---

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

             Thursday, July 7, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 133

                         Headlines

ANSWER ILLINOIS: Suit Settlement Hearing Set September 1, 2005
ANTIDEPRESSANTS: FDA Advises on Drugs' Link To Suicidal Behavior
AVENTIS PHARMACEUTICALS: TN Issues $700T From Cardizem CD Deal
BAYVIEW CREMATORY: More Could Be Affected By Desecration Case
BIOGEN IDEC: MS Patient Files Suit Over Tysabri Drug in CA Court

BRIDGESTONE AMERICA: Court Asked To Certify Steeltex Tire Suit
DHL INC.: Agrees To Cease Delivery Of Cigarettes Throughout US
ENOVATION GRAPHIC: Suit Settlement Hearing Set October 27, 2005
HO'S TRADING: Recalls White Fungus Due to Undeclared Sulfites
INDIANA: EEOC Seeks Victims of Racial Bias at Apartment Complex

KENTUCKY: Judge Approves $120M Settlement For Priest Abuse Case
MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Go Computer Founder Files Antitrust Suit
NEW YORK: NY Court Certifies 9/11 Coins Consumer Fraud Lawsuit
NISHIN TRADING: Recalls Soft Drink (Tea) Due to Undeclared Milk
RAILTRACK PLC: Transport Officials Says Claims V. Byers Absurd

SKILLSOFT PLC: Reaches Settlement For 2002 Securities Litigation
UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH: PA Judge Approves Ticket Settlement
VIOXX LITIGATION: NJ Judge Probing Release of Damaging Document
WASHINGTON: Kent City Police Officers File Overtime Wage Lawsuit
WORLD INFORMATION: NY Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit

                 New Securities Fraud Cases

ABLE LABORATORIES: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in NJ
ABLE LABORATORIES: Abbey Gardey Lodges Securities Lawsuit in NJ
BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS: Marc S. Henzel Files Stock Lawsuit in CA
CARRIER ACCESS: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Lawsuit in CO
COLLINS & AIKMAN: Murray Frank Files Securities Fraud Suit in NY

CORN PRODUCTS: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in IL
CORN PRODUCTS: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in IL
DORAL FINANCIAL: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Fraud Suit in NY
EASTMAN KODAK: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Fraud Suit in NY
GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in NY

GRAVITY CO.: Lasky & Rifkind Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
HILB ROGAL: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in VA
MAYTAG CORPORATION: Shalov Stone Lodges Securities Lawsuit in IA
PATHMARK STORES: Berger & Montague Lodges Securities Suit in DE
PEMSTAR INC.: Reinhardt Wendorf Lodges Securities Lawsuit in MN

UNITED AMERICAN: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Suit in E.D. MI


                            *********


ANSWER ILLINOIS: Suit Settlement Hearing Set September 1, 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois - County Department,
Chancery Division will hold a fairness hearing for the proposed
settlement in the matter: Stephen Kerschner, Burton Witt, James
Brill, Jerold S. Rawson and Access Chiropractic Center, Ltd.,
d/b/a Family Pain Clinic v. Answer Illinois, Inc., Case No. 04
CH 2630, on behalf of all persons and entities located anywhere
in the state of Illinois who received, subsequent to February
11, 1999, an unsolicited advertising fax from or on behalf of
Answer Illinois, Inc.

The fairness hearing will take place on September 1, 2005 at
11:00 a.m., in Room 2508 of the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois, Daley Center, 50 W. Washington, Chicago, IL, 60602.

For more details, contact Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin
LLC, 120 S. LaSalle Street, 18th Floor, Chicago, IL, 60603,
Phone: (312) 739-4200, E-mail: edcombs@aol.com, Web site:
http://www.edcombs.com/CM/Notices/Notices318.asp.


ANTIDEPRESSANTS: FDA Advises on Drugs' Link To Suicidal Behavior
----------------------------------------------------------------
In response to recent scientific publications that report the
possibility of increased risk of suicidal behavior in adults
treated with antidepressants, the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) has issued a Public Health Advisory (PHA)
to update patients and healthcare providers with the latest
information on this subject.

Even before the publication of these recent reports, FDA had
already begun the process of reviewing available data to
determine whether there is an increased risk of suicidal
behavior in adults taking antidepressants. The Agency has asked
manufacturers to provide information from their trials using an
approach similar to that used in the evaluation of the risk of
suicidal behavior in the pediatric population taking
antidepressants. This effort will involve hundreds of clinical
trials and may take more than a year to complete.

In the meantime, the PHA advises health care providers and
patients to be aware of the following:

     (1) Adults being treated with antidepressant medicines,
         particularly those being treated for depression, should
         be watched closely for worsening of depression and for
         increased suicidal thinking or behavior.

     (2) Close observation of adults may be especially important
         when antidepressant medications are started for the
         first time or when doses for the specific drugs
         prescribed have been changed.

     (3) Adults whose symptoms worsen while being treated with
         antidepressants, including an increase in suicidal
         thinking or behavior, should be evaluated by their
         health care professional.

These recommendations are consistent with warnings already
present in approved labeling for antidepressants used by adults.

FDA will provide updated information as it becomes available.
The Public Health Advisory is available on line this Website:
http://www.fda.gov/cder/drug/advisory/SSRI200507.htm.


AVENTIS PHARMACEUTICALS: TN Issues $700T From Cardizem CD Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Tennessee Attorney General's Office said that the state will
be distributing its share of a $24 million antitrust settlement
funds for people who bought Cardizem CD, a prescription heart
medication, The American City Business Journals reports.

Under the settlement, approximately 2,400 residents of the state
will receive an estimated $709,933, to compensate for the
overpayment of Cardizem CD and its generic equivalents between
1998 and 2004. Nationally, the settlement calls for distribution
of money to more than 76,000 consumers. The settlement covers
consumers who bought the drug from January 1998 through January
of 2003.

The settlement stems from a class action lawsuit filed against
New Jersey-based Aventis Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Florida-based
Andrx Corp. (NASDAQ: ADRX) alleged that Hoechst, a
pharmaceutical company acquired by Aventis in 2000, paid Andrx
not to market a generic version of the drug. That delay of the
generic form, according to the suit meant that consumers,
medical insurance companies and the government had to buy the
higher priced, brand name drug for an extra year.

Additionally, the settlement establishes a distribution to
third-party purchasers, such as insurance companies, of the drug
will begin later this year. Plus, the settlement calls for
another $4.5 million to be distributed to states to reimburse
some government purchasers including Medicaid, for damages.

For more details, visit http://www.cardizemsettlement.com.


BAYVIEW CREMATORY: More Could Be Affected By Desecration Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dozens of families have joined the litigation against closed New
Hampshire-based Bayview Crematory, but authorities said that
hundreds of others might not know that their loved ones were
cremated there, the WMURChannel.com reports.

The Seabrook crematory was charged in a class action filed this
month in Essex Superior Court on behalf of Gloucester resident
Geraldine Favaloro and other survivors of the donors of the
Harvard Medical School's Anatomical Gifts Program, whose bodies
were turned over to the Crematory.  The suit states that the
body of Ms. Favaloro's mother, Betty Frontiero, was given to
Harvard's program after her February 2004 death and cremated
nine months later at Bayview.

The complaint, which also names the Harvard program as a
defendant, alleges that Harvard failed to uphold promises it
made to donors on the disposition of remains after the program
was finished with them.  The suit also alleges that school
failed to ensure that remains turned over to the crematorium
were properly handled and cremated.  According to the suit,
which seeks damages for negligence and intentional infliction of
emotional distress, the defendants' actions "rose to the level
of mutilation and desecration of the body," an earlier Class
Action Reporter story (July 4,2005) reports.

"It's probably fairly likely given the quality of the paperwork
that Bayview has that the families don't know that their loved
ones were in fact cremated at Bayview when they thought they
were going to be cremated somewhere else," Rockingham County
Attorney Jim Reams told WMURChannel.com.

He added that even those families who authorized Bayview to
handle the cremation of their loved ones have a reason to be
concerned.  "We have cremations that occurred without death
certificates," he said. "We have cremations that occurred with
forged doctor's certificates. We have cremations that occurred
with almost no paperwork at all. It's just a disgrace."

Buddy Phaneuf, the head of the Cremation Society of New
Hampshire, told WMURChannel.com that all of the paperwork is
important.  " The guidelines are in place to protect the public.
The guidelines are also in place to protect the state," he said.
"For example, if there was no waiting period, cremation could
take place before the medical examiner had a chance to view the
individual, and, in the case of suspicious death, you've
eliminated the chance to do an autopsy."

Mr. Phaneuf said that the state needs tighter regulations. Three
people now face criminal charges -- Bayview's founder, an
employee and a former medical examiner.  "Given the fact that
New Hampshire has one of the highest cremation rates in the
country and the lack of quality regulations, I guess it was
really just a matter of time before something like this
happened," Mr. Phaneuf told WMURChannel.com.


BIOGEN IDEC: MS Patient Files Suit Over Tysabri Drug in CA Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Biogen Idec and Elan Corporation PLC faces a class action filed
in the United States District Court in San Francisco,
California, alleging they concealed risks of their multiple-
sclerosis drug Tysabri, before withdrawing it from the market,
the Boston Business Journal reports.

Multiple-sclerosis (MS) patient Matthew Wayne filed the suit on
behalf of everyone else who used the drug, including patients
with Crohn's disease and rheumatoid arthritis.  The suit alleges
that both companies knew the drug could cause a rare nervous
system disorder.  The suit seeks medical monitoring for every
patient who took the drug before it was taken off the market in
February over safety concerns.

The two companies pulled the drug after at least one MS patient
using it died from a rare nervous system disorder known as
progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy, or PML.  This week,
Biogen reported that the drug showed promise as a Crohn's
Disease treatment, based on data from a clinical trial completed
before the drug was pulled from the market and all other
clinical trials, the Business Journal reports.


BRIDGESTONE AMERICA: Court Asked To Certify Steeltex Tire Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
California attorney Joseph Lisoni asked the United States
District Court for the Central District of California to grant
class certification to a lawsuit filed against Bridgestonein
behalf of owners of Firestone Steeltex Tires, the
Tennesseean.com reports.

Mr. Lisoni has renewed his effort to force the recall of 30
million Steeltex tires, which came standard on large vans,
emergency vehicles and recreational vehicles.  Mr. Lisoni filed
the suit on June 30,2005 on behalf of eight people who owned the
tires.

A California state court and the federal National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration have rejected other similar
efforts by Lisoni and his clients over the past three years.

Dan MacDonald, spokesman for Nashville-based Bridgestone
Americas Holding Inc. dismissed the lawsuit's claims.  "These
tires are performing well in the field," he told the
Tennesseean.com.


DHL INC.: Agrees To Cease Delivery Of Cigarettes Throughout US
--------------------------------------------------------------
DHL, one of the world's largest package delivery companies, has
agreed to cease all deliveries of cigarettes to individual
consumers throughout the United States, New York Attorney
General Eliot Spitzer announced in a statement.

The agreement with DHL marks the latest step in an ongoing
effort by state and federal law enforcement officials to halt
the illegal sale of cigarettes over the Internet.  Mr. Spitzer
praised DHL for working in collaboration with his office to
address the matter.

"By taking proactive steps to prevent delivery of cigarettes to
individuals nationwide, DHL has made clear that it does not want
to be affiliated with the illegal cigarette traffickers," Mr.
Spitzer said. "We hope other shippers will follow DHL's lead and
refuse to do business with Internet and mail order cigarette
retailers who routinely flout the law."

Jon Olin, General Counsel at DHL, said, "Wherever DHL does
business in the United States or around the world, we look to
7work in partnership with government to ensure the best
interests of our customers and the community at large are
served. By taking a proactive approach, DHL is pleased to be the
leader in the prevention of illegal cigarette sales in the
United States."

The operations of virtually all Internet and mail order
cigarette retailers violate federal, state and local laws,
including tax laws, age verification laws, delivery
restrictions, and reporting requirements, as well as federal
wire fraud and mail fraud statutes. Since 2004, a coalition of
law enforcement officials has been working to stop these illegal
sales. This has included state and federal criminal indictments
of cigarette sellers, seizures of contraband cigarettes, and
efforts to strengthen cigarette trafficking prohibitions.

In addition, law enforcement officials have reached out to
legitimate businesses - including tobacco manufacturers, credit
card companies and package delivery companies - whose services
are used by the cigarette traffickers to conduct their illegal
operations.

In March, state attorneys general and the federal Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) announced a
landmark agreement in which all major credit card companies
agreed to take steps to stop the use of their credit cards for
these illegal sales.

DHL is the first major package delivery service to join with law
enforcement in this effort. The agreement does not prohibit DHL
from making lawful shipments of cigarettes to licensed tobacco
businesses and other authorized recipients. Discussions with
other major parcel delivery companies are ongoing.

Mr. Spitzer has also called upon the U.S. Postal Service to halt
illegal shipments of cigarettes. He noted that while the Postal
Service's enforcement division has been a strong partner in the
effort, the Postal Service's delivery operations, inexplicably,
have refused to take appropriate action. Spitzer has urged
Congress to adopt legislation banning the direct shipment of
cigarettes to consumers.

The discussions with DHL were handled by Assistant Attorney
General Vincent Esposito, under the supervision of Health Care
Bureau Chief Joseph Baker and Deputy Bureau Chief Sandra
Grannum.  For more details, contact the Attorney General Office,
Department of Law, 120 Broadway, New York, NY 10271, Phone:
518-473-5525 or visit the Website:
http://www.oag.state.ny.us/press/2005/jul/dhlaogfinal.pdf.


ENOVATION GRAPHIC: Suit Settlement Hearing Set October 27, 2005
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois - County Department,
Chancery Division will hold a fairness hearing for the proposed
settlement in the matter: Prints of Peace, Inc., d/b/a Printers
Inc. v. Enovation Graphic Systems, Inc., Case No. No. 03 CH
15167, on behalf of all persons located anywhere in the United
States who during the period September 11, 1998 to May 12, 2005
were sent or received an unsolicited facsimile ad transmitted by
or on behalf of Enovation Graphic Systems, Inc. or its
predecessors in interest including Profit Printing CM Graphics
or PrimeSource Corporation, or its successors in interest.

The hearing will take place before the Honorable Judge Patrick
E. McGann on October 27, 2005 at 10:30 a.m., in Room 2508 of the
Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Daley Center, 50 W.
Washington, Chicago, IL, 60602.

For more details, contact Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin
LLC, 120 S. LaSalle Street, 18th Floor, Chicago, IL, 60603,
Phone: (312) 739-4200, E-mail: edcombs@aol.com, Web site:
http://www.edcombs.com/CM/Notices/Notices313.asp.


HO'S TRADING: Recalls White Fungus Due to Undeclared Sulfites
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ho's Trading Inc., 1010 Dean Street, Brooklyn, NY 11238 is
recalling Fortune Star White Fungus, 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 Fortune Star White Fungus are packed in 3 oz.,
uncoded plastic bags. The products were sold nationwide.

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 undeclared sulfites in Fortune Star
White Fungus, which had not declare sulfites on the label. The
consumption of 10 milligrams of sulfites per serving has been
reported to elicit severe reaction 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 Fortune Star White Fungus should
return it to the place of purchase. Consumers with questions may
contact the company at 1-718-622-2288.


INDIANA: EEOC Seeks Victims of Racial Bias at Apartment Complex
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is actively seeking
out job applicants who may be victims of alleged racist hiring
practices by Georgetowne Place Retirement Apartments, a Fort
Wayne apartment complex, The WISE 33 reports.

Filed last year, the complaint, which was recently settled by
parent company Merrill Gardens for $650,000, alleges that for
nine years, management there refused to hire African Americans
or other minorities. One former employee even claimed that she
was instructed by long time General Manager Carol Felger to
place a "z" on minority job applications, to mark them for
rejection.

Additionally, the EEOC claims Ms. Felger later told its
investigators that residents at Georgetowne Place preferred
white employees and didn't want minorities to come into their
rooms.

The Fort Wayne Metro Human Relations Commission, which also sued
over the same issues, maintains the allegations are among the
more serious they've seen. Metro Human Relations Commission
Director Gerald Foday told WISE 33, "Because it precludes...it
doesn't even get minorities into the workforce, I mean, you are
rejecting folks summarily."

Under terms of the proposed EEOC settlement, even minority job
candidates without proper qualifications to land the job they
were applying for, may still join in and collect money.  The
settlement simply defines victims in the class action suit, as
minorities who applied for openings at Georgetowne Place between
February 1998 and April 2005, and were beaten out by a non-
minority applicant.

For more details, contact EEOC, Suite 1900, 101 West Ohio
Street, Indianapolis, IN.


KENTUCKY: Judge Approves $120M Settlement For Priest Abuse Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge John W. Potter granted preliminary approval to the
country's largest settlement for the case involving sexual abuse
by Catholic priests in northern Kentucky, authorizing a $120
million agreement between the Roman Catholic Diocese of
Covington and hundreds of victims of child-molesting priests and
other employees, The Associated Press reports.

The decision by the judge immediately makes available $40
million from diocese assets. The victims and the diocese are
suing two insurance companies for the remaining $80 million.

Judge Potter's ruling allows the church and the plaintiff's
lawyers to begin advertising the settlement and sets a November
10 deadline for claims to be filed.

As previously reported in the June 13, 2005 edition of the Class
Action Reporter, Judge Potter, a retired Jefferson County judge
was appointed 18 months ago as a special judge in the Boone
County case, set another hearing for June 23 to review a new
public notice for the settlement, which would compensate victims
who were fondled, raped or sodomized by priests and other church
employees. Upon the settlement of the case Judge Potter asked
Stan Chesley, who represented those who sued the diocese, and
Carrie Huff, an attorney for the Covington Diocese, to rework
the notice to specify that the diocese has $40 million on hand
and is pursuing the other $80 million. Judge Potter said he's
hoping for a settlement in the case to keep the plaintiffs from
having to testify about being molested.

Both attorneys told AP that they sent Judge Potter a new public
notice before June 23, but then got word that the hearing was
postponed. Ms. Huff even pointed out, "He did this on his own
motion. We did not ask for it." Mr. Chesley also told AP that he
hopes to allay Judge Potter's concerns about the proposed
settlement. "This is real stuff, and we want to get it done," he
said.

The class action lawsuit, as previously reported in the February
18, 2003 edition of the Class Action Reporter, was filed in
Boone County Circuit Court by Cincinnati-based Mr. Chesley,
claims that 21 priests and some other workers abused more than
150 victims in the Diocese of Covington for decades while church
officials did nothing to stop the misconduct.

According to the court filings, from about 1956, information on
the sexual abuse of minors by diocesan priests has been
concealed from the public, including parents of children in
schools and parishes where the alleged perpetrators were
assigned, as well as from family members of employees of the
diocese. Specifically, the suit accuses the diocese, which is
just across the Ohio River from Cincinnati, of a 50-year cover-
up of sexual abuse by priests and others.

It is still unclear how many people are involved in the class
action, but Judge Potter has ordered a "census" to be conducted
to determine the exact number of victims who will come forward.
Previously, Ms. Huff told AP that the diocese had about $40
million on hand, which could compensate 200 victims, a deal that
the attorneys expect.

Under the settlement, the victims would receive awards ranging
from $5,000 to $450,000, based on the severity of abuse, and
those in the highest category would be eligible to apply to a
special fund for extraordinary claims.

The settlement requires victims to file an application to make a
claim by a deadline, not yet set. That would give the court a
total number of people seeking damages. Then, they would face a
second deadline to file a full claim for money. Any money not
distributed must be returned to the diocese or the insurance
companies.


MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Go Computer Founder Files Antitrust Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Go Computer, Inc. founder Jerrold Kaplan filed an antitrust
lawsuit against Microsoft Corporation in the United States
District Court in San Francisco, California, alleging that
software giant Microsoft Corporation conspired to "crush his
business," MSNBC.com reports.

Mr. Kaplan started his company in the early 1990s, after he
invented one of the precursors to handheld devices - an
operating system that enabled computer users to write with a pen
instead of a keyboard.  Formed in 1987, Go Computer developed a
tablet computer as well as software that enabled computers to
understand handwriting.  Decades later, the ability to write
with a stylus is a key function of many personal digital
assistants as well as of tablet computers, for which Microsoft
developed a variation of its Windows XP operating system.  The
Company was once one of Silicon Valley's hottest startups, but
it was sold to AT&T Co. in 1994, and the rights to its assets
were transferred to Lucent Technologies Inc. two years later.

Last year, Mr. Kaplan was subpoenaed to testify in an unrelated
class-action suit against Microsoft in Minnesota.  It was then
that he learned of the documents involving his old company.  In
April, Mr. Kaplan reacquired the rights to sue on the Company's
behalf.  Mr. Kaplan said that he had long suspected that
Microsoft had set out to exclude his company, and he now says
that he has the evidence through the documents, which indicate
that Microsoft chairman Bill Gates set out in the early 1990s to
discourage other companies from doing business with Mr. Kaplan's
startup, Go Computer Inc.

Mr. Kaplan's suit quotes from letters purportedly written by Mr.
Gates, including one undated note allegedly sent to then Intel
CEO Andy Grove, as evidence of Microsoft's "collusive and
exclusionary" business practices.  The Company allegedly first
tried to launch a competing operating system, and when that plan
failed, it made threats or offered incentives to companies to
prevent them from endorsing or investing in Go.

"I guess I've made it clear that we view an Intel investment in
Go as an anti-Microsoft move," Mr. Gates wrote Mr. Grove,
according to a copy of the lawsuit obtained by The Associated
Press. "I am asking you not to make any investment in Go."

Intel, which had planned to endorse Go's technology, backed off
after Microsoft's lobbying, according to Kaplan's lawsuit. Such
"incentives and threats" also discouraged other business
partners from adopting Go's operating system, ultimately killing
the technology, the lawsuit says, according to MSNBC.

"This was a corporate mugging," Mr. Kaplan said with MSNBC in an
interview on Tuesday.

A Microsoft spokeswoman, Stacy Drake, scoffed at the idea that
Go was victimized by a Microsoft plot, MSNBC reports.

"These claims date back nearly 20 years," Mr. Drake told MSNBC.
"They were baseless then and they are baseless now."  He said
Go's technology, at the time Kaplan alleges Microsoft conspired
to crush his company, was flawed.

"Handwriting had severe limitations," Mr. Drake said. "There
were a number of companies that attempted pen computing and none
of them were successful during that time."


NEW YORK: NY Court Certifies 9/11 Coins Consumer Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahon of the Southern District of
New York granted class action status to a lawsuit filed by a
Burlington County man who claims he was defrauded and tricked
into the purchase of "Freedom Tower Silver Dollar" coins, The
Cherry Hill Courier Post reports.

The lawsuit, which was filed by attorney Stephen P. DeNittis,
claims that National Collector's Mint Inc. misrepresented the
composition of the commemorative coin, which sold for $23.45
plus shipping and handling.

In advertising, the $1 coin was described as made of pure silver
recovered from ground zero at the World Trade Center. It also
was described as "a legally authorized government issue silver
dollar" that was legal tender in the U.S.

According to the suit, at least 1,000 copies of the coin were
sold to New Jersey residents since it first was offered for sale
on September 1, 2004. It describes the advertising campaign as
"a shameless attempt to profit from a national tragedy."

In a previous, Judge McMahon denied the motion by National
Collector's Mint to dismiss the complaint.

In November, New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer obtained a
court order to halt advertising for the collectible coins. In a
statement at that time, Mr. Spitzer said a private company in
Wyoming produced the medallion under a licensing agreement with
the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands. In court
documents, Mr. Spitzer said that instead of being made of pure
silver, Mr. Spitzer said that the medallion is an inexpensive
metal alloy plated with one ten-thousandth of an inch of silver
and that its value is about 1.4 cents.

Last week, the coins were being offered for sale on e-Bay, an
Internet auction site, for $49.95 each.


NISHIN TRADING: Recalls Soft Drink (Tea) Due to Undeclared Milk
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nishin Trading Inc. is recalling Kirin Soft Drink (Tea) because
it may contain undeclared milk protein. People who have
allergies to milk protein may run the risk of serious or life-
threatening allergic reactions if they consume this product.

The recalled Kirin Soft Drink (Tea) packaged in 1.5 liter
plastic bottles with various codes were sold nationwide.

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 undeclared milk protein in packages,
which had not declared a milk ingredient on the label.

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

Consumers who have purchased Kirin Soft Drink (Tea) should
return it to the place of purchase. Consumers with questions may
contact the company at 718-486-8396.


RAILTRACK PLC: Transport Officials Says Claims V. Byers Absurd
--------------------------------------------------------------
Claims by Railtrack shareholders that they were robbed of their
investment by the then transport secretary Stephen Byers's
action in pushing it into administration were "groundless and
absurd," according to Jonathan Sumption QC for the Department
for Transport, The Guardian reports.

Mr. Sumption told the high court at a recent hearing for one of
Britain's biggest class action that Railtrack could only have
survived if it had received huge government handouts to which it
had no right. He added, "A company whose financial situation is
such that it can only meet its existing obligations if it
receives very large sums to which it is not entitled is bust."

As previously reported in the April 22, 2005 edition of the
Class Action Reporter, the class action was on the brink of
collapse after a high court ruling, which left the group facing
an estimated $1.73 million (œ900,000) shortfall in funds.  The
case suffered what could be a fatal blow when a judge ruled that
shareholders must pay about $4.32 million (œ2.25 million) into
court to cover the government's costs in the event of their
defeat.

Leaders of the Railtrack private shareholders' action group
admitted that they had insufficient money and that the decision
was likely to mean the end of their three-year battle unless a
"white knight" offered cash to top up their coffers.

The shareholders had accused former transport secretary Stephen
Byers of misfeasance in public office over his controversial
move in putting Railtrack into administration in 2001. They
insist that the firm was solvent and that his actions amounted
to renationalization without full compensation.

The shareholders, many of them pensioners with small
shareholdings, are accusing the government of "misfeasance of
justice", a little-used claim which suggests the accused acted
within in the law but in bad faith. Essentially, the
shareholders are suing the government for the difference between
the average price of Railtrack shares and what they were offered
when the government bought the business to pass on to Network
Rail.

The case was brought in the name of a single shareholder,
Geoffrey Weir, who said: "This is a very disappointing outcome
and it could be the end of our claim." Mr. Weir also said that
the judge's ruling made it difficult for any group of citizens
to challenge the government, as the amount needed to cover a
possible defeat was out of reach.

A middle-ranking Railtrack executive, Andrew Chalklen, who urged
shareholders to donate 10p for every share they held, formed the
action group. It recruited law firm Edwin Coe and a leading
barrister, Michael Crystal QC.

Court documents revealed that the government forced Railtrack
out of business in October 2001 by withdrawing funding after a
fatal crash in 2000 at Hatfield. State-backed Network Rail has
since replaced Railtrack.

Additionally, Mr. Sumption also said that the case rested on
three issues, that Mr. Byers: had misused legislation to avoid
paying shareholders compensation for what was in effect
renationalisation; had made Railtrack insolvent when it would
not otherwise have been; and that he did this with the specific
objective of harming the shareholders.

Addressing these issues, Mr. Sumption told the high court, "The
proposition that the damage done to shareholders by the
administration order was seen as an advantage is perfectly
absurd." He added that the problem for the shareholders was that
Railtrack was "worthless" but the extent of its problems "had
not yet been appreciated by the market". He pointed out that the
only thing Mr. Byers had done that had contributed to
Railtrack's going into administration was to refuse the company
"financial assistance to which it had no right".

Mr. Sumption also said that counsel for the claimants Keith
Rowley QC had said earlier in the hearing that the sins of
Railtrack should not be visited on the shareholders. He
responded to that comment by saying to the court, "There is
every reason the sins of Railtrack should be visited on the
claimants. The prime risk any investor takes in buying shares is
that the management of the company will mismanage it."

The next figure to give evidence in the class action is former
Railtrack chairman John Robinson, who according to letters
disclosed at the previous hearing, did not oppose the
government's seeking a petition putting the company into
administration. His financial director though has said that it
was a "no brainer" that his company would have to go into
administration if the government did not offer extra funds.

The disclosures are likely to be used by lawyers seeking to
prove Mr. Byers had not acted with malice by putting the company
into administration.


SKILLSOFT PLC: Reaches Settlement For 2002 Securities Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
SkillSoft PLC (Nasdaq: SKIL), a leading provider of content
resources and complementary technologies for integrated
enterprise learning, concluded negotiations with its lead
director and officer insurance carrier, AIG, with respect to
AIG's contribution to the settlement of the 2002 securities
class action lawsuit, the related litigation and certain costs
related to the SEC investigation.

The parties have entered into an agreement that provides for the
payment by AIG to the Company of $15 million in exchange for a
release and other customary terms and conditions. The Company
anticipates receiving the payment before July 31, 2005. The
Company settled the 2002 securities class action in March 2004
for $30.5 million.

The Company is also continuing to work with its secondary
director and officer insurance providers, to bring to conclusion
its negotiations with them.


UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH: PA Judge Approves Ticket Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Common Pleas Judge Robert P. Horgos approved an agreement
between the University of Pittsburgh and season-ticket holders
who want to retain preferential seating for men's basketball
games, thus ending a class action lawsuit against the university
that all sides believe could have become costly and protracted,
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports.

In granting the motion by both sides to settle their
differences, the judge said, "The court recognizes that there's
an emotional (aspect), and that more than money is involved." He
added, "Without the diligence of counsel, these things can get
out of hand."

Under the settlement, members of the class action suit, which
was filed by the law firm Stember Feinstein Krakoff, will retain
their seats at the Petersen Events Center for the next five
years by buying their regular season tickets and maintaining a
minimum donation level set by the university. The minimum
donation to retain seats for next season is $250 for a holder of
two season tickets, but that will increase to $300 for the 2006-
07 season.

As previously reported in the March 31, 2005 edition of the
Class Action Reporter, attorney John Stember filed the class
action lawsuit, which challenges university's new basketball
season ticket policy, which lets the school reassign some seats
depending on how much a ticket holder donates to the school.

According to Mr. Stember, who is a season ticket holder, "Many
hardworking people, who have been loyal supporters of Pitt for
decades could lose their seats or have their seats changed every
year under this new plan." He also said that before the Petersen
Events Center opened in 2002, the university promoted a plan
that promised season ticket holders the same seats every year,
if they maintained or increased their contributions to a
fundraising program then known as "Team Pittsburgh" and now
called "The Panther Club."

Additionally, Mr. Stember stated Pitt had announced previously
that all non-Club season tickets will be reassigned annually
based on a point score which includes, among other things, how
much money ticket holders give to a new sports fundraising
drive. The plaintiffs are comparing that process to a silent
auction, saying that people could lose their seats to others who
gave more money.

Mr. Stember is suing on behalf of 500 to 1,000 people who bought
tickets in a general seating area that will likely be affected
by the new policy. "They advertised this as a once-in-a-lifetime
opportunity to get your seats assigned," Mr. Stember said of the
2002 policy, which he wants the court to enforce. "I guess a
lifetime passes quickly," he adds.

Court documents revealed that Mr. Stember is asking an Allegheny
County judge to order the school to let current season ticket
holders keep their seats, which are be reassigned in May,
regardless of their donations.

In his ruling Judge Horgos stated that since no members of the
class action objected to the settlement by the June 22 deadline,
the agreement is final with the notices of the proposed
settlement being sent last month to the ticket holders.

Under a clause in the settlement absolves the university of
liability. Additionally, another clause states that all other
season-ticket holders who are not members of the class action
suit are subject to the agreement. Otherwise, through individual
litigation, an inequitable result could occur.

Michael Manzo, of the firm Klett Rooney Lieber & Schorling,
which represented the university in the suit, told the
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, "Most of these people are Pitt
supporters. They're funding an athletic operation of full scope.
Everybody kind of wanted the same thing down the road, a first-
rate program."

Previously, Mr. Stember told the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette that he
fought the seating changes because he thought they were unfair
in light of previous representations made by Pitt.

Under terms of the agreement, Pitt also agreed to pay attorney's
fees in the amount of $35,000 for the ticket holders.

For more details, visit http://www.sfklaw.net.


VIOXX LITIGATION: NJ Judge Probing Release of Damaging Document
---------------------------------------------------------------
New Jersey Superior Court Judge Carol E. Higbee questioned
attorneys from both parties in the litigation against Merck &
Co.'s controversial arthritis drug Vioxx, in the hopes of
discovering how The Associated Press obtained a potentially
damaging document, The Associated Press reports.

The document indicated that Merck scientists were considering
combining Vioxx with another compound to lower the risk of heart
attacks and strokes.  The document appeared to undermine earlier
statements of the Company that officials believed the drug was
safe before they recalled last September 2004, after a study
linked Vioxx to increased heart attack and stroke risks.

Merck inadvertently gave the document to plaintiff lawyers
during evidence gathering in one of the hundreds of Vioxx
lawsuits.  On May 27, Judge Higbee ruled that the document was
privileged and could not be used at trial.  She ordered
attorneys with copies to destroy them or return them to Merck
immediately.  The Company had insisted the document was an
attorney-client communication between company scientists and in-
house patent counsel, AP reports.

The Associated Press reported details in the document on June
22.  A copy of the document was provided to The Associated Press
on the condition that its source not be identified.

Ms. Higbee's clerk, who asked not to be identified by name, told
AP that about a dozen attorneys, some representing plaintiffs
and some defense attorneys, were scheduled to be questioned
Thursday.  Further hearings were scheduled for Friday and for
July 12.  If Higbee can determine who is responsible, the judge
would then hold further proceedings to determine whether to
impose sanctions, find the attorney in contempt of court or
pursue some other option, the clerk said.


WASHINGTON: Kent City Police Officers File Overtime Wage Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The City of Kent in Washington faces a lawsuit filed by a group
of police officers seeking damages for alleged violations of
state labor law, the King County Journal reports.

The suit, filed in King County Superior Court in Washington,
alleges the city violated a state law that requires an
employee's paycheck include compensation for all overtime worked
up to a week before the day the paycheck is received.  For
example, the extra pay for all overtime worked through the 13th
of the month must be included in the regular paycheck received
on the 20th.  That hasn't always happened, according to the
lawsuit, which states the city has repeatedly "failed to pay the
officers in a timely matter."

City officials have been reviewing overtime records and say if a
judge awards such damages, plus attorney fees, it could cost the
city hundreds of thousands of dollars.  The officers have
received the overtime pay and other compensation they earned,
but there have been times when they have had to wait through an
extra pay period to get it.  The officers now want to be
compensated for the repeated delays.  They are asking to be paid
a second time for the overtime pay they received late, the King
County Journal reports.

Mayor Jim White and other city officials said they heard no
complaints about late overtime pay from the city's police
officers before the lawsuit was filed.  "This came from out of
the blue," Mr. White Told The Journal.  "We wish they had come
to us to let us work it out."

City officials are filing a response in court denying the
officers' claims.  Bruce Schroeder, the Seattle attorney hired
to represent the city in the lawsuit, said the state law applies
to employees who receive only one paycheck each month.  "It is
the city's position, consistent with what the state Department
of Labor & Industries guidelines provide, that this doesn't
apply to a bi-monthly payroll system, as the city of Kent has
established," Mr. Schroeder told the Journal.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit against Kent are members of the
executive board of the Kent Police Officers Association. The
next legal step is a hearing, where their attorney will ask a
judge to declare all officers represented by the association as
plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit.  The group represents
about 100 of Kent's 125 commissioned police officers.
Lieutenants and captains are represented in contract
negotiations by another group.

The Kent Police Officers Association, the union which represents
about 100 police patrol officers, detectives and sergeants, in
contract negotiations, couldn't be reached Friday for comment,
The Journal reports.  The Seattle attorney who filed the lawsuit
in King County Superior Court didn't return telephone calls
Thursday or Friday.


WORLD INFORMATION: NY Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York dismissed the securities class action filed against
World Information Technology, Inc. on behalf of all persons who
purchased the Company's securities (OTC: WRLT) between January
3, 2003 and March 16, 2004.

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period World
Information Technology reported artificially inflated sales,
accounts receivable and net income. The truth was partially
revealed when their outside auditor, Beckstead & Watts, LLP,
resigned in January, 2004. Then, on March 16, 2004, the
Securities and Exchange Commission temporarily suspended trading
of World Information Technology securities due to the inaccuracy
and incompleteness of its financial statements.

The suit is styled "Saltzman v. World Information Technology,
Inc. et al., case no. 1:04-cv-06195-RMB-GWG," filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, under Judge Richard M. Berman.  Representing the
plaintiffs are Seth Klein, Julie Praq Vianale, Kenneth Vianale,
Vianale & Vianale LLP, 5355 Town Center Road, Suite 801, Boca
Raton, FL 33486 by Phone: e-file@vianalelaw.com; and Lee Scott
Shalov, Shalov Stone & Bonner LLP, 485 Seventh Avenue, Suite
1000, New York, NY 10018, Phone: 212-239-4340, Fax: 212-239-
4310, E-mail: lshalov@lawssb.com.  Representing the Company is
Ronald E. DePetris, DePetris & Bachrach, L.L.P., 240 Madison
Avenue, New York, NY 10016, Phone: (212) 557-7747, Fax:
(212) 557-3383.


                 New Securities Fraud Cases

ABLE LABORATORIES: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in NJ
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey, Newark Division. This
action has been brought on behalf of all purchasers of Able
Laboratories, Inc. (NasdaqNM: ABRX) securities during the period
between June 25, 2003 and May 23, 2005 (the "Class Period").

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making
materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business and prospects to artificially inflate the
value of Able stock. It is alleged that throughout the Class
Period, the defendants represented to the Class that the Company
had numerous Abbreviated New Drug Applications ("ANDAs") that
were approved or were pending with the United States Food and
Drug Administration ("FDA"). These statements were false and
misleading when made because the defendants failed to disclose
or indicate that the testing of Able's products did not adhere
to standard operating procedures and good manufacturing
practices ("GMP"). The Company shocked the investing public
when, on May 19, 2005, it announced that it was suspending
shipments of its products until it could determine whether its
products were manufactured and tested in compliance with
standard operating procedures and current GMP. Further, later
that day, the Company announced the resignation of Dhananjay G.
("Jay") Wadekar, its Chief Executive Officer and the Chairman of
the Company's Board of Directors.

The market reacted severely to these announcements. Able's
common stock price plummeted from $24.63 per share on May 18,
2005 to $6.26 per share on May 19, 2005 on volume of 31,346,100
-- almost 30 times the previous day's volume.

However, investors were shocked once again when, on Monday, May
23, 2005, the Company announced that it had suspended
manufacture and distribution of its products; initiated a recall
of all its products; and withdrawn seven of its approved ANDAs
because those applications were based on data upon which the
Company was no longer willing to rely. The Company's stock price
dropped further, to $5.05 per share.

For more details, contact Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel by Mail:
273 Montgomery Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone:
610-660-8000 or 888-643-6735 by Fax: 610-660-8080 or by E-Mail:
mhenzel182@aol.com.


ABLE LABORATORIES: Abbey Gardey Lodges Securities Lawsuit in NJ
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Abbey Gardy, LLP initiated a Class Action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey, Newark
Division on behalf of a class (the "Class") of all persons who
purchased or acquired securities of Able Laboratories, Inc.
("Able" or the "Company")(Nasdaq: ABRX) between October 30, 2002
and May 18, 2005 inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period thereby
artificially inflating the price of Able securities. The action,
captioned Skoros v. Able Laboratories, Inc., et al., is pending
in the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey against defendants Able Laboratories, Dhananjay G.
Wadekar (CEO, President), Robert Weinstein (CFO, Treasurer to
November 2004).

The Complaint alleges that starting on October 30, 2002 and
continuing until May 18, 2005, defendants made a series of
materially false and misleading statements regarding the about
Able's business and earnings. The Complaint alleges that
throughout the Class Period, Able failed to disclose and
misrepresented the following material adverse facts known to
defendants or recklessly disregarded by them:

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

     (2) the Company was faced with potentially enormous
         liabilities and fines as a result of its breaches of
         good manufacturing practices;

     (3) the Company's breaches jeopardized not only its current
         drug offerings but also the likelihood that drugs in
         development would gain FDA approval; and

     (4) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' opinions and
         statements concerning Able's current and future
         earnings lacked a reasonable basis at all times.

On May 19, 2005, Able announced that it had identified
departures from standard operating procedures and good
manufacturing practices with respect to certain laboratory
testing practices and that as a result of these observations;
the Company will be recalling additional products in the future.
Able also announced on May 19 the resignation of Wadekar from
his positions as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer.

This news shocked the market and the reaction of the stock
market was dramatic. Shares of Able fell $18.37 per share, or
$74.59 per share, on May 19, 2005, to close at $6.25 per share

On May 23, 2005, Able Laboratories announced that it is
recalling all of its products for safety testing and taking the
additional drastic step of withdrawing seven of its "abbreviated
new drug applications" due to commercial reasons and
"identification, in certain applications, of data upon which the
Company is no longer willing to rely." During the Class Period,
insiders sold a total of 480,666 shares for proceeds of
$9,533,047.00.

For more details, contact Susan Lee or Nancy Kaboolian, Esq. of
Abbey Gardy, LLP by Mail: 212 East 39th Street, New York, New
York 10016 by Phone: (212) 889-3700 or (800) 889-3701 or by E-
mail: slee@abbeygardy.com.


BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS: Marc S. Henzel Files Stock Lawsuit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of all purchasers of publicly traded
securities of Brocade Communication Systems, Inc (Nasdaq: BRCD)
("Brocade") between February 21, 2001 and May 15, 2005 (the
"Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that Brocade violated federal securities
laws by issuing false or misleading public statements. These
allegations arise out of Brocade's May 16, 2005 announcement
that it would have to restate its fiscal 2001 to fiscal 2004
earnings. Brocade stated that "the Company will restate its
financial statements for the fiscal years ending 2002 through
2004 to record additional charges for stock-based compensation
expense" and that fiscal 2001 and fiscal 2002 earnings per share
would be reduced by up to $0.11 and $0.19, respectively.

For more details, contact Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel by Mail:
273 Montgomery Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone:
610-660-8000 or 888-643-6735 by Fax: 610-660-8080 or by E-Mail:
mhenzel182@aol.com.


CARRIER ACCESS: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Lawsuit in CO
--------------------------------------------------------------
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 Colorado on behalf of
purchasers of Carrier Access Corporation ("Carrier Access")
(NASDAQ:CACSE) publicly traded securities during the period
between October 21, 2003 and May 20, 2005 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Carrier Access and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Carrier Access designs, manufactures and sells converged
access equipment to wireline and wireless carriers.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's financial results and its business prospects. As a
result of these false statements, the Company's shares traded at
inflated levels during the Class Period, allowing the defendants
to use the Company's shares as currency in its acquisition of
Paragon Networks and to sell 6 million shares to the public in a
secondary offering, raising proceeds of $78 million.

However, according to the complaint, by July 20, 2004, due to
the defendants' concerns about the government's stance towards
accounting fraud, the Company announced a reduction in the
Company's projections, sending its shares down 37%, a loss of
$4.73 to $8.06. On May 5, 2005, the Company issued a press
release in which it announced it had received a Nasdaq Staff
Determination letter which indicated that "although the company
filed its Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004,
the filing did not include management's assessment of its
internal controls over financial reporting and the associated
auditor attestation report . . . ." As a result, the Company's
stock was subject to delisting on the Nasdaq Stock Market. Then
on May 20, 2005, the Company issued a press release stating that
it was in the process of performing a detailed review of all
significant customer relationships and as part of those reviews
was evaluating the propriety of the timing of revenue and cost
recognition and other revenue recognition issues. The release
stated: "At this point in time, the Company has determined that
certain revenues and direct costs have been recorded in
incorrect periods. The amounts that have been quantified to date
are significant and, as a result, previously issued financial
statements for the year ended December 31, 2004, and certain
interim periods in each of the years ended December 31, 2004,
and 2003, will be restated." On this news the Company's stock
fell to $4.60 per share.

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


COLLINS & AIKMAN: Murray Frank Files Securities Fraud Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of shareholders who
purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Collins &
Aikman ("Collins & Aikman" or the "Company") (Pink Sheets:CKCRQ)
between May 6, 2004 and March 17, 2005, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

The Complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements that
materially overstated the value of the Company's revenue and net
income. On March 17, 2005, Collins & Aikman issued a press
release announcing that it had commenced an internal review of
how it was accounting for supplier rebates. This review revealed
that the Company was prematurely or inappropriately recognizing
revenue and would cause the Company to restate its results that
will reflect a reduction of its previously reported operating
income by $10 - $12 million for the nine months ended September
30, 2004.

The complaint alleges that statements made by the Company
concerning its financial results were materially false and
misleading because defendants knew, but failed to disclose
and/or misrepresented that the Company lacked adequate internal
controls that would allow it to ascertain its true financial
performance and condition and was further materially overstating
its financial results by engaging in improper accounting
practices that will require the Company to restate its results
for the at least the first three quarters of 2004.

On May 17, 2005, the Company announced that it had filed to
reorganize under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.

For more details, contact Eric J. Belfi or Christopher Hinton of
Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP by Phone: (800) 497-8076 or
(212) 682-1818 by Fax: (212) 682-1892 by E-mail:
info@murrayfrank.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.murrayfrank.com/CM/NewCases/NewCases.asp.


CORN PRODUCTS: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in IL
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP initiated a
class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities
of Corn Products International, Inc. (NYSE: CPO) ("Corn
Products" or the Company) between January 25, 2005 and April 4,
2005 inclusive (the "Class Period") seeking to pursue remedies
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The action is pending in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois (Eastern Division) against
defendants Corn Products, Samuel Scott (CEO) and Cheryl Beebe
(CFO).

The complaint alleges that Corn Products manufactures starches
and liquid sweeteners, including glucose corn syrups, high
maltose corn syrups and industrial and food-grade starches. Its
basic raw material is corn and, throughout the Class Period,
defendants maintained that they had properly hedged the
Company's exposure to corn price fluctuations. The truth emerged
on April 4, 2005 after the market closed, when it became clear
that the Company had not, as it had claimed, properly hedged its
corn position. On that date, defendants announced that first-
quarter 2005 estimated earnings per share would be down 35-40%
year-over-year due to higher net corn costs, higher energy and
freight costs, and undisclosed "manufacturing expense problems"
(later revealed to have arisen from "freakish" manufacturing
problems at several plants in the U.S. and Canada). On this
news, Corn Product shares, which had closed at $25.86 on April
4, 2005, fell $5.75, or 22%, to a low of $20.11 before closing
out the day at $20.98.

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


CORN PRODUCTS: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in IL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Stull, Stull & Brody initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois on behalf of all persons who purchased the
securities of Corn Products International Inc. ("CornProducts"
or the "Company") (NYSE:CPO) between January 25, 2005, and April
4, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges that Corn Products, Samuel Scott and
Cheryl Beebe with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company
failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material
adverse facts, which were known to defendants or recklessly
disregarded by them:

     (1) that the Company was experiencing manufacturing
         problems at some of its facilities, which resulted in
         increased manufacturing expenses;

     (2) that the Company's net corn costs were significantly
         higher due to the Company's speculative hedging of
         Canadian corn;

     (3) that US sweetener price increase, contrary to the
         Company's representations, failed to offset higher
         energy costs; and

     (4) that as a result of the foregoing, defendants lacked
         any reasonable basis for their positive statements
         concerning the Company and its earnings and prospects.

On April 5, 2005, Corn Products said that it expected first-
quarter diluted earnings per share to decline 35 percent to 40
percent from the first quarter of 2040. News of this shocked the
market. Shares of Corn Products fell $4.88 per share or 18.87
percent, on April 5, 2005, to close at $20.98 per share.

For more details, contact Tzivia Brody, Esq. of Stull, Stull &
Brody by Phone: 1-800-337-4983 by Fax: 212/490-2022 by E-mail:
SSBNY@aol.com or visit their Web site: http://www.ssbny.com.


DORAL FINANCIAL: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Fraud Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP initiated a Class
Action lawsuit was filed 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 Doral Financial Corporation
("Doral" or the "Company") (NYSE:DRL), between October 10, 2002
and April 19, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint charges Doral 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
Doral's stock price, inflicting damages on investors. Doral is a
diversified financial services company engaged in mortgage
banking, commercial banking, institutional broker-dealer
activities and insurance agency activities. The Complaint
alleges that during the Class Period defendants failed to
disclose and/or misrepresented material adverse facts, including
that:

     (1) the Company was using overly aggressive and unrealistic
         assumptions to value its derivative portfolio of
         interest-only strips ("IO Strips") used to hedge its
         mortgage portfolio against interest rate fluctuations;

     (2) the Company was using fraudulent accounting practices
         and materially overstated its net income, net gain on
         mortgage loan sales and net capital; and

     (3) the Company was using ineffective risk management and
         hedging strategies against the increasing risk of
         rising interest rates.

On January 19, 2005, the Company for the first time warned of
potential trouble with its hedging strategy against interest
rate changes through its use of a derivative portfolio of IO
Strips. On March 15, 2005, Doral filed its Annual Report with
the SEC in which the Company disclosed for the first time its
use of overly aggressive assumptions in valuing its IO Strips
portfolio.

On March 16, 2005, a Wachovia Capital Markets analyst downgraded
Doral to "underperform" and cut his fiscal year earnings-per-
share estimate after reviewing the Company's annual report. The
next day, a Merrill Lynch analyst downgraded Doral stock and cut
his fiscal year earnings-per-share estimates. In response to the
Company's disclosure, Standard & Poor's lowered its outlook for
Doral's long-term debt from stable to negative, expressing
"concern over the sustainability of the Company's business
model." In a matter of days Doral stock plummeted from $38.29
per share to $21.50 per share in extremely heavy volume.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York on behalf of purchasers of GlaxoSmithKline plc (NYSE: GSK)
common stock and ADRs during the period between February 21,
2001 and August 5, 2004 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges GlaxoSmithKline and certain of its
officers and directors with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. GlaxoSmithKline along with its
subsidiaries constitute a global healthcare group engaged in the
creation, discovery, development, manufacture and marketing of
pharmaceutical and consumer health-related products.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, the prices
of GlaxoSmithKline's stock and ADRs were artificially inflated
by defendants concealing deficiencies with the Company's
selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor ("SSRI") drug, Paxil, in
treating adolescent depression. On August 5, 2004, The Wall
Street Journal published an article that reported that a new
analysis by the FDA had confirmed the link between SSRIs
(including Paxil) and suicidal tendencies in young people. The
prices of GlaxoSmithKline's stock and ADRs, which were inflated
during the Class Period, declined as the falsity of defendants'
statements came to light.

For more details, contact Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel by Mail:
273 Montgomery Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone:
610-660-8000 or 888-643-6735 by Fax: 610-660-8080 or by E-Mail:
mhenzel182@aol.com.


GRAVITY CO.: Lasky & Rifkind Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd., initiated a lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York, on behalf of persons who purchased the American
Depository Shares ("ADS") pursuant to and or traceable to the
Company's Registration Statement/Prospectus issued in connection
with the initial public offering of Gravity ADS's and for open
market purchasers or otherwise acquired publicly traded
securities of Gravity Co., Ltd. ("Gravity" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ:GRVY) between February 7, 2005 and May 12, 2005,
inclusive, (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit was filed against
Gravity and certain officers and directors ("Defendants").

The complaint alleges that Defendants violated the Securities
Exchange Act. Specifically, the complaint alleges that
Defendants issued a Prospectus and Registration Statement in
connection with the Company's IPO, and issued press releases
after the IPO including numerous positive representations
regarding demand for the Company's products. These statements
were false and misleading because Defendants failed to disclose
or misrepresented that the Company's core product, Ragnarok
Online, at the time of the IPO was being materially affected by
declining customer demand. In fact, contrary to the growth
portrayed in the Prospectus, sales at Ragnarok Online were
declining, the Company's animation business had materially
deteriorated, and the Company's license fees and royalties were
being negatively impacted by adverse market conditions in China.

On May 12, 2005, the Company stunned the investor community when
it announced that its financial results for the first quarter of
2005 were much lower than expected. In reaction to this news,
shares of the Company's ADS's dropped precipitously to an all
time low of $5.60, well below the Company's IPO price of $13.50
per share.

For more details, contact Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd. by Phone:
(800) 495-1868 or by E-mail: investorrelations@laskyrifkind.com.


HILB ROGAL: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in VA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C. initiated a lawsuit seeking
class action status in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia on behalf of all persons who
purchased the publicly traded securities of Hilb Rogal & Hobbs
Co. (NYSE: HRH) ("Hilb Rogal & Hobbs") between February 14, 2002
and May 26, 2005 (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that Hilb Rogal & Hobbs violated federal
securities laws by issuing false or misleading public
statements. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that Hilb Rogal
& Hobbs was paying or receiving improper kickbacks in connection
with placing its clients' insurance business. On May 26, 2005,
Hilb Rogal & Hobbs announced that its Chief Operating Officer,
Robert B. Lockhart, had resigned following a review of these
business practices. An internal inquiry found that improper
payments had been made out of the company's Hartford,
Connecticut offices. On this news, shares of Hilb Rogal & Hobbs
fell from a close of $38.20 per share on May 26, 2005, to close
at $33.69 per share on May 27, 2005.

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


MAYTAG CORPORATION: Shalov Stone Lodges Securities Lawsuit in IA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Shalov Stone & Bonner LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit on behalf of investors in Maytag Corporation
common stock. The lawsuit is pending in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Iowa against Maytag,
Ralph F. Hake and George C.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the
defendants failed to disclose and misrepresented material
adverse facts which were known to defendants or recklessly
disregarded by them and which caused the defendants to issue
materially false and misleading financial projections, among
other things, which caused the price of Maytag stock to trade at
artificially inflated prices in the period from March 7, 2005
through April 21, 2005 (the "Class Period"). Among other things,
the complaint alleges that the defendants attempted to inflate
the price of Maytag stock in an effort to secure a higher price
for the company in connection with its buyout negotiations with
Ripplewood Holdings LLC.

For more details, contact Ralph M. Stone of Shalov Stone &
Bonner LLP, 485 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1000, New York, NY, 10018,
Phone: (212) 239-4340, E-mail: rstone@lawssb.com.


PATHMARK STORES: Berger & Montague Lodges Securities Suit in DE
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Berger & Montague, P.C. initiated a lawsuit on
behalf of holders of Pathmark Stores, Inc. (Nasdaq: PTMK) shares
as of the record date of May 6, 2005. The class action was
brought under the federal securities laws is pending in the
United States District Court for District of Delaware, C.A. No.:
05-CIV-0403.

The complaint charges that Pathmark and is board of directors
provided materially misleading information to shareholders in
connection with a Proxy Solicitation seeking shareholder
approval of an investment in Pathmark 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, which 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.

For more details, contact Sherrie R. Savett, Esq., Arthur Stock,
Esq. or Kim Walker, Investor Relations Manager of Berger &
Montague, P.C., 1622 Locust St., Philadelphia, PA, 19103, Phone:
(888) 891-2289, E-mail: investorprotect@bm.net, Web site:
http://www.bergermontague.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.


UNITED AMERICAN: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Suit in E.D. MI
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C. initiated a lawsuit seeking
class action status in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan on behalf of all persons who
purchased the common stock of United American Healthcare
Corporation (Nasdaq: UAHC) ("United American" or the "Company")
between May 26, 2000, and April 22, 2004, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

The Complaint alleges that United American and certain of its
officers and directors violated federal securities laws.
Specifically, defendants failed to disclose the Company's
improper business and financial relationship with a legislator
having oversight of United American's Healthplan. The Complaint
further alleges that this relationship was in violation of the
Company's contract with Tennessee and has caused the State of
Tennessee to place United American's Healthplan under
administrative supervision. As a result, investors could not
accurately assess the extent to which United American's ongoing
operations, reported revenue, and income were dependent upon the
improper political payments scheme.

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


                            *********


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

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

                            *********


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

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

Copyright 2005.  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  * * *