CAR_Public/050617.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, June 17, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 119


                            Headlines

ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: CA Court Grants Final Settlement Approval
ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Seeks Approval For WA Wardrobing Suit Pact
ACTIVISION INC.: CA Court Dismisses Consolidated Securities Suit
AUGUST TECHNOLOGY: MN Suits Dismissed Due to Amendment Failure
BOEING CO.: Workers Plans Age Discrimination Suit V. Firm, Onex

BROOKSTONE INC.: Plaintiffs Appeal CA Suit Settlement Approval
CABLE & WIRELESS: Lawsuit Settlement Hearing Set July 22, 2005
CANADA: 500 Crocus Shareholders Discuss Suit Over Troubled Fund
CANADA REVENUE: Firms File Suit Over Costs of Auctioned Vehicles
COMPUWARE CORPORATION: Discovery Proceeds in MI Securities Suit

ESTEE LAUDER: FL Resident Launches Deceptive Advertising Lawsuit
FEDERATED DEPARTMENT: NY Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Suit
FORD MOTOR: Recalls Pickup Trucks Due to Fuel Systems Defect
FORD MOTOR: Recalls Vehicles Due to Electrical Systems Defect
GANDER MOUNTAIN: Plaintiffs Seek Consolidation of MN Stock Suits

GENESCO INC.: Working For Settlement of CA Overtime Wage Suits
LANTRINIX INC.: CA Court Approves Settlement of Derivative Suit
LIGHTSPAN INC.: Plaintiffs Seek Suit Dismissal Reconsideration
LION PAVILION: Recalls Dried Cabbages Due to Undeclared Sulfites
MARSH & MCLENNAN: Faces Consolidated ERISA Fraud Lawsuit in NY

MARTEK BIOSCIENCES: Shareholders Launch Stock Fraud Suits in MD
MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: Suit Fairness Hearing Set January 2006 in NY
MEN'S WEARHOUSE: Reaches Settlement For CA Overtime Wage Lawsuit
MEN'S WEARHOUSE: Reaches Settlement For CA Consumer Fraud Suit
MICHAELS STORES: TX Court Dismisses Consolidated Securities Suit

MICHAELS STORES: Plaintiffs Seek Certification For Overtime Suit
NEIMAN MARCUS: Shareholders Sue V. Newton Acquisition Merger
PAT & OSCAR'S: Suit Over E.coli in CA Restaurants Still Pending
PFIZER INC.: Schatz & Nobel Commences ERISA Violations Lawsuit
POSSIS MEDICAL: Shareholders Launch Securities Fraud Suits in MN

QUALITEST PHARMACEUTICALS: Recalls Syringes Due to Mislabeling
SHARPER IMAGE: Shareholders Launch Securities Fraud Suits in CA
STEWART ENTERPRISES: CA Consumers Launch "Funeral Rule" Lawsuit
STEWART ENTERPRISES: Consumers Launch Fraud Lawsuits in TN, CA
TEXAS: Attorneys in Medicaid Case Sum Up Arguments Before Judge

TOYS "R" US: Asks DE Court To Dismiss Suit V. Global Toys Merger
WAL-MART STORES: Recalls 26T Frog Soft Gyms Due to Injury Hazard
WHITEHALL JEWELLERS: IL Court Mulls Dismissal of Securities Suit
YAMAHA MOTOR: Recalls 46T Motorcycles For Passenger Seat Defect

                         Asbestos Alert

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Columbus McKinnon Shows Liability Estimates
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Longview Fibre Co Faces Claims in IL and MO
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: General Cable Has 16,400 Non-maritime Cases
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Victim's Family Campaigns for Medical Study
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Contractor Insists Rubble Is Asbestos-free

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: UK Council Urges Firms to Comply with Rules
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: HSE to File Charges Against Derby Council
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: UK Locals Alarmed Over Dumped Bags on Road
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: UK Navy Stoker Dies from Asbestos Exposure
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NSW Queen Honors Asbestos Victims' Advocate

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Toxins at Power Station Alarm Australians
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: UK Asbestos Claims Seen to Rise Until 2015
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: UK Inquest Proves Death was Work-related
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MT School Sounds Alarm After Asbestos Find
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PCI Lays Grounds for Opposing Asbestos Bill

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: FL Law's Medical Criteria Meet Challenges
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: DEP to Monitor Remediation of PA Property
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Trade Unions Seek Global Ban on Asbestos
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EPA Warns of Soil Contamination on MT Road
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MP Fears Rise in Claims Filed by Ex-miners

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MN Appeals Court Reverses Ruling V. API Inc
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Residents Fear Health Risk from Abatement
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Roofs of Garages Pose Health Risks
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Aussie Urges Study on Asbestos-Lined Pipes
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: KY County Residents Plan to Reject Landfill

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: A.P.I. Files Amended Plan of Reorganization
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: UK Prime Minister Backs Global Asbestos Ban
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Toxic Exposure Caused Navy Officer's Death
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ABB to Submit Settlement Plan on June 23
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Traders Watch Cape PLC for Settlement Plans

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: OK Rep. Asks for Scoring of Asbestos Deal
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Business Group Aims to Expose Flaws in Bill
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Esso Makes GBP90T Settlement with Ex-worker
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Widow Urges More Medical Research in the UK
ASBESTOS ALERT: UT Restaurant Files Suit V. Far West Roofing Inc

ASBESTOS ALERT: GA Court Reverses in Landers v. Medical Center
ASBESTOS ALERT: EPA Imposes $3T Fine on CA Demolition Contractor


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

BOMBARDIER INC.: Schoengold Sporn Lodges Amended Complaint in NY
BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS: Wechsler Harwood Lodges Stock Suit in CA
CRAY INC.: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in W.D. WA
DITECH COMMUNICATIONS: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Suit in CA
DITECH COMMUNICATIONS: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Stock Lawsuit in CA

DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Wechsler Harwood Lodges Stock Suit in CA
MAGMA DESIGN: Charles J. Piven Files Securities Fraud Suit in CA
OCA INC.: Pomerantz Haudek Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in LA
POSSIS MEDICAL: Reinhardt Wendorf Files Securities Lawsuit in MN
STOCKERYALE INC.: Leo W. Desmond Lodges Securities Lawsuit in NH

TIBCO SOFTWARE: Wechsler Harwood Lodges Securities Lawsuit in CA
WILLBROS GROUP: Baron & Budd Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in TX


                         *********


ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: CA Court Grants Final Settlement Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California granted final approval to the settlement of the to
the settlement of three employee class actions filed against
Abercrombie & Fitch Co., alleging discrimination in hiring or
employment decisions due to race, national origin and/or gender.

The first suit, styled "Eduardo Gonzalez, et al. v. Abercrombie
& Fitch Co.," was filed on June 16, 2003 in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California. The
plaintiffs subsequently amended their complaint to add A&F
California, LLC, Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. and A&F Ohio,
Inc. as defendants. The plaintiffs allege, on behalf of their
purported class, that they were discriminated against in hiring
and employment decisions due to their race and/or national
origin. The plaintiffs seek, on behalf of their purported class,
injunctive relief and unspecified amounts of economic,
compensatory and punitive damages.

A second amended complaint, which added two additional
plaintiffs, was filed on January 9, 2004. The defendants filed
an answer to the second amended complaint on January 26, 2004. A
third amended complaint was filed on June 10, 2004, restating
the original claims and adding two individual, but not class,
claims of gender discrimination. The defendants filed an answer
on June 21, 2004. On November 8, 2004, the plaintiffs filed a
fourth amended complaint, adding an additional plaintiff and
claims on behalf of those who asserted they were discriminated
against in hiring and employment decisions as managers due to
their race and/or national origin. On November 11, 2004, the
defendants answered the fourth amended complaint.

Two other class action employment discrimination lawsuits have
been filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, both on November 8, 2004.  In "Elizabeth
West, et al. v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., et al.," the
plaintiffs allege gender (female) discrimination in hiring or
employment decisions and seek, on behalf of their purported
class, injunctive relief and unspecified amounts of economic,
compensatory and punitive damages. The other was brought by the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "EEOC") and alleges
race, ethnicity and gender (female) discrimination in hiring or
employment decisions. The EEOC complaint seeks injunctive relief
and, on behalf of the purported class, unspecified amounts of
economic, compensatory and punitive damages.

On November 8, 2004, the Company signed a consent decree
settling these three related class action discrimination
lawsuits, subject to judicial review and approval.  The monetary
terms of the consent decree provide that the Company will set
aside $40.0 million to pay to the class, approximately $7.5
million for attorneys' fees, and approximately $2.5 million for
monitoring and administrative costs to carry out the settlement.
As part of the consent decree, the Company also agreed to
implement a series of programs and initiatives that are designed
to achieve greater diversity throughout its stores.

The Consent Decree (settlement agreement) contains provisions
related to the recruitment, hiring, job assignment, training,
and promotion of Abercrombie & Fitch, Hollister, and abercrombie
kids employees. The Decree is effective immediately, pursuant to
the Court's order. An appointed Monitor will regularly evaluate
and report on Abercrombie's compliance with the provisions in
the Consent Decree. These provisions include:

     (1) "Benchmarks" for hiring and promotion of women,
         Latinos, African Americans, and Asian Americans. These
         benchmarks are goals, rather than quotas, and the
         Company will be required to report on its progress
         toward these goals at regular intervals;

     (2) A prohibition on targeting fraternities, sororities, or
         specific colleges for recruitment purposes;

     (3) Advertising of available positions in publications
         targeting minorities of both genders;

     (4) A new Office and Vice President of Diversity,
         responsible for reporting to the CEO on the Company's
         progress toward fair employment practices (the Office
         has already been created, and the VP has been hired and
         begun work);

     (5) The hiring of 25 recruiters who will focus on and seek
         women and minority employees. (At least 24 of the 25
         have already been hired, and are working.);

     (6) Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) and Diversity
         Training for all employees with hiring authority;

     (7) Revision of Performance Evaluations for managers,
         making progress toward diversity goals a factor in
         their bonuses and compensation;

     (8) A new internal complaint procedure; and

     (9) Company marketing materials will reflect diversity by
         including members of minority racial and ethnic groups

The preliminary approval order was signed by Judge Susan Illston
of the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on November 16, 2004 and, after a fairness hearing,
Judge Illston signed a final approval order on April 14, 2005.

The suit is styled "Gonzalez et al v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co. et
al., case no. 3:03-cv-02817," filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, under
Judge Susan Illston.  Representing the Company is Thomas Brennan
Ridgley of Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease LLP, 52 East Gay Street,
P.O. Box 1008 Columbus, OH 43216-1008 Phone: (614) 464-6229 Fax:
614-464-6350 E-mail: tbridgley@vssp.com.  Lead counsel for the
plaintiffs is Thomas A. Saenz of the Mexican American Legal
Defense and Educational Fund, 634 South Spring Street, 11th
floor Los Angeles, CA 90014 Phone: 213/629-2512 Fax:
213/629-0266 E-mail: tsaenz@maldef.org.


ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Seeks Approval For WA Wardrobing Suit Pact
---------------------------------------------------------------
Parties filed a joint motion for preliminary approval of the
settlement of the class action filed against Abercrombie & Fitch
Co. in the Washington Superior Court of King County, over the
Company's alleged "wardrobing" policy.

In 2003, an action was filed on behalf of a purported class of
employees and former employees of the Company alleging that the
Company required its employees to purchase and wear specified
clothes during specified times in violation of Washington law
and seeking, on behalf of the purported class, injunctive relief
and unspecified amounts of economic and liquidated damages. The
Company has filed an answer in this legal proceeding.

The plaintiffs filed, and the Company opposed, a motion to
certify a class of employees in the State of Washington. The
trial court granted the plaintiffs' motion and the Company has
commenced a discretionary appeal thereof.  The parties have
agreed to a settlement of this matter, which must be approved by
the trial court.  The parties filed a joint motion for
preliminary approval of the settlement on or about June 6,
2005.


ACTIVISION INC.: CA Court Dismisses Consolidated Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California dismissed the consolidated securities class action
filed against Activision, Inc. and certain of its current and
former officers and directors.

On March 5, 2004, a class action lawsuit was filed, asserting
claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 based on allegations that the Company's revenues and
assets were overstated during the period between February 1,
2001 and December 17, 2002.  The Construction Industry and
Carpenters Joint Pension Trust for Southern Nevada filed the
suit, purporting to represent a class of purchasers of Company
stock.  Five additional purported class actions have
subsequently been filed by Gianni Angeloni, Christopher Hinton,
Stephen Anish, the Alaska Electrical Pension Fund and Joseph A.
Romans asserting the same claims.

Consistent with the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act
(PSLRA), the court appointed lead plaintiffs, consolidating the
six putative securities class actions into a single case.  In an
Order dated May 16, 2005, the court dismissed the consolidated
complaint because the plaintiffs failed to satisfy the
heightened pleading standards of the PSLRA.  The court did,
however, give the lead plaintiffs leave to file an amended
consolidated complaint within 30 days of the order.

The suits are being coordinated in the "In Re Activision, Inc
Securities Litigation, lead docket 2:04-cv-01501-PA-E," filed in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California, Western Division, under Judge Percy Anderson,
referred to Magistrate Judge Charles F. Eick.  Plaintiffs are
Construction Industry and Carpenters Joint Pension Trust for
Southern Nevada, on Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plumbers and Pipefitters National Pension Fund,
Logan Capital Management, Inc. and Trust Mark Group.

Law firms for the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Darren J. Robbins of Lerach Coughlin Stein and Robbins,
         Mail: 401 B Street, Suite 1700 San Diego, CA 92101-4297
         Phone: 619-231-1058 E-mail: Denisey@lcsr.com

     (2) Jason Robert Llorens, Jonathan Behar and William S.
         Lerach of Lerach Coughlin Stoia and Robbins, Mail: 355
         South Grand Avenue, Suite 4170 Los Angeles, CA 90071
         Phone: 213-617-9007

     (3) Daniel E. Bacine, David E. Robinson, Leonard Barrack of
         Barrack Rodos and Bacine, Mail: 3300 Two Commerce
         Square, 2001 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Phone: 215-963-0600

     (3) John L. Haeussler, Marisa Livesay, Samuel L. Ward,
         Stephen R. Basser of Barrack Rodos and Racine, Mail:
         402 West Broadway, Suite 850 San Diego, CA 92101,
         Phone: 619-230-0800

     (4) Christopher Kim and Lisa Yang of Lim Ruger & Kim, Mail:
         1055 W 7TH St, Ste 2800, Los Angeles, CA 90017, Phone:
         213-955-9500, Email: Ckim@lrklawyers.com

     (5) Marc A. Topaz and Richard A. Maniskas of Schiffrin and
         Barroway, Mail: Three Bala Plaza East, Suite 400 Bala
         Cynwyd, PA 19004, Phone: 610-667-7706, Fax: 610-667-
         7056

     (6) Aaron L Brody and Jules Brody of Stull Stull and Brody
         Mail: 6 East 45TH Street New York, NY 10017, Phone:
         212-687-7230

     (7) Joseph H Weiss of Weiss and Yourman, Mail: 551 Fifth
         Avenue, New York, NY 10176, Phone: 212-682-3025, Fax:
         212-682-3010

     (8) Michael D Braun of Stull Stull and Brody, Mail: 10940
         Wilshire Blvd, Suite 2300, Los Angeles, CA 90024,
         Phone: 310-209-2468 Email: Service@secfraud.com

Lawyers for the defendants are:

     (i) Harriet S Posner and Robert F. Lemoine, Mail: Skadden
         Arps Slate Meagher and Flom, 300 South Grand Avenue Los
         Angeles, CA 90071-3144, Phone: 213-687-5000 Fax: 213-
         687-5600 E-mail: lacefax@skadden.com

    (ii) James E Lyons of Skadden Arps Slate Meagher and Flom
         4 Embarcadero Center, Suite 3800 San Francisco, CA
         94111, Phone: 415-984-6400 Fax: 415-984-2698


AUGUST TECHNOLOGY: MN Suits Dismissed Due to Amendment Failure
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bloomington-based August Technology Inc. said that two
shareholder class action lawsuits against the company, which
claimed the board breached its duties by agreeing to a stock-
trade merger valued at $150 million with Nanometrics Inc. of
Milpitas, California, in the face of two unsolicited, higher-
valued offers, was dismissed, The Minneapolis Star Tribune
reports.

The Company, considered a leader in semiconductor testing
equipment, is talking with one of those companies under terms of
the merger agreement. About half of August's 300 employees work
at its headquarters in Bloomington.  Court documents revealed
that the Nanometrics merger agreement was announced January 21.
Six days later, another competitor, Rudolph Technologies of
Flanders, New Jersey, offered $185 million cash and stock for
August. In February, KLA-Tencor Corporation of San Jose,
California, offered $205 million in cash.

Company CFO Stan Piekos told the Star Tribune, the suit was
dismissed after the plaintiffs failed to amend their complaint
by June 9 to say that the company, not the shareholders, should
be suing the board. A court-approved committee found that the
board had not neglected its fiduciary duty, he added.

As previously reported in the February 4, 2005 edition of the
Class Action Reporter, the suit, which was filed in Hennepin
County District Court in Minneapolis, came eight days after
Rudolph Technologies Inc., which makes equipment to inspect
semiconductors for defects, issued a counteroffer for August
Technology, which makes semiconductor equipment.  The lawsuit
noted the share price of August fell 13 percent from $9.15 to
$7.99 when the proposed merger with Milpitas, California-based
Nanometrics was announced January 21. The suit claims that when
Rudolph made its competing bid on January 27, the share price
jumped 18 percent.

The lawsuit also claims that the merger agreement requires any
company that makes a counteroffer to August to sign a
confidentiality agreement that would prevent that company from
making a subsequent offer directly to August shareholders. That
same agreement, the suit contends, also requires August to
notify Nanometrics of the specific terms of any counteroffers,
including showing Nanometrics any relevant documents or letters.
The suit further contends that if August pulls out of the
merger, it must pay Nanometrics an $8.3 million "termination
fee" that represents about 5 percent of the value of the merger.
The suit was filed by an August stockholder identified as David
Richard, who is represented by Schiffrin & Barroway, a
Philadelphia-area law firm that specializes in class-action
suits.

Company officials said that August Technology agreed to merge
with Nanometrics to create a new company with better long-term
prospects selling a wider product line for the semiconductor and
flat-panel display industries. The deal would create a $140
million company with each Nanometrics share of stock swapped for
one of the new company. August shareholders would receive 0.6401
share of the new firm for each August share, The Tribune
reports.

However, despite the dismissal, Mr. Piekos told the Tribune that
a Department of Justice competitiveness investigation launched
when Rudolph and KLA-Tencor made their offers continues.


BOEING CO.: Workers Plans Age Discrimination Suit V. Firm, Onex
---------------------------------------------------------------
Some workers laid off from The Boeing Company (NYSE: BA) are
planning to file a class action lawsuit claiming age
discrimination, The KAKE News reports.  The former employees
claim mostly older workers who lost their jobs when Boeing was
sold to Canada-based Onex Corporation.

A letter that was sent out by a local lawyer this week, which
was later obtained by KAKE News, was served as official notice
to Boeing and Onex that a class action lawsuit will be filed.
The letter claims that the sale "targeted and led to the illegal
displacement of individuals above the age of 40." It also calls
for the companies to preserve all documents related to the sale,
purchase or any other financial transactions since 1999.
Additionally, it states, "the companies should immediately
suspend any computer system purging activities that might cause
the destruction of such evidence."

More than 1,200 workers received layoff notices from Onex. The
lawyer filing the claim told KAKE News that more than 100 of
them have joined the class action suit so far.  The workers
though are not the only ones to complain about how Boeing and
Onex handled the whole deal. The National Labor Relations Board
is now investigating the companies after receiving complaints
from SPEEA and 11 laid-off workers.


BROOKSTONE INC.: Plaintiffs Appeal CA Suit Settlement Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appeal the California Superior Court for the County
of Los Angeles' approval of the settlement for a class action
filed against Brookstone, Inc. on behalf of current and former
managers and assistant managers of its California stores.  The
suit alleges that the plaintiffs were improperly classified as
exempt employees.  The lawsuit sought damages including overtime
pay, restitution and attorneys' fees.

On August 15, 2003, a settlement agreement was finalized that
included a maximum Company payment of $1.5 million.  On May 5,
2004, the California Superior Court, County of Los Angeles
granted final approval to the parties' settlement agreement and
ordered that distributions be made pursuant to the agreement.
However, on July 6, 2004, a class member who objected to the
final approval of the settlement filed an appeal of the Superior
Court's May 5, 2004 order. The objecting class member filed her
opening appellate brief on or about May 2, 2005.  The Company
has requested an extension of time to file its opening appellate
brief, and anticipates that its opening brief will be due on or
about July 15, 2005.  At this time, a hearing on the appeal has
not yet been scheduled. Unless the parties agree to alternative
arrangements, settlement funds will not be distributed until the
appeal is resolved.


CABLE & WIRELESS: Lawsuit Settlement Hearing Set July 22, 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia will hold a fairness nearing for the proposed $7
million settlement in the matter: In re Cable & Wireless PLC
Securities Litigation, No. 02-1860-A, on behalf of all persons
or entities who acquired the publicly traded securities of the
firm from August 6, 1999 through December 6, 2002.

The hearing will be held before the Honorable Gerald Bruce Lee
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia, Albert V. Bryan U.S. Courthouse, 401 Courthouse
Square, Alexandria, VA, 22314 at 10:00 a.m. on July 22, 2005.

For more details, contact Cable & Wireless plc Securities
Litigation, c/o The Garden City Group, Inc., Claims
Administrator, P.O. Box 9000 #6317, Merrick, NY, 11566-9000,
Phone: 800-293-9236 OR Jeffrey N. Leibell, Esq. of Bernstein
Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, Phone: +1-800-380-8496, Web
site: http://www.blbglaw.comOR Jeffrey S. Nobel, Esq. of Schatz
& Nobel, P.C., Phone: +1-800-797-5499, Web site:
http://www.snlaw.net.


CANADA: 500 Crocus Shareholders Discuss Suit Over Troubled Fund
---------------------------------------------------------------
Approximately 500 angry shareholders in the troubled Crocus
Investment Fund met recently to lay the groundwork for a class
action lawsuit, which may target everyone from the fund's former
directors to the Manitoba government, The Canadian Press
reports.

Bernie Bellan, one of the shareholders who are wondering how
much of their investment is left following the labor-sponsored
venture fund's sudden decline, spearheaded the meeting, the
Canadian Press reports.  He told the crowd, "We're all banding
together now because we've all come under the same sad fate. We
trusted those figures that were shown to us."

The Crocus fund was set up by the Manitoba government in the
early 1990s but was run independently. It suddenly halted
trading last December as questions arose about the true value of
the fund's assets.  The fund had issued a $15-million write down
in its value weeks earlier, and soon announced a further write
down of $46 million. Shares that were sold as high as $15
suddenly dropped to an estimated $7 worth.

As previously reported in the May 23, 2005 edition of the Class
Action Reporter, Mr. Bellan, secretary for the Crocus Investors
Association and other members will be seeking damages in the
range of $75 million or more.  Mr. Bellan told the Canadian
Press the statement of claim, which is the first step in the
planned lawsuit, would be filed after the release of the
Manitoba auditor general's probe into the operations of the
Crocus Investment Fund.

Mr. Bellan added that the shareholders are seeking
reimbursements for the write down in the share's value since
trading was suspended in December. So far, he has estimated that
amount at $75 million, and the suit, according to him, will have
to prove that amount is due to wrongful valuations. He added,
"We don't have to name an amount (of damages) in the suit. It
could be much higher."

Last month, the much-anticipated report by Jon Singleton was
released. That report found that the fund's directors misled
shareholders by overstating the fund's value. The report also
found that the Manitoba government failed to respond to warning
signs that the fund was headed for trouble as far back as 2002.
The Manitoba Securities Commission and police are now
investigating the fund.

Some of the people who attended the recent meeting though
expressed concern that there might not be much money left to
recoup, because fund money is being used to defend former Crocus
directors in the securities commission probe.  Mr. Bellan told
CP that it is too early to name who will be targeted in the
lawsuit, but pointed to the auditor's report as providing a list
of people who should be held responsible.  In the meantime,
while the lawsuit is being prepared, Mr. Bellan started a
website to allow shareholders to register to be part of the
class action suit.


CANADA REVENUE: Firms File Suit Over Costs of Auctioned Vehicles
----------------------------------------------------------------
Law firms initiated a class action lawsuit against the Canada
Revenue Agency (CRA), under its former name the Canada Customs
and Revenue Agency (CCRA), accusing it of "brazenly ignoring the
principles of law," amounting to a clear effort by public
officials to knowingly engage in deliberate and unlawful
conduct.

The action was brought in the Federal Court of Canada by
Thorsteinssons LLP of Vancouver and Toronto, which is Canada's
largest law firm practicing exclusively in tax law, and Poyner
Baxter LLP of North Vancouver, B.C., who practice predominantly
in the field of class action litigation.

Class action suits are typically initiated in the names of one
or more individuals or legal entities as representative of a
class. The current case focuses on a firm engaged in auto sales
that transported more than 4,000 vehicles to public auction. CRA
auditors challenged the costs claimed for this transport and
related expenses and treated the difference as a personal income
benefit of $181,000 to the owner. The owner claimed that the
company owed him a substantial shareholder's loan, and that any
amount seen to be a taxable benefit ought to be considered a
loan repayment and not defined as personal income. The Appeals
Division of the Vancouver Island Tax Services Office (TSO)
disallowed this claim and proceeded to seek collection of the
revised tax liability for the three years in question.

This week's lawsuit will affect every shareholder of every
company in Canada where shareholders' loans exist. The point of
the action is that shareholders who lend funds to their
companies, but who obtain gifts or other benefits from these
firms, have the right to reduce or eliminate the value of the
taxable benefit by the amount outstanding on the loan.

Cited in this action is the case of Franklin v. The Queen during
2000, when the Tax Court of Canada ruled that there could be no
taxable benefit to an individual because of an offsetting credit
balance in the shareholder's loan account with the company. The
Federal Court of Appeal subsequently upheld this. This judgment
also supported the taxpayers' right to revise shareholders' loan
accounts to accurately reflect the true status of loans payable
by a company to a shareholder, and net benefits received.

Tax lawyer Craig C. Sturrock of Thorsteinssons said, "The law is
absolutely clear. What should have been a matter of simple
arithmetic in this case and other similar cases, following an
established precedent, has became some kind of bureaucratic
obsession to defy the law and is now an expensive process of
litigation."

The statement of claim that was filed states, in part: "The
Plaintiff says that the actions of the CCRA through its officers
at Head Office Appeals Division and Head Office Audit Division
and through its officers and employees throughout the various
TSOs amounts to a deliberate misapplication of the law as
established in Franklin and in doing so the CCRA has engaged in
deliberate and unlawful conduct in its capacity as a Public
Officer. Further, it is the Plaintiff's position that the CRA
was aware that its conduct was unlawful and that it was likely
to harm the Plaintiff."

Co-counsel Jim Poyner said that this class action proceeding
would potentially benefit many thousands of corporate
shareholders, particularly those involved with tightly held
corporations, where loans from the owners are often central to
the business plan. "What makes this current case an ideal class
action is the contempt shown by CRA to the Tax Court, the
Federal Court of Appeal and the taxpayers. Their arrogance is
simply breathtaking and we will look forward to demonstrating
this in court."

For more details, contact Thorsteinssons LLP, Phone:
(604) 689-1261, E-mail: classaction@thor.ca, Web site:
http://www.thor.caOR Poyner Baxter LLP, Phone: (604) 988-6321,
E-mail: classaction@poynerbaxter.com, Web site:
http://www.poynerbaxter.com.


COMPUWARE CORPORATION: Discovery Proceeds in MI Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in the consolidated securities class
action filed against Compuware Corporation and Peter Karmanos,
Jr. in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Michigan.

The original lawsuits were filed on September 20, 2002 and
October 10, 2002 respectively.  On May 1, 2003, the cases were
consolidated.  The matter is now titled "In re Compuware
Securities Litigation."  The suit was brought on behalf of
purchasers of the Company's common stock from January 1, 1999 to
April 3, 2002.

The plaintiff alleges that the Company failed to disclose under
the securities laws its problems with the misappropriation of
its software source code by IBM. The plaintiff further alleges
that the Company omitted and/or disseminated materially false
and misleading statements concerning its deteriorating
relationship with IBM.  The plaintiff requests that the court
award them monetary damages and expenses of litigation,
including reasonable attorneys fees.

On August 27, 2004, plaintiffs moved to certify a class. In
January 2005, the Court ruled in the Company's favor by denying
plaintiff's motion for class certification.  The lawsuit is
currently in the discovery phase.


ESTEE LAUDER: FL Resident Launches Deceptive Advertising Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Florida resident Diane Hutto initiated a lawsuit seeking class
action status in U.S. District Court in Miami against Estee
Lauder, claiming it falsely advertised that its products provide
"anti-aging" or "youth-inducing" benefits, The Miami Herald
reports.

Howard M. Rubinstein, one of the lawyers for plaintiff Diane
Hutto, paraphrased Revlon founder Charles Revlon to support his
client's claims against the cosmetics company. Mr. Rubinstein,
based in Texas, who filed the suit last week, told the Herald,
"It's nothing more than hope in a jar, and they are making it
sound like it's some medical breakthrough that makes it more
than hope in a jar."

Estee Lauder spokeswoman Janet Bartucci told the Herald that
it's company policy not to comment on ongoing litigation and
added that the Company "stands behind the products 100 percent."


FEDERATED DEPARTMENT: NY Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York dismissed with prejudice the consolidated securities
class action filed against Federated Department Stores, Inc. and
certain members of its senior management.

Five substantially identical purported class action complaints
were initially filed on behalf of persons who purchased shares
of the Company's Common Stock between February 23, 2000 and July
20, 2000.  Originally filed in August, September and October
2000, in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, the actions were consolidated into a
single case, styled "In Re Federated Department Stores, Inc.
Securities Litigation, Case No. 00-CV-6362 (RCC)" and a
consolidated amended complaint was filed.

The Complaint alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder,
on the basis of claims that the Company, among other things,
made false and misleading statements regarding its financial
condition and results of operations and failed to disclose
material information relating to the credit delinquency problem
at the Company's former subsidiary, Fingerhut Companies, Inc.
The plaintiffs sought unspecified amounts of compensatory
damages and costs, including legal fees.

The Company filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint on January
22, 2002, and on March 11, 2004, the court dismissed the
Complaint without prejudice.  On May 18, 2004, the plaintiffs
filed a second amended complaint, asserting the same claims as
in the earlier versions of the Complaint.  The Company filed a
Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on July 7, 2004,
and it was dismissed with prejudice by the Court on March 23,
2005.

The suit is styled "In Re Federated Department Stores, Inc.
Securities Litigation, Case No. 00-CV-6362 (RCC)," filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, under Judge Richard C. Casey.  Representing the plaintiffs
are: Brad Nelson Friedman, Samuel Howard Rudman, Steven G.
Schulman, Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (NYC), One
Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY 10119, Phone: 212-594-5300,
Fax: 212-868-1229, E-mail: bfriedman@milberg.com,
srudman@lerachlaw.com, sschulman@milbergweiss.com; and Frederick
Taylor Isquith, Sr., Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz,
L.L.P., 270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, Phone:
(212) 545-4600, E-mail: isquith@whafh.com.  Representing the
Company are:

     (1) Bonnie L. Hemenway, Jones Day, 222 East 41st Street,
         New York, NY 10017, Phone: 212-326-3939, Fax: 212-755-
         7306, E-mail: blhemenway@jonesday.com;

     (2) Barbra Spalten Levy, McCarter and English (NJ), Four
         Gateway Center, 100 Mulberry Street, Newark, NJ 07102,
         Phone: (973)622-4444, Fax: (973) 624-7070;

     (3) John M. Newman, Jr., JONES, DAY, REAVIS & POGUE, 599
         Lexington Avenue, New York, NY 10022, Phone: (212) 326-
         3939

     (4) Gregory J. Ritts, Nixon, Hargrave et al., Clinton Sq.,
         P.O.B. 1051, Rochester, NY 14603, Phone: 716/ 263-1000


FORD MOTOR: Recalls Pickup Trucks Due to Fuel Systems Defect
------------------------------------------------------------
Ford Motor Company in cooperation with the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration's Office of Defects Investigation
(ODI) is voluntarily recalling about 78675 2005 Ford of F-250
Superduty/F-350 Superduty/F-450 Superduty/F-550 Superduty pickup
trucks due to fuel systems defect.

According to the ODI, on certain pickup trucks and chassis cab
vehicles equipped with 5.4L or 6.8L gasoline engines, the fuel
jumper line may have an incorrect end form. The fuel line may
separate at the connection to the main fuel bundle, which can
cause an operator to notice a gasoline odor and/or fuel on the
ground, loss of power and the engine will eventually stall. Fuel
leakage in the presence of an ignition source could result in a
fire.

As a remedy, dealers will install an external retention clip at
the fuel jumper line to the main fuel bundle connection. The
recall is expected to begin on June 20, 2005.

For more details, contact Ford by Phone: 1-800-392-3673 or the
NHTSA Auto Safety Hotline: 1-888-327-4236.


FORD MOTOR: Recalls Vehicles Due to Electrical Systems Defect
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ford Motor Company in cooperation with the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration's Office of Defects Investigation
(ODI) is voluntarily recalling about 180104 2004-2005 Ford of F-
250 Superduty/F-350 Superduty/F-450 Superduty/F-550 Superduty/
E350/E450/Excursion vehicles due to electrical systems defect.

According to ODI, Certain vehicles equipped with 6.0L diesel
engines may experience stalling without warning while driving
and may or may not restart. Should the vehicle stall, a
vehicular crash could occur.

As a remedy, dealers will upgrade the fuel injection control
module (FICM) wire harness or replace, and/or have a new
injection control pressure (ICP) sensor connector installed. The
recall is expected to begin on July 5, 2005.

For more details, contact Ford by Phone: 1-800-392-3673 or the
NHTSA Auto Safety Hotline: 1-888-327-4236.


GANDER MOUNTAIN: Plaintiffs Seek Consolidation of MN Stock Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs asked the United States District Court for the
District of Minnesota to consolidated the securities class
actions filed against Gander Mountain Company and eight of its
present and former directors and executive officers between
January 28, 2005 and March 4, 2005.  These actions are titled
as:

     (1) Joseph Merrelli v. Gander Mountain Company, et al.,

     (2) George Patchan v. Gander Mountain Company, et al.

     (3) John Stainbrook v. Gander Mountain Company, et al.

     (4) Robert Schuck v. Gander Mountain Company, et al.,

     (5) William C. Fernalld, Jr. v. Gander Mountain Company, et
         al., and

     (6) Sean Peter Sloan v. Gander Mountain Company, et al.

Each action is a purported class action brought on behalf of all
persons (except defendants) who purchased stock in the Company's
initial public offering on April 20, 2004, or in the open market
between April 20, 2004 and January 13, 2005.  The complaints
allege that the defendants made false and misleading public
statements about the company, and its business and prospects, in
the registration statement and prospectus for the Company's
initial public offering, and in filings with the SEC and press
releases issued thereafter, and that the market price of the
Company's stock was artificially inflated as a result.

The complaints allege claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, and under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934.  The plaintiffs in all
six cases seek compensatory damages on behalf of the alleged
class, an award of attorneys' fees and costs of litigation, and
unspecified equitable/injunctive relief.


GENESCO INC.: Working For Settlement of CA Overtime Wage Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Genesco, Inc. is working to settle two overtime class actions
filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, Los
Angeles County.

On October 22, 2004, the Company was named a defendant in a
putative class action filed in the Superior Court of the State
of California, Los Angeles, styled "Schreiner vs. Genesco Inc.,
et al.," alleging violations of California wages and hours laws,
and seeking damages of $40 million plus punitive damages.

On May 4, 2005, the Company and the plaintiffs reached an
agreement in principle to settle the action, subject to court
approval and other conditions.  In connection with the proposed
settlement, to provide for the settlement payment to the
plaintiff class and related expenses, the Company recognized a
charge of $2.6 million before taxes included in restructuring
and other, net in the accompanying Consolidated Statements of
Earnings for the first quarter of Fiscal 2006.

On May 25, 2005, a second putative class action, styled "Drake
vs. Genesco Inc., et al.," making allegations similar to those
in the Schreiner complaint on behalf of employees of the
Company's Johnston & Murphy division, was filed by a different
plaintiff in the California Superior Court, Los Angeles.


LANTRINIX INC.: CA Court Approves Settlement of Derivative Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lantronix, Inc. (Nasdaq:LTRX) today announced that the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Orange, approved the
settlement of a shareholder derivative action (entitled Drake v.
Bruscha, et al) pending against certain of the Company's current
and former directors and former officers.

As described in the company's most recent Form 10-Q filed with
the SEC, the settlement involves the adoption of certain
corporate governance measures and payment of attorneys' fees and
expenses to the derivative plaintiff's counsel in the amount of
$1.2 million. The action was dismissed with prejudice as to all
parties, including Mr. Steven Cotton, who was not a party to the
settlement agreement and who had objected to the settlement. The
company's insurance carrier has agreed to pay the $1.2 million,
and the settlement will have no impact on the company's
financial statements or results of operations.

"The resolution of this lawsuit represents another step in the
right direction as the Company continues building upon the new
foundation put in place over the past several years," said
Lantronix CEO Marc Nussbaum.

This settlement does not impact the securities class action or
Synergetic Micro Systems securities case described in the
Company's most recent Form 10-Q filed with the SEC.

For more details, contact Jim Kerrigan, CFO of Lantronix, Inc.,
Phone: (949) 453-3990.


LIGHTSPAN INC.: Plaintiffs Seek Suit Dismissal Reconsideration
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs asked the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York to reconsider the dismissal of a
securities class action filed against Credit Suisse First Boston
and several of its clients, including Lightspan, Inc., captioned
"Liu, et al. v. Credit Suisse First Boston Corp., et al."

The complaint alleges that Credit Suisse First Boston, its
affiliates, and the securities issuer defendants (including the
Company) manipulated the price of the issuer defendants' shares
in the post-initial public offering market.

The securities issuer defendants (including the Company) filed a
motion to dismiss the complaint in September 2004 on the grounds
of multiple pleading deficiencies.  On April 1, 2005, the
complaint was dismissed with prejudice. On April 15, 2005, the
plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration. The court has not
yet ruled on that motion.


LION PAVILION: Recalls Dried Cabbages Due to Undeclared Sulfites
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lion Pavilion Ltd., 518 Gardner Avenue, Brooklyn, New York 11222
is recalling Dried Cabbage Vegetable (product of China) because
it may contain undeclared sulfites. People who have severe
sensitivity to sulfites run the risk of serious or life-
threatening allergic reactions if they consume this product.

The recalled Dried Cabbage Vegetable in plastic bags, 8.8 oz.
(250 g), were sold in New York State.

The recall was initiated after routine sampling by New York
State Department of Agriculture and Markets Food Inspectors and
subsequent analysis of the product by Food Laboratory personnel
revealed the presence of sulfites in packages of Dried Cabbage
Vegetable that did not declare sulfites on the label. The
consumption of 10 milligrams of sulfites per serving has been
reported to elicit severe reactions in some asthmatics.
Anaphylactic shock could occur in certain sulfite sensitive
individuals upon ingesting 10 milligrams or more of sulfites.

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

Consumers who have purchased Dried Cabbage Vegetable should
return it to the place of purchase. Consumers with questions may
contact the company at 1-718-384-6951.


MARSH & MCLENNAN: Faces Consolidated ERISA Fraud Lawsuit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Keller Rohrback L.L.P. initiated a Consolidated
Complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, in the In re Marsh ERISA Litigation, Civil
Action No. 04-8157.

This litigation is pending against Marsh & McClennan Companies
Inc., ("MMC" or the "Company") and other fiduciaries of the
Marsh & McLennan Stock Investment Plan (the "Plan"), on behalf
of Plan participants and beneficiaries who were invested in MMC
common stock at any time between July 1, 2000 and January 31,
2005 (the "Class Period"). The Court has appointed the law firm
of Keller Rohrback L.L.P. to serve as lead counsel for
plaintiffs and the proposed class. Schatz & Nobel, PC and Cohen,
Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C serve on the Executive
Committee along with Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP
which serves on the Executive Committee and as Liaison Counsel
for plaintiffs and the proposed class.

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, the
defendants violated the fiduciary duties they owed to the Plan
participants and beneficiaries by:

     (1) failing to prudently and loyally manage the Plan's
         assets;

     (2) failing to provide participants with complete and
         accurate information regarding Marsh stock sufficient
         to advise participants of the true risks of investing
         their retirement savings; and

     (3) failing to properly monitor the performance of their
         fiduciary appointees, and remove and replace those
         whose performance was inadequate.

For more details, contact paralegal Jen Veitengruber or
attorneys Erin Riley, Margie Wetherald, or Lynn Sarko, Phone:
800/776-6044, E-mail: investor@kellerrohrback.com.


MARTEK BIOSCIENCES: Shareholders Launch Stock Fraud Suits in MD
---------------------------------------------------------------
Martek Biosciences Corporation and certain of its officers face
several securities class actions filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Maryland.

On May 4, 2005, a putative class action lawsuit was filed,
captioned "Reed Black v. Martek Biosciences Corporation, et al.,
Case No. MJG 05 CV1224."  Since then, several other putative
class action lawsuits were filed against the Company and certain
of its officers in the same court making similar allegations.
These other putative class actions lawsuits are captioned as
follows:

     (1) Brocco v. Martek Biosciences Corp., et. al., Case No.
         MJG 05 CV 1257;

     (2) Sowattanangkul v. Martek Biosciences Corp., et. al.,
         Case No. MJG 05 CV 1309;

     (3) Wright v. Martek Biosciences Corp., et. al., Case No.
         05-1354;

     (4) Epstein v. Martek Biosciences Corp., et. al., Case No.
         MJG 05 CV 1508; and

     (5) Fujitake v. Martek Biosciences Corp., et. al., Case No.
         MJG 05 CV 1514

The Court has not yet entered any Orders regarding the
consolidation of the pending cases or the appointment of lead
plaintiffs or the approval of such plaintiffs' selection of lead
counsel nor has the Court made a determination of whether a
putative class can be certified. At this time, plaintiffs have
not specified the amount of damages they are seeking in the
actions.

These actions claim to be filed on behalf of the purchasers of
the Company's common stock during a purported class period
beginning December 9, 2004 and ending April 27, 2005. The
complaints allege, among other things, violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder. In addition,
one of the complaints purports to be brought on behalf of those
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common
stock in its public offering in January 2005 and alleges
violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act
of 1933, as amended.

The complaints allege generally that the Company and the
individual defendants made false or misleading public statements
and failed to disclose material facts regarding its business and
prospects in public statements the Company made or failed to
make during the period and, in the case of the Securities Act of
1933 claims, in its January 2005 prospectus.


MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: Suit Fairness Hearing Set January 2006 in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
A public hearing for the fairness of the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against Marvell
Technology Group, Inc., certain of its officers and the
underwriters of its initial public offering (IPO) is tentatively
set for January 9,2006 in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York.

On July 31, 2001, a putative class action suit was filed against
two investment banks that participated in the underwriting of
the Company's IPO on June 29, 2000.  That lawsuit, which did not
name the Company or any of its officers or directors as
defendants, was filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York.  Plaintiffs allege that the
underwriters received "excessive" and undisclosed commissions
and entered into unlawful "tie-in" agreements with certain of
their clients in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

Thereafter, on September 5, 2001, a second putative class action
was filed in the Southern District of New York relating to the
Company's IPO.  In this second action, plaintiffs named three
underwriters as defendants and also named as defendants Marvell
and two of the Company's officers, one of whom is also a
director. Relying on many of the same allegations contained in
the initial complaint in which Marvell was not named as a
defendant, plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated
various provisions of the Securities Act of 1933 and the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  In both actions, plaintiffs
seek, among other items, unspecified damages, pre-judgment
interest and reimbursement of attorneys' and experts' fees.

These two actions relating to the Company's IPO have been
consolidated with hundreds of other lawsuits filed by plaintiffs
against approximately 40 underwriters and approximately 300
issuers across the United States.  Defendants in the
consolidated proceedings moved to dismiss the actions.  In
February 2003, the trial court issued its ruling on the motions,
granting the motions in part, and denying them in part. Thus,
the cases may proceed against the underwriters and the Company
as to alleged violations of section 11 of the Securities Act of
1933 and section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Claims against the individual officers have been voluntarily
dismissed with prejudice by agreement with plaintiffs. On June
26, 2003, the plaintiffs announced that a settlement among
plaintiffs, the issuer defendants and their directors and
officers, and their insurers has been structured, a part of
which provides that the insurers for all issuer defendants would
guarantee up to $1 billion to investors who are class members,
depending upon plaintiffs' success against non-settling parties.

The Company's board of directors has approved the proposed
settlement, which will result in the plaintiffs' dismissing the
case against the Company and granting releases that extend to
all of its officers and directors. Definitive settlement
documentation was completed in early June 2004 and first
presented to the court on June 14, 2004.  On February 15, 2005,
the court issued an opinion preliminarily approving the proposed
settlement, contingent upon certain modifications being made to
one aspect of the proposed settlement  - the proposed "bar
order". The court ruled that it had no authority to deviate from
the wording of the Plaintiff's Securities Law Reform Act of 1995
and that any bar order that may issue should the proposed
settlement be finally approved must be limited to the express
wording of 15 U.S.C. section 78u-4(f)(7)(A).  The court
scheduled a further conference for April 13, 2005, for the
purposes of making a final determination as to the form,
substance and program of class notice, and scheduling a Rule 23
public hearing on the fairness of the proposed settlement.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


MEN'S WEARHOUSE: Reaches Settlement For CA Overtime Wage Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Men's Wearhouse, Inc. reached a settlement for the class
action filed against it in the Superior Court of California for
the County of Orange.

The suit was brought as a purported class action and alleged
several causes of action, each based on the factual allegation
that in the State of California, the Company misclassified its
managers and assistant managers as exempt from the application
of certain California labor statutes.  Because of this alleged
misclassification, the suit alleged that the Company failed to
pay overtime compensation and provide the required rest periods
to such employees.  The suit sought, among other things,
declaratory and injunctive relief along with an accounting as to
alleged wages, premium pay, penalties, interest and restitution
allegedly due the class defendants.


MEN'S WEARHOUSE: Reaches Settlement For CA Consumer Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Men's Wearhouse, Inc. reached a tentative settlement for the
purported class action filed against it in the Superior Court of
California for the County of Los Angeles.

On April 1, 2004, a lawsuit was filed against the Company,
seeking class action status and alleging two causes of action,
each based on the factual allegation that the Company requests
or requires, in conjunction with a customer's s use of his or
her credit card, the customer to provide personal identification
information which is recorded upon the credit card transaction
form. The Suit seeks:

     (1) civil penalties pursuant to the California Civil Code;

     (2) an order enjoining the Company from requesting or
         requiring that a customer provide personal
         identification information which is then recorded on
         the transaction form;

     (3) permanent and preliminary injunctions against the
         Company requesting or requiring that a customer provide
         personal identification information which is then
         recorded on the transaction form;

     (4) restitution of all funds allegedly acquired by means of
         any act or practice declared by the Court to be
         unlawful or fraudulent or to constitute a violation of
         the California Business and Professions Code;

     (5) attorney's fees; and

     (6) costs of suit

The Court has not yet decided whether the action may proceed as
a class action. The Court has determined that the claim for
restitution may not proceed.  The Company has reached a
tentative settlement; however, no assurance can be given that
the Court will approve the settlement or that the anticipated
resolution will be realized.


MICHAELS STORES: TX Court Dismisses Consolidated Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Texas, Dallas Division dismissed the consolidated securities
class action filed against Michaels Stores, Inc. and certain of
its current and former directors and officers.

On various dates between February 4, 2003 and March 25, 2003, 10
purported class action lawsuits were filed.  All of these
lawsuits have been consolidated.  The suits assert various
claims under Sections 10(b), 20(a), and 20A of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 related to actions prior to the Company's
announcement on November 7, 2002, that, among other things, it
had revised its outlook for the fourth fiscal quarter of 2002,
adjusting downward its guidance for annual earnings per diluted
share.

The consolidated complaint charges that, prior to that
announcement, the Company and certain of the other defendants
made misrepresentations and failed to disclose negative
information about the financial condition of the Company while
the individual defendants were selling shares of the Company's
common stock.

On December 10, 2004, the Court granted the defendants' motion
to dismiss the consolidated complaint, dismissing certain
allegations supporting the claims with prejudice. For those
allegations that were not dismissed with prejudice, the Court
allowed the plaintiffs to amend, which they did on January 14,
2005.

In that amended consolidated complaint, the plaintiffs added a
claim under Section 20A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and re-pled their Sections 10(b) and 20(a) claims based on
allegations similar to those in the original consolidated
complaint. After the defendants moved to dismiss the amended
consolidated complaint, the plaintiffs filed a notice of
voluntary dismissal May 13, 2005.  The Court issued an order on
May 18, 2005 dismissing the case in its entirety without
prejudice.

The suit is styled "In re Michaels Stores, Inc. Securities
Litigation, case no. 3:03-cv-00246," filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas
Division, under Judge Barbara M. G. Lynn.  Representing the
Company is George Allen Whittenburg, II, Whittenburg Whittenburg
Schachter & Harris, 1010 S Harrison St, PO Box 31718, Amarillo,
TX 79120-1718, Phone: 806/372-5700, Fax: 806/372-5757, E-mail:
gwhittenburg@whittenburglaw.com.  Representing the plaintiffs
are:

     (1) Joe Kendall, Provost Umphrey Law Firm - Dallas, 3232
         McKinney Ave, Suite 700, Dallas, TX 75204, Phone:
         214/744-3000, Fax: 214/744-3015, E-mail:
         Provost_Dallas@yahoo.com;

     (2) Roger F. Claxton, 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;

     (3) Patricia J. Villareal, Jones Day - Dallas, PO Box
         660623, 2727 N Harwood St, Dallas, TX 75266-0623,
         Phone: 214/220-3939, Fax: 214/969-5100, E-mail:
         pjvillareal@jonesday.com


MICHAELS STORES: Plaintiffs Seek Certification For Overtime Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs are working to have the lawsuit filed against
Michaels Stores, Inc. and Michaels of Canada in the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice certified as a class action.

On December 20, 2002, James Cotton, a former store manager of
Michaels of Canada, ULC, the Company's wholly-owned subsidiary,
and Suzette Kennedy, a former assistant manager of Michaels of
Canada, commenced a proposed class proceeding against Michaels
of Canada and Michaels Stores, Inc. on behalf of themselves and
current and former employees employed in Canada.

The Cotton claim was filed in the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice and alleges that the defendants violated employment
standards legislation in Ontario and other provinces and
territories of Canada by failing to pay overtime compensation as
required by that legislation. The Cotton claim also alleges that
this conduct was in breach of the contracts of employment of
those individuals.  The Cotton claim seeks a declaration that
the defendants have acted in breach of applicable legislation,
payment to current and former employees for overtime, damages
for breach of contract, punitive, aggravated and exemplary
damages, interest, and costs.

In May 2005, the plaintiffs delivered material in support of
their request that this action be certified as a class
proceeding. A date has not yet been set for the hearing with
respect to certification.


NEIMAN MARCUS: Shareholders Sue V. Newton Acquisition Merger
------------------------------------------------------------
The Neiman Marcus Group, Inc. faces a class action filed in the
United States District Court in the Northern District of Texas,
styled ""NECA-IBEW Pension Fund (The Decatur Plan) v. The Neiman
Marcus Group, Inc. et al., CA No. 3-05-CV-0898B."  The suit also
names the Company's directors as defendants.

The complaint opposes the planned merger of the Company with
Newton Acquisition, Inc., and Newton Merger Sub, Inc.  The suit
alleges a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty against
the directors, claiming, among other things, that the merger
consideration to be paid to the Company's stockholders in the
merger is grossly inadequate and unfair and that the defendants
failed to maximize shareholder value through a proper sale of
the Company and its assets.

In addition, the complaint alleges that the Company's directors
breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the approval
of the merger by, among other things, tailoring the transaction
to serve the interests of the defendants and the family of
Richard A. Smith, Chairman of the Company's board of directors
and its largest stockholder, rather than structuring the merger
to obtain the highest price for the Company stockholders,
depriving public stockholders of the value of certain assets of
the Company (primarily the Company's credit card division),
failing to realize the financial benefits from a separate sale
of the Company's credit card division, not engaging in a fair
process of negotiating at arm's length and structuring a
preferential deal for Company insiders.  The complaint seeks,
among other things, injunctive relief to enjoin the consummation
of the merger, rescind any actions taken to effect the merger,
direct the defendants to sell or auction the Company for the
highest possible price, and impose a constructive trust in favor
of plaintiffs upon any benefits improperly received by
defendants.


PAT & OSCAR'S: Suit Over E.coli in CA Restaurants Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Restaurant chain Pat & Oscar's continues to face several
lawsuits, one of which was filed as a class action, by patrons
who allegedly became ill with E. coli from consuming salad at
the Company's restaurants in San Diego and Orange Counties.

On October 7, 2003, the Company was the focal point of an
investigation into a potential outbreak of E. coli at certain of
its restaurants.  Approximately 45 cases of E. coli were
confirmed by the health departments.

The lawsuits also name Pat & Oscar's produce distributor, F.T.
Produce, Inc. ("Family Tree") and Gold Coast Produce ("Gold
Coast"), the processor of lettuce supplied to Pat & Oscar's
restaurants.  Family Tree's insurance company has accepted
tender of the Company's defense pursuant to an insurance
certificate issued by Family Tree's insurance company naming the
Company and Pat & Oscar's as additional insureds.


PFIZER INC.: Schatz & Nobel Commences ERISA Violations Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C., initiated a lawsuit
seeking class action status against Pfizer, Inc. (NYSE: PFE)
("Pfizer") alleging violations of ERISA (Employee Retirement
Income Security Act) in connection with the Pfizer retirement
plans that invested in Pfizer stock between August 29, 2000 and
the present.  The suit was brought on behalf of individuals who
bought Pfizer stock through their Pfizer retirement plan.

For more details, contact Wayne T. Boulton of Schatz & Nobel,
Phone: +1-800-797-5499, E-mail: sn06106@aol.com, Web site:
http://www.snlaw.net.


POSSIS MEDICAL: Shareholders Launch Securities Fraud Suits in MN
----------------------------------------------------------------
Possis Medical, Inc. and certain of its officers face a
securities class action filed on June 3, 2005 in the United
States District Court for the State of Minnesota.

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

At this time the Company has not been served with a copy of the
complaint.  The Company believes that the allegations of the
lawsuit are without merit and intends to contest the lawsuit
vigorously, it stated in a disclosure to the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

The first identified complaint in the litigation is styled "The
Cornelia I. Crowell GST Trust, et al. v. Possis Medical, Inc.,
et al., case no. 05-CV-1084," filed in the United States
District Court in Minnesota, under Judge James M. Rosenbaum.
The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

     (1) Brodsky & Smith, LLC, 11 Bala Avenue, Suite 39, Bala
         Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610.668.7987, Fax:
         610.660.0450, E-mail: esmith@Brodsky-Smith.com;

     (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) Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP (NY), 1501 Broadway, Suite
         1416, New York, NY, 10036, Phone: (917) 510-000, Fax:
         (646) 366-089, E-mail: info@glancylaw.com;

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

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

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


QUALITEST PHARMACEUTICALS: Recalls Syringes Due to Mislabeling
--------------------------------------------------------------
Qualitest Pharmaceuticals, Inc., issued a voluntary nationwide
recall of Accusure Insulin Syringes 1cc, 28 Gauge l/2 Inch,
distributed between October 2004 and June 2005. There may be 1cc
syringes which are mislabeled as 1/2 cc syringes on the plastic
inner wrap holding 10 individual syringes, which could
potentially result in confusion by the patient or caregiver,
resulting in an incorrect dose or amount being administered.

Though no injuries have been reported to date consumers who have
any of the product on hand should immediately stop using, and
contact Qualitest, or return unused syringes to the pharmacy
from which purchased.

Product was distributed to drug wholesalers/distributors, and
pharmacies within the United States.

The product affected is as follows: NDC 0603-6996-21 Accusure
Insulin Syringes 1cc 28 Gauge 1/2 Inch Boxes of 100 (all lots)

Qualitest is notifying all customers who received the product
and arranging for return of any affected product.

This recall is being conducted with the full knowledge of the
Food and Drug Administration.

Consumers with questions may contact the company at
1-800-444-4011 for more information.


SHARPER IMAGE: Shareholders Launch Securities Fraud Suits in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sharper Image Corporation faces several purported stockholder
class action lawsuits filed in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers
of the Company's common stock during the period of February 5,
2004 and August 4, 2004.

The complaints allege that during the Class Period, the Company
and certain of its officers and employee-directors made false
and misleading statements regarding the Company's business and
business prospects.

The first identified suit is styled "Rosenbaum Capital, LLC, et
al. v. Sharper Image Corporation, et al.," filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California.
The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

     (1) Baron & Budd, P.C., 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100,
         Dallas, TX, 75219, Phone: 800-946-9646, E-mail:
         info@baronbudd.com;

     (2) Brodsky & Smith, LLC, 11 Bala Avenue, Suite 39, Bala
         Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610.668.7987, Fax:
         610.660.0450, E-mail: esmith@Brodsky-Smith.com;

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

     (4) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbin (San
         Francisco), 100 Pine Street, Suite 2600, San Francisco,
         CA, 94111, Phone: 415.288.4545, Fax: 415.288.4534, E-
         mail: info@lerachlaw.com;

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

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


STEWART ENTERPRISES: CA Consumers Launch "Funeral Rule" Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Stewart Enterprises, Inc. faces a class action filed in the
Superior Court for the State of California for the County of Los
Angeles, Central District, styled "Henrietta Torres and Teresa
Fiore, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
and the General Public v. Stewart Enterprises, Inc., et al.,
case no. BC328961."  The suit also names as defendants several
of the Company's Southern California affiliates.

This purported class action was filed on February 17, 2005, on
behalf of a nationwide class defined to include all persons,
entities and organizations who purchased funeral goods and/or
services in the United States from defendants at any time on or
after February 17, 2001. The suit also seeks to assert claims
against a class of all entities located anywhere in the United
States whose ultimate parent corporation has been the Company at
any time on or after February 17, 2001.

The plaintiffs allege that defendants failed to disclose that
the prices charged by defendants for certain goods and services
exceeded what defendants paid to third parties for those same
goods and services and that such failure violated provisions of
the Federal Trade Commission's "Funeral Rule" that require a
funeral home to disclose, if true, that it marks up the price of
certain items purchased from third parties on behalf of
customers on a "cash advance" or "accommodation" basis.  The
plaintiffs allege that by failing to comply with the Funeral
Rule, defendants

     (1) breached contracts with the plaintiffs,

     (2) were unjustly enriched,

     (3) engaged in unfair, unlawful and fraudulent business
         practices in violation of a provision of California's
         Business and Professions Code, and

     (4) engaged in a civil conspiracy among the defendants to
         breach plaintiffs' contracts and commit acts of unfair
         competition.

The plaintiffs seek restitution damages, disgorgement, interest,
costs, and attorneys' fees.  The Company was served with the
complaint on April 7, 2005.  By order dated May 5, 2005, the
court ruled that this case was related to similar actions
against Service Corporation International and Alderwoods Group,
Inc.


STEWART ENTERPRISES: Consumers Launch Fraud Lawsuits in TN, CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stewart Enterprises, Inc. faces two class actions filed in
Tennessee and California federal courts on behalf of a
nationwide class of consumers who purchased caskets from the
Company and other funeral homes.

The first suit, styled "Funeral Consumers Alliance, Inc, et al.
v. Service Corporation International, Alderwoods Group, Inc.,
Stewart Enterprises, Inc., Hillenbrand Industries, Inc., and
Batesville Casket Co., case no. C 05 1804," was filed in the
United States District Court, Northern District of California on
May 2, 2005.  The suit was filed on behalf of a nationwide class
defined to include all consumers who purchased a Batesville
casket from the funeral home defendants.

The suit alleges that the defendants acted jointly to fix and
maintain prices on caskets and reduce competition from
independent casket discounters in violation of the federal
antitrust laws and California's Business and Professions Code.
The plaintiffs seek treble damages, restitution, injunctive
relief, interest, costs and attorneys' fees. The Company was
served with the complaint on May 10, 2005.

The second suit, styled "Ralph Lee Fancher, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Service Corporation
International, Alderwoods Group, Inc., Stewart Enterprises,
Inc., Hillenbrand Industries, Inc., Aurora Casket Co., York
Group, Inc., and Batesville Casket Co., case no. 2:05cv145," was
filed in the United States District Court, Eastern District of
Tennessee on May 18, 2005."  The suit was filed on behalf of
consumers in twenty-three states and the District of Columbia
who purchased caskets.

The allegations of fact are essentially the same as those made
in the first suit.  Rather than allege violations of federal
law, however, the plaintiff in this suit alleges that the
defendants violated state antitrust, consumer protection and/or
unjust enrichment laws. The plaintiff seeks damages, treble
damages where appropriate, restitution, interest and costs.  The
Company was served with the complaint on May 26, 2005.


TEXAS: Attorneys in Medicaid Case Sum Up Arguments Before Judge
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers' arguing a historic class action lawsuit over how far
Texas must go to ensure Medicaid reaches the state's poor
children summed up their cases before U.S. District Judge
William Wayne Justice, The San Antonio Express reports.  The
judge, who is expected to make a ruling in the few weeks,
ordered both sides to submit written arguments by July 6.

Court documents revealed that the suit, which was first filed 12
years ago by San Antonio attorney Susan Zinn, alleges that Texas
violates federal law by failing to provide adequate health care
access to its 2.7 million children on Medicaid. It is seeking to
force the state to abide by a nearly decade-old agreement,
called a consent decree, in which it promised to carry out
specific measures to improve access.

In her summation, Ms. Zinn states, "We're here on behalf of one
third of Texas children. They're our most vulnerable." She
further pointed out that the state's own data indicated that
their situation has grown worse, not better in the five years
since the court ruled that Texas was violating the consent
decree. The number of children on Medicaid who received no
medical checkups has jumped to 1.45 million in 2004 from about 1
million in 2000, she adds.  Ms. Zinn further argued, the number
of children who don't receive preventive dental care has grown
even more, from under 1 million in 2000 to 1.45 million in 2004.

Meanwhile, lawyers for the state disputed some of the numbers
and argued Texas had in recent years vastly improved its
Medicaid outreach and education programs. They also pointed out
that they now spend $16 million a year on outreach alone and
shouldn't have to abide by an out of date consent decree.

"Frankly, I can't think of what else the state could have to do
to prove it is complying" with federal law, Linda Halpern told
the San Antonio Express. She even argues that Texas ranks 16th
among states in the number of Medicaid children who get yearly
medical checkups and is second in the nation in the number of
Medicaid children receiving preventive dental care.

In 1989, Congress changed Medicaid laws to require states to
ensure that families with Medicaid-eligible children know what
health care services are available to them and is able to access
those services.


TOYS "R" US: Asks DE Court To Dismiss Suit V. Global Toys Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Toys "R" Us, Inc. asked the Court of Chancery in the State of
Delaware in and for New Castle County to dismiss a consolidated
class action filed against it and certain of its officers and
directors, challenging the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated
as of March 17, 2005 by and among the Company, Global Toys
Acquisition, LLC ("Parent") and Global Toys Acquisition Merger
Sub, Inc. ("Acquisition Sub").

On March 25 and 31, 2005 respectively, Iron Workers of Western
Pennsylvania Pension & Profit Plans and Jolly Roger Fund LP
filed two purported class action complaints.  On April 20, 2005,
these two lawsuits were consolidated.  On May 18, 2005,
Plaintiffs filed a consolidated First Amended Complaint, in
which plaintiffs named Parent and Acquisition Sub as additional
defendants.

The Complaint asserts, on behalf of a purported class of
stockholders of the Company, a claim against the Individual
Defendants for alleged breaches of fiduciary duties in
connection with the Merger Agreement.  The Complaint
additionally asserts a claim against Parent and Acquisition Sub
for aiding and abetting the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties
by the Individual Defendants in connection with the Merger
Agreement.  The Complaint seeks to enjoin the consummation of
the merger or, alternatively, to rescind it.  Plaintiffs also
seek an award of damages for the alleged wrongs asserted in the
Complaint.

On May 20, 2005, plaintiffs filed motions for expedited
proceedings and a preliminary injunction. The court granted
plaintiffs' motion to expedite discovery and scheduled a hearing
on their motion for a preliminary injunction on June 17, 2005.
On June 2nd and 3rd, 2005, the Company and the Individual
Defendants moved to dismiss the lawsuit brought by plaintiffs.


WAL-MART STORES: Recalls 26T Frog Soft Gyms Due to Injury Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC), Wal-Mart Stores Inc., of Bentonville, Arkansas and
Infantino LLC, of San Diego, California are voluntarily
recalling about 26,000 Baby Connection Fun Frog Soft Gyms.

A cap on the wire supports inside the soft gym's upright arms
can detach, allowing the wire to poke through the fabric. This
poses a laceration and puncture hazard to babies.

Infantino has received four reports of incidents involving the
support wire poking through the soft gym's fabric arms. Of the
four incidents reported, two involved babies being scratched by
the exposed wire.

The recalled Baby Connection Fun Frog Soft Gym is comprised of a
multi-colored, frog-shaped padded fabric mat, from which blue
and orange support arms extend. The support arms consist of thin
steel wire covered by foam and fabric. They can be arched,
allowing for three stuffed infant toys to hang above the
product's mat. A label with the word "Infantino" is attached to
each of the stuffed toys as well as the underside of the mat.
Products sold under item 150-761, Infantino Activity Soft Gym,
which have a stamp on the back of the product showing 150-761
Production Date June 2005, are not affected by this recall.

Manufactured in China, the soft gyms were sold at all Wal-Mart
stores nationwide from October 2004 through May 2005 for about
$20.

Consumers should return the recalled soft gyms to their nearest
Wal-Mart store to receive a refund.

Consumer Contact: Contact Infantino at (888) 808-3111 between 8
a.m. and 4 p.m. PT Monday through Friday, or go to the firm's
Web site: http://www.infantino.comand click on "Product
Recalls."


WHITEHALL JEWELLERS: IL Court Mulls Dismissal of Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois has fully briefed Whitehall Jewellers, Inc.'s motion to
dismiss the second amended consolidated securities class action
filed against the Company and certain of its current and former
officers.

On February 12, 2004, a putative class action complaint
captioned "Greater Pennsylvania Carpenters Pension Fund, et al.
v. Whitehall Jewellers, Inc. et al., Case No. 04 C 1107," was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois against the Company and certain of the Company's
current and former officers.  The complaint makes reference to
the litigation filed by Capital Factors, Inc. ("Capital
Factors") and settled as disclosed in the Company's Quarterly
Report in Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended October 31,
2004 and to the Company's November 21, 2003 announcement that it
had discovered violations of Company policy by the Company's
Executive Vice President, Merchandising, with respect to Company
documentation regarding the age of certain store inventory.

The complaint further makes reference to the Company's December
22, 2003 announcement that it would restate results for certain
prior periods. The complaint purports to allege the Company and
its officers made false and misleading statements and falsely
accounted for revenue and inventory during the putative class
period of November 19, 2001 to December 10, 2003. The Complaint
purports to allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

On February 18, 2004, a putative class action complaint
captioned "Michael Radigan, et al., v. Whitehall Jewellers, Inc.
et al., Case No. 04 C 1196," was filed in the same court against
the Company and certain of the Company's current and former
officers, charging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
1934 Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and alleging
that the Company and its officers made false and misleading
statements and falsely accounted for revenue and inventory
during the putative class period of November 19, 2001 to
December 10, 2003. The factual allegations of this complaint are
similar to those made in the Greater Pennsylvania Carpenters
Pension Fund complaint discussed above.

On February 20, 2004, a putative class action complaint
captioned "Milton Pfeiffer, et al., v. Whitehall Jewellers, Inc.
et al., Case No. 04 C 1285," was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois against the Company
and certain of the Company's current and former officers,
charging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the 1934 Act
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and alleging that the
Company and its officers made false and misleading statements
and falsely accounted for revenue, accounts payable, inventory,
and vendor allowances during the putative class period of
November 19, 2001 to December 10, 2003. The factual allegations
of this complaint are similar to those made in the Greater
Pennsylvania Carpenters Pension Fund complaint discussed above.

On April 6, 2004, the District Court in the Greater Pennsylvania
Carpenters case, No. 04 C 1107 consolidated the Pfeiffer and
Radigan complaints with the Greater Pennsylvania Carpenters
action, and dismissed the Radigan and Pfeiffer actions as
separate actions. On April 14, 2004, the court granted the
plaintiffs up to 60 days to file an amended consolidated
complaint. The Court also designated the Greater Pennsylvania
Carpenters Pension Fund as the lead plaintiff in the action and
designated Greater Pennsylvania's counsel as lead counsel.

On June 10, 2004, a putative class action complaint captioned
"Joshua Kaplan, et al., v. Whitehall Jewellers, Inc. et al.,
Case No. 04 C 3971," was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois against the Company and
certain of the Company's current and former officers, charging
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the 1934 Act and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and alleging that the Company and
its officers made false and misleading statements and falsely
accounted for revenue, accounts payable, inventory, and vendor
allowances during the putative class period of November 19, 2001
to December 10, 2003. The factual allegations of this complaint
are similar to those made in the Greater Pennsylvania Carpenters
Pension Fund complaint discussed above.

On June 14, 2004, lead plaintiff Greater Pennsylvania Carpenters
Pension Fund in Case No. 04C 1107 filed a consolidated amended
complaint. On July 14, 2004, the District Court in the Greater
Pennsylvania Carpenters action consolidated the Kaplan complaint
with the Greater Pennsylvania Carpenters action, and dismissed
the Kaplan action as a separate action. On August 2, 2004, the
Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint. The motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied
in part, with plaintiffs granted leave to file an amended
complaint by February 10, 2005.

On February 10, 2005, the lead plaintiff filed a first amended
consolidated complaint. On March 2, 2005, the Company filed a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint.  Briefing on this
motion is complete and the parties are awaiting the Court's
ruling.  If the Company is successful on its motion, the class
in this action may be limited to the period November 19, 2001
through June 6, 2002. On April 19, 2005, the Court issued an
order, sua sponte, directing the parties to submit simultaneous
briefs addressing what impact, if any, the Supreme Court's
ruling in Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Broudo, 125 S.Ct. 1627
(2005), has on Plaintiff's loss causation allegations. In
response to this order, the Company filed a brief on May 4, 2005
in which it requested that the Court dismiss the amended
complaint in its entirety for failure to adequately plead loss
causation. The Court has not yet ruled on this issue.


YAMAHA MOTOR: Recalls 46T Motorcycles For Passenger Seat Defect
---------------------------------------------------------------
Yamaha Motor Corporation, USA in cooperation with the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Office of Defects
Investigation (ODI) is voluntarily recalling about 46000 1998-
2005 Yamaha XVS111/XVS65 due to motorcycle seat defect.

According to the ODI, on certain motorcycles, the original
replacement mountain hardware holding the passenger seat to the
fender could break if the mounting hardware is over tightened.
If the hardware breaks, the passenger seat can fall of the rear
fender. The passenger could lose balance and fall, causing
injury or death.

As a remedy, dealers will replace the hardware holding the
passenger seat to the fender with components of a different type
that will not allow the seat to fall off. The recall is expected
to begin on June 30, 2005.

For more details, contact Yamaha by Phone: 1-800-88-YAMAHA or
the NHTSA Auto Safety Hotline: 1-888-327-4236.



                         Asbestos Alert

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Columbus McKinnon Shows Liability Estimates
----------------------------------------------------------------
Columbus McKinnon Corporation (NASDAQ: CMCO), a manufacturer of
handling, lifting, and positioning equipment, disclosed in its
latest filing to the Securities and Exchange Commission that
based on actuarial information, the Company has estimated its
asbestos-related aggregate liability through March 31, 2030 and
March 31, 2081 to range between US$4,200,000 and US$16,700,000.

As of March 31, 2005, the Amherst, NY-based Company's estimation
of its asbestos-related aggregate liability that is probable and
estimable is through March 31, 2030 and ranges from US$4,200,000
to US$5,500,000 as of March 31, 2005.

Like many industrial manufacturers, the Company is involved in
asbestos-related litigation. In continually evaluating its
estimated asbestos-related liability, the Company reviews, among
other things, the incidence of past and recent claims, the
historical case dismissal rate, the mix of the claimed illnesses
and occupations of the plaintiffs, its recent and historical
resolution of the cases, the number of cases pending against it,
the status and results of broad-based settlement discussions,
and the number of years such activity might continue.

The range of probable and estimable liability reflects
uncertainty in the number of future claims that will be filed
and the cost to resolve those claims, which may be influenced by
a number of factors, including the outcome of the ongoing broad-
based settlement negotiations, defensive strategies, and the
cost to resolve claims outside the broad-based settlement
program.

Based on the underlying actuarial information, the Company has
reflected US$4,800,000 as a liability in the consolidated
financial statements in accordance with U.S. generally accepted
accounting principles. The increase in the recorded liability
from the amount of US$3,000,000 at March 31, 2004 is due to a
change in actuarial parameters used to calculate required
asbestos liability reserve levels.

The recorded liability does not consider the impact of any
potential favorable federal legislation such as the "FAIR Act."
Of this amount, management expects to incur asbestos liability
payments of about US$220,000 over the next 12 months. Because
payment of the liability is likely to extend over many years,
management believes that the potential additional costs for
claims will not have a material after-tax effect on the
financial condition of the Company or its liquidity, although
the net after-tax effect of any future liabilities recorded
could be material to earnings in a future period.

Based on this review, the Company has estimated its share of
liability to defend and resolve probable asbestos-related
personal injury claims. This estimate is highly uncertain due to
the limitations of the available data and the difficulty of
forecasting with any certainty the numerous variables that can
affect the range of the liability. The Company will continue to
study the variables in light of additional information in order
to identify trends that may become evident and to assess their
impact on the range of liability that is probable and estimable.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Longview Fibre Co Faces Claims in IL and MO
----------------------------------------------------------------
Longview Fibre Company (NYSE: LFB) divulged that since 2002, it
has been named a defendant in a number of asbestos-related
lawsuits in Madison County, Illinois and St. Louis, Missouri,
along with numerous other defendants. In each of the lawsuits,
the plaintiff alleges asbestos-related injuries from exposure to
the defendants' asbestos products, as well as exposure to
asbestos while working on certain of the defendants' premises.

At least one lawsuit alleges the plaintiff worked at its
premises for unidentified contractors. In all other respects the
claims are not specific as to what contacts the plaintiffs had
with the Company or its manufacturing plants or products. None
of the claims specifies damages sought from the Company
individually, but each plaintiff alleges a general
jurisdictional amount against all defendants.

Headquartered in Longview, WA, the Company owns and operates
tree farms, a pulp and paper mill, and 15 converting plants in a
dozen states. Its paper mill and converting plants produce a
broad range of paper products, including kraft paper,
containerboard, and converted products such as shipping
containers. In 2004 Longview Fibre sold its bag business to
Ampac Packaging.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: General Cable Has 16,400 Non-maritime Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
General Cable Corporation (NYSE: BGC) revealed that there are
about 16,400 pending non-maritime asbestos cases involving its
subsidiaries, according to a filing it submitted to the
Securities and Exchange Commission. The majority of these cases
involve plaintiffs alleging exposure to asbestos-containing
cable manufactured by its predecessors. In addition to its
subsidiaries, numerous other wire and cable manufacturers have
been named as defendants in these cases.

Headquartered in Highland Heights, KY, General Cable Corp. is a
manufacturer of aluminum, copper, and fiber-optic wire and cable
products. It operates through three segments: energy, industrial
and specialty, and communications.

The Company's subsidiaries have also been named, along with
numerous other product manufacturers, as defendants in about
33,200 suits in which plaintiffs alleged that they suffered an
asbestos-related injury while working in the maritime industry.
These cases are referred to as MARDOC cases and are currently
managed under the supervision of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

On May 1, 1996, the District Court ordered that all pending
MARDOC cases be administratively dismissed without prejudice and
the cases cannot be reinstated, except in certain circumstances
involving specific proof of injury.

The Company said that it cannot give assurance that any
judgments or settlements of the pending non-maritime and MARDOC
asbestos cases or any cases which may be filed in the future
will not have a material adverse effect on its financial
results, cash flows or financial position. Moreover, certain of
its insurers may be financially unstable and in the event one or
more of these insurers enter into insurance liquidation
proceedings, the Company will be required to pay a larger
portion of the costs incurred in connection with these cases.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Victim's Family Campaigns for Medical Study
----------------------------------------------------------------
The family of a Royal Navy veteran who died from an asbestos-
related illness is campaigning for medical research into the
dangers of the substance.

Coroner Paul Forrest recorded a verdict of death from an
industrial disease in the demise of Kenneth Batty, aged 69, of
Manor Close. He died on January 2, 2005 from mesothelioma, a
cancer of the chest lining caused by asbestos exposure.

An inquest into his death at Flax Bourton indicated that Mr.
Batty had come into contact with asbestos while working for the
Royal Navy on board HMS Balfour. He worked on the ship from 1951
to 1965 in the engine rooms repairing diesel fuel systems.

Former colleague William James said they had both been exposed
to large amounts of white and blue asbestos. Mr. James said they
were not aware of the dangers of asbestos and no precautions
were taken. He added that anyone who served in the Navy in the
1960s must have inhaled asbestos because it would have swept
through the ventilation system.

Speaking after the inquest, one of Mr. Batty's daughters, Diane
Burring, said that the family aims to highlight the problem and
get funding to put into medical research. She emphasized that
one of the problems that would have to be remedied is the fact
that those who served in the Royal Navy are exempt from
compensation.

"People who have been exposed to asbestos are not routinely
screened, only experimental treatment is available, and
compensation is only paid to veterans who left the Royal Navy
after 1987," Ms. Burring added.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Contractor Insists Rubble Is Asbestos-free
---------------------------------------------------------------
The manager of a West Cumbrian demolition site is disputing
claims that it gave away asbestos-contaminated building rubble
to the public, the News & Star reports.

Contractor Bob Bell, of Metaphase Demolition, believes the scare
has been blown out of proportion and argues that the materials
given away were clean. He explained that the asbestos removal at
the site was carried out by professionals and was disposed of
properly.

As previously disclosed in the June 3, 2005 edition of the Class
Action Reporter, the Environment Agency launched an
investigation after the incident became known. The rubble came
from the demolished Kangol factory building in Frizington owned
by Lancashire-based Orm Developments Ltd. It is believed a
number of people helped themselves to the building material
advertised as "free crushed rubble" for a variety of uses
including laying garden paths.

The contractors have been in the process of flattening and
transforming the building into a housing estate. A sign next to
the site had invited local people to help themselves to the
rubble for free.

Mr. Bell added that the site was monitored for air pollution
during demolition and results came back, saying that levels were
within the guidelines. He admitted however, that some bits of
asbestos fell from the factory roof. He insisted that this
asbestos was cleared up afterwards. He also stated that he knows
who took the rubble, citing that they were mainly farmers.

However the Environment Agency, who later discovered traces of
asbestos, still wants to hear from anyone who took rubble from
the site. A spokesman warned that all types of asbestos, even
the sheets type, pose a risk to one's health. He also noted that
local people might have taken from the unsupervised pile without
the site manager knowing. The agency can be contacted at its
emergency hotline, 0800 807060.

Meanwhile, residents and councilors spoke out at last week's
annual meeting of Frizington parish council, condemning the
incident. Council chairman Peter Connolly objected at the
Environment Agency's statement that the rubble would have to be
properly disposed at the taker's own expense. The council took a
stand in demanding that the contractors "put matters right."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: UK Council Urges Firms to Comply with Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Redbridge Council is urging firms to recognize the
importance of complying with asbestos regulations. This warning
comes after the Health and Safety Executive disclosed that
asbestos is the biggest occupational health risk ever faced by
British workers.

In 2002, the Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations was
developed to protect workers from being exposed to asbestos,
which causes various respiratory illnesses including fatal a
fatal cancer, mesothelioma. Businesses are required to have a
survey and sign an asbestos register, which provides evidence of
the substance being removed or controlled. It imposes a duty on
firms to have a management plan for all non-domestic buildings.

A spokesman from Environmental Applications, an asbestos removal
company in Ongar, Essex, that covers Redbridge, carried out a
telephone survey and claimed many companies showed a lack of
compliance by hundreds of firms.

Redbridge Council's public protection has a contractor to carry
out the removal of asbestos and encourages firms to deal with
asbestos removal safely. For further details, visit public
protection at www.redbridge.gov.uk or call 020 8554 5000.

The Health and Safety Executive helpline, 0845 345 0055,
provides advice about asbestos removal, control and regulation.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: HSE to File Charges Against Derby Council
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Health and Safety Executive will proceed with the case
against Derby City Council for allegedly committing violations
after asbestos was disturbed at a primary school 15 months ago.
The agency plans to file the case at Derby Magistrates Court
next month.

As previously reported in the May 20, 2005 edition of the Class
Action Reporter, Silverhill Primary was shut for eight weeks
after asbestos was discovered during routine maintenance work.
The contamination happened during the replacement of up to 30
windows. Contractors broke wall panels exposing the asbestos
from February 16 last year, but the problem was not discovered
until March 9.

The incident exposed 400 pupils and staff to the potentially
fatal substance over a three-week period. More than GBP750,000
had been spent for the decontamination after asbestos was
discovered last March. The school reopened in May 2004 after
being closed for three months.

Air tests revealed high levels of brown asbestos dust, which can
lead to fatal lung conditions, and the less harmful white
asbestos. The Institute of Occupational Medicine found that the
contamination risks were greatest to cleaning staff and some
teachers but likely to be minimal for the pupils.

The council faces two charges of failing to ensure the safety of
employees.

The headteacher at the time, Philip Robinson, is also charged
with failing to ensure the health and safety of others. And
Peter Westran, director of Horizon Windows and Glass, of
Chaddesden, is charged with failing to ensure the safety of
employees.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: UK Locals Alarmed Over Dumped Bags on Road
---------------------------------------------------------------
Edinburgh residents condemned several workmen who left six bags
of asbestos waste lying overnight unattended on a path
frequently used by children and dog walkers, the Daily Record
reports.

Stirling firm Darren Morgan Civil Engineering and Surfacing were
removing old asbestos pipes on behalf of Scottish Water. The
toxic material was left over from work taking place on nearby
Salvesen Crescent.

A spokesman for the Company denied the asbestos waste had been
left unattended overnight. Contracts manager Gary Morgan said
its workmen did nothing wrong as the toxic bags were "out of
harm's reach." He added that the asbestos material is placed in
barriers and kept inside the site.

However, Scottish Water admitted there had been a delay in
placing the bags in storage. He apologized to residents for the
panic that ensued but reassured them that water pipes are
considered a low hazard and that there was a "very low risk of
possible contamination."

A spokeswoman for Edinburgh City Council warned that dumping the
asbestos in a public place is an offense that could lead to
prosecution. She added that the council's open-space task forces
were not licensed to pick up special waste.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: UK Navy Stoker Dies from Asbestos Exposure
---------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest recorded a verdict of death from industrial death in
the case of a royal navy stoker, an Upper Norwood resident, who
was exposed to asbestos while serving on warships 60 years
earlier.

William Nelson served on ships riddled with the deadly fibers
during and after the Second World War. He was on the minesweeper
Nepal and the aircraft carrier Implacable between 1942 and 1946.
He had worked in the ships' boiler rooms and engine rooms where
asbestos was widely used for lagging. However, it was also
revealed during the inquest that after this period, his work as
a carpenter and builder might have exposed him further to
asbestos.

About six decades later, he started suffering from the symptoms
of mesothelioma, a lethal cancer of the lung linings, caused by
inhalation of asbestos fibers. He died last January 14 at the
age of 79.

Consultant physician Dr. Andrew Miller told the inquest that Mr.
Nelson had developed severe chest pains shortly before his
death. Coroner Dr. Roy Palmer agreed with pathologist Professor
Sir Colin Berry's findings that the cause of death was
mesothelioma.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NSW Queen Honors Asbestos Victims' Advocate
----------------------------------------------------------------
Among those given Queen's Birthday honors in New South Wales,
asbestos-victim advocate Bernie Banton vowed to never stop
seeking compensation for asbestos victims, the AAP reports.

The vice-president of the Asbestos Diseases Foundation of
Australia, Mr. Banton, said he is grateful for the recognition
of his fight to get compensation from the manufacturer of
asbestos-related products James Hardie. He may only have 20
percent of his lung capacity left, but he said that would never
stop him battling for justice.

Commenting on his appointment as a Member of the Order of
Australia, Mr. Banton said, "It's a wonderful honor and a
recognition of the fight that we've been able to take up on
behalf of asbestos victims."

The 58-year-old, who worked for James Hardie as a planer
operator for six years in the 1970s, was diagnosed with
asbestosis in 1999. His brother Ted also worked at the plant and
died of the asbestos-related illness mesothelioma in 2001.
Another brother, Albert, 70, also worked at the factory and has
asbestosis.

James Hardie Industries NV has agreed in principle to set aside
about $1.5 billion to compensate asbestos victims over the next
four decades. However, it is yet to sign a final agreement with
unions, victim groups and the NSW government.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Toxins at Power Station Alarm Australians
--------------------------------------------------------------
A former power station in Spencer Street, Melbourne, is riddled
with asbestos, endangering the health of city residents and
workers. Environmental science group Enviroprotect issued a
report warning that residents around the site may suffer
exposure due to the "unbound and friable nature of the
asbestos."

The report, compiled in February, also raised the possibility of
water contamination since several underground tanks and tunnels
link the site with the Yarra River. Company manager Helen Bouzas
recommended an immediate cleanup of the site.

EnviroProtect has a five-year association with the site,
advising potential buyers on environmental and workplace safety
issues. The report was issued to consultant KordaMentha, which
acts on behalf of MFS Investment Management Ltd.

The former power station, which occupies almost an entire city
block, has been one of the city's most notorious derelict sites
since the city council stopped operating it in 1982. Several
residential towers surround the site.

Police have declared the building a "no go" zone. The Victoria
Police Association has directed members not to enter the site.

Private owners and public authorities have distanced themselves
from the problem. The environmental report estimates the clean-
up costs at almost $19 million, casting doubt over the viability
of any redevelopment.

In 2002, the Melbourne City Council sold the property for $4
million to Sydney developer Malcolm Sharpe, whose Key Securities
Investment Group has since gone into liquidation. The site is
now in the hands of the mortgagee, Queensland-based MFS
Investment Management Ltd., which refused responsibility for
cleaning up the site, arguing that its role is to dispose of the
property and reimburse Mr. Sharpe's many creditors.

Last week a spokesman for Major Projects Minister John Lenders
said the property was not the Government's problem. Despite a
recent pledge by Lord Mayor John So to deal with city eyesores,
the council has washed its hands of the contaminated site it
used to own. One developer interested in buying the property has
even raised the possibility of suing the council over the
contamination.

Victoria's Environmental Protection Authority said that despite
serving numerous notices on the property developer, it has not
been able to convince the company to fund the cleanup. EPA's
Mick Bourke said that the agency has served notices on various
parties but that no person or group has claimed responsibility
for the cleanup.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: UK Asbestos Claims Seen to Rise Until 2015
---------------------------------------------------------------
Citing more medical diagnoses and an increased awareness of
victims' rights, a city solicitor revealed that claims against
companies for asbestos-related illnesses are soaring,
anticipating these figures to rise steadily until 2015.

Godrey Morgan, whose Clarence-Road based law firm is a
specialist in asbestos cases, said his firm had already seen a
rise of 50 percent in the number of cases it was dealing with
compared to last year. The law firm deals with asbestos claims
from Norwich and all round the UK.

Mr. Morgan said most claims his firm dealt with were from people
exposed to asbestos in the 1940s to 1970s but he was dealing
with one case where a client was exposed as recently as 1985. He
also said he was calling for all types of asbestos to be banned
from all buildings.

"I think it should be the active responsibility of the owners of
old buildings to get rid of it and it should stop being used at
all because it's too dangerous," Mr. Morgan added.

John Carter, head of personal injuries at Norwich-based law firm
Steeles, expects that the number of claims will rise over the
next 10 to 20 years. He said the challenge lies on identifying
the insurers of the companies involved.

Dr. Ian Gibson MP for Norwich North has predicted the rise in
numbers of asbestos related diseases over the next 40 years will
place a heavy financial burden at the door of the NHS.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: UK Inquest Proves Death was Work-related
-------------------------------------------------------------
At an inquest in Norwich, central Norfolk district coroner
Jacqueline McClay recorded a verdict of death by industrial
disease, finding without a doubt that a former worker's death
was asbestos-related.

Wilfred Wilson died last March 11 at the Norfolk and Norwich
Hospital at the age of 78. He was diagnosed with malignant
mesothelioma in August of last year.

His widow Brenda, who had been married to her husband for 53
years, said that Mr. Wilson had been healthy all of his life
until he fell ill last year. He complained of breathing problems
last March 7 and was confined in the hospital but he died a few
days later.

During his working life, he worked in the boot and shoe
industry, the Merchant Navy, in steel, as a welder and as a site
engineer, all jobs that potentially offered contact with
asbestos. Welders in particular used to wear protective clothing
containing asbestos.

The post mortem examination said the presence of asbestos bodies
showed a significant exposure to asbestos in the past.

Mrs. Wilson confirmed that after the diagnosis, her husband
began legal proceedings against a former employer over exposure
to asbestos and that the case was still ongoing.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MT School Sounds Alarm After Asbestos Find
---------------------------------------------------------------
Authorities sealed off the fourth floor of the University of
Montana's Science Complex last week after maintenance officials
found unacceptably high levels of asbestos dust in an office.

Tom Javins, assistant director of maintenance for UM's
Facilities Services, said that no air samples have indicated any
risk. However, a dust sample indicates an unacceptable level in
the surface dust in at least one location.

After workers were sent home, a licensed asbestos abatement
contractor was brought in to clean up the dust over the weekend.

The asbestos-contaminated dust is believed to be from
fireproofing on steel beams in the ceiling since there hasn't
been any construction in the area, said Hugh Jesse, UM's
director of Facilities Services.

This week, a contractor will open up the ceiling panels and
begin removing the fireproofing from beams above the suite of
offices where the dust was first found. Later, the fireproofing
material above surrounding offices will be removed, and
eventually, the entire building will be evaluated for traces of
asbestos in the air and dust.

Built in the early 1970s when it was common to use materials
containing asbestos, the Science Complex has been regularly
assessed for traces of airborne asbestos since the 1980s. Three
years ago, UM officials started checking air samples quarterly,
and last year, they began sampling the air each month.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PCI Lays Grounds for Opposing Asbestos Bill
----------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the Senate Judiciary Committee's approval of
legislation to create an asbestos trust fund, the Property
Casualty Insurers Association of America reiterated its
opposition to the bill "unless substantial improvements
addressing insurer concerns are made."

In a letter to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) and
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), PCI president and
CEO Ernie Csiszar pointed to several key deficiencies with the
legislation, notably the fund's potential for leakage to the
tort system, the funding mechanism, and its proposed sunset
language.

Specifically, the letter outlines the following concerns:

(1) Permitting claims short of final verdict or judgment to
remain outside the system constitutes significant additional
leakage from the system and extra costs for insurers by
expanding the number of cases that will fall outside of the
fund;

(2) S. 852 does not contain any language prohibiting a workers'
compensation claimant from collecting twice for the same claim,
once from the no-fault trust fund and again in the no-fault
workers' compensation system. Nor is there any provision
protecting a defendant or insurer from paying twice for the same
claim;

(3) The legislation would require insurers to contribute US$46
billion to the trust fund, without any assurances that the
program would end the current abusive asbestos lawsuit system;
and

(4) In the event the fund fails for any reason in its early
years, insurers will find themselves back in the tort system and
will be required to pay remaining asbestos claims and
transaction costs, in addition, to the significant payments
already made to the fund.

The letter also established that allowing the fund to sunset at
any time after start-up would mean that insurers would bear a
greater risk than defendant participants because insurers are
providing a disproportionate share (US$20.6 billion) of the up-
front funding in the first five years. If claims are to be
returned to the tort system after any future sunset, they should
be brought in federal court.

"PCI strongly believes now is the time for Congress to take
action on the abuses in asbestos litigation. Unfortunately, S.
852 as currently reported is unacceptable as a solution to this
problem," the letter concludes.

PCI is composed of more than 1,000 member companies,
representing the broadest cross-section of insurers of any
national trade association. PCI members write over US$173
billion in annual premium, 39.4 percent of the nation's
property/casualty insurance.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: FL Law's Medical Criteria Meet Challenges
--------------------------------------------------------------
Florida's Asbestos and Silica Compensation Act or HB1019, which
requires that plaintiffs meet a minimum level of specific
medical criteria before they can pursue a claim in the court
system, faces opposition from people who claim that the
legislation that Gov. Jeb Bush has pledged to sign goes too far.

Advocates said that hundreds of sick people with legitimate
claims would be unable to sue to recover damages once the
measure goes into effect on July 1, 2005. They asserted that an
estimated 4,500 lawsuits would disappear from court dockets
throughout the state next month and will be placed in a holding
pattern.

Asbestos has been mined and used commercially since the 1880s
and is best known for its use as insulation in flooring, roofs
and water pipes. By the time its harmful effects were widely
publicized in the 1970s, an estimated 27 million workers had
been exposed to the fibers, a 1982 study found. However, the
diseases it causes don't manifest themselves for decades.

Miami attorney David Jagolinzer, who specializes in asbestos-
related claims, said the legislature ignored established medical
standards when it set new rules about what proof people must
provide to show that asbestos destroyed their lungs. He said
that there are some who will not be able to meet the medical
criteria even though doctors have said they are sick.

Asbestos cases flocked to Palm Beach County after a ruling in
1997 that awarded US$31 million to a Mississippi electrician
dying of cancer, in the case against Owens-Corning Fiberglas Co.
The number of cases in the county peaked in 2002 with a total of
3,400 cases.

Palm Beach County Circuit Judge Tim McCarthy has reduced that
number by dismissing cases that have no connection to the area.
He said that about 500 cases are still pending and about 80 that
he dismissed for improper venue are still on appeal.

Judge McCarthy said that by setting such tough medical
standards, the legislature is preventing Florida asbestos
victims from getting compensation. He believes that funds
established by asbestos manufacturers would most probably run
out by the time victims get sick enough to meet the criteria.

In the meantime, Mr. Jagolinzer said, he is making plans to
challenge the Florida law as unconstitutional. He argued that it
is unlawful to stop people from seeking punitive damages and for
setting new rules for people who have already filed suit.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: DEP to Monitor Remediation of PA Property
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection officials
assured residents that state and federal agencies would
constantly monitor the remediation of an asbestos-contaminated
property where a proposed 17-story building is set to rise.

In a meeting with Ambler Borough Council, DEP representatives
George Horvat and Ragesh Patel confirmed that allowing Kane Core
developers to build the Water's Edge high-rise would pose health
risks but that the property is already considered risky in its
current state.

"Our concern is the same as your concern, to prevent community
exposure [to the asbestos] as much as possible," Mr. Patel said.

According to the DEP officials, the material at the property,
near the intersection of Maple and Butler avenues in West
Ambler, is scrap asbestos pipes or shingles. A 2001 study
revealed there is 25 percent or less asbestos material in the
soil on the site.

Kane Core has laid out plans for lessening the amount of
asbestos dust by keeping the site damp. Mr. Horvat explained
that workers and vehicles alike would go through a stringent
exit procedure to prevent contamination. He said once the
remediation process is over, the DEP has no further
responsibility on site. However, issues like how much liability
the developer would have and how the building would come down
would be included in the site's operation and maintenance plan.

In addition, the remediation process could be phased over five
years, with inspections at first every week, then every two
weeks, then monthly, quarterly and yearly.

The council will decide in July on a date to hold a rezoning
hearing for the site.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Trade Unions Seek Global Ban on Asbestos
-------------------------------------------------------------
Trade unions, represented by over 4,000 workers, employers and
governments from around the world, urged governments to ban the
use of asbestos as building materials. The unions, who made the
call at the 2005 annual conference of the International Labour
Organization in Geneva, Switzerland, aims to put an end to the
deaths and suffering caused by asbestos.

Guy Ryder, the General Secretary of the International
Confederation of Free Trade Unions, said that the group would
soon announce the beginning of a country-by-country process in
banning asbestos. ICFTU, which represents 145 million workers in
154 countries and territories, stated that asbestos killed over
100,000 people every year throughout the world.

About 40 countries have already banned asbestos and nearly 80
more that still actively use asbestos will be called upon to
stop such activities. Global unions had formally written to
every government attending the ILO conference, asking for their
involvement in banning asbestos or in supporting a world ban on
the commercialization and use of the product.

Trade unions at the ILO met last week to plan campaign
activities until next year, when they hope the ILO would agree
to work toward an all-out asbestos ban.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer of the World
Health Organization has declared asbestos a proven human
carcinogen, which can cause lung cancer, malignant mesothelioma
and gastrointestinal cancers. Despite previous hopes that
chrysotile asbestos may be safe, scientific evidence proves that
it can also cause cancer.

Mr. Ryder said that unions would extend their appeal to
employer, trade union and civil society organizations within
every country to get involved in the ban, as a matter of urgency
and human decency. If planned properly, he said that employment
impacts of the ban could be offset through positive employment
transition.

Mr. Ryder told ICFTU affiliates throughout the world, "I am
convinced that with targeted action from all us in each country,
we will have a measurable effect on the implementation of our
policy and on the realization of an effective world ban of
asbestos."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EPA Warns of Soil Contamination on MT Road
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Environmental Protection Agency is investigating a
"significant" soil contamination by asbestos along the road
shoulder on Montana Highway 37 north of Libby, The Western News
reports.

Jim Christiansen, on-site cleanup coordinator for the EPA, said
that as of this time, the EPA's main concern is the highway
maintenance workers.

Soil samples taken along the road shoulders showed asbestos
levels of less than 1 percent, which is EPA's current cleanup
trigger.

However, Mr. Christiansen said there is no danger to motorists
using the highway. He stressed that air-monitoring tests do not
detect the presence of asbestos fibers along the right-of-way
and the contamination is limited to the immediate shoulders of
the highway right-of-way.

The agency received data showing asbestos contamination along
both sides of the road from the north side of the Kootenai River
Bridge to the Rainy Creek area, where W.R. Grace's vermiculite
mining and processing facilities were located. A soil sampling
team found visible vermiculite in several locations along the
highway, suggesting the material might have spilled from trucks
coming from the mine to the expansion plant that was located
between the river and railroad tracks in Libby.

Mr. Christiansen said there is considerable information
available that convinced him the contamination is from spillage
and that vermiculite from the mine was not used as fill or base
on the highway or as winter sanding material.

To help determine potential impacts of the contamination, the
EPA reviewed personal air samples taken in 2000-2001 from truck
drivers, bikers and walkers using the stretch of highway where
the contamination was found. The results showed no significant
exposures. Other than monitors near the former screening plant,
outdoor air samples from properties near the highway showed no
elevated levels of asbestos.

At the end of May, the EPA set up 12 air monitors at various
points along the highway and collected samples during the day
while vehicles used the road. The samples showed no elevated
levels of asbestos.

Meanwhile, the EPA is discussing what steps to take and how they
can proceed. The agency is recommending that area residents
avoid using the highway shoulders until the area is cleaned up
or until further notice.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MP Fears Rise in Claims Filed by Ex-miners
---------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos-related compensation claims by former miners in South
Yorkshire town Barnsley are set to soar, claimed Michael
Clapham, Barnsley West and Penistone MP.

Mr. Clapham fears a rise in the number of ex-miners diagnosed
with asbestos-related illnesses in the next few years as there
can be a 40-year "incubation period" before symptoms show.
Asbestos was used extensively underground in brake linings,
boiler rooms, on pipes and in miners' lamps.

Weston Park cancer hospital in Sheffield has reported an
increase in mesothelioma patients and a spokesman said this was
expected to continue. Barnsley solicitors Raleys is already
dealing with about 70 compensation cases linked to asbestos.

Partner Carol Gill said, "We have issued a number or proceedings
and have had some decisions in our clients' favor. We can quite
confidently say there was asbestos underground."

Ex-miner Barry Crossland, aged 65, of Manor Park, Silkstone,
spent almost 20 years at Houghton Main and Darfield pits. Last
year he was diagnosed with pleural plaque, a thickening of the
lung linings. As a worker in the pits, he said that he was never
provided any safety clothing or mask and was never warned of the
health risks in inhaling asbestos fibers.

Mr. Clapham, chair of an all-party safety and health group, said
he intends to press Barnsley hospital officials to make the
drug, Alimta, available for mesothelioma sufferers.

Alimta (Pemetrexed) has been proven to extend the life
expectancy of patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma an
average of 12 months, compared with six to eight months on
existing treatments. It has been shown to manage symptoms,
reduce pain and treat shortness of breath.

Malignant mesothelioma is a cancer of the outer covering of the
lung or abdominal cavity, and is frequently associated with past
exposure to asbestos. The disease can be dormant for up to 25
years before symptoms develop, but it is very aggressive and
painful, with most people given only three to 12 months to live.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MN Appeals Court Reverses Ruling V. API Inc
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Minnesota on June 7, 2005 reversed a
decision of the Dakota District Court to deny the motion for
summary judgment filed by non-settling defendants. The Appeals
Court ruled that respondent A.P.I. cannot pursue claims for
contribution and indemnity against these companies, which
include Mac Arthur Company, Illinois Tool Works, Inc., and Egan
Companies, Inc.

Larry Bunce, an ironworker, brought action against various
defendants that sold, manufactured, or distributed asbestos
containing products, and one defendant, A.P.I., Inc., brought
third-party complaint against companies, seeking indemnity and
contribution. After Mr. Bunce and A.P.I. entered into Pierringer
release, third-party companies moved for summary judgment on
contribution claim.

The Pierringer release protects the nonsettling defendants who
choose to go to trial with the plaintiff from ever having to pay
more than their fair share of the verdict; at trial, they are
free to try and shift the negligence blame onto the settling
defendant. The settling defendant is protected because a
Pierringer release settles once and for all the fixed amount it
owes the plaintiff, even if the nonsettling defendants
successfully shift all of the negligence blame onto the settling
defendant at trial.

The third-party defendants filed the motion before Judge Michael
T. DeCourcy. The court denied the motion, to which the companies
promptly appealed.

Larry Bunce was employed as an ironworker from 1961 to 1994. On
April 4, 2003, he filed a suit against 14 defendants, including
A.P.I., Inc., alleging that he contracted mesothelioma as a
result of his exposure to asbestos-containing products that were
manufactured, sold, or distributed by the defendants.

A.P.I. subsequently filed third-party complaints against several
entities, including Illinois Tool Works, Inc.; Turner
Construction Company; Gagnon, Inc.; Azco, Inc.; Insulation Sales
Company; and Egan Companies, Inc., who were not sued directly by
Mr. Bunce. A.P.I. alleged that if Mr. Bunce sustained the
damages as alleged in his complaint, those injuries and damages
were caused by negligence, strict liability, and breach of
warranty of the third-party defendants. A.P.I. alleged that
since Mr. Bunce recovered a judgment against the company, it
would be entitled to full indemnity or contribution from the
third-party defendants.

On July 9, 2003, the district court granted Mr. Bunce's motion
to sever respondent's third-party claims so that his claims
could proceed to trial without delay. On the morning of his
scheduled trial, he settled his case against A.P.I. with a
Pierringer release in exchange for the settlement payment. The
district court subsequently dismissed the suit against A.P.I.
with prejudice. Mr. Bunce died a few weeks later.

In September 2003, appellants and third-party defendants
Illinois Tool Works, Inc., Turner Construction, Gagnon, Azco,
and Insulation Sales moved for summary judgment on A.P.I.'s
contribution claim, arguing that respondent had no contribution
or indemnity rights against the third-party defendants because
it had settled its differences with a Pierringer release.
Appellant Egan Companies joined in the motion.

On February 25, 2004, appellants sought the district court's
permission to file a motion to reconsider its ruling. The
district court denied permission to bring the proposed motion to
reconsider, but granted the motion to certify to this court two
questions as important and doubtful. This court consolidated the
appeals by Illinois Tool Works, et al. and by Egan Companies.

The Appeals Court agreed with the third-party defendants'
argument that because A.P.I. and Mr. Bunce executed a standard
Pierringer release, it cannot pursue claims for contribution or
indemnity against nonsettling defendants. A Pierringer release
cuts off the nonsettling defendants cross-claims for
contribution as a matter of law. The Court also held that Mr.
Bunce's death, certainly untimely and not in contemplation by
any of the parties, does not eradicate the Pierringer release.

The Appeals Court ruled that the district court erred in
allowing A.P.I. to proceed with its claims on the theory that
all possible claims against the third-party defendants have
disappeared. In addition, this Court ruled that A.P.I. did not
pay more than its fair share of common liability.

Kyle B. Mansfield, Stephen L. Wilson, Foley & Mansfield,
P.L.L.P., Minneapolis, MN, represented Illinois Tool Works,
Inc., et al.

Jon P. Parrington, Pustorino, Tilton, Parrington & Lindquist,
PLLC, Minneapolis, MN, represented Egan Companies, Inc.

Thomas R. Thibodeau, David M. Johnson, Thibodeau, Johnson, &
Feriancek, PLLP, Duluth, MN, stood for respondent A.P.I., Inc.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Residents Fear Health Risk from Abatement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Shinfield residents expressed fears for their health after
contractors removed asbestos from a nearby site without
informing them.

George Wimpey SW Ltd. is developing the site to put up about 80
homes. It applied for a license to remove asbestos from the
Health and Safety Executive and was given the blessing of
Wokingham planners in April.

While workers at the site were supplied with specialist clothes
and masks, the residents had no protection. They suspect that
they were at risk from exposure to the carcinogenic material but
were not warned or given safety equipment because there is no
legal requirement to provide it.

The residents also complained of the failure of the HSE or the
company carrying out the work to inform them of the risks so
that they could take precautions.

David Tuck, whose home backs onto the site, said that pets could
walk through the site and return to their homes, spreading the
asbestos fibers.

"It just seems systematic of what is happening in Shinfield at
the moment and nobody is taking a blind bit of notice of what
people in the village want," Mr. Tuck added.

HSE spokesman Rob Kelly confirmed a licensed contractor removed
asbestos from the site over an 85-day period.

Wokingham District Council spokeswoman Andrea Jenkins said that
since the work is taking place on private land, the contractors
would inform the HSE and not the council.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Roofs of Garages Pose Health Risks
----------------------------------------------------------------
Possibly landing the taxpayer with a GBP1 million repair bill, a
town hall report on the state of the borough's 3,000 garages
stated that many asbestos roofs built in the 1940s and 1950s
pose a "serious health and safety issue."

Officials explained that these garages have increasingly become
a focus for anti-social behavior, vandalism and fly tipping.
They estimated that resultant problems with the structures could
cost GBP350 a garage to safely replace existing roofs with metal
or concrete sheeting. They are aware of the probability that the
health of individuals who have come into contact with the loose
asbestos fibers have been affected.

Housing bosses have received more than 150 complaints in three
years, and spent GBP60,000 repairing and boarding up derelict
garages and removing fly tips. The council's yearly maintenance
budget is around GBP200,000.

The current report showed that less than two-thirds of garages
are in use, while 70% of those are used for storage. The
officers believe more than 10% of sites could be sold off to
provide around 100 family homes for renting. Weekly rents,
currently GBP5.72 for garages and GBP1.69 for bases, could also
rise by 100%, with cash pumped back into maintenance programs.

Housing officers have now drawn up a five-year plan to encourage
more people to use them. It will also investigate ways to cut
spending on garages, while releasing some land for housing. They
aim to make each garage site suitable for development within six
months.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Aussie Urges Study on Asbestos-Lined Pipes
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Shoalhaven resident is calling for an independent study to
look at the effects of ingesting asbestos in drinking water
after discovering that water pipes through the city were lined
with the hazardous material.

Bob Steptoe has written to Shoalhaven City Council, who gave
reassurances that the pipes are safe. However, Mr. Steptoe is
determined to push for further investigation, citing that he
would prefer that an independent study be conducted to prove
that there are no particles in the water and that it is harmless
to human health.

Mr. Steptoe's apprehension increased when he found that the US
Environment Protection Authority has not yet established whether
the presence of asbestos in water is a definite carcinogen.

Shoalhaven Water manager John Gould said there was little
evidence to suggest asbestos in water was harmful. He also
stated that water pipes in Shoalhaven contain asbestos, as do
thousands of other pipes throughout the nation and the world.

The National Health and Medical Research Council which
established the Australian Drinking Water guidelines states that
a number of extensive epidemiological studies have been carried
out, and on the basis of this information, there is no excess
risk of cancer with asbestos in drinking water.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: KY County Residents Plan to Reject Landfill
----------------------------------------------------------------
Citing health and safety issues, the residents of north Warren
County intend to ask the Board of Adjustments to reject a
conditional use permit application for a construction landfill,
Bowling Green Daily News reports.

Contractors Waste Services has filed an application for a
conditional use permit on two tracts of land at Harry Cherry
Road and Willis Road in order to operate two one-acre
construction demolition debris landfills. The 17-acre property
is zoned for agriculture.

Ernie Glass of Richardsville Road said he received a notice from
the City-County Planning Commission of Warren County announcing
the application and the Board of Adjustments meeting.

Ewell Upton of Clark Circle also plans to attend and protest the
application. He fears that harmful chemicals like asbestos could
drain into the water system, citing that a government survey had
considered the land unsuitable for a dump.

Environmental Planning and Assistance Coordinator Stan Reagan
said regulating the material at the landfill is the
responsibility of the state's Department for Environmental
Protection Division of Waste Management. He said the materials
bound for the proposed landfill should not be harmful for the
environment adding that asbestos is not a material that is going
into the landfill. Instead, he said that asbestos would be
directed to special fills that take household and industrial
wastes, petroleum, contaminated soil, and other materials.

Seeking to allay the residents' worries, Andy Gillies, executive
director of the planning commission, said a public hearing would
be held at 7 p.m. on June 23 in the Warren County Courthouse.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: A.P.I. Files Amended Plan of Reorganization
----------------------------------------------------------------
A.P.I. Inc. delivered to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the
District of Minnesota its Second Amended Plan of Reorganization.
As initially provided for in the first chapter 11 Plan filed,
unimpaired claims, consisting of holders of wage, employee
benefits, and general unsecured claims will be paid in full on
the Plan's effective date.

Secured creditors LaSalle Bank National Association and Wells
Fargo Bank National Association will retain their liens on the
Debtor's property.

Asbestos personal injury claims will be transferred to an
Asbestos Trust on the Effective Date. API will convey US$14.5
million to the Asbestos Trust. The Debtor's parent company, APi
Group, Inc. will pay the Asbestos Trust US$500,000 on the
Effective Date.

The Initial Payments will be used to:

(1) Pay all amounts payable to professionals, engaged by the
Official Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants and the
Official Representative for Future Asbestos Personal Injury
Claimants other than those retained by the Debtor; and

(2) Pay US$250,000 to the law firm of Sieben Polk LaVerdiere &
Dusich, P.A. for services rendered and expenses incurred in
connection with the negotiation of this Plan.

The balance will be used to partially pay asbestos claimants.
API will pay the Trust 80 quarterly payments of US$325,000
starting on the fourth month from the Effective Date.  The
Debtor needs to pay the Trust a total of US$26 million.

James Baillie, Esq., at Fredrikson & Byron P.A., represents the
Debtor in its restructuring.  When the Debtor filed for
protection from its creditors, it listed total assets of
US$34,702,179 and total debts of US$63,000,000.

Headquartered in St. Paul, Minnesota, A.P.I. Inc., f/k/a A.P.I.
Construction Company is a wholly owned subsidiary of the API
Group, Inc., and is an industrial insulation contractor.  The
Company filed for chapter 11 protection on January 5, 2005
(Bankr. D. Minn. Case No. 05-30073).


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: UK Prime Minister Backs Global Asbestos Ban
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amid warnings that asbestos-related diseases will worsen poverty
in the developing world, Prime Minister Tony Blair is seeking to
impose a global asbestos ban. He said that efforts at the moment
to achieve this goal are being coursed through the United
Nations environment program.

Mr. Blair said that he recognizes that asbestos can have serious
effects on people's health and would actually ruin attempts to
eradicate poverty. He noted that the EU had already banned the
use of asbestos throughout its member states.

Labor's Michael Clapham, Barnsley West and Penistone MP, had
urged the Prime Minister to head the campaign as part of his
agenda for Britain's presidencies of the G8 and the EU. Action
on African poverty and climate change have been set as
priorities when the leaders of some of the world's richest
nations meet in Scotland next month for the G8 summit.

Mr. Clapham asserted that there are good reasons for the
worldwide ban, in particular, because manufacturing has shifted
to the developing world. Hence, the suffering and death brought
on by exposure to the carcinogenic material would certainly add
to poverty.

"And it will go on adding to poverty unless we can bring in a
ban very similar to the one that's been introduced throughout
the industrial world," added Mr. Clapham.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Toxic Exposure Caused Navy Officer's Death
---------------------------------------------------------------
Held in London earlier this week, an inquest concluded that a
former senior Royal Navy officer died from exposure to asbestos
on submarines decades ago.

Peter Luce, aged 63, of Bildestone, Suffolk, served in the navy
for 20 years before becoming a management consultant. A former
lieutenant commander, he transferred from submarines to surface
vessels later in his navy career. The inquest established that
in Mr. Luce's early years as a sub-mariner, he had come into
contact with asbestos-lagged piping.

The coroner recorded a verdict of industrial disease to Mr.
Luce's death in May from a form of asbestos-related lung cancer.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ABB to Submit Settlement Plan on June 23
-------------------------------------------------------------
Swiss-based engineering group ABB Ltd. (NYSE: ABB) will submit a
reworked asbestos settlement plan to a U.S. court on June 23,
the Company said in a statement.

A U.S. bankruptcy judge earlier this week ordered the parties in
the asbestos case of ABB Ltd. to file their revised settlement
papers no later than June 24.

Judge Judith Fitzgerald of the bankruptcy court for western
Pennsylvania in Pittsburgh also set a July 7 hearing on the
terms of the settlement.

"There is no problem; we are fully on track," press spokesman
Thomas Schmidt said.

ABB has around 100,000 asbestos lawsuits pending in the U.S.,
stemming from people who claim to have been exposed to the fiber
products manufactured at ABB's U.S. Combustion Engineering unit.

The Company moved to resolve its asbestos problems in March by
offering to pay an additional US$232 million to claimants. That
money was on top of the US$1.2 billion that ABB had already
agreed to contribute to a settlement under an earlier plan,
which was thrown out by a U.S. court last year. The settlement
would cap claims from former workers who made products
containing potentially carcinogenic asbestos.

Steven Kazan, who represents claimants with cancer, said the
lawyers from all sides were meeting to proof-read the documents
and said he hoped papers could be filed as soon as the end of
this week. Mr. Kazan said the "overwhelming bulk" of the revised
settlement would go to cancer victims, and almost all of the
money in total would go to cancer patients and those with the
lung condition asbestosis.

ABB is one of many companies attempting to use U.S. bankruptcy
processes to shield its ongoing operations from liabilities
related to products they ceased making decades ago.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Traders Watch Cape PLC for Settlement Plans
----------------------------------------------------------------
Market traders closely observed building materials group Cape
PLC earlier this week as they speculated that the Company was
about to reveal details of a fundraising to settle future UK
asbestos-related claims, The Telegraph reports.

The company, which used to mine asbestos, is believed to be
completing its long-term financing plans to address the asbestos
issue. Dealers speculated the group is considering placing new
shares at around the 110p-a-share level to raise money.

In 2004, the Company reached an out-of-court settlement to
compensate 7,500 workers at its South Africa facilities who had
suffered asbestos-related diseases. The litigation was hailed as
a landmark case for its victims.

Last year Cape posted a pre-tax profit of GBP5.8 million, after
paying out GBP3.7 million in compensation. Dealers said the
group was eager to put its asbestos past behind it, as the
amount of future damages are difficult to predict and experts
calculate that in general the number of claims are yet to peak.

Cape shares dropped to a low of 4ęp in November 2002 on
uncertainties about the asbestos litigation. The following year
the group settled with its claimants in South Africa but not in
the UK. Cape shares were pegged last Wednesday at 131ęp.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: OK Rep. Asks for Scoring of Asbestos Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Intending to do "fact-finding" before approaching any other
member, a prominent conservative in the House is raising
concerns about the cost of the asbestos bill in relation to
federal spending.

In a letter distributed as part of the Republican Study
Committee's weekly Internet update, Rep. Ernest Istook (R-Okla.)
requested Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Holtz-
Eakin to score the asbestos-claims bill before it moves to the
House. He said he sent the request to the CBO because he was
concerned that House members had been left out of the
negotiations.

As previously reported in the June 3, 2005 edition of the Class
Action Reporter, the committee voted 13-5 for the bill that
would eliminate asbestos lawsuits and create a 30-year fund
financed by companies facing litigation and their insurers. It
awaits a floor vote in the Senate before moving to the House
Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Istook said the bill "might be a backdoor way of undermining
the cutting that we're trying to do on federal spending,
especially mandatory spending."

Mr. Istook noted that he had not yet "established a position" on
the bill but wrote that he had "been informed that [its]
resolution fund would add billions of dollars to the public debt
that would take decades to pay off." He also wrote that the
bill's "interest costs would consume much of the value of the
fund" and that it would "be unable to pay all valid claims" and
"create a gigantic, wasteful bureaucracy."

A spokesman from the Mr. Istooks's office said it would release
the estimate once it is received.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Business Group Aims to Expose Flaws in Bill
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Coalition for Asbestos Reform, a group of small and medium
sized businesses and major insurance companies, has engaged a
team of veteran campaign, advertising and public relations
professionals to launch a major national campaign to educate
U.S. businesses and policymakers about the serious flaws in the
asbestos liability legislation approved by the Senate Judiciary
Committee last month.

The press release related that as a part of the effort, C.A.R.
has hired Fleishman-Hillard, one of the largest PR agencies in
the U.S., and its affiliate, Mercury Public Affairs, an
advertising and research firm with experience in more than 20
Senate campaigns. The campaign will explain the effect of the
Specter-Leahy bill on hundreds of businesses that face potential
asbestos liability, most of whom are unaware of the devastating
impact of US$140 billion in new taxes S. 852 authorizes to
finance the trust fund mandated by the bill.

The C.A.R. campaign is launched at a time when S. 852 has hit
rough water after clearing the Senate Judiciary Committee in
late May. Several Republican Senators who supported the bill in
committee have warned they will oppose it on the floor unless
substantial changes are made.

In addition, Governor Rick Perry of Texas strongly criticized
the bill in a letter to President Bush, describing it as "deeply
flawed" and saying S. 852 would "not only be harmful to Texas,
it would counter the civil justice reform philosophy we have
pursued in Texas in recent years."

C.A.R.'s Executive Director, Tom O'Brien, urged Senators to
recognize that the bill is not in the best interests of either
the business community or victims of asbestos poisoning. "We
continue, however, to work with Senators Specter and Leahy and
other members of the committee to address the fundamental flaws
of this legislation," Mr. O'Brien said.

"Most of the affected companies do not realize S. 852 enacts a
new tax that shifts billions of dollars in liability away from
the companies that created the asbestos crisis and onto
companies that prudently managed their risk and purchased
insurance to protect their stockholders and employees. Then it
cancels the insurance coverage of those companies."

C.A.R. shares the concerns of several Republican and Democratic
Senators on the Judiciary Committee who expressed skepticism
about the financial viability of the compensation scheme
envisioned by S. 852 and its US$140 billion trust fund.

"Widespread doubt about the long-term solvency of the trust
fund, and even its short-term solvency, undermine claims that S.
852 will reduce the uncertainty faced by businesses and asbestos
victims alike under the current tort system," Mr. O'Brien said.
"In fact, S. 852 will create greater uncertainty for everyone
except the few big companies who would be allowed to escape the
billions of dollars in costs for which they are responsible.

C.A.R. also questions whether the time has passed for a trust
fund solution to the asbestos litigation crisis. "In the past
three or four years, the states have stepped forward with
medical criteria approaches that have won broad support and
other reforms that have reduced the number of frivolous
lawsuits," Mr. O'Brien said.

"We believe the Congress should look to those models for a
federal approach to asbestos reform-not the trust fund model
currently contained in S. 852."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Esso Makes GBP90T Settlement with Ex-worker
----------------------------------------------------------------
Esso Petroleum Co. Ltd. reached a GBP90,000 out-of-court
settlement with a former worker, who was diagnosed with the
terminal asbestos-related cancer, mesothelioma, in April 2004.

Gerald Read, aged 80, a widower, worked as a scaffolder at the
Esso oil refinery at Fawley, Hampshire, between 1968 and 1981,
where his job involved preparing the scaffolding and boards that
laggers used when replacing old asbestos. He claims however that
he had never worked directly with asbestos.

Esso settled out-of-court without accepting any liability. A
spokesman for Esso said that asbestos was widely used throughout
the industry as an insulating material in the 1950s and 1960s.
However, he declared that the refinery stopped the use of
asbestos as an insulation medium in 1967. Since then, the
Company has replaced asbestos that has been damaged or removed
for maintenance purposes with modern insulation.

Exxon Mobil subsidiary Esso Petroleum refines, distributes, and
markets petroleum products in the United Kingdom. It also
operates the UK's biggest privately owned underground oil
pipeline distribution network.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Widow Urges More Medical Research in the UK
----------------------------------------------------------------
A widow called for more research into asbestos-related diseases
after her husband succumbed to asbestos-related lung cancer due
to occupational exposure.

Robert Martin, aged 63, died at Queen Elizabeth Hospital,
Stadium Road, Woolwich, after developing lung cancer. As a
plasterer, he worked with asbestos for over 25 years.

In an inquest last week, Mr. Martin's wife Avril told Southwark
Coroner's Court, "I wish there could be more formal research so,
if they catch the disease a bit earlier, something can be done."

Pathologist Dr. Peter Jerreat said malignant mesothelioma, which
was diagnosed in 2004, had led to tumors in his lungs.

Coroner John Sampson recorded a verdict of industrial disease,
which he says, is a result of inhalation of asbestos fibers in
the workplace.


ASBESTOS ALERT: UT Restaurant Files Suit V. Far West Roofing Inc
----------------------------------------------------------------
The owners of a Marie Callender's restaurant filed a lawsuit
against Far West Roofing Inc. for violating air quality
standards in removing asbestos during roof replacement.

According to the suit, the Riverton-based roofing company spent
several days replacing the Fort Union area restaurant's leaky
roof but failed to remove an underlying layer of asbestos-
containing felt.

The state Air Quality Board informed the restaurant owners of
the violations and ordered the felt removed. This incident
resulted to the owners incurring cleanup costs and penalty fees
to the state of more than US$20,000.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency subsequently charged
the restaurant with misdemeanor negligent release of hazardous
emissions. The restaurant paid the resulting US$50,000 fine and
has had to make several other environmental improvements, the
suit states.

Company Profile:
Far West Roofing Inc.
14463 Vantage Cir
Riverton, UT 84065
Phone: (801) 253-7799


ASBESTOS ALERT: GA Court Reverses in Landers v. Medical Center
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Georgia on June 2, 2005 reversed a trial
court ruling that had denied the motion for summary judgment in
the case captioned, Landers et al. v. The Medical Center of
Central Georgia et al., which had an employee filing a suit for
the doctor's failure to inform him promptly of a lung cancer
diagnosis.

Donald Landers brought this negligence action against his
employer and against the doctor who performed his medical
examination after both failed to advise him of the results of
his chest x-ray. The trial court denied the doctor's motion for
summary judgment, finding that, under regulations adopted to
implement the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, an
employment examiner owes a duty to inform an examinee directly
of all the results of a medical examination, which are not
available until after the conclusion of the physical
examination.

The doctor appealed, contending he is entitled to summary
judgment because an employment examiner owes no legal duty to an
examinee. In addition, the doctor contended that the employer's
failure to provide Mr. Landers a copy of the x-ray report
constitutes an intervening cause.

For about 20 years, Mr. Landers worked for North Brothers, Inc.
and NB Environmental, Inc. as an insulation installer. As part
of his job, he handled asbestos materials. Since the early
1990s, North Brothers, in accordance with OSHA regulations,
required Mr. Landers to submit to a yearly medical examination
with a physician it chose and compensated. At the time, North
Brothers had a contract with Work Horizons, an occupational
medicine practice, to perform employment medical examinations to
check each asbestos worker for signs of asbestos-related
diseases and to certify that he was physically capable of using
a negative-pressure respirator.

On January 29, 1998, Vincent Greico, a Work Horizons doctor,
performed Mr. Landers' annual employment medical examination,
which included a chest x-ray, pulmonary function or lung
capacity test, and a physical examination of his upper body. At
the end of the exam, Dr. Greico told him his pulmonary function
test and physical examination were fine and gave him a written
report titled "Physician's Opinion" to take to North Brothers.

In that document, Dr. Greico indicated that he had detected no
medical conditions that would place Mr. Landers at an increased
risk of health impairment from asbestos exposure and cleared him
to wear a respirator. He further certified that he informed Mr.
Landers of the results of the examination and of any medical
conditions that may result from asbestos exposure. Upon his
return to work, his supervisor told him that he "passed" the
medical examination and was cleared to use a respirator.

The x-ray was routinely delivered to Work Horizon's affiliated
hospital to be evaluated by a qualified "B-reader" or Board-
certified radiologist, who noted a "vague opacity" in the lung,
and recommended more tests. This was a serious finding for a
patient who worked with asbestos, a known carcinogenic agent,
and possibly indicated a life-threatening problem.

Dr. Greico received this report and prepared a notice to North
Brothers quoting the radiologist's findings and recommendation
and indicating that Mr. Landers needed follow up with his
personal physician. Despite his intention and despite having the
contact information on file, Dr. Greico took no action to relay
the radiologist's report directly because he expected North
Brothers to give Mr. Landers a copy of the notice. North
Brothers personnel, however, put the notice in Mr. Landers'
personnel file without providing a copy to their employee.

A year later, Dr. Greico again performed the annual medical
examination. Without referring to the 1998 chest x-ray or the
radiologist's report during the examination, he again cleared
Mr. Landers to wear a respirator. Within a few days, Dr. Greico
received a report showing the spot on the lung.

Dr. Greico telephoned Mr. Landers and told him about the results
of his most recent chest x-ray, and asked him what he had done
about the situation since the 1998 x-ray. Alerted to the spot on
his lung for the first time, Mr. Landers sought medical care and
learned he had advanced lung cancer.

Mr. Landers brought this action for damages, and his wife
asserted a claim for loss of consortium, against the doctor and
the doctor's employer, the Medical Center of Central Georgia,
Inc. and Central Georgia Health Systems, Inc., jointly doing
business as Work Horizons as well as against North Brothers. He
alleged that the one-year delay in the diagnosis of his lung
cancer allowed the disease to worsen, made treatment more
difficult, and made the prognosis for successful treatment less
favorable.

Dr. Greico argued that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law because Mr. Landers failed to set out facts supporting the
first element of a negligence claim, a duty of care.

The Appeals Court agreed with Dr. Greico's contention that OSHA
regulations cannot support a finding of a legal duty because the
regulations impose duties only on employers. The Court also
believed that Dr. Greico is entitled to judgment on the basis
that the undisputed facts show that there existed no doctor-
patient relationship from which a duty of care would arise. It
is a well-settled principle of Georgia law that there can be no
liability for malpractice in the absence of a physician-patient
relationship.

Company Profile:
NB Environmental Inc
1554 Old Frankfort Pike
Phone: 404-627-6281

Medical Center of Central Georgia
777 Hemlock Street
Macon, Georgia
Phone: 478-633-1353

Central Georgia Health Systems, Inc
Macon, Georgia
Phone: 478-633-7107 or 478-633-1527


ASBESTOS ALERT: EPA Imposes $3T Fine on CA Demolition Contractor
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Environmental Protection Agency imposed a US$3,000 fine on a
local business for an alleged violation of federal asbestos
regulations, The Daily Bulletin reports.

MLE Environmental Technologies of Rancho Cucamonga reportedly
violated the Clean Air Act in 2001 in the demolition of several
structures in Imperial County. Caltrans had hired MLE to remove
about 556 square feet of asbestos material from the structures
before tearing them down.

MLE demolished the structures in September 2001 but allegedly
failed to submit a written notification of its intention to
demolish the property to the EPA beforehand.

Company Profile:
MLE Environmental Technologies
C/o Victor Muniz
P.O. Box 4606
Rancho Cucamonga
CA 91701


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


BOMBARDIER INC.: Schoengold Sporn Lodges Amended Complaint in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schoengold Sporn Laitman & Lometti, P.C.
("SSL&L") initiated an amended class action complaint (the
"Amended Complaint") against Bombardier Inc., Bombardier
Capital, Inc., Bombardier Capital Mortgage Securitization
Corporation and certain current and former officers and
directors to include purchasers of Bombardier Capital Mortgage
Securitization Pass-Through Certificates (the "Certificates")
Series 1998-A, 1998-B, 1998-C, 1999-A, 1999-B and 2001-A during
the period February 7, 2000 through February 7, 2005 (the "Class
Period").

The Amended Compliant asserts claims under Sections 10 and 20 of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The case is currently
pending in the Southern District of New York before Judge Shira
A. Scheindlin.

The Amended Complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, the
prospectus disseminated in connection with the offering of the
Certificates and subsequent statements by defendants, contained
materially false and misleading statements concerning the
quality of the manufactured housing loans which served as
collateral for the Certificates. The misstatements included that
the loans were issued only after careful scrutiny of borrower
credit when, in fact, borrower creditworthiness was regularly
disregarded. The truth only began to be partially revealed as
extraordinarily high delinquency and foreclosure rates persisted
with respect to the collateral leading to a series of rating
downgrades, including in 2004.

Under recent amendments to the securities laws, if you purchased
the Bombardier Certificates during the Class Period, you may
request that the Court appoint you lead plaintiff. However, you
must do so before August 15, 2005.

SSL&L was established in 1962 and has specialized in securities
fraud litigation for over 35 years. Recently in 2004, SSL&L
achieved a $39 million settlement as sole lead counsel in the
prosecution of the securities litigation against Nicor, Inc. In
2003, Federal District Judge McMahon in commending on SSL&L's
prosecution of another securities fraud action noted "Through
(SSL&L's) efforts, after intensive investigation, concentrated
litigation and extensive arm's-length bargaining, and without
the benefit of any governmental agency's investigation, Class
Counsel have secured a settlement fund which confers an
excellent benefit to the Class."

For more details, contact Joel P. Laitman, Esq. or Frank R.
Schirripa, Esq. of Schoengold Sporn Laitman & Lometti, P.C., 19
Fulton Street, Suite 406, New York, NY, 10038, Phone:
212-964-0046, Fax: 212-267-8137 or (866) 348-7700, E-Mail:
shareholderrelations@spornlaw.com, Website:
http://www.spornlaw.com.


BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS: Wechsler Harwood Lodges Stock Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Wechsler Harwood LLP filed a Federal Securities
fraud class action suit on behalf of all purchasers of the
common stock of Brocade Communication Systems, Inc.
(Nasdaq:BRCD) acquiring the stock between February 21, 2001 and
May 15, 2005, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period").

The action, entitled, Sreenivas v. Brocade Communication
Systems, Inc., et al., Case No. (not yet assigned), is pending
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, and names as defendants, the Company and certain of
its senior officers and directors.

The Complaint charges defendants with violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder. More specifically, the complaint
alleges that defendants failed to disclose and misrepresented
material adverse facts, which were known to defendants or
recklessly disregarded by them. In particular, the Complaint
alleges that during the Class Period defendants:

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

     (2) did not follow appropriate option granting guidelines;
         and

     (3) lacked adequate internal controls.

As a consequence of the foregoing, the Complaints alleges the
Company's financial results were in violation of Generally
Accepted Principles and were materially inflated at all relevant
times.

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

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


CRAY INC.: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in W.D. WA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP initiated a
class action lawsuit was filed today, on behalf of purchasers of
the securities of Cray Inc. ("Cray" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:
CRAY) between October 23, 2002, and May 9, 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 Western District of Washington before the Honorable James
Robart, against defendants Cray, James E. Rottsolk and Scott J.
Poteracki.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period
defendants consistently forecasted significant foreseeable
revenue growth, from about $155 million in 2002, to about $220
million in 2003 and to $300 million by 2004. To help achieve
this impressive growth, defendants also issued tens of millions
of dollars in stock in follow on offerings, and also used over
$115 million of Cray stock to acquire OctigaBay, a company that
also purported to supply Cray with additional marketable
technologies. Unbeknownst to investors, however, the Company
could not achieve sustained periods of revenue growth and
profitability and lacked an adequate system of internal
controls.

Beginning on March 16, 2005, defendants began to issue a series
of disclosures that ultimately revealed the Company's complete
lack of an internal system of financial and operational
controls, as particularized in the complaint, sparking a decline
in Cray's stock price. On May 9, 2005, the final day of the
Class Period, Cray revealed that it had received a Notice of
Potential Delisting from the Nasdaq.

During the Class Period, Cray insiders sold a total of 933,474
of their personally held shares of Cray common stock for gross
proceeds of $8,374,416.

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


DITECH COMMUNICATIONS: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP announces
that a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Ditech Communications Corporation ("Ditech" or the
"Company") (Nasdaq: DITC) between August 25, 2004 and May 26,
2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The action, case number C05-02406 -JSW, is pending in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California
before the Honorable Jeffrey S. White, against defendants
Ditech, Timothy K. Montgomery (CEO, Pres., Chairman) and William
J. Tamblyn (CFO).

This action involves materially false and misleading
misrepresentations and omissions by defendants regarding two
aspects of Ditech's business:

     (1) Voice Quality Assurance ("VQA") Services: During the
         Class Period, defendants represented that Ditech had
         received two significant VQA orders from new customers
         in Asia. The Company touted this as the first success
         in its efforts to enter the VQA market in a rapidly
         growing geographical area. In fact, however, the orders
         were not solidified. The purported customers were not
         obligated to, and, as it turned out, did not purchase
         the services;

     (2) Misrepresentations Regarding the Impact of the Merger
         Between Sprint and Nextel: In December 2004, Nextel
         (which accounted for over 40% of Ditech's revenues)
         announced a merger with Sprint. Given the importance of
         Nextel to Ditech's business, certain securities
         analysts posited that the cost cutting and integration
         of Nextel and Sprint operations might result in less
         business for Ditech.

In response, defendants represented that the merger should not
be of concern to Ditech investors and that it was "quite good"
for the Company. In fact, as defendants knew or recklessly
disregarded, the Nextel-Sprint merger posed a serious threat to
Ditech's business, one that could erase nearly half of its
revenues.

While the price of Ditech shares was artificially inflated by
defendants' false statements and failures to disclose, Company
insiders, including defendants Montgomery and Tamblyn, sold a
total of 320,000 of their personally held Ditech shares for
gross proceeds of $6,715,650.

Investors began to learn the truth about the purported VQA
orders on November 3, 2004, when the Company announced that the
highly-touted orders had not shipped, causing the Company to
miss its revenue goals for the second quarter of 2005 and
calling into question the Company's VQA expansion plans. The
price of Ditech common stock fell by 25.5% to $16.60 per share
in response to the announcement, on unusually heavy trading
volume. Defendants, however, maintained this was merely a
"delay" and that they still expected the orders to ship, a claim
that defendants knew, or recklessly disregarded, was misleading.

The truth about the impact of the Nextel-Sprint merger on Ditech
was revealed after the close of trading on May 26, 2005. At that
time, Ditech announced that orders from Nextel dropped
substantially as a result of the Nextel-Sprint merger and that a
continuing decline in orders was expected. Although defendants
did not directly address the issue in this release, the promised
VQA sales to the two new customers from Asia still did not
materialize, nearly a year after defendants supposedly "secured"
the orders. In response to this announcement, Ditech common
stock dropped by 38%, to $7.79 per share, on unusually heavy
trading volume.

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


DITECH COMMUNICATIONS: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Stock Lawsuit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C. initiated a lawsuit seeking
class action status in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of all persons who
purchased the securities of Ditech Communications Corp. (Nasdaq:
DITC) ("Ditech") between August 25, 2004 and May 26, 2005 (the
"Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that Ditech and certain of its officers
and directors violated federal securities laws by making
misrepresentations regarding Ditech's business condition.
Specifically, Defendants represented that Ditech had received
two significant Voice Quality Assurance ("VQA") orders from new
customers in Asia. Ditech touted this as the first success in
its efforts to enter the VQA market in a rapidly growing
geographical area. In fact, the orders were not solidified. The
purported customers were not obligated to, and, did not purchase
the services. Additionally, it is alleged that Ditech
misrepresented the impact of the merger between Sprint and
Nextel. Given the fact that Nextel accounted for over 40% of
Ditech's revenues, certain securities analysts posited that the
cost cutting and integration of Nextel and Sprint operations
might result in less business for Ditech. In response,
defendants represented that the merger should not be of concern
to Ditech investors and that it was "quite good" for the
Company. In fact, as defendants knew the Nextel-Sprint merger
posed a serious threat to Ditech's business, one that could
erase nearly half of its revenues.

While the price of Ditech shares was artificially inflated by
defendants' false statements and failures to disclose, Company
insiders sold a total of 320,000 of their personally held Ditech
shares for gross proceeds of $6,715,650.

For more details, contact Wayne T. Boulton of Schatz & Nobel,
Phone: +1-800-797-5499, E-mail: sn06106@aol.com, Web site:
http://www.snlaw.net.


DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Wechsler Harwood Lodges Stock Suit in CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Wechsler Harwood LLP filed a Federal Securities
fraud class action suit on behalf of all purchasers of the
common stock of DreamWorks Animation SKG, Inc. (NYSE:DWA)
acquiring the stock between January 3, 2005 and May 10, 2005,
both dates inclusive (the "Class Period").

The action, entitled, "Presuti v. DreamWorks Animation SKG,
Inc., et al.", Case No. 05-cv-4229(GHK)(VKB), is pending in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California, and names as defendants, the Company and certain of
its senior officers and directors. A copy of the complaint can
be obtained from the Court or can be viewed on Wechsler Harwood
web site at: www.whesq.com.

The Complaint charges defendants with violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder. More specifically, the complaint
alleges that DreamWorks, a developer and producer of CG animated
films, and the other defendants failed to disclose and
misrepresented material adverse facts, which were known to
defendants or recklessly disregarded by them. In particular, the
Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants made
materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business and prospects, including statements regarding
the continuing strong sales of its "Shrek 2" DVD. Then, on May
10, 2005, one or more Company insiders leaked inside information
to a reporter at Newsweek. The same day, Newsweek ran a story
titled "Insiders say DreamWorks is about to report surprisingly
bad results," which stated that "the studio expects to report
earnings substantially below the 60 cents per share that Wall
Street analysts have estimated for the quarter."

After the market closed on May 10, 2005, DreamWorks released its
financial and operating results for Q1 2005 and reported
revenues and earnings far short of previous guidance and
analysts' expectations of earnings of $0.58 a share on revenue
of $175.2 million. As a result of the defendants' false
statements, DreamWorks' stock price traded at inflated levels
during the Class Period, increasing to as high as $41.09 per
share. However, when the truth was revealed in the Newsweek
story and DreamWorks' press release on May 10, 2005, the
Company's shares fell to below $33 per share.

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


MAGMA DESIGN: Charles J. Piven Files Securities Fraud Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
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 Magma Design
Automation, Inc. (NASDAQ: LAVA) between October 23, 2002 and
April 12, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

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

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


OCA INC.: Pomerantz Haudek Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in LA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP
initiated a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of
securities of the Orthodontic Centers of America ("OCA" or the
"Company") (NYSE:OCA) during the period from May 18, 2004
through June 7, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The
complaint was filed in the United States District Court, Eastern
District of Louisiana.

The Complaint charges that OCA, which provides management
services to orthodontists, and its two senior officers,
Bartholomew F. Palmisano, Sr., (CEO) and David E. Verret (CFO),
defrauded investors by improperly recognizing revenues. On June
7, 2005, OCA announced that the Company was unable to file its
already delayed year end report for 2004, and needed to restate
its quarterly financial statements for 2004. OCA admitted, among
other things, that it had materially overstated its patient
receivables and patient revenue for the first three quarters of
2004. Following this announcement, OCA's stock price plummeted
by $1.53 per share, to close at $2.50 per share, and has since
fallen further to under $1.50 per share, a total drop of more
than 66%.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For more details, contact Garrett D. Blanchfield of Reinhardt
Wendorf & Blanchfield, Phone: (800) 465-1592 or (651) 287-2100,
Fax: (651) 287-2103, E-mail: g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com.


STOCKERYALE INC.: Leo W. Desmond Lodges Securities Lawsuit in NH
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Leo W. Desmond initiated securities class
action on behalf of shareholders who acquired StockerYale, Inc.
(Nasdaq:STKR) securities between April 19, 2004 and May 23, 2005
inclusive (the "Class Period") on behalf of purchasers of the
firm's securities between April 19, 2004 and May 23, 2005.

The action, captioned Nickalus T. Holt v. StockerYale, Inc., is
pending in the United States District Court for the District of
New Hampshire against defendants StockerYale, Mark W. Blodgett
(CEO, President and Chairman), Francis J. O'Brien (former CFO),
Richard P. Lindsay (current CFO), and Ricardo A. Diaz (COO). No
class has yet been certified in the above actions.

The suit alleges 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 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.


TIBCO SOFTWARE: Wechsler Harwood Lodges Securities Lawsuit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Wechsler Harwood LLP filed a Federal Securities
fraud class action suit on behalf of all purchasers of the
common stock of TIBCO Software, Inc. ("TIBCO" or the "Company")
(Nasdaq:TIBX) acquiring the stock between September 21, 2004 and
March 1, 2005, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period").

The action, entitled, Guzzetti v. TIBCO Software, Inc., et al.,
Case No. (not yet assigned), is pending in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, and
names as defendants, the Company and certain of its senior
officers and directors.

The Complaint charges defendants with violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder. More specifically, the complaint
alleges that TIBCO, a company engaging in the development and
marketing of software solutions for the integration of business
information, processes, and applications, and other defendants
failed to disclose and misrepresented material adverse facts
which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by
them, including that:

     (1) the Staffware PLC integration was not yet complete;

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

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

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

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

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

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


WILLBROS GROUP: Baron & Budd Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in TX
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Baron & Budd, P.C. initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Texas on behalf of purchasers of Willbros Group,
Inc. (NYSE:WG)("Willbros" or the "Company") securities during
the period between May 6, 2002 and May 16, 2005, inclusive (the
"Class Period").

The complaint alleges that Willbros Group, Inc. has violated
federal securities laws by issuing false or misleading
information and that the Company failed to disclose and
misrepresented the following material adverse facts which were
known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them.
Specifically, the complaint alleges:

     (1) that the Company was violating the Foreign Corrupt
         Practices Act by bribing foreign officials in order to
         obtain business in Bolivia, Nigeria, and Ecuador;

     (2) Willbros filed false tax returns, failed to file
         required tax returns, and failed to pay certain taxes
         in locations outside of the United States which
         materially overstated the Company's financial results
         and exposed the Company to potential fines and
         penalties;

     (3) that the Company was participating in undisclosed
         related party transactions;

     (4) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls; and

     (5) that as a result of the above, the Company's reported
         financial results were materially overstated at all
         relevant times and were not prepared in conformity with
         Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP") and
         were materially false when issued.

After the market closed on May 16, 2005, Willbros announced the
results of the Audit Committee's internal investigation into the
circumstances behind the Company's tax assessment and other
illegal activities, stating that the Company will restate its
previously issued financial statements for the fiscal years
2002, 2003, and the first nine months of 2004. The restatement
is expected to reduce net income between a range of $7.2 and
$9.2 million.

This news shocked the market and the Company's stock plummeted
$4.92 per share, more than 30%, from its May 16, 2005 closing
price of $15.92 to its close on May 17, 2005 at $11.00.

For more details, contact Randall K. Pulliam, Esq. or Max Jodry
of Baron & Budd, P.C., Phone: (800) 222-2766, E-mail:
info@baronbudd.com, Web site: http://www.baronandbudd.com.


                            *********


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  * * *