CAR_Public/050428.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, April 28, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 83

                          Headlines

AB ENERGIZER: FTC Files Orders in Weight Loss Fraud Settlement
ALLIANZ LIFE: CA Woman Files Racketeering Suit V. Firm, Agents
ARTHUR ANDERSEN: Judge Gives Preliminary Approval To $65M Deal
ASHFORD.COM: NY Court Preliminarily Approves Lawsuit Settlement
AVERY DENNISON: Continues To Face PA Suit V. UPM-MACtac Merger

AVERY DENNISON: CA Court OKs Stay of Securities Fraud Lawsuits
AVERY DENNISON: Faces Label Antitrust Lawsuits in Various Courts
BASF CORPORATION: MN Appeals Court Upholds $59.5 Mil Judgment
BUSINESS OBJECTS: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
CALIFORNIA: City Cleared Over Lineup Report in "Riders" Case

CANADA: Firm Allowed To Proceed With Payday Loan Interest Suit
CENTURY BUSINESS: Enters Settlement For Heritage Bond Litigation
CERNER CORPORATION: Appeals Court Mulls Appeal of Suit Dismissal
CHELSEA PROPERTY: NJ Court OKs Settlement of Lawsuit V. Merger
CINGULAR WIRELESS: City Files Suit to Foil Cutbacks on Payments

CREDIT SUISSE: Asks NY Court To Certify IPO Antitrust Lawsuits
CREDIT SUISSE: Appeals Certification of NY Securities Fraud Suit
CREDIT SUISSE: Appeal of NY IPO Lawsuit Dismissal Still Pending
CREDIT SUISSE: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Lawsuit
CREDIT SUISSE: Continues To Face Lawsuits Re: Enron Relationship

CROSSROADS SYSTEMS: TX Court Preliminarily OKs Suit Settlement
DELOITTE & TOUCHE: Reaches $50 Mil Settlement For Adelphia Case
ENTERASYS NETWORKS: Reached Settlement For RI Securities Lawsuit
HIENERGY TECHNOLOGIES: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Suit
ITXC CORPORATION: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Lawsuit Settlement

JOURNAL SENTINEL: Realty Firm Files Circulation Fraud Suit in WI
NANOPHASE TECHNOLOGIES: IL Court OKs Additional Settlement Cost
NANOPHASE TECHNOLOGIES: IL Court Orders Settlement Distribution
PULITZER INC.: DE Court Orders Securities Lawsuits Consolidated
QUICKLOGIC CORPORATION: Plaintiffs Appeal NY Lawsuit Dismissal

SCHERING-PLOUGH: FTC Seeks Rehearing For K-Dur Antitrust Lawsuit
SINO BESTFOOD: Recalls Preserved Apples For Undeclared Sulfites
STRATOS INTERNATIONAL: NY Court Preliminarily Approves Suit Pact
THAXTON GROUP: Investors Seek Certification For Fraud Lawsuit
UNITED STATES: FTC Urges TX Real Estate Body To Review New Rules

VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: DE Court OKs Ribapharm Suit Settlement
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Plaintiffs Appeal CA Lawsuit Dismissal
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: CA Court Approves Stock Suit Settlement
VISHAY INTERTECHNOLOGY: CA Court Grants Motion To Stay Action
WAL-MART STORES: Court Hearing Continue For CO Overtime Lawsuit

                  New Securities Fraud Cases

BEARINGPOINT, INC.: Brian M. Felgoise Files VA Securities Suit
BEARINGPOINT INC.: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Securities Suit in VA
BEARINGPOINT INC.: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Suit in VA
BEARINGPOINT INC.: Cohen Milstein Lodges Securities Suit in VA
BEARINGPOINT INC.: Lovell Stewart Lodges Securities Suit in VA
BEARINGPOINT INC.: Roy Jacobs Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in VA

DORAL FINANCIAL: Baron & Budd Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
DORAL FINANCIAL: Berman DeValerio Lodges Securities Suit in NY
MBIA INC.: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
XYBERNAUT CORPORATION: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Suit in NY
XYBERNAUT CORPORATION: Sarraf Gentile Lodges Stock Lawsuit in DE

                         *********

AB ENERGIZER: FTC Files Orders in Weight Loss Fraud Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Federal Trade Commission filed two proposed stipulated
orders in federal court resolving charges that the marketers of
AB Energizer, an electronic abdominal exercise belt, falsely
advertised that using the AB Energizer caused weight loss, inch
loss, and well-defined "six-pack abs" without exercise.

These orders are part of a global settlement resolving the FTC's
lawsuit and related actions brought by county and city
prosecutors in California. Under the settlements, AB Energizer
marketers and certain retailers collectively will pay over $2
million, of which over $1.4 million will be for consumer
redress. The balance will go to the California prosecutors for
costs and civil penalties. The FTC and California orders bar the
defendants from making the challenged false advertising claims
for the AB Energizer or any similar device, and contain other
injunctive relief to prevent future deceptive advertising.

The stipulated final orders settle the Commission's court
actions against the following defendants: Electronic Products
Distribution, L.L.C. (EPD); AB Energizer Products, Inc. (EPI);
Abflex USA, Inc.; AB Energizer, L.L.C.; Thomas C. Nelson; Martin
Van Der Hoeven; Douglas Gravink; and Gary Hewitt. The defendants
are based in Southern California, with most located in San
Diego. An amended complaint filed with the stipulated orders
adds Gravink and Hewitt to the FTC's original complaint.

The FTC recognizes the invaluable role of prosecutors from the
City of San Diego and the California counties of Napa, Solano,
and Sonoma in reaching a settlement that maximized the amount of
redress available for AB Energizer purchasers.

The Commission filed a complaint in May 2002, in U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California as part of the
FTC's "Project ABSurd," which targeted false claims made by the
marketers of widely advertised abdominal devices that use
electronic muscle stimulation (EMS) technology. Specifically,
the FTC complaint charged the AB Energizer defendants with
falsely representing that the device:

     (1) causes users to lose weight, inches, and fat;

     (2) gives users well-defined abdominal muscles;

     (3) is the equivalent of regular exercise such as sit-ups;
         and

     (4) is safe for all users, without disclosing the potential
         risks associated with its use by some people.

The complaint also charged that the defendants failed to honor
their 30-day money-back guarantee, and violated the FTC's Mail
or Telephone Order Merchandise Rule (Mail Order Rule) by failing
to ship their direct order products within the promised time.

In the amended complaint, the Commission added two new
defendants to the complaint. According to the FTC, these
defendants, Douglas Gravink and Gary Hewitt, were the owners and
managers of corporate defendant EPI and participated in the
challenged advertising campaign.

The FTC obtained two stipulated final orders: one with the "EPD
defendants" who were associated with AB Energizer retail sales
(EPD, Abflex USA, Inc., AB Energizer, L.L.C., Thomas C. Nelson,
and Martin Van Der Hoeven); and the other with the "EPI
defendants" associated with direct response sales (EPI and its
principals, Douglas Gravink and Gary Hewitt).

The monetary relief order against the EPD defendants includes a
$41.5 million judgment, based on retail sales of the AB
Energizer, which has been largely suspended due to the EPD
defendants' inability to pay. Under the order, EPD will pay
$24,000 to the FTC. In separate agreements with the California
prosecutors, defendants Van Der Hoeven and Nelson each will pay
$40,000 to California in civil penalties.

The order against the EPI defendants provides for a $43.4
million judgment against EPI, based on direct response sales,
which has been suspended. EPI is in chapter 7 bankruptcy
proceedings. The order requires defendants Gravink and Hewitt
jointly to pay $120,000 in redress to the FTC. In separate
agreements with the California prosecutors, Gravink and Hewitt
agreed to pay $100,000 to a redress account managed by the
California prosecutors, with an additional $170,000 going toward
civil penalties and costs.

The EPD and EPI orders contain "avalanche clauses" that would
make a defendant liable for the full amount of the suspended
judgment if the defendant is found to have misrepresented its
financial condition.

These monies, combined with proceeds from settlements of
separate California state actions against several AB Energizer
retailers - including Wal-Mart, Walgreen's, and Target - for
allegedly selling misbranded and unapproved products, will
result in a total of over $1.4 million available for redress to
AB Energizer purchasers.

The stipulated orders against the EPD and EPI defendants also
contain injunctive relief to ensure the defendants do not make
false or deceptive claims in the future. First, the orders
permanently ban the defendants from claiming that the AB
Energizer or any similar device: causes weight loss, inch loss,
fat loss, muscle growth, or well-defined abs; is equivalent or
superior to abdominal exercise; makes a material contribution to
any system or program that produces such results; or is safe for
all users. Second, the orders prohibit the defendants from
misrepresenting these benefits for any other EMS device. The
orders also require the defendants to warn consumers about
health and safety risks associated with EMS devices in packaging
and advertising for such devices.

Further, the orders prohibit the defendants from making
unsubstantiated claims regarding the safety or efficacy of any
product, service or program, and from misrepresenting test or
research results for any product, service, or program.

Both orders also prohibit the defendants from misrepresenting
the terms of their refund, cancellation, exchange, or repurchase
policies, and from failing to honor cancellation and refund
requests in a timely manner. The defendants are required to
provide at least one reasonable way for consumers to get a
timely refund, cancellation, exchange, or repurchase according
to their policies. If the defendants choose to provide a
customer service phone number to comply with this provision,
they must ensure sufficient capacity so it is useful to
consumers.

The EPD order also permanently bans Martin Van Der Hoeven and Ab
Flex from engaging in, or assisting anyone else in, marketing
any service, product, or program that claims to help users lose
weight, fat, or inches. These two defendants are subject to a
prior FTC order based on allegedly deceptive advertising for the
Ab Flex exercise device.

Under the EPI order, Douglas Gravink must obtain a $150,000
letter of credit (similar to a performance bond) before
marketing any product or program promoted for weight or inch
loss. Gravink also is subject to a prior FTC order based on
allegedly deceptive advertising. The EPI order also prohibits
EPI, which is subject to a Chapter 7 bankruptcy and liquidation
proceeding, from selling its customer lists or otherwise
providing customer information to others.

Finally, both orders contain standard compliance reporting,
monitoring, and record keeping provisions to ensure the
defendants comply with the terms of the orders.

The Commission vote authorizing the staff to file the amended
complaint and to accept the stipulated final orders was 5-0. The
orders were filed on April 22, 2005 in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of California and require the Court's
approval.

Copies of the amended complaint and stipulated final orders are
available from the FTC's Web site at http://www.ftc.govand also  
from the FTC's Consumer Response Center, Room 130, 600
Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20580. The FTC works
for the consumer to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair
business practices in the marketplace and to provide information
to help consumers spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a
complaint in English or Spanish (bilingual counselors are
available to take complaints), or to get free information on any
of 150 consumer topics, call toll-free, 1-877-FTC-HELP
(1-877-382-4357), or use the complaint form at
http://www.ftc.gov.The FTC enters Internet, telemarketing,  
identity theft, and other fraud-related complaints into Consumer
Sentinel, a secure, online database available to hundreds of
civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and
abroad.  AB Energizer purchasers who want more information
should call 1-800-705-0589.


ALLIANZ LIFE: CA Woman Files Racketeering Suit V. Firm, Agents
--------------------------------------------------------------
Betty Reichenbach, an Escondido resident filed a class action
lawsuit in Federal District Court in San Diego, alleging that a
Minneapolis life insurance company, a San Francisco marketer of
annuities and long-term care insurance and a San Diego insurance
sales company are racketeers who conspired to defraud the
elderly, The North County Times reports.  

The suit is the second by a North County plaintiff to name
Allianz Life Insurance Co. of North America as a defendant in an
elder fraud claim.  In her complaint, Ms. Reichenbach claims
that she resisted overtures from Fidelity Estate Group until a
Fidelity representative told her that "changes in the law"
required a legal review of her living trust. She agreed to the
review in 1999, but was instead pressured to buy an annuity for
her retirement account even though the annuity contained a
provision that would penalize her for withdrawing cash. The
complaint further states that due to her age, 75, IRS rules
required that she withdraw money from the account every year.

Robert Phillips, Allianz's California attorney told the Times,
"We're very puzzled by this complaint. It's particularly
interesting because Betty Reichenbach, according to our records,
never purchased one of our annuities, she never submitted an
application, and we've never received any money from her."

According to Ron Marron, Reichenbach's San Diego lawyer, that
makes sense. He explained to the Times, "She signed over some
money to them, then she canceled the purchase," adding that one
of the goals of the suit is to seek an injunction to prevent the
defendants from using the same sales tactics on others.

Legacy Marketing Group of San Francisco, another defendant named
in the suit, describes itself as doing business through
wholesalers and a network of 22,000 independent agents. Legacy's
Web site lists several insurance companies as suppliers of the
insurance products it markets, however Allianz is not one of the
companies listed.  According to Mr. Phillips, Legacy has not
been a contract marketing representative authorized to sell the
Minneapolis Company's annuity products since 1992.

Fidelity Estate Group, the third defendant, has an office in San
Diego's Mission Valley. The company's Web site describes
insurance products such as indexed annuities and offers to show
clients how to shelter their assets while qualifying for Medi-
Cal long-term care assistance. It also prominently offers living
trusts prepared by an affiliated attorney.

Mr. Philips reiterated to the Times, "The allegation that we
train our agents to sell our products this way is just wrong.
Allianz does not permit trust mills to sell its products. In the
last 15 months, every sales agent in California who represents
Allianz products has received two notices telling them that we
do not approve of trust mills."


ARTHUR ANDERSEN: Judge Gives Preliminary Approval To $65M Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
A New York federal judge gave preliminary approval to the
proposed $65 million settlement by Arthur Andersen to resolve a
shareholder lawsuit stemming from its audit of WorldCom, which
filed for the biggest bankruptcy in history in 2002, thus ending
a broad securities class action lawsuit brought by former
WorldCom investors, The Guardian Unlimited reports.

As reported in previous articles of the Class Action Reporter,
before the trial began, the last of 16 underwriter defendants
involved in the case settled along with 12 former WorldCom
directors. Those settlements totaled more than $6 billion, a
record in the securities class action setting. Thus with those
settlement, Arthur Andersen was left as the sole defendant,
which had not opted to settle.  The firm denied wrongdoing in
the latest settlement, which interrupted a five-week-long trial
and has maintained that WorldCom duped it.

As previously reported in the April 27, 2005 edition of the
Class Action Reporter, U.S. District Judge Denise Cote scheduled
a preliminary approval hearing on the settlement and banned each
side from discussing its details publicly.  

The securities case, which is being led by New York state
Comptroller Alan Hevesi, who is acting as trustee of the state
employees' retirement system, alleges that Arthur Andersen,
which at one time was one of the world's largest accounting
firms, failed to uphold its duties to investors as WorldCom's
former auditor. It was brought on behalf of all persons or
organizations that purchased or otherwise acquired publicly
traded securities of WorldCom during the period April 29, 1999
through June 25, 2002, inclusive.  In its suit, the plaintiffs
alleged that WorldCom's annual financial statements for 1999,
2000 and 2001 contained false statements and that Arthur
Andersen issued its audit opinions with intent to deceive,
manipulate or defraud.

Arthur Andersen though insisted through its lawyers that each of
its audit opinions from 1999 through 2001 was generated in good
faith and with no intent to deceive, manipulate or defraud.

WorldCom, which collapsed when the accounting fraud to inflate
earnings and hide expenses was revealed, has since re-emerged as
MCI Inc., based in Ashburn, Virginia.


ASHFORD.COM: NY Court Preliminarily Approves Lawsuit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against Ashford.com,
Inc., several of its officers and directors, and various
underwriters of its initial public offering.  

Since July 11, 2001, several stockholder class action complaints
have been filed on behalf of purchasers of Ashford.com common
stock during various periods beginning on September 22, 1999,
the date of the Company's initial public offering.  The
plaintiffs allege that the Company's prospectus, included in the
Company's Registration Statement on Form S-1 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission, was materially false and
misleading because it failed to disclose, among other things,
certain fees and commissions collected by the underwriters or
arrangements designed to inflate the price of the common stock.
The plaintiffs further allege that because of these purchases,
the Company's post-initial public offering stock price was
artificially inflated.  As a result of the alleged omissions in
the prospectus and the purported inflation of the stock price,
the plaintiffs claim violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaints have been consolidated into a single action, and
the consolidated cases against the Company have been
consolidated with similarly consolidated cases filed against 308
other issuer defendants for the purposes of pretrial
proceedings.  The claims against Ashford.com's officers and
directors were dismissed in exchange for tolling agreements
which permit the refilling of claims against officers and
directors at a later date. A motion to dismiss filed on behalf
of all issuer defendants, including the Company, was denied in
all aspects relevant to the Company on February 19, 2003. The
Company and its insurers have entered into a memorandum of
understanding regarding terms for settlement of this suit. Under
the settlement, plaintiffs' claims against Ashford.com and other
issuers will be dismissed in exchange for certain consideration
from the issuers' insurers and for the issuers' assignment to
plaintiffs of certain potential claims against the underwriters
of the relevant initial public offerings. Formal documentation
of the settlement contemplated by the memorandum of
understanding is complete and the Judge presiding over this
matter has preliminarily approved the settlement.  

The suit is styled "In Re Ashford.com, Inc. Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation," filed in relation to "IN re IPO
Securities Litigation, 21-MC-92 (Sas)," 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


AVERY DENNISON: Continues To Face PA Suit V. UPM-MACtac Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Avery Dennison Corporation continues to face a purported class
action filed in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Pennsylvania, related to the proposed merger of UPM-
Kymmene (UPM) and the Morgan Adhesives (MACtac) division of
Bemis Co., Inc. (Bemis).  

The Department of Justice filed a complaint, on the basis of its
belief that in certain aspects of the label stock industry "the
competitors have sought to coordinate rather than compete."  On
April 24, 2003, Sentry Business Products, Inc. filed a purported
class action in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois against the Company, UPM, Bemis
and certain of their subsidiaries seeking treble damages and
other relief for alleged unlawful competitive practices,
essentially repeating the underlying allegations of the DOJ
Merger Complaint.  Ten similar complaints were filed in various
federal district courts.

In November 2003, the cases were transferred to the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
and consolidated for pretrial purposes. On January 21, 2004,
plaintiff Pamco Tape & Label voluntarily dismissed its
complaint, leaving a total of ten named plaintiffs.  Plaintiffs
filed a consolidated complaint on February 16, 2004, which the
Company answered on March 31, 2004. On April 14, 2004, the court
separated the proceedings as to class certification and merits
discovery, and limited the initial phase of discovery to the
issue of the appropriateness of class certification.


AVERY DENNISON: CA Court OKs Stay of Securities Fraud Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California approved parties' stipulation to stay the securities
class action filed against Avery Dennison Corporation, its chief
executive officer Philip M. Neal, chief financial officer D. R.
O'Bryant and controller Michael A. Skovran.

On May 6, 2003, Sekuk Global Enterprises filed a purported
stockholder class action seeking damages and other relief for
alleged disclosure violations pertaining to alleged unlawful
competitive practices.  Subsequently, another similar action was
filed in the same court.  On September 24, 2003, the court
appointed a lead plaintiff and approved lead and liaison counsel
and ordered the two actions consolidated as the "In Re Avery
Dennison Corporation Securities Litigation."

Pursuant to court order and the parties' stipulation, plaintiff
filed a consolidated complaint in mid-February 2004. The court
approved a briefing schedule for defendants' motion to dismiss
the consolidated complaint, with a contemplated hearing date in
June 2004.  In January 2004, the parties stipulated to stay the
consolidated action, including the proposed briefing schedule,
pending the outcome of the government investigation of alleged
anticompetitive conduct by the Company. The court has approved
the parties' stipulation to stay the consolidated actions and
scheduled the next status conference for March 28, 2005. There
has been no discovery and no trial date has been set.


AVERY DENNISON: Faces Label Antitrust Lawsuits in Various Courts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Avery Dennison faces several class actions filed on behalf of
indirect purchasers of label stock in various state courts.  The
suits also name as defendants, UPM-Kymmene and UPM's subsidiary
Raflatac.

On May 21, 2003, The Harman Press filed in the Superior Court
for the County of Los Angeles, California, a purported class
action on behalf of indirect purchasers of label stock, seeking
treble damages and other relief for alleged unlawful competitive
practices.  Three similar complaints were filed in various
California courts.  In November 2003, on petition from the
parties, the California Judicial Council ordered the cases be
coordinated for pretrial purposes.  The cases were assigned to a
coordination trial judge in the Superior Court for San Francisco
County on March 30, 2004.

A further similar complaint was filed in the Superior Court for
Maricopa County, Arizona on November 6, 2003.  Plaintiffs
voluntarily dismissed the Arizona complaint without prejudice on
October 4, 2004.

On January 21, 2005, American International Distribution
Corporation filed a purported class action on behalf of indirect
purchasers in the Superior Court for Chittenden County, Vermont.  
Similar actions were filed by Webtego on February 16, 2005, in
the Court of Common Pleas for Cuyahoga County, Ohio, and by D.R.
Ward Construction Co. on February 17, 2005, in the Superior
Court for Maricopa County, Arizona. On February 17, 2005, Judy
Benson filed a purported multi-state class action on behalf of
indirect purchasers in the Circuit Court for Cocke County,
Tennessee.


BASF CORPORATION: MN Appeals Court Upholds $59.5 Mil Judgment
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Minnesota Court of Appeals upheld a $59.5 million judgment
in a protracted consumer class-action suit brought by farmers
against herbicide maker BASF Corporation of New Jersey, The
Minneapolis Star Tribune reports.

According to Douglas Nill, a Minneapolis attorney who
represented U.S. farmers in the suit, barring any successful
appeal by BASF in the future, Minnesota farmers stand to collect
about a quarter of that money.  Mr. Nill told the Tribune that
the period for the claimed damages to the farmers was 1992 to
1996, and it appears to him that the company is using various
court challenges as a way to delay paying the jury verdict.
"Farmers are dying, retiring and losing their ability to prove a
claim," he quips.

The case began eight years ago in Norman County, Minnesota, when
farmers from several states alleged that BASF charged sugar beet
farmers higher prices for the same herbicide than it charged
soybean farmers. Court documents revealed that the company sold
the same herbicide under two different names, Poast and Poast
Plus.  In December 2001, a jury in Ada, Minnesota, found that
BASF committed consumer fraud in the sale of Poast herbicide in
all 50 states.

In October BASF asked Norman County Judge Michael Kraker to
transfer the judgment to an account it opened in New York City
reasoning that they wanted any ownership or distribution
disputes involving the money to fall under the jurisdiction of
courts in Manhattan. However, Judge Kraker called that motion
"an abuse of process" and "interference with farmers' property."  
The dispute went all the way to the Minnesota Court of Appeals,
which found that BASF had no legal standing to challenge the
distribution plan for money to be paid to farmers.


BUSINESS OBJECTS: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Business Objects S.A. asked the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California to dismiss the consolidated
securities class action filed against it and certain of its
current and former officers and directors.

Between June 2 and July 1, 2004, four purported class action
complaints were filed, alleging violations of the Exchange Act,
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  The plaintiffs seek to
represent a putative class of investors in the Company's
American Depositary Shares (ADSs) who purchased ADSs between
April 23, 2003 and May 5, 2004.

A consolidated amended complaint has been filed.  The complaints
generally alleged that, during that Class Period, the Company
and the individual defendants made false or misleading
statements in press releases and SEC filings regarding, among
other things, the Company's acquisition of Crystal Decisions,
its Enterprise 6 product and its forecasts and financial results
for the three months ended March 31, 2004.

The suits are styled:

     (1) Rosenbaum Partners LP v. Business Objects S. A. et al.,
         3:04-cv-02863-MJJ, under Judge Martin J. Jenkins,

     (2) Judkins et al v. Business Objects S. A. et al., 5:04-
         cv-03103-JW, under Judge James Ware

     (3) City of Pontiac Policemen and Firemen Retirement System
         v. Business Objects S.A. et al., 3:04-cv-02401-MJJ,
         under Judge Martin J. Jenkins,

     (4) Campagnuola v. Business Objects S.A., et al, 5:04-cv-
         03085-JW, under Judge James Ware

The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

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

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

   (iii) Geller Rudman, PLLC, 197 South Federal Highway, Suite
         200, Boca Raton, FL, 33432, Phone: 561.750.3000, Fax:
         888.262.3131, E-mail: info@geller-rudman.com

    (iv) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins (Los
         Angeles), 355 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 4170, Los Angeles,
         CA, 90071, Phone: 213.617.9007, E-mail: 213.617.9185,
         E-mail: info@lerachlaw.com

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

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

   (vii) Spector, Roseman & Kodroff (Philadelphia), 1818 Market
         Street; Suite 2500, Philadelphia, PA, 19103, Phone:
         215.496.0300, Fax: 215.496.6610, e-mail:
         classaction@srk-law.com


CALIFORNIA: City Cleared Over Lineup Report in "Riders" Case
------------------------------------------------------------
City officials did not attempt to mislead a federal judge by
telling him that Mayor Jerry Brown had attended police lineups
to demonstrate his commitment to the reforms mandated by the
settlement in the "Riders" case, according to a ruling by U.S.
District Court Judge Thelton Henderson, The Inside Bay Area
reports.

In his April 12 ruling, the judge called the incorrect statement
"an inadvertent error and not an affirmative attempt to mislead
this court." With that ruling, Judge Henderson declined to
penalize the city or its attorney, Greg Fox of Bertrand, Fox and
Elliot in San Francisco saying that he has no reason to doubt
Mr. Fox's "ethics or competence" and is certain the problem will
not recur.  Earlier, Mr. Fox told the judge that he was
responsible for the error, having misunderstood a report
compiled by the Oakland Police Department's command staff about
efforts to comply with the settlement agreement.

In February, Judge Henderson harshly criticized the city for
failing to comply with terms of the agreement that settled the
class action lawsuit alleging a group of officers dubbed the
"Riders" beat and framed 119 Oaklanders.

Mayor Brown told The Inside Bay Area that he is pleased the
issue has been resolved and vowed to continue working to
implement the settlement agreement.

Court documents show that three officers are awaiting a jury
verdict in Alameda County Superior Court on charges stemming
from that scandal.

Under the settlement, the city agreed to reform the department
and pay the plaintiffs $10.9 million, with all but about $2
million coming from the city's insurance companies.


CANADA: Firm Allowed To Proceed With Payday Loan Interest Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A Calgary law firm has been given the go-signal to proceed with
a class action against the payday loan industry in Canada
alleging criminal interest rates, The Winnipeg Sun reports.

According to Bill McNally, of the firm McNally Cuming Raymaker,
his lawsuit, if successful, will wipe out payday lenders. Mr.
McNally told The Winnipeg Sun that Justice Sal LoVecchio, in a
written ruling, certified the claim by his client, Jacob Ayrton,
as a class-action suit, which is the first such case in Alberta
history.  As a result, Mr. Ayrton can proceed as a
representative plaintiff for the customers of several companies
from which he received loans, Mr. McNally adds.

Mr. Ayrton's lawsuit alleges the companies and the corporate
directors charge customers illegal interest rates on their
short-term loans. In his suit, Mr. Ayrton states that he
borrowed money from Payroll Loan and Hornby Loan Broker in 2003
and last year. Later, he adds, those companies then arranged for
lenders PRL Financing or Thurlow Capital to provide the cash.

In one instance, according to the suit, Mr. Ayrton borrowed $500
for a two-week period and was charged interest of 1.13% per
week, or 59% annually. But he was also required to pay brokerage
fees of $95, bringing his total payment at the end of the two
weeks to $606.32.

Mr. McNally told The Winnipeg Sun that an actuarial hired by his
firm calculated the annual rate of all the extra money Mr.
Ayrton paid. He found out that the interest in one loan for 14
days was 15,141%. Under Canadian law, lenders are prohibited by
law from charging annual rates in excess of 60% and can face up
to five years in prison if convicted of charging criminal
interest rates, he pointed out.  In addition, Mr. McNally's
actuarial said to stay under that percentage on a $500 loan over
14 days, the lender could not charge more than $9.09 in
interest.  Mr. McNally explained to The Winnipeg Sun that the
case would focus on brokerage fees charged to individuals who
borrow cash to be paid back when they receive their next
paycheck.


CENTURY BUSINESS: Enters Settlement For Heritage Bond Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Century Business Service, Inc. entered into settlements to
resolve the Heritage Bond Litigation, comprised of multiple
lawsuits pending in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California arising from losses sustained by
investors in numerous municipal bond offerings between December
1996 and March 1999.

In those lawsuits, plaintiffs alleged numerous claims, including
mismanagement and misappropriation of funds from the bond
offerings, against unrelated parties, including the Heritage
Entities and the trustee, U.S. Trust Corporation.

The Betker Action, designated "CV 02-5752-DT (RCx)," includes
claims against two entities acquired by the Company, Valuation
Counselors Group, Inc. ("VC") and Zelenkofske, Axelrod & Co.,
Ltd. ("ZA"), for negligent misrepresentation and negligence, and
for joint and several liability under California Corporations
Code sec. 25504.2 (against VC only).  In the Consolidated Class
Action, designated "02-ML-1475-DT (RCx)," the Court permitted
plaintiffs to substitute CBIZ Valuation Group, Inc. ("CBIZ-VC")
in place of VC, and CBIZ Accounting, Tax & Advisory, Inc.
("CBIZ-ZA") in place of ZA, as defendants.  In addition,
plaintiffs named Century Business Services, Inc. ("CBIZ") itself
as a defendant.  CBIZ-VC and CBIZ-ZA are subsidiaries of CBIZ.

That complaint includes claims against CBIZ, CBIZ-VC and CBIZ-ZA
for negligence, and claims against CBIZ-VC and CBIZ-ZA for
conspiracy to commit fraud, negligent misrepresentation and
intentional misrepresentation. These claims have been pending
since 2001 and relate to the provision of valuation and
feasibility study services from 1996 through 1999.

Management believes that the settlements are fair, reasonable
and adequate, and in the best interests of all parties
concerned.  The settlement of the Consolidated Class Action has
been preliminarily approved by the Court, which also entered an
order approving notice to the Class.  The Class Settlement is
conditioned upon, among other things, standard class action opt-
out procedures, objections by litigants, the Court's entry of a
bar order and final judicial approval of the settlement by the
Court after notice to the class.  The settlement of the Betker
Action has been approved by the Court and is subject to, among
other things, the final entry of a bar order. Additional
proceedings may be necessary as a consequence of any opt-out or
objection that may occur. The resolution of these matters did
not have a material adverse effect on the financial condition,
results of operations or cash flows of the Company.


CERNER CORPORATION: Appeals Court Mulls Appeal of Suit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has yet to
rule on plaintiffs' appeal of the dismissal of the consolidated
securities class action filed against Cerner Corporation and
five of its officers.

In April 2003, several class actions were filed in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Missouri. All
of these lawsuits were filed after a decline in the Company's
stock price following the Company's announcement on April 3,
2003 that the Company would not meet revenue and earnings
estimates for the first quarter of 2003.

On August 20, 2003, the Court ordered that all of the lawsuits
be consolidated under Case No. 03-CV-00296-DW and appointed Phil
Crabtree as Lead Plaintiff.  On December 1, 2003, the Lead
Plaintiff filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint.  In
general, the consolidated complaint alleges that, during a class
period commencing as of July 17, 2002 and ending April 2, 2003,
the Company and individually named defendants misrepresented or
failed to disclose certain factors, which they allege impacted
the Company's business and anticipated revenue and earnings, all
allegedly in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.

On June 16, 2004 the Court granted the Company's and the
individual defendants' Motion to Dismiss and ordered the
Consolidated Class Action Complaint dismissed with prejudice
against re-filing.  On June 30, 2004, the Lead Plaintiff
appealed the District Court's dismissal of the action to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The
parties filed their appellate briefs and the issues were argued
before the Eighth Circuit on January 13, 2005. The matter has
been submitted to the Eighth Circuit for decision but the
Company does not know when the Court of Appeals will deliver a
ruling.


CHELSEA PROPERTY: NJ Court OKs Settlement of Lawsuit V. Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Chancery in Essex County, New Jersey approved the
settlement of a class action filed against Chelsea Property
Group, Inc., seeking to enjoin the Company's October 2004 merger
with Simon Property Group, Inc., making the Company a private
real estate investment trust (REIT).  The suit also names as
defendants each of the members of the Company's board of
directors.

The complaint alleged that the defendants violated fiduciary
duties of care, loyalty, candor and independence owed to the
public stockholders of the Company. The plaintiff sought, among
other things, class action certification, a declaration that the
Merger Agreement is unenforceable and a permanent injunction
against the defendants from proceeding with or closing the
Merger.

A settlement hearing was held on October 5, 2004 at which the
court approved a settlement of the case involving certain
additional disclosure and the payment by the Company of costs
of approximately $0.9 million to the plaintiff's attorneys.


CINGULAR WIRELESS: City Files Suit to Foil Cutbacks on Payments
---------------------------------------------------------------
Krislov & Associates, Ltd., the law firm representing the City
of Parma, Ohio in a suit against Cingular Wireless asserted that
the Company's 2004 acquisition of AT&T Wireless produced the
nation's largest wireless network, but also resulted in
overlapping wireless antenna site coverage.

The Company operates antenna sites under long-term leases of up
to 30 years. Seeking to cut its monthly rent payments on these
sites, the Company has threatened to terminate leases with an
estimated 15,000 owners throughout the country, including
cities, local governments and volunteer organizations, unless
they agree to rent reductions of as much as 50%, even though the
agreements do not permit termination for mere convenience or
overlap.

The City of Parma has filed a lawsuit for itself and other
antenna site owners nationwide, seeking to enforce their right
to continue receiving rent at the agreed price.

Parma Law Director Tim Dobeck was quoted: "At a time when state
and local governments are pushed and squeezed from all sides, it
is both baffling and sad to see a huge national corporation
renounce its contractual obligations to these governments and
attempt to cut off one of their vital revenue streams."

Attorney Clint Krislov was quoted: "If Cingular needs to cut
costs to make the merger profitable, it should find legitimate
ways to do that, rather than by shortchanging local governments
and other site owners across the country of their agreed rents."

The case is entitled, City of Parma, Ohio, v. Cingular Wireless
LLC, Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, No. CV05560750, and
is assigned to Judge Lillian J. Greene. The plaintiffs a
represented by the law firm of Krislov & Associates, Ltd.,
Phone: (312) 606-0500.


CREDIT SUISSE: Asks NY Court To Certify IPO Antitrust Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs asked the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York to grant class certification to
the consolidated issuer and purchaser securities lawsuits filed
against Credit Suisse First Boston LLC (CSFB LLC), Donald Lufkin
& Jenrette Securities Corporation (DLJSC) and other brokerage
firms.

Since November 1998, several lawsuits have been filed, alleging
that the defendant broker-dealers conspired to fix the "fee"
paid for underwriting certain IPO securities by setting the
underwriters' fee or "spread" at 7%, in violation of the federal
antitrust laws.  The lawsuits purport to be class actions
brought on behalf of classes of persons and entities that
purchased and issued securities in those initial public
offerings (IPOs).  In February 1999, the district court
consolidated the various cases in a single litigation, captioned
"In re Public Offering Fee Antitrust Litigation."  On April 29,
1999, the defendant underwriters filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint as a matter of law.

Meanwhile, beginning in August 2000, several other complaints
were filed on behalf of issuers of stock in IPOs containing the
same allegations of an industry-wide conspiracy to fix IPO
underwriting fees.  By order, dated April 10, 2001, the district
court consolidated the issuer complaints.

On February 14, 2001, the district court dismissed the purchaser
plaintiffs' claims on the ground that those plaintiffs lacked
legal standing to assert antitrust claims. By order, dated
December 13, 2002, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit vacated the district court's decision and remanded the
action to the district court for consideration of the additional
grounds for dismissal asserted in the motion to dismiss.  On
July 6, 2001, the issuer plaintiffs filed a consolidated issuer
complaint, naming numerous defendants, including CSFB LLC and
Credit Suisse First Boston, Inc., under the caption "In re
Issuer Plaintiff Initial Public Offering Fee Antitrust
Litigation."  On September 28, 2001, the defendants moved to
dismiss the consolidated issuer complaint.  On September 25,
2002, the district court denied the defendants' motion to
dismiss and defendants sought leave to file an interlocutory
appeal of that decision. On January 17, 2003, the district court
issued an order deferring a ruling on the defendants' motion
until the district court reached a decision, upon remand, of the
motion to dismiss the consolidated purchaser complaint.

On March 26, 2003, defendants filed a motion to dismiss on the
grounds of implied immunity in both the consolidated issuer and
consolidated purchaser cases. The district court denied that
motion in an order, dated June 26, 2003.  In September 2004, the
plaintiffs in both the consolidated issuer and consolidated
purchaser cases filed motions for class certification.

The purchaser litigation is styled "IN RE INITIAL PUBLIC
OFFERING ANTITRUST LITIGATION, case no. 1:01-cv-02014-WHP,"
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, under Judge William H. Pauley III.  
Representing the plaintiffs is Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman
& Herz, L.L.P., 270 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016 Phone:
(212) 545-4600.

The issuer litigation is styled "In re Issuer Plaintiff Initial
Public Offering Antitrust Litigation, S.D.N.Y., No. 00 Civ. 7804
(LMM)," filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, under Judge Lawrence M. McKenna.  
Representing the plaintiffs are Randall Keith Berger, Roger W.
Kirby and Alice McInerney, Kirby, McInerney & Squire, L.L.P.,
830 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: (212) 371-6600 E-
mail: amcinerney@kmslaw.com.  Representing the Company are
Martin Glenn and Dana Chandler MacGrath, O'Melveny & Myers,
L.L.P. 153 East 53rd Street New York, NY 10022 Phone:
(212) 326-2000 E-mail: mglenn@omm.com, and dmacgrath@omm.com.


CREDIT SUISSE: Appeals Certification of NY Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Credit Suisse First Boston LLC, an affiliate and other
investment banks appealed the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York's order granting class
certification to the consolidated securities lawsuit filed
against them and other companies, concerning IPO allocation
practices.

On April 19, 2002, the plaintiffs filed consolidated amended
complaints alleging various violations of the federal securities
laws resulting from alleged material omissions and misstatements
in registration statements and prospectuses for the IPOs and, in
some cases, follow-on offerings, and with respect to
transactions in the aftermarket for those offerings. The
complaints contain allegations that the registration statements
and prospectuses either omitted or misrepresented material
information about commissions paid to investment banks and
aftermarket transactions by certain customers that received
allocations of shares in the IPOs.  The complaints also allege
that misleading analyst reports were issued to support the
issuers' allegedly manipulated stock price and that such reports
failed to disclose the alleged allocation practices or that
analysts were allegedly subject to conflicts of interest.

On July 1, 2002, CSFB LLC, an affiliate and other defendants
moved to dismiss the consolidated class action complaints.  On
February 19, 2003, the district court denied the motion as to
CSFB LLC, an affiliate and the other defendant investment banks,
as well as with respect to certain issuer and individual
defendants.  On September 2, 2003, the plaintiffs filed an
omnibus motion for class certification in all of these actions.
By agreement among the parties and the district court, six cases
were selected as focus cases for class certification purposes.
The underwriter defendants opposed class certification in the
six focus cases on February 24, 2004.  

On October 13, 2004, the district court issued an order granting
in substantial part plaintiffs' motion for class certification
in each of the six focus cases. The district court stated that
the order "is intended to provide strong guidance, if not
dispositive effect, to all parties when considering class
certification in the remaining actions."  On October 27, 2004,
the underwriter defendants in the six focus cases filed a
petition for review of the class certification order in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. That petition remains
pending and discovery is proceeding in the case.

Separately, in June 2003, the plaintiffs announced a proposed
settlement of their claims against the issuer defendants and the
issuers' officers and directors.  In June 2004, the plaintiffs
and settling issuer and individual defendants moved for
preliminary approval of the settlement. In an order, dated
February 15, 2005, the district court preliminarily approved the
settlement.

The litigation is styled "IN re IPO Securities Litigation, 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


CREDIT SUISSE: Appeal of NY IPO Lawsuit Dismissal Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Second Circuit Court of Appeals has yet to
rule on plaintiffs' appeal of the dismissal of a consolidated
class action filed against Credit Suisse First Boston LLC (CSFB
LLC) and several other investment banks, alleging violations of
the federal and state antitrust laws in connection with alleged
practices in allocation of shares in initial public offerings
(IPOs) in which such investment banks were a lead or co-managing
underwriter.

Since March 2001, CSFB LLC and several other investment banks
have been named as defendants in a number of putative class
actions, which were later consolidated.  The amended complaint
alleges that the underwriter defendants have engaged in an
illegal antitrust conspiracy to require customers, in exchange
for IPO allocations, to pay non-competitively determined
commissions on transactions in other securities, to purchase an
issuer's shares in follow-on offerings, and to commit to
purchase other less desirable securities.  The complaint also
alleges that the underwriter defendants conspired to require
customers, in exchange for IPO allocations, to agree to make
aftermarket purchases of the IPO securities at a price higher
than the offering price, as a precondition to receiving an
allocation. These alleged "tie-in" arrangements are further
alleged to have artificially inflated the market price for the
securities.

On May 24, 2002, CSFB LLC and the other defendants moved to
dismiss the amended complaint.  On November 3, 2003, the
district court granted the motion to dismiss and dismissed the
action with prejudice as to all defendants.  The plaintiffs
subsequently appealed that decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit.  Oral argument on that appeal was held
on December 13, 2004, and a decision remains pending.


CREDIT SUISSE: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Credit Suisse First Boston, Inc. asked the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York to dismiss
a class action filed against it on behalf of a putative class of
issuers in initial public offerings (IPOs) for which its
affiliate, Donald Lufkin & Jenrette Securities Corporation
(DLJSC), acted as underwriter.

The complaint alleges that the issuers' IPOs were underpriced,
and that DLJSC allocated the underpriced IPO stock to certain of
its favored clients and subsequently shared in portions of the
profits of such favored clients pursuant to side agreements or
understandings.  This purported conduct is alleged to have been
in breach of the underwriting agreements between DLJSC and those
issuers.

On September 12, 2003, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint. By order dated March 9, 2004, the district court
denied the motion to dismiss as to three of plaintiff's claims,
but granted the motion as to plaintiff's claim for unjust
enrichment, dismissing that claim.  On February 28, 2005, the
Company served plaintiff with a summary judgment motion seeking
to dismiss the plaintiff's remaining claims in the complaint.


CREDIT SUISSE: Continues To Face Lawsuits Re: Enron Relationship
----------------------------------------------------------------
Credit Suisse First Boston LLC (CSFB LLC) and certain of its
affiliates continue to face numerous actions relating to Enron
Corporation or its affiliates, or Enron.

On April 8, 2002, CSFB LLC and its affiliates and certain other
investment banks were named as defendants along with, among
others, Enron, Enron executives and directors, and external law
and accounting firms in a putative class action complaint filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas,
styled "Newby, et al. v. Enron, et al."  The Newby action was
filed by purchasers of Enron securities and alleges violations
of the federal securities laws. A motion by CSFB LLC and its
affiliates to dismiss the Newby complaint was denied in December
2002, and CSFB LLC and its affiliates answered the complaint,
denying all liability. On May 14, 2003, the lead plaintiff in
the Newby suit filed an amended complaint that, among other
things, named as defendants additional CSFB entities, expanded
the putative class to include purchasers of certain Enron-
related securities, and alleged additional violations of the
federal securities laws.  On March 31, 2004, CSFB LLC and its
affiliates' motion to dismiss the new claims and new entities
asserted in the amended complaint was granted as to certain
claims that were based on the Securities Act of 1933, but denied
in all other respects.  On May 28, 2003, the lead plaintiff
filed an amended motion for class certification of a more
broadly defined class based on the amended complaint.  On April
30, 2004, CSFB LLC and its affiliates answered the amended
complaint, denying all liability.  Lead plaintiff's motion for
class certification in Newby is pending.

Several other actions filed against CSFB LLC and its affiliates
and other parties have been consolidated or coordinated with the
Newby action and stayed as to the filing of amended or
responsive pleadings pending the district court's decision on
class certification in Newby.  Similarly consolidated or
coordinated with Newby and stayed have been several actions
against Arthur Andersen, LLP, in which Andersen brought claims
for contribution against CSFB LLC and its affiliates and other
parties as third-party defendants.

Additional Enron-related actions have been filed in various
state courts against CSFB LLC and its affiliates and other
parties, including:

     (1) a complaint by two investment funds that purchased
         certain Enron-related securities alleging insider
         trading and other violations of California law;

     (2) a complaint by investment funds or fund owners that
         purchased senior secured notes issued by Osprey Trust
         and Osprey Trust I alleging violations of California
         law and fraud, deceit and negligent misrepresentation;

     (3) an action by AUSA Life Insurance Company, Inc. and
         eleven other insurance company plaintiffs alleging
         violations of state securities laws, common law fraud
         and civil conspiracy in connection with securities
         offerings by certain Enron-related entities; and

     (4) a complaint by purchasers of Enron, Marlin, Osprey, and
         Montclare Trust securities alleging violations of state
         securities laws, fraud, deceit, and civil conspiracy

In addition, several new actions were filed in November 2004,
against CSFB LLC and its affiliates and other parties in both
federal and state court, including:

     (i) a complaint in Texas federal court brought by
         purchasers of Enron debt securities alleging that CSFB
         LLC and its affiliates and certain other investment
         banks engaged in negligence, fraud, civil conspiracy,
         and violations of the Texas Securities Act in
         connection with an Enron debt securities offering;

    (ii) complaints in Washington and Nevada federal court
         brought by electrical utility companies alleging that
         defendants aided and abetted fraud, engaged in civil
         conspiracy and misrepresentation by participating in
         schemes to misrepresent the financial condition of
         Enron, which in turn permitted Enron to enter into
         electricity contracts with the plaintiffs and
         manipulate prices in the electricity market; and

   (iii) a complaint in Texas state court brought by various
         insurers alleging that defendants engaged in civil
         conspiracy and fraud in violation of the Texas Business
         and Commerce Code and the Texas Securities Act.

These cases are in the process of being consolidated or
coordinated with the Newby action.

On July 16, 2004, CSFB LLC and its affiliates and certain other
investment banks were also sued in Texas state court by a sub-
group of the limited partners that had invested in LJM2 Co-
Investment, L.P., or LJM2, a now bankrupt limited partnership
formed by Enron's former Chief Financial Officer, Andrew Fastow.
The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the defendants
breached their fiduciary duties, were unjustly enriched, engaged
in a civil conspiracy, aided and abetted a violation of the
Texas Securities Act, aided and abetted fraud, and aided and
abetted breaches of fiduciary duty.


CROSSROADS SYSTEMS: TX Court Preliminarily OKs Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Texas granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against Crossroads
Systems, Inc. and several of its officers and directors, styled
"In re Crossroads Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation, Master
File No. A-00-CA-457-JN."

The Company and several of its officers and directors were named
as defendants in several class action lawsuits, filed on behalf
purchasers of the Company's common stock during various periods
ranging from January 25, 2000 through August 24, 2000.  These
suits were later consolidated.

On February 24, 2003, the Court entered a final judgment in the
defendants' favor.  Plaintiffs appealed to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. On April 14, 2004, the
Fifth Circuit issued an opinion, which affirmed in part and
vacated in part the district court's ruling.  The remaining
claims were remanded to the district court.  On May 12, 2004,
the Fifth Circuit denied plaintiff's request for panel
rehearing.  

In December 2004, the Company reached an agreement in principle
to settle this litigation. The shareholder class will receive a
total payment of $4.35 million. Of that amount, the Company's
directors-and-officers insurance carriers agreed to pay $3.35
million and the Company agreed to pay $1.0 million. On February
14, 2005, the Court entered into an order preliminarily
approving the settlement, certifying the class for settlement
purposes and providing for notice. The Court has set a hearing
on the settlement on July 11, 2005.

The suit is styled "In re Crossroads Systems, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Master File No. A-00-CA-457-JN," filed in the United
States District Court, Western District of Texas (Austin) under
Judge James R. Nowlin.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Roger F. Claxton and Robert J. Hill, Claxton & Hill,
         P.L.L.C., 3131 McKinney Ave. Suite 700 Dallas, TX
         75204-2471 Phone: (214) 969-9099;

     (2) John K. Grant, Shirley H. Huang, Dennis J. Herman,
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller, 100 Pine Street Suite
         2600 San Francisco, CA 94111

     (3) James R. Hail, Milberg Weis Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP,
         401 B Street Suite 1700 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone:
         (619) 231-1058

Representing the Company are Michael J. Biles and Paul R.
Besette, Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, LLP, 300 W. 6th
Street Suite 2100 Austin, TX 78701 Phone: (512)499-6200; and
Howard M. Privette, II, 550 South Hope Street Los Angeles, CA
90071 Phone: (213)489-4060.


DELOITTE & TOUCHE: Reaches $50 Mil Settlement For Adelphia Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
The country's third-largest accounting firm, Deloitte & Touche
agreed to pay $50 million to settle charges that it should have
detected the fraudulent bookkeeping at Adelphia Communications,
the cable television company that subsequently filed for
bankruptcy, The New York Times reports.

Coming just a day after the Rigas family, which founded
Adelphia, settled a federal fraud case by agreeing to pay $715
million to investors who lost money when the company collapsed,
the Deloitte's settlement, according to the Securities and
Exchange Commission, is the largest ever by an accounting firm
and includes a record penalty of $25 million.

In an administrative order, the S.E.C. charged Deloitte with
conducting "a critically flawed audit" that failed to detect
"massive fraud perpetrated by Adelphia and certain members of
the Rigas family." The S.E.C. stated that among other abuses,
Adelphia excluded $1.6 billion in debt from its balance sheet
and overstated its stockholders' equity by $375 million.  In its
order, the S.E.C. stated, "The Deloitte engagement team's
failure to object to these particular misstatements permitted
Adelphia to engage in certain accounting practices that departed
from generally accepted accounting principles. Accordingly,
Deloitte caused Adelphia's violations."

In addition to the order, the commission also filed a complaint
in federal district court arguing that Deloitte failed to use
auditing procedures designed to detect illegal practices like
Adelphia's.

In a telephone interview, Mark K. Schonfeld, director of the
S.E.C.'s northeast regional office, told The New York Times,
"Auditors are the front line of oversight of public companies'
financial statements. When they fail to do their job, the result
can be tragic for investors. He also added, "The record
settlement in this case sends the message that we will hold
auditors accountable for their failures."

The S.E.C revealed that Deloitte settled both the agency's order
and court action for $25 million each without admitting or
denying the charges. The federal agency also revealed that both
amounts would be paid into a fund to compensate victims of
Adelphia's fraud.

In a press statement regarding the settlement, the firm said,
"Deloitte & Touche L.L.P. believes that the settlements are in
the best interests of its people, clients and the organization."
It also said the enforcement cases were its first since being
formed through a merger in 1989, and it cited plans to improve
its audit procedures and training.

Deloitte's settlement is the latest in a series of hefty
settlements reached in recent weeks by accounting firms facing
class action lawsuits and regulatory actions over their auditing
of companies where accounting fraud was found.


ENTERASYS NETWORKS: Reached Settlement For RI Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Enterasys Networks, Inc. reached a settlement for the
consolidated securities class action filed against it and
certain of its officers and directors in the United States
District Court for the District of Rhode Island, styled "In re
Cabletron Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation (C.A. No. 97-542-
JD (N.H.); No. 99-408-S (R.I.))."

Between October 24, 1997 and March 2, 1998, nine shareholder
class action lawsuits were filed in the United States District
Court for the District of New Hampshire. By order dated March 3,
1998, these lawsuits, which are similar in material respects,
were consolidated into one class action lawsuit, and referred to
the District of Rhode Island.  The complaint alleges that the
Company and several of its officers and directors disseminated
materially false and misleading information about its operations
and acted in violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and
Rule 10b-5 thereunder during the period between March 3, 1997
and December 2, 1997, and that certain officers and directors
profited from the dissemination of such misleading information
by selling shares of the Company's common stock during this
period.  The complaint does not specify the amount of damages
sought on behalf of the class.

In February 2005, the Company entered into an agreement in
principle to settle this litigation which is subject to approval
by the Court and does not reflect any admission of wrongdoing.
If finally approved, the settlement would result in the
dismissal and release of all claims and, under the financial
terms of the settlement, the Company would pay $10.5 million in
cash in addition to ongoing defense costs of approximately $1.1
million in connection with the litigation, the majority of which
will be offset by approximately $11.0 million in cash proceeds
from certain of the Company's insurers.


HIENERGY TECHNOLOGIES: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed an amended securities class action against
HiEnergy Technologies, Inc. and its chairman, styled "In re:
HiEnergy Technologies, Inc. Securities Litigation," Master File
No. 8:04-CV-01226-DOC (JTLx)," in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California.

In October 2004, the suit was filed, on behalf of a class of
persons who acquired the stock of the Company during the period
from February 22, 2002 through July 8, 2004.  In January 2005,
the Company was officially served and has retained legal counsel
to defend it and assert all available defenses. In February
2005, plaintiff's counsel filed a First Amended Complaint,
alleging various violations of the federal securities laws,
generally asserting the same claims involving Philip Gurian,
Barry Alter, and the Company's failure to disclose their various
securities violations including, without limitation, allegations
of fraud. The First Amended Complaint seeks, among other things,
monetary damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and declaratory
relief.

The suit is styled "In re: HiEnergy Technologies, Inc.
Securities Litigation," Master File No. 8:04-CV-01226-DOC
(JTLx)," filed in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California, under Judge David O. Carter.  
The plaintiffs are represented by Kenneth J Catanzarite and Jim
T. Tice, Catanzarite Law Offices 2331 W Lincoln Ave Anaheim, CA
92801 Phone: 714-520-5544 E-mail: kcatanzarite@catanzarite.com,
jtice@catanzarite.com; and Laurence M. Rosen, Rosen Law Firm 350
Fifth Avenue, Suite 5508 New York, NY 10118 Phone: 212-686-1060
E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com.  The Company is represented by
Jason D. Annigian, Robert J. Feldhake, Daniel M. Hawkins, and
Lisa A. Roquemore, Feldhake and Roquemore, 19900 MacArthur
Boulevard, Suite 850 Irvine, CA 92612 Phone: 949-553-5000 E-
mail: jannigian@far-law.com, rfeldhake@far-law.com; and C.
William Kircher, Jr., C William Kircher Jr Law Offices 2 Park
Plaza, Ste 300 Irvine, CA 92614-8513 Phone: 949-474-2310 Fax:
949-261-1085.


ITXC CORPORATION: 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 ITXC
Corporation and certain of its former officers and directors.

Several purported shareholder class action lawsuits were
initially commenced in 2001, alleging, among other things, that,
in connection with the Company's public offerings of securities,
its prospectus did not disclose certain alleged practices
involving its underwriters and their customers. These actions
seek compensatory and other damages, and costs and expenses
associated with the litigation. No discovery has taken place
with respect to the Company and the other issuer defendants.

The Company is one of hundreds of companies named in
substantially identical lawsuits.  All of these cases have been
consolidated for pretrial purposes before Judge Scheindlin in
the Southern District of New York, who refused to dismiss the
cases in an opinion issued in February 2003.  All of the
individual defendants who had been named as defendants in the
Company's case have now been dismissed from the proceeding
without prejudice, pursuant to a stipulation with the
plaintiffs. Neither the individual defendants nor the Company
nor its insurers paid any consideration for these dismissals.

The issuer defendants, their insurance carriers and the
plaintiffs have negotiated a settlement pursuant to which the
insurance carriers would fund any monetary consideration, and it
is anticipated that this proposed settlement will be submitted
to the Court for approval in the near future. If approved by the
court, under the terms of the proposed settlement, the Company
would be dismissed from the litigation with prejudice and should
neither have future liability to plaintiffs nor any significant
expenses in connection with the litigation, except for a limited
obligation to cooperate in discovery in the plaintiffs'
continuing cases against the underwriters.

The suit is styled "In Re ITXC Corporation Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation," filed in relation to "IN re IPO
Securities Litigation, 21-MC-92 (Sas)," 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


JOURNAL SENTINEL: Realty Firm Files Circulation Fraud Suit in WI
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shorewest Realtors initiated a lawsuit seeking class action
status in Milwaukee County Circuit Court against Journal
Sentinel Inc., alleging circulation fraud at the Milwaukee
Journal Sentinel, The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports.

In its suit, Brookfield-based Shorewest is accusing the
newspaper of deliberately overstating circulation since 1996 and
using the "artificially inflated rates to surreptitiously
overcharge" the home-seller for advertising.  The suit alleges
that Journal Sentinel Inc. systematically used various policies
to inflate circulation. Specifically, according to the suit,
Journal Sentinel counted as circulation papers that were:

     (1) Distributed free to homes, businesses, on the street
         and at large gatherings such as Summerfest, parades and
         sporting events.

     (2) Thrown into Dumpsters without ever having been
         distributed.

     (3) Donated to schools.

     (4) Distributed to apartment tenants as part of a scheme in
         which the subscription cost was included in the rent,
         then kicked back to the apartment complex manager.

The suit further alleges that after circulation scandals
surfaced at such papers as the Chicago Sun-Times, Newsday and
The Dallas Morning News, Journal Sentinel launched a plan "to
conceal its past misrepresentation of circulation rates." It
contends that the company is seeking "to cover up its own
misconduct . . . recently terminated two employees and demoted
another as a result of their participation in the pervasive
scheme to overstate circulation rates."

Among the three law firms representing Shorewest is Media,
Pennsylvania-based Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, which
specializes in class actions.  

Shorewest President Joseph A. Horning said in an interview that
the lawsuit was based on information from current and former
Journal Sentinel employees. He told The Milwaukee Journal
Sentinel, "We have evidence, or evidence has been brought to us
based on information, and that's how we formulated the
complaint."

Additionally, the suit alleges that Journal Sentinel overstated
circulation for the last nine years as it faced a stagnant
market share and increasing competition from other media
outlets. It further states that during the period the suit
describes, the paper's Monday-through-Friday circulation
declined from nearly 290,000 to about 240,000, according to
figures reported to the Audit Bureau of Circulations, a non-
profit organization that includes advertisers, and which governs
and checks newspaper circulation, while the Sunday circulation
during that period fell from about 462,000 to about 435,000.


NANOPHASE TECHNOLOGIES: IL Court OKs Additional Settlement Cost
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois approved an additional $4,628 in further settlement
administration costs for the consolidated securities class
action filed against Nanophase Technologies, Inc., several of
its current and former officers and the underwriters of its
initial public offering.

In 1998, Harbour Court LPI, a small stockholder of the Company,
filed the suit, alleging that the defendants had violated the
federal Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making supposedly
fraudulent material misstatements and omissions of fact in
connection with soliciting consents to the Company's initial
public offering from certain of its preferred stockholders.  The
supposed misrepresentations concerned purported
mischaracterization of revenue that the Company received from
its then-largest customer.  The complaint further alleged that
the suit should be maintained as a plaintiff class action on
behalf of certain former preferred stockholders whose shares of
preferred stock were converted into common stock in connection
with the Company's initial public offering. The complaint sought
relief including unquantified compensatory damages and
attorneys' fees.

In September 2000, each defendant answered the complaint,
denying all wrongdoing. Following certain discovery, the Company
decided to avoid protracted litigation and resulting defense
costs by agreeing to settle all claims against all defendants
for $800,000, plus up to an additional $50,000 for the cost of
settlement administration.  The settlement did not admit
liability by any party. The Court ordered final approval of the
settlement in January 2002 and dismissed the complaint with
prejudice.  In January 2003, the Court approved interim payment
to plaintiffs of $17,102 in settlement administration costs.

In January 2005, the Court approved an additional $4,628 in
further settlement administration costs and determined that
administration of the settlement had been completed.  Because
both the settlement and the settlement administration costs were
funded by the Company's directors and officers liability
insurance, neither the settlement nor the settlement
administration costs payments have had a material adverse effect
on the Company's financial position or results of operations.


NANOPHASE TECHNOLOGIES: IL Court Orders Settlement Distribution
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois ordered the distribution of net settlement funds to the
class members in the consolidated securities class action filed
against Nanophase Technologies Corporation, Joseph Cross, its
president and chief executive officer and certain of its
officers.

In 2001, George Tatz, a purchaser of 200 shares of the Company's
common stock, filed the suit, alleging that defendants violated
the federal Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making supposedly
fraudulent material misstatements and omissions of fact in
connection with the Company's public disclosures, including
certain press releases, concerning its dealings with Celox, a
British customer.  The complaint further alleged that the action
should be maintained as a plaintiff class action on behalf of
certain buyers who purchased shares of the Company's common
stock from April 5, 2001 through October 24, 2001.  The
complaint sought relief including unquantified compensatory
damages and attorneys' fees.

Thereafter, plaintiff filed an amended complaint, alleging that
the Company and four of its officers, Joseph Cross, its chief
executive officer, Daniel Bilicki, its vice president of sales
and marketing, Jess Jankowski, its then-acting chief financial
officer and Gina Kritchevsky, its then-current chief technology
officer were liable under the federal Securities Exchange Act of
1934 for making supposedly fraudulent material misstatements and
omissions of fact in connection with the Company's public
disclosures concerning its relationship with Celox and the
Company's purportedly improper booking, and later reversal, of
$400,000 in revenue from a one-time sale to that customer
treated as a bill and hold transaction. The amended complaint
alleged the same class and sought the same relief as in
plaintiff's initial complaint.

In November 2002, defendants answered the amended complaint,
denying all wrongdoing. Following certain discovery, in June
2003, the Company decided to avoid protracted litigation and
resulting defense costs by agreeing to settle all claims against
all defendants for $2,500,000. Thereafter, the Court certified
the class alleged in the amended complaint. In December 2003,
the Court ordered final approval of the settlement and dismissed
the amended complaint with prejudice. The settlement did not
admit liability by any party. In January 2005, the Court ordered
distribution of the net settlement funds to the plaintiff class.
Because the settlement was funded by the Company's directors and
officers liability insurance, the settlement has not had a
material adverse effect on its financial position or results of
operations.


PULITZER INC.: DE Court Orders Securities Lawsuits Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware in New Castle
County ordered consolidated two shareholder class actions filed
against Pulitzer, Inc. and the members of its board of
directors, under the caption, "In re Pulitzer Inc. Shareholders
Litigation, Civil Action No. 1063-N."

On January 31, 2005, Todd M. Veeck, an alleged owner of common
stock of the Company, filed a lawsuit in The Court of Chancery
of the State of Delaware in New Castle County.  The Veeck
complaint purports to be a class action brought on behalf of all
stockholders other than the defendants, and it asserts that the
announced sale of the Company to Lee Enterprises, Inc. should be
preliminarily and permanently enjoined because the agreed-upon
consideration is unfair and does not maximize stockholder value.
The Veeck complaint also seeks monetary damages.

On February 2, 2005, James Fern, an alleged owner of the
Company's common stock, filed a lawsuit in The Court of Chancery
of the State of Delaware in New Castle County against the
Company and members of its board of directors making essentially
the same allegations and seeking essentially the same relief as
the Veeck complaint.

The Company has determined to pay the attorneys' fees and
expenses incurred in defending the members of its board of
directors in these or related legal actions, and each member of
the board of directors has undertaken and agreed to repay his or
her share of such fees and other expenses if it shall be
ultimately determined that he or she is not entitled to be
indemnified by the Company.


QUICKLOGIC CORPORATION: Plaintiffs Appeal NY Lawsuit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York's dismissal of the consolidated
securities class action filed against Tower Semiconductor Ltd.,
several of its directors and several of its investors including
QuickLogic Corporation.  The Company was named solely as an
alleged control person.

On August 19, 2004, the court dismissed the claims against all
defendants, including the Company, with prejudice.  On September
29, 2004, one of the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from
the judgment.


SCHERING-PLOUGH: FTC Seeks Rehearing For K-Dur Antitrust Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Federal Trade Commission filed a petition with the Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, in Atlanta, Georgia,
requesting that the Court vacate its March 8, 2005 decision in
the matter of "FTC v. Schering-Plough Corporation, No. 04-
10688," and re-hear the case en banc.

In April 2001, the FTC filed an administrative complaint against
Schering-Plough Corporation, Upsher Smith Laboratories and
American Home Products (AHP) alleging that they had entered into
anticompetitive agreements aimed at keeping a low-cost generic
version of K-Dur 20 potassium chloride supplement off the U.S.
market. AHP settled with the Commission in April 2002. In July
2002, an administrative law judge issued an initial decision
dismissing the FTC's complaint. The staff appealed this initial
decision to the full Commission, which ruled in its favor in
December 2003. Schering and Upsher then appealed the case to the
Eleventh Circuit, which issued a decision by a three-judge panel
reversing the Commission's ruling and dismissing the charges
against the companies.

The FTC's Bureau of Competition seeks to prevent business
practices that restrain competition. The Bureau carries out its
mission by investigating alleged law violations and, when
appropriate, recommending that the Commission take formal
enforcement action. To notify the Bureau concerning particular
business practices, call or write the Office of Policy and
Evaluation, Room 394, Bureau of Competition, Federal Trade
Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Ave, N.W., Washington, DC 20580,
Electronic Mail: antitrust@ftc.gov; Telephone (202) 326-3300.
For more information on the laws that the Bureau enforces, the
Commission has published "Promoting Competition, Protecting
Consumers: A Plain English Guide to Antitrust Laws," which can
be accessed at http://www.ftc.gov/bc/compguide/index.htm.


SINO BESTFOOD: Recalls Preserved Apples For Undeclared Sulfites
---------------------------------------------------------------
State Agriculture Commissioner Nathan L. Rudgers alerted
consumers that Sino Bestfood, Inc., 7 Kosher Blvd., Suite 3B,
Edison, New Jersey 08837 is recalling 12.35 oz. packages of
preserved fruit (apple) because they may contain undeclared
sulfites. People who have severe sensitivity to sulfites may run
the risk of serious or life-threatening reactions if they
consume this product.

The recalled preserved fruit (apple), a product of China, comes
in a 12.35 oz. plastic tray package. It was sold in metropolitan
New Jersey and New York.

The recall was initiated after routine sampling by New York
State Department of Agriculture and Markets Food Inspectors and
subsequent analysis by the Department's Food Laboratory
personnel revealed the presence of sulfites in product packages
which did not declare sulfites on the label.  The consumption 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 to this Department in
connection with the problem.

Consumers who have purchased preserved fruit (apple) should
return it to the place of purchase.


STRATOS INTERNATIONAL: NY Court Preliminarily Approves Suit Pact
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted preliminary approval to the settlement for the
consolidated securities class action filed against Stratos
International, Inc. (formerly Stratos Lightwave, Inc. and
certain of its directors and executive officers.

Several suits were initially filed.  The first of these
lawsuits, filed on July 25, 2001, is captioned "Kucera v.
Stratos Lightwave, Inc. et.al. No. 01 CV 6821."  Three other
similar lawsuits have also been filed against the Company and
certain of its directors and executive officers. The complaints
also name as defendants the underwriters for the Company's
initial public offering.  

The complaints are substantially identical to numerous other
complaints filed against other companies that went public during
the time of the Company's IPO.  The complaints generally allege,
among other things, that the registration statement and
prospectus from the Company's June 26, 2000 initial public
offering failed to disclose certain alleged actions by the
underwriters for the offering. The complaints charge the Company
and several of its directors and executive officers with
violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933,
as amended, and/or Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) to the
Security Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.  The complaints also
allege claims solely against the underwriting defendants under
Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.

In 2003, the Company agreed to a Memorandum of Understanding,
which reflects a settlement of these class actions as between
the purported class action plaintiffs, the Company and the
defendant officers and directors, and its liability insurer.
Under the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding, its
liability insurers will pay certain sums to the plaintiffs, with
the amount dependent upon the plaintiffs' recovery from the
underwriters in the IPO class actions as a whole.  The
plaintiffs will dismiss with prejudice their claims against the
Company and its officers and directors, and the Company will
assign to the plaintiffs certain claims that it may have against
the underwriters.  The plaintiffs have filed with the court a
motion for preliminary approval of the settlement, which, if
granted, will lead to the mailing of class-wide notices of the
settlement and a hearing date for approval of the settlement.
The issuers filed a statement joining in the plaintiffs' motion
for preliminary approval of the settlement. The underwriter
defendants opposed the motion.  On February 15, 2005, the Court
issued its ruling granting the plaintiffs' motion for
preliminary approval of the settlement with the issuers, pending
certain changes to the bar order to be included as part of the
settlement and to the notice to the class. The settlement still
remains subject to final approval by the Court after notice of
the settlement is sent to the class and the class members and
other parties have an opportunity to have their objections, if
any, to the settlement heard at a final fairness hearing.

The suit is styled "In Re Stratos Lightwave, Inc. Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, Case No. 01 Civ. 6821 (Sas)
(Ro)," filed in relation to "IN re IPO Securities Litigation,
21-MC-92 (Sas)," 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


THAXTON GROUP: Investors Seek Certification For Fraud Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Investors who have initiated a lawsuit against the Thaxton Group
over the company's bankruptcy asked a federal judge to give
their suit class action status.

Bankruptcy court documents show that a subsidiary of the
Lancaster-based company, which offered high-interest loans and
insurance products to people with poor credit histories, owes
more than $120 million to about 3,800 people who invested in its
subordinated note program. The company, which filed for
bankruptcy in October, discontinued the program last fall at the
request of the attorney general's office.

According to Mark Parry, whose law firm represents the unsecured
creditors in bankruptcy court, about $100 million has been
recovered from the sale of Thaxton's assets, and the planned
sale of another Thaxton subsidiary Southern Management Co. was
expected to bring another $60 million to $70 million.

The losses from the investors represented the largest portion of
Thaxton's $242 million total losses, according to bankruptcy
court documents.

Gilbert Bagnell, a lawyer for the investors told AP that class-
action status would save investors from hiring attorneys to
pursue damages individually.

However, attorneys for Thaxton argued in court that the
investors shouldn't get class-action status because they stand
to get back all of their losses in Delaware bankruptcy court.
The defendants also don't want to group together investors from
different states that might have different information, attorney
Jimmy Adams told AP.

Mr. Bagnell stated that the investors accuse Thaxton of using
fraud to keep operating while the Company was millions of
dollars in the red.

U.S. District Judge G. Ross Anderson Jr. plans to make a ruling
on the case in about two weeks.


UNITED STATES: FTC Urges TX Real Estate Body To Review New Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Department of Justice
(DOJ) have issued a letter urging the state-created Texas Real
Estate Commission to reject a proposed regulation that would
change current rules by imposing new restrictions on the ability
of Texas real estate professionals to offer flexibility in
brokerage services.  

The agencies expressed concern that the proposed regulation
would not only cause Texas consumers to pay more for real estate
services, but also would reduce consumer choice by restricting
the ability of real estate brokers to provide services tailored
to customer needs.  Currently, Texas real estate brokers can
offer the level of service that a customer wants and needs. If
the Commission accepts the proposed regulation, customers will
be forced to purchase additional services that they may not want
or need.

"The Commission is urging the Texas Real Estate Commission to
reject the proposed rule, which would restrict the ability of
limited-service real estate brokers to respond to the demands of
Texas consumers," said FTC Chairman Deborah Platt Majoras. "The
likely result would be higher prices and fewer options for the
state's consumers, with no offsetting benefits."

"Limited-service brokers are growing rapidly in Texas and across
the country because they provide greater choice and can save
consumers thousands of dollars on a single home sale," said R.
Hewitt Pate, Assistant Attorney General in charge of the
Department of Justice's Antitrust Division. "The proposed
regulation would restrict the beneficial competition created by
these limited-service brokers, and the Texas Real Estate
Commission should reject it."

In Texas, real estate services are offered by limited-service
brokers and full-service brokers who compete against one
another. Full-service brokers charge consumers a single price
for a bundle of individual real estate services and limited-
service brokers offer consumers the option to pick and choose
from a menu of different real estate services according to each
respective consumer's individual needs. For example, a seller
can decide just to purchase multi-list services from a broker
and to represent himself or herself in negotiating with buyers.

Under the proposed new regulation, limited-service brokers would
be required to bundle together certain of their service
offerings into a mandatory package and would no longer be able
to offer services separately. In this example, the seller would
be required by the proposed regulation to purchase
representation and negotiation services from the broker in
addition to the multi-list service. As a result, customers would
have fewer choices and pay more for their real estate needs if
the regulation is passed.

The Texas Real Estate Commission is expected to vote on the
proposed regulation, entitled Broker's Responsibility, 30 Tex.
Reg, 1400, on Monday, April 25, 2005. The proposed regulation
amends the Texas Administrative Code, title 22, Section 535.2.

The Commission vote authorizing the comments to the Texas Real
Estate Commission was 5-0.  For more information visit the DOJ's
Web site: http://www.usdoj.gov/atror the FTC's Web site:  
http://www.ftc.gov. For more information on the letter at the  
DOJ, contact John R. Read, Chief of Litigation III section, at
202-307-0468.  For more information on the letter at the FTC
contact James Cooper, Attorney Advisor of the FTC Office of
Policy Planning, at 202-326-3367.  Paper copies of the letter
are also available from the Justice Department's Antitrust
Documents Group and the FTC's Consumer Response Center.  The
Justice Department's Antitrust Documents Group can be contacted
by telephone at: 202-514-2481, fax: 202-514-3763, or e-mail:
atrdoc.grp@usdoj.gov.  The FTC's Consumer Response Center can be
contacted at Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington,
DC 20580. Call toll-free: 1-877-FTC-HELP.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: DE Court OKs Ribapharm Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Delaware Court of Chancery granted final approval to the
settlement of the securities class actions filed against Valeant
Pharmaceuticals, International, Ribapharm, Inc. and certain of
Ribapharm's officers and directors.

In June 2003, seven purported class actions were filed against
the Company, Ribapharm and certain directors and officers of
Ribapharm.  They were later consolidated in one action, styled
"In re Ribapharm Inc. Shareholders Litigation, Consol. C.A. No.
20337."  The plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that the
Company breached its fiduciary duties as a controlling
stockholder of Ribapharm in connection with its tender offer for
the shares of Ribapharm it did not already own.  On August 4,
2003, the Company and the plaintiffs reached an agreement in
principle to settle these lawsuits for a nominal amount.

In June 2003, a purported class action on behalf of certain
stockholders of Ribapharm was filed against the Company in the
Delaware Court of Chancery seeking a declaration that the
shareholders rights plan is valid and enforceable. The Company
and the plaintiffs reached an agreement in principle to settle
this lawsuit which will be completed in combination with the
settlement "In re Ribapharm Inc. Shareholders Litigation,
Consol. C.A. No. 20337."

In June 2003, a purported class action was filed in the Superior
Court of Orange County, California, against the Company,
Ribapharm and certain of Ribapharm's officers and directors
asserting the same claims, on behalf of the same class of
plaintiffs and against the same defendants as in the seven
lawsuits filed in Delaware that are described above.  The
settlement of the Delaware tender offer litigation has been
designed to release the claims brought in this lawsuit, although
the decision as to the effect of that release will be subject to
the discretion of the California court.

At a hearing held on December 2, 2004, the Delaware Court
entered an order approving the settlement and awarded
plaintiffs' counsel $375,000 in fees and expenses.  Pursuant to
the terms of the Delaware settlement, on January 18, 2005, the
plaintiff in the California action filed a notice of request for
voluntary dismissal of the case, seeking to dismiss the case
with prejudice.  On January 20, 2005, the California court
entered an order dismissing the California action with
prejudice.  On February 28, 2005, after receiving no objections
to the settlement agreement and no opt-outs by class members,
the court gave final approval to the settlement and entered an
order and judgment dismissing the action with prejudice.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Plaintiffs Appeal CA Lawsuit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the United States District Court for the
Central District of California's dismissal of the consolidated
securities class action filed against Valeant Pharmaceuticals,
Inc. and certain of its current and former executive officers.

Since July 25, 2002, multiple class actions have been filed
against the Company and some of its current and former executive
officers alleging that the defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by issuing false and misleading
financial results to the market during different class periods
ranging from May 3, 2001 to July 10, 2002, thereby artificially
inflating the price of the Company's stock.  The lawsuits
generally claim that the Company issued false and misleading
statements regarding its earnings prospects and sales figures
(based upon "channel stuffing" allegations), its operations in
Russia, the marketing of Efudex, and the earnings and sales of
its Photonics division. The plaintiffs generally seek to recover
compensatory damages, including interest.

On June 24, 2004, the court dismissed the Second Amended
Complaint as to the channel stuffing claim.  The plaintiffs then
stipulated to a dismissal of all the claims against the Company.
The plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit seeking review of
the dismissal of the claims against the Company.  The plaintiffs
filed their opening brief in the Ninth Circuit on February 7,
2005. Although a schedule for deciding the appeal has not yet
been set by the court, the Company expects a ruling on this
matter by late fall 2005.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: CA Court Approves Stock Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The California Superior Court for Orange County granted
preliminary approval to the settlement of a bondholder class
action filed against Valeant Pharmaceuticals International and
some of its current and former directors and former executive
officers.

The lawsuit alleges that the defendants violated Sections 11 and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933 by making false and misleading
statements in connection with an offering of 6 Convertible
Subordinated Notes due 2008 in November 2001, thereby
artificially inflating the market price of the Notes.  The
plaintiffs generally sought to recover compensatory damages,
including interest.

On December 20, 2004, the court granted preliminary approval of
the settlement under which the company will pay the plaintiffs
$3,200,000.


VISHAY INTERTECHNOLOGY: CA Court Grants Motion To Stay Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
The California Superior Court granted Vishay Intertechnology,
Inc.'s (NYSE: VSH) motion to stay the purported class action
filed in California challenging its pending exchange offer for
the shares of Siliconix incorporated (Nasdaq: SILI) not owned by
Vishay.

Vishay has previously filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission an amended prospectus and exchange offer statement
and related exchange offer materials. Siliconix stockholders
should read the amended exchange offer statement and the other
exchange offer materials because they contain important
information.

Investors can obtain the amended exchange offer statement and
other filed documents without charge from the web site of the
SEC at http://www.sec.gov. Vishay Intertechnology, Inc., a  
Fortune 1,000 Company listed on the NYSE (VSH), is one of the
world's largest manufacturers of discrete semiconductors
(diodes, rectifiers, transistors, and optoelectronics) and
selected ICs, and passive electronic components (resistors,
capacitors, inductors, and transducers). It is headquartered in
Malvern, Pennsylvania, and has operations in 17 countries
employing over 25,000 people.


WAL-MART STORES: Court Hearing Continue For CO Overtime Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A new round of federal court hearings with attorneys for both
sides fighting over how to react to a key decision earlier this
year began for a protracted lawsuit accusing Wal-Mart Stores
Inc. of violating federal labor laws on overtime pay.

The hearings center around a 1995 lawsuit by three Colorado
pharmacists, who claim that the Bentonville, Arkansas-based
retailer improperly deprived them of overtime pay. Court
documents revealed that by early 1997 that suit had grown to a
class-action lawsuit covering about 900 pharmacists around the
country, who claimed they were owed overtime pay and damages for
times the company shifted their hours and salaries.

Before the case went to trial, U.S. District Judge Zita
Weinshienk ruled in the pharmacists' favor in August 1999,
pointing out that Wal-Mart's compensation system circumvented
federal rules by classifying pharmacists as salaried employees
ineligible for overtime pay.

However, as previously reported in the February 2, 2005 edition
of the Class Action Reporter, a three-judge panel in the 10th
Circuit in Denver overturned that ruling saying that the judge
failed to consider evidence about Labor Department rulings that
companies can adjust salaried employees' pay if economic
conditions warrant, thus sending the case back to Judge
Weinshienk and setting the case up for a lengthy trial barring a
settlement.

Judge Weinshienk ruled in 1999 that Wal-Mart shorted hundreds of
pharmacists by classifying them as salaried workers, even though
the giant retailer treated pharmacists as hourly workers by
cutting their shifts when business was slow and docking their
pay as a result. Her ruling, a summary judgment in essence had
attracted national attention, largely because it would have
required Wal-Mart to pay back wages, including interest that
could have exceeded $100 million.

The lead plaintiff attorneys, Gerald Bader and Frank Azar,
estimated that the roughly 700 pharmacists covered in the class-
action suit were each owed $50,000 to $70,000, not including
penalties. After Wal-Mart appealed, a trial to argue the dollar
amount of workers' losses and to determine whether Wal-Mart's
violations of the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act were willful
was postponed.

In its ruling, the appeals court wrote that "The plaintiffs have
not established incontrovertibly that Wal-Mart changed salaries
so often that its full-time pharmacists essentially were paid an
hourly wage."

The appeals court reversal also applies to a second related
class-action suit brought on behalf of hundreds of current and
former Wal-Mart pharmacists, which accuses the retailer of a
"sweatshop mentality" in which pharmacists were routinely
required to work 12-hour days without lunch or rest breaks.

The appeals court, however, also ruled that if salary changes
are made too frequently, it could be declared a "sham." In such
cases, employees would have to be reclassified as hourly and
eligible for overtime pay. The ruling ordered further work in
the case to determine which pharmacists had been affected.

During the most recent hearing, Wal-Mart attorney Steven Merker
told U.S. Magistrate Craig Shaffer that the company wants to
introduce expert testimony about payroll records to determine
Wal-Mart's potential liability. He contended that the appeals
court's ruling would require a different analysis of the records
than had been performed earlier.

Mr. Bader though argued that enough expert testimony had already
been produced, and all that remains is to decide how many
pharmacists had been affected by the "sham" salary system. He
estimated that no more than 100 had been deprived of overtime
pay because of the system.

Judge Shaffer, however sided with the defendants and thus
ordered both sides to explain their positions on new expert
testimony in writing within two weeks.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases


BEARINGPOINT, INC.: Brian M. Felgoise Files VA Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C. filed a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who acquired
BearingPoint, Inc. (NYSE: BE) securities between August 14,
2003, and April 20, 2005, inclusive (the Class Period).

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia, against the company and certain
key officers and directors.

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

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


BEARINGPOINT INC.: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Securities Suit in VA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC initiated a securities
class action lawsuit on behalf of shareholders who purchased the
common stock and other securities of BearingPoint, Inc.
("BearingPoint" or the "Company") (NYSE:BE), between August 14,
2003 and April 20, 2005 inclusive (the "Class Period"). The
class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period,
thereby artificially inflating the price of BearingPoint
securities. No class has yet been certified in the above action.

For more details, contact Marc L. Ackerman, Esq. or Evan J.
Smith, Esq. of Brodsky & Smith, LLC by Phone: 877-LEGAL-90 or by
E-mail: clients@brodsky-smith.com.


BEARINGPOINT INC.: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Suit in VA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of
BearingPoint, Inc. (NYSE:BE) between August 14, 2003 and April
20, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia against defendant BearingPoint,
Roderick C. McGeary, Randolph C. Blazer and Robert S. Falcone.
The action charges that defendants violated federal securities
laws by issuing a series of materially false and misleading
statements to the market throughout the Class Period, which
statements had the effect of artificially inflating the market
price of the Company's securities. No class has yet been
certified in the above action.

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


BEARINGPOINT INC.: Cohen Milstein Lodges Securities Suit in VA
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. filed
a lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of
BearingPoint, Inc. (NYSE:BE) ("BearingPoint" or the "Company")
between August 14, 2003 and April 20, 2005, inclusive (the
"Class Period"), in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia.

The Complaint charges BearingPoint and certain of its former
officers and directors with violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. The Complaint alleges that defendants'
financial reports and statements issued from August 14, 2003
through April 20, 2005 were false and misleading as they failed
to disclose:

     (1) that the Company had materially overstated its net
         income during the Class Period by approximately $250 -
         $400 million;

     (2) that the Company had inflated its earnings by
         improperly accounting for charges relating to
         acquisitions;

     (3) that the Company's financial statements were not
         prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted
         Accounting Principles ("GAAP"); and

     (4) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls and
         was therefore unable to ascertain the true financial
         condition of the Company.

On April 20, 2005, after the market closed, BearingPoint
reported that the Company was going to restate its financial
results for fiscal year 2003 and the first three quarters of
2004. The Company further disclosed the commencement of an
informal investigation by the Division of Enforcement of the
Securities and Exchange Commission. The next day, shares of the
Company's stock fell by over 30% to close at $5.28, in extremely
heaving trading.

For more details, contact Steven J. Toll, Esq. or Audrey Braccio
of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. by Mail: 1100 New
York Avenue, N.W. West Tower - Suite 500, Washington, D.C. 20005
by Phone: (888) 240-0775 or (202) 408-4600 or by E-mail:
stoll@cmht.com or abraccio@cmht.com.


BEARINGPOINT INC.: Lovell Stewart Lodges Securities Suit in VA
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lovell Stewart Halebian LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia on behalf of all persons who
purchased, converted, exchanged, or otherwise acquired the
common stock of BearingPoint, Inc. ("BearingPoint" or the
"Company") (NYSE: BE) between November 13, 2003 and April 20,
2005, inclusive, (the "Class Period") against defendants
BearingPoint and certain officers and directors of the Company.

The action, Filippov v. BearingPoint, Inc. et al. is pending in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia,
Richmond Division, Docket No. 3:05-CV-305 (REP) and has been
assigned to the Hon. Robert E. Payne, U.S. District Judge.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC")
thereunder, thereby artificially inflating the price of
BearingPoint securities. Throughout the Class Period, as alleged
in the Complaint, defendants issued numerous statements which
described the Company's statements on its financial conditions.
The Complaint alleges that these statements were materially
false and misleading because they failed to disclose and/or
misrepresented the following adverse facts, among others:

     (1) that the Company's materially overstated its net income
         for the first three quarters of 2004 and financial
         periods prior to 2004;

     (2) that the Company's financial statements were not
         prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted
         Accounting Principles ("GAAP");

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

     (4) that as a result, the value of the Company's net income
         and financial results were materially overstate at all
         relevant times.

On April 20, 2005, the Company filed a current report on a Form
8-K with the SEC. The Company announced that the financial
statements previous issued should not be relied upon because of
errors in those financial statements. Those previous issued
reports include

     (i) Form 10-Q's for each of the first three quarters of
         Fiscal Year 2004;

    (ii) Form 10-K for the six month transition period ended
         December 31, 2003; and

   (iii) Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2003.

In addition, the Company revealed in the current report that on
April 13, 2005 it received a letter from the Division of
Enforcement of the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC
staff") advising the Company that it was conducting an informal
investigation concerning the Company's internal control
deficiencies and prior period adjustments.

The Company also stated in the current report: During the fourth
quarter of the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004 ("FY04"),
BearingPoint, Inc. determined that a triggering event had
occurred, which caused the Company to perform a goodwill
impairment test. The triggering event resulted from a
combination of various factors, including downgrades in the
Company's credit rating in December 2004, significant changes in
senior management and underperforming foreign legal entities. As
a result of an initial impairment analysis, on March 17, 2005
the Company determined that a material, non-cash charge will be
taken during the fourth quarter of FY04 as a result of the
impairment of its goodwill with respect to the operations in its
Europe, the Middle East and Africa ("EMEA") segment. The Company
currently estimates that the amount of the impairment charge
will be $250 million to $400 million.

For more details, contact Christopher Lovell of Lovell Stewart
Halebian LLP by Phone: 212-608-1900 or by E-mail:
classaction@lshllp.com.  


BEARINGPOINT INC.: Roy Jacobs Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in VA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Roy Jacobs & Associates initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia on behalf of all purchasers who purchased
BearingPoint, Inc. securities during the period August 14, 2003
to April 20, 2005 (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit was filed
against BearingPoint, Inc. ("BearingPoint" or "the Company")
(NYSE:BE), its former Chairman, Chief Executive Officer, and
President Randolph C. Blazer, its former Chief Financial Officer
Robert S. Falcone, and BearingPoint's outside auditor,
PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP. The Complaint sets forth
allegations that the defendants violated the federal securities
laws by defrauding purchasers of BearingPoint securities during
the Class Period, as described below.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing quarterly and yearly financial
statements for BearingPoint which were materially false and
misleading. These quarterly and yearly financial statements
reported to shareholders how the Company had performed, as to
earnings and other critical financial information.
BearingPoint's financial statements were required to be prepared
according to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, ("GAAP"),
which are a set of accounting rules designed to require
companies to report financial information in an accurate manner.
The defendants represented that BearingPoint's financial
statements were prepared applying these important principles. It
is alleged in the Complaint that defendants violated these GAAP
principles in preparing BearingPoint's financial statements, and
BearingPoint's financial statements did not reflect the true
financial condition of the Company.

On April 20, 2005, it was revealed that the Company's previously
filed annual financial statements for 2003 and quarterly
financial statements 2004 were materially false, should not be
relied upon, and would have to be restated to accurately reflect
the Company's true performance. It was also revealed that
BearingPoint's prior earnings reports were false and that
earnings would be materially reduced upon the restatement. It
was also revealed that the Company would be forced to write-down
between $250-$400 million in assets.

As a result of these revelations, which were completely
unexpected, on April 21, 2005, the price of BearingPoint's
shares dropped 40 percent in value on greatly elevated trading
volume of 67 million shares. If you purchased BearingPoint
securities during the Class Period, you may qualify to serve as
Lead Plaintiff on behalf of the Class, which consists of all
persons and entities who purchased BearingPoint securities from
August 14, 2003 to April 20, 2005. All motions for appointment
as Lead Plaintiff must be filed with the Court no later than
June 24, 2005.

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


DORAL FINANCIAL: Baron & Budd Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Baron & Budd, P.C. initiated class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Doral Financial
Corporation (NYSE:DRL)("Doral" or the "Company") securities
during the period between April 9, 2002 and April 18, 2005,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that Doral Financial Corporation violated
federal securities laws by issuing false or misleading
information and that the Company failed to disclose and
misrepresented the following material adverse facts which were
known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them.
Specifically, the Complaint alleges:

     (1) that the Company improperly valued Interest Only Strips
         ("IOs") which caused an overstatement of the Company's
         financial results by $400-$600 million in fiscal year
         2004 alone;

     (2) that the Company employed a static measure, instead of
         a forward curve measure, for valuation of its LIBOR
         sensitive IOs which resulted in misleading results that
         earnings were increasing and that Doral had a strong
         mortgage portfolio;

     (3) that the Company's financial statements were not
         prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted
         Accounting Principles ("GAAP");

     (4) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls and
         was unable to ascertain the true financial condition of
        the Company; and

     (5) that as a result, the value of the Company's earnings
         and financial results were materially overstated at all
         relevant times.

On April 18, 2005, the Doral issued a press release revealing
that the Company's annual and quarterly financial reports for
2000-2004 were materially false and misleading and would require
restatement because of the Company's improper accounting methods
employed for the IOs. Additionally, the Company also announced
that its accounting practices are the subject of an informal SEC
investigation.

The Company's stock has plummeted 66% from its January 18, 2005
closing price of $49.45 to its close on April 18, 2005 at
$16.92. The stock closed at $15.09 on April 26, 2005.

For more details, contact Randall K. Pulliam, Esq. or Max Jodry
of Baron & Budd, P.C. by Phone: (800) 222-2766 by E-mail:
info@baronbudd.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.baronandbudd.com.


DORAL FINANCIAL: Berman DeValerio Lodges Securities Suit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo
initiated class action in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York against Doral Financial
Corporation ("Doral" or the "Company") (NYSE: DRL), claiming
that the financial services company issued false and misleading
financial statements to the investing public.

The lawsuit seeks damages for violations of federal securities
laws on behalf of all investors who purchased Doral common stock
from May 15, 2000 through and including April 18, 2005 (the
"Class Period").

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

As part of its mortgage business, Doral generates fixed rate
non- conforming mortgage loans, pools them and sells most of
them on a floating rate basis. Upon sale, Doral capitalizes and
records for accounting purposes a floating rate interest-only
strip ("IO Strip"). Doral also recognizes gain on sale of
mortgages as part of these transactions.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period the
Company's:

     (1) IO Strip portfolio was materially overvalued;

     (2) net income and net gain on mortgage loan sales were
         materially overstated;

     (3) return on equity and return on capital were materially
         overstated; and

     (4) reported net capital was materially overstated.

Doral also failed to disclose to investors that the Company's
risk management, hedging strategies and internal controls were
deficient and would not protect the value of Doral's IO Strip
portfolio in a rising-rate environment, despite repeated
reassurances to the contrary.

On April 19, 2005, Doral announced that it was restating its
financial results for fiscal years 2000 through 2004. The
restatements were being made to correct the accounting treatment
for valuing its IO Strip portfolio. The restatements will result
in a decrease in the fair value of the securities by $400 to
$600 million as of December 31, 2004. The Company estimates it
will eventually have to take a $290 million to $435 million
charge for the required adjustments.

Since the disclosures about Doral's improper accounting began,
its stock price has fallen almost 60% from $38.95 per share on
March 15, 2005 to $16.15 per share on April 19, 2005.

On April 20, 2005, Doral further announced that the SEC was
conducting an informal investigation regarding the Company's
April 19, 2005 announcement about the restatements.

For more details, contact Leslie R. Stern, Esq. or Jeffrey C.
Block, Esq. by Mail: One Liberty Square, Boston, MA 02109 by
Phone: (800) 516-9926 by E-mail: law@bermanesq.com or visit
their Web site: http://www.bermanesq.com/pdf/Doral-Cplt.pdf.


MBIA INC.: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Stull, Stull & Brody initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, against MBIA Incorporated ("MBIA" or the
"Company") (NYSE:MBI), on behalf of purchasers of MBIA publicly
traded securities between August 5, 2003 and March 30, 2005,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint alleges that MBIA violated federal securities laws
by issuing false or misleading information. On November 18,
2004, MBIA announced that it had received subpoenas from the
Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") and the New York
Attorney General's Office ("NYAG") requesting information with
respect to loss mitigation insurance products developed, offered
or sold to third parties from January 1, 1998 to the present. On
March 8, 2005, MBIA announced that it would restate its
financial statements for 1998 and subsequent years in order to
correct the accounting treatment for two reinsurance agreements
that MBIA entered into in 1998 with Converium Re (previously
known as Zurich Reinsurance North America). Then on March 9,
2005, MBIA announced that it had received a subpoena from the
U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York
seeking information related to reinsurance agreements in
connection with the loss it incurred in 1998 on bonds insured by
MBIA that were issued by Allegheny Health, Education and
Research Foundation ("AHERF"). Finally, on March 30, 2005, MBIA
announced that it had received additional requests from the NYAG
and SEC supplemental to the 2004 subpoenas. On this news, MBIA
fell $4.36 per share, or 7.7% to close at $52.28 per share.

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


XYBERNAUT CORPORATION: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Stull, Stull & Brody initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of
Delaware, on behalf of all securities purchasers of Xybernaut
Corporation ("Xybernaut" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:XYBRE)
between March 27, 2003 and April 8, 2005, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

The Complaint charges Xybernaut, Edward G. Newman, Steven A.
Newman, M.D., and Thomas D. Davis with violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder. More specifically, the Complaint
alleges that the Company omitted or misrepresented material
facts about its financial condition, business prospects, revenue
expectations and internal controls during the Class Period.

On March 14, 2005, Xybernaut announced that it was seeking an
extension of time within which to file its annual report with
the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"). On March 31,
2005, after the close of trading, Xybernaut belatedly revealed
that it was in dire financial and regulatory straits. The
Company issued a press release that day, which stated, in part:
"Xybernaut Corporation (NASDAQ:XYBR) announced today that the
filing of its Form 10-K and other related reports for the year
ended December 31, 2004, anticipated to occur today, will be
further delayed, pending completion of an internal investigation
undertaken by its Audit Committee." The press release stated
that independent counsel had been engaged to assist in an
internal investigation of, "among other things, concerns brought
to the Audit Committee's attention relating to the internal
control environment of the Company, the propriety of certain
expenditures and the documentation of certain expenses of the
Chairman and CEO of the Company, the Company's transparency and
public disclosure process, the accuracy of certain public
disclosures, management's conduct in response to the
investigation, and the propriety of certain major transactions."
The press release further stated that the Company had received a
subpoena from the Northeast Regional Office of the SEC seeking
"documents and other information relating to the sale of Company
securities by any person identified as a selling shareholder in
any Company registration statement or other public filing."

On this news, the Company's share price, which at one time had
traded as high as $2.23 per share due to the Company's positive
press releases and false and misleading representations during
the Class Period, closed at $0.42 per share on March 31, 2005,
and then dropped further by almost fifty percent (50%), to close
at $0.24 per share on April 1, 2005.

On April 8, 2005, after the close of trading, Xybernaut
announced in a press release that "investors and others should
refrain from relying upon the Company's historical financial
statements... for the years ended December 31, 2002 and 2003,
and interim quarterly reports for the quarters ended March 31,
2003, June 30, 2003, September 30, 2003, March 31, 2004, June
30, 2004 and September 30, 2004." On the heels of this shocking
news, trading was again heavy and the Company's price per share
fell to $0.13 per share.

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


XYBERNAUT CORPORATION: Sarraf Gentile Lodges Stock Lawsuit in DE
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm of Sarraf Gentile LLP initiated a securities class
action on behalf of those who acquired the securities of
Xybernaut Corporation ("Xybernaut" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:
XYBRE) from March 27, 2003 through April 8, 2005 (the "Class
Period").

A case is pending in the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware. The action charges 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 in
a press release that "investors and others should refrain from
relying upon the Company's historical financial statements...
for the years ended December 31, 2002 and 2003, and interim
quarterly reports for the quarters ended March 31, 2003, June
30, 2003, September 30, 2003, March 31, 2004, June 30, 2004 and
September 30, 2004. No class has yet been certified in the above
action.

For more details, contact Sarraf Gentile LLP by Mail: 111 John
Street, 8th Floor, New York, New York by Phone: 212/433-1312 or
by E-mail: joseph@sarrafgentile.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  * * *