---

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

            Thursday, June 23, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 123

                         Headlines

AMERIDEBT INC.: Judge Allows $172M FTC Consumer Suit To Proceed
BARRICINI CANDY: Recalls Products Due to Undeclared Soy Nuts
BERKELEY PREMIUM: OR Attorney General Files Consumer Fraud Suit
CAR CARE: Ohio Attorney General Initiates Consumer Fraud Lawsuit
CARDSYSTEMS INC.: WA AG Seeks More Info on Card Security Breach

CINCINNATI INSURANCE: IL Judge To Hear Summary Judgment Motion
CITIFINANCIAL: Informs 3.9M Customers About Lost Computer Tapes
CONSUMER REWARDS: ND AG Issues Cease-and-Desist Order For Fraud
CRAFTMATIC ORGANIZATION: OH AG Files Second Consumer Fraud Suit
DESIGNER SHOE: Ohio AG Petro Sues V. Breach of Customer Privacy

DEWALT INDUSTRIAL: Recalls 185 Compressors Due to Shock Hazard
DITECH COMMUNICATIONS: Shareholders File Stock Fraud Suits in CA
DRDGOLD LIMITED: Shareholders Launch Securities Suits in S.D. NY
EASTMAN KODAK: Shareholders Launch Stock Fraud Suits in C.D. CA
EXIDE TECHNOLOGIES: Shareholders Launch Stock Fraud Suits in NJ

FF ACQUISITION: Recalls 10K Yerk-Dog Go-Karts For Injury Hazards
FLEETWOOD ENTERPRISES: Recalls 8 Trailers Due to Crash Hazard
FLORIDA: Lawsuit Launched V. Man Running Illegal Loan Operation
FORD MOTOR: Appellate Court Decertifies FL Suit Over Police Cars
GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls Sport Utility Vehicles For Crash Hazard

GUIDANT CORPORATION: NY Law Firms File Suit Over Defibrillators
HAULMARK INDUSTRIES: Recalls 1003 Trailers Due To Crash Hazard
HYTRIN LITIGATION: SD Consumers To Receive Share in Settlement
HYTRIN LITIGATION: ND Consumers to Receive Antitrust Settlement
INDIANA: Disappointed Formula One Fan Lodges Compensation Claim

KPMG LLP: Bernstein Litowitz To Prosecute Tax Shelters Lawsuit
MAGMA DESIGN: Shareholders Launch Securities Lawsuits in N.D. CA
MASTERCARD INTERNATIONAL: WI AG Bares Warning On Security Breach
NAVARRE CORPORATION: Shareholders Launch Stock Fraud Suits in MN
NEBRASKA: Magistrate Recommends Gutting of Disabilities' Lawsuit

NEWMONT MINING: Shareholders Launch Securities Fraud Suits in CO
OCA INC.: Shareholders Launch Securities Fraud Suits in E.D. LA
PATHMARK STORES: Shareholders Launch Securities Fraud Suit in DE
SCHOLASTIC INC.: Settles FTC's Deceptive Trade Practices Lawsuit
SETTON INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Raisins Due to Undeclared Sulfites

SPARTAN CHASSIS: Recalls 86 K2, K3 Motor Homes For Crash Hazard
STATE FARM: Judge to Hold Hearing For Insurance Policy Lawsuit
TAHSIN INDUSTRIAL: Recalls 480 Treestands Due to Injury Hazard

                  New Securities Fraud Cases

CARRIER ACCESS: Leo W. Desmond Files Securities Fraud Suit in CO
CONAGRA FOODS: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Fraud Suit in NE
CYBERONICS INC.: Emerson Poynter Lodges Securities Lawsuit in TX
DRDGOLD LIMITED: Ademi & O'Reilly Lodges Securities Suit in NY
EXIDE TECHNOLOGIES: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Lawsuit in NJ

LAZARD LTD.: Abraham Fruchter Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
NAVARRE CORPORATION: Lockridge Grindal Lodges Stock Suit in MN
NAVARRE CORPORATION: Reinhardt Wendorf Lodges Stock Suit in MN
NEWMONT MINING: Glancy Binkow Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CO
OCA INC.: Leo W. Desmond Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. LA

OCA INC.: Spector Roseman Files Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. LA
OCA INC.: Wechsler Harwood Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in LA
OCA INC.: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in LA
PEMSTAR INC.: Reinhardt Wendorf Lodges Securities Lawsuit in MN
R&G FINANCIAL: Glancy Binkow Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY


                           *********


AMERIDEBT INC.: Judge Allows $172M FTC Consumer Suit To Proceed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Even as the class action lawsuit against its founder Andris
Pukke is sidetracked, U.S. District Judge Peter J. Messitte
ruled that the Federal Trade Commission's $172 million lawsuit
against AmeriDebt, Inc. would go forward, The Associated Press
reports.  The federal judge ruled against the FTC's request to
issue a summary judgment in its case against AmeriDebt Inc.,
which had the effect of moving the case forward for a trial.

Mr. Pukke's attorney, John Williams, is reporting that his
client's intent to file for bankruptcy protection, which would
put on hold, as far as Mr. Pukke is concerned, the consumer
class-action lawsuit against Mr. Pukke and others. He called the
judge's decision "a good ruling."

Judge Messitte noted that if Pukke does file for bankruptcy, the
class action lawsuit's scheduled January court date would be
replaced by the FTC suit.

FTC officials did not see the ruling as one in favor of
AmeriDebt or against the merits of their case. According to Joel
Winston, associate director of the FTC's division of financial
practices, "We remain very confident that we will be able to
prove our case at trial and win a judgment against Mr. Pukke."

Even though Judge Messitte acknowledged the strength of the
FTC's evidence, he still said, "There is no risk of error in
denying summary judgment."

The FTC lawsuit, which was filed in 2003, alleges AmeriDebt
collected about $172 million in hidden fees from customers.
Court filings indicated that much of that money was allegedly
transferred to a Pukke for-profit company called DebtWorks from
which he withdrew large sums.

In April, Judge Messitte froze the assets of AmeriDebt after the
FTC alleged Pukke was transferring money to offshore accounts,
trusts and family members to shield it from the FTC lawsuit. The
FTC is hoping to use any recovered money to reimburse AmeriDebt
customers.

Mr. Pukke's attorney said his client was not trying to hide his
funds and denied that he spent excessively on personal items.

AmeriDebt, which was founded by Mr. Pukke in 1996 and was once
based in Germantown, Maryland, agreed earlier this year to shut
down its credit counseling operations. The company, which grew
to become one of the nation's largest nonprofit credit
counseling firms, filed for bankruptcy a year ago.


BARRICINI CANDY: Recalls Products Due to Undeclared Soy Nuts
------------------------------------------------------------
Barricini Candy of Moosic, PA is recalling 690 cases (24,408
units) Catherine's Finest Pecan Caramel Clusters 8 oz. and 85
cases (2,040 units) Shwom's Caramel Pecan Clusters 6 oz.,
because it may contain undeclared soy nuts (soy). People who
have an allergy or severe sensitivity to soy or soy derivatives
run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if
they consume these products.

Catherine's Finest Pecan Clusters and Shwom's Caramel Pecan
Clusters were distributed primarily in California, Maryland,
Michigan, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon,
Texas, Washington, through fund raising organizations.

These candies are packaged in printed boxes with photos of
pecans and chocolate pecan caramel clusters. Boxes are printed
with Catherine's Finest Pecan Caramel Clusters 8 oz.; or Shwom's
Caramel Pecan Clusters 6 oz. UPC 0 75655 00360 7. No illnesses
have been reported to date.

The recall was initiated when a discovery was made during a
review of packaging, that product containing soy nuts (soy) was
distributed in packaging that did not reveal the presence of soy
nuts (soy). Subsequent investigation indicates the problem was a
result of improper labeling on packaging supplied by the
previous ownership of the newly acquired company.

Consumers who have purchased either the Catherine's Finest Pecan
Caramel Clusters or Shwom's Caramel Pecan Clusters are urged to
return it to the place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers
with questions may contact Customer Service at Barricini Candy
directly at 1-800-849-9096.


BERKELEY PREMIUM: OR Attorney General Files Consumer Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Oregon Attorney General Hardy Myers filed a lawsuit against an
Ohio company for misleading Oregonians about the effectiveness
of its so-called "nutraceuticals" or herbal supplements and for
failing to inform consumers who thought that they were receiving
a "free" trial offer when in fact, they were being enrolled in a
plan that automatically billed them for future shipments of
products.  Named in the lawsuit filed in Marion County Circuit
Court are Steve Warshak of Cincinnati, Ohio and his firms
Berkeley Premium Nutraceuticals, Lifekey, Inc., Boland Naturals,
Inc., Warner Health Care, and Wagner Nutraceuticals.

"More than 100 Oregon consumers complained to our office and the
Better Business Bureau about being enticed with the promise of a
free trial offer only to be billed for pill shipments that they
had not ordered," he said. "In addition, these companies
inundated our state with outrageous claims about herbal remedies
and were unable to back them up with scientific evidence. This
type of marketing will not be tolerated in our state."

The Company makes an array of herbal products that claim to
produce "firmer, fuller" erections for men, increased libido for
women and such things as better night vision, memory recall,
weight control and energy.  A silent television character named
Smiling Bob promotes its best-known product, a male enhancement
pill called Enzyte.

The lawsuit alleges that Mr. Warshak's companies, which expected
to take in a quarter of a billion dollars in sales in 2004
through the sale of 15 different products around the nation
(including, Altovis, Avlimil, Avlimil Complete, Dromias, Enzyte,
Mioplex, Ogoplex, Numovil, Pinadol, Prulato, Rogisen, Rovicid,
Suvaril, Nuproxi, and Rudofil) hooked customers with
advertisements, including the "Smiling Bob" Enzyte commercials
and other commercials that resembled advertisements for genuine
pharmaceutical drugs, promising "free" 30-day trials of their
products. When consumers called the companies' toll-free numbers
or visited their websites to order the pills, they were asked to
provide credit or debit card information to pay shipping and
handling charges. But the companies failed to tell consumers
that they would automatically bill them for additional shipments
of pills. When consumers tried to stop the automatic payments
for what the companies called their "continuity program" or
"home delivery plan," Mr. Warshak's companies often made it
difficult for people to cancel their subscriptions or get their
money back.

In addition, the complaint alleges that Mr. Warshak and his
companies made unsubstantiated claims about their products'
effectiveness.  The Company and the other companies described
their products as "the best natural supplements to help improve
your health" and called them "nutraceuticals." The complaint
alleges that in reality, the companies did not have competent
and reliable scientific evidence to back up their advertised
health claims.

The lawsuit seeks restitution for all victims and seeks a
permanent injunction barring Mr. Warshak and his companies from
operating any business in Oregon that deals with prescription
and non-prescription drugs, nutritional supplements or any
products that claim to cure or prevent diseases in humans. The
lawsuit also seeks $25,000 in civil penalties per each Unlawful
Trade Practice violation and reasonable attorney fees.

In addition, the Attorneys General of Illinois, North Carolina,
Ohio, Texas and Arkansas filed similar suits against the Company
in their respective courts. In the multi-state investigation,
there were extensive document review, undercover purchases and
lengthy settlement negotiations that ultimately failed to reach
a settlement so it became necessary for the Attorneys General to
sue.

In March 2005, U.S. Postal Inspectors, the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, the Food and Drug Administration and the Internal
Revenue Service raided three of the Company's buildings in Ohio.
No charges, arrests or indictments have been made and the joint
investigation continues.

Consumers want to file complaints against these companies may
call the Attorney General's consumer hotline at (503) 378-4320
(Salem area only), (503) 229-5576 (Portland area only) or toll-
free at 1-877-877-9392, or visit the Website:
http://www.doj.state.or.us.  


CAR CARE: Ohio Attorney General Initiates Consumer Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ohio Attorney General Jim Petro filed a lawsuit early this month
against an Arizona company for using deceptive advertising
tactics which misled consumers into believing the company was
associated with the consumer's auto dealership or the
manufacturer of the car.  The lawsuit also alleges that Car Care
Warranty, LLC (doing business as Vehicle Owner Warranty
Notification Center) telemarketed in Ohio without being
registered with the Attorney General as a telephone solicitor.

"Our investigation turned up unfair and deceptive advertising
and telemarketing practices by this company," he said. "Ohioans
have suffered due to these bad business practices and I intend
to fight for their rights under Ohio law."

An Attorney General investigation uncovered violations of Ohio's
Consumer Sales Practices Act (CSPA) and Telephone Solicitation
Sales Act (TSSA) in Car Care's use of direct mail and
telemarketing to sell extended service contracts for
automobiles. The Attorney General's investigation revealed that
the company is not associated with any auto dealer or
manufacturer and that the advertising and sales pitch misled
consumers.

The Company also violated the TSSA by not registering as a
telephone solicitor with the Attorney General's Office, failing
to maintain a $50,000 surety bond, and not getting written
permission from consumers before they billed them for the
extended service contracts.

Consumers' complaints state that the extended service contracts
would cost approximately $2,000, with a $400 down payment
usually required. Some complaints allege that consumers did not
receive the contracts in a timely manner or that requests for
refunds were not honored by Car Care.  Attorney General Petro is
requesting that Car Care reimburse all consumers who have been
damaged by the actions of the company, pay a civil penalty of
$25,000 per violation for any CSPA violations, and pay a civil
penalty of up to $25,000 for each TSSA violation.

Car Care is located at 2555 East Camel Back Road, Phoenix,
Arizona.  Consumers can file a complaint online at the Website:
http://www.ag.state.oh.us. If they are not connected to the  
Internet, they may call Attorney General Petro's Consumer
Protection Section, by Phone: 800-282-0515 to have a complaint
form mailed to them.  To view the complaint, visit this Website:
http://www.ag.state.oh.us/press_releases/attachments/050601_comp
laint.pdf.


CARDSYSTEMS INC.: WA AG Seeks More Info on Card Security Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
Washington Attorney General Rob McKenna is requesting that the
company provide information about affected Washington consumers,
after a recently reported security breach at CardSystems, Inc.  
"Remedial steps must be taken immediately to minimize risk to
consumers," he said.

MasterCard International, Inc. announced the breach Friday, June
17,2005 and said it was traced to the Atlanta-based Company,
which processes credit card and other payments for banks and
merchants. Hackers installed a rogue computer program that
extracts data, potentially compromising 40 million accounts from
MasterCard, Visa and other card issuers. Records on roughly
200,000 accounts were apparently stolen, according to news
reports, but not social security numbers or birth dates.

Attorney General McKenna sent a letter today to the Company
seeking details about how the breach occurred and how many
Washington consumers were affected. The letter also asks what
steps the Company is taking to notify consumers and how it plans
to prevent future security breaches.  He asked that the
information be provided by June 30.

"The breach that occurred at CardSystems is the latest in a
disturbing series of cases affecting valuable consumer financial
data," he added. "These events have pushed privacy matters to
the top of the public policy agenda. I look forward to working
with the financial industry, consumer advocates and law
enforcement to determine what, if any, legal and regulatory
changes are needed to protect consumer information and reduce
the risk of fraud."

The Attorney General said consumers should examine their account
statements for suspicious activity. They can also request an
annual free copy of their credit report from the Website:
http://www.annualcreditreport.comor by Phone: (877) 322-8228.
A copy of the letter sent by Mr. McKenna to Linda P. Ford of
CardSystems, Inc. can be viewed at this Website:
http://www.atg.wa.gov/releases/CardSystemsLetter062005.pdf. For  
more information, contact FTC's ID Theft Hotline: 1-877-ID-THEFT
(877-438-4338) or visit the Website:
http://www.consumer.gov/idtheft/,or contact the Attorney  
General's Office Consumer Protection Division by Phone:
800-551-4636 or visit the Website:
http://www.atg.wa.gov/consumer/idprivacy/.


CINCINNATI INSURANCE: IL Judge To Hear Summary Judgment Motion
--------------------------------------------------------------
Madison County Circuit Judge Andy Matoesian is set to hear
Cincinnati Insurance Company's motion for a summary judgment in
a class action case at a hearing June 29, The Madison County
Record reports.

In his suit, Mark Eavenson, which is represented by the Lakin
Law Firm of Wood River, alleges Cincinnati Insurance only paid
part of the claim he filed and accuses the insurance company of
using computer software to uniformly reduce benefits that are
paid to doctors. The class action suit was filed in October
2003.

Additionally, Mr. Eavenson, a Granite City chiropractor, who has
initiated more than 25 class action suits in Madison County, is
also claiming that prior to treating a Cincinnati-insured
patient for personal injuries sustained in a 2001 workplace
accident, he had obtained a valid assignment of claim, which was
recognized by Cincinnati through its partial payment of the
expenses.

Mr. Eavenson claims that he billed Cincinnati more than $1,000
for the medical treatment, which he claims was reasonable for
the services provided. Cincinnati allegedly only paid him part
of the claim, Mr. Eaverson's suit states.  He further alleges
that biased software used by Cincinnati arbitrarily lowers the
cap that does not reflect actual reasonable expenses of
practitioners and that Cincinnati uses this database knowing it
is biased and designed to reduce what are in fact reasonable
charges.


CITIFINANCIAL: Informs 3.9M Customers About Lost Computer Tapes
---------------------------------------------------------------
CitiFinancial has begun mailing letters to 3.9 million
CitiFinancial Branch Network customers whose personal
information was on computer tapes that were lost by UPS while in
transit to a credit bureau, West Virginia Attorney General
Darrell McGraw announced in a statement.  

The tapes contained information about CitiFinancial branch
network customers in the United States as well as customers with
closed accounts from CitiFinancial Retail Services.  The tapes
did not contain any customer information from CitiFinancial
Auto, CitiFinancial Mortgage or any other Citigroup business.  
CitiFinancial said it had no reason to believe that this
information has been used inappropriately, nor has it received
any reports of unauthorized activity.  Furthermore, there was no
information on these tapes relating to customers of the
CitiFinancial network operations in Canada or Puerto Rico.

"We deeply regret this incident, which occurred in spite of the
enhanced security procedures we require of our couriers," said
Mr. Kevin Kessinger, Executive Vice President of Citigroup's
Global Consumer Group and President of Consumer Finance North
America.  "There is little risk of the accounts being
compromised because customers have already received their loans,
and no additional credit may be obtained from CitiFinancial
without prior approval of our customers, either by initiating a
new application or by providing positive proof of
identification.  Beginning in July, this data will be sent
electronically in encrypted form."

"We are making every effort to ensure that our customers are
aware of what we are doing and what we suggest they do to
protect their identity.  We are committed to ensuring that our
customers have the support they need to monitor their credit and
know how to respond should they identify any problems,"
concluded Mr. Kessinger.

"Customer security is of paramount importance to Citigroup,"
said Mr. Debby Hopkins, Chief Operations and Technology Office
of Citigroup.  "While this incident affects the customers of
only one of our businesses, we put significant effort into
assuring that our data protection procedures meet and exceed
industry standards at all of our businesses, and are reviewing
the issues here as part of this ongoing effort."


CONSUMER REWARDS: ND AG Issues Cease-and-Desist Order For Fraud
---------------------------------------------------------------
North Dakota Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem issued earlier
this month a Cease and Desist Order against a California
business, Consumer Rewards Network, and its affiliates Mega
Movie Club, Health Net and Net Forever.

The Company is believed to be engaging in deceptive telephone
solicitations in North Dakota. The Company has been calling
consumers claiming to be from Wal-Mart and offering consumers
vouchers for Wal-Mart shopping sprees worth up to $500, in
return for which the consumer agrees to pay a nominal fee by
automatic bank withdrawal. The consumers were asked for bank
account information and to authorize automatic withdrawal. The
Company used the account information to commit the consumer to
various additional and automatic charges for movie and health
services.

Wal-Mart has not authorized the calls, or any vouchers for
shopping sprees, and is not affiliated with the bogus
solicitations.  "This is not a legitimate offer by Wal-Mart and
anyone receiving one of these calls should not agree to purchase
and should not under any circumstances provide bank account or
other personal information. Once a business has a consumer's
bank account information, it can control the account. The
business can make many withdrawals or simply empty the account
before a consumer realizes it," cautioned the Attorney General.

In response to complaints, Attorney General Stenehjem's Consumer
Protection Division investigated the Company and its affiliates.
The investigation exposed the Companies' fraudulent practices
and prompted him to issue the Cease and Desist Order prohibiting
the Company from conducting business in North Dakota.

Violations of the order subject the business to civil penalties
up to $1,000 per violation of the Order. The solicitations also
are violations of the consumer fraud law and could result in
civil penalties up to $5,000 per violation.  

Consumers who are solicited by this business should contact the
Attorney General's Consumer Protection Division by Phone:
1-800-472-2600 (toll-free).


CRAFTMATIC ORGANIZATION: OH AG Files Second Consumer Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ohio Attorney General Jim Petro filed earlier this month a
second consumer protection lawsuit in Franklin County Common
Pleas Court, Ohio against Craftmatic Organization, Inc., of
Trevose, and J KAZ (doing business as Craftmatic of Pittsburgh),
of Verona, both in Pennsylvania.  The companies market and sell
Craftmatic beds.

"Since we first sued them for preying on our most vulnerable
citizens, our fact-finding turned up additional instances where
Craftmatic broke the law," The Attorney General said. "We aim to
put a stop to Craftmatic's illegal advertising and sales tactics
in Ohio."

In a complaint filed with the court, he says the companies
illegally engaged in deceptive price comparisons, false
advertising, making false or misleading statements, high
pressure sales tactics, Home Solicitation Sales Act violations,
deceptive warranty practices, direct solicitation violations,
bait and switch advertising, false claims of medical benefits,
failure to disclose material financing terms, failure to
disclose material contract terms, illegal attorney fee provision
in consumer contracts, unfair and deceptive and unconscionable
business practices.  The lawsuit asks for a permanent
injunction, consumer restitution, and fines against the Company.

Attorney General Petro's first lawsuit, filed in the same court
on December 29, 2003, said the Company violated Ohio consumer
sales practices law in its use of high-pressure sales tactics,
illegal pricing, and false advertising. Most of the victims were
elderly with physical infirmities.  Mr. Petro said that after
the suit was filed, as his staff reviewed documents obtained
from Craftmatic and conducted detailed consumer interviews, they
discovered significant additional violations of the state
Consumer Sales Practices Act and numerous violations of Ohio's
Home Sales Solicitation Act.

For more information visit the Website:
http://www.ag.state.oh.usor access the complaint at the  
Website:
http://www.ag.state.oh.us/press_releases/attachments/050602b_com
plaint.pdf


DESIGNER SHOE: Ohio AG Petro Sues V. Breach of Customer Privacy
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ohio Attorney General Jim Petro asked a court to order Ohio-
based shoe retailer Designer Shoe Warehouse (DSW, INC.) to
individually notify each customer whose personal information may
have been stolen recently from DSW computer files, in early June
2005.  Ohio is the first state to sue the retailer over one of
the biggest security breaches of its kind in the nation.

"DSW has acknowledged that a security breach led to the loss of
more than one million customers' checking and credit
information, yet the company has not individually notified each
customer to warn them about this mishap," the Attorney General
said. "As we have said repeatedly, we see no reason why DSW,
working with the credit card companies and the underlying
issuing banks, cannot arrange for direct notification of every
affected consumer."

He said the consumers should be put on notice to more carefully
review their accounts and take steps to ensure the safety of
their accounts and personal information. As part of a lawsuit he
filed against the Company in Franklin County Common Pleas Court,
Petro asked the court to order DSW to directly notify in writing
approximately 700,000 customers affected by the security breach
and to find that the company's failure to do so is a violation
of Ohio's Consumer Sales Practices Act.

The Company, based in Columbus with retail stores in more than
30 states, including Ohio, reported in early March that computer
files containing customers' personal information it retained
from consumer transactions from mid-November 2004 to mid-
February of this year had been stolen. The news prompted
responses from Attorney General Petro admonishing the Company to
notify all affected customers.

The stolen data included DSW customers' names, credit card
numbers, debit card numbers, checking account numbers, and
driver's license numbers - information the customers had
provided to the Company in the course of nearly 1.5 million
transactions at 108 stores in Ohio and elsewhere, according to
the Attorney General's complaint. The complaint says the
Company's failure to contact each customer is an "unfair or
deceptive act or practice" in violation of section 1345.02(A) of
the Ohio Revised Code.

For more details, contact Mark Anthony, Attorney General's
Office, by Phone: (614) 466-3840 or view the Complaint at the
Website:
http://www.ag.state.oh.us/press_releases/attachments/050606_comp
laint.pdf.


DEWALT INDUSTRIAL: Recalls 185 Compressors Due to Shock Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC), DeWALT Industrial Tool Company, Baltimore, Maryland is
voluntarily recalling about 185 DeWALT Model D55143 Three-Gallon
Hand-Carry Oil Free Air Compressors.

Due to a wiring insulation defect, the unit may pose a possible
shock hazard.  

Only DeWALT D55143 three-gallon hand-carry oil free air
compressors with the following date codes: 200448, 200453,
200502 through 200505, 200508, and 200509 are included in the
recall. The date code is printed on the name plate on the rear
air tank of the unit. Units marked with an "R" on the end cap of
the unit are not included in this recall.

Manufactured in China, the compressors were sold at all home
center and hardware stores nationwide from January 2005 through
April 2005 for about $250.

Consumers should stop using the compressors immediately and
contact DeWALT for the location of the nearest service center to
receive a free inspection or repair if necessary.

Consumer Contact: For additional information, contact DeWALT at
(866) 397-3228 between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. ET Monday through
Friday or visit the firm's Web site: http://www.DeWALT.com.


DITECH COMMUNICATIONS: Shareholders File Stock Fraud Suits in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ditech Communications Corporation and certain of its officers
face several securities class actions filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, on
behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock from August
25,2004 to May 26,2005.

Several purported shareholder class action lawsuits have been
filed against the Company and certain of its officers alleging
that the defendants violated federal securities laws by making
misrepresentations regarding the Company's business condition.
Specifically, Defendants represented that the Company had
received two significant Voice Quality Assurance ("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, the orders were not
solidified. The purported customers were not obligated to, and,
did not purchase the services.

Additionally, it is alleged that the Company misrepresented the
impact of the merger between Sprint and Nextel. Given the fact
that Nextel accounted for over 40% of the Company's revenues,
certain securities analysts posited that the cost cutting and
integration of Nextel and Sprint operations might result in less
business for the Company.  In response, defendants represented
that the merger should not be of concern to Company investors
and that it was "quite good" for the Company. In fact, as
defendants knew the Nextel-Sprint merger posed a serious threat
to the Company's business, one that could erase nearly half of
its revenues.

While the price of Company shares was artificially inflated by
defendants' false statements and failures to disclose, Company
insiders sold a total of 320,000 of their personally held
Company 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 Company 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 complaints further allege that the truth about the impact of
the Nextel-Sprint merger on the Company was revealed after the
close of trading on May 26, 2005. At that time, the Company
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, Company common stock dropped by
38%, to $7.79 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

The first identified complaint in the litigation is styled
"Richard E. Jaffe, et al. v. Ditech Communications Corp., et
al., case no. 05-CV-02406," filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California.  The plaintiff
firms in this litigation are:

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

    (ii) Dyer & Shuman, LLP, 801 East 17th Avenue, Denver, CO,
         80218-1417, Phone: 303.861.3003, Fax: 800.711.6483, E-
         mail: info@dyershuman.com

   (iii) Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP, 355 South Grand
         Avenue, Suite 4170, Los Angeles, CA, 90071, Phone:
         213.617.9007, Fax: 213.617.9185, E-mail:
         info@milbergweiss.com

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

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


DRDGOLD LIMITED: Shareholders Launch Securities Suits in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
DRDGOLD Limited (formerly known as Durban Roodeport Deep,
Limited) and certain of its present and former executive
officers face several shareholder class actions filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, on behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities from
October 23,2003 to February 24,2005.

Several purported shareholder class action lawsuits have been
filed against the Company and certain of its present and former
executive officers alleging that defendants violated federal
securities laws. Specifically, defendants made numerous
statements regarding:

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

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

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

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

The first identified complaint in the litigation is styled "Noam
Rand, et al. v. DRDGOLD Limited, et al.," filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York.  
The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

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

    (ii) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
         (Melville), 200 Broadhollow, Suite 406, Melville, NY,
         11747, Phone: 631.367.7100, Fax: 631.367.1173, E-mail:
         info@lerachlaw.com

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


EASTMAN KODAK: Shareholders Launch Stock Fraud Suits in C.D. CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Eastman Kodak Company and certain of its officers and directors
face several shareholder class actions filed in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California, on
behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities from April
23,2003 to September 25,2003.

The suits allege that the Company and certain of its officers
and directors violated federal securities laws.  Specifically,
the suits allege that the Company's financial guidance for the
second quarter of 2003, first issued on April 23, 2003, was
improper given undisclosed problems within the company.

On September 25, 2003, the Company announced that its then-
existing business model had been failing throughout the Class
Period and, as a result of operating difficulties, it would be
forced cut its historic dividend by 72%.  On this news, its
stock price plummeted by 18% to an 18 year-low on September 25,
2003.

The first identified complaint in the litigation is styled
"Herbert T. King, et al. v. Eastman Kodak Company, et al.,"
filed in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California.  The plaintiff firms in this litigation
are:

     (1) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
         (Melville), 200 Broadhollow, Suite 406, Melville, NY,
         11747, Phone: 631.367.7100, Fax: 631.367.1173, E-mail:
         info@lerachlaw.com

     (2) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins (San
         Diego), 401 B Street, Suite 1700, San Diego, CA, 92101,
         Phone: 619.231.1058, Fax: 619.231.7423, E-mail:
         info@lerachlaw.com

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

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


EXIDE TECHNOLOGIES: Shareholders Launch Stock Fraud Suits in NJ
---------------------------------------------------------------
Exide Technologies, Inc. and certain of its present and former
executive officers and/or directors face several securities
class actions filed in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey, on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
securities from November 16,2004 to May 17,2005.

Several purported shareholder class action lawsuits were filed
against the Company and certain of its present and former
executive officers and/or directors alleging defendants violated
sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5, by
issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market
during the Class Period.

Specifically, the complaints alleges that the Company, a
producer and recycler of lead-acid batteries, was heavily
dependent on financing to support its operations during the
Class Period, having emerged from bankruptcy protection in May
2004.  The Company had negotiated a $365 million senior secured
credit facility which required the Company to comply with
several financial covenants, including that the Company maintain
a specified ratio of debt to equity (the "Leverage Ratio
Covenant"), and that the Company maintain minimum consolidated
earnings before income, taxes, depreciation, amortization
("EBITDA") (the "EBITDA Covenant") (collectively, with the
Leverage Ratio Covenant, the "Covenants").

Throughout the Class Period, defendants represented that the
Company could maintain compliance with the Covenants because,
among other things, they had reorganized the Company's business,
successfully implemented cost-savings measures and increased
productivity. In addition, defendants stated that they had
hedged against commodity price fluctuations, including the price
of lead, which was the primary material used in the production
of batteries.

On February 14, 2005, defendants revealed that the Company was
in violation of the Leverage Ratio Covenant, however, assured
investors, that Exide's lenders would waive the Leverage Ratio
Covenant. Moreover, defendants emphasized that the Company was
in compliance with the EBITDA Covenant, and that it was not at
risk of defaulting on the credit facility.

The complaints further allege that the truth began to emerge on
May 16, 2005. On that day, after the market closed, defendants
issued a press release stating they expected Exide to violate
the Covenants for the fiscal year-ended March 31, 2005 as a
result of the "impact of commodity costs; the loss of overhead
absorption due to an inventory-reduction initiative; other
fourth-quarter inventory valuation adjustments; and costs
associated with Sarbanes-Oxley compliance efforts." In reaction
to this announcement, the price of Exide stock, which had closed
at $11.15 per share on May 16, 2005, fell to an opening price of
$5.75 per share the following trading day, representing a one-
day decline of $5.40, or 48%, and closed out the day at $6.88
per share on extremely heavy volume of over nine million shares,
50 times the daily average volume.

On May 17, 2005, after the market closed, defendant Gargaro made
the following additional shocking revelations:

     (1) the Company expected to report adjusted EBITDA of $100
         million to $107 million for the full-year 2005, and
         therefore, failed to satisfy the minimum EBITDA
         Covenant which required minimum EBITDA of $130 million;

     (2) several "unanticipated and unusual items," including
         write-offs of obsolete and discontinued products, had
         resulted in a reduction of earnings of between $15
         million and $20 million;

     (3) the Company lacked the ability to properly forecast its
         inventory requirements; and

     (4) the Company had violated the terms of a contract with a
         large customer and, consequently, was required to
         record an adjustment of $1.5 to $2 million.

In reaction to this news, the price of Exide shares fell another
$1.55, or 22 %, from their closing price of $6.88 on May 17,
2005, to close at $5.33 on May 18, 2005. Defendants were
motivated to commit the fraud alleged herein so that Exide could
complete a $350 million private placement of senior notes and
floating rate convertible senior subordinated notes.

The first identified complaint in the litigation is styled
"Aviva Partners LLC, et al. v. Exide Technologies, et al.,"
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey.  The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

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

    (ii) 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

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


FF ACQUISITION: Recalls 10K Yerk-Dog Go-Karts For Injury Hazards
----------------------------------------------------------------
In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC), FF Acquisition Wheeled Goods Corp. of West Point,
Mississippi is voluntarily recalling about 10,000 Yerf-Dog Go-
Karts.

The suspension assembly can crack causing the rider to lose
control of the go-kart. The manufacturer has received five
reports of the suspension assembly cracking and causing the
rider to lose control, including reports of bruises and head and
back injuries.

This recall involves one- and two-seater model Yerf-Dog
Spiderbox series go-karts. The go-karts have full suspension and
150cc engines. Date codes and model numbers are located on a
plate attached to the engine casing. Date codes and model
numbers included in this recall are:

Model = Date Codes
3206 = July 20, 2004 through March 4, 2005
4209 = July 20, 2004 through February 18, 2005
42092 = July 20, 2004 through November 22, 2004
42093 = August 9, 2004 through November 19, 2004
42101 = July 28, 2004 through October 12, 2004

Manufactured in the United States, the Go-Karts were sold at all
Yerf-Dog dealers nationwide from July 2004 through May 2005 for
between $1,500 and $1,800.

Consumers should stop using the recalled go-karts immediately
and contact FF Acquisition Wheeled Goods for repair information.
Registered owners will be notified directly about the recall.

Consumer Contact: For additional information, contact FF
Acquisition Wheeled Goods Corp. at (800) 683-0072 between 8 a.m.
and 5 p.m. CT Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web
site: http://www.yerf-dog.com.


FLEETWOOD ENTERPRISES: Recalls 8 Trailers Due to Crash Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------
Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. is cooperating with the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration by voluntarily recalling 8
travel trailers, namely:

     (1) FLEETWOOD / ORBIT 190XP, model 2006

     (2) FLEETWOOD / ORBIT 260XP, model 2006

These travel trailers have unsupported fresh water and holding
tanks.  The tanks require straps in order to prevent them from
separating from the travel trailer.  If the tank fell off while
the travel trailer is in motion, damage to following vehicles
could occur, increasing the risk of a crash.

Dealers will inspect and install support straps underneath the
fresh water and holding tanks.  The recall is expected to begin
on July 12,2005.  For more details contact the Company by Phone:
800-509-3418 or contact the NHTSA's auto safety hotline:
1-888-327-4236.


FLORIDA: Lawsuit Launched V. Man Running Illegal Loan Operation
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit was launched against a man accused of
running an illegal loan operation, The News4Jax.com reports.

According to authorities, John Gill preyed on mostly cash-
strapped military personnel and charged them anywhere from 540
to 11,000 percent interest in exchange for Internet time.  Lynn
Drysdale, a consumer attorney for Jacksonville Area Legal Aid,
Inc., which filed the lawsuit told News4Jax.com, "I cannot think
of a worse scam that we have seen in this community," said.

In additional, Ms. Drysdale told News4Jax.com that Mr. Gill,
owner of Florida Internet, used his business as a way to
illegally issue loans and steal money from unsuspecting
customers. Consumers would sign a contract for Internet time and
give Gill a post-dated or voided check. In return, the business
would hand over a rebate subtracting the cost for using the
Internet. She further explains, "The only thing that he really
needed was the routing number off the bottom of the check.
Because with that, he could automatically withdraw the money
from your account without notice."

Investigators stated that Mr. Gill would give customers two
weeks to repay the loan in full. If they did not, he would
charge an inflated interest that fluctuated indefinitely until
all the money could be repaid.  However, according to Ms.
Drysdale that was not all. She told News4Jax.com, "If you signed
the contract, only $60 was required, but then he would throw in
bounced check fees and late fees and all sorts of things."

Police records revealed that this was not the first time Mr.
Gill has been in trouble with the law. In 1998, according to the
records, he signed an agreement with the state attorney's office
in Escambia County that prohibited him from doing any more
business in Florida. Also, he was banned from conducting
business in New York, Georgia and North Carolina.

The Jacksonville Sheriff's Office asks that victims of this scam
contact them or the Jacksonville Area Legal Aid at
(904) 356-8371, ext. 306.


FORD MOTOR: Appellate Court Decertifies FL Suit Over Police Cars
----------------------------------------------------------------
A three-judge panel of the 1st District Court of Appeal reversed
a trial judge's ruling that would have expanded a Florida
Panhandle sheriff's lawsuit over the safety of Ford patrol cars
to include police agencies throughout the state, The Associated
Press reports.

Unanimously decertifying the case as a class action, the
appellate court ruled that Circuit Judge G. Robert Barron failed
to make findings of fact as required by procedural rules. The
panel wrote, "Absent specific findings, we cannot discern
whether the trial court applied the correct analysis when making
its decision."

Okaloosa County Sheriff Charlie Morris contends Crown Victoria
Police Interceptors made by Ford Motor Co. are unsafe because
several of the cars have exploded in flames when hit from
behind. It is among a series of similar lawsuits across the
nation.  The Company contends the car is safe even earning the
federal government's highest crash rating.

In a news release from Company headquarters in Dearborn,
Michigan, Doug Lampe, one of the Company's lawyers, hailed the
ruling as a victory that will allow continued sales to Florida
police departments. He also stated in the release, "Ford knew
from working closely with Florida law enforcement agencies that
the officers themselves believe in the Police Interceptor and
had very little interest in joining this litigation."

Despite the lawsuit Mr. Morris tried to buy more cars from Ford,
but the Company refused to sell to his department in July 2003,
a year after he sued. Judge Barron rejected a request by Mr.
Morris to force Ford to sell cars to him.

As a final note, the statement from Ford, also pointed out,
"Ford is committed to making a safe car even safer, but
courtroom engineering is not the answer. To improve officer
safety in traffic stops requires a focus on the root problem:
drunk driving."


GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls Sport Utility Vehicles For Crash Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Corporation is cooperating with the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration by voluntarily recalling
14,600 sport utility vehicles, namely:

     (1) BUICK / TERRAZA, model 2005

     (2) CHEVROLET / UPLANDER, model 2005

     (3) PONTIAC / MONTANA, model 2005

     (4) SATURN / RELAY, model 2005

These sport utility vehicles fail to conform to the requirements
of federal motor vehicle safety standard no. 135, "passenger car
brake systems."  To meet the standard, the vehicle must not move
for five minutes when stopped on a steep hill with the parking
brake applied and the vehicle in neutral (N).  Some of these
vehicles failed this test.

When the parking brake is released, the driver may notice
unintended braking when accelerating, decelerating or coasting
and a noise coming from the rear of the vehicle.  Unintended
vehicle movement could occur increasing the risk of a crash.

Dealers will inspect for parking brake lever slippage at each
rear brake caliper and replace the caliper if lever slippage is
identified.  The recall is expected to begin during September
2005.  For more details, contact Buick by Phone: 1-866-608-8080,
Chevrolet by Phone: 1-800-630-2438, Pontiac by Phone:
1-800-620-7668, or Saturn by Phone: 1-800-972-8876, or contact
the NHTSA's auto safety hotline: 1-888-327-4236.


GUIDANT CORPORATION: NY Law Firms File Suit Over Defibrillators
---------------------------------------------------------------
Manhattan law firms Weitz & Luxenberg, PC and Seeger Weiss, LLP
jointly filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of patients
implanted with malfunctioning defibrillators manufactured by
Guidant Corporation.

Guidant, which has been in acquisition talks with pharmaceutical
giant Johnson & Johnson, has recalled the VENTAK PRIZM 2 DR
(Model 1861), the CONTAK RENEWAL (Models H135 and H155) and the
VENTAK PRIZM AVT, VITALITY AVT, and RENEWAL 4 AVT ICDs after the
devices failed to work properly.

According to Guidant's press release of June 17, 2005, the PRIZM
2 model has had 28 reports of failure and one death in 26,000
devices built before April 2002. The CONTAK model has 15 reports
of failure and one death in 16,000 devices built before August
of 2004. Both models have a flaw that causes a short circuit,
preventing the defibrillator from delivering a shock to a heart
in fibrillation.

The VENTAK PRIZM AVT, VITALITY AVT, and RENEWAL 4 AVT ICDs have
a memory error causing two confirmed malfunctions in 21,000
implants. The memory error requires the devices to be
reprogrammed.

Guidant has already come under scrutiny for failing to tell
doctors and patients for three years about a flaw in the VENTAK
PRIZM 2 Model 1861 that could cause a short-circuit. While
Guidant informed the FDA of the malfunction in its August 2003
annual report, it has been asserted that the company made no
move to alert doctors or heart patients of the malfunction until
after it was told that the New York Times was preparing an
article on May 23, 2005 about the faulty devices.

Patients who have been implanted with the flawed devices now
face difficult medical and emotional choices, since the faulty
defibrillators most likely require replacement. Defibrillator
patients will be forced to undergo dangerous cardiac surgery or
cope with the stress and mental anguish of not knowing if their
defibrillator might malfunction at a critical moment. They must
also contend with lost wages, medical bills, and rehabilitative
expenses following replacement surgery.

For more details, visit the firms' respective Web sites:
http://www.weitzlux.comand http://www.seegerweiss.com.


HAULMARK INDUSTRIES: Recalls 1003 Trailers Due To Crash Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
Haulmark Industries, Inc. is cooperating with the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration by voluntarily recalling
1003 HAULMARK trailers, model 2005.

These tandem axle enclosed trailers with a gross vehicle weight
rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds and under, may have defective
ball couplers (Manufacturing Date of N0315) which could fail in
certain situations.  Should the coupler fail, the trailer may
disconnect from the towing vehicle, which could result in a
crash.

Owners should inspect the coupler to see if the date code is
NO315.  Haulmakr will arrange for the completion of the
necessary repairs without charge.  The recall is expected to
begin during June or July 2005.  For more details, contact the
Company by Phone: 1-866-393-6053 or contact the NHTSA's auto
safety hotline: 1-888-327-4236.


HYTRIN LITIGATION: SD Consumers To Receive Share in Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Consumers who purchased the brand-name prescription medication
Hytrin are eligible for refunds from a $30.7-million nationwide
settlement agreement, South Dakota Attorney General Larry Long
announced in a statement earlier this month.  The refunds to
consumers and third-party payers in 18 states will be paid by
two companies who, the complaint alleged, had conspired to
engage in anticompetitive conduct that delayed the availability
of a more affordable generic version of the medication.

Hytrin, which is used in the treatment of hypertension and
enlarged prostate, is manufactured by Abbott Laboratories, and
the generic version (called "terazosin") is produced by Geneva
Pharmaceuticals. According to a federal lawsuit, Abbott
wrongfully paid Geneva to delay introduction of its generic
version of Hytrin and took other steps to delay competition from
lower-priced generic versions of its product. This illegal
activity harmed consumers.

Under the settlement agreement, which is still subject to final
court approval, Abbott and Geneva would provide $28.7 million
for consumers and third-party payers in South Dakota and 17
other states. The most direct way for consumers to obtain claims
forms is through the settlement website:
http://www.terazosinlitigation.com.Claims forms must be mailed  
to the settlement administrator no later than July 15, 2005.

The settlement will benefit consumers who purchased terazosin
products between October 15, 1995, and March 7, 2005, and
amounts of refunds will depend on how many consumers file claims
against the settlement fund. The settlement applies to consumers
and third-party payers in Alabama, California, Florida,
Illinois, Kansas, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi,
Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota,
South Dakota, Tennessee, West Virginia and Wisconsin.

Between 1999 and 2001, a number of consumers filed lawsuits
against Abbott and Geneva. The cases were consolidated into a
single lawsuit in federal court in the Southern District of
Florida. After conducting their own investigations, the states
of Florida, Kansas and Colorado filed their own lawsuit in the
same court. The settlement establishes a separate $2 million
fund to reimburse state agency claims and litigation costs
incurred by Florida, Kansas and Colorado.

Consumers may obtain a claims form from the settlement website,
http://www.terazosinlitigation.com;by calling the settlement  
administrator toll-free at 1-877-886-0283; or by writing to the
settlement administrator at: In re Terazosin Hydrochloride
Antitrust Litigation, c/o Complete Claim Solutions, Inc.
P.O. Box 24607, West Palm Beach, FL 33416.


HYTRIN LITIGATION: ND Consumers to Receive Antitrust Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Consumers who purchased the brand-name prescription medication
Hytrin may be eligible for refunds from a $30.7-million
nationwide settlement agreement, North Dakota Attorney General
Wayne Stenehjem announced in a statement earlier this month.

Hytrin is used in the treatment of hypertension and enlarged
prostate.  According to a federal lawsuit, Abbott Laboratories,
which manufactures Hytrin, paid Geneva Pharmaceuticals to delay
introduction of its generic version of the drug.  Under the
settlement agreement, which is still subject to final court
approval, Abbott and Geneva will pay $28.7 million for consumers
and third-party payers in North Dakota and 17 other states.

Consumers who purchased terazosin products between October 15,
1995, and March 7, 2005 may request a refund. The refund amount
will depend on how many consumers file claims against the
settlement fund. Consumers can obtain claim forms from the
settlement website at: http://www.terazosinlitigation.com;by  
calling the settlement administrator toll-free at
1-877-886-0283; or by writing to the settlement administrator
at:
In re Terazosin Hydrochloride Antitrust Litigation, c/o Complete
Claim Solutions, Inc., P.O. Box 24607, West Palm Beach, FL
33416. Claims forms must be mailed to the settlement
administrator's address no later than July 15, 2005.

The settlement applies to consumers and third-party payers in
Alabama, California, Florida, Illinois, Kansas, Maine, Michigan,
Minnesota, Mississippi, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North
Carolina, North Dakota, South Dakota, Tennessee, West Virginia
and Wisconsin.


INDIANA: Disappointed Formula One Fan Lodges Compensation Claim
---------------------------------------------------------------
Formula One fan, Larry Bowers initiated a class action suit
following the debacle at the recent United States Grand Prix in
Indianapolis, Indiana when 14 out of 20 cars refused to race,
The Malaysia Star reports.

The Colorado resident with aid from his lawyer William Bock III
are seeking for compensation from the motor sport's governing
body FIA, the Formula One Administration (FOA), tire
manufacturer Michelin as well as the Indianapolis Motor
Speedway, accusing them of "fraud".

According to Mr. Bowers suit, only six of 20 cars--those using
Bridgestone tires instead of Michelin--took part in the race,
which was won by Ferrari's Michael Schumacher ahead of teammate
Rubens Barrichello. Michelin had told its partners that racing
was unsafe after it failed to find out what caused two crashes
during practice last week.

In light of the fiasco, FIA President, Max Mosley, has called
for monetary compensation for the over 100,000 fans who paid
around $100 entrance to watch the race. Quoted by the British
media, he said, "I think that Michelin and the seven teams
should compensate the spectators. With their refusal to take
part in the race, they have damaged the sport and themselves."

Even Formula One superstar Bernie Ecclestone criticized
Michelin, calling the tiremaker "stupid" for not having tires
capable of surviving a race at Indianapolis.

However, former world champion Nigel Mansell told the Daily Mail
that Michelin was to be commended for the decision saying, "You
cannot blame Michelin. I thought it was very brave of them to
declare their concern over the integrity of their product and
advise the teams."


KPMG LLP: Bernstein Litowitz To Prosecute Tax Shelters Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP ("BLBG"), the law firm
responsible for the historic $6.2 billion WorldCom class action
recovery, is prosecuting the class action lawsuit against
accounting giant KPMG LLP, Presidio Advisors, Deutsche Bank, and
the renowned law firm Sidley Austin Brown & Wood ("Sidley
Austin"), and others for their involvement in a scheme to
defraud taxpayers of millions of dollars in fees from abusive
and fraudulent tax shelters known as "Offshore Portfolio
Investment Strategy" (OPIS), and "Bond-linked Issue Premium
Structure" (BLIPS).

Filed in January 2005 in the Circuit Court of Clark County,
Arkansas on behalf of lead plaintiff, Thomas Becnel, and all
other OPIS and BLIPS participants, the strength of the case was
highlighted with KPMG's recent and very public admission that it
engaged in "unlawful conduct" that seriously harmed KPMG's
clients.

KPMG and the other defendants collected tens of millions of
dollars in fees from the OPIS and BLIPS schemes, even though, as
the complaint alleges, defendants knew they were abusive tax
shelters that lacked any economic substance and were highly
unlikely to be approved by the IRS. Indeed, while defendants
targeted and marketed OPIS and BLIPS to Becnel and each class
member as legitimate transactions that would produce financial
gain or lawful tax losses to minimize tax liability, the truth
began to come to light only after the U.S. Senate investigated
the schemes and revealed the illegal nature of these products.

Thomas Becnel, speaking on behalf of himself and fellow class
members from his home in Destin, Florida, said: "We relied on
defendants' representations that these products were legitimate
and have been subjected to millions of dollars in damages
because they were not."

"As a businessman, this is not the type of behavior I expect
from my professional advisors, especially when they are as
seemingly well-respected as KPMG, Presidio, Deutsche Bank, and
Sidley Austin," Mr. Becnel added.

In addition to the Senate's investigation, KPMG has been under
investigation by a Federal Grand Jury in New York for more than
a year, because of its consultation on and involvement in
abusive tax shelters from 1996 to 2002. Concern that prosecutors
might be close to issuing an indictment sparked fears that the
firm might implode and is largely considered to have been the
catalyst for KPMG's public admission of guilt.

"While KPMG may or may not be indicted, we intend to press very
hard to recover the class's damages on an expedited basis and to
seek punitive damages given the egregiousness of defendants'
actions," according to BLBG partner Jerry Silk. This class
action is the device available to OPIS and BLIPs participants to
recover damages without bringing their own lawsuit.

The suit is styled, Thomas R. Becnel, et al. v. KPMG, Presidio
Advisors, Presidio Growth, Deutsche Bank, Deutsche Bank
Securities, Bayerische Hypo Und Vereinsbank, Quellos Group, QA
Investments, Quadra Capital Management, and Sidley Austin Brown
& Wood, #CV-2005-18, which was filed in the Circuit Court of
Clark County, Arkansas. The law firm of Bernstein Litowitz
Berger & Grossmann, LLP, represents the lead plaintiff, Thomas
R. Becnel.

For more details, contact Jerry Silk of Bernstein Litowitz
Berger & Grossmann LLP, Phone: 212-554-1282 Email:
Jerry@blbglaw.com, Web site:
http://www.blbglaw.com/cases/KPMG_tax_shelter_fraud.html.


MAGMA DESIGN: Shareholders Launch Securities Lawsuits in N.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Magma Design Automation, Inc. and certain of its officers and
directors face several securities class actions filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, on behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities
from October 23,2002 to April 12,2005.

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

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

Also included are all those who acquired Company shares through
its acquisitions of Majave, Random Logic, Aplus Design or
Silicon Metrics.

The first identified complaint in the litigation is styled "The
Cornelia I. Crowell GST Trust, et al. v. Magma Design
Automation, Inc., et al., case no. 05-CV-02394," filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.  The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

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

     (2) Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP (SF), 455 Market Street,
         Suite 1810, San Francisco, CA, 94105, Phone:
         (415) 972-8160, Fax: (415) 972-8166, E-mail:     
         info@glancylaw.com

     (3) Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP, 355 South Grand
         Avenue, Suite 4170, Los Angeles, CA, 90071, Phone:
         (213) 617-9007, Fax: (213) 617-9185, E-mail:
         info@milbergweiss.com

     (4) 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

     (5) Schatz & Nobel, P.C., 330 Main Street, Hartford, CT,
         06106, Phone: (800) 797-5499, Fax: (860) 493-6290, E-        
         mail: sn06106@AOL.com


MASTERCARD INTERNATIONAL: WI AG Bares Warning On Security Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wisconsin Attorney General Peg Lautenschlager issued a consumer
alert warning Wisconsin credit card holders that their account
information may have been compromised in what appears to be the
largest security breach reported yet -- this time reported by
MasterCard.  

"To protect against theft, all credit card holders -- especially
MasterCard card holders -- should thoroughly scrutinize their
monthly statements for fraudulent transactions," Attorney
General Lutenschlager said.  "If any unauthorized charges are
found, the cardholder should immediately stop using the credit
card and contact the financial institution that issued the
card."  

On Friday, MasterCard International, Inc., reported a massive
computer system breach that took place at the Atlanta-based
credit card processing company, CardSystems Solutions.  The
breach occurred when consumer records stored in the credit card
processing company's computer system were penetrated by data
thieves.  As many as 40 million accounts with major credit card
companies were exposed in the incident, although it is not clear
how many of the exposed account numbers were actually stolen.  
CardSystems Solutions' chief executive, John M. Perry,
acknowledged Sunday that under rules established by Visa and
MasterCard, the processing company should not have retained the
records that were exposed.

A spokesperson for MasterCard stated the Company immediately
notified customer banks of specific card accounts that may have
been subject to compromise so they can watch for fraud.  

CardSystems Solutions processes transactions with various credit
card companies including Visa, MasterCard, American Express,
Discover and MBNA.  So far only MasterCard knows of specific
instances of fraud as a result of the security breach.  It
reported that as many as 13.9 million MasterCard accounts had
been exposed to possible fraud.   This incident is just the
latest in a series of reported security breaches including
Citigroup, ChoicePoint, DSW Shoe Warehouse and LexisNexis.  

Attorney General Lautenschlager said the Wisconsin Department of
Justice (DOJ) will follow the same steps taken with previous
incidents by contacting CardSystems Solutions and MasterCard and
requesting information regarding any Wisconsin consumers that
could have been affected by the breach.  She will also demand
the companies contact these consumers immediately.

For more information contact the Wisconsin Department of Justice  
Office of Consumer Protection by Phone: 608-266-1852 or
1-800-998-0700, and the Wisconsin Department of Justice -
Division of Criminal Investigation, by Phone: 608-266-1671.


NAVARRE CORPORATION: Shareholders Launch Stock Fraud Suits in MN
----------------------------------------------------------------
Navarre Corporation and certain of its officers face several
shareholder class actions filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Minnesota on behalf of purchasers of
the Company's common stock from July 23,2003 to May 31,2005.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The first identified class action in the litigation is styled
"Aviva Partners, LLC, et al. v. Navarre Corp., et al.," filed in
the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota.  
The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

     (i) Charles J. Piven, World Trade Center-Baltimore,401 East
         Pratt Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD, 21202, Phone:
         410-332-0030, E-mail: pivenlaw@erols.com

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

   (iii) Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C., Esquire, 261
         Old York Road, Suite 423, Jenkintown, PA, 19046, Phone:
         215-886-1900, E-mail: securitiesfraud@comcast.net

    (iv) 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

     (v) Schatz & Nobel, P.C., 330 Main Street, Hartford, CT,
         06106, Phone: 800-797-5499, Fax: 860-493-6290, E-mail:
         sn06106@AOL.com


NEBRASKA: Magistrate Recommends Gutting of Disabilities' Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate David Piester of Lincoln, Nebraska recommended that a
lawsuit, which claims Nebraskans with developmental disabilities
are in danger of being institutionalized because the state isn't
fully funding programs for them, should not be deemed a class
action, the Sioux City Journal reports.

That decision by the federal magistrate had the effect of
virtually precluding more than 1,400 developmentally disabled
people from joining the action and also limited the case to the
seven people who filed the lawsuit.
  
Judge Piester, whose recommendation now goes to U.S. District
Judge Richard Kopf for consideration, said it was nearly
impossible to certify the class. In his recommendation the
magistrate wrote, "The ... proposed class is broadly defined to
include all present and future individuals with developmental
disabilities in Nebraska ... who are not receiving services due
to insufficient funding."

In addition he also wrote, "Since highly case-specific
circumstances apply to each disabled person, I cannot conclude
that the claims of the seven named plaintiffs are typical of the
claims of the over 1,400 persons they propose to represent.
Since the proposed class is so amorphous and diverse, it cannot
be reasonably clear that the proposed class members have all
suffered a constitutional or statutory violation warranting some
relief."

The 2003 lawsuit was filed by Nebraska Advocacy Services, which
had claimed that the state is failing to meet its programming
obligations in violation of federal Medicaid law and the
Americans With Disabilities Act. Its plaintiffs are seeking
home- and community-based services available through the state's
Home and Community Based Waiver Program. Services under the
program include in-home care and community programs, such as
vocational training, workshops and group homes.

According to the suit, the state has "unlawfully restricted
funding" to the program, resulting in long waits for often
inadequate services. The suit argues that waiver programs are
optional under federal law, but states that choose to have them
must operate them by Medicaid rules. They are funded with state
money and matching federal Medicaid dollars, it adds.

The suit also states that due to the backlog, some
developmentally disabled people are put at greater risk of being
institutionalized because their families can't care for them.

Nebraska Advocacy lawyer Bruce Mason told Sioux City Journal
that his office is studying whether to file an objection to the
recommendation. He also stated that 73 other people have been
identified who could join the lawsuit.


NEWMONT MINING: Shareholders Launch Securities Fraud Suits in CO
----------------------------------------------------------------
Newmont Mining Corporation and certain of its officers and
directors face several securities class actions filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Colorado on
behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock from July
28,2004 to April 26,2005.

According to a press release dated June 8, 2005, the complaints
charge the Company and certain of its officers and directors
with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The
Company is a gold producer with assets or operations in the
United States, Australia, Peru, Indonesia, Canada, Uzbekistan,
Bolivia, New Zealand, Ghana and Mexico.

Specifically, the complaints allege that despite making repeated
positive statements about the Company's operations and financial
expectations throughout the Class Period, defendants announced
on April 26, 2005 that the Company's Q1 2005 earnings would fall
short by two-thirds of what analysts had been expecting based on
the Company's frequent guidance and investor presentations.
Unbeknownst to investors, the Company's Peruvian, Indonesian,
Australian and New Zealand mines had grossly underperformed. On
this news, its stock price fell precipitously from its April 26,
2005 closing price of $40.25 per share to less than $38 per
share on April 27, 2005, on extremely high trading volume.
Meanwhile, because the Company's stock had traded at inflated
prices throughout the Class Period, the Company was able to
place over $600 million worth of notes in March 2005, just weeks
before the truth about the Company's operational and financial
difficulties would be disclosed.

According to the complaints, the facts, known by each of the
defendants but concealed from the investing public during the
Class Period, were as follows:

     (1) Newmont had been processing only stockpiled low-grade
         ore at certain mines, which costs more to process;

     (2) Newmont's costs for commodities used in mining had
         increased, increasing total production costs and cash
         production costs;

     (3) the amount of copper and gold Newmont stated it could
         extract in 2005 was overstated; and

     (4) as a result of operating difficulties in Q1 2005,
         Newmont's cash generation had declined by 50% and its
         exploration costs would significantly increase.

The first identified complaint in the litigation is styled "UFCW
Local 880 - Retail Food Employers Joint Pension, et al. v.
Newmont Mining Corporation, et al.," filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Colorado.  The plaintiff
firms in this litigation are:

     (1) Charles J. Piven, World Trade Center-Baltimore,401 East
         Pratt Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD, 21202, Phone:
         410-332-0030, E-mail: pivenlaw@erols.com

     (2) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
         (Melville), 200 Broadhollow, Suite 406, Melville, NY,
         11747, Phone: 631-367-7100, Fax: 631-367-1173, E-mail:
         info@lerachlaw.com

     (3) Schatz & Nobel, P.C., 330 Main Street, Hartford, CT,
         06106, Phone: 800-797-5499, Fax: 860-493-6290, E-mail:
         sn06106@AOL.com

     (4) Scott & Scott LLC, P.O. Box 192, 108 Norwich Avenue,
         Colchester, CT, 06415, Phone: 860.537.5537, Fax:
         860-537-4432, E-mail: scottlaw@scott-scott.com


OCA INC.: Shareholders Launch Securities Fraud Suits in E.D. LA
---------------------------------------------------------------
OCA, Inc. and certain of its officers face several securities
class actions filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana, on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's securities from May 18,2005 to June 7,2005.

The suits allege that the Company and certain of its officers
violated federal securities laws.  Specifically, the Complaints
allege that certain of defendants' public statements during the
Class Period were materially false and misleading because

     (1) defendants engaged in improper accounting practices
         (OCA, which has not yet filed its annual report for
         2004, has announced that it will restate its financial
         results for the first three quarters of 2004);

     (2) certain journal entries in OCA's general ledger were
         improperly recorded;

     (3) certain data provided to OCA's accounting firm had been
         improperly changed; and

     (4) OCA could not ascertain its true financial condition
         because it lacked adequate internal controls.

As a result, OCA's patient receivables and patient revenue from
its affiliated orthodontic and pediatric dental practices were
materially overstated.  The complaints further allege that on or
around June 7, 2005, the Company announced that:

     (i) it was further delaying the filing of its annual
         report;

    (ii) it intends to restate its financial results for the
         first three quarters of 2004; and
   
   (iii) its Chief Operating Officer had been placed on
         administrative leave.

After this announcement, the stock plummeted over 38%.

The first identified complaint in the litigation is styled
"Bruce Simon, et al. v. OCA, Inc., et al.," filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.  
The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

     (a) Allan Kanner & Associates, P.L.L.C., 701 Camp Street,
         New Orleans, LA, 70130, Phone: (504) 524-5777, Fax:
         (504) 524-5763, E-mail: info@kanner-law.com

     (b) Berman, DeValerio, Pease, Tabacco Burt & Pucillo (FL),
         515 North Flagler Drive - Suite 1701, West Palm Beach,
         FL, 33401, Phone: 561.835.9400,

     (c) 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

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

     (e) Chitwood Harley Harnes LLP, 2300 Promenade II; 1230
         Peachtree Street, N.E., Atlanta, GA, 30309, Phone:
         (888) 873-3999, Fax: (404) 876-4476, E-mail:
         attorney@chitwoodlaw.com

     (f) Dyer & Shuman, LLP, 801 East 17th Avenue, Denver, CO,
         80218-1417, Phone: 303-861-3003, Fax: 800-711-6483, e-
         mail: info@dyershuman.com

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

     (h) Kahn Gauthier Law Group, LLC, 650 Poydras St., Suite
         2150, New Orleans, LA, 70130, Phone: 504-455-1400,

     (i) Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C., Esquire at 261
         Old York Road, Suite 423, Jenkintown, PA, 19046, Phone:
         215-886-1900, E-mail: securitiesfraud@comcast.net

     (j) Lockridge, Grindal, Nauen P.L.L.P., Suite 301, 660
         Pennsylvania Avenue Southeast, Washington, DC, 20003-
         4335, Phone: 202-544-9840, Fax; 202-544-9850,

     (k) Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (Boca Raton), The
         Plaza - 5355 Town Center Road, Suite 900, Boca Raton,
         FL, 33486, Phone: 561-361-5000, Fax: 561-367-8400, E-
         mail: info@milbergweiss.com

     (l) Pomerantz,Haudek, Block, Grossman & Gross, 100 Park
         Avenue, 26th Floor, New York, NY, 10017-5516, Phone:
         212-661-1100,

     (m) Schatz & Nobel, P.C., 330 Main Street, Hartford, CT,
         06106, Phone: 800-797-5499, Fax: 860-493-6290, E-mail:
         sn06106@AOL.com


PATHMARK STORES: Shareholders Launch Securities Fraud Suit in DE
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pathmark Stores, Inc. and its board of directors face a
shareholder class action filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Delaware, styled "Rick Hartman, et al.
v. Pathmark Stores, Inc., et al., case no. 05-CV-0403."  The
suit was filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
securities from May 6,2005 to June 9,2005.

According to a press release dated June 16, 2005, the complaint
charges that the Company and is board of directors provided
materially misleading information to shareholders in connection
with a Proxy Solicitation seeking shareholder approval of an
investment in the Company by Yucaipa Partners, LLC. The proxy
solicitation was misleading because it failed to inform
investors of an alternative cash-out transaction, through which
all Pathmark shareholders would receive $8.75 per share, that
had been presented to Pathmark's Board of Directors on June 1.
This alternative offer represented a greater value than the
Yucaipa Transaction the Board was recommending. The Complaint
also alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties
in negotiating with Yucaipa by continuing to recommend that
shareholders approve the Yucaipa Transaction even after the
alternative offer had been made.

The suit is styled "Rick Hartman, et al. v. Pathmark Stores,
Inc., et al., case no. 05-CV-0403," filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Delaware.  Representing the
plaintiffs is Berger & Montague, P.C., 1622 Locust Street,
Philadelphia, PA, 19103, Phone: 800.424.6690, Fax: 215.875.4604,
E-mail: investorprotect@bm.net


SCHOLASTIC INC.: Settles FTC's Deceptive Trade Practices Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
New York-based Scholastic Inc. (Scholastic) and two of its
subsidiaries, Scholastic-at-Home (SAH) and Grolier Incorporated
(Grolier), agreed to settle allegations that they violated laws
enforced by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in marketing
their negative option book clubs.

The FTC alleged that the companies' ads did not give consumers
important information about how the book clubs operated, which
consumers needed to know before joining them.  Consumers who did
not know how the clubs operated complained that the companies
sent them books they did not order, and that the companies would
not cancel their club memberships.  The consent decree the
companies signed to settle these allegations requires full
disclosure of membership terms, and requires them to pay a
$710,000 civil penalty.  The complaint and consent decree
settling the Commission's charges were filed today in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia by the Department of
Justice on the FTC's behalf.

"There's a message in this order for any business that runs a
negative-option club," said Lydia Parnes, Director of the FTC's
Bureau of Consumer Protection. "Your company is responsible for
letting potential customers know the rules that come with their
membership before they enroll."

The Company describes itself as the largest publisher and
distributor of children's books in the world. It distributes its
books through a variety of channels, including school-based book
clubs and fairs, stores, and television networks. With its June
2000 acquisition of Grolier, the Company also distributes its
books through direct-to-home book clubs. Grolier is a wholly
owned subsidiary of the Company and is under a 1994 district
court FTC order that required Grolier to pay a $200,000 civil
penalty and prohibited it and its successors from violating the
FTC Act and the Unordered Merchandise Statute.  SAH, which bills
consumers, collects unpaid balances, and handles consumer
questions and complaints, is a wholly owned subsidiary of
Grolier. The complaint resolves all the FTC's charges against
the defendants, which involved their direct-to-home book clubs.

The FTC's complaint alleges that the companies' direct mail and
telemarketing campaigns offered consumers two related book clubs
that operated on different terms that were not fully disclosed.

The first club - which the complaint identifies as the base book
club - offered consumers the opportunity to inspect a pair of
books and automatically enrolled consumers in the club if they
kept the books beyond a set preview period and paid for them.
This first club had a minimum purchase obligation of four books,
and shipped books automatically to consumers each month.

If consumers made two purchases from the first club, the
defendants automatically enrolled them in a second club. This
second club - which the complaint identifies as a supplemental
plan - had no minimum purchase obligation and did not send books
automatically each month. Instead, three or four times each
year, it sent consumers a notice telling them that the club
would send them books described in the notice unless they wrote
"cancel" on the notice and returned it. This notice makes the
second club a prenotification negative option plan under the
FTC's Prenotification Negative Option Rule.

The defendants' advertising and telemarketing scripts did not
adequately distinguish the two book clubs or tell consumers that
they were indeed two completely separate clubs. The advertising
and scripts did not tell consumers that they would have to
reject merchandise offered by the second club by returning a
notice, that purchasing a book offered by the second club did
not count toward the minimum purchase obligation of the first
club, or that cancelling one club did not cancel the other.

The FTC's complaint against the Company, Grolier, and SAH
contains five counts relating to their marketing and sale of
books through direct-to-home negative option clubs.

Count I alleges that the defendants failed to disclose, or to
disclose adequately, before consumers were automatically
enrolled, the material terms and obligations of the supplemental
book club plans, in violation of the FTC Act. Specifically, the
complaint charges the defendants with failing to disclose:

     (1) what consumers had to do to avoid receiving and having
         to pay for supplemental plan shipments;

     (2) that buying the supplemental plan shipments did not
         count toward the minimum required purchases for the
         base book club; and

     (3) that cancelling their enrollment in the basic club did
         not cancel their enrollment in the supplemental plan.

Count II alleges that the defendants shipped unordered
merchandise to consumers and sent them communications seeking
payment for the merchandise when the defendants had actual
knowledge that the FTC had previously determined that such
practices are unfair and deceptive under the FTC Act.

Count III alleges that the defendants' shipment of unordered
merchandise and sending of communications seeking payment for it
also violated the Unordered Merchandise Statute.

Count IV alleges that the defendants failed to disclose clearly
and conspicuously all the material terms of the supplemental
book plans, as required by the FTC's Prenotification Negative
Option Rule.

Count V alleges that the defendants violated the Telemarketing
Sales Rule (TSR) by failing to disclose all of the material
terms of the supplemental club's negative option features during
telemarketing sales calls.

The consent order settling the Commission's charges enjoins the
defendants from making negative option sales pitches without
disclosing all material terms and conditions of the offers. It
also prohibits them from misrepresenting any material terms or
conditions of a negative option feature, and requires them to
obtain consumers' consent to participate in any negative option
plan after all such terms and conditions have been disclosed.
The order further bars the defendants from shipping unordered
merchandise or seeking payment for it in violation of the FTC
Act and the Unordered Merchandise Statute, and from violating
the Prenotification Negative Option Rule and the TSR.

The order also requires the defendants to pay a $710,000 civil
penalty for their alleged violations of the Prenotification
Negative Option Rule, the TSR, and for engaging in practices
relating to unordered merchandise that the FTC has previously
determined to be unfair and deceptive.

The Commission vote to issue the complaint and accept the
consent in settlement of the court action was 5-0. The complaint
and consent were filed by the Department of Justice on the
Commission's behalf on June 21, 2005, in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia.  The proposed consent order is for
settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission of
a law violation. Such orders have the force of law when signed
by the judge.

Copies of the Commission's complaint and consent agreement are
available from the FTC's Web site at http://www.ftc.govand also  
from the FTC's Consumer Response Center, Room 130, 600
Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20580. The FTC works
for the consumer to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair
business practices in the marketplace and to provide information
to help consumers spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a
complaint in English or Spanish (bilingual counselors are
available to take complaints), or to get free information on any
of 150 consumer topics, call toll-free, 1-877-FTC-HELP
(1-877-382-4357), or use the complaint form at
http://www.ftc.gov.The FTC enters Internet, telemarketing,  
identity theft, and other fraud-related complaints into Consumer
Sentinel, a secure, online database available to hundreds of
civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and
abroad.  For more details, contact Mitchell J. Katz, Office of
Public Affairs by Phone: 202-326-2161 or contact James Reilly
Dolan, Bureau of Consumer Protection by Phone: 202-326-3292, or
visit the Website:
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2005/06/scholastic.htm.


SETTON INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Raisins Due to Undeclared Sulfites
----------------------------------------------------------------  
Setton International Foods, Inc., 85 Austin Blvd., Commack, NY
11725 is recalling Mariani Brand fancy golden raisins 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 Mariani Brand fancy golden raisins are packed in
30-pound cardboard boxes, coded 5103D. The product was sold in
the Long Island New York Metropolitan area.

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 Mariani Brand
fancy golden raisins 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 Mariani Brand fancy golden raisins
should return it to the place of purchase. Consumers with
questions may contact the company at 1-800-CASHEWS
(1-800-227-4397).


SPARTAN CHASSIS: Recalls 86 K2, K3 Motor Homes For Crash Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
Spartan Chassis, Inc. is cooperating with the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) by voluntarily recalling
86 motor homes, namely:

     (1) SPARTAN / K2, model 2004-2005

     (2) SPARTAN / K3, model 2004-2005

On these motor homes, the I-shaft is the mechanical linkage
between the steering wheel and the steering gear.  At the non-
welded side of the I-shaft there is a universal joint.  It is
possible that the fork shaft connection could be lost.  Drivers
will lose steerability of the vehicle and a crash could occur
without prior warning.

Dealers will inspect and repair the I-shaft.  The manufacturer
has not yet provided an owner notification schedule for this
recall.  For more details, contact the Company by Phone:
517-543-6400 or contact the NHTSA's auto safety hotline:
1-888-327-4236.


STATE FARM: Judge to Hold Hearing For Insurance Policy Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Madison County Circuit Judge Philip Kardis is preparing to hold
a class certification hearing on a case that was filed in June
2002 against State Farm Insurance on June 27 at 9:30 a.m. in his
Granite City courtroom, The Madison County Record reports.

Cynthia Hoffman, who is represented by Stephen Tillery of Korein
Tillery in St. Louis, alleges that State Farm refused to issue
or renew insurance policies solely on the basis of a credit
report. She is claiming that the refusal violates the Illinois
Insurance Code, which has prohibited insurance companies from
refusing to issue or renew an insurance policy based solely on a
credit report since October 2002.

Court documents revealed that Ms. Hoffman, a State Farm
policyholder from August 1997 until January 2002, renewed her
lapsed policy on March 2002, paying a six-month premium of
$528.76. State Farm had canceled the policy, stating coverage
was denied "based upon an insurance underwriting score developed
from credit and automobile insurance claim information." She
claims however, that due to the cancellation, she was forced to
pay $1,722 for a substitute policy from another insurance
carrier.

The class action seeks damages for the excessive premium
payments the class was required to pay based on State Farm's
alleged violation of the insurance code plus all attorney fees
and court costs, plus interest.

According to the suit, all Illinois residents who have been
denied issuance or renewal of an insurance policy solely on the
basis of a credit report since October 2001 are eligible to join
the class.

The suit is styled, Cynthia Hoffman v. State Farm Insurance,
which filed in Madison County Circuit Court, Illinois. Stephen
Tillery of the law firm of Korein Tillery represents the
plaintiff, Cynthia Hoffman. The defendant, State Farm, is
represented by the Belleville law firm of Donovan, Rose, Nester
& Joley.


TAHSIN INDUSTRIAL: Recalls 480 Treestands Due to Injury Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC), Tahsin Industrial Corp. USA, of Randolph, New Jersey is
voluntarily recalling about 480 Ameristep Hang-on Treestands.

The treestand's bracket can bend if not secured properly by a
chain and if weight is applied. This can cause the chain to
disengage from the stand, the stand to separate from the tree
and the user to fall and suffer serious injuries. Tahsin
received one report in which a person fell from an unknown
elevation while using the treestand.

The recalled treestands are the Ameristep Model 9203 Hang-on of
the Grizzly Treestand Line. The product is a steel fixed-
position treestand that uses a steel chain for attachment to
trees and has a camouflage-covered seat.

Manufactured in China, the treestands were sold at all Kame's
Sports Center, Kentucky Lake Outdoors, Sportsmen Center, and
North Sylva Company stores nationwide from July 2004 through
June 2005 for between $36 and $50.

Consumers should stop using the treestand immediately and
contact Ameristep Customer Service or any of the retailers to
receive information on properly setting up the unit.

Consumer Contact: Consumers can call Ameristep Customer Service
Department at (800) 374-7837 between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. ET
Monday through Friday, or visit http://www.tahsinusa.comor  
http://www.ameristep.comto print out supplemental instructions.  
Firm's Media Contacts: Jeremy Lees at (800) 722-7345, ext. 114;
Michael Loiacono at (800) 722-7345, ext. 141.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases


CARRIER ACCESS: Leo W. Desmond Files Securities Fraud Suit in CO
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Leo W. Desmond initiated a securities class
action on behalf of shareholders who acquired Carrier Access
Corporation (Nasdaq:CACSE) securities between October 21, 2003
and May 20, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado against Carrier Access Corporation. It is
alleged that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10(b)(5) promulgated
thereunder, by issuing a series of materially false and
misleading statements to the market throughout the Class Period
which statements had the effect of artificially inflating the
market price of the Company's securities.

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


CONAGRA FOODS: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Fraud Suit in NE
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
LLP ("Lerach Coughlin") initiated a class action in the United
States District Court for the District of Nebraska on behalf of
purchasers of ConAgra Foods, Inc. ("ConAgra") (NYSE:CAG) common
stock during the period between September 18, 2003 and June 7,
2005 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges ConAgra and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. ConAgra is a packaged food company serving a wide variety
of food customers.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business and prospects and issued false and misleading
financial statements. On March 24, 2005, the Company announced
it would be restating its financial statements for fiscal 2002
through the first half of fiscal 2005 due to improper accounting
for income taxes. ConAgra stock fell to around $26 per share on
this news. Then, on June 7, 2005, the Company announced that its
fiscal 2005 fourth quarter would be lower than expected
primarily due to continued weak profitability in the packaged
meats operations. On this news the stock fell further to $24.32
per share.

According to the complaint, as a result of defendants' false
statements, ConAgra's stock traded at inflated levels as high as
$30 per share during the Class Period, which allowed its top
officers to reap tens of millions of dollars in ill-gotten
bonuses. The facts, concealed from the investing public during
the Class Period, included the following:

     (1) the Company lacked requisite internal controls, and, as
         a result, the Company's projections and reported
         results were based upon defective assumptions and/or
         manipulated facts;

     (2) contrary to defendants' claims of fourth quarter 2005
         and/or fiscal year 2005 profitability, the Company was
         actually on track to report losses;

     (3) the Company's income was overstated due to improper tax
         accounting; and

     (4) as a result of the above, the Company's projections for
         fiscal year 2005 were grossly inflated.

For more details, contact William Lerach or Darren Robbins of
Lerach Coughlin, Phone: 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, E-mail:
wsl@lerachlaw.com, Web site:
http://www.lerachlaw.com/cases/conagrafoods/.  


CYBERONICS INC.: Emerson Poynter Lodges Securities Lawsuit in TX
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Emerson Poynter, LLP, initiated a class action
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Texas (Case No. 4:05-cv-02121) on behalf of the purchasers of
Cyberonics, Inc. (Nasdaq:CYBX) securities during the Class
Period between June 15, 2004, through October 1, 2004, inclusive
(the "Class").

Cyberonics engages in the design, development, and
commercialization of medical devices, which claim to provide
therapy, Vagus Nerve Stimulation (VNS), for the treatment of
epilepsy and other debilitating neurological and psychiatric
disorders. Plaintiff alleges that defendants violated the
federal securities laws (Securities Exchange Act of 1934) during
the Class Period, by failing to disclose and misrepresenting
material adverse facts known to defendants or recklessly
disregarded by them, including that defendants were engaged in
serious violative manufacturing and quality practices that would
have a serious negative impact on prospects for the Company's
VNC product approval and that, while well aware of true nature
of the serious issues facing FDA approval of the VNC system for
the depression indication, Company insiders sold over $1.98
million of Company stock during the Class Period. As a result,
the Complaint alleges, the value of the Company's stock was
materially and artificially inflated during the Class Period.

For more details, contact Charles Gastineau, Tanya Autry or
Michelle Raggio of Emerson Poynter LLP, Phone: (800) 663-9817 or
(501) 907-2555, Fax: (501) 907-2556, E-mail:
epllp@emersonpoynter.com.


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

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

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

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

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

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

For more details, contact Guri Ademi of Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP,
Phone: (866) 264-3995, E-mail: gademi@ademilaw.com, Web site:
http://www.ademilaw.com/cases/DRD.php.


EXIDE TECHNOLOGIES: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Lawsuit in NJ
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Stull, Stull & Brody initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey, on behalf of all persons who purchased the publicly
traded securities of Exide Technologies ("Exide") (NASDAQ: XIDE)
between November 16, 2004 and May 17, 2005, inclusive (the
"Class Period").

The complaint alleges that Exide violated federal securities
laws. Under a $365 million senior secured credit facility, Exide
was required to maintain a specified ratio of debt to equity
("Leverage Ratio Covenant"), and to maintain minimum
consolidated earnings before income, taxes, depreciation,
amortization ("EBITDA") ("EBITDA Covenant") (collectively, the
"Covenants"). Defendants represented that Exide could maintain
compliance with the Covenants; however, on February 14, 2005,
defendants revealed that Exide was in violation of the Leverage
Ratio Covenant. Defendants assured investors that Exide's
lenders would waive the Leverage Ratio Covenant and emphasized
that Exide was in compliance with the EBITDA Covenant, and was
not at risk of default.

On May 17, 2005, defendants announced that:

     (1) Exide failed to satisfy the minimum EBITDA Covenant;

     (2) several "unanticipated and unusual items," had resulted
         in a reduction of earnings;

     (3) Exide was unable to properly forecast its inventory
         requirements; and

     (4) because Exide had violated a contract, it was required
         to record an adjustment of $1.5 to $2 million.
For more details, contact Tzivia Brody, Esq. of Stull, Stull &
Brody, 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY, 10017, Phone:
1-800-337-4983, Fax: 212/490-2022, E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com, Web
site: http://www.ssbny.com.


LAZARD LTD.: Abraham Fruchter Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Abraham Fruchter & Twersky LLP initiated a class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Lazard Ltd.
("Lazard" of the "Company") (NYSE: LAZ) publicly-traded
securities who purchased such securities pursuant and/or
traceable to the Company's false and misleading Registration
Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with the initial
public offering of Lazard shares (the "IPO"), together with
those who purchased their shares in the open market between May
4, 2005 and May 12, 2005 inclusive (the "Class Period").

Lazard is a financial advisory and asset management firm. The
complaint alleges that Lazard, Goldman Sachs & Co ("Goldman")
(the lead underwriter of the IPO), and certain of the Company's
officers and directors violated the Securities Act of 1933 and
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing a materially
false and misleading Registration and Prospectus in connection
with the Company's IPO, which was priced at $25 per share, and
continuing to conceal material facts about the true value of the
Company's stock price after the stock began to trade on the open
market.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that the Registration
Statement/Prospectus failed to disclose, among other things,
that:

     (1) the basis for the $25 price for shares sold in the IPO
         was to enable defendant Bruce Wasserstein (the
         Company's Chief Executive Officer) to raise sufficient
         funds to gain control of the Company from Michel David
         Weill ("David Weill"), a cousin of the Company's
         founders;

     (2) that prior to the IPO, market demand had indicated that
         the proper price for the IPO was only $22 per share;
   
     (3) that to "create a market" and thereby manufacture an
         appearance that Lazard's IPO was fairly and properly
         priced, Goldman arranged to sell millions of shares to
         hedge funds with side agreements that they could
         immediately "flip the shares" and that Goldman would
         immediately buy them back;

     (4) that the Prospectus had failed to adequately and fully
         comply with S-K Item 505 which requires a prospectus to
         describe "the various factors considered in determining
         the offering price" when common shares without an
         established public trading market are being registered;
         and

     (5) that, in violation of Securities and Exchange
         Commission regulations, the Registration
         Statement/Prospectus failed to disclose that Gerardo
         Braggiotti, the Company's deputy Chairman in Europe and
         a major rainmaker of new business for the Company, who
         had only supported the IPO because of a promise (which
         was later reneged on) that he would be appointed as
         head of Lazard's European operations, was likely to
         leave Lazard and/or cause turmoil within the
         organization as he opposed the IPO and opposed
         defendant Wasserstein's purchase of David Weill's
         shares.

On May 12, 2005, only days after the IPO, and right after
Goldman stopped buying back the Company's shares, the price of
the Company's shares plunged from $25 per share to less than $21
per share.

For more details, contact Jack G. Fruchter, Esq. of Abraham,
Fruchter & Twersky, LLP, One Penn Plaza, Suite 2805, New York,
NY, 10119, Phone: (212) 279-5050 or (800) 440-8986, Fax:
(212) 279-3655, E-mail: jfruchter@aftlaw.com.


NAVARRE CORPORATION: Lockridge Grindal Lodges Stock Suit in MN
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P. announces that
it filed class action lawsuit on Monday, June 13 on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Navarre Corporation ("Navarre"
or the "Company") (Nasdaq:NAVR) between July 23, 2003 and May
31, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period") seeking to pursue
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act").

The action is pending in the United States District Court for
the District of Minnesota against defendants Navarre, Eric H.
Paulson (CEO, President, Chairman) and James Gilbertson (CFO). A
copy of the complaint filed in this action is available from the
Court.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


NAVARRE CORPORATION: Reinhardt Wendorf Lodges Stock Suit 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 purchasers of Navarre
Corporation ("Navarre" or "the Company") (Nasdaq:NAVR) common
stock during the period between January 21, 2004 and February
22, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Navarre and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Navarre engages in the publication and distribution of
various home entertainment and multimedia products, including
personal computer software, audio and video titles, and
interactive games.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
company's business and financial results. On January 10, 2005,
Navarre announced the acquisition of FUNimation for $100 million
in cash and between 1.495 million and 1.827 million shares of
Navarre stock. After this announcement, Navarre's stock reached
its Class Period high of $18.77 per share. Defendants took
advantage of the inflation in Navarre's stock during the Class
Period, selling 994,362 shares of Navarre stock for proceeds of
$13.8 million.

On January 18, 2005, Navarre filed a registration statement with
the SEC to raise up to $140 million through the sale of its
common stock to fund the acquisition of FUNimation. On January
26, 2005, Navarre reported favorable third quarter fiscal 2005
results, which defendants said reflected "the continuing
execution of our strategic plan." Then, on February 22, 2005,
the Company suddenly withdrew its Registration Statement
initially filed for the purpose of funding its acquisition of
FUNimation. According to the complaint, this sudden withdrawal
reignited rumors that the Company's accounting was problematic.
On this news, the stock dropped to below $7 per share. Later,
the Company announced that it would have to postpone the release
of its fourth quarter and fiscal year 2005 financial results and
that it was reviewing the recognition and classification of
certain fiscal 2005 tax items.

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, Web
site: http://www.rwblawfirm.com.


NEWMONT MINING: Glancy Binkow Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CO
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP initiated a Class
Action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado on behalf of a class ("Class") consisting
of all persons who purchased securities of Newmont Mining
Corporation ("Newmont" or "Company") (NYSE:NEM) between July 28,
2004 through April 26, 2005, inclusive ("Class Period").

The Complaint charges defendants with violations of federal
securities laws. Among other things, plaintiff claims that
defendants' material omissions and the dissemination of
materially false and misleading statements throughout the Class
Period caused Newmont's stock price to become artificially
inflated and inflicted enormous damages on investors when the
truth was revealed. Specifically, defendants repeatedly made
positive statements about the Company's operations and financial
expectations. The true facts, however, which defendants knew or
recklessly disregarded and concealed from the investing public
during the Class Period, included the following:

     (1) Newmont had been processing only stockpiled low-grade
         ore at certain mines, which costs more to process;

     (2) Newmont's costs for commodities used in mining had
         increased, increasing total production costs and cash
         production costs;

     (3) Newmont overstated the amount of copper and gold it
         could extract in 2005; and

     (4) as a result of operating difficulties in the first-
         quarter 2005, Newmont's cash generation had declined by
         50% and that its exploration costs would significantly
         increase.

For more details, contact Michael Goldberg, Esq., of Glancy
Binkow & Goldberg LLP, 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311, Los
Angeles, CA, 90067, Phone: (310) 201-9150 or (888) 773-9224, E-
mail: info@glancylaw.com, Web site: http://www.glancylaw.com.


OCA INC.: Leo W. Desmond Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. LA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Leo W. Desmond initiated a securities class
action on behalf of shareholders who acquired OCA, Inc.
(NYSE:OCA) securities between May 18, 2004 and June 7, 2005,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana against OCA, Inc. It is alleged
that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10(b)(5) promulgated
thereunder, by issuing a series of materially false and
misleading statements to the market throughout the Class Period
which statements had the effect of artificially inflating the
market price of the Company's securities.

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


OCA INC.: Spector Roseman Files Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. LA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C. announces that
a securities class action lawsuit was commenced in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, on
behalf of purchasers of the common stock of OCA, Inc. ("OCA" or
the "Company") (NYSE: OCA) between May 18, 2004 through June 7,
2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading
statements contained in press releases and filings with the
Securities and Exchange Commission during the Class Period.
Specifically, the Complaint alleges that Defendants
misrepresented or failed to disclose that:

     (1) the Company had engaged in improper accounting
         practices and that it would be forced to restate prior
         financial results;

     (2) that certain journal entries on the Company's general
         ledger were not recorded properly; and

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

On June 7, 2005, the Company announced that it was delaying the
filing of its annual report and that it intended to restate its
quarterly financial results for 2004. Additionally, the Company
announced that it had placed its Chief Operating Officer,
Bartholomew F. Palmisano Jr., on administrative leave. The
Company commented in its release that it had overstated patient
receivables and patient revenues for the first three quarters of
2004. Upon this disclosure, shares of OCA dropped $1.53 per
share or approximately 38% to close at $2.50 per share.

For more details, contact Robert M. Roseman of Spector, Roseman
& Kodroff, P.C., Phone: 1-888-844-5862, E-mail:
classaction@srk-law.com, Web site: http://www.srk-law.com.


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

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

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

For more details, contact Virgilio Soler, Jr., Wechsler Harwood
Shareholder Relations of Wechsler Harwood, LLP, 488 Madison
Ave., 8th Floor, New York, NY, 10022, Phone: (877) 935-7400, E-
mail: vsoler@whesq.com.


OCA INC.: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in LA
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
initiated a class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, on behalf of all
persons who purchased the securities of OCA, Inc. ("OCA" or the
"Company") (NYSE: OCA) between May 20, 2004 and June 6, 2005,
inclusive, (the "Class Period") against defendants OCA, and
certain officers of the Company. The case name is Barr v. OCA,
Inc., et al.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading
statements throughout the Class Period that had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price of the Company's
securities.

The complaint further alleges that during the Class Period,
defendants made statements that were each materially false and
misleading because they failed to disclose the following
materially adverse facts which were then known to defendants or
recklessly disregarded by them:

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

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

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

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

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

For more detaiuls, contact Fred Taylor Isquith, Esq., Gustavo
Bruckner, Esq. or Derek Behnke of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman
& Herz, LLP, Phone: +1-800-575-0735, E-mail:
classmember@whafh.com, Web site: http://www.whafh.com.


PEMSTAR INC.: Reinhardt Wendorf Lodges 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 PEMSTAR, Inc. ("Pemstar"
or "the Company") (Nasdaq:PMTR) between January 29, 2003 and
January 24, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The case is
captioned The Cornelia I Crowell GST Trust v. PEMSTAR, Inc. Et
al., Civ. No. 05-1182 (D. Minn.).

The complaint charges PEMSTAR and certain of the Company's
executive officers, including Allen Berning, Roy Bauer, and
Gregory Lea, with issuing materially false and misleading
financial statements to the investing public regarding the
company's financial condition and outlook in violation of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b 5 promulgated thereunder.

PEMSTAR is a provider of electronics manufacturing services to
OEMs in the communications, computing, data storage, industrial,
and medical equipment markets.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period defendants
issued numerous positive statements that misrepresented the true
financial status of the Company and its business prospects. In
fact, throughout the Class Period, PEMSTAR suffered from
extensive liquidity constraints that inhibited the Company's
ability to achieve the necessary gross margin expansion that was
required for the Company to create and sustain accounting
profits. The Complaint alleges that the defendants failed to
disclose that the Company needed gross margins of at least 9% in
order to achieve profitability, a level that defendants knew it
was years away from attaining, if ever. Moreover, defendants
further misrepresented the Company's financial condition by
understating its liabilities associated with its Mexican
facilities and overstating the Company's accounts receivables,
which had become materially impaired. The complaint alleges
that, in part, defendants carried out the fraudulent scheme in
order to revive and strengthen the Company's image, as perceived
by its customer base and enable the Company to raise much needed
capital through the issuance of its common stock to the public
at levels advantageous to the Company.

On January 24, 2005, the Company issued a press release
announcing that it was revising its outlook for the fiscal 2005
third quarter, implementing additional cost-reduction
initiatives and restating its financial results for its fiscal
year ended March 21, 2004, due to accounting discrepancies at
its Mexico facility. By the time the company made this
disclosure, the price of the Company's common stock had declined
nearly 70% from its Class Period high.

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, Web
site: http://www.rwblawfirm.com.


R&G FINANCIAL: Glancy Binkow Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP initiated a Class
Action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of a class (the "Class")
consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired securities of R&G Financial Corporation ("R&G
Financial" or the "Company'') (NYSE:RGF), between April 21, 2003
and April 25, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"). All persons
and institutions who purchased securities of R&G Financial
during the Class Period may move the Court not later than June
27, 2005, to serve as lead plaintiff, however, you must meet
certain legal requirements.

The Complaint charges R&G Financial and certain of the Company's
executive officers with violations of federal securities laws.
Plaintiff claims defendants' omissions and material
misrepresentations during the Class Period artificially inflated
the Company's stock price, inflicting damages on investors. R&G
Financial is a diversified financial holding company with
operations in Puerto Rico and the United States providing
banking, mortgage banking, investments, consumer finance and
insurance through its wholly-owned subsidiaries. The Complaint
alleges that during the Class Period defendants made materially
false and misleading statements concerning the Company's
operations and financial performance. Unbeknownst to public
investors, the true facts, which defendants knew or recklessly
disregarded and failed to disclose to the investing public
during the Class Period, included that the Company was using
fraudulent accounting practices, including failing to record
impairment losses for the deterioration in the value of residual
interests retained, and materially overstated its net income,
net gain on mortgage loan sales and net capital and that the
Company was using ineffective risk-management and hedging
strategies against the increasing risk of rising interest rates.

On April 25, 2005, defendants disclosed that the Company would
need to restate its earnings for the prior two-year period.
Specifically, R&G Financial disclosed that the Company's
financial reports from January 1, 2003 through December 31, 2004
would incur charges to reflect impairments of $90 million to
$150 million on retained residual interests. As a result of this
news, R&G Financial's stock price plummeted 35%, on unusually
high volume, falling $23.18 in one day.

The next day, April 26, 2005, the Company announced the
Securities and Exchange Commission had commenced an
investigation concerning the financial restatement announced by
R&G Financial the previous day, as well as the underlying issues
addressed in the Company's April 25 press release.

For more details, contact Michael Goldberg, Esq., of Glancy
Binkow & Goldberg LLP, 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311, Los
Angeles, CA, 90067, Phone: (310) 201-9150 or (888) 773-9224, E-
mail: info@glancylaw.com, Web site: http://www.glancylaw.com.


                            *********

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

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

                            *********


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

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

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

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

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

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

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *