CAR_Public/050607.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, June 7, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 111

                         Headlines

ALAMANCE FOODS: Recalls Whipped Toppings Due to Dairy Component
AXT INC.: Shareholders File Consolidated Securities Suit in CA
BANK OF AMERICA: Law Firms Launch Identity Theft Lawsuit in NJ
CANADA: Suit Filed Over Skyservice Flight 560 Landing Accident
CONEXANT INC.: NY Court Preliminarily Approves Suit Settlement

CONEXANT SYSTEMS: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit in NJ
CROMPTON CORPORATION: Faces Pennsylvania Contamination Tort Suit
DOLLAR FINANCIAL: Canadian Consumers File Payday Loans Lawsuits
DORAL FINANCIAL: Scott + Scott Expand Class For Shareholder Suit
GENESIS ENERGY: Faces PQS Indemnification Claim For LA Lawsuits

INFORMATICA CORPORATION: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Suit Pact
INTERNET CAPITAL: Final NY Suit Settlement Hearing Set Jan. 2006
JESSICA'S BAKERY: Recalls Muffins For Undeclared Milk Allergens
KENTUCKY: Parishioners Convey Understanding For $120M Settlement
MARATHON OIL: Named in NY Stockholder Fraud Lawsuit V. Ashland

MASTERCARD INTERNATIONAL: Court Affirms Suit Settlement Approval
MASTERCARD INTERNATIONAL: Consumers Launch State Suits For Fraud
MASTERCARD INTERNATIONAL: Plaintiffs File Amended Antitrust Suit
MASTERCARD INTERNATIONAL: Conversion Fee Suit Trial Set For Oct.
MCNEIL CONSUMER: Recalls TYLENOL Packs Due to Confusing Labels

OPENWAVE SYSTEMS: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Lawsuit Settlement
PETCO ANIMAL: Pomerantz Haudek Schedules Lead Plaintiff Deadline
PLAINS RESOURCES: DE Court Approves Shareholder Suit Settlement
PLUG POWER: NY Court Grants Final Approval To Suit Settlement
PMA CAPITAL: Presents Arguments For Dismissal of PA Stock Suit

PUBLIX SUPER: Recalls Publix Drinking Water Due to Taste, Odor
SIDLEY AUSTIN: Cliff Fonstein Joins Law Firm's New York Office
SIRENZA MICRODEVICES: NY Court Approves Stock Suit Settlement
SONUS NETWORKS: MA Court Mulls Adequacy of Class Representative
SONUS NETWORKS: MA Court Considers Securities Lawsuit Dismissal

SPITZER AUTO: OH Judge OKs $10M Suit Settlement Over $97.50 Fee
SPRINT CORPORATION: IL Lawsuit Certified, Company Secrets Spared
SPRINT CORPORATION: KS Court Allows Securities Suit To Proceed
WATCHGUARD TECNOLOGIES: Pomerantz Haudek Sets Plaintiff Deadline
WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION: Faces Lawsuits V. Calypso Washing Machine

                  New Securities Fraud Cases

ABLE LABORATORIES: Chitwood Harley Lodges Securities Suit in NJ
CARRIER ACCESS: Brian M. Felgoise Lodges Securities Suit in CO
CARRIER ACCESS: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Fraud Suit in CO
CRAY INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit in W.D. WA
MARTEK BIOSCIENCES: Cohen Milstein Lodges Securities Suit in MD

POSSIS MEDICAL: Glancy Binkow Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in MN
POSSIS MEDICAL: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in MN
POSSIS MEDICAL: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Fraud Suit in MN

                           *********

ALAMANCE FOODS: Recalls Whipped Toppings Due to Dairy Component
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alamance Foods, Inc. of Burlington, North Carolina is recalling
770 cases of 7 ounce cans of non dairy (Parve) topping bearing
the label "Flavor Right (Parve) Whipped Topping", product code
number 72205, because the product contains a dairy component and
people who have allergies to dairy run the risk of serious or
life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume these
products.

The recalled cans of whipped topping were distributed Nation
wide.

The product comes in a metal 7-ounce aerosol can marked on the
neck of the can with code number 72205 and bearing the label,
"Flavor Right (Parve) Whipped Topping".

One person was treated and released after experiencing an
allergic reaction to the dairy component in the product.

The recall was initiated after testing confirmed the presence of
a dairy component in the product. Investigation to date has not
yet determined the manner in which the dairy component was
introduced to the product during the manufacturing process.

Consumers who have purchased code number 72205 of the 7 ounce
can non dairy (Parve) topping are urged to return the product to
the place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers with
questions may contact the company at 1-800-476-9111.


AXT INC.: Shareholders File Consolidated Securities Suit in CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
AXT, Inc., and its chief executive officer for China operations
face a consolidated securities class action filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California.

On October 15, 2004, a purported securities class action was
filed, styled "City of Harper Woods Employees Retirement System
v. AXT, Inc. et al., No. C 04 4362 MJJ."  The Court consolidated
the case with a subsequent related case and appointed a lead
plaintiff.  On April 5, 2005, the lead plaintiff filed a
consolidated complaint, captioned as "Morgan v. AXT, Inc. et
al., No. C 04 4362 MJJ."  

The lawsuit was brought on behalf of a class of all purchasers
of Company securities from February 6, 2001 through April 27,
2004. The complaint alleges that the Company announced financial
results during this period that were false and misleading.

On May 24, 2004, AXT disclosed to the SEC that an investigation
by AXT's Audit Committee confirmed that the Company had "not
followed requirements for testing of products and provision of
testing data and information relating to customer requirements
for certain shipments made over the past several years." The
Company further disclosed that during the first quarter of 2004,
AXT increased its reserve for sales returns "related to our
failure to follow certain testing requirements and provision of
testing data and information to certain customers." No class has
yet been certified in the above action, an earlier Class Action
Reporter story (November 15,2004) states.

The suit is styled "Thomas O. Morgan, et al. v. AXT, Inc et al.,
case no. 3:04-cv-04362-MJJ," filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, under Judge
Martin J. Jenkins.  Representing the Company are David Banie and
David Priebe of DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary US LLP, 2000
University Avenue, East Palo Alto, CA 94303, Phone:
650-833-2000, Fax: 650-833-2001, E-mail:
david.banie@dlapiper.com, david.priebe@dlapiper.com.  
Representing the plaintiffs are Peter A. Binkow and Lionel Z.
Glancy of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, 1801 Avenue of the
Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles, CA 90067, Phone: (310) 201-9150,
Fax: (310) 201-9160, E-mail: info@glancylaw.com; and Elizabeth
P. Lin, Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP, 355 South Grand
Ave., Suite 4170, Los Angeles, CA 90071, Phone: 213/617-1200,
Fax: (213) 617-1975 and E-mail: elin@milbergweiss.com.


BANK OF AMERICA: Law Firms Launch Identity Theft Lawsuit in NJ
--------------------------------------------------------------
The New Jersey law firms of Pellettieri, Rabstein & Altman and
Lynch Keefe Bartels initiated a complaint against Bank of
America in New Jersey Superior Court, Law Division, Mercer
County (Jones v. Bank of America) on behalf of Trenton resident,
Cindy Jones.

The attorneys expressed their intention to seek class action
status to represent other identity theft victims as well against
financial services giant Bank of America for damages resulting
from the theft of tens of thousands of customer information
files.

Pellettieri, Rabstein & Altman, with offices in Princeton, Mount
Holly and Nutley NJ, and Lynch Keefe Bartels, with offices in
Shrewsbury, New Jersey will serve as co-counsel in this matter
and seek class action status by the Court.

Ms. Jones, a customer of Bank of America, was informed that her
personal financial information, including her Social Security
number, were found in the possession of individuals arrested by
Hackensack, New Jersey police in the growing scandal. Of
immediate concern to her attorneys, are potential unauthorized
use of Ms. Jones' identity between the times of the theft and
the arrests, the need (and cost) to carefully monitor Ms. Jones'
credit reports for unauthorized activity during the next several
years, and the availability of Ms. Jones' identity for her own
use.

Hackensack, New Jersey police stated that more than 676,000
customers were affected when bank employees illegally sold
information on more than 1 million accounts from 4 financial
services companies: Bank of America, Wachovia, PNC and Commerce
Bank. Police first announced arrests of 9 people, including 7
current and former bank employees, on Monday, May 23, 2005.

"Bank of America reported alerting about 60,000 customers who
were included on computer disks discovered by police, bank
spokeswoman Alex Liftman said Monday," reported the Associated
Press ("Banks Notify Customers of Data Theft" by Paul Nowell,
May 23, 2005.

CNN/Money reported: "As this gets going, these numbers are going
to go up and up, Hackensack Detective Captain Frank Lomia told
CNN, adding that more arrests may be coming in the case. . The
data-theft may have been the biggest ever in banking, the
Hackensack NJ police department said in a statement citing an
unnamed Treasury Department official." ("Bank Security Breach
May Be Biggest Yet", CNN/Money, May 23, 2005)

Reports of lax handling and rampant selling of confidential and
personal customer financial information increasingly blankets
the press. Epidemic demand for stolen identities appears to have
been met by easy availability.

According to a news story carried by several New Jersey
newspapers, "Protecting Your Privacy" by Ellen Simon of the
Associated Press (May 24, 2005) highlighted examples of problems
confronting and solutions available financial services
companies, based on interviews computer security professionals
who spoke of relatively inexpensive prevention steps, such as:
Monitored internal audit trails, restricting data access,
limiting data collection, basic encryption, secure shipping, and
simple background checks. The experts also raised corporate
management hurdles security measure confront, like low priority
and cost-benefit perceptions.

"Bank of America has a fiduciary responsibility to protect
clients' confidential personal and account information and could
have taken some reasonable steps to prevent these thefts,"
explains Arthur Penn, Esq., a partner and mass torts and class
action litigation attorney at the New Jersey law firm of
Pellettieri, Rabstein & Altman. "Bank of America is in a
business based on trust, and they violated that trust. So this
lawsuit seeks to hold them accountable."

"This is more than a story about the massive theft of customers'
personal financial data," says John Keefe, Jr., Esq., a partner
and New Jersey mass torts and class action litigation attorney
at Lynch Keefe Bartels. "This is also a story about the massive
failure of the bank, or banks, to take reasonable actions to
protect their customers' personal financial information from
identity theft."

For more details, contact Steven Reichenstein of Pellettieri,
Rabstein & Altman, Phone: 609-520-0900.


CANADA: Suit Filed Over Skyservice Flight 560 Landing Accident
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit was commenced on behalf of passengers who
were on Skyservice Flight 560 from Toronto to Punta Cana,
Dominican Republic on May 22, 2005. The class action also
includes the claims of the passengers' family members.

The lawsuit arises out of a landing accident involving Flight
560, which was carrying 318 passengers. As the Boeing 767
approached the landing strip in Punta Cana, it descended
suddenly and crashed into the runway. The landing was so
forceful that the airplane's fuselage sustained significant
structural damage and resulted in the airplane bouncing off the
runway three times before finally coming to a stop.

Linda Maggisano, a passenger on Flight 560, who was travelling
with her 2 month-old and 2 year-old sons, as well as seven other
family members, commenced the class action.

