---

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

              Monday, June 13, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 115

                          Headlines

APPLE CANADA: Montreal Resident Lodges Suit Over iPod Batteries
APPLETON PAPERS: Residents File Contamination Suit in S.D. Ohio
AUSTRALIA: Retirees Launch Lawsuit V. LifeTrack Superannuation
CALIFORNIA: Gaming Attorneys Say Ruling Will Not Trigger Suits
CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Customer's Lawsuit Returns to TX State Court

CHICO'S FAS: Reaches Settlement For CA Employee Wardrobing Suit
CHICO'S FAS: Customers Launch Privacy Lawsuit in CA State Court
CHINA AVIATION: Firm's Financial Director Travels to NY For Suit
CNL HOTELS: FL Court Dismisses Lawsuit Claims, Orders Re-filing
DYNEX CAPITAL: Shareholders File Stock Fraud Lawsuit in S.D. NY

ELI LILLY: Settles Zyprexa Claims, Creates $690M Settlement Fund
EPIXTAR CORPORATION: Reached Settlement For AL "Cramming" Suit
FISCHER IMAGING: CO Court Hears Motion To Dismiss Stock Lawsuit
FLORIDA: Suit Initiated V. Seminole County Over Strip-Searches
FLORIDA: Two Firms Settle FTC Complaint V. Fraudulent Product

GAMESTOP CORPORATION: Finalizing CA Overtime Lawsuit Settlement
GILMAN & CIOCIA: DE Court Mulls Investor Fraud Lawsuit Dismissal
GLS CAPITAL: PA Court Delays Certification Hearing For Tax Suit
HOLLINGER INTERNATIONAL: Asks IL Court To Dismiss Stock Lawsuit
JOHNSTOWN AMERICA: Reaches Settlement For USWA, Employees Suit

KATZMAN & KORR: Settles FL Consumer Fraud Lawsuit For $250,000
KENTUCKY: Judge Delays Ruling For $120M Church Abuse Settlement
MINITEK DIGITAL: Recalls 116T Battery Packs Due to Fire Hazard  
NEWMONT MINING: Schatz & Nobel Launches Suit V. Firm, Executives
NORTHERN NATURAL: Retirees Launch Lawsuit to Obtain Trust Assets

PARADIGM MEDICAL: Reaches Settlement For Securities Suit in UT
PENTON MEDIA: Discovery Proceeds in GA TCPA Violations Lawsuit
SALESFORCE.COM: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
SHINDAIWA INC.: Recalls 25T Hedge Trimmers Due to Fire Hazard  
SONIC AUTOMOTIVE: FL Judge Certifies Car Insurance Fraud Lawsuit

SYMANTEC CORPORATION: Continues To Face Unfair Trade Suit in CA
SYMANTEC CORPORATION: Consumer Lawsuit Still Pending in CA Court
SYMANTEC CORPORATION: Consumers File Lawsuit V. WinFax Pro in CA
SYMANTEC CORPORATION: NY Court Yet To Rule on Lawsuit Dismissal
TASER INTERNATIONAL: AZ Court Orders Investor Suits Consolidated

TRANSMETA CORPORATION: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Stock Suit
T.W. ENTERPRISES: Recalls Pet Treats Due to Salmonella Contagion
TEXAS: Lawsuits Initiated V. Four Lenders Over Home Equity Loans
UNITED KINGDOM: Justice Certifies Norfolk St. Flood Damage Suit
WAL-MART STORES: NC Appeals Court Refuses To Allow Overtime Suit

ZOMAX INC.: Settles SEC Civil Proceedings, Concludes Inquiry

                  New Securities Fraud Cases


AUTHENTIDATE HOLDING: Marc S. Henzel Files Securities Suit in NY
CARRIER ACCESS: Marc S. Henzel Files Securities Fraud Suit in CO
NEWMONT MINING: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Lawsuit in CO
NEWMONT MINING: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Fraud Suit in CO
NEWMONT MINING: Marc S. Henzel Files Securities Fraud Suit in CO

OCA INC.: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in LA
POSSIS MEDICAL: Marc S. Henzel Files Securities Fraud Suit in MN


                          *********


APPLE CANADA: Montreal Resident Lodges Suit Over iPod Batteries
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ines Lenzi, a Montreal resident and an owner of her very own
iPod initiated an action in Quebec Superior Court seeking
certification for a class action lawsuit against its maker,
Apple Canada Inc., The Montreal Gazette reports.

Ms. Lenzi alleges that, over time, the rechargeable batteries in
her iPod fail to live up to Apple's promise of eight hours of
play. She further argues that although at first her iPod would
work for eight hours once the batteries were fully charged,
after a few months the duration shrank to a mere three hours.


APPLETON PAPERS: Residents File Contamination Suit in S.D. Ohio
---------------------------------------------------------------
Appleton Papers, Inc. faces a class action filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, by
eleven Ohio residents, who allegedly live (or have lived) near
the wastewater treatment plant of the Company's West Carollton
mill, and two former mill employees.

The suit alleges that the Company's facility released and
continues to release hazardous substances from the mill,
including polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), dioxins and
fluorochemicals, which allegedly caused injury to the plaintiffs
and/or damage to their property. The lawsuit was originally
filed in Montgomery County, Ohio but has been removed to the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.
The plaintiffs request compensatory and punitive damages,
remediation and other relief.

The suit is styled "Schramm et al v. Appleton Papers Inc., case
no. 3:05-cv-00181-WHR," filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio, under Judge Walter H.
Rice.  Representing the Company is Joseph P. Thomas, Ulmer &
Berne - 1, 600 Vine Street, Suite 2800, Cincinnati, OH 45202-
2409, Phone: 513-698-5004, E-mail: jthomas@ulmer.com.  
Representing the plaintiffs is Christopher Jon Cornyn of Cornyn,
Leonard & Hughes, 10 Fairway Drive, Springboro, OH 45066-0344,
Phone: 937-748-9447, E-mail: cornynhughes@aol.com.


AUSTRALIA: Retirees Launch Lawsuit V. LifeTrack Superannuation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Australian retirees who lost millions in a now-defunct
investment fund initiated a class action to recover their money
directly from the funds managers, The Wodonga Border Mail
reports.

David Smith, the founder of the LifeTrack Superannuation Fund,
and his former chief executive Alan Rich were named as
defendants in class action papers lodged in the NSW Supreme
Court recently.  Approximately 700 investors have retained law
firms Goldman Partners and Maurice Blackburn Cashman to conduct
the class action against Mr. Smith and Mr. Rich.  Court
documents revealed that the two men were directors of AM
Corporation, which established the LifeTrack Traded Policies
Funds fund to invest in traded life insurance policies in 1996.


CALIFORNIA: Gaming Attorneys Say Ruling Will Not Trigger Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
A California Supreme Court decision allowing a class action
lawsuit that alleges false advertising by Nevada casinos to
proceed in a Los Angeles courtroom shouldn't lead to a rash of
legal filings, according to gaming attorneys, The I-Newswire.com
reports.  

In 2002, Frank Snowney of Los Angeles filed a class action
lawsuit against Harrah's properties, claiming that in 2001 he
made a reservation at a Harrah's resort, which said the room
would cost $50 a night plus room tax.  However, the final bill
carried a $3 energy surcharge that Mr. Snowney claimed was never
disclosed by the casino.  The 20-page ruling by the California
justices did not discuss the case's merits.  It only allowed the
lawsuit to proceed in California.

According to several Las Vegas lawyers who specialize in gaming
matters, the unanimous ruling, which allowed a California
customer's lawsuit to continue against Harrah's Entertainment,
was too case-specific to affect any other matters.

"I really don't think you'll see a lot of slip-and-fall cases
popping up in California against Las Vegas casinos because of
this ruling," Lewis and Roca gaming attorney Tony Cabot told I-
newswire.com.  "This has to do with a specific marketing and
advertising campaign. What the justices said was that because
the corporation came into the state to advertise, the matter
could be heard in California."

Mr. Cabot said Harrah's could appeal the decision to the U.S.
Supreme Court, but doubts the federal panel would hear the
matter.

A Las Vegas litigation attorney, who asked not to be named, told
I-newswire.com she believed the justices' written opinion was so
tied to the particular case that it might not be applicable to
any other similar matter involving advertising. "The facts set
forth are very specific," she said. "I don't see it having a lot
of usage."

Harrah's had argued the case should be moved out of California
because the company didn't have any businesses or bank accounts
in the state. A Superior Court judge agreed, but the California
Court of Appeals reversed the decision. The State Supreme Court
affirmed that decision.


CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Customer's Lawsuit Returns to TX State Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action civil lawsuit against Centerpoint Entergy, Inc.
and its predecessors Reliant Energy and Arkansas-Louisiana Gas
Co., found its way back to Miller Count Circuit Court after
going all the way to federal court, The Texarkana Gazette
reports.

Court documents revealed that last week, U.S. District Judge
Harry F. Barnes decided to send the multi-million dollar
lawsuit, which was first filed late last year in the circuit
court, back to Miller County.

As previously reported in the October 14, 2004 edition of the
Class Action Reporter, the suit against the gas companies, which
was filed in Miller County Circuit Court, alleges violations of
fraud, unjust enrichment and civil conspiracy concerning the
cost of natural gas delivered to customers. Three local law
firms represented the customers, namely: Patton, Roberts,
McWilliams, Greer & Capshaw, Nix, Patterson & Roach and Keil &
Goodson.  Circuit Judge Jim Hudson was originally assigned to
the case, which includes customers from Arkansas, Texas,
Louisiana, Oklahoma, Mississippi and Minnesota.

According to the lawsuit the issues of the case come down to:

     (1) whether Centerpoint Energy and the other companies
         artificially inflated the natural gas commodity costs
         that were passed on to customers.

     (2) whether Centerpoint Energy and the other companies
         passed on to its customers fraudulently inflated costs
         for natural gas.

     (3) whether Centerpoint Energy and the other companies
         misrepresented to its customers that it acquired
         natural gas for sale to customers at the best possible
         price.

Late last year though, Centerpoint "removed" the case from state
court to federal court in Texarkana, Arkansas, since a defendant
in a lawsuit can change jurisdiction if they think the court
rules or laws make it more applicable to file a case in federal
court. In motioning for the transfer of the case, Centerpoint
argued that the customers' problems were not with the gas
companies, but with the regulatory agencies.

However, the gas customers, led by Weldon Johnson and Troy
Loftin and their lawyers, weren't convinced of the Company's
argument and after studying the defendant's motion, Judge Barnes
sided with the plaintiffs. That decision, which was handed down
on June 2, basically supported the plaintiffs' response to the
defendant's removal of the case from state to federal court.

The plaintiffs' response basically stated that the removal
wasn't supported either by the facts pleaded in the defendant's
complaint or by the law.

Judge Barnes generally found that the facts of the case
supported a state course of action, rather than a federal one.
In addition, Judge Barnes found that none of the federal laws
completely pre-empt the issue of natural gas regulations.

Dennis Chambers, of the local Atchley, Russell, Waldrop &
Hlavinka law firm, is helping Centerpoint Energy fight the case.  
Rick Adams, of the local Patton, Roberts, McWilliams, Greer &
Capshaw law firm, is one of the attorneys representing the
plaintiffs and he told the Gazette that he's glad Judge Barnes
reached the decision he did. He adds, "We're extremely pleased
that we are able to get the case back in the court of our
choice. It's an important case and we are looking forward to
trying it in Miller County."

A trial date though is still pending, according to Miller County
Circuit Clerk records.


CHICO'S FAS: Reaches Settlement For CA Employee Wardrobing Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chico's FAS, Inc. reached a settlement for the class action
filed against it in the Superior Court for the State of
California, County of San Francisco, styled "Charissa Villanueva
v. Chico's FAS, Inc.

The Complaint alleges that the Company, in violation of
California law, has in place a mandatory uniform policy that
requires its employees to purchase and wear Chico's clothing and
accessories as a condition of employment.  

It is the Company's position that no such mandatory uniform
policy exists. Although the Company believed it had strong
defenses to the allegations in this case, the Company agreed to
participate in a voluntary private mediation on November 10,
2004.  A settlement was reached at the mediation, and the
parties are in the process of preparing and finalizing the
settlement documents. The settlement must be approved by the
Court at both a preliminary and a final approval hearing before
it becomes final.


CHICO'S FAS: Customers Launch Privacy Lawsuit in CA State Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chico's FAS, Inc. faces a putative class action suit filed in
May 2005 in the Superior Court for the State of California,
County of Los Angeles, styled "Marie Nguyen v. Chico's FAS,
Inc."

The Complaint alleges that the Company, in violation of
California law, requested or required its customers to provide
personal information as part of a credit card transaction. The
Company only recently received the Complaint.  Although the
Company is in the process of making a further investigation of
the allegations contained in the Complaint, based on an initial
review and analysis of the Complaint, the Company does not
believe that the case has merit and, thus, does not believe that
the case should have any material adverse effect on its
financial condition or results of operations, the Company said
in a regulatory filing.


CHINA AVIATION: Firm's Financial Director Travels to NY For Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The financial director of China Aviation Oil (Singapore)
Corporation, who faces criminal charges, traveled to the United
States to try to settle a class action lawsuit against her
beleaguered company, according to her lawyer, The Associated
Press reports.

Steven Chong, the attorney of Gu Yanfei, 40, head of jet fuel
supplier's debt restructuring team, told AP that she posted bail
of $300,000 before she was granted permission to leave for New
York. In a Singaporean court, Mr. Chong pointed out that her
presence in New York would have a "major impact" on the
company's debt restructuring scheme. He adds, however, that two
other Chinese directors facing charges were denied permission to
leave Singapore.

A total of five company officials, including suspended chief
executive Chen Jiulin, who has not posted bail, were charged
with insider trading, making false statements and other crimes
linked to risky oil trades that pushed China Aviation Oil to the
brink of bankruptcy last year.

Singaporean authorities began a criminal investigation of the
firm's CEO and China Aviation Oil last year, after the company
revealed it had lost more than US$500 million by placing bets on
the future price of oil. It began losing money in the first
quarter of 2004 and sought court protection from creditors in
December after crude futures hit then-record prices.

As reported in the previous editions of the Class Action
Reporter, several law firm had initiated class action lawsuits
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of all securities purchasers of China
Aviation Oil (OTC: CAOLF) between March 27, 2003 and November
30, 2004 inclusive.

The complaint charges China Aviation, Jia Changbin and Chen
Jiulin 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 the following
material adverse facts, which were known to defendants or
recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls and
         risk management procedures;

     (2) that as a consequence the Company engaged in
         speculative derivative trading, forcing controlling
         shareholders to raise funds to cover margin calls on
         massive derivative losses; and

     (3) that the Company kept $550 million in derivative
         trading losses of the books, thereby artificially
         inflating its financial results.

On November 30, 2004, China Oil announced that the Company had
suffered significant losses from speculative oil derivative
trading. As of November 29, 2004, the Company estimated that the
total cumulative losses (both realized and unrealized) incurred
by the Company were approximately $550 million. On this news,
trading in the Company's shares was suspended after the shares
dropped to below S$1.00 per share, compared to prices as high as
S$1.70 per share, at which the shares traded during the Class
Period.


CNL HOTELS: FL Court Dismisses Lawsuit Claims, Orders Re-filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of
Florida dismissed several claims in the securities class action
filed against CNL Hotels & Resorts, Inc., CNL Real Estate
Advisors, LLC (Advisor), certain of their affiliates and certain
of their directors and officers, and allowed plaintiffs to re-
file their complaint.

On August 16, 2004, a shareholder filed a complaint on behalf of
two separate classes, those persons who purchased Company shares
during the class period pursuant to certain registration
statements and those persons who received and were entitled to
vote on the Proxy Statement dated May 7, 2004, as amended. The
complaint alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2 and 15 of
the Securities Act and Section 14(a), including Rule 14a-9
hereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, based upon,
among other things, allegations that:

     (1) the defendants used improper accounting practices to
         materially inflate Company earnings to support the
         payment of distributions and bolster its share price;

     (2) conflicts of interest and self-dealing by the
         defendants resulted in excessive fees being paid to the
         Advisor, overpayment for certain Properties which the
         Company acquired and the proposed Merger between the
         Company and its Advisor;

     (3) the proxy statement and certain registration statements
         and prospectuses contained materially false and
         misleading statements; and

     (4) the individual defendants and its Advisor breached
         their fiduciary duties to the members of the class.

The complaint seeks, among other things, certification of the
class action, unspecified monetary damages, rescissory damages,
to nullify the various shareholder approvals obtained at the
2004 annual meeting, payment of reasonable attorneys' fees and
experts' fees, and an injunction enjoining the postponed
underwritten offering and listing until the court approves
certain actions, including the nomination and election of new
independent Directors and retention of a new financial advisor.   

On September 8, 2004, a second putative class action complaint
was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida containing allegations that are
substantially similar to those contained in the class action
lawsuit filed on August 16, 2004.  On November 10, 2004, the two
complaints were consolidated and lead plaintiffs were assigned
for each of the two purported classes. On December 23, 2004, the
plaintiffs served a corrected, consolidated and amended
complaint asserting substantially the same claims and
allegations.

On February 11, 2005, the Company and the other defendants filed
separate motions to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint.
On May 9, 2005, the court dismissed all causes of action against
the Company's operating partnerships, CNL Hospitality Partners,
L.P., and RFS Partnership, L.P., and against the Advisor, CNL
Financial Group, Inc., and other advisor related entities. The
court sustained the sufficiency of the pleading relating to the
Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 claims against the Company and the
individual defendants, but instructed plaintiffs to re-plead to
specifically identify in the particular registration statements
the alleged misstatements or omissions attributable to each
defendant. The court deferred consideration of the Section 14
(a) and 20(a) claims in light of the Company's April 8, 2005
disclosure relating to the possible amendment of the Existing
Merger Agreement.  Finally, the court dismissed completely the
breach of fiduciary duty claims finding they were derivative and
belonged to the Company.  After plaintiffs re-plead and any
additional motion practice, the case will likely proceed to the
determination of class certification and thereafter potentially
to a trial.  


DYNEX CAPITAL: Shareholders File Stock Fraud Lawsuit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dynex Capital, Inc., its subsidiary MERIT Securities
Corporation, Stephen J. Benedetti and Thomas H. Potts faces a
class action filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York by the Teamsters Local 445 Freight
Division Pension Fund.  

The lawsuit purports to be a class action on behalf of
purchasers of MERIT Series 13 securitization financing bonds,
which are collateralized by manufactured housing loans.  The
allegations include federal securities laws violations in
connection with the issuance in August 1999 by MERIT Securities
Corporation of the Company's MERIT Series 13 bonds. The suit
also alleges fraud and negligent misrepresentations in
connection with MERIT Series 13.


ELI LILLY: Settles Zyprexa Claims, Creates $690M Settlement Fund
----------------------------------------------------------------
By establishing a fund not to exceed $690 million for plaintiffs
who agree to settle their claims, Eli Lilly (NYSE: LLY) will
settle about three-quarters of the liability clams stemming from
its Zyprexa schizophrenia drug, TheStreet.com reports.

The Indianapolis drug maker, which estimates that the number of
claimants covered by the settlement is approximately 8,000, is
anticipating at least a $700 million pretax charge in the second
quarter of 2005 to cover this settlement, as well as other
product liability claims not covered by the settlement.

In a press statement, Sidney Taurel, Eli Lilly chairman and CEO,
said, "While we believe the claims are without merit, we took
this difficult step because we believe it is in the best
interest of the company, the patients who depend on this
medication, and their doctors. Our decision to resolve these
claims does not change the fact that Zyprexa has and will
continue to improve the lives of millions of patients around the
world who are suffering from schizophrenia and bipolar
disorder."

The press statement indicated that the settlement will resolve
the majority of Zyprexa claims pending in the U.S., which
includes federal and state lawsuits against Eli Lilly, the filed
nationwide class action lawsuits, and the majority of some 5,000
claims that were the subject of "tolling agreements" that
extended the deadline for potential claimants to file a lawsuit,
as well as other potential claims against Lilly.

Christopher Seeger, a member of the plaintiffs' steering
committee, which had been directing the federal litigation for
the claimants, told TheStreet.com, "We believe that this
settlement is in the best interest of our clients, as well as
patients, physicians and caregivers. The patient population to
which this drug is given has difficult medical histories.
Protracted litigation was in no one's interest."

Most of the lawsuits claimed that before September 2003, the
information in the medication label, which listed the risk of
hyperglycemia and diabetes as an infrequent adverse event since
1996, was not adequately displayed.

The settlement involves claimants who asserted that they
developed diabetes related conditions from their use of Zyprexa.
Claimants not covered by the final settlement are those
represented by attorneys who are not participating in the
agreement in principle. Eli Lilly will contest the use of
Zyprexa in those cases.


EPIXTAR CORPORATION: Reached Settlement For AL "Cramming" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
ePixtar Corporation reached a settlement for the class action
filed against it in the Circuit Court of Alabama for Barbour
County.  

Dixon Aviation, Inc. commenced the action in January 2004
seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and alleging that the
Defendants engaged in cramming.  The suit also names as
defendants a Company officer, NOL Group, Inc., one of the
Company's wholly-owned subsidiaries, Liberty Online, Inc., a
billing house and a local exchange carrier (LEC).

The Company's motion to remove the action to federal court has
been denied. Pursuant to the Company's arrangement with the LEC
and billing house defendant, the Company is obligated to
indemnify the LEC and billing company defendants for their legal
costs and any liability.  On November 10, 2004, the Court issued
a Scheduling order that directed that only discovery pertinent
to class certification be conducted, and that discovery related
solely to the merits of the claims be stayed. The Order defined
the issues and laid out the time scheduling for each phase of
pre-certification discovery. In February 2005, Plaintiff's
Counsel asked Company's Counsel to refrain from taking
depositions and incurring costs until such time as Plaintiff's
Counsel could speak to his client, Dixon Aviation.  During the
second week of May 2005, the Company settled the matter for
$5,000.


FISCHER IMAGING: CO Court Hears Motion To Dismiss Stock Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Colorado
heard Fischer Imaging Corporation's motion to dismiss the
consolidated securities class action filed against it, and three
of its former officers and directors.

On April 10, 2003 and on June 3, 2003, The Sorkin, LLC and James
K. Harbert filed punitive class action lawsuits against the
Company and three of the Company's former officers and
directors, Morgan Nields, Gerald Knudson and Louis Rivelli, on
behalf of purchasers of shares of the Company's common stock
during the period February 14, 2001 to April 1, 2003 and allege
that, among other things, during the putative class period, the
Company and the individual defendants made materially false
statements in violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act,
Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Exchange Act, and Section 20(a)
of the Exchange Act. The complaints seek unspecified
compensatory damages and other relief.

On August 7, 2003, the Company, Mr. Nields and Mr. Knudson moved
to dismiss all claims asserted by The Sorkin, LLC and Harbert.
On August 18, 2003, Mr. Rivelli moved to dismiss all claims
asserted in those lawsuits. On October 20, 2003, Mr. Harbert
moved to dismiss his lawsuit, which the court subsequently
granted. On October 21, 2003, The Sorkin, LLC and Mr. Harbert
filed an amended class action complaint.  The amended complaint
contains the same claims for relief against the Company and Mr.
Nields and Mr. Rivelli, but does not assert any claims against
Mr. Knudson.  In addition, the amended complaint seeks to
recover unspecified compensatory damages and other relief on
behalf of purchasers of shares of its common stock during the
period February 14, 2001 to July 17, 2003.

The Company, Mr. Nields and Mr. Rivelli have filed motions to
dismiss all claims asserted in the amended complaint.  In
September 2004 the Company entered into an agreement in
principle to settle this litigation with plaintiffs' attorneys
and the Company's director and officer liability insurance
provider, Chubb Insurance Company. This settlement proposal was
submitted to the U.S. District Court for approval, and on March
4, 2005 the federal District Court Judge declined to approve the
proposal.  On May 6, 2005 the District Court heard arguments
related to the motions to dismiss filed by the Company, Mr.
Nields and Mr. Rivelli. It is expected that the court will rule
on these motions but litigation may continue in this matter.


FLORIDA: Suit Initiated V. Seminole County Over Strip-Searches
--------------------------------------------------------------
Seven people initiated a class action lawsuit in a Florida
federal court over strip searches that were conducted at the
Seminole County jail, The wftv.com reports.  According to the
suit, jail workers forced the plaintiffs to endure strip
searches just because they showed up late for traffic court.

Precedent has been set in a case similar to the one against
Seminole county. That precedent occurred in April of 2005, in
Miami-Dade County, where a group of plaintiffs were awarded more
than six million dollars over similar charges. Taking note of
that precedent the plaintiffs have hired the same attorney who
handled the Miami-Dade County case.

Attorney Randall Berg, who represents the plaintiffs, told
wftv.com, that since it's a class action suit, the number of
plaintiffs is expected to grow. "It's your mother, it's your
brother, it's your father, it's your sister. These are people
who shouldn't have been strip-searched. It's against the Fourth
Amendment of the United States Constitution, as well as state
law," he adds.

The Seminole County Sheriff's Office admits it strip-searched
more than one hundred people over the last several years.
People, who the law says, don't fit the criteria for strip
searches. Eleven of them, after they accidentally showed up in
the wrong courtroom for traffic court, were arrested and strip-
searched.  One of them, plaintiff Billy Cates, told wftv.com, "I
was treated like a murderer or a rapist over a parking ticket
that I didn't know I had."

Due to the statute of limitations, however, the class action
will only include strip searches conducted at the jail within
the last four years.


FLORIDA: Two Firms Settle FTC Complaint V. Fraudulent Product
-------------------------------------------------------------
Two Florida businesses have agreed to a federal court order
requiring them to pay up to $20 million in consumer redress -
the largest monetary judgment ever obtained in an Federal Trade
Commission (FTC) health fraud case - to settle charges that they
deceptively claimed that their pills and sprays would increase
consumers' human growth hormone (HGH) levels and provide anti-
aging benefits, including weight loss and increased cognitive
function. In addition, the Commission has issued warning letters
to more than 90 Internet marketers making similar claims.

"Early explorers searched without success for a fountain of
youth, and modern marketers promise that it can be found in
pills and sprays," said Lydia Parnes, Director of the FTC's
Bureau of Consumer Protection. "Those promises are illusory.
Unfortunately, no pill or spray can turn back the hands of
time."

The defendants named in the FTC's complaint are two Destin,
Florida, corporations, Great American Products, Inc. (GAP) and
Physician's Choice, Inc. (PCI); and two individuals, Stephan
Karian and Michael Teplitsky, M.D., also known as Michael
Teplisky. Mr. Karian is an officer of both corporations and Mr.
Teplitsky formulated PCI's product line and appears in its
advertising.

According to the FTC, the defendants' advertising deceptively
claimed that two dietary supplements and two sublingual (under-
the-tongue) sprays would increase blood levels of HGH and
provide a wide variety of anti-aging benefits. The defendants'
HGH enhancers typically sold for $100 for a three-month supply;
total sales exceeded $70 million. The complaint also challenges
health benefit claims for four additional products and alleges
that the defendant's radio and television infomercials had
deceptive formats. In addition, the complaint alleges that the
defendants violated the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR) when they
sold additional products to consumers who called to order the
defendants' products.

The complaint alleges that ads for the dietary supplements
Ultimate HGH and Super HGH Booster and the sublingual sprays
Master HGH and Super HGH promise that these products will
significantly increase growth hormone levels; provide the
benefits purportedly shown in various studies involving
prescription-only HGH injections; and provide physical benefits
including reduced fat, cholesterol, and blood pressure,
increased muscle mass, and improved cognitive, immune, and
sexual function. According to the FTC, these claims are false or
unsubstantiated.

The FTC's complaint also alleges that GAP, PCI, Karian, and
Teplitsky made deceptive claims that Fat Blaster and Super Carbo
Blocker cause weight loss by suppressing appetite, reducing the
conversion of carbohydrates to fats, and enhancing metabolism;
and that Ultimate Wild Oregano Oil and Super Wild Oregano Oil
prevent colds and flu and, when taken orally, treat and relieve
bacterial and viral infections and their symptoms. The complaint
further alleges that defendants GAP, PCI, Karian, and Teplitsky
falsely represented that programs for their products are
independent radio or television shows when, in fact, they are
paid-for commercials. Finally, the complaint alleges that the
defendants violated the TSR by failing to obtain express,
informed consent to charge consumers' credit cards when
"upselling" additional products after a first telemarketing sale
was completed.

The FTC and the defendants have agreed to an order to settle the
complaint allegations. It requires that future claims for HGH
supplements, HGH sprays, Fat Blaster/Super Carbo Blocker, wild
oregano oil products, or any dietary supplement, food, or drug,
or any service purporting to provide health-related benefits, be
true, non-misleading, and substantiated. It further prohibits
the defendants from misrepresenting test results; prohibits the
defendants from misrepresenting that an ad is not paid-for; and
requires disclosures regarding the paid-for nature of long-form
radio and television advertisements. The settlement prohibits
the defendants from violating the TSR, including TSR provisions
requiring express informed consent of the consumer when
"upselling" additional products after a first telemarketing sale
has been completed.

The order requires the defendants to pay up to $20 million in
consumer redress. It requires an immediate payment of $6.5
million and provides for establishment of a consumer redress
program to be operated by the FTC. The order requires that the
defendants pay as much as an additional $13.5 million, depending
upon how many eligible purchasers submit redress requests.
Consumers who are eligible for redress will be contacted by the
FTC within the next 45 days.

The settlement also contains two separate avalanche clauses
providing for a total potential liability of $80 million - an
amount representing total product sales - in the event that the
defendants misrepresented their finances. Finally, it contains
various record-keeping requirements to assist the FTC in
monitoring compliance with the order.

The FTC has set up a hotline number, 202-326-2141, for consumers
with questions about the court's order or the refund program in
this case.  In addition to the settlement, the FTC has begun
sending warning letters to more than 90 Internet operators that
are selling alleged HGH enhancers for anti-aging benefits. In
its warning letters, the FTC states that it is not aware of any
competent and reliable scientific evidence to support claims
that pills and sprays can increase the body's HGH levels and
provide anti-aging benefits. It warns that unsupported claims
are unlawful under the FTC Act, and instructs the recipients of
the letters to discontinue any deceptive claims immediately.

The FTC also has published a new consumer brochure about so-
called HGH enhancers. HGH is a hormone released by the pituitary
gland that plays a role in human development. The new FTC
brochure, entitled "`HGH' Pills and Sprays: Human Growth Hype?"
warns that neither the FTC nor the Food and Drug Administration
is aware of any reliable evidence that pills and sprays
described as containing HGH or as HGH "boosters" or "releasers"
provide anti-aging benefits. The brochure cautions that if
consumers are tempted to buy any non-prescription product that
claims to contain HGH or to boost the body's production of it,
promises easy weight loss, an effortless increase in muscle
mass, or other "too-good-to-be-true" benefits, or touts itself
as an "anti-aging" shortcut to health and vitality, they should
exercise doubt, and check it out with their health care
provider.

The stipulated order is for settlement purposes only and does
not constitute an admission by the defendants of a law
violation.  The Commission vote authorizing staff to file the
complaint and proposed stipulated orders was 5-0. The complaint
and stipulated order was entered by the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Florida on May 20, 2005.

Copies of the complaint and stipulated order 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 A. Mack, Office of Public Affairs, by Phone: 202-326-2182
or contact Heather Hippsley or Janet Evans, Bureau of Consumer
Protection, by Phone: 202-326-3285 or 202-326-2125 or visit the
Website: http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2005/06/greatamerican.htm.


GAMESTOP CORPORATION: Finalizing CA Overtime Lawsuit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Los Angeles Superior Court in California approved the
settlement of the class action filed against GameStop
Corporation and its subsidiary GameStop, Inc., alleging
violations of the state's wage laws.

On May 29, 2003, former Store Manager Carlos Moreira filed a
class action, alleging that the Company's salaried retail
managers were misclassified as exempt and should have been paid
overtime.  Mr. Moreira was seeking to represent a class of
current and former salaried retail managers who were employed by
the Company in California at any time between May 29, 1999 and
September 30, 2004.  Mr. Moreira alleged claims for violation of
California Labor Code sections 203, 226 and 1194 and California
Business and Professions Code section 17200.  Mr. Moreira was
seeking recovery of unpaid overtime, interest, penalties,
attorneys' fees and costs.

During court-ordered mediation in March 2004, the parties
reached a settlement defining the class of current and former
salaried retail managers and will result in a cost to the
Company of approximately $2,750,000.  On January 28, 2005, the
court granted approval of the settlement. The matter is now in
the claims administration process. A provision for this proposed
settlement was recorded in the 13 weeks ended May 1, 2004.  
Management expects that the final settlement and resolution of
this case will take place in the second quarter of fiscal 2005,
the Company said in a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange
Commission.


GILMAN & CIOCIA: DE Court Mulls Investor Fraud Lawsuit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware heard oral
arguments on the dismissal of the shareholder class action and
derivative complaint filed against Gilman & Ciocia, Inc., and
certain of its officers and directors, styled "Gary Kosseff,
Plaintiff, against James Ciocia, Thomas Povinelli, Michael P.
Ryan, Kathryn Travis, Seth A. Akabas, Louis P. Karol, Edward H.
Cohen, Steven Gilbert and Doreen Biebusch, Defendants and Gilman
& Ciocia, Inc., Nominal Defendant, Civil Action No. 188-N."

The nature of the action is that the Company, its Board of
Directors and its management, breached their fiduciary duty of
loyalty in connection with the sale of the offices to Pinnacle
Taxx Advisors LLC.  The action alleges that the sale to Pinnacle
was for inadequate consideration and without a fairness opinion
by independent financial advisors, without independent legal
advice and without a thorough evaluation and vote by an
independent committee of the Board of Directors. The action
prays for the following relief: a declaration that the Company,
its Board of Directors and its management breached their
fiduciary duty and other duties to the plaintiff and to the
other members of the purported class; a rescission of the Asset
Purchase Agreement; unspecified monetary damages; and an award
to the plaintiff of costs and disbursements, including
reasonable legal, expert and accountants fees.

On March 15, 2004, counsel for the Company and for all
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. On June 18,
2004, counsel for the plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint.
On July 12, 2004, counsel for the Company and for all defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint. On October 27,
2004, counsel for the plaintiff filed a memorandum of law in
opposition to defendant's motion to dismiss the Amended
Complaint. On March 8, 2005, oral argument was heard on the
motion to dismiss, and the Court is currently considering the
motion.


GLS CAPITAL: PA Court Delays Certification Hearing For Tax Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Class certification hearing for the lawsuit filed against GLS
Capital, Inc., and the County of Allegheny, Pennsylvania has
been delayed and is expected to be rescheduled this month.

Plaintiffs were two local businesses seeking status to represent
as a class, delinquent taxpayers in Allegheny County whose
delinquent tax liens had been assigned to the Company.
Plaintiffs challenged the right of Allegheny County and the
Company to collect certain interest, costs and expenses related
to delinquent property tax receivables in Allegheny County, and
whether the County had the right to assign the delinquent
property tax receivables to the Company and therefore employ
procedures for collection enjoyed by Allegheny County under
state statute.  This lawsuit was related to the purchase by the
Company of delinquent property tax receivables from Allegheny
County in 1997, 1998, and 1999.  

In July 2001, the Commonwealth Court issued a ruling that
addressed, among other things:

     (1) the right of the Company to charge to the delinquent
         taxpayer a rate of interest of 12% per annum versus 10%
         per annum on the collection of its delinquent property
         tax receivables,  

     (2) the charging of a full month's interest on a partial
         month's delinquency;  

     (3) the charging of attorney's fees to the delinquent
         taxpayer for the collection of such tax receivables,
         and

     (4) the charging to the delinquent taxpayer of certain
         other fees and costs.  

The Commonwealth Court in its opinion remanded for further
consideration to the lower trial court items (1), (2) and (4)
above, and ruled that neither Allegheny County nor the Company
had the right to charge attorney's fees to the delinquent
taxpayer related to the collection of such tax receivables.  The
Commonwealth Court further ruled that Allegheny County could
assign its rights in the delinquent property tax receivables to
the Company, and that plaintiffs could maintain equitable class
in the action.  

In October 2001, the Company, along with Allegheny County, filed
an Application for Extraordinary Jurisdiction with the Supreme
Court of Pennsylvania, Western District appealing certain
aspects of the Commonwealth Court's ruling. In March 2003, the
Supreme Court issued its opinion as follows:  

     (i) the Supreme Court determined that the Company can
         charge delinquent taxpayers a rate of 12% per annum;  

    (ii) the Supreme Court  remanded back to the lower trial
         court the charging of a full month's interest on a
         partial month's delinquency;  

   (iii) the Supreme Court revised the Commonwealth Court's  
         ruling regarding recouping attorney fees for collection
         of the receivables indicating that the recoupment of
         fees requires a judicial review of collection
         procedures used in each case; and

    (iv) the Supreme Court upheld the Commonwealth Court's
         ruling that GLS can charge certain fees and costs,
         while remanding back to the lower trial court for
         consideration the facts of each individual case.  

Finally, the Supreme Court remanded to the lower trial court to
determine if the remaining claims can be resolved as a class
action.  In August 2003, the Pennsylvania legislature enacted a
law amending and clarifying certain provisions of the
Pennsylvania statute governing GLS' right to the collection of
certain interest, costs and expenses. The law is retroactive to
1996, and amends and clarifies that as to items (ii)-(iv) noted
above by the Supreme Court, that the Company can charge a full
month's interest on a partial month's delinquency, that the
Company can charge the taxpayer for legal fees, and that it can
charge certain fees and costs to the taxpayer at redemption.
Subsequent to the enactment of the law, challenges to the
retroactivity provisions of the law were filed in separate
cases, which did not include the Company as a defendant.  

The lower trial court had set the hearing on the class-action
status for late April 2005, but the hearing was delayed until no
earlier than June 2005.


HOLLINGER INTERNATIONAL: Asks IL Court To Dismiss Stock Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hollinger International, Inc. asked the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois to dismiss the
amended shareholder class action filed against it and certain of
its officers and directors, styled "In re Hollinger Inc.
Securities Litigation, No. 04C-0834."

In February and April 2004, three alleged stockholders of the
Company (Teachers' Retirement System of Louisiana, Kenneth
Mozingo, and Washington Area Carpenters Pension and Retirement
Fund) initiated purported class actions suits against the
Company, its former chief executive officer and founder Conrad
Black, certain former executive officers and certain current and
former directors of the Company, Hollinger Inc., Ravelston and
certain affiliated entities and KPMG LLP, the Company's
independent registered public accounting firm.

On July 9, 2004, the Court consolidated the three actions for
pretrial purposes.  Plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated
class action complaint on August 2, 2004, and a second
consolidated amended class action complaint on November 19,
2004. The named plaintiffs in the second consolidated amended
class action complaint are Teachers' Retirement System of
Louisiana, Washington Area Carpenters Pension and Retirement
Fund, and E. Dean Carlson.  They are purporting to sue on behalf
of an alleged class consisting of themselves and all other
purchasers of securities of the Company between and including
August 13, 1999 and December 11, 2002.  

The second consolidated amended class action complaint asserts
claims under federal and Illinois securities laws and claims of
breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting in breaches of
fiduciary duty in connection with misleading disclosures and
omissions regarding certain "non-competition" payments, the
payment of allegedly excessive management fees, allegedly
inflated circulation figures at the Chicago Sun-Times, and other
alleged misconduct.  The complaint seeks unspecified money
damages, rescission, and an injunction against future
violations.

The suit is styled "In Re: Hollinger Intl Securities Litigation,
case no. 1:04-cv-00834," filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, under Judge David
H. Coar.  The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

     (1) Cauley Geller Bowman Coates & Rudman, LLP (New York),
         200 Broadhollow, Suite 406, Melville, NY, 11747, Phone:
         631.367.7100, Fax: 631.367.1173,

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

     (3) Federman & Sherwood, 120 North Robinson, Suite 2720,
         Oklahoma City, OK, 73102, Phone: 405-235-1560, E-mail:
         wfederman@aol.com

     (4) Grant & Eisenhofer, P.A., 1201 N. Market Street, Suite
         2100, Wilmington, DE, 19801, Phone: 302.622.7000, Fax:
         302.622.7100, E-mail: info@gelaw.com

     (5) Much Shelist Freed Denenberg Ament & Rubenstein, PC,
         Chicago, IL, Phone: 800-470-6824, Fax: 312-621-1750,

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


JOHNSTOWN AMERICA: Reaches Settlement For USWA, Employees Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Johnstown America Corporation reached a settlement agreement
with The United Steelworkers of America (USWA), which represents
our unionized employees in the Company's Johnstown, Pennsylvania
manufacturing facility.

The settlement agreement sets forth the terms of a new 42-month
collective bargaining agreement with the Company's unionized
employees at its Johnstown facility.  The settlement agreement
also provides for the resolution of charges made by the USWA
against the Company with the National Labor Relations Board
(NLRB), certain related class action lawsuits, which the Company
refers to as the Deemer and Britt lawsuits, and certain
workplace grievance matters.

The Company has been involved in a labor dispute with USWA Local
2635, which represents workers at its Johnstown, PA railcar
facility, since early 2002.  In April 2003 an NLRB
administrative law judge found the company guilty of bargaining
in bad faith by, among other things, implementing its "final
offer" prior to reaching impasse. The judge ordered the company
to make whole unit employees and cease and desist from its
illegal actions. Johnstown America has not complied with this
order.  One source of the dispute is Johnstown America's
continuing refusal to restore health care and life insurance
benefits of approximately 250 union retirees that it cut off in
May 2002.  In mid July 2003, a federal judge disagreed with a
magistrate's opinion that the Company was justified in
terminating these benefits, according to Business Wire, December
5,2003.

The suits are styled "United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO-
CLC, Geraldine Deemer, and Darrell Shetler v. Johnstown America
Corporation, et al., Case No. 02-CV-806" (hereinafter "Deemer
Lawsuit") and "United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO-CLC,
Reggie Britt, et al., v. Johnstown America Corporation, et al.,
Case No. 03-CV-1298" (hereinafter "Britt Lawsuit").  The suits
name as defendants the Company, Transportation Technologies
Industries, Inc. ("TTII"), Johnstown America Corporation
Bargaining Unit Pension Plan ("JAC Pension Plan"), and Johnstown
America Corporation Hourly Employees Medical Plan ("JAC Retiree
Welfare Plan") and are pending in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.

In the Deemer Lawsuit filed April 26, 2002, Plaintiffs alleged
that retiree medical and life insurance benefits for a class of
approximately 250 individuals were meant to last throughout
retirement, and that Defendants had wrongfully terminated
benefits. The complaint alleged that the termination of benefits
was actionable under federal laws, including Section 301 of the
Labor Management Relations Act ("LMRA"), 29 U.S.C. Section
185(a), and Section 502(a)(1)(B) and (a)(3) of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C.
Sections 1132(a)(1)(B) and (a)(3). Deemer Plaintiffs contended
that retirees had earned these retirement benefits over decades
of service at a rail car fabrication plant originally owned by
BethlehemSteel Corporation ("Bethlehem") - a plant that
Bethlehem sold to Defendant JAC in 1991.

Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the plaintiffs in
the Deemer and Britt lawsuits were to withdraw their lawsuits
with prejudice and the USWA agreed to request that the NLRB
approve the withdrawal of all NLRB charges against the Company.  
In addition, the settlement agreement limits the Company's
future liabilities for health care coverage and pensions for
retired unionized employees at its Johnstown facility.  The
settlement was conditioned on, among other things:

     (1) ratification of the settlement by the union members;

     (2) approval of the settlement by class members in the
         Deemer lawsuit and the Britt lawsuit;

     (3) approval by the NLRB of the settlement and the
         withdrawal of NLRB charges filed against us; and

     (4) approval by the United States District Court for the
         Western District of Pennsylvania of the settlement
         (except with respect to the Company's agreement to pay
         future health care and pension benefits following the
         effective date, which obligation is not contingent on
         court approval) and the withdrawal of the Britt lawsuit
         and the Deemer lawsuit.

The settlement was ratified by the union members on November 15,
2004. In February 2005, the NLRB approved the settlement and
withdrew the charges against the Company.  On May 4, 2005, the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania approved the settlement.  Accordingly, all of the
conditions to the effectiveness of the settlement were met as of
May 4, 2005.


KATZMAN & KORR: Settles FL Consumer Fraud Lawsuit For $250,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Lauderhill law firm of Katzman & Korr, which represents 400
homeowner and condo associations in Broward, Miami-Dade, Palm
Beach and Monroe counties, agreed to settle a federal class
action lawsuit that accused it of violating the federal Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act and the Florida Consumer
Collection Practices Act, The South Florida Sun-Sentinel
reports.

If U.S. District Judge William P. Dimitrouleas approved a deal,
the firm would settle the 2003 suit for $250,000 and promise not
to continue using the type of letter that threatened with
foreclosure an estimated 2,500 South Florida homeowners for not
paying alleged debts.

The settlement agreement calls for four residents of Plaza East
in Fort Lauderdale, namely: Ramsey Agan, Grace Agan, Sherry Ann
Spies and Nancy J. Bochicchio to get $5,000 each, while their
attorneys, J. Blane Carneal of Fort Lauderdale and O. Randolph
Bragg of Chicago, would get $135,000. Another $20,000 would also
be used for expenses.  The remaining $75,000 would to go to the
estimated 2,500 members of the class, for about $30 each with
owners considered part of the class being notified by mail.  
Though Judge Dimitrouleas hasn't yet set a date to consider a
proposed deal, the two parties have filed their settlement
agreement this week.

The larger issue in the case, which is the foreclosure threats
by attorneys for small or nonexistent debts, affects everyone
who owns a residence in an association-controlled community.

The lawsuit hinged on the legal issue of the form of collection
letters. It alleged the Katzman & Korr letters were illegal
because they didn't give owners specifics about the debts, such
as when a payment was due and how much. Rather, the letters gave
total amounts, which is a violation of consumer protection laws,
since they require that complete information be given.  

In its settlement, Katzman & Korr said members of its firm "do
not admit or concede (but, to the contrary, expressly deny) any
wrongdoing, liability or improper conduct of any nature" in
connection to the allegation in the lawsuit.

The attorney for the firm, James M. Kaplan of Miami, told the
Sun-Sentinal that he is pleased to end the "potentially costly"
lawsuit. He also adds that the settlement, if approved, "would
clarify the acceptable way to collect from those who don't pay"
their bills, and "there could be no dispute that the letters
Katzman & Korr will be using comply with the letter of the law
in every respect."

Last year, Judge Dimitrouleas declared the case a class action
lawsuit representing all unit owners who received collection
letters similar to those received by the four Plaza East unit
owners. The settlement says owners must have received the
collection letters between December 2001 and January 12, 2005.


KENTUCKY: Judge Delays Ruling For $120M Church Abuse Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The presiding judge of a class action lawsuit that accuses the
Roman Catholic Diocese of Covington of covering up sex abuse
claims for the past 50 years delayed his ruling on its proposed
settlement, The Associated Press reports.

Judge John Potter objected to describing it as a $120 million
settlement in notices proposed to run in local and national
newspapers and on television, since the amount gives an
inaccurate impression to potential claimants of how much money
the church has on hand. Borrowing a state tourism slogan, the
judge stated, "I'm going to assume the overstatements were out
of state lawyers not being able to handle the 'unbridled spirit'
of Kentucky."

Attorneys for the diocese and the plaintiffs agreed that the
diocese has only $40 million immediately available. Carrie Huff,
an attorney for the Covington Diocese, estimated $40 million
would compensate about 200 people, which is about what the
attorneys expect.  Currently, the diocese is suing three
insurance companies to force them to pay the remaining $80
million of the proposed settlement. That lawsuit was moved from
state to federal court recently.

Ms. Huff asked Judge Potter to approve the settlement so victims
could be paid while the suit against insurance companies is
pending. According to her, the diocese intends to fund the
settlement no matter what happens with the insurance suit.

Stan Chesley, who represented those who sued the diocese, told
AP that if the full $120 million settlement is approved it could
be used by the plaintiffs as a judgment against the insurance
companies in an effort to make them pay. "I don't want them to
think they have a free pass," Mr. Chesley told AP of the
insurance companies.  

Judge Potter, a retired Jefferson County judge appointed 18
months ago as a special judge in the Boone County case, set
another hearing for June 23 to review a new public notice for
the settlement, which would compensate victims who were fondled,
raped or sodomized by priests and other church employees. Judge
Potter asked Mr. Chesley and Ms. Huff to rework the notice to
specify that the diocese has $40 million on hand and is pursuing
the other $80 million. Judge Potter said he's hoping for a
settlement in the case to keep the plaintiffs from having to
testify about being molested.

Under the proposed settlement, victims would receive awards
ranging from $5,000 to $450,000, based on severity of abuse, and
those in the highest category would be eligible to apply to a
special fund for extraordinary claims.

About a half-dozen victims attended the recent court hearing,
talking among themselves. One victim, who declined to be named,
spoke with reporters after the hearing, saying she was pleased
with the settlement.  After the hearing, Mr. Chesley and Ms.
Huff told AP that they will rework the public notice and are
hopeful the settlement will ultimately be approved. If the case
proceeds without further delays, it could be resolved by the end
of the year, the attorneys added.

As previously reported in the February 18, 2003 edition of the
Class Action Reporter, the class action suit, which was filed in
Boone County Circuit Court by Cincinnati attorney Stan Chesley,
claims that 21 priests and some other workers abused more than
150 victims in the Diocese of Covington for decades while church
officials did nothing to stop the misconduct.

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


MINITEK DIGITAL: Recalls 116T Battery Packs Due to Fire Hazard  
--------------------------------------------------------------
In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC), Mintek Digital Inc. of Anaheim, California is
voluntarily recalling about 116,000 Portable DVD player battery
packs.

The battery can overheat and explode while recharging, posing a
burn and fire hazard to consumers. Mintek has received 10
reports of incidents, including nine cases of the battery pack
overheating and/or catching fire and one report of the battery
pack overheating and bursting.

The recall involves battery packs used with the Mintek portable
DVD players with a 7" (diagonal) screen and model number DVD-
1710. "Mintek DVD-1710" is printed on the top and bottom of the
unit. The DVD player is silver and grey colored and the battery
pack is silver with a nameplate on the bottom that is marked RB-
LiP01 or RB-LiP02.

Manufactured in China, the battery packs were sold at electronic
and department stores nationwide, including Best Buy, from
September 2002 through January 2005 for between $200 and $300.

Consumers should stop using and stop recharging the battery pack
immediately and contact Mintek Digital for a free replacement
battery. Consumers can continue to use the DVD player, with the
AC power adapter and not the battery pack, until they receive a
replacement battery pack.

Consumer Contact: Contact Mintek Digital toll-free at
(866) 709-9500 anytime or visit the company's Web site at
http://www.mintekdigital.com.Consumers also can contact the  
company by mail at Mintek Digital Inc, 4915 E. Hunter Ave.,
Anaheim, CA 92807


NEWMONT MINING: Schatz & Nobel Launches Suit V. Firm, Executives
----------------------------------------------------------------
Newmont Mining Corporation (NYSE: NEM) faces a class action
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for Colorado that accuses the
world's largest gold mining firm's executives of saying nothing
though they knew costs were increasing and that the company
wouldn't meet analysts' expectations, the American City Business
Journals Inc. reports.

The lawsuit, which was filed by Schatz & Nobel P.C. alleges that
Denver-based Newmont processed only stockpiled, low-grade ore
that costs more to process at certain mines, that the company's
mining costs were increasing; the company overstated the amount
of copper and gold it could extract in 2005 and that as a result
of operating problems during the first quarter of the year,
Newmont's cash generation had dropped by 50 percent.

The suit alleges that on April 26, Newmont announced first-
quarter 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, according to
the lawsuit, Newmont's Peruvian, Indonesian, Australian and New
Zealand mines had grossly underperformed.

The suit, which seeks to represent those who purchased Newmont's
stock between July 28, 2004, and April 26, 2005, goes on to
state that upon this news, Newmont's stock dropped from its
April 26 closing price of $40.25 per share to less than $38 per
share on April 27. Before the truth about Newmont's operational
and financial difficulties was disclosed, Newmont was able to
place more than $600 million worth of notes in March.  


NORTHERN NATURAL: Retirees Launch Lawsuit to Obtain Trust Assets
----------------------------------------------------------------
Retirees of Omaha, Nebraska-based Northern Natural Gas Co., a
former Enron Corporation pipeline unit, initiated a lawsuit
against the administrators of the company's retiree benefits
trust in a bid to obtain trust assets, The Associated Press
reports.

The retirees led by Lou Geiler and Larry Moore, filed the class
action lawsuit in a federal court in Omaha against members of
the committee overseeing Enron's medical and dental plan for
retirees.  Seeking a jury trial, the suit alleges that the
committee members and plan trustee J.P. Morgan Chase Bank of
Texas violated their fiduciary duties by refusing to transfer
funds from the Enron retiree plan to the retiree plan of
MidAmerican Energy Co., the company that now owns Northern
Natural Gas, or NNG. Court document revealed that Dynegy Inc.
gained ownership of NNG in February 2002 after a failed merger
with Enron.  The suit also alleges that the fiduciaries failed
or refused to correct improper allocations of retiree plan
participants and their dependents from the Enron plan to NNG's
plan.

In July 2003, Houston, Texas-based Enron asked the bankruptcy
court for permission to end the retiree benefits trust and allow
it to distribute the trust funds.  A hearing on the request, as
well as an objection filed by NNG, was initially set for
September 4, 2003, but continued on several occasions, the last
of which was to be on November 20, 2003. It never though
occurred, nor was it rescheduled. The reorganized company hasn't
yet taken any action to end the benefit plans. Bankruptcy Judge
Arthur J. Gonzalez will consider the matter at a July 7 hearing
in Manhattan.


PARADIGM MEDICAL: Reaches Settlement For Securities Suit in UT
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Utah will
hold a fairness hearing for the settlement of the consolidated
securities class action filed against Paradigm Medical
Industries, Inc. on August 25,2005.

On June 2, 2003, a complaint captioned "Michael Marrone v.
Paradigm Medical Industries, Inc., Thomas Motter, Mark Miehle
and John Hemmer, Case No. 2:03 CV00513 PGC," was filed.  On July
11, 2003, a complaint was filed in the same United States
District Court, captioned "Lidia Milian v. Paradigm Medical
Industries, Inc., Thomas Motter, Mark Miehle and John Hemmer,
Case No. 2:03 CV00617PGC."

These cases are substantially similar in nature and contend that
as a result of allegedly false statements regarding the Blood
Flow Analyzer(TM) and the purchase order from Westland Financial
Corporation and Valdespino Associates Enterprises, the price of
the Company's common stock was artificially inflated and the
persons who purchased the Company's common shares during the
class period suffered substantial damages.

In a press release dated July 11, 2003, captioned "Milberg Weiss
announces the filing of a class action suit against Paradigm
Medical Industries, Inc. on behalf of investors," the law firm
of Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP, which represents
purchasers of Company securities in the class action suit filed
on July 11, 2003, stated that the Company's alleged
misrepresentations caused the market price of the stock to be
artificially inflated during the class period.  As a result, it
is alleged that investors suffered millions of dollars in
damages from the Company's alleged misstatements.

The cases request judgment for unspecified damages, together
with interest and attorney's fees.  These cases have now been
consolidated with the Meyer case into a single action, captioned
"In re: Paradigm Medical Industries Securities Litigation, Case
No. 03-CV-448TC."  The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad &
Schulman LLP is representing purchasers of the Company's
securities in the consolidated class action.

On June 28, 2004, a consolidated amended class action complaint
was filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities.  
The consolidated complaint is similar to the three class action
complaints and alleges that the Company made false
representations regarding the CPT code for the Blood Flow
Analyzer(TM), but it includes additional allegations that the
Company failed to disclose in a timely manner that doctors were
being denied reimbursement for procedures performed with the
Blood Flow Analyzer(TM).  The consolidated complaint also
alleges that the Company made false statements regarding the
purchase order from Westland Financial Corporation and
Valdespino Associates Enterprises.  

Earlier this year, the Company reached a settlement agreement
for the suit.  Under the terms of settlement of the federal
court class action lawsuit, U.S. Fire Insurance Company, which
issued a Directors and Officers Liability and Company
Reimbursement Policy to Paradigm Medical for the period from
July 10, 2002 to July 10, 2003, has agreed to pay the sum of
$1,507,500 in cash to the class members that purchased
securities of Paradigm Medical during the period between April
17, 2002 and November 4, 2002, an earlier Class Action Reporter
story (February 1, 2005) reports.


PENTON MEDIA: Discovery Proceeds in GA TCPA Violations Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in the class action filed against Penton
Media, Inc. in the Richmond County Superior Court in Georgia,
alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(TCPA), which prohibits against the transmission of unsolicited
fax advertisements.

Alison & Associates, Inc. filed the suit on November 3, 2003, on
behalf of a class of plaintiffs comprised of all individuals and
entities who, during the period from November 3, 1999 through
the present, received one or more facsimiles sent by or on
behalf of the Company advertising the commercial availability of
its products or services and who did not give their prior
expressed permission or invitation to receive such faxes.  The
statutory penalty for a single violation of the TCPA is $500,
although the penalty can increase to $1,500 per violation if the
Company is found to have willfully or knowingly violated these
laws.


SALESFORCE.COM: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
salesforce.com, Inc. asked the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California to dismiss the consolidated
securities class action filed against it, its chief executive
officer and its chief financial officer, styled "In re
salesforce.com, inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. C-04-3009
JSW (N.D. Cal.)."

On July 26, 2004, a purported class action complaint was filed
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, entitled "Morrison v. salesforce.com, et al.,"
against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and its Chief
Financial Officer.  The complaint alleged violations of Section
10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, purportedly on behalf of all persons who purchased
the Company's common stock between June 21, 2004 and July 21,
2004, inclusive.   The claims were based upon allegations that
defendants failed to disclose an allegedly declining trend in
its revenues and earnings.

Subsequently, four other substantially similar class action
complaints were filed in the same district based upon the same
facts and allegations, asserting claims under Section 10(b) and
Section 20(a) of the 1934 Act and Section 11 and Section 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. The actions have been
consolidated.  On December 22, 2004, the Court appointed Chuo
Zhu as lead plaintiff.  On February 22, 2005, lead plaintiff
filed a Consolidated and Amended Class Action Complaint.

The suit alleged violations of Section 10(b) and Section 20(a)
of the 1934 Act, purportedly on behalf of all persons who
purchased the Company's common stock between June 23, 2004 and
July 21, 2004, inclusive.  As in the original complaints, the
claims in the suit were based upon allegations that defendants
failed to disclose an allegedly declining trend in its revenues
and earnings.  

On April 14, 2005, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
suit.  On April 15, 2005, the Court granted lead plaintiff leave
to file an amended/superseding complaint.  On April 22, 2005,
lead plaintiff filed a Corrected and Superceding [sic] First
Amended Class Action Complaint.  As in the first suit, the
amended suit alleges violations of Section 10(b) and Section
20(a) of the 1934 Act, purportedly on behalf of all persons who
purchased the Company's common stock between June 23, 2004 and
July 21, 2004, inclusive.  The claims in the suit are based upon
allegations that defendants failed to disclose an internal
forecast that earnings for fiscal year 2005 would decline from
the prior fiscal year. On April 29, 2005, defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the suit.  The hearing on the motion to
dismiss the suit is scheduled for August 26, 2005.

The suit is styled "In re salesforce.com, inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. C-04-3009 JSW," filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California under
Judge Jeffrey S. White.  Chuo Zho has been appointed as lead
plaintiff in the suit.  The plaintiff firms in this litigation
are:

     (1) Cauley Geller Bowman Coates & Rudman, LLP (New York),
         200 Broadhollow, Suite 406, Melville, NY, 11747, Phone:
         631.367.7100, Fax: 631.367.1173,

     (2) Cauley Geller, Bowman Coates & Rudman, LLP (Boca Raton,
         FL), One Boca Place, 2255 Glades Road, Suite 421A, Boca
         Raton, FL, 33431, Phone: 561.750.3000, Fax:
         561.750.3364,

     (3) Green & Jigarjian LLP (proposed liaison counsel), 235
         Pine Street, 15th Floor, San Francisco, CA, 94104,
         Phone: 415.477.6700, Fax: 415.477.6710,

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

Representing the Company is John P. Stigi, III of Wilson Sonsini
Goodrich & Rosati, 650 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050,
Phone: (650) 493-9300, E-mail: jstigi@wsgr.com


SHINDAIWA INC.: Recalls 25T Hedge Trimmers Due to Fire Hazard  
-------------------------------------------------------------
In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC), Shindaiwa Inc., of Tualatin, Oregon is voluntarily
recalling about 25,000 Shindaiwa Gas-Powered Professional Hedge
Trimmers.

The heat from the hedge trimmer's muffler can damage the fuel
tank, cause a fuel leak and create a fire hazard. Shindaiwa has
received 10 reports of fuel tanks leaking. Two small fires were
reported, resulting in minor property damage. No injuries have
been reported.

Shindaiwa Gas-Powered Professional Hedge Trimmers are available
in both 30-inch and 40-inch sizes. The products have red engine
covers, a red fuel cap and a label on the recoil starter that
reads "Professional Shindaiwa." The recall includes all single
and double-sided gas-powered professional hedge trimmer models
DH231 and HT231 with serial numbers 1010000 through 5050000. The
serial number is printed on the engine cover.

Manufactured in Japan, the trimmers were sold at Shindaiwa
dealers nationwide from January 2001 through April 2005 for
between $389 and $449.

Consumers should stop using these hedge trimmers immediately and
contact an authorized Shindaiwa dealer to have a new fuel tank
and heat shield assembly installed free of charge.

Consumer Contact: Call Shindaiwa toll-free at (800) 521-7733
between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday or visit
Shindaiwa's Web site: http://www.shindaiwa.com.


SONIC AUTOMOTIVE: FL Judge Certifies Car Insurance Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hillsborough Circuit Judge Vivian Maye granted class action
status to a lawsuit launched against the owner of 14 car
dealerships in Florida, including two in Clearwater, The Tampa
Tribune reports.

Even though legislation awaiting Gov. Jeb Bush's signature has
the potential to make that class action suit moot, Vicky Comer,
a spokeswoman for Sonic Automotive Inc., which operates
Clearwater Toyota and Clearwater Mitsubishi, which is based in
Charlotte, North Carolina, told the Tribune that the company
plans to appeal the ruling.

The suit alleges that Sonic used deceptive practices to sell a
supplemental theft insurance product to customers. At issue is a
product that involved etching a vehicle identification number
into a car's windshield to assist law enforcement with recovery
if it was stolen. The suit states that dealerships claimed that
buyers whose cars were stolen and not recovered would get $2,500
payments and that the product's cost was packaged into the car's
price so consumers were unaware they were buying it.

Sonic customer Enrique Galura claims in the suit that he was
charged $562 for the product at one of the Clearwater dealers
even though the car he purchased included a separate antitheft
product.  Additionally, the suit alleges that the promised
$2,500 payment was also deceptive, because the actual payment
could be affected by a car owner's primary car insurance
coverage.

According to some individuals familiar with the case though, the
bill that awaits Gov. Bush's bill, which was proposed by the
automotive industry and passed by the Florida Legislature last
month, would greatly undermine the suit since it grants dealers
immunity as long as there is written disclosure of the product's
cost in buyers' purchase documents.

In April 2003, Sonic struck an agreement with the state
Department of Financial Services to refund more than $1.7
million to customers.  However in the recent ruling granting
class action status, Judge Maye noted that there was a
sufficient class of plaintiffs because records submitted by the
plaintiffs in the case show that Sonic gave refunds to only 908
of the more than 4,000 buyers of the VIN-etching products.


SYMANTEC CORPORATION: Continues To Face Unfair Trade Suit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Symantec Corporation faces a class action filed in the
California Superior Court for San Francisco County, alleging
violations of the state's business laws.

Health & Sport LLC filed the suit on behalf of itself and
purportedly on behalf of the general public and a class
including purchasers of Norton AntiVirus 2004 and/or Norton
Internet Security 2004.  The complaint alleges violations of
California Business and Professions Code 17200 and 17500 and
breach of express and implied warranties in connection with the
specified products.  The complaint seeks damages and injunctive
and other equitable relief, as well as costs and attorneys'
fees.

The suit is styled "Health and Sport, LLC, individually and on
behalf of al others similar situated and the general public,
case no. CGC-03-426444," filed in the California Superior Court
for the County of San Francisco.  Representing the plaintiffs is
Robert S. Arns of THE ARNS LAW FIRM, 101 Spear Street, Suite
215, San Francisco, CA 94105, USA, Phone: (415) 495-7800.  
Representing the Company is Joshua M. Masur of HELLER EHRMAN
WHITE & MCAULIFFE LLP, 2785 Middlefield Road, Menlo Park, CA
94025 USA, Phone: (650) 324-7175.


SYMANTEC CORPORATION: Consumer Lawsuit Still Pending in CA Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Symantec Corporation faces a class action filed in the
California Superior Court for San Diego County, alleging
violations of the state's business laws.

On October 20, 2003, Marilyn Johnston filed a lawsuit on behalf
of herself and purportedly on behalf of the general public and
an undefined class.  The complaint alleges violations of
California Civil Code section 1787.8 and Business and
Professions Code 17200 arising from the collection of telephone
number information in connection with online credit card
transactions.  The complaint seeks damages and injunctive and
other equitable relief, as well as costs and attorneys fees.


SYMANTEC CORPORATION: Consumers File Lawsuit V. WinFax Pro in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Symantec Corporation faces a class action filed in the
California Superior Court of Santa Clara County alleging
violations of the state's business laws.

On March 28, 2003, Ronald Pearce filed a lawsuit on behalf of
himself and purportedly on behalf of the general public of the
United States and Canada, alleging violations of California
Business and Professions Code section 17200 and false
advertising in connection with the Company's WinFax Pro product.
The complaint seeks damages and injunctive and other equitable
relief, as well as costs and attorney fees.


SYMANTEC CORPORATION: NY Court Yet To Rule on Lawsuit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of New York, New York County has yet to rule
on the motion to dismiss the class action filed against Symantec
Corporation and a local retailer, for unfair trade practices.

On November 29, 2002, William Pereira filed the suit, alleging
breach of contract and deceptive business practices in
connection with rebates offered by the Company.  The complaint
was served March 26, 2003. The complaint sought damages, costs
and attorney fees.  The parties stipulated to dismiss the case
in June 2003.


TASER INTERNATIONAL: AZ Court Orders Investor Suits Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Arizona
ordered consolidated the securities class actions filed against
TASER International, Inc. and certain of its officers and
directors.

On January 10, 2005, a securities class action lawsuit was filed
in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona,
styled "Malasky v. TASER International, Inc., et al., Case No.
2:05 CV 115."  Since then, numerous other securities class
action lawsuits were filed against the Company and certain of
its officers and directors.  The majority of these lawsuits were
filed in the District of Arizona.  Four actions were filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York and one in the Eastern District of Michigan. The New
York and Michigan actions were transferred to the District of
Arizona.  The cases were recently consolidated, and the court is
considering various motions for lead plaintiff. Pursuant to an
order entered by the court, defendants need not respond to any
of the complaints originally filed in these actions.  Plaintiffs
will file an amended consolidated complaint after lead plaintiff
and lead counsel are chosen. Defendants will then respond to the
amended consolidated complaint.

These actions are filed on behalf of the purchasers of the
Company's stock in various class periods, beginning as early as
May 29, 2003 and ending as late as January 14, 2005.  The
complaints allege, among other things, violations of Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder, and seek unspecified
monetary damages and other relief against all defendants. The
complaints allege generally that the Company and the individual
defendants made false or misleading public statements regarding,
among other things, the safety of the Company's products and the
Company's ability to meet its sales goals, including the
validity of a $1.5 million sales order with one of the Company's
distributors in the fourth quarter of 2004.


TRANSMETA CORPORATION: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Stock Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
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 Transmeta
Corporation, certain of its directors and officers, and certain
of the underwriters for its initial public offering to the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.  The suit is styled "In re Transmeta Corporation Initial
Public Offering Securities Litigation, Case No. 01 CV 6492."

The complaints allege that the prospectus issued in connection
with the Company's initial public offering on November 7, 2000
failed to disclose certain alleged actions by the underwriters
for that offering, and alleges claims against the Company and
several of its officers and directors under Sections 11 and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and under Sections
10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended.

Similar actions have been filed against more than 300 other
companies that issued stock in connection with other initial
public offerings during 1999-2000.  Those cases have been
coordinated for pretrial purposes as "In re Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, Master File No. 21 MC 92 (SAS)."

In July 2002, the Company joined in a coordinated motion to
dismiss filed on behalf of multiple issuers and other
defendants.  In February 2003, the Court granted in part and
denied in part the coordinated motion to dismiss, and issued an
order regarding the pleading of amended complaints.  Plaintiffs
subsequently proposed a settlement offer to all issuer
defendants, which settlement would provide for payments by
issuers' insurance carriers if plaintiffs fail to recover a
certain amount from underwriter defendants.

Although the Company and the individual defendants believe that
the complaints are without merit and deny any liability, but
because they also wish to avoid the continuing waste of
management time and expense of litigation, they accepted
plaintiffs' proposal to settle all claims that might have been
brought in this action.  The Company and the individual
Transmeta defendants expect that their share of the global
settlement will be fully funded by their director and officer
liability insurance.  Although the Company and the Transmeta
defendants have approved the settlement in principle, it remains
subject to several procedural conditions, as well as formal
approval by the Court.  It is possible that the parties may not
reach a final written settlement agreement or that the Court may
decline to approve the settlement in whole or part.


T.W. ENTERPRISES: Recalls Pet Treats Due to Salmonella Contagion
----------------------------------------------------------------
T.W. Enterprises of Ferndale, Washington alerted consumers that
it is recalling certain dog and cat treats it markets because
they may be contaminated with Salmonella Thompson. People
handling these treats can become infected with Salmonella
Thompson, especially if they have not thoroughly washed their
hands after having contact with any the treats or any surfaces
exposed to these products.

Salmonella Thompson is an organism that can cause serious
infections in small children, frail or elderly people, and
others with weakened immune systems. Healthy people may only
suffer short-term symptoms, such as high fever, severe headache,
vomiting, nausea, abdominal pain, and diarrhea. Long term
complications can include arthritis.

The following is a list of the recalled products:

Product Name/ Salmon Snackers 100% Salmon Treats for Dogs
Package Size/ 50 grams
Universal Product Code (UPC)/ 8 33234 00100 6
Distributor/ T.W. Enterprises, Ferndale, Wash.

Product Name/ Salmon Snackers 100% Salmon Treats for Cats
Package Size/ 50 grams
UPC/ 8 33234 00101 3
Distributor/ T.W. Enterprises, Ferndale, Wash.

Product Name/ Shrimp Snackers 100% Shrimp Treats for Cats
Package Size/ 28 grams
UPC/ 8 33234 00104 4
Distributor/ T.W. Enterprises, Ferndale, Wash.

Product Name/ Shrimp Snackers 100% Shrimp Treats for Dogs
Package Size/ 28 grams
UPC/ 8 33234 00103 7
Distributor/ T.W. Enterprises, Ferndale, Wash.

Product Name/ Healthy K9 Beef Jerkey 100% Natural Dog Treats
Package Size/ 70 grams
UPC/ 7 76626 53898 1
Distributor/ Aron Pet Food Abbotsford, BC

Product Name/ Healthy K9 Beef Heart 100% Natural Dog Treats
Package Size 70 grams
UPC/ 7 76626 53897 4
Distributor/Aron Pet Food Abbotsford, BC

T.W. Enterprises Inc. manufactured these pet treats and
distributed them throughout the United States under its name and
the Aron Pet Food name. Aron Pet Food of Abbotsford, British
Columbia imported raw materials from T.W. Enterprises into
Canada for use in products that were sold there under the Aron
Pet Food label. That firm is also conducting a recall of these
products.

T.W. Enterprises has informed the FDA of its action and is fully
cooperating with the agency. The FDA, the Washington State
Department of Agriculture and the Public Health Agency of Canada
became aware of the problem after five cases (three in Canada
and two in the United States) of Salmonella Thompson infection
developed among people who may have handled these pet treats.
Follow up analysis indicated that the illnesses were linked to
these pet treats.

The firm, the FDA and the other authorities are actively
investigating this matter to determine the source of this
problem, and will take any additional steps necessary to protect
the public health.

Consumers who have these pet treats should not feed them to
their pets, but should instead dispose of them in a safe manner
(e.g., in a securely covered trash receptacle). Anyone who is
experiencing the symptoms of Salmonella Thompson infection after
having handled one of these pet products should seek medical
attention, and report their use of the product and illness to
the nearest FDA office.

People should thoroughly wash their hands after handling any pet
treat - especially those made from raw animal protein such as
meat or fish -- to help prevent infection. People may risk
bacterial infection not only by handling the treats, but by
contact with pets or surfaces exposed to these treats, so it is
important that they thoroughly wash their hands with hot water
and soap.

Since elderly people, young children, and people with weakened
immune systems are particularly at risk from exposure they
should avoid handling these products.


TEXAS: Lawsuits Initiated V. Four Lenders Over Home Equity Loans
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alleging that their adjustable rate home equity loans written
between 1998 and 2003 violate a critical provision of the Texas
Constitution, class action lawsuits have been initiated in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas against
Ameriquest, Option One, Washington Mutual and Long Beach
Mortgage, The Consumer Affairs reports.

The suits are seeking immediate injunctions against the lenders
to prevent further foreclosures on homeowners with adjustable
rate home equity loans until the case can be heard. Currently,
Texas' foreclosure rate in recent months has been more than 2.5
times the national average, which in the national level only
trails Florida.  The suits are charging that adjustable rate
home equity loans are illegal in Texas, under terms of an
amendment to the Texas Constitution passed in 1997, which stated
that home equity loans are required to be repaid "in
substantially equal successive periodic installments," thereby
invalidating variable rate loans.

The suits point out that the purpose of that stipulation was to
protect homeowners from losing their homes and the plaintiffs
say they are prepared to subpoena Texas legislators who were
instrumental in drafting the amendment to testify as to its
intent.

Experts familiar with the cases are speculating that if the
class actions prove successful, the lenders who are all based in
California, face forfeiture of all adjustable rate home equity
loans written in Texas between 1998 and 2003.

In the Ameriquest case, plaintiffs Jerry and Linda Morehouse of
Huntington, Texas, state that they took out an adjustable rate
home equity loan in October 2003. That loan, according to their
suit, contains a clause allowing the lender to modify the
payments based on prevailing interest rates and therefore is
illegal under Texas law.

Under the terms of the Texas Constitution, the lender must
forfeit all principal and interest repayments if it fails to
correct any noncompliance of the terms of the loan within 60
days after it is notified of the infraction. Similar allegations
are also made in the lawsuits against the other lenders.


UNITED KINGDOM: Justice Certifies Norfolk St. Flood Damage Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Superior Court Justice William Jenkins certified a class action
suit involving 284 residents, all of whom live on Norfolk Street
and had storm water and sewage flood their basements after heavy
rain July 28, 2002, The London Free Press reports.

In the action against the city, the residents allege the city
failed to fix and maintain the sewer system after previous
floods. The residents also allege that the July 2002 flooding
damaged their homes and caused property values to decline.

In his written decision, Justice Jenkins relied on the affidavit
of Bruce Potter, a professional engineer from Goderich, who said
there were "known deficiencies" in the sewer system and some
were suffering "serious deficiencies" at the time of the
flooding.  Mr. Potter called the sewer system in the area "sub-
standard" and said there was a "foreseeable risk" of sewer
backups before July 2002.

The residents claim that after the flood, the city of Stratford
had 1,100 responses to a survey about the flood and a number of
people complained of physical symptoms from exposure to sewage.  
There were 445 reports of damage to property and 26 households
were given temporary shelter. Flood relief for property damage
up to $5,000 was offered by the city and it paid out $1.2
million to about 880 claimants.

In his decision, Justice Jenkins said that the fund "did not
approximate the amount of damage alleged to have been suffered
by many of the class members."


WAL-MART STORES: NC Appeals Court Refuses To Allow Overtime Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
For the second time, three former Wal-Mart workers in North
Carolina lost a bid to build a class action lawsuit against the
retailer when the N.C. Court of Appeals denied their request,
The News & Observer reports.

The ruling is a victory for the Wal-Mart Stores, the world's
largest retailer, which has seen courts strike down class action
petitions in 13 states in recent years. Lawsuits though in
another seven states have been granted class action status,
including one case involving 1.6 million women who say they were
discriminated against because of their sex. That lawsuit also
includes an unknown number of North Carolina employees.  Wal-
Mart, which is the state's largest private-sector employer,
employs about 47,000 people at 125 stores and four distribution
centers throughout North Carolina.

The three North Carolina workers whose petition was denied had
alleged in their 2002 lawsuit that Wal-Mart had created a
workplace culture that pressured employees to work off-the-
clock. The three had worked at Wal-Mart and Sam's Club stores in
Greensboro, Wadesboro and Rural Hall in the 1990s, and alleged
they missed four or more breaks a week.

In March 2004, a Forsyth County trial judge ruled that because
there were no time sheets or corporate records reflecting such
off-the-clock work, it would be impossible to determine how big
the class was. Forsyth County Superior Court Judge Douglas
Albright wrote that the case would "degenerate into a massive,
interminable, and unmanageable morass involving the testimony of
tens of thousands of witnesses."

That decision was one that the Appeals Court agreed, thus the
trio's request was denied. Additionally, the appellate court
also stated in its ruling that the workers failed to show that
Wal-Mart breached a contract with its employees when breaks were
missed.  The court further pointed out that employees were
typically told by individual managers when and where to take
breaks, which meant there was no uniform understanding of the
company's policies and therefore no defined class of plaintiffs.

The Winston-Salem lawyers who represent the workers had said the
case could have included an estimated 181,000 North Carolinians
who have had hourly paid jobs at Wal-Mart since 1997.

David Daggett, one of the plaintiffs' lawyers told the Observer,
"Obviously, on behalf of all the Wal-Mart workers -- current,
past and the potential class --we're disappointed with the
ruling," "We believe strongly in the merits of the case. That's
why we went to the Court of Appeals." He also adds that the
workers may ask the N.C. Supreme Court to review the case though
he was quick to point out that the odds of being granted such a
review "are typically not substantial."

Christi Davis Gallagher, a spokeswoman for the Bentonville,
Arkansas-based retailer, told the Observer that Wal-Mart was
pleased with the court's decision by saying, "These types of
allegations are counter to everything the company stands for. We
have no reason to believe that such allegations reflect anything
more than isolated situations and are not evidence of a
widespread problem with off-the-clock work in the state of North
Carolina." Any manager who requires or tolerates off-the-clock
work would be violating company policy and subject to
disciplinary action, Ms. Gallagher pointed out.


ZOMAX INC.: Settles SEC Civil Proceedings, Concludes Inquiry
------------------------------------------------------------
Zomax Incorporated (Nasdaq: ZOMX), reached a settlement of a
civil proceeding with the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC), concluding an investigation into claims
concerning Zomax's statements regarding its third quarter 2000
expectations and concerning third quarter 2000 sales of Zomax
stock by two former Company officers.

Without admitting or denying the SEC's allegations, Zomax agreed
to pay a civil penalty of $2 million, and President and Chief
Executive Officer, Anthony Angelini agreed to pay approximately
$100,000.

"We are pleased to have reached an agreement with the SEC," said
Mr. Angelini. "The settlement announced today along with the
previously announced pending settlement of our class action
litigation, resolve the issues raised from activities in the
year 2000. We look forward to applying our complete focus
towards the very important plans that Zomax is executing to move
the company forward profitably."

"The Zomax Board of Directors and the current management team
have fully cooperated with the SEC in reaching a settlement,"
added Howard Liszt, Chairman of the Board of Zomax. "The Board
and Mr. Angelini both concurred with decisions to resolve these
long-pending matters, and the Board fully supports Mr.
Angelini's leadership of the Company as we move forward."

As earlier announced, at the end of the third quarter of 2004,
the Company recorded a pre-tax charge of $7.5 million to
establish reserves for liabilities in connection with the
pending SEC investigation and the previously announced
consolidated shareholder class action lawsuit. The $2 million
civil penalty will be charged against this reserve and will have
no material effect on the Company's consolidated results of
operations in 2005.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases


AUTHENTIDATE HOLDING: Marc S. Henzel Files Securities Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of purchasers of AuthentiDate
Holding Corp. (NASDAQ: ADAT) publicly traded securities during
the period between September 29, 2003 and May 27, 2005 (the
"Class Period").

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

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

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

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

For more details, contact the Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel, 273
Montgomery Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone:
610-660-8000 or 888-643-6735, Fax: 610-660-8080, E-Mail:
mhenzel182@aol.com.


CARRIER ACCESS: Marc S. Henzel Files Securities Fraud Suit in CO
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado on behalf of purchasers of Carrier Access Corporation
(NASDAQ: CACSE) publicly traded securities during the period
between October 21, 2003 and May 20, 2005 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Carrier Access and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Carrier Access designs, manufactures and sells converged
access equipment to wireline and wireless carriers.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's financial results and its business prospects. As a
result of these false statements, the Company's shares traded at
inflated levels during the Class Period, allowing the defendants
to use the Company's shares as currency in its acquisition of
Paragon Networks and to sell 6 million shares to the public in a
secondary offering, raising proceeds of $78 million.

However, according to the complaint, by July 20, 2004, due to
the defendants' concerns about the government's stance towards
accounting fraud, the Company announced a reduction in the
Company's projections, sending its shares down 37%, a loss of
$4.73 to $8.06. On May 5, 2005, the Company issued a press
release in which it announced it had received a Nasdaq Staff
Determination letter which indicated that "although the company
filed its Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004,
the filing did not include management's assessment of its
internal controls over financial reporting and the associated
auditor attestation report . . . ." As a result, the Company's
stock was subject to delisting on the Nasdaq Stock Market. Then
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 part of those reviews
was evaluating the propriety of the timing of revenue and cost
recognition and other revenue recognition issues. The release
stated: "At this point in time, the Company has determined that
certain revenues and direct costs have been recorded in
incorrect periods. The amounts that have been quantified to date
are significant and, as a result, previously issued financial
statements for the year ended December 31, 2004, and certain
interim periods in each of the years ended December 31, 2004,
and 2003, will be restated." On this news the Company's stock
fell to $4.60 per share.

For more details, contact the Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel, 273
Montgomery Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone:
610-660-8000 or 888-643-6735, Fax: 610-660-8080, E-Mail:
mhenzel182@aol.com.


NEWMONT MINING: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Lawsuit in CO
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of Newmont
Mining Corporation (NYSE: NEM) between July 28, 2004 and April
26, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado against defendant Newmont 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.


NEWMONT MINING: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Fraud Suit in CO
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C. initiated a lawsuit seeking
class action status in the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado on behalf of all persons who purchased the
publicly traded securities of Newmont Mining Corporation (NYSE:
NEM) ("Newmont" or the "Company") between July 28, 2004 and
April 26, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that Newmont, a gold producer, and certain
of its officers and directors violated federal securities laws.
Specifically, defendants knew, but concealed the following:

     (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;

     (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.

On April 26, 2005 Newmont announced 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 dropped
from its April 26, 2005 closing price of $40.25 per share to
less than $38 per share on April 27, 2005. Before the truth
about Newmont's operational and financial difficulties was
disclosed, Newmont was able to place over $600 million worth of
notes in March 2005.

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


NEWMONT MINING: Marc S. Henzel Files Securities Fraud Suit in CO
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado on behalf of purchasers of Newmont Mining Corporation
(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.

For more details, contact the Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel, 273
Montgomery Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone:
610-660-8000 or 888-643-6735, Fax: 610-660-8080, E-Mail:
mhenzel182@aol.com.


OCA INC.: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in LA
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District
Court of Eastern District of Louisiana on behalf of purchasers
of OCA, Inc. (NYSE: OCA) common stock during the period between
May 18, 2004 and June 7, 2005 (the "Class Period").

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For more details, contact the Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel, 273
Montgomery Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone:
610-660-8000 or 888-643-6735, Fax: 610-660-8080, E-Mail:
mhenzel182@aol.com.


POSSIS MEDICAL: Marc S. Henzel Files Securities Fraud Suit in MN
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of
Minnesota on behalf of purchasers of Possis Medical, Inc.
(Nasdaq: POSS) between September 24, 2002 and August 24, 2004,
inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The action, is pending against defendants Possis, Robert G.
Dutcher (CEO and President) and Eapen Chacko (CFO).

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

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

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

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

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

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

For more details, contact the Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel, 273
Montgomery Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone:
610-660-8000 or 888-643-6735, Fax: 610-660-8080, E-Mail:
mhenzel182@aol.com.


                            *********


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

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

                            *********


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

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

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

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

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

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

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *