---

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

             Thursday, May 26, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 103

                          Headlines

ALABAMA: Network Airs Segment of Discrimination Suit V. Store
AMERITRADE HOLDING: Plaintiffs Withdraw Appeal of NE Suit Stay
AUDIBLE INC.: Shareholders Launch Securities Fraud Lawsuit in NJ
AXSYS TECHNOLOGIES: GA Court Agrees To Dismiss Beryllium Lawsuit
AXSYS TECHNOLOGIES: Settlement Fund For DE Investor Suit Closed

BANK OF AMERICA: Federal Government Backs Firm in CA Fees Case
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Uninsured Patients Commences Suit in AL Court
COMMUNITY HEALTH: PA Uninsured Patients Commence Fraud Lawsuit
COMMUNITY HEALTH: IL Uninsured Patients File Amended Fraud Suit
COMMUNITY HEALTH: IL Uninsured Patients Commence Fraud Lawsuit

D-LINK SYSTEMS: Lawsuit Settlement Hearing Set July 27, 2005
DYNEGY INC.: Derivative Suit Settlement Hearing Set July 8, 2005
FORESYSTEMS, INC.: PA Judge Enters Judgment in SEC Fraud Case  
GANDER MOUNTAIN: Shareholders File Securities Fraud Suits in MN
HARLEY-DAVIDSON INC.: Denies Allegations in Securities Lawsuits

HLI OPERATING: Settlement Reached For Stock Suit V. Executives
HOMESTORE.COM INC.: Suit Settlement Hearing Set August 29, 2005
ILLINOIS: Residents Sue HUD to Thwart Project's Cancellation
IMERGENT INC.: Shareholders Launch Securities Fraud Suit in Utah
LANDSTAR SYSTEM: Files Partial Motion For Suit Summary Judgment

M&A WEST: Judge Grants SEC Motion in Case V. F. Thomas Eck, III
MERCK & CO.: LA Judge Sees Thousands Cases in Vioxx Litigation
MICROTUNE INC.: NY Court Preliminarily Approves Suit Settlement
MICROTUNE INC.: TX Court Approves Securities Lawsuit Settlement
NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Parties Reach Settlement in SC Derailment Case

NORTHERN TRUST: CA Court Approves Trust Account Suit Settlement
OPTIO SOFTWARE: NY Court Preliminarily Approves Suit Settlement
ORANGE 21: Finkelstein & Krinsk Seeks Lead Plaintiff For CA Suit
ORKIN EXTERMINATING: Appeals Certification of FL Consumer Suit
ORKIN EXTERMINATING: FL, GA Consumers Launch Three Fraud Suits

PPG INDUSTRIES: Trial in PA Glass Antitrust Lawsuit Set in 2006
PROVIDENT FINANCIAL: Suit Settlement Hearing Set July 13, 2005
PULITZER INC.: Plaintiffs Launch Amended DE Suit V. Lee Merger
STOCKERYALE INC.: SEC Lodges Suit in DC Over Sham Press Releases
TOYS `R' US: Plaintiffs Launch Fraud Suit V. Global Toys Merger

UNITED STATES: Activists Launch Suit V. FBI, Justice Department
UNITED STATES: Veterans Sue Defense Chief Over Health Care Cuts
XCEL ENERGY: MN Court Approves Securities Fraud Suit Settlement
XCEL ENERGY: CO Court Approves ERISA Violations Suit Settlement
XCEL ENERGY: NV Court Dismisses Natural Gas Antitrust Lawsuit

                 New Securities Fraud Cases

ABLE LABORATORIES: Brian M. Felgoise Files Securities Suit in NJ
ABLE LABORATORIES: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Suit in NJ
ABLE LABORATORIES: Lasky & Rifkind Lodges Securities Suit in NJ
ABLE LABORATORIES: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Suit in NJ
BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS: Schiffrin & Barroway Files CA Stock Suit

COLLINS & AIKMAN: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Suit in NY
CORN PRODUCTS: Lasky & Rifkind Files Securities Fraud Suit in IL
CRAY INC.: Scott + Scott Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in WA
WATCHGUARD TECHNOLOGIES: Federman & Sherwood Files WA Stock Suit

                           *********

ALABAMA: Network Airs Segment of Discrimination Suit V. Store
-------------------------------------------------------------
The BET network is scheduled to air a segment on its nightly
news program about a class action lawsuit filed against
Dillard's for allegedly overcharging minority clients, The
Montgomery Advertiser reports.

Vaughan Thomas of Montgomery and Debbie Deavers Sturvisant of
Springville, who are part of the class action lawsuit, claim
that the store has a policy of charging black salon customers
higher prices than white customers.  According to Ms. Thomas and
the women's attorney, Patrick Cooper of Birmingham, he will
appear in the segment. He also told the Advertiser that the
lawsuit first made national news when he appeared on CNN.


AMERITRADE HOLDING: Plaintiffs Withdraw Appeal of NE Suit Stay
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs withdrew their appeal of the District Court of
Douglas County, Nebraska's stay of a putative class action filed
against Ameritrade Holding Corporation, claiming the Company was
not able to handle the volume of subscribers to its Internet
brokerage services.   The complaint, as amended, sought
injunctive relief enjoining alleged deceptive, fraudulent and
misleading practices, equitable relief compelling the Company to
increase capacity, and unspecified compensatory damages.

In May 2001, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment in
the matter, which the plaintiffs opposed. The District Court
granted summary judgment for the Company on January 2, 2002, and
the plaintiffs appealed. On August 1, 2003, the Nebraska Supreme
Court reversed the District Court's grant of summary judgment
and remanded the case to the District Court for further
proceedings.  The Nebraska Supreme Court did not decide whether
the plaintiffs' claims have merit.

On October 8, 2003, the Company filed with the District Court a
renewed motion for summary judgment. On August 13, 2004, the
District Court dismissed the plaintiffs' class action
allegations and the claims of fraud, misrepresentation, unjust
enrichment and injunction. The District Court stayed the case
pending arbitration of individual claims of breach of contract
under the customer agreements.  Plaintiffs appealed.  On
November 1, 2004, the Company filed a motion for summary
dismissal of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction on the ground
that the District Court's order was not presently appealable. On
December 15, 2004, plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss their
appeal as premature. The Nebraska Supreme Court dismissed the
appeal on January 7, 2005.


AUDIBLE INC.: Shareholders Launch Securities Fraud Lawsuit in NJ
----------------------------------------------------------------
Audible, Inc. and two of its executives face several class
actions filed in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey.  The plaintiffs purport to represent a
class consisting of all persons (other than the Company's
officers and directors and their affiliates) who purchased
Company securities between November 2, 2004 and February 15,
2005.

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated Section 10(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder
by failing to make complete and accurate disclosures concerning
the Company's future plans and prospects.  The individual
defendants are also alleged to be liable under Section 20(a) of
the Exchange Act.  All of the defendants are alleged to have
sold stock at inflated prices during the Class Period.


AXSYS TECHNOLOGIES: GA Court Agrees To Dismiss Beryllium Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia granted Axsys Techologies, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the
class action filed against it, Lockheed Martin Corporation, and
other companies, styled "Parker, et al v. Brush Wellman, Inc. et
al."

A group of named plaintiffs who are employees, former employees,
or family members of employees and former employees, of Lockheed
Martin Corporation (Lockheed) filed the suit, alleging that they
have suffered personal injuries or are at an increased risk of
developing personal injuries as a result of exposure to
beryllium-containing materials used at Lockheed's facility.  The
plaintiffs purport to represent a class of persons whom they
claim are similarly situated.  The defendants include Lockheed
and various other companies, including the Company, who are
alleged to have supplied beryllium-containing materials used at
the facility.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss based on a lack of
personal jurisdiction.  In April 2005, the court granted the
motion.  In April 2005, the plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint, which stated that the plaintiffs were not renewing
their allegations against the Company.


AXSYS TECHNOLOGIES: Settlement Fund For DE Investor Suit Closed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement fund for the class action filed against Axsys
Technologies, Inc. and three of its directors in the Court of
Chancery in the State of Delaware has been closed.

During 2004, the Company settled the suit, which was filed on
behalf of a purported class of persons who purchased the
Company's preferred stock.  The plaintiff challenged the
Company's decision to redeem all of the Company's outstanding
shares of the preferred stock.  The plaintiff claimed that the
defendants breached fiduciary duties in setting the redemption
price too low and unfairly seeking to advantage holders of
common stock and breached contractual duties as set forth in the
Certificate of Designation governing the preferred stock, as
well as an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.  

In 2004, the Company paid $201 to settle this claim and
reflected the charge as a reduction to paid-in-capital in 2003.  
During the first quarter of 2005, the settlement fund was closed
and $75 of unpaid claims was returned to the Company.  


BANK OF AMERICA: Federal Government Backs Firm in CA Fees Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
The federal government expressed its support for the beleaguered
Bank of America Corporation in a legal case alleging that the
bank improperly tapped into Social Security recipients' funds,
The Reuters News Agency reports.

In a court filing, the government urged a California appeals
court to block a lower court's ruling that would require the
bank to pay $284.4 million to California customers who said it
illegally raided their Social Security benefits to collect fees.  
The class action case involves allegations that the bank from
1994 to 2003 dipped into Social Security direct-deposit accounts
to collect fees for overdrafts and other debts owed by the
California customers.

The bank has vehemently argued that the award by San Francisco
Superior Court Judge Anne Bouliane in October was contrary to
federal and state law. It also contends that it wanted to avoid
having to reimburse customers while it appealed.

Filing its brief on behalf of the Social Security
Administration, the Treasury and the Comptroller of the
Currency, the government stated that Bank of America's practice
was common in the industry and that a decision against the bank
could disrupt industry services to Social Security recipients.


COMMUNITY HEALTH: Uninsured Patients Commences Suit in AL Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Community Health Systems, Inc. faces a class action filed in the
Circuit Court of Barbour County, Alabama (Eufaula Division),
styled "Arleana Lawrence and Robert Hollins v. Lakeview
Community Hospital and Community Health Systems, Inc."

This alleged class action was brought by the plaintiffs on
behalf of themselves and as the representatives of similarly
situated uninsured individuals who were treated at the Company's
Lakeview Hospital or any of its other Alabama hospitals.  The
plaintiffs allege that uninsured patients who do not qualify for
Medicaid, Medicare or charity care are charged unreasonably high
rates for services and materials and that the Company uses
unconscionable methods to collect bills.  The plaintiffs seek
restitution of overpayment, compensatory and other allowable
damages and injunctive relief.


COMMUNITY HEALTH: PA Uninsured Patients Commence Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Community Health Systems, Inc. and its Pottstown Memorial
Hospital faces a class action filed in the Court of Common
Pleas, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, styled "James Monroe v
Pottstown Memorial Hospital and Community Health Systems, Inc."

This alleged class action was brought by the plaintiff on behalf
of himself and as the representative of similarly situated
uninsured individuals who were treated at the Company's
Pottstown Memorial Hospital or any of its other Pennsylvania
hospitals.  The plaintiff alleges that uninsured patients who do
not qualify for Medicaid, Medicare or charity care are charged
unreasonably high rates for services and materials and that the
Company uses unconscionable methods to collect bills.  The
plaintiff seeks recovery under the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade
Practices and Consumer Protection Law, restitution of
overpayment, compensatory and other allowable damages and
injunctive relief.


COMMUNITY HEALTH: IL Uninsured Patients File Amended Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Community Health Systems, Inc. was served with an amended
uninsured patients class action filed in Illinois State Court.

On December 1, 2004, an article was published in an Illinois
newspaper stating that five people filed a class action lawsuit
against Gateway Regional Medical Center, one of the Company's
hospitals, claiming that it charged uninsured and underinsured
patients more than fully insured patients.  On April 8, 2005,
the Company was served with a first amended complaint in this
matter, styled "Chronister, et al. vs. Granite City Illinois
Hospital Company, LLC d/b/a Gateway Regional Medical Center."

The complaint seeks class action status on behalf of the
uninsured patients treated at Gateway Regional Medical Center
and alleges statutory, common law, and consumer fraud in the
manner in which the hospital bills and collects for the services
rendered to uninsured patients.


COMMUNITY HEALTH: IL Uninsured Patients Commence Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Community Health Systems, Inc. was served with a class action,
styled "Sheri Rix v. Heartland Regional Medical Center and
Health Care Systems, Inc.," filed in the Circuit Court of
Williamson County, Illinois.

This alleged class action was brought by the plaintiff on behalf
of herself and as the representative of similarly situated
uninsured individuals who were treated at the Company's
Heartland Regional Medical Center.  The plaintiff alleges that
uninsured patients who do not qualify for Medicaid, Medicare or
charity care are charged unreasonably high rates for services
and materials and that we use unconscionable methods to collect
bills. The plaintiff seeks recovery for breach of contract and
the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, violation of the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act, restitution
of overpayment, and for unjust enrichment.  The plaintiff class
seeks compensatory and other damages and equitable relief.


D-LINK SYSTEMS: Lawsuit Settlement Hearing Set July 27, 2005
------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of the State of California, County of San
Francisco will hold a fairness hearing in the proposed
settlement of the matter of Wireless Products Cases, Case No.
CJC 04-004381 (San Francisco Superior Court) on behalf of all
persons or entities in the United States who purchased between
December 1, 1999 and March 31, 2005 any of the following D-Link
Systems, Inc. wireless products: DI-624, DWL-2000AP, DWL-G520,
DI-824VUP, DWL-2100AP, DWL-G650, DWL-G810, DWL-G800AP, DWL-G132,
DWL-2100AP/LU, DWL-G820, DI-524, DWL-G510, DP-G310, DSM-320,
DWL-G630, DWL-G120, DPG-2000W, DWL-G700AP, DWL-G730AP, DWL-
G650X, DWL-G122, DP-G321, DCS-3220G, DCS-5300G, DI-784, DWL-
AG660, DWL-7100AP, DWL-AG530, DWL-7200AP, DI-774, DWL-AG650,
DWL-7000AP, DWL-AG520, DWL-2700AP, DWL-1700AP, DWL-1750, DWL-
1000AP+, DWL-2200AP, DWL-2210AP, DI-514, DWL-122, DWL-520, DCF-
660W, DWL-810, DP-311U, DCS-900W, DI-713P, DWL-700AP, DWL-650,
DWL-120, DWL-650H, DP-311P, DP-313, DCS-1000W, DWL-900AP, DI-
714, DCF-650W, DWL-500, DWL-1000AP, DI-713, DI-711, DCF-650W/K,
DVC-1100, DCS-2100+, DI-714P+, DWL-810+, DWL-650+, DWL-120+,
DCS-5300W, DWL-800AP+, DI-614+, DWL-900AP+, DWL-520+, DI-754,
DWL-6000AP, DWL-AB650, DWL-A650, DI-764, DWL-5000AP, DWL-AB520,
DWL-A520 (hereinafter "Covered D-Link Wireless Products").

The hearing will be held before the Honorable Richard A. Kramer
on July 27, 2005, 1:30 p.m. at Superior Court of California,
County of San Francisco, Civic Center Courthouse, Department
304, 400 McAllister Street, San Francisco, CA 10007.

Fro more details, contact Jordan L. Lurie Zev B. Zysman of Weiss
& Lurie by Mail: 10940 Wilshire Blvd., 24th Floor, Los Angeles,
California 90024 by Phone: 310-208-2800 or 1-800-437-7918 by E-
mail: wyinfo@wllawca.com or visit:
https://www.d-link-resolution.net/Notice.aspx.  


DYNEGY INC.: Derivative Suit Settlement Hearing Set July 8, 2005
----------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court of Harris County, Texas, 164th Judicial
District will hold a fairness hearing for the proposed
settlement of the matter: In re Dynegy, Inc. Derivative
Litigation, Lead Case No. 2002-25250 on behalf of all
shareholders of the company as of the close of business on May
11, 2005.  

The hearing will be held before the Honorable Martha Hill
Jamison, at 9:00 a.m., July 8, 2005, 1019 Congress, 16th Floor,
Houston, TX 77002.

For more details, contact Haynes and Boone, LLP by Mail: 901
Main Street, Ste. 3100, Dallas 75202 Texas, USA by Phone:
214-651-5000 by Fax: 214-651-5940 or visit their Web site:
http://www.haynesboone.com/.


FORESYSTEMS, INC.: PA Judge Enters Judgment in SEC Fraud Case  
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission reports that the
Honorable David Stewart Cercone of the United States District
Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania entered judgment
in favor of defendant David W. Butler (Butler). The Commission
had charged Mr. Butler with violating the federal securities
laws by trading on the basis of material and non-public
information concerning anticipated quarterly financial results
of ForeSystems, Inc. (ForeSystems).

The Commission alleged that, approximately two weeks prior to
the end of ForeSystems' fiscal year 1997 fourth quarter, Mr.
Butler placed option trades betting on a drop in the price of
ForeSystems' stock.  He placed these trades immediately after
participating in a management conference call during which the
participants discussed ForeSystems' quarterly financial   
condition.   The Commission alleged that, during that     
conference call, Butler learned that ForeSystems likely would
not meet analyst revenue predictions for the fourth quarter of
1997. In fact, ForeSystems ultimately announced financial
results for that quarter that were substantially below results
predicted by analysts. The Commission charged Butler with
violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, and
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 thereunder.

After a four day trial, and upon a motion by the defendant
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(c), Judge Cercone
found by a preponderance of the evidence that the information
possessed by Mr. Butler was speculative at best; and that the
information did not significantly alter the total mix of
information made available to the public. The suit is entitled,
SEC v. David Butler, Civil Action No. 00-cv-1827 (W.D. Pa.) (LR-
19232).


GANDER MOUNTAIN: Shareholders File Securities Fraud Suits in MN
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gander Mountain Company and eight of its present and former
directors and executive officers were named as defendants in six
virtually identical actions, which were filed between January
28, 2005 and March 4, 2005, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota.  These actions are titled as:

     (1) Joseph Merrelli v. Gander Mountain Company, et al.,

     (2) George Patchan v. Gander Mountain Company, et al.

     (3) John Stainbrook v. Gander Mountain Company, et al.

     (4) Robert Schuck v. Gander Mountain Company, et al.,

     (5) William C. Fernalld, Jr. v. Gander Mountain Company, et
         al., and

     (6) Sean Peter Sloan v. Gander Mountain Company, et al.

Each action is a purported class action brought on behalf of all
persons (except defendants) who purchased stock in the Company's
initial public offering on April 20, 2004, or in the open market
between April 20, 2004 and January 13, 2005.  The complaints
allege that the defendants made false and misleading public
statements about the company, and its business and prospects, in
the registration statement and prospectus for the Company's
initial public offering, and in filings with the SEC and press
releases issued thereafter, and that the market price of the
Company's stock was artificially inflated as a result.

The complaints allege claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, and under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934.  The plaintiffs in all
six cases seek compensatory damages on behalf of the alleged
class, an award of attorneys' fees and costs of litigation, and
unspecified equitable/injunctive relief.


HARLEY-DAVIDSON INC.: Denies Allegations in Securities Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Harley-Davidson Inc. denied that it mislead investors in order
to drive up its stock price, The American City Business Journals
reports.
    
Several suits seeking class action status were filed in U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin in
Milwaukee. At least five securities lawsuits have been filed
against the Milwaukee-based motorcycle manufacturer since May
18.  The lawsuits are all filed on behalf of shareholders who
acquired Harley-Davidson stock between January 21 and April 14,
and allege that the company made "false," "misleading" or
"concealing" statements or accounting measures in order to
"artificially" inflate its stock price. It further claims that
the practice allowed the company to sell 740,000 shares of
common stock at inflated prices for approximately $45.9 million
in proceeds. Harley-Davidson announced April 13 that it would
cut back production because of slowing domestic sales, and its
stock price fell nearly 20 percent over the ensuing two trading
days.

In addition, a suit filed on May 18 by the Connecticut law firm
Scott + Scott L.L.C. alleges that "false and concealing
accounting measures" were used to help hide slowing domestic
sales of motorcycles.

In the press statement, however, Harley-Davidson said, "The
company believes the allegations in the lawsuits are without
merit and it intends to vigorously defend against these
actions."

Other law firms that have filed lawsuits on behalf of investors
are Brodsky & Smith L.L.C., Bala Cynwyd, Pa., Schatz & Noble
S.C., Hartford, Conn., Charles J. Piven P.A., Baltimore and
Federman & Sherwood, Oklahoma City.


HLI OPERATING: Settlement Reached For Stock Suit V. Executives
--------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the consolidated securities class action filed
against certain of HLI Operating Company, Inc.'s officers and
directors have reached a settlement for the suit, which is
pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan.

On May 3, 2002, a group of purported purchasers of the Company's
Old Senior Notes and Old Senior Subordinated Notes commenced a
putative class action lawsuit against thirteen of the Company's
former directors and officers (but not the Company) and KPMG
LLP, the Company's independent registered public accounting
firm, in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan.  The complaint seeks damages for an
alleged class of persons who purchased the Company's bonds
between June 3, 1999 and September 5, 2001 and claim to have
been injured because they relied on the Company's allegedly
materially false and misleading financial statements.

On June 27, 2002, the plaintiffs filed an amended class action
complaint adding CIBC World Markets Corporation and Credit
Suisse First Boston Corporation, underwriters for certain bonds
issued by the Company, as defendants, but these parties were
subsequently dismissed from the action. The claims in this
action were not discharged upon the effectiveness of the Plan of
Reorganization because they were not against the Company.

Additionally, before the date the Company commenced its
Chapter 11 Bankruptcy case, four other putative class actions
were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Michigan against the Company and certain of the Company's
directors and officers on behalf of an alleged class of
purchasers of the Company's common stock from June 3, 1999 to
December 13, 2001, based on similar allegations of securities
fraud. On May 10, 2002, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated and
amended class action complaint seeking damages against the
officers and directors (but not the Company) and KPMG. Pursuant
to the Company's Plan of Reorganization, the Company purchased
directors' and officers' liability insurance to cover then-
current and former directors and officers and agreed to
indemnify certain of the Company former directors against
certain liabilities, including those matters described above, up
to an aggregate of $10 million in excess of the directors' and
Officers' liability insurance coverage to or for the benefit of
these indemnities.

The Company has been informed that the parties to these actions
have agreed to a settlement, which includes payment by certain
defendants, including the former directors, of $7.2 million. The
Company is currently unable to determine the amount of such
payment, if any, that it may be required to pay to its former
directors pursuant to this indemnification obligation.


HOMESTORE.COM INC.: Suit Settlement Hearing Set August 29, 2005
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California, Western Division will hold a fairness hearing for
the proposed settlement in the matter: In re Homestore.com, Inc.
Securities Litigation, Master File No. 01-CV-11115 RSWM (CWx) on
behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired the common stock of the company during the period from
January 1, 2000 through December 21, 2001.

The hearing will be held on August 29, 2005 at 9:00 a.m., before
the Honorable Ronald S.W. Lew, United States Courthouse, 312 N.
Spring St., Los Angeles, CA 90012.

For more details, contact Cotchett, Pitre, Simon & McCarthy by
Mail: San Francisco Airport Office Center, 840 Malcolm Road,
Suite 200, Burlingame, California 94010 by Phone: (650) 697-6000
by Fax: (650) 697-0577, 692-1112 or 692-3606 or visit the
following Web sites: http://www.cpsmlaw.com/offices.shtmlor  
http://http://www.homestoresettlement.com.


ILLINOIS: Residents Sue HUD to Thwart Project's Cancellation
------------------------------------------------------------
Lawndale residents launched a class action federal lawsuit and a
preliminary injunction to prevent the U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development (HUD) from illegally terminating a
project-based Section 8 contract on 1,240 housing that comprise
the troubled and controversial Lawndale Restoration Properties.

The lawsuit and injunction was filed by the Sargent Shriver
National Center on Poverty Law in Chicago and the Housing
Preservation Project in Minnesota on behalf of Chicago ACORN, a
non-profit community organization, residents of Lawndale
Restoration Properties and residents in need of affordable
housing in Chicago.

Plaintiffs in the suit also filed a preliminary injunction
Monday morning to block HUD from issuing Housing Choice "Section
8" Vouchers for the property and illegally terminating the
property's project-based Section 8 contract. Monday's press
conference was held after the injunction and lawsuit were filed.

"The key issue is that HUD has made a decision contrary to its
own laws and regulations," says Kate Walz, attorney for the
Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law. Furthermore,
"HUD is ignoring its fair housing obligations in a way that
directly affects the population with the greatest unmet housing
need in Chicago."

The lawsuit is believed to be the first complaint that addresses
HUD's unwritten -- and uncodified -- policy to terminate all
project-based Section 8 contracts when the property is in
foreclosure. According to the suit, HUD has ignored its
obligation to provide subsidized and affordable housing for
families at Lawndale Restoration and families in need of
affordable housing in Chicago. HUD's alternative, the suit
claims, to provide housing vouchers to the families, would fail
to provide real affordable housing for residents of Restoration
Properties, likely displace them from their historic community,
or deny other low-income residents in the city any chance of
obtaining affordable housing in the future.

"HUD is refusing to preserve project-based section 8 housing
even though that housing is very much needed in our community
because of all the development that would price existing
residents out of a place to stay," says Clara Fulwiley, Chicago
ACORN Tenants Union President, who lives in the Lawndale
Restoration buildings with a grandchild. "We want to stay in
this neighborhood and in order to stay, we have to stop HUD from
terminating our housing contract."

More than 90 percent of the residents of Lawndale Restoration
are very low-income and 80 percent of the households are headed
by females with minor children; 10 percent are senior citizens.
More than 99 percent are African-American.

The property is the largest privately-owned subsidized apartment
project in Chicago, consisting of 100 small and large buildings
on 25 city blocks.

After years of failing to provide oversight of the properties,
HUD aims to foreclose on Lawndale Restoration. The lawsuit
claims that HUD has illegally and arbitrarily decided it is its
policy to terminate all project-based Section 8 contracts.

The years-long struggle to decide the fate of this troubled
property also has major implications for the City of Chicago.
The City has requested that HUD transfer the properties to the
City with the current Section 8 contract intact. HUD, however,
says the City must give up that request or lose $20 million in
housing rehab grants. "HUD threatens to continue its decades-
long pattern of inadequately funding rehabilitation of these
housing units unless the City gives up its plans to assure that
the housing units remain permanently affordable," according to
the suit.

The City has also long advocated for improvements at the
property. Over the last twenty years, the City has sued Cecil
Butler, owner of the Lawndale Restoration, dozens of times for
substandard building conditions. Last fall alone, the city cited
the property for more than 1,800 code violations.

Butler and HUD entered into the project-based Section 8 contract
for Lawndale Restoration in the 1980s. Last fall, HUD officials
confirmed that Butler was approximately $900,000 behind in
payments on his HUD-subsidized $51 million mortgage. Late in
December, the agency notified the property's owners, Boulevard
Service Realty Corporation that it intended to foreclose on the
property.

The lawsuit is especially timely in light of the lack of
affordable housing in Chicago and around the nation:

In Chicago alone, statistics shows what's at stake:

     (1) Striking need: Over 137,000 Chicago renter households
         are in need of affordable housing, according to the
         suit. These households are defined as households "with
         incomes less than 30 percent of the area median
         income."

     (2) Loss of units in last six years: Nearly 2,500 project-
         based units have been lost to Chicago since 1999.

     (3) Next five years: Over 38,000 units are project-based
         Section 8 housing are set to expire.

Nationally, about 236,000 units of subsidized housing have been
lost since 1995.

According to the suit, HUD has ignored its obligation to provide
subsidized and affordable housing for families at Lawndale
Restoration and families in need of affordable housing in
Chicago.

HUD's plan to give out 1,000 Section 8 vouchers to Restoration
Properties tenants would make this one of the largest housing
voucher orders in the city's history. That plan, Jack Cann,
another attorney for the Plaintiffs, says, would have major --
and overwhelmingly negative -- implications for tenants. The
lawsuit cites three studies that show the "vast majority of
African-American Chicago families who search for housing with
Housing Choice Vouchers end up in racially segregated, poverty
concentrated areas of Chicago."

One national nonpartisan public policy organization suggests
that residents of subsidized housing around the country could
face similar problems if the president's proposal to destabilize
and defund the voucher program passes.

The State and Local Housing Flexibility Act of 2005, proposed by
HUD and introduced in Congress in April, would make sweeping
changes in federal housing policy, according to the Washington,
D.C.-based Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Among other
things, the proposed legislation would convert the Section 8
housing voucher program into a block grant and eliminate the
requirement that rents be affordable to public housing residents
and voucher- holders."

"The Bush administration proposal on vouchers would take away
most of the protections that are in place for voucher tenants,"
says Will Fischer, a senior policy analyst for the nonpartisan
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities in Washington, D.C. "The
implications are clear. Many tenants would wind up having to pay
considerably more rent. If the rent increases are big enough,
tenants would have to move to substandard or overcrowded
housing."

Chicago ACORN (the Association of Community Organizations for
Reform Now) is a twenty-two-year-old multi-issue community
organization, incorporated in Illinois as a non-profit, with
chapters in the North Lawndale, Englewood and Little Village
communities of Chicago.

For more details, contact Madeline Talbott of Chicago ACORN by
Phone: +1-312-939-7488 or +1-312-217-2456 by Fax:
+1-312-939-8256 or by E-mail: ilacorn@acorn.org.


IMERGENT INC.: Shareholders Launch Securities Fraud Suit in Utah
----------------------------------------------------------------
iMergent, Inc. faces various securities class actions filed in
the United States District Court for the District of Utah,
alleging violations of federal securities laws.

On March 9, 2005, Elliot Firestone filed a purported class
action styled as "Elliot Firestone, On Behalf of Himself and All
Others Similarly Situated vs. Imergent, Inc., Brandon B. Lewis,
Robert M. Lewis, Donald L. Danks, David L. Rosenvall, David T.
Wise, Peter Fredericks And Thomas Scheiner, Case number
2:05CV00204," for alleged violations of securities laws.  Mr.
Firestone claimed that the Company made material misleading
statements and omissions.  The suit seeks unspecified damages,
including attorneys' fees and costs.

Since then additional similar purported class action have been
brought against the Company and such persons in the same court.  
The suits were filed on behalf of all persons who purchased the
Company's securities between October 26, 2004 and February 25,
2005, inclusive.  

On April 28th, the Company issued a press release stating,
"iMergent Reports Record Fiscal Third Quarter Revenue, Pre-Tax
Earnings and Cash Flows."  The suits uniformly allege that the
defendants violated the federal securities laws by issuing
materially false and misleading statements throughout the Class
Period that had the effect of artificially inflating the market
price of the Company's securities.

The deadline for parties wishing to be the lead plaintiff to
file additional actions was set on May 9,2005.  After the filing
deadline the Court will determine which Plaintiff shall be
allowed to represent the purported class.  At this time, the
Company is not certain of when a hearing will be held to
determine the lead Plaintiff.


LANDSTAR SYSTEM: Files Partial Motion For Suit Summary Judgment
---------------------------------------------------------------
Landstar System, Inc. filed a partial motion for summary
judgment in the class action filed against it in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Florida,
Jacksonville Division.

On November 1, 2002, the Owner Operator Independent Drivers
Association, Inc. (OOIDA) and six individual Independent
Contractors filed the suit, alleging that certain aspects of the
Company's motor carrier leases with its Independent Contractors
violate certain federal leasing regulations and seeks injunctive
relief, an unspecified amount of damages and attorney's fees.

On March 8 and June 4, 2004, the Court dismissed all claims of
one of the six plaintiffs on the grounds that the ICC
Termination Act (the "Act") is not applicable to leases signed
before the Act's January 1, 1996, effective date, and dismissed
all claims of all remaining Plaintiffs against four of the seven
Company entities previously named as Defendants, namely:

     (1) Landstar System, Inc.,

     (2) Landstar Express America, Inc.,

     (3) Landstar Gemini, Inc. and

     (4) Landstar Logistics, Inc.

With respect to the remaining claims, the June 4, 2004 order
held that the Act created a private right of action to which a
four-year statute of limitations applies. On November 30, 2004,
the Court heard oral argument on a motion by OOIDA to certify
the case as a class action.  The Court is expected to rule
within the next several months on the class-certification
motion.  Trial for this matter has been set for the trial term
beginning October 3, 2005.  On March 28, 2005, the Court granted
Plaintiffs' motion to amend their Complaint to expand it to
include additional alleged compensation-adjustments and charge-
backs, the original Complaint's allegations of inadequate
disclosures and unauthorized charges under the federal leasing
regulations.  On March 30, 2005, the Court invited Defendants to
file a revised motion for partial summary judgment to address
the claims of the Amended Complaint.


M&A WEST: Judge Grants SEC Motion in Case V. F. Thomas Eck, III
---------------------------------------------------------------
On April 27, 2005, U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker of the
Northern District of California granted the Securities and
Exchange Commission's motion for summary judgment against F.
Thomas Eck, III, and ordered Mr. Eck to pay $550,000 in civil
monetary penalties for his role in a case involving a "pump and
dump" scheme.

According to the Court's order, Mr. Eck and others devised a
scheme to distribute to the public securities issued by
companies controlled by M&A West. Through a series of
transactions, Eck and others initially sold the companies'
securities to various nominees that Eck and others controlled.  
Then, after creating artificial investor demand by trading
among the nominees, the nominees sold the securities to the
public. Mr. Eck and the others thereby effected unregistered
distributions of the securities to the public.  As a further
result of their scheme, M&A West's financial statements were
falsified.

Based on the Commission's unopposed motion, which relied upon
Mr. Eck's plea agreement in the related criminal securities
fraud case, United States v. Eck, No. CR-01-325 VRW (N.D. Cal.),
the Court found Eck liable for: aiding and abetting securities
fraud in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (Exchange Act), and Rule 10b-5; the unregistered
sale and distribution of securities in violation of Section 5(a)
and 5(c) of the Securities Act of 1933 (Securities Act); aiding
and abetting the filing of false reports in violation of Section  
13(a) of the Exchange Act and Rules 12b-20, 13a-1, 13a-11, and
13a-13; falsifying books and records in violation of Section
13(b)(5) of the Exchange Act and Rule 13b2-1; aiding and
abetting the failure to keep accurate books, records and  
accounts, and internal accounting controls, in violation Section
13(b)(2) of the Exchange Act; and aiding and abetting the making
of  false representations to auditors, in violation of Rule
13b2-2 under the Exchange Act.  The Court also enjoined Eck
against future violations of each of these provisions.

The Commission filed this action in 2001 against M&A West, Mr.
Eck, and four other individuals, alleging fraud against the
company, Mr. Eck, and three other defendants, and the
unregistered sale of securities against the company, Mr. Eck,
and three other defendants. The Commission continues to litigate
its case against each of the other defendants.   

The case is entitled, SEC v. M&A West, Inc., et al., Civil
Action No. 01-3376, VRW, NDCA (LR-19233; AAE Rel. 2248).


MERCK & CO.: LA Judge Sees Thousands Cases in Vioxx Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
As the numbers of lawsuits continue to rise against Merck & Co.
over its now-withdrawn painkiller Vioxx, a New Orleans federal
judge told dozens of attorneys that there could ultimately be up
to 100,000 cases against the giant drug maker, The Associated
Press reports.

At a monthly status meeting on the litigation, attorneys from
around the nation were given a sense of its huge scale. In that
meeting it was revealed that just last Friday about 30 to 40 new
class action lawsuits involving hundreds of plaintiffs were
filed against the company.  

In the Louisiana Federal Court, where many of the cases have
been sent, there are more than 600 lawsuits, with nearly 500
more on the way.  Observers familiar with the case are
estimating that Merck's liability is massive, between $4 billion
and $30 billion. With so many lawyers, so many plaintiffs, and
so much money at stake, the pace of the litigation is glacial.
The plaintiff's attorneys are squabbling with Merck over records
of thousands of company employees engaged in marketing the drug,
blamed by patients who say they suffered heart attacks and
strokes after taking it.


MICROTUNE INC.: NY Court Preliminarily Approves Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the
consolidated securities class actin filed against Microtune,
Inc., Douglas J. Bartek, former Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer; Everett Rogers, former Chief Financial Officer and Vice
President of Finance and Administration and several investment
banking firms that served as underwriters of the Company's
initial public offering.

Starting on July 11, 2001, multiple purported securities fraud
class action complaints were filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York.  The Company is
aware of at least three such complaints: "Berger v. Goldman,
Sachs & Co., Inc. et al.;" "Atlas v. Microtune et al.;" and
"Ellis Investments Ltd. v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., Inc. et al."  
The complaints are brought purportedly on behalf of all persons
who purchased the Company's common stock from August 4, 2000
through December 6, 2000 and are related to "In re Initial
Public Offering Securities Litigation" (IPO cases).

The Company, Mr. Bartek and Mr. Rogers were served with notice
of the Atlas complaint on August 22, 2001, however, they have
not been served regarding the other referenced complaints. The
Berger and Ellis Investment Ltd. complaints assert claims
against the underwriters only. The complaints were consolidated
and amended on May 29, 2002. The amended complaint alleges
liability under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933, as amended (1933 Act Claims) and Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (1934 Act
Claims), on the grounds that the registration statement for our
initial public offering did not disclose that:

     (1) the underwriters had agreed to allow certain of their
         customers to purchase shares in the offering in
         exchange for excess commissions paid to the
         underwriters, and

     (2) the underwriters had arranged for certain of their
         customers to purchase additional shares in the
         aftermarket at pre-determined prices.

The amended complaint also alleges that false analyst reports
were issued. No specific amount of damages is claimed.

The Company is aware that similar allegations have been made in
other lawsuits filed in the Southern District of New York
challenging over 300 other initial public offerings and
secondary offerings conducted in 1998, 1999 and 2000. Those
cases have been consolidated for pretrial purposes before the
Honorable Shira A. Scheindlin.  On February 19, 2003, the Court
ruled on all defendants' motions to dismiss.  The Court denied
the motions to dismiss the 1933 Act Claims.  The Court did not
dismiss the 1934 Act Claims against the Company and other
issuers and underwriters.

The Company has accepted a settlement proposal presented to all
issuer defendants.  Under the settlement, plaintiffs will
dismiss and release all claims against the Microtune defendants.
The insurance companies collectively responsible for insuring
the issuer defendants in all of the IPO cases will guarantee
plaintiffs a recovery of $1 billion, an amount that covers all
of the IPO cases. Under this guarantee, the insurers will pay
the difference, if any, between $1 billion and the amount
collected by the plaintiffs from the underwriter defendants in
all of the IPO cases.  The Microtune defendants will not be
required to pay any money in the settlement.  However, any
payment made by the insurers will be charged to the respective
insurance policies covering each issuer's case on a "pro rata"
basis (that is, the total insurance company payments will be
divided by the number of cases that settle). If the "pro rata"
charge exceeds the amount of insurance coverage for an issuer,
that issuer would be responsible for additional payments. The
proposal also provides that the insurers will pay for the
company's legal fees going forward. The settlement will require
approval of the Court, which cannot be assured.

On February 15, 2005, the Court issued an order providing
preliminary approval of the settlement except to the extent the
settlement would have cut off contractual indemnification claims
that underwriters may have against securities issuers, such as
Microtune.  The Court set a hearing to consider final approval
of the settlement for January 9, 2006.


MICROTUNE INC.: TX Court Approves Securities Lawsuit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Texas granted final approval to the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against Microtune,
Inc. and:

     (1) former Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive
         Officer Douglas J. Bartek,

     (2) former Chief Financial Officer and Vice-President of
         Finance and Administration Everett Rogers,

     (3) former President and Chief Operating Officer William L.
         Housley, and

     (4) former Chief Financial Officer and former General
         Counsel Nancy A. Richardson

Several suits were initially filed, alleging violations of
federal securities laws and regulations.  The claims of the
plaintiffs in the various lawsuits include that the defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended, as well as SEC Rule 10b-5, resulting in
damages to persons who purchased, converted, exchanged, or
otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between July 23,
2001 and February 20, 2003, inclusive.  The plaintiffs' specific
allegations include that the defendants engaged in fraudulent
accounting and financial practices and misrepresented material
facts and omitted to state material facts necessary to make
other statements made not misleading, and that these
misrepresentations or omissions had the effect of artificially
inflating the Company's stock price.  The alleged
misrepresentations and omissions include, among others,
allegations that:

     (i) the Company materially overstated revenue by
         recognizing certain sales immediately as revenue when
         deferred revenue recognition would have been more
         appropriate;

    (ii) the Company failed to establish reserves when
         appropriate;

   (iii) the Company lacked adequate internal controls to assure
         its financial statements were fairly presented in
         conformity with generally accepted accounting
         principles;

    (iv) the Company lacked sufficient controls and procedures
         for the timely and accurate issuance of periodic press
         releases;

     (v) the Company lacked sufficient means to monitor prior
         public statements to detect whether an update was
         required; and

    (vi) the Company failed to record impairment charges
         relating to the assets acquired with the Transilica
         acquisition at the appropriate time.

On November 23, 2004, the Company and the other defendants
entered into a settlement agreement with the plaintiffs under
which the defendants agreed to settle the consolidated lawsuit
for $5,625,000, inclusive of plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and
costs, in return for a full release of all claims and dismissal
of the consolidated lawsuit. On April 4, 2005, the district
court entered an order of dismissal and final judgment, giving
final approval to the securities class action litigation
settlement.  The Company and the other defendants made no
admission of wrongdoing as part of the settlement. The
settlement is subject to appeal for thirty days from the date of
final court approval.


NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Parties Reach Settlement in SC Derailment Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The defendants in one of the South Carolina's deadliest train
wreck involving hazardous material in nearly three decades
reached a preliminary settlement that would reimburse residents
and businesses affected by the accident, The Associated Press
reports.

The settlement of the class action lawsuit against Norfolk
Southern, which was filed recently and is still subject to a
federal judge's approval, covers 5,400 people forced to evacuate
the town of Graniteville after the January 6 train wreck.

It also outlines how residents and businesses should be
reimbursed for property damages, lost wages and profits. The
settlement does not address the victims who either died or were
hospitalized afterward; they are covered in separate lawsuits.

How much money the railroad will pay will not be known until the
claims are in.

As previously reported in the January 18, 2005 edition of the
Class Action Reporter, a week after a train crash spilled a
toxic chemical, killing nine people and sickening hundreds in
South Carolina, evacuated Graniteville residents, some not yet
able to returns to their homes filed lawsuits against Norfolk
Southern, claiming negligence and nuisance.

About 5,400 residents were evacuated from a one-mile radius of
the crash site after the train wreck ruptured a railcar carrying
chlorine and released a toxic cloud over the town of
Graniteville, killing nine people, injuring hundreds and forcing
the evacuation of thousands.

According to attorney Lew Garrison, "This tragedy was avoidable,
and the community should have been spared the profound grief of
nine fatalities and massive personal losses. The thousands of
citizens bearing this grief and loss should have their fair and
prompt day in court."

At least two lawsuits are seeking class action status, which
needs a judge's approval. One of the lawsuits says Norfolk
Southern failed to properly train its employees, conduct a
timely evacuation and inspect a switch on the track.

Attorney Michael Leizerman said many residents started
contacting lawyers after Norfolk Southern required signatures on
expense checks that waived any future claims. He said residents
were concerned that if they signed the check they wouldn't get
any more money.

Norfolk Southern has since removed the language from the checks,
but Mr. Leizerman, whose firm handles railroad litigation and
has represented many clients in lawsuits against Norfolk
Southern, said some residents distrust the company. He adds, "At
first they were happy to be alive, but then they started really
questioning things." Furthermore, Mr. Leizerman, stated that
residents are concerned about lower property value, property
damage, other losses and emotional distress.

Mr. Garrison said there's no way to know how much a lawsuit
would seek in damages because several people still are
hospitalized and many haven't returned home. "There's a lot more
to this disaster, both in terms of economic and environmental
impact, that are just not known at this point," he said.

Preliminarily investigation had determined that a three-man crew
that parked a two-car train on a spur rail failed to switch the
tracks back to the main rail, which sent an oncoming train into
the parked train. However, the Federal Railroad Administration,
in a safety advisory, stated that the likely cause of the crash
was human error rather than switch failure or sabotage.

Under the preliminary settlement, Norfolk Southern would offer
$2,000 for being evacuated as well as $200 per day, per person,
for those that didn't seek medical attention within 72 hours
after the crash. A family of five evacuated for the maximum 13
days, for example, would receive $15,000, in addition to
property damages and other losses.

U.S. District Judge Margaret Seymour will hold a hearing on the
preliminary settlement soon.

Norfolk Southern attorney Daniel White told AP the agreement
continues the railroad's commitment to take care of people after
the crash. In the days following the wreck, the company
reimbursed residents for expenses like hotel rooms, rental cars,
food and clothing. Additionally, he stated, "Our purpose in
entering into this is to accomplish our goal from day one, and
that is to put fair compensation into the hands of the citizens
of Graniteville. We believe that it is a very fair and generous
settlement."


NORTHERN TRUST: CA Court Approves Trust Account Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
California Superior Court approved the settlement of the class
action filed against Northern Trust Bank of California N.A.,
seeking class-wide reimbursement, with interest and punitive
damages, for approximately 300 trust accounts that were
allegedly charged fees in excess of fee provisions in the
underlying trust documents.  Virtually all of the trust accounts
in the putative class were purchased in 1992 by the California
bank from Trust Services of America, Inc., then a subsidiary of
CalFed.

On August 10, 2004, the Company announced that the California
bank had entered into a settlement in principle to resolve the
putative class action. On March 25, 2005, the court signed an
order giving final approval to the settlement under which the
California bank paid approximately $21 million. The settlement,
including estimated associated costs, resulted in a third
quarter 2004 pre-tax charge of $17.0 million.


OPTIO SOFTWARE: NY Court Preliminarily Approves Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against Optio
Software, Inc., certain of its officers and directors and the
underwriters in its initial public offering (IPO).

On November 13, 2001, a lawsuit styled "Kevin Dewey vs. Optio
Software, Inc., et. al." was filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint was
filed on behalf of persons purchasing the Company's common stock
between December 14, 1999 and December 6, 2000 and seeks class
action status.  The Company is a co-defendant with approximately
300 other issuers in this suit.  The complaint includes
allegations of violations of:

     (1) Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 by all named
         defendants,

     (2) Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 by the
         underwriter defendants,

     (3) Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 by the
         individual defendants, and

     (4) Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
         and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the
         underwriter defendants.

The complaint alleges that the Company's prospectus was
materially false and misleading because it failed to disclose,
among other things, that:

     (i) the underwriters had solicited and received excessive
         and undisclosed commissions from certain investors in
         exchange for which the underwriters allocated to those
         investors material portions of a limited number of
         Optio shares issued in connection with the Optio
         initial public offering; and

    (ii) the underwriters had entered into agreements with
         customers whereby the underwriters agreed to allocate
         Optio shares to those customers in the Optio initial
         public offering in exchange for which the customers
         agreed to purchase additional Optio shares in the
         aftermarket at pre-determined prices.

The complaint seeks unspecified amounts as compensatory damages
as a result of the Company's alleged actions, as well as
punitive damages and reimbursement for the plaintiff's
attorney's fees and associated costs and expenses of the
lawsuit. A proposal to settle the claims against the Company and
other companies and individual defendants in the litigation was
conditionally accepted by the Company. The completion of the
settlement is subject to a number of conditions, including Court
approval.  The Court preliminarily approved the settlement on
February 15, 2005, subject to certain modifications currently
pending approval by the defendants.

Under the settlement, the plaintiffs will dismiss and release
all claims against participating defendants in exchange for a
contingent payment guaranty by the insurance companies
collectively responsible for insuring the issuers in the action.
The Company may still have yet undetermined exposure to the
underwriters pursuant to indemnification provisions in the
underwriting agreement entered into at the time of the initial
public offering. Under the guaranty, all the insurers for all
the issuers will be required to pay an amount equal to $1.0
billion less any amounts ultimately collected by the plaintiffs
from the underwriter defendants in all the cases.

The suit is styled "In re Optio Software, Inc. Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, (SAS)," filed in relation to "IN
re IPO Securities Litigation, 21-MC-92 (Sas)," in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
under Judge Shira A. Scheindlin.  The plaintiff firms in this
litigation are:

     (a) 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

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

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

     (d) 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

     (e) 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

     (f) 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


ORANGE 21: Finkelstein & Krinsk Seeks Lead Plaintiff For CA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Finkelstein & Krinsk, LLP filed a complaint
alleging violations of the federal securities laws by Orange 21,
Inc. and certain of its officers and/or directors.

The class action was commenced in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of California on behalf of
purchasers of Orange 21 securities pursuant to the Company's
Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with
its initial public offering on December 14, 2004, (the "Class
Period").

Following the filing of its complaint, the law firm on behalf of
Memphis Capital Partners, LLC ("Memphis Capital"), is in the
process of now petitioning the Court for Memphis Capital to be
appointed Lead Plaintiff. If any entity wishes to similarly be
represented and apply to be appointed Lead Plaintiff, be aware
that Monday, May 23, 2005, is the last day available for that
purpose.

For more details, contact Jeffrey Krinsk of Finkelstein &
Krinsk, LLP by Phone: 619/238-1333 or 877/493-5366 or by E-mail
jrk@classactionlaw.com.


ORKIN EXTERMINATING: Appeals Certification of FL Consumer Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Orkin Exterminating Company, Inc. appealed the Circuit Court of
Hillsborough County, Tampa, Florida's ruling granting class
certification to a lawsuit filed against it, styled "Butland et
al. v. Orkin Exterminating Company, Inc. et al."

The plaintiffs filed suit in March 1999 and are seeking monetary
damages and injunctive relief.  The Court ruled in early April
2002, certifying the class action lawsuit against the Company.
The Company appealed this ruling to the Florida Second District
Court of Appeals, which remanded the case to the trial court for
further findings. In December, the Court issued a new ruling
certifying the class action.  The Company has appealed this new
ruling to the Florida Second District Court of Appeals.  


ORKIN EXTERMINATING: FL, GA Consumers Launch Three Fraud Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Orkin Exterminating Company, Inc. faces two class actions,
alleging that plaintiffs have been damaged as a result of the
rendering of services by the Company.  The suits are styled
"Ernest W. Warren and Dolores G. Warren et al. v. Orkin
Exterminating Company, Inc., et al., filed in Georgia state
court;" and "Francis D. Petsch, et al. v. Orkin Exterminating
Company, Inc. et al.," filed in Florida state court.

An arbitration filing has also been filed in Jacksonville,
Florida, by Cynthia Garrett against the Company, styled "Cynthia
Garrett v. Orkin, Inc.," in which the plaintiff is seeking  
certification of a class.


PPG INDUSTRIES: Trial in PA Glass Antitrust Lawsuit Set in 2006
---------------------------------------------------------------
Trial for the consolidated antitrust class action filed against
PPG Industries, Inc. and other glass companies is expected to
begin in 2006 in the United States District court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania.

Twenty-nine glass antitrust cases were filed in federal courts,
all of which have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania located in Pittsburgh,
Pennyslvania.  The Court has ruled that the case may proceed as
a class action.  Similar state court actions are inactive
pending resolution of the federal proceedings.

All of the initial defendants in the glass class action
antitrust case, other than the Company, have entered into
settlement agreements with the plaintiffs.  On May 29, 2003, the
Court granted the Company's motion for summary judgment
dismissing the claims against it in the glass class action
antitrust case. The plaintiffs in that case appealed that order
to the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals.  On September 30,
2004, the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed in part
and reversed in part the dismissal of the Company and remanded
the case for further proceedings.  The Company petitioned the
U.S. Supreme Court for permission to appeal the decision of the
U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals, however, the U.S. Supreme
Court rejected the Company's petition for review.


PROVIDENT FINANCIAL: Suit Settlement Hearing Set July 13, 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Ohio, Western Division will hold a fairness hearing for the
proposed $1.6 million settlement in the matter: Provident
Financial Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, Consolidated Civil
Action Master File No. 1:03cv00165 on behalf of all persons or
entities who purchased pr otherwise acquired the common stock of
the firm, during the period March 30, 1998 through March 5,
2003, inclusive, including those acquired stock as a result of
mergers of Fidelity and/or OHSL into the firm, or purchased or
acquired Provident income securities at any time prior to March
5, 2003 and traceable to Prides June 6, 2002 offering materials,
and who were damaged thereby.

The settlement hearing will be held on July 13, 2005, at 9:00
a.m., before the Honorable Timothy S. Black, United States
District Judge, United States District Court, Southern District
of Ohio, Western Division, in Room 708 of the Potter Stewart
U.S. Courthouse, 100 East Fifth Street, Cincinnati, OH 45202.

For more details, contact Richard S. Wayne or Annie Jansen, Esq.
of Strauss & Troy by Mail: The Federal Reserve Building, 150
East Fourth Street, Cincinnati, OH 45202-4018 or by Phone:
(513) 621-2120 OR Deborah Clark-Weintraub of MILBERG WEISS
BERSHAD & SCHULMAN LLP by Mail: One Pennsylvania Plaza, New
York, NY  10119 or by Phone: (212) 594-5300 OR PFGI SECURITIES
LITIGATION c/o The Garden City Group, Inc., Claims Administrator
by Mail: P.O. Box 9000 #6315, Merrick, NY 11566-9000 or visit
their Web site:
http://www.gardencitygroup.com/cases/pdf/PFG/PFGNotice.pdfor  
http://www.gardencitygroup.com/cases/pdf/PFG/PFGelec.pdfor  
http://www.gardencitygroup.com/cases/pdf/PFG/poc.pdf.


PULITZER INC.: Plaintiffs Launch Amended DE Suit V. Lee Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action against
Pulitzer, Inc. in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
in New Castle County captioned "In Re Pulitzer Inc. Shareholder
Litigation, Civil Action No. 1063-N."

On January 29, 2005, the Company entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger (the "Lee Merger Agreement") with Lee
Enterprises, Incorporated, a Delaware corporation (Lee), and LP
Acquisition Corporation, a Delaware corporation and wholly-owned
subsidiary of Lee.

The Amended Complaint purports to be a class action brought on
behalf of all public stockholders of Pulitzer Inc. common stock
other than the defendants (Pulitzer Inc., and the members of its
board of directors) and any related or affiliated party.  The
Amended Complaint asserts, among other things, that:

     (1) the defendants have breached their fiduciary and other
         common law duties in connection with the Lee Merger
         Agreement;

     (2) the defendants have failed to maximize stockholder
         value by, among other things, benefiting themselves
         at the expense of the Company's public stockholders and

     (3) defendants have disseminated to the Company's public
         stockholders incomplete, inaccurate and/or misleading
         information concerning the Lee Merger and matters
         relevant to an informed decision on their investment in
         the Company, in that the disclosure is materially
         incomplete or misleading with respect to, among other
         things, the background of the "Lee" Merger; the
         compensation and/or other benefits that certain of the
         Company's officers and directors will receive in
         connection with the "Lee" Merger; the advisors retained
         by the Company in connection with the "Lee" Merger and
         the fees paid by the Company to those advisors; and the
         analyses performed by Goldman Sachs.

Plaintiffs seek a preliminary and permanent injunction against
the Lee Merger, as well as monetary damages.


STOCKERYALE INC.: SEC Lodges Suit in DC Over Sham Press Releases
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission announced initiated a
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia charging StockerYale, Inc. and Mark W. Blodgett with
fraudulently publishing false and misleading press releases that
misrepresented StockerYale's involvement with a potentially
lucrative Department of Homeland Security project. Mr. Blodgett
is the Chief Executive Officer and President of StockerYale, a
New Hampshire-based company listed on the NASDAQ National
Market.
     
The complaint alleges that StockerYale and Mr. Blodgett failed
to take adequate steps to verify certain material information
contained in two false and misleading press releases created and
published by StockerYale at Blodgett's direction. Among other
things, the press releases falsely stated that StockerYale was
developing a laser for a missile countermeasure system for
commercial planes pursuant to an order received from a defense
contractor. Additionally, the press releases created the
misleading impression that StockerYale was supplying the lasers
as part of a Department of Homeland Security project. In fact,
StockerYale was not involved in any Department of Homeland
Security project and the lasers that StockerYale was developing
for the contractor were not intended for use on commercial
planes.
     
Within minutes of the publication of the first press release on
April 19, 2004, the price and volume of StockerYale's common
stock surged. On April 20, at the height of the surge, the share
price reached $7.75, more than five times the average closing
price for the prior 30 days and $6.30 more than the price at
which the stock closed on Friday April 16. On the morning of
April 20, Blodgett sold 250,000 shares of StockerYale common
stock reaping profits of almost $790,000.
     
Without admitting or denying the allegations made by the
Commission, Mr. Blodgett consented to the entry of an order
permanently enjoining him from violating Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.  The
order requires Blodgett to pay disgorgement plus interest in the
amount of $788,118.92 and a civil penalty in the amount of  
$120,000.  Additionally, without admitting or denying the     
allegations made by the Commission, StockerYale consented to the
entry of an order permanently enjoining the company from
violating Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.

StockerYale also agreed to maintain formal policies with regards
to public communications, insider trading and corporate ethics.
The suit is entitled, SEC v. Mark W. Blodgett and StockerYale,
Inc., Civil Action No. 1:05 CV  01040 (D. D.C.)(LR-19236).


TOYS `R' US: Plaintiffs Launch Fraud Suit V. Global Toys Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action against Toys `R'
Us, Inc. and certain of its officers and directors in the
Delaware Court of Chancery, in and for New Castle County,
opposing the Company's Agreement and Plan of Merger with Global
Toys Acquisition, LLC and Global Toys Acquisition Merger Sub,
Inc. to sell its entire worldwide operations, including both its
global Toys `R' Us and Babies `R' Us businesses.

In March 2005, the Company's stockholders filed two purported
class action complaints, styled "Iron Workers of Western
Pennsylvania Pension & Profit Plans v. Toys `R' Us, Inc., case
no. No. 1212-N," (filed on March 25, 2005) and "Jolly Roger Fund
LP v. Toys `R' Us, Inc., case no. 1218-N, (filed on March 31,
2005).  

The Complaints raise substantially similar allegations on behalf
of a purported class of the Company's stockholders against the
defendants for alleged breaches of fiduciary duty in connection
with the approval of the merger. The Complaints allege that in
determining to enter into the Merger Agreement, the defendants
failed to take appropriate steps to obtain maximum value for
stockholders and did not engage in an adequate, conflict-free,
fair process to obtain maximum value for stockholders, that
certain directors and officers engaged in self-dealing and
suffered from conflicts of interests, and that the defendants
have failed to disclose all material information concerning the
value of the Company and the process leading to the Merger
Agreement.  The Complaints seek to enjoin the consummation of
the proposed merger or, alternatively, to rescind it.  
Plaintiffs also seek an award of damages for the alleged wrongs
asserted in the Complaints.

The lawsuits are in their preliminary stages. On April 20, 2005,
the cases were consolidated in the Court of Chancery in the
State of Delaware in and for New Castle County.  The defendants
have moved to dismiss the lawsuits.


UNITED STATES: Activists Launch Suit V. FBI, Justice Department
---------------------------------------------------------------
Human and animal rights organizations banded together with
religious and civil liberties groups to launch a class action
lawsuit against the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the
Department of Justice, asserting that federal and local law
enforcement in ten states have overstepped their bounds by
targeting and spying on law abiding groups and citizens, The
NewStandard reports.

Court documents reveal that the suit was filed by the United for
Peace and Justice, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals,
American Civil Liberties Union, Greenpeace and the American-Arab
Anti-Discrimination Committee in an effort to force the federal
government to immediately release documents requested under the
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

In December, the ACLU requested documents on behalf of more than
100 groups and individuals who complained that FBI agents
questioned and monitored them prior to last summer's national
political conventions. So far, the organization has received
less than 20 pages in response to the FOIA requests.

One of the released documents revealed that the FBI in Colorado
investigated Food Not Bombs, an anti-war group that provides
free vegetarian food to homeless people and activists, and
conducted "pretext interviews," which the ACLU alleges were
intended to intimidate members.

The ACLU also claimed that the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Forces
(JTTF) may have engaged in "increased surveillance and
infiltration of political, religious, and community
organizations," infringing on "the public's free speech, free
association and privacy rights, which are guaranteed by the
First, Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments..."


UNITED STATES: Veterans Sue Defense Chief Over Health Care Cuts
---------------------------------------------------------------
Approximately 1,000 residents of the Armed Forces Retirement
Home in Washington, one of two such institutions managed by the
Defense Department, launched a class action lawsuit in federal
court against Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, contending
that the Pentagon chief has imposed excessive and illegal
cutbacks in on-site medical and dental services, The Associated
Press reports.

However, in an interview with the historic retirement home's
chief financial officer, Steve McManus, he stated to AP that the
residents who filed the complaint do not fully understand the
reasons for some of the changes and adds that they have not only
saved money but also produced efficiencies and improvements with
the imposed changes. He also adds, "We're really trying to
improve the benefits for our residents and create the foundation
for the financial stability of the Armed Forces Retirement
Home." The budget for operating the home has fallen from about
$63 million last year to $58 million this year, he said.

In their complaint, the home's residents said Sec. Rumsfeld has
a ready remedy for the financial problems that led to the
cutbacks in services and staffing, but he has chosen not to act.
They also claim that Congress gave the Pentagon authority in
1994 to increase one source of the home's operating funds - a
50-cent-per-month payroll deduction paid by every enlisted
member and warrant officer in the military. The suit contends
that by raising it to $1 per month, it would generate $7 million
a year in new revenue.

The retirement home's operating costs are borne mainly by a
trust fund and by monthly fees paid by its residents. Another
source of revenue are the fines and forfeitures levied upon
members of the active-duty military in judicial proceedings.

According to the lawsuit, which also named as a defendant the
Pentagon official who manages the home, Timothy Cox, by law the
Armed Forces Retirement Homes, in Washington and in Gulfport,
Mississippi, must provide "on-site primary care, medical care
and a continuum of long-term care services." But, the suit
claims that in an April 27, 2004 letter to the residents group
that was pushing for a reversal of cutbacks, Mr. Cox asserted
that the reduced level of services was in compliance with the
law, according to the lawsuit.

A spokesman for the group, Homer C. Rutherford, a retired Air
Force senior master sergeant who has lived at the home for three
years, told AP that he had personally appealed to staff members
of the House and Senate armed services committees to address the
problem, but to no avail. "This is why we're following through
with this class-action suit. We feel we have nowhere else to go,
and we feel that it is something that is vitally necessary for
the health and welfare of the American veterans who are here at
the home," he adds.

Among the cutbacks cited by Sec. Rutherford and other residents
are the closing in 2003 of the home's main clinic and an on-site
pharmacy, elimination of on-site X-ray and electrocardiogram
services and reductions in annual physicals as well as the
number of on-site dentists.

The retirement home, previously known as the Soldiers' and
Airmen's Home, was opened in 1851 for wounded and disabled war
veterans. Four of the original buildings are still standing and
are registered as national historic landmarks.

Veterans can live there if their active duty service in the
military was at least 50 percent enlisted or warrant officer.
They must have served on active duty for at least 20 years and
be at least 60 years old. Also eligible are veterans unable to
earn a living due to a service-related disability or whose
disability is not service related but who served in a war zone.
All female veterans who served before 1948 are eligible.


XCEL ENERGY: MN Court Approves Securities Fraud Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota
granted final approval to the settlement of the class action
filed against Xcel Energy, Inc. and certain of its and NRG
Energy, Inc.'s executives.

On July 31, 2002, a lawsuit purporting to be a class action on
behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock between
January 31, 2001, and July 26, 2002, was filed.  Among other
things, the complaint alleged violations of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10(b-5) related to allegedly
false and misleading disclosures concerning various issues
including but not limited to "round trip" energy trades, the
nature, extent and seriousness of liquidity and credit
difficulties at NRG and the existence of cross-default
provisions (with NRG credit agreements) in certain of the
Company's credit agreements.  

After filing the lawsuit, several additional lawsuits were filed
with similar allegations and all have been consolidated.  On
January 14, 2005, the court issued an order of preliminary
approval for a settlement reached by the parties.  Under the
terms of the settlement, the plaintiffs are to receive $80
million, with the Company's insurance carriers paying $62.5
million, and the Company paying $17.5 million.  On April 1,
2005, the Court entered a final order approving the settlement
and dismissing the lawsuit with prejudice.


XCEL ENERGY: CO Court Approves ERISA Violations Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Colorado
granted final approval to the settlement of the class actions
filed against Xcel Energy, Inc., alleging violations of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

Two suits, namely "Newcome vs. Xcel Energy Inc." and "Barday vs.
Xcel Energy Inc.," were filed on behalf of classes of employee
participants in the Company's and its predecessors' 401(k) or
ESOP plans, from as early as September 23, 1999, forward. The
complaints in the actions name as defendants the Company, its
directors, certain former directors and certain present and
former officers.  The complaints allege violations of the ERISA
in the form of breach of fiduciary duty in allowing or
encouraging purchase, contribution and/or retention of the
Company's common stock in the plans and making misleading
statements and omissions in that regard.  

On January 14, 2005, the Court issued an order of preliminary
approval related to a settlement reached by the parties.  Under
the terms of the settlement, plaintiffs are to receive a payment
of $8 million, which will be paid by the Company's insurance
carrier.  The Company also agreed, subject to the provisions of
the applicable collective bargaining agreement, to undertake to
amend the Xcel Energy 401(k) savings plan and its predecessor
plans and the New Century Energies employees' and stock
ownership plan for bargaining unit and former non-bargaining
unit employees, by permitting certain diversification of Company
stock held in participants' accounts in portions of these plans.  
On April 1, 2005, the court entered a final order approving the
settlement and dismissing the lawsuit with prejudice.


XCEL ENERGY: NV Court Dismisses Natural Gas Antitrust Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Judge Pro in Nevada dismissed the
class action filed against Xcel Energy, Inc.'s non-regulated
subsidiary e prime, styled "Texas-Ohio Energy, Inc. vs.
Centerpoint Energy et al."

The suit was initially filed in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California on behalf of a purported
class of large wholesale natural gas purchasers, alleges that e
prime falsely reported natural gas trades to market trade
publications in an effort to artificially raise natural gas
prices in California.

The case has been conditionally transferred to U.S. District
Judge Pro in Nevada, who is supervising western area wholesale
natural gas marketing litigation.  In an order entered April 8,
2005, Judge Pro granted the defendants' motion to dismiss based
on the filed rate doctrine.  Plaintiffs have not indicated
whether they will appeal this decision.


                New Securities Fraud Cases


ABLE LABORATORIES: Brian M. Felgoise Files Securities Suit in NJ
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C. filed a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who acquired Able
Laboratories, Inc. (NASDAQ: ABRX) securities between October 31,
2002, and May 18, 2005, inclusive (the Class Period).

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey, against the company and certain key
officers and directors.

The action charges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing a series of materially false and
misleading statements to the market throughout the Class Period
which statements had the effect of artificially inflating the
market price of the Company's securities. No class has yet been
certified in the above action.

For more details, contact Brian M. Felgoise, Esq. by Mail: 261
Old York Road, Suite 423, Jenkintown, Pennsylvania, 19046 by
Phone: (215) 886-1900 by E-mail: securitiesfraud@comcast.net.


ABLE LABORATORIES: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Suit in NJ
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of Able
Laboratories, Inc. (NASDAQ: ABRX) between October 31, 2002 and
May 18, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

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

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


ABLE LABORATORIES: Lasky & Rifkind Lodges Securities Suit in NJ
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd., a law firm with offices
in New York and Chicago, announces that a lawsuit has been filed
in the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey, on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
publicly traded securities of Able Laboratories, Inc. ("Able" or
the "Company") (NASDAQ:ABRX) between October 31, 2002 and May
18, 2005, inclusive, (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit was filed
against Able, Dhananjay G. Wadekar, Robert J. Mauro, Nitin V.
Kotak, and Robert Weinstein ("Defendants").

The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. Specifically, the complaint alleges that
the Company failed to disclose or misrepresented that the
Company's laboratory testing practices were significantly
lacking when compared to standard industry practices, and that
as a consequence, the Company was forced to recall, then suspend
shipment of all of its products and had to withdraw numerous New
Drug Applications with the FDA.

On May 19, 2005, Able announced that it had identified
significant departures from standard operating procedures with
respect to certain laboratory testing practices. On the same
day, Able announced that its Chairman and CEO would be resigning
from these positions respectively. Shares of Able fell $18.37
per share, or nearly 75%, on May 19, 2005 to close at $6.25 per
share.

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


ABLE LABORATORIES: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Suit in NJ
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C. initiated a lawsuit seeking
class action status has been filed in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of all purchasers
of publicly traded securities of Able Laboratories, Inc.
(Nasdaq: ABRX) ("Able Laboratories") between June 25, 2003 and
May 23, 2005 (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that Able Laboratories violated federal
securities laws by issuing false or misleading public
statements. These allegations arise out of the May 19, 2005 and
May 23, 2005 announcements in which Able Laboratories

     (1) suspended the manufacture and distribution of its
         products on account of questions concerning Able
         Laboratories' manufacturing practices;

     (2) recalled all Able Laboratories' products; and

     (3) withdrew seven of its approved Abbreviated New Drug
         Applications ("ANDAs").

The Complaint alleges that Able Laboratories acted improperly
when its previous positive statements concerning ANDAs failed to
disclose or indicate that the testing of Able Laboratories'
products did not adhere to standard operating procedures and
good manufacturing practices ("GMP"). On this news, the price of
Able Laboratories' stock fell from a close of $24.63 per share
on May 18, 2005, to close at $6.26 per share on May 19, 2005.

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


BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS: Schiffrin & Barroway Files CA Stock Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of all securities
purchasers of Brocade Communication Systems, Inc. (Nasdaq: BRCD)
("Brocade" or the "Company") between February 21, 2001 and May
15, 2005 inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Brocade, Gregory L. Reyes and Antonio
Canova 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 Brocade improperly accounted for the cost of
         stock-based compensation;

     (2) that Brocade did not follow appropriate option granting
         guidelines;

     (3) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls; and

     (4) that as a consequence of the foregoing the Company's
         financial results were in violation of Generally
         Accepted Accounting Principles and were materially
         inflated at all relevant times.

On January 6, 2005, the Company announced that it expected to
restate its financial statements for fiscal years ending 2002
and 2003 to record additional stock-based compensation expense
as a result of an internal review. The news shocked the market.
Shares of Brocade fell $0.52 per share or 7.51 percent, on
January 7, 2005, to close at $6.40 per share. On January 24,
2005, the Company announced that the Company expected to record
additional stock-based compensation charges. On this news shares
of Brocade fell another $0.57 per share or about 10 percent, on
January 24 and January 25, 2005, to close at $5.83 per share.
Then, on May 16, 2005, before the markets opened, the Company
announced that the Company will restate its financial statements
for the fiscal years ending 2002 through 2004 to record
additional charges for stock-based compensation expense. On this
news, shares of Brocade fell $0.12 per share or 2.91 percent, on
May 17, 2005, to close at $4.01 per share.

For more details, contact Marc A. Topaz, Esq. or Darren J.
Check, Esq. by Mail: 280 King of Prussia Road, Radnor, PA 19087
by Phone: 1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706 by E-mail:
info@sbclasslaw.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.sbclasslaw.com.


COLLINS & AIKMAN: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP filed
a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York, on behalf of all persons who
purchased the securities of Collins & Aikman Corporation
("Collins & Aikman" or the "Company") (NYSE: CKC) between May
15, 2003 and March 17, 2005, inclusive, (the "Class Period")
against defendants Jerry L. Monsingo, David A. Stockman, J.
Michael Stepp, and Bryce Koth, officers of the Company during
the Class Period. The case name is Egleston v. Monsingo., et al.

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

The complaint further alleges that during the Class Period,
statements made by defendants were materially false and
misleading when made because they failed to disclose and/or
misrepresented the following adverse facts, among others:

     (1) that the Company improperly accounted for certain
         supplier rebates;

     (2) that the Company's financial statements required net
         adjustments of approximately $10-$12 million;

     (3) that the Company's financial statements were not
         prepared in accordance with GAAP;

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

     (5) that as a consequence of the foregoing, the Company's
         net income and financial results were materially
         overstated.

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


CORN PRODUCTS: Lasky & Rifkind Files Securities Fraud Suit in IL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd. initiated a lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired publicly traded securities of Corn Products
International, Inc. ("Corn Products" or the "Company")
(NYSE:CPO) between January 25, 2005 and April 4, 2005,
inclusive, (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit was filed against
Corn Products, Samuel Scott and Cheryl Beebe ("Defendants").

The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. Specifically, the complaint alleges that
Defendants issued a series of materially false and misleading
statements concerning the Company's future prospects. More
specifically, these statements were misleading because
Defendants knew, but failed to disclose or misrepresented that
the Company had contracted to purchase corn in late 2004 at
higher than present prevailing prices, forcing it to purchase
corn at above market prices and thereby eroding profit margins,
and that the Company was experiencing material manufacturing
difficulties at certain of its facilities, causing expenses to
rise dramatically.

On April 5, 2005, before the market opened, Corn Products issued
a press release announcing that its earnings for the first
quarter 2005 would be 35% to 40% below the first quarter 2004.
In reaction to this news, shares of Corn Products fell
dramatically, dropping from $25.86 to $20.98, or 18.9% in very
heavy volume.

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


CRAY INC.: Scott + Scott Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in WA
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Scott + Scott, LLC initiated a class action in
the United States District Court for the District of Washington
on behalf of the purchasers of Cray Inc. (Nasdaq: CRAYE; "Cray"
or the "Company") securities between July 31, 2003 and May 12,
2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

Plaintiff alleges that during the Class Period, Cray failed to
disclose and misrepresented material adverse facts known to
defendants or recklessly disregarded by them, including:

     (1) that business metrics having a direct bearing on
         revenue recognition, including the speed and costs of
         on-site acceptance testing or improved processes for
         building machines in accordance with customer
         requirements, were increasingly unfavorable and
         unlikely to improve anytime soon

     (2) manufacturing processes internal controls and testing
         were flawed and ineffective;

     (3) Cray's own auditors and Audit Committee knew of the
         flawed and ineffective internal controls;

     (4) delays in inventory recognition realization and revenue
         were a recurring and unpredictable feature of Cray's
         business model; and

     (5) Cray was losing money or breaking even on certain
         customer orders.

On May 9, 2005, Cray revealed that it had failed to include an
auditor's opinion on management's assessment of internal control
over financial reporting. Moreover, Cray continued to report
revenue results adversely impacted by faulty internal controls
and past quarter practices. In response, Cray's stock price fell
$0.74 per share over a three-day period ending May 12, 2005 --
an astonishing 35.6% loss -- to close at $1.34 on 9.5 million
shares combined volume.

For more details, contact Neil Rothstein or Amy Saba of Scott +
Scott, LLC by Phone: +1-800-332-2259 by E-mail:
asaba@scott-scott.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.scott-scott.com.


WATCHGUARD TECHNOLOGIES: Federman & Sherwood Files WA Stock Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Federman & Sherwood initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court of Washington at
Seattle against WatchGuard Technologies, Inc. (Nasdaq: WGRD).

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of
material misrepresentations to the market which had the effect
of artificially inflating the market price. The class period is
from February 24, 2004 through March 15, 2005.

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


                            *********


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

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

                            *********


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

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

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

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

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

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

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *