CAR_Public/050608.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, June 8, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 112

                         Headlines

ADVANCED NEUROMODULATION: Faces Securities Lawsuits in E.D. TX
ALLIED VAN: IL Court Grants Certification To OOIDA's Lawsuit
BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: NJ Court Refuses Third Amended Stock Suit
BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Working on NY Securities Suit Settlement
BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: MO Court Mulls Securities Suit Dismissal

BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Plaintiffs to File Amended NY ERISA Suit
BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Accelerated Discovery Started in AWP Suit
BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Plaintiffs Withdraw AL Drug Discounts Suit
BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Faces Unfair Competition Suit in CA Court
BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Faces PPA Personal Injury Suit in W.D. WA

BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: WV Court Approves SERZONE Suit Settlement
CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Appeals Court Reverses MD Lawsuit Dismissal
CHARLES SCHWAB: Plaintiffs Voluntarily Dismiss MD Stock Lawsuit
COMDISCO INC.: Plaintiffs File Amended Shareholder Lawsuit in CA
CONSECO INC.: CA Court Grants Certification To Consumer Lawsuit

CONSECO LIFE: TX Court Grants Final Approval To Suit Settlement
CONSECO LIFE: Plaintiffs Voluntarily Dismiss NV Consumer Lawsuit
COX COMMUNICATIONS: Appeals Court Mulls Investor Suit Dismissal
COX COMMUNICATIONS: DE Court Approves Securities Suit Settlement
EMPIRE DISTRICT: Plaintiffs Appeal KS Electric Suit Dismissal

FAB INDUSTRIES: DE Court Says No Violation of State Law in Deal
FLORIDA: FDA Investigating Source of Contaminated Fresh Basil
HARRAH'S ENTERTAINMENT: CA High Court OKs Lawsuit Over False Ads
HERBALIFE INTERNATIONAL: CA Consumers File Unfair Trade Lawsuit
HERBALIFE INTERNATIONAL: Tablet Link To Liver Illness Contested

HIBERNIA CORPORATION: Investors Sue V. Capital One Merger in LA
LIBERTY NATIONAL: To Appeal Certification of AL Race Bias Suit
LIBERTY NATIONAL: AL Court Refuses To Alter Settlement Judgment
MANHATTAN NATIONAL: Continues To Face NM Consumer Fraud Lawsuit
NAM TAI ELECTRONICS: Prepares To Face Rocco Shareholder Lawsuit

NEW YORK: Deal Reached in Freelance Authors' Infringement Case
PALMONE INC.: Settles Suit Over Defective m100, m105, m125 PDAs
RADISSON HOTELS: Law Firm Launches Consumer Suit V. Moscow Hotel
RIDLEY INC.: Provides Update on BSE Suits V. Firms, Government
SUNRISE POWER: Faces Unfair Trade Practices Lawsuit in CA Court

TECO ENERGY: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Securities Suit in FL
TRUSTEET PROPERTIES: TX Judge Dismisses Shareholders' Lawsuit
UNITED STATES: High Court Rules in Favor of Disabled Passengers
ZIPREALTY INC.: Faces Possible Lawsuit From Former Employees

              Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences

                 New Securities Fraud Cases   

AUTHENTIDATE HOLDING: Abraham Fruchter Files Stock Lawsuit in NY
AUTHENTIDATE HOLDING: Brian M. Felgoise Lodges Stock Suit in NY
AUTHENTIDATE HOLDING: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Stock Lawsuit in NY
AUTHENTIDATE HOLDING: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Suit in NY
CARRIER ACCESS: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Lawsuit in CO

CARRIER ACCESS: Federman & Sherwood Files Securities Suit in CO
CRAY INC.: Federman & Sherwood Files Securities Fraud Suit in WA
DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Charles J. Piven Files Stock Lawsuit in CA
DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Glancy Binkow Lodges Securities Suit in CA
DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Suit in CA

DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Schiffrin Barroway Lodges Stock Suit in CA
GRAVITY CO.: Abraham Fruchter Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
HARLEY-DAVIDSON: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Fraud Suit in WI
LEAPFROG ENTERPRISES: Scott + Scott Lodges Securities Suit in CA
MARTEK BIOSCIENCES: Goodkind Labaton Files Securities Suit in MD

STOCKERYALE INC.: Murray Frank Lodges Securities Lawsuit in NH
UNITED AMERICAN: Charles J. Piven Files Securities Lawsuit in MI


                         *********


ADVANCED NEUROMODULATION: Faces Securities Lawsuits in E.D. TX
--------------------------------------------------------------
Advanced Neuromodulation Systems, Inc. and certain of its
officers face several securities class actions filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas,
on behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities between
April 24, 2003 and February 16, 2005, inclusive.  The suits are
styled:

     (1) PLA, LLC vs. Advanced Neuromodulation Systems, Inc., et
         al, filed March 1, 2005;

     (2) RAI Investment Club vs. Advanced Neuromodulation
         Systems, Inc., et al, filed March 9, 2005; and

     (3) Clifford A. Leavitt vs. Advanced Neuromodulation
         Systems, Inc. et al, filed April 28, 2005

These suits allege the Company violated federal securities laws
by the issuance of false and misleading statements to the market
regarding the Company's financial performance throughout the
Class Period, which statements allegedly had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price of the Company's
securities.

In particular, the claims allege improper marketing and sales
practices accounted for the Company's revenue growth, citing,
among other things, the public announcement that management made
on February 17, 2005 that the Company had received a subpoena
from the Office of the Inspector General, Department of Health
and Human Services, requesting documents related to sales and
marketing, reimbursement, Medicare and Medicaid billing and
other business practices. The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified
compensatory damages and costs and expenses of litigation.


ALLIED VAN: IL Court Grants Certification To OOIDA's Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Court Judge Milton Shadur of the Northern District
of Illinois granted class certification to a lawsuit filed by
the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA)
against Allied Van Lines Inc. and its agent, TFC Inc., The
Trucker reports.

The OOIDA along with member Rodney Rockwell filed the lawsuit
against Allied Van and TFC on behalf of more than 100 similarly
situated owner-operators for violations of the federal truth-in-
leasing regulations. It asserts that Allied-TFC's leases violate
the federal regulations on at least three key points:

     (1) The leases say the company will not return drivers'
         escrow funds if the truckers do not give at least 30
         days' notice before terminating their leases;

     (2) The leases require owner-operators to pay for a variety
         of administrative and other services that the federal
         regulations say they are not obligated to pay for; and

     (3) The leases charge owner-operators for the company's
         public liability insurance premium.

According to an OOIDA news release, in his class action ruling,
Judge Shadur concluded that OOIDA and the owner-operators met
all the prerequisites needed for class certification of the
case. Additionally, the judge pointed out that the class was the
superior action device because the relatively small amounts
sought by each plaintiff would have made it unlikely for them to
pursue the claims individually. OOIDA and the plaintiffs are
seeking declaratory, injunctive and monetary relief, demanding
that Allied Van develop and use legal leases and reimburse
drivers for escrow funds and illegal charge backs.

Allied-TFC had argued that the claims for declaratory and
injunctive relief were moot because they had revised their
leases after the OOIDA complaint had been filed.

However, Judge Shadur disagreed and wrote that ". Allied-TFC
were quite predictably mistaken: (the) Association has objected
to various provisions of the new proposed form of lease . But
even apart from those renewed objections, the Allied-TFC
argument misses the mark." He further pointed out that the
cessation of allegedly illegal conduct does not render a case
moot unless the defendant can demonstrate that there is no
reasonable expectation that the wrong will be repeated. In his
opinion, Judge Shadur determined that Allied-TFC had "not
attempted any such demonstration."

The OOIDA news release further stated that using the mootness
claim, Allied-TFC's furthermore challenged OOIDA's participation
in the class, but Judge Shadur dismissed the carrier's argument
as "plainly a non-starter" and ruled OOIDA may serve as the
class representative for its members as to declaratory and
injunctive relief. No trial date though has been set for the
case.


BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: NJ Court Refuses Third Amended Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Magistrate Judge of the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey refused to allow plaintiffs to file a
third amended securities class action against Bristol-Myers
Squibb Co. and certain of its executives.

In April, May and June 2000, a number of class action lawsuits
were filed, alleging violations of federal securities laws and
regulations.  These actions have been consolidated into one
action.  The plaintiff claims that the defendants disseminated
materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose material information concerning the safety, efficacy
and commercial viability of, VANLEV, a drug in development,
during the period November 8, 1999 through April 19, 2000.

In May 2002, the plaintiff submitted an amended complaint adding
allegations that the Company, its present chairman of the board
and chief executive officer, Peter R. Dolan, its former chairman
of the board and chief executive officer, Charles A. Heimbold,
Jr., and its former chief scientific officer, Peter S. Ringrose,
Ph.D., disseminated materially false and misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose material information concerning the
safety, efficacy, and commercial viability of VANLEV during the
period April 19, 2000 through March 20, 2002.  

A number of related class actions, making essentially the same
allegations, were also filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York. These actions have been
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey.

The Company filed a motion for partial judgment in its favor
based upon the pleadings. The plaintiff opposed the motion, in
part by seeking again to amend its complaint.  The court granted
in part and denied in part the Company's motion and ruled that
the plaintiff may amend its complaint to challenge certain
alleged misstatements.  The court has certified two separate
classes: a class relating to the period from November 8, 1999 to
April 19, 2000 and a class relating to the period from March 22,
2001 to March 20, 2002.  The class certifications are without
prejudice to defendants' rights to fully contest the merits of
plaintiff's claims.  The plaintiff purports to seek compensatory
damages, costs and expenses on behalf of shareholders with
respect to the two class periods.  On December 17, 2004, the
Company and the other defendants made a motion for summary
judgment as to all of plaintiff's claims. The final pre-trial
conference in this matter commenced on December 15, 2004 and is
scheduled to resume at a future date.  No trial date has been
set.

In January 2005, the plaintiff moved for leave to file a third
amended complaint, seeking to combine the two class periods into
one expanded class period from October 19, 1999 through March
19, 2002 and to add further allegations that the Company, Peter
R. Dolan, Charles A. Heimbold, Jr., and Peter S. Ringrose, Ph.D.
disseminated materially false and misleading statements and or
failed to disclose material information concerning the safety,
efficacy and commercial viability of VANLEV.  Defendants have
opposed the plaintiff's motion. The Magistrate Judge denied the
plaintiff's motion. The ruling is subject to appeal to the
District Court.

The suit is styled "In re Bristol-Myers Securities Litigation,
case no. 3:00-cv-01990-SRC-JJH," filed in the United States
District Court in New Jersey, under Judge Stanley R. Chesler.  
Representing the Company are Allyn Zissel Lite and Michael A.
Patunas, LITE, DEPALMA, GREENBERG AND RIVAS, LCC, Two Gateway
Center, 12th Floor, Newark, NJ 07102-5003, Phone:
(973) 623-3000, E-mail: alite@ldgrlaw.com or
mpatunas@ldgrlaw.com.  Representing the plaintiffs is Tina
Moukoulis, LAW OFFICE OF BERNARD M. GROSS, PC, John Wanamaker
Building, Suite 450, Juniper and Market Streets, Philadelphia,
PA 19107 by Phone: (215) 561-3600, E-mail:
tina@bernardmgross.com.


BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Working on NY Securities Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bristol-Myers Squibb is working on the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against it and
certain of its current and former officers in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

During the period March through May 2002, the Company and a
number of its current and former officers were named as
defendants in a number of securities class action suits, in
connection with ImClone Systems, and ImClone's product, ERBITUX.
The suits were later consolidated in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York.  Plaintiffs filed a
consolidated class action complaint on April 11, 2003 against
the Company and certain current and former officers alleging a
class period of October 19, 1999 through March 10, 2003.

The consolidated class action complaint alleges violations of
federal securities laws in connection with, among other things,
the Company's investment in and relationship with ImClone and
ImClone's product, ERBITUX*, and certain accounting issues,
including issues related to wholesaler inventory and sales
incentives, the establishment of reserves, and accounting for
certain asset and other sales. The plaintiffs seek compensatory
damages, costs and expenses.

On March 29, 2004, the Court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss the consolidated class action complaint and dismissed
the case with prejudice.  Plaintiffs appealed that dismissal to
the Second Circuit Court of Appeals (Court of Appeals). While
that appeal was pending, the parties reached an agreement in
principle to settle the action.  On July 26, 2004, the Court of
Appeals stayed the appeal and remanded the action to the
District Court so that the District Court could consider the
settlement.

On July 30, 2004, the District Court vacated the Clerk's
Judgment in order to consider the settlement. Also on that day,
the District Court entered an order preliminarily approving the
settlement and certifying a class for settlement purposes only.
Pursuant to the terms of the proposed settlement, all claims in
the action will be dismissed, the litigation will be terminated,
the defendants will receive releases, and the Company will pay
$300 million to a fund for class members.

On November 9, 2004, after a fairness hearing, the District
Court approved the settlement and a judgment dismissing the case
with prejudice. The settlement has become final. In May 2005,
the Company entered into agreements with its various insurers
and expects to receive $200 million in insurance proceeds which
will be reflected in its financial statements in the second
quarter of 2005.

Approximately 58 million shares have been excluded from the
settlement pursuant to requests for exclusion. Of those,
plaintiffs purport to hold approximately 44.5 million shares in
the four actions pending in the New York State Supreme Court.
The Company is actively engaged in settlement discussions with
the plaintiffs' attorneys.

The Company and a number of the Company's current and former
officers were named as defendants in a purported class action
filed on October 6, 2004 in the State Court in Cook County,
Illinois. The complaint makes factual allegations similar to
those made in the settled federal class action in the Southern
District of New York and asserts common law fraud and breach of
fiduciary duty claims.  The complaint purports to assert those
claims on behalf of stockholders who purchased the Company's
stock before October 19, 1999 and held onto their stock through
March 10, 2003.  The Company removed the action to the U.S.
District Court for Northern District of Illinois on February 10,
2005. Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand on March 11, 2005. The
Company's opposition was filed on April 18, 2005 and plaintiffs'
reply is due May 18, 2005.

