CAR_Public/050511.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Wednesday, May 11, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 92


                            Headlines

ADVANCE AMERICA: NC Court Hears Motion To Stay Discovery in Suit
ADVANCE AMERICA: GA Court Stays Consumers' Payday Loans Lawsuit
ADVANCE AMERICA: Seeks Arbitration For FL Consumer Fraud Suits
ADVANCE AMERICA: Consumer Commences Fraud Lawsuit in TN Court
AMERICAN FUNDS: CA Attorney General Files Securities Fraud Suit

AMERICAN RACING: Recalls 532 Aluminum Wheels For Product Defect
CALAMOS ASSET: Plaintiffs Dismiss Shareholder Lawsuit in N.D. IL
CALIFORNIA: Receives $9 Million Share in CD Antitrust Settlement
CANADA: Lawsuit Launched Over Gambling Addiction Due To Mirapex
CITADEL SECURITY: Shareholders Lodge Securities Suits in N.D. TX

CITIZENS INC.: TX Court Yet To Rule on Suit Certification Appeal
COACHMEN RV: Recalls 40 Legend Motorhomes Due To Crash Hazard
CROWLEY MARITIME: Asks DE Court To Dismiss Investor Fraud Suit
ELDORADO NATIONAL: Recalls 39 Conversion Vans Due to Fire Hazard
ELECTRONIC DATA: Reaches $16.5 Million 401(k) Suit Settlement

GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls 142,585 Pick-Up Trucks For Crash Hazard
GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls SUVs, Pick-up Trucks For Seatbelt Defect
HSBC TAXPAYER: Firm, H&R Block Reaches Accord RAL-Related Suit
INTERMUNE INC.: Reaches Agreement To Settle CA Securities Suit
LION PAVILION: Recalls Dried Apricots Due To Undeclared Sulfites

KANSAS: Major City-Area Payors Named in Suit Over Reimbursements
MASTEC INC.: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Suit in S.D. FL
MORTGAGEIT INC.: Faces Amended Overtime Wage Lawsuit in S.D. NY
NBO INC.: Asks IL Court To Dismiss Consumer Suit V. Gift Cards
NEW YORK: NYSE Seat Holder Launches Suit Over Archipelago Merger

OHIO: Appeals Court Overturns Ruling in Youth Program Suit
OPTIN GLOBAL: CA AG Lockyer, FTC Commence Anti-Spam Litigation
PEOPLE IN PROFIT: AK Attorney General Warns Of Ponzi Scheme
PFGI CAPITAL: Stock Owner Reaches OH Securities Suit Settlement
PROHEALTH CARE: Uninsured Couple Lodges Overcharging Suit in WI

QC HOLDINGS: Consumers Launch Suit For NC State Law Violations
QUIK'N TASTY: Recalls Sandwiches Due To Listeria Contamination
SINOFRESH HEALTHCARE: Shareholders Launch Securities Suit in FL
TAN NAM: Recalls Fresh Soymilk Due To Undeclared Cow's Milk
VASO ACTIVE: Shareholders Lodge MA Consolidated Securities Suit

WARNER-LAMBERT: Arkansas Receives $445,525 Nuerontin Settlement
WISCONSIN: Federal Lawsuit Launched After Police Beatings
YTS GROUP: Recalls Several Products Due To Undeclared Eggs


                Meetings, Conferences & Seminars



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


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


BLUE COAT: Spector Roseman Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in CA
COCA-COLA COMPANY: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Suit in GA
FINDWHAT.COM: Charles J. Piven Files Securities Fraud Suit in FL
FINDWHAT.COM: Federman & Sherwood Lodges Securities Suit in FL
FINDWHAT.COM: Paskowitz & Associations Lodges Stock Suit in FL

FINDWHAT.COM: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in FL
FINDWHAT.COM: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in FL
XYBERNAUT CORPORATION: Cohen Milstein Lodges Stock Lawsuit in VA


                            *********


ADVANCE AMERICA: NC Court Hears Motion To Stay Discovery in Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The General Court of Justice for the Superior Court Division for
New Hanover County, North Carolina heard motions to stay
discovery in the class action filed against Advance America,
Cash Advance Centers, Inc.  The suit also names as defendants
the Company's subsidiary that operates in North Carolina and
William M. Webster, IV, its Chief Executive Officer.

On July 27, 2004, John Kucan, Welsie Torrence and Terry Coates,
each of whom is a customer of Republic Bank & Trust Company, the
lending bank for whom we process, market and service payday cash
advances in North Carolina.  The plaintiffs are alleging, among
other things, that the Company, and not the lending bank, are
the "true lender" and are therefore offering usurious payday
cash advances in violation of numerous consumer protection
statutes.  

The suit alleges, among other things, that the relationship
between its subsidiary that operates in North Carolina and
Republic is a "rent a charter" relationship and therefore the
bank is not the "true lender" on the payday cash advances. The
lawsuit also claims that the payday cash advances are made,
administered and collected in violation of numerous North
Carolina consumer protection laws.  The lawsuit seeks an
injunction barring the Company from continuing to do business in
North Carolina, the return of the principal amount of the payday
cash advances made to the plaintiff class since August 2001, the
return of any interest or fees associated with those advances,
treble damages, attorneys' fees and other unspecified costs.  
The case is in its preliminary stages.

Thus far the only substantive motions the Company has filed are
motions to dismiss or stay proceedings and compel arbitration.
On November 19, 2004, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking class
certification.  On November 16, 2004, North Carolina Superior
Court Judge Ernest Fulwood denied the Company's motion to have
the case designated as a complex business case and assign it to
the North Carolina Business Court and instead granted the
plaintiffs' motion to designate the case as exceptional and
assign it to a specific Superior Court judge. The ruling does
not express any opinion on the merits of the case.

Plaintiffs' counsel indicated at the hearing held prior to the
ruling, and in papers filed in support of their motion for class
certification (which has not yet been fully briefed or set for a
hearing), that the distributions to the Company's stockholders
of substantially all of the net income earned by the Company in
the form of cash dividends may be the subject of a fraudulent
conveyance claim.  At the hearing, plaintiffs' counsel indicated
that they might seek injunctive relief to return such payments
or to hold them in escrow pending a judgment in this lawsuit.
Plaintiffs' complaint contains a fraudulent conveyance claim but
seeks no specific relief with respect to that claim.  

On December 1, 2004, North Carolina Supreme Court Chief Justice
I. Beverly Lake, Jr. signed a commission appointing Special
Superior Judge D. Jack Hooks, Jr. to hear the case.  On March
10, 2005, Judge Hooks heard arguments on motions to stay
discovery pending a decision regarding arbitration.  The Company
is currently awaiting the judge's ruling on this motion.


ADVANCE AMERICA: GA Court Stays Consumers' Payday Loans Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Georgia
stayed the class action filed against Advance America, Cash
Advance Centers, Inc., pending the United States Eleventh
Circuit's ruling in a related case.

On August 6, 2004, Tahisha King and James E. Strong, who are
customers of BankWest, Inc., the lending bank for whom we
processed, marketed and serviced payday cash advances in
Georgia, filed a putative class action lawsuit in the State
Court of Cobb County, Georgia against the Company, its
subsidiary in Georgia, William M. Webster, IV and several of its
unnamed officers, directors, owners and "stakeholders."  The
suit alleges many different causes of action, most notably that
the Company has been making illegal payday loans in Georgia in
violation of Georgia's usury law, the Georgia Industrial Loan
Act and Georgia's Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act.

The complaint alleges that BankWest is not the "true lender" on
the loans that the Company processes, market and service for
BankWest in Georgia and that the Company is the "de facto"
lender. The complaint seeks compensatory damages, attorneys'
fees, punitive damages and the trebling of any compensatory
damages.

The Company has removed the case to federal court and filed an
answer denying the allegations and asserting the defense of
arbitration as well as other defenses. The plaintiffs filed a
motion in September 2004 to remand the case to Georgia state
court to which the Company has responded.  In September 2004,
the Company filed a declaratory judgment action in federal court
in Georgia against the Georgia class action plaintiffs seeking a
declaratory judgment that all disputes relating to the loans by
BankWest shall be submitted to arbitration and plaintiffs shall
be prohibited from pursuing loan related disputes in a non-
arbitral forum.  A hearing was held on December 14, 2004. While
no formal opinion was issued, the court indicated it was likely
to place the cases on hold until the Eleventh Circuit issues its
ruling in BankWest vs. Baker, which challenges the
constitutionality of Georgia's payday cash advance law and
Jenkins vs. First American, which involves the enforceability of
an arbitration clause similar to the one at issue in our Georgia
case.  On February 18, 2005, the Eleventh Circuit held in the
Jenkins case that the arbitration ruling was enforceable and
binding on the plaintiffs.  On March 24, 2005, the court issued
a formal opinion indicating that it was staying the case until
the Eleventh Circuit issued its decision in BankWest v. Baker.


ADVANCE AMERICA: Seeks Arbitration For FL Consumer Fraud Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Advance America, Cash Advance Centers, Inc. is pushing for
arbitration in two Florida class actions filed against it and
certain of its officers, directors and employees.

Three of its former customers, Gerald and Wendy Betts and
Donna Reuter, filed the suits in Florida.  The first putative
class action was filed by Ms. Betts and Ms. Reuter in February
2001 in the Circuit Court of Palm Beach County against the
Company's subsidiary, McKenzie Check Advance of Florida, LLC and
certain other parties.  The first lawsuit alleges that the
Company engaged in unfair and deceptive trade practices and
violated the Florida criminal usury statute, the Florida
Consumer Finance Act, and Florida's Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act.

The Company successfully moved to have Ms. Reuter's case sent to
arbitration and were awarded summary judgment as to Ms. Betts'
claims.  The arbitration order in Ms. Reuter's case is currently
on appeal to the Florida Supreme Court and the summary judgment
order in Ms. Betts' case was reversed on August 11, 2004 by
Florida's Fourth District Court of Appeals.  The Company is
appealing the Fourth District Court of Appeals' ruling.

The suit seeks unspecified damages, and the Company could be
required to refund fees and/or interest collected, refund the
principal amount of payday cash advances, pay multiple damages
and pay other monetary penalties.  The Company expects to
receive an order in the near future reversing the arbitration
order as to Ms. Reuter based on another Florida Supreme Court
decision on arbitration entitled Cardegna v. Buckeye Check
Cashing, Inc., the Company said in a regulatory filing.

A second Florida lawsuit was filed in August 2004 in the Circuit
Court of Palm Beach County by Mr. Betts and Ms. Reuter against
the Company, its subsidiary in Florida and officers and
directors of the subsidiary. The allegations are nearly
identical to those alleged in their first lawsuit discussed in
the preceding paragraph.  The Company has filed motions to
dismiss, to stay the proceedings pending determination of
dispositive actions by the Florida Supreme Court, and to compel
arbitration. These motions have not been fully briefed or set
for hearing yet.


ADVANCE AMERICA: Consumer Commences Fraud Lawsuit in TN Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Advance America, Cash Advance Centers, Inc. faces a lawsuit
brought on behalf of a putative class of persons by a former
customer, Lois Bennett, in Tennessee State Court.

Ms. Bennett, on behalf of herself and others, alleges that the
Company's subsidiary, McKenzie Check Advance LLC, violated the
terms of a class action settlement order by wrongfully
collecting fees and advances from the class members during a
period of time when collections were allegedly prohibited.

The Tennessee Court of Appeals reversed the findings of the
trial judge in the Company's favor and remanded the case for
further findings of fact.  The suit seeks unspecified damages,
and we could be required to refund fees and advances collected
and to pay other monetary penalties.


AMERICAN FUNDS: CA Attorney General Files Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
American Funds Distributors Inc.'s Los Angeles-based distributor
and investment manager faces a securities fraud lawsuit,
alleging the defendants failed to adequately inform investors
about $426 million in "shelf space" payments made to dozens of
broker-dealers to sell and recommend American Funds.  California
Attorney General Bill Lockyer filed the suit in late March 2005.

"American Funds dressed up these arrangements with fancy names
like `execution revenue,' `target commissions' or `Broker
Partnership Payments,' " said Attorney General Lockyer. "But
when you look beneath the cloak of legitimacy, the payments are
little more than kickbacks to buy preferential treatment.
Investors deserve to know that. The law American Funds violated
is based on that simple principle."

The defendants in the lawsuit filed in Los Angeles County
Superior Court are American Funds Distributors, Inc. (AFD) and
Capital Research and Management Company (Capital), the
investment manager for American Funds. The complaint seeks
disgorgement of all profits the defendants obtained as a result
of violating provisions of the state's Corporate Securities Law
(CSL) that prohibit fraud in the sale or offering of securities.
Additionally, the complaint seeks restitution for investors,
civil penalties of up to $25,000 per CSL violation and an
injunction prohibiting future violations.

Under the CSL, fraud includes failure to disclose material facts
that a consumer would consider important to know in deciding
whether to make a particular investment. Shelf space
arrangements qualify as such material facts, the complaint
alleges. Such payments - made in cash or "directed brokerage"
commissions on mutual funds' portfolio transactions - create
conflicts of interest, increase mutual funds' expenses and
decrease consumers' investment choices, the complaint notes. The
defendants violated the CSL by failing to adequately inform
investors about the significance of the shelf space payments and
potential problems, and about the preferential treatment the
defendants received in return for the payments.

The American Funds complex includes about 29 mutual funds with
20 million shareholders and more than $600 billion in combined
assets. From January 1, 2000 through the present, AFD maintained
an annual average of about 100 shelf space arrangements with
broker-dealers, the complaint alleges. Until 2004, when the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) banned directed
brokerage, the defendants paid the top 47 AFD shelf space
partners portfolio transaction commissions, as well as cash.
From 2000 through the end of 2004, the defendants' shelf space
payments totaled at least $426 million, including $294 million
in cash and $132 million in directed brokerage, the complaint
alleges.

AFD's shelf space brokers included Edward D. Jones & Co.
(Jones), Morgan Stanley Dean Witter and Piper Jaffray. To
increase sales of American Funds, all three of these partners
used shelf space payments to provide bonuses, cash rewards
and/or resort travel assistance to local sales representatives.
These incentives were not disclosed to investors.

To show the defendants knew they were not informing investors
about how the shelf space arrangements worked in practice, the
complaint cites a January 9, 2004 "global" voice mail message
from AFD's co-CEO Kevin Clifford to all sales representatives.
After offering the argument the payments actually help
investors, Clifford states, "I think it's important that you be
on message because this is the message that we have been using
with regulators ... This will be the story that we use with
regulators going forward, and I think you'll see it in time
incorporated in our disclosure."

The defendants also misled independent directors on the boards
of various American Funds, according to the complaint.
Executives of Capital - which occasionally subsidized AFD's cash
payments to broker-dealers- falsely told independent directors
AFD did not maintain shelf space arrangements, did not use
directed brokerage to purchase shelf space and did not provide
portfolio transaction targets to broker-dealers, the complaint
alleges.

Edward Jones ranked as AFD's top shelf space partner. From 2000
through 2004, AFD paid Edward Jones more than $106.5 million in
cash and directed brokerage. After the defendants ended directed
brokerage for Jones in January 2002, they replaced it with cash
to maintain their preferential treatment. As a result, the cash
payments jumped from $10.7 million in 2001 to $20.7 million in
2002. Meanwhile, from 2000 through 2003, Jones sold more than
$45 billion in American Funds shares.

Some of AFD's shelf space partners, such as Jones, did not have
the capacity to perform securities trades. In those cases, at
least until 2002, Capital would trade directly with the shelf
space partner's "clearing broker." The clearing broker would
keep a portion of the directed brokerage commission and pass on
the remainder to the AFD shelf space partner.

Mr. Lockyer's office has been working closely with the SEC on
the American Funds case, and Lockyer acknowledged the SEC's
substantial assistance and cooperation.  Employees of mutual
funds or broker-dealers who have knowledge of securities law
violations by their companies should contact the Attorney
General's Whistleblower Hotline at 800-952-5225 (for California
residents) or 916-322-3360 (for out-of-state residents).


AMERICAN RACING: Recalls 532 Aluminum Wheels For Product Defect
---------------------------------------------------------------
American Racing Equipment is cooperating with the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration by recalling 532 aluminum
alloy wheels, namely series AR-106 and AR-606.

These wheels, sold as aftermarket for use on passenger vehicles
between July 20,2005 and April 15,2005, were sold before the
steel lug nut seat inserts to make the wheel complete were
installed.  Without the seat inserts, the wheel can separate
from the vehicle, possibly resulting in a vehicle crash.

The company will notify its customers and replace the wheels
free of charge.  The recall began during April 2005.  Owners who
do not receive the free remedy within a reasonable time should
contact the Company by Phone: 800-959-1969 or 310-761-4026 or
contact the NHTSA's auto safety hotline: 1-888-327-4236.  


CALAMOS ASSET: Plaintiffs Dismiss Shareholder Lawsuit in N.D. IL
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the class action filed against
Calamos Asset Management, Inc. in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, styled "Robert
McDermott et al. v Calamos Asset Management, Inc. et al., No. 05
C 0141."

Individuals purported to be shareholders of one of the open-end
funds sponsored by an indirect subsidiary of the company filed
the suit on January 10,2005.  The defendants also included
Calamos Holdings LLC and the individual Calamos fund trustees,
including the Company's Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and
Co-Chief Investment Officer, John P. Calamos, Sr.  

Plaintiffs purported to sue on behalf of investors in all
Calamos sponsored open-end funds and alleged that the defendants
breached fiduciary duties, duties of care and sections 36(a),
36(b) and 47(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 by failing
to ensure that the open-end funds participated in securities
class action settlements for which those funds were eligible.
Plaintiffs sought compensatory damages, disgorgement of the fees
paid to the investment advisors, punitive damages, attorney's
fees, and other such other relief as the Court deemed just.

On February 9, 2005, the plaintiffs voluntary dismissed the
action without prejudice.

The suit is styled "Robert McDermott et al. v Calamos Asset
Management, Inc. et al., No. 05 C 0141," filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
under Judge Samuel Der-Yeghiayan.  Representing the plaintiffs
is Randall K Pulliam of Baron & Budd, P.C., 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue
Suite 1100 Dallas, TX 75219 Phone: (214) 521-3605.


CALIFORNIA: Receives $9 Million Share in CD Antitrust Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
More than 1,200 California library districts, school districts,
colleges and universities started receiving 665,000 free compact
discs (CD) valued at $9 million from the settlement of a price-
fixing lawsuit that also provided consumers $67.4 million in
refunds in late April 2005, State Attorney General Bill Lockyer
announced in a statement.

"Music adds great value to our lives, and these free CDs will
substantially benefit our children, students and communities,"
said Attorney General Lockyer. "This is a fitting end to a case
brought to hold accountable music distributors and retailers who
conspired to stifle competition and inflate prices for
consumers."

The CDs encompass a wide variety of genres, including pop, hip-
hop, rock, jazz, blues, country, Latin, classical, children's
songs and show tunes. Under the allocation formula, 171 library
districts will receive 55 percent of the CDs, 960 K-12 school
districts will receive 40 percent, and 93 college districts and
universities will receive five percent.  Each K-12 school site
will receive an average of 29 CDs, while libraries will obtain
roughly 65 percent of the pop titles. Libraries are receiving
the most CDs and pop titles because they serve the largest
general public population.  The CDs include titles with parental
advisories about lyrics that may not be suitable for children.
None of those titles, however, will be distributed to K-12
schools.

Nationwide, the settlement required the defendants to distribute
some 5.6 million free CDs valued at approximately $77 million.
The CDs already have been distributed in most other states.
Attorney General Lockyer delayed the distribution in California
to correct problems experienced in other jurisdictions.

The most significant correction addressed incidents in other
states that saw recipients receive extraordinarily high numbers
of copies of one title. The California distribution addresses
that problem in two ways. First, it spreads distribution of the
highest-volume titles across the three recipient groups based
the overall number of recipients. Second, it features a sliding
scale that allocates a greater number of multiple copies to
larger recipients. So, for example, the Los Angeles Unified
School District will receive more multiple copies than the Yuba
City Unified School District.

The Attorney General's office obtained lists of public library
and school districts from the state Department of Education and
California State Library, respectively. Lists of colleges and
universities were provided by the offices of chancellors and
presidents. He then sent to all entities on the lists notices
inviting them to participate, and disseminated follow-up
reminders as well. All entities that responded are receiving
CDs.

The CD shipments will be arriving over the next five to six
weeks. Details on the CD distribution to specific school
districts, library districts, and college districts and
universities can be found on the Attorney General's web site at
www.ag.ca.gov/musiccd . Click on Frequently Asked Questions
(FAQ), then click on question number two.

The $144.4 million settlement also provided $67.4 million in
refunds to more than three million consumers nationwide. In
California, 385,637 consumers received refund checks of $13.86.
The refunds were distributed in 2004.  Attorney General Lockyer
and the Attorneys General of 39 other states and three
territories brought the antitrust lawsuit against five of the
country's largest CD distributors and three national retail
chains. The defendants included: music distributors Bertelsmann
Music Group, Inc., Capitol Records, Inc. (EMI Music
Distribution, Virgin Records America, Inc. and Priority Records,
LLC, Warner-Elektra-Atlantic Corporation, Sony Music
Entertainment, Inc., Universal Music Group; and retailers
Transworld Entertainment Corporation, Tower Records and
Musicland Stores Corporation.

The complaint alleged the defendants entered illegal
conspiracies to set minimum prices for CDs. Under the alleged
scheme, the distributors subsidized retailers' promotional costs
of selling CDs if the retailers agreed to charge minimum
advertised prices dictated by the distributors.

To prevent similar misconduct in the future, the settlement
reforms the defendants' business practices. Among other
provisions, the settlement bars the defendants from entering
agreements designed to maintain or control the price at which
retailers can sell music CDs. Additionally, the settlement
prohibits the distributors from terminating business
relationships with dealers or retailers who fail to sell music
CDs only at suggested retail prices.

Besides California, other states and territories that entered
the settlement include: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas,
Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois,
Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan,
Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North
Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania,
Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont,
Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming,
Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.


CANADA: Lawsuit Launched Over Gambling Addiction Due To Mirapex
---------------------------------------------------------------
A national Class Action lawsuit has been launched claiming that
people with Parkinson's disease developed a gambling addiction
as a result of their use of the drug Mirapex. The plaintiffs,
who are represented by the Toronto law firm of Thomson, Rogers,
seek millions of dollars in compensation from the drug's
Canadian manufacturer, Boehringer Ingelheim (Canada) Ltd., and
two American corporations.

The representative claimant, Mr. Gerard Schick from Midland,
Ontario, alleges that he began gambling compulsively after
starting to take Mirapex and lost more than $100,000. Some 100
or more Canadians are believed to have suffered a similar
experience. Recent medical reports have linked the drug to
compulsive behavior including compulsive gambling. An American
class action is already underway.

For more details, contact Darcy Merkur by Phone: 416-868-3176 by
E-mail: dmerkur@thomsonrogers.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.thomsonrogers.com.


CITADEL SECURITY: Shareholders Lodge Securities Suits in N.D. TX
----------------------------------------------------------------
Citadel Security Software, Inc., its chief executive officer and
chief financial officer face six putative securities class
action lawsuits filed in the United States District Court,
Northern District of Texas, styled:

     (1) Ruth R. Lentz, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
         Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. Citadel Security
         Software Inc., Steven B. Solomon and Richard Connelly,
         Defendants, Civil Action No. 3:05-CV-0100-D, filed
         January 14, 2005;

     (2) John Heller, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
         Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. Citadel Security
         Software Inc., Steven B. Solomon and Richard Connelly,
         Defendants, Civil Action No. 3:05-CV-0142-D, filed
         January 24, 2005;

     (3) Adam Cheyney, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
         Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. Citadel Security
         Software Inc., Steven B. Solomon and Richard Connelly,
         Defendants, Civil Action No. 3:05-CV-0157-D, filed
         January 25, 2004;

     (4) Richard Holland, Individually and On Behalf of All
         Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. Citadel
         Security Software Inc., Steven B. Solomon and Richard
         Connelly, Defendants, Civil Action No. 3:05-CV-0184-H,
         filed January 26, 2004;

     (5) Philip Crawford, Jr., Individually and On Behalf of All
         Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. Citadel
         Security Software Inc., Steven B. Solomon and Richard
         Connelly, Defendants, Civil Action No. 3:05-CV-0203-D,
         filed January 28, 2004; and

     (6) Leonard Wald, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
         Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. Citadel Security
         Software Inc., Steven B. Solomon and Richard Connelly,
         Defendants, Civil Action No. 3:05-CV-0297-D, filed
         January 2, 2004

The suits were filed on behalf of all securities purchasers of
Citadel Security Software, Inc. (Nasdaq: CDSS) from February 12,
2004 through December 16, 2004 inclusive.  The complaint charges
the Company, Steven B. Solomon, and Richard Connelly with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  According to
the complaint, the Company failed to disclose and misrepresented
the following material adverse facts, known to defendants or
recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) that customer demand in the commercial portion of the
         Company's business was slowing;

     (2) that the much touted, sizable pipeline of potential
         contracts failed to materialize due to poor management
         execution;

     (3) that as a consequence of the above the Company's growth
         was lagging; and

     (4) therefore, the defendants' statements about the Company
         were lacking in any reasonable basis when made.

Additionally, the complaint alleges that during the Class
Period, defendants sold a total of 754,500 shares for proceeds
totaling more than $3 million.


CITIZENS INC.: TX Court Yet To Rule on Suit Certification Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Texas has yet to rule on Citizens, Inc.'s
appeal of a lower court decision affirming in part class
certification for a lawsuit filed against it, styled "Delia
Bolanos Andrade, et al v. Citizens Insurance Company of America,
Citizens, Inc., Negocios Savoy, S.A., Harold E. Riley, and Mark
A. Oliver, Case Number 99-09099."

The suit was filed in Travis County, Texas district court.  The
suit alleges that life insurance policies offered or sold to
certain non-U.S. residents by Citizens Insurance Company of
America (CICA) are actually "securities" that were offered or
sold in Texas by unregistered dealers in violation of the
registration provisions of the Texas securities laws. The suit
seeks class action status naming as a class all non-U.S.
residents who purchased insurance policies or made premium
payments since August 1996 and assigned policy dividends to an
overseas trust for the purchase of the Company's Class A common
stock.  The remedy sought is rescission of the insurance premium
payments.

In July 31,2002, the court granted class certification to the
suit.  On April 24, 2003, the Court of Appeals for the Third
District of Texas affirmed the ruling in part and modified it in
part.  The Supreme Court of Texas granted the Company's Petition
for Review and heard oral arguments on the case on October 21,
2004.  The Company believes the Plaintiffs' claim under the
Texas Securities Act is not valid and the class defined is not
appropriate for class certification and does not meet the legal
requirements for class action treatment under Texas law.

Recent decisions from the Texas Supreme Court indicate a more
defense-oriented approach to class certification cases,
especially in class action cases encompassing claimants from
more than one state or jurisdiction. Although a decision is not
expected until sometime in 2005, the Company expects the Supreme
Court of Texas will ultimately rule in the Company's favor,
decertify the class and remand the matter to district court for
further action. During the time of the Company's appeal to the
Texas Supreme Court, there are no further district court
proceedings in the case.


COACHMEN RV: Recalls 40 Legend Motorhomes Due To Crash Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------
Coachmen RV Company LLC is cooperating with the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) by voluntarily recalling
40 Sportscoach Legend motorhomes, models 2004-2005.  These motor
homes were built on Spartan chassis and equipped with Ametek NGI
Gauges.  The air gauges are not properly calibrated and the low
air warning indicator may be activated when actual air reservoir
pressure readings are below the required range of 60 to 65 PSI.

The low air warning alarm will sound, but there may not be
enough time to react before the spring (park) brake engages,
increasing the risk of a crash.  

The Company is conducting the owner notification and remedy for
this campaign.  For more details, contact Spartan by Phone: 517-
543-6400 or the Company by Phone: 574-825-5821 or contact the
NHTSA's auto safety hotline: 1-888-327-4236.


CROWLEY MARITIME: Asks DE Court To Dismiss Investor Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Crowley Maritime Corporation and its board of directors asked
the Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware to dismiss the
class action and derivative complaint filed against them,
alleging breaches of the fiduciary duties owed by the director
defendants to the Company and its stockholders.

Among other things, the complaint alleges that the defendants
have pursued a corporate policy of entrenching the Company's
controlling stockholder, Thomas B. Crowley, Jr., and certain
members of the Crowley family by allegedly expending corporate
funds improperly.  The plaintiffs seek damages and other relief.

On February 25, 2005, the Company and the director defendants
filed a motion with the Delaware Court of Chancery seeking
dismissal of the lawsuit. The Company believes that the lawsuit
is without merit, the Company said in a disclosure to the
Securities and Exchange Commission.


ELDORADO NATIONAL: Recalls 39 Conversion Vans Due to Fire Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eldorado National is cooperating with the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration by voluntarily recalling 39
AMERIVAN conversion vans, models 2004-2005.

On certain conversion vans, the rubber fuel line may come in
close proximity to the exhaust system.  A fire could occur
without prior warning.

Dealers will attach a P-clamp to the rubber fuel line to prevent
the rubber fuel line from coming in close proximity with the
van's exhaust system.  The recall is expected to begin on May
28, 2005.  For more details, contact the Company by Phone:
1-800-955-9086 EXT 427 or contact the NHTSA's auto safety
hotline: 1-888-327-4236.


ELECTRONIC DATA: Reaches $16.5 Million 401(k) Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Electronic Data Systems reached a preliminary $16.5 million
settlement of a class action lawsuit which will require the
computer-services company to make changes to its 401(k) plan,
The Associated Press reports.

In a quarterly filing with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, EDS said the settlement calls for the company to
make cash payments to the plaintiffs. The company hasn't
admitted to any liability or wrongdoing in the case. Liz Bonet,
a spokeswoman for EDS, told AP that insurers would pay the $16.5
million settlement. She adds that there would be no impact to
EDS' earnings or cash flow from the proposed settlement.

"We're pleased to put this matter behind us," Ms. Bonet said.
Settling the lawsuit was "in he best interest of the company,
this will enable our management to focus more fully on running
our business," she adds. Participants in EDS' 401(k) plan who
held investments in an EDS stock fund brought the suit under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act, or Erisa. The
plaintiffs alleged the company withheld material information
about its financial condition ahead of a preliminary
announcement of 2002 earnings, which resulted in a drop in the
company stock price.


GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls 142,585 Pick-Up Trucks For Crash Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Corporation is cooperating with the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) by voluntarily
recalling 142,585 pick-up trucks, namely:

     (1) CHEVROLET / 1500, model 1999-2002

     (2) CHEVROLET / C/K 2500, model 2001-2005

     (3) CHEVROLET / C/K 3500, model 2001-2005

     (4) GMC / C/K 1500, model 1999-2002

     (5) GMC / C/K 2500, model 2001-2005

     (6) GMC / C/K 3500, model 2001-2005

On certain pickup trucks equipped with manual transmissions and
built with either PBR parking brake systems, the parking brake
friction linings may wear to an extent where the parking brake
can become ineffective in immobilizing a parked vehicle.  If the
parking brake does not hold, unintended vehicle movement could
occur, which could result in a crash.

Dealers will install a low-force spring clip retainer for
vehicles equipped with a PRB Parking brake system.  On vehicles
equipped with the TRW parking brake system, dealers will install
a redesigned parking brake cable assembly.  The manufacturer has
not yet provided an owner notification schedule for this
campaign.  For more details, contact Chevrolet by Phone:
1-800-630-2438 or contact GMC by Phone: 1-866-996-9463 or
contact the NHTSA's auto safety hotline: 1-888-327-4236.


GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls SUVs, Pick-up Trucks For Seatbelt Defect
----------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Corporation is cooperating with the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) by voluntarily
recalling 1,359,824 pick-up trucks and sport utility vehicles
(SUVs), namely:

     (1) CADILLAC / ESCALADE, model 2003-2005

     (2) CHEVROLET / AVALANCHE, model 2003-2005

     (3) CHEVROLET / SILVERADO, model 2003-2005

     (4) CHEVROLET / SUBURBAN, model 2003-2005

     (5) CHEVROLET / TAHOE, model 2003-2005

     (6) GMC / SIERRA, model 2003-2005

     (7) GMC / YUKON, model 2003-2005

     (8) HUMMER / H2, model 2004-2005

On certain Crew Cab Pick-up trucks and SUVs, the 2nd row center
occupant seat belt routing may make it difficult to position the
lap portion of the safety belt low around the hips of occupants,
especially smaller occupants, seated in this position.  
Appropriate use of a child seat or booster seat, as recommended
for small children, does improve the fit condition for this user
group.  In addition to instructions on proper infant and young
child restraint (with child seats or boosters), special verbiage
for restraining older child is included in the owners' manual.
Also the suggested seat belt fit/routing for adults,
irrespective of seating position, is described in the owner's
manual text.  A lap portion of the seat belt routing that is not
low and snug on the hips can allow the lap belt to ride up on an
occupant's abdomen instead of fitting low around their hipbones
and can expose them to more risk of abdominal and internal organ
injury.

Dealers will cut open the guide loop, remove a portion of the
loop, and then the remaining two sides should be folded over and
secured with a retainer.  The manufacturer has not yet provided
an owner notification schedule for this campaign.  For more
details, contact Cadillac by Phone: 1-866-982-2339, Chevrolet by
Phone: 1-800-630-2438, GMC by Phone: 1-866-996-9463, or Hummer
by Phone: 1-800-732-5493, or contact the NHTSA's auto safety
hotline: 1-888-327-4236.


HSBC TAXPAYER: Firm, H&R Block Reaches Accord RAL-Related Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
HSBC Taxpayer Financial Services Inc. and H&R Block (NYSE: HRB)
reached an agreement with the plaintiff class representative and
class counsel Kirby, McInerney and Squire, LLP and Levy,
Angstreich, Finney, Baldante, Rubenstein & Coren, P.C. that
would settle a 1998 Chicago class action lawsuit related to
refund anticipation loans, as well as end all current RAL-
related class action litigation against the companies.

The proposed settlement was filed in an action that has been
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, under the caption Lynne A. Carnegie v. Household
International, Inc., et al. The proposed settlement would cover
all refund anticipation loans that had been funded by various
lenders through H&R Block as well as many refund anticipation
loans that were funded by Beneficial National Bank, Household
Bank f.s.b., and various lenders with which HSBC Taxpayer
Financial Services had agreements through other tax preparers
from 1987, when such loans first were offered, through the end
of the 2005 tax season. Overall, the proposed nationwide
settlement class would include more than 28 million consumers
and cover more than 55 million individual refund anticipation
loan transactions.

The proposed settlement provides for $110 million cash and a
total of $250 million in freely transferable redeemable coupons.
The cash would be distributed to class members who submit a
timely proof of claim, based on the number of RALs they had
obtained. The coupons would have a face value of $6 and be
distributed to all class members, subject to certain exceptions,
also based primarily on the number of RALs they had obtained.
The coupons, which have a three-year tax season life and can be
aggregated up to four coupons per tax season, can be used in
connection with any retail tax preparation services at any H&R
Block retail location, or for online H&R Block tax preparation-
related services and tax preparation software, over the next
three annual tax seasons.

The proposed settlement would also require that H&R Block
continue to use a six-step disclosure process to assure that H&R
Block offers the "best-in-class" practices available for future
refund anticipation loans to consumers. These practices would
outline all tax filing options and costs, and the time required
to receive refunds with each option, for refund anticipation
loan clients at H&R Block offices. The goal is to ensure that
consumers have all the information necessary to make smart
choices that meet their financial needs.

The proposed settlement is subject to the review and approval of
U.S. District Judge Elaine Bucklo. If Judge Bucklo grants
preliminary approval of the settlement, notices are anticipated
to be mailed to class members within 45 days thereafter. Class
members would have the right to exclude themselves from the
settlement, subject to certain limitations, or to object to its
terms at a fairness hearing that would be held later in 2005.


INTERMUNE INC.: Reaches Agreement To Settle CA Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
InterMune, Inc. (Nasdaq: ITMN) reached a preliminary agreement
to settle its shareholder class action lawsuit. The suit,
entitled, "In re InterMune, Inc. Securities Litigation," is
currently pending against InterMune and its former CEO and
former CFO in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California.

Under the terms of the settlement, the defendants will receive a
complete release of claims in the litigation, and the
shareholder class will receive $10.4 million. The settlement is
being funded in large part by InterMune's primary insurance
carrier, and is subject to a number of conditions, including the
signing of a definitive settlement agreement and final approval
by the court.

"We are pleased to be able to resolve this litigation," said Dan
Welch, President and CEO of InterMune. "While we were confident
of our legal position, reaching this settlement allows us to
focus on creating value for our shareholders by progressing our
promising late-stage hepatology and pulmonology pipeline."

As a result of this settlement, InterMune will include
approximately $2 million of selling, general and administrative
(SG&A) expense in its first quarter 2005 financial results to
reflect the potential cost of this legal action. The Company
reaffirms its 2005 SG&A expense guidance of $85-95 million.

For more details, contact Judy Hayes of InterMune, Inc. by
Phone: +1-415-466-2242 or by E-mail: ir@intermune.com for
investors OR Carolyn Bumgardner Wang of WeissComm Partners, Inc.
by Phone: +1-415-946-1065 or by E-mail:
carolyn@weisscommpartners.com, for Media.


LION PAVILION: Recalls Dried Apricots Due To Undeclared Sulfites
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lion Pavilion, LTD., 518 Gardner Ave, Brooklyn, NY 11222 is
recalling ZhenQiWei Dried Apricots because it may contain
undeclared sulfites. People who have severe sensitivity to
sulfites run the risk of serious of life-threatening allergic
reactions if they consumer this product.

The recalled ZhenQiWei Dried Apricots, a product of China,
packed in uncoded 150g plastic bags, were sold in New York
State.

The recall was initiated after routine sampling by New York
State Department of Agriculture and Markets Food Inspectors and
subsequent analysis of the product by The Department's Food
Laboratory personnel revealed the presence of sulfites in
ZhenQiWei Dried Apricots in packages which did not declare
sulfites on the label. The consumption of 10 milligrams of
sulfites per serving has been reported to elicit severe
reactions in some asthmatics. Anaphylactic shock could occur in
certain sulfite sensitive individuals upon ingesting 10
milligrams or more of sulfites. No illnesses have been reported
to date in connection with this problem.

Consumers who have purchased ZhenQiWei Dried Apricots should
return it to the place of purchase. Consumers with questions may
contact the company at (718) 384-6951.


KANSAS: Major City-Area Payors Named in Suit Over Reimbursements
----------------------------------------------------------------
HealthLeaders-InterStudy, a leading provider of managed care
industry intelligence and a newly formed company of Decision
Resources, Inc., found that major Kansas City-area payors have
been named as defendants in four class action lawsuits filed by
a number of provider groups.

According to the latest issue of the Kansas & Missouri Health
Plan Analysis, the 25 medical groups claim the payors conspired
to fix doctors' reimbursement at unacceptably low rates.

Those named in the lawsuit include Blue Cross and Blue Shield of
Kansas City, Coventry Health Care of Kansas Inc.,
UnitedHealthcare of the Midwest, Aetna Inc., CIGNA Healthcare of
Kansas/Missouri Inc. and Humana Inc.

"As evidence, the plaintiffs cite a study they commissioned that
shows reimbursement rates for identical services in nearby
cities like Wichita and Des Moines are 30% higher or more," said
Rick Byrne, HealthLeaders-InterStudy analyst. "But another
survey from 2004 found that Kansas City's reimbursement rates
fell in the middle of a larger group of cities, including
Dallas, Indianapolis, Denver and St. Louis."

For more details, contact Elizabeth Marshall or Decision
Resources, Inc. by Phone: 781-296-2563 by E-mail:
emarshall@dresources.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.DecisionResources.com.


MASTEC INC.: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Suit in S.D. FL
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated securities class action
against MasTec, Inc. and certain of its officers in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

In the second quarter of 2004, purported class action complaints
were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida and one was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.  These
cases have been consolidated by court order in the Southern
District of Florida.  The complaints allege certain violations
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, related to current and prior period earnings
reports.

On January 25, 2005, a motion for leave to file a Second Amended
Complaint was filed by Plaintiffs which the Court granted.  
Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint on February 22,
2005.  Plaintiffs contend that the Company's financial
statements during the purported class period of August 12, 2003
to May 11, 2004 were materially misleading in the following
areas:

     (1) the financials for the third quarter of 2003 were
         allegedly overstated by $5.8 million in revenue from
         unapproved change orders from a variety of the
         Company's projects; and

     (2) the financials for the second quarter of 2003 were
         overstated by some $1.3 million as a result of the
         intentional overstatement of revenue, inventories and
         work in progress at the Company's Canadian subsidiary.

Plaintiffs seek damages, not quantified, for the difference
between the stock price Plaintiffs paid and the stock price
Plaintiffs believe they should have paid, plus interest and
attorney fees.


MORTGAGEIT INC.: Faces Amended Overtime Wage Lawsuit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
MortgageIT, Inc. faces an amended class action filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.  The suit also names as defendant IPI Skyscraper Mortgage,
which was, at the time, a subsidiary of, and has now been merged
with and into, the Company.

The case was filed by four former loan officers of a Company
branch in Newburgh, New York, and seeks to recover allegedly
unpaid minimum wage and overtime under both federal and New York
labor laws. The case was filed as a putative class action; a
motion for certification of a class under New York law and for
collective action under federal law was filed on March 11, 2005.

The suit is styled "Lacon v. Mortgage It, Inc. et al, case no.
1:04-cv-07847-VM-GWG," filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York under Judge Victor
Marrero.  Representing the plaintiffs is Dan Charles Getman, Law
Office of Dan Getman, 9 Paradies Lane, New Paltz, NY 12561
Phone: 845-255-9370 Fax: 845-255-8649 E-mail:
dgetman@getmanlaw.com.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Andrew G. Celli, Kathleen Rosenfield, Emery Celli
         Brinckerhoff & Abady, LLP 545 Madison Avenue New York,
         NY 10022 Phone: 212-763-5000 Fax: 212-763-5001 E-mail:
         acelli@ecbalaw.com or krosenfeld@ecbalaw.com

     (2) Sally D. Garr and Alyssa T. Senzel, Patton Boggs LLP
         (DC) 2550 M Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20037 Phone:
         202 457 6525 Fax: 202-457-6315 E-mail:
         sgarr@pattonboggs.com or asenzel@pattonboggs.com


NBO INC.: Asks IL Court To Dismiss Consumer Suit V. Gift Cards
--------------------------------------------------------------
NBO, Inc. asked the Twentieth Judicial Circuit Court of
Illinois, St. Clair County to dismiss the consumer class action
filed agianst it, styled "Ripperda, et al v. NBO, Inc., et al,
Case No. 04L91."

On February 13, 2004, Thomas Ripperda, et al, filed an action
against the Company in connection with gift cards sold at the
St. Clair Square Mall in St. Clair County, Illinois. The
plaintiffs' complaint seeks to establish a class action.  
However, as of this date, the plaintiff has not moved to certify
a class. The complaint alleged that the term "valid thru"
appearing on the face of the gift card next to the expiration
date of the gift card is misleading in violation of the Illinois
unfair business practices laws. The plaintiff seeks a return of
all administrative fees charged against his gift card prior to
the "valid thru" date. If a class were certified, then the
plaintiff would seek to recover similar fees with respect to all
gift cards that the Company has sold.

Under the terms and conditions of the gift cards and the gift
card program, the Company disclosed that it may charge an
administrative fee against a gift card if the gift card is not
used within 90 days from the date of purchase.  The "valid thru"
date is typically between 12 months and 18 months after the date
the gift card is purchased. In some cases, the administrative
fee reduces the amount of the gift card prior to the "valid
thru" date on the card.  The Company disclosed the charge of an
administrative fee on the backside of the gift card and again in
the written terms and conditions that are distributed to
customers when they purchase the gift cards.  The Company also
disclosed that a gift card may be renewed after the "valid thru"
date with the payment of a renewal fee, the Company said in a
regulatory filing.

The Company has filed a motion to dismiss, but the plaintiffs
have not yet filed an opposition.  The parties are continuing to
conduct discovery.


NEW YORK: NYSE Seat Holder Launches Suit Over Archipelago Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
A longtime owner of a seat on the New York Stock Exchange
brought a class action suit against NYSE directors and Goldman
Sachs, seeking an injunction to stop the NYSE's proposed
historic merger with electronic exchange Archipelago Holdings,
Inc.

The suit, which was filed in New York State Supreme Court,
alleges that the deal is grossly skewed in favor of Archipelago
to the detriment of the 1,366 seat holders who collectively own
the NYSE. The seat holders charge the directors with a breach of
fiduciary duty for failure to act in the best interests of NYSE
members, while accusing Goldman Sachs of a conflict of interest
in acting as financial advisor to both parties.

The action was brought jointly by prominent securities law firm
Grant & Eisenhofer, P.A., which teamed with the Philadelphia
trial and appellate firm Raynes McCarty.

Announced last month, the proposed merger would create a new
entity called NYSE, Inc, with a value of approximately $4
billion. Current seat owners of the non-profit NYSE would
receive shares in the newly formed company, ending the old-
fashioned system of limited trading seats but creating a market
in NYSE shares for the first time in history. Under the terms of
the merger, 70% of the equity would go to current NYSE members
and 30% to shareholders of Archipelago.

"You only have to do the math to understand the unfairness of
this deal," said Jay Eisenhofer, a name partner of Grant &
Eisenhofer. "The proposed merger values the NYSE at less than $3
billion, which is obviously significantly undervalued,
considering that this is the world's largest exchange,
accounting for an average daily trading volume of some 1.63
billion shares representing nearly $56 billion in securities.
Compare that to the projected valuations of other major
exchanges and you see an immediate red flag that something is
wrong with this picture."

"This case is about fundamental fairness to the NYSE seat
holders," said Arthur Raynes, senior partner of Raynes McCarty.
"Many of the seat holders have held their seats for decades.
They are entitled to realize the true value of their investment.
The proposed deal does not do that."

The lawsuit notes the Chicago Mercantile Exchange is currently
valued at $7 billion, though it has far less trading volume and
a much smaller market capitalization. Similarly, the Toronto
Stock Exchange is valued at $1.7 billion dollars, with barely
one-tenth the daily trading volume of the NYSE.

Even NASDAQ is valued as $1.2 billion, more than a third of what
would be attributed to the NYSE in the Archipelago deal, even
though the equities represented on the exchange are not even 20%
of the global market value of the NYSE.

The Wall Street Journal reported that Benn Steil, a senior
fellow in international economics at the Council of Foreign
Relations who does consulting work for Archipelago, recently
concluded that NYSE seat holders should receive as much as 90%
of the combined company.

"We are not opposed to the merger in principal," said William
Higgins, the NYSE seat holder who is acting as lead plaintiff in
the class action. Mr. Higgins, who has held his seat since 1974,
is president of the Association of NYSE Equity Members, Inc. "In
fact," he added, "it makes good business sense for the NYSE to
seek a technology-based trading partner that can move the
exchange forward into new platforms and advance new
efficiencies."

"What I -- and many of my fellow seat holders -- object to are
the terms of this deal and the ways in which the exchange's
directors breached their duty," continued Mr. Higgins. "And we
take particular umbrage at the way Goldman Sachs has manipulated
the deal to its own advantage as a substantial Archipelago
stakeholder that will own 5% of the new company."

In addition to the million of dollars in investment banking fees
the firm will be earning, including a $3.5 million advisory fee
from Archipelago, Goldman Sachs has seen the value of its
holdings in Archipelago increase by more than $80 million.

The suit alleges three causes of action against the NYSE
directors and Goldman Sachs for breach of fiduciary duty based
upon myriad facts, including the following:

     (1) Goldman Sachs, which is underwriting the merger, holds
         21 seats on the NYSE and also owns 15% of Archipelago.
         Under the terms of the merger, Goldman will emerge
         owning 5% of NYSE Inc. The suit alleges that this gave
         Goldman Sachs an incentive to overvalue Archipelago and
         a conflict of interest in the transaction. Since the
         announcement of the merger on April 20, trading in
         Archipelago stock has jumped from $16 per share to more
         than $35.

     (2) John Thain, CEO of the NYSE, previously served as Chief
         Operating Officer and President of Goldman Sachs.
         Remarkably, Mr. Thain did not recuse himself from the
         decision to retain Goldman Sachs, and instead agreed to
         allow the firm to advise both sides of the transaction.

     (3) The merger terms include unfair "lock-up" provisions
         for NYSE members. Post-merger, shareholders who
         formerly were NYSE seat holders will receive new shares
         subject to sale restrictions of up to five years. In
         contrast, the vast majority of former Archipelago
         shareholders will be free to sell their shares
         immediately without restrictions. The suit alleges that
         the lock-up provisions unfairly favor Archipelago
         shareholders - most notably Goldman Sachs - and the
         inclusion of the provisions was a breach of fiduciary
         duty by NYSE directors.

     (4) As unfair as the 70/30 split of equity is between the
         NYSE and Archipelago, it gets worse:  NYSE seat holders
         might actually get a smaller piece of the new company.
         Under the terms of the deal, the NYSE could hold back
         5% of its shares in the new company to allocate to
         executive employees of the NYSE. This would include
         senior NYSE executives who structured the merger. The
         suit alleges that including this deal term was a breach
         of fiduciary duty by the NYSE board of directors.

"We were shocked when we learned the terms of the deal," Mr.
Higgins said. "The NYSE is a not-for-profit corporation and an
important public institution with a huge vital role in American
life. And yet the executives charged with overseeing the
exchange have abandoned their duty to its membership in striking
this lopsided deal with Archipelago Holdings. We have spoken
with many other seat holders who are as dismayed as we are by
the inequity of this merger and we expect a groundswell of
support for our action."

For more details, contact Allan Ripp or Carla Main of Grant &
Eisenhofer by Phone: +1-212-721-7468 or +1-212-721-7421 or visit
their Web site: http://www.gelaw.comor  
http://www.raynesmccarty.com.


OHIO: Appeals Court Overturns Ruling in Youth Program Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Participants in a now-defunct Lexington youth program who claim
its founder abused them have scored a legal victory, after a
three-judge panel of the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals
overturned a previous court ruling that dismissed their lawsuits
against the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government, The
Cincinnati Enquirer reports.

The suits claimed that the city funded the Micro-City Government
youth program despite knowing that its founder, Ron Berry, was
allegedly abusing the program's youth participants, physically
and sexually.

According to attorneys for the alleged 96 victims, who were
identified in court papers only as John and Jane Does, reopening
the original lawsuit against the city puts their clients closer
to being heard in court. "This is probably the single-largest
verdict against the LFUCG in years," said James Morris, who
represents some of Mr. Berry's alleged victims.

An Urban County Government attorney said he plans to ask the
full court to reconsider the decision. Sheryl Snyder, an
attorney representing Lexington in the case, said there are
"several legal issues yet to be litigated" even if the city
loses its appeal.

The city maintained it did not have sufficient knowledge Mr.
Berry, who started the program in 1969 to introduce
disadvantaged youngsters to public service, was molesting
children in the program.

Mr. Berry's alleged victims filed four lawsuits beginning in
1998 with two being settled for a combined $2.85 million.

In the ruling last week, the federal appeals court said the
first class-action lawsuit was not dismissed properly because
other people involved in the case were not notified before its
dismissal.

In 1997, Berry was charged with multiple counts of sodomy. He
was eventually convicted in 2000 and sentenced to three years in
prison. He is currently housed at the Green River Correctional
Complex.


OPTIN GLOBAL: CA AG Lockyer, FTC Commence Anti-Spam Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
California Attorney General Bill Lockyer asked a federal court
to shut down a major California-based spam operation that has
bombarded people across the country with illegal email ads
pitching mortgage services, car warranties, travel deals,
prescription drugs and college degrees.

"Spam ranks as one of the major consumer and business protection
problems of our generation," said Attorney General Lockyer. "It
clogs our email boxes, invades our privacy, serves as a gateway
to consumer fraud and costs our businesses billions of dollars.
California has been a national leader in fighting spam, and
stopping this operation is in keeping with that tradition. My
office will continue to aggressively prosecute those who flout
our anti-spam laws."

U.S. District Court Judge Samuel Conti, Northern District of
California, heard on April 13,2005 a request that he issue a
temporary restraining order (TRO) in a 13-count lawsuit against
the spammers filed jointly yesterday by the Attorney General and
the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The TRO requested by
Attorney General Lockyer and the FTC would stop the defendants
from continuing to send illegal spam, freeze their assets and
require them to turn over to his office and the FTC computer
records related to their operation. The defendants include Los
Angeles residents Rick Yang and Peonie Pui Ting Chen, and the
spam operation they run under the corporate names of Optin
Global, Inc. and Vision Media Limited Corp. Judge Conti could
rule on the TRO request as early as today.

The action makes California the first state in the country to
bring a lawsuit jointly with the FTC under a federal anti-spam
law that took effect January 1, 2004. The federal statute is
known as the CAN-SPAM Act (Controlling the Assault of Non-
Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act of 2003). The lawsuit
also is the first filed by Attorney General Lockyer under the
recently-revised California anti-spam law, which was amended in
2004 after much of it was preempted by the CAN-SPAM Act.

For violations of the CAN-SPAM Act, the Attorney General and the
FTC seek damages, disgorgement of ill-gotten profits, and
immediate and permanent injunctive relief to prohibit further
violations of the law. For violations of California law,
Attorney General Lockyer seeks civil penalties of $2,500 per
violation, actual damages, and liquidated damages of $1,000 per
illegal email, up to $1 million per incident.  "Since at least
January 1, 2004, and continuing to the present (the) defendants
have initiated the transmission of hundreds of thousands of
commercial email messages," the complaint alleges.

Attorney General Lockyer and the FTC allege the defendants
violated provisions of the CAN-SPAM Act that require senders of
unsolicited email ads to provide recipients the ability to
request not to receive further emails, prohibit senders from
transmitting messages to recipients who make such requests,
require senders to include a valid postal address and require
senders to identify commercial emails as ads. The defendants
also violated federal and state laws that prohibit commercial
emails from containing false or deceptive header information and
subject lines, according to the complaint.

The defendants' spam advertises such products as auto
warranties, pharmaceutical products, online college degree
programs and mortgage services, the complaint alleges. The
emails typically contain hyperlinks to defendant-operated web
sites that promote the products and services, according to the
complaint. The defendants used mailing addresses in several
countries, including China and Canada, and Internet domains
registered in Switzerland.

Since March 2004, the court papers allege, consumers across the
country have forwarded to the FTC more than 1,870,000 spam
messages that advertise web sites linked to the defendants. In
California, Attorney General Lockyer's office has received from
consumers more than 4,000 such emails since January 2004.  Many
of the defendants' spam messages, according to the complaint,
market mortgage services. When directed by hyperlinks to the
defendants' mortgage services web sites, consumers are asked to
provide personal information, ostensibly to be shared with
mortgage brokers or banks.

In fact, the complaint alleges, the defendants sell the personal
information to "lead" companies, which then sell the information
to other "lead" companies. Ultimately, the information winds up
in the hands of mortgage lenders and brokers, such as Ameriquest
Mortgage Company, Indy Mac Bank, BLS Funding and Mortgage South.
The lenders and brokers then contact consumers and offer
mortgage services, according to the complaint. Mortgage lead
companies that bought the personal information directly from the
defendants include Abacus Enterprises and Infinite Leads
Marketing. Abacus Enterprises, based in El Cerrito, purchased
about 69,000 leads from the defendants in 2004, the complaint
alleges.

Internet service providers (ISPs), including Microsoft,
cooperated with the Attorney General's office and the FTC in the
investigation. In March 2004, Microsoft, Yahoo, America Online
and Earthlink filed CAN-SPAM lawsuits of their own against major
spammers. And the FTC has brought several enforcement actions
under the CAN-SPAM law since April 2004.

Despite the best efforts of law enforcement, regulators and
ISPs, spam has become a substantial, persistent and costly
problem. In 2001, spam accounted for eight percent of all email.
By March 2004, the number had reached 62 percent. In 2002,
experts estimated spam cost U.S. businesses about $9 billion in
lost productivity, and screening and other expenses.

Attorney General Lockyer encourages Californians who believe
they have received illegal spam to file complaints with the
Attorney General's Office. Complaints can be filed by writing to
the Public Inquiry Unit at P.O. Box 944255, Sacramento, CA
94244-2550. Californians who receive spam at their email
addresses also can send examples to the Attorney General's
Office at caspam@doj.ca.gov.  Consumers can find out how to file
a spam complaint with the FTC, or send spam to the FTC:
http://www.ftc.gov.


PEOPLE IN PROFIT: AK Attorney General Warns Of Ponzi Scheme
-----------------------------------------------------------
Alaska Attorney General David M rquez warned Alaskans against
investing in an illegal Ponzi scheme that has surfaced in
Alaska, called the People In Profit System (PIPS).

PIPS has been reported in Ketchikan, the Matanuska Valley, and
may be in other parts of the state.  Under this scheme investors
are asked to "loan" $450 to the company.  From this payment, $25
is kept as an account set-up fee, with the remaining $425
characterized as a "loan" to the company for 180 days. PIPS
agrees to repay the investor with interest under a schedule
depending on the type of plan the investor chooses. The interest
payments on your loan can be as high as 5000%, with a $450 loan
returning about $8,800 in 24 months.

"Everyone should be aware of these Ponzi schemes because they
are essentially investment fraud," said Attorney General M rquez
in a statement.  "If it sounds too good to be true, it usually
is."

Because of their deceptive nature, Ponzi schemes violate the
state's consumer protection act. If a scheme appears to
constitute a fraudulent securities offering it will be reviewed
as a possible violation of the Alaska Securities Act. In that
case the state Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic
Development's Division of Banking, Securities, and Corporations
could issue a cease and desist order.

"It is important to educate Alaskans about these schemes," said
Governor Frank H. Murkowski.  "Too often the perpetrators of
these scams prey on those who simply want to get ahead.
Knowledge is the key to preventing a vulnerable investor from
becoming a victim."

In a typical Ponzi scheme, the operator promises high financial
returns or dividends that are not available through traditional
investments. Instead of investing victims' funds, the operator
pays "dividends" to initial investors using the principal
amounts "invested" by subsequent investors. The scheme generally
falls apart when the operator flees with all of the proceeds, or
when a sufficient number of new investors cannot be found to
allow the continued payment of "dividends."

Initial investors who paid into the PIPS system may in fact
receive high returns. This is not an indication that the
investment is legitimate. Ponzi schemes rely on the "success"
of early investors in hopes that these people will advertise the
scheme to others so the base of new investors will grow. Sooner
or later, the scheme must fail because it is statistically
impossible to continue the scheme.

For more details, contact Assistant Attorney General Ed Sniffen
with the Department of Law's consumer protection section by
Phone: (907) 269-5200 or visit the Website:
http://www.dced.state.ak.us/bsc/schemesandscams.htm.


PFGI CAPITAL: Stock Owner Reaches OH Securities Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
National City Bank, owner of 100% of PFGI Capital Corporation's
common stock, reached a settlement with plaintiffs in the class
action filed against PFGI Capital Corporation, Provident
Financial Group, Inc., Provident's President, Robert L. Hoverson
and Provident's Chief Financial Officer, Christopher J. Carey.

PFGI Capital shareholder Silverback Master Ltd. filed the suit
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, on
behalf of all purchasers of PRIDES in or traceable to a June 6,
2002 offering of those securities registered with the Securities
and Exchange Commission and extending to March 5, 2003.  This
action is based upon circumstances involved in a restatement of
earnings announced by Provident on March 5, 2003.

The suit alleges violations of securities laws by the defendants
in Provident's financial disclosures during the period from
March 30, 1998 through March 5, 2003 and in the June 2002
offering. It seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory
damages. This action and other class actions have been
consolidated before Judge S. Arthur Spiegel of the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio under the
caption, "Merzin v. Provident Financial Group, Inc.,
consolidated Civil Action Master File No. C-1-03-165."

PFGI Capital and other Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the
Complaint on November 5, 2003.  The motion was granted on March
9, 2004 and the Court dismissed all claims except those relating
to the June 6, 2002 offering of 6,600,000 PRIDE securities.
However, the Court's order confined any later finding of damages
to $0.70 per PRIDE security.  National City has reached a
tentative agreement with the plaintiffs to settle this matter.
The negotiated settlement is pending court approval. PFGI
Capital will not have any obligation to the plaintiffs under the
tentative settlement.

The suit is styled "Merzin, et al v. Provident Fin Group, et al,
case no. 1:03-cv-00165-MHW-TSB," filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, under Judge
Michael H. Watson.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) William Kendall Flynn and Richard Stuart Wayne of
         Strauss & Troy - 1, Mail: The Federal Reserve Building
         150 E Fourth Street 4th Floor Cincinnati, OH 45202-4018
         Phone: 513-621-2120 Fax: 513-621-2120 E-mail:
         wkflynn@strausstroy.com or rswayne@strausstroy.com;

     (2) David Paul Kamp, WHITE GETGEY & MEYER CO LPA Mail: 1700
         Central Trust Tower 1 West Fourth Street Cincinnati, OH
         45202 Phone: 513-241-3685 E-mail: dkamp@wgmlpa.com;  

     (3) Ira M. Press, Kirby McInerney & Squire LLP Mail: 830
         Third Avenue 10th Floor New York, NY 10022 Phone:
         212-751-2540

     (4) Steven F Stuhlbarg, 7809 Shadowhill Way, 150 E Fourth
         Street, Cincinnati, OH 45202 Phone: 513-807-7510 Fax:
         513-891-0929 E-mail: stuhlbarg@yahoo.com

Representing the Company are James Eugene Burke and Jason M.
Cohen, Keating Muething & Klekamp - 1, One E Fourth Street Suite
1400 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Phone: 513-579-6400 Fax: 513-579-6429
E-mail: jburke@kmklaw.com or jcohen@kmklaw.com.


PROHEALTH CARE: Uninsured Couple Lodges Overcharging Suit in WI
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Muskego couple initiated a lawsuit against ProHealth Care Inc.
claiming that the organization's charges to uninsured patients
unfairly eclipse prices levied to those with insurance, The
Waukesha Freeman reports.

Filed in Waukesha County Circuit Court by Malinda and Robert
Laughlin, the suit, which is requesting class action status, is
similar to action pursued against health care providers by a
slew of other consumers throughout the nation.  

According to John Jacobs, one of several attorneys representing
the Laughlins, if granted class status by the court, the suit
could open the door for hundreds or thousands of plaintiffs who
have received uninsured treatment by the organization.

The team of Chicago attorneys that represent the couple are
arguing that ProHealth Care violated Wisconsin laws requiring
health care providers to charge uninsured consumers consistently
with those who have coverage. "You're sticking it to the people
who need it," Mr. Jacobs said.

ProHealth Care, which operates Oconomowoc Memorial and Waukesha
Memorial hospitals, denies any wrongdoing and spokeswoman Sandra
Peterson said the organization offered ample and fair
opportunities to settle the matter. Ms. Peterson told the
Waukesha Freeman that ProHealth Care offered the Laughlins three
options and that the couple hasn't responded to any of them or
paid any portion of the bills.

ProHealth Care offered a 15-percent discount; a five-year,
interest-free payment plan; and an application for a program
that charges patients based on their ability to pay, Ms.
Peterson said. "We take pride in working with our patients to
come to an affordable solution for them," she adds.

However, Mr. Jacobs claims the Laughlins were not offered a
discount. He points out that Malinda Laughlin, who is uninsured,
had two related abdominal procedures done at Oconomowoc Memorial
in October 2004, were she was billed $12,232 for the first and
$13,920 for the second, charges that the couple contends far
exceed what insured patients have paid for the same type of
treatment.

The suit claims the average charge for the same procedure at
Oconomowoc Memorial Hospital, based on 2002 figures, was $8,412,
and that ProHealth Care often charges uninsured patients two to
three times what it bills insured patients. Mr. Jacobs explained
that the figures came from the state.

Ms. Peterson though countered that she's not sure where they
obtained those numbers, according to her, ProHealth Care has
"very progressive policies" when it comes to treating the
uninsured. She pointed out that ProHealth Care last year
provided more than $14 million in charity and unreimbursed care,
the majority of which was for uninsured or underinsured
patients.


QC HOLDINGS: Consumers Launch Suit For NC State Law Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
QC Holdings, Inc., two of its subsidiaries, including its
subsidiary doing business in North Carolina, and Mr. Don Early,
its Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer, faces a
consumer class action filed in North Carolina state court.

Two customers of County Bank, for whom the Company provides
certain services in connection with the bank's origination of
payday loans in North Carolina, filed the suit.  The lawsuit
alleges that the Company violated various North Carolina laws in
connection with payday loans made by the bank to the two
plaintiffs through the Company's retail locations in North
Carolina.  The lawsuit alleges that the Company made the payday
loans to the plaintiffs in violation of various state statutes,
and that if the Company is not viewed as the "actual lenders or
makers" of the payday loans, the Company's services to the bank
that made the loans violated various North Carolina statutes.


QUIK'N TASTY: Recalls Sandwiches Due To Listeria Contamination
--------------------------------------------------------------
Quik'n Tasty Foods Inc. of Belton Missouri is recalling Po Boy
(Lunchmeat, Ham and Cheese sandwiches) ink stamp dated 101 N6,
because it has the potential to be contaminated with Listeria
monocytogenes, an organism which can cause serious and sometimes
fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and
others with weakened immune systems. Although healthy
individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms such as high
fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and
diarrhea, Listeria infection can cause miscarriages and
stillbirths among pregnant women.

Po Boy sandwiches were distributed through Quicktrip convenience
stores located in Missouri, Kansas, Illinois and Arizona,
between April 18, 2005 and April 29, 2005.

The product is labeled Po Boy and is ink stamp dated 101 N6 on
the label. The sandwich is wrapped in clear packaging, and may
contain an additional orange date sticker. Regardless of the
date on the orange sticker, the product is under recall if it
bears the 101 N6 code. No illnesses have been reported to date.

The recall is the result of Quik'n Tasty being notified by a
supplier of the potential contamination of the ham. The company
has ceased the production and distribution of the affected ham.

Consumers who have purchased the recalled sandwich are urged to
return it to the place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers
with questions may contact Mike Thornbrugh at 918-615-7700.


SINOFRESH HEALTHCARE: Shareholders Launch Securities Suit in FL
---------------------------------------------------------------
SinoFresh HealthCare, Inc. and several of its directors face an
amended class action filed in the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, styled
"Hawkins et al. v. Charles Fust, et al., case no. 04-CV-95-FTM-
29 SPC."  The suit specifically names as defendants:

     (1) Charles Fust,

     (2) Stacey Maloney - Fust,

     (3) P. Robert DuPont, and

     (4) Russell R. Lee, III (the Company's former CFO)

The suit, filed by shareholders and former directors, accuses
Company chairman and chief executive Charles Fust of, among
other charges, using company funds to buy an engagement ring for
his wife, Stacey Maloney-Fust, also a company director, an
earlier Class Action Reporter story (February 25,2004) states.

The suit also charges Mr. Fust with failing to transfer some
patents for the oral and nasal sprays he invented to the
company's name.  It also alleges that he did not fully disclose
to board members a conflict of interest regarding the Company's
headquarters, a property owned by Mr. Fust and Robert DuPont,
another company director.

The complaint alleges that it is a class action suit claiming
federal securities law violations, breach of fiduciary duty,
rescission of certain acts and contracts of the Company, and an
accounting and constructive trust, being brought by the lead
plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and all persons in a class
(other than the defendants) who purchased Company's publicly
traded shares between January 1, 2003 and February 19, 2004;
however, the lawsuit was not certified as a class action suit.

An amended complaint was filed on March 3, 2004, which merely
changed allegations directed toward the location where the
action may be heard and noted that the Company is a Florida
corporation. This legal proceeding was moved to the U.S.
District Court located in Tampa, Florida.  The plaintiffs
include Stephen Bannon and David Otto, directors of the Company,
as well as other purported shareholders of the Company.

The suit is styled "Hawkins, et al v. Fust, et al, case no.
2:04-cv-00095-JES," filed in the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida, under Judge John E. Steele.  
Representing the plaintiffs is David B. Haber of Law Office of
David B. Haber, P.A., Mail: 1 S.E. 3rd Ave., Suite 1820 Miami,
FL 33131 Phone: 305/379-2400 Fax: 305/379-1106.  Representing
the Company and the defendants is David S. Oliver of Greenberg
Traurig, P.A., Mail: 450 S. Orange Ave., Suite 650 P.O. Box 4923
Orlando, FL 32802-4923 Phone: 407/420-1000 Fax: 407/420-5909 E-
mail: oliverd@gtlaw.com.


TAN NAM: Recalls Fresh Soymilk Due To Undeclared Cow's Milk
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tan Nam Tofu Company, Rosemead, CA is recalling its "Tan Nam
Fresh Soymilk" product sold in 64 oz. and 16 oz. plastic bottles
because the labels do not declare the presence of cow's milk.
People who have allergies to cow's milk run the risk of serious
or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume these
products. The recalled Tan Nam Fresh Soymilk were distributed to
retail markets in Los Angeles County. No illnesses have been
reported to date in connection with this problem.

The recall was initiated after it was discovered that the Tan
Nam Fresh Soymilk product was distributed in plastic bottles
that did not declare milk as an ingredient on the product label.

Consumers who have purchased Tan Nam Fresh Soymilk are urged to
return them to the place of purchase for a full refund.
Consumers with questions may contact the company at
626-288-6892.


VASO ACTIVE: Shareholders Lodge MA Consolidated Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vaso Active Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and certain of its officers
face a consolidated securities class action filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, styled
"IN RE VASO ACTIVE PHARMACEUTICALS SECURITIES LITIGATION , Civ.
No. 04-10708 (RCL)."

In April, May, and June 2004, several securities class action
lawsuits were filed, seeking equitable and monetary relief, an
unspecified amount of damages, with interest, attorney's fees
and costs.  The suits were allegedly filed on behalf of
purchasers of the Company's Class A common stock during the
period December 11, 2003 to March 31, 2004. The complaints
allege that during the period in question the Defendants
violated the federal securities laws by allegedly failing to
make accurate and complete disclosures concerning the Company,
its financial condition, its business operations and future
prospects, the clinical trial and endorsement of the Company's
Termin8 anti-fungal product (previously known as "deFEET") and
the institutional demand for the Company's securities.  These
complaints are captioned as follows:

     (1) DENNIS E. SMITH V. VASO ACTIVE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
         ET AL., Civ. No. 04-10708 (RCL) (D. Mass.);

     (2) RICHARD SHAPIRO V. VASO ACTIVE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
         ET AL., Civ. No. 04-10720 (RCL) (D. Mass.);

     (3) CHRISTOPHER PEPIN V. VASO ACTIVE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
         ET AL., Civ. No. 04-10763 (RCL) (D. Mass.);

     (4) MODHI GUDE, ET AL. V. VASO ACTIVE PHARMACEUTICALS,
         INC., ET AL., Civ. No. 04-10789 (RCL) (D. Mass.);

     (5) KIM BENEDETTO, ET AL. V. VASO ACTIVE PHARMACEUTICALS,
         INC., ET AL., Civ. No. 04-10808 (RCL) (D. Mass.);

     (6) DEAN DUMMER V. VASO ACTIVE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ET
         AL., Civ. No. 04-10819 (RCL) (D. Mass.);

     (7) EDWARD TOVREA V. VASO ACTIVE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ET
         AL., Civ . No. 04-10851 (RCL);

     (8) KOUROSH ALIPOR V. VASO ACTIVE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ET
         AL., Civ. No. 04-10877 (RCL);

     (9) PAUL E. BOSTROM V. VASO ACTIVE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
         ET AL., Civ. No. 04-10948 (RCL);

    (10) IRA A. TURRET SEP-IRA DATED 01/24/02 V. VASO ACTIVE
         PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ET AL., Civ. No. 04-10980 (RCL);

    (11) RICHARD PAGONA V. VASO ACTIVE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ET
         AL., Civ. No. 04-11100 (RCL);

    (12) JAMES KARANFILIAN V. VASO ACTIVE PHARMACEUTICALS,., ET
         AL. , Civ. No. 04-11101 (RCL); and

    (13) CHARLES ROBINSON V. VASO ACTIVE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
         ET AL., Civ. No. 04-11221 (RCL)

The Court has consolidated the above-referenced cases, other
than the TOVREA and KARANFILIA complaints in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts.  On November
4, 2004, the Court appointed Schiffrin & Barroway LLP as lead
counsel for the Consolidated Action and appointed Shapiro, Haber
& Urmy LLP as local counsel.  The Court also appointed Edwin
Choi, Richard Ching, and Joe H. Huback as interim co-lead
plaintiffs, pending a determination of whether the Consolidated
Action may proceed as a class action.  The Court further ordered
that co-lead plaintiffs file a consolidated amended complaint in
the Consolidated Action no later than December 4, 2004. On
December 3, 2004, plaintiffs filed the Consolidated Amended
Complaint, which added as defendants the Company's directors at
the time of the Company's initial public offering and issuance
of its 2003 Annual Report, and alleged that during the period in
question the Defendants made false and misleading statements
concerning FDA approval of its current products and related
misstatements and concerning the clinical trial of the anti-
fungal product. On January 20, 2005, the Defendants filed an
Answer to the Complaint essentially denying the allegations and
liability.


WARNER-LAMBERT: Arkansas Receives $445,525 Nuerontin Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The state of Arkansas has received early this month a check for
$445,525 as part of a national settlement regarding the anti-
seizure medication, Neurontin.  The money comes as part of a
$430 million nationwide settlement with the drug's manufacturer,
Warner-Lambert, a subsidiary of Pfizer, state Attorney General
Mike Beebe announced in a statement.

Approved in 1993, Neurontin was introduced to treat seizures in
adult epilepsy patients.  Within three years, state and federal
agencies were investigating claims that doctors were prescribing
Neurontin for uses not approved by the Food and Drug
Administration.  Investigators found that nearly 90 percent of
Neurontin prescriptions were being written for these "off-label"
uses, including the treatment of bipolar disorder, back pain and
headache.  Neurontin has not been scientifically proven to be
effective in treating those conditions.

The states and the Department of Justice alleged that Warner-
Lambert gave incentives and financial kickbacks to doctors who
prescribed Neurontin for these unapproved uses.  While the
investigation was ongoing, Pfizer acquired Warner-Lambert in
2000.

In May of 2004, the two sides reached a settlement.  Arkansas
received its share of the settlement last week, and the money
will go into the Arkansas Medicaid Program Trust Fund.  In
addition to the state share, $1.1 million will also go to the
federal government to be used as matching funds for Arkansas
Medicaid programs.  Under the terms of the settlement, Warner-
Lambert and Pfizer agree not to make false, misleading or
deceptive claims about Neurontin or promote off-label uses of
the drug.  They also agree to abide by federal anti-kickback
laws.


WISCONSIN: Federal Lawsuit Launched After Police Beatings
---------------------------------------------------------
A federal class action lawsuit was initiated against the city of
Milwaukee, the Milwaukee Police Department and Milwaukee Police
Chief Nan Hegerty over two high-profile beating cases involving
Milwaukee police officers, The WISN 12 News reports.

The suit alleges that the defendants knew about the abuses and
violations committed by certain police officers, but did nothing
to stop them.  The suit specifically refers to the beating of
Frank Jude Jr. outside a party in Bay View and the alleged
beating of Charles Griffin, an Iraq war veteran.


YTS GROUP: Recalls Several Products Due To Undeclared Eggs
----------------------------------------------------------
YTS Group Inc. of El Monte, CA, is voluntarily recalling the
following items: 352 cases of Veggie Golden Roast, 360 cases of
Veggie Smoked Duck, 151 cases of Vegetarian Steamboat Flavoring,
66 cases of Vegetarian smoked Drum Stick, 416 cases of
Vegetarian Lamb, 972 cases of Liang Zen Golden Ham, 563 cases of
Veggie Golden Ham, 174 cases of Mushroom Cake, 37 cases of New
Century Veggie and 75 cases of Curry Veggie Ham because they
contain whole egg or egg albumen power (egg protein) which is
not being declared on the product label. People who have
allergies to egg might run the risk of serious or life-
threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products.

The recalled products were distributed nationwide in retail
stores, specifically in the States of California, Minnesota, New
York, Utah, Washington. This product was also distributed in
Canada.

All of these products come frozen in clear plastic packages of
2.2 lb, 1lb, 12 ounce and in 10 ounce pieces. The recalled
products have identifying yellow labels under the brand names;
YTS VEGGIE Food or YTS PRODUCTS or with green labels under the
KIMBO brand name and have an expiration date from 4/27/04 to
4/27/05, which is stamped in black ink at the bottom of the
package are being recalled. No illnesses have been reported to
date in connection with this problem.

This recall is being made with the knowledge of the Food and
Drug Administration. This recall was initiated after it was
discovered that the products containing egg or egg albumen
powder were distributed in packages that did not reveal the
presence of egg allergen. Subsequent investigation indicates the
problem was caused by an oversight on the firm's part. The FDA
has not classified this recall as of now, however, similar
situations have been classified as Class I recalls.

Consumers who have purchased these recall products are urged to
return them to the place of purchase for a full refund.
Consumers with questions may contact the YTS Group Inc., at
1-626-455-0242.


                Meetings, Conferences & Seminars



*      Featured Conference
--------------------------

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


BLUE COAT: Spector Roseman Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C. initiated a
securities class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, on behalf of
purchasers of the common stock of Blue Coat Systems, Inc. ("Blue
Coat" or the "Company") (Nasdaq: BCSI) between February 20, 2004
through May 27, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading
statements contained in press releases and filings with the
Securities and Exchange Commission during the Class Period.
Specifically, the Complaint alleges that Blue Coat and certain
of the Company's executive officers (collectively "defendants")
with violations of federal securities laws. Plaintiff claims
defendants' omissions and material misrepresentations
artificially inflated the Company's stock price, inflicting
damages on investors. Blue Coat is a developer and distributor
of "proxy" software, which helps corporations control employee
access to Internet websites and to potentially dangerous
downloadable files. Since its founding in 1996 through the
beginning of the Class Period, Blue Coat had never turned a
profit. On February 19, 2004, Blue Coat announced an
unprecedented increase in sales and its first profitable
quarter. Defendants stated in a conference call a belief that
gross margins in the following quarter would fall in the range
of 68-69%. The stock price subsequently rose to $38.27 on
February 20, 2004, on unusually high volume of 1.3 million
shares. The Complaint charges that unbeknownst to investors,
these gross margin calculations did not reflect any realistic
expectations as to what could be achieved, given material
business issues of which the defendants would have been aware.
Soon after the February 19 conference call, certain defendants
began selling large blocks of shares, at prices ranging from
$40-52 per share.

On May 27, 2004, Blue Coat made an announcement that its
purported gross margin calculations had fallen short for the
fourth quarter of fiscal 2004 and profitability was lower than
that achieved in the third quarter. The next trading day, May
28, 2004, Blue Coat shares fell $11.45 per share to close at
$27.80 per share. By August 2004, Blue Coat shares fell as low
as $10 per share before recovering to approximately the $20
level.

In the summer of 2004, the SEC began an informal inquiry into
trading of Blue Coat stock, which the Company initially
characterized as involving only "individuals or organizations
outside the company." By early 2005, however, the SEC had
upgraded its inquiry to a formal investigation. Instead of only
individuals or organizations outside the Company, the SEC was
now focusing on "whether certain present or former officers,
directors, employees, affiliates or others made intentional or
non-intentional selective disclosure of material nonpublic
information, traded in the Company's stock while in possession
of such information, or communicated such information to others
who thereafter traded in the Company's stock."

For more details, contact Robert M. Roseman of Spector, Roseman
& Kodroff, P.C. by Phone: +1-888-844-5862 or by E-mail:
classaction@srk-law.com.


COCA-COLA COMPANY: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Suit in GA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
LLP ("Lerach Coughlin") initiated a class action in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on
behalf of purchasers of The Coca-Cola Company ("Coke") (NYSE:KO)
common stock during the period between January 30, 2003 and
September 15, 2004 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Coke and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Coke manufactures, distributes
and markets non-alcoholic beverage concentrates and syrups,
including fountain syrups, throughout the world.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
made false and misleading statements regarding Coke's business
and prospects. The true facts, which were know to defendants but
concealed from the investing public, were as follows:

     (1) Coke's business strategy was flawed and its business
         model was not working;

     (2) Coke's relationships with its key bottlers were
         impaired and harming Coke's economic performance; and

     (3) as a result of the above, Coke's earnings going forward
         would be diminished.

On September 15, 2004, Coke revealed that its second half 2004
financial results would be below forecasted levels. Coke's stock
declined on this news.

For more details, contact William Lerach of Lerach Coughlin
Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP by Mail: 401 B Street, Suite
1600, San Diego, CA 92101 by Phone: 800-449-4900 by E-mail:
wsl@lerachlaw.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.lerachlaw.com/cases/cocacola/.


FINDWHAT.COM: Charles J. Piven Files Securities Fraud Suit in FL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of FindWhat.com
(NASDAQ: FWHT) between January 5, 2004 and May 4, 2005,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Florida against defendant FindWhat.com Craig
Pisaris-Henderson, Brenda Aguis, Frederick E. Guest and Phillip
R. Thune. The action charges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of materially false and
misleading statements to the market throughout the Class Period,
which statements had the effect of artificially inflating the
market price of the Company's securities. No class has yet been
certified in the above action.

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


FINDWHAT.COM: Federman & Sherwood Lodges Securities Suit in FL
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Federman & Sherwood initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court Middle District of
Florida against FindWhat.com (Nasdaq: FWHT).

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of
material misrepresentations to the market which had the effect
of artificially inflating the market price. The class period is
from January 5, 2004 through May 4, 2005. Specifically, the
Company had a dispute with its outside auditor, Ernst & Young
LLP, regarding purchase accounting, goodwill impairment, revenue
recognition for private label agreements and other revenue
agreements, excluding those related to FindWhat.com Network
revenue, personnel resources and technical accounting expertise,
quarterly and year-end financial statement close and review
process, and segregation of duties. The accounting firm resigned
as a result of this dispute.

For more details, contact William B. Federman of FEDERMAN &
SHERWOOD by Mail: 120 N. Robinson, Suite 2720, Oklahoma City, OK
73102 by Phone: (405) 235-1560/FAX: (405) 239-2112 by E-mail:
wfederman@aol.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.federmanlaw.com.  


FINDWHAT.COM: Paskowitz & Associations Lodges Stock Suit in FL
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Paskowitz & Associates initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida on behalf of all purchasers who purchased
FindWhat.com ("the Company")(NASDAQ:FWHT--News) securities
during the period January 5, 2004 to May 4, 2005 (the "Class
Period"'). Also included are all those who acquired
FindWhat.com's shares through its acquisitions of Miva, Comet
Systems or Espotting Media.

The Complaint alleges that FindWhat.com and certain of its
officers and directors violated federal securities laws.
Specifically, with the completion of the first in a series of
acquisitions by FindWhat.com, the Company began to accrue
intangible assets in excess of their actual value. FindWhat.com
disagreed with its auditor, Ernst & Young LLP, about the need to
recognize an impairment of its goodwill in connection with
FindWhat.com's 2004 financial statements. As a result of the
dispute, on May 2, 2005, Ernst & Young LLP resigned and informed
FindWhat.com of the following material weaknesses in its system
of internal control over financial reporting:

     (1) purchase accounting,

     (2) goodwill impairment,

     (3) revenue recognition for private label agreements and
         other revenue agreements, excluding those related to
         FindWhat.com Network revenue,

     (4) personnel resources and technical accounting expertise,

     (5) quarterly and year-end financial statement close and
         review process, and

     (6) segregation of duties.

On May 4, 2005, FindWhat.com announced the resignation of its
CFO, Defendant Brenda Aguis. While Defendants had inflated
FindWhat.com's stock, insiders sold 680,959 shares for proceeds
of $11,320.179. On May 3, FindWhat.com stock plummeted $2.04 per
share, or 26% and an additional $2.33, or 38% on May 5, 2005.

For more details, contact Paskowitz & Associations by Phone:
800-705-9529 or by E-mail: classattorney@aol.com.  


FINDWHAT.COM: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in FL
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C. initiated a lawsuit seeking
class action status has been filed in the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Florida on behalf of all
persons who purchased the publicly traded securities of
FindWhat.com (Nasdaq: FWHT) ("FindWhat.com" or the "Company")
between January 5, 2004 and May 4, 2005, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). Also included are all those who acquired
FindWhat.com's shares through its acquisitions of Miva, Comet
Systems or Espotting Media.

The Complaint alleges that FindWhat.com and certain of its
officers and directors violated federal securities laws.
Specifically, with the completion of the first in a series of
acquisitions by FindWhat.com, the Company began to accrue
intangible assets in excess of their actual value. FindWhat.com
disagreed with its auditor, Ernst & Young LLP, about the need to
recognize an impairment of its goodwill in connection with
FindWhat.com's 2004 financial statements. As a result of the
dispute, on May 2, 2005, Ernst & Young LLP resigned and informed
FindWhat.com of the following material weaknesses in its system
of internal control over financial reporting:

     (1) purchase accounting,

     (2) goodwill impairment,

     (3) revenue recognition for private label agreements and
         other revenue agreements, excluding those related to
         FindWhat.com Network revenue,

     (4) personnel resources and technical accounting expertise,

     (5) quarterly and year-end financial statement close and
         review process, and

     (6) segregation of duties.

On May 4, 2005, FindWhat.com announced the resignation of its
CFO, Defendant Brenda Aguis. While Defendants had inflated
FindWhat.com's stock, insiders sold 680,959 shares for proceeds
of $11,320.179. On May 3, FindWhat.com stock plummeted $2.04 per
share, or 26% and an additional $2.33, or 38% on May 5, 2005.

For more Wayne T. Boulton or Nancy A. Kulesa of Schatz & Nobel,
P.C. by Phone: (800) 797-5499 by E-mail: sn06106@aol.com or
visit their Web site: http://www.snlaw.net.


FINDWHAT.COM: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in FL
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for
the Middle District of Florida on behalf of all those who
purchased or otherwise acquired securities of FindWhat.com, Inc.
(Nasdaq: FWHT) ("FindWhat" or the "Company") between January 5,
2004 and May 4, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges FindWhat, Craig Pisaris-Henderson, Phillip
Thune, and Brenda Agius 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, known to defendants or
recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) that FindWhat failed to appropriately recognize
         impairment of goodwill that accrued as a result of the
         Company's merger with Miva;

     (2) that the Company did not disclose that since January
         2005, FindWhat had been actively looking for new
         accountants;

     (3) that the Company's financial results were in violation
         of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP");

     (4) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls; and

     (5) that as a result of the above, the Company's financial
         results were materially inflated at all relevant times.

On May 2, 2005, FindWhat announced that Ernst and Young LLP, the
Company's accountants, were resigning. Further, the Company
announced that it recorded an adjustment in its 2004
consolidated financial statements, with respect to the need to
recognize an impairment of goodwill. News of this shocked the
market. Share of FindWhat fell $2.04 per share or 26.32 percent
on May 3, 2005, to close at $5.71 per share. On May 5, 2004,
FindWhat announced that it had accepted the resignation of
Brenda Agius as the Company's chief financial officer. On this
news shares of FindWhat fell $1.33 per share or 21.59 percent,
on May 5, 2005, to close at $4.83 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 by Phone: 1-888-299-7706 or
1-610-667-7706 or by E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com.


XYBERNAUT CORPORATION: Cohen Milstein Lodges Stock Lawsuit in VA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. filed
a lawsuit on behalf of its client and on behalf of other
similarly situated purchasers of the securities of Xybernaut
Corporation ("Xybernaut") (Nasdaq:XYBRE) common stock between
May 10, 2002 and April 8, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"),
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia.

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

The Complaint alleges that on May 2, 2002, the Company released
a materially false and misleading press releasing announcing
"the highest first quarter results in the Company's history."
Further, it is alleged that on March 14, 2005, Xybernaut
announced that it was seeking an extension of time within which
to file its annual report with the Securities and Exchange
Commission ("SEC"). Moreover, it is alleged that on March 31,
2005, Xybernaut issued a press release which stated, in part:
"Xybernaut Corporation (Nasdaq:XYBRE) announced today that the
filing of its Form 10-K and other related reports for the year
ended December 31, 2004, anticipated to occur today, will be
further delayed, pending completion of an internal investigation
undertaken by its Audit Committee."

The press release stated that independent counsel had been
engaged to assist in an internal investigation of, "among other
things, concerns brought to the Audit Committee's attention
relating to the internal control environment of the Company, the
propriety of certain expenditures and the documentation of
certain expenses of the Chairman and CEO of the Company, the
Company's transparency and public disclosure process, the
accuracy of certain public disclosures, management's conduct in
response to the investigation, and the propriety of certain
major transactions."

Moreover, the press release stated that Xybernaut had received a
subpoena from the Northeast Regional Office of the SEC seeking
"documents and other information relating to the sale of Company
securities by any person identified as a selling shareholder in
any Company registration statement or other public filing."
Following this news, Xybernaut's share price, which at one time
had traded as high as $2.23 per share, fell to a close of $0.42
per share on March 31, 2005, and then dropped further to close
at $0.24 per share on April 1, 2005.

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