CAR_Public/050530.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, May 30, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 105


                            Headlines

AMERICA FIRST: Faces Shareholder Lawsuit V. America First Merger
AMERICAN DRAGON: Recalls Chinese Candy For Undeclared Sulfites
AMERICAN NATURAL: Recalls Products Due to Salmonella Corruption
ANDRX CORPORATION: Working To Settle Cardizem Antitrust Lawsuits
ANDRX CORPORATION: Reaches Settlement For Wellbutrin SR Lawsuit

APPLE COMPUTER: Appeals Court Affirms Securities Suit Dismissal
APPLE COMPUTER: Faces Amended Consumer Fraud Lawsuit in CA Court
APPLE COMPUTER: CA Consumers Launch Fraud Suit V. DVD Studio Pro
APPLE COMPUTER: Plaintiffs Oppose Disqualification of Counsels
APPLE COMPUTER: Reaches Settlement For CA Consumer Fraud Lawsuit

APPLE COMPUTER: Settlement Discussions Proceeding in CA Lawsuit
APPLE COMPUTER: CA Court Dismisses Class Claims in Fraud Lawsuit
APPLE COMPUTER: CA Court Grants Motion To Strike Lawsuit Claims
APPLE COMPUTER: Appeals Court Affirms Securities Suit Dismissal
APPLE COMPUTER: CA Court To Hear Dismissal Motion in June 2005

APPLE COMPUTER: IL, CA Consumer Suits Mediation Set August 2005
BAREFOOT CAMPING: Resort Residents Launch Suit Over Clause in SC
CANADA: Veterans Group Says Government Not Liable For $5.8B Suit
CERIDIAN CORPORATION: Shareholders File Stock Fraud Suits in MN
CITIZENS PROPERTY: FL Judge Orders Full Payment of Flood Damages

COLORADO: Lyon Financial, Wells Fargo Settles NorVergence Suit  
COMDISCO INC.: Securities Settlement Hearing Set July 14, 2005
CONOCOPHILIPS: LA Judge OKs $64.5M Chemical Release Settlement
CORE LABORATORIES: Texas Class Action Complaint Dismissed
HO'S TRADING: Recalls Dessert of Pear Due to Undeclared Sulfites
HOMESTORE.COM: Appeals Court Hears CA Lawsuit Dismissal Appeal

JOURNAL SENTINEL: Faces WI Suit V. Inflated Circulation Figures
LEADING EDGE: Judge Gives Class Status to Penis Enlargement Suit
LUPRON LITIGATION: MA Judge Harshly Criticizes Kline & Specter  
MATTEL INC.: Court Hears Appeal of CA Securities Suit Settlement
MCMORAN OIL: Asks DE Court For Summary Judgment in Stock Suit

NEW YORK: Mason Law Firm Lodges Suit V. ECB Over CAPA Violations
NEW YORK: Plaintiff Asks Court To Repeal Transfer of A.I.G Stock
NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Attorney Objects To Graniteville Settlement
NORTH CAROLINA: Attorney Threatens Lawsuit Over Judge's Actions
NOVELL INC.: Reaches $13.9M Settlement in Securities Fraud Suit

SUNNY LAKE: Recalls Sweet Potatoes Due to Undeclared Sulfites
TIME WARNER: Asks Court To Nix PurchasePro Adversary Proceeding
TIME WARNER: AK Court Mulls Dismissal Of Securities Fraud Suit
TIME WARNER: CA Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Part
TIME WARNER: TX Court Mulls Dismissal For Securities Fraud Suit

TIME WARNER: WV Court Yet To Rule on Shareholder Suit Dismissal
TIME WARNER: NY Court Mulls Summary Judgment in Shareholder Suit
TRADER JOE'S: Recalls Mole Rojo Sauces Due to Poor Quality
TRI-COUNTY PLUMBING: FL Attorney General Lodges Consumer Lawsuit
TRIBUNE CO.: Stull Stull Launches 401(k) ERISA Investigation

VAN WAGONER: Securities Settlement Hearing Set June 17, 2005


                 New Securities Fraud Cases

CORN PRODUCTS: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in IL
CRAY INC.: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in WA
GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: Marc S. Henzel Files Securities Suit in NY
GRAVITY CO.: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in NY
HARLEY-DAVIDSON: Marc S. Henzel Files Securities Suit in W.D. WI

R&G FINANCIAL: Berman DeValerio Lodges Securities Lawsuit in NY
TIBCO SOFTWARE: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CA
WILLBROS GROUP: Marc S. Henzel Files Securities Suit in S.D. TX


                            *********


AMERICA FIRST: Faces Shareholder Lawsuit V. America First Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
America First Real Estate Investment Partners, L.P. (AFREZ), its
general partner and America First Companies LLC face a class
action filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery, on behalf of the
Partnership's units holders.

The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the defendants
acted in violation of their fiduciary duties to the Unit holders
in connection with the merger of AFREZ with and into the America
First Apartment Investors, Inc.  The merger of AFREZ with and
into the Company was completed on June 3, 2004 and, as a result,
the Company assumed all liabilities of AFREZ, including any
liability that may be imposed as a result of this lawsuit. To
date, the plaintiffs have not amended their complaint to
formally name the Company as a defendant or to modify the relief
they are seeking.


AMERICAN DRAGON: Recalls Chinese Candy For Undeclared Sulfites
--------------------------------------------------------------
American Dragon Trading Corporation, 152 RANDOLPH ST., BROOKLYN,
NY 11237 is recalling CHINESE CANDY because it may contain
undeclared sulfites. People who have severe sensitivity to
sulfites run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic
reactions if they consume this product.

The recalled CHINESE CANDY is packed in uncoded, clear 12 oz.
(340G) plastic bags. It is a product of China. The product was
sold in the New York City metropolitan area.

The recall was initiated after routine sampling by New York
State Department of Agriculture and Markets Food Inspectors and
subsequent analysis of the product by Food Laboratory personnel
revealed the presence of undeclared sulfites in CHINESE CANDY in
packages which did not declare sulfites on the label. The
consumption of 10 milligrams of sulfites per serving has been
reported to elicit severe reactions in some asthmatics.
Anaphylactic shock could occur in certain sulfite sensitive
individuals upon ingesting 10 milligrams or more of sulfites.

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
problem.

Consumers who have purchased CHINESE CANDY should return it to
the place of purchase. Consumers with questions may contact the
company at (212) 925-6363.


AMERICAN NATURAL: Recalls Products Due to Salmonella Corruption
---------------------------------------------------------------
American Natural Herbs & Spices Inc., of Union City, California,
is recalling the following product because it may be
contaminated with Salmonella: " aSPICES Brand BASIL GROUND"

This product comes in a 1 oz clear plastic bag with English
wording and aSPICES logo. The package is green, gold and white
and approximately 6"x1.5" in size with the bar code number,
82699803113. The firm's name and address appears on the back of
the plastic bag. Product sold after August 26, 2004, is being
recalled.

Salmonella is an organism which can cause serious and sometimes
fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people and
others with weakened immune systems. Most cases resolve without
the need for medical attention. However, some persons infected
with salmonella may experience fever, diarrhea (which may be
bloody), nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain. Consumers with the
above symptoms should consult their physician.

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
product.

The contamination was identified when routine testing conducted
by the California Department of Health Services (CDHS) revealed
the presence of salmonella in a sample of "aSPICES brand Basil
ground".

The recalled aSPICES Brand product was sold in supermarkets
throughout California.

The company is asking supermarkets to discontinue distribution
of this product and to promptly return the product and stock on
hand to the company for credit. Consumers should not consume
this product and return this product to the point of purchase
for a refund.

Consumers with questions may contact John Chansari, General
Manager at (510)477-4787.


ANDRX CORPORATION: Working To Settle Cardizem Antitrust Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrx Corporation is working to settle litigation filed against
it and Aventis (formerly Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., arising
from a 1997 stipulation entered into between Aventis and the
Company in connection with a patent infringement suit brought by
Aventis with regard to its product, Cardizem CD.

Beginning in August 1998, several putative class action lawsuits
were filed, and later consolidated for multi-district litigation
purposes in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan, with one of the cases filed by a group of direct
purchasers having since been remanded back to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida. The complaint in
each action alleges that Aventis and the Company, by way of the
1997 stipulation, have engaged in alleged state antitrust and
other statutory and common law violations that allegedly have
given Aventis and the Company a near monopoly in the U.S. market
for Cardizem CD and a generic version of that pharmaceutical
product.  Each complaint seeks compensatory damages on behalf of
each class member in an unspecified amount and, in some cases,
treble damages, as well as costs and counsel fees, disgorgement,
injunctive relief and other remedies.

In June 2000, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Michigan granted summary judgment to plaintiffs finding that
the 1997 stipulation was a per se violation of antitrust laws.
On June 13, 2003, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, and on October
12, 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review this case.

Essentially reiterating the claims asserted against the Company
in the aforementioned Cardizem CD antitrust class action
litigation and seeking the same relief sought in that litigation
are:

     (1) the May 14, 2001 complaint filed by the attorneys
         general for the states of New York and Michigan, joined
         by 13 additional states and the District of Columbia,
         on behalf of their government entities and consumers
         resident in their jurisdictions, which was subsequently
         amended to add 12 additional states and Puerto Rico to
         the action;

     (2) the July 26, 2001 complaint filed by Blue Cross Blue
         Shield of Michigan, joined by three other Blue Cross
         Blue Shield plans;

     (3) two actions pending in state courts in Florida, and

     (4) two actions pending in state courts in Kansas

On November 26, 2002, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan approved a settlement between the direct
purchasers and Aventis and the Company.  In October 2003, the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
approved a settlement between the indirect purchasers and
Aventis and the Company.  In November 2004, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied an appeal of the District
Court's approval of that settlement. The plaintiffs have filed a
writ of certiorari for the United States Supreme Court to review
this matter.


ANDRX CORPORATION: Reaches Settlement For Wellbutrin SR Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Andrx Corporation reached a settlement for the consolidated
amended class action filed against it in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Florida, related to
its generic versions of Wellbutrin SR/Zyban.  The suit also
names as defendant Richard J. Lane, the Company's former chief
executive officer.

Seven complaints were initially filed against the Company and
certain of its current and former officers and directors for
alleged material misrepresentations regarding the expiration
dating for our generic versions of Wellbutrin SR/Zyban.  The
suits alleged that the Company knew that its products would not
receive timely FDA approval.  All of these cases were
consolidated and on October 20, 2003, the plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended class action complaint in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida, alleging a class
period from March 1, 2002 through March 4, 2003.

After the District Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss
this complaint, on March 5, 2004, the plaintiffs further amended
their complaint to assert that the Company knew, when it filed
its Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDAs), that the products
would not be approved by the FDA because of their expiration
dating. This matter was settled in March 2005 for $2,500,
subject to court approval.  The proposed settlement does not
require a material payment by the Company, as the settlement
proceeds will mainly be paid by its insurance carrier.


APPLE COMPUTER: Appeals Court Affirms Securities Suit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the
dismissal of the consolidated amended securities class action
filed against Apple Computer, Inc. and its chief executive
officer Steve Jobs, on behalf of persons who purchased the
Company's publicly traded common stock between July 19, 2000,
and September 28, 2000.

Beginning on September 27, 2001, three shareholder class action
lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, alleging violations of the 1934
Securities Exchange Act and seek unspecified compensatory
damages and other relief.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss on June 4, 2002, which was
heard by the Court on September 13, 2002.  On December 11, 2002,
the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss for failure to
state a cause of action, with leave to Plaintiffs to amend their
complaint within thirty days. Plaintiffs filed their amended
complaint on January 31, 2003, and on March 17, 2003, the
Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.  The
Court heard the Company's motion on July 11, 2003 and dismissed
Plaintiffs' claims with prejudice on August 12, 2003.  
Plaintiffs appealed the ruling.  The Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeal heard the matter on February 17, 2005 and affirmed the
District Court's ruling in an unpublished decision dated April
4, 2005.  Plaintiffs will not seek further review and the matter
is concluded.


APPLE COMPUTER: Faces Amended Consumer Fraud Lawsuit in CA Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed an amended consumer class action against Apple
Computer, Inc. in the Santa Clara Superior Court in California,
styled "Branning et al. v Apple Computer, Inc."

Plaintiffs originally filed this purported class action in San
Francisco County Superior Court on February 17, 2005.  The
complaint alleges violations of California Business &
Professions Code section 17200 (unfair competition) regarding a
variety of purportedly unfair and unlawful conduct including,
but not limited to, allegedly selling used computers as new,
failing to honor warranties, misappropriating trade secrets and
breach of contract.  Plaintiffs request unspecified damages and
other relief.

The Company received service of the complaint on March 12, 2005
and on March 13, 2005 the Company filed a motion to transfer the
case to Santa Clara County Superior Court.  Plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint on or about April 29, 2005 adding two new
named Plaintiffs and three new causes of action.  The Company is
investigating these claims and has commenced discovery against
Plaintiffs.


APPLE COMPUTER: CA Consumers Launch Fraud Suit V. DVD Studio Pro
----------------------------------------------------------------
Apple Computer, Inc. faces a class action filed in California
Superior Court for the County of Orange, styled "Burrow v. Apple
Computer, Inc."

Plaintiff filed this purported class action in Orange County
Superior Court on February 17, 2005 alleging false advertising
regarding the copy protection capabilities of DVD Studio Pro.  
The Complaint alleges violations of California Business &
Professions Code section 17200 (unfair competition) and Code
section 17500 (false advertising) and negligent
misrepresentation.  Plaintiff requests unspecified damages and
other relief.

The Company was served on March 8, 2005 and filed an answer on
April 7, 2005 denying all allegations and asserting numerous
affirmative defenses.  The Company is investigating these
claims, it stated in a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange
Commission.


APPLE COMPUTER: Plaintiffs Oppose Disqualification of Counsels
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs asked the California Court of Appeals to de-publish
its ruling dismissing their law firms from the class action
filed against Apple Computer, Inc. styled "Cagney v. Apple
Computer, Inc."

Plaintiff filed this purported class action on January 9, 2004
in Los Angeles County Superior Court, California, alleging
improper collection of sales tax in transactions involving mail-
in rebates. The complaint alleges violations of California
Business and Professions Code Section 17200 (unfair competition)
and seeks unspecified damages and other relief.  

The Company was served on January 21, 2004, and filed an answer
on February 20, 2004, denying all allegations and asserting
numerous affirmative defenses. The Company is investigating
these allegations.   The Company filed a motion to disqualify
Plaintiff's counsel, which the Court denied. The Company filed a
petition for a writ of mandate with respect to this ruling and
the Court of Appeal issued an order to show cause as to why the
writ should not issue.  Plaintiff's lead counsel subsequently
withdrew. The hearing on the show cause order took place on
January 26, 2005.  On February 17, 2005 the Court ruled that the
trial court abused its discretion in failing to grant the
Company's motion to disqualify and ordered the trial court to
disqualify both of Plaintiff's law firms upon remand.  The
opinion was designated for publication and Plaintiff has asked
the Court to de-publish it.  The Company has opposed that
request.  The Company has obtained an opinion on the tax issue
from the State Board of Equalization.


APPLE COMPUTER: Reaches Settlement For CA Consumer Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Apple Computer, Inc. reached a settlement for a class action
filed against it in the Santa Clara Superior Court in
California, styled "Clark v. Apple Computer, Inc."

The Plaintiff filed this purported class action on February 2,
2005 in Santa Clara County Superior Court alleging defects in
the Company's "yo-yo" power adapters and request unspecified
damages and other relief.  The parties have reached a tentative
settlement in this matter.  The Court granted preliminary
approval of the settlement on April 19, 2005 and the final
approval hearing is set for September 27, 2005.  


APPLE COMPUTER: Settlement Discussions Proceeding in CA Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is stayed pending settlement discussions in the
consolidated amended consumer class action filed against Apple
Computers, Inc. in San Mateo Superior Court in California.

Eight separate plaintiffs filed purported class action cases in
various California courts alleging misrepresentations by the
Company relative to iPod battery life.  The suits are styled:

     (1) Craft v. Apple Computer, Inc., (filed December 23,
         2003, Santa Clara County Superior Court);

     (2) Chin v. Apple Computer, Inc. (filed December 23, 2003,
         San Mateo County Superior Court);

     (3) Hughes v. Apple Computer, Inc. (filed December 23,
         2003, Santa Clara County Superior Court);

     (4) Westley v. Apple Computer, Inc. (filed December 26,
         2003, San Francisco County Superior Court);

     (5) Keegan v. Apple Computer, Inc. (filed December 30,
         2003, Alameda County Superior Court);

     (6) Wagya v. Apple Computer, Inc. (filed February 19, 2004,
         Alameda County Superior Court);

     (7) Yamin v. Apple Computer, Inc., (filed February 24,
         2004, Los Angeles County Superior Court);

      (8) Kieta v. Apple Computer, Inc. (filed July 8, 2004,
         Alameda County Superior Court)

The complaints include causes of action for violation of
California Business and Professions Code Section 17200 (unfair
competition), the Consumer Legal Remedies Action (CLRA) and
claims for false advertising, fraudulent concealment and breach
of warranty. The complaints seek unspecified damages and other
relief.  The Company is investigating these claims.  The cases
have been consolidated in San Mateo County.

On July 26, 2004, Plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint.  On
August 25, 2004, the Company filed an answer denying all
allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses.  
Discovery is stayed pending settlement discussions among the
parties.

In addition, a similar complaint relative to iPod battery life,
styled "Mosley v. Apple Computer, Inc." was filed in Westchester
County, New York on June 23, 2004 alleging violations of New
York General Business Law Sections 349 (unfair competition) and
350 (false advertising).  The Company removed the case to
Federal Court and Plaintiff filed a motion for remand, which the
Court has not yet decided.  The case is also stayed.


APPLE COMPUTER: CA Court Dismisses Class Claims in Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The San Francisco Superior Court in California dismissed the
class action claims in the lawsuit filed against Apple Computer,
Inc., styled "Davis v. Apple Computer, Inc."

Plaintiff filed this purported class action in San Francisco
County Superior Court on December 5, 2002, alleging that the
Company engaged in unfair and deceptive business practices
relating to its AppleCare Extended Service and Warranty Plan.
Plaintiff asserts causes of action for violation of the
California Business and Professions Code Sections 17200 and
17500, breach of the Song-Beverly Warranty Act, intentional
misrepresentation and concealment.  Plaintiff requests
unspecified damages and other relief.

The Company filed a demurrer and motion to strike which were
granted, in part, and Plaintiff filed an amended complaint.  The
Company filed an answer on April 17, 2003 denying all
allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses.
Plaintiff subsequently amended its complaint.  On October 29,
2003, the Company filed a motion to disqualify Plaintiff's
counsel in his role as counsel to the purported class and to the
general public. The Court granted the motion, but allowed
Plaintiff to retain substitute counsel. Plaintiff did engage new
counsel for the general public, but not for the class. The
Company moved to disqualify Plaintiff's new counsel and to have
the Court dismiss the general public claims for equitable
relief. The Court declined to disqualify Plaintiff's new counsel
or to dismiss the equitable claims, but did confirm that the
class action claims are dismissed. The case is stayed pending an
appeal.


APPLE COMPUTER: CA Court Grants Motion To Strike Lawsuit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Los Angeles County Superior Court in California granted
Apple Computer, Inc.'s motion to strike several claims in the
class action filed against it and other computer manufacturers,
styled "Goldberg, et al. v. Apple Computer, Inc., et al."
(f.k.a. "Dan v. Apple Computer, Inc.")

Plaintiffs filed this purported class action on September 22,
2003 in Los Angeles County Superior Court against the Company
and other members of the industry on behalf of an alleged
nationwide class of purchasers of certain computer hard drives.
The case alleges violations of California Business and
Professions Code Section 17200 (unfair competition), the
Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) and false advertising related
to the size of the drives. Plaintiffs allege that calculation of
hard drive size using the decimal method misrepresents the
actual size of the drive. The complaint seeks unspecified
damages and other relief.

Plaintiffs then filed an amended complaint on March 30, 2004 and
the Company filed an answer on September 23, 2004, denying all
allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses.  The
Company is investigating this claim.  Defendants filed a motion
to strike portions of the complaint based on sales by resellers
and filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings based upon
Proposition 64.  The Court granted both motions at a hearing on
April 6, 2005.  Plaintiff has until May 6, 2005 to file an
amended complaint.


APPLE COMPUTER: Appeals Court Affirms Securities Suit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the
dismissal of the consolidated shareholder class action filed
against Apple Computer, Inc. and its Chief Executive Officer
Steven P. Jobs.

Beginning on September 27, 2001, three shareholder class action
lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California against the Company and its
Chief Executive Officer. These lawsuits are substantially
identical, and purport to bring suit on behalf of persons who
purchased the Company's publicly traded common stock between
July 19, 2000, and September 28, 2000.  The suits are styled:

     (1) Hawaii Structural Iron Workers and Pension Trust
         Fund v. Apple Computer, Inc., and Steven P. Jobs;

     (2) Young v. Apple Computer, Inc., et al.;

     (3) Hsu v. Apple Computer, Inc., et al.

The complaints allege violations of the 1934 Securities Exchange
Act and seek unspecified compensatory damages and other relief.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss on June 4, 2002, which was
heard by the Court on September 13, 2002.  On December 11, 2002,
the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss for failure to
state a cause of action, with leave to Plaintiffs to amend their
complaint within thirty days.  Plaintiffs filed their amended
complaint on January 31, 2003, and on March 17, 2003, the
Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.  The
Court heard the Company's motion on July 11, 2003 and dismissed
Plaintiffs' claims with prejudice on August 12, 2003. Plaintiffs
appealed the ruling.  The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal heard
the matter on February 17, 2005 and affirmed the District
Court's ruling in an unpublished decision dated April 4, 2005.  
Plaintiffs will not seek further review and the matter is
concluded.


APPLE COMPUTER: CA Court To Hear Dismissal Motion in June 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California will hear Apple Computer, Inc.'s motion to dismiss
the consumer class action filed against Apple Computer, Inc.,
styled "Slattery v. Apple Computer, Inc.," on June 6,2005.

Plaintiff filed this purported class action on January 3, 2005
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California alleging various claims including alleged unlawful
tying of music purchased on the iTunes Music Store with the
purchase of iPods and vice versa and unlawful acquisition or
maintenance of monopoly market power.  Plaintiff's complaint
alleges violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act (15
U.S.C. Section 1 and 2), California Business and Professions
Code Section 16700 et seq. (the Cartwright Act), California
Business and Professions Code Section 17200 (unfair
competition), common law unjust enrichment and common law
monopolization.  Plaintiff seeks unspecified damages and other
relief.

The Company is investigating this claim. The Company filed a
motion to dismiss on February 10, 2005.


APPLE COMPUTER: IL, CA Consumer Suits Mediation Set August 2005
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mediation for the two class actions, styled "Stamm v. Apple
Computer, Inc." (filed in the Circuit Court for Cook County,
Illinois) and "Allen v. Apple Computer, Inc.," (filed in the Los
Angeles County Superior Court in California), is set for August
2005.

Plaintiff Stamm filed a purported class action on November 12,
2004 in Circuit Court, Cook County, Illinois alleging that a
defect in the Company's Studio Display monitors results in
dimming of half of the screen and constant blinking of the power
light.  The Company is investigating the claim.  The Company
removed the case to federal court on December 22, 2004.  The
Court remanded it to State Court on March 22, 2005 on
Plaintiff's motion.  The Company had filed a motion to dismiss
on January 27, 2005, which is now off calendar due to the
remand.  On January 28, 2005 a second Plaintiff, Allen, filed a
purported class action in Los Angeles Superior Court alleging
identical claims.


BAREFOOT CAMPING: Resort Residents Launch Suit Over Clause in SC
----------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys for the residents of Barefoot Camping Resort launched
a class action lawsuit, alleging that a 30-day termination
clause in residents' leases is not enforceable and that
residents should be compensated for verbal promises management
did not keep, The Sun News reports.

According to residents, Barefoot's management promised them,
among other things, that the property would remain a campground
for at least 25 years. However, April 21, an attorney for the
campground's owners told residents that they have to leave
within six months because the owners plan to sell the property.

Observers familiar with the matter pointed out that the rising
price of oceanfront land is enticing many landowners of golf
courses and now campgrounds to sell to developers. Barefoot
itself has about 400 residents with permanent leases, much like
the other five oceanfront campgrounds along the Grand Strand.

The lawsuit asks the court to rule that the lease should be for
a one-year period and that residents cannot be evicted. Bill
Hanna, attorney for the Barefoot residents even contends, "The
contract says the landlord can terminate the lease at any time
he wants to. That's not a lease." A judge will decide whether
the lease is enforceable.

Mr. Hanna told the Sun News that Barefoot residents want a jury
to decide what damages, if any, residents should get because of
the alleged broken promises management made to them when leases
were signed.

Residents who bought their units in 2001 or later were offered
compensation from the landowners a few weeks back. Those who
bought homes in 2005 were offered a 50 percent refund of their
purchase price, with refunds declining by 10 percent per year
through 2001.

Additionally, the owners' offer includes another $700
compensation and allows residents to maintain ownership as long
as they move their unit by September 30. The offers are open
until June 15, and payment will be made when residents move the
unit, according to letters from Barefoot Camping Resort. Mr.
Rice said some residents have accepted the money, but the owners
haven't heard back from most of the residents.

Barefoot residents with permanent sites are part of the suit
unless they decide to opt out, Mr. Hanna said.


CANADA: Veterans Group Says Government Not Liable For $5.8B Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff Chadderton, Chairman of the National Council of Veteran
Associations (51 member groups), stated that the government has
no liability for a class action currently before the Ontario
Superior Court that is seeking up to $5.8 billion for disabled
veterans.

"The Federal Government has said there never was a
responsibility to pay any interest on the funds that they were
managing for these veterans," Mr. Chadderton said. "They were
doing them a favor, and there was no provision in any
legislation that they could have paid interest anyway."

A group of lawyers commenced a class action going back to 1917,
meaning the majority of beneficiaries would be far distant
relatives.

"We are pressing the government everyday for more bed space for
veterans and this is where the money would be better spent
rather than on 52nd degree cousins," said Mr. Chadderton.

The NCVA has petitioned Ministers of Veterans Affairs for many
years, suggesting that, regardless of the decision of the
Courts, Veterans Affairs Canada should establish a review
procedure, which would allow payment of interest on justifiable
cases. The Supreme Court has held that Veterans Affairs is not
responsible to pay interest.

Mr. Chadderton spoke at greater length on the issue on CJOB
Radio's Larry Updike Show. The transcript can be read at:
http://waramps.ca/news/trust/transcript.html.


CERIDIAN CORPORATION: Shareholders File Stock Fraud Suits in MN
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ceridian Corporation and certain of its executive officers face
six shareholder class actions filed in the United States
District Court, District of Minnesota, styled:

     (1) Edmund Biancarelli v. Ceridian Corp., et al., filed
         August 16, 2004;

     (2) Garco Investments v. Ceridian Corp., et al., filed
         September 2, 2004;

     (3) Ellen Lear v. Ceridian Corp., et al., filed August 26,
         2004;

     (4) Bruce Valentine Mickan v. Ceridian Corp., et al., filed
         September 24, 2004;

     (5) Richard Shaller v. Ceridian Corp., et al., filed August
         6, 2004; and

     (6) Sharon Zaks v. Ceridian Corp., et al., filed August 25,
         2004

The complaints for these actions are virtually identical.  These
actions purport to be class actions filed on behalf of all
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired common stock of the
company between April 17, 2003 through and including July 19,
2004, and allege claims against the company and certain of its
officers under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

Plaintiffs challenge the accuracy of certain public disclosures
made by Ceridian regarding its financial performance, and in
particular the Company's accounting for revenue at its Stored
Value Systems business unit and accounting for capitalization
and expensing of certain costs in its U.S. Human Resource
Solutions business.


CITIZENS PROPERTY: FL Judge Orders Full Payment of Flood Damages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Citizens Property Insurance Corporation must pay the full amount
of damage under homeowners' policies even if flooding primarily
damaged the homes and not wind, according to a recent ruling by
the presiding a judge, The Associated Press reports.

Observers familiar with case pointed out that the decision could
affect hundreds of Panhandle residents whose homes were
destroyed by 20-foot waves that crashed ashore during Hurricane
Ivan, but who only received a check for damage caused by wind.

Citizens, the state-created insurer for people who can't get
policies from private companies, told AP that it would appeal
Circuit Judge Kevin Davey's ruling. The firm's spokesman, Justin
Glover even told AP, "We will continue to assert that Citizens
should not be paying for losses caused by flood."

Homeowners' attorneys argued though that state law requires
insurers to pay the full amount of a policy even if an uncovered
catastrophe causes a portion of the damage.

However, Glover told AP that Citizens is vehemently arguing that
it is legally prohibited from paying flood claims and believes
the judge's ruling essentially means it could have to pay for
the full value of a house even if flooding causes 99 percent of
the damage.

Though the case is now headed to an appeals court, the ruling
was good news for frustrated homeowners. Tony Thevis, a Navarre
Beach resident whose home was destroyed, "It's been a nightmare.
I've spent the last eight months of my life dedicated to the
recovery of my home. Their arrogance, their dismissiveness of my
claims, my phone calls my letters, they essentially dared me to
bring this suit. I was left with no choice." Mr. Thevis had
$409,000 in homeowner's coverage, but according to him, Citizens
only paid $9,900.

Scott Maddox, one of the lawyers suing Citizens and who is also
a Democratic candidate for governor told AP, "These people paid
their premiums month after month, they deserve to get their
policies paid so they can rebuild their homes and go on with
their lives."

About 350 homeowners have demanded Citizens make full payment on
their policies. Others who may not have contested Citizens'
decision not to pay flood damage may do so now, Mr. Glover told
AP.

Earlier this month, Florida's Legislature passed a bill that
would protect insurance companies from having to pay flood
damage when policies only cover wind. That bill, however, isn't
retroactive, so it won't affect this case.


COLORADO: Lyon Financial, Wells Fargo Settles NorVergence Suit  
--------------------------------------------------------------
Colorado Attorney General John Suthers reached a multi-state
settlement with Lyon Financial Services (dba U.S. Bancorp
Business Equipment Finance Group) and Wells Fargo Financial
Leasing Inc., both of which had purchased lease agreements from
NorVergence Inc., a bankrupt, New Jersey-based telephone
equipment and service company, The Denver Business Journal
reports.  
   
According to A.G. Suthers, the settlement will put more than
$500,000 back in the hands of Colorado small-business owners.
Creditors, however still would collect about $93,000 from the
companies involved in the case, he told the Business Journal.

NorVergence Inc., a telecommunications company that served more
than 10,000 customers across the nation including an estimated
100 in Colorado, was the subject of class action lawsuits in 20
states and the District of Columbia.  The suits had all alleged
that the Newark, New Jersey-based NorVergence misrepresented the
value of network devices it installed, claiming they were worth
from $12,000 to $175,000 per unit.

However, according to documents filed in Arapahoe County
district court, NorVergence purchased the devices, which were
common routers for phone and Internet service, from the
manufacturer for prices ranging from $345 to $1,500 per unit.  
NorVergence customers signed agreements that allowed them to pay
for the boxes for a five-year period.

The company claimed its hardware would route landline, cell-
phone and high-speed Internet access, thus saving customers
between 30 percent and 60 percent of its communications costs.
It also promised customers the equipment would give them access
to free long-distance and cell-phone calls.

NorVergence was forced into bankruptcy in June 2004 after it
stopped paying phone companies including Qwest Communications
International Inc. and Sprint Corp. that provided telecom
service to NorVergence customers. After the telecommunications
companies pulled the plug, the customers were left with five-
year lease agreements that were turned over to financial
institutions.

Under the multi-state settlement, Wells Fargo and U.S. Bancorp,
two of approximately 40 involved with the leasing arrangement
for the boxes, agreed to refund or not collect more than $15.2
million in rental payments from consumers.


COMDISCO INC.: Securities Settlement Hearing Set July 14, 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division will hold a fairness hearing for the
proposed $13,750,000 settlement in the matter: In re Comdisco
Securities Litigation, Master File No. 01 C 2110 on behalf of
all persons and entities who purchased the common stock of
Comdisco, Inc. during the period November 3, 1999, through and
including October 3, 2000.

The Final Settlement Hearing will be held before the Honorable
United States Judge Milton I. Shadur, on July 14, 2005, at 9:30
a.m., in Courtroom 2303 of the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois, Everett McKinley Dirksen
United States Courthouse, 219 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, IL
60604.

For more details, contact Adam J. Levitt, Esq. of Wolf
Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLC, 55 West Monroe, Street,
Suite 1111, Chicago, Illinois 60603 by Phone: 312-984-0000 OR In
re Comdisco Securities Litigation, c/o The Garden City Group,
Inc., Claims Administrator by Phone: P.O. Box 9000 #6308,
Merrick, NY 11566-9000 by Phone: (800) 336-0045.


CONOCOPHILIPS: LA Judge OKs $64.5M Chemical Release Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
State District Court Judge Wilford Carter formally approved a
$64.5 million settlement in a case involving approximately
20,000 people who had claimed that they suffered health problems
because of chemical releases from ConocoPhillips' Westlake
refinery, The Associated Press reports.  Though the judge has
ruled that the settlement is reasonable and fair, it will likely
take months for all the claims to be processed before the
plaintiffs in the class action suit see any checks.

As previously reported in the January 7, 2005 edition of the
Class Action Reporter, the suit stems from a leak of sulfur
dioxide at the ConocoPhillips facility in Westlake on January
18, 2003. In a report the company filed with state regulators, a
power outage that day caused the release of 64 tons of sulfur
dioxide.

The settlement deals primarily with a January chemical release
at ConocoPhillips, but it also covers other releases. It was
negotiated after a single case went to trial, resulting in a
$3,500 settlement against ConocoPhillips.

Court documents revealed that Pat Juneau of Lafayette has been
appointed as the independent special master for the case and
will determine how much each individual claimant will receive.
In the fairness hearing, Mr. Juneau testified that he is
developing a formula to distribute the money based on medical
records and other documents.

In his testimony, Mr. Juneau explained that each claim would be
ranked from zero through six, with zero being an inconvenience
and six being a serious injury. Once the distribution formula is
complete, it will be sent to Judge Carter for approval. After
the individual awards are decided, notification letters will be
sent out to each class member. Claimants can appeal their awards
to Judge Carter if they choose.

Lake Charles attorney Ron Richard, who represents about 10,000
plaintiffs told AP, "We're very pleased to see that this
community is going be compensated. Hopefully things like this
won't happen again."

For its part, ConocoPhillips spokeswoman Michelle Woodyear told
AP, "We believe it is a fair and reasonable settlement and that
it is in the best interest of our community and our company to
have concluded this matter in this way."  

After the settlement was proposed, a group of attorneys had
questioned its fairness, arguing that it was too broad and set
aside too much for lawyers' fees. According to court documents,
up to 40 percent of the $64.5 million settlement, or $25
million, can be set aside for attorneys' fees, though Judge
Carter can still approve lower attorneys' fees before the money
is distributed.

The plaintiffs also gave up the right to sue for any releases at
ConocoPhillips and the nearby Sasol facility that occurred prior
to 2004, which some attorneys argued that it gives the companies
too much protection.

About 700 people have opted out of the settlement in hopes of
filing other lawsuits and working out another settlement with
the company.


CORE LABORATORIES: Texas Class Action Complaint Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Texas entered an order dismissing a consolidated class action
lawsuit by shareholders of Core Laboratories N.V. against the
Company and some of its officials.  A copy of the order
dismissing the action, entered May 16, 2005, is available at
no charge at http://tinyurl.com/7994r

In April 2003, four putative class action lawsuits were
filed against Core Laboratories N.V. and certain of its
officers in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York; these cases were
consolidated and transferred to the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Texas.

On March 22, 2004, lead plaintiffs filed their
consolidated amended complaint, which generally alleges,
among other things, that the defendants violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by
making false and misleading statements about the Company's
financial results for 2001 and 2002 and by employing
inadequate internal controls. The amended complaint sought
unspecified monetary damages.  The Defendants filed a
motion to dismiss on May 21, 2004.  On March 8, 2005, the
Court denied without prejudice defendants' motion to
dismiss subject to Plaintiffs filing a Second Amended
Compliant that sets forth with particularity allegations
that meet the heightened pleading requirements of Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) and the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995.  The order required the
Second Amended Complaint to be filed by May 9, 2005.

This story supplements a story based on stale facts that
appeared in the Class Action Reporter on Friday, May 27, 2005.


HO'S TRADING: Recalls Dessert of Pear Due to Undeclared Sulfites
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ho's Trading Inc., 1010 Dean Street, Brooklyn, NY 11238 is
recalling Home Special Soup Mixed, Dessert of Pear, because it
may contain undeclared sulfites. People who have severe
sensitivity to sulfites run the risk of serious or life-
threatening allergic reactions if they consume this product.

The recalled Home Special Soup Mixed, Dessert of Pear are packed
in 3.5 oz., un-coded plastic bags. The products were sold
nationwide.

The recall was initiated after routine sampling by New York
State Department of Agriculture and Markets Food Inspectors and
subsequent analysis of the product by Food Laboratory personnel
revealed the presence of undeclared sulfites in Home Special
Soup Mixed, Dessert of Pear which did not declare sulfites on
the label. The consumption of 10 milligrams of sulfites per
4serving has been reported to elicit severe reaction in some
asthmatics. Anaphylactic shock could occur in certain sulfites
sensitive individuals upon ingesting 10 milligrams or more of
sulfites.

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
problem.

Consumers who have purchased Home Special Soup Mixed, Dessert of
Pear should return it to the place of purchase. Consumers with
questions may contact the company at 1-718-622-2288.


HOMESTORE.COM: Appeals Court Hears CA Lawsuit Dismissal Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has fully
briefed plaintiffs' appeal of the dismissal of the consolidated
securities class action filed against Homestore.com, Inc. and
two of its former employees of its American Online Division.

On November 15, 2002, the California State Teachers' Retirement
System (CaLSTERS) filed an amended consolidated complaint in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on
behalf of a putative class of purchasers of the Company's stock.
Plaintiff alleges that the Company engaged in a scheme to
defraud its shareholders in violation of Section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act.  The Company and two former employees of its
America Online division were named as defendants in the amended
consolidated complaint because of their alleged participation in
the scheme through certain advertising transactions entered into
with the Company.

Motions to dismiss filed by the Company and the two former
employees were granted on March 7, 2003, and a final judgment of
dismissal was entered on March 8, 2004.  On April 7, 2004,
plaintiff filed a notice of appeal in the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals; that appeal was fully briefed as of January 10, 2005.

The suit is styled "T. Jeffrey Simpson, et al v. Homestore.Com,
Inc., et al., case no. 2:01-cv-11115-RSWL-CW," filed in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California, under Judge Ronald S.W. Lew.  Representing the
defendants are:

     (1) George Borden, F. Whitten Peters, Ana C. Reyes and Ryan
         T. Scarborough of Williams & Connolly, 725 12th St NW
         Washington, DC 20005-5901, Phone: 202-434-5000, E-mail:
         gborden@wc.com or areyes@wc.com  

     (2) Thad Alan Davis and John B. Quinn of Quinn Emanuel
         Urquhart Oliver & Hedges, 865 S Figueroa St, 10th Fl
         Los Angeles, CA 90017-2543 Phone: 213-624-7707

Representing the plaintiffs are Peter E. Borkon, Joseph W.
Cotchett, Robert B. Hutchinson, Mark Cotton Molumphy, and Bruce
L. Simon of Cotchett Pitre Simon & McCarthy, San Francisco
Airport Office Center 840 Malcolm Rd Ste 200 Burlingame, CA
94010 Phone: 650-697-6000 E-mail: bsimon@cpsmlaw.com,
swilliams@cpsmlaw.com  


JOURNAL SENTINEL: Faces WI Suit V. Inflated Circulation Figures
---------------------------------------------------------------
Journal Sentinel, Inc., a subsidiary of Journal Communications,
Inc. faces a class action filed in the Milwaukee County Circuit
Court, Wisconsin.

The plaintiff, Shorewest Realtors, seeks to bring a class action
lawsuit on behalf of "Milwaukee Journal Sentinel" advertisers,
alleging that the newspaper improperly inflated its circulation
numbers from 1996 on.  Shorewest is seeking disgorgement or
restitution by the Company of alleged improperly collected
charges (with interest), plus an unspecified amount of damages.  


LEADING EDGE: Judge Gives Class Status to Penis Enlargement Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Approximately 400,000 customers of a Canadian company that sells
penis-enlargement products may be eligible to join a lawsuit
claiming the oils and herbal supplements don't work, according
to a recent ruling by a Denver federal judge, The Denver Post
reports.

The ruling was a victory for Californian Jeffery Horton, who
last year sued Leading Edge Marketing Inc. of British Columbia
and a handful of related companies in U.S. District Court in
Denver. It's also a win for his attorneys, who would collect a
portion of any class settlement or court award.

According to lawyers in the case, the companies Leading Edge,
TechniPak LLC of Greeley, Advanced Botanicals Ltd. of Vancouver,
British Columbia, and several others had sought to have the suit
thrown out, however, Judge Phillip Figa denied their motions to
dismiss and granted conditional class action status to the suit.

Judge Figa told the Post Mr. Horton's attorneys couldn't contact
customers directly. Instead, according to James Jablonski of
Rumler Tarbox Lyden, Mr. Horton's law firm in Denver they must
alert potential class members through public notices such as
Internet or newspaper ads.

Mr. Jablonski told the Post that potential class members include
customers who purchased products sold by Leading Edge under the
VigRx brand since June 2000. Horton attorney Brad Corsello said
in court that includes more than 400,000 people.

Whether Judge Figa ultimately allows the case to proceed as a
class action also will depend on whether the plaintiff can prove
that he and others were misled by Leading Edge's marketing.

The suit claims the VigRx products don't produce the permanent
enlargement and cure for erectile dysfunction that the company
promises on its website and elsewhere.

Leading Edge attorney Michael Freeman of Faegre & Benson in
Denver argued before Judge Figa that the company never promised
permanent enlargement and instead markets its products as sexual
enhancements. Mr. Freeman also pointed out during the hearing
that Leading Edge has many satisfied customers, but the company
does issue refunds to those who aren't happy with the products.
In fact, according to him, Leading Edge had refunded $600,000 in
2004, or 5 percent of total sales.

Meanwhile, TechniPak's attorney, Connie Peterson of Brownstein,
Hyatt & Farber in Denver told the Post that the company had
hoped that it would be dropped from the suit because it only
delivered the products and made no representations to customers.
She added though that the plaintiff might have a difficult time
rounding up a substantial number of men willing to step forward
and join the suit.


LUPRON LITIGATION: MA Judge Harshly Criticizes Kline & Specter  
--------------------------------------------------------------
Despite a federal judge's approval earlier this month of $150
million in settlements in the litigation over alleged illegal
pricing tactics used in marketing the prostate cancer drug
Lupron, the fate of hundreds of plaintiffs including so-called
"opt-out" plaintiffs remains unclear, due to harsh criticisms by
the presiding judge over the plaintiffs' lawyers marketing
tactics, The Legal Intelligencer reports.

Lupron is primarily prescribed to treat prostate cancer in men,
endometriosis and uterine fibroids in women, and premature
puberty in children.

In his May 12 decision, U.S. District Judge Richard G. Stearns
of the District of Massachusetts faulted Kline & Specter for
launching a pair of Internet Web sites that, according to the
judge, were "intended to mislead potential members of the
[federal multi-district litigation] MDL class." Judge Stearns
also faulted Kline & Specter for sending a "Dear Client" letter
to "every person who had registered" on the firm's Web sites.
The letter, the judge says, contained "a number of deliberate
misrepresentations and falsehoods."

Court records revealed that Kline & Specter had opposed approval
of the federal class action settlement, and that the firm also
represents several groups of plaintiffs in proposed class
actions pending in state courts in Arizona, North Carolina and
New Jersey, as well as a separate suit brought on behalf of the
Pennsylvania attorney general.

Though declining to comment about the judge's specific comments,
attorney Shanin Specter told the Legal Intelligencer that he and
his partner, Donald Haviland, are continuing to press their
clients' claims. In an interview with the paper, he also said,
"We have a duty to zealously represent our clients. We're also
mindful of Judge Stearns' concerns and we fully intend to be
sensitive to those concerns in everything we do." He further
said, "As we go forward, we will continue to aim for the best
result for all of our clients."

In his 50-page opinion in In re Lupron Marketing and Sales
Practices Litigation, Stearns outlined the history of the
federal litigation, including the role that Kline & Specter
played at various stages in the case.

The civil suits over the alleged illegal pricing of Lupron
stemmed from a criminal case in which TAP Pharmaceutical
Products Inc., which was a joint venture of Abbott Laboratories
of Illinois and Takeda Pharmaceuticals Co. of Japan, pleaded
guilty to charges that it had encouraged doctors to fraudulently
bill the Medicare program for free samples of Lupron as part of
a "'brand loyalty'" scheme.

Acting in the wake of "whistleblower" suits, federal prosecutors
took up the case and argued that the intent of the scheme was to
provide incentives to doctors to prescribe Lupron instead of
cheaper, similarly effective drugs, such as Zoladex,
manufactured by AstraZeneca.

Under its plea agreement, TAP paid a $290 million criminal fine
and nearly $560 million in restitution, the largest beneficiary
of which was the Medicare program, although more than $25
million was paid to the 50 states and the District of Columbia
to compensate for overcharges absorbed by their Medicaid
programs.

According to court papers, at the heart of the scheme was TAP's
overt or tacit encouragement of doctors to bill Medicare for
Lupron at an imaginary average wholesale price, or AWP, provided
by TAP to the "Red Book," an industry publication used by
Medicare and other third-party payors, to establish payment
schedules for reimbursable prescription drugs. Prosecutors
argued that TAP knew it could "raise" the average wholesale
price of Lupron at any time by simply forwarding to the Red Book
a new and higher average wholesale price, in effect allowing TAP
to control the maximum Medicare reimbursement paid to a doctor
for prescribing Lupron.

The civil suits mirrored the government's allegations. According
to the plaintiffs, the AWP reported by TAP for Lupron bore no
resemblance to the actual prices being charged to doctors, nor
did it bear any relationship to a reasonable interpretation of
the terms "average" or "wholesale." Instead, the suit alleged,
the AWP was inflated at the expense of consumers and insurers to
funnel hidden profits to doctors.

Judge Stearns noted that, in addition to the federal suits all
of which were transferred to him under the Multi-District
Litigation Program, several Lupron cases were also filed as
either state or nationwide class actions in state courts. He
also noted that the lawyers in some of those cases including
those in California, Texas and Illinois agreed early on to
"coordinate discovery efforts" with the lead lawyers appointed
in the federal MDL case."

However, Judge Sterans wrote, Kline & Specter "refused to join
in the cooperative effort," and "instead embarked on a pre-
emptive strategy to seize control of the litigation by using the
state court proceedings to gain leverage over counsel
cooperating with the MDL action." Soon after the $150 million
settlement was proposed in the MDL case, the judge noted that
Kline & Specter filed a motion to intervene on behalf of
objectors.

In November 2004, Judge Stearns granted preliminary approval of
the settlement. This action cleared the way for the class
members to be notified.

A few weeks later though, according to Judge Stearns, the lead
lawyers on the MDL case filed an emergency motion asking the
court to enjoin Kline & Specter from "improper communication"
with members of the Lupron purchaser class. That motion had
accused Kline & Specter of disseminating "false, misleading and
confusing information" to class members about the MDL settlement
and the status of other state court cases. It also accused the
firm of improperly soliciting opt-outs from the MDL settlement.

As evidence, the motion cited Web sites established by Kline &
Specter under the domain names http://www.lupronlaw.comand  
http://www.lupronclass.comthat offered to "welcome" potential  
members to "the class" and invited purchasers of the drug "to
register for the Lupron class action."

After reviewing the Web sites, Judge Stearns promptly issued an
order in which he found that the sites were intended to mislead
potential members of the MDL class. His order concluded, "the
typical registrant on a Kline & Specter Web site would not know
that he or she was opting out as a participant in the MDL class
by 'registering' with Kline & Specter. Moreover, neither of the
Web sites explained that a registrant who opted for inclusion
'in litigation in the state courts' might (depending on his or
her state of residence) be left with no means of recovery." The
order also said that while Kline & Specter were "perfectly free
to criticize the proposed settlement agreement ... they are not
privileged to engage in deceptive conduct manipulating the very
consumers they claim to protect."

Additionally, Judge Stearns ordered Kline & Specter to remove
the "registration" form from the Web sites and to prominently
display a banner stating that the MDL court had not authorized
the sites. He also ordered that a complete list of all
"registrants" be produced to the court, under seal, for
inspection.

Stearns said he later learned that Mr. Haviland had sent a "Dear
Client" letter to every person who had registered on the firm's
Web sites. According to court records, the letter began by
noting that the national class that had previously been
certified in North Carolina had "recently" been decertified and
said that nonresidents of North Carolina were "no longer
included in and being protected by the North Carolina case." It
then advised registrants, "to affirmatively protect their rights
going forward" by opting out of the MDL settlement and by
completing a Kline & Specter retainer agreement.

Judge Stearns also found that the letter also "presented a
distorted picture of the MDL settlement, including the patently
false statement that MDL claimants would be paid only 3 cents
for each dollar of their actual damages." The judge also found
that the letter was signed by Mr. Haviland as "Co-Lead Counsel
for State Court Plaintiffs and the State Court Classes, without
any disclosure of the fact that Kline & Specter was serving as
lead counsel in pending Lupron actions in only two states."

Judge Stearns said that the "Dear Client" letter contained "a
number of deliberate misrepresentations and falsehoods," and
ordered that a "curative notice" be sent by Kline & Specter to
all of the letter's recipients. After the curative notice was
mailed, the judge said that he sent letters to the state court
judges presiding over the North Carolina and New Jersey cases
that "noted the misinformation disseminated by Kline & Specter
and the efforts undertaken by the court to provide prospective
MDL class members with a full understanding of their rights."
That letter also asked the state court judges to defer ruling on
dispositive motions or proceeding with any potentially
preclusive trials until this court could convene a hearing and
rule on the fairness of the proposed MDL settlement.

Kline & Specter then moved to disqualify Judge Stearns from
continuing to preside over the MDL proceedings, arguing that his
"unsolicited" communications with the state court judges gave
"an objective appearance of partiality, if not actual
partiality," and showed that the judge had aligned himself with
the MDL litigants in an effort to deprive the opt-out of their
day in court.

However, Judge Stearns flatly rejected the disqualification
motion, noting that there is a "longstanding federal policy
encouraging MDL judges to communicate directly with state court
judges presiding over parallel cases in the interests of
avoiding conflicts and conserving judicial resources."

In the May 12 opinion, Judge Stearns also rejected all of Kline
& Specter's objections to the fairness of the federal
settlement, which they claim unfairly favors insurance companies
over ordinary consumers.

Mr. Specter and Mr. Haviland also argued that the defendants'
impetus to settle arose from the impending trial in the New
Jersey case, and that the defendants found the MDL steering
committee to be a more pliant negotiating partner than Kline &
Specter, which would have insisted on a larger settlement fund
in exchange for a release.

In his May 12 ruling though, Judge Stearns wrote, "This would be
a persuasive argument if it were true." Instead, the judge said
he credited the defendants' claim that "the global peace that
they desired could never have been negotiated with Kline &
Specter." He noted that Kline & Specter "represents less than 5
percent of the national pool of consumer-purchasers," and,
significantly, represents "almost none" of the third-party payor
plaintiffs. Those entities hold claims to 90 percent of the
damages.

"As a consequence, a settlement with Kline & Specter was never
considered a realistic alternative, and hence no global
negotiations were ever undertaken with the firm," Judge Stearns
wrote.


MATTEL INC.: Court Hears Appeal of CA Securities Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals heard
plaintiffs' appeal of the settlement of the shareholder fraud
class action and derivative lawsuits filed against Mattel, Inc.
and certain of its current and former officers and directors.

Following the Company's announcement in October 1999 of the
expected results of its Learning Company division for the third
quarter of 1999, various stockholders filed purported class
action complaints naming the Company and certain of its present
and former officers and directors as defendants.  These
shareholder complaints were consolidated into two lead cases,
one under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act"), and the other under Section 14(a) of
the Exchange Act.  In November 2002, the United States District
Court for the Central District of California permitted the
actions to proceed as class actions.

Several stockholders filed related derivative complaints
purportedly on behalf of the Company. Some of the derivative
suits were consolidated into one lawsuit in Los Angeles County
Superior Court in California, which was dismissed for the
plaintiff's failure to make pre-suit demand on the board of
directors. An appeal from that decision was dismissed in July
2003 by stipulation of the parties. Another derivative suit was
filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery, and was dismissed
without prejudice in August 2002 in deference to the then-
ongoing California derivative case. A third derivative suit,
filed in federal court in the Central District of California,
was dismissed in July 2002, and re-filed in November 2002 as
part of the settlement.

In November 2002, the parties to the federal cases negotiated
and thereafter memorialized in a final settlement agreement a
settlement of all the federal lawsuits in exchange for payment
of $122.0 million and the Company's agreement to adopt certain
corporate governance procedures.  The court granted final
approval to the settlement in September 2003, and judgments were
entered accordingly. On October 9, 2003, a group of persons
purporting to be members of the Section 14(a) class filed a
notice of appeal, challenging the manner in which the $122.0
million was allocated between the Section 10(b) class and the
Section 14(a) class.  On April 4, 2005, the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit heard the appeal but has not
yet rendered a decision.


MCMORAN OIL: Asks DE Court For Summary Judgment in Stock Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
McMoran Oil & Gas Co. asked the Delaware Court of Chancery to
grant summary judgment in its favor in the consolidated
shareholder class action filed against it and certain of its
subsidiaries.

Two suits were initially filed, namely "Daniel W. Krasner v.
James R. Moffett; Ren L. Latiolais; J. Terrell Brown; Thomas D.
Clark, Jr.; B.M. Rankin, Jr.; Richard C. Adkerson; Robert M.
Wohleber; Freeport-McMoRan Sulphur Inc. and McMoRan Oil & Gas
Co., Civ. Act. No. 16729-NC," and "Gregory J. Sheffield and
Moise Katz v. Richard C. Adkerson, J. Terrell Brown, Thomas D.
Clark, Jr., Ren L. Latiolais, James R. Moffett, B.M. Rankin,
Jr., Robert M. Wohleber and McMoRan Exploration Co."

These two lawsuits were consolidated in January 1999. The
complaint alleges that Freeport-McMoRan Sulphur Inc.'s directors
breached their fiduciary duty to Freeport-McMoRan Sulphur Inc.'s
stockholders in connection with the combination of Freeport-
McMoRan Sulphur Inc. and McMoRan Oil & Gas Co. The plaintiffs
claim that the directors failed to take actions that were
necessary to obtain the true value of Freeport-McMoRan Sulphur
Inc.  The plaintiffs also claim that McMoRan Oil & Gas Co.
knowingly aided and abetted the breaches of fiduciary duty
allegedly committed by the other defendants.

In September 2002, the court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss. The plaintiffs appealed the court's decision and in
June 2003, the Delaware Supreme Court reversed the trial court's
dismissal and remanded the case to the trial court for further
proceedings.

The lawsuit was certified as a class action. Fact discovery has
been completed. In February 2005 the defendants filed a motion
for summary judgment and oral argument on this motion was held
in April 2005. Trial is scheduled for September 2005.


NEW YORK: Mason Law Firm Lodges Suit V. ECB Over CAPA Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Mason Law Firm filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
Joseph L. Balkan, Inc. against the City of New York ("City") in
New York County Supreme Court. The lawsuit was filed on behalf
of all persons, corporations and other entities in New York who
have paid penalties returnable to the Environmental Control
Board of the City of New York ("ECB") pursuant to Penalty
Schedules enacted by the ECB in violation of the New York City
Administrative Procedure Act ("CAPA") of the New York City
Charter.

In its complaint, Plaintiff, Joseph L. Balkan, Inc. -- a family-
owned business engaged in sewer and water service contracting -
alleges that the ECB violated CAPA because it wrongfully
increased penalties for a myriad of violations over which the
ECB has authority to adjudicate. Plaintiff alleges that the City
failed to comply with CAPA because it enacted the penalty
increases without first providing any notice of the intention to
enact such increased penalties and without first providing
opportunity for public comment as required by the New York City
Charter.

The ECB is an administrative tribunal that provides hearings for
various "quality of life" infractions of the City's laws and
rules. The ECB was created in 1971 within the NYC Department of
Environmental Protection, to hold hearings on Notices of
Violation issued by many City agencies including the Departments
of Sanitation, Environmental Protection, Health, Consumer
Affairs, Buildings, Fire, Police, Transportation, Information
Technology & Telecommunications, Landmarks Preservation, Parks
and the Business Integrity Commission. Joseph L. Balkan, Inc.
alleges that since its inception in 1971, the ECB has
periodically raised the penalties for violations returnable to
it in violation of the New York City Charter.

In the complaint, Plaintiff seeks a judgment declaring the City
of New York's actions in enacting the increased penalties to be
null and void and awarding Plaintiff and Class Members
compensatory damages and restitution of the portion of their
penalty payments, which represent the wrongful increases.

According to the Fiscal Year 2004 Mayor's Management Report,
over the past four fiscal years 2,547,872 ECB notices of
violations were issued, and the ECB rendered 728,498 decisions.
Over this four-year period the ECB collected $210,152,000 in
revenue.

Joseph L. Balkan, Inc. is represented by The Mason Law Firm,
P.C., a civil litigation firm dedicated to representing
plaintiffs in class action and mass tort lawsuits. The Mason Law
Firm, which has successfully resolved lawsuits for is clients
involving civil rights, environmental contamination, and
defective products, has offices in Washington, D.C. and New York
City.

In a related proceeding, on August 24, 2004, a group of street
vendors represented by the Street Vendor Project of the Urban
Justice Center commenced a class action in the New York County
Supreme Court seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and
alleging, similar to what has been alleged by Plaintiff Joseph
L. Balkan, Inc., that the City's increase of the fines payable
to the ECB violated requirements of the New York City Charter.
Justice Edmead recently certified this class of street vendors
in Ousmane v. City of New York, holding that, "Having already
been aggrieved by the City's illegal promulgation of increased
penalties, these vendors should not be required to jump through
additional hoops to be made whole. Through class certification,
the Court may best protect the interests of these otherwise
vulnerable individuals."

For more information about the case filed by Joseph L. Balkan,
Inc., contact Gary E. Mason at The Mason Law Firm, P.C.
202.429.2290 x15.


NEW YORK: Plaintiff Asks Court To Repeal Transfer of A.I.G Stock
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ohio attorney general Jim Petro, who is the lead plaintiff in a
securities class action against the American International
Group, filed a complaint that asks the judge overseeing the
matter to order Maurice R. Greenberg to rescind his recent
transfer of 41.4 million A.I.G. shares to his wife, Corinne
Greenberg, The New York Times reports.

According to A.G. Petro's complaint, which also asks the court
to appoint a receiver to hold the shares until the class-action
case has concluded, the March 11 transfer of shares, which was
valued at more than $2.6 billion at the time, was fraudulent.
Under a New York State law, Mr. Petro contended, the gift was
improper, since it shifted assets out of Mr. Greenberg's hands
that investors could use to recover money they lost in A.I.G.
shares.

As reported in the February editions of the Class Action
Reporter, A.G. Petro represents three Ohio public pension funds
that hold A.I.G. shares, and is the lead plaintiff in a
securities class action against A.I.G. that was consolidated
with eight other such cases on February 7. In April, A.G. Petro
added Mr. Greenberg as a defendant in the class action.

In a press statement A.G. Petro said, "We are seeking to stop
this suspect transaction of a large block of stock and put it
under the control of a receiver until the end of the case." He
added that the complaint filed represented "a new chapter in our
vigorous efforts to obtain compensation for investors as well as
to institute appropriate corporate governance reforms at A.I.G."

The three funds, the Ohio Public Employees Retirement System,
the State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio and the Ohio Police
and Fire Pension Fund, have lost $72.6 million on their A.I.G.
holdings. Assets in the three funds, which invest for the
benefit of more than a million current and former Ohio workers,
total $128 billion.

The Ohio attorney general filed his complaint under a New York
statute relating to fraudulent conveyance, a situation in which
assets that may be needed to satisfy a judgment are transferred
improperly and therefore made inaccessible to creditors. Judge
Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum in Federal District Court in New York
is overseeing the class action against A.I.G.

According to filings made in April with the Securities and
Exchange Commission, Mr. Greenberg transferred 41.4 million
A.I.G. shares as a gift to his wife on March 11, less than a
week before he was scheduled to testify before federal and state
regulators. On March 14, Mr. Greenberg resigned under pressure
as chief executive of A.I.G.

An attorney for A.G. Petro told New York Times that asking the
court to rescind the gift of A.I.G. shares now, at the beginning
of the action, was more efficient than waiting until the case
concludes.

According observers familiar with the matter, if the judge
agrees to unwind the gift and appoints a receiver, the shares
will be available as a sort of security deposit for the
investors to recover some of their losses should they win their
case, if they do not prevail in court then the shares would go
back to Mrs. Greenberg.

However, if the gift is allowed to stand and investors prevail
against A.I.G. and Mr. Greenberg, they would be forced to pursue
his wife to recover the shares she received.

Asking a court to unwind such a transaction is somewhat unusual
for a plaintiff, and the court recently denied at least one such
request in an Enron class action.

The facts of the Enron situation though were different from that
of A.I.G., according to Thomas A. Dubbs, a partner at Goodkind
Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow in New York, who is lead counsel for
the Ohio pension funds. Mr. Dubbs told the New York Times, "In
Enron, the plaintiffs were unsuccessful in their attempt to
freeze the trading profits of the insiders because there was no
actual dissipation of assets. In this case, by contrast, there
was an actual, sizable and suspicious transfer of stock. Plus,
there is a specific remedy available to the shareholders under
New York law."


NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Attorney Objects To Graniteville Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers for railroad owner Norfolk Southern and Graniteville
residents who were evacuated after a deadly train wreck and
chemical spill in January, asked a federal judge to approve a
joint class action settlement just four months after the
incident, The Associated Press reports.

At least one attorney though, who said he represents some 430
Graniteville residents, objected to the proposed payouts,
calling them "ridiculously low."

According to Louisiana-based attorney Peter Borstell, who has
set up offices in Graniteville, "I think the severity of what
these people went through is being minimized. I think it's
ridiculously low." Mr. Borstell was referring to the $2,000 the
railroad has agreed to pay to each household that was evacuated
within the one-mile radius of the crash site.

As previously reported in the January 18, 2005 edition of the
Class Action Reporter, a week after the January 6 train crash,
the evacuated Graniteville residents, some not yet able to
returns to their homes filed lawsuits against Norfolk Southern,
claiming negligence and nuisance.

Approximately 5,400 residents were evacuated from a one-mile
radius of the crash site after the train wreck ruptured a
railcar carrying chlorine and released a toxic cloud over the
town of Graniteville, killing nine people, injuring hundreds and
forcing the evacuation of thousands. Federal investigators say
the crew of the parked train failed to flip a switch, which
caused the accident.

Even with the objections, Norfolk Southern told AP that it has
also agreed to fully compensate residents for personal property
damage and lost wages. Attorney Daniel White even told AP that
the railroad company has already worked to settle nearly 2,500
claims, but many of those may be reassessed under the proposed
settlement to see if residents are owed more money. "Obviously,
we believe it's fair. It is reasonable," expresses Mr. White.
"The $2,000 is above all of the loss that can be demonstrated."

Additionally, Norfolk Southern spokesman Robin Chapman told AP
that the railroad expects to spend $35 million for cleanup
costs, legal claims and all other expenses from the wreck.

This class-action agreement attempts to settle most of the
claims from the 5,400 people it does not however, include
wrongful death payments to the families of the nine killed or
money for medical expenses to those severely injured after the
pre-dawn crash. The railroad thinks less than 200 people sought
medical treatment within 72 hours of the crash.

And those that don't want to be a part of the class action
lawsuit may opt out, plaintiffs' attorney Joe Rice said. Mr.
Rice and attorneys for the railroad told AP though that they
would likely meet with Mr. Borstell later to talk about his
concerns.

The settlement breaks the classes into three groups and some
residents could be a part of all three subgroups. The first
group can make claims for property damage related directly to
the chlorine, such as an automobile that wouldn't work after the
incident or wiring that has been damaged in a building. The
second subclass allows residents and businesses to make claims
for damages related to the evacuation, such as lost wages, food
and pets. The third class pays those residents in the evacuated
area $200 per day for minor personal injury for each day they
were evacuated up to 13 days, as long as they didn't receive
medical treatment within three days of the crash.

Ultimately, the settlement means that a family of five living
within the one-mile evacuation zone would receive at least
$15,000 if it qualified for the last two classes. Their
settlement would be even more with property damages and lost
wages.

An exception though is made for a few neighborhoods evacuated
outside the one-mile zone. Those households would receive $1,000
and $600 per resident for minor injuries.

In addition, the settlement won't cover visitors to the area.
"We just couldn't figure out how we would monitor that," Mr.
Rice said.

Despite the objections, Norfolk Southern and plaintiffs'
attorneys expect U.S. District Judge Margaret Seymour to approve
the preliminary settlement. They also expect a fairness hearing
later this summer where formal objections can be addressed.


NORTH CAROLINA: Attorney Threatens Lawsuit Over Judge's Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
In a ruling that prompted the threat of a class action lawsuit
against the county, Durham's senior judge rescinded an order in
which he had found that triple homicide suspect Gary Ernest
"Whitey" Bennett did not receive adequate medical care in the
county jail three months ago, The Herald-Sun reports.

Superior Court Judge Orlando F. Hudson told defense attorneys
that he no longer considered the February 21 order, instructing
Sheriff Worth Hill to give Mr. Bennett his prescribed
medications, to be necessary or essential particularly since Mr.
Bennett is now free under a $75,000 bond as he awaits trial. "I
don't see how the world ends if that [order] by the court is
void," the judge said.

Mr. Bennett's lawyers, Thomas Loflin and Karen Bethea-Shields
unsuccessfully asked the judge to keep the order on the books
even though Mr. Bennett no longer is in jail. He argues that if
Mr. Bennett violated the conditions of his bond and was locked
up again, the order would have renewed importance.

Visibly frustrated by Judge Hudson's ruling, Mr. Loflin
threatened afterward to immediately explore the possibility of a
class action lawsuit on behalf of Mr. Bennett and at least two
others who allegedly received inadequate medical treatment in
the county jail.

In addition, Mr. Loflin vowed, "If we ever have this situation
again, we know what we'll be doing. We can have some fun. The
sheriff is liable for everything he does. I don't think he's
liable for [medical] malpractice, but he is liable for
indifference. The taxpayers may rue the day if the sheriff
doesn't get a tighter grip on his corporation."

Mr. Loflin had contended that jail officials failed to give Mr.
Bennett nine prescribed medications during a weekend in
February, before he was freed on bond. He also told the Herald-
Sun that Bennett's medications were hand-delivered to the jail,
but detention officers refused to accept them. He adds, "I'm
sure the sheriff personally had nothing to do with this, but as
a matter of law he did. He cannot contract out his
responsibility. The law imposes on him a duty."

However, Assistant County Attorney Curtis Massey countered that
jailers "should not be required to accept any pill bottles
offered by an inmate on a Friday afternoon. Who knows what's in
them?" Jailers must be wary of inmates getting high on illicit
narcotics, or trading such drugs to other prisoners, according
to Mr. Massey.

The county lawyer told the Herald-Sun after court hearing that
he couldn't reveal whether Mr. Bennett ever received his pills.
"That's confidential information," he told reporters. "He'd sue
me and anybody else who let it out."

However, Mr. Massey did write in earlier court documents that
the homicide suspect "had not been denied any necessary medical
care and Sheriff Hill has not prevented [him] from receiving
necessary medical care." The court documents also contended that
Judge Hudson's February 21 order was based on "misinformation."

In his successful argument, Mr. Massey said the order should be
rescinded because it was "grafted" onto a criminal case rather
than being obtained through civil channels, as it should have
been. He also said the order was invalid because no one from the
Sheriff's Office was on hand when it was issued and as a result,
Sheriff Hill's constitutional due-process rights were violated.

Jail medical care is provided on a contractual basis by Correct
Care Solutions of Nashville, Tennessee, an agency that has
acknowledged it is understaffed.

Fifty-six at the time he surrendered himself in February, Mr.
Bennett is one of two men accused of killing 63-year-old Aubrey
Goss, 53-year-old Walter Dean and 37-year-old William Nick
Wheeler inside a Driver Avenue garage in October 1976.

Police listed the case as a "cold" one for years. But then
Bennett and a second suspect, Ronnie Lindbergh Manning of
Virginia Beach, were arrested in February after unspecified new
evidence turned up. Extradition proceedings are in progress to
have Mr. Manning transferred from Virginia to Durham.


NOVELL INC.: Reaches $13.9M Settlement in Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
After more than seven years in the courts, Novell, Inc. will
spend $13.9 million to settle a securities fraud class action
lawsuit, The Salt Lake Tribune reports.

In a settlement that was recently granted final approval by U.S.
District Judge Tena Campbell, Novell made it clear that it
continues to "deny each and all claims" made on behalf of
plaintiffs Domenico Pirraglia, Bella and Bernard Pasternak and
other shareholders.

However, Novell said its attorneys had concluded "further
conduct of the litigation would be protracted and expensive" and
payment of the settlement justified given the "uncertainty and
risk" of such a complex case.

Novell attorney Jeffrey Hunt told AP, "Novell is pleased to have
this matter finally resolved and is satisfied with the outcome."

Richard Burbidge, whose Salt Lake City law firm of Burbidge &
Mitchell will share a payout of 30 percent, almost $4.2 million,
plus expenses with other plaintiff firms from Los Angeles, San
Diego, San Francisco and New York City also expressed their
delight on Novell's decision to settle by saying, "We're very
pleased with the settlement and any lack of objection to it. It
certainly is fair, adequate and reasonable and brings to a close
nearly seven and a half years of very intense litigation."

How many investors will share in the more than $9 million left
after legal costs is uncertain. Though Mr. Burbidge did not know
he did say that more than 50,000 settlement notices with
shareholders receiving at least two had been mailed over the
past three months.

Judge Campbell had granted preliminary approval for the deal in
February, ending litigation that had begun with two proposed
class action complaints filed in February 1998 in San Jose,
California's federal court. The suits were consolidated in July
of that year, and in December 1999 transferred to Utah.

Judge Campbell dismissed the suit in April 2002, but the 10th
Circuit Court of Appeals sent an abbreviated version back for
trial, ruling that shareholders should be allowed to litigate
"various accounting shenanigans" that purportedly boosted the
company's financial reports. The 10th Circuit also found
shareholders were entitled to pursue claims that former Novell
President Joseph Marengi, then-board Chairman Robert
Frankenberg, ex-Chief Financial Officer James Tolonen and others
improperly recorded shipments to third-party retailers and
resellers as revenue.


SUNNY LAKE: Recalls Sweet Potatoes Due to Undeclared Sulfites
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sunny Lake Trading, 651A Lexington Avenue, Brooklyn, NY 11221,
is recalling SWEET POTATO SLICE because it may contain
undeclared sulfites. People who have severe sensitivity to
sulfites run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic
reactions if they consume this product.

The recalled SWEET POTATO SLICE is packaged in a clear, uncoded
six-ounce plastic bag. It is a product of China. The product was
sold in the New York City area.

The recall was initiated after routing sampling by New York
State Department of Agriculture and Markets Food Inspectors and
subsequent analysis of the product by Food Laboratory personnel
revealed the presence of undeclared sulfites in packages of
SWEET POTATO SLICE which did not declare sulfites on the label.
The consumption of 10 milligrams of sulfites per serving has
been reported to elicit severe reactions in some asthmatics.
Anaphylactic shock could occur in certain sulfite sensitive
individuals upon ingesting 10 milligrams or more of sulfites.

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
problem.

Consumers who have purchased SWEET POTATO SLICE should return it
to the place of purchase. Consumers with questions may contact
the company at 718-453-3838.


TIME WARNER: Asks Court To Nix PurchasePro Adversary Proceeding
---------------------------------------------------------------
Time Warner, Inc. asked the United States District Court for the
District of Nevada to dismiss PurchasePro.com, Inc.'s adversary
proceeding filed against it related to the shareholder fraud
class action filed on behalf of a putative class of purchasers
of stock in PurchasePro.com, Inc.

On April 30, 2004, a second amended complaint was filed,
alleging that the Company engaged in a scheme to defraud its
shareholders in violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act.
The Company and four former officers and employees were added as
defendants in the second amended complaint and are alleged to
have participated in the scheme through certain advertising
transactions entered into with PurchasePro.

Three similar putative class actions had previously been filed
against the Company, America Online and certain former officers
and employees, and have been consolidated with the Nevada
action.

On February 17, 2005, the Judge in the consolidated action
granted the Company's motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint with prejudice. On September 13, 2004, in a related
matter, the Company filed an adversary proceeding against the
Company in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Nevada
alleging fraudulent conveyance and unjust enrichment in
connection with PurchasePro warrants issued to the Company.  On
December 15, 2004, the Bankruptcy Court granted the Company's
motion to dismiss the complaint without prejudice.  On January
26, 2005, PurchasePro filed an amended complaint. On March 18,
2005, PurchasePro filed a second amended complaint, and on April
25, 2005, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the second
amended complaint.


TIME WARNER: AK Court Mulls Dismissal Of Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court in Juneau County, Alaska has yet to rule on
Time Warner, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the class action filed
against it, styled "Alaska State Department of Revenue et al. v.
America Online, Inc. et al."  The suit also mentions as
defendants certain of the Company's current and former officers,
directors and employees, America Online, Historic TW, Morgan
Stanley & Co., Inc., and Ernst & Young LLP.

Plaintiffs allege that the Company made material
misrepresentations in its registration statements in violation
of Alaska law and common law fraud.  The plaintiffs seek
unspecified compensatory and punitive damages.

On July 26, 2004, all named individual defendants moved to
dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. On
August 13, 2004, the Company filed a motion to dismiss
plaintiffs' complaint.


TIME WARNER: CA Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Part
----------------------------------------------------------------
The California Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles
dismissed in part the class action filed against Time Warner,
Inc., styled "Regents of the University of California et al. v.
Parsons et al."  The suit also names as defendants certain of
the Company's current and former officers, directors and
employees, Ernst & Young LLP, Citigroup Inc., Salomon Smith
Barney Inc. and Morgan Stanley & Co.

Plaintiffs allege that the Company made material
misrepresentations in its registration statements related to the
America Online Historic TW Merger and stock option plans in
violation of Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act of 1933.  
The complaint also alleges common law fraud and breach of
fiduciary duties under California state law. Plaintiffs seek
disgorgement of alleged insider trading proceeds and restitution
for their stock losses.

Three related cases have been filed in California Supreme Court
and have been coordinated in the County of Los Angeles (the
"California Actions").  On January 26, 2004, certain individuals
filed motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.  On
September 10, 2004, the Company filed a motion to dismiss
plaintiffs' complaints and certain individual defendants (who
had not previously moved to dismiss plaintiffs' complaints for
lack of personal jurisdiction) filed a motion to dismiss
plaintiffs' complaints.  On April 22, 2005, the court granted
certain motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and
denied certain motions to dismiss for lack of personal
jurisdiction.


TIME WARNER: TX Court Mulls Dismissal For Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court of Cass County, Texas has yet to decide on
Time Warner, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the class action filed
against it and certain of its current and former officers,
directors and employees, styled "McClure et al. v. AOL Time
Warner Inc. et al."

The suit was filed purportedly on behalf of several purchasers
of Company stock, and alleges that the Company made material
misrepresentations in its registration statements in violation
of Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act of 1933. Plaintiffs
also allege breach of fiduciary duty and common law fraud.
Plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory damages.

On May 8, 2004, the Company filed a general denial and a motion
to dismiss for improper venue. Also on May 8, 2004, all named
individual defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of
personal jurisdiction.


TIME WARNER: WV Court Yet To Rule on Shareholder Suit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The West Virginia Circuit Court for Kanawha County has yet to
rule on Time Warner, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the class action
filed against it, styled "West Virginia Investment Management
Board v. Parsons et al."  The suit also names as defendants
certain current and former officers, directors and employees of
the Company, and:

     (1) Citigroup Inc.,

     (2) Salomon Smith Barney Inc.,

     (3) Morgan Stanley & Co., and

     (4) Ernst & Young LLP

Plaintiff alleges the Company made material misrepresentations
in its registration statements in violation of Sections 11 and
12 of the Securities Act of 1933. Plaintiff also alleges
violations of West Virginia law, breach of fiduciary duty and
common law fraud. Plaintiff seeks disgorgement of alleged
insider trading proceeds, restitution and unspecified
compensatory damages.

On May 27, 2004, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint. All named individual defendants also moved to dismiss
the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction.


TIME WARNER: NY Court Mulls Summary Judgment in Shareholder Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York has yet to rule on Time Warner, Inc.'s motion for
summary judgment in the consolidated securities class action
filed against it, certain of its current and former executives
and America Online, Inc.

As of May 2, 2005, 30 shareholder class action lawsuits have
been filed in U.S. District Courts for the Southern District of
New York, the Eastern District of Virginia and the Eastern
District of Texas, on behalf of certain shareholders of the
Company.  The suits allege that the Company made material
misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact in
violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of
the Exchange Act.

Plaintiffs claim that the Company failed to disclose America
Online's declining advertising revenues and that the Company and
America Online inappropriately inflated advertising revenues in
a series of transactions.  Certain of the lawsuits also allege
that certain of the individual defendants and other insiders at
the Company improperly sold their personal holdings of Time
Warner stock, that the Company failed to disclose that the
America Online-Historic TW Merger was not generating the
synergies anticipated at the time of the announcement of the
merger and, further, that the Company inappropriately delayed
writing down more than $50 billion of goodwill.  The lawsuits
seek an unspecified amount in compensatory damages.

All of these lawsuits have been centralized in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings (along with the federal
derivative lawsuits and certain lawsuits brought under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) under the
caption "In re AOL Time Warner Inc. Securities and ERISA
Litigation."  Additional lawsuits filed by individual
shareholders have also been consolidated for pretrial
proceedings. The Minnesota State Board of Investment (MSBI) has
been designated lead plaintiff for the consolidated securities
actions and filed a consolidated amended complaint on April 15,
2003, adding additional defendants including additional officers
and directors of the Company, Morgan Stanley & Co., Salomon
Smith Barney Inc., Citigroup Inc., Banc of America Securities
LLC and JP Morgan Chase & Co.

Plaintiffs also added additional allegations, including that the
Company made material misrepresentations in its Registration
Statements and Joint Proxy Statement-Prospectus related to the
America Online-Historic TW Merger and in its registration
statements pursuant to which debt securities were issued in
April 2001 and April 2002, allegedly in violation of Section
11 and Section 12 of the Securities Act of 1933.

On July 14, 2003, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint.  On May 5, 2004, the district
court granted in part the defendants' motion, dismissing all
claims with respect to the registration statements pursuant to
which debt securities were issued in April 2001 and April 2002
and certain other claims against other defendants, but otherwise
allowing the remaining claims against the Company and certain
other defendants to proceed.  On August 11, 2004, the court
granted MSBI's motion to file a second amended complaint.  On
July 30, 2004, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on
the basis that plaintiffs cannot establish loss causation for
any of their claims, and thus plaintiffs do not have any
recoverable damages. That motion is pending.

As of May 2, 2005, three putative class action lawsuits have
been filed alleging violations of ERISA in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of current
and former participants in the Time Warner Savings Plan, the
Time Warner Thrift Plan and/or the TWC Savings Plan.  
Collectively, these lawsuits name as defendants the Company,
certain current and former directors and officers of the Company
and members of the Administrative Committees of the Plans. The
lawsuits allege that the Company and other defendants breached
certain fiduciary duties to plan participants by, "inter alia,"
continuing to offer Time Warner stock as an investment under the
Plans, and by failing to disclose, among other things, that the
Company was experiencing declining advertising revenues and that
the Company was inappropriately inflating advertising revenues
through various transactions. The complaints seek unspecified
damages and unspecified equitable relief.  The ERISA actions
have been consolidated as part of the "In re AOL Time Warner
Inc. Securities and ERISA Litigation."  

On July 3, 2003, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint naming additional defendants, including Time Warner
Entertainment Company, L.P. (TWE), certain current and former
officers, directors and employees of the Company and Fidelity
Management Trust Company. On September 12, 2003, the Company
filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated ERISA complaint. On
March 9, 2005, the court granted in part, and denied in part,
the Company's motion to dismiss. The court dismissed two
individual defendants and TWE for all purposes, dismissed other
individuals with respect to claims plaintiffs had asserted
involving the TWC Savings Plan, and dismissed all individuals
who were named in a claim asserting that their stock sales had
constituted a breach of fiduciary duty to the Plans.

As of May 2, 2005, 11 shareholder derivative lawsuits have been
filed naming as defendants certain current and former directors
and officers of the Company, as well as the Company as a nominal
defendant. Three have been filed in New York State Supreme Court
for the County of New York, four have been filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York and four
have been filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware for New Castle County.

The complaints allege that defendants breached their fiduciary
duties by causing the Company to issue corporate statements that
did not accurately represent that America Online had declining
advertising revenues, that the America Online-Historic TW Merger
was not generating the synergies anticipated at the time of the
announcement of the merger, and that the Company inappropriately
delayed writing down more than $50 billion of goodwill, thereby
exposing the Company to potential liability for alleged
violations of federal securities laws.  The lawsuits further
allege that certain of the defendants improperly sold their
personal holdings of Time Warner securities.  The lawsuits
request that all proceeds from defendants' sales of Time Warner
common stock, all expenses incurred by the Company as a result
of the defense of the shareholder class actions discussed above
and any improper salaries or payments, be returned to the
Company.  

The four lawsuits filed in the Court of Chancery for the State
of Delaware for New Castle County have been consolidated under
the caption, "In re AOL Time Warner Inc. Derivative Litigation."
A consolidated complaint was filed on March 7, 2003 in that
action, and on June 9, 2003, the Company filed a notice of
motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint.  On May 2, 2003,
the three lawsuits filed in New York State Supreme Court for the
County of New York were dismissed on "forum non conveniens"
grounds and plaintiffs' time to appeal has expired. The four
lawsuits pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York have been centralized for coordinated or
consolidated pre-trial proceedings with the securities and ERISA
lawsuits described above under the caption "In re AOL Time
Warner Inc. Securities and ERISA Litigation." On October 6,
2004, plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint in
three of these four cases.

On July 1, 2003, "Stichting Pensioenfonds ABP v. AOL Time Warner
Inc. et al." was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York against the Company, current and
former officers, directors and employees of the Company and
Ernst & Young LLP. Plaintiff alleges that the Company made
material misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact in
violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, Section 11, Section 12, Section 14(a)
and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, Section 18 and Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaint also alleges common law
fraud and negligent misrepresentation. The plaintiff seeks an
unspecified amount of compensatory and punitive damages. This
lawsuit has been consolidated for coordinated pretrial
proceedings under the caption "In re AOL Time Warner Inc.
Securities and ERISA Litigation."

On July 16, 2004, plaintiff filed an amended complaint adding
certain institutional defendants, including Historic TW, and
certain current directors of the Company.  On November 22, 2004,
the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.

On November 11, 2002, Staro Asset Management, LLC filed a
putative class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York on behalf of certain
purchasers of Reliant 2.0% Zero-Premium Exchangeable
Subordinated Notes for alleged violations of the federal
securities laws. Plaintiff is a purchaser of subordinated notes,
the price of which was purportedly tied to the market value of
Time Warner stock. Plaintiff alleges that the Company made
misstatements and/or omissions of material fact that
artificially inflated the value of Time Warner stock and
directly affected the price of the notes. Plaintiff seeks
compensatory damages and/or rescission.  This lawsuit has been
consolidated for coordinated pretrial proceedings under the
caption "In re AOL Time Warner Inc. Securities and ERISA
Litigation."  

On May 23, 2003, "Treasurer of New Jersey v. AOL Time Warner
Inc. et al.," was filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Mercer County, naming as defendants the Company, certain current
and former officers, directors and employees of the Company,
Ernst & Young LLP, Citigroup Inc., Salomon Smith Barney, Morgan
Stanley, JP Morgan Chase and Banc of America Securities. The
complaint is brought by the Treasurer of New Jersey and purports
to be made on behalf of the State of New Jersey, Department of
Treasury, Division of Investments (the "Division") and certain
funds administered by the Division. Plaintiff alleges that the
Company made material misrepresentations in its registration
statements in violation of Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities
Act of 1933.  Plaintiff also alleges violations of New Jersey
state law for fraud and negligent misrepresentation. Plaintiffs
seek an unspecified amount of damages.

On October 29, 2003, the Company moved to stay the proceedings
or, in the alternative, dismiss the complaint.  Also on October
29, 2003, all named individual defendants moved to dismiss the
complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. The parties have
agreed to stay this action and to coordinate discovery
proceedings with the securities and ERISA lawsuits described
above under the caption "In re AOL Time Warner Inc. Securities
and ERISA Litigation."

The suit is styled "In Re: AOL Time Warner, Inc. Securities and
ERISA Litigation, case no. 1:02-cv-05575-SWK," filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York under Judge Shirley Wohl Kram.  Representing the Company is
Rachel G. Skaistis, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, 825 Eighth
Avenue New York, NY 10019, Phone: (212) 474-1000, Fax:
(212) 474-3700, E-mail: rskaistis@cravath.com.  Representing the
plaintiffs is Samuel D. Heins of Heins Mills & Olson, P.L.C.,
700 Northstar East 608 Second Avenue South Minneapolis, MN
55402, Phone: 612-338-4605.


TRADER JOE'S: Recalls Mole Rojo Sauces Due to Poor Quality
----------------------------------------------------------
Trader Joe's Company of Needham, Massachusetts is recalling
Trader Joe's Mole Rojo Sauce, product # 71534, because the
quality of the product does not meet the company's
specifications.

Trader Joe's Mole Rojo Sauce was potentially sold from Trader
Joe's retail stores in Arizona, California, Connecticut,
Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan,
Missouri, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Nevada, Ohio,
Oregon, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Washington.

The product was removed from sale in all Trader Joe's stores and
put on hold in all Trader Joe's distribution centers. There have
been no complaints or reports of illness.

Customers who purchased the Sauce may return it to any Trader
Joe's store for a full refund.


TRI-COUNTY PLUMBING: FL Attorney General Lodges Consumer Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Attorney General Charlie Crist reported that his office filed a
civil lawsuit against a South Florida plumbing company alleging
numerous violations of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices Act. Tri County Plumbing and its owners, Susan and
Leslie Gilbert, and their son Randall Gilbert allegedly charged
grossly inflated hidden costs for repairs, especially targeting
the elderly.

The investigation was initiated after the Attorney General's
Office received numerous complaints from consumers in Broward
and Miami-Dade counties claiming that Tri County falsely
advertised that it would repair leaks and other plumbing
conditions in emergency situations.

"Preying on citizens in their moment of crisis is unacceptable,"
said A.G. Crist. "This company claimed to provide emergency
plumbing services, but instead victimized the elderly. We are
committed to putting a stop to such practices and protecting the
citizens of Florida."

The investigation by the Attorney General's Office revealed the
following:

     (1) Tri County sent commissioned salesmen to consumers'
         homes, not plumbers

     (2) Representatives charged consumers an initial fee,
         between $75 and $150, and demanded immediate payment

     (3) Investigators determined that senior citizens were
         charged a higher fee - sometimes as much as $500.

Once the initial fee was paid, the Tri County representatives
proceeded to inspect the reported problem and then charged an
additional fee, between $250 and $350, for leak detection, even
if the leak was readily visible. Senior citizens were often
charged up to $850. The company then provided consumers with an
artificially low estimate and pressured the consumers to sign a
contract.

Tri County then proceeded to remove cabinets and demolish walls
or floors, leaving the consumer's home in disrepair. After the
demolition, Tri County informed the consumer that the repair
costs had increased and the work would not be completed unless
the consumer agreed to pay grossly inflated fees.

If the consumer refused to pay the additional fees, Tri County
abandoned the job and pursued collection activities against the
consumer through lawsuits, homestead liens and foreclosure
actions. As part of its pressure tactics, Tri County falsely
informed consumers that the recommended repairs would be covered
by insurance or by a class action lawsuit if polybutylene pipes
were discovered in the home.

The Attorney General's Office has received 45 sworn affidavits
from consumers, almost half from senior citizens. The Attorney
General is seeking restitution and penalties in the amount of
$10,000 for each violation by Tri County ($15,000 for each
violation against a senior citizen).

For more details, contact the Attorney General's Fraud Hotline
toll free: 1-866-9-NO-SCAM (866-966-7226) or visit their Web
site: http://myfloridalegal.com/webfiles.nsf/WF/MRAY-
6CNQAQ/$file/TriCountyComplaint.pdf.


TRIBUNE CO.: Stull Stull Launches 401(k) ERISA Investigation
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Stull, Stull & Brody commenced an investigation
relating to the 401(k) defined contribution retirement plans of
Tribune Company ("Tribune" or the "Company") (NYSE:TRB).

Among other things, Stull, Stull & Brody is investigating
whether fiduciaries of the Tribune 401(k) plans may have
violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
("ERISA") by failing to disclose the Company's true operating
condition to participants and beneficiaries of the plans
(including disclosures relating to Tribune's reported
circulation figures and the reliability of those reported
figures), by offering Tribune stock as an investment option
under the plans when it was not prudent to do so, and/or by
allowing an imprudent over concentration of Company stock
(approximately 60%) in at least one of the Company's 401(k)
plans.

For more details, contact Edwin J. Mills, Esq. or Tzivia Brody,
Esq. of Stull, Stull & Brody by Mail: 6 East 45th Street, New
York, NY 10017 by Phone: 1-800-337-4983 by Fax: (212) 490-2022
or by E-mail: ssbny@aol.com.


VAN WAGONER: Securities Settlement Hearing Set June 17, 2005
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California will hold a fairness hearing for the proposed
settlement in the matter In re Van Wagoner Funds, Inc.
Securities Litigation, Case No. C-02-03383 JSW on behalf of all
persons who purchased any shares of the firm's Emerging Growth
Fund, Technology Fund, Mid Cap Growth Fund, Post Venture Fund or
Micro Cap Fund, between February 28, 2000 and August 21, 2001.

The court hearing will be held on June 17, 2005, at 9:00 a.m.,
in Courtroom 17 of the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, 450 Golden Gate Ave., San
Francisco, CA 94102, before the Honorable Jeffrey S. White.    

For more details, contact Michael J. Freed or Carol V. Gilden of
Much Shelist Freed Deneberg Ament & Rubenstein, P.C. by Mail:
200 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2100, Chicago, IL 60601-1095 by
Phone: 312/346-3100 or visit their Web site:
http://www.muchlaw.com/site/index.asp.


                 New Securities Fraud Cases

CORN PRODUCTS: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in IL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel 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. (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 Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel by Mail:
273 Montgomery Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone:
610-660-8000 or 888-643-6735 by Fax: 610-660-8080 or by E-Mail:
mhenzel182@aol.com.


CRAY INC.: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in WA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C., initiated a suit seeking
class action status has been filed in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Washington on behalf of all
persons who purchased the publicly traded securities of Cray,
Inc. (Nasdaq: CRAYE) ("Cray" or the "Company") between July 31,
2003 and May 12, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Also
included are all those who acquired Cray's shares through its
acquisition of OctigaBay Systems.

The Complaint alleges that Cray and certain of its officers and
directors violated federal securities laws. Specifically, it is
alleged that the Company's manufacturing processes, internal
controls and testing were flawed and ineffective and that Cray's
own auditors and Audit Committee knew of the flawed and
ineffective internal controls. Further, delays in inventory
recognition realization and revenue were a recurring and
unpredictable feature of Cray's business model and Cray was
either losing money or just breaking even on certain customer
orders. Despite these problems, throughout the Class Period,
Cray failed to disclose, and in fact misrepresented, material
adverse facts, about the Company's financial health. Notably,
the complaint alleges that Cray failed to disclose that business
metrics having a direct bearing on revenue recognition were
becoming increasingly unfavorable, were unlikely to improve
anytime soon and would ultimately impact the Company's financial
operations.

On May 9, 2005, Cray revealed that it had failed to include an
auditor's opinion on management's assessment of internal control
over financial reporting in its Form 10-K/A filed on May 3,
2005. On this news, the price of Cray's stock fell $0.74 per
share over the three-day period ending May 12, 2005, closing at
$1.34 per share.

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


GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: Marc S. Henzel Files Securities Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of purchasers of GlaxoSmithKline
plc (NYSE: GSK) common stock and ADRs during the period between
February 21, 2001 and August 5, 2004 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges GlaxoSmithKline and certain of its
officers and directors with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. GlaxoSmithKline along with its
subsidiaries constitute a global healthcare group engaged in the
creation, discovery, development, manufacture and marketing of
pharmaceutical and consumer health-related products.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, 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 as the falsity of defendants'
statements came to light.

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


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

The complaint charges Gravity and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Act and the Exchange
Act. Gravity develops and distributes online games in many
countries across the world, especially in Japan, Taiwan, and
Thailand. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the
Company failed to disclose and misrepresented the following
material adverse facts, which were known to defendants or
recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) that the Company's key product, Ragnarok Online, was
         experiencing a material decline in customer demand and
         increased competition in the marketplace, which caused
         Ragnarok Online's revenues to precipitously decline;

     (2) that Gravity's mobile animation business was in such a
         dire state that it was no longer capable of producing a
         viable revenue stream for the Company; and

     (3) that the Company's statements about massive growth
         potential for online gaming were lacking in any
         reasonable basis when made because Gravity's royalties
         and license fees (for online gaming) was negatively
         impacted by adverse trends in China which caused the
         Company to experience a decline for its services in
         China.

On May 12, 2005, the Company announced that its financial
results for the first quarter of 2005 were lower than expected.
News of this shocked the market. Shares of Gravity fell $3.64
per share, or 39.3 percent, to close at $5.60 per share.

For more details, contact Marc A. Topaz, Esq. or Darren J.
Check, Esq. of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP by Mail: 280 King of
Prussia Road, Radnor, PA 19087 by Phone: 1-888-299-7706 or
1-610-667-7706 or by E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com.


HARLEY-DAVIDSON: Marc S. Henzel Files Securities Suit in W.D. WI
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of
Wisconsin against Harley-Davidson, Inc. (NYSE: HDI) and
individual defendants Jeffrey L. Bleustein and James L. Zeimer
on behalf of all persons or entities, except for defendants, who
purchased or otherwise acquired Harley-Davidson securities (the
``Class'') between January 21, 2004, and through April 14, 2005,
inclusive (the ``Class Period''). Plaintiff seeks remedies under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Exchange Act'').

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


R&G FINANCIAL: Berman DeValerio Lodges Securities Lawsuit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo
initiated a class action in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York against R&G Financial Corporation
("R&G" or the "Company") (NYSE: RGF), claiming that the
financial holding company issued false and misleading financial
statements to the investing public. The lawsuit seeks damages
for violations of federal securities laws on behalf of all
investors who purchased R&G common stock from April 21, 2003
through and including April 25, 2005 (the "Class Period").

The lawsuit claims that the defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the rules
and regulations promulgated thereunder, including U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") Rule 10b-5.

According to the complaint, R&G's financial statements were
materially false and misleading when made because defendants
failed to disclose the following:

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

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

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

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

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

On April 25, 2005, after the close of trading, R&G shocked the
investing public when it announced that it would restate its
earnings for 2003 and 2004.

On this news, R&G stock fell $8.14 per share, or 35 percent, to
close at $15.04 on April 26, 2005, a two-year low.

For more details, contact Leslie R. Stern by Mail: One Liberty
Square, Boston, MA 02109 by Phone: (800) 516-9926 OR C. Oliver
Burt, III by Mail: 222 Lakeview Avenue, Suite 900, West Palm
Beach, FL 33401 by Phone: (561) 835-9400 by E-mail:
law@bermanesq.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.bermanesq.com/pdf/R&G-Cplt.pdf.


TIBCO SOFTWARE: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP initiated a
class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities
of TIBCO Software, Inc. ("TIBCO" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:
TIBX) between September 21, 2004 and March 1, 2005, inclusive
(the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The action, case number C-05-2146 (SBA), is pending in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California against defendants TIBCO, Vivek Y. Ranadive (CEO,
Pres., Chairman), Christopher G. O'Meara (Chief Financial
Officer), Sydney Carey (Controller, Chief Accounting Officer),
Rajesh U. Mashruwala (COO).

The complaint alleges that defendants' Class Period
representations regarding TIBCO were materially false and
misleading when made for the following reasons:

     (1) TIBCO's integration of the Staffware PLC acquisition
         was not proceeding as well as defendants represented;

     (2) that Staffware was performing well below expectations;
         and

     (3) TIBCO did not maintain an adequate system of internal
         financial, operational or disclosure controls so as to
         reasonably assure the accuracy, completeness and
         veracity of the Company's public statements and
         representations to investors.

On March 1, 2005, defendants announced that TIBCO's results for
1Q:F05 were well below guidance. In fact, shares of TIBCO were
halted in after-market trading after the Company revealed that
preliminary data showed that Q1:F05 revenues would reach well
below the FirstCall consensus mean estimates. While defendants
had previously stated that the Staffware acquisition was
substantially completed and that the integration was proceeding
according to plan, defendants now revealed that this was not
true and that weakness in Europe and delays in closing deals
would result in non-GAAP earnings per share well between
consensus mean estimates. During TIBCO's 1Q:F05 conference call,
defendant Ranadive revealed that Staffware not only remained
unintegrated, but because of integration-related problems,
European sales had been paralyzed.

The following day, as shares of TIBCO resumed trading, the
Company's stock price declined precipitously, falling from a
close of $8.90 per share in regular trading on March 1, 2005, to
below $7.00 the following day, on very high trading volume of
over 52 million shares. Market commentators stated that the
decline would have been worse had TIBCO stock not evidenced an
uncharacteristic trading pattern in the days immediately prior
to defendants' belated disclosure, which indicated that the
negative news may have been leaked to certain investors.

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


WILLBROS GROUP: Marc S. Henzel Files Securities Suit in S.D. TX
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Texas, Houston Division on behalf of purchasers of
the securities of Willbros Group, Inc. (NYSE: WG) between May 6,
2002 and May 16, 2005 inclusive, (the "Class Period"), seeking
to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the "Exchange Act").

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

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