---

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

            Wednesday, April 27, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 82

                            Headlines

3M CORPORATION: AARP Joins Employees' Age Discrimination Suit
ACE LTD.: Named As Defendant in NJ Insurance Antitrust Lawsuit
ACE LTD.: Seeks To Have PA, NY Securities Lawsuits Consolidated
AKSYS LTD.: Reaches Settlement for CT Securities Fraud Lawsuit
ARTHUR ANDERSON: Settles WorldCom Securities Fraud Lawsuit in NY

BLOCKBUSTER INC.: AR Suit Joins Nationwide Late Fees Settlement
BLOCKBUSTER INC.: CA Joins Nationwide "No Late Fees" Settlement
CALIFORNIA: AG Lockyer Files Suit To Halt Illegal Spam Operation
CALIFORNIA: 1,200 CA Schools To Receive Music Settlement Share
DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION: Recalls Minivans For Injury Hazard

ESS TECHNOLOGY: Trial in CA Securities Suit Expected Early 2007
FLEETWOOD FOLDING: Recalls 176 Trailers Due To Crash Hazard
FOUR WINDS: Recalls 261 Motorhomes For Brake Failure, Crash Risk
GABLES RESIDENTIAL: Discovery Proceeding in FL Consumer Lawsuit
GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Family's Suit Over Paxil Joins CA Class Action

HOME SHOPPING: Working To Settle CA, IL, FL Consumer Fraud Suits
HOTELS.COM: Plaintiffs To Appeal TX Securities Lawsuit Dismissal
HOTELS.COM: TX Court Hears Motion For Fraud Suit Certification
HOTELS.COM: CA Consumers Launch Suits V. Hotel Occupancy Taxes
IAC/INTERACTIVECORP: Faces Consolidated WA Consumer Fraud Suit

IAC/INTERACTIVECORP: Lawsuits V. Hotels.com Merger Still Pending
IAC/INTERACTIVECORP: Three Consumer Fraud Suits Moved To N.D. CA
IAC/INTERACTIVECORP: Faces Consumer Fraud Suit in CA State Court
KINGSWOOD LABORATORIES: Recalls Oral Swabsticks Due To Molds
MASSACHUSETTS: Trial Begins For Suit Over Mentally Ill Children

MEDTRONIC INC.: Recalls Lifepak 500 Defibrillators Due To Flaws
NEW YORK: Shareholders Launch Securities, ERISA Lawsuits in NY
POST PROPERTIES: Shareholders Appeals Suit Settlement Approval
PRIMUS AUTOMOTIVE: Parties Inform Court of Negotiation Deadlock
PTV INC.: NY Court Partially Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit

SIRIUS SATELLITE: Continues To Face NY Securities Fraud Lawsuit
SODEXHO ALLIANCE: Employees' Race Discrimination Goes To Trial
SUPERCONDUCTOR TECHNOLOGIES: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Lawsuits
TIFFIN MOTORHOMES: Recalls 867 Motorhomes Due To Injury Hazard
UTAH: Coalition Files Suit Over Summit County's Zoning Practices

VARIAGENICS INC.: Working To Settle Securities Suit in S.D. NY
VEHICLE SYSTEMS: Recalls 6,973 Vehicle Heaters For Fire Hazard
VISHAY INTERTECHNOLOGY: Provides Update on Siliconix Litigation
WARNER-LAMBERT: AR Gets Share in Nationwide Neurontin Settlement
WAVE SYSTEMS: Continues To Face Securities Fraud Lawsuits in MA

                Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Featured Conference
* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

BEARINGPOINT INC.: Charls J. Piven Lodges Securities Suit in VA
BEARINGPOINT INC.: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Suit in VA
BEARINGPOINT INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Stock Suit in VA
BLUE COAT: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Lawsuit in CA
DELPHI CORPORATION: Baron & Budd Lodges Securities Lawsuit in NY

DORAL FINANCIAL: Goodkind Labaton Files Securities Lawsuit in NY
DORAL FINACIAL: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Lawsuit in NY
MOLEX INCORPORATED: Stull Stull Lodges IL Securities Fraud Suit


                            *********


3M CORPORATION: AARP Joins Employees' Age Discrimination Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) is set to
join an age discrimination suit against the 3M Corporation, The
Minneapolis Star Tribune reports.

According to Dan Kohrman, an AARP lawyer from Washington, D.C.,
who will be co-counsel to Minneapolis-based Sprenger & Lang in
the lawsuit, the AARP has made it a priority to fight the so-
called "forced ranking" performance appraisals.  Mr. Kohrman
told the Tribune that 3M's employee evaluation system, which
requires managers to rank employees in comparison to one another
and to put a certain percentage in every category from low to
high, is prone to stereotyping and therefore discriminatory. He
further told the Tribune, "We don't assert that forced ranking
is inherently discriminatory, but we are troubled by a pattern
we see in big companies, showing that older workers are a vastly
disproportionate share of those who are graded down."

In light of the new development in the case, 3M spokeswoman
Donna Fleming told the Tribune that AARP's entry into the case
is a "minor procedural matter that doesn't change the fact this
lawsuit is without merit." She also denied that the company's
performance appraisals are the same as those the AARP has
criticized in the past, and said, "3M will continue to
vigorously defend itself against these claims."

As reported in the December 23, 2004 edition of the Class Action
Reporter, one current and one former 3M Corporation employee
initiated a lawsuit accusing the company of age discrimination,
claiming it stereotypes older workers and does not offer them
the same opportunities as younger employees.  Filed in Ramsey
County District Court, the lawsuit is seeking class-action
status, which could potentially extend its effects to 15,000
current and former employees, attorneys estimated. The lawsuit
though does not seek a specific dollar amount.

The plaintiffs, Clifford Whitaker, 60, and Michael Mucci, 55,
have also taken their age-discrimination complaints to state and
federal agencies, according to 3M. Mr. Whitaker's complaints
were dismissed, and Mr. Mucci's are pending, the company added.

According to the lawsuit, since at least 2001, 3M acted "to
elevate younger employees to the company's leadership and to
remove employees over the age of 45 - perceived as less able or
willing to accept and apply new business methodologies adopted
by the company." Furthermore, the suit argues that 3M
disproportionately select younger employees for a leadership-
training program called "Six Sigma." The lawsuit also charges
that the plaintiffs suffered from 3M's evaluation, pay and
promotion policies.

Susan Coler, an attorney at Sprenger & Lang in Minneapolis,
which represents the plaintiffs told the Tribune, "Participants
in Six Sigma are identified as 'black belts' and 'master black
belts,' and with that they get certain responsibilities and
opportunities that others don't."

Stephen Sanchez, a spokesman for 3M Corporation told the Tribune
the company is proud of its Six Sigma program and adds,
"Thousands of employees have been trained in Six Sigma and use
the tools and methodology in their daily jobs."


ACE LTD.: Named As Defendant in NJ Insurance Antitrust Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
ACE Ltd., ACE INA Holdings, Inc. and ACE USA face a consolidated
insurance policyholder class action filed in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey.

Ten federal putative nationwide class actions were initially
filed, namely:

     (1) Bayou Steel Corporation v. ACE INA Holdings, et al.,
         (Case No. 04 CV 5391 filed in the United States
         District Court for the Eastern District Pennsylvania on
         November 18, 2004);

     (2) Eagle Creek, Inc. v. ACE INA Holdings, et al. (Case No.
         04 CV 5255, filed in the United States District Court
         for the Eastern District, Pennsylvania on November 10,
         2004);

     (3) Stephen Lewis vs. Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc., et
         al. (Case No. 04 CV 7847; filed in the United States
         District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
         on December 6, 2004);

     (4) Opticare Health Systems, Inc. v. Marsh & McLennan
         Companies, Inc., et al. (Case No. 04 CV 06954; filed in
         the United States District Court for the Southern
         District of New York on October 19, 2004);

     (5) Diane Preuss v. March & McLennan Companies, et al.,  
         (Case No. 04 CV 78553; filed in the United States
         District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on
         December 6, 2004);

     (6) Redwood Oil Company v. Marsh & McLennan
         Companies, Inc.  (Case No. 05 C 0390; filed in the
         United States District Court for the Northern District
         of Illinois on filed January 21, 2005);

     (7) Shell Vacations LLC v. Marsh & McLennan Companies,
         Inc., et al. (Case No. 05 C 0270; filed in the United
         States District Court for the Northern District of
         Illinois on January 14, 2005);

     (8) Edward Macuish v. Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc., et
         al. (Case No. 2005 CV 00440; filed in the United States
         District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on
         January 25, 2005);

     (9) David Boros v. Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc., et al.
         (Case No. C050543EDL; filed in the United States
         District Court for the Northern District of California,
         on February 4, 2005), and

    (10) Robert Mulcahy v. Arthur J. Gallagher & Co., et al.,
         (Case No. 2005 CV 01064; filed in the United States
         District Court for the District of New Jersey, on
         February 23, 2005)

In each of these cases, the plaintiff has sued a number of other
insurance entities in addition to the ACE entities.  The
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) consolidated
these cases, as well as other putative class actions in which no
ACE entity is named as a party in the District of New Jersey. In
each of the actions in which they have been served, the
obligation of the ACE entities to answer the complaints has
been, or will be, stayed until after a consolidated complaint
has been filed.

In each of these cases, the plaintiff alleges that insurers,
including certain ACE entities, and brokers conspired to
increase premiums and allocate customers through the use of "B"
quotes and contingent commissions. Although the causes of action
in the petitions somewhat vary, Plaintiffs allege causes of
action under the Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organization Act (RICO), federal antitrust law, state antitrust
law, state consumer-protection laws, and state common law
(breach of fiduciary duty and misrepresentation). In each of the
cases, the plaintiff has sought unspecified compensatory damages
and reimbursement of expenses, including legal fees.

ACE USA and ACE INA have also been named in a state court class
action, styled "Palm Tree Computer Systems, Inc. et al. v. ACE
USA et al. Case No. 05-CA-373-16-W," filed in the Circuit Court,
Seminole County, Florida on February 5, 2005.  The allegations
are similar to the allegations in the federal class actions
identified above. Plaintiffs allege causes of action under every
state's consumer statute and state common law (breach of
fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment).  The complaint states
that "neither the Plaintiff nor any member of the Class has
suffered damages exceeding $74,999.00 each, even when trebled.
In no event will Plaintiff or any member of the Class accept
damages in excess of $74,999.00 for each class member."

Illinois Union Insurance Company, an ACE subsidiary, has been
named in a state court class action, styled "Van Emden
Management Corporation v. Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 05-0066A," filed in the Superior Court of
Massachusetts on January 13, 2005).  The allegations are similar
to the allegations in the federal class actions identified
above.  Plaintiffs assert causes of action under Massachusetts'
antitrust statute and Massachusetts' consumer protection
statute. Plaintiffs also assert a conspiracy cause of action and
seek an injunction. Plaintiff has sought unspecified
compensatory damages and reimbursement of expenses, including
legal fees.


The OptiCare suit is styled "In Re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust
Litigation, case no. 2:05-cv-01168-FSH," filed in the United
States District Court in New Jersey, under Judge Faith S.
Hochberg.  Representing the Company is Vineet Bhatia, Johnny W.
Carter, Michael P. Geiser, H. Lee Godfrey, Neal S. Manne,
Jeffrey R. Seely, SUSMAN GODFREY LLP, 1000 Louisiana St., Suite
5100, Houston TX 77002 Phone: 713-653-7855.  Representing the
plaintiffs are Joseph P. Guglielmo and Edith M. Kallas, MILBERG
WEISS BERSHAD & SCHULMAN LLP (NYC) One Pennsylvania Plaza, New
York NY 10119 Phone: 212-594-5300; and Mark C. Rifkin, WOLF
HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP, 270 Madison Avenue, New
York, NY 10016 Phone: 212 545-4600 E-mail: rifkin@whafh.com.  


ACE LTD.: Seeks To Have PA, NY Securities Lawsuits Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------------
ACE Ltd. is seeking the consolidation of four putative
securities class actions filed in the United States District
Courts for the Southern District of New York and the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, styled:

     (1) John Mahaney, Jr. v. ACE Limited, et al., (Case No. 04
         CV 07696, filed in the United States District Court for
         the Southern District of New York on October 18, 2004);

     (2) Steven Burda v. ACE Limited, et al. (Case No. 04 CV
         833; filed in the United States District Court for the
         Southern District of New York, on October 21, 2004);

     (3) Thomas E. Barton v. ACE Limited, et al.; (Case No. 04
         CV 8683; filed on the United States District Court for
         the Southern District of New York on November 1, 2004);
         and

     (4) Friends of Ariel Center for Policy Research v. ACE
         Limited, et al. (Case No. 04 CV 04907; filed in the
         United States District Court for the Eastern District
         of Pennsylvania on October 19, 2004).

Evan G. Greenberg, ACE's President and Chief Executive Officer,
Brian Duperreault, ACE's Chairman and former Chief Executive
Officer, and Philip V. Bancroft, ACE's Chief Financial Officer
were also named as defendants in each of these suits.  In
addition, Dominic J. Frederico, ACE's former Vice Chairman and
former President and Chief Operating Officer, and Christopher Z.
Marshall, ACE's former Chief Financial Officer, were named as
defendants in the "Burda" action.  On January 3, 2005, the
"Burda" and "Barton" actions were consolidated for all purposes
into the "Mahaney" action.  In December 2004, the defendants
filed a motion with the JPML seeking consolidation of the cases
for pretrial purposes in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
That motion is currently pending, and no plaintiffs have yet
filed a brief stating a position on consolidation and transfer.

The plaintiffs in these cases assert claims solely under Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act
(control person liability). The plaintiffs allege that ACE's
public statements and securities filings should have revealed
that insurers, including certain ACE entities, and brokers
conspired to increase premiums and allocate customers through
the use of "B" quotes and contingent commissions and that ACE's
revenue and earnings were inflated by premiums which it may have
to forfeit by fines or judgments.


AKSYS LTD.: Reaches Settlement for CT Securities Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Aksys, Ltd. reached a settlement for a class action filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Connecticut by
an alleged short-seller of Company stock.  The suit also names
as defendants the Durus funds, and is styled "Collier v. Aksys,
Ltd. et al., District of Connecticut, Civil Action No. 3:04-CV-
01232."  

The lawsuit is a purported class action filed on behalf of all
short-sellers of Company stock during the period of January 1,
2003 through July 24, 2003.  The plaintiff is alleging
violations of federal securities laws in connection with the
Durus funds' accumulation of the Company's stock.

In September 2004, the Company entered into an agreement with
counsel for plaintiffs whereby it was dismissed from the lawsuit
without prejudice.

The suit is styled "Collier v. Aksys Ltd., et al, case no. 3:04-
cv-01232-MRK," filed in the United States District Court in
Connecticut, under Judge Mark R. Kravitz.  Representing the
Company is Terence J. Gallagher, III, Day, Berry & Howard One
Canterbury Green Stamford, CT 06901-2047 Phone: 203-977-7300
Fax: 203-977-7301 E-mail: tjgallagher@dbh.com.  Representing the
plaintiffs is Patrick F. Lennon of Tisdale & Lennon, 10 Spruce
St. Southport, CT 06490 Phone: 203-254-8474 Fax: 203-254-1641 E-
mail: plennon@tisdale-lennon.com.


ARTHUR ANDERSON: Settles WorldCom Securities Fraud Lawsuit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Arthur Andersen reached a settlement with WorldCom investors who
accused the telecommunications company's former outside auditor
of failing to protect them from WorldCom's historic $11 billion
accounting fraud, The Associated Press reports.

Court documents show that U.S. District Judge Denise Cote
scheduled a preliminary approval hearing on the settlement and
banned each side from discussing its details publicly. The
sudden decision by the WorldCom auditor interrupted a trial in
its fifth week on the accusations contained in a class action
lawsuit brought after WorldCom's 2002 collapse, the largest
bankruptcy in U.S. history.

As previously reported in the April 1, 2005 edition of the Class
Action Reporter, opening arguments in the WorldCom securities
fraud case began in New York before Judge Cote.

The securities case, which is being led by New York state
Comptroller Alan Hevesi, who is acting as trustee of the state
employees' retirement system, alleges that Arthur Andersen,
which at one time was one of the world's largest accounting
firms, failed to uphold its duties to investors as WorldCom's
former auditor. It was brought on behalf of all persons or
organizations that purchased or otherwise acquired publicly
traded securities of WorldCom during the period April 29, 1999
through June 25, 2002, inclusive.

In its suit, the plaintiffs alleged that WorldCom's annual
financial statements for 1999, 2000 and 2001 contained false
statements and that Arthur Andersen issued its audit opinions
with intent to deceive, manipulate or defraud.

Arthur Andersen though insisted through its lawyers that each of
its audit opinions from 1999 through 2001 was generated in good
faith and with no intent to deceive, manipulate or defraud.

Despite the judge's gag order, Arthur Andersen spokesman Patrick
Dorton issued a statement saying the company "elected to enter
this settlement solely to avoid the risks and costs associated
with continued litigation and expressly denies any liability or
wrongdoing."

Though he refused to give specifics, he did explain that the
settlement was "in keeping with Andersen's strategic objective
of satisfactorily resolving its remaining legal matters within
reasonable cost parameters." He also stated that trial testimony
had "demonstrated that Andersen's auditors were victimized by a
carefully designed and executed scheme by WorldCom's former
management to conceal material financial information from
Andersen's auditors as well as from the investing public."

However, Mr. Dorton later asked that his statement be embargoed
until the preliminary approval hearing and then much later asked
that it be retracted because Andersen didn't authorize its
release before said court hearing.

Although it is not known where Andersen would get the money for
a settlement, according to industry expert Mark Cheffers, who is
the CEO of Audit Analytics, a Sutton, Massachusetts-based firm
that provides market research for the audit industry, it likely
has funds left over from liquidating its assets or in its
reserves for insurance losses.

Additionally, as reported in previous articles of the Class
Action Reporter, before the trial began, the last of 16
underwriter defendants involved in the case settled along with
12 former WorldCom directors. Those settlements totaled more
than $6 billion, a record in the securities class action
setting. Thus with those settlement, Arthur Andersen was left as
the sole defendant, which had not opted to settle.

WorldCom, which collapsed when the accounting fraud to inflate
earnings and hide expenses was revealed, has since re-emerged as
MCI Inc., based in Ashburn, Virginia.


BLOCKBUSTER INC.: AR Suit Joins Nationwide Late Fees Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The state of Arkansas joined with 47 other Attorneys General in
a settlement with Blockbuster, Inc., forged late March 2005. The
$630,000 settlement came after the states alleged that
Blockbuster had used deceptive advertising in its "No Late Fees"
campaign launched in December, 2004.  Arkansas, one of the lead
states in the investigation, will receive $23,100 from the
settlement, and there will also be opportunities for individual
consumers to receive credits or refunds, Attorney General Mike
Beebe announced in a statement.

The allegations concern charges associated with the "No Late
Fees" program. Currently, if consumers keep a Blockbuster video
or game longer than seven days, they are automatically charged
the sale price of the item. If they do not wish to keep the item
and return it, they are refunded the sale price, but still are
charged a "restocking fee" of $1.25 or more. The states alleged
that Blockbuster did not clearly disclose these charges in its
advertisements.  In addition, the Attorneys General alleged that
Blockbuster failed to clearly disclose that not all Blockbuster
stores were taking part in the "No Late Fees" program. In
Arkansas, six franchise Blockbuster stores in Fayetteville,
Springdale, Rogers and Fort Smith chose not to participate and
kept their prior late-fee structures in place, causing confusion
for some consumers.

Under the terms of the settlement, Blockbuster will more clearly
include information about potential fees and limited store
participation in future advertisements.

"Consumers want truth in advertising, and this case reminds
businesses of that fact," Mr. Beebe says. "Companies need to be
candid and clear with their practices to build trust with their
customers instead of relying solely on catchy slogans that can
be misinterpreted."

Blockbuster customers who feel they have been deceived may file
a restitution claim with Blockbuster for sale-or-restocking fees
charged them under the "No Late Fees" program between December
31, 2004 and March 29, 2005. Complaint forms may be obtained at
Blockbuster stores or by writing Blockbuster at 1201 Elm Street,
Suite 2100, Dallas, TX 75270, Attention: Steve Krumholz, Sr.
Vice President.


BLOCKBUSTER INC.: CA Joins Nationwide "No Late Fees" Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Attorney General Bill Lockyer and the Attorneys General of 46
other states and Washington D.C. reached on March 9,2005
agreement with Blockbuster Inc. to settle allegations
Blockbuster misled consumers in advertising its "End of Late
Fees" or "No Late Fees" program, Mr. Lockyer said in a
statement.

"Blockbuster's No Late Fees campaign may have had a catchy
slogan and clever ads, but it did not tell the truth," said Mr.
Lockyer. "This agreement ensures consumers no longer will be
misled, and that those who were deceived can get their money
back."

The Attorneys General alleged the advertising campaign misled
consumers because it failed to clearly and conspicuously
disclose that if customers rent a video or game from Blockbuster
and keep the item more than seven days after its due date, they
automatically are charged the retail price of the product,
unless they return it within 30 days. Even if such customers
return the video within 30 days, they still are assessed a
"restocking" fee of $1.25, or higher at some franchise stores.

The Attorneys General also alleged the ads insufficiently
disclosed the fact the program is offered only at participating
stores. As a result, customers of non-participating franchise
stores wrongly thought they would not have to pay late fees,
according to the Attorneys General.

Blockbuster began advertising the "The End of Late Fees" and "No
Late Fees" on December 15, 2004, and the program started on
January 1, 2005. The program is available at all company-owned
stores and franchise stores that choose to participate. In
California, Blockbuster has 624 company-owned stores and 58
franchise stores. Only 13 of the franchises have participated in
the program.

Under the terms of the settlement - called an "Assurance of
Voluntary Compliance" - Blockbuster has agreed that in any
future advertising for the program it will:

     (1) not represent directly or by implication that there are
         no late fees, or only limited late fees, unless such a
         statement appears in close proximity to a clear and
         conspicuous disclosure of the existence of any charge
         (including any rental fee, restocking fee, or any
         charge associated with a rental transaction that has
         been converted to a sale).

     (2) Disclose to consumers limitations on stores that
         actually participate in the program.


Pursuant to the settlement, all Blockbuster stores will clearly
and conspicuously display Blockbuster's policy for return of
rental products and applicable charges if products are not
returned. For the next six months, Blockbuster also will, among
other actions, post a notice in each store, in multiple
locations, that informs customers of the terms and conditions of
the "No Late Fee" program; provide brochures containing the
terms and conditions of the offer in every store; remove from
its company-owned stores the current external window signage and
the current internal signage advertising the "No Late Fee"
program, and request that participating franchise stores do the
same; require any franchise store that is not participating in
the "No Late Fee" program to remove any contrary advertising;
and provide on its web site a hyperlink to a full explanation of
the terms and conditions of the offer.

Under the AVC, Blockbuster also will provide a full refund or
credit to any customer of a corporate store, or participating
franchise store, equal to the selling price of any rental item
converted to a sale under the program. The restitution will be
on a one-time per customer basis but will cover all items rented
which were converted to a sale before the customer first learned
such a conversion would occur. Customers who returned items
within 30 days, but paid a "restocking" fee, will be able to
obtain a refund of that fee. A request for restitution must be
made in writing and allege a failure to understand the "No Late
Fee" program.

Customers may obtain refund forms at company-owned stores and
participating franchise stores. Blockbuster officials will
encourage store personnel to resolve refund requests on the
spot, if possible. Customers also may mail refund requests to
Blockbuster at 1201 Elm Street, Suite 2100, Dallas, TX 75270,
Attention: Mr. Steve Krumholz, Sr. Vice President, by April 28,
2005, or if after that, within seven days of first discovering
they are required to make a payment in addition to the initial
rental fee.

Customers who rented from a non-participating franchise store,
which did not have signs specifying it was not participating in
the "No Late Fee" program, and were charged a late fee beyond
the initial rental fee will, upon written request to Blockbuster
at the above address, receive from Blockbuster rental coupons
equal to the number of rented movies on which such charges were
assessed. Customers in this category are eligible only if they
rented products after December 31, 2004 and prior to today.
Customers must provide details of the transaction and allege
they did not understand the "No Late Fee" program. Requests must
be made by April 28, 2005, or if after that, within seven days
of first discovering that late fees were being charged.

Consumers who believe they are entitled to a refund from
Blockbuster also may contact the Attorney General's Public
Inquiry Unit at www.ag.ca.gov/consumers/mailform.htm. The
restitution period ends September 29, 2005.

As part of the settlement, Blockbuster will pay the states a
total of $630,000 to reimburse them for fees and costs.
California will receive $23,000.


CALIFORNIA: AG Lockyer Files Suit To Halt Illegal Spam Operation
----------------------------------------------------------------
California Attorney General Bill Lockyer filed a suit, asking a
federal court to shut down a major California-based spam
operation that has bombarded people across the country with
illegal email ads pitching mortgage services, car warranties,
travel deals, prescription drugs and college degrees.

"Spam ranks as one of the major consumer and business protection
problems of our generation," said Mr. Lockyer.  "It clogs our
email boxes, invades our privacy, serves as a gateway to
consumer fraud and costs our businesses billions of dollars.
California has been a national leader in fighting spam, and
stopping this operation is in keeping with that tradition. My
office will continue to aggressively prosecute those who flout
our anti-spam laws."

U.S. District Court Judge Samuel Conti, Northern District of
California, heard on April 13,2005 a request that he issue a
temporary restraining order (TRO) in a 13-count lawsuit against
the spammers filed jointly by Mr. Lockyer and the Federal Trade
Commission (FTC). The TRO requested by Mr. Lockyer and the FTC
would stop the defendants from continuing to send illegal spam,
freeze their assets and require them to turn over to Mr.
Lockyer's office and the FTC computer records related to their
operation. The defendants include Los Angeles residents Rick
Yang and Peonie Pui Ting Chen, and the spam operation they run
under the corporate names of Optin Global, Inc. and Vision Media
Limited Corp. Judge Conti could rule on the TRO request as early
as today.

Mr. Lockyer's action makes California the first state in the
country to bring a lawsuit jointly with the FTC under a federal
anti-spam law that took effect January 1, 2004. The federal
statute is known as the CAN-SPAM Act (Controlling the Assault of
Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act of 2003). The
lawsuit also is the first filed by Lockyer under the recently-
revised California anti-spam law, which was amended in 2004
after much of it was preempted by the CAN-SPAM Act.

For violations of the CAN-SPAM Act, Mr. Lockyer and the FTC seek
damages, disgorgement of ill-gotten profits, and immediate and
permanent injunctive relief to prohibit further violations of
the law. For violations of California law, Mr. Lockyer seeks
civil penalties of $2,500 per violation, actual damages, and
liquidated damages of $1,000 per illegal email, up to $1 million
per incident.

"Since at least January 1, 2004, and continuing to the present
(the) defendants have initiated the transmission of hundreds of
thousands of commercial email messages," the complaint alleges.

Lockyer and the FTC allege the defendants violated provisions of
the CAN-SPAM Act that require senders of unsolicited email ads
to provide recipients the ability to request not to receive
further emails, prohibit senders from transmitting messages to
recipients who make such requests, require senders to include a
valid postal address and require senders to identify commercial
emails as ads. The defendants also violated federal and state
laws that prohibit commercial emails from containing false or
deceptive header information and subject lines, according to the
complaint.

The defendants' spam advertises such products as auto
warranties, pharmaceutical products, online college degree
programs and mortgage services, the complaint alleges. The
emails typically contain hyperlinks to defendant-operated web
sites that promote the products and services, according to the
complaint. The defendants used mailing addresses in several
countries, including China and Canada, and Internet domains
registered in Switzerland.

Since March 2004, the court papers allege, consumers across the
country have forwarded to the FTC more than 1,870,000 spam
messages that advertise web sites linked to the defendants. In
California, Lockyer's office has received from consumers more
than 4,000 such emails since January 2004.

Many of the defendants' spam messages, according to the
complaint, market mortgage services. When directed by hyperlinks
to the defendants' mortgage services web sites, consumers are
asked to provide personal information, ostensibly to be shared
with mortgage brokers or banks.

In fact, the complaint alleges, the defendants sell the personal
information to "lead" companies, which then sell the information
to other "lead" companies. Ultimately, the information winds up
in the hands of mortgage lenders and brokers, such as Ameriquest
Mortgage Company, Indy Mac Bank, BLS Funding and Mortgage South.
The lenders and brokers then contact consumers and offer
mortgage services, according to the complaint. Mortgage lead
companies that bought the personal information directly from the
defendants include Abacus Enterprises and Infinite Leads
Marketing. Abacus Enterprises, based in El Cerrito, purchased
about 69,000 leads from the defendants in 2004, the complaint
alleges.

Internet service providers (ISPs), including Microsoft,
cooperated with Mr. Lockyer's office and the FTC in the
investigation. In March 2004, Microsoft, Yahoo, America Online
and Earthlink filed CAN-SPAM lawsuits of their own against major
spammers. And the FTC has brought several enforcement actions
under the CAN-SPAM law since April 2004.

Despite the best efforts of law enforcement, regulators and
ISPs, spam has become a substantial, persistent and costly
problem. In 2001, spam accounted for eight percent of all email.
By March 2004, the number had reached 62 percent. In 2002,
experts estimated spam cost U.S. businesses about $9 billion in
lost productivity, and screening and other expenses.

Mr. Lockyer encouraged Californians who believe they have
received illegal spam to file complaints with the Attorney
General's Office. Complaints can be filed by writing to the
Public Inquiry Unit at P.O. Box 944255, Sacramento, CA 94244-
2550. Californians who receive spam at their email addresses
also can send examples to the Attorney General's Office at
caspam@doj.ca.gov . Consumers can find out how to file a spam
complaint with the FTC, or send spam to the FTC, at www.ftc.gov.


CALIFORNIA: 1,200 CA Schools To Receive Music Settlement Share
--------------------------------------------------------------
More than 1,200 California library districts, school districts,
colleges and universities will start receiving 665,000 free
compact discs (CD) valued at $9 million from the settlement of a
price-fixing lawsuit that also provided consumers $67.4 million
in refunds on April 25,2005, state Attorney General Bill Lockyer
announced in a statement.

"Music adds great value to our lives, and these free CDs will
substantially benefit our children, students and communities,"
said Mr. Lockyer.  "This is a fitting end to a case brought to
hold accountable music distributors and retailers who conspired
to stifle competition and inflate prices for consumers."

The CDs encompass a wide variety of genres, including pop, hip-
hop, rock, jazz, blues, country, Latin, classical, children's
songs and show tunes. Under the allocation formula, 171 library
districts will receive 55 percent of the CDs, 960 K-12 school
districts will receive 40 percent, and 93 college districts and
universities will receive five percent.

Each K-12 school site will receive an average of 29 CDs, while
libraries will obtain roughly 65 percent of the pop titles.
Libraries are receiving the most CDs and pop titles because they
serve the largest general public population.  The CDs include
titles with parental advisories about lyrics that may not be
suitable for children. None of those titles, however, will be
distributed to K-12 schools.

Nationwide, the settlement required the defendants to distribute
some 5.6 million free CDs valued at approximately $77 million.
The CDs already have been distributed in most other states.
Lockyer delayed the distribution in California to correct
problems experienced in other jurisdictions.

The most significant correction addressed incidents in other
states that saw recipients receive extraordinarily high numbers
of copies of one title. The California distribution addresses
that problem in two ways. First, it spreads distribution of the
highest-volume titles across the three recipient groups based
the overall number of recipients. Second, it features a sliding
scale that allocates a greater number of multiple copies to
larger recipients. So, for example, the Los Angeles Unified
School District will receive more multiple copies than the Yuba
City Unified School District.

Mr. Lockyer's office obtained lists of public library and school
districts from the state Department of Education and California
State Library, respectively. Lists of colleges and universities
were provided by the offices of chancellors and presidents. Mr.
Lockyer then sent to all entities on the lists notices inviting
them to participate, and disseminated follow-up reminders as
well. All entities that responded are receiving CDs.

The CD shipments will be arriving over the next five to six
weeks. Details on the CD distribution to specific school
districts, library districts, and college districts and
universities can be found on the Attorney General's web site:
http://www.ag.ca.gov/musiccd. Click on Frequently Asked  
Questions (FAQ), then click on question number two.

The $144.4 million settlement also provided $67.4 million in
refunds to more than three million consumers nationwide. In
California, 385,637 consumers received refund checks of $13.86.
The refunds were distributed in 2004.

Mr. Lockyer and the Attorneys General of 39 other states and
three territories brought the antitrust lawsuit against five of
the country's largest CD distributors and three national retail
chains. The defendants included: music distributors Bertelsmann
Music Group, Inc., Capitol Records, Inc. (EMI Music
Distribution, Virgin Records America, Inc. and Priority Records,
LLC, Warner-Elektra-Atlantic Corporation, Sony Music
Entertainment, Inc., Universal Music Group; and retailers
Transworld Entertainment Corporation, Tower Records and
Musicland Stores Corporation.

The complaint alleged the defendants entered illegal
conspiracies to set minimum prices for CDs. Under the alleged
scheme, the distributors subsidized retailers' promotional costs
of selling CDs if the retailers agreed to charge minimum
advertised prices dictated by the distributors.

To prevent similar misconduct in the future, the settlement
reforms the defendants' business practices. Among other
provisions, the settlement bars the defendants from entering
agreements designed to maintain or control the price at which
retailers can sell music CDs. Additionally, the settlement
prohibits the distributors from terminating business
relationships with dealers or retailers who fail to sell music
CDs only at suggested retail prices.

Besides California, other states and territories that entered
the settlement include: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas,
Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois,
Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan,
Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North
Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania,
Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont,
Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming,
Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.


DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION: Recalls Minivans For Injury Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
DaimlerChrysler Corporation is cooperating with the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) by voluntarily
recalling 70,235 minivans, namely:

     (1) CHRYSLER / TOWN AND COUNTRY, model 2003

     (2) DODGE / CARAVAN, model 2003

On certain minivans, the power liftgate (PLG) latch may not
engage the striker, allowing the liftgate to open while driving.  
In the event of a crash, an unbelted passenger could be ejected
from the vehicle.

Dealers will replace the power liftgate control module.  The
recall is expected to begin on April 26,2005.  For more details
contact the Company by Phone: 1-800-853-1403 or the NHTSA's auto
safety hotline: 1-888-327-4236.


ESS TECHNOLOGY: Trial in CA Securities Suit Expected Early 2007
---------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the consolidated securities class action filed against
ESS Technology, Inc. and certain of its present and former
officers and directors is set for early 2007 in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California.

On September 12, 2002, following the Company's downward revision
of revenue and earnings guidance for the third fiscal quarter of
2002, a series of putative federal class action lawsuits were
filed against the Company.  The complaints alleged that the
Company and certain of its present and former officers and
directors made misleading statements regarding its business and
failed to disclose certain allegedly material facts during an
alleged class period of January 23, 2002 through September 12,
2002, in violation of federal securities laws.  These actions
were consolidated and are proceeding under the caption "In re
ESS Technology Securities Litigation."  The plaintiffs seek
unspecified damages on behalf of the putative class.

Plaintiffs amended their consolidated complaint on November 3,
2003, which the Company then moved to dismiss on December 18,
2003.  On December 1, 2004, the Court granted in part and denied
in part the Company's motion to dismiss, and struck from the
complaint allegations arising prior to February 27, 2002.  On
December 22, 2004, based on the Court's order, the Company moved
to strike from the complaint all remaining claims and
allegations arising prior to September 10, 2002.  On February
22, 2005, the Court granted the Company's motion in part and
struck all remaining claims and allegations arising prior to
August 1, 2002 from the complaint. Discovery is now proceeding
in the case.


FLEETWOOD FOLDING: Recalls 176 Trailers Due To Crash Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------
Fleetwood Folding Trailer, Inc. is cooperating with the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) by voluntarily
recalling 176 FLEETWOOD / SCORPION toy hauler trailers, model
2005.

The toy hauler trailers fail to comply with the requirements of
federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) no. 108 "Lamps,
reflective devices and associated equipment."  The rear and
rear-side marker lights were purchased and installed without the
reflex reflector capability.  During night driving conditions or
while the vehicle is parked, the rear and rear-side marker
lights will not provide any reflex reflection to mark the
vehicle's location in the dark, increasing the risk of a crash.  

Dealers will remove and replace four marker lights with a
surface mount bracket.  The manufacturer has not yet provided an
owner notification schedule.  For more details, contact the
Company by Phone: 1-800-322-8216 or contact the NHTSA's auto
safety hotline: 1-888-327-4236.


FOUR WINDS: Recalls 261 Motorhomes For Brake Failure, Crash Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
Four Winds International is cooperating with the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration by voluntarily recalling
261 motorhomes, namely:

     (1) FOUR WINDS / CHATEAU, model 2005-2006

     (2) FOUR WINDS / CHATEAU CITATION, model 2005

     (3) FOUR WINDS / CHATEAU SPORT, model 2005-2006

     (4) FOUR WINDS / DUTCHMEN, model 2005

     (5) FOUR WINDS / DUTCHMEN DORADO, model 2005

     (6) FOUR WINDS / DUTCHMEN EXPRESS, model 2005

     (7) FOUR WINDS / FOUR WINDS, model 2006

     (8) FOUR WINDS / FOUR WINDS 5000, model 2005-2006

     (9) FOUR WINDS / FOUR WINDS SIESTA, model 2005-2006

On certain motorhomes, the rims on the spare wheels may contain
an incorrect offset.  This incorrect offset occurred because the
center of the rim on the spare wheel was welded in the wrong
position.  As a result of this incorrect offset, the spare wheel
may rub against the brake caliper which could, in turn, result
in a brake failure.  Brake failure can increase the risk of a
crash.

The Company will mail to owners procedures for inspecting and
repairing the spare wheel or if an owner so desires, they could
take their vehicle to a dealer or a local tire service center
for repairs.  The recall is expected to begin on May 11,2005.  
For more details, contact the Company by Phone: 574-266-1111 or
the NHTSA's auto safety hotline: 1-888-327-4236.


GABLES RESIDENTIAL: Discovery Proceeding in FL Consumer Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is in progress in the class action filed against
Gables Residential Trust in the Florida State Circuit Court
alleging that fees charged when residents terminate their leases
prior to the end of term or terminate without sufficient notice
are not in compliance with state law.

In December 2004, the court granted class certification to the
suit, and the Company has appealed the order.  No trial date has
been set.  Discovery is in progress with respect to many matters
including, but not limited to, the number of residents who were
charged allegedly improper fees, the amount of fees that were
actually collected, and reductions in actual damages due to
unpaid rent that accrued until the residents' premises were
leased to a new resident.  

In the event of an adverse ruling, the Company would be liable
for actual damages awarded to class participants, plus
plaintiffs' attorneys' fees, and litigation and class
administration costs. In addition, in the event of an adverse
ruling, the Company may be liable for statutory damages if and
to the extent awarded by the court. Using available data and
based on assumptions as to unsettled factual and legal issues,
plaintiffs' counsel estimated the amount of actual damages for
contested fees paid by all former residents eligible to be
included in the class at approximately $3 million. Only eligible
class members who elect to make a claim and are able to
substantiate it should collect damages.


GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Family's Suit Over Paxil Joins CA Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit pending in Rockford, Illinois' federal court against
drug-maker GlaxoSmithKline, which alleges that its
antidepressant drug Paxil can cause severe withdrawal reactions,
was temporarily transferred to join the Multidistrict Litigation
class-action lawsuit in California, The Rockford Register Star
reports.

According to Rockford attorney Susan Brazas, who represents the
family of Simon Krischak in their wrongful-death lawsuit against
the pharmaceutical company, the case will join thousands of
others like it in the U.S. Central District of California for
several months as members of the Plaintiff's Steering Committee,
appointed by a California judge to manage the suit, review the
facts of each case.

She explained to the newspaper that the purpose of the MDL, as
they call it, is to eliminate duplication of efforts, avoid
conflicting rulings, and promote a just and efficient
prosecution of all cases.

Erna Krischak filed the suit a year ago on behalf of her 77-
year-old husband, Simon, who committed suicide in November 2001.
In her suit, she claims that her husband suffered severe
withdrawal reactions from the antidepressant Paxil, which
resulted in him taking his own life. She also claims that the
family was never warned of such withdrawal reactions.


HOME SHOPPING: Working To Settle CA, IL, FL Consumer Fraud Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Home Shopping Network, Inc. (HSN) is working on the settlement
of several class actions filed in Illinois, Florida and
California state courts, on behalf of customers who purchased a
Proteva personal computer from them.

In November 1999, the Company was sued in a putative consumer
class action filed in the Circuit Court, Chancery Division, Cook
County, Illinois, styled "Bruce Tompkins et al. v. Proteva, Inc.
et al., case No. 99 CH 12013."  The lawsuit was brought on
behalf of consumers who purchased a Proteva personal computer
from one of the defendants and experienced one of the following:
   
     (1) the computer was defective upon purchase or shortly
         thereafter;

     (2) a defendant did not honor a rebate offer which had been
         made as part of the sale; or

     (3) a defendant did not provide customer or warranty
         service as advertised.

The complaint asserted claims for consumer fraud, breach of the
implied warranty of merchantability, and unjust enrichment and
sought compensatory and punitive damages, as well as attorneys'
fees.  The Company filed an answer denying the material
allegations of the complaint as to it.  The plaintiffs
subsequently filed an amended complaint that, among other
things, added a claim for breach of express warranty and added
four corporate defendants, including Home Shopping Club LP.  

In May 2000, the Company and Home Shopping Club LP (together,
"HSN") filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. That
motion resulted in an order requiring the plaintiffs to amend
the complaint again.  In June 2000, a second amended complaint
was filed, adding claims for negligent misrepresentation and
breach of contract.  In December 2000, a third amended complaint
was filed, dropping the three non-HSN corporate defendants that
had been added earlier and dropping the claims for negligent
misrepresentation and breach of contract.  In July 2001, a
fourth amended complaint was filed.  The Company filed answers
to the second, third, and fourth amended complaints, denying
their material allegations as to it.


In February 2001, the plaintiffs filed a motion for
certification of a nationwide class, which HSN and the other
defendants opposed.  In December 2001, the court declined to
certify a nationwide class and instead limited certification to
a class of consumers resident in the state of Illinois.  In
July 2002, HSN filed a motion for summary judgment. In March
2003, the court denied the motion.  The parties have engaged in
substantial discovery.

In May 2002, Home Shopping Network, Inc. and Home Shopping Club
LP (together, "HSN") were sued in a putative consumer class
action filed in the Circuit Court, Civil Division, Pinellas
County, Florida, styled "Susan DiCicco v. Home Shopping Network,
Inc. et ano., case no. 02-3625-CI-19."  The operative factual
allegations and legal claims in the lawsuit also involve the
sale and servicing of Proteva personal computers and are
substantially the same as those in the Illinois lawsuit
described above.  The complaint asserts claims against HSN for
violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices
Act, breach of contract, breach of express and implied warranty,
and unjust enrichment, and seeks damages, disgorgement of
profits, and attorneys' fees.  In August 2002, HSN filed an
answer denying the material allegations of the complaint.

In May 2003, Home Shopping Network, Inc. and HSN Direct, Inc.
(together, "HSN") were sued in a putative consumer class action
filed in the Superior Court of Los Angeles, California, styled
"Dorothy Friedmann v. HSN Direct, Inc. et al., case No. BC-
295766."  Like the Illinois and Florida lawsuits described
above, this lawsuit arises out of the sale of allegedly
defective Proteva personal computers. The complaint alleges that
HSN, in marketing Proteva computers during the 1996-99 period,
engaged in unlawful, unfair, and deceptive trade practices and
false advertising, in violation of the California Business and
Professions Code. The complaint seeks class certification,
restitution of amounts paid, disgorgement of profits, and
imposition of a constructive trust on amounts received from
HSN's sale of Proteva computers.  In July 2003, HSN filed an
answer denying the material allegations of the complaint.

Counsel for the parties engaged in discussions concerning a
possible resolution of these Illinois, Florida, and California
cases and retained a mediator to facilitate those discussions.
On June 10, 2004, HSN and the plaintiffs in these cases entered
into a Class Action Settlement and Release Agreement (the
"Agreement") resolving all of the cases on terms not material to
the Company. Pursuant to the Agreement, and subject to the
jurisdiction and approval of the court in the Illinois case, a
nationwide settlement would be effectuated through the
submission of claims by class members, who would receive cash
payments in amounts based primarily upon the seriousness of the
problems they encountered and their ability to substantiate
those problems with documentation.

On September 10, 2004, the court in the Illinois case issued an
order approving the nationwide class settlement on the terms
outlined in the Agreement. The deadline for class members'
submission of claims to the settlement administrator was October
11, 2004. The process of evaluating submitted claims and paying
valid claims out of the available settlement fund is expected to
conclude in the first quarter of 2005.


HOTELS.COM: Plaintiffs To Appeal TX Securities Lawsuit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the dismissal of the
consolidated securities class action filed against Hotels.com
and its former executives, arising out of the Company's downward
revision of its guidance for the fourth quarter of 2002.

On January 10, 2003, a securities class action, styled "Daniel
Taubenfeld et al., on Behalf of Themselves and All Others
Similarly Situated v. Hotels.com et al., case no. 3:03-CV-0069-
N," was filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas, alleging that the defendants
violated the federal securities laws during the period from
October 23, 2002 to January 6, 2003.  The defendants are alleged
to have knowingly:

     (1) made certain materially false and misleading public
         statements with respect to the anticipated performance
         of the Company during the fourth quarter of 2002, and

     (2) concealed from the investing public certain material
         events and developments that were likely to render that
         anticipated performance unattainable.

The individual defendants are further alleged to have profited
from the rise in the Company's share price caused by their
public statements through sales of Company stock during the
Class Period.  The lawsuit further alleges that as a result of
the Company's announcement, on January 6, 2003, of a downward
revision of its guidance for the fourth quarter of 2002, its
share price declined by 25%. The lawsuit seeks certification of
a class of all non-defendant purchasers of the Company's stock
during the Class Period and seeks damages in an unspecified
amount.  Three other substantially similar securities class
actions were filed in the same court shortly thereafter and were
later consolidated with the Taubenfeld case.  

On August 18, 2003, the lead plaintiffs in this action filed a
consolidated class-action complaint.  On October 31, 2003, the
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint.
The plaintiffs opposed the motion. On September 27, 2004, the
district court issued an order granting the defendants' motion
to dismiss the complaint. The court's ruling was based upon a
number of grounds, including that certain of the statements
complained of were forward-looking statements accompanied by
appropriate cautionary language and thereby protected by the
"safe harbor" provisions of the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act, and that certain of the statements and omissions
complained of were, as a matter of law, not material and
therefore not actionable.  The court dismissed all of the
plaintiffs' claims with prejudice (i.e., without leave to re-
plead them), with the exception of two claims involving
statements by analysts. The plaintiffs have advised that they do
not intend to attempt to re-plead those claims. On March 4,
2005, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the district
court's ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit.

The suit is styled "In re Hotels.com Securities Litigation, case
no. 03-CV-0069," filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Texas, under Judge David C Godbey.  
Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (i) Bull & Lifshitz, 18 East 41st St., New York, NY, 10017,
         Phone: 212.213.6222, Fax: 212.213.9405,

    (ii) Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Hynes & Lerach LLP (San Diego,
         CA), 600 West Broadway, 1800 One America Plaza, San
         Diego, CA, 92101, Phone: 800.449.4900, E-mail:
         support@milberg.com

   (iii) Provost & Umphrey Law Firm, LLP, 3232 McKinney Avenue,
         Suite 700, Dallas, TX, 75204, Phone: 214.744.3000, Fax:
         214.744.3015, E-mail: info@provostumphrey.com

    (iv) Scott & Scott LLC, P.O. Box 192, 108 Norwich Avenue,
         Colchester, CT, 06415, Phone: 860.537.5537, Fax:
         860.537.4432, E-mail: scottlaw@scott-scott.com

Representing the Company are Lara M. Shalov and Richard Rosen of
Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison, 1285 Avenue of the
Americas, New York, NY 10019-6064 USA Phone: 212/ 373-3000, E-
mail: Rrosen@paulweiss.com; and Patricia J. Villareal, Jones Day
-Dallas PO Box 660623 2727 N Harwood St Dallas, TX 75266-0623
USA Phone: 214/ 220-3939 Fax: 214/ 969-5100 Fax Email:
Pjvillareal@jonesday.com.


HOTELS.COM: TX Court Hears Motion For Fraud Suit Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
The 229th Judicial District Court in Duval County, Texas heard
motions seeking class certification for the lawsuit filed
against Hotels.com, L.P., alleging that the Company collects
"excess" hotel occupancy taxes from consumers (i.e., allegedly
charges consumers more for occupancy taxes than it pays to the
hotels for their use in satisfying their obligations to the
taxing authorities).

On June 20, 2003, a purported class action was filed, styled
"Nora J. Olvera, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Hotels.com, Inc., case no. DC-03-259.  The
complaint sought certification of a nationwide class of all
persons who have purchased hotel accommodations from Hotels.com
since June 20, 1999, as well as restitution of, disgorgement of,
and the imposition of a constructive trust upon all "excess"
occupancy taxes allegedly collected by the Company.  On July 14,
2003, the Company filed a responsive pleading that denied the
material allegations of the complaint and asserted a number of
defenses, including that the allegations in the complaint are
subject to mandatory arbitration.

On August 12, 2003, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint
containing substantially the same factual allegations and
requests for relief, but naming as defendants Hotels.com, L.P.,
Hotels.com (the parent company of the Hotels.com, L.P. operating
business), and IAC/InterActiveCorp (IAC).  On September 8, 2003,
the defendants filed responsive pleadings that denied the
material allegations of the amended complaint and asserted a
number of defenses, including that the allegations in the
amended complaint are subject to mandatory arbitration and, in
IAC's case, that the court lacks personal jurisdiction over the
Company.

On January 24, 2004, the Hotels.com defendants filed a motion to
stay the class-action litigation pending the outcome of an
arbitration proceeding that had been commenced by the plaintiff.
On January 30, 2004, the plaintiff opposed that motion and also
filed a second amended complaint containing substantially the
same factual allegations and requests for relief as her prior
pleadings, but slightly modifying the class allegations to take
account of the class period alleged in the arbitration
proceeding.

On February 4, 2004, Hotels.com, L.P. filed a motion to dismiss
the "Olvera" lawsuit for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction,
based upon the named plaintiff's not being in fact a member of
the class that she purports to represent. That motion, together
with the Hotels.com defendants' motion to stay the lawsuit, was
denied by the court on May 20, 2004.  On May 6, 2004, the
plaintiff in the Olvera lawsuit filed a third amended complaint
containing substantially the same factual allegations and
requests for relief as her prior pleadings, but with additional
allegations in support of her position that the court has
personal jurisdiction over IAC.

On December 29, 2004, following the scheduling of a class
certification hearing in the "Canales" > lawsuit (as described
below), the plaintiff in the Olvera lawsuit filed a motion for
class certification.  On February 16, 2005, the plaintiff in the
Olvera lawsuit filed a motion to withdraw her request for class
certification. The Hotels.com defendants do not oppose this
motion.

On September 25, 2003, the plaintiff in the "Olvera" litigation
filed with the American Arbitration Association in Dallas,
Texas, a demand for arbitration against Hotels.com, L.P. The
arbitration claim contained substantially the same factual
allegations as in the Olvera lawsuit. The arbitration was
purportedly brought on behalf of a class comprised of all
persons who have purchased hotel accommodations from the Company
since October 31, 2001. The claimant sought a determination that
the arbitration is properly maintainable as a class proceeding
and an order requiring disgorgement and restitution to the class
members of excess profits allegedly derived from "assessing"
hotel occupancy taxes that were neither owed nor paid to any
taxing authority.  On October 27, 2003, Hotels.com, L.P. filed a
responsive pleading that denied the material allegations of the
arbitration claim and asserted a number of defenses.

On May 6, 2004, Hotels.com, L.P. filed a motion to dismiss the
Olvera arbitration claim for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction, on the grounds that under Texas law the tax-based
nature of the claim requires that it be adjudicated in a state
administrative proceeding, not a private-party proceeding such
as an arbitration. A hearing on that motion, as well as on the
issue whether the governing arbitration clause permits the
arbitration to be maintained as a class proceeding, was held on
July 9, 2004.  On September 2, 2004, the arbitrator, accepting
Hotels.com, L.P.'s position that the exclusive remedy for this
type of tax-related claim is a state administrative proceeding,
issued a final award dismissing Olvera's arbitration claim.

On March 26, 2004, the plaintiff in a separate class action
pending in Texas state court, styled "Mary Canales, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Hotels.com,
L.P., case no. No. DC-03-162," filed in the same court, filed a
second amended complaint containing allegations that are
substantially similar to allegations made in the Olvera lawsuit.
On May 13, 2004, the plaintiff in the Canales lawsuit filed a
third amended complaint alleging in essence:

     (1) that Hotels.com charges customers "taxes" that exceed
         the amount required by or paid to the applicable taxing
         authorities, and

     (2) that Hotels.com charges customers "fees" that do not
         correspond to any specific services provided.

The amended pleading continues to seek nationwide class
certification, asserts a claim only for breach of contract, and
seeks damages in an unspecified amount.  

Also on May 13, 2004, the plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification. On June 24, 2004, Hotels.com, L.P. filed its
opposition to that motion.  On July 9, 2004, the plaintiffs in
the Olvera lawsuit filed a petition in intervention in the
Canales lawsuit and a motion to stay the proceedings in that
lawsuit or, alternatively, for a continuance of the hearing on
the class-certification motion. The gravamen of the Olvera
plaintiffs' intervention and motion is that the Canales
plaintiff has transformed her lawsuit into a "copycat" of the
Olvera lawsuit, to the potential detriment of the Olvera
plaintiffs.  On July 13, 2004, the Canales plaintiff filed a
motion to strike the Olvera plaintiffs' intervention and motion.
On August 2, 2004, the court heard argument on the two motions.
On August 3, 2004, the court adjourned the hearing on the class-
certification motion.  On September 1, 2004, the court denied
the Canales plaintiff's motion to strike the Olvera plaintiffs'
intervention and motion.  On February 17, 2005, the court held a
hearing on the plaintiffs' motion for class certification, as
well as on the defendants' request for dismissal of the action
on the same jurisdictional grounds on which Olvera's arbitration
claim was dismissed.


HOTELS.COM: CA Consumers Launch Suits V. Hotel Occupancy Taxes
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hotels.com, L.P., and other internet travel companies including
Expedia and Hotwire, face a class action filed in the Los
Angeles Superior Court in California, styled "City of Los
Angeles, California, on Behalf of Itself and All Others
Similarly Situated v. Hotels.com, L.P. et al., case no. No.
BC326693."

The suit, filed by the City of Los Angeles, alleges that the
defendants are improperly charging and/or failing to pay hotel
occupancy taxes. The complaint seeks certification of a
statewide class of all California cities and counties that have
enacted uniform transient occupancy-tax ordinances effective on
or after December 30, 1990.  The complaint alleges violation of
those ordinances, violation of section 17200 of the California
Business and Professions Code, and common-law conversion. The
complaint seeks imposition of a constructive trust on all monies
owed by the defendants to the government, as well as
disgorgement, restitution, interest, and penalties.


IAC/INTERACTIVECORP: Faces Consolidated WA Consumer Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
IAC/InterActiveCorp and Expedia, Inc. face a consolidated class
action filed in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Washington, alleging improper charging of hotel
occupancy taxes.

On January 10, 2005, two purported class actions were filed in
the King County Superior Court in Washington against Expedia and
the Company, styled "C. Michael Nielsen et al. v. Expedia, Inc.
et al., case no. No. 05-2-02060-1, and "Bruce Deaton et al. v.
Expedia, Inc. et ano., case no. 05-2-02062-8."  The gravamen of
is that Expedia is improperly charging and/or failing to pay
hotel occupancy taxes and engaging in other deceptive practices
in charging customers for taxes and fees.  The complaints seek
certification of a nationwide class of all persons who were
assessed a charge for "taxes/fees" when booking rooms through
Expedia.  The complaints allege violation of the Washington
Consumer Protection Act and common-law conversion.  The
complaints seek imposition of a constructive trust on monies
received from the plaintiff class, as well as damages in an
unspecified amount, disgorgement, restitution, interest, and
penalties.

On February 3, 2005, a third, substantially similar purported
class action was filed in the same court against the Company and
Expedia, styled "Jose Alba, on Behalf of Himself and All Others
Similarly Situated v. IAC/InterActiveCorp et ano., case no. 05-
2-04533-7."  The complaint seeks nationwide class certification,
alleges violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act, and
seeks damages in an unspecified amount, disgorgement,
restitution, interest, and penalties.

On February 18, 2005, the three cases were consolidated into one
action, styled "In re Expedia Hotel Taxes and Fees Litigation,
case No. 05-2-02060-1."  On March 7, 2005, Expedia removed this
consolidated action from Washington state court to the United
States District Court for the Western District of Washington.


IAC/INTERACTIVECORP: Lawsuits V. Hotels.com Merger Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
IAC/InterActiveCorp continues to face class action and
shareholder derivative suits filed in Delaware and Texas,
related to its merger with Hotels.com. The suits also name as
defendants Hotels.com, and the members of Hotels.com's board of
directors.

On April 10, 2003, the day of the announcement of the
IAC/Hotels.com merger agreement, a purported class action on
behalf of Hotels.com shareholders was filed in the Delaware
Chancery Court for New Castle County, styled "Michael Garvey, on
Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Jonathan
F. Miller et al., case no. 20248-NC."

Also on April 10, 2003, the plaintiff in a purported shareholder
derivative action on behalf of Hotels.com against certain
officers and directors of Hotels.com, which was pending in Texas
state court prior to the announcement of the merger transaction
and had originally asserted derivative claims relating to
Hotels.com's pre-merger earnings guidance, filed an amended
complaint to include class allegations regarding the merger
transaction.  The suit is styled "Alex Solodovnikov,
Derivatively on Behalf of Hotels.com v. Robert Diener et al.,
case no. No. 03-02663," initially filed in the District Court,
160th Judicial District, Dallas County, now pending in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

In addition, on April 17, 2003, the plaintiffs in a consolidated
action pending in the Delaware Chancery Court, which had
consolidated a number of purported class actions filed against
the Company, Hotels.com, and members of the board of directors
of Hotels.com as a result of the Company's announcement in June
2002 of its intention to enter into a Hotels.com acquisition
transaction, filed a consolidated and amended class-action
complaint, styled "In re Hotels.com Shareholders Litigation,
case no. 16662-NC," filed in the Delaware Chancery Court for New
Castle County.  

Pursuant to an agreement among the parties, the defendants' time
to respond to this complaint and to the complaint in the Garvey
case has been adjourned indefinitely.  The complaints in the two
Delaware actions and the class allegations in the complaint in
the Texas action allege, in essence, that the defendants
breached their fiduciary duties to Hotes.com public shareholders
by entering into and/or approving the merger agreement, which
allegedly does not reflect the true value of Hotels.com.  The
complaints sought to enjoin consummation of the transaction or,
in the alternative, to rescind the transaction, as well as
damages in an unspecified amount.

On April 18, 2003, the Texas action ("Solodovnikov") was removed
to the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Texas.  On May 2, 2003, the plaintiff in this action filed a
motion to remand the case to state court.  On June 3, 2003, the
plaintiff withdrew his motion to remand the case to state court
and filed a motion in federal court for expedited discovery in
anticipation of filing a motion for a preliminary injunction
against consummation of the IAC/Hotels.com merger. The
defendants opposed the motion.  On June 16, 2003, the district
court denied the plaintiff's motion for expedited discovery.  On
June 23, 2003, the IAC/Hotels.com merger transaction closed.


IAC/INTERACTIVECORP: Three Consumer Fraud Suits Moved To N.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
IAC/InterActiveCorp and Hotwire, Inc. removed three class
actions filed against them from California State Court to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.

On January 10, 2005 and January 13, 2005, respectively, two
purported class actions were filed in California Superior Court
for San Francisco County against Hotwire and the Company, styled
"Bruce Deaton, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. Hotwire, Inc. et al., case no. 05-437631, and "Jana
Sneddon, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated
v. Hotwire, Inc. et al., case no. 05-437701.  The suits allege
that Hotwire is improperly charging and/or failing to pay hotel
occupancy taxes and engaging in other deceptive practices in
charging customers for taxes and fees. The complaints seek
certification of a nationwide class of all persons who were
assessed a charge for "taxes/fees" when booking rooms through
Hotwire. The complaints allege violation of Section 17200 of the
California Business and Professions Code, violation of the
California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and common-law
conversion.  The complaints seek imposition of a constructive
trust on monies received from the plaintiff class, as well as
damages in an unspecified amount, disgorgement, restitution,
interest, and penalties.

On February 17, 2005, a third, substantially similar purported
class action was filed in the same court against Hotwire, styled
"Ashley Salisbury, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly
Situated and the General Public v. Hotwire, Inc. et al., case
no. 05-438781.  The complaint seeks nationwide class
certification, alleges violation of Section 17200 of the
California Business and Professions Code and common-law
conversion, and seeks the imposition of a constructive trust on
monies received from the plaintiff class, damages in an
unspecified amount, disgorgement, restitution, and injunctive
relief.

On March 7, 2005, Hotwire and the Company removed these three
purported class actions from California state court to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.


IAC/INTERACTIVECORP: Faces Consumer Fraud Suit in CA State Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
IAC/InterActiveCorp, and a number of internet travel companies
like Expedia and Hotels.com, Inc. face a purported class action
in the Superior Court of California in Los Angeles County,
styled "Ronald Bush et al. v. CheapTickets, Inc. et al., case
no. BC329021."

The suit alleges that the defendants are improperly charging
and/or failing to pay hotel occupancy taxes and engaging in
other deceptive practices in charging customers for taxes and
fees.  The complaint seeks certification of a statewide class of
all California residents who were assessed a charge for
"taxes/fees" when booking rooms through the defendants. The
complaint alleges violation of Section 17200 of the California
Business and Professions Code and common-law conversion.  The
complaint seeks the imposition of a constructive trust on monies
received from the plaintiff class, as well as damages in an
unspecified amount, disgorgement, restitution, and injunctive
relief.


KINGSWOOD LABORATORIES: Recalls Oral Swabsticks Due To Molds
------------------------------------------------------------
Kingswood Laboratories, Inc., Indianapolis, IN, is initiating a
nationwide recall of Moi-Stir Oral Swabsticks. Some of the
swabsticks have been found to contain molds including
Aspergillus and Penicillium, which could result in respiratory
infections. Consumers who have any of the recalled Moi-Stir
Swabsticks should stop using them immediately and return them to
the point of purchase.

Doctors and dentists should consider screening patients who are
at risk for infections, especially those with weakened immune
systems (low white blood cell counts) who have used the Moi-Stir
Swabstick.

Moi-Stir Swabsticks are oral swabs used to moisten the mouths of
patients.  Moi-Stir is a saliva supplement intended to relieve
dry mouth, physically clean the oral cavity, thin phlegm, and
lower dental caries rates.  The product was distributed to
hospitals, hospital wholesalers, pharmacies, nursing homes,
physician and dentist offices, consumers, some government
medical facilities, and as free samples to a small number of
individuals.  The swabsticks are packaged as three sticks in a
white foil pouch, with "Moi-Stir" on the front of the pouch, in
green lettering.

The recall includes Moi-Stir Swabsticks with lot numbers A2,
1193, 1209, 1233, 1260, and 1725. Lot numbers are marked on each
case, carton, and individual pouch of swabs. (The lot number for
A2 is embossed into the right side of the pouch.  All other lot
number's are embossed into the pouch, at the bottom right
corner.)   No expiration dates are included in the labeling.

The firm voluntarily recalled the products after learning of
this problem.  FDA has been apprised of this action. No injuries
have been reported to date.

Kingswood Laboratories, Inc. is notifying its distributors and
customers by phone, fax, and e-mail and is arranging for the
immediate return of all recalled product.

Consumers and healthcare professionals with questions may
contact Lynn Meng, RN, MSN, Quality Assurance Manager or
Suchinda Stithit, R.Ph., Ph.D., Director of Regulatory Affairs,
Kingswood Laboratories, Inc. at 1-800-968-7772 between the hours
of 8:30 AM and 5:00 PM, Monday through Friday.


MASSACHUSETTS: Trial Begins For Suit Over Mentally Ill Children
---------------------------------------------------------------
At the start of a lawsuit challenging the state's care as
inadequate, a lawyer told a federal judge that Massachusetts
needs do more to help families care for their mentally ill
children at home, The Associated Press reports. According to the
class-action suit by nine families claiming to represent some
3,000 mentally ill children statewide, the state is failing to
provide the level of care required under federal Medicaid
programs.

Steven Schwartz said in his opening statement in U.S. District
Court, Springfield, "They need more help, they deserve it, and
this court should order it," AP reports.

State officials say they've taken steps to boost residential
programs and prevent youngsters from being detained in hospitals
and group homes unnecessarily. However, according to them, they
want to move slowly on the type of home care the lawsuit seeks
until they are convinced of its effectiveness.

Deirdre Roney, a lawyer for state, said in her opening statement
that the state is meeting its obligations. She adds, "There is
strong evidence to support the deliberate way the state is
attempting to approach this situation." However, she said that
children are being served. "We go to extra efforts to make sure
everyone is aware of what is available," Ms. Roney told AP.

The bench trial is being heard by U.S. District Judge Michael A.
Ponsor and is expected to last about six weeks.


MEDTRONIC INC.: Recalls Lifepak 500 Defibrillators Due To Flaws
---------------------------------------------------------------
Medtronic, Inc. (NYSE: MDT) identified an additional 396
monophasic LIFEPAK (R) 500 automated external defibrillators
(AEDs) to be included in a voluntary recall originally announced
on Feb. 25, 2005. The company will be contacting the owners of
the additional 396 devices that are in use worldwide.

The affected AEDs may continue to display a "connect electrodes"
message and may not analyze the patient's heart rhythm even when
the electrodes are properly connected. Failure to analyze the
patient's heart rhythm will inhibit defibrillation, if it is
needed.

The company has already completed the updates or upgrades to the
devices originally identified as affected. The company plans to
complete the update or upgrade to the additional affected
devices by May 31, 2005. Affected AEDs may remain in service,
and customers with devices in this additional group are
currently being contacted with recommendations for use and
replacement schedules. Only certain monophasic LIFEPAK 500 AEDs
manufactured in 1997 are included in this action. Customers with
further questions about this issue should call 1-877-873-7630 or
visit www.medtronic-ers.com/500 to determine if their device is
included in the action.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was apprised of the
additional devices the week of April 18, 2005. FDA classified
the original action February 24, 2005 as a Class I recall. The
FDA defines Class I as a situation in which there is reasonable
probability that the use of or exposure to the product will
cause serious adverse health consequences or death.

The LIFEPAK 500 is used by first responders such as
firefighters, police and others trained in CPR/AED use and are
first to arrive at the scene of a cardiac incident but do not
have significant medical training.

Medtronic, Inc., headquartered in Minneapolis, is the world's
leading medical technology company, providing lifelong solutions
for people with chronic disease. Its Internet address is
http://www.medtronic.com.


NEW YORK: Shareholders Launch Securities, ERISA Lawsuits in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
New York Community Bancorp, Inc. faces several securities class
actions brought in the United States District Court, Eastern
District of New York and one class action lawsuit brought in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, Kings County that was
later removed by the defendants to federal court.

The class actions are brought on behalf of persons and entities,
other than the defendants, who purchased or otherwise acquired
the Company's securities during the period June 27, 2003 to July
1, 2004, or such shorter period as defined in some of the
actions.  The lawsuits are all related to the same sets of facts
and circumstances and all but one allege that the Company
violated Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act of 1933,
Sections 10 and 14 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
Rule 10b-5, promulgated pursuant to Section 10 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  Plaintiffs allege, among other things,
that the Registration Statement issued in connection with the
Company's merger with Roslyn Bancorp, Inc. and other documents
and statements made by executive management were inaccurate and
misleading, contained untrue statements of material facts,
omitted other facts necessary to make the statements made not
misleading, and concealed and failed to adequately disclose
material facts.

Based upon the same facts, an additional suit alleges the
Company violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act on
behalf of a putative class of participants in the New York
Community Bank Employee Savings Plan.  On February 8, 2005, the
Company's Board of Directors received a letter, dated January
31, 2005, from a law firm purporting to represent a shareholder
of the Company that repeats many of the allegations made in the
putative class actions, and demands that the Board take a
variety of actions allegedly required to address those
allegations.  The Board of Directors is currently evaluating
what response, if any, to make to this letter.

Management expects that the resolution of this matter will not
have a material adverse impact on the Company. The cases are in
very preliminary stages. The defendants have not answered or
otherwise responded to any of the complaints and no discovery
has taken place.


POST PROPERTIES: Shareholders Appeals Suit Settlement Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
An alleged Post Properties, Inc. appealed the Superior Court of
Fulton County, Atlanta, Georgia's approval of the settlement of
the shareholder derivative and purported class action lawsuits
filed against members of the Company's board of directors and
the Company (as a nominal defendant).

This complaint alleged various breaches of fiduciary duties by
the board of directors of the Company and sought, among other
relief, the disclosure of certain information by the defendants.
This complaint also sought to compel the defendants to undertake
various actions to facilities a sale of the Company.

On May 7, 2003, the plaintiff made a request for voluntary
expedited discovery. On May 13, 2003, the Company received
notice that a similar shareholder derivative and purported class
action lawsuit was filed against certain members of the board of
directors of the Company and against the Company as a nominal
defendant.  The complaint was filed in the Superior Court of
Fulton County, Atlanta, Georgia on May 12, 2003 and alleged
breaches of fiduciary duties, abuse of control and corporate
waste by the defendants.  The plaintiff sought monetary damages
and, as appropriate, injunctive relief.

These lawsuits were settled, and in October 2004, the Superior
Court of Fulton County entered an order approving the settlement
and related orders dismissing the litigation. The estimated
legal and settlement costs, not covered by insurance, associated
with the expected resolution of the lawsuits were recorded in
the second quarter of 2003 as a component of a proxy contest and
related costs charge.  An alleged Company shareholder, who has
filed a separate purported derivative and direct action against
the Company and certain of its officers and directors, has
appealed from the Superior Court's orders approving the
settlement, overruling the shareholder's objection to the
settlement, denying the shareholder's motion to intervene, and
dismissing the litigation with prejudice.


PRIMUS AUTOMOTIVE: Parties Inform Court of Negotiation Deadlock
---------------------------------------------------------------
Representatives from Ford Motor Credit Corporation and some
black customers who won a landmark lawsuit over the Franklin-
based company's lending practices reported that they have been
unable to resolve their dispute, The Nashville City Paper
reports.

According to legal experts, the stalemate paves the way for U.S.
District Judge Aleta Trauger to ban Ford Motor Credit from
continuing its "markup" policy on car loans that Judge Trauger
said discriminates against black customers.

As previously reported in the March 18, 2005 edition of the
Class Action Reporter, after a three-week trial, Judge Trauger
said that the plaintiffs in the class-action lawsuit have proven
to the court that a lending affiliate of the Ford Motor Credit
Company (FMCC) discriminated against black customers by charging
them higher rates on car loans. She, thus, ruled against FMCC
unit, Primus Automotive Financial Services, but she first would
give the two sides 30 days to negotiate a settlement to end the
discrimination. The judge explains, "What I have decided is that
the plaintiffs have proved their case and that they will win in
my decision."

However, attorneys for Ford and the plaintiffs filed papers by
the April deadline notifying the court of the stalemate. Thus,
it is expected that the judge will hold a status conference
outlining the next steps in the case.

As previously reported in the March 2, 2005 edition of the Class
Action Reporter, a national class action lawsuit challenging the
auto lending policy of FMCC and its brand name Primus Automotive
Financial Services, Inc. began on March 1, 2005.

Plaintiffs Edwin Borlay and Larry Mitchell filed the class-
action suit on behalf of other black customers against the
policy.  Primus, the named defendant in the case, is a division
of FMCC, it offers automobile financing services to consumers
throughout the nation using the brand names Mazda American
Credit, Land Rover Credit, and Jaguar Credit, pursuant to
contracts with Mazda, Land Rover, and Jaguar.

In the suit, plaintiffs contend that the credit pricing policies
developed and managed for Primus by FMCC and marketed using
either Ford Credit, Mazda American Credit, Land Rover Credit, or
Jaguar Credit discriminate by charging African Americans more
for credit, for reasons not related to creditworthiness.

The lawsuit alleges that Primus's lending policies permit and
encourage a practice known as "auto finance markup" that has a
discriminatory impact on African-American plaintiffs and results
in their paying more for credit than White consumers with
comparable credit ratings. The markup occurs when a consumer
requests a car dealer to arrange financing for a car purchase.
Typically the dealer submits the consumer's credit application
to a lender who determines an approved interest rate by
examination of the consumer's credit history. The lender then
communicates the approved interest rate to the dealer and
authorizes the dealer, without informing the consumer, to
subjectively add percentage points to the interest rate of their
loan without regards to their creditworthiness. The dealer and
the lender then split the markup, as additional profit. Markup
costs to a consumer over the life of the loan can range from
hundreds to thousands of dollars. Studies of industry data filed
in various court cases, including the case against Primus, have
asserted that African-American and Hispanic consumers are more
likely to receive the markup and that they on average pay higher
markup fess than White customers.

The three-week trial were held before United States District
Judge Aleta A. Trauger, Middle District of Tennessee, in
Courtroom 873, United States Courthouse, 801 Broadway,
Nashville, Tennessee. The case is entitled, Latonya Claybrooks,
et al. versus Primus Automotive Financial, a division of Ford
Motor Credit, Case No. 3-02-0382.


PTV INC.: NY Court Partially Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York dismissed in part the consolidated securities class
action filed against PTV, Inc. (formerly NTL Europe) and some of
its former officers, including Barclay Knapp, its former
president and chief executive officer.

A number of purported securities class action lawsuits and one
individual action brought by former PTV stockholders were
initially filed, alleging that the defendants failed to disclose
the Company's financial condition, finances and future prospects
accurately in press releases and other communications with
investors prior to filing its Chapter 11 case in federal court.

The defendants filed motions to dismiss the actions and, on July
31, 2003, the court entered an order dismissing the complaint in
the individual action without prejudice to filing an amended
complaint and deferred its decision on the complaint in the
class action lawsuits.  On August 20, 2003, the plaintiff in the
individual action filed an amended complaint which the
defendants moved to dismiss.  The cases have been consolidated
for all purposes before the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

On December 7, 2004, the court denied in part and granted in
part the defendants' motions to dismiss all actions.  The court
denied the defendants' motions to dismiss claims based on
factual allegations that the Company:

     (1) failed to disclose material difficulties it faced in
         integrating acquired companies,

     (2) failed to disclose material practices that inflated
         subscriber numbers (with respect to some defendants),
         and

     (3) failed to disclose the cash flow status of its largest
         acquisition during the relevant period (with respect to
         some defendants).

The court found no factual support for the plaintiffs' other
allegations. While the Company has been released from monetary
liability (other than its insurance coverage) in these actions
as a result of the completion of the Plan, the case remains
pending against the Company and the individuals named as
defendants.  The Company has not been named as a defendant. We
may be liable for indemnification claims from some of the
Company's former officers and directors, including Mr. Knapp, to
the extent its insurance coverage is insufficient.


SIRIUS SATELLITE: Continues To Face NY Securities Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sirius Satellite Radio, Inc. continues to face a class action
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, styled "In re: Sirius Satellite Radio
Securities Litigation, No. 01-CV-10863."

In September 2001, a purported class action lawsuit, entitled
"Sternbeck v. Sirius Satellite Radio, Inc., 2:01-CV-295," was
filed against the Company and certain of its current and former
executive officers in the United States District Court for the
District of Vermont. Subsequently, additional purported class
action lawsuits were filed.  These actions were consolidated in
a single purported class action in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

This action has been brought on behalf of all persons who
acquired the Company's common stock on the open market between
February 16, 2000 and April 2, 2001.  The complaint alleges
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  The
complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements and press
releases concerning when the Company's service would be
commercially available, which caused the market price of the
Company's common stock to be artificially inflated. The
complaint seeks an unspecified amount of money damages.

In June 2002, the Company filed a motion with the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York requesting
the Court to dismiss the complaint in this action with prejudice
pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the provisions
of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. In January
2004, the Court denied its motion to dismiss this action.


SODEXHO ALLIANCE: Employees' Race Discrimination Goes To Trial
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class-action lawsuit filed by employees of Sodexho Alliance,
which is a provider of food and hospitality management services
to companies, goes to trial this week, The Associated Press
reports.

According to a news article by The Examiner, some 2,400-minority
middle managers claim that they're unable to break into the
predominantly white upper echelon of the Gaithersburg-based
multinational company. Additionally, the lawsuit claims that in
2000 there were nearly 700 management-jobs in Sodexho in the US,
but blacks held only 18 of them.

Company spokeswoman Leslie Aun though calls the action
groundless and goes on to say that Sodexho has won awards for
its workplace diversity.

Jury selection is expected to get under way soon. The suit seeks
unspecified damages and concrete changes to company policy on
promotion and advancement.


SUPERCONDUCTOR TECHNOLOGIES: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Superconductor Technologies, Inc. asked the United States
District Court for the Central District of California to dismiss
the consolidated securities class action filed gianst it and
certain of its officers and directors.

Several substantially identical class action lawsuits were
initially filed and were consolidated in August 2004.  The
plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint in October
2004.  The plaintiffs allege securities law violations by the
Company and certain of its officers and directors under SEC Rule
10b-5 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended.  The complaint was filed on behalf of a
purported class of people who purchased the Company's stock
during the period between January 9, 2004 and March 1, 2004.  
The plaintiffs base their allegations primarily on the fact that
the Company did not achieve its forecasted revenue guidance of
$10 to $13 million for the first quarter of 2004.  The complaint
seeks unspecified damages.

The suits are pending in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California, under Judge Dickran
Tevrizian.  The suits are styled:

     (1) Marc A Backhaus v. Superconductor Technologies Inc et
         al., 2:04-cv-02680-DT-JTL,

     (2) Sandy Goldfine v. Superconductor Technologies Inc et
         al., 2:04-cv-02848-DT-JTL

     (3) Aida Alvarez v. Superconductor Technologies Inc et al.,
         2:04-cv-02927-DT-JTL

Lawyer for the Company is Richard H. Zelichov, Irell & Manella,
1800 Avenue of the Stars, Ste 900, Los Angeles, CA 90067-4276,
Phone: 310-277-1010, E-mail: rzelichov@irell.com.  Lawyers for
the plaintiffs are:

     (i) Arthur R. Angel, Arthur R Angel Law Offices, 1236 North
         Fairfax Avenue, West Hollywood, CA 90046, Phone: 323-
         656-9085
  
    (ii) Stuart W Emmons and William B Federman, Federman and
         Sherwood, 120 North Robinson, Suite 2720, Oklahoma
         City, OK 73102, Phone: 405-235-1560, E-mail:
         wfederman@aol.com

   (iii) Christopher Kim, Liza J. Yang, Lim Ruger & Kim, 1055 W
         7th St, Ste 2800, Los Angeles, CA 90017, Phone:  213-
         955-9500, E-mail: ckim@lrklawyers.com or
         lisayang@lrklawyers.com

    (iv) Richard A Maniskas, Marc A. Topaz, Schiffrin & Barroway
         3 Bala Plaza E Ste 400, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, Phone:
         610-667-7706

     (v) Peter A Binkow, Lionel Z. Glancy, Michael Goldberg,
         Glancy & Binkow 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Ste 311, Los
         Angeles, CA 90067, Phone: 310-201-9150, E-mail:
         info@glancylaw.com

    (vi) Robert I Harwood, Wechsler & Harwood, 488 Madison Ave,
         8th Floor, New York, NY 10022, Phone: 212-935-7400


TIFFIN MOTORHOMES: Recalls 867 Motorhomes Due To Injury Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tiffin Motorhomes, Inc. is cooperating with the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) by recalling 867
recreational vehicles, namely:

     (1) TIFFIN / ALLEGRO BAY, model 2005

     (2) TIFFIN / ALLEGRO BUS, model 2005

     (3) TIFFIN / PHAETON, model 2005

     (4) TIFFIN / ZEPHYR, model 2005

On certain recreational vehicles, the washer/dryer in the rear
of the motor home can move.  A vehicle occupant could be injured
if the washer/dryer moved.  

The Company has provided the owners with a repair kit and
installation instructions.  The recall began on January 7, 2005.
For more details, contact the Company by Phone: 1-256-356-0205
or contact the NHTSA's auto safety hotline: 1-888-327-4236.


UTAH: Coalition Files Suit Over Summit County's Zoning Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit was filed in federal court by a coalition
that includes the NAACP, La Raza and the Disabled Rights Action
Committee against Summit County alleging that it's dearth of
affordable housing violates the federal Fair Housing Act, The
Salt Lake Tribune reports.

The lawsuit contends that the county's zoning practices are
"discriminatory" and thus seeks $10 million in actual damages
and punitive damages of $30 million.

According to the lawsuit, in contrast to Park City, which has a
20-year track record of fostering affordable housing, Summit
County zoning ordinances have made moderate and low-income
projects economically impossible in its unincorporated areas.

"Summit County has for years engaged in exclusionary and
discriminatory housing practices," Jeanetta Williams of NAACP-
Salt Lake City told reporters at a press conference announcing
the lawsuit.

"It has become obvious to us that many who work in construction
and the service industry in Summit County cannot afford to live
there," echoes Archie Archuletta of Utah Coalition of La Raza.
   
"You'd think that 37 years after the Fair Housing Act, we
wouldn't have to be here," said Jerry Costley of the Disabled
Rights Action Committee. "But Summit County has told us, as
persons with disabilities, we are not welcome."

In an interview, however, County Commission Chairman Bob Richer
denied such claims, and told the Tribune that affordable housing
is a top priority. He also pointed to three new developments in
Snyderville Basin namely New Park, Red Stone and Bear Hollow,
all with affordable-housing components. He adds, "We aren't
aware of any deficiencies. But we are willing to look at any
complaints."

Hutchings, Baird and Jones, a law firm that also represents
wealthy landowners and developers against Summit County on
zoning issues, filed the lawsuit pro bono.

Attorney Michael Hutchings told the Tribune, "There is a
coalition of interests here. Landowners and these groups all
have something in common: They want fair zoning in Summit
County."


VARIAGENICS INC.: Working To Settle Securities Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
Variagenics, Inc. is continuing to negotiate a settlement for
the consolidated securities class action filed against it,
certain of its officers and underwriters in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

On December 6, 2001, a complaint was filed on behalf of persons
purchasing the Company's stock between July 21, 2000 and
December 6, 2000.  The suit alleges violations of Sections 11,
12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended and
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The complaint alleges that, in connection with the Company's
July 21, 2000 initial public offering, or IPO, the defendants
failed to disclose additional and excessive commissions
purportedly solicited by and paid to the underwriter defendants
in exchange for allocating shares of the Company's stock to
preferred customers and alleged agreements among the underwriter
defendants and preferred customers tying the allocation of IPO
shares to agreements to make additional aftermarket purchases at
predetermined prices.  Plaintiffs claim that the failure to
disclose these alleged arrangements made the Company's
registration statement on Form S-1 filed with the SEC in July
2000 and the prospectus, a part of the registration statement,
materially false and misleading. Plaintiffs seek unspecified
damages.

On April 19, 2002, an amended complaint was filed which makes
essentially the same allegations.  On July 15, 2002, Variagenics
and the individuals filed a motion to dismiss.  On July 16,
2003, the Company's Board of Directors approved a settlement
proposal initiated by the plaintiffs.  The final terms of the
settlement are still being negotiated.  It is possible that the
parties may not reach agreement on the final settlement
documents or that the Federal District Court may not approve the
settlement in whole or part.


VEHICLE SYSTEMS: Recalls 6,973 Vehicle Heaters For Fire Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vehicle Systems, Inc. is cooperating with the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) by voluntarily recalling
6,973 AQUA-HOT and HYDRO-HOT heaters.

These heaters, manufactured between December 1,2002 and April
1,2005, equipped with Webasto DBW 2010 Diesel Burner (burner
tube, can deteriorate and fail, causing a fire.

The Company will notify customers and replace the burner tube
with a new one free of charge.  The recall is expected to begin
during April 2005.  Owners who do not receive the free remedy
within a reasonable time should contact the Company by Phone: 1-
800-685-4298 or contact the NHTSA's auto safety hotline: 1-888-
327-4236.


VISHAY INTERTECHNOLOGY: Provides Update on Siliconix Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vishay Intertechnology, Inc. (NYSE: VSH) indicated that,
subsequent to its announcement of an agreement in principle to
settle certain litigation relating to Vishay's pending offer to
acquire the common stock of Siliconix Incorporated (Nasdaq:
SILI) not owned by Vishay, which had been negotiated with
Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel in the consolidated action in Delaware
Court of Chancery, the plaintiff in the purported class action
making similar allegations in California state court filed, on
April 22, 2005, a first amended complaint as well as a motion
for a preliminary injunction to enjoin the tender offer and an
ex parte application for expedited discovery and an expedited
hearing on the preliminary injunction motion.

The ex parte application is scheduled to be heard on April 25,
2005. Vishay expects to file its opposition to this application
on April 25, 2005, as well.

Vishay Intertechnology, Inc., a Fortune 1,000 Company listed on
the NYSE (VSH), is one of the world's largest manufacturers of
discrete semiconductors (diodes, rectifiers, transistors, and
optoelectronics) and selected ICs, and passive electronic
components (resistors, capacitors, inductors, and transducers).
Vishay's components can be found in products manufactured in a
very broad range of industries worldwide. Vishay is
headquartered in Malvern, Pennsylvania, and has operations in 17
countries employing over 25,000 people.

For more details, contact Richard N. Grubb, Executive Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer by Phone: 610-644-1300 or
visit their Web site: http://www.vishay.com.


WARNER-LAMBERT: AR Gets Share in Nationwide Neurontin Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The state of Arkansas received during the first week of April a
check for $445,525 as part of a national settlement regarding
the anti-seizure medication, Neurontin.  The money comes as part
of a $430 million nationwide settlement with the drug's
manufacturer, Warner-Lambert, a subsidiary of Pfizer, Arkansas
Attorney General Mike Beebe announced in a statement.

Approved in 1993, Neurontin was introduced to treat seizures in
adult epilepsy patients.  Within three years, state and federal
agencies were investigating claims that doctors were prescribing
Neurontin for uses not approved by the Food and Drug
Administration.  Investigators found that nearly 90 percent of
Neurontin prescriptions were being written for these "off-label"
uses, including the treatment of bipolar disorder, back pain and
headache.  Neurontin has not been scientifically proven to be
effective in treating those conditions.

The states and the Department of Justice alleged that Warner-
Lambert gave incentives and financial kickbacks to doctors who
prescribed Neurontin for these unapproved uses.  While the
investigation was ongoing, Pfizer acquired Warner-Lambert in
2000.

In May of 2004, the two sides reached a settlement.  Arkansas
received its share of the settlement last week, and the money
will go into the Arkansas Medicaid Program Trust Fund.  In
addition to the state share, $1.1 million will also go to the
federal government to be used as matching funds for Arkansas
Medicaid programs.  Under the terms of the settlement, Warner-
Lambert and Pfizer agree not to make false, misleading or
deceptive claims about Neurontin or promote off-label uses of
the drug.  They also agree to abide by federal anti-kickback
laws.


WAVE SYSTEMS: Continues To Face Securities Fraud Lawsuits in MA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wave Systems Corporation faces nine known securities class
actions filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts.  Seven of the suits name the Company,
its Chief Executive Officer and its Chief Financial Officer and
two of the suits also name the Company's Chairman, as
defendants.

The purported class action complaints have been filed by alleged
purchasers of the Company's Class A Common Stock during the
purported class period July 31, 2003 through February 2, 2004.  
The complaints claim that the Company and the named individuals
violated the federal securities laws by publicly disseminating
materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company, relating to Intel and IBM agreements, resulting in the
artificial inflation of the Company's Class A Common Stock price
during the purported class periods. The complaints do not
specify the amount of alleged damages plaintiffs seek to
recover.

The Company has learned of three other complaints filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
The Company believes that the complaints name all of its
directors as defendants and allege claims for breach of
fiduciary duties and other claims.  The allegations are very
similar to the allegations made in the purported securities
class actions because the allegations concern the very same
alleged statements alleged in the purported class actions.  The
Company is also named as a nominal defendant, although the
actions are derivative in nature and purportedly asserted on
behalf of the Company.  The Company is in the process of
evaluating these claims.

                 Meetings, Conferences & Seminars


* Featured Conference
-------------------------

Don't miss NorthStar Conferences' "The Class Action Litigation
Summit," which will take place June 8-9, 2005 in New York City.
In this time of increased corporate scrutiny, businesses are
more susceptible than ever to the threat of a national class
action. You will get up-to-the-minute information and strategic
advice directly from seasoned practitioners. Inside and outside
counsel will share a variety of perspectives on how to
anticipate, prevent, contain, and prepare for litigation.

For more information; call 1-866-265-1975 or visit
http://www.northstarconferences.com/conferences.asp?code=56LAW01
&pcode=CAR1.


* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
-------------------------------------------------

May 7, 2005
2005 CRITICAL ISSUES IN EMPLOYMENT LITIGATION
Continuing Education of the Bar
PLI California Center, San Francisco, CA
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

May 11, 2005
BROKER AND INSURANCE COMPANY PRACTICES AND LIABILITIES
CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Boston
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

May 12-13, 2005
ADDITIONAL INSURED CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Boston
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

May 12-13, 2005
OPINION AND EXPERT TESTIMONY IN FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS
ALI-ABA
Boston Tuition
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

April 22, 2005
CLASS ACTION LITIGATION
Bridgeport Continuing Education
San Francisco
Contact: 818-783-7156

May 16-17, 2005
RUN-OFFS SEMINAR
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Boston
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

May 16-17, 2005
ADDITIONAL INSURED CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Huntington Hotel & Spa, Pasadena CA
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

May 19-20, 2005
DIGITAL DISCOVERY AND ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE
ALI-ABA
Chicago
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

May 21, 2005
2005 CRITICAL ISSUES IN EMPLOYMENT LITIGATION
Continuing Education of the Bar
Irvine Crowne Plaza/OC Airport, Catalina Ballroom, Irvine, CA
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

May 24-25, 2005
PREVAILING OVER CUSTOMER CLAIMS
American Conferences
The Warwick Hotel, New York, NY, United States
Contact: http://www.americanconference.com

June 2005
INTERNATIONAL ASBESTOS CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
London, England
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

June 3-5, 2005
United States v. Philip Morris: Jumpstarting Private Tobacco
Litigation
22nd Conference of the Tobacco Products Liability Project
Boston, MA
Contact: conference@tplp.org

June 4, 2005
2005 CRITICAL ISSUES IN EMPLOYMENT LITIGATION
Continuing Education of the Bar
Wilshire Grand Hotel & Centre, Los Angeles, CA
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

June 4, 2005
2005 CRITICAL ISSUES IN EMPLOYMENT LITIGATION
Continuing Education of the Bar
Red Lion Hotel, Sierra Room,  Sacramento, CA
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

June 8, 2005
ASBESTOS INSURANCE CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The University of Chicago Gleacher Center, Chicago
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

June 8-9, 2005
CLASS ACTION LITIGATION SUMMIT
Northstar Conferences
New York City
Contact: 1-866-265-1975;
http://www.northstarconferences.com/conferences.asp?code=56LAW01
&pcode=CAR1

June 9-10, 2005
NURSING HOME LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Amelia Island
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

June 9-10, 2005
ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Chicago
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

June 13-14, 2005
PPA & EPHEDRA LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, New Orleans
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

June 13-14, 2005
PHARMACEUTICAL LITIGATION 101
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, New Orleans
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

June 16-17, 2005
MOLD LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Marina Del-Ray, CA
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

June 20-21, 2005
THE 2ND NATIONAL FORUM ON WELDING ROD LITIGATION
American Conferences
Omni Chicago Hotel, Chicago, IL, United States
Contact: http://www.americanconference.com

June 22, 2005
THE 2ND NATIONAL FORUM ON WELDING ROD LITIGATION: POST-
CONFERENCE WORKSHOP
American Conferences
Omni Chicago Hotel, Chicago, IL, United States
Contact: http://www.americanconference.com

June 22-23, 2005
VIOXX LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Intercontinental, New Orleans
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

June 20-21, 2005
REACT 2005
American Conferences
Hyatt Regency Newport, Newport, Rhode Island
Contact: http://www.americanconference.com

July 21-22, 2005
ASBESTOS LITIGATION 101 CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, New Orleans
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

June 27-28, 2005
LITIGATING EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION & SEXUAL HARASSMENT CLAIMS
2005
Practising Law Institute
New York, NY
Contact: 800-260-4PLI; 212-824-5710; info@pli.edu

July 28 - 29, 2005
CLASS ACTION LITIGATION: PROSECUTION & DEFENSE STRATEGIES 2005
Practising Law Institute
New York, NY
Contact: 800-260-4PLI; 212-824-5710; info@pli.edu

August 18-19, 2005
PRODUCTS LIABILITY: PHARMACEUTICAL AND MEDICAL DEVICE ISSUES
ALI-ABA
San Francisco
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

August 25-26, 2005
CLASS ACTION FAIRNESS ACT OF 2005 AND OTHER EMERGING CLASS
ACTION ISSUES
ALI-ABA
Chicago
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

September 8-9, 2005
CLASS ACTION LITIGATION: PROSECUTION & DEFENSE STRATEGIES 2005
Practising Law Institute
Chicago, IL
Contact: 800-260-4PLI; 212-824-5710; info@pli.edu

September 26-27, 2005
REINSURANCE SUMMIT
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Boston
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

September 27, 2005
ARBITRATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Boston
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

October 2005
ASBESTOS LIABILITY FORUM
Mealey Publications
London, England
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

October 2005
LAW CLIENT DEVELOPMENT CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

October 6-7, 2005
ASBESTOS LITIGATION IN THE 21ST CENTURY
ALI-ABA
Chicago
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

November 3-4, 2005
CONFERENCE ON LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY PRODUCTS
ALI-ABA
Washington DC
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

November 17-18, 2005
Mass Torts Made Perfect Seminar
MassTortsMadePerfect.Com
Las Vegas, Nevada
Contact: 800-320-2227; 850-436-6094 (fax)

TBA
FAIR LABOR STANDARDS CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

TBA
AIRLINE BANKRUPTCY LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

TBA
FASTFOOD INDUSTRY LIABILITY CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

November 3-4, 2005
Conference on Life Insurance Company Products: Current
Securities, Tax, ERISA, and State Regulatory Issues CL043
Washington, D.C. Tuition $995

February 16-17, 2006
ACCOUNTANTS' LIABILITY
ALI-ABA
Coral Gables, Miami, Florida
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

September 28-30, 2006
LITIGATING MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CLAIMS
ALI-ABA
Boston
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614


* Online Teleconferences
------------------------

April 01-30, 2005
HBA PRESENTS: AUTOMOBILE LITIGATION: DISPUTES AMONG
CONSUMERS, DEALERS, FINANCE COMPANIES AND FLOORPLANNERS
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

April 01-30, 2005
CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION DEFECT
LIABILITY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com  

April 01-30, 2005
HBA PRESENTS: ETHICS IN PERSONAL INJURY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

April 01-30, 2005
IN-HOUSE COUNSEL AND WRONGFUL DISCHARGE CLAIMS:
CONFLICT WITH CONFIDENTIALITY?
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

April 01-30, 2005
BAYLOR LAW SCHOOL PRESENTS: 2004 GENERAL PRACTICE INSTITUTE --
FAMILY LAW, DISCIPLINARY SYSTEM, CIVIL LITIGATION, INSURANCE
& CONSUMER LAW UPDATES
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

June 27-28, 2005
LITIGATING EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION & SEXUAL HARASSMENT CLAIMS
2005
Practising Law Institute
Contact: 800-260-4PLI; 212-824-5710; info@pli.edu

TORTS PRACTICE: 18TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS #1
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

TORTS PRACTICE: 18TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS #2
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

TORTS PRACTICE: 18TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS #3
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444


TORTS PRACTICE: 19TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 21ST ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS #1
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 21ST ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS #2
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 21ST ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS #3
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 22ND ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

PUNITIVE DAMAGES: MAXIMIZING YOUR CLIENT'S SUCCESS OR MINIMIZING
YOUR CLIENT'S EXPOSURE
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

EFFECTIVE DIRECT AND CROSS EXAMINAITON
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

STRATEGIC TIPS FOR SUCCESSFULLY PROPOUNDING & OPPOSING WRITTEN
DISCOVERY
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

CACI: CALIFORNIA'S NEW CIVIL JURY INSTRUCTIONS
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

ADVERSARIAL PROCEEDINGS IN ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCIES
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY - PANEL OF CREDITORS COMMITTEE MEMBERS
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

EXPERT WITNESS ADMISSIBILITY IN MOLD CASES
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

INTRODUCTION TO CLASS ACTIONS AND LARGE RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

NON-TRADITIONAL DEFENDANTS IN ASBESTOS LITIGATION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

PAXIL LITIGATION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS INVOLVING BAYCOL
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com  

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

SELECTION OF MOLD LITIGATION EXPERTS: WHO YOU NEED ON YOUR TEAM
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

SHOULD I FILE A CLASS ACTION?
LawCommerce.Com / Law Education Institute
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

THE EFFECTS OF ASBESTOS ON THE PULMONARY SYSTEM
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

THE STATE OF ASBESTOS LITIGATION: JUDICIAL PANEL DISCUSSION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

TRYING AN ASBESTOS CASE
LawCommerce.Com
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com  

THE IMPACT OF LORILLAR ON STATE AND LOCAL REGULATION OF TOBACCO
SALES AND ADVERSTISING
American Bar Association
Contact: 800-285-2221; abacle@abanet.org

________________________________________________________________
The Meetings, Conferences and Seminars column appears in the
Class Action Reporter each Wednesday. Submissions via
e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.

                   New Securities Fraud Cases


BEARINGPOINT INC.: Charls J. Piven Lodges Securities Suit in VA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of those who acquired the securities of
BearingPoint, Inc. (NYSE:BE) ("BearingPoint" or the "Company")
between August 14, 2003 and April 20, 2005, inclusive (the
"Class Period").

The Case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia. The action charges that the
Company and certain officers and/or directors violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of materially false and
misleading statements to the market during 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 actions.

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.


BEARINGPOINT INC.: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Suit in VA
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C. initiated a lawsuit seeking
class action status in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia on behalf of all persons who
purchased the publicly traded securities of BearingPoint, Inc.
(NYSE: BE) ("BearingPoint" or the "Company") between August 14,
2003 and April 20, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that BearingPoint and certain of its
officers and directors violated federal securities laws.
Specifically, defendants failed to disclose that:

     (1) BearingPoint had materially overstated net income and
         earnings per share and undervalued its identifiable
         intangibles (goodwill) by approximately $250- $400
         million;

     (2) BearingPoint had inflated its earnings by improperly
         accounting for restructuring charges relating to
         acquisitions;

     (3) BearingPoint lacked adequate internal controls and was
         therefore unable to ascertain its true financial
         condition; and

     (4) as a result, BearingPoint's net income and financial
         results were materially overstated at all relevant
         times.

On April 20, 2005 BearingPoint announced that it had determined
that a non-cash charge would be taken during the fourth quarter
of FY04 as a result of the impairment of its goodwill with
respect to operations in BearingPoint's Europe, the Middle East
and Africa segment. BearingPoint estimated the charge at $250 to
$400 million. BearingPoint also stated that its previously
issued 10-Q's for each of the first three quarters of FY04, its
Form 10-K for the six-month transition period ended December 31,
2003, and Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2003
should not be relied upon because of errors in those financial
statements. On this news, shares of BearingPoint fell more than
$2.25 per share.

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


BEARINGPOINT INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Stock Suit in VA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia on behalf of purchasers of the
publicly traded securities of BearingPoint, Inc. (NYSE: BE)
("BearingPoint" or the "Company") between August 14, 2003 and
April 20, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint alleges that BearingPoint, Roderick C. McGeary,
Randolph C. Blazer, and Robert S. Falcone violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing numerous positive
statements throughout the Class Period regarding the Company's
financial performance. As alleged in the complaint, these
statements were each materially false and misleading when made
as they failed to disclose and misrepresented the following
material adverse facts which were then known to defendants or
recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) that the Company had materially overstated its net
         income and earnings per share and undervalued its
         identifiable intangibles (goodwill) by approximately
         $250-400 million;

     (2) that the Company had inflated its earnings by
         improperly accounting for restructuring charges
         relating to acquisitions;

     (3) that the Company's financial statements were not
         prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted
         Accounting Principles ("GAAP");

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

     (5) that as a result, the value of the Company's net income
         and financial results were materially overstated at all
         relevant times.

On March 17, 2005, BearingPoint announced that it was delaying
the filing of its annual report on Form 10-K. According to
BearingPoint, it had experienced significant delays in
completing its consolidated financial statements. The delays are
due, in part, to:

     (i) Additional substantive procedures necessary to validate
         financial information due to control deficiencies;

    (ii) The need to confirm the financial information generated
         by the Company's new financial accounting system,
         particularly in the area of revenue recognition; and

   (iii) The Company's simultaneous, ongoing efforts to complete
         management's assessment of its internal controls over
         financial reporting in accordance with Section 404 of
         the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.

Then on April 20, 2005, BearingPoint filed a current report on
Form 8-K. Therein, the Company disclosed that it found errors in
its financial statements spanning the past two years, that the
SEC had begun an investigation into its accounting, and that it
had fired nine executives. More specifically, the Company
stated: During the fourth quarter of the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2004 ("FY04"), BearingPoint determined that a
triggering event had occurred, which caused the Company to
perform a goodwill impairment test. The triggering event
resulted from a combination of various factors, including
downgrades in the Company's credit rating in December 2004,
significant changes in senior management and underperforming
foreign legal entities. As a result of an initial impairment
analysis, on March 17, 2005 the Company determined that a
material, non-cash charge will be taken during the fourth
quarter of FY04 as a result of the impairment of its goodwill
with respect to the operations in its Europe, the Middle East
and Africa ("EMEA") segment. The Company currently estimated
that the amount of the impairment charge will be $250 million to
$400 million.

BearingPoint also stated that the following previously issued
reports should not be relied upon because of errors in those
financial statements:

     (a) Form 10-Q's for each of the first three quarters of
         FY04;

     (b) Form 10-K for the six-month transition period ended
         December 31, 2003; and

     (c) Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2003.

On news of this, shares of BearingPoint tumbled more than $2.25
per share on unusually high trading volume.

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.


BLUE COAT: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Lawsuit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers of the
publicly traded securities of Blue Coat Systems, Inc. (NASDAQ:
BCSI) ("Blue Coat" or the "Company") between February 19, 2004
and May 27, 2004 inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges that Blue Coat, Brian M. NeSmith, and
Robert Verheecke violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by issuing numerous positive statements throughout
the Class Period regarding the Company's financial performance.
As alleged in the complaint, these statements were each
materially false and misleading when made as they failed to
disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts
which were then known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by
them:

     (1) that the Company's gross margin range of 68-69% was
         unrealistic because the Company's gross margin
         calculations were result-driven, and did not reflect
         any realistic expectations as to what could be
         achieved, given material business issues of which the
         defendants were aware of such;

     (2) that Blue Coat's service staff had not grown in line
         with its business growth and had to be augmented during
         the quarter ended April 30, 2004;

     (3) that the sales incentives and other difficulties
         associated with the introduction of the Series 8000
         product line put downward pressure on the Company's
         gross margins; and

     (4) that as a result of the above, the Company's statements
         about its future financial performance were lacking in
         any reasonable basis when made.

On May 27, 2004, Blue Coat made a surprise announcement that its
purported gross margin calculations had fallen short for the
fourth quarter of fiscal 2004, and that profitability was lower
than that achieved in the third quarter. Instead of increasing
only 2-3%, operating expenses increased 8.5%. The next trading
day, May 28, 2004, Blue Coat shares plummeted $11.45 per share
to close at $27.80 per share. By August 2004, Blue Coat shares
fell as low as $10 per share.

In the summer of 2004, the SEC began an informal inquiry into
trading in Blue Coat's stock concerning the fourth quarter of
fiscal 2004, which the Company initially characterized as only
involving "individuals or organizations outside the company." On
February 28, 2005, however, the SEC asked for additional
information, and subpoenaed two unidentified company executives
to testify. Following this, the SEC upgraded its informal
investigation into a formal investigation. Blue Coat admitted on
April 7, 2005 that the SEC insider trading investigation was now
focusing on whether certain present or former officers,
directors, employees, affiliates or others made selective
disclosure of material nonpublic information, traded in the
Company's stock while in possession of such information, or
communicated such information to others who then traded in the
Company's stock.

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.


DELPHI CORPORATION: Baron & Budd Lodges Securities Lawsuit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Baron & Budd, P.C. initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Delphi
Corporation (NYSE:DPH) ("Delphi" or the "Company") securities
during the period between April 12, 2000 and March 3, 2005,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

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

     (1) that the Company's improper accounting for off-balance
         sheet financing transactions in 2000 for $200 million,
         and financing activities in 2000 for $20 million,
         caused an overstatement of the Company's cash flow from
         operations, which resulted in a $220 million
         restatement;

     (2) that the Company employed improper accounting practices
         to overstate pretax earnings by $100 million for 2000;

     (3) that the Company prematurely recognized revenue from
         technology contracts and rebates when they should have
         been recognized over the duration of the contract;

     (4) that the Company's financial statements were not
         prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted
         Accounting Principles ("GAAP");

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

     (6) that as a result, the Company's earnings and financial
         results were materially overstated at all relevant
         times.

Delphi announced on October 18, 2004 that the Audit Committee of
the Company's Board of Directors was conducting an internal
review in regards to the accounting methods employed for certain
transactions valued at $86 million between Delphi and Electronic
Data Systems Corp. and Delphi's pension accounting. This review
was initiated after an investigation was commenced by the
Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") that was disclosed on
a Form 8-K filed on September 29, 2004. The decision to delay
the Company's filing of the Form 10-Q was also made in light of
the fact that the Company's independent registered accounting
firm, "Deloitte & Touche LLP ("Deloitte"), was unable to
complete its review of the unaudited Consolidated Financial
Statements for the three and nine months ended September 30,
2004 due to the ongoing status of the internal review by the
Audit Committee of the Board of Directors.

Due to the restatements, the investigation by the SEC, and the
internal review, the Audit Committee announced that they had
accepted the resignation of Vice Chairman and Chief Financial
Officer, Alan Dawes, after expressing a loss of confidence in
him.

Immediately after the Company's March 4, 2004 release, The
Company's shares plummeted on this news and fell to $5.46, down
14% from a previous closing price at $6.37. The stock currently
trades down 40% from the date of the revelation of the Company's
flawed accounting.

For more details, contact Randall K. Pulliam, Esq. or Max Jodry
of Baron & Budd, P.C. by Phone: 800-222-2766 by E-mail:
info@baronbudd.com.   


DORAL FINANCIAL: Goodkind Labaton Files Securities Lawsuit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP initiated
a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York, on behalf of persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of
Doral Financial Corp. ("Doral" or the "Company") (NYSE:DRL)
between January 17, 2001 and April 18, 2005, inclusive, (the
"Class Period"). The lawsuit was filed against Doral,
PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP, Salomon Levis, Richard F. Bonini
and Richardo Melendez ("Defendants").

The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. Specifically, the complaint alleges that
the Defendants failed to disclose to the investing public that
the Company was improperly overvaluing its floating rate
interest only ("IO") Strips, an important part of its mortgage
portfolio, and thereby substantially inflating its financial
results during the Class Period. As a result, during the Class
Period the Company's net income and net gain on mortgage loan
sales were materially overstated, the Company's return on equity
and capital were materially overstated, and the Company's
reported net capital was materially overstated. Defendants also
failed to disclose to investors that the Company's risk
management, hedging strategies, and internal controls were
deficient and would not protect the value of Doral's portfolio
in a rising-rate environment, despite repeated reassurances to
the contrary.

On April 19, 2005, Doral announced that it was restating its
financial results for 2000 through 2004. The restatements were
made to correct the accounting treatment for the value of its IO
Strip portfolio. The Company said the restatement will result in
a decrease in the fair value of the securities by $400 million
to $600 million. It said it will have to take a $290 million to
$435 million charge for the required adjustments. In a press
release, the Company also stated that "management concluded that
the previously filed interim and audited financial statements
for the periods from January 1, 2000, through December 31, 2004,
could be materially affected and, therefore, should no longer be
relied on and that the financial statements for some or all of
the periods included therein should be restated." Since January
3, 2005, the price of Doral's common stock has dropped from
$48.50 per share to below $16 per share.

For more details, contact Chris Keller, Esq. of The Law Firm of
Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP by Phone: 800-321-0476 or
visit their Web site: http://www.glrs.com/get/?case=Doral.


DORAL FINACIAL: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Lawsuit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
LLP ("Lerach Coughlin") initiated a class action in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of purchasers of Doral Financial Corp. ("Doral")
(NYSE:DRL) publicly traded securities during the period between
October 10, 2002 and April 19, 2005 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Doral and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Doral is a diversified financial services company engaged
in mortgage banking, commercial banking, institutional broker-
dealer activities and insurance agency activities.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business and prospects. On January 19, 2005, the
company reported fourth quarter earnings and for the first time
warned of potential trouble with its hedging strategy against
interest rate changes through its use of a derivative portfolio
of interest-only strips ("IO Strips"). Doral was forced to
record a $97.5 million pretax impairment charge on its
derivative portfolio of IO Strips. On March 15, 2005, Doral
filed its Annual Report on Form 10-K with the Securities and
Exchange Commission ("SEC"). In its 2004 Annual Report the
Company disclosed for the first time its use of overly
aggressive assumptions in valuing its derivatives portfolio of
IO Strips. In a matter of days Doral stock plummeted from $38.29
per share to $21.50 per share in extremely heavy volume of more
than ten times the daily average.

Then on April 19, 2005, the Company announced that "after
consulting with various financial institutions and other firms
with experience in valuation issues, the Company has determined
that it is appropriate to correct the methodology used to
calculate the fair value of its portfolio of floating rate
interest only strips ("IOs"). The Company's preliminary estimate
is that this correction will result in a decrease in the fair
value of its floating rate IOs of between $400 million to $600
million as of December 31, 2004."

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

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

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

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

As a result of these false statements, Doral's stock price
traded at inflated levels during the Class Period, increasing to
as high as $49.45 per share on January 18, 2005. The Company
sold $740 million worth of notes and $345 million worth of
preferred stock during the Class Period. However, after the
truth was revealed in Doral's press release on April 19, 2005,
the Company's shares fell to below $16 per share.

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


MOLEX INCORPORATED: Stull Stull Lodges IL Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Stull, Stull & Brody initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, against Molex Incorporated ("Molex" or the
"Company") (Nasdaq:MOLX; MOLXA), on behalf of purchasers of
Molex publicly traded securities between July 27, 2004 and
February 14, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint alleges that Molex violated federal securities
laws by issuing false or misleading information. Specifically,
the Complaint alleges that Molex hid $5.8 million in inventory
expenses, it improperly accounted for accrual in vacation pay
and it engaged in other accounting chicanery so that its
reported financial results were in violation of Generally
Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP"). On November 11, 2004,
Molex announced that it was delaying the filing of its Form 10-Q
and that Diane S. Bullock had been replaced as its Chief
Financial Officer. On November 15, 2004, Molex announced that
Deloitte & Touche LLP had resigned as its independent auditor.
On February 14, 2005, Molex released its quarterly financial and
operational results and more fully disclosed the extent of its
accounting issues and corresponding investigations by the
Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"). On this news, Molex
stock fell from a close of $28.79 per share on February 14,
2004, to close at $25.45 per share on February 15, 2005.

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