CAR_Public/050504.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Wednesday, May 4, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 87

                          Headlines

AMERISOURCE HEALTH: Recalls Famotidine Due To Packaging Defect
BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Recalls 500 Motorcycles For Crash Hazard
CIGNA HEALTHCARE: FL Court Approves $11.55 Mil Suit Settlement
COLORADO INTERSTATE: Plaintiffs Seek Certification For KS Suit
DAOU SYSTEMS: Appeals Court Defers Petition of Rehearing in Suit

DAOU SYSTEMS: Reaches Settlement For CA Suit V. Execs, Directors
EDWARDS FINE: Recalls Frozen Pie Slices for Undeclared Peanuts
EXEGENICS INC.: DE Court Dismisses Lawsuit For Shareholder Fraud
FIELD PACKING: Recalls Ham Products For Listeria Contamination
GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls 61,594 Buick Cars Due To Crash Hazard

GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls 34,186 SUVs For Accident, Crash Hazard
GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls 20,701 Saturn Wagons For Injury Hazard
HOLOCAUST LITIGATION: FL Court OKs Gold Train Lawsuit Settlement
KIA MOTORS: Recalls 24,119 Kia Rio Cars Due To Accident Hazard
MERRILL LYNCH: NY Arbitration Panel Awards Couple $164,000

NEW MILLENIUM: FTC Bares Consent Antitrust Violations Order
NRG ENERGY: Appeals Court Nixes Rehearing of Energy Suit Remand
PACIFIC PREMIER: NY Court Approves Securities Suit Settlement
PACIFIC PREMIER: Asks MO Court To Dismiss Interest Rate Lawsuit
RIDLEY INC.: Quebec Farmers Sue V. May 2003 U.S. Border Closure

RIGGS NATIONAL: Reaches Settlement For DE Lawsuit V. PNC Merger
RIGGS NATIONAL: Plaintiffs Launch Amended Derivative Suit in DC
SEITEL INC.: Plaintiffs Asks TX Court To Approve Suit Settlement
SEITEL INC.: TX High Court Nixes Certiorari For Suit Dismissal
SHURGARD STORAGE: CA Court Limits Class in Consumer Fraud Suit

SHURGARD STORAGE: Working To Settle CA Overtime Violations Suit
SHURGARD STORAGE: Shareholders Lodge Stock Fraud Suit in W.D. WA
SODEXHO ALLIANCE: Shares Move 5.85% After Race Suit Settlement
TEXTAINER EQUIPMENT: Investors Lodge Securities Fraud Suit in CA
TEXTAINER EQUIPMENT: Shareholders Launch Securities Suit in CA

WEST PUBLISHING: Lawyers Launch Antitrust Violations Suit in CA

                 Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Featured Conference
* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

AVAYA INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Initiates Securities Suit in NJ
AVAYA INC.: Schatz & Nobel Launches Securities Fraud Suit in NJ
BEARINGPOINT INC.: Christopher Gray Lodges Securities Suit in VA
BEARINGPOINT INC.: Donovan Searles Files Securities Suit in VA
IMERGENT INC.: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Lawsuit in UT

MBIA INC.: Lieff Cabraser Files Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
R&G FINANCIAL: Wechsler Harwood Launches Securities Suit in NY
TRIBUNE CO.: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. IL

                           *********

AMERISOURCE HEALTH: Recalls Famotidine Due To Packaging Defect
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amerisource Health Services, DBA American Health Packaging,
Columbus, Ohio is voluntarily recalling one lot of Famotidine
Injection, 20 mg/2 mL (NDC 55390-029-10), Lot# 045715, 180
boxes, exp. 04/06, due to a lack of sterility assurance reported
by the original manufacturer's recall letter of April 19, 2005.
American Health Packaging performed secondary packaging on this
product by placing the manufacturer's sealed vial in a plastic
bag.

This prescription product was distributed in October and
November, 2004 to AmerisourceBergen, Suwanee, GA, who further
distributed the product only to Piedmont Hospital, Atlanta, GA.
Customers that have any vials of this lot of Famotidine
Injection should discontinue distribution and use of the lot
immediately and contact American Health Packaging, Customer
Service Department (1-800-707-4621) for a returned goods
authorization.

Famotidine injection is indicated in some hospitalized patients
with pathological hypersecretory conditions or intractable
ulcers, or as an alternative to the oral dosage forms for short
term use in patients who are unable to take oral medication. Non
sterility of injectable products can represent a serious hazard
to health that can lead to life threatening injuries and death.

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

Consumers and health care professionals with questions may
contact Robert L. Kavanaugh, VP Regulatory and Quality
Assurance, Amerisource Health Services, at 1-800-707-4621
between the hours of 8:00 am and 4:00 pm, Monday through Friday.


BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Recalls 500 Motorcycles For Crash Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
BMW of North America, LLC is cooperating with the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration by voluntarily recalling
500 motorcycles, namely:

     (1) BMW / R 1200 ST, model 2005

     (2) BMW / R1200 GS, model 2005

     (3) BMW / R1200 RT, model 2005

On certain motorcycles, exposure of the throttle housing to road
debris could fall and become caught between the throttle-body
and the engine block.  This could restrict movement of the
throttle-cable pulley that in turn could affect throttle
operation and increase the risk of a crash.

Dealers will install a cover over the throttle-cable pulley.  
The recall is expected to begin during April 2005.  For more
information, contact the Company by Phone: 1-800-332-4269 or the
NHTSA's auto safety hotline: 1-888-327-4236.


CIGNA HEALTHCARE: FL Court Approves $11.55 Mil Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
United States District Court Judge Federico A. Moreno of the
Southern District of Florida approved the $11.55 million
settlement between Cigna HealthCare and a nationwide class of
specialty health-care providers and various state and national
associations over the Company's reimbursement and claims-payment
practices, BestWire reports.

The settlement was initially reached in December 2004 for the
issues raised in various cases brought against several managed
care companies related to claims-payment practices.  In
approving the deal, Judge Moreno brought the litigation to a
final resolution.

The providers covered by the settlement were estimated by Cigna
in December to be at least 210,000, include chiropractors,
psychologists, podiatrists, acupuncturists optometrists,
physical and occupational therapists, nurse practitioners,
nutritionists, orthotists, prosthetists, audiologists and speech
and hearing therapists (according to BestWire, December 14,
2004).  Under the settlement, the Company will establish the
following, among others:

     (1) A fund of $11.55 million from which class members can
         obtain compensation in an amount based on the volume of
         claims submitted to Cigna HealthCare since 1990;

     (2) Information about Cigna HealthCare's claim-coding
         policies, fee schedules and related payment guidelines
         through the Internet; and

     (3) "Enhanced" claims-processing and adjudication systems

"This settlement represents ongoing progress in our ability to
deliver quality care and to enhance our relationships with
health care professionals," said W. Allen Schaffer, M.D.,
Cigna's chief clinical officer, in a statement, BestWire
reports.

The settlement will not impact Cigna's financial results, Cigna
said.  This settlement follows Cigna HealthCare's $540 million
settlement in September 2003 of a similar class action suit over
Cigna's claims-payment practices brought by about 700,000 U.S.
physicians and medical societies, who alleged violations of the
federal civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
(BestWire, September 5, 2003).


COLORADO INTERSTATE: Plaintiffs Seek Certification For KS Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs asked the District Court of Stevens County, Kansas to
grant class certification for the second amended class action
filed against Colorado Interstate Gas Company, certain of its
affiliates and other natural gas companies, styled "Will Price,
et al. v. Gas Pipelines and Their Predecessors, et al."

Plaintiffs allege that the defendants mismeasured natural gas
volumes and heating content of natural gas on non-federal and
non-Native American lands and seek to recover royalties that
they contend they should have received had the volume and
heating value of natural gas produced from their properties been
differently measured, analyzed, calculated and reported,
together with prejudgment and postjudgment interest, punitive
damages, treble damages, attorneys' fees, costs and expenses,
and future injunctive relief to require the defendants to adopt
allegedly appropriate gas measurement practices.  No monetary
relief has been specified in this case.

Plaintiffs' motion for class certification of a nationwide class
of natural gas working interest owners and natural gas royalty
owners was denied in April 2003. Plaintiffs were granted leave
to file a Fourth Amended Petition which narrows the proposed
class to royalty owners in wells in Kansas, Wyoming and Colorado
and removes claims as to heating content. A second class action
petition has since been filed as to the heating content claims.
Plaintiffs have filed motions for class certification in both
proceedings, and defendants have filed briefs in opposition
thereto.


DAOU SYSTEMS: Appeals Court Defers Petition of Rehearing in Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals deferred
consideration on Daou Systems, Inc.'s petition for rehearing the
reversal of the dismissal of the consolidated securities class
action filed against the Company and certain of its officers and
directors.

On August 24, 1998, August 31, 1998, September 14, 1998 and
September 23, 1998, four separate complaints were filed against
the Company and certain of its officers and directors in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
California. A group of shareholders has been appointed the lead
plaintiff in this federal litigation, and they filed a second
amended consolidated class action complaint on January 21, 2000.

This new complaint alleges that the Company improperly used the
"percentage-of-completion" accounting method for revenue
recognition.  Claims are pleaded under both the 1933 Securities
Act (relating to the Company's initial public offering) and
section 10b of the 1934 Securities Act. The complaint was
brought on behalf of a purported class of investors who
purchased the Company's Common Stock between February 13, 1997
and October 28, 1998, but it does not allege specific damage
amounts.

A Motion to Dismiss the second amended consolidated class action
complaint was filed on February 22, 2000. On March 27, 2002, the
Court granted the Motion but extended to plaintiffs the
opportunity to file a Third Amended Complaint. The plaintiffs
filed their third amended consolidated class action complaint on
May 16, 2002, to which the Company responded with another Motion
to Dismiss. The Motion was filed on June 24, 2002 and challenged
the legal sufficiency of the allegations. On October 15, 2002,
the Court granted that Motion, this time with prejudice.

Plaintiffs timely noticed an appeal and filed their Appellants'
Brief with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on April 9, 2003.
On July 2, 2003, the Company filed its Respondents’ Brief
and Cross-Appeal. The Cross-Appeal challenges the trial court's
failure to assess whether the complaint complied with applicable
pleadings standards.  The matter was argued before the court on
February 12, 2004.  On February 2, 2005, the court reversed the
dismissal and remanded the case back to the district court.
Because it reversed the dismissal, it did not decide the
Company's cross-appeal.  The Company appealed the reversal by
way of petition for rehearing to the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals filed February 23, 2005.  Among other issues appealed
was the court's ruling on loss causation.  On March 3, 2005, the
Ninth Circuit deferred consideration on the petition for
rehearing until the United States Supreme Court renders its
opinion in another case involving the same loss causation issue.
Given this deferral, the Company's intended appeal to the
Supreme Court by way of writ of certiorari is in abeyance until
the Ninth Circuit decides the petition for rehearing.

On October 7, 1998 and October 15, 1998, two separate complaints
were filed in the Superior Court of San Diego County,
California. These state court complaints mirror the allegations
set forth in the federal complaints. They also assert claims for
common law fraud and the violation of certain California
statutes. As with their federal counterparts, they do not allege
specific damage amounts. On April 1, 1999, a Consolidated
Amended Class Action was filed on behalf of the same state court
plaintiffs, and this new complaint alleges the same factual
basis as is asserted in the federal litigation. The state
litigation pleads claims for fraud and violations of certain
California Corporation Code provisions. By stipulation of the
parties and order of the court, this state court litigation was
stayed pending the outcome of the motion to dismiss the federal
lawsuits, as well as the resulting Appeal and Cross-Appeal.


DAOU SYSTEMS: Reaches Settlement For CA Suit V. Execs, Directors
----------------------------------------------------------------
Daou Systems, Inc. entered into a settlement for the class
action filed against certain of its former officers and
directors and DAOU On-Line, Inc.

The suit was initially filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey
located in Bergen County.  A First Amended Complaint was filed
on March 1, 2002, adding the Company and its former Chief
Financial Officer as parties-defendant.  The Company filed a
Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint on April 24, 2002.
The Court conducted a hearing on June 7, 2002 and granted the
motion. On July 23, 2002, plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal,
but later abandoned their appeal in favor of re-filing their
lawsuit in San Diego County Superior Court.  The parties
stipulated to a stay of this lawsuit and submission of the
matter to arbitration before the American Arbitration
Association.  The court approved that stipulation and stayed all
proceedings by order dated July 22, 2003.

On October 6, 2003, plaintiffs filed a Statement of Claim with
the American Arbitration Association, the gravaman of which is
the same as the former complaint filed in Bergen County, New
Jersey and San Diego County Superior Court.  The Statement of
Claim alleges compensatory damages in the amount of $1,094,600
and also prays for punitive damages as well as attorneys' fees
and costs. On December 3, 2003, the Company filed an answer to
the Statement of Claim, generally denying the allegations and
alleging certain affirmative defenses.  All parties agreed to
the appointment of Peter Shenas as the arbitrator.

A preliminary hearing was conducted on February 3, 2004, during
which the parties agreed to the scope of written and oral
discovery and how the arbitration would proceed. The Company and
certain of the Company's former officers and directors entered
into a Settlement Agreement And Mutual General Release Of All
Claims with Steven C. Dickson and Mary B. Dickson on October 29,
2004.  The Parties voluntarily elected to settle the litigation
entitled Steven C. Dickson v. Daou Systems, Inc., et al.; the
arbitration entitled Steven C. Dickson v. Daou Systems, Inc, et
al.; and a certain judgment lien in favor of Daou Systems, Inc.
against Steven C. Dickson and any and all other claims or
disputes arising out of any other contract, agreement or
business dealings of any kind between the Parties.


EDWARDS FINE: Recalls Frozen Pie Slices for Undeclared Peanuts
--------------------------------------------------------------
Edwards Fine Foods Inc of Atlanta GA, is recalling its Edwards
Oreo Singles 2pack Frozen Pie Slices with a date code of Y84282
because the product may contain undeclared peanuts. People who
have allergies to peanuts run the risk of serious or life-
threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products. No
other Oreo products are part of the recall.

The recalled Edwards Fine Foods frozen pie slices were
distributed throughout the United States in retail stores. The
frozen product comes in a blue box with a picture of a cookie on
it and is labeled, Edwards Oreo Singles 2pack Date code Y84282.

The recall was initiated after it was discovered that the
peanut-containing product was distributed in packaging that did
not label peanuts in the ingredients. . Subsequent investigation
indicates the problem was caused by a temporary breakdown in the
company's production and packaging processes. The problem has
been corrected. No illnesses have been reported to date in
connection with this problem.

Consumers who have purchased Edwards Oreo Singles 2pack date
code of Y84282 are urged to return them to the place of purchase
for a full refund. Consumers with questions may contact the
Edwards Fine Foods at 1-800-562-7636.


EXEGENICS INC.: DE Court Dismisses Lawsuit For Shareholder Fraud
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Delaware Court of Chancery dismissed with prejudice, the
lawsuit filed by The M&B Weiss Family Limited Partnership of
1996 against eXegenics Inc. (OTC BB: EXEG), as nominal
defendant, and certain former directors of the Company, the
Company announced in a statement

The lawsuit was originally filed by The M&B Weiss Family Limited
Partnership of 1996 on May 15, 2003, purportedly as a class
action on behalf of all other similarly situated stockholders of
the Company, against the Company, as a nominal defendant, and
former directors: Joseph M. Davie, Robert J. Easton, Ronald L.
Goode and Walter Lovenberg, and purportedly as a derivative
action on behalf of the Company against these individuals.

The complaint alleged, among other things, that the former
directors mismanaged the Company, made unwarranted and wasteful
loans and payments to certain directors and third parties,
disseminated a materially false and misleading proxy statement
in connection with the 2003 annual meeting of the Company's
stockholders, and breached their fiduciary duties to act in the
best interests of our Company and its stockholders.

David E. Riggs, President and CEO, said in a statement, "The
dismissal of this lawsuit caps a difficult and transitional year
in 2004 and begins a new direction for eXegenics. Last year,
with a new board of directors in place, we completed the exit of
our unproductive and costly biotechnology business, which had
consumed so much of our stockholders' equity. Then, we focused
on preserving cash and reduced overall spending by 65%. We
looked for ways to create value from technology developed at
eXegenics by mining shelved R&D programs leading to an out-
licensing deal that moved our core QCT drug discovery technology
back into the laboratory of a small molecule research company.
We also focused on and successfully eliminated contingent claims
against the company, such as the settlement of litigation over
the laboratories we formerly leased in Dallas, Texas. We
negotiated the reduction in expenses incurred in prior year
mergers, tender offers, and the 2004 consent solicitation. And
now, with the termination of the stockholder derivative lawsuit,
we will be fully focused on business development activities."

He added, "In mid-2004 we began to identify and evaluate new
business opportunities to put stockholders' remaining capital to
work. Our board of directors is actively involved in this
process and over 50 business opportunities have been evaluated.
We have looked at a wide range of companies from start-ups to
those with annual revenues exceeding $70 million, while at the
same time considering an equally wide range of businesses from
high technology to consumer products. Our search process has
been run internally and at a low cost. We seek opportunities
that have a core management team in-place and a solid business
strategy offered at an attractive value. We have disqualified a
number of these targets because we found our risk exposure too
high or the pre-money valuation of the target business
inflated."


FIELD PACKING: Recalls Ham Products For Listeria Contamination
--------------------------------------------------------------
Field Packing Company, an Owensboro, Ky., firm, is voluntarily
recalling approximately 29,000 pounds of ham products that may
be contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes, the U.S. Department
of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service announced
today.

The products subject to recall are:

     (1) 11 lb. packages of " BONELESS, HICKORY SMOKED,
         Mickelberry's, Ready to Eat, HAM, WATER ADDED." The
         establishment code "EST. 7467" appears inside the USDA
         mark of inspection. The product has a sell by date of
         May 27, 2005, that appears on the package and on the
         case underneath case codes "10793" and "205696."

     (2) 4 lb. packages of "HONEY HAM WITH NATURAL JUICES,
         KENTUCKY'S ORIGINAL, KENTUCKY LEGEND, HONEY DOUBLE
         SMOKED, HICKORY SMOKED." The establishment code "EST.
         7467" appears inside the USDA mark of inspection. The
         product has a sell by date of May 27, 2005, that
         appears on the package and on the case underneath case
         codes of "07088" and "205696."

The hams were produced on March 4, 2005. The Mickelberry's hams
were distributed to institutional and food service customers in
California, Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri and Minnesota. The
Kentucky Legend hams were distributed to retail stores in
Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri and Tennessee.  The
problem was discovered through company testing. FSIS has
received no reports of illnesses associated with consumption of
these products.

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

Consumers with questions about the recall should contact company
Vice President of Food Safety Troy Wilkerson at (866) 343-5058.
Media with questions should contact company Director of Treasury
& Investor Relations Bill Durham at (757) 952-1216.  Consumers
with food safety questions can phone the toll-free USDA Meat and
Poultry Hotline at 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854). The hotline
is available in English and Spanish and can be reached from l0
a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded
food safety messages are available 24 hours a day.


GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls 61,594 Buick Cars Due To Crash Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Corporation is cooperating with the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) by voluntarily
recalling 61,594 Buick/Lacrosse cars, model 2005.

On certain passenger vehicles, the clip that secures the brake
pushrod to the brake pedal arm pin could have been bent when it
was installed.  A bent clip may come off, allowing the brake
booster pushrod to separate from the brake pedal.  Pushing on
the pedal will not apply the brakes and a vehicle crash could
occur without prior warning.

Dealers will install a new brake pedal push rod bushing and
retaining clip and, if the clip was missing, a new brake pedal
arm assembly.  The recall began on April 26,2005.  For more
details, contact the Company by Phone: 1-866-608-8080 or the
NHTSA's auto safety hotline: 1-888-327-4236.


GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls 34,186 SUVs For Accident, Crash Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Corporation is cooperating with the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration by voluntarily recalling
34,186 sport utility vehicles, namely:

     (1) BUICK / RENDEZVOUS, model 2004

     (2) PONTIAC / AZTEK, model 2004

On certain sport utility vehicles, contamination on ignition
relay contacts can cause high resistance.  This can affect
signals to the powertrain control module and could cause
intermittent vehicle stalls at any time.  The vehicle cannot be
restarted immediately.  If this were to occur, it could result
in a vehicle crash.

Dealers will replace the ignition relay.  The recall began on
May 4, 2005.  For more details, contact Pontiac by Phone:
1-800-620-7668 and Buick by Phone: 1-866-608-8080 or contact the
NHTSA's auto safety hotline: 1-888-327-4236.


GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls 20,701 Saturn Wagons For Injury Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Corporation is cooperating with the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) by voluntarily
recalling 20,701 SATURN / L-SERIES wagons, model 2002-2004.

The wagons fail to comply with the requirements of Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120 - "seat belt assembly
anchorages."  The seat belt anchor may separate from the floor
of the vehicle before holding the required test load for the
required time.  If a separation occurred in crash, the right and
center rear seat occupants may not be properly restrained,
increasing risk of personal injury.

Dealers will install a rear seat center belt anchor
reinforcement plate to the floor pan of the vehicle.  The recall
is expected to begin on April 22,2005.  For more details,
contact the Company by Phone: 1-800-972-8876 or NHTSA's auto
safety hotline: 1-888-327-4236.


HOLOCAUST LITIGATION: FL Court OKs Gold Train Lawsuit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Settlement has been preliminarily approved by U.S. District
Judge Patricia Seitz in a class-action lawsuit brought by Jewish
Hungarian victims of Nazism and heirs of Hungarian Nazi victims
against the United States government regarding the handling of
property contained on the "Hungarian Gold Train," in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The case,
known as "Rosner v. United States," was originally filed in May
2001.

The Hungarian Gold Train consisted of approximately 24 freight
cars that contained personal property stolen or otherwise taken
from Hungarian Jews during World War II by the Nazi regime and
its collaborationist Hungarian government. The train came into
the custody of the U.S. military in Austria at the conclusion of
the war. The lawsuit alleges that the United States mishandled
the contents of the train, but the United States denies any
legal liability in the handling of the Hungarian Gold Train
property.

As part of the Settlement, the U.S. government has agreed to pay
up to $25.5 million, of which approximately $21 million will be
used to fund social service projects benefiting eligible class
members. A proposed plan of allocation will be developed by the
Conference on Jewish Material Claims Against Germany, in
consultation with lawyers involved in the class action,
appropriate social service agencies and Class Members, and
submitted to the Court for its approval. If the Settlement is
approved, Hungarian Jewish victims of Nazism may be able to
receive assistance from Jewish social service agencies. The
Settlement does not provide for direct payments to Class Members
as compensation for property lost on the Hungarian Gold Train.

The U.S. government will pay another $500,000 to create an
archive of documents and materials relating to the Hungarian
Gold Train and the looting of the Hungarian Jewish community.
The archives will be available for scholarly research,
educational purposes, class members' use, and for the benefit of
future generations. In addition, the U.S. government represented
that, to the best of its knowledge, all documents relating to
the Gold Train have been declassified. If the government finds
that there are documents that have not been declassified, it
will review them to determine if they can be declassified. If
the Settlement is finally approved, the United States will issue
a statement of acknowledgment about the events concerning the
Gold Train.

Additional information about the Settlement is located at the
website of the Hungarian Gold Train Settlement:
http://www.HungarianGoldTrain.org,in several languages.

Class Members included in the Settlement are Jews that were born
before May 8, 1945 who lived in the 1944 borders of Greater
Hungary some time between 1939 and 1945 and the heirs of
Hungarian Jewish Nazi victims. Class Members may comment on,
object to, or exclude themselves entirely from the Settlement by
informing the Court. Comments or objections to the Settlement
that are filed with the Court will be available for the Court's
review prior to any final decision regarding the Settlement.

Objections to and requests for exclusion from the Settlement
must be in writing. They must include the specific information
that is detailed at http://www.HungarianGoldTrain.orgor  
available from the Notice Provider, either through e-mail at
HGT@claimscon.org, or by regular mail at: Hungarian Gold Train
Notice Provider, P.O. Box 1570, New York, NY 10159, USA.

Objections and requests for exclusion must be mailed to the
Notice Provider and must be postmarked no later than August 1,
2005. Class Members wishing to object to or exclude themselves
from the Settlement will not have to appear personally in Court.
Objections and requests for exclusion cannot be done by
telephone or e-mail.  Class Members who do not exclude
themselves from the Settlement will be legally bound by it and
not able to sue the United States concerning the legal claims
resolved in the Hungarian Gold Train lawsuit.  Class Members who
ask to be excluded will not be eligible for any benefits from
the Settlement, nor can they object to the Settlement. They will
not be bound by anything that happens in this lawsuit.

The Court will hold a fairness hearing on this proposed
Settlement on September 26, 2005, at 10 a.m. in Miami, at which
time it will consider whether to approve the Settlement. Class
Members may appear through counsel of their own choosing at
their own expense.

For ore details, contact the Notice Provider by Mail: P.O. Box
1570, New York, NY 10159, U.S.A., by E-mail: HTG@claimscon.org
or visit the Website: http://www.HungarianGoldTrain.org.  


KIA MOTORS: Recalls 24,119 Kia Rio Cars Due To Accident Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kia Motors America, Inc. is cooperating with the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) by voluntarily
recalling 24,119 Kia Rio cars, model 2001.

Certain passenger vehicles may have a manufacturing flaw that
could cause the wheels to crack under long term driving fatigue.  
If cracks occur, wheel noise and vibration will result and
become progressively worse over time.  If the crack is severe,
the wheel could separate from the vehicle and possibly result in
loss of vehicle control and a crash.

Dealers will replace all four wheels.  The recall is expected to
begin on May 31,2005.  For more details, contact the Company by
Phone: 1-800-333-4542 or the NHTSA's auto safety hotline:
1-888-327-4236.


MERRILL LYNCH: NY Arbitration Panel Awards Couple $164,000
----------------------------------------------------------
A New York based NASD arbitration panel, which included former
New York State Assemblyman John Duane Esq. as the Chairman,
ordered Merrill Lynch Pierce, Fenner & Smith (Merrill Lynch), to
pay a New Jersey couple $164,842.57 and to pay all $9,000 in
arbitration fees. The couple sought a total of $188,443 in
losses, all related to their investment in Internet Capital
Group Inc (Nasdaq:ICGE) a public internet company and thus
recovered 87% of their losses from the award which was assigned
case number 03-06839.

The couple claimed that they were defrauded by Merrill Lynch as
a result of the fraudulent research published by Merrill Lynch
and relied upon by their Merrill Lynch broker in recommending
ICGE to them.  The Claim which arose out of the historic New
York Attorney General's investigation/settlement, asserted that
Merrill Lynch's research department was conflicted due to the
influence of its investment banking department and that, as a
result, fraudulent ratings were issued and maintained with
regard to ICGE.  The couple remains clients of the same broker
who is still with Merrill Lynch.  The broker, Michael Paolone,
was not named as a Respondent in the arbitration since the
couple did not blame him for the losses and asserted that, like
many Merrill Lynch brokers, he was also misled.  The couple did
not assert that they were sent or directly relied upon any
research report, but that the broker had informed them that he
was relying upon Merrill Lynch's research in making the
recommendations.  

Further, an email from the broker inquiring with Mr. Blodget was
introduced into evidence. The broker's email expressed concern
about ICGE and the many clients that the broker had recommended
the stock to. Among the many Attorney General related email's
submitted included comments from Mr. Blodget such as an August
12, 2000 email stating "I'm now officially scared to death of
ICGE", while Merrill Lynch maintained a Buy rating on the stock.
During the hearing the broker testified that he allegedly did
not rely upon Merrill Lynch's rating system in making the
recommendation and he testified that he utilized three magazine
articles written about ICGE in forming his recommendation on the
stock as well as the research. However, in cross examination it
was pointed out that the date of the last article was six months
before the couple first purchased the stock and that in the
interim Merrill Lynch issued numerous research reports,
including one just two weeks before the couple first purchase of
the stock on March 22, 2000 at $110 per share. In addition,
excerpts of Merrill Lynch's compliance manual were submitted in
evidence, which established that the broker could not have
recommended the stock to the Claimants without the stock being
covered by Merrill Lynch along with a buy or accumulate ratings.

Although former Merrill Lynch Senior Internet Analyst Henry
Blodget's appearance as a witness was sought by the Claimants,
Mr. Blodget, through his lawyer, refused to voluntarily appear
before the arbitration panel.  In the end, the Panel apparently
agreed with the Claimants in awarding them 87% of their damages
and ordering that Merrill Lynch pay for all the arbitration and
filing fees.

Representing the Claimant was securities arbitration attorney
Stuart D. Meissner who commented on the award: "This case could
not have been brought, but for the release of information from
Attorney General Spitzer's investigation. It is apparent that
the arbitrators agreed that, like many investors, Merrill Lynch
defrauded the Claimants in its quest for investment banking
revenues. He continued "I hope that this Panel's message to the
industry was heard loud and clear -- if you permit the
defrauding of your own clients for the sake of investment
banking revenues, it very well may come back to haunt you".

Stuart D. Meissner Esq. was formerly a prosecutor in the Trial
Division of the Manhattan District Attorney's Office and was
also a prosecutor in the Securities Investor Protection and
Financial Crimes units of the New York State Attorney General's
Office under both Eliot Spitzer and his predecessor, prior to
entering private practice.  The Meissner Law Firm is
investigating other matters related to Merrill Lynch's
recommendation of the following stocks: ICGE, ATHM, AETH, CMGI,
DCLK, INSP, TFSM, OPWV, HOMS.

For more details, contact Stuart D. Meissner of Stuart Meissner
LLC by Phone: 212-764-3100 or visit the Website:
http://www.stockesq.com.


NEW MILLENIUM: FTC Bares Consent Antitrust Violations Order
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced a consent order
settling charges that an independent practice association,
representing two orthopaedic groups in Cincinnati, Ohio,
violated antitrust laws by jointly negotiating contracts
regarding the rates its physician members would charge health
plans and other payors for their services.

Under the terms of the order, New Millennium Orthopaedics, LLC
(NMO) will be disbanded and its two constituent groups will be
prohibited from similar collective bargaining in the future.  
The consent order settles the Commission's complaint against the
following respondents: NMO; Orthopaedic Consultants of
Cincinnati, Inc., d/b/a Wellington Orthopaedics & Sports
Medicine (Wellington), and Beacon Orthopaedics & Sports Medicine
(Beacon).

NMO is a single-specialty independent practice association that
consists of two orthopaedic physician groups - Wellington and
Beacon. Both Wellington, which has 22 orthopaedic physician
members, and Beacon, which has 10, provide surgical and
nonsurgical orthopaedic services in and around Cincinnati.

The FTC alleges that in 2002, Wellington and Beacon formed NMO
to act as their negotiating agent with health plans. Through
NMO, the two groups agreed on prices to propose to health plans
for all of the services their physicians provided. In August
2002, NMO representatives sent letters to the four major health
plans in Cincinnati proposing an arrangement that would
implement a guaranteed base fee schedule and bonus scheme for
NMO's participating physicians.

The agreed-upon bonus scheme would reward all NMO physicians
with higher base rates if NMO, as a whole, met established
performance targets for increasing the percentage of surgical
procedures performed by some NMO physicians at ambulatory
surgery centers (ASCs). The bonus scheme targeted only one
aspect of the practices of some NMO physicians - outpatient
surgery. Thus, the measured change in the physicians' behavior
was limited to the movement of patients to ASCs. Nevertheless,
all NMO physicians, including non-surgeons, would receive higher
reimbursement rates as a result of the joint negotiations.

The Commission also alleges that NMO performed no role in
enhancing the ability of the physicians to increase the number
of procedures performed at ASCs instead of at hospitals. For
example, NMO allegedly did not implement any enforcement
mechanisms to monitor and control the physicians' compliance
with the bonus scheme.

The complaint alleges that, while one of the health plans agreed
to NMO's terms, three others did not. Nevertheless, NMO
continued to attempt to negotiate with the other plans into
2004. NMO enforced its joint negotiation efforts with one of the
three resistant health plans by refusing to deal with it except
under a contract that was favorable to the group. Both
Wellington and Beacon later jointly terminated their individual
agreements with the health plan at the direction of NMO's board
of directors to pursue contracts through NMO.

According to the Commission's complaint, Wellington and Beacon,
through NMO, violated Section 5 of the FTC Act by orchestrating
and implementing agreements between competing orthopaedic
physician groups to fix prices charged to health plans, and by
refusing to deal with one of the health plans that would not
agree to the collectively determined terms.

The Commission's consent order is designed to prevent the
illegal anticompetitive conduct alleged in the complaint. In
addition to requiring the dissolution of NMO, it specifically
prohibits the respondents from entering into or facilitating
agreements between or among any health care providers:

     (1) to negotiate on behalf of any physician with any payor;

     (2) to deal, refuse to deal, or threaten to refuse to deal
         with any payor;

     (3) to designate the terms, conditions, or requirements
         upon which any physician deals, or is willing to deal,
         with any payor, including, but not limited to price
         terms;

     (4) not to deal individually with any payor, or not to deal
         with any payor through any arrangement other than NMO

Certain kinds of agreements, however, are excluded from the
general ban on joint negotiations, including "qualified risk-
sharing joint arrangements" or "qualified clinically integrated
joint arrangements." As defined in the order, a "qualified risk-
sharing joint arrangement" must satisfy two conditions. First,
all physician participants must share substantial financial risk
through the arrangement and thereby create incentives for the
physician participants jointly to control costs and improve
quality by managing the provision of services. Second, any
agreement concerning reimbursement or other terms or conditions
of dealing must be reasonably necessary to obtain significant
efficiencies through the joint arrangement.

A "qualified clinically-integrated joint arrangement" also must
satisfy two conditions. First, all physician participants must
participate in active and ongoing programs to evaluate and
modify their clinical practice patterns, creating a high degree
of interdependence and cooperation among physicians, to control
costs and ensure the quality of services provided. Second, any
agreement concerning reimbursement or other terms or conditions
of dealing must be reasonably necessary to obtain significant
efficiencies through the joint arrangement.

To eliminate the effects of NMO's joint price-setting behavior,
the terms of the consent order require Wellington and Beacon to
notify any payors who had communications with NMO about the
payors' right to terminate their agreements with Wellington and
Beacon. The order also contains standard record keeping and
reporting requirements to assist the FTC in monitoring the
respondents' compliance.

The Commission vote to place the consent order on the public
record for comment and publish a copy in the Federal Register
was 5-0. The Commission is accepting comments on the order for
30 days, until May 31, 2005, after which it will decide whether
to make it final. Comments should be sent to: FTC Office of the
Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Washington, DC 20580.

Copies of the complaint, consent order, and an analysis to aid
in public comment are available from the FTC's Web site at
http://www.ftc.govand also from the FTC's Consumer Response  
Center, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington,
D.C. 20580. The FTC's Bureau of Competition seeks to prevent
business practices that restrain competition. The Bureau carries
out its mission by investigating alleged law violations and,
when appropriate, recommending that the Commission take formal
enforcement action. To notify the Bureau concerning particular
business practices, call or write the Office of Policy and
Evaluation, Room 394, Bureau of Competition, Federal Trade
Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Ave, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580,
Electronic Mail: antitrust@ftc.gov; Telephone (202) 326-3300.
For more information on the laws that the Bureau enforces, the
Commission has published "Promoting Competition, Protecting
Consumers: A Plain English Guide to Antitrust Laws," which can
be accessed at http://www.ftc.gov/bc/compguide/index.htm.


NRG ENERGY: Appeals Court Nixes Rehearing of Energy Suit Remand
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the
petition for rehearing a lower court's decision remanding the
wholesale electricity antitrust litigation against NRG Energy,
Inc. and other energy companies to state court.

The litigation, styled "In re: Wholesale Electricity Antitrust
Litigation, MDL 1405," is pending in the United States District
Court, Southern District of California.  The cases included in
this proceeding are:

     (1) Pamela R Gordon, on Behalf of Herself and All Others
         Similarly Situated v Reliant Energy, Inc. et al., Case
         No. 758487, Superior Court of the State of California,
         County of San Diego (filed on November 27, 2000);

     (2) Ruth Hendricks, On Behalf of Herself and All Others
         Similarly Situated and On Behalf of the General Public
         v. Dynegy Power Marketing, Inc. et al., Case No.
         758565, Superior Court of the State of California,
         County of San Diego (filed November 29, 2000)

     (3) The People of the State of California, by and through
         San Francisco City Attorney Louise H. Renne v. Dynegy
         Power Marketing, Inc. et al., Case No. 318189, Superior
         Court of California, San Francisco County (filed
         January 18, 2001)

     (4) Pier 23 Restaurant, A California Partnership, On Behalf
         of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated v PG&E
         Energy Trading et al., Case No. 318343, Superior Court
         of California, San Francisco County (filed January 24,
         2001)

     (5) Sweetwater Authority, et al. v. Dynegy, Inc. et al.,
         Case No. 760743, Superior Court of California, County
         of San Diego (filed January 16, 2001)

     (6) Cruz M Bustamante, individually, and Barbara Matthews,
         individually, and on behalf of the general public and
         as a representative taxpayer suit, v. Dynegy Inc. et
         al., inclusive, Case No. BC249705, Superior Court of
         California, Los Angeles County (filed May 2, 2001)

The Company is a defendant in all of the above referenced cases.  
Several of West Coast Power's (WCP) operating subsidiaries are
also defendants in the "Bustamante" case. The cases allege
unfair competition, market manipulation and price fixing and all
seek treble damages, restitution and injunctive relief.

In December 2002, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California issued an opinion finding that federal
jurisdiction was absent in the district court, and remanding the
cases back to state court. A notice of appeal was filed and on
December 8, 2004, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit issued its published, unanimous decision affirming the
District Court in most respects.  On March 5, 2005, the Ninth
Circuit denied a petition for rehearing.  The Company
anticipates that the cases will be remanded to state court in
2005 at which time the defendants will again raise filed-rate
and federal preemption challenges.


PACIFIC PREMIER: NY Court Approves Securities Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York approved the settlement of the consolidated securities
class action filed against Pacific Premier Bancorp, Inc.,
certain of its officers, directors, and third parties, styled
"Funke v. Life Financial, et al."

The suit asserts claims under the Exchange Act and the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended in connection with purchases
and sales of the Corporation's common stock in its 1997 public
offering.  The plaintiffs' Exchange Act cause of action was
dismissed and the parties have signed a proposed settlement
agreement with regard to the remaining cause of action.

Under the proposed settlement agreement, the defendants have
collectively agreed to pay and have paid $825,000 (of which the
Company paid $120,000). The court held a Fairness Hearing
regarding the proposed settlement on March 2, 2005 and approved
the settlement proposal.


PACIFIC PREMIER: Asks MO Court To Dismiss Interest Rate Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Premier Bancorp, Inc. asked the Circuit Court of Clay
County, Missouri to dismiss a class action filed against it,
alleging various violations of Missouri's Second Mortgage Loans
Act by charging and receiving fees and costs that were either
wholly prohibited by or in excess of that allowed by the Act
state laws relating to origination fees, interest rates, and
other charges.

The class action lawsuit seeks restitution of all improperly
collected charges and interest plus the right to rescind the
mortgage loans or a right to offset any illegally collected
charges and interest against the principal amounts due on the
loans.  The Bank has filed a motion to be dismissed from the
lawsuit, which motion is now pending before the court.


RIDLEY INC.: Quebec Farmers Sue V. May 2003 U.S. Border Closure
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ridley Inc. (TSX:RCL) faces a class action lawsuit filed by a
Quebec farmer, claiming damages allegedly suffered due to the
closing of the U.S. border to Canadian cattle exports in May,
2003 after the discovery of a BSE infected cow in Alberta,
Canada.  The suit also names as defendants the Solicitor General
of Canada and the Ministry of Agriculture Canada.

The Company also disclosed that it expects similar lawsuits will
be filed in other Canadian provinces.  The Company has now
obtained copies of the statements of claims that have been filed
in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Ontario. Ontario has been proposed
as the jurisdiction for any potential claimants residing in the
remaining Canadian provinces.

The Company has not yet formally been served with all of the
statements of claim but a review of the court filings indicates
that the allegations against it are substantially similar. As
previously reported by the Company, the allegations are that it
should have unilaterally discontinued using ruminant meat and
bone meal in its cattle feed even prior to the enactment of
uniform U.S. and Canadian regulations banning their use in
August 1997.  In the more recent filings it is alleged that the
Company was the supplier of feed to the affected Alberta cow
early in its life before the 1997 ban was in effect. Nothing in
any of the four filings directly connects the Company to any of
the complainants.

According to newspaper articles and media releases issued
earlier this week which were attributed to the Ontario
plaintiff's counsel, the filings in the four provinces appear to
be a coordinated effort by 4 or 5 plaintiffs to encourage others
to join them in class action law suits to seek compensation from
the Federal Government in connection with the U.S./Canada border
closure to Canadian beef. "Unfortunately, Ridley Inc. has been
included in these actions without any justification insofar as
we are aware," said Ridley Inc. President and CEO, Steven
VanRoekel in a statement.

At the conclusion of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's May,
2003 BSE investigation authorities found no wrongdoing on the
part of Ridley Inc. Mr. Steven VanRoekel repeated the Company's
previous statement that "we take the threat of BSE very
seriously; food safety and quality assurance continue to be a
top priority for us and we have at all times been in full
compliance with CFIA standards relevant to the May, 2003 BSE
case".  The Company discontinued the use of ruminant meat and
bone meal in its cattle feed formulae prior to the CFIA ban.

"When we learned of the court filing in Quebec, we immediately
took steps to disclose this information and to alert the market
to the possibility of these additional class actions" Mr.
VanRoekel said in a statement.  "Now that these three additional
filings have been made, we will proceed to vigorously defend our
position."

Ridley Corporation Limited of Sydney, Australia, which owns 70%
of the Company is also identified as a defendant in the Ontario,
Saskatchewan and Alberta filings. Compensation damages are
sought from the named defendants in each of the filings. In
addition, the Alberta filing seeks punitive damages against the
Company and Ridley Corporation Limited of an unspecified amount
and each of the Ontario and Saskatchewan filings allege punitive
damages against them in the amount of $100,000,000. Ridley Inc.
understands that it is not unusual for plaintiffs to allege
damages in excessive amounts; actual damages, if any, must be
proven to the satisfaction of the courts.

Ridley Inc., headquartered in Mankato, Minnesota and Winnipeg,
Manitoba, is one of North America's leading commercial animal
nutrition companies. Ridley Inc. manufactures and/or distributes
a full range of animal nutrition products under a number of
highly regarded trade names.  For more information, contact
Steve VanRoekel, Ridley Inc. President/CEO by Phone:
(507) 388-9618 or Mike Mitchell, Ridley Inc. Chief Financial
Officer by Phone: (507) 388-9618.


RIGGS NATIONAL: Reaches Settlement For DE Lawsuit V. PNC Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Riggs National Corporation reached a settlement for the amended
consolidated shareholder derivative and class action filed
against certain of the current and former members of its board
of directors in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware,
In and For New Castle County.

On April 7, 2004 and April 28, 2004, Company shareholders filed
substantially similar purported derivative actions in the Court
of Chancery of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle
County.  On April 17, 2004, Company shareholders filed a
purported derivative action in the Superior Court of the
District of Columbia against the same defendants.  The
complaints each allege that the directors violated their
fiduciary duties in relation to a variety of matters, including,
among others, the compliance by the Company with various anti-
money laundering laws and various aspects of Riggs Bank's
international and embassy businesses.  The lawsuits each seek,
on behalf of the Company, among other things, monetary damages
and certain types of equitable relief.

The two Delaware actions have been consolidated and on November
19, 2004 the plaintiffs filed a consolidated and amended
complaint challenging the terms of the original merger agreement
the Company entered into with The PNC Financial Corporation.  
The consolidated and amended complaint repeated and supplemented
the allegations and claims in the original purported derivative
actions and added a shareholder class action claim against the
directors. The consolidated and amended complaint also sought to
enjoin the PNC transaction on the grounds that the proxy
statement (which was preliminary at the time) did not adequately
disclose the alleged breaches by the directors and their real,
allegedly self-interested, reasons for the transaction.  

On January 31, 2005, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss
the Delaware action in its entirety. On February 22, 2005, the
plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint that added a class
claim against the Company directors asserting that the directors
violated their fiduciary duties by failing to auction the
Company after PNC allegedly attempted to abandon the original
merger.

On February 25, 2005, the Company and PNC entered into an
agreement in principle with plaintiff's counsel to settle the
Delaware action.  In the settlement, PNC will contribute
$2.7 million in cash into a settlement fund to be distributed to
all public stockholders of the Company (other than persons named
as defendants in the Delaware action and their affiliates). In
addition, PNC has agreed that the maximum amount of the
termination fee payable under the parties' amended merger
agreement will be reduced from $30 million to $23 million, and
plaintiffs' counsel in the action was afforded the opportunity
to review and comment on the proxy statement/prospectus relating
to the merger before it was filed on February 25, 2005. The
settlement will provide for a dismissal of the Delaware
litigation with prejudice and the complete release of all claims
that the Company and its stockholders may have during the period
from July 15, 2004 through the completion of the merger against
the Company, the Riggs director defendants or PNC, which arise
out of, or relate to, the Company's banking practices or the
proposed merger. The settlement is subject to completion of the
merger and customary conditions, including negotiation of a
definitive settlement agreement and approval by the Delaware
Court of Chancery.


RIGGS NATIONAL: Plaintiffs Launch Amended Derivative Suit in DC
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed an amended class action against Riggs National
Corporation and the current and former members of the Company's
and Riggs Bank's board of directors in the United States
District Court for the District of Columbia.

On November 18, 2004, Freeport Partners, LLC filed the suit,
alleging that the Company allegedly deficient anti-money
laundering program resulted in violations by the defendants of
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act and
breaches by the defendants of their fiduciary duties.  The
lawsuit seeks, among other things, recovery of economic damages
and attorneys' fees.

On February 17, 2005 the defendants filed a motion to dismiss
the complaint.  On March 14, 2005 plaintiff filed an amended
complaint dropping as defendants all directors who had never
been employees of the Company and added allegations regarding
the amended and restated merger agreement with The PNC Financial
Corporation.  The remaining defendants will be responding to the
amended complaint.


SEITEL INC.: Plaintiffs Asks TX Court To Approve Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs asked the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas to approve the settlement for the
securities class action filed against Seitel, Inc. and certain
of its former and current officers and directors, styled "In re
Seitel, Inc. Securities Litigation, case no. No. 02-1566."

Eleven suits were initially filed, alleging violations of
federal securities laws, all of which were consolidated by an
Order entered August 7, 2002.  The court appointed a lead
plaintiff and lead counsel for plaintiffs, who subsequently
filed a consolidated amended complaint, which added the
Company's previous auditors, Ernst & Young LLP, as a defendant.

The consolidated amended complaint alleged that during a
proposed class period of May 5, 2000 through April 1, 2002, the
defendants violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
and Exchange Act of 1934 by overstating revenues in violation of
generally accepted accounting principles. The plaintiffs sought
an unspecified amount of actual and exemplary damages, costs of
court, pre- and post-judgment interest and attorneys' and
experts' fees.

The class representatives and the Debtors have entered into a
memorandum of understanding, which contemplates allowance of a
"class claim" to assert the rights of the class in the Chapter
11 Cases and an ultimate settlement for cash to be funded out of
the Debtors' cash and directors' and officers' insurance
policies. The memorandum of understanding was approved upon
notice and a hearing by order of the Bankruptcy Court dated
December 10, 2003.  The Company funded its portion of the
settlement amount ($980,000) to an escrow account in 2003. The
parties have since finalized their settlement agreement, which
contains terms substantially in accordance with the terms of the
memorandum of understanding. On December 29, 2004, the
Bankruptcy Court granted the Company's motion for approval of
the parties' full settlement agreement.  To complete the
settlement, approvals must be obtained from the District
Court.  On January 5, 2005, the lead plaintiff filed a motion
with the District Court regarding such approval and a hearing
has been set for April 29, 2005.  The hearing has been reset to
May 6,2005.

The suit is styled "IN re Seitel Inc. Shareholder Litigation,
case no. 4:02-cv-01566," filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Texas, under Judge Vanessa D.
Gilmore.  Representing the plaintiffs are Carl L. Stine of Wolf
Popper LLP, 845 Third Ave New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-451-9631
Fax: 212-486-2093; and Richard J. Zook of Cunningham Darlow et
al, 600 Travis Ste 1700 Houston, TX 77002 Phone: 713-255-5500
Fax: 713-255-5555.  Representing the Company is Katherine A.
Compton of Greenberg Traurig, 13155 Noel Rd Ste 600 Dallas, TX
75240 Phone: 972-419-1286 Fax: 972-628-4601.


SEITEL INC.: TX High Court Nixes Certiorari For Suit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Texas Supreme Court denied plaintiffs' petition for
certiorari related to the dismissal of the class action filed
against Seitel, Inc. and its subsidiary, Seitel
Data, Ltd., styled "Juan O. Villarreal v. Grant Geophysical,
Inc., et al., Cause No. DC-00-214."

The suit, filed in the 229th District Court of Starr County,
Texas, alleges geophysical trespass.  The plaintiffs allege that
certain defendants conducted unauthorized 3-D seismic
exploration of the mineral interests by obtaining seismic data
on adjoining property, and sold the information obtained to
other defendants. The plaintiffs sought an unspecified amount of
damages.

All defendants obtained summary judgments dismissing the
plaintiffs' claims, and the plaintiffs appealed to the San
Antonio Court of Appeals under Cause No. 04-02-00674-CV. During
the pendency of the Company's bankruptcy proceedings, the San
Antonio Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision as
to the Company's co-defendants and stayed the appeal as to the
Company.  The Texas Supreme Court denied plaintiffs Petition for
Certiorari, refusing to hear the matter.  The San Antonio Court
of Appeals will not reinstate plaintiffs' appeal as to the
Company's summary judgment against plaintiffs until the
plaintiffs obtain a certified order lifting the bankruptcy stay.
The plaintiff filed an unliquidated claim (amount unspecified)
in the Chapter 11 Cases.  The Company objected to this claim
which remains pending.


SHURGARD STORAGE: CA Court Limits Class in Consumer Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of California for Orange County limited the
class in the lawsuit filed against Shurgard Storage Centers,
Inc., styled "Gary Drake v. Shurgard Storage Centers, Inc. et al
(Case No. 02CC00152)."

The complaint alleged that the Company misrepresents the size of
its storage units, seeks class action status and seeks damages,
injunctive relief and declaratory relief against the Company
under California statutory and common law relating to consumer
protection, unfair competition, fraud and deceit and negligent
misrepresentation.

The Court recently ruled that the class of potential members in
this lawsuit is limited to California customers of the Company.
No class has yet been certified.  In a filing with the
Securities and Exchange Commission, the Company said that it
does not currently believe that the outcome of this litigation
will have a material adverse effect on its financial position,
results of operations or cash flows.


SHURGARD STORAGE: Working To Settle CA Overtime Violations Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shurgard Storage Centers, Inc. is working on the settlement of
the class action filed against it in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California styled as
"Patricia Scura et al. v. Shurgard Storage Centers, Inc. (Case
No. C 02-5246-WDB)."

The complaint alleges that the Company required its hourly store
employees to perform work before and after their scheduled work
times and failed to pay overtime compensation for work performed
before and after hours and during meal periods. The lawsuit
seeks class action status and seeks damages, injunctive relief
and a declaratory judgment against the Company under the federal
Fair Labor Standards Act and California statutory wage and hour
laws and laws relating to unlawful and unfair business
practices.

In December 2004, the Company reached a tentative agreement to
settle this lawsuit. The basis terms of the proposed agreement
are reflected in a Memorandum of Understanding which will be
incorporated into a definitive settlement agreement that must be
submitted for approval by the District Court.  Notwithstanding
this proposed agreement, and as an express part thereof, the
Company continues to deny any and all allegations of wrongdoing
raised by this lawsuit.  The Company recognized a $2.75 million
liability for the proposed settlement in December 2004.

The suit is styled "Scura et al v. Shurgard Storage Centers,
Inc., case no. 3:02-cv-05246," filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, under
Judge Charles R. Breyer.  Representing the plaintiffs are J.E.B.
Pickett and Matthew Rigetti of Righetti Wynne, 456 Montgomery
Street Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: 415 983 0900 E-
mail: jebp@righettilaw.com, or matt@righettilaw.com.  
Representing the Company is Clemens H. Barnes and James D.
DeRoche of Perkins Coie LLP, 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4800
Seattle, WA 98101-3099  Phone: 206-359-3861 E-mail:
jderoche@perkinscoie.com.


SHURGARD STORAGE: Shareholders Lodge Stock Fraud Suit in W.D. WA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shurgard Storage Centers, Inc. faces a securities class action
filed in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Washington.

On January 19, 2005, David Gross filed a purported class action
suit styled as "David Gross v. Shurgard Storage Centers, Inc.,
Charles K. Barbo, and Harrell L. Beck. (Case No. CV05-0098)."  
The suit alleges violations of federal securities law.  Mr.
Gross claimed that the Company made material misleading
misstatements and omissions relating to the Company's financial
statements in various public statements and filings, which Mr.
Gross alleges led to the artificial inflation of our stock
price.  On March 9, 2005, the Company received a copy of a
Notice of Dismissal without Prejudice filed by the law firms
that had represented the plaintiffs.

On March 15, 2005, the law firms in the Gross matter filed a
class action suit in U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington styled as "Stephen Zak, et al. v.
Shurgard Storage Centers, Inc., Charles K. Barbo, and Harrell
Beck (Case No. CV05-0417C)."  The suit alleges violations of
federal securities law and makes substantially similar claims to
those in the Gross complaint above.  The suit seeks unspecified
damages including attorneys' fees and costs.

The remaining suit is styled "Zak v. Shurgard Storage Centers
Inc et al., case no. 2:05-cv-00417-JCC," filed in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Washington,
under Judge John C. Coughenour.  Representing the Company is
Stellman Keehnel, DLA PIPER RUDNICK GRAY CARY US LLP, 701 Fifth
Avenue, Ste 7000, Seattle WA 98104-7044 Phone: 206-839-4800
E-mail: stellman.keehnel@dlapiper.com.  Representing the
plaintiffs is Steve W. Berman, HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
1301 5th Ave. Ste 2900, Seattle WA 98101 Phone: 206-623-7292
E-mail: steve@hagens-berman.com


SODEXHO ALLIANCE: Shares Move 5.85% After Race Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
French food and hospitality management firm Sodexho Alliance saw
its shares move up 5.85% early this week after it bared the $80
million settlement it entered into for the class action filed
against it by black employees who charged that they were
routinely barred from promotions and segregated within the
company, The Financial Times reports.

The case was filed in March 2001 against the Company's corporate
predecessor, Sodexho Marriott Services, Inc., after midlevel
black managers said they realized nearly all had been denied
promotions into upper management, while less-qualified
counterparts rose through the company. It was filed on behalf of
2,600 employees, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (April
29,2005) reports.

U.S. District Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle ruled that the Company
would go on trial in the spring.  The Company agreed in late
April 2005 to pay compensation of up to $80 million to the
plaintiffs in the class action, without admitting any fault.  
Some 2,400 African-American employees of the French group are
likely to benefit.  The settlement will mean payouts to 10 lead
plaintiffs and as many as 3,000 other black salaried workers who
worked at the company between 1998 and 2004, according to the
settlement decree. It further stated that the compensation
amounts would depend on each person's tenure with the company
with those hired after 2001 receiving $2,000 each and those
hired before that getting $492 for each month of employment at
Sodexho up to a maximum of 120 months. The lead plaintiffs will
also receive $120,000 each.


TEXTAINER EQUIPMENT: Investors Lodge Securities Fraud Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Textainer Equipment Income Fund VI, L.P. (Registrant) faces a
class action filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, captioned "Robert Lewis and
City Partnerships Co., Plaintiffs v. Textainer Equipment Income
Fund II, L.P.; Textainer Equipment Income Fund III, L.P.;
Textainer Equipment Income Fund IV, L.P.; Textainer Equipment
Income Fund V, L.P.; Textainer Equipment Income Fund VI, L.P.;
Textainer Equipment Management Limited; Textainer Financial
Services Corporation; Textainer Capital Corporation; Textainer
Group Holdings Limited; John A. Maccarone; and RFH, LTD.,
Defendants,  Case No. C 05 0969 MMC."

The complaint seeks certification as a class action on behalf of
holders of limited partnership units of the Registrant and the
other partnerships named in the complaint.  The complaint refers
to the proxy statement sent on or about January 20, 2005 in
connection with the Special Meeting of Limited Partners held on
March 21, 2005 for the Registrant.  The complaint alleges
securities law violations, by material misstatements and
omissions in the proxy statement, and also breaches of fiduciary
duties by the General Partners.  Plaintiffs claim that the proxy
statement fails to disclose facts that suggest that the purchase
price the Partnership is receiving from the Asset Sale is
inadequate.  The alleged omitted fact is that the prices of
shipping containers have risen since the time that the terms of
sale were initially agreed to in July 2004.  The General
Partners are also alleged to have had conflicts of interest and
self dealing unfair to the Limited Partners in that they
required that any purchaser retain one of the general partner
entities as managing agent for the containers purchased in the
Asset Sale, thereby continuing to profit from the increased
prices of shipping containers.  The complaint further alleges
that RFH Ltd. (the Buyer) aided and abetted the General Partners
in the breach of fiduciary duties.

The complaint seeks an injunction against proceeding with the
Special Meeting, an injunction against engaging in the Asset
Sale or in the alternative if the injunction is not granted, a
rescission of the Asset Sale or damages in an unspecified
amount.  On March 18, 2005, the request for a temporary
restraining order was denied.


TEXTAINER EQUIPMENT: Shareholders Launch Securities Suit in CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Textainer Equipment Income Fund VI, LP (Registrant) faces a
class action filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, captioned "Alan P. Gordon, as
Trustee for the Gordon Family Trust, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Textainer
Financial Services Corporation; Textainer Equipment Management
Limited; Textainer Limited; Textainer Capital Corporation;
Textainer Group Holdings Limited; John A. Maccarone; and RFH,
LTD., Defendants, and TCC Equipment  Income Fund, a California  
Limited Partnership; Textainer Equipment Income Fund II, L.P.;  
Textainer Equipment Income Fund III, L.P.; Textainer Equipment
Income Fund IV, L.P.; Textainer Equipment Income Fund V, L.P.;
and Textainer Equipment Income Fund VI, L.P., Nominal  
Defendants," Case No. C 05 1146 CRB."

The second complaint seeks certification as a class action on
behalf of holders of limited partnership units of the Registrant
and the other partnerships named in the complaint.  This second
complaint also alleges material misstatements and omissions in
the proxy statement, resulting in securities law violations,
which in turn are alleged to have deprived the plaintiffs of a
legitimate voting process with respect to the Asset Sale. One of
the material misstatements and/or omissions alleged in the proxy
statement is that the price at which the assets are to be sold
is materially lower than current market values for the assets.
The plaintiffs are alleged to suffer substantial damages upon
consummation of the Asset Sale. This second complaint further
alleges breaches of fiduciary duty by the general partners,
Textainer Group Holdings Limited, and Mr. Maccarone, due to the
facts that:

     (1) solicitation of bids with respect to the Asset Sale was
         conditioned on the buyer's acceptance of a management
         agreement with one of the general partners covering the
         assets sold, which condition is alleged to have
         deterred competing container leasing companies from
         bidding for the assets and

     (2) the Asset Sale Agreement allowed for the purchase  
         price paid to be adjusted downward during a time when
         the prices for used containers are alleged to have been
         increasing.  

A further breach of fiduciary duty is alleged on account of the
failure to disclose all material facts concerning transactions
in which the defendants named in the preceding sentence had a
financial interest.  RFH, Ltd. is also alleged to have aided and
abetted these breaches of fiduciary duty.

The second complaint seeks an injunction against the Asset Sale,
or if the Asset Sale is consummated, the imposition of a
constructive trust on the assets sold and the sales proceeds
received, a constructive trust on the receipt of fees paid under
the management agreement between one of the general partners and
RFH and disgorgement of those fees to the plaintiffs, damages in
an unspecified amount, interest, reasonable attorneys' and
experts' fees and costs.


WEST PUBLISHING: Lawyers Launch Antitrust Violations Suit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
More than 300,000 lawyers and law students were each charged an
estimated $1,000 extra for bar review courses, according to a
complaint filed against BAR/BRI bar review and The West
Publishing Corporation and Kaplan, Inc. in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California Case No. CV 053222R
(NCx) in Los Angeles.

The Company, doing business as BAR/BRI, and Kaplan are joined as
defendants in a class action lawsuit accusing the two companies
of illegally dividing the highly lucrative LSAT and bar exam
test preparation businesses. According to the complaint,
executives of BAR/BRI and Kaplan secretly agreed to a per se
illegal market division.

BAR/BRI agreed to close its Law School Aptitude Test (LSAT)
preparation course from the market in which Kaplan was the
dominant competitor. Kaplan, in turn, agreed not to enter the
full-service bar review business, in which BAR/BRI was the
dominant competitor. The two companies then entered into an
agreement to work together "strategically" to enhance Kaplan's
share of the LSAT market and to increase BAR/BRI's control of
the bar review market.

The complaint further alleges that at the time this agreement
was entered into, Kaplan had entered into a letter of intent to
acquire bar review materials and begin bar review courses across
the country in competition with BAR/BRI. After Kaplan worked out
its market division arrangement with BAR/BRI, it unilaterally
terminated that agreement and abandoned all plans to compete
against BAR/BRI. As a result, competition has been dramatically
reduced, and law students and lawyers have overpaid
substantially for their bar review courses ever since.

The "name plaintiffs" Ryan Rodriguez and Reena B. Frailich are
suing on behalf of about 300,000 law students and attorneys to
recover damages of some $300 million, plus costs. Under federal
antitrust law, any recovered damages are automatically trebled.

Kaplan claims that it is the nation's largest test preparation
company. It prepares students for virtually every standardized
exam. However, it does not prepare candidates for the bar exam.
BAR/BRI claims that it prepares more than 95 percent of all
students sitting for the bar exam in any year.

Representing the plaintiffs is the law firm of Van Etten
Suzumoto & Becket LLP, of Santa Monica, Calif. The lead attorney
is antitrust trial lawyer Eliot G. Disner.


                 Meetings, Conferences & Seminars
  
* Featured Conference
-------------------------

Don't miss NorthStar Conferences' "The Class Action Litigation
Summit," which will take place June 8-9, 2005 in New York City.
In this time of increased corporate scrutiny, businesses are
more susceptible than ever to the threat of a national class
action. You will get up-to-the-minute information and strategic
advice directly from seasoned practitioners. Inside and outside
counsel will share a variety of perspectives on how to
anticipate, prevent, contain, and prepare for litigation.

For more information; call 1-866-265-1975 or visit
http://www.northstarconferences.com/conferences.asp?code=56LAW01
&pcode=CAR1.


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

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

May 11, 2005
BEXTRAr and CELEBREXr Litigation BROKER AND INSURANCE COMPANY
PRACTICES AND LIABILITIES CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Fairmont Hotel, Chicago, IL
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

May 01-31, 2005
HBA PRESENTS: AUTOMOBILE LITIGATION: DISPUTES AMONG
CONSUMERS, DEALERS, FINANCE COMPANIES AND FLOORPLANNERS
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

May 01-31, 2005
CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION DEFECT
LIABILITY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

May 01-31, 2005
HBA PRESENTS: ETHICS IN PERSONAL INJURY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

May 01-31, 2005
IN-HOUSE COUNSEL AND WRONGFUL DISCHARGE CLAIMS:
CONFLICT WITH CONFIDENTIALITY?
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

May 01-31, 2005
BAYLOR LAW SCHOOL PRESENTS: 2004 GENERAL PRACTICE INSTITUTE --
FAMILY LAW, DISCIPLINARY SYSTEM, CIVIL LITIGATION, INSURANCE
& CONSUMER LAW UPDATES
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

June 15, 2005
IT AND NETWORKING SECURITY TELECONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

AVAYA INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Initiates Securities Suit in NJ
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities
class action in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey on behalf of all securities purchasers of
Avaya Inc. (NYSE: AV) between October 5, 2004 and April 4, 2005,
inclusive.

The complaint charges the Company, Donald Peterson, Garry
McGuire, Sr., and Amarnath K. Pai with violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  More specifically, the
Complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose and
misrepresented the following material adverse facts which were
known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) that the costs of the Tenovis merger was greater than
         represented; as such, the Tenovis merger would not be
         accretive on Avaya's earnings in Fiscal Year 2005;

     (2) that due to the problems with the Tenovis merger,
         management had limited visibility into Avaya's channels
         of revenue;

     (3) that the implementation of Avaya's new go-to- market
         model in the US was disrupting the Company's direct and
         indirect sales channels;

     (4) that the US markets were not readily embracing the
         migration path to IP PBX products; and

     (5) that as a consequence of the foregoing, the Company's
         projections about revenue growth of 25-27% for Fiscal
         Year 2005 lacked in any reasonable basis.

On April 19, 2005, Avaya reported income from continuing
operations of $36 million or seven cents per diluted share in
the second fiscal quarter of 2005. The Company's performance was
below expectations. News of this shocked the market. Shares of
Avaya fell $2.68 per share or 25.07 percent, on April 20, 2005,
to close at $8.01 per share.

For more details, contact Marc A. Topaz, Esq. or Darren J.
Check, Esq. of Schiffrin & Barroway LLP by Mail: 280 King of
Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Phone: 1-888-299-7706 (toll-free)
or 1-610-667-7706 or E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com.


AVAYA INC.: Schatz & Nobel Launches Securities Fraud Suit in NJ
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C. initiated a securities
class action filed in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey on behalf of all persons who purchased
the publicly traded securities of Avaya, Inc. (NYSE: AV)
("Avaya" or "the Company") between October 5, 2004 and April 19,
2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Also included are all
those who acquired Avaya through its acquisitions of Tenovis and
RouteScience.

The Complaint alleges that Avaya violated federal securities
laws. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose the following:

     (1) the cost of the integration of Tenovis, a company Avaya
         had acquired, was much greater than represented and
         rather than being "accretive" to fiscal 2005 earnings
         or having a positive financial impact within a short
         period of time, the acquisition would, in fact, reduce
         Avaya's earnings by at least $.06 per share during
         fiscal 2005;

     (2) Avaya's changes in its delivery methods of products to
         market was creating severe disruptions in sales;

     (3) Avaya was experiencing a dramatic reduction of demand
         in its U.S. market; and

     (4) as a result, Avaya had no reasonable basis to project
         an increase in profits or an increase in revenues of
         25-27% for fiscal 2005.

On April 19, 2005, Avaya released its financial and operational
results for the second quarter of fiscal 2005 and reported
revenues and earnings far short of previous guidance and analyst
expectations of earnings of $0.17 a share on revenue of $1.29
billion. One analyst at J.P. Morgan called the results "horrid"
and cut its rating on the stock to "neutral" from "overweight."
On this news, the stock fell more than 25% on April 20, 2005.

For more information, contact Wayne T. Boulton or Nancy Kulesa,
Schatz & Nobel by Phone: (800) 797-5499, by E-mail:
sn06106@aol.com or visit the Website: http://www.snlaw.net.


BEARINGPOINT INC.: Christopher Gray Lodges Securities Suit in VA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Attorney Christopher Gray of the Law Office of Christopher J.
Gray, P.C. filed a class action lawsuit on April 26, 2005 in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia, on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired the publicly traded securities of BearingPoint, Inc.
(NYSE:BE) between August 14, 2003 and April 21, 2005, inclusive.

The lawsuit asserts claims against BearingPoint, Randolph C.
Blazer, Robert S. Falcone and PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP.  The
lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated by
the SEC thereunder and seeks to recover damages. Any member of
the class may move the Court to be named lead plaintiff. If you
wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than June 24, 2005.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws and defrauded investors by issuing materially
false and misleading statements throughout the Class Period
regarding the Company's financial performance. The complaint
alleges that defendants failed to disclose that:

     (1) BearingPoint's reported financial results were
         inaccurate and could not be relied upon;

     (2) BearingPoint's internal controls were inadequate to
         ensure the reliability of its publicly reported
         financial results;

     (3) BearingPoint had materially overstated (and failed to
         write down) the value of the goodwill associated with
         certain of its foreign acquisitions in its publicly
         reported financial statements long after it had become
         apparent that the value of such assets was impaired;
         and

     (4) as a result of failing to timely write down the value
         of BearingPoint's goodwill, BearingPoint had reported
         artificially high earnings in its publicly reported
         financial results.

On April 20, 2005, BearingPoint announced that it had determined
that it would have to take a mammoth write down of an estimated
$250 million to $400 million worth of the goodwill listed on its
balance sheet. BearingPoint also stated that its previously-
issued 10-Q quarterly reports for each of the first three
quarters of fiscal year 2004, its Form 10-K report for the six-
month transition period ended December 31, 2003, and its Form
10-K annual report for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2003
should not be relied upon and would have to be restated.
Additionally, the Company announced that it would miss the
deadline for filing its 2004 annual report. On this news, shares
of BearingPoint plummeted from a close of $7.77 per share on
April 20 to close at $5.28 on April 21, constituting a drop of
over 32% in a single day.

The class action lawsuit seeks to recover investors' losses
resulting from defendants' alleged misrepresentations concerning
BearingPoint's financial results and the value of its assets.

For more details, contact Christopher J. Gray by Phone:
(212) 838-3221 or by E-mail: newcases@cjgraylaw.com.


BEARINGPOINT INC.: Donovan Searles Files Securities Suit in VA
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Donovan Searles, LLC, filed a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia on behalf of all purchasers of
BearingPoint, Inc. securities between August 14, 2003 and April
20, 2005, inclusive.  The lawsuit was filed against
BearingPoint, Inc. ("BearingPoint" or "the Company") (NYSE:BE),
certain former officers, and BearingPoint's outside auditor,
PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP.

The Complaint, entitled "Sutton v. Bearing Point, Inc. et al.,"
asserts claims for violations of the federal securities laws, as
described below.  The Complaint alleges that defendants violated
the federal securities laws by issuing quarterly and yearly
financial statements for BearingPoint which materially
misrepresented the Company's financial performance and
profitability in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting
Principles ("GAAP"). Plaintiff specifically alleges that
defendants violated GAAP by:

     (1) materially overstating the value of (and failing to
         write down the value of) the goodwill associated with
         certain foreign acquisitions long after it had become
         apparent that the value of such assets was impaired;
         and

     (2) materially overstating earnings as a result of its
         failure to properly write down the value of these
         impaired assets.

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

In reaction to these revelations, BearingPoint's share price
fell $2.49 on April 21, 2005, down 32 percent from its prior
closing price, thereby damaging plaintiff and the Class.

For more details, contact Michael D. Donovan at Donovan Searles,
LLC, by Mail: 1845 Walnut Street, Suite 1100, Philadelphia, PA
19103; by Phone: (800) 619-1677 or (215) 732-6067; by E-mail:
mdonovan@donovansearles.com.  


IMERGENT INC.: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Lawsuit in UT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP filed a securities
class action in the United States District Court for the
District of Utah, on behalf of all persons who purchased the
securities of iMergent, Inc. ("iMergent" or the "Company")
(Amex: IIG) between October 26, 2004 and February 25, 2005,
inclusive, (the "Class Period") against defendants iMergent and
certain officers and directors of the Company.

On April 28th, the Company issued a press release stating,
"iMergent Reports Record Fiscal Third Quarter Revenue, Pre-Tax
Earnings and Cash Flows."  The suit, styled "Enuganti v.
iMergent, Inc., et al.," alleges that defendants violated the
federal securities laws by issuing materially false and
misleading statements throughout the Class Period that had the
effect of artificially inflating the market price of the
Company's securities.

The complaint alleges that defendants were aware of but
concealed from the investing public during the Class Period,
were as follows:

     (1) the Company's storefront software was defective;

     (2) iMergent was extorting from its customers thousands of
         dollars in additional fees for technical support,
         characterized as "executive mentoring," above and
         beyond what customers contracted to pay as part of
         their service packages when they purchased the
         storefront software;

     (3) since at least 2000, numerous customers had lodged
         complaints with various state agencies concerning
         defects with the storefront software and the exorbitant
         "executive mentoring" fees charged;

     (4) the Company's storefront software and service packages
         were being illegally marketed as "franchises" or
         "business opportunities" because iMergent was not
         registered to engage in this type of business in the
         states in which it was operating and was not following
         the statutes applicable to companies that market
         franchises and business opportunities in those states;

     (5) the Company was extending credit to customers with
         subprime credit without disclosing that the Company did
         not require these customers to meet the Company's
         credit criteria;

     (6) the Company was entering into installment sale
         contracts for defective storefront software packages,
         with the knowledge that the defects in the software,
         the difficulty of its use, and the refusal of some
         customers to purchase so-called "executive mentoring"
         (needed to operate the software) would lead to higher
         customer dissatisfaction, product rejections, refusals
         to pay for product packages being financed by the
         Company, and complaints to and legal action by federal
         and state authorities; and

     (7) defendants had concealed that iMergent had been
         subjected to a lawsuit and a cease and desist order by
         the State of Washington in early 2004 concerning
         misconduct similar to that alleged by the State of
         Texas in its February 2005 lawsuit.


For more details, contact Fred Taylor Isquith, Esq., Gregory M.
Nespole, Esq., Christopher S. Hinton, Esq., or Derek Behnke of
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP by Mail: 270 Madison
Avenue, New York, New York 10016, by Phone: (800) 575-0735 by E-
mail: classmember@whafh.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.whafh.com. All e-mail correspondence should make  
reference to iMergent.


CONTACT: Fred Taylor Isquith, Esq., Gregory M. Nespole, Esq.,
Christopher S. Hinton, Esq., Derek Behnke, all of Wolf
Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP, 1-800-575-0735,
classmember@whafh.com


MBIA INC.: Lieff Cabraser Files Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP
initiated a securities class action lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly
traded shares of MBIA, Inc. ("MBIA") between August 5, 2003 and
March 30, 2005. Shares of MBIA common stock trade on the New
York Stock Exchange under the symbol "MBI."

On November 18, 2004, MBIA announced that it had received
subpoenas from the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC")
and the New York Attorney General's Office ("NYAG") requesting
information with respect to non-traditional or loss mitigation
insurance products developed, offered or sold by MBIA to third
parties from January 1, 1998 to the present.

On March 8, 2005, MBIA announced that it had decided to restate
its financial statements for 1998 through 2003 to correct the
accounting treatment for two reinsurance agreements that MBIA
entered into in 1998 with Zurich Reinsurance North America,
which later was re-named Converium Re upon its divesture by
Zurich Financial Services in 2001. The restated transactions
overstated net income by $54 million during the period 1998
through 2003 by failing to record a loss related to MBIA's
insurance of bonds issued by the Allegheny Health, Education and
Research Foundation ("Allegheny").

On March 9, 2005, MBIA announced that the U.S. Attorney's Office
for the Southern District of New York was conducting its own
investigation into losses suffered by MBIA as a result of its
insurance of the Allegheny bonds.  On March 30, 2005, the SEC
and NYAG supplemented the November 2004 subpoenas with requests
for documents related to MBIA's accounting treatment of advisory
fees, its methodology for determining loss reserves and case
reserves, instances of purchase of credit default protection in
itself, and documents relating to Channel Reinsurance Ltd.
("Channel Re"), a reinsurance company launched in 2004 by MBIA,
PartnerRe Ltd., RenaissanceRe Holdings Ltd., and Koch Financial
Corporation. On April 8, 2005, PartnerRe Ltd. and RenaissanceRe
Holdings Ltd. announced that they had received subpoenas from
the SEC and NYAG seeking information relating to Channel Re.

News of these events have caused MBIA's common stock price to
drop from a class period high of $67.34 on March 3, 2004 to
$52.28 on March 31, 2005, one day after MBIA announced that the
SEC and NYAG had supplemented the subpoenas served on MBIA in
November 2004. This decline in stock price represents a $2.0
billion reduction of MBIA's market capitalization from its high
point in the class period. Shares of MBIA closed at $52.95 per
share on April 25, 2005.

For more details, contact Bruce W. Leppla, Esq. by Mail: 275
Battery Street, 30th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94111, by Phone:
415-956-1000, ext. 3381, by E-mail: bleppla@lchb.com or visit
the Website: http://www.lieffcabrasersecurities.com.


R&G FINANCIAL: Wechsler Harwood Launches Securities Suit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wechsler Harwood LLP initiated a securities class action suit on
behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of R&G Financial
Corporation (NYSE:RGF) between April 21, 2003 and April 26,
2005, both dates inclusive.  The action, entitled Reikes v. R&G
Financial Corp., Case No. 05 CV 4265, is pending in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York, and
names as defendants, the Company, Chairman, Chief Executive
Officer, and director, Victor J. Galan, its Vice Chairman and
President, Ramon Prats, and its Executive Vice President, and
Chief Financial Officer, Joseph Sandoval.

The Complaint charges defendants with violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Specifically, the Complaint
alleges that defendants issued a series of materially false and
misleading statements contained in press releases and filings
with the Securities and Exchange Commission during the Class
Period, including:

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


TRIBUNE CO.: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. IL
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP initiated a
securities class action in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of purchasers of
Tribune Company (NYSE:TRB) publicly traded securities during the
period between January 24, 2002 and July 15, 2004.

The complaint charges the Company and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  The Company is a media and entertainment company. Through
its subsidiaries, the Company is engaged in newspaper
publishing, television and radio broadcasting and entertainment.

The complaint alleges that defendants intentionally overstated
the circulation of several of Tribune's publications, including
Hoy and Newsday, in order to fraudulently extract higher
incentive payments from the papers' advertisers. These inflated
circulation numbers were reported to investors and the market on
a regular basis and artificially inflated Tribune's financial
results.

In June 2004, Tribune reported that two of its papers, Newsday
and Spanish-language publication Hoy, had inflated circulation
figures since 2001. As alleged in the complaint, this
announcement set off a wave of increased scrutiny throughout the
publishing industry, with advertisers keen to ensure that they
were not being similarly duped. Tribune also came under
increased scrutiny with the Audit Bureau of Circulations, a non-
profit, private entity charged with monitoring the accuracy of
circulation numbers for publications nationwide. As a result of
this increasing pressure, Tribune admitted on July 15, 2004 that
its reported circulation numbers for Hoy and Newsday were
overstated. Tribune eventually announced it was conducting an
internal investigation and that it may refund to advertisers all
amounts that they had been overcharged. In response to this
announcement, Tribune's stock price fell to $41 at the close of
business on July 15, 2004, and has never recovered.

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

     (1) since at least FY 2001, defendants were inflating the
         circulation of Tribune's Hoy and Newsday publications;

     (2) as a result of said inflation, the Company's financial
         results during the Class Period were artificially
         inflated (including revenue, earnings per share ("EPS")
         and accounts receivables) and the Company's liabilities
         were understated;

     (3) the Company's revenue and income was grossly overstated
         by millions of dollars;

     (4) defendants had knowingly established extremely weak, if
         not purposeless, circulation controls which allowed for
         the circulation overstatements and did not require that
         circulation managers certify the claimed circulation;
         and

     (5) as a result, defendants' ability to continue to achieve
         future EPS and revenue growth would be severely
         threatened and would and did result in $95 million in
         costs, fines, refunds and investigation expenditures.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers
of Tribune publicly traded securities during the Class Period
(the "Class"). The plaintiff is represented by Lerach Coughlin,
which has expertise in prosecuting investor class actions and
extensive experience in actions involving financial fraud.

For more details, contact William Lerach or Darren Robbins of
Lerach Coughlin by Phone: 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, by E-
mail at wsl@lerachlaw.com or visit the Website:
http://www.lerachlaw.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  * * *