The suit is styled "In re Bristol-Myers Squibb Securities
Litigation, case no. 1:02-cv-02251-LAP," filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
under Judge Loretta A. Preska.  The Company is represented by
Evan R. Chesler and Elizabeth L. Grayer of Cravath, Swaine &
Moore LLP, 825 Eighth Avenue, New York, NY 10019, Phone:
(212) 474-1000, Fax: (212) 474-3700, E-mail:
echesler@cravath.com or egrayer@cravath.com.  Representing the
plaintiffs are:

     (1) Gustavo Bruckner, Frederick Taylor Isquith of Wolf
         Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP, 270 Madison
         Avenue, New York, NY 10017, Phone: (212) 545-4600, E-
         mail: isquith@whafh.com;

     (2) James V. Bashian, Law Offices of James V. Bashian,
         P.C., 500 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2700, New York, NY 10110,
         Phone: (212) 921-4110

     (3) Samuel Howard Rudman, Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia, Geller,
         Rudman & Robbins, LLP, 200 Broadhollow Road, Ste. 406,
         Melville, NY 11747, Phone: 631-367-7100,
         Fax: 631-367-
         1173, E-mail: srudman@cauleygeller.com;  

     (3) Steven G. Schulman of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman
         LLP (NYC), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY 10119,
         Phone: 212-946-9356, Fax: 212-273-4406, E-mail:
         sschulman@milbergweiss.com;

     (4) Jeffrey Craig Block, Julie Richmond, Leslie F. Stern,
         Wendy H. Zoberman, Berman, DeValerio, Pease, Tabacco,
         Burt & Pucillo, One Liberty Square, Boston, MA 02109,
         Phone: (617) 542-8300

     (5) Max W. Berger, Daniel L. Berger, Javier Bleichmar, John
         P. Coffey, Joseph Alberto Fonti, John Anthony Kehoe, J.
         Erik Sandstedt, Bernstein, Litowitz Berger & Grossmann
         LLP, 1285 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10019,
         Phone: (212) 554-1400, E-mail: javier@blbglaw.com,
         sean@blbglaw.com, joseph@blbglaw.com, John@blbglaw.com;

     (6) Aaron Lee Brody, Stull Stull & Brody, 6 East 45th
         Street, 5th Floor, New York, NY 10017, Phone:
         212-687-7230, Fax: 212-4902022, E-mail: ssbny@aol.com


BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: MO Court Mulls Securities Suit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri head Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.'s motion to dismiss the
class action filed against it, D & K Healthcare Resources, Inc.
(D & K) and several current and former D & K directors and
officers on behalf of purchasers of D & K stock between August
10, 2000 and September 16, 2002.

The class action complaint alleges that the Company participated
in fraudulently inflating the value of D & K stock by allegedly
engaging in improper "channel-stuffing" agreements with D & K.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss this case on January 28,
2005.  The plaintiffs filed opposition to the motion to dismiss
on March 21, 2005, and the Company's reply was filed on April
11, 2005. Under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act,
discovery is automatically stayed pending the outcome of the
motion to dismiss. The plaintiff filed a motion to partially
lift the automatic discovery stay on February 22, 2005. The
Company filed an opposition to the motion on March 4, 2005 and
plaintiff filed a reply on March 16, 2005. The court is
considering the motion.


BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Plaintiffs to File Amended NY ERISA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York has allowed plaintiffs to file a second amended
consolidated class action against Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. and
other defendants, alleging violations of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act (ERISA).

In December 2002 and the first quarter of 2003, the Company and
others were named as defendants in five class actions filed in
the U.S. District Courts for the Southern District of New York
and the District of New Jersey.  These actions have been
consolidated in the Southern District of New York under the
caption "In re Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. ERISA Litigation, 02 CV
10129 (LAP)."

An Amended Consolidated Complaint alleging a class period of
January 1, 1999 through March 10, 2003 was served on August 18,
2003.  The Amended Consolidated Complaint was brought on behalf
of four named plaintiffs and a putative class consisting of all
participants in the Bristol-Myers Squibb Company Savings and
Investment Program (Savings Plan) and their beneficiaries for
whose benefit the Savings Plan held and/or acquired Company
stock at any time during the class period (excluding the
defendants, their heirs, predecessors, successors and assigns).
The named defendants are the Company, the Bristol-Myers Squibb
Company Savings Plan Committee (Committee), thirteen individuals
who presently serve on the Committee or who served on the
Committee in the recent past, Charles A. Heimbold, Jr. and Peter
R. Dolan (the past and present Chief Executive Officers,
respectively, and the Company).

The Amended Consolidated Complaint generally alleges that the
defendants breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA during
the class period by, among other things, continuing to offer the
Company Stock Fund and Company stock as investment alternatives
under the Savings Plan; continuing to invest Company matching
contributions in the Company Stock Fund and Company stock; and
failing to disclose that investments in Company stock were
(allegedly) imprudent.  The Savings Plan's purchases of Company
stock after January 1, 1999 are alleged to have been
transactions prohibited by ERISA. Finally, Mr. Heimbold and Mr.
Dolan are alleged to have breached their fiduciary duties under
ERISA by failing to monitor the actions of the Committee.  These
ERISA claims are predicated upon factual allegations concerning,
among other things: the safety, efficacy and commercial
viability of VANLEV; the Company's sales incentives to certain
wholesalers and the inventory levels of those wholesalers; the
Company's investment in and relations with ImClone and ImClone's
product ERBITUX*; and alleged anticompetitive behavior in
connection with BUSPAR and TAXOL.  

There has not been significant discovery to date and discovery
is currently stayed. On October 2, 2003, the Company and all
other defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Consolidated
Complaint. The plaintiffs have opposed the motion to dismiss,
and the defendants have replied.  The motions to dismiss were
administratively withdrawn without prejudice.  

The suit is styled "In re Bristol-Myers Squibb ERISA Litigation,
case no. 1:02-cv-10129-LAP," filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, under Judge Loretta
A. Preska.  Representing the Company is Frederick Arthur Brodie
of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP (NY), 1540 Broadway, New
York, NY 10004, Phone: (212) 858-1628, Fax: (212) 858-1500, E-
mail: frederick.brodie@pillsburylaw.com.  Representing the
Company are Joseph H. Meltzer, Schiffrin & Barroway, L.L.P.,
Three Bala Plaza East, Suite 400 Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, Phone:
(610) 667-7706; and Curtis V. Trinko, 16 West 46th Street, New
York, NY 10036, Phone: (212) 490-9550.


BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Accelerated Discovery Started in AWP Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Accelerated discovery continues for five defendants, including
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. in the consolidated class action filed
against it and a number of other pharmaceutical manufacturers in
the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, styled "In re Pharmaceutical Industry Average
Wholesale Price Litigation, MDL No. 1456, Civ. Action No. 01-CV-
12257-PBS."

Several private class actions and actions brought by the Nevada,
Montana, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Kentucky, Illinois and Alabama
Attorneys General, the City of New York and several New York
counties were filed in federal and state courts relating to the
pricing of certain Company products.  The federal cases, and
some related state court cases that were removed to federal
courts, have been consolidated for pre-trial purposes under the
caption before United States District Court Judge Patti B. Saris
in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts.

On June 18, 2003, the private plaintiffs in the AWP
Multidistrict Litigation filed an Amended Master Consolidated
Complaint (Amended Master Complaint). The Amended Master
Complaint contains two sets of allegations against the Company.
First, it alleges that the Company's and many other
pharmaceutical manufacturers' reporting of prices for certain
drug products (20 listed drugs in the Company's case) had the
effect of falsely overstating the Average Wholesale Price (AWP)
published in industry compendia, which in turn improperly
inflated the reimbursement paid to medical providers,
pharmacists, and others who prescribed, administered or sold
those products to consumers.  Second, it alleges that the
Company and certain other defendant pharmaceutical manufacturers
conspired with one another in a program called the "Together Rx
Card Program" to fix AWPs for certain drugs made available to
consumers through the Program.  The Amended Master Complaint
asserts claims under the federal Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and antitrust statutes and
state consumer protection and fair trade statutes.

The Amended Master Complaint is brought on behalf of two main
proposed classes, whose definitions have been subject to further
amendment as the case has progressed. As of December 17, 2004,
those proposed classes may be summarized as:

     (1) all persons or entities who, from 1991 forward, paid or
         reimbursed all or part of a listed drug under Medicare
         Part B or under a private contract that expressly used
         AWP as a pricing standard and

     (2) all persons or entities who, from 2002 forward, paid or
         reimbursed any portion of the purchase price of a drug
         covered by the Together Rx Card Program based in whole
         or in part on AWP.

The first class is further divided into several proposed
subclasses depending on whether the listed drug in question is
physician-administered, self-administered, sold through a
pharmacy benefits manager or specialty pharmacy, or is a brand-
name or generic drug.  On September 3, 2004, plaintiffs in the
AWP Multidistrict Litigation moved for certification of a
proposed plaintiff class.  The parties briefed that motion, as
it related to the amended proposed definition of the first main
class and sub-classes discussed above, and motion was heard by
the Court on February 10, 2005.

The Company and other defendants moved to dismiss the Amended
Master Complaint on the grounds that it fails to state claims
under the applicable statutes.  On February 24, 2004, the Court
denied this motion in large part, although the Court dismissed
one of the plaintiffs' claims for failure to plead a cognizable
RICO "enterprise."  Accordingly, the Court required that the
Company and the other defendants answer the Amended Master
Complaint. The Court subsequently ordered that five defendants,
including the Company engage in accelerated discovery with
respect to the remaining allegations of the Amended Master
Complaint, other than the allegations related to Together Rx,
which are on a more extended discovery schedule. This
accelerated discovery continues for these five defendants until
August 2005.  In addition, the Company and the other defendants
have obtained discovery of the named plaintiffs and of several
non-parties, such as benefits consultants, the federal
government, and health insurers. The current schedule calls for
expert reports, expert depositions and summary judgment briefing
on liability issues during the second half of 2005 into early
2006.

The cases commenced by the Nevada, Montana, Pennsylvania,
Wisconsin, Illinois, Alabama and Kentucky Attorneys General (the
Attorneys General AWP Cases) and the cases commenced by New York
City and several New York counties (the New York City & County
AWP Cases) include fraud and consumer protection claims similar
to those in the Amended Master Complaint.  Certain of the
states, city and counties also have made additional allegations
that defendants, including the Company, have violated state
Medicaid statutes by, among other things, failing to provide the
states with adequate rebates required under federal law. The
Attorneys' General AWP Cases, other than the Montana action, are
proceeding in their respective state courts.

In a series of decisions in June, September, and October 2004,
affecting the Montana Attorney General's case and the New York
City & County AWP Cases which are proceeding in the AWP
Multidistrict Litigation in coordination with the private class
actions, the Court declined to find that the Medicaid rebate
claims were preempted by federal law, but nevertheless dismissed
many of the claims relating to "rebate" payments made by several
drug manufacturers, including those claims relating to the
Company as insufficiently pled.  The Court allowed to proceed
the state law claims that allege that the Company misreported
AWPs. The Company has filed its answer to the claims remaining
in the Montana Attorney General's complaint.

The Company also joined with other defendants in a motion to
dismiss the Pennsylvania Attorney General's action.  In a
decision filed February 1, 2005, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth
Court granted the motion to dismiss on the ground that the
plaintiff had failed to plead the complaint with the requisite
particularity. The Attorney General has since served an Amended
Complaint and the Commonwealth Court has established a briefing
schedule to consider defendants' objections to that complaint.

>On July 16, 2004, the Nevada court denied the Company's and
other defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint except as to
the state RICO claim and granted the Attorney General leave to
replead, in an opinion that was based on the prior rulings of
the AWP Multidistrict Litigation Court. The Company and other
defendants also have made, or may soon make, motions to dismiss
in the other Attorneys General AWP Cases.

The Company is also one of a number of defendants in a private
class action making AWP-based claims that was remanded from the
AWP Multidistrict Litigation to Arizona state court. An
individual, Robert J. Swanston, asserts claims under Arizona
state law on behalf of himself and an alleged class of persons
and entities in Arizona who paid for prescription drugs based on
AWP (the Swanston Action), which claims generally allege that
the defendant drug manufacturers have conspired to inflate AWPs.
By order dated August 5, 2004, the Arizona Court denied
defendants' motions to dismiss or stay the proceedings. However,
at the later request of counsel for the plaintiff, the Arizona
Court on March 10, 2005, issued a stay of the proceedings
pending the class determination in the AWP Multidistrict
Litigation.

The suit is styled "In re Pharmaceutical Industry Average
Wholesale Price Litigation, MDL No. 1456, Civ. Action No. 01-CV-
12257-PBS," filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts, under Judge Patti B. Saris.  
Representing the plaintiffs are David J. Bershad and J. Douglas
Richards of Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP, One
Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor New York, NY 10119, Phone:
212-594-5300; and Nicole Y. Brumsted, Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein, LLP, 175 Federal Street, 7th Floor Boston, MA 02110,
Phone: 617-720-5000.  Representing the Company are Kenneth D.
Klein and Thomas J. Sweeney, Hogan & Hartson, Biltmore Tower,
500 S Grand Ave. Suite 1900, Los Angeles, CA 90071-2611, Phone:
213-337-6700, Fax: 212-918-3100.


BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Plaintiffs Withdraw AL Drug Discounts Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the putative class action filed
against Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. and other drug manufacturers in
Alabama Superior Court.

On October 8, 2004, the Company was added as a defendant in a
putative class action previously commenced against other drug
manufacturers in federal court in Alabama. The case was brought
by two health care providers that are allegedly entitled under a
federal statute, Section 340B of the Public Health Service Act,
to discounted prices on prescription drugs dispensed to the poor
in the providers' local areas. The plaintiff health care
providers contend that they and an alleged class of other
providers authorized to obtain discounted prices under the
statute may in fact not have received the level of discounts to
which they are entitled.

The Amended Complaint against the Company and the other
manufacturers asserts claims directly under the federal statute,
as well as under state law for unjust enrichment and for an
accounting.  The Company has joined in a motion to dismiss the
Complaint that was filed by the original manufacturer defendants
and that has, with the court's approval been made applicable to
the Amended Complaint.

The Company was served with this complaint on March 23, 2004 and
removed the action to federal court. The action subsequently was
remanded back to state court. On March 5, 2005, the plaintiffs
voluntarily dismissed the Complaint but can reinstate the action
within one year.


BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Faces Unfair Competition Suit in CA Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., together with a number of other
pharmaceutical manufacturers, has been named as a defendant in
an action filed in California State Superior Court in Oakland,
styled "James Clayworth et al. v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company,
et al."

The suit alleges that the defendants have conspired to fix the
prices of pharmaceuticals by preventing the importation of
foreign drugs into the United States and asserting claims under
California's Cartwright Act and unfair competition law.  The
plaintiffs seek treble damages for any damages they have
sustained; restitution of any profit obtained by defendants
through charging artificially higher prices to plaintiffs; an
injunction barring the defendants from charging the plaintiffs
higher prices offered to other customers; an award of reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs; and any other relief the Court deems
proper.


BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Faces PPA Personal Injury Suit in W.D. WA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bristol-Myers Squibb continues to face consolidated personal
injury litigation filed in the United States District Court for
the Western District of Washington, concerning its products
which contain phenylpropanolamine (PPA).

In May 2000, Yale University published the results of its
Hemorrhagic Stroke Project, which concluded that there was
evidence of a suggestion that PPA may increase the risk of
hemorrhagic stroke in a limited population.  In November 2000,
the FDA issued a Public Health Advisory and requested that
manufacturers of PPA-containing products voluntarily cease
manufacturing and marketing them.  At that time, the only PPA-
containing products manufactured or sold by the Company were
COMTREX (liqui-gel formulations only) and NALDECON. On November
6, 2000, the Company, as well as other manufacturers of PPA-
containing products, discontinued the manufacture and marketing
of PPA-containing products and allowed customers to return any
unused product that they had in their possession.

In January 2001, the Company was served with its first PPA
lawsuit.  The Company currently is a defendant in approximately
31 personal injury lawsuits, filed on behalf of approximately 31
plaintiffs, in federal and state courts throughout the United
States. Many of these lawsuits involve multiple defendants.
Among other claims, plaintiffs allege that PPA causes
hemorrhagic and ischemic strokes, that the defendants were aware
of the risk, failed to warn consumers and failed to remove PPA
from their products.  Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive
damages.

All of the federal cases have been transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington and
consolidated as "In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products
Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1407."  The court has denied all
motions for class certification and there are no class action
lawsuits pending against the Company in this litigation.

On June 18, 2003, the District Court issued a ruling effectively
limiting the plaintiffs' 7claims to hemorrhagic and ischemic
strokes. Rulings favorable for the defendants included the
inadmissibility of expert testimony in cases alleging injuries
occurring more than three days after ingestion of a PPA-
containing product and cases involving psychoses, seizures and
cardiac injuries. The Company expects to be dismissed from
additional cases in which its products were never used by the
plaintiffs and where plaintiffs' alleged injury occurred more
than three days after ingestion of a PPA-containing product or
where a plaintiff suffered from cardiac injuries or psychoses.


BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: WV Court Approves SERZONE Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
West Virginia granted preliminary approval to the settlement of
litigation filed against Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. related to its
antidepressant drug, SERZONE, over concerns that the drug might
cause possible liver failure.

The Company launched SERZONE in May 1994 in Canada and in March
1995 in the United States.  In December 2001, the Company added
a black box warning to its SERZONE label warning of the
potential risk of severe hepatic events including possible liver
failure and the need for transplantation and risk of death.
Within several months of the black box warning being added to
the package insert for SERZONE, a number of lawsuits, including
several class actions, were filed against the Company.

Plaintiffs allege that the Company knew or should have known
about the hepatic risks posed by SERZONE and failed to
adequately warn physicians and users of the risks. They seek
compensatory and punitive damages, medical monitoring, and
refunds for the costs of purchasing SERZONE.  In May 2004, the
Company announced that, following an evaluation of the
commercial potential of the product after generic entry into the
marketplace and rapidly declining brand sales, it had decided to
discontinue the manufacture and sale of the product effective
June 14, 2004.

At present, the Company has approximately 214 lawsuits, on
behalf of approximately 2,115 plaintiffs, pending against it in
federal and state courts throughout the United States. Twenty-
seven of these cases are pending in New York State Court and
have been consolidated for pretrial discovery. In addition,
there are approximately 763 alleged, but unfiled, claims of
injury associated with SERZONE.  In August 2002, the federal
cases were transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of West Virginia and consolidated as "In
Re Serzone Products Liability Litigation, MDL 1477."  

In June 2003, the Court dismissed the class claims in all but
two of the class action complaints.  A purported class action
has also been filed in Illinois.  Although a number of the class
action complaints filed against the Company had sought the
certification of one or more personal injury classes, the
remaining class action complaints do not seek the certification
of personal injury classes. In addition to the cases filed in
the United States, there are four national class actions filed
in Canada and a third-party notice filed in Germany.

Without admitting any wrongdoing or liability, on or around
October 15, 2004, the Company entered into a settlement
agreement with respect to all claims in the United States and
its territories regarding SERZONE. The settlement agreement
embodies a schedule of payments dependent upon whether the class
member has developed a qualifying medical condition, whether he
or she can demonstrate that they purchased or took SERZONE, and
whether certain other criteria apply. The settlement is subject
to final approval by the District Court and any appeals
therefrom.  

Pursuant to the settlement agreement, plaintiffs' class counsel
filed a class action complaint seeking relief for the settlement
class. On November 18, 2004, the Court conditionally certified
the temporary settlement class and preliminarily approved the
settlement.  The opt-out period ended on April 8, 2005.
Potential class members can enter the settlement up to and
including May 13, 2005.  The fairness hearing is scheduled for
June 30, 2005.  Pursuant to the terms of the proposed
settlement, all claims will be dismissed, the litigation will be
terminated, the defendants will receive releases, and the
Company commits to paying at least $70 million to funds for
class members.  Class Counsel will have the right to petition
the court for an award of reasonable attorneys' fees and
expenses; the fees will be paid by the Company and will not
reduce the amount of money paid to class members as part of the
settlement. The Company may terminate the settlement based upon
the number of claims submitted or the number of purported class
members who opt not to participate in the settlement and instead
pursue individual claims.


CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Appeals Court Reverses MD Lawsuit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the
dismissal of the consolidated class action filed against Cellco
Partnership concerning wireless phone use, in the United States
District Court for the District of Maryland.

In addition, between April and June 2001, the Company and
various other wireless carriers and various phone manufacturers
became defendants in statewide class actions relating to
wireless phone use, including:

     (1) Farina, et al. v. Nokia Inc., et al., Pennsylvania
         Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, filed April
         19, 2001;

     (2) Gilliam, et al. v. Nokia Inc., et al., New York Supreme
         Court, Bronx County, filed April 23, 2001;

     (3) Pinney, et al. v. Nokia Inc., et al., Maryland Circuit
         Court, Baltimore County, filed April 19, 2001; and

     (4) Gimpelson et al. v. Nokia Inc., et al., Georgia
         Superior Court, Fulton County, filed June 8, 2001

     (5) Naquin v. Nokia, Inc., et al

Plaintiffs in these suits claim that wireless phones are
defective and unreasonably dangerous because the defendants
failed to include a proper warning about alleged adverse health
effects, failed to encourage the use of a headset, and failed to
include a headset with the phone.  

The Court of Appeals held that there was no federal jurisdiction
over the "Pinney, Farina, Gilliam, and Gimpelson" actions (to
which the Partnership is a party) and directed that the actions
be remanded to state court.  The Fourth Circuit also reversed
the District Court holding that the action (to which the
Partnership is not a party) is preempted by federal law. On
April 12, 2005, the Fourth Circuit denied defendants' petition
for rehearing en banc.

The suit is styled "In re Wireless Telephone Personal Injury
Litigation, et al, case no. 1:01-md-01421-CCB," filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Maryland under
Judge Catherine C. Blake.  Representing the plaintiffs is Mayer
Morganroth, Morganroth and Morganroth PLLC 3000 Town Cntr Ste
1500 Southfield, MI 48075 Phone: 1-248-355-3084 Fax:
1-248-355-3017, E-mail: jgurfinkel@morganrothlaw.com.  
Representing the Company are:

     (i) Brian Paul Brooks, O Melveny and Myers LLP 1625 I St NW
         Washington, DC 20006, Phone: 1-202-383-5300, Fax:
         1-202-383-5414, E-mail: bbrooks@omm.com

    (ii) Scott Elder, Laura Owens, Jane Fugate Thorpe, Alston
         and Bird LLP 1201 W Peachtree St One Atlantic Ctr
         Atlanta, GA 30309-3424 Phone: 1-404-881-7000 Fax:
         1-404-881-7777, E-mail: jthorpe@alston.com

   (iii) M King Hill, III, John Henry Lewin, Jr., Venable LLP
         210 Allegheny Ave PO Box 5517 Towson, MD 21285-5517,
         Phone: 1-410-494-6200, Fax: 1-410-821-0147, E-mail:
         mkhill@venable.com or jhlewin@venable.com  


CHARLES SCHWAB: Plaintiffs Voluntarily Dismiss MD Stock Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the consolidated amended
securities class action complaint filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Maryland against Charles
Schwab Corporation (CSC) and:

     (1) Charles Schwab & Co., Inc.,  

     (2) U.S. Trust Company,  

     (3) U.S. Trust N.A. (National Association),  

     (4) United States Trust Company of New York and

     (5) certain of the Company's and U.S. Trust's current and
         former officers and directors

Plaintiffs had alleged violations of federal securities laws for
failure to disclose alleged improper mutual fund trading  
practices, and were seeking unspecified compensatory damages.  


COMDISCO INC.: Plaintiffs File Amended Shareholder Lawsuit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a first amended class action against specific
former members of Comdisco, Inc.'s board of directors in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.     

David Coons filed the suit on December 30, 2004, in which he
seeks class action status on behalf of himself and certain other
former Company employees who participated in the Company's
Shared Investment Plan (SIP).  On March 18, 2005, Mr. Coons
filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint in the same
proceedings.  

The Company has referred the complaint to its insurance
carriers.  However, under the terms and provisions of its First
Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization certain of the named
defendants may be entitled to indemnification.  If the insurance
carriers do not provide for the defense of the complaint, then
the Company may have to provide for the payment of legal fees
and other expenses related to defending some of the defendants
under the indemnification obligation.


CONSECO INC.: CA Court Grants Certification To Consumer Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California certified a nationwide and statewide California class
in the lawsuit filed against Conseco, Inc. and certain of its
subsidiaries, including principally Conseco Life Insurance
Company.

Numerous purported class action and individual lawsuits were
initially filed, alleging, among other things, breach of
contract, fraud and misrepresentation with regard to a change
made in the way monthly deductions are calculated for insurance
coverage.  These cases relate to life insurance policies sold
primarily under the names "Lifestyle" and "Lifetime".  
Approximately 86,500 policies were subject to the change.

Many of these nationwide purported class action lawsuits were
filed in Federal courts across the United States.  The Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated these lawsuits
into the case now referred to as "In Re Conseco Life Insurance
Co. Cost of Insurance Litigation, Cause No. MDL 1610 (Central
District, California)."  The complaint seeks unspecified
compensatory, punitive and exemplary damages and specifically
alleges, among other things, that the change made in the way
monthly deductions are calculated for insurance coverage enabled
the Company to add $360 million to its balance sheet.

On April 26, 2005, the Judge issued an order certifying a
nationwide class on the claims for breach of contract and
injunctive relief. On April 27, 2005, the Judge issued an order
certifying a statewide California class for injunctive and
restitutionary relief pursuant to California statute section
17200 and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, but
denied certification on the claims for fraud and intentional
misrepresentation and fraudulent concealment.

Other cases now pending include purported nationwide class
actions in Indiana and California state courts.  Those cases
filed in Indiana state courts have been consolidated into the
case now referred to as "Alene P. Mangelson, et al. v. Conseco
Life Insurance Company, Cause No. 29D01-0403-PL-211 (Superior
Court, Hamilton County, Indiana)."  Those cases filed in
California state courts have been consolidated and are being
coordinated under the new caption "Cost of Insurance Cases,
Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding No. 4384 (Judicial
Council of California)."  

On January 25, 2005, an Amended Complaint making similar
allegations was filed in the case captioned "William Schwartz v.
Jeffrey Landerman, Diann P. Urbanek, Metro Insurance, Inc.,
Samuels Jacky Insurance Agency, Conseco Life Insurance Company,
Successor to Philadelphia Life Insurance Company, Case no. GD
00-011432 (Court of Common Pleas, Allegheny County,
Pennsylvania)."  Additionally, Mr. Schwartz filed a purported
nationwide class action captioned "William Schwartz and Rebecca
R. Frankel, Trustee of the Robert M. Frankel Irrevocable
Insurance Trust v. Conseco Life Ins. Co. et al., Case No. GD 05-
3742 (Court of Common Pleas, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania)."

The suit is styled "In re Conseco Life Insurance Company Cost of
Insurance Litigation, case no. 2:04-ml-01610-AHM-Mc," filed in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California, under Judge A. Howard Matz.  Representing the
Company is Kirkland & Ellis, 777 S Figueroa St, Ste 3700, Los
Angeles, CA 90017, Phone: 213-680-8400.  Representing the
plaintiffs are Christopher Casper and John Yanchunis, James
Hoyer Newcomer & Smiljanich, 1 Urban Centre, 4830 W Kennedy
Blvd, Ste 550, Tampa, FL 33609, Phone: 813-286-4100; and Timothy
P. Dillon of Timothy P. Dillon Law Offices, 361 Forest Avenue,
Suite 205, Laguna Beach, CA 92651, Phone: 949-376-2800, E-mail:
timothy@dillonlaw.net.


CONSECO LIFE: TX Court Grants Final Approval To Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The County Court of Cameron County, Texas granted final approval
to the settlement of a Texas statewide class action filed
against Conseco Life Insurance Company, Conseco Services, LLC
and Pete Ramirez III.  The suit is styled "Lawrence Onderdonk
and Yolanda Carrizales v. Conseco Life Insurance Company and
Pete Ramirez, III Cause No. 2003-CCL-102-C."

On February 12, 2004, the complaint was amended to allege a
purported nationwide class and to name Conseco Services as an
additional defendant. On March 5, 2004, the complaint was
amended a second time naming additional plaintiffs. The
purported class consists of all former Massachusetts General
Flexible Premium Adjustable Life Insurance Policy policyholders
who were converted to Conseco Life Flexible Premium Adjustable
Life Insurance Policies and whose accumulated values in the
Massachusetts General policies were applied to first year
premiums on the Conseco Life policies.  The complaint alleged,
among other things, civil conspiracy to convert the accumulated
cash values of the plaintiffs and the class, and the violation
of insurance laws nationwide.

The parties have reached a settlement agreement on a class wide
basis requiring a payment that accrued March 31, 2005. On
October 14, 2004, the judge signed an order preliminarily
approving the settlement. The hearing for final approval was
held January 31, 2005 and the final order approving class
settlement became effective March 31, 2005.


CONSECO LIFE: Plaintiffs Voluntarily Dismiss NV Consumer Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed with prejudice a purported
nationwide class action filed against Conseco Life Insurance
Company, seeking unspecified compensatory damages in the
District Court of Clark County, Nevada.  

The suit, styled "Emma Gilbertson individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. Conseco Life Insurance Company
f/k/a Philadelphia Life Insurance Company, Cause No. A492738,"
alleges breach of contract pertaining to notice of premium
increases.

The suit is styled "Emma Gilbertson individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated v. Conseco Life Insurance Company
f/k/a Philadelphia Life Insurance Company, Cause No. A492738,
filed in the District Court of Clark County, Nevada under Judge
Michelle Leavitt.  Representing plaintiff Emma Gilbertson is
Attorney George M. Albright.  Representing the Company is
Attorney Patrick Rose.


COX COMMUNICATIONS: Appeals Court Mulls Investor Suit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has fully
briefed plaintiffs' appeal of the dismissal of the consolidated
securities class action filed against Cox Communications, Inc.
and David Woodrow, the Company's former Executive Vice President
for Business Development.  Mr. Woodrow formerly served on the
Excite@Home board of directors.

Jerrold Schaffer and Kevin J. Yourman, on May 26, 2000 and May
30, 2000, respectively, filed class action lawsuits in the
Superior Court of California, San Mateo County, on behalf of
themselves and all other stockholders of Excite@Home as of March
28, 2000, seeking to enjoin consummation of a March 28, 2000
letter agreement among Excite@Home's principal investors,
including the Company, and unspecified compensatory damages.

The plaintiffs assert that the defendants breached purported
fiduciary duties of care, candor and loyalty to the plaintiffs
by entering into the letter agreement and/or taking certain
actions to facilitate the consummation of the transactions
contemplated by the letter agreement.  On February 26, 2001, the
Court stayed both actions, which had been previously
consolidated, on grounds of forum non-conveniens.

A related suit styled "Linda Ward, et al. v. At Home Corporation
(No. 418233)" was filed on September 6, 2001, in the same court.
On February 7, 2002, the Court consolidated the Ward action with
the Schaffer/Yourman action, thereby also staying the Ward
action.  On June 18, 2002, the court granted plaintiffs' motion
to lift the stay and authorized discovery to proceed regarding
the Company's pending motion to dismiss for lack of personal
jurisdiction.

On September 10, 2002, the United States Bankruptcy Court for
the Northern District of California in the Excite@Home
bankruptcy proceeding held that the claims in the suits were
derivative and, thus, constituted the exclusive property of the
Excite@Home bankruptcy estate. The Bankruptcy Court thereafter
ordered the plaintiffs to dismiss the suits. Plaintiffs
subsequently appealed the Bankruptcy Court's decision to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California. On September 29, 2003, the Court affirmed the order
of the Bankruptcy Court. On October 27, 2003, plaintiffs filed a
notice of appeal of the Court's decision to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and briefing of the
appeal has concluded.


COX COMMUNICATIONS: DE Court Approves Securities Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware granted final
approval to the settlement of the consolidated securities class
action filed against Cox Communications, Inc., styled "caption
In re Cox Communications, Inc. Shareholders' Litigation,
Consolidated C.A. No. 613-N."  The complaint also names as
defendants:

     (1) Cox Enterprises, Inc. (CEI),

     (2) Cox Holdings,

     (3) Barbara Cox Anthony,

     (4) Anne Cox Chambers, and

     (5) the members of the Cox Board of Directors

Eighteen putative class action lawsuits were filed, purportedly
on behalf of the public stockholders of the Company, challenging
CEI's August 2, 2004 proposal to acquire all of the issued and
outstanding shares of Cox Class A common stock not beneficially
owned by CEI, for $32.00 in cash per share.  Fifteen of the
lawsuits were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware.  Following a hearing held on August 24, 2004, the
Delaware court consolidated the actions.

The Delaware complaint alleges, among other things, that the
price proposed to be paid in the proposed transaction was
unfairly low, that the initiation and timing of the proposed
transaction were in breach of the defendants' purported duties
of loyalty and constituted unfair dealing, that the structure of
the proposed transaction was inequitably coercive, that
defendants caused materially misleading and incomplete
information to be disseminated to the public holders of the Cox
shares, and that the Board defendants would breach their duty of
care and good faith by approving the proposed transaction and by
purportedly attempting to disenfranchise the holders of the Cox
shares by circumventing certain alleged contractual voting
rights.  The Delaware complaint seeks an injunction against the
proposed transaction, or, if it is consummated, rescission of
the transaction and imposition of a constructive trust, as well
as money damages, an accounting, attorneys' fees, expenses and
other relief.

The remaining three putative class action lawsuits were filed in
the Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia, styled "Brody v.
Cox Communications, Inc., et al., 2004CV89198," "Golombuski v.
Cox Communications, Inc., et al., 2004CV89216," and "Durgin v.
Cox Communications, Inc., et al., 2004CV89301."  The Georgia
actions were purportedly brought on behalf of the public holders
of shares of Cox Class A common stock against the Company, CEI
and the Cox Board, although four counts of the Golombuski
complaint were brought derivatively on behalf of the Company
against the Cox Board and CEI.  With the exception of the Durgin
action, which did not assert claims against CEI, the Georgia
actions each allege that CEI and the Cox Board breached their
fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed transaction,
which plaintiffs allege proposed a purchase price which was
below the fair value of the Cox shares.  On August 18, 2004,
plaintiffs in the Georgia actions moved for entry of a case
management order to consolidate the Georgia Actions under the
caption "In re Cox Communications, Inc. Shareholder Litigation,
C.A. No. 2004-CV-89198."

On October 19, 2004, the Company and CEI publicly announced that
they had entered into a Merger Agreement pursuant to which the
shares of Cox Class A common stock not beneficially owned by CEI
would be proposed to be acquired for $34.75 per share by means
of a tender offer and follow-on merger.  On October 18, 2004,
prior to the announcement of the Merger Agreement, the parties
to the Delaware action agreed upon and executed a memorandum of
understanding.  

Pursuant to the Delaware memorandum of understanding, the
parties to the Delaware action agreed, subject to the conditions
set forth therein, to enter into a stipulation of settlement, to
cooperate in public disclosures related to the Merger Agreement,
and to use their best efforts to gain approval of the proposed
settlement terms by the Delaware court.  Also on October 18,
2004, the parties to the Georgia actions entered into a
memorandum of understanding, setting forth the agreement by the
parties for the dismissal of the Georgia actions.


Pursuant to the Delaware memorandum of understanding and the
Georgia memorandum of understanding, defendants provided
plaintiffs' counsel in the Delaware action and the Georgia
actions with confirmatory discovery relating to the Merger
Agreement, including additional document production and
depositions, and that the parties agreed to suspend all other
proceedings in the actions except any settlement related
proceedings in Delaware and Georgia.

On November 18, 2004, the court entered a scheduling order in
the Delaware action. The scheduling order preliminarily
certified the Delaware action as a class action on behalf of a
class consisting of all record and beneficial holders of Cox
shares (other than CEI and its subsidiaries), from and including
August 2, 2004 through and including the date of the
consummation of the merger, and certain persons related to the
class members.  The defendants in the Delaware action are
excluded from the class.

On January 13, 2005, an individual shareholder and several
mutual funds who purportedly were members of the plaintiff class
filed a joint objection to the requested attorneys' fees sought
by plaintiffs' counsel, but did not object to the proposed
settlement itself.  On March 16, 2005, the Delaware Court of
Chancery held a hearing at which the court considered the merits
of the proposed settlement of the Delaware action. On March 18,
2005, the Delaware court entered a final order approving the
proposed settlement, certifying the requested class, and
dismissing the claims asserted against the defendants with
prejudice.  The time to appeal this order has expired, and no
appeal was taken. The court separately considered the
plaintiffs' pending request for attorneys' fees on May 9, 2005.

Pursuant to the Georgia memorandum of understanding, the parties
to the Georgia actions have agreed jointly to seek the dismissal
with prejudice of the Georgia actions within two business days
of the date that the Delaware court's orders approving the
settlement and addressing the Delaware plaintiffs' request for
attorneys' fees become final and are no longer subject to
further appeal or review.  In addition, in connection with the
joint motion, the plaintiffs in the Georgia actions will seek
the Georgia court's authorization for the Company to satisfy an
award of attorneys' fees.


EMPIRE DISTRICT: Plaintiffs Appeal KS Electric Suit Dismissal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the United States District Court for the
District of Kansas' dismissal of the class action filed against
The Empire District Electric Company, styled "Flint Hills
Tallgrass Prairie Heritage Foundation, Inc. v. Scottish Power,
PLC, et al., No. 05-1025JTM."

On January 24, 2005, Flint Hills Tallgrass Prairie Heritage
Foundation, Inc. filed a purported class action complaint
against the Company and:

     (1) Scottish Power, PLC,

     (2) PacificCorp,

     (3) PPM Energy, Inc.,

     (4) Greenlight Energy, Inc. and

     (5) Elk River Windfarm LLC

The plaintiffs seek various forms of declaratory and injunctive
relief under the United States and Kansas Constitutions as well
as various statutory and common law bases. Plaintiffs seek,
among other things, to enjoin the defendants from any
development or operation of industrial wind turbine electric
power generation facilities within the Flint Hills Tallgrass
Prairie Ecosystem and challenge the tax status of any such
facility.  

The complaint was dismissed with prejudice by the Court on
February 11, 2005.  A notice of appeal has been filed and
plaintiffs appeal brief was filed April 18, 2005.


FAB INDUSTRIES: DE Court Says No Violation of State Law in Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Delaware Court of Chancery ruled that Fab Industries' Inc.'s
management buy-out proposal was valid and did not violate state
law, in relation to a class action filed against the Company and
certain of its officers and directors.

On November 10, 2003, a class action complaint was filed,
asserting claims based on the management buy-out proposal at a
price allegedly lower than the cash value and book value of the
Company's shares which was an allegedly interested transaction,
the amendment to its Chief Executive Officer Samson Bitensky's
employment contract, and the Company's failure to file a
certificate of dissolution with the Delaware Secretary of State.
The complaint alleges such actions constitute violations of
defendants' fiduciary duties, as well as the provisions of the
Delaware General Corporation Law.  The complaint does not seek a
specific amount of damages, and seeks to enjoin defendants from
effectuating the planned management buyout.  The Company served
an answer to the complaint on December 11, 2003.  On each of
November 21 and November 26, 2003, additional class action
lawsuits were initiated against the Company in Delaware Chancery
Court, asserting substantially the same allegations as those
described above.

The Company believes that each of the claims described above is
without merit. Further, certain of the claims described above
have been rendered moot by the withdrawal of the preliminary
offer by the management-led buyout group to acquire the Company.

By petition dated September 9, 2004, plaintiff requested that
all of its claims be dismissed because they have been rendered
moot by the withdrawal of the management buy-out and there is no
current plan to effectuate a sale of the Company's assets.
Plaintiff also petitioned the Court for an award of reasonable
attorney's fees in the amount of $300,000 and attorney's
expenses of $13,794.05 (the "Fee Petition") because plaintiff's
claim conferred a benefit on the Company's public stockholders
by preventing the consummation of the proposed management buy-
out and preserving the value of the public stockholders'
investment in the Company's stock. The Company opposed the
petition.

On December 29, 2004 the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware denied the Fee Petition. The Court concluded that the
Fee Petition should be denied as plaintiff's claims either were
not meritorious when filed or, to the extent that they were,
they are not yet moot.

Following that decision, plaintiff moved for summary judgment on
its claims relating to the Company's alleged failure to timely
file a certificate of dissolution and seeking a declaration that
the plan of dissolution (the "Plan") is invalid for failure to
require a shareholder vote before the sale of all of the
Company's assets. The motions were fully briefed and argued
before the Court on April 12, 2005. On May 2, 2005, the court
issued its opinion holding that the Plan is valid in its
entirety and that the Company has not violated Delaware law by
not yet filing its certificate of dissolution.  The court stated
that the Company may negotiate and agree to a sale before the
certificate of dissolution is filed, but that the sale cannot be
consummated until the certificate of dissolution has become
effective. The court concluded that once the dissolution becomes
effective, the Company may consummate a sale of its assets
without a shareholder vote.


FLORIDA: FDA Investigating Source of Contaminated Fresh Basil
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is initiating an
investigation to determine the source of several clusters of a
gastrointestinal illness known as cyclosporiasis that is
associated with fresh basil served in Florida during mid-March
through mid-April. Known as a traceback, the investigation will
work to locate the source of the contaminated produce.

The Florida Department of Health asked FDA on June 2, 2005, to
begin the traceback after results of an epidemiological
investigation implicated fresh basil as the source of illness in
Florida. The Florida Department of Health has 293 laboratory-
confirmed cases in 32 Florida counties during March and April of
this year. The outbreak includes several clusters and a large
number of sporadic cases.

"FDA is aggressively working with our federal and state partners
to determine the source of the contaminated product and taking
appropriate action to protect the public," said Dr. Robert
Brackett, Director of the FDA's Center for Food Safety and
Applied Nutrition.

Cyclosporiasis is caused by the ingestion of the Cyclospora
parasite and results in the infection of the small intestine. It
causes watery diarrhea with frequent, sometimes explosive, bowel
movements. Other symptoms include loss of appetite, substantial
weight loss, stomach cramps, nausea, vomiting, muscle aches,
low-grade fever and fatigue. Symptoms usually develop about a
week after consuming the contaminated food. Cyclospora infection
can be treated with appropriate antibiotic therapy. Individuals
experiencing these symptoms after consuming basil products are
advised to consult their physicians and notify their local
health departments.

In order to help reduce the chances of infection from consuming
fresh fruit and vegetables, consumers are reminded of the
importance of washing all fresh fruit and vegetables, including
fresh herbs, under running tap water before eating them.


HARRAH'S ENTERTAINMENT: CA High Court OKs Lawsuit Over False Ads
----------------------------------------------------------------
The California Supreme Court ruled in the case styled "Snowney
v. Harrah's Entertainment, Inc." that California residents could
file a suit in their own state courts against the Nevada-based
casino for false advertising and deceptive business practices,
The Associated Press reports.

In a unanimous opinion, the state's seven high court justices
wrote that even though Nevada casinos might not have any
properties in California, that state's courts have jurisdiction
in such cases because Harrah's Entertainment Inc. advertises
heavily in California and receives a significant amount of its
business from Californians.  Individuals familiar with matter
told AP that the ruling could have broad implications because of
the large number of Californians who visit Nevada hotel-casinos
each year.

The high court ruling stems from a 2002 class action suit filed
by a Los Angeles area man against a group of Harrah's
properties. Court documents reveal that in 2001, Frank Snowney
claimed that he made a reservation at a Harrah's resort, which
said the room would cost $50 a night plus room tax. However,
when Mr. Snowney paid his bill it included a $3 energy
surcharge, according to him, Harrah's never disclosed the charge
when he booked the room.  In his complaint, Ms. Snowney accused
Harrah's of deceptive business practices, breach of contract and
unjust enrichment.

The Company answered the suit, saying that the lawsuit be
quashed by arguing, in part, that it didn't have any businesses
or bank accounts in California, so the State didn't have
jurisdiction. The trial court agreed, however the California
Court of Appeals reversed that decision, which the Supreme Court
affirmed.

Mr. Snowney's California lawyers, Edwin Schreiber and his son,
Eric, told AP that the decision allows them to move forward with
their case in Los Angeles Superior Court. "We're still allowed
to pursue it. That in itself was a big victory," the elder
Schreiber adds. He cautioned though that Harrah's could take its
case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Mr. Schreiber also told AP that he had no idea how many
Californians had paid the surcharge because the case was thrown
out before any discovery was completed. But he pointed out that
if Harrah's loses this case, it could end up paying a hefty
price.

The case is styled, Snowney v. Harrah's Entertainment, Inc.
S124286, which is currently pending in the Supreme Court of the
State of California. The plaintiff, Frank Snowney, is
represented by Edwin A Schreiber, Esq. and Eric C. Schreiber of
Schreiber & Schreiber, Inc., Mail: 16501 Ventura Blvd., Suite
401, Encinco, CA, 91436-2068. The defendant, Harrah's
Entertainment is represented by Robert W. Fischer, Esq. and
Andrea K. Pallios, Esq. of Fulbright & Jaowrski, LLP, Mail: 865
S. Figueroa St., 29th Floor, Los Angeles, CA, 90017.


HERBALIFE INTERNATIONAL: CA Consumers File Unfair Trade Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Herbalife International, Inc. and certain of its independent
distributors face a purported class action lawsuit filed
February 17, 2005 in the Superior Court of California, County of
San Francisco, styled "Minton v. Herbalife International, et
al."  

The plaintiff is challenging the marketing practices of certain
of the Company's independent distributors and the Company under
various state laws prohibiting "endless chain schemes,"
"insufficient disclosure in assisted marketing plans, unfair and
deceptive business practices, and fraud and deceit."  The
plaintiff alleges that the Freedom Group system operated by
certain independent distributors of the Company products places
too much emphasis on recruiting and encourages excessively large
purchases of product and promotional materials by distributors.  
The plaintiff also alleges that Freedom Group pressured
distributors to disseminate misleading promotional materials.  
The plaintiff seeks to hold the Company vicariously liable for
the actions of its independent distributors and is seeking
damages and injunctive relief.  

The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to the
suit.  It filed a motion on April 8, 2005, which the plaintiff
is not opposing, to transfer the case to the Los Angeles County
Superior Court.  


HERBALIFE INTERNATIONAL: Tablet Link To Liver Illness Contested
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Israeli Ministry of Health (Israel MOH) stated that they
have not found any causal link between Herbalife International,
Inc.'s Sesame & Herb tablet product and liver dysfunction,
despite the continuation of its investigation.

The Company voluntarily elected to temporarily withdraw its
Sesame & Herb tablet product from the Israeli market in February
2005.  This product, which has been on the market since 1989, is
sold only in Israel.  The Company's voluntary decision to
temporarily withdraw this product accompanied the initiation of
a review by the Israeli Ministry of Health (the "Israel MOH") of
a small number of anecdotal case reports of individuals having
liver dysfunction who had also consumed Herbalife products.  
Company scientists and medical doctors are closely cooperating
with the Ministry of Health to facilitate this ongoing review.

In May, 2005, the Israel MOH issued a press release stating that
although their investigation was continuing, no causal link has
been shown between the consumption of Herbalife products and
liver function abnormalities. In addition, the Israel MOH
requested that individuals consuming or intending to consume
Herbalife products obtain liver function tests before and one
month after beginning their use, and that persons with liver
function disorders refrain from consuming dietary supplements.  

Independent analysis of the Company's Israeli products has
confirmed that Herbalife products do not contain any substances
indicated by the Israel MOH as being of concern in relation to
this small number of reported cases of liver dysfunction.  


HIBERNIA CORPORATION: Investors Sue V. Capital One Merger in LA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hibernia Corporation faces a class action filed in the Civil
District Court for the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana, on
behalf of its shareholders.  The suit also names as defendants
each of the members of the Company's Board of Directors in
connection with the proposed merger of the Company with the
Capital One Financial Corporation.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the directors of
the Company named in the complaint breached their fiduciary
duties by failing to maximize shareholder value, and by creating
deterrents to third-party offers (including by agreeing to pay a
termination fee to Capital One in certain circumstances under
the merger agreement).  Among other things, the complaint seeks
class action status, a court order enjoining Hibernia and its
directors from proceeding with or consummating the merger, or
any other business combination with a third party, a court order
rescinding the merger agreement and any of its terms to the
extent already implemented and the payment of attorneys' and
experts' fees.


LIBERTY NATIONAL: To Appeal Certification of AL Race Bias Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Liberty National Life Insurance Company intends to appeal the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Alabama's ruling granting class certification to the
consolidated class action filed against it, involving
allegations of racially discriminatory pricing in the sale of
insurance to African-Americans.

Several lawsuits (both a large number of lawsuits brought by
individual plaintiffs and purported class action litigation with
extremely broad class periods and relief sought) were initially
filed, beginning with the filing on December 8, 1999 of "Moore v
Liberty National Life Insurance Company, Case No. CV-99-BU-3262-
S" in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of Alabama.  There are currently a total of 19 race-distinct
mortality cases with in excess of 700 named plaintiffs, which
have been consolidated in the "Moore" case that are pending in
the same court.  There is also one pending case in Alabama
Circuit Court (styled "Baldwin v. Liberty National Life
Insurance Company, Case No. CV 00-684"), which is currently
stayed pending disposition of the "Moore" case, and one
individual, multi-plaintiff lawsuit which was originally filed
in state court in Mississippi and subsequently transferred to
U.S. District Court for the North District of Mississippi.

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama
issued an order certifying a Rule 23(b)(2) plaintiff class in
the "Moore" case on March 31, 2004.  The Company moved the Court
to reconsider its class certification decision.  Plaintiffs also
sought to file an amended complaint and to have the Court
reconsider its decisions to deny class certification pursuant to
Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and to
exclude potential class members who purchased policies from
companies acquired by or in blocks of insurance business
reinsured by the Company.  

On March 31, 2005, the Court denied all of the above-mentioned
plaintiffs' motions and dismissed plaintiffs' Alabama state law
breach of contract claims. On that date, the Court also granted
the Company's motion in part by amending the class certification
order to clarify that the policies at issue are only those
policies issued by the Company and a former subsidiary, Service
Insurance Company of Alabama, to clarify the definition of
"industrial life" policies or "burial" policies, to eliminate
certification of plaintiffs' state law breach of contract claims
and to eliminate Rule 23(b)(2) certification of the plaintiffs'
punitive damages demand.  The Court denied the remainder of the
Company's motion.  The Company filed a petition with the United
States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit on April 12,
2005, seeking permission to appeal the U.S. District Court's
decision certifying the plaintiffs' class as a Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23 (b)(2) class.


LIBERTY NATIONAL: AL Court Refuses To Alter Settlement Judgment
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Barbour County Superior Court in Alabama denied the
objectors' motion to alter, amend or vacate its earlier final
judgment on class settlement and certification of the class
action filed against Liberty National Life Insurance Company and
Torchmark Corporation, on behalf of its policyholders.

A purported class action litigation was initially filed in the
Circuit Court of Choctaw County, Alabama on behalf of all
persons who currently or in the past were insured under Liberty
cancer policies which were no longer being marketed, regardless
of whether the policies remained in force or lapsed.  The suit,
styled "Roberts v. Liberty National Life Insurance Company, Case
No. CV-2002-009-B," was based on allegations of breach of
contract in the implementation of premium rate increases,
misrepresentation regarding the premium rate increases, fraud
and suppression concerning the closed block of business and
unjust enrichment.

On December 30, 2003 the Alabama Supreme Court issued an opinion
granting Liberty's and Torchmark's petition for a writ of
mandamus, concluding that the Choctaw Circuit Court did not have
subject matter jurisdiction and ordering that Circuit Court to
dismiss the action. The plaintiffs then filed their purported
class action litigation against Liberty and Torchmark in the
Circuit Court of Barbour County, Alabama on December 30, 2003,
styled "Roberts v. Liberty National Life Insurance Company,
Civil Action No. CV-03-0137."

On April 16, 2004 the parties filed a written Stipulation of
Agreement of Compromise and Settlement with the Barbour County,
Alabama Circuit Court seeking potential settlement of the
"Roberts" case.  A fairness hearing on the potential settlement
was held by the Barbour County Circuit Court on July 15, 2004.
After receipt of briefs on certain issues and submission
of materials relating to objections to the proposed settlement
to the Court-appointed independent special master, the Court
reconvened the previously-continued fairness hearing on
September 23, 2004. After the September 23, 2004 hearing, the
Court, after hearing from the objectors to the potential
settlement, ordered the appointment of an independent actuary to
report back to the Court on certain issues. The report of the
independent actuary was subsequently furnished to the special
master and the Court on a timely basis.

On November 22, 2004, the Court entered an order and final
judgment in "Roberts" whereby the Court consolidated "Roberts"
with "Robertson v. Liberty National Life Insurance Company, CV-
92-021" for purposes of the "Roberts" Stipulation of Settlement
and certified the "Roberts" class as a new subclass of the class
previously certified by that Court in "Robertson."  The Court
approved the Stipulation and Settlement and ordered and enjoined
Liberty to perform its obligations under the Stipulation.
Subject to the Stipulation, Liberty and Torchmark were
permanently enjoined from instituting, engaging or participating
in, maintaining, authorizing or continuing premium rate
increases inconsistent with the Stipulation; failing to
implement temporary premium waivers in accordance with the
Stipulation; failing to implement the new benefits procedure
described in the Stipulation; and failing to implement the
special schedules and special provisions of the Stipulation for
subclass members who have cancer and are receiving benefits and
for subclass members who have no other cancer or medical
insurance and/or are not covered by Medicare.

The Court dismissed plaintiffs' claims, released the defendants,
enjoined "Roberts" subclass members from any further prosecution
of released claims and retained continuing jurisdiction of all
matters relating to the "Roberts" settlement. In an order issued
February 1, 2005, the Court denied the objectors' motion to
alter, amend or vacate its earlier final judgment on class
settlement and certification. The Companies are implementing the
settlement terms.  On March 10, 2005, the "Roberts" plaintiffs
filed notice of appeal to the Alabama Supreme Court.


MANHATTAN NATIONAL: Continues To Face NM Consumer Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Manhattan National Life Insurance Company, a former subsidiary
of Conseco, Inc., continues to face a purported nationwide class
action seeking unspecified damages in the First Judicial
District Court of Santa Fe, New Mexico, styled "Robert Atencio
and Theresa Atencio, for themselves and all other similarly
situated v. Manhattan National Life Insurance Company, an Ohio
corporation, Cause No. D-0101-CV-2000-2817."

The suit alleges, among other things, fraud by non-disclosure of
additional charges for those policyholders paying via premium
modes other than annual.  Conseco, Inc. retained liability for
this litigation in connection with the sale of Manhattan
National Life in June 2002.


NAM TAI ELECTRONICS: Prepares To Face Rocco Shareholder Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nam Tai Electronics, Inc. ("Nam Tai" or the "Company") (NYSE:
NTE - News) continues to ready its defenses in the consolidated
action entitled Michael Rocco v. Nam Tai Electronics, Inc. et
al., Civil Action No. 03-CV-1148 ("the Rocco Action"), and
expects to participate in motion practice and oral arguments on
issues concerning the certification of the proposed class over
the next two months.

The Company took the deposition of lead plaintiff on the class
certification issues on May 6, 2005. Plaintiff filed his motion
seeking class certification on May 27, 2005. Nam Tai's response
to plaintiff's motion is due on June 20, 2005. The Court is
scheduled to hear oral argument on July 11, 2005.
  
The initial complaint in the Rocco Action was filed on February
20, 2003. In July 2003, this initial complaint was consolidated
with another complaint filed in April 2003 captioned A.J. &
Celine Steigler v. Nam Tai Electronics, Inc. et al. The
consolidated complaint was filed in July 2003 on behalf of a
putative class of persons who purchased the common shares of Nam
Tai from July 29, 2002 through February 18, 2003. The
consolidated complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and alleges that
material misrepresentations and/or omissions were made during
the alleged class period concerning the partial reversal of an
inventory provision and a charge to goodwill related to a
corporate transaction involving Nam Tai.

Nam Tai believes the Rocco Action to be wholly without merit and
intends to defend the case vigorously to protect its name and
the interests of its shareholders.


NEW YORK: Deal Reached in Freelance Authors' Infringement Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement was reached in a class action lawsuit alleging that
commercial electronic databases and certain print publishers
infringed the copyrights of freelance authors.

The lawsuit alleges that the print publishers first published
the works with the authors' permission and then sold them to the
electronic databases, which reproduced, displayed, sold and/or
distributed the authors' works without the authors' permission.

The Settlement applies to English language literary works that
were reproduced on a commercial electronic database without the
authors' permission. Writers may be eligible to participate in
the Settlement even if the works were not registered with the
U.S. Copyright Office, and even if they were originally
published outside the U.S. This Settlement also covers English
language works in Canadian publications and Canadian editions of
non- Canadian publications. Excluded are works-for-hire and
works for which the author granted electronic rights to the
original publisher.

A final fairness hearing will be held on the proposed settlement
on July 28, 2005 at 10:00 a.m. before the Honorable George B.
Daniels, U.S. District Court, Courtroom 618, 40 Centre Street,
New York, NY, 10007.

For more details, visit http://www.copyrightclassaction.com.


PALMONE INC.: Settles Suit Over Defective m100, m105, m125 PDAs
---------------------------------------------------------------
PalmOne, Inc. (formerly known as Palm, Inc.) reached a proposed
settlement in the class action lawsuit, styled Chet Taylor V.
Palm, Inc., which involves the m100, m105 and m125
handhelds/Personal Digital Assistants (PDA).

The suit, which was filed in the Superior Court of California,
County of Los Angeles alleged that the PDAs might be defective
in that they sometimes lose data during the process of replacing
batteries even when the user follows Palm's recommended
procedure. The problem stemmed from bad backup capacitors in the
affected units.

In addition, the suit alleged that Palm failed to communicate
and disclose certain facts and circumstances in connection with
data loss. The suit represents anyone who owned any of the three
models for their own use and not for resale from June 1, 1999 to
the present.

Under the settlement terms anyone with a dead PDA and who has
filled the appropriate paperwork can send his or her unit to
Palm, which the firm will replace with a new or refurbished Palm
PDA of the same or higher model. The settlement only applies to
U.S. citizens.

The suit is styled Chet Taylor V. Palm, Inc., Case No. BC
299134, and was filed in the in the Superior Court of
California, County of Los Angeles. The Lead Plaintiff and Class
Representative, Chet Taylor was represented by Hector Gancedo of
Gancedo & Nieves, LLP, 144 W. Colorado Blvd., Pasadena, CA,
91105, Phone: (626) 685-9800, Fax: (626) 685-9808. The
Defendant, Palm, Inc., was represented by Kenneth R. Chiate,
Esq. of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges, LLP, 865 S.
Figueroa St., 10th Floor, Los Angeles, CA, 90017, Phone:
(213) 443-3000, Fax: (213) 624-0643.  

For more details, visit http://www.taylorsettlement.com/.


RADISSON HOTELS: Law Firm Launches Consumer Suit V. Moscow Hotel
----------------------------------------------------------------
A consumer class action lawsuit was filed in the Fourth Judicial
District Court of Minnesota (05-7159) against Radisson Hotels
International, Inc., on behalf of all guests of Radisson's hotel
in Moscow since June 3, 1999, The Cullen Law Firm, PLLC reports.  

The complaint, filed under the Minnesota Deceptive Trade
Practices Act, Consumer Fraud Act and False Advertising Act,
alleges that Radisson made deceptive and misleading
representations through its worldwide, Internet based
reservation system on the rates that would be charged at its
hotel property in Moscow, Russia.

According to the complaint, Radisson quotes rates in U.S.
dollars knowing that the final hotel bill will be paid in
Russian rubles in amounts that are higher than those calculated
at the official exchange rate. Hotel guests find out about the
problem when they get their credit card statement in dollars.
According to the complaint, consumers generally end up paying 18
percent more than the amount quoted by Radisson when their
reservations were made. Paul D. Cullen, Sr., counsel for the
plaintiffs, estimates that there have been several hundred
thousand hotel guests victimized by the deceptive practices
alleged in the complaint during the period covered by the six
year statute of limitations.

The Cullen Law Firm filed a separate case on May 13, 2005,
against Marriott International, Inc. that deals with the same
problem addressed in the Radisson litigation. "The practice of
inflating hotel charges quoted in dollars, but paid in rubles,
seems to be widespread," said Mr. Cullen. "The issue presented
by these cases is not whether the practice is lawful under the
Russian legal system", observed Mr. Cullen. "The real issue is
whether a U.S. based hotel chain can be held accountable under
domestic law if it makes false or misleading statements to
potential hotel guests that conceal this practice when it books
reservations for its overseas hotel properties", according to
Mr. Cullen.

Radisson Hotels International, Inc. is incorporated in Delaware
and is headquartered in Minneapolis, Minnesota. The complaint
seeks damages under the Minnesota Consumer Fraud Act and the
Minnesota False Advertising Act, plus injunctive relief under
the Minnesota Deceptive Trade Practices Act restraining Radisson
from continuing the alleged conduct.

For details, contact Paul D. Cullen, Sr. of The Cullen Law Firm,
PLLC, 1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 300, Washington, D.C.,
20007, Phone: (202) 944-8600 Ext. 777, Fax: (202) 944-8611, Web
site: http://www.cullenlaw.com.


RIDLEY INC.: Provides Update on BSE Suits V. Firms, Government
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ridley Inc., (TSX:RCL) disclosed in early April that it was
named as a co-defendant in class action lawsuits filed in
Ontario, Quebec, Alberta and Saskatchewan. Other co-defendants
are the Canadian Government and Ridley's majority shareholder,
Ridley Corporation Limited of Sydney, Australia. Ridley Inc. is
providing an up date on the status of these proceedings.

The law suits seek recovery of damages, including punitive
damages, for losses allegedly incurred by Canadian cattle
farmers as a result of the imposition of international bans on
the export of Canadian beef and cattle following discovery in
May 2003 of a BSE infected cow in Alberta. The four law suits
assert substantially the same allegations and it is unclear at
this time whether the plaintiffs intend to actively proceed in
each of the four provinces, or whether one of the suits will be
pursued and the other three stayed pending its outcome. This
should become known over the next few months.

Before any of the lawsuits can proceed as class actions, the
courts must first determine whether the claims raised in these
suits are suitable for class action treatment. The determination
of this issue requires a certification hearing with contested
arguments and evidence being advanced on behalf of each of the
parties. Only if the law suits are certified as class actions,
will the courts then consider the merits of the plaintiffs'
allegations. Ridley Inc. intends to vigorously defend the
lawsuits.

Prior to the certification hearings, there are a number of
substantial preliminary legal arguments that Ridley Inc., Ridley
Corporation Limited and/or the Canadian Government may pursue.
It may be many months, possibly years, before such arguments are
fully resolved. Only after these preliminary legal arguments
have been resolved and only if the law suits are certified as
class actions, will the courts, to the extent it remains
necessary, proceed to address the substantive factual
allegations that have been raised by the plaintiffs.

A case conference of counsel for all parties is scheduled in
Toronto on June 23, 2005. It is premature at this stage, and
would not be meaningful, for Ridley Inc. to provide any guidance
as to the likely outcome of any aspect of the lawsuits or any
preliminary legal arguments that might be advanced by the
parties. Ridley Inc. understands that the nature of the
allegations made and the particular losses requested recovered
will require the plaintiffs to overcome a number of significant
legal and factual hurdles to succeed against any of the
defendants.

Notification of these lawsuits has been given to each of Ridley
Inc.'s relevant insurers. However, due to the nature of the
claims Ridley Inc. cannot yet confirm the existence or extent of
insurance coverage that may be available. Discussions with the
relevant insurers are on going and, subject to the outcome of
these discussions, Ridley Inc. will fund the cost of its defense
of these lawsuits.

Based on information presently available, Ridley Inc. expects
that the costs of defending these proceedings will be in the
order of $1.0 to $1.5 million per year after tax. Costs to be
incurred this financial year are not expected to materially
affect Ridley Inc.'s financial performance.

Ridley Inc., headquartered in Mankato, Minnesota and Winnipeg,
Manitoba is one of North America's leading commercial animal
nutrition companies. Ridley Inc. manufactures and/or distributes
a full range of animal nutrition products under a number of
highly regarded trade names.  
  
For more details, contact Steve VanRoekel, President / CEO of
Ridley Inc., Phone: (507) 388-9618, Web site:
http://www.ridleyinc.com.


SUNRISE POWER: Faces Unfair Trade Practices Lawsuit in CA Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sunrise Power Company faces a class action filed in the Superior
Court of the State of California, City and County of San
Francisco.  The suit was filed by James M. Millar,
"individually, and on behalf of the general public and as a
representative taxpayer suit" against sellers of long-term power
to the California Department of Water Resources, including the
Company.

The lawsuit alleges that the defendants, including the Company,
engaged in unfair and fraudulent business practices by knowingly
taking advantage of a manipulated power market to obtain unfair
contract terms.  The lawsuit seeks to enjoin enforcement of the
"unfair and oppressive terms and conditions" in the contracts,
as well as restitution by the defendants of excessive monies
obtained by the defendants.  Plaintiffs in several other class
action lawsuits pending in Northern California have filed
petitions seeking to have the Millar lawsuit consolidated with
those lawsuits.

In December 2003, James Millar filed a First Amended Class
Action and Representative Action Complaint containing
allegations similar to those in the earlier complaint, but also
alleges a class action.  One of the newly added parties removed
the lawsuit to federal court, and the court ordered remand to
the San Francisco Superior Court.  Defendants filed a responding
pleading on May 6, 2005.

The suit is styled "James M. Millar, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated and on behalf of the general
public v. Allegheny Energy, et al., Case No. 04-CV-901," pending
in the Superior Court of San Francisco, California.  Lawyers for
the plaintiffs are Steve W Berman of Hagens and Berman, 1301
Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900, Seattle, WA 98101, Phone:
(206) 623-0594 or (206)623-7292; and Kevin P Roddy of Hagens
Berman, 700 South Flower Street, Suite 2940, Los Angeles, CA
90017-4101, Phone: (213)330-7150 or (213)330-7152


TECO ENERGY: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Securities Suit in FL
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended securities class action
against TECO Energy, Inc. and certain of its current and former
officers in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida.

A number of securities class action lawsuits were filed in
August, September and October 2004 by purchasers of Company
securities.  These suits, which were filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Florida, allege disclosure
violations under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. These
actions were consolidated and remain in the initial pleading
stage.

On February 1, 2005, the Court entered its order appointing the
"TECO Lead Plaintiff Group," comprised of NECA-IBEW Pension Fund
(The Decatur Plan), Monroe County Employees Retirement System,
John Marder and Charles Korpak, as the Lead Plaintiff for the
Class and the law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman &
Robbins LLP as Lead Counsel.

The defendants will then have until July 5, 2005 to file a
motion to dismiss and supporting brief, and then the plaintiffs
would have until September 6, 2005 to file their opposition
brief. The motion would then be before the Judge for a decision,
which could be made based on the papers or after a hearing, if
scheduled, at the Judge's discretion.


TRUSTEET PROPERTIES: TX Judge Dismisses Shareholders' Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dallas County District Court Judge Robert H. Frost dismissed a
shareholders' lawsuit filed against predecessors of Trustreet
Properties Inc., finding that the plaintiffs, shareholders
affected by a February 25 reverse merger between CNL Restaurant
Properties Inc., U.S. Restaurant Properties Inc. and 18 CNL
income funds, did not have the legal standing to file the
lawsuit, The American City Business Journals Inc. reports.

The suit, which sought class action status, was filed in state
court in Dallas County. It alleges that the reverse merger did
not benefit investors, thus it was seeking to resolve the CNL
restaurant trust's financial problems. In addition, the suit
asserted that owners of CNL income fund limited partnership
shares, bought out as part of the reverse merger, were shorted a
minimum of $140 million.

According to Curtis McWilliams, CEO of Orlando-headquartered
Trustreet, "Judge Frost's ruling confirms our belief that this
lawsuit was without merit."

Kimberly Donaldson though, who is a partner in Chimickles &
Tikellis law firm in Haverford Pa., which is representing the
two shareholders in the suit, said an appeal is being
considered.

Trustreet is a real estate investment trust with interests in
about 3,000 properties nationally and more than $2.5 billion in
assets.


UNITED STATES: High Court Rules in Favor of Disabled Passengers
---------------------------------------------------------------
In a 6-3 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that foreign
cruise lines sailing in U.S. waters must provide better access
for passengers in wheelchairs, a ruling that essentially expands
the scope of a landmark federal disabilities law, The Associated
Press reports.

According to Douglas Spector of Houston, one of the disabled
passengers suing the cruise lines, the ruling is a resounding
victory for disabled rights advocates, who have said that
inadequate ship facilities inhibited their right to participate
fully in society. He also told AP, "With this decision, the
Supreme Court has told the cruise lines that we are entitled to
what every other passenger receives - access to emergency
equipment and the full range of public facilities."

J. Michael Crye, president of the International Council of
Cruise Lines in Arlington, told AP that the group was very much
pleased with the decision, since justices indicated wholesale
changes were not required. Experienced disabled travelers,
according to him, "recognize that this industry is one of the
most accessible industries for special-needs passengers."

The justices pointed out in their ruling that Congress intended
the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to apply to
cruise lines. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who was joined by
Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg
and Stephen G. Breyer, wrote for the majority, "The statute is
applicable to foreign ships in the United States waters to the
same extent that it is applicable to American ships in those
waters."

The ruling though is vague with regards to how much the $2.5
billion foreign cruise industry, which carries 7.1 million
passengers each year, will have to reconfigure pools,
restaurants and emergency equipment for wheelchair
accessibility, an upgrade that could cost the industry millions.

Justice Kennedy also wrote that the cruise lines need not comply
with Title III of the ADA to the extent that it creates too much
international discord or disruption of a ship's internal
affairs, under a provision of the statute that calls for only
"readily achievable" modifications. "It is likely that under a
proper interpretation of 'readily achievable' Title III would
impose no requirements that interfere with the internal affairs
of foreign-flag cruise ships," he wrote in sending the case back
to a lower court to determine what ultimately is required of
cruise lines.

Justice Clarence Thomas provided the sixth vote holding that the
ADA applies. He however joined the dissenters in saying the
actual modifications required under the federal law did not
extend to changes to a ship's "physical structure."

As previously reported in the March 1, 2005 edition of the Class
Action Reporter, The U.S. Supreme Court is set to take up a case
that examines whether foreign-flag cruise ships doing business
in U.S. waters can be sued under the Americans With Disabilities
Act (ADA) for discrimination against disabled passengers.

In his brief to the high court, Washington lawyer Thomas
Goldstein said, "The Americans With Disabilities Act is the
nation's promise to millions of persons with disabilities that
they will be treated as full citizens. Norwegian Cruise Line,
however, claims that it has the right to flout that promise."

Lawyers for Norwegian Cruise Line counter that application of
U.S. civil rights laws to its foreign-flag ships runs counter to
a long tradition of maritime treaties respecting the sovereign
control of registry nations. "This case is not about Norwegian
Cruise Line's treatment of people with special needs," says
NCL's general counsel Mark Warren. "This case is about whether
Congress intended that the ADA should apply to foreign-flag
ships."

Two appeals courts one in Atlanta and the other in New Orleans
have examined the issue. The Atlanta court ruled that the ADA
applies while the New Orleans court ruled it does not. Thus it
is now up to the Supreme Court to break the deadlock with a
ruling that will apply nationwide.

Under the ADA, public places like hotels, restaurants, theaters,
and recreational areas are required to make reasonable
modifications to permit equal access for those with
disabilities. Cruise ships offer all those public activities
under a single roof and thus are also covered by the law, Mr.
Goldstein contends. In addition, the ADA requires equal access
to public transportation a category that he says also embraces
cruise ships.

However, Mr. Warren of NCL disagrees and pointed out, "There is
nothing in the statute that speaks to vessels, boats, ships,
ferries, or any kind of navigable craft, let alone those with
foreign flags. If Congress chooses to regulate foreign-flag
ships, it is certainly entitled to do so, but it must specify
that is what is intended."

The case, Spector v. Norwegian Cruise Line, stems from a class-
action lawsuit filed in 2000 by Douglas Spector and a group of
other NCL passengers who allege that they were discriminated
against during their cruise vacation because of their
disabilities. In their suit, the group stated that they were
forced to pay higher fares, travel with a companion, waive any
medical liability and reside in a limited number of less
attractive cabins and were barred from participating in
evacuation and other safety drills. In addition, they also
stated that there were no accessible public restrooms on the
ship.

NCL officials though argued that the complaints relate to
facilities on two of the cruise line's oldest ships. One has
been decommissioned, while the other is to be taken out of
service soon.

Cruise and shipping industry officials say the Spector case is
important because an NCL defeat could undermine the existing
international framework governing worldwide shipping. According
to Washington attorney Gregory Garre in a brief filed on behalf
of the Bahamas Maritime Authority, "If the United States chose
to apply its own accessibility standards to foreign-flagged
ships entering its waters, many of the other 40 countries around
the world with anti-discrimination laws might respond by
attempting to apply their own unique - and divergent, if not
contradictory - set of standards to foreign-flagged ships,
including U.S. ships."  He further writes, "International
maritime commerce would run aground, as no vessel could possibly
navigate such an unpredictable and stormy regulatory sea."

In the recent High Court ruling, the cruise stated, "This
decision provides much-needed guidance to the cruise industry
and prevents the ADA from being applied in ways in which it was
never intended to be applied."

In a dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia said that extending the
federal law to foreign ships will create international discord
and that it is wrong because Congress does not explicitly call
for it. Furthermore, he also said in a dissent that was joined
by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justice Sandra Day
O'Connor, the ruling should leave no opening for ships to be
required to change their amenities to fit the laws of each
country they visit.


ZIPREALTY INC.: Faces Possible Lawsuit From Former Employees
------------------------------------------------------------
ZipRealty, Inc. (NASDAQ: ZIPR) expects a possible class action,
according to two former employees who alerted the company, The
Inman News reports.

According to Emeryville, California-based ZipRelaty, the lawsuit
could question whether California law allows for firm's practice
of requiring a minimum level of productivity from real estate
agents to effectively qualify to receive an expense allowance.

The company further stated that the practice was previously
reviewed by outside employment counsel, and that it is
"committed to vigorously defending its business practices as
appropriate and considers its employee-agents its greatest
asset."

The Company stated that it is still reviewing the allegations
and the number of agents affected by the alleged practice. In
addition, the Company pointed out that it believes that any non-
recurring costs associated with resolving the legal claim could
potentially be in the six- or seven-figure range.

Eric A. Danziger, president and CEO of ZipRealty, also stated,
"We take enormous pride in pioneering a unique, customer-centric
business model that embraces agents as employees rather than as
independent contractors. By pursuing the employee model, we
provide extensive training, which translates into superior
customer service and a 95 percent satisfaction rating from our
clients."

ZipRealty is a full-service residential real estate brokerage
firm operating in 13 major metropolitan areas in 10 states and
the District of Columbia.



                 Meetings, Conferences & Seminars




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

June 01-30, 2005
HBA PRESENTS: AUTOMOBILE LITIGATION: DISPUTES AMONG
CONSUMERS, DEALERS, FINANCE COMPANIES AND FLOORPLANNERS
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

June 01-30, 2005
CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION DEFECT
LIABILITY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

June 01-30, 2005
HBA PRESENTS: ETHICS IN PERSONAL INJURY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

June 01-30, 2005
IN-HOUSE COUNSEL AND WRONGFUL DISCHARGE CLAIMS:
CONFLICT WITH CONFIDENTIALITY?
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

June 01-30, 2005
BAYLOR LAW SCHOOL PRESENTS: 2004 GENERAL PRACTICE INSTITUTE --
FAMILY LAW, DISCIPLINARY SYSTEM, CIVIL LITIGATION, INSURANCE
& CONSUMER LAW UPDATES
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


                 New Securities Fraud Cases   

AUTHENTIDATE HOLDING: Abraham Fruchter Files Stock Lawsuit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Abraham Fruchter & Twersky LLP initiated a class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of purchasers of AuthentiDate
Holding Corp. ("AuthentiDate") (NASDAQ: ADAT) publicly traded
securities during the period between September 29, 2003 and May
27, 2005 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges AuthentiDate and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. AuthentiDate provides web-based content authentication
services that address the verification of digital information in
all business processes.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business and prospects, specifically about revenues to
be derived from an agreement with the U.S. Postal Service. The
Company also concealed certain internal control problems. These
false statements caused AuthentiDate stock to trade at
artificially inflated levels, reaching as high as $18.69 per
share in January 2004. Taking advantage of this artificial
inflation, AuthentiDate completed a private placement of its
stock in February 2004, raising $69 million in net proceeds.
AuthentiDate's CFO and former CEO also took advantage of the
inflation, selling 156,000 shares of their AuthentiDate stock
for proceeds of $1.7 million.

On April 13, 2005, AuthentiDate announced the dismissal of its
accounting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. Later, on April 29,
2005, AuthentiDate filed a Form 8-K with the SEC disclosing it
had hired a new accounting firm and also that on April 15, 2005,
its CFO had sent a letter to certain members of the Company's
Board of Directors, advising them of the existence of corporate
governance issues. The Company hired special counsel to
investigate the letter.

Then, on May 27, 2005, the Company issued a press release
announcing that "its ongoing discussions with the United States
Postal Service regarding the status of its Strategic Alliance
Agreement had reached a critical stage with the receipt of a
second notice from the Postal Service stating that it had failed
to attain the performance metrics required by the Strategic
Alliance Agreement during the period February 2005 through April
2005." On this news, AuthentiDate's stock collapsed to $2.94 per
share on volume of 1.28 million shares.

For more details, contact Jack G. Fruchter, Esq. or Ximena
Skovron, Esq. of Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP, One Penn
Plaza, Suite 2805, New York, New York 10119, Phone:
(212) 279-5050 or (800) 440-8986, Fax: (212) 279-3655, E-mail:
jfruchter@aftlaw.com or xskovron@aftlaw.com.


AUTHENTIDATE HOLDING: Brian M. Felgoise Lodges Stock Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C. filed a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who acquired AuthentiDate
Holding Corp. (NASDAQ: ADAT) securities between September 29,
2003 and May 27, 2005, inclusive (the Class Period).

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, 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., 261 Old York
Road, Suite 423, Jenkintown, PA, 19046, Phone: (215) 886-1900,
E-mail: FelgoiseLaw@verizon.net.


AUTHENTIDATE HOLDING: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Stock Lawsuit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
("Lerach Coughlin") initiated a class action in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of purchasers of AuthentiDate Holding Corp.
("AuthentiDate") (NASDAQ:ADAT) publicly traded securities during
the period between September 29, 2003 and May 27, 2005 (the
"Class Period").

The complaint charges AuthentiDate and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. AuthentiDate provides web-based content authentication
services that address the verification of digital information in
all business processes.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business and prospects, specifically about revenues to
be derived from an agreement with the U.S. Postal Service. The
Company also concealed certain internal control problems. These
false statements caused AuthentiDate stock to trade at
artificially inflated levels, reaching as high as $18.69 per
share in January 2004. Taking advantage of this artificial
inflation, AuthentiDate completed a private placement of its
stock in February 2004, raising $69 million in net proceeds.
AuthentiDate's CFO and former CEO also took advantage of the
inflation, selling 156,000 shares of their AuthentiDate stock
for proceeds of $1.7 million.

On April 13, 2005, AuthentiDate announced the dismissal of its
accounting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. Later, on April 29,
2005, AuthentiDate filed a Form 8-K with the SEC disclosing it
had hired a new accounting firm and also that on April 15, 2005,
its CFO had sent a letter to certain members of the Company's
Board of Directors, advising them of the existence of corporate
governance issues. The Company hired special counsel to
investigate the letter.

Then, on May 27, 2005, the Company issued a press release
announcing that "its ongoing discussions with the United States
Postal Service regarding the status of its Strategic Alliance
Agreement had reached a critical stage with the receipt of a
second notice from the Postal Service stating that it had failed
to attain the performance metrics required by the Strategic
Alliance Agreement during the period February 2005 through April
2005." On this news, AuthentiDate's stock collapsed to $2.94 per
share on volume of 1.28 million shares.

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


AUTHENTIDATE HOLDING: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C. initiated a lawsuit seeking
class action status has been filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all
persons who purchased the publicly traded securities of
AuthentiDate Holding Corp. (Nasdaq: ADAT) ("AuthentiDate" or
"the Company") between September 29, 2003 and May 27, 2005,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). Also included in this case are
all shareholders who acquired AuthentiDate stock in the February
2004 AuthentiDate private placement.

The Complaint alleges that AuthentiDate, John Botti, Surendra
Pai, John Waters, Dennis Bunt, and Peter Smith violated federal
securities laws. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that,
during the Class Period, defendants made false and misleading
statements about the Company's business and prospects,
especially regarding a U.S. Postal Service agreement. After the
stock reached its Class Period high in January 2004,
AuthentiDate completed a private placement the next month,
netting $69 million in proceeds. The Complaint also alleges that
AuthentiDate's CFO and former CEO sold during the Class Period
156,000 personally held shares in the Company, at inflated
prices, reaping nearly $1.75 million.

Near the Class Period's conclusion, the Company announced that

     (1) it had dismissed its accountants,
         PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP,

     (2) AuthentiDate's CFO advised certain Board of Directors
         members, by letter, of corporate governance issues,

     (3) the Company hired special counsel to investigate the
         letter, and

     (4) AuthentiDate had failed to attain certain performance
         metrics required by its agreement with the U.S. Postal
         Service.

On the news regarding the U.S. Postal Service agreement,
AuthentiDate's stock price plummeted to $2.94, over 83% below
its Class Period high.

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


CARRIER ACCESS: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Lawsuit in CO
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of Carrier
Access Corporation (NASDAQ: CACSE) 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 defendant Carrier Access and one or
more of its officers and/or directors. The action charges that
defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series
of materially false and misleading statements to the market
throughout the Class Period, which statements had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price of the Company's
securities. No class has yet been certified in the above action.

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


CARRIER ACCESS: Federman & Sherwood Files Securities Suit in CO
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Federman & Sherwood initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court of Colorado against
Carrier Access Corporation (Nasdaq: CACSE). The complaint
alleges violations of federal securities laws, Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5,
including allegations of issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market which had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price. The class period is
from October 21, 2003 through May 20, 2005.

For more details, contact William B. Federman of Federman &
Sherwood, 120 N. Robinson, Suite 2720 Oklahoma City, OK, 73102,
Phone: (405) 235-1560, Fax: (405) 239-2112, E-mail:
wfederman@aol.com, Web site: http://www.federmanlaw.com.


CRAY INC.: Federman & Sherwood Files Securities Fraud Suit in WA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Federman & Sherwood initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Washington against Cray, Inc. (Nasdaq: CRAY).

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of
material misrepresentations to the market which had the effect
of artificially inflating the market price. The class period is
from July 31, 2003 through May 12, 2005.

For more details, contact William B. Federman of Federman &
Sherwood, 120 N. Robinson, Suite 2720 Oklahoma City, OK, 73102,
Phone: (405) 235-1560, Fax: (405) 239-2112, E-mail:
wfederman@aol.com, Web site: http://www.federmanlaw.com.


DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Charles J. Piven Files Stock Lawsuit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of DreamWorks
Animation SKG, Inc. (NYSE: DWA) between October 27, 2004, and
May 10, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

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

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


DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Glancy Binkow Lodges Securities Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP initiated a Class
Action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California on behalf of a class (the
"Class") consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired securities of DreamWorks Animation SKG, Inc.
("DreamWorks" or the "Company") (NYSE:DWA), between October 27,
2004 and May 10, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint charges DreamWorks 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
the Company's stock price, inflicting damages on investors.
DreamWorks is principally devoted to developing and producing
computer-generated animated feature films. The Complaint alleges
that during the Class Period defendants knew or recklessly
disregarded that DreamWorks was fueling its impressive reported
sales and net income in its core products by, inter alia,

     (1) shipping products far in excess of the actual demand
         for those products;

     (2) forcing its distributors to take unsaleable inventory
         from DreamWorks;

     (3) stuffing distributor inventories; and

     (4) allowing the build-up of a gross imbalance in
         DreamWorks' distributor inventories.

Plaintiff claims defendants misrepresented or failed to disclose
that:

     (i) Shrek2 DVD sales were declining;

    (ii) retailers were returning to the Company massive amounts
         of unsold Shrek2 DVD inventory;

   (iii) the Company was shipping out inventory in order to
         report the revenue; and

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

On May 10, 2005, the last day of the Class Period, a DreamWorks
press release disclosed that Shrek2 sales did not meet the
company's retail sales expectations for the first quarter, which
resulted in a higher level of returns than expected. As a
result, DreamWorks recorded no revenue from Shrek2 in the first
quarter, other than from licensing and merchandising. This news
caused the price of DreamWorks stock to drop from $36.50 per
share to a close of $32.05 on May 11, 2005.

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


DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C., which has significant
experience representing investors in prosecuting claims of
securities fraud, announces that a lawsuit seeking class action
status has been filed in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California on behalf of all persons who
purchased the publicly traded securities of DreamWorks Animation
SKG, Inc. (NYSE: DWA) ("DreamWorks" or "the Company") between
October 27, 2004 and May 10, 2005, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

The Complaint alleges that DreamWorks, Jeffrey Katzenberg, and
Roger Enrico violated federal securities laws. Specifically, the
Complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants made
false and misleading statements about DreamWorks' business and
earnings. In particular, defendants failed to disclose and
misrepresented material adverse facts regarding sales and
returns of the Company's Shrek 2 DVD.

On May 10, 2005, the Company disclosed that the "sales shortfall
resulted in a higher level of returns than expected. As a
result, DWA recorded no revenue from Shrek 2 in the quarter
other than from licensing and merchandising." After the
announcement, the Company's stock closed down over 12% from the
previous day's close.

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


DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Schiffrin Barroway Lodges Stock Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California on behalf of purchasers of the
publicly traded securities of DreamWorks Animation SKG, Inc.
(NYSE: DWA) ("DreamWorks" or the "Company") between October 27,
2004, and May 10, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges DreamWorks and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. DreamWorks develops and produces high-quality computer
generated ("CG") animated films. According to the complaint,
defendants failed to disclose and misrepresented the following
material adverse facts, which were known to defendants or
recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) that sales of "Shrek 2" DVDs were precipitously
         declining;

     (2) that retailers were returning massive amounts of unsold
         "Shrek 2" DVD inventory at an alarming rate;

     (3) that the Company was flooding the market with products
         that were far in excess of the actual demand; and

     (4) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' opinions and
         statements concerning the Company's current and future
         earnings were lacking in any reasonable basis when
         made.

On May 10, 2005, defendants, after the market closed, announced
that "Shrek 2" did not meet the Company's retail sales
expectations for the first quarter. On May 11, 2005, shares of
DreamWorks fell $4.45 per share, or 12.19 percent, to close at
$32.05 per share on unusually heavy trading volume.

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, Web site:
http://www.sbclasslaw.com.


GRAVITY CO.: Abraham Fruchter Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Abraham Fruchter & Twersky LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of the
American Depository Shares ("ADSs") of Gravity Co., Ltd.
("Gravity" or the "Company") pursuant and/or traceable to the
Company's false and misleading Registration
Statement/Prospectus, issued in connection with the initial
public offering of Gravity ADSs (the "IPO" or the "Offering"),
together with those who purchased their shares in the open
market between February 7, 2005 and May 12, 2005 inclusive (the
"Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities
Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") and the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The complaint charges Gravity and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Act and the Exchange
Act. Gravity develops and distributes online games in many
countries across the world, especially in Japan, Taiwan, and
Thailand.

The Complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants
issued a Prospectus and Registration Statement in connection
with the Company's IPO, and issued press releases subsequent to
the IPO, which included numerous positive statements regarding
demand for the Company's products and positive statements
concerning the Company's growth prospects. As alleged in the
complaint, these statements were materially false and misleading
because defendants failed to disclose and/or misrepresented:

     (1) that the Company's core product -- Ragnarok -- Online
         which traditionally has accounted for 95% of the
         Company's revenue was, at the time of the IPO,
         suffering from declining customer demand and increased
         competition. In fact, contrary to the appearance of the
         growth presented in the Prospectus, sales of Ragnarok
         Online were in a material state of decline;

     (2) that the Company's mobile animation business was then
         being negatively impacted by material adverse trends.
         In fact, the Company's animation business had all but
         disintegrated; and

     (3) that the Company's royalties and license fees business
         was then being negatively impacted by certain material
         adverse trends in the Company's Chinese operations.

Growth in the Company's Chinese business was one of the primary
keys for the Company's future business. In fact, as portrayed in
the Prospectus, China was projected to grow faster than any
other country in terms of its demand for the Company's online
game-related services. Though defendants made an effort to
demonstrate China's massive growth potential for online gaming
demand, the fact was that the Company's Chinese business was in
peril and in a state of decline -- not growth.

On May 12, 2005, the Company shocked the market when it
announced that its financial results for the first quarter of
2005 were lower than expected. On this news, the Company's ADSs
plunged to an all time low of $5.60, a more than 70% drop from
the Class Period high of $13.50 per share -- the IPO price.

For more details, contact Jack G. Fruchter, Esq. or Ximena
Skovron, Esq. of Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP, One Penn
Plaza, Suite 2805, New York, New York 10119, Phone:
(212) 279-5050 or (800) 440-8986, Fax: (212) 279-3655, E-mail:
jfruchter@aftlaw.com or xskovron@aftlaw.com.


HARLEY-DAVIDSON: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Fraud Suit in WI
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP that a Class Action
lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Wisconsin on behalf of a class (the "Class")
consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired securities of Harley-Davidson, Inc. ("Harley-Davidson"
or the "Company") (NYSE:HDI), between January 21, 2004 and April
12, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint charges Harley-Davidson 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 the Company's stock price, inflicting damages on
investors. Harley-Davidson designs, manufactures and sells
primarily heavyweight, touring, custom and performance
motorcycles, as well as a line of motorcycle parts, accessories,
clothing and collectibles. The Complaint alleges that during the
Class Period defendants misrepresented or failed to disclose the
following:

     (1) that a much-touted gap between consumer demand for
         Harley-Davidson's products and the available supply had
         disappeared;

     (2) that the Company, to create the appearance of continued
         strong demand and mask the decline in demand, shipped
         excess inventory to dealers at a rate that the Company
         knew or was made aware was unsustainable given the
         actual demand for Harley's products;

     (3) that the financial performance of Harley-Davidson's
         Financial Services Division was materially negatively
         impacted by interest rate fluctuations; and

     (4) as a result, the Company's financial results were
         materially inflated at all relevant times; and

     (5) the Company lacked any reasonable basis for the
         financial projections it provided concerning its future
         growth.

On April 13, 2005, the Company disclosed that it would cut its
production of new 2005 motorcycles as a result of declining
demand and excess dealer inventories. This news caused the
Company's share price to plummet more than 16% in one day. By
April 15, 2005, Harley-Davidson shares had fallen even further,
closing that day at $45.80 per share, which was more than 22%
percent below the closing price on April 12, 2005 -- the day
before the disclosure of declining demand and the planned
production cut.

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


LEAPFROG ENTERPRISES: Scott + Scott Lodges Securities Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Scott + Scott LLC initiated a shareholder class
action lawsuit against LeapFrog Enterprises, Inc. (NYSE: LF).
The Complaint was filed in the Northern District of California
on behalf of purchasers of LeapFrog securities between February
11, 2004, and October 18, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Defendants
assured investors that LeapFrog had taken necessary steps to
correct problems in its IT-systems and supply-chain
infrastructure and misrepresented or failed to disclose that the
Company had not, in fact, materially improved either its IT-
systems or supply-chain infrastructure and these issues were
materially and negatively affecting its business and ability to
accurately forecast results and meet analysts' sales and
earnings expectations.

On October 18, 2004, LeapFrog announced that it would miss its
2004 earnings estimates by more than 60%, largely due to its
failure to correct the IT and supply-chain problems. On this
disclosure, LeapFrog's share price fell 34% in one day to a then
all-time $11.99 low. Since then, LeapFrog has also missed fourth
quarter estimates and replaced three senior managers, including
its CFO and COO.

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


MARTEK BIOSCIENCES: Goodkind Labaton Files Securities Suit in MD
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of Maryland, on behalf of persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of Martek
Biosciences Corporation ("Martek" or the "Company")
(Nasdaq:MATK) between December 9, 2004 and April 27, 2005,
inclusive, (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit was filed against
Martek, Henry Linsert, Jr., and Peter L. Buzy. ("Defendants").

The complaint alleges that Defendants violated the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. Specifically, the complaint alleges that
Defendants issued a series of materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business and prospects. More
specifically, the complaint alleges that Defendants knew, but
concealed or misrepresented that:

     (1) they were aware that the Company's sales were declining
         and would not come close to what they were publicly
         projecting, which were critical in ensuring the Company
         would be able to complete an $86 million stock
         offering; and

     (2) the Company's ability to grow was solely based upon its
         ability to increase sales of its DHA (docosahexaenoic
         acid)/ARA (arachidonic acid) products, and that it had,
         by the Fall of 2004, flooded its licensees with the
         products, well beyond appropriate inventory levels.

On April 27, 2005, Martek issued a press release, which revealed
a significant shortfall in sales and earnings. In response to
the news, shares of Martek fell from $60.08 to close at $32.49
on April 28, 2005, a decline of 45.9%.

For more details, contact Christopher Keller, Esq. of The Law
Firm of Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP, Phone:
800-321-0476, Web site: http://www.glrslaw.com/get/?case=Martek.


STOCKERYALE INC.: Murray Frank Lodges Securities Lawsuit in NH
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP has filed a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of New Hampshire on behalf of all securities purchasers
of StockerYale, Inc. ("StockerYale" or "the Company")
(Nasdaq:STKR) between April 19, 2004 through May 23, 2005,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period StockerYale
and certain of the Company's executive officers issued
materially false and misleading financial statements to the
investing public regarding its financial prospects in violation
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b 5 promulgated thereunder.

StockerYale designs and manufactures structured light lasers,
light emitting diodes (LEDs), fiber optic and fluorescent
illumination technologies. The complaint alleges that defendants
misrepresented the nature of contracts the Company entered into
with BAE Systems ("BAE"), Inc. On April 19, 2004, the Company
issued a press release leading the market to believe that it
received an order from BAE to supply lasers to a program
developing an airborne military missile defense system and that
the Company was also developing a laser as part of a Department
of Homeland Security ("DHS") program that was determining the
feasibility of a missile countermeasure system for commercial
planes. In response to this announcement, the price of the
Company's securities dramatically jumped, and by April 20, 2004,
had hit a high of $7.75, an increase of 474% from the closing
price of the stock prior to the notices publication. On April
21, 2004, the Company issued a follow-up press release that had
the effect of reiterating the April 19, 2004 press release.
Amidst this dramatic increase in the price of the stock, Mark
Blodgett ("Blodgett"), the Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and
President of the Company, sold 250,000 shares of his privately
held stock at $6.56 per share. In addition, defendant Lawrence
Blodgett, a director of the Company and father to Mark Blodgett,
sold over $350,000 worth of StockerYale shares.

The complaint alleges that the statements made by the Company
concerning the BAE orders were materially false and misleading
when made because defendants misrepresented that the Company was
developing lasers for the development of a missile
countermeasure system for commercial planes which was part of a
Department of Homeland Security contract issued to BAE. In fact,
the lasers contracted were not intended for use on commercial
airplanes and the contract awarded to StockerYale was not part
of a DHS program.

On November 9, 2004, the Company received a "Wells Notice" from
the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") indicating that
the SEC intended to recommend that a civil action be brought
against StockerYale and Mark Blodgett ("Blodgett") in connection
with the April 19, 2004 and April 21, 2004 press releases. On
May 24, 2005, the SEC announced that it had commenced a civil
action by filing a complaint against the Mark Blodgett and the
Company alleging that the April 19, 2004 and April 21, 2004
press releases were false and misleading in that they created
the false impression that StockerYale was supplying lasers to
BAE in support of a DHS program, when in fact the orders were
not related to any DHS program and that the Company was not
involved in a project that was "developing a customized laser
for a missile countermeasure system for commercial planes under
a recent contract received from a unit of BAE." In connection
with the commencement of the civil action, Mark Blodgett and the
Company consented to an entry of an order enjoining them from
further violating securities regulations and ordering Blodgett
to pay disgorgement plus interest in the amount of $788,118.92
and a civil penalty in the amount of $120,000.

For more details, contact Eric J. Belfi or Christopher S. Hinton
of Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP, Phone: (800) 497-8076 or
(212) 682-1818, Fax: (212) 682-1892, E-mail:
info@murrayfrank.com.


UNITED AMERICAN: Charles J. Piven Files Securities Lawsuit in MI
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. a securities class
action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of United
American Healthcare Corporation (NASDAQ: UAHC) between May 26,
2000, and April 22, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

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

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


                            *********


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

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

                            *********


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

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

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

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

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

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

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *