CAR_Public/050614.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, June 14, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 116


                            Headlines

ANNTAYLOR RETAIL: Employees Launch Two Overtime Wage Suits in CA
AT&T WIRELESS: CA Court Denies Arbitration Motion For 1998 Case
AUTHENTIDATE HOLDING: Consultant Not Surprised With Suit Filings
AUTOBYTEL.COM: NY Court Preliminarily Approves Suit Settlement
AUTOBYTEL INC.: CA Court Consolidates Securities Fraud Lawsuits

AUTOWEB.COM: NY Court Preliminarily Approves Lawsuit Settlement
BEARINGPOINT INC.: Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set June 24, 2005
BELO CORPORATION: Faces Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit in TX
BOTTOMLINE TECHNOLOGIES: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Lawsuit Pact
BUNN-O-MATIC: Recalls 1.75M Home Coffeemakers Due to Fire Hazard

CALIFORNIA: Youth Sues Contra Costa County Over Strip Searches
CITIGROUP INC.: Reaches $2B Settlement in TX For Enron Lawsuit
COFFEE BEAN: Recalls Rice Krispy Treat Due to Undeclared Eggs
CONOCOPHILIPS: Deadline For Settlement Claim Forms Set June 13
ELI LILLY: Lawyers Say Settlement Does Not Affect Canadian Suits

GRILL CONCEPTS: CA Court Stays Employees' Overtime Wage Lawsuit
HOT TOPIC: CA Court Dismisses Jewelry Lead Contamination Lawsuit
HOT TOPIC: Discovery Proceeds in CA Overtime Violations Lawsuits
JASON PHARMACEUTICALS: CA Suit V. Medifast Bars Remains Stayed
MAINE: Widow's Brain Harvesting Complaint Moved to Federal Court

MAY DEPARTMENT: Shareholders Commence Fraud Lawsuit in E.D. MO
MIDWEST ICE CREAM: Recalls Products Due to Undeclared Peanuts
NEW YORK: Judge Orders Officers To Stop Arresting Street Beggars
NORTEL NETWORKS: Plaintiffs Seek Certification For NY Stock Suit
NORTEL NETWORKS: Ontario Shareholders Launch Fiduciary Duty Suit

NORTEL NETWORKS: Quebec Residents Launch Securities Fraud Suit
NORTEL NETWORKS: Ontario Shareholders Initiate Stock Fraud Suit
O'CHARLEY'S INC.: Working To Settle Suits V. TN Hepa A Outbreak
PETCO ANIMAL: CA Suit Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set For June 17
REGISTER.COM: NY Court Preliminarily Approves Lawsuit Settlement

ST. JAMES: Limited Partners Launch Securities Fraud Suit in TX
SYNOPSYS INC.: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Lawsuit
TRIPOS INC.: MO Court Yet To Rule On Securities Suit Dismissal
WOLVERINE PIPE: Judge OKs Jackson County Gasoline Spill Deal

                  New Securities Fraud Cases

BOSTON COMMUNICATIONS: Charles J. Piven Lodges Stock Suit in MA
BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS: Scott + Scott Lodges Stock Lawsuit in CA
CRAY INC.: Glancy Binkow Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in W.D. WA
CRAY INC.: Shalov Stone Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in W.D. WA
DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit in CA

DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Scott + Scott Lodges Securities Suit in CA
OCA INC.: Kahn Gauthier Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. LA
OCA INC.: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. LA
OCA INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Fraud Suit in LA
TIBCO SOFTWARE: Scott + Scott Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CA

                          *********


ANNTAYLOR RETAIL: Employees Launch Two Overtime Wage Suits in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
AnnTaylor Retail, Inc. faces two class actions filed in
California State Courts, alleging violations of the state's
overtime law.

On February 15, 2005, two former managers of the Company's
California stores filed a purported class action in Los Angeles
County Superior Court alleging that the Company misclassified
its store managers and assistant store managers as exempt from
California overtime wage and hour laws, thereby depriving them
of overtime pay.  On May 5, 2005, a second purported class
action was filed, although not yet served, against the Company
in San Francisco County Superior Court by a former manager of
one of the Company's stores in California alleging violations of
California labor laws with respect to overtime pay as well as
adequate meal and rest periods.

These actions are similar to numerous suits filed against
retailers and others with operations in California.  The class
members in both actions seek recovery in an unstated dollar
amount of unpaid wages, statutory penalties, attorneys' fees and
costs and injunctive relief.


AT&T WIRELESS: CA Court Denies Arbitration Motion For 1998 Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Los Angeles court ruled that AT&T Wireless Welcome Guide, the
brochure contained in mobile telephone boxes provided to
customers after the purchase of wireless service, which contains
an arbitration clause, is not a part of the contract with
consumers.

Defendant AT&T Wireless brought a petition to compel arbitration
of the claims of named plaintiffs, arguing that their
allegations of false advertising should not be heard in Los
Angeles Superior Court but should be sent to a private
arbitrator. In denying defendant AT&T Wireless's motion to
compel arbitration, a judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court's
complex department held that AT&T Wireless customers could not
be bound by the terms of a document that was provided after the
customer purchased his or her phone. Citing long-standing
California precedent, the Court ruled that a consumer cannot be
bound by proposed contract terms located in a document that they
had no reason to know was contractual in nature. Because AT&T
Wireless's Welcome Guide discusses the features of mobile
phones, such as voicemail, long before disclosing to customers
that they are waiving important legal rights, the document could
not be considered a part of a consumer's contract with AT&T
Wireless.

"This represents an important victory for all consumers in
refusing to allow a business to impose terms on a consumer
without allowing the consumer a meaningful chance to object,"
said Reed R. Kathrein, the Lerach Coughlin partner who leads the
case against AT&T Wireless. "In ruling that AT&T Wireless cannot
force consumers to waive their right to litigate in court by
hiding an arbitration clause in a box, the Court has vindicated
the rights of all consumers."

Defendants brought the petition to compel consumers to
arbitration on the eve of trial, arguing that the Court no
longer had jurisdiction over plaintiffs' claims. The trial on
whether the coverage maps of AT&T Wireless (now Cingular) are
deceptive will now go forward.

Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP filed the
class action suit in Superior Court for Los Angeles County
against LA Cellular, AT&T Wireless, and BellSouth Cellular on
behalf of customers who are victims of the cell phone companies'
deceptive practices in 1998. The case alleges false and
misleading advertising based on the wireless companies' promises
of seamless wireless coverage throughout the four-county Los
Angeles region. Each of the four named plaintiffs allege they
were misled by defendants' promises that they would receive
wireless coverage in areas near their homes, places of
employment, and other well-traveled areas. Cingular Wireless,
creating one of the nation's largest wireless carriers, recently
acquired AT&T Wireless. Both defendants joined in the petition
to compel the plaintiffs' claims to arbitration.

Cingular is a joint venture between the domestic wireless
divisions of SBC (NYSE:SBC) and BellSouth (NYSE:BLS). SBC owns
60 percent of the company and BellSouth owns 40 percent, based
on the value of the assets both contributed to the venture.
Cingular wholly owns AT&T Wireless.


AUTHENTIDATE HOLDING: Consultant Not Surprised With Suit Filings
----------------------------------------------------------------
AuthentiDate Holding Corp. (Nasdaq: ADAT) is the subject of
seven class action lawsuits that are all claiming that the
software developer made false and misleading statements about
its electronic postmark, The American City Business Journals
Inc. reports.

John Stiles, the company's investor relations consultant, told
the Journals that he's not surprised by the lawsuits. He pointed
out, "When stocks go down like AuthentiDate's has, it's always
something you have in the back of your mind."

With regards to the number of firms that are filing suits, Mr.
Stiles also told the Journals that he is not surprised about
that, either. He explains, "It's very typical. Law firms are all
trying to be part of it. Anytime you see one filed, more come."

John Botti, who was a Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute student
at the time, founded AuthentiDate in 1985 as BitWise Designs
Inc. The company started out building personal computer-based
test equipment, then built PCs, then specialized in document-
storage systems, then focused on authentication software. In
1992, the firm went public and changed its name to AuthentiDate
in 2001.

As reported in previous editions of the Class Action Reporter,
several law firms initiated a class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of purchasers of AuthentiDate publicly traded securities
during the period between September 29, 2003 and May 27, 2005.
The accusations, outlined by Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman
& Robbins LLP, the first firm to say it filed a lawsuit, allege
that AuthentiDate and certain of its officers and directors with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Specifically, 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.


AUTOBYTEL.COM: NY Court Preliminarily Approves Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against
Autobytel.com, Inc., certain of its current and former officers
and directors and the underwriters in its initial public
offering.

In August 2001, several suits were filed, and later ordered
consolidated.  A Consolidated Amended Complaint, which is now
the operative complaint, was filed on April 19, 2002. This
action purports to allege violations of the Securities Act of
1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Plaintiffs allege
that the underwriter defendants agreed to allocate stock in the
Company's initial public offering to certain investors in
exchange for excessive and undisclosed commissions and
agreements by those investors to make additional purchases of
stock in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices.  Plaintiffs
allege that the prospectus for the Company's initial public
offering was false and misleading in violation of the securities
laws because it did not disclose these arrangements. The action
seeks damages in an unspecified amount.

The action is being coordinated with approximately 300 other
nearly identical actions filed against other companies. A motion
to dismiss addressing issues common to the companies and
individuals who have been sued in these actions was filed on
July 15, 2002.  On October 9, 2002, the Court dismissed the
Autobytel Individual Defendants from the case without prejudice
based upon Stipulations of Dismissal filed by the plaintiffs and
the Autobytel Individual Defendants.  On February 19, 2003, the
Court denied the motion to dismiss the complaint against the
Company.  On October 13, 2004, the Court certified a class in
six of the approximately 300 other nearly identical actions and
noted that the decision is intended to provide strong guidance
to all parties regarding class certification in the remaining
cases. Plaintiffs have not yet moved to certify a class in the
case.

The Company has approved a settlement agreement and related
agreements, which set forth the terms of a settlement between
the Company, the plaintiff class and the vast majority of the
other approximately 300 issuer defendants. Among other
provisions, the settlement provides for a release of the Company
and the Autobytel Individual Defendants for the conduct alleged
in the action to be wrongful.  The Company would agree to
undertake certain responsibilities, including agreeing to assign
away, not assert, or release certain potential claims it may
have against its underwriters.  The settlement agreement also
provides a guaranteed recovery of $1 billion to plaintiffs for
the cases relating to all of the approximately 300 issuers.  To
the extent that the underwriter defendants settle all of the
cases for at least $1 billion, no payment will be required under
the issuers' settlement agreement. To the extent that the
underwriter defendants settle for less than $1 billion, the
issuers are required to make up the difference.  It is
anticipated that any potential financial obligation of the
Company to plaintiffs pursuant to the terms of the settlement
agreement and related agreements will be directly covered and
paid by its insurance carriers.

On February 15, 2005, the Court granted preliminary approval of
the settlement agreement, subject to certain modifications
consistent with its opinion. The Court ruled that the issuer
defendants and the plaintiffs must submit a revised settlement
agreement which provides for a mutual bar of all contribution
claims by the settling and non-settling parties and does not bar
the parties from pursuing other claims. The issuers and
plaintiffs have negotiated a revised settlement agreement
consistent with the Court's opinion and are in the process of
obtaining approval from those issuer defendants that are not in
bankruptcy.  At this point, all but one of the issuer defendants
that are not in bankruptcy have approved the revised settlement
agreement, which has been submitted to the Court.  The
underwriter defendants will have an opportunity to object to the
revised settlement agreement. There is no assurance that the
Court will grant final approval to the settlement.

The suit is styled "In re Autobytel.Com, Inc. Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, 01 Civ. 6825 (Sas) (Dab)," filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York, under Judge Shira A. Scheindlin.  The plaintiff firms
in this litigation are:

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

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

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

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

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

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


AUTOBYTEL INC.: CA Court Consolidates Securities Fraud Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California ordered consolidated five separate class actions
filed against Autobytel, Inc. and certain of its current
directors and current and former officers between October and
December 2004.

The claims were brought on behalf of stockholders who purchased
shares during the period July 24, 2003 through October 21, 2004.
The claims alleged in all of these purported class actions are
virtually identical, and purport to allege violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. In this regard, the
plaintiffs allege that the Company misrepresented and omitted
material facts with respect to its financial results and
operations during the time period between July 24, 2003 and
October 20, 2004.  The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory
damages, and attorneys' fees and costs, as well as accountants'
and experts' fees.

On January 28, 2005, the court ordered the consolidation of the
currently pending class actions into a single case pursuant to a
stipulation for consolidation signed by all parties.  On March
14, 2005, the court appointed a lead plaintiff and approved the
selection of lead counsel and liaison counsel.  Additional
lawsuits asserting the same or similar claims may be filed as
well.

The first identified complaint in the litigation is styled
"Scott Tanne, et al. v. Autobytel, Inc., et al., case no. 04-CV-
8987," filed in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California.  The plaintiff firms in this litigation
are:

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

     (2) Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP (LA), 1801 Ave. of the
         Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles, CA, 90067, Phone:
         (310)201-915, Fax: (310) 201-916, E-mail:
         info@glancylaw.com

     (3) Lim, Ruger & Kim, LLP, 1055 West Seventh Street, Suite
         2800, Los Angeles, CA, 90017, Phone: 213-955-9500, Fax:
         213-955-9511, E-mail: info@lrklawyers.com

     (4) Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (New York), One
         Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor, New York, NY, 10119,
         Phone: 212.594.5300, Fax: 212.868.1229, E-mail:
         info@milbergweiss.com

     (5) Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP, 275 Madison Ave 34th Flr,
         New York, NY, 10016, Phone: 212.682.1818, Fax:
         212.682.1892, E-mail: email@rabinlaw.com

     (6) Pomerantz,Haudek, Block, Grossman & Gross, 100 Park
         Avenue, 26th Floor, New York, NY, 10017-5516, Phone:
         212.661.1100,

     (7) Schatz & Nobel, P.C., 330 Main Street, Hartford, CT,
         06106, Phone: 800.797.5499, Fax: 860.493.6290, E-mail:
         sn06106@AOL.com

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

     (9) Smith & Smith LLP, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112,
         Bensalem, PA, 19020, Phone: (866)759-2275, E-mail:
         howardsmithlaw@hotmail.com


AUTOWEB.COM: NY Court Preliminarily Approves Lawsuit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against Autoweb.com,
Inc., certain of its current and former officers and directors
and the underwriters of its initial public offering.

Between April and June 2001, eight separate purported class
actions were filed and later consolidated.  A Consolidated
Amended Complaint, which is now the operative complaint, was
filed on April 19, 2002. The foregoing action purports to allege
violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. Plaintiffs allege that the underwriter
defendants agreed to allocate stock in the Company's initial
public offering to certain investors in exchange for excessive
and undisclosed commissions and agreements by those investors to
make additional purchases of stock in the aftermarket at pre-
determined prices. Plaintiffs allege that the prospectus for the
Company's initial public offering was false and misleading in
violation of the securities laws because it did not disclose
these arrangements. The action seeks damages in an unspecified
amount.

The action is being coordinated with approximately 300 other
nearly identical actions filed against other companies.  A
motion to dismiss addressing issues common to the companies and
individuals who have been sued in these actions was filed on
July 15, 2002.  On October 9, 2002, the Court dismissed the
Autoweb Individual Defendants from the case without prejudice
based upon Stipulations of Dismissal filed by the plaintiffs and
the Autoweb Individual Defendants. On February 19, 2003, the
Court dismissed the Section 10(b) claim without prejudice and
with leave to replead but denied the motion to dismiss the claim
under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 against the
Company.  On October 13, 2004, the Court certified a class in
six of the approximately 300 other nearly identical actions and
noted that the decision is intended to provide strong guidance
to all parties regarding class certification in the remaining
cases.  Plaintiffs have not yet moved to certify a class in the
case.

The Company has approved a settlement agreement and related
agreements setting forth the terms of a settlement between the
Company, the plaintiff class and the vast majority of the other
approximately 300 issuer defendants. Among other provisions, the
settlement provides for a release of the Company and the Autoweb
Individual Defendants for the conduct alleged in the action to
be wrongful.  The Company would agree to undertake certain
responsibilities, including agreeing to assign away, not assert,
or release certain potential claims it may have against its
underwriters. The settlement agreement also provides a
guaranteed recovery of $1 billion to plaintiffs for the cases
relating to all of the approximately 300 issuers.  To the extent
that the underwriter defendants settle all of the cases for at
least $1 billion, no payment will be required under the issuers'
settlement agreement. To the extent that the underwriter
defendants settle for less than $1 billion, the issuers are
required to make up the difference.

On February 15, 2005, the Court granted preliminary approval of
the settlement agreement, subject to certain modifications
consistent with its opinion. The Court ruled that the issuer
defendants and the plaintiffs must submit a revised settlement
agreement which provides for a mutual bar of all contribution
claims by the settling and non-settling parties and does not bar
the parties from pursuing other claims.  The issuers and
plaintiffs have negotiated a revised settlement agreement
consistent with the Court's opinion and are in the process of
obtaining approval from those issuer defendants that are not in
bankruptcy.  At this point, all but one of the issuer defendants
that are not in bankruptcy have approved the revised settlement
agreement, which has been submitted to the Court.  The
underwriter defendants will have an opportunity to object to the
revised settlement agreement. There is no assurance that the
Court will grant final approval to the settlement.

The suit is styled "In re Autoweb.Com, Inc. Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, 01 Civ. 3360 (Sas)(Gbd)," filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York, under Judge Shira A. Scheindlin.  The plaintiff firms
in this litigation are:

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

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

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

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

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

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


BEARINGPOINT INC.: Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set June 24, 2005
------------------------------------------------------------
The June 24, 2005 deadline is approaching for investors to seek
appointment by the Court as lead plaintiff in the class action
lawsuit against BearingPoint, Inc. ("BearingPoint" or the
"Company") (NYSE:BE).

The law firm of Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP
filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of one of its
institutional investor clients against BearingPoint, Inc.
("BearingPoint" or the "Company") and several of its executive
officers. The action, which is pending in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, is brought
on behalf of a class of investors who purchased the securities
of BearingPoint during the period of April 14, 2003 through and
including April 20, 2005 (the "Class Period").

The action alleges, among other things, that the defendants
violated the federal securities laws by making materially false
and misleading statements regarding the Company's finances
during the Class Period, which resulted in the artificial
inflation of the Company's stock price. Specifically, it is
alleged that the Company had materially overstated its earnings
and understated its goodwill by approximately $250-$400 million,
and improperly recorded tens of millions of dollars in expenses.
It is further alleged that defendants failed to adequately
institute their new financial reporting systems, and that as a
result, the Company was unable to generate accurate and timely
financial statements.

On March 17, 2005, the Company disclosed that it would delay the
filing of its annual report on Form 10-K due to the internal
control issues it was experiencing. It was not until April 20,
2005, that the Company revealed the full extent of its financial
disarray - that it would be required to take an impairment to
goodwill of approximately $250-$400 million; that the Company
had discovered at least $37 million of accounting "errors" that
would likely necessitate restatement of the Company's financial
results for 2003 and 2004; that the SEC was investigating the
Company's accounting, and that the Company may not be able to
continue as a "going concern."

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


BELO CORPORATION: Faces Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit in TX
------------------------------------------------------------
Certain of Belo Corporation's (NYSE: BLC) current directors, two
of its former directors, certain members of its senior
management and a former officer face a shareholder derivative
suit, The Dallas Morning News reports.   The lawsuit, which has
been commenced in a State District Court in Dallas, makes
various claims asserting mismanagement and breaches of fiduciary
duty related to the circulation overstatement at The Dallas
Morning News.

The subject matter in the derivative lawsuit appears to be
substantially the same as that in a shareholder class action
lawsuit originally filed in U.S. District Court in Dallas on
August 23, 2004. The plaintiff purports to be an individual Belo
shareholder. The lawsuit is being reviewed and the defendants
will respond appropriately in due course.

For more details, contact Carey Hendrickson, vice president-
Investor Relations & Corporate Communications of Belo
Corporation, Phone: +1-214-977-6626.


BOTTOMLINE TECHNOLOGIES: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Lawsuit Pact
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted preliminary approval of the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against Bottomline
Technologies, Inc., "In re Bottomline Technologies Inc. Initial
Public Offering Securities Litigation."

The amended complaint filed in the action asserts claims under
Sections 11, 12(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended (Exchange Act).  The amended complaint
asserts, among other things, that the description in the
Company's prospectus for its initial public offering was
materially false and misleading in describing the compensation
to be earned by the underwriters of its offering, and in not
describing certain alleged arrangements among underwriters and
initial purchasers of its common stock from the underwriters.
The amended complaint seeks damages (or, in the alternative,
tender of the plaintiffs' and the class' Bottomline common stock
and rescission of their purchases of the Company's common stock
purchased in the initial public offering), costs, attorneys'
fees, experts' fees and other expenses.

In July 2002, Bottomline, Daniel M. McGurl and Robert A. Eberle
joined in an omnibus motion to dismiss, which challenged the
legal sufficiency of plaintiffs' claims.  The motion was filed
on behalf of hundreds of issuer and individual defendants named
in similar lawsuits.  Plaintiffs opposed the motion, and the
court heard oral argument on the motion in early November 2002.

On February 19, 2003, the court issued an order denying the
motion to dismiss as to Bottomline.  In addition, in early
October 2002, Daniel M. McGurl and Robert A. Eberle were
dismissed from this case without prejudice.  A special
litigation committee of the board of directors of Bottomline
authorized Bottomline to negotiate a settlement of the pending
claims substantially consistent with a memorandum of
understanding negotiated among class plaintiffs, all issuer
defendants and their insurers.  The settlement is subject to
approval by the court.


BUNN-O-MATIC: Recalls 1.75M Home Coffeemakers Due to Fire Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC), Bunn-O-Matic Corp., of Springfield, Illinois is
voluntarily recalling about 1,750,000 Bunnr home coffeemakers.

The coffeemaker's plastic pour-in bowl and lid can melt or
ignite due to an electrical failure, posing a burn and fire
hazard to consumers. Bunn-O-Matic has received 17 reports of the
bowl or lid melting, though no injuries have been reported.

The recall involves Bunnr home coffeemakers with model numbers
GR-10B, GR-10W, B-10B, B-10W, and BT-10B (including any of those
same model numbers ending in the additional letter D) with six-
digit date codes ending in "01," "02," or "03." Also involved in
the recall are the same models with dates codes ending in "04"
and middle digits between "01" and "21." (If the date code has a
seventh digit, consumers should ignore the last digit and use
the first six digits.) The model number and date code are
stamped on a small white or silver sticker on the bottom of the
coffeemaker. The 10-cup Bunnr coffeemakers have either a black
or white plastic base and top, and measure 14 -inches high by
7-inches wide by 13 _-inches deep. The word "BUNNr" is printed
on the front of the machine in chrome.

Manufactured in the United States, the coffeemakers were sold at
all department and hardware stores nationwide between February
2001 and August 2004 for about $100.

Consumers should unplug the coffeemaker and allow it to cool
(for at least three hours) before checking to see if they have
one of the recalled units. Consumers can contact the firm to
obtain a free repair or purchase a new unit at a discount.

Consumer Contact: For more information, consumers should call
Bunn-O-Matic at (800) 385-2652 between 7 a.m. and 6 p.m. CT
Monday through Friday or log on to the firm's Web site:
http://www.regcen.com/bunnrecall.


CALIFORNIA: Youth Sues Contra Costa County Over Strip Searches
--------------------------------------------------------------
A youth who says that he was repeatedly strip searched at a
Contra Costa County juvenile facility after an arrest on a minor
charge initiated a lawsuit seeking class action status against
the county, claiming the searches were illegal, The Associated
Press reports.

The suit, which was filed in U.S. District Court in San
Francisco, was brought on behalf of thousands of juveniles in
similar situations in the last two years. It specifically claims
that county officers routinely and illegally strip search
juveniles being held for an initial court hearing, with no
evidence that they're hiding contraband.

The plaintiff's attorney, Mark Merin, told AP that California
law prohibits routinely strip-searching inmates between the time
they're arrested and their first bail hearing if the arrest was
for a misdemeanor not involving violence or drugs. County
officials on the other hand were unavailable for comment.


CITIGROUP INC.: Reaches $2B Settlement in TX For Enron Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup Inc. (NYSE: C) agreed to a settlement in the Enron
class action litigation Newby, et al. v. Enron Corp., et al.,
currently pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas, Houston Division.

Under the terms of the settlement, Citigroup will make a pre-tax
payment of $2.0 billion to the settlement class, which consists
of all purchasers of all publicly traded equity and debt
securities issued by Enron and Enron-related entities between
September 9, 1997 and December 2, 2001. The settlement is fully
covered by Citigroup's existing litigation reserves. The company
does not plan to adjust its remaining reserves, which it
considers adequate to meet all of the company's remaining
exposure to the additional pending Enron and research-related
cases. The company continues to evaluate its reserves on an
ongoing basis.

Charles Prince, Chief Executive Officer of Citigroup, said: "We
have an ambitious agenda for Citigroup's future growth as we
continue toward our goal to be the most respected global
financial services company. It is a key priority for Citigroup
to resolve major cases like this one and to put a difficult
chapter in our history behind us. By doing so, we will be better
positioned to realize our goals. We acknowledge and appreciate
the determined and professional efforts of the Regents of the
University of California and its advisors in working with us to
achieve a settlement that meets the goals of all parties."

The class action settlement must be approved by the Board of
Regents of the University of California, the lead plaintiff in
the case, and the Board of Directors of Citigroup. It is also
subject to the approval of the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Texas.

The settlement amount includes plaintiffs' attorneys' fees,
which will be determined by the Court at a later date. The
settlement provides that Citigroup denies committing any
violation of law and has agreed to the settlement solely to
eliminate the uncertainties, burden and expense of further
protracted litigation.


COFFEE BEAN: Recalls Rice Krispy Treat Due to Undeclared Eggs
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Coffee Bean & Tea Leafr, of Los Angeles, California is
recalling its 3-ounce Rice Krispy Treats because they may
contain undeclared egg whites. People who have an allergy or
severe sensitivity to egg run the risk of serious or life-
threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products.

The product was distributed in the Southern California area
through over-the-counter sales at local Coffee Bean & Tea Leaf
houses. The product is wrapped in clear cellophane with a beige
and black label identifying the product and ingredient
information. The company is aware of one consumer complaint of
an allergic reaction.

The recall was initiated after it was discovered that the
product containing egg was distributed in packaging that did not
specifically reveal the presence of egg. Subsequent
investigation indicates that the problem was caused by a
labeling oversight on the part of the Company's outside vendor.

Consumers who have purchased any of these products from any
Coffee Bean & Tea Leaf houses are urged to return it to the
place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers with questions
may contact the company at 1-800-TEA-LEAF.


CONOCOPHILIPS: Deadline For Settlement Claim Forms Set June 13
--------------------------------------------------------------
The deadline for people who qualify for the $70 million class
action settlement with ConocoPhillips to complete claim forms is
on June 13, 2005, The Pensacola News Journal reports.

According to attorneys for both parties, the Pensacola Class
Action Assistance Center at 124A E. Wright St. will open its
doors from 8:30 a.m. to 6 p.m. to help those who might qualify
complete application packets.

The $70-million settlement resulted from a suit claiming that
toxins from the Old Agrico Chemical Co., subsequently purchased
by Conoco Inc., damaged nearby property and Bayou Texar. It
involves people who lived near Agrico or the bayou anytime
between 1957 and June 15, 2004.

For details, call (866) 540-4436 or visit their Web site:
http://www.pensacolaclassaction.com.


ELI LILLY: Lawyers Say Settlement Does Not Affect Canadian Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers pursuing class actions on behalf of individuals, who
have taken Zyprexa in Canada, stated that Eli Lilly & Company's
resolution of American claims does not affect the class actions
currently underway in Canada. The settlement reached applies to
U.S. residents only. Zyprexa is an "atypical" antipsychotic
medication which was first approved by Health Canada for the
treatment of schizophrenia in 1996. Since that time, Zyprexa has
also been approved for the treatment of bipolar mania. Zyprexa
was associated with a 37% increase in the risk of development of
diabetes as compared to other atypical anti-psychotic
medications.

Michael J. Peerless, a partner with the law firm Siskind,
Cromarty, Ivey & Dowler LLP in London, Ontario, said that "The
American and Canadian litigation contexts with respect to the
Zyprexa litigation are somewhat different, in that in the United
States, these cases were pursued on an individual basis, and
there was no class settlement. It is our view that the Zyprexa
litigation is perfectly suited for class treatment in Canada.
Although not applicable to Canadians, the U.S. settlement is a
welcome development in this litigation and it is encouraging to
see that Eli Lilly recognizes their responsibility. We are
optimistic that we will be able to achieve similar success for
Canadians." The Canadian Zyprexa class actions have been
underway for some time and are currently proceeding through the
courts in British Columbia, Alberta, Quebec and Ontario, and a
national class is being sought. A schedule for certification has
been set in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. There is a
coalition of lawyers working across the country to ensure
Canadian recipients of Zyprexa are treated fairly. Colin
Stevenson of Stevensons Barristers stated that "The national
team of lawyers is working very effectively together and is
committed to ensuring the best possible result for the class."

Unlike in the United States litigation context, in which
plaintiffs must retain individual lawyers to pursue their cases,
the fact that class actions are being pursued in Canada means
that Class Counsel is obligated to protect the interests of all
class members regardless of whether or not they have contacted
an individual lawyer.

It is too early at this stage to quantify the claims of
potential class members, but it is anticipated that the amount
is very significant.

For more details, contact Michael J. Peerless, Phone:
(519) 672-2121 (Ext. 369), Web site: http://www.classaction.ca
or http://www.classproceedings.ca.


GRILL CONCEPTS: CA Court Stays Employees' Overtime Wage Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The overtime wage class action filed against Grill Concepts,
Inc. in the Los Angeles County Superior Court in California has
been stayed until the Court of Appeals hears two similar cases.

In June 2004, one of the Company's former hourly restaurant
employees filed a class action lawsuit in the Superior Court of
California of Orange County.   The Company requested and were
granted a motion to move the suit from Orange County to Los
Angeles County.  The lawsuit was then filed in the Superior
Court of California of Los Angeles in December 2004.

The plaintiff has alleged violations of California labor laws
with respect to providing meal and rest breaks.  The lawsuit
sought unspecified amounts of penalties and other monetary
payments on behalf of the plaintiffs and other purported class
members.

The Company stated in a disclosure to the Securities and
Exchange Commission that it believes that all of its employees
were provided with the opportunity to take all required meal and
rest breaks.  The Company's next hearing is scheduled for
October 2005.  Concurrently, discovery is continuing in these
matters.


HOT TOPIC: CA Court Dismisses Jewelry Lead Contamination Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California dismissed a class action filed against Hot Topic,
Inc. and over two dozen retailers, including teen retailers like
Claire's and Wet Seal, department stores like Sears, Nordstrom,
Macy's and J.C. Penney, and large retailers like Wal-Mart and
Target.

A non-profit corporation named Center for Environmental Health
filed the suit in June 2004.  Certain of the defendants, but not
the Company, were also named defendants in a substantially
similar lawsuit filed by the State of California.

The suit alleges the defendants sold jewelry that has been shown
to contain dangerous amounts of lead. Most of the toxic jewelry
is imported costume jewelry specifically marketed to children
and women of child-bearing age.  Lead can affect brain
development and is especially harmful to fetuses, infants and
young children, CEH said in a press release, an earlier Class
Action Reporter story (May 19,2005) states.

"It's frightening to think that a necklace could be a toxic
noose around your daughter's neck," CEH Executive Director
Michael Green said in a statement.  "We expect these companies
to stop selling lead-contaminated jewelry immediately and put an
end to this real fashion emergency."

The jewelry found with high levels of lead include necklaces
made with plastic cords and metal jewelry made with tin. Poly
vinyl chloride (PVC) plastic in the cords leaches lead, and low-
grade tin in pendants and clasps is often lead-contaminated.
Exposure to lead is a special concern when women or children
chew on jewelry cords or metal parts.  Brand names include:
Orion (Burlington), Claire's, Forever 21, Worthington (J. C.
Penney), Juststyle (K-Mart), Lane Bryant, Nairi (Nordstrom),
Eitenne V (Nordstrom), Apostrophe (Sears), Mainframe (Sears),
and Xhilaration (Target).

The complaint in each case alleges, in general, that the
defendant retailers have violated certain California statutes by
not providing sufficient warning about an alleged potential for
lead exposure relating to costume jewelry sold in stores.  The
complaints do not contain allegations of personal injury.

In August 2004, the Company was served another complaint, filed
in the Circuit Court of Shelby County, Tennessee, claiming it
are liable due to alleged lead content in its costume jewelry we
allegedly target to children. This complaint is an alleged class
action, again excluding any personal injury claim, with counts
of negligence and breach of implied warranty.  Similar claims
had been made in Tennessee, prior to service upon the Company,
against other retailers in the same jurisdiction by plaintiffs
represented by the same law firm.

The plaintiffs in the above California cases seek unspecified
fines and penalties, attorneys' fees and costs, and injunctive
and other equitable relief; and the plaintiff in the Tennessee
case seeks unspecified money damages, punitive damages,
attorneys' fees and injunctive relief on behalf of the alleged
class.

The plaintiff in that case has indicated it will appeal the
grant of dismissal, and the Tennessee case against the Company
will be delayed pending the outcome of appeal.


HOT TOPIC: Discovery Proceeds in CA Overtime Violations Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in the two class actions filed against
Hot Topic, Inc. in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County,
California, alleging violations of the state's labor laws.

On September 17, 2004, a former Torrid employee filed a lawsuit
against the Company in Superior Court of Los Angeles County, on
behalf of a purported class.  The lawsuit asserts claims for
failure to provide adequate meal or rest breaks, improper
payment of overtime wages, failure to timely pay wages at end of
employment and unfair business practices. The lawsuit seeks
compensatory damages, statutory penalties, punitive damages,
attorneys' fees and injunctive relief.  On October 21, 2004, the
Company filed an answer denying the material allegations of the
complaint.

On November 18, 2004, a former Torrid employee filed the suit,
asserting claims for, among other things, failure to pay
overtime wages and unfair business practices.  The lawsuit seeks
compensatory damages, statutory penalties, restitution, interest
and other costs, and attorneys' fees.  On January 7, 2005, the
Company filed an answer denying the material allegations of the
complaint, saying it intended to vigorously defend itself
against the various claims.

Discovery has begun in connection with the suits but at the
present time the Company is unable to predict the outcome of the
matter, it stated in a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange
Commission.


JASON PHARMACEUTICALS: CA Suit V. Medifast Bars Remains Stayed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The consumer class action filed against Jason Pharmaceuticals,
Inc. has been stayed upon appeal to the United States Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) over the Company's Medifast bars.

On December 16, 2003, John Donavin, on behalf of the General
Public, filed the suit in the Superior Court of the State of
California, City and County of San Francisco.  The suit alleges
that Medifast bars contain Vitamin D3 or Vitamin D in violation
of Federal laws and regulations, and asks for equitable relief
and damages.

The Company's General counsel believes that the Company's
formulation used in its "meal replacement" bars for over 20
years has been and is in conformity with current and past FDA
regulations, the Company said in a disclosure to the Securities
and Exchange Commission.  The Company believes that the
plaintiff's claim lacks merit and may even be considered
frivolous. The suit has been stayed upon appeal to the FDA to
clarify its regulations. The Company believes recent legislation
restricting the ability of plaintiff's lawyers from filing local
class action suits should favor the Company's legal position in
this case.


MAINE: Widow's Brain Harvesting Complaint Moved to Federal Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit that sought damages for dozens of unnamed families in
connection with a brain harvesting operation is being moved from
federal court to state court, The Portland Press Herald reports.

Anne Mozingo of York, whose husband died from a brain aneurysm
five years ago, is bringing the case, which seeks class action
status. In her suit, Mrs. Mozingo states that she consented to
donate only tissue samples, not her husband's entire brain.
However, in court documents filed in related lawsuits, the four
defendants, who include Maine's former funeral inspector and the
founder of a Maryland research lab, have denied wrongdoing.

According to Greg Hansel, of Preti Flaherty Beliveau Pachios &
Haley LLP in Portland, the decision to file in U.S. District
Court in Maine was affected by a new federal law that steers
class action litigation away from state courts.  Last month,
Preti Flaherty withdrew from the case because of a business
relationship with an insurer of one of the defendants. Mrs.
Mozingo, who is so far the lawsuit's only named plaintiff, then
hired Murray, Plumb & Murray, another law firm in Portland.

The firm recently asked that the federal case be dismissed, and
it filed a similar complaint in York County Superior Court.
Richard O'Meara of Murray, Plumb & Murray says that despite the
new federal law, Mrs. Mozingo's case belongs in a Maine court.
"The state court obviously has jurisdiction," he told the Press
Herald.

Attorneys explain that to get class action status, the lawsuit
would have to meet several criteria. The class of plaintiffs
would have to be considered so large that it would not be
practical to bring individual cases. The claims made by Mrs.
Mozingo would have to be typical of those of the other
plaintiffs. And there would have to be questions of fact or law
that are common to all class members.

As previously reported in the April 1, 2005 edition of the Class
Action Reporter, Mrs. Mozingo, of Cape Neddick, initiated the
lawsuit with the U.S. District Court in Portland, Maine claiming
that employees of the State Medical Examiner's office and the
Stanley Medical Research Institute in Maryland harvested her
husband's brain and other organs without permission, the
Foster's Daily Democrat reports. Her suit was filed on behalf of
the families of roughly 100 dead people whose brains were
collected in Maine between 1999 and 2003.

Mrs. Mozingo's husband, Bill, 42, had died in 2000 after
suffering a brain aneurysm. Shortly after his death, Mrs.
Mozingo claims that she received a call from Matthew S. Cyr,
former funeral director for the State Medical Examiner's Office
in Augusta, asking if the office could take tissue samples from
her husband's liver, spleen, pituitary, dura and brain to aid in
mental health research.

In her suit, Mrs. Mozingo states that she gave Mr. Cyr consent
over the phone to take the samples during her husband's autopsy,
under the belief that the samples would only be small tissue
samples. But, nearly five years later, federal investigators
told Mrs. Mozingo that her husband's brain and numerous organs
were sent to the Stanley Medical Research Institute.

According to the Associated Press, Mr. Cyr sold Bill Mozingo's
organs to the Maryland Institute for $150,000. He was also a
paid employee for the Institute, working as their representative
in Augusta.  Aside from Mr. Cyr, the suit also names as a
defendant, Lori Stevens, who was an alleged associate of Mr.
Cyr's when families were called to request organs or tissue from
recently deceased relatives for research purposes.

Though representatives for the Stanley Medical Research
Institute were unavailable for comment, they did, howeveri
through Tom Laprade, who represents the institute, said that as
with previous lawsuits, said, "we feel that the institute will
be vindicated when the facts come out in light of the law under
which it operates."


MAY DEPARTMENT: Shareholders Commence Fraud Lawsuit in E.D. MO
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs moved to remand the shareholder class action filed
against May Department Stores Co. to the Circuit Court of St.
Louis, Missouri.

On March 1, 2005, Edward Decristofaro, an alleged Company
shareowner, filed a purported class action lawsuit on behalf of
all Company shareowners in the Circuit Court of St. Louis,
Missouri, against the Company and all of the members of its
board of directors.  The complaint generally alleges that the
directors of the Company breached their fiduciary duties of
loyalty, due care, good faith and candor to Company shareowners
in connection with the proposed merger.

On April 1, 2005, the defendants removed the lawsuit to the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri and filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit pursuant to
the Securities Litigation Standards Act of 1998.  On April 22,
2005, the plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the lawsuit to the
Circuit Court of St. Louis, Missouri and opposition to the
defendants' motion to dismiss.

The suit is styled "Decristofaro v. May Department Stores
Company, The et al., case no. 4:05-cv-00526-DJS," filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri, under Judge Donald J. Stohr.  Representing the
plaintiffs are Stuart A. Davidson and Jonathan M. Stein of
LERACH AND COUGHLIN, 197 S. Federal Highway, Suite 200, Boca
Raton, FL 33432, Phone: 561-750-3000, Fax: 561-750-3364, E-mail:
sdavidson@lerachlaw.com or jstein@lerachlaw.com; and James J.
Rosemergy of DAVID DANIS LAW FIRM, P.C., 8235 Forsyth Suite
1100, St. Louis, MO 63105, Phone: 314-725-7700, Fax:
314-721-0905, E-mail: jrosemergy@careydanis.com.  Representing
the Company are Samuel Kadet and Peter Morrison of SKADDEN AND
ARPS, Four Times Square, New York, NY 10036-6522, Phone:
212-735-2570, Fax: 917-777-2570, E-mail: skadet@skadden.com or
pmorriso@skadden.com; and Thomas C. Walsh of BRYAN CAVE LLP, 211
N. Broadway, Suite 3600, St. Louis, MO 63102-2750, Phone:
314-259-2000 Fax: 314-259-2020 or E-mail: tcwalsh@bryancave.com.


MIDWEST ICE CREAM: Recalls Products Due to Undeclared Peanuts
-------------------------------------------------------------
Midwest Ice Cream Company is voluntarily recalling half-gallon
rectangle cartons of its Fieldcrest chocolate ice cream because
it may contain an undeclared peanut allergen. No other products
are involved in this voluntary recall.

Individuals with allergies to peanuts run the risk of a serious
or life threatening reaction if they consume this product.

Approximately 5,500 cartons of the recalled ice cream were
processed at the Midwest Ice Cream Company plant in Belvidere,
Illinois and distributed to retailers in portions of Illinois,
Indiana, Iowa, Michigan and Wisconsin.
How to Identify the Recalled Product

Only half-gallon rectangle containers of Fieldcrest chocolate
ice cream containing the following "best by date" and a time
code ranging from 2200 to 0050 are involved in the recall.
Consumers should look for this information on the side of the
carton lid to identify the product: 17-81 (time code between
2200 and 0050) 123 L2 Best by 5/03/06.

Midwest Ice Cream Company employees and retailers are removing
the product from store shelves. Consumers can return the product
to their place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers with
questions may contact Midwest Ice Cream Company toll free at
1-877-234-0022.

Midwest Ice Cream Company has been a part of the community for
over 70 years. The quality of our products and safety of our
consumers is our foremost concern. The Company will continue to
work with retailers, the Illinois Department of Public Health
and our customers to resolve this issue as quickly as possible.


NEW YORK: Judge Orders Officers To Stop Arresting Street Beggars
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Shira A. Sheindlin of the United States Court for the
Southern District in Manhattan ordered the New York City police,
county prosecutors and state judges to stop arresting and
punishing people who are peacefully begging on the streets, an
order first issued nearly 13 years ago, The New York Times
reports.  In addition to the order, the federal judge also
instructed city officials to immediately release anyone in
custody who is charged with loitering for the purpose of
begging.

Judge Sheindlin's ruling is in response to a class action suit,
which showed that the Police Department had quietly but openly
disregarded a ruling in 1992 by two federal courts that the
state's panhandling statute, the basis for arresting peaceful
beggars, violated the First Amendment.  Court filings also
revealed that aside from the arrests by the police, prosecutors
continued to bring the cases to court, and some state judges
permitted them to proceed. The Bronx district attorney told the
Times that such prosecutions were a mistake.

The city corporation counsel's office, which represents the
Bloomberg administration, declined to answer any questions about
Judge Sheindlin's instructions.  The Legal Action Center, an
organization that advocates for former offenders, objected to
the Police Department's release of the arrest records of Eddie
Wise, the lead plaintiff in the class action lawsuit over the
panhandling charges.  After the lawsuit was filed, a police
spokesman allegedly revealed that Mr. Wise had been convicted 29
times on 52 arrests.

An official with the Legal Action Center, Glenn E. Martin,
argued that the law sealed arrests that did not result in
convictions. He told the Times, "The sealing statute applies to
all criminal justice agencies, and the N.Y.P.D. is not exempt to
the rule."

However, the Police Department's chief spokesman, Paul J.
Browne, told the Times, "No official records or papers relating
to arrests in sealed cases were made available by this office."


NORTEL NETWORKS: Plaintiffs Seek Certification For NY Stock Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs asked the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York to grant class certification to
the consolidated securities lawsuit filed against Nortel
Networks Corporation and certain of its then current and former
officers and directors.

Subsequent to the March 10, 2004 announcement in which the
Company indicated it was likely that it would need to revise its
previously announced unaudited results for the year ended
December 31, 2003, and the results reported in certain of its
quarterly reports for 2003, and to restate its previously filed
financial results for one or more earlier periods, the Company
and certain of its then current and former officers and
directors were named as defendants in 27 purported class action
lawsuits.

These lawsuits were filed on behalf of shareholders who acquired
the Company's securities as early as February 16, 2001 and as
late as May 15, 2004 and allege, among other things, violations
of United States federal securities laws. These matters are also
the subject of investigations by Canadian and U.S. securities
regulatory and criminal investigative authorities.  On June 30,
2004, the Court signed Orders consolidating the 27 class actions
and appointing lead plaintiffs and lead counsel. The plaintiffs
filed a consolidated class action complaint on September 10,
2004, alleging a class period of April 24, 2003 through and
including April 27, 2004.  On November 5, 2004, Nortel Networks
Corporation and the Audit Committee Defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the consolidated class action complaint.  On January 18,
2005, the lead plaintiffs, the Company and the Audit Committee
Defendants reached an agreement in which the Company would
withdraw its motion to dismiss and plaintiffs would dismiss
Count II of the complaint which asserts a claim against the
Audit Committee Defendants.

The suit is styled "In re: Nortel Networks Corporation
Securities Litigation, case no. 1:05-md-01659-LAP," filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, under Judge Loretta A. Preska.  Representing the
Department of the Treasury of the State of New Jersey and its
Division of Investment, the lead plaintiff, is Daniel Lawrence
Berger of Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, 1285 Avenue
of the Americas, New York, NY 10019, Phone: 212-554-1406, Fax:
212-554-1444, E-mail: Dan@blbglaw.com.  Representing the Company
is Tai Hyun Park of Shearman & Sterling LLP (New York), 599
Lexington Avenue, New York, NY 10022, Phone: 212-848-5364, Fax:
212-848-7179, E-mail: tpark@shearman.com.


NORTEL NETWORKS: Ontario Shareholders Launch Fiduciary Duty Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nortel Networks Ltd., Nortel Networks Corporation (NNC) and
certain of their directors, officers, and certain former
directors and officers continue to face a purported class
proceeding in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice on behalf of
shareholders who acquired Nortel Networks Corporation securities
as early as November 12, 2002 and as late as July 28, 2004.

This lawsuit alleges, among other things, breaches of trust and
fiduciary duty, oppressive conduct and misappropriation of
corporate assets and trust property in respect of the payment of
cash bonuses to executives, officers and employees in 2003 and
2004 under the NNC Return to Profitability bonus program and
seeks damages of Canadian $250 and an order under the Canada
Business Corporations Act directing that an investigation be
made respecting these bonus payments.


NORTEL NETWORKS: Quebec Residents Launch Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Residents of Quebec, Canada filed a motion for authorization to
institute a class action against Nortel Networks Corporation in
the Quebec Superior Court.

Plaintiffs filed the motion on February 16, 2005 on behalf of
residents of Quebec, who purchased Company securities between
January 29, 2004 and March 15, 2004.  The motion alleges that
the Company made misrepresentations about its 2003 financial
results.


NORTEL NETWORKS: Ontario Shareholders Initiate Stock Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nortel Networks, Ltd., Nortel Networks Corporation (NNC),
certain of its current and former officers and directors and its
auditors face a class action proceeding filed in the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice, Commercial list.

The suit was filed on March 9, 2005 on behalf of all Canadian
residents who purchased Nortel Networks Corporation securities
from April 24, 2003 to April 27, 2004.  This lawsuit alleges,
among other things, negligence, misrepresentations, oppressive
conduct, insider trading and violations of Canadian corporation
and competition laws in connection with NNC's 2003 financial
results and seeks damages of Canadian $3,000, plus punitive
damages in the amount of Canadian $1,000, prejudgment and
postjudgment interest and costs of the action.


O'CHARLEY'S INC.: Working To Settle Suits V. TN Hepa A Outbreak
---------------------------------------------------------------
O'Charley's, Inc. continues working to settle litigation filed
over the September 2003 outbreak of Hepatitis A among its
customers and employees at one of its Knoxville, Tennessee
restaurants.

Several customers and employees were exposed to the Hepatitis A
virus, which resulted in a number of them becoming infected.
The Company worked closely with the Knox County Health
Department and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
when the Company became aware of this incident and cooperated
fully with their directives and recommendations.  81 individuals
contracted the Hepatitis A virus, and most cases have been
linked to the Company's Knoxville restaurant during the time of
the outbreak.

56 lawsuits have been filed against the Company, all but one of
which have been filed in the Circuit Court for Knox County,
Tennessee, that allege injuries or fear of injuries from the
Hepatitis A incident.  As of May 24, 2005, the Company and other
defendants have entered into agreements to settle 33 of the
cases.  A number of the remaining suits seek substantial
damages, including treble damages under Tennessee consumer
protection laws and punitive damages, and some of which seek to
be certified as class actions.

One individual who contracted Hepatitis A died after filing his
lawsuit.  This suit has been amended to seek compensatory
damages not to exceed $7.5 million and punitive damages not to
exceed $10.0 million, alleging wrongful death. Other plaintiffs
have alleged significant health concerns, including ailments
requiring hospitalization.

Each of the Knox County Health Department, the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug
Administration have tentatively associated the outbreak of the
Hepatitis A virus to eating green onions (scallions).


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

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

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

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

For more details, contact Teresa Webb or Carolyn Moskowitz of
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP, phone:
(888) 476-6529, E-mail: tlwebb@pomlaw.com or
csmoskowitz@pomlaw.com.


REGISTER.COM: NY Court Preliminarily Approves Lawsuit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against Register.com,
Inc. and:

     (1) its former Chairman, President and Chief Executive
         Officer Richard D. Forman;

     (2) its former Vice President of Finance and Accounting,
         Alan G. Breitman; and

     (3) Goldman Sachs & Co. and Lehman Brothers, Inc., two of
         the underwriters in the syndicate for the Company's
         March 3, 2000 initial public offering.

Stafford Perkins filed the suit in November 2001, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, alleging violations
of the federal securities laws.  Goldman Sachs & Co. and Lehman
Brothers, Inc. distributed 172,500 of the 5,750,000 shares in
the initial public offering.

A Consolidated Amended Complaint captioned "In re: Register.com,
Inc. Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation" (which is
now the operative complaint), was filed on April 19, 2002.  The
Consolidated Amended Complaint seeks unspecified damages as a
result of various alleged securities law violations arising from
activities purportedly engaged in by the underwriters in
connection with the Company's initial public offering.
Plaintiffs allege that the underwriter defendants agreed to
allocate stock in the Company's initial public offering to
certain investors in exchange for excessive and undisclosed
commissions and agreements by those investors to make additional
purchases of stock in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices.
Plaintiffs allege that the prospectus for the Company's initial
public offering was false and misleading in violation of the
securities laws because it did not disclose these arrangements.

The action is being coordinated with approximately three hundred
other nearly identical actions filed against other companies
before one judge in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York. On October 9, 2002, the Court dismissed
the Individual Defendants from the case without prejudice based
on Stipulations of Dismissal filed by the plaintiffs and the
Individual Defendants. On February 19, 2003, the Court denied
the motion to dismiss the complaint against the Company. On
October 13, 2004, the Court certified a class in six of the
approximately 300 other nearly identical actions and noted that
the decision is intended to provide strong guidance to all
parties regarding class certification in the remaining cases.
Plaintiffs have not yet moved to certify a class in the
Company's case.

The Company has approved a settlement agreement and related
agreements setting forth the terms of a settlement between the
Company, the Individual Defendants, the plaintiff class and the
vast majority of the other approximately 300 issuer defendants.
Among other provisions, the settlement provides for a release of
the Company and the Individual Defendants for the conduct
alleged in the action to be wrongful. The Company would agree to
undertake certain responsibilities, including agreeing to assign
away, not assert, or release certain potential claims the
Company may have against its underwriters. The settlement
agreement also provides a guaranteed recovery of $1 billion to
plaintiffs for the cases relating to all of the approximately
300 issuers. To the extent that the underwriter defendants
settle all of the cases for at least $1 billion, no payment will
be required under the issuers' settlement agreement. To the
extent that the underwriter defendants settle for less than $1
billion, the issuers are required to make up the difference. It
is anticipated that any potential financial obligation of the
Company to plaintiffs under the settlement agreement and related
agreements will be covered by existing insurance.

On February 15, 2005, the Court granted preliminary approval of
the settlement agreement, subject to certain modifications
consistent with its opinion. The Court ruled that the issuer
defendants and the plaintiffs must submit a revised settlement
agreement which provides for a mutual bar of all contribution
claims by the settling and non-settling parties and does not bar
the parties from pursuing other claims. The issuers and
plaintiffs have negotiated a revised settlement agreement
consistent with the court's opinion and are in the process of
obtaining approval from those issuer defendants that are not in
bankruptcy.  At this point, all but one of the issuer defendants
that are not in bankruptcy have approved the revised settlement
agreement, which has been submitted to the court. The
underwriter defendants will have an opportunity to object to the
revised settlement agreement.  There is no assurance that the
court will grant final approval to the settlement.

The suit is styled "In re Register.Com, Inc. Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, 01 Civ. 10120 (Sas)," filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York, under Judge Shira A. Scheindlin.  The plaintiff firms
in this litigation are:

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

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

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

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

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

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


ST. JAMES: Limited Partners Launch Securities Fraud Suit in TX
--------------------------------------------------------------
St. James Capital Partners, L.P. and its affiliated entity SJMB,
L.P. (collectively "St. James Partnerships") face a class action
filed in Texas State Court.  The suit also names as defendants
the partnerships' general partners and Charles E. Underbrink,
director of Black Warrior Wireline Corporation and a director of
the general partners of the St. James Partnerships.

Two of the limited partners of the St. James Partnerships filed
the suit, initially against the auditors of the St. James
Partnerships.  The suit was amended in March 005.  The
plaintiffs brought the action as a class action on behalf of all
the limited partners of the St. James Partnerships and are
seeking class action certification.

No claim has been asserted against Black Warrior and it is not a
defendant in the action.  However, the complaint and the amended
complaint in the action contain allegations that Black Warrior
participated with Mr. Underbrink in actions the plaintiffs
allege were fraudulent and constituted securities violations.


SYNOPSYS INC.: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Synopsys, Inc. asked the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California to dismiss a class action filed
against it and certain of its officers, styled "Kanekal v.
Synopsys, Inc., et al., No. C-04-3580."

The suit alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 on behalf of persons who acquired the Company's stock
during the period December 3, 2003 through August 18, 2004.  The
complaint alleges that the individual defendants caused the
Company to make false and misleading statements about the
Company's business, forecasts and financial performance, and
that certain Company officers or employees sold portions of
their stock holdings while in the possession of material,
adverse non-public information.  The complaint does not specify
the amount of damages sought.

In November 2004, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff in the
case.  In January 2005, the lead plaintiff, the Wu Group, filed
an amended complaint.  The Company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint and a motion for sanctions in March 2005.  The
Court has not ruled on either motion, nor has discovery
commenced in the case.  In addition, no trial date has been
established.


TRIPOS INC.: MO Court Yet To Rule On Securities Suit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court in St. Louis, Missouri has yet
to rule on Tripos, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the second amended
class action filed against it and two of its executive officers,
Dr. John P. McAlister and Mr. B. James Rubin, on behalf of
purchasers of the Company's common stock during the first half
of 2002.

The consolidated class action complaint alleged that statements
made by the Company in press releases and other public
disclosures contained materially false and misleading
information in violation of the federal securities laws.  The
suit, filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common
stock between February 9, 2000 and July 1, 2002, generally
alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants made false or
misleading statements of material fact about the Company's
prospects and failed to follow generally accepted accounting
principles in violation of the federal securities laws.  The
second amended complaint also names Ernst & Young LLP as a co-
defendant.  The amount of damages being sought is unspecified at
this time.  The Company and the individual defendants and Ernst
& Young filed motions to dismiss the second amended complaint.
The amount of damages being sought is unspecified at this time.


WOLVERINE PIPE: Judge OKs Jackson County Gasoline Spill Deal
------------------------------------------------------------
Some residents of Jackson County affected by a gasoline spill in
2000 are expected to receive checks as part of a settlement
reached in a class action lawsuit involving Wolverine Pipe Line
Co., The Associated Press reports.

Circuit Judge Charles Nelson, who recently approved the deal,
earmarked $106,949 for lawyers and $68,502 in court costs paid
by law firms, which would leave $249,548. That remaining would
be split evenly among 543 potential households.

Court documents show that the case stems from a lawsuit over an
underground valve at a fuel storage facility that burst on June
7, 2000, leaking about 72,000 gallons of unleaded gasoline. The
gasoline, which seeped into the groundwater and a county drain,
had forced officials to order an evacuation of hundreds of
homes.  About 75 households opted out of the class action, a few
because they sued Wolverine on their own and settled.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases


BOSTON COMMUNICATIONS: Charles J. Piven Lodges Stock Suit in MA
---------------------------------------------------------------
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 Boston
Communications Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: BCGI) between November 15,
2000, and May 20, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts against defendant Boston
Communications Group, Inc., Karen A. Walker and Edward Y.
Snowden. 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 by E-mail:
hoffman@pivenlaw.com.


BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS: Scott + Scott Lodges Stock Lawsuit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Scott + Scott LLC initiated a class action in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California for the benefit of purchasers of the common stock or
other securities of Brocade Communication Systems, Inc. (Nasdaq:
BRCD) between February 21, 2001 and May 15, 2005, inclusive (the
"Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants issued materially false and misleading financial
statements to the investing public. On May 16, 2005, the Company
issued a press release announcing the restatement of its fiscal
2001 to fiscal 2004 earnings. The release stated that "the
Company will restate its financial statements for the fiscal
years ending 2002 through 2004 to record additional charges for
stock-based compensation expense." The release noted that the
Company estimated the impact of the restatement would be to
reduce fiscal 2001 and fiscal 2002 earnings per share by up to
$0.11 and $0.19, respectively. The Company also estimated that
fiscal 2003 and fiscal 2004 earnings per share would be reduced
as well. As a result of this announcement, Brocade's stock
dropped to $4.13 per share, compared to the $40+ per share
prices it traded at during the Class Period.

For more details, contact Amy K. Saba of Scott + Scott, LLC,
Phone: +1-800-332-2259 ext. 26, E-mail: asaba@scott-scott.com.


CRAY INC.: Glancy Binkow Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in W.D. WA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP initiated a Class
Action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington on behalf of a class (the
"Class") consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired securities of Cray, Inc. ("Cray" or the
"Company") (Nasdaq:CRAY), between July 31, 2003 and May 12,
2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint charges Cray and certain of the Company's
executive officers with violations of federal securities laws.
The Complaint alleges defendants' omissions and material
misrepresentations during the Class Period artificially inflated
the Company's stock price, inflicting damages on investors.
Cray, Inc. designs, develops, markets and services computer
systems commonly known as supercomputers -- designed to provide
high actual sustained performance on difficult computational
problems. Plaintiff claims that, unbeknownst to public
investors, defendants knew or recklessly disregarded and failed
to disclose to the investing public that:

     (1) the Company's internal controls were inadequate,
         resulting in, among other things, inadequate review of
         third-party contracts and lack of software application
         controls and documentation;

     (2) as a consequence, the Company struggled to manage basic
         operational tasks, such as the development of software
         applications or customer requirements and
         specifications for systems per contract; and

     (3) defendants' statements with respect to Cray's status
         and progress were lacking in any reasonable basis when
         made.

On March 16, 2005, Cray disclosed that it will delay filing its
2004 annual report with the SEC due to an ongoing review of the
Company's internal controls, with a preliminary assessment that
Cray, among other things, "expects that it will identify one or
more material weaknesses, including inadequate review of third-
party contracts and lack of software application controls and
documentation." The news caused Cray shares to plummet more than
25%, to close on Mach 17, 2005, at $2.23 per share.

On May 9, 2005, Cray reported financial results for the first
quarter ended March 31, 2005, including a $21.0 million loss, or
$0.24 per share -- compared to a net loss of $3.8 million, or
$0.05 per share in the first quarter last year. This news caused
Cray's share price to plummet an additional 29%, to close on May
10, 2005 at $1.47 per share.

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


CRAY INC.: Shalov Stone Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in W.D. WA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Shalov Stone & Bonner LLP filed a class action
lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Cray,
Inc. ("Cray" or the "Company") (Nasdaq: CRAY) between July 31,
2003, and May 12, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking
to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The lawsuit is pending in the United States District Court for
the Western District of Washington against Cray, James E.
Rottsolk, Peter J. Ungaro, Scott J. Poteracki, David R. Keifer,
and Kenneth W. Johnson.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the
defendants failed to disclose and misrepresented the following
material adverse facts, which were known to defendants or
recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) that Cray's system of internal controls was inadequate
         because, among other things, it did not include an
         adequate review of third-party contracts and because
         there was a lack of software application controls and
         documentation;

     (2) that, as a result of the foregoing, it was difficult
         for Cray to manage fundamental operational tasks, such
         as the development of software applications, and the
         management of customer requirements and specifications;
         and

     (3) that the defendants' statements about the Company's
         status and progress were without any reasonable basis
         when made.

For more details, contact Thomas G. Ciarlone, Jr. of Shalov
Stone & Bonner LLP, 485 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1000, New York,
NY, 10018, Phone: (212) 239-4340, E-mail: tciarlone@lawssb.com,
Web site: http://www.lawssb.com.


DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP initiated a
class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities
of DreamWorks Animation SKG, Inc. ("DreamWorks" or the
"Company") (Nasdaq: DWA) between October 28, 2004 and May 10,
2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The action is pending in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California against defendants
DreamWorks, Ann Daly (COO), Jeffrey Katzenberg (CEO) and
Kristina M. Leslie (CFO).

The complaint alleges that defendants made materially false and
misleading statements with respect to DreamWorks's sales of
Shrek 2 home video units that dramatically inflated the price of
DreamWorks's common shares. At the commencement of the Class
Period, on October 28, 2005, in the Prospectus issued in
connection with DreamWorks's Initial Public Offering, defendants
claimed that they estimated the future returns of unsold home
video units based on enumerated factors. Three days after the
November 5, 2004 release of the Shrek 2 home video units, the
Company proclaimed that the Shrek 2 release had given "retailers
a fairytale beginning to the holiday season."

The complaint also alleges that on January 3, 2005, defendants
stated that they had already sold 37 million home video units
and, thereafter, variously projected sales of 40 million and 55
million Shrek 2 home video units by the end of the first quarter
of 2005. Both before and during the Class Period, defendants
assured investors that they had in place procedures that enabled
them to track home video unit sales and that they were capable
of establishing reserves for returned home video units based on
actual sales data and "their historical experience with similar
types of sales."

The complaint further alleges that, in truth and in fact,
defendants flooded the market with Shrek 2 home video units and
reported corresponding sales and revenues for each shipped unit,
all the while knowing or recklessly disregarding that:

     (1) the Company could not sustain the high rate of initial
         sales;

     (2) a material number of home video units were and would be
         returned and that, therefore,

     (3) defendants' statements with respect to both the present
         and projected volume of Shrek 2 home video unit sales
         were materially false and misleading.

The complaint alleges that the truth was revealed on May 10,
2005. On that date, the Company was forced to announce that
Shrek 2 home video sales had fallen well short of forecasts of
sales of at least 40 million, that the Company was not reporting
any first-quarter revenue attributable to sales of Shrek 2 home
video units and that the Company's first quarter net income
would be $46 million, or $0.44 per share, on revenue of $167
million -- a far cry from Company-sponsored and endorsed analyst
estimates of $0.58 per share. On this news, DreamWorks's share
price tumbled 15.6%, from a closing price of $36.50 on May 10,
2005 to a low of $30.80 on May 11, 2005. Insiders, including
several of the defendants named herein, profited handsomely from
defendants' materially false and misleading statements during
the Class Period, having sold shares of DreamWorks's stock for
proceeds of more than $188,274,108.

If you bought the securities of DreamWorks between October 28,
2004 and May 10, 2005 and sustained damages you may, no later
than August 1, 2005, request that the Court appoint you as lead
plaintiff. A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts
on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. In
order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine
that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other
class members, and that the class member will adequately
represent the class. Under certain circumstances, one or more
class members may together serve as "lead plaintiff." Your
ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by
the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. You
may retain Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP, or other
counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in this action.

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


DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Scott + Scott Lodges Securities Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Scott + Scott, LLC initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on behalf of purchasers of DreamWorks
Animation SKG, Inc. (NYSE: DWA) common stock during the period
between January 3, 2005 and May 10, 2005 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges DreamWorks and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. DreamWorks develops and produces CG animated films. The
complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants made
materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business and prospects, including statements regarding
the continuing strong sales of its "Shrek 2" DVD. Then, on May
10, 2005, one or more Company insiders leaked inside information
to a reporter at Newsweek. The same day, Newsweek ran a story
titled "Insiders say DreamWorks is about to report surprisingly
bad results," which stated that "the studio expects to report
earnings substantially below the 60 cents per share that Wall
Street analysts have estimated for the quarter." After the
market closed on May 10, 2005, DreamWorks released its financial
and operating results for Q1 2005 and reported revenues and
earnings far short of previous guidance and analysts'
expectations of earnings of $0.58 a share on revenue of $175.2
million.

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

For more details, contact Amy K. Saba of Scott + Scott, LLC,
Phone: +1-800-332-2259 ext. 26, E-mail: asaba@scott-scott.com.


OCA INC.: Kahn Gauthier Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. LA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kahn Gauthier Law Group, LLC ("Kahn Gauthier")
initiated a class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana on behalf of
purchasers of OCA, Inc. ("OCA" or "the Company") (NYSE: OCA)
common stock during the period between May 18, 2004, and June 6,
2005 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges OCA, a Metairie, Louisiana based company,
and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. 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.

For more details, contact Lewis S. Kahn of Kahn Gauthier, Phone:
1-866-467-1400, ext. 100 or 504-648-1850, Web site:
http://www.kglg.com/case/case.asp?lngCaseId=4301.


OCA INC.: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. LA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP initiated a
class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities
of OCA, Inc. ("OCA" or the "Company") (NYSE: OCA) between May
18, 2004 and June 6, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"),
seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The action is pending in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Louisiana, against defendants OCA,
Bartholomew F. Palmisano, Sr. (Chief Executive Officer) and
David E. Verret (Chief Financial Officer).

The Complaint alleges that Defendants issued, or caused to be
issued, false and misleading statements during the Class Period
to artificially inflate the value of OCA stock. Specifically, on
June 7, 2005, the Defendants admitted that they overstated
patient receivables in the 2004 Form 10-Q's filed for the
periods ending March 31, June 30 and September 30 of that year.
The Company has not yet disclosed the extent of the necessary
restatement of these periods, but has indicated that the amount
is material and that these statements should not be relied upon
by investors. The Company also disclosed that its Board of
Directors had appointed a Special Committee to review "certain
journal entries recorded in the Company's general ledger, the
circumstances in which they originated and their impact on the
Company's financial statements." In addition, the Special
Committee is reviewing "certain alleged changes in data provided
to the Company's independent registered public accounting firm."
On this news, and the Company's continued delay in filing its
annual report on Form 10-K, OCA's stock plummeted just shy of 40
percent on June 7, 2005, to close at $2.58 per share on
unusually high trading volume of 9 million shares.

For more details, contact Steven G. Schulman, One Pennsylvania
Plaza, 49th fl., New York, NY, 10119-0165, Phone:
(800) 320-5081, E-mail: sfeerick@milbergweiss.com OR Maya Saxena
or Joseph E. White III, 5200 Town Center Circle, Suite 600, Boca
Raton, FL, 33486, Phone: (561) 361-5000, E-mail:
msaxena@milbergweiss.com or jwhite@milbergweiss.com, Web site:
http://www.milbergweiss.com.


OCA INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Fraud Suit in LA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana on behalf of all purchasers of the
common stock of OCA, Inc. (F/K/A Orthodontic Centers of America,
Inc.)("OCA" or the "Company")(NYSE: OCA) between May 18, 2004
and June 6, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges OCA and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. OCA provides business services to orthodontic and
pediatric dental practices in the United States. 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 recorded certain revenues and direct
         costs in incorrect periods;

     (2) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls;

     (3) that the Company's financial results were in violation
         of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP");

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

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

On June 7, 2005, prior to the opening of the market, OCA
announced that it had identified certain errors in its
calculation of patient receivables reported during 2004, and had
determined that the amount of patient receivables reported at
each of March 31, June 30 and September 30, 2004 was overstated
by material amounts. News of this shocked the market. Shares of
OCA fell $1.55 per share or 38.4 percent, on June 7, 2005, to
close at $2.48 per share.

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


TIBCO SOFTWARE: Scott + Scott Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Scott + Scott LLC initiated a class action suit
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of
TIBCO Software, Inc. ("TIBCO" or the "Company") (Nasdaq: TIBX)
from September 21, 2004 through March 1, 2005, inclusive (the
"Class Period").

The complaint charges TIBCO and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. TIBCO engages in the development and marketing of software
solutions for the integration of business information,
processes, and applications in various industries outside the
financial services market. 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 Staffware PLC integration was not yet
         complete;

     (2) that the failed integration of Staffware was causing
         material disruptions for the Company;

     (3) that the failed Staffware integration caused a
         paralysis of leadership in the Company's European
         management, which resulted in a lack of execution in
         all European markets for the Company;

     (4) as such, the Company was unable to close any licensing
         deals that resulted in revenue of more than $5 million;
         and

     (5) that TIBCO did not maintain an adequate system of
         internal financial, operational or disclosure controls
         so as to reasonably assure the accuracy, completeness
         and veracity of the Company's public statements and
         representations to investors.

On March 1, 2005, defendants announced that TIBCO's results for
the first quarter of fiscal year 2005 were well below guidance.
Even worse, during TIBCO's first quarter of fiscal year 2005
conference call, defendants revealed that Staffware not only
remained unintegrated, but because of integration- related
problems, European sales had been paralyzed. News of this
shocked the market. Shares of TIBCO fell $1.86 per share, or
20.9 percent, to close at $7.04 per share on unusually heavy
trading volume.

For more details, contact Amy K. Saba of Scott + Scott, LLC,
Phone: +1-800-332-2259 ext. 26, E-mail: asaba@scott-scott.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  * * *