against
IPI. On December 13, 2000, plaintiffs' motion for summary
judgment on the issue of whether the settlement agreement
constituted a "per se" violation of Section 1 of the Sherman
Antitrust Act in the "Louisiana Wholesale" case was granted.

On September 15, 2003, the United States Court of Appeals for
the Eleventh Circuit reversed the order. On September 20, 2001,
the District Court entered an order certifying the direct
purchaser class and in early 2002, IPI entered into a settlement
with the direct purchaser class. In November 2003, the appellate
court also issued a ruling de-certifying the class. On remand
and following class discovery, the District Court entered an
order on June 23, 2004, denying the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs'
renewed motion for class certification. In light of these
orders, on August 31, 2004, the Company elected to terminate the
Settlement Agreement with the direct purchasers and requested
the return of the settlement payment less notice and Settlement
Fund administrative fees.

On February 16, 2005, the Company announced to the Court its
willingness to re-enter into the settlement with the direct
purchasers on substantially the same terms as the previous
settlement, provided that the court certifies a settlement class
of direct purchasers that is not materially different from the
previously de-certified direct purchaser class.  On February 25,
2005, the Court indicated its preliminary approval of a
settlement containing these terms and provisions, and has
scheduled a hearing for April 15, 2005 to determine whether to
grant final approval of this settlement. To date, sixteen of the
actions naming IPI have either been settled or dismissed.


IVAX PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Litigation For Medicaid Overcharging
----------------------------------------------------------------
IVAX Corporation, IVAX Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (IPI) and other
pharmaceutical companies face lawsuits from several states,
alleging schemes to overcharge for prescription drugs paid for
by Medicaid.  IVAX and IPI have been named as defendants in
actions filed by the State of Wisconsin, the Commonwealth of
Kentucky, the State of Alabama, and the State of Illinois,
namely:

     (1) State of Wisconsin vs. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et
         al., Circuit Court of Dane County, Case No. 04 CV 1709,
         filed on November 1, 2004

     (2) Commonwealth of Kentucky vs. Alpharma, Inc., Franklin
         Circuit Court, Case No. 04-CI-1487, filed on November
         4, 2004

     (3) State of Alabama vs. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al.,
         Circuit Court of Montgomery County, Case No. CV-2005-
         219, filed on January 26, 2005

     (4) The People of the State of Illinois vs. Abbott
         Laboratories, Inc., Circuit Court of Cook County, Case
         No. 05CH02474, filed on February 7, 2005

In each of these actions, the States seek unspecified damages,
including treble and punitive damages, interest, civil penalties
and attorneys' fees.


LATTICE SEMICONDUCTOR: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Suit in OR
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended securities class action
in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon
against Lattice Semiconductor Corporation, its Chief Executive
Officer Cyrus Y. Tsui, and its President Stephen A. Skaggs.

Several complaints were filed on behalf of a putative class of
investors who purchased the Company's stock between April 22,
2003 and April 19, 2004.  They generally allege violations of
federal securities laws arising out of the Company's previously
announced restatement of financial results for the first,
second, and third quarters of 2003.

Consistent with the usual procedures for cases of this kind,
these cases were amended and consolidated into a single action.
In such amended and consolidated complaint filed January 27,
2005, the Company's former President and its former Controller
were added as defendants.


In September and October 2004, two shareholder derivative
complaints were filed, purportedly on behalf of the Company, in
the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for the County of
Washington, against all of its current directors, certain former
directors, and certain executive officers.  The derivative
plaintiffs make allegations substantially similar to those in
the putative class action complaints, as well as allegations of
breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of control, gross mismanagement,
waste of corporate assets, and unjust enrichment.

The suits are pending in the United States District Court in
Oregon under Judge Dennis J. Hubel, styled:

     (1) Autumn Partners, LLC v. Lattice Semiconductor
         Corporation et al, 3:04-cv-01255-HU

     (2) Marcano v. Lattice Semiconductor Corporation et al,
         3:04-cv-01533-HU

     (3) Pfeiffer v. Lattice Semiconductor Corp. et al, 3:04-cv-
         01429-HU

The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

     (i) 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

    (ii) Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP, 100 Park
         Avenue, New York, NY, 10017, Phone: 212.907.0700, (fax)
         212.818.0477, info@glrslaw.com

   (iii) Paskowitz & Associates, Phone: 800.705.9529, E-mail:
         classattorney@aol.com

    (iv) Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC, Phone:
         877.891.9880, E-mail: jshah@classactioncounsel.com

Lawyers for the defendants are:

     (a) Barnes H. Ellis, Stoel Rives LLP, 2600 Standard
         Insurance Center, 900 SW Fifth Avenue, Portland, OR
         97204, Phone: (503) 294-9243, Fax: (503) 220-2480, E-
         mail: bhellis@stoel.com

     (b) Robert E.L. Bonaparte, Shenker & Bonaparte, LLP, One SW
         Columbia Street, Suite 475, Portland, OR 97258, Phone:
         (503) 242-0005 Fax: (503) 323-7360 E-mail:
         attorneys@bb-law.net


LEXISNEXIS: Attorney General Warns AZ Residents Of Data Theft
-------------------------------------------------------------
More than 6,000 Arizona residents are among the 310,000 people
nationally whose personal data files were stolen from
information broker LexisNexis, state Attorney General Terry
Goddard said in a statement last week.

LexisNexis reported in March that 32,000 personal files had been
breached. On Tuesday, the company said the number is now
believed to be almost 10 times higher. The number of Arizonans
whose Social Security numbers, driver's license information and
addresses were fraudulently acquired was put at 6,215.

LexisNexis will send letters in the next few days to everyone
whose data was acquired, Attorney General Goddard said. Those
letters will include phone numbers people can use to learn more
about the security breach and what they can do to protect
against identity theft. In addition to the notifications, the
company is offering free credit monitoring to all 310,000
people.

The general public can contact a customer service number for
LexisNexis at 1-866-246-2328.

"This episode, together with the ChoicePoint, Bank of America
and other security lapses in the past two months, underscores
the need for a law requiring data brokers to notify consumers
whose personal information is lost," Mr. Goddard said. "In this
instance, LexisNexis voluntarily agreed to notify consumers, but
that has not always been the case."

"My office supported a bill in the State Legislature this year
that would have required such notification, but it failed to
receive a hearing and died in committee," he said. "A bill is
now pending in Congress to impose this basic requirement.
Depending on its fate, we may need to come back to the
Legislature."


MICHIGAN: Federal Government Launches Inquiry Over Jail's Policy
----------------------------------------------------------------
Following a lawsuit over the Saginaw County Jail's policy of
holding rowdy detainees naked, the federal government is
conducting a criminal investigation into possible mistreatment
at the jail, according to an FBI official, The Associated Press
reports.

Walter H. Reynolds, senior supervisory resident agent at the Bay
City FBI office, which oversees territory that includes Saginaw
County, told The Saginaw News that the U.S. attorney's office in
Detroit and Justice Department officials in Washington were
involved in the case. He also adds that an FBI agent from the
Flint office also has been assigned to the investigation.

Agent Reynolds also told Saginaw News, "They'll look at whether
individuals in a position of power, like a jail guard, abused
that authority." He was also quick to add that agents from his
office would not be involved in the probe because they work
closely with Saginaw County law enforcement officials.

Special Agent Dawn Clenney, a spokeswoman for the FBI's Detroit
office, confirmed that the bureau has begun "a preliminary
inquiry to look into the complaint," but she declined to comment
further, AP reports.

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

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

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

According to the ACLU, guards stripped many offenders of their
clothes after being brought to jail on relatively minor charges
such as drunken driving or other misdemeanors. In some cases,
the civil liberties group said, guards of the opposite sex
removed detainees' clothes.


NEW YORK: Hearing Set For $31.5M Refinanced Mortgages Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
A final hearing is scheduled for a pending $31.5 million
settlement in a class-action lawsuit against eight companies
that plaintiffs accused of overcharging New York state residents
for title insurance on refinanced mortgages, The Syracuse Post
Standard reports.

The hearing, according to both parties, will be held on July 29
in state Supreme Court in Nassau County. If the court approves
the deal, consumers will be eligible for refunds of at least
$75, and up to $600, depending on circumstances.

Under state regulations, borrowers who refinance within 10 years
of taking out an initial mortgage on the same property are
entitled to a discounted rate for title insurance. The class-
action lawsuit alleges that the defendant companies did not make
the discounts available, a claim the defendants vehemently deny.

Eligible for a refund if the title insurance in one's refinanced
mortgage was issued by one of these: American Pioneer Title
Insurance Co., Chicago Title Insurance Co., Commonwealth Land
Title Insurance Co., Fidelity National Title Insurance Co.,
First American Title Insurance Co., Lawyers Title Insurance Co.,
National Title Insurance Co. or Stewart Title Insurance Co.

For more details, contact Coordinated Title Insurance Cases, c/o
The Garden City Group, Claims Administrator by Mail: P.O. Box
9000 #6220, Merrick, NY, 11566-9000 by Phone: (866) 808-3589 or
visit their Web site: http://www.titleinsurancelitigation.com.   


OBERLE MEATS: Recalls Meat Products For Listeria Contamination
--------------------------------------------------------------
Oberle Meats, a St. Genevieve, Mo., establishment, is
voluntarily recalling approximately 1,077 pounds of ready-to-eat
meat products that may be contaminated with Listeria
monocytogenes, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety
and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.

Products subject to recall include:

     (1) 1- pound packages of "OBERLE, SMOKED PORK SAUSAGE,
         HICKORY SMOKED, READY TO EAT."

     (2) 1- pound packages of "OBERLE SAUSAGE, HICKORY SMOKED,
         READY TO EAT."

     (3) .60- pound packages of "OBERLE, LIVER SAUSAGE, READY TO
         EAT."

     (4) .15- pound packages of "OBERLE, SNACK STICKS, HICKORY
         SMOKED, READY TO EAT."

     (5) .75- pound packages of "OBERLE, WIENERS, HICKORY
         SMOKED, READY TO EAT."

Each package bears the establishment code "EST. 2334" inside the
USDA mark of inspection.

The products were produced on April 11 and were distributed to
retail establishments in Illinois and Missouri. The problem was
discovered through routine FSIS regulatory sampling. FSIS has
received no reports of illnesses associated with consumption of
these products.

Consumption of food contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes can
cause listeriosis, an uncommon but potentially fatal disease.
Healthy people rarely contract listeriosis. However, listeriosis
can cause high fever, severe headache, neck stiffness and
nausea. Listeriosis can also cause miscarriages and stillbirths,
as well as serious and sometimes fatal infections in those with
weakened immune systems including infants, the elderly and
persons with chronic disease, such as HIV infection or
undergoing chemotherapy.

Media and consumers with questions about the recall should
contact company Manager John Oberle at (573) 883-5656.  
Consumers with food safety questions can phone the toll-free
USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline at 1-888-MPHotline
(1-888-674-6854). The hotline is available in English and
Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time)
Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety messages are
available 24 hours a day.


OCWEN FINANCIAL: Asks IL Court To Dismiss Consolidated Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ocwen Financial Corporation (OCN) asked the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois to dismiss
the consolidated class action filed against them, challenging
Ocwen Federal Bank FSB's mortgage servicing practices.

Several suits were initially filed against the Company and
certain of its affiliates, including the Bank.  On April 13,
2004 the United States Judicial Panel on Multi-District
Litigation granted the Company's petition to transfer and
consolidate a number of the lawsuits into a single case to
proceed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois under caption styled: "In re Ocwen Federal
Bank FSB Mortgage Servicing Litigation, MDL Docket No. 1604."

Additional similar lawsuits have been brought in other courts,
some of which have been or may be transferred and consolidated
in the MDL Proceeding.  The MDL Proceeding currently includes
the following actions in which the Company and/or the Bank are
defendants:

     (1) Patricia Antoine, et al v. Ocwen Federal Bank FSB, et
         al., case No. C-03-5503 (N.D.Cal.)

     (2) Deborah Bush v. Ocwen Federal Bank FSB, et al.,
         Case No. 7:04-cv-02827 (N.D.Ala.)
     
     (3) Carolyn P. Calhoun v. Ocwen Federal Bank FSB, et al.,
         Case No. 4:04-cv-00293 (N.D.Miss.)

     (4) Ralph Carreon Jr., et al. v. Ocwen Federal Bank FSB,
         Case No. 5:03-5151 (Bankr. W.D.Tex.)

     (5) Stevie Cooper, et al. v. Ocwen Federal Bank FSB, et
         al., Case No. 1:04-cv-00639 (S.D.Ala.)

     (6) Mary Crosby v. Ocwen Federal Bank FSB, et al.,
         Case No. 5:04-cv-02828 (N.D.Ala.)

     (7) Billy M. Dockery, et al. v. Ocwen Federal Bank FSB, et
         al., Case No. 7:04-cv-02830 (N.D.Ala.)

     (8) Thomas B. Doherty v. Ocwen Federal Bank FSB, et al.,
         Case No. 04-cv-04880 (D.Minn.)

     (9) Unnatiben Gandabhai, et al. v. Ocwen Federal Bank FSB,
         et al., Case No. 3:04-2582 (N.D.Cal.)

    (10) Lizzie Hannah, et al. v. Ocwen Federal Bank FSB, et
         al., Case No. 7:04-cv-02833 (N.D.Ala.)

    (11) Kweku Hanson, et al v. Ocwen Federal Bank FSB, et al.,
         Case No. 02-CV-860 (D.Conn.)

    (12) William Hearn, et al v. Ocwen Federal Bank FSB, et al.,
         Case No. C-04-0291 (E.D.Cal.)

    (13) Stephanie Hunter, et al. v. Ocwen Federal Bank FSB, et
         al., Case No. 2:04-cv-02864 (N.D.Ala.)

    (14) Lula M. Jackson, et al v. Ocwen Federal Bank FSB, et
         al., Case No. C-03-0743 (N.D.Cal.)

    (15) Freddie Jones v. Ocwen Federal Bank FSB, et al.,
         Case No. 4:04-cv-00294 (N.D.Miss.)

    (16) Marion Long v. Ocwen Federal Bank FSB, et al.,
         Case No. 7:04-cv-02852 (N.D.Ala.)

    (17) Allie M. Maddox, et al v. Ocwen Federal Bank FSB, et
         al., Case No. CV-03-9515 (C.D.Cal.)

    (18) Jeannette E. Martinez v. Ocwen Federal Savings Bank
         FSB, Case No. 1:04-296 (D.N.M.)

    (19) Michele McAuliffe, et al. v. U.S. Bank, N.A. as
         Trustee., et al., Case No. 03-C-1103 (N.D. Ill.)

    (20) George McDonald v. Ocwen Financial Corp., et al.,
         Case No. 1:04-03673 (N.D.Cal.)

    (21) Al McZeal v. Ocwen Federal Bank FSB, et al.,
         Case No. 4:04-1576 (S.D.Tex.)

    (22) Delores B. Moore v. Ocwen Federal Bank FSB, et al.,
         Case No. 2:04-2612 (E.D. Pa.)

    (23) Timothy Napier, et al. v. Ocwen Federal Bank FSB, et
         al., Case No. 2:03-174 (E.D.Wash.)

    (24) William A. Soto, et al v. Ocwen Federal Bank FSB, et
         al., Case No. 02-C-6818 (N.D.Ill.).

    (25) Geneva Spires, et al v. Ocwen Financial Services, Inc.,
         et al., Case No. C-03-5600 (N.D.Cal.)

    (26) Maggie Williams, et al. v. Ocwen Federal Bank FSB, et
         al., Case No. 4:04-cv-02869 (N.D.Ala.)

    (27) Thomas Wright, et al. v. Ocwen Federal Bank FSB, et
         al., Case No. 1:04-cv-00638 (S.D.Ala.)

On August 23, 2004, plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Complaint,
setting forth claims contained in lawsuits consolidated in the
MDL Proceeding.  Those claims variously involve alleged
violations of federal statutes, including the Real Estate
Settlement Procedures Act and Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act, and state deceptive trade practices statutes, and assert
common law claims.  The claims are based on various allegations
of improper servicing practices, including:

     (i) charging borrowers allegedly improper or unnecessary
         fees such as breach letter fees, hazard insurance
         premiums, foreclosure-related fees, late fees and
         property inspection fees;

    (ii) untimely posting and misapplication of borrower
         payments; and

   (iii) improperly treating borrowers as in default on their
         loans.

While some of the individual lawsuits had set forth specific
damage allegations (e.g., the Gandabhai complaint (item 9 above)
claimed actual damages of $61; the Hanson complaint (item 11
above) claimed actual damages of $150,000 and punitive and
exemplary damages of $1,500,000; the various Alabama and
Mississippi cases generally alleged damages less than $75 (items
2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 10, 13, 15, 16, 26 and 27 above)), the
Consolidated Complaint in the MDL Proceeding does not set forth
any specific amounts of claimed damages.  The absence of any
specification of damages in the Consolidated Complaint does not,
however, preclude plaintiffs in the MDL Proceeding from
requesting leave from the court to amend the Consolidated
Complaint or from otherwise seeking damages should the matter
proceed to trial.

On September 30, 2004, the Ocwen defendants filed various
motions to dismiss, for summary judgment, to strike class
allegations and to stay discovery. Briefing on these motions has
recently closed. Discovery in the MDL Proceeding has been stayed
pending resolution of the motions. No motion for class
certification has been submitted by plaintiffs, and the Court
has not indicated when any such motion would be permitted to be
filed.

        
PARADYNE 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 Paradyne
Networks, Inc., certain of its executive officers and the former
Chairman of the Company's board, and the underwriters of its
initial public offering.

The suit alleges that the defendants during the period from July
15, 1999 through December 6, 2000, violated federal securities
laws by allocating shares of our initial public offering to
favored customers in exchange for their promise to purchase
shares in the secondary market at escalating prices.  The suit
seeks damages in an unspecified amount for the purported class
for the losses suffered during the class period as a result of
an alleged inflated stock price.

On June 5, 2003, the IPO Defendants agreed to participate in a
global settlement of this case (along with the settlement of
hundreds of other similar IPO allocation cases pending in the
Southern District of New York).  The settlement is subject to
certification of a settlement class, notice to class members and
an opportunity to opt out, objections by any class members to
the terms of the settlement, and final approval by the Court.
There can be no assurance that all of these conditions will be
satisfied. The amount of settlement is unknown at this date. The
proposed settlement on the Company's behalf will be funded
exclusively by a portion of the proceeds of its directors' and
officers' insurance policy and will result in the dismissal of
this lawsuit and release by the plaintiff stockholder class of
the IPO Defendants.

The suit is styled "In re Paradyne 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


PENN ENGINEERING: Shareholders Launch DE Suits V. Tinicum Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Penn Engineering & Manufacturing Corporation and each of its
directors face four complaints in the Delaware Court of
Chancery.  One of the complaints also names Tinicum Capital
Partners II, L.P. and PEM Holding Co. as co-defendants.

The complaints purport to be class actions filed on behalf of
holders of the Company's Common Stock arising from certain
alleged actions by the Company and its directors in connection
with the proposed merger of the Company with an affiliate of
Tinicum Capital Partners II, L.P. The complaints include various
allegations that:

     (1) each of the defendants breached and/or aided and
         abetted the other defendants' breaches of fiduciary
         duties of loyalty, due care, candor, good faith and
         fair dealing;

     (2) the director defendants spent substantial effort
         tailoring the structural terms of the merger to meet
         the specific needs of Tinicum Capital Partners II, L.P.
         to ensure the sale of the Company to it on preferential
         terms instead of attempting to obtain the highest price
         reasonably available for the Company and its
         stockholders, which was subversive to the interests of
         the public stockholders of the Company;

     (3) the directors structured and approved the transaction
         in contravention of the Company's restated certificate
         of incorporation, agreeing to provisions in agreements
         that effectively preclude a competing bid and approving
         an acquisition that favors insiders to the detriment of
         the Company's public stockholders, including the price
         per share offered to the holders of the Company's
         Common Stock; and

     (4) the defendants failed to provide material information
         concerning the transaction to the Company's public
         stockholders.

The complaints seek equitable relief in the form of an
injunction enjoining the consummation of the merger or, if the
merger is consummated to the detriment of the public
stockholders, then rescission of the transaction or unspecified
damages, in addition to costs and disbursements, including
reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees.

The Company is in the process of preparing responses to these
complaints, and the time for the Company to respond to these
complaints has not yet expired.


PFIZER INC.: Recalls Neurontin Due To Manufacturing Failure
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc. voluntarily recalled one lot (40,000 bottles) of 100
mg capsules of its epilepsy medication, Neurontin, after a
manufacturing mechanical failure resulted in some bottles
containing empty or partially filled capsules.

Pfizer said only 100 mg strength capsules from lot #15224V --
distributed in October and November, 2004 -- are included in the
recall. The production lot was distributed only in the United
States. No other Neurontin lots were affected.

The company said it is possible that patients taking Neurontin
to control epilepsy could experience seizures from a missed dose
of the product.

Although pharmacists and Pfizer distributors were notified on
February 23 of the recall and pharmacists were instructed to
immediately contact any of their customers using Neurontin,
Pfizer wants to ensure full patient awareness. The company has
worked closely with the FDA throughout the recall process.

Patients should not stop taking Neurontin before consulting with
their physician. If they filled a prescription for the product
in 100 mg strength between October 1, 2004 and March 15, 2005
and are concerned that any unused capsules may be part of the
recalled lot, they should contact their pharmacist.

If consumers have questions about the recall, they should
contact Pfizer Medical Information at 1-800-438-1985.

Pfizer said the recall of the affected lot will not result in a
shortage of Neurontin 100 mg capsules.


REHABCARE GROUP: Appeals Court Upholds Securities Suit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed
plaintiffs' appeal of a lower court ruling, dismissing the
consolidated securities class action filed against RehabCare
Group, Inc. and certain of its former and current directors and
officers.

The suit was filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri, alleging violations of the federal
securities laws.  The suit had been certified as a class action
with the class consisting of persons that purchased shares of
the Company's common stock between August 10, 2000 and January
21, 2002.  The case alleged weaknesses in the software systems
selected by its former StarMed Staffing subsidiary, and the
purported negative effects of such systems on the Company's
business operations.

On September 30, 2004, the court dismissed the suit with
prejudice for failure to state a claim.  The plaintiffs
initially filed a notice of appeal with the Eighth Circuit Court
of Appeals, but abandoned the appeal by submission of a motion
for dismissal.  The district court entered a final judgment
dismissing the appeal on January 28, 2005.

A derivative lawsuit is pending in the Circuit Court of St.
Louis County, Missouri against the Company and certain of its
former and current directors and is based upon substantially the
same facts as were alleged in the federal securities class
action. This suit was filed on behalf of the derivative
plaintiff by a law firm that had earlier filed suit against the
Company in the federal case. The federal court hearing the
securities law class action had stayed discovery in the
derivative proceeding until the federal court made its ruling on
the Company's motion to dismiss.  The Company has recently been
informed by the attorneys for the derivative plaintiff that they
intend to request a hearing in the state case for the purpose of
obtaining a scheduling order on discovery.


The suit is styled "Gakenheimer v. RehabCare, et al, 4:02-CV-
001103 CAS," filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri, under Judge Rodney W. Sippel.  
Lawyers for the defendants are Douglas M. Hagerman of FOLEY AND
LARDNER, 330 N. Wabash Avenue, Suite 3300, Chicago, IL 60611-
3608, Phone: 312-755-1900, Fax: 312-755-1925 or Steven M.
Sherman and Sherri C. Strand of THOMPSON COBURN, One US Bank
Plaza, St. Louis, MO 63101, Phone: 314-552-6000, Fax:
314-552-7000, E-mail: ssherman@thompsoncoburn.com or
sstrand@thompsoncoburn.com.


SCIENTIFIC GAMES: CA Court Dismisses Horse Race Fraud Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Los Angeles Superior Court in California dismissed the class
action filed against Autotote/Scientific Games Corporation,
styled "Jimmy Allard, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Autotote/Scientific Games Corporation,
case no. BC286382.  The complaint alleged, among other things,
negligence by the Company with respect to the Company's
processing of horse racing betting transactions.

The suit alleges the Company was negligent in operating Pick-
Three, Pick-Four and Pick-Six wagering at horse tracks.  An
employee of Autotote, a subsidiary of Scientific Games admitted
in court to falsified winning bets in three instances.  They
were topped by a $3.1 million Pick-Six total payoff on the
Breeders' Cup races October 26, for six tickets that cost the
alleged conspirators just $1,152.  Payment of the money was
withheld and put in escrow when the six identical tickets
aroused suspicion of thoroughbred racing officials, an earlier
Class Action Reporter story (December 9,2002) reports.

The Lisoni & Lisoni law firm of Pasadena filed the suit in Los
Angeles Superior Court, seeking unspecified monetary damages
suffered by Mr. Allard and other bettors.  Attorneys Joseph and
Gail Lisoni said in a statement that due to flaws in the
Company's system and security the "betting public may have been
cheated out of countless millions of dollars for possibly the
past eight years."

"The Autotote employee was able to take advantage of an innate
flaw in Autotote's computerized wagering system," says the
lawsuit filed by Mr. Allard "on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated" throughout the United States.

In June 2004, after the Company filed various motions, plaintiff
filed a Request for Dismissal.  In September 2004, the Court
dismissed the case with prejudice as against Jimmy Allard and
without prejudice as against the unnamed class members.


SECOND CHANCE: Plaintiffs Establish Web Site, Provides Updates
--------------------------------------------------------------
Owners of bullet-proof vests manufactured by Second Chance Body
Armor, Inc. containing Zylon, manufactured and sold by Toyobo
Company, Ltd. brought a lawsuit alleging that the vests,
marketed under the names Ultima, Ultimax, and Triflex fail to
meet the performance characteristics for which they were
warranted. In February, the Circuit Court for Mayes County,
Oklahoma, where the suit has been filed, certified the case as a
class action.

For those who purchased, possess, or own a bullet-proof vest
manufactured by Second Chance under the trade name Ultima,
Ultimax, or Triflex, a Web site
http://www.zylonvestclassaction.com,has been established to  
provide complete information on the case as well as detailed
explanations of your legal rights as a Class Member.

It is estimated that tens of thousands of individuals and/or
entities may be affected by this litigation.

For this reason, the Court has ordered a notification program
consisting of direct mail, print and other advertising to
identify and educate potential Class Members in the case,
entitled, Lemmings et al v. Second Chance Body Armor, Inc., et
al No CJ- 2004-62.

"I would encourage all police men and women, as well as all of
those in the law enforcement fields, who believe they may have a
bullet-proof vest of the model type in question here, to look
into this matter. It is worth visiting the Web site or calling
to get complete information regarding the options Class Members
have," said Lead Class Counsel Allan Kanner of the law firm
Allan Kanner & Associates, PLLC of New Orleans.

The Court has ruled that this case move forward as a class
action, but has not ruled on the claims of either side. The case
must be ready for trial by August 1, 2005. Prior to that date,
Class Members must decide whether to remain in the Class or
exclude themselves from it. Those wishing to remain in the Class
need not take any action now, but those wishing to exclude
themselves must do so by May 31, 2005.

The case is not affected by the bankruptcy of Second Chance Body
Armor, Inc., the manufacturer of the vests. The action is
proceeding against the other named defendants, including the
Japanese manufacturer of the Zylon fiber, Toyobo Co., Ltd.
Claims filed against Second Chance in the bankruptcy court have
no effect on claims filed in the class action, and vice versa.

Instructions for those wishing to exclude themselves and the
forms necessary to do so are all available on the Web site or by
writing to

For more details, contact Zylon(r) Vest Class Action by Mail:
P.O. Box 1700, Faribault, MN 55021 or by Phone: 877-567-2754 OR
Allan Kanner of Allan Kanner & Associates, PLLC by Phone:
504-524-577.


SELECT COMFORT: Asks MN Court To Dismiss Consumer Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Select Comfort Corporation asked the Hennepin County District
Court in the State of Minnesota to dismiss a consumer fraud
class action filed against it by one of its customers alleging
deceptive trade practices, fraud and breach of warranty related
to the alleged propensity of the Company's products to develop
mold.

The complaint seeks to certify a class of plaintiffs that would
include all purchasers of the Company's beds.  The plaintiff
seeks various forms of legal and equitable relief on behalf of
class members, including but not limited to rescission and/or
actual damages in an amount to be determined at trial, including
interest, costs and attorney's fees.


SG COWEN: SEC Lodges Insider Trading, Fraud Charges Ex-Director
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission charged Guillaume Pollet,
a former managing director of SG Cowen & Co., with insider
trading and fraud by short selling the stock of companies prior
to the companies closing on a private offering of stock,
including offerings in which SG Cowen invested. The private
offerings are often referred to as "PIPEs" for "private
investment in public equity." At the time of the misconduct, Mr.
Pollet was in charge of investing SG Cowen proprietary funds in
PIPE transactions.
     
The Commission's complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court  
for the Eastern District of New York, alleges that during 2001
Pollet traded  in the  shares  of  ten public companies that
either engaged in, or were contemplating engaging in, PIPE
financings after receiving confidential non-public information
about the upcoming PIPE transaction. Specifically, Mr. Pollet
routinely sold short the publicly traded securities of these
PIPE issuers prior to the close of the PIPE transaction in order
to lock in gains for SG Cowen's proprietary account. As a result
of Mr. Pollet's illicit trading, SG Cowen locked in over $4
million in trading profits, in addition to other gains SG Cowen
made on the transactions. In several instances, SG Cowen also
acted as the PIPE issuer's investment banker.
     
The Commission's complaint also alleges that, in several
instances, Mr. Pollet's short selling was directly contrary to
representations that SG Cowen made to PIPE issuers in connection
with the PIPE transactions. For example, SG Cowen specifically
represented to some of the PIPE issuers that SG Cowen would not
short sell the securities of such issuer
prior to the close of the PIPE transaction.  SG Cowen also
represented to each of the PIPE issuers that it was acquiring
the PIPE securities with investment intent.  SG Cowen made these
representations at a time when Mr. Pollet had already started to
short sell the securities of these PIPE issuers.
     
The complaint alleges that through his fraudulent trading Mr.
Pollet violated Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933,
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule  
10b-5  thereunder. The Commission is seeking injunctive relief,
disgorgement of all ill-gotten gains plus pre-judgment interest,
and civil penalties.
     
The staff acknowledges the assistance of the U.S. Attorney's
Office for the Eastern District of New York and the Federal
Bureau of Investigation in this matter.
     
The Commission's investigation is continuing. The action is
entitled, SEC v. Guillaume Pollet, USDC, EDNY, No. 05-CV-1937
(SLT/RLM) EDNY] (LR-19199).


ST. PAUL: Continues To Face Consolidated MN Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
St. Paul Travelers Companies, Inc. faces a consolidated
securities class action filed against it and certain of its
current and former officers and directors in the United States
District Court for the District of Minnesota.

Beginning in August 2004, following post-merger announcements by
the Company, various shareholders of the Company commenced
fourteen putative class action lawsuits, alleging that certain
disclosures relating to the April 2004 merger between Travelers
Property Casualty Corporation (TPC) and St. Paul Companies, INc.
(SPC) contained false or misleading statements with respect to
the value of SPC's loss reserves in violation of federal
securities laws. The complaints do not specify damages.

These actions have been consolidated under the caption "In re
St. Paul Travelers Securities Litigation."  Plaintiffs have not
yet filed a consolidated class action complaint.  

An additional putative class action based on the same
allegations was brought in New York State Supreme Court. This
action was subsequently transferred to, and is currently pending
in, the District of Minnesota.


ST. PAUL: Faces 4 Insurance Fraud Lawsuits in NJ, CA, IL Courts
---------------------------------------------------------------
St. Paul's Travelers Companies, Inc. has been named in four
putative class action lawsuits brought against a number of
insurance brokers and insurers, by plaintiffs who allegedly
purchased insurance products through one or more of the
defendant brokers.  The complaints are captioned:

     (1) Shell Vacations LLC v. Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc.
         (filed in the United States District Court for the
         Northern District of Illinois on January 14, 2005),

     (2) Redwood Oil Company v. Marsh & McLennan Companies,
         Inc. (filed in the United States District Court for the
         Northern District of Illinois on January 21, 2005);

     (3) Boros v. Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. (United
         States District Court for the Northern District of
         California on February 4, 2005) and

     (4) Mulcahey v. Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. (filed in the
         United States District Court for the District of New
         Jersey, February 23, 2005)

Plaintiffs allege that various insurance brokers conspired with
each other and with various insurers, including the Company, to
allocate brokerage customers and rig bids for insurance products
offered to those customers.  The complaints include causes of
action under the Sherman Act, the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act, federal and state common law and the
laws of the various states prohibiting antitrust violations and
unfair and/or deceptive trade practices. Plaintiffs seek
monetary damages, including punitive damages and trebled
damages, permanent injunctive relief, restitution, including
disgorgement of profits, interest and costs, including
attorneys' fees.


TEXAS: Activists Converge on Hearne To Support Resident's Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
More than 60 civil rights activists from across the state
gathered in the Central Texas town of Hearne to take a stand in
a legal battle against law enforcement officials in the Brazos
Valley town, The Associated Press reports.

Residents and the activist met at St. Emanuel Baptist Church not
only to take a stand in the legal battle, but also to get an
update on a November 2002 class-action lawsuit filed on behalf
of 15 Hearne residents.

The lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union contends drug
agents wrongly arrested residents or detained black residents in
a November 2000 sweep. It also accuses Robertson County District
Attorney John Paschall and the South Central Texas Narcotics
Task Force of 15 years of racially motivated drug sweeps in
Hearne, an allegation that Mr. Paschall vehemently denied.

The lawsuit, which is entitled Kelly v. Paschall, also names
nearly 50 additional law officers from Robertson County and
surrounding areas. A Trial is set to begin on May 9 in federal
district court in Waco.


TEXAS: Court Allows Men To Sue Strip Clubs Over Extra Surcharges
----------------------------------------------------------------
A three-judge panel of the 14th Texas Court of Appeals ruled
that Paul Brian Meekey and Michael Fulmer, who lodged a lawsuit
against more than a half-dozen strip clubs because of extra fees
charged for lap dances, should be allowed to sue over surcharges
for credit card use, The Houston Chronicle reports.

According to a lawyer for the two men, the lawsuit may be made a
class action that could mean the notifying of other men who used
credit cards to pay for lap dances in recent years.

That might not go over very well in some households, according
to Albert Van Huff, an attorney for several of the clubs. He
told the Chronicle, "They are going to want the (strip) clubs'
credit card companies to give them the names of all the
different people who have charged dances there."

Court documents show that Mr. Meekey and Mr. Fulmer sued a
number of local "gentlemen's clubs" in September 2003, claiming
they had been illegally charged $25 for $20 lap dances simply
because they used credit cards. The businesses they named in
their suit include Rick's Cabaret and the Men's Club.

However, attorneys for the clubs argued that their clients are
not responsible for the higher fee. Mr. Van Huff even contends,
"Since the dancers are independent contractors and not employees
of the club, the clubs are not the ones selling the dances."

The clubs' lawyers also argued that the case should go before
the state Finance Commission, not a court, which the trial judge
agreed and thus promptly dismissed the lawsuit. The panel from
the 14th Court of Appeals however reversed that ruling and sent
the case back to state court.

Sandra Krider, one of the lawyers for Mr. Meekey and Mr. Fulmer
told the Chronicle, "Texas law is pretty clear that you cannot
charge someone extra for using a credit card. The fact that they
are strip clubs shouldn't mean they get away with it."


TRANSKARYOTIC THERAPIES: MA Court To Hear Certification Motion
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts will hear this month motions seeking class
certification for the consolidated securities class action field
against Transkaryotic Therapies, Inc. and certain of its
officers.

In January and February 2003, various parties filed purported
class action lawsuits against the Company and Richard Selden,
its former Chief Executive Officer.  The complaints generally
allege securities fraud during the period from January 2001
through January 2003.  Each of the complaints asserts claims
under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act, and alleges that the Company and its officers made
false and misleading statements and failed to disclose material
information concerning the status and progress for obtaining
United States marketing approval of the Company's Replagal
product to treat Fabry disease during that period.

In March 2003, various plaintiffs filed motions to consolidate,
to appoint lead plaintiff, and to approve plaintiff's selections
of lead plaintiffs' counsel.  In April 2003, various plaintiffs
filed a Joint Stipulation and Proposed Order of Lead Plaintiff
Applicants to Consolidate Actions, To Appoint Lead Plaintiffs
and to Approve Lead Plaintiffs' Selection of Lead Counsel,
Executive Committee and Liaison Counsel. In April 2003, the
Court endorsed the Proposed Order, thereby consolidating the
various matters under one matter: "In re Transkaryotic
Therapies, Inc., Securities Litigation, C.A. No. 03-10165-RWZ."

In July 2003, the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated and Amended
Class Action Complaint against the Company; Dr. Selden; Daniel
Geffken, its former Chief Financial Officer; Walter Gilbert,
Jonathan S. Leff, Rodman W. Moorhead, III, and Wayne P. Yetter,
members of the Company's board of directors; William R. Miller
and James E. Thomas, former members of the Company's board of
directors; and SG Cowen Securities Corporation, Deutsche Bank
Securities Inc., Pacific Growth Equities, Inc. and Leerink Swann
& Company, underwriters of the Company's common stock in prior
public offerings.

The Amended Complaint alleges securities fraud during the period
from January 4, 2001 through January 10, 2003.  The Amended
Complaint alleges that the defendants made false and misleading
statements and failed to disclose material information
concerning the status and progress for obtaining United States
marketing approval of Replagal during that period.  The Amended
Complaint asserts claims against Dr. Selden and the Company
under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder; and against Dr. Selden under Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act.  The Amended Complaint also asserts
claims based on the Company's public offerings of June 29, 2001,
December 18, 2001 and December 26, 2001 against each of the
defendants under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 and
against Dr. Selden under Section 15 of the Securities Act;
against SG Cowen Securities Corporation, Deutsche Bank
Securities, Pacific Growth Equities, Inc., and Leerink Swann &
Company under Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act. The
plaintiffs seek equitable and monetary relief, an unspecified
amount of damages, with interest, and attorney's fees and costs.

In September 2003, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
Amended Complaint. In May 2004, the United States District Court
for the District of Massachusetts issued a Memorandum of
Decision and Order denying in part and granting in part the
Company's motion to dismiss the purported class action lawsuit.
In the Memorandum, the Court found several allegations against
the Company arose out of forward-looking statements protected by
the "safe harbor" provisions of the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA). The Court dismissed those
statements as falling within the PSLRA's safe harbor provisions.
The Court also dismissed claims based on the public offerings of
June 29, 2001 and December 18, 2001 because no plaintiff had
standing to bring such claims. The Court allowed all other
allegations to remain.

In July 2004, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed all claims
based on the December 26, 2001 offering because no plaintiff had
standing to bring such claims.  The plaintiffs subsequently
filed a motion seeking permission to notify certain TKT
investors of the dismissal of the claims based on the offerings,
and to inform those investors of their opportunity to intervene
in the lawsuit. TKT filed an opposition to this motion in July
2004. The Court has not yet ruled on this motion.  The Company
filed an answer to the Amended Complaint in July 2004. The
plaintiffs then filed a motion for class certification in July
2004. The Company expects to file an opposition to this motion
in March 2005. A hearing on class certification is scheduled to
be held in April 2005.


TRAVELERS PROPERTY: Parties Evaluate Next Step in CT Fraud Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in three putative class action filed against Travelers
Property Casualty Corporation (TPC) and its board of directors
are evaluating how to proceed with the litigation, in the light
of other suits filed against the Company.

Three putative class action lawsuits were filed by shareholders
against the Company, alleging breach of fiduciary duty in
connection with the merger of the Company and St. Paul
Companies, Inc. (SPC) and seeking injunctive relief as well as
unspecified monetary damages.  The actions were captioned:

     (1) Henzel, et al. v. Travelers Property Casualty Corp., et
         al., (Judicial District of Waterbury County,
         Connecticut filed November 17, 2003);

     (2) Vozzolo v. Travelers Property Casualty Corp., et al.,
         (Judicial District of Waterbury, Connecticut, Nov. 17,
         2003); and

     (3) Farina v. Travelers Property Casualty Corp., et al.,
         (Jud. Dist. of Waterbury, Ct., filed December 15, 2003)

The Farina complaint also named SPC and its former subsidiary,
Adams Acquisition Corp., as defendants, alleging that they aided
and abetted the alleged breach of fiduciary duty.  On March 18,
2004, the Company and SPC announced that all of these lawsuits
had been settled, subject to court approval of the settlements.
The settlement included a modification to the termination fee
that could have been paid had the merger not been completed,
additional disclosure in the proxy statement distributed in
connection with the merger and a nominal amount for attorneys'
fees. Before court approval of the settlement, additional
shareholder litigation was commenced.  In light of that
litigation, the parties are evaluating how to proceed.


TYSON FOODS: Web Site Opened To Identify Possible Class Members
---------------------------------------------------------------
In an information campaign aimed at identifying potential
members in a class action lawsuit against Tyson Foods Inc. and
other beef processors the Beef Packer Class Action group
launched http://www.packerclassaction.com,The Springdale  
Morning News reports.  

Through the website, the group hopes to find cattle producers
who sold cattle for slaughter to certain processors between
April 1, 2001, and May 11, 2001, according to Beef Packer
spokesman Tim McHugh of Kinsella-Novak Communications in
Washington.

Mr. McHugh told the Morning News that estimates pin the number
of class members between 10,000 and 30,000 and could include
anyone who sold beef cattle to certain processors between those
dates. He points out, "A lot to do with (the number) is the
cattle yards that sell on behalf of a group of investors. Some
of those people are unknown, so you can't just knock on the
person's door or send them a letter."

In addition, Mr. McHugh also told the Morning News that his firm
was hired as a court-appointed mandate to get the word out about
the class status and attract members through advertising and
publicity. He adds this would include ads on news services used
by cattlemen, paid spots in newspapers and the Web site.

The lawsuit, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of South Dakota, claims "packers unlawfully underpaid
the class members for cattle sold to them during (that period)
and seeks to require the defendants to pay these sums to the
class members."  Court documents show that the plaintiffs and
the class are being led by the original filers of the suit
namely, cattlemen Herman Schumacher, Michael P. Callicrate and
Roger D. Koch. The documents also show that the defendants are
Tyson Fresh Meats Inc., a division of the Springdale-based meat
giant, Excel Corporation, Swift Beef Co. and National Beef
Packing Co.

Tyson Fresh Meats was known as IBP Inc. during the time in
question. Tyson acquired IBP in late 2001, making it the world's
largest meat processor.

Court documents say the price Tyson and other processors are
paid for boxed beef "are factors of some importance in
determining the price packers pay cattle producers for fed
cattle."

The plaintiffs claim during the first six weeks of the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's new boxed beef price reporting
method, which coincided with the April to May 2001 dates, some
of USDA's figures were inaccurate due to computer glitches,
court documents say. They contend that the defendants knowingly
used this flawed data to get better prices on fed cattle from
processors and violated the Packers and Stockyards Act.

In its annual Form 10-K filing with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, Tyson says that it correctly reported beef sales
information to the USDA and at the same time vehemently denies
the charges.

Class action status was granted on June 7 and damages were in
the "tens of millions" of dollars, according to a plaintiffs'
affidavit that was cited in Tyson's 10-K. Tyson appealed the
class certification to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, but
the court denied the motion on July 7.

Though Case No. 02-1027 is set for trial on December 15, Mr.
McHugh told the Morning News that such cases are often settled
out of court.  Mr. McHugh said, those wishing to remain in the
class need to do nothing, he however pointed out that suit would
exclude class members from individually bringing a lawsuit
against any of the defendants.  He also stated that those
wishing to be excluded must mail a form, postmarked by June 13,
which is available at the Web site.


VERTEX PHARMACEUTICALS: MA Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts dismissed the class action filed against Vertex
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and certain of its officers and a former
employee.  The case was designated as "In re Vertex
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Securities Litigation, Consolidated Civil
Action No. 03-11852-PBS."

In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs claimed that the defendants made
material misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact
regarding VX-745, an investigational agent with potential in the
treatment of inflammatory and neurological diseases, in
violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act and Rule 10(b)(5).  The plaintiffs sought certification as a
class action, compensatory damages in an unspecified amount, and
unspecified equitable or injunctive relief.

In her order dismissing the complaint, United States District
Court Judge Patti B. Saris also denied the plaintiffs' motion to
supplement the complaint as "futile." No consideration has been
exchanged, and neither the plaintiffs nor their counsel will
receive any compensation or expense reimbursement from Vertex in
connection with the dismissal, an earlier Class Action Reporter
story (February 25,2005) reports.  The plaintiffs intend to
appeal the decision.


WATTS WATER: MD Court Hears Appeal of Suit Certification Denial
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Maryland Court of Appeals heard the appeal of the denial of
class certification for the lawsuit filed against Watts Water
Technologies, Inc.  The North Carolina Hospitality Group, Inc.
filed the suit, alleging that certain commercial valve models
contain a design defect that causes them to fail prematurely.

On June 7, 2004, the trial court issued an opinion and order
that denied the plaintiff's request for class certification.
This ruling was appealed at the end of the year, and it is now
being briefed in the appellate court.


VIRGINIA: Couple Plans Suit Over Popular Peer-To-Peer Software
--------------------------------------------------------------
After agreeing to settle a copyright-infringement lawsuit that
was initiated in Virginia by recording-industry lawyers, Sally
and Jim Wilson are planning to sue an Australian-based company,
Sharman Networks Ltd. over its popular peer-to-peer Kazaa
software, The Cincinnati Enquirer reports.

The X-ray technician and union pipe fitter were sued by
recording industry lawyers after their two teenage daughters had
downloaded 653 songs using Sharman's software.

According to Newport lawyer Chris Macke, who represented the
Cold Spring couple in the settlement, he plans to file suit in
Campbell Circuit Court, seeking to make it a class action, so
others who have paid settlements for downloading music can
become parties. He estimates that record companies have sued
10,000 people and of those sued 5,000 have paid settlements.

Jim Wilson told The Cincinnati Enquirer, "I really don't want
any money. I don't like the idea of people suing me, and I don't
like suing anybody else." He wants to protect other people, he
adds.

Mrs. Wilson also told The Cincinnati Enquirer that she learned
how to download music in a way that seemed innocent in classes
Gateway Inc. offered after she bought a computer. She adds,
"When you bought the computer, you got certain classes with it.
And one of them was a music class, and how to download music,
and copy CDs. They gave you a really nice book and everything."
It, however, brought a costly lesson.

"This is not a surprising development," Recording Industry
Association of America spokesman Jonathan Lamy, whose
organization has no love for such services as Kazaa, which hurt
music revenue, told the Enquirer of the suit.

In October 2004 alone, approximately 2.4 million users of the
FastTrack network, which includes Kazaa and Grokster, traded 1.4
billion files, according to information the RIAA filed with the
Federal Trade Commission.

Mr. Lamy told the Enquirer, "This is an industry that during the
past five years has seen a decline in shipments of CDs of more
than 20 percent, and that has translated into real economic
harm." He also adds that thousands of employees have been laid
off, songwriters have left the business, and record stores have
closed, due to software like Kazaa.

Mr. Macke told the Enquirer, Kazaa and similar companies profit
from the ignorance of some users by saying, "Kazaa markets this
software knowing that it's going to be used for an unlawful
purpose."

The Wilsons want to get the word to suburbanites like
themselves, who don't know how many copyrights their children
are infringing. "I'm spreading the news," Jim Wilson told the
Enquirer.


WISCONSIN: Judge Dismisses UW Band Member's Suit Over $41 Fine
--------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb dismissed a lawsuit seeking
federal class action status over a $41 fine levied against
members of the University of Wisconsin (UW) Varsity Band after a
rowdy road trip last year, The Associated Press reports.

The lawsuit, which was brought by David Gauder, one of 29 band
members who were collectively fined nearly $1,200 by UW
administrators after a bus trip from the 2004 Big Ten women's
basketball tournament in Indianapolis.

The suit alleged that administrators acted without authority in
refusing to allow the members to register for classes or
graduate until they paid the fine.

Mr. Gauder, who graduated from the school of business last May
also alleges that the university would not give him a final
transcript because he refused to pay, but after two months, the
school relented. However, Mr. Gauder pressed ahead with his
lawsuit, claiming his right to due process was violated, and
sought class action status on behalf of all the members.

Court documents show that during the March 2004 trip, the bus
driver warned band members they were being too noisy for him to
drive safely, and he eventually pulled over and called the
police. After that incident, band director Michael Leckrone
imposed the fine on the whole band during their next rehearsal.

In her ruling Judge Crabb pointed out that Mr. Leckrone had
justification for imposing the fine and that Mr. Gauder's rights
weren't violated because he had opportunities to express his
displeasure with university officials.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

DORAL FINANCIAL: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated securities
class actions have been commenced on behalf of those who
acquired the securities of Doral Financial Corporation ("Doral"
or the "Company") (NYSE:DRL) from May 15, 2000 through April 18,
2005 (the "Class Period").

Cases are pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York and in the United States District
Court for the District of Puerto Rico. The actions charge that
the Company and certain officers and/or directors violated
federal securities laws by issuing a series of materially false
and misleading statements to the market during the Class Period,
which statements had the effect of artificially inflating the
market price of the Company's securities. The Company has
announced that it should restate its financials. No class has
yet been certified in the above actions.

For more details, contact the Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven,
P.A. by Mail: The World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt
Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore, Maryland 21202 by Phone:
410/986-0036 by E-mail: hoffman@pivenlaw.com.  


DORAL FINANCIAL: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Fraud Suit in PR
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP initiated a
class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities
of Doral Financial Corporation ("Doral" or the "Company") (NYSE:
DRL) between April 9, 2002 and April 18, 2005 inclusive, (the
"Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The action is pending in the United States District Court for
the District of Puerto Rico against defendants Doral Financial
Corporation, Salomon Levis, Zoila Levis, Mario Levis, Richardo
Melendez, Richard Bonini, and Edgar M. Cullman.

The Complaint alleges that Defendants orchestrated a massive
accounting fraud through which they improperly valued the
Company's Interest Only Strips ("IOs") and misled investors as
to the Company's vulnerability to interest rate increases.
Throughout the Class Period, defendants issued highly positive
statements in an effort to create the impression that earnings
were increasing and that the value of Doral's mortgage
portfolios was robust. In reality, the Company employed a static
measure, instead of a forward curve measure, to calculate the
value of its LIBOR sensitive IOs. The Company now admits that
this practice resulted in false and misleading results, results
the Company now intends to restate. According to its April 18,
2005 press release, the Company's annual and interim financial
reports for 2000-2004 are materially false and misleading
requiring restatement because of the Company's improper
accounting treatment of the IOs. During the Class period, while
the investing public was deceived, defendants sold 579,750
shares for personal proceeds of $20.5 million and completed
numerous necessary debt offerings. The Company has also
announced that it is not only restating five years of financial
statements, but its accounting practices are the subject of an
informal SEC investigation. The Company's stock has plummeted
66% from its January 18, 2005 close to its close on April 18,
2005 at $16.92.

For more details, contact Steven G. Schulman by Mail: One
Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th fl., New York, NY, 10119-0165 by Phone
number: (800) 320-5081 by E-mail: sfeerick@milbergweiss.com OR
Maya Saxena, Joseph E. White III or Ariel Acevedo by Mail: 5200
Town Center Circle, Suite 600, Boca Raton, FL 33486 by Phone:
(561) 361-5000 by E-mail: msaxena@milbergweiss.com or
jwhite@milbergweiss.com or aacevedo@milbergweiss.com or visit
their Web site: http://www.milbergweiss.com.


DORAL FINACIAL: Scott + Scott Lodges Securities Fraud Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Scott + Scott, LLC initiated a shareholder class
action lawsuit by request on behalf of purchasers of Doral
Financial Corp. (NYSE:DRL) securities between March 15, 2004 and
April 15, 2005 (a new complaint is being filed that extends the
class period to include those who purchased from October 2, 2002
through April 18, 2005). Other defendants included Salomon
Levis, Zoila Levis, David Levis and Ricardo Melendez. Other
defendants may be named as the investigation continues.

It is alleged, among other things, that during the restatement
period Doral improperly valued its I/Os by using flawed loss
assumption, artificially high prepayment assumptions and
artificially low discount rates. As a result of such conduct,
Doral's stock price traded at artificially inflated levels. It
is further alleged that during the restatement period Doral
falsely reported its results through its failure to accurately
account for its I/O assets, thereby overstating its net income
and revenue and understating the Company's net liabilities in
violation U.S. GAAP. The Complaint alleges that this enabled
certain insiders to reap more than $10,000,000 dollars in
insider trading profits, as well as cash incentive bonuses.

It is further alleged that in the 4Q:04, the impact of the
flattening yield curve caught up to the defendants. In their
quarterly filing, Doral recorded a $97.5 million pretax
impairment charge on the I/O strips as the result of an increase
in interest rates, specifically a rise in LIBOR -- the London
interbank offered rate. Rather than come clean and disclose that
they had been misleading investors, it is alleged that Doral
attempted to further this allegedly false story. In its
quarterly filing for 4Q:04, the Company noted its bottom line
had been increased, with a $77 million tax benefit stemming from
a temporary 50% reduction in Puerto Rico's long-term capital
gains rate. This tax benefit applied to transactions between
July 1, 2004, and June 30, 2005. Doral claimed that the tax
reduction offset a $95 million trading loss it incurred on some
of its I/O strips that were used to hedge against interest rate
fluctuations. The Company stated that the new law prompted it to
"accelerate" the time frame for recording an impairment charge
on the value of its I/O strips.

Also alleged is that Defendant Salomon Levis (Doral's CEO), in
an email response to a journalist's question about the bank's
earnings, tried to further mislead the public about the true
nature of Doral's finances. It is alleged that these statements
were false and misleading when made since Solomon Levis knew
that the temporary tax benefit simply "masked" the Company's
derivative shortfall and indicated that Doral's hedging strategy
against interest rate changes was inadequate to safeguard the
value of its I/O portfolio from interest rate swings. In April
of 2005, the Company finally disclosed the magnitude of the
problems at Doral and announced a possible $435 million
reduction in earnings. Doral's stock price crashed, going from a
$49.25 to $16.15 in less than three months.

For more details, contact Neil Rothstein of Scott + Scott, LLC,
Colchester by Phone: 860-537-3818 by Fax: 860-537-4432 by E-
mail: nrothstein@scott-scott.com.


DORAL FINANCIAL: Wechsler Harwood Lodges Securities Suit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law firm of Wechsler Harwood LLP filed a Federal Securities
fraud class action suit on behalf of all purchasers of the
common stock of Doral Financial Corp. (NYSE:DRL) between March
15, 2004 and April 18, 2005, both dates inclusive (the "Class
Period").

The action, titled ``Haverman v. Doral Financial Corp.,' Case
No. 05 CV 4026 (JSR), is pending in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, and names as
defendants, the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and
Chairman of the Board of Directors, Salomon Levis, its Chief
Operating Officer and President, Zolla Levis, its President of
the HF Mortgage Bankers division, David Levis, and its Chief
Operating Officer and Executive President, Ricardo Melendez. A
copy of the Complaint can be obtained from the Court or can be
viewed on Wechsler Harwood web site at: www.whesq.com

The Complaint charges defendants with violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Specifically, the Complaint
alleges that defendants issued a series of materially false and
misleading statements contained in press releases and filings
with the Securities and Exchange Commission during the Class
Period. It is alleged, among other things, that during the
restatement period Doral improperly valued its I/Os by using
flawed loss assumption, artificially high prepayment assumptions
and artificially low discount rates. As a result of such
conduct, Doral's stock price traded at artificially inflated
levels. It is further alleged that during the restatement period
Doral falsely reported its results through its failure to
accurately account for its I/O assets, thereby overstating its
net income and revenue and understating the Company's net
liabilities in violation U.S. GAAP. This enabled certain
insiders to reap more than $10,000,000 dollars in insider
trading profits, as well as cash incentive bonuses.

The Complaint further alleges that in the fourth quarter '04,
the impact of the flattening yield curve caught up to the
defendants. In their quarterly filing, Doral recorded a $97.5
million pretax impairment charge on the I/O strips as the result
of an increase in interest rates, specifically a rise in LIBOR -
- the London interbank offered rate. Rather than come clean and
disclose that they had been misleading investors, it is alleged
that Doral attempted to further this false story. In its
quarterly filing for fourth quarter '04, the Company noted its
bottom line had been increased, with a $77 million tax benefit
stemming from a temporary 50% reduction in Puerto Rico's long-
term capital gains rate. This tax benefit applied to
transactions between July 1, 2004, and June 30, 2005. Doral
claimed that the tax reduction offset a $95 million trading loss
it incurred on some of its I/O strips that were used to hedge
against interest rate fluctuations. The Company stated that the
new law prompted it to "accelerate" the time frame for recording
an impairment charge on the value of its I/O strips.

Salomon Levis (Doral's CEO), in an email response to a
journalist's question about the bank's earnings, tried to
further mislead the public about the true nature of Doral's
finances. It is alleged that these statements were false and
misleading when made since Solomon Levis knew that the temporary
tax benefit simply "masked" the Company's derivative shortfall
and indicated that Doral's hedging strategy against interest
rate changes was inadequate to safeguard the value of its I/O
portfolio from interest rate swings. In April of 2005, the
Company finally disclosed the magnitude of the problems at
Doral.

On April 19, 2005, the Company announced that it was restating
its financial results for 2000 through 2004. According to the
Company, the restatements were made to correct the accounting
treatment for the value of its I/O Strip portfolio. As a result,
Doral acknowledged that the restatement may result in a decrease
in the fair value of the securities by $400 to $600 million and
that the Company will eventually be required to take between a
$290 and $435 million charge as it writes down the value of some
floating-rate, interest-only strips. In a press release, the
Company stated that "management concluded that the previously
filed interim and audited financial statements for the periods
from January 1, 2000, through December 31, 2004, could be
materially affected and, therefore, should no longer be relied
on and that the financial statements for some or all of the
periods included therein should be restated. Since January of
this year, Doral stock has continued to plummet -- going from a
high of nearly $50 per share to just above its two and a half
year low of $15.

For more details, contact Craig Lowther, Wechsler Harwood
Shareholder Relations Department by Mail: 488 Madison Avenue,
8th Floor, New York, New York 10022 by Phone: (877) 935-7400 or
by E-mail: clowther@whesq.com.


DORAL FINANCIAL: Wolf Popper Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Wolf Popper LLP initiated a securities fraud
class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York against Doral Financial
Corporation ("Doral" or the "Company") (NYSE: DRL) and three of
its senior officers on behalf of purchasers of Doral securities
from May 15, 2000 through April 19, 2005, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

Plaintiff alleges that the defendants misrepresented Doral's
operating results and financial condition to public investors by
overstating Doral's reported assets by $400 million to $600
million, and inflating Doral's reported earnings by $290 million
to $435 million, in contravention of generally accepted
accounting principles.

The true facts emerged on April 19, 2005, when Doral issued a
press release, announcing a restatement of its earnings. The
April 19, 2005 press release disclosed that the Company had
incorrectly valued its floating rate interest-only strips ("IO
strips" and "IOs"), and that "a substantial adjustment to the
value of its floating rate IOs was required." According to the
press release, Doral had over-valued its floating rate IOs by
$400 million to $600 million, and the required restatement of
its financial statements for some or all of the periods from
January 1, 2000 through December 31, 2004 would reduce its
earnings during such periods by $290 million to $435 million.

The disclosure caused the Company's stock price to decline from
its high of $49.45 on January 18, 2005 to close at $15.74 on
April 20, 2005 - a 68.2% decline, causing significant aggregate
damage to the investing public.

For more details, contact Michael A. Schwartz, Esq. of Wolf
Popper LLP by Mail: 845 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10022-6689 by
Phone: 212-451-9668 or 877-370-7703 by Fax: 212-486-2093 or
877-370-7704 by E-mail: irrep@wolfpopper.com or visit their Web
site: http://www.wolfpopper.com.


ELAN CORPORATION: Krislov & Associates Lodges Stock Suit in IL
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Krislov & Associates, Ltd. initiated a lawsuit
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois against ELAN Corporation PLC and certain of its
officers, as a class action for purchasers of ELAN securities
(NYSE: ELN) during the period between January 29, 2004, and
March 30, 2005 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges ELAN and certain of its officers with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Throughout
the Class Period, the defendants caused ELAN to make a number of
positive statements about the status of its clinical trials and
the commercial potential of TYSABRI, a vaccine designed to treat
patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), causing ELAN's stock to
trade at artificially inflated prices. The Complaint alleges
that ELAN violated federal securities laws by issuing false or
misleading information, such as:

     (1) that TYSABRI posed serious immune-system side effects;

     (2) that TYSABRI made patients susceptible to progressive
         multifocal leukoencephalopathy ("PML") by changing the
         way certain white blood cells function;

     (3) that defendants knew and/or recklessly disregarded
         documented facts that MS drugs can cause greater
         incidents of PML to occur; and

     (4) that defendants concealed these facts in order to fast
         track TYSABRI for FDA approval so that they could reap
         the financial benefits from the sales of the drug.

On February 28, 2005, ELAN shocked the market by reporting that
it was withdrawing TYSABRI from the market following reports of
patients contracting PML, with at least one instance resulting
in death. The announcement caused ELAN's shares to plummet,
declining over 70% to approximately $8 per share on February 28,
2005.

The market's belief that full disclosure had occurred was then
blasted further, on March 30, 2005, when ELAN revealed that a
patient involved in TYSABRI trials for the treatment of Crohn's
Disease had also contracted PML and died in December 2003,
showing that ELAN's prior announcements had been half-truths.
This disclosure triggered a further 51% drop in share price to
$3.40, causing massive losses, even to those who had bought the
stock after the previous announcement, in the generally held
belief that all the truth had been already disclosed, and that
TYSABRI would likely succeed in obtaining FDA approval.

The Complaint (entitled Hunt v. ELAN Corporation PLC) is filed
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, No. 05C2367, and seeks to recover damages on behalf of
all purchasers of ELAN securities during the Class Period (the
"Class").

For more details, contact Clint Krislov or Jason Stiehl of
Krislov & Associates, Ltd. by Mail: Civic Opera Building-Suite
1350, Chicago, IL 60606 by Phone: 312-606-0500 by Fax:
312-606-0207 by E-mail: mail@krislovlaw.com or visit their Web
site: http://www.krislovlaw.com.


WATCHGUARD TECHNOLOGIES: Pomerantz Haudek Files Stock Suit in WA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP
initiated a class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court, Western District of Washington, on behalf of purchasers
of WatchGuard Technologies, Inc. ("WatchGuard" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ:WGRD) securities during the period from February 12,
2004 to March 15, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint alleges that WatchGuard and certain of its
officers and directors knowingly or recklessly misrepresented
the Company's earnings throughout the Class Period, and thereby
caused the Company's stock price to trade at artificially
inflated prices in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

The true facts, which were known to each of the defendants but
concealed from the investing public, were that

     (1) WatchGuard'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
         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.

On March 16, 2005, WatchGuard disclosed that certain errors were
discovered in its audit process and that it would need to
reclassify early pay incentive discounts from interest expense
to reduce its revenue for its previous financial results for
2002, 2003 and the first three quarters of 2004, an error was
discovered in the Company's handling of lease incentives and the
errors reflected a material weakness in the Company's internal
controls over financial reporting.

The market reacted swiftly to this disclosure, with the
Company's stock price falling to a closing price of $3.17 on
March 16, 2005.

For more details, contact Carolyn S. Moskowitz of Pomerantz
Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP by Phone: 888-476-6529 or by
E-mail: csmoskowitz@pomlaw.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  * * *