---

            C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, June 9, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 113


                            Headlines

ASHLAND INC.: Faces Shareholder Lawsuit V. Marathon Merger in NY
AUTHENTIDATE HOLDING: Firms File Suit Over Inflated Stock Prices
BOSTON COMMUNICATIONS: Common Stock Purchaser's Lodge Suit in MA
CALIFORNIA: BUSD Settles 2004 Discrimination Expulsion Lawsuit
CARDINAL HEALTH: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Stock Suit in OH

CARDINAL HEALTH: Plaintiffs File Consolidated ERISA Suits in OH
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Settles Lawsuits, Big Investor Pulls Out
CVS CORPORATION: Proposes $110M Shareholders' Lawsuit Settlement
FORTUNE BRANDS: Faces Suits For Marketing Alcohol To Underaged
GILLETTE CO.: Consumers Launch Lawsuit Over Razor Advertisements

GOLD BANC: OK Court Issues Order For Janzen V. Gold Banc Lawsuit
GOLDMAN SACHS: NY Appeals Court Allows Insurer's Fiduciary Claim
KENTUCKY: Diocese Settles Abuse Lawsuit, Wants Insurers to Pay
KENTUCKY: Victims' Attorneys Want To Join Church's Suit V. Firms
MCI INC.: Shareholders Initiate DE Lawsuits V. Verizon Merger

MERCK & CO.: Vioxx Product Liability Lawsuits Coordinated in LA
MERCK & CO.: Asks AL Court To Dismiss Indigent Patients' Lawsuit
MERCK & CO.: Litigation V. MMR II Vaccine Pending in UK Courts
MERCK & CO.: Continues to Face Thimerosal Liability Litigation
MURPHY OIL: Plaintiffs File Amended Consolidated Lawsuit in LA

NBTY INC.: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Securities Lawsuit in NY
NEW HAMPSHIRE: Father Files Suit Over Sealed Records in Divorces
PNC FINANCIAL: Reaches Settlement for PA Consolidated Stock Suit
PNC FINANCIAL: Plaintiffs File Amended PA ERISA Violations Suit
PORTLAND GENERAL: OR Court Grants Petitions For Writ of Mandamus

PORTLAND GENERAL: Files Motion To Abate, Dismiss Consumer Suit
PORTLAND GENERAL: Faces Possible Lawsuit Over Electricity Rates
REXALL SUNDOWN: CA Court Holds Status Conference on CA Lawsuit
SYNCOR INTERNATIONAL: CA Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Suit
UICI: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Amended Securities Suit in TX

UICI: Funds Attorneys' Fees in TX Consumer Fraud Suit Settlement
UNITE: PA Federal Judge Grants Class Action Status For DPPA Suit
UNUMPROVIDENT CORPORATION: Pretrial Proceedings To End Dec. 2005
UNUMPROVIDENT CORPORATION: Faces FL Unfair Trade Practices Suit
UNUMPROVIDENT CORPORATION: Certification Asked For TN ERISA Suit

UNUMPROVIDENT CORPORATION: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Fraud Suit
UNUMPROVIDENT CORPORATION: RICO, ERISA Suits Moved To NJ Court

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

AUTHENTIDATE HOLDING: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Stock Lawsuit in NY
AUTHENTIDATE HOLDING: Charles J. Piven Lodges Stock Suit in MN
AUTHENTIDATE HOLDING: Roy Jacobs Lodges Securities Lawsuit in NY
CARRIER ACCESS: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Securities Lawsuit in CO
DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Stock Lawsuit in CA

FINDWHAT.COM INC.: Berman DeValerio Lodges Securities Suit in FL
OCA INC.: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. LA
OCA INC.: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. LA
POSSIS MEDICAL: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Securities Lawsuit in MN
POSSIS MEDICAL: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Lawsuit in MN


                           *********


ASHLAND INC.: Faces Shareholder Lawsuit V. Marathon Merger in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ashland, Inc. and the individual members of the Company's board
of directors face a class action filed in the Supreme Court of
the State of New York in New York County.  The suit also names
as defendants Marathon Oil Corporation, Marathon Ashland
Petroleum LLC (MAP) and Credit Suisse First Boston LLC (CSFB).

On April 8, 2005, Shiva Singh filed a complaint on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated, arising out of the
proposed transaction announced on March 19, 2004 in which the
Company would transfer its entire 38% interest in MAP as well as
certain other businesses to Marathon (the "proposed
transaction").  

The complaint also alleges breach of fiduciary duty as well as
aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty and negligence
against Ashland, its directors, Marathon and MAP.  The complaint
also alleges breach of fiduciary duty and negligence as well as
aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty and negligence
against CSFB.

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


AUTHENTIDATE HOLDING: Firms File Suit Over Inflated Stock Prices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Five law firms initiated class action lawsuits against
AuthentiDate Holding Corporation, claiming the company inflated
its stock price using misleading statements, The Albany Times
Union reports.  Additionally, three of the firms are charging
that former Chief Executive Officer John Botti and Chief
Financial Officer Dennis Bunt sold $1.75 million worth of stock
during a period of inflated value, benefiting by the sale of the
156,000 shares.

The suits were all filed in U.S. District Court in New York City
by Schatz & Nobel P.C. of Hartford, Connecticut, Brian M.
Felgoise P.C. of Philadelphia, Brodsky & Smith LLC of Bala
Cynwyd, Pennsylvania, Abraham Fruchter & Twersky LLP of New York
City and Lerach Coughlin Stoil Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP of
New York City. The Lerach suit was filed late last week, while
the others came only this week.

Though the firms put out separate new releases regarding the
suits, their claims mirror one another that AuthentiDate was
misleading in its predictions of how much would be earned by its
business arrangement with the Postal Service.

The Schenectady-based company provides authentication services
for digital documents, including receipts and e-mails. It also
provides an electronic postmark service for the postal service.  
Last week, the post office announced that, for the second time,
the electronic postmark system failed to meet financial targets.
AuthentiDate's stock (Nasdaq: ADAT), which traded as high as
$18.69 in January 2004, fell to a 52-week low of $2.56 after the
announcement. It closed Monday at $2.75, off 13 cents.

Asked for comment, local corporate lawyers had mixed feelings on
the lawsuits. Richard Honen, a managing partner at the Albany
law firm Honen & Wood P.C., told the Union, "It's the modern
equivalent of corporate ambulance-chasing," said "Your stock
goes down, and it's almost a given you're going to get these
lawsuits."  As to the claims that company executives benefited
from stock sales, Mr. Honen told the Union that these sales
often coincide with regularly scheduled sell-off dates.

However, attorney Walter Burke of Burke & Casserly P.C. in
Albany told the Union that law firms wouldn't waste the hundreds
of thousands of dollars required to file a class action lawsuit
unless the case had merit. Mr. Burke, who has no connections to
AuthentiDate adds, "Law firms are a lot of things, but stupid is
not one of them. They're not going to lay out hundreds of
thousands of dollars on a case that's not legitimate."


BOSTON COMMUNICATIONS: Common Stock Purchaser's Lodge Suit in MA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Boston Communications Group, Inc. (Nasdaq: BCGI) learned that a
class action lawsuit has been brought against it and two of its
senior executives in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts, on behalf of a putative class of
purchasers of BCGI common stock between November 15, 2000 and
May 20, 2005 inclusive (the "alleged class period").

The lawsuit claims violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder and seeks unspecified damages, together with
attorneys' fees and costs. The lawsuit asserts, among other
things, that during the alleged class period defendants failed
to disclose adverse facts regarding the Freedom Wireless
lawsuit, including that the Company had "willfully" infringed
the Freedom Wireless patents.

BCGI intends to contest the lawsuit vigorously and believes that
it and the two executive officers named as defendants have
meritorious defenses to the allegations set forth in the
lawsuit.

For more details, contact Joe Calabrese, Investor relations,
Phone: +1-212-827-3772, E-mail: investor_relations@bcgi.net OR
Chris Harrall, Media relations, Phone: +1-781-904-5321, E-mail:
charrall@bcgi.net.  


CALIFORNIA: BUSD Settles 2004 Discrimination Expulsion Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Berkeley Unified School District reached a settlement in the
Smith v. BUSD Board of Education case, a 2004 class action suit
that was filed on behalf of three minority Berkeley students-two
African-Americans and one Latino-who claimed that their
education at Berkeley High was disrupted by improper expulsions,
The Berkeley Daily Planet reports.

The settlement, which was first reached in March, was ratified
in federal district court last month. With that ratification,
the district must now notify all school families in preparation
for a hearing to approve the agreement in July.

As previously reported in the March 17, 2005 edition of the
Class Action Reporter, an out of court settlement was reached
for the case. In that settlement, wherein the Berkeley Unified
School District denied any wrongdoing, the school agreed that
the students-and any other African-American or Latino students
who could prove that they were unlawfully excluded from the
regular school program-will be reinstated to the general school
population, have their student records corrected, and be given
district-sponsored makeup instruction to make up for any
comprehensive instruction they might have missed.

William Abrams, co-counsel on the case and senior partner at the
law firm Pillsbury Winthrop LLP, who represented the plaintiffs
on a pro bono basis, told the Berkeley Daily Planet "This is a
noteworthy victory for the students and the community. Now that
their due process rights have been enforced, the students can
get back to the classroom and move forward with their
education."

Pillsbury Winthrop hooked up with Stanford Law School's Youth
and Education Law Clinic and San Francisco-based Legal Services
for Children in championing the rights of the Berkeley students
in the Smith case.

Additionally, as part of the settlement in the case, the
Berkeley School District has committed to respect the
constitutional rights of students, and to reduce the
disproportionate impact of its policies on students of color.
Once the district court approves the settlement, the affected
students will be reinstated to school and will receive tutoring
and other services to compensate for the time they were
wrongfully excluded.  The settlement does not require the
district to make any financial compensation to the affected
students.

The complaint had alleged that each of the students named in the
suit was "excluded indefinitely from the district's
comprehensive educational programs and was either provided no
educational services or provided substandard educational
services through a county community school, continuation school
or independent study."

Although the settlement only affects African-American and Latino
students, the settlement required the district to send out
notices to households with all students currently enrolled in
the Berkeley public schools. Thus, the district, since last week
has sent out notices to families explaining the settlement of
the expulsion discrimination case, informing Berkeley parents of
their rights if they think any of their children were kept out
of school based on race.

BUSD Public Information Officer Mark Coplan told the Planet that
he has no idea how many students might actually be affected by
the settlement, although, according to him, the district has
received six or seven queries from parents.

In addition to the mailed notices, the settlement requires the
district to request that the Alameda County Probation
Department, the Alameda County Department of Social Services,
the Alameda County Juvenile Court, the Alameda County Family
Court, the Berkeley Organization of Churches and Berkeley Youth
Alternatives post the agreement at their headquarters or on
their websites.

A hearing will be held on July 27 at 1 p.m. in federal district
court in Oakland to consider final approval of the settlement.


CARDINAL HEALTH: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Stock Suit in OH
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended securities class action
against Cardinal Health, Inc. and certain of its officers and
directors, captioned "In re Cardinal Health, Inc. Federal
Securities Litigation," in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Ohio.

Since July 2, 2004, ten purported class action complaints have
been filed by purported purchasers of the Company's securities
against the Company and certain of its officers and directors,
asserting claims under the federal securities laws.  These cases
include:

     (1) Gerald Burger v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al. (04 CV
         575),

     (2) Todd Fener v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al. (04 CV
         579),

     (3) E. Miles Senn v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al. (04 CV
         597),

     (4) David Kim v. Cardinal Health, Inc. (04 CV 598),

     (5) Arace Brothers v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al. (04 CV
         604),

     (6) John Hessian v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al. (04 CV
         635),

     (7) Constance Matthews Living Trust v. Cardinal Health,
         Inc., et al. (04 CV 636),

     (8) Mariss Partners, LLP v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al.
         (04 CV 849),

     (9) The State of New Jersey v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et
         al. (04 CV 831) and

    (10) First New York Securities, LLC v. Cardinal Health,
         Inc., et al. (04 CV 911)

The Cardinal Health federal securities actions purport to be
brought on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's securities
during various periods beginning as early as October 24, 2000
and ending as late as July 26, 2004 and allege, among other
things, that the defendants violated Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by
issuing a series of false and/or misleading statements
concerning the Company's financial results, prospects and
condition. Certain of the complaints also allege violations of
Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, claiming
material misstatements or omissions in prospectuses issued by
the Company in connection with its acquisition of Bindley
Western Industries, Inc. in 2001 and Syncor in 2003.

The alleged misstatements relate to the Company's accounting for
recoveries relating to antitrust litigation against vitamin
manufacturers, and to classification of revenue in the Company's
Pharmaceutical Distribution business as either operating revenue
or revenue from bulk deliveries to customer warehouses, among
other matters. The alleged misstatements are claimed to have
caused an artificial inflation in the Company's stock price
during the proposed class period.  The complaints seek
unspecified money damages and equitable relief against the
defendants and an award of attorney's fees.

On December 15, 2004, the Cardinal Health federal securities
actions were consolidated into one action captioned "In re
Cardinal Health, Inc. Federal Securities Litigation," and on
January 26, 2005, the Court appointed the Pension Fund Group as
lead plaintiff in this consolidated action.  On April 22, 2005,
the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint naming
the Company, certain current and former officers and employees
and the Company's external auditors as defendants. The complaint
seeks unspecified money damages and other unspecified relief
against the defendants.


CARDINAL HEALTH: Plaintiffs File Consolidated ERISA Suits in OH
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated class action against
Cardinal Health, Inc. and certain of its officers, directors and
employees in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio.

Since July 2, 2004, 14 purported class action complaints have
been filed by purported participants in the Cardinal Health
Profit Sharing, Retirement and Savings Plan (collectively
referred to as the "Cardinal Health ERISA actions").  These
cases include:

     (1) David McKeehan and James Syracuse v. Cardinal Health,
         Inc., et al. (04 CV 643),

     (2) Timothy Ferguson v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al. (04
         CV 668),

     (3) James DeCarlo v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al.
         (04 CV 684),

     (4) Margaret Johnson v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al. (04
         CV 722),

     (5) Harry Anderson v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al. (04 CV
         725),

     (6) Charles Heitholt v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al. (04
         CV 736),

     (7) Dan Salinas and Andrew Jones v. Cardinal Health, Inc.,
         et al. (04 CV 745),

     (8) Daniel Kelley v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al. (04 CV
         746),

     (9) Vincent Palyan v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al. (04 CV
         778),

    (10) Saul Cohen v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al. (04 CV
         789),

    (11) Travis Black v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al. (04 CV
         790),

    (12) Wendy Erwin v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al. (04 CV
         803),

    (13) Susan Alston v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al. (04 CV
         815), and

    (14) Jennifer Brister v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al. (04
         CV 828)

The Cardinal Health ERISA actions purport to be brought on
behalf of participants in the Cardinal Health Profit Sharing,
Retirement and Savings Plan and the Syncor Employees' Savings
and Stock Ownership Plan (the "Syncor ESSOP," and together with
the Cardinal Health Profit Sharing, Retirement and Savings Plan,
the "Plans"), and also on behalf of the Plans themselves.  The
complaints allege that the defendants breached certain fiduciary
duties owed under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
(ERISA), generally asserting that the defendants failed to make
full disclosure of the risks to the Plans' participants of
investing in the Company's stock, to the detriment of the Plans'
participants and beneficiaries, and that Company stock should
not have been made available as an investment alternative for
the Plans' participants.  

The misstatements alleged in the Cardinal Health ERISA actions
significantly overlap with the misstatements alleged in the
Cardinal Health federal securities actions. The complaints seek
unspecified money damages and equitable relief against the
defendants and an award of attorney's fees. On December 15,
2004, the Cardinal Health ERISA actions were consolidated into
one action captioned "In re Cardinal Health, Inc. ERISA
Litigation."

On January 14, 2005, the court appointed lead counsel and
liaison counsel for the consolidated Cardinal Health ERISA
action. On April 29, 2005, the lead plaintiff filed a
consolidated amended ERISA complaint naming the Company, certain
current and former directors, officers and employees, the
Company's Employee Benefits Policy Committee and Putnam
Fiduciary Trust Company as defendants.  The complaint seeks
unspecified money damages and other unspecified relief against
the defendants.


CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Settles Lawsuits, Big Investor Pulls Out
----------------------------------------------------------------
Charter Communications reached a proposed $146.25 million
settlement of a class action claim brought by investors, the
American City Business Journals Inc. reports.

However, one of its largest shareholders reported it had dumped
20 million shares of Charter stock since last June. In a report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29,
the Omaha, Nebraska-based Wallace R. Weitz & Co., which had 34.1
million Charter shares at the beginning of the year, indicated
that its stake in Charter was down to just fewer than 14.09
million shares. Wally Weitz is the fund manager for Weitz Funds.  
The report comes on the heels of a similar report by Mark Cuban,
billionaire technology investor and owner of the Dallas
Mavericks NBA team, who had bought a 5.3 percent stake in
Charter in 2002 for a reported $27 million. Mr. Cuban's holdings
of Class A shares in the company ultimately peaked at more than
19 million shares, but in late April, Mr. Cuban reported that he
unloaded his Charter stock. He continues to hold on to some of
Charter's bonds.

Not everyone is selling Charter stock. Steelhead Partners, a
Seattle-based hedge fund company that had amassed about 24.8
million shares, according to a filing it made in May with the
Securities and Exchange Commission, which makes it one of
Charter's largest stakeholders at 8.1 percent. New York-based
UBS Americas Inc. owns approximately 19.5 million shares.
Charter Chairman Paul Allen remains its largest shareholder,
with more than 29 million Charter shares.  The changes in
Charter's major stakeholders came just as a settlement was
announced relating to alleged inflation of Charter's customer
count and operating results from 1999 to 2002.

More than a dozen federal class action lawsuits were filed
against the company on behalf of investors who purchased shares
of Charter Communications common stock between November 8, 1999,
and August 16, 2002. The lawsuits alleged inflation of the
company's customer count and artificially inflating revenue by
senior executives.  The Clayton-based law firm of Carey & Danis
LLC had filed the suit against Charter in U.S. District Court in
St. Louis and represented more than 200 individual claimants.

Charter and several of its officers and directors reached the
proposed $146.25 million settlement of the class action suit in
May and as part of the deal, Charter also agreed to enact
substantive corporate governance measures.

James Rosemergy, an attorney with Carey & Danis, told the
Journals that the claims process will wrap up within the next
month, and then claims will be processed. "This would fully and
finally dispose of any claims from private claimants," Mr.
Rosemergy adds.

Charter's corporate communications director, David Anderson,
told the Journals that Charter filed an amendment to grant the
company the option to issue the settlement in cash. Mr. Anderson
though declined to comment on the closure of the class action
lawsuit or the sale of Charter stock by Mr. Weitz or Mr. Cuban.
"Like most public companies, we do not comment on market
activity," he said.

CVS CORPORATION: Proposes $110M Shareholders' Lawsuit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
In a proposed settlement in U.S. District Court in Boston, CVS
Corporation agreed to pay $110 million to settle a shareholders'
lawsuit filed after its stock price cratered in 2001, The
Providence Journal reports.

Filed in mid-2001, the lawsuit alleges that CVS executives lied
to artificially raise the company's stock price. The case
consolidated nine similar lawsuits filed in August of that year,
which eventually led to the Plumbers & Pipefitters National
Pension Fund becoming the lead plaintiff in the consolidated
case.

The lawsuit accuses the company of delaying accounting on
merchandise discounts -- counting the items' full value in its
financial reports to help boost earnings.

In addition, the lawsuit states that Tom Ryan, the drugstore
chain's chairman, president and chief executive officer, delayed
reporting the company's plans to close 200 under performing
stores. Mr. Ryan is also being accused of insider trading for
allegedly selling stock worth about $5 million a month before he
disclosed in June 2001 that the company's second-quarter and
full-year earnings would not meet projections.

CVS's stock price plunged more than 41 percent between May 1,
2001, and August 1, 2001, just before stockholders filed their
lawsuits. The stock lost $7.59 on the day of the earnings
shortfall, which came less than two weeks after investors sliced
$6.94 off the stock price when an analyst downgraded the stock.
Since the lawsuit was filed though, CVS stock has risen 55.4
percent on a split-adjusted basis.

In a statement to the Journal, Douglas S. Sgarro, the company's
chief legal officer, said, "The allegation that Tom Ryan, CVS's
chief executive officer, engaged in improper insider trading in
May of 2001 is particularly lacking in merit. The trades at
issue represented only a small fraction of Mr. Ryan's total
equity holdings in the company."

Based on the 810 million CVS shares outstanding as of yesterday,
the settlement amounts to about 10 cents a share. That compares
with the company's annual dividend payment to shareholders of
14.5 cents a share. The proposed $110-million settlement
represents about one-tenth of the $919 million CVS earned in
2004.

The settlement, which will be paid primarily by the company's
insurers, will net lawyers an estimated $30.2 million, about 27
percent of the payout.

Additionally, Mr. Sgarro told the Journal, "We agreed to the
settlement purely as a business decision -- made in consultation
with the company's insurers and counsel to avoid the diversion
of resources and the uncertainties associated with any trial.
Settling this matter does not constitute an admission of
wrongdoing."

Even with the settlements, Woonsocket-based CVS, which the
nation's largest pharmacy chain by store count still faces other
shareholder issues, including a separate class action lawsuit
filed last October in U.S. District Court by a former employee
claiming the corporation mishandled investments in its 401(k)
plan. It is also dealing with legal problems in Rhode Island as
well.


FORTUNE BRANDS: Faces Suits For Marketing Alcohol To Underaged
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fortune Brands, Inc., its Spirits and Wine business and numerous
other manufacturers and importers of beer, spirits and wine are
named as defendants in purported consolidated class action
lawsuits in Florida, Michigan, New York, Ohio, West Virginia and
Wisconsin seeking damages and injunctive relief regarding
alleged marketing of beverage alcohol to people under the legal
purchase age for alcohol.

The Florida lawsuit, "Konhauzer v. Adolph Coors Company, et
al.," was filed March 30, 2005 in the Circuit Court of the
Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County, Florida.  The
Michigan lawsuit, "Alston v. Advanced Brands & Importing Co., et
al.," was filed March 30, 2005 in the Circuit Court for the
Third Judicial Circuit, Michigan.  The New York lawsuit,
"Sciocchetti v. Advanced Brands & Importing Co., et al.," was
filed February 16, 2005 in the Supreme Court, Albany County, New
York.  The Company and its Spirits and Wine business have not
yet been served in the Florida, Michigan and New York lawsuits.

The Ohio lawsuit, "Eisenberg v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., et al.,"
was filed April 30, 2004 in the Court of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga
County, Ohio and removed to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio.  The West Virginia lawsuit,
"Bertovich v. Advanced Brands & Importing Co., et al.," was
filed February 17, 2005 in the Circuit Court of Hancock County,
West Virginia. The Wisconsin lawsuit, "Tomberlin v. Adolph Coors
Company, et al.," was filed February 24, 2005 in the Circuit
Court, Dane County, Wisconsin.

The lawsuits allege that the defendants have engaged in
deceptive marketing practices and schemes targeted at people
under the legal purchase age, negligently marketed their
products to the underage and fraudulently concealed their
alleged misconduct. Plaintiffs seek the disgorgement of
unspecified profits earned by the Company's Spirits and Wine
business in the past and other unspecified damages and equitable
relief.  Other purported class actions are pending against other
producers of alcoholic beverages for alleged marketing to
persons under the legal drinking age.  


GILLETTE CO.: Consumers Launch Lawsuit Over Razor Advertisements
----------------------------------------------------------------
Following a court ruling that found Gillette Co. of using
"unsubstantiated and inaccurate" advertising, two consumers
filed a class action lawsuit against the company over the Boston
company's razor ads, The Boston Herald reports.

In a previous ruling, U.S. District Judge Janet C. Hall barred
the company from showing a graphic of the M3Power razor lifting
hair up and away from skin. The injunction is binding pending a
trial.  Mark Dearman of Florida and Anthony DeBiseglia of New
York allege the company intentionally misrepresented the
product, by claiming that the M3P's "micropulses raise the hairs
so that the blade can shave closer."

According to their lawyer, Samuel H. Rudman of New York, they're
looking for a refund of at least part of what they paid for the
razors and that the class action encompasses all consumers in
Florida and New York who bought the Gillette razor. He adds that
other suits will likely be filed on behalf of people in other
states.  Gillette spokesman Eric Kraus told the Herald that the
company hadn't received the lawsuit yet, but plans to review it
and respond accordingly.


GOLD BANC: OK Court Issues Order For Janzen V. Gold Banc Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gold Banc Corporation, Inc. (Nasdaq:GLDB) (Gold Banc) received
an order in the case of Wayne E. Janzen, et al., vs. Gold Banc
Corporation, Inc., et al., pending in Kingfisher County,
Oklahoma.

The plaintiffs in this case allege that Gold Banc's subsidiary
bank violated Farm Service Agency (FSA) regulations by charging
interest rates and fees on FSA guaranteed agricultural loans
higher than the interest rates and fees it charged its average
agricultural customers. The court's order certified the case as
a class action covering "those agricultural customers who
obtained a FSA guaranteed loan between January 1, 1999 to
February 29, 2004."

Malcolm M. Aslin, Chief Executive Officer of Gold Banc, stated,
"We disagree with the court's decision and plan to immediately
appeal the class certification order."

Oklahoma law allows a defendant or a plaintiff to immediately
appeal a class certification order instead of at the conclusion
of the case. "We continue to believe Gold Banc has valid
defenses to the plaintiffs' claims and intend to vigorously
defend this lawsuit," continued Mr. Aslin.

Gold Banc previously announced that on January 26, 2005, the
Federal District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma
granted Gold Banc's motion to dismiss a proposed class action
case filed by H.D. Young, et al. against Gold Banc, GBC Kansas,
Inc. and Gold Bank, which involved similar claims regarding its
FSA guaranteed loan program. On February 2, 2005, the same
plaintiffs whose federal claims were dismissed re-filed their
claims in the District Court for Washita County, Oklahoma. On
May 19, 2005, the District Court for Washita County, Oklahoma,
granted Gold Bank's motion to dismiss with prejudice the state
case, which order is subject to confirmation in a written order
by the court and may be appealed by the plaintiffs.


GOLDMAN SACHS: NY Appeals Court Allows Insurer's Fiduciary Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
The New York State Court of Appeals allowed a claim for breach
of fiduciary duty to proceed against Goldman Sachs & Co. for
alleged wrongdoing in connection with its underwriting of the
initial public offering ("IPO") of eToys in 1999.

The action alleges that Goldman Sachs underpriced the eToys IPO
in order to confer a gift of instant profits on its clients who
could flip the securities in the aftermarket at significantly
higher prices. Although Goldman set the eToys IPO price at $20,
the stock rocketed over 400% on the first day of trading and
remained well over the IPO price for many months after the
offering.

The action alleges that Goldman had a fiduciary duty to price
the IPO in eToys' interests, but that, in fact, Goldman
underpriced the stock so that it could, among other things,
benefit from the profits that its customers made from their IPO
allocations, including "spinning" arrangements.

In its decision, which was released today, the Court of Appeals
ruled that an underwriter may be liable for breach of fiduciary
duty to its issuer client in situations where the underwriter
advises the issuer as to the initial public offering price. The
Court noted that "(t)o the extent that underwriters function,
among other things, as expert advisors to their clients on
market conditions, a fiduciary duty may exist." The Court
further found that recognition of such a fiduciary duty is "not
in conflict with an underwriter's general duty to investors
under the Securities Act of 1933 to exercise due diligence in
the preparation of a registration statement."

Stanley Grossman, one of the attorneys representing the
plaintiff, stated "Goldman had represented to eToys that it
would act in eToys' best interests in the IPO, and that eToys'
interests would always come first. Such an undertaking is the
very hallmark of a fiduciary relationship."

Plaintiff is represented by Stanley M. Grossman of Pomerantz
Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP William B. Wachtel of Wachtel
& Masyr LLP and Paul Traub of Traub Bonacquist & Fox LLP.


KENTUCKY: Diocese Settles Abuse Lawsuit, Wants Insurers to Pay
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Diocese of Covington end up paying little or nothing into a
$120 million fund to settle a lawsuit with victims of priestly
sexual abuse if it can come up with enough insurance to pay off
claims, according to documents filed in Boone Circuit Court, The
Cincinnati Post reports.

However, court documents revealed that at least two of the
diocese's three insurance companies are balking at paying. The
documents, along with a lawsuit the diocese is pursuing against
its insurance carriers, shed new light onto a record-setting
agreement that was announced last week.

That settlement, which settles a class action lawsuit that
charges church officials of deliberately covering up the abuse
for decades, calls for a $120 million settlement fund. It is the
largest settlement fund yet from any diocese in America since
the Roman Catholic Church's sexual abuse crisis erupted some 15
years ago.

Signed by Stan Chesley, who represented those who sued the
diocese, and Carrie Huff, the diocese's attorney, the settlement
covers any child who was abused by a priest or other church
employee since January 1, 1956, in the Diocese of Covington. It
also includes those who are now in the Diocese of Lexington,
which was created out of the Covington Diocese in 1988, if they
were abused before the split.

It is not yet clear though how many people will be affected by
the settlement. Even so, a series of advertisements in more than
100 newspapers, along with 90, 30-second television ads, will be
used to publicize the agreement. The ads will come out after
Special Judge John Potter gives his final approval to the deal,
which will be quite some time, since Judge Potter will still be
asked to give preliminary approval this week. Anyone who objects
can notify the court in writing, and Judge Potter will hold a
hearing on whether the agreement is fair, according to the
settlement terms.

If the judge does approve it though, the parties will begin
advertising for people to step forward. In those ads they must
specify the details of their abuse, and a special master, chosen
by both sides, will verify claims and determine how much money
each person will be given. Attorney fees of about 30 percent
will be deducted from each payment.

The Covington Diocese is responsible for putting $40 million in
cash or property into escrow into the settlement fund, and said
it will use the Catholic Center / Marydale in Erlanger and two
other pieces of land to help cover its share.

However, the agreement stipulates that the first $80 million to
be paid out should come from insurance. Only if more than that
figure is needed or if insurance claims don't meet that amount
will the church have to put up its own funds. Any money left in
the settlement fund after that will go back to the diocese.

Additionally, the agreement calls for the diocese to take court
action, if necessary, to claim the money from the insurance
companies. Thus, Ms. Huff sued three insurance companies on
behalf of the diocese, the American Insurance Co. of Novato,
California, the Catholic Mutual Relief Society of America and
the Catholic Relief Insurance Co. of America, both of Omaha,
Nebraska. A fourth company, Fireman's Fund Insurance Co., is
mentioned in the class action agreement but is not part of the
diocese's lawsuit against its carriers.

Ms. Huff's lawsuit says the insurance policies specifically
cover sexual abuse. However, according to the suit American
Insurance refused to pay defense costs or any claims arising
from the class action lawsuit. Catholic Mutual has paid for the
diocese's defense of the class action lawsuit, Ms. Huff adds.

"However, when Catholic Mutual was asked to participate in a
settlement of these claims, Catholic Mutual arbitrarily limited
its offer to an amount far below that for which it is legally
responsible," Ms. Huff told the Post.  "Catholic Mutual did not
base this limitation on the terms of the Catholic Mutual
policies or the nature or value of the claims. Rather Catholic
Mutual asserted that in light of its responsibility to its other
insureds, it was unwilling and/or unable to commit sufficient
resources to settle the claims."

Among the documents filed recently regarding the settlement is
the actual "Memorandum of Understanding" between the diocese and
Mr. Chesley's clients. Although not acknowledged until the end
of the week, the agreement was signed May 17.


KENTUCKY: Victims' Attorneys Want To Join Church's Suit V. Firms
----------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys for alleged sex abuse victims who reached a $120
million dollar settlement with the Covington Diocese want a
judge to let them join the church's suit against three insurance
companies, The Associated Press reports.

Court documents revealed that the diocese filed suit against the
American Insurance Company, the Catholic Relief Insurance
Company of America and Catholic Mutual in May for allegedly
refusing to pay part of the $120 million settlement. As
stipulated in the settlement the court ordered the diocese to
take legal action to get the money from its insurance firms.

In motions filed in Boone County Circuit Court, attorneys are
asking Judge Anthony Frohlich to allow the alleged victims to
join the suit against the three insurers.

The diocese's settlement with alleged victims of priest abuse
depends on $80 million dollars of the sum to be paid by
insurance. The rest would come from a combination of diocese
real estate and investments. The abuse suit, which was filed by
100 alleged victims, gained class action status in 2003.


MCI INC.: Shareholders Initiate DE Lawsuits V. Verizon Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
MCI, Inc. and all of the individual members of its board of
directors face three class actions filed in the Chancery Court
in the State of Delaware.

On February 15, 2005, the Company received notice that an
individual shareholder filed a putative class action on behalf
of himself and all shareholders of the Company against the
Company and all of the individual members of the Board of
Directors in Chancery Court in the State of Delaware.  
Subsequently, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint that added,
among other things, Verizon Communications, Inc. as a defendant
in the case.  Plaintiff alleges that the Company and the Board
of Directors breached their fiduciary duties to shareholders in
entering into the Merger Agreement with Verizon rather than
accepting the merger proposal propounded by Qwest Communications
International, Inc (Qwest).  As a remedy, Plaintiff requests
that the Court issue an injunction prohibiting consummation of
the Merger Agreement.  

Additionally, the Company has received notice that three
additional putative class actions containing similar allegations
were filed on February 18, 2005 against the Company and the
Board of Directors in the Chancery Court in the State of
Delaware.  Subsequent to February 18, 2005, in one of these
three actions, Plaintiff has sought relief to amend his
complaint on two occasions seeking to add additional factual
allegations.


MERCK & CO.: Vioxx Product Liability Lawsuits Coordinated in LA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc. faces litigation coordinated in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana,
involving product liability claims against the Company's Vioxx
product.

On September 30, 2004, the Company announced a voluntary
worldwide withdrawal of Vioxx, its arthritis and acute pain
medication.  The Company's decision, which was effective
immediately, was based on new three-year data from a
prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial,
APPROVe (Adenomatous Polyp Prevention on Vioxx).  The trial,
which was stopped, was designed to evaluate the efficacy of
Vioxx 25 mg in preventing the recurrence of colorectal polyps in
patients with a history of colorectal adenomas and to further
assess the cardiovascular safety of Vioxx. In this study, there
was an increased relative risk for confirmed cardiovascular
events, such as heart attack and stroke, beginning after 18
months of treatment in the patients taking Vioxx compared to
those taking placebo.

As a result, federal and state product liability lawsuits
involving individual claims, as well as several putative class
actions have been filed against the Company with respect to
Vioxx.  As of January 31, 2005, the Company has been served or
is aware that it has been named as a defendant in approximately
2,300 lawsuits, which include approximately 4,600 plaintiff
groups alleging personal injuries resulting from the use of
Vioxx.  Certain of these lawsuits include allegations regarding
gastrointestinal bleeding, cardiovascular events, thrombotic
events or kidney damage.  The Company has also been named as a
defendant in approximately 110 putative class actions alleging
personal injuries or seeking:

     (1) medical monitoring as a result of the putative class
         members' use of Vioxx,

     (2) disgorgement of certain profits under common law unjust
         enrichment theories, and/or

     (3) various remedies under state consumer fraud and fair
         business practice statutes, including recovering the
         cost of Vioxx purchased by individuals and third-party
         payors such as union health plans

All of the actions are collectively referred to as the "Vioxx
Product Liability Lawsuits."  The actions filed in the state
courts of California and New Jersey, respectively, have been
transferred to a single judge in each state for coordinated
proceedings. In addition, the Company filed a motion with the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPMDL) seeking to
transfer to a single federal judge and coordinate for pretrial
purposes all federal cases alleging personal injury and/or
economic loss relating to the purchase or use of Vioxx; several
plaintiffs in certain Vioxx Product Liability Lawsuits pending
in federal court have made similar requests.

On February 16, 2005, the JPMDL granted the motions to transfer
all Vioxx Product Liability Lawsuits pending in federal courts
nationwide into one Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) for
coordinated pre-trial proceedings. The MDL has been transferred
to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana before District Judge Eldon E. Fallon.

The next monthly pretrial status conference shall be held on
Thursday, April 28, 2005, at 9:00 a.m. in the Courtroom of Judge
Eldon E. Fallon in the United States District Court Eastern
District of Louisiana, 500 Poydras Street, Room C-456, New
Orleans, LA 70130, Phone: (504) 589-7545, Fax: (504) 589-6966
  
The suit is styled "In re Vioxx Product Liability Litigation,
MDL 1657."  Representing the plaintiffs is Russ M. Herman,
Herman, Herman, Katz & Cotlar, LLP, 820 O'Keefe Ave., Suite 100
New Orleans, LA 70113, Phone: 504-581-4892, Fax: 504-561-6024,
E-mail: rherman@hhkc.com.  Representing the defendants is
Phillip Wittmann, Stone Pigman Walther Wittmann, LLC, 546
Carondelet St., New Orleans, LA 70130, Phone: 504-581-3200, Fax:
504-581-3361 E-mail: pwittmann@stonepigman.com


MERCK & CO.: Asks AL Court To Dismiss Indigent Patients' Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc. asked the United States District Court for the
District of Alabama to dismiss a class action filed against it
and 15 pharmaceutical companies by two providers of health
services to needy patients.

The suit alleges that the defendants overcharged the plaintiffs
and a class of those similarly situated, for pharmaceuticals
purchased by the plaintiffs under the program established by
Section 340B of the Public Health Service Act.

The suit is styled "Central Alabama Comprehensive Healthcare,
Inc. v. Aventis Pharmaceutical, Inc. et al. case no. 3:04-cv-
00673-MHT-VPM," filed in the United States District Court for
the Middle District of Alabama, under Judge Myron H. Thompson.  
Representing the Company are Robert Philip Reznick and John
Michael Townsend of Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP, 1775 I Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006-2401, E-mail: reznick@hugheshubbard.com, or
townsend@hugheshubbard.com.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Steven W. Berman, Hagens & Berman, 1301 Fifth Avenue,
         Suite 2929, Seattle, WA 98101, Phone: (206) 623-7292,
         Fax: 206-623-0594, E-mail: steve@hagens-berman.com;

     (2) Garve W. Ivey, Jr., Barry Alan Ragsdale, Ivey &
         Ragsdale, P. O. Box 1349, Jasper, AL 35502-1349, Phone:
         205-221-4644, Fax: 205-221-1043, E-mail:
         garve@iveyragsdale.com or barryrags@aol.com;

     (3) David Scott Nalven and Thomas Michael Sobol, Hagens
         Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, One Main Street, Fourth
         Floor, Cambridge, MA 02142, Phone: 617-482-3700, Fax:
         617-482-3003, E-mail: davidn@hagens-berman.com or
         tom@hagens-berman.com  

     (4) Brian Paul Strength, Cochran, Cherry, Givens & Smith
         PO Box 830419, Tuskegee, AL 36083, Phone:
         (334) 727-0060, Fax: 334-727-7197, E-mail:
         bstrength@cochranlawtuskegee.com  


MERCK & CO.: Litigation V. MMR II Vaccine Pending in UK Courts
--------------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc. is a party in claims brought under the
Consumer Protection Act of 1987 in the United Kingdom, which
allege that certain children suffer from a variety of conditions
as a result of being vaccinated with various bivalent vaccines
for measles and rubella and/or trivalent vaccines for measles,
mumps and rubella, including the Company's M-M-R II.  The
conditions include autism, with or without inflammatory bowel
disease, epilepsy, diabetes, encephalitis, encephalopathy,
deafness, chronic fatigue syndrome and transverse myelitis.

In early September 2003, the Legal Services Commission (LSC)
announced its decision to withdraw public funding of the
litigation brought by the claimants.  This decision was
confirmed on appeal by the Funding Review Committee (FRC) on
September 30, 2003.  The claimants' application for judicial
review of the decision to withdraw public funding was dismissed
in February 2004 and the April 2004 trial date was vacated. The
lead claimants have decided not to apply to the Court of Appeal
for permission to appeal the decision. As a result, legal aid
for all lead claimants has now been discharged.

The non-lead claimants were subject to a "show cause" procedure
to withdraw legal aid unless the claimants could show cause as
to why it should not be withdrawn.  The FRC heard 37 of the
"show cause" appeals by the non-lead claimants in October 2004.  
The appeals involving autism (26) were unsuccessful, but funding
was reinstated for 11 appeals involving other non-autism
conditions, such as epilepsy, deafness, encephalitis and
transverse myelitis. In light of the 11 successful appeals, the
LSC has reconsidered the cases of some other claimants and, to
date, funding has been reinstated in approximately 85 non-lead,
non-autism cases, in most cases to the limited extent necessary
to allow solicitors to provide a report on the individual cases
to the LSC.  The LSC is still considering reinstating funding
for approximately 30 additional cases. It is not yet known how
many of the cases involve claimants suing the Company.

All claimants for all conditions had until February 28, 2005 to
give notice of their intention to continue or discontinue with
their claims, irrespective of whether or not they have secured
legal aid funding.  Directions for further conduct of the
litigation were made at a case management hearing on March 17,
2005. As a result of the judge's ruling following the case
management hearing, approximately 500 cases against the Company
have been brought to an end leaving approximately 100 active
cases. Claimants whose cases have ended can apply to the court
to have their discontinuance set aside.  A further case
management hearing is expected to take place in October 2005.


MERCK & CO.: Continues to Face Thimerosal Liability Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc. continues to face individual and class action
product liability lawsuits and claims in the United States
involving pediatric vaccines (e.g., hepatitis B vaccine ) that
contained thimerosal, a preservative used in vaccines.  

The Company has not distributed thimerosal-containing pediatric
vaccines in the United States since the fall of 2001.  As of
March 31, 2005, there were approximately 300 active thimerosal
related lawsuits with approximately 820 plaintiffs.  Other
defendants include vaccine manufacturers who produced pediatric
vaccines containing thimerosal as well as manufacturers of
thimerosal.

In these actions, the plaintiffs allege, among other things,
that they have suffered neurological injuries as a result of
exposure to thimerosal from pediatric vaccines.  Two state court
cases and two Federal District Court cases were scheduled for
trial in 2005.  Of these cases, two have been dismissed, one is
scheduled for trial on July 5, 2005 and the other is scheduled
for trial in February 2006.  The case scheduled for trial on
July 5, 2005 also makes allegations concerning the Company's M-
M-R II vaccine.

The Company has been successful in having cases of this type
either dismissed or stayed on the ground that the action is
prohibited under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act
(Vaccine Act).  The Vaccine Act prohibits any person from filing
or maintaining a civil action (in state or federal court)
seeking damages against a vaccine manufacturer for vaccine-
related injuries unless a petition is first filed in the United
States Court of Federal Claims (hereinafter the "Vaccine
Court").  

Under the Vaccine Act, before filing a civil action against a
vaccine manufacturer, the petitioner must either pursue his or
her petition to conclusion in Vaccine Court and then timely file
an election to proceed with a civil action in lieu of accepting
the Vaccine Court's adjudication of the petition or timely
exercise a right to withdraw the petition prior to Vaccine Court
adjudication in accordance with certain statutorily prescribed
time periods.  

The Company is aware that there are numerous cases pending in
Vaccine Court involving allegations that thimerosal-containing
vaccines and/or the M-M-R II vaccine cause autism spectrum
disorders. All of the cases referred to in the preceding
paragraph as having been dismissed or being scheduled for trial
have been brought by plaintiffs who claim to have made a timely
withdrawal of their Vaccine Court petition.  The Company is not
a party to these Vaccine Court proceedings because the petitions
are brought against the Department of Health and Human Services.


MURPHY OIL: Plaintiffs File Amended Consolidated Lawsuit in LA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Murphy Oil Corporation faces a consolidated class action filed
in the St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana court, related to June 10,
2003 fire that severely damaged the Residual Oil Supercritical
Extraction (ROSE) unit at the Company's Meraux, Louisiana
refinery.

The ROSE unit recovers feedstock from the heavy fuel oil stream
for conversion into gasoline and diesel. Subsequent to the fire,
numerous class action lawsuits have been filed seeking damages
for area residents. All the lawsuits have been administratively
consolidated into a single legal action in St. Bernard Parish,
Louisiana, except for one such action filed in federal court.  
Additionally, individual residents of Orleans Parish, Louisiana,
have filed an action in that venue.

On May 5, 2004, plaintiffs in the consolidated action in St.
Bernard Parish amended their petition to include a direct action
against certain of the Company's liability insurers. In
responding to this direct action, one of the Company's insurers,
AEGIS, has raised lack of coverage as a defense.


NBTY INC.: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Securities Lawsuit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
NBTY, Inc. and certain of its officers and directors face a
consolidated shareholder class action filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

During the period from June 24, 2004 through September 3, 2004,
six separate shareholder class actions were filed against the
Company and certain of its officers and directors on behalf of
shareholders who purchased shares of the Company's common stock
between February 9, 2004 and July 22, 2004.  The actions allege
that the Company failed to disclose material facts during the
Class Period that resulted in a decline in the price of the
Company's stock after June 16, 2004 and July 22, 2004,
respectively.

The Court consolidated the six class actions in March 2005, and
appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel for the plaintiffs.
Newly appointed lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint
alleging a Class Period from November 10, 2003 to July 22, 2004.
The Company, its officers and directors intend to file a motion
to dismiss the action.

The consolidated suit is styled "In Re: NBTY, Inc. Securities
Litigation, case no. 04-CV-2619," filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York, under Judge
Leonard D. Wexler.  Representing the Company are Charles W.
Stotter and Robert Novack of Edwards & Angell, LLP, 750
Lexington Avenue, New York, NY 10022-1200, USA, Phone:
212-308-4411, Fax: 212-308-4844, E-mail:
Cstotter@edwardsangell.com or Rnovack@ealaw.com.  Representing
the plaintiffs are Paskowitz & Associates, Phone: 800.705.9529,
E-mail: classattorney@aol.com; and Roy Jacobs & Associates, 350
Fifth Avenue Suite 3000, New York, NY, 10118, E-mail:
classattorney@pipeline.com.  


NEW HAMPSHIRE: Father Files Suit Over Sealed Records in Divorces
----------------------------------------------------------------
Arthur Ginsberg, a divorced father of two from Nashua made a
legal challenge in federal court on the constitutionality of a
state law enacted last year that requires the sealing of
financial affidavits in divorces, The Union Leader reports.

Mr. Ginsberg contends that his ex-wife, Jennifer Wilson, who now
lives in Vermont, misused $120,000 earmarked for their
children's education, but he cannot take legal action against
her since it would mean disclosing the sealed financial records
in the divorce case.

In a telephone interview with the Leader, he said, "I'm in
violation if I try to pursue the money that my ex took from my
children." According to him, he risks up to a year in jail, if,
in trying to show that his wife's financial affidavits were
fraudulent, he discloses the sealed affidavits in a lawsuit.

Mr. Ginsberg's lawyer, Jill Dinneen, filed the class action in
U.S. District Court in Concord on behalf of Mr. Ginsberg and all
others similarly situated. Mr. Dinneen told the Leader, "It's
not just his situation. It's everyone who's a marital litigant
in the state of New Hampshire. He isn't the only one who is
subject to this ban. There are potentially thousands of people
who could be affected by it."

Under New Hampshire law, financial information in civil and
criminal cases is in the public domain, and the state Supreme
Court has ruled that under the New Hampshire Constitution all
court records are public. Last year though, the Legislature
enacted the exception in divorce cases.  Shortly after the new
law went into effect, the Associated Press and a half dozen
other news outlets sued in state court. A Merrimack County
Superior Court judge upheld the law, and the news organizations
are now appealing to the state Supreme Court.

Mr. Ginsberg's lawsuit, which names Attorney General Kelly
Ayotte as the defendant, contends that the law sealing financial
information in marital cases violates the First Amendment
"because it abridges freedom of speech and freedom of the press,
in that it constitutes a prior restraint and imposes a criminal
ban on the publication of truthful information."  Additionally,
Mr. Ginsberg's suit also contends that the law is
unconstitutionally vague and violates the equal protection
clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by treating domestic
relations cases differently from civil and criminal cases.

The lawsuit states that Mr. Ginsberg has been unable to trace
what happened to the $120,000 in education funds for the
couple's daughters, now 15 and 18.  According to the suit, Mr.
Ginsberg wants to disclose financial information to a forensic
accountant and others who will help him trace the money, now
that it has "become apparent that Jennifer Wilson
misappropriated those funds."

Mr. Ginsberg, the former president of a software development
company, says he has sole custody of the children, but, at 51,
he is bankrupt and has no income. He blames the divorce by
telling the Leader, "It was a six-year ordeal that bankrupted
me. My company went out of business." He adds, "In the end, I
got custody of the children. She got custody of the money."


PNC FINANCIAL: Reaches Settlement for PA Consolidated Stock Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fairness hearing on the settlement of the consolidated
securities class action filed against PNC Financial Services
Group, Inc. is set for August 4,2005 in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.

The settlement relates to certain lawsuits and other claims
related to three 2001 transactions (labeled the "PAGIC
transactions") that gave rise to a financial statement
restatement the Company announced on January 29, 2002 and that
were the subject of a July 2002 consent order between the
Company and the United States Securities and Exchange Commission
and a June 2003 Deferred Prosecution Agreement between the
United States Department of Justice and PNC ICLC Corp., one of
its indirect non-bank subsidiaries.

The several putative class action complaints filed during 2002
in the United States District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania arising out of the PAGIC transactions have been
consolidated in a consolidated class action complaint brought on
behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock between July
19, 2001 and July 18, 2002.  The consolidated class action
complaint names the Company, its Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer, its former Chief Financial Officer, its Controller, and
its independent auditors for 2001 as defendants and seeks
unquantified damages, interest, attorneys' fees and other
expenses.  The consolidated class action complaint alleges
violations of federal securities laws related to disclosures
regarding the PAGIC transactions and related matters.

In August 2002, the United States Department of Labor began a
formal investigation of the Administrative Committee of the
Company's Incentive Savings Plan ("Plan") in connection with the
Administrative Committee's conduct relating to the Company's
common stock held by the Plan. Both the Administrative Committee
and PNC are cooperating fully with the investigation.  

In June 2003, the Administrative Committee retained Independent
Fiduciary Services, Inc. (IFS) to serve as an independent
fiduciary charged with the exclusive authority and
responsibility to act on behalf of the Plan in connection with
the pending securities litigation referred to above and to
evaluate any legal rights the Plan might have against any
parties relating to the PAGIC transactions.  This authority
includes representing the Plan's interests in connection with
the Restitution Fund set up under the Deferred Prosecution
Agreement. The Department of Labor has communicated with IFS in
connection with the engagement.

On December 17, 2004, the Company entered into a tentative
settlement of the consolidated putative class actions, reflected
in a Memorandum of Understanding between the plaintiffs and the
Company, its former and current executive officers who are
defendants in the lawsuit, and AIG Financial Products
Corporation.  The tentative settlement is subject to completion
of final documentation, court approval and other conditions,
including some that are outside the control of the parties.


PNC FINANCIAL: Plaintiffs File Amended PA ERISA Violations Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
PNC Financial Services Group faces an amended class action filed
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, alleging violations of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).  The suit also names as
defendants PNC Bank, N.A., the Company's Pension Plan and its
Pension Committee.

The complaint alleges ERISA violations arising out of the
January 1, 1999 conversion of the Company's Pension Plan from a
traditional defined benefit formula into a "cash balance"
formula, the design and continued operation of the Plan, and
other related matters. Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of
all current and former employee-participants in and
beneficiaries of the Plan as of December 31, 1998 and
thereafter.  Plaintiffs also seek to represent a subclass of all
current and former employee-participants in and beneficiaries of
the Plan as of December 31, 1998 and thereafter who were or
would have become eligible for an early retirement subsidy under
the former Plan at some time prior to the date of the amended
complaint.  The plaintiffs are seeking damages and equitable
relief available under ERISA, including interest, costs, and
attorneys' fees.

The suit is styled "Register et al v. PNC Financial Services
Group, Inc., et al., case no. 2:04-cv-06097-LDD," filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, under Judge Legrome D. Davis.  Representing the
plaintiffs is Michael S. Tarringer, MILLER FAUCHER AND CAFERTY,
LLP, One Logan Sq., 18th and Cherry Streets, Ste 1700,
Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone: 215-864-2800, E-mail:
mtarringer@millerfaucher.com.  Representing the Company is
William A. Slaughter, BALLARD SPAHR ANDREWS AND INGERSOLL, 1735
Market Street, 51st Floor, Philadelphia PA 19103, Phone:
215-665-8500, E-mail: slaughter@ballardspahr.com.


PORTLAND GENERAL: OR Court Grants Petitions For Writ of Mandamus
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Oregon Supreme Court granted both of Portland General
Electric Corporation's (PGE) petitions for an alternative writ
of mandamus related to the class actions filed against it in
Marion County Circuit Court in Illinois.

In a separate legal proceeding, two class action suits were
filed against the Company on January 17, 2003 on behalf of two
classes of electric service customers.  One case seeks to
represent current PGE customers that were customers during the
period from April 1, 1995 to October 1, 2001 (Current Class) and
the other case seeks to represent PGE customers that were
customers during the period from April 1, 1995 to October 1,
2001, but who are no longer customers (Former Class).  The suits
seek damages of $190 million for the Current Class and $70
million for the Former Class, as a result of the inclusion of a
return on investment of Trojan in the rates PGE charges its
customers.

On April 28, 2004, the plaintiffs filed a Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment and on July 30, 2004, PGE also moved for
Summary Judgment in its favor on all of Plaintiff's claims. On
December 14, 2004, the Judge granted the Plaintiff's motion for
Class Certification and Partial Summary Judgment and denied
PGE's motion for Summary Judgment.  PGE filed a proposed order
certifying the issue for an interlocutory appeal.  An order
rejecting the proposed order was entered on February 1, 2005.  
On March 3, 2005, PGE filed a Petition for an Alternative Writ
of Mandamus with the Oregon Supreme Court, asking the Court to
take jurisdiction and command the trial Judge to dismiss the
complaints or to show cause why they should not be dismissed. On
March 29, 2005, PGE filed a second Petition for an Alternative
Writ of Mandamus with the Oregon Supreme Court, seeking to
overturn the Class Certification.  On May 3, 2005, the Oregon
Supreme Court granted both Petitions.  The parties will file
briefs on both Petitions over the next few months.  Oral
argument before the Oregon Supreme Court is expected in the fall
of 2005.


PORTLAND GENERAL: Files Motion To Abate, Dismiss Consumer Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Portland General Electric Corporation asked the Multnomah County
Circuit Court in Oregon to abate or alternatively dismiss a
class action filed against the Company on behalf of all its
customers who were billed on their electric bills and paid
amounts for Multnomah County Business Income Taxes (MBIT) after
1996.

In January 2005, David Kafoury and Kafoury Brothers, LLC filed a
class action lawsuit in Multnomah County Circuit Court, alleging
that during the period 1997 through the third quarter 2004, PGE
collected in excess of $6 million from its customers for MBIT
that was never paid to Multnomah County. The charges were billed
and collected under the Public Utility Commission of Oregon
(OPUC) rules that allow utilities to collect taxes imposed by
the county.  As a member of Enron's consolidated income tax
return, the Company paid the tax it collected to Enron. The
plaintiffs seek a judgment against the Company for restitution
of MBIT collected from customers. Plaintiffs also seek interest,
recoverable costs, and reasonable attorney fees.  

The Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on February 25, 2005,
adding claims for fraud, unjust enrichment, conversion,
statutory violations, and seeking punitive damages.  On February
24, 2005, the Company requested a declaratory ruling from the
OPUC on this matter. On March 24, 2005, the Company filed in the
Circuit Court a motion to abate or in the alternative to
dismiss.


PORTLAND GENERAL: Faces Possible Lawsuit Over Electricity Rates
---------------------------------------------------------------
Portland General Electric Corporation faces a Notice of
Potential Class Action Lawsuit for Damages and Demand to Rectify
Damages from counsel representing Frank Gearhart, David Kafoury
and Kafoury Brothers, LLC (Potential Plaintiffs) stating that
Potential Plaintiffs intend to bring a class action lawsuit
against the Company.

Potential Plaintiffs allege that for the period from October 1,
2000 to the present, the Company's electricity rates have
included unlawful charges for a return on investment in Trojan
in an amount in excess of $100 million.


REXALL SUNDOWN: CA Court Holds Status Conference on CA Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
California Superior Court held a status conference on the class
action filed against Rexall Sundown, Inc. and certain of its
subsidiaries on July 6,2005.

The suit was filed in 2002 on behalf of all California consumers
who bought various nutrition bars.  Plaintiffs allege
misbranding of nutrition bars and violations of California
unfair competition statutes, misleading advertising and other
similar causes of action.  Plaintiffs seek restitution, legal
fees and injunctive relief.  

The suit was supposed to go to trial on March 15,2005, but the
court vacated the trial date.  No new trial date has been set.


SYNCOR INTERNATIONAL: CA Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California granted Syncor International Corporation's motion to
dismiss the consolidated securities class action filed against
it and certain of its officers and directors.

Eleven purported class action lawsuits have been filed against
the Company and certain of its officers and directors, asserting
claims under the federal securities laws.  These cases include:

     (1) Richard Bowe v. Syncor Int'l Corp., et al., No. CV 02-
         8560 LGB (RCx) (C.D. Cal.),

     (2) Alan Kaplan v. Syncor Int'l Corp., et al., No. CV 02-
         8575 CBM (MANx) (C.D. Cal),

     (3) Franklin Embon, Jr. v. Syncor Int'l Corp., et al., No.
         CV 02-8687 DDP (AJWx) (C.D. Cal),

     (4) Jonathan Alk v. Syncor Int'l Corp., et al., No. CV 02-
         8841 GHK (RZx) (C.D. Cal),

     (5) Joyce Oldham v. Syncor Int'l Corp., et al., CV 02-8972
         FMC (RCx) (C.D. Cal),

     (6) West Virginia Laborers Pension Trust Fund v. Syncor
         Int'l Corp., et al., No. CV 02-9076 NM (RNBx) (C.D.
         Cal),

     (7) Brad Lookingbill v. Syncor Int'l Corp., et al., CV
         02-9248 RSWL (Ex) (C.D. Cal),

     (8) Them Luu v. Syncor Int'l Corp., et al., CV 02-9583
         RGK (JwJx) (C.D. Cal),

     (9) David Hall v. Syncor Int'l Corp., et al., CV 02-9621
         CAS (CWx) (C.D. Cal),

    (10) Phyllis Walzer v. Syncor Int'l Corp., et al., CV 02-
         9640 RMT (AJWx) (C.D. Cal), and

    (11) Larry Hahn v. Syncor Int'l Corp., et al., CV 03-52 LGB
         (RCx) (C.D. Cal.).

The Syncor federal securities actions purport to be brought
on behalf of all purchasers of Syncor shares during various
periods, beginning as early as March 30, 2000 and ending as late
as November 5, 2002.  The actions allege, among other things,
that the defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act by issuing a series of press releases and public
filings disclosing significant sales growth in Syncor's
international business, but omitting mention of certain
allegedly improper payments to Syncor's foreign customers,
thereby artificially inflating the price of Syncor shares.

A lead plaintiff has been appointed by the Court in the Syncor
federal securities actions, and a consolidated amended complaint
was filed May 19, 2003, naming the Company and 12 individuals,
all former officers, directors and/or employees, as defendants.  
The consolidated complaint seeks unspecified money damages and
other unspecified relief against the defendants.  The Company
filed a Motion to Dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on
August 1, 2003, and on December 12, 2003, the Court granted the
Motion to Dismiss without prejudice. A second amended
consolidated class action complaint was filed on January 28,
2004, naming the Company and 14 individuals, all former Syncor
officers, directors and/or employees, as defendants.  

The Company filed a Motion to Dismiss the second amended
consolidated class action complaint on March 4, 2004. On July 6,
2004, the Court granted Defendants' Motion to Dismiss without
prejudice as to the Company, Monty Fu, Robert Funari and Haig
Bagerdjian.  As to the other individual defendants, the Motion
to Dismiss was granted with prejudice.  On September 14, 2004,
the lead plaintiff filed a Motion for Clarification of the
Court's July 6, 2004 dismissal order.  The court clarified its
July 6, 2004 dismissal order on November 29, 2004 and the lead
plaintiff filed a third amended consolidated complaint on
December 29, 2004.

The Company filed a Motion to Dismiss the third amended
consolidated complaint on January 31, 2005. On April 15, 2005,
the Court granted the Motion to Dismiss with prejudice. The lead
plaintiff has 30 days to file an appeal.


UICI: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Amended Securities Suit in TX
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended securities class action
against UICI and certain of its officers and current and former
directors in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Texas, Dallas Division, styled "In re UICI
Securities Litigation, Case No. 3-04-CV-1149-P."

In May and June 2004, four separate class action suits were
filed and later consolidated.  On January 18, 2005, plaintiffs,
on behalf of themselves and a purported class of similarly
situated individuals who purchased the company's common stock
during the period February 7, 2002 and July 21, 2003, filed a
Consolidated Amended Complaint, alleging, among other things,
that the Company, Academic Management Services Corporation
(AMS), the Company's former chief executive officer, and AMS'
former president failed to disclose all material facts relating
to the condition of AMS, in violation of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.

The Company and The MEGA Life and Health Insurance Company
(MEGA) were named as defendants in a purported class action
suit filed on May 6, 2004, styled "Diaz v. The MEGA Life and
Health Insurance Company, UICI et al.," in the Superior Court
for the State of California, County of San Bernardino, Rancho,
Case No. RCV - 080379.  Plaintiffs alleged, on behalf of
themselves and as representatives of all other policyholders of
MEGA in California, that the defendants are engaged in an
illegal and fraudulent marketing scheme in violation of
California common law and the California Business and
Professions Code Section 17200.

Plaintiffs also have alleged that defendants maintain NASE to
illegally avoid premium rate regulation, fail to issue insurance
coverage to members of the NASE on a guaranteed issue basis in
violation of California law, and rescind certificates in
violation of California law. Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief
and monetary damages in an unspecified amount.

On December 10, 2004, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation issued an order transferring the "Diaz" matter to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas
for coordinated pretrial proceedings with the "In re UICI
"Association - Group" Insurance Litigation, MDL Docket No.
1578."  On December 10, 2004, MEGA filed a counterclaim for
rescission of the named plaintiffs' insurance certificate.

The Company and MEGA were named as defendants in a purported
class action filed on May 14, 2004, styled "Joyce et al. v.
UICI, MEGA, National Association for the Self-Employed et al.,"
in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los
Angeles, Case No. BC315580.  Plaintiffs have alleged that
defendants breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing and committed fraud, professional negligence, and
negligent misrepresentation. In addition, plaintiffs have
alleged, on behalf of themselves and persons similarly situated
in the state of California, that defendants violated the unfair
competition restrictions of California Business and Professions
Code Section 17200.  Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief and
monetary damages in an unspecified amount.  On June 21, 2004,
defendants removed the "Joyce" case to the United States
District Court for the Central District of California. On
December 10, 2004, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation issued a transfer order transferring the "Joyce"
matter to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Texas for coordinated pretrial proceedings in the
"In re UICI "Association-Group" Insurance Litigation, MDL Docket
No. 1578."


UICI: Funds Attorneys' Fees in TX Consumer Fraud Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
UICI funded the attorneys' fees portion of the settlement of the
class action filed against it, The MEGA Life and Health
Insurance Company (MEGA), Mid-West National Life Insurance
Company of Tennessee ("Mid-West"), and UICI Marketing, Inc.

A nationwide class action lawsuit and a representative lawsuit
was initially filed on behalf of the California general public,
both of which suits involved allegations of improper relations
and/or a failure to disclose certain relationships between UICI,
MEGA, and Mid-West and the certain membership associations that
make MEGA and Mid-West insurance products available to their
members.  Upon motion of the Company to the Federal Judicial
Panel on MultiDistrict Litigation (JPMDL), these lawsuits,
styled "Eugene A. Golebiowski, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, v. MEGA, UICI, National Association
for the Self-Employed et al., Case No. 3:04-cv-00831-G" and
"Lacy v. The MEGA Life and Health Insurance Company et al., Case
No. 3:04-cv-00470-G," were consolidated in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas
Division, as part of the "In re UICI "Association-Group"
Insurance Litigation, MDL Docket No. 1578."

Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, MEGA and Mid-West
agreed to include enhanced disclosures in their marketing and
sales materials with respect to the contractual relationships
between the Company and the insurance companies, on the one
hand, and the associations, on the other hand, and MEGA and Mid-
West agreed to enter into an injunction with respect to certain
business practices. In addition, members of a nationwide class
consisting of current and former MEGA and Mid-West insureds are
entitled to relief in the form of free insurance coverage for a
period of months under a personal accident policy to be issued
by a UICI subsidiary, and members of a nationwide class
consisting of current and former members of the associations
will be eligible to receive discounts on association membership
fees.  The settlement also provided for the payment of
attorneys' fees to counsel for the settlement class. The
settlement does not provide for a release of specific claims by
individuals for insurance coverage benefits or of any claims of
any member who opted out of the settlement class.

Following a final approval hearing held on October 15, 2004, the
court issued a final order and judgment certifying a nationwide
settlement class of current and former MEGA and Mid-West
insureds and current and former members of the associations. The
Court also approved the terms of the previously announced
settlement as fair, reasonable and adequate and in the best
interest of the settlement class, dismissed the cases with
prejudice, and entered an injunction with respect to certain
business practices. Certain class members subsequently filed an
appeal to the final order and judgment with the United States
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.  On December 17, 2004,
the parties to the settlement reached an agreement with the
objecting class members, pursuant to which MEGA and Mid-West
agreed to extend the deadline for class members to apply for the
free accident coverage, maintain the settlement website until
October 15, 2005, and send a notice, within six months of
December 10, 2004, to all insured class members that the
Settlement has been enhanced and directing them to the
settlement website for additional information.

On January 3, 2005, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit issued an order dismissing the appeal, and on
January 18, 2005, the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas issued a final order withdrawing with
prejudice all objections to the class settlement.  On January
21, 2005, the District Court issued an order approving the
payment of attorneys' fees to counsel for the settlement class
and to counsel for the objectors.


UNITE: PA Federal Judge Grants Class Action Status For DPPA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eastern District of Pennsylvania Judge Stewart Dalzell certified
a class action suit under the federal Driver's Privacy
Protection Act of 1994 that was brought by a group of factory
workers who claim that a union illegally obtained their home
addresses by copying their license plates in the company parking
lot, a decision that could very well change the way some union
organizers do business, The Legal Intelligencer reports.  

In his 74-page opinion in the case, Pichler v. UNITE (Union of
Needletrades, Industrial & Textile Employees AFL-CIO), the
federal judge rejected a defense argument that since the DPPA
requires proof of "actual damages," the workers should not be
allowed to proceed as a class. Instead, Judge Dalzell concluded
that the DPPA contains no such requirement of actual damages and
that "a plaintiff may recover liquidated damages of $2,500 under
the DPPA even if she fails to prove actual damages." Thus, he
found that all of the workers whose license plates were used by
UNITE to obtain personal information share common legal issues
that are properly handled in a class action.

The DPPA was passed in 1994 after the murder of actress Rebecca
Schaeffer by a stalker who obtained her address from the
California Department of Motor Vehicles. Upheld by the U.S.
Supreme Court in 2000, the law prohibits state officials from
sharing the personal information they collect when administering
driver's licenses unless they obtain a person's "express
consent" to do so.

Additionally, the law also mandates that states keep the
information private in most circumstances. Now key sections of
the law, specifically those that prohibit anyone from using
motor vehicle records to obtain personal information, are
proving to be an agent for change in the ongoing battles between
industry and union organizers.

Testimony in the Pichler case shows that until the lawsuit was
filed, it was a common practice for some union organizers to use
license plates in company parking lots to gather the home
addresses of workers.

Union organizers testified that employees often wouldn't speak
with them on the company's premises because they fear that
management will retaliate against any employees who consort with
the union.

In a prior opinion, Judge Dalzell rejected the argument that
union organizers should be exempted from the DPPA because it
conflicts with their rights under the National Labor Relations
Act. In that previous ruling, the judge concluded that the
National Labor Relations Board "has no jurisdiction -- exclusive
or otherwise -- over the plaintiffs' DPPA claim because Congress
has not authorized it to enforce that statute."

Attorneys for the union argued that courts have long approved of
unions' using information from motor vehicle records to contact
employees during organizing campaigns.

Judge Dalzell though also rejected the argument, pointing out
that the union was in effect arguing that since the DPPA's
legislative history never mentions the law's potential effects
on this practice, the courts should infer that Congress intended
not to prohibit it. He further pointed out, "We may well agree
that Congress probably did not consider carefully the effect
that the DPPA would have on union organizing. But it is quite
another matter to use such speculation as a basis upon which to
infer that Congress affirmatively intended for the unions'
alleged conduct to be exempt from the DPPA."

Court papers indicate that UNITE has set its sights on
unionizing employees of Cintas Corporation, a manufacturer of
corporate uniforms, restroom supplies, and first aid and safety
products, which operates 351 facilities that employ more than
28,000 people in the United States and Canada.

Since the fall of 2002, UNITE has waged a campaign to educate
Cintas employees about how to protect their rights under federal
and state law.

In court papers, the union claims it was concerned with what it
characterizes as Cintas's low wages, poor benefits, unsafe
working conditions, discriminatory practices, and violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Family Medical Leave Act and
workers' compensation laws.

UNITE officials testified that it was critically important to
them that the Cintas campaign succeed because they believed
Cintas's practices were holding down labor standards throughout
the laundry industry, one of UNITE's key businesses. Thus, in
the opinion, Judge Dalzell outlined UNITE's efforts to compile a
list of Cintas employees' home addresses, including the use of
motor vehicle records.

When the Judge Dalzell opinion was issued, UNITE organizers
started recording the license plate numbers of the vehicles
parked in the lot at the Cintas's plant in Emmaus and then gave
the numbers to a private investigator who, in turn, hired
Pennsylvania Auto License Brokers to access home addresses from
state databases. However, when UNITE began visiting Cintas
workers at their homes, the plan backfired. Some workers
complained to management, and the company hired lawyers from
Spector Gadon & Rosen to investigate whether the workers'
privacy rights had been violated.

The eventual suit that followed the law firm's investigation is
the one that Judge Dalzell has certified as a class action. He
had granted the class certification after finding that the DPPA
was designed to provide liquidated damages to any plaintiff
whose personal information was improperly obtained through motor
vehicle records.

Defense lawyers though argued that the wording of the statute
shows that a defendant is liable only if the violation was
committed with knowledge of its illegality.

However, Judge Dalzell disagreed, contending that such a ruling
would mean that "every defendant would get at least one free
bite at the violation-of-privacy apple." "After all," Judge
Dalzell further stated, "anyone could claim that he did not
'know' his purpose to be impermissible until a court interpreted
the DPPA to proscribe that purpose." The defense lawyers, Judge
Dalzell adds, "have not provided any evidence that Congress
intended such a strange result."

In a ruling that defined the reach of the law, Judge Dalzell
wrote: "We hold that, to be eligible to recover under the DPPA,
a plaintiff must prove that the defendant knowingly obtained,
disclosed, or used personal information from her motor vehicle
records and the purpose of such obtaining, disclosure, or use
was not permissible. The plaintiff need not show that the
defendant knew that the obtaining, disclosure, or use was
impermissible."

In his order, Judge Dalzell thus certified the case as a class
action on behalf of anyone "whose license plate numbers were
used by UNITE, directly or indirectly, individually or jointly,
as part of an effort to knowingly obtain, use and/or disclose
personal information from motor vehicle records between July 1,
2002 and August 2, 2004."

The case is styled, Pichler v. UNITE (E.D. Pa., 339 F.Supp.2d
665), which was filed in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Attorneys Paul R. Rosen,
Beth Lincow Cole, James Bucci, David B. Picker and Bruce
Bellingham of Spector Gadon & Rosen represent the plaintiffs.
UNITE is represented by attorneys Thomas M. Kennedy, Dennis
Torreggiani and Susan M. Jennik of Kennedy Schwartz & Cure in
New York, and Laurence M. Goodman and Mark Featherman of Willig
Williams & Davidson in Philadelphia.


UNUMPROVIDENT CORPORATION: Pretrial Proceedings To End Dec. 2005
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Tennesse entered a schedule providing for the completion of all
pretrial proceedings in the consolidated class action filed
against UnumProvident Corporation, several of its subsidiaries
and some of their officers and directors by December 2005.

On May 22, 2003, the Company, several of its subsidiaries, and
some of their officers and directors filed a motion with the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation seeking to transfer
more than twenty class actions and derivative suits now pending
against them in various federal district courts to a single
district for coordinated or consolidated pre-trial proceedings.
Each of these actions, contends, among other things, that the
defendants engaged in improper claims handling practices in
violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
or various state laws or failed to disclose the effects of
those practices in violation of the federal securities laws.

On September 2, 2003, the JPMDL entered an order transferring
these cases to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Tennessee for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings.  

On February 12, 2003, the first of five virtually identical
alleged securities class action suits styled "Knisley v.
UnumProvident Corporation, et al.," was filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee.  On
February 27, 2003, a sixth complaint entitled "Martin v.
UnumProvident Corporation, et al.," was filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York, and
later was transferred to the Eastern District of Tennessee by
agreement of the parties. In two orders dated May 21, 2003 and
January 22, 2004, the district court consolidated these actions
under the caption "In re UnumProvident Corp. Securities
Litigation."

On November 6, 2003, the district court entered an order
appointing a Lead Plaintiff in the consolidated action. On
January 9, 2004, the Lead Plaintiff filed its consolidated
amended complaint. The Lead Plaintiff seeks to represent a
putative class of purchasers of UnumProvident Corporation
publicly traded securities between March 30, 2000 and April 24,
2003. The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the
Company issued misleading financial statements, improperly
accounted for certain impaired investments, failed to properly
estimate its disability claim reserves, and pursued certain
improper claims handling practices.  The complaint asserts
claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.  On March 19, 2004, the
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint, which has not as of yet been ruled upon by the court.

On May 7, 2003, "Azzolini v. CorTs Trust II for Provident
Financial Trust, et al.," was filed in the Southern District of
New York.  This is a federal securities law class action brought
by the plaintiff on behalf of himself and a purported Class
consisting of all persons who purchased UnumProvident Corporate-
Backed Trust Securities (CorTs) certificates pursuant to an
initial public offering by an entity unaffiliated with the
Company on or about April 18, 2001 through March 24, 2003.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages caused by the Company's and
certain underwriter defendants' alleged violations of the
Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Plaintiff asserts that the Company issued and/or failed to
correct false and misleading financial statements and press
releases concerning the Company's publicly reported revenues and
earnings directed to the investing public.

Three additional actions alleging similar claims and purporting
to be class actions were filed, two in the Southern District of
New York, styled "Strahle v. CorTs Trust II for Provident
Financing Trust I, et al.," and "Finke v. CorTs Trust II for
Provident Financing Trust I, et al.," filed on March 23, 2003
and May 15, 2003, respectively, and the third in the Eastern
District of New York, styled "Bernstein v. CorTs for Provident
Financing Trust I, et al.," filed on July 7, 2003.  These
actions all have been transferred to the Eastern District of
Tennessee for coordinated pre-trial proceedings. On February 18,
2004, the court consolidated each of these actions other than
the "Bernstein" action under the "Azzolini" caption.  The
"Bernstein" action makes identical allegations as the other
actions, but with respect to a different series of CorTs
securities.  

On March 19, 2004, amended complaints were filed in both the
"Azzolini" and "Bernstein" actions. The amended complaints
assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder against the
Copany and one of its officers.  The "Azzolini" plaintiff seeks
to represent a putative class of purchasers of certain CorTs
certificates between March 21, 2001 and March 24, 2003.  The
"Bernstein" plaintiff seeks to represent a putative class of
purchasers of a different series of CorTs certificates between
February 8, 2001 and March 10, 2003. On April 19, 2004, the
defendants moved to dismiss the complaints in each of these
actions. The court has not as of yet ruled on those motions.  
Discovery is stayed in each of these actions pursuant to the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. The court
entered a schedule providing for the completion of all pretrial
proceedings in these actions by December 2005.

On July 15, 2002, the case of "Rombeiro v. Unum Life Insurance
Company of America, et al.," was filed in the Superior Court of
Sonoma County, California. It was subsequently removed to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California. On January 21, 2003, a First Amended Complaint was
filed, purporting to be a class action. This complaint alleges
that plaintiff individually was wrongfully denied disability
benefits under a group long-term disability plan and alleges
breach of state law fiduciary duties on behalf of himself and
others covered by similar plans whose disability benefits have
been denied or terminated after a claim was made.  The complaint
seeks, among other things, injunctive and declaratory relief and
payment of benefits.

On April 30, 2003, the court granted in part and denied in part
the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint. On May 14,
2003, the plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint seeking
injunctive relief on behalf of a putative nationwide class of
long-term disability insurance policyholders. This action was
transferred to the Eastern District of Tennessee as part of the
multidistrict litigation transfer order.

On November 4, 2002, the case of "Keir, et al. v. UnumProvident
Corporation, et al.," was filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York. This case purports
to be a class action on behalf of a putative class of group
long-term disability participants insured under ERISA plans
whose claims were denied or terminated on or after June 30,
1999. The amended complaint alleges that these claimants had
their claims improperly challenged and allege that the Company
and its insurance subsidiaries breached certain fiduciary duties
owed to these participants in ERISA plans in which the Company
is the claims adjudicator.  On April 29, 2003, the court denied
the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint. This action was
transferred to the Eastern District of Tennessee as part of the
multidistrict litigation transfer order.

On February 11, 2003, the case of "Harris, et al. v.
UnumProvident Corporation, et al.," was filed in the Circuit
Court of St. Clair County, Illinois. This case purports to be a
class action. The complaint alleges that individuals were
wrongfully denied benefits and alleges causes of action under
breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and
fair dealing, violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act,
common law fraud, intentional misrepresentation, and breach of
fiduciary duty on behalf of a putative class of policyholders.
Alternatively, the complaint alleges violations of ERISA. The
complaint seeks injunctive and declaratory relief as well as
restitution and punitive damages. On April 4, 2003, the case was
removed to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois. This action was transferred to the Eastern
District of Tennessee as part of the multidistrict litigation
transfer order.

On February 25, 2003, the case of "Davis, et al. v.
UnumProvident Corporation, et al.," was filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
The plaintiffs are seeking representative status as a class of
disability participants insured under ERISA plans. The complaint
alleges that these claimants had their claims improperly denied
or terminated and that the Company breached certain fiduciary
duties owed to these participants in ERISA plans. The complaint
also alleges violations under the federal Racketeer Influenced
Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). The complaint seeks reversal
of claim denials or contract rescissions and re-determination by
an independent person of claims of the named plaintiffs and
others similarly situated, appointment of a master to oversee
certain claim handling matters, and treble damages under RICO.
This action was transferred to the Eastern District of Tennessee
as part of the multidistrict litigation transfer order.

On April 30, 2003, the case of "Taylor v. UnumProvident
Corporation, et al.," was filed in the Circuit Court for Shelby
County, Tennessee in the Thirteenth Judicial District at
Memphis. The plaintiff seeks to represent all individuals who
were insured by long-term disability policies issued by
subsidiaries of UnumProvident and who did not obtain their
coverage through employer sponsored plans and who had a claim
denied, terminated, or suspended by a UnumProvident subsidiary
after January 1, 1995. Plaintiff alleges that UnumProvident
Corporation and its subsidiaries employed various unfair claim
practices in assessing entitlement to benefits by class members
during this period and, as a result, wrongfully denied
legitimate claims. The plaintiff and the class seek contractual,
equitable, and injunctive relief. On June 9, 2003, the
defendants removed this action to the United States District
Court for the Western District of Tennessee. This action was
transferred to the Eastern District of Tennessee as part of the
multidistrict litigation transfer order.

On July 18, 2003, "Contreras v. UnumProvident Corporation, et
al.," was filed in the Southern District of New York. Plaintiffs
allege claims on behalf of a putative class of ERISA plan
participants, beneficiaries, third-party beneficiaries, or
assignees of group long-term disability insurance issued by the
insuring subsidiaries of UnumProvident, who have had a
disability claim denied, terminated, or suspended by
UnumProvident on or after June 30, 1999. Plaintiffs assert bad
faith claims practices by UnumProvident in violation of ERISA.
Plaintiffs seek equitable and injunctive relief to require,
among other things, that UnumProvident re-evaluate all
previously denied, terminated, or suspended claims. This action
was transferred to the Eastern District of Tennessee as part of
the multidistrict litigation transfer order.

On September 17, 2003, the case of "Rudrud, et al. v.
UnumProvident Corporation, et al.," was filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The
plaintiffs assert claims on behalf of a putative class of
disability participants insured under ERISA plans. The complaint
alleges that these claimants had their claims improperly denied
or terminated and that the Company breached certain fiduciary
duties owed to these participants in ERISA plans. The complaint
also alleges violations under the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and Massachusetts state law.
The complaint seeks payment of benefits, reversal of claim
denials or contract rescissions and re-determination by an
independent person of claims of the named plaintiffs and others
similarly situated, appointment of a master to oversee certain
claim handling matters, restitution and damages, and treble
damages under RICO. This action was transferred to the Eastern
District of Tennessee as part of the multidistrict litigation
order.

On November 13, 2003, the case of "Dauphinee, et al. v.
UnumProvident, et al.," was filed in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. This action is
brought as a putative class action lawsuit on behalf of
representative plaintiffs and all disabled individuals insured
under a UnumProvident long-term disability plan. The complaint
alleges that UnumProvident and its subsidiaries fraudulently and
otherwise unlawfully denied and terminated long-term disability
insurance benefits. Additionally, the complaint alleges misuse
of authority as an ERISA claims fiduciary. The complaint seeks
injunctive and declaratory relief to require, among other
things, that UnumProvident re-evaluate all previously denied,
terminated, or suspended claims.

On December 22, 2003, the Tennessee Federal District Court
entered an order consolidating all of the above actions other
than the "Taylor" action for all pretrial purposes under the
caption "In re UnumProvident Corp. ERISA Benefit Denial
Actions." Among other things, the court in that order appointed
a lead counsel in the actions and directed lead counsel to file
a consolidated amended complaint in the "ERISA Benefit Denial
Actions," which was filed on February 20, 2004.  On March 26,
2004, the defendants answered the complaints in these actions,
and simultaneously filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings
in the "ERISA Benefit Denial Actions."  The court has not yet
ruled upon that motion.  The parties have engaged in certain
limited discovery in connection with ongoing court-ordered
mediation, as well as certain discovery on the merits of the
claims asserted in the actions.  

On April 9, 2004, the plaintiffs in "Taylor" and in the "ERISA
Benefit Denial Actions" separately filed motions seeking
certification of a plaintiff class. The defendants opposed each
of those motions. The court has not yet ruled upon the motions.

The suit is styled "In re UnumProvident Corporation ERISA
Benefit Denial Actions, case no. 1:03-md-01552," filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Tennessee, under Judge Curtis L. Collier.  Representing the
plaintiffs is Robert I. Harwood of Wechsler Harwood LLP, 488
Madison Avenue, Eight Floor, Suite 801, New York, NY 10022,
Phone: 212-935-7400, Fax: 212-753-3630, E-mail:
rharwood@whesq.com.


UNUMPROVIDENT CORPORATION: Faces FL Unfair Trade Practices Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
UnumProvident Corporation faces a class action filed in the
Circuit Court of Seminole County, Florida, styled "Palm Tree
Computers Systems, Inc. et al. on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated v. ACE USA, et al."

Prior to the Company being served, two other defendants filed
petitions to remove the case to the United States District Court
of the Middle District of Florida. One defendant has since
stipulated that diversity jurisdiction does not exist, and the
federal court has dismissed the removed action.  The second
defendant's removal based on federal question jurisdiction is
currently the subject of a motion to remand.  If the case
remains in federal court, it will likely be transferred to the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey as
part of MDL No. 1663, "In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust
Litigation."

The complaint is a putative class action and alleges violations
of the Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act of Florida and
other states, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment.
The allegations are brought against numerous broker
organizations and insurers and assert the Company and its
subsidiaries and affiliates engaged in illegal and unethical
contingent commission arrangements.  The complaint seeks damages
and injunctive relief as provided under the laws of the State of
Florida and various other states.


UNUMPROVIDENT CORPORATION: Certification Asked For TN ERISA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs asked the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Tennessee to grant class certification to
the consolidated class action filed against UnumProvident
Corporation, several of its officers and several fiduciaries of
its 401(k) retirement plan.

On April 29, 2003, the case of "Gee v. UnumProvident
Corporation, et al.," was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Tennessee on behalf of a putative class
of participants and beneficiaries of the Company's 401(k)
Retirement Plan.  Similar allegations were raised in "Scanlon v.
UnumProvident Corp., et al.," filed May 16, 2003, in the same
court.

On October 2, 2003, the court issued an order consolidating
these cases for all purposes. On January 9, 2004, plaintiffs
filed their consolidated amended complaint against the Company,
several of its Officers and Directors, and several Plan
fiduciaries, purportedly on behalf of a putative class of Plan
participants and beneficiaries during the period since November
17, 1999. Plaintiffs allege that the named defendants violated
the fiduciary provisions of Employee Retirement Income Security
Act (ERISA) by making direct and indirect communications to Plan
participants that included material misrepresentations and
omissions regarding investment in Company stock.  Further, the
plaintiffs allege the defendants failed to take action to
protect participants from losses sustained from investment in
the Plan's Company Stock Fund.

On February 26, 2004, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss
contending that the complaint failed to state a valid claim
under ERISA. On January 13, 2005, the court denied that motion.
The defendants filed an answer to the complaint denying all
material allegations on February 28, 2005. The parties have
engaged in certain limited document discovery in this action on
issues unique to this action that are not raised in the other
actions.  On March 10, 2005, plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification.  The defendants filed an opposition to that
motion which is due May 16, 2005.  The court entered a schedule
providing for the completion of all pretrial proceedings in
these actions by December 2005.

The suit is styled "Gee v. UnumProvident Corporation, et al,
case no. 1:03-cv-00147," filed in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, under Judge Curtis
L. Collier.  Representing the Company is John P. Konvalinka,
Grant, Konvalinka & Harrison, PC, 633 Chestnut Street, Suite 900
One Republic Centre, Chattanooga, TN 37450, Phone: 423-756-8400,
Fax: 423-756-6518, E-mail: johnkonv@gkhpc.com.  Representing the
plaintiffs are:

     (1) Andrew L. Berke and Ronald J. Berke, Berke, Berke &
         Berke, P O Box 4747, Chattanooga, TN 37405-4747, Phone:
         423-266-5171, E-mail: andrew@berkeattys.com or
         ronnie@berkeattys.com;

     (2) Edward W. Ciolko, Schiffrin & Barroway LLP, Three Bala
         Plaza East, Suite 400, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, E-mail:
         eciolko@sbclasslaw.com;

     (3) Joseph H. Meltzer and Katherine B. Bornstein, Schiffrin
         & Barroway LLP, 280 King of Prussia Road, Radnor, PA
         19087, Phone: 610-667-7706, Fax: 610-667-7056, Email:
         jmeltzer@sbclasslaw.com;


UNUMPROVIDENT CORPORATION: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
UnumProvident Corporation asked the Supreme Court of the State
of New York to dismiss the class action filed against it, styled
"Jeffrey A. Weiller v. New York Life Insurance Company,
UnumProvident Corporation, and The Paul Revere Life Insurance
Company."

This complaint is brought by the plaintiff on behalf of himself
and a purported class alleging that the Company schemed to
improperly deny or terminate legitimate claims filed under
policies issued by several non-UnumProvident insurers on behalf
of whom the Company administers claims.

The suit is styled "Jeffrey A. Weiller v. New York Life
Insurance Company, UnumProvident Corporation, and The Paul
Revere Life Insurance Company, case no. 604285/2004," filed in
the Supreme Court of the State of New York, under Judge Herman
Cahn.  Representing the plaintiffs is Gallagher, Harnett &
Lagalante - New York, 380 Lexington Ave., Suite 120, New York,
NY 1016, Phone: (212) 983-9700.  


UNUMPROVIDENT CORPORATION: RICO, ERISA Suits Moved To NJ Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class actions filed against UnumProvident Corporation and
certain of its subsidiaries relating to insurance brokerage
compensation practices have been consolidated in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey, as part of
the multidistrict litigation styled "In re Insurance Brokerage
Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1663.

Since October 2004, the Company and certain of its subsidiaries,
along with many other insurance brokers and insurers, have been
named as defendants in putative class actions, alleging among
other things, that the defendants violated various federal and
state laws by engaging in alleged bid rigging and by paying
undisclosed compensation to insurance brokers to steer business
to defendant insurers.

On October 20, 2004, a purported class action complaint for
violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
(RICO) Act, styled "Ronald Scott Shirley v. Universal Life
Resources, et al.," was filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of California.  The allegations
are made against Universal Life Resources, Inc. (ULR) and
several major insurers, including UnumProvident Corporation,
claiming there was a conspiracy to fraudulently market, sell and
administer insurance products to employee benefit plans by
extracting undisclosed compensation and fees from the employers
sponsoring the plans and from the participants of those plans.  

On January 10, 2005, an amended complaint was filed and the
amendment included the insertion of a new plaintiff, Cynthia
Brandes.  The case is now entitled, "Cynthia Brandes
individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v.
Universal Life Resources, et al."  A Second Amended Complaint
was filed on April 8, 2005, which asserts claims against the
Company and certain of its subsidiaries for alleged violations
of RICO, the Sherman Act, and Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA).  On April 18, 2005, co-defendant MetLife
filed a notice of potential tag along and a request that this
action be transferred to the United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey as part of MDL No. 1663.  No action
has yet been taken on that request.

On January 14, 2005, a suit, styled "Shell Vacations LLC on
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. Marsh &
McLennan Companies Inc., et al.," was filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.  The
complaint is a putative class action and alleges violations of
the Sherman Act, RICO, federal and state common law, state
antitrust laws, and unfair and or deceptive trade practices
laws. The allegations are brought against numerous broker
organizations and insurers and assert claims based on bid
rigging, price fixing, and undisclosed and improper compensation
practices. The complaint seeks restitution, disgorgement of
profits, establishment of a constructive trust, damages
including punitive damages, and trebling of damages and
injunctive relief.

On January 21, 2005, "Redwood Oil Company on behalf of itself
and all others similarly situated v. Marsh & McLennan Companies
Inc., et al.," was filed in the United States District Court of
the Northern District of Illinois.  The complaint is a putative
class action and alleges violations of the Sherman Act, RICO,
federal and state common law, state antitrust laws, and unfair
and or deceptive trade practices laws.  The allegations are
brought against numerous broker organizations and insurers and
assert claims based on bid rigging, price fixing, and
undisclosed and improper compensation practices.  The complaint
seeks restitution, disgorgement of profits, establishment of a
constructive trust, and damages as provided by federal and state
antitrust laws and by RICO.

On February 4, 2005, "David Boros on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Marsh and McLennan Companies, Inc.,
et al.," was filed in the United States District Court of the
Northern District of California. The complaint is a putative
class action and alleges violations of the Sherman Act, RICO,
federal and state common law, state antitrust laws, and unfair
or deceptive trade practices laws. The allegations are brought
against numerous broker organizations and insurers and assert
claims based on bid-rigging, price fixing, and undisclosed and
improper compensation practices. The complaint seeks
restitution, disgorgement of profits, establishment of a
constructive trust, injunctive relief, punitive damages, and
damages as provided by federal and state antitrust laws and by
RICO.

On February 17, 2005, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation issued an order transferring several actions related
to broker compensation issues that are pending in various
district courts to the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey for consolidated or coordinated pre-trial
proceedings.  In a footnote, the Order identified the "Shell
Vacations," "Redwood Oil," and "Boros" actions as potential tag
along cases, and those cases have now been transferred to the
District of New Jersey. The Company expects to be served with
other complaints making similar allegations to those asserted in
the suits.  The Company believes these cases will likely be
managed as part of the multidistrict litigation proceedings, or,
if filed in state court and not removed, coordinated with the
multidistrict litigation proceedings.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

AUTHENTIDATE HOLDING: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Stock Lawsuit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC initiated a securities
class action lawsuit on behalf of shareholders who purchased the
common stock and other securities of AuthentiDate Holding Corp.
(Nasdaq:ADAT) ("AuthentiDate" or the "Company") between
September 29, 2003 and May 27, 2005, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). The class action lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

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

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


AUTHENTIDATE HOLDING: Charles J. Piven Lodges Stock Suit in MN
--------------------------------------------------------------
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 AuthentiDate
Holding Corp. (NASDAQ: ADAT) 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 defendant AuthentiDate 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.


AUTHENTIDATE HOLDING: Roy Jacobs Lodges Securities Lawsuit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Roy Jacobs & Associates 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 by disseminating false and misleading public announcements
during the Class Period.

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 and
the marketability of its electronic postmark technology. As a
result, AuthentiDate securities traded at artificial levels
during the Class Period.

On May 27, 2005, the Company issued a press release announcing
that 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 AuthentiDate had failed to
attain the required performance metrics. On this news,
AuthentiDate's stock collapsed to $2.94 per share on volume of
1.28 million shares.

For more details, contact Roy Jacobs & Associates, Phone:
888-884-4490, E-mail: CLASSATTORNEY@PIPELINE.COM.


CARRIER ACCESS: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Securities Lawsuit in CO
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC initiated a securities
class action lawsuit on behalf of shareholders who purchased the
common stock and other securities of Carrier Access Corporation
(Nasdaq:CACSE) ("Carrier Access" or the "Company") between
October 21, 2003, and May 20, 2005, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). The class action lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Colorado.

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

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


DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Stock Lawsuit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
LLP ("Lerach Coughlin") initiated a class action in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California on
behalf of purchasers of DreamWorks Animation SKG, Inc.
("DreamWorks") (NYSE:DWA) common stock during the period between
January 3, 2005 and May 10, 2005 (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 CG animated films.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business and prospects, including statements regarding
the continuing strong sales of its "Shrek 2" DVD. Then, on May
10, 2005, one or more Company insiders leaked inside information
to a reporter at Newsweek. The same day, Newsweek ran a story
titled "Insiders say DreamWorks is about to report surprisingly
bad results," which stated that "the studio expects to report
earnings substantially below the 60 cents per share that Wall
Street analysts have estimated for the quarter." After the
market closed on May 10, 2005, DreamWorks released its financial
and operating results for Q1 2005 and reported revenues and
earnings far short of previous guidance and analysts'
expectations of earnings of $0.58 a share on revenue of $175.2
million.

According to the complaint, as a result of the defendants' false
statements, DreamWorks' stock price traded at inflated levels
during the Class Period, increasing to as high as $41.09 per
share. However, after the truth began to be revealed in the
Newsweek story and DreamWorks' press release on May 10, 2005,
the Company's shares fell to below $33 per share.

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/dreamworks/.


FINDWHAT.COM INC.: Berman DeValerio Lodges Securities Suit in FL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo
initiated a class action in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida against FindWhat.com, Inc.
("FindWhat.com" or the "Company") (NasdaqNM: FWHT).

The lawsuit seeks damages for violations of federal securities
laws on behalf of all investors who purchased FindWhat.com
common stock from January 5, 2004 through and including, May 4,
2005 (the "Class Period").

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

On May 2, 2005, FindWhat.com announced that it had disagreed
with its independent auditors, Ernst & Young LLP about the need
to record an adjustment to recognize an impairment of goodwill
in connection with the Company's acquisition of Miva
Corporation. FindWhat.com also disclosed that, even though the
Company recorded the adjustment, Ernst & Young resigned and that
Ernst & Young identified material weaknesses with respect to the
Company's internal controls over financial reporting, the
complaint says. Following these revelations, FindWhat.com's
shares fell from its closing price of $7.75 on May 2, 2005, to
close at $5.71 on May 3, 2005.

Then on May 5, 2005, FindWhat.com announced that the Company's
Chief Financial Officer had resigned. The Company also revealed
that it had been interviewing public accounting firms since
January 2005, with a view towards replacing Ernst & Young as the
Company's independent auditors. On this news, FindWhat.com
shares fell an additional 20% to close at $4.83 per share.

On June 6, 2005, FindWhat.com announced the Company will change
its name to Miva, Inc., and the Company's ticker symbol will
change to NASDAQ: "MIVA," on June 13, 2005.

For more details, contact Michael J. Pucillo, Esq., Wendy H.
Zoberman, Esq. or Marc J. Greenspon, Esq. of Berman DeValerio
Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo, 222 Lakeview Avenue, Suite 900,
West Palm Beach, FL, 33401, Phone: (561) 835-9400, E-mail:
Lawfla@bermanesq.com, Web site:
http://www.bermanesq.com/pdf/Findwhat-Cplt.pdf.


OCA INC.: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. LA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
LLP ("Lerach Coughlin") initiated a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana on behalf of purchasers of OCA, Inc. ("OCA" or "the
Company") (NYSE:OCA) common stock during the period between May
18, 2004 and June 7, 2005 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges OCA and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. The Company provides business services to orthodontic and
pediatric dental practices in the United States. The company
provides affiliated practices with a range of operational,
purchasing, financial, marketing, administrative, and other
business services, as well as capital and proprietary
information systems.

The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
defendants issued numerous positive statements and filed
quarterly reports with the Securities and Exchange Commission
which described the Company's financial performance. As alleged
in the Complaint, these statements were materially false and
misleading because they failed to disclose and/or misrepresented
the following adverse facts, among others:

     (1) that defendants had engaged in improper accounting
         practices. OCA has now admitted that its prior
         financial reports are materially false and misleading
         as it announced that it is going to restate its results
         for the first three quarters of 2004 and potentially
         prior periods;

     (2) that certain journal entries in the Company's general
         ledger were improperly recorded;

     (3) that certain data provided to the Company's independent
         accounting firm had been improperly changed;

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

     (5) that as a result of the foregoing, the values of the
         Company's patient receivables and patient revenue were
         materially overstated at all relevant times.

On June 7, 2005, the Company shocked the market when it issued a
press release announcing that it was further delaying the filing
of its annual report, that it intended to restate its quarterly
financial statements for 2004 and that it had placed the
Company's Chief Operating Officer, Bartholomew E. Palmisano Jr.,
on administrative leave. Specifically, the Company admitted
that, among other things, it had materially overstated its
patient receivables and patient revenue for the first three
quarters of 2004. Following this announcement, shares of the
Company's stock fell $1.53 per share, or almost 38%, to close at
$2.50 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

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/OCA/.


OCA INC.: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. LA
----------------------------------------------------------------
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 Eastern District of Louisiana on behalf of all persons who
purchased the publicly traded securities of OCA, Inc. (NYSE:
OCA) ("OCA") between May 18, 2004 and June 7, 2005 (the "Class
Period").

The Complaint alleges that OCA, Bartholomew Palmisano, Sr., and
David Verret violated federal securities laws. Specifically, the
Complaint alleges that certain of defendants' public statements
during the Class Period were materially false and misleading
because

     (1) defendants engaged in improper accounting practices
         (OCA, which has not yet filed its annual report for
         2004, has announced that it will restate its financial
         results for the first three quarters of 2004);

     (2) certain journal entries in OCA's general ledger were
         improperly recorded;

     (3) certain data provided to OCA's accounting firm had been
         improperly changed; and

     (4) OCA could not ascertain its true financial condition
         because it lacked adequate internal controls.

As a result, OCA's patient receivables and patient revenue from
its affiliated orthodontic and pediatric dental practices were
materially overstated.

On June 7, 2005, OCA announced that (i) it was further delaying
the filing of its annual report; (ii) it intends to restate its
financial results for the first three quarters of 2004; and
(iii) Chief Operating Officer Bartholomew Palmisano, Jr. had
been placed on administrative leave. After this announcement,
the stock plummeted over 38%.

For more details, contact Wayne T. Boulton or Nancy A. Kulesa of
Schatz & Nobel, Phone: 1-800-797-5499, E-mail: sn06106@aol.com,
Web site: http://www.snlaw.net.


POSSIS MEDICAL: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Securities Lawsuit in MN
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC initiated a securities
class action lawsuit on behalf of shareholders who purchased the
common stock and other securities of Possis Medical, Inc.
(Nasdaq:POSS) ("Possis" or the "Company") between September 24,
2002 and August 24, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The
class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Minnesota.

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

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


POSSIS MEDICAL: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Lawsuit in MN
----------------------------------------------------------------
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 Possis
Medical, Inc. (NASDAQ: POSS) between September 24, 2002 and
August 24, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
District of Minnesota against defendant Possis and one or more
of its officers. 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  * * *