---

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

              Monday, June 20, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 120


                         Headlines

ALKERMES INC.: MA Court Hears Motion To Dismiss Securities Suit
BJ'S WHOLESALE: Agrees To Settle FTC Consumer Privacy Complaint
BLUE SQUARE: SEC Lodges CT Suit Over Fraudulent "pre-IPO" Stock
CATALINA MARKETING: Plaintiffs Seek Certification For FL Lawsuit
CONTRACT CLEANING: Workers Commence Overtime Wage Lawsuit in IL

DEVON ENERGY: Landowners' Group Lodges Suit in MT Over Royalties
DOMINION TRANMISSION: Firms File Suit in WV Over Gas-Price Error
ELEGANT GOURMET: Recalls Cookies Due to Missing Ingredient Label
FLEETWOOD ENTERPRISES: Recalls 476 Motor Homes For Wrong Labels  
FORD MOTOR: OH Judge Gives Final Approval To Civil Rights Deal

FOREST LABORATORIES: Working To Settle Drug Antitrust Lawsuits
FOREST LABORATORIES: Shareholders Launch Securities Suits in NY
FOREST LABORATORIES: Faces Tiazac Antitrust Lawsuit in DC Court
FOREST PHARMACEUTICALS: Expects Amended MA AWP Antitrust Lawsuit
FOUR WINDS: Recalls 238 Motor Homes Due to Incorrect Tire Labels

HIBERNIA CORPORATION: Settles Lawsuit Over Capital One Merger
HITECH MARKETING: Agrees To Settle FTC Consumer Suit For $485T
HKW TRADING: SEC Launches Civil Action in FL Over Ponzi Scheme
INKINE PHARMACEUTICAL: PA Court OK's Suit Over Preemptive Rights
KIDS II INC.: Recalls 29.3T Jammin' Jumpers Due to Injury Hazard   

MAGMA DESIGN: Shareholders Initiate Stock Fraud Suit in N.D. CA
MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Court Denies Motion To Dismiss RICO Lawsuit
NATIONAL AUTO: Finalizes NY Investor, Derivative Suit Settlement
NAVARRE CORPORATION: Shareholders Launch Stock Fraud Suit in MN
NORWEGIAN CRUISE: Passengers Launch Suit For Endangering Lives

PEMSTAR INC.: MN Court Approves Securities Fraud Suit Settlement
PENNSYLVANIA: Officers Group Settles Suit Over "Fair Share Fees"
PLAZA HOTEL: Reaches $525T Settlement For EEOC Race Bias Lawsuit
POLYMEDICA CORPORATION: Court Hears Appeal of Suit Certification
QUALITY CARE: Recalls Repackaged Able Laboratories Drug Products

RIVERA VINEYARDS: Reaches Settlement For EEOC Race Bias Lawsuit
SALLY SHERMAN: Recalls Chicken Salad For Listeria Contamination
SIDLEY & AUSTIN: Attempt To Avoid IL Bias Suit Liability Refused
SOUTH DAKOTA: Sioux Falls Homeowners Sue City Over 2004 Floods
SPARTAN CHASSIS: Recalls 609 Motor Homes For Electrical Defects

STELLENT INC.: Reaches Settlement For MN Securities Fraud Suit
TRIUMPH MOTORCYCLES: Recalls 969 Motorcycles For Cooling Defects
UNITED STATES: MN Judge OK's Deal With Political Asylum Refugees
WEBMETHODS INC.: NY Court Preliminarily Approves Suit Settlement
WESTELL TECHNOLOGIES: Finalizing Settlement of IL Investor Suit

WET SEAL: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit
WET SEAL: Working To Settle CA Jewelry Lead Contamination Suit

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

ABLE LABORATORIES: Kaplan Fox Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NJ
ABLE LABORATORIES: Spector Roseman Lodges Securities Suit in NJ
BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS: Spector Roseman Lodges Stock Suit in CA
BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Stock Suit in CA
CRAY INC.: Murray Frank Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in W.D. WA

CRAY INC.: Spector Roseman Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in WA
DITECH COMMUNICATIONS: Charles J. Piven Lodges Stock Suit in CA
EXIDE TECHNOLOGIES: Charles J. Piven Lodges Stock Lawsuit in NJ
EXIDE TECHNOLOGIES: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Fraud in NJ
EXIDE TECHNOLOGIES: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Suit in NJ

LAZARD LTD.: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
LAZARD LTD.: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
LAZARD LTD.: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
MAGMA DESIGN: Murray Frank Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in CA
PATHMARK STORES: Berger & Montague Lodges Securities Suit in DE

PEMSTAR INC.: Murray Frank Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in MN
UNITED AMERICAN: Rosen Law Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in MI


                            *********


ALKERMES INC.: MA Court Hears Motion To Dismiss Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts heard oral arguments on the motion to dismiss the
consolidated securities class action filed against Alkermes,
Inc. and certain of its current and former officers and
directors.

Beginning in October 2003, the Company and certain of our
current and former officers and directors were named as
defendants in six purported securities class action lawsuits,
styled:

     (1) Bennett v. Alkermes, Inc., et. al., 1:03-CV-12091;

     (2) Ragosta v. Alkermes, Inc., et. al., 1:03-CV-12184;

     (3) Barry Family LP v. Alkermes, Inc., et. al., 1:03-CV-
         12243;

     (4) Waltzer v. Alkermes, Inc., et. al., 1:03-CV-12277;

     (5) Folkerts v. Alkermes, Inc., et. al., 1:03-CV-12386 and

     (6) Slavas v. Alkermes, Inc., et. al., 1:03-CV-12471

On May 14, 2004, the six actions were consolidated into a single
action captioned: "In re Alkermes Securities Litigation, Civil
Action No. 03-CV-12091-RCL (D. Mass.)."  On July 12, 2004, a
single consolidated amended complaint was filed on behalf of
purchasers of the Company's common stock during the period April
22, 1999 to July 1, 2002.

The consolidated amended complaint generally alleges, among
other things, that during such period, the defendants made
misstatements to the investing public relating to the
manufacture and FDA approval of the Company's Risperdal Consta
product. The consolidated amended complaint seeks unspecified
damages.

On September 10, 2004, the Company and the individual defendants
filed a motion to dismiss all claims asserted against them in
the consolidated amended complaint in their entirety. The Court
heard oral argument on the motion on January 12, 2005, and the
Company is awaiting a decision on the motion.


BJ'S WHOLESALE: Agrees To Settle FTC Consumer Privacy Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
BJ's Wholesale Club, Inc. has agreed to settle Federal Trade
Commission (FTC) charges that its failure to take appropriate
security measures to protect the sensitive information of
thousands of its customers was an unfair practice that violated
federal law. According to the FTC, this information was used by
an unauthorized person or persons to make millions of dollars of
fraudulent purchases. The settlement will require BJ's to
implement a comprehensive information security program and
obtain audits by an independent third party security
professional every other year for 20 years.

Natick, Massachusetts-based BJ's operates 150 warehouse stores
and 78 gas stations in 16 states in the Eastern United States.
Approximately 8 million consumers are currently members, with
net sales totaling about $6.6 billion in 2003.

"Consumers must have the confidence that companies that possess
their confidential information will handle it with due care and
appropriately provide for its security," said Deborah Platt
Majoras, Chairman of the FTC. "This case demonstrates our
intention to challenge companies that fail to protect adequately
consumers' sensitive information."

According to the FTC's complaint, BJ's uses a computer network
to obtain bank authorization for credit and debit card purchases
and to track inventory. For credit and debit card purchases at
its stores, BJ's collects information, such as name, card
number, and expiration date, from the magnetic stripe on the
back of the cards. The information is sent from the computer
network in the store to BJ's central datacenter computer network
and from there through outside computer networks to the bank
that issued the card.

The FTC charged that BJ's engaged in a number of practices
which, taken together, did not provide reasonable security for
sensitive customer information. Specifically, the agency alleges
that BJ's:

     (1) Failed to encrypt consumer information when it was
         transmitted or stored on computers in BJ's stores;

     (2) Created unnecessary risks to the information by storing
         it for up to 30 days, in violation of bank security
         rules, even when it no longer needed the information;

     (3) Stored the information in files that could be accessed
         using commonly known default user IDs and passwords;

     (4) Failed to use readily available security measures to
         prevent unauthorized wireless connections to its
         networks; and

     (5) Failed to use measures sufficient to detect
         unauthorized access to the networks or to conduct
         security investigations.

The FTC's complaint charges that the fraudulent purchases were
made using counterfeit copies of credit and debit cards used at
BJ's stores, and that the counterfeit cards contained the same
personal information BJ's had collected from the magnetic
stripes of the cards. After the fraud was discovered, banks
cancelled and re-issued thousands of credit and debit cards, and
consumers experienced inconvenience, worry, and time loss
dealing with the affected cards. Since then, banks and credit
unions have filed lawsuits against BJ's and pursued bank
procedures seeking the return millions of dollars in fraudulent
purchases and operating expenses. According to BJ's SEC filings,
as of May 2005, the amount of outstanding claims was
approximately $13 million.

The FTC alleges that BJ's failure to secure customers' sensitive
information was an unfair practice because it caused substantial
injury that was not reasonably avoidable by consumers and not
outweighed by offsetting benefits to consumers or competition.
The settlement requires BJ's to establish and maintain a
comprehensive information security program that includes
administrative, technical, and physical safeguards. The
settlement also requires BJ's to obtain an audit from a
qualified, independent, third-party professional that its
security program meets the standards of the order, and to comply
with standard book keeping and record keeping provisions.

The Commission vote to accept the proposed consent agreement was
5-0. The FTC will publish an announcement regarding the
agreement in the Federal Register shortly. The agreement will be
subject to public comment for 30 days, beginning today and
continuing through July 16, 2005, after which the Commission
will decide whether to make it final. Comments should be
addressed to the FTC, Office of the Secretary, Room H-159, 600
Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580. The FTC is
requesting that any comment filed in paper form near the end of
the public comment period be sent by courier or overnight
service, if possible, because U.S. postal mail in the Washington
area and at the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened
security precautions.

Copies of the complaint and consent agreement are available from
the FTC's Web site at http://www.ftc.govand also from the FTC's  
Consumer Response Center, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue,
N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580. The FTC works for the consumer to
prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices in
the marketplace and to provide information to help consumers
spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or
Spanish (bilingual counselors are available to take complaints),
or to get free information on any of 150 consumer topics, call
toll-free, 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357), or use the complaint
form at http://www.ftc.gov.The FTC enters Internet,  
telemarketing, identity theft, and other fraud-related
complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database
available to hundreds of civil and criminal law enforcement
agencies in the U.S. and abroad.  For more details, contact
Claudia Bourne Farrell, Office of Public Affairs by Phone:
202-326-2181, or contact Joel Winston, Division of Financial
Practices by Phone: 202-326-3224 or visit the Website:
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2005/06/bjswholesale.htm.


BLUE SQUARE: SEC Lodges CT Suit Over Fraudulent "pre-IPO" Stock
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed a civil action in
the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut
against Blue Square Management, Inc., Viktor Novosselov (a/k/a
David Markowitz), Westwood Holdings, Inc. and George Falcone
(a/k/a Michael Safir) in connection with the unregistered and
fraudulent offerings of "pre-IPO" stock in two separate
automatic teller machine (ATM) companies in which the defendants
raised at least $4.9 million from over 360 investors nationwide.
     
The Commission's complaint alleges that the two fraudulent
offerings were conducted in succession between 2001 and late
2004 by two unlicensed New York City-based venture capital firms
and at least two unlicensed brokers who concealed their true
identities from investors. Mr. Novosselov, with the substantial
assistance of Mr. Malyar, orchestrated a fraudulent offering
through Blue Square Management, Inc., a purported venture
capital firm. From January 2001 to February 2004, one or more
representatives of Blue Square cold-called potential investors
across the country and solicited their investments in the stock
and warrants of Cash Money Lending Corp., a purported ATM
management company. After raising approximately $3.7 million
from over 280 investors, Blue Square disconnected its phone
lines and vacated its offices leaving investors unable to
contact anyone about their investments.
     
The Commission's complaint further alleges that about the same
time Blue Square disappeared, Mr. Malyar and several other
individuals claiming to be associated with Westwood Holdings,
Inc. began soliciting investors in a similar fraudulent offering
involving a second purported ATM-related company. Using many of
the same methods of operation, Westwood's representatives were
able to raise at least $1.2 million from over 80 investors.
     
According to the Commission's complaint, the defendants induced
investment through false and misleading statements, which
included verbal and written claims that investments would yield
up to 160% returns from a highly anticipated IPO and/or buy-out
proposal.  In fact, none of the promised IPOs or buy-out
proposals ever materialized. Instead, the defendants dissipated
virtually all of investors' funds, using the proceeds primarily
for cash, food, entertainment and other personal expenses.
     
The Commission's action seeks permanent injunctions, orders of
disgorgement and civil penalties against Blue Square, Mr.
Novosselov, Westwood and Mr. Malyar for violating Sections 5(a),
5(c) and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b),
15(a) and 15(c) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 thereunder, and also against Mr. Malyar for aiding and
abetting Mr. Novosselov and Blue Square's violation of Section
10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.
     
In a related criminal action, the United States Attorney's
Office for the District of Connecticut announced today the
arrest of Novosselov and Malyar and the unsealing of an
indictment charging them with securities fraud, mail fraud,
money laundering, and money laundering conspiracy violations
based on their activities at Blue Square.
     
The staff acknowledges the assistance and cooperation of the
United States Attorney's Office for the District of Connecticut,
the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Social Security
Administration (Office of the Inspector General, Office of
Investigations), the United States Postal Inspection Service,
the New York Police Department and the United States Immigration
and Customs Enforcement Service in the investigation of this
matter. The action is styled, SEC v. Viktor Novosselov (a/k/a
David Markowitz), Igor Malyar (a/k/a George Falcone and Michael
Safir), Blue Square Management, Inc., and Westwood Holdings,
Inc. (United States District Court for the District of
Connecticut) (LR-19266).


CATALINA MARKETING: Plaintiffs Seek Certification For FL Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs asked the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida, Tampa Division to grant class certification
for the securities lawsuit filed against Catalina Marketing
Corporation, certain of its present and former officers and
directors and Catalina Health Resource (CHR)

Several suits were initially filed, alleging violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.  The actions were originally brought
on behalf of those who purchased the Company's common stock
between January 17, 2002 and August 25, 2003, inclusive.  The
complaints contain various allegations, including that, during
the alleged class period, the defendants issued false and
misleading statements concerning the Company's business and
operations with the result of artificially inflating its share
price and maintained inadequate internal controls. The
complaints seek unspecified compensatory damages and other
relief.

In October 2003, the complaints were consolidated in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Florida and
given the caption "In re Catalina Marketing Corporation
Securities Litigation, Case No. 8:03-CV-1582-T-27TBM."  In
December 2003, Virginia P. Anderson and the Alaska Electric
Pension Fund were named as co-lead plaintiffs.  On June 21,
2004, the Lead Plaintiffs served their Consolidated Amended
Class Action Complaint on behalf of those who purchased the
Company's stock between August 14, 1999 and August 25, 2003,
inclusive.  

The Company and other defendants subsequently moved to dismiss
the Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint which motion was
denied by the court on March 31, 2005.  Plaintiffs filed a
motion for class certification in May 2005.  Full briefing on
class certification should be completed and submitted to the
court by September 2005. In compliance with the applicable rules
of civil procedure, the parties have exchanged preliminary
information about the witnesses and documents each intends to
use in support of their respective positions.

The suit is styled "Corwin, et al v. Catalina Marketing, et al.,
case no. 8:03-cv-01582-JDW-TBM," filed in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Florida, under Judge
James D. Whittemore.  Representing the Company are Michael L.
Chapman and Tracy A. Nichols, Holland & Knight, LLP, 100 N.
Tampa St., Suite 4100, P.O. Box 1288, Tampa, FL 33601-1288,
Phone: 813/227-8500, Fax: 813/229-0134, E-mail:
michael.chapman@hklaw.com or tracy.nichols@hklaw.com.  
Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Elizabeth J. Arleo, Andrew Brown, William S. Lerach and
         Darren J. Robbins of Lerach Coughlin Stoia & Robbins
         LLP, 401 B St., Suite 1700, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone:
         619/231-1058, E-mail: AndrewB@lerachlaw.com;

     (2) Jack G. Fruchter, Fruchter & Twersky, One Penn Plaza,
         Suite 1910, New York, NY 10119, Phone: 212/279-5050;

     (3) Christopher S. Jones, Christopher S. Polaszek, Maya
         Saxena, Joseph E. White of Milberg, Weiss, Bershad &
         Schulman LLP, Tower One, 5200 Town Center Circle, Suite
         600, Boca Raton, FL 33486-1018, Phone: 561/361-5000,
         Fax: 561-367-8400, E-mail: cjones@milbergweiss.com,
         cpolaszek@milbergweiss.com, msaxena@milbergweiss.com;

     (4) Andrei Rado and Steven G. Schulman, Milberg, Weiss,
         Bershad, Hynes & Lerach, LLP, One Pennsylvania Plaza,
         49th Floor, New York, NY 10119-0165, Phone:
         212/594-5300


CONTRACT CLEANING: Workers Commence Overtime Wage Lawsuit in IL
---------------------------------------------------------------
Individuals who worked for Contract Cleaning Maintenance or
Contract Cleaning Services in a cleaning, janitorial or
maintenance role may be eligible to join in a class action
lawsuit alleging they were denied required overtime pay.

The case, Vega et al v. Contract Cleaning Maintenance, Inc., et
al No. 03 C 9130 (N.D. Ill.), is currently pending in United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The
lawsuit names UPS (United Parcel Service) as a co-defendant as
many of those who have allegedly been denied overtime by
defendants Contract Cleaning Maintenance or Contract Cleaning
Services were working at UPS facilities at the time.

The lawsuit claims, among other things, that the Defendants
treated some workers like independent contractors, instead of
employees, and didn't pay them the required overtime. The
lawsuit also claims that even workers who were treated like
employees weren't paid the required overtime. Although the Court
has ruled that this case may proceed as a representative action,
it has not yet ruled on the claims.

The Court has authorized a notification program to identify and
educate potential class members in this case and to further
inform them that they must take action to be included in the
class. Any employee of Contract Cleaning Maintenance or Contract
Cleaning Services in the cleaning, janitorial, and maintenance
fields who worked at a UPS facility or elsewhere is being urged
to call the toll-free number 1-800-454-8586 to get complete
information on the case as well as detailed explanations of
their legal rights. Spanish speakers are available.

Individuals must act immediately to join the class. Those
wishing to join the class need to call toll-free 1-800-454-8586
to receive all the important information. Spanish speakers are
available for all callers to the toll-free line.

The suit is styled, 1:03-cv-09130 (N.D. Ill.), Vega, et al v.
Contract Cleaning, et al, the Honorable Amy J. St. Eve,
presiding. The lead plaintiff, Gloria Vega is represented by
Harold Craig Becker, Attorney at Law, 25 East Washington, 1400
Chicago, IL, 60602, Phone: (312) 236-4584, Paul L. Strauss of
Miner Barnhill & Galland, 14 West Erie St., Chicago, IL, 60610,
Phone: (312) 751-1170. The defendants are represented by Craig
T. Boggs of Perkins Coie LLC, 131 S. Dearborn, Suite 1700,
Chicago, IL, 60603-5559, Phone: (312) 263-5601, Gary R. Clark of
Quarles & Brady LLP, 500 West Madison St., Suite 3700, Chicago,
IL, 60661-2511, Phone: (312) 715-5000, Anthony S. DiVincenzo of
DiVincenzo, Schoenfield, Swartzman, 33 North LaSalle Street,
29th Floor, Chicago, IL, 60602, Phone: (312) 334-4800, Daniel B.
Pasternak of Greenburg Traurig, LLP, 2375 East Camelback Road
700, Phoenix, AZ, 85016, Phone: (602) 445-8510, represents the
defendants.


DEVON ENERGY: Landowners' Group Lodges Suit in MT Over Royalties
----------------------------------------------------------------
A landowners' group contends in a federal lawsuit filed in a
Montana court that Devon Energy Corporation, a major natural gas
producer in state, cheated landowners and others out of millions
of dollars in royalty payments, The Associated Press reports.

The suit, filed by the Montana Land and Mineral Owners
Association and others, seeks class action status on behalf of
all Montana natural gas royalty owners doing business with the
Oklahoma-based Devon Energy. Some of the plaintiffs are farmers
and ranchers with property in or near Belt, Big Sandy, Havre and
Malta.  

The suit alleges that the Company, among other things,
improperly deducted certain expenses before computing the price
on which its royalty payments are based as well as underreported
the amount of gas produced. In all, the lawsuit alleges that the
company owes some $5 million to mineral rights owners. The suit
also seeks punitive damages.  In addition to the owed money, the
suit contends, "Defendants continue to underpay the individual
plaintiffs, and class members and continue to make misstatements
on each royalty statement they transmit to the plaintiffs and
class members."

Experts familiar with the matter explained that royalty owners
own the mineral rights to the natural gas, and companies that
extract it have agreements to pay the owners a royalty on the
natural gas that is removed, usually 12.5 percent of the market
price for the gas.

Oklahoma City-based Devon Energy is one of the largest natural
gas producers in the country, with 4,000 employees. It reported
$563 million in net profits for the first three months of this
year.

Brian Engel, a spokesman for Devon Energy, said that the Company
had not yet seen the lawsuit, but told the Great Falls Tribune
that such disputes over royalty payments are becoming more
common across the country.  He told the Great Falls Tribune that
Devon "places a high value on our relationship with all of our
royalty owners" and is committed to the "highest level of
integrity and professional behavior in documenting our
businesses."

John Mudd, a Missoula lawyer representing the plaintiffs, told
the Great Falls Tribune landowners hired his firm and several
others earlier this year to investigate the royalty payments
Devon Energy reported. He adds that the payments often lacked
detail on special charges.

According to the complaint, once U.S. District Judge Donald
Molloy approves the lawsuit for class action status, it could
represent "thousands of royalty interest owners throughout the
state of Montana."


DOMINION TRANMISSION: Firms File Suit in WV Over Gas-Price Error
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Richmond-based law firm of Allen, Allen, Allen & Allen and a
Charleston, West Virginia firm launched a class action lawsuit
on behalf of two consumers over a mistake by a Dominion
Transmission Inc. clerk that federal officials say cost the
natural gas market $200 million to $1 billion, The Richmond
Times Dispatch reports.

The suit, which was filed in Kanawha County Circuit Court in
West Virginia, stems from a weekly report by Dominion
Transmission, a subsidiary of Dominion Resources Inc., filed in
November with the Energy Information Administration. Energy
traders use the agency's report to gauge natural gas
inventories.

According to the suit, the clerk inadvertently used figures from
the wrong week for the report, which led to an estimate by the
federal agency that two to three times as much gas had been
withdrawn from storage as market observers expected. The error
eventually resulted in the short-term price of natural gas
spiking up by as much as 17 percent in a single day.  After
discovering the error, the suit states that Dominion and the
agency corrected it in its next weekly report, which led to
market prices falling back.

An investigation by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
into the incident revealed that it was the result of a clerical
error and no other impropriety was involved.  The error led to
Dominion's changing of its reporting procedures so that two
managers are responsible for filing the report and making sure
that the Energy Information Administration has received the
correct information.

W. Coleman Allen Jr., Allen firm president, told the Dispatch
that the error appears to be "a classic case of negligence." He
adds that there seems to be no issue that the cost of gas spiked
up when the mistake occurred and spiked down when it was
discovered, nor that "there was a direct impact on the bills of
consumers."

Mr. Allen pointed out that the impact extended to business and
residential customers and to electric as well as gas customers
because burning gas generates much of the electricity.  He said,
"The number of people who have been harmed, as well as the full
extent of the harm, will only become clear as the case moves
forward to trial."

Mark Lazenby, a spokesman for Dominion Resources, told the
Dispatch, "there was no harm, since at the time we disclosed the
error, we said we did not have any legal exposure. We still
don't see any exposure. This suit is without merit."  He added
that the case was filed in West Virginia because it permits
class action lawsuits, while Virginia does not.


ELEGANT GOURMET: Recalls Cookies Due to Missing Ingredient Label
----------------------------------------------------------------
Elegant Gourmet of Woodinville, WA is recalling the chocolate
chip cookies contained in the "Camp Survival Kit" because the
product does not contain any ingredient labeling for the
cookies. People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to
wheat, eggs or milk run the risk of serious or life-threatening
allergic reaction if they consume these chocolate chip cookies.
(The "Camp Survival Kit" also contains other food items that
have ingredient labeling.)

The "Camp Survival Kit"s containing the recalled chocolate chip
cookies were distributed nationwide to retail stores.

The cookies are wrapped in a clear cello bag with no labeling.
The cookies are inside a closed bright red cardboard box labeled
"CAMP SURVIVAL KIT". A label on back of the box is labeled
"ELEGANT SWEETS, net wt. 16 oz; Elegant Gourmet, Woodinville, WA
425-814-2500."

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
product.  This voluntary recall was initiated after it was
discovered that there was no ingredient labeling for the
chocolate chip cookie.


FLEETWOOD ENTERPRISES: Recalls 476 Motor Homes For Wrong Labels  
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. in cooperation with the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Office of Defects
Investigation (ODI) is voluntarily recalling about 476 2005-2006
Fleetwood Jamboree/Tioga due to incorrect labels.

According to ODI, certain class C motor homes built on Chevrolet
chassis fail to comply with requirements of part 567,
"certification." The Federal Certification tag was printed with
the incorrect rear gross axle weight rating and incorrect cargo
carrying capacity tag. Overloading can damage your vehicle,
adversely affecting vehicle performance, including handling and
braking, cause tire failure, and result in a crash.

As a remedy, Fleetwood will mail instructions along with correct
Federal Certification label. If an owner so desires, a dealer
can install the label for them. NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID Number:
05V278000, Recall Date: June 13, 2005.

For more details, contact Fleetwood by Phone: 800-509-3418 or
the NHTSA Auto Safety Hotline: 1-888-327-4236.


FORD MOTOR: OH Judge Gives Final Approval To Civil Rights Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Under the settlement of a civil rights complaint that was
approved by U.S. District Court Judge S. Arthur Spiegel, Ford
Motor Company will guarantee black employees access to an
apprenticeship-training program, the Associated Press reports.

The federal judge, who granted preliminary approval to the class
action settlement in February and held a fairness hearing for it
on June 1, formalized the deal with a recently issued court
order.

The suit stems from complaints in 1998 by employees at Ford
plants in suburban Sharonville and Batavia, east of Cincinnati,
which alleged that discrimination against black employees who
took an application test for the apprenticeship-training program
on or after January 1, 1997, and were not chosen.  According to
the plaintiffs, the program allows unskilled laborers to learn
skills for higher paying jobs, such as electrician or
millwright, which can result in better job security and improved
opportunities for promotion.

Denying any liability or discrimination, Dearborn, Michigan-
based Ford supported the settlement and agreed to set aside 279
positions in the program for blacks and to pay $2,400 apiece to
about 3,400 current and former Ford workers.

Judge Spiegel noted in his ruling that the settlement benefited
the public interest, Ford workers and the company by heading off
lengthy and expensive litigation. He also pointed out that the
settlement would create a new selection program to be monitored
by an industrial psychologist with expertise in workplace and
personnel issues.

As previously reported in the June 1, 2005 edition of the Class
Action Reporter, the settlement stems from the landmark class
action employment discrimination case against Ford, which is
styled, Robinson v. Ford Motor Company.

The settlement is groundbreaking since it is most likely the
first class action involving apprenticeship selection that
benefits African American nationwide and provides the largest
number of African American employees who have a realistic chance
to become apprentices in skilled trades.

Mehri & Skalet and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
("EEOC") each filed a lawsuit challenging Ford's procedures for
selecting apprentices nationwide. These suits alleged that,
since 1997, Ford has discriminated against African-Americans on
the basis of race in selecting apprentices. The two cases were
consolidated in front of Senior Judge S. Arthur Spiegel.

After extensive negotiations, the parties arrived at a
settlement. The proposed settlement resolves all claims in both
lawsuits. We believe that the settlement is in the public
interest and confers substantial benefits on the Settlement
Class. The settlement provides monetary and non-monetary
benefits to the class, as well as providing substantial systemic
relief.

Some key aspects of the Settlement Agreement include:

     (1) Ford will immediately cease the use of the current ATSS
         for selection of apprentices at Ford facilities in the
         U.S.

     (2) The parties will agree upon an independent industrial
         psychologist to serve as an expert to devise new
         apprenticeship selection procedures.

     (3) Ford will select 276 members of the Settlement Class
         and three Charging Parties and offer them places on a
         Ford apprenticeship program eligibility list. This
         aspect of the Settlement Agreement is designed to
         remedy claims for lost job opportunities.

     (4) To remedy compensation damages claims for the class,
         the Settlement Agreement also provides $2400 to
         Settlement Class members who submit a properly executed
         claim and release and do not opt-out of the Settlement
         Agreement.

The suit is styled, Robinson v. Ford Motor Company, Civil Action
No. 1:04CV844, pending before the Honorable S. Arthur Spiegel of
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Ohio. Representing the Plaintiffs are Nathaniel R. Jones of
Blank Rome, LLP, Cyrus Mehri of Mehri & Skalet, PLLC and Jeff A.
Stern of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

For more details, visit
http://www.findjustice.com/ms/practice/civil/Ford/.


FOREST LABORATORIES: Working To Settle Drug Antitrust Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Forest Laboratories, Inc. is working to resolve remaining
antitrust litigation filed against it, after a consolidated
class action filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, styled "In RE Brand Name
Prescription Drugs Antitrust Litigation," was dismissed.

Several suits were initially filed in various federal district
courts alleging certain violations of the federal anti-trust
laws in the marketing of pharmaceutical products.  In each case,
the actions were filed against many pharmaceutical manufacturers
and suppliers and allege price discrimination and conspiracy to
fix prices in the sale of pharmaceutical products.  The actions
were brought by various pharmacies (both individually and, with
respect to certain claims, as a class action) and seek
injunctive relief and monetary damages.  The Judicial Panel on
Multi-District Litigation has ordered these actions coordinated
(and, with respect to those actions brought as class actions,
consolidated) in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois (Chicago).

On November 30, 1998, the defendants remaining in the
consolidated federal class action (which proceeded to trial
beginning in September 1998), including the Company, were
granted a directed verdict by the trial court after the
plaintiffs had concluded their case.  In ruling in favor of the
defendants, the trial Judge held that no reasonable jury could
reach a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs and stated "the
evidence of conspiracy is meager, and the evidence as to
individual defendants paltry or non-existent."  The Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit subsequently affirmed the
granting of the directed verdict in the federal class case in
the Company's favor.

Following the Seventh Circuit's affirmation of the directed
verdict in the Company's favor, the company secured the
voluntary dismissal of the conspiracy allegations contained in
all of the federal cases brought by individual plaintiffs who
elected to "opt-out" of the federal class action, which cases
were included in the coordinated proceedings, as well as the
dismissal of similar conspiracy and price discrimination claims
pending in various state courts.  

The Company remains a defendant, together with other
manufacturers, in many of the federal opt-out cases included in
the coordinated proceedings to the extent of claims alleging
price discrimination in violation of the Robinson-Patman Act.  
While no discovery or other significant proceedings with respect
to us have been taken to date in respect of such claims, there
can be no assurance that the Company will not be required to
actively defend such claims or to pay substantial amounts to
dispose of such claims, the Company said in a disclosure to the
Securities and Exchange Commission.


FOREST LABORATORIES: Shareholders Launch Securities Suits in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
Forest Laboratories, Inc., its Chief Executive Officer and
certain other executive officers face several class actions
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

The first identified suit is styled "James Curkin, On Behalf of
Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Howard Solomon and
Forest Laboratories, Inc."  The actions, which purport to be
brought as class actions, seek damages in connection with
alleged violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder relating to
certain of our public statements with respect to our products
during the approximately two-year period ended September 1,
2004.  

In addition, the Company has been named as a nominal defendant
in a derivative action commenced in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York under the caption
"Jeff Michelson, Derivatively On Behalf of Forest Laboratories,
Inc. v. Howard Solomon, Kenneth E. Goodman, John E. Eggers,
Elaine Hochberg, Lawrence S. Olanoff, William J. Candee, III,
George S. Cohan, Dan L. Goldwasser, Lester B. Salans and Phillip
M. Satow v. Forest Laboratories, Inc., a Delaware corporation,
Nominal Defendant" arising out of the claims alleged in the
actions referred to above.  These actions are in their
preliminary stages.  

The first identified complaint is styled "James Curkin, et al.
v. Forest Laboratories, Inc., et al.," filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York.  
The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

     (1) Brodsky & Smith, LLC, 11 Bala Avenue, Suite 39, Bala
         Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610.668.7987, Fax: 610.660.
         0450, E-mail: esmith@Brodsky-Smith.com;

     (2) Charles J. Piven, World Trade Center-Baltimore,401 East
         Pratt Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD, 21202, Phone:
         410.332.0030, E-mail: pivenlaw@erols.com;

     (3) Dyer & Shuman, LLP, 801 East 17th Avenue, Denver, CO,
         80218-1417, Phone: 303.861.3003, Fax: 800.711.6483, E-
         mail: info@dyershuman.com;

     (4) Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP (LA), 1801 Ave. of the
         Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles, CA, 90067, Phone:
         310.201.915, Fax: (310) 201-916, E-mail:
         info@glancylaw.com;

     (5) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
         (Melville), 200 Broadhollow, Suite 406, Melville, NY,
         11747, Phone: 631.367.7100, Fax: 631.367.1173, E-mail:
         info@lerachlaw.com;

     (6) Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP, 275 Madison Ave 34th Flr,
         New York, NY, 10016, Phone: 212.682.1818, Fax:
         212.682.1892, E-mail: email@rabinlaw.com;

     (7) Schatz & Nobel, P.C., 330 Main Street, Hartford, CT,
         06106, Phone: 800.797.5499, Fax: 860.493.6290, E-mail:
         sn06106@AOL.com;

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

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

    (10) 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  


FOREST LABORATORIES: Faces Tiazac Antitrust Lawsuit in DC Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Forest Laboratories, Inc. faces a class action filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Columbia
entitled "Louisiana Wholesale Drug Company, Inc. and Rochester
Drug Cooperative v. Biovail Corporation and Forest Laboratories,
Inc."

The Complaint alleges attempts to monopolize under Section 2 of
the Sherman Act with respect to the product Tiazac resulting
from Biovail Corporation's January 2001 patent listing in the
Food and Drug Administration's "Orange Book" of Approved Drug
Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations.  Biovail
withdrew the Orange Book listing of the patent at issue
following an April 2002 Consent Order between Biovail and the
Federal Trade Commission.  Biovail is the owner of the NDA
covering Tiazac which the Company distributes in the United
States under license from Biovail.  

The action, which purports to be brought as a class action on
behalf of all persons or entities who purchased Tiazac directly
from us from February 13, 2001 to the present, seeks treble
damages and related relief arising from the allegedly unlawful
acts.  

By way of a ruling dated March 31, 2005, Judge Robertson granted
Biovail's motion for summary judgment in a related action,
styled "Twin Cities v. Biovail," to which the Company is not a
party but which the Company believes has significance for the
action filed against it.  Based on this decision, the Plaintiffs
in the Louisiana Wholesale case are re-evaluating how to
proceed.  At this point, Plaintiffs will be reviewing documents
originally produced in discovery in the "Twin Cities" case and
determining whether or not to await the appeal of summary
judgment in that case or, alternatively, to seek additional
discovery in an effort to oppose anticipated summary judgment
motions by both the Company and Biovail, based primarily on the
same issue, lack of antitrust causation, which was the basis for
the grant of summary judgment in "Twin Cities."


FOREST PHARMACEUTICALS: Expects Amended MA AWP Antitrust Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Forest Pharmaceuticals, Inc. expects the filing of an amended
antitrust class action against it and other manufacturers of
pharmaceutical products in the United States District Court for
the District of Massachusetts, under the caption "In RE
Pharmaceutical Industry AWP Litigation."

On January 14, 2003, the Company and 29 other manufacturers of
pharmaceutical products were named as defendants in an action
brought in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York by the County of Suffolk, New York, as
plaintiff.  The action alleges that plaintiff County was
overcharged for its share of Medicare and Medicaid drug
reimbursement costs as a result of reporting by manufacturers of
"Average Wholesale Prices" (or AWP) which did not correspond to
actual provider costs of prescription drugs.  The action
includes counts under the Federal Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and False Claims Acts, as well
as claims arising under state statutes and common law.  

The action asserts substantially similar claims to other actions
which have been brought in various Federal District and state
Courts by various plaintiffs against pharmaceutical
manufacturers and which have been assigned to the United States
District Court of the District of Massachusetts under the
caption "In re Pharmaceutical Industry AWP Litigation" for
coordinated treatment.  The action brought by plaintiff has been
transferred to the District of Massachusetts for coordination
with these multi-district proceedings.

Subsequent to the filing of the County of Suffolk Complaint,
additional substantially identical actions have been filed
against numerous manufacturers, including us, by other New York
counties.  At this point, 46 counties have either filed or will
be filing actions essentially identical to the action commenced
by the County of Suffolk, the Company said in a disclosure to
the Securities and Exchange Commission.

In September 2003, the Company and the other Defendants filed
motions to dismiss the County of Suffolk Complaint.  Judge Patti
Saris, the Judge presiding over the Multi-District Litigation,
has now issued three separate opinions dated, respectively,
September 30, 2004, October 26, 2004 and April 8, 2005.   In the
September 30, 2004 decision, Judge Saris dismissed the County of
Suffolk's RICO claims, as well as two of the county's claims
under the Best Price statute and its claim for fraud.  By way of
the October 26, 2004 decision, Judge Saris dismissed several
claims asserted by the County of Suffolk under New York statutes
as related to the Plaintiff's contention that we had filed
fraudulent Best Price information under applicable Medicaid
regulations.  At the time, however, Judge Saris did not address
those claims as they related to the alleged inflation of our AWP
for our products.  Instead, Judge Saris requested the submission
of additional information by the parties.   After that
information was submitted, by way of decision dated April 8,
2005, Judge Saris dismissed the Plaintiff's remaining AWP
claims, finding that the Plaintiff had failed to satisfy Rule
9(b).

The Company anticipates the filing of a Consolidated Amended
Complaint on behalf of all of the 44 New York State counties
represented by the attorneys for the County of Suffolk.  That
Amended Complaint is now due to be filed by June 15, 2005, and
the Defendants, including the Company, will be filing a motion
to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint.   

One of the two New York counties represented by different
counsel (Nassau County) is expected to file an Amended Complaint
in that action which will also be subject to a motion to
dismiss.  An action filed by the other such county (Erie County)
was commenced in New York State Court, and the Defendants have
removed that action to Federal Court for ultimate transfer to
the MDL Court in the District of Massachusetts based on
fraudulent joinder of Defendants.  The Plaintiff has filed a
motion to remand, which has been stayed pending the MDL Panel's
ruling on the motion to transfer.

The Company is also named as a Defendant in AWP litigation
commenced in Kentucky, Alabama and Illinois.  A motion to
dismiss has been filed in connection with the Kentucky and
Illinois actions, and a motion to dismiss will be filed shortly
in the Alabama action.  


FOUR WINDS: Recalls 238 Motor Homes Due to Incorrect Tire Labels
----------------------------------------------------------------
Four Winds International in cooperation with the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Office of Defects
Investigation (ODI) is voluntarily recalling about 238 2005 Four
Winds Chateau Citation/Dutchmen/Dutchmen Dorado/ Dutchmen
Express/Fun Mover and 2005-2006 Four Winds Chateau/Chateau
Citation/Four Winds/Four Winds 5000/Four Winds Siesta due to
non-complaint labels.    

According to the ODI, certain motor homes built on Ford E-450
chassis fail to comply with the requirements of Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120, "tire selection and rims for
motor vehicles other than passenger cars." The tire pressure is
incorrectly listed on the label for the rear tires. At the
incorrectly stated pressure, the rear tires are unable to
support the gross axle weight rating for the rear axle.

As a remedy, owners and dealers will be mailed supplementary
tire labels containing the correct rear tire inflation
information. NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID Number: 05V272000, Recall Date:
June 07, 2005.

For more details, contact Four Winds by Phone: 1-574-266-1111 or
the NHTSA Auto Safety Hotline: 1-888-327-4236.


HIBERNIA CORPORATION: Settles Lawsuit Over Capital One Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hibernia Corporation, the holding company for Louisiana's
largest financial institution, agreed to settle a class action
lawsuit with its shareholders over the company's proposed merger
with Capital One Financial Corporation, The Associated Press
reports.

Filed on April 22, the suit accused Hibernia's directors of
breaching their fiduciary duties by failing to maximize
shareholder value in the merger agreement.

According to a filing Thursday with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, Hibernia recently signed a memorandum of
understanding to form a settlement, no financial terms were
disclosed however.  Under the deal announced in March, Capital
One, a McLean, Virginia, credit-card issuer would acquire
Hibernia, based in New Orleans, for about $5.3 billion in cash
and stock. It is expected to close in the third quarter of this
year.


HITECH MARKETING: Agrees To Settle FTC Consumer Suit For $485T
--------------------------------------------------------------
Creaghan A. Harry, doing business as Hitech Marketing,
Scientific Life Nutrition, and Rejuvenation Health Corporation,
will pay $485,000 in consumer redress to settle Federal Trade
Commission (FTC) charges that he used millions of illegal spam
messages to tout the bogus anti-aging properties of HGH herbal
supplements.  The settlement bars the Boca Raton, Florida-based
defendant from making claims about any products sold over the
Internet, including health and weight-loss claims, without
scientific evidence.

Filed in July 2004, the FTC's complaint charged that the
defendant violated the FTC Act by making false claims, and
violated the Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited
Pornography and Marketing Act of 2003 (CAN-SPAM Act) by sending
e-mail that disguised its source, did not provide a way for
recipients to opt-out of receiving future messages, and did not
give a valid physical postal address. In fact, according to the
FTC, 40,000 spam messages claiming Harry's products would stop
or reverse the aging process, cause weight loss, increase
muscle, or regrow hair and remove wrinkles, ended up in the
FTC's spam database at spam@uce.gov.

In addition, to paying consumer redress, the settlement bars
Harry from violating the CAN-SPAM Act. Based on financial
statements provided by the defendant, the settlement contains a
suspended judgment of $5.9 million, the total amount of
estimated consumer injury. If it is found that the financial
statements were inaccurate, the entire $5.9 million will
immediately become due.  Finally, the settlement contains
various recordkeeping requirements to assist the FTC in
monitoring the defendant's compliance.

The Commission vote authorizing staff to file the complaint and
stipulated final judgment in the Creaghan Harry matter was 4-1,
with Commissioner Jon Leibowitz dissenting. In a Commission
statement, the agency noted that recent changes to the
bankruptcy law suggest a potential mechanism by which the
Commission could obtain more assets for consumer relief.
Unfortunately, in this case the timing made it difficult for the
Commission to apply the new bankruptcy law provisions. "Despite
the timing issues in this case," the Commission statement noted,
"the Commission is committed to exploring ways to employ the new
limitations on homestead exemptions in future cases." According
to the statement, "Homestead exemptions have too often
frustrated the Commission's ability to redress consumer injury
suffered at the hands of malefactors and the Commission will act
aggressively to ensure that these people will no longer live
high at the expense of their victims."

In a separate statement, concurring in part and dissenting in
part, MNr. Leibowitz noted the possibility that, had the
Commission rejected the settlement, it would not have been able
to take advantage of the recently enacted bankruptcy law's
limitations on state law homestead provisions in this case.
Still, Mr. Leibowitz believed that it was worth trying because
the settlement would leave Mr. Harry with significant equity in
his $2.4 million Florida estate.  Mr. Leibowitz wrote,
"Reasonable people can disagree, but my sense is that the
Commission should have rejected this settlement to attempt to
obtain stronger relief, even if such an effort might have
ultimately failed." Nevertheless, he stressed that the
Commissioners are united as to the "policy of the agency on a
going forward basis" to use the new bankruptcy law "when
appropriate, to prevent malefactors from shielding assets that
could otherwise be returned to consumers who have been misled or
defrauded."

The stipulated final judgment was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois and entered by the
judge on May 5, 2005.

Copies of the stipulated final judgment are available from the
FTC's Web site at http://www.ftc.govand also from the FTC's  
Consumer Response Center, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue,
N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580. The FTC works for the consumer to
prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices in
the marketplace and to provide information to help consumers
spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or
Spanish (bilingual counselors are available to take complaints),
or to get free information on any of 150 consumer topics, call
toll-free, 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357), or use the complaint
form at http://www.ftc.gov.The FTC enters Internet,  
telemarketing, identity theft, and other fraud-related
complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database
available to hundreds of civil and criminal law enforcement
agencies in the U.S. and abroad.  For more details, contact
Brenda A. Mack, Office of Public Affairs by Phone: 202-326-2182
or contact Steven M. Wernikoff or Jason K. Bowler, FTC Midwest
Region - Chicago by Phone: 312-960-5630 or visit the Website:
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2005/06/creaghanharry.htm.


HKW TRADING: SEC Launches Civil Action in FL Over Ponzi Scheme
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed an emergency civil
action against HKW Trading, LLC (HKW Trading), Howard Waxenberg
Trading, L.L.C. (Waxenberg Trading) and Downing & Associates
Technical Analysis, n/k/a The Estate of Howard Waxenberg
(Downing), in connection with a Ponzi scheme orchestrated by the
recently deceased Howard K. Waxenberg (Waxenberg) of Bradenton,
Florida. The Commission also named HKW Trading Fund I, LLC (HKW
Fund), a hedge fund, and the Estate of Howard Waxenberg (Estate
of Waxenberg) as Relief Defendants. On June 9, 2005, the
Honorable Susan C. Bucklew, United States District Judge for the
Middle District of Florida entered, among other things, an
emergency order to temporarily freeze the assets of HKW Trading,
Waxenberg Trading, Downing (collectively, Defendants), HKW Fund
and the Estate of Waxenberg.

The Commission's complaint (Complaint) alleges that from at
least 1990 through May 2005, the Defendants raised more than  
$70 million by offering and selling securities to approximately
200 investors. The Complaint also alleges that Defendants
falsely represented to investors that they were day-trading
their investments in options and futures and generating
approximately 20% annualized returns. The Complaint further
alleges that Defendants sent out fictitious account statements
to investors that materially overstated the account values in
the individual investors' accounts. Furthermore, the Complaint
alleges that Defendants operated a Ponzi scheme by paying out
approximately 20% annualized returns to investors, in part, from
new investors' capital. Finally, the Complaint alleges that
Waxenberg received more than $1.6 million in ill-gotten gains
from investors' funds.
     
Upon the SEC's motion, the Court appointed Burton W. Wiand,
Esq., an attorney in the law firm of Fowler White Boggs Banker,
as Receiver over HKW Trading, Waxenberg Trading and HKW Fund.  
Among other things, Mr. Wiand is responsible for taking control
of HKW Trading, Waxenberg Trading and HKW Fund and for
marshaling and safeguarding their assets.
     
The Complaint charges Defendants with violating Section 17(a) of
the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and Sections
206(1) and (2) of the Investment Advisers Act. The SEC is also
seeking, among other things, permanent injunctions against HKW
Trading and Waxenberg Trading, disgorgement of ill-gotten
profits, civil money penalties against Defendants and an
accounting from the Estate of Waxenberg. The action is styled,
SEC v. HKW Trading, LLC, Howard Waxenberg Trading, L.L.C., et
al., Case No. 8:05-CV-1076-T-24MSS M.D. Fla. (LR-19265).


INKINE PHARMACEUTICAL: PA Court OK's Suit Over Preemptive Rights
----------------------------------------------------------------
InKine Pharmaceutical Company, Inc. (Nasdaq:INKP) reports that
the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas entered a final judgment
order approving the settlement of InKine's class action
litigation related to the denial of certain claimed preemptive
rights. The Court determined that the settlement was fair,
reasonable and adequate to the members of the class. A third
party is funding the settlement together with costs incurred by
InKine in the litigation.

"We are pleased that the final judgment has been entered by the
Court and that InKine and its insurance carriers are not
responsible for funding the damage settlement," said Leonard S.
Jacob, M.D., Ph.D., Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of
InKine.

The Court's judgment becomes unappealable after 30-days. There
can be no assurance that the judgment will not be appealed.

For more details, contact Robert Apple of InKine Pharmaceutical
Company, Inc., Phone: 215-283-6850 OR Don Weinberger of Wolfe
Axelrod Weinberger Assoc. LLC, Phone: 212-370-4500, E-mail:
don@wolfeaxelrod.com.


KIDS II INC.: Recalls 29.3T Jammin' Jumpers Due to Injury Hazard   
----------------------------------------------------------------
In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC), Kids II Inc., of Alpharetta, Georgia voluntarily
recalling about 29,300 Bright Starts Jammin' Jumpers.

The plastic clamp that attaches the jumper seat to a doorframe
can break, which can cause the unit to fall to the floor. This
poses an injury hazard to young children. Kids II has received
49 reports of the clamp breaking with 12 reported injuries,
including a possible mild concussion, skinned knee, cut lips,
and bumps and bruises.

The recalled baby jumpers have a blue canvas seat, yellow
straps, and a blue plastic clamp that attaches to an interior
doorframe. The recalled unit is the Bright Starts Jammin' Jumper
with model number 6607, which can be found on a white warning
label on the canvas seat. The words "Bright Starts" are printed
on the plastic housing that contains the clamp. The jumper was
sold with a play mat that makes sounds when the child jumps on
it.

Manufactured in China, the jumpers were sold at all mass
merchandise and juvenile specialty stores nationwide from
December 2003 through May 2005 for about $30.

Consumers should stop using the product immediately and disable
the jumper by cutting a one-inch portion of the yellow strap
just below the clamp. To receive a free replacement product,
consumers should cut out the white warning label from the canvas
seat and mail the label and the one-inch portion of the yellow
strap to Kids II at 555 North Point Center East, Suite 600,
Alpharetta, GA 30022.

Consumer Contact: For additional information, contact Kids II
toll-free at (877) 325-7056 between 7:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. ET
Monday through Friday or logon to: http://www.kidsii.com.


MAGMA DESIGN: Shareholders Initiate Stock Fraud Suit in N.D. CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Magma Design Automation, Inc. faces a securities class action
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, styled "The Cornelia I. Crowell GST
Trust vs. Magma Design Automation, Inc., Rajeev Madhavan,
Gregory C. Walker and Roy E. Jewell, case no. C 05 02394."

The complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose
information regarding the risk of the Company infringing
intellectual property rights of Synopsys, Inc., in violation of
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 thereunder, and prays for unspecified damages.

The suit is styled "Cornelia I. Crowell GST Trust v. Magma
Design Automation, Inc. et al., case no. 3:05-cv-02394-CRB,"
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, under Judge Charles R. Breyer.  
Representing the plaintiffs is Elizabeth P. Lin of Milberg Weiss
Bershad & Schulman LLP, 355 South Grand Ave., Suite 4170, Los
Angeles, CA 90071, Phone: 213/617-1200, Fax: (213) 617-1975, E-
mail: elin@milbergweiss.com.


MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Court Denies Motion To Dismiss RICO Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied efforts by carpet
and flooring giant Mohawk Industries Inc. to kill a racketeering
class action lawsuit, which claims that the Calhoun, Georgia-
based company recruited and employed illegal aliens in order to
depress wages of legitimate employees, The Fulton County Daily
Report reports.

In its June 9 per curiam decision, the federal appeals court
panel upheld key elements of a ruling by U.S. District Senior
Judge Harold L. Murphy that allowed the case to proceed.

Though the ruling comes at an early stage in the case, some
individuals familiar with the matters have pointed out that the
case could be headed to the U.S. Supreme Court, since the 11th
Circuit's reasoning splits with another circuit's.

The suit, which was filed by four current and former Mohawk
employees, is alleging federal and state violations of the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. In addition
the suit accuses the company of working with employee recruiters
who hired illegal workers in Texas and Georgia, often providing
them with phony Social Security cards and of hiding said illegal
workers during law enforcement inspections.

Mohawk sought to have the charges dismissed, arguing that the
plaintiffs had not stated a viable claim under either state or
federal RICO laws. However, Judge Murphy disagreed, which was
affirmed by the 11th Circuit panel: Judge R. Lanier Anderson
III, Judge Frank M. Hull and visiting 8th Circuit Senior Judge
John R. Gibson.

According to the panel, the plaintiffs easily met two of the
four requirements to bring a federal RICO suit, which alleges a
pattern of racketeering activity.  The panel stated that the
harder questions were whether the plaintiffs had established
"conduct of an enterprise" and whether the enterprise had a
common goal.  

In its ruling the panel pointed out that the "enterprise" prong
was met, since "Mohawk and the third-party recruiters are
distinct entities that, at least according to the complaint, are
engaged in a conspiracy to bring illegal workers into this
country for Mohawk's benefit."  It also ruled that the common-
purpose test was met, since the plaintiffs clearly alleged that
the members of the enterprise stand to gain sufficient financial
benefits from Mohawk's employment of illegal workers.

The panel concluded that the complaint sufficiently alleges that
Mohawk is engaged in operating the enterprise. However, the
judges added that "at this stage of the litigation, we simply
cannot say whether the plaintiffs will be able to establish that
Mohawk had 'some part in directing' the affairs of the
enterprise."

The judges though noted that their decision puts the 11th
Circuit in conflict with the 7th Circuit's previous decision in
Baker v. IBP, 357 F.3d 685, in which that court refused to allow
a RICO case to go forward. The 11th Circuit judges pointed out
that "the Supreme Court had yet to delineate the exact
boundaries" of some of the RICO tests, which was an indication
that the case could get attention from the U.S. Supreme Court
that often accepts cases in order to resolve a split among the
circuits.

While noting that state RICO standards do not allow a
corporation to be prosecuted, the appellate panel cited the
Georgia law in observing that a corporation will be liable under
Georgia RICO "if the crime is authorized, requested, commanded,
performed, or recklessly tolerated by the board of directors or
by a managerial official who is acting within the scope of his
duties.

The judges said, "The plaintiffs' complaint is rife with
allegations that supervisors and managers at Mohawk were either
aware of, or in reckless disregard of, the misuse of various
work-related documents. Consequently, the plaintiffs have
alleged sufficient conduct that, if proven, would allow them to
hold Mohawk liable under state law."

Though the ruling favored the plaintiffs for the most part,
Mohawk did not come out from the 11th Circuit empty-handed,
since the panel upheld Judge Murphy's refusal to let the
plaintiffs press claims of unjust enrichment by Mohawk, which
were based on allegations that the company had profited by
reducing the number of workers' compensation claims it had to
pay.

After the decision was handed down, plaintiffs' lawyer John E.
Floyd of Atlanta's Bondurant, Mixson & Elmore told the Fulton
County Daily Report, "We're obviously pleased that four out of
four judges agree with us so far. While we respectfully disagree
with the unjust enrichment decisions ... we think the
interpretation of the Georgia RICO statutes is very important."

On the other hand, Carter G. Phillips, a partner at Washington's
Sidley Austin Brown & Wood, representing Mohawk, told the Fulton
County Daily Report that his client has yet to decide on its
next move. He also said, "Mohawk is studying the issues, is
obviously happy that unjust enrichment was dismissed, and will
have to decide whether to seek en banc review, Supreme Court
review or return to the district court and seek summary
judgment."

The suit is titled, Williams v. Mohawk, No. 04-13740, which is
pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit (D.C. Docket No. 04-00003-CV-HLM-4). John E.
Floyd of Bondurant, Mixson & Elmore, represents the plaintiffs-
appellees, Shirley Williams, Gale Pelfrey, Bonnie Jones and Lora
Sisson. Carter G. Phillips, a partner at Washington's Sidley
Austin Brown & Wood represents the defendant-appellant, Mohawk
Industries, Inc.


NATIONAL AUTO: Finalizes NY Investor, Derivative Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
National Auto Credit, Inc. is finalizing the settlement of a
derivative and class action filed against it in the Supreme
Court of the State of New York for New York County, styled
"Robert Zadra, et al v, James A. McNamara, et al (Index. No. 01-
604859)."  The suit also names as defendants certain of the
Company's directors.

On July 31, 2001, NAC received a derivative complaint filed by
Academy Capital Management, Inc., a shareholder of NAC, with the
Court of Chancery of Delaware.  The company was named as a
nominal defendant, and named as defendants James J. McNamara,
John A. Gleason, William S. Marshall, Henry Y.L. Toh, Donald
Jasensky, Peter T. Zackaroff, Mallory Factor, and Thomas F.
Carney, Jr.

The Academy Complaint principally seeks:

     (1) a declaration that the Director Defendants breached
         their fiduciary duties to NAC,

     (2) a judgment voiding an employment agreement with James
         J. McNamara and rescinding a stock exchange agreement
         in which NAC acquired ZoomLot Corporation,

     (3) a judgment voiding the grant of stock options and the
         award of director fees allegedly related thereto,

     (4) an order directing the Director Defendants to account
         for alleged damages sustained and profits obtained by
         the Director Defendants as a result of the alleged
         various acts complained of,

     (5) the imposition of a constructive trust over monies or
         other benefits received by the Director Defendants and

     (6) an award of costs and expenses

On August 16, 2001, NAC received a complaint filed by Levy
Markovich ("Markovich"), a shareholder of NAC, with the Delaware
Chancery Court on or about August 16, 2001, against James J.
McNamara, John A. Gleason, William S. Marshall, Henry Y. L. Toh,
Donald Jasensky, Peter T. Zackaroff, Mallory Factor, and Thomas
F. Carney, Jr. and NAC as a nominal defendant.

The Markovich Complaint principally seeks:

     (i) a declaration that the Director Defendants have
         breached their fiduciary duties to NAC,

    (ii) a judgment voiding an employment agreement with James
         J. McNamara and rescinding a stock exchange agreement
         in which NAC acquired ZoomLot Corporation,

   (iii) a judgment voiding the grant of options and the award
         of directors fees allegedly related thereto,

    (iv) an order directing the Director Defendants to account
         for alleged damages sustained and alleged profits
         obtained by the Director Defendants as a result of the
         alleged various acts complained of,

     (v) the imposition of a constructive trust over monies or
         other benefits received by the directors, and

    (vi) an award of costs and expenses

On August 31, 2001, NAC received a complaint filed by Harbor
Finance Partners ("Harbor"), a shareholder of NAC, with the
Delaware Chancery Court on or about August 31, 2001, against
Thomas F. Carney, Jr., Mallory Factor, John A. Gleason, Donald
Jasensky, William S. Marshall, James J. McNamara, Henry Y. L.
Toh, Peter T. Zackaroff, Ernest C. Garcia, and ZoomLot
Corporation as Defendants and NAC as a nominal defendant.  The
Harbor Complaint principally seeks:

     (a) a judgment requiring the Director Defendants to
         promptly schedule an annual meeting of shareholders
         within thirty (30) days of the date of the Harbor
         Complaint;

     (b) a judgment declaring that the Director Defendants
         breached their fiduciary duties to NAC and wasted its
         assets;

     (c) an injunction preventing payment of monies and benefits
         to James J. McNamara under his employment agreement
         with NAC and requiring Mr. McNamara to repay the
         amounts already paid to him thereunder;

     (d) a judgment rescinding the agreement by NAC to purchase
         ZoomLot and refunding the amounts it paid;

     (e) a judgment rescinding the award of monies and options
         to the directors on December 15, 2000 and requiring the
         directors to repay the amounts they received allegedly
         related thereto;

     (f) a judgment requiring the defendants to indemnify NAC
         for alleged losses attributable to their alleged
         actions; and

     (g) a judgment awarding interest, attorney's fees, and
         other costs, in an amount to be determined

On October 12, 2001, NAC received a derivative complaint filed
by Robert Zadra, a shareholder of NAC, with the Supreme Court of
the State of New York on or about October 12, 2001 against James
J. McNamara, John A. Gleason, William S. Marshall, Henry Y. L.
Toh, Donald Jasensky, Peter T. Zackaroff, Mallory Factor, Thomas
F. Carney, Jr., and NAC as Defendants.  On May 29, 2002 the
complaint was amended to include class action allegations (the
"Zadra Amended Complaint").

The Zadra Amended Complaint contains allegations similar to
those in the Delaware actions concerning the Board's approval of
the employment agreement with James McNamara, option grants and
past and future compensation to the Director Defendants, and the
ZoomLot transaction.  The Amended Complaint seeks a declaration
that as a result of approving these transactions the Director
Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to NAC; a judgment
enjoining defendants from proceeding with or exercising the
option agreements; rescission of the option grants to
defendants, if exercised; an order directing the Director
Defendants to account for alleged profits and losses obtained by
the Director Defendants as a result of the alleged various acts
complained of; awarding compensatory damages to NAC and the
class, together with prejudgment interest, and an award of costs
and expenses.

By order of the Delaware Chancery Court on November 12, 2001,
the Academy, Markovich and Harbor Complaints were consolidated
under the title "In re National Auto Credit, Inc. Shareholders
Litigation," Civil Action No. 19028 NC (Delaware Chancery Court)
("Delaware Consolidated Action") and the Academy Complaint was
deemed the operative complaint.

The parties in the New York action thereafter engaged in
settlement negotiations and the parties entered into a
stipulation of settlement in December 2002, proposing to settle
all class and derivative claims.  In January 2003, the New York
Supreme Court entered an order which, among other things,
conditionally certified a class of shareholders for settlement
purposes, approved the form of notice of the proposed
settlement, and scheduled a hearing to approve the settlement.
Notice of the proposed settlement was given to the shareholders
of the Company and members of the class as per the court's order
in January and February 2003. Hearings on the proposed
settlement were held on May 13, 2003 and October 15, 2003. One
of the Plaintiffs in the Delaware Consolidated Action, and
several other shareholders, appeared and objected to the terms
of the settlement, but all of these objections were denied by
the New York Supreme Court, which, after hearing all the
evidence, found that the settlement was fair, reasonable and in
the best interests of the Company, the class and the Company's
shareholders, and approved the terms of the proposed settlement
in a written Order and Judgment entered January 8, 2004 ("the
January 2004 Order").

Under the terms of the New York Settlement Stipulation, the
Company agreed (subject to certain terms and conditions) to,
among other things:

     (1) adopt or implement certain corporate governance
         procedures or policies,

     (2) issue to a class of NAC shareholders who had
         continuously held NAC Common Stock from December 14,
         2000 through December 24, 2002 up to one million
         warrants (one warrant per 8.23 shares of Common
         Stock), with each warrant having a five year term and
         being exercisable for shares of NAC Common Stock at a
         price of $1.55 per share,

     (3) cancel 50% of certain stock options granted on December
         15, 2000, and

     (4) make certain payments for legal fees for counsel to the
         plaintiffs in the New York Action.

In addition, the New York Settlement Stipulation created for the
benefit of the Company a Settlement Fund in the amount of $2.5
million which has been funded by an insurance policy. The legal
fees for counsel to the plaintiffs in the New York Action are
not to exceed 25% of the Settlement Fund.

In order to facilitate the settlement and dismissal of a
separate derivative action entitled "In re National Auto Credit,
Inc, Shareholders Litigation (Index No. 19028 NC)" (hereinafter
referred to as the "Delaware Action"), which had been commenced
in the Chancery Court for the State of Delaware (the "Delaware
Court") against the Company, as well as the New York Action, on
April 22, 2005, the Company entered into a Stock Purchase
Agreement ("Agreement") with Academy Capital Management, Inc.,
Diamond A. Partners, L.P., Diamond A. Investors, L.P., Ridglea
Investor Services, Inc. and William S. Banowsky (hereinafter
referred to collectively as the "Selling Stockholders").

The Selling Stockholders had also raised objections to the
settlement of the New York Action. The New York Court rejected
the objections raised by the Selling Stockholders and approved
as fair and in the best interests of the Company and its
shareholders the proposed settlement of the New York Action as
set forth in the New York Settlement Stipulation. The Selling
Stockholders then filed an appeal (the "Appeal") to such
determination by the New York Court.

Pursuant to the terms of the Agreement, the Selling Stockholders
agreed, among other things, to do the following:

     (i) enter into a stipulation (to be filed with the New
         York Court) pursuant to which they will irrevocably
         withdraw, with prejudice, any objections they had
         asserted or might have asserted with respect to the
         settlement of the New York Action, stipulate to the
         entry of an order dismissing the New York Action and
         agree to the dismissal of the Appeal.

    (ii) enter into a stipulation (to be filed with the
         Appellate Division, First Department, of the Supreme
         Court of the State of New York) providing for the
         dismissal of the Appeal.

   (iii) enter into a stipulation (to be filed in the Delaware
         Court), pursuant to which they will agree to the
         dismissal of the Delaware Action with prejudice.

The Selling Stockholders have executed and delivered to the
Company and the Company has filed with the applicable New York
Court and Delaware Court each of the stipulations referred to
above. Effective May 5, 2005, the New York Court entered a Final
Order and Judgment in which it approved the Stipulation of
Dismissal of Objections, finding the terms set forth therein
fair, reasonable and adequate, and dismissed the New York Action
and the objections to the New York Settlement with prejudice.
Effective May, 13, 2005, the Appellate Division, First
Department, of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
granted the dismissal of the Appeal.  Effective May 18, 2005,
the Delaware Court granted an Order and Judgment Dismissing
Action with Prejudice the Delaware Action.  As a consequence of
each of the above actions by the respective courts, settlement
of the New York Action and the Delaware Action, the settlement
has received preliminary confirmation as of May 2005 and
management estimates final confirmation by the end of June 2005.

Pursuant to the Agreement, the Company agreed (subject to
certain terms and conditions set forth in the Agreement) to
purchase from the Selling Shareholders their 1,562,500 shares of
Company Common Stock at a price of $0.6732 per share (or a total
purchase price of $1,051,875) and to contribute $100,000 to
cover a portion of the legal fees incurred by the Selling
Shareholders.  The Company's obligation to purchase such shares
is conditioned upon (as well as certain other conditions) an
order or judgment having been entered by the New York Court in
the New York Action, dismissing the New York Action with
prejudice, which order or judgment shall not be subject to
appeal or the time to appeal such order or judgment shall have
lapsed, and an order or judgment having been entered by the
Delaware Court in the Delaware Action, dismissing the Delaware
Action with prejudice, which order or judgment shall not be
subject to appeal or the time to appeal such order or judgment
shall have lapsed.

As acknowledged by the Selling Shareholders in the Agreement,
the Company was willing to enter into the Agreement, settle the
New York Action and the Delaware Action and consummate the other
transactions contemplated by the Agreement in order to terminate
prolonged and expensive litigation and the Company's entry into
the Agreement would not constitute or be deemed to constitute or
evidence any improper or illegal conduct by or on behalf of the
Company (or any of its directors, officers, employees and other
agents or representatives) or any other wrong doing by the
Company (or any of its directors, officers, employees and other
agents or representatives). The Agreement was approved by the
disinterested and independent members of the Company's Board of
Directors.  Management currently anticipates that the final
confirmed settlement of the New York Action and the Delaware
Action, as described above, will be completed by June 30, 2005.


NAVARRE CORPORATION: Shareholders Launch Stock Fraud Suit in MN
---------------------------------------------------------------
Navarre Corporation, its chief executive officer and its chief
financial officers faces a securities class action filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Minnesota,
styled "Aviva Partners LLC individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Navarre Corporation, et al., case
no. Number 05-1151 (PAM/RLE)."

Plaintiffs allege that this is a federal class action lawsuit on
behalf of all those who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities in the Company between July 23, 2003 and May 31,
2005. Plaintiffs allege among other things, that the Company,
its chief executive officer, and its chief financial officer
violated federal securities laws and regulations because the
Company's financial results were materially inflated and not
prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles, which benefited Company insiders, including the
individual defendants.  Plaintiffs further allege the company
failed to properly recognize executive deferred compensation and
improperly recognized a deferred tax benefit as income.  

Plaintiffs allege violation of Sec. 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10(b)5 promulgated under the Act,
and as to the individual defendants only, violation of Sec.
20(a) of the Act.  Plaintiffs seek certification of the action
as a class action lawsuit, compensatory but unspecified damages
allegedly sustained as a result of the alleged wrongdoing, plus
costs, counsel fees and expert fees.


NORWEGIAN CRUISE: Passengers Launch Suit For Endangering Lives
--------------------------------------------------------------
Passengers aboard one of Norwegian Cruise Line's cruise ships
that was hit by a rogue wave during a storm launched a lawsuit
seeking more than $100 million in damages against the company,
claiming that their lives were endangered for the ship's 15
minutes of fame on Donald Trump's TV show, The Apprentice, The
NBC6.net reports.  The lawsuit, which was filed in a federal
court in Miami, alleges that the 2,500 passengers on board
feared for their lives because of the weather on the April trip.

Court papers revealed that on April 16, the Norwegian Dawn, a
cruise ship holding more than 2,000 passengers ran through an
Atlantic storm. A 70-foot wave slammed into the ship, leaving
passengers scared but not seriously injured. Court papers also
indicated that the Norwegian Dawn was going to be the setting
for an episode of The Apprentice.

Passenger Rosanne Hughes old NBC6.net, "It was terrifying. It is
the most horrible feeling in the world, that you are going to
die."

Approximately 30 passengers have filed a lawsuit against
Norwegian Cruise Line, seeking punitive damages on charges of
negligence and causing emotional distress.  The plaintiffs'
theory is that the Norwegian Dawn's captain raced through the
storm to get to New York so a segment of The Apprentice could be
produced onboard.

Brett Rivkind, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, told NBC6.net, "The
only explanation that has come to the surface is that the
company had this contractual agreement with the TV show, The
Apprentice."

Experts say that rogue waves, like the one that hit the
Norwegian Dawn, don't last long, but they can take down a vessel
that is in the wrong place at the wrong time. Mark A. Donelan,
of the University of Miami's Rosensteil School, even told
NBC6.net, "The winds can come from more than one direction, and
if you happen to be at the point where two big waves come in and
they interact, you are where the crest meets, then you get
double the height of the wave."

The Bahama Maritime Authority investigated and released a
statement, saying "There is no evidence that any real or
perceived urgency to arrive in New York earlier was a factor in
the handling of the ship. The captain's actions were found to be
prudent and appropriate throughout."

However, Mr. Rivkind, who is hoping to have the suit against the
cruise line as a class action suit, told NBC6.net that his
clients disagree with the report by saying, "You had passengers
describing hearing the propellers of the ship out of the water,
grinding."


PEMSTAR INC.: 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 consolidated
securities class action filed against PEMSTAR, Inc. and certain
of its current and former officers and directors, captioned "in
re PEMSTAR Securities Litigation."

Several suits were initially filed, alleging violations of
Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act of 1933.  
The suits were later consolidated. The plaintiffs, several
individual shareholders, alleged, in essence, that the
defendants defrauded shareholders by making optimistic
statements during a time when they should have known that
business prospects were less promising and alleged that the
registration statement filed by the Company in connection with a
secondary offering contained false, material misrepresentations.  
An Amended Consolidated Complaint was filed January 9, 2003.

On August 23, 2002 and October 2, 2002 two different individual
shareholders also commenced virtually identical shareholder
derivative actions against the Company as nominal defendant and
its Board. Those actions had been consolidated and were pending
in United States District Court for the District of Minnesota,
Third Judicial District, County of Olmsted. The allegations in
the consolidated derivative actions were based on many of the
same facts that gave rise to the securities action.  The
derivative action alleged that the Board breached its fiduciary
duties by allegedly allowing violations of the securities laws
to occur.

In March 2005, the Company entered into a settlement agreement
with the plaintiffs of the In re PEMSTAR Securities Litigation.
On May 27, 2005, the Company received final approval of the
settlement by the United States District Court for the District
of Minnesota. Under the terms of the $12 million settlement, the
Company will pay $250,000 and its insurers will pay the
remaining $11,750,000.  This settlement fully resolves these
claims against the Company and several of its current and former
officers and directors.  

The consolidated derivative lawsuits pending in Olmsted County
have also been settled.  The settlement is subject to final
approval by the Olmsted County Court.  This settlement requires
the Company to enhance certain corporate governance policies and
provides for payment of plaintiff's attorney fees ordered by the
Olmsted County District Court.  

The suit is styled "In re PEMSTAR, Inc. Securities Litigation,"
pending in the United States District Court in Minnesota.  The
plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

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

     (2) Mark McNair, 1919 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 800,
         Washington, DC, 20006, Phone: 703.273.3070, E-mail:
         wmmcnair@justice4investors.com

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

     (4) Rabin & Peckel LLP, 275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor, New
         York, NY, 10016, Phone: 212.682.1818, Fax:
         212.682.1892, E-mail: email@rabinlaw.com

     (5) Reinhardt, Wendorf & Blanchfield Attorneys at Law, E-
         1000 First National Bank Building, 332 Minnesota
         Street, St. Paul, MN, 55101, Phone: 800.465.1592, Fax:
         651.297.6543, E-mail: info@ralawfirm.com


PENNSYLVANIA: Officers Group Settles Suit Over "Fair Share Fees"
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Pennsylvania State Corrections Officers Association reached
a tentative settlement for a federal class action lawsuit that
was filed by more than 1,000 state correctional officers over
the collection of so-called "fair share fees," The Patriot-News
reports.

The suit, which was filed in 2002 by correctional officer LeRoy
Robinson Jr., sought compensation for the "fair share fees,"
which were in essence assessments that labor unions may charge
non-members for activities they must provide for all members of
the bargaining unit.

The amount to be refunded is not final and a federal judge must
approve the tentative agreement with some issues in the case
being scheduled to go to trial in U.S. Middle District Court in
Harrisburg later this month.

Camp Hill attorney Debra K. Wallet told Patriot-News that in the
event a judge approves the settlement, class members would be
sent notices. She also added, "We are satisfied that the
settlement is fair and vindicates the rights of the plaintiffs
and the class."

In January 2004, U.S. Middle District Judge Christopher C.
Conner ruled in the plaintiff's favor, finding that the union's
collection of fair share fees from December 2001 to March 2003
violated constitutional rights of nonmembers.

Earlier this year, another ruling went in the plaintiff's favor
when a judge ruled that a 2003 union notice announcing a change
in the fee failed to comply with the law. The non-union members
will be paid from an escrow account established last month.


PLAZA HOTEL: Reaches $525T Settlement For EEOC Race Bias Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) forged a
$525,000 settlement of its lawsuit against the Plaza Hotel,
Fairmont Hotel Management LP and Fairmont Hotel and Resorts,
Inc. under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act for
discrimination related to the events of September 11, 2001,
against a class of 12 Muslim, Arab, and South Asian employees
based on their religion and/or national origin.

The EEOC's lawsuit (Civil Action No.03 - CV- 7680), filed in
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,
alleged that the class of employees was subjected to a hostile
work environment and to severe and pervasive harassment.
Specifically, the EEOC charged that employees at the Plaza Hotel
were called offensive and derogatory names related to the 9/11
terrorist attacks based on their Muslim religion and/or their
Arab and South Asian national origins.

Sunu P. Chandy, EEOC New York Senior Trial Attorney, said, "The
EEOC takes very seriously allegations of harassment based on
religion and/or national origin. The EEOC will continue to
vigorously pursue such cases. We are proud of these brave
employees who stepped forward to the EEOC to report the
harassment. We are likewise pleased that the Fairmont hotel
management entities have agreed to implement improved procedures
to train their managers and employees at 14 hotels nationwide
that should assist in preventing future discrimination."

Spencer H. Lewis, Jr., EEOC's New York District Director, added:
"The EEOC is committed to eradicating backlash discrimination
following the events of September 11, 2001, against individuals
who are or who are perceived to be Muslim, Sikh, Arab, Middle
Eastern, or South Asian. Employers should be aware that they
have a duty to prohibit harassment based on religion and/or
national origin."

The EEOC is the federal government agency responsible for
enforcing the nation's anti-discrimination laws in the workplace
based on race, color, sex, religion, national origin,
retaliation, age and disability. Further information about the
EEOC is available on its Web site: http://www.eeoc.gov.


POLYMEDICA CORPORATION: Court Hears Appeal of Suit Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
The First Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments on
PolyMedica Corporation's appeal of class certification for the
securities class action filed against it and Steven J.
Lee, the Company's former Chief Executive Officer and Chairman
of the Board.

On November 27, 2000, Richard Bowe SEP-IRA filed a purported
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts on behalf of himself and purchasers of
common stock. The lawsuit seeks an unspecified amount of
damages, attorneys' fees and costs and claims violations of
Sections 10(b), 10b-5, and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, alleging various statements were misleading with
respect to the Company's revenue and earnings based on an
alleged scheme to produce fictitious sales.

Several virtually identical lawsuits were subsequently filed in
the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts against the Company.  On July 30, 2001, the Court
granted the plaintiffs' motion to consolidate the complaints
under the caption "In re: PolyMedica Corp. Securities
Litigation, Civ. Action No. 00-12426-REK."

Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on October 9,
2001.  The consolidated amended complaint extended the class
period to October 26, 1998 through August 21, 2001, and named as
defendants the Company, Liberty Medical Supply, Inc., and
certain of the Company's former officers.  Defendants moved to
dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on December 10, 2001.
Plaintiffs filed their opposition to this motion on February 11,
2002, and defendants filed a reply memorandum on March 11, 2002.
The Court denied the motion without a hearing on May 10, 2002.
On June 20, 2002, defendants filed answers to the consolidated
amended complaint.

On January 28, 2004, plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification to which defendants filed an opposition on
February 27, 2004. Plaintiffs filed a reply memorandum on April
12, 2004 followed by additional briefing by the parties. The
Court heard oral argument on the motion on June 2, 2004.  On
September 8, 2004, the court allowed the plaintiffs' motion and
certified the class. On September 21, 2004, the defendants filed
a petition requesting that they be permitted to appeal the
decision to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. The plaintiffs
filed a response to the defendants' petition on October 7, 2004
opposing defendants' request to appeal the class certification.
Also on October 7, 2004, the Court stayed sending notice of the
class action pending a ruling on defendants' appeal of class
certification.

On February 15, 2005, the First Circuit Court of Appeals granted
defendants' petition for leave to appeal the class certification
decision.  Defendants-appellants filed their brief on March 15,
2005, and plaintiffs-appellees filed an opposition on April 15,
2005. Defendants-appellants filed a reply brief on April 25,
2005.  The First Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral argument on
May 4, 2005 and took the matter under advisement.  Discovery is
ongoing in the underlying suit.

The suit is styled "Bowe et al v. Polymedica Corp., case no.
1:00-cv-12426-REK," filed in the United States District Court
for the District of Massachusetts under Judge Robert E. Keeton.  

Law firm for the defendants is Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and
Dorr LLP, 60 State Street, Boston, MA 02109, Phone:
617-526-6145, Fax: 617-526-5000.  The plaintiff firms are Hale &
Dorr, 60 State Street, Boston, MA, 2109, Phone: 617.526.6167 and
Moulton & Gans LLP, 133 Federal Street, Boston, MA, 2110, Phone:
617.369.7979.


QUALITY CARE: Recalls Repackaged Able Laboratories Drug Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
Quality Care Products, LLC, Temperance, MI, a federally licensed
drug re-packager with the FDA and DEA, is initiating a
nationwide recall of any and all numbers they repackaged from
drugs that were manufactured by Able Laboratories Inc.,
Cranbury, NJ. This recall is due to Able Laboratories voluntary
recall of all of their drug products because of the FDA's
serious concerns that they were not produced according to
quality assurance standards.

The Agency recommends that people who have been taking drugs
produced by this firm speak with their health care provider or
pharmacist to obtain a replacement drug product. Consumers
should continue taking the medication until they have spoken
with their health care provider. In many cases the risk of
suddenly stopping needed medication before getting replacement
drugs may outweigh the risk of continuing to use the recalled
products.

The list below provides the names of the recalled drugs and
their imprint codes. Imprints are marks (usually letters and
numbers) found on the surface of a capsule and or tablet. If you
have one of the drugs listed below with one of the corresponding
imprint codes, your drug is covered by the Quality Care Products
recall. Liquid products that are being recalled can be
identified by the lot numbers printed on their packaging.

It is important to note that this recall only applies to the
drugs produced by Able Laboratories -- and not to the same drugs
produced by other manufacturers.

The recall includes the following: Please refer to
http://www.fda.gov/oc/po/firmrecalls/qualitycare06_05.html.

The FDA has been apprised of this action. No injuries from this
recall have been reported, to date. These products were
distributed to Physician office dispensaries in over 12 States.
A copy of a sample label is attached to help you to identify
these products.

The company has already notified all of their Physician
dispensaries via letter, and has arranged for a replacement of
all full or partially filled bottles. Consumers with questions
may contact the company via e-mail: consumer@qcpmeds.com or call
800-337-8603 between the hours of 8am to 5pm EST.


RIVERA VINEYARDS: Reaches Settlement For EEOC Race Bias Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class of Latino farm workers at Rivera Vineyards will share
$1,050,000 in one of the largest employment discrimination
settlements by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(EEOC) in the agribusiness industry. The agