---

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

             Thursday, May 12, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 93


                         Headlines

ADVANCED MAGNESIUM: Settles IN Suit Over January Chemical Blaze
ALBERTSON'S INC.: CA Court Approves Overtime Lawsuit Settlement
ALBERTSON'S INC.: CA Court Certifies Terminated Employees' Suit
ALBERTSON'S INC.: Certification For CA Wage Suit Set June 2005
ALBERTSON'S INC.: Faces Two Overtime Wage Lawsuits in CA Court

AMERICAN IRONHORSE: Recalls 199 Motorcycles Due To Crash Hazard
AVON PRODUCTS: CA Appeals Court Reinstates Sales Agent Lawsuit
AXA ADVISORS: NY Court Yet To Rule on Securities Suit Dismissal
AXA EQUITABLE: NY Court Refuses To Dismiss Shareholder Lawsuit
AXA EQUITABLE: Nationwide Market Timing Suit Moved To MD Court

AXA NETWORK: Parties Move For Summary Judgment in IL ERISA Suit
CALIFORNIA: Judge Places Prison Health System Into Receivership
CENTRAL PARKING: Securities Settlement Hearing Set June 10, 2005
CLOUD NINE: Recalls Orange, Chocolate Bars For Undeclared Dairy
COCA-COLA COMPANY: Shareholder Launches Suit V. Ex-CEO Doug Daft

CONSTAR INTERNATIONAL: Shareholders File Amended Securities Suit
CONSTAR INTERNATIONAL: Current, Ex-Workers Lodge FL Injury Suit
CONTINENTAL CARBON: Ponca Tribe, Tribal Members Lodge Suit in OK
DIVERSE MARKETING: Reaches Settlement With FTC For Spam, Fraud
DUTCHMAN MANUFACTURING: Recalls 434 Motorhomes For Crash Hazard

EQUITABLE LIFE: Limited Discovery Proceeds in NY ERISA Lawsuit
FIRST PACIFIC: Attorney General Issues Consumer Fraud Advisory
FISCHER IMAGING: CO Court Refuses To Approve Lawsuit Settlement
FISHER PRICE: Recalls 54T Dragster Push Toys For Injury Hazard  
FISHER PRICE: Recalls 154T Pogo Sticks Due To Injury Hazard  

GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls Trucks, SUVs Due To Hazard Signal Defect
HALLWOOD REALTY: Working To Settle DE Suit V. High River Offer
HOOPER HOLMES: Examiners File CA Overtime Wage Violations Suit
JEWEL FOOD: Plaintiffs Appeal IL Milk Antitrust Suit Dismissal
LOS ROBLES: Reaches $4.75M Employee Wage Suit Settlement in CA

MACKINAC FINANCIAL: MI Court Approves Securities Suit Settlement
NATIONAL RV: Recalls Motorhomes For Product Defect, Fire Hazard
OMEGA FLEX: CSST Owners Launch Consumer Fraud Suit in AZ Court
PROTECT AND SERVE: FL AG Issues Illegal Solicitation Advisory
SAVIENT PHARMACEUTICALS: Asks NJ Court To Dismiss Stock Lawsuit

STARWOOD HOTELS: Reaches Settlement For FL AG Consumer Complaint
TELAXIS COMMUNICATIONS: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Settlement
THALIDOMIDE: CT Attorney General Asks FDA To Act On Health Risks
UBS WARBURG: Securities Settlement Hearing Set July 25, 2005
UNITED STATES: Groups Join New "Lawsuit Abuse Reform Coalition"

UNIZAN FINANCIAL: Dismissal of OH Securities Suit Deemed Final
VONAGE HOLDINGS: CT AG Launches Suit For Faulty VOIP 911 Access

                  New Securities Fraud Cases

AVAYA INC.: Chitwood Harley Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NJ
AVAYA INC.: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in NJ
AVAYA INC.: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in NJ
COCA-COLA CO.: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in GA
FINDWHAT.COM: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in FL

FOREST LABORATORIES: Marc S. Henzel Files Securities Suit in NY
LEAPFROG ENTERPRISES: Marc S. Henzel Files Securities Suit in CA
MARTEK BIOSCIENCES: Marc S. Henzel Files Securities Suit in MD
MBNA CORPORATION: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Lawsuit in DE
PETCO ANIMAL: Pomerantz Haudek Files Securities Fraud Suit in CA

RHODIA S.A.: Still Stull Brody Files Securities Fraud Suit in NJ
TRIBUNE CO.: Pomerantz Haudek Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in IL


                            *********


ADVANCED MAGNESIUM: Settles IN Suit Over January Chemical Blaze
---------------------------------------------------------------
As part of a tentative settlement in a lawsuit over a fire that
caused the evacuation of thousands of people, Advanced Magnesium
Alloys Corporation would pay neighborhood cleanup costs,
according to representatives of both parties, The Associated
Press reports.

A few days after the catastrophic fire, attorney Tom Hamer filed
a lawsuit in Madison Superior Court seeking class action status
on behalf of some 8,000 residents who were evacuated because of
fumes from the chemical blaze.

Under the proposed settlement, AMACOR would hire an outside firm
to complete the cleanup of asbestos blown from the fire to homes
near the plant. Some residents previously refused to sign
documents allowing a contractor to clean up debris on their
property, but the settlement will allow that work to be done.  
Neither side though would discuss further details of the
proposed settlement.

Darrin K. Dettra, 39, a plant worker accused of setting the
blaze at the AMACOR's Anderson plant, also pleaded not guilty to
arson charges during a recent court hearing. The Chesterfield,
Indiana resident would face a prison sentence of between 20
years to 50 years if convicted on a felony charge of arson
resulting in bodily injury. He has vehemently denied setting the
January 14, 2005 fire during which a firefighter was hurt.


ALBERTSON'S INC.: CA Court Approves Overtime Lawsuit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles, California
granted final approval to the settlement of the class action
filed against Albertson's, Inc. and its wholly-owned
subsidiaries American Stores Company, American Drug Stores,
Inc., Sav-on Drug Stores, Inc. and Lucky Stores, Inc., styled
"Gardner, et al. v. Albertson's, Inc., et al."

Bonus-eligible managers filed the suit, seeking recovery of
additional bonus compensation based upon plaintiffs' allegation
that the calculation of profits on which their bonuses were
based improperly included expenses for workers' compensation
costs, cash shortages, premises liability and "shrink" losses in
violation of California law.  In October 2001, the court granted
summary judgment against Sav-on Drug Stores, finding one of its
bonus plans unlawful under plaintiffs' liability theory.  

In August 2001 a class action complaint with very similar
claims, also involving bonus-eligible managers, was filed
against the Company as well as Lucky Stores, Inc. and American
Stores Company, wholly owned subsidiaries of the Company, in the
Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles, California, styled
"Petersen, et al. v. Lucky Stores, Inc., et al."

In June 2002 the cases were consolidated and in August 2002, a
class action with respect to the consolidated case was certified
by the court.  On December 20, 2004, the court granted final
approval to a settlement reached by the parties.


ALBERTSON'S INC.: CA Court Certifies Terminated Employees' Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Los Angeles County Superior Court in California granted
class certification to the employee suit filed against
Albertson's Inc., Lucky Stores, Inc. and Sav-on Drug Stores,
Inc., styled "Joanne Kay Ward et al. v. Albertsons, Inc. et al."  
The suit was filed on behalf of the defendants' terminating
employees, alleging the defendants paid terminating employees
their final paychecks in an untimely manner.  The lawsuit seeks
statutory penalties.  

On January 4, 2005, the case was certified as a class action.
The Company believes that it has strong defenses against this
lawsuit and is vigorously defending it. Although this lawsuit is
subject to the uncertainties inherent in the litigation process,
based on the information presently available to the Company,
management does not expect that the ultimate resolution of this
lawsuit will have a material adverse effect on the Company's
financial condition, results of operations or cash flows, the
Company said in a regulatory filing.


ALBERTSON'S INC.: Certification For CA Wage Suit Set June 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------
Class certification hearing for the lawsuit filed against
Albertson's Inc. in the Superior Court of the State of
California in and for the County of Alameda, California is set
for June 2005.  

A grocery manager filed the suit, styled "Dunbar v. Albertson's,
Inc.," seeking recovery including overtime pay based upon
plaintiff's allegation that he and other grocery managers were
improperly classified as exempt under California law. The Dunbar
case is currently in discovery.

In July 2004, a case similar to Dunbar involving salaried
drug/merchandise managers was filed in the same court, styled
"Victoria A. Moore, et al. v. Albertson's, Inc.).  In March
2005, the parties reached a tentative settlement, which remains
subject to court approval.


ALBERTSON'S INC.: Faces Two Overtime Wage Lawsuits in CA Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Albertson's Inc. continues to face two class actions filed in
the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles, California.  
The suits also name as defendants several of the Company's
wholly-owned subsidiaries American Stores Company, American Drug
Stores, Inc., Sav-on Drug Stores, Inc. and Lucky Stores, Inc.

Assistant managers filed the first suit, styled "Gardner, et al.
v. American Stores Company, et al.," seeking recovery of
overtime pay based upon plaintiffs' allegation that they were
improperly classified as exempt under California law.  

A case with very similar claims, involving the Sav-on Drug
Stores assistant managers and operating managers, was also filed
in April 2000 against the Company's subsidiary Sav-on Drug
Stores, Inc. in the Superior Court for the County of Los
Angeles, California, styled "Rocher, Dahlin, et al. v. Sav-on
Drug Stores, Inc." and was also certified as a class action.

In April 2002 the Court of Appeal of the State of California
Second Appellate District reversed the Rocher class
certification, leaving only two plaintiffs.  However, on August
26, 2004, the California Supreme Court reversed this decision
and remanded the case to the trial court.


AMERICAN IRONHORSE: Recalls 199 Motorcycles Due To Crash Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
American Ironhorse Motorcycle Company is cooperating with the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) by
voluntarily recalling 199 motorcycles, namely:

     (1) AMERICAN IRONHORSE / LEGEND, model 2005

     (2) AMERICAN IRONHORSE / SLAMMER, model 2005

     (3) AMERICAN IRONHORSE / TEXAS CHOPPER, model 2005

On certain motorcycles equipped with progressive suspension, the
shock absorbers have a spring plate assembly that was installed
upside down resulting in the shock absorber failing to hold the
weight of the motorcycle and in some instances could suddenly
decompress while the motorcycle is in operation.  Shock absorber
failure will cause the motorcycle to lean greatly to the side of
the defective shock absorber increasing the risk of a crash,
serious injuries or death.

Dealers will replace all shock absorbers.  The recall is
expected to begin on May 15,2005.  For more details, contact the
Company by Phone: 1-888-618-4766 or contact the NHTSA auto
safety hotline: 1-888-327-4236.


AVON PRODUCTS: CA Appeals Court Reinstates Sales Agent Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In a published decision released, the California Court of Appeal
reinstated class action allegations by women who sell or sold
beauty products for Avon Products, Inc. as independent sales
representatives.

The Court also ruled that the trial court erred in dismissing
the Avon Ladies' claims against Avon for unfair business
practices, fraud and breach of contract and ordered them
reinstated as well.

The suit charges that Avon engages in channel stuffing, in which
Avon forces products on its sales representatives by
deliberately shipping them products they did not order, or
products far in excess of the quantities they ordered. When the
sales representatives return the unordered products for credit,
Avon refuses to grant the credit, in violation of its own return
policy.

The suit, filed January 23, 2004, also alleges that Avon falsely
denies receiving the returned products from its sales
representatives, coerces the representatives to accept and pay
for unordered products rather than return them for credit;
unfairly requires the representatives to pay the return shipping
costs; revokes its policy of "instant credit" and requires the
representatives to pay for unordered products until Avon
completes its lengthy return process; refuses to ship any
further products until the representatives pay for their entire
orders in advance, which most cannot afford to do; threatens to
terminate the representatives' businesses if they persist in
returning unordered products for credit; and, when
representatives quit or are terminated, submits claims to
collection agencies based on unordered products that were
returned to Avon in order to harass the representatives into
paying monies they do not owe.

In restating the class action allegations, the Court of Appeal
ruled that "if the class representatives prove Avon engaged in
the practices alleged ... The class members need only show they
are members of the class -- representatives who paid for
unordered products they returned -- and the amount of their
damages." The fact that each sales representative may have to
independently establish her damages does not prohibit the class
from being certified.

The Court of Appeal also reinstated plaintiffs Raven Blakemore,
Lupe Lane and Robin Smith, who the trial court dismissed after
finding that they had contradicted their allegations. The Court
of Appeal disagreed stating: "the Blakemore plaintiffs neither
omit nor contradict any of the allegations in their earlier
complaints."

"The Court of Appeal's decision is a tremendous victory for Avon
Ladies," said Jeffrey Huron, lead counsel for the plaintiffs.
"Without the possibility of a class action, Avon Ladies, who are
ordinary women trying to make ends meet, would be defenseless
against Avon's illegal channel stuffing practices. This decision
not only reinstates the class allegations but also will make it
difficult for Avon to defeat class certification. We have
identified sales representatives in more than thirty states who
have been victims of Avon's unfair business practices and
estimate that the size of the nationwide class numbers in the
thousands."

For more details, contact The Huron Law Group by Mail: 1875
Century Park East, Suite 1000, Los Angeles, CA 90067 by Phone:
310-284-3400 by Fax: 310-772-0037 or visit their Web site:
http://www.huronlaw.com.


AXA ADVISORS: NY Court Yet To Rule on Securities Suit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York has yet to rule on AXA Advisors LLC's motion to dismiss the
class action, styled "SHAM MALHOTRA, ET AL. V. THE EQUITABLE
LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES, AXA ADVISORS, LLC
AND EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTORS, INC."

The action, initially filed in the Supreme Court of the State of
New York, County of Nassau, was brought by two individuals who
purchased AXA Equitable deferred annuity products. The action
purports to be on behalf of a class consisting of all persons
who purchased an individual deferred annuity contract or who
received a certificate to a group deferred annuity contract,
sold by one of the defendants, which was used to fund a
contributory retirement plan or arrangement qualified for
favorable income tax treatment; excluded from the class are
officers, directors and agents of the defendants.  The complaint
alleges that the defendants engaged in fraudulent and deceptive
practices in connection with the marketing and sale of deferred
annuity products to fund tax-qualified contributory retirement
plans. The complaint asserts claims for:

     (1) deceptive business acts and practices in violation of
         the New York General Business Law (the "GBL");

     (2) use of misrepresentations and misleading statements in
         violation of the New York Insurance Law;

     (3) false or misleading advertising in violation of the
         GBL;
    
     (4) fraud, fraudulent concealment and deceit; negligent
         misrepresentation;
    
     (5) negligence;

     (6) unjust enrichment and imposition of a constructive
         trust;

     (7) declaratory and injunctive relief; and

     (8) reformation of the annuity contracts

The complaint seeks injunctive and declaratory relief, an
unspecified amount of compensatory and punitive damages,
restitution for all members of the class, and an award of
attorneys' fees, costs and expenses.  In October 2000, the
defendants removed the action to the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York, and thereafter filed
a motion to dismiss.  Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the
case to state court.

In September 2001, the District Court issued a decision granting
defendants' motion to dismiss and denying plaintiffs' motion to
remand, and judgment was entered in favor of the defendants. In
October 2001, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking leave to reopen
the case for the purpose of filing an amended complaint. In
addition, plaintiffs filed a new complaint in the District
Court, alleging a similar class and similar facts.

The new complaint asserted causes of action for violations of
Federal securities laws in addition to the state law causes of
action asserted in the previous complaint. In January 2002,
plaintiffs amended their new complaint in response to
defendants' motion to dismiss and, subsequently, in March 2002,
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. In
March 2003, the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York granted plaintiffs' motion, filed October
2001, seeking leave to reopen their original case for the
purpose of filing an amended complaint and accepted plaintiffs'
proposed amended complaint, appointed the named plaintiffs as
lead plaintiffs and their counsel as lead counsel for the
putative class, consolidated plaintiffs' original action with
their second action, which was filed in October 2001, and ruled
that the court would apply AXA Equitable's motion to dismiss the
amended complaint in the second action to the plaintiffs'
amended complaint from the original action.

In April 2003, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint
alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange
Act"). The action purports to be on behalf of a class consisting
of all persons who on or after October 3, 1997 purchased an
individual variable deferred annuity contract, received a
certificate to a group variable deferred annuity contract or
made an additional investment through such a contract, which
contract was used to fund a contributory retirement plan or
arrangement qualified for favorable income tax treatment. In May
2003, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second
amended complaint.  In February 2004, the District Court issued
a decision withdrawing without prejudice defendants' motion to
dismiss the second amended complaint with leave to re-file
because the parties did not comply with the court's Individual
Motion Practices. In March 2004, defendants filed a renewed
motion to dismiss the second amended complaint.

The suit is styled "SHAM MALHOTRA, ET AL. V. THE EQUITABLE LIFE
ASSURANCE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES, AXA ADVISORS, LLC AND
EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTORS, INC., case no. 2:01-cv-06970-ADS," filed
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
New York, under Judge Arthur D. Spatt.  Representing the
plaintiffs are Janine Lee Pollack of Milberg Weiss Bershad &
Schulman LLP, One Pennsylvania Plaza, 48th Floor New York, NY
10119-0165 Phone: 212- 594-5300 Fax: 212-273-4388 E-mail:
jpollack@milbergweiss.com; and Ronald A. Uitz of Uitz &
Associates, 1717 K Street, N.W. Suite 600 Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (212) 296-5280.


AXA EQUITABLE: NY Court Refuses To Dismiss Shareholder Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York denied AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company's (formerly the
Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States) motion to
dismiss the putative class action complaint entitled "ECKERT V.
THE EQUITABLE LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES."

The complaint asserts a single claim for relief under Section
47(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended based on
the Company's alleged failure to register as an investment
company. According to the complaint, the Company was required to
register as an investment company because it was allegedly
issuing securities in the form of variable insurance products
and allegedly investing its assets primarily in other
securities. The plaintiff purports to act on behalf of all
persons who purchased or made an investment in variable
insurance products from the Company on or after May 7, 1998.  
The complaint seeks declaratory judgment permitting putative
class members to elect to void their variable insurance
contracts; restitution of all fees and penalties paid by the
putative class members on the variable insurance products,
disgorgement of all revenues received by AXA Equitable on those
products, and an injunction against the payment of any dividends
by AXA Equitable to the Holding Company.

In June 2003, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint. In June 2004, plaintiff, in connection with a
settlement of a proceeding entitled "ECKERT V. AXA ADVISORS,
LLC, ET. AL.," which was filed with the National Association of
Securities Dealers, Inc., released his putative class action
claim against the Company. In June 2004, plaintiff's counsel
filed a motion for withdrawal of plaintiff from the putative
class action lawsuit and intervention by another member of the
putative class as plaintiff. In March 2005, the Court granted
the motion to intervene by another member of the putative class
and denied the Company's motion to dismiss without prejudice to
re-file the motion after the new complaint is filed.


AXA EQUITABLE: Nationwide Market Timing Suit Moved To MD Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
The nationwide class action filed against AXA Equitable Life
Insurance Company (formerly The Equitable Life Assurance Society
of the United States), styled "MATTHEW WIGGENHORN V. EQUITABLE
LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES," has been
transferred to the United States District Court for the District
of Maryland.

In April 2004, a purported nationwide class action lawsuit was
filed in the Circuit Court for Madison County, Illinois,
alleging that the Company uses stale prices for the foreign
securities within the investment divisions of its variable
insurance products. The complaint further alleges that the
Company's use of stale pricing diluted the returns of the
purported class. The complaint also alleges that the Company
breached its fiduciary duty to the class by allowing market
timing in general within its variable insurance products,
thereby diluting the returns of the class. The lawsuit asserts
causes of action for negligence, gross negligence, breach of
contract, and breach of fiduciary duty and seeks unspecified
compensatory and punitive damages, plus prejudgment interest,
attorneys' fees and costs.

In June 2004, the Company removed the case to Federal court and
in July 2004 filed a motion to dismiss. In July 2004, plaintiff
filed a motion to remand the action to state court. In August
2004, the court stayed the action pending a decision by the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in a case filed against
Putnam Funds et al. (to which the Company is not a party)
regarding removal pursuant to the Securities Litigation Uniform
Standards Act under similar circumstances. In February 2005, the
Baltimore Federal court entered a Conditional Transfer Order,
conditionally transferring the case to Federal court in
Baltimore, Maryland, where the majority of so-called market
timing cases against various fund families have been
transferred.


AXA NETWORK: Parties Move For Summary Judgment in IL ERISA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Parties filed cross motions for summary judgment in the class
action filed against AXA Network, LLC, and the AXA Equitable
Life Insurance Company (formerly The Equitable Life Assurance
Society of the United States) styled "BERGER ET AL. V. AXA
NETWORK, LLC AND THE EQUITABLE LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY OF THE
UNITED STATES," in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois.

Two former agents filed the suit on behalf of themselves and
other similarly situated present, former and retired agents who,
according to the complaint, "were discharged by Equitable Life
from `statutory employee status' after January 1, 1999, because
of Equitable Life's adoption of a new policy stating that in any
given year, those who failed to meet specified sales goals
during the preceding year would not be treated as `statutory
employees,' or remain subject to discharge from `statutory
employee' status based on the policy applied by Equitable Life."

The complaint alleges that AXA Equitable improperly "terminated"
the agents' full-time life insurance salesman statutory employee
status in or after 1999 by requiring attainment of minimum
production credit levels for 1998, thereby making the agents
ineligible for benefits and "requiring" them to pay Self-
Employment Contribution Act taxes. The former agents, who assert
claims for violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act (ERISA) and 26 U.S.C. 3121, and breach of contract, seek
declaratory and injunctive relief, plus restoration of benefits
and an adjustment of their benefit plan contributions and
payroll tax withholdings.

In March 2003, AXA Equitable filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint. In July 2003, the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois granted in part and denied in
part AXA Equitable's motion to dismiss the complaint, dismissing
plaintiffs' claims for violation of 26 U.S.C. 3121 and breach of
contract. AXA Equitable has answered plaintiffs' remaining claim
for violation of ERISA. In July 2003, plaintiffs filed a motion
for class certification. In November 2003, AXA Equitable filed
its opposition to the motion for class certification. In March
2004, the District Court entered an order certifying a class
consisting of "[a]ll present, former and retired Equitable
agents who lost eligibility for benefits under any Equitable
ERISA plan during any period on or after January 1, 1999 because
of the application of the policy adopted by Equitable of using
compliance with specified sales goals as the test of who was a
"full time life insurance salesman" and thereby eligible for
benefits under any such plan, or remain subject to losing such
benefits in the future because of the potential application to
them of that policy." Discovery has concluded and the parties
have filed cross motions for summary judgment. The case has been
removed from the trial calendar pending a decision on these
motions.


CALIFORNIA: Judge Places Prison Health System Into Receivership
---------------------------------------------------------------
In a decision that complicated a massive prison overhaul bill
signed into law by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a federal judge
moved to place the state prison system's troubled health care
operations into receivership, The Associated Press reports.

Ruling in a class-action lawsuit brought against the California
Department of Corrections, U.S. District Judge Thelton Henderson
said the state's 162,000 prisoners "are being subjected to an
unconstitutional system fraught with medical neglect and
malfeasance," AP reports.  The Judge wrote that defendants
themselves have conceded that a significant number of prisoners
have died as a direct result of this lack of care, and it is
clear to the court that more are sure to suffer and die if the
system is not immediately overhauled.

Judge Henderson's ruling, in San Francisco, came after Gov.
Schwarzenegger appeared at Folsom State Prison to sign into law
the most sweeping overhaul in three decades of the nation's
largest prison system. That law restructures the bureaucracy of
the 32-prison system and concentrates power with his handpicked
corrections czar, Youth and Adult Corrections Secretary Roderick
Hickman.  The Republican governor has been calling for major
reforms to the $7 billion-a-year system since shortly after he
took office in November 2003.

As he signed the law, the governor said "When I came into
office, we faced some very serious problems with our
correctional system, including out-of-control budgets, a failed
internal discipline system and a disturbing lack of
accountability and the more we looked at the problems, the more
we realized that the first step that we must take is to
reorganize the whole agency," AP reports.

Gov. Schwarzenegger also said that attention must now turn to
several reforms namely improving the health care system that was
targeted by the judge, overhauling a youth corrections system
experts described as "draconian" and fixing a rehabilitation
system so flawed that the majority of ex-convicts are soon back
behind prison walls.  It's unclear what affect Judge Henderson's
ruling will have on the governor's overall reform plan, since it
could take control of the health care system out of the state's
hands.  Prison department spokesman Todd Slosek though told AP
that it is "unknown at this time" whether the state would oppose
a receiver. "The department's interest all along was for ...
constitutionally adequate health care to our inmates," he adds.

According to the judge's ruling, he would appoint a receiver to
force improvements unless the Department of Corrections
convinces him otherwise with his final being rendered in a July
11 hearing.


CENTRAL PARKING: Securities Settlement Hearing Set June 10, 2005
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of
Tennessee - Nashville Division will hold a fairness hearing the
proposed $4.85 million settlement in the matter: In re Central
Parking Corporation Securities Litigation (No. 3:03-0546) on
behalf of all persons who during the period from 5, 2002 through
February 13, 2003 purchased or otherwise acquired the common
stock, options to purchase common stock, preferred securities or
other securities of Central Parking Corporation or its
affiliates or sold options to Put Central Parking common stock.

The hearing will take place on June 10, 2005, at 1:00 p.m.
Central time, before the Honorable Todd J. Campbell, at the
United States District Court for the Middle District of
Tennessee, 801 Broadway, Room A820, Nashville, Tennessee 37203.

For more details, contact Central Parking Corporation Securities
Litigation c/o The Garden City Group, Inc. - Claims
Administrator by Mail: P.O. Box 9000 #6309, Merrick, NY 11566-
9000 by Phone: 631-470-5000 or 1-800-327-3664 by Fax:
631-470-5100 by E-mail: info@gardencitygroup.com or visit their
Web site: http://www.gardencitygroup.com/.


CLOUD NINE: Recalls Orange, Chocolate Bars For Undeclared Dairy
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cloud Niner, a division of nSpired Natural Foods, San Leandro,
CA, is warning consumers who may be allergic to dairy products
that Cloud Nine Premium Dark Orange and Dark Chocolate 2 oz.
bars have been recalled. These products are manufactured on
equipment that is also used for dairy products, and there may be
residual dairy protein in the product.

The following Cloud Nine Premium Dark Chocolate bars, net weight
2 oz., Lot Code # 3255A and 3255B, have been voluntarily
recalled:
    
     (1) Cloud Nine Premium Dark Chocolate bar - UPC 7 29582
         11550 5

     (2) Cloud Nine Premium Orange Dark Chocolate bar - UPC 7
         29582 11530 7

These products are distributed through out the USA and across
Canada.  There has been only one reported illness associated
with the Cloud Nine Premium Dark Chocolate bar.

Consumers who have purchased these products may return it to the
place of purchase for a refund.  Consumers can contact nSpired
Natural Foods by calling (510) 346-3860 or (510) 346-3886.


COCA-COLA COMPANY: Shareholder Launches Suit V. Ex-CEO Doug Daft
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder Allan Selbst initiated a federal lawsuit that seeks
class-action status, claiming former Coca-Cola chairman and CEO
Doug Daft made overly positive statements about the company, The
Associated Press reports.

The lawsuit, which also seeks unspecified damages, claims Mr.
Daft made false and misleading statements. It covers those who
bought shares in The Coca-Cola Co. between January 30, 2003, and
September 15, 2004. Mr. Daft led the company during much of that
time and was replaced by Neville Isdell last June 2004.

Coke spokesman Ben Deutsch told AP that the lawsuit's claims are
without merit.

Law firms involved in the lawsuit are Chitwood Harley Harnes of
Atlanta formerly known as Chitwood & Harley and Lerach Coughlin
Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins of San Diego. Both have ties to
another ongoing case against Atlanta-based Coke in which
shareowners claim the company improperly inflated sales.


CONSTAR INTERNATIONAL: Shareholders File Amended Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Constar International, Inc. and certain of its present and
former directors face a consolidated putative securities class
action filed in the United Sates District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, styled "In re Constar International
Inc. Securities Litigation (Master File No. 03-CV-05020)."  The
suit also names as defendants along with Crown Holdings, Inc.,
as well as various underwriters.

This action consolidates previous lawsuits, namely "Parkside
Capital LLC v. Constar International Inc et al. (Civil Action
No. 03-5020)," filed on September 5, 2003 and "Walter Frejek v.
Constar International Inc. et al. (Civil Action No.03-5166),"
filed on September 15, 2003. The consolidated and amended
complaint, filed June 17, 2004, generally alleges that the
registration statement and prospectus for the Company's initial
public offering of its common stock on November 14, 2002
contained material misrepresentations and/or omissions.  
Plaintiffs claim that defendants in these lawsuits violated
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. Plaintiffs
seek class action certification and an award of damages and
litigation costs and expenses.

Under the Company's charter documents, an agreement with Crown
and an underwriting agreement with Crown and the underwriters,
the Company has incurred certain indemnification and
contribution obligations to the other defendants with respect to
this lawsuit.  

The suit is styled "In re Constar International Inc. Securities
Litigation (Master File No. 03-CV-05020," filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.  
The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

     (1) Bernard M. Gross, 1500 Walnut Street, Suite 600,
         Philadelphia, PA, 19102, Phone: 215.561.3600, Fax:
         215.561.3000, E-mail: bmgross@BernardMGross.com

     (2) Cauley Geller Bowman Coates & Rudman, LLP (New York),
         200 Broadhollow, Suite 406, Melville, NY, 11747 Phone:
         631.367.7100, Fax: 631.367.1173,

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

     (4) Fruchter & Twersky, 60 East 42 Street, New York, NY,
         10021, Phone: 212.687.6655,

     (5) 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

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


CONSTAR INTERNATIONAL: Current, Ex-Workers Lodge FL Injury Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Constar International, Inc. continues to face a lawsuit filed in
the Ninth Judicial Circuit of Florida by former and current
employees of its Orlando, Florida facility seeking unspecified
monetary damages.  The lawsuit alleges bodily injury as a result
of exposure to off-gasses from polyvinyl chloride (PVC) during
the manufacture of plastic bottles from 1980-1987.

PVC suppliers and a manufacturer of the manufacturing equipment
used to process the PVC are also defendants. The litigation is
currently in the discovery stage. The Company believes the
claims are without merit and is aggressively defending against
the claims. A trial with respect to one of the plaintiffs, which
had been docketed for the fourth quarter of 2004, has been
removed from the court's calendar.  A new date has not been
scheduled.


CONTINENTAL CARBON: Ponca Tribe, Tribal Members Lodge Suit in OK
----------------------------------------------------------------
In a bid to halt Continental Carbon Co. from spewing carbon
black over Ponca land and tribal members and coating everything
surrounding the factory in black soot, the Ponca Tribe and
individual tribal members launched a federal class action
lawsuit against the company, The Indian Country Today reports.

Filed in federal court in the Western District of Oklahoma, the
suit seeks a court order forcing Continental Carbon Co. to halt
polluting the land and air. Additionally, it demands the company
clean up the properties it continues to pollute and seeks
damages for the Ponca Tribe and its people.  The complaint
alleges trespass, private nuisance, public nuisance, failure to
warn, personal injuries, negligence, medical monitoring, unjust
enrichment and punitive damages.  The defendants named in the
suit are Continental Carbon Co., China Synthetic Rubber Corp.
and its domestic corporation, CSRC USA and Taiwan Cement Corp.
The parent company is a publicly traded corporation in Taiwan,
which owns the Ponca City carbon black facility, while CSRC is
the fourth-largest producer of carbon black in the world.

Carbon black, which contains constituent polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons, or PAHs, a known carcinogen to humans, is a
reinforcement product in automobile tires and hoses and used as
a colorant in printing inks and resins. It is also used as
conductivity-imparting filler.

Ponca Tribal Chairman Dwight Buffalo Head told Indian County
Today the foreign corporation has shown extreme disregard for
Ponca people. He adds, "The Ponca Tribe and its people have been
living under the black cloud of pollution for too many years.  

He further said, "The Continental Carbon Company has exhibited a
callous disregard towards the Ponca Tribe of Indians and our
people by continuing to pollute our people, our lands, and our
air. The Ponca Tribe was forced to take this land at gunpoint by
the government, and now it is all we have left. This foreign
corporation has come to our homelands and made millions off the
backs of Indians. Our people are standing up to Continental
Carbon and telling them to stop polluting us, our elderly, and
our children, to clean up their mess, and to go back where they
came from. The Ponca Tribe will take all measures necessary to
stop the operations of the Continental Carbon Company in efforts
to save our people, our lands, and our very way of life."

Carter Camp, Ponca member and administrative assistant to the
tribal council, told Indian Country Today, "Carbon black is a
minute particle, so small it can be breathed into the lungs. The
Ponca Tribe has 20 homes right under the smokestacks. We feel it
is our duty to protect the people and our environment."

Combined with the other toxins released from the surrounding oil
refineries, Ponca's air, land and water have become polluted
with toxic substances that result in cancer and other diseases,
Mr. Camp adds.  The Ponca Tribe explains that the Ponca cancer
rate is on the rise and the International Cancer Institute lists
carbon black as a carcinogen and that in addition hundreds of
Ponca children and elderly are at risk because of their exposure
to the pollutants.

Scotty Simpson Sr., one of the Ponca plaintiffs, who lives in
the shadow of the smokestacks told the Indian Country Today, "My
home is filled with carbon black dust - my children and little
grandchildren can't even play in the yard or in our house
without being covered with black powder, which is difficult to
wash off. We can wash most of it off their skin, but we can't
clean their lungs. I didn't ask carbon black to move here. Now
they want me to move and leave my ancestral homeland. Not only
do they not care that their pollution is killing our people,
they don't understand Indian people. I want carbon black out of
here."

In 2004, Ponca tribal members faced off with Taiwanese police
and risked arrest and deportation when they attempted to meet
with the corporate owners in Taiwan. Dan Jones, then acting
director of the Ponca Tribe's Office of Environmental
Management, was in a delegation hosted by the representatives of
the Taiwan Confederated Trade Union in Taiwan.

While surrounded by Taiwanese police, Mr. Jones attempted to
meet with the corporate owners and stockholders in session. But,
according to him, the Koo family hired professional actors as
hecklers and the session resulted in a pushing match and near-
brawl in front of where Mr. Jones was seated. The stockholders
eventually voted not to hear the concerns of the Ponca Tribe.  
Describing the pollution and corporate violations on Ponca land
as environmental racism, Mr. Jones told the Indian Country
Today, "The rich don't have to have it around them: they can
send it to the Indians."


DIVERSE MARKETING: Reaches Settlement With FTC For Spam, Fraud
--------------------------------------------------------------
Operators who sent illegal spam and made deceptive claims for a
bogus fuel-saving product that doesn't save fuel have settled
Federal Trade Commission charges that their e-mail and Web sites
violated federal laws. The settlements bar violations of the FTC
Act and the CAN-SPAM Act, and bars the defendants from making or
assisting others to make deceptive product claims.

In October 2004, the FTC filed a suit in U.S. District Court
alleging that marketers, and the resellers working with them,
were making deceptive claims for Fuel MAX and Super FuelMax
products. The Web site operators and their affiliates - spammers
who drove traffic to their site - made claims such as:

     (1) Increase gas mileage 27%+ by helping fuel burn better;

     (2) Reduce emissions by 43%;

     (3) Smoother engine;

     (4) pays for itself FAST!!!!

     (5) Gives an extra 10% more horsepower;

Based on the size of a consumer's gas tank, the consumer
allegedly will save from $8 for a typical 15 gallon gas tank,
but larger V8 SUVs and trucks will save up to $20 per tank.  The
FTC alleged that the magnetic "fuel saver" does not save fuel,
does not increase gas mileage, and does not reduce emissions.  
The agency claimed that the false claims violate the FTC Act.  
The agency also alleges that by providing promotional materials
with false claims to affiliates, the defendants provided them
with the means to violate the FTC Act. The agency charged that
by inserting the names of innocent third parties in the "from"
or "reply to" fields - "spoofing" - and failing to provide a
valid physical postal address, the marketers were violating the
CAN-SPAM Act.

Settlements with Mark C. Ayoub, his companies, Diverse Marketing
Group, Inc., and Diverse Marketing Group LLC; and Floyd and
Marcia Tassin and their company, Net Marketing Croup LLC, bar
them from making misrepresentations in connection with the sale
of fuel-saving devices or any product or service sold over the
Internet. They prohibit them from providing others with the
means and instrumentalities to commit deception. The settlements
also bar future violations of the FTC Act and CAN-SPAM Act.
Based on financial information provided by the defendants, a
$292,000 payment by Ayoub and his companies and a $9,000 payment
by the Tassin defendants have been suspended. Should the agency
find that the financial information was falsified, the full
amounts will be immediately due.

Litigation with other defendants in this case, International
Research and Development of Nevada and Anthony Renda continues.  
The Commission vote to accept the settlements was 5-0.

Copies of the stipulated judgments and orders are available from
the FTC's Web site at http://www.ftc.govand also from the FTC's  
Consumer Response Center, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue,
N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580. The FTC works for the consumer to
prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices in
the marketplace and to provide information to help consumers
spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or
Spanish (bilingual counselors are available to take complaints),
or to get free information on any of 150 consumer topics, call
toll-free, 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357), or use the complaint
form at http://www.ftc.gov.The FTC enters Internet,  
telemarketing, identity theft, and other fraud-related
complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database
available to hundreds of civil and criminal law enforcement
agencies in the U.S. and abroad.


DUTCHMAN MANUFACTURING: Recalls 434 Motorhomes For Crash Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dutchmen Manufacturing, Inc. is cooperating with the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) by voluntarily
recalling 434 motorhomes, namely:

     (1) DUTCHMEN / ADIRONDACK, model 2005

     (2) DUTCHMEN / DUTCHMEN LITE, model 2005

     (3) DUTCHMEN / FOUR WINDS EXPRESS, model 2005

     (4) DUTCHMEN / TUNDRA, model 2005

On certain motorhomes equipped with RFD Wheels, there is a
defective weld of the wheels' center hub to the wheel's rim.  
This could result in a wheel separation increasing the risk of a
crash.  

RFD Components is conducting the owner notification and remedy
for this campaign.  The manufactures has not yet provided an
owner notification schedule.  For more details, contact the RFD
Components by Phone:  574-295-3939, the Company by Phone:
574-534-1224 or contact the NHTSA's auto safety hotline:
1-888-327-4236.


EQUITABLE LIFE: Limited Discovery Proceeds in NY ERISA Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Limited discovery is proceeding in the putative class action
filed against The Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United
States' (now known as AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company)
Retirement Plan entitled "STEFANIE HIRT, ET AL. V. THE EQUITABLE
RETIREMENT PLAN FOR EMPLOYEES, MANAGERS AND AGENTS, ET AL." in
the District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The suit was filed in August 2001 against The Equitable
Retirement Plan for Employees, Managers and Agents (the
"Retirement Plan") and The Officers Committee on Benefit Plans
of Equitable Life, as Plan Administrator. The action was brought
by five participants in the Retirement Plan and purports to be
on behalf of "all Plan participants, whether active or retired,
their beneficiaries and Estates, whose accrued benefits or
pension benefits are based on the Plan's Cash Balance Formula."

The complaint challenges the change, effective January 1, 1989,
in the pension benefit formula from a final average pay formula
to a cash balance formula. Plaintiffs allege that the change to
the cash balance formula violates the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA) by reducing the rate of accruals based on
age, failing to comply with ERISA's notice requirements and
improperly applying the formula to retroactively reduce accrued
benefits. The relief sought includes a declaration that the cash
balance plan violates ERISA, an order enjoining the enforcement
of the cash balance formula, reformation and damages.

Defendants answered the complaint in October 2001. In April
2002, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking to certify a class of
"all Plan participants, whether active or retired, their
beneficiaries and Estates, whose accrued benefits or pension
benefits are based on the Plan's Cash Balance Formula." Also in
April 2002, plaintiffs agreed to dismiss with prejudice their
claim that the change to the cash balance formula violates ERISA
by improperly applying the formula to retroactively reduce
accrued benefits. That claim has been dismissed.

In March 2003, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint elaborating
on the remaining claims in the original complaint and adding
additional class and individual claims alleging that the
adoption and announcement of the cash balance formula and the
subsequent announcement of changes in the application of the
cash balance formula failed to comply with ERISA. The parties
agreed that the new individual claims of the five named
plaintiffs regarding the delivery of announcements to them would
be excluded from the class certification. In April 2003,
defendants filed an answer to the amended complaint.

By order dated May 2003, the District Court, as requested by the
parties, certified the case as a class action, including a sub-
class of all current and former Plan participants, whether
active, inactive or retired, their beneficiaries or estates, who
were subject to a 1991 change in application of the cash balance
formula. In July 2003, defendants filed a motion for summary
judgment on the grounds that plaintiffs' claims are barred by
applicable statutes of limitations. In October 2003, the
District Court denied that motion. In July 2004, the parties
filed cross motions for summary judgment asking the court to
find in their respective favors on plaintiffs' claim that the
cash balance formula of the retirement plan violates ERISA's age
discrimination provisions and the notice of plan amendment
distributed by AXA Equitable violated ERISA's notice rules.  
Following a hearing on the motions, the court ordered a limited
amount of additional discovery to be conducted followed by a
subsequent hearing.

The suit is styled "STEFANIE HIRT, ET AL. V. THE EQUITABLE
RETIREMENT PLAN FOR EMPLOYEES, MANAGERS AND AGENTS, ET AL., case
no. 1:01-cv-07920-AKH," filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, under Judge Alvin
K. Hellerstein.  Plaintiffs are represented by Edgar Pauk of Law
Offices of Edgar Pauk, Esq, 144 East 44th Street, Suite 600 New
York, NY 10017 Phone: (212) 983-4000 Fax: 212 808-9808 E-mail:
pauk@tiac.net.  The Company is represented by Wilber H. Boies,
Nancy G. Ross, Terri L. Ross, McDermott, Will & Emery, 227 W.
Monroe Street Suite # 4700 Chicago, IL 60606-5096 E-mail:
tross@mwe.com.   


FIRST PACIFIC: Attorney General Issues Consumer Fraud Advisory
--------------------------------------------------------------
Colorado Attorney General John Suthers issued a consumer
advisory about First Pacific Corporation, an Oregon company that
mailed collection notices to Colorado consumers despite a cease
and desist advisory issued to the company earlier this year.

"Our office has received 65 complaints just today from consumers
regarding these letters," said Mr. Suthers. "We are
investigating the legitimacy of these claims and urge consumers
to keep records of any payments."

The letter demands payment for a past-due dental bill and states
that the debt has been assigned to First Pacific. The letter
also states that failure to pay may impact the consumer's credit
report and may subsequently be turned over to a collection
agency. However, one dentist referenced in a letter claims he
did not sign billing or collection contract with First Pacific,
and another says they cancelled their contract with First
Pacific three years ago.

First Pacific does not have a Colorado collection agency
license. The administrator of the Collection Agency Board in the
Attorney General's Office sent a cease and desist advisory
notice to First Pacific on April 19, 2005 advising it to cease
activities until it responded to an inquiry about its practices
and licensing status. First Pacific's response is due May 9,
2005.

The Attorney General's Office may investigate the matter for
possible violations of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act and
the Colorado Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (CFDCPA). Until
a determination is made of whether First Pacific has the legal
authority to collect these accounts, consumers who owe money to
their dentists may wish to pay the dentist directly.

Consumers may send complaints about First Pacific to the
Colorado Attorney General's Office, Consumer Protection Section,
1525 Sherman St., 5th Fl., Denver, CO 80203 or call the Attorney
General's consumer protection line at 1-800-222-4444. Complaint
forms are available online at
http://www.ago.state.co.us/consline/complaint.pdf.

Consumers have the right to notify a collection agency to cease
communications and to refuse to pay a debt, or to require the
collection agency to provide proof of the debt. Under the
CFDCPA, requests must be made in writing. Consumers are advised
to send requests by certified mail, return receipt requested, to
prove that the business received the consumer's request. More
information on collection agencies is available at:
http://www.ago.state.co.us/CAB.htm.  


FISCHER IMAGING: CO Court Refuses To Approve Lawsuit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Colorado
refused to approve the settlement for the consolidated
securities class action filed against Fischer Imaging
Corporation and three of its former officers and directors,
Morgan Nields, Gerald Knudson and Louis Rivelli.

On April 10, 2003 and on June 3, 2003, The Sorkin, LLC and James
K. Harbert filed punitive class action lawsuits on behalf of
purchasers of shares of the Company's common stock during the
period February 14, 2001 to April 1, 2003.  The suits allege
that, among other things, during the putative class period, the
Company and the individual defendants made materially false
statements in violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act,
Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Exchange Act, and Section 20(a)
of the Exchange Act. The complaints seek unspecified
compensatory damages and other relief.

On August 7, 2003, the Company, and Mr. Nields and Mr. Knudson
moved to dismiss all claims asserted by The Sorkin, LLC and
Harbert. On August 18, 2003, Mr. Rivelli moved to dismiss all
claims asserted in those lawsuits.  On October 20, 2003, Mr.
Harbert moved to dismiss his lawsuit, which the court
subsequently granted.  On October 21, 2003, the Sorkin, LLC and
Mr. Harbert filed an amended class action complaint.  The
amended complaint contains the same claims for relief against
the Company and Mr. Nields and Mr. Rivelli, but does not assert
any claims against Mr. Knudson.

In addition, the amended complaint seeks to recover unspecified
compensatory damages and other relief on behalf of purchasers of
shares of our common stock during the period February 14, 2001
to July 17, 2003.  The Company, Mr. Nields and Mr. Rivelli have
filed motions to dismiss all claims asserted in the amended
complaint.  In September 2004, the Company entered into an
agreement in principle to settle this litigation with
plaintiffs' attorneys and its director and officer liability
insurance provider, Chubb Insurance Company.  This settlement
proposal was submitted to the court for approval, and on March
3, 2005 the court declined to approve the proposal.  As a
result, litigation will continue in this matter.  A hearing on
the motions to dismiss is scheduled for May 6, 2005.


FISHER PRICE: Recalls 54T Dragster Push Toys For Injury Hazard  
--------------------------------------------------------------
In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC), Fisher-Price, of East Aurora, New York is voluntarily
recalling about 54,000 Fisher-Price Lil' Wagster Dragster push
toys.

A young child's chin, jaw, and teeth can get lodged in the
opening at the top of the push toy's round-shaped handle and
incur injuries. Fisher-Price has received nine reports of
injuries associated with the push toy's handle including loose
teeth, cut gums and bruises to the mouth and chin.

The recalled Lil' Wagster Dragster toy is an electronic push toy
for children 1-year-old and up. It has a green racecar base with
red wheels and a blue handle that extends up for the child to
hold. The words "Fisher-Price" are stamped in red on the handle
unit, while the number "3" is stamped in yellow on the front of
the racecar base. The push toy has a model number of B0335,
which is printed on the underside of the toy's racecar base.

Manufactured in Mexico, the toys were sold at all discount
department stores and toy stores nationwide from December 2002
through February 2005 for about $13.

Consumers should take the recalled push toys away from young
children immediately and contact Fisher-Price to receive a
repair kit and installation instructions.

Consumer Contact: Contact Fisher-Price at (800) 991-2444 anytime
or log on to the firm's Web site at
http://www.service.fisher-price.com.


FISHER PRICE: Recalls 154T Pogo Sticks Due To Injury Hazard  
-----------------------------------------------------------
In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC), Fisher-Price, of East Aurora, New York is voluntarily
recalling about 154,000 Fisher-Pricer Grow-To-Pror Pogo Sticks.

An internal metal pin can wear down, causing the pogo sticks to
remain stuck in the down position and release unexpectedly,
posing a risk of fall or facial impact injuries to children.
Fisher-Price has received 17 reports of incidents with the pogo
sticks, including one report of two teeth being lost and one
report where stitches were required. Other injuries involved
cuts and bruises to the face, arms and legs from fall injuries.

The recalled Grow-To-Pror Pogo sticks are traditional pogo
sticks with a round, removable base, two foot pegs and handles
and the words "Grow to Pro Pogo" stamped on the front of the
product. They come in two colors: green (model number 73386) and
pink (model number 77356). The model number can be found
underneath the pogo stick's foot pegs. This recall includes
green pogo sticks manufactured through August 1, 2004, and all
pink pogo sticks. Green pogo sticks manufactured after August 1,
2004, are not included in this recall and are marked with a
round, green sticker underneath the foot peg. Pink pogo sticks
are no longer manufactured.

Manufactured in China, the pogo sticks were sold at discount
department and toy stores nationwide from January 2002 through
August 2004 for between $25 and $30.

Consumers should take the products away from children
immediately and contact Fisher-Price to receive a free
replacement pogo stick.

Consumer Contact: Contact Fisher-Price at (800) 991-2444 anytime
or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.service.fisher-price.com.


GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls Trucks, SUVs Due To Hazard Signal Defect
----------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Corporation is cooperating with the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) by voluntarily
recalling 286,478 trucks and sport utility vehicles, namely:

     (1) BUICK / RAINIER, model 2004

     (2) CHEVROLET / TRAILBLAZER, model 2003-2004

     (3) GMC / ENVOY, model 2003-2004

     (4) ISUZU / ASCENDER, model 2003-2004

     (5) OLDSMOBILE / BRAVADA, model 2003-2004

On certain trucks and sport utility vehicles, the driver wishing
to signal a turn by moving the directional signal lever, (up or
down) may cause the front marker/turn lights and rear turn
lights to flash in a manner similar to hazard warning, rather
than flashing on the desired side only.  The driver may not be
able to clearly signal their intentions to turn, change travel
lanes or potentially warn others of an impaired vehicle
operating condition, increasing the risk of a crash.

Dealers will replace the suspect flasher modules with a new
flasher module designed with sealed relays and more durable
contact material inside of the relays.  The recall is expected
to begin in August 2005.  For more details, contact Chevrolet by
Phone: 1-800-630-2438, GMC by Phone: 1-866-996-9463, Isuzu by
Phone: 1-800-255-6727, Buick by Phone: 1-866-608-8080, and
Oldsmobile by Phone: 1-800-630-6537, or contact the NHTSA's auto
safety hotline: 1-888-327-4236.


HALLWOOD REALTY: Working To Settle DE Suit V. High River Offer
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hallwood Realty Partners L.P. (HRP) and its general partner
Hallwood Realty LLC (Hallwood Realty) is working to settle a
class action filed against them and Hallwood Realty's directors
in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware.

In April 2003, an action, styled "High River Limited Partnership
v. Hallwood Realty, LLC, et al, C.A. No. 20276," was filed
against the Company's general partner, Hallwood Realty, its
directors and HRP as nominal defendant by High River Limited
Partnership, which is indirectly wholly owned by Carl C. Icahn.  
The action related to a tender offer by High River for units of
HRP.  In addition, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against the General Partner, its directors and HRP as nominal
defendant by three purported unitholders of HRP in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware, styled "I.G. Holdings, Inc.,
et al, v. Hallwood Realty LLC, et al, (C.A. No. 20283)," also
relating to the High River tender offer.

On June 30, 2004, the parties to the "I. G. Holdings, Inc., et
al. v. Hallwood Realty, LLC, et al.," action entered into a
Memorandum of Understanding providing for the settlement of that
putative class action. As contemplated by the Memorandum of
Understanding, the parties entered into a Stipulation and
Agreement of Compromise, Settlement and Release on July 29,
2004. Pursuant to the Stipulation of Settlement, the parties
agreed that the action would be certified, for purposes of
settlement only, as a class action consisting of all record and
beneficial owners of partnership interests in HRP (other than
defendants and their affiliates and associates) on July 16,
2004, the effective date of the merger, that the action would be
dismissed with prejudice, and that plaintiffs could make an
application for attorneys' fees and expenses in an amount not to
exceed $2,500,000.  

Defendants agreed not to oppose the fee application.  With
respect to any fees and expenses awarded by the Court of
Chancery, the first $2,000,000 of such amount would be paid by
defendants' insurer and the balance of the amount awarded by the
court, if any, would be paid from a $500,000 fund escrowed from
the merger consideration pursuant to a court order dated July
15, 2004.

On October 25, 2004, the Delaware Court of Chancery held a
hearing on the proposed settlement of the class action and
determined that the settlement was fair, reasonable, adequate
and in the best interests of the class and approved it. There
was one objection to the settlement but the Court rejected it.
The Court also ruled that counsel for the class was entitled to
a fee award in an amount of $2,000,000 (which defendants'
insurer had committed to pay), plus recovery of approximately
$181,000 in expenses which would be paid from a $500,000 escrow
fund established in connection with the effectuation of the
merger.  This escrow fund reflected withholding of $0.31 per
unit of merger consideration payable to HRP unitholders.  

On October 29, 2004, the Delaware Court of Chancery entered an
Order and Final Judgment reflecting (among other things) these
determinations and its approval of the settlement as well as its
approval of the form and manner of notice of the settlement,
certification of the class, release of all defendants and their
affiliates and dismissal of the class action litigation with
prejudice and on the merits.

The Court of Chancery also determined that a portion of the
$500,000 in escrowed funds should be returned to High River,
based on its pro rata ownership of HRP units, and that the
balance of the fund would be returned to HRP's other unitholders
(including the Company) based on their pro rata ownership of HRP
units. Taking into account the $181,000 payable to class counsel
based on their expenses and the approximately $74,000 that was
required to be returned to High River, a balance of $245,000
plus interest remained to be distributed to HRP unitholders
other than High River. This amount was reduced by the
administrative costs and expenses associated with returning this
money to the HRP unitholders. The Company received its allocable
share of the remaining escrow account balance of approximately
$59,000 in February 2005.


HOOPER HOLMES: Examiners File CA Overtime Wage Violations Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hooper Holmes, Inc. faces an overtime wage class action filed in
the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County.  Sylvia
Gayed, one of the Company's examiners in California, filed the
suit alleging violations of California's wage and hour laws.

The complaint alleges that the Company failed to pay overtime
wages, provide meal and rest periods and reimbursement for
expenses incurred in performing examinations. The plaintiff is
attempting to have the lawsuit certified as a class action on
behalf of other examiners who perform similar work for the
Company in California.

The Company currently employs 441 examiners in California and
have employed in excess of 1,200 examiners in California over
the past 48 months.  The Company believes that it has properly
paid its California examiners for overtime worked and intends to
provide a vigorous defense to this litigation, it stated in a
regulatory filing.


JEWEL FOOD: Plaintiffs Appeal IL Milk Antitrust Suit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of the class action filed
against Jewel Food Stores, Inc. and Dominick's Finer Foods, Inc.
in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois alleging milk
price fixing.  The suit is styled "Maureen Baker et al. v. Jewel
Food Stores, Inc. and Dominick's Finer Foods, Inc., Case No. 00L
009664."

The suit alleges, among other things, that the Company and
Dominick's conspired to fix the retail price of milk in nine
Illinois counties in the Chicago area, in violation of the
Illinois Antitrust Act.  The court certified the lawsuit as a
class action on behalf of all persons residing in the nine-
county area who purchased milk from the defendants' retail
stores in these counties during August 1996 to August 2000.

In February 2003 the trial court found in favor of the
defendants and dismissed the case with prejudice.  The
plaintiffs appealed, but on January 12, 2005, the Illinois
Appellate Court upheld the trial court's dismissal of the case.
Plaintiffs have now appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court.

The suit is styled "Maureen Baker et al. v. Jewel Food Stores,
Inc. and Dominick's Finer Foods, Inc., Case No. 00L 009664,"
filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Law
Division, under Judge Timothy C. Evans.  Representing the
plaintiffs is Connelly, Roberts & McGivne, 1 N. Franklin #1200,
Chicago IL 60606, Phone: (312) 251-9600.  Representing the
Company is Will McDermott & Em LLP, 227 W Monroe 31st Floor,
Chicago IL, 60606, Phone: (312) 372-2000.
           

LOS ROBLES: Reaches $4.75M Employee Wage Suit Settlement in CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Thousand Oaks, California-based Los Robles Hospital & Medical
Center agreed to pay $4.75 million to settle an employee class
action lawsuit that claims more than 1,000 workers were owed pay
for missed breaks and overtime, The Associated Press reports.

Respiratory therapists Samer Abasi, Don Cogswell, Jo Krasowski
and David Selvidge had initiated the lawsuit against Los Robles
and its parent company, Nashville, Tennessee-based HCA INC. It
was granted class action status, which thus allowed Los Robles
employees who worked for the hospital from October 23, 1999 to
July 31, 2004, are covered by the settlement.

Court documents show that under the settlement terms approved by
U.S. District Judge George H. King in Los Angeles, the hospital,
which reached an out-of-court agreement with its employees in
December, will pay an average $3,000-plus to each employee.  

Asked about the settlement, employees' attorney Della Bahan told
AP, "We're satisfied," while Hospital attorney Patricia
Stambelos declined to comment.

More employees have been filing so-called "lunch-break lawsuits"
in California since the state's unique green law was enacted in
2000, which in essence requires employers to pay a penalty of
one hour's pay for when required meal and rest breaks were
missed.  Other companies that have been sued under the
relatively new California provision include the J. Jill Group,
Countrywide Financial Corp., the Cheesecake Factory Inc., King's
Seafood Co., Bank of America Corp., Starbucks Corp., RiteAid
Corp. and Wal-Mart.


MACKINAC FINANCIAL: MI Court Approves Securities Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Michigan granted final approval to the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against Mackinac
Financial Corporation (formerly North Country Financial
Corporation), its former chairman, chief executive officer and
director, Ronald G. Ford, and its former chief executive officer
and director, Sherry L. Littlejohn.

A company shareholder filed the first suit, styled "Lanctot v.
Littlejohn, et al.," on June 13, 2003, for alleged violations of
Federal securities laws.  A former shareholder also filed a
similar action, styled "Rosen v. North Country Financial
Corporation, et al.," in the same court.

On September 2, 2003, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Section 78-u-
4(a)(3)(B), plaintiff Charles Lanctot filed a motion requesting
the Court to consolidate the two securities class action cases
(Lanctot and Rosen) under the caption "In re North Country
Financial Corporation Securities Litigation," to appoint him as
"Lead Plaintiff" in the consolidated cases, and to approve the
selection of his counsel as "Lead Plaintiff's Counsel." In an
Order dated September 29, 2003, the Court among other things
consolidated the Lanctot and Rosen actions, designated Charles
D. Lanctot and John F. Stevens as "Lead Plaintiffs," and
designated "Co-Lead Counsel" and "Liaison Counsel" for the
class.

On December 1, 2003, the plaintiffs filed their Corrected
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint ("Amended
Complaint"), which added John F. Stevens as a plaintiff. The
Amended Complaint, which demanded a jury trial, was brought on
behalf of all persons, subject to certain exceptions, who
purchased the Company's common stock during the period from
November 13, 2000, through April 15, 2003.  It alleged that the
Company and the individual defendants violated section 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 of the
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued under the
Exchange Act, by disseminating materially false and misleading
statements and/or concealing material adverse facts concerning
the financial condition and operations of the Company, with
knowledge, or in reckless disregard, of the materially false and
misleading character thereof.  The Amended Complaint also
alleged violations of Section 20 of the Exchange Act by the
individual defendants, by reason of their control, at relevant
times, of the Company.  Among other things, the Amended
Complaint was based upon allegations of deficiencies in the
Company's policies and procedures for safe and sound operation,
including its directorate and management personnel and
practices, credit underwriting, credit administration, and
policies regarding asset/liability management, liquidity, funds
management, and investments, and its compliance with all
applicable laws and regulations, including Regulations O and U
of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (the
"Board"), the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ("FDIC")
Rules and Regulations, and the Michigan Banking Code of 1999.

The Amended Complaint further alleged that:

     (1) the Company's acquisition of American Financial
         Mortgage, which had an "unusually large number of
         defaulted loans . which triggered the attention of
         banking regulators";

     (2) a Cease and Desist Order, dated March 26, 2002,
         which was attached as Exhibit 1 to the Amended
         Complaint, demonstrated how defendants made "false
         statements" in public filings and other communications,
         and were required to take "corrective actions;"

     (3) various public filings were "false because the
         Company's operations resulted in an excessive level of
         adversely classified assets, delinquent loans, and
         nonaccrual loans as well as an inadequate level of
         capital protection for the kind and quality of assets
         held;"

     (4) "according to former employees, loans for Company
         insiders and their related entities were often approved
         regardless of the quality of the loan;" and,

     (5) the Company incorrectly attributed its performance
         to the World Trade Center disaster and other factors
         impacting tourism and hospitality businesses, instead
         of disclosing "insider loans," a "disproportionately
         high loan concentration" in the hospitality industry,
         and information about the Company's banking practices
         and loan loss reserves.

The Amended Complaint sought certification of a class consisting
of all persons who purchased the common stock of the Company on
the open market between the dates noted above, compensatory
damages on a joint and several basis against all defendants,
including the Corporation, plus interest and costs, including
attorney's fees and expert's fees.

On January 23, 2004, the Company and the other defendants filed
their Joint Motion to Dismiss the Corrected Consolidated Amended
Class Action Complaint, principally based on the ground that
plaintiffs had not adequately plead that the Corporation,
through its officers and directors, acted with the intent to
defraud the investing public under the standard articulated in
Helwig v. Vencor, Inc., 251 F.3d 540 (6th Cir. 2001), cert.
dismissed, 536 U.S. 935, 122 S.Ct. 2616 (2002). During the
pendency of the motion to dismiss, a stay of "all discovery and
other proceedings" automatically was imposed under 15 U.S.C.
Section 78u-4(b)(3)(B). Plaintiffs filed their Brief in
Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss on March 8, 2004.
Defendants filed a reply brief in support of their Motion to
Dismiss on March 23, 2004. The Court scheduled an oral argument
on the Motion to Dismiss for May 17, 2004.

Shortly before the hearing on the Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiffs,
the Company and the individual Defendants and their insurer
reached a settlement in principle of all claims asserted in the
consolidated actions. On June 18, 2004, the parties submitted to
the Court their Stipulation of Settlement, which described in
detail the terms and conditions of the settlement. The parties
subsequently modified the Stipulation, which was reflected in
the Revised and Amended Stipulations of Settlement submitted to
the Court.

On August 23, 2004, the Court granted conditional approval of
the settlement as set forth in the Second Revised and Amended
Stipulation of Settlement. On October 15, 2004, the Court
preliminarily certified a class for purposes of settlement only,
approved a form of notice of hearing to be distributed to class
members, and scheduled a hearing concerning final approval of
the settlement. As modified by a Stipulated Order entered on
October 29, 2004, the plaintiffs were allowed to mail notice of
the proposed settlement to members of the class.  Members of the
class were permitted to opt out of the class by written request
postmarked no later than November 29, 2004. Members of the class
who did not opt out and who filed written notice no later than
November 24, 2004, were permitted to object to approval of the
settlement at the hearing concerning final approval before the
Court.

On December 1, 2004, the Court held the hearing concerning final
approval of the settlement. At the conclusion of the hearing,
the Court entered its Order and Final Judgment, in which the
Court certified the action as a class action, certified the
plaintiff class, determined the settlement (as modified by the
Order and Final Judgment) to be fair, reasonable, adequate, and
in the best interests of the plaintiff class, approved the
settlement, specified the claims procedure for members of the
plaintiff class, awarded fees to counsel for the plaintiff
class, and dismissed the action as to the plaintiff class and
all defendants with prejudice. Under the terms of the settlement
approved by the Court, the settlement fund for the plaintiff
class and its counsel aggregated $750,000, of which the Company
contributed $250,000, and the individual defendants contributed
$500,000. The amount contributed by the individual defendants
was covered by insurance.

The suit is styled "In Re North Country Financial Corporation,
case no. 2:03-cv-00119-GJQ," filed in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Michigan, Marquette Division
under Judge Gordon J. Quist.  Representing the plaintiffs is
E. Powell Miller of Miller Shea PC, 950 W University Dr., Ste.
300 Rochester, MI 48307 Phone: (248) 267-1200.  Representing the
Company is Thomas G. McNeill, Dickinson Wright, PLLC (Detroit),
500 Woodward Ave., Ste. 4000 Detroit, MI 48226 Phone:
(313) 223-3632 E-mail: tmcneill@dickinsonwright.com.


NATIONAL RV: Recalls Motorhomes For Product Defect, Fire Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
National R.V., Inc. is cooperating with the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) by voluntarily recalling
several motorhomes, namely:

     (1) NATIONAL / ISLANDER, model 2006

     (2) NATIONAL / TRADEWINDS, model 2006

     (3) NATIONAL / TROPI-CAL, model 2005

On certain motorhomes, the fuse that isolates the batteries was
not installed in the correct location, leaving the cable
unprotected between the fuse and batteries.  The fuse isolator
location presents a risk of a fire.

Dealers will relocate the fuse isolator within 18" of the
batteries, protecting the cable between the fuse and batteries.  
The manufacturer has not yet provided an owner notification
schedule.  For more details, contact the Company by Phone:
800-999-7260 or contact the NHTSA auto safety hotline:
1-888-327-4236.


OMEGA FLEX: CSST Owners Launch Consumer Fraud Suit in AZ Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Omega Flex, Inc., a subsidiary of MesTek, Inc. faces a class
action filed in Arkansas state court, over its TraPipe-brand
corrugated stainless steel tubing (CSST).  The suit also names
three other big CSST manufacturers.

Four individual residents of Arkansas and an individual Texas
resident filed the national class action on behalf of all owners
of installed CSST. Installed CSST is alleged to be defective
because it is alleged to be more susceptible to failure from
near-lightning strikes than traditional black iron pipe.  The
suit alleges that the manufacturers allegedly failed to warn of
CSST's allegedly heightened susceptibility.

A federal court has recently remanded the case to state court in
Arkansas. The parties will next engage in discovery and
disposition of the issue of class certification.  The Company
will oppose both class certification and any request for a
national class.  The Company believes it has valid defenses to
the issues of both class certification and product liability and
the Company will contest these claims vigorously, it stated in a
regulatory filing.


PROTECT AND SERVE: FL AG Issues Illegal Solicitation Advisory
-------------------------------------------------------------
Florida Attorney General Charlie Crist issued a consumer alert
warning Floridians about the unauthorized solicitation of funds
by Protect and Serve USA, an organization that is using the
picture of murder victim Jessica Lunsford to collect money. The
organization has placed pictures of Jessica and John Evander
Couey, the man accused of her murder, on approximately 500
collection boxes placed in convenience stores across the state.
The boxes also carry a statement that asks consumers to donate
$1 to stop sexual predators. Jessica's picture is being used
without the permission of her father, Mark Lunsford.

"This is absolutely unconscionable," said Attorney General
Crist. "To use a deceased child's picture without the parent's
permission is despicable. Consumers need to be aware that this
organization is not connected with the Lunsford family in any
way, and appears to be doing nothing more than capitalizing on a
tragedy that shocked our entire state."

The solicitation could result in civil or criminal actions
against the organization. The Attorney General's Office has
launched a formal investigation under the Deceptive and Unfair
Trade Practices statute and is working closely with the Tampa
Police Department in that agency's investigative efforts.


SAVIENT PHARMACEUTICALS: Asks NJ Court To Dismiss Stock Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Savient Pharmaceuticals, Inc. asked the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey to dismiss the consolidated
securities class action filed against it and three of its
officers.

The first suit was styled "A.F.I.K. Holding SPRL v. Fass, No.
02-6048 (HAA)."  The suit alleges violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The plaintiff
purports to represent a class of shareholders who purchased the
Company's shares between April 19, 1999 and August 2, 2002. The
complaint asserts that certain of the Company's financial
statements were materially false and misleading because the
Company restated its earnings and financial statements for the
years ended 1999, 2000 and 2001, as described in its Current
Report on Form 8-K filed, and its press release issued, on
August 2, 2002.

Five nearly identical actions were filed in early 2003. In
September 2003, the actions were consolidated and co-lead
plaintiffs and co-lead counsel were appointed in accordance with
the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. The parties have
entered into a stipulation which provides for the lead plaintiff
to file an amended consolidated complaint.

The Company's motion is in the briefing stage and we expect that
a hearing will be held in the first half of 2005.

The suit is styled "A.F.I.K. HOLDING SPR, et al v. FASS, et al,
case no. 2:02-cv-06048-HAA-GDH," filed in the United States
District Court in New Jersey under Judge Harold A. Ackerman.  
The plaintiffs are represented by:

     (1) MARVIN L. FRANK, MURRAY, FRANK & SAILER, LLP, 275
         MADISON AVENUE SUITE 801 NEW YORK, NY 10016, Phone:
         (212) 682-1818 Fax: (212) 682-1892;

     (2) OLIMPIO LEE SQUITIERI, SQUITIERI & FEARON, LLP, 13
         JAMES STREET MORRISTOWN, NJ 07960 Phone: 973-267-4488
         E-mail: lee@sfclasslaw.com

     (3) JOSEPH J. DEPALMA, LITE, DEPALMA, GREENBERG & RIVAS,
         LLC TWO GATEWAY CENTER 12TH FLOOR NEWARK, NJ 07102-5003
         Phone: (973) 623-3000 E-mail: jdepalma@ldgrlaw.com  

The defendants are represented by:

     (i) ROGER B. KAPLAN, GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP, 200 CAMPUS
         DRIVE PO BOX 677 FLORHAM PARK, NJ 07932-0677 Phone:
         (973) 360-7957 Fax: (973) 301-8410 E-mail:
         kaplanr@gtlaw.com

    (ii) M. MATTHEW MANNION, WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER, 90
         WOODBRIDGE CENTER DRIVE SUITE 900, BOX 10 WOODBRIDGE,
         NJ 07095-0958 Phone: (732)636-8000 E-mail:
         mmannion@wilentz.com   


STARWOOD HOTELS: Reaches Settlement For FL AG Consumer Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
Florida Attorney General Charlie Crist reached a settlement with
Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc., a Maryland-based
hotel corporation that owns or manages numerous hotels in
Florida. Starwood owns and/or manages hotels in Florida under
the Westin, Sheraton, Four Points, W, The Luxury Collection and
St. Regis brand names.

The Attorney General's Office received numerous complaints that
hotels in Florida were adding "energy surcharges" to guests'
bills and investigations were initiated against several hotel
chains, including Starwood. These investigations revealed that
some hotels were adding energy surcharges as well as other
automatic charges, such as resort fees, to the bills of hotel
guests without prior disclosure. The investigations of these
practices continue, and the Attorney General is currently in
litigation with one hotel chain concerning these practices.
Starwood is the first of the hotel chains currently under
investigation to come forward to work with the Attorney
General's Office toward resolving the issue of automatic charges
made by hotels in Florida.

"The tourism industry is vital to Florida, and the reputation of
that industry must be beyond reproach," said Mr. Crist. "Whether
traveling for business or on vacation, Floridians and those
coming to our state should not arrive at their hotels and be
surprised by unexpected hotel charges."

The settlement states that for two years, Starwood's 14 owned or
managed Florida hotels participating in the agreement will not
impose any automatic hotel charge on hotel guests, unless the
guests are part of a group that agreed to pay the charges in a
contract with the hotel negotiated prior to the effective date
of the agreement. The participating hotels will also not enter
into new group contracts that provide for or permit any
automatic hotel charge. The participating hotels are: the
Sheraton Suites Tampa Airport, the Sheraton Ft. Lauderdale
Airport Hotel, the Westin Ft. Lauderdale, the Sheraton Bal
Harbour Beach Resort, the Sheraton Suites Key West, the Sheraton
Vistana Resort, the Sheraton PGA Vacation Resort, the Sheraton
Vistana Villages, the Sheraton Suites Cypress Creek, the
Sheraton Suites Plantation, the Diplomat Country Club and Spa,
the Westin Diplomat Resort and Spa, the Atlantic and the Westin
Innisbrook Golf Resort.

Starwood has also agreed to reimburse the Attorney General for
the costs of the investigation and will give $175,000 to the
Attorney General's Seniors vs. Crime program.


TELAXIS COMMUNICATIONS: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against Telaxis
Communications, Inc., the underwriters in the Company's initial
public offering and certain of its officers and directors.  

During the period from June 12 to September 13, 2001, four
purported securities class action lawsuits were filed against
Telaxis in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York, styled "Katz v. Telaxis Communications Corporation et
al.," "Kucera v. Telaxis Communications Corporation et al.,"
"Paquette v. Telaxis Communications Corporation et al.," and
"Inglis v. Telaxis Communications Corporation et al."

On April 19, 2002, the plaintiffs filed a single consolidated
amended complaint which supersedes the individual complaints
originally filed.  The amended complaint alleges, among other
things, violations of the registration and antifraud provisions
of the federal securities laws due to alleged statements in and
omissions from the Company's initial public offering
registration statement concerning the underwriters' alleged
activities in connection with the underwriting of the Company's
shares to the public. The amended complaint seeks, among other
things, unspecified damages and costs associated with the
litigation. These lawsuits have been assigned along with
approximately 1,000 other lawsuits making substantially similar
allegations against approximately 300 other publicly-traded
companies and their public offering underwriters to a single
federal judge in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York for consolidated pre-trial purposes.

On July 15, 2002, together with the other issuer defendants, the
Company filed a collective motion to dismiss the consolidated,
amended complaints against the issuers on various legal grounds
common to all or most of the issuer defendants.  The
underwriters also filed separate motions to dismiss the claims
against them.  In October 2002, the court approved a stipulation
dismissing without prejudice all claims against the Company
directors and officers who had been defendants in the
litigation. On February 19, 2003, the court issued its ruling on
the separate motions to dismiss filed by the issuer defendants
and the underwriter defendants. The court granted in part and
denied in part the issuer defendants' motions. The court
dismissed, with prejudice, all claims brought against the
Company under the anti-fraud provisions of the securities laws.
The court denied the motion to dismiss the claims brought under
the registration provisions of the securities laws (which do not
require that intent to defraud be pleaded) as to the Company and
as to substantially all of the other issuer defendants. The
court denied the underwriter defendants' motion to dismiss in
all respects.

In June 2003, the Company elected to participate in a proposed
settlement agreement with the plaintiffs in this litigation.  
The Company understands that a large majority of the other
issuer defendants have also elected to participate in this
proposed settlement. If ultimately approved by the court, this
proposed settlement would result in the dismissal, with
prejudice, of all claims in the litigation against the Company
and against the other issuer defendants who elect to participate
in the proposed settlement, together with the current or former
officers and directors of participating issuers who were named
as individual defendants.  The proposed settlement does not
provide for the resolution of any claims against the underwriter
defendants. The proposed settlement provides that the insurers
of the participating issuer defendants will guarantee that the
plaintiffs in the cases brought against the participating issuer
defendants will recover at least $1 billion. This means there
will be no monetary obligation to the plaintiffs if they recover
$1 billion or more from the underwriter defendants. In addition,
the Company and the other participating issuer defendants will
be required to assign to the plaintiffs certain claims that the
participating issuer defendants may have against the
underwriters of their IPOs.

The proposed settlement contemplates that any amounts necessary
to fund the guarantee contained in the settlement or settlement-
related expenses would come from participating issuers'
directors and officers liability insurance policy proceeds as
opposed to funds of the participating issuer defendants
themselves.  A participating issuer defendant could be required
to contribute to the costs of the settlement if that issuer's
insurance coverage were insufficient to pay that issuer's
allocable share of the settlement costs.  Therefore, the
potential exposure of each participating issuer defendant should
decrease as the number of participating issuer defendants
increases.

Consummation of the proposed settlement remains conditioned on,
among other things, receipt of both preliminary and final court
approval. Formal settlement documents were submitted to the
court in June 2004, together with a motion asking the court to
preliminarily approve the form of settlement. Certain
underwriters who were named as defendants in the settling cases,
and who are not parties to the proposed settlement, opposed
preliminary approval of the proposed settlement of those cases.
On February 15, 2005, the court issued an order preliminarily
approving the proposed settlement in all respects but one.  The
plaintiffs and the issuer defendants are in the process of
assessing whether to proceed with the proposed settlement, as
modified by the court.  If the plaintiffs and the issuer
defendants elect to proceed with the proposed settlement, as
modified by the court, they will submit revised settlement
documents to the court. The underwriter defendants may then have
an opportunity to object to the revised settlement documents. If
the court preliminarily approves the proposed settlement, notice
of the terms of the proposed settlement be sent to all proposed
class members and a hearing will be scheduled at which any
objections to the proposed settlement may be heard. Thereafter,
the court will determine whether to grant final approval to the
proposed settlement.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


THALIDOMIDE: CT Attorney General Asks FDA To Act On Health Risks
----------------------------------------------------------------
Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal submitted a
citizen's petition to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
demanding that the FDA strengthen warnings to doctors and
patients about the risk of potentially fatal blood clots from
the drug Thalidomide.

As many as one in three cancer patients who take Thalidomide,
sold under the brand name Thalomid by Celgene Corporation, in
combination with a certain chemotherapy drug develop potentially
fatal blood clots, research shows. The drug's labeling, however,
fails to adequately warn doctors and patients of the risk and
may even cause them to downplay the danger.

The petition also asks the FDA to consider price controls on
Thalomid because its skyrocketing cost - up at least 105 percent
since 2003 - may force patients to buy the drug overseas or on
the Internet, short-circuiting strict controls intended to
prevent severe birth defects.

"Powerful and popular as this anti-cancer drug may be, it can
have lethal side effects - dangers that the FDA has disregarded
and the manufacturer has downplayed," Mr. Blumenthal said. "The
FDA failed to adequately warn patients and doctors that
Thalidomide can cause fatal blood clots in as many as one in
three patients if combined with other chemotherapy drugs. Nor
has it fully advised about preventive measures to reduce the
blood clotting risks. At least one Connecticut patient almost
died as a result of such blood clotting while taking
Thalidomide. Far from banning the drug, we want it used wisely
and widely as medically warranted, with full, accurate warnings.

"Vital safeguards are undermined if excessive prices cause
patients to buy the drug overseas or on the Internet. The FDA's
legal obligation to assure drug safety should persuade it to
curb further Thalomid price increases that could ultimately
drive patients to avoid the safety rules. If drug pricing
threatens public health, the FDA must act. The agency must put
public health ahead of drug company profits."

Thalidomide, originally prescribed as a sedative, was banned in
the 1960s after it caused thousands of severe and often fatal
birth defects. In 1998, the FDA approved the drug to treat a
leprosy-related condition under strict guidelines intended to
prevent birth defects.  The drug, however, is prescribed almost
exclusively to treat blood and especially bone marrow cancers,
and other conditions. Such "off label" usage - prescribing a
drug for maladies other than its FDA-approved use - is legal.

Studies show that about 5 percent of cancer patients treated
with Thalomid alone develop blood clots. The risk increases
significantly when Thalomid is combined with other anti-cancer
drugs, rising as high as 33 percent when taken with the
chemotherapy drug doxorubicin.  The drug's current labeling,
however, says only that patients treated with the drug "may"
have a greater risk of developing blood clots. It goes on to say
that "it is not known" if combining Thalomid with "other
medications, including anti-cancer agents, are a contributing
factor" to blood clots, contradicting recent studies about the
drug.  Current Thalomid labeling also fails to inform patients
and doctors that blood thinners have been shown to reduce the
risk of clotting.

Mr. Blumenthal's petition demands that the FDA:

     (1) Order stronger warning and safety labeling to inform
         doctors and patients about the dangers of blood
         clotting when the drug is used to treat cancer,
         especially in combination with chemotherapy drugs, and
         to tell them that blood thinners may reduce that risk.
         Celgene's Australian partner, Pharmion Corporation, has
         already inserted such language into the labeling of the
         drug sold in Australia.

     (2) Issue a "Dear Healthcare Professional" letter - a
         notice to the nation's health care providers -
         informing them of these risks.

     (3) Order additional clinical trials to determine the best
         way to limit the risk of blood clots.

     (4) Consider whether the FDA may use its power to "assure
         safe use" of a drug to limit Thalomid's price so as to
         assure that patients are not driven to buy the drug
         outside the monitoring program, thereby increasing the
         risk of serious birth defects.

About 90,000 people nationwide are prescribed Thalomid.  For
more information, view the Attorney General's petition on this
Website:
http://www.cslib.org/attygenl/press/2005/health/Celgene%20Petiti
on.pdf


UBS WARBURG: Securities Settlement Hearing Set July 25, 2005
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York will hold a fairness hearing the proposed $5 million
settlement in the matter: UBS Warburg / Interspeed Securities
Litigation (Civil Action No. 03-CV-4282 (RMB)) on behalf of all
persons or entities that purchased or otherwise acquired the
shares of Interspeed, Inc. from January 3, 2000 to October 6,
2000.

The hearing will be held on July 25, 2005, at 2:30 p.m., before
the Honorable Richard M. Berman, United States District Judge,
Thurgood Marshall Courthouse, Courtroom 706, 40 Centre Street,
New York, New York.

For more details, contact the Settlement Administrator at UBS
Warburg / Interspeed Securities Litigation, c/o Settlement
Administrator, Gilardi & Co. LLC by Mail: P.O. Box 1120, Corte
Madera, CA 94976-1120 by Phone: 1-800-447-7657 or visit their
Web site: http://www.gilardi.com.


UNITED STATES: Groups Join New "Lawsuit Abuse Reform Coalition"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Emboldened by successful passage of class-action reform
legislation earlier this year, a coalition of more than 70
business and trade groups has organized in support of efforts to
slap even more stringent restrictions on where tort suits may be
filed, The BestWire Services reports.

Organized by the American Tort Reform Association, the newly
formed "Lawsuit Abuse Reform Coalition" -- which includes both
the American Insurance Association and the Property Casualty
Insurers Association of America -- will mobilize in support of
H.R. 420, also known as the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act of 2005,
ATRA said.

Sponsored by Rep Lamar Smith, R-Texas, and 49 cosponsors, LARA
would restrict venues for both state and federal personal-injury
cases to forums where the injury occurred, where the plaintiff
resides at the time of filing or resided at the time of injury,
or where the defendant's principal place of business is located.

According to ATRA, the intent of the rule is limit forum
shopping and "litigation tourism" by plaintiffs in search of
those juries likely to produce the biggest awards.

"There is no reason for cases to be brought elsewhere unless one
is seeking a biased forum for a case to be heard," ATRA General
Counsel Victor E. Schwartz said in a statement. "Wealthy
personal injury lawyers call these places 'magic jurisdictions'
because they promise easy jackpot justice. ATRA calls these
places 'Judicial Hellholes'."

The bill -- which is before the House Subcommittee on Courts,
the Internet, and Intellectual Property -- also would override a
number of changes enacted in 1993 to Rule 11 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, which offers guidelines for
disciplining lawyers who repeatedly file cases deemed
"frivolous."

If passed, the law would remove judicial discretion with regard
to enforcing sanctions against attorneys, law firms or parties
who file frivolous suits. It also would abolish the "safe
harbor" provision allowing parties and their attorneys to avoid
sanctions by withdrawing a suit within 21 days of a filed motion
to sanction.

The bill also would permit imposition of monetary sanctions,
including fines or reimbursement of defense costs; would restore
the opportunity to sanction an attorney for violation of the
discovery process; and would extend Rule 11's provisions to
state cases in which a state judge finds the case affects
interstate commerce by threatening jobs and economic losses to
other states.

Last year, the House passed similar legislation, H.R. 4571, in a
229-174 vote on Sept. 14, but the bill never was moved in the
Senate.

"There was no organized effort," said Melissa Shelk, AIA's vice
president of federal affairs, of the prior Congressional effort.
"Many of us supported (the prior bill), but we weren't a
coalition, so to speak. So we're going to work to grow the
coalition and start to educate senators, and we'll see how far
we can get it moved. I believe it will definitely move through
the House, as the chairman of the subcommittee is a sponsor of
the bill."

PCI spokesman Scott Duncan added that "the goal for this
coalition is basically the same as it was for the class-action
coalition model, and the effectiveness of that coalition was a
major reason why we signed on to this one."

In February, Congress -- including 72 Senators -- approved the
Class Action Fairness Act, which transfers substantially all
class-action suits to federal jurisdiction.

Among the other trade associations to join the coalition are the
National Association of Manufacturers, National Association of
Wholesaler-Distributors, National Federation of Independent
Business, the National Restaurant Association and the U.S.
Chamber Institute for Legal Reform. According to Lisa Rickard,
president of the U.S. Chamber's ILR, small business owners face
more than $88 billion in litigation each year.

"Far too often the system allows, in effect, legal extortion,"
ATRA President Sherman Joyce said in a statement. "The threat of
costly and lengthy litigation forces businesses to settle
frivolous claims that could potentially put them out of
business. While it costs the plaintiff only a little more than a
small filing fee to begin a lawsuit, it costs much more for a
small business to defend against it."


UNIZAN FINANCIAL: Dismissal of OH Securities Suit Deemed Final
--------------------------------------------------------------
The dismissal of the class action filed against Unizan Financial
Corporation is deemed final after plaintiffs failed to appeal
the Common Pleas Court of Stark County, Ohio's ruling.

In February 2004, a lawsuit was filed by two of the
Company's shareholders against the Company, its directors and
certain of its executive officers alleging breach of fiduciary
duty in evaluating and approving the agreement to merge the
Company with Huntington Bancshares Incorporated.  The plaintiffs
requested the court to grant them class action status to bring
the case on behalf of all shareholders.  Among other things, the
lawsuit sought to prevent the Company from merging with
Huntington and requested unspecified monetary damages.

In April 2004, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
lawsuit, which was granted, without prejudice, in May 2004. The
time in which the plaintiffs could appeal the dismissal has
expired.


VONAGE HOLDINGS: CT AG Launches Suit For Faulty VOIP 911 Access
---------------------------------------------------------------
Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal filed a lawsuit
against Vonage Holdings Corporation for misrepresenting its
ability to connect broadband telephone consumers to local 9-1-1
emergency dispatchers.  The Attorney General is filing the suit
in cooperation with Department of Consumer Protection (DCP)
Commissioner Edwin R. Rodriguez, alleging the Company violated
the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA).

The Company is one of the largest providers of Internet-based
telephone service - also known as "Voice Over Internet Protocol
(VoIP)." Companies offer VoIP as the affordable alternative to
conventional telephone services, but some fail to provide the
same 9-1-1 emergency network access.  The lawsuit alleges that
the Company misrepresents its 9-1-1 dialing feature by failing
to properly disclose that 9-1-1 calls over its service may take
longer; may not be routed to a live operator; and are at greater
risk of encountering a busy signal.  Buried in fine print, the
company also advises consumers to maintain other means of
calling 9-1-1.  These limitations could delay - or completely
prevent - emergency response.

"This lawsuit should send an emergency message to Vonage - and
every Internet phone provider - that 9-1-1 is too important for
half-truths," Attorney General Blumenthal said. "Inadequate
disclosure about 9-1-1 capabilities is not only bad business -
it's life threatening. The company deceptively leads consumers
to believe their emergency access will be as reliable as
conventional landlines. Every second wasted routing calls could
mean life or death. This lawsuit should sound an alarm:
Consumers need and deserve to know whether 9-1-1 means real,
immediate human help, or an answering machine."

"Consumers need to know exactly what their 9-1-1 emergency
dialing capabilities are," Commissioner Rodriguez said. "How
Vonage represents those capabilities leaves a false impression
that dialing 9-1-1 will result in direct contact with emergency
dispatchers. There is evidence that that is not the case. As a
matter of public safety, consumers need full disclosure of the
facts in order to make a decision that could have life or death
consequences."

Attorney General Blumenthal and Commissioner Rodriguez urge
consumer caution when subscribing to VoIP services.  Some VoIP
services do not offer 9-1-1 access at all. Others may route 9-1-
1 calls through administrative lines to call centers - rather
than directly to local 9-1-1 emergency dispatchers. Emergency
dispatchers may have more difficulty verifying the caller's
address in these cases, causing response delays.  In one recent
incident, a Torrington woman dialed 9-1-1 when her infant son
required immediate medical attention. Rather than connecting to
an emergency dispatcher, the woman's call was routed to the
police department's main number where she was greeted by a
recording.

The state's lawsuit against the Company seeks financial
penalties and improved disclosures to consumers about its 9-1-1
service capabilities.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases


AVAYA INC.: Chitwood Harley Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NJ
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Chitwood Harley Harnes LLP filed a securities
fraud class action complaint in the United States District Court
for New Jersey against Avaya Inc. ("Avaya" or the "Company")
(NYSE: AV), Donald K. Peterson and Garry K. McGuire on behalf of
purchasers of Avaya securities during the period between October
5, 2004 and April 19, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of materially false
and misleading statements to the market throughout the Class
Period that had the effect of artificially inflating the market
price of the Company's securities. The complaint alleges that
defendants misrepresented and/or omitted to disclose, despite a
duty to do so, that:

     (1) the cost of the integration of Tenovis was much greater
         than represented and would reduce Avaya's earnings by
         at least $.06 per share during fiscal 2005, rather than
         be accretive;

     (2) Avaya was experiencing severe disruptions in sales due
         to changes in its delivery methods of products to
         market; and

     (3) Avaya was experiencing a dramatic reduction of demand
         in its U.S. market. Due to the foregoing, the complaint
         alleges that Avaya had no reasonable basis to project
         an increase in profits or an increase in revenues of
         25-27% for fiscal 2005.

The truth began to emerge on April 19, 2005 when Avaya released
its financial and operational results for the second quarter of
fiscal 2005, reporting revenues and earnings far short of
previous guidance and analyst expectations. The market's
reaction to this news was swift and negative. One analyst at
J.P. Morgan called the results "horrid" and cut its rating on
the stock to "neutral" from "overweight." The stock fell more
than 25% on April 20, 2005 on extremely heavy trading volume.

For more details, contact Lauren S. Antonino, Esq. by Phone:
1-888-873-3999 ext. 6888 by E-mail: LAntonino@chitwoodlaw.com or
visit their Web site: http://www.chitwoodlaw.com.  


AVAYA INC.: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in NJ
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey on behalf of purchasers of Avaya, Inc. (NYSE: AV)
common stock during the period between October 5, 2004 and April
19, 2005 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Avaya and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Avaya provides communication systems, applications and
services for enterprises, including businesses, government
agencies and other organizations.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business and prospects. Specifically, the complaint
alleges that defendants failed to disclose and/or misrepresented
the following adverse facts, which were known to defendants, or
recklessly disregarded by them, at all relevant times:

     (1) the cost of the integration of Tenovis, a company Avaya
         had acquired at the start of the Class Period, was much
         greater than represented and rather than being
         "accretive" to fiscal 2005 earnings or having a
         positive financial impact within a short period of
         time, the acquisition would, in fact, reduce Avaya's
         earnings by at least $.06 per share during fiscal 2005;

     (2) Avaya's changes in its delivery methods of products to
         market was creating severe disruptions in sales;

     (3) Avaya was experiencing a dramatic reduction of demand
         in its U.S. market; and

     (4) based on the foregoing, Avaya had no reasonable basis
         to project an increase in profits or an increase in    
         revenues of 25-27% for fiscal 2005.

On April 19, 2005, Avaya released its financial and operational
results for the second quarter of fiscal 2005 and reported
revenues and earnings far short of previous guidance and analyst
expectations of earnings of $0.17 a share on revenue of $1.29
billion. The investing public's reaction was swift and negative.
One analyst at J.P. Morgan called the results "horrid" and cut
its rating on the stock to "neutral" from "overweight." The
stock fell more than 25% on April 20, 2005, the single biggest
loser on the NYSE, on extremely heavy trading volume.

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


AVAYA INC.: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in NJ
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Stull, Stull & Brody initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey, on behalf of all persons who purchased the
securities of Avaya, Inc. ("Avaya") (NYSE:AV) between October 5,
2004 and April 19, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period") against
Avaya and certain of its officers and/or directors.

The complaint charges defendants with violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Avaya provides communication
systems, applications and services for enterprises, including
businesses, government agencies and other organizations.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business and prospects. Specifically, the complaint
alleges that defendants failed to disclose and/or misrepresented
the following adverse facts, which were known to defendants, or
recklessly disregarded by them, at all relevant times:

     (1) the cost of the integration of Tenovis, a company Avaya
         had acquired at the start of the Class Period, was much
         greater than represented and rather than being
         "accretive" to fiscal 2005 earnings or having a
         positive financial impact within a short period of
         time, the acquisition would, in fact, reduce Avaya's
         earnings by at least $0.06 per share during fiscal
         2005;

     (2) Avaya's changes in its delivery methods of products to
         market was creating severe disruptions in sales;

     (3) Avaya was experiencing a dramatic reduction of demand
         in its U.S. market; and

     (4) based on the foregoing, Avaya had no reasonable basis
         to project an increase in profits or an increase in
         revenues of 25-27% for fiscal 2005.

On April 19, 2005, Avaya released its financial and operational
results for the second quarter of fiscal 2005 and reported
revenues and earnings far short of previous guidance and analyst
expectations of earnings of $0.17 a share on revenue of $1.29
billion. The investing public's reaction was swift and negative.
One analyst at J.P. Morgan called the results "horrid" and cut
its rating on the stock to "neutral" from "overweight." The
stock fell more than 25% on April 20, 2005, the single biggest
loser on the NYSE, on extremely heavy trading volume.

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


COCA-COLA CO.: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in GA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia on behalf of purchasers of The Coca-Cola
Company (NYSE: KO) common stock during the period between
January 30, 2003 and September 15, 2004 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Coke and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Coke manufactures, distributes
and markets non-alcoholic beverage concentrates and syrups,
including fountain syrups, throughout the world.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
made false and misleading statements regarding Coke's business
and prospects. The true facts, which were know to defendants but
concealed from the investing public, were as follows:

     (1) Coke's business strategy was flawed and its business
         model was not working;

     (2) Coke's relationships with its key bottlers were
         impaired and harming Coke's economic performance; and
    
     (3) as a result of the above, Coke's earnings going forward
         would be diminished.

On September 15, 2004, Coke revealed that its second half 2004
financial results would be below forecasted levels. Coke's stock
declined on this news.   

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


FINDWHAT.COM: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in FL
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Florida on
behalf of purchasers of the securities of FindWhat.com (NASDAQ:
FWHT) between January 5, 2004 and May 4, 2005 inclusive, (the
"Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The action is pending in the United States District Court for
the Middle District of Florida against defendants FindWhat.com,
Craig Pisaris-Henderson, Brenda Aguis, Frederick E. Guest, And
Phillip R. Thune.

The Complaint alleges that Defendants issued, or caused to be
issued, false and misleading statements during the Class Period
to artificially inflate the value of FindWhat.com stock.
Beginning on January 5, 2004, with the completion of the first
in a series of mergers and acquisitions by the Company in 2004,
the Company began to accrue intangible assets in excess of their
actual value. In violation of Generally Accepted Accounting
Principals ("GAAP"), the Company disagreed with its outside
auditor, Ernst & Young LLP, with respect to the need to
recognize an impairment of its goodwill in connection with the
Company's 2004 consolidated financial statements. As a result of
the dispute, on May 2, 2005, Ernst & Young LLP resigned. Ernst &
Young LLP also informed the Company of six material weaknesses
in the Company's system of internal control over financial
reporting, and these matters relate to

     (1) purchase accounting,

     (2) goodwill impairment,

     (3) revenue recognition for private label agreements and
         other revenue agreements, excluding those related to
         FindWhat.com Network revenue,

     (4) personnel resources and technical accounting expertise,
  
     (5) quarterly and year-end financial statement close and
         review process, and

     (6) segregation of duties. On May 4, 2005, the Company
         surprised the market with the announcement of the
         resignation of its CFO, Defendant Brenda Aguis.

As a result of these disclosures, During the class period,
Defendants and other Company insiders knew, or recklessly
disregarded the Company's inadequate internal control problems
to facilitate the false impression of financial success to
investors. While Defendants had misled the investing public and
inflated the value of FindWhat.com's stock during the class
period, insiders sold 680,959 shares for personal proceeds of
$11,320.179. Immediately following both of these disclosures,
the Company's stock plummeted, losing $2.04 per share, or 26% of
its value on May 3 and an additional $2.33 per share, or an
astonishing 38% on May 5, 2005.

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


FOREST LABORATORIES: Marc S. Henzel Files Securities Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Forest
Laboratories, Inc. (NYSE: FRX) common stock during the period
between August 15, 2002 and September 1, 2004 (the "Class
Period").

The complaint charges Forest Labs and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Forest Labs develops, manufactures and sells prescription
drug products, as well as non-prescription pharmaceutical
products.

According to the complaint, during the Class Period, defendants
caused Forest Labs' stock price to be overstated by concealing
deficiencies with its Celexa/Lexapro drugs in treating
adolescent depression. When Forest Labs ultimately disclosed an
agreement with the New York State Attorney General to make
available summaries of previously undisclosed studies on the
drugs to the public, the price of Forest Labs stock dropped to
as low as $36 per share.

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


LEAPFROG ENTERPRISES: Marc S. Henzel Files Securities Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of purchasers of the securities
of LeapFrog Enterprises, Inc. (NYSE: LF) from February 11, 2004,
through October 18, 2004.

The complaint charges LeapFrog and certain of its officers and
directors (collectively the ``defendants'') with violations of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 resulting from defendants'
false and misleading statements and omissions, which
artificially inflated the price of LeapFrog's stock during the
Class Period, causing harm to LeapFrog's investors. The
Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
continually assured investors that LeapFrog had taken the
necessary steps to correct the problems in its IT systems and
supply chain infrastructure (and that these efforts had been
successful) and misrepresented and/or failed to disclose that
the Company had not in fact materially improved either its IT
systems or its supply chain infrastructure and these issues were
continuing to have a materially negative effect on its business
and on its ability to accurately forecast results and meet
analysts' sales and earnings expectations. The Complaint claims
that on October 18, 2004, LeapFrog announced that its 2004
earnings would miss its estimates by more than 60% due, in large
part, to its failure to correct the IT and supply chain problems
it said it had taken steps to correct. The announcement prompted
a large sell-off of LeapFrog shares, which fell 34% in a single
day, to a then all-time low of $11.99. Since then, LeapFrog has
also missed fourth quarter estimates by a wide margin and
replaced three members of its senior management, including its
Chief Financial Officer and Chief Operating Officer.

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


MARTEK BIOSCIENCES: Marc S. Henzel Files Securities Suit in MD
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland on behalf of all securities purchasers of Martek
Biosciences Corporation (Nasdaq: MATK) between December 9, 2004
and April 27, 2005 inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Martek, Henry Linsert, Jr., and Peter L.
Buzy with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
More specifically, the complaint alleges that the Company failed
to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse
facts, which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded
by them:

     (1) that due to the Company's productions issues in the
         past, the defendants put in place a system by which
         they allowed their customers to build a moderate level
         of safety stock inventory;

     (2) that throughout the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2004
         and the first quarter of fiscal year 2005, defendants
         manipulated its channels of distribution by flooding
         its major customers with inventory in excess of their
         allotted levels, so that Martek could meet its
         financial numbers and complete an $81.4 million stock
         offering;

     (3) as a result of defendants' channel manipulation,
         Martek's financial results were materially inflated;
         and

     (4) that as a result of the above, the Company's statements
         about its fiscal year 2005 financial performance were
         lacking in any reasonable basis when made.

On April 27, 2005, after the market closed, Martek provided an
update of its earnings estimates and production plan for fiscal
year 2005. Martek revealed it anticipated a decrease in third
quarter sales. News of this shocked the market. Shares of
Martek, on April 28, 2005, fell $32.49 per share, or 45.9
percent, on unusually heavy trading volume.

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


MBNA CORPORATION: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Lawsuit in DE
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP announces
that a class action lawsuit was filed on May 9, 2005 on behalf
of purchasers of the securities MBNA Corp. ("MBNA" or the
"Company") (NYSE: KRB) between January 20, 2005 and April 20,
2005, inclusive, (the "Class Period") seeking to pursue remedies
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The action is pending in the United States District Court for
the District of Delaware against defendants MBNA, Bruce L.
Hammonds (President and CEO) and Kenneth Vecchione (CFO).

The complaint alleges that defendants projected annual income
growth of 10%. In the weeks following the projection, January 31
to February 7, MBNA insiders sold more than one million shares
of their personally-held MBNA stock, including 351,409 shares
sold by defendant Bruce L. Hammond on January 27, 2005 for
proceeds in excess of $9 million. On April 21, 2005, defendants
created what one analyst described as "shock and awe" in the
market place by announcing that first-quarter income was down
93% percent year-over-year, including a one-time restructuring
charge, making it highly unlikely that the Company would be able
to achieve 10% annual income growth, and that, moreover, the
reduced earnings included a $207 million write-down of MBNA's
"interest-only strip receivable," which is a measure of
anticipated credit-card interest payments that is supposed to be
adjusted on an ongoing basis. On this news, shares of MBNA fell
to a two-year intraday low of $18.50 before closing at $19.28,
down $3.83, or 16.6%, on a day most major bank stocks rose.

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


PETCO ANIMAL: Pomerantz Haudek Files Securities Fraud Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP
initiated a class action lawsuit against PETCO Animal Supplies,
Inc. ("PETCO" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:PETC) and three of the
Company's senior officers, on behalf of all persons or entities
who purchased the securities of PETCO from November 18, 2004 to
April 14, 2005 (the "class period"). The case was filed in the
United States District Court, Southern District of California.
The lawsuit is seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

PETCO is a San Diego-based company that owns and operates a
chain of retail pet food and supply stores in the United States
and the District of Columbia. During the class period,
defendants reported strong earnings and sales growth and
represented that such growth would continue in 2005. In fact,
unbeknownst to investors, PETCO's fourth quarter earnings were
materially artificially inflated through accounting
manipulation. In particular, PETCO had been under-accruing
expenses, thereby inflating its earnings. For the same reason,
the Company's favorable projections for 2005 were lacking in any
reasonable basis and were premised on the continuation of the
improper accounting practices.

The complaint further alleges that PETCO and the Company's Chief
Executive Officer, James M. Myers, the Company's Chief Financial
Officer, Rodney Carter and PETCO's Chairman of the Board, Brian
K. Devine, were privy to confidential and proprietary
information concerning the Company, its operations, finances,
financial condition, and present and future business prospects.
Because of their possession of such information, the defendants
had a duty to disseminate promptly accurate and truthful
information with respect to PETCO's financial condition and
performance, growth, operations, financial statements, business,
products, markets, management, earnings and present and future
business prospects, and to correct any previously issued
statements that had become materially misleading or untrue, so
that the market price of PETCO's common stock would be based
upon truthful and accurate information.

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


RHODIA S.A.: Still Stull Brody Files Securities Fraud Suit in NJ
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Stull, Stull & Brody initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey, against Rhodia S.A. ("Rhodia" or the "Company")
(NYSE:RHA), on behalf of purchasers of Rhodia publicly traded
securities between April 26, 2001 and March 23, 2004, inclusive
(the "Class Period").

The complaint alleges that Rhodia violated federal securities
laws by issuing false or misleading information. Specifically,
defendants overstated Rhodia's financial results by failing to
record impairment on a timely basis in order to:

     (1) protect their executive positions and compensation;

     (2) raise EUR 1 billion in Notes in a private placement on
         May 28, 2003, as well as EUR 290 million in a private
         placement of Notes with American investors in 2001; and

     (3) enhance the value of their personal Rhodia holdings.

During the Class Period, defendants knew, but concealed that:

     (i) Rhodia's ChiRex unit was impaired and had not been
         written down in a timely fashion;

    (ii) Rhodia failed to write down deferred tax assets to
         recoverable values in 2002 and failed to do so until
         the end of 2003;

   (iii) Rhodia failed to properly report its outstanding debt;
         and

    (iv) Rhodia failed to include disclosures necessary for
         investors to understand the trends in its business.

On March 23, 2004, it was revealed that French securities
regulators were conducting an inquiry into Rhodia's financial
reporting. On this news, Rhodia fell to $1.50 per share.
Subsequently, it was reported that France's stock market
regulator had found that Rhodia had failed to disclose important
information in a timely fashion beginning in 2001.

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


TRIBUNE CO.: Pomerantz Haudek Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in IL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP
initiated a class action lawsuit on May 5, 2005 in the United
States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, on behalf
of purchasers of the Tribune Company ("Tribune" or the
"Company") (NYSE:TRB) securities during the period from January
24, 2002 through July 15, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint alleges that Tribune and certain of its officers
and directors knowingly or recklessly overstated the Company's
circulation numbers throughout the Class Period, and thereby
caused the Company's stock price to trade at artificially
inflated prices in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

Specifically, the true facts, which were known by defendants but
concealed from the investing public during the Class Period,
were as follows:

     (1) since at least FY 2001, Defendants were inflating the
         circulation of Tribune's Hoy and Newsday publications;
   
     (2) as a result of said inflation, the Company's financial
         results during the Class Period were artificially
         inflated (including revenue, earnings per share ("EPS")
         and accounts receivables), and the Company's
         liabilities were understated;

     (3) the Company's revenue and income was grossly overstated
         by millions of dollars;

     (4) defendants had knowingly established extremely weak, if
         not purposeless, circulation controls which allowed for
         the circulation overstatements and did not require that
         circulation managers certify the claimed circulation;
         and

     (5) as a result, defendants' ability to continue to achieve
         future EPS and revenue growth would be severely
         threatened and would and did result in $95 million in
         costs, fines, refunds and investigation expenditures.

In June 2004, Tribune reported that two of its papers, Newsday
and Hoy, had inflated circulation figures since 2001. This
announcement set off a wave of increased scrutiny throughout the
publishing industry, with advertisers keen to ensure that they
were not being similarly duped. Tribune also came under
increased scrutiny with the Audit Bureau of Circulations, a non-
profit, private entity charged with monitoring the accuracy of
circulation numbers for publications nationwide. As a result of
this increasing pressure, Tribune admitted on July 15, 2004 that
its reported circulation numbers for Hoy and Newsday were
overstated. Tribune eventually announced it was conducting an
internal investigation and that it may refund to advertisers all
amounts that they had been overcharged. In response to this
announcement, Tribune's stock price fell to $41 at the close of
business on July 15, 2004, and has never recovered.

For more details, contact Teresa Webb of Pomerantz Haudek Block
Grossman & Gross LLP by Phone: (888) 476-6529 or by E-mail:
tlwebb@pomlaw.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  * * *