CAR_Public/050520.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, May 20, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 99


                         Headlines

AEGIS COMMUNICATIONS: Reaches Settlement for TX Shareholder Suit
BELO CORPORATION: CEO Issues Memo Regarding Shareholders' Suit
BRISTOL-MYERS: Derivative Settlement Hearing Set May 13, 2005
CASCADE DESIGNS: Recalls 8.5T Liquid Fuels Due To Fire Hazard
DOE RUN: Faces Injury Lawsuits Due To Herculaneum, MO Operations

DOE RUN: Faces Litigation Over MO Discontinued Mining Facilities
DOE RUN: Faces Lawsuits Over Past Mining Operations in Oklahoma
EPDM LITIGATION: Antitrust Settlement Hearing Set June 28, 2005
EPIXTAR CORPORATION: Plaintiff Counsel Seeks Halt To Depositions
GOODY'S FAMILY: Court Refuses Petition For Certiorari in Lawsuit

IMCLONE SYSTEMS: Litigation Settlement Hearing Set June 24, 2005
INDONESIA: Jakarta Court OK's PKI Members' Lawsuit V. Presidents
KATY INDUSTRIES: Dismissal of Texas CERCLA Lawsuit Deemed Final
LOUISIANA: Senate Panel Repeals 2004 Funeral Policies Law
MERCEDES-BENZ USA: NJ High Court Dismisses Consumer Fraud Suit

MISSOURI: University Reaches Settlement in Dispute Over Tuition
NBR LITIGATION: Antitrust Settlement Hearing Set July 13, 2005
NIKU CORPORATION: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Lawsuit Settlement
OHIO: Attorney Lodges Suit Over Campbell County's Book-In Fees
PEMCO AVIATION: Seeks Writ of Certiorari in AL Race Bias Lawsuit

PENTON MEDIA: Certification Considered For TCPA Violations Suit
PNC FINANCIAL: Securities Settlement Hearing Set August 4, 2005
REGENCY AFFILIATES: DE Court Nixes Most Claims in Investor Suit
RENAL CARE: Pension Funds Launch Lawsuits Over Fresenius Merger
ROBERT BOSCH: Recalls 69T Circular Saws Due To Injury Hazard

RUBICON MEDICAL: Investors Sue V. Boston Scientific Acquisition
SEACHANGE INTERNATIONAL: Appeal of Stock Suit Dismissal Denied
THE MASTER'S MIRACLE: Recalls Eye Products Due To Contamination
TIVO INC.: NY Court Preliminarily Approves Stock Suit Settlement
TRINSIC COMMUNICATIONS: Consumer Suit Remanded to IL State Court

UTSTARCOM INC.: Shareholders Launch Securities Suits in CA, ID
UTSTARCOM INC.: NY Court Preliminarily Approves Suit Settlement
VICORP RESTAURANTS: Reaches Settlement For CA Employee Lawsuits
WHITEHALL JEWELLERS: Asks IL Court To Dismiss Securities Lawsuit
Z-TEL TECHNOLOGIES: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Suit Settlement

                         Asbestos Alert

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: BG&E Deals with Direct and 3rd Party Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ameren, Subsidiaries Battle More Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rogers Corp. Deals With 211 Pending Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Moen Inc. Handles 128 Personal Injury Cases
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Noland Co. Continues Defense Against Suits

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: BlueLinx Directs Claims to Georgia-Pacific
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Aearo Reaps 1,200 More Claims in 6 Months
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Odyssey Re Holdings Posts Asbestos Reserves
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: UK Court Scraps Misfeasance Case V. Lloyd's
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Claims Hit James Hardie's Profit

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EPA Rejects MO Airport's Removal Method
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Nobertune Halts Plans for Treatment Plant
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: US Asbestos Risk Still Troubles Royal & Sun
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: AIG Settles Congoleum Claims for US$103Mil
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims Hold Back USG Despite Strong Growth

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Council Lists Breaches of School Officials
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: James Hardie Wants to Rebuild Reputation
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: TX Senate OKs Medical Criteria for Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pepco Holdings Handles 250 Remaining Cases
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: No Cases Reinstated Against Leap Since 1996

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Patrick Stevedores Tries to Hide Asbestos
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Senate Judge Battle Threatens Asbestos Bill
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Change to SA Asbestos Compensation Pushed
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NY Court Upholds Ruling to Deny Benefits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NY Court Upholds Decision V. Goodyear Tire

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Parents Urge State to Replace Toxic Roofs
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Trees Near Libby Mine Contaminated, Study
ASBESTOS ALERT: Health Checks Offered to Staff of 3 UK Hospitals
ASBESTOS ALERT: DC Orders 18-Month Prison for Removal Breaches
ASBESTOS ALERT: Engineer Sues Kelda Group for Asbestos Disease

ASBESTOS ALERT: Appeals Court Affirms Ruling to Fine Lyon County
ASBESTOS ALERT: Ohio Court Grants Worker's Claim V. Copperweld
ASBESTOS ALERT: HSE Pursues 8 Charges V. A-One Insulation Ltd.
ASBESTOS ALERT: California DC Orders Briefing for Hartford Case
ASBESTOS ALERT: Illegal Asbestos Removal May Bring Prison Term

ASBESTOS ALERT: UK Court Imposes Fine on G&K Roofing Contractors

                  New Securities Fraud Cases

DORAL FINANCIAL: Brian M. Felgoise Lodges Securities Suit in NY
FINDWHAT.COM INC.: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Suit in FL
FINDWHAT.COM INC.: Murray Frank Lodges Securities Lawsuit in FL
FINDWHAT.COM INC.: Roy Jacobs Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in FL
FINDWHAT.COM INC.: Vianale & Vianale Files Securities Suit in FL

FRIEDMAN BILLINGS: Murray Frank Lodges Securities Lawsuit in NY
GRAVITY CO.: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
HARLEY-DAVIDSON: Scott + Scott Files Securities Fraud Suit in WI
MARTEK BIOSCIENCES: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Suit in MD
MOLSON COORS: Murray Frank Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in DE

R&G FINANCIAL: Zwerling Schachter Files Securities Lawsuit in NY
WILLBROS GROUP: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in TX
XYBERNAUT CORPORATION: Shepherd Finkelman Files Stock Suit in DE


                            *********


AEGIS COMMUNICATIONS: Reaches Settlement for TX Shareholder Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Aegis Communications Group, Inc. reached a settlement for a
class action filed against it in the District Court of Dallas
County, Texas, related to the then-proposed acquisition of the
Company by AllServe Systems PLC.

On July 18, 2003, two of the Company's public stockholders, John
Beggi and Steven Stremke, filed the suits, alleging, among other
things, that the then-proposed acquisition of the Company by
AllServe was unfair to the Company's public stockholders and
that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to its
public stockholders in connection with the then-proposed
acquisition. The plaintiffs are seeking a class action in each
complaint and are seeking to enjoin the transaction with
AllServe.  The parties have executed a settlement agreement and
the court has requested a telephonic hearing in April to discuss
disposition of the case.


BELO CORPORATION: CEO Issues Memo Regarding Shareholders' Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Belo Corporation Chairman, President, and CEO Robert Decherd
sent a letter to employees explaining developments in a
shareholder class action lawsuit filed last summer after the
Company revealed circulation inflation at its flagship paper,
The Dallas Morning News, The Editor & Publisher reports.

According to the letter, which recapped remarks Mr. Decherd made
during the Company's annual meeting of shareholders, the lawsuit
was amended last month and now alleges that that Mr. Decherd
knew the Morning News had been misstating its circulation for
more than a year before the announcement was made public in
August 2004.

As reported in previous editions of the Class Action Reporter,
several law firms launched securities class action lawsuits in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Texas, on behalf of all persons who purchased or acquired Belo
Corporation (NYSE: BLC) ("Belo" or the "Company") securities
between May 12, 2003 and August 6, 2004.

The Plaintiffs allege that during the Class Period the Company
failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material,
adverse facts, which were known to defendants or recklessly
disregarded by them:

     (1) that defendants implemented a circulation sales rewards
         program designed to encourage contractors to sell
         more of The Dallas Morning News newspapers to the
         general public;

     (2) that the contractors, in order to qualify for the
         circulation sales rewards, were overstating the true
         amounts of newspapers that were sold to the public;

     (3) that circulation managers failed to verify the
         contractors' sales in order to take advantage of the
         rewards program;

     (4) that as a consequence of the foregoing, Belo's reported
         audited circulation numbers were materially inflated,
         which in turn allowed Belo to sell more advertisements
         thereby achieving higher advertising revenues for the
         Company; and

     (5) that Belo's reported financial results, as a result of
         the aforementioned scheme, were materially inflated at
         all relevant times.

On August 5, 2004, Belo announced that The Dallas Morning News,
a wholly owned subsidiary, reported a greater than expected
decline in its September 2004 circulation. Shares of Belo fell
$1.66, or 7.15%, on August 6, 2004, to close at $21.55 per
share.

In the letter, Mr. Decherd also stated that in January 2003 he
received a letter and a tape from an independent contractor
working in an area outside of Dallas. The contractor's letter
said that their supervisor told the contractor to lie about the
number of papers sold. Mr. Decherd explained that he handed the
materials over to Belo's legal department, which in turn,
coordinated an investigation and as a result, several
circulation managers at the paper were fired.

Mr. Decherd also wrote. "The investigation from January 2003 to
February 2003 made us certain at that time that the issues
raised had been comprehensively addressed and there wasn't a
larger problem with respect to circulation at the Morning News."

In addition, Mr. Decherd also addressed allegations made in a
story by the Fort Worth Star-Telegram that he dumped shares of
Belo stock in 2003 and 2004. He wrote, "What the story and the
complaint did not say is that these sales were part of a formal
trading plan that was publicly disclosed in a press release in
November 2001."


BRISTOL-MYERS: Derivative Settlement Hearing Set May 13, 2005
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York will hold a fairness hearing for the proposed partial
settlement in the matter: In Re: Bristol-Myers Squibb Derivative
Litigation on behalf of all holders of the firm's common stock.

The hearing will be held on May 13, 2005, before the Honorable
Loretta A. Preska, Judge of the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York, at Daniel Moynihan United
States District Courthouse, 500 Pearl St., Room 12a, New York,
NY 10007-1312.

For more details, contact Craig Lowther Wechsler Harwood LLP,
Shareholder Relations Department by Mail: 488 Madison Avenue,
8th Floor, New York, New York 10022 by Phone: (877) 935-7400 or
by E-mail: clowther@whesq.com OR Lee Squitieri, Esq. of
Squitieri & Fearon, LLP by Mail: 32 East 57th Street, 12th
Floor, New York, NY 10022 by Phone: (212) 421-6492 or by E-mail:
lee@sfclasslaw.com.


CASCADE DESIGNS: Recalls 8.5T Liquid Fuels Due To Fire Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------
In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC), Cascade Designs Inc., of Seattle, Washington is
voluntarily recalling about 8,500 Superfuel Liquid Fuels.

A manufacturing defect in the can's seam and an insufficiently
applied fuel cap can cause the can to leak fuel posing a fire
hazard. No incidents or injuries have been reported. However,
CPSC and Cascade Designs discovered and subsequently
investigated forty-one leaking cans found in Cascade's
distribution center.

The recalled fuel is used for outdoor cooking stoves. "MSRr
SuperFuelT" is printed on the label and is packaged in red metal
cans. "SUPERFUEL, MSR Cleanest-Burning Liquid Fuel for MSR
Stoves," and "32 FL OZ/1 Quart/.946 Liter" are printed across
the front of the can. This recall includes cans with batch #502-
167 printed on the lower back of the can in light black digits.

Manufactured in the United States, the fuels were sold at all
sporting good stores sold the stove fuel nationwide from March
2005 through April 2005 for about $9.

Consumers should immediately check their stove fuel cans for
leaks. If the can is leaking, consumers should move it to a
location where there are no ignition sources and then transfer
the fuel to an approved fuel container. Consumers should contact
Cascade Designs Inc. to receive a replacement fuel container and
funnel.

Consumer Contact: For additional information, contact Cascade
Designs at (800) 527-1527 between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. PT Monday
through Friday or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.msrgear.com.


DOE RUN: Faces Injury Lawsuits Due To Herculaneum, MO Operations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Doe Run Resources Corporation faces eight lawsuits alleging
certain damages stemming from the operations at its Herculaneum,
Missouri smelter.

Three of these cases are class action lawsuits.  In two cases,
the plaintiffs seek to have certified a class of property owners
in a certain section of Herculaneum, alleging that property
values have been damaged due to the operations of the smelter.
In another case, plaintiffs seek to have certified a class of
children who lived in Herculaneum during a period of time when
they were less than six years old and children born to mothers
who lived in Herculaneum during their pregnancies.  The remedy
sought is medical monitoring for the class.

Five of the cases are personal injury actions by 24 individuals
who allege damages from the effects of lead due to operations at
the smelter.  Punitive damages also are being sought in each
case.  A resident of Herculaneum has claimed personal injuries
allegedly resulting from exposure to emissions from the smelter.
No suit has yet been filed in this matter.


DOE RUN: Faces Litigation Over MO Discontinued Mining Facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------
Doe Run Resources Corporation faces five lawsuits alleging
certain damages from discontinued mine facilities in St.
Francois County, Missouri.  Four of the cases are class action
lawsuits.

The first case seeks to have certified a class consisting of
property owners in Bonne Terre, Missouri, alleging that property
values have been damaged due to the tailings from the
discontinued operations.  In the second case plaintiffs seek to
have certified a class of children who lived, went to school or
day care in Bonne Terre, or whose mothers lived in Bonne Terre
during their pregnancies.  The third and fourth cases are class
actions for property damage and medical monitoring concerning
alleged damages caused by chat, tailings, and related operations
in six areas in St. Francois County.  The fifth case alleges
personal injury to two children living in St. Francois County.


DOE RUN: Faces Lawsuits Over Past Mining Operations in Oklahoma
---------------------------------------------------------------
Doe Run Resources Corporation is a defendant in lawsuits
alleging certain damages from past mining operations in Ottawa
County, Oklahoma.

Ten lawsuits have been filed alleging personal injury to 25
children and one adult living in Ottawa County against eight
companies, including the Company, who allegedly, either through
predecessors or subsidiaries, mined lead and zinc in Ottawa
County or commercially used the chat or tailings in Ottawa
County.  Five of these suits were dismissed, leaving claims
alleged by seven children.

Two cases are class action lawsuits for personal injury and
property damage in Picher and Quapaw, Ottawa County. An
additional class action lawsuit for damages to natural resources
and land owned by members of the Quapaw Tribe was filed on
December 10, 2003 against seven companies, including the
Company.  Two additional cases alleging personal injury to 45
children and three children, respectively, were filed in July
2004.


EPDM LITIGATION: Antitrust Settlement Hearing Set June 28, 2005
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut
will hold a fairness hearing for the proposed $30 million
settlement in the matter: In re Ethylene Propylene Diene Monomer
(EPDM) Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 3:03 MD 1542 (PCD) on
behalf of all individuals or entities (excluding government
entities) who directly purchased EPDM in the United States or
form a facility located in the United States from any defendant
from January 1, 1997 to December 31, 2001.

The Court will hold a fairness hearing on June 28, 2005, at
10:00 a.m. at the United States District Court for the District
of Connecticut, Courtroom 1, 141 Church Street, New Heaven, CT.

For more details, contact In re Ethylene Propylene Diene Monomer
(EPDM) Antitrust Litigation c/o Gilardi & Co., LLC by Mail: P.O.
Box 808011, Petaluma, CA 94975-8011 or visit their Web site:
http://www.gilardi.com/php/shownotice.php?casetype=C&casename=EP
DM+Antitrust+%28Crompton%29&page_string=All%20claims&script_stri
ng=all.php&casecode=crep1 OR Michael D. Hausfeld of Cohen,
Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. by Mail: 1100 New York
Avenue, N.W. Suite 500, West Tower, Washington, District of
Columbia 20005-3964 Phone: 202-408-4600 or by Fax: 202-408-4699.


EPIXTAR CORPORATION: Plaintiff Counsel Seeks Halt To Depositions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff's counsel asked ePixtar Corporation's counsel to
refrain from taking depositions and incurring costs related to
the class action filed against the Company in the Circuit Court
of Alabama for Barbour County.

Dixon Aviation, Inc. commenced the action in January 2004
seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and alleging that the
Defendants engaged in cramming.  The suit also names as
defendants a Company officer, NOL Group, Inc., one of the
Company's wholly-owned subsidiaries, Liberty Online, Inc., a
billing house and a local exchange carrier (LEC).

The Company's motion to remove the action to federal court has
been denied. Pursuant to the Company's arrangement with the LEC
and billing house defendant, the Company is obligated to
indemnify the LEC and billing Company defendants for their legal
costs and any liability.

On November 10, 2004, the Court issued a Scheduling order that
directed that only discovery pertinent to class certification be
conducted, and that discovery related solely to the merits of
the claims be stayed. The Order defined the issues and laid out
the time scheduling for each phase of pre-certification
discovery. In February 2005, Plaintiff's Counsel asked Company's
Counsel to refrain from taking depositions and incurring costs
until such time as Plaintiff's Counsel could speak to his
client, Dixon Aviation.


GOODY'S FAMILY: Court Refuses Petition For Certiorari in Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Supreme Court denied plaintiffs' petition for
writ of certiorari relating to the dismissal of a class action
filed against Goody's Family Clothing, Inc. and Robert M.
Goodfriend, its chairman of the board and chief executive
officer.

Twenty named plaintiffs filed the suit in February 1999,
generally alleging that the Company discriminated against a
class of African-American employees at its retail stores through
the use of discriminatory selection and compensation procedures
and by maintaining unequal terms and conditions of employment.
The plaintiffs further alleged that the Company maintained a
racially hostile working environment.

On February 28, 2003, a proposed Consent Decree was filed with
the District Court for its preliminary approval. The proposed
Consent Decree sets forth the proposed settlement of the class
action race discrimination lawsuit. Ultimately, class action
certification was sought in the lawsuit only with respect to
alleged discrimination in promotion to management positions and
the proposed Consent Decree is limited to such claims.

Generally, the proposed settlement provides for a payment by the
Company in the aggregate amount of $3.2 million to the class
members (including the named plaintiffs) and their counsel, as
well as the Company's implementation of certain policies,
practices and procedures regarding, among other things, training
of employees. The Company's employer liability insurance
underwriter has funded $3.1 million of such payment to a third-
party administrator.  The proposed Consent Decree explicitly
provides that it is not an admission of liability by the Company
and the Company continues to deny all of the allegations.

On April 30, 2003, the District Court granted preliminary
approval of the proposed Consent Decree, and a hearing was held
on June 30, 2003, regarding the adequacy and fairness of the
proposed settlement. On March 3, 2004, the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Georgia issued an
Order granting final approval of the Consent Decree.

On February 23, 2004, a purported class member filed an appeal
with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit,
alleging, among other things, misconduct on the part of the
District Court and the plaintiff's/appellant's counsel; the
Eleventh Circuit dismissed this appeal on March 5, 2004. On
March 12, 2004, a Motion to set aside the dismissal was filed
with the Eleventh Circuit. On May 28, 2004, the Eleventh Circuit
dismissed all appeals regarding this matter. In August 2004, a
purported class member filed a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari
with the United States Supreme Court regarding the Eleventh
Circuit's dismissal of all appeals on this matter; on January
20, 2005, the United States Supreme Court denied the Petition
for a Writ of Certiorari.  Pursuant to the terms of the March 3,
2004 Order, the District Court will maintain jurisdiction of
this matter until July 2006 to monitor the parties' compliance
with the Consent Decree.


IMCLONE SYSTEMS: Litigation Settlement Hearing Set June 24, 2005
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York will hold a fairness hearing for the proposed $8.75
million settlement in the matter: In Re ImClone Systems, Inc.
Shareholder Derivative Litigation, Case No. 02 Civ. 0613 (RO) on
behalf of all beneficial owners of the firm's common stock as of
March 18, 2005.

The hearing will be held before the Honorable Richard Owen on
June 24, 2005, at 3:30 p.m. in Courtroom 1106, of the United
States Courthouse, at 40 Centre Street, New York, NY 10007.

For more details, contact Jeffrey S. Fruchter, Esq. of Abraham,
Fruchter & Twersky, LLP by Mail: One Penn Plaza, Suite 2805, New
York, New York 10119 by Phone: (212) 279-5050 or (800) 440-8986
by Fax: (212) 279-3655 or visit their Web site:
http://www.aftlaw.com.


INDONESIA: Jakarta Court OK's PKI Members' Lawsuit V. Presidents
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Central Jakarta District Court ruled that former members of
the now-outlawed Indonesian Communist Party (PKI) could proceed
with a class action lawsuit against the President and former
presidents, The Jakarta Post reports.

Uli Parulian, a legal representative for the group, told the Pot
"Presiding Judge Cicut Sutiarso read the court's decision that
the class action suit was legal. He ordered that we make a
public announcement and provide an opportunity to withdraw from
the suit for those people who wish to do so." Mr. Uli added that
this initial ruling on the suit would be followed by a more
substantial evaluation scheduled for July 20.

Court documents reveal that some 14 representatives of the
former PKI members filed a class action last month against
current President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono and former presidents
Soeharto, BJ Habibie, Abdurrahman Wahid and Megawati
Soekarnoputri.  In their suit, the members are demanding to have
their economic, social and cultural rights be restored and that
the government annul any laws that discriminate against former
party members.


KATY INDUSTRIES: Dismissal of Texas CERCLA Lawsuit Deemed Final
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Texas, Marshall Division's decision dismissing the class action
filed against Katy Industries, Inc. is deemed final after
plaintiffs failed to file an appeal.

Twenty individuals initially filed a lawsuit on behalf of
"landowners and persons who reside and/or work in" an identified
geographical area surrounding the W.J. Smith Property in
Denison, Texas.  The lawsuit purported to allege claims under
state law for negligence, trespass, nuisance and assault and
battery.  It sought damages for personal injury and property
damage, as well as punitive damages.  The suit also named as
defendants Union Pacific Corporation, Union Pacific Railroad
Company, and W.J. Smith.

On June 10, 2002, the Company and W.J. Smith filed a motion to
dismiss the case for lack of federal jurisdiction, or in the
alternative, to transfer the case to the Sherman Division.  In
response, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to amend the
complaint to add a federal claim under the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA). On July 30, 2002, the court dismissed
plaintiffs' lawsuit in its entirety.

On July 31, 2002, plaintiffs filed a new lawsuit against the
same defendants in the same court, alleging property damage
class action claims under the federal Comprehensive
Environmental Response Compensation & Liability Act (CERCLA), as
well as state common law theories.

The Company deposed all of the proposed class representatives
and on October 31, 2003, filed a motion for summary judgment on
the grounds that the court lacks jurisdiction and that
plaintiffs' claims are barred by the applicable statute of
limitations.  Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification
on the property damage claims on that date as well.  By
Memorandum Opinion and Order dated June 8, 2004, the Court
granted the Company's Motion for Summary Judgment on the federal
jurisdictional claim and dismissed the case.  The Company has
not been notified of an appeal and the time for appealing the
decision has passed.


LOUISIANA: Senate Panel Repeals 2004 Funeral Policies Law
---------------------------------------------------------
Despite warnings that it could mean insolvency for some small
and middle-sized insurance companies, a Senate panel in baton
Rouge, Louisiana voted to repeal a law passed last year
governing benefits for decades-old funeral polices, The
Associated Press reports.

At the heart of the matter are policies some door-to-door that
were sold as far back as the 1950s, which spell out both a
dollar value benefit along with a list of services. A law, which
dates back to 1948, requires that both be listed on the policy.
The problem is that the cost of the services has far outstripped
the dollar values listed in many policies, which has led to
lawsuits, including some class action lawsuits from people who
believe they are entitled to the benefits listed despite the
added costs.  The future of the bill is far from certain though,
since similar legislation appears bogged down in a House
committee.


MERCEDES-BENZ USA: NJ High Court Dismisses Consumer Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In a 6-0 decision, the New Jersey Supreme Court dismissed a
class action lawsuit that charges Mercedes-Benz USA, a unit of
DaimlerChrysler based in Montvale, with consumer fraud because
of defective fuel gauges in some models of its luxury cars.

In its ruling, the court pointed out that there was no fraud
because all of the defective automobiles were repaired under
warranty and their owners were provided with free loaner
vehicles.

The suit had alleged that eight models of Mercedes-Benz
automobiles manufactured between 1998 and 2000 contained fuel
gauges that functioned improperly, running the risk that their
drivers would unexpectedly run out of gas.  The Company's
lawyers argued that the Company had repaired a total of 43,039
malfunctioning fuel gauges through its warranty program and as a
result, the owners suffered no loss, which according them is an
essential prerequisite to filing a consumer fraud lawsuit.

A trial judge agreed and dismissed the lawsuit though a three-
judge state appeals court re-instated it later. However, New
Jersey's highest court agreed with the trial judge and thus
ordered the lawsuit dismissed.

Writing for the court Justice Jaynee LaVecchia explains,
"Defects can, and do, arise with complex instrumentalities such
as automobiles. The mere fact that an automobile defect arises
does not establish, in and of itself, an actual and
ascertainable loss to the vehicle purchaser." Judge LaVecchia
also said it would be bad public policy to punish manufacturers
who voluntarily repair defective products at no cost to the
purchaser.

In addition, the judge found that Brian and Barbara Flaherty of
New York, who had sued on behalf of all purchasers of Mercedes-
Benz cars with defective fuel gauges, were "inconvenienced" when
their car ran out of gas, but did not have "any out-of-pocket
monetary loss." She also pointed out, "All repairs were
performed by defendant under warranty, at no cost to the
Flahertys, and the loaner vehicles were provided during periods
when the Flahertys' car was being repaired." Justice Barry Albin
though didn't take part in the decision.


MISSOURI: University Reaches Settlement in Dispute Over Tuition
---------------------------------------------------------------
In a bid to settle a class action lawsuit's claims that it
illegally charged in-state tuition to undergraduate students,
the University of Missouri system will set aside $10 million in
a scholarship fund, The Associated Press reports.

A St. Louis County judge tentatively approved the settlement,
thus resolving the lawsuit, which was filed on behalf of three
students who argued that Missouri law did not allow the four-
campus system to charge tuition during their time in the
university system.

According to the university, roughly 104,000 current and former
students, their spouses and children may qualify for
scholarships. They add that eligible students include anyone
that attended any of the four campuses: Columbia, St. Louis,
Kansas City or Rolla, as in-state undergraduates between January
1995 and August 2001 and were above the age of 16 and below the
age of 22. The university also said that after 25 years, any
remaining money would be placed in the university's general
scholarship fund.  Notification of affected students would not
begin until after the deal is formally approved by St. Louis
County Circuit Judge Kenneth Romines, who ruled against the
university in December 2002, the university explains.

In a press statement, Elson Floyd, the university system's
president said, "The University of Missouri is pleased that this
matter is close to being resolved. We look forward to a final
determination of the court."

The university system also tentatively agreed to pay $1 million
to Bob Herman, the attorney behind the lawsuit, plus an
additional $17,000 for out-of-pocket expenses. Meanwhile, the
three plaintiffs also share $27,000, with the university
agreeing to pay other, unspecified administrative costs not to
exceed $100,000. Additional details, including the amount of
each scholarship, have not yet been finalized though.

The case stems from a 1998 class action lawsuit accusing the
university system of charging in-state students "fees" that
amounted to tuition, violating an 1872 state law mandating free
education for Missouri's homegrown at any of the four campuses.

The university though argued that its "fees" for in-state
undergraduates were legal. However, in December 2002, Judge
Romines ruled that the university violated state law between
1986 and 2001, when the 1872 statute was overturned by charging
what amounted to tuition for students ages 17 to 21. The 1872
law, the judge pointed out, stated that all Missourians at least
16 years old "shall be admitted to all the privileges and
advantages of the various classes of all the departments of the
University of the State of Missouri without payment of tuition."

Mr. Herman contended that undergraduates for decades were
charged a nominal flat fee, no matter the number of credit hours
taken, however in 1986 it began charging an "educational fee" by
the credit hour, a change that Judge Romines ultimately ruled a
violation of the 1872 statute. Over time, Mr. Herman further
contends, that per-credit fee went from $20 to more than $150.


NBR LITIGATION: Antitrust Settlement Hearing Set July 13, 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania will hold a fairness hearing for the proposed $5
million settlement with certain defendants in the matter: In Re
NBR Antitrust Litigation, Civil Action No. 03-1898 on behalf of
all individuals or entities (excluding government entities) who
directly purchased NBR in the United States or form a facility
located in the United States from any defendant from January 1,
1995 to June 30, 2003.

The hearing will be held before the Honorable David Stewart
Cercone, in the United States Post Office and Courthouse,
Seventh Ave., and Grant St., Pittsburgh, PA 15219, ay 10:00
a.m., on July 13, 2005.

For more details, contact In Re NBR Antitrust Litigation c/o
Gilardi & Co., LLC by Mail: P.O. Box 8060, San Rafael, CA 94912-
8060 or visit their Web site:
http://www.gilardi.com/php/shownotice.php?casetype=C&casename=NB
R+Antitrust+%28Crompton%29&page_string=All%20claims&script_strin
g=all.php&casecode=crnb1 OR Michael D. Hausfeld of Cohen,
Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. by Mail: 1100 New York
Avenue, N.W. Suite 500, West Tower, Washington, District of
Columbia 20005-3964 Phone: 202-408-4600 or by Fax: 202-408-4699.


NIKU CORPORATION: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Lawsuit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against Niku
Corporation, certain of its officers and directors and the
managing underwriters of the Company's initial public offering
(IPO), namely:

     (1) Goldman, Sachs and Co.,

     (2) Dain Rauscher Wessels,

     (3) U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray and

     (4) Thomas Weisel Partners

Several suits were initially filed, arising out of the Company's
IPO in February 2000. The complaints in these actions alleged,
among other things, that the registration statement and
prospectus filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for
purposes of the IPO were false and misleading because they
failed to disclose that the managing underwriters allegedly
solicited and received commissions from certain investors in
exchange for allocating to them shares of Company stock in
connection with the IPO and entered into agreements with their
customers to allocate such stock to those customers in exchange
for the customers agreeing to purchase additional shares of the
Company in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices.

On August 8, 2001, the Court ordered that these actions, along
with hundreds of IPO allocation cases against other issuers,
underwriters and directors and officers, be transferred to one
judge for coordinated pre-trial proceedings. In July 2002,
omnibus motions to dismiss the complaints based on common legal
issues were filed on behalf of all issuers, underwriters and
directors and officers. By order dated October 8, 2002, the
Court dismissed the Company's officers and directors from the
case without prejudice.

In an opinion issued on February 19, 2003, the Court granted in
part and denied in part the motions to dismiss. The complaints
against the Company and the other issuers and underwriters were
not dismissed as a matter of law. The plaintiffs and the issuer
defendants signed a Memorandum of Understanding, dated as of
June 5, 2003, agreeing to settle the cases.  In June 2004, final
settlement papers were executed, submitted to the Court, and the
parties are awaiting final approval by the Court.

The suit is styled "In Re Niku Corp. Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation, 01 Civ. 7280 (Sas)," related to "IN re
IPO Allocation Securities Litigation," filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
under Judge Shira N. Scheindlin.  The plaintiff firms in this
litigation are:

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

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

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

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

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

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


OHIO: Attorney Lodges Suit Over Campbell County's Book-In Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
A Cincinnati attorney launched a class action lawsuit in
Covington's U.S. District Court against the Campbell County
Detention Center, calling for the center to refund a year's
worth of the $20 or $30 book-in fees it charges inmates when
they enter the jail, The Cincinnati Enquirer reports.

Robert B. Newman, who will represent what he estimates to be
more than 1,000 inmates who have spent time in the jail within
the past year, told the Enquirer that the 14th Amendment's right
to due process is violated when inmates are forced to pay a fee
before they are convicted. He adds, "The government cannot first
take property before a hearing or trial. That means the jailer
is acting as a judge, and that can't happen."

That same argument won Mr. Newman, a similar case in Hamilton
County, where in Judge Arthur Spiegel ruled that the Hamilton
County Justice Center violated the 14th Amendment when charging
book-in fees. Another case though in Butler County was settled
out of court.  Mr. Newman explains to the Enquirer that due to
Kentucky's statute of limitations, the suit could only include
inmates who went through the jail in the past year.

Though he cannot speak about pending litigation, County
Administrator Robert Horine defended the center's practice by
pointing out that the charging for book-ins is usual at jails.
He also adds, "It's my understanding that book-in fees are
common among Kentucky jails to offset the cost of processing and
incarceration."


PEMCO AVIATION: Seeks Writ of Certiorari in AL Race Bias Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pemco Aviation Group, Inc. filed a petition for a writ of
certiorari related to a class action filed against it and Pemco
Aeroplex, its subsidiary in the United States District Court,
Northern District of Alabama.

The suit, initially filed in December 1999, seeks declaratory,
injunctive relief and other compensatory and punitive damages
based upon alleged unlawful employment practices of race
discrimination and racial harassment by the Company's managers,
supervisors, and other employees.  The complaint sought damages
in the amount of $75 million.

On July 27, 2000 the Court determined that the group would not
be certified as a class since the plaintiffs withdrew their
request for class certification.  The Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC) subsequently entered the case
purporting a parallel class action.  The Court denied
consolidation of the cases for trial purposes but provided for
consolidated discovery. On June 28, 2002, a jury determined that
there was no hostile work environment in the original case and
granted verdicts for the Company with regard to all 22
plaintiffs.

Nine plaintiffs elected to settle with the Company prior to the
trial. On December 13, 2002 the Court granted the Company
summary judgment in the EEOC case.  That judgment was appealed
to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals by the EEOC.  The panel
reinstated the case to federal district court.  On October 27,
2004, the Company petitioned the 11th Circuit to rehear the case
en banc. The petition was denied on December 23, 2004. The
Company filed a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari with the
United States Supreme Court on March 23, 2005. The Company
believes it has taken effective remedial and corrective action,
acted promptly in respect to any specific complaint by an
employee, and will vigorously defend this case.


PENTON MEDIA: Certification Considered For TCPA Violations Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Richmond County, Georgia Superior Court heard motions for
class certification for the lawsuit filed against Penton Media,
Inc., alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act (TCPA).

Allison & Associates, Inc. filed the suit on November 3, 2003,
under TCPA, which prohibits the transmission of unsolicited fax
advertisements.  The lawsuit is a punitive class action that
seeks to represent a class of plaintiffs comprised of all
individuals and entities who, during the period November 3,
1999, through the present, received one or more facsimiles sent
by or on behalf of the Company advertising the commercial
availability of its products or services and who did not give
their prior expressed permission or invitation to receive such
faxes.

The statutory penalty for a single violation of the TCPA is
$500, although the penalty can increase to $1,500 per violation
if the Company is found to have willfully or knowingly violated
these laws.  The Company is complying with the Court's order for
discovery.  A hearing on class certification was held on May 3,
2005.


PNC FINANCIAL: Securities Settlement Hearing Set August 4, 2005
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania will hold a fairness hearing for the proposed $36.6
million settlement with certain defendants in the matter: In Re
PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case
No. 02-CV-271 on behalf of all persons who purchased the firm's
common stock, who purchased call options on PNC common stock or
who wrote (sold) put options on PNC stock from July 19, 2001
through July 18, 2002, and PNC's incentive savings plan on
behalf of itself and its present and former participants and
beneficiaries who purchased or acquired PNC common stock during
the aforementioned class period through the PNC incentive
savings plan.

The hearing will be held before the Honorable David Stewart
Cercone, in the United States Post Office and Courthouse,
Seventh Ave., and Grant St., Pittsburgh, PA 15219, ay 10:00
a.m., on August 4, 2005.

For more details, contact David J. Bershard, Esq. of Milberg
Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP by Phone: (212) 594-5300 OR David
Kessler, Esq. Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP by Phone: (610) 667-7706
OR Samuel P. Sporn, Esq. Schoengold Sporn Laitman & Lometti,
P.C. by Phone: (212) 964-0046 OR visit the settlement Web site:
http://www.claimsinformation.com/PNCFinancial.htm.


REGENCY AFFILIATES: DE Court Nixes Most Claims in Investor Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The New Castle County Court of Chancery in Delaware dismissed
all but one claim in the purported derivative and class action
lawsuit filed against Regency Affiliates, Inc.'s current and
former directors, styled "Gatz et al. v. Ponsoldt, Sr., et al,
(C.A. No. 174-N)."  The Company was named as a nominal
defendants.  The suit also names as defendants Royalty Holdings,
LLC and certain of its affiliates, and Statesman Group, Inc.

The complaint alleges, among other things, breaches of fiduciary
duties by the former director defendants and Statesman in
connection with:

     (1) the exercise by Statesman in 2001 of an option to
         acquire shares of the Company's common stock,

     (2) the 2001 sale of Aggregate by NRDC to Iron Mountain and

     (3) the October 2002 Restructuring Transactions

The complaint also alleges breaches of fiduciary duties by the
current director defendants in connection with the payment by
the Company in 2003 of accrued compensation owed to William R.
Ponsoldt, Sr. for periods prior to the October 2002
Restructuring Transactions. The complaint also alleges that
Royalty and its affiliates knowingly participated in the
breaches of fiduciary duties by the former director defendants
relating to the October 2002 Restructuring Transactions. In
addition to other damages, plaintiffs seek unspecified
compensatory and/or rescissory damages against all defendants, a
declaration that all Company stock issued to Statesman, William
R. Ponsoldt, Sr., Royalty and any person affiliated with the
foregoing is void, an order rescinding any payments in any form
made by the Company to William R. Ponsoldt, Sr. or any of his
affiliates or family members, an order rescinding the October
2002 Restructuring Transactions, and an order rescinding
Statesman's 2001 option exercise and rescinding the option
itself.

In November 2004 the Court dismissed all but one claim alleged
in the complaint. The Company is not a defendant in the sole
surviving claim, which relates to the December 2001 sale of
assets from one Regency subsidiary to another Regency
subsidiary. In dismissing the claims, the Court determined that
all of the claims (other than the claim related to the 2001
asset sale) were derivative in nature and that the claims could
therefore not be maintained.


RENAL CARE: Pension Funds Launch Lawsuits Over Fresenius Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholding pension funds launched two class action lawsuits
against Nashville-based Renal Care Group Inc. to halt the
acquisition of the publicly traded firm by Germany-headquartered
and publicly traded Fresenius Medicare Care AG, The Nashville
City Paper reports.

San Diego law firm Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia Geller, Rudman &
Robbins LLP teamed up with the Nashville firm of Branstetetter,
Kilgore, Stranch & Jennings in filing the suit in the Chancery
Court for the State of Tennessee 20th Judicial District at
Nashville on behalf of Hawaii Structural Ironworkers Pension
Trust Fund and Plumbers Local #65 Pension Fund.

The suits allege that instead of attempting to obtain the
highest price reasonably available for Renal Care shareholders,
the individual defendants (Renal Care and Frenenius) spent
substantial effort tailoring the structural terms of the
acquisition to meet the specific needs of both Company's senior
executives, who granted themselves a valuable Supplemental
Executive Retirement Plan in advance of the acquisition.

According to Mary Blasy, attorney for Lerach, Coughlin, "The
people in the boardroom and management were looking out for
their own interests and not the interests of the shareholders.
They did not go through an adequate process to receive the best
shareholder value, which is undervalued in this case."

Ms. Blasy told the Paper that her clients want to hold up the
stockholder vote and regulatory approvals so an independent
financial advisor can review the true valuation of the Company
and potentially open up an auction to maximize shareholder
value.

Commenting on the suit, Terry L. Proveaux, Renal Care Group
director of investor relations told the Paper, "We think the
suit is without merit. The shareholders are receiving a
substantial 20 percent premium over the stock's all-time high."
He also said that the San Diego law firm is well known for
plaintiff class-action lawsuits.

Meanwhile, the Web site Forbes Europe reported that a
spokesperson for Fresenius said last week, "We expect no delays
in the acquisition, despite this suit from a not very well-known
pension fund."

ROBERT BOSCH: Recalls 69T Circular Saws Due To Injury Hazard
------------------------------------------------------------
In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC), Robert Bosch Tool Corp., of Mount Prospect, Illinois is
voluntarily recalling about 69,000 BOSCH Circular Saws.

The lower blade guard can malfunction, creating a risk of injury
as severe as amputation. The firm has received three reports of
malfunctioning lower guards, including one amputation.

Description: The recall circular saws include the BOSCH CS10,
CS20 and CS20-XC models, which can be identified on the product
nameplate mounted on the top of the motor housing. The recalled
models do not have an asterisk (*) in the serial number box. The
circular saw uses a 7-inch blade and has a blue handle and
motor enclosure, and a metal guarding system. The name "BOSCH"
is printed on the blade guard.

Manufactured in the United States, the saws were sold at Home
Depot, Lowe's and Menards nationwide, as well as independent
hardware retailers and industrial distributors, from February
2004 through April 2005 for between $120 and $150.

Consumer should stop using the circular saws immediately and
contact Robert Bosch Tool Corp. to receive a repair kit. The kit
includes hardware and instructions for installation.

Consumer Contact: Robert Bosch Tool Corp. at (800) 856-9683
between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. CT Monday through Friday or visit the
BOSCH Web site: http://www.boschtools.com.


RUBICON MEDICAL: Investors Sue V. Boston Scientific Acquisition
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rubicon Medical Corporation and its directors face a class
action filed in the New Castle County Court of Chancery for the
State of Delaware on April 14, 2005.  The suit also names as
defendants Boston Scientific and Acquisition Corporation.

The suit generally alleges breaches of fiduciary duties and
seeking to enjoin Boston Scientific's proposed acquisition of
the Company's publicly owned shares.


SEACHANGE INTERNATIONAL: Appeal of Stock Suit Dismissal Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States First Circuit Court of Appeal denied
plaintiffs' appeal of the dismissal of the consolidated
securities class action filed against SeaChange International
Inc. and:

     (1) Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated,

     (2) Thomas Weisel Partners LLC,

     (3) RBC Dain Rauscher, Inc.,

     (4) William C. Styslinger, III,

     (5) William Fiedler,

     (6) Martin R. Hoffmann,

     (7) Thomas F. Olson and

     (8) Carmine Vona

From October 30, 2002 to January 13, 2003, six purported
securities class action lawsuits, all alleging nearly identical
claims, were filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts.  On April 3, 2003, the Court
consolidated these complaints into one action captioned: "In re
SeaChange International, Inc., et al. Securities
Litigation, Civil Action No. 02-12116-DPW."

On May 16, 2003, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated and amended
class action complaint, alleging that the defendants violated
Sections 11 and/or 12(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 and in
the case of the individual defendants Section 15 of the
Securities Act, in connection with the stock offering that the
Company completed on January 31, 2002. The Complaint seeks
damages in an unspecified amount, together with interest
thereon, recissory damages, reimbursement of costs and expenses,
and further relief that the court may determine to be
appropriate.

On July 18, 2003, the Company and the individual defendants
filed a motion to dismiss all claims in their entirety, with
prejudice. The lead plaintiff's opposition to the motion to
dismiss was filed on September 12, 2003, and the defendants'
reply memorandum was filed on October 8, 2003. A hearing on the
motion to dismiss took place on January 16, 2004. On February 6,
2004, Judge Woodlock of the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts issued a memorandum granting the
motion to dismiss all claims asserted against the Company and
the individual defendants, and an order of dismissal was entered
by the court on February 9, 2004. On February 19, 2004, the lead
plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of
Appeals for the First Circuit from the memorandum and order
granting the motion to dismiss all claims in their entirety. On
February 8, 2005, the United States Court of Appeal dismissed
this appeal.

The suit is styled "Beylus, et al v. SeaChange International, et
al., case no. 1:02-cv-12116-DPW," filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts, under Judge
Douglas P. Woodlock.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Keith M. Fleischman, Milberg, Weiss, Bershad Specthrie
         & Lerach, One Penn Plaza New York, NY 10119 Phone: 212-
         594-5300

     (2) Nancy F. Gans, Moulton & Gans, PC, 33 Broad Street
         Suite 1100 Boston, MA 02109 Phone: 617-369-7979 Fax:
         617-369-7980 E-mail: nfgans@aol.com

     (3) Frank Karam, Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, 10 East
         40th Street New York, NY 10016 Phone: 212-779-1414

     (4) Theodore M. Hess-Mahan, Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP, 53
         State Street Boston, MA 02108 Phone: 617-439-3939 Fax:
         617-439-0134 E-mail: ted@shulaw.com

Representing the Company are:

     (i) Christine A. S. Chung and Dean J. Dipilato, Testa,
         Hurwitz & Thibeault, LLP, 125 High Street High Street
         Tower Boston, MA 02110 Phone: 617-248-7000 Fax: 617-
         248-7100 E-mail: cchung@goodwinprocter.com;

    (ii) Monica Meier Franceschini, Goodwin Procter LLP,
         Exchange Place 53 State Street Boston, MA 02109 Phone:
         617-570-1539 Fax: 617-523-1231 E-mail:
         mfranceschini@goodwinprocter.com;

   (iii) Jordan D. Hershman, Bingham McCutchen LLP, 150 Federal
         Street Boston, MA 02110 Phone: 617-248-7363 Fax: 617-
         248-7100 E-mail: jordan.hershman@bingham.com


THE MASTER'S MIRACLE: Recalls Eye Products Due To Contamination
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Master's Miracle (TMM) Company of Minneapolis, Minn., is
alerting the public against applying the Company's TMM brand
Fortified Mineral Neutralize! and Ultra Fortified Mineral
Neutralizer to the eyes because these products may be
contaminated with Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Pseudomonas
flourescens/putida and Enterobacter cloacae bacteria that, if
applied to the eyes, might lead to serious injury, including
possible blindness. The products are labeled as a Dietary
Supplement and distributed nationwide in 8 oz., 20 oz., and one-
gallon size containers.

It has come to FDA's attention that certain TMM distributors are
actively promoting these products for ophthalmic use (in the
eyes), including treatment for cataracts and allergy symptoms.
FDA requires that all ophthalmic products be sterile. TMM
products are not sterile and should not be applied to the eyes.
TMM has agreed with FDA that, in the future, its distributors
must use only Company-approved marketing materials and claims
for product use for its family of products. In addition, TMM
will require its distributors to cease distribution or use of,
and destroy any and all marketing materials that make claims for
ophthalmic use of the Fortified Mineral Neutralizer and Ultra
Fortified Mineral Neutralizer products.

TMM's mission is to offer natural, synthetic-free products, and
the Company's foremost concern is the well-being of its
consumers. TMM is working with a well-known, independent
laboratory and an expert from the University of Minnesota to
identify the source of these bacteria and eliminate them.

Consumers with questions are asked to call The Master's Miracle
at (763) 493-3200 for information.


TIVO INC.: NY Court Preliminarily Approves Stock Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against TiVo, Inc.,
certain of its officers and directors and the underwriters
involved in the Company's initial public offering.

On June 12, 2001, a securities class action lawsuit, styled
"Wercberger v. TiVo et al.," was filed on behalf of a purported
class of purchasers of the Company's common stock from September
30, 1999, the time of its initial public offering, through
December 6, 2000.  The central allegation in this action is that
the Company's IPO underwriters solicited and received
undisclosed commissions from, and entered into undisclosed
arrangements with, certain investors who purchased the Company's
common stock in its IPO and the after-market.

The complaint also alleges that the TiVo defendants violated the
federal securities laws by failing to disclose in the Company's
IPO prospectus that the underwriters had engaged in these
allegedly undisclosed arrangements. More than 150 issuers have
been named in similar lawsuits. In July 2002, an omnibus motion
to dismiss all complaints against issuers and individual
defendants affiliated with issuers (including the Company's
defendants) was filed by the entire group of issuer defendants
in these similar actions. On October 8, 2002, the Company's
officers were dismissed as defendants in the lawsuit.

On February 19, 2003, the court in this action issued its
decision on defendants' omnibus motion to dismiss. This decision
dismissed the Section 10(b) claim as to the Company but denied
the motion to dismiss the Section 11 claim as to the Company and
virtually all of the other issuer-defendants.

On June 26, 2003, the plaintiffs announced a proposed settlement
with the Company and the other issuer defendants.  The proposed
settlement provides that the plaintiffs will be guaranteed $1.0
billion dollars in recoveries by the insurers of the Company and
other issuer defendants. Accordingly, any direct financial
impact of the proposed settlement is expected to be borne by the
Company's insurers in accordance with the proposed settlement.
In addition, the Company and the other settling issuer
defendants will assign to the plaintiffs certain claims that
they may have against the underwriters. If recoveries in excess
of $1.0 billion dollars are obtained by the plaintiffs from the
underwriters, the Company and the other issuer defendants'
monetary obligations to the class plaintiffs will be satisfied.
Furthermore, the settlement is subject to a hearing on fairness
and approval by the Federal District Court overseeing the IPO
Litigation.

On February 15, 2005, the Court issued an order preliminarily
approving the terms of the proposed settlement. The Court also
certified the settlement classes and class representatives for
purposes of the proposed settlement only.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


TRINSIC COMMUNICATIONS: Consumer Suit Remanded to IL State Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The consumer fraud class action filed against Trinsic
Communications, Inc. (formerly known as Z-Tel Communications,
Inc.) has been remanded to the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois, Illinois County Department, Chancery Division.

The suit was initially filed in the state court, styled "Susan
Schad, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
v. Z-Tel Communications, Inc., In the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois, Illinois County Department, Chancery
Division, case no. C.A. No. 04CH07882."  Susan Schad, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, filed a class
action lawsuit against the Company, alleging that it has engaged
in a pattern and practice of deceiving consumers into paying
amounts in excess of their monthly rates by deceptively labeling
certain line-item charges as government-mandated taxes or fees
when in fact they were not. The complaint seeks to certify a
class of plaintiffs consisting of all persons or entities who
contracted with the Company for telecommunications services and
were billed for particular taxes or regulatory fees.  The
complaint asserts a claim under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Businesses Practices Act and seeks unspecified
damages, attorneys' fees and court costs.

On June 22, 2004, the Company filed a notice of removal in the
state circuit court action, removing the case to the United
States District court for the Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division, C.A. No. 4 C 4187, styled "Susan Schad, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. Z-Tel
Communications, Inc., case no. C.A. No. 4 C 4187."

On July 26, 2004, Plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case to
the state circuit court.  On January 12, 2005, the federal court
granted the motion and remanded the case to the state court.

The suit is styled "Susan Schad, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, v. Z-Tel Communications, Inc., In the
Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Illinois County
Department, Chancery Division, case no. C.A. No. 04CH07882,"
filed under Judge Richard J. Billik, Jr.  Representing the
plaintiffs is MILLER FAUCHER CHERTOW, 30 N LaSalle St. 3630,
Chicago IL 60602, Phone: (312) 782-4485.  Representing the
Company is PRETZEL & STOUFFER, 1 S. Wacker Dr #2500, Chicago,
IL, 60606, Phone: (312) 346-1973.


UTSTARCOM INC.: Shareholders Launch Securities Suits in CA, ID
--------------------------------------------------------------
UTStarcom, Inc. and certain of its officers and/or directors
face several securities class actions filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California and the
United States District Court for the District of Idaho.

On October 26, 2004, an alleged former shareholder of the
Company filed a class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the District of Idaho against the Company and
two of its directors and/or officers, purporting to assert
claims under the federal securities laws on behalf of a class of
purchasers of the Company's publicly traded securities in the
period from April 16, 2003 through September 20, 2004.

Among other things, the complaint refers to the Company's
disclosures as to "significant control deficiencies" related to
revenue recognition and as to the deferral of revenue
recognition on a particular transaction and the related lowering
of the Company's financial guidance.  The complaint further
alleges that the defendants previously made positive statements
regarding the Company's business and financial performance that
were false and misleading because such statements, among other
things, failed to disclose problems with the Company's internal
controls and revenue recognition policies and procedures and
failed to disclose that the revenue on the transaction at issue
would need to be deferred, which allegedly caused the price of
the Company's publicly traded securities to be artificially
inflated. The complaint claims that the plaintiff and other
class members were damaged as a result thereof, and seeks
monetary recovery in their favor in an unspecified amount.

Four similar class action complaints were later filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California against the Company and several of its directors and
officers. In both the Idaho court and the California court,
competing motions were filed for appointment of lead plaintiff
and approval of lead plaintiffs' counsel, and in the California
court various motions for consolidation of actions were filed as
well.

On March 15 and 16, 2005, the California court entered orders
consolidating the cases pending in that court, appointing the
lead plaintiff and approving the lead plaintiff's counsel.
Pursuant to those orders, a consolidated complaint is to be
filed in that court within 60 days thereafter.  On April 6,
2005, the Idaho court entered an order appointing the lead
plaintiff and approving the lead plaintiff's counsel.


UTSTARCOM INC.: NY Court Preliminarily Approves Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against UTStarcom,
Inc., some of its directors and officers and various
underwriters for its initial public offering.

On October 31, 2001, a complaint was filed in United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Substantially similar actions were filed concerning the initial
public offerings for more than 300 different issuers, and the
cases were coordinated as "In re Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92."  In April 2002, a consolidated
amended complaint was filed in the matter against the Company,
captioned "In re UTStarcom, Initial Public Offering Securities
Litigation, Civil Action No. 01-CV-9604."

Plaintiffs allege violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 through undisclosed improper
underwriting practices concerning the allocation of IPO shares
in exchange for excessive brokerage commissions, agreements to
purchase shares at higher prices in the aftermarket and
misleading analyst reports. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages
on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the Company's
common stock between March 2, 2000 and December 6, 2000.

The Company's directors and officers have been dismissed without
prejudice pursuant to a stipulation. On February 19, 2003, the
Court granted in part and denied in part a motion to dismiss
brought by defendants including the Company. The order dismisses
all claims against the Company except for a claim brought under
Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, which alleges that the
registration statement filed in accordance with the IPO was
misleading.  In June 2004, a stipulation of settlement and
release of claims against the issuer defendants, including the
Company, was submitted to the court for approval.

The terms of the settlement, if approved, would dismiss and
release all claims against the participating defendants
(including the Company).  In exchange for this dismissal, D&O
insurance carriers would agree to guarantee a recovery by the
plaintiffs from the underwriter defendants of at least $1
billion, and the issuer defendants would agree to an assignment
or surrender to the plaintiffs of certain claims the issuer
defendants may have against the underwriters.  The settlement is
subject to a number of conditions, including court approval.

The suit is styled "In re UTStarcom, Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 01-CV-9604," filed in
relation to "IN RE INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERING SECURITIES
LITIGATION, Master File No. 21 MC 92 (SAS)," both pending in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, under Judge Shira N. Scheindlin.  The plaintiff firms in
this litigation are:

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

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

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

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

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

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


VICORP RESTAURANTS: Reaches Settlement For CA Employee Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vicorp Restaurants, Inc. reached a settlement for two purported
class action claims filed in California State Court, alleging
violations of the state's labor laws.

The first class action claim was brought in October 2003 by two
former employees and one current employee, and the second class
action claim was brought in May 2004 by two former employees.
The complaints alleged that the Company violated California law
with regard to rest and meal periods, bonus payment calculations
(in the October 2003 complaint), overtime payments (in the May
2004 complaint) and California law regarding unfair business
practices. The classes and subclasses alleged in the actions
have not been certified by the respective courts at the current
stages of the litigation, but generally are claimed in the 2003
complaint to include persons who have been employed by the
Company in California since October 17, 1999 in the positions of
food server, restaurant general manager and assistant restaurant
manager, and generally are claimed in the 2004 complaint to
include persons who have been employed by the Company in
California since May 21, 2000 in the positions of restaurant
general manager and restaurant associate manager.  No dollar
amount in damages was requested in either complaint, and the
complaints sought statutory damages, compensatory damages,
interest and attorneys' fees in unspecified amounts.

The parties have entered into a settlement agreement, which is
subject to the final approval of the court. Under the terms of
the proposed settlements, the Company has agreed to pay up to an
aggregate of $6.55 million for the alleged claims and associated
legal fees, subject to partial indemnification.


WHITEHALL JEWELLERS: Asks IL Court To Dismiss Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Whitehall Jewellers, Inc. asked the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois to dismiss the second
amended consolidated securities class action filed against it
and certain of its current and former officers.

On February 12, 2004, a putative class action complaint
captioned "Greater Pennsylvania Carpenters Pension Fund, et al.
v. Whitehall Jewellers, Inc. et al., Case No. 04 C 1107," was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois against the Company and certain of the Company's
current and former officers.  The complaint makes reference to
the litigation filed by Capital Factors, Inc. ("Capital
Factors") and settled as disclosed in the Company's Quarterly
Report in Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended October 31,
2004 and to the Company's November 21, 2003 announcement that it
had discovered violations of Company policy by the Company's
Executive Vice President, Merchandising, with respect to Company
documentation regarding the age of certain store inventory.

The complaint further makes reference to the Company's December
22, 2003 announcement that it would restate results for certain
prior periods. The complaint purports to allege the Company and
its officers made false and misleading statements and falsely
accounted for revenue and inventory during the putative class
period of November 19, 2001 to December 10, 2003. The Complaint
purports to allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

On February 18, 2004, a putative class action complaint
captioned "Michael Radigan, et al., v. Whitehall Jewellers, Inc.
et al., Case No. 04 C 1196," was filed in the same court against
the Company and certain of the Company's current and former
officers, charging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
1934 Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and alleging
that the Company and its officers made false and misleading
statements and falsely accounted for revenue and inventory
during the putative class period of November 19, 2001 to
December 10, 2003. The factual allegations of this complaint are
similar to those made in the Greater Pennsylvania Carpenters
Pension Fund complaint discussed above.

On February 20, 2004, a putative class action complaint
captioned "Milton Pfeiffer, et al., v. Whitehall Jewellers, Inc.
et al., Case No. 04 C 1285," was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois against the Company
and certain of the Company's current and former officers,
charging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the 1934 Act
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and alleging that the
Company and its officers made false and misleading statements
and falsely accounted for revenue, accounts payable, inventory,
and vendor allowances during the putative class period of
November 19, 2001 to December 10, 2003. The factual allegations
of this complaint are similar to those made in the Greater
Pennsylvania Carpenters Pension Fund complaint discussed above.

On April 6, 2004, the District Court in the Greater Pennsylvania
Carpenters case, No. 04 C 1107 consolidated the Pfeiffer and
Radigan complaints with the Greater Pennsylvania Carpenters
action, and dismissed the Radigan and Pfeiffer actions as
separate actions. On April 14, 2004, the court granted the
plaintiffs up to 60 days to file an amended consolidated
complaint. The Court also designated the Greater Pennsylvania
Carpenters Pension Fund as the lead plaintiff in the action and
designated Greater Pennsylvania's counsel as lead counsel.

On June 10, 2004, a putative class action complaint captioned
"Joshua Kaplan, et al., v. Whitehall Jewellers, Inc. et al.,
Case No. 04 C 3971," was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois against the Company and
certain of the Company's current and former officers, charging
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the 1934 Act and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and alleging that the Company and
its officers made false and misleading statements and falsely
accounted for revenue, accounts payable, inventory, and vendor
allowances during the putative class period of November 19, 2001
to December 10, 2003. The factual allegations of this complaint
are similar to those made in the Greater Pennsylvania Carpenters
Pension Fund complaint discussed above.

On June 14, 2004, lead plaintiff Greater Pennsylvania Carpenters
Pension Fund in Case No. 04C 1107 filed a consolidated amended
complaint. On July 14, 2004, the District Court in the Greater
Pennsylvania Carpenters action consolidated the Kaplan complaint
with the Greater Pennsylvania Carpenters action, and dismissed
the Kaplan action as a separate action. On August 2, 2004, the
Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint. The motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied
in part, with plaintiffs granted leave to file an amended
complaint by February 10, 2005.

On February 10, 2005, the lead plaintiff filed a first amended
consolidated complaint. On March 2, 2005, the Company filed a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Briefing on this motion
is not yet complete. If the Company is successful on its motion,
the class in this action may be limited to the period November
19, 2001 through June 6, 2002.


Z-TEL TECHNOLOGIES: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against Z-Tel
Technologies, Inc. (now known as Trinsic, Inc.).

During June and July 2001, three separate class action lawsuits
were filed against the Company, certain of its current and
former directors and officers and firms engaged in the
underwriting of the Company initial public offering of stock
(IPO).  The lawsuits, along with approximately 310 other similar
lawsuits filed against other issuers arising out of initial
public offering allocations, have been assigned to a Judge in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York for pretrial coordination.  The lawsuits against the
Company have been consolidated into a single action.

A consolidated amended complaint was filed on April 20, 2002. A
Second Corrected Amended Complaint, which is the operative
complaint, was filed on July 12, 2002.  The Amended Complaint is
based on the allegations that the Company's registration
statement on Form S-1, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) in connection with the IPO, contained untrue
statements of material fact and omitted to state facts necessary
to make the statements made not misleading by failing to
disclose that the underwriters allegedly had received
additional, excessive and undisclosed commissions from, and
allegedly had entered into unlawful tie-in and other
arrangements with, certain customers to whom they allocated
shares in the IPO.

The plaintiffs in the Amended Complaint assert claims against
the Company and the directors and officers pursuant to Section
11 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated by
the SEC there under. The plaintiffs in the Amended Complaint
assert claims against the directors and officers pursuant to
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated by the SEC there under. The plaintiffs seek an
undisclosed amount of damages, as well as pre-judgment and post-
judgment interest, costs and expenses, including attorneys'
fees, experts' fees and other costs and disbursements.  Initial
discovery has begun.

A settlement has been reached by the respective lawyers for
plaintiffs, the issuers and insurers of the issuers. The
principal terms of the proposed settlement are a release of all
claims against the issuers and their officers and directors, the
assignment by the issuers to the plaintiffs of certain claims
the issuers may have against the Underwriters and an undertaking
by the insurers to ensure the plaintiffs receive not less than
$1 billion in connection with claims against the Underwriters.
Hence, under the terms of the proposed settlement the Company's
financial obligations will likely be covered by insurance.  The
court has given preliminary approval of the settlement subject
to certain modifications.  A revised settlement agreement has
been submitted to the court.  To be binding, the settlement must
be executed by the parties and thereafter submitted to and
approved by the court. The settlement will not be binding upon
any plaintiffs electing to opt-out of the settlement.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



                           Asbestos Alert


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: BG&E Deals with Direct and 3rd Party Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Since 1993, Baltimore Gas & Electric Co, a subsidiary of the
Constellation Energy Group, Inc. (NYSE: CEG), has been involved
in several actions concerning asbestos. The actions are based
upon the theory of "premises liability," alleging that the
Company, which is a provider of electricity and natural gas
utility services in Baltimore and parts of central Maryland,
knew of and exposed individuals to an asbestos hazard. The
actions relate to two types of claims.

The first type is direct claims by individuals exposed to
asbestos. BGE is involved in these claims with about 70 other
defendants. About 500 individuals that were never employees of
BGE each claim US$6 million in damages (US$2 million
compensatory and US$4 million punitive). These claims are
currently pending in state courts in Maryland and Pennsylvania.
To date, 357 asbestos cases were dismissed or resolved for
amounts that were not significant. About 11 cases are scheduled
for trial through the end of 2006.

The second type is claims by one manufacturer, Pittsburgh
Corning Corp. against BGE and about eight others, as third-party
defendants. On April 17, 2000, PCC declared bankruptcy. These
claims relate to about 1,500 individual plaintiffs and were
filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland in the
fall of 1993. To date, about 375 cases have been resolved, all
without any payment by BGE.

BGE does not know some of the facts necessary to estimate its
potential liability for these claims. These specific facts
include:

(1) The identity of BGE facilities containing asbestos
manufactured by the manufacturer;

(2) The relationship of each of the individual plaintiffs to
BGE;

(3) The settlement amounts for any individual plaintiffs who are
shown to have had a relationship to BGE;

(4) The dates on which places at which the exposure allegedly
occurred; and

(5) The facts and circumstances relating to the alleged
exposure.

Until the relevant facts for both types of claims are
determined, the Constellation Energy Group asserted that it is
unable to estimate what it or BGE's liability might be. Although
insurance and hold harmless agreements from contractors who
employed the plaintiffs may cover a portion of any awards in the
actions, the potential effect on the financial results could be
material.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ameren, Subsidiaries Battle More Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Among the U.S.'s largest investor-owned electric and gas
utilities, St. Louis-based Ameren Corp., Union Electric Co.,
Central Illinois Public Service Co., Ameren Energy Generating
Company (Genco), Central Illinois Light Company and Illinois
Power Co. have been named, along with numerous other parties, in
a number of lawsuits which have been filed by certain plaintiffs
claiming varying degrees of injury from asbestos exposure. Most
have been filed in the Circuit Court of Madison County,
Illinois.

The number of total defendants named in each case is
significant; as many as 166 parties are named in some pending
cases and as few as five in others. However, the average number
of parties is 58 in the cases that were pending as of March 31,
2005.

The claims filed against Ameren, UE, CIPS, Genco, CILCO and IP
allege injury from asbestos exposure during the plaintiffs'
activities at our present or former electric generating plants.
Former CIPS plants are now owned by Genco, and most former CILCO
plants are now owned by AERG. Most of IP's plants were
transferred to a Dynegy subsidiary prior to Ameren's acquisition
of IP. As a part of the transfer of ownership of the CIPS and
CILCO generating plants, CIPS or CILCO has contractually agreed
to indemnify Genco or AERG for liabilities associated with
asbestos-related claims arising from activities prior to the
transfer. Each lawsuit seeks unspecified damages in excess of
US$50,000, which, if proved, typically would be shared among the
named defendants.

From January 1, 2005 through March 31, 2005, 10 additional
asbestos-related lawsuits were filed against UE, CIPS, CILCO and
IP, mostly in the Circuit Court of Madison County, Illinois; 16
lawsuits were dismissed and one was settled.

As of March 31, 2005, four asbestos-related lawsuits were
pending against Electric Energy, Inc. The general liability
insurance maintained by EEI provides coverage with respect to
liabilities arising from asbestos-related claims. The Ameren
Companies believe that the final disposition of these
proceedings will not have a material adverse effect on their
results of operations, financial position, or liquidity.

Ameren Corporation, the holding Company, which has been focused
on growing its core energy operations, distributes electricity
to 2.3 million customers and natural gas to more than 900,000 in
Missouri and Illinois through utility subsidiaries AmerenUE,
AmerenCIPS, AmerenCILCO, and AmerenIP. Ameren has a generating
capacity of nearly 15,000 MW, most of which is controlled by
utility AmerenUE and nonregulated subsidiary AmerenEnergy
Resources.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rogers Corp. Deals With 211 Pending Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rogers Corporation (NYSE: ROG) has been named, along with
hundreds of other industrial companies, as a defendant in some
of these claims. The Company has been named in asbestos
litigation primarily in Illinois, Pennsylvania, and Mississippi.
As of April 3, 2005, there were about 211 pending claims
compared to 232 pending claims at January 2, 2005.

In virtually all of these claims filed against the Rogers, CT-
based Company, the plaintiffs are seeking unspecified damages
or, if an amount is specified, it merely represents
jurisdictional amounts or amounts to be proven at trial. Even in
those situations where specific damages are alleged, the claims
frequently seek the same amount of damages, irrespective of the
disease or injury.

Plaintiffs' lawyers often sue dozens or even hundreds of
defendants in individual lawsuits on behalf of hundreds or even
thousands of claimants.  As a result, even when specific damages
are alleged with respect to a specific disease or injury, those
damages are not expressly identified as to the Company. In fact,
there are no cases in which the Company is the sole named
defendant.

The Company did not mine, mill, manufacture or market asbestos;
rather, the Company made some limited products, which contained
encapsulated asbestos. Such products were provided to industrial
users. The Company stopped the manufacture of these products in
1987.

In many cases, plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate that they
have suffered any compensable loss as a result of exposure to
the Company's asbestos-containing products. Management continues
to believe that a majority of the claimants in pending cases
will not be able to demonstrate exposure or loss.

Cases involving the Company typically name 50 to 300 defendants,
although some cases have had as few as 6 and as many as 833
defendants.  The Company has, however, settled a small number of
cases for which all costs have been paid by the Company's
insurance carriers. The Company has obtained dismissals of many
of these claims. In the first quarter of 2005 and full year
2004, the Company was able to have about 34 and 85 claims
dismissed, respectively, and settled 4 and 8 claims,
respectively. In the first quarter of 2005, the Company's
insurance carriers paid an aggregate of about US$3.0 million for
such settlements.

Settlements are made without any admission of liability. To
date, the Company has been successful in obtaining dismissals
for many of the claims and has settled only a limited number.
The majority of settled claims were settled for immaterial
amounts, and such costs have been paid by the Company's
insurance carriers. In addition, to date, the Company has not
been required to pay any punitive damage awards.

To date, the Company's primary insurance carriers have provided
for substantially all of the legal and defense costs associated
with its asbestos-related claims. However, as claims continue to
escalate, the Company and its insurance carriers have determined
that it would be appropriate to enter into a cost sharing
agreement to clearly define the cost sharing relationship among
the carriers and the Company.

As of November 5, 2004, an interim cost sharing agreement was
established that provided that the known primary insurance
carriers would continue to pay all legal and defense costs
associated with these claims until a definitive cost sharing
arrangement was consummated. The Company expects a definitive
cost sharing agreement to be finalized during the latter part of
2005, at which time the final terms of the cost sharing
relationship would be agreed to by these respective parties.

Rogers Corporation produces specialty materials used in a
variety of electronic and consumer products. Its products
include printed circuit board laminates, polyester-based
industrial laminates, and power distribution bus bars, which are
used in digital cellular communications, mobile radios, and
direct broadcast TV.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Moen Inc. Handles 128 Personal Injury Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
While there is a reported surge of asbestos-related personal
injury litigation in the United States, a Fortune Brands
subsidiary, Moen Incorporated, continues to defend itself
against around 128 cases claiming personal injury from asbestos,
and has been dismissed as a defendant in about 99 cases. All of
these suits name multiple defendants.

One of the world's largest manufacturers of plumbing products,
the Company, which is based in North Olmsted, Ohio, believes it
is not possible to predict the outcome of the pending
litigation, and, as with any litigation, it is possible that
some of these actions could be decided unfavorably. The Company
believes that it possesses meritorious defenses to these actions
and that these actions will not have a material adverse effect
upon its results of operations, cash flows or financial
condition.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Noland Co. Continues Defense Against Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Noland Company, a leading independent wholesale distributor of
mechanical equipment and supplies, continues to be a defendant
in personal injury claims based on alleged past exposure to
asbestos-containing products or materials produced by others and
allegedly distributed by the Company years ago.

Since the early 1990s, the Newport News, VA-based Company has
been sued many times, along with a large number of other
companies, in cases that allege asbestos-related injuries to
persons in the maritime industry. In none of these suits has a
link to the Company been substantiated, and most of them already
have been dismissed.

The Company also has been named as one of the defendants in
various other asbestos-related suits within its operating
footprint in which a connection to the Company was alleged. Some
of these suits have been dismissed with prejudice, others have
been settled through the Company's insurance carrier and others
are still pending. Management does not consider the foregoing
suits, individually or in the aggregate, to be material to the
Company.

The Company has also been named as one of the defendants in
about 1,900 asbestos-related suits filed by one law firm in the
Circuit Court for Newport News, Virginia or in the Circuit Court
for Portsmouth, Virginia. At this time it is still not possible
to fully evaluate the merits of these new suits. The Company is
not aware of any relationship between the Company and any of the
plaintiffs; nor does it have any information as to the extent of
any injury that may have been suffered by any of them. All of
these cases will be defended vigorously.

The Company accrues for losses associated with liabilities when
such losses are probable and can be reasonably estimated. The
Company has not recognized or accrued any losses related to the
above named suits. All losses to date have been paid by
available insurance coverage. Management's assumptions include
that they do not believe there is a reasonable possibility that
any future losses related to the above named suits will exceed
available insurance coverage.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: BlueLinx Directs Claims to Georgia-Pacific
---------------------------------------------------------------
BlueLinx Holdings Inc. (NYSE: BXC), the country's largest
supplier of construction products, revealed in its filing to the
Securities and Exchange Commission that Georgia-Pacific (NYSE:
GP) is a defendant in suits brought in various courts around the
nation by plaintiffs who allege that they have suffered personal
injury as a result of exposure to products containing asbestos.

Originally a lumber outlet division owned by paper and building
products giant Georgia-Pacific Corp., BlueLinx further states
that these suits allege a variety of lung and other diseases
based on alleged exposure to products previously manufactured by
Georgia-Pacific. No reserves or costs of Georgia-Pacific's
asbestos claims have been assigned or allocated to the division.

Based on Georgia-Pacific's public disclosure in its quarterly
report on Form 10-Q for the period ended April 2, 2005, there
were 60,600 unresolved asbestos claims against Georgia-Pacific.

Although the terms of their asset purchase agreement provide
that Georgia-Pacific will indemnify BlueLinx against all
obligations and liabilities arising out of product liability
claims with respect to products purchased, sold, marketed,
stored, delivered, distributed or transported by Georgia-Pacific
and its affiliates, including the division prior to the
acquisition, the Company believes that circumstances may arise
under which asbestos-related claims against Georgia-Pacific
could cause it to incur substantial costs.

In the event that Georgia-Pacific is financially unable to
respond to an asbestos product liability claim, plaintiffs'
lawyers may, in order to obtain recovery, attempt to sue
BlueLinx, in its capacity as owner of assets sold by Georgia-
Pacific, despite the fact that the assets sold to it did not
contain asbestos.

Although BlueLinx believes, based on its understanding of the
law as currently interpreted, that it should not be held liable
for any of Georgia-Pacific's asbestos-related claims, and, to
the contrary, that it would prevail on summary judgment on any
such claims, there is nevertheless a possibility that new
theories could be developed, or that the application of existing
theories could be expanded, in a manner that would result in
liability. Any such liability would ultimately be borne by
BlueLinx if Georgia-Pacific is unable to fulfill its indemnity
obligation under the asset purchase agreement.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Aearo Reaps 1,200 More Claims in 6 Months
--------------------------------------------------------------
Aearo Company I disclosed in its latest filing to the Securities
and Exchange Commission that it is a defendant in lawsuits by
plaintiffs alleging that they suffer from respiratory medical
conditions, such as asbestosis or silicosis and that such
conditions result, in part, from the use of respirators that
were negligently designed or manufactured. For the six months
ended March 31, 2005, the increases in number of claims where
the Company was named as a defendant in silica and asbestos
related matters was 106 and 1,200 respectively.

The 1,200 new asbestos claims include 1,148 claims that allege
exposure from clothing, which the Company never manufactured.
No claims were settled where Aearo was named as a defendant in
silica and asbestos related matters during the six months ended
March 31, 2005. The number of open claims where Aearo was named
as a defendant in silica and asbestos related matters was 11,108
and 5,461, respectively as of March 31, 2005.

The Company states that the defendants in these lawsuits are
often numerous, and include, in addition to manufacturers and
distributors of respirators, manufacturers, distributors and
installers of sand, asbestos and asbestos-containing products.

During the six months ended March 31, 2005, Aearo paid a total
of US$1.67 million for settlement, administrative and defense
costs resulting in the settlement of 4,325 silica and asbestos
claims that were settled between October 1, 2002 and September
30, 2004 involving both claims in which the Company was named as
a defendant and additional claims. During the period October 1,
2004 to March 31, 2005 Aearo paid a total of US$100 for one
additional claim that was settled during that time period. In
addition, Aearo may receive the benefit of releases in some
additional cases settled by the AO Defense Group regardless of
whether or not any claim was made against it.

Through subsidiary Aearo Company, Aearo Corporation makes and
sells personal protection equipment in more than 70 countries.
Headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana, the firm also sells
safety prescription eyewear and makes energy-absorbing foams
that control noise, vibration, and shock for use in its own and
other manufacturers' products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Odyssey Re Holdings Posts Asbestos Reserves
----------------------------------------------------------------
Odyssey Re Holdings Corp. (NYSE: ORH) has exposure to asbestos,
environmental pollution and latent injury damage claims and
exposures. Exposure arises from reinsurance contracts under
which the Stamford, CT-based Company has assumed liabilities, on
an indemnity or assumption basis, from ceding companies
primarily in connection with general liability insurance
policies issued by such ceding companies. An estimate of its
ultimate liability for such exposures includes case basis
reserves and a provision for liabilities incurred but not
reported.

Case basis reserves are a combination of reserves reported to
the Company by ceding companies and additional case reserves
determined by the Company's dedicated asbestos and environmental
claims unit based on its claims audits of ceding companies. The
provision for liabilities incurred but not reported is
established based on various methods such as loss development,
market share and frequency and severity.

The Company's reserves for asbestos and environmental related
liabilities are from business predominantly written in years
1985 and prior.

The Company's reserve for gross unpaid losses and loss expenses
for asbestos claims as of March 31, 2005 was US$234.5 million.
Its provision for gross unpaid losses and loss adjustment
expenses for environmental claims was US$33.1 million. Net of
reinsurance and indemnifications, unpaid losses and loss
adjustment expenses for asbestos and environmental claims were
US$50.7 million and US$10.9 million.

As a result of the Company's reinsurance protection, there were
no net adjustments related to asbestos and environmental loss
reserves for the three months ended March 31, 2005 and 2004.
This resulted in losses and loss adjustment expense ratio,
expressed as a percentage of net premiums earned, of 72.9% for
the three months ended March 31, 2005, compared to 66.5% for the
first quarter 2004.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: UK Court Scraps Misfeasance Case V. Lloyd's
----------------------------------------------------------------
A High Court judge refused applications made by a group of
former individual investors to bring two claims of "misfeasance
in public office" against the world's leading insurance
exchange, Lloyd's of London, reports The Business Insurance.

The group of investors, called Names, sought permission from the
Court to rule that Lloyd's committed misfeasance, an unlawful
act or omission by a public officer, when it concealed the
amount of asbestos liabilities threatening the market in the
1980s. The group also cited that Lloyd's was guilty of
recruiting new investors in an attempt to absorb those
liabilities.

The case captioned, "Society of Lloyd's vs. John Trevor Howard
Henderson and Others," stemmed from a long-running action by
Names against Lloyd's, originally known as Jaffray vs. Lloyd's.
In 2000, Lloyd's was found not guilty by the High Court of
fraudulently recruiting Names. The Court of Appeal subsequently
upheld that decision in 2002.

Asbestos liabilities nearly caused the Lloyd's market to
collapse in the early 1990s.

Lloyd's welcomed the judgment by Justice Andrew Smith, who ruled
that the group of Names did not have a realistic chance of
showing that Lloyd's was guilty of misfeasance.

In a statement, Lloyd's said, "The judgment paves the way for
Lloyd's to continue with bankruptcy proceedings [which are
currently stayed pending the outcome of the misfeasance
applications] against a number of these names who have not
settled their liabilities dating back to 1996."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Claims Hit James Hardie's Profit
--------------------------------------------------------------
James Hardie Industries NV said net profit dropped 2 percent in
the year to March to US$126.9 million from US$129.6 million,
affected by asbestos-related issues, the AAP reports. However,
it said prospects for another satisfactory year were
encouraging.

The building materials Company said it was continuing to work
towards signing a final settlement for victims of its former
asbestos products. The new estimate by actuaries KPMG was for
all future asbestos-related claims payments to be worth US$1.68
billion at March 31, 2005, up from the previous estimate of
US$1.54 billion at June 30, 2004.

The increase is attributed to the addition of potential claims
from the northern NSW town of Baryulgil, as well as other minor
changes to settlement patterns.

The short-term outlook for housing construction in North America
remains positive but in Australia and New Zealand, no
improvement to the soft levels of new housing and renovations
activity was expected over the short-term.

Operationally, the Company continued to see significant growth
opportunities. The Company posted a 48 percent increase in
operating profit from continuing operations to US$46.3 million
or AUD60.52 million for the three months ended March 31, 2005.
Chief Executive Louis Gries said in a statement that the Company
expects to continue penetrating its target markets.

During the year, James Hardie was hit by US$28.1 million in
legal costs associated with its asbestos issues, though it also
received a related income tax benefit of US$5.8 million or
AUD7.58 million. It was continuing to incur costs associated
with the NSW Special Commission of Inquiry into its asbestos
issues last year and other related matters.

Mr. Gries said James Hardie was continuing to work towards
signing a principal agreement with the NSW government for a
long-term voluntary funding proposal for asbestos compensation.

James Hardie said the strong fourth quarter lifted its operating
profit from continuing operations two percent higher to US$127.9
million or AUD167.19 million for the year, after expensing
inquiry costs.

The Company said it was expecting that progressive lifting of
product bans and boycotts in Australia would continue throughout
the year.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EPA Rejects MO Airport's Removal Method
------------------------------------------------------------
After a review, the Environmental Protection Agency concluded
that the Lambert Field authorities erred in using the
controversial "wet" method of removing asbestos during
demolition. The agency ruled that the method used on almost 300
buildings in the past six years was not a true wet method, since
that generally includes the removal of some asbestos from a
structure in addition to wetting the interior. The airport did
neither.

The decision comes a week after a group of Bridgeton residents
filed a federal lawsuit against the city of St. Louis and
airport authority for its demolition method. As previously
reported on the May 13, 2005 edition of the Class Action
Reporter, they also seek soil and air testing, a remediation
plan and civil penalties for alleged violations of the Clear Air
Act. The residents claim the airport should have used manual
asbestos-removal methods on the homes that were structurally
sound and only wet them down during demolition.

To clear the path for a new runway, the airport sought to
demolish the remaining 500 of the nearly 2,000 homes occupying
the lot.

Asbestos is a hazardous material that can cause cancer and other
diseases decades after the exposure occurs. The Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention said 1,493 people died from
asbestos exposure in 2000.

Federal law requires contractors to remove asbestos by hand, bag
it and take it to a hazardous waste disposal site. A building
near collapse, however, may be demolished by spraying water on
the structure to keep lightweight asbestos fibers from becoming
airborne.

This is what contractors did last summer on a test building
behind an airport police station on Natural Bridge Road. The
airport offered the EPA samples of air, soil and water in the
hopes of proving that its removal methods were safe.

The airport submitted air-monitoring data that showed the
highest asbestos concentrations were nearly 20 times below
occupational safety exposure limits. Also, the highest
concentration was nearly four times below an emergency asbestos
limit set for buildings such as schools, said EPA scientist
Roger Wilmoth. He noted, however, that there were no levels at
which asbestos has been definitively proven safe, and there are
no monitoring requirements for asbestos removal.

Mr. Wilmoth said the agency wanted to set standards for a wet-
method removal but did not have a timetable on when those might
be available. A wet method could be two to 10 times cheaper than
existing methods, he said.

Deputy Airport Director Gerard Slay said the remaining homes and
buildings would be demolished using manual asbestos-removal
methods. He expected the runway to be finished on schedule by
next summer.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Nobertune Halts Plans for Treatment Plant
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nobertune, owner of the old Asahi plant, terminated its contract
with Irish Environmental Processes, putting an end to plans for
a proposed asbestos treatment plant at Killala. At a meeting
held at the plant, Nobertune confirmed that it had terminated
the agreement because of the "appreciation for the concern and
welfare of the people of the community."

The local community, which brought fierce opposition against the
proposal since the plans were announced last November, welcomed
news of IEP's exit from Killala. Community officials had
previously expressed their apprehensions regarding the
transportation and recycling processes, which they believed
would release toxins into the air.

Nobertune representative Michael Honan said that "a combination
of time and progress" allowed the owners of the Asahi plant to
step out of the contract without any repercussions. IEP failed
to submit a planning application for the treatment plant within
the allowed time and thereby fatally undermined its plans for
the asbestos treatment plant in North Mayo.

When IEP announced its plans for Killala last November, locals
became outraged at the decision to dispose of toxic material at
the plant. Thousands turned out to protests in the area and
politicians got behind locals in the battle against IEP.

As previously reported in the December 3, 2004 edition of the
Class Action Reporter, Nobertune had expressed its support for
the local people and offered IEP their deposit back if they pull
out of Killala. The owners said that they had been led to
believe that the project was safe and were willing to lose
investment in the plant to appease the community.

However, IEP refused to withdraw from the contract citing its
investment into feasibility studies. IEP had said that it was
confident that it would eventually get permission for the
project.

Local Councilor Jarlath Munnelly was relieved the battle to rid
Killala of IEP had finally come to an end, and praised those who
pledged their support to the campaign. He said that he is eager
to see the energy, conjured up by the fight against asbestos,
invested into revitalizing the community.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: US Asbestos Risk Still Troubles Royal & Sun
----------------------------------------------------------------
Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Group Plc, the U.K.'s second-
biggest property and casualty insurer, said first-quarter
profits nearly doubled, but admitted its American business
continued to be hounded by "risks and uncertainties" as shares
rose 5% to 77p, The Guardian reports.

The improving profits follow a difficult period when the insurer
was forced to tap shareholders for a GBP1 billion cash injection
in 2003 to shore up its financial position.

Chief executive Andy Haste said he was "happy with the start to
the year." First quarter pre-tax profits rose from GBP44 million
to GBP122 million while operating profit rose 95% to GBP160
million.

Mr. Haste is trying to reduce risks in the US business. He plans
to return the insurer to annual profit by selling units, retreat
from the U.S. and reduce its liabilities to concentrate on the
U.K., Canada and Scandinavia. He is trying to sell the only part
of the US operations still open for business but admitted a sale
may not be achieved this year. The US arm is regarded as a drain
on the Company because of outstanding claims, particularly
related to asbestos.

Royal & Sun has posted five straight annual losses related to
asbestos claims, U.S. workers' compensation payments and falling
stock markets.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: AIG Settles Congoleum Claims for US$103Mil
---------------------------------------------------------------
Congoleum Corporation (AMEX:CGM) has reached a settlement
agreement with one of its excess insurance carriers over
coverage for asbestos-related claims. Under the terms of the
settlement, certain AIG companies will pay US$103 million over
ten years to the trust to be formed upon confirmation of
Mercerville, N.J.-based Congoleum's proposed amended plan of
reorganization.

The settlement resolves coverage obligations of policies with a
total of US$114 million in liability limits for asbestos bodily
injury claims, and is subject to final court approval and
effectiveness of Congoleum's proposed amended plan of
reorganization.

Roger S. Marcus, Chairman of the Board, commented, "We are
pleased to have resolved our dispute with this carrier, and we
are hopeful that additional negotiations presently underway will
lead to further settlements with other carriers in the near
future.

This agreement, together with a previously announced US$15
million settlement and the expected contribution from Congoleum,
will provide the resources to pursue insurance coverage from
other carriers through litigation where necessary and will
permit the trust to be formed upon Congoleum's reorganization to
begin the payment of allowed claims immediately upon
confirmation. We believe this represents another major step
forward in our journey to put our asbestos exposure behind us."

On December 31, 2003, Congoleum Corporation filed a voluntary
petition with the United States Bankruptcy Court for the
District of New Jersey (Case No. 03-51524) seeking relief under
Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code as a means to
resolve claims asserted against it related to the use of
asbestos in its products decades ago.

At Mar. 31, 2005, Congoleum Corporation's balance sheet showed a
US$21,341,000 stockholders' deficit, compared to a US$20,989,000
deficit at Dec. 31, 2004.

Congoleum Corporation is a leading manufacturer of resilient
flooring, serving both residential and commercial markets.
Congoleum is a 55% owned subsidiary of American Biltrite Inc.
(AMEX:ABL).


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims Hold Back USG Despite Strong Growth
---------------------------------------------------------------
At the Company's annual meeting, CEO William C. Foote said that
Chicago, IL-based USG Corp. is benefiting from a housing boom,
but its shareholders may be left empty-handed if the Company
cannot resolve asbestos-exposure claims, the Chicago Sun-Times
reports. He added that shareholders' risks remained great in
light of the persistent claims.

Mr. Foote said complete restructuring is unlikely to be
completed in 2005. He still doesn't see USG emerging from its
four-year long bankruptcy in the immediate future.

Another issue, that of silica-exposure claims, continues to
bother the building products manufacturer. USG has 27 silica
claims filed against it, compared with 150,000 asbestos-exposure
claims.

These silica-exposure claims primarily stem from former workers
who claim that they developed or might develop a potentially
deadly lung disease because they inhaled the mineral, Mr. Foote
said after the shareholders' meeting.

The silica claims have become controversial because a majority
of plaintiffs claiming silica exposure have also filed asbestos-
exposure claims. A judge in Corpus Christi, Texas, has ordered
hearings on whether health care workers gave false diagnoses of
silica exposure in a lawsuit being tried there.

People making the asbestos claims range from those suffering
from mesothelioma, a rare form of cancer, to people who fear
their exposure to asbestos leaves them vulnerable to cancer and
respiratory illnesses.

The Company argues that its U.S. Gypsum division is the only
part of the Company subject to the asbestos claims, and that it
will pay only legitimate claims. USG stressed that it will
continue to fight what it considers false exposure claims in
court.

USG has pinned its hopes for a resolution on Congress to
establish a US$140 billion trust fund to compensate asbestos-
exposure victims.

USG's end-of-year profit in 2004 shot up 85 percent on a strong
home-building market and higher gypsum wallboard prices. The
Company's earnings for the year more than doubled, and sales hit
a record. USG has US$1.2 billion in cash.

"We'd win the award for the best-performing Company in
bankruptcy, if there were such an award," Mr. Foote said.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Council Lists Breaches of School Officials
---------------------------------------------------------------
Relenting to pressure to release the results of its
investigation, the Derby City Council disclosed that the head
teacher and governing body of the Silverhill Primary School
ignored ten vital rules designed to protect pupils and staff.

Air tests revealed high levels of brown asbestos dust, which can
lead to fatal lung conditions, and the less harmful white
asbestos. The Institute of Occupational Medicine found that the
contamination risks were greatest to cleaning staff and some
teachers but likely to be minimal for the pupils.

The school was shut for eight weeks after asbestos was
discovered during routine work. The contamination happened
during work to replace up to 30 windows. Contractors broke wall
panels exposing the asbestos from February 16 last year, but the
problem was not discovered until March 9. The incident exposed
400 pupils and staff to the potentially fatal substance over a
three-week period. More than GBP750,000 had been spent for the
decontamination after asbestos was discovered last March.

Strict guidelines covering the appointing of contractors and
building work are contained in documentation supplied to all
schools by the city council.

The report alleges that head teacher Phil Robinson and governors
breached the following regulations:

(1) No official order was ever placed for the replacement
windows;

(2) No specification for the work was drawn up;

(3) No contract documentation was prepared;

(4) No mention was made of asbestos, and the contractor was not
shown the asbestos register;

(5) The work was not put out to tender, or competitive quotes
obtained;

(6) No assessment was made of the health and safety competence
of the selected contractor;

(7) No professional advice was sought about the implications of
the proposed work;

(8) No application was made for building regulations approval;

(9) No adequate record was kept of decision-making by the
governors or the head; and

(10) The governors did not notify the city council of proposed
work, or seek the necessary consent.

After a seven-month suspension, Mr. Robinson eventually resigned
last April 21. A disciplinary hearing would have followed the
completion of the internal council report. City education
director Andrew Flack commented that the resignation meant that
it was not possible to complete the probe.

Last May, the governors were left with curriculum and special
educational needs responsibilities after the Council stripped
them of their delegated powers. Pending a change in its
membership, budget management and personnel matters will remain
in the Council's hands.

The council report, which could lead to prosecutions, is still
to be officially released. The Council is awaiting the results
of a separate Health and Safety investigation.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: James Hardie Wants to Rebuild Reputation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Acknowledging that the Company's past handling of asbestos-
related issues damaged its image, James Hardie Industries NV now
seeks to restore its reputation in Australia. Chief Executive
Louis Gries believes it will take three to five years to rebuild
consumer confidence in the Company.

The building products company anticipated that it would sign a
final, binding compensation settlement in June, with
shareholders due to meet in late July to approve the funding.

However James Hardie chief financial officer Russell Chenu said
the timing for the shareholder meeting now appeared "a little
ambitious." Even if the agreement was signed next month, he
indicated that there were a number of legal complexities to be
addressed before shareholders could meet. Beyond that, he said
the Company was working on other initiatives to restore its
reputation.

"It's going to be about resetting the Australian business to be
a different kind of business than it has been in the past," Mr.
Gries said. "I think we have the capability to do that."

Hardie announced a 2 percent drop in annual net profit to
US$126.9 million. However, that result was affected by
substantial legal costs associated with James Hardie's asbestos
issues during the year. Excluding those legal costs, net profit
would have been up 20 percent to US$150 million for the year.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: TX Senate OKs Medical Criteria for Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Texas Senate gave its final approval to a bill that would
require claimants alleging asbestos or silica injury to meet
specific medical criteria before their lawsuits can proceed.

As previously reported on the April 29, 2005 edition of the
Class Action Reporter, supporters of Senate Bill 15 aim to limit
the flood of lawsuits bogging down the Texas judicial system.
Under the plan, only those who have serious illnesses caused by
inhaling asbestos and silica would be allowed to sue companies
that made products containing those materials.

The bill also expands time limits for filing such lawsuits so
people who have been exposed to asbestos or silica fibers can
sue should they exhibit symptoms of the disease in the future.

Those opposed to the legislation have said it would limit the
ability of people injured by asbestos exposure to hold companies
accountable.

The measure now goes to Gov. Rick Perry for his signature. Gov.
Perry has been very vocal about calling an end to "frivolous"
asbestos lawsuits. The state Senate had already approved the
bill but had to do so again after the House added a technical
amendment before approving it.

If Gov. Perry, a pro-tort reform Republican, signs the bill,
Texas will become the fourth state in a year to implement
mandatory asbestos medical criteria legislation.

The number of new asbestos lawsuits filed has increased
dramatically. Since 1988, more lawsuits alleging asbestos-
related disease have been filed in Texas than in any other
state. It is estimated that up to 90 percent of the cases are
filed by people who are not impaired.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pepco Holdings Handles 250 Remaining Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pepco Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: POM) in its filing submitted to the
US Securities and Exchange Commission revealed that since the
initial filings in 1993, additional individual suits have been
filed against Pepco, and significant numbers of cases have been
dismissed.

As a result of two motions to dismiss, numerous hearings and
meetings and one motion for summary judgment, Pepco has had
about 400 of these cases successfully dismissed with prejudice,
either voluntarily by the plaintiff or by the court. Of the
about 250 remaining asbestos cases pending against Pepco, about
85 cases were filed after December 19, 2000, and have been
tendered to Mirant for defense and indemnification pursuant to
the terms of the asset purchase and sale agreement.

During 1993, Washington, DC-based Pepco was served with amended
complaints filed in the state Circuit Courts of Prince George's
County, Baltimore City and Baltimore County, Maryland in
separate ongoing, consolidated proceedings known as "In re:
Personal Injury Asbestos Case."  Pepco and other corporate
entities were brought into these cases on a theory of premises
liability.

Under this theory, plaintiffs argue that Pepco was negligent in
not providing a safe work environment for employees or its
contractors, who allegedly were exposed to asbestos while
working on Pepco's property. Initially, a total of about 448
individual plaintiffs added Pepco to their complaints. While the
pleadings are not entirely clear, it appears that each plaintiff
sought US$2 million in compensatory damages and US$4 million in
punitive damages from each defendant.

While the aggregate amount of monetary damages sought in the
remaining suits exceeds US$400 million, Pepco believes the
amounts claimed by current plaintiffs are greatly exaggerated.

Pepco Holdings Inc. distributes electricity to more than 1.8
million customers and natural gas to nearly 120,000 customers
through its utility subsidiaries. The Company also has
international energy interests.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: No Cases Reinstated Against Leap Since 1996
----------------------------------------------------------------
Leap Technology Inc. is involved in litigation relating to the
offshore supply business conducted prior to August 14, 1996 by
certain subsidiaries of the Company that are now inactive. The
cases were filed against such subsidiaries and other ship-owning
companies based on the alleged exposure of 64 former seamen to
maritime asbestos and other toxic substances while working on
vessels operated by such companies as part of an industry wide
series of similar claims.

On May 1, 1996, the claims against the Company's subsidiaries
and the other defendants were administratively dismissed subject
to reinstatement against one or more specific defendants upon a
specific showing that a plaintiff suffers from an asbestos-
related disease and that he was exposed to asbestos containing
products on the vessels operated by such defendants. Since such
date, none of the cases against the Company's subsidiaries have
been reinstated. At the present time, the Company does not
believe such cases are likely to have a material adverse impact
upon the Company.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Patrick Stevedores Tries to Hide Asbestos
--------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Stevedores Ltd., a stevedoring Company in Australia,
attempted to block inspection of a Port Botany site by the
Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, citing John
Howard's new industrial laws. The union subsequently found
asbestos-riddled slabs in the premises.

In response to Occupational Health and Safety inquiries, CFMEU
organizer Alan Blevin arrived at the extension project to
examine the area. However, a Patrick Stevedores security guard
stopped him on the strength of federal government proposals to
run trade unionists off building sites. The guard wouldn't
accept that Mr. Blevin had right of entry under New South Wales
law.

When CFMEU officials eventually got through the gate, they
alerted Workcover to concrete slabs all over the site that
hadn't been tested for contaminants, and found plant and
machinery that didn't meet licensing regulations or comply with
manufacturers' standards. Testing of the concrete, at a
Petersham recycling yard, revealed it had been contaminated with
asbestos. CFMEU assistant secretary Brian Parker said there was
also asbestos in pipes found across the extension.

Workcover then slapped exclusion zones on over half the site in
a bid to protect workers, and others, from deadly asbestos
fibres.

Mr. Parker said it was "disappointing" that Patrick was still
prepared to be used as federal government "attack dog." He
asserted that Patrick has been seeking to roll back workers'
rights. He expressed frustration at the Company's intent to
ignore the CFMEU's legal rights to protect the health and safety
of members.

Patrick Stevedores Ltd. operates under the management of Chris
Corrigan, who had initially garnered success in the banking
industry. Mr. Corrigan had invested much of his own capital in
Lang Corporation, of which Patrick Stevedores is a wholly owned
subsidiary.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Senate Judge Battle Threatens Asbestos Bill
----------------------------------------------------------------
Senators warned that a Senate showdown over judicial nominees
threatened the future of a bill to establish a US$140 million
asbestos compensation fund, Reuters reports. The bill is set to
eradicate asbestos litigation in the courts and pay claimants
from the industry-financed fund.

Vermont Democrat Sen. Patrick Leahy, a co-sponsor of the bill,
said that the asbestos proposal could not pass the Senate if the
Republican majority carried out its threat to use the so-called
"nuclear option," which means changing Senate procedural rules
applying to approval of judges.

Pennsylvania Republican Sen. Arlen Specter, the chairman of the
Senate Judiciary Committee, hopes to complete work on the bill
next week but a fight over Senate rules could interfere with
Senate business.

Senate Republican Leader Bill Frist, who favors an asbestos
compensation fund, also said the bill was endangered along with
other measures, but blamed this on Democrats he said were
threatening to "shut down" the chamber over the judges dispute.

In the fight over judicial nominees, Democrats have been using
procedural tactics to block White House candidates. Republicans
are threatening to change Senate rules to ban such tactics.

The asbestos bill has more Republican supporters than Democrats,
but it is not even clear it has the votes to get out of
committee. If Senate relations are aggravated further by the
judges battle, Sen. Leahy said he did not think he could
continue to "push back" the Democrats who oppose the asbestos
bill.

Republican Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, another member of the
committee, said he thought it still possible the asbestos bill
could pass committee next week, although he called this
timetable "ambitious" with dozens of amendments pending.

Sen. Cornyn said further that he would vote for the bill if his
concerns were addressed. These include a better accounting of
where the fund money is coming from and provisions to insure the
solvency of the fund.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Change to SA Asbestos Compensation Pushed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The State Government is under pressure to ensure South
Australians are not disadvantaged by having asbestos
compensation cases heard locally.

An asbestos victim was awarded compensation in court but he died
before receiving the $200,000 check from BHP. The payout was not
as high as it could have been after the Company had the case
shifted out of the New South Wales Dust Diseases Tribunal.

However, his lawyer Jane McDermott, raves about her client's
"guts to go ahead and take it on" in the legal proceedings
during the months that had passed.

Mr. Ewins, aged 71, was a carpenter and joiner with the Company
at the Whyalla shipyards in the 1950s. He was diagnosed with
mesothelioma last year and died last week.

Ms. McDermott said Mr. Ewins was a trailblazer. She said that he
"set a precedent for people suffering from mesothelioma and was
a real fighter."

The Australian Manufacturing Workers Union said the court
process should have been easier for Mr. Ewins. Union state
secretary John Camillo has called on the State Government to
intervene in the compensation process.

"We need to get something in place that if a worker has [an]
asbestos [related illness] they can then deal with the matter
very quickly, very smoothly, without emotions and with the legal
cost of over periods of months and so on," Mr. Camillo said.

As previously reported in the April 22, 2005 edition of the
Class Action Reporter, Attorney-General Michael Atkinson has
agreed to consider changes to legislation that would allow
compensation cases for asbestos-related victims in South
Australia to be processed quickly. The Asbestos Victims
Association of South Australia sought to have a system similar
to that in New South Wales where cases can start and finish in
only a few months.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NY Court Upholds Ruling to Deny Benefits
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York on April
14, 2005 affirmed a ruling, which had denied disability
retirement benefits to a former police officer claiming to have
sustained job-related injuries.

Reynold A. Mauro, of Commack, represented the petitioner, Miguel
A. Velazquez.

Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General, of Albany (William E. Storrs of
counsel), stood for the respondents, the New York State and
Local Retirement System, et al.

Mr. Velazquez was employed as a police officer for the Port
Authority of New York and New Jersey for 22 years and claimed to
have sustained job-related injuries in 1982, 1987, 1994 and
1995. In February 1998, he filed applications for accidental and
performance of duty disability retirement benefits claiming,
among other things, a job-related back injury and asbestosis.

At the conclusion of the hearing, which followed the initial
denial of his applications, the hearing officer denied the
applications. He found that petitioner was not permanently
incapacitated from performing the duties of a police officer and
that the incidents of 1982 and 1987, as well as the asbestos
exposure, were not accidents within the meaning of the
Retirement and Social Security Law.

Respondent Comptroller upheld the hearing officer's decision,
prompting Mr. Velazquez to commence this proceeding.

Court documents show that substantial evidence supports Mr.
Velazquez' pulmonary disease. His treating physician, who
indicated that he was not a pulmonary specialist, made reference
to a third party's diagnosis of chronic asbestosis and concluded
that this condition could affect his endurance and prevent him
from carrying out his duties. The physician also testified that
Mr. Velazquez has several herniated discs in his cervical,
thoracic and lumbar spine and suffers radiculopathy that renders
him totally incapable of performing basic tasks as a police
officer.

However, a witness for respondent New York State and Local
Retirement System, with an expertise in pulmonary diseases,
testified that he found no evidence of asbestosis and that Mr.
Velazquez exhibited good pulmonary function.

The Retirement System's orthopedic expert, Mark Kramer, agreed
that recent studies reflected the presence of herniations in
petitioner's spine, but found that he exhibited a normal range
of motion in his cervical and lumbar regions and his complaints
of pain were inconsistent with the earlier radiographic
findings. Based on these observations, Dr. Kramer opined that
petitioner did not have any persisting orthopedic disability
that would prevent him from performing the duties of a police
officer. His written report, however, indicated that it was
"unclear" whether petitioner was disabled and unable to perform
his police officer duties.

On cross-examination, this expert testified that he would advise
a patient with petitioner's radiographic findings not to engage
in heavy lifting, climbing, jumping or wrestling with someone.
This testimony established that he would restrict someone in
petitioner's condition from engaging in activities which might
be necessary for someone employed as a police officer.

The Appellate Court upheld the decision to deny benefits based
on the Retirement System's only medical witness, Dr. Kramer's
testimony, which was so equivocal and self-contradictory that it
does not provide substantial evidence.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NY Court Upholds Decision V. Goodyear Tire
---------------------------------------------------------------
Presiding Justice John T. Buckley of New York State Appellate
Division's First Department on March 3, 2005 affirmed a decision
denying The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company's motion for summary
judgment.

In the case captioned, Theodore Klopsis, et al. v. A.O. Smith
Water Products Co., et al., The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company,
Judge Helen E. Freedman of New York County Supreme Court had on
August 25, 2004 initially denied the asbestos products
manufacturer motion to dismiss the case.

On November 22, 2004, the same court granted Goodyear's motion
to reargue but adhered to the prior ruling.

The Appellate Division held that deposition testimony of a
deceased plaintiff in another action was admissible, and that
fact issues precluded summary judgment.

This testimony was sufficient to defeat the motion for summary
judgment because it offered facts and conditions from which
Goodyear's liability could be inferred. In particular, it showed
that the deponent had worked on at least one of the same ships
as plaintiff during the period of his alleged exposure to
asbestos fibers, and his testimony placed the use of asbestos
gasket material in the area where plaintiff worked and
identified the brand associated with Goodyear's product as one
of the brands in use on the ships at the time.

Cathi A. Hession, of Flemming, Zulack & Williamson, LLP, New
York, stood for appellant.

Stephen J. Riegel and Erik Jacobs, of Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C.,
New York, represented the respondents.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Parents Urge State to Replace Toxic Roofs
--------------------------------------------------------------
Two more health risk incidents are causing apprehension in
parents of students at Moggill State School in Brisbane, The
Courier-Mail reports.

In the first incident, two Brisbane primary school children
reportedly sat under a gaping 30-cm. hole in their classroom's
asbestos ceiling before it was repaired last year. Lucas
Campbell, aged 9, complained to his mother of dust from the hole
falling on him.

In a separate incident, workers installing data cables twice
drilled through an asbestos ceiling with children in the
classroom. The workers immediately plugged the holes however.

The parents' fears for their children's health erupted after an
independent report in March found asbestos fibers in the
school's roof cavity. Also, two Queensland teachers succumbed to
asbestos-related disease after winning compensation from
WorkCover. Now parents are intensifying their call for all
school asbestos roofs to be replaced.

Education Minister Anna Bligh commented on this occurrence,
saying that she remains to be concerned about "any complaint
about health and safety in our classrooms." Ms. Bligh said the
drilling on the second incident was a breach of an Education
Department direction issued last March that work should not take
place when children were present.

Asked if she had bid for funding in next week's state budget to
replace asbestos school roofs, Ms. Bligh said that government
spending had to be prioritized.

Lung specialist Maurice Heiner said it was unknown how much
asbestos exposure was needed before someone developed
mesothelioma. A total of 1171 of Queensland's 1300 state schools
are on the Government's asbestos register.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Trees Near Libby Mine Contaminated, Study
--------------------------------------------------------------
A University of Montana study discovered measurable levels of
asbestos in the analysis of bark samples from trees near the
former W.R. Grace vermiculite mine, The Western News reports.

The research was aimed at determining whether the bark of trees
might serve as a reservoir for asbestos fibers. It intended to
establish whether potential risks exist in logging in
contaminated areas.

Addressing the Community Advisory Group, Tony Ward of the
university's Center for Environmental Health Sciences said that
preliminary results were gathered from bark samples of three
trees located about 100 yards from the former pump house at the
mine site, one tree located farther down the Rainy Creek
drainage and one tree just outside the fence near the
intersection of Rainy Creek Road and Montana Highway 37.

Two lodgepole pines at the site closest to the mine showed
asbestos levels of 530 million and 330 million fibers per gram
of bark while a larch tree at the same location showed 140
million fibers per gram. A lodgepole farther down the drainage
showed 160 million fibers per gram, and a lodgepole near the
highway showed 41 million fibers per gram, said Mr. Ward.

Only the bark showed contamination; core samples were clean,
according to the study.

The results were expected, said Jim Christiansen, manager of the
Environmental Protection Agency's cleanup program in Libby.
However, he suggested that the figures released by the study
might make matters sound worse than they are. The level of
contamination averages out to about .05 percent by weight, which
would be classified as "trace" contamination in soil, explained
Mr. Christiansen. The trigger point for soil cleanup is 1
percent.

The decreasing level of contamination as distances from the mine
increased is a good sign, Mr. Christiansen said. He believes the
contamination of trees near the road leading to and from the
mine is likely a result of the traffic on the road when the mine
was in operation.

Mr. Ward stressed that the findings are preliminary and that
additional study is planned. More samples will be collected from
around the Libby area and across northwestern Montana.


ASBESTOS ALERT: Health Checks Offered to Staff of 3 UK Hospitals
----------------------------------------------------------------
After asbestos was detected, health bosses at three North
Yorkshire hospitals are offering health checks to workers.
However, they claim patients at the Scarborough, Malton and
Whitby hospitals are not at any risk from the carcinogenic
substance.

Workmen discovered the asbestos during surveys at the sites as
part of redevelopment work. The asbestos, which was widely used
as an insulator and flame retardant until the 1980s, was found
in the ceiling along the corridors. Ceilings in other parts of
the hospital have yet to be checked but measures have been taken
to ensure that anyone who needs to access to these areas is not
put at risk.

The Health and Safety Executive and the Strategic Health
Authority are coordinating with the Primary Care Trust, which
runs Whitby Hospital. A final report into the findings will be
published at the end of May, said a Primary Care Trust
spokesman. The PCT will then determine the level of asbestos in
the hospital and whether it needs to be removed.

Asbestos fibers are only hazardous if inhaled; the substance
itself is considered safe if it is encapsulated. It is possible
the asbestos will be left where it is if it is considered that
removal will increase the hazard. If it is necessary to remove
it, this will be done gradually over the long term so as not to
disrupt hospital work.

Managers said the asbestos at Scarborough Hospital had been
sealed up in the boiler house and maintenance workshops.
Specialists have already removed asbestos materials at Malton
Hospital.

All staff members have been told and will be briefed as more
information becomes available from the experts.


ASBESTOS ALERT: DC Orders 18-Month Prison for Removal Breaches
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court in Denver ordered an 18-month prison
sentence and three years probation for a man accused of
illegally handling asbestos at Fort Morgan High School six years
ago, endangering students and teachers and forcing a four-month
closure.

The federal judge also ordered David Backus, of Cheyenne, WY, to
pay US$15,800 restitution.

The federal Environmental Protection Agency, the Internal
Revenue Service and Immigration and Customs Enforcement
investigated the case.

Mr. Backus was an inspector with the now-defunct Company Steve
Herron and Associates Inc., which was hired to remove asbestos
from the school's library. He was accused of failing to
adequately monitor and inspect the work of employees and of
pronouncing the school was suitable for occupancy when it
wasn't.

One of four men charged, Mr. Backus was indicted by a federal
grand jury in March 2001 and charged with violating the federal
Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act, as well as mail fraud and
making false statements. He pleaded guilty in May 2003 and was
free on bond.

Daniel Argil of Houston, who was hired to supervise the cleanup,
was charged with making false statements and violating the Clean
Air and Clean Water acts and was sentenced in September 2003 to
five years in prison. This sentence was the longest handed down
in relation to illegal handling of asbestos.

Mr. Argil had ordered workers to dislodge asbestos with a high-
power water sprayer that spread it into lockers, walls and other
parts of the school, according to a 2001 indictment. When the
water evaporated, the asbestos was left behind in a powder form
that could easily become airborne, making it more likely to be
inhaled. After the state health department ordered the school
closed in February 2000, its 800 students finished the year in
middle school classrooms.

The high school reopened for the next school year after a second
cleanup. School district officials said the cleanup and
renovation cost US$8 million. Lawmakers were forced to allocate
US$2 million for the project in the 2000 state budget.

An April 2004 indictment stemming from the project named Steven
Herron of Aurora and Joseph Cannella of Arvada. The indictment
accused them of taking shortcuts that violated the Clean Air
Act, submitting false invoices and conspiring to cover it up.

Mr. Herron operated Steve Herron and Associates, which hired
National Service Cleaning Corp. to do the cleanup work. Mr.
Cannella and Mr. Herron are free on personal recognizance bond
pending trial.

Assistant United States Attorneys John Haried and James Hearty
and EPA attorney Linda Kato prosecuted the case.


ASBESTOS ALERT: Engineer Sues Kelda Group for Asbestos Disease
--------------------------------------------------------------
A civil engineer diagnosed with asbestos-related lung cancer is
suing the parent Company of Yorkshire Water, Kelda Group plc,
for GBP300,000 for allegedly exposing him to the deadly material
asbestos.

John Kay, aged 40, discovered he had malignant mesothelioma in
October 2003, following a chest operation. He opted to have
further surgery and was admitted to the hospital where he had
part of his right lung removed and other serious surgery,
followed by radiotherapy, but the cancer returned.

Mr. Kay launched the High Court action against the Company for
negligence since it failed to provide him with protective
equipment and also failed to warn him of the risks to his job.
He emphasized that the Government had introduced strict
regulations regarding the use of asbestos nearly 20 years
previously.

He believes he contracted the illness while working for the
Company during the late 1980s. Mr. Kay, who worked for Yorkshire
Water until 1998, claims he was exposed to dangerous levels of
breathable asbestos when he worked at pumping stations at
Headingley, Leeds, and Doncaster, and when supervising the
refurbishment of Eccup Water Treatment Works, near Leeds. For
over several weeks, he was on hand as workers drilled through
asbestos-treated concrete while laying power lines.

Now he has been given just months to live and does not know
whether he will live to see the court case reach its conclusion.
Mr. Kay said his greatest concern was financial security for his
wife, and sons, aged 11 and eight.

A spokeswoman for Yorkshire Water said, "A claim has been lodged
and is receiving consideration by our insurers."

Mr. Kay's solicitor, Paul Webber, called for any former
employees or contractors who may have information relating to
the case to contact him in confidence on 0870 1500 100.


Company Profile:
Kelda Group plc
Western House, Halifax Road
Bradford
West Yorkshire BD62SZ, UK
Phone: +44-1274-600-111
Fax: +44-1274-608-608
http://www.keldagroup.com/

Fiscal Year-End     : March
2004 Sales (mil.)    : GBP725.4
1-Year Sales Growth    : 21.9%
2004 Net Income (mil.)    : GBP180.6
1-Year Net Income Growth   : 66.1%
2004 Employees     : 3,461
1-Year Employee Growth    : 6.2%

Description:
Kelda's primary subsidiary, Yorkshire Water, provides 1.7
million households and 140,000 businesses with water and
sewerage services. It manages the collection, treatment and
distribution of water and also offers wastewater services.


ASBESTOS ALERT: Appeals Court Affirms Ruling to Fine Lyon County
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Eighth Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed a
Minnesota District Court's ruling to allow the Environmental
Protection Agency imposition of an US$18,800 fine on Lyon County
Landfill for asbestos handling violations. On the decision filed
on May 9, 2005, the Appeals Court affirmed an administrative
enforcement action against Lyon County.

Lyon County owns and operates the Lyon County Landfill. On July
20 and 21, 1994, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
conducted an asbestos compliance inspection of the landfill.
Employees of the landfill directed the inspectors to an area
where the County disposed of asbestos-containing waste material.

On July 20, 1994, the inspectors saw ripped plastic bags with
asbestos warning labels lying uncovered in this area; dust was
blowing from and around the bags. The following day, the
inspectors returned and found that the area had been partially
covered with dirt, but they again found ripped plastic bags with
asbestos labels on the surface of the landfill, including some
bags they had not seen the previous day. The inspectors observed
visible emissions from the bags, photographed the material, and
took samples from the bags and surrounding area. The samples
collected on both days contained between five and 30 percent
asbestos.

The MPCA attempted to negotiate a settlement with Lyon County,
but eventually referred the matter to the EPA for enforcement.
After further unsuccessful negotiation, the EPA filed an
administrative complaint on July 18, 1996.

The complaint alleged that Lyon County committed violations to
EPA regulations, which require active waste disposal site owners
to either prevent any visible emissions to the outside air, or
take specified alternate measures to control emissions. The
County did not maintain waste shipment records containing
specific information and records of the location, depth and
area, and quantity of asbestos-containing waste material. It
also failed to notify the EPA in advance of the excavation or
disturbance of covered asbestos-containing material. The EPA
sought a US$58,000 civil penalty for these violations.

In its initial hearing, the Administrative Law Judge dismissed
the case for lack of jurisdiction, reasoning that the complaint
was filed more than one year from the violations and was not
eligible for a waiver.

The EPA appealed, and the Environmental Appeals Board reversed
and remanded the case for a decision on the merits. On remand,
the ALJ found Lyon County liable on all counts and imposed a
penalty of US$45,000. Lyon County appealed, and the Board
reduced the total penalty to US$18,800.

Lyon County petitioned for review in district court, which
affirmed the Board's decision. The court also gave controlling
weight to the EPA's interpretation of its regulations,
determined that there was substantial evidence supporting the
Board's decision, and that the penalty imposed was not an abuse
of discretion. This appeal followed.

The Appeals Court concluded that the EPA had jurisdiction to
bring an administrative action against the Lyon County landfill,
that there is substantial evidence in the record supporting the
findings of liability, and that the calculation of a penalty in
the amount of US$18,800 was not an abuse of discretion.

Counsel who presented argument on behalf of Lyon County Board of
Commissioners was Jay D. Carlson, Fargo, North Dakota.

Counsel who presented argument on behalf of the EPA was Anna T.
Katselas, Washington, D.C.


ASBESTOS ALERT: Ohio Court Grants Worker's Claim V. Copperweld
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Eleventh District of the Court of Appeals of Ohio on April
22, 2005 affirmed a ruling by Trumbull County Court of Common
Pleas to grant a worker's claim for benefits. Copperweld Steel
Company had filed the appeal before Judge Robert A. Nader.

Copperweld Steel Company is an electric furnace manufacturer of
special quality alloy and carbon steel bars and a leader in SBQ
technology and value-added products.  The Warren, Ohio, based
Company, together with its non-operating parent, CSC Industries,
has been operating under the protection of Chapter 11 of the
Bankruptcy Code since November 1993.

Judge Nader held that the administrator of state Bureau of
Workers' Compensation waived for appellate review his claim that
trial court erred in admitting entire videotaped deposition.
Court documents reveal that the administrator did not move the
court to rule on objections, never renewed objections when
claimant presented deposition for admission into evidence, and
did not object during trial. Appellant argued that these
objections were reiterated, and overruled, in the judge's
chambers. Nothing in the record confirms this however.

James Conrad, Administrator of the Ohio Bureau of Workers'
Compensation, appeals from a jury verdict in the Trumbull County
Court of Common Pleas, permitting appellee, Ray Shrock, to
participate in the Ohio workers' Compensation system for the
condition of asbestosis.

Mr. Shrock worked at Copperweld Steel in Warren, Ohio, from 1964
to 2000. During his tenure at Copperweld, he was allegedly
occupationally exposed to asbestos on a regular basis. He
instituted a claim with the Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation
to participate in the system for the condition of asbestosis.
The Staff Hearing Officer denied appellant's claim. The
Industrial Commission of Ohio refused to hear an appeal of that
decision.

On June 14, 2002, Mr. Shrock filed a notice of appeal and a
complaint with the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas from
the decision of the Commission, denying his workers'
compensation claim for asbestosis. Appellant answered the
complaint on July 16, 2002.

During the giving of testimonies, the parties deposed their
respective experts, via videotape.

Mr. Shrock had Dr. Laxminarayana C. Rao as his expert. Dr. Rao
opined that he suffered from asbestosis as a result of his
exposure to asbestos at Copperweld.

Appellant deposed Dr. David M. Rosenberg, a pulmonologist, as
his expert. Dr. Rosenberg examined Mr. Shrock on March 25, 2003,
to determine what type of lung condition he suffered from and
whether it was asbestos-related. Dr. Rosenberg testified that he
examined appellee; reviewed medical records from a Dr. Bermudez,
who evaluated Mr. Shrock on November 30, 1998; reviewed his
workers' compensation file; and reviewed a 1998 chest X-ray. In
a report, dated April 4, 2003, Dr. Rosenberg opined that
appellee did not suffer from asbestosis.

At some point in time, Dr. Rosenberg also reviewed a CAT scan of
the chest, which was performed on January 19, 2003. He concluded
that the Mr. Shrock does not have asbestosis and that he
suspects he has lung cancer, as a result of smoking. On cross-
examination, Dr. Rosenberg testified that, although he was not a
radiologist, he frequently interpreted CAT scans in the course
of his training and experience as a pulmonologist. He also
testified on cross-examination that he interpreted CAT scans
when requested as a consultant for the defense in workers'
compensation cases.

Through questions concerning radiologist Dr. J. Sheldon
Thompson, the appellee attempted to impeach Dr. Rosenberg's
credibility. During this line of questioning, Dr. Rosenberg
testified that Dr. Thompson was a friend of his and that he, Dr.
Rosenberg, had testified in a previous case that Dr. Thompson
was an "excellent radiologist."

The Appeals Court affirmed the judgment of the Trumbull County
Court of Common Pleas and concluded that the trial court did not
abuse its discretion by admitting this testimony as evidence,
and appellant's sole assignment of error is therefore without
merit.

Thomas M. Wilson and Shawn M. Acton, represented the appellee.

Jim Petro, Attorney General, and Steven K. Aronoff, Assistant
Attorney General, stood for the appellant.


ASBESTOS ALERT: HSE Pursues 8 Charges V. A-One Insulation Ltd.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Health and Safety Executive intends to pursue a case
involving eight charges of asbestos handling violations against
a Bradford Company that has gone into liquidation following the
revocation of its license to work with asbestos. HSE officials
accused the building firm, A-One Insulation Ltd., of failing to
ensure the safety of the public and of its employees.

Two inspectors visited a Wakefield cement works site in December
2003. They found unwrapped asbestos-contaminated waste being
removed. Workmen were not wearing the appropriate respiratory
protective equipment, nor did they follow procedures for
entering and leaving the contaminated area.

A-One Insulation Ltd, formerly of Snowden Street, failed to
appear in court to face the charges against it. The case was
listed for trial at Leeds Crown Court but prosecutor Bryan Cox
asked the judge not to continue the prosecution but to let the
charges lie on file. He asserted that to abort the prosecution
at this stage would send out the wrong message to the other 15
companies that did about 80% of the licensed asbestos removal in
the county.

Judge Sally Cahill QC agreed it was the best course of action.

After the court hearing, David Dean, principal inspector for
construction and asbestos removal in West and North Yorkshire,
said the Health and Safety Executive had been keen to pursue the
case to court because of the seriousness of the allegations,
despite the Company having folded.

"An order was made that the case should remain in abeyance
without any verdict being returned by a jury. The judge said she
fully understood the reasons why HSE had felt it necessary to
bring the matter to court, even though the Company had ceased to
trade.

"The case illustrates that where the public and employees have
been put at risk by serious breaches of legislation relating to
asbestos, vigorous enforcement action will always be taken,"
said Mr. Dean.

The A-One Insulation Ltd. involved in the case is not the same
firm as A-One Asbestos Management, which operates from the same
Snowden Street address. A statement from A-One Asbestos
Management said A-One Insulation Ltd. did sublet premises at the
address but had a registered office at Park Place in Leeds.


ASBESTOS ALERT: California DC Orders Briefing for Hartford Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
The US District Court of California on May 11, 2005 ordered a
supplemental briefing in the suit known as Twila Hartford, et.
al. v. Atlas Turner Inc., et. al., McDonnell Douglas Corp. with
Case No. C 05-202 SBA. This matter comes before the Court on the
plaintiffs' motion to remand.

Defendant McDonnell Douglas Corp. removed this action from San
Francisco Superior Court on the grounds that the Court has
jurisdiction pursuant to the federal officer removal statute.

The action involves claims for wrongful death arising out of
Noel Hartford's death from lung cancer, allegedly caused by
exposure to asbestos. On April 27, 2005, McDonnell Douglas Corp.
notified the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation that the
instant action may be a tag-along action appropriate for
transfer to the Multidistrict Litigation Transferee Court.

The decision to grant or deny a temporary stay of proceedings
pending a ruling on the transfer of the matter to the MDL court
lies within this Court's discretion. In deciding whether to rule
on a motion to remand, courts consider whether the motion raises
issues likely to arise in other actions pending before the MDL
transferee court.

The Court expects the briefing to be filed by both parties no
later than June 1, 2005. It further specified that the briefs be
no longer than ten pages, come supported by case law, and
directly address the issue of whether a stay would be
appropriate in this case.

The hearing on plaintiff's motion to remand is scheduled to
continue on June 28, 2005.

David R. Danadio, David Lee Fiol, and Julie C. Grebel, of
Brayton & Purcell, Novato, CA, stood in behalf of the
plaintiffs.

John W. Amberg, Paul A. Levin, Robert E. Boone, III, of Bryan
Cave LLP, Santa Monica, CA, represented McDonnell Douglas Corp.


Company Profile:
McDonnell Douglas Corporation
St. Louis, MO 63166-0516
Phone: +1 314 2327257
http://www.mcd.com/

Description:
McDonnell Douglas Corporation is a leading manufacturer of
military and commercial aircraft. The Company designs, develops
& manufactures fighter aircraft, military and commercial
helicopters, commercial aircraft, spare parts and related
services. In addition, MDC is also concerned with electronics,
realty, travel and technical services.


ASBESTOS ALERT: Illegal Asbestos Removal May Bring Prison Term
--------------------------------------------------------------
The site superintendent of a demolition Company faces up to five
years in prison and US$250,000 in fines for the illegal removal
of more than 25,000 linear feet of asbestos while tearing down
the former Westinghouse facility in Cheektowaga in May 1999.

Justice Department officials related that Mark Jamieson, aged 41
of Waterville, pleaded guilty to a felony violation of the Clear
Air Act. Sentencing will be done before Judge John T. Elfvin on
July 29, 2005.

Mr. Jamieson worked for USA Remediation Services, which was
hired to remove the asbestos under federal standards and to
contain the fibers to prevent them from becoming airborne. He
admitted to being involved in the illegal removal of dry
asbestos from the site during the three-day demolition, which
eventually led to expansion at Buffalo Niagara International
Airport.

U.S. Attorney Michael Battle said that Mr. Jamieson was indicted
along with USA Remediation Services; Comprehensive Employment
Management; John Toner, a CEM employee who was supposed to
ensure compliance with environmental statutes; Corey Seamon, an
employee of USA Remediation accused of lying to a federal grand
jury; and Robert Birmingham, a foreman for USA Remediation.

Mr. Birmingham pleaded guilty, and like Mr. Jamieson, agreed to
testify against the other defendants, federal authorities said.


Company Profile:
USA Remediation Services, Inc.
6583 Merchant Place
Suite # 303
Warrenton, VA  20187
Phone: 540-349-4168
Fax: 540-349-4171


ASBESTOS ALERT: UK Court Imposes Fine on G&K Roofing Contractors
----------------------------------------------------------------
At a hearing at Horsham Magistrates' Court, G&K Roofing
Contractors Ltd. was found guilty of storing and burning waste
without a license. The contractor was fined GBP26,000 and
ordered to pay GBP1,695 court costs for six offenses.

The Environment Agency said the Company repeatedly did not turn
up for court hearings so it applied to have the case heard in
its absence.

In August 2003, an environment officer conducted an inspection
at a piece of land at Crawley Down Road, Felbridge, following
complaints that waste was being kept and burnt there. The
officer discovered bonded asbestos lying on the ground and
bonfires of burning wood, roofing felt and old furniture. The
agency also found that the Company operated without a waste
management license necessary when dealing with special waste.
Bonded asbestos is subject for further controls over its
transport and disposal.

The Environment Agency then instructed G&K Roofing Contractors
Ltd. to remove all asbestos materials to a licensed site but
further visits to the site revealed that large amounts of waste
including asbestos was still strewn about the area.

Magistrates said that in imposing the fine, they had taken into
account the deliberate and reckless breaches of the law by the
Company. They also considered that the Company had been
uncooperative and disregarded warnings from the Environment
Agency.

Speaking after the case, environment officer Bob Curtis said,
"We hope this sends out a clear message that waste regulations
are a serious matter and companies have a duty to make sure they
follow them."


Company Profile:
G&K Roofing Contractors Ltd.
Unit 1C, Independent Business Park Imberhorne Lane,
East Grinstead West Sussex RH19 1TU
Phone: 01342 300344
Fax: 01342 302321
http://www.gandkroofing.co.uk/

Description:
G&K roofing contractors offer a comprehensive range of
Commercial, Industrial and Domestic roofing services including,
flat roofing, pitched roofing, tiling, slating, asphalt, and
lead work.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

DORAL FINANCIAL: Brian M. Felgoise Lodges Securities Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C. filed a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who acquired Doral
Financial Corporation (NYSE: DRL) securities between January 17,
2001 and April 18, 2005, inclusive (the Class Period).

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, against the Company and certain
key officers and directors.

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

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


FINDWHAT.COM INC.: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Suit in FL
---------------------------------------------------------------
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 Middle District of Florida on
behalf of purchasers of FindWhat.com, Inc. ("FindWhat")
(NASDAQ:FWHT) publicly traded securities during the period
between January 5, 2004 and May 4, 2005 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges FindWhat and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. FindWhat offers marketing and services to help businesses
throughout the business cycle in reaching prospects, converting
prospects to customers and then retaining those customers.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
disseminated materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's financial results, business and
prospects. On May 2, 2005, FindWhat announced the resignation of
its auditors, Ernst & Young, and that it had had a disagreement
with Ernst & Young about the need to record an adjustment in its
2004 consolidated financial statements to recognize an
impairment of goodwill. On this news, the Company's shares fell
26%, to close at $5.71 per share on May 3, 2005.

Then, on May 5, 2005, the Company disclosed its much awaited Q1
2005 results and projections for future quarters. The Company
announced Q1 2005 results that were below Wall Street
expectations and slashed its FY 2005 revenue guidance from $250-
$270 million to $175-$200 million and retracted its previous EPS
and EBITDA guidance altogether. In addition, the Company
announced that Brenda Agius, the Company's Chief Financial
Officer, had resigned. On this news, shares of FindWhat
plummeted another 20%, to close at $4.83 per share.

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

     (1) the Company's financial results issued during the Class
         Period were materially false and misleading;

     (2) the Company had failed to timely take an impairment
         charge against "goodwill" attributable to the Company's
         acquisition of Miva Corporation;

     (3) because defendants consciously disregarded the obvious
         need to enhance the Company's internal controls, the
         Company lacked adequate internal controls, which
         allowed for the Company's accounting to be manipulated
         and resulted in false financial results; and

     (4) as a result, the Company's projections associated with
         its financial results were materially inflated.

For more details, contact William Lerach or Darren Robbins of
Lerach Coughlin by Phone: 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058 or by E-
mail: wsl@lerachlaw.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.lerachlaw.com/cases/findwhat/.


FINDWHAT.COM INC.: Murray Frank Lodges Securities Lawsuit in FL
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Florida on behalf of shareholders who
purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of FindWhat.com,
Inc. ("FindWhat" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:FWHT) between January
5, 2004 and May 4, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking
to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Complaint charges FindWhat and certain of the Company's
executive officers with violations of federal securities laws.
Plaintiff claims defendants' omissions and material
misrepresentations during the Class Period artificially inflated
the Company's stock price, inflicting damages on investors.
FindWhat offers marketing and services to help businesses
develop and retain customers. The complaint alleges that during
the Class Period the Company violated the Securities and
Exchange Act of 1934 by failing to disclose and misrepresenting
the following:

     (1) the Company's financial results issued during the Class
         Period were materially false and misleading;

     (2) the Company had failed to timely take an impairment
         charge against "goodwill" attributable to the Company's
         acquisition of Miva Corporation;

     (3) because defendants consciously disregarded the obvious
         need to enhance the Company's internal controls, the
         Company lacked adequate internal controls, which
         allowed for the Company's accounting to be manipulated
         and resulted in false financial results; and

     (4) as a result, the Company's projections associated with
         its financial results were materially inflated.

On May 2, 2005, FindWhat announced that it was in disagreement
with Ernst & Young about the need to record an adjustment in its
2004 financial statements to recognize an impairment of
goodwill, and that Ernst and Young LLP was resigning. On this
news, the Company's shares fell 26%, to close at $5.71 per share
on May 3, 2005. On May 5, 2005, the Company disclosed its Q1
2005 results and announced financial projections for future
quarters. The Company announced Q1 2005 results that were below
Wall Street expectations, slashed its FY 2005 revenue guidance
from $250-$270 million to $175-$200 million and retracted its
previous EPS and EBITDA guidance altogether. In addition, the
Company announced that its Chief Financial Officer had resigned.
On this news, shares of FindWhat plummeted another 20% on May 5,
2005, to close at $4.83 per share.

Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP and its predecessor firms have
devoted its practice to shareholder class actions and complex
commercial litigation for more than thirty years and have
recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for shareholders in
class actions throughout the United States.

For more details, contact Eric J. Belfi, Aaron D. Patton or
Christopher S. Hinton of Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP by Phone:
(800) 497-8076 or (212) 682-1818 by Fax: (212) 682-1892 by E-
mail: info@murrayfrank.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.murrayfrank.com/CM/NewCases/NewCases.asp.


FINDWHAT.COM INC.: Roy Jacobs Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in FL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Roy Jacobs & 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) 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 the 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 Roy L. Jacobs, Esq. of Roy Jacobs &
Associates New York by Phone: (888) 884-4490 or by E-mail:
classattorney@pipeline.com.


FINDWHAT.COM INC.: Vianale & Vianale Files Securities Suit in FL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Vianale & Vianale LLP commenced a securities
fraud class action lawsuit in Ft. Myers, Florida federal court
on behalf of purchasers of the securities of FindWhat.com, Inc.
(NASDAQ: FWHT) between January 5, 2004 and May 4, 2005,
inclusive.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, 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 exceeding 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 controls 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 Agius. While FindWhat.com's stock was
artificially inflated, 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 Vianale & Vianale LLP by Phone:
888-657-9960 or visit their Web site: http://www.vianalelaw.com.


FRIEDMAN BILLINGS: Murray Frank Lodges Securities Lawsuit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of shareholders who
purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Friedman,
Billings, Ramsey Group, Inc. ("FBR" or the "Company") (NYSE:FBR)
(Berlin:FRM) (Frankfurt:FRM) between January 29, 2003 and April
25, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Complaint charges FBR and certain of the Company's executive
officers with violations of federal securities laws. Plaintiff
claims defendants' omissions and material misrepresentations
during the Class Period artificially inflated the Company's
stock price, inflicting damages on investors. FBR is an
investment bank that provides investment banking, institutional
brokerage and asset management services, and invests as
principal in mortgage-backed securities and merchant banking
investments. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period
FBR represented that it maintained an adequate system of
internal financial and operational controls, including a
"Chinese Wall" between its banking and brokerage divisions.
Adequate internal controls to prevent the use of internal
information from being used for improper purposes, such as
insider trading, are a requisite for FBR's business activities,
and FBR's revenues and earnings are dependent upon customers'
and investors' perception that FBR maintained an adequate system
of internal controls. Unbeknownst to investors, the Company did
not maintain such a Chinese Wall and defendants caused FBR to
engage in insider trading and the manipulation of PIPE (Private
Investment in Public Equity) transactions. The truth emerged on
April 26, 2005 when the Company announced disappointing
preliminary results for the first quarter of 2005 and disclosed
that the Company was establishing a reserve of $7.5 million for
a potential settlement by the Company's broker-dealer subsidiary
related to an SEC investigation concerning a PIPE transaction.
On this news, FBR shares fell $1.87 per share, or 13%, to close
at $12.52.

For more details, contact Eric J. Belfi, Aaron D. Patton or
Christopher S. Hinton of Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP by Phone:
(800) 497-8076 or (212) 682-1818 by Fax: (212) 682-1892 by E-
mail: info@murrayfrank.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.murrayfrank.com/CM/NewCases/NewCases.asp.


GRAVITY CO.: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
LLP initiated a class action lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of purchasers of the American Depository Shares ("ADSs") of
Gravity Co., Ltd. ("Gravity" or the "Company") pursuant and/or
traceable to the Company's false and misleading Registration
Statement/Prospectus, issued in connection with the initial
public offering of Gravity ADSs (the "IPO" or the "Offering"),
together with those who purchased their shares in the open
market between February 7, 2005 and May 12, 2005 inclusive (the
"Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities
Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") and the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The complaint charges Gravity and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Act and the Exchange
Act. Gravity develops and distributes online games in many
countries across the world, especially in Japan, Taiwan, and
Thailand.

The Complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants
issued a Prospectus and Registration Statement in connection
with the Company's IPO, and issued press releases subsequent to
the IPO, which included numerous positive statements regarding
demand for the Company's products and positive statements
concerning the Company's growth prospects. As alleged in the
complaint, these statements were materially false and misleading
because defendants failed to disclose and/or misrepresented:

     (1) that the Company's core product - Ragnarok - Online
         which traditionally has accounted for 95% of the
         Company's revenue was, at the time of the IPO,
         suffering from declining customer demand and increased
         competition. In fact, contrary to the appearance of the
         growth presented in the Prospectus, sales of Ragnarok
         Online were in a material state of decline;

     (2) that the Company's mobile animation business was then
         being negatively impacted by material adverse trends.
         In fact, the Company's animation business had all but
         disintegrated; and

     (3) that the Company's royalties and license fees business
         was then being negatively impacted by certain material
         adverse trends in the Company's Chinese operations.

Growth in the Company's Chinese business was one of the primary
keys for the Company's future business. In fact, as portrayed in
the Prospectus, China was projected to grow faster than any
other country in terms of its demand for the Company's online
game-related services. Though defendants made an effort to
demonstrate China's massive growth potential for online gaming
demand, the fact was that the Company's Chinese business was in
peril and in a state of decline - not growth.

On May 12, 2005, the Company shocked the market when it
announced that its financial results for the first quarter of
2005 were lower than expected. On this news, the Company's ADSs
plunged to an all time low of $5.60, a more than 70% drop from
the Class Period high of $13.50 per share - the IPO price.

For more details, contact William Lerach or Darren Robbins of
Lerach Coughlin by Phone: 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058 or by E-
mail: wsl@lerachlaw.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.lerachlaw.com/cases/gravity/.


HARLEY-DAVIDSON: Scott + Scott Files Securities Fraud Suit in WI
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Scott + Scott, LLC initiated securities class
action in the United States District Court for the District of
Wisconsin against Harley-Davidson, Inc. (NYSE:HDI) and
individual defendants Jeffrey L. Bleustein and James L. Zeimer
on behalf of all persons or entities, except for defendants, who
purchased or otherwise acquired Harley-Davidson securities (the
"Class") between January 21, 2004, and through April 14, 2005,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff seeks remedies under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

Harley-Davidson designs, manufactures, markets and finances the
purchase of heavyweight motorcycles, as well as sales of
motorcycle parts, accessories, apparel and general merchandise
and is the parent Company for the group of companies doing
business as Harley-Davidson Motor Company, Buell Motorcycle
Company and Harley-Davidson Financial Services.

Plaintiff alleges that during the Class Period, defendants used
false and misleading accounting measures designed to conceal its
practice of stuffing of the distribution channels for the
Company's motorcycle products. Defendants' scheme caused the
price of Harley-Davidson stock to become and remain inflated,
allowing defendants to sell nearly 740,000 shares of the stock
at inflated prices for proceeds of approximately $45.9 million.
On April 13, 2005, following the Company's shocking announcement
of plans to reduce motorcycle production and product inventory
levels, the Company's share price plummeted from its previous
close of $58.77, for a two-day loss of $11.57, losing 19.6% of
its value to close on April 14, 2005, at $47.20 on volume of
over 51 million shares.

It is alleged that during the Class Period, defendants knew and
concealed that:

     (1) quarterly and annual motorcycle shipment numbers to
         dealerships stated by the Company were "padded," in
         that the quantity of motorcycles shipped often exceeded
         retail demand;

     (2) quarterly and annual product shipment numbers stated by
         the Company represented a false and misleading measure
         of accounting for motorcycle sales and the Company's
         future prospects;

     (3) annual shipment numbers significantly overstated the
         Company's progress and prospects when compared against
         the Company's 2007 retail sales goal;

     (4) motorcycle shipments to the Company's dealerships had
         actually exceeded retail demand by tens of thousands of
         units in 2003 and 2004;

     (5) Company claims of 16,000 retail sales in excess of
         wholesale shipments during the first half of 2004 would
         not correct the Company's inventory problems; and

     (6) the planned 20% increase in wholesale shipments for
         2004 could only worsen the Company's inventory
         problems;

     (7) despite claims of a "gap" between supply and demand,
         requiring a further increase in 2005 inventory levels,
         continued stuffing of the Company's distribution
         channels had already caused them to become saturated;
         and

     (8) the profitability of Company's finance division could
         no longer be counted on to offset the financial impact
         of continued growth of excess retail inventories, owing
         to the steep rise in the Company's 1Q 2005 credit
         losses.

For more details, contact Neil Rothstein or Amy K. Saba of Scott
+ Scott, LLC by Phone: (800) 404-7770 or (800) 332-2259 or by E-
mail: nrothstein@scott-scott.com or asaba@scott-scott.com.


MARTEK BIOSCIENCES: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Suit in MD
----------------------------------------------------------------
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 District of Maryland on behalf of
purchasers of Martek Biosciences Corporation ("Martek")
(NASDAQ:MATK) publicly traded securities during the period
between December 9, 2004 and April 27, 2005 (the "Class
Period"), including those who purchased Martek common stock in
the January 2005 offering pursuant to a prospectus dated January
21, 2005.

The complaint charges Martek and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Purchasers in the January 2005 offering may also pursue
claims under the Securities Act of 1933. Martek develops and
sells products derived from microalgae and other microbes.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
made false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
business and prospects. The facts, known by each of the
defendants but concealed from the investing public during the
Class Period, were as follows:

(1) defendants were aware of the fact that the Company's
         sales were declining and not showing the robust growth
         they were projecting, which projections defendants were
         using to inflate the Company's share price in order to
         consummate an $86+ million secondary offering;

     (2) the Company's ability to grow was solely dependent upon
         its ability to increase sales of its DHA/ARA products,
         however, by Fall 2004, the Company had already flooded
         its DHA/ARA licensees with the Company's products above
         and beyond appropriate inventories, and as a result,
         the Company's Q4 2004 results issued December 9, 2004
         were materially false and misleading;

     (3) the Company's claim that its costly expansion of its
         Kingstree manufacturing facility would increase the
         Company's "economies of scale" was baseless, as
         defendants did not have the ability to ascertain the
         inventory levels of its key licensees, which accounted
         for 90% of the Company's revenues;

     (4) the Company's internal projections associated with
         sales greatly conflicted with those defendants made
         publicly;

     (5) all of the Company's projections, both historical and
         those made during the Class Period, were based upon
         mere "guesses" by management and not on actual
         knowledge or even basic scientific methodology;

     (6) for the reasons described above, the Company's
         projections issued on December 9, 2004 were not based
         on fact or scientifically based assumptions, but rather
         on defendants' own "guess work."

As a result of defendants' false statements, Martek stock traded
at inflated levels during the Class Period, whereby the
Company's top officers and directors arranged for the sale of
more than $86 million worth of Company shares in its January
2005 offering.

For more details, contact William Lerach or Darren Robbins of
Lerach Coughlin by Phone: 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058 or by E-
mail: wsl@lerachlaw.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.lerachlaw.com/cases/martek/.


MOLSON COORS: Murray Frank Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in DE
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware in connection to the shareholder approval
of the merger between Adolph Coors Company ("Coors") and Molson
Inc. ("Molson"). The class action is on behalf of the following:
former shareholders of Molson who received shares of Molson
Coors Brewing Company ("Molson Coors" or the "Company")
(NYSE:TAP) (TSX:TAP-NV) as a result of the February 9, 2005
merger of Molson by and into the Coors, open market purchasers
of the common stock of Coors from July 22, 2004 to February 9,
2005, inclusive and open market purchasers of the common stock
of the Company, following completion of the merger between
Molson and Coors on or about February 9, 2005 to April 27, 2005,
inclusive, and who were damaged by the decline in the Company's
stock. Plaintiff is seeking remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The complaint alleges that in order to get the necessary
shareholder approval for the merger between Coors and Molson,
defendants failed to disclose, in press releases and Proxy
Statement(s), that at the time the merger closed on or about
February 9, 2005, which was well into the first fiscal quarter
of 2005, Coors was not operating according to plan and had
experienced material adverse changes in its business and at the
time of the merger, defendants had violated the terms of the
merger agreement and Proxy/Prospectus by failing to disclose
that Coors's business was being, and seemingly would continue to
be, adversely impacted by conditions that were causing Coors to
perform well below plan and consensus estimates. Defendants
concealed these material facts because it enabled them to
effectuate the merger in a manner that allowed the relatives and
heirs of the Coors and Molson families to dominate the combined
Company, as detailed in the complaint.

On April 28, 2005, only weeks after the merger closed, before
the open of trading, defendants published a release announcing
disappointing results for the Company's first quarter of 2005.
Immediately following publication of this release, shares of the
Company fell precipitously, almost $14.50 per share, to $63.00
per share, a decline of almost 20%, a testament to investors'
surprise and disappointment in the results. The same day,
defendant O'Neill resigned from his post as Chair of Office of
Synergies and Integration, taking with him $4.8 million as a
severance payment.

For more details, contact Eric J. Belfi, Aaron D. Patton or
Christopher S. Hinton of Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP by Phone:
(800) 497-8076 or (212) 682-1818 by Fax: (212) 682-1892 by E-
mail: info@murrayfrank.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.murrayfrank.com/CM/NewCases/NewCases.asp.


R&G FINANCIAL: Zwerling Schachter Files Securities Lawsuit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP initiated a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons and
entities who purchased the common stock of R&G Financial
Corporation ("R&G Financial" or the "Company") (NYSE: RGF)
during the period from April 21, 2003 through April 25, 2005
(the "Class Period"). The deadline to file a motion seeking to
be appointed lead plaintiff is June 27, 2005.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. Specifically, it alleges that the
defendants failed to disclose and misrepresented the following
material adverse facts, which were known to defendants or
recklessly disregarded by them:

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

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

     (3) that the Company was utilizing ineffective hedging
         strategies against the growing risk of fluctuations in
         interest rates;

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

     (5) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls and
         was therefore unable to ascertain the true financial
         condition of R&G Financial; and

     (6) that as a result, the value of R&G Financial's net
         income and financial results were materially overstated
         during the Class Period.

On April 25, 2005, after the market closed, R&G Financial
announced that it would restate its financial results for fiscal
years 2003 and 2004. Shares of R&G Financial fell $8.14 per
share, or 35.12 percent, on April 26, 2005, to close at $15.04.
Also on April 26, 2005, R&G announced that it was the subject of
an informal SEC probe related to its restatement announcement.

For more details, contact Shaye J. Fuchs, Esq. of Jayne Nykolyn
of Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP by Phone: 1-800-721-3900
by E-mail: sfuchs@zsz.com or jnykolyn@zsz.com or visit their Web
site: http://www.zsz.com.


WILLBROS GROUP: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in TX
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP initiated a
class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities
of Willbros Group, Inc. ("Willbros" or the "Company") (NYSE: WG)
between May 6, 2002 and May 16, 2005 inclusive, (the "Class
Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The action is pending in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, against
defendants Willbros, Michael F. Curran, Warren L. Williams,
Larry J. Bump and James K. Tillery.

The Complaint alleges that Defendants issued, or caused to be
issued, false and misleading statements during the Class Period
to artificially inflate the value of Willbros stock. Willbros is
the target of numerous governmental investigations, both here in
the United States by the Securities & Exchange Commission and
Department of Justice, and abroad, because the Company engaged
in a campaign of illegal and illicit bribery of foreign
government officials in Bolivia, Nigeria and Ecuador to
successfully obtain construction projects. As a result of these
illegal actions, the Company has delayed filing its Form 10-K
for 2004; announced a restatement of its financial results for
2002, 2003 and the first nine months of 2004; instituted a
series of modifications to rectify material weaknesses in its
internal controls; provided an estimate of its possible exposure
for violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act ("FCPA") (which
could be as much as $650,000 per violation, not including
criminal penalties of more than $2 million per violation); and
withdrew its 2005 guidance. The Company estimates an astonishing
35% to 44% reduction in previously reported net income when the
restatement is completed for the collective period of 2002, 2003
and the first nine months of 2004. This means that the Company
overstated net income during that period by an incredible 53% to
80%. In addition, the Company also disclosed a number of
previously unreported related party transactions from 2002, 2003
and 2004 that materially impacted financial results. As a result
of the above restatement, the Company stands in default of its
debt covenants because of its substantial reduction in net
income. Because of its violations of FCPA, the Company could be
prohibited from bidding for future U.S. government contracts.
The Company disclosed this information on May 16, 2005 after the
market had closed. The market responded immediately and the
stock lost 31% on usually high volume of 6.9 million shares,
trading as low as $10.15 per share on May 17, 2005, down $5.77
from its previous close of $15.92.

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


XYBERNAUT CORPORATION: Shepherd Finkelman Files Stock Suit in DE
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC filed a
lawsuit seeking class action status in the United States
District Court for the District of Delaware on behalf of all
persons (the "Class") who purchased the securities of Xybernaut
Corporation (OTC: XYBR) ("Xybernaut" or the "Company") during
the period May 10, 2002 and April 8, 2005 (the "Class Period").

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

On March 31, 2005, after the close of trading, Xybernaut issued
a press release which stated, in part, that independent counsel
had been engaged to assist in an internal investigation of,
"among other things, concerns brought to the Audit Committee's
attention relating to the internal control environment of the
Company, the propriety of certain expenditures and the
documentation of certain expenses of the Chairman and CEO of the
Company, the Company's transparency and public disclosure
process, the accuracy of certain public disclosures,
management's conduct in response to the investigation, and the
propriety of certain major transactions." The press release
further stated that the Company had received a subpoena from the
Northeast Regional Office of the SEC seeking "documents and
other information relating to the sale of Company securities by
any person identified as a selling shareholder in any Company
registration statement or other public filing."

On this news, the Company's share price, which at one time had
traded as high as $2.66 per share (on September 18, 2003) due to
the Company's positive press releases and false and misleading
representations during the Class Period, closed at $0.42 per
share on March 31, 2005, and then dropped further by almost
fifty percent (50%), to close at $0.24 per share on April 1,
2005.

On April 8, 2005, after the close of trading, Xybernaut
announced in a press release that "investors and others should
refrain from relying upon the Company's historical financial
statements... for the years ended December 31, 2002 and 2003,
and interim quarterly reports for the quarters ended March 31,
2003, June 30, 2003, September 30, 2003, March 31, 2004, June
30, 2004 and September 30, 2004." On the heels of this shocking
news, trading was again heavy and the Company's price per share
fell to $0.13 per share. Since then, both the Company's CEO and
President have been removed, an investigation has been initiated
by the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, and
the Company's stock has been de-listed by Nasdaq.

For more details, contact James E. Miller, Esq., Patrick A.
Klingman, Esq. or James C. Shah, Esq. of Shepherd, Finkelman,
Miller & Shah, LLC by Phone: +1-866-540-5505, +1-866-540-5505 or
+1-877-891-9880 or by E-mail: jmiller@classactioncounsel.com,
pklingman@classactioncounsel.com or
jshah@classactioncounsel.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  * * *