CAR_Public/050610.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Friday, June 10, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 114


                          Headlines

AMERICA ONLINE: OH Customers To Receive Refunds in Fraud Lawsuit
ANTITRUST LITIGATION: 4th ICN Conference Being Held in Germany
AT CROSS: RI Court Allows New Class Representatives in Lawsuit
BAYVIEW CREMATORY: Suit Filed in ME Over Mishandling of Remains
BOOKHAM TECHNOLOGY: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Suit Settlement

CALIFORNIA: Stanislaus County Judge OK's Corn Syrup Settlement
CANADIAN SUPERIOR: Settles Shareholders' Suit Over I-85 Pullout
CENTRAL FREIGHT: Plaintiffs File Consolidated TX Securities Suit
CYBERSOURCE CORPORATION: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Settlement
D&K HEALTHCARE: MO Court Hears Arguments on Stock Suit Dismissal

DUANE READE: Appeals Court Affirms NY Securities Suit Dismissal
DUANE READE: Appeals Attorneys' Fees Award in NY Labor Lawsuit
DUANE READE: EEOC Launches Gender Discrimination Suit in S.D. NY
FRITO-LAY: Recalls Potato Crisps Due to Undeclared Seasoning
GERO VITA: Settles FTC Complaint For Fraudulent Diet Supplements

GIANT FOOD'S: Recalls Choco Chip Ice Creams Due to Pecan Content
MATRIXX INITIATIVES: Faces Litigation Related To Zicam Nasal Gel
OHIO: Mother Commences Lawsuit V. Kenton County Jail Practice
PENNSYLVANIA: Centerprise Launches Antitrust Suit V. DRAM Firms
PFIZER INC.: TX Resident Launches Suit Over Viagra Side Effects

PRG SCHULTZ: GA Court Grants Final Approval to Suit Settlement
PRIMUS TELECOMMUNICATIONS: VA Court Dismisses Securities Lawsuit
SCHOOL SPECIALTY: Faces Shareholder Suits in WI Over Bain Merger
SILICON IMAGE: Lead Plaintiff Motions Filed in Securities Suit
SILICON IMAGE: NY Court Preliminarily Approves Suit Settlement

SILICON IMAGE: Dropped As Defendant in CSFB Securities Lawsuit
SMURFIT-STONE CONTAINER: Fully Pays Settlement in January 2005
SOUTHERN PERU: Shareholders File DE Suit V. Minera Mexico Merger
TAMPA ELECTRIC: Trial For FL Residents Suit Set September 2005
THANE INTERNATIONAL: Judge's Ruling in Reliant Case Favors Firm

TRIPATH TECHNOLOGY: Parties Discuss Settlement For CA Lawsuits
TYSON FOODS: Plaintiffs Appeal DE Suit Summary Judgment Ruling
TYSON FOODS: Trial in AR Hog Producers Suit To Begin August 2005
TYSON FOODS: Seeks Dismissal of DE Shareholder Derivative Suit
TYSON FRESH: Discovery Proceeds in SD Cattle Producers Lawsuit

UNITE HERE: Intends To Appeal Certification of Pichler Lawsuit
UNITED STATES: Court's Ruling in CROA Lawsuit Favors VA Couple
VERTEX PHARMACEUTICALS: Securities Suit Dismissal Deemed Final
VISX INC.: Reaches Settlement For CA Investor Suit V. AMO Merger
WORLDCOM INC.: Ex-CEO, 3 Others Try To Settle Shareholder Suits

                        Asbestos Alert

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Jury Awards US$3.4MM in Suit V. CertainTeed
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: AU Councils Protest Against Asbestos Plan   
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ACC Wins Appeal V. Ross Lehmann's Estate
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Groups Fight Toxic Ships Threat in Scotland
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: IL Jury Rules in Favor of General Electric

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rand Says to Expect Rise in Asbestos Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MD Court Affirms Ruling V. Owens-Illinois
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MS Court Remands Case to Holmes County
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Demolition of NJ Site Halted Over Risks
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: OH Town Residents to Do Away with Landfills

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: High Cancer Rates in Israel Alarm Experts
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Detroit Businesses Support Asbestos Bill
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Corning Inc. Reaches Tentative Settlement
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ALSTOM Group Faces 31 Suits, Dismisses 185
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hardie Exemption from Civil Penalty Opposed

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Debate on Bill May Affect WR Grace Stocks
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lloyd's Equitas Boosts Asbestos Reserves
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ground Zero Tower Teardown to Begin in July
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Monsanto to Aid Solutia Out of Bankruptcy
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Widow Joins TUC Campaign for Work Benefits

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: SPCC Cites Exclusion in Asbestos Lawsuit
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: No Toxins Found in Yards Around Grace Site
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NC Court Affirms Decision to Reduce Awards
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Fines or Jail Face Flytippers Under New Act
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hardie Seeks "Socially Responsible" Image

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: TX Governor Urges Pres. Bush to Oppose Bill
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NSW Apartment Residents Fear Asbestos Risk
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: KY Jury Grants US$3.25MM in Suit V. 2 Firms
ASBESTOS ALERT: UK Court Fines Firm for Risking Workers' Health
ASBESTOS ALERT: Two Men Arrested for Illegal Dumping in NJ Lot

ASBESTOS ALERT: DE Court Affirms Board Decision to Deny Benefits
ASBESTOS ALERT: Two Cookson Group Subsidiaries Named in Claims
ASBESTOS ALERT: British Gas Services Ltd. Fined for Health Risks
ASBESTOS ALERT: Council Pays GBP140T in Out-of-Court Settlement


                  New Securities Fraud Cases


ADOLPH COORS: Murray Frank Launches Investor Fraud Lawsuit in DE
BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Suit in CA
CARRIER ACCESS: Goldman Scarlato Lodges Securities Lawsuit in CO
DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Fraud Suit in CA
LEAPFROG ENTERPRISES: Wechsler Harwood Lodges Fraud Suit in CA

NEWMONT MINING: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Lawsuit in CO
OCA INC.: Brian M. Felgoise Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in LA
OCA INC.: Brodsky & Smith Files Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. LA
OCA INC.: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in LA
OCA INC.: Chitwood Harley Files Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. LA

OCA INC.: Federman & Sherwood Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in LA
POSSIS MEDICAL: Murray Frank Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in MN
R&G FINANCIAL: Berger & Montague Lodges Securities Lawsuit in NY
STOCKERYALE INC.: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Lawsuit in NH
XYBERNAUT CORPORATION: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Suit in VA


                           *********


AMERICA ONLINE: OH Customers To Receive Refunds in Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ohio AOL and CompuServe consumers will receive full refunds for
inappropriate charges to their accounts as a result of a
recently settled lawsuit, according to the state attorney
general's office, The American City Business Journals Inc.
reports.

As previously reported in the October 19, 2003 edition of the
Class Action Reporter Ohio Attorney General Jim Petro initiated
the suit against America Online Inc. and its subsidiary,
CompuServe Interactive Services, Inc., for violating a billing
agreement the company had with the state of Ohio.

According to the suit, the Virginia-based Internet service
provider and its CompuServe unit allegedly failed to honor
customers' requests to cancel subscriptions. Ohio Attorney
General James Petro said that the two firms have violated Ohio
consumer law and have failed to honor previous agreements with
the state.

Soon after the state's suit, which had sought reimbursements for
customers who cancelled their subscriptions, a national class
action lawsuit was filed, called Clough vs. AOL. The Ohio
Attorney General's Office notified those involved with its suit
about the national suit, and while many joined the class action
suit, 12 stayed on with the original suit. Those twelve will be
the recipients of the refunds as a result of the settlement, and
AOL agreed to resolve any complaints filed after both suits were
launched.

Attorney General Petro told the Journals, "(The settlement)
provides resolution for more than 100 other Ohio complaints not
included in our suit. AOL's agreement to comply with Ohio laws
should reduce the number of complaints filed. If we don't see a
reduction then we will file another action against them." He
also added that AOL would pay $75,000 to his office for costs
associated with the lawsuit.

America Online Inc., a subsidiary of Time Warner (NYSE:TWX), is
based in Dulles, Virginia and had revenue of more than $8.5
billion in 2003.


ANTITRUST LITIGATION: 4th ICN Conference Being Held in Germany
--------------------------------------------------------------
The International Competition Network (ICN) held its fourth
annual conference in Bonn, Germany. The conference was the
largest gathering ever of competition officials, with more than
400 representatives of 80 competition agencies and competition
experts from international organizations and the legal,
business, consumer, and academic communities, the United States
Federal Trade Commission said in a statement.

Founded in 2001 by 13 agencies, the ICN now includes almost
every competition agency in the world. At the conclusion of the
conference, members approved recommendations designed to improve
their merger review processes, commended the success of ICN's
anti-cartel work, and showcased the significant progress member
jurisdictions have made in implementing ICN recommendations. ICN
members also approved a new work agenda that includes a working
group on competition issues in telecommunications services,
study of agency cooperation in anti-cartel enforcement, and
merger investigation and analysis.

Federal Trade Commission Chairman Deborah Platt Majoras and
R.Hewitt Pate, Assistant Attorney General in charge of the
Department of Justice's Antitrust Division, participated in the
conference, which took place from June 6-8, 2005.  Chairman
Majoras urged the delegates to lead the fight to make markets
work for the world's consumers. "We all face challenges from
those who want to restrain the dynamic force that is
competition. Our agencies are responsible for the broader public
interest in protecting competition. We must keep that focus,
despite pressure from those who seek exceptional treatment,"
Majoras said.

The conference showcased the recent work of four ICN working
groups focused on: mergers, cartels, competition policy
implementation, and antitrust enforcement in regulated sectors.
In addition to discussing the issues raised in its ongoing work,
the ICN established a new working group to study antitrust
enforcement in the telecommunications sector.

A significant achievement at the conference was the adoption by
members of two additional Recommended Practices for merger
notification procedures. The recommendations build on the
existing practices that are designed to improve competition
agencies' merger review processes and reduce unnecessary burdens
on both agencies and merging parties. ICN members adopted new
Recommended Practices on merger remedies and competition agency
powers.

Merger remedies should address the identified competitive harm
arising from the proposed transaction. Merger review systems
should provide a transparent framework for the discussion and
adoption of remedies by providing merging parties with timely
information on competitive concerns and ensuring that there is
adequate time to evaluate suitable remedies. Remedies should be
effective and easily administrable and not require significant
administrative intervention by the agency. The terms of a remedy
should ensure implementation, monitoring of compliance, and
enforcement, the FTC detailed in its statement.

Competition agencies should have the tools necessary for
effective enforcement of applicable merger review laws,
including appropriate investigative mechanisms by which the
agency can require merging and third parties to produce relevant
information, the ability to initiate enforcement actions against
proposed mergers, and the ability to seek sanctions for non-
compliance with applicable legal requirements and agency
decisions and orders. Competition agencies should have
sufficient staffing and expertise to discharge their enforcement
responsibilities effectively and sufficient independence to
ensure the objective application and enforcement of merger
review laws.

In its initial year, the Cartel Working Group took a
comprehensive look at institutional structures for detecting
cartels, penalties for cartel conduct, and investigative
techniques used in searches and raids. Additionally, anti-cartel
enforcers from more than 35 jurisdictions gathered in Sydney,
Australia, in November 2004 to compare enforcement techniques
and attend the first ever gathering of antitrust officials
devoted to the topic of leniency programs.

ICN members previously adopted eight Guiding Principles and 11
Recommended Practices. The Principles and Practices are non-
binding and antitrust agencies are implementing them
voluntarily, as appropriate. The Merger Working Group also
developed a model form for agencies and parties to use for
waivers of confidentiality in merger investigations and
presented a report on the use of confidentiality waivers, a
report on merger filing fees, and detailed papers focused on
improving investigative techniques, merger guidelines, and
remedies.

Continuing a commitment to promote implementation of ICN work
product, one of the conference panels highlighted agencies'
progress in implementing ICN recommendations. The panel included
a presentation by Maria Coppola of the FTC's International
Antitrust Division of the results of a detailed study by a task
force of the Merger Working Group of ICN members' implementation
of the merger Recommended Practices. FTC Assistant Director for
International Antitrust, Randolph Tritell, who chairs the Merger
Notification and Procedures subgroup, noted the major progress
in implementing the practices. "The continuing incorporation of
the Recommended Practices into merger review systems shows how
the ICN can provide a benchmark for international convergence
and best practice," Mr. Tritell said.

The Competition Policy Implementation Working Group addressed
ICN initiatives to assist new antitrust agencies in developing
economies. The group's work presented at Bonn included reports
on assessing successful technical assistance, competition
advocacy efforts in regulated sectors, and consumer outreach
programs.

In October 2001, the FTC and the Department of Justice joined
with antitrust agencies from around the world to create the ICN.
The ICN has two main goals - to promote greater substantive and
procedural convergence among antitrust authorities toward sound
competition policies, and to support new antitrust agencies both
in enforcing their laws and in building strong competition
cultures in their countries.

All ICN documents are available at the Website:
http://www.internationalcompetitionnetwork.org.

The FTC's Bureau of Competition seeks to prevent business
practices that restrain competition. The Bureau carries out its
mission by investigating alleged law violations and, when
appropriate, recommending that the Commission take formal
enforcement action. To notify the Bureau concerning particular
business practices, call or write the Office of Policy and
Evaluation, Room 394, Bureau of Competition, Federal Trade
Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580,
Electronic Mail: antitrust@ftc.gov; Telephone (202) 326-3300.
For more information on the laws that the Bureau enforces, the
Commission has published Promoting Competition, Protecting
Consumers: A Plain English Guide to Antitrust Laws, which can be
accessed at the Website:
http://www.ftc.gov/bc/compguide/index.htm. For more details,  
contact Nancy Ness Judy, Office of Public Affairs by Phone:
202-326-2295 or Gina Talamona, Office of Public Affairs by
Phone: 202-514-2007 or visit the Website:
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2005/06/icn.htm/


AT CROSS: RI Court Allows New Class Representatives in Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Rhode
Island allowed new class representatives in the securities class
action filed against AT Cross Company, certain of its officers
and directors and others.

On April 21, 2000, the Company, certain officers and directors
of the Company and others were named as defendants in an action
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Rhode Island.  The suit, which is brought by a purchaser of the
Company's Class A common stock, alleges that the defendants
violated Federal securities laws by making material
misstatements and omissions in the Company's public filings and
statements relating to the Company's former Pen Computing Group
business.  The suit seeks class action status including all
purchasers of the Company's Class A common stock between
September 17, 1997 and April 22, 1999.  The damages sought are
unspecified.

On June 30, 2000, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss the
action in the United States District Court in Rhode Island.  The
United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island
granted the Company's Motion to Dismiss in June 2001.  In July
2001, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the First Circuit Court
of Appeals.  The appeal was before the First Circuit Court of
Appeals.  An oral argument was held February 8, 2002.

On March 20, 2002, the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
issued a judgment affirming the dismissal of all claims asserted
against the W. Russell Boss Jr. Trust A, W. Russell Boss Jr.
Trust B and W. Russell Boss Jr. Trust C and reversing the
District Court's dismissal of the Section 10(b) and 20(a) claims
asserted against the Company and the named individual
defendants.  The Court of Appeals' ruling was limited to a
finding that the plaintiff's complaint had satisfied the
pleading requirements of the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995; the Court did not opine on the merits of
plaintiff's claims.  

On January 8, 2004, the District Court heard oral argument on
defendants' motion for summary judgment.  On July 21, 2004, the
Court issued its Memorandum and Order partially granting
defendants' motion for summary judgment and narrowing the class
period to encompass only purchases made between July 16, 1998
and April 22, 1999.  Due to the revised class period, the
plaintiff's two proposed class representatives no longer had
standing to assert claims on behalf of the proposed class.  The
Court, however, allowed the plaintiff class an opportunity to
recruit new class representatives and new class representatives
have been allowed.  


BAYVIEW CREMATORY: Suit Filed in ME Over Mishandling of Remains
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bayview Crematory faces another lawsuit that was brought by four
Maine families who are claiming that the crematorium mishandled
their loved ones' remains, The Associated Press.

Jill Stinchcomb, her sister, Jeri Painten, and three other
families seek money for negligence and emotional distress from
the crematorium's owners, Linda and Larry Stokes its former
owner, Linda Stokes' son Derek Wallace and several funeral homes
and directors.

Filed in Cumberland County Superior Court in Portland, Maine,
the suit is similar to another class action suit filed on behalf
of 36 Massachusetts families by the same Florida lawyer, David
Charlip. Mr. Charlip told AP that he also would represent a
group of New Hampshire families who plan to sue.

As previously reported in the May 17, 2005 edition of the Class
Action Reporter, the Bayview Crematory has been the subject of
an investigation by New Hampshire since February 23, when state
troopers found the partially decomposed body of a woman in a
non-air-conditioned room at the Seabrook business. The troopers
also found the remains of two people in the crematorium's oven
and a trash bin located in the rear of the building overflowing
with medical waste. After these discoveries, the crematorium was
shut down and an investigation ensued, which has led to charges
against two assistant medical examiners alleging that they took
money from crematoriums without overseeing the process, as the
law requires.  

Most records concerning the crematorium's operations remain in
the hands of the Rockingham County Attorney's office and are
sealed pending the outcome of an investigation. Currently
Rockingham County Attorney Jim Reams is investigating possible
criminal charges.

Mr. Reams told AP that as of the moments four of the remains
from Bayview might never be identified. He also said that he
would meet with state police next week to review the evidence
they seized at Bayview and in raids last month on two
Massachusetts funeral homes owned or partly owned by Wallace, as
well as Mr. Wallace's and the Stokes' homes.


BOOKHAM TECHNOLOGY: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York preliminarily approved the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against Bookham
Technology plc, Goldman, Sachs & Co. and FleetBoston Robertson
Stephens, Inc., two of the underwriters of the Company's initial
public offering in April 2000, and Andrew G. Rickman, Stephen J.
Cockrell and David Simpson, each of whom was an officer and/or
director at the time of the initial public offering.

On November 7, 2001, a Class Action Complaint was filed against
the Company and others in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York.  On April 19, 2002,
plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint.  The Amended Complaints
assert claims under certain provisions of the securities laws of
the United States.  They allege, among other things, that the
prospectuses for the Company's and New Focus, Inc.'s initial
public offerings were materially false and misleading in
describing the compensation to be earned by the underwriters in
connection with the offerings, and in not disclosing certain
alleged arrangements among the underwriters and initial
purchasers of ordinary shares, in the case of the Company, or
common stock, in the case of New Focus, from the underwriters.
The Amended Complaints seek unspecified damages (or in the
alternative rescission for those class members who no longer
hold ordinary shares, in the case of the Company or common
stock, in the case of New Focus), costs, attorneys' fees,
experts' fees, interest and other expenses.

In October 2002, the individual defendants were dismissed,
without prejudice, from the action.  In July 2002, all
defendants filed Motions to Dismiss the Amended Complaints. The
motion was denied as to the Company and New Focus in February
2003. Special committees of the board of directors authorized
the companies to negotiate a settlement of pending claims
substantially consistent with a memorandum of understanding
negotiated among class plaintiffs, all issuer defendants and
their insurers.

Plaintiffs and most of the issuer defendants and their insurers
have entered into a stipulation of settlement for the claims
against the issuer defendants, including the Company.  Under the
stipulation of settlement, the plaintiff will dismiss and
release all claims against participating defendants in exchange
for a payment guaranty by the insurance companies collectively
responsible for insuring the issuers in the related cases, and
the assignment or surrender to the plaintiffs of certain claims
the issuer defendants may have against the underwriters.  On
February 15, 2005, the Court issued an Opinion and Order
preliminarily approving the settlement providing that the
defendants and plaintiffs agree to a modification narrowing the
scope of the bar order set forth in the original settlement
agreement.


CALIFORNIA: Stanislaus County Judge OK's Corn Syrup Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge William A. Mayhew of Stanislaus County Superior Court
granted final approval to two settlements in a statewide class
action lawsuit that accuses producers of corn syrup of
conspiring to fix prices in the 1990s, The Modesto Bee reports.

Judge Mayhew approved a $7.5 million settlement with A.E. Staley
Manufacturing Co., and a $1.8 million settlement with Cargill
Inc. On August 9, 2005 the judge is also expected to consider a
tentative $10 million settlement with Archer-Daniels Midland Co.

The lawsuit was brought by St. Stan's Brewing Co. of Modesto and
other California businesses that bought corn syrup through
wholesalers. According to attorney James B. Brown of Stockton,
the plaintiffs had previously settled with Corn Products
International for $700,000.

Under the terms of the settlement, none of the four companies,
which are all based in the Midwest, admitted any wrongdoing.
About $2.65 million of the money will be given to charity as a
way to resolve claims on behalf of consumers, while the rest
will be split between the attorneys and businesses.


CANADIAN SUPERIOR: Settles Shareholders' Suit Over I-85 Pullout
---------------------------------------------------------------
Canadian Superior Energy Inc. settled a class action lawsuit
filed by shareholders over its pullout from a well drilling
project off Nova Scotia for $3.2 million, The Canadian Press
reports.

According to Canadian Superior, the company and its insurers
"reached an agreement with plaintiffs' legal counsel to settle
all securities class action litigation and actions pending in
the United States against the company and certain of its
officers."

As reported in previous editions of the Class Action Reporter,
the suit had alleged that Canadian Superior issued "false and
misleading statements" after its Mariner offshore well project
known as I-85 was abandoned and partner El Paso Corp. of Houston
pulled out of the project.

The Calgary-based company told CP that the settlement is covered
by the company's insurance, and was reached with no admission of
liability by any party.

Canadian Superior (TSX: SNG) has oil and gas exploration and
production interests in Western Canada, offshore Nova Scotia and
offshore Trinidad and Tobago.


CENTRAL FREIGHT: Plaintiffs File Consolidated TX Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a consolidated securities class action against
Central Freight Lines, Inc. and certain of its officers and
directors in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Texas.

In June and July 2004, three stockholder class actions were
filed, alleging that false and misleading statements were made
in the Company's initial public offering registration statement
and prospectus, during the period surrounding the Company's
initial pubic offering and up to the press release dated June
16, 2004.   

The class actions were subsequently consolidated in the United
States District Court Western District of Texas under the title
"In re Central Freight Lines Securities Litigation."  The
Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System has been
named lead plaintiff in the consolidated action, and a
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint was filed on May 9,
2005.  

The Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint generally
alleges that false and misleading statements were made in the
Company's initial public offering registration statement and
prospectus, during the period surrounding its initial pubic
offering and up to March 17, 2005.  


CYBERSOURCE CORPORATION: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against Cybersource
Corporation, its chairman and chief executive officer, a former
officer and four brokerage firms that served as underwriters in
its initial public offering.

In July and August 2001, various class action lawsuits were
filed on behalf of persons who purchased the Company's stock
issued pursuant to or traceable to the initial public offering
during the period from June 23, 1999 through December 6, 2000.
The action alleges that the Company's underwriters charged
secret excessive commissions to certain of their customers in
return for allocations of the Company's stock in the offering.
The two individual defendants are alleged to be liable because
of their involvement in preparing and signing the registration
statement for the offering, which allegedly failed to disclose
the supposedly excessive commissions.

On December 7, 2001, an amended complaint was filed in one of
the actions to expand the purported class to persons who
purchased the Company's stock issued pursuant to or traceable to
the follow-on public offering during the period from November 4,
1999 through December 6, 2000.  The lawsuit filed against the
Company is one of several hundred lawsuits filed against other
companies based on substantially similar claims. On April 19,
2002, a consolidated amended complaint was filed to consolidate
all of the complaints and claims into one case. The consolidated
amended complaint alleges claims that are virtually identical to
the amended complaint filed on December 7, 2001 and the original
complaints.  

In October 2002, the Company's officer and a former officer that
were named in the amended complaint were dismissed without
prejudice. In July 2002, the Company, along with other issuer
defendants in the case, filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint with prejudice. On February 19,
2003, the court issued a written decision denying the motion to
dismiss with respect to the Company and the individual
defendants.

On July 2, 2003, a committee of the Company's Board of Directors
conditionally approved a proposed partial settlement with the
plaintiffs in this matter. The settlement would provide, among
other things, a release of the Company and of the individual
defendants for the conduct alleged in the action to be wrongful
in the Amended Complaint. The Company would agree to undertake
other responsibilities under the partial settlement, including
agreeing to assign away, not assert, or release certain
potential claims it may have against its underwriters. Any
direct financial impact of the proposed settlement is expected
to be borne by the Company's insurers.  The committee agreed to
approve the settlement subject to a number of conditions,
including the participation of a substantial number of other
Issuer Defendants in the proposed settlement, the consent of the
Company's insurers to the settlement, and the completion of
acceptable final settlement documentation. Furthermore, the
settlement is subject to a hearing on fairness and final
approval by the court overseeing the IPO litigations.

Plaintiffs Brian Mohr and Javad Samadi filed the suit, styled
"In Re CyberSource Corp. Initial Public Offering Securities
Litigation, Docket no. 01 Civ. 7000 (Sas)," related to "IN RE
INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERING SECURITIES LITIGATION, Master File No.
21 MC 92 (SAS)."

The plaintiffs executive committee is composed of:

     (1) Melvyn I. Weiss, Ariana J. Tadler, Peter G.A.
         Safirstein of Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP,
         One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, New York 10119-0165,
         Phone: (212) 594-5300

     (2) Stanley D. Bernstein, Robert Berg, Rebecca M. Katz,
         Danielle Mazzini- Daly of BERNSTEIN LIEBHARD &
         LIFSHITZ, LLP, 10 East 40th Street, New York, New York
         10016, Phone: (212) 779-1414

     (3) Richard S. Schiffrin, David Kessler, Darren J. Check of
         SCHIFFRIN & BARROWAY, LLP, Three Bala Plaza East, Suite
         400, Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania 19004, Phone: (610) 667-
         7706

     (4) Jules Brody and Aaron Brody, STULL STULL & BRODY, 6
         East 45th Street, New York, New York 10017, Phone:
         (212) 687-7230

     (5) Daniel W. Krasner, Fred Taylor Isquity, Thomas H. Burt
         and Brian Cohen, WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ
         LLP, 270 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016,
         Phone: (212) 545-4600

     (6) Howard Sirota, Rachell Sirota, Saul Roffe, John P.
         Smyth, Halona N. Patrick, SIROTA & SIROTA LLP, 110 Wall
         Street, 21st Floor, New York, New York 10005, Phone:
         (212) 425-9055


D&K HEALTHCARE: MO Court Hears Arguments on Stock Suit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri heard oral arguments on the motion to dismiss the
consolidated securities class action filed against D&K
Healthcare Resources, Inc. and its chief executive, operating
and financial officers

On February 5, 2004, an individual named Gary Dutton filed a
complaint asserting a class action for alleged breach of
fiduciary duties and violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.  On April 30, 2004, United Food & Commercial Workers
Union, Local 655, AFL-CIO, Food Employees Joint Pension Plan
("Local 655") filed a motion to become lead plaintiff.  On
October 5, 2004, the Court granted Local 655's motion appointing
it lead plaintiff.

The lead plaintiff seeks to represent a class consisting of all
investors trading in the Company's common stock during the class
periods from August 10, 2000 to September 16, 2002. The lead
plaintiff is seeking to recover compensatory damages incurred
during the class period as well as costs, fees and expenses.

On November 15, 2004, lead plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint
against the Defendants, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company and a
former employee of the Company.  On February 4, 2005, the
Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss on the grounds that lead
plaintiff failed to meet the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act threshold pleading requirements of adequate
particularity and scienter.  Bristol-Myers Squibb and the former
employee filed separate Motions to Dismiss based on statute of
limitations and pleading deficiency grounds.  Plaintiff has
responded to these Motions to Dismiss.  

The suit is styled "Dutton v. D&K Healthcare Resources, Inc. et
al, case no. 4:04-cv-00147-SNL," filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, under Judge
Stephen N. Limbaugh.  Representing the Company are Glenn E.
Davis, Jacqueline Ulin Levey, Edwin L. Noel of ARMSTRONG
TEASDALE, LLP, One Metropolitan Square, Suite 2600, St. Louis,
MO 63102-2740, Phone: 314-621-5070, Fax: 314-612-2241, E-mail:
gdavis@armstrongteasdale.com, julin@armstrongteasdale.com,
enoel@armstrongteasdale.com.  


DUANE READE: Appeals Court Affirms NY Securities Suit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Appeals Court affirmed the dismissal of the
consolidated securities class action filed against Duane Reade
Holdings, Inc. and certain of its officers, alleging violations
of the federal securities laws.

The action, which was filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York, was on behalf of
shareholders who purchased the Company's common stock between
April 1, 2002 and July 24, 2002, inclusive.  The complaint,
which sought an unspecified amount of damages, alleged that the
defendants violated the federal securities laws by issuing
materially false and misleading statements during the class
period.

On December 1, 2003, the district judge granted the Company's
motion to dismiss the plaintiff's action, with prejudice.  The
plaintiffs subsequently filed an appeal. On August 17, 2004, the
U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling in
the Company's favor.


DUANE READE: Appeals Attorneys' Fees Award in NY Labor Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York has yet to rule on Duane Reade Holdings, Inc.'s appeal
of the attorneys' fees award to plaintiffs in the class action
filed against it.

The suit was filed in January 2000 regarding alleged violations
of the Fair Labor Standards Act as to a group of individuals who
provided delivery services on a contract basis to the Company.
In December 2002, the judge in the action issued a partial
summary judgment in favor of a subclass of the plaintiffs and
against the Company.

In December 2003, the Company settled the issue of the amount of
its liability to the plaintiffs without any admission of
wrongdoing and in an amount consistent with our previously
established reserves. By a decision dated August 4, 2004, the
district court awarded the plaintiffs certain attorneys' fees in
this matter.  The Company has fully reserved the amounts of the
fees in question and has appealed this award.


DUANE READE: EEOC Launches Gender Discrimination Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Duane Reade Holdings, Inc. faces a class action filed in January
2005 by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York.

The suit alleges, among other things, that the Company created a
hostile work environment for three female store employees, and
potentially a class of such female employees.  This action is in
its early stages, and accordingly it is not possible to
determine the ultimate outcome, which, if adverse, could be
material, the Company said in a disclosure to the Securities and
Exchange Commission.


FRITO-LAY: Recalls Potato Crisps Due to Undeclared Seasoning
------------------------------------------------------------
Frito-Lay announced the voluntary recall of 265 cases (60 bags
per case) of 1 1/8 ounce Baked! Lay's Original flavor potato
crisps distributed in Midwestern and Northeastern states. While
no illnesses have been reported, there is a possibility that the
product may contain dairy-based seasoning not declared on the
label. Only those people who are allergic to milk or dairy
allergens may run the risk of serious or life-threatening
allergic reactions if they consume this product. The company is
now retrieving the product from its distribution system and
partner distributors.

The voluntary recall only extends to Baked! Lay's Original
flavor potato crisps distributed through foodservice channels,
not traditional retail outlets such as supermarkets, convenience
stores or club stores. The affected packages are limited to 1
1/8 ounce bags of Baked! Lay's Original flavor potato crisps
distributed in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Maryland, Massachusetts,
Connecticut, West Virginia, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota,
Iowa, Illinois and Indiana. Only packages with a freshness date
of August 9, 2005, a nine-digit code number of 215313005 located
on the front of the package and a time stamp of 23:27 through
2:29 are being voluntarily recalled.

The Company has notified the United States Food and Drug
Administration of its voluntary action.

Consumers with the affected packages should return them to the
outlet where they were purchased for a full refund. Consumers
who want more information may call Frito-Lay Consumer Affairs,
1-800-352-4477.


GERO VITA: Settles FTC Complaint For Fraudulent Diet Supplements
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gero Vita International and six related defendants have settled
Federal Trade Commission charges that they violated federal law
by claiming that their products could cure or treat numerous
illnesses and conditions, including asthma, diabetes,
Alzheimer's disease, overweight, and sexual dysfunction. The
defendants are barred from making misleading claims about their
products and are required to pay monetary judgments totaling
$605,000.

In May 2003, the FTC filed a complaint against A. Glenn
Braswell; his companies, JOL Management, G.B. Data Systems, Gero
Vita International, and Theraceuticals, Inc.; and Ron Tepper, a
corporate officer and director, alleging that they deceptively
marketed five dietary supplements: "Lung Support Formula," a
dietary supplement that purportedly cured nearly all breathing
and respiratory problems, including asthma, emphysema, and
smoking-related damage; "Antibetic Pancreas Tonic," an herbal
supplement that purportedly treated or cured both Type I and
Type II diabetes; "G.H.3," also known as "Theraceuticals GH3
Romanian Youth Formula," marketed as an anti-aging product that
could reverse and prevent Alzheimer's disease and other forms of
dementia; "Chitoplex," a chitosan-based weight-loss product that
purportedly enabled users to lose weight without diet or
exercise; and "Testerex," a yohimbe product touted as effective
in treating 62-95 percent of cases of impotence and erectile
dysfunction.

The FTC's complaint was later amended to name six additional
defendants: Health Quest Publications, Inc., G.B. Data Systems,
Inc. (Canada), Halsey Holdings LLC, Ronald Lawrence, M.D.,
Ph.D., Hans Kugler, Ph.D., and Chase Revel. Lawrence and Kugler
appeared in the defendants' ads as expert endorsers, and Revel
helped write some of the ads. The settlements announced today
concern JOL Management, G.B. Data Systems, Gero Vita
International, Health Quest Publications, Halsey Holdings,
Tepper, and Lawrence. The case against Braswell, Kugler, and
Revel is still pending.

The orders prohibit the settling defendants from making
deceptive claims for the products that were the subject of the
2003 complaint and require them to include a safety warning on
any product containing yohimbe, an herb that can raise blood
pressure in some individuals. The orders prohibit the defendants
from making unsubstantiated disease treatment claims for any
food, drug, or dietary supplement, and require that any endorser
used by the defendants must actually have the represented
expertise and a reasonable basis for the endorsement.

The corporate orders contain a $30 million judgment, suspended
upon payment of $540,000 in installments over 18 months, based
on the corporate defendants' inability to pay. The corporate
defendants will be held liable for the entire $30 million if it
is found that they misrepresented their financial condition or
if it is found that defendant Braswell has acquired any
ownership interest in, or control over, any corporate defendant,
or becomes involved in any business relationship with, or
receives any payment from, any corporate defendant. The orders
against individual defendants Tepper and Lawrence contain
monetary judgments of $40,000 and $25,000 respectively, and
avalanche clauses of $500,000 that will become due if it is
found that they misrepresented their financial status. Finally,
the orders require the settling defendants to cooperate in the
ongoing litigation against the remaining defendants.

The Commission vote authorizing staff to file the proposed
stipulated final orders was 5-0. The proposed stipulated final
orders were filed in the U.S. District Court, Central District
of California, Western Division and signed by the trial judge on
March 30, 2005.

Copies of the stipulated final orders are available from the
FTC's Web site at http://www.ftc.govand also from the FTC's  
Consumer Response Center, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue,
N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580. The FTC works for the consumer to
prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices in
the marketplace and to provide information to help consumers
spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or
Spanish (bilingual counselors are available to take complaints),
or to get free information on any of 150 consumer topics, call
toll-free, 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357), or use the complaint
form at http://www.ftc.gov.The FTC enters Internet,  
telemarketing, identity theft, and other fraud-related
complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database
available to hundreds of civil and criminal law enforcement
agencies in the U.S. and abroad.  For more details, contact
Brenda Mack, Office of Public Affairs by Phone: 202-326-2182 or
contact Richard Cleland or Rosemary Rosso, Bureau of Consumer
Protection, Phone: 202-326-3088 or 202-326-2174 or visit the
Website: http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2005/06/gerovita.htm.


GIANT FOOD'S: Recalls Choco Chip Ice Creams Due to Pecan Content
----------------------------------------------------------------
Giant Food's Ice Cream Processing Plant is recalling private
label Chocolate Chip Ice Cream the company produced for Tops
Markets and Giant Food Stores because it may contain undeclared
pecans. People who have allergies to pecans run the risk of
serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume
these products.

The recalled Chocolate Chip Ice Cream, manufactured by Giant's
ice cream processing plant, was distributed to Tops Markets,
headquartered in Buffalo, N.Y., to their stores in Ohio and New
York. The product was also distributed to Giant Food Stores,
based in Carlisle, PA, to their stores in Pennsylvania, and
their Martin's Food Stores in Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia,
and West Virginia. All affected Chocolate Chip Ice Cream has
been removed from sale.

The product was packaged in a two-piece 1/2-gallon paperboard
container with a sell by date of Feb 24 2006. The lid is labeled
as Butter Pecan Ice Cream while the tub is labeled as Chocolate
Chip Ice Cream. The actual product in the container is Butter
Pecan Ice Cream.

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

The recall was initiated after a customer in a Tops store in
Northeastern Ohio identified the packaging discrepancy and
immediately notified store management. Subsequent investigation
indicated that procedural errors during manufacturing caused the
packaging problem.

Consumers who have purchased Giant or Tops brand ice cream in
1/2 gallon containers with mixed labeling are urged to return
them to the place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers with
questions should call 301-341-4322.


MATRIXX INITIATIVES: Faces Litigation Related To Zicam Nasal Gel
----------------------------------------------------------------
Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. continues to face litigation relating
to Zicam Cold Remedy nasal gel, alleging the product causes the
permanent loss of taste and smell, or anosmia.

From late 2003 through April 2005, the Company has been sued by
approximately 350 individuals in 36 different lawsuits generally
alleging that the Zicam Cold Remedy product caused damage to the
sense of smell and/or taste. Two of these lawsuits were filed as
class action lawsuits covering named and unnamed plaintiffs, but
one of the class action lawsuits has been dismissed, as have the
claims of several individual plaintiffs.


The current cases that have been filed against the Company are:

     (1) Abramsen et al. vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al.,
         filed March 8, 2004, in the Superior Court of Arizona
         (Maricopa County), Case No. CV2004-04415;

     (2) Adams, et al., vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al.,
         filed May 6, 2004, in the Superior Court of Arizona
         (Maricopa County), Case No. CV2004-008929;

     (3) Adamson, et al. vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al.,
         filed February 1, 2005, in the Superior Court of
         Arizona (Maricopa County), Case No. CV2005-001880;

     (4) Akers, et al. vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al.,
         filed August 20, 2004, in the Superior Court of Arizona
         (Maricopa County), Case No. CV2004-016010;

     (5) Benkwith, et al. vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al.,
         filed May 3, 2004, in the Circuit Court for Montgomery
         County, Alabama, Case No. CV04-1180 CNP; removed to
         United States District Court for the Middle District of
         Alabama, Case No. 2:04 CV-00623-F;

     (6) Bentley et al. vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al.,
         filed January 23, 2004, in the Superior Court of
         Arizona (Maricopa County), Case No. CV2004-001338;

     (7) Bryant vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al., filed
         June 9, 2004, in the District Court, Boulder County,
         Colorado, Case No. 04-MK-2317 (BNB);

     (8) Cappy, et al. vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al.,
         filed November 17, 2004, in the Superior Court of
         Arizona (Maricopa County), Case No. CV2004-021668;

     (9) Cash, Katie and David vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et
         al., filed January 13, 2005, in the Superior Court of
         California (Fresno County, Central Division), Case No.
         05 CE CG 00124;

    (10) Cheney, Sharon vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al.,
         filed April 20, 2005, in Maricopa County Superior
         Court, Case No. CV2005-050458;

    (11) Connolly, Gay vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al.,
         filed October 22, 2004, in the State Court of Georgia
         (Cobb County), Case No. 2004A 9564-5;

    (12) Douillard, John R. vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et
         al., filed May 6, 2004, in the Superior Court of
         Arizona (Maricopa County), Case No. CV2004-008950;

    (13) Flores vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al., filed on
         December 30, 2004, in Santa Clara County, Case No.
         1:04-CV033194; removed to United States District Court
         Northern District of California (San Jose Division),
         Case No. C05 01090 PVT;

    (14) Gillespie, Julie vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al.,
         filed December 8, 2004, in the Superior Court of
         California (Orange County), Case No. 04CC11976; removed
         to United States District Court Central District of
         California (Southern Division), Case No. SACV 05-0047-
         DOC(ANx);

    (15) Hans, et al. vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al.,
         filed September 13, 2004, in the United States District
         Court, Western District of Kentucky, Case No.
         3:04CV540-R;

    (16) Hilton, Heather vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al.,
         filed June 17, 2004, in the State of Texas District
         Court, Tarrant County, Case No. 048-206162-04; removed
         to the United States District Court for the Northern
         District of Texas Fort Worth Division, Case No. 04CV-
         519-Y;

    (17) Hood, Michael and Terri vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc.,
         et al., filed April 14, 2004, in the Circuit Court of
         the 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County,
         Florida, General Jurisdiction Division, Case No.
         04006193;

    (18) Horvat, Diane vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al.,
         filed February 28, 2005, in Circuit Court of Cook
         County, Illinois County Department, Law Division, Case
         No. 2005L02324;

    (19) Hudson, et al. vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al.,
         filed February 11, 2005, in the Superior Court of
         Arizona (Maricopa County), Case No. CV2005-002569;

    (20) Hunter, et al. vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al.,
         filed June 4, 2004, in the Superior Court of Arizona
         (Maricopa County), Case No. CV2004-010830;

    (21) Kalfian, Carol A. vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et
         al., filed April 20, 2004, in the United States
         District Court for the District of Rhode Island, Case
         No. 04-119-ML;

    (22) Lusch, Barbara A. vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et
         al., filed January 14, 2005, in the Circuit Court of
         the State of Oregon, Case No. 0501-00588; removed to
         the United States District Court for the District of
         Oregon, Case No. 3:05-CV-292-HA;

    (23) Lutche, Lucy B. vs. vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc.,
         et al., filed May 7, 2004, in the Superior Court of
         Arizona (Maricopa County), Case No. CV2004-008704;

    (24) Mayo, Derek vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al.,
         filed May 26, 2004, in the Superior Court of New
         Jersey, Law Division: Essex County, Docket No. ESX-L-
         3551-04; removed to the United States District Court
         for the District of New Jersey, Case No. 2:04-cv-3197;

    (25) Nelson vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al., filed
         December 8, 2003, in the Superior Court of the Sate of
         California for the County of Los Angeles, Case No.
         YC048136;

    (26) Nelson, Tommy Ray and Sherry vs. Matrixx Initiatives,
         Inc., et al., filed February 28, 2005, in the Circuit
         Court for Roane County, Tennessee, Case No. 13328;
         removed to the United States District Court for the
         Eastern District of Tennessee Northern Division, Case
         No. 3:05-CV-193;

    (27) O'Hanlon, Dennis and Bonnie vs. Matrixx Initiatives,
         Inc., et al., filed October 29, 2004, in the Superior
         Court of California (Los Angeles County), Case No.
         BC322039; removed to United States District Court
         Central District of California (Los Angeles), Case No.
         CV04-10391 AHM(JTLx);

    (28) Ringbauer et al. vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al.,
         filed February 11, 2004, in the Superior Court of
         Arizona (Maricopa County), Case No. CV2004-002822;
         removed to the United States District Court for the
         District of Arizona, Case No. 04-CV-513; remanded to
         the Superior Court of Arizona (Maricopa County);

    (29) Rostron, et al. vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al.,
         filed November 4, 2004, in the United States District
         Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Middle
         Division, Case No. CV-04-AR-3136-M, originally
         involving plaintiffs Rostron and McCune, was severed;
         Rostron was transferred to the United States District
         Court for the District of New Jersey by Order filed on
         March 15, 2005, and McCune continues in the United
         States District Court for the Northern District of
         Alabama, Middle Division, under Case No. CV-04-AR-3136-
         M;

    (30) Sutherland, Janie vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et
         al., filed December 18, 2003, in the Circuit Court of
         Etowah, Alabama, Case No. CV-2003-1635-WHR; removed to
         United States District Court for the Northern District
         of Alabama, Middle Division, Case No. CV-04-AR-0129-M;

    (31) Swanbeck, Steven vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al.,
         filed November 18, 2004, in the Superior Court of New
         Jersey Law Division: Morris County, Dock No. L-3096-04;

    (32) Wagner, Nicole vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al.,
         filed February 24, 2005, in Superior Court of
         California, County of San Diego, Case No. GIC 843335;

    (33) Williams, Rose Mary et al. vs. Matrixx Initiatives,
         Inc., et al., filed December 29, 2004, in the United
         States District Court for the Northern District of
         Alabama, Middle Division, Case No. 4:04cv-3548-UWC;

    (34) Wyatt, Susan vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al.,
         filed June 15, 2004, in the United States District
         Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Southern
         Division, Case No. CV-04-AR-1230-S;

    (35) Bourgeois, Deborah vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et
         al., filed February 22, 2005, in the United States
         District Court for the Northern District of Alabama,
         Middle Division, Case No. CV-05-PT-0393-M; and

    (36) Orlansky, Robin vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al.,
         filed February 9, 2005, in the Superior Court of
         California (San Diego County), Case No. GIC 842519.

Generally, the cases filed in the Superior Court of Arizona have
been or the Company expects will be consolidated under "In Re
Consolidated Zicam Product Liability Cases, Case No. CV 2004-
001338."  Various defendants in the lawsuits, including
manufacturers and retailers, have sought indemnification or
other recovery from the Company for damages related to the
lawsuits. These cases are all in the early stages and the
Company expects the first trial to begin in the second half of
2005. Also, plaintiffs' law firms continue to solicit potential
claimants through the Internet and other media.  As a result,
the Company expects additional lawsuits to be filed against it.

In a disclosure before the Securities and Exchange Commission,
the Company said it believes the allegations relating to Zicam
Cold Remedy are unfounded. Zicam Cold Remedy has been studied in
two independent, placebo-control studies.  In those studies,
there was no statistically significant difference in adverse
events between the placebo and non-placebo group, and there was
no indication in either group of impairment to the sense of
smell. Further, the incidence of smell disorders is reported at
1-2% of the population on average, and is very common in those
over age 50. Upper respiratory infections are among the most
common causes of impairment to sense of smell. Therefore, any
product such as Zicam Cold Remedy designed to treat upper
respiratory illnesses may be mistakenly associated with
distortion of sense of smell. The rate of reported complaints of
distortion of sense of smell associated with Zicam Cold Remedy
is well below these national incidence levels.


OHIO: Mother Commences Lawsuit V. Kenton County Jail Practice
-------------------------------------------------------------
Aretta Baughn of Dayton, Ohio initiated a lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court in Covington, challenging the practice of Kenton
County jail officials of confiscating money sent by relatives
that is intended for prisoners to spend in a jail commissary,
The Cincinnati Post reports.

The suit mirrors another one that also challenges the same
practice that is being perpetuated in neighboring Campbell
County. Cincinnati attorney Robert Newman represents both
plaintiffs and is seeking class action status in each case.

As previously reported in the June 3, 2005 edition of the Class
Action Reporter, the suit against Campbell County was filed on
behalf of Cheryl Lightfoot of Dayton, who sent her incarcerated
son, Branston Lightfoot, commissary money, and Aisha Abdulrahim
of Newport, who sent commissary money to her jailed husband,
Kahlil Abdulrahim. It seeks a halt to the practice, a return of
all money confiscated in the past year and an unspecified amount
in punitive damages.

Like the Campbell Suit, the most recent suit against Kenton
County alleges that Mrs. Baughn, on two occasions sent her son
$50 and $40, respectively and the jail took a 50 percent cut of
each transaction without notifying her. Mrs. Baughn's 22-year-
old son, Jason, is serving time for a probation violation, the
lawsuit said.

Additionally, the lawsuit states that Mrs. Baughn and others who
sent money to prisoners serving time in the jail should have
known the money was being taken out, and further contends that
doing so without a court order or notice of a hearing violates a
person's right to due process of law. It is thus seeking
undisclosed punitive and compensatory damages and asks that all
the money taken from the inmates be returned.

Mr. Newman told the Post, "The money belongs to the mothers and
the innocent parties. They have a right to send it to their
family members and not have it taxed," and adds, "Kenton County
is trying to finance their jail operations by doing this like
this."


PENNSYLVANIA: Centerprise Launches Antitrust Suit V. DRAM Firms
---------------------------------------------------------------
British Manufacturer Centerprise International Ltd. initiated an
antitrust class action in a Pennsylvania court against memory
companies Micron, Crucial, Samsung, Mosel-Vitelic, Infineon,
Hynix, Elpida, NEC, Nanya and Winbond, in each of their many
guises, The Inquirer, UK reports.

In it complaint, which was filed a month ago, Centerprise
alleges that all of these firms are part of a long running
international conspiracy beginning July 1, 1999 and running to
June 30, 2002, the aim being to fix prices, eliminate and
suppress competition, and "committing other unlawful and
unconscionable practices designed to inflate and stabilize" the
prices of DRAM around the world.

Additionally, Centerprise also alleges that the prices exceeded
those, which would have been levied if a competitive market
decided DRAM.

The firm, which describes itself as one of the UK's largest
independent computer manufacturers that was founded in 1984,
sold computers into which it put the DRAM to buyers in the UK,
in France, and in the United States. It had bought the DRAM from
the companies named, and said the cost of sales were at
uniformly higher prices than they otherwise would have been.

According to its filing, an October 1999 earthquake in Taiwan  
caused a worldwide shortage of DRAM and at approximately the
same time, after Micron signed an agreement with the now defunct
Compaq, prices started to rise and did so until autumn 2000,
when prices headed downwards.

Thus, Centerprise also alleges that the defendants conspired to
reduce supply in order to artificially raise prices. The firm
claims the Taiwanese based defendants needed Micron, Samsung and
Infineon to reduce production and raise prices.

Centerprise International manufactures and supports desktop and
notebook PCs. Other products include tape backup systems and
magnetic and optical disk storage devices. Centerprise also
licenses third-party software and provides server integration
services. The company, which has partnerships with suppliers
including AMD, ATI, Canon, and Samsung, serves the corporate,
government, education, and system reseller markets.


PFIZER INC.: TX Resident Launches Suit Over Viagra Side Effects
---------------------------------------------------------------
James Thompson of Montgomery County initiated a lawsuit against
the maker of Viagra, Pfizer Inc. (NYSE: PFE), accusing it of
failing to warn users about possible side effects that he
believes may have caused his blindness, The Houston Chronicle
reports.

Mr. Thompson's suit, which was filed in a Houston federal court,
is among the first of what is expected to be a wave of lawsuits
against Pfizer, the maker of the drug that is used to treat
erectile dysfunction.

The lawsuits have been expected since last month's announcement
by Pfizer that a small number of men who have taken the drug
suffered "non-arteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy," or
NAION, a condition also known as "stroke in the eye" that can
lead to blindness.

According to the suit, the condition results when blood pressure
drops, restricting the flow of oxygenated blood to the optic
nerve. The suit thus accuses Pfizer of failing to warn him of
the possible harm even though it was aware of the danger.

Neither Mr. Thompson, his attorneys nor a Pfizer spokesman could
be reached for comment, however Pfizer did point out in a
statement on its Web site that it conducted 103 clinical trials
involving 13,000 patients and found no reports of NAION. That
statement said, "There is no evidence showing that (NAION)
occurred more frequently in men taking Viagra than men of
similar age and health who did not take Viagra."

The lawsuit, which was filed by attorney Daniel E. Becnel Jr. of
Reserve, Louisiana and two other Louisiana lawyers, is seeking
approval as a class action, contending that more than 23 million
men have taken Viagra since 1998. In addition, Mr. Thompson is
seeking damages in excess of $75,000.


PRG SCHULTZ: GA Court Grants Final Approval to Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia, Atlanta Division granted final approval to the
settlement of the consolidated securities class action filed
against PRG Schultz International, Inc. (formerly Profit
Recovery Group International, Inc.) and certain of its present
and former officers.

Beginning on June 6, 2000, three putative class action lawsuits
were filed and subsequently consolidated into one proceeding
styled: "In re Profit Recovery Group International, Inc. Sec.
Litig., Civil Action File No. 1:00-CV-1416-CC."  On November 13,
2000, the Plaintiffs in these cases filed a Consolidated and
Amended Complaint.  Plaintiffs allege that the Company, John M.
Cook, Scott L. Colabuono, the Company's former Chief Financial
Officer, and Michael A. Lustig, the Company's former Chief
Operating Officer, violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by allegedly disseminating false and misleading
information about a change in the Company's method of
recognizing revenue and in connection with revenue reported for
a division. Plaintiffs purport to bring this action on behalf of
a class of persons who purchased the Company's stock between
July 19, 1999 and July 26, 2000. Plaintiffs seek an unspecified
amount of compensatory damages, payment of litigation fees and
expenses, and equitable and/or injunctive relief.

The Court granted Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification on
December 3, 2002.  On February 8, 2005, the Company entered into
a Stipulation of Settlement with Plaintiffs' counsel, on behalf
of all putative class members, pursuant to which it agreed to
settle the consolidated class action for $6.75 million, which
payment is to be made by the insurance carrier for the Company.
On February 10, 2005, the Court preliminarily approved the terms
of the Settlement. Consistent with the Federal Rules of Civil
procedure, the class has been provided notice of the Settlement
and will be given the right to object to or opt-out of the
Settlement. The Court held a hearing on May 26, 2005, where it
granted final approval to the settlement and ordered the suit to
be dismissed with prejudice.


PRIMUS TELECOMMUNICATIONS: VA Court Dismisses Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia's dismissal of the consolidated securities class action
filed against Primus Telecommunications Group, Inc. and four of
its officers, styled "In re Primus Telecommunications Group,
Incorporated Securities Litigation," is deemed final as
plaintiffs failed to file an appeal.

Plaintiffs sued on behalf of certain purchasers of Company
securities between February 14, 2003 and July 29, 2004.  In
December 2004, the plaintiffs filed their Consolidated and
Amended Complaint.  Plaintiffs alleged that the Primus
Defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act
and Rule 10b-5. Plaintiffs sought damages, among other things,
on the theory that the Primus Defendants fraudulently published
false and misleading statements and/or fraudulently concealed
adverse, non-public information about the Company, thereby
artificially inflating the price of its securities.

The suit also covered matters related to:

     (1) PTI's acquisition in 2002 of Cable & Wireless's
         customers in the United States and migration and
         attrition of such customers;

     (2) VOIP initiatives and challenges faced by Primus with
         respect to launching the various VOIP products; and

     (3) the Company's network and decisions to lease capacity
         versus purchase capacity.

The Primus Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the suit in
January 2005.  On March 11, 2005, the court dismissed the suit
with prejudice. The court ruled that plaintiffs would not be
permitted to amend further their complaint.  The plaintiffs have
not appealed the decision dismissing their complaint and the
time in which to appeal has lapsed. Accordingly, this matter has
been finally determined.


SCHOOL SPECIALTY: Faces Shareholder Suits in WI Over Bain Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
School Specialty, Inc. (the "Company") reports that, following
the Company's May 31, 2005 announcement that it had signed a
definitive merger agreement to be acquired by an affiliate of
Bain Capital Partners, LLC ("Bain") (the "Transaction"), the
Company was named as a defendant in two putative shareholder
class actions filed in the Circuit Court for Outagamie County,
Wisconsin: Neal Auman v. School Specialty, Inc., et al., Case
No. 05-CV-765 and Adams Family Trust v. School Specialty, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 05-CV-771.

The complaint in each action purports to have been filed by a
shareholder of the Company who seeks to maintain the suit as a
class action on behalf of all holders of Company stock,
excluding those related to or affiliated with any of the
defendants. In addition to the Company, each complaint names the
Company's directors and Bain as defendants. The complaints
assert claims arising out of the Company's May 31, 2005
announcement and allege that the Company and its directors
breached fiduciary duties to the Company's shareholders by
negotiating and agreeing to the Transaction at a price that the
plaintiffs claim to be inadequate. Between both actions the
plaintiffs seek, among other things, to enjoin or to rescind the
Transaction, other injunctive relief and/or damages and other
monetary relief.


SILICON IMAGE: Lead Plaintiff Motions Filed in Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Two individuals filed lead plaintiff motions in the securities
class action filed against Silicon Image, Inc. in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California on
behalf of purchasers of the company's common stock from October
19,2004 to January 24,2005.

According to a press release dated February 1, 2005, a class
action lawsuit was filed on behalf of all persons who purchased,
converted, exchanged, or otherwise acquired the common stock of
Silicon Image, Inc., against defendants Silicon Image and
certain officers and directors of the Company.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC")
thereunder, thereby artificially inflating the price of Silicon
Image securities. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the
Company gave fourth quarter guidance on October 19, 2004 and has
since undergone a time of undisclosed executive uncertainty, and
distractions that were not disclosed while insiders sold Company
stock.  Plaintiffs allege that:

     (i) on November 11, 2004, the Company appointed Steven Laub
         as Chief Executive Officer and President;

    (ii) the Company failed to disclose material adverse facts,
         including fundamental disputes between Steven Laub and
         others at Silicon Image regarding Mr. Laub's relative
         role and responsibility which resulted in substantial
         distractions from achieving guidance;

   (iii) 281,742 shares were sold by insiders at Silicon Image
         who were in a position to know of the material adverse
         information of the fundamental disputes and resulting
         distractions; and

    (iv) the SEC commenced a formal investigation into trading
         in Silicon Image shares on January 25, 2005.

Further, on or around January 25, 2005, the Company issued two
press releases. One release, entitled "Silicon Image Announces
Appointment of Steve Tirado as Chief Executive Officer Replacing
Steven Laub," announced the resignation of its Chief Executive
Officer and President, Steven Laub, and appointment of
Christopher Paisley as the Company's new Chairman of the Board
of Directors. The second press release, entitled "Silicon Image
Reports Fourth Quarter 2004 Financials," stated that the
Company's revenue in the fourth quarter decreased by 4% in
comparison to the third quarter. The price of the Company stock
has declined by 15% since January 24, 2005.

The suit is styled "Landon Curry, et al. v. Silicon Image, Inc.,
et al., case no. 05-CV-00456," filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, under
Judge Maxine M. Chesney.  The plaintiff firms in this litigation
are:

     (i) Charles J. Piven, World Trade Center-Baltimore,401 East
         Pratt Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD, 21202, Phone:
         410.332.0030, E-mail: pivenlaw@erols.com

    (ii) Lovell Stewart Halebian LLP, 500 Fifth Avenue, New
         York, NY, 10110, Phone: 212.608.1900, Fax:
         212.719.4677, E-mail: info@lshllp.com


SILICON IMAGE: NY Court Preliminarily Approves Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against Silicon
Image, Inc., certain officers and directors, and its
underwriters, styled "Gonzales v. Silicon Image, et al., No. 01
CV 10903 (SDNY 2001)."

The lawsuit alleges that all defendants were part of a scheme to
manipulate the price of the Company's stock in the aftermarket
following the Company's initial public offering in October 1999.
Response to the complaint and discovery in this action on behalf
of the Company and individual defendants has been stayed by
order of the court.  The lawsuit is proceeding as part of a
coordinated action of over 300 such cases brought by plaintiffs
in the Southern District of New York.  Pursuant to a tolling
agreement, individual defendants have been dropped from the suit
for the time being.

In February 2003, the Court denied motions to dismiss brought by
the underwriters and certain issuers and ordered that the case
may proceed against certain issuers including against the
Company.  A proposed settlement has been negotiated and has
received preliminary approval by the Court.  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


SILICON IMAGE: Dropped As Defendant in CSFB Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Silicon Image, Inc. and certain of its officers and directors
have been dropped as defendants in the securities class action
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida, styled "Liu v. Credit Suisse First Boston
Corp., et al., No. 03-20459."

The action was filed on behalf of a putative class of
shareholders who purchased stock from some or all of
approximately 50 issuers whose public offerings were
underwritten by Credit Suisse First Boston. The initial
complaint alleged that the Company and certain officers were
part of a scheme by Credit Suisse First Boston to artificially
inflate the price of the Company's stock through the
dissemination of allegedly false analysts' reports.  The Company
was never served with a copy of the complaint.

In June 2003, the action was transferred to the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York. The
plaintiff in this matter filed an amended complaint shortly
thereafter, from which the Company, and the named officers, were
dropped as defendants. Plaintiffs have not amended their
complaint or otherwise indicated that they intend to name the
Company or its officers or directors as defendants in the action
since that time.

The suit is styled "Liu v. Credit Suisse First Boston Corp.,
case no. 1:04-cv-03757-SAS," filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, under Judge Shira
A. Scheindlin.  Representing the plaintiffs is John G. Watts,
Yearout & Traylor, P.C., 800 Shades Creek Parkway, Ste 500,
Birmingham, Al 35209, Phone: (205) 414-8160.


SMURFIT-STONE CONTAINER: Fully Pays Settlement in January 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------
Smurfit-Stone Container Corporation has made the remaining
payments for the settlement of the consolidated securities class
action filed against it in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

In 1998, seven putative class action complaints were filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois and in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.  These complaints alleged that the
Company reached agreements in restraint of trade that affected
the manufacture, sale and pricing of corrugated products in
violation of antitrust laws.  The complaints were amended to
name several other defendants, including Jefferson Smurfit
Corporation [JSC(U.S.)] and Smurfit-Stone.  The suits sought an
unspecified amount of damages arising out of the sale of
corrugated products for a period during 1993-95.

The complaints were transferred to and consolidated in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, which certified two plaintiff classes.  In
November 2003, Smurfit-Stone reached an agreement to settle the
antitrust class action cases pending against the Company, Stone
Container and JSC(U.S.).

The companies made an aggregate settlement payment of $92.5
million, one-half of which 23 was paid in December 2003 and the
remainder of which it paid in January 2005.  All of the other
defendants have also entered into agreements to settle these
class actions; however, all of the defendants in the class
actions continue to be defendants in 12 lawsuits brought on
behalf of numerous parties that have opted out of the class
actions to seek their own recovery.  All of these cases have
been transferred to the same United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for pretrial proceedings.


SOUTHERN PERU: Shareholders File DE Suit V. Minera Mexico Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Southern Peru Copper Corporation faces a consolidated class
action derivative lawsuit filed in the Delaware Court of
Chancery for New Castle County, relating to the merger
transaction between the Company and Minera Mexico S.A. de C.V.
(MM).

Three purported class action derivative lawsuits were initially
filed late in December 2004 and early January 2005, styled:

     (1) Lemon Bay, LLP v. Americas Mining Corporation, et al.,
         Civil Action No. 961-N,

     (2) Therault Trust v. Luis Palomino Bonilla, et al., and
         Southern Peru Copper Corporation, et al., Civil Action
         No. 969-N, and

     (3) James Sousa v. Southern Peru Copper Corporation, et
         al., Civil Action No. 978-N

The suits were later consolidated into one action titled, "In re
Southern Peru Copper Corporation Shareholder Derivative
Litigation, Consol. C.A. No. 961-N" and the complaint filed in
"Lemon Bay" was designated as the operative complaint in the
consolidated lawsuit. The consolidated action purports to be
brought on behalf of the Company's common stockholders.  

The consolidated complaint alleges, among other things, that the
Transaction is the result of breaches of fiduciary duties by the
Company's directors and is not entirely fair to the Company and
its minority stockholders.  The consolidated complaint seeks,
among other things, a preliminarily and permanent injunction to
enjoin the Transaction, the award of damages to the class, the
award of damages to the Company and such other relief that the
court deems equitable, including interest, attorneys' and
experts' fees and costs.


TAMPA ELECTRIC: Trial For FL Residents Suit Set September 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------
Trial for the lawsuits filed against Tampa Electric Co. is set
for September 12 to 23,2005 in the Circuit Court in Hillsborough
County.

Three suits are pending against the Company in connection with
the location of transmission structures and upgrades to a
substation in certain residential areas by residents in the
areas surrounding the structures and substation. The high-
voltage power lines are needed by Tampa Electric to move
electricity from its power generating facilities in the eastern
part of its service territory to the northwest part of its
service territory where significant population growth has been
experienced.  The design provided a loop in order to enhance
reliability for the benefit of customers.

The resident plaintiffs are seeking to remove the poles or to
receive monetary damages.  The Company is working with the
community to determine the feasibility of alternate routes or
structures or some combination.  The Company sought to permit an
alternate route after several community meetings; however, the
permitting agency (Hillsborough County) asked the Company to
withdraw the application due to the pending litigation.  

The plaintiffs were seeking class action status, which was
denied. The three cases are pending before two separate judges.
Summary judgment denying injunctive relief (non-monetary relief)
has been granted in one of the cases and motions for summary
judgment have been argued in the other two cases, which have
been consolidated.  


THANE INTERNATIONAL: Judge's Ruling in Reliant Case Favors Firm
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bucking the current trend in class action securities lawsuits,
leading direct marketing company Thane International, Inc., won
the verdict in a shareholder suit when U.S. District Judge James
Selna of Santa Ana, California ruled in its favor last week.

Thane is the company behind household name products such as
Klear Action(R) Whitening Light(TM) tooth whitening system,
OrbiTrek(TM) elliptical glider, Thane's Q(TM) Grill and the
Flavorwave Oven(R), which are sold by direct-market television.

In 2002, Thane acquired Reliant Interactive Media Corp. in a
stock swap. The lawsuit was filed by Reliant shareholders who
alleged Thane had promised it would list the combined company on
the Nasdaq National Market System ("NMS"), but instead it traded
on the less prestigious and perceived riskier over-the-counter
market. In his decision, Judge Selna ruled that Thane never
stated it would list on Nasdaq NMS, and that it was not proven
that where the company listed actually had a material impact on
the company's stock price, despite the fact that the price
collapsed from a high of $8.50 to $0.35 over time.

In recent years, few firms have been willing to challenge class
action suits brought by shareholders in court, in part because
of fears of anti-business hostility in the post-Enron era. Since
Congress amended the securities laws at the end of 1995, only
six cases nationwide have actually made it all the way to a
verdict. The vast majority of such cases settle for millions of
dollars. Part of what also makes the Thane case so unusual is
that the statute under which the class was suing holds the
company strictly liable for even innocent misrepresentations,
eliminating the principal defense used in most securities cases.

"In an era with such a heightened focus on shareholder rights
and corporate scandals, there is tremendous pressure on
companies to settle securities class action suits rather than go
to trial and defend themselves," said Dan Tyukody, a Los
Angeles-based securities litigation partner with Orrick,
Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, who tried the case along with fellow
partner Michael Tu and associate Jason Krajcer.

"What this case shows is that when a company is innocent of
securities charges, as Thane clearly was, it should take a
closer look at fighting the charges in court," Mr. Tyukody
continued. "There are good reasons why many of these cases
settle, but others settle far too easily and expensively because
lawyers or their clients get cold feet. Thane's case
demonstrates that some of these cases should be tried, and can
be won even in today's tougher environment for defendants."

Jacqueline E. Bailey, General Counsel of Thane, stated, "From
the beginning we have always vigorously denied the plaintiffs'
charges. The court's verdict last week is the right result and
completely vindicates Thane and its directors and officers."


TRIPATH TECHNOLOGY: Parties Discuss Settlement For CA Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the consolidated securities class action filed
against Tripath Technology, Inc. and certain of its officers are
engaged in settlement discussions.

Beginning on November 4, 2004, plaintiffs filed four separate
complaints purporting to be class actions in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California alleging
that the Company and certain of its officers and/or directors
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  
Plaintiffs purport to represent a putative class of shareholders
who purchased or otherwise acquired Company securities between
January 29, 2004 and October 22, 2004.

The complaints contain varying allegations, including that the
Company and the individual defendants made materially false and
misleading statements with respect to its financial results and
with respect to the Company's business, prospects and operations
in its filings with the SEC, press releases and other
disclosures. The complaints seek unspecified compensatory
damages, attorneys' fees, expert witness fees, costs and such
other relief as may be awarded by the Court.

On December 22, 2004, the Court entered a stipulation and order
consolidating all of these complaints and ordering that the
defendants need not respond to any of these complaints until
after plaintiffs file a consolidated complaint. The Court
further ordered plaintiffs to file a consolidated complaint
within sixty (60) days after the Court entered an order
adjudicating the pending motions for the appointment of lead
plaintiff.

On January 4, 2005, plaintiffs filed motions for the appointment
of lead plaintiff. The Court, by Order dated January 28, 2005,
appointed Robert Poteet as the sole lead plaintiff and approved
Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP as lead counsel. On March
10, 2005, the Court granted the parties' stipulated request to
extend lead plaintiff's time for filing the consolidated
complaint from March 29, 2005 to May 31, 2005. By order dated
May 16, 2005, the Court extended lead plaintiffs' time for
filing the consolidated complaint from May 31, 2005 to June 28,
2005.


TYSON FOODS: Plaintiffs Appeal DE Suit Summary Judgment Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware's ruling granting summary judgment in favor
of Tyson Foods, Inc. in the securities class action filed
against it and officers Don Tyson, John Tyson and Les Baledge.

Between June 22 and July 20, 2001, various plaintiffs commenced
actions, seeking monetary damages on behalf of a purported class
of those who sold IBP, Inc. (IBP) stock from March 29, 2001,
when the Company announced its intention to terminate its merger
agreement with IBP, through June 15, 2001, when a Delaware state
court rendered its Post-Trial Opinion ordering the merger to
proceed.  

Plaintiffs in the various actions alleged that the defendants
violated federal securities laws by making, causing or allowing
to be made, certain allegedly false and misleading statements in
a March 29, 2001, press release issued in connection with the
Company's attempted termination of the merger agreement.  The
plaintiffs alleged that, as a result of the defendants' alleged
conduct, purported class members were harmed by an alleged
artificial deflation in the price of IBP's stock during the
proposed class period.  The various actions were subsequently
consolidated under the caption "In re Tyson Foods, Inc.
Securities Litigation" and, on December 4, 2001, the plaintiffs
in the consolidated action filed a Consolidated Class Action
Complaint.

On January 22, 2002, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss
the consolidated complaint.  By memorandum order dated October
23, 2002, the District Court granted in part and denied in part
the defendants' motion to dismiss.  On October 6, 2003, the
District Court certified a class consisting of those who
purchased IBP securities on or before March 29, 2001, and
subsequently sold such securities from March 30 through June 15,
2001, inclusive, and sustained damages as a result of such
transaction.  Following the conclusion of discovery in the case,
plaintiffs and defendants each filed motions for summary
judgment.  On June 17, 2004, the District Court rendered an
opinion in favor of defendants and against plaintiffs on all of
plaintiffs' claims, and entered an order to that effect.  On
June 28, 2004, defendants filed a motion requesting the District
Court to modify its order to include judgment in defendants'
favor against the class and on July 30, 2004, the District Court
entered such an order.  On August 6, 2004, plaintiffs filed a
Notice of Appeal.  Plaintiffs filed their brief on the appeal on
December 8, 2004, defendants filed their response on January 24,
2005 plaintiffs filed their reply brief on February 24, 2005.  
No date for oral arguments on the appeal has been set.  


TYSON FOODS: Trial in AR Hog Producers Suit To Begin August 2005
----------------------------------------------------------------
Trial for the lawsuit filed by 82 individual plaintiffs against
Tyson Foods, Inc., styled "Michael Archer, et al. v. Tyson
Foods, Inc. and The Pork Group, Inc., CIV 2002-497," is set to
begin on August 1,2005 in the Circuit Court of Pope County,
Arkansas.  

The Company announced a restructuring of its live swine
operations which, among other things, resulted in the
discontinuance of relationships with approximately 130 contract
hog producers, including the plaintiffs.  In their complaint,
the plaintiffs allege that the Company committed fraud and
should be promissorily estopped from terminating the parties'
relationship.  The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of
compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorney fees and costs.  


TYSON FOODS: Seeks Dismissal of DE Shareholder Derivative Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tyson Foods, Inc. asked the Delaware Chancery Court to dismiss a
putative shareholder derivative and class action lawsuit filed
against it (as a nominal defendant) and certain of its present
and former directors, styled "Amalgamated Bank v. Don Tyson, et
al."

The lawsuit contains three derivative claims respectively
alleging the defendant directors breached their fiduciary duties
by approving:

     (1) consulting contracts for Don Tyson and Robert Peterson
         in 2001, and other compensation for certain Tyson
         executives during 2001-2003,

     (2) certain option grants to certain officers and directors
         with alleged knowledge that the Company was about to
         make announcements that would cause the stock price to
         increase, and

     (3) various related-party transactions during 2001-2003
         that plaintiff alleges were unfair to the Company.

The putative class action portion of the lawsuit claims that the
Company's 2002, 2003 and 2004 proxy statements contained
misrepresentations regarding certain executive compensation and
seeks to void the Company's board of directors elections for
those years.  


TYSON FRESH: Discovery Proceeds in SD Cattle Producers Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in the class action filed against Tyson
Fresh Meats, Inc. and three other beef packers in the United
States District Court for the District of South Dakota, styled
"Herman Schumacher, et al. vs. Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc., et al."

In July 2002, certain cattle producers filed the suit, seeking
certification of a class of cattle producers and alleging that
in 2001, during the first six weeks that the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) began its mandatory price reporting program,
defendants knowingly used the inaccurate boxed beef cutout
prices (cutout prices are determined by the USDA through a
formula that averages the prices of the various box beef cuts
reported by all packers) calculated and published by USDA to
negotiate the purchase of fed cattle from plaintiffs at prices
substantially lower than would have been economically justified
had plaintiffs known the accurate higher cutout prices.  
Plaintiffs contend that defendants' conduct constituted an
unfair or deceptive practice in violation of the Packers and
Stockyards Act (PSA), 7 U.S.C. Section 192.  Plaintiffs also
seek damages under state law unjust enrichment principles.  The
USDA has stated that during the period in question the beef
packers correctly reported beef sales information to the USDA
and TFM believes it acted appropriately in its dealings with
cattle producers.

Plaintiffs submitted an affidavit from their expert on April 1,
2004, which maintained class damages were in the "tens of
millions" of dollars.  On June 4, 2004, the District Court
certified a class to pursue the PSA claims, consisting of "all
persons or business associations that owned any interest in
cattle that were intended for slaughter and who sold or
permitted the sale of such cattle (excluding culled dairy and
beef cows and bulls) to defendants on the open spot cash cattle
market, or on a basis affected by that market, between April 2,
2001, to and including May 11, 2001."  Other classes were
certified in connection with the state law unjust enrichment
claims.  On June 22, 2004, defendants sought leave from the
Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals to appeal the class
certification ruling.  This request was denied on July 7, 2004.  


UNITE HERE: Intends To Appeal Certification of Pichler Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
On May 31, 2005 a Judge in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
agreed to certify a class in the case of Pichler v. UNITE. While
this decision certifies the common interests of a class it does
not rule on the merits of the case.

UNITE HERE intends to appeal the certification and maintains
that it did not use Department of Motor Vehicle records for any
improper purposes. The lawsuit, financially supported by uniform
giant Cintas, alleges that the rights of Cintas employees may
have been violated when their personal information was obtained
by UNITE HERE (formerly UNITE) through Department of Motor
Vehicle records.

Eleuteria Mazon, a 13-year Cintas employee from Schaumburg,
Illinois said, "Cintas is violating the rights of its 'partners'
throughout the country. My coworkers and I need to know our
rights and need to be informed of how we can protect ourselves
against Cintas' actions. We don't care how we are found. What
matters most is that we find out how to fight for our rights,
and that we are able to work together."

"Cintas workers have made it clear that they will not stop
fighting until the company respects their rights," said Liz
Gres, an organizing director for UNITE HERE. "Cintas workers,
like most American workers, surrender their privacy rights as
they arrive at the work site. Cintas can spy on their workers,
hold them in captive audience meetings at work or elsewhere, and
contact them at home or on cell phones. But Cintas isn't going
to inform workers how to fight for their rights or join pending
litigation that could benefit them. We are, and we do, and we
won't stop until Cintas workers have won their struggle for
justice on the job."

For over two years Cintas workers have been engaged in an effort
to win living wages, affordable health insurance, safe working
conditions and other workplace improvements. A critical part of
Cintas workers' efforts has been to enforce their rights in the
workplace. In lawsuits and other pending investigations, workers
have accused Cintas of underpayment, denying overtime,
discrimination in hiring and promotions and numerous health and
safety violations. Workers affected by these violations could
become parties to lawsuits and eventually win damages from the
company, but only if they are aware of their rights.

In an effort to inform Cintas workers of their legal rights and
to help them pursue claims against their employer for a litany
of abuses, UNITE HERE has contacted thousands of Cintas workers.
Uniform giant Cintas currently faces a number of charges for
breaking laws aimed at protecting workers:

     (1) Current and former Cintas workers initiated a class
         action lawsuit against the company, charging that women
         and minorities are being assigned to the lowest paid
         and least desirable positions in the company. The
         Federal EEOC has intervened in this case to support
         workers' claims that Cintas has failed to hire women
         into higher paying jobs as delivery drivers.

     (2) Cintas drivers from across the United States allege
         that the company has failed to pay them overtime as
         required by the Fair Labor Standards Act. They have
         filed a federal lawsuit in the Northern District of
         California.

     (3) Production workers in San Leandro and Los Angeles,
         California charge that Cintas has failed to abide by
         local living wage laws and has paid employees below
         mandated living-wage levels. They have filed lawsuits
         seeking years of back wages.

     (4) Since 2000, OSHA has cited Cintas over fifty times for
         exposing employees to "serious" hazards. OSHA defines a
         serious violation as one in which "there is substantial
         probability that death or serious physical harm could
         result, and the employer knew, or should have known, of
         the hazard."

     (5) Cintas is under investigation by the National Labor
         Relations Board for dozens of charges of harassing,
         intimidating and running surveillance on workers that
         have tried to exercise their right to organize. After
         the NLRB General Counsel found dozens of other charges
         meritorious, Cintas settled them rather than face a
         hearing on them.

For more details, contact Ahmer Qadeer, Phone: +1-646-872-2256,
and Liz Gres, Phone: +1-646-522-9754, both of UNITE HERE.


UNITED STATES: Court's Ruling in CROA Lawsuit Favors VA Couple
--------------------------------------------------------------
Following Congressional hearings regarding the abuses in the
credit counseling industry and the increasing IRS scrutiny, the
United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit weighed in
with strong support for consumers.

In a case of first impression nationwide, the First Circuit held
that credit repair companies are not automatically excluded from
the definition of a "credit repair organization" simply because
they are organized as non profit tax exempt entities. Rather,
the court held that to be immune from suit under the federal
Credit Repair Organization Act (CROA), the defendant must prove
that it actually operates in a manner consistent with both of
those statuses.

The case involved a class action suit by the Zimmermans, a
Virginia couple that paid approximately $1,000 in 2002 for a
customized debt management program with Cambridge Credit
Counseling Corporation, which had advertised that it was
America's premier debt counseling organization. After several
months on the Cambridge debt management plan program, the
Zimmermans owed more money to creditors and had worse credit
scores than before they contacted Cambridge.

Believing that they had been swindled, the plaintiffs sued
Cambridge, its owners John and Richard Puccio and several
related entities for violations of the CROA. They alleged that
Cambridge's non profit status was a sham and that John and
Richard Puccio had, through a complex series of corporate
maneuvers, personally made millions off the backs of America's
most vulnerable consumers, i.e. those already severely
overburdened by debt that they were willing to do and pay almost
anything to avoid bankruptcy. The plaintiffs further alleged
that Richard Puccio already had a history of fraudulent conduct
and had been banned for life by the United States Securities and
Exchange Commission.

The Zimmermans' case was thrown out by the district court on the
grounds that the CROA excludes from its reach "any nonprofit
organization which is exempt from taxation under section
501(c)(3)" and that Cambridge was organized as a Massachusetts
non profit company and the IRS had granted Cambridge tax-exempt
status. The Zimmermans then appealed.

In the June 1, 2005 opinion, the First Circuit first noted that
the CROA's expressed purpose is to "to protect the public from
unfair or deceptive advertising and business practices by credit
repair organizations." The Court then looked closely at the
language Congress used for the nonprofit/tax exempt exclusion.
It not only held that "non profit" and "exempt from taxation"
were separate concepts, but that since tax exempt status
determinations by the IRS are exclusively based on material that
is provided by the applicant, they are not reliable indicators
of how the organization is actually operating and thus cannot be
relied upon as precedent for purposes of the CROA. As the Court
noted even "the IRS' subsequent notification that an entity has
qualified for tax-exempt status contains a disclaimer stating
that the IRS has made its determination based solely on
representations provided to it by the party seeking the status."

From this observation, the Court held that "if a credit repair
organization only needed to obtain a section 501(c)(3)
designation to qualify for the exception, the exception might
well eviscerate the liability-creating provisions" and that
"Congress cannot have intended unscrupulous credit repair
organizations to have such easy access to CROA immunity."
Further, the Court found that although Congress left the word
"nonprofit" undefined in the CROA exclusion, the concept was not
difficult and that "nonprofit" status depended primarily on
proof that the entity did "not distribute profits to
stockholders or others."

Thus, the Court unanimously concluded, "to be excluded from the
CROA ... , a credit repair organization must actually operate as
a nonprofit organization and be exempt from taxation under
section 501(c)(3)."

The First Circuit decision is a landmark opinion in the
increasingly regulated area of consumer debt counseling. For not
only will credit counseling be required under the new bankruptcy
law, but prior to the First Circuit's opinion, there were
conflicting lower court decisions on the effect of an IRS
determination of exempt status on whether a credit repair
company could be sued under the CROA.

The Zimmermans' case is not the only class action suit alleging
this same type of nonprofit fraud in the credit counseling
industry. In another such action, on April 20, 2005, a federal
district court froze the assets of Andris Pukke, a convicted
felon, who founded Ameridebt, Inc., Debticated Consumer
Counseling, Inc. and several other ostensibly "non profit" tax
exempt credit counseling entities. That action is entitled
Polacsek v. Debticated Consumer Counseling, et al. and is
pending in Maryland. Mr. Pukke and his company are also being
sued by the Federal Trade Commission in the same court and
various state Attorney Generals have sued both the Cambridge and
Ameridebt organizations.

Finally, the First Circuit opinion would also seem to have wider
implications than just application to the CROA and its rationale
would include all statutes where either non profit or tax exempt
statuses are raised as issues in private litigation. Indeed, it
would appear to apply to any instance where the IRS has provided
a private letter determination on a particular question that
later comes up in litigation. In all of these cases, it seems
that the rule will be that while the IRS may continue to treat
an entity for tax purposes in one way, federal courts can go the
other way based on the organization's actual operations where
the same question is raised in private litigation.

The plaintiffs in both the Zimmerman and Polacsek cases are
represented by the Los Angeles office of Morris Polich & Purdy
LLP, the Charlottesville, Virginia office of Michie Hamlett
Lowry Rasmussen & Tweel PLLC and Charlottesville attorney
Gregory Duncan. Massachusetts attorney Steven G. Hennessy also
represents plaintiffs in the Zimmerman case.

For more details, contact David J. Vendler, Esq. of MORRIS
POLICH & PURDY LLP, 1055 West Seventh Street, 24th Floor, Los
Angeles, CA, 90017, Phone: (213) 891-9100.


VERTEX PHARMACEUTICALS: Securities Suit Dismissal Deemed Final
--------------------------------------------------------------
The dismissal of the consolidated securities class action filed
against Vertex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is deemed final after
plaintiffs failed to appeal the decision.

In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs claimed that the defendants made
material misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact
regarding VX-745, an investigational agent with potential in the
treatment of inflammatory and neurological diseases, in
violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10(b)(5) of the
Securities Exchange Act. The plaintiffs sought certification as
a class action, compensatory damages in an unspecified amount,
and unspecified equitable or injunctive relief.

On February 23, 2005, the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts entered judgment in favor of Vertex
pursuant to an order of the trial judge granting the Company's
motion to dismiss a purported class action lawsuit against the
Company and certain of its officers and a former employee.  The
plaintiffs' right to appeal that order lapsed without further
action on the part of the plaintiffs on March 25, 2005.  As a
result, that litigation has been completed and the Company is
not a party to any material legal proceedings.

The suit is styled "Marcano v. Vertex Pharmaceuticals
Incorporated et al., case no. 1:03-cv-11852-PBS," filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
under Judge Patti B. Saris.  Representing the plaintiffs are
Bing Ryan, Lesley E. Weaver, and Maria V. Morris of Lerach
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP, 100 Pine Street,
Suite 2600, San Francisco, CA 94111, Phone: 415-288-4545, Fax:
415-288-4534, E-mail: Lesleyw@lerachlaw.com or
Mariam@lerachlaw.com.  Representing the Company is Glenn R.
Reichardt, Kirkpatrick & Lockhart, LLP, 1800 Massachusetts
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20036-1800, Phone: 202-778-9065, Fax:
202-778-9100, E-mail: greichardt@kl.com


VISX INC.: Reaches Settlement For CA Investor Suit V. AMO Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
VISX Inc. reached a settlement for two putative class actions
filed against it and its board of directors in the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara, styled
"William Kinchy vs. VISX, Incorporated, et al., Case No.
104CV030447" and "Douglas Shearer vs. VISX, Incorporated, et
al., Case No. 104CV030452."

On January 27, 2005, the court ordered the two cases
consolidated under the Kinchy case.  On January 28, 2005,
William Kinchy filed an amended complaint that alleges, among
other things, that the Company's Board of Directors and certain
executive officers breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty
and due care by approving the merger agreement with Advanced
Medical Optics, Inc. (AMO) and the merger contemplated by the
merger agreement without undertaking sufficient efforts to
obtain the best offer possible for stockholders.  The complaint
further alleges that the consideration to be paid in the merger
is unfair and inadequate, and that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties of care, loyalty and candor to the Company's
public stockholders in connection with the merger.  The
complaint seeks an injunction prohibiting the Company from
consummating the merger and rights of rescission against the
merger and any of the terms of the merger agreement, as well as
attorneys' fees and costs.

On March 14, 2005, the Company reached an agreement in principle
with plaintiff's counsel pursuant to which plaintiff will
release the defendants, as well as AMO and certain VISX agents
and affiliates, from all claims that have been brought or could
have been brought under state or federal law arising out of or
relating to the merger. The settlement agreement remains subject
to approval by the Superior Court of the State of California for
the County of Santa Clara, which is not expected to be obtained
prior to the completion of the merger. Under the agreement in
principle, the Company agreed to make certain additional
disclosures that have been included in the joint proxy
statement/prospectus. In addition, the Company has agreed that
it will not oppose a fee application by plaintiff's counsel of
up to $500,000.  The settlement does not contemplate any changes
to the merger agreement or the merger.


WORLDCOM INC.: Ex-CEO, 3 Others Try To Settle Shareholder Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Convicted former WorldCom Inc. chief executive Bernard J. Ebbers
is involved in negotiations to settle for an undisclosed sum a
class action lawsuit filed by investors in the nation's second-
biggest telecommunications firm, according to lawyers involved
in the case, The Washington Post reports.

Additionally, the lawyers told the Post that former WorldCom
finance chief Scott D. Sullivan and two other officials who
pleaded guilty to participating in a widespread accounting fraud
at the Ashburn firm also are taking part in the settlement
talks.

Word of the settlement talks came as federal prosecutors said
they would not stand in the way of a resolution of the civil
case. Assistant U.S. Attorney David B. Anders confirmed this
recently through the filing of court papers in New York, which
told a judge that the government would not seek financial
restitution from Mr. Ebbers or three other defendants.

Prosecutors said that instead of financial restitution, the men
would make payments into a broad settlement fund to be
distributed to victims of the fraud. Mr. Anders added that there
are more than 3 million potential claimants and plaintiff
lawyers could not determine the amount each person would receive
until next year.

In July 2002, investors lost billions of dollars after WorldCom
filed for protection from its creditors. The company eventually
reported $11 billion in phony accounting entries after the
earnings manipulation unraveled. WorldCom though would later
emerge from Chapter 11 protection and now operates as MCI Inc.

A federal jury convicted Mr. Ebbers, 63, of nine counts of
conspiracy, securities fraud and false filings in March. He is
scheduled to receive on July 13 his criminal sentence, which
could put the former corporate titan behind bars for decades.
Legal experts pointed out that reaching a settlement in the
largest civil lawsuit against him could help him win some credit
at sentencing from U.S. District Judge Barbara S. Jones.

In a telephone interview with the Post, David F. Wertheimer, a
lawyer for Mr. Ebbers at Hogan & Hartson LLP in New York, said,
"The government, Mr. Ebbers and the plaintiff class in the
WorldCom civil class action are working in good faith to effect
a settlement."

Even with proposed settlements, the class action lawsuit, led by
New York State Comptroller Alan G. Hevesi, has already recovered
billions of dollars for investors. A group of investment banks
that advised WorldCom shelled out more than $6 billion, former
board members agreed to pay more than $55 million, and
accounting firm Arthur Andersen LLP paid $65 million.

U.S. District Judge Denise L. Cote though, who is presiding over
the civil lawsuits, must approve any settlement with Mr. Ebbers
and the other defendants.

A source briefed on the possible settlement, who spoke on the
condition of anonymity because he did not have authorization to
comment, told the Post that an agreement could be announced
soon, perhaps within the next few days.



                        Asbestos Alert


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Jury Awards US$3.4MM in Suit V. CertainTeed
----------------------------------------------------------------
A San Francisco jury granted a US$3.4 million verdict in favor
of Ralph Pierce, a 70-year old retired machine operator
suffering from colon cancer due to asbestos exposure in the
workplace. The amount was for economic and non-economic damages
as well as for past and future medical expenses.

Judge Mary Wiss presided over the five-week trial in the case
tagged, Ralph Pierce v. CertainTeed Corporation in San Francisco
Superior Court with Case No. 408642. The jury found that the
Company made defective cement pipe and failed to warn Mr. Pierce
of the dangers of asbestos to his health. It also concluded that
the colon cancer, which was diagnosed in 2003, was directly
related to the exposure.

Mr. Pierce worked for the West Contra Costa County Wastewater
District from 1972 through 1997. He worked with asbestos-
containing cement pipe manufactured by CertainTeed Corporation,
a Valley Forge, PA-based building materials company and a
subsidiary of French industrial giant Compagnie de Saint-Gobain.

CertainTeed only gave warnings about asbestos in 1985. However,
internal company documents prove that the Company knew of the
dangers of asbestos since before the mid-1960s. In several
symposia, Dr. Irving Selikoff presented company representatives
with information concerning the cancer risks posed by asbestos.

Gilbert L. Purcell and Alex Remick of Brayton Purcell
represented Mr. Pierce.

Mr. Purcell used the verdict as an opportunity to voice his
opposition to legislation seeking to create a trust fund for
asbestos-related claims. He said that the proposal would
ultimately shield manufacturers and insurers from lawsuits.

As previously reported in the June 3, 2005 edition of the Class
Action Reporter, the asbestos bill won approval from the U.S.
Senate Judiciary Committee, which voted 13-5. The trust fund
aims to eliminate asbestos lawsuits and create a 30-year fund
financed by companies facing litigation and their insurers. As
part of the trust fund legislation deal, victims of asbestos-
related illnesses would relinquish their right to sue.

"The verdict shows at least two things -- that trials work, and
that access to courts is essential to achieve and maintain
corporate accountability. Without the courts, companies can duck
responsibility for their wrongful conduct.

"The legislative `one-size-fits-all' asbestos bailout bills that
are presently in Congress work injustice in ways that juries can
check, as was done in this case. The public, which is comprised
of innocent individuals like Mr. Pierce, wins with access to
courts," said Mr. Purcell.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: AU Councils Protest Against Asbestos Plan   
--------------------------------------------------------------
More than 300 mayors and councilors from across Queensland
protested in Brisbane's King George Square against the State
Government's moves to have councils oversee home renovations
involving asbestos. The councils said the hazards are too great
to allow council workers or do-it-yourself renovators to handle
the potentially dangerous material.

Outlined in the Draft Public Health Bill 2005, the proposal
transfers to the councils the financial and administrative
responsibility of asbestos removal by home renovators.

Councilors at last week's planning and policy committee meeting
agreed to back the Local Government Association of Queensland's
move to oppose the legislation currently before Parliament, and
refuse to administer its provisions when passed. LGAQ president
Paul Bell said if state legislation requires council
participation, they would refuse.

The LGAQ opposed the "cost shifting" exercise since it had the
potential to expose council officers to a hazard they have not
been trained to deal with. It also said that the proposal
created public liability exposure. The group believes it sets a
detrimental precedent to other local governments in Australia.  

While councilors agreed to defy the system, there was concern
that the political statement could be useless, with the councils
ultimately responsible for costs. The draft bill said as the
State could step in to enforce the legislation if a local
government failed to perform its functions, the State is able to
recover costs from the local government.

A spokesman for Queensland Health Minister, Gordon Nuttall, said
the draft bill merely "updated and clarified" provisions in the
outdated and much-amended 1937 Health Act, Queensland's primary
public health legislation. He explained that the bill meant
council workers could act upon complaints and issue a stop work
order. He said that it was more of an "inspection role," which
State Government was prepared to help train them in.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ACC Wins Appeal V. Ross Lehmann's Estate
-------------------------------------------------------------
After the High Court overturned the landmark Lehmann ruling, 26
asbestos victims and their families in New Zealand may now have
to pay back the $100,000 lump sum compensation payment they each
received.

The Accident Compensation Corporation won the appeal against the
estate of Ross Lehmann, an Auckland man who died in November
2003 from an illness he got from exposure to asbestos about 40
years ago. He had worked at New Zealand Forest Products as a
fitter and welder.

Last year, the Wellington District Court set a precedent when it
ordered the lump sum award to Mr. Lehmann's widow, Dawn. It was
the first time a lump sum had been awarded for asbestos victims
exposed before April 2002, paving the way for other asbestos
victims. Prior to the ruling, victims in New Zealand were
entitled only to a $67 independence weekly allowance for their
lifetime.

John Miller, Dawn Lehmann's lawyer, said that the ACC will
presumably be targeting the widows and he believes this news
will worsen the condition of the victims still living.

Justice Lowell Goddard said, "If there is a perceived injustice
in that situation, then it is an injustice that can only be
remedied by legislative amendment."

In a written statement ACC said it has always advised claimants
they might have to repay their lump sums. The issue will be
discussed at their next board meeting on June 16.

The Accident Compensation Corporation administers New Zealand's
accident compensation scheme, which provides personal injury
cover for all New Zealand citizens, residents and temporary
visitors to New Zealand. In return people do not have the right
to sue for personal injury, other than for exemplary damages.

Lawyer Hazel Armstrong, the representative of Mr. Lehmann's
widow, doubted if ACC would try to get the money back in an
election year. Ms. Armstrong advised them to wait until the case
was heard in the Court of Appeal.  

While the Lehmann family takes their appeal to the Court, they
will also be bringing the issue to the Human Rights Commission.
They said that if the government had stepped in and clarified
the law, they would not have to go through this agony. Son John
Lehmann said the family would be lodging the complaint against
Prime Minister Helen Clark and the judicial system.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Groups Fight Toxic Ships Threat in Scotland
----------------------------------------------------------------
Politicians and environmentalists have pledged to oppose any
moves to bring "toxic" United States naval ships to Scotland to
be scrapped, The Herald reports.

Able UK, the Company that brought toxic "ghost ships" from
America to Britain, is now bidding for the disused Nigg
fabrication yard, on the shores of the Cromarty Firth, which is
one of the largest dry docks in Western Europe. KBR Caledonian,
a part of the Halliburton group, owns the yard.

While not ruling out the possibility of ships being
decommissioned there in future, it says it would be only part of
a range of work at the yard, including building offshore wind
turbines. The Company promises to create 200 new jobs within a
year and up to 1,000 jobs within 5 years.

Four decaying 60-year-old ships, polluted with 800 tons of
carcinogenic asbestos and other dangerous chemicals, are moored
on Teesside while Able UK fights a dispute with environmental
bodies over plans to build a GBP25 million facility in
Hartlepool.

Able UK has been involved in controversy over the issue since
June 2003, when it announced it had won a contract to tow 13
American naval reserve ships to the UK for demolition. A further
nine are still on the James River in Virginia, along with about
100 vessels anchored off Fort Eustis.

In March, a Washington district judge dismissed a case brought
by environmentalists, who claimed the vessels were laden with
dangerous chemicals, and gave permission for the nine ships to
leave the US for the northeast of England.

The UK Environment Agency has asked Hartlepool Borough Council
to delay any decision on three planning applications submitted
by Able UK in January.

Environmentalists fear the contaminated ships would adversely
affect fragile ecosystems. English Nature, and the Environment
Agency, the government's own statutory advisers, are both
formally objecting to Able UK's three planning applications in
Hartlepool, as are the RSPB and Friends of the Earth.

Dan Barlow, head of policy and research at Friends of the Earth
Scotland, said, "It would be environmentally inexcusable for
Scotland's waters to risk being contaminated by the demolition
of these decaying ships which America is more than able to deal
with at home."

Peter Stephenson, Able UK's chairman and chief executive, said
in a statement, "I can confirm we have submitted a bid for the
Nigg Fabrication yard at Nigg. We are waiting to hear from the
sellers or their agents . . . and would have preferred to have
kept it quiet until we heard."

Jack McConnell, the First Minister, said the Company would
require the approval of the relevant planning authority and the
Scottish Environment Protection Agency, who would need to be
assured that there was no threat to the environment.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: IL Jury Rules in Favor of General Electric
---------------------------------------------------------------
Deliberating for less than 20 minutes, a Madison Court jury
ruled in favor of defendant General Electric in an eight-day
asbestos trial, The Madison Record reports.

In April 2003, Jane Gudmundson of Cook County filed suit,
claiming that her late husband, Harvey Gudmundson, was exposed
to asbestos while serving on the U.S.S. Bausell, a navy
destroyer during the Korean War in the early 1950s. Mrs.
Gudmundson alleged that the General Electric asbestos-insulated
steam turbines in the Bausell caused her husband's mesothelioma.

Mr. Gudmundson was diagnosed with mesothelioma in October 2002,
and died in February 2003 due to complications from the disease.

As previously reported in the June 3, 2005 edition of the Class
Action Reporter, GE attorney John Fitzpatrick filed a motion for
mistrial after co-defendant John Crane's motion for a directed
verdict was allowed by Judge Stack but had denied GE's motion.

Mr. Fitzpatrick, of Leclair Ryan in Richmond, Va., claimed that
plaintiff's attorney David Greenstone had made a deal with John
Crane not to present any evidence against it, calling the
practice "highly suspect."

Frank Parker, an industrial hygienist, and O.W. Forrest, a naval
friend who also served on the Bausell, have testified in the
trial for the plaintiff.

On Jan. 26, GE attorneys failed to convince Judge Stack to
transfer the case to Cook County where Mrs. Gudmundson resides.

John Crane, a giant international gasket maker, has been named
as a defendant in virtually every asbestos lawsuit filed in
Madison County Circuit Court. In the past year, attorneys for
John Crane have argued against their cases being transferred out
of the county. Lead defense attorney Ed Burns, of O'Connell &
Associates in Elgin, stated that his client does significant
business in the county. He believes that leaving would "hurt"
his clients' business because it would appear as if John Crane
had something to hide.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rand Says to Expect Rise in Asbestos Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
The rate of asbestos claims in the United States is nowhere near
its peak yet, claimed the Rand Corporation, a non-profit
research organization.

Asbestos consumption in the US hit the highest point in 1973, at
around 900,000 metric tons. Survey revealed that people tended
to file claims 40 years after the first exposure to asbestos
fibers. This means that on average, the courts are working off
claims of people first exposed in 1965.

Stephen Carroll, a Rand senior economist and lead author of the
study, said, "There is every indication that if we continue
business as usual, we will have more claims in the future than
we have today. This is only the beginning if we continue down
the path we are now."

Millions of US workers have been exposed to asbestos as the
mineral was used widely in many industrial processes because of
its fire-retardant properties. Asbestos fibers are easily
inhaled, and can cause various respiratory illnesses including a
fatal, incurable cancer called mesothelioma.

The data from the three-year study was collected from 60 lawyers
and 300 defendants and insurers.

The research also revealed that there has been a sharp increase
in the number of claims through the 1990s and into 2002, driven
primarily by people claiming non-cancerous injuries. These cases
now account for 90 percent of all new claims. The number of
claims made by people suffering from mesothelioma also rose
sharply, doubling during the period from 1994 to 2002.

The Rand study revealed that most surprising was the fact that
less than half of the money spent on asbestos ended up with the
injured party and more than half went to expert witness fees for
people such as specialist doctors and lawyers.

As previously reported in the May 13, 2005 edition of the Class
Action Reporter, asbestos-related claims filed by more than
730,000 people in the U.S. from the early 1970s through 2002
have cost businesses and insurance companies more than US$70
billion. Of that amount, only US$29 billion or 42 cents of every
dollar went to claimants, 31 cents went to defense costs, and 27
cents has gone to plaintiffs' attorneys and other related costs.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MD Court Affirms Ruling V. Owens-Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland on June 1, 2005
affirmed a Baltimore Circuit Court decision to let plaintiff
remit US$1 million of the loss of consortium damages and to
apply Maryland's statutory cap on non-economic damages to the
wrongful death damages award.

From July 23, 1956 to September 10, 1956, Mr. Hunter worked as
an electrician's helper at the United States Coast Guard's
shipyard located at Curtis Bay, in south Baltimore, Maryland,
for a total of 33 days. Before his death, Mr. Hunter testified
by videotape that military ships were refurbished at the Yard
when he worked there. While working at the Yard, Mr. Hunter
alleged that he was exposed to asbestos dust from Kaylo, a pipe-
covering product manufactured by Owens-Illinois. Shortly after
his work at the Yard, the Hunters married in 1960. His
mesothelioma was not diagnosed until 2001, the year he died.

In the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Harry Hunter and his
wife Barbara Hunter sued Owens-Illinois, Inc., claiming that the
company was responsible for Mr. Hunter's development of
mesothelioma after he was exposed to asbestos almost fifty years
earlier. Mr. Hunter died two months after his complaint was
filed. After the jury awarded the plaintiffs a multimillion-
dollar verdict, the trial court granted Owens-Illinois's motions
for remittitur and to apply Maryland's statutory cap on
noneconomic damages to the wrongful death damages award.

In the appeal brought by Owens-Illinois, it questioned whether
the circuit court erred in concluding that the plaintiffs had
enough evidence to prove Mr. Hunter's exposure to the company's
asbestos product. It also doubted whether the cap applied to
their loss of consortium claim, knowing that the claim arose
before the enactment of Maryland's non-economic damages cap.
Since Mr. Hunter had been exposed to asbestos before they
married, the Company asked whether the loss of consortium claim
should have been barred.

At trial, sole witness William Edwards, aged 79, testified that
he recognized Mr. Hunter by face, but not by name, in a
photograph provided by the Hunters' counsel. Mr. Edwards had
worked at the Yard as one of the electricians to whom helpers
were assigned. He also testified that he remembered seeing Mr.
Hunter working at the Yard in the 1950s. He had trouble
remembering the exact name of Owens-Illinois's product, but he
said that he saw the name on boxes of the product. He called the
pipe covering "Kayo," but its proper name was Kaylo.

The jury found Owens-Illinois liable for Mr. Hunter's asbestos
exposure. In Mr. Hunter's survival action, his estate was
awarded US$10,000 in noneconomic damages for his personal
injury, as well as compensatory damages of US$5,000 for
household services, and medical and funeral expenses of
US$57,503.43. The Hunters were awarded US$2 million in
noneconomic damages for their loss of consortium claim. Ms.
Hunter was awarded US$4.3 million in noneconomic damages, and a
total of US$81,529 in compensatory damages, for Mr. Hunter's
wrongful death.

In addition to Owens-Illinois's motion for judgment
notwithstanding the verdict, which was denied, the company
sought remittitur of the US$2 million loss of consortium
damages. The trial judge found a gross disparity between the
damages awarded for Mr. Hunter's personal injury in the survival
action and the damages awarded to the couple for loss of
consortium. On that basis, the judge granted the motion,
requiring the plaintiffs to agree to remit US$1 million of the
loss of consortium damages, or to face a new trial. The
plaintiffs agreed to the remittitur. Thereafter, Owens-Illinois
noted this appeal, and Ms. Hunter noted her cross-appeal.
                                       
Owens-Illinois's argument is that while Mr. Edwards testified
that Mr. Hunter was exposed "quite often" to asbestos dust, when
Edwards' testimony is considered as a whole, it is so fraught
with impossibilities and irreconcilable inconsistencies that his
testimony was devoid of any probative value.

Finally, Mrs. Hunter argued that the trial judge improperly
applied the noneconomic damages cap to her wrongful death claim.
She asserted that the wrongful death claim did not "arise," for
purposes of the cap, when Mr. Hunter died, but rather, it arose
at the time of Mr. Hunter's last exposure to asbestos dust.

Regarding the wrongful death action, the Appeals Court held that
the statutory cap on noneconomic damages for wrongful death is
applicable. Accordingly, the Appeals Court held that the trial
judge committed no error in applying the cap to Mrs. Hunter's
wrongful death action.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MS Court Remands Case to Holmes County
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court of Mississippi on May 23, 2005
granted a plaintiff's motion to remand the case against
defendants ACANDS, et al. to the Circuit Court of Holmes County,
Mississippi.

Senior Judge Walter J. Gex III presided over this case, which
was removed to this court on two prior occasions, the most
recent being in November 2001. After the case was remanded on
January 18, 2002, a trial date was set in state court for
February 7, 2002.

The case originally had seven plaintiffs including Donna
Herschberger, who is the widow of Jack Herschberger, a man who
was allegedly exposed to asbestos while working at the Sinclair
Refinery in Rawlings, Wyoming from 1947 to 1957. Mr.
Herschberger resided in Long Beach, Mississippi from 1957 until
he died in 1999, from mesothelioma, an asbestos-related cancer
of the lung linings. Donna Hershberger's claims were properly
joined with the other plaintiffs' claims under Mississippi law
at the time the suit was originally filed.

Based on changes in Mississippi law, the defendants filed a
motion to sever in the state court case on June 21, 2004. The
claims were severed, with the cases of Holmes county residents
remaining in that court, and an order directing that proposed
motions to transfer the three non-Holmes county cases, including
Donna Hershberger's case, to the appropriate court.

Donna Hershberger submitted a proposed transfer order to move
the case to Hinds County where two of the defendants maintained
offices, and the defendants proposed that the case be
transferred to Harrison County. Eventually, she revised her
proposed venue to Harrison County, and an agreed order of
transfer was entered on April 19, 2005.

According to the defendants, the transfer order of April 4,
2005, constitutes a new paper triggering notice of possible
diversity jurisdiction and allowing for removal of the case to
this court. The plaintiffs asserted that no action was taken on
her behalf, which would create diversity jurisdiction, allowing
for removal of the case in 2005.

According to the plaintiffs, their claims asserted against the
defendants were known since at least November 2000, when Donna
Hershberger was deposed. Also, in June 2003 a co-worker of Mr.
Herschberger's was deposed and he named the asbestos products
that Mr. Herschberger was exposed to on the jobsite. The
plaintiffs maintained that there were never in-state defendants
involved in the claims. The defendants did not move for
severance following these depositions and the plaintiffs
contended that because all discovery was completed in the case
prior to removal, the defendants were aware of the claims
asserted against them at least since the date the state trial
was set.

The plaintiffs maintained that the proposal for transfer changed
nothing in the case and if there were any basis for removal of
the case, the defendants had enough information at the time the
Circuit Court severed the cases in July 2004 to allow for
removal of the case at that time.

The defendant, Owens-Illinois, contended that complete diversity
did not exist in the case up until the time of the proposed
transfer order in April 2005. Owens-Illinois contended that the
revised proposal of April 2005 asserted that Mr. Herschberger
was exposed to asbestos in Wyoming from 1947 to 1957 and that
the relevant defendants included Foster-Wheeler, O-I, and
Garlock, all of which are foreign corporations without a
principal place of business in Mississippi. The plaintiffs also
asserted in the proposed transfer that even though Mr.
Herschberger had no claims against a Mississippi defendant,
Harrison County, the place of his death, was the proper venue
for the case.

The defendants further claimed that the plaintiffs' claims were
improperly joined from the inception of the lawsuit, because
they arose from different occurrences as each of the plaintiffs'
exposure was at different jobs held at different work sites, and
occurring at different time periods.
                                  
The Court concluded that the defendants knew in June 2004 that
there was no Mississippi exposure in this case, and yet did not
file their removal in this case until April 2005, contending
that was the first indication that there were no claims advanced
against Mississippi defendants in this case until that time. The
law is clear that no diversity case may be removed more than one
year after commencement of the lawsuit.

For these reasons, the Court found that the plaintiffs' motion
to remand this case to the Circuit Court of Holmes County,
Mississippi, should be granted.

Suzanne Griggins Keys, Byrd, Gibbs & Martin, PLLC, Jackson, MS,
represented the plaintiff, Donna Herschberger.

Laura Devaughn Goodson, Forman, Perry, Watkins, Krutz & Tardy,
Jackson, MS, stood for the defendants.
                                       

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Demolition of NJ Site Halted Over Risks
------------------------------------------------------------
The owner shut down the demolition of a former nursery after a
New Jersey Department of Labor inspector alerted him to
potential asbestos contamination.

On May 26, 2005, inspector Ray Djurin informed the owner of
Powder Hill Developers that there was "suspicion of
contamination." New Jersey Department of Labor spokesman Robert
Corrales confirmed that the owner voluntarily stopped the job
due to these concerns.

Powder Hill Developers is building six private homes on 3.9
acres at 205 Pascack Road. Four greenhouses on the site need to
be removed before construction on the homes could begin.

Woodcliff Lake Construction Code Official Nick Saluzzi said the
borough was aware of the presence of asbestos on two boilers on
the property but more asbestos was found as demolition on the
buildings commenced. After being notified of the Department of
Labor's concerns, Mr. Saluzzi issued his own stop-work order.

Scott Forbes of Powder Hill Developers hired an environmental
firm to do further asbestos testing on the site. He clarified
that the company would wait for an approval of the final work
plan before resuming demolition.

However, the New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services
found other potential environmental problems after inspecting
the area. Spokeswoman Jennifer Sciortino said that they were
concerned about possible inhalation caused by some wallboard
being crushed. She said that the Environmental Protection Agency
is currently looking into pursuing enforcement actions from that
report.

EPA spokesman Rich Cahill said that the agency has taken some
samples to determine if there is some friable or crumbly
asbestos, which could become a potential health hazard.

Borough Administrator Edward Sandve assured residents that all
appropriate actions have been taken to ensure that public
safety, health and welfare is prioritized.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: OH Town Residents to Do Away with Landfills
----------------------------------------------------------------
The residents of Morrow County are aiming to halt the
construction of two landfills in the townships of Harmony and
Washington initiated by Construction and Demolition Debris
Acquisition Ltd.

The local residents unanimously rejected the move by the
Columbus, OH-based construction firm to open the landfills in
their town. They are fearful of the ensuing dangers that would
threaten the welfare of the Morrow populace. The residents
stated various reasons, among which are the devaluation of
property and the bothersome debris that would impede public
vehicles.

However, people are more alarmed about the health effects of the
resulting pollution from the landfills, particularly from lead
and asbestos pollutants.

To stop the landfills, six townships passed zoning resolutions
in November 2003. The county board of health denied the landfill
applications in February 2004. County commissioners also passed
an 18-month moratorium on landfills in the county that will
expire September 15.

Kitt Cooper, an attorney representing C & DD Acquisitions, has
appealed the decision by the board of health to the 10th
District Court of Appeals.

Lawmakers are now working to amend laws that make the licensing
conditions of landfills as stringent as that of solid-waste
facilities. State Rep. Randy Law, who represents the Warren
area, explained that House Bill 59, would make it more difficult
for similar companies to put up landfills.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: High Cancer Rates in Israel Alarm Experts
--------------------------------------------------------------
A renowned expert on asbestos damage called on Israeli health
and environment authorities to undertake an immediate campaign
to clear up the asbestos at sites in Nahariya, where the
Eitanant asbestos factory once operated.

Prof. Arthur Frank voiced this urgent call at a recently-held
international conference in connection with findings published
by the Health Ministry's cancer registry that showed asbestos-
related cancers diagnosed in Israel were up to four times more
than in other countries.

The experts found out that the cancer rates in Western Galilee
were higher than the rest of the world, which is usually 1-in-1
million. The area that was most affected is in Nahariya, where
the population was affected by the asbestos residue left by the
Eitanat asbestos factory that closed down eight years ago. The
plant used to sell asbestos scraps to city residents, who used
it as foundation for roads, or for construction.

The ministry's figures show that 30 people were diagnosed with
the disease yearly between 2000-2002, and that there were 567
cases of the disease between 1990 and 2004.

Prof. Frank indicated that the data gathered implied the
contamination did not necessarily involve workers individually
exposed to the material, but was brought about by environmental
pollution caused by the factory.  

Prof. Frank, together with MK Roman Bronfman and representatives
of the Association for Quality of Life in Nahariya, are seeking
a way to speed up treatment of the pollution produced by
Eitanat.

Tamar Bar-On Mazar, chair of the Environment Ministry committee
for the treatment of asbestos, said that 53 sites in the Western
Galilee were ranked according to risk. She confirmed however,
that most of the critical spots have already been treated.

Environment Minister Shalom Simhon has initiated efforts to
remove asbestos hazards in the Nahariya area.  


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Detroit Businesses Support Asbestos Bill
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Detroit Regional Chamber of Commerce said that the city's
economy could benefit substantially from asbestos legislation
currently brewing in Congress, according to a press release from
the group.

In addition, the FAIR Act or Senate Bill 852 is said to lessen
the burden of asbestos claims on Detroit companies. Proponents
of the legislation say it would also ensure that people with
asbestos-related health issues are compensated more quickly than
they currently are under the court system.

Sponsored by Sen. Arlen Specter and Sen. Patrick Leahy in April,
the bill provides a US$140 billion trust fund for potential
asbestos-related illnesses.

The Detroit Regional Chamber, a member of the Michigan Asbestos
Litigation Reform Coalition, has a number of member companies
that have been negatively impacted by asbestos litigation.

Richard E. Blouse, Jr., CCE, President and CEO for the Detroit
Regional Chamber, said, "This is an issue that is affecting the
backbone of Michigan's economy -- the auto industry. The Big 3
and the auto-part manufacturers have been inundated with
asbestos lawsuits." He stated that at one point, 3,500 new
asbestos-related lawsuits were being filed against GM, Ford and
DCX per month.

Mr. Blouse pointed to people that genuinely suffer from
asbestos-related illnesses as the real victims, citing evidence
that the majority of claims come from claimants who are not
actually sick. These claimants, he says, are exhausting the
resources that could be used to compensate ill individuals.

According to a recent study by the RAND Institute, more than 75
U.S. companies have gone bankrupt due to asbestos-related
claims, resulting in a net loss of 60,000 jobs. The study
estimates that the current asbestos litigation system represents
a US$200 billion drain on the economy.

The Senate Judiciary Committee voted the bill out of Committee
last May 26 with bipartisan support. Negotiations are expected
to be ongoing as the bill reaches the floor.  

Mr. Blouse said that reform couldn't come soon enough. Relying
on Senators Levin and Stabenow to support the bill, he said that
Detroit businesses "deserve a resolution to this problem."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Corning Inc. Reaches Tentative Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
In its quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March
31, 2005, Corning Incorporated (NYSE: GLW) revealed that its S-
10 negotiations with the representatives of asbestos claimants
have produced a tentative settlement. However, certain cases may
still be litigated and the final approval of the tentative
settlement is still subject to a number of uncertainties.

The Corning, NY-based Company was previously named as a
defendant in numerous lawsuits against Pittsburgh Corning
Corporation and several other defendants involving claims
alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos.

The Company further states that final approval of a global
settlement through the PCC bankruptcy process may impact the
results of Corning's operations for the period in which the
costs are recognized.  

Total charges of US$430 million have been incurred through March
31, 2005. Despite this, additional charges are possible due to
potential fluctuation in the price of their common stock, other
adjustments in the proposed settlement and other litigation
factors. Corning's management cannot provide assurances that the
ultimate outcome of the litigation or other resolution of these
claims will not be materially different from the amount recorded
to date.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ALSTOM Group Faces 31 Suits, Dismisses 185
----------------------------------------------------------------
Headquartered in Paris, France, the ALSTOM Group (Euronext
Paris: ALS) reported in its latest filing to the Securities and
Exchange Commission that it has not in recent years suffered any
adverse judgment, or made any settlement payment, in respect of
any U.S. personal injury asbestos claim.  As of March 31, 2005,
a total of 185 cases involving about 17,742 claimants were
voluntarily dismissed by plaintiffs, typically without
prejudice, allowing them to re-file these cases in the future.

As of March 31, 2005, ALSTOM is subject to about 31 other
asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits in the United States
involving about 486 claimants that, in whole or in part, assert
claims against ALSTOM which are not related to the power
generation business purchased by the company from ABB, or as to
which the complaint does not provide details sufficient to
permit ALSTOM to determine whether the ABB indemnity applies.  

Most of the lawsuits are in the preliminary stages of the
litigation process and they each involve multiple defendants.  
The allegations in these lawsuits are often very general and
difficult to evaluate at preliminary stages in the litigation
process.  

As previously disclosed in the Nov. 26, 2004 edition of the
Class Action Reporter, ALSTOM was subject to about 48 other
asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits in the United States
involving about 528 claimants.

In those cases where ALSTOM's defense has not been assumed by a
third party and meaningful evaluation is practicable, ALSTOM
believes that it has valid defenses and, with respect to a
number of lawsuits, ALSTOM is asserting rights to
indemnification against a third party. For purposes of the
foregoing discussion, ALSTOM considers a claim to no longer be
pending against it if the plaintiff's attorneys have executed a
notice or stipulation of dismissal or non-suit, or other similar
document.

ALSTOM is subject to regulations in many countries in which it
operates, regarding the control and removal of asbestos-
containing material and identification of potential exposure of
employees to asbestos. It has been ALSTOM's policy for many
years to abandon definitively the use of products containing
asbestos by all of the operating units worldwide and to promote
the application of this principle to all of the suppliers,
including in those countries where the use of asbestos is
permitted. In the past, however, ALSTOM has used and sold some
products containing asbestos, particularly in France at the
Marine Sector and to a lesser extent in the other Sectors.

ALSTOM is subject to asbestos-related legal proceedings
including in France, the United States and the United Kingdom.  
Some of ALSTOM's subsidiaries are the subject in France of
judicial proceedings. These cases are initiated by certain
employees or former employees with the aim of obtaining a court
decision holding these subsidiaries liable for an inexcusable
fault which would allow them to obtain a supplementary
compensation above the payments made by the French Social
Security funds of related medical costs.

Although courts of competent jurisdiction have made findings of
inexcusable fault, the damages in most of these proceedings have
been borne to date by the general French Social Security medical
funds.  

In addition, in the United States, ALSTOM is subject to
asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits, which have their
origin solely in the company's purchase of certain former power
businesses of Combustion Engineering, Inc. or its former
subsidiaries for which ALSTOM is indemnified by its parent
company, ABB Ltd.

ALSTOM is also subject to two putative class action lawsuits in
the United States asserting fraudulent conveyance claims against
various ALSTOM and ABB entities in relation to CE, for which
ALSTOM has asserted indemnification against ABB. CE is a United
States subsidiary of ABB, and its power activities were part of
the power generation business purchased by the Company from ABB.

In January 2003, CE filed a "pre-packaged" plan of
reorganization in the United States bankruptcy court.  In
addition to its protection under the ABB indemnity, ALSTOM
believes that under the terms of the plan, it would have been
protected against pending and future personal injury asbestos
claims, or fraudulent conveyance claims, arising out of the past
operations of CE.  The bankruptcy court confirmed the pre-
packaged plan on June 23, 2003 and by the United States federal
district court on July 31, 2003.

The plan, however, was subsequently appealed, and the United
States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit vacated the plan
confirmation order and remanded the case to the federal district
court for further proceedings.  As a result, confirmation of the
plan will be subject to further lower district court and
bankruptcy court proceedings, and the plan will have to be
revised and its approval re-solicited from creditors and
asbestos claimants.

On March 21, 2005, ABB announced that it had reached agreement
with certain representatives of asbestos claimants on certain  
"settlement points" that would form the basis for the revised
plan.  All of the pending CE-related asbestos cases currently
are stayed by virtue of a bankruptcy court order issued at the
outset of the case.

ALSTOM designs, builds and services technologically advanced
products and systems for the world's energy and transport
infrastructure.  The company engineers and builds power plants,
trains, ships, among others. ALSTOM currently employs about
75,000 in over 70 countries worldwide.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hardie Exemption from Civil Penalty Opposed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Asbestos Diseases Foundation of Australia vowed to oppose
any attempt to release directors of James Hardie Industries from
civil penalties, the AAP reports.

As previously disclosed in the June 3, 2005 edition of the Class
Action Reporter, New South Wales Premier Bob Carr confirmed that
Hardie directors and executives will be released from civil
liability when the company signs a compensation deal for
asbestos victims. The building materials company had agreed to
put up $1.5 billion to provide for victims in the next four
decades.

Mr. Carr said the company was trying to protect itself from
civil penalties that could be enforced by the commonwealth
corporate regulator, the Australian Securities & Investments
Commission. He added that Hardie has argued that civil liability
should include civil penalty orders.

Civil penalties include orders to pay compensation to people who
claim to have suffered because of a breach of duty by company
officers, and orders to pay fines or ban people from being
directors.

Civil liability includes civil claims relating to the
manufacture of asbestos, which is compensated as part of the
draft agreement.

Asbestos Diseases Foundation vice-president Bernie Banton said
he reluctantly accepted a special clause that protects Hardie
executives from civil prosecution. He clarified that the group
agreed to the exemption only to secure the compensation
agreement but that the deal does not extend to include civil
penalties.

ASIC said an in-principle agreement to exempt James Hardie from
civil liability could stop ASIC officers from pursuing civil
penalties against the company's executives or former executives.

ASIC is investigating James Hardie and several current and
former executives over alleged civil and criminal charges,
including deliberately denying some asbestos victims
compensation, deceiving the share market and misleading the NSW
Supreme Court over its compensation scheme.

The Asbestos Diseases Foundation of Australia, which is made up
of victims of asbestos diseases and their families, friends and
supporters, aims to address the needs and interests of people
affected by an asbestos related disease and to provide the
community with information about the hazards of exposure.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Debate on Bill May Affect WR Grace Stocks
--------------------------------------------------------------
Investors and day traders are closely watching W.R. Grace & Co.
and other companies in bankruptcy, as the U.S. Senate prepares
to debate the creation of an asbestos compensation fund, The
Trentonian reports.

The next two weeks are said to be crucial to the Columbia, Md.-
based Company since approval of the bill would shield
manufacturers and insurance companies from lawsuits brought by
individuals with asbestos-related illnesses. Investors believe
W.R. Grace stocks would rise significantly if the Senate
approves the fund.

According to a federal filing, the company stated 17 of the
lawsuits involve claims for property damage, nine relating to
Grace's former ZAI product (one which has been dismissed) and
eight relating to a number of former asbestos-containing
products (two which also are alleged to involve ZAI).

The remainder of these lawsuits involves 129,191 claims for
personal injury. An additional 4,300 claims were filed by the
March 31, 2003 bar date established by the Bankruptcy Court.

Over the past year, the stock has steadily increased in equity
with shares dropping to US$7.01 in April, but now remains steady
around the US$10 range.

W.R. Grace is a US$2.3 billion company that filed for bankruptcy
after being named a defendant in 65,656 asbestos-related
lawsuits on April 2, 2001.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lloyd's Equitas Boosts Asbestos Reserves
-------------------------------------------------------------
Equitas, the reinsurer created to run off Lloyd's of London's
pre-1993 liabilities, increased its asbestos reserves by GBP167
million or US$304 million in its financial year to the end of
March 2005. The move comes despite the company settling with
three of the five companies to which it has the biggest
exposures to asbestos-related insurance claims in the US.

Equitas' total asbestos reserves now stand at about GBP2.3
billion.

The company said it had been forced to increase the reserves
because of claims experience and developments in the insurance
market. Scott Moser, chief executive, said, "We believe our
reserves are appropriate and a fair-minded commission would seek
no more, and possibly less, than we have available for such
claims."

The company said its solvency margin, a benchmark calculation of
its financial strength by which its surplus assets are expressed
as a percentage of claims it needs to pay, rose to 12.2 percent
from 9.8 percent.

Despite the continuing difficulties with asbestos, the company
had managed to increase its surplus by GBP16 million to GBP476
million.

Equitas has said it plans to continue to seek settlements with
its policyholders in a bid to put a cap on its asbestos-related
liabilities. Claims paid fell by GBP400 million to GBP1 billion.

"In the last year Equitas continued to make good progress," said
Mr. Moser in a statement. "Nevertheless, we recognize that much
remains to be done and we are not relaxed about the challenges
we face."

Equitas said the impact on the company of proposals for legal
reform in the US, which could see the creation of a trust fund
overseen by a commission to cover asbestos-related claims, was
"uncertain."

Equitas was set up in the mid-1990s to deal with Lloyd's huge
asbestos exposure, which threatened to bankrupt the world's
oldest insurance market. Equitas effectively assumed all the
market's pre-1993 liabilities so Lloyd's could keep
underwriting.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ground Zero Tower Teardown to Begin in July
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Lower Manhattan Development Corporation said demolition of
the Deutsche Bank building will start in July and be completed
by early 2007. It promises the deconstruction will be safe, but
many still worry contaminants like asbestos will be released.

The Sept. 11 incident filled Deutsche Bank AG's former 40-story
office tower with dust and debris that included asbestos, lead,
dioxins, polychlorinated biphenyls and other hazards. When faced
with concerns about containing the pollution, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency had delayed the project, which
was supposed to begin in January.

As previously disclosed in the Feb. 4, 2005 edition of the Class
Action Reporter, the EPA stepped in to criticize LMDC's
demolition plan for the building near the World Trade Center
site. The EPA said the plan must be revised since it did not
give sufficient protection against a potential release of
contaminants.

In its January review of the project, EPA officials objected to
plans to treat the cleanup of the toxin-laden interior and the
removal of building materials as separate phases, with separate
monitoring provisions. The altered plan unifies both aspects,
along with the effort to monitor both the air that workers would
be exposed to, and the air outside the building.

Environmental concerns have been dealt with based on the EPA's
comments, said Amy Peterson, senior vice president of the New
York state agency that oversees rebuilding at Ground Zero.

EPA spokeswoman, Mary Mears, said that although the EPA hasn't
approved of the revisions, work on the scaffolding could
proceed. The agency is currently reviewing portions of the plan.
Ms. Mears stated that the EPA doesn't have the whole plan yet
and that it wants details on asbestos abatement and the gutting
of the building's interiors.

Luis Mendes, a former assistant city commissioner hired to serve
as the agency's director of construction, said they would "wrap
the whole project" by December 2006 or January 2007. The state
agency bought the building from Deutsche Bank for US$90 million
in February 2004. Mr. Mendes said that at its peak, about 100
workers, who will be protected with full-body overalls and
respirators, will be involved in the demolition.

Nearby residents have been pressing for the most careful
demolition plan possible, along with an emergency warning system
in case of an accidental release of toxins.

The Deutsche Bank tower must be razed to make way for New York
Governor George Pataki's US$12 billion revival of the trade
center area, including 10 million square feet of new offices, a
transportation center, theaters, shops and a memorial to those
killed in the 2001 and 1993 terrorist attacks.  


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Monsanto to Aid Solutia Out of Bankruptcy
--------------------------------------------------------------
Monsanto Co. (NYSE: MON) will be investing up to US$250 million
or GBP136 million in Solutia Inc. (OTC: SOLUQ), a former
affiliate with a legacy of toxic contamination, Reuters reports.

Monsanto, a provider of agricultural products, said this deal
could save Solutia from bankruptcy and restore it to its former
parent.

Under the agreement which must still be approved by the
Bankruptcy Court in New York, Solutia's unsecured creditors will
be offered an equity stake in Solutia totaling up to 22.7
percent of the common stock in the reorganized company. If the
creditors do not elect to participate, Monsanto has pledged to
cover the entire amount, worth US$250 million, said Monsanto
spokesman Glynn Young. The money is allocated to clean up old
chemical plant sites from pollution, satisfy legal claims
against Solutia and partially satisfy medical, disability and
life insurance benefits for retirees.

The agreement also gives Monsanto about 30 percent equity
interest in exchange for US$284 million that Monsanto last year
committed to pay out for Solutia liabilities. All of this comes
on top of US$400 million spent by Monsanto in 2003 in an
unsuccessful attempt to keep Solutia out of bankruptcy.

Monsanto has set aside or spent US$600 million since 2003 to
clean old sites, meet legal claims against Solutia and satisfy
medical, disability and life insurance benefits for retirees.
The agreement would cover many of the liabilities that have
plagued Solutia since it was spun off in 1997 by a predecessor
of the current Monsanto Co.

"This agreement-in-principle is a major milestone in the
successful reorganization of Solutia," said Solutia Chief
Executive Jeffry Quinn.

Monsanto's move toward a possible majority stake of 52.7 percent
in Solutia comes eight years after it created Solutia as a spin-
off of its chemical businesses, which had a legacy of toxic
chemical contamination problems.

But Solutia's efforts to grow have been hindered by
environmental cleanup costs stemming from asbestos and PCB
contaminations, and expenses for some 600 lawsuits along with
costly benefits for retired employees - all liabilities Solutia
said were forced upon it by Monsanto. The liabilities led
Solutia to file for bankruptcy protection in 2003.

Monsanto cut its forecast for third-quarter net earnings per
share because of the costs of its recent purchases of Seminis
Inc., the world's largest commercial fruit and vegetable
company, and the Emergent Genetics Inc. cottonseed company.

For the quarter ending in May, the company expects net earnings
in a range of 12 cents to 17 cents per share, down from a prior
estimate of 15 cents to 22 cents per share, the company said.
Monsanto raised its forecast for quarterly earnings on an
ongoing basis, citing strength in its seeds and bioengineering
businesses, among other factors. The company said it expects
operating earnings of about US$1.05 per share, up from a
previous estimate of about US$1.00.

Shares of Monsanto rose more than 6 percent, bolstered both by
the Solutia settlement and news that Monsanto was lifting its
outlook for quarterly operating earnings.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Widow Joins TUC Campaign for Work Benefits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lillian McSherry, whose husband died two years ago from
asbestos-related cancer, has joined the Greater Manchester
Asbestos Victims Support Group to back a national campaign to
push for increased industrial injuries benefits after failing to
receive any compensation after her husband's death.

In his teens, Mr. McSherry had worked at a weaving plant where
asbestos was used. He also came into contact with the material
later in life as an odd-job man. Having served in the Navy, he
had not been aware of any safety precautions for asbestos and
had not been told it was dangerous.

The Trades Union Council, who is spearheading the campaign,
discovered that only one in 10 people made ill by work receive
any compensation.

Asbestos is considered the greatest single cause of work-related
deaths in the UK.

Mrs. McSherry, aged 50, from Bradley Fold, Bury, intends to
disclose the reality that asbestosis victims receive little or
no Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit under the State
Industrial Injuries Scheme.

Mrs. McSherry related that her husband, who needed regular
hospital treatment, did not claim any disablement benefits since
it would make her lose free prescriptions for her osteoporosis.
This dilemma resulted from a court ruling that classifies IIDB
payments as an income, affecting eligibility to means-tested
benefits. Furthermore, the couple's pension credit would be
affected.

"It's terrible and a disgrace that the Government take with one
hand what they give with another, leaving people dying from
mesothelioma with no compensation," Mrs. McSherry complained.

Tony Whitston, of the Greater Manchester Asbestos Victims
Support Group, said, "Asbestos victims are particularly badly
affected. Most are working class men who do not have
occupational pensions and rely on means tested benefits."

Citing that most asbestos victims get little or no compensation,
Mr. Whitston called for changes to be made immediately.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: SPCC Cites Exclusion in Asbestos Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Southern Peru Copper Corporation revealed in its latest filing
to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that its direct
and indirect parent corporations, including Americas Mining
Corporation and Grupo Mexico, have from time to time been named
parties in various litigations involving ASARCO LLC.

The Company cited however that it is not included in a lawsuit
filed in October 2004 where AMC, Grupo Mexico and other parties
were named in New York State court in connection with alleged
asbestos liabilities. The suit claims that AMC's purchase of
SPCC from Asarco should be voided as a fraudulent conveyance.
While Grupo Mexico and its affiliates believe that these claims
are without merit, the Company cannot determine that these or
future claims, if successful, will not have an adverse effect on
its parent corporations or on it.

In August 2002 the U.S. Department of Justice brought a claim
alleging fraudulent conveyance in connection with Asarco's
environmental liabilities and AMC's then-proposed purchase of
SPCC from Asarco. That action was settled pursuant to a Consent
Decree dated February 2, 2003.

One of the largest miners in the world, Southern Peru Copper
Corporation, annually produces about 875 million pounds of
copper, which is sold in Asia, Europe, and the Americas, and is
used mainly for building, construction, and electronics.
Mexico's largest mining firm Grupo Mexico owns 54% of SPCC;
Phelps Dodge, a US-based miner, owns about 11%.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: No Toxins Found in Yards Around Grace Site
---------------------------------------------------------------
Officials of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency confirmed
that its investigation of residential yards around the cleanup
of a former W.R. Grace site in Dearborn, Michigan revealed no
contamination.

The EPA conducted the cleanup to remove asbestos-containing
waste material from W.R. Grace's production of vermiculite, an
ingredient used in residential attic insulation and potting
soil. The agency identified contamination at the site and was
investigating the possibility that some of the material may be
in nearby yards or was used as fill in driveways. Officials had
thought some residents may have taken the asbestos-contaminated
waste rock home from the plant and used it around their homes
for driveway or garden filler.

As part of an investigation that began in April, the EPA visited
more than 1,000 homes and interviewed more than 250 residents.
From there, inspectors checked 163 yards and took samples from
50 yards. EPA workers investigated the neighborhood bounded by
Chase Road to the west, Schaefer Road to the east, Ford Road to
the south and Warren Avenue to the north.

W.R. Grace operated at the Henn Street location from the early
1950s until 1989. Records show the facility received more than
300 million pounds of vermiculite, which may have been sent to
more than 700,000 Michigan homes for insulation purposes.

EPA spokesman Mick Hans said that while no contamination was
found in residential yards, an area near Sarkozi Field was not
replaced when it was resurfaced in 1999. A sampling at the
median found very low asbestos levels. The cleanup along the
strip of public land near the facility was recently completed,
the EPA said.

At the W.R. Grace plant, the EPA removed 1,450 cubic yards of
contaminated soil, installed a liner at the bottom of the
excavated area and backfilled it with clean soil. A small strip
belonging to CSX Transportation, next to the plant, will be
excavated in the next few weeks to complete the project.

A public hearing to discuss the project is set for 6:30 p.m.
June 15 at Dearborn Fordson High School, 13800 Ford Road. For
information, contact Dave Novak at (800) 621-8431 Ext. 67478.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NC Court Affirms Decision to Reduce Awards
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of North Carolina on June 7, 2005 affirmed
a decision of the trial court to reduce the awards that two
former employees received, citing prior settlements from other
sources. The appeals arose from lawsuits in which plaintiffs
sought compensatory and punitive damages from HNA Holdings, Inc.
for alleged occupational exposure to asbestos dust and fibers at
its polyester manufacturing plant.

Chief Judge John C. Martin presided over the case tagged, Gary
Ray Schenk, Sr., Plaintiff, v. Rowan County No. 98 CVS 2489 HNA
Holdings, Inc., also known as Trevira, Inc. formerly Hoechst
Celanese, Inc. and Fiber Industries, Inc., Defendant.

The other case was captioned, Donald Lee Bell, Plaintiff, v.
Rowan County No. 99 CVS 223 HNA Holdings, Inc., also known as
Trevira, Inc. formerly Hoechst Celanese, Inc. and Fiber
Industries, Inc., Defendant.

HNA Holdings, Inc., owned the Celanese Fiber Plant, located in
Salisbury, North Carolina, since operations began in 1966. Like
many industrial plants built in the 1960s and 1970s, the
Celanese plant was constructed with insulation containing
asbestos.

Daniel Construction Company built the Celanese plant and then
provided maintenance for the company in specialty areas such as
welding, pipe fitting, rigging and insulation.

Daniel Construction Company and its successor in interest, Fluor
Daniel, employed plaintiff Gary Ray Schenk, Sr. beginning in
1975. Mr. Schenk worked for Daniel until 1992, when Becon
Construction Company assumed Daniel's maintenance contract. He
continued to work for Becon at Celanese until 1995. As a pipe
fitter/welder, he was exposed to asbestos-containing insulation
both through his work handling pipes and from being around
people working with the insulation.

Daniel employed Donald Lee Bell as an insulator for Celanese
intermittently between 1973 and 1981, and then from 1988 until
1992. In 1992, when Daniel lost the overall maintenance contract
to Becon, Mr. Bell began working as an insulator for Becon and
continued until 1995. At trial, Mr. Bell testified he was
exposed to asbestos dust in his work insulating pipes at
Celanese while cutting the insulation on a band saw, "rasping"
or smoothing the rough edges of the insulation, and while
removing asbestos "in every facet of the plant."

Plaintiffs offered the testimony of James Whitlock, an asbestos
handling and removal specialist who worked for SOS, a subsidiary
of Daniel. Mr. Whitlock, who was hired to oversee the removal of
asbestos material at Celanese, testified at trial that prior to
his arrival in 1990, insulators for Daniel were removing
asbestos from the Celanese plant.  

During his first walk-through of the plant after he was hired,
Mr. Whitlock observed areas where the asbestos insulation was in
a "dilapidated condition and was hanging from the pipes," areas
where insulation was on the floor, and areas where insulation
was "in piles." He also saw non-authorized individuals "handling
and removing asbestos."

Mr. Whitlock said he informed the plant industrial hygienist,
Dave Smith, the resident engineer, John Winter, and others of
his observations. However, the next day, Mr. Winter asked him to
"collect those letters and rip them up, take the letter out of
[his] computer, off [his] hard drive, get it off floppy disk,
and do away with it."

For asbestos removal, Mr. Whitlock recommended Celanese use a
"global abatement procedure," in which a large area is contained
and asbestos is totally removed from the entire area without
other workers present.  However, his recommendation was rejected
in favor of a "glove bagging" technique, in which only a small
area is contained for removal of a small bit or piece of pipe
insulation, rather than abatement of the whole area. Other
workers were often present during the glove-bagging method.

Prior to trial, the court denied defendant's motion to strike
the punitive damages claim but allowed an alternative motion to
exclude any reference to punitive damages or defendant's
financial worth until the court determined that plaintiffs had
presented sufficient evidence to submit an issue of punitive
damages to the jury.  At the close of plaintiffs' evidence,
after hearing arguments, the trial court granted defendant's
motion for directed verdict on the issue of punitive damages.

The jury returned verdicts in favor of the plaintiffs, finding
the maintenance and construction work performed by plaintiffs
was an inherently dangerous activity. The jury also found that
plaintiffs were injured as a direct result of defendant's
negligence.  

Plaintiffs were awarded compensatory damages for personal
injuries. The trial court then conducted a "set-off" hearing and
reduced the awards by the amount each plaintiff had recovered as
a result of prior settlements from other sources. The plaintiffs
appealed the judgments entered on January 3, 2003 by Judge
Charles C. Lamm in Rowan County Superior Court.
                                       
The plaintiffs assigned error to the trial court's granting of
defendant's motion for directed verdict on the issue of punitive
damages. They argued there was sufficient evidence that
defendant acted recklessly, willfully or intentionally to
withstand defendant's motion.

They also argued the trial court erred by allowing defendant a
full set-off for prior workers' compensation claim settlements
and prior third-party settlement amounts paid to plaintiffs from
other sources. They contended the workers' compensation claim
settlements, which compensated plaintiffs for their inability to
earn wages, were for a different injury, i.e., impairment to
wage-earning capacity, than the jury award at trial, which
compensated plaintiffs for their pain and suffering, future
medical expenses and permanent injury.  

The Appeals Court did not agree with both arguments and instead,
affirmed the decision of the trial court. Judges James A.Wynn,
Jr. and Linda M. McGee concurred with this ruling.

Wallace and Graham, P.A., by Mona Lisa Wallace, and Mauriello
Law Offices, by Christopher D. Mauriello, represented the
plaintiffs-appellants.

Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman, by Michael E. Hutchins, and
Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein, LLP, by Josephine H. Hicks, stood
for defendant-appellee.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Fines or Jail Face Flytippers Under New Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
Flytippers now face up to five years' imprisonment or a
GBP50,000 fine under the Clean Neighborhoods and Environment
Act, which took effect earlier this week.

The UK government recognizes the growing problem of illegal
dumping of waste by implementing this law meant to curb the
cases of flytipping, which now occur every 35 seconds in the UK.
Estimated to cost local authorities about GBP100 a minute to
clear up, the illegal dumping of waste has become a thriving
business in some areas. It is believed the rising cost of
landfill has made this issue a bigger problem for companies to
deal with.

Ben Bradshaw, local environment minister, said the new rules
would give local authorities more power to tackle environment
crime. He added, "Hopefully the new act will see a change in
mindset, improvements in our local environment, and pride
restored to our communities."

Businesses were also warned to beware of flytippers posing as
waste disposal companies. Unscrupulous operators have taken on
projects and duped owners into thinking their waste was being
disposed of properly.

Dirk Hazell, chief executive of the Environmental Services
Association, warned legitimate businesses to be cautious of
firms offering removal services at low prices.

In the northeast, one criminal received GBP80,000 over six
months to remove tires, which were then illegally dumped.
Organized criminals with links to terrorism in Northern Ireland
were also found to have laundered red diesel, causing a water
pollution incident and abandoned hazardous waste residue. One
operator in Wales was estimated to have earned more than GBP1
million over three years by illegally dumping waste.

The Environment Agency uncovered scams such as flytippers
pretending to undertake golf course construction and other
landscaping projects that were construction and demolition
waste, sometimes contaminated with asbestos or other hazardous
substances.

An important provision under the new act states that anyone
caught flytipping will be unable to claim that they were acting
on their employer's instructions as a defense.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hardie Seeks "Socially Responsible" Image
--------------------------------------------------------------
James Hardie Industries wants to be known as a champion of
corporate social responsibility, said Chairman Meredith Hellicar
at the Australian Council of Super Investors forum earlier this
week.

Ms. Hellicar said there was a mistaken belief that the building
supplies giant pursued profit and shareholders' interests
without regard for its responsibility. Instead, she illustrated
the company as a "case study" about the complex issues directors
face when they operate successfully with the support of its
shareholders while attempting to deal with community
expectations.

Ms. Hellicar said that establishing the Medical Research and
Compensation Foundation was in line with the company's
commitment to corporate social responsibility. However, it later
became evident that the foundation fell short of meeting
projected asbestos liabilities by $1.2 billion.

At the same forum, ACTU secretary Greg Combet also spoke and
warned that a hardening of community attitudes towards the case
was likely to invite a political response. He advised the
business community to engage in a meaningful discussion of
corporate behavior surrounding limited liability protection,
rather than try to "bat it away altogether."

Australian Securities and Investments Commission chairman
Jeffrey Lucy told a Senate committee in Canberra earlier this
month that the NSW government plan could prejudice ASIC's Hardie
investigation. He said the purpose of the civil penalty
provisions was to provide an opportunity for the regulator and
the courts to find directors and officers guilty of serious
offenses.

But Ms. Hellicar defended the proposed releases as practical,
enabling the parties to move on and prevent "double-dipping."
She said Hardie had not leaked information during negotiations
and was not about to start by commenting on what it was seeking
in the final agreement. Later, she denied that discussions
concerning the releases were delaying a final outcome and
payments to asbestos sufferers.  


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: TX Governor Urges Pres. Bush to Oppose Bill
----------------------------------------------------------------
Texas Governor Rick Perry is urging U.S. President George W.
Bush to oppose a "deeply flawed" asbestos trust fund bill making
its way through the Senate.

In a May 20 letter to President Bush, Governor Perry said the
proposal would preempt a recently signed Texas legislation that
creates strict medical criteria for asbestos-related injury
claims in the state. The legislation also creates a multi-
district panel to handle cases and requires plaintiffs to
present their cases individually, not as part of a class action.
He believes this allows companies to defend themselves on the
merits rather than being forced into settlements.

Some consumer groups opposed the Texas legislation, claiming
that its medical standards are arbitrary, and that it only
serves to protect the wrongdoers and their insurers.  
Furthermore, the legislation will make it harder for victims to
assert an asbestos claim.  On the other hand, insurers and trial
lawyers enthusiastically supported the legislation, reasoning
that it could substantially limit their liabilities, since the
legislation doesn't impose a limit on the attorney's fees.

The Senate bill, if signed into law by the President, would
create an industry-funded asbestos victims trust worth US$140
billion, and would remove asbestos injury claims from the legal
system, providing set payments to victims while limiting future
liability for defendants and their insurers.  

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said
last month that the White House is supporting his efforts to
pass the bill. Dana Perino, the White House's deputy press
secretary, also stated that they would continue working with
Congress to process the bill.

The President thinks it is important to deal with the nationwide
asbestos litigation crisis, and stressed that any litigation
should focus compensation on those who are genuinely affected by
asbestos-related diseases, and provide a quick resolution of
claims.

In the meantime, Utah Congressman Chris Cannon has proposed a
competing bill similar to the Texas law. As previously reported
in the May 6, 2005 edition of the Class Action Reporter, Rep.
Cannon of Utah introduced a plan to establish medical criteria
that he says would eliminate fraud and compensate victims more
quickly.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NSW Apartment Residents Fear Asbestos Risk
---------------------------------------------------------------
Some of the about 70 residents of a 38-unit apartment complex in
Queanbeyan, New South Wales, expressed concerns about their
health following the discovery of 100% pure amosite asbestos in
the ceiling.

A weekend audit confirmed the presence of asbestos, which was
found after one of the residents dug through the ceiling in the
attempt to make a manhole. The type of asbestos found is said to
be more dangerous than if it is contained within another
building material such as fibro.

The residents weren't informed of the material in their
apartment, and most of them had no idea that it was there.
However, Strata manager Jan Brown, of McNamee and Associates,
said that the residents are still at low risk of asbestos
exposure at this stage.

Ms. Brown assured that they were doing everything to make the
people aware of the situation and the risks involved. She
disclosed that the owners of the apartment would have a
corporate meeting to discuss the funding of the removal. In
addition, she is preparing an asbestos management plan for the
residents and owners.

Ms. Brown said the cost of removing the asbestos had been
estimated at $275,000, or $7,000 for each of the apartment
owners. Because of the high cost, Ms. Brown hoped that the
Queanbeyan City Council and the state government would
contribute for the expenses.

Meanwhile, all of the top-floor units will be surveyed for
ceiling cracks, Ms. Brown said. Management will be inspecting
and sealing up manholes, conduits, and other openings deemed to
be potential risks for the proliferation of asbestos fibers.

Queanbeyan Mayor Frank Pangallo was concerned about the finding,
but said that the risks had been minimized pursuant to New South
Wales health guidelines.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: KY Jury Grants US$3.25MM in Suit V. 2 Firms
----------------------------------------------------------------
After a two-week trial in Kentucky, the Marshall Circuit Court
jury awarded $5.1 million to the estate of Dayton Dexter, in the
suit against CertainTeed Corporation and Garlock Inc., reports
the Tribune-Courier.  

However, the jury determined a 35% fault to pipefitter Dayton
Dexter, since the victim was also a smoker. The defendant
companies will pay the remaining amount of US$3.25 million to
the plaintiff's law firm, Dayton Dexter's son Jimmy Dexter, and
his daughter Sue Newton, both of whom reside in Gilbertsville,
Kentucky.

Filed three years ago, the case originally named 19 companies
but 17 of them were dismissed voluntarily or settled.

Incidentally, Judge Paul Rosenbloom of Oldham County heard this
case because the regular Marshall Circuit judge, Dennis Foust,
cannot hear asbestos cases since his father died of an asbestos-
related cancer.

Plaintiff lawyer, Rob Shelton, from the firm Sales, Tillman,
Wallbaum, Catlett & Satterley of Louisville, believes part of
the reason why the jury awarded such a high amount was because
the companies knew of the dangers of asbestos. Mr. Dexter was
also highly regarded in the county, where he helped the elderly
and served in the fire department.

David Marshall, an attorney with Hawkins & Parnell of Atlanta
and the representative of CertainTeed Products Corp., confirmed
that an appeal would be made before any amount could be given to
the winning party. He asserted that the court order was contrary
to the evidence presented and that the award was "excessive."

The parties have disputed over the evidence of Mr. Dexter's
smoking record. According to Mr. Marshall, Mr. Dexter only
worked with CertainTeed for a few months, and that his medical
records suggest that Mr. Dexter began smoking at age 9. On the
other hand, Mr. Shelton claimed that Mr. Dexter only smoked for
50 years.

If ever CertainTeed or Garlock makes an appeal, the companies
will still have to pay the remaining amount, and the amount will
gain 12 percent interest per year in the hands of the circuit
court clerk until the lawsuit is complete.

Mr. Shelton said the Court of Appeals would probably be able to
hear the case as soon as nine to 12 months, and if that court
upholds this verdict but it is appealed, the case would go to
Kentucky Supreme Court.


ASBESTOS ALERT: UK Court Fines Firm for Risking Workers' Health
----------------------------------------------------------------
Powys County Council's Environmental Health Service imposed a
fine of more than GBP20,000 to a Mid Wales estate agency for
exposing its employees and contractors to potentially-
carcinogenic asbestos fibers, the Shropshire Star reports.

Citing breaches of Health and Safety legislation, the Council
prosecuted Morris, Marshall & Poole after a routine inspection
revealed damaged asbestos cladding around heating pipes in a
cellar. A health and safety environment officer went to the
firm's Newtown premises and found out that workers at the firm
frequently used the cellar to store and retrieve files and
equipment.

At Wrexham Magistrates' Court, it was heard that managers were
aware of the presence of the hazardous material but had not done
anything to protect employees and others from exposure.

All ten partners in the company entered guilty pleas to the two
offenses under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. Guilty
pleas were also entered for two further offenses brought under
the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999,
following the company's failure to carry out health and safety
risk assessments.

The Court fined all ten partners in the company a total of
GBP21,000. Each partner was also ordered to pay GBP455 in court
costs.


Company Profile:
Morris Marshall & Poole
Tanycastell
Broad Street
Montgomery
Mid Wales
SY15 6PH
Phone: 01686 668833

Description:
Morris Marshall & Poole is the longest established firm of
Estate Agents, Valuers, Auctioneers and Surveyors operating in
Mid Wales and the Shropshire Borders since 1862.


ASBESTOS ALERT: Two Men Arrested for Illegal Dumping in NJ Lot
--------------------------------------------------------------
After a seven-week surveillance, investigators from the state
Environmental Crimes Bureau and the Jersey City Police
Department Special Investigations unit clamped down on the
activities of two men accused of illegally dumping asbestos-
laden debris.

City spokesman Stan H. Eason said the men arrested last week
were Cordell Nesbitt, aged 37, an employee of the Jersey City
Incinerator Authority, along with John Caldwell, aged 46, an
employee of a landscaping company. Both men were taken to the
Hudson County jail in Kearny.

In April, Jersey City Incinerator employees found 150 bags of
asbestos-laden construction and demolition debris illegally
dumped at a vacant lot in Garfield Avenue. Also found in the
city-owned lot were dumped batteries, tires and other debris.

The city is slated to pay US$100,000 for the cleanup.

Mr. Eason stated that the investigation into the incident and
other possible illegal dumping incidents is continuing. They are
also looking into the origin of the material.

Pending the case's outcome, Mr. Nesbitt, a JCIA employee since
1999, has been suspended without pay, said JCIA CEO Oren Dabney.
He added that Mr. Nesbitt would be terminated if found guilty.  


ASBESTOS ALERT: DE Court Affirms Board Decision to Deny Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of Delaware on April 29, 2005 affirmed the
decision of the Industrial Accident Board denying death benefits
to the widow of a former worker in the case against his
employer, Champlain Cable Corp.

Judge Richard R. Cooch presided over the case captioned, Mary
Hirneisen, Claimant, v. Champlain Cable Corp., formerly known as
Haveg Industries, Inc., Employer, with Case No.
Civ.A.04A05008RRC.
                                       
Thomas C. Crumpler, and David A. Arndt, Jacobs & Crumplar, P.A.,
Wilmington, Delaware, represented the claimant.

Anthony M. Frabizzio, and Stephen J. Milewski, Heckler &
Frabizzio, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware, represented the employer.

Mary Hirneisen, widow of John P. Hirneisen and Executrix of his
estate, filed a petition to determine compensation due with the
Industrial Accident Board against Champlain Cable Corp., seeking
benefits in the form of medical expenses related to employee's
lung cancer, burial expenses and death benefits.

Mrs. Hirneisen alleged that her husband's lung cancer was the
result of exposure to asbestos in the workplace. After initially
denying any liability, Champlain Cable conceded that Mr.
Hirneisen had contracted an occupational disease. The Company
agreed to compensate Mrs. Hirneisen for medical and burial
expenses; however, it refused to provide death benefits.

The Board denied the petition for death benefits because Mr.
Hirneisen had voluntarily retired and was not receiving nor
entitled to receive wage replacement benefits at the time of his
death thereby disqualifying his widow from benefits.

Mr. Hirneisen had worked in the Company for about 40 years
before he voluntarily retired in 1981. He originally went to
work for Haveg Industries, Inc. in 1940. In 1964, Hercules Inc.
acquired Haveg, which operated as a subsidiary of Hercules until
1980. In 1973, Haveg became a self-insurer for Workers'
Compensation purposes. Hercules sold the assets of its Haveg
operation to Amatek in 1980. Under the terms of the sale, Amatek
took over responsibility for employee pensions and Hercules,
through Champlain Cable, retained all asbestos-related
liability.

Mr. Hirneisen died in March 2003 from lung cancer caused by his
occupational exposure to asbestos. Upon retirement, he received
a pension from the Company and did not seek further employment.
He had opted at the time of his retirement to receive a single
life annuity pension that would cease upon his death. Both Mr.
and Mrs. Hirneisen received social security retirement benefits
based on their respective work histories.

Mrs. Hirneisen testified that her husband had retired because he
was eligible to retire and that in essence he had removed
himself from the workplace. He never filed a Workers'
Compensation claim, or any type of legal claim, against the
employer related to his asbestos exposure.

The Court held that the Board's interpretation was correct when
it ruled that Mrs. Hirneisen was not eligible for benefits.
Since Mr. Hirneisen voluntarily retired from Ametek in 1981, she
was not receiving any wage replacement benefits at the time of
his death. Although Hercules conceded his death was the result
of an occupational exposure, and subsequently paid burial and
medical benefits, the Board found this does not translate to the
spouse receiving an automatic entitlement to survivor's
benefits.

The Board determined that the survivor's benefits section of the
Workers' Compensation Act is implicated only when the decedent
was entitled to wage replacement benefits at the time of his
death. Accordingly, Mrs. Hirneisen cannot meet her burden to
establish an entitlement to spousal benefits under the Workers'
Compensation Act.


Company Profile:
Champlain Cable Corp.
175 Hercules Dr.
Colchester, VT 05446
Phone: 802-655-4200
Fax: 802-655-4224
Toll Free: 800-451-5162
http://www.champcable.com/

Description:
Champlain Cable, a subsidiary of Switzerland-based Huber Suhner
AG, manufactures industrial, automotive, and data transmission
cable.


ASBESTOS ALERT: Two Cookson Group Subsidiaries Named in Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cookson Group PLC revealed in its latest filing to the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission that two of the Group's
subsidiaries are subject to suits in the United States relating
to a small number of asbestos-containing products. The Group
stated that these products were manufactured prior to the
acquisition of those subsidiaries. These suits, which also name
many other product manufacturers, claim that some persons have
been harmed from exposure to asbestos.

To date, there have been no liability verdicts against any of
these subsidiaries. A number of suits have been withdrawn,
dismissed or settled, and the amounts paid, including costs, in
relation to this litigation have not had a material adverse
effect on the Group's financial position or results of
operations.

Management believes, taking into account legal advice received
and the Group's financial provisions, that none of the currently
pending or potential claims will, either individually or in the
aggregate, have a material adverse effect on the Group's
financial condition or results of operations.


Company Profile:
Cookson Group plc
265 Strand
London
WC2R 1DB, United Kingdom
Phone: +44-20-7061-6500
Fax: +44-20-7061-6600
http://www.cooksongroup.co.uk

Fiscal Year-End        :     December
2003 Sales (mil.)       :     US$2,916.6
1-Year Sales Growth     :     5.2%
2003 Net Income (mil.)  :     (US$363.6)
2003 Employees          :     15,653
1-Year Employee Growth  :     (6.3%)

Description:
Cookson's Electronics Division produces chemicals and equipment
used to manufacture printed circuit boards and build integrated
circuits. The Ceramics Division's Vesuvius subsidiaries make
refractory ceramics and related products for the glass, iron,
steel, aluminum, and cement industries. The Precious Metals
Division makes jewelry and dental components and other
precision-engineered products from gold and silver. Cookson has
operations in 35 countries.


ASBESTOS ALERT: British Gas Services Ltd. Fined for Health Risks
----------------------------------------------------------------
After an incident where a worker and a member of the public were
exposed to asbestos, British Gas Services Ltd. was fined
GBP5,000 and ordered to pay GBP11,000 costs. This occurred
during plumbing work done by the company in July 2003.

At the hearing last March, British Gas was found guilty and
fined an additional GBP2,500 for each of two separate offenses
under the Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 2002. It was
found that the company violated regulation 5, which says that an
employer should not let employees carry out work on asbestos
unless they have first identified the asbestos; and regulation
14, which requires that proper steps are in place to control
asbestos contamination in case of an accident such as this.


Company Profile:
British Gas Services Ltd
Lakeside House,
30 The Causeway, Staines
Middlesex TW18 3BY
Phone: 01784 874000
http://www.britishgas.co.uk/

Description:
British Gas Services Ltd. offers gas and electricity supply in
England, Scotland and Wales for homes and businesses. The
Company has also diversified into home and mobile
telecommunications, central heating installation and repairs,
plumbing, and home security.    


ASBESTOS ALERT: Council Pays GBP140T in Out-of-Court Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Corby Borough Council agreed to pay GBP140,000 compensation in
an out-of-court settlement to the widow of a former worker who
died from exposure to asbestos.

Robert Brown, who had worked as a plasterer for the Council in
Northamptonshire for 18 years, suffered from asbestos-related
illness, mesothelioma, at the age of 57 in May 2001.

The union Community, who brought the claim on Mrs. Brown's
behalf, claimed that the council had been negligent in failing
to ensure Mr. Brown worked in a safe environment. Community
deputy general secretary Paul Gates said, "No worker should have
been exposed to asbestos in the way he was, but we fear that
many were."

Following the award, Mrs. Brown said her husband did not realize
the danger he faced while working with the material.

After expressing sympathies for Mr. Brown's family, Corby
Borough Council chief executive Chris Mallender said that the
council has established "very rigorous practices" to identify
and deal with asbestos. He added that the council has also
undertaken a survey of all council properties and houses and are
using specialist asbestos contractors to secure its safe removal
as part of an ongoing program.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases


ADOLPH COORS: Murray Frank Launches Investor Fraud Lawsuit in DE
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP, filed a class action
lawsuit on behalf of a defined class of investors in connection
to statements issued by Adolph Coors Company ("Coors") and
Molson Inc. ("Molson").  

The complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose or
misrepresented material information in communications made to
investors of Molson and Coors. These communications failed to
disclose that Coors's business was being, and would continue to
be, adversely impacted by conditions that were causing Coors to
perform well below plan and consensus estimates. These
communications had the effect of inflating the price of the
common stock of the companies and providing false confidence in
the merger between Coors and Molson, which permitted defendants
to effectuate the merger in a manner that allowed the relatives
and heirs of the Coors and Molson families to dominate the
combined Company, as detailed in the complaint. Plaintiff is
seeking remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act"). The complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Delaware.

The class action is on behalf of the following groups of
investors:

     (i) former shareholders of Molson who received shares of
         Molson Coors (NYSE:TAP) as a result of the February 9,
         2005 merger of Molson by and into the Coors;

     (2) purchasers of the common stock of Coors from July 22,
         2004 to February 9, 2005, inclusive; and

     (3) purchasers of the common stock of Molson Coors,
         following completion of the merger between Molson and
         Coors on or about February 9, 2005 to April 27, 2005,
         inclusive.

Plaintiff is seeking remedies under the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

On April 28, 2005, only weeks after the merger closed, the
Company announced disappointing results for the Company's first
quarter of 2005, leading to the decline of the Company's common
stock of nearly $14.50 per share, a decline of almost 20%. The
same day, defendant O'Neill resigned from his post as Chair of
Office of Synergies and Integration, taking with him $4.8
million as a severance payment.

Following the commencement of the class action on May 13, 2005,
the price of Molson Coors' common stock has continued to
languish. Numerous analysts downgraded their rating of the
Company's stock following the April 28, 2005, announcement. In
addition, on May 18, 2005, the Company announced that it was
changing its approach with respect to its operations in Brazil,
which had continued to suffer losses and lower volumes leading
up to the May 18, 2005 announcement.

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


BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Stull, Stull & Brody initiated class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of all persons who purchased
the securities of Brocade Communication Systems, Inc. ("Brocade"
or the "Company") (NASDAQ: BRCD) between February 21, 2001, and
May 15, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint alleges that, Brocade, Gregory L. Reyes and
Antonio Canova with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company
failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material
adverse facts known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by
them:

     (1) that Brocade improperly accounted for the cost of
         stock-based compensation;

     (2) that Brocade did not follow appropriate option granting
         guidelines;

     (3) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls; and
   
     (4) that as a consequence of the foregoing the Company's
         financial results were in violation of Generally
         Accepted Principles and were materially inflated at all
         relevant times.

On January 6, 2005, Brocade announced that as a result of an
internal review it expected to restate its financial statements
for fiscal years ending 2002 and 2003 to record additional
stock-based compensation expense. The news shocked the market.
On January 7, 2005, shares of Brocade fell $0.52 per share or
7.51 percent to close at $6.40 per share. On January 24, 2005,
the Brocade announced that it expected to record additional
stock-based compensation charges. On this news shares of Brocade
fell another $0.57 per share or about 10 percent, on January 24
and January 25, 2005, to close at $5.83 per share. Then, on May
16, 2005, before the markets opened, the Company announced that
it will restate its financial statements for the fiscal years
ending 2002 through 2004 to record additional charges for stock-
based compensation expense. On this news shares of Brocade fell
$0.12 per share or 2.91 percent, on May 17, 2005, to close at
$4.01 per share.

For more details, contact Tzivia Brody, Esq. of Stull, Stull &
Brody, 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY 10017, Phone:
1-800-337-4983, Fax: 212/490-2022, E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com.  


CARRIER ACCESS: Goldman Scarlato Lodges Securities Lawsuit in CO
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C., initiated a
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado, on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired publicly traded securities of Carrier Access
Corporation ("Carrier Access" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:CACSE)
between October 21, 2003 and May 20, 2005, inclusive, (the
"Class Period"). The lawsuit was filed against Carrier Access
and certain officers and directors ("Defendants").

The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. Specifically, the complaint alleges that
Defendants issued a series of false and misleading statements
regarding its financial results and its business prospects. On
May 20, 2005, the Company issued a press release stating that it
was in the process of performing a detailed review of all
significant customer relationships and as a part of that review
had identified that the timing of certain revenues and cost
recognition issues were present. In reaction to this news, the
Company's shares fell to $4.60 per share.

For more details, contact Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C., Phone:
(888) 753-2796. E-mail: goldman@gsk-law.com.


DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Fraud Suit in CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP filed
a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California, on behalf of all persons who
purchased the securities of Dreamworks Animation SKG, Inc.
("Dreamworks" or the "Company") [NYSE: DWA] between October 27,
2004 and May 10, 2005, inclusive, (the "Class Period") against
defendants Dreamworks and certain officers and directors of the
Company.

The case name is Dubensky v. Dreamworks Animation SKG, Inc., et
al. The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading
statements throughout the Class Period that had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price of the Company's
securities.

The Complaint further alleges that statements made by defendants
during the Class Period were materially false misleading when
made because defendants failed to disclose the following:

     (1) that sales of Shrek 2 DVD's were precipitously
         declining;

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

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

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

On May 10, 2005, defendants, after the market closed, announced
that Shrek 2 did not meet the Company's retail sales
expectations for the first quarter. The next day, shares of
Dreamworks fell $4.45 per share, or more than 12 percent, to
close at $32.05 per share on unusually heavy trading volume.

For more details, contact Fred Taylor Isquith, Esq., Gregory M.
Nespole, Esq., Gustavo Bruckner, Esq., or Derek Behnke of Wolf
Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP, Phone: 1-800-575-0735, E-
mail: classmember@whafh.com, Web site: http://www.whafh.com.


LEAPFROG ENTERPRISES: Wechsler Harwood Lodges Fraud Suit in CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Wechsler Harwood LLP filed a Federal Securities
fraud class action suit on behalf of all purchasers of the
common stock of LeapFrog Enterprises, Inc. (NYSE:LF) acquiring
the stock between February 11, 2004, and October 18, 2004, both
dates inclusive (the "Class Period").

The action, entitled, Gentry v. Leap Frog Enterprises, Inc., et
al., Case No. 05-cv-02279 (MJJ), is pending in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, and
names as defendants, the Company, its former Chairman and
current Chief Executive Officer, Thomas J. Kalinske, and its
former Chief Financial Officer, Jim Curely.

The Complaint charges defendants with violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder. More specifically, the complaint
alleges that the Company failed to disclose and misrepresented
material adverse facts known to defendants or recklessly
disregarded by them. In particular, the Complaint alleges that
during the Class Period, defendants assured investors that
LeapFrog had taken necessary steps to correct problems in its
IT-systems and supply-chain infrastructure and misrepresented or
failed to disclose that the Company had not, in fact, materially
improved either its IT-systems or supply-chain infrastructure
and these issues were materially and negatively affecting its
business and ability to accurately forecast results and meet
analysts' sales and earnings expectations. As a consequence of
the foregoing, it is alleged that the Company's financial
results were materially inflated at all relevant times.

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

For more details, contact Craig Lowther, Wechsler Harwood
Shareholder Relations Department, 488 Madison Avenue, 8th Floor,
New York, NY, 10022, Phone: (877) 935-7400, E-mail:
clowther@whesq.com.  


NEWMONT MINING: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Lawsuit in CO
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
LLP ("Lerach Coughlin") initiated a class action on behalf of an
institutional investor in the United States District Court for
the District of Colorado on behalf of purchasers of Newmont
Mining Corporation ("Newmont") (NYSE:NEM) publicly traded
securities during the period between July 28, 2004 and April 26,
2005 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Newmont and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Newmont is a gold producer with assets or operations in
the United States, Australia, Peru, Indonesia, Canada,
Uzbekistan, Bolivia, New Zealand, Ghana and Mexico.

The complaint alleges that despite making repeated positive
statements about the Company's operations and financial
expectations throughout the Class Period, defendants announced
on April 26, 2005 that the Company's Q1 2005 earnings would fall
short by two-thirds of what analysts had been expecting based on
the Company's frequent guidance and investor presentations.
Unbeknownst to investors, Newmont's Peruvian, Indonesian,
Australian and New Zealand mines had grossly underperformed. On
this news, Newmont's stock price fell precipitously from its
April 26, 2005 closing price of $40.25 per share to less than
$38 per share on April 27, 2005, on extremely high trading
volume. Meanwhile, because the Company's stock had traded at
inflated prices throughout the Class Period, Newmont was able to
place over $600 million worth of notes in March 2005, just weeks
before the truth about the Company's operational and financial
difficulties would be disclosed.

According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known by
each of the defendants but concealed from the investing public
during the Class Period, were as follows:

     (1) Newmont had been processing only stockpiled low-grade
         ore at certain mines, which costs more to process;

     (2) Newmont's costs for commodities used in mining had
         increased, increasing total production costs and cash
         production costs;

     (3) the amount of copper and gold Newmont stated it could
         extract in 2005 was overstated; and

     (4) as a result of operating difficulties in Q1 2005,
         Newmont's cash generation had declined by 50% and its
         exploration costs would significantly increase.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers
of Newmont publicly traded securities during the Class Period
(the "Class"). The plaintiff is represented by Lerach Coughlin,
which has expertise in prosecuting investor class actions and
extensive experience in actions involving financial fraud.

For more details, contact William Lerach or Darren Robbins of
Lerach Coughlin, Phone: 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, E-mail:
wsl@lerachlaw.com, Web site:
http://www.lerachlaw.com/cases/newmont/.  


OCA INC.: Brian M. Felgoise Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in LA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C. filed a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who acquired OCA, Inc.
(NYSE: OCA) securities between May 18, 2004, and June 7, 2005,
inclusive (the Class Period).

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

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

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


OCA INC.: Brodsky & Smith Files Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. LA
----------------------------------------------------------------
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 OCA, Inc. (NYSE:OCA) ("OCA"
or the "Company") between May 18, 2004 and June 7, 2005 (the
"Class Period"). The class action lawsuit was filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana.

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 OCA 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, Phone: 877-LEGAL-90, E-
mail: clients@brodsky-smith.com.


OCA INC.: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in LA
----------------------------------------------------------------
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 OCA, Inc.
(NYSE: OCA) between May 18, 2004 and June 7, 2005, inclusive
(the "Class Period").

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana against defendant OCA 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.


OCA INC.: Chitwood Harley Files Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. LA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Chitwood Harley Harnes LLP filed a securities
fraud class action complaint in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisana against OCA, Inc., f/k/a
Orthodontic Centers of America, Inc. ("OCA" or the "Company")
(NYSE: OCA), Bartholomew F. Palmisano, Sr., Bartholomew F.
Palmisano, Jr., and David M. Verret on behalf of persons who
purchased or acquired the common stock of OCA between May 18,
2004 and June 6, 2005 inclusive (the "Class Period"). The civil
action number is 05-2173, and the case was assigned to Section
B.

Chitwood Harley Harnes's complaint asserts claims against the
Defendants under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges that during the
Class Period, Defendants issued false and misleading financial
statements and failed to present the Company's financial
statements in conformity with Generally Accepted Accounting
Principles ("GAAP"). In addition, Defendants' Sarbanes-Oxley
certifications during the Class Period were false and
misleading.

On June 7, 2005, before the opening of trading, OCA shocked the
market by announcing it had determined that the amount of
patient receivables reported at each of March 31, June 30, and
September 30, 2004 was overstated by material amounts. Although
the Company said that it has not yet determined the amount by
which the receivables were overstated or their impact on patient
revenue, the Company announced its Audit Committee's conclusion
that, due to these overstatements, the previously issued
quarterly financial statements for the first, second and third
quarters of 2004 will need to be restated and should no longer
be relied upon. OCA also announced that it had discovered other
accounting errors, which it was still reviewing, and had placed
its Chief Operating Officer, Bartholomew F. Palmisano, Jr., on
administrative leave as of June 1, 2005.

In response to this news, OCA stock lost approximately 40% of
its value on enormous trading volume of over 9 million shares,
dropping $1.57 to close at $2.46. In fact, the stock hit a 52-
week low during trading yesterday. Accordingly, as a result of
the Company's misrepresentations, OCA investors have sustained
tremendous losses, and stand to lose much more as the full
extent and magnitude of the restatement and fraud is disclosed.

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


OCA INC.: Federman & Sherwood Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in LA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Federman & Sherwood initiated a class action
lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana against OCA, Inc. (NYSE: OCA).

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of
material misrepresentations to the market which had the effect
of artificially inflating the market price. The class period is
from May 18, 2004 through June 7, 2005.

Specifically, on June 7, 2005, the Company shocked the market by
issuing a press release announcing a delay in filing its annual
report, that it would be restating its quarterly financial
statements for 2004 and that it had placed the Company's Chief
Operating Officer on administrative leave. The Company admitted
that it had overstated its patient receivables and revenues
during the first three quarters of 2004. Following this
announcement, the Company's shares dropped almost 38%.

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


POSSIS MEDICAL: Murray Frank Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in MN
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of Minnesota on behalf of shareholders who purchased or
otherwise acquired the securities of Possis Medical, Inc.
("Possis" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:POSS) between September 24,
2002 and August 24, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

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

Possis Medical, Inc. engages in the development, manufacture,
and marketing of medical devices. During the Class Period,
defendants made numerous positive statements regarding the
Company's financial performance and prospects. Plaintiff claims
defendants' omissions and material misrepresentations during the
Class Period artificially inflated Possis' stock price,
inflicting damages on investors. The Complaint alleges that
during the Class Period defendants failed to disclose and/or
misrepresented material adverse facts, including that:

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

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

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

Additionally, the Complaint alleges that defendants misled
investors concerning the safety, efficacy and prospects of the
AngioJet because it enabled defendants to artificially inflate
the price of Possis shares and then allowed defendants and other
Company insiders to sell more than 361,730 shares of their
privately held Possis stock to the unsuspecting public for
proceeds in excess of $7.07 million while in possession of
material adverse, non-public information about the Company.

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

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


R&G FINANCIAL: Berger & Montague Lodges Securities Lawsuit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Berger & Montague, P.C. initiated a class action
lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of R&G
Financial Corp. (NYSE: RGF) between April 21, 2003 and April 25,
2005. This Federal Securities fraud class action is pending in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York.

The complaint charges that R & G's management materially
overstated assets and income in violation of GAAP. On April 25,
2005, R & G announced that it was restating its financial
results for 2003 and 2004. According to R & G, the restatements
are necessary to correct the accounting treatment for valuing R
& G's residual interests retained in securitizations. R & G
admitted that it may be required to take a charge of between $90
and $150 million.

On this April 25, 2005, announcement, R & G shares fell by more
than a third on heavy volume.

For more details, contact Todd S. Collins, Esq. or Kim Walker,
Investor Relations Manager of Berger & Montague, P.C., 1622
Locust Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19103, Phone: 800-424-6690,
Fax: 215-875-4604, E-mail: info@bm.net.


STOCKERYALE INC.: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Lawsuit in NH
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP initiated a
class action lawsuit, on behalf of purchasers of the securities
of StockerYale, Inc. ("StockerYale" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:
STKR) between April 19, 2004 and May 23, 2005, inclusive (the
"Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The action, captioned Nickalus T. Holt v. StockerYale, Inc., is
pending in the United States District Court for the District of
New Hampshire against defendants StockerYale, Mark W. Blodgett
(CEO, President and Chairman), Francis J. O'Brien (former CFO),
Richard P. Lindsay (current CFO), and Ricardo A. Diaz (COO).

The complaint alleges that defendants knowingly or recklessly
issued press releases on April 19, 2004 (the "April 19 Release")
and April 21, 2004 (the "April 21 Release") that were materially
false and misleading because, they stated that StockerYale was
developing a customized laser for a missile countermeasure
system for commercial planes and they stated that the Company
was developing the laser pursuant to a Department of Homeland
Security project. Immediately after publication of the April 19
Release, the price and volume of StockerYale common stock surged
and defendant Mark W. Blodgett sold 250,000 shares of his
personally-held StockerYale holdings for proceeds in excess of
$1.7 million. Lawrence Blodgett, a StockerYale director and Mark
W. Blodgett's father, sold 56,900 shares for proceeds in excess
of $350,000. Within a few days, shares of StockerYale had
returned nearly 65% of their gain.

On November 9, 2004 the Company disclosed that it had received a
"Wells Notice" from the Securities and Exchange Commission
("SEC") relating to certain disclosures contained in news
releases that the Company issued on April 19, 2004 and April 21,
2004. The Wells Notice stated that the Staff of the SEC intended
to recommend that a civil action be brought against StockerYale
and Blodgett alleging violations of Section 17(a) of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and
Rule 10b-5 thereunder.

On May 23, 2005, the last day of the Class Period, the SEC
announced it had entered into a consent decree settling all
charges against StockerYale and Blodgett. Pursuant to the
consent decree, Blodgett was required to pay disgorgement plus
interest in the amount of $788,118.92 and a civil penalty in the
amount of $120,000.

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


XYBERNAUT CORPORATION: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Suit in VA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP that a Class Action
lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia on behalf of a class (the "Class")
consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired securities of Xybernaut Corporation ("Xybernaut" or the
"Company") (Pink Sheets:XYBR), between May 10, 2002 and April 8,
2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint charges Xybernaut and certain of the Company's
executive officers with violations of federal securities laws.
Xybernaut Corporation develops, manufactures and markets
mobile/wearable computing and communication systems, and
productivity, product-management and asset management software
and service solutions. The Complaint alleges defendants knew or
recklessly disregarded and failed to disclose material adverse
facts, including that:

     (1) the Company's accounting and related disclosures in its
         financial statements during the Class Period were
         inadequate, improper and inherently unreliable;

     (2) defendant (CEO and Chairman) Edward G. Newman
         misappropriated Company funds for personal expenses;

     (3) the SEC had commenced an investigation of the Company
         relating to the sale of Xybernaut securities by a
         certain shareholder; and

     (4) the Company lacked adequate internal controls.

On March 31, 2005, defendants disclosed the discovery of
material weaknesses in Xybernaut's internal controls with
respect to expense reimbursement, revenue recognition and
monitoring of business risks. Additionally, the Company revealed
for the first time that nearly two months earlier it had
received a SEC subpoena seeking documents relating to the sale
of securities by an unidentified shareholder. The Company also
announced it had received notification from Nasdaq that
Xybernaut stock, which had been trading below $1.00 per share,
was subject to delisting.

On April 8, 2005, defendants disclosed that the Company had
received a letter from its auditor, Grant & Thornton LLP,
questioning the accuracy and reliability of Xybernaut's
accounting and related disclosures; the Company's historical
financial statements for fiscal 2002 and 2003; and the Company's
financial statements for the interim first, second, and third
quarters of 2002 and 2003. In reaction to this news, the price
of Xybernaut stock, which had already fallen $0.53 per share
since a March 14, 2005, announcement that the Company would not
be able to timely file its annual report, fell another $0.06,
closing at $0.13 on the next trading day, April 11, 2005.

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