For the passengers of Flight 560, the ordeal was terrifying. "I
thought my life was over," stated Ms. Maggisano. "I was
especially frightened for my infant son, who was nearly thrown
from my arms."

Another passenger, Patricia McLean said: "This was the most
traumatic event in my life. I am very concerned about my injured
back and the crack to my neck found on an x-ray."

To Mukesh Mehta the accident was "a near death experience. We
were thrown around the plane like rag dolls." Mr. Mehta was also
critical of Skyservice's handling of the incident: "Skyservice
failed to even apologize - this is no way to treat airline
passengers." Michelle Armstrong also directed disappointment at
the charter carrier: "I am terribly upset that no one appears to
be taking this seriously - especially since so many of us have
been injured."

Joel Rochon, one of the lawyers retained by Ms. Maggisano,
commented: "The passengers are very upset and are looking for
answers from Skyservice as to how such a serious accident and
near disaster happened."

For more details, contact Allison Phillips of Rochon Genova LLP,
Phone: (416) 363-1867, Web site:
http://www.skyserviceclassaction.com.


CONEXANT 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 Conexant,
Inc., certain of its officers and directors and the underwriters
of its initial and secondary public offerings.

In November 2001, Collegeware Asset Management, LP, on behalf of
itself and a putative class of persons who purchased the common
stock of the Company between June 23, 1999 and December 6, 2000,
filed a complaint alleging violations of federal securities
laws.  The complaint alleges that the defendants violated
federal securities laws by issuing and selling the Company's
common stock in the initial and secondary offerings without
disclosing to investors that the underwriters had

     (1) solicited and received undisclosed and excessive
         commissions or other compensation and

     (2) entered into agreements requiring certain of their
         customers to purchase the stock in the aftermarket at
         escalating prices.

The complaint seeks unspecified damages. The complaint was
consolidated with approximately 300 other actions making similar
allegations regarding the public offerings of hundreds of other
companies during 1998 through 2000.  In June 2004, the Company,
and its then named officers and directors entered into a
settlement agreement with the plaintiffs that will, among other
things, result in the dismissal with prejudice of all the claims
against them.  On February 15, 2005, the Court issued a decision
certifying a class action for settlement purposes and granting
preliminary approval of the settlement, subject to modification
of certain bar orders contemplated by the settlement. The
settlement remains subject to a number of conditions and final
approval. It is possible that the parties will not reach
agreement on the final settlement or that the settlement will
not be approved. Even if the settlement is approved, individual
class members will have an opportunity to "opt out" of the class
and to file their own lawsuits, and some may do so.

The suit is styled "In re Conexant Inc. 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:

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

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

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

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

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

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


CONEXANT SYSTEMS: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit in NJ
----------------------------------------------------------------
Conexant Systems, Inc. and certain of its current and former
officers face a consolidated securities class action filed in
the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.

In December 2004 and January 2005, the Company and certain
current and former officers were named as defendants in several
complaints filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
securities (Nasdaq: CNXT) between March 1, 2004 and November 4,
2004.  The suits seek to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  The complaints allege that defendants'
Class Period representations about the Company's operations,
made in Conexant press releases, were materially false and
misleading because they failed to disclose the following adverse
facts:

     (1) that the Company was stuffing the channel with
         products, such that its revenues did not reflect the
         true, end-user demand for its products;

     (2) that the Company's inventory glut would lead to lowered
         revenues as distributors and retailers would need to
         exhaust existing inventory before purchasing new
         products from Conexant;

     (3) that the combined company was suffering from serious
         operating deficiencies, particularly in the wireless
         local area network ("WLAN") division of Globespan that
         was not effectively integrated into the combined
         company's operations, causing the Company to lose its
         leadership position in the WLAN market;

     (4) that, contrary to defendants express representations
         that the Globespan integration was "on schedule" and
         that "outstanding progress" was being made in that
         regard, integration of the Globespan acquisition was
         mishandled, causing such a massive drain on the Company
         that, by the end of the Class Period, the outlook for
         the much larger combined company was worse than
         Conexant's stand-alone prospects.

On November 4, 2004, defendants issued a press release
announcing disappointing results for the fourth quarter of 2004,
including a loss of $367.5 million ($0.79 per share) which was
blamed on poor demand, inventory buildup and failed product
launches. Later that day, the Company held a conference call to
discuss its fourth quarter results. Defendant Geday's response
to an analyst's question revealed that the Company's inventory
glut was not a recent phenomenon, but had been building for as
long as five quarters. In reaction to the Company's press
release and conference call, the price of Conexant securities
dropped to $1.60 per share on November 5, 2004 from $1.76 on
November 4, 2004.

These suits were filed in the U.S. District Court of New Jersey
(New Jersey cases) and the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California (California cases).  The California cases
have now been consolidated with the New Jersey cases so that all
of the class action suits are now being heard in the U.S.
District Court of New Jersey by the same judge.


CROMPTON CORPORATION: Faces Pennsylvania Contamination Tort Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crompton Corporation and other entities that conduct or
conducted business near the Petrolia, Pennsylvania facility were
named as defendants in a toxic tort class action lawsuit filed
in the Court of Common Pleas of Butler County, Pennsylvania,
claiming damages allegedly arising from alleged contamination in
and around the Bear Creek Area Chemical Site.  

In addition to seeking property damage, damages for personal
injury, punitive damages and other compensatory damages,
plaintiffs also seek injunctive relief to cleanup up the alleged
contamination, response costs and medical monitoring.  
Plaintiffs have not yet set out in their pleadings a claim for a
specific amount of damages.  This action is in the early stages
of litigation and the Company cannot predict its outcome.


DOLLAR FINANCIAL: Canadian Consumers File Payday Loans Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Financial Group, Inc. and its Canadian subsidiary face
several class actions filed by customers who were allegedly
subjected to usurious charges in payday loan transactions.

On August 19, 2003 a former customer in Ontario, Canada,
Margaret Smith, commenced an action against the Company and the
Company's Canadian subsidiary on behalf of a purported class of
Canadian borrowers (except those residing in British Columbia).  
The action, which is pending in the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice, alleges violations of a Canadian federal law
proscribing usury and seeks restitution and damages in an
unspecified amount, including punitive damages.  

On February 1 and 2, 2005, the Company brought a motion to stay
the action against it on jurisdictional grounds and the
Company's Canadian subsidiary brought a motion to stay the
action against it based on its arbitration clause.  The
judgments on those motions are under review.

On October 21, 2003, another former customer, Kenneth D.
Mortillaro, commenced a similar action against the Company's
Canadian subsidiary but this action has since been stayed
because it is a duplicate action.  On November 6, 2003, the
Company learned of substantially similar claims asserted on
behalf of a purported class of Alberta borrowers by Gareth
Young, a former customer of the Company's Canadian subsidiary.
The Young action is pending in the Court of Queens Bench of
Alberta and seeks an unspecified amount of damages and other
relief.  Like the plaintiff in the MacKinnon action referred to
below, Mortillaro, Smith and Young have agreed to arbitrate all
disputes with the Company.  

On January 29, 2003, a former customer, Kurt MacKinnon,
commenced an action against the Company's Canadian subsidiary
and 26 other Canadian lenders on behalf of a purported class of
British Columbia residents who, Mr. MacKinnon claims were
overcharged in payday-loan transactions.  The action, which is
pending in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, alleges
violations of laws proscribing usury and unconscionable trade
practices and seeks restitution and damages, including punitive
damages, in an unknown amount.  On February 3, 2004, the
Company's Canadian subsidiary's motion to stay the action and to
compel arbitration of MacKinnon's claims, as required by his
agreement with the Company's Canadian subsidiary, was denied;
the Company's Canadian subsidiary appealed this ruling.  On
September 24, 2004, the Court of Appeal for British Columbia
reversed the lower court's ruling and remanded the matter to the
lower court for further proceedings consistent with the
appellate decision.  

On March 1, 2005, Mr. MacKinnon's application for certification
of his action was dismissed. Mr. MacKinnon has appealed that
dismissal and brought a series of motions requesting that the
motions judge reconsider her decision.  The Company's Canadian
subsidiary is opposing these motions and has renewed its
application to stay the action based on its arbitration clause.  
On April 15, 2005 the solicitor acting for Mr. MacKinnon
commenced a further identical proposed class action against the
Company's Canadian subsidiary on behalf of another former
customer, Louise Parsons.  The Company's Canadian subsidiary has
brought a motion to stay the Parsons action as a duplicate
action.

Similar class actions have been commenced against the Company's
Canadian subsidiary in Manitoba, New Brunswick Nova Scotia and
Newfoundland.  The Company is named as a defendant in the
actions commenced in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland but has not
been served with the statements of claim in these actions to
date.  The claims in these additional actions are substantially
similar to those of the Ontario actions referred to above.
                                

DORAL FINANCIAL: Scott + Scott Expand Class For Shareholder Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Scott + Scott, LLC, which filed a shareholder
class action lawsuit against Doral Financial Corporation (NYSE:
DRL) reports that due to recent disclosures in Doral's May 26,
2005 Form 8-K, those who purchased Doral securities between the
now expanded dates of May 15, 2000, and May 26, 2005, are now
included.

Shares of Doral continued to drop after the Company stated it
will reduce the value of its interest-only securities by as much
as $600 million and is currently in default on two indentures.
The stock traded below $10 in the first half-hour of trading
this morning. During the Class Period, the stock traded over
$49.00 per share. It is presently trading at just over $12.00
per share.

Originally, the shareholder class action lawsuit was filed on
behalf of all purchasers of Doral Financial Corporation
(NYSE:DRL - News) securities who purchased between October 10,
2002 and April 19, 2005 (the ``Class Period''). Shares of Doral
continued to drop today after the Company said that it will
reduce the value of its interest-only securities by as much as
$600 million and is in default on two indentures. The stock
traded below $10 in the first half-hour of trading this morning.
During the Class Period, the stock traded over $49.00.

The complaint alleges that Doral and certain of its officers and
directors violated the securities laws by improperly valuing its
I/Os by using flawed loss assumption, artificially high
prepayment assumptions and artificially low discount rates. As a
result of such conduct, Doral's stock price traded at
artificially inflated levels. The complaint alleges that while
the stock price was artificially inflated certain insiders sold
more than $10,000,000 in Doral stock and earned cash incentive
bonuses.

For more details, contact Neil Rothstein or Amy K. Saba of Scott
+ Scott, LLC, Phone: +1-619-251-0887 or +1-800-332-2259, E-mail:
nrothstein@scott-scott.com or asaba@scott-scott.com.


GENESIS ENERGY: Faces PQS Indemnification Claim For LA Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Genesis Energy LP faces an indemnification claim filed by
Pennzoil-Quaker State Company (PQS), in relation to the five
consolidated class actions/mass tort actions filed against PQS,
in relation to a fire and explosion that occurred at the
Pennzoil Quaker State refinery in Shreveport, Louisiana, on
January 18, 2000.

The five suits were brought by neighbors living in the vicinity
of the PQS Shreveport, Louisiana refinery in the First Judicial
District Court, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, Cause Nos. 455,647-A,
455,658-B, 455,655-A, 456,574-A, and 458,379-C.  PQS has brought
a third party demand against the Company and others for
indemnity with respect to the fire and explosion of January 18,
2000.

The Company was also named a defendant in a complaint filed on
January 11, 2001, in the 125th District Court of Harris County,
Texas, Cause No. 2001-01176.  From the Company, Pennzoil-Quaker
State Company (PQS) was seeking property damages, loss of use
and business interruption suffered as a result of a fire and
explosion that occurred at the PQS claimed the fire and
explosion were caused, in part, by the Company selling to PQS
crude oil that was contaminated with organic chlorides.  In
December 2003, the Company's insurance carriers settled this
litigation for $12.8 million.


INFORMATICA CORPORATION: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Suit Pact
-------------------------------------------------------------
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 Informatica
Corporation in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, styled "In re Informatica Corporation
Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, Civ. No. 01-9922
(SAS) (S.D.N.Y.), related to In re Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92 (SAS) (S.D.N.Y.)."

Plaintiffs' amended complaint was brought purportedly on behalf
of all persons who purchased the Company's common stock from
April 29, 1999 through December 6, 2000.  It names as defendants
the Company, one of the Company's current officers, and one of
the Company's former officers and several investment banking
firms that served as underwriters of the Company's April 29,
1999 initial public offering and September 28, 2000 follow-on
public offering.

The complaint alleges liability as to all defendants under
Sections 11 and/or 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections
10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, on
the grounds that the registration statements for the offerings
did not disclose that:

     (1) the underwriters had agreed to allow certain customers
         to purchase shares in the offerings in exchange for
         excess commissions paid to the underwriters; and

     (2) the underwriters had arranged for certain customers to
         purchase additional shares in the aftermarket at
         predetermined prices.

The complaint also alleges that false analyst reports were
issued.  No specific damages are claimed.

Similar allegations were made in other lawsuits challenging over
300 other initial public offerings and follow-on offerings
conducted in 1999 and 2000.  The cases were consolidated for
pretrial purposes.  On February 19, 2003, the Court ruled on all
defendants' motions to dismiss.  The Court denied the motions to
dismiss the claims under the Securities Act of 1933.  The Court
denied the motion to dismiss the Section 10(b) claim against
Informatica and 184 other issuer defendants.  The Court denied
the motion to dismiss the Section 10(b) and 20(a) claims against
the Informatica defendants and 62 other individual defendants.

The Company has decided to accept a settlement proposal
presented to all issuer defendants.  In this settlement,
plaintiffs will dismiss and release all claims against the
Informatica defendants, in exchange for a contingent payment by
the insurance companies collectively responsible for insuring
the issuers in all of the IPO cases, and for the assignment or
surrender of control of certain claims the Company may have
against the underwriters.  The Informatica defendants will not
be required to make any cash payments in the settlement, unless
the pro rata amount paid by the insurers in the settlement
exceeds the amount of the insurance coverage, a circumstance
which the Company does not believe will occur.  The settlement
will require approval of the Court, which cannot be assured,
after class members are given the opportunity to object to the
settlement or opt out of the settlement. The Court has set a
hearing date of January 9, 2006 to consider final approval of
the settlement.

The suit is styled "In re Informatica Corp. Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation," and is pending in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
under Judge Shira N. Scheindlin, under docket number 01 Civ.
9922 (Sas).  The suit is related to In re Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92 (SAS) (S.D.N.Y.).  The
plaintiff firms in this suit are:

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

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

   (iii) 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

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

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

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

For more information on this lawsuit, please visit
http://securities.stanford.edu/1021/INFA01/20020419_r01c_019922.
pdf


INTERNET CAPITAL: Final NY Suit Settlement Hearing Set Jan. 2006
----------------------------------------------------------------
Final fairness hearing for the the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against Internet
Capital Group, Inc., certain of its present and former directors
and its underwriters is set for January 9,2006 in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

In May and June 2001, nine class action complaints were filed on
behalf of present and former stockholders of the Company.  The
complaints generally allege violations of Sections 11 and 12 of
the Securities Act of 1933 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, based on, among other things,
the dissemination of statements allegedly containing material
misstatements and/or omissions concerning the commissions
received by the underwriters of the initial public offering and
follow-on public offering of the Company as well as failure to
disclose the existence of purported agreements by the
underwriters with some of the purchasers in these offerings to
buy additional shares of the Company's stock subsequently in the
open market at pre-determined prices above the initial offering
prices. The plaintiffs seek for themselves and the alleged class
members an award of damages and litigation costs and expenses.

The claims in these cases have been consolidated for pre-trial
purposes (together with claims against other issuers and
underwriters) before one judge in the Southern District of New
York federal court.  In April 2002, a consolidated, amended
complaint was filed against these defendants which generally
alleges the same violations and also refers to alleged
misstatements or omissions that relate to the recommendations
regarding the Company's stock by analysts employed by the
underwriters.  In June and July 2002, defendants, including the
Company defendants, filed motions to dismiss plaintiffs'
complaints on numerous grounds.  The Company's motion was denied
in its entirety in an opinion dated February 19, 2003.  

In July 2003, a committee of the Company's Board of Directors
approved a proposed settlement with the plaintiffs in this
matter. The settlement would provide for, among other things, a
release of the Company and of the individual defendants (who had
been previously dismissed without prejudice) for the wrongful
conduct alleged in the amended complaint.  The Company would
agree to undertake other responsibilities under the partial
settlement, including agreeing to assign away, not assert, or
release certain potential claims the Company may have against
its underwriters. Any direct financial impact of the proposed
settlement is expected to be borne by the Company's insurers.
The complete terms of the proposed settlement is on file with
the Court. The Court overseeing the litigation granted
preliminary approval of the settlement in February 2005 subject
to a change in the terms to bar cross-claims by defendant
underwriters for contribution, but not for indemnification or
otherwise.

The parties to the settlement have now agreed on revised
language to effectuate the changes regarding
contribution/indemnification claims requested by the Court and
that language has been submitted to the Court. Assuming the
Court accepts those revisions, notice of settlement is expected
to be sent to the settlement class in or about September 2005.

The suit is styled "In re Internet Capital Group, Inc. Initial
Public Offering Sec. Litigation," related to "In re Initial
Public Offering Securities Litigation, Master File No. 21 MC 92
(SAS)," filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York under Judge Shira A. 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, 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


JESSICA'S BAKERY: Recalls Muffins For Undeclared Milk Allergens
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica's Bakery Corporation, 739 Hempstead Tpke., Franklin
Square, NY 11010, is recalling Keikito Muffins because they may
contain undeclared milk allergens. Consumers who are allergic to
milk allergens may run the risk of serious or life-threatening
allergic reactions if they consume this product.

The recalled Keikito Muffins are packaged in 8 oz., plastic
wrapped styrofoam trays, coded May 2, 2005. They were sold in
the New York City Metropolitan area and Nassau County.

The recall was initiated after routine sampling by New York
State Department of Agriculture and Markets Food Inspectors and
subsequent analysis by laboratory personnel revealed the
presence of undeclared milk allergens in Keikito Muffins which
did not declare a milk ingredient on the label.

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

Consumers who are allergic to milk allergens and purchased
Keikito Muffins are urged to return them to the place of
purchase. Consumers with questions may contact the company at
(516) 565-2911.


KENTUCKY: Parishioners Convey Understanding For $120M Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
A proposed $120 million priest sexual abuse settlement would
impose staggering costs on the Catholic diocese in Covington,
Kentucky, however many parishioners at Sunday Mass expressed
their understanding of the need to compensate victims of decades
of abuse, The Associated Press reports.

Char Allen, attending Mass at the Cathedral Basilica of The
Assumption, told AP that the settlement means the victims get
the help they need and the issue is no longer hanging over the
diocese. He adds that he victims deserve to be compensated by
the diocese because the priests involved used the diocese to
cover their activities. He told AP, "I can't imagine going
through that, being a victim of your own faith."

Last week, the Diocese of Covington pledged $120 million, which
was the largest settlement of its kind in the nation's history,
to end a two-year-old class action lawsuit filed on behalf of
more than 100 alleged victims of sexual abuse by priests.
  
As previously reported in the February 18, 2003 edition of the
Class Action Reporter, the class action suit, which was filed in
Boone County Circuit Court by Cincinnati attorney Stan Chesley,
claims that 21 priests and some other workers abused more than
150 victims in the Diocese of Covington for decades while church
officials did nothing to stop the misconduct.

According to the court filings, from about 1956, information on
the sexual abuse of minors by diocesan priests has been
concealed from the public, including parents of children in
schools and parishes where the alleged perpetrators were
assigned, as well as from family members of employees of the
diocese. Specifically, the suit accuses the diocese, which is
just across the Ohio River from Cincinnati, of a 50-year cover-
up of sexual abuse by priests and others.

The diocese told AP that the settlement fund would consist of
$80 million from insurance and $40 million from church real
estate and investments. It also added that part of the fund
would be put aside for victim counseling.

Another parishioner, Jack Gartner, told AP as he left the
basilica, "If we have to give up the property ... which is
materialism, then that's what we have to do. He adds, "You do
bad things and suffer the consequences." He also added: "It's
hard for me to imagine that money can justify or satisfy the
individuals who have endured this kind of abuse."

Under the settlement, victims would be grouped into four
categories based on the severity of abuse with compensation
ranging anywhere from $5,000 to $450,000 per person, before
attorney fees are deducted.

During weekend services, priests assured churchgoers that paying
the settlement wouldn't adversely affect schools, churches or
charitable causes. The diocese though, which spans 14 counties
and has 89,000 parishioners, began belt-tightening efforts,
saying it would move its offices and announce some layoffs.

The lawsuit also covers some Kentucky counties that were part of
the Covington Diocese until 1988, when a new diocese in
Lexington was formed.


MARATHON OIL: Named in NY Stockholder Fraud Lawsuit V. Ashland
--------------------------------------------------------------
Marathon Oil Corporation was named as a defendant in a class
action filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York in
New York County against Ashland, Inc. and the individual members
of Ashland's board of directors.  The suit also names as
defendants Marathon Ashland Petroleum LLC (MAP) and Credit
Suisse First Boston LLC (CSFB).

On April 8, 2005, Ashland stockholder Shiva Singh filed the suit
on behalf of himself and others similarly situated.  The action
arises from the proposed transaction in which Ashland would
transfer its entire 38% interest in MAP as well as certain other
businesses to the Company.  The complaint alleges breach of
fiduciary duty as well as aiding and abetting breach of
fiduciary duty and negligence against Ashland, its directors,
the Company and MAP. The complaint alleges breach of fiduciary
duty and negligence as well as aiding and abetting breach of
fiduciary duty and negligence against CSFB.

The complaint seeks to recover from defendants an unstated sum
of damages.  The complaint also seeks to enjoin the proposed
transaction (and any related shareholder vote) between Ashland
and the Company; to require defendants to fully disclose all
material facts before completion of any such transaction; and to
require defendants to obtain a current, independent fairness
opinion concerning the proposed transaction.  To the extent that
the proposed transaction is consummated prior to the entry of
the court's final judgment, the complaint asks the court to
rescind such transaction(s) and award damages.  The complaint
also seeks reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and expenses.


MASTERCARD INTERNATIONAL: Court Affirms Suit Settlement Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a
lower court ruling granting approval to the settlement of the
consolidated antitrust class action filed against MasterCard
International and Visa U.S.A., Inc. by a number of U.S.
merchants, challenging certain aspects of the payment card
industry under U.S. federal antitrust law.

The suit, filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York, challenged MasterCard's "Honor All
Cards" rule and a similar Visa rule.  Plaintiffs claimed that
MasterCard and Visa unlawfully tied acceptance of debit cards to
acceptance of credit cards. The plaintiffs also claimed that
MasterCard and Visa conspired to monopolize what they
characterized as the point-of-sale debit card market, thereby
suppressing the growth of regional networks such as ATM payment
systems.

On June 4, 2003, MasterCard International signed the Settlement
Agreement to settle the claims brought by the plaintiffs in this
matter, which the Court approved on December 19, 2003.  A number
of class members have appealed the District Court's approval of
the settlement.  These appeals are largely focused on the
court's attorneys' fees award as well on the court's ruling on
the scope of the release set forth in the Settlement Agreement.
On January 4, 2005, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals issued
an order affirming the District Court's approval of the U.S.
merchant settlement agreement. The time for which class members
may seek certiorari of the Second Circuit's decision with the
Supreme Court expired on May 31, 2005.

Several lawsuits were commenced by merchants who have opted not
to participate in the plaintiff class in the U.S. merchant
lawsuit, including Best Buy Stores, CVS, Giant Eagle, Home
Depot, Toys `R' Us and Darden Restaurants (collectively, the
"Opt Out Plaintiffs").  The majority of these cases were filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
MasterCard has entered into separate settlement agreements with
each of the Opt Out Plaintiffs resolving their claims against
MasterCard.  The District Court has entered orders dismissing
with prejudice each of the Opt Out Plaintiff's complaints
against MasterCard.


MASTERCARD INTERNATIONAL: Consumers Launch State Suits For Fraud
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mastercard International, Inc. and Visa continue to face
individual or multiple complaints brought in 19 different states
and the District of Columbia under state unfair competition
statutes on behalf of putative classes of consumers.  The suits
assert that merchants, faced with excessive merchant discount
fees, have passed these overcharges to consumers in the form of
higher prices on goods and services sold.  

While these actions are in their early stages, the Company has
filed motions to dismiss the complaints in a number of state
courts for failure to state a cause of action. Courts in
Arizona, Iowa, New York, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, Maine,
North Dakota, Kansas, North Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont,
Wisconsin and the District of Columbia have granted the
Company's motions and dismissed the complaints with prejudice.

Plaintiffs have appealed several of these decisions. The
plaintiffs in Minnesota have filed a revised complaint on behalf
of a purported class of Minnesota consumers who made purchases
with debit cards rather than on behalf of all consumers.  On
January 6, 2005, the Company moved to dismiss the Minnesota
complaint for failure to state a claim.  In addition, the courts
in Tennessee and California have granted the Company's motion to
dismiss the respective state unfair competition claims but have
denied the Company's motions with respect to unjust enrichment
claims in Tennessee and Section 17200 claims for unlawful,
unfair, and/or fraudulent business practices in California.  The
Tennessee decisions are expected to be appealed by both parties.
The Company is awaiting decisions on its motions to dismiss in
the other state courts.

On March 14, 2005, MasterCard was served with a complaint that
was filed in Ohio state court on behalf of a putative class of
consumers under Ohio state unfair competition law.  The claims
in this action mirror those in the consumer actions described
above but also name as co-defendants a purported class of
merchants who were class members in the U.S. merchant lawsuit.
Plaintiffs allege that Visa, the Company and the class members
of the U.S. merchant lawsuit conspired to attempt to monopolize
the debit card market by tying debit card acceptance to credit
card acceptance.  The Company's time in which to respond to the
complaint is currently running.


MASTERCARD INTERNATIONAL: Plaintiffs File Amended Antitrust Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed an amended class action against MasterCard
International, Inc. in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California.  The suit also names as
defendants Visa U.S.A., Inc., Visa International Corporation and
several member banks in California.

On October 8, 2004, a new purported class action lawsuit was
filed by a group of merchants, alleging, among other things,
that MasterCard's and Visa's interchange fees contravene the
Sherman Act and the Clayton Act.  The complaint contains similar
allegations to those brought in the interchange case described
in the preceding paragraph, and plaintiffs have designated it as
a related case.  The plaintiffs seek damages and an injunction
against MasterCard (and Visa) setting interchange and engaging
in "joint marketing activities," which plaintiffs allege include
the purported negotiation of merchant discount rates with
certain merchants.

On November 19, 2004, the Company filed an answer to the
complaint.  On March 29, 2005, the Court granted the Company's
request for permission to file a motion for partial summary
judgment, and the Court scheduled oral argument on that motion
for July 8, 2005.  Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on
April 25, 2005.

The suit is styled "Kendall et al v. Visa U.S.A. Inc. et al,
case no. 3:04-cv-04276-JSW," filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, under Jeffrey S.
White.  

Representing the plaintiffs are Richard Joseph Archer, Archer &
Hansen, 3110 Bohemian Highway, Occidental, CA 95465, Phone:
707-874-3438, Fax: 707-874-3438, E-mail: archerdic@aol.com; and
James Archer Kopcke, Golden & Kopcke, LLP, 22 Battery Street,
Suite 610 San Francisco, CA 94111, Phone: 415-399-9995, Fax:
415-398-5890 E-mail: jameskopcke@yahoo.com.  Representing the
Company are Jay Neil Fastow, Gianluca Morello, and Debra J.
Pearlstein, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, 767 Fifth Avenue, New
York, NY 10153, Phone: 212-310-8644, Fax: 212-310-8007, E-mail:
jay.fastow@weil.com, gianluca.morello@weil.com,
debra.pearlstein@weil.com; and Wesley Railey Powell and Nancy
Karen Raber of Clifford Chance US LLP, 31 West 52d Street
New York, NY 10019, Phone: 212-878-3309, Fax: 212-878-8375, E-
mail: wesley.powell@cliffordchance.com and
Nancy.raber@cliffordchance.com.


MASTERCARD INTERNATIONAL: Conversion Fee Suit Trial Set For Oct.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the antitrust class action filed against MasterCard
International, Inc. and other credit card firms and financial
institutions is set for October 10,2005 in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.  The suit
also names as defendants:

     (1) Visa U.S.A., Inc.,

     (2) Visa International Corporation,

     (3) several member banks including Citibank (South Dakota),
         N.A., Citibank (Nevada), N.A., Chase Manhattan Bank
         USA, N.A., Bank of America, N.A. (USA), MBNA
         Corporation, and Diners Club

A number of federal class actions were initially filed,
alleging, among other things, violations of federal antitrust
laws based on the asserted one percent currency conversion
"fee."  Pursuant to an order of the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation, the federal complaints have been
consolidated in MDL No. 1409 before Judge William H. Pauley III
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York.

In January 2002, the federal plaintiffs filed a Consolidated
Amended Complaint adding MBNA Corporation and MBNA America Bank,
N.A. as defendants. This pleading asserts two theories of
antitrust conspiracy under Section 1 of the Sherman Act:

     (1) an alleged "inter-association" conspiracy among
         MasterCard (together with its members), Visa (together
         with its members) and Diners Club to fix currency
         conversion "fees" allegedly charged to cardholders of
         "no less than 1% of the transaction amount and
         frequently more;" and

     (2) two alleged "intra-association" conspiracies, whereby
         each of Visa and MasterCard is claimed separately to
         have conspired with its members to fix currency
         conversion "fees" allegedly charged to cardholders of
         "no less than 1% of the transaction amount" and "to
         facilitate and encourage institution" and collection
         "of second tier currency conversion surcharges."

The MDL Complaint also asserts that the alleged currency
conversion "fees" have not been disclosed as required by the
Truth in Lending Act and Regulation Z.

Defendants have moved to dismiss the MDL Complaint.  On July 3,
2003, Judge Pauley issued a decision granting the Company's
motion to dismiss in part. Judge Pauley dismissed the Truth in
Lending claims in their entirety as against the Company, Visa
and several of the member bank defendants.  Judge Pauley did not
dismiss the antitrust claims. Fact discovery in this matter has
closed but expert discovery is ongoing.

On November 12, 2003 plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification, which was granted on October 15, 2004.  On March
9, 2005, Judge Pauley issued a decision on defendants' motion to
reconsider the class certification decision. The Judge ruled
that the arbitration provisions in the cardholder agreements of
member bank defendants, Bank One, MBNA, Providian, Household and
Bank of America are valid as to those respective banks and
MasterCard and, consequently, cardholders of those banks can no
longer participate in the class action certified in his earlier
decision and must pursue any claims through arbitration.
Plaintiffs have moved for further reconsideration.  Judge Pauley
declined to give effect to the arbitration clauses in the
Citibank and Chase cardholder agreements; both banks have
noticed an appeal of that decision.

The suit is styled "In re: Currency Conversion Litigation, case
no. 1:01-md-01409-WHP," filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, under Judge William
H. Pauley III.  Representing the plaintiffs are Goldberg, Kohn,
Bell, Black, Rosenbloom & Moritz, Ltd., 55 East Monroe Street,
Suite 3700, Chicago, Illinois 60603 and Lerach Coughlin Stoia
Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP, 100 Pine Street, Suite 2600
San Francisco, CA 94111, Phone: (415) 288-4545, Fax:
(415) 288-4534.


MCNEIL CONSUMER: Recalls TYLENOL Packs Due to Confusing Labels
--------------------------------------------------------------
McNeil Consumer & Specialty Pharmaceuticals is voluntarily
recalling all lots and all flavors of Children's TYLENOLr
Meltaways 80 mg packaged in bottles and blisters, Children's
TYLENOLrSoftChews 80mg packaged in blisters, and Junior TYLENOLr
Meltaways 160mg packaged in blisters. The blister package
design, as well as the information on the blister package and on
the blister and bottle cartons may be confusing and could lead
to improper dosing, including over-dosing.

Some Children's TYLENOLr Meltaways 80mg and Children's TYLENOLr
SoftChews 80mg are packaged in a blister package designed to be
convenient for parents who need dosing flexibility depending on
the age or weight of the child. The package design includes
blister cavities that contain one tablet while other cavities
contain two tablets. Concerns have been raised that labeling on
the carton and on the back of the two-tablet cavities may
erroneously suggest to the consumer that two tablets provide a
total of 80mg of the active ingredient, acetaminophen, when two
tablets would actually provide 160mg of acetaminophen. Consumers
should know that each tablet of Children's TYLENOL Meltaways and
Children's TYLENOL SoftChews contains 80 mg of this active
ingredient. Each tablet is imprinted with the number "80" to
reflect this amount. Caregivers should be guided by the dosage
directions in the "Drug Facts" labeling on the carton for the
correct number of individual tablets to be given based on the
child's age and weight.

In addition, some Children's TYLENOLr Meltaways 80mg are
packaged in a bottle. The bottle is packaged in a carton.
Concerns have been raised that the information on the front
panel of the carton for Children's TYLENOLr Meltaways 80mg may
be confusing to some consumers in determining the proper dosage.
The carton labeling says that each dose provides 80 mg of
acetaminophen. Consumers should know that each tablet of
Children's TYLENOL Meltaways contains 80 mg of acetaminophen.
Caregivers should be guided by the dosage directions on the
bottle label for the correct number of individual tablets to be
given based on the child's age and weight.

Concerns have also been raised that the carton labeling for
Junior TYLENOLr Meltaways 160mg may be confusing to some
consumers in determining the proper dosage. This labeling says
that each dose provides 160 mg of acetaminophen. Consumers
should know that each tablet of Junior TYLENOL Meltaways
contains 160 mg of acetaminophen. Caregivers should be guided by
the dosage directions in the "Drug Facts" labeling on the carton
for the correct number of individual tablets to be given based
on the child's age and weight.

Taking more than the recommended dose (overdose) of
acetaminophen may cause liver damage when taking the product for
fever or pain relief over the course of the three- or five-day
period specified by the labeling.

McNeil is working with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in
this recall and in the effort to alert consumers and retailers
nationwide about this issue. Consumers or retailers who have
questions or concerns about a product described in this alert
should contact McNeil's Consumer Relationship Center at
1-877-895-3665 (English) or 1-888-466-8746 (Spanish) or visit
http://www.TYLENOL.com.The website contains written material  
and photos of the product and the packaging. Any adverse
reactions experienced with the use of these products should also
be reported to the FDA's MedWatch Program by phone at
1-800-FDA-1088, by Fax at 1-800-FDA-0178, by mail at MedWatch,
HF-410, FDA, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20852-9787, or on
the MedWatch Web site:
http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/medwatch/.


OPENWAVE SYSTEMS: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Lawsuit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against Openwave
Systems, Inc., five of its present or former officers and
several investment banking firms that served as underwriters of
the Company's initial public offering and secondary public
offering.

The suit is styled "In re Openwave Systems, Inc. (sic) Initial
Public Offering Securities Litigation, Civ. No. 01-9744 (SAS)
(S.D.N.Y.), related to In re Initial Public Offering Securities
Litigation, 21 MC 92 (SAS).  The suit is brought purportedly on
behalf of all persons who purchased the Company's common stock
from June 11, 1999 through December 6, 2000.

Three of the individual defendants were dismissed without
prejudice, subject to an agreement extending the statute of
limitations, through September 30, 2003.  The complaint alleges
liability as under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, on the grounds that the registration statement for the
offerings did not disclose that:

     (1) the underwriters had agreed to allow certain customers
         to purchase shares in the offerings in exchange for
         excess commissions paid to the underwriters; and

     (2) the underwriters had arranged for certain customers to
         purchase additional shares in the aftermarket at
         predetermined prices.

The amended complaint also alleges that false analyst reports
were issued.  No specific damages are claimed.  Similar
allegations were made in over 300 lawsuits challenging public
offerings conducted in 1999 and 2000, and the cases were
consolidated for pretrial purposes.

The Company has accepted a settlement proposal presented to all
issuer defendants.  Plaintiffs will dismiss and release all
claims against the Openwave Defendants, in exchange for a
contingent payment by the insurance companies responsible for
insuring the issuers, and for the assignment or surrender of
control of certain claims the Company may have against the
underwriters.  The Openwave Defendants will not be required to
make any cash payment in the settlement, unless the pro rata
amount paid by the insurers in the settlement exceeds the amount
of insurance coverage, a circumstance which the Company does not
believe will occur.  The settlement will require final approval
of the Court, which cannot be assured, after class members are
given the opportunity to object to the settlement or opt out of
the settlement.

The suit is styled "In re Openwave Systems, Inc. (sic) Initial
Public Offering Securities Litigation, Civ. No. 01-9744 (SAS)
(S.D.N.Y.)," related to "In re Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92 (SAS)," filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
under Judge Shira A. Scheindlin.  The plaintiff firms in this
litigation are:

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

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

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

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

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

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


PETCO ANIMAL: Pomerantz Haudek Schedules Lead Plaintiff Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP set
a June 17, 2005 deadline for investors to seek appointment by
the Court as lead plaintiff in the class action lawsuit filed by
the firm against PETCO Animal Supplies, Inc. ("PETCO" or the
"Company") (Nasdaq:PETCE).

The lawsuit was filed against the company and three of the
Company's senior officers, on behalf of all persons or entities
who purchased the securities of PETCO from November 18, 2004 to
April 14, 2005 (the "class period"). The case was filed in the
United States District Court, Southern District of California.
The lawsuit is seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint alleges that during the class period, defendants
reported strong earnings and sales growth and represented that
such growth would continue in 2005. In fact, unbeknownst to
investors, PETCO's fourth quarter earnings were materially
artificially inflated through accounting manipulation. In
particular, PETCO had been under-accruing expenses, thereby
inflating its earnings. For the same reason, the Company's
favorable projections for 2005 were lacking in any reasonable
basis and were premised on the continuation of the improper
accounting practices.

The complaint further alleges that PETCO and the Company's Chief
Executive Officer, James M. Myers, the Company's Chief Financial
Officer, Rodney Carter and PETCO's Chairman of the Board, Brian
K. Devine, were privy to confidential and proprietary
information concerning the Company, its operations, finances,
financial condition, and present and future business prospects.
Because of their possession of such information, the defendants
had a duty to disseminate promptly accurate and truthful
information with respect to PETCO's financial condition and
performance, growth, operations, financial statements, business,
products, markets, management, earnings and present and future
business prospects, and to correct any previously issued
statements that had become materially misleading or untrue, so
that the market price of PETCO's common stock would be based
upon truthful and accurate information.

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


PLAINS RESOURCES: DE Court Approves Shareholder Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement of the class action filed against Plains
Resources, Inc. in the Delaware Chancery Court for New Castle
County, styled "Alfons Sperber v. Plains Resources Inc., et
al.," is deemed final after no appeals were filed

This suit, brought on behalf of a putative class of Plains All
American Pipeline, L.P. common unitholders, asserted breach of
fiduciary duty and breach of contract claims against Plains All
American L.P., Plains AAP, L.P., and Plains All American GP LLC
and its directors, as well as breach of fiduciary duty claims
against the Company and its directors.

The complaint sought to enjoin or rescind a proposed acquisition
of all of the Company's outstanding stock as well as declaratory
relief, an accounting, disgorgement and the imposition of a
constructive trust, and an award of damages, fees, expenses and
costs, among other things. This lawsuit has been settled in
principle. The court approved the settlement and the settlement
became final in March 2005.


PLUG POWER: NY Court Grants Final Approval To Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted final approval to the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against Plug Power,
Inc. and certain of its officers and directors after a fairness
hearing was held on April 19,2005 in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York.

In September 2000, a shareholder class action complaint was
filed, alleging that the Company and various of its officers and
directors violated certain federal securities laws by failing to
disclose certain information concerning our products and future
prospects.  The action was brought on behalf of a class of
purchasers of Company stock who purchased the stock between
February 14, 2000 and August 2, 2000.

Subsequently, fourteen additional complaints with similar
allegations and class periods were filed.  By order dated
October 30, 2000, the court consolidated the complaints into one
action, entitled Plug Power Inc. Securities Litigation, CV-00-
5553(ERK)(RML).  By order dated January 25, 2001, the Court
appointed lead plaintiffs and lead plaintiffs' counsel.
Subsequently, the plaintiffs served a consolidated amended
complaint.  The consolidated amended complaint extends the class
period to begin on October 29, 1999 and alleges claims under the
Securities Act and the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
under the Exchange Act.  Subsequently, plaintiffs withdrew their
claims under the Securities Act.  Plaintiffs allege that the
defendants made misleading statements and omissions regarding
the state of development of the Company's technology in a
registration statement issued in connection with our initial
public offering (IPO) and in subsequent press releases.

The Company served its motion to dismiss the claims in May 2001.
By order dated January 21, 2003, the Court dismissed all claims
relating to pre-IPO press releases, the IPO prospectus and all
but three post-IPO press releases. The Court ruled that the
three remaining press releases raised questions of fact that
could not be resolved on a motion to dismiss.  The Court also
denied the motion to dismiss the claims against the individual
defendants at this time.

On December 29, 2004, the plaintiffs and the defendants entered
into a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, which is subject
to final approval by the Court.  The settlement does not call
for payment by the defendants and would be covered by directors
and officers insurance.  The Stipulation and Agreement of
Settlement was submitted to the Court on January 5, 2005. On
January 19, 2005, the Court entered an order certifying the
class for the purposes of settlement pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23, setting forth procedures for notice to the
plaintiff class, and scheduling a settlement fairness hearing
for April 29, 2005.  Pursuant to the Court's January 19, 2005
order, members of the plaintiff class who wish to be excluded
from the class must mail a request to be excluded no later than
April 11, 2005.

The suit is styled "In re Plug Power Securities Litigation, case
no. 1:00-cv-05553-ERK-RML," filed in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York, under Judge Edward
R. Korman.

Representing the Company are Gregory A. Markel, Ronit Setton,
Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft, LLP One World Financial Center
New York, NY 10281 Phone: 212-504-6000 Fax: 212-504-6666, E-
mail: greg.markel@cwt.com, ronit.setton@cwt.com; and Nancy I.
Ruskin Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton One Liberty Plaza
New York, NY 10006 Phone: 212-225-2000 Fax: 212-225-3499, E-
mail: nruskin@cgsh.com.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Lionel Z. Glancy, Law Offices of Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
         1801 Avenue of the Americas Los Angeles, CA 90067

     (2) Mel E. Lifschitz 10 East 40th Street New York, NY 10016
         Phone: 212-779-1414

     (3) Samuel H. Rudman, Steven G. Schulman Milberg, Weiss,
         Bershad, Hynes & Lerach, L.L.P. One Pennsylvania Plaza
         New York, NY 10119 Phone: (212) 594-5300


PMA CAPITAL: Presents Arguments For Dismissal of PA Stock Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
PMA Capital Corporation presented oral arguments for the
dismissal of the consolidated securities class action filed
against it, certain of its directors and key executive officers
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.

Several purported class actions were initially filed in 2003 on
behalf of alleged purchasers of the Company's Class A Common
Stock, 4.25% Senior Convertible Debt and 8.50% Monthly Income
Senior Notes. On June 28, 2004, the Court issued an order
consolidating the cases under the caption "In Re PMA Capital
Corporation Securities Litigation (civil action no. 03-6121)"
and appointing Sheet Metal Workers Local 9 Pension Trust, Alaska
Laborers Employers Retirement Fund and Communications Workers of
America for Employees' Pension and Death Benefits as lead
plaintiff.

On September 20, 2004, the plaintiffs filed an amended and
consolidated complaint on behalf of an alleged class of
purchasers of the Company's securities between May 5, 1999 and
February 11, 2004. The complaint alleges, among other things,
that the defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act,
and Rule 10b-5 thereunder by making materially false and
misleading public statements and material omissions during the
class period regarding the Company's underwriting performance,
loss reserves and related internal controls. The complaint
alleges, among other things, that the defendants violated
Sections 11, 12(a) (2) and 15 of the Securities Act by making
materially false and misleading statements in registration
statements and prospectuses about the Company's financial
results, underwriting performance, loss reserves and related
internal controls. The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory
damages, the right to rescind the purchases of securities in the
public offerings, interest, and plaintiffs' reasonable costs and
expenses, including attorneys' fees and expert fees.

On April 11, 2005, the Company presented oral arguments in the
District Court with respect to a motion to dismiss all claims.
The judge's decision with respect to such motion is pending.  
The lawsuit is in its earliest stages; therefore, it is not
possible at this time to reasonably estimate the impact on the
Company.

The suit is styled "AUGENBAUM v. PMA CAPITAL CORPORATION et al.,
case no. 2:03-cv-06121-PBT," filed in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, under Judge
Petrese B. Tucker.  Representing the plaintiffs are Robert A.
Kauffman, Arthur Stock and Sherri Savett of Berger and Montague,
1622 Locust Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone: 215-875-3000,
Fax: 215-875-4636, E-mail: astock@bm.net; and Salvatore J.
Graziano of MILBERG WEISS BERSHAD & SCHULMAN LLP, One
Pennsylvania Plaza, New York NY 10119, Phone: 212-594-5300.  
Representing the Company are David M. Howard, Michael L.
Kichline, Joseph A. Tate of Dechert LLP, 4000 Bell Atlantic
Tower, 1717 Arch Street, Philadelphia PA 19103-2973, Phone:
215-994-2218, E-mail: david.howard@dechert.com,
michael.kichline@dechert.com, joseph.tate@dechert.com.   


PUBLIX SUPER: Recalls Publix Drinking Water Due to Taste, Odor
--------------------------------------------------------------
Publix Super Markets is issuing a voluntary recall on Publix 1-
gallon (3.78L) and 2.5-gallon (9.45L) drinking water with the
manufacturing plant code PLT 12595 and the following code dates:

     (1) 1 gallon: PDR May 02, 2005 and PDR May 04, 2005 (the
         code can be found on the back of the container).

     (2) 2.5-gallon: PDR APR 27, 2005 and PDR May 03, 2005 (the
         code can be found on the front of the container).

This water may not meet Publix quality specifications for taste
and odor. The product was distributed in Publix stores in the
following counties: Broward, Miami-Dade, Indian River, Martin,
Monroe, Okeechobee, St. Lucie and Palm Beach, Florida.

"Although no confirmed illnesses have been reported, we have
received notification from customers as to the odor and taste of
the drinking water. Therefore, we're issuing a voluntary recall
because customer satisfaction and safety are our first
priorities," said Anne Hendricks, manager of media and community
relations, Publix Miami Division. "Customers who have purchased
the recalled product may return it to their store for a full
refund or replacement. If customers have further inquiries they
may contact Publix Consumer Relations at 1-800 242-1227."

Publix is owned and operated by its 129,500 employees, with 2004
sales of $18.6 billion. Currently Publix has 853 stores in
Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Alabama and Tennessee. The
company has been named one of Fortune's "100 Best Companies to
Work For in America" for eight consecutive years. In addition,
Publix's dedication to superior quality and customer service is
recognized as tops in the grocery business, most recently by an
American Customer Satisfaction Index survey.


SIDLEY AUSTIN: Cliff Fonstein Joins Law Firm's New York Office
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sidley Austin Brown & Wood LLP reports that Cliff Fonstein
joined the firm's national employment and labor practice as a
partner, resident in the firm's New York office. Mr. Fonstein
will focus on labor and employment law and employment class
action litigation.

Mr. Fonstein advises and litigates on behalf of Fortune 500
companies on a variety of employment and labor issues ranging
from executive contracts to the defense of discrimination, trade
secret and unfair competition claims.

In particular, Mr. Fonstein focuses on representing companies in
the financial services industry, having most recently defended a
major Wall Street bank in employment litigation in federal and
state courts as well as before the NASD and NYSE. He has also
defended employers in large class actions, prevailed in a multi-
million dollar whistle blower claim and advised a
telecommunications company regarding the anti-competition
provisions in its senior management's employment contracts. He
has achieved successful results for his clients, whether
defending a single plaintiff discrimination claim before a state
administrative agency or in a complicated, multi-plaintiff
litigation involving a group of highly compensated employees.

"Cliff has successfully taken on some of the most complex and
closely observed employment cases of recent years, in disparate
industries," said Thomas A. Cole, chair of the firm's Executive
Committee. "He is equally well regarded for his abilities in
providing clients with effective preventative advice, an
approach Sidley is committed to taking with its broad client
base. We are very pleased to welcome Cliff as a partner in the
firm."

Mr. Fonstein said, "Sidley has a great national employment
practice that I have long respected. I look forward in
particular to working with Brian Gold, who chairs the national
Employment and Labor Group, and Laura Allen, who heads a team in
New York that has successfully represented and continues to work
with many of the country's major financial and investment
institutions."

A graduate of the UCLA School of Law, Mr. Fonstein completed
Judicial Externship with the Honorable Jay Rabinowitz of the
Alaska Supreme Court. He received a B.A. from the University of
California at Berkeley, Phi Beta Kappa, having received an AFL-
CIO Scholarship. Mr. Fonstein was most recently a partner with
O'Melveny & Myers.

Sidley Austin Brown & Wood LLP is one of the world's largest
full-service law firms, with more than 1,550 lawyers practicing
in 14 domestic and international cities. The firm represents a
broad range of clients.

For more details, contact Janet Zagorin of Sidley Austin Brown &
Wood LLP, Phone: +1-212-839-8797, E-mail: jzagorin@sidley.com
and Robin Wagge of Rubenstein Associates, Phone:
+1-212-843-8006, E-mail: rwagge@rubenstein.com.


SIRENZA MICRODEVICES: NY Court Approves Stock Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against Sirenza
Microdevices, Inc., various of its officers and certain
underwriters of the Company's initial public offering of
securities.

The suit, styled "In re Sirenza Microdevices, Inc. Initial
Public Offering Securities Litigation, Case No. 01-CV-10596,"
alleges improper and undisclosed activities related to the
allocation of shares in the Company's initial public offering,
including obtaining commitments from investors to purchase
shares in the aftermarket at pre-arranged prices.

Similar lawsuits concerning more than 300 other companies'
initial public offerings were filed during 2001, and this
lawsuit is being coordinated with those actions (the
"coordinated litigation").  Plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint on or about April 19, 2002, bringing claims for
violation of several provisions of the federal securities laws
and seeking an unspecified amount of damages.

On July 1, 2002, an omnibus motion to dismiss was filed in the
coordinated litigation on behalf of the issuer defendants, of
which the Company and its named officers and directors are a
part, on common pleadings issues.  On October 8, 2002, pursuant
to stipulation by the parties, the court dismissed the officer
and director defendants from the action without prejudice.

On February 19, 2003, the court granted in part and denied in
part a motion to dismiss filed on behalf of defendants,
including the Company.  The court's order dismissed all claims
against the Company except for a claim brought under Section 11
of the Securities Act of 1933.

A proposal has been made for the settlement and release of
claims against the issuer defendants, including the Company, in
exchange for a guaranteed recovery to be paid by the issuer
defendants' insurance carriers and an assignment of certain
claims.  The settlement is subject to a number of conditions,
including final approval of the proposed settling parties and
the court.  

The suit is styled "In re Sirenza Microdevices, Inc. Initial
Public Offering Securities Litigation, Case No. 01-CV-10596,"
related " In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation,
Master File No. 21 MC 92 (SAS)," filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge
Shira A. 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, 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


SONUS NETWORKS: MA Court Mulls Adequacy of Class Representative
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts has yet to rule regarding the adequacy of the
class representative in the class action filed against Sonus
Networks, Inc. and certain of its officers and directors and a
former officer.

Several of its shareholders filed suits in June 2002 under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  The purchasers seek to represent a class
of persons who purchased the Company's common stock between
December 11, 2000 and January 16, 2002, and seek unspecified
monetary damages.  The complaints were essentially identical and
alleged that the Company e made false and misleading statements
about our products and business.  

On March 3, 2003, the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended
Complaint.  On April 22, 2003, the Company filed a motion to
dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint on various grounds.
On May 11, 2004, the court held oral argument on the motion, at
the conclusion of which the court denied the Company's motion to
dismiss. The plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification
on July 30, 2004, and the Company filed its opposition on
September 10, 2004, to which the plaintiffs replied on September
30, 2004.  On February 16, 2005, the court certified the class
and appointed a class representative.  On March 9, 2005, the
court appointed the law firm of Moulton & Gans as lead counsel,
and the court also ordered additional filings as to the adequacy
of the class representative.  The court has not yet held a
hearing or issued a decision on the matter.


SONUS NETWORKS: MA Court Considers Securities Lawsuit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts heard Sonus Networks, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the
consolidated securities class action filed against it and
certain of its current officers and directors on June 1,2005.  
The Court has yet to release a ruling.

On December 1, 2004, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
amended complaint.  The complaint asserts claims under the
federal securities laws, specifically Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Sections 11, 12(a),
and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, relating to the Company's
restatement of its financial results for 2001, 2002, and the
first three quarters of 2003.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that the Company issued a
series of false or misleading statements to the market
concerning its revenues, earnings, and financial condition.
Plaintiffs contend that such statements caused our stock price
to be artificially inflated.  The complaint seeks unspecified
damages on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the
Company's common stock during the period from March 28, 2002,
through March 26, 2004.

On January 28, 2005, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
Section 10(b) and 12(a) claims and joined the motion to dismiss
the Section 11 claim filed by the individual defendants.  On
March 22, 2005, the plaintiff filed its opposition to the
motion.


SPITZER AUTO: OH Judge OKs $10M Suit Settlement Over $97.50 Fee
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge David Matia of the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court
approved a $10 million settlement for a lawsuit against Spitzer
Auto Dealer that was brought on behalf of 74,000 Ohio consumers.

The settlement brings to an end five years of litigation
involving a $97.50 fee Spitzer inserted, as a preprinted line
item, into its Buyers Agreement. The Class of consumers are
represented by David M. Paris of the Nurenberg, Plevin Law Firm
and Ronald I. Frederick.

Spitzer had been inserting a $97.50 fee in its Buyers Agreements
since, at least, the early 1980's. In 1989, the Ohio Attorney
General called this practice deceptive and forced Spitzer to
stop charging this fee for what it described in its contracts as
"delivery and handling." However, Spitzer continued the practice
by changing the description of the fee to "dealer overhead." In
2000, Lisa Washington and Carol Violand filed suit against the
Spitzer Dealerships claiming that this fee violated the Ohio
Consumer Sales Practices Act because it was deceptive, made
consumers believe that it was non-negotiable and, in effect, was
an add-on item, which raised the sales price of vehicles to be
in excess of the advertised price.

A total of 120,000 consumer transactions were reviewed for the
time period between August 1998 and December 2004. It was
determined that consumers were charged and paid this fee in
approximately 74,000 instances. The settlement requires that
Spitzer pay damages to each customer in the amount of $134.20,
which is comprised of a combination of cash and coupon. In
addition, the settlement requires that Spitzer remove this pre-
printed fee from its Buyers Agreements.

For more details, contact Tamara Brininger or Attorney David
Paris of Nurenburg, Plevin, Heller & McCarthy, Phone:
+1-216-310-5873 or +1-216-906-1173.


SPRINT CORPORATION: IL Lawsuit Certified, Company Secrets Spared
----------------------------------------------------------------
Madison County Circuit Judge Nicholas Byron both certified a
class action lawsuit over Sprint Corporation's early termination
fee and dismissed a protective order, which guarded the wireless
company's trade secrets, revenue data, pricing models, internal
policies and unique computer systems, The Madison County Record
reports.

Jessica Hall of Granite City, who is the lead plaintiff in the
suit, can now send previously confidential Sprint documents to
the Federal Communications Commissions.

In his May 20 certification order, Judge Byron wrote, "The
record indicates that Sprint uses standardized means and methods
to impose and collect early termination fees and every class
members has essentially the same claim against Sprint." He adds,
"This is a classic case for certification." The judge gave
Sprint 24 hours to make an objection to whatever Ms. Hall
intends to send the FCC.

Ms. Hall had sued Sprint last year claiming that it improperly
charged her $150 for canceling her wireless contract before it
expired. She asked Judge Byron to certify her as representative
of a plaintiff class.

From the beginning, Ms. Hall and Sprint agreed to keep some
documents confidential, thus they stipulated a protective order,
which Judge Byron signed.

In March, CTIA, the Wireless Association petitioned the FCC to
block the suit arguing that the fee fell within the definition
of rates, which states may not regulate. The group warned that
the suit threatened the rate structure behind the industry's
"ubiquitous deployment, innovative services, affordable prices
and soaring subscribership."

Ms. Hall promptly withdrew her consent to the protective order,
telling Judge Byron she did not know when she agreed to it that
CTIA would petition the FCC. After that she then moved to set
aside the order so she could provide previously confidential
Sprint documents to the FCC.

Sprint though opposed the motion, arguing that a stipulation
cannot be withdrawn unless it is illegal, fraudulently induced
or contrary to public morals. The firm argued that it did not
know when it agreed to the protective order that CTIA would
petition the FCC.

On May 20, Judge Byron signed an order vacating the protective
order, however Sprint immediately filed an emergency motion to
keep the protective order in force. Then on May 25, the judge
denied Sprint's motion, but he did modify his May 20 order. In
his modified order, the judge said that Ms. Hall would identify
what she intended to submit to the FCC, and Sprint would have 24
hours to review it and object.

Currently, the FCC requested public comments on the CTIA
petition in the Hall case and a CTIA petition on a similar case
in South Carolina.


SPRINT CORPORATION: KS Court Allows Securities Suit To Proceed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Kansas
refused to dismiss the consolidated securities class action
filed against Sprint Corporation, on behalf of purchasers of
Sprint FON Group (NYSE: FON) and PCS Group (NYSE: PCS) common
stock between August 11, 2000 and February 13, 2003.  The suit
also names as defendants several of the Company's executives and
Ernst & Young LLP.

The complaint charges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b),
14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of materially
false and misleading statements to the market.  Specifically,
the Company's press releases and SEC filings overstated the
Company's earnings and net assets by failing to reserve for the
likely reversal of over $100 million in tax benefits
attributable to highly questionable tax shelters used by Sprint
Corporation's executive officers, and Defendants failed to
reveal that these tax shelters caused a conflict of interest
between the executives and Sprint Corporation and its
accountants, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (March
17,2003) states.

Defendants asked the court to dismiss the suit.  In September
2004, the court denied the motion.  Following denial of the
dismissal motion, the parties stipulated that the case can
proceed as a class action. All defendants have denied
plaintiffs' allegations and intend to vigorously defend this
matter.  

The consolidated securities suit is styled "State of New Jersey
and its Division of Investment, et al. v. Sprint Corporation et
al., case no. 2:03-cv-02071-JWL-JPO," filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Kansas under Chief Judge John
W. Lungstrum.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

    (1) Allyn Z. Lite, Bruce D. Greenberg, Joseph J. DePalma,
        Katrina Blumenkrants, Mary Jean Pizza and Susan D.
        Pontorerio of Lite, DePalma, Greenberg & Rivas LLC, Two
        Gateway Center - 12th Floor, Newark, NJ 07102, Phone:
        973-623-3000, Fax: 973-623-0858, E-mail:
        alite@ldgrlaw.com, bgreenberg@ldgrlaw.com,
        jdepalma@ldgrlaw.com, kblumenkrants@ldgrlaw.com,
        spontoriero@ldgrlaw.com

    (2) Christopher L. Nelson, Gregory M. Castaldo, Jacob A.
        Goldberg, Richard S. Schiffrin of Schiffrin & Barroway
        LLC, 280 King of Prussia Road, Radnor, PA 19087, Phone:
        610-667-7706, Fax: 610-667-7056, E-mail:
        cnelson@sbclasslaw.com, gcastaldo@sbclasslaw.com,
        jgoldberg@sbclasslaw.com, rschiffrin@sbclasslaw.com  

Representing the Company are:

     (i) David N. Greenwald, Francis P. Barron, Michael A.
         Paskin, Ronald S. Rolfe, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP,
         Worldwide Plaza, 825 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10019-
         7475, Phone: 212-474-1922, Fax: 212-474-3700, Email:
         dgreenwald@cravath.com, fbarron@cravath.com,
         mpaskin@cravath.com, rrolfe@cravath.com  

    (ii) Mark A. Thornhill, Spencer Fane Britt & Browne-- Kansas
         City, 1000 Walnut, Suite 1400, Kansas City, MO 64106,
         Phone: 816-474-8100, Fax: 816-474-3216, E-mail:
         mthornhill@spencerfane.com  


WATCHGUARD TECNOLOGIES: Pomerantz Haudek Sets Plaintiff Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP set
a June 7, 2005 deadline for purchasers of WatchGuard
Technologies, Inc. ("WatchGuard" or the Company) (Nasdaq:WGRD)
securities, during the class period of February 12, 2005 to
March 15, 2005, to seek appointment by the Court as lead
plaintiff in the class action lawsuit filed by the firm.

The lawsuit was filed on April 19, 2005 in the United States
District Court, Western District of Washington. The complaint
alleges that WatchGuard and certain of its officers and
directors knowingly or recklessly misrepresented the Company's
earnings throughout the Class Period, and thereby caused the
Company's stock price to trade at artificially inflated prices
in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The truth, known to each of the defendants but concealed from
the investing public, entailed that:

     (1) WatchGuard's Q1-Q3 2004 reported financial results were
         materially false and misleading due to inaccurate
         income statement classification of early pay incentive
         discounts taken by customers, under-accrual of customer
         rebate obligations and timing of revenue recognition
         associated with specific products and services
         (resulting from an overstatement of product revenue and
         understatement of deferred revenue);

     (2) the Company's February 12, 2004 projections were
         materially false and misleading;

     (3) The functionality and value of the Company's "Firebox
         X" product was grossly overstated, and this product did
         not materially or accurately improve the Company's
         gross margins, streamline the Company's management or
         otherwise reduce its reliance on custom components; and

     (4) contrary to defendants' statements, the Firebox X was
         not tracking as defendants claimed.

On March 16, 2005, WatchGuard disclosed that:

     (i) certain errors were discovered in its audit process and
         that it would need to reclassify early pay incentive
         discounts from interest expense to reduce its revenue
         for its pervious financial results for 2002, 2003 and
         the first three quarters of 2004;

    (ii) an error was discovered in the Company's handling of
         lease incentives; and

   (iii) the errors reflected a material weakness in the
         Company's internal controls over financial reporting.

The market reacted swiftly to this disclosure, with the
Company's stock price falling to a closing price of $3.17 on
March 16, 2005.

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


WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION: Faces Lawsuits V. Calypso Washing Machine
----------------------------------------------------------------
Whirlpool Corporation faces 10 purported class action lawsuits
in eight states related to its Calypso clothes washing machine.  
Three of the original purported class actions have been
dismissed.

The complaints in these lawsuits generally allege violations of
state consumer fraud acts, unjust enrichment, and breach of
warranty based on the allegations that the washing machines have
various defects.  There are no allegations of any personal
injury, catastrophic property damage, or safety risk. The
complaints generally seek unspecified compensatory,
consequential and punitive damages.


                 New Securities Fraud Cases

ABLE LABORATORIES: Chitwood Harley Lodges Securities Suit in NJ
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Chitwood Harley Harnes LLP initiated a
securities fraud class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey against Able
Labatories, Inc. ("Able" or the "Company") (NASDAQNM: ABRX),
Dhananjay G. Wadekar and Robert Weinstein on behalf of persons
who purchased or acquired securities of Able Labatories between
October 30, 2002 and May 18, 2005 inclusive (the "Class
Period"). A copy of the complaint is available from the court
and will be posted on our website, www.chitwoodlaw.com until
expiration of the lead plaintiff deadline, July 22, 2005.

The Complaint alleges that starting on October 30, 2002 and
continuing until May 18, 2005, defendants made a series of
materially false and misleading statements regarding Able's
business and earnings. The Complaint alleges that throughout the
Class Period, Able failed to disclose and misrepresented the
following material adverse facts, which were known to defendants
or recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) the Company's product testing procedures failed to meet
         standard industry practices and good manufacturing
         practices established by the FDA;

     (2) the Company was faced with potentially enormous
         liabilities and fines as a result of its breaches of
         good manufacturing practices;

     (3) the Company's breaches jeopardized not only its current
         drug offerings but also the likelihood that drugs in
         development would gain FDA approval; and

     (4) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' opinions and
         statements concerning Able's current and future
         earnings lacked a reasonable basis at all times.

On May 19, 2005, Able announced that it had identified
departures from standard operating procedures and good
manufacturing practices with respect to certain laboratory
testing practices and that as a result of these observations,
the Company would be recalling additional products in the
future. Able also announced on May 19 the resignation of Wadekar
from his positions as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer. This
news shocked the market. Shares of Able fell $18.37 per share,
or $74.59 per share, on May 19, 2005, to close at $6.25 per
share. During the Class Period, insiders sold over 480,000
shares for proceeds exceeding $9,000,000.

For more details, contact Lauren S. Antonino, Esq. of Chitwood
Harley Harnes LLP, Phone: 1-888-873-3999 ext. 6888, E-mail:
lantonino@chitwoodlaw.com, Web site: http://www.chitwoodlaw.com.


CARRIER ACCESS: Brian M. Felgoise Lodges Securities Suit in CO
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C. filed a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who acquired Carrier
Access Corporation (NASDAQ: CACSE) securities between October
21, 2003, and May 20, 2005, inclusive (the Class Period).

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado, against the company and certain key
officers and directors.

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

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


CARRIER ACCESS: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Fraud Suit in CO
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C. initiated a lawsuit seeking
class action status in the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado on behalf of all persons who purchased the
publicly traded securities of Carrier Access Corporation
(Nasdaq: CACSE) ("Carrier Access," or the "Company") between
October 21, 2003 and May 20, 2005 (the "Class Period"). Also
included in this case are all shareholders who acquired Carrier
Access stock as Paragon Networks shareholders or in the January
29, 2004 Carrier Access public offering.

The Complaint charges Carrier Access, Roger L. Koenig, Nancy G.
Pierce, and Timothy R. Anderson with violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Complaint alleges that the
defendants made materially false and misleading statements
during the Class Period concerning the Company's financial
results and business prospects. This allowed the defendants to:

     (1) acquire Paragon Networks using inflated Company stock,

     (2) sell 6 million shares of the Company to the public in
         January 2004, raising $78 million,

     (3) obtain listing on the Russell 3000 Index, and

     (4) enable the Individual Defendants to sell nearly 1.3
         million personally held shares in the Company, reaping
         nearly $15.8 million.

On May 5, 2005, Carrier Access announced that it received a
Nasdaq Staff Determination letter, indicating that the Company's
stock was subject to delisting from the Nasdaq. On May 20, 2005,
Carrier Access announced that it was reviewing revenue and cost
recognition issues. The press release stated that "certain
revenues and direct costs have been recorded in incorrect
periods. The amounts that have been quantified to date are
significant..." On this news, Carrier Access's share price fell
to a close of $4.61 per share on May 20, 2005.

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


CRAY INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit in W.D. WA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington on behalf of purchasers of Cray,
Inc. ("Cray" or the "Company") (Nasdaq: CRAY) securities during
the period between July 31, 2003 and May 12, 2005 (the "Class
Period").

The complaint charges Cray and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Cray is engaged in the design, development, marketing and
support of high-performance computer systems, commonly known as
supercomputers. More specifically, the complaint alleges that
during the Class Period, defendants failed to disclose and
misrepresented the following material adverse facts, which were
known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) that Cray's system of internal controls was inadequate
         because it failed in a number of key aspects, including
         inadequate review of third-party contracts and lack of
         software application controls and documentation;

     (2) that as a consequence of the above, it was difficult
         for Cray to manage basic operational tasks, such as the
         development of software applications, or to manage
         customer requirements and specifications for systems
         per contract; and

     (3) that the defendants' statements about the Company's
         status and progress were lacking in any reasonable
         basis when made.

On March 16, 2005, Cray announced that it would delay the filing
of its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December
31, 2004. Although the Company had not completed its formal
assessment process under Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act,
the Company expected that it would identify one or more material
weaknesses and that it would conclude that its system of
internal controls was not effective. News of this shocked the
market. Shares of Cray fell $0.78 per share or 25.9 percent, on
March 17, 2005, to close at $2.23 per share. On May 9, 2005,
Cray reported financial results for the first quarter ended
March 31, 2005. Total revenue for the quarter was $37.6 million,
compared to $42.1 million in the same period of the previous
year. On this news shares of Cray fell another $0.61 per share
or 29.3 percent, on May 10, 2005, to $1.47 per share.

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


MARTEK BIOSCIENCES: Cohen Milstein Lodges Securities Suit in MD
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. filed
a lawsuit on behalf of its client and on behalf of other
similarly situated purchasers of the securities of Martek
Biosciences Corporation, Inc. (Nasdaq:MATK); "Martek" or the
"Company", from December 9, 2004 to April 27, 2005, inclusive
(the "Class Period").

The action is pending in the United States District Court for
the District of Maryland against defendants Martek, Henry
Linsert Jr. (CEO) and Peter L. Buzy (CFO). Martek sells oils
containing two fatty acids, DHA, (docosahexaenoic acid) and ARA
(arachidonic acid), both of which, according to the Company, may
provide health benefits. The complaint alleges that the Company
at all relevant times stated in its public filings that the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, and other such organizations in
Europe and Asia, had compiled data showing that the dietary
intake of DHA and ARA is less than half the level recommended by
the World Health Organization and that, "this possible dietary
deficiency will result in an increase in demand for DHA-
supplemented products." Additionally, the Company stated that it
was increasing manufacturing capacity to keep apace with growing
demand and that growing demand would drive 2005 revenue to $290
million to $310 million, a year-over-year increase of 57% to
68%. The complaint further alleges that, unbeknownst to
investors:

     (1) defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that their
         statements, with respect to demand for the Company's
         products, had no reasonable basis in fact when made and

     (2) to maintain the appearance of high consumer demand for
         its products the Company stuffed its distribution
         channels.

On April 27, 2005, Defendants announced that full-year 2005
sales would be only $220 to $240 million, well below guidance.
On this news, Martek shares fell $27.59, or 45.9%, to close at
$32.49, making it the biggest percentage loser on NASDAQ in
trading that day, on extremely heavy trading volume. The
complaint charges that Defendants were motivated to engage in
the fraudulent practices alleged herein in order to allow the
Company to complete an offering of 1,756,614 shares of common
stock at a public offering price of $49.10 per share for net
proceeds of approximately $81.4 million on January 26, 2005.

For more details, contact Steven J. Toll, Esq. or Robert Smits
of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C., Mail: 1100 New
York Avenue, N.W. West Tower B Suite 500, Washington, D.C.,
20005, Phone: 888-240-0775 or 202-408-4600, E-mail:
stoll@cmht.com or rsmits@cmht.com.


POSSIS MEDICAL: Glancy Binkow Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in MN
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP initiated a Class
Action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of Minnesota on behalf of a class (the "Class")
consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired securities of Possis Medical, Inc. ("Possis" or the
"Company") (NYSE:POSS), between September 24, 2002 and August
24, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint charges Possis and certain of the Company's
executive officers with violations of federal securities laws.
Plaintiff claims defendants' omissions and material
misrepresentations during the Class Period artificially inflated
Possis' stock price, inflicting damages on investors. Possis
develops, manufactures, and markets medical devices, including
the AngioJet System - a non-surgical, minimally invasive
catheter system designed to rapidly remove blood clots using a
stream of water. The Complaint alleges that during the Class
Period defendants failed to disclose and/or misrepresented
material adverse facts, including that:

     (1) the AngioJet System, the Company's key product, was not
         more effective than existing alternatives, including
         competing drug therapies, nor did AngioJet reduce
         significant procedural complications or significantly
         increase positive benefits such as improved blood flow
         or other similar effects;

     (2) the AngioJet could not be expanded as a "technology
         platform" because AngioJet was not in the first
         instance effective for routine use in a broad range of
         heart attack patients to reduce the size of a patient's
         damaged tissue area; and

     (3) as a result of the foregoing problems, Possis could not
         maintain its projected revenue growth or achieve
         sustained revenue growth targets as high as 35%.

The Complaint further alleges that defendants were motivated to
and did conceal the true safety and efficacy of AngioJet, and
defendants' ability to expand and develop Possis' AngioJet
technology, because it enabled defendants to artificially
inflate the price of Possis shares and then allowed defendants
and other Company insiders to sell more than 361,730 shares of
their privately held Possis stock to the unsuspecting public for
proceeds in excess of $7.07 million while in possession of
material adverse, non-public information about the Company.

On August 24, 2004, it was disclosed that AngioJet failed to
demonstrate clinical superiority in the majority of heart attack
patients, causing Possis' share price to plummet more than 38%.
As a result, the Company lost almost 40% of its market
capitalization after Possis shares traded down more than $11.75
per share, to $19.00 per share, as defendants lowered the
Company's 2005 earnings and revenue guidance.

For more details, contact Lionel Z. Glancy or Michael Goldberg
of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, Phone: (310) 201-9150 or
(888) 773-9224, E-mail: info@glancylaw.com, Web site:
http://www.glancylaw.com.


POSSIS MEDICAL: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in MN
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP initiated a
class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities
of Possis Medical, Inc. ("Possis" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:
POSS) between September 24, 2002 and August 24, 2004, inclusive
(the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The action, numbered 05cv1084, is pending before the Hon. James
M. Rosenbaum in the United States District Court for the
District of Minnesota against defendants Possis, Robert G.
Dutcher (CEO and President) and Eapen Chacko (CFO).

The complaint alleges that Possis's primary product was the
AngioJet System, a non-surgical, minimally invasive catheter
system designed to rapidly remove blood clots using a stream of
water. The complaint further alleges that, unbeknownst to
investors, and contrary to defendants' representations:

     (1) the AngioJet System was not more effective than
         existing alternatives, including competing drug
         therapies, such as the leading product Urokinase, nor
         did AngioJet reduce significant procedural
         complications or significantly increase positive    
         benefits such as improved blood flow or other similar
         effects;

     (2) AngioJet could not be expanded as a "technology
         platform" because AngioJet was not in the first
         instance effective for routine use in a broad range of
         heart attack patients to reduce the size of infracts;
         and

     (3) as a result of the foregoing problems, Possis could not
         maintain its projected revenue growth or achieve
         sustained revenue growth targets as high as 35%.

The truth emerged on August 24, 2004. On that date, shares of
Possis fell precipitously and the Company lost almost 40% of its
market capitalization after it was disclosed that AngioJet
failed to demonstrate clinical superiority in the majority of
heart attach patients. Shares of Possis traded down more than
$11.75 per share, or 38%, to $19.00 per share, as defendants
lowered 2005 earnings and revenue guidance.

The complaint further alleges that defendants were motivated to
and did conceal the true safety and efficacy of AngioJet, and
defendants' ability to expand and develop Prossis's AngioJet
technology, because it enabled defendants to artificially
inflate the price of Possis shares and then allowed defendants
and other Company insiders to sell more than 361,730 shares of
their privately held Possis stock to the unsuspecting public for
proceeds in excess of $7.07 million while in possession of
material adverse, non-public information about the Company.

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


POSSIS MEDICAL: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Fraud Suit in MN
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C. initiated a lawsuit seeking
class action status has been filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Minnesota on behalf of all persons who
purchased the publicly traded securities of Possis Medical, Inc.
(Nasdaq: POSS) ("Possis" or "the Company") between September 24,
2002 and August 24, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that Possis, Robert Dutcher, and Eapen
Chacko violated federal securities laws. Specifically, the
Complaint alleges that unknown to investors and contrary to
defendants' representations, the Company's primary product,
AngioJet System, a minimally invasive catheter system designed
to remove blood clots using a stream of water:

     (1) was not more effective than competing drug therapies
         (such as Urokinase, the leading product on the market)
         or other existing alternatives, and it did not reduce
         significant procedural complications or significantly
         increase positive benefits; and

     (2) could not be expanded as a "technology platform"
         because it was not, in the first instance, effective
         for routine use in a broad range of heart attack
         patients to reduce the size of infracts.

As a result of these problems, the Company could not achieve
sustained revenue growth targets or maintain its projected
revenue growth. The Complaint also alleges that defendants and
other Company insiders sold during the Class Period, at inflated
prices, more than 360,000 personally held shares in the Company,
reaping over $7 million.

On August 24, 2004 the truth emerged as defendants lowered 2005
earnings and revenue guidance, and they disclosed that AngioJet
failed to demonstrate clinical superiority in the majority of
heart attack patients. On this news, Possis' share price fell
more than $12.00 per share.

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


                            *********


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

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

                            *********


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

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

Copyright 2004.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without
prior written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed
to be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Christopher
Beard at 240/629-3300.

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *