CAR_Public/050616.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, June 16, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 118

                          Headlines

ADC TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Plaintiffs Appeal MN Lawsuit Dismissal
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
APPLIED SIGNAL: Shareholders Launch Securities Suits in N.D. CA
ARISTO HOME: Recalls 36T Multi-Purpose Lighters Due to Fire Risk  
BROWN SHOE: Plaintiffs Appeal $1M Damage Award in Redfield Suit

CARREKER CORPORATION: Plaintiffs File Amended TX Securities Suit
CHOLESTECH CORPORATION: IL Court Preliminarily OKs Lawsuit Pact
COMPUTER SCIENCES: Consumers File Software Antitrust Suit in AR
COMPUTER SCIENCES: CA Court Preliminarily OKs Suit Settlement
FISHER-PRICE: Recalls 34,000 Mini- Vehicles Due to Injury Hazard

GOLDEN TASTE: Recalls Tuna Deluxe Due to Listeria Contamination
HAYES LEMMERZ: MI Court Preliminarily Approves Suit Settlement
HEWLETT-PACKARD CO.: Appeals Certification of TX Consumer Suit
HEWLETT-PACKARD CO.: Parties Seek Transfer of Stock Suit To CA
HEWLETT-PACKARD CO.: Faces More Consumer Suits V. "Smart Chips"

HEWLETT-PACKARD CO.: Temps Launch ERISA Violations Suit in Idaho
HEWLETT-PACKARD CO.: Plaintiffs Appeal Apartheid Suit Dismissal
HOME DEPOT: CA Judge Certifies Consolidated Overtime Pay Lawsuit
INTUIT INC.: CA Court Dismisses Consolidated Consumer Fraud Suit
INTUIT INC.: CA Court Dismisses QuickBooks Customers' Lawsuit

JEWEL FOOD: IL Court Refuses To Allow Appeal of Suit Dismissal
JOTUL NORTH: Recalls 3.2T Gas-Fired Stoves Due to Injury Hazard
JPMORGAN CHASE: Agrees to Pay $2.2B To Settle Enron Fraud Suit
MARYLAND: MD Court Allows Cell Phone Suit Remand to State Court
NEW YORK: Firm Launches Suit V. Binghamton Over Sex-Offender Law

NOVELL INC.: UT Court Approves Securities Fraud Suit Settlement
PEOPLES ENERGY: Builders Launch Suit Over Gas Connection Charges
PERRIGO CO.: Recalls 14T H.E.B. Vitamins Due to Injury Hazard  
QUANTUM CORPORATION: Certification of CA Suit Set July 22,2005
RAZOR USA: Recalls 246T Electric Scooters Due to Injury Hazard

RAZOR USA: Recalls 584T Battery Chargers Due to Burn Hazard
REMEC INC.: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Consolidated Stock Lawsuit
SKILLSOFT PUBLIC: Working on Settlement of NH Securities Lawsuit
TOYS R US: Shareholders Launch Lawsuit in DE to Block $6.6B Sale
WAL-MART STORES: KY Employees' Lawyers Seek Class Action Status

WAL-MART STORES: Wants Employee Suit Diverted to Federal Court
WISCONSIN: Uninsured Patients Lodge Suit V. 3 Non-Profit Systems

                  New Securities Fraud Cases

ABLE LABORATORIES: Leo W. Desmond Lodges Securities Suit in NJ
DORAL CORPORATION: Kirby McInerney Lodges Securities Suit in NY
DRDGOLD LIMITED: Charles J. Piven Files Securities Lawsuit in NY
NAVARRE CORPORATION: Charles J. Piven Files Stock Lawsuit in NY
NAVARRE CORPORATION: Federman & Sherwood Files Stock Suit in MN

MAGMA DESIGN: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in CA
MAGMA DESIGN: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in CA
MAGMA DESIGN: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CA
NAVARRE CORPORATION: Brian M. Felgoise Files Stock Lawsuit in MN
NAVARRE CORPORATION: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Suit in MN

                          *********


ADC TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Plaintiffs Appeal MN Lawsuit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the
dismissal of the consolidated securities class action filed
against ADC Telecommunications, Inc., styled "In Re ADC
Telecommunications, Inc. Securities Litigation."

On March 5, 2003, the Company was served with a shareholder
lawsuit brought by Wanda Kinermon that was filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Minnesota.  The
complaint named the Company, William J. Cadogan, its former
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, and Robert E. Switz, its
Chief Executive Officer and former Chief Financial Officer, as
defendants.  After this lawsuit was served, the Company was
named as a defendant in 11 other substantially similar lawsuits.

The consolidated lawsuit purports to bring suit on behalf of a
class of purchasers of the Company's publicly traded securities
from August 17, 2000 to March 28, 2001.  The complaint alleged
that the Company violated the securities laws by making false
and misleading statements about our financial performance and
business prospects during this period.  On November 24, 2003,
the Company filed a motion to dismiss this lawsuit, and the
court granted the motion and dismissed the case with prejudice
on May 17, 2004.  Plaintiffs appealed this ruling.

The suit is styled "In Re: ADC Telecommunications, Inc.
Securities Litigation, case no. 0:03-cv-01194-JNE-JGL," filed in
the United States District Court in Minnesota," under Judge Joan
N. Ericksen.  Lawyers for the defendants are Daniel James Brown,
John Rock, Mitchell Widell Granberg, Peter W. Carter of Dorsey &
Whitney, 50 6th St S Ste 1500, Mpls, MN 55402-1498, Phone:
612-340-2600, Fax: 6123408800, E-mail: brown.daniel@dorsey.com,
rock.john@dorsey.com, granberg.mitchell@dorsey.com,
carter.peter@dorsey.com.  The plaintiff firms in this litigation
are:

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

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

     (3) Chitwood & Harley, 1230 Peachtree Street, N.E., 2900
         Promenade II, Atlanta, GA, 30309, Phone: 888.873.3999,

     (4) Glancy and Binkow, 1801 Avenue of the Stars, suite 311,
         Los Angeles, CA, 90067, Phone: 310-201-9150, E-mail:
         info@glancylaw.com

     (5) Kirby, McInerney & Squire LLP, 830 Third Avenue 10th
         Floor, New York Ave, NY, 10022, Phone: 212.317.2300,

     (6) Reinhardt, Wendorf & Blanchfield, Attorneys at Law, E-
         1000 First National Bank Building, 332 Minnesota
         Street, St. Paul, MN, 55101, Phone: 800.465.1592, Fax:
         651.297.6543, E-mail: info@ralawfirm.com

     (7) 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


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Express Financial Corporation asked the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York to dismiss
the consolidated securities class action filed against it,
styled "In re American Express Financial Advisors Securities
Litigation."  The action also names as defendants:

     (1) American Express Company,

     (2) American Express Financial Advisors, Inc. and

     (3) James M. Cracchiolo in his capacity as President and
         CEO of American Express Financial and Chairman and CEO
         of American Express Advisors

Certain of the Company's mutual funds are also named as nominal
defendants.  The action is a consolidation of the following
actions:

     (i) Naresh Chand v. American Express Company, American
         Express Financial Corporation and American Express
         Financial Advisors, Inc. (filed March 2004);

    (ii) Elizabeth Flenner v. American Express Company et al.   
         (filed March 2004);

   (iii) John B. Perkins v. American Express Company et al.
         (filed March 2004);

    (iv) Kathie Kerr v. American Express Company et al. (filed
         April 2004); and

     (v) Leonard D. Caldwell, Gale D. Caldwell and Richard T.
         Allen v. American Express Company et al. (filed April
         2004)

The plaintiffs allege violations of certain federal securities
laws and/or state statutory and common law. The plaintiffs,
among other things, allege that the Company's financial plans
are used as a means to recommend mutual funds that pay
"undisclosed kickbacks." The class period at issue is March 10,
1999 through February 9, 2004.  Plaintiffs seek to represent one
class consisting of all of the Company's clients who purchased
the preferred mutual funds during the relevant period and
another class comprised of those of our clients who also
purchased financial plans during the relevant period. For their
damages, plaintiffs seek restitution of the "undisclosed
kickbacks" and the fees paid for the financial plans.

In addition, two lawsuits making similar allegations (based
solely on state causes of actions) were filed in the Supreme
Court of the State of New York, namely "Beer v. American Express
Company and American Express Financial Advisors," and "You v.
American Express Company and American Express Financial
Advisors."  The Company removed these two actions to the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York.  
Plaintiffs have moved to remand the cases to state court. The
Court's decision on the remand motion is pending.

The suit is styled "In Re American Express Financial Advisors
Securities Litigation, case no. 1:04-cv-01773-DAB," filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, under Judge Deborah A. Batts.  Representing the Company is
Peter Kristian Vigeland of Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering (NYC), 399
Park Avenue, 30th Floor, New York, NY 10022, Phone:
212-230-8800, Fax: 212-230-8888, E-mail:
Peter.Vigeland@wilmer.com.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (a) Jules Brody, Aaron Lee Brody, Stull, Stull & Brody, 6
         East 45th Street, 5th Floor, New York, NY 10017, Phone:
         (212) 687-7230, Fax: (212) 490-2022, E-mail:
         ssbny@aol.com;

     (b) Sharon M. Lee, Andrei V. Rado, Michael Robert Reese,
         Steven G. Schulman and Peter Edward Seidman, Milberg,
         Weiss, Bershad, Hynes & Lerach, L.L.P., One
         Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY 10119, Phone: (212)
         594-5300, E-mail: mreese@milberg.com,
         sschulman@milbergweiss.com, pseidman@milberg.com;

     (c) Jonathan K. Levine, Girard, Gibbs & De Bartolomeo,
         L.L.P., 601 California Street Suite 1400, San
         Francisco, CA 94108, Phone: (415) 981-4800, Fax: (415)
         981-4846, E-mail: jkl@girardgibbs.com


APPLIED SIGNAL: Shareholders Launch Securities Suits in N.D. CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Applied Signal Technology, Inc. faces several securities class
actions filed on March 11 and April 19, 2005 in the United
States District Court, Northern District of California, styled
"Berson v. Applied Signal Technology Inc., No. 4:05-cv-1027
(SBA) (N.D. Cal.)" and "Sameyah v. Applied Signal Technology
Inc., No.4:05-cv-1615 (SBA) (N.D. Cal.)."

The complaints, which are substantially identical, are brought
on behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased the
Company's securities during a class period of May 25, 2004
through February 22, 2005.  The complaints name the Company, its
Chief Executive Officer, and its Chief Financial Officer as
defendants, and allege that false and misleading statements
regarding the Company were issued during the class period.  
These statements were materially false and misleading because
the Company failed to disclose and misrepresented the following
material adverse facts known to defendants or recklessly
disregarded by them:

     (1) that the Company lacked the staffing necessary to
         execute on current projects while bidding for new
         business;

     (2) that the Company struggled to maintain adequate levels
         of backlog; and

     (3) that as a result of the foregoing, the defendants'
         positive statements about managing the Company's
         workflow and growth while maintaining profitability
         were lacking material basis when made.

A putative class member has moved for appointment as lead
plaintiff, and the litigation is in the preliminary stage.


ARISTO HOME: Recalls 36T Multi-Purpose Lighters Due to Fire Risk  
----------------------------------------------------------------
In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC), Aristo Home and Garden, of West Deptford, New Jersey is
voluntarily recalling about 36,000 Fire Stick Multi-Purpose
Lighters.

The lighters fail to meet federal safety standards because they
lack child-resistant mechanisms. If young children gain access
to these multi-purpose lighters, they can pose a fire hazard or
burn risk. Aristo has not received any reports of incidents or
injuries involving the Fire Stick lighters.

These refillable, butane-fueled lighters are silver in color
with a black sliding switch at the middle of the product. Two
models of the lighters are included in this recall: a 7-inch
model (model number 324007) and a 12-inch model (model number
324012). "Aristo Home & Garden" and "Fire Stick" are printed on
the products' original packaging.

Manufactured in China, the lighters were sold at all home and
garden retail outlets nationwide from November 2002 through
October 2004. The 7-inch models were sold for $10, and the 12-
inch models were sold for $20.

Consumers should stop using these lighters immediately and
return them to their place of purchase for a full refund.

Consumer Contact: Contact Aristo at (888) 846-9921 between 9
a.m. and 4:30 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's
Web site: http://www.aristousa.com.


BROWN SHOE: Plaintiffs Appeal $1M Damage Award in Redfield Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the $1 million damage award granted to them
by a Colorado jury in the class action filed against Brown Shoe
Co., Inc., related to the operations of its Redfield, Colorado
site.

The Company is remediating, under the oversight of Colorado
authorities, the groundwater and indoor air at the Redfield site
and residential neighborhoods adjacent to and near the property
that have been affected by solvents previously used at the
facility.  Plaintiffs alleged claims for trespass, nuisance,
strict liability, unjust enrichment, negligence and exemplary
damages arising from the alleged release of solvents
contaminating the groundwater and indoor air in the areas
adjacent to and near the site.  

In December 2003, the jury hearing the claims returned a verdict
finding the Company's subsidiary negligent and awarded the class
plaintiffs $1.0 million in damages. The Company recorded this
award along with estimated pretrial interest on the award and
estimated costs related to sanctions imposed by the court
related to a pretrial discovery dispute between the parties.

In the first quarter of 2005, the federal court hearing a cost
recovery suit against other responsible parties approved a
settlement agreement between the Company, its co-defendant in
the class action lawsuit and an insurer which resolved all
remaining sanctions issues related to the class action.  
Accordingly, the Company reversed into income $0.7 million
related to accrued sanctions.


CARREKER CORPORATION: Plaintiffs File Amended TX Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Texas, Dallas Division against Carreker Corporation and:

     (1) John D. Carreker Jr.,

     (2) Ronald Antinori,

     (3) Terry L. Gage and

     (4) Ernst & Young, the Company's auditors,

Several suits were initially filed and later consolidated in an
action styled "In re Carreker Corporation Securities Litigation,
Civil Action No. 303CV0250-M."  On October 14, 2003 the
plaintiffs filed their Consolidated Class Action Complaint. The
complaint, filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common
stock between May 20, 1998 and December 10, 2002, inclusive,
alleged violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 against all defendants, violations of
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the individual
defendants, and violation of Section 20A of the Securities
Exchange Act against Mr. Carreker and Mr. Antinori.

The complaint also alleges, among other things, that defendants
artificially inflated the value of Company stock by knowingly or
recklessly misrepresenting the Company's financial results
during the purported class period.  On March 22, 2005 the Court
dismissed the action without prejudice and allowed the
plaintiffs 60 days in which to file an amended complaint. Also
the Court dismissed, with prejudice, all claims by shareholders
prior to July 31, 1999.

On May 31, 2005, the plaintiffs filed an Amended Consolidated
Class Action Complaint on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
common stock between July 30, 1999 and December 10, 2002,
inclusive, which reiterates the allegations in the first
complaint, and alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 against all
defendants (the Company, Mr. Carreker, Mr. Antinori and Mr.
Gage), violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against
the individual defendants, and violations of Section 20A of the
Securities Exchange Act against defendants Mr. Carreker, and Mr.
Antinori.  The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified amounts of
compensatory damages, interest and costs, including legal fees.

The suit is styled "In re Carreker Corporation Securities
Litigation, case no. 3:03-cv-00250," filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas
Division, under Judge Jane J. Boyle.  Representing the Company
is Roger F Claxton of Claxton & Hill, 3131 McKinney Ave, Suite
700 LB 103, Dallas, TX 75204-2471, Phone: 214/969-9029, Fax:
214/953-0583, E-mail: claxtonhill@airmail.net.  Representing the
plaintiffs are:

     (i) Mary L O'Connor, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld -
         Dallas, 1700 Pacific Ave, Suite 4100 Dallas, TX 75201-
         4618, Phone: 214/969-2800, Fax: 214/969-4343, E-mail:
         moconnor@akingump.com;

    (ii) Barry C. Barnett, Susman Godfrey - Dallas, 901 Main St
         Suite 4100 Dallas, TX 75202-3775, Phone: 214/754-1900,
         Fax: 214/754-1933, E-mail: bbarnett@susmangodfrey.com;

   (iii) Kenneth S. Marks, Susman Godfrey - Houston, 1000
         Louisiana St, Suite 5100, Houston, TX 77002-5096,
         Phone: 713/651-9366, E-mail: kmarks@susmangodfrey.com;

    (iv) Fred T. Isquith, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz,
         270 Madison Ave, Ninth Floor, New York, NY 10016,
         Phone: 212/545-4600, E-mail: isquith@whafh.com

     (v) Jeffrey W. Chambers, Ware Snow Fogel & Jackson, America
         Tower, 2929 Allen Parkway, 42nd Floor, Houston, TX
         77019, Phone: 713/659-6400, Fax: 713/659-6262,

    (vi) Thomas E Bilek, Hoeffner & Bilek, 1000 Louisiana St,
         Suite 1302, Houston, TX 77002, Phone: 713/227-7720,
         Fax: 713/227-9404, E-mail: tbilek@hb-legal.com


CHOLESTECH CORPORATION: IL Court Preliminarily OKs Lawsuit Pact
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois granted preliminary
approval to the settlement of the putative class action filed
against Cholestech Corporation, styled "Northshore Dermatology
Center, S.C. v. Cholestech Corporation, and Does 1-10, Case No.
04CH05342."

The complaint alleged that we violated the federal Telephone
Consumer Protection Act and various Illinois state laws by
sending unsolicited advertisements via facsimile transmission to
residents of Illinois. The complaint sought class certification
and statutory damages of $500 to $1,500 each on behalf of a
class that would include all residents of Illinois who received
an unsolicited facsimile advertisement from the Company.

On January 18, 2005 the parties entered into an agreement to
settle all claims on behalf of a nationwide class.  Under the
terms of the settlement, in March 2005 the Company paid $625,000
in cash to settle all claims, $600,000 of which was funded by
insurance.  The Company also agreed to pay up to $50,000 for
providing notice to the class and for processing claims. The
Court granted preliminary settlement approval and a final
settlement approval hearing is currently scheduled for July 11,
2005.


COMPUTER SCIENCES: Consumers File Software Antitrust Suit in AR
---------------------------------------------------------------
Computer Sciences Corporation, along with other vendors to the
insurance industry, and dozens of insurance companies, face a
class action styled "Hensley, et al. vs. Computer Sciences
Corporation, et al.," filed in state court in Miller County,
Arkansas.

The suit was filed shortly before President George W. Bush
signed the Class Action Fairness Act into law.  The plaintiffs
allege the defendants conspired to wrongfully use software
products licensed by the Company and the other software vendors
to reduce the amount paid to the licensees' insureds for bodily
injury claims. Plaintiffs also allege wrongful concealment of
the manner in which these software programs evaluate claims and
wrongful concealment of information about alleged inherent
errors and flaws in the software. Plaintiffs seek injunctive and
monetary relief of less than $75,000 for each class member, as
well as attorney's fees and costs.


COMPUTER SCIENCES: CA Court Preliminarily OKs Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California (Los Angeles) granted preliminary approval to the
settlement of the amended overtime class action filed against
Computer Sciences Corporation on behalf of current and former
technical support workers who install and/or maintain computer
software and hardware for the global IT conglomerate.

Law firms Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Lewis &
Feinberg, PC, and Rudy, Exelrod & Zieff, LLP filed the suit on
behalf of current and former CSC systems administrators and
technical staff from California, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine,
Massachusetts, Michigan, North Carolina, and Washington.  The
suit alleges that the company has a common practice of refusing
to pay overtime compensation to its technical support workers in
violation of the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and
state wage and hour laws.  The lawsuit, entitled "Giannetto, et
al. v. Computer Sciences Corporation, No. CV 03-8201," is before
federal Judge Terry J. Hatter, Jr., an earlier Class Action
Reporter story (January 8,2004) reports.

The lawsuit alleged that the Company unlawfully characterized
its technical support workers as 'exempt' in order to deprive
them of overtime pay.  CSC employs over 90,000 employees, and
the proposed class includes thousands of CSC employees
throughout America.

In an April 21 News Release and an April 25 filing of a Form 8-
K, the Company announced the settlement of the lawsuit.  Under
the settlement agreement, approximately 30,000 current and
former employees are entitled to make claims from the $24
million settlement. Disbursements to claimants are expected to
begin in late August 2005 following final approval from the
Court.

The suit is styled "Fred Giannetto, et al v. Computer Sciences
Corporation, case no. 2:03-cv-08201-GPS-E," filed in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California,
under Judge George P. Schiavelli.  Representing the Company are
Shon Morgan, Mary Sikra Thomas and A. William Urquhart of Quinn
Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges, 865 S Figueroa St, 10th Fl Los
Angeles, CA 90017-2543, Phone: 213-624-7707, Fax: 213-624-0643,
E-mail: marythomas@quinnemanuel.com.  Representing the
plaintiffs are James M. Finberg of LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN &
BERNSTEIN, LLP, 275 Battery Street, 30th Floor San Francisco, CA
94111 Phone: 415-956-1000 Fax: (415) 956-1008; or Todd F.
Jackson of LEWIS & FEINBERG, PC by Mail: 436 14th Street, Suite
1505, Oakland, CA 94612 Phone: (510) 839-6824 Fax: (510) 839-
7839; and Steven G. Zieff of RUDY, EXELROD & ZIEFF, LLP by Mail:
351 California Street, Suite 700, San Francisco, CA 94104 by
Phone: (415) 434-9800 or (800) 869-0165 or by Fax:
(415) 434-0513


FISHER-PRICE: Recalls 34,000 Mini- Vehicles Due to Injury Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC), Fisher-Price, of East Aurora, New York is voluntarily
recalling about 29,000 Fisher-Pricer Power Wheelsr Lightning PAC
Scooters and 5,000 Fisher-Pricer Power Wheelsr MX3T Mini Bikes.

If tires are over-inflated, the plastic rim within the wheel can
break, causing the tire to rupture. This poses the risk of
facial and hand injuries while inflating the tire. Note: These
scooters and mini bikes were previously recalled in 2003 due to
motor control circuits that could malfunction causing the
scooters and mini bikes to continue to run after the power or
throttle button was released. For the Lightning PAC Scooter,
Fisher-Price has received six reports of incidents, including
two reports of facial injuries and two reports of hand injuries
to children and adults. For the MX3 Mini Bike, Fisher Price
received one report of a facial injury.

The recalled Lightning PAC Scooters and MX3 Mini Bikes are
battery-powered ride-on toys designed for children ages six and
older. The product names are located on the side of the scooter
or mini bike. The recalled scooter's model number is 73530. The
recalled mini bike's model number is 73535. The model numbers
are located inside the battery compartment. The recalled
scooters or mini bikes have a warning label located near the
inflation valves. If the warning label reads "Never inflate
above 30 psi," the scooter or mini bike is not subject to this
recall. Recalled units had warning labels that did not warn
about inflating higher than 30 psi.

Manufactured in China, the vehicles were sold at all discount
department and toy stores nationwide from November 2001 through
April 2003 for about $250 for the scooters and $200 for the mini
bikes.

Consumers should take the recalled scooters and mini bikes away
from children immediately and contact Fisher-Price to receive
new warning labels and a free tire gauge to provide assistance
during inflation. To prevent over-inflation, Fisher-Price
recommends using a manual pump to inflate the tires.

Consumer Contact: Call Fisher-Price at (800) 255-7318 anytime or
visit the firm's Web site: http://www.service.fisher-price.com.


GOLDEN TASTE: Recalls Tuna Deluxe Due to Listeria Contamination
----------------------------------------------------------------
Golden Taste, Inc., 45 S. Central Avenue, Spring Valley, New
York 10977 is recalling its Golden Taste Tuna Deluxe in 7.5
ounce and 3.5 ounce clear plastic containers because they may be
contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes, an organism which can
cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children,
frail or elderly people and others with weakened immune systems.
Although healthy persons may suffer only short-term symptoms
such as high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea,
abdominal pain and diarrhea. Listeria infection can cause
miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant women.

The recalled Golden Taste Tuna Deluxe was distributed to retail
stores throughout New York State. The product is coded 7/03/05.

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

The contamination wad discovered after routine sampling by New
York State Department of Agriculture and Markets Food Inspectors
and subsequent analysis of Food Laboratory personnel revealed
the presence of Listeria monocytogenes in the Golden Taste Tuna
Deluxe. Production of the product has been suspended while the
Department and company continue their investigation as to the
source of the problem.

Consumers who have purchased Golden Taste Tuna Deluxe coded
7/03/05 are urged to return them to the place of purchase for a
full refund. Consumers with questions may contact the company at
845-356-4133.


HAYES LEMMERZ: MI Court Preliminarily Approves Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against thirteen of
Hayes Lemmerz International, Inc.'s former directors and
officers and KPMG LLP, the Company's independent registered
public accounting firm.

On May 3, 2002, a group of purported purchasers of certain
Senior Notes and Senior Subordinated Notes issued by the Company
commenced a putative class action lawsuit, seeking damages for
an alleged class of persons who purchased the Company's bonds
between June 3, 1999 and September 5, 2001 and claim to have
been injured because they relied on its allegedly materially
false and misleading financial statements.

On June 27, 2002, the plaintiffs filed an amended class action
complaint adding CIBC World Markets Corporation and Credit
Suisse First Boston Corporation, underwriters for certain bonds
issued by the Company, as defendants, but these parties were
subsequently dismissed from the action. The claims in this
action were not discharged upon the effectiveness of the Plan of
Reorganization because they were not against the Company.

Additionally, before the date the Company commenced its
Chapter 11 Bankruptcy case, four other putative class actions
were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Michigan against the Company and certain of its directors and
officers, on behalf of an alleged class of purchasers of the
Company's common stock from June 3, 1999 to December 13, 2001,
based on similar allegations of securities fraud. On May 10,
2002, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated and amended class
action complaint seeking damages against the officers and
directors (but not the Company) and KPMG.

Pursuant to its Plan of Reorganization, the Company purchased
directors' and officers' liability insurance to cover then-
current and former directors and officers and agreed to
indemnify certain of its former directors against certain
liabilities, including those matters described above, up to an
aggregate of $10 million in excess of the directors' and
officers' liability insurance coverage to or for the benefit of
these indemnitees. The Company has been informed that the
parties to these actions have agreed to a settlement which
includes payment by certain defendants, including the former
directors, of $7.2 million and that on May 10, 2005, the court
issued an order preliminarily approving this settlement.  The
court has scheduled a fairness hearing on the proposed
settlement for July 20, 2005.

On June 3, 2005, the former directors filed a lawsuit against
the Company in the Delaware Court of Chancery seeking to recover
from the Company the full $7.2 million settlement amount and
reasonable costs and attorney fees.

The suit is styled "Pacholder High Yield, et al v. Cucuz, et al,
case no. 2:02-cv-71778-AJT," filed in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, under Judge Arthur
J. Tarnow.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Patrice S. Arend, Jeffrey G. Heuer, Harold D. Pope III,
         Jaffe, Raitt, (Southfield), 27777 Franklin Road, Suite
         2500, Southfield, MI 48034-8214, Phone: 313-961-8380,
         E-mail: parend@jafferaitt.com, jheuer@jafferaitt.com,
         hpope@jaffelaw.com

     (2) Christine S. Azar, Stuart M. Grant, James P. McEvilly,
         Megan D. McIntyre, Grant & Eisenhofer (Wilmington),
         1201 N. Market Street, Suite 2100, Wilmington, DE
         19801-2599, Phone: 302-622-7000, E-mail:
         sgrant@gelaw.com, jmcevilly@gelaw.com, cazar@gelaw.com,
         mmcintyre@gelaw.com  

Representing the Company are Michael I. Allen, Yoram J. Miller,
Michael C. Miller, Stuart Shapiro of Shapiro, Forman, 380
Madison Avenue 25th Floor, New York, NY 10017, Phone:
212-972-4900, Fax: 212-972-4900; and George W. Burnard of Dean &
Fulkerson, 801 W. Big Beaver Road, Fifth Floor Troy, MI 48084-
4767, Phone: 248-362-1300, E-mail: gburnard@dflaw.com.  


HEWLETT-PACKARD CO.: Appeals Certification of TX Consumer Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard Co. appealed the District Court of Jefferson
County, Texas' ruling granting class certification to a lawsuit,
alleging that the Company and Compaq Corporation sold computers
containing floppy disk controllers that fail to alert the user
to certain floppy disk controller errors.  The suit is styled
"Alvis v. HP."

Several similar suits are pending against the Company.  "Alvis"
is a nationwide defective product consumer class action that a
resident of Eastern Texas filed in the District Court of
Jefferson County, Texas in April 2001.  In February 2000, a
similar suit captioned "LaPray v. Compaq," was filed in the
District Court of Jefferson County, Texas.

The basic allegation is that the Company and Compaq sold
computers containing floppy disk controllers that fail to alert
the user to certain floppy disk controller errors. That failure
is alleged to result in data loss or data corruption.  The
complaints in "Alvis" and "LaPray" seek injunctive relief,
declaratory relief, unspecified damages and attorneys' fees.

In July 2001, a nationwide class was certified in the "LaPray"
case, which the Beaumont Court of Appeals affirmed in June 2002.  
In May 2004, the Texas Supreme Court reversed the certification
of the nationwide class in the "LaPray" case and remanded the
case to the trial court.  The trial court has not set a new
class certification hearing.  On March 29, 2005, the "Alvis"
court certified a Texas-wide class action for injunctive relief
only. On April 15, 2005, HP appealed the class certification
decision.  

On June 4, 2003, two suits, styled "Barrett v. HP" and "Grider
v. Compaq" was filed in the District Court of Cleveland County,
Oklahoma, with factual allegations similar to those in the first
two suits.  The complaints in "Barrett" and "Grider" seek, among
other things, specific performance, declaratory relief,
unspecified damages and attorneys' fees.

On December 22, 2003, the court entered an order staying both
the "Barrett" and "Grider" suits until the conclusions of the
"Alvis" and "LaPray" actions.  On July 28, 2004, the court
lifted the stay in "Grider" but took under advisement the
plaintiff's motion to lift the stay in "Barrett."  A class
certification hearing in "Grider" was held on May 25, 2005.  

On November 5, 2004, "Scott v. HP" was filed in state court in
San Joaquin County, California, with factual allegations similar
to those in "LaPray" and on January 27, 2005, "Jurado v. HP" was
filed in state court in San Joaquin County, California, with
factual allegations similar to those in "Alvis."  .  The
complaints in Scott and Jurado seek a California-only class
certification, injunctive relief, unspecified damages (including
punitive damages), restitution, costs and attorneys' fees.  

In addition, the Civil Division of the Department of Justice,
the General Services Administration Office of Inspector General
and other Federal agencies are conducting an investigation of
allegations that HP and Compaq made or caused to be made false
claims for payment to the United States for computers known by
HP and Compaq to contain defective parts or otherwise to perform
in a defective manner relating to the same alleged floppy disk
controller errors. HP agreed with the Department of Justice to
extend the statute of limitations on its investigation until
December 6, 2005.  HP is cooperating fully with this
investigation.


HEWLETT-PACKARD CO.: Parties Seek Transfer of Stock Suit To CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court in California granted the
motion to transfer the securities class action filed against
Hewlett-Packard Company and its former Chairman and Chief
executive officer Carleton Fiornia to the United States District
Court in California.

The suit, styled "Hanrahan v. Hewlett-Packard Company and
Carleton Fiorina," was filed on November 3, 2003, in the United
States District Court for the District of Connecticut on behalf
of a putative class of persons who sold common stock of the
Company during the period from September 4, 2001 through
November 5, 2001.  An amended complaint was filed on March 7,
2005.

The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages and generally alleges that
the Company and Ms. Fiorina violated the federal securities laws
by making statements during this period which were misleading in
failing to disclose that Walter B. Hewlett would oppose the
proposed acquisition of Compaq by the Company prior to Mr.
Hewlett's disclosure of his opposition to the proposed
transaction.  


HEWLETT-PACKARD CO.: Faces More Consumer Suits V. "Smart Chips"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard Company faces several lawsuits filed in
California State Courts, over the Company's use of "smart chips"
that allegedly signal to the customer that certain inkjet
printer cartridges need to be replaced before they are really
empty, and include an expiration date that is allegedly not
documented in marketing materials provided to consumers.

The first suit, styled "Tyler v. HP," was filed in state court
in Santa Clara, California on February 17, 2005, alleging that
the Company engaged in wrongful business practices (including
unfair competition, deceptive advertising, fraud and deceit,
breach of express and implied warranty, and breach of the
covenants of good faith and fair dealing).  Among other things,
plaintiffs alleged that the Company engineered "smart chip"
inkjet cartridges for use in certain inkjet printers to register
ink depletion prematurely and to render the cartridge unusable
through a built-in expiration date that is hidden, not
documented in marketing materials to consumers, or both.
Plaintiffs also contend that consumers received false ink
depletion warnings and that the design of the smart chip
cartridge limits the ability of consumers to use the cartridge
to its full capacity or to choose competitive products.

On February 17, 2005, and March 18, 2005, lawsuits captioned
"Obi v. HP" and "Weingart v. HP," respectively, were filed in
state court in Los Angeles, California with similar allegations.

The parties agreed to coordinate these cases, and, on May 25,
2005, the court granted the petition for coordination and
recommended that the matters be coordinated in state court in
Santa Clara, California.

The suit, styled "Grabell v. HP," was filed in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey on March 18, 2005
and asserts causes of action under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud
Act and for unjust enrichment and breach of the implied covenant
of good faith and fair dealing.  The allegations in the
"Grabell" case are substantively identical to those in "Tyler"
and "Obi."  

"Just v. HP" is another federal class action lawsuit filed in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York on April 20, 2005 and asserts causes of action under the
New York General Business Law 349/350 and for unjust enrichment
and breach of the implied covenants of good faith and fair
dealing. The allegations in the "Just" case substantially
identical to the past four cases.

All of these actions are putative class actions which seek
certification of a statewide class, a nationwide class, or both,
"of purchasers of inkjet printers which use cartridges, that
contain a chip, or other device, which prematurely register that
the cartridge is empty or expired, and/or purchasers of HP
inkjet cartridges with such technology." The plaintiffs in all
of these cases also seek restitution, damages (including
enhanced damages), injunctive relief, interest, costs and
attorneys' fees.


HEWLETT-PACKARD CO.: Temps Launch ERISA Violations Suit in Idaho
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard Company faces a class action filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Idaho, styled "Miller
et al. v. Hewlett-Packard Company," on behalf of a putative
class of persons who were employed by third-party temporary
service agencies and who performed work at the Company's
facilities in the United States.

Plaintiffs claim that they were incorrectly classified as
contractors or contingent workers and, as a result, were
wrongfully denied employee benefits not covered by the
Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") and
benefits covered by ERISA.  Among the benefits enumerated are
benefits under the Company's Share Ownership Plan, service award
program, adoption assistance program, credit union, dependent
care reimbursement program, educational assistance program, time
off programs, flexible work arrangements and the 401(k) plan.

On May 22, 2005, plaintiffs filed their first amended complaint,
which added 13 additional named plaintiffs and a count under the
Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act ("WARN") in
anticipation of alleged reductions in force.  In addition, they
refined their class claims and defined the class to include
"those persons who have been, or now are, hired by the Company
through Agencies to work at HP facilities in the United States
of America from March 21, 2000 through the present who have been
deprived of the full benefit of 'employee' status by being
misclassified as 'contractors' or 'contingent workers' or
'temporary workers' or other mis-classification devices."
Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief, an injunction, retroactive
and prospective benefits and compensation, unspecified damages
and enhanced damages, interest, costs and attorneys' fees.


HEWLETT-PACKARD CO.: Plaintiffs Appeal Apartheid Suit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the apartheid class action filed against Hewlett-
Packard Co. and numerous other multinational corporations filed
an amended notice of appeal of the suit's dismissal to the
United States Second Circuit Court of Appeal.

The suit, styled "Digwamaje et al. v. Bank of America et al.,"
was filed on September 27, 2002 in United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York on behalf of current and
former South African citizens and their survivors who suffered
violence and oppression under the apartheid regime.  The lawsuit
alleges that the Company and other companies helped perpetuate,
and profited from, the apartheid regime during the period from
1948-1994 by selling products and services to agencies of the
South African government.  

Claims are based on the Alien Tort Claims Act, the Torture
Protection Act, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act and state law. The complaint seeks, among
other things, an accounting, the creation of a historic
commission, compensatory damages in excess of $200 billion,
punitive damages in excess of $200 billion, costs and attorneys'
fees.  On November 29, 2004, the court dismissed the plaintiffs'
complaint.

The suit is styled "Digwamaje, et al v. IBM Corporation, et al,
case no. 1:02-cv-06218-JES," filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, under Judge John E.
Sprizzo.  Representing the Company are Kristin M. Heine of
Driscoll & Redlich, 521 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300, New York, NY
10175; and Kristofor T. Henning, Michael J. Holston and John F.
Schultz, Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, 30 Broad Street, 30th
Floor, New York, NY 10004-2953.  Representing the plaintiffs
are:

     (1) Kweku J. Hanson, 487 Main Street, Harford, CT 06106,
         Phone: (860) 728-5454

     (2) Medi Moira Mokuena, 268 Jubilee Avenue, Halfway House
         1685, Extension 12, Republic of South Africa

     (3) Medi Mokuena, 268 Jubilee Avenue, Halfway House, P. O.
         Box 8591, Johannesburg

     (4) Paul M. Ngobeni, 914 Main Street, Suite 206, East
         Hartford, CT 06108, Phone: (860) 289-3155


HOME DEPOT: CA Judge Certifies Consolidated Overtime Pay Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Riverside County Superior Court judge ruled that Home Depot
assistant managers in California could sue the home improvement
company as a class for unpaid overtime, The Associated Press
reports.  

The decision, which set a trial on the merits of the case for
next year, stems from three separate lawsuits against Home Depot
that were consolidated into one case in Riverside.  The
consolidated lawsuit claims that Home Depot routinely made
"merchandising assistant store managers" work at least 55 hours
per week and often more. The suit claims that though managers
are exempt from state requirements to pay overtime they
regularly performed the same tasks as hourly co-workers, who are
eligible for overtime pay.

Joel Kozberg, an attorney representing the plaintiffs, told AP
the class potentially includes more than 2,000 people who served
as managers in Home Depot's 186 California stores from July 30,
1997, to the present. Total damages could reach more than $100
million, attorneys for the plaintiffs estimate, he adds.

Specifically, the lawsuit claims that Home Depot used its
assistant managers to sell to customers, stock shelves, travel
to other stores to retrieve merchandise, tasks that are also
performed by the hourly workers the managers supervise.  The
suit also claims that the managers performed those tasks more
than 50 percent of their shifts, which makes them eligible for
overtime pay according to state law. Additionally, the suit
alleges that Home Depot required the managers to perform those
tasks in order to avoid the cost of paying sales clerks
overtime.


INTUIT INC.: CA Court Dismisses Consolidated Consumer Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara
dismissed the consumer class action filed against Intuit, Inc.,
alleging violations of the state's consumer fraud law.  The suit
is styled "Intuit/Quicken Sunsetting Litigation, Master File No.
1-04-CV-016394, Superior Court of California, County of Santa
Clara (Anthony Flannery v. Intuit Inc., et al, Civil No. 1-04-
CV-016394 and Daniel J. Mason v. Intuit Inc., et al, Civil No.
1-04-CV-018345)."

On March 19, 2004, plaintiff Anthony Flannery, on his behalf and
on behalf of a class of persons allegedly similarly situated,
filed a complaint against the Company, alleging that its
retirement of certain services and live technical support
associated with its Quicken 1998, Quicken 1999 and Quicken 2000
products constituted a breach of express and implied warranties
and violated sections 17200 and 17500 of the California Business
and Professions Code, as well as the Consumer Legal Remedies
Act.  The complaint sought certification as a class action, as
well as unspecified compensatory and punitive damages,
disgorgement of profits, restitution, injunctive relief and
attorneys' fees from the Company.

On April 21, 2004, plaintiff Daniel Mason, on his behalf and on
behalf of a class of persons allegedly similarly situated, filed
a complaint against the Company, making allegations virtually
identical to those of Anthony Flannery.  On July 14, 2004, the
Court consolidated the two cases pursuant to stipulation of the
parties.

On July 29, 2004, plaintiffs filed a consolidated First Amended
Complaint.  On October 8, 2004, the Company responded to
plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint by filing demurrers. By
Order dated November 12, 2004, the Court sustained the demurrers
and dismissed all counts of the First Amended Complaint, holding
that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which relief
could be granted.  The Court allowed plaintiffs to file a Second
Amended Complaint, which was served on the Company.  The Company
filed a demurrer to this latest pleading and on April27, 2005
the Court sustained the demurrers, dismissed all counts of the
Second Amended Complaint and denied plaintiffs the right to
further amend their complaint.  On June 1, 2005, the Court
entered its final judgment.  Plaintiffs have the right to appeal
the Court's ruling.

The suit is styled "In Re Intuit/Quicken Sunsetting Litigation
(Flannery V. Intuit, Inc.), styled "1-04-CV-016394."  
Representing the plaintiffs are Todd M. Schneider, Sarah Colby
and Joshua Konecky of Schneider & Wallace, 180 Montgomery
Street, Suite 2000, San Francisco, Ca 94109 and Laurence D. King
and Lori Brody of Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, 11601 Wilshire
Blvd., Suite 300, Los Angeles, Ca 90025.  Representing the
Company are Claude M. Stern, Thomas Wallerstein, of Quinn
Emanuel Urquhart Et Al, 555 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 560,
Redwood Shores, Ca 94065-2139


INTUIT INC.: CA Court Dismisses QuickBooks Customers' Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara
dismissed the consumer class action filed against Intuit, Inc.,
styled "Cynthia Belotti v. Intuit Inc., et al, Civil No. 1-04-
CV-020277."

On May 24, 2004, plaintiff Cynthia Belotti, on her behalf and on
behalf of a class of persons allegedly similarly situated, filed
a complaint against the Company in Santa Clara Superior Court,
alleging that the Company's retirement of certain add-on
business services and live technical support associated with its
QuickBooks 2001 and QuickBooks 2002 products constituted a
breach of express and implied warranties and violated sections
17200 and 17500 of the California Business and Professions Code.
The complaint sought certification as a class action, as well as
damages, disgorgement of profits, restitution, injunctive relief
and attorney's fees.

On July 13, 2004, plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint that
added Ental Precision Machining, Inc., as plaintiff; plaintiffs'
counsel has also dismissed without prejudice all claims on
behalf of Cynthia Belotti. On October 8, 2004, the Company
responded to plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint by filing
demurrers. By Order dated November 12, 2004, the Court sustained
the demurrers and dismissed all counts of the First Amended
Complaint, holding that plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon
which relief could be granted. The Court allowed plaintiffs to
file a Second Amended Complaint, which was served on the
Company.  The Company filed a demurrer to this latest pleading
and on April 27, 2005 the Court sustained the demurrers,
dismissed all counts of the Second Amended Complaint and denied
plaintiffs the right to further amend the complaint.  On June 1,
2005, the Court entered its final judgment.  Plaintiffs have the
right to appeal the Court's ruling.

The suit is styled "Cynthia Belotti v. Intuit Inc., et al, Civil
No. 1-04-CV-020277."  Representing the plaintiffs are Todd M.
Schneider, Sarah Colby and Joshua Konecky of Schneider &
Wallace, 180 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000, San Francisco, Ca
94109 and Laurence D. King and Lori Brody of Kaplan Fox &
Kilsheimer LLP, 11601 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 300, Los Angeles, Ca
90025.  Representing the Company are Claude M. Stern, Thomas
Wallerstein, of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Et Al, 555 Twin Dolphin
Drive, Suite 560, Redwood Shores, Ca 94065-2139


JEWEL FOOD: IL Court Refuses To Allow Appeal of Suit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Illinois Supreme Court refused to allow plaintiffs to appeal
the dismissal of the class action filed against Jewel Food
Stores, Inc. and Dominick's Finer Foods, Inc., styled "Maureen
Baker et al. v. Jewel Food Stores, Inc. and Dominick's Finer
Foods, Inc., Case No. 00L 009664."

The suit, filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois,
alleges, among other things, that the Company and Dominick's
conspired to fix the retail price of milk in nine Illinois
counties in the Chicago area, in violation of the Illinois
Antitrust Act.  The court certified the lawsuit as a class
action on behalf of all persons residing in the nine-county area
who purchased milk from the defendants' retail stores in these
counties during August 1996 to August 2000.

In February 2003 the trial court found in favor of the
defendants and dismissed the case with prejudice.  The
plaintiffs appealed, but on January 12, 2005, the Illinois
Appellate Court upheld the trial court's dismissal of the case.  
Plaintiffs sought leave to appeal.

The suit is styled "Maureen Baker et al. v. Jewel Food Stores,
Inc. and Dominick's Finer Foods, Inc., Case No. 00L 009664,"
filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Law
Division, under Judge Timothy C. Evans.  Representing the
plaintiffs is Connelly, Roberts & McGivne, 1 N. Franklin #1200,
Chicago IL 60606, Phone: (312) 251-9600.  Representing the
Company is Will McDermott & Em LLP, 227 W Monroe 31st Floor,
Chicago IL, 60606, Phone: (312) 372-2000.


JOTUL NORTH: Recalls 3.2T Gas-Fired Stoves Due to Injury Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC), Jotul North America, of Portland, Maine is voluntarily
recalling about 3,200 Jotul Gas-Fired Stoves.

Movement or misplacement of the stove's burner can allow propane
gas to settle in the heater, resulting in delayed ignition. The
delayed ignition could shatter the door glass and pose a
laceration hazard to consumers. Jotul has received six reports
of delayed ignition resulting in glass breakage. One laceration
injury has been reported.

The recall involves two Jotul models of gas-fired stoves - the
GF 100 DV II Nordic QT and the GF 200 DV II Lillehammer. The
stoves are fueled with liquid propane (LP) gas. The model number
(either GF 100 DV II or GF 200 DV II) can be found on the metal
rating plate attached to the back of the stove.

Assembled in Portland, Maine and manufactured in Norway, the
stoves were sold at all dealers and distributors of Jotul
products nationwide sold the GF 100 DV II Nordic QT model for
about $1,100 and the GF 200 DV II Lillehammer model for about
$1,300 from June 2004 through early April 2005.

Consumers should stop using their LP fueled stoves immediately,
shut off the gas supply and contact their Jotul dealers to make
arrangements for a free repair. Consumers with recalled units
are being personally contacted by dealers who sold the products.
Consumers who think that they have recalled units and who have
not yet been contacted, should call their dealer for
information.

Consumer Contact: For assistance in turning off the gas and
arranging for a free repair, consumers should contact their
dealer from whom they purchased the stove or their local liquid
propane (LP) gas provider. For additional information, consumers
also can contact Jotul toll-free at (877) 451-1048 extension 108
between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday or log onto
the Jotul Web site: http://www.jotulflame.com.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Agrees to Pay $2.2B To Settle Enron Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. agreed to pay $2.2 billion to settle a
class action lawsuit over its role in helping Enron Corporation
engineer an accounting fraud that bilked investors out of
billions of dollars, The Associated Press reports.

Representing the largest settlement deal in lawsuits against
banks, advisers, and Enron executives connected to the energy
trader's 2001 bankruptcy, the agreement came just four days
after Citigroup Inc., the nation's largest financial services
company, agreed to pay investors $2 billion to settle the
lawsuit.

Court documents indicate that some 50,000 Enron stock and
bondholders led by the University of California's board of
regents filed claims as part of the lawsuit. The suit alleges
that a number of banks and brokerages helped Houston-based Enron
continue to operate and raise money even as the company was
imploding.

William Lerach, the lawyer representing the University of
California, which lost $144.7 million when Enron declared
bankruptcy, told AP that the reason why JPMorgan is paying $200
million more than Citigroup is because the University of
California has offered incentives for those that strike
settlements sooner rather than later.

Even with the settlement, Mr. Lerach also told AP, "These were
two giant steps on the road, but we have a long way to go before
the end of the road. There will be other large settlements
coming soon."

Mr. Lerach along with other attorneys for the university are
still litigating with Barclays PLC, Credit Suisse First Boston,
Merrill Lynch & Co., Toronto Dominion Bank, Royal Bank of
Canada, Deutsche Bank AG and the Royal Bank of Scotland.  Among
the individuals named as defendants are Enron founder and former
CEO Kenneth Lay, former Chief Executive Jeffrey Skilling, and
former top accountant Richard Causey.

A federal judge in Texas, who will determine a formula under
which claimants would be paid, still must approve all the
settlements though no hearing has been set as of late.

According to the lawsuit, the financial institutions allegedly
helped Enron set up partnerships that the company used to
improperly boost profits while moving billions of dollars of
debt off its balance sheet. That allowed Enron to report higher
cash flow from operations and lower debt, making its financial
picture look better than it was and artificially inflating the
company's stock and bond prices.

More specifically, JPMorgan Chase was accused of helping Enron
engage in large prepaid transactions in which debt was concealed
from the balance sheet to inflate the bottom line. In addition,
the Wall Street giant was accused of issuing bullish research
reports that stressed Enron's liquidity while the Company was on
the verge of collapse.  In the settlement, JPMorgan Chase denied
any wrongdoing and reiterated in a press statement that the bank
opted to settle, "solely to eliminate the uncertainties, burden
and expense of further protracted litigation."

Chairman and CEO William B. Harrison even told AP, "We are
working hard to put the uncertainty of litigation risk behind
us. By settling this case and increasing reserves for our
remaining legal issues, the firm can better focus its energies
on building our great company and serving our clients and
shareholders."

Plaintiffs explained that the settlement covers stock and bonds
that were issued by Enron between September 9, 1997 and December
2, 2001.


MARYLAND: MD Court Allows Cell Phone Suit Remand to State Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Finkelstein, Thompson & Loughran reports that a
federal judge in Maryland ruled that a class action complaint
challenging the cell phone industry's failure to disclose safety
issues relating to certain phones sold to consumers in
Washington, D.C. and Maryland should be remanded to the D.C.
Superior Court in which it was originally filed.

The Honorable Catherine C. Blake of the United States District
Court for the District of Maryland granted the plaintiff's
motion for remand, thereby authorizing the case to proceed in
state court.

The complaint, which was originally filed in September, 2002,
charges cell phone manufacturers Audiovox, Motorola, Nokia,
Ericsson, Qualcomm, Kyocera and Samsung with selling cell phones
to consumers without disclosing pertinent safety information.
The allegations in the complaint concentrate on defendants'
"decision whether or not to communicate to the consumer
information regarding the important safety debate raging within
the industry, (many details of which are known only to industry
insiders)." The complaint also challenges defendants' failure to
disclose the true meaning of their "Specific Absorption Rate"
levels for their cell phones. The complaint alleges that such
misrepresentations and omissions violate state consumer fraud
laws and that the proper disclosures "would allow consumers to
decide for themselves" whether the safety debate warrants a
consumer's modification of their cell phone usage and/or model
choice.

The complaint is brought on behalf of a class of all persons who
purchased a wireless handheld telephone (i.e. a "cell phone") in
Maryland or the District of Columbia, between January 1, 1989
and the present that was manufactured by one of the defendants.
The complaint seeks monetary restitution and injunctive relief
to prevent further misrepresentations and omissions by
defendants.

For more details, contact Tracy D. Rezvani or Karen J. Marcus of
Finkelstein, Thompson & Loughran, Washington, D.C., Phone:
(202) 337-8000, E-mail: tdr@ftllaw.com or kjm@ftllaw.com, Web
Site: http://www.ftllaw.com.


NEW YORK: Firm Launches Suit V. Binghamton Over Sex-Offender Law
----------------------------------------------------------------
Legal Services of Central New York, a Cortland-based nonprofit
law firm representing low-income people in central New York
initiated a lawsuit seeking class action status against the City
of Binghamton, claiming that a local law that makes it illegal
for them to live or travel almost anywhere within city limits is
unconstitutional, The Press & Sun-Bulletin reports.

Brought on behalf of 15 anonymous men registered under the
state's Sex Offender Registration Act as moderate- and high-risk
convicted sex offenders, the suit was filed in Binghamton
federal court and is seeking class action status to include all
7,698 moderate-risk and 5,276 high-risk registered sex offenders
living in New York. Additionally, the suit is seeking an
injunction against further enforcement of the law.

The suit alleges that the city's law amounts to a sentence of
"banishment" and violates the constitutional rights of all
registered sex offenders. The law, which the city council passed
last month and was signed by Mayor Richard A. Bucci, prohibits
moderate- and high-risk registered sex offenders from living or
traveling within a quarter-mile of any public or private school,
day-care center, playground or park.

In their suit, the sex offenders, who are also seeking financial
awards, sought to have the city law be declared
unconstitutional, illegal and unenforceable.

In addition, the suit alleges that the city law:

     (1) Violates the equal protection clause under the
         Constitution's 14th Amendment by "banishing" sex
         offenders and denying them their right to travel.

     (2) Violates the due process clause under the 14th
         Amendment.

     (3) Imposes a retroactive punishment on those convicted of
         sex crimes before May 2005, a violation of what's known
         as the ex post facto clause.

     (4) Violates state Municipal Home Rule Law, saying the city
         has exceeded its authority.

Mayor Bucci though told the Press & Sun-Bulletin that the suit
is part of a test to see just how far local governments can go
to protect its citizens. He also said, "People in the legal
profession thought there were problems with the law, but they
weren't sure exactly what they were. There have been no defined,
clear-cut answers on matters such as this. This will become a
test case on the power of local law."

The state's Sex Offender Registration Act, which is also know as
Megan's Law, requires convicted sex offenders to register with
the Division of Criminal Justice Services through local law-
enforcement agencies. Sex offenders in New York are classified
by a court according to their risk of committing new crimes,
namely: Level 1, low; Level 2, moderate; Level 3, high. Local
law enforcement is charged with notifying the at-risk population
when a sex offender moves to a neighborhood.

Last month, the city began sending notification to 31 Level 3
sex offenders living within a "forbidden zone" of a quarter-mile
from all schools, day-care centers and parks that they were
violating city law and must leave immediately. The letter stated
if a sex offender refused to leave, the city's attorneys would
charge that person with violating city code and prosecute him.
The penalties included up to a $500 fine and/or up to 15 days in
jail for each day the person was in violation of the law. After
a 15-day grace period, the city was set to begin enforcing those
penalties this week.

However, notice of the lawsuit, according to Mayor Bucci, and
the seeking of a court injunction puts a "freeze" on any further
enforcement action.

Corporation Counsel Gregory J. Poland, the city's lead attorney,
told the Press & Sun-Bulletin that he would most likely seek an
outside lawyer to handle the case for the city. He also said,
"This was certainly not unanticipated. Questions were raised
that the law indicates unlawful banishment of sex offenders.
This main issue here is, does the city have the authority to do
this? The lawsuit is a commencement of that process."

City Council President Edward M. Collins told Press & Sun-
Bulletin that because Binghamton was the first city in New York
to ban sex offenders, he was not surprised the city was being
sued, saying, "All throughout the deliberations, we knew that
this law could bring some legal action. I hope this doesn't have
to go to court and that we have to spend a lot of money on this.
But we'll do what we have to do. We've been getting more than
our share of sex offenders living in the city."


NOVELL INC.: UT Court Approves Securities Fraud Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Utah
granted final approval to the settlement of the class action
filed against Novell, Inc. and certain of its officers and
directors in the United States District Court, District of Utah,
alleging violation of federal securities laws.  The suit, filed
on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock from
November 1, 1996 through April 22, 1997, alleges the Company
concealed the true nature of its financial condition.  The suit
seeks unspecified damages.  

After a first dismissal of the suit on November 3, 2000 and a
subsequent amendment to the complaint filed on February 20,
2001, the court dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice
for failure to state a claim.  Much of the court's Order of
Dismissal was recently affirmed by the Tenth Circuit Court of
Appeals while certain claims were remanded for the court's
further review.

The Company along with its directors and officers liability
insurance carriers agreed to a proposed settlement that includes
a settlement payment of $13.9 million to a settlement fund for
the class members.  Of this amount, and assuming the settlement
agreement is ultimately approved by the Court and class members,
the Company will contribute $0.6 million toward the settlement
payment.  Final approval of the settlement was entered by the
Court on May 26, 2005.
           

PEOPLES ENERGY: Builders Launch Suit Over Gas Connection Charges
----------------------------------------------------------------
A group of Chicago builders initiated a class action lawsuit
against Peoples Energy Corp., alleging that they were
overcharged for connecting and disconnecting the Company's gas
lines, The Chicago Tribune reports.

In their suit, the builders argued that they paid "tens of
millions" of dollars in fees to Peoples, the corporate parent of
Peoples Gas. They claim that the Company should have filed with
the Illinois Commerce Commission for permission to charge the
fees but never did so.

Birchwood Builders of Winnetka, and Columbia Properties and S&S
Home Builders, both of Chicago, claim that they are wrongfully
charged $550 to disconnect gas service to a property before
construction on a home can begin and then charged another $780
to reconnect service once the construction is finished. A third
fee is sometimes charged when Peoples Energy supplies pipeline
connecting the property to the area's main gas line.

Michael Johnson, an attorney for the contractors, told the
Tribune that the builders usually end up paying between $2,000
and $4,000 in fees to Peoples Energy. The lawsuit also alleges
that deposits paid upfront for work on main gas lines is not
returned.

The lawsuit, filed in Cook County Circuit Court, seeks a court
order barring Peoples Energy from charging the fees and punitive
damages equal to the amount of money collected in fees from the
plaintiffs.

Elizabeth Castro, a spokeswoman for Chicago-based Peoples, told
the Tribune that the company does charge for work in excess of
what it is required to provide by regulation. She also adds,
"Anything above and beyond that, we do charge for. The company
has notified the ICC about this."


PERRIGO CO.: Recalls 14T H.E.B. Vitamins Due to Injury Hazard  
-------------------------------------------------------------
In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC), The Perrigo Co. of South Carolina, of Greenville, South
Carolina is voluntarily recalling about 14,000 bottles of H.E.B.
vitamins with iron.

The vitamins contain iron, but do not have child-resistant
packaging as required by federal law, which could cause serious
injury or death if ingested by a child.

The recalled H.E.B. Super B-Complex vitamins with iron and 300
mg Vitamin C was sold in a container of 80 caplets. The white
plastic bottle is labeled, "H.E.B. and Super B-Complex with Iron
and 300 mg Vitamin C" and "Energy Metabolism" and has a blue
lid.

Manufactured in the United States, the vitamins were sold at
H.E.B. retail stores in Texas, from December 2003 through April
2005 for about $4.

Consumers should keep this product out of the reach of children
and return it to the nearest H.E.B. retail store for a refund or
replacement.

Consumer Contact: Call The Perrigo Co. of South Carolina toll-
free at (866) 354-3815 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday
through Friday. Consumers also can visit http://www.heb.comfor  
information about this recall.


QUANTUM CORPORATION: Certification of CA Suit Set July 22,2005
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
San Francisco will hear on July 22,2005 motions for and against
class certification of a lawsuit filed against Quantum
Corporation.  The suit also names as defendants:

     (1) Hitachi Maxell, Ltd.,

     (2) Maxell Corporation of America,

     (3) Fuji Photo Film Co., Ltd., and

     (4) Fuji Photo Film U.S.A., Inc.


The plaintiff, Franz Inc., alleges violation of California
antitrust law, violation of California unfair competition law,
and unjust enrichment. Franz Inc. charges, among other things,
that the defendants entered into agreements and conspired to
monopolize the market and fix prices for data storage tape
compatible with DLT tape drives.  The plaintiff seeks an order
that the lawsuit be maintained as a class action and that
defendants be enjoined from continuing the violations alleged in
the complaint.  The Company also seeks compensatory damages,
treble damages, statutory damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and
interest.

The suit is styled "Franz, Inc., individually, on behalf of all
others v. Quantum Corporation, case no. CGC-03-423301," filed in
the Superior Court of California for San Francisco County, under
Judge Richard A. Kramer.


RAZOR USA: Recalls 246T Electric Scooters Due to Injury Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC), Razor USA LLC, of Cerritos, California is voluntarily
recalling about 246,000 RazorT Electric Scooters.

A weld can break, causing the handlebar to detach from the
scooter. This can cause the rider to lose control and fall from
the scooter. Razor USA has received 261 reports of handlebar
welds breaking or bending. This has resulted in reports of 16
injuries, including three broken arms and one laceration.

The recall involves models E300, E300S, E200 and E200S Razor
Electric Scooters, which are powered by battery motors. The
model numbers appear on the down tube attaching the handlebars
to the deck. The scooters are collapsible for storage, and are
equipped with a stepping plate and kickstand attached to the
base. The E300 and E300S models are silver and green. The E200
and E200S models are silver and red. Models E100 and E125
scooters are not included in this recall.

Manufactured in China, scooters were sold at all discount
department, auto parts and toy stores nationwide from October
2003 through May 2005 for between $180 and $250.

Consumers should stop using the scooters immediately and contact
Razor to arrange a free repair. The recall repair also will
include a new battery charger to address a risk of overheating
that is being announced as a separate recall today.

Consumer Contact: Call Razor toll-free at (866) 664-1409 between
8 a.m. and 8 p.m. Monday through Friday ET, or visit their Web
site: http://www.razor.com.


RAZOR USA: Recalls 584T Battery Chargers Due to Burn Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------
In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC), Razor USA LLC, of Cerritos, California and Leadman
Electronic Co., Ltd. of China are voluntarily recalling about
584,000 PowMaxT battery chargers sold with certain RazorT
battery-powered scooters and ride-on vehicles.

The battery charger can overheat and cause minor burns when
touched. Also, nearby items can become damaged by the hot
chargers. Razor USA has received 144 reports of battery chargers
overheating. There have been no reports of injuries and six
reports of minor property damage, such as a melted spot on a
linoleum floor.

The recall involves PowMax battery chargers distributed with
Razor battery-powered scooters and ride-on vehicles. The name
"PowMax" appears prominently on the face of the battery charger
unit. The vehicles that were sold with the recalled chargers
include RazorT electric scooters (Models E100, E125, E300,
E300S, E200, and E200S), Razor Pocket RocketT mini electric
motorcycles, Razor Ground ForceT electric go karts, and Razor
Chopper mini electric motorcycles.

Manufactured in China, the chargers were sold at all discount
department, auto parts and toy stores nationwide from October
2003 through May 2005 for between $130 and $250, depending on
the model.

Consumers should stop using the battery charger and contact
Razor for a free replacement. Razor model E300, E300S, E200, and
E200S scooters will be repaired as part of another recall
announced today.

Consumer Contact: Call Razor toll-free at (866) 664-1409 between
8 a.m. and 8 p.m. Monday through Friday ET, or visit the firm's
Web site: http://www.razor.com.


REMEC INC.: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Consolidated Stock Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
REMEC Inc. asked the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California to dismiss the consolidated
securities class action filed against it and its current and
former officers.

On September 29, 2004, three class action lawsuits were filed,
alleging violations of federal securities laws between September
8, 2003 and September 8, 2004.  On January 18, 2005, the law
firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP was appointed Lead
Counsel and its client was appointed Lead Plaintiff.  

On March 10, 2005, Milberg Weiss filed a Consolidated and
Amended Complaint naming the Company, a former officer and a
current officer as defendants.  The Consolidated and Amended
Complaint asserts, among other things, that during the Class
Period, the Defendants made false and misleading statements and
failed to disclose material information regarding the Company's
operations and future prospects. The Complaint seeks unspecified
damages and legal expenses.  On April 19, 2005, the Company
filed a Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint.


SKILLSOFT PUBLIC: Working on Settlement of NH Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
SkillSoft Public Limited Co. is working on the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against it and
certain of its current and former officers and directors in the
United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire.

Several suits were initially filed, namely:

     (1) Gianni Angeloni v. SmartForce PLC d/b/a SkillSoft,
         William McCabe and Greg Priest;

     (2) Ari R. Schloss v. SkillSoft PLC f/k/a SmartForce PLC,
         Gregory M. Priest, Patrick E. Murphy, David C. Drummond
         and William G. McCabe;

     (3) Joseph J. Bish v. SmartForce PLC d/b/a SkillSoft,
         Gregory M. Priest, William G. McCabe, David C.
         Drummond, John M. Grillos, John P. Hayes and Patrick E.
         Murphy;

     (4) Stacey Cohen v. SmartForce PLC d/b/a SkillSoft, William
         G. McCabe and Greg Priest;

     (5) Daniel Schmelz v. SmartForce PLC d/b/a SkillSoft,
         William G. McCabe and Greg Priest; and

     (6) John O'Donoghue v. SmartForce PLC d/b/a SkillSoft,
         William G. McCabe and Greg Priest.

These lawsuits allege that the Company misrepresented or omitted
to state material facts in its SEC filings and press releases
regarding its revenues and earnings and failed to correct such
false and misleading SEC filings and press releases, which are
alleged to have artificially inflated the price of the Company's
ADSs.  These lawsuits seek unspecified monetary damages,
including punitive damages together with interest, costs, fees
and expenses.  These lawsuits have all been assigned to Chief
Judge Paul J. Barbadoro.

On March 26, 2003, Judge Barbadoro consolidated the lawsuits
under the caption "In re SmartForce Securities Litigation, Civil
Action No. 02-544-B," appointed as lead plaintiffs the Teacher's
Retirement System of Louisiana and the Louisiana Sheriff's
Pension & Relief Fund, and approved the lead plaintiffs' choice
of lead counsel and local counsel.

In March 2004, the Company reached a settlement of this
litigation for total settlement payments of $30.5 million, with
one-half paid in August 2004 and the remainder to be paid in
August 2005.  The Company is in discussions with its insurers to
determine how much, if any, of this settlement amount they will
pay.


TOYS R US: Shareholders Launch Lawsuit in DE to Block $6.6B Sale
----------------------------------------------------------------
Toys R Us Inc. shareholders filed a lawsuit seeking class action
status that asks a Delaware court to block the $6.6 billion sale
of the Wayne, New Jersey toy retailer to a private equity
consortium, The Associated Press reports.

In their suit, minority shareholders Iron Workers of Western
Pennsylvania Pension and Profit Plans and Jolly Roger Fund LP
stated that the board of directors rushed into a sale at a price
that undervalued the Company because directors were motivated by
the compensation they would receive.

The shareholders stated that on June 17 they will ask Vice
Chancellor Leo Strine in the Court of Chancery for a preliminary
injunction to stop the deal. A special meeting of shareholders
to approve the sale is scheduled for June 23, with the deal
expected to close within a month afterward, if approved.

The buying companies, which are a consortium of Kohlberg Kravis
Roberts & Co., Bain Capital Inc. and Vornado Realty Trust, as
well as Toys R Us are named as defendants in the suit filed May
18.


WAL-MART STORES: KY Employees' Lawyers Seek Class Action Status
---------------------------------------------------------------
At a recent hearing, lawyers representing hourly employees at
Wal-Mart Stores in Kentucky are asking a judge to grant class
action status to their lawsuit that accuses the retail giant of
not allowing the workers break periods and for failing to pay
them for the work they performed while off the clock, The
Associated Press reports.  Lead plaintiffs Michael Nagy of
Lexington and Ron Jeffers of Hazard, filed suit in 2001.

After a full day of arguments for and against class action
certification in Catlettsburg, Boyd County Circuit Judge Marc
Rosen did not immediately rule on the motion. He said that he
would review written briefs before making a decision.

Barbara D. Bonar, a Covington attorney representing plaintiffs
in the case, told AP that the class action certification would
be the only way some of the potential 145,000 hourly workers at
Wal-Marts and Sam's Clubs would be able to demand payment for
work performed while not clocked in.

She also told AP, "They're asking to be paid the small amount of
wages they're owed. In some cases, it's $600. For some it's
$800. We want these people to be able to join in this lawsuit
without fear of retaliation."


WAL-MART STORES: Wants Employee Suit Diverted to Federal Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
In a bid to move a lawsuit filed by an Aberdeen man from Brown
County to the U.S. District Court in South Dakota, Wal-Mart
Stores Inc. filed a notice of removal with U.S. District Judge
Charles Kornmann, The Associated Press reports.

The case involves John Luce, who accuses the retailer of
cheating him and other employees out of wages. Mr. Luce, 24,
worked for the Aberdeen Wal-Mart for more than two years before
leaving in March.
  
Filed on May 12 in Brown County Circuit Court, the original suit
named Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and a subsidiary, Sam's West Inc., as
defendants. Mr. Luce asked for class-action status for the
lawsuit and unspecified damages in a jury trial.

Matthew Tobin of Sioux Falls, Mr. Luce's lawyer, has said the
lawsuit potentially could include employees from every Wal-Mart
and Sam's Club across South Dakota.

The suit alleges that Wal-Mart failed to pay hourly employees
for all time worked, including overtime hours, failed to provide
employees with accurate itemized wage statements, manipulated
time and wage records and understaffed stores.

In his suit, Mr. Luce states, "As a result of Wal-Mart's
wrongful and illegal conduct, plaintiff seeks redress on behalf
of all persons who are or who have been employed in South Dakota
by Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and Sam's West Inc. as an hourly
employee at any time on or after January 1, 1997."

Roberto Lange of Sioux Falls, a lawyer representing Wal-Mart,
told AP that his client has a right to move the case. He said,
"The federal court system is set up to, among other things,
determine lawsuits that are between citizens of different states
and determine lawsuits that involve wage and hour contentions,
and so we have a right to remove it to federal court and opted
to do so."

However, Mr. Tobin told AP that he would fight the move saying,
"You have to meet the jurisdictional requirements" to move a
case to federal court. He pointed out that diversity of
citizenship could be grounds for removal to federal court if the
plaintiff is in one state and the defendant is in another. But
each individual claim must be worth more than $75,000, Mr. Tobin
said, adding that in this case, it's the total that exceeds
$75,000.

In addition, Mr. Tobin explains that the Class Action Fairness
Act, which passed this year by Congress, was designed to give
federal courts exclusive jurisdiction over national class action
lawsuits. However, Mr. Tobin pointed out that in this case, the
plaintiffs are only from South Dakota and other states are not
involved.

According to Mr. Lange, the judge can evaluate whether federal
jurisdiction exists. Mr. Luce wants it to be class action, but
Mr. Lange told AP that the Class Action Fairness Act limits such
lawsuits, "which will affect Mr. Luce's case."


WISCONSIN: Uninsured Patients Lodge Suit V. 3 Non-Profit Systems
----------------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuits that were filed with the Milwaukee
County Circuit Court, three not-for-profit Wisconsin health care
systems were accused of price-gouging their uninsured patients,
The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports.

The suits are Wisconsin's first three cases in a nationally
coordinated effort to sue hospitals over the rates they charge
uninsured patients. As of the moment there are 46 similar
lawsuits in 22 states under the direction of Mississippi
attorney Richard Scruggs.

The suits in Wisconsin, like those against hospitals elsewhere,
allege that the Covenant Healthcare System, Aurora Healthcare
and Froedtert Memorial Lutheran Hospital each systematically
overcharged uninsured patients and offered those with insurance
or covered by Medicare and Medicaid special "discounted" rates
that uninsured patients did not have the opportunity to bargain
for.

Additionally, the suits also criticize the hospitals' non-profit
tax status, noting that Covenant and its member hospitals
reported cash and investments of more than $120 million in 2002,
that Froedtert claimed assets of more than $750 million in 2003
and that Aurora reported net revenue of $2.6 billion in 2004.
Court documents indicated that the hospital cases have been
assigned to three different courtrooms.

The suit against Froedtert, which was filed for Michele
MacMillan of West Bend by Milwaukee attorney Willard Techmeier
claims, "The size of a medical bill at the defendants'
facilities changed drastically depending upon who was paying the
bill."

Mr. Techmeier, who filed the three Milwaukee claims with Mr.
Scruggs' office and a Chicago firm, told the Sentinel that he
got involved with the national effort while representing Ms.
MacMillan after an auto accident and trying to negotiate lower
bills with Froedtert on her behalf. "They absolutely refused,"
Mr. Techmeier said about the negotiations. "They said that's not
their policy to negotiate on the claim."

Though representatives of the three defendant hospitals declined
to address the lawsuits' specific allegations, all three did
include descriptions of their programs for discounted and free
care in charity cases in response to questions about the
lawsuits.

The prepared statement from Froedtert spokeswoman Carolyn Bellin
even said, "We work closely with patients to assure that they
understand all programs that may be available to assist them. We
are aware that these lawsuits are being filed across the nation.
While we haven't yet received nor reviewed the suit we intend to
defend against it vigorously."

Similar responses were also made by in the statement from Aurora
spokesman Jeff Squire, which states, "In the past two years we
have provided more than $140 million in charity care. Any
suggestion that Aurora deals unfairly with the uninsured is
outrageous."

Covenant responses through spokeswoman Anne Ballentine also
states, "We are in the process of reviewing the complaint, but
we are confident that Covenant Healthcare's generous charity
care program and other policies fulfill our mission and meet
community need in assisting uninsured patients."

Meanwhile, in a written statement Wisconsin Hospital Association
president Steve Brenton called the filings as "cookie-cutter
lawsuits" and said that Wisconsin hospitals treat 2,315 free or
largely-subsidized patients a day, a rate, which according to
him totals $496 million in care per year. "This is hardly
indicative of price-gouging the uninsured," Mr. Brenton further
said in the statement. "We are disappointed that Wisconsin
hospitals will have to devote scarce resources to fighting
nuisance lawsuits."


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

ABLE LABORATORIES: Leo W. Desmond Lodges Securities Suit in NJ
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Leo W. Desmond initiated a securities class
action on behalf of shareholders who acquired Able Laboratories,
Inc. (Nasdaq:ABRX) securities between October 31, 2002 and May
18, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey against Able Laboratories, Inc. No class
has yet been certified in the above actions.

It is alleged that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10(b)(5)
promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of materially false
and misleading statements to the market throughout the Class
Period which statements had the effect of artificially inflating
the market price of the Company's securities.

For more details, contact Leo W. Desmond, Esq. of the Law
Offices of Leo W. Desmond, Phone: (888) 337-6663 or
(973) 726-4242, E-mail: Information@SecuritiesAttorney.com, Web
site: http://www.SecuritiesAttorney.com.


DORAL CORPORATION: Kirby McInerney Lodges Securities Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Doral
Financial Corporation ("Doral" or the "Company") (NYSE:DRL)
securities, as described more fully below.

Doral, the largest residential mortgage lender in Puerto Rico,
engages in mortgage banking, including thrift operations,
institutional securities operations and insurance agency
activities. The action charges Doral and certain of its officers
with violations of the federal securities laws. The alleged
violations stem from the dissemination of false and misleading
statements, which had the effect of artificially inflating the
price of Doral securities.

The Complaint alleges that, throughout the period from September
29, 2003 through April 19, 2005 (the "Class Period"), Doral's
purported financial results -- including Doral's assets, net
income, and net gain on mortgage loan sales -- had been
materially inflated through the materially incorrect valuation
of and accounting for Doral's interest-only strip ("IO Strip")
portfolio. Investors were first alerted to issues with Doral's
IO Strip on January 19, 2005, when Doral announced a $97.5
million write-down of the portfolio's carrying value -- causing
Doral securities to decline materially. The decline accelerated
in mid-March 2005 when Doral's Form 10-K and Annual Report
revealed further negative information about the value and
valuation of Doral's IO Strips. Finally, on April 19, 2005,
Doral admitted that its valuation methodology for IO Strips
throughout 2000-2004 had been incorrect, that it would have to
restate its previously-issued financial statements, and that it
expected that the restatement would decrease the previously-
reported fair value of its IO Strips by $400-$600 million (a
45%-68% devaluation) and would necessitate a $290-$435 million
charge against earnings for the required adjustments (i.e., 25%-
35% of the net income that Doral reported for that period).

The action charges Doral and certain of its senior officers with
violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, as
well as section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933. The action is
brought on behalf of a proposed class of all investors who
purchased Doral's 4.75% preferred stock during the Class Period.

For more details, contact Orie Braun of Kirby McInerney & Squire
LLP, Phone: (212) 371-6600 or (888) 529-4787, E-mail:
obraun@kmslaw.com.  


DRDGOLD LIMITED: Charles J. Piven Files Securities Lawsuit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of DRDGOLD
Limited (NASDAQ: DROOY), formerly known as Durban Roodepoort
Deep, Limited between October 23, 2003 and February 24, 2005,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against defendant DRDGOLD and one
or more of its officers and/or directors. The action charges
that defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a
series of materially false and misleading statements to the
market throughout the Class Period, which statements had the
effect of artificially inflating the market price of the
Company's securities. No class has yet been certified in the
above action.

For more details, contact the Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven,
P.A., The World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street,
Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD, 21202, Phone: 410/986-0036, E-mail:
hoffman@pivenlaw.com.  


NAVARRE CORPORATION: Charles J. Piven Files Stock Lawsuit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of Navarre
Corp. (NASDAQ: NAVR) between July 23, 2003 and May 31, 2005,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
District of Minnesota against defendant Navarre Corp. and one or
more of its officers. The action charges that defendants
violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of
materially false and misleading statements to the market
throughout the Class Period, which statements had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price of the Company's
securities. No class has yet been certified in the above action.

For more details, contact the Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven,
P.A., The World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street,
Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD, 21202, Phone: 410/986-0036, E-mail:
hoffman@pivenlaw.com.  


NAVARRE CORPORATION: Federman & Sherwood Files Stock Suit in MN
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Federman & Sherwood Announces initiated a class
action lawsuit against Navarre Corporation (Nasdaq: NAVR) in the
United States District Court of District of Minnesota.

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 July 23, 2003 through May 31, 2005.

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.


MAGMA DESIGN: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP initiated a Class
Action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of a class (the
"Class") consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired securities of Magma Design Automation, Inc.
("Magma" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:LAVA), between October 23,
2002 and April 12, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint charges Magma and certain of the Company's
executive officers with violations of federal securities laws.
Magma provides electronic design automation software products
and related services. The Complaint alleges that throughout the
Class Period defendants failed to disclose that Magma faced the
serious risk of infringing on intellectual property rights of
competitor Synopsys, Inc. because inventions critical to Magma's
business, and which were patented by Magma (the "438 and 446
patents"), were designed by Magma's chief scientist while he was
employed by Synopsys. Plaintiff claims defendants knew or
recklessly disregarded and failed to disclose material adverse
facts, including that:

     (1) inventions claimed by Magma in the 438 and 446 patents
         were conceived by Magma's chief scientist while he was
         employed by Synopsys;

     (2) as a result, Magma's use of the patented technology ran
         the serious, but undisclosed, risk of infringing
         Synopsys' intellectual property rights;

     (3) Magma's incorporation of the technology encompassed by
         the 438 and 446 patents could be halted, thereby
         jeopardizing the Company's business; and

     (4) Magma could be subject to a material monetary judgment
         in an infringement action which was brought by
         Synopsys.

On April 13, 2005, Magma's chief scientist admitted in a sworn
declaration filed in the Synopsys infringement action that
inventions covered by two of Magma's patents were conceived by
him while he was employed by Synopsys, and that at least his
supervisor at Magma knew that the inventions covered by the
patents were conceived by the scientist while at Synopsys and
encompassed by an agreement with Synopsys that established its
ownership of the rights to those inventions.

This disclosure caused Magma's stock to plummet more than 40% in
one day, from $9.42 per share on April 12, 2005 to $5.58 per
share on April 13, 2005, on unusually high trading volume of
more than 14 million shares.

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


MAGMA DESIGN: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP initiated a
class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities
of Magma Design Automation, Inc. ("Magma" or the "Company")
(Nasdaq: LAVA) between October 23, 2002 through April 12, 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 Northern District of California against defendants Magma,
Rajeev Madhavan (CEO, director), Gregory C. Walker (CFO) and Roy
E. Jewell (Pres., COO, director).

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period
defendants failed to disclose that Magma faced the serious risk
of infringing on intellectual property rights of competitor
Synopsys, Inc. because inventions that were critical to Magma's
business, and which were patented by Magma, were designed by
Magma's Chief Scientist, Lukas van Ginneken, while he was
employed by Synopsys. This fact, and the significant risk it
posed, was known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by
them, but was concealed from Magma investors. Instead of coming
clean about the seriousness of the Synopsis infringement action
at the time it was filed, defendants aggressively denounced the
allegations, characterizing them as completely baseless. While
Magma's stock price was artificially inflated (because it did
not reflect the concealed risk), Magma insiders, including each
of the individual defendants, sold 4,436,163 shares of Magma
common stock at artificially inflated prices, reaping gross
proceeds of $82,385,174.

On April 13, 2005, the truth was disclosed when the market
learned that Magma's Chief Scientist admitted, in a sworn
declaration filed in the Synopsys infringement action, that
inventions covered by two of Magma's patents were conceived by
him while he was employed by Synopsys and that his supervisor at
Magma, and likely others, knew that the inventions covered by
the patents were conceived by him at Synopsis and were
encompassed by an agreement with Synopsis that established that
it owned the rights to those inventions.

This disclosure caused Magma's stock to plummet by 40.7% in one
day, from $9.42 per share on April 12, 2005 to $5.58 per share
on April 13, 2005, on unusually high trading volume exceeding
14.4 million shares.

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


MAGMA DESIGN: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C. initiated a lawsuit seeking
class action status filed in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California on behalf of all persons
who purchased the publicly traded securities of Magma Design
Automation, Inc. (Nasdaq: LAVA) ("Magma" or the "Company")
between October 23, 2002 and April 12, 2005, inclusive (the
"Class Period"). Also included are all those who acquired
Magma's shares through its acquisitions of Majave, Random Logic,
Aplus Design or Silicon Metrics.

The Complaint alleges that Magma and certain of its officers and
directors violated federal securities laws. Specifically,
defendants failed to disclose that Magma faced the serious risk
of infringing on intellectual property rights of competitor
Synopsys because inventions that were critical to Magma's
business, and which were patented by Magma, were designed by
Magma's chief scientist while employed by Synopsys. Defendants
aggressively denounced the allegations, characterizing them as
completely baseless. While Magma's stock price was artificially
inflated, insiders sold 4,436,163 shares of common stock reaping
gross proceeds of $82,385,174.

On April 13, 2005, the market learned that Magma's Chief
Scientist admitted, in a sworn declaration filed in the Synopsys
infringement action, that inventions covered by two of Magma's
patents were conceived by him while he was employed by Synopsys
and that his supervisor at Magma, and likely others, knew that
the inventions covered by the patents were conceived by him at
Synopsis and were encompassed by an agreement with Synopsis
granting Synopsis the rights to those inventions. On this news,
Magma's stock plummeted 40.7%, from $9.42 per share on April 12,
2005 to $5.58 per share on April 13, 2005.

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, Web site: http://www.snlaw.net.


NAVARRE CORPORATION: Brian M. Felgoise Files Stock Lawsuit in MN
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C. initiated a
securities class action on behalf of shareholders who acquired
Navarre Corporation (NASDAQ: NAVR) securities between July 23,
2003 and May 31, 2005, inclusive (the Class Period).

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

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

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


NAVARRE CORPORATION: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Suit in MN
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C. initiated a lawsuit seeking
class action status in the United States District Court for the
District of Minnesota on behalf of all persons who purchased the
common stock of Navarre Corporation (Nasdaq: NAVR) ("Navarre")
between July 23, 2003 and May 31, 2005 (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that Navarre and certain of its officers
and directors violated federal securities laws. Specifically,
the Complaint alleges that Navarre was engaged in accounting
chicanery that had the effect of improperly inflating its stock
price. 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 expenses and
the classification of fiscal 2005 tax items. In response to this
announcement, the price of Navarre common stock dropped from a
close of $9.00 per share on May 31, 2005, to close at $8.02 per
share on June 1, 2005.

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, Web site: http://www.snlaw.net.


                            *********


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  * * *