---

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

             Thursday, April 21, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 78

                          Headlines

AMERICA'S MONEYLINE: Inks Settlement For IL Consumer Fraud Suit
AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: OH AG Adds Defendants To Securities Suit
ARKANSAS: Bentonville School Board Settles Amendment 59 Lawsuit
ATLANTIC INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Products For Undeclared Sulfites
CALIFORNIA: Bettor Launches Lawsuit Over Horse's Health Problems

CALIFORNIA: Judge OKs Class Status For Suit Over Secret Cameras
CARTER'S: Recalls 31T Infant, Children Overalls For Choking Risk  
CONSECO INC.: IN Court Hears Motion To Dismiss Securities Suit
CONSECO INC.: Faces Litigation V. Monthly Insurance Deductions
CONSECO INC.: Reaches Settlement For ERISA Violations Suit in IN

CONSECO INC.: TX Court Hears Motion For Suit Settlement Approval
CONSECO LIFE: FL Court Mulls Certification For Consumer Lawsuit
CONSECO LIFE: Faces Nationwide Breach of Contract Lawsuit in NV
CONSECO INC.: Plaintiffs Appeal Certification of CO Fraud Suit
COX COMMUNICATIONS: NY Court Certifies Securities Fraud Lawsuit

COX COMMUNICATIONS: Working To Settle DE, GA Securities Lawsuits
DON PEDRO'S: Recalls 40 lbs Sausage For Listeria Contamination
DUKE ENERGY: Plaintiffs Ask NY Court To Certify Securities Suit
DURA PHARMACEUTICALS: Court Ruling Sets Securities Fraud Norms
ERNST & YOUNG: Analysis Group Helps Firm Win Clarent Fraud Case

J.S. HOVNANIAN: NJ Residents Testify on Ventilation Problems
JACKSON HEWITT: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Lawsuit Over RA Loans
KENTUCKY: Diocese, Plaintiffs Continue Talks, Hearing Postponed
KRAFT FOODS: Recalls Products Due To Undeclared Pistachio Nuts
MBIA INC.: Lieff Cabraser Commences Investigation, Readies Suit

MANHATTAN NATIONAL: Continues To Face NM Policyholder Fraud Suit
MERCK & CO.: Judge Appoints Firm as Co-Led Counsel in ERISA Case
NEW CENTURY: IL Court Mulls Appeal Of Consumer Lawsuit Dismissal
NEW CENTURY: NY Court Yet To Rule on Fraud Suit Dismissal Appeal
NEW CENTURY: NJ Court Considers Motion To Dismiss Consumer Suit

NEW CENTURY: RESPA Violations Lawsuit Remanded To MO State Court
NEW CENTURY: IL Court Stays Lawsuit For Consumer Act Violations
NEW CENTURY: Faces Suit For Violations of Illinois Interest Act
NEW CENTURY: IL Court Preliminarily Okays TCPA Violations Suit
NEW CENTURY: CA Court Hears Plaintiffs' Appeal of Suit Dismissal

NEW CENTURY: LA Court Hears Motion To Reject Suit Certification
NORTH CAROLINA: Temporary Employees Launch Suit Seeking Benefits
POLAROID HOLDING: Investors File DE Fraud Suit V. Petters Merger
PROTON ENERGY: NY Court Preliminarily Approves Suit Settlement
SANTA BARBARA: Discovery Begins in CA RAL Collection Fraud Suit

SAXON MORTGAGE: Working To Settle Consumer Fraud Lawsuit in IL
SAXON MORTGAGE: Working To Settle Interest Rates Lawsuit in MI
SAXON MORTGAGE: Plaintiffs File Two Separate Fraud Suits in LA
WESBANCO INC.: WV Court Hears Appeal of Lawsuit Summary Judgment
WYOMING: Wind River Reservation Tribes Win Case V. Government

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

BLUE COAT: Federman & Sherwood Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. CA
DELPHI CORPORATION: Lockbridge Grindal Lodges MI Securities Suit
MBIA Inc.: Murray Frank Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
PETCO ANIMAL: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CA
PETCO ANIMAL: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. CA

PETCO ANIMAL: Federman & Sherwood Lodges Securities Suit in CA
PETCO ANIMAL: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CA
RHODIA S.A.: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in NJ
SHARPER IMAGE: Brodsky & Smith Files Securities Fraud Suit in CA
SHARPER IMAGE: Charles J. Piven Files Securities Suit in N.D. CA


                            *********


AMERICA'S MONEYLINE: Inks Settlement For IL Consumer Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
America's MoneyLine, Inc. reached a settlement for the class
action filed against it in the Circuit Court of the Third
Judicial Circuit, Madison County, Illinois styled "Josephine
Coleman v. America's MoneyLine, Inc., case no. 02L1557."

This case was filed as a class action alleging consumer fraud
and unjust enrichment under Illinois law and similar laws of
other states. Ms. Coleman alleges that she was improperly
charged a fee for overnight delivery of mortgage loan documents.

In January 2005, the parties entered into a settlement agreement
pursuant to which the Company agreed to pay an immaterial amount
comprised of a payment to Ms. Coleman and an agreed-upon amount
of her attorneys' fees in exchange for dismissal of the suit.
The Court entered an order dismissing the suit with prejudice as
to Ms. Coleman on January 21, 2005.


AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: OH AG Adds Defendants To Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ohio's Attorney General Jim Petro is adding new defendants to
his fraud lawsuit against American International Group Inc.
(AIG.N: Quote, Profile, Research), including AIG's auditor and a
unit of Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway, The Reuters News
Agency reports.

As lead plaintiff in the securities class action lawsuits
against AIG, Ohio's action opens the case up to more defendants,
possibly raising the amount of money investors could recoup in a
settlement or courtroom victory.  Filed on the behalf of Ohio
public employees including teachers, police and fire fighters by
Attorney General Petro, the suit now includes AIG's outside
auditor PricewaterhouseCoopers (PWC), Berkshire Hathaway
(BRKa.N: Quote, Profile, Research) unit General Reinsurance Co.,
and former AIG Chairman and Chief Executive Maurice "Hank"
Greenberg.

Pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York in Manhattan, the suit was originally filed in October
2004 after AIG was implicated in the New York attorney general's
investigation of illegal bid-rigging and other improprieties in
the insurance industry.  The 200-page complaint by the Attorney
General essentially expands the suit to cover allegations of
AIG's improper use of "finite" reinsurance uncovered by New York
Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, as well as other inappropriate
transactions that illegally inflated the company's earnings.

Other new defendants include Starr International and C.V. Starr,
two private companies that are large holders of AIG stock, and
bond underwriters including Merrill Lynch & Co (MER.N: Quote,
Profile, Research) and Morgan Stanley (MWD.N: Quote, Profile,
Research), who led AIG bond offerings during the lawsuit's five-
year class period, Attorney General Petro added.


ARKANSAS: Bentonville School Board Settles Amendment 59 Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Bentonville School Board voted to settle an 8-year-old
class-action lawsuit on over-payment of taxes,
TheHometownChannel.com reports.  Specifically, the board agreed
to settle the Amendment 59 lawsuit for just under $2 million.
That amount, however, would be reduced once taxpayers' green
forms are considered.  Those forms asked taxpayers to indicate
that they had voluntarily paid their taxes during the time
period discussed in the lawsuit and therefore did not want a
refund.

As previously reported in the April 20, 2005 edition of the
Class Action Reporter, the board had set out to review the
possible settlement in the lawsuit, which is seeking refunds
form over collected property taxes.   Superintendent Gary
Compton told TheHometownChannel.com, Board members initially
planned a special meeting within last week but two members could
not attend, thus the board decided to review the settlement
during its regular monthly meeting, which was recently
concluded.  The meeting had been scheduled for 5:30 p.m. in the
Board of Education building. In a memo contained in the meeting
agenda, Mr. Crompton told the board, "As difficult as it is for
me to recommend this settlement, I do believe the amount to be
fair and proportionate."

The settlement is connected to the class action lawsuit that
claims local school districts and governments violated Amendment
59 of the Arkansas Constitution by over collecting property
taxes.  As previously reported in the February 22, 2005 edition
of the Class Action Reporter, the suit was filed in 1997 and
alleges that property owners in Benton County were overtaxed.
According to Dale Evans, one of the attorneys who filed the
suit, as soon as it was filed, property taxes in the county were
considered "paid under protest" allowing them to be questioned
in court.

Taxes paid before then traditionally could not be challenged,
however attorneys are protesting that fact, and the state
Supreme Court in 2000 said they can pursue their argument: That
taxpayers had no way of knowing the assessments were illegal.

Mr. Evans and Kent Hirsch both of whom filed the lawsuit back in
1997, claims local school districts and governments violated
Amendment 59 to the Arkansas Constitution by over collecting
property taxes for several years in the 1990s. Amendment 59
limits the increase in property tax revenue from reappraisals to
10 percent per year for each taxing entity such as a school
district or city. When a taxing entity's revenue collection
would increase more than 10 percent because of property
reappraisal, Amendment 59 triggers a mileage rollback though the
limit does not apply to increases resulting from new
construction or improvements.  Mr. Evans told the Springdale
Morning News that representatives of the Bentonville School
District tentatively agreed to a $1.9 million settlement.

The entities named in the suit were the cities of Rogers and
Lowell, Northwest Arkansas Community College, Benton County and
the school districts of Bentonville, Rogers, Siloam Springs and
Gravette. The school districts, city of Rogers, Benton County
and NWACC have settled.


ATLANTIC INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Products For Undeclared Sulfites
----------------------------------------------------------------
Atlantic International Products, Inc. is recalling Casale Sun-
Dried Tomatoes, Regular Halves, 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 Casale Sun Dried Tomatoes Regular Halves, are
packed in five-pound bags and coded (crop 2004). They are a
product of Turkey and were distributed in the following states:
Connecticut, Massachusetts, Florida, Louisiana, Maryland, New
Jersey, and Colorado.

The recall was initiated after routine sampling by the New York
State Department of Agriculture and Market Food Inspectors,
subsequent analysis of the product by Food Laboratory personnel
revealed the presence of undeclared sulfites in Casale Sun-Dried
Tomatoes in packages, which did not declare sulfites on the
label. The consumption of ten 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 sulfites.

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

Consumers who have purchased Casale Sun-Dried Tomatoes should
return it to the place of purchase. Consumers with questions may
contact the company at (315) 738-4370.


CALIFORNIA: Bettor Launches Lawsuit Over Horse's Health Problems
----------------------------------------------------------------
A bettor who participated in the Santa Anita Derby initiated a
lawsuit against the track, the owner, trainer of Sweet Catomine,
the horse he had bet on and others alleging fraud by not
disclosing the horse's health problems, The Los Angeles Times
reports.

According to the suit, Sweet Catomine started the race April 9
as an even-money favorite but finished fifth. The suit, which
was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court, Arthur Mota
seeks unspecified damages. It follows several allegations
brought by the California Horse Racing Board against Sweet
Catomine's handlers. The suit seeks to represent others who bet
on the horse and could turn into a class action.  Sweet Catomine
had a five-race winning streak before the Santa Anita Derby, but
after her poor finish, owner Marty Wygod told The Los Angeles
Times he'd almost scratched Sweet Catomine, but hadn't because
Santa Anita had focused the race's publicity campaign around the
filly.

In addition, Mr. Wygod said after the race that his filly had
bled internally during a pre-race workout, was ovulating for the
first time and had been treated at a clinic in Santa Barbara for
a foot problem, the LA Times reports.

Julio Canani, fired as Sweet Catomine's trainer, was accused by
the CHRB of committing conduct detrimental to racing.


CALIFORNIA: Judge OKs Class Status For Suit Over Secret Cameras
---------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge has certified a class action lawsuit by a group
of Ontario police officers, who allege that they were secretly
videotaped in the Police Department men's locker room, The
Associated Press reports.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California filed
the suit on the officers' behalf. It alleges that the privacy
rights of about 125 officers were violated when a hidden camera
that was installed in 1996 to catch a flashlight thief recorded
them.  Six defendants are named in the suit, including now-
retired Police Chief Lloyd Scharff, Sergeant Brad Schneider, the
city of Ontario and its police department.  The suit claims
Chief Scharff was aware of the camera that was allegedly
installed under Sergeant Schneider's orders. The lawsuit
requests financial damages.

As previously reported in the September 1, 2004 edition of the
Class Action Reporter, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
Had filed the class action lawsuit against the Ontario Police
Department for allegedly videotaping police officers in various
states of undress.

According to a group of Ontario police officers in July 1996
they were being videotaped while undressing in a locker room.
They further stated that a police sergeant had installed the
video surveillance camera in the police building and was only
discovered when they were moving into a new headquarters. The
officers contend that its installation and operation without
their knowledge is not only a violation of their rights, but
also against the law. When the officers found out about the
videotape they had asked for an investigation by the city
manager, which would later reveal that the camera was installed
to see who had stolen a flashlight. About 125 officers can be
clearly identified on the videotape.  The officers decided to
file the lawsuit after arriving to the conclusion that the
investigation was basically a cover up and nobody will be
disciplined and the city did not feel anyone's rights were
violated and that the matter was closed.

ACLU Attorney Peter Eliasberg, who filed the suit on behalf of
the officers told AP, "Every American has a basic right to
privacy. Not to be not photographed, peeped at, looked at
through a hidden mirror while they are doing something basic and
private as changing in a locker room. This is a grievous
violation of the law by those that should be held to the highest
standards."

The angered officers stated that they basically want
accountability and feel that it had happened at the direction of
the former Chief of Police.


CARTER'S: Recalls 31T Infant, Children Overalls For Choking Risk  
----------------------------------------------------------------
In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC), Carter'sr, of Atlanta, Georgia, is voluntarily recalling
about 31,000 Carter'sr Infant and Children's Overalls.

The plastic center of the decorative snaps on these garments can
detach, posing a choking hazard. Carter's has received 14
reports of snap centers detaching. No injuries have been
reported.

The recalled overalls are pink corduroy with decorative snap
fasteners at the waist and shoulder straps. The light pink
overalls (style 435-092) have a floral embroidery design on the
chest. The dark pink overalls (style 435-646) have a single
patch pocket on the chest. "Carter's" is printed on a tag sewn
into the back of the garment.

Manufactured in China and Thailand respectively, Style 435-646
was sold exclusively through Carter's retail stores from July
2004 through March 2005 for about $26, while Style 435-092 was
sold through Carter's retail stores and other retailers
nationwide from August 2004 through March 2005 for about $28.

Consumer Contact: Contact Carter's at (866) 999-1802 anytime or
visit the firm's Web site: http://www.carters.com.


CONSECO INC.: IN Court Hears Motion To Dismiss Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Indiana heard the motion to dismiss three individual defendants
in the consolidated securities class action filed against
Conseco, Inc. and certain of its current and former officers.

Since the Company announced its intention to restructure its
capital on August 9, 2002, a total of eight purported securities
fraud class action lawsuits were filed on behalf of persons or
entities who purchased the Company's Predecessor's common stock
on various dates between October 24, 2001 and August 9, 2002.  
In each case the plaintiffs allege claims under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended
(the "Exchange Act") and allege material omissions and
dissemination of materially misleading statements regarding,
among other things, the liquidity of Conseco and alleged
problems in CFC's manufactured housing division, allegedly
resulting in the artificial inflation of the Company's
Predecessor's stock price.

On March 13, 2003, all of these cases were consolidated into one
case in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Indiana, captioned "Franz Schleicher, et al. v.
Conseco, Inc., Gary Wendt, William Shea, Charles Chokel and
James Adams, Case No. 02-CV-1332 DFH-TAB."  The complaint seeks
an unspecified amount of damages.  The stay was lifted on
October 15, 2003.  The plaintiffs have filed a consolidated
class action complaint with respect to the individual
defendants.

The Company's liability with respect to this lawsuit was
discharged in the Plan and our obligation to indemnify
individual defendants who were not serving as one of our
officers or directors on the Effective Date of the Plan is
limited to $3 million in the aggregate under the Plan.  Its
liability to indemnify individual defendants who were serving as
an officer or director on the Effective Date, of which there is
one such defendant, is not limited by the Plan.  A motion to
dismiss was filed on behalf of defendants Shea, Wendt and
Chokel.  The motion was heard on November 19, 2004 and the
Company awaits a ruling.

The suit is styled "Franz Schleicher, et al. v. Conseco, Inc.,
Gary Wendt, William Shea, Charles Chokel and James Adams, Case
No. 02-CV-1332 DFH-TAB," filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Indiana, under Judge David
Frank Hamilton.

Representing the Company are Andrea Robin Wood and Robert J.
Kopecky of KIRKLAND & ELLIS, 200 East Randolph Drive Chicago, IL
60605 Phone: (312) 861-3234  Fax: (312) 861-2200 E-mail:
awood@kirkland.com, and rkopecky@kirkland.com.  Representing the
plaintiffs are:

     (1) Kwasi Abraham Asiedu, 3858 Carson Street Suite 204
         Torrance, CA 90503 Phone: (310) 792-3948 Fax: (310)
         792-0600 E-mail: laskido@hotmail.com;

     (2) Brian Joseph Barry, LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN BARRY 1801
         Avenue of the Stars, Suite 307 Los Angeles, CA 90046
         Phone: (310) 788-0831 Fax: (310) 788-0841 E-mail:
         bribarry1@yahoo.com;

     (3) Peter A. Binkow, Claudia Jean Bugh, Michael Marc
         Goldberg, Robin B. Howald, GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP
         1801 Avenue of the Stars Suite 311 Los Angeles, CA
         90067 Phone: (310) 201-9150 Fax: (310) 201-9160, E-
         mail: pbinkow@glancylaw.com, cjbjdcpa@aol.com,
         info@glancylaw.com,

     (4) Bruce D. Brattain, BRATTAIN & MINNIX, 151 N. Delaware
         Street Suite 760 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Phone: (317)
         231-1750 Fax: (317) 231-1760 E-mail:
         mario000@ameritech.net

     (5) Lionel Zevi Glancy, Avraham Noam Wagner, GLANCY &
         BINKOW LLP 1801 Avenue of the Stars Suite 311 Los
         Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 201-9150 Fax: (310) 201-
         9160 E-mail: info@glancylaw.com, awagner@glancylaw.com  


CONSECO INC.: Faces Litigation V. Monthly Insurance Deductions
--------------------------------------------------------------
Conseco, Inc. and certain subsidiaries including principally
Conseco Life Insurance Company, have been named in numerous
purported class actions and individual lawsuits alleging, among
other things, breach of contract, fraud and misrepresentation
with regard to a change made in the way monthly deductions are
calculated for insurance coverage.  

These cases relate to life insurance policies sold primarily
under the names "Lifestyle" and "Lifetime".  Approximately
86,500 policies were subject to the change. Many of these
nationwide purported class action lawsuits were filed in Federal
courts across the United States.  The Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation consolidated these lawsuits into the
case now referred to as "In Re Conseco Life Insurance Co. Cost
of Insurance Litigation, Cause No. MDL 1610," filed in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California.  

The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory, punitive and
exemplary damages and specifically alleges, among other things,
that the change made in the way monthly deductions are
calculated for insurance coverage enabled Conseco, Inc. to add
$360 million to its balance sheet.  A class certification
hearing was held on March 7, 2005 and the Judge has not yet
issued a ruling.

Other cases now pending include purported nationwide class
actions in Indiana and California state courts.  Those cases
filed in Indiana state courts have been consolidated into the
case now referred to as "Alene P. Mangelson, et al. v. Conseco
Life Insurance Company, Cause No. 29D01-0403-PL-211," filed in
the Superior Court, Hamilton County, Indiana.  Those cases filed
in California state courts have been consolidated and are being
coordinated under the new caption Cost of Insurance Cases,
Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding No. 4384 (Judicial
Council of California).

On January 13, 2005, a multi-plaintiff federal action was filed
in Hawaii.  "Clifford Arakaki et al. v. Conseco Life Insurance
Company and Does 1-100, Case No.CV05-00026SPKLEK," filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Hawaii, seeks a
minimum of $5 million.  This case has been conditionally
transferred to "In Re Conseco Life Insurance Co. Cost of
Insurance Litigation."  On January 25, 2005 an Amended Complaint
making similar allegations was filed in the case captioned
"William Schwartz v. Jeffrey Landerman, Diann P. Urbanek, Metro
Insurance, Inc., Samuels Jacky Insurance Agency, Conseco Life
Insurance Company, Successor to Philadelphia Life Insurance
Company, Case no. GD 00-011432," filed in the Court of Common
Pleas, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania.  Additionally, Schwartz
filed a purported nationwide class action captioned "William
Schwartz and Rebecca R. Frankel, Trustee of the Robert M.
Frankel Irrevocable Insurance Trust v. Conseco Life Ins. Co. et
al., Case No. GD 05-3742," filed in the Court of Common Pleas,
Allegheny County, Pennsylvania.


CONSECO INC.: Reaches Settlement For ERISA Violations Suit in IN
----------------------------------------------------------------
Conseco, Inc., Conseco Services LLC and certain of the Company's
current and former officers reached a settlement for the class
action filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana against them, styled "Roderick
Russell, et al. v. Conseco, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:02-CV-1639
LJM."

In October 2002, Roderick Russell filed the suit on behalf of
himself and purportedly on behalf of a class of persons
similarly situated, and on behalf of the ConsecoSave Plan.  The
complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages.  The purported
class action consists of all individuals whose 401(k) accounts
held common stock of the Company's Predecessor (also named
Conseco, Inc.) at any time since April 28, 1999.  The complaint
alleges, among other things, breaches of fiduciary duties under
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) by
continuing to permit employees to invest in the Company's
Predecessor's common stock without full disclosure of the
Company's true financial condition.

The Company reached a tentative settlement with the Russell
plaintiffs for $10 million in February 2005, subject to the
negotiation of a final settlement agreement.  The proposed class
action settlement must also be approved by the district court
after a fairness hearing is conducted.  The Company has
established a liability of $10 million for the cost of the
tentative settlement.

The Company will pursue recovery of any settlement in the
Russell matter, from its fiduciary insurance carrier, RLI
Insurance Company (RLI).  However, on February 13, 2004, RLI
filed a declaratory judgment action asking the court to find no
liability under its policy for the claims made in the Russell
matter due to certain releases provided to them pursuant to
RLI's agreement to settle a case involving the Predecessor
related to a different policy coverage, "RLI Insurance Company
v. Conseco, Inc., Stephen Hilbert, et al., Case No. 1:04-CV-
0310DFH-TAB," also pending in the United States District Court
for the Southern District, Indiana.  On March 15, 2004, RLI
filed an amended complaint adding Conseco Services as an
additional defendant.  On March 30, 2004, RLI filed a second
amended complaint adding certain individual plan fiduciaries as
defendants. On May 24, 2004, the Company filed its answer to the
second amended complaint and counterclaims for declaratory
judgment and breach of contract.  On September 2, 2004, RLI
filed a motion for judgment on all counterclaims. The court has
stayed this matter until the Russell matter is resolved.

The suit is styled "Roderick Russell, et al. v. Conseco, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 1:02-CV-1639 LJM," filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, under Judge
Larry J. McKinney.  Representing the Company are Shannon M.
Barrett, Robert N. Eccles, Garry S. Tell, O'MELVENY & MYERS,
LLP, 1625 Eye Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20006-4001 Phone:
(202) 383-5300 Fax: (202) 383-5414; and Steven Kenneth Huffer,
Scott A. Weathers, HUFFER & WEATHERS, 151 North Delaware Street
Suite 1850 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Phone: (317)822-8010 Fax:
(317)822-8088 E-mail: steve_huffer@hufferandweathers.com, and
scott_weathers@hufferandweathers.com.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) T. David Copley, Garry Gotto, Elizabeth T. Leland, Lynn
         Sarko, KELLER ROHRBACK, L.L.P. 1201 Third Avenue Suite
         3200 Seattle, WA 98101-3052  Phone: (206) 623-1900 Fax:
         (206) 623-3384 E-mail: dcopley@kellerrohrback.com,
         bleland@kellerrohrback.com, lsarko@kellerrohrback.com

     (2) Carol A. Nemeth, Henry J. Price, Ronald J. Waicukauski,
         Audrey M. Bogard, PRICE WAICUKAUSKI RILEY & DEBROTA 301
         Massachusetts Avenue Indianapolis, IN 46204 Phone:
         (317) 633-8787 Fax: (317) 633-8797 E-mail:
         cnemeth@price-law.com, hprice@price-law.com,
         rwaicukauski@price-law.com, abougard@price-law.com



CONSECO INC.: TX Court Hears Motion For Suit Settlement Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Cameron County, Texas heard motions for final
approval of the settlement of a statewide class action filed
against Conseco Life Insurance Company, styled "Lawrence
Onderdonk and Yolanda Carrizales v. Conseco Life Insurance
Company, and Pete Ramirez, III Cause No. 2003-CCL-102-C."

On February 12, 2004, the complaint was amended to allege a
purported nationwide class and to name Conseco Services LLC as
an additional defendant.  On March 5, 2004, the complaint was
amended a second time naming additional plaintiffs. The
purported class consists of all former Massachusetts General
Flexible Premium Adjustable Life Insurance Policy policyholders
who were converted to Conseco Life Flexible Premium Adjustable
Life Insurance Policies and whose accumulated values in the
Massachusetts General policies were applied to first year
premiums on the Conseco Life policies.  The complaint alleged,
among other things, civil conspiracy to convert the accumulated
cash values of the plaintiffs and the class, and the violation
of insurance laws nationwide.

The parties have reached a settlement agreement on a class wide
basis, which requires a payment accrued from December 31, 2004.
On October 14, 2004, the judge signed an order preliminarily
approving the settlement. The hearing for final approval was
held January 31, 2005.


CONSECO LIFE: FL Court Mulls Certification For Consumer Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Briefing is being held for the class certification of the
consolidated nationwide class action filed against Conseco Life
Insurance Company in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Florida, styled "In Re PLI Sales Litigation,
Cause No. 01-MDL-1404."  The complaint alleges, among other
things, fraudulent sales and a "vanishing premium" scheme.  

The Company filed a motion for summary judgment against both
named plaintiffs, which motion was granted in June 2002.  
Plaintiffs appealed to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.  The
11th Circuit, in July 2003, affirmed in part and reversed in
part, allowing two fraud counts with respect to one plaintiff to
survive.  The plaintiffs' request for a rehearing with respect
to this decision has been denied. The Company filed a summary
judgment motion with respect to the remaining claims. This
summary judgment was denied in February 2004.  In March 2004,
the remaining plaintiff filed a motion to substitute plaintiff,
to which the Company has objected. The motion to substitute
plaintiff has been denied.

On April 23, 2004, a similar case was filed in the same court,
styled "Harold R. Arthur, individually and as Trustee of the
Harold A. Arthur Revocable Living Trust, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Conseco Life Insurance
Company, Case no. 6:04-CV-587-ORL-31KRS."  The case was
consolidated with the PLI Sales Practices Litigation in May
2004. The Company filed a motion for summary judgment on all of
Plaintiff Arthur's claims and the court took that motion under
advisement on February 10, 2005.  

If no class is certified and if Plaintiff Arthur's claims are
not summarily adjudicated, trial on the individual claims of
both plaintiffs will be set during the June 2005 trial term.

    
CONSECO LIFE: Faces Nationwide Breach of Contract Lawsuit in NV
---------------------------------------------------------------
Conseco Life Insurance Company sought summary judgment in its
favor in the purported nationwide class action filed against it
in the District Court of Clark County, Nevada, styled "Emma
Gilbertson individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Conseco Life Insurance Company f/k/a Philadelphia
Life Insurance Company, Cause No. A492738."  The court is
scheduled to hear this motion on May 2,2005.

The suit alleges breach of contract pertaining to notice of
premium increases.  In a filing with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, the Company said it believes these lawsuits are
without merit and intends to defend them vigorously. Given the
uncertainties regarding the outcome of these proceedings, it is
unable to estimate the possible range of loss that may result
from this pending litigation.

The suit is styled "Emma Gilbertson individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated v. Conseco Life Insurance Company
f/k/a Philadelphia Life Insurance Company, Cause No. A492738,
filed in the District Court of Clark County, Nevada under Judge
Michelle Leavitt.  Representing plaintiff Emma Gilbertson is
Attorney George M. Albright.  Representing the Company is
Attorney Patrick Rose.


CONSECO INC.: Plaintiffs Appeal Certification of CO Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appeal of the District Court of Adams County,
Colorado's ruling granting class certification to the nationwide
class action filed against four of Conseco, Inc.'s subsidiaries
is still pending.

The suit, styled "Jose Medina and others similarly situated v.
Conseco Annuity Assurance Company, Conseco Life Insurance
Company, Bankers National Life Insurance Company and Bankers
Life and Casualty Company, Cause No. 01-CV-2465," alleges among
other things breach of contract regarding alleged non-disclosure
of additional charges for those policyholders paying via premium
modes other than annual.

On November 10, 2003, the court denied the plaintiff's motion
for class certification.  On January 26, 2004, the plaintiff
appealed the trial court's ruling denying class certification.
All further proceedings have been stayed pending the outcome of
the appeal.


COX COMMUNICATIONS: NY Court Certifies Securities Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted class certification to the class action filed
against Cox Communications, AT&T Corporation and certain former
officers and directors of Excite@Home.

On April 26, 2002, Frieda and Michael Eksler filed the amended
complaint.  This case has been consolidated with a related case
captioned "Semen Leykin v. AT&T Corp., et al., and another
related case, and an amended complaint in the consolidated case,
naming the Company as a defendant, was filed and served on
November 7, 2002.

On March 10, 2005, the Court issued an order certifying a class
of all persons and entities who purchased the publicly traded
common stock of Excite@Home during the period March 28, 2000
through September 28, 2001, and directing that notice of the
certification be given to the class.  The class excludes the
defendants in the action and certain of their related persons.

The complaint asserts a claim against the Company as an alleged
"controlling person" of Excite@Home under Section 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act for violations of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.  The suit
seeks from the Company unspecified monetary damages, statutory
compensation and other relief.


COX COMMUNICATIONS: Working To Settle DE, GA Securities Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cox Communications, Inc. is working to settle several
shareholder class actions filed against it in Delaware and
Georgia courts.

Eighteen putative class action lawsuits were filed, purportedly
on behalf of the public stockholders of the Company, challenging
Cox Enterprises, Inc.'s (CEI) August 2, 2004 proposal to acquire
all of the issued and outstanding shares of Cox Class A common
stock not beneficially owned by CEI, for $32.00 in cash per
share. Fifteen of the lawsuits were filed in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware.  Following a hearing held on
August 24, 2004, the Delaware court consolidated the actions
under the caption "In re Cox Communications, Inc. Shareholders'
Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 613-N."  

The Delaware complaint names as defendants the Company, CEI, Cox
Holdings, Barbara Cox, Anthony and Anne Cox Chambers, and the
members of the Cox Board of Directors.  The Delaware complaint
alleges, among other things, that the price proposed to be paid
in the proposed transaction was unfairly low, that the
initiation and timing of the proposed transaction were in breach
of the defendants' purported duties of loyalty and constituted
unfair dealing, that the structure of the proposed transaction
was inequitably coercive, that defendants caused materially
misleading and incomplete information to be disseminated to the
public holders of the Cox shares, and that the Board defendants
would breach their duty of care and good faith by approving the
proposed transaction and by purportedly attempting to
disenfranchise the holders of the Cox shares by circumventing
certain alleged contractual voting rights.  The Delaware
complaint seeks an injunction against the proposed transaction,
or, if it is consummated, rescission of the transaction and
imposition of a constructive trust, as well as money damages, an
accounting, attorneys' fees, expenses and other relief.

The remaining three putative class action lawsuits were filed in
the Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia, styled "Brody v.
Cox Communications, Inc., et al., 2004CV89198," "Golombuski v.
Cox Communications, Inc., et al., 2004CV89216," and "Durgin v.
Cox Communications, Inc., et al., 2004CV89301."  The Georgia
actions were purportedly brought on behalf of the public holders
of shares of Cox Class A common stock against Cox, CEI and the
Cox Board, although four counts of the Golombuski complaint were
brought derivatively on behalf of Cox against the Cox Board and
CEI.  With the exception of the Durgin action, which did not
assert claims against CEI, the Georgia actions each allege that
CEI and the Cox Board breached their fiduciary duties in
connection with the proposed transaction, which plaintiffs
allege proposed a purchase price which was below the fair value
of the Cox shares.

On August 18, 2004, plaintiffs in the Georgia actions moved for
entry of a case management order to consolidate the Georgia
Actions under the caption "In re Cox Communications, Inc.
Shareholder Litigation, C.A. No. 2004-CV-89198."

On October 19, 2004, CEI and the Company publicly announced that
they had entered into a Merger Agreement pursuant to which the
shares of Cox Class A common stock not beneficially owned by CEI
would be proposed to be acquired for $34.75 per share by means
of a tender offer and follow-on merger.  On October 18, 2004,
prior to the announcement of the Merger Agreement, the parties
to the Delaware action agreed upon and executed a memorandum of
understanding.

Pursuant to the Delaware memorandum of understanding, the
parties to the Delaware action agreed, subject to the conditions
set forth therein, to enter into a stipulation of settlement, to
cooperate in public disclosures related to the Merger Agreement,
and to use their best efforts to gain approval of the proposed
settlement terms by the Delaware court.

Also on October 18, 2004, the parties to the Georgia actions
entered into a memorandum of understanding which set forth the
agreement by the parties for the dismissal of the Georgia
actions. The Georgia memorandum of understanding provides, among
other things, that if the Delaware actions are dismissed in
accordance with the Delaware memorandum of understanding and the
dismissal becomes non-appealable, the parties to the Georgia
actions will jointly seek, within two business days thereof, to
effect the dismissal with prejudice of the Georgia actions
without further notice to holders of the Cox shares.

Pursuant to the Delaware memorandum of understanding and the
Georgia memorandum of understanding, defendants provided
plaintiffs' counsel in the Delaware action and the Georgia
actions with confirmatory discovery relating to the Merger
Agreement, including additional document production and
depositions, and that the parties agreed to suspend all other
proceedings in the actions, except any settlement related
proceedings in Delaware and Georgia.

On November 18, 2004, the court entered a scheduling order in
the Delaware action. The scheduling order preliminarily
certified the Delaware action as a class action on behalf of a
class consisting of all record and beneficial holders of Cox
shares (other than CEI and its subsidiaries), from and including
August 2, 2004 through and including the date of the
consummation of the merger, and certain persons related to the
class members.  The defendants in the Delaware action are
excluded from the class. The scheduling order also initially set
a settlement hearing for January 26, 2005 to consider, among
other things, whether the Settlement embodied in the Stipulation
is fair to the class, the Delaware action should be dismissed
with prejudice, and the claims that were settled in the
Stipulation of Settlement released, the class should be finally
certified, and the attorneys' fees sought by plaintiffs' counsel
in the Delaware action should be awarded.

On January 13, 2005, an individual shareholder and several
mutual funds who purportedly were members of the plaintiff class
filed a joint objection to the requested attorneys' fees sought
by plaintiffs' counsel, but did not object to the proposed
settlement itself. The court subsequently determined to postpone
consideration of the objection to the request for attorneys'
fees, and, at the January 26, 2005 settlement hearing, the court
continued consideration of the settlement to March 16, 2005, at
which time the request for attorneys' fees also was to be
considered.  However, on February 23, 2005, at the request of
the plaintiffs, among others, the court again continued
consideration of the request for attorneys' fees (but not the
settlement itself) until May 9, 2005.


DON PEDRO'S: Recalls 40 lbs Sausage For Listeria Contamination
--------------------------------------------------------------
Don Pedro's Meat, a La Puente, California, firm, is voluntarily
recalling approximately 40 pounds of sausage products that may
be contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes, the U.S. Department
of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS)
announced.

Products subject to recall include 2- and 10-pound packages of
"DON PEDRO'S MEAT, RELLENA, COOKED PORK BLOOD SAUSAGE." The
establishment code "EST. 20946" appears inside the USDA mark of
inspection.

The sausage was produced on April 8 and was distributed to
retail establishments in Los Angeles, Calif. The problem was
discovered through routine FSIS regulatory sampling. FSIS has
received no reports of illnesses associated with consumption of
these products.

Consumption of food contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes can
cause listeriosis, an uncommon but potentially fatal disease.
Healthy people rarely contract listeriosis. However, listeriosis
can cause high fever, severe headache, neck stiffness and
nausea. Listeriosis can also cause miscarriages and stillbirths,
as well as serious and sometimes fatal infections in those with
weakened immune systems including infants, the elderly and
persons with chronic disease, such as HIV infection or
undergoing chemotherapy.

Media with questions about the recall should contact company
HACCP coordinator Miguel Jimenez at (626) 336-8900. Consumers
with questions about the recall should contact company Sales
Director Karla Hernandez at (626) 336-8900.  Consumers with food
safety questions can phone the toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry
Hotline at 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854). The hotline is
available in English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m.
to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food
safety messages are available 24 hours a day.


DUKE ENERGY: Plaintiffs Ask NY Court To Certify Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs asked the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York to grant class certification to
the three class actions filed against Duke Energy Trading and
Marketing LLC (DETM) and other entities.

Commencing August 2003, plaintiffs filed three class-action
lawsuits on behalf of entities who bought and sold natural gas
futures and options contracts on the NYMEX during the years 2000
through 2002.  The cases claim that the defendants violated the
Commodity Exchange Act by reporting false and misleading trading
information to trade publications, resulting in monetary losses
to the plaintiffs.  Plaintiffs seek class action certification,
unspecified damages and other relief.

On September 24, 2004, the court denied a motion to dismiss the
plaintiffs' claims filed on behalf of DETM and other defendants.
On January 25, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification; defendants are opposing the motion, which has not
yet been scheduled for hearing.


DURA PHARMACEUTICALS: Court Ruling Sets Securities Fraud Norms
--------------------------------------------------------------
In a victory for business groups and the Bush administration,
the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that investors who
bring corporate fraud lawsuits must show a link between the
alleged illegal activity and a drop in stock prices, The
Associated Press reports.

The ruling is for a case involving Dura Pharmaceuticals Inc., a
division of Ireland-based Elan Corp., which was sued for fraud
following a November 1998 disclosure that its asthma drug
dispenser didn't receive federal approval as expected. News of
the ruling sent stock prices lower.

Legal experts explain that with the decision investors, who lost
trillions of dollars in stock market wealth following accounting
scandals at companies such as Enron Corp. and WorldCom, could
have a tougher case in court should they sue, which in their
opinion will depend in part on how stringently lower courts
interpret what constitutes an adequate "link."  Backing Dura
were the Bush administration, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and
the Securities Industry Association, which feared a wave of
fraud claims from investors who bought shares "too high."

Robin Conrad, senior vice president of the National Chamber
Litigation Center, a division of the Chamber of Commerce told
The Associated Press, "This is going to cut off and eliminate a
number of frivolous securities class-action cases based on
artificially inflated stock prices. The ability to close the
door on that is a big win for the business community."

Writing on behalf of the court, Justice Stephen G. Breyer stated
that the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
was wrong to loosen the standard for proving securities fraud,
pointing to a basic legal principle that a corporate wrong must
cause a loss, AP reports.  He also wrote, "It should not prove
burdensome for a plaintiff who has suffered an economic loss to
provide a defendant with some indication of the loss and the
causal connection that the plaintiff has in mind."

Court documents had revealed that the 9th Circuit allowed Dura
investors to proceed with their lawsuit under the corporate
fraud theory of "loss causation." The court reasoned that
investors need not show the disclosure of fraud caused a stock
drop, so long as they can point to share prices that were
artificially high at the time of purchase because of misleading
statements.  However, the Supreme Court disagrees and stated in
its ruling that normally in fraud cases "an inflated purchase
price will not itself constitute or proximately cause the
relevant economic loss." Justice Breyer even states that federal
law "expressly imposes on plaintiffs the burden of proving that
the defendant's misrepresentations caused the loss for which the
plaintiff seeks to recover."

Public pension funds, AARP, the National Association of
Shareholder Consumer Attorneys and the University of California,
the lead plaintiff in a class-action suit against Enron had
countered that the 9th Circuit's standard was needed to deter a
repeat of recent corporate scandals.

Deborah Zuckerman, senior attorney for AARP told The Associated
Press, "We're disappointed. Investors should have been allowed
to go forward and prove the misrepresentation caused the loss,
particularly since older people rely on stock investments to
augment their retirement income."

As previously reported in the January 14, 2005 edition of the
Class Action Reporter, the court had agreed to hear arguments in
the case, Dura Pharmaceuticals v. Broudo, 03-932 in which Dura
was being sued for fraud following its November 1998 disclosure
that its asthma drug dispenser didn't receive federal approval
as expected.  According to investors, they bought shares from
April 1997 to February 1998 at inflated prices, following false
statements from the company about sales of its products and the
multimillion-dollar potential of a new drug delivery device.  
Investors were seeking to recover in part for a 47 percent stock
drop on February 24, 1998, nine months before its disclosure
that the delivery device wouldn't receive federal approval on
unrelated news of an earnings shortfall due to weak sales of an
antibiotic.


ERNST & YOUNG: Analysis Group Helps Firm Win Clarent Fraud Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
In only the third trial of its nature to go to a verdict in the
last decade, Analysis Group's client, auditor Ernst & Young, was
found to have no liability and was not responsible for any
damages in the securities fraud suit against Clarent Corporation
in which E&Y was named a co-defendant.

Analysis Group was retained by Latham & Watkins on behalf of
Ernst & Young in the case, which involved accounting
irregularities at Clarent. Clarent shareholders filed a class
action accusing the company of overstating revenues, claiming
that Ernst & Young was liable for securities fraud in violation
of Section 10-b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
requesting approximately $125 million in damages.

At issue was how much of Clarent's stock price decline during
the class period could be attributed to any accounting
misstatements, and thus could be used to measure damages. "While
trials of this particular kind are rare, outcomes can be
significantly influenced by experts," said Bruce Deal, a
Managing Principal of Analysis Group. "A successful outcome in
any securities class action proceeding depends on expertise in
developing sophisticated counter-arguments to plaintiffs'
damages estimates." Analysis Group consulted on damages and
causation issues and provided expert testimony on damages
issues, working with E&Y in-house counsel Robert Cohen and Joel
Bonner, and attorneys Peter Wald, Peter Devereaux, Michele
Kyrouz, and Janet Malloy Link of Latham & Watkins.

With steep declines in Clarent's stock price during the class
period, plaintiffs' expert contended that the fraud accounted
for up to $8 in overpricing per share when the stock was trading
at prices of $10-12, resulting in the $125 million calculation.
Analysis Group Managing Principal Robert Sherwin, Ernst &
Young's damages expert, calculated the maximum overpricing to be
$1.92 a share. Mr. Sherwin's calculations were based on the
final stock price drop when the accounting restatements were
announced. When the case went to the jury, Ernst & Young was
found to be without liability and the jury awarded no damages to
the plaintiffs.


J.S. HOVNANIAN: NJ Residents Testify on Ventilation Problems
------------------------------------------------------------
Testimony began in the trial of J.S. Hovnanian & Sons LLC, a
developer charged with violating building codes at the Holiday
Village East retirement community in Mount Laurel, New Jersey,
The Cherry Hill Courier Post reports.

The developer is the defendant in a class-action lawsuit brought
by residents who contend poor ventilation in their utility rooms
could lead to a build-up of carbon monoxide, a colorless,
odorless and lethal gas.

Harry Schmoll, a Peppergrass Drive resident who bought one of
the 900-plus homes in Holiday Village East, testified that a
township plumbing inspector discovered a ventilation problem in
the utility room in 2002 while inspecting connections for a new
hot water heater. Mr. Schmoll said the inspector cited him for a
violation because the ductwork in the 5-by-10-foot utility room
was insufficient to sustain a gas water heater, furnace and
clothes dryer.

Norman Shabel, the class-action lawyer, told Superior Court
Judge Michael Hogan, who is hearing the case without a jury,
that an independent engineer determined the ventilation system
violated the building codes. He also told the judge,
"Insufficient ventilation is a safety hazard because it can
cause the build-up of carbon monoxide where combustion occurs."
Thus, he asked the judge to order township inspections of all
homes in the development and subsequent repairs.

However, Richard Hunt, an attorney for Hovnanian, protested and
said no code violation exists based on tests by an engineer the
developer hired. He argues, "There is sufficient combustion air.
There is no issue here of carbon monoxide or carbon dioxide."


JACKSON HEWITT: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Lawsuit Over RA Loans
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jackson Hewitt Tax Services, Inc. asked the Supreme Court of the
State of New York to dismiss a class action filed against it and
Santa Barbara Bank & Trust, in connection with disclosures made
in connection with the provision of refund anticipation loans.

On June 18, 2004, Myron Benton brought the purported class
action, alleging that the disclosures and related practices are
fraudulent and otherwise unlawful, and seeking equitable and
monetary relief.  The Company filed a Motion to dismiss that
complaint.  In response, Mr. Benton withdrew his original
complaint and filed an amended complaint on January 3, 2005.  
The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint,
which is currently pending.  


KENTUCKY: Diocese, Plaintiffs Continue Talks, Hearing Postponed
---------------------------------------------------------------
As both sides continue negotiations to achieve an out-of-court
settlement, a hearing planned for April 19, 2005 in Kentucky on
a class action lawsuit claiming the Diocese of Covington covered
up decades of sexual abuse by priests has been delayed, The
Cincinnati Post reports.

Following a hearing last month, Special Judge John Potter
ordered both sides back to the bargaining table, and indicated
that he may take a more active role in settlement talks unless
both parties moved toward an agreement. He had told them to
return to court at the scheduled hearing to update him on the
status of the talks.

However, Judge Potter recently signed an order delaying that
hearing until May 20. The order though did not give any
specifics.

The key claim in the lawsuit is that bishops knew that priests
and other employees of the diocese were sexually assaulting
children, teenagers and others, but allowed it to happen and
then helped cover it up.

The diocese though denies the cover-up claim and maintains it
was simply handling the situation according to the dictates of
the times. But, more recently, it said it wanted to reach
individual settlements with victims. It has, paying out some $15
million to more than 50 victims.

A number of attorneys, including Cincinnatian Stan Chesley,
filed the lawsuit in Boone Circuit Court in February 2003,
alleging dozens of priests abused hundreds of children and
teenager.

As previously reported in the March 29, 2005 edition of the
Class Action Reporter, before he stepped down from the bench and
the case, former Boone Circuit Judge Jay Bamberger granted the
class-action status over the strenuous objections of the
diocese. It is the first of its kind class-action lawsuit in the
country. The "class" in the class action is defined as anyone,
who was sexually abused or mistreated by priests or other
representatives of the Covington diocese from 1956 until the
present.

After Judge Bamberger's retirement, Judge Potter, a retired
circuit judge from Louisville who works as a special judge, was
assigned to the case.

Settlement talks began in earnest in May 2004 when both parties
agreed to hire Kenneth Feinberg to mediate their talks. Mr.
Feinberg, a nationally known mediator who was master of the
September 11 Victim Compensation Fund, also has helped mediate
cases involving Agent Orange, silicone breast implants,
asbestos, tobacco and nuclear facilities. However, he apparently
dropped out of the talks at one point earlier this year, leading
Judge Potter to order the parties to either bring him back or
hire another mediator.

The judge also told the diocese to bring representatives of both
its insurance carriers to the next settlement negotiations. Both
sides should have a "representative authorized to settle," he
said. Since neither side is talking, it's unclear whether
additional talks have been held or just planned.


KRAFT FOODS: Recalls Products Due To Undeclared Pistachio Nuts
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kraft Foods of Northfield, IL, is recalling 1 oz. Vanilla flavor
Jell-OBrand Sugar Free Fat Free Reduced Calorie Instant Pudding
& Pie Filling with the 05 MAR 07 D8 code date because the
product may contain pistachio nuts which are not listed in the
ingredients in the package. People who have an allergy or severe
sensitivity to pistachio nuts run the risk of serious or life-
threatening allergic reactions if they consume these recalled
products. No illnesses or allergic reactions have been reported
to date. The product was distributed in the Midwestern United
States.

This recall of the Vanilla flavor is in addition to the previous
recall of Jell-O Brand Sugar Free Fat Free Reduced Calorie
Instant Pudding and Pie Filling announced April 11, 2005, of 1
oz. White Chocolate with the 05 MAR 07 D8 and 06 MAR 07 D8 code
dates, 1.4 oz. Chocolate with the 06 MAR 07 D8 code date and 1.4
oz. Chocolate Fudge with the 07 MAR 07 D8 code date -- all
recalled because the products may contain undeclared pistachio
nuts.

No other Jell-O products are part of the recall, and there is no
health risk for consumers who are not allergic to pistachio
nuts.

Kraft estimates that approximately 1,224 packages of the Vanilla
flavor product were distributed in the Midwestern United States.
The "Best When Used By" code dates are printed on the end flap
for the recalled 1 oz. Vanilla flavor Jell-OBrand Sugar Free Fat
Free Reduced Calorie Instant Pudding & Pie Filling with the 05
MAR 07 D8 code.

The company recently discovered that some of the Vanilla flavor
had been shipped and therefore expanded the previous recall to
include the Vanilla flavor. The company has taken steps to
prevent a recurrence. No other Jell-O products are part of the
recall.

Consumers who purchased the recalled product may return the
product to the store where purchased for a full refund.

Consumers with questions about the recall should call
1-800-323-4243 from 9:00 am EDT to 9:00 pm EDT, or visit the
company's Web site: http://www.kraft.com/specialreport/Jell-O.


MBIA INC.: Lieff Cabraser Commences Investigation, Readies Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP
commenced an investigation into recently disclosed events at
MBIA, Inc. ("MBIA") in preparation for filing a complaint in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise
acquired publicly traded shares of MBIA, Inc. between August 5,
2003 and March 30, 2005 (the "Class Period") (NYSE:MBI).

On November 18, 2004, MBIA announced that it had received
subpoenas from the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC")
and the New York Attorney General's Office ("NYAG") requesting
information with respect to non-traditional or loss mitigation
insurance products developed, offered or sold by MBIA to third
parties from January 1, 1998 to the present.

On March 8, 2005, MBIA announced that it had decided to restate
its financial statements for 1998 through 2003 to correct the
accounting treatment for two reinsurance agreements that MBIA
entered into in 1998 with Zurich Reinsurance North America,
which later was re-named Converium Re upon its divesture by
Zurich Financial Services in 2001. The restated transactions
overstated net income by $54 million during the period 1998
through 2003 by failing to record a loss related to MBIA's
insurance of bonds issued by the Allegheny Health, Education and
Research Foundation ("Allegheny").

On March 9, 2005, MBIA announced that the U.S. Attorney's Office
for the Southern District of New York was conducting its own
investigation into losses suffered by MBIA as a result of its
insurance of the Allegheny bonds.

On March 30, 2005, the SEC and NYAG supplemented the November
2004 subpoenas with requests for documents related to MBIA's
accounting treatment of advisory fees, its methodology for
determining loss reserves and case reserves, instances of
purchase of credit default protection in itself, and documents
relating to Channel Reinsurance Ltd. ("Channel Re"), a
reinsurance company launched in 2004 by MBIA, PartnerRe Ltd.,
RenaissanceRe Holdings Ltd., and Koch Financial Corporation. On
April 8, 2005, PartnerRe Ltd. and RenaissanceRe Holdings Ltd.
announced that they had received subpoenas from the SEC and NYAG
seeking information relating to Channel Re.

News of these events have caused MBIA's common stock price to
drop from a class period high of $67.34 on March 3, 2004 to
$52.28 on March 31, 2005, one day after MBIA announced that the
SEC and NYAG had supplemented the subpoenas served on MBIA in
November 2004. This decline in stock price represents a $2.0
billion reduction of MBIA's market capitalization from its high
point in the class period. Shares of MBIA closed at $53.02 per
share on April 18, 2005.

For more details, contact Bruce W. Leppla, Esq. by Mail: 275
Battery Street, 30th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94111 by Phone:
(415) 956-1000 x. 3381 or by E-mail: bleppla@lchb.com.


MANHATTAN NATIONAL: Continues To Face NM Policyholder Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Conseco, Inc.'s former subsidiary, Manhattan National Life
Insurance Company, continues to face a purported nationwide
class action seeking unspecified damages in the First Judicial
District Court of Santa Fe, New Mexico, styled "Robert Atencio
and Theresa Atencio, for themselves and all other similarly
situated v. Manhattan National Life Insurance Company, an Ohio
corporation, Cause No. D-0101-CV-2000-2817."

The suit alleges among other things fraud by non-disclosure of
additional charges for those policyholders paying via premium
modes other than annual.  Conseco, Inc. retained liability for
this litigation in connection with the sale of Manhattan
National Life in June 2002.


MERCK & CO.: Judge Appoints Firm as Co-Led Counsel in ERISA Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Stanley Chesley of the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey (Trenton) appointed Keller
Rohrback L.L.P. as one of four Co-Lead Counsel for the ERISA
class action brought on behalf of the participants and
beneficiaries in the Merck & Co., Inc. Employee Stock Purchase
Plan, the Merck & Co., Inc. Employee Savings and Security Plan,
the Medco 401(k) Plan, the Merck-Medco Managed Care 401(k)
Savings Plan, and the Medco Health Solutions, Inc. 401(k)
Savings Plan (the "Plans"), who held and/or purchased Merck &
Co.,, Inc. ("Merck") (NYSE:MRK) stock in their Plan accounts
between May 21, 1999 and the present (the "Class Period").

Judge Chesley appointed Keller Rohrback L.L.P., together with
the law firms of Schatz & Nobel, P.S. (Chair), Cohen, Milstein,
Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C., and Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP to
serve on a Co-Lead Counsel Committee, and appointed the law firm
of Trujillo & Rodriguez as Liaison Counsel. The Court also
appointed Lite DePalma Greenberg & Rivas, LLC, Lockridge Grindal
Nauen P.L.L.P., Scott & Scott, and Johnson & Perkinson as
members of a discovery committee for the ERISA plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants breached their ERISA
fiduciary duties by imprudently permitting the Plans to hold and
acquire hundreds of millions of dollars in Merck stock. They did
so despite the fact that Defendants knew or should have known
that Merck stock was not a suitable and appropriate investment
for the Plans, in light of Merck's continued problems with
regard to VIOXX and its poor performance in general.

The law firm of Jennifer Tuato'o of Keller Rohrback L.L.P. by
Phone: (800) 776-6044 by E-mail: investor@kellerrohrback.com or
visit the following Web sites: http://erisafraud.com/merckor  
http://www.seattleclassaction.com.


NEW CENTURY: IL Court Mulls Appeal Of Consumer Lawsuit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Illinois Supreme Court has yet to rule on plaintiffs' appeal
of the dismissal of a consolidated class action filed against
New Century Mortgage Corporation, alleging violations of the
Illinois Consumer Fraud Act.

In December 2001, Sandra Barney filed the class action complaint
in the Circuit Court in Cook County, Illinois, alleging the
unauthorized practice of law and violation of the Illinois
Consumer Fraud Act for performing document preparation services
for a fee by non-lawyers, and seeks to recover the fees charged
for the document preparation, compensatory and punitive damages,
attorneys' fees and costs.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss in February 2002. The
court thereafter consolidated the suit with other similar cases
filed against other lenders.  In August 2002, the court ordered
the plaintiffs in all the consolidated cases to dismiss their
cases with prejudice.  Ms. Barney filed her notice of appeal in
September 2002 and the appeal was then consolidated with 36
similar cases, referred to as the Jenkins case.  Appellate
argument was heard on December 2, 2003.  The appellate court
affirmed the dismissal of the consolidated cases on December 31,
2003.  The plaintiff then timely filed a petition for leave to
appeal the appellate court's decision.  The Company's response
to the petition was filed in February 2004.  The Illinois
Supreme Court granted leave to appeal the consolidated cases,
and consolidated the Jenkins case with a similar appellate
action also proceeding in Illinois, referred to herein as the
King case.  The plaintiffs/appellants filed their opening brief
in April 2004.  The Company filed its consolidated response
brief in July 2004.  The plaintiffs/appellants filed their reply
brief and oral argument was heard on September 28, 2004.


NEW CENTURY: NY Court Yet To Rule on Fraud Suit Dismissal Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The State Court in Suffolk County, New York has yet to rule on
plaintiffs' appeal of the dismissal of the class action filed
against New Century Mortgage Corporation, by Ms. Elaine Lum.

Ms. Lum filed the suit in December 2003, alleging that certain
payments the Company makes to mortgage brokers, sometimes
referred to as yield spread premiums, interfered with the
contractual relationship between Ms. Lum and her broker.  The
complaint also sought damages related thereto for fraud,
wrongful inducement/breach of fiduciary duty, violation of
deceptive acts and practices, unjust enrichment and commercial
bribing.  The complaint seeks class certification for similarly
situated borrowers in the State of New York.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss on January 30, 2004. The
judge granted the motion and dismissed all claims on March 23,
2004.  On April 12, 2004, the plaintiff filed a notice of
appeal, seeking review of the court's order granting the motion
to dismiss. The appeal has been fully briefed and the Company
awaits a ruling.


NEW CENTURY: NJ Court Considers Motion To Dismiss Consumer Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
has fully briefed New Century Mortgage Corporation's motion to
dismiss the class action filed against it and New Century TRS
Holdings, Inc.

Joseph and Emma Warburton filed the suit in June 2004, alleging
violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, or
RESPA, the Truth-in-lending Act, or TILA and the New Jersey
Consumer Fraud Act, and unjust enrichment.  The complaint also
alleges certain other violations against defendants unrelated to
New Century TRS and the Company, including Foxtons, Inc.,
Foxtons North America, Foxtons Realtor and Foxtons Financial,
Inc., referred to collectively as Foxtons, and Worldwide
Financial Resources, Inc.

The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that Foxtons, acting
as their broker, charged fees and received a yield spread
premium without disclosing the same to them until the time of
closing.  The class is defined as all persons in the state of
New Jersey who have purchased, or sought to purchase, a home
listed for sale by Foxtons and who have paid a prequalification
application fee, or who have received and accepted an offer from
Foxtons for a fixed interest rate mortgage loan that Foxtons
failed to deliver as promised and who have suffered damages as a
result.  The complaint seeks to enjoin the wrongful conduct
alleged, recovery of actual and statutory damages, and
attorneys' fees and costs.

On July 28, 2004, New Century TRS and the Company filed a motion
to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim.


NEW CENTURY: RESPA Violations Lawsuit Remanded To MO State Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action filed against New Century Mortgage Corporation
and other lenders has been remanded from Missouri federal court
to the Circuit Court in St. Louis, Missouri.

In October 2004, Debbie Henderson, Florence Obani-Nwibari, Noble
Obani-Nwibari, Emmer Hardy, James D. Hardy, Subbaiah
Chalevendra, Rafael F. Herrara and Sandra G. Martinez filed a
class action complaint against the Company and:

     (1) First Horizon Home Loan Corporation,

     (2) Master Financial, Inc.,

     (3) Mortgage Lenders Network USA, Inc.,

     (4) Hillsboro Title Company, Inc. and

     (5) American Mortgage Corporation

The suit alleges the unauthorized practice of law in violation
of Missouri state law and Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act
(RESPA) for performing document preparation services in the
state of Missouri for a fee by non-lawyers, and seeks to recover
the fees charged for the document preparation, compensatory and
punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs.  

On November 12, 2004 Mortgage Lenders Network, USA, Inc. filed a
notice of removal that removed the case to the U.S. District
Court, Eastern District of Missouri.  The plaintiffs filed a
motion to remand and the case was remanded back to the Circuit
Court in St. Louis County, Missouri on February 4, 2005.


NEW CENTURY: IL Court Stays Lawsuit For Consumer Act Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois granted New Century
Mortgage Corporation's motion to stay the class action filed
against it, alleging violations of the Illinois Interest Act.

In November 2004, Nancy Doherty, Krysti Lyn Randall, Robert
Elibasich and Alice Elibasich filed a class action complaint
against the Company, two of its employees and Nations Title
Agency of Illinois.  The complaint alleges that defendants
violated Section 4.1a of the Illinois Interest Act by charging
more than 3 points on a loan with an interest rate of 8% or
higher.  The complaint also alleges that defendants engaged in
unfair acts and practices, in purported violation of Section 2
of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act (ICFA) by charging plaintiffs
and others points in excess of the number permitted by the
Illinois Interest Act and seeks restitution for such alleged
overpayments.  Individual plaintiff, Doherty, also alleges
violation of Section 2 of ICFA, and asserts a claim for unjust
enrichment by failing to refund excess recording fees to
Doherty.  The complaint seeks recovery of statutory,
compensatory and punitive damages, restitution and attorneys'
fees and costs.

The Company filed a motion to stay the case pending a final
decision in a prior case styled "U.S. Bank v. Clark," pending in
the Illinois Supreme Court. The court granted the motion to stay
on January 20, 2005.


NEW CENTURY: Faces Suit For Violations of Illinois Interest Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
New Century Mortgage and loan originator Residential Loan
Centers of America, Inc. faces a class action filed in the
Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, alleging violations of
the Illinois Interest Act.

In February 2005, Judy Brown filed the suit, alleging that that
the defendants violated Section 4.1(a) of the Illinois Interest
Act by charging more than 3% in charges on a loan with an
interest rate of 8% or higher and violated the same provision by
collecting payments on the loan.  The proposed class is defined
as all persons who entered into loans secured by their real
property in Illinois with an interest rate of 8% or more and
"charges" in excess of 3% of the principal, and for which one or
more of the defendants knowingly contracted and/or received
and/or are currently receiving payments.  The complaint seeks an
award of damages, interest, reasonable attorneys' fees, costs
and other relief.


NEW CENTURY: IL Court Preliminarily Okays TCPA Violations Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of Cook County, Chicago, Illinois granted
preliminary approval to the settlement of a class action filed
against New Century Mortgage Corporation, seeking damages for
receiving unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile
machines in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act,
47 U.S.C. Section 227, and the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, or
ICFA.

In April 2002, Paul Bernstein filed the class action.  The
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on May 1, 2003 and, on
September 18, 2003, the judge granted the Company's motion to
dismiss with respect to the ICFA count and permitted the
plaintiff to re-plead on an individual, not consolidated, basis.  
On September 30, 2003, the plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification and second amended complaint.  The court has
consolidated similar cases into three groups. The Company sought
and obtained an order permitting it to join other defendants in
this consolidated action and filed a motion to dismiss the
second amended complaint.  Oral argument on the Company's
consolidated motion was heard on March 30, 2004.  The judge
dismissed the ICFA count. At the class certification hearing on
August 10, 2004, the plaintiffs' motion for class certification
was withdrawn pursuant to a settlement between the parties.

Pursuant to the settlement, the plaintiffs filed a third amended
complaint seeking a nationwide class.  The written settlement
agreement was executed by the parties on December 8, 2004 and is
subject to court approval.  The order preliminarily approving
the settlement and certifying the settlement class was entered
on January 13, 2005.  The Company's insurance carriers have
agreed to defend the company with a reservation of rights.


NEW CENTURY: CA Court Hears Plaintiffs' Appeal of Suit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court for Alameda County, California has fully
briefed the plaintiffs' appeal of the dismissal of a class
action filed against New Century Mortgage Corporation, New
Century TRS Holdings, Inc., U.S. Bancorp, Loan Management
Services, Inc., and certain individuals affiliated with Loan
Management Services.

In September 2002, Robert E. Overman and Martin Lemp filed the
class action complaint, alleging violations of the California
Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Unfair, Unlawful and Deceptive
Business and Advertising Practices in violation of Business &
Professions Code Sections 17200 and 17500, Fraud-
Misrepresentation and Concealment and Constructive Trust/Breach
of Fiduciary Duty and damages including restitution,
compensatory and punitive damages, and attorneys' fees and
costs.

The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in July 2003 and, in
September 2003, the judge granted New Century TRS's and the
Company's demurrer challenging their claims in part. The
Consumers Legal Remedies Act claim was dismissed and the
plaintiffs withdrew the Constructive Trust/Breach of Fiduciary
Duty claim.  New Century TRS and the Company filed their answer
to the plaintiffs' amended complaint in September 2003.  New
Century TRS and the Company then filed a Section 128.7 sanctions
motion seeking dismissal of the case.

On December 8, 2003, the court granted the motion for sanctions
against the plaintiffs for filing a first amended complaint with
allegations against New Century TRS and the Company that were
devoid of evidentiary support and ordered all those claims
stricken without prejudice.  On January 27, 2004, the court
entered a judgment of dismissal without prejudice in favor of
New Century TRS and the Company.  The plaintiffs filed a notice
of appeal on February 20, 2004 from the judgment entered in New
Century TRS and the Company's favor and the order granting New
Century TRS and the Company's motion for sanctions.  The
plaintiffs also filed a motion with the appellate court to
consolidate this appeal with three additional appeals they have
sought in similar cases against other lenders.  On May 28, 2004,
the court denied the motion.  The plaintiffs/appellants filed
their opening brief in July 2004.  The appeal has now been fully
briefed. New Century TRS and the Company filed a request for
oral argument on January 13, 2005.


NEW CENTURY: LA Court Hears Motion To Reject Suit Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of
Louisiana heard oral arguments on New Century Financial
Corporation's motion to reject conditional certification of a
collective action on February 15, 2005.

In April 2003, two former, short-term employees, Kimberly A.
England and Gregory M. Foshee, filed a complaint seeking class
action status against the Company, Worth Funding Incorporated
(now known as New Century Credit Corporation), and The Anyloan
Company.  The action was removed on May 12, 2003 from the 19th
Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge, State of
Louisiana to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Louisiana in response to the Company's, Worth's and Anyloan's
Petition for Removal.  The complaint alleges failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the federal Fair Labor Standards
Act, or FLSA.

The plaintiffs filed an additional action in Louisiana State
Court, the 19th Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton
Rouge, on September 18, 2003, adding James Gray as a plaintiff
and seeking unpaid wages under state law, with no class claims.
This second action was removed on October 3, 2003 to the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana, and was
ordered consolidated with the first action.  

In April 2004, the U.S. District Court unilaterally de-
consolidated the James Gray individual action. In September
2003, the plaintiffs also filed a motion to dismiss their claims
in Louisiana to enable them to join in a subsequently filed case
in Minnesota entitled "Klas vs. New Century Financial
Corporation, et al. New Century, Worth and Anyloan" opposed the
motion and the court agreed with their position and refused to
dismiss the plaintiffs' case, as it was filed first.  The Klas
case has now been consolidated with this case and discovery is
proceeding.

The Company, Worth and Anyloan filed a motion to dismiss Worth
and Anyloan as defendants. The court granted the motion to
dismiss in April 2004. On June 28, 2004, the Company filed a
motion to reject conditional certification of a collective
action and oral argument was heard on February 15, 2005.  
Plaintiffs have dismissed with prejudice forty individual
plaintiffs from the action.


NORTH CAROLINA: Temporary Employees Launch Suit Seeking Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Two former temporary state employees initiated a lawsuit against
state of North Carolina, arguing that they deserved the benefits
of permanent workers after being on the job for 12 months, The
Associated Press reports.  The lawsuit asks a judge to grant it
class action status, demanding that all such employees be given
credit for pensions and vacation, and health insurance
reimbursements.

"We believe there are many state employees who have experienced
this problem," Jack Holtzman, an attorney for the North Carolina
Justice Center representing the two workers told The Associated
Press.

According to the Office of State Personnel, of the 91,605
employees within state agencies and the University of North
Carolina system, 3,569 were considered temporary as of March 31.
It also pointed out that state personnel rules indicate that
workers "in no case shall the temporary employment period exceed
12 consecutive months" for a worker.

The lawsuit states that the Division of Emergency Management
hired Lula Sanders of Wake County and Cynthia Eure of Wayne
County in late 1999, who both worked there without benefits
until 2002. Ms. Sanders was eventually hired last summer as a
permanent employee within the Commerce Department, while Ms.
Eure is no longer employed by the state.  It also alleges that
the state has provided no process for Ms. Sanders, Ms. Eure and
others to seek compensation for benefits they should have or
would have received had they been become a permanent employee
after 12 months. Thus, it now contends that had they been
identified as permanent sooner, they would have more service
years on the books, leading to higher retirement benefits and
longer allotments of leave.  The lawsuit is also asking a judge
to order the additional compensation for the two, and for any
other temporary employee who wasn't identified as permanent
after 12 months of employment.

Mr. Holtzman told The Associated Press that he didn't know the
number of employees that could be affected, but he did say that
the lawsuit seeks at least $10,000 for Ms. Sanders, Ms. Eure and
any similarly situated worker.

The State Employees Association of North Carolina will be
watching the case closely, Sherry Melton, a SEANC spokeswoman
told The Associated Press. The employee-lobbying group pushed
for the 12-month temporary limit during the late 1970s, she
adds.

Ms. Melton speculated that the Division of Emergency Management
simply made a mistake by letting the temps work beyond a year.
She also adds that it's common for temporary employees to work
11 months, only to be laid off for a period before getting
rehired. "That's how a lot of agencies skirt that law," she told
AP.


POLAROID HOLDING: Investors File DE Fraud Suit V. Petters Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Polaroid Holding Co. faces a class action filed in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware, New Castle County, on behalf
of the stockholders unaffiliated with the defendants.  The suit
also names as defendants:

     (1) Jacques A. Nasser,

     (2) Joseph E. Antonini,

     (3) Charles F. Auster,

     (4) Paolo Cantarella,

     (5) William J. Cosgrove,

     (6) Lee M. Gardner,

     (7) James W. Koven,

     (8) Rick A. Lazio,

     (9) Joseph G. Michels,

    (10) Stanley P. Roth,

    (11) J. Michael Pocock

On January 7, 2005, the Company entered into a merger agreement
with Petters Group Worldwide, LLC and its wholly-owned
subsidiary, Petters Consumer Brands, LLC (collectively
"Petters").  If the merger is completed, the Company will become
a wholly-owned subsidiary of Petters Group Worldwide, LLC and
each outstanding share of the Company's Common Stock will be
converted into the right to receive $12.08 in cash and, under
certain circumstances, the right to receive additional cash
consideration if the Company sells its instant digital printing
assets for consideration in excess of an amount determined
pursuant to the merger agreement.

On January 10, 2005, Leonard Shapiro filed the purported class
action complaint, alleging, among other things, that the
Company's directors violated their fiduciary duties by approving
the merger agreement with Petters without engaging in arm's
length negotiations.  The complaint seeks, among other things,
to enjoin the defendants from completing the merger or, in the
event the merger is completed, to rescind the merger and to
award compensatory damages.

On January 18, 2005, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint in
which the only substantive change was to add One Equity Partners
as a defendant.  The amended complaint was served on the Company
on February 28, 2005.


PROTON ENERGY: NY Court Preliminarily Approves Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against Proton Energy
Systems, Inc., certain of its officers and directors and the
underwriters of its September 28,2000 initial public offering
(IPO).

Between July 3, 2001 and August 29, 2001, four purported class
action lawsuits were filed on behalf of persons who purchased
the Company's common stock from September 28, 2000 through and
including December 6, 2000. The complaints are similar, and
allege that the Company's IPO registration statement and final
prospectus contained material misrepresentations and/or
omissions related, in part, to excessive and undisclosed
commissions allegedly received by the underwriters from
investors to whom the underwriters allegedly allocated shares of
the IPO.

On April 19, 2002, a single Consolidated Amended Complaint was
filed, reiterating in one pleading the allegations contained in
the previously filed separate actions, including the alleged
class period of September 28, 2000 through and including
December 6, 2000.  On July 15, 2002 the Company joined in an
omnibus motion to dismiss the lawsuits filed by all issuer
defendants named in similar actions which challenges the legal
sufficiency of the plaintiffs' claims, including those in the
consolidated amended complaint.  Plaintiffs opposed the motion
and the Court heard oral argument on the motion in November
2002. On February 19, 2003, the Court issued an Opinion and
Order, granting in part and denying in part the motion to
dismiss as to the Company.  In addition, in August 2002, the
plaintiffs agreed to dismiss without prejudice all of the
individual defendants from the consolidated complaint. An order
to that effect was entered by the Court in October 2002.

A special Litigation Committee of the Board of Directors has
authorized the Company to negotiate a settlement of the pending
claims substantially consistent with a Memorandum of
Understanding, which was negotiated among class plaintiffs, all
issuer defendants and their insurers.  The parties negotiated a
settlement, subject to approval by the Court.  On February 15,
2005, the Court issued an Opinion and Order preliminarily
approving the settlement, provided that the defendants and
plaintiffs agree to a modification narrowing the scope of the
bar order set forth in the original settlement.

The suit is styled "In re Proton Energy Systems, Inc. Initial
Public Offering Sec. Litigation," related to "In re Initial
Public Offering Securities Litigation, Master File No. 21 MC 92
(SAS)," filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York under Judge Shira A. Scheindlin.  
The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

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

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

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

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

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

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


SANTA BARBARA: Discovery Begins in CA RAL Collection Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in the class action filed against Santa
Barbara Bank & Trust and Jackson Hewitt Tax Services, Inc. in
the Superior Court of California for the County of Santa
Barbara.

On April 4, 2003, Canieva Hood and Congress of California
Seniors filed the suit in connection with the provision of
refund anticipation loans, seeking declaratory relief as to the
lawfulness of the practice of cross-lender debt collection, the
validity of the Company's cross-lender debt collection provision
and whether the method of disclosure to customers with respect
to the provision is unlawful or fraudulent.  Jackson Hewitt was
joined in the action for allegedly collaborating, and aiding and
abetting, in the actions of the Company.  The Company filed a
demurrer and subsequently answered the amended complaint,
denying any liability.  The case is in its discovery and
pretrial stage.

Ms. Hood has also filed a separate suit against Jackson Hewitt
and Cendant Corporation on December 18, 2003 in the Ohio Court
of Common Pleas (Montgomery County) and is seeking to certify a
class in the action.  The allegations relate to the same set of
facts as the California action.  Jackson Hewitt filed a motion
to stay or dismiss, which was denied, and subsequently answered
the Complaint, denying any liability.  The case is in its
discovery and pretrial stage.


SAXON MORTGAGE: Working To Settle Consumer Fraud Lawsuit in IL
--------------------------------------------------------------
Saxon Mortgage Services, Inc. is in the process of performing
its obligations in the settlement of a class action filed
against it, alleging violations of the Illinois Interest Act,
the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, similar laws, if any, in other
states, and a breach of contract.

A suit, styled "Margarita Barbosa, et al. v. Saxon Mortgage
Services, Inc. (f/k/a Meritech Mortgage Services, Inc.) et al.,"
was filed on November 19, 2002 in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division,
Case No. 02C6323.  The plaintiffs allege that the Company
violated Illinois law by collecting prepayment penalties in
accordance with the terms of the mortgages of certain borrowers
whose loans had been accelerated due to default, and which later
were prepaid by the borrowers.  The Company believes that
approximately 27 mortgage loans it originated in Illinois are
subject to the allegations.

In addition, the plaintiffs allege that their claims apply to
loans that the Company made in all other states in addition to
Illinois, where it collected prepayment penalties in these
particular circumstances. The claim of Ms. Barbosa was separated
from the potential class action by a motion to compel
arbitration pursuant to the arbitration provision of her
mortgage loan, and the claim has been settled.  The mortgage
loans of some or all of the other plaintiffs in the alleged
class do not contain arbitration provisions.  The court
dismissed the sole federal law claim alleged by the plaintiffs
against a non-affiliated defendant, and as a result dismissed
without prejudice the state law claims against the Company and
the other remaining defendants on jurisdictional grounds.

The remaining named plaintiff re-filed the case on August 8,
2003 as "Lois Ann Singer, et al. v. Saxon Mortgage Services
(f/k/a Meritech Mortgage Services, Inc.), et al." in the Circuit
Court of Cook County, Illinois, Case No. 03CH 13222, and on the
Company's motion, the case was removed to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois on September 10,
2003.  The parties have agreed to a settlement in exchange for a
dismissal which would require the Company to pay $0.2 million to
the group of 27 former Illinois borrowers and their attorneys.
The court has entered an order approving the settlement, and the
Company is in the process of performing our obligations under
the settlement agreement.

Each of the 27 former borrowers may choose to opt out of the
settlement and may pursue individual actions against the
Company. The settlement would not preclude former borrowers in
other states from bringing similar claims, or attempting to
assert similar claims as a class action, the Company said in a
regulatory filing.

The suit is styled "Lois Ann Singer, et al. v. Saxon Mortgage
Services (f/k/a Meritech Mortgage Services, Inc.), et al." Case
No. 03CH 13222," filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois, under Judge Blanche M.
Manning.

Representing the plaintiffs are Cathleen M. Combs, Daniel A.
Edelman, James O. Latturner, Heather Piccirilli of Edelman,
Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC 120 South LaSalle Street
18th Floor Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: (312) 739-4200.  
Representing the Company are Lisa L. Clay, Linda Beth Dubnow, E.
Duncan Getchell, David T. Meehan, Lisa M. Young of McGuireWoods
LLP 77 West Wacker Drive #4100 Chicago, IL 60601 Phone:
(312)849-8100 E-mail: lclay@mcquirewoods.com; and Eric J.
Gribbin Severson & Werson One Embarcadero Center 26th Floor San
Francisco, CA 94111  Phone: (415)398-3344.


SAXON MORTGAGE: Working To Settle Interest Rates Lawsuit in MI
--------------------------------------------------------------
Saxon Mortgage, Inc. is currently performing its obligations in
the settlement of the class action field against it in the
United States District Court in Michigan, styled "Shirley Hagan,
et al. v. Concept Mortgage Corp., Saxon Mortgage, Inc. and
others."

The suit, initially filed in the Circuit Court of Wayne County,
Michigan, alleges that the defendant mortgage companies,
including the Company, violated Home Ownership and Equity
Protection Act of 1994 (HOEPA), The Truth in Lending Act (TILA)
and Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) with respect
to the fees and interest rates charged to plaintiffs and the
related loan disclosures, in connection with the plaintiffs'
loans and the loans of a similarly situated class of borrowers.
The suit seeks rescission of the affected loans, damages with
interest, and costs and attorneys fees.

The Company removed the case to federal court and filed a motion
to compel arbitration, which was granted by the Magistrate Judge
and subsequently appealed by the plaintiffs.  The District Court
affirmed the Magistrate Judge's order and arbitration was
initiated. In August 2004, a settlement agreement was entered
into with respect to this matter. The settlement provides for
the reduction in the outstanding balances and interest rates of
the plaintiffs' loans and provides for payment of the
plaintiffs' legal fees in an approximate amount of $30,000.  The
Company is currently in the process of satisfying its
obligations under the settlement agreement.

The suit is styled "Houston v. Home First Mtg Corp, et al, case
no. 2:02-cv-73822-GER," filed in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, under Judge Gerald
E. Rosen.  Representing the Company are Richard M. Delonis,
Williams Mullen (Detroit) 535 Griswold 11th Floor Detroit, MI
48226 Phone: 313-962-0643 Fax: 313-962-0643; and Lisa A.
Robinson Howard & Howard (Detroit) 535 Griswold 11th Floor
Detroit, MI 48226 Phone: 313-962-0643 E-mail:
lrobinson@howardandhoward.com.  Representing the plaintiffs is
Joon H. Sung, Legal Aid and Defender Association, Inc, 645
Griswold Suite 2500 Detroit, MI 48226 Phone: 313-964-4111 Fax:
313-964-4111.


SAXON MORTGAGE: Plaintiffs File Two Separate Fraud Suits in LA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Saxon Mortgage Services, Inc. faces two separate class actions
filed in the Civil District court for the Parish of Orleans,
Louisiana, related to its enforcement of mortgage loan
obligations.

Two suits were initially filed.  "Bauer, et al., v. Saxon
Mortgage Services, Inc., et al.," is a matter filed on December
1, 2004 in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans,
State of Louisiana, Case No. 2004-17015. On January 26, 2005,
the plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss the case without
prejudice, and the court entered an order dismissing the case on
January 31, 2005.  On February 17, 2005, the plaintiffs re-filed
the case as two separate class action lawsuits in the same
court, namely "Bauer, et al., v. Dean Morris, et al., Case No.
05-2173" and "Patterson, et al., v. Dean Morris, et al.,
Case No. 05-2174."

In the Bauer case, the Company was not a named defendant but may
owe defense and indemnification to Deutsche Bank Trust Company
Americas, N.A., as custodian of a mortgage loan for which one
named plaintiff is mortgagor.  Saxon Mortgage Services, Inc. is
a named defendant in the Patterson case.  In both cases, the
named plaintiffs allege misrepresentation, fraud, conversion and
unjust enrichment on the part of a law firm hired by a number of
defendants, including the Company, to enforce mortgage loan
obligations against borrowers who had become delinquent pursuant
to the terms of their mortgage loan documents.  Specifically,
the plaintiffs alleged that the law firm quoted inflated court
costs and sheriff's fees on reinstatement proposals to the
plaintiffs.  In both cases, the Plaintiffs seek certification as
a class action, compensatory damages, pre-judgment interest,
attorneys' fees, litigation costs, and other unspecified
general, special and equitable relief.


WESBANCO INC.: WV Court Hears Appeal of Lawsuit Summary Judgment
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
West Virginia heard oral arguments on plaintiffs' appeal of
summary judgment granted in favor of WesBanco, Inc. in the class
action styled "Martin, et al. v. The American Bancorporation
Retirement Plan, et al., under Civil Action No. 5:2000-CV-168
(Broadwater)."

On March 1, 2002, the Company consummated its acquisition of
American Bancorporation through a series of corporate mergers.
At the time of the consummation of this transaction, American
Bancorporation was facing the suit.  The Company became the
principal defendant in this suit by reason of the merger.  This
case involves a class action suit against American
Bancorporation by certain beneficiaries of the American
Bancorporation Defined Benefit Retirement Plan (the "Plan")
seeking to challenge benefit calculations and methodologies used
by the outside Plan Administrator in determining benefits under
the Plan which was frozen by American Bancorporation, as to
benefit accruals, some years ago.  

The Plan had been the subject of a predecessor action in a case
styled "American Bancorporation Retirement Plan, et al. v.
McKain, Civil Action No. 5:93-CV-110," which was also litigated
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
West Virginia.  The McKain case resulted in an Order entered by
the District Court on September 22, 1995, which directed
American Bancorporation to follow a specific method for
determining retirement benefits under the Plan.  

American Bancorporation has asserted that it has calculated the
benefits in accordance with the requirements of the 1995 Order.  
The purported class of plaintiffs have asserted that they are
not bound by the 1995 Order since they were not parties to that
proceeding and are seeking a separate benefit determination. The
District Court in the current case initially limited the class
of plaintiffs to a group of approximately 37 individuals and
granted partial summary judgment to significantly reduce the
scope and extent of the underlying case. The Court subsequently
granted summary judgment in favor of the Company on the
remaining claims on March 31, 2004, and the plaintiff appealed
the decision to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.  Oral
arguments were recently held in the case and a decision is
expected to be rendered within the next few months.


WYOMING: Wind River Reservation Tribes Win Case V. Government
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wind River Indian Reservation tribes could realize about $6.5
million in federal payments after the U.S. Supreme Court on
declined to consider the government's appeal of a lower-court
ruling in favor of the tribes, The Jackson Hole Star-Tribune
reports.

As previously reported in the April 13, 2005 edition of the
Class Action Reporter, the Bush administration, in an attempt to
limit the federal government's fiduciary responsibilities and
liabilities, recently filed documents asking the U.S. Supreme
Court to overturn those earlier decisions.

Back in 2003, the administration argued that its trust duties
were lessened because the Eastern Shoshone Tribe and the
Northern Arapaho Tribe signed a cooperative audit agreement with
the federal Minerals Management Service. In court papers at the
time, government attorneys argued, "Somewhere along the line,
the United States should be entitled to rely on obligations that
the tribes assumed."

Judge Emily C. Hewitt of the U.S. Court of Claims, however
denied the government's defense saying that the agreement "does
not diminish the trust duty owed" to the tribes because it was
meant to "enhance" and not replace the trust relationship.

The two tribes, which share the Wind River reservation in
Wyoming, filed the suit in 1979, alleging that the Minerals
Management Service failed to collect the full amount of
royalties from a settlement between oil and gas companies.

The new Department of Justice appeal could affect 20 other
tribes' accounting lawsuits in the federal court system, as well
as the biggest case of all, Cobell v. Norton, a class-action
lawsuit filed in 1996. That lawsuit seeks to force the federal
government to account for billions of dollars belonging to about
half a million American Indians and their heirs since the late
19th century.

Justice Department lawyers wrote on March 25 that the lower
court decisions now being appealed "will substantially increase
the volume and complexity of Indian trust litigation, as well as
the potential monetary exposure of the United States in suits
alleging breach of the government's trust obligations."

U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, in congressional
testimony last month, said he needs an additional $7.4 million
and 18 more lawyers to fight the Indian lawsuits. "The United
States' potential exposure in these cases is more than $200
billion," A.G. Gonzales explains. Also, he adds that about 55
million pages of documents need to be reviewed and that some
$6.1 million of the $7.4 million is needed to address these
document management-related expenses.

In the end though, the justices without comment, let stand the
lower-court ruling that allowed most of the claims by the
Wyoming tribes. The tribes allege the federal government
mismanaged oil, gas, timber and grazing royalties from 1946 to
1973.

An attorney for the tribes, speaking on condition of anonymity,
estimated an ultimate payment of $6.5 million to the tribes from
the Interior Department. The attorneys also added that the
refusal of the Supreme Court to reopen the case, secures a $12
million payment received last year, as well as additional
interest, at a rate yet to be determined.

"My general estimate is that the tribes will see a payment of $6
million, by settlement or negotiation, within the next six
months," the attorney told The Jackson Hole Star-Tribune. The $6
million anticipated payment arises from an accounting of oil and
gas royalties owed the tribes, but not enforced by the federal
government, from 1973 to 2000, he adds.

The attorney also pointed out that in addition, and as a
separate issue, the Supreme Court's denial of the federal appeal
sets the stage for an additional $550,000 payment to the tribes,
based on an earlier settlement about sand and gravel royalties.
He also readily acknowledged that compared to a potential
federal liability of $200 billion in a class-action trust
management lawsuit (Cobell v. Norton), this victory for the Wind
River tribes is relatively minor.

"It is good for the tribes," he said, but was uncertain whether
it will have any implications for the larger lawsuit,
potentially affecting 500,000 American Indians.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

BLUE COAT: Federman & Sherwood Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Federman & Sherwood initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California against Blue Coat Systems, Inc. (Nasdaq:
BCSI).

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of
material misrepresentations to the market which had the effect
of artificially inflating the market price. The class period is
from February 20, 2004 through May 27, 2004.

The complaint further alleges that on February 19, 2004, Blue
Coat announced an unprecedented increase in sales and its first
profitable quarter, all the while since its founding in 1996,
having not announced any profits. The Company held a conference
call just after the close of trading on February 19, 2004,
wherein Blue Coat stated a belief that gross margins in the
following quarter would fall in the range of 68-69%. This news
caused the Company's stock to increase $6.75, to close at $38.27
on February 20, 2004. Almost immediately following the Company's
positive earnings announcement, defendants started selling
massive amounts of Blue Coat stock, at prices ranging from $40-
$52 per share. On May 27, 2004, the Company shocked investors by
announcing that the purported gross margin calculation had
fallen short for the fourth quarter of fiscal 2004 and that
profitability was lower than that achieved in the prior quarter.
As could only be expected with this type of news, shares of the
Company's common stock plummeted from $39.27, on May 27, 2004,
to close at $27.80 on May 28, 2004, a drop of $11.47, or 29%.

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


DELPHI CORPORATION: Lockbridge Grindal Lodges MI Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P. initiated a
class action lawsuit, in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Michigan, on behalf of persons who have
been participants in or beneficiaries of Delphi Corporation's
(NYSE:DPH) Personal Savings Plan for Hourly-Rate Employees in
the U.S. (the "Plan") since May 28, 1999.

The Complaint charges fiduciaries of the Plan with violations of
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, including
allegations that Plan fiduciaries breached their fiduciary
duties and responsibilities by, among other things, failing to
investigate the prudence of Plan investments in Delphi stock and
by making misrepresentations about the Company's accounting
practices dating back to1999. Delphi is a global supplier of
vehicle electronics, transportation components, integrated
systems and modules, and other electronic technology to vehicle
manufacturers. The Complaint alleges that during the Class
Period, defendants knew or should have known that Delphi issued
materially false and misleading financial statements caused by
Delphi's improper accounting for off-balance sheet financing and
vendor rebates. As a result of these false statements, the
Company's stock climbed to as high as $17.40 per share during
the Class Period. Upon the disclosure of the Company's need to
revise its financial statements, Delphi's stock dropped to as
low as $5.41 per share before closing at $5.46 per share on
March 4, 2005, some 68% below the Class Period high of $17.40
per share.

For more details, contact Karen Riebel, Esq. of Lockridge
Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P. by Mail: 100 Washington Avenue South,
Suite 2200, Minneapolis, MN 55401 by Phone: (612) 339-6900 by E-
mail: khriebel@locklaw.com.


MBIA Inc.: Murray Frank Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. 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 a class (the "Class")
consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired securities of MBIA Inc. ("MBIA" or the "Company")
(NYSE:MBI) between August 5, 2003 and March 30, 2005, inclusive
(the "Class Period").

The Complaint charges MBIA and certain of the Company's
executive officers with violations of federal securities laws.
MBIA provides financial guarantee insurance, investment
management services, and municipal and other services to public
finance, and structured finance clients on a global basis. The
Complaint alleges that during the Class Period defendants failed
to disclose and/or misrepresented that MBIA:

     (1) was overleveraged, substantially under-reserved against
         possible credit defaults, and overly exposed to
         guaranteeing risky structured financings;

     (2) accelerated recognition of current income by
         classifying many upfront guarantee fees as advisory
         fees taken at closing, rather than accounted for over
         the life of the bonds insured;

     (3) improperly booked a $70 million payment from Converium
         Re (formerly Zurich Reinsurance North America) in 1998;

     (4) as a result, MBIA financial statements were materially
         overstated by $60 million; and

     (5) artificially inflated premium income and portfolio
         credit quality by insuring bonds in the secondary
         market that were attracting prices lower than their
         stale credit ratings would dictate;

     (6) MBIA's low loss ratios resulted from the Company
         deferring recognition of problems rather than providing
         layers of excess collateral or other underwriting
         protection;

     (7) MBIA set forth an illegal scheme to cover the loss from
         the failed Allegheny Health, Education and Research
         Foundation ("Aherf") bond issuance;

     (8) MBIA was dumping performing but troubled policies from
         its existing portfolio onto Channel Reinsurance Ltd. -
         a Bermuda reinsurer of which MBIA owns a 17.4% interest
         -- in order to bolster its financial results; and

     (9) MBIA lacked adequate internal controls and was,
         therefore, unable to ascertain the Company's true
         financial condition.

On November 18, 2004, an MBIA press release announced that it
received identical document subpoenas from the SEC and the New
York Attorney General's office ("NYAG") requesting information
concerning non-traditional or loss-mitigation insurance products
developed, offered, or sold by MBIA to third parties dating from
January 1, 1998.

On March 8, 2005, MBIA announced a restatement of its financial
statements for 1998 and subsequent years to correct the
accounting treatment for two reinsurance agreements that MBIA
entered into in 1998 with Converium Re. Then on March 9, 2005,
MBIA announced that it had received a subpoena from the U.S.
Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York seeking
information related to the reinsurance agreements it entered
into in connection with the loss it incurred in 1998 on bonds
insured by MBIA Insurance Corp. -- MBIA's main operating unit --
that were issued by AHERF. These matters are currently under
investigation by the SEC and the NYAG.

Finally, on March 30, 2005, MBIA announced that it had received
additional requests from the NYAG and the SEC, supplementing the
subpoenas served on the Company in late-2004. The requests
sought documents relating to the Company's accounting treatment
of advisory fees, its methodology for determining loss reserves
and case reserves, instances of purchase of credit default
protection on itself, and documents relating to Channel
Reinsurance Ltd. This news shocked the market, and shares of
MBIA fell $4.36 per share, or 7.7 percent, to close at $52.28
per share on unusually heavy trading volume. Murray, Frank &
Sailer LLP and its predecessor firms have devoted its practice
to shareholder class actions and complex commercial litigation
for more than thirty years and have recovered hundreds of
millions of dollars for shareholders in class actions throughout
the United States.

For more details, contact Eric J. Belfi or Aaron D. Patton of
Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP by Phone: (800) 497-8076 or
(212) 682-1818 by Fax: (212) 682-1892 or by E-mail:
info@murrayfrank.com.


PETCO ANIMAL: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC initiated a securities
class action lawsuit on behalf of shareholders who purchased the
common stock and other securities of PETCO Animal Supplies, Inc.
("PETCO" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:PETC), between November 18,
2004 and April 14, 2005 inclusive (the "Class Period"). The
class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of California.

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

For more details, contact Marc L. Ackerman, Esq. or Evan J.
Smith, Esq. of Brodsky & Smith, LLC by Phone: 877-LEGAL-90 by E-
mail: clients@brodsky-smith.com.


PETCO ANIMAL: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of PETCO Animal
Supplies, Inc. (NASDAQ: PETC) between November 18, 2004 and
April 14, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

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

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


PETCO ANIMAL: Federman & Sherwood Lodges Securities Suit in CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Federman & Sherwood initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California against PETCO Animal Supplies, Inc.
(Nasdaq: PETC) ("PETCO").

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of
material misrepresentations to the market which had the effect
of artificially inflating the market price. The class period is
from November 18, 2004 through April 14, 2005.

On November 18, 2004, PETCO announced Q3 2004 results and raised
its guidance for FY 2004. The Company subsequently issued
favorable results for FY 2004. By April 2005, the Company's
stock was trading above $37 per share. Then, on April 15, 2005,
before the market opened, the Company issued a press release
entitled "PETCO to Delay Filing of Form 10-K." The release
stated that PETCO would delay the filing of its Form 10-K with
the Securities and Exchange Commission and that it had requested
a 15-day extension after it discovered accounting errors related
to certain under-accrued expenses in its distribution
operations. The Company anticipated its Q4 2004 earnings would
be reduced by $3.0-$4.5 million and expected that FY 2005
earnings would be reduced by a similar amount, as it took into
consideration the nature of the under-accrual of expenses. The
stock dropped 15% to close at $30.36 per share on these
revelations of accounting improprieties.

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


PETCO ANIMAL: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C. initiated a lawsuit seeking
class action status has been filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of California on behalf of all
persons who purchased the common stock of PETCO Animal Supplies,
Inc. (Nasdaq: PETC) ("PETCO" or "the Company") between November
18, 2004 and April 14, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that PETCO and certain of its officers and
directors violated federal securities laws. Specifically,
defendants caused PETCO's shares to trade at artificially
inflated levels through the issuance of false and misleading
financial statements. On November 18, 2004, PETCO announced Q3
2004 results and raised its guidance for FY 2004. PETCO
subsequently issued very favorable results for FY 2004. As a
result, by April 2005, PETCO's stock was trading above $37 per
share. On April 15, 2005, before the market opened, the Company
issued a press release entitled "PETCO to Delay Filing of Form
10- K." The release stated that PETCO would delay the filing of
its Form 10-K with the Securities and Exchange Commission and
that it had requested a 15-day extension after it discovered
accounting errors related to certain under- accrued expenses in
its distribution operations. PETCO anticipated its Q4 2004
earnings would be reduced by $3.0 -- $4.5 million and expected
that FY 2005 earnings would be reduced by a similar amount, as
it took into consideration the nature of the under-accrual of
expenses. On news of the accounting improprieties, the stock
dropped 15% to close at $30.36 per share.

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.


RHODIA S.A.: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in NJ
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit w in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey on behalf of all securities purchasers of
Rhodia S.A. (NYSE: RHA) ("Rhodia" or the "Company") between
April 26, 2001 and March 23, 2004, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

The complaint charges Rhodia, Jean-Pierre Tirouflet, Gilles
Auffret and Pierre Prot with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. More specifically, the Complaint alleges
that the Company failed to disclose and misrepresented the
following material adverse facts known to defendants or
recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) that the Company failed to timely write down the value
         of its ChiRex subsidiary. In particular, Rhodia failed
         to disclose in a sufficiently precise and sincere
         manner the evolution of ChiRex's turnover and outlook
         during 2003, making it difficult for the market to
         evaluate the risk of value loss and the consequences on
         the financial situation of the Group;

     (2) that the Company failed to depreciate its deferred
         taxes assets in fiscal year 2002 and in the 1st half of
         2003;

     (3) that Rhodia failed to communicate with investors on all
         the components of its debt, particularly off balance
         sheet items that were significant, on its level of
         liquidity, and on the coverage of its environmental
         risks; and

     (4) that as a result of the foregoing Rhodia's financial
         results were materially inflated at all relevant times.

On March 23, 2004, Rhodia revealed in a SEC filing an auditor's
concerns about Rhodia's cash position. PricewaterhouseCoopers
said in a filing with the SEC that Rhodia faced depressed market
conditions and it did not expect positive cash flow this year.
The filing also showed that French market authorities had
launched an inquiry into Rhodia's financial statements. On this
news shares of Rhodia fell $0.21 per share or 7.12 percent, on
March 24, 2004, to close at $2.74 per share.

For more details, contact Marc A. Topaz, Esq. or Darren J.
Check, Esq. of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP by Mail: 280 King of
Prussia Road, Radnor, PA 19087 by Phone: 1-888-299-7706 or
1-610-667-7706 or by E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com.


SHARPER IMAGE: Brodsky & Smith Files Securities Fraud Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC initiated a securities
class action lawsuit on behalf of shareholders who purchased the
common stock and other securities of Sharper Image Corporation
("Sharper Image" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:SHRP), between
February 5, 2004 and August 4, 2004 inclusive (the "Class
Period"). The class action lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California.

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

For more details, contact Marc L. Ackerman, Esq. or Evan J.
Smith, Esq. of Brodsky & Smith, LLC by Phone: 877-LEGAL-90 by E-
mail: clients@brodsky-smith.com.


SHARPER IMAGE: Charles J. Piven Files Securities Suit in N.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of Sharper
Image Corporation (NASDAQ: SHRP) between February 5, 2004, and
August 4, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

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

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