CAR_Public/050615.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, June 15, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 117

                          Headlines

AOL TIME: NY Court Awards $1M Attorney Fees To Spann Plaintiffs
APPLIED MICRO: CA Court Preliminarily OKs Stock Suit Settlement
CANADA: Ontario Court Certifies Flooding Suit V. Strafford City
CIB MARINE: Law Firms File Consolidated Shareholders' Suit in IL
ELECTRONIC ARTS: CA Employees Lodge Improper Classification Suit

ELECTRONIC ARTS: CA Employees Amend Labor Suit in CA State Court
ELECTRONIC ARTS: Shareholders Launch Securities Suits in N.D. CA
FEDEX GROUND: Former Independent Contractors Initiate Suit in RI
GUAM: EITC Lawsuit Settled, Parties Set to Meet Judge Over Terms
GYMBOREE OPERATIONS: CA Managers Initiate Overtime Wage Lawsuit

JNI CORPORATION: NY Court Preliminarily Approves Suit Settlement
MCDATA CORPORATION: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Suit Settlement
MISSOURI: Supreme Court Orders Appeals Court on Parking Tag Case
MURRY'S INC.: Recalls Frozen Beef Due To E.coli Contamination
NORDSTROM INC.: CA Court To Rule on CA Antitrust Suit Settlement

NORTH CAROLINA: Woodlake Residents Launch Suit Over Lake Use Fee
SCIENCE APPLICATIONS: Employees File Labor Violations Suit in CA
SEARS ROEBUCK: Trial in IL Securities Fraud Suit Set April 2006
SEARS ROEBUCK: Discovery Proceeds in IL ERISA Violations Lawsuit
SEARS ROEBUCK: Asks Court To Partially Dismiss SRAC Stock Suit

SEARS ROEBUCK: Plaintiffs Appeal Stay of IL State Stock Lawsuit
SEARS ROEBUCK: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Lawsuit V. Kmart Merger
SEARS ROEBUCK: Asks IL Court To Dismiss Lawsuit V. Kmart Merger
SHOPKO STORES: Shareholders Launch Suits V. Goldner Hawn Merger
WAL-MART STORES: Faces Pending Employee FLSA Violations Lawsuits

WAL-MART STORES: Working To Settle CA Female Employee Bias Suit
WAL-MART STORES: Female Employees File Gender Bias Suit in GA
WAL-MART STORES: Faces EEOC Gender Discrimination Lawsuit in KY

                Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

ABLE LABORATORIES: Berman DeValerio Lodges Securities Suit in NJ
ABLE LABORATORIES: Faruqi & Faruqi Lodges Stock Fraud Suit in CA
CARRIER ACCESS: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit in CO
DRDGOLD LIMITED: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Lawsuit in NY
DRDGOLD LIMITED: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Lawsuit in NY

DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Faruqi & Faruqi Lodges Stock Lawsuit in CA
EASTMAN KODAK: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Fraud Suit in NY
EASTMAN KODAK: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CA
NAVARRE CORPORATION: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit in MN
OCA INC.: Lockridge Grindal Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in LA

POSSIS MEDICAL: Federman Sherwood Lodges Securities Suit in MN

                          *********

AOL TIME: NY Court Awards $1M Attorney Fees To Spann Plaintiffs
---------------------------------------------------------------
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York Judge Denise Cote awarded $1 million in attorney fees for a
class action lawsuit in which the class itself will split $1.3
million of a $2.9 million settlement, or around $100 per class
member, The New York Journal reports.

The 2002 suit had charged that the company then known as AOL
Time Warner of failing to annualize partial years of
compensation in calculating pension benefits, thereby
underpaying the company's retirees.  Though arguing that such
annualization was only required under specific circumstances,
the company opted to settle the case for $2.9 million last year.

The agreement calls for one-third of the settlement to go to the
plaintiff's lawyers, with another $250,000 going to costs and
expenses and $300,000 for post-settlement administration. The
two name plaintiffs would receive $10,000 apiece, while the
remainder would be divided among a class of around 10,000
members.

In her decision in Spann v. AOL Time Warner, 02 Civ. 8238, the
Manhattan judge said that she had considered "whether an award
of fees of this magnitude is justified given the limited
recovery by the individual class members."  Judge Cote concluded
that the attorney fees were warranted because, given the small
individual amounts involved, the issues would not have been
addressed if the plaintiff's lawyers had not brought the class
action.  In addition, the judge said that the attorneys and
plaintiffs had run a considerable risk that there would have
been no award, given Time Warner's defense that it had
interpreted its annualization policy consistently for decades.

Noting that the Company had revised its pension plans to avoid
similar litigation in the future Judge Cote said the lawyers had
"bestowed a benefit on the plans by removing an arguable
ambiguity from the governing documents."  Though the fee award
represented a large percentage of the settlement, the judge said
that the lawyers could have claimed even more under an hourly
calculation.

The suit is styled, Spann v. AOL Time Warner, 02 Civ. 8238,
filed in United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York, Judge Denise L. Cote presiding. The chief
plaintiff, Henry Spann was represented by Ronald Kravitz and Kim
Zeldin of Los Angeles' Liner, Yankelevitz, Sunshine &
Regenstreif, L.L.P., 3130 Wilshire Boulevard, Second Floor,
Santa Monica, CA, 90403, Phone: (310) 453-5900. The defendant,
AOL Time Warner Inc., was represented by the law firm of Paul,
Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, 1285 Avenue of the
Americas, New York, NY, 10019, Phone: (212) 373-3215, Fax:
(212) 373-2070, E-mail: lclayton@paulweiss.com.


APPLIED MICRO: CA Court Preliminarily OKs Stock Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
California granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against Applied Micro
Circuits Corporation and certain of its executive officers and
directors, styled "In re Applied Micro Circuits Corp. Securities
Litigation, lead case number 01 CV 0649 K(AB)."

In April 2001, a series of similar federal complaints were
filed, and later consolidated into a single proceeding.  The
consolidated federal complaint alleged violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and was brought as a shareholder
class action under Exchange Act Sections 10(b), 20(a), 20A and
Rule 10b-5.

In January 2005, the parties entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding pursuant to which the Company agreed to pay $60
million to settle the litigation. In April 2005, the Company and
its insurers funded the settlement fund following the court's
preliminary approval of the settlement.  Of the total amount,
the Company's insurers paid approximately $31 million. The
settlement is subject to final court approval, which the Company
does not expect to occur before June 2005.


CANADA: Ontario Court Certifies Flooding Suit V. Strafford City
---------------------------------------------------------------
Residents of Stratford in Ontario, Canada won a decisive victory
in a long-running legal battle in a lawsuit against the city,
The Broadcast News 2005 reports.

A judge certified a class action over flooding three years ago
that left as many as 800 homes drenched in a stinking, meter-
deep cesspool.  The suit, which is seeking damages of $210
million from the city, claims that the town knew something was
rotten with the sewer system but didn't do anything to address
the situation. It alleges that sewer backup and flooding after
heavy rain in July 2002 caused major property damage, devalued
homes and made some people ill.

However, the city vehemently argued that the system was properly
built and maintained, and that the freak storm was an act of
God. The city's lawyer told Broadcast News that they might
appeal the certification ruling.


CIB MARINE: Law Firms File Consolidated Shareholders' Suit in IL
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wisconsin-based CIB Marine Bancshares, the parent company of
Central Illinois Bank, faces a consolidated class action suit
from unhappy shareholders who claim that they were kept in the
dark about the company's true financial situation, The
Urbana/Champaign News-Gazette reports.

The company, which is trying to rebound from two years of
financial woes, along with several of the company's current or
former directors and the company's accounting and auditing firm,
KPMG, LLP was named as one of the defendants in the suit.

The consolidated suit, which was filed by the Phebus & Koester
law firm of Urbana and the Leiter Group law firm of Peoria,
names CIB Marine shareholder Dennis Lewis as lead plaintiff. The
case is pending before U.S. District Judge Michael McCuskey.  
The suit, which seeks damages for all shareholders who bought
CIB Marine Bancshares stock between April 12, 1999, and April
12, 2004, names 10 current or former directors as defendants and
alleges that both they and the company violated securities laws
by fraudulently concealing adverse information in an attempt to
"maintain artificially high market prices" for CIB Marine common
stock. It specifically claims that the defendants failed to
disclose to investors that the company's commercial and real
estate loan portfolio, particularly at its Chicago bank, was
deteriorating.  The plaintiffs also claim KPMG violated
securities laws by disregarding or failing to disclose unsound
banking practices in its audits of the company.

Originally, the two law firms had filed separate class action
suits in January against certain CIB Marine directors, but in
June 3, they consolidated their cases and amended their
complaints.

In response to the suit, CIB Marine Bancshares President Stanley
J. Calderon, in a May 2 letter to shareholders said, "We believe
both of these lawsuits are without merit. We are aggressively
defending the interests of our company against these and any
other lawsuits that we consider to be baseless."


ELECTRONIC ARTS: CA Employees Lodge Improper Classification Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Electronic Arts, Inc. faces an amended employee class action
filed in the Superior Court in San Mateo, California, styled
"Kirschenbaum v. Electronic Arts, Inc."  The suit was filed on
July 29, 2004, alleging that the Company improperly classified
"Image Production Employees" in California as exempt employees
and seeks injunctive relief, unspecified monetary damages,
interest and attorneys' fees.

The complaint was first amended on November 30, 2004 to add two
former employees as named-plaintiffs, and amended again on or
about January 5, 2005 to add another former employee as a named-
plaintiff.  The allegations in the complaint were not materially
changed by the amendments.


ELECTRONIC ARTS: CA Employees Amend Labor Suit in CA State Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Electronic Arts, Inc. faces an amended employee class action
filed in the Superior Court in San Mateo, California, styled
"Hasty v. Electronic Arts Inc."  The complaint, filed on
February 14, 2005, alleges that the Company improperly
classified "Engineers" in California as exempt employees and
seeks injunctive relief, unspecified monetary damages, interest
and attorneys' fees.

On March 16, 2005, the Company received a first amended
complaint, which contains the same material allegations as the
original complaint.  The company answered the first amended
complaint on April 20, 2005.


ELECTRONIC ARTS: Shareholders Launch Securities Suits in N.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Electronic Arts, Inc. faces several shareholder class actions
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California.  The suit also names as defendants
certain of the Company's officers and directors.

The complaints assert claims under Section 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on allegedly false and
misleading statements, on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
securities during the period between January 25, 2005 and March
21, 2005.  The complaints allege that Electronic Arts and the
Individual Defendants made material misrepresentations and/or
omitted to make material disclosures throughout the Class Period
by knowingly disseminating false projections for the Company's
fourth quarter, ended March 31, 2005.


FEDEX GROUND: Former Independent Contractors Initiate Suit in RI
----------------------------------------------------------------
Raymond F. Tierney, who signed on as a independent driver for
FedEx Home Delivery two years ago mainly because of the freedom
the job offered along eight other current and former independent
contractors for FedEx Home Delivery in the Rhode Island area
initiated a lawsuit in U.S. District Court, Providence, against
the Company's parent, FedEx Ground Package System Inc., which is
part of a group of companies operated by FedEx Corporation
(NYSE: FDX) of Memphis, Tennessee, The Providence Journal
reports.

The independent contractors are seeking to be legally declared
employees of the company, paid cash for the overtime they
worked, reimbursed for their overhead expenses and included in
the health insurance, pension and other such plans that cover
FedEx Ground employees, said their lawyer, Peter N. Wasylyk, of
Providence.  They also want a judge to certify their lawsuit as
a class action, thus allowing them to represent nearly all of
FedEx Home Delivery's independent contractors.

David Westrick, spokesman for FedEx Ground, told the Journal,
"While we cannot comment on the specifics of ongoing or pending
[lawsuits], I can tell you that more than 120 rulings over the
past 20 years by numerous courts and agencies have supported the
independent-contractor model." He goes on to say, "We will
continue to protect the rights of our independent contractors
and vigorously defend our model -- a model that has been the
foundation for phenomenal growth and numerous opportunities for
our independent contractors."

In an interview with the Journal at Amazing Grace Church in West
Warwick, where he is associate pastor, Mr. Tierney, 55, of North
Providence, an Army veteran, said that he worked for the U.S.
Postal Service for 26 years, most recently as postmaster in
Seekonk. He adds that though he took early retirement in 1999
after a heart operation, he was later drawn back to the work
force partly by a FedEx Home Delivery newspaper advertisement
that promised him "the freedom to run my own business, to have a
say in my own destiny."

He goes on to recount that on June 2003, he signed up and was on
the job just two days when trouble arose. He told the Journal,
"We found out right away that it was a scam. They could
manipulate the workload any way they wanted."

As the workload grew, so did his hours, Mr. Tierney said. He
explains that he typically worked from 6 a.m. to 4 p.m. each
day, with no time to spare between deliveries. "I would eat
lunch in the truck," he adds.

Later, Mr. Tierney would find out that his autonomy was actually
limited by a range of company-imposed restrictions. For example,
he had his own truck, but had to buy it from the Company's list
of vendors, he said. He had to buy insurance, truck decals and
uniforms from the company, Mr. Tierney said. All the while,
FedEx Home Delivery controlled his work assignments and workload
setting minimum daily hours, for instance, and requiring that
drivers be available to work holidays.  The Company allegedly
treated him more like an employee than an independent
contractor, but did not compensate him accordingly, he said.

Mr. Tierney told the Journal that the Company ended his contract
early last month, after he had started to enlist other drivers
in a lawsuit, but before the lawsuit was filed. He says, "We
were watching FedEx get richer and richer and richer on the
backs of the drivers. Somebody had to stand up."

Besides Mr. Tierney, other independent contractors who have
joined as plaintiffs in the lawsuit, according to court
documents, include: Paul J. Luongo, of Smithfield, Wayne F.
Mills Jr., of Cranston, Alan Ginet, of East Providence, Stephen
H. McGuinness and Ricardo Bacani, both of Warwick, Eric J. Moss
and Sammy Farland, both of North Providence and Donald J.
McClafferty of Norwich, Connecticut.


GUAM: EITC Lawsuit Settled, Parties Set to Meet Judge Over Terms
----------------------------------------------------------------
Notice was given in the District Court in Guam that a term
sheet, which is essentially a settlement, was reached in the
ongoing class action lawsuit over Earned Income Tax Credit, The
KUAM.com, Guam reports.

According to court documents, Governor Felix Camacho and the
directors of the departments of Revenue & Taxation and
Administration have entered into a term sheet with the
petitioners in the case.  The parties are expected to make a
report to the District Court on the term sheet by this week.

As previously reported in the June 21, 2004 edition of the class
action reporter, acting governor Kaleo Moylan announced an
agreement to settle a class action lawsuit by Ms. Santos on the
government's failure to pay years of Earned Income Tax Credit
refunds to the island's thousands of low-income taxpayers for
$60 million. But, that case stalled last November after Gov.
Felix Camacho challenged the settlement agreement in court.

Under that settlement, the local government would have been
required to put aside $20 million to pay 2004 tax credits in
full, and will continue to do so in future years. Taxpayers will
not see that money until after the tax filing season next year,
which ends April 15.


GYMBOREE OPERATIONS: CA Managers Initiate Overtime Wage Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gymboree Operations, Inc. faces a class action filed in the
Superior court of Riverside County, California, alleging
violations of the state's overtime wage laws.

The suit was filed on April 21,2005 on behalf of the manager of
a Gymboree store in Temecula, California, alleging that the
Company failed to pay overtime wages and provide meal breaks.
The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages, including interest and
penalties, under the California Labor Code and other statutes.
The complaint also seeks class action status on behalf of the
plaintiff and other managers of Company stores in California. On
May 20, 2005, the Company filed an answer generally denying the
plaintiff's allegations.


JNI CORPORATION: 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 corporation filed against JNI
Corporation and the underwriters of its initial and secondary
public offerings of common stock, styled "In re JNI Corporation
Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, case no. 01 Civ
10740 (SAS)."

In November 2001, a class action lawsuit was filed, alleging
that defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in
connection with the Company's public offerings.  This lawsuit is
among more than 300 class action lawsuits pending in this court
that have come to be known as the "IPO laddering cases."

In June 2003, a proposed partial global settlement, subsequently
approved by the Company's board of directors, was announced
between the issuer defendants and the plaintiffs that would
guarantee at least $1 billion to investors who are class members
from the insurers of the issuers.  The proposed settlement, if
approved by the court and by the issuers, would be funded by
insurers of the issuers, and would not result in any payment by
JNI or the Company.

The Court has granted its preliminary approval of settlement
subject to defendants' agreement to modify certain provisions of
the settlement agreements regarding contractual indemnification.
The Company has accepted the Court's proposed modifications.  
The court has set a hearing for final approval of the settlement
for January 9, 2006.


MCDATA CORPORATION: NY Court Preliminarily OKs 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 McDATA
Corporation and:

     (1) John F. McDonnell, the former Chairman of the board of
         directors,

     (2) Dee J. Perry, a former officer,

     (3) Thomas O. McGimpsey, a current officer

     (4) Credit Suisse First Boston (CSFB),

     (5) Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith, Inc.,

     (6) Bear, Stearns & Co., Inc. and

     (7) FleetBoston Robertson Stephens et al.

Several suits were initially filed, which were substantially
identical to numerous other complaints filed against other
companies that went public in 1999 and 2000.  These lawsuits
generally allege, among other things, that the registration
statements and prospectus filed with the SEC by such companies
were materially false and misleading because they failed to
disclose that certain underwriters had allegedly solicited and
received excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain
investors in exchange for which the underwriters allocated to
those investors material portions of shares in connection with
the initial public offerings, or IPOs, and that certain of the
underwriters had allegedly entered into agreements with
customers whereby the underwriters agreed to allocate IPO shares
in exchange for which the customers agreed to purchase
additional company shares in the aftermarket at pre-determined
prices.

The complaints allege claims against the Company, the named
individuals, and CSFB, the lead underwriter of the Company's
August 9, 2000 initial public offering, under Sections 11 and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933.  The complaints also allege
claims solely against CSFB and the other underwriter defendants
under Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, and claims
against the individual defendants under Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

In September 2002, plaintiffs' counsel in the above-mentioned
lawsuits offered to individual defendants of many of the public
companies being sued, including the Company, the opportunity to
enter into a Reservation of Rights and Tolling Agreement that
would dismiss without prejudice and without costs all claims
against such persons if the company itself had entity coverage
insurance.  This agreement was signed by Mr. McDonnell, the
former Company Chairman, Mrs. Perry, the former chief financial
officer, and Mr. McGimpsey, the current Vice President of
Business Development and General Counsel and the plaintiffs'
executive committee.  Under the Reservation of Rights and
Tolling Agreement, the plaintiffs dismissed the claims against
such individuals.  

On February 19, 2003, the court in the above-mentioned lawsuits
entered a ruling on the pending motions to dismiss, which
dismissed some, but not all, of the plaintiffs' claims against
the Company. These lawsuits have been consolidated as part of In
Re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation (SDNY). The
Company has considered and agreed to enter into a proposed
settlement offer with representatives of the plaintiffs in the
consolidated proceeding, and the Company believes that any
liability on behalf of the Company that may accrue under that
settlement offer would be covered by the Company's insurance
policies. Until that settlement is fully effective, management
intends to vigorously defend against the consolidated
proceeding.   

The suit is styled "In Re McDATA Corporation Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation," related to "IN re IPO
Allocation Securities Litigation," filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, under
Judge Shira N. Scheindlin.  The plaintiff firms in this
litigation are:

     (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, E-mail:
         newyork@whafh.com


MISSOURI: Supreme Court Orders Appeals Court on Parking Tag Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Supreme Court ordered a federal appeals court to
reconsider whether Missouri can charge the disabled $2 for a
windshield hangtag that allows them to park in reserved spaces,
The Associated Press reports.

At issue in the case is whether the fee violates a federal law
barring discrimination against the disabled by imposing a
financial burden on those seeking parking at grocery stores,
malls and courthouses.

Previously, the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis
threw out the class action lawsuit by a group of disabled
people, ruling in part that Congress did not have authority to
regulate Missouri's fee because the $2 charge had a minimal
impact on interstate commerce.

In the recent decision, the justices asked the lower court to
review its decision again in light of the Supreme Court's
decision in Tennessee v. Lane, which authorized lawsuits against
states for money damages when they involve the disabled's
fundamental right to access to the courts.

Missouri provides disabled license plates at the same price as
standard license plates. Its $2 charge for portable disabled
parking placards generates about $400,0000 annually.

The case is styled, Klingler et al v. Missouri, 04-585. The
petitioners, Charlotte Klingler, Charles Wehner, and Sheila
Brashear are represented by represented by Frederick Michael
Switzer III of Danna McKitrick, P.C., 150 North Meramec, Fourth
Floor St. Louis, MO, 63105, Phone: (314) 726-1000. The
Respondent, Director, Department of Revenue, State of Missouri,
represented by Paul D. Clement, Acting Solicitor General of the
United States Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue,
N.W., Room 5614, Washington, DC, 20530-0001, Phone: (202) 514-
2217.


MURRY'S INC.: Recalls Frozen Beef Due To E.coli Contamination
-------------------------------------------------------------
Murry's, Inc., a Lebanon, Pennsylvania firm, is voluntarily
recalling approximately 63,850 pounds of frozen ground beef
products that may be contaminated with E. coli O157:H7.  All of
the products subject to recall contain the production code
"40104" and bear the establishment number "EST. 516A" inside the
USDA seal of inspection.

Products subject to recall include:
     
     (1) Packages of "MURRY'S 100% PURE BEEF Jumbo Beef
         Patties." Each package contains 6-6.4 ounce patties.
         The item code, "06716" is listed on the label. The
         patties were produced on April 1, 2004, and were
         distributed to retail customers in Delaware, Maryland,
         New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Washington, D.C.

     (2) 20-ounce packages of "MURRY'S Family of Fine Foods
         Gourmet Meatballs, Oven Ready, Cooks in 15 Minutes."
         The item code, "63101" is listed on the label. The
         meatballs were produced on April 1, 2004, and were
         distributed to retail customers in Connecticut,
         Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, Massachusetts,
         New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, South Carolina,
         Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia and
         Washington, D.C.

     (3) 10-pound boxes of "MURRY'S Steaks and Other Fine Foods,
         01357, 4B WIDE 100% ALL BEEF PATTIES, NET WT. 10 LBS.
         The patties were produced on April 1, 2004, and were
         distributed to foodservice customers in Maryland, North
         Carolina, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Washington, D.C.

     (4) 10-pound boxes of "MURRY'S Steaks and Other Fine Foods,
         01340, 2 OUNCE 100% ALL BEEF PATTIES, NET WT. 10 LBS."
         The patties were produced on April 1, 2004, and were
         distributed to retail customers in Delaware, Maryland,
         New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Washington, D.C.

The recall was prompted by epidemiological evidence provided to
FSIS by the state of New Jersey related to an illness linked to
consumption of this product.  E. coli O157:H7 is a potentially
deadly bacteria that can cause bloody diarrhea and dehydration.
The very young, seniors and persons with compromised immune
systems are the most susceptible to foodborne illness.

Media with questions about the recall should contact company
President and Chief Executive Officer Ira Mendelson at (301)
420-6400, ext. 800. Consumers with questions about the recall
should contact company Senior Vice-President-Food Store Division
Gary Gold at (301) 420-6400, ext. 825.  Consumers with food
safety questions can phone the toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry
Hotline at 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854). The hotline is
available in English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m.
to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food
safety messages are available 24 hours a day.


NORDSTROM INC.: CA Court To Rule on CA Antitrust Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California has yet to decide on final approval for the
settlement of the antitrust class action filed against
Nordstrom, Inc. and other department store and specialty
retailers.

Nine separate but virtually identical class action lawsuits were
initially filed in various Superior Courts of the State of
California in May, June and July 1998, and later consolidated in
Marin County Superior Court in California.  In May 2000,
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint naming a number of
manufacturers of cosmetics and fragrances and two other
retailers as additional defendants.  

Plaintiffs' amended complaint alleges that the retail price of
the "prestige" or "Department Store" cosmetics sold in
department and specialty stores was collusively controlled by
the retailer and manufacturer defendants in violation of the
Cartwright Act and the California Unfair Competition Act.  
Plaintiffs seek treble damages and restitution in an unspecified
amount, attorneys' fees and prejudgment interest, on behalf of a
class of all California residents who purchased cosmetics and
fragrances for personal use from any of the defendants during
the four years prior to the filing of the amended complaint.  

Defendants, including the Company, have answered the amended
complaint denying the allegations.  The defendants have produced
documents and responded to plaintiffs' other discovery requests,
including providing witnesses for depositions.

The Company entered into a settlement agreement with the
plaintiffs and the other defendants on July 13, 2003.  In
furtherance of the settlement agreement, the case was re-filed
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of a class of all persons who currently
reside in the United States and who purchased "Department Store"
cosmetics from the defendants during the period May 29, 1994
through July 16, 2003.  The Court has given preliminary approval
to the settlement.  A summary notice of class certification and
the terms of the settlement has been disseminated to class
members.  A hearing on whether the Court will grant final
approval of the settlement is being scheduled.  If approved by
the Court, the settlement will result in the plaintiffs' claims
and the claims of all class members being dismissed, with
prejudice, in their entirety.  In connection with the settlement
agreement, the defendants will provide class members with
certain free products and pay the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees.  

The suit is styled "Azizian et al v. Federated Department
Stores, Inc. et al, case no. 4:03-cv-03359," filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California,
under Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong.  Representing the
plaintiffs is Guido Saveri of Saveri & Saveri, Inc., 111 Pine
Street, Suite 1700, San Francisco, CA 94111-5630, Phone:
415-217-6810, Fax: 415-217-6813, E-mail: guido@saveri.com.  
Representing the Company is Larry S. Gangnes, 1420 Fifth Avenue,
Ste. 4100, Seattle, WA 98101-2338, Phone: (206) 223-7036, E-
mail: gangnesl@lanepowell.com.


NORTH CAROLINA: Woodlake Residents Launch Suit Over Lake Use Fee
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Woodlake Concerned Citizens Legal Committee, which feels
that they should not have to pay a fee to use the community's
1,200-acre lake, filed a class action lawsuit against the club's
owners, The Southern Pines Pilot, reports.

The group, which is headed by Frank Bauman, a former Washington,
D.C., businessman who's lived in Woodlake since 1999, allege
that the owners instituted some changes on January 1 regarding
memberships fees, including the implementation of a lake usage
fee, that aren't in line with the bylaws and constitution of
Woodlake.

The group, which claims to resident "a majority" of the
community's 700 or so residents, are opposing to the
"unilateral" imposition of a restaurant fee and changes to
membership categories. In their complaint, the group states that
the amount in question exceeds $10,000.

Mr. Bauman told the Pilot that his group believes the owners
circumvented the normal procedures regarding policies when they
did not properly consult with the Board of Advisers. The board,
whose members are selected by residents and the owners, is
supposed to have input in the way the community is run, he
explains.

The complaint, which was filed last month, outlines the board's
implied role in governing the community. It initially states,
"Ultimately, all decisions must be confirmed by management, but
management wishes to operate the club in accordance with the
wishes of the membership and therefore wishes to appoint a Board
of Advisers to assist and advise management in the operations of
the club." It later states that the board "shall make such
recommendations as it deems advisable to management for the most
efficient operations and administration of the club."

Additionally, it also reads, "other provisions of the club's
constitutions and bylaws and rules and regulations, likewise set
forth in the manner in which the defendant will work with and
through the Board of Advisers to ensure that membership
privileges are protected and the concerns of the members
themselves are fully considered."

Mr. Bauman told the Pilot that Ingolf Boex, the owner of
Woodlake, unilaterally imposed the changes without giving the
Board of Advisers a chance to offer input. He also adds that the
fees themselves aren't illegal, but the group opposes the manner
in which they've been imposed.

In the complaint, the plaintiffs contend that they, "in
purchasing their respective lots reasonably relied upon
representations and warranties made by the defendant that no
other fees were due from them to support the club as part of
their membership obligations, other than those dues/fees to be
charged in accordance with the governing bylaws, constitution,
HUD reports, rules and regulations, and covenants as established
by the defendant and the Board of Advisers.

The complaint goes on to state, "Furthermore, the plaintiffs,
and each of them, prior to applying for and becoming members of
the Woodlake Country Club, reasonably relied upon the
defendant's representations that changes in membership rights
and obligations would only be made in accordance with the
governing documents of the club."

The plaintiffs also contend that charging a lake usage fee is
illegal because the lake, which is fed by Crains Creek and
Cypress Creek, is a navigable body of water.

According to Bauman, most residents have not yet paid the lake
usage fee. He told, the Post that the reason his Woodlake
Concerned Citizens waited until May to file the lawsuit is
because he and the others wanted to be diligent. He explains
that the group wanted to gauge its support and that it's "done
its homework." He explained how the group got started.

Explaining how the group got started, Mr. Bauman told the Post,
"At the end of last year, the owner published a newsletter with
new membership structures, along with associated fees. The
majority of the membership was surprised and angered at that
time. As a result of that, we met on numerous occasions to
decide whether we were on good ground for objecting. Through
that process, we discovered that we felt we had some good
arguments."

Mr. Bauman goes on to tell the Post that the next step was
determining the level of support among the members. "We found
out that we had both a good basis for objection and support," he
said. "There have been some who've objected to the whole
procedure, but you know how that goes." He also told the Post,
"We've had three or four public meetings and people have signed
on at each one," adding that more than 300 people turned out for
the last meeting, which was held at Vass-Lakeview Elementary.
"We had a lawyer come to explain to them exactly what would
happen in a class action."

Since the group first began meeting in December, the support has
grown, he said. He also adds that there is now a Web site,
http://www.wlconcernedcitizens.org,which chronicles the group's  
activities.

Experts pointed out that if the group's suit were granted class
action status by a judge, they would then legally represent all
of the Woodlake property owners in the lawsuit.

Mr. Bauman, along with legal committee members Michael Brough,
Pam Jones, Gene Frazelle and Greg Tillman are listed, as the
plaintiffs would represent the property owners in any legal
matters. Michael Newman of the law firm of Van Camp, Meacham and
Newman are representing them.


SCIENCE APPLICATIONS: Employees File Labor Violations Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Science Applications International Corporation faces a class
action filed in the California Superior Court for the County of
San Diego, styled "Gracian v. SAIC."

A former employee filed the suit on March 4, 2005 on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated.  The suit alleged that
the Company improperly required exempt salaried and professional
employees in the State of California to utilize their paid leave
balances for partial day absences. The plaintiffs contend that
the Company's policy violates California law and seeks, among
other things, the unpaid vacation balance allegedly owed to
plaintiffs, overtime compensation, penalties, interest, punitive
damages and attorney fees.  The Company is analyzing the lawsuit
and the underlying issues.

On May 31, 2005, the California Labor Commissioner issued a
memorandum to the California Division of Labor Standards
Enforcement Staff that interprets California law in a way that
supports the Company's legal positions in this case.  The May
31, 2005 memorandum removes a prior California Labor
Commissioner opinion letter that interpreted California law in a
way that had supported the plaintiffs' legal position.


SEARS ROEBUCK: Trial in IL Securities Fraud Suit Set April 2006
---------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the consolidated securities class action filed against
Sears, Roebuck and Co. is set to begin in April 2006 in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois.

Several suits were initially filed against the Company and
certain of its current and former officers, on and after October
18, 2002, alleging that certain public announcements by the
Company concerning its credit card business violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  The suits were filed on behalf of
purchasers of the Company's common stock from January 17,2002 to
October 17,2002.

The Court has consolidated the actions and certified the
consolidated action as a class action.  Discovery is underway.

The suit is styled "Craig v. Sears Roebuck & Co, et al., case
no. 1:02-cv-07527," filed in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois, under Judge Elaine E.
Bucklo.  Representing the plaintiffs is Steven G. Schulman of
Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP, One Pennsylvania Plaza,
49th Floor, New York, NY 10119-0165, Phone: (212)-594-5300.  
Representing the Company are Jeffrey C. Fourmaux of Wachtell,
Lipton, Rosen & Katz, 51 West 52nd Street, New York, HY 10019,
Phone: (212)-403-1000 and Harold C. Hirshman of Sonnenschein,
Nath & Rosenthal, LLP, 233 South Wacker Drive, 8000 Sears Tower,
Chicago, IL 60606, Phone: (312)876-8000.


SEARS ROEBUCK: Discovery Proceeds in IL ERISA Violations Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in the class action filed against Sears,
Roebuck & Co., Inc. in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, alleging violations of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).  The suit also
names as defendants certain of the Company's officers and
directors, and alleged fiduciaries of the Company's 401(k)
Savings Plan.

On and after November 15, 2002, several actions were filed on
behalf of participants in the Plan.  The suits allege breaches
of fiduciary duties under ERISA in connection with the Plan's
investment in the Company's common shares and alleged
communications made to Plan participants regarding the Company's
financial condition.  The Court has consolidated these actions
and certified the consolidated action as a class action.  No
trial date has been set.

The suit is styled "In re Sears Roebuck ERISA Litigation, case
no. 02-c-8234," filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois, under Judge John W. Darrah.  
Representing the plaintiffs is Steven E. Cauley of Lerach
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP, 200 Broadhollow Road
#406 Melville, NY 11747, Phone: (631) 367-7100.  Representing
the Company is Harold C. Hirshman, Sonnenschein, Nath &
Rosenthal, LLP, 233 South Wacker Drive, 8000 Sears Tower,
Chicago, IL 60606, Phone: (312) 876-8000.


SEARS ROEBUCK: Asks Court To Partially Dismiss SRAC Stock Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sears Roebuck & Co. asked the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois to partially dismiss the
consolidated amended securities class action filed against it
and certain of its officers.  

The suit was initially filed on behalf of a class of all persons
who, between June 21, 2002 and October 17, 2002, purchased the
7% notes that the Company's domestic wholly-owned financing
subsidiary, Sears Roebuck Acceptance Corporation (SRAC), issued
on June 21, 2002.

An amended complaint has been filed, naming as additional
defendants certain former officers, SRAC and several investment
banking firms who acted as underwriters for SRAC's March 18, May
21 and June 21, 2002 notes offerings. The amended complaint
alleges that the defendants made misrepresentations or omissions
concerning its credit business during the class period and in
the registration statements and prospectuses relating to the
offerings. The amended complaint alleges that these
misrepresentations and omissions violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, and Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933 and purports to be brought on behalf of a class of all
persons who purchased any security of SRAC between October 24,
2001 and October 17, 2002, inclusive.

The defendants filed motions to dismiss the action.  On
September 24, 2004, the court granted these motions in part, and
denied them in part.  The court dismissed the claims related to
the March 18 and May 21, 2002 note offerings because the
plaintiff did not purchase notes in those offerings.  The court
dismissed the Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claims against
several of the individual defendants because the plaintiff
failed to adequately plead such claims.  The court sustained the
remaining claims.  

By leave of court, the plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint on November 15, 2004.  Defendants (other than one of
the underwriter defendants) filed motions to partially dismiss
the second amended complaint on January 10, 2005.  The defendant
that did not move to partially dismiss filed an answer to the
second amended complaint on January 28, 2005, denying all
liability.

The suit is styled "Ong, et al v. Sears Roebuck & Co, et al,
case no. 1:03-cv-04142," filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois under Judge Rebecca
R. Pallmeyer.  Representing the plaintiffs is Carol V. Gilden,
Much, Shelist, Freed, Denenberg, Ament & Rubenstein, P.C., 191
North Wacker Drive, Suite 1800, Chicago, IL 60605-1615, Phone:
(312) 521-2000.  Representing the Company is Harold C. Hirshman,
Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal, LLP, 233 South Wacker Drive,
8000 Sears Tower, Chicago, IL 60606, Phone: (312) 876-8000.


SEARS ROEBUCK: Plaintiffs Appeal Stay of IL State Stock Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois'
ruling staying the consolidated class action filed against
Sears, Roebuck & Co. and certain of its officers and directors.  
The suit also names as defendants Kmart Holdings Corporation,
Edward S. Lampert and other affiliated entities.

Three suits were initially filed, contesting the merger of Sears
Roebuck & Co. with Kmart Holdings Corporation to form Sears
Holdings Corporation.  These actions assert claims on behalf of
a purported class of Company stockholders, alleging breach of
fiduciary duty in connection with the merger.  The plaintiffs
allege that the merger favors interested defendants by awarding
them disproportionate benefits, and that the defendants failed
to take appropriate steps to maximize the value of a merger
transaction for the Company's stockholders. The actions have
been consolidated, and an amended complaint was filed in early
January 2005.

The amended complaint asserts similar breach-of-fiduciary duty
claims, as well as alleging that defendants have made
insufficient and misleading disclosures in connection with the
mergers, and seeks injunctive relief. The plaintiffs have moved
for expedited discovery.  On February 1, 2005, the court granted
the defendants' motion to stay or dismiss these actions in favor
of similar pending New York actions.  Accordingly, these actions
are stayed pending resolution of the New York actions.  
Plaintiffs have appealed the stay order to the Appellate Court
of Illinois-First District, and briefing on that appeal is
complete.


SEARS ROEBUCK: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Lawsuit V. Kmart Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sears Roebuck & Co. asked the Supreme Court of the State of New
York, New York County to dismiss the consolidated class action
filed against it and certain of its officers and directors.  The
suit also names as defendants Kmart Holdings Corporation, Edward
S. Lampert and other affiliated entities.

Two suits were initially filed, contesting the merger of Sears
Roebuck & Co. with Kmart Holdings Corporation to form Sears
Holdings Corporation.  The parties agreed to consolidate these
two actions. Pending consolidation, the defendants moved to
dismiss the complaint in both actions for lack of standing and
failure to state a cause of action.

On February 15, 2005, the Court ordered that the two cases be
consolidated as a single action.  On February 16, 2005, the
plaintiffs filed a superceding consolidated amended class action
complaint. The amended complaint asserts claims on behalf of a
purported class of Company stockholders against the Company and
certain of its officers and directors for breach of fiduciary
duty in connection with the mergers on the grounds that
defendants allegedly failed to take proper steps to maximize the
value of a merger transaction for the Company's stockholders.
Additionally, the plaintiffs claim that the defendants made
insufficient and misleading disclosures in connection with the
mergers.  The amended complaint also names Kmart Holdings
Corporation, Edward S. Lampert, and ESL, Inc. as defendants on
the grounds that they aided and abetted the alleged breaches of
fiduciary duty.  The amended complaint seeks provisional and
permanent injunctive relief, as well as damages.

On March 24, 2005, the Court denied plaintiffs' motions for
expedited discovery and a preliminary injunction against the
closing of the mergers.  All defendants have moved to dismiss
the amended complaint, and briefing on the motions was completed
in early March 2005.


SEARS ROEBUCK: Asks IL Court To Dismiss Lawsuit V. Kmart Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sears Roebuck & Co. asked the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois to dismiss a securities class
action filed against it and Alan J. Lacy, on behalf of a
purported class of the Company's stockholders.

The defendants allegedly failed to make timely disclosure of
merger discussions with Kmart Corporation during the period
November 8 through 16, 2004, and seeks damages. The court
appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel, and an amended
complaint was filed on March 11, 2005.  The amended complaint,
names Edward S. Lampert and ESL Partners, L.P., as additional
defendants, and purports to assert claims on behalf of sellers
of Company stock during the period September 9 through
November & 16, 2004.

All defendants have moved to dismiss, and briefing on the
motions is still in progress.


SHOPKO STORES: Shareholders Launch Suits V. Goldner Hawn Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
ShopKo Stores, Inc. faces six shareholder class actions filed in
the Circuit Court for Brown County, Wisconsin, after the Company
announced on April 8, 2005 that it had signed a definitive
merger agreement to be acquired by an affiliate of Goldner Hawn
Johnson & Morrison Incorporated (Goldner Hawn).  The suits are
styled:

     (1) Thomas Zwicker v. ShopKo Stores, Inc., et al., Case No.
         05-CV-677;

     (2) Robert Farer v. ShopKo Stores, Inc., et al., Case No.
         05-CV-678;

     (3) Market Street Investments, L.P. v. ShopKo Stores, Inc.,
         et al., Case No. 05-CV-688;

     (4) City of Pontiac General Employees' Retirement Systems
         v. ShopKo Stores, Inc., et al., Case No. 05-CV-692;

     (5) Plumbers and Pipefitters Local 51 Pension Fund v.
         ShopKo Stores, Inc., et al., Case No. 05-CV-753; and

     (6) Strongbow Capital Ltd. v. ShopKo Stores, Inc., et al.,
         Case No. 05-CV-781.

The complaint in each action purports to have been filed by a
shareholder of the Company who seeks to maintain the suit as a
class action on behalf of all holders of the Company's stock,
excluding those related to or affiliated with any of the
defendants. In addition to the Company, each complaint names the
Company's directors as defendants. Goldner Hawn is a defendant
in one of the lawsuits.

The complaints all assert claims arising out of the Company's
April 8, 2005 announcement, and allege that the Company and its
directors breached fiduciary duties to the Company's
shareholders by negotiating and agreeing to the Transaction at a
price that the plaintiffs claim to be inadequate.  The
plaintiffs seek, among other things, to enjoin or to rescind the
Transaction, and/or to establish a constructive trust over any
benefits received by the defendants, damages and other monetary
relief.


WAL-MART STORES: Faces Pending Employee FLSA Violations Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. continues to face numerous cases
containing class-action allegations in which the plaintiffs have
brought claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA),
corresponding state statutes, or other laws.

The plaintiffs in these lawsuits are current and former hourly
Associates who allege, among other things, that the Company
forced them to work "off the clock" and failed to provide work
breaks. The complaints generally seek unspecified monetary
damages, injunctive relief, or both.  Class certification has
yet to be addressed in a majority of the cases.

Class certification has been denied or overturned in Arizona,
Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Maryland,
Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio, Texas (state court), West
Virginia, and Wisconsin.  Some or all of the requested classes
have been certified in California, Colorado, Massachusetts,
Minnesota, New Mexico, Oregon, and Washington.  Conditional
certifications for notice purposes under the FLSA have been
allowed in Georgia, Michigan, and Texas (federal court).

A putative class action is pending in California challenging the
methodology of payments made under various Associate incentive
bonus plans, and a second putative class action in California
asserts that the Company has omitted to include bonus payments
in calculating Associates' regular rate of pay for purposes of
determining overtime.

The Company is currently a defendant in six putative class
actions brought on behalf of assistant store managers who
challenge their exempt status under state and federal courts,
which are pending in California, Michigan, New Mexico, and
Tennessee. Conditional certification for notice purposes under
FLSA has been granted in one of these cases, styled "Comer v.
WM."  Otherwise, no determination has been made as to class
certification in any of these cases.


WAL-MART STORES: Working To Settle CA Female Employee Bias Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. is in settlement talks for the class
action filed against it in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California, styled "Dukes v. Wal-Mart
Stores, Inc."

The suit was filed in June 2001 on behalf of all past and
present female employees in all of the Company's retail stores
and wholesale clubs in the United States. The complaint alleges
that the Company has engaged in a pattern and practice of
discriminating against women in promotions, pay, training and
job assignments. The complaint seeks, among other things,
injunctive relief, front pay, back pay, punitive damages, and
attorneys' fees.

Following a hearing on class certification on September 24,
2003, on June 21, 2004, the District Court issued an order
granting in part and denying in part the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification. The class, which was certified by the
District Court for purposes of liability, injunctive and
declaratory relief, punitive damages, and lost pay, subject to
certain exceptions, includes all women employed at any Wal-Mart
domestic retail store at any time since December 26, 1998, who
have been or may be subjected to the pay and management track
promotions policies and practices challenged by the plaintiffs.
The class as certified currently includes approximately 1.6
million present and former female Associates.

The Company believes that the Court's ruling is incorrect, the
Company said in a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange
Commission.  The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit has granted the Company's petition for discretionary
review of the ruling. If the Company is not successful in its
appeal of class certification, or an appellate court issues a
ruling that allows for the certification of a class or classes
with a different size or scope, and if there is a subsequent
adverse verdict on the merits from which there is no successful
appeal, or in the event of a negotiated settlement of the
litigation, the resulting liability could be material to the
Company.  The plaintiffs also seek punitive damages which, if
awarded, could result in the payment of additional amounts
material to the Company.

According to a March 14,2005 Class Action Reporter story, the
Company started settlement talks with attorneys for the
plaintiffs in the suit, which has the potential of representing
1.6 million female employees.  Settlement talks have been
ongoing for several months and recently gained momentum,
according to The Recorder. Both sides allegedly hired a well-
known class-action mediator, Hunter Hughes III of Atlanta, to
handle the negotiations.

The suit is styled "Dukes et al v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., case
no. 3:01-cv-02252," filed in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California, under Judge Martin J.
Jenkins.  Representing the plaintiffs is Brad Seligman of The
Impact Fund, 125 University Avenue, Berkeley, CA 94710, Phone:
510-845-3473 ext 304, Fax: 510-845-3654, E-mail:
bs@impactfund.org.  Representing the Company is Nancy L. Abell
of Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP - Employment, 555 South
Flower Street, 25th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90071-2371, Phone:
213 683-6162, Fax: (213) 627-0705, E-mail:
nancyabell@paulhastings.com.  


WAL-MART STORES: Female Employees File Gender Bias Suit in GA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. faces a class action filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia,
styled "Mauldin v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., alleging gender
discrimination.

The suit was filed on October 16,2001 on behalf of female Wal-
Mart Associates who were participants in the Associates Health
and Welfare Plan at any time from March 8, 2001, to the present
and who were using prescription contraceptives.  The class seeks
amendment of the Plan to include coverage for prescription
contraceptives, back pay for all members in the form of
reimbursement of the cost of prescription contraceptives, pre-
judgment interest, and attorneys' fees.  The complaint alleges
that the Company's Health Plan violates Title VII's prohibition
against gender discrimination in that the Health Plan's
Reproductive Systems provision does not provide coverage for
prescription contraceptives.

The class was certified on August 23, 2002. On September 30,
2003, the court denied the Company's motion to reconsider that
ruling.

The suit is styled "Mauldin v. Wal-Mart Stores, case no. 1:01-
cv-02755-JEC," filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia, under Judge Julie E. Carnes.  
Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Kirk E. Chapman, Douglas J. Hoffman, Janine L. Pollack,
         Jennifer Templeton Schirmer, Milberg Weiss Bershad &
         Schulman, One Pennsylvania Plaza, 48th Floor, New York,
         NY 10119-0165, Phone: 212-594-5300

     (2) George Albert Stein, Office of George Albert Stein,
         1355 Peachtree Street, NE Suite 150, Atlanta, GA 30309,
         Phone: 404-881-6500

     (3) Sigmund Wissner-Gross, Heller Horowitz & Feit, 292
         Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10017, Phone: 212-685-7600

Representing the Company are Mark A. Casciari, Allen William
Groves, Alissa Lipson and Antonia-Anna R. Palmer of Seyfarth
Shaw, 55 East Monroe Street, Suite 4200, Chicago, IL 60603-5803,
Phone: 312-346-8000, E-mail: agroves@seyfarth.com or
apalmer@seyfarth.com.


WAL-MART STORES: Faces EEOC Gender Discrimination Lawsuit in KY
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. continues to face a lawsuit filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Kentucky, styled "EEOC (Janice Smith) v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc."

The suit brought by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(EEOC) on behalf of Janice Smith and all other females who made
application or transfer requests at the London, Kentucky,
Distribution Center from 1995 to the present, and who were not
hired or transferred into the warehouse positions for which they
applied. The class seeks back pay for those females not selected
for hire or transfer during the relevant time period.  The class
also seeks injunctive and prospective affirmative relief.  The
complaint alleges that the Company based hiring decisions on
gender in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act as
amended. The EEOC can maintain this action as a class without
certification.

