CAR_Public/050509.mbx            C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, May 9, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 90

                         Headlines

ALABAMA SECURITIES: N2K President Files Suit For Discrimination
ANNUITY & LIFE: CT Court Approves Securities Lawsuit Settlement
CAMDEN PROPERTY: Reaches Settlement For NC Shareholder Lawsuit
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: MO Court Preliminarily OKs Settlement
COSINE COMMUNICATIONS: Shareholders Sue V. Tut Systems Merger

CRITICAL PATH: NY Court Preliminary OKs Stock Lawsuit Settlement
DORMONT MANUFACTURING: Recalls 20,000 Gas Valves For Fire Hazard
HOLMES GROUP: Recalls 13,500 Electric Heaters For Injury Hazard
IMPSAT FIBER: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Stock Suit Settlement
JAKKS PACIFIC: NY Court Orders Consolidated Securities Lawsuit

LEXAR MEDIA: CA Court To Hear Dismissal of Securities Fraud Suit
LIQUID AUDIO: NY Court Preliminarily Approves Lawsuit Settlement
NICOR SERVICES: CUB Launches Consumer Fraud Lawsuit in IL Court
PROVIDIAN FINANCIAL: CA Court OKs Securities Lawsuit Settlement
PROVIDIAN FINANCIAL: Discovery Proceeds in NY Consumer Lawsuit

PROVIDIAN NATIONAL: Accountholders Launch CA Consumer Fraud Suit
PROVIDIAN NATIONAL: Discovery Proceeds in Two CA Consumer Suits
QUALITY BICYCLE: Recalling 18,000 Defective Handlebar Stems
SHOE PAVILION: Meets Payments For CA Overtime Lawsuit Settlement
TRUMP CAPITAL: Resolution Reached in NJ ERISA Violations Lawsuit

VERTICALNET INC.: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Lawsuit Settlement
VITRIA TECHNOLOGY: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Lawsuit Settlement

                  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
CELL THERAPEUTICS: Scott + Scott Launches Securities Suit in WA

DORAL FINANCIAL: Abraham Fruchter Files Securities Lawsuit in NY
FOREST TECHNOLOGIES: Scott + Scott Files Securities Suit in NY
IMERGENT INC.: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Lawsuit in UT
MARTEK BIOSCIENCES: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Suit in MD
MBIA INC.: Lieff Cabraser Files Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY

MBNA CORPORATION: Lerach Couglin Lodges Securities Suit in DE
R&G FINANCIAL: Scott + Scott Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
R&G FINANCIAL: Wechsler Harwood Launches Securities Suit in NY
TRIBUNE CO.: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. IL
WILLIAM LYON: Brualdi Law Firm Lodges Shareholders' Suit in DE

WILLIAN LYON: Sarraf Gentile Launches Shareholders' Suit in DE
WILLIAM LYON: Wolf Popper Launches Shareholders' Lawsuit in DE
XYBERNAUT CORPORATION: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Suit in DE


                          *********


ALABAMA SECURITIES: N2K President Files Suit For Discrimination
---------------------------------------------------------------
Networker2000.com (N2K) filed a federal class action lawsuit
against Joseph Borg and the Alabama Securities Commission (ASC),
alleging that the ASC is unfairly attacking N2K which is a
legitimate network marketing company that sells internet web
hosting service, N2K President & CEO Terry Harris reports.

The problem started when Mr. Harris went to the ASC in order to
get an official opinion on how to set up an investment club
(Wealth Builders International), which is a totally separate
entity from N2K, so that it would not be in violation of ASC
statutes.  Mr. Harris was instructed by Susan Anderson, Chief
Counselor of the ASC, that in order to operate the club without
the club being required to be registered as an investment
advisor it can not charge its members a fee for joining the
club. She also informed Mr. Harris that if he wanted to avoid
the requirement of being registered as an investment advisor
representative he could not receive any compensation from the
club for trading on its behalf. Ms. Anderson informed him that
this type of setup would prevent the memberships in the club
from being classified as a security because it would then fall
under a charitable exemption.

Mr. Harris claims that he was entrapped by a long-standing,
racist, social and political system in the state of Alabama even
after strictly following the instructions of the ASC. Mr. Harris
believes that his prosecution is very political and is part of a
government conspiracy that may include these officials: the
Governor of Alabama, Bob Riley, Alabama Attorney General, Troy
King, Deputy Attorney General J Randall McNeil, Assistant
Attorney General, Stephanie Billingslea, Attorney JL Chestnut of
Selma, Alabama, Judge Johnny Hardwick of Montgomery County,
Alabama and Judge Hard of Jefferson County, Alabama.

During the trial on January 24, 2005 the record showed that
neither Harris nor the club ever received compensation from any
of the club's members. The record of the trial also shows that
top officials including Susan Anderson, Chief Counselor of the
ASC, stated under oath: "Terry Harris broke no laws." Even
though Harris is in compliance, Joseph Borg and the ASC continue
to persecute Harris and his business, N2K. A march in support of
Harris and N2K was led by Martin Luther King III in August 2003.

The suit alleges that Mr. Borg and the ASC damaged the members
of the club by freezing the club's account and ordering the
liquidation of all positions in that account across the board.
This resulted in a 1.5 million dollar loss to the members of the
club.  Mr. Borg threatened to prosecute Mr. Harris if he didn't
inform the members that he was responsible for the loss but Mr.
Harris maintains that whomever sold the positions at the lower
price is the one that is responsible for the loss. According to
Mr. Harris, that is when Mr. Borg began a personal vendetta
against him.

The suit further claims that because Mr. Harris owns N2K, Mr.
Borg issued a phony cease & desist order against N2K implying
that N2K was in the business of selling unregistered securities
along with other fraudulent accusations. Even though N2K is a
legitimate network marketing company that sells web hosting
service the ASC took that phony cease & desist order to just
about everybody that did business with N2K implying that N2K was
operating illegally therefore encouraging them to stop doing
business with N2K, according to the complaint.

These actions have created a financial loss to the club's
members, Terry Harris, N2K and each Independent Representative
of N2K, located in all 50 states. Mr. Harris is encouraging all
club members as well as all independent representatives who
joined N2K after April 17, 2003 to join in on the class action
lawsuit because of the actions of Joseph Borg and the Alabama
Securities Commission.  Mr. Harris is expecting over 100,000
independent representatives of N2K and members of WBI to join in
on this lawsuit.

For more details, contact Terry Harris, President & CEO, N2K by
Phone: 1-205-833-1313, by Fax: +1-205-833-7282, or by E-mail:
tharris@n2kstaff.com.


ANNUITY & LIFE: CT Court Approves Securities Lawsuit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut
granted final approval to the settlement of the consolidated
securities class action filed against Annuity & Life (Re)
Holdings, Ltd., certain of its present and former officers, XL
Capital Ltd. and two additional directors.

On and since December 4, 2002, certain of its shareholders,
seeking to act as class representatives, filed lawsuits against
the Company and certain of its present and former officers and
directors in the United States District Court for the District
of Connecticut seeking unspecified monetary damages.  The
plaintiffs claim that the defendants violated certain provisions
of the United States securities laws by making various alleged
material misstatements and omissions in public filings and press
releases.  

The plaintiffs filed a single consolidated amended complaint in
July 2003, adding as defendants XL Capital Ltd and two
additional directors.  On October 1, 2003, the Company answered
the amended and consolidated complaint and denied liability on
the claims the plaintiffs had asserted.  In January 2004, the
court ordered that a related action that the plaintiffs filed
against the KPMG LLP (United States) and KPMG in Bermuda be
consolidated with the action against the Company.  In February
2004, the court denied certain individual defendants' motions to
dismiss the action.  In March 2004, the court denied motions to
dismiss filed by certain other individual defendants and XL
Capital Ltd. Also in March 2004, KPMG LLP (United States) and
KPMG in Bermuda filed motions to dismiss the action. The court
has not yet ruled on KPMG LLP's (United States) and KPMG in
Bermuda's respective motions to dismiss.

On July 20, 2004, the Company announced that it had reached an
agreement in principle with the plaintiffs, subject to full
documentation by the parties to the settlement, notice to the
class, court approval and other steps required to consummate a
class action settlement, to settle the lawsuit.  In August 2004,
the parties to the settlement executed and filed a Stipulation
setting forth their settlement agreement, and sought court
approval.  The parties to the settlement are the plaintiffs and
the class (which consists, subject to certain exclusions, of
persons who purchased the Company's common shares between March
15, 2000 and November 19, 2002), its company, all individual
defendants and XL Capital Ltd.  The settlement is without any
admission of liability or wrongdoing.  

The Company, along with its directors and officers' liability
carrier and XL Capital Ltd, agreed to pay an aggregate of $16.5
million.  Its share of the settlement was $2.5 million in cash,
which the Company paid into escrow in August 2004, and an
additional $2.5 million to be paid in cash or in common shares
(subject to a cap of 19.9% of the Company's outstanding shares)
at the Company's election. On January 10, 2005, the Company
elected to pay the remaining $2.5 million in cash, which it paid
into escrow on that date.

In October 2004, the court ordered that notice of the settlement
be given to class members, set deadlines for class members to
exclude themselves from the class or file objections to the
settlement, and scheduled a Settlement Fairness Hearing for
January 2005.  Following the Settlement Fairness Hearing, the
District Court entered an order and final judgment approving the
settlement in January 2005.  Robert P. Johnson, one of its
current directors, has filed a proof of claim to participate in
the settlement based on his transactions in the Company's common
shares during the class period and prior to joining its board of
directors.


CAMDEN PROPERTY: Reaches Settlement For NC Shareholder Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Camden Property Trust reached a settlement for the purported
class action complaint filed in the United States District Court
for the Western District of North Carolina, Charlotte Division,
against it, Summit Properties, Inc. and each member of the board
of directors of Summit.

An alleged Summit stockholder filed the suit initially in the
General Court of Justice, Superior Court Division, of the State
of North Carolina, County of Mecklenburg, alleging that the
merger between the Company and Summit and the acts of the Summit
directors constitute a breach of the Summit defendants'
fiduciary duties to Summit stockholders.  The plaintiff in the
lawsuit seeks, among other things:

     (1) a declaration that each defendant has committed or
         aided and abetted a breach of fiduciary duty to the
         Summit stockholders,

     (2) to preliminarily and permanently enjoin the Merger,

     (3) to rescind the Merger in the event that it is
         consummated

     (4) an order to permit a stockholders' committee to ensure
         an unspecified "fair procedure, adequate procedural
         safe-guards and independent input by plaintiff" in
         connection with any transaction for Summit shares,

     (5) unspecified compensatory damages and

     (6) attorneys' fees.

On November 3, 2004, the Company removed the lawsuit to the
United States District Court for the Western District of North
Carolina, Charlotte Division, and filed an Answer and
Counterclaim for declaratory judgment denying the plaintiff's
allegations of wrongdoing.  On March 10, 2005, the parties to
the action agreed on and executed a binding memorandum of
understanding setting forth the terms of a settlement of the
litigation.  The parties also agreed, subject to the conditions
described below, to enter into a stipulation of settlement and
use best efforts to gain approval of the settlement by the
court. Under the terms of the settlement, the defendants admit
to no wrongdoing or fault. The memorandum of understanding for
the proposed settlement of the litigation contemplates a
dismissal of all claims with prejudice and a release in favor of
all defendants of any and all claims related to the Merger that
have been or could have been asserted by the plaintiffs or any
members of the putative class. In connection with negotiations
relating to the memorandum of understanding, the parties agreed
to include, and have included, in the joint proxy
statement/prospectus relating to the Merger additional
disclosures regarding the merger.

Subject to the completion of certain confirmatory discovery by
counsel to the plaintiffs, the memorandum of understanding
contemplates that the parties will enter into a settlement
agreement. The memorandum and the settlement will be subject to
the customary conditions including, final court approval of the
settlement. If the conditions are satisfied, subject to final
court approval of the settlement and dismissal of the action by
the court with prejudice, the plaintiff's counsel will seek and
Camden, as successor to Summit, will pay an amount not to exceed
in the aggregate $383,000 in settlement of this action for
attorneys' fees and expenses. Subject to any order of the court,
any attorneys' fees and expenses awarded by the court to
plaintiff's counsel will be paid by Camden, as successor to
Summit, on behalf of all defendants within five business days
after final court approval of the settlement.

The suit is styled "Krantz v. Summit Properties In, et al, case
no. 3:04-cv-00558," filed in the United States District Court
for the Western District of North Carolina, Charlotte Division
under Judge Graham Mullen.  Representing the plaintiffs is Bruce
M. Simpson of James, McElroy & Diehl, 600 S. College St.
Charlotte, NC 28202 Phone: 704/372-9870 Fax: 333-5508.  
Representing the Company are John O. Farley, Stephen D. Poss of
Goodwin Proctor, LLP, Exchange Place Boston, MA 02109 Phone:
617/570-1000 Fax: 523-1231; and George V. Hanna, III, Moore &
Van Allen 100 No. Tryon St. Suite 4700 Charlotte, NC 28202-4003
Phone: 704/331-1000 Fax: 331-1159.


CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: MO Court Preliminarily OKs Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the
federal class actions and shareholder derivative lawsuits filed
against Charter Communications, Inc. and certain of its present
and former officers and directors.

Fourteen putative federal class action lawsuits were filed
against the Company and certain of its former and present
officers and directors in various jurisdictions allegedly on
behalf of all purchasers of the Company's securities during the
period from either November 8 or November 9, 1999 through July
17 or July 18, 2002.  Unspecified damages were sought by the
plaintiffs.

In general, the lawsuits alleged that the Company utilized
misleading accounting practices and failed to disclose these
accounting practices and/or issued false and misleading
financial statements and press releases concerning its
operations and prospects.

In October 2002, the Company filed a motion with the Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPMDL) to transfer the
Federal Class Actions to the Eastern District of Missouri. On
March 12, 2003, the Panel transferred the six Federal Class
Actions not filed in the Eastern District of Missouri to that
district for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings
with the eight Federal Class Actions already pending there. The
Panel's transfer order assigned the Federal Class Actions to
Judge Charles A. Shaw.  By virtue of a prior court order,
StoneRidge Investment Partners LLC became lead plaintiff upon
entry of the Panel's transfer order.  StoneRidge subsequently
filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint.  The Court subsequently
consolidated the Federal Class Actions into a single action for
pretrial purposes.

On June 19, 2003, following a status and scheduling conference
with the parties, the Court issued a Case Management Order
setting forth a schedule for the pretrial phase of the
Consolidated Federal Class Action.  Motions to dismiss the
Consolidated Amended Complaint were filed.  On February 10,
2004, in response to a joint motion made by StoneRidge and
defendants the Company, Carl E. Vogel, president and chief
executive officer and Paul Allen, the court entered an order
providing, among other things, that the parties who filed such
motion engage in a mediation within ninety (90) days; and all
proceedings in the Consolidated Federal Class Actions were
stayed until May 10, 2004.  On May 11, 2004, the Court extended
the stay in the Consolidated Federal Class Action for an
additional sixty (60) days.  On July 12, 2004, the parties
submitted a joint motion to again extend the stay, this time
until September 10, 2004.  The Court granted that extension on
July 20, 2004.  

On August 5, 2004, Stoneridge, the Company and the individual
defendants who were the subject of the suit entered into a
Memorandum of Understanding setting forth agreements in
principle to settle the Consolidated Federal Class Action. These
parties subsequently entered into Stipulations of Settlement
dated as of January 24, 2005 (described more fully below) which
incorporate the terms of the August 5, 2004 Memorandum of
Understanding.

The Consolidated Federal Class Action is entitled, "In re
Charter Communications, Inc. Securities Litigation, MDL Docket
No. 1506 (All Cases), StoneRidge Investments Partners, LLC,
Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
Charter Communications, Inc., Paul Allen, Jerald L. Kent, Carl
E. Vogel, Kent Kalkwarf, David G. Barford, Paul E. Martin, David
L. McCall, Bill Shreffler, Chris Fenger, James H. Smith, III,
Scientific-Atlanta, Inc., Motorola, Inc. and Arthur Andersen,
LLP, Consolidated Case No. 4:02-CV-1186-CAS."

On September 12, 2002, a shareholders derivative suit was filed
in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, State of Missouri
against the Company and its then current directors, as well as
its former auditors.  A substantively identical derivative
action was later filed and consolidated into the State
Derivative Action.  The plaintiffs allege that the individual
defendants breached their fiduciary duties by failing to
establish and maintain adequate internal controls and
procedures.  Unspecified damages, allegedly on the Company's
behalf, are sought by the plaintiffs.

The consolidated State Derivative Action is entitled "Kenneth
Stacey, Derivatively on behalf of Nominal Defendant Charter
Communications, Inc., v. Ronald L. Nelson, Paul G. Allen, Marc
B. Nathanson, Nancy B. Peretsman, William Savoy, John H. Tory,
Carl E. Vogel, Larry W. Wangberg, Arthur Andersen, LLP and
Charter Communications, Inc."

On March 12, 2004, an action substantively identical to the
State Derivative Action was filed in the Missouri State Court,
against the Company and certain of its current and former
directors, as well as its former auditors. The plaintiffs in
that case alleged that the individual defendants breached their
fiduciary duties by failing to establish and maintain adequate
internal controls and procedures.  Unspecified damages,
allegedly on the Company's behalf, were sought by plaintiffs. On
July 14, 2004, the Court consolidated this case with the State
Derivative Action.  This action is entitled "Thomas Schimmel,
Derivatively on behalf on Nominal Defendant Charter
Communications, Inc., v. Ronald L. Nelson, Paul G. Allen, Marc
B. Nathanson, Nancy B. Peretsman, William D. Savoy, John H.
Tory, Carl E. Vogel, Larry W. Wangberg, and Arthur Andersen,
LLP, and Charter Communications, Inc."

Separately, on February 12, 2003, a shareholders derivative
suit, was filed against the Company and its then current
directors in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri. The plaintiff in that suit alleged that
the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties and
grossly mismanaged the Company by failing to establish and
maintain adequate internal controls and procedures. Unspecified
damages, allegedly on the Company's behalf, were sought by the
plaintiffs.  The Federal Derivative Action is entitled "Arthur
Cohn, Derivatively on behalf of Nominal Defendant Charter
Communications, Inc., v. Ronald L. Nelson, Paul G. Allen, Marc
B. Nathanson, Nancy B. Peretsman, William Savoy, John H. Tory,
Carl E. Vogel, Larry W. Wangberg, and Charter Communications,
Inc."

The Company entered into Memoranda of Understanding on August 5,
2004 setting forth agreements in principle regarding settlement
of the Consolidated Federal Class Action, the State
Derivative Action(s) and the Federal Derivative Action.  The
Company and various other defendants in those actions
subsequently entered into Stipulations of Settlement dated as of
January 24, 2005, setting forth a settlement of the Actions in a
manner consistent with the terms of the Memoranda of
Understanding. The Stipulations of Settlement, along with
various supporting documentation, were filed with the Court on
February 2, 2005.

The Stipulations of Settlement provide that, in exchange for a
release of all claims by plaintiffs against the Company and its
former and present officers and directors named in the Actions,
the Company will pay to the plaintiffs a combination of cash and
equity collectively valued at $144.0 million, which will include
the fees and expenses of plaintiffs' counsel.  Of this amount,
$64.0 million will be paid in cash (by Charter's insurance
carriers) and the balance will be paid in shares of Charter
Class A common stock having an aggregate value of $40.0 million
and ten-year warrants to purchase shares of Charter Class A
common stock having an aggregate warrant value of  $40.0
million, with such values in each case being determined pursuant
to formulas set forth in the Stipulations of Settlement.  The
warrants would have an exercise price equal to 150% of the fair
market value (as defined) of Charter Class A common stock as of
the date of the entry of the order of final judgment approving
the settlement.  In addition, Charter expects to issue
additional shares of its Class A common stock to its insurance
carrier having an aggregate value of $5.0 million. In the event
that the valuation formula in the Stipulations provides for a
per share value of less than $2.25, Charter may elect to
terminate the settlement. As part of the settlements, Charter
will also commit to a variety of corporate governance changes,
internal practices and public disclosures, some of which have
already been undertaken and none of which are inconsistent with
measures Charter is taking in connection with the recent
conclusion of the SEC investigation.  Documents related to the
settlement of the Actions have now been executed and filed.  On
February 15, 2005, the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri gave preliminary approval to the
settlement of the Actions. The settlement of each of the
lawsuits remains conditioned upon, among other things, final
judicial approval of the settlements following notice to the
class, and dismissal with prejudice of the consolidated
derivative actions now pending in Missouri State Court, which
are related to the Federal Derivative Action.


COSINE COMMUNICATIONS: Shareholders Sue V. Tut Systems Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
CoSine Communications, Inc. faces a class action filed in San
Mateo County Superior Court in California, related to its
planned merger with Tut Systems, Inc.

On January 7, 2005, the Company entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger with Tut Systems, Inc. in a stock-for-stock
transaction pursuant to which it will merge into a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Tut Systems, Inc. Tut Systems, Inc. will issue
approximately 6.0 million shares of its common stock to the
shareholders of the Company.  The merger is subject to
shareholder approval and normal closing conditions.

On January 18, 2005, the Company and each of its directors and
officers were named as defendants in a class action lawsuit
filed on behalf of Company shareholders. The complaint alleges
that the Company's directors and officers breached their
fiduciary duty to the corporation in connection with the
proposed merger with Tut Systems, Inc. and requests that the
merger be enjoined.


CRITICAL PATH: NY Court Preliminary OKs Stock Lawsuit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted preliminary approval to the consolidated
securities class action filed against Critical Path, Inc.,
certain of its former officers and directors and underwriters
connected with its initial public offering (IPO) of common
stock.

The purported class action complaints were filed by individuals
who allege that they purchased the Company's common stock at the
initial and secondary public offerings between March 29, 1999
and December 6, 2000. The complaints allege generally that the
prospectus under which such securities were sold contained false
and misleading statements with respect to discounts and excess
commissions received by the underwriters as well as allegations
of "laddering" whereby underwriters required their customers to
purchase additional shares in the aftermarket in exchange for an
allocation of IPO shares. The complaints seek an unspecified
amount in damages on behalf of persons who purchased our common
stock during the specified period.

Similar complaints have been filed against 55 underwriters and
more than 300 other companies and other individuals. The over
1,000 complaints have been consolidated into a single action. We
have reached an agreement in principle with the plaintiffs to
resolve the cases.  The proposed settlement involves no monetary
payment by the Company and no admission of liability.

Various plaintiffs filed similar actions asserting virtually
identical allegations against more than 40 investment banks and
250 other companies.  All of these "IPO allocation" Securities
class actions currently pending in the Southern District of New
York are assigned to Judge Shira A. Scheindlin for coordinated
pretrial proceedings.  The issuer defendants in the coordinated
proceedings, including the Company, filed omnibus motions to
dismiss the actions. In October 2002, the Company's directors
and officers were dismissed without prejudice pursuant to a
tolling agreement. In February 2003, the court issued a ruling
denying the motion to dismiss with respect to the claims against
the Company.

In June 2004, a stipulation of settlement, for the release of
claims against the issuer defendants, including the Company, in
exchange for a contingent payment to be made by the issuer
defendants' insurance carriers and an assignment of certain
claims, was submitted to the Court for approval.  Pursuant to
the Plan, the plaintiffs in the IPO Class Action received in
connection with their claims the assignment of any insurance
proceeds that the Company receives in connection with the
litigation, but otherwise the claims of the plaintiffs against
it or any of its other assets have been discharged as part of
the Plan. In February 2005, further to plaintiffs' motion, the
Court granted preliminary approval for a proposed settlement of
the IPO Class Action. The settlement is subject to certain final
determinations and a fairness hearing.

The suit is styled "IN RE CRITICAL PATH, INC. INITIAL PUBLIC
OFFERING SECURITIES LITIGATION," filed in relation to "IN RE
INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERING SECURITIES LITIGATION, Master File No.
21 MC 92 (SAS)," both pending in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, under Judge Shira
N. Scheindlin.  The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

     (1) Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP (New York, NY), 10 E.
         40th Street, 22nd Floor, New York, NY, 10016, Phone:
         800.217.1522, E-mail: info@bernlieb.com

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

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

     (4) Sirota & Sirota, LLP, 110 Wall Street 21st Floor, New
         York, NY, 10005, Phone: 888.759.2990, Fax:
         212.425.9093, E-mail: Info@SirotaLaw.com

     (5) Stull, Stull & Brody (New York), 6 East 45th Street,
         New York, NY, 10017, Phone: 310.209.2468, Fax:
         310.209.2087, E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com

     (6) Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz LLP, 270
         Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10016, Phone:
         212.545.4600, Fax: 212.686.0114, E-mail:
         newyork@whafh.com


DORMONT MANUFACTURING: Recalls 20,000 Gas Valves For Fire Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dormont Manufacturing Company, of Export, Pennsylvania is
cooperating with the United States Consumer Product Safety
Commission by voluntarily recalling about 20,000 Cimberio Gas
Ball Valves, manufactured by Cimberio S.p.A., of Via Torchio,
Italy.

When one of these valves is closed, it could open up slightly.
If the gas supply is on, gas will leak from the inlet port
through the ball/seat and travel through the outlet port. If the
valve is not connected to an appliance, and is not capped or
plugged as required by the National Fuel Gas Code Section
6.7.2.1, leaking gas will escape into the air. However,
subsequent testing confirms that this potential for a gas leak
is eliminated as gas flows through the valve. As a result, there
is no risk with installed valves.

This inventory retrieval involves valves manufactured by
Cimberio: _" FIP x 5/8" OD (15/16"-16 thread) Gas Ball Valve; _"
FIP x _" FIP Gas Ball Valve; _" FIP x _" FIP Gas Ball Valve with
Side Tap; _" FIP x _" FIP Gas Ball Valve with Square Head. All
affected valves as described here have a red handle and have
various markings on the valve body.  These items were sold at
various retailers and plumbing product suppliers from 1997 to
2004.

Return any affected products that remain in inventory to
Dormont.  For more details, contact Dormont by Phone:
(800)-367-6668 Ext. 3330 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday
through Friday or visit the Dormont Web site:
http://www.dormont.com.  


HOLMES GROUP: Recalls 13,500 Electric Heaters For Injury Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Holmes Group, Inc. of Milford, Massachusetts is cooperating
with the Consumer Product Safety Commission by voluntarily
recalling about 13,500 portable electric heaters.  The retailer
is QVC, Inc. of West Chester, Pennsylvania.

Some heaters have improperly crimped wires, which can result in
overheating and a potential thermal burn or fire hazard. The
Company is aware of 19 reports of heaters overheating, melting
or charring along the bottom of the heater, including 13 reports
of minor property damage beneath the heater. No injuries have
been reported.

The recall involves the Holmes model HCH4305 portable electric
heaters sold by QVC as QVC Item No. V19768. The model number and
date code is located on the bottom of the heater. Recalled
heaters have a date code beginning with "33xx" through "39xx".

The recalled heaters were sold exclusively by QVC via the QVC
cable television channel from October 2004 through January 2005
for about $33.

Consumers should stop using the recalled heater immediately. QVC
is directly contacting all known consumers to arrange for a full
refund.  For more information, contact QVC Customer Service at
(800) 367-9444 between 8:00 a.m. and 12:00 midnight ET, any day
of the week.


IMPSAT FIBER: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Stock Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted preliminary approval to the consolidated
securities class action filed against Impsat Fiber Networks,
Inc., certain individuals who were then its officers and
directors, and the underwriters to our initial public offering.

This lawsuit alleged on behalf of a proposed class of all
shareholders that the Company and its underwriters violated
various provisions of the securities laws in connection with an
initial public offering in February 2000.

Various plaintiffs filed similar actions asserting virtually
identical allegations against more than 40 investment banks and
250 other companies.  All of these "IPO allocation" Securities
class actions currently pending in the Southern District of New
York are assigned to Judge Shira A. Scheindlin for coordinated
pretrial proceedings.  The issuer defendants in the coordinated
proceedings, including the Company, filed omnibus motions to
dismiss the actions. In October 2002, the Company's directors
and officers were dismissed without prejudice pursuant to a
tolling agreement. In February 2003, the court issued a ruling
denying the motion to dismiss with respect to the claims against
the Company.

In June 2004, a stipulation of settlement, for the release of
claims against the issuer defendants, including the Company, in
exchange for a contingent payment to be made by the issuer
defendants' insurance carriers and an assignment of certain
claims, was submitted to the Court for approval.  Pursuant to
the Plan, the plaintiffs in the IPO Class Action received in
connection with their claims the assignment of any insurance
proceeds that the Company receives in connection with the
litigation, but otherwise the claims of the plaintiffs against
it or any of its other assets have been discharged as part of
the Plan. In February 2005, further to plaintiffs' motion, the
Court granted preliminary approval for a proposed settlement of
the IPO Class Action. The settlement is subject to certain final
determinations and a fairness hearing.

The suit is styled "IN RE IMPSAT FIBER NETWORKS, INC. INITIAL
PUBLIC OFFERING SECURITIES LITIGATION," filed in relation to "IN
RE INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERING SECURITIES LITIGATION, Master File
No. 21 MC 92 (SAS)," both pending in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, under Judge Shira
N. Scheindlin.  The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

     (1) Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP (New York, NY), 10 E.
         40th Street, 22nd Floor, New York, NY, 10016, Phone:
         800.217.1522, E-mail: info@bernlieb.com

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

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

     (4) Sirota & Sirota, LLP, 110 Wall Street 21st Floor, New
         York, NY, 10005, Phone: 888.759.2990, Fax:
         212.425.9093, E-mail: Info@SirotaLaw.com

     (5) Stull, Stull & Brody (New York), 6 East 45th Street,
         New York, NY, 10017, Phone: 310.209.2468, Fax:
         310.209.2087, E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com

     (6) Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz LLP, 270
         Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10016, Phone:
         212.545.4600, Fax: 212.686.0114, E-mail:
         newyork@whafh.com


JAKKS PACIFIC: NY Court Orders Consolidated Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York ordered consolidated several securities class action
filed against Jakks Pacific, Inc., styled:

     (1) Garcia v. Jakks Pacific, Inc. et al., Civil Action No.
         04-8807 (filed on November 5, 2004),

     (2) Jonco Investors, LLC v. Jakks Pacific, Inc. et al.,
         Civil Action No. 04-9021 (filed on November 16, 2004),  

     (3) Kahn v. Jakks Pacific, Inc. et al., Civil Action No.
         04-8910 (filed on November 10, 2004),

     (4) Quantum Equities L.L.C. v. Jakks Pacific, Inc. et al.,
         Civil Action No. 04-8877 (filed on November 9, 2004),
         and

     (5) Irvine v. Jakks Pacific, Inc. et al., Civil Action
         No. 04-9078 (filed on November 16, 2004)

The complaints allege that defendants issued positive statements
concerning increasing sales of its World Wrestling Entertainment
(WWE) licensed products which were false and misleading because
the WWE licenses had allegedly been obtained through a pattern
of commercial bribery, its relationship with the WWE was being
negatively impacted by the WWE's contentions and there was an
increased risk that the WWE would either seek modification or
nullification of the licensing agreements with the Company.  
Plaintiffs also allege that the Company misleadingly failed to
disclose the alleged fact that the WWE licenses were obtained
through an unlawful bribery scheme.

The plaintiffs are purchasers of the Company's common stock, who
purchased from as early as October 26, 1999 to as late as
October 19, 2004.  The suits seek compensatory and other damages
in an undisclosed amount, alleging violations of Section 10(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder by each of the defendants (namely the
Company and Messrs. Friedman, Berman and Bennett), and
violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by Messrs.
Friedman, Berman and Bennett.  On January 25, 2005, the Court
consolidated the Class Actions under the caption "In re JAKKS
Pacific, Inc. Shareholders Class Action Litigation, Civil Action
No. 04-8807."
The suit is filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, under Judge Kenneth M. Karas.  
The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

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

     (2) Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C., Esquire at 261
         Old York Road, Suite 423, Jenkintown, PA, 19046 Phone:
         215.886.1900, E-mail: securitiesfraud@comcast.net

     (3) Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C., 261 Old York
         Road, Suite 423, Jenkintown, PA, 19046 Phone:
         215.886.1900, E-mail: securitiesfraud@comcast.net

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

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

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

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

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

     (9) Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz LLP, 270
         Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10016, Phone:
         212.545.4600, Fax: 212.686.0114, E-mail:
         newyork@whafh.com


LEXAR MEDIA: CA Court To Hear Dismissal of Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California will hear this month Lexar Media, Inc.'s motion to
dismiss the consolidated securities class action filed against
it, its chief executive officer and its chief financial officer.

On May 21, 2004, the Company, along with our Chief Executive
Officer and Chief Financial Officer, were named as defendants in
a federal class action in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California.  That action was brought
allegedly on behalf of a class of plaintiffs who purchased its
common stock, and asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Exchange Act, as well as Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, based principally on allegations that the Company
made misrepresentations regarding its business.

Six similar class actions have since been filed in the Northern
District of California.  The Court has appointed a lead
plaintiff and ordered that those actions be consolidated. In
October 2004, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint,
on behalf of those who purchased the Company's stock between
October 16, 2003 and April 16, 2004.  In January 2005, the
Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint that is currently scheduled to be heard in May 2005.


LIQUID AUDIO: NY Court Preliminarily Approves Lawsuit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted preliminary approval for the consolidated
securities class action filed against Liquid Audio, Inc.,
certain of its former officers and directors, and various of the
underwriters in its initial public offering ("IPO") and
secondary offering, styled "IN RE LIQUID AUDIO, INC. INITIAL
PUBLIC OFFERING SECURITIES LITIGATION, CV-6611."

The consolidated amended complaint generally alleges that
various investment bank underwriters engaged in improper and
undisclosed activities related to the allocation of shares in
our IPO and secondary offering of securities.  The plaintiffs
brought claims for violation of several provisions of the
federal securities laws against those underwriters, and also
against the Company and certain of its former directors and
officers, seeking unspecified damages on behalf of a purported
class of purchasers of our common stock between July 8, 1999 and
December 6, 2000.

Various plaintiffs filed similar actions asserting virtually
identical allegations against more than 40 investment banks and
250 other companies.  All of these "IPO allocation" Securities
class actions currently pending in the Southern District of New
York are assigned to Judge Shira A. Scheindlin for coordinated
pretrial proceedings as in re Liquid Audio, Inc. Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92.  The issuer defendants
in the coordinated proceedings, including the Company, filed
omnibus motions to dismiss the actions. In October 2002, the
Company's directors and officers were dismissed without
prejudice pursuant to a tolling agreement. In February 2003, the
court issued a ruling denying the motion to dismiss with respect
to the claims against the Company.

In June 2004, a stipulation of settlement, for the release of
claims against the issuer defendants, including the Company, in
exchange for a contingent payment to be made by the issuer
defendants' insurance carriers and an assignment of certain
claims, was submitted to the Court for approval.  The settlement
is subject to a number of conditions, including approval of the
Court. On February 15, 2005, the Court granted a conditional
preliminary approval of the stipulation of settlement.

The suit is styled "IN RE LIQUID AUDIO, INC. INITIAL PUBLIC
OFFERING SECURITIES LITIGATION, CV-6611," filed in relation to
"IN RE INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERING SECURITIES LITIGATION, Master
File No. 21 MC 92 (SAS)," both pending in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, under
Judge Shira N. Scheindlin.  The plaintiff firms in this
litigation are:

     (1) Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP (New York, NY), 10 E.
         40th Street, 22nd Floor, New York, NY, 10016, Phone:
         800.217.1522, E-mail: info@bernlieb.com

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

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

     (4) Sirota & Sirota, LLP, 110 Wall Street 21st Floor, New
         York, NY, 10005, Phone: 888.759.2990, Fax:
         212.425.9093, E-mail: Info@SirotaLaw.com

     (5) Stull, Stull & Brody (New York), 6 East 45th Street,
         New York, NY, 10017, Phone: 310.209.2468, Fax:
         310.209.2087, E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com

     (6) Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz LLP, 270
         Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10016, Phone:
         212.545.4600, Fax: 212.686.0114, E-mail:
         newyork@whafh.com


NICOR SERVICES: CUB Launches Consumer Fraud Lawsuit in IL Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
An estimated $20 million in revenues earned by Nicor Inc. from a
controversial gas pipe repair program should be used to offset a
rate increase being sought by the company, the Citizens Utility
Board (CUB) said Thursday.

In a motion filed Thursday, CUB and the Cook County State's
Attorney asked the Illinois Commerce Commission (ICC) to allow
the parties to file additional expert testimony in the pending
case to consider new evidence which shows that consumers pay
most of the costs of marketing and selling the program, but do
not benefit from the profits the company earns on it.

At the same time, CUB filed a class action lawsuit in Cook
County Circuit Court alleging that Nicor Services knowingly
markets the plan, known as Comfort Guard, to customers who don't
need it and adds it to customers' bills without their consent.

Nicor Services is an unregulated affiliate of Naperville-based
Nicor Energy, which provides regulated natural gas service to
more than 2 million customers in Illinois. At a cost of $3.95 a
month for Comfort Guard, the company promises to repair leaks to
"your home's exposed interior gas lines and connectors." All
repairs, according to a Nicor bill insert, are performed by a
"certified Nicor technician."

While Comfort Guard solicitation materials state that the
product comes from Nicor Services, Nicor Gas customer service
representatives sell the program, Nicor Gas technicians service
any repairs under the program, and Nicor Gas bills customers for
the program.

"Nicor Gas customers are paying the vast majority of the costs
associated with marketing, selling, and providing the Comfort
Guard service," CUB Executive Director Martin R. Cohen said.
"It's only fair that customers should be benefiting, in the form
of lower rates, from the profits the program generates."

As of last summer, the company had sold Comfort Guard to more
than 348,000 customers. Subscribers to the program are locked
into a 12-month contract that automatically renews each year
unless the customer cancels within 30 days of the expiration
date.

In November, Nicor asked the ICC to approve an $83 million rate
hike, that would boost the average customer's bill by about $26
a year. In March, CUB filed testimony with the ICC showing the
rate hike is unjustified and that consumers deserve a small rate
cut instead. If the commission allows additional testimony on
the Comfort Guard issue, that recommended rate reduction is
likely to increase.

The class action suit seeks damages for all Nicor Gas customers
who have had Comfort Guard added to their accounts without their
consent and all Nicor Gas customers who have purchased Comfort
Guard under the false belief that it provides them some benefit,
including renters and home owners covered by existing home
warranties. CUB filed the lawsuit jointly with the Chicago law
firm of Much, Shelist, Freed, Denenberg, Ament & Rubenstein.

CUB is a nonprofit statewide utility watchdog organization
created by the state legislature to represent the interests of
residential and small-business utility customers. For more
information about CUB and its efforts to protect consumers over
the last 20 years, contact the CUB's Consumer Hotline:
1-800-669-5556 or visit the Website:
http://www.CitizensUtilityBoard.org.


PROVIDIAN FINANCIAL: CA Court OKs Securities Lawsuit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California granted final approval to the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against Providian
Financial Corporation and certain of its executive officers and
directors, following the announcement in October 2001 of the
Company's third quarter 2001 delinquency and credit loss
experience.

Several Rule 10b-5 securities class actions were initially filed
and later consolidated as "In re Providian Financial Securities
Litigation."  The consolidated suit alleged that the Company and
certain of its officers made false and misleading statements
concerning its operations and prospects for the second and third
quarters of 2001 in violation of federal securities laws. The
class comprised those persons or entities who acquired Company
stock between June 6, 2001 and October 18, 2001.

In September 2004, a settlement of these actions on a classwide
basis for $65 million received final approval from the court.  
The Company's insurance carriers have funded the settlement
amount, in addition to the attorneys' fees that the Company
incurred for its own defense.  However, coverage of these
actions under its insurance policies for amounts above $50
million is subject to a reservation of rights by the affected
insurers to contest coverage, and these reservation of rights
claims have not yet been resolved.

The suit is styled "In Re Providian Financial Corporation
Securities Litigation, et al., case no. C-01-03952-CRB," filed
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, under Judge Charles R. Breyer.  Representing the
plaintiffs is Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP (San
Diego, CA) Mail: 12544 High Bluff Drive, Suite 150, San Diego,
CA, 92130 Phone: 858.793.0070, Fax: 858.793.0323, E-mail:
blbg@blbglaw.com.


PROVIDIAN FINANCIAL: Discovery Proceeds in NY Consumer Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in the class action filed against
Providian Financial Corporation in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, styled "Ross v.
Visa U.S.A. Inc., et al."  The suit also names as defendants
Visa, MasterCard and a number of credit card issuing banks.

The suit, initially filed in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleges that uniform
foreign currency surcharges allegedly imposed by the defendants
are the result of a conspiracy in restraint of trade and violate
the federal antitrust laws. The suit also alleges that the
defendant banks violated the Truth-in-Lending Act by failing to
separately identify these surcharges to their customers on their
monthly statements.

Similar lawsuits were subsequently filed in California and New
York.  In August 2001, the Federal Judicial Panel on Multi-
district Litigation transferred all of these cases to the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York.  In
January 2002, plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated
complaint, which the defendants moved to dismiss. In July 2003,
the court granted the motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' claim
for actual damages under the Truth-in-Lending Act, and denied
the motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' antitrust claims.  The
plaintiffs' motion for class certification was granted in
October 2004.  Various motions challenging this order are
pending before the court.  This case remains in the discovery
phase.

The suit is styled "Ross, et al v. Visa U.S.A., et al, case no.
1:01-cv-07966-WHP," filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York, under Judge William H.
Pauley III.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Merrill G. Davidoff and Edward W. Millstein of Berger &
         Montague, P.C., 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA
         19103 Phone: (215) 875-3000

     (2) Joseph C. Kohn, Kohn, Swift & Graf, P.C., One South
         Broad Street Suite 2100 Philadelphia, PA 19107-3389
         Phone: (215) 238-1700

     (3) R. Scott Palmer, Berman, DeValerio, Pease, Tabocco,
         Burt & Pucillo, Northbridge Center 515 N. Flagler Drive
         Suite 1701 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phone: (561) 835-
         9400

Representing the Company are:

     (i) David H. Marion, Montgomery, McCracken, Walker & Rhoads
         The FIdelity Building 123 S.Broad Street Philadelphia,
         PA 19109-1099 Phone: (215) 772-7600

    (ii) Edward D. Rogers and Mark S. Stewart, Ballard, Spahr,
         Andrews & Ingersoll 1735 Market Street 51st Floor
         Philadelphia, PA 19103-7599 Phone: (215) 864-8239

   (iii) Michael T. Scott, Reed, Smith, Shawe and McClay 1650
         Market Street 2500 One Liberty Place Philadelphia, PA
         19170-7301 Phone: (215) 851-8100


PROVIDIAN NATIONAL: Accountholders Launch CA Consumer Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Providian National Bank faces a class action filed in the Los
Angeles Superior Court in California, styled "Koskey v.
CompuCredit Corporation and Providian National Bank, et al."

The suit arises out of certain changes in the terms of customer
account agreements, including increases to interest rates, made
in connection with the sale by the Bank in 2002 of certain
higher risk loans that were serviced by CompuCredit.  The
plaintiffs allege that the changes were not adequately disclosed
and that customers were not given the opportunity to reject the
increased interest rates.  The putative class is purported to
consist of all accountholders whose balances plaintiffs allege
were transferred from PNB to CompuCredit.


PROVIDIAN NATIONAL: Discovery Proceeds in Two CA Consumer Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in two consumer class actions filed
against Providian National Bank in the Orange County Superior
Court in California, over its minimum payment calculation.

In January 2004, a state court putative class action, styled
"Ventura v. Providian National Bank," was filed, alleging that
the Bank's minimum payment calculation results in improper
overlimit fees and that its payment posting practices result in
improper interest charges and late fees. The complaint alleges a
single breach of contract claim and seeks damages, attorneys'
fees, and other relief.  

In February 2004, a state court putative class action, styled
"Marotta v. Providian National Bank," was filed in the same
court, alleging that plaintiffs' annual percentage rates were
improperly increased without proper notice. The complaint
alleges a single breach of contract claim and seeks damages,
attorneys' fees, and other relief.


QUALITY BICYCLE: Recalling 18,000 Defective Handlebar Stems
-------------------------------------------------------------
Quality Bicycle Products Inc., of Bloomington, Minnesota is
cooperating with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission by
voluntarily recalling about 18,000 Dimension Bicycle Road and
Mountain Threadless Handlebar Stems.

These handlebar stems can crack or break, causing the bicycle
rider to fall and suffer injuries.  There has been one report of
a handlebar stem breaking that resulted in minor abrasions and
bruises to the rider.

The recall involves all Dimension-brand road and mountain
threadless bicycle stems with a 130-degree rise. The stems are
black or silver and have the word "Dimension" painted on the
extension. Only models SM2330 to SM2333, SM4555 to SM4558,
SM4567, and SM4570 to SM4573 are included in this recall. The
model numbers are printed on the original packaging. These
handlebar stems all have a 130-degree "high rise" but vary in
extension length.

These items were sold at bicycle specialty stores, Web and mail
order retailers nationwide from January 2003 through March 2005
for about $25.

For more details, contact your local bicycle retailer to have
them check your handlebar stem and obtain a replacement stem if
necessary.  For more information, contact QBP by Phone:
(877)-725-7211 between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. CT Monday through
Friday or visit the Website:
http://www.dimensionbikeproducts.com.  


SHOE PAVILION: Meets Payments For CA Overtime Lawsuit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shoe Pavilion, Inc. has made substantially all payments for the
settlement of the class action filed against it in the Los
Angeles County Superior Court in California by one of its store
managers.

The plaintiff asserted that he and all other store managers in
California were improperly classified as "exempt" employees
under California's wage and hour laws and therefore they were
entitled to overtime wages.  An amended complaint seeking class
action status on behalf of all store managers in California was
subsequently filed with the court.  

The Company denied the plaintiff's claims and filed an answer
challenging class certification. In December 2003, the Company
entered into a settlement agreement of the lawsuit.  Under the
terms of the agreement the Company paid store managers a
stipulated cash settlement based upon the number of weeks worked
for the period from April 1, 1998 through December 31, 2003.
During the fourth quarter ended January 3, 2004, the Company
recorded a reserve of approximately $1.0 million for the costs
associated with the lawsuit settlement. The Company reduced this
reserve by approximately $258,000 during the third quarter ended
October 2, 2004. The Company has made substantially all payments
required to be made under the settlement agreement as of January
1, 2005.


TRUMP CAPITAL: Resolution Reached in NJ ERISA Violations Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A resolution has been reached in the class action filed in the
in the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey, Camden Division, against certain persons and
organizations that included members of the Trump Capital
Accumulation Plan Administrative Committee.

In their complaint, the plaintiffs alleged, among other things,
that such persons and organizations, who were responsible for
managing the Trump Capital Accumulation Plan, a defined
contribution employee benefit plan for certain employees of Taj
Associates, Plaza Associates, Marina Associates (f/k/a Trump
Castle Associates, L.P.) and Trump Indiana, Inc. (the "401(k)
Plan"), breached their fiduciary duties owed to 401(k) Plan
participants when Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts, Inc. (THCR)
common stock held in employee accounts was allegedly sold
without participant authorization if the participant did not
willingly sell such shares by a specified date in accordance
with the 401(k) Plan.

The plaintiffs have brought this suit under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended, on behalf of
themselves and certain other 401(k) Plan participants and
beneficiaries and have sought to have the court certify their
claims as a class action.  In their complaint, the plaintiffs
also seek, among other things, damages for losses suffered by
certain accounts of affected 401(k) Plan participants as a
result of such allegedly improper sale of THCR common stock and
reasonable costs and attorneys' fees.

After extensive negotiations, the Debtors believe that they have
reached a resolution with the plaintiffs that would require
payment of a maximum of an aggregate of $1.7 million by the
Debtors. However, this resolution is subject to approval of the
Bankruptcy Court, and at this time, the Debtors cannot predict
the outcome of such litigation or its effect on the Debtors'
business.


VERTICALNET INC.: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Lawsuit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against Verticalnet,
Inc. and certain of its officers and directors.

On June 12, 2001, a class action lawsuit was filed against the
Company and several of its officers and directors in U.S.
Federal Court for the Southern District of New York in an action
captioned "CJA Acquisition, Inc. v. Verticalnet, et al., C.A.
No. 01-CV-5241."  Also named as defendants were four
underwriters involved in the issuance and initial public
offering of our common stock in February 1999:

     (1) Lehman Brothers Inc.,

     (2) Hambrecht & Quist LLC,

     (3) Volpe Brown Whelan & Company LLC, and

     (4) WIT Capital Corporation

The complaint in the CJA Action alleges violations of Sections
11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated there
under, based on, among other things, claims that the four
underwriters awarded material portions of the initial shares to
certain favored customers in exchange for excessive commissions.
The plaintiff also asserts that the underwriters engaged in a
practice known as "laddering," whereby the clients or customers
agreed that in exchange for IPO shares they would purchase
additional shares at progressively higher prices after the IPO.  
With respect to the Company, the complaint alleges that the
Company and its officers and directors failed to disclose in the
prospectus and the registration statement the existence of these
purported excessive commissions and laddering agreements.

After the CJA Action was filed, several copycat complaints were
filed in U.S. Federal Court for the Southern District of New
York.  Those complaints, whose allegations mirror those found in
the CJA Action, include:

     (i) Ezra Charitable Trust v. Verticalnet, et al., C.A. No.
         01-CV-5350;

    (ii) Kofsky v. Verticalnet, et al., C.A. No. 01-CV-5628;

   (iii) Reeberg v. Verticalnet, C.A. No. 01-CV-5730;

    (iv) Lee v. Verticalnet, et al., C.A. No. 01-CV-7385;

     (v) Hoang v. Verticalnet, et al., C.A. No. 01-CV-6864;

    (vi) Morris v. Verticalnet, et al., C.A. No. 01-CV-9459; and

   (vii) Murphy v. Verticalnet, et al., C.A. No. 01-CV-8084.

None of the complaints state the amount of any damages being
sought, but do ask the court to award rescissory damages.  All
of the foregoing suits were amended and consolidated into a
single complaint that was filed with the U.S. Federal Court on
April 19, 2002.  This amended complaint contains additional
factual allegations concerning the events discussed in the
original complaints, and asserts that, in addition to Sections
11 and 15 of the Securities Act, the Company and its officers
and directors also violated Sections 10(b), 20(a), and Rule 10b-
5 of the Exchange Act in connection with the IPO.  

In addition to this amended and consolidated complaint, the
plaintiffs in this lawsuit and in the hundreds of other similar
suits filed against other companies in connection with IPOs that
occurred in the late 1990s have filed "master allegations" that
primarily focus on the conduct of the underwriters of the IPOs,
including the Company's IPO. On October 9, 2002, the U.S.
Federal Court for the Southern District of New York entered an
order dismissing, without prejudice, the claims against the
individual Verticalnet officers and directors who had been named
as defendants in the various complaints. In February 2003, the
District Court entered an order denying a motion made by the
defendants to dismiss the actions in their entirety, but
granting the motion as to certain of the claims against some
defendants. However, the District Court did not dismiss any
claims against Verticalnet. On or about June 5, 2003,
Verticalnet's counsel, with the approval of the Company's
directors, executed a memorandum of understanding on behalf of
Verticalnet with respect to a proposed settlement of the
plaintiff's claims against Verticalnet. This proposed resolution
of the litigation has been publicly announced (although not yet
formally accepted by the plaintiffs) and widely reported in the
press. The proposed settlement, if approved by the District
Court, would result in, among other things, the dismissal of all
claims against Verticalnet, its officers, and directors. Under
the present terms of the proposed settlement described above,
Verticalnet would also assign its claims against the
underwriters to the plaintiffs in the consolidated actions. In
February 2005, the District Court preliminarily approved the
proposed settlement.

The suit is styled "IN RE VERTICALNET, INC. INITIAL PUBLIC
OFFERING SECURITIES LITIGATION," filed in relation to "IN RE
INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERING SECURITIES LITIGATION, Master File No.
21 MC 92 (SAS)," both pending in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, under Judge Shira
N. Scheindlin.  The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

     (a) Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP (New York, NY), 10 E.
         40th Street, 22nd Floor, New York, NY, 10016, Phone:
         800.217.1522, E-mail: info@bernlieb.com

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

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

     (d) Sirota & Sirota, LLP, 110 Wall Street 21st Floor, New
         York, NY, 10005, Phone: 888.759.2990, Fax:
         212.425.9093, E-mail: Info@SirotaLaw.com

     (e) Stull, Stull & Brody (New York), 6 East 45th Street,
         New York, NY, 10017, Phone: 310.209.2468, Fax:
         310.209.2087, E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com

     (f) Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz LLP, 270
         Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10016, Phone:
         212.545.4600, Fax: 212.686.0114, E-mail:
         newyork@whafh.com


VITRIA TECHNOLOGY: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Lawsuit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against Vitria
Technology, Inc., certain of its officers and directors and the
underwriters of its initial public offering (IPO).

In November 2001, the Company and certain of its officers and
directors were named as defendants in a class action shareholder
complaint filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, now captioned "In re Vitria
Technology, Inc. IPO Securities Litigation, Case No. 01-CV-
10092."

In the amended complaint, the plaintiffs allege that the
defendants violated federal securities laws because the
Company's IPO registration statement and prospectus contained
untrue statements of material fact or omitted material facts
regarding the compensation to be received by, and the stock
allocation practices of, the IPO underwriters. The plaintiffs
seek unspecified monetary damages and other relief.

Similar complaints were filed in the same court against hundreds
of public companies that first sold their common stock since the
mid-1990s.  The IPO Lawsuits were consolidated for pretrial
purposes before United States Judge Shira Scheindlin of the
Southern District of New York.  Defendants filed a global motion
to dismiss the IPO-related lawsuits on July 15, 2002.  In
October 2002, the Company's officers and directors were
dismissed without prejudice pursuant to a stipulated dismissal
and tolling agreement with the plaintiffs.  On February 19,
2003, Judge Scheindlin issued a ruling denying in part and
granting in part the Defendants' motions to dismiss.

In June 2003, Vitria's Board of Directors approved a resolution
tentatively accepting a settlement offer from the plaintiffs
according to the terms and conditions of a comprehensive
Memorandum of Understanding negotiated between the plaintiffs
and the Issuers. Under the terms of the settlement, the
plaintiff class will dismiss with prejudice all claims against
the Issuers, including Vitria and its current and former
directors and officers, and the Issuers will assign to the
plaintiff class or its designee certain claims that they may
have against the IPO underwriters. In addition, the tentative
settlement guarantees that, in the event that the plaintiffs
recover less than $1.0 billion in settlement or judgment against
the underwriter defendants in the IPO Lawsuits, the plaintiffs
will be entitled to recover the difference between the actual
recovery and $1.0 billion from the insurers for the Issuers.

In June 2004, Vitria executed a final settlement agreement with
the plaintiffs consistent with the terms of the Memorandum of
Understanding. The settlement is still subject to a number of
conditions, including action by the Court certifying a class
action for settlement purposes and formally approving the
settlement. The underwriters have opposed both the certification
of the class and the judicial approval of the settlement. On
February 15, 2005, the Court issued a decision certifying a
class action for settlement purposes and granting preliminary
approval of the settlement subject to modification of certain
bar orders contemplated by the settlement. In addition, the
settlement is still subject to statutory notice requirement as
well as final judicial approval.

The suit is styled "IN RE VITRIA TECHNOLOGY, INC. INITIAL PUBLIC
OFFERING SECURITIES LITIGATION," filed in relation to "IN RE
INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERING SECURITIES LITIGATION, Master File No.
21 MC 92 (SAS)," both pending in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, under Judge Shira
N. Scheindlin.  The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

     (1) Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP (New York, NY), 10 E.
         40th Street, 22nd Floor, New York, NY, 10016, Phone:
         800.217.1522, E-mail: info@bernlieb.com

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

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

     (4) Sirota & Sirota, LLP, 110 Wall Street 21st Floor, New
         York, NY, 10005, Phone: 888.759.2990, Fax:
         212.425.9093, E-mail: Info@SirotaLaw.com

     (5) Stull, Stull & Brody (New York), 6 East 45th Street,
         New York, NY, 10017, Phone: 310.209.2468, Fax:
         310.209.2087, E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com

     (6) Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz LLP, 270
         Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10016, Phone:
         212.545.4600, Fax: 212.686.0114, E-mail:
         newyork@whafh.com


                   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:

     (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.


CELL THERAPEUTICS: Scott + Scott Launches Securities Suit in WA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Scott + Scott, LLC filed a securities class action on behalf of
shareholders in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Washington. Those who purchased publicly traded
securities or otherwise acquired securities in Cell
Therapeutics, Inc. (Nasdaq: CTIC) from June 7, 2004 to March 4,
2005.  

On March 7, 2005, the Company announced that its study of a
product had missed its primary goal and the stock, which had
traded as high as $10.49 during the Class Period, fell almost
50% to close at $5.25 per share on volume of 33 million per
share. The stock is currently trading at $3.57 per share. To
learn more about this case, you can call Neil Rothstein directly
at 619/251-0887.

According to its website, Cell Therapeutics, Inc. develops,
acquires and commercializes treatments for cancer. The research
and inlicensing activities are focused on identifying ways to
treat cancer. The Company markets TRISENOX (arsenic trioxide)
for the treatment of relapsed or refractory acute promyelocytic
leukemia (APL) in the United States and in Europe. It is
developing XYOTAX (paclitaxel poliglumex) for the potential
treatment of non- small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and ovarian
cancer. The Company has completed enrollment of more than 1,700
patients in three pivotal Phase III trials of XYOTAX, known as
STELLAR 2, 3 and 4, for the treatment of NSCLC. It also develops
pixantrone, a compound in the class of drugs known as
anthracyclines, for the potential treatment of non-Hodgkin's
lymphoma (NHL) and has several clinical trials ongoing,
including a pivotal Phase III trial for the potential treatment
of relapsed aggressive NHL.

It is alleged that the Company made false and misleading
statements about the success of the clinical trials for a drug
to be used for treatment of a type of lung cancer. The true
facts were allegedly concealed from the investors, but known to
the defendants about this drug, XYOTAX. Defendants were
allegedly claiming this drug would meet its endpoint goal, but
it was known by defendants that it would not; the Company's
untrue statements that it would conduct "pre-launch" activities
or submit a new application for this drug were highly overstated
and in fact, the veracity of these statements is questionable;
finally, the success rate for those using this drug were not
superior to those taking another medication used for the same
purpose.  Prior to the drop in the stock, the defendants sold
more than $18.4 million worth of the shares in a private
placement.

For more details, contact Mr. Neil Rothstein by Mail: 108
Norwich Avenue, Colchester, CT 06415, by Phone: 860/537-3818, by
Fax: 860/537-4432 or by E-mail: nrothstein@scott-scott.com.


DORAL FINANCIAL: Abraham Fruchter Files Securities Lawsuit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Fruchter & Twersky LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Doral Financial
Corporation (NYSE: DRL) publicly traded securities during the
period between October 10, 2002 and April 19, 2005.

The complaint charges Doral and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Doral is a diversified financial services company engaged
in mortgage banking, commercial banking, institutional broker-
dealer activities and insurance agency activities.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business and prospects. On January 19, 2005, the
company reported fourth quarter earnings and for the first time
warned of potential trouble with its hedging strategy against
interest rate changes through its use of a derivative portfolio
of interest-only strips ("IO Strips"). Doral was forced to
record a $97.5 million pretax impairment charge on its
derivative portfolio of IO Strips. On March 15, 2005, Doral
filed its Annual Report on Form 10-K with the Securities and
Exchange Commission ("SEC"). In its 2004 Annual Report the
Company disclosed for the first time its use of overly
aggressive assumptions in valuing its derivatives portfolio of
IO Strips. In a matter of days Doral stock plummeted from $38.29
per share to $21.50 per share in extremely heavy volume of more
than ten times the daily average.

Then on April 19, 2005, the Company announced that "after
consulting with various financial institutions and other firms
with experience in valuation issues, the Company has determined
that it is appropriate to correct the methodology used to
calculate the fair value of its portfolio of floating rate
interest only strips ("IOs"). The Company's preliminary estimate
is that this correction will result in a decrease in the fair
value of its floating rate IOs of between $400 million to $600
million as of December 31, 2004."

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

     (1) the Company was using overly aggressive and unrealistic
         assumptions to value its derivative portfolio of IO
         Strips used to hedge its mortgage portfolio against
         interest rate fluctuations;

     (2) the Company was using fraudulent accounting practices
         and materially overstated its net income, net gain on
         mortgage loan sales and net capital; and

     (3) the Company was using ineffective risk management and
         hedging strategies against the increasing risk of
         rising interest rates.

As a result of these false statements, Doral's stock price
traded at inflated levels during the Class Period, increasing to
as high as $49.45 per share on January 18, 2005. The Company
sold $740 million worth of notes and $345 million worth of
preferred stock during the Class Period. However, after the
truth was revealed in Doral's press release on April 19, 2005,
the Company's shares fell to below $16 per share.

For more details, contact plaintiff's counsel Jack G. Fruchter,
Esq. or Ximena Skovron, Esq. of Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky,
LLP, by Mail: One Penn Plaza, Suite 2805, New York, New York
10119, by Phone: (212) 279-5050 or toll free at (800) 440-8986,
by Fax: (212) 279-3655, or by E-mail: jfruchter@aftlaw.com or
xskovron@aftlaw.com.  


FOREST TECHNOLOGIES: Scott + Scott Files Securities Suit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
Scott + Scott, LLC initiated a securities class action on behalf
of shareholders in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of a class consisting of
all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of Forest Laboratories, Inc. (NYSE: FRX) between
August 15, 2002 and September 1, 2004, inclusive.

The complaint charges Forest Labs and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Forest Labs develops, manufactures and sells prescription
drug products, as well as non-prescription pharmaceutical
products.

According to the complaint, during the Class Period, defendants
caused Forest Labs' stock price to be overstated by concealing
deficiencies with its Celexa/Lexapro drugs in treating
adolescent depression. When Forest Labs ultimately disclosed an
agreement with the New York State Attorney General to make
available summaries of previously undisclosed studies on the
drugs to the public, the price of Forest Labs stock dropped to
as low as $36 per share. Forest Laboratories Inc. on Thursday
said a Delaware federal court had delayed by seven months the
start of a trial in which it will attempt to block generic forms
of its Lexapro anti-depressant. Forest and its partner, Danish
drugmaker H. Lundbeck A/S, are battling generic drugmaker Ivax
Corp. and Australian drugmaker Alphapharm Pty. Ltd. The new
trial date will be Dec. 5, instead of the earlier slated date of
May 9, Forest said.

According to its website, Forest Laboratories, Inc. and its
subsidiaries, develop, manufacture and sell ethical drug
products, which require a physician's prescription, as well as
non-prescription pharmaceutical products sold over-the-counter
(OTC). The Company's products in United States consist of
branded-ethical drug specialties marketed directly or detailed
to physicians by the Company's Forest Pharmaceuticals, Forest
Therapeutics, Forest Healthcare, Forest Ethicare and Forest
Specialty Sales forces. It promotes in the United States those
of its branded products, which has potential for growth and
concentrates on group of physicians, who are high- prescribers
of its products, such as Namenda, Forest's N-Methyl-D-Aspartate
(NMDA) antagonist for the treatment of moderate to severe
Alzheimer's disease; Lexapro, selective serotonin reuptake
inhibitor (SSRI) for the treatment of major depression, and
Benicar, an angiotensin receptor blocker for the treatment of
hypertension, which Forest co-promotes with Sankyo.

For more details, contact Neil Rothstein by Mail: 108 Norwich
Avenue, Colchester, CT 06415, by Phone: 860/537-3818, by fax:
860/537-4432 or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.scott-scott.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.


MARTEK BIOSCIENCES: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Suit in MD
--------------------------------------------------------------
Schatz & Nobel, P.C. initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the District of Maryland on
behalf of all persons who purchased the publicly traded
securities of Martek Biosciences Corporation (NYSE: MATK)
between December 9, 2004 and April 27, 2005.

The Complaint alleges that Martek violated federal securities
laws by making materially false or misleading public statements.
Specifically, the Complaint alleges that Martek flooded its
major customers with inventory in excess of their allotted
levels, so that Martek could meet its financial numbers and
complete an $81.4 million stock offering. As a result of this
channel manipulation, Martek's financial results were materially
inflated and its statements about fiscal year 2005 financial
performance were lacking in any reasonable basis when made. On
April 27, 2005, Martek updated its earnings estimates and
production plan for fiscal year 2005, revealing an anticipated
decrease in third quarter sales. On this news, Martek shares
fell from a close of $60.08 on April 27, 2005, to close at
$32.49 on April 28, 2005.

For more information, contact Wayne T. Boulton or Nancy Kulesa
by Phone: (800) 797-5499 by E-mail: sn06106@aol.com or visit the
firm's Website: http://www.snlaw.net.


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.


MBNA CORPORATION: Lerach Couglin Lodges Securities Suit in DE
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP initiated a
securities class action in the United States District Court for
the District of Delaware on behalf of purchasers of MBNA Corp.
("MBNA") (NYSE:KRB) publicly traded securities during the period
between January 20, 2005 and April 21, 2005.

The complaint charges MBNA and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. MBNA is an international financial services company
providing lending, deposit, and credit insurance products and
services to its customers.

The complaint alleges that on January 21, 2005, the start of the
Class Period, MBNA issued the first earnings forecast in the
Company's history, projecting an ongoing 12% earnings increase,
with a 10% increase in 2005 earnings over 2004's. Defendants
said MBNA would make this target because the Company had already
drastically reduced its own reliance on insidious no-interest
loans, rendering its own loan portfolio more profitable than
that of its competitors. Defendants also projected a 20%+
increase in Return on Equity. Defendants' EPS estimate for 2005
was $2.36 per share, which was 10% above the Company's 2004 EPS.
These projections were being made nearly one-third of the way
into Q1 2005 and would be repeated and detailed at the Company's
January 21, 2005 and February 9, 2005 investor conferences. On
April 21, 2005, defendants disclosed that MBNA had earned only
$0.02 in Q1 2005 -- a 94% decline from the $0.59 per share it
reported in Q4 2004 -- and that it was guiding 2005 EPS growth
down to "significantly below" its prior 10% growth estimate.

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

     (1) the Company had been experiencing "unexpectedly high
         payment volumes from U.S. credit card customers" during
         Q1 2005, reducing managed loans in the quarter "more
         than in prior years";

     (2) of the prepays, the higher interest rate borrowers were
         prepaying more than the lower interest rate borrowers,
         resulting in the prepays having a more adverse impact
         on the Company's yield on managed loans;

     (3) MBNA was suffering from an unseasonably sharp
         contraction in loans during Q1 2005 causing total
         managed loans to decrease;

     (4) the Company had been aggressively recognizing gains on
         sales of securitized no-interest loan receivables
         through off-balance sheet funding structures;

     (5) MBNA was experiencing higher-than-expected
         delinquencies during Q1 2005;

     (6) the Company had reversed its margin-protection strategy
         of reducing reliance on no-interest loans and teaser
         promotions and was instead increasing its offering of
         no-interest loans, which, by defendants' own
         admissions, will significantly reduce future earnings;

     (7) losses on loan receivables and managed loans had
         increased;

     (8) approximately 50% of MBNA's receivables were on
         variable floating interest rates while approximately
         80% of the Company's funding was tied to LIBOR, such
         that the Company's cost of funds was increasing more
         rapidly than the interest payments it was receiving
         from borrowers when interest rates increased;

     (9) due to the increase in prepays, the interest-only
         securitization strip securities valued on the Company's
         books at $1.3 billion were overstated; and

    (10) the Company's previously announced Q1 2005
         restructuring charge had doubled.

As a result of these false statements, MBNA's stock traded at
inflated levels during the Class Period which permitted the
Company's top officers and directors to sell more than $75
million worth of their own shares. Following the Company's April
21, 2005 disclosures concerning its business operations,
financial results and reduced 2005 earnings expectations, the
Company's stock price plummeted from its closing price of $23.11
on the close of April 20, 2005 to below $19 per share on
extremely high trading volume of 51 million shares.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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.


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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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


XYBERNAUT CORPORATION: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Suit in DE
----------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP initiated a securities
class action on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired the securities of Xybernaut Corporation (NasdaqSC:
XYBRE), between May 10, 2002 and April 8, 2005, inclusive,
seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

The action, Case No. 05-cv-268, is pending in the United States
District Court for the District of Delaware against defendants
Xybernaut, Edward G. Newman (CEO and Chairman), Steven A. Newman
(President, COO, and Vice Chairman), Thomas D. Davis (former CFO
and Senior VP), Bruce C. Hayden (current CFO and Senior VP), and
Grant Thornton, the Company's auditor during the Class Period.
According to the complaint, defendants violated sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5, by issuing a
series of material misrepresentations to the market during the
Class Period.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Xybernaut was engaged in the research, development, manufacture,
marketing and sales of mobile, wearable computing and
communication systems, and software and service solutions.
During the Class Period, Xybernaut consistently reported
positive results in press releases and filings with the SEC. The
Company attributed the result to, among other things, strong
product sales, cost-cutting programs, financings, intellectual
property licensing strategies, strategic partnerships and
securing key accounts in the transportation, retail, military
and homeland security sectors.

The truth began to emerge on February 17, 2005. On that day,
after weeks of decline in the price of Xybernaut stock, the
Company issued a press release denying knowledge of any reason
for the decline. On March 14, 2005, Xybernaut announced that it
would be unable to file its 2004 annual report on time. In
reaction to this news, the price of Xybernaut stock fell $0.12
from the previous day's closing price to close at $0.60 on March
14, 2005.

On March 31, 2005, after the market closed, defendants issued a
press release revealing that it had discovered material
weaknesses in Xybernaut's internal controls with respect to
expense reimbursement, revenue recognition, and the monitoring
of business risks. The Company stated that it had engaged
independent legal counsel to conduct an internal investigation
of these matters and that, as a result, it could not predict
when it would be able to file its 2004 annual report. In
addition, the Company revealed for the first time that, on
February 1, 2005, nearly two months earlier, it had received a
subpoena from the SEC seeking documents relating to the sale of
securities by an unidentified shareholder. Xybernaut also
announced that it had received notification from Nasdaq that the
Company's stock was subject to delisting. In reaction to this
news, the price of Xybernaut dropped another $0.18 per share
from its closing price of $0.42 on March 31, 2005, to close at
$0.24 on April 1, 2005. On April 8, 2005, the last day of the
Class Period, defendants disclosed that the Company had received
a letter from its auditor, defendant Grant Thornton LLP,
questioning the accuracy and reliability of the Company's
accounting and related disclosures; the Company's historical
financial statements for fiscal 2002 and 2003; and the Company's
financial statements for the interim first, second, and third
quarters of 2002 and 2003. In reaction to this news, the price
of Xybernaut stock fell another $0.06 to close at $0.13 on the
next trading day, April 11, 2005.

On April 19, 2005, the Company announced the completion of its
internal investigation. The report made clear that the Company's
management had engaged in serious undisclosed wrongdoing,
including improper use of substantial company funds by defendant
Edward Newman; material related party transactions; a breakdown
in the Company's internal controls; and defendants' Edward and
Steven Newman's affirmative steps to impede the internal
investigation. The Company stated that it had removed, or had
requested the resignation of, certain officers and directors.
Moreover, the Company stated that Grant Thornton had resigned as
auditor because "in its professional judgment, it can no longer
rely on management's representations." The complaint charges
Grant Thornton with participating in the alleged fraudulent
conduct by certifying, with knowledge or reckless disregard,
Xybernaut's materially false and misleading financial statements
and providing unqualified Independent Auditors' Reports included
in the Company's SEC filings and publicly disseminated
statements. The Company warned investors that "no reliance
should be placed upon certain of the Company's historical
financial statements, together with the related audit reports
the Company received from its outside auditors." On April 25,
2005, Xybernaut announced that the United States Attorney's
Office for the Eastern District of Virginia had commenced an
investigation of the Company.

For more details, contact Steven G. Schulman, Peter E. Seidman,
Andrei V. Rado by Mail: One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th fl., New
York, NY 10119-0165 by Phone: (800) 320-5081 by E-mail:
sfeerick@milbergweiss.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.milbergweiss.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  * * *