CAR_Public/050524.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

               Tuesday, May 24, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 101

                            Headlines

AFC ENTERPRISES: Reaches Settlement For GA Investor Fraud Suits
AMEDISYS INC.: Appeals Court Vacates LA Stock Suit Certification
ANTHROPOLOGIE INC.: Overtime Wage Lawsuit Still Pending in CA
ARKANSAS: Gift Shop Wants "Click Fraud" Suit Back in State Court
CKE RESTAURANTS: CA Court Approves Overtime Lawsuits Settlement

CLAYTON HOMES: CO Judge Approves $5 Mil Shareholders Settlement
EMBARCADERO TECHNOLOGIES: Plaintiffs Drop CA Securities Lawsuits
EXEGENICS INC.: DE Court Dismisses Shareholder Fraud Litigation
GLOBAL CROSSING: Ex-Workers Receive Money From $84M Settlement
GOLD BANC: OK Court Grants Motion to Dismiss H.D. Young's Suit

GYMBOREE OPERATIONS: CA Employees Launch Overtime Wage Lawsuit
HAYES LEMMERZ: Former Execs Continue To Face MI Securities Suit
HAYES LEMMERZ: MI Court Preliminarily Approves Suit Settlement
INTRAWARE INC.: NY Court Preliminarily Approves Suit Settlement
KENTUCKY: Suit Lodged V. Insurance Firm, Funeral Home Over Scam

MUELLER INDUSTRIES: Faces Antitrust Suits in TN, CA, MA Courts
PENNSYLVANIA: Plaintiff's Attorneys Seek $2.1 Mil in Legal Fees
PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Continues to Face TX Chicken Growers' Lawsuit
PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Faces Several Suits Over PA Deli Product Recall
PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Plaintiff Voluntarily Dismissed From Bias Suit

PIZZA HUT: CA Court Grants State Certification in Employee Suit
PORTAL SOFTWARE: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Lawsuit Settlement
PORTAL SOFTWARE: Asks CA Court To Dismiss CA Securities Lawsuit
SAN JUAN: Reaches Settlement For FTC Antitrust Violations Suit
SBARRO INC.: CA Court Mulls Appeal in Employee Overtime Lawsuit

SBARRO INC.: Working To Settle CA Employees' Overtime Wage Suit
SHOPKO STORES: WI Judge Signs Order Consolidating Six Lawsuits
SILICON LABORATORIES: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Suit Settlement
VEGAS GRAND: Condominium Tenants Launch Suit Over Price Increase

                  New Securities Fraud Cases

BEARINGPOINT INC.: Spector Roseman Lodges Securities Suit in VA
BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS: Brian M. Felgoise Files Stock Suit in CA
BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Stock Suit in CA
BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS: Schatz & Nobel Files Stock Lawsuit in CA
CORN PRODUCTS: Brodsky & Smith Files Securities Fraud Suit in IL

CORN PRODUCTS: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Fraud Suit in IL
FRIEDMAN BILLINGS: Pomerantz Haudek Lodges Securities Suit in NY
FRIEDMAN BILLINGS: Seeger Weiss Lodges Securities Lawsuit in NY
GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: Scott + Scott Lodges Securities Suit in PA
HARLEY DAVIDSON: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Securities Lawsuit in WI

HARLEY DAVIDOSN: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Lawsuit in WI
MBNA CORPORATION: Seeger Weiss Files Securities Fraud Suit in DE
MOLSON COORS: Seeger Weiss Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in DE
WILLBROS GROUP: Brodsky & Smith Files Securities Suit in S.D. TX
XYBERNAUT CORPORATION: Spector Roseman Files Stock Lawsuit in VA

                            *********


AFC ENTERPRISES: Reaches Settlement For GA Investor Fraud Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
AFC Enterprises, Inc. reached a settlement for the shareholder
fraud litigation filed against it and certain of its current and
former officers and directors in Georgia federal and state
courts.

On March 25, 2003, plaintiffs filed the first of eight
securities class action lawsuits in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia against the Company
and several of its current and former directors and officers.  
By order dated May 21, 2003, the district court consolidated the
eight lawsuits into one consolidated action.

On January 26, 2004, the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended
Class Action Complaint on behalf of a putative class of persons
who purchased or otherwise acquired AFC stock between March 2,
2001 and March 24, 2003.  In the Consolidated Complaint,
plaintiffs allege that the registration statement filed in
connection with AFC's March 2001 initial public offering
(IPO) contained false and misleading statements in violation of
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.  The
defendants to the 1933 Act claims include the Company, certain
of its current and former directors and officers, an
institutional shareholder of AFC, and the underwriters of its
IPO.

Plaintiffs also allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. The plaintiffs' 1934 Act allegations are pled
against AFC, certain current and former directors and officers
of AFC, and two institutional shareholders. The plaintiffs also
allege violations of Section 20A of the 1934 Act against certain
current and former directors and officers and two institutional
shareholders based upon alleged stock sales. The Consolidated
Complaint seeks certification as a class action, compensatory
damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, attorney's
fees and costs, an accounting of the proceeds of certain
defendants' alleged stock sales, disgorgement of bonuses and
trading profits by AFC's CEO and former CFO, injunctive relief,
including the imposition of a constructive trust on certain
defendants' alleged insider trading proceeds, and other relief.

On December 29, 2004, the Court entered an Order granting in
part and denying in part the Defendants' Motions to Dismiss the
Complaint. The Court dismissed all insider trading claims;
dismissed Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claims against certain
current and former officers and directors. Because Plaintiffs
declined to re-plead their allegations, the foregoing claims
have been dismissed with prejudice. Subsequent to the Court's
December 29, 2004 Order, Defendants AFC and the former CFO filed
a Motion to Dismiss the Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claims of
the named Plaintiffs for lack of standing (jurisdiction), as
both remaining Plaintiffs continue to hold the AFC stock made
the subject of their claims and, therefore, given the recovery
and continuing rise of the AFC stock price, Plaintiffs can prove
no damages under Section 10(b) or Rule 10b-5.  Also, pending are
certain motions filed by the outside directors for
reconsideration of portions of the December 29, 2004 Order.
Discovery commenced on February 23, 2005.

On May 15, 2003, a plaintiff filed a securities class action
lawsuit in Fulton County Superior Court, State of Georgia,
against the Company and certain current and former members of
the Company's board of directors on behalf of a class of
purchasers of the Company's common stock "in or traceable to"
AFC's December 2001 $185.0 million secondary public offering of
common stock.

The lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the 1933
Act. The complaint alleges that the registration statement filed
in connection with the secondary offering was false or
misleading because it included financial statements issued by
the Company that were materially in error. The complaint seeks
certification as a class action, compensatory damages,
attorneys' fees and costs, and other relief. The plaintiff
claims that as a result of AFC's announcement that it was
restating its financial statements for fiscal year 2001 (and at
the time of the complaint, were examining restating its
financial statements for fiscal year 2000), AFC will be
absolutely liable under the 1933 Act for all recoverable damages
sustained by the putative class.  

On July 20, 2003, the defendants removed the action to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia. The plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case to
state court. The defendants opposed the motion to remand.  On
November 25, 2003, the federal district court entered an order
remanding the case to state court but staying the order to allow
the defendants to appeal the decision. On November 5, 2004,
after briefing and argument, the United States Court of Appeals
for the Eleventh Circuit ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to
hear the appeal. Defendants filed a Motion to Reconsider the
Court's ruling on November 24, 2004.  On February 22, 2005, the
Eleventh Circuit panel ruled that the full Court, as opposed to
the panel only, could consider defendants' request to reconsider
the Court's November 5, 2004 Order.

On April 22, 2005, AFC announced that it had reached a joint
settlement agreement with plaintiffs in the Section 10(b)
securities litigation initially filed on March 25, 2003, the
Section 11 securities claim relating to the Company's initial
public offering (IPO) raised on January 26, 2004, and the
Section 11 securities litigation relating to the Company's
secondary public offering (SPO) initially filed on May 15, 2003.
The agreement provides for the general terms of a settlement
under which the Company would pay:

     (1) to the putative plaintiff class in the Section 10(b)
         and Section 11 (relating to the Company's IPO)
         securities litigation $13 million in cash, plus up to
         an additional $3.5 million based on a formula applied
         to any recovery of funds from its former insurers for
         directors' and officers' liability, and up to an
         additional $3.5 million based on a formula applied to
         any recovery of funds from its ongoing lawsuit against
         Arthur Andersen; and

     (2) to the putative plaintiff class in the Section 11
         securities litigation (relating to the Company's SPO)
         $2.0 million in cash, plus up to an additional $2.5
         million based on a formula applied to any recovery of
         funds from its former insurers for directors' and
         officers' liability, and up to an additional $2.0
         million based on a formula applied to any recovery of
         funds from its ongoing lawsuit against Arthur Andersen.

The settlement does not reflect any admission of liability by
the Company, its current or former directors or officers,
underwriters of the Company's public offerings or investor
defendants. The Company will be obligated to make payments in
addition to the $15 million cash payment only to the extent that
it recovers amounts from Arthur Andersen or its former insurers
for directors' and officers' liability. The parties intend to
enter into a further agreement to set forth more specific terms
of the settlement.  Any such agreement is subject to court
approval.


AMEDISYS INC.: Appeals Court Vacates LA Stock Suit Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the
certification of the consolidated securities lawsuit filed
against Amedisys, Inc. and certain of its executive officers.

On August 23 and October 4, 2001, two class action lawsuits were
filed, on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's common stock
between November 15, 2000 and June 13, 2001, in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana.  The
suits were later consolidated.  The suit seeks damages based on
the decline in Company stock price following an announced
restatement of earnings for the fourth quarter of 2000 and first
quarter of 2001. The suits allege that management of the Company
knew or were reckless in not knowing the facts giving rise to
the restatement.

In May 2003, the trial court certified the class, and the
Company appealed that decision. On February 17, 2005, the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit vacated the trial
court's certification order and remanded the case for further
proceedings relative to class certification. The parties have
agreed to a stay of all depositions and other discovery (subject
to certain limited exceptions) pending a ruling on class
certification.

The lead suit is styled "Unger, et al v. Amedisys, Inc., et al.,
case no. 3:01-cv-00703-JJB-SCR," filed in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana under Judge
James J. Brady.  The lead attorney for the plaintiffs is Jody E.
Anderman of LeBlanc & Waddell, LLP, 5141 Bluebonnet Blvd. Baton
Rouge, LA 70809-5000 Phone: 225-768-7222.  Representing the
Company are James R. Swanson and Loretta G. Mince, Correro
Fishman Haygood Phelps Weiss Walmsley & Casteix, 201 St. Charles
Avenue 46th Floor New Orleans, LA 70170-4600 Phone: 504-586-5252
Email: jswanson@cfhlaw.com or lmince@cfhlaw.com.


ANTHROPOLOGIE INC.: Overtime Wage Lawsuit Still Pending in CA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Anthropologie, Inc. faces a class action filed in the Superior
Court of California for Orange County, alleging violations of
the state's labor laws.

An employee filed the employment related suit seeking class
action status, unspecified monetary damages and equitable
relief.  The suit alleges that, under California law, the
plaintiff and certain other employees were misclassified as
employees exempt from overtime and seeks recovery of unpaid
wages, penalties and damages.


ARKANSAS: Gift Shop Wants "Click Fraud" Suit Back in State Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The lawyer for a gift shop at the center of a hoped-for class
action lawsuit argued before a federal judge that the case
should be heard in state court, where proceedings started before
Congress passed a law moving most class action lawsuits to
federal court, The Associated Press reports.

As previously reported in the April 6, 2005 edition of the Class
Action Reporter, the suit is being led by Lane's Gifts &
Collectibles LLC, a Texarkana, Arkansas retailer on behalf of
advertisers and other retailers, it alleges that the Internet
companies knowingly overcharged for advertisements they sold and
conspired with each other to continue doing so. Thus, they are
seeking to have their suit, which hasn't received widespread
attention, certified as a class action.

Specifically, the suit revolves around a growing search-industry
problem of "click fraud," in which someone clicks on online ads
with ill intent. Advertisers generally pay Google, Yahoo and
others based on the number of times people click on their ads
displayed alongside Web-search results, with each click costing
roughly 50 cents on average. The suit points out that by
repeatedly clicking on the ads or using software programs to
automate the clicking, fraudsters can run up ad charges for
rivals.

The suit, which was initially filed in Circuit Court in Miller
County, Arkansas by the Texarkana firm, Keil & Goodson, alleges
that the search companies improperly charged the plaintiffs for
such fraudulent clicks. It is now pending in the United States
District Court in Texarkana, Arkansas before Judge Harry Barnes.  
The suit also names as defendants Time Warner Inc. and its
America Online unit, Ask Jeeves Inc., Walt Disney Co.'s online
unit, Daum Communications Corp. subsidiary Lycos Inc., LookSmart
Ltd. and FindWhat.com Inc. Also named in the lawsuit are Yahoo!
Inc., Overture Services, Netscape Communications Corp., and
Buena Vista Internet Group doing business as Go.Com.

According to the lawsuit, "Defendants engaged in a conspiracy to
bill and/or collect advertising revenue for services which were
not actually and/or legitimately provided to plaintiffs ...
Defendants conspired to conceal the fact that they were
overcharging and/or over-collecting revenue for advertisements
which were not actually provided to the plaintiffs from bonifide
customers."

After last month move to federal court, Lane's asked Judge
Barnes recently to send the case back to Miller County, where
the lawsuit started back in February 4, but two weeks after iot
filing on February 18, President Bush signed a law designating
that federal courts would be the primary location for class
action lawsuits.  Moving the case to federal court, as the
Internet companies requested, was improper, gift shop lawyer
Joel Fineberg argues.

Under the new law, class action suits seeking $5 million or more
would be heard in state court only if the primary defendant and
more than one-third of the plaintiffs are from the same state.
But if less than one-third of the plaintiffs are from the same
state as the primary defendant, and more than $5 million is at
stake, the case would go to federal court.


CKE RESTAURANTS: CA Court Approves Overtime Lawsuits Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of the State of California, Los Angeles
County approved the settlement of the three class actions filed
against CKE Restaurants, Inc., alleging overtime wage law
violations at the Company's Carl's Jr. restaurants.

On October 3, 2001, an action was filed by Adam Huizar and
Michael Bolden, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, in the Superior Court of the State of
California, Los Angeles County, seeking class action status and
alleging violations of California wage and hour laws.  Similar
actions were filed by Mary Jane Amberson and James Bolin,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, in the
Superior Court of the State of California, Los Angeles County,
on April 5, 2002 and November 26, 2002, respectively.

The complaints alleged that salaried restaurant management
personnel at the Company's Carl's Jr. restaurants in California
were improperly classified as exempt from California overtime
laws, thereby depriving them of overtime pay. The complaints
sought damages in an unspecified amount, injunctive relief,
prejudgment interest, costs and attorneys' fees.

During the quarter ended August 9, 2004, the Company announced
that it had reached a preliminary agreement, subject to court
approval, to settle these three lawsuits and fully resolve all
complaints contained therein. The court approved settlement on
December 15, 2004, and the Company paid $7,059 on December 27,
2004, to cover claims by eligible class members, plaintiff
attorneys' fees and costs, payments to the named plaintiffs, and
costs of a third-party administrator.


CLAYTON HOMES: CO Judge Approves $5 Mil Shareholders Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Blount County Circuit Court Judge W. Dale Young approved a
proposed settlement between Clayton Homes and its former
shareholders, The Daily Times reports.  In recently issued memo,
the judge stated, "The court finds said settlement is, in all
respects, fair, reasonable, adequate and is in the best interest
of the plaintiff, the settlement class and each of the
settlement class members."

In a prepared statement Thursday, Clayton Homes President and
CEO Kevin Clayton said, "We are pleased the court agreed that
the settlement is in the best interest of the shareholders and
is fair and reasonable. The ruling was that the objections were
without merit and overruled."

Judge Young had presided over a hearing to determine the
fairness of a proposed $5 million settlement to a class action
lawsuit filed by the Denver Area Meat Cutters and Employees
Pension Plan in 2003.  As previously reported in the August 4,
2003 edition of the Class Action Reporter, Clayton Homes faced a
class action filed in Blount County Circuit Court in Colorado on
behalf of all of its independent shareholders, relating to its
sale to Omaha, Nebraska-based Berkshire Hathaway for $1.7
billion or $12.50 a share.

Lawyers for the Denver Area Meat Cutters and Employers Pension
Plan had also filed an amended suit, seeking class action
status, and asking the court to include all stockholders not
affiliated with the Company as plaintiffs in its suit. The suit
alleges the Company's board was motivated to sell by its
interest in providing a market for stock held by the Company's
chairman, Jim Clayton, who controls 28 percent of the Company's
shares, and continued employment for his son, CEO Kevin Clayton.

That amended suit was filed the day Clayton shareholders
approved the sale. Several shareholders protested the deal,
saying the stock price was too low, but more than 52% of the
Company's stock was cast in favor of the deal.

Before filing a civil suit, the Denver Area Meat Cutters had
tried to block the merger through litigation an ambition that
was eventually struck down by the Tennessee Supreme Court when
it ruled in September 2003 that the merger could go forward.

In reaching his decision on the fairness of the settlement,
Judge Young said he considered the entire court record of the
case, shareholder testimony and written objections from six
shareholders, the Daily Times reports. He wrote in his memo that
all the objections "are without merit and are overruled."

Under the settlement, Clayton Homes will pay $5 million to be
distributed among shareholders who continuously held shares of
its stock from April 1, 2003, to August 7, 2003. After
attorneys' fees, shareholders will receive less than 10 cents
per share. Counsel for the plaintiffs requested, and Judge Young
approved, one third of the settlement, approximately $1.6
million, in attorneys' fees.

Leland Wykoff, a former Clayton Homes shareholder who filed both
a written objection and testified at Monday's hearing told the
Times, "I'm of course disappointed that Judge Young failed to
see the merit in our argument. I feel there is plenty of ground
for appeal. Given that the substantial objections that I raised
weren't incorporated in the ruling, I may very well exit the
class. I just have to give that some thought."

Mr. Wykoff had argued, among numerous objections, that the
settlement did not take into account the true value of the
Company at the time of the merger and did not address actions on
the part of the Company that he alleged were fraudulent.

In Judge Young's memo he said the next step was for David
Duggan, attorney for the plaintiffs at the time the suit was
filed, to prepare an order within 20 days to be submitted to the
other attorneys and filed with the court.


EMBARCADERO TECHNOLOGIES: Plaintiffs Drop CA Securities Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed two securities class actions
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California against Embarcadero Technologies, Inc.
and certain of its officers.

Each lawsuit purports to be filed on behalf of all purchasers of
the Company's securities from April 20, 2004 through October 27,
2004, inclusive (the "class period"), and each lawsuit alleges
various violations of securities laws during the class period.
The lawsuits seek unspecified damages, an earlier Class Action
Reporter story (January 24,2005) states.  

The complaints charge the Company, Stephen Wong, and Raj Sabhlok
with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, an
earlier Class Action Reporter story (November 9,2004) states.  
More specifically, the Complaints allege that the Company failed
to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse
facts which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded
by them:

     (1) that the Company had materially overstated its net
         income and earnings per share;

     (2) that defendants prematurely recognized revenue in its
         UK subsidiary, Embarcadero Europe Ltd.;

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

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

     (5) that as a result, the value of the Company's net income
         and financial results were materially overstated at all
         relevant times.

Each of these lawsuits has been voluntarily dismissed without
prejudice. The dismissal of the first lawsuit was filed and
approved by the court on February 2, 2005, and the dismissal of
the second lawsuit was filed and approved by the court on
February 7, 2005.

The suits are pending in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California, under Judge Martin J.
Jenkins.  The suits are styled:
   
     (1) Sullivan v. Embarcadero Technologies, Inc. et al, case
         no. 3:04-cv-04680-MJJ

     (2) Garcia v. Embarcadero Technologies, Inc. et al, case
         no. 3:04-cv-04729-MJJ

The lawyers for the plaintiffs are:

     (i) Robert S. Green, Green Welling LLP, 235 Pine Street
         15th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94104, Phone: 415/477-
         6700, Fax: 415-477-6710, E-mail:
         CAND.USCOURTS@CLASSCOUNSEL.COM

    (ii) Richard A. Maniskas and Marc A. Topaz, Schiffrin &
         Barroway LLP, Three Bala Plaza East, Suite 400, Bala
         Cynwyd, PA 19004, Phone: 610-667-7706, Fax: 610-667-
         7056

   (iii) Patrick J. Coughlin and William S. Lerach of Lerach
         Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP, 100 Pine
         Street Suite 2600, San Francisco, CA 94111, Phone:
         415/288-4545, Fax: 415-288-4534 or E-mail:
         patc@mwbhl.com or billl@lerachlaw.com


EXEGENICS INC.: DE Court Dismisses Shareholder Fraud Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Delaware Court of Chancery dismissed the class action filed
against eXegenics, Inc. (as a nominal defendant) and certain of
its former directors:

     (1) Joseph M. Davie,

     (2) Robert J. Easton,

     (3) Ronald L. Goode and

     (4) Walter Lovenberg

On May 15, 2003, The M&B Weiss Family Limited Partnership of
1996 filed a class action on behalf of all other similarly
situated stockholders of the Company, and purportedly as a
derivative action on behalf of the Company against the
Individual Defendants.  

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the Individual
Defendants have mismanaged the Company, have made unwarranted
and wasteful loans and payments to certain directors and third
parties, have disseminated a materially false and misleading
proxy statement in connection with the 2003 annual meeting of
the Company's stockholders, and have breached their fiduciary
duties to act in the best interests of its Company and its
stockholders.  The plaintiffs are seeking an award of costs and
attorneys' fees and expenses.

The defendants in the Weiss litigation filed a joint motion with
the Delaware Court of Chancery to dismiss the complaint for
failure to state a claim and for failure to make the statutorily
required demand on the Company to assert the subject claims. On
April 12, 2005 the judge, in a ruling from the bench, dismissed
the matter with prejudice.  The Company is awaiting a formal
written order to that effect to be filed.


GLOBAL CROSSING: Ex-Workers Receive Money From $84M Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------  
Former Global Crossing workers who lost their retirement savings
when the Company went bankrupt received about 25 percent of
their pension funds back last week as part of an $84 million
settlement, The Associated Press reports.

According to Matt Fusco of the law firm Chamberlain D'Amanda,
and attorney for Global Crossing Employees, while it's certainly
unsatisfying to lose 75 percent, the 25 percent payout is one of
the highest he'd ever heard of in a class action suit, that most
such plaintiffs get pennies on the dollar in settlement.  He
told AP that the settlement includes some two thousand people in
the Rochester area and another two thousand across the country.
Mr. Fusco also added that employees who filed severance claims
should be getting paid within the next few weeks, while
shareholders will have to wait a little longer.

GOLD BANC: OK Court Grants Motion to Dismiss H.D. Young's Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------  
The District Court for Washita County, Oklahoma granted bank
holding company Gold Banc Corporation's motion to dismiss a
proposed class action lawsuit filed against it regarding its
Farm Services Agency guaranteed loan program, The Associated
Press reports.

According to the Company, the District Court for Washita County,
Oklahoma granted its request to dismiss with prejudice the
proposed lawsuit filed by H.D. Young against the Company, GBC
Kansas Inc. and Gold Bank. The ruling though is still subject to
confirmation in a written order by the court, which might still
be appealed.

In a press statement, President and Chief Executive Mick Aslin
said, "We're pleased with this confirmation of our earlier
statements that we feel this case was filed without merit. This
justifies our vigorous defense of this matter."

Meanwhile, in a separate case, Wayne K. Janzen, et al. v. Gold
Banc Corporation remains pending against Gold Bank in District
Court of Kingfisher County, Oklahoma. The plaintiffs' motion for
class certification in that case is still pending.


GYMBOREE OPERATIONS: CA Employees Launch Overtime Wage Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gymboree Operations, Inc. faces an employee class action filed
in the Superior Court of Riverside County, California. The
complaint, on behalf of the manager of a Gymboree store in
Temecula, California, alleges that the Company failed to pay
overtime wages and provide meal breaks.

The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages, including interest and
penalties, under the California Labor Code and other statutes.  
The complaint also seeks class action status on behalf of the
plaintiff and other managers of Company stores in California.
The Company has not yet had an opportunity to evaluate the
complaint, the Company said in a disclosure to the Securities
and Exchange Commission.


HAYES LEMMERZ: Former Execs Continue To Face MI Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Thirteen of Hayes Lemmerz International, Inc.'s former officers
and directors continue to face a securities class action filed
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan, on behalf of a group of purported purchasers of the
Company's Old Senior Notes and Old Senior Subordinated Notes.  
The suit also names as defendants KPMG LLP, the Company's
independent registered public accounting firm.

The complaint seeks damages for an alleged class of persons who
purchased the Company's bonds between June 3, 1999 and September
5, 2001 and claim to have been injured because they relied on
the Company's allegedly materially false and misleading
financial statements.  On June 27, 2002, the plaintiffs filed an
amended class action complaint adding CIBC World Markets
Corporation and Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation,
underwriters for certain bonds issued by the Company, as
defendants, but these parties were subsequently dismissed from
the action.

On June 13, 2002, the Company filed an adversary complaint and
motion for a preliminary injunction in the Bankruptcy Court
requesting the Court to stay the class action litigation
commenced by the bond purchasers and equity purchasers.  
Additionally, on July 25, 2002, the Company filed with the
Bankruptcy Court a motion to lift the automatic stay in the
Chapter 11 Filings to allow the insurance Company that provides
officer and director liability insurance to the Company to pay
the defense costs of the Company's present and former officers
and directors in such litigation, an earlier Class Action
Reporter story (September 26,2004) story.  The claims in this
action were not discharged upon the effectiveness of the Plan of
Reorganization because they were not against the Company.


HAYES LEMMERZ: MI Court Preliminarily Approves Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the
consolidated class action filed against certain of Hayes Lemmerz
International, Inc.'s officers and directors.

Four putative class actions were initially filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan against the
Company and certain of its directors and officers on behalf of
an alleged class of purchasers of the Company's common stock
from June 3, 1999 to December 13, 2001, based on similar
allegations of securities fraud.

On May 10, 2002, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated and amended
class action complaint seeking damages against the officers and
directors (but not the Company) and KPMG LLP. Pursuant to the
Company's Plan of Reorganization, the Company purchased
directors' and officers' liability insurance to cover then-
current and former directors and officers and agreed to
indemnify certain of the Company former directors against
certain liabilities, including those matters described above, up
to an aggregate of $10 million in excess of the directors' and
officers' liability insurance coverage to or for the benefit of
these indemnities.

The Company has been informed that the parties to these actions
have agreed to a settlement, which includes payment by certain
defendants, including the former directors, of $7.2 million.  
The Company is currently unable to determine the amount of such
payment, if any, that it may be required to pay to its former
directors pursuant to this indemnification obligation.  On May
10,2005, the court granted preliminary approval to the
settlement.

The suit is styled "Pacholder High Yield, et al v. Cucuz, et al,
case no. 2:02-cv-71778-AJT," filed in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan under Judge Arthur J.
Tarnow.  Representing the defendants are Shapiro, Forman, Mail:
380 Madison Avenue 25th Floor, New York, NY 10017, Phone: 212-
972-4900, Fax: 212-972-4900; and Dean & Fulkerson, 801 W. Big
Beaver Road Fifth Floor Troy, MI 48084-4767 Phone: 248-362-1300.  
Representing the plaintiffs are Jaffe, Raitt, (Southfield),
27777 Franklin Road Suite 2500, Southfield, MI 48034-8214,
Phone: 313-961-8380; and Grant & Eisenhofer, 1201 N. Market
Street Suite 2100, Wilmington, DE 19801-2599 Phone:
302-622-7000.


INTRAWARE INC.: NY Court Preliminarily Approves Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against Intraware,
Inc., styled "In re Intraware, Inc. Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation, Civ. No. 01-9349 (SAS) (S.D.N.Y.),"
related to "In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation,
21 MC 92 (SAS) (S.D.N.Y.)."

The amended complaint is brought purportedly on behalf of all
persons who purchased the Company's common stock from February
25, 1999 (the date of the Company's initial public offering)
through December 6, 2000.  It names as defendants the Company,
three of its present and former officers and directors, and
several investment banking firms that served as underwriters of
its initial public offering.  The complaint alleges liability
under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, on the grounds that the registration statement for the
offerings did not disclose that the underwriters had agreed to
allow certain customers to purchase shares in the offerings in
exchange for excess commissions paid to the underwriters; and
the underwriters had arranged for certain customers to purchase
additional shares in the aftermarket at predetermined prices.
The amended complaint also alleges that the underwriters misused
their securities analysts to manipulate the price of Company
stock.  No specific damages are claimed.

Lawsuits containing similar allegations have been filed in the
Southern District of New York challenging over 300 other initial
public offerings and secondary offerings conducted in 1999 and
2000. All of these lawsuits have been consolidated for pretrial
purposes before United States District Court Judge Shira
Scheindlin of the Southern District of New York.

On July 15, 2002, an omnibus motion to dismiss was filed in the
coordinated litigation on behalf of the issuer defendants, of
which the Company and its three named current and former
officers and directors are a part, on common pleadings issues.
On or about October 9, 2002, the Court entered and ordered a
Stipulation of Dismissal, which dismissed the three named
current and former officers and directors from the litigation
without prejudice. On February 19, 2003, the Court entered an
order denying in part the issuer defendants' omnibus motion to
dismiss, including those portions of the motion to dismiss
relating to Intraware.

In June 2004, a stipulation of settlement for the claims against
the issuer defendants, including the Company, was submitted to
the Court.  The underwriter-defendants in the " In re Initial
Public Offering Securities Litigation," including the
underwriters of our initial public offering, are not parties to
the stipulation of settlement.  The settlement provides that, in
exchange for a release of claims against the settling issuer-
defendants, the insurers of all of the settling issuer-
defendants will provide a surety undertaking to guarantee
plaintiffs a $1 billion recovery from the non-settling
defendants, including the underwriter-defendants.  The amount
the Company's insurers would be required to pay to the
plaintiffs could range from zero to approximately $3.5 million,
depending on plaintiffs' recovery from the underwriter-
defendants and from other non-settling parties. If the
plaintiffs recover at least $1 billion from the underwriter-
defendants, the Company's insurers would have no liability for
settlement payments under the terms of the settlement. If the
plaintiffs recover less than $1 billion, the Company believes
its insurance will likely cover its share of any payments
towards satisfying plaintiffs' $1 billion recovery deficit.  
There is no guarantee the settlement will become final, as it is
subject to a number of conditions, including the final approval
of the Court.

The suit is styled "In re Intraware, Inc. Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, Civ. No. 01-9349 (SAS)," filed
in relation to "IN RE INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERING SECURITIES
LITIGATION, Master File No. 21 MC 92 (SAS)," both pending in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, under Judge Shira N. Scheindlin.  The plaintiff firms in
this litigation are:

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

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

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

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

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

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


KENTUCKY: Suit Lodged V. Insurance Firm, Funeral Home Over Scam
---------------------------------------------------------------
A funeral home corporation and an insurance Company are facing a
lawsuit seeking class action status, which alleges that
thousands of Kentuckians have been scammed into paying more than
they should have for funerals, the Associated Press reports.  
Filed in Jefferson County, the suit accuses American Memorial
Life Insurance Co. and SCI Kentucky Funeral Services of
dishonest business practices.

According to the attorneys who filed the suit, more than 10,000
people could be eligible to join the suit. They add that the
suit was filed on behalf of two Louisville residents, Mary Young
and Sherman Bussell. It claims that employees for the insurance
Company posed as funeral workers and encouraged customers to
spread out funeral payments over an extended time, as much as 10
years, to defray costs. However, the suit alleges that customers
actually were buying life insurance, and the cost of the "pre-
arranged funeral" exceeded the face value of the funeral by more
than 30 percent.  Additionally, the suit alleges that insurance
salesmen working on commission would pose as funeral personnel
inside the funeral homes, designating themselves as "after-care
counselors" or to gain trust and sell customers the insurance.

Nancy Schook, one of the attorneys who filed the suit told AP
that insurance agents would gain access to potential customers
and then go to the person's home and "introduce themselves as
people from the funeral home, when they were actually working
for and paid by the insurance Company."

In Mrs. Young's case, court documents revealed that a person
claiming he was with the Arch L. Heady and Son funeral homes
contacted the 72-year-old. Ms. Schook told AP that her pre-
arranged funeral bill came to about $7,600 after she chose the
casket and made other arrangements, however, after Mrs. Young
agreed to pay the bill over five years, she found the total had
risen to more than $10,000. She adds that Mrs. Young thought she
had been dealing with funeral home employees, but later realized
they worked for American Memorial Life. After realizing whom the
salesman was, Mrs. Young asked for a refund but was denied, Ms.
Schook said.


MUELLER INDUSTRIES: Faces Antitrust Suits in TN, CA, MA Courts
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mueller Industries, Inc. faces several purported class actions
brought by direct and indirect purchasers alleging anti-
competitive activities with respect to the sale of copper
plumbing tubes in the United States.  

Two such purported class actions were filed in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee (the
federal actions), four were filed in the Superior Court of the
State of California, County of San Francisco (the California
actions), one was filed in the Circuit Court for Shelby County,
Tennessee (the Tennessee Action), and one was filed in the
Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, County of
Middlesex (the Massachusetts Action, and with the Federal
Actions, the California Actions and the Tennessee Action, the
Actions).  

Wholly owned Company subsidiaries, WTC Holding Company, Inc.,
Deno Holding Company, Inc., and Mueller Europe Ltd. are named in
all of the Actions, and Deno Acquisition Eurl is named in all
but one of the actions.  All of the actions, which are similar,
seek declaratory (except for the Massachusetts Action) and
monetary relief.  Plaintiffs' motions to consolidate and for
appointment of lead counsel in the Federal Actions and
plaintiffs' motion to consolidate the California Actions have
been granted.


PENNSYLVANIA: Plaintiff's Attorneys Seek $2.1 Mil in Legal Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the settlement of a 1994 housing discrimination suit,
attorneys on both sides are facing off in a battle over legal
fees that taxpayers will pay to the plaintiff's lawyer, The
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports.

According to individuals familiar with the case, if successful,
attorney Donald Driscoll and two other lawyers in the case,
whose presiding judge ended his oversight of the case four
months ago, will end up with more than $2.1 million in legal
fees for their work on the Sanders case in the past 10 years.

Court documents revealed that the attorneys received two
payments totaling $1.4 million between 1998 and 2001 and as
previously reported in the March 21, 2005 edition of the Class
Action Reporter, the attorneys, who had represented Allegheny
County public housing residents in the landmark class action
lawsuit that sought to desegregate public housing are seeking
more than $760,000 in fees for about 4,300 hours of work on the
case.

It's unlikely though that Mr. Driscoll and the other attorneys,
Thomas Henderson and Julie Nepveu, will receive the full amount
they have requested, since, according to some observers, four
years ago, Senior U.S. District Judge Gustave Diamond reduced
the $813,934 that Mr. Driscoll initially requested by 33 percent
to $548,357. In addition, they also pointed out that the
Allegheny County Housing Authority and the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development have objected to the fee request
in court documents.

Despite the outcome of the fee request though, Mr. Driscoll, the
lead attorney for the plaintiffs in Sanders v. U.S. Department
of Housing and Urban Development and who has done the bulk of
the work on the case will receive at least 90 percent of the
payout in legal fees.

The Sanders class action lawsuit takes its name from lead
plaintiff Cheryl Sanders, a former resident of the demolished
Talbot Towers public housing complex in Braddock. Though
originally filed by Mr. Driscoll on behalf of Sanders and five
other women, the plaintiffs were expanded to include all blacks
in public and subsidized housing in Allegheny County.

The plaintiffs contended the county and HUD engaged in decades
of systematic housing discrimination by funneling poor blacks to
public housing in seven communities namely Braddock, Clairton,
Duquesne, Homestead, McKees Rocks, Rankin and Wilkinsburg and
the communities deteriorated as a result.

About $30 million was earmarked in the settlement for
revitalization of those towns from the county's annual share of
federal Community Development Block Grants. In addition, funds
were spent to buy 100 homes throughout the county to partially
replace the units lost when Talbot Towers was demolished.

Mr. Driscoll contends in his court request that he and the other
attorneys are entitled to a higher rate of legal fees than he
previously was paid in part because of their expertise and the
complexity of the case. In 2001, the attorneys were paid fees
that ranged from $120 per hour to $160 per hour, this time
though Mr. Driscoll is asking for fees that range from $162 per
hour to $215 per hour.

However, the housing authority and HUD contended that the hourly
rate is too high and that Mr. Driscoll's calculations are
faulty. Attorneys for HUD even argued in court documents that
Mr. Driscoll is entitled to a much lower hourly rate and number
of hours billed to the government. Under HUD's request, Mr.
Driscoll and the other attorneys would receive only a fraction
of the fees requested $145,982 instead of $697,028.

John C. Hansberry, an attorney for the housing authority told
the Post-Gazette that though the numbers are far apart,
attorneys on both sides are trying to work out a settlement
without having to depend on Judge Diamond to intervene. He also
said that he is optimistic the case will be settled because Mr.
Driscoll already has revised his fee request once in response to
the objections from the housing authority and HUD. "I think both
parties are going to sit down and try to resolve as amicably as
possible," Mr. Hansberry adds.


PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Continues to Face TX Chicken Growers' Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pilgrim's Pride Corporation continues to face a class action
filed by a putative class of chicken growers, in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas,
Texarkana Division, styled "Cody Wheeler, et al. vs. Pilgrim's
Pride Corporation."  The complaint alleges that the Company
violated the Packers and Stockyards Act (7 U.S.C. Section 192)
and breached fiduciary duties allegedly owed to the plaintiff
growers.

The plaintiffs also brought individual actions under the Packers
and Stockyards Act alleging common law fraud, negligence, breach
of fiduciary duties and breach of contract.

On March 14, 2003, the court entered an order dismissing the
plaintiffs' claim of breach of fiduciary duty and negligence.
The plaintiffs also dropped the charges of fraud prior to the
entering of the order by the court.

The Company denies the claims brought by the three individual
growers in this case. If the plaintiffs elect to file a motion
to certify this matter as a class action, the Company intends to
oppose certification of the putative class, the Company said in
a regulatory filing.


PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Faces Several Suits Over PA Deli Product Recall
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pilgrim's Pride Corporation faces several lawsuits filed over
its recall of cooked deli products produced from its Franconia,
Pennsylvani Plant from May 1,2003 through October 11,2002.

In October 2002, a limited number of USDA environmental samples
from our Franconia, Pennsylvania plant tested positive for
Listeria.  As a result, the Company voluntarily recalled all
cooked deli products produced at the plant from May 1, 2002
through October 11, 2002.  No illnesses have been linked to any
of our recalled products, and none of such products have tested
positive for the strain of Listeria associated with an outbreak
in the Northeastern U.S. that occurred during the summer of
2002.

However, following this recall, a number of demands and cases
have been made and filed alleging injuries purportedly arising
from the consumption of products produced at this facility.
These include:

     (1) "Lawese Drayton, Individually and as Personal
         Representative of the Estate of Raymond Drayton,
         deceased, Plaintiff, v. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation,
         Jack Lambersky Poultry Company, Inc. d/b/a JL Foods Co,
         Inc., Defendants," filed in the United States District
         Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on April
         15, 2003;

     (2) "Laron Harvey, by his mother and natural guardian,
         Shakandra Hampton, and Shakandra Hampton in her own
         right v. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation and Jack Lambersky
         Poultry Company, Inc.," which was filed in the
         Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas on May 5, 2003, and
         has since been removed to the U.S. District Court of
         the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia;

     (3) "Ryan and Dana Patterson v. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation
         and Jack Lambersky Poultry Company, et al" which was
         filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
         Division, Passaic County, on August 12, 2003;

     (4) "Jamar Clarke, an infant under the age of fourteen (14)
         years, by his mother and natural guardian, Wanda
         Multrie Clarke, and Wanda Multrie Clarke, individually
         v. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation d/b/a Wampler Foods,
         Inc., H. Schrier and Co., Inc., Board of Education of
         the City of New York and Public School 251" which was
         filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York,
         County of Queens, on August 1, 2003;

     (5) "Peter Roselle, as Administrator and Prosequendum for
         the heirs-at-Law of Louis P. Roselle, deceased; and
         Executor of the Estate of Louis P. Roselle, deceased,
         and individually v. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation,
         Wampler Foods, Inc., Jack Lambersky Poultry Company,
         Inc., d.b.a. J.L. Foods Co. Inc." which was filed in
         the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Union
         County, on June 14, 2004;

     (6) "Jody Levonchuk, administratrix of the Estate of Joseph
         Cusato v. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation and Jack
         Lambersky Poultry Company." which was filed in the U.S.
         District Court for the Eastern District of
         Pennsylvania, on July 28, 2004;

     (7) "Mary Samudovsky v. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation and
         Jack Lambersky Poultry Company, Inc., et al," which was
         filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
         Division: Camden County, and served on October 26,
         2004;

     (8) Nancy Cirigliano and Scott Fischer v. Pilgrim's Pride
         Corporation and Jack Lambersky Poultry Company, et al,"
         which was filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey,
         Union County, on August 10, 2004;

     (9) "Dennis Wysocki, as the Administrator of the Estate of
         Matthew Tyler Wysocki, deceased, and Dennis Wysocki and
         Karen Wysocki, individually v. Pilgrim's Pride
         Corporation and Jack Lambersky Poultry Company, et al,"
         which was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of
         New York, County of New York, on July 30, 2004;

    (10) "Randi Carden v. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation and Jack
         Lambersky Poultry Company, et al," which was filed in
         the Superior Court of New Jersey, Camden County, on
         August 10, 2004; and

    (11) "Catherine Dillon, individually and as guardian ad
         litem for her infant son, Brian Dillon, and Joseph
         Dillon, individually" v. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation
         and Jack Lambersky Poultry Company, et al," which was
         filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Essex
         County, on September 10, 2004

On August 20, 2004, the Estate of Frank Niemtzow refiled his
individual action from the previously filed and voluntarily
dismissed class action suit. Neither the likelihood of an
unfavorable outcome nor the amount of ultimate liability, if
any, with respect to any of these cases can be determined at
this time. These cases are in various stages of litigation, and
the Company believes it has meritorious defenses to each of the
claims, which it intends to vigorously defend.


PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Plaintiff Voluntarily Dismissed From Bias Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
One of the named plaintiffs in the class action filed against
Pilgrim's Pride Incorporated in the United States District Court
for the Western District of Arkansas, El Dorado Division has
been voluntarily dismissed from the suit.

On December 31, 2003, the Company was served with a purported
class action complaint styled "Angela Goodwin, Gloria Willis,
Johnny Gill, Greg Hamilton, Nathan Robinson, Eddie Gusby, Pat
Curry, Persons Similarly Situated v. ConAgra Poultry Company and
Pilgrim's Pride, Incorporated."  The suit alleges racial and age
discrimination at one of the facilities the Company acquired
from ConAgra.  Plaintiff Gloria Willis was voluntarily dismissed
from this action.


PIZZA HUT: CA Court Grants State Certification in Employee Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California granted certified a California state law classin the
lawsuit filed against Pizza Hut, Inc., entitled "Coldiron v.
Pizza Hut, Inc."

Plaintiff alleges that she and other current and former Pizza
Hut Restaurant General Managers (RGMs) were improperly
classified as exempt employees under the U.S. Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA).  There is also a pendent state law claim,
alleging that current and former RGM's in California were
misclassified under that state's law.  Plaintiff seeks unpaid
overtime wages and penalties.  

On May 5, 2004, the Court granted conditional certification of a
nationwide class of RGM's under the FLSA claim, providing notice
to prospective class members and an opportunity to join the
class. Approximately 10 percent of the eligible class members
have joined the litigation.  Once class certification discovery
is completed, the Company intends to challenge the propriety of
conditional class certification.  

On July 20, 2004, the Court granted summary judgment on Ms.
Coldiron's individual FLSA claim.  The Company believes that the
court's summary judgment ruling in favor of Ms. Coldiron is
clearly erroneous under well-established legal precedent.  Ms.
Coldiron also filed a motion to certify an additional class of
current and former California RGMs under California state law, a
motion for summary judgment on her individual state law claims
and a motion requesting that the Court enter summary judgment on
the damages that FLSA class members would be due upon successful
prosecution of the class-wide litigation.  

The Company opposed all three motions.  On April 1, 2005, the
Court granted Ms. Coldiron's motion to certify a California
state law class.  On April 15, 2005, the Company filed a
petition for review of that order by the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  The Ninth Circuit has not yet
ruled on that petition.

The suit is styled "Ann Coldiron v. Pizza Hut Inc., et al., case
no. 2:03-cv-05865-TJH-Mc," filed in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California under Judge Terry
J. Hatter.

Representing the plaintiffs are Bicvan T. Brown, Rex Hwang,
Justian Jusuf, Gregory G. Petersen, and H. Ernie Nishii of
Castle Petersen and Krause, 4675 MacArthur Court, Suite 1250
Newport Beach, CA 92660, Phone: 949-417-5600, E-mail:
justian@cpk-law.com; and Catherine Starr of Catherine Starr Law
Offices, 24325 Crenshaw Blvd, Suite 211, Torrance, CA 90505
Phone: 310-539-4806, Fax: 310-539-2454.

Representing the Company are:

     (1) Andra Barmash Greene, Layn R. Phillips, Henry Shields,
         Jr. and Bruce A. Wessell, Irell & Manella, 1800 Avenue
         of the Stars, Suite 900, Los Angeles, CA 90067-4276,
         Phone: 310-277-1010, fax: 310-203-7199, E-mail:
         lphillips@irell.com, hshields@irell.com or
         bwessell@irell.com

     (2) George A McNamee, III, Richard S. Ruben, Ellen Laguerta
         Uy, Paula Maxine Weber, Pillsbury Winthrop, 725 S
         Figueroa St, Ste 2800, Los Angeles, CA 90017-5406,
         Phone: 213-488-7100


PORTAL SOFTWARE: 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 Portal
Software, Inc., certain of its officers and several underwriters
of the Company's initial public offering (IPO).

On July 9, 2001, a purported class action complaint was filed,
alleging violations of Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933,
as amended and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, arising from alleged improprieties by the
underwriters in connection with the Company's 1999 IPO and
follow-on public offering, and claims to be on behalf of all
persons who purchased Company shares from May 5, 1999 through
December 6, 2000.  Four additional nearly identical class
actions were also filed in July and August 2001 based on
essentially the same facts and allegations.

Specifically, the complaints allege the underwriters charged
certain of their customers fees in excess of those disclosed in
the prospectus and engaged in certain allegedly improper
activities in connection with the distribution of the IPO
shares.  The complaint was subsequently amended to allege
similar claims with respect to the Company's secondary public
offering in September 1999.

The cases have been consolidated into a single action, and a
consolidated complaint was filed on April 19, 2002. These
actions are part of the IPO Securities Litigation against
approximately 300 issuers and nearly 55 underwriters alleging
claims virtually identical to those alleged against the Company.
The action seeks damages in an unspecified amount. A motion to
dismiss addressing issues common to the companies and
individuals who have been sued in these actions has been denied.

On October 13, 2004, the Court certified a class in six of the
approximately 300 other nearly identical actions and noted that
the decision is intended to provide strong guidance to all
parties regarding class certification in the remaining cases.
Plaintiffs have not yet moved to certify a class in the Portal
case. The Company has approved a settlement agreement 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 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.  The settlement
agreement also provides a guaranteed recovery of $1 billion to
plaintiffs for the cases relating to all of the approximately
300 issuers. Pursuant to those agreements the Company's insurers
would participate in an undertaking to guarantee a minimum
recovery by the plaintiffs. To the extent that the underwriter
defendants settle all of the cases for at least $1 billion, no
payment will be required under the issuers' settlement
agreement.  To the extent that the underwriter defendants settle
for less than $1 billion, the issuers are required to make up
the difference.  It is anticipated that any potential financial
obligation of Portal to plaintiffs pursuant to the terms of the
settlement agreement and related agreements will be covered by
existing insurance. Therefore, the Company does not expect that
the settlement will involve any payment by Portal.

Based on the amount of Portal's insurance and agreement of the
insurers to cover legal expenses after June 1, 2003, Portal does
not anticipate additional expenses or liability if the
settlement is approved. The Company currently is not aware of
any material limitations on the expected recovery of any
potential financial obligation to plaintiffs from its insurance
carriers.  Its carriers are solvent, and the Company is not
aware of any uncertainties as to the legal sufficiency of an
insurance claim with respect to any recovery by plaintiffs. If
material limitations on the expected recovery of any potential
financial obligation to the plaintiffs from Portal's insurance
carriers should arise, Portal's maximum financial obligation to
plaintiffs pursuant to the settlement agreement would be less
than $3.4 million.

On February 15, 2005, the court granted preliminary approval of
the settlement agreement, subject to certain modifications
consistent with its opinion. The Court ruled that the issuer
defendants and the plaintiffs must submit a revised settlement
agreement providing for a mutual bar of all contribution claims
by the settling and non-settling parties. The revised settlement
agreement would not bar the parties from pursuing other claims.
The issuer and plaintiffs have negotiated a revised settlement
agreement consistent with the court's opinion and are in the
process of obtaining approval from the approximately 300 issuer
defendants and individuals associated with those issuers. The
parties must submit a revised settlement to the court by May 2,
2005.  The underwriter defendants will have until May 16, 2005
to object to the revised settlement agreement. There is no
assurance that the court will grant final approval to the
settlement.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


PORTAL SOFTWARE: Asks CA Court To Dismiss CA Securities Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Portal Software, Inc. asked the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California to dismiss the consolidated
amended securities class action filed against it and certain of
its officers and directors.

On November 13, 2003, the Company announced that its results for
the quarter ended October 31, 2003 would be lower than
previously estimated. On November 20, 2003 a purported class
action complaint was filed on behalf of all persons who
purchased Portal shares from May 20, 2003 through November 13,
2003.  Several similar class actions have also been filed in the
same court based on essentially the same facts and allegations.
These cases were consolidated on February 4, 2004 and a lead
plaintiff and lead plaintiff's counsel were appointed on March
25, 2004.

On May 24, 2004 the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended
complaint alleging violations of Section 10(b) and Section 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, arising from
allegations that during the Class Period the Company recognized
revenue improperly and failed to disclose declining demand for
its products and services.  The consolidated amended complaint
seeks damages in an unspecified amount.

The defendants moved to dismiss this complaint on July 6, 2004
and the hearing on the motion was scheduled for September 30,
2004. On September 23, 2004, the lead plaintiff filed a motion
for leave to file an amended complaint and requested continuance
of the hearing to allow them time to prepare a proposed amended
complaint. The court allowed plaintiff 60 days to file a motion
for leave to amend, along with the required proposed amendment
and took the original hearing date off calendar. Lead
plaintiff's motion for leave to amend and the proposed amended
complaint were due to be filed by or about November 29, 2004.
Lead plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on November 29,
2004.

The second amended complaint purports to add a new plaintiff
that may have purchased shares in, or traceable to, the
September 2003 secondary offering and to add claims under
Sections 11 and 12(a) of the Securities Act on the basis that
the registration statement for the secondary offering contained
allegedly material misstatements or omissions.

The defendants moved to strike the second amended complaint on
December 2, 2004. On December 7, 2004 the Court set a briefing
schedule for the motion to strike. Plaintiffs filed a motion for
leave to amend on December 22, 2004 correcting their failure to
file the motion concurrent with the proposed second amend
complaint. Defendants filed an opposition to the motion for
leave to amend on January 6, 2005. A hearing on defendants'
motion to strike on plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend was
held on January 27, 2005.  On March 10, 2005, the court granted
plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend and terminated as moot
defendants' motions to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint and to strike the improperly filed consolidated second
amended complaint. The Defendants moved to dismiss the
consolidated second amended complaint on April 15, 2005.


SAN JUAN: Reaches Settlement For FTC Antitrust Violations Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
San Juan IPA, Inc., a physicians' independent practice
association operating in northwestern New Mexico, has agreed to
settle Federal Trade Commission (FTC) charges that it
orchestrated and carried out agreements among its member doctors
to set the price that they would accept from health plans, to
bargain collectively to obtain the group's desired price terms,
and to refuse to deal with health plans except on collectively
determined price terms.

The effect of this conduct, the FTC states, was higher prices
for medical services for the area's consumers. The consent order
settling the FTC's charges would prohibit the association from
collectively negotiating with health plans on behalf of its
physicians and from setting their terms of dealing with such
purchasers.

The Company does business in the Farmington, New Mexico, area,
which is in the northwestern corner of the state.  Its 120
physician members constitute approximately 80 percent of the
doctors practicing independently in and around the Farmington
area.  According to the Commission's complaint, the Company
restrained competition among physicians in northwestern New
Mexico by orchestrating and implementing agreements among its
member physicians to fix prices and other terms on which they
would deal with health plans, and to refuse to deal with such
payors except on collectively determined terms, in violation of
Section 5 of the FTC Act.

Physicians that would otherwise have competed with each other
agreed to have the IPA negotiate contracts on their behalf and
agreed not to deal individually with third-party payors. Acting
first through a joint venture with a local hospital, and then on
its own, San Juan IPA adopted and implemented a "PPO Strategy"
that required health plans to pay IPA physicians their full
billed charges minus a 10 percent discount. A payment method
based on a discount off billed charges allows physicians to
increase their compensation by increasing their billed charges.
The IPA estimated that its PPO Strategy increased its members'
payments by as much as 60 percent. Later, the IPA undertook
collective bargaining regarding other types of fee arrangements
as well. When payors sought to avoid San Juan IPA's fee demands
by offering contracts directly to member physicians, the IPA
instructed its members to ignore these offers.

As a result of its activities, San Juan IPA was able to force
many health plans to raise the fees paid to its member
physicians, thereby raising the cost of medical care in the
Farmington area. The FTC complaint states that the IPA created
no efficiencies that would make such conduct beneficial for
Farmington consumers.

The Commission's proposed consent order is designed to eliminate
the illegal anti-competitive conduct alleged in the complaint.
It would prohibit San Juan IPA from entering into or
facilitating agreements between or among physicians:

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

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

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

     (4) not to deal individually with any payor, or not to deal
         with any payor through any arrangement other than one
         involving San Juan IPA.

The consent order permits the IPA to undertake certain kinds of
joint contracting arrangements - "qualified risk-sharing joint
arrangements" and "qualified clinically integrated joint
arrangements" - terms that are defined in the order. These are
types of arrangements in which physician participants engage in
joint activities to control costs and improve quality by
managing the provision of services, and any agreement concerning
reimbursement or other terms or conditions of dealing must be
reasonably necessary to obtain significant efficiencies through
the joint arrangement.

The order requires San Juan IPA to notify the FTC for three
years before participating in contracting with health plans on
behalf of a qualified risk-sharing joint arrangement or
clinically integrated joint arrangement. In addition, for three
years, the IPA must notify the FTC before entering into any
agreement under which it would act as a messenger or agent on
behalf of any physicians with payors regarding contracts.

Finally, the order requires San Juan IPA to distribute the
complaint and order to all doctors who have participated in it,
and to payors with which it has negotiated contracts or which
have expressed interest in contracting with San Juan IPA for
three years. It also contains compliance and reporting
requirements. The order will expire in 20 years.

The Commission vote to place the consent order on the public
record for comment and publish a copy in the Federal Register
was 4-0-1, with Chairman Deborah Platt Majoras not
participating. The Commission is accepting comments on the order
for 30 days, until June 17, 2005, after which it will decide
whether to make it final. Comments should be sent to: FTC Office
of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Washington, DC
20580.

Copies of the complaint, consent order, and an analysis to aid
in public comment are available from the FTC's Web site at
http://www.ftc.govand also from the FTC's Consumer Response  
Center, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington,
D.C. 20580. The FTC's Bureau of Competition seeks to prevent
business practices that restrain competition. The Bureau carries
out its mission by investigating alleged law violations and,
when appropriate, recommending that the Commission take formal
enforcement action. To notify the Bureau concerning particular
business practices, call or write the Office of Policy and
Evaluation, Room 394, Bureau of Competition, Federal Trade
Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Ave, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580,
Electronic Mail: antitrust@ftc.gov; Telephone (202) 326-3300.
For more information on the laws that the Bureau enforces, the
Commission has published "Promoting Competition, Protecting
Consumers: A Plain English Guide to Antitrust Laws," which can
be accessed at http://www.ftc.gov/bc/compguide/index.htm. For  
more details, contact Mitchell J. Katz, Office of Public Affairs
by Phone: 202-326-2161 or contact Steve Vieux, Bureau of
Competition by Phone: 202-326-2306, or visit the Website:
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2005/05/sanjuan.htm.


SBARRO INC.: CA Court Mulls Appeal in Employee Overtime Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of California for Orange County has yet to
rule on Sbarro, Inc.'s appeal of an unfavorable ruling in the
class action filed against it by certain current and former
general managers of the Company's California restaurants.

The suit was filed in December 1999, alleging that the
plaintiffs were improperly classified as exempt employees under
the California wage and hour law. The plaintiffs are seeking
actual damages, punitive damages and costs of the lawsuit,
including reasonable attorneys' fees, each in unspecified
amounts.

Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify the lawsuit as a class
action, but the court denied the motion.  The court issued a
ruling in December 2003, which was unfavorable to the Company
but did not set the amount of damages.  The Company is appealing
the ruling due to errors that it believes were made by the trial
judge.  The court has yet to rule on this appeal.


SBARRO INC.: Working To Settle CA Employees' Overtime Wage Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sbarro, Inc. is working to settle the class action filed against
it in the Superior Court of California for Orange County by
eight current and former general managers of its restaurants in
California.  The suit alleges that the plaintiffs were
improperly classified as exempt employees under California wage
and hour law.  The plaintiffs are seeking actual damages,
punitive damages and costs of the lawsuit, including reasonable
attorneys' fees, each in unspecified amounts.

The Company has separately settled with two of the managers for
immaterial amounts.  The remaining parties to this case have
agreed that it will be settled upon the same terms and
conditions that the court orders in connection with its decision
in the similar case discussed in the preceding story.


SHOPKO STORES: WI Judge Signs Order Consolidating Six Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brown County Circuit Judge Kendall Kelley signed an order
combining six lawsuits against Shopko Stores Inc., which accuses
Company officials cut themselves a deal over the Ashwaubenon-
based retailer proposed sale, The Green Bay Press-Gazette
reports.  At a hearing last week, Judge Kelley said there was no
opposition from other judges on consolidating the shareholder
lawsuits.

The suits had sought to block that proposed sale and ask that
the corporation re-evaluate its real estate holdings before
completing the deal.  Court documents revealed that Goldner Hawn
Johnson & Morrison, a Minneapolis-based private equity
investment Company, agreed to buy publicly traded Shopko for $24
a share, or about $715 million for about 29.8 million shares.
With the addition of $330 million in debt Goldner Hawn will
assume, the deal is worth just more than $1 billion.  At issue
is whether Goldner Hawn is paying enough for Shopko Stores Inc.,
which includes 140 Shopko stores and the 221 Pamida stores, a
Shopko subsidiary.  The sale was announced April 9 and is
expected to close by the end of July. Shopko shares, traded
under the SKO symbol on the New York Stock Exchange, closed
Friday at $23.57, up 2 cents.

According to individuals familiar with the case, the suit is
expected to get certified as a class action, thereby allowing
shareholders who owned stock in the Company to have an option of
joining the legal action.  

After signing the order, Judge Kelley also set another status
conference for June 10 to see which direction the case will
progress once the lawyers have proxy statement information.  
Attorney Randall Baron, one of the lead lawyers for the
shareholders told the Press-Gazette that once the proxy
statements are public, the plaintiffs "will have a much better
idea where they are in the process."


SILICON LABORATORIES: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against Silicon
Laboratories, Inc., four of its officers individually and the
three investment banking firms who served as representatives of
the underwriters in connection with the Company's initial public
offering of common stock.

The Consolidated Amended Complaint alleges that the registration
statement and prospectus for the Company's initial public
offering did not disclose that the underwriters solicited and
received additional, excessive and undisclosed commissions from
certain investors, and the underwriters had agreed to allocate
shares of the offering in exchange for a commitment from the
customers to purchase additional shares in the aftermarket at
pre-determined higher prices.  The action seeks damages in an
unspecified amount and is being coordinated with approximately
300 other nearly identical actions filed against other
companies.

A court order dated October 9, 2002 dismissed without prejudice
the Company's four officers who had been named individually.  On
February 19, 2003, the Court denied the motion to dismiss the
complaint against the Company.  On October 13, 2004, the Court
certified a class in six of the approximately 300 other nearly
identical actions and noted that the decision is intended to
provide strong guidance to all parties regarding class
certification in the remaining cases.  Plaintiffs have not yet
moved to certify a class in the Company's case.

The Company has approved a settlement agreement 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 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 it may have against its
underwriters.  The settlement agreement also provides a
guaranteed recovery of $1 billion to plaintiffs for the cases
relating to all of the approximately 300 issuers.  To the extent
that the underwriter defendants settle all of the cases for at
least $1 billion, no payment will be required under the issuers'
settlement agreement.  To the extent that the underwriter
defendants settle for less than $1 billion, the issuers are
required to make up the difference.  The settlement agreement
has been submitted to the Court for approval.  Approval by the
Court cannot be assured.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


VEGAS GRAND: Condominium Tenants Launch Suit Over Price Increase
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nevada residents Thomas Blinkinsop, Trisha Blinkinsop, John
Thompson and Maryan Thompson and California resident Phillip C.
George filed a class action lawsuit against the developer of the
Vegas Grand condominium project, which is located near the
intersection of Flamingo Road and Swenson Street, The Las Vegas
Sun reports.

The suit, which comes just weeks after the developer notified
prospective residents that the price of the units they had
reserved would be going up, was filed in Clark County District
Court and listed among the defendants Vegas Grand Condominiums
Limited Partnership and Florida-based developer Del American
Inc. It is claiming breach of contract, fraud and deceptive
trade practices, among other allegations.

According to the suit, buyers signed reservation agreements and
made deposits of $10,000 to $25,000 possibly as early as
November 2003. They were notified, however, the suit stated,
that in April 2005, the project was being "reconstituted." The
new option for reservation holders was to accept a discount on
new unit prices or have their deposits refunded, plus a 5
percent bonus.

Earlier this month, Chris DelGuidice, Del American's chief
executive, told the Las Vegas Sun that the price increases were
due to rising construction costs, and that none of the initial
reservations has been converted into contracts and were voidable
by either the buyer or the developer.

Filed by Las Vegas attorney George O. West III on behalf of the
condo tenants said: "plaintiffs and class members contend that
reservation agreements are in full force and effect and that the
defendants' purported cancellation of their agreements is of no
legal force or effect, and they are entitled purchase of the
condominium unit at the project referenced in their agreement at
the price specified in their agreement."

However, Matt Brimhall, Del American's vice president for
marketing, told the Las Vegas Sun that the Company stands by its
position. He adds, "There is no merit in this lawsuit. We are
fully confident in our position on this issue, and we will fully
defend our stance."

The lawsuit claims that the new prices were nearly double the
original price and that "the defendants had no intention of
selling the condominium units to plaintiffs and the class
members for the original price."


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

BEARINGPOINT INC.: Spector Roseman Lodges Securities Suit in VA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C. initiated a
securities class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, on behalf of
purchasers of the common stock of BearingPoint, Inc.
("BearingPoint" or the "Company") (NYSE: BE) between August 14,
2003 through April 20, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading
statements contained in press releases and filings with the
Securities and Exchange Commission during the Class Period.
Specifically, the Complaint alleges that defendants' financial
reports and statements issued from August 14, 2003 through April
20, 2005 were false and misleading as they failed to disclose:

     (1) that the Company had materially overstated its net
         income during the Class Period by approximately $250 -
         $400 million;

     (2) that the Company had inflated its earnings by
         improperly accounting for charges relating to
         acquisitions;

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

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

On April 20, 2005, after the market closed, BearingPoint
reported that the Company was going to restate its financial
results for fiscal year 2003 and the first three quarters of
2004. The Company further disclosed the commencement of an
informal investigation by the Division of Enforcement of the
Securities and Exchange Commission. The next day, shares of the
Company's stock fell by over 30% to close at $5.28, in extremely
heaving trading.

If you have sustained substantial losses in BearingPoint
securities during the Class Period, please contact Spector,
Roseman & Kodroff, P.C. at classaction@srk-law.com for a more
thorough explanation of the Lead Plaintiff selection process. If
you have relatively small losses, your ability to participate in
any recovery will be protected by the Lead Plaintiff(s), and you
need take no affirmative steps at this time.

For more details, contact Robert M. Roseman of Spector, Roseman
& Kodroff, P.C. by Phone: 888-844-5862 or by E-mail:
classaction@srk-law.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.srk-law.com.


BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS: Brian M. Felgoise Files Stock Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C. filed a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who acquired Brocade
Communication Systems, Inc. (NASDAQ: BRCD) securities between
February 21, 2001 and May 15, 2005, inclusive (the Class
Period).

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, 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.  


BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Stock Suit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC initiated a securities
class action lawsuit on behalf of shareholders who purchased the
common stock and other securities of Brocade Communication
Systems, Inc. (Nasdaq:BRCD) ("Brocade" or the "Company") between
February 21, 2001 and May 15, 2005, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). The class action lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period,
thereby artificially inflating the price of BRCD securities. No
class has yet been certified in the above action.

For more details, contact Evan J. Smith, Esq. or Marc L.
Ackerman, Esq. of Brodsky & Smith, LLC by Mail: Two Bala Plaza,
Suite 602, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 877-LEGAL-90 or by E-
mail: clients@brodsky-smith.com.


BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS: Schatz & Nobel Files Stock Lawsuit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C., filed a lawsuit seeking
class action status in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of all purchasers of
publicly traded securities of Brocade Communication Systems, Inc
(Nasdaq: BRCD) ("Brocade") between February 21, 2001 and May 15,
2005 (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that Brocade violated federal securities
laws by issuing false or misleading public statements. These
allegations arise out of Brocade's May 16, 2005 announcement
that it would have to restate its fiscal 2001 to fiscal 2004
earnings. Brocade 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" and that fiscal 2001 and fiscal 2002 earnings per share
would be reduced by up to $0.11 and $0.19, respectively.

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


CORN PRODUCTS: Brodsky & Smith Files Securities Fraud Suit in IL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC initiated a securities
class action lawsuit on behalf of shareholders who purchased the
common stock and other securities of Corn Products
International, Inc. (NYSE:CPO) ("Corn Products" or the
"Company") between January 25, 2005 and April 4, 2005, inclusive
(the "Class Period"). The class action lawsuit was filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period,
thereby artificially inflating the price of CPO securities. No
class has yet been certified in the above action.

For more details, contact Evan J. Smith, Esq. or Marc L.
Ackerman, Esq. of Brodsky & Smith, LLC by Mail: Two Bala Plaza,
Suite 602, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 877-LEGAL-90 or by E-
mail: clients@brodsky-smith.com.


CORN PRODUCTS: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Fraud Suit in IL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
LLP ("Lerach Coughlin") initiated a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois on behalf of purchasers of Corn Products International,
Inc. ("Corn Products") (NYSE:CPO) securities during the period
between January 25, 2005 and April 4, 2005 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Corn Products and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Corn Products manufactures and sells starches, liquid
sweeteners and other ingredients to food and industrial
customers in over 60 industries around the world.

The Complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements concerning the
Company's future prospects. Specifically, the complaint alleges
that these statements were materially false and misleading
because, at the time that these statements were made, defendants
knew, but failed to disclose and/or misrepresented:

     (1) that the Company was experiencing manufacturing
         problems at certain of its facilities that were causing
         its expenses to rise dramatically above internally
         forecasted levels. These problems caused certain of the
         Company's processing facilities to close and/or
         slowdown production thereby raising expenses;

     (2) that the Company had contracted for corn in Canada in
         the late Fall of 2004 at prices higher than present
         prevailing prices, thereby forcing the Company to
         purchase corn at above-market prices and further
         eroding the Company's profit margins. In other words,
         the Company's hedging strategy related to its Canadian
         corn purchases was then negatively impacting its
         financial results and would continue to do so for the
         next year; and

     (3) given the foregoing, Defendants lacked a reasonable
         basis for their positive statements concerning the
         Company and its earnings and prospects.

On April 5, 2005, before the market opened, Corn Products issued
a press release announcing that it expected first quarter
earnings to decline by 35 to 40 percent from the first quarter
of 2004, due primarily to the timing of corn purchases,
increased expenses, and manufacturing expense problems. In
response to this announcement, the price of Corn Products common
stock declined precipitously, falling from $25.86 per share to
$20.98 per share, on extremely heavy trading volume.

For more details, contact Samuel H. Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld
of Lerach Coughlin by Phone: 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058 or by
E-mail: wsl@lerachlaw.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.lerachlaw.com/cases/cornproducts/.  


FRIEDMAN BILLINGS: Pomerantz Haudek Lodges Securities Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP
initiated a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of
securities of Friedman, Billings, Ramsey Group, Inc. ("FBR" or
the "Company") (NYSE:FBR) during the period from January 29,
2003 through April 25, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").
Defendants also include Eric F. Billings and Emanuel J.
Friedman, Co-Chief Executive Officers and Co-Chairmen of FBR,
and Kurt R. Harrington, Chief Financial Officer. The case, Civil
Action Number 05 CV 4851, was filed in the United States
District Court, Southern District of New York, and has been
assigned to Judge Thomas P. Griesa.

FBR provides investment banking, institutional brokerage and
asset management services, and invests as a principal in
mortgage-backed securities ("MBS") and merchant banking
investments. In March 2003, the Company was formed through the
merger of two existing companies, both engaged in related
businesses and both managed by the FBR management team.

The Complaint charges that Defendants violated the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (Section 10(b) and rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder) by making materially misleading statements and
omissions about the Company. Defendants failed to disclose
misconduct by FBR's top officials in connection with the
Company's role as a placement agent for an issuer in a 2001
private investment placement equity transaction ("PIPE");
related insider trading; and the material adverse impact on
FBR's earnings.

The Complaint alleges that on November 9, 2004, FBR filed its
third quarter 2004 Form 10-Q in which it disclosed Securities
Exchange Commission ("SEC") and National Association of
Securities Dealers ("NASD") investigations regarding the PIPE
transaction. As a result of this disclosure, FBR's stock dropped
to $16.93 per share, some 40% lower than the Class Period high
of $28.70 per share. However, the market was not given any
information as to the serious nature of the investigations,
about their adverse impact on FBR's earnings or that FBR's CEO
Emanuel Friedman and other FBR employees were suspected of
insider trading relating to the transaction. Then on April 4,
2005, Emanuel J. Friedman, the Co-CEO resigned and on April 25,
2004, FBR announced disappointing preliminary results for the
first quarter of 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.

Fro more details, contact Teresa Webb of Pomerantz Haudek Block
Grossman & Gross LLP by Phone: (888) 476-6529 or by E-mail:
tlwebb@pomlaw.com.


FRIEDMAN BILLINGS: Seeger Weiss Lodges Securities Lawsuit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Seeger Weiss LLP, initiated a class action lawsuit
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of
Friedman, Billings, Ramsey Group, Inc. ("FBR") (NYSE:FBR)
between January 29, 2003 and April 25, 2005, inclusive (the
"Class Period"), pursuing remedies under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The complaint alleges that FBR, an investment bank that provides
investment banking, institutional brokerage and asset management
services, and invests as a principal in mortgage-backed
securities and merchant banking investments failed to disclose
and misrepresented the following material adverse facts which
were known to it and the individual defendants or recklessly
concealed by them:

     (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
         relating to the investigation into the PIPE transaction
         and the problems the bad publicity would cause FBR; and

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

The complaint charges that defendants FBR, Emanuel J. Friedman
(Co-CEO), Eric F. Billings (Co-CEO) and Kurt R. Harrington (CFO)
(collectively "defendants") with violations of the Exchange Act
by issuing a series of materially false and misleading
statements to the market during the Class Period. The complaint
alleges that the first sign of defendants' misrepresentations
was on November 9, 2004, when FBR disclosed in its third quarter
2004 Form 10-Q that the SEC and the NASD was investigating its
role as a placement agent in 2001 as a placement agent for an
issuer in a PIPE (private investment in public equity)
transaction. Reaction to this news caused FBR's stock to drop to
$16.93 per share, almost 40% lower compared to the Class Period
high. The complaint alleges that the market, however, was not
alerted to the seriousness of these investigations. Then
unexpectedly on April 4, 2005, FBR announced that one of its
founders, Emanuel J. Friedman resigned. On April 25, 2005, FBR
announced lower than expected preliminary financial results for
the first quarter 2005, including a charge for its liability in
the PIPE transaction. News of this caused FBR stock to drop
$12.52 on volume of 7.5 million shares.

For more details, contact Stephen A. Weiss, Esq. or Eric T.
Chaffin, Esq. of Seeger Weiss LLP by Mail: One William Street,
New York, New York 10004 by Phone: (212) 584-0700 or
(877) 541-3273 by E-Mail: sweiss@seegerweiss.com or
echaffin@seegerweiss.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.seegerweiss.com/cases/Cases.aspx?ID=59.  


GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: Scott + Scott Lodges Securities Suit in PA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Scott + Scott, initiated a securities class
action lawsuit on behalf of a client shareholder against
GlaxoSmithKline plc (NYSE: GSK) in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and is prepared
to litigate the action in this GSK industry center. Those who
purchased Glaxo securities between February 4, 2001, and August
5, 2004, are members of the putative class. Another
pharmaceutical manufacturer, New Jersey's Able Laboratories,
Inc., stunned the market when it announced that it had stopped
shipment of all products. Further, Able's CEO and Chairman
Dhananjay G. Wadekar resigned and the Company withdrew financial
guidance. Able's shares plunged yesterday almost 75% from $18.37
per share to $6.26 per share on 127 times its daily volume. Able
stated to the Financial News that this situation would have a
"material effect" on its sales goals and operating objectives.

The Glaxo complaint charges GlaxoSmithKline and certain
individual officers and directors with violations of the federal
securities laws (Securities Exchange Act of 1934). GSK, with its
subsidiaries, is a global healthcare conglomerate engaged in all
phases of the pharmaceutical and consumer health-related
products industry. GlaxoSmithKline's Philadelphia Headquarters
are located at One Franklin Plaza, 16th and Race Streets,
Philadelphia. During the Class Period, it is alleged that the
prices of GlaxoSmithKline's stock and ADRs were artificially
inflated by defendants concealing deficiencies with the
Company's selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor ("SSRI") drug,
Paxil, in treating adolescent depression. On August 5, 2004, The
Wall Street Journal published an article that reported that a
new analysis by the FDA had confirmed the link between SSRIs
(including Paxil) and suicidal tendencies in young people. The
prices of GlaxoSmithKline's stock and ADRs, which were inflated
during the Class Period, declined from about $55 per share to
$40 per share as the falsity of defendants' statements came to
light.

For more details, contact Neil Rothstein or Amy K. Saba by
Phone: +1-800-332-2259 or +1-619-233-4565 of Scott + Scott by E-
mail: nrothstein@scott-scott.com or asaba@scott-scott.com.  


HARLEY DAVIDSON: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Securities Lawsuit in WI
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC initiated a securities
class action lawsuit on behalf of shareholders who purchased the
common stock and other securities of Harley-Davidson, Inc.
(NYSE:HDI) ("Brocade" or the "Company") between January 21, 2004
and April 14, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The class
action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for
the District of Wisconsin.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period,
thereby artificially inflating the price of HDI securities. No
class has yet been certified in the above action.

For more details, contact Evan J. Smith, Esq. or Marc L.
Ackerman, Esq. of Brodsky & Smith, LLC by Mail: Two Bala Plaza,
Suite 602, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 877-LEGAL-90 or by E-
mail: clients@brodsky-smith.com.


HARLEY DAVIDOSN: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Lawsuit in WI
---------------------------------------------------------------
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 District of Wisconsin on behalf of all purchasers
of publicly traded securities of Harley-Davidson, Inc. (NYSE:
HDI) ("Harley-Davidson") between January 21, 2004, and April 14,
2005 (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that Harley-Davidson violated federal
securities laws by issuing false or misleading public
statements. These allegations arise out of Harley Davidson's
April 13, 2005 announcement that it planned to reduce motorcycle
production and product inventory levels. On that news, Harley-
Davidson stock fell from a close of $58.77 on April 12, 2005, to
close at $47.20 on April 14, 2005.

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


MBNA CORPORATION: Seeger Weiss Files Securities Fraud Suit in DE
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Seeger Weiss LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the District of
Delaware on behalf of purchasers of MBNA Corporation ("MBNA")
(NYSE:KRB) publicly traded securities during the period between
January 20, 2005 and April 21, 2005 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges MBNA and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. MBNA is an international financial services company
providing lending, deposit, and credit insurance products and
services to its customers. The complaint alleges that on January
21, 2005, the start of the Class Period, MBNA issued the first
earnings forecast in the Company's history, projecting an
ongoing 12% earnings increase, with a 10% increase in 2005
earnings over 2004's. Defendants said MBNA would make this
target because the Company had already drastically reduced its
own reliance on insidious no-interest loans, rendering its own
loan portfolio more profitable than that of its competitors.
Defendants also projected a 20%+ increase in Return on Equity.
Defendants' EPS estimate for 2005 was $2.36 per share, which was
10% above the Company's 2004 EPS. These projections were being
made nearly one-third of the way into Q1 2005 and would be
repeated and detailed at the Company's January 21, 2005 and
February 9, 2005 investor conferences. On April 21, 2005,
defendants disclosed that MBNA had earned only $0.02 in Q1 2005,
a 94% decline from the $0.59 per share it reported in Q4 2004,
and that it was guiding 2005 EPS growth down to "significantly
below" its prior 10% growth estimate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For more details, contact Stephen A. Weiss, Esq. or Eric T.
Chaffin, Esq. of Seeger Weiss LLP by Mail: One William Street,
New York, New York 10004 by Phone: (212) 584-0700 or
(877) 541-3273 by E-Mail: sweiss@seegerweiss.com or
echaffin@seegerweiss.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.seegerweiss.com.


MOLSON COORS: Seeger Weiss Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in DE
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Seeger Weiss LLP initiated a class action lawsuit
today on behalf of former shareholders of Molson Inc. ("Molson")
who received shares of Molson Coors Brewing Company ("Molson
Coors" or the "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 Molson Coors,
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 Molson Coors' 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 Molson Coors, 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 Molson Coors' 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 Stephen A. Weiss, Esq. or Eric T.
Chaffin, Esq. of Seeger Weiss LLP by Mail: One William Street,
New York, New York 10004 by Phone: (212) 584-0700 or
(877) 541-3273 by E-Mail: sweiss@seegerweiss.com or
echaffin@seegerweiss.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.seegerweiss.com/cases/Cases.aspx?ID=60.  


WILLBROS GROUP: Brodsky & Smith Files Securities Suit in S.D. TX
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC initiated a securities
class action lawsuit on behalf of shareholders who purchased the
common stock and other securities of Willbros Group, Inc.
("Willbros" or the "Company") (NYSE:WG) between May 6, 2002 and
May 16, 2005 inclusive. The action is pending in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Texas,
Houston Division, against defendants Willbros, Michael F.
Curran, Warren L. Williams, Larry J. Bump and James K. Tillery.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period,
thereby artificially inflating the price of WG securities.

For more details, contact Evan J. Smith, Esq. or Marc L.
Ackerman, Esq. of Brodsky & Smith, LLC by Mail: Two Bala Plaza,
Suite 602, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 877-LEGAL-90 or by E-
mail: clients@brodsky-smith.com.


XYBERNAUT CORPORATION: Spector Roseman Files Stock Lawsuit in VA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C. announces that
a securities class action lawsuit was commenced in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, on
behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Xybernaut
Corporation ("Xybernaut" or the "Company") (NasdaqSC: XYBR.PK)
between May 10, 2002 through April 8, 2005, inclusive (the
"Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading
statements contained in press releases and filings with the
Securities and Exchange Commission during the Class Period.
Specifically, the Complaint alleges that on May 2, 2002, the
Company released a materially false and misleading press release
announcing "the highest first quarter results in the Company's
history." Further, it is alleged that on March 14, 2005,
Xybernaut announced that it was seeking an extension of time
within which to file its annual report with the Securities and
Exchange Commission ("SEC"). Moreover, it is alleged that on
March 31, 2005, Xybernaut issued a press release which stated,
in part: "Xybernaut Corporation (NasdaqSC: XYBRE) announced
today that the filing of its Form 10-K and other related reports
for the year ended December 31, 2004, anticipated to occur
today, will be further delayed, pending completion of an
internal investigation undertaken by its Audit Committee." The
press release stated that independent counsel had been engaged
to assist in an internal investigation of, "among other things,
concerns brought to the Audit Committee's attention relating to
the internal control environment of the Company, the propriety
of certain expenditures and the documentation of certain
expenses of the Chairman and CEO of the Company, the Company's
transparency and public disclosure process, the accuracy of
certain public disclosures, management's conduct in response to
the investigation, and the propriety of certain major
transactions." Moreover, the press release stated that Xybernaut
had received a subpoena from the Northeast Regional Office of
the SEC seeking "documents and other information relating to the
sale of Company securities by any person identified as a selling
shareholder in any Company registration statement or other
public filing." Following this news, Xybernaut's share price,
which at one time had traded as high as $2.23 per share, fell to
a close of $0.42 per share on March 31, 2005, and then dropped
further to close at $0.24 per share on April 1, 2005.

For more details, contact Robert M. Roseman of Spector, Roseman
& Kodroff, P.C. by Phone: 888-844-5862 or by E-mail:
classaction@srk-law.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.srk-law.com.


                            *********


A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each
Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissions
via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.

Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring
news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target
asbestos defendants that, according to independent researches,
collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related
liabilities.

                            *********


S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland
USA.   Glenn Ruel Senorin, Aurora Fatima Antonio and Lyndsey
Resnick, Editors.

Copyright 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  * * *