CAR_Public/050502.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, May 2, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 85


                            Headlines

ADAMS GOLF: Mediation For DE Securities Suit Set June 1, 2005
AFC ENTERPRISES: Discovery Proceeds in GA Securities Fraud Suit
AFC ENTERPRISES: Full Court To Brief Appeal of GA Suit Remand
AMAZON.COM INC.: Agrees To Settles Securities Lawsuit For $47.5M
BAY NETWORKS: CA Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuits

BEDFORD LABORATORIES: Recalls Injections Due To Sterility
DAIMLERCHRYSLER: Kirk Kerkorian Appeals Ruling Over 1998 Merger
DELL INC.: Seeger Weiss Launches Amended Consumer Lawsuit in NY
DOREL JUVENILE: Recalls 189,552 Child Seats For Injury Hazard
DRESS BARN: Working On Settlement For CA Overtime Wage Lawsuit

E-LOAN INC.: NY Court Preliminary Approves Stock Suit Settlement
E-LOAN INC.: Faces Suit For Fair Credit Reporting Act Violations
EPDM LITIGATION: Antitrust Settlement Hearing Set May 20, 2005
FLEETWOOD ENTERPRISES: Recalls 543 Motorhomes For Crash Hazard
FLORIDA: Bills To Curb Suits Passes Through GOP-Dominated House

GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls 316,508 SUVS Due To Fire, Injury Hazard
HERTZ CORPORATION: NJ Appeals Court Hears Suit Dismissal Appeal
HERTZ CORPORATION: Seeks Summary Judgment For FL Consumer Suit
HERTZ CORPORATION: TX Court Refuses Summary Judgment in Lawsuit
HERTZ CORPORATION: OK Court Dismisses Consumer Lawsuit V. FSC

HYPERCOM CORPORATION: Faces Shareholder Fraud Suits in AZ Court
INSTINET GROUP: Shareholder Lodges Suit Over Unfair Transaction
INSWEB CORPORATION: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Suit Settlement
JAGUAR CARS: Recalls 253 Jaguar X3 Cars Due To Crash Hazard
KING PHARMACEUTICALS: Discovery Proceeds in TN Securities Suit

M2 AUTOMOTIVE: Employees Lodges Suit Over Abrupt Closure in CA
MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Settles NE Antitrust Complaint For $22M
MOLEX INC.: Shareholders Lodge Securities Fraud Suits in N.D. IL
NORTEL NETWORKS: Continues To Face NY Securities Fraud Lawsuit
NORTEL NETWORKS: Continues To Face ERISA Violations Suit in TN

NORTEL NETWORKS: Plaintiffs Agree To Dismiss Claim in NY Lawsuit
NORTEL NETWORKS: Shareholders Launch Fraud Suit in Canada Court
NORTEL NETWORKS: Canadian Investors Launch Securities Fraud Suit
PITNEY BOWES: Lawsuit Settlement Hearing Set May 25, 2005
RHEE BROS: Recalls Bellflower Root Due To Undeclared Sulfites

RUBBER CHEMICALS: Lawsuit Settlement Hearing Set June 21, 2005
SMITHKLINE BEECHMAN: Judge Approves $65M Paxil Suit Settlement
SONICWALL INC.: NY Court Preliminarily Approves Suit Settlement
UNIPROP MANUFACTURED: Faces MI Damage Suit Over Old Dutch Farms
ZOMAX INC.: Settles Shareholder Suit For $2.25M Plus Stocks

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

LEAPFROG ENTERPRISES: Cohen Milstein Files Securities Suit in CA
PETCO ANIMAL: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CA
R&G FINACIAL: Scott + Scott Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
WILLIAM LYON: Brualdi Law Firm Lodges Shareholders' Suit in DE
WILLIAN LYON: Sarraf Gentile Launches Shareholders' Suit in DE

WILLIAM LYONS: Wolf Popper Launches Shareholders' Lawsuit in DE


                          *********

ADAMS GOLF: Mediation For DE Securities Suit Set June 1, 2005
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mediation in the consolidated securities class action filed
against Adams Golf, Inc., certain of its current and former
officers and directors and three underwriters of the Company's
initial public offering (IPO), is set for June 1,2005 in the
United States District Court for the District of Delaware.

Beginning in June 1999, the first of seven class action lawsuits
was filed, alleging violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, in connection with
the Company's IPO.  In particular, the complaints alleged that
the Company's prospectus, which became effective July 9, 1998,
was materially false and misleading in at least two areas.  
Plaintiffs alleged that the prospectus failed to disclose that
unauthorized distribution of the Company's products (gray market
sales) threatened the Company's long-term profits. Plaintiffs
also alleged that the prospectus failed to disclose that the
golf equipment industry suffered from an oversupply of inventory
at the retail level, which had an adverse impact on the
Company's sales.  

On May 17, 2000, these cases were consolidated into one amended
complaint, and a lead plaintiff was appointed.  The plaintiffs
were seeking unspecified amounts of compensatory damages,
interest and costs, including legal fees.  On December 10, 2001,
the United States District Court for the District of Delaware
dismissed the consolidated, amended complaint.  Plaintiffs
appealed.  On August 25, 2004, the appellate court affirmed the
dismissal of plaintiffs' claims relating to oversupply of retail
inventory, while reversing the dismissal of the claims relating
to the impact of gray market sales and remanding those claims
for further proceedings.  This case is now in the discovery
phase in the district court.

The suit is styled "Shockley, et al v. Adams Golf Inc., et al,
case no. 1:99-cv-00371-KAJ," filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Delaware under Judge Kent A. Jordan.  
Representing the Company is Kevin G. Abrams and Jeffrey L. Moyer
of Richards, Layton & Finger, One Rodney Square P.O. Box 551
Wilmington, DE 19899 Phone: (302) 658-6541 E-mail:
moyer@rlf.com.  Representing lead plaintiff M.D. F. Kenneth
Shockley is Carmella P. Keener of Rosenthal, Monhait, Gross &
Goddess Citizens Bank Center, Suite 1401 P.O. Box 1070
Wilmington, DE 19899-1070, Phone: (302) 656-4433 E-mail:
CKeener@rmgglaw.com.


AFC ENTERPRISES: Discovery Proceeds in GA Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery commenced in the consolidated securities class action
filed against AFC Enterprises, Inc. and certain of its current
and former directors and officers in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

On March 25, 2003, plaintiffs filed the first of eight
securities class action lawsuits.  By order dated May 21, 2003,
the district court consolidated the eight lawsuits into one
consolidated action.  On January 26, 2004, the plaintiffs filed
a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint on behalf of a
putative class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
the Company's stock between March 2, 2001 and March 24, 2003.

In the Consolidated Complaint, plaintiffs allege that the
registration statement filed in connection with the Company's
March 2001 initial public offering (IPO) contained false and
misleading statements in violation of Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933.  The defendants to the 1933 Act claims
include the Company, certain of its current and former directors
and officers, an institutional shareholder of the Company, and
the underwriters of its IPO.  Plaintiffs also allege violations
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The plaintiffs' 1934
Act allegations are pled against the Company, certain of its
current and former directors and officers, and two institutional
shareholders. The plaintiffs also allege violations of Section
20A of the 1934 Act against certain current and former directors
and officers and two institutional shareholders based upon
alleged stock sales.

The Consolidated Complaint seeks certification as a class
action, compensatory damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest, attorney's fees and costs, an accounting of the
proceeds of certain defendants' alleged stock sales,
disgorgement of bonuses and trading profits by the Company's CEO
and former CFO, injunctive relief, including the imposition of a
constructive trust on certain defendants' alleged insider
trading proceeds, and other relief.

On December 29, 2004, the Court entered an Order granting in
part and denying in part the Defendants' Motions to Dismiss the
Complaint. The Court dismissed all insider trading claims;
dismissed Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claims against certain
current and former officers and directors. Because Plaintiffs
declined to re-plead their allegations, the foregoing claims
have been dismissed with prejudice. Subsequent to the Court's
December 29, 2004 Order, the Company and the former CFO filed a
Motion to Dismiss the Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claims of the
named Plaintiffs for lack of standing (jurisdiction), as both
remaining Plaintiffs continue to hold the AFC stock made the
subject of their claims and, therefore, given the recovery and
continuing rise of the AFC stock price, Plaintiffs can prove no
damages under Section 10(b) or Rule 10b-5.  Also, pending are
certain motions filed by the outside directors for
reconsideration of portions of the December 29, 2004 Order.
Discovery commenced on February 23, 2005.

The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

     (1) Abbey Gardy, LLP, 212 East 39th Street, New York, NY,
         10016, Phone: 212.889.3700, E-mail: info@abbeygardy.com

     (2) 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

     (3) Faruqi & Faruqi LLP, 320 East 39th Street, New York,
         NY, 10016, Phone: 212.983.9330, Fax: 212.983.9331, E-
         mail: Nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com

     (4) Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP, 100 Park
         Avenue, New York, NY, 10017, Phone: 212.907.0700, Fax:
         212.818.0477, E-mail: info@glrslaw.com

     (5) Hoffman & Edelson, 45 West Court Street, Doylestown,
         PA, 18901-4223, Phone: 215.230.8043,

     (6) Landskroner - Grieco, Ltd., 1360 West 9th St., Suite
         200, Cleveland, OH, 44113-1904, Phone: 866.522.9500, E-
         mail: jack@landskronerlaw.com

     (7) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP (New York,
         NY), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY, 10119-1065,
         Phone: 212.594.5300,

     (8) Much Shelist Freed Denenberg Ament & Rubenstein, PC,
         Chicago, IL, Phone: 800-470-6824, Fax: 312-621-1750,

     (9) 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

    (10) Terry D. Goldberg & Associates, Phone: 215.354.9100, E-
         mail: no1piguy@aol.com


AFC ENTERPRISES: Full Court To Brief Appeal of GA Suit Remand
-------------------------------------------------------------
A panel of the United States Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals
ruled that the full court, as opposed to the panel only, could
consider defendants' request to reconsider the appeals court's
ruling saying that they lacked jurisdiction to hear plaintiffs'
appeal of the remand of the class action filed against AFC
Enterprises, Inc. to Georgia State Court.

On May 15, 2003, a plaintiff filed a securities class action
lawsuit in Fulton County Superior Court, State of Georgia,
against the Company and certain current and former members of
the Company's board of directors on behalf of a class of
purchasers of the Company's common stock "in or traceable to"
AFC's December 2001 $185.0 million secondary public offering of
common stock. The lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 11 and
15 of the 1933 Act.  The complaint alleges that the registration
statement filed in connection with the secondary offering was
false or misleading because it included financial statements
issued by the Company that were materially in error. The
complaint seeks certification as a class action, compensatory
damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and other relief.

The plaintiff claims that as a result of AFC's announcement that
it was restating its financial statements for fiscal year 2001
(and at the time of the complaint, were examining restating its
financial statements for fiscal year 2000), AFC will be
absolutely liable under the 1933 Act for all recoverable damages
sustained by the putative class.  On July 20, 2003, the
defendants removed the action to the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

The plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case to state court.
The defendants opposed the motion to remand.  On November 25,
2003, the federal district court entered an order remanding the
case to state court but staying the order to allow the
defendants to appeal the decision.  On November 5, 2004, after
briefing and argument, the United States Court of Appeals for
the Eleventh Circuit ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to hear
the appeal. Defendants filed a Motion to Reconsider the Court's
ruling on November 24, 2004.  On February 22, 2005, the Eleventh
Circuit panel ruled that the full Court, as opposed to the panel
only, could consider defendants' request to reconsider the
Court's November 5, 2004 Order.


AMAZON.COM INC.: Agrees To Settles Securities Lawsuit For $47.5M
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amazon.com Inc. (AMZN) agreed in principle to settle class-
action lawsuits claiming it violated U.S. securities laws for a
total of $47.5 million, MarketWatch reports.
  
According to its quarterly report that was filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission, it agreed earlier this month
to settle a class-action lawsuit claiming it violated securities
laws under the Securities Act of 1933.

As previously reported in the March 15, 2005 edition of the
Class Action Reporter, Amazon.com paid $27.5 million to settle a
class-action suit that accused the it of violating security
laws. That federal lawsuit against was filed in 2001 by
shareholders, who claim that Amazon.com executives and directors
made false and misleading statements from 29 October 1998 to 23
October 2001.

The plaintiffs, also alleging violations under the Securities
Act of 1933, claim the defendants made false or misleading
statements in connection with its February 2000 offering of
6.875% premium adjustable convertible securities.

Court documents show that the alleged statements were related to
the Company's business, financial condition and results,
inventories, future prospects and strategic alliance
transactions. The $47.5 million total includes that $27.5
million, which was pending approval from the US District Court
in Washington.  The filing also stated that if the settlements
are finalized and approved by the court, it would dispose of all
claims asserted in these lawsuits. The filing adds that its
insurers would fund the payment that the Company would make in
connection with the settlements.

The Company said that both principle agreements are with the
counsel representing a class of securities holders who filed a
lawsuit against Amazon.com, its directors and officers, alleging
violations of some U.S. securities laws.


BAY NETWORKS: CA Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------
The California Superior Court for the County of Santa Clara
dismissed the securities class actions filed against Bay
Networks, Inc. and ten of its then current and former officers
and directors.

On March 4, 1997, shareholders had filed two separate lawsuits
against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California and the California Superior Court, County
of Santa Clara purportedly on behalf of a class of shareholders
who purchased the Company's common shares during the period of
May 1, 1995 through October 14, 1996.  On August 17, 2000, the
Federal Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the
federal complaint.  On August 1, 2001, the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit denied the plaintiffs' appeal of that
decision.

On April 18, 1997, a second lawsuit was filed in the California
State Court, purportedly on behalf of a class of shareholders
who acquired the Company's common shares pursuant to the
registration statement and prospectus that became effective on
November 15, 1995.  The two actions in the California Court were
consolidated in April 1998; however, the California Court denied
the plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  In January
2000, the California Court of Appeal rejected the plaintiffs'
appeal of the decision.  A petition for review was filed with
the California Supreme Court by the plaintiffs and was denied.

In February 2000, new plaintiffs who allege to have been
shareholders of the Company during the relevant periods, filed a
motion for intervention in the California state Court seeking to
become the representatives of a class of shareholders.  The
motion was granted on June 8, 2001 and the new plaintiffs filed
their complaint-in-intervention on an individual and purported
class representative basis alleging misrepresentations made in
connection with the purchase and sale of securities of Bay
Networks in violation of California statutory and common law.  
On March 11, 2002, the California Court granted the defendants'
motion to strike the class allegations.  The plaintiffs were
permitted to proceed on their individual claims.  The
intervenor-plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of their class
allegations. On July 25, 2003, the California Court of Appeal
reversed the trial court's dismissal of the intervenor-
plaintiffs' class allegations. On September 3, 2003, the
defendants filed a petition for review with the California
Supreme Court seeking permission to appeal the Court of Appeal
decision. On October 22, 2003, the California Supreme Court
denied, without opinion, the defendants' petition for review. On
December 22, 2003, the plaintiffs served their motion for
certification of a class of purchasers of Bay Networks' common
shares from July 25, 1995 through to October 14, 1996. Hearing
of the plaintiffs' motion for class certification was held on
May 4, 2004.  On July 27, 2004, the Court entered an Amended
Order Denying Motion of Intervenor Plaintiffs for Class
Certification and Setting Further Hearing. On August 9, 2004,
the intervenor-plaintiffs obtained Court approval to dismiss
their claims and this action and, on September 30, 2004, the
Court entered dismissal with prejudice of the entire action of
all parties and all causes of action.

BEDFORD LABORATORIES: Recalls Injections Due To Sterility
---------------------------------------------------------
Bedford Laboratories, a division of Ben Venue Laboratories,
Inc., Bedford, Ohio, is voluntarily recalling one lot of
Famotidine Injection, 20 mg/2 mL (NDC 55390-029-10), Lot#
609336, exp. 04/06, due to a lack of sterility assurance.

This prescription product was distributed in August 2004
throughout the United States to wholesalers and distributors,
who further distributed the product to hospitals. Customers that
have any vials of this lot of Famotidine Injection should
discontinue distribution and use of the lot immediately and
contact Bedford Laboratories Customer Service Department (1-800-
562-4797) for a returned goods authorization.

Bedford Laboratories is working with the USFDA on this recall.
No serious health or safety reports have been received that are
attributed to this situation.

Bedford Laboratories supplies the US and International markets
with multisource and specialty injectable products.
Headquartered in Bedford, Ohio, Bedford Laboratories is a
division of Ben Venue Laboratories, Inc., a subsidiary of
Boehringer Ingelheim Corporation based in Ridgefield, CT, and a
member of the Boehringer Ingelheim group of companies.


DAIMLERCHRYSLER: Kirk Kerkorian Appeals Ruling Over 1998 Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Billionaire investor Kirk Kerkorian appealed to the 3rd U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia, a federal judge's
rejection of his claims that he was defrauded in the 1998 merger
of DaimlerBenz and Chrysler Corporation, The Associated Press
reports.

As previously reported in the April 11, 2005 edition of the
Class Action Reporter, a federal judge rejected the lawsuit by
the billionaire investor over the 1998 merger that U.S.-German
automaker DaimlerChrysler AG, which claims that Company
deceptions cost him more than $1 billion.  Mr. Kerkorian had
sued DaimlerChrysler in 2000, alleging that DaimlerBenz
engineered a takeover of Chrysler Corporation in 1998, and then
cheated him out of billions by casting the deal as a merger of
equals.  The 87-year-old billionaire, who, according to the
latest list compiled by Forbes, has an estimated net worth of
$8.9 billion, contended that DaimlerBenz saved billions on the
transaction price by not pursuing a true acquisition of the
Company.

However, DaimlerChrysler vehemently insisted that the merger was
one of equals and that Mr. Kerkorian, whose Tracinda Corporation
was Chrysler's largest shareholder at the time, grew disgruntled
when the stock price fell, AP reports

In the recently released decision, U.S. District Judge Joseph
Farnan Jr. wrote, "After considering the evidence adduced at
trial, including the testimony of Mr. Kerkorian and other
Tracinda representatives, the Court finds that the corporate
governance issues, including the 'merger of equals' label, the
selection of the German AG form, and the voting status of
members of the management, were not significant to Tracinda."

Terry Christensen, a Los Angeles attorney representing Tracinda,
told AP Judge Farnan erred in agreeing with DaimlerChrysler's
claim that representations by Daimler and Chrysler executives
that the transaction would be a merger of equals and that the
new Company would be jointly managed were good only up to the
point when shareholders had voted and the merger closed.

Ms. Christensen told AP, "We disagree with the court's ruling
that representations made to Tracinda and other Chrysler
shareholders in the proposed merger with Daimler-Benz were
required to be good only for a moment in time and believe the
court's decision conveys the wrong message to the investment
community and shareholders of public companies. If that analysis
were correct, no shareholder could rely on any statement about
any transaction, whether made in a proxy statement or otherwise,
to be accurate after the shareholder vote and the transaction
closed. We believe this issue is larger than the dispute between
Tracinda and DaimlerChrysler and for that reason, Tracinda has
appealed." She also adds that Tracinda is appealing the denial
of its right to a jury trial.

For its part, DaimlerChrysler spokesman Han Tjan described the
appeal as "a futile effort." J. Michael Schell, lead attorney
for DaimlerChrysler, told AP that Tracinda's case had no merit,
and that he expects Judge Farnan's 123-page opinion to be upheld
by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia. He
also adds, "The U.S. District Court found no factual or legal
basis for Tracinda's claims and an appeal will not change that.
Apart from devastating Tracinda's case, we think the opinion is
virtually bulletproof. Nevertheless, we will give it a most
vigorous defense."

While defeating Kerkorian's claim, DaimlerChrysler agreed in
August 2003 to pay $300 million to settle a $22 billion class-
action lawsuit filed by other investors who also claimed they
were misled.


DELL INC.: Seeger Weiss Launches Amended Consumer Lawsuit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Seeger Weiss LLP initiated an Amended Complaint
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
against Dell, Inc. ("Dell") (NASDAQ:DELL), Dell Financial
Services L.P. ("DFS") and CIT Bank, Inc. ("CIT"). The Amended
Complaint was filed on behalf of consumers who financed the
purchase of Dell electronics through DFS and/or purchased Dell
products but allegedly received costlier or substandard versions
of the advertised products. A copy of the Amended Complaint
filed in this action is available from the Court or by
contacting counsel below.

The Amended Complaint alleges a new claim that Dell engages in a
practice of advertising low-priced products but, when consumers
call to purchase these advertised products, Dell steers them to
purchasing costlier products, tells them that the advertised
products will not meet their needs, charges consumers more than
they are quoted or ships consumers products with lesser quality
components than they ordered. The Amended Complaint alleges that
Dell's sales practices violate the consumer protection laws for
all fifty states and the District of Columbia and further seeks
to certify a nationwide sales class of the injured consumers.

The Amended Complaint further alleges that defendants lure
consumers to call Dell by advertising illusory offers of 0% or
low interest financing. When the consumers agree to finance
their purchases with defendants, they are allegedly misled to
believe that they qualified for the promotional rates. Only when
consumers receive their finance statements do they allegedly
learn that they did not qualify for the promotional financing.
By then, however, the consumers are trapped into defendants'
financing, which is laden with hidden fees, late charges and
excessive interest rates. The Amended Complaint seeks to certify
a second class consisting of consumers who were victims of the
defendants' alleged bait and switch financing scheme.

The Amended Complaint also alleges that defendants had a duty
under federal law to disclose the terms of financing to
consumers before placing them into defendants' financing plans.
Defendants allegedly do not disclose the applicable financing
rates, late penalties and other material terms of the financing
agreements at the time the consumers enter into the agreements.
The Amended Complaint seeks to certify a third class that
includes all consumers who financed a Dell purchase and were
assessed late fees, charges or interest without defendants
disclosing the material terms of the financing agreements.

For more details, contact Christopher A. Seeger, Esq., Eric T.
Chaffin, Esq. or Roopal P. Luhana, Esq.Seeger Weiss LLP by Mail:
One William Street, New York, NY 10004 by Phone: (212) 584-0700
or (877) 539-4125 by E-mail: cseeger@seegerweiss.com,           
echaffin@seegerweiss.com or rluhana@seegerweiss.com or visit
their Web site: http://www.seegerweiss.com.


DOREL JUVENILE: Recalls 189,552 Child Seats For Injury Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Dorel Juvenile Group is cooperating with the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) by voluntarily
recalling 189,552 child seats, namely:

     (1) COSCO / 22-300 JOS GB1B       

     (2) EDDIE BAUER / 22-625 AFD GB1B       

     (3) EDDIE BAUER / 22-625 EDG GB1B       

     (4) EDDIE BAUER / 22-625 GLC GB1B       

     (5) EDDIE BAUER / 22-625 MAC GB1B       

     (6) SAFETY 1ST / 22-325 CMB GB1B       

     (7) SAFETY 1ST / 22-325 DTA GB1B       

     (8) SAFETY 1ST / 22-325 TST GB1B       

     (9) SAFETY 1ST / 22-325 VIN GB1B       

If these certain DJG Designer 22 rear-facing only infant child
restraints manufactured between August 19,2003 and October
20,2004 is not properly tightened, the infant seat can
experience web movement or web creep.  It is important to note
the GB1B line code located next to the model number on the child
restraint indicates the unit was manufactured by Good Baby
Products and is the only line included in the recall.  Any line
other than GB1B, such as DE1B, is not included in the recall.  
If web creep were to occur, in the event of a vehicle crash, the
child could move too far forward, possibly increasing the risk
of injury.

The Company will notify its customers and provide a free in-home
remedy kit consisting of two clips and installation instructions
free of charge.  The recall is expected to begin during April
2005.  Owners who do not receive the free remedy within a
reasonable time should contact the Company by Phone:
1-800-881-0570 or the NHTSA's auto safety hotline:
1-888-327-4236.


DRESS BARN: Working On Settlement For CA Overtime Wage Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Dress Barn, Inc. is working to settle the class action filed
against it in California state court, alleging violations of the
state's labor laws.

The suit, filed on March 17, 2003, was brought on behalf of all
Managers, Assistant Managers and Associate Managers who worked
for the Company in California.  The complaint alleges that the
Company improperly classified these employees as "salaried
exempt."  


E-LOAN INC.: NY Court Preliminary Approves Stock Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against E-LOAN, Inc.
and:

     (1) Christian Larsen,

     (2) Janina Pawlowski,

     (3) Frank Siskowski,

     (4) The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.,

     (5) FleetBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc.,

     (6) Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith, Inc.,

     (7) Credit Suisse First Boston Corp. and

     (8) J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.

Five suits were initially filed between August 10, 2001 and
September 25, 2001 on behalf of the plaintiffs and others
similarly situated.  The complaints have since been consolidated
into a single action.  The Consolidated Amended Complaint
alleges, among other things, that the underwriters of the
Company's initial public offering violated Section 12(a) of the
Securities Act of 1933 by receiving excessive and undisclosed
commissions and fees, and by entering into unlawful private
agreements with brokers' customers, and that all defendants
violated Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, and Section
10(b) and Rule 10b-5 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
by making material false and misleading statements in the
Company's initial public offering prospectus concerning brokers'
commissions and private agreements with brokers' customers.  The
plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of all those who
purchased or otherwise acquired E-LOAN securities during the
respective class period.

Similar complaints have been filed against over 300 other
issuers that have had initial public offerings since 1998 and
all such actions have been included in a single coordinated
proceeding.  On October 9, 2002, the Company's individual
defendants were dismissed, without prejudice, from the lawsuit,
pursuant to a stipulated agreement with the plaintiffs.

On June 25, 2003, a committee of the Company's Board of
Directors conditionally approved a proposed partial settlement
with the plaintiffs in this matter. The settlement would
provide, among other things, a release of the Company and of the
individual defendants for the conduct alleged in the action to
be wrongful in the Amended Complaint. The Company would agree to
undertake other responsibilities under the partial settlement,
including agreeing to assign away, not assert, or release
certain potential claims the Company may have against its
underwriters.  The committee agreed to approve the settlement
subject to a number of conditions, including the participation
of a substantial number of other Issuer Defendants in the
proposed settlement, the consent of the Company's insurers to
the settlement, and the completion of acceptable final
settlement documentation.

In June 2004, an agreement of settlement was submitted to the
court for preliminary approval.   The court granted the
preliminary approval motion on February 15, 2005, subject to
certain modifications.  The parties are directed to report back
to the court regarding the modifications.  If the parties are
able to agree upon the required modifications, and such
modifications are acceptable to the court, notice will be given
to all class members of the settlement, a "fairness" hearing
will be held and if the court determines that the settlement is
fair to the class members, the settlement will be approved.

The suit is styled "In Re E-LOAN, Inc. Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation," filed in relation to "IN RE INITIAL
PUBLIC OFFERING SECURITIES LITIGATION, Master File No. 21 MC 92
(SAS)," both pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, under Judge Shira N. Scheindlin.  
The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

     (i) 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

    (ii) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP (New York,
         NY), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY, 10119-1065,
         Phone: 212.594.5300

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

    (iv) 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

     (v) 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

    (vi) 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


E-LOAN INC.: Faces Suit For Fair Credit Reporting Act Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
E-LOAN, Inc. faces seven class actions filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division, alleging violations of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.

On March 1, 2005, Thomas A. Murray filed the complaint,
designated as case no. 05C-1219.  The complaint alleges that the
Company violated the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act in
connection with a direct mailing sent to Mr. Murray. The
complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount, attorneys'
fees, litigation expenses and costs of suit.  The complaint
purports to be a class action filed on behalf of all persons
with Illinois addresses who received the mailing.  The Company
has not yet filed a response to the complaint.

Seven similar complaints were recently filed in the district
court against other parties, and on March 17, 2005 the district
court denied the plaintiff's motion to reassign the cases to the
judge who was presiding over a similar case that was filed in
2002. The case is pending.


EPDM LITIGATION: Antitrust Settlement Hearing Set May 20, 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut
will hold a fairness hearing for the proposed $25.4 million
settlement in the matter: In re Ethylene Propylene Diene Monomer
(EPDM) Antitrust Litigation on behalf of all individuals or
entities (excluding government entities) who directly purchased
EPDM in the United States or form a facility located in the
United States from any defendant from January 1, 1997 to
December 31, 2001.

The Court will hold a fairness hearing on May 20, 2005, at 10:00
a.m. at the United States District Court for the District of
Connecticut, Court room 1, 141 Church Street, New Heaven, CT.

For more details, contact In re Ethylene Propylene Diene Monomer
(EPDM) Antitrust Litigation c/o Gilardi & Co., LLC by Mail: P.O.
Box 1110, Corte Madera, CA 94976-1110 or visit their Web site:
http://www.gilardi.com/php/shownotice.php?casetype=S&casename=EP
DM+%28DDE%29&page_string=All%20claims&script_string=all.php&case
code=epdm1 OR Michael D. Hausfeld of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld &
Toll, P.L.L.C. by Mail: 1100 New York Avenue, N.W. Suite 500,
West Tower, Washington, District of Columbia 20005-3964 Phone:
202-408-4600 or by Fax: 202-408-4699.


FLEETWOOD ENTERPRISES: Recalls 543 Motorhomes For Crash Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. is cooperating with the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) by voluntarily
recalling 543 motorhomes, namely:

     (1) FLEETWOOD / AMERICAN EAGLE, model 2004-2005

     (2) FLEETWOOD / AMERICAN TRADITION, model 2004-2005

On certain Class A motorhomes, a pneumatic line can become
pinched between the hydraulic filter and a compartment door
strut.  The chaffing caused by opening and closing of the
compartment door can cause the filter to rupture and result in a
hydraulic fluid leak.  The loss of hydraulic fluid causes the
power steering feature to not function.  This can result in loss
of vehicle control, personal injury or a vehicle crash.

Dealers will inspect, replace or repair damaged lines and
relocate the affected hydraulic lines.  The recall is expected
to begin on May 9,2005.  For more details, contact the Company
by Phone: 1-800-435-7345 or contact the NHTSA's auto safety
hotline: 1-888-327-4236.


FLORIDA: Bills To Curb Suits Passes Through GOP-Dominated House
---------------------------------------------------------------
Under new measures that passed easily in Florida's Republican
dominated Legislature, stores cannot anymore be sued for merely
selling defective products and companies would get a chance to
remedy problems before facing a class-action suit, The
Associated Press reports.

According to legal experts, the new bills would also make it
clear that defendants with a small role in hurting someone would
pay only a small portion of the damages and limit the venues
where injured people can sue.  The bills were heavily backed by
Republicans that have made controlling lawsuits a major part of
its agenda this year, as has the GOP nationally.  Opponents of
the bills though contend that legitimately injured victims will
lose the chance to get justice and the poor who can't afford to
pay lawyers for small grievances will suffer most.

However, Rep. Don Brown, R-DeFuniak Springs countered by saying
that businesses are crumbling under the weight of unfair
lawsuits and the chance of having to make a jackpot payout. Rep.
Brown also said before the House passed his bill (HB 1513) with
a 79-32 vote and sent it to the Senate, "We need to create a
better environment in the state of Florida so that we can have
jobs," AP reports.

HB 1513 takes on the legal doctrine known as "joint and several
liability," which allows defendants with a small role in hurting
someone pay a large share of the damages in some cases. It also
seeks to eliminate the doctrine that opponents say unfairly
allows plaintiffs to target the defendant with the most money.
In addition, the bill also would prohibit people from suing a
merchant for selling a defective product unless the seller was
involved somehow in the manufacture or design of the product, or
changed it in some way to make it dangerous.

Another bill (HB 1925), which the House passed on a 90-20 vote,
seeks to decrease business exposure to class action suits. That
bill, which is sponsored by Rep. David Simmons, R-Longwood,
would block out-of-state residents from joining many Florida
class-action lawsuits and give defendants a 60-day window to
settle the case and fix whatever is wrong before such a suit is
filed.

Supporters of the bills have long argued that plaintiffs in
class action suits sometimes receive very little or maybe no
money at all but instead get a coupon for a rebate off a product
from the sued Company while lawyers collect hefty fees for
representing the group.  However, opponents counter that class-
action suits protect the little guy, who often doesn't have the
means to sue over a small loss, but as part of a class can get
some justice for a wrong.

Rep. Arthenia Joyner, D-Tampa, even reiterates, "The class-
action is the best and most efficient way to protect the
interest of consumers, especially when a large corporation rips
off a bunch of unknowing, hardworking people," AP reports.  

With the passing of the bills in the house, both will now be
forwarded to the Senate, where there is some appetite for some
litigation changes, although decidedly less than in the House.


GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls 316,508 SUVS Due To Fire, Injury Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Corporation is cooperating with the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration by voluntarily recalling
316,508 sport utility vehicles, namely:

     (1) CHEVROLET / SUBURBAN, model 2000-2001

     (2) GMC / YUKON XL, model 2000-2001

The trucks and sport utility vehicles were built with fuel
module reservoir assemblies that contain fuel pump wires.  
Connectors may overheat under certain operating conditions.

If the ignition circuit wire is exposed, the fuel pump fuse will
blow, disabling the fuel pump and causing an engine stall or no-
start condition.  If sufficient heat is conducted to the pass-
through connector, a hole in the connector may result, which may
cause a `service engine soon' light to be illuminated during the
emission system diagnostic routine.  Fuel vapor and in some
cases liquid fuel may leak out of the fuel tank through the hole
in the connector body.  Fuel leakage in the presence of an
ignition source could result in a fire. Also if ignition circuit
or ground wire is exposed and shorts to the fuel level sender
card wires, inaccurate fuel level readings may result.

Dealers will remove the fuel tank and remove the module
reservoir assemblies from the tank, and install a new service
kit.  The recall is expected to begin on May 31,2005.  For more
details contact Chevrolet by Phone: 1-800-630-2438 by Phone:
1-866-996-9463 or contact the NHTSA's auto safety hotline:
1-888-327-4236.


HERTZ CORPORATION: NJ Appeals Court Hears Suit Dismissal Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division has briefed
plaintiffs' appeal of the dismissal of the class action filed
against The Hertz Corporation, styled "Naomi R. Henderson,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
The Hertz Corporation."

The suit was filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Essex
County in August 2003.  The suit purports to be a class action
on behalf of all persons who purchased optional insurance
products in the State of New Jersey or in other states from or
through the Company at times that the Company did not have
required licenses to sell such insurance.

In January 2004, the Company's motion to dismiss was granted and
an order of dismissal was thereafter entered.  The plaintiff has
appealed the dismissal, and that appeal has now been briefed,
argued and submitted to the New Jersey Appellate Division for a
decision.


HERTZ CORPORATION: Seeks Summary Judgment For FL Consumer Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hertz Corporation asked the Circuit Court of the Thirteenth
Judicial Court of the State of Florida, in and for Hillsborough
County to grant summary judgment in its favor in the class
action filed against it, styled "Stephen Moore, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. The Hertz
Corporation.

The suit purports to be a class action on behalf of persons who
rented vehicles from the Company in Florida and were allegedly
overcharged for the recovery of a tire and battery solid waste
management fee and the recovery of registration fees for the
issuance of Florida license plates. Similar lawsuits were
separately commenced by the same plaintiff against Avis Rent A
Car System Inc. and Budget Rent A Car System, Inc.

In February 2004, the plaintiff filed an amended class action
complaint alleging that, in addition to the initial causes of
action, the Company deceptively collected an improper "federal
excise tax" for frequent flyer mileage awards to class members.
The Company answered the amended complaint and discovery
commenced.  In January 2005, the Company filed a motion for
summary judgment and the plaintiff filed a revised motion for
class certification.  Rulings on these motions are expected in
the second quarter of 2005.


HERTZ CORPORATION: TX Court Refuses Summary Judgment in Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The 214th Judicial District Court of Nueces County, Texas denied
The Hertz Corporation's motion for summary judgment in the class
action filed against it, styled "Jose M. Gomez, individually and
on behalf of all other similarly situated persons, v. The Hertz
Corporation."

The suit purports to be a class action filed alternatively on
behalf of all persons who were charged a Fuel and Service Charge
(FSC) by the Company or all Texas residents who were charged a
FSC by the Company. The complaint alleges that the FSC is an
unlawful penalty and that, therefore, it is void and
unenforceable.  

In response to various motions by the Company, the plaintiff has
filed two amended complaints, scaling back the putative class
from a nationwide class to a class of all Texas residents who
were charged a FSC by the Company or by its Corpus Christi
Licensee. A new cause of action was also added for conversion.
After some limited discovery, the Company filed a motion for
summary judgment in December 2004. That motion was denied in
January 2005.  More extensive discovery will now commence.


HERTZ CORPORATION: OK Court Dismisses Consumer Lawsuit V. FSC
-------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court in and for Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma
dismissed the class action filed against The Hertz Corporation,
styled "Keith Kochner, individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated persons, v. The Hertz Corporation.

The suit purports to be a class action, this time on behalf of
Oklahoma residents who rented from the Company and incurred the
Company's Fuel and Service Charge (FSC). The petition alleges
that the imposition of the FSC is a breach of contract and
amounts to an unconscionable penalty or liquidated damages in
violation of Article 2A of the Oklahoma Uniform Commercial Code.
In March 2005, the trial court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss the action but also granted the plaintiff the right to
replead.


HYPERCOM CORPORATION: Faces Shareholder Fraud Suits in AZ Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hypercom Corporation continues to face several shareholder class
actions filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Arizona, in connection with the restatement of the
Company's quarterly results for the first three quarters of
2004.  The suits also name as defendants the Company's chief
executive officer, and its chief financial officer.

The suits allege that the Company and its executive management
engaged in violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by
issuing false and misleading statements concerning the Company's
financial results for the first three quarters of 2004.

Also in connection with the restatement, a shareholder's
derivative action was filed against the Company, its chief
executive officer, chief financial officer, and its board of
directors alleging breach of fiduciary duties. This action is
based on the same facts and circumstances alleged in the
shareholder suits discussed above, and alleges that the
defendants participated in issuing misleading and inaccurate
statements and failed to implement adequate internal controls.

The lead suit is styled "Randy Ray et al. v. Hypercom
Corporation, et al.," filed in the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona.  The plaintiff firms in this
litigation are:

     (1) Baron & Budd, P.C., 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100,
         Dallas, TX, 75219, Phone: 800-946-9646, E-mail:
         info@baronbudd.com

     (2) Brian Felgoise, 230 South Broad Street, Suite 404,
         Philadelphia, PA, 19102 Phone: 215.735.6810, Fax:
         215/735.5185,

     (3) 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

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

     (5) Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. (New York,
         NY), 825 Third Avenue - 30th Floor, New York, NY, 10022
         Phone: 212.838.7797, Fax: 212.838.7745, E-mail:
         lawinfo@cmht.com

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

     (7) Federman & Sherwood, 120 North Robinson, Suite 2720,
         Oklahoma City, OK, 73102 Phone: 405-235-1560, E-mail:
         wfederman@aol.com

     (8) Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP, 100 Park
         Avenue, New York, NY, 10017 Phone: 212.907.0700, Fax:
         212.818.0477, E-mail: info@glrslaw.com

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

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

    (11) Smith & Smith LLP, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112,
         Bensalem, PA, 19020 Phone: (866)759-2275, E-mail:
         howardsmithlaw@hotmail.com    


INSTINET GROUP: Shareholder Lodges Suit Over Unfair Transaction
---------------------------------------------------------------
Directors of Instinet Group Inc., the electronic brokerage being
bought by Nasdaq Stock Market Inc. for $1.88 billion, were sued
by investor Michael Amparo, who contends the transaction
undervalues the stock, The NY Post reports.  

Nasdaq agreed on April 22 to pay $5.44 per share in cash for
Instinet, which is 62 percent owned by Reuters Group Plc, the
world's largest publicly traded financial information provider.  
In his lawsuit, which was filed in Delaware Chancery Court in
Wilmington, Mr. Amparo contends that the offer "is unfair and
inadequate" based on analysts' reports that the stock is worth
more than $7 a share. He further contends that Instinet
directors are legally bound to get the best price.

The buyout would combine the two largest electronic markets for
U.S. equities, increasing competition for the New York Stock
Exchange. The NYSE announced last week that it would buy trader
Archipelago Holdings Inc.

Instinet spokesman Stephen Austin though told the NY Post, "It
is our strong belief that this lawsuit has no merit."

Nevertheless, Mr. Amparo has asked a judge to give the suit
class-action status, which would convert it into a group suit on
behalf of all Instinet shareholders, to stop the transaction and
to award damages and legal fees.


INSWEB CORPORATION: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against InsWeb
Corporation, certain current and former officers and directors,
and three investment banking firms that served as underwriters
for its initial public offering in July 1999.

A securities class action lawsuit was filed on December 5, 2001,
purportedly on behalf of all persons who purchased the Company's
common stock from July 22, 1999 through December 6, 2000.  The
complaint, as subsequently amended, alleges violations of
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10
and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, on the grounds
that the prospectuses incorporated in the registration
statements for the offering failed to disclose, among other
things, that the underwriters had solicited and received
excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain investors in
exchange for which the underwriters allocated to those investors
material portions of the shares of Company stock sold in the
offerings and the underwriters had entered into agreements with
customers whereby the underwriters agreed to allocated shares of
the stock sold in the offering to those customers in exchange
for which the customers agreed to purchase additional shares of
InsWeb stock in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices.  No
specific damages are claimed.

Similar allegations have been made in lawsuits relating to more
than 300 other initial public offerings conducted in 1999 and
2000, all of which have been consolidated for pretrial purposes.
In October 2002, all claims against the individual defendants
were dismissed without prejudice. In February 2003, the Court
dismissed the claims in the InsWeb action alleging violations of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 but allowed the plaintiffs
to proceed with the remaining claims.  In June 2003, the
plaintiffs in all of the cases presented a settlement proposal
to all of the issuer defendants.

Under the proposed settlement, the plaintiffs will dismiss and
release all claims against participating defendants in exchange
for a contingent payment guaranty by the insurance companies
collectively responsible for insuring the issuers in all the
related cases, and the assignment or surrender to the plaintiffs
of certain claims the issuer defendants may have against the
underwriters.  The Company and most of the other issuer
defendants have accepted the settlement proposal.  The
settlement was given preliminary approval by the Court in
February 2005, pending a modification to the settlement
documents.

The suit is styled "In Re InsWeb Corporation Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation," filed in relation to "IN RE
INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERING SECURITIES LITIGATION, Master File No.
21 MC 92 (SAS)," both pending in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, under Judge Shira
N. 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, Mail: 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


JAGUAR CARS: Recalls 253 Jaguar X3 Cars Due To Crash Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jaguar Cars Ltd. is cooperating with the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) by voluntarily recalling
253 JAGUAR / XK cars, model 2006.

On certain passenger vehicles, the accelerator pedal arms were
incorrectly assembled by the supplier.  The clearance between
the accelerator pedal and the brake pedal may be reduced.  This
condition can increase the risk of both pedals being operated at
the same time by the driver.  The accelerator pedal could be
held down by the pedal stop assembly increasing the risk of a
crash.

Dealers will inspect the pedal assembly and replace the
accelerator pedal.  The manufacturer has not yet provided an
owner notification schedule.  For more details, contact the
Company by Phone: 1-800-452-4827 or contact the NHTSA's auto
safety hotline: 1-888-327-4236.


KING PHARMACEUTICALS: Discovery Proceeds in TN Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is continuing in the consolidated securities class
action filed against King Pharmaceuticals, Inc., its current and
former directors and executive officers and a subsidiary in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Tennessee.

Beginning in March 2003, 22 purported class action complaints
were filed by holders of the Company's securities, alleging
violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and/or the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  These 22 complaints have been
consolidated.  In addition, holders of our securities filed two
class action complaints alleging violations of the Securities
Act of 1933 in Tennessee state court.  The Company removed these
two cases to the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Tennessee, where these two cases were consolidated
with the other class actions.  Plaintiffs in these actions
unsuccessfully moved to remand these two cases back to Tennessee
state court. These two actions therefore remain part of the
consolidated action. The district court has appointed lead
plaintiffs in the consolidated action, and those lead plaintiffs
filed a consolidated amended complaint on October 21, 2003.

The complaint alleges that the Company, through some of its
executive officers, former executive officers, directors, and
former directors, made false or misleading statements concerning
its business, financial condition, and results of operations
during periods beginning February 16, 1999 and continuing until
March 10, 2003.  Plaintiffs in the consolidated action have also
named the underwriters of the Company's November 2001 public
offering as defendants. The Company and other defendants filed
motions to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint.

On August 12, 2004, the court ruled on defendants' motions to
dismiss. The Court dismissed all claims as to Jones Pharma,
Inc., a predecessor to one of the Company's wholly owned
subsidiaries, King Research and Development, Inc., and as to
defendants Dennis Jones and Henry Richards.  The Court also
dismissed certain claims as to five other individual defendants.
The Court denied the motions to dismiss in all other respects.
Following the Court's ruling, on September 20, 2004, the Company
and the other remaining defendants filed answers to plaintiffs'
consolidated amended complaint.  Discovery and other proceedings
in the case are continuing, and no trial date has been set.

Another purported class action complaint was filed on August 16,
2004 in Tennessee State court against the Company and the
members of its board of directors.  This new case largely
asserts substantially the same claims and seeks the same relief
as the class action claim that was recently added to the state
derivative action described above.  Defendants in that action
filed a motion to dismiss on November 30, 2004; that motion is
pending and no hearing date has been set.

Additionally, a class action complaint was filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, which we
refer to as "ERISA."  As amended, the complaint alleges that the
Company and certain of its executive officers, former executive
officers, directors, former directors and an employee violated
fiduciary duties that they allegedly owed the Company's 401(k)
Retirement Savings Plan's participants and beneficiaries under
ERISA. The allegations underlying this action are similar in
many respects to those in the class action litigation described
above. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the ERISA action
on March 5, 2004. The District Court Judge referred the motion
to a Magistrate Judge for a report and recommendation. On
December 8, 2004, the Magistrate Judge held a hearing on this
motion, and, on December 10, 2004, he recommended that the
District Court Judge dismiss the action. The District Court
Judge accepted the recommendation and dismissed the case on
February 4, 2005.

The suit is styled "In re King Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities
Litigation, case no. 03-CV-77," filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, under
Judge Thomas Gray Hull.  Representing the plaintiffs is
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP (San Diego, CA), 12544
High Bluff Drive, Suite 150, San Diego, CA, 92130 Phone:
858.793.0070, Fax: 858.793.0323, E-mail: blbg@blbglaw.com.


M2 AUTOMOTIVE: Employees Lodges Suit Over Abrupt Closure in CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Former employee Darren Shepard initiated a lawsuit against an
automotive repair company in Los Angeles that abruptly went out
of business and closed its 27 shops, The Associated Press
reports.

The suit was filed in Superior Court in an effort to recover
back wages, accrued vacation time, sick leave and overtime
compensation. It seeks class-action status as well as
compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of the other
approximately 750 employees of Santa Monica-based M2 Automotive
Inc., which closed this month.

A few weeks ago, Allstate Corp. sued Credit Managers Association
of California, which is liquidating the repair company's assets.
According to the insurance giant, the association had refused to
give up more than 100 vehicles owned by Allstate customers. As a
result of the Allstate's legal action, about 1,000 cars awaiting
collision repairs at M2 centers are now being held until its
assets are sold.


MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Settles NE Antitrust Complaint For $22M
--------------------------------------------------------------
Microsoft Corporation reached a $22 million settlement in a
class action lawsuit alleging that Microsoft violated Nebraska's
antitrust and unfair competition laws, The Press Esc, India
reports.

Under the terms of the settlement, Microsoft will issue vouchers
totaling up to $22.6 million to schools in Nebraska, which can
be used to buy hardware and software products, including those
not manufactured by Microsoft.  According to the settlement,
eligible schools are public schools (K-12) in which at least 50%
of the attending students are eligible to receive free or
reduced price meals through the National School Lunch Program.

Additionally, under the settlement terms, consumers who, between
February 28, 1997 and December 31, 2002, resided in Nebraska and
indirectly purchased certain Microsoft operating system,
productivity suite, spreadsheet or word processing software for
use in Nebraska and not for resale will be eligible to apply for
the vouchers.

In a press statement, Robert M. Hillis, attorney for the
Plaintiffs, "We're very pleased with the settlement and the
recovery that will be made by Nebraska consumers and businesses.
In addition, we are very happy with the structure of the
settlement that will benefit the school children of Nebraska."

On the other hand, Tom Burt, corporate vice president and deputy
general counsel for Microsoft also said in a separate press
statement, "This settlement will help schools all across
Nebraska get the computers and software they need. This
settlement allows us to focus on the future and building great
software, and avoids the cost and uncertainty of litigation."


MOLEX INC.: Shareholders Lodge Securities Fraud Suits in N.D. IL
----------------------------------------------------------------
Molex, Inc. faces four securities class actions filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division between March 2, 2005 and March 11,
2005, each purporting to be on behalf of a class of Company
shareholders.  The suits also name some or all of the following
officers and employees:

     (1) J. Joseph King,  

     (2) Diane S. Bullock,  

     (3) John H. Krehbiel Jr.,

     (4) Frederick A. Krehbiel,  

     (5) Louis A. Hecht,  

     (6) Ronald L. Schubel and

      (7) Martin P. Slark

The suits are styled:

     (i) The Takara Trust v. Molex Incorporated, Et. Al., Case
         No. 05C 1245;

    (ii) BDM, LLC v. Molex Incorporated, Et. Al., Case No. 05C
         1372;

   (iii) James Baker v. Molex Incorporated, Et. Al., Case No.
         05C 1467; and

    (iv) Drywall Acoustic Lathing and Insulation Local 675
         Pension Fund v. Molex Incorporated, Et. Al., Case No.
         05C 1461

The complaints in the Shareholder Actions generally allege,
among other things, that during the period from April 15, 2004
(or July 27, 2004 in the case of the complaints filed by The
Takara Trust and the Drywall Acoustic Lathing and Insulation
Local 675 Pension Fund) to February 14, 2005 the named
defendants made or caused to be made a series of materially
false or misleading statements about Molex's business,
prospects, operations, and financial statements which
constituted violations of Section 10(b) of the  Exchange  Act  
of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  

The complaint filed by BDM, LLC also alleges that certain of the
named defendants engaged in insider trading in violation of
Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5.   As relief, the complaints seek,
among other things, declaration that the action be certified as
a proper class action, unspecified compensatory damages
(including interest) and payment of costs and expenses  
(including fees for legal counsel and experts).  The complaint
filed by BDM, LLC also seeks, as relief, an accounting of the
proceeds received by certain of the named defendants from the
sale of Molex stock during the period from April 15, 2004 to
February 14, 2005 and the imposition of a constructive trust on
such proceeds.  

                           
NORTEL NETWORKS: Continues To Face NY Securities Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nortel Networks Corporation (NNC) continues to face a
consolidated securities class action filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, subsequent
to the February 15, 2001 announcement in which the Company
provided revised guidance for financial performance for the 2001
fiscal year and the first quarter of 2001.

The Company and certain of its then-current officers and
directors were initially named as defendants in more than
twenty-five purported class action lawsuits filed in the U.S.
District Courts for the Eastern District of New York, for the
Southern District of New York and for the District of New Jersey
and the provinces of Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia in
Canada, on behalf of shareholders who acquired the Company's
securities as early as October 24, 2000 and as late as February
15, 2001.  The suits allege, among other things, violations of
U.S. federal and Canadian provincial securities laws. These
matters also have been the subject of review by Canadian and
U.S. securities regulatory authorities.

On May 11, 2001, the defendants filed motions to dismiss and/or
stay in connection with the three proceedings in Quebec
primarily based on the factual allegations lacking substantial
connection to Quebec and the inclusion of shareholders resident
in Quebec in the class claimed in the Ontario lawsuit.  The
plaintiffs in two of these proceedings in Quebec obtained court
approval for discontinuances of their proceedings on January 17,
2002.  The motion to dismiss and/or stay the third proceeding
was heard on November 6, 2001 and the court deferred any
determination on the motion to the judge who will hear the
application for authorization to commence a class proceeding.  
On December 6, 2001, the defendants filed a motion seeking leave
to appeal that decision.  The motion for leave to appeal was
dismissed on March 11, 2002.

On October 16, 2001, an order in the Southern District of New
York was filed consolidating twenty-five of the related U.S.
class action lawsuits into a single case, appointing class
plaintiffs and counsel for such plaintiffs.  The plaintiffs
served a consolidated amended complaint on January 18, 2002. On
December 17, 2001, the defendants in the British Columbia action
served notice of a motion requesting the court to decline
jurisdiction and to stay all proceedings on the grounds that
British Columbia is an inappropriate forum. The motion has been
adjourned at the plaintiffs' request to a future date to be set
by the parties.

A class action lawsuit against the Company was also filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of shareholders who acquired the securities of JDS
Uniphase Corporation (JDS) between January 18, 2001 and February
15, 2001, alleging violations of the same U.S. federal
securities laws as the above-noted lawsuits.  

On April 1, 2002, the Company filed a motion to dismiss both the
above consolidated U.S. shareholder class action and the above
JDS shareholder class action complaints on the grounds that they
failed to state a cause of action under U.S. federal securities
laws.  With respect to the JDS shareholder class action
complaint, the Company also moved to dismiss on the separate
basis that JDS shareholders lacked standing to sue the Company.  
On January 3, 2003, the District Court granted the motion to
dismiss the JDS shareholder class action complaint and denied
the motion to dismiss the consolidated U.S. class action
complaint.  Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of the JDS
shareholder class action complaint.  On November 19, 2003, oral
argument was held before the Second Circuit on the JDS
shareholders' appeal of the dismissal of their complaint.  On
May 19, 2004, the Second Circuit issued an opinion affirming the
dismissal of the JDS shareholder class action complaint and on
July 14, 2004 the Second Circuit denied plaintiffs' motion for
rehearing.  On October 12, 2004, the plaintiffs filed a petition
for writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court.  On November
12, 2004, the defendants filed Brief for the Respondents in
Opposition, and on November 22, 2004, the plaintiffs filed Reply
to Brief in Opposition.  On January 10, 2005, the U.S. Supreme
Court denied the petition for writ of certiorari.  With respect
to the consolidated U.S. shareholder class action, the
plaintiffs served a motion for class certification on March 21,
2003.  On May 30, 2003, the defendants served an opposition to
the motion for class certification. Plaintiffs' reply was served
on August 1, 2003. The District Court held oral arguments on
September 3, 2003 and issued an order granting class
certification on September 5, 2003.  On September 23, 2003, the
defendants filed a motion in the Second Circuit for permission
to appeal the class certification decision.  The plaintiffs'
opposition to the motion was filed on October 2, 2003.  On
November 24, 2003, the Second Circuit denied the motion.  On
March 10, 2004, the District Court approved the form of notice
to the class, which was published and mailed.

On July 17, 2002, a new purported class action lawsuit (the
"Ontario Claim") was filed in the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice, Commercial List, naming the Company, certain of its
current and former officers and directors and its auditors as
defendants. The factual allegations in the Ontario Claim are
substantially similar to the allegations in the consolidated
amended complaint filed in the U.S. District Court described
above. The Ontario Claim is on behalf of all Canadian residents
who purchased Nortel Networks Corporation securities (including
options on Nortel Networks Corporation securities) between
October 24, 2000 and February 15, 2001.  The plaintiffs claim
damages of Canadian $5,000, plus punitive damages in the amount
of Canadian $1,000, prejudgment and postjudgment interest and
costs of the action.  

On September 23, 2003, the Court issued an order allowing the
plaintiffs to proceed to amend the Ontario Claim and requiring
that the plaintiffs serve class certification materials by
December 15, 2003.  On September24, 2003, the plaintiffs filed a
notice of discontinuance of the original action filed
in Ontario.  On December 12, 2003, plaintiffs' counsel requested
an extension of time to January 21, 2004 to deliver class
certification materials. On January 21, 2004, plaintiffs'
counsel advised the Court that the two representative plaintiffs
in the action no longer wished to proceed, but counsel was
prepared to deliver draft certification materials pending the
replacement of the representative plaintiffs. On February 19,
2004, the plaintiffs' counsel advised the Court of a potential
new representative plaintiff.  On February 26, 2004, the
defendants requested the Court to direct the plaintiffs' counsel
to bring a motion to permit the withdrawal of the current
representative plaintiffs and to substitute the proposed
representative plaintiff.  On June 8, 2004, the Court signed an
order allowing a Second Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim that
substituted one new representative plaintiff, but did not change
the substance of the prior claim.

The suit is styled "Weinstein et al v. Nortel Networks, et al.,
case no. 1:01-cv-01855-RMB-MHD," filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, under
Judge Richard M. Berman.  Lead plaintiff Ontario Public Service
Employees' Union Pension Trust Fund is represented by Daniel
Bernard Scotti and Steven G. Schulman of Milberg Weiss Bershad &
Schulman LLP (NYC), Mail: One Pennsylvania Plaza New York, NY
10119 Phone: (212) 594-5300 Fax: 212-868-1229 Email:
dscotti@milberg.com or sschulman@milberg.com.  The Company is
represented by Stuart J. Baskin, and Tai Hyun Park of Shearman &
Sterling, L.L.P., 599 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022-6069
Phone: (212) 848-4000 Email: sbaskin@shearman.com or
tpark@shearman.com.


NORTEL NETWORKS: Continues To Face ERISA Violations Suit in TN
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nortel Networks Corporation faces an amended consolidated class
action filed in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee, alleging violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

A purported class action lawsuit was initially filed in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of
Tennessee on December 21, 2001, on behalf of participants and
beneficiaries of the Nortel's Long-Term Investment Plan (the
"Plan") at any time during the period of March 7, 2000 through
the filing date and who made or maintained Plan investments in
Nortel Networks Corporation common shares, under ERISA for Plan-
wide relief.  The suit alleges, among other things, material
misrepresentations and omissions to induce Plan participants to
continue to invest in and maintain investments in Nortel
Networks Corporation common shares in the Plan.

A second purported class action lawsuit, on behalf of the Plan
and Plan participants for whose individual accounts the Plan
purchased Nortel Networks Corporation common shares during the
period from October 27, 2000 to February 15, 2001 and making
similar allegations was filed in the same court on March 12,
2002.  A third purported class action lawsuit, on behalf of
persons who are or were Plan participants or beneficiaries at
any time since March 1, 1999 to the filing date and making
similar allegations, was filed in the same court on March 21,
2002. The first and second purported class action lawsuits were
consolidated by a new purported class action complaint, filed on
May 15, 2002 in the same court and making similar allegations,
on behalf of Plan participants and beneficiaries who directed
the Plan to purchase or hold shares of certain funds, which held
primarily Nortel Networks Corporation common shares, during the
period from March 7, 2000 through December 21, 2001.

On September 24, 2002, plaintiffs in the consolidated action
filed a motion to consolidate all the actions and to transfer
them to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York.  The plaintiffs then filed a motion to withdraw the
pending motion to consolidate and transfer. The withdrawal was
granted by the District Court on December 30, 2002.  A fourth
purported class action lawsuit, on behalf of the Plan and Plan
participants for whose individual accounts the Plan held Nortel
Networks Corporation common shares during the period from March
7, 2000 through March 31, 2001 and making similar allegations,
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York on March 12, 2003.

On March 18, 2003, plaintiffs in the fourth purported class
action filed a motion with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation to transfer all the actions to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York for coordinated or
consolidated proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1407.  On
June 24, 2003, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
issued a transfer order transferring the Southern District of
New York action to the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee (the "Consolidated ERISA Action"). On
September 12, 2003, the plaintiffs in all the actions filed a
consolidated class action complaint. On October 28, 2003, the
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint and a motion
to stay discovery pending disposition of the motion to dismiss.
On March 30, 2004, the plaintiffs filed a motion for
certification of a class consisting of participants in, or
beneficiaries of, the Plan who held shares of the NNC Stock Fund
during the period from March 7, 2000 through March 31, 2001. On
April 27, 2004, the Court granted the defendants' motion to stay
discovery pending resolution of defendants' motion to dismiss.

On June 15, 2004, the plaintiffs filed a First Amended
Consolidated Class Action Complaint that added additional
current and former officers and employees as defendants and
expanded the purported class period to extend from March 7, 2000
through to June 15, 2004.


NORTEL NETWORKS: Plaintiffs Agree To Dismiss Claim in NY Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs agreed to dismiss a claim in the consolidated
securities class action filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York against Nortel
Networks Corporation.

Subsequent to the March 10, 2004 announcement in which the
Company indicated it was likely that it and Nortel Networks Ltd.
would need to revise their previously announced unaudited
results for the year ended December 31, 2003, and the results
reported in certain of their quarterly reports for 2003, and to
restate their previously filed financial results for one or more
earlier periods, the Company and certain of its then current and
former officers and directors were named as defendants in 27
purported class action lawsuits. These lawsuits in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, filed on
behalf of shareholders who acquired the Company's securities as
early as February 16, 2001 and as late as May 15, 2004, allege,
among other things, violations of U.S. federal securities laws.

On June 30, 2004, the Court signed Orders consolidating the 27
class actions and appointing lead plaintiffs and lead counsel.
The plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint on
September 10, 2004, alleging a class period of April 24, 2003
through and including April 27, 2004.  On November 5, 2004, the
Company and the Audit Committee Defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the consolidated class action complaint.  On January 18,
2005, the lead plaintiffs, the Company, and the Audit Committee
Defendants reached an agreement in which the Company would
withdraw its motion to dismiss and plaintiffs would dismiss
Count II of the complaint that asserts a claim against the Audit
Committee Defendants.


NORTEL NETWORKS: Shareholders Launch Fraud Suit in Canada Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nortel Networks Corporation, Nortel Networks Ltd. and certain of
their current and former officers and directors continues to
face a purported class proceeding in the Ontario Superior Court
of Justice on behalf of shareholders who acquired Nortel
Networks Corporation securities as early as November 12, 2002
and as late as July 28, 2004.

This lawsuit alleges, among other things, breaches of trust and
fiduciary duty, oppressive conduct and misappropriation of
corporate assets and trust property in respect of the payment of
cash bonuses to executives, officers and employees in 2003 and
2004 under the NNC Return to Profitability bonus program and
seeks damages of Canadian $250 and an order under the Canada
Business Corporations Act directing that an investigation be
made respecting these bonus payments.


NORTEL NETWORKS: Canadian Investors Launch Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nortel Networks Corporation and certain of its current and
former officers and directors and its auditors face a purported
class proceeding filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice,
Commercial List, on behalf of all Canadian residents who
purchased the Company's securities from April 24, 2003 to April
27, 2004.

This lawsuit alleges, among other things, negligence,
misrepresentations, oppressive conduct, insider trading and
violations of Canadian corporation and competition laws in
connection with the Company's 2003 financial results and seeks
damages of Canadian $3,000, plus punitive damages in the amount
of Canadian $1,000, prejudgment and postjudgment interest and
costs of the action.


PITNEY BOWES: Lawsuit Settlement Hearing Set May 25, 2005
---------------------------------------------------------
The Montgomery County Circuit Court in Alabama will hold a
fairness hearing for the proposed settlement in the matter: Ann
Harbin, et al. v. Pitney Bowes Inc. and Pitney Browse Credit
Corporation, Civil No. 2002-769 on behalf of all persons who
paid a Valuemax fee to Pitney Bowes Credit Corporation between
January 1, 1999 and December 31, 2004, but not those customers
for whom PBCC has repaired or replaced its equipment through
Valuemax.

The court will hold the fairness hearing on May 25, 2005 at 8:30
a.m. in the courtroom of the Honorable Charles Price, 251 South
Lawrence Street, Montgomery, AL 36102.

For more details, contact Charles A. McCallum, III of McCallum
Hoaglund Cook & Irby, LLP by Mail: 2062 Columbiana Road,
Vestavia Hills, Alabama 35216 (Jefferson & Shelby Cos.) by
Phone: 205-824-7767 or by Fax: 205-824-7768.


RHEE BROS: Recalls Bellflower Root Due To Undeclared Sulfites
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rhee Bros., Inc. of Columbia, MD is recalling its 16 oz.
Packages of 'Assi Brand Dried Bellflower Root' because they may
contain undeclared sulfites. People who have allergies to
sulfites run the risk of serious life-threatening allergic
reaction if they consume these products.

The recalled product was distributed in retail stores on the
Eastern part of the United States. The product comes in a 16 oz.
package marked with 'Assi brand Dried Bellflower Root'. Its item
number is 06034K on the label.

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

The recall was initiated after sampling by 'Florida State
Department of Agriculture & Markets' food inspectors discovered
that the sulfite-containing product was distributed in packaging
that did not reveal the presence of sulfites. Subsequent
investigation indicates the problem was caused by a temporary
breakdown in the labeling processes. Wholesale distribution of
the product has been suspended until the Company is certain that
the label has been replaced with a corrected label.

Consumers who have purchased 16 oz. Packages of 'Assi brand
Dried Bellflower Root' are urged to return them to the place of
purchase for a full refund. Consumers with questions may contact
the Company at 1-410-381-9000.


RUBBER CHEMICALS: Lawsuit Settlement Hearing Set June 21, 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California will hold a fairness hearing for the proposed $18.5
million settlement in the matter: In re Rubber Chemicals
Antitrust Litigation (MDL Docket No. C-04-1648 (MJJ)) on behalf
of all persons (excluding government entities) which purchased
rubber chemicals and/or miscellaneous included chemicals in the
United States, including purchases for delivery in the United
States, directly from any Defendants at any time during the
period from May 1, 1995 through December 31, 2001.

The court will hold the fairness hearing on June 21, 2005, at
9:30 a.m. at the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, 450 Golden Gate Ave., Courtroom 11, 19th
Floor, San Francisco, CA.

For more details, contact In re Rubber Chemicals Antitrust
Litigation c/o Gilardi & Co., LLC by Mail: P.O. Box 8060, San
Rafael, CA 94912-8060 or visit their Web site:
http://www.gilardi.com/php/shownotice.php?casetype=C&casename=Ru
bber+Chemicals+%28Flexsys%29&page_string=All%20claims&script_str
ing=all.php&casecode=rbbr1 OR Michael D. Hausfeld of Cohen,
Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. by Mail: 1100 New York
Avenue, N.W. Suite 500, West Tower, Washington, District of
Columbia 20005-3964 Phone: 202-408-4600 or by Fax: 202-408-4699.


SMITHKLINE BEECHMAN: Judge Approves $65M Paxil Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge John R. Padova granted final approval to
SmithKline Beecham's $65 million settlement of a class action
antitrust suit brought by consumers who said they paid inflated
prices for Paxil, a popular anti-depressant drug, The Legal
Intelligencer reports.

According to court documents, the suit alleged that SmithKline
illegally maintained a monopoly by filing a series of "sham"
patent lawsuits that were designed to delay any generic version
of the drug from reaching the market. The filing of a patent
suit delays a generic drug from entering the market by 30
months, the court documents further show.

In his 77-page decision Nichols v. SmithKline Beecham Corp.,
Judge Padova approved the settlement and awarded $19 million in
attorney fees to a team of plaintiffs' lawyers who logged more
than 17,000 hours on the case since December 2000.

In the consumer class action suit, plaintiffs lawyers alleged
that SmithKline attempted to monopolize the Paxil market by
filing "sham" patent litigation against Apotex Inc. and TorPharm
Inc., both of Weston, Ontario, soon after the generic
manufacturers notified SmithKline that they were seeking
approval from the Food & Drug Administration to copy Paxil. The
attorneys further alleged that SmithKline used sham lawsuits and
bogus patents filings to delay the debut of generic Paxil by
months or even years.

In assessing whether the settlement was a fair and reasonable
one, Judge Padova applied the 3rd Circuit's nine-factor test in
the 1975 decision in Girsh v. Jepson and concluded that nearly
every factor weighed in favor of approval. He thus wrote, "Given
the enormous amounts of money at stake in this litigation, and
the vigorous advocacy of counsel for both parties over the last
four years, it can reasonably be expected that whichever party
did not prevail at trial would file post-trial motions and an
appeal."

As a result, Judge Padova found that the litigation would
continue for several more years if the case did not settle. The
judge also found that the plaintiffs also faced considerable
risks, since their theory of liability was a novel one and
SmithKline had asserted strong defenses. In addition he found
that the settlement also came after four years of intense
litigation in which the lawyers had reviewed hundreds of
thousands of documents and months of arm's length negotiations.

"The court concludes, therefore, that the parties had an
adequate appreciation of the merits of this case at the time
they negotiated the settlement," Judge Padova wrote.

If the case had gone to trial, Judge Padova found, the proof of
damages "would undoubtedly result in a 'battle of the experts'
with each side presenting its figures to the jury and with no
guarantee whom the jury would believe." He also fond that class
certification also posed a potential obstacle, because the
plaintiffs alleged several theories of liability under federal
and state antitrust laws, state consumer protection laws, and
state common law.

In his ruling he thus wrote, "If this case were to proceed to
trial, the variations in the state laws under which plaintiffs'
state law claims have been brought would create significant
issues with respect to typicality and adequacy of representation
and the predominance of individual issues," Even if the class
were certified, Judge Padova adds, "it could be decertified at
any time later in the litigation as a result of the difficulties
presented by the need to apply so many different states' laws."

On the issue of whether $65 million is a fair amount, Judge
Padova found that the sum was somewhere roughly between 9 and 13
percent of the possible maximum damages. An expert for the
plaintiffs, he noted, had estimated damages ranging from $466
million to $693 million depending on the date that the generic
version of Paxil hit the market.

He thus wrote in his ruling, "This percentage is consistent with
those approved in other complex class action cases. Taking all
of the risks of litigation into consideration, as well as the
total amount of the settlement fund and the percentage of total
damages ... the court finds that this settlement is within the
range of reasonableness."

In the final section of his ruling, Judge Padova found that the
plaintiffs' lawyers were entitled to 30 percent of the
settlement fund as their fee. Billing at their normal hourly
rates, he found that the plaintiffs' team had invested more than
$6.1 million in time by logging more than 17,000 hours. As a
result, he said, the requested $19 million fee represented a
"multiplier" of 3.15. On this regard Judge Padova wrote, "This
litigation presented enormously complex legal and factual
issues. In light of [SmithKline's] strong defenses to
plaintiffs' theories of liability, and the possibility that this
case could not be maintained as a class action through trial,
the risk of non-payment has been high throughout this
litigation."

The suit is styled, Nichols v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., filed
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania under U.S. District Judge John R. Padova. The
plaintiffs' team was led by attorneys Ellen Meriwether of Miller
Faucher & Cafferty in Philadelphia, Dianne M. Nast of Roda Nast
in Lancaster, Pa., and Kenneth A. Wexler of The Wexler Firm in
Chicago.

  
SONICWALL INC.: NY Court Preliminarily Approves Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against SonicWALL,
Inc., three of its officers and directors and certain of the
underwriters of the Company's initial public offering (IPO) in
November 1999 and its follow-on offering in March 2000.

On December 5, 2001, a securities class action complaint was
filed.  Similar complaints were filed in the same court against
numerous public companies that conducted IPOs of their common
stock since the mid-1990s.  All of these lawsuits were
consolidated for pretrial purposes before Judge Shira
Scheindlin.  On April 19, 2002, plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint.

The amended complaint alleges claims under the Securities Act of
1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and seeks damages
or rescission for misrepresentations or omissions in the
prospectuses relating to, among other things, the alleged
receipt of excessive and undisclosed commissions by the
underwriters in connection with the allocation of shares of
common stock in the Company's public offerings.  On July 15,
2002, the issuers filed an omnibus motion to dismiss for failure
to comply with applicable pleading standards.  On October 8,
2002, the Court entered an Order of Dismissal as to all of the
individual defendants in the SonicWALL IPO litigation, without
prejudice. On February 19, 2003, the Court denied the motion to
dismiss the Company's claims.

A tentative agreement has been reached with plaintiff's counsel
and the insurers for the settlement and release of claims
against the issuer defendants, including the Company, in
exchange for a guaranteed recovery to be paid by the issuer
defendants' insurance carriers and an assignment of certain
claims. Papers formalizing the settlement among the plaintiffs,
issuer defendants, including the Company, and insurers were
presented to the Court on June 14, 2004.  The settlement is
subject to a number of conditions, including approval of the
proposed settling parties and the Court. On July 14, 2004,
underwriter defendants filed with the Court a memorandum in
opposition to plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of the
settlement with defendant issuers and individuals. Plaintiffs
and issuers subsequently filed papers with the Court in further
support of the settlement and addressing issues raised in the
underwriter's opposition.

The suit is styled "In Re SonicWALL, Inc. Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, 01 Civ. 10941 (Sas)," filed in
relation to "IN RE INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERING SECURITIES
LITIGATION, Master File No. 21 MC 92 (SAS)," both pending in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, under Judge Shira N. 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, Mail: 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


UNIPROP MANUFACTURED: Faces MI Damage Suit Over Old Dutch Farms
---------------------------------------------------------------
Uniprop Manufactured Housing Communities Income Fund, a Michigan
Limited Partnership faces a class action filed in the Circuit
Court of Oakland County, Michigan.  The suit also names as
defendants P.I. Associates Limited Partnership, a Michigan
limited partnership, the General Partner of the Partnership.

The suit claims that the Old Dutch Farms community did not honor
its obligations with respect to operating various aspects of the
community.  The complaint requests damages, costs and injunctive
relief.  Counsel for the Partnership is presently reviewing and
preparing an answer to the complaint on behalf of the
Partnership. While the discovery process has not yet begun, the
Partnership intends to vigorously defend against this claim.  
The amount of potential liability, if any is indeterminable at
the time, the Partnership stated in a disclosure with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.


ZOMAX INC.: Settles Shareholder Suit For $2.25M Plus Stocks
-----------------------------------------------------------
Zomax Inc. agreed to pay $2.25 million and issue 1.5 million
shares of stock to settle a shareholder suit, accusing it of
misleading investors while former officers were selling the
stock five years ago, The Minneapolis Star Tribune reports.

Clint Morrison, research director at Feltl and Co., told the
Tribune that the agreement is "a positive, some progress in a
thing that's been overhanging the Company for so long." At the
same time though, he noted that the Company has not yet reached
an agreement with the Securities and Exchange Commission, which
has made similar claims about the Company's activities in 2000.

According to the Plymouth-based software duplication and
distribution Company, its directors and officers' insurance
would pay the full amount of the cash settlement in the class-
action shareholder case with the settlement payments being
distributed to those who incurred losses as a result of stock
purchases between May 25, 2000, and October 18, 2002.

Additionally, Zomax in a press statement said that it already
has taken an $8.5 million charge against earnings over the third
and fourth quarters related to the 1.5 million shares included
in the settlement and to the possible settlement of the SEC
case. That charge, according to the Company, will continue to be
adjusted based on the market price of the Company's stock until
the court approves the agreement.

CEO Anthony Angelini said in a prepared statement that the
settlement would allow the Company to focus its time and efforts
on its operations, although he made no other specific comments
about what might result from those efforts.



                   New Securities Fraud Cases

LEAPFROG ENTERPRISES: Cohen Milstein Files Securities Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. filed
lawsuit on behalf of its client and other similarly situated
purchasers of the securities of LeapFrog Enterprises, Inc.
(NYSE:LF); ("LeapFrog" or the "Company") from February 11, 2004,
through October 18, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period"), in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.

The complaint charges LeapFrog and certain of its officers and
directors (collectively the "defendants") with violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 resulting from defendants' false
and misleading statements and omissions, which artificially
inflated the price of LeapFrog's stock during the Class Period,
causing harm to LeapFrog's investors.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period,
defendants continually assured investors that LeapFrog had taken
the necessary steps to correct the problems in its IT systems
and supply chain infrastructure (and that these efforts had been
successful) and misrepresented and/or failed to disclose that:

     (1) the Company had not in fact materially improved either
         its IT systems or its supply chain infrastructure; and

     (2) these issues were continuing to have a materially
         negative effect on its business and on its ability to
         accurately forecast results and meet analysts' sales
         and earnings expectations.

The Complaint claims that on October 18, 2004, LeapFrog
announced that its 2004 earnings would miss its estimates by
more than 60% due, in large part, to its failure to correct the
IT and supply chain problems it said it had taken steps to
correct. The announcement prompted a large sell-off of LeapFrog
shares, which fell 34% in a single day, to a then all-time low
of $11.99. Since then, LeapFrog has also missed fourth quarter
estimates by a wide margin and replaced three members of its
senior management, including its Chief Financial Officer and
Chief Operating Officer.

For ore details, contact Steven J. Toll, Esq. or Kari Fiore 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 kfiore@cmht.com.


PETCO ANIMAL: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP initiated a
class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities
of Petco Animal Supplies, Inc. ("Petco" or the "Company")
(Nasdaq: PETC) between November 18, 2004 and April 14, 2005,
inclusive, (the "Class Period") seeking to pursue remedies under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The action is pending in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of California against defendants Petco,
James M. Myers (CEO), Rodney Carter (CFO) and Brian K. Devine
(Chairman).

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
reported strong earnings and sales growth and represented that
such growth would continue in 2005. In fact, unbeknownst to
investors, Petco's fourth quarter earnings were materially
artificially inflated through accounting manipulations. In
particular, Petco had been under-accruing expenses, thereby
inflating its earnings. For the same reason, Petco's favorable
projections for 2005 were lacking in any reasonable basis and
were premised on the continuation of improper accounting
practices. On April 15, 2005, before the open on regular
trading, Petco issued a press release announcing that it will
delay filing its Form 10-K with the SEC due to accounting errors
relating to under-accrual of expenses. Based on its review,
Petco will need to adjust downward, possibly in a restatement,
its reported fourth quarter 2004 earnings per share by $0.05 to
$0.07. Petco's expected 2005 earnings will be reduced by the
same amount, according to the Company. In response to the
announcement that Petco had inflated its earnings through
accounting manipulation, Petco's stock price dropped by 13.6% in
one day, from $35.14 per share on April 14, 2005 to April 15,
2005, on unusually heavy trading volume.

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


R&G FINACIAL: Scott + Scott Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Scott + Scott, LLC initiated a class action in
the United States District Court for the District of New York on
behalf of the purchasers of R&G Financial Corp (NYSE: RGF; "R&G
Financial" or the "Company") securities between April 21, 2003
and April 26, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The deadline
for purchasers of the securities of R&G Financial to move for
lead plaintiff is June 27, 2005.

Plaintiff alleges that during the Class Period, R&G Financial
failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material
adverse facts, which were known to Defendants or recklessly
disregarded by them:

     (1) that R&G Financial's earnings quality had been
         significantly weakened by the Company's use of overly
         aggressive assumptions to generate gain on sale income,
         as well as to boost the value it retained in its
         interest only ("IO") residuals in securitization
         transactions;

     (2) that R&G Financial's methodology used to calculate the
         fair value of its IO residual interests retained in
         securitization transactions was incorrect and caused
         the Company to overstate its financial results by at
         least $50 million;

     (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 therefore unable to ascertain the true financial
         condition of the Company; and

     (5) that as a result, the value of the Company's net income
         and financial results were materially overstated during
         the Class Period.

On March 25, 2005, after the market closed, R&G Financial
announced that it would restate its financial results for fiscal
years 2003 and 2004. News of this shocked the market. Shares of
R&G Financial, on April 26, 2005, fell $8.14 per share, or 35.12
percent, to close at $15.04 on unusually heaving trading volume.
After the market closed on April 26, 2005, R&G Financial issued
a press release announcing that it was also now subject to an
informal SEC probe relating to its restatement announcement.

For more details, contact Neil Rothstein of Scott + Scott, LLC
by Phone: 1-800-332-2259 or by E-mail: nrothstein@scott-
scott.com.


WILLIAM LYON: Brualdi Law Firm Lodges Shareholders' Suit in DE
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Brualdi Law Firm announces iniitated a class action lawsuit
on behalf of all common stockholders of William Lyon Homes
("WLS" or the "Company") (NYSE:WLS).

The action is pending in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware against the Company and its directors: General William
Lyon ("General Lyon"), Wade H. Cable, General James E. Dalton,
Richard E. Frankel, William H. Lyon, William H. McFarland, Alex
Meruelo, Michael L. Meyer and Randolph W. Westerfield
("Defendants").

The Complaint seeks to enjoin the defendants from causing the
Company to be acquired by its controlling shareholder, Chairman
of the Board and CEO, General Lyon at an inadequate
consideration.

For more details, contact Richard B. Brualdi, Esq. or Gaitri
Boodhoo, Esq. of THE BRUALDI LAW FIRM by Mail: 29 Broadway,
Suite 2400, New York, NY, 10006 by Phone: (212) 952-0602 or
(877) 495-1187 or by E-mail: rbrualdi@brualdilawfirm.com.


WILLIAN LYON: Sarraf Gentile Launches Shareholders' Suit in DE
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm of Sarraf Gentile LLP initiated a class action has
been commenced on behalf of minority shareholders of William
Lyon Homes ("WLS" or the "Company") (NYSE: WLS).

The case is pending in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware against the Company and its directors. The action seeks
to enjoin the defendants from causing the Company to be acquired
by its controlling shareholder, Chairman of the Board and CEO,
for inadequate consideration. The suit alleges that the
consideration being offered in the buyout fails to offer fair
value to the Company's shareholders for their equity interests
in WLS.

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.


WILLIAM LYONS: Wolf Popper Launches Shareholders' Lawsuit in DE
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Wolf Popper LLP initiated a class action lawsuit
on behalf of public shareholders of William Lyon Homes ("William
Lyon" or the "Company") (NYSE: WLS) on April 28, 2005 in the
Delaware Court of Chancery, New Castle County.

The Complaint seeks to enjoin a proposed buy-out transaction in
which William Lyon's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer seeks
to buy out the outstanding public shares of the Company for
inadequate consideration.

For more details, contact Michael A. Schwartz, Esq. of Wolf
Popper LLP by Phone: +1-212-451-9668 or 1-877-370-7703 by Fax:
+1-212-486-2093 or 1-877-370-7704 or by E-mail:
irrep@wolfpopper.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  * * *