CAR_Public/050601.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Wednesday, June 1, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 107


                            Headlines

BRUSH WELLMAN: Employees Launch Beryllium Injury Suit in E.D. PA
BRUSH WELLMAN: Plaintiffs Appeal MI Beryllium Lawsuit Dismissal
BRUSH WELLMAN: Plaintiffs File Amended CA Beryllium Injury Suit
BRUSH WELLMAN: GA Court Orders Beryllium Injury Suit Amendment
CANADA: Norske Skog Launches Peroxide Price-Fixing Suit V. Firms

CLEVERLINK TECHNOLOGIES: FTC Halts "Lonely Wife" Spam Operation
CMS ENERGY: Plaintiffs Seek Certification For Securities Lawsuit
CMS ENERGY: Trial in MI ERISA Violations Suit Expected Mid-2006
DEL SOL: AR Attorney General Launches Suit V. Telemarketing Scam
DUN & BRADSTREET: Opposes Amendment of CT ERISA Violations Suit

EI DUPONT: WV Court Approves PFOA Contamination Suit Settlement
ELI LILLY: Faces Zyprexa Product Liability Suits in US Courts
ENTERPRISES SOLUTIONS: NY Court Issues Distribution Plan Order
FIFTH THIRD: Reaches $17M Settlement For OH Securities Lawsuit
FLUOR CORPORATION: Reaches $18M Settlement For CA Stock Lawsuit

FORD MOTOR: Plaintiffs To Hold Press Conference After Hearing
FRANCE: Attorneys Establish New Website For Class Action Suits
HILLENBRAND INDUSTRIES: New Lawsuit Launched Over Price-Fixing
HINO MOTOR SALES: Recalls 2005-06 Vehicles Due to Brake Defect
HO HO MARKET: Undeclared Sulfites Found on Dried Polygonatum

HOMETOWN BUFFET: Employees Launch Overtime Wage Suit in N.D. CA
HOOVER'S INC.: NY Court Preliminarily Approves Suit Settlement
HUMANA INC.: Seeks Summary Judgment For FL Managed Care Lawsuit
INTERNATIONAL TRUCK: Recalls 2006 Vehicles Due to Brake Defect
KIA MOTORS: Recalls 2003-05 Sedona Vehicles Due to Wheel Defects

NATIONWIDE LIFE: MI Court Refuses To Dismiss Consumer Fraud Suit
NATIONWIDE LIFE: Appeals Court Mulls Consumer Lawsuit Dismissal
NEVADA: Green Welling Investigates Vegas Grand Over Condo Prices
NEWS CORPORATION: Working To Settle NY, DE Securities Lawsuits
NORVERGENCE INC.: AZ Attorney General Forges Fraud Settlements

OREGON: Judge Favors Switching To Class Action For Church Case
PACCAR INC.: Recalls 2005 Vehicles Due to Rear Suspension Defect
PARADIGM MEDICAL: Lawsuit Settlement Hearing Set August 25, 2005
PREMCOR INC.: Discovery Proceeds in Blue Island Refinery Suits
PROSPERITY RESOURCES: Recalls Potatoes For Undeclared Sulfites

PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: Reaches Settlement For FL RICO, ERISA Suit
RELIANT ENERGY: Faces Consolidated CA Natural Gas Antitrust Suit
SMITHKLINE BEECHAM: PA Judge Slashes Legal Fees in Paxil Case
SNELLING TRAVEL: Jury Rules in Favor of Defendants in SEC Case
ST. JUDE: Continues To Face Litigation Due To Silzone Devices

ST. JUDE: Consumers File Litigation Over Symmetry Heart Devices
VEMAR HELMETS: Recalls Helmets Due to FMVSS No. 218 Violation


                Meetings, Conferences & Seminars


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


                 New Securities Fraud Cases

ABLE LABORATORIES: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in NJ
BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS: Marc S. Henzel Files Stock Lawsuit in CA
GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in NY


                            *********


BRUSH WELLMAN: Employees Launch Beryllium Injury Suit in E.D. PA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brush Wellman, Inc. faces a class action filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania,
styled "Gary Anthony v. Brush Wellman Inc., et al., case no. 05-
CV-1202."

The suit was initially filed in the Court of Common Pleas of
Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania and removed to federal court
on March 14,2005.  The only named plaintiff is Gary Anthony. The
defendants are Brush Wellman Inc., Gary Kowalski, and Dickinson
Associates Manufacturers Representatives.  

The plaintiff purports to sue on behalf of a class of current
and former employees of the U.S. Gauge facility in Sellersville,
Pennsylvania who have ever been exposed to beryllium for a
period of at least one month while employed at U.S. Gauge. The
plaintiff has brought claims for negligence. Plaintiff seeks the
establishment of a medical monitoring trust fund, cost of
publication of approved guidelines and procedures for medical
screening and monitoring of the class, attorneys' fees and
expenses.

The suit is styled "ANTHONY v. GARY KOWALSKI DICKINSON &
ASSOCIATES MANUFACTURERS' REPRESENTATIVES et al, case no. 2:05-
cv-01202-JKG," filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, under Judge James Knoll
Gardner.  Representing the plaintiffs is Ruben Honik of GOLOMB &
HONIK, PC, 121 South Broad Street, 9th Floor, Philadelphia PA
19107, Phone: 215-985-9177, E-mail: rhonik@golombhonik.com.  
Representing the plaintiffs are Morton F. Daller of DALLER
GREENBERG & DIETRICH LLP, Eight Tower Bridge, 161 Washington
Street, Suite 900, Conshohocken, PA 19428-2060, Phone:
215-836-1882, Fax: 215-836-2845, E-mail:
mdaller@dallergreenberg.com; and Robert S. Faxon and Jeffery D.
Ubersax of JONES, DAY, REAVIS & POGUE, 901 Lakeside Avenue,
North Point, Cleveland, Ohio 44114, Phone: 216-586-3939.


BRUSH WELLMAN: Plaintiffs Appeal MI Beryllium Lawsuit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Mississippi's dismissal of the class action
filed against Brush Wellman, Inc., styled "George Paz, et al. v.
Brush Engineered Materials Inc., et al., case number 1:04CV597."

The named plaintiffs are George Paz, Barbara Faciane, Joe Lewis,
Donald Jones, Ernest Bryan, Gregory Condiff, Karla Condiff, Odie
Ladner, Henry Polk, Roy Tootle, William Stewart, Margaret Ann
Harris, Judith Lemon, Theresa Ladner and Yolanda Paz.  The
defendants are Brush Wellman, Inc., and:

     (1) Brush Engineered Materials Inc.;

     (2) Wess-Del, Inc.; and

     (3) the Boeing Company

Plaintiffs seek the establishment of a medical monitoring trust
fund as a result of their alleged exposure to products
containing beryllium, attorneys' fees and expenses, and general
and equitable relief. The plaintiffs purport to sue on behalf of
a class of present or former Defense Contract Management
Administration (DCMA) employees who conducted quality assurance
work at Stennis Space Center and the Boeing Company at its
facility in Canoga Park, California; present and former
employees of Boeing at Stennis; and spouses and children of
those individuals.  Mr. Paz and Mr. Lewis and Ms. Faciane
represent current and former DCMA employees at Stennis. Mr.
Jones represents DCMA employees at Canoga Park. Mr. Bryan, Mr.
Condiff, Mr. Ladner, Mr. Park, Mr. Polk, Mr. Tootle and Mr.
Stewart and Ms. Condiff represent Boeing employees at Stennis.  
Ms. Harris, Ms. Lemon, Ms. Ladner and Ms. Paz are family
members.

The Company filed a Motion to Dismiss on September 28, 2004,
which was granted and judgment was entered on January 11, 2005;
however, the plaintiffs have filed an appeal.

The suit is styled "Paz, et al v. Brush Engineered, et al, case
no. 1:04-cv-00597-LG-RHW," filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, under Judge
Louis Guirola Jr.  Representing the Company are Paul H.
Stephenson, III of WATKINS & EAGER, P. O. Box 650 Jackson, MS
39205-0650, Phone: (601) 948-6470, E-mail:
pstephenson@watkinseager.com; and Jeffery D. Ubersax - PHV, of
JONES DAY, North Point 901 Lakeside Ave., Cleveland, OH
44114-1190, Phone: 216/586-3939, E-mail: jdubersax@jonesday.com.  
Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (i) Ruben Honik - PHV, GOLOMB & HONIK, 121 South Broad St.,
         Ninth Floor, Philadelphia, PA 19107, Phone: 215/985-
         9177, E-mail: rhonik@golombhonik.com;

    (ii) Robert C. Latham, TRULY, SMITH, LATHAM & KUEHNLE, P. O.
         Box 1307, Natchez, MS 39121-1307, Phone: (601) 442-
         6495, E-mail: rclatham@bellsouth.net;

   (iii) Randall Allan Smith - PHV, SMITH & FAWER, 201 St.
         Charles Ave., Suite 3702, New Orleans, LA 70170 Phone:
         504/525-2200, E-mail: rasmith3@bellsouth.net   


BRUSH WELLMAN: Plaintiffs File Amended CA Beryllium Injury Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a second amended class action against Brush
Wellman, Inc. in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles
County, styled "Manuel Marin, et al. v. Brush Wellman Inc., case
number BC299055."

The named plaintiffs are Manuel Marin, Lisa Marin, Garfield
Perry and Susan Perry.  The defendants are Brush Wellman,
Appanaitis Enterprises, Inc. and Doe Defendants 1 through 100.  
The amended suit added five additional plaintiffs, namely Robert
Thomas, Darnell White, Leonard Joffrion, James Jones and John
Kesselring.

The plaintiffs allege that they have been sensitized to
beryllium while employed at the Boeing Company.  The plaintiffs'
wives claim loss of consortium. The plaintiffs purport to
represent two classes of approximately 250 members each, one
consisting of workers who worked at Boeing or its predecessors
and are beryllium sensitized and the other consisting of their
spouses.  They have brought claims for negligence, strict
liability - design defect, strict liability - failure to warn,
fraudulent concealment, breach of implied warranties, and unfair
business practices.  The plaintiffs seek injunctive relief,
medical monitoring, medical and health care provider
reimbursement, attorneys' fees and costs, revocation of business
license, and compensatory and punitive damages.

Mr. Marin, Mr. Perry, Mr. Thomas, Mr. White, Mr. Joffrion, Mr.
Jones and Mr. Kesselring represent current and past employees of
Boeing in California; and Ms. Marin and Ms. Perry are spouses.  


BRUSH WELLMAN: GA Court Orders Beryllium Injury Suit Amendment
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia asked plaintiffs to amend their class action filed
against Brush Wellman, Inc., styled "Neal Parker, et al. v.
Brush Wellman Inc., case number 04-CV-606."

The suit was originally filed in the Superior Court of Fulton
County, State of Georgia.  The named plaintiffs are Neal Parker,
Wilbert Carlton, Stephen King, Ray Burns, Deborah Watkins,
Leonard Ponder, Barbara King and Patricia Burns.  The defendants
are the Company and:

     (1) Schmiede Machine and Tool Corporation;

     (2) Thyssenkrupp Materials NA Inc., d/b/a Copper and Brass
         Sales;

     (3) Axsys Technologies, Inc.;

     (4) Alcoa, Inc.;

     (5) McCann Aerospace Machining Corporation;

     (6) Cobb Tool, Inc.; and

     (7) Lockheed Martin Corporation

Mr. Parker, Mr. Carlton, Mr. King, Mr. Burns and Ms. Watkins are
current employees of Lockheed.  Mr. Ponder is a retired
employee, and Ms. King and Ms. Burns are family members.  The
plaintiffs have brought claims for negligence, strict liability,
fraudulent concealment, civil conspiracy and punitive damages.  
The plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction requiring the
defendants to fund a court-supervised medical monitoring
program, attorneys' fees and punitive damages.

On March 29, 2005, the Court entered an order directing
plaintiffs to amend their pleading to segregate out those
plaintiffs who have endured only subclinical, cellular, and
subcellular effects from those who have sustained actionable
tort injuries, and that following such amendment, the Court will
enter an order dismissing the claims asserted by the former
subset of claimants; dismissing Count I of the complaint, which
sought the creation of a medical monitoring fund; and dismissing
the claims against defendant Axsys Technologies Inc.

The suit is styled "Parker, et al v. Brush Wellman, Inc., et
al., case no. 1:04-cv-00606-RWS," filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, under Judge
Richard W. Story.  Representing the Company are J. Kevin Buster,
Barry Goheen, Richard Anthony Schneider and Carmen R. Toledo of
King & Spalding, 191 Peachtree Street, N.E., Atlanta, GA 30303-
1763, Phone: 404-572-4600, E-mail: kbuster@kslaw.com,
bgoheen@kslaw.com, dschneider@kslaw.com, ctoledo@kslaw.com; and
James Royce Johnson, Robin A. Schmahl and Jeffrey D. Ubersax of
Jones Day, 1420 Peachtree Street, NE Suite 800 Atlanta, GA
30309-3053 Phone: 404-521-3939, E-mail: jrjohnson@JonesDay.com,
raschmahl@jonesday.com, or jdubersax@jonesday.com.  Representing
the plaintiffs are:

     (1) William Grady Hasty, Jr. of Hasty Pope & Ball, P.O. Box
         1818, 211 East Main Street, Canton, GA 30114-1818
         Phone: 770-479-0366

     (2) Robert E. Shields, Doffermyre Shields Canfield Knowles
         & Devine, 1355 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 1600,
         Atlanta, GA 30309 Phone: 404-881-8900, E-mail:
         rshields@dsckd.com  

     (3) James Hugh Webb, Jr., Webb Lindsey & Wade, 400 Westpark
         Court, Suite 220, Peachtree City, GA 30269, Phone: 770-
         631-1811 E-mail: dstrube@webb-firm.com


CANADA: Norske Skog Launches Peroxide Price-Fixing Suit V. Firms
----------------------------------------------------------------
British Columbia pulp producer Norske Skog is leading a bid to
file a class action lawsuit in B.C. Supreme Court against almost
two-dozen chemical companies alleging a price-fixing conspiracy
for hydrogen peroxide, a bleaching agent used to make paper
white, The Canadian Press reports.

Norske's lawsuit alleges the companies' executives met secretly
to illegally fix the price of the chemical and suppress any
competition.  Court documents give no indication as to how much
the defendant estimates it may have lost over the alleged price-
fixing period, which is alleged to go back to 1994.  One of the
companies listed as defendants in the in the suit is The Solvay
group of companies, the world's leading producer of hydrogen
peroxide, selling about $258 million worth of the agent every
year.  


CLEVERLINK TECHNOLOGIES: FTC Halts "Lonely Wife" Spam Operation
---------------------------------------------------------------
An operation that spammed millions of consumers with graphic
sexual descriptions to drive traffic to their Web sites to "date
lonely housewives" has been halted by the court at the request
of the Federal Trade Commission.  U.S. District Court Judge Amy
St. Eve has ordered a temporary halt to the spamming and has
frozen the assets of the outfit, pending a hearing on the FTC's
request for a preliminary and permanent injunction for
violations of federal law.

The FTC complaint names Cleverlink Trading Limited, Real World
Media, LLC and their principles, Brian D. Muir, Jesse Goldberg,
and Caleb Wolf Wickman. The defendants are based in California.  
The FTC complaint was filed in U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, in Chicago.

The FTC alleges that the "date lonely wife" spam typically
contains short messages or a picture and a hyperlink promoting
the "lonely wives" service. The agency charges that the spam
violates nearly every provision of the CAN-SPAM Act. It contains
misleading headers and deceptive subject lines. It does not
contain a link to allow consumers to opt out of receiving future
spam, does not contain a valid postal address, and does not
contain the disclosure, required by law, that it is sexually
explicit. It also includes sexual materials in the initially
viewable area of the e-mail, in violation of the FTC's Adult
Labeling Rule. The FTC has asked the court to permanently bar
the illegal spam and to order the operation to give up its ill-
gotten gains.

In papers filed with the court, the FTC alleges that the
operators control more than 180 Web sites that claim to be
registered to people around the world. The defendants use an
offshore payment processor on the island of St. Kitts in the
Caribbean, have foreign bank accounts to collect spam proceeds,
and use a Cyprus-based company name and address to front the
operation. According to the FTC, they route their spam messages
through other people's computers, falsify contact e-mail
addresses, and obscure tools that would allow a recipient to
stop or complain about the spam. The FTC alleges that the
operation is actually U.S.-based and that the defendants are
trying to conceal their identities from U.S. law enforcers.

This case was brought with the valuable assistance of the
Microsoft Corporation.  Copies of the complaint are available
from the FTC's Web site at http://www.ftc.govand also from the  
FTC's Consumer Response Center, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania
Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580. The FTC works for the
consumer to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business
practices in the marketplace and to provide information to help
consumers spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in
English or Spanish (bilingual counselors are available to take
complaints), or to get free information on any of 150 consumer
topics, call toll-free, 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357), or use
the complaint form at http://www.ftc.gov.The FTC enters  
Internet, telemarketing, identity theft, and other fraud-related
complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database
available to hundreds of civil and criminal law enforcement
agencies in the U.S. and abroad.  For more details, contact
Claudia Bourne Farrell, Office of Public Affairs, Phone:
202-326-2181 or Steven Wernikoff or Jason Bowler, FTC Midwest
Region, Phone: 312-960-5634, or visit the Website:
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2005/05/housewives.htm.


CMS ENERGY: Plaintiffs Seek Certification For Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs asked the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan to grant class certification for
the securities lawsuit filed against CMS Energy Corporation,
Consumers Energy Corporation, certain of the Company's officers
and directors and its affiliates, including but not limited to
Consumers Energy which, while established, operated and
regulated as a separate legal entity and publicly traded
company, shares a parallel Board of Directors with CMS Energy.

The complaints were filed as purported class actions
shareholders who allege that they purchased the Company's
securities during a purported class period running from May 2000
through March 2003. The cases were consolidated into a single
lawsuit. The consolidated lawsuit generally seeks unspecified
damages based on allegations that the defendants violated United
States securities laws and regulations by making allegedly false
and misleading statements about the Company's business and
financial condition, particularly with respect to revenues and
expenses recorded in connection with round-trip trading by CMS
Energy Resource Management Company.  

In January 2005, a motion was granted, dismissing Consumers and
three of the individual defendants, but the court denied the
motions to dismiss for the Company and the 13 remaining
individual defendants. Plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification on April 15, 2005.


CMS ENERGY: Trial in MI ERISA Violations Suit Expected Mid-2006
---------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the consolidated class action filed against CMS Energy
Corporation is expected to begin in mid-2006 in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.  The
suit also names as defendants Consumers Energy Corporation, CMS
Energy Resource Management Company, and certain named and
unnamed officers and directors.

Two lawsuits were initially filed on behalf of participants and
beneficiaries of the CMS Employees' Savings and Incentive Plan
(the Plan). The two cases were later consolidated by the court.
Plaintiffs allege breaches of fiduciary duties under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and seek
restitution on behalf of the Plan with respect to a decline in
value of the shares of CMS Energy Common Stock held in the Plan.
Plaintiffs also seek other equitable relief and legal fees.

In March 2004, the judge granted in part, but denied in part,
the Company's motion to dismiss the complaint.  The Company,
Consumers and a number of individual defendants remain parties.
The judge has conditionally granted plaintiffs' motion for class
certification. A trial date has not been set, but is expected to
be no earlier than mid 2006.


DEL SOL: AR Attorney General Launches Suit V. Telemarketing Scam
----------------------------------------------------------------
Arkansas Attorney General Mike Beebe filed suit against Del Sol
LLC, a California company doing business in Arkansas as Del Sol
Educational Telephone, and its two owners for running a
telemarketing scam aimed at Latino residents in Arkansas. Beebe
is seeking restitution for the victims and an injunction halting
Del Sol's Arkansas operation until it stops its deceptive
practices and complies with state and federal "Do Not Call"
laws. In addition, Attorney General Beebe is asking the court
for civil penalties against Del Sol under the Arkansas Deceptive
Trade Practices Act.

The victims in this case were contacted by phone and offered a
promotional prize package at a cost of about $230. For that
money, the victims were told they would receive a Dell laptop
computer, designer perfumes and colognes, compact discs of their
favorite selected artists and designer watches. In reality, each
received a WebTV keyboard, oftentimes without the connections
required to operate it, and knockoff-brand merchandise instead
of the promised designer brands. Consumers who sought refunds
were unable to speak with Del Sol representatives.

The state alleges that the defendants specifically targeted
Spanish-speaking consumers who had a limited understanding of
English. Most, if not all, of the calls were made in Spanish.
The telemarketing calls violated state and federal "Do Not Call"
laws, as the defendants did not have written authorization or
the prior business relationships required to contact these
consumers.

"Just like legitimate businesses, scam artists target growing
populations," Attorney General Beebe said. "As Arkansas' Latino
population grows, we can expect to see more scams surface like
this one. I want all Arkansans to know that the Consumer
Protection Division of my office is available and ready to fight
these scam artists."

Under the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, each violation
by Del Sol could be punishable by a $10,000 civil penalty. The
two owners of Del Sol named in the lawsuit are Fernando T.
Gonzalez and Ana Maria Gonzalez.

This lawsuit comes as part of a joint effort coordinated by the
Federal Trade Commission to curb fraud against Spanish-speaking
consumers. Law-enforcement agencies in Arkansas, California,
Florida, Illinois, Maryland, New York, North Carolina and Texas
are taking part in the effort.

For questions, contact the Attorney General's Office at 200
Catlett-Prien Tower Building, 323 Center Street, Little Rock, AR
72201. The office can be reached by calling (501) 682-2341 or
1-(800) 482-8982. Spanish-speaking consumers can also call
(501) 683-3130. TDD service is available for the hearing-
impaired 682-6073.


DUN & BRADSTREET: Opposes Amendment of CT ERISA Violations Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Dun & Bradstreet Company objected to the amendment of the
consolidated class action filed against it in the United States
District Court in Connecticut, alleging violations of the
Employee Retirement Income Securities Act (ERISA).

In March 2003, a lawsuit seeking class action status was filed
against the Company on behalf of 46 specified former employees
relating to our retirement plans.  During the fourth quarter of
2004 most of the counts in the complaint were dismissed.  The
complaint, as amended in July 2003, sets forth the following
putative class:

     (1) current D&B employees who are participants in The Dun &
         Bradstreet Corporation Retirement Account and were
         previously participants in its predecessor plan, The
         Dun & Bradstreet Master Retirement Plan;

     (2) current employees of Receivable Management Services
         Corporation (RMSC) who are participants in The Dun &
         Bradstreet Corporation Retirement Account and were
         previously participants in its predecessor plan, The
         Dun & Bradstreet Master Retirement Plan;

     (3) former employees of D&B or D&B's Receivable Management
         Services (RMS) operations who received a deferred
         vested retirement benefit under either The Dun &
         Bradstreet Corporation Retirement Account or The Dun &
         Bradstreet Master Retirement Plan; and

     (4) former employees of D&B's RMS operations whose
         employment with D&B terminated after the sale of the
         RMS operations but who are not employees of RMSC and
         who, during their employment with D&B, were "Eligible
         Employees" for purposes of The Dun & Bradstreet Career
         Transition Plan

The Amended Complaint estimates that the proposed class covers
over 5,000 individuals.  There are four counts in the Amended
Complaint. Count 1 claims that the Company violated ERISA by not
paying severance benefits to plaintiffs under its Career
Transition Plan. Count 2 claims a violation of ERISA in that the
Company's sale of the RMS business to RMSC and the resulting
termination of its employees constituted a prohibited discharge
of the plaintiffs and/or discrimination against the plaintiffs
for the "intentional purpose of interfering with their
employment and/or attainment of employee benefit rights which
they might otherwise have attained."  Count 3 claims that the
plaintiffs were materially harmed by the Company's alleged
violation of ERISA's requirements that a summary plan
description reasonably apprise participants and beneficiaries of
their rights and obligations under the plans and that,
therefore, undisclosed plan provisions (in this case, the
actuarial deduction beneficiaries incur when they leave D&B
before age 55 and elect to retire early) cannot be enforced
against them. Count 4 claims that the 6.60% interest rate (the
rate is actually 6.75%) used to actuarially reduce early
retirement benefits is unreasonable and, therefore, results in a
prohibited forfeiture of benefits under ERISA.

In the Amended Complaint, the plaintiffs sought payment of
severance benefits; equitable relief in the form of either
reinstatement of employment with D&B or restoration of employee
benefits (including stock options); invalidation of the
actuarial reductions applied to deferred vested early retirement
benefits, including invalidation of the plan rate of 6.60% (the
actual rate is 6.75%) used to actuarially reduce former
employees' early retirement benefits; attorneys' fees and such
other relief as the court may deem just.

In September 2003, the Company filed a motion to dismiss Counts
1, 3 and 4 of the Amended Complaint on the ground that
plaintiffs cannot prevail on those claims under any set of
facts, and in February 2004, the Court heard oral argument on
the Company's motion. With respect to Count 4, the Court
requested that the parties conduct limited expert discovery and
submit further briefing. In November 2004, after completion of
expert discovery on Count 4, the Company moved for summary
judgment on Count 4 on the ground that an interest rate of 6.75%
is reasonable as a matter of law. Briefing on that motion has
now been completed.  Meanwhile, on November 30, 2004 the Court
issued a ruling granting the Company's motion to dismiss Counts
1 and 3. Shortly after that ruling, plaintiffs' counsel
stipulated to dismiss Count 2 (which challenged the sale of the
RMS business as an intentional interference with employee
benefit rights, but which the motion to dismiss did not
address).  Plaintiffs' counsel also stipulated to a dismissal of
Count 1, the severance pay claim, agreeing to forego any appeal
of the Court's dismissal of that claim. Plaintiffs' counsel did
file a motion to join party plaintiffs and to amend the amended
complaint to add a new count challenging the adequacy of the
retirement plan's mortality tables. The court granted the motion
and the Company filed its objections.


EI DUPONT: WV Court Approves PFOA Contamination Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Wood County Circuit Court in West Virginia approved the
settlement of a class action filed against EI Dupont de Nemours
& Co. and the Lubeck Public Service District.  

The complaint alleged that residents living near the Washington
Works facility had suffered, or may suffer, deleterious health
effects from exposure to perflourooctanoic acid (PFOA) in
drinking water.  The relief sought included damages for medical
monitoring, diminution of property values, and punitive damages
plus injunctive relief to stop releases of PFOA.

The settlement agreement reached by the Company and the
attorneys for the class in 2004 was approved by the Wood County
Circuit Court on February 28, 2005 after a fairness hearing.  
The settlement binds a class of approximately 80,000 residents.  
As defined by the court, the class includes those individuals
who have consumed, for at least one year, water containing 0.05
parts per billion or greater of PFOA from any of six designated
public water sources or from sole source private wells.

The settlement calls for expenditures valued at $85 million,
plus attorneys' fees and expenses of $23 million.  As part of
the initial payment, the Company has agreed to a cash payment of
$70 million, the majority of which class counsel has designated
to fund a community health project.  The Company has also
offered to make available to six area water districts state-of-
the art water treatment systems (estimated to cost approximately
$10 million) designed to reduce the level of PFOA in the water.  
The other key component to the settlement is the creation of an
independent panel of experts to evaluate available scientific
evidence on whether any probable link exists between exposure to
PFOA and human disease.  This independent panel will design and
conduct a health study in the communities exposed to PFOA.  The
Company will fund this study at an estimated cost of $5 million.  

The settlement results in the dismissal of all claims asserted
in the lawsuit except for personal injury claims.  If the
independent panel concludes that no probable link exists between
exposure to PFOA and any diseases, then the settlement would
also resolve personal injury claims.  If the independent panel
concludes that a probable link does exist between exposure to
PFOA and any diseases, then the Company would also fund a
medical monitoring program (capped at $235 million) to pay for
such medical testing.  In this event, plaintiffs would retain
their right to pursue personal injury claims.  All other claims
in the lawsuit would remain dismissed by the settlement.


ELI LILLY: Faces Zyprexa Product Liability Suits in US Courts
-------------------------------------------------------------
Eli Lilly continues to face approximately 190 product liability
cases in the United States involving approximately 540 claimants
alleging a variety of injuries from the use of its schizophrenia
drug Zyprexa.  

Most of the cases allege that the product caused or contributed
to diabetes or high blood-glucose levels.  The lawsuits seek
substantial compensatory and punitive damages and typically
accuse the Company of inadequately testing for and warning about
side effects of Zyprexa.  Many of the lawsuits also allege that
the Company improperly promoted the drug.

Virtually all the federal cases, involving approximately 450
claimants, have been or will be transferred to The Honorable
Jack Weinstein in the Federal District Court for the Eastern
District of New York for consolidated and coordinated pretrial
proceedings. Two cases requesting certification of nationwide
class actions on behalf of those who allegedly suffered injuries
from the administration of Zyprexa were filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on
April 16, 2004, and May 19, 2004, respectively. The cases seek
damages for alleged personal injuries and also seek compensation
for medical monitoring of individuals who have taken Zyprexa.  A
lawsuit was also filed that requests a class action on behalf of
Iowa residents who took Zyprexa, and that case has been
transferred to the federal court in New York.

In addition, the Company has entered into agreements with
various plaintiffs' counsel halting the running of the statutes
of limitation (tolling agreements) with respect to more than
3,800 individuals who do not have lawsuits on file and may or
may not eventually file suits. This provides counsel additional
time to evaluate the potential claims.  In exchange, the
individuals have agreed not to file suits in state courts, and
the Plaintiffs Steering Committee agreed to dismiss the personal
injury claims in the two pending nationwide class actions.  The
class action claims seeking medical monitoring for Zyprexa
patients are not affected by this agreement.

In December 2004, the Company was served with two lawsuits
brought in state court in Louisiana on behalf of the Louisiana
Department of Health and Hospitals, alleging that Zyprexa caused
or contributed to diabetes or high blood-glucose levels and that
the Company improperly promoted the drug. In these actions,
which the Company has removed to federal court, the Department
of Health and Hospitals seeks to recover the costs it paid for
Zyprexa through Medicaid and other drug benefit programs and the
costs the department alleges it has incurred and will incur to
treat Zyprexa-related illnesses.

In early 2005, the Company was served with five lawsuits seeking
class action status in Canada on behalf of patients who took
Zyprexa. The allegations in these suits are similar to those in
the litigation pending in the United States.


ENTERPRISES SOLUTIONS: NY Court Issues Distribution Plan Order
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York is notifying all interested claimants against the
Enterprises Solutions, Inc. (ESI) Settlement Fund that United
States District Court Judge Miriam Goldman has issued an "Order
Approving Plan of Distribution and Providing for Implementation
Thereof," establishing a Distribution Plan for a $1.1 million
Settlement Fund.

The order in the case, Securities and Exchange Commission V.
ESI, Case No. 00 Civ 2685 (MGC), established a "Claims Bar Date"
of August 23, 2005 and a "Objections Bar Date" of June 24, 2005.

For more details, contact Philip S. Stenger, c/o Stenger &
Stenger, P.C. by Mail: 4095 Embassy Drive SE, Suite A, Grand
Rapids, MI 49546 by Phone: (616) 940-1190 by Fax: (616) 940-1192
by E-mail: phil@stengerlaw.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.enterprisessolutions.com/.  


FIFTH THIRD: Reaches $17M Settlement For OH Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fifth Third Bancorp reached a settlement for the consolidated
securities class action filed against it and certain of its
officers in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio, alleging violations of federal securities
laws.

The suit relates to disclosures made by the Company regarding
its integration of Old Kent Financial Corporation and its effect
on the Company's infrastructure, including internal controls,
prospects and related matters.  The complaint sought
unquantified damages on behalf of putative classes of persons
who purchased the Company's common stock, attorneys' fees and
other expenses.

On March 31, 2005 the Registrant announced that it had settled
this suit. The settlement is subject to court approval. Under
the proposal, a settlement fund of $17 million plus interest,
but minus lawyers' fees and expenses would be established.  The
proposal further said that the settlement would be divided among
investors who bought Fifth Third Bancorp stock between September
21, 2001 and January 31, 2003. Lawyers' fees would be limited to
a maximum of 28 percent of the fund plus about $300,000 for
expenses, according to a proposed order submitted for court
approval, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (April 4,2005)
reports.

The amount to which any investor would be entitled would depend
on how many investors sign up for the settlement, the number of
Fifth Third shares they bought and how much they paid for those
shares. The plaintiffs' lawyers estimated that 116 million
shares were traded during the class period and that the average
amount recovered per share would be 14.6 cents. Individual
investors could reject the settlement and pursue actions on
their own, the lawyers added.  Under terms of the proposed
settlement, the Company and the other defendants don't admit to
the validity of any claims made by the plaintiffs.


FLUOR CORPORATION: Reaches $18M Settlement For CA Stock Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fluor Corporation reached an agreement to settle the
consolidated securities class action filed against its officers
and directors in the United States District Court for the
Central District, Southern Division, California for $18 million.

Several suits were initially filed, alleging that certain
Company officers and directors violated the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 by providing false or misleading statements about
the Company's business and prospects. These complaints purported
to be class action complaints brought on behalf of purchasers of
the Company's stock during the period from May 22, 1996 through
February 18, 1997.

The company's initial motion to dismiss the action was granted
by the court with leave to amend. The plaintiffs filed their
amended complaint and the company moved the court to dismiss the
new amended complaint. The Court granted the company's motion
and dismissed plaintiff's action without leave to amend on July
10, 2002.  Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal and the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals remanded the motion to the trial court
with instructions to allow plaintiff an additional chance to
plead additional claims.  During the first quarter of 2005 the
company, its insurer and the plaintiffs reached an agreement to
settle this proceeding for $18 million without any admission of
company liability, of which $16 million was paid by the
Company's insurers. The remaining $2 million had been previously
provided, and therefore, did not affect operating results for
the first quarter of 2005. A hearing to confirm the settlement
has been scheduled for June 27, 2005.

The suit is styled "In re Fluor Corporation Securities
Litigation, case no. 97-CV-734," filed in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California, under
Judge Alicemarie H. Stotler.  Representing the Company is Wilson
Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, 650 Page Mill Rd Palo Alto, CA 94304-
1050 USA, Phone: 650-493-9300, Fax: 650-493-6811.  The plaintiff
firms in this litigation are:

     (1) Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP (New York, NY), 805 Third
         Avenue, 22nd Floor, New York, NY, 10022, Phone:
         212.687.1980, Fax: 212.687.7714, E-mail:
         info@kaplanfox.com

     (2) Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Hynes & Lerach LLP (San Diego,
         CA), 600 West Broadway, 1800 One America Plaza, San
         Diego, CA, 92101, Phone: 800.449.4900, E-mail:
         support@milberg.com

     (3) Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Hynes & Lerach, LLP (S.F.,
         CA), 100 Pine Street - Suite 2600, San Francisco, CA,
         94111, Phone: 415.288.4545, Fax: 415.288.4534,

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

     (5) Soltan & Associates, 660 Newport Center Driver Suite
         320, Newport Beach, CA, 92660, Phone: 949.729.3100,
         Fax: 949.729.1527


FORD MOTOR: Plaintiffs To Hold Press Conference After Hearing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Following the final hearing in a landmark class action
employment discrimination case against Ford Motor Company
(Robinson v. Ford Motor Company), plaintiffs and attorneys will
hold a press conference on June 1, 2005 at 4:30 p.m. to discuss
the historic implications of the settlement, The Comtex Global
News reports.

The press conference will be followed by a reception at the same
site, the National Underground Railroad Freedom Center,
Discovery Room, 3rd Floor, 50 East Freedom Way, Cincinnati,
Ohio.

The settlement is groundbreaking since it is most likely the
first class action involving apprenticeship selection that
benefits African American nationwide and provides the largest
number of African American employees who have a realistic chance
to become apprentices in skilled trades.

Mehri & Skalet and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
("EEOC") each filed a lawsuit challenging Ford's procedures for
selecting apprentices nationwide. These suits alleged that,
since 1997, Ford has discriminated against African-Americans on
the basis of race in selecting apprentices. The two cases were
consolidated in front of Senior Judge S. Arthur Spiegel.

After extensive negotiations, the parties arrived at a
settlement. The proposed settlement resolves all claims in both
lawsuits. We believe that the settlement is in the public
interest and confers substantial benefits on the Settlement
Class. The settlement provides monetary and non-monetary
benefits to the class, as well as providing substantial systemic
relief.

Some key aspects of the Settlement Agreement include:

     (1) Ford will immediately cease the use of the current ATSS
         for selection of apprentices at Ford facilities in the
         U.S.

     (2) The parties will agree upon an independent industrial
         psychologist to serve as an expert to devise new
         apprenticeship selection procedures.

     (3) Ford will select 276 members of the Settlement Class
         and three Charging Parties and offer them places on a
         Ford apprenticeship program eligibility list. This
         aspect of the Settlement Agreement is designed to
         remedy claims for lost job opportunities.

     (4) To remedy compensation damages claims for the class,
         the Settlement Agreement also provides $2400 to
         Settlement Class members who submit a properly executed
         claim and release and do not opt-out of the Settlement
         Agreement.

The suit is styled, Robinson v. Ford Motor Company, filed before
the Honorable S. Arthur Spiegel. Representing the Plaintiffs are
Nathaniel R. Jones of Blank Rome, LLP, Cyrus Mehri of Mehri &
Skalet, PLLC and Jeff A. Stern of the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC).


FRANCE: Attorneys Establish New Website For Class Action Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
A new French website, http://classaction.fr/,has been set up to  
offer the French public the possibility of bringing a class
action or collective suit for damages, The Financial Times Ltd.
Reports.

According to the lawyer in charge of the venture, Jean-Marc
Goldnadel, the website will be featuring suits against
pharmaceutical companies over the alleged side effects of their
drugs or against the French carmaker Renault over its speed-
regulators as just two of the issues, which potential clients
have raised so far. Other suits, he says, want to take action
against Internet or telecoms operators or to challenge what they
regard as an unfair parking ticket.

The website, which believes that many such disputes are ended
with a financial settlement, charges each complainant a fee of
between 12 and 60 euros. Its lawyers also receive around 40 per
cent of any damages awarded.


HILLENBRAND INDUSTRIES: New Lawsuit Launched Over Price-Fixing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hillenbrand Industries Inc. along with other funeral industry
companies are the targets of another lawsuit similar to a class-
action suit that was filed in California earlier this month
against the Batesville, Indiana casket maker, The Indianapolis
Star reports.

Ralph Lee Fancher recently filed an antitrust suit seeking
certification of two classes of consumers based on state laws.
It alleges that the companies conspired with funeral home owners
to ban casket sales to discount chains, independent stores and
Internet retailers.

Previously, a Vermont nonprofit organization, Funeral Consumers
Alliance Inc., sued Hillenbrand Industries, its Batesville
Casket Co. subsidiary, and three other funeral industry
companies, claiming that they bar consumers from buying discount
caskets from independent, third-party sellers and that they
engage in price-fixing.

That suit, which was filed in a San Francisco federal court,
claims that the alleged actions violate a 1982 federal law
governing funeral industry trade practices, it also seeks class-
action status. In addition to Hillenbrand, which has its
headquarters in Batesville, Indiana, and Batesville Casket,
other defendants named in the suit are Service Corporation
International, of Houston, Alderwoods Group Inc., of Cincinnati,
and Stewart Enterprises Inc., of Jefferson, Louisiana. The suit
identifies the latter three as operators of funeral homes.


HINO MOTOR SALES: Recalls 2005-06 Vehicles Due to Brake Defect
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hino Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc. in cooperation with the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Office of Defects
Investigation (ODI) is voluntarily recalling about 262 service
brakes of 2005-06 Hino NJ8J/NV8J vehicles.

According to ODI, on certain vehicles a brake airline could
become disconnected, which could cause a decrease of braking
ability or the parking brake to apply without being activated,
increasing the risk of a crash.

As a remedy, dealers will inspect each vehicle and check
properly the torque on the nuts. If the nuts are not torqued
properly, they will be tightened to the proper specification.

For more details, contact Hino by Phone: 1-248-648-6400 or the
NHTSA Auto Safety Hotline: 1-888-327-4236.


HO HO MARKET: Undeclared Sulfites Found on Dried Polygonatum
------------------------------------------------------------
New York State Agriculture Commissioner Nathan L. Rudgers
alerted consumers of a finding of undeclared sulfites in "Dried
Polygonatum (Vegetable)" sampled and analyzed by the Department
of Agriculture.

The product was sold by the Ho Ho Market Inc., 5215 8 th Avenue,
Brooklyn, New York. "Dried Polygonatum (Vegetable)" is packaged
in a 12 ounce plastic bag with the statement: "Expiration: 24
Months". It was sold in the Brooklyn area. The Department has
determined that the retail store and distributor of the product
are no longer in business.

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 product contained high
levels of sulfites, which were not declared on the label.

Sulfites can cause deadly reactions in asthmatics and sulfite
sensitive persons. No illnesses have been reported to the
Department to date concerning this product.


HOMETOWN BUFFET: Employees Launch Overtime Wage Suit in N.D. CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
HomeTown Buffet, Inc. faces a class action filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District, California,
alleging violations of the state's wage and hour laws.

On November 12, 2004, Elaine Tiffany and Shannon Whitehead, two
former restaurant managers of the Company, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a class action
lawsuit against the Company in California Superior Court in San
Francisco County.  On January 4, 2005, the Company removed the
case to federal court.

The lawsuit alleges that the Company violated California wage
and hour laws by failing to pay all of its California managers
and assistant managers overtime, and for making deductions from
bonus compensation based on the company's workers' compensation
costs. The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, penalties,
restitution of unpaid overtime and deductions, pre-judgment
interest, costs of suit and reasonable attorneys' fees.  The
complaint does not make a specific monetary demand.

The suit is styled "Tiffany et al v. Hometown Buffet, Inc., case
no. 4:05-cv-00047-SBA," filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, under Judge
Saundra Brown Armstrong.  Representing the Company are Rod M.
Fliegel and Eric A. Grover of Littler Mendelson, 650 California
Street 20th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94108-2693, Phone:
415-433-1940, E-mail: rfliegel@littler.com or
EAGROVER@LITTLER.com.  Representing the plaintiffs is J. Kirk
Donnelly of Dostart Clapp & Coveney, LLP, 4370 La Jolla Village
Drive, Suite 970 San Diego, CA 92122, Phone: 858-623-4200, Fax:
858-623-4299.


HOOVER'S INC.: NY Court Preliminarily Approves Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against Hoover's,
Inc., certain of its current and former officers and directors
and one of the investment banks that was an underwriter of the
Company's July 1999 initial public offering (IPO).

On November 15, 2001, a putative shareholder class action
lawsuit was filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's stock
during the period from July 20, 1999 through December 6, 2000.  
A Consolidated Amended Complaint, which is now the operative
complaint, was filed on April 19, 2002.  The purported class
action alleges violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Sections 10(b), Rule
10b-5 and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, against the Company and Individual Defendants.
Plaintiffs allege that the underwriter defendant agreed to
allocate stock in the Company's IPO to certain investors in
exchange for excessive and undisclosed commissions and
agreements by those investors to make additional purchases of
stock in the aftermarket at predetermined prices above the IPO
price.  Plaintiffs allege that the Prospectus for the Company's
IPO was false and misleading in violation of the securities laws
because it did not disclose these arrangements.  The action
seeks damages in an unspecified amount.

The defense of the action is being coordinated with more than
300 other nearly identical actions filed against other
companies.  On July 15, 2002, the Company's moved to dismiss all
claims against it and the Individual Defendants. On October 9,
2002, the Court dismissed the Individual Defendants from the
case based upon Stipulations of Dismissal filed by the
plaintiffs and the Individual Defendants.  On February 19, 2003,
the Court denied the motion to dismiss the complaint against the
Company.  On October 13, 2004, the Court certified a class in
six of the approximately 300 other nearly identical actions and
noted that the decision is intended to provide strong guidance
to all parties regarding class certification in the remaining
cases. Plaintiffs have not yet moved to certify a class in the
case involving the Company.

The Company approved a settlement agreement and related
agreements that set forth the terms of a settlement between the
Company, the plaintiff class and the vast majority of the other
approximately 300 issuer defendants. Among other provisions, the
settlement provides for a release of the Company and the
individual defendants for the conduct alleged in the action to
be wrongful.  The Company would agree to undertake certain
responsibilities, including agreeing to assign away, not assert,
or release certain potential claims the Company may have against
its underwriters. The settlement agreement also provides a
guaranteed recovery of $1 billion to plaintiffs for the cases
relating to all of the approximately 300 issuers. To the extent
that the underwriter defendants settle all of the cases for at
least $1 billion, no payment will be required under the issuers'
settlement agreement. To the extent that the underwriter
defendants settle for less than $1 billion, the issuers are
required to make up the difference.  On February 15, 2005, the
court granted preliminary approval of the settlement agreement,
subject to certain modifications consistent with its opinion.
The Court ruled that the issuer defendants and the plaintiffs
must submit a revised settlement agreement which provides for a
mutual bar of all contribution claims by the settling and non-
settling parties and does not bar the parties from pursuing
other claims.  There is no assurance that the court will grant
final approval to the settlement.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


HUMANA INC.: Seeks Summary Judgment For FL Managed Care Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Humana, Inc. filed an omnibus motion for summary judgment in the
consolidated managed care class action filed against it and
other managed care companies filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Florida, styled "In re
Managed Care Litigation."

Several purported class action lawsuits that are part of a wave
of generally similar actions that target the health care payer
industry and particularly target managed care companies were
initially filed, including a lawsuit against the Company and
originally nine of its competitors that purports to be brought
on behalf of physicians who have treated the Company's members.
As a result of action by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation, the case was consolidated in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Florida.  

The plaintiffs assert that the Company and other defendants
improperly paid providers' claims and "downcoded" their claims
by paying lesser amounts than they submitted. The complaint
alleges, among other things, multiple violations under the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO, as
well as various breaches of contract and violations of
regulations governing the timeliness of claim payments. The
complaint was subsequently amended to add as plaintiffs several
medical societies, including the Texas Medical Association, the
Medical Association of Georgia, the California Medical
Association, the Florida Medical Association, and the Louisiana
State Medical Society, each of which purports to bring its
action against specified defendants.

On September 26, 2002, the Court certified a global class
consisting of all medical doctors who provided services to any
person insured by any defendant from August 4, 1990, to
September 26, 2002. The class included two subclasses. A
national subclass consisted of medical doctors who provided
services to any person insured by a defendant when the doctor
had a claim against such defendant and was not required to
arbitrate that claim. A California subclass consisted of medical
doctors who provided services to any person insured in
California by any defendant when the doctor was not bound to
arbitrate the claim.

On September 1, 2004, the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit agreed with the District Court's ruling as to the class
for the RICO claims, although it suggested that the class should
be split so that claims involving capitation and fee-for-service
payments would be handled separately.  However, it reversed the
lower court as to state law claims, including breach of
contract, unjust enrichment and violations of prompt pay laws.
It found that the state claims were too individualized to be
dealt with in a class action.  The California subclass was not
specifically challenged and therefore was permitted to remain.

On October 15, 2004, the defendants filed a Petition for a Writ
of Certiorari to the United States Supreme Court, asking for
review of the Eleventh Circuit's decision. The petition was
denied on January 10, 2005.  On December 9, 2004, the Court
issued an order rescheduling the trial for September 6, 2005. On
February 10, 2005, the Court ruled that the trial would be
bifurcated so that the issue of liability would be tried first,
followed by proof of damages, if liability is found.

On September 17, 2004, the plaintiffs filed an amended motion
for class certification, seeking a global fee-for-service class
and five subclasses for the time period from January 1, 1996, to
the date of certification. The global class would consist of any
medical doctor who provided service on a fee-for-service basis
to any person insured by Cigna Corporation or any other
defendant for claims of RICO conspiracy and aiding and abetting.
The motion seeks subclasses for the conspiracy counts for
capitation damages and capitation injunctive relief consisting
of all medical doctors who provided services on a capitated
basis. The motion also requests a subclass for a direct RICO
claim consisting of medical doctors who provided services on a
fee-for-service basis to any person insured by Humana pursuant
to a contract without an arbitration clause or without a
contract. The motion also seeks two California subclasses, one
involving physicians who provided services on a fee-for-service
basis and the other for capitated physicians.  On April 22,
2005, the defendants filed an omnibus motion for summary
judgment as to all counts of the complaint. The Court has not
ruled on these motions.

Two of the defendants, Aetna Inc. and Cigna Corporation, have
entered into settlement agreements which have been approved by
the Court. On May 2, 2005, Health Net, Inc. announced that it
has entered into a settlement agreement with the plaintiffs. The
settlement agreement is subject to Court review and approval.

The suit is styled "In Re Humana Inc. Managed Care Litigation,
MDL 1334," filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, Miami Division, under Judge
Federico Moreno.  The suit names as defendants Humana, Inc.,
Aetna, Inc., Aetna-USHC, Inc., Cigna, Health Net, Inc., Human
Health Plan, Inc., Pacificare Health Systems, Inc., Prudential
Insurance Company of America, United Health Group, United Health
Care and Wellpoint Health Networks, Inc.  Cigna and Aetna have
entered settlements with the plaintiffs.  Lead Plaintiffs'
Attorneys are Barry Meadow of Podhurst, Orseck, et al., Harley
Tropin of Kozyak, Tropin & Throckmorton and Archie Lamb.


INTERNATIONAL TRUCK: Recalls 2006 Vehicles Due to Brake Defect
--------------------------------------------------------------
International Truck & Engine Corporation in cooperation with the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Office of
Defects Investigation (ODI) is voluntarily recalling about 3288
service brakes of 2006 International 3200/4000/7000/8000
vehicles.

According to ODI, on certain vehicles equipped with air brakes,
the push rod that connects the brake pedal to the brake valve
was manufactured incorrectly and could break under certain
loading conditions. If this push rod breaks while a vehicle is
in operation, a partial loss of service braking may be
experienced. This could result in a vehicle crash.
      
As a remedy, dealers will replace the rods.  

For more details, contact International by Phone: 1-800-448-7825
or the NHTSA Auto Safety Hotline: 1-888-327-4236.


KIA MOTORS: Recalls 2003-05 Sedona Vehicles Due to Wheel Defects
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kia Motors America, Inc. in cooperation with the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Office of Defects
Investigation (ODI) is voluntarily recalling about 37358 wheels
of 2003-05 Kia Sedonas.

According to ODI, on certain mini-vans with alloy wheels,
moisture can cause to accumulate around the rear hubcaps causing
damage to the outer wheel bearing. Wheel gearing failure could
result without warning and cause a crash.

As a remedy Dealers will replace the hubcaps, while some upon
inspection will also require replacement of the rear outer
bearings and/or hub assembly.

For more details, contact Kia by Phone: 1-800-333-4542 or the
NHTSA Auto Safety Hotline: 1-888-327-4236.


NATIONWIDE LIFE: MI Court Refuses To Dismiss Consumer Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Mississippi refused to dismiss the class action filed against
Nationwide Life Insurance Company, styled "United Investors Life
Insurance Company v. Nationwide Life Insurance Company and/or
Nationwide Life Insurance Company of America and/or Nationwide
Life and Annuity Insurance Company and/or Nationwide Life and
Annuity Company of America and/or Nationwide Financial Services,
Inc. and/or Nationwide Financial Corporation, and John Does A-
Z."

In its complaint, plaintiff United Investors alleges that the
Company and/or its affiliated life insurance companies caused
the replacement of variable insurance policies and other
financial products issued by United Investors with policies
issued by the Nationwide defendants.  The plaintiff raises
claims for:

     (1) violations of the Federal Lanham Act, and common law
         unfair competition and defamation,

     (2) tortious interference with the plaintiff's contractual
         relationship with Waddell & Reed, Inc. and/or its
         affiliates, Waddell & Reed Financial, Inc., Waddell &
         Reed Financial Services, Inc. and W&R Insurance Agency,
         Inc., or with the plaintiff's contractual relationships
         with its variable policyholders,

     (3) civil conspiracy, and

     (4) breach of fiduciary duty

The complaint seeks compensatory damages, punitive damages, pre-
and post-judgment interest, a full accounting, a constructive
trust, and costs and disbursements, including attorneys' fees.
The Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on June 1,
2004. On February 8, 2005 the court denied the motion to
dismiss.  On March 23, 2005, the Company filed its answer.

The suit is styled "United Investors Lif v. Nationwide Life
Insu, et al, case no. 2:04-cv-00012-NBB-SAA," filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Mississippi, under Judge Neal B. Biggers.

The Company is represented by Cal Mayo, Jr. of MAYO MALLETTE,
PLLC, P.O. Box 1456, Oxford, MS 38655, Phone: (662) 236-0055, E-
mail: cmayo@mayomallette.com; and Charles C. Platt and Peter K.
Vigeland, WILMER CUTLER PICKERING, LLP, 399 Park Avenue, New
York, NY 10022, Phone: (212) 230-8860.  Representing the
plaintiffs are:

     (i) William J. Baxley, Joel E. Dillard, BAXLEY DILLARD
         DAUPHIN MCKNIGHT & BARCLIFT, 2008 3rd Avenue South,
         Birmingham, AL 35233, Phone: (205) 271-1100

    (ii) Betsy P. Collins, Scott P. Hilsen, Caroline Keller,  
         ALSTON & BYRD, One Atlantic Center, 1201 West Peachtree
         Street, Atlanta, GA 30309-3424, Phone: (404) 881-7000

   (iii) Michelle Dean Easterling, EDWARDS, STOREY, MARSHALL &
         HELVESTON, P. O. Box 835, West Point, MS 39773-0835,
         Phone: (601) 494-5184, E-mail: mde@wpms.net  

    (iv) Charles M. Ferguson, Jr., James W. Gewin, Matthew H.
         Lembke, Hobart A. McWhorter, Michael R. Pennington,
         BRADLEY, ARANT, ROSE & WHITE, LLP - Birmingham, P.O.
         Box 830709, Birmingham, AL 35283-0709, Phone: (205)
         521-8000

     (v) Floyd D. Gaines, Andrew P. Walsh, GAINES PLLC, 2100
         Morris Avenue, Birmingham, AL 35203, Phone: (205) 320-
         2800

    (vi) Sam S. Thomas, UNDERWOOD/THOMAS, P.O. Box 24057,
         Jackson, MS 39225-4057, Phone: (601) 355-3668, E-mail:
         sst@underwoodthomas.com  


NATIONWIDE LIFE: Appeals Court Mulls Consumer Lawsuit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has yet to rule
on plaintiffs' appeal of the dismissal of the class action filed
against Nationwide Life Insurance Company (NLIC) and Nationwide
Life and Annuity Insurance Company (NLAIC), styled "Robert
Helman et al v. Nationwide Life Insurance Company et al."

The suit was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Arizona, challenging the sale of deferred annuity
products for use as investments in tax-deferred contributory
retirement plans.  On April 8, 2004, the plaintiff filed an
amended class action complaint on behalf of all persons who
purchased an individual variable deferred annuity contract or a
certificate to a group variable annuity contract issued by the
Company or NLAIC which were allegedly used to fund certain tax-
deferred retirement plans.  The amended class action complaint
seeks unspecified compensatory damages.

The Company and NLAIC filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on
May 24, 2004. On July 27, 2004, the court granted the motion to
dismiss. The plaintiff has appealed that dismissal to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.


NEVADA: Green Welling Investigates Vegas Grand Over Condo Prices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Condominium purchasers who had signed Reservation Agreements and
paid deposits for specific condominium units were recently
notified that they had to agree to a higher purchase price or
their condominium would be sold to someone else at the higher
price.

Condominium purchasers were required to sign Reservation
Agreements and make deposits of $10,000 to $25,000 to purchase
specific condominium units for a guaranteed price at the Vegas
Grand, an 880-unit luxury condominium project now under
construction in Las Vegas, Nevada.

Then, after Las Vegas real estate prices skyrocketed, the
developer notified buyers on April 25, 2005, that if they wanted
to keep the condominium for which they had already paid the
deposit, they would have to agree to a significant increase in
the price of their condominium. If a buyer did not agree to the
higher price, their deposit would be returned and the
condominium reserved for them would be sold to someone else at
the higher price.

Green Welling LLP was asked to investigate and file a class
action lawsuit if appropriate against Del American, the
developer, and other related parties involved in the Vegas Grand
condominium project.

For more details, contact Robert S. Green of Green Welling LLP
by Mail: 235 Pine Street, 15th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94104 by
Phone: (415) 477-6700 by Fax: (415) 477-6710 by E-mail:
gw@classcounsel.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.classcounsel.com.


NEWS CORPORATION: Working To Settle NY, DE Securities Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
News Corporation is working to settle several consolidated
securities class actions filed in received complaints relating
to a number of purported class actions filed in Delaware and New
York Courts, related to the merger of Fox Entertainment Group,
Inc. (FEG) into its direct wholly-owned subsidiary Fox
Acquisition Corporation

In March 2005, Fox Acquisition completed its offer to the
holders of Class A common stock of FEG to exchange 2.04 shares
of the Company's Class A common stock for each outstanding share
of FEG's Class A common stock validly tendered and not withdrawn
in the exchange offer.  Shortly thereafter, the Company effected
a "short form" merger of FEG with and into Fox Acquisition
Corporation.  Each share of FEG Class A common stock not
acquired in the Offer, other than the shares owned by the
Company, was converted in the "short form" merger into 2.04
shares of the Company's Class A common stock. The Company issued
approximately 357 million shares of News Corporation's Class A
Common Stock valued at approximately $6.3 billion in exchange
for the outstanding FEG Class A common shares. After the
consummation of the offer and the subsequent merger, Fox
Acquisition Corp changed its name to "Fox Entertainment Group,
Inc."  As a result of the Offer, the Company's ownership
interest increased from approximately 82% to 100%.

Several suits were initially filed in the Court of Chancery in
the State of Delaware. The complaints generally allege, among
other things, that the Company and the members of the FEG board
of directors have breached fiduciary duties owed to the public
stockholders of FEG, including as a result of News Corporation
offering to acquire shares of FEG Class A common stock at an
unfair price and at a time that disadvantages the FEG
stockholders. The complaints generally seek declaratory and
injunctive relief and damages in an unspecified amount.

The Company is currently aware of 17 purported class action
complaints that were filed in January 2005 at the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware challenging the FEG Offer. The
Delaware complaints are captioned:

     (1) Allen v. News Corp., et al., No. 979-N;

     (2) Mascarenhas v. Fox Entertainment Group, et al., No.
         980-N;

     (3) Shemesh v. Fox Entertainment Group, et al., No. 981-N;

     (4) Striffler v. FEG Holdings, et al., No. 982-N;

     (5) Howard Vogel Ret. Plan v. Powers, et al., No. 984-N;

     (6) Doniger v. News Corp., et al., No. 985-N;

     (7) Engle v. Murdoch, et al., No. 986-N;

     (8) Shrank v. Murdoch, et al., No. 988-N;

     (9) Blackman v. Fox Entertainment Group, et al., No. 991-N;

    (10) Fishbone v. News Corp., et al., No. 994-N;

    (11) Kennel v. News Corp., et al., No. 995-N;

    (12) Millner v. News Corp., et al., No. 996-N;

    (13) Pipefitters Locals v. Fox Entertainment Group, et al.,
         No. 1003-N;

    (14) Molinari v. News Corp., et al., C.A. No. 1018-N;

    (15) Seaview Services v. Fox Entertainment, et al., C.A. No.
         1026-N;

    (16) Teachers' Retirement System of Louisiana v. Powers, et
         al., C.A. No. 1033-N; and

    (17) New Jersey Building Laborers' Pension Fund v. Powers,
         et al., C.A. No. 1034.

The Shrank action, No. 988-N, was voluntarily dismissed on
January 19, 2005.  

The Company is also currently aware of two purported class
action complaints raising substantially similar claims that have
been filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County
of New York, and one that has been filed in the US District
Court for the Southern District of New York, which were filed in
January 2005. The New York complaints are captioned: "Shrank v.
Murdoch, et al., Index No. 600114/2005;" and "Green Meadows Ptr.
v. Fox Entertainment, et al., No. 100706/2005."  The US Southern
District of New York complaint is captioned "Gary Kosseff v. Fox
Entertainment Group, Inc., et. al., No. 05 Civ. 1942 (LLS)."

On January 21, 2005, certain plaintiffs in the Delaware lawsuits
filed a motion that seeks to consolidate the Delaware actions.
In addition, the Company has filed motions to dismiss and to
stay discovery, and the plaintiffs have filed a motion for
expedited proceedings.  On February 3, 2005, the Court of
Chancery denied the Company's motion to stay discovery, and
granted the plaintiffs' motion for expedited discovery and
motion to consolidate.  The consolidated Delaware complaint was
styled "In re Fox Entertainment Group, Inc. Shareholders
Litigation, Consol. C.A. No. 1033-N."

Each of the consolidated Delaware complaint and the New York
Supreme Court complaints generally alleges, among other things,
that News Corporation and the members of the FEG board of
directors purportedly breached fiduciary duties owed to the
public stockholders of FEG in connection with the FEG Offer by:

     (i) offering to acquire their shares at an unfair price;

    (ii) offering to acquire their shares at a time that
         disadvantages the public stockholders;

   (iii) having FEG appoint directors who are neither
         independent nor disinterested to a special committee
         created to consider the FEG Offer; and

    (iv) failing to adequately disclose information material to
         the FEG Offer, including disclosure with respect to the
         FEG 2005 budget.

The US Southern District of New York complaint also generally
alleges, among other things, some of the foregoing matters.  The
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on February 24, 2005 in
the US Southern District of New York alleging violations of the
federal securities laws in addition to the foregoing matters. On
February 24, 2005, the US Southern District of New York denied
the plaintiffs' motion for expedited proceedings.  As for
relief, the plaintiffs seek, among other things, an order that
the complaints are properly maintainable as a class action; a
declaration that defendants have breached their fiduciary duties
and other duties to the plaintiffs and other members of the
purported class; injunctive relief; unspecified monetary
damages; attorneys' fees, costs and expenses; and such other and
further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

A memorandum of understanding setting forth the terms of a
settlement with respect to the aforementioned litigation was
entered into by the plaintiffs and the named defendants as of
March 2, 2005.  Among other conditions, the settlement is
subject to negotiation of final settlement documentation,
confirmatory discovery by the plaintiffs, court approval of the
settlement and dismissal with prejudice of the litigation.


NORVERGENCE INC.: AZ Attorney General Forges Fraud Settlements
--------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard reached two settlements
that could result in more than $450,000 in debt forgiveness to
10 Arizona victims still being required to make payments on a
telecommunications device that is worthless.

Attorney General Goddard joined 20 other state attorneys general
in nationwide settlement agreements with Wells Fargo Financial
Leasing, Inc. (WFFL) and Lyon Financial Services d/b/a U.S.
Bancorp Business Equipment Finance Group (USB). The settlement
is in connection with a widespread telecommunications fraud
involving NorVergence, Inc., a bankrupt New Jersey-based
telephone equipment and service company. A third company, CIT
Technology, is also part of the national settlements, but it
does not hold any contracts in Arizona.

NorVergence customers will be contacted directly by WFFL and USB
with information on how to participate in these settlement
agreements. If all affected Arizona customers participate, the
finance companies will forgive or refund about $458,727.
Nationwide, these settlement agreements could provide more than
$24 million of potential debt forgiveness or refunds to
consumers and will affect more than 1,000 former NorVergence
contracts.

"The victims in this case were harmed twice. First they were
sold a box that didn't do anything, and then again when
collection agencies started hounding them to pay for a useless
box," the Attorney General said. "This settlement will help end
the nightmare that started with the hope of saving money in
business costs, and ended up costing money, time and lots of
frustration."

NorVergence's deceptive sales pitch offered to reduce local
telephone, long-distance telephone, wireless, and Internet
services using purportedly high-tech devices called Matrix
boxes. But these boxes were actually just data routers that only
cost NorVergence between $500 and $1,500. NorVergence promised
consumers a possible 30 percent reduction in their
telecommunications bills.

NorVergence typically required an equipment rental agreement for
three to five years at a monthly rate of $200 to $4,000 per
month, but the Matrix boxes did not provide the promised
telephone or Internet services.

After securing contracts with businesses, NorVergence sold the
rental agreements to approximately 40 different finance
companies, including, USB, WFFL and CIT. NorVergence had over
9,000 customer accounts nationwide. A majority of the customers
were small businesses, non-profit organizations, and local
government entities.

Attorney General Goddard and other state attorneys general have
alleged the NorVergence contracts were fraudulent. The Federal
Trade Commission also launched an investigation, and some
consumers have filed class action lawsuits seeking to collect on
the NorVergence leases.

While Wells Fargo and U.S. Bancorp deny any wrongdoing, they
have agreed to forgive 85 to 86 percent of the unpaid amounts
due under the NorVergence contracts, not including sales or
property taxes.

Joining Attorney General Goddard in the US Bancorp agreement
were Attorneys General from Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware,
Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan,
New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,
West Virginia and Washington, D.C., and the Georgia Governor's
Office of Consumer Affairs.

The Wells Fargo agreement was signed by Attorney General Goddard
and the Attorneys General of Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois,
Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New
Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,
South Carolina, South Dakota, Washington and Washington, D.C.,
and the Georgia Governor's Office of Consumer Affairs.

The CIT agreement was signed by the Attorneys General from
Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts,
Michigan, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Washington, D.C., and
the Georgia Governor's Office of Consumer Affairs.

The settlements also invalidate the so-called "floating" forum
clauses in the NorVergence contracts which arguably permitted
these companies to sue for collection in other states. Now, any
such litigation will generally be restricted to consumers' home
states.

Affected consumers will be contacted by the finance companies
within 30 days with instructions on how to join in the
settlements; consumers will then have 35 days to decide whether
to participate.

"These settlements are just a portion of the contracts still out
there," Attorney General Goddard said. "There are other
companies still trying to collect on the original NorVergence
contracts. We will continue our efforts to help other Arizona
consumers who are victims of this fraud."


OREGON: Judge Favors Switching To Class Action For Church Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Approximately 389,000 Roman Catholic parishioners in Western
Oregon may soon find themselves defendants in their
archdiocese's legal fight to keep parish money and property from
being used to pay sexual-abuse settlements, The Oregonian
reports.

In a recent hearing, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Elizabeth Perris said
that she was leaning toward converting the property litigation
into a rare class action at the end of July.

As she and several bankruptcy lawyers thumbed through their
copies of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, puzzling over the class
action rules, the judge said, "I've never had a class action
before in my 21 years as a bankruptcy judge."
  
Legal experts explain, rather than name every parishioner
individually a class action would enable the committee
representing sex-abuse plaintiffs to sue the volunteer
parishioners on behalf of all parishioners. The so-called
adversary proceeding, which is similar to a lawsuit, would be
meant strictly to answer the question of who owns the property
in the archdiocese's 124 parishes and three high schools: the
archdiocese or the parishes.

Since the Archdiocese of Portland became the nation's first to
file for bankruptcy in the wake of lawsuits alleging clergy
sexual abuse, the question of who owns $600 million in real
estate, investments and cash has been a central issue in the
matter.

According to individuals familiar with the matter, if the
archdiocese prevails, parishioners should be able to keep church
buildings and schools, however in case of a loss, parishioners
could face losing or borrowing against their places of worship,
although the would not be personally liable.

Since the property litigation was initiated in August, it has
stalled over several issues, including who is a "necessary
party" to the litigation.

A proposed class of defendants would legally answer that
question, which could include parishes, parishioners, donors and
anyone else, known or unknown, who can claim an interest in real
estate, investments and cash held by the archdiocese.

It must be noted that the sex-abuse plaintiffs, archdiocese,
parishes and parishioners currently involved in the case all
agree on the need for a class action.

Steven M. Hedberg, a lawyer for the Committee of Parishioners,
which represents about half of the affected parishes, asked
Judge Perris for time to arrange meetings with parishioners and
explain the class action. "We're talking about 390,000 people
here who aren't intimately familiar with bankruptcy
proceedings," he points out. Mr. Hedberg, whose firm, Perkins
Coie, likely will represent the proposed defendant class, also
pointed out that needs time to recruit volunteers to represent
the class.

If the sex-abuse plaintiffs succeed in arguing that the roughly
$500 million in real estate and $100 million in investments
belong to the archdiocese, those assets will become available to
pay off more than $400 million in abuse claims. In essence, an
individual parishioner would not be financially liable, but his
or her church building could be sold to raise money for
settlements.
  
However, if the archdiocese and the proposed new class of
parishioners and others succeed in arguing that the property
belongs to parishes, $19 million, which is the amount of real
estate and money the archdiocese says it really holds, would be
available for claims.

Individual parishioners, donors and other members of the class
could decline to be part of the class but would give up
representation by the class's lawyers. Details of opting out of
the class are still being worked out though.

Meanwhile, in a related matter, Judge Perris also indicated in
the same hearing that she would seek the help of an independent
settlement judge who would help mediate seemingly intractable
differences between the lawyers representing the archdiocese and
the committee representing sex-abuse plaintiffs. During a
previous bankruptcy hearing, Judge Perris scolded lawyers on
both sides for the hostile, accusatory tone of their legal
filings. At the end of the most recent hearing, the judge
scheduled a June 6 hearing to get names of candidates for a
settlement judge and to hear further information on the proposed
class action.


PACCAR INC.: Recalls 2005 Vehicles Due to Rear Suspension Defect
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paccar, Inc. in cooperation with the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration's Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) is
voluntarily recalling about 850 suspension units of 2005
Kenworth C500/T2000/T600/T800/W900 vehicles.

According to ODI, on certain vehicles equipped with airglide
high-articulation rear suspensions, the C65-1006 sway bar used
in may experience a reduction in fatigue life due to either a
manufacturing process or a high induced stress during an extreme
suspension articulation event. These conditions can lead to a
failure of the sway bar, which could cause a rear axle to come
loose, increasing the risk of a crash.

As a remedy, the inspection and repair of these vehicles will
depend on the type of vehicle and the intended service
application. This inspect and repair criteria will be
forthcoming.

For more details, contact Kenworth by Phone: 1-425-828-5440 or
the NHTSA Auto Safety Hotline: 1-888-327-4236.


PARADIGM MEDICAL: Lawsuit Settlement Hearing Set August 25, 2005
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Utah will
hold a fairness hearing for the proposed $1,507,500 settlement
in the matter: In Re Paradigm Medical Industries Securities
Litigation, Master File No. 2:03-CV-00448 (TC) on behalf of all
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of
the company during the period between April 7, 2000 and November
4, 2002.

The hearing will be held before the Honorable Tena Campbell in
the United States Courthouse, 350 South Main Street, Salt Lake
City, Utah 84101, at 3:00 p.m., on August 25, 2005.

For more details, contact Paradigm Medical Industries Securities
Litigation c/o Berdon Claims Administration LLC - Claims
Administrator by Mail: Post Office Box 9014, Jericho, NY 11753-
8914 or visit their Web site: http://www.berdonllp.com/claims.


PREMCOR INC.: Discovery Proceeds in Blue Island Refinery Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in the litigation filed against The
Premcor Refining Group, Inc., over the accidental release of
used catalyst into the air by its Blue Island refinery in
October 1994 and June 2000, in Circuit Court for the Cook
County, Illinois.

In October 1995, a class action, styled "Rosolowski v. Clark
Refining & Marketing, Inc., et al.," was filed, seeking to
recover damages in an unspecified amount for alleged property
damage and non-permanent personal injury resulting from that
catalyst release. The complaint underlying this action was later
amended to add allegations of subsequent events that allegedly
interfered with the use and enjoyment of neighboring property.

In June 2000, the Company's Blue Island refinery experienced an
electrical malfunction that resulted in another accidental
release of used catalyst into the air. Following the 2000
catalyst release, two cases were filed purporting to be class
actions, "Madrigal et al. v. The Premcor Refining Group Inc."
and "Mason et al. v. The Premcor Refining Group Inc."  Both
cases sought damages in an unspecified amount for alleged
property damage and personal injury resulting from that catalyst
release.

"Mason" was voluntarily dismissed in 2004.  "Rosolowski" and
"Madrigal" have been consolidated for the purpose of conducting
discovery, which is currently proceeding.  Other single
plaintiff cases regarding the same incidents are also pending.
The cases are pending in Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois.


PROSPERITY RESOURCES: Recalls Potatoes For Undeclared Sulfites
--------------------------------------------------------------
Prosperity Resources Int'l, Inc. is recalling Sun Kee Brand
Dried Sweet Potato 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 Sun Kee Brand Dried Sweet Potato is packed in
uncoded, 12 oz., plastic packages and 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 Sun Kee Brand
Dried Sweet Potato 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 Sun Kee Brand Dried Sweet Potato
should return it to the place of purchase. Consumers with
questions may contact the company at 1-973-371-9688.


PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: Reaches Settlement For FL RICO, ERISA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Prudential Insurance reached a $22 million settlement for the
consolidated nationwide class action filed against it and other
healthcare companies, styled "In Re Humana, Inc. Managed Care
Litigation," in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida.  

The suit was brought on behalf of provider physicians and
physician groups and alleges that the Company and other health
care companies engaged in an industry-wide conspiracy to defraud
physicians by failing to pay under provider agreements and by
unlawfully coercing providers to enter into agreements with
unfair and unreasonable terms.  

An amended complaint, naming additional plaintiffs, including
three state medical associations, and an additional defendant,
was filed in March 2001, and alleges claims of breach of
contract, quantum meruit, unjust enrichment, violations of the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO),
conspiracy to violate RICO, aiding and abetting RICO violations,
and violations of state prompt pay statutes and the California
unfair business practices statute. The amended complaint seeks
compensatory and punitive damages in unspecified amounts, treble
damages pursuant to RICO, and attorneys' fees.

In September 2002, the District Court granted plaintiffs' motion
for class certification of a nationwide class of provider
physicians.  In September 2004, the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed with respect only to
the federal RICO claims.


On April 29, 2005, the Company agreed in principle to a
settlement of these claims. The terms of the settlement include
the payment by the Company to plaintiffs of $22 million. This
settlement is subject to court approval.

The suit is styled "In Re Humana Inc. Managed Care Litigation,
MDL 1334," filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, Miami Division, under Judge
Federico Moreno.  The suit names as defendants Humana, Inc.,
Aetna, Inc., Aetna-USHC, Inc., Cigna, Health Net, Inc., Human
Health Plan, Inc., Pacificare Health Systems, Inc., Prudential
Insurance Company of America, United Health Group, United Health
Care and Wellpoint Health Networks, Inc.  Cigna and Aetna have
entered settlements with the plaintiffs.  Lead Plaintiffs'
Attorneys are Barry Meadow of Podhurst, Orseck, et al., Harley
Tropin of Kozyak, Tropin & Throckmorton and Archie Lamb.


RELIANT ENERGY: Faces Consolidated CA Natural Gas Antitrust Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Reliant Energy, Inc. and Reliant Energy Services, Inc., one of
its wholly-owned subsidiaries face a consolidated complaint for
seven new class action lawsuits filed in California state court.

The suit alleges the Company participated in an unlawful
conspiracy to increase natural gas prices in California from
2000 to 2001 in violation of antitrust and other laws. The
lawsuits seek injunctive relief, treble damages, restitution of
overpayments, disgorgement of unlawful profits and legal
expenses.


SMITHKLINE BEECHAM: PA Judge Slashes Legal Fees in Paxil Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Concluding that the lawyers were simply asking for too much in
light of the relatively small number of hours they had logged on
the case, Eastern District of Pennsylvania Judge John R. Padova
slashed the fee request in a class action antitrust suit over
the pricing of the anti-depressant drug Paxil, The Legal
Intelligencer reports.

According to the judge, if the lawyers were paid the full amount
they requested, they would end up earning more than 23 times
their ordinary hourly billing rates for the 4,239 hours they
worked. He also said that after surveying fee awards in other
mega class actions, a "multiplier" of 23.59 is "unprecedented,"
and that most fees resulted in a multiplier in the single
digits. Judge Padova's decision was the result of a so-called
"lodestar cross-check."

Although class action settlement fees are routinely awarded on a
"percentage-of-the-fund" basis, legal experts point out that
courts are also required to perform a lodestar cross-check in
which they compare the fee to the amount the lawyers would have
earned at their ordinary billing rates.

Having concluded that a multiplier of more than 23 was too high,
Judge Padova was forced to decide on his own what a reasonable
fee would be. Thus, the judge cut the request by one-third and
awarded the lawyers $20 million, noting that it still resulted
in a multiplier of more than 15.

However, despite finding that a 30 percent fee would be
"unreasonable," Judge Padova also had strong words of praise for
the plaintiffs' lawyers when explaining why he awarded a 20
percent fee. He wrote, "The court finds that plaintiffs' counsel
obtained an early and excellent result in an extremely complex
and risky case. The size of the fund is substantial and, as a
percentage of estimated damages, well within the norm for cases
which present the degree of risk undertaken by plaintiffs'
counsel in this case."

Sharing in the fee will be a team of lawyers led by attorneys
Jeffrey L. Kodroff of Spector Roseman & Kodroff in Philadelphia
and Thomas M. Sobol of Hagens Berman in Boston.

So far, the Paxil antitrust cases have cost the drug's maker,
SmithKline Beecham, more than $165 million in class action
settlements, as well as untold millions more paid out in
confidential settlements with some of the largest drug
wholesalers who opted out of the class action.

As previously reported in the May 2, 2005 of the Class Action
Reporter, Judge Padova, who is handling all of the cases, last
month, approved a $65 million settlement in Nichols v.
SmithKline Beecham Corp., a suit brought on behalf of "indirect"
purchasers. In that same ruling, Judge Padova awarded $19.5
million in attorney fees to a team of plaintiffs' lawyers who
logged more than 17,000 hours on the case since December 2000.

In addition, Judge Padova also approved a $100 million
settlement in Mr. Kodroff's case, The Stop & Shop Supermarket
Co. v. Smithkline Beecham Corp., which was a class action
brought on behalf of direct purchasers, such as drug
wholesalers.

Eight corporations that could have been members of the direct
purchaser class opted out of the case and struck their own
settlements with SmithKline. Together, the eight companies,
namely: CVS Meridian Inc., Rite Aid Corp., Walgreen Co., Eckerd
Corp., Albertson's Inc., The Kroger Co., Safeway Inc. and Hy-Vee
Inc., account for slightly more than one-third of the purchases
of Paxil by direct purchasers.

As previously reported, in the suits, plaintiffs alleged that
SmithKline illegally maintained a monopoly for Paxil by filing a
series of "sham" patent lawsuits that were designed to delay any
generic version of the drug from reaching the market. Those
filings contributed to the delay in the distribution of a
generic drug, according to court papers.

SmithKline admitted no liability in the settlements and
maintained its position that its litigation efforts were not
designed to cause any delay. However, plaintiffs lawyers alleged
that SmithKline attempted to monopolize the Paxil market by
filing "sham" patent litigation against Apotex Inc. and TorPharm
Inc., both of Weston, Ontario, soon after the generic
manufacturers notified SmithKline that they were seeking
approval from the Food & Drug Administration to copy Paxil.

The suits came on the heels of news reports that said the
Federal Trade Commission was investigating SmithKline for
possible antitrust violations. But the FTC investigation was
later closed without any government action against SmithKline.

When Judge Padova approved the $100 million settlement in the
direct purchaser case, he put off the issue of attorney fees due
to a then recent decision from the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals that discussed the lodestar cross-check.

In a 46-page decision though, the judge has now concluded that
the $30 million fee request was too high considering the
relatively small number of hours devoted to the case.

As settlements approach the $100 million level, Judge Padova
explains, the 3rd Circuit has instructed that courts should
consider reducing the percentage awarded to the lawyers to avoid
an unreasonably large fee.

Judge Padova, citing the 1985 3rd Circuit Task Force Report on
Court Awarded Attorney Fees said that the appellate court
instructed the district courts that "ordinarily, the percentage
of a recovery devoted to attorneys fees should decrease as the
size of the overall settlement or recovery increases."

However, in published decisions, Judge Padova said, the 3rd
Circuit has also advised, "there is no rule that a district
court must apply a declining percentage reduction in every
settlement involving a sizable fund."

Judge Padova found there were also several factors that weighed
in favor of awarding the full 30 percent fee requested. He
noted, "Although the settlement class in this case is relatively
small and consists of sophisticated businesses, not one member
of the settlement class objected to the requested fee."

The case was also especially risky, Judge Padova found, since
there was no prior government investigation, or prior finding of
civil or criminal liability based on antitrust violations. But
the judge found that the amount of attorney time devoted to this
litigation was "quite small in relationship to the requested
fee."

In the indirect purchaser case, the plaintiffs' lawyers logged
about 17,000 hours and were awarded $19.5 million in fees, Judge
Padova noted. By contrast, he points out, the lawyers in the
direct purchaser case logged just about 4,200 hours. He thus
wrote, "The court recognizes that plaintiffs' counsel should not
be penalized for prosecuting this case in an efficient manner,
or for keeping down the number of hours which they were required
to devote to this case by coordinating merits discovery with
plaintiffs' counsel in [the indirect purchaser case].
Nonetheless, in considering whether a particular percentage of
the common fund is an appropriate fee, the court may consider
the amount of time devoted to a case by counsel as disfavoring
the requested fee."

Comparing the requested fee to the fees awarded in other
"megafund" cases, Judge Padova found that "the percentage
requested in this case is among the highest that has ever been
awarded in megafund cases." He explains that in megafund cases
in which the lawyers logged less than 10,000 hours, the highest
percentage of the common fund awarded as an attorney fee was 5.5
percent. And in the four megafund cases in which fees of 30
percent or more of the common fund were awarded, Judge Padova
found that "not one involved the expenditure of less than 28,000
hours."

Diverting his attention to the lodestar cross-check, Judge
Padova found that the plaintiffs lawyers had logged hours that
would have resulted in fees of more than $1.2 million at their
ordinary billing rates. Thus, the judge noted, the requested fee
of $30 million would result in a multiplier of 23.59 far greater
than any multiplier yet approved by any court. He therefore
wrote, "The court concludes that the percentage-of-recovery
attorney fee requested in this case would lead to a lodestar
multiplier that is extraordinarily and unjustifiably high."

Having rejected the request, Judge Padova was forced to decide
the fee on his own and concluded that a 20-percent fee was
reasonable and thus wrote, "This award is justified by the high
caliber of plaintiffs' counsels' work in this case, even though
the percentage of recovery represented by the fee in this case
is greater than the average percentage of recovery awarded as a
fee in megafund cases."  

Although the multiplier was still a high one at 15.6, Judge
Padova found that fact was "neutralized" by the "extraordinary
support" that the class members showed for the fee. "Not one
member of the settlement class, which is made up of
approximately 90 sophisticated businesses, objected to the [fee
petition]," he wrote.

In-house lawyers for some of the companies went so far as to
file court papers urging the judge to approve the full 30-
percent fee. He noted, "The court has taken such support as a
clear indicator that the market supports a dramatic bonus for
work so timely and well done."


SNELLING TRAVEL: Jury Rules in Favor of Defendants in SEC Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission reports that on July 26,
2004, following a ten-day trial in Denver, Colorado, a jury
returned a verdict in favor of the defendants, Donald Rutledge
and Gregory Skufca. The Commission charged Mr. Rutledge and Mr.
Skufca with violating the federal securities laws by engaging in
a fraudulent scheme to manipulate the public trading market for
stock issued by Snelling Travel, Inc. (Snelling Travel), quoted
on the OTC Bulletin Board, in December 1999.
     
The Commission alleged at trial that Mr. Rutledge and Mr.
Skufca, working together, implemented their scheme by, among
other things, restricting the market supply of Snelling Travel
stock and trading the stock between themselves at prices far in
excess of actual market demand. The Commission also alleged
that, through their manipulative devices, Mr. Rutledge and Mr.
Skufca attempted to maintain, and maintained, the artificial
stock price for Snelling Travel from December 16 through Dec.
31, 1999.  The Commission further alleged that Mr. Skufca
personally obtained at least $500,000 in illicit profits as a
result of the scheme.
     
The Commission originally brought its case in September 2000.
The Commission charged Rutledge and Skufca with violations of
Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, and Section 10(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. The action is styled, SEC v.
Donald Rutledge and Gregory Skufca, Civil Action No. 00-K-1751,
USDC, D. Colo. (LR-19239).


ST. JUDE: Continues To Face Litigation Due To Silzone Devices
-------------------------------------------------------------
St. Jude Medical, Inc. faces litigation in various jurisdictions
in connection to its Silzoner devices, which it recalled in
January 2000, after receiving information from a clinical study
that patients with a Silzoner valve had a small, but
statistically significant, increased incidence of explant due to
paravalvular leak compared to patients in that clinical study
with non-Silzoner heart valves.

Subsequent to the Company's voluntary recall, the Company has
been sued in various jurisdictions by some patients who received
a Silzoner device and, as of April 20, 2005, has cases pending
in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Ireland and
France.  Some of these claims allege bodily injuries as a result
of an explant or other complications, which they attribute to
the Silzoner devices.  Others, who have not had their device
explanted, seek compensation for past and future costs of
special monitoring they allege they need over and above the
medical monitoring all replacement heart valve patients receive.
Some of the lawsuits seeking the cost of monitoring have been
initiated by patients who are asymptomatic and who have no
apparent clinical injury to date.

The Company has settled a number of these Silzoner-related cases
and others have been dismissed. Cases filed in the United States
in federal courts have been consolidated in the federal district
court for the district of Minnesota under Judge John R. Tunheim.
A number of class-action complaints have been consolidated into
one case.  Judge Tunheim ruled against the Company on the issue
of preemption and found that the plaintiffs' causes of action
were not preempted by the U.S. Food and Drug Act. The Company
sought to appeal this ruling, but the appellate court determined
that it would not review the ruling at this point in the
proceedings.

Certain plaintiffs have requested Judge Tunheim to allow some
cases to proceed as class actions. In response to their
requests, Judge Tunheim has issued several rulings concerning
class action certification. Although more detail is set forth in
the orders issued by the court, the result of these rulings is
that Judge Tunheim declined to grant class-action status to
personal injury claims, but granted class-action status for
claimants from seventeen states to proceed with medical
monitoring claims, so long as they do not have a clinical
injury. The court also indicated that a class action could
proceed under Minnesota's Consumer Protection statutes.

The Company requested the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals to
review Judge Tunheim's class certification orders. In a
September 2, 2004 order, the appellate court indicated it would
accept the appeal of Judge Tunheim's certification orders. The
issues have now been briefed and the parties are awaiting a date
for oral arguments concerning the appeal. It is not expected
that the appellate court would complete its review and issue a
decision concerning the appeal of Judge Tunheim's rulings
regarding class certification until sometime in 2006.

In addition to the class-type claims, as of April 20, 2005,
there are 18 individual Silzone cases pending in various federal
courts where plaintiffs are each requesting damages ranging from
$10 thousand to $120.5 million and, in some cases, seeking an
unspecified amount. These cases are proceeding in accordance
with the orders issued by Judge Tunheim. Not counting certain
cases in Texas which have been dismissed but are now on appeal,
there are also 29 individual state court suits concerning
Silzone products pending as of April 20, 2005, involving 37
patients. The complaints in these cases each request damages
ranging from $50 thousand to $100 thousand and, in some cases,
seek an unspecified amount. These state court cases are
proceeding in accordance with the orders issued by the judges in
those matters.

In addition, a lawsuit seeking a class action for all persons
residing in the European Economic Union member jurisdictions who
have had a heart valve replacement and/or repair procedure using
a product with Silzone coating has been filed in Minnesota state
court. The complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount for
the class, and in excess of $50 thousand for the representative
plaintiff individually.  The complaint also seeks injunctive
relief in the form of medical monitoring. The Company is
opposing plaintiff's pursuit of this case on jurisdictional,
procedural and substantive grounds.

There are also four class-action cases and one individual case
pending against the Company in Canada. In one such case in
Ontario, the court certified that a class action may proceed
involving Silzone patients. The Company's request for leave to
appeal the rulings on certification was rejected. A second case
seeking class action in Ontario has been stayed pending
resolution of the other Ontario action, and the matter seeking
class action in British Columbia is also proceeding but is in
its early stages. A court in the Province of Quebec has
certified a class action, and that matter is proceeding per the
orders in that court.

In the United Kingdom, one case involving one plaintiff is
pending as of April 20, 2005. The Particulars of Claim in that
case was served on December 21, 2004. The plaintiff in this case
requests damages equivalent to approximately $365 thousand U.S.
dollars.

In Ireland, one case involving one plaintiff is pending as of
April 20, 2005. The complaint in this case was served on
December 30, 2004, and seeks an unspecified amount in damages.

In France, one case involving one plaintiff is pending as of
April 20, 2005.  It was initiated by way of an Injunctive
Summons to Appear that was served on November 3, 2004, and
requests damages in excess of 3 million Euros.


ST. JUDE: Consumers File Litigation Over Symmetry Heart Devices
---------------------------------------------------------------
St. Jude Medical, Inc. faces, as of April 20, 2005, sixteen
cases in the United States which allege that its Symmetry Bypass
System Aortic Connector (Symmetry device) caused bodily injury
or might cause bodily injury.  In addition, a number of persons
have made a claim against the Company involving the Symmetry
device without filing a lawsuit.

The first lawsuit involving the Symmetry device was filed
against the Company on August 5, 2003, and the most recently
initiated case was served upon the Company on March 15, 2005.
Each of the complaints in these cases request damages ranging
from $50 thousand to $100 thousand and, in some cases, seeks an
unspecified amount.

Four of the sixteen cases are seeking class-action status. One
of the cases seeking class-action status has been dismissed, but
the dismissal is being appealed by the plaintiff. In a second
case seeking class action status, a Magistrate Judge has
recommended that the matter not proceed as a class-action, and
the parties are presently awaiting the court to review the
Magistrate's decision. A third case seeking class action status
has been indefinitely stayed by the court, and is presently
inactive. The hearing concerning class certification in the
fourth case seeking class action status is scheduled for May 19,
2005. It appears that the plaintiffs in those cases seeking
class-action status seek or will seek damages for injuries and
monitoring costs.

In a disclosure with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the
Company said that the Symmetry device was cleared through a
510(K) submission to the FDA, and therefore, is not eligible for
the defense under the doctrine of federal preemption that such
suits are prohibited.  Given the Company's self-insured
retention levels under its product liability insurance policies,
the Company expects that it will be solely responsible for these
lawsuits, including any costs of defense, settlements and
judgments.


VEMAR HELMETS: Recalls Helmets Due to FMVSS No. 218 Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Vemar Helmats, SRL. in cooperation with the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration's Office of Defects Investigation
(ODI) is voluntarily recalling about 4257 of 9999 Vemar
VRX3/VSS/VSX motorcycle helmets.

According to ODI, on certain helmets of all sizes fail the
penetration requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard No. 218, "Motorcycle Helmets." In the event of a crash,
the helmet could be penetrated, possibly resulting to injury for
the wearer.

As a remedy, Vemar will notify its customers and will repair the
helmet by adding a layer of material in the crown area free of
charge.

For more details, contact the NHTSA Auto Safety Hotline:
1-888-327-4236.      



                Meetings, Conferences & Seminars



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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

September 19-20, 2005
NATIONAL ASBESTOS LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Four Seasons Hotel, Philadelphia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

September 26-27, 2005
CONSUMER FINANCE LITIGATION & CLASS ACTIONS
American Conferences
New York
Contact: http://www.americanconference.com

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

September 26-27, 2005
WATER CONTAMINATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Marina del Rey Los Angeles
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

September 26-27, 2005
BAD FAITH LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Philadelphia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

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

September 27-28, 2005
PREPARING FOR THE FUTURE OF FINITE AND STRUCTURED RISK
(RE)INSURANCE
American Conferences
New York
Contact: http://www.americanconference.com

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

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

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

October 7, 2005
REINSURANCE LAW & PRACTICE 2005: NEW LEGAL & BUSINESS
DEVELOPMENTS IN A CHANGING ENVIRONMENT
Practising Law Institute
New York, NY
Contact: 800-260-4PLI; 212-824-5710; info@pli.edu

October 17-18, 2005
BENZENE LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz Carlton, Phoenix
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

October 27-28, 2005
RETAIL LIABILITY CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Mandalay Bay Resort & Casino,Las Vegas
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

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

November 3-4, 2005
NATIONAL MANUFACTURING CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Coconut Grove, Miami
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

November 7, 2005
ALL SUMS: REALLOCATION & SETTLEMENT CREDITS CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton, Boston
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

November 7-8, 2005
LEXISNEXIS PRESENTS: COPYRIGHT - FROM TRADITIONAL CONCEPTS TO
THE DIGITAL AGE
Mealey Publications
Downtown Conference Center at Pace University, New York City
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

November 7-8, 2005
CONSTRUCTION DEFECT & MOLD LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz Carlton Phoenix, Phoenix
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

November 9, 2005
CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION DEFECT LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Four Seasons Resort, Santa Barbara
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

November 10-11, 2005
CALIFORNIA SECTION 17200 CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Four Seasons Resort Santa Barbara
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

November 14-15, 2005
SILICA LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton, New Orleans
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

November 17-18, 2005
ASBESTOS LIABILITY FORUM
Mealey Publications
London, England
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

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

December 5-6, 2005
ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton New York, Battery Park
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

December 6, 2005
ASBESTOS INSURANCE CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton New York, Battery Park
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

December 12-13, 2005
VIOXX LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Caesars Palace, Las Vegas
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

June 14, 2005
HOW TO ARBITRATE A CLASS ACITON OR NOT
ABA-CLE
Contact: 1-800-285-2221

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


                 New Securities Fraud Cases

ABLE LABORATORIES: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in NJ
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey, Newark Division. This
action has been brought on behalf of all purchasers of Able
Laboratories, Inc. (NasdaqNM: ABRX) securities during the period
between June 25, 2003 and May 23, 2005 (the "Class Period").

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making
materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business and prospects to artificially inflate the
value of Able stock. It is alleged that throughout the Class
Period, the defendants represented to the Class that the Company
had numerous Abbreviated New Drug Applications ("ANDAs") that
were approved or were pending with the United States Food and
Drug Administration ("FDA"). These statements were false and
misleading when made because the defendants failed to disclose
or indicate that the testing of Able's products did not adhere
to standard operating procedures and good manufacturing
practices ("GMP"). The Company shocked the investing public
when, on May 19, 2005, it announced that it was suspending
shipments of its products until it could determine whether its
products were manufactured and tested in compliance with
standard operating procedures and current GMP. Further, later
that day, the Company announced the resignation of Dhananjay G.
("Jay") Wadekar, its Chief Executive Officer and the Chairman of
the Company's Board of Directors.

The market reacted severely to these announcements. Able's
common stock price plummeted from $24.63 per share on May 18,
2005 to $6.26 per share on May 19, 2005 on volume of 31,346,100
-- almost 30 times the previous day's volume.

However, investors were shocked once again when, on Monday, May
23, 2005, the Company announced that it had suspended
manufacture and distribution of its products; initiated a recall
of all its products; and withdrawn seven of its approved ANDAs
because those applications were based on data upon which the
Company was no longer willing to rely. The Company's stock price
dropped further, to $5.05 per share.

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.


BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS: Marc S. Henzel Files Stock Lawsuit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of all purchasers of publicly traded
securities of Brocade Communication Systems, Inc (Nasdaq: BRCD)
("Brocade") between February 21, 2001 and May 15, 2005 (the
"Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that Brocade violated federal securities
laws by issuing false or misleading public statements. These
allegations arise out of Brocade's May 16, 2005 announcement
that it would have to restate its fiscal 2001 to fiscal 2004
earnings. Brocade stated that "the Company will restate its
financial statements for the fiscal years ending 2002 through
2004 to record additional charges for stock-based compensation
expense" and that fiscal 2001 and fiscal 2002 earnings per share
would be reduced by up to $0.11 and $0.19, respectively.

For more details, contact 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.


GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a 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.


                            *********


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  * * *