CAR_Public/050523.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

               Monday, May 23, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 100


                            Headlines

ADECCO SA: CA Consolidated Class Action Complaint Dismissed
AEROSONIC CORPORATION: Reaches Settlement For FL Securities Suit
AIG SUNAMERICA: Faces Market-Timing Lawsuit in IL State Court
ALLOY INC.: NY Court Preliminarily Approves Lawsuit Settlement
ALLOY INC.: NY Court Dismisses Consolidated Securities Lawsuit

BEA SYSTEMS: CA Court Dismisses Consolidated Securities Lawsuit
BIG LOTS: Discovery Proceeds in LA, TX Suits For FLSA Violations
CALIFORNIA: Lawsuit Seeks Highway Call Boxes Equipped for Deaf
CANADA: Crocus Investors Plans To Launch $75M Suit Over Shares
CONCORD EFS: Settles EBT Surcharges Suit, NJ Residents Benefit

CONSTELLATION ENERGY: Settles $2.5M MD Race Discrimination Suit
DEUTSCHE TELEKOM: Securities Settlement Hearing Set June 7, 2005
EXXON MOBIL: Judge Orders Firm To Stop Stalling, Pay $1.3B Award
FEDERATED DEPARTMANT: Vendor Seeks to Join NY Chargeback Lawsuit
FRANKLY SPEAKING: Shut Down Due to FTC Privacy Violations Suit

GARDERE WYNNE: Partner Takes Burton Award for Legal Achievement
GENERAL ELECTRIC: FL Man Launches Suit Over Faulty Refrigerators
GRAPHITE ANTITRUST: Lawsuit Settlement Hearing Set July 15, 2005
IMCLONE SYSTEMS: Securities Settlement Hearing Set June 24, 2005
INKINE PHARMACEUTICAL: Suit Settlement Hearing Set June 14, 2005

KANSAS: Former South High Students Lodge Suit V. School District
LOUISIANA: CAO Sets Meeting to Resolve Confusion Over Letters
LOUISIANA: Ex-Owners, Insurers Offer $7.7M To Settles Mold Suits
MANDALAY RESORT: Trial in NV RICO Violations Suit Set Sept. 2005
MICHIGAN: SEC Lodges Securities Fraud Suit V. Gary L. Halden

NATIONAL EQUIPMENT: SEC Lodges Fraud Suit in IL V. Former CFO
PARAGON FINANCIAL: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Lawsuit Settlement
REMEC INC.: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Securities Suit in CA
UNITED STATES: Attorneys Launch Web Site to Track Click Fraud
UNITED STATES: FTC Bares Testimony On Financial Data Security

UNITED STATES: Lawsuit Settlement Hearing Set September 26, 2005
UTI WORLDWIDE: Continues To Face Gulf War Personal Injury Suit
VISTEON CORPORATION: Keller Rohrback Commences ERISA Inquiry


                 New Securities Fraud Cases

AVAYA INC.: Lasky & Rifkind Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NJ
BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Stock Suit in CA
FINDWHAT.COM INC.: Peter A. Lagorio Lodges Securities Suit in FL
FRIEDMAN BILLINGS: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in NY
GRAVITY CO.: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY

GRAVITY CO.: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
GRAVITY CO.: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
GRAVITY CO.: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
MARTEK BIOSCIENCES: Finkelstein Thompson Lodges Stock Suit in MD
MOLSON COORS: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in DE

WILLBROS GROUP: Brian M. Felgoise Lodges Securities Suit in TX
WILLBROS GROUP: Lasky & Rifkind Lodges Securities Lawsuit in TX
WILLBROS GROUP: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Fraud Suit in TX


                          *********

ADECCO SA: CA Consolidated Class Action Complaint Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------
The pending consolidated class action complaint launched against
the Adecco SA and certain of its directors and officers in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California has
been dismissed, The AFX News Limited reports.

According to a spokesman for the Swiss staffing company, the
dismissal means there are no further lawsuits pending against
the company related to the delay of its 2003 results. The
spokesman added that the news would have no effect financially
on the company since it had not built any provisions to cover
eventual damages.

In March, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) also
terminated its investigation into the delay of the results.

The results were delayed after the company uncovered accounting
irregularities in its North American operations, prompting the
departure of its chairman and chief financial officer and the
halving of its share price. When the results were finally
released following an exhaustive additional audit, no
restatement of results was found to be necessary.


AEROSONIC CORPORATION: Reaches Settlement For FL Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Aerosonic Corporation reached a settlement for the consolidated
securities class action filed against it in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Florida.  The suit
also names as defendants:

     (1) PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, former independent
         registered certified public accounting firm,

     (2) J. Mervyn Nabors, a former director and former
         President and CEO of the Company,

     (3) Eric J. McCracken, a former Chief Financial Officer of
         the Company, and

     (4) Michael T. Reed, a former Controller of the Company

On November 12, 2003, a class action lawsuit was filed in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida
by Sebastian P. Gaeta, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated.  The action alleges violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated under that act, including, among other things,
that the Company made materially false statements concerning the
Company's financial condition and its future prospects.  The
plaintiff alleges that he suffered damages as the result of his
purchase and sale of the Company's Common Stock during the
asserted "Class Period" from November 13, 1998 through March 17,
2003.  The action seeks compensatory and other damages, and
costs and expenses associated with the litigation.

Shortly after the Gaeta Suit was filed, two other putative class
actions were filed against the same defendants as in the Gaeta
Suit and predicated upon alleged violations of the same
securities laws, asserting that plaintiffs purchased the
Company's stock at artificially inflated prices during the Class
Period and have been damaged thereby.  The Pratsch Suit and
Suarez Suit assert a Class Period from May 3, 1999 through March
17, 2003.

At a February 27, 2004 hearing, plaintiffs in the Suarez Suit
voluntarily withdrew their complaint. On February 27, 2004, the
Court entered an order consolidating the Gaeta Suit and Pratsch
Suit into one case entitled "In re Aerosonic Corporation
Securities Litigation," appointing the Miville Group as lead
plaintiffs, approving the selection of Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel
(Berger & Montague P.C.).

On April 27, 2004, Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended and
consolidated class action complaint that alleges violation of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
including, among other things, that the Company made materially
false statements concerning the Company's financial condition
and its future prospects.  The amended complaint also added as a
defendant, Andrew Nordstrud, a former employee of the Company.
On June 28, 2004, the Company responded to the amended complaint
by filing a motion to dismiss, and each of the other defendants
also moved to dismiss the amended complaint.  On August 27, 2004
Lead Plaintiffs filed a memorandum of law as a comprehensive
opposition to the motion to dismiss.

On April 1, 2005, the Company and the other named defendants in
the litigation filed a Notice of Settlement with the court,
confirming that all parties had executed a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) with the plaintiffs to settle the
litigation.  The MOU provides for a payment by or on behalf of
the defendants to the plaintiffs of approximately $5.35 million.
Of this amount, the Company is obligated to pay $800,000, which
has been accrued at January 31, 2005.  The balance of the
settlement is expected to be paid by Zurich American Insurance
Company on behalf of the Company and the individual defendants
under the Company's directors' and officers' insurance policy,
and by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP.  The settlement is subject to
preliminary and final court approval, as well as other
conditions that may cause the settlement not to be consummated.


AIG SUNAMERICA: Faces Market-Timing Lawsuit in IL State Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
AIG SunAmerica Life Assurance Company faces a class action filed
in the Circuit Court, Twentieth Judicial District in St. Clair
County, Illinois, styled "Nitika Mehta, as Trustee of the N.D.
Mehta Living Trust vs. AIG SunAmerica Life Assurance Company,
Case 04L0199."

The lawsuit alleges certain improprieties in conjunction with
alleged market timing activities.  The probability of any
particular outcome cannot be reasonably estimated at this time,
the Company said in a disclosure to the United States Securities
and Exchange Commission.


ALLOY INC.: NY Court Preliminarily Approves 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 Alloy, Inc.
and:

      (1) James K. Johnson, Jr.,

      (2) Matthew C. Diamond,

      (3) BancBoston Robertson Stephens,

      (4) Volpe Brown Whelan and Company,

      (5) Dain Rauscher Wessel and

      (6) Landenburg Thalmann & Co., Inc.

On November 5, 2001, a putative class action complaint was filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of persons purchasing Company stock between
May 14, 1999 and December 6, 2000.  The suit alleged violations
of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933
and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

On April 19, 2002, plaintiff filed an amended complaint against
the Company, the individual defendants and the underwriters of
the Company's initial public offering. The amended complaint
asserted violations of Section 10(b) of the 1934 Act and
mirrored allegations asserted against scores of other issuers
sued by plaintiffs' counsel.  Pursuant to an omnibus agreement
negotiated with representatives of the plaintiffs' counsel,
Mr. Diamond and Mr. Johnson were dismissed from the litigation
without prejudice.

In accordance with the Court's case management instructions, the
Company joined in a global motion to dismiss the amended
complaint, which was filed by the issuers' liaison counsel. By
opinion and order dated February 19, 2003, the District Court
denied in part and granted in part the global motion to dismiss.
With respect to the Company, the Court dismissed the Section
10(b) claim and let the plaintiffs proceed on the Section 11
claim.

The Company participated in Court-ordered mediation with the
other issuer defendants, the issuers' insurers and plaintiffs to
explore whether a global resolution of the claims against the
issuers could be reached. In June 2004, as a result of the
mediation, a Settlement Agreement was executed on behalf of
issuers (including the Company), insurers and plaintiffs and
submitted to the Court. Any definitive settlement, however, will
require final approval by the Court after notice to all class
members and a fairness hearing. If such approval is obtained,
all claims against the Company and the individual defendants
will be dismissed with prejudice.


ALLOY INC.: NY Court Dismisses Consolidated Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York dismissed the consolidated securities class action
filed against Alloy, Inc. and:

     (1) James K. Johnson, Jr.,

     (2) Matthew C. Diamond and

     (3) Samuel A. Gradess

On March 8, 2003, several putative class action complaints were
filed on behalf of persons who purchased the Company's Common
Stock between August 1, 2002 and January 23, 2003, and, among
other things, allege violations of Section 10(b) and
Section 20(a) of the 1934 Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder stemming from a series of allegedly false and
misleading statements made by the Company to the market between
August 1, 2002 and January 23, 2003.

At a conference held on May 30, 2003, the court consolidated the
actions.  On August 5, 2003, Plaintiffs filed a consolidated
class action complaint naming the same defendants, which
supersedes the initial complaint. Relying in part on information
allegedly obtained from former employees, the Consolidated
Complaint alleges, among other things, misrepresentations of the
Company's business and financial condition and the results of
operations during the period from March 16, 2001 through January
23, 2003, which artificially inflated the price of Company
stock, including without limitation, improper acceleration of
revenue, misrepresentation of expense treatment, failure to
properly account for and disclose consignment transactions, and
improper deferral of expense recognition.  The Consolidated
Complaint further alleges that during the class period the
individual defendants and the Company sold stock and completed
acquisitions using Company stock.

The parties have entered into a stipulation providing for the
settlement of the claims against all defendants including the
Company, for $6.75 million. That amount, was paid by the
Company's insurers, and was being held in escrow pending entry
of an order and judgment following a hearing on the fairness of
the proposed settlement.  That hearing took place on November 5,
2004 and the District Court approved the stipulation and
settlement and ordered that the class action litigation be
dismissed with prejudice on December 2, 2004.


BEA SYSTEMS: CA Court Dismisses Consolidated Securities Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California dismissed with prejudice the consolidated securities
class action filed against Bea Systems, Inc. and several of its
officers.

Beginning on June 9, 2004, several purported shareholder class
action complaints were filed against the Company and several of
our officers.  The actions were purportedly brought on behalf of
purchasers of the Company's publicly-traded securities from
November 13, 2003 through May 13, 2004.  The consolidated
complaint filed by the lead plaintiff generally alleged that
defendants made false statements about our operating results and
business, while concealing material information.

On February 14, 2005, the court granted defendants' motion to
dismiss the consolidated complaint. On March 11, 2005, the court
entered a judgment dismissing the case with prejudice.


BIG LOTS: Discovery Proceeds in LA, TX Suits For FLSA Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery has begun in two collective actions filed against Big
Lots, Inc. in Texas and Louisiana, alleging violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

In November 2004, the Company was served a civil complaint
wherein it was alleged that the Company has violated FLSA
regulations by misclassifying as exempt employees its furniture
department managers, sales managers, and assistant managers.
This lawsuit was filed as a putative collective action in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas,
Texarkana Division.

A similar action was filed at the end of November 2004, in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana. This lawsuit was also filed as a putative collective
action alleging that the Company violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act by misclassifying as exempt assistant managers.

As of January 29, 2005, formal discovery had just begun in each
matter and the Company could not make a determination as to the
probability of a loss contingency resulting from either of these
lawsuits or the estimated range of possible loss, if any.


CALIFORNIA: Lawsuit Seeks Highway Call Boxes Equipped for Deaf
--------------------------------------------------------------
After an accident in a California freeway, Daniel Arellanes and
Victoria Munoz, both deaf, are plaintiffs in a class action
suit, which was filed in San Francisco that aims to widen the
use of teletypewriters, or TTYs, in highway call boxes, The Los
Angeles Times reports.

Court documents reveal that the accident involved a tire that
flew across the freeway and smashed into Mr. Arellanes' car.
Quickly parking the car, Mr. Arellanes, the documents recount,
left his injured girlfriend and ran across several lanes of
traffic toward a call box in a desperate attempt to get help.
Being deaf, and noticing that the box was not equipped with a
teletypewriter, he tried yelling into the phone and banging the
headset against the box, thinking the noise would draw help. He
later left the phone off the hook.

One hour later, according to him, the California Highway Patrol
arrived - whether intentionally or by chance is unclear - and it
took another hour for a tow truck and ambulance to arrive as
well.

In an interview through a relay operator, Mr. Munoz told the
Times, "I didn't get upset until after waiting an hour. I got
panic and anxiety worrying about internal bleeding."

The suit names the state Department of Transportation and its
director, the CHP and its commissioner, and 15 counties as
defendants.

According to the suit, in those counties, from Del Norte in the
north to Imperial in the south, nearly all of the 5,458 call
boxes are inaccessible to deaf and hard-of-hearing motorists.

Jennifer Pesek, an attorney for the California Center for Law
and the Deaf, one of the law firms handling the case told the
Times, "We feel that it's pretty clear that a call box isn't
completely accessible unless it has a TTY."

Ms. Pesek points out that throughout California, more than
16,000 of the yellow call boxes line the highways. Of those,
6,246 are accessible to the deaf and hard-of-hearing in Ventura,
Los Angeles and Orange counties. A national call box standard
does not exist, according to Ms. Pesek, and because each county
administers its own call boxes, it is difficult to get
consistent service. She also adds, "Right now, it's a state-by-
state issue. We are hoping - it seems pretty likely - that in
three or four years we will have a national regulation."

In a nutshell, call boxes are solar-powered cellular phones with
a link to the CHP. Services are funded in participating counties
by a $1 fee assessed by the Department of Motor Vehicles on
vehicle registration.

The lawsuit argues that since call boxes are a public service,
people with disabilities cannot be denied access to them. Doing
so violates both federal and California law, the suit contends.

Mr. Munoz told the Times, "(Having) TTYs on the call boxes would
make it easier for us all. I have three deaf children and one
hard-of-hearing grandchild. I don't want the same to happen to
them."

Kenneth Kao, program coordinator for the Bay Area's Service
Authority for Freeways and Expressways told the Times that the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission, which comprises nine
counties in the Bay Area, decided to upgrade its 2,650 call
boxes so it would not be named in the lawsuit. The commission
includes Contra Costa County, where the accident involving Mr.
Munoz and Ms. Arellanes occurred.

Santa Cruz, Monterey and San Diego counties also are planning to
upgrade call boxes, Ms. Pesek said.

The Kern Council of Governments, one of the defendants in the
suit, is beginning the process of modifying its 574 call boxes.
Darrel Hildebrand, assistant director of the council told the
Times, "We've been working on this a number of years. We were
accumulating the money to do the work." He added that the
council's governing board is scheduled to vote today on whether
to appropriate up to $1.65 million to add TTYs to call boxes in
the county and upgrade them from analog technology to digital.

In order for a county to be dismissed from the suit, the Center
for Law and the Deaf is asking county officials to agree to
install TTY technology and set a timetable of about 12 to 18
months for doing so. "We are prepared to go to court if we need
to," Ms. Pesek said. "But we're really hoping for a resolution."


CANADA: Crocus Investors Plans To Launch $75M Suit Over Shares
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class-action lawsuit on behalf of disgruntled Crocus Investors
Association members will be seeking damages in the range of $75
million or more, a spokesman for the group said, The Winnipeg
Sun reports.

According to Bernie Bellan, secretary for the group, the
statement of claim will be filed after the release of the
auditor general's probe into the operations of the Crocus
Investment Fund. The much-anticipated report by Jon Singleton is
due any day now but is expected to be made public next week.

More than 300 people have signed on to the civil suit led by
Winnipeg lawyer Paul Walsh, who told the Winnipeg Sun that he
would have enough information to proceed once Mr. Singleton's
report is tendered.

Mr. Bellan told the Winnipeg Sun that shareholders are seeking
reimbursements for the write down in the share's value since
trading was suspended in December. So far, he has estimated that
amount at $75 million, and the suit, according to him, will have
to prove that amount is due to wrongful valuations. He added,
"We don't have to name an amount (of damages) in the suit. It
could be much higher."

Mr. Walsh confirmed that he has requested a list of the more
than 33,000 shareholders in the labor-sponsored fund because he
will file the suit on everyone's behalf.

Crocus spokesman Bob Jones told the Winnipeg Sun that the
request has been forwarded to a lawyer for an opinion on whether
the names can and should be released.


CONCORD EFS: Settles EBT Surcharges Suit, NJ Residents Benefit
--------------------------------------------------------------
As a result of a class action lawsuit against Concord EFS, a
company that processes ATM transactions, individuals on
government assistance in New Jersey will probably receive extra
money with in the next few weeks, The NBC10.com reports.

The class action suit accused Concord EFS of charging a $1.50
surcharge to residents, who get EBT or electronic cash benefits,
are given ATM cards to withdraw their money. Under New Jersey
law these people cannot be charged for those transactions.

The suit was recently settled and now anyone affected could be
entitled to money back. Individuals who are eligible for the
partial reimbursement would be anyone who made withdrawals
between March 24, 1997 and July 31, 2004, and whose transaction
was processed by Concord.

For more details, contact the settlement administrator by Phone:
(866) 828-2487 or visiting the following Web sites:
http://www.wolfpopper.com/publications/settlementUser2.cfm?pubid
=866 or http://www.abdatalawserve.com.


CONSTELLATION ENERGY: Settles $2.5M MD Race Discrimination Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Constellation Energy, the owner of the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear
Power Plant agreed to settle a $2.5 million class action lawsuit
that was launched by eight former and current black employees
who alleged job discrimination at the Lusby facility, The
Business Gazette reports.

Filed more than five years ago, the proposed settlement will be
subject to final court approval in July in U.S. District Court
in Baltimore. Under the settlement, the Baltimore-based plant
owner denies any wrongdoing but it has agreed to implement some
changes as a result of the case.

Constellation spokesman Keith Cunningham told the Gazette,
"We're pleased to put it behind us."

Dante King, a plaintiff, also told the Gazette that he was "glad
that we've been able to come to some type of resolution." He
also adds that he worked at Calvert Cliffs for nine years before
racial discrimination forced him to leave.

According to a news release, Mr. King, along with Polly Miller,
Beverly Pickett, Elbertino Dennis, Philip Sutton, Angela
Washington-Sewell, Michelle Patton and Danny Adams, claimed
"they were denied promotional opportunities, unfairly
disciplined, retaliated against and faced a hostile work
environment" at Calvert Cliffs.

In a press statement, Ms. Miller said that the plaintiffs were
"proud to have stood up for civil rights and to have represented
the class in this case, resulting in a settlement that includes
many of the important changes in the workplace that we have been
advocating from the beginning."

Lori B. Kisch, one of the plaintiffs' attorneys, told the
Gazette that the suit did not seek specific damages, but the
three-year consent decree requires Calvert Cliffs to pay $2.5
million to the plaintiffs and for administrative expenses, and
for valid claims of qualified class members. She adds that after
the court approves the settlement there would be a claims
process for the qualified class members. She specifies, "I think
there are about 160 class members at this point ... Everyone
will submit their claims to the special master and he will
review the claim applications submitted and check their
validity."

The eight lead plaintiffs, who are set to receive their portion
of the award after class members are identified, will share
$650,000 for their leadership in the suit, said Timothy B.
Fleming, who also represented them. They can also submit claims
for additional compensation, he adds.

Besides providing monetary damages, Calvert Cliffs will have to
make several "positive human resource changes," according to the
news release.

The changes include Equal Employment Opportunity training for
all employees, posting all job openings at the first-line
supervisor level and below, training all managers to be
successful mentors and checks on disciplinary action.


DEUTSCHE TELEKOM: Securities Settlement Hearing Set June 7, 2005
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court of the Southern District of New
York will hold a fairness hearing for the proposed $120 million
settlement in the matter: In re Deutsche Telekom AG Securities
Litigation, Civil Action No. 00-CV-9475 (NRB) on behalf of all
persons who purchased ordinary shares of stock in the form of
American depository shares of the firm during the period from
June 19, 2000 to and including February 21, 2001.

The hearing will be held before the Honorable Naomi Reice
Buchwald in the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States
Courthouse, 500 Pearl St., New York, NY 10007, at 4:30 a.m., on
June 7, 2005.

For more details, contact Robert A. Wallner, Esq. of Milberg
Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP by Phone: (212) 594-5300 OR Robert
J. Berg of Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP by Phone:
(212) 779-1414 OR In re Deutsche Telekom AG Securities
Litigation c/o The Garden City Group, Inc. by Mail: P.O. Box
9000 #6099, Merrick, NY 11566-9000 by Phone: (800) 627-3858 or
visit their Web site: http://www.gardencitygroup.com.


EXXON MOBIL: Judge Orders Firm To Stop Stalling, Pay $1.3B Award
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Alan S. Gold ordered as well entered a final
judgment against Exxon Mobil, the world's largest publicly
traded oil company to stop stalling and start paying as many as
10,000 station owners awarded $500 million by a jury four years
ago for being overcharged for gasoline for a dozen years, The
Associated Press reports.

The jury decided in 2001 that the Irving, Texas-based owed about
half a billion dollars to the station owners, which with
interest building since 1983, when the overcharging started, has
ballooned to $1.3 billion. The average for each owner in 34
states and the District of Columbia is estimated at $130,000.

According to Eugene Stearns, an attorney representing the
dealers, since the 11th U.S. District Court of Appeals in
Atlanta refused in March 2004 to reconsider its earlier ruling
supporting the verdict in the class action lawsuit, Exxon, has
only paid the nine dealers specifically named in the lawsuit.

Mr. Stearns told AP, "I would say that Exxon has engaged in
scorched earth litigation tactics in this case and this judge is
not going to tolerate it any further."

In his 83-page decision, Judge Gold said Exxon has attempted to
make a "judicial train wreck" of the claims payment process and
wants to prolong the lawsuit that was filed 13 years ago. The
judge also said Exxon makes $238 million a year from interest on
the $1.3 billion as long as it keeps the money. He also adds,
"By advancing defenses already lost, and then appealing their
denial, Exxon can punish the innocent dealers who are entitled
to their legitimate damages, simply because it can afford to do
so."

He also stated in his ruling that if Exxon further appeals
individual claims that have been decided, the claimants will
earn funds with an interest rate equal to the company's reported
earnings on the money. He said, "A sanction computed in this
manner will eliminate Exxon's ability to earn money on the money
it wrongly retains as a result of its bad faith scheme."

Prem Nair, the company's spokeswoman told AP that Exxon has
taken a charge of $550 million after taxes to pay the dealers,
but the company wants to make sure only dealers that were
damaged receive the money. She also adds that the company will
also appeal Judge Gold's order saying, "We are seeking
clarification on a number of legal issues that were not resolved
by the appeal process with regard to the individual claims that
have been filed. We disagree with the sanctions and plan to file
an appeal."

Trial testimony revealed that Exxon began charging dealers a 3
percent processing fee on gasoline sales paid by credit cards in
1982. The company promised to offset the charge by cutting the
wholesale cost of the fuel. Exxon did that for six months,
reducing the wholesale prices by 1.7 cents a gallon. Exxon
stopped the offset in March 1983 but didn't tell the dealers,
who didn't notice for eight years.

Mr. Stearns told AP that the bulk of the money would go to about
25 percent of the plaintiffs. He also said that he believes this
decision will help get the claims paid and hopes the whole
process will be completed within three years.


FEDERATED DEPARTMANT: Vendor Seeks to Join NY Chargeback Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joining a growing chorus of critics of the retail industry's
chargeback and discount practices, Nick DeLeo, a vendor with
nearly 30 years' experience in the retail industry is seeking to
join a pending class action lawsuit against Federated Department
Stores, Inc. Mr. DeLeo was the CEO of a company that went
bankrupt in part due to the practices challenged in the lawsuit,
according to attorneys from Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann &
Bernstein, LLP, Tousley Brain Stephens P.L.L.C., Rodney T.
Harmon, P.S., and Ezra, Brutzkus, Grubner LLP, who represent Mr.
DeLeo and are counsel in a proposed class action case against
the retail divisions of Federated Department Stores, Inc.,
including Macy's divisions and Bloomingdales, Inc., pending in
the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York.

The current plaintiff in the proposed class action, a
Liquidating Trust that owns the claims of other bankrupt
vendors, filed the original class action complaint on December
10, 2003. Mr. DeLeo is seeking to joint the Trust in
representing a nationwide class of current and former vendors
who sold goods to the Federated divisions. The lawsuit alleges
that Federated assessed improper offsets (known as
"chargebacks") based on alleged problems with goods that vendors
shipped to Federated, while failing to provide proper
notification to vendors. The lawsuit also alleges that Federated
took improper discounts. The lawsuit alleges violations of New
York's Uniform Commercial Code.

Previously, Federated moved to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that
the contracts between the parties allowed them to take the
challenged discounts, and that the vendors could not complain
after-the-fact. In a December 13, 2004 Order upholding the
chargebacks claim (and denying Federated's motion on that
claim), Justice Bernard J. Fried held that "the purpose of the
notification ... is to afford a seller an opportunity to cure,
or to permit it to minimize losses." He added that "notification
also serves to defeat commercial bad faith." Justice Fried also
allowed plaintiff's claim to go forward that Federated took
improper discounts even after the expiration of payment terms.
Justice Fried dismissed certain other claims alleged by the
plaintiff.

Mr. Leo explained that he wanted to participate in the lawsuit
because "I do not believe that large retailers can just take
whatever offsets and discounts they want, regardless of when
they pay the vendors, and regardless of whether vendors can
inspect the goods."

Jonathan D. Selbin, a partner in the New York office of Lieff,
Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, explained, "Our case seeks
to hold retailers accountable for their chargeback practices and
restore the proper balance between vendors and retailers."

"There are rules of the game to make the retail business
efficient, but there are also rules to make it fair, and we
allege that Federated has violated those rules," stated Mark
Brutzkus, a partner with Ezra, Brutzkus, Gubner LLP, who has
long-time experience in the retail industry. Added Rod Harmon
"Justice Fried's ruling clarified that we have the right to
present evidence to support our allegations of Federated's
improper practices. Having Nick DeLeo on board assists us in
telling vendors' stories from a first-hand perspective."

According to Kim Stephens, of Tousley Brain Stephens, P.L.L.C.
of Seattle, the next step is for Mr. DeLeo to get formal
approval to join the lawsuit. The vendors will then ask the
Court to certify the case as a class action on behalf of a class
of current and former vendors who sold to Federated from 1999
and forward.

For more details, contact Daniel Seltz, Esq. of Lieff, Cabraser,
Heimann & Bernstein, LLP by Phone: 212-355-9500 or visit their
Web site: http://www.lieffcabraser.com/chargebacks.htm.


FRANKLY SPEAKING: Shut Down Due to FTC Privacy Violations Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
An operation posing as a nonprofit organization that violated
the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) Do Not Call Rule and billed
tens of thousands of consumers' credit cards without their
consent has been permanently shut down in response to FTC
action.

The FTC charged that the defendants had acquired consumers'
account information without their knowledge and billed those
accounts without consumers' consent. A federal district court
has entered a consent order barring the defendants from all
telemarketing and unauthorized billing in the future.

According to the FTC, beginning in 2002, Frankly Speaking, Inc.;
Plasticash, Inc.; Donald J. Lasker; and Bonnie Kriebel (a/k/a
Bonnie Lasker) telemarketed to consumers using automated dialing
machines and leaving pre-recorded messages offering "free"
vacation travel packages, magazine subscriptions, and other
goods. The defendants claimed that, to receive the goods,
consumers needed to pay $9.95 in shipping and handling fees. The
messages instructed consumers who were not interested in the
offer to "press one now" or hang up the phone.

The FTC charged that the defendants then billed consumers $9.95,
regardless of whether they received or ended the calls, and
without telling them that the defendants had their credit card
information and intended to bill their accounts. According to
the FTC, the defendants had consumers' credit card and other
account numbers ahead of time, which allowed them to make
unauthorized charges. The FTC's complaint stated that many
consumers did not remember getting a call and only noticed the
charges on their credit card statements, others ignored
answering machine messages from the defendants and still got
charged, and others didn't notice the charge until they received
a letter from the defendants, thanking them for their
"purchase".

The FTC also alleged that the defendants made telemarketing
calls to consumers who had registered their phone numbers on the
National Do Not Call Registry, and, in some cases, failed to pay
the required access fee to download the National Registry and
"scrub" their call lists as the law requires.

The FTC charged the defendants with violating the FTC Act and
the Telemarketing Sales Rule by billing consumers without their
consent after making telemarketing calls; failing to inform
consumers that their accounts would be charged; and violating
the provisions of the National Do Not Call Registry.

On May 16, 2005, District Court Judge W. Louis Sams entered a
stipulated order permanently barring the defendants from
engaging in telemarketing of any kind in the future; billing
consumers for any good or service without their express consent,
or disclosing customer information. The order contains a
$138,000 suspended judgment that will become immediately due if
it is found that any of the defendants lied on their sworn
financial statements. The order also contains standard
recordkeeping requirements to assist the FTC in monitoring the
defendants' compliance.

The Commission vote to authorize staff to file the complaint and
stipulated final order was 5-0. They were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Georgia on May 11,
2005.

Copies of the Commission's complaint and stipulated final order
are available from the FTC's Web site at http://www.ftc.govand
also from the FTC's Consumer Response Center, Room 130, 600
Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20580. The FTC works
for the consumer to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair
business practices in the marketplace and to provide information
to help consumers spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a
complaint in English or Spanish (bilingual counselors are
available to take complaints), or to get free information on any
of 150 consumer topics, call toll-free, 1-877-FTC-HELP
(1-877-382-4357), or use the complaint form at
http://www.ftc.gov.The FTC enters Internet, telemarketing,
identity theft, and other fraud-related complaints into Consumer
Sentinel, a secure, online database available to hundreds of
civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and
abroad.  For more details, contact Jen Schwartzman, Office of
Public Affairs by Phone: 202-326-2674 or contact Valerie M.
Verduce, FTC Southeast Region by Phone: 404-656-1390 or visit
the Website: http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2005/05/franklyspeaking.htm.


GARDERE WYNNE: Partner Takes Burton Award for Legal Achievement
---------------------------------------------------------------
For the third consecutive year, a Gardere Wynne Sewell LLP
partner was selected to receive the Burton Award for Legal
Achievement.

As a result of having one of its partners recognized for the
third year in a row, Gardere will also receive a Record of
Distinction Award from The Burton Foundation, a Washington, DC-
based organization that honors excellence in legal writing. Only
five other U.S. law firms have ever received this Record of
Distinction recognition.

Randy Gordon, a partner in the firm's trial section, received
the 2005 award for his article titled "Rethinking Civil RICO:
The Vexing Problem of Causation in Fraud-Based Claims Under 18
U.S.C.  1962 9c)".

"I am honored to be included in such a select group, and very
pleased to see the high standards we have at Gardere Wynne
Sewell recognized for the third year in a row," Mr. Gordon said.

Mr. Gordon's article, which originally appeared in the
University of San Francisco Law Review, examines problems posed
by the element of causation in civil class action RICO cases and
concludes that courts should make fact-specific inquiries,
rather than apply broad generalizations to causation.

"The Record of Distinction Award is a tremendous honor that
reflects our Firm's commitment to quality legal scholarship and
writing," Gardere Wynne Sewell LLP Managing Partner Stephen Good
said. "We're proud to be leading the way in efforts to foster
plain, precise and clear legal writing."

The Burton Awards are presented annually by the Burton
Foundation in association with The Law Library of the Library of
Congress to promote excellence in the field of legal writing.
Forty-six attorneys from the nation's top 500 firms, along with
15 law school students, were selected for this year's awards.

Gardere partner Jim Sentner, trial section, received a 2004
Burton Award for his article "Arbitration in International
Contracts: A Reflex or Cognitive Decision."

Gardere partner Richard O. Faulk, head of the firm's
Environmental Practice Group, received a 2003 Burton Award 2003
for his paper "Armageddon Through Aggregation? The Use and Abuse
of Class and Group Actions in International Dispute Resolution."

The 2005 Burton Awards Program will be held in the Great Hall of
The Library of Congress the evening of June 6. Chris Matthews,
the host of MSNBC's "Hardball with Chris Matthews," is the
speaker.


GENERAL ELECTRIC: FL Man Launches Suit Over Faulty Refrigerators
----------------------------------------------------------------
A southwest Florida man initiated a lawsuit seeking class action
status against Fairfield, Connecticut-based General Electric
alleging that the company sold refrigerators with a defect that
caused them to leak water and form metal shavings and shards of
plastic in ice, The Associated Press reports.

According to William F. Turner, the refrigerators have a defect
that causes excessive moisture to build up, particularly in the
icemaker. That buildup, Mr. Turner further states in his
complaint, causes rust, water puddles on the floor and the
formation of metal shavings and shards of plastic, "which pose
real and unreasonable safety hazards to consumers who may
unwittingly ingest these dangerous materials as they consume ice
created in the freezer section." He also alleges that the defect
also causes the temperature control problems and makes excessive
frost.

Mr. Turner, a resident of Collier County filed the suit in U.S.
District Court in Fort Myers. Additionally, his attorney, Scott
Weinstein plans to file similar suits in other states.

Mr. Weinstein told AP that his client, who had bought his
refrigerator for about $1,200 in 2002, is seeking replacement of
faulty machines, warranties for new units and reimbursement for
repairs and fridges that were already replaced.

The models named in the suit are: GE SH22KGMDWW, GSS22KGMAWW,
GSH22KGPAWW, GSS22KGMBWW, GSH22KGPBWW, GSS22KGMCWW, GSH22KGPCWW,
GSH22KSMDWW and TFX22ZPDAWW.


GRAPHITE ANTITRUST: Lawsuit Settlement Hearing Set July 15, 2005
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
will hold a fairness hearing for the proposed settlement in the
matter: In Re Bulk (Extruded) Graphite Products Antitrust
Litigation, Master File No. 02-CV-06030 (WHW) on behalf of all
persons and entities who purchased graphite products during the
period January 1, 1993 through December 31, 1998.

The hearing will be held on July 15, 2005, at 10:00 a.m. in the
United States District Courthouse for the District of New
Jersey, Martin Luther King, Jr. Federal Building and United
States Courthouse, Courtroom 4046, 50 Walnut St., Newark, New
Jersey 07101.

For more details, contact Heffler, Radetich, & Saitta L.L.P. by
Mail: 1515 Market Street, Suite 1700, Philadelphia, PA 19102 by
Phone: 215-665-8870 by Fax: 215-665-0613 or visit their Web
site: http://www.hrsclaimsadministration.com/cases/eg/.


IMCLONE SYSTEMS: Securities 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 $75
million settlement in the matter: Robert Irvine V. ImClone
Systems, Inc., No. 02 Civ. 0109 (RO) on behalf of all persons or
entities who, during the period between and including March 27,
2001 and January 25, 2002, purchased the firm's securities on
the open market including those who sold or wrote put options on
the firm's common stock and who suffered damages thereby.

The hearing will be held before the Honorable Richard Owen in
the United States Courthouse, 40 Centre St., New York, NY 10007,
at 2:30 p.m., on June 24, 2005.

For more details, contact William C. Fredericks, Esq. of Milberg
Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP by Phone: (212) 594-5300 OR David
R. Scott, Esq. of Scott + Scott, LLC by Phone: (860) 537-5537 OR
ImClone Securities Litigation Settlement c/o Garden City Group,
Inc., Claims Administrator by Mail: P.O. Box 9000 #6279,
Merrick, NY 11566-9000 by Phone: (800) 250-9970 or visit their
Web site: http://www.gardencitygroup.com.


INKINE PHARMACEUTICAL: Suit Settlement Hearing Set June 14, 2005
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Common Pleas - Philadelphia County will hold a
fairness hearing for the proposed $9 million settlement in the
matter: Bernard Korman v. Inkine Pharmaceutical Company, Inc.
(No. 04341) on behalf of all persons or entities who held the
common stock of the company during April 7, 1998 through January
23, 2003, inclusive and also held such shares at the time of the
firm's securities issuances from 1999 to 2003.

The hearing will be held before the Honorable Howland W.
Abramson in the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia, PA 19107 at
2:00 p.m., on June 14, 2005 in Courtroom 443.

For more details, contact Robin Switzenbaum of Berger &
Montague, P.C. by Phone: (215) 875-3000 or by E-mail:
info@bm.net OR Inkine Litigation c/o Heffler Radetich & Saitta,
LLP, Claims Administrator, P.O. Box 120, Philadelphia, PA 19105-
0120 by Phone: (215) 665-1124 or visit their Web site:
http://www.hrsclaimsadministration.com/cases/ink/.


KANSAS: Former South High Students Lodge Suit V. School District
----------------------------------------------------------------
Two Wichita high school students are suing the district for
failing to do anything about alleged sexual harassment, KWCH 12
Eyewitness News reports.

According to the girls, who were students at South High, a male
student repeatedly harassed them, which they told school
officials about it more than ten times. However, the girls claim
that nothing was ever done. Since that time, the girls have
transferred to another school.

The girls' attorney wants a judge to give the case a class-
action status so any female who felt harassed could join in.

Though the school district can't comment on the lawsuit until it
officially gets it from the court it did reiterate that the
school takes every harassment allegation seriously and officials
do investigate.


LOUISIANA: CAO Sets Meeting to Resolve Confusion Over Letters
-------------------------------------------------------------
Confusion about information contained in letters that Louisiana
class action plaintiffs in the 1995 Gaylord chemical release
case have received regarding the first settlement disbursement
prompted the Community Action Organization (CAO) to call a
meeting for at the Allen Temple Church of God in Christ, The
Bogalusa Daily News reports.

According to Joel Miller, president of the CAO, people are
concerned about reported deductions in their allotment totals He
also adds that wording that they believe indicates prior
payments confuses them.

Mr. Miller told the Daily News that he plans to have an attorney
at the meeting to help clear up any misunderstandings and that
he recommends to anyone who has questions to call their own
attorneys.

As previously reported in the April 29, 2005 edition of the
Class Action Reporter, approximately 16,000 Louisiana class
action claimants in the 1995 Gaylord Chemical release case are
set to receive letters, which will inform them where to pick up
their first settlement checks after Judge Robert Burns signed
four distribution orders.

The distribution pertains to settlements with Vicksburg Chemical
Company and its related entities, Westchester Insurance Company
and ACE American Insurance Company, Illinois Central Railroad
and Kansas City Southern Railway, which were approved during a
Fairness Hearing in August 2003.

According to James "Pete" Farmer, liaison counsel for the
plaintiffs in the Louisiana class action suit, the letters will
tell claimants what identification they will need to bring to
receive their allocation checks. It will also spell out specific
requirements for parents of minor or survivors of deceased
claimants. Additionally, the letters will also tell claimants
where and when to pick up their allocation payments. Also, Mr.
Farmer told the Daily News that the distribution would take
place in Bogalusa.


LOUISIANA: Ex-Owners, Insurers Offer $7.7M To Settles Mold Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Former owners and insurers of a New Orleans hotel at the
intersection of Canal Street and Claiborne Avenue are offering
$7.7 million to settle two class action lawsuits launched by
guests and workers who claim they were exposed to mold and
fungus, The Associated Press reports.

The settlement offer would pay $5 million to hotel workers and
$2.7 million to guests, which include overnight guests in the
hotel from January 1, 1997 to August 26, 2003.

The 17-story hotel in question was known as the Crescent on
Canal from the start of 1997 until the winter of 2003 when it
was sold for $1.12 million and was renamed the New Orleans Grand
Palace Hotel.

Attorney Scott Seiler, who was appointed as a special master to
supervise the process of giving notice to potential plaintiffs
and to recommend specific awards for individual claimants told
AP that the total number of guests is unknown. He also said,
"Awards will be based on medical symptoms experienced."

Additionally, Mr. Seiler adds that at least 400 former employees
of the hotel will receive notice regarding the settlement offer
by mail this include employees who worked in the hotel from
1995, who were exposed to mold or mold spores.

Former hotel worker Lori Brown Krumm of Slidell, who filed the
initial lawsuit told AP, "I'm just so glad that it's going to be
over." Ms. Krumm, who became an accounting manager at the hotel
in 1999, adds that she and fellow employees at the Crescent on
Canal suffered from debilitating headaches.

According to Ashok "Eddie" Bhatt, the Grand Palace's general
manager, the hotel's new owners spent more than $300,000
cleaning up the building after it was acquired from Crescent on
Canal LLC and Credit Suisse First Boston Mortgage Capital LLC.


MANDALAY RESORT: Trial in NV RICO Violations Suit Set Sept. 2005
----------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the class action filed against Mandalay Resort Group
and other manufacturers, distributors and casino operators of
video poker and electronic slot machines is set for September
12,2005 in the United States District Court for the District of
Nevada.

On April 26, 1994, William H. Poulos brought a class action in
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida,
Orlando Division captioned "William H. Poulos, et al. v. Caesars
World, Inc. et al.," against 41 manufacturers, distributors and
casino operators of video poker and electronic slot machines,
including the Company.   On May 10, 1994, another plaintiff
filed a class action complaint in the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Florida, styled "William
Ahearn, et al. v. Caesars World, Inc. et al.," alleging
substantially the same allegations against 48 defendants,
including the Company.   On September 26, 1995, a third action
was filed against 45 defendants, including the Company, in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, styled "Larry
Schreier, et al. v. Caesars World, Inc. et al."

The court consolidated the three cases in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Nevada under the case captioned
"William H. Poulos, et al. v. Caesars World, Inc. et al."

The consolidated complaints allege that the defendants are
involved in a scheme to induce people to play electronic video
poker and slot machines based on false beliefs regarding how
such machines operate and the extent to which a player is likely
to win on any given play. The actions included claims under the
Federal Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
(RICO), as well as claims of common law fraud, unjust enrichment
and negligent misrepresentation, and seek unspecified
compensatory and punitive damages.

A motion for class certification was filed in March 1998.  On
June 26, 2002, the Motion for Class Certification was denied.
Subsequently, the Plaintiffs sought permission from the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals to appeal the issue of class
certification and the Court of Appeals granted the Plaintiffs'
motion. The appeal was heard and the Court of Appeals upheld the
denial of Class Certification. Thus, the named Plaintiffs now
can only proceed individually. Discovery is currently underway
and the trial date has been set for September 12, 2005.
Currently pending before the Court is Defendants' Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment.


MICHIGAN: SEC Lodges Securities Fraud Suit V. Gary L. Halden
------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission launched a securities
fraud lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Michigan against Gary L. Harden, Sr. and Philip E.
Lowery, both of whom participated in the unregistered sales of
RLLPs that were supposed to profit from online casinos.

The Commission alleges in its complaint that between January
1999 and March 2001, Mr. Harden and Mr. Lowery violated the
antifraud and registration provisions of the federal securities
laws in connection with the sale of $5.8 million of Colorado
Registered Limited Liability Partnership (RLLP) units. According
to the complaint, Mr. Harden formed the RLLPs and sold the units
to investors ostensibly to provide them with an opportunity to
share in the profits of Internet casinos, which were to be
formed and operated by Mr. Lowery. Mr. Harden and Mr. Lowery
solicited more than eighty investors to purchase partnership
units in ten RLLPs. None of the offers or sales of these units
were registered with the Commission as required by Section 5 of
the Securities Act of 1933.

The Commission's complaint further alleges that Mr. Harden and
Mr. Lowery used high-pressure sales practices to target
uneducated and financially unsophisticated, elderly investors,
many of whom liquidated retirement accounts and other
conservative investments to invest in the RLLPs. According to
the complaint, Harden and Lowery made false and misleading
statements in connection with their selling efforts, including
the provision of unrealistic profit projections and
representations that the investments were guaranteed and the
money would be used for partnership and casino business
expenses. The complaint alleges that, in fact, most of the funds
were used to pay for Mr. Harden and Mr. Lowery's personal
expenses. Eventually, investors lost all of their money after
the casinos were shut down due to operational problems.

The Commission's action seeks permanent injunctions, orders of
disgorgement and civil penalties against Harden and Lowery for
violating Sections 5(a), 5(c) and 17(a) of the Securities Act of
1933 (Securities Act) and Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.
The Commission also seeks disgorgement, as relief defendants,
from Erma Lowery (Lowery's wife), Cyberspace, Ltd. and
Development Investments and Associates, Inc. (entities through
which Harden managed the RLLPs) and Princeton Holdings, LLC and
Palancar, LLC (entities through which Lowery managed the online
casinos). The suit is entitled, SEC v. Gary L. Harden, Sr. et
al., Civil Action No. 105CV354 (W.D. Mich.) (LR-19231).


NATIONAL EQUIPMENT: SEC Lodges Fraud Suit in IL V. Former CFO
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed a complaint in the
Northern District of Illinois charging Dennis O'Connor, a
resident of Lake Bluff, Illinois, with fraud and other
violations of the federal securities laws based on his failure
to take appropriate actions to correct significant
unsubstantiated account balances when he was the CFO of National
Equipment Services, Inc. As a result, National Equipment
Services, Inc. overstated its assets and net income in its
periodic filings with the Commission for 1999, 2000 and the
first three quarters of 2001.

According to the Commission's complaint, Mr. O'Connor learned
that significant balances for accounts receivable, rental
equipment and inventory at two subsidiaries could not be
substantiated at the end of 2000. O'Connor also learned that
those two subsidiaries carried old and uncollectible accounts
receivable. Although local financial employees recommended
writing-off the unsubstantiated and uncollectible account
balances at the end of 2000, O'Connor did not authorize the
proposed write-offs until the fourth quarter of 2001. Mr.
O'Connor also failed to fully disclose the amount of the
proposed write-offs to National Equipment Services, Inc.'s
independent auditors. National Equipment Services, Inc.
subsequently determined that the unsubstantiated and
uncollectible balances should have been written off earlier and
restated its previously reported results for 1999, 2000 and the
first three quarters of 2001. The restatement materially reduced
National Equipment Services, Inc.'s net income for 2000 from
$11.009 million to $6.053 million. The complaint alleges that,
as a result of the foregoing, Mr. O'Connor violated the
antifraud provisions and aided and abetted the reporting, record
keeping and internal controls provisions of the federal
securities laws.

Mr. O'Connor agreed to a resolution of this matter, subject to
the Court's approval. Without admitting or denying the
allegations of the complaint, Mr. O'Connor consented to a
permanent injunction from future violations of Sections 10(b)
and 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rules 10b-
5, 13b2-1 and 13b2-2 thereunder and from aiding and abetting
future violations of Sections 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A) and
13(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act and Rules 12b-20, 13a-1 and 13a-
13 thereunder. Mr. O'Connor also agreed to pay a civil penalty
of $25,000. The suit is entitled, SEC v. Dennis O'Connor, Civil
Action No. 05 2980, N.D. Ill. (LR-19230).


PARAGON FINANCIAL: 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 Paragon
Financial Corporation, certain of its former officers and
directors and the underwriters of its initial public offering.

Several suits were initially filed, alleging violations of the
federal securities laws.  In mid-2002, the complaints against
the Company were consolidated into a single action.  The essence
of the complaint is that in connection with the Company's
initial public offering in October 1999 (IPO), the defendants
issued and sold the Company's common stock pursuant to a
registration statement which did not disclose to investors that
certain underwriters in the offering had solicited and received
excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain investors
acquiring the Company's common stock in connection with the IPO.

The complaint also alleges that the registration statement
failed to disclose that the underwriters allocated Company
shares in the IPO to customers of the underwriters in exchange
for the customers' promises to purchase additional shares in the
aftermarket at pre-determined prices above the IPO price. The
action seeks damages in an unspecified amount.  The action is
being coordinated with approximately 300 other nearly identical
actions filed against other companies that had initial public
offerings of securities between 1997 and 2000 same time period.

The Company has approved a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and
related agreements which set forth the terms of a settlement
between the Company, the plaintiff class and the vast majority
of the other approximately 300 issuer defendants. Among other
provisions, the settlement contemplated by the MOU provides for
a release of the Company and the individual defendants for the
conduct alleged in the action to be wrongful. The Company would
agree to undertake certain responsibilities, including agreeing
to assign away, not assert, or release certain potential claims
the Company may have against its underwriters.  It is
anticipated that any potential financial obligation of the
Company to plaintiffs pursuant to the terms of the MOU and
related agreements will be covered by existing insurance.
Therefore, the Company does not expect that the settlement will
involve any payment by the Company.  The MOU and related
agreements are subject to a number of contingencies, including
the negotiation of a settlement agreement and its approval by
the Court.


REMEC INC.: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Securities Suit in CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a consolidated securities class action against
Remec, Inc. and its current and former officers in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of California.

On September 29, 2004, three class action lawsuits were filed
against the Company and current and former officers in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
California alleging violations of federal securities laws
between September 8, 2003 and September 8, 2004.

On January 18, 2005, the law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad &
Schulman LLP was appointed Lead Counsel and its client was
appointed Lead Plaintiff.  On March 10, 2005, Milberg Weiss
filed a Consolidated and Amended Complaint naming the Company, a
former officer and a current officer as defendants.  The
Consolidated and Amended Complaint asserts, among other things,
that during the Class Period, the Defendants made false and
misleading statements and failed to disclose material
information regarding the Company's operations and future
prospects.  The Complaint seeks unspecified damages and legal
expenses.


UNITED STATES: Attorneys Launch Web Site to Track Click Fraud
-------------------------------------------------------------
The attorneys behind the click fraud suit launched a new online
clearinghouse, http://www.lostclicks.com/,a site where
advertisers who are concerned about this new kind of fraud can
learn more about a pending class action lawsuit against the
major search engines and Internet corporations, and about recent
developments in what is now being recognized as a major problem
for advertisers.

"What we'd like is for http://www.lostclicks.com/to become an
electronic meeting place for advertisers and individuals who are
concerned about pay-per-click (PPC) fraud," says attorney Joel
Fineberg of Dallas, who represents online advertisers in the
class action lawsuit. "It's very important that all of us share
information because we're dealing with a new technology and a
new challenge. The more people who visit the site, the more
knowledge we can all gain."

Mr. Fineberg, along with associate Dean Gresham and Dallas
attorney Stephen Malouf, have filed a class action lawsuit
against the following defendants: Google (NASDAQ:GOOG), Yahoo!
(NASDAQ:YHOO), Lycos, AskJeeves (NASDAQ:ASKJ), Findwhat.com
(NASDAQ:FWHT), GO.com, LookSmart (NASDAQ:LOOK), AOL, Netscape
and Time Warner (NYSE:TWX).

The defendant companies are accused of overcharging for PPC
advertising, in which advertisers pay a fee every time an
Internet user clicks on their ads. The lawsuit alleges many of
those clicks are fraudulent, caused by competitor businesses
attempting to increase an advertiser's bill, or some other
misuse. The suit also says the Internet companies selling the
ads do a poor job of policing the fraud.

"We're hoping that http://www.lostclicks.com/can serve as
something of an educational tool," Mr. Fineberg says, "one that
can help online advertisers better understand what's happening.
And ultimately, we think it can play a role in resolving the
problem."

Currently, http://www.lostclicks.com/includes a growing click
fraud library, linking Web surfers to articles written on the
subject, as well as information on Mr. Fineberg and other
lawyers involved in the class action lawsuit. In the future, the
site will include an online forum where PPC advertisers can
share information about their experiences with click fraud.


UNITED STATES: FTC Bares Testimony On Financial Data Security
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Federal Trade Commission testified before the House
Financial Services Committee Subcommittee on Financial
Institutions and Consumer Credit on Wednesday, May 18,2005,
saying that while data brokers may provide a valuable service
both to business and government entities, "There are concerns
about the aggregation of sensitive consumer information and
whether this information is protected adequately from misuse and
unauthorized disclosure."

The FTC further asserted that in particular, recent security
breaches have raised questions about whether sensitive consumer
information collected by data brokers may be falling into the
wrong hands, leading to increased identity theft and other
frauds.

Lydia Parnes, Director of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer
Protection said the FTC enforces three laws that restrict the
disclosure of consumer information and require companies to
ensure the security and integrity of the data in certain
contexts: the Fair Credit Reporting Act restricts disclosure of
consumer reports except for specified `permissible purposes';
the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act imposes privacy and security
obligations on financial institutions; and the FTC Act prohibits
unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce.
"Prohibited practices include deceptive claims that companies
make about privacy, including claims about the security they
provide for consumer information," the testimony says.

Ms. Parnes said that the FTC has implemented a program to help
combat identity theft. The agency collects complaints from
consumers and provides victim assistance through a telephone
hotline and a dedicated Web site; maintains a centralized
database of victim complaints that acts as an tool for more than
1,100 law enforcement agencies; and provides education tools for
consumers, law enforcers, and industry.

According to the testimony, the Commission receives between
15,000 and 20,000 contacts a week from victims of identity theft
and consumers who want to learn how to avoid becoming a victim.
"Victims are advised to:

     (1) obtain copies of their credit reports and have a fraud
         alert placed on them;

     (2) contact each of the creditors or service providers
         where the identity thief has established or accessed an
         account, to request that the account be closed and to
         dispute any associated charges; and

     (3) report the identity theft to the police, and if
         possible, obtain a police report."

"A police report is helpful both in demonstrating to would-be
creditors and debt collectors that the consumers are victims of
identity theft, and also serves as an `identity theft report'
that can be used for exercising various rights under the newly
enacted Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act. The FTC's
identity theft Web site, www.consumer.gov/idtheft, has an online
complaint form in which victims can enter their complaint into
the clearinghouse," Parnes said in the testimony.

The testimony states that the FTC has taken the lead in
producing and promoting educational materials to increase
consumer awareness and to provide tips for minimizing identity
theft. The agency has developed two publications, "ID Theft:
What's It All About," and "Take Charge: Fighting Back Against
Identity Theft," that consumers can access at
http://www.consumer.gov/idtheft/. The FTC has distributed more
than 1.4 million copies of the Take Charge booklet and has
recorded more than 1.8 million visits to the Web version.

The FTC, in cooperation with the Department of Justice, the U.S.
Postal Inspection Service, and the U.S. Secret Service, has
instituted identity theft training seminars for state and local
law enforcement officers. "More than 2,200 officers have
attended these seminars, representing over 800 different
agencies," the testimony notes.

"The Commission is committed to ensuring the continued safety of
consumers' personal information," Ms. Parnes said.

Copies of the testimony are available from the FTC's Web site at
http://www.ftc.govand also from the FTC's Consumer Response
Center, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington,
D.C. 20580. The FTC works for the consumer to prevent
fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices in the
marketplace and to provide information to help consumers spot,
stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish
(bilingual counselors are available to take complaints), or to
get free information on any of 150 consumer topics, call toll-
free, 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357), or use the complaint form
at http://www.ftc.gov.The FTC enters Internet, telemarketing,
identity theft, and other fraud-related complaints into Consumer
Sentinel, a secure, online database available to hundreds of
civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and
abroad.  For more details, contact Claudia Bourne Farrell,
Office of Public Affairs by Phone: 202-326-2181, or visit the
Website: http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2005/05/databrokertest.htm.


UNITED STATES: Lawsuit Settlement Hearing Set September 26, 2005
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida will hold a fairness hearing for the proposed settlement
in the matter: Rosner V. United States of America on behalf of
all Jewish Hungarian Victims of Nazi Persecution and their
heirs.

The hearing will be held on September 26, 2005, at 10:00 a.m.

For more details, contact Class Counsel by Mail: P.O. Box 1570,
New York, NY 10159 by Phone: 1-800-562-0831 by E-mail:
HGT@Claimscon.org or visit their Web site:
http://www.HungarianGoldTrain.org.


UTI WORLDWIDE: Continues To Face Gulf War Personal Injury Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
UTi Worldwide, Inc. continues to face a consolidated class
action filed in the District Court of Brazaria County, Texas
(23rd Judicial District), where it is alleged that various
defendants sold chemicals that were utilized in the 1991 Gulf
War by the Iraqi army which caused personal injuries to U.S.
armed services personnel and their families, including birth
defects.  The suit names 82 other defendant companies.

Two class action lawsuits which were originally filed on
September 19, 1995 and subsequently consolidated.  The lawsuits
were brought on behalf of the military personnel who served in
the 1991 Gulf War and their families and the plaintiffs are
seeking in excess of $1 billion in damages.

To date, the plaintiffs have not obtained class certification.
The company believes it is a defendant in the suit because an
entity that sold the company assets in 1993 is a defendant. The
Company believes it will prevail in this matter because the
alleged actions giving rise to the claims occurred prior to the
Company's purchase of the assets, the Company said in a
regulatory filing.  The company further believes that it will
ultimately prevail in this matter since it never manufactured
chemicals and the plaintiffs have been unable to thus far
produce evidence that the company acted as a freight forwarder
for cargo that included chemicals used by the Iraqi army.


VISTEON CORPORATION: Keller Rohrback Commences ERISA Inquiry
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Keller Rohrback LLP initiated an investigation
against Visteon Corporation ("Visteon" or the "Company")
(NYSE:VC) for violations of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). The investigation is regarding
the investments in Company stock by the Visteon Investment Plan
and the Visteon Investment Savings Plan for Hourly Employees
(the "Plans") from September 18, 2001 through the present (the
"Class Period").

Keller Rohrback's investigation focuses on concerns that Visteon
and other administrators of the Plans may have breached their
ERISA-mandated fiduciary duties of loyalty and prudence to
participants and beneficiaries of the Plans. A breach may have
occurred if the fiduciaries failed to manage the assets of the
Plans prudently and loyally by investing a significant amount of
the assets in Company stock when it was no longer a prudent
investment for participants' retirement savings. A breach also
may have occurred if the fiduciaries withheld or concealed
material information from participants and beneficiaries of the
Plans with respect to the Company's business, financial results,
and operations, thereby encouraging participants and
beneficiaries to continue to make and maintain substantial
investments of Company stock in the Plans.

For more details, contact Jennifer Tuato'o, Paralegal of Keller
Rohrback LLP by Phone: (800) 776-6044 by E-mail:
investor@kellerrohrback.com or visit their Web sites:
http://www.erisafraud.comor http://www.seattleclassaction.com.



                 New Securities Fraud Cases


AVAYA INC.: Lasky & Rifkind Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NJ
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd., initiated a lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey,
on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
publicly traded securities of Avaya Inc. ("Avaya" or the
"Company") (NYSE: AV) between October 5, 2004 and April 19,
2005, inclusive, (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit was filed
against Avaya and Donald K. Peterson and Garry K. McGuire
("Defendants").

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, the complaint alleges that
Defendants misrepresented or failed to disclose that the costs
associated with the Tenovis merger were greater than
represented, and that Avaya was experiencing disruptions in
sales due to changes in its delivery methods.

On April 19, 2005, Avaya released its financial and operational
results for the fiscal second quarter of 2005. Reported revenues
and earnings fell dramatically short of previous guidance and
consensus analyst expectations. The share price of Avaya reacted
dramatically to the news, shedding more than 25% in heavy
trading.

For more details, contact Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd. by Phone:
(800) 495-1868 or by E-mail: investorrelations@laskyrifkind.com.


BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Stock Suit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
LLP ("Lerach Coughlin") initiated a class action in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California on
behalf of purchasers of Brocade Communication Systems, Inc.
("Brocade") (NASDAQ:BRCD) publicly traded securities during the
period between February 21, 2001 and May 15, 2005 (the "Class
Period").

The complaint charges Brocade and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Brocade designs, develops, markets, sells and supports
data storage networking products and services.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period,
defendants issued materially false and misleading financial
statements to the investing public. On May 16, 2005, the Company
issued a press release announcing the restatement of its fiscal
2001 to fiscal 2004 earnings. The release stated that "the
Company will restate its financial statements for the fiscal
years ending 2002 through 2004 to record additional charges for
stock-based compensation expense." The release noted that the
Company estimated the impact of the restatement would be to
reduce fiscal 2001 and fiscal 2002 earnings per share by up to
$0.11 and $0.19, respectively. The Company also estimated that
fiscal 2003 and fiscal 2004 earnings per share would be reduced
as well. As a result of this announcement, Brocade's stock
dropped to $4.13 per share, compared to the $40+ per share
prices it traded at during the Class Period.

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


FINDWHAT.COM INC.: Peter A. Lagorio Lodges Securities Suit in FL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Office of Peter A. Lagorio initiated a class action
lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of
FindWhat.com, Inc. (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 "Exchange Act").

The action is pending in the United States District Court for
the Middle District of Florida against defendants FindWhat.com,
Craig Pisaris-Henderson, Brenda Aguis, Frederick E. Guest, and
Phillip R. Thune.

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 FindWhat.com stock.
Beginning on January 5, 2004, with the completion of the first
in a series of mergers and acquisitions by the Company in 2004,
the Company begin to accrue intangible assets in excess of their
actual value. In violation of Generally Accepted Accounting
Principals ("GAAP"), the Company disagreed with its outside
auditor, Ernst & Young LLP, with respect to the need to
recognize an impairment of its goodwill in connection with the
Company's 2004 consolidated financial statements. As a result of
the dispute, on May 2, 2005, Ernst & Young LLP resigned. Ernst &
Young LLP also informed the Company of six material weaknesses
in the Company's system of internal control over financial
reporting, and these matters relate to

     (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, the Company
         surprised the market with the announcement of the
         resignation of its CFO, Defendant Brenda Aguis.

During the class period, Defendants and other Company insiders
knew, or recklessly disregarded the Company's inadequate
internal control problems to facilitate the false impression of
financial success to investors. While Defendants had misled the
investing public and inflated the value of FindWhat.com's stock
during the class period, insiders sold 680,959 shares for
personal proceeds of $11,320.179. Immediately following both of
these disclosures, the Company's stock plummeted, losing $2.04
per share, or 26% of its value on May 3 and an additional $2.33
per share, or an astonishing 38% on May 5, 2005.

For more details, contact Peter A. Lagorio, Esq. or Lynda M.
Carey, Esq. of the Law Office of Peter Lagorio by Mail: 63
Atlantic Ave., Boston, MA 02110 by Phone: (617) 367-4200 or by
E-mail: plagorio@lagoriolaw.com.


FRIEDMAN BILLINGS: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a class action suit
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of purchasers of Friedman, Billings, Ramsey
Group, Inc. (NYSE: FBR) common stock during the period between
January 29, 2003 and April 25, 2005 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges FBR and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. 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, defendants
made false and misleading statements regarding FBR's business
and prospects. On November 9, 2004, FBR filed its third quarter
2004 Form 10-Q in which it disclosed an SEC and NASD
investigation concerning its role in 2001 as a placement agent
for an issuer in a PIPE (private investment in public equity)
transaction. On this news, FBR's stock dropped to $16.93 per
share, some 40% lower than the Class Period high of $28.70 per
share. However, according to the complaint, the market was not
apprised as to the seriousness of the investigation, nor that
FBR's earnings were not sustainable. On April 4, 2005, Emanuel
J. Friedman, the CEO, resigned. Then, on April 25, 2005, after
the market closed, FBR announced disappointing preliminary
results for the first quarter 2005, including a charge for its
liability in the PIPE transaction. On this news, FBR's stock
dropped to $12.52 on volume of 7.5 million shares.

The complaint alleges that the true facts, which were known to
each of the defendants during the Class Period but were
concealed from FBR's shareholders, include:

     (1) the 2001 PIPE transaction manipulation was extremely
         serious and reached the highest level of the Company;

     (2) FBR's earnings would be adversely affected by charges
         related to the investigation into the PIPE transaction
         and due to the problems the bad publicity would cause
         FBR; and

     (3) FBR's 2005 EPS would be much worse than market
         expectations due to the PIPE transaction as well as due
         to interest rate increases which would have a much more
         severe impact on FBR's business than defendants had
         represented to the market.

For more details, contact the Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel by
Mail: 273 Montgomery Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by
Phone: 610-660-8000 by Phone: 888-643-6735 by Fax: 610-660-8080
or by E-Mail: mhenzel182@aol.com.


GRAVITY CO.: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of purchasers of the American Depository
Shares ("ADSs") of Gravity Co., Ltd. (NASDAQ: GRVY) pursuant
and/or traceable to the Company's 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 on the open
market between February 7, 2005 and May 12, 2005, inclusive (the
"Class Period").

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against defendant Gravity Co.,
Ltd. and one or more of its officers and/or directors. The
action charges that defendants violated federal securities laws
by issuing a series of materially false and misleading
statements to the market throughout the Class Period, which
statements had the effect of artificially inflating the market
price of the Company's securities. No class has yet been
certified in the above action.

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


GRAVITY CO.: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a class action suit
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 the Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel by
Mail: 273 Montgomery Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by
Phone: 610-660-8000 by Phone: 888-643-6735 by Fax: 610-660-8080
or by E-Mail: mhenzel182@aol.com.


GRAVITY CO.: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C. initiated a lawsuit seeking
class action status has been filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of the
purchasers of the American Depository Shares ("ADSs") of Gravity
Co., Ltd. (Nasdaq: GRVY) ("Gravity") pursuant and/or traceable
to Gravity's Registration Statement/Prospectus issued in
connection with its February 7, 2005 initial public offering of
ADSs (the "IPO"), together with those who purchased shares in
the open market between February 7, 2005 and May 12, 2005 (the
"Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that Gravity violated federal securities
laws by issuing false or misleading public statements.
Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Registration
Statement/Prospectus included positive statements concerning
Gravity's growth prospects and demand for its products when, in
fact, there was declining demand for its main product, Ragnarok
-- Online; its mobile animation business was in decline; and its
China operations were in peril. On May 12, 2005, Gravity
announced that its financial results for the first quarter of
2005 were lower than expected. On this news, Gravity's ADSs fell
from a close of $9.24 per share on May 12, 2005, to close at
$5.60 per share on May 13, 2005.

For more details, contact Wayne T. Boulton or Nancy Kulesa of
Schatz & Nobel by Phone: +1- 800-797-5499 by E-mail:
sn06106@aol.com or visit their Web site: http://www.snlaw.net.


GRAVITY CO.: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Stull, Stull & Brody 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") (NYSE:GRVY) pursuant to 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") against Gravity and certain of its officers and/or
directors.

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. Through 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 Tzivia Brody, Esq. of Stull, Stull &
Brody by Mail: 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY 10017 by Phone:
1-800-337-4983 by Fax: 212/490-2022 by E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com or
visit their Web site: http://www.ssbny.com.


MARTEK BIOSCIENCES: Finkelstein Thompson Lodges Stock Suit in MD
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Finkelstein, Thompson & Loughran initiated a
lawsuit seeking class action status in the United States
District Court for the District of Maryland on behalf of all
persons who purchased the securities of Martek Biosciences Corp.
(Nasdaq: MATK) ("Martek") between December 9, 2004 and April 27,
2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Finkelstein, Thompson &
Loughran is investigating similar claims at this time and
welcomes inquiries from potential class members concerning their
rights and interests in this matter.

The lawsuit alleges that Martek violated federal securities laws
by issuing false or misleading public statements. Specifically,
Martek indicated in its public filings that various
organizations had compiled data indicating that average dietary
intakes of two fatty acids sold by Martek, DHA, (docosahexaenoic
acid) and ARA (arachidonic acid), were less than half the level
recommended by the World Health Organization, and that this
common deficiency would result in demand for Martek's products.
Martek further indicated that it was increasing manufacturing
capacity to keep up with growing demand and that this growing
demand would drive Martek's 2005 revenue to $290 million to $310
million.

The lawsuit further alleges these statements were fraudulent
because

     (1) Martek flooded its licensees with their DHA and ARA
         products above and beyond appropriate inventories to
         create the illusion of high customer demand for these
         products, as the company was aware that the company's
         ability to grow was wholly dependent on their ability
         to increase sales of these products,

     (2) the company's sales were declining and not showing the
         robust growth projected, and

     (3) because the company's internal sales projections were
         significantly different than those discussed publicly.

On April 27, 2005, Martek announced that full-year 2005 sales
would be only $220 to $240 million -- well below the amount
predicted. In reaction to this news, Martek's stock price
plummeted, falling from a close of $60.08 on April 27th to a
close of $32.49 on April 28th -- a dramatic single-day decline
of $27.49, or 45.9%.

For more details, contact Finkelstein, Thompson & Loughran by
Phone: +1-866-592-1960 or by E-mail: contact@ftllaw.com.


MOLSON COORS: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in DE
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a class action suit
in the United States District Court for the District Court of
Delaware on behalf of former shareholders of Molson Inc.
("Molson") who received shares of Molson Coors Brewing Company
(NYSE: TAP) as a result of the February 9, 2005 merger of Molson
by and into the Adolph Coors Company ("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 action is pending in the United States District Court for
the District of Delaware against the Company, Peter H. Coors, W.
Leo Kiely III, Charles M. Herington, Franklin W. Hobbs, Randall
Oliphant, Pamela Patsley, Wayne Sanders, Albert C. Yates,
Timothy V. Wolf, Peter Swinburn, David G. Barnes and Peter M.R.
Kendall.

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 foreseeably 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 the Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel by
Mail: 273 Montgomery Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by
Phone: 610-660-8000 by Phone: 888-643-6735 by Fax: 610-660-8080
or by E-Mail: mhenzel182@aol.com.


WILLBROS GROUP: Brian M. Felgoise Lodges Securities Suit in TX
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C. filed a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who acquired Willbros
Group, Inc. (NYSE: WG) securities between May 6, 2002 and May
16, 2005, inclusive (the Class Period).

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, 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, Pennsylvania, 19046 by
Phone: (215) 886-1900 or by E-mail: FelgoiseLaw@aol.com.


WILLBROS GROUP: Lasky & Rifkind Lodges Securities Lawsuit in TX
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd., initiated a lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Texas, on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
publicly traded securities of Willbros Group, Inc. ("Willbros"
or the "Company") (NYSE:WG) between May 6, 2002 and May 16,
2005, inclusive, (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit was filed
against Willbros and Michael F. Curran, Warren L. Williams,
Larry J. Bump and James K. Tillery ("Defendants").

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, the complaint alleges that
Defendants issued false and misleading statements during the
Class Period to artificially inflate the value of Willbros
stock. More specifically, the complaint alleges that Willbros
failed to disclose that under the direction of its former CEO
Mr. Tillery, Willbros was doing business with companies that
were owned by Mr. Tillery and certain employees of the Company,
that Mr. Tillery engaged in numerous violations of the Foreign
Corrupt Practices Act, including bribing government officials,
that the Company, under Mr. Tillery's direction, filed false tax
returns, and that Mr. Tillery and certain Company employees
engaged in potential bid rigging activities for projects outside
of the United States.

On May 16, 2005, after the market closed, the Company disclosed
the findings of an internal audit investigation confirming the
aforementioned activities by Mr. Tillery, who left the Company
in January. In addition, the Company announced that it would be
restating its prior results for 2002, 2003 and the first nine
months of 2004, reducing reported net income by a range of 50%
to 80%. Shares of Willbros reacted negatively to the news,
falling $5.77 per share, or 31%, to trade at $15.92 per share.

For more details, contact Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd. by Phone:
(800) 495-1868 or by E-mail: investorrelations@laskyrifkind.com.


WILLBROS GROUP: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Fraud Suit in TX
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C. initiated a lawsuit seeking
class action status has been filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Texas on behalf of all
purchasers of publicly traded securities of Willbros Group, Inc.
(NYSE: WG) ("Willbros") between May 6, 2002 and May 16, 2005
(the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that Willbros violated federal securities
laws by issuing false or misleading public statements.
Specifically, the Complaint alleges that James K. Tillery, the
former President of Willbros International, Inc., and certain
other Willbros employees had engaged in multiple illegal
activities, including bribery of government officials in order
to obtain lucrative foreign construction contracts. Willbros is
currently under investigation by the United States Department of
Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission for
violations of American law, including the Foreign Corrupt
Practices Act. When this information was disclosed on May 16,
2005, Willbros stock fell from a close of $15.92 per share on
May 16, 2005, to close at $11.00 per share on May 17, 2005.

Fro more details, contact Wayne T. Boulton or Nancy Kulesa of
Schatz & Nobel by Phone: +1- 800-797-5499 by E-mail:
sn06106@aol.com or visit their Web site: http://www.snlaw.net.


                            *********


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 2004.  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  * * *