The suit is styled "EEOC v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc, case no. 3:01-
cv-00065-JMH," filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Kentucky, under Judge Joseph M. Hood.  
Representing the plaintiffs are Michelle Eisele, E. Paige
Freitag, Gwendolyn Young Reams, and Laurie A. Young of the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission, 101 W. Ohio Street, Suite
1900, Indianapolis, IN 46204-4203, Phone: 317-226-7949, Fax:
317-226-5571.  Representing the Company is Kathryn A.
Quesenberry of Woodward, Hobson & Fulton, LLP, 101 S. Fifth
Street, 2500 National City Tower, Louisville, KY 40202, Phone:
502-581-8025, Fax: 502-581-8111, E-mail:
kquesenberry@whf-law.com.



               Meetings, Conferences & Seminars




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

ABLE LABORATORIES: Berman DeValerio Lodges Securities Suit in NJ
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo
initiated a class action in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey against Able Laboratories, Inc. ("Able"
or the "Company") (Nasdaq: ABRX), claiming that the
pharmaceutical company issued materially false and misleading
statements to the investing public.

The lawsuit seeks damages for violations of federal securities
laws on behalf of all investors who purchased Able common stock
from October 31, 2002 through and including May 18, 2005 (the
"Class Period").

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

On May 19, 2005, Able announced that the Company had identified
apparent departures from standard operating procedures with
respect to certain laboratory testing practices and that, as a
result, shipment of all of its products had been suspended.
According to Able, this conclusion was based on the
recommendation of an outside consulting firm that had been hired
by the Company following several product recalls to scrutinize
Able's compliance with standard operating procedures and all
relevant U.S. Food and Drug Administration regulations. Hours
later, the Company announced the immediate resignation of Able's
chief executive officer and withdrew its previous earnings
guidance.

On this news, shares of Able's common stock plummeted from
$24.63, on May 18, 2005, to $6.26 on May 19, 2005, a drop of
$18.37, or 74.5%.

For more details, contact Leslie R. Stern, Esq. or Abigail R.
Romeo, Esq., One Liberty Square, Boston, MA, 02109, Phone:
(800) 516-9926, Web site:
http://www.bermanesq.com/pdf/Able-Cplt.pdf.


ABLE LABORATORIES: Faruqi & Faruqi Lodges Stock Fraud Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey on behalf of all purchasers of Able Laboratories,
Inc. ("Able" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:ABRX) securities between
October 30, 2002 and May 18, 2005, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). A copy of the complaint filed in this action can be
viewed on the firm's website at www.faruqilaw.com

The complaint charges defendants with violations of federal
securities laws by, among other things, issuing a series of
materially false and misleading press releases concerning Able's
financial results and business prospects. Specifically, the
complaint alleges that Able failed to disclose that:

    (1) the Company's product testing procedures failed to meet
        standard industry practices and good manufacturing
        practices established by the FDA;

    (2) the Company was faced with potentially crippling
        liabilities and fines stemming from its breaches of good
        manufacturing practices, which also jeopardized its
        current drug offerings and the likelihood that drugs in
        development would gain FDA approval;

    (3) the Company's purported success stemmed, in material
        part, from cost savings achieved from cutting corners
        and a failure to institute a system of operational
        controls to ensure compliance with applicable
        regulations and good manufacturing practices.

As a result, the price of the Company's common stock was
artificially inflated throughout the Class Period. On May 19,
2005, however, the Company announced that it had identified
apparent departures from standard operating procedures with
respect to certain laboratory testing practices and that as a
result of these observations, the Company will be recalling
additional products in the future. In response to this
disclosure, shares of Able fell $18.37 per share or 75%, to
close at $6.25 per share.

For more details, contact Antonio Vozzolo, Esq. or Beth A.
Keller, Esq. of Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, 320 East 39th Street, New
York, NY, 10016, Phone: (877) 247-4292 or (212) 983-9330, E-
mail: Avozzolo@faruqilaw.com or Bkeller@faruqilaw.com.


CARRIER ACCESS: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit in CO
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado on behalf of all securities purchasers of Carrier
Access Corporation (Nasdaq: CACSE) ("Carrier Access" or the
"Company") between October 21, 2003 and May 20, 2005, inclusive
(the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Carrier Access, Roger L. Koenig, Nancy G.
Pierce, and Timothy R. Anderson with violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. More specifically, the
Complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose and
misrepresented the following material adverse facts known to
defendants or recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) that the Company improperly recorded certain revenues
         and direct costs in incorrect periods in order to
         materially inflate its financial results;

     (2) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls;

     (3) that the Company's financial results were in violation
         of 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 May 2, 2005, the Company announced that it was delaying
filing an amendment to Form 10-K for the period ended December
31, 2004, because management discovered internal control
deficiencies and revenue and cost recognition issues. On this
news, shares of Carrier Access fell $0.47 per share or 8.58
percent, on May 3, 2005, to close at $5.01 per share. On May 20,
2005, Carrier Access finally revealed that previously issued
financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2004, and
certain interim periods in each of the years ended December 31,
2004, and 2003, would be restated. As the full extent of the
Company's false and misleading practices had become known,
Carrier Access' stock continued to decline. On May 20, 2005, the
Company's stock fell another $0.69 per share or 13.02 percent to
close at $4.61 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,
E-mail at info@sbclasslaw.com.


DRDGOLD LIMITED: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Lawsuit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
LLP ("Lerach Coughlin") initiated a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York on behalf of purchasers of DRDGOLD Limited ("DRDGOLD")
(NASDAQ:DROOY), formerly known as Durban Roodepoort Deep,
Limited, securities during the period between October 23, 2003
and February 24, 2005 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges DRDGOLD and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. DRDGOLD is a gold exploration and mining company. The
Company operates gold mines through its South African and
Australasian operations.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
defendants made numerous statements regarding:

     (1) the successful restructuring of the Company's North
         West Operations in South America;

     (2) the Company's ability to reduce the negative impact of
         the increasing value of the South African Rand versus
         the U.S. Dollar; and

     (3) the increasing strength of the Company's balance sheet.
        
In truth and in fact, the Company's problems with its North West
Operations were never fully resolved and resulted in the Company
being forced to record an impairment charge for the full value
of its mining assets there. Moreover, despite representations to
the contrary, the Company continued to be negatively impacted by
the increasing value of the South African Rand. As detailed in
the complaint, these problems resulted in the Company being
forced to announce that it might not be able to operate as a
going concern. When this information was belatedly disclosed to
the public, shares of DRDGOLD fell more than 25%, on
extraordinarily heavy volume.

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


DRDGOLD LIMITED: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Lawsuit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C. initiated a lawsuit seeking
class action status has been filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all
persons who purchased the publicly traded securities of DRDGOLD
Limited, formerly known as Durban Roodepoort Deep, Limited,
(Nasdaq: DROOY) ("DRDGOLD" or the "Company") between October 23,
2003 and February 24, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that DRDGOLD and certain of its officers
and directors violated federal securities laws. Specifically,
defendants made numerous statements regarding:

     (1) the successful restructuring of the Company's North
         West Operations in South America;

     (2) the Company's ability to reduce the negative impact of
         the increasing value of the South African Rand versus
         the U.S. Dollar; and

     (3) the increasing strength of the Company's balance
         sheet.

In truth, the Company's problems with its North West Operations
were never fully resolved and resulted in the Company being
forced to record an impairment charge for the full value of its
mining assets there. Despite representations to the contrary,
DRDGOLD continued to be negatively impacted by the increasing
value of the South African Rand. Further, these problems
resulted in the Company being forced to announce that it might
not be able to operate as a going concern. When this information
was belatedly disclosed to the public, shares of DRDGOLD fell
more than 25%.

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


DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Faruqi & Faruqi Lodges Stock Lawsuit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on behalf of all purchasers of DreamWorks
Animation SKG, Inc. ("DreamWorks" or the "Company") (NYSE:DWA)
securities between October 27, 2004 and May 10, 2005, inclusive
(the "Class Period"). A copy of the complaint filed in this
action can be viewed on the firm's website at www.faruqilaw.com

The complaint charges defendants with violations of federal
securities laws by, among other things, issuing a series of
materially false and misleading press releases concerning
DreamWorks' financial results and business prospects.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that DreamWorks failed to
disclose that:

     (1) sales of Shrek 2 DVDs were declining;

     (2) retailers were returning to the Company massive amounts
         of unsold Shrek 2 DVD inventory;

     (3) the Company was shipping out inventory far in excess of
         actual demand in order to record revenue; and

     (4) therefore, defendants' opinions and statements
         concerning the Company's current and future earnings
         lacked a reasonable basis at all times.

As a result, the price of the Company's common stock was
artificially inflated throughout the Class Period. On May 10,
2005, however, following the Company's announcement that Shrek 2
sales fell short of the Company's retail sales expectations for
the first quarter, shares of DreamWorks common stock dropped
from $36.50 to close at $32.05.

For more details, contact Antonio Vozzolo, Esq. or Beth A.
Keller, Esq. of Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, 320 East 39th Street, New
York, NY, 10016, Phone: (877) 247-4292 or (212) 983-9330, E-
mail: Avozzolo@faruqilaw.com or Bkeller@faruqilaw.com.


EASTMAN KODAK: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Fraud Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
LLP ("Lerach Coughlin") initiated a class action in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of purchasers of Eastman Kodak Company ("Kodak")
(NYSE:EK) common stock during the period between April 23, 2003
and September 25, 2003 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Kodak and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Kodak engages in the developing, manufacturing and
marketing of traditional and digital imaging products, services
and products for consumers, professionals, healthcare providers,
the entertainment industry and other commercial customers.

The complaint alleges that on April 23, 2003, the Company
provided Q2 2003 guidance, stating that "second-quarter
operational earnings could fall into the range of 60 cents per
share to 80 cents per share." Though defendants continued to
receive adverse information throughout the quarter confirming
that the Company would fail to meet these estimates, defendants
did not disclose until June 18, 2003 that the Company would
badly miss its projections. On July 23, 2003, the Company
backtracked on its previous bad news, stating the operating
earnings actually came in for Q2 2003 at $0.39 per share.
However, on September 25, 2003, defendants announced that the
Company's attempt to continue operating under its then-existing
business model had been failing throughout the Class Period. As
a result of operating difficulties, the Company would be forced
cut its historic dividend by 72%. On this news the Company's
stock price plummeted by 18% to its 18 year-low on September 25,
2003.

According to the complaint, as a result of the defendants' false
statements, Kodak's stock traded at inflated levels during the
Class Period, increasing to as high as $32 per share on June 17,
2003, permitting defendants to sell $550 million worth of debt
at inflated prices, to justify the payment of extraordinary 450%
increases in the cash portion of defendants' incentive
compensation for fiscal 2002 and to prevent the Company's
disgruntled institutional investors from taking steps at the
2003 annual meeting of shareholders to reign in years of
excessive executive compensation at Kodak or to assume control
over the Kodak Board of Directors. The true facts, which were
known by each of the defendants but concealed from the investing
public during the Class Period, were as follows:

     (1) Kodak's unpaid accounts receivable had risen materially
         in Q2 2003;

     (2) the Company's operating income was coming in at 50% of
         defendants' projections;

     (3) the Company's restructuring charges were materially
         exceeding previously disclosed levels;

     (4) Asian consumer film and paper sales were being much
         more adversely affected by severe acute respiratory
         syndrome in the Company's Asian markets than Kodak had
         budgeted for or led investors to believe;

     (5) the Company's transition from silver halide based
         technology to digital technologies was having a
         dramatic adverse effect on its profitability by
         reducing high-margin film sales;

     (6) the Company was losing more ground to Fuji in U.S. film
         sales than defendants had previously led investors to
         believe, resulting in severe losses in market share;

     (7) competition with Fuji was requiring defendants to slash
         prices, cutting further into the Company's gross profit
         margins; and

     (8) the Company's internal controls were deficient,
         preventing it from formulating reliable forecasts.

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


EASTMAN KODAK: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C. initiated a lawsuit seeking
class action status has been filed in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California on behalf of all
persons who purchased the common stock of Eastman Kodak Company
(NYSE: EK) ("Kodak") between April 23, 2003 and September 25,
2003 (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that Kodak and certain of its officers and
directors violated federal securities laws. Specifically, the
Complaint alleges that Kodak's financial guidance for the second
quarter of 2003, first issued on April 23, 2003, was improper
given undisclosed problems within the company. On September 25,
2003, Kodak announced that its then-existing business model had
been failing throughout the Class Period and, as a result of
operating difficulties, it would be forced cut its historic
dividend by 72%. On this news, Kodak's stock price plummeted by
18% to an 18 year-low on September 25, 2003.

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


NAVARRE CORPORATION: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit in MN
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP announces
that a class action lawsuit was filed today on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Navarre Corporation ("Navarre"
or the "Company") (Nasdaq: NAVR) between July 23, 2003 and May
31, 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 District of Minnesota against defendants Navarre, Eric H.
Paulson (CEO, President, Chairman) and James Gilbertson (CFO).

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period
defendants reported quarter after quarter of record results that
were purportedly achieved by successful execution of the
Company's strategy. As particularized in the complaint,
defendants' class period representations concerning the
Company's financial results and its business were materially
false and misleading for the following reasons:

     (1) Defendants had materially inflated Navarre's reported
         income by failing to properly recognize expenses
         relating to executive deferred compensation;

     (2) Defendants' seeming success was attributable, in
         material part, to improper accounting;

     (3) The Company's financial results, reported in press
         releases and SEC filings were not, contrary to
         defendants' express representations, prepared in
         accordance with generally accepted accounting
         principles;

     (4) The certifications signed by defendants Paulson and
         Gilbertson in Navarre's SEC filings, attesting to the
         accuracy of the financial results included therein,
         were false because the financial results were
         artificially inflated through improper accounting;

     (5) during the third fiscal quarter of 2005, Navarre
         improperly recognized millions in deferred tax benefits
         as income; and

     (6) Navarre was experiencing a significant slowdown in
         demand for its anti-virus software products that was
         materially and negatively impacting its overall
         business.

On May 31, 2005, Navarre issued a press release announcing that
it would postpone release of its fourth quarter and fiscal year
2005 results pending an accounting review focused on the
recognition of deferred compensation expense for payments made
to defendant Paulson and the classification of fiscal 2005 tax
items. In response to this announcement, the price of Navarre
common stock dropped from $9.00 per share on May 31, 2005 to
$8.02 per share on June 1, 2005, a one-day drop of 10.8% on
unusually heavy trading volume.

The complaint further alleges that defendants were motivated to
commit the wrongdoing alleged therein so that Navarre insiders,
including defendants Paulson and Gilbertson, could sell their
personally held Navarre shares at artificially inflated prices.
During the Class Period, insiders sold a total of 1,269,000
shares, for total proceeds of $16,183,254.58.

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, Email: sfeerick@milbergweiss.com, Web site:
http://www.milbergweiss.com.


OCA INC.: Lockridge Grindal Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in LA
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lockridge Grindal Nauen, P.L.L.P. 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. (NYSE:OCA) ("OCA" or the "Company")
between May 18, 2004 and June 7, 2005 (the "Class Period").

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

For more details, contact Gregg M. Fishbein, Esq. or Robert J.
Linsmier of Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., 100 Washington
Avenue South, Suite 2200, Minneapolis, MN, 55401, Phone:
(612) 339-6900, E-mail: gmfishbein@locklaw.com or
rjlinsmier@locklaw.com.


POSSIS MEDICAL: Federman Sherwood Lodges Securities Suit in MN
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Federman & Sherwood initiated a class action
lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court of
Minnesota against Possis Medical, Inc. (Nasdaq: POSS).

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of
material misrepresentations to the market which had the effect
of artificially inflating the market price. The class period is
from September 24, 2002 through August 24, 2004.

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


                            *********


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  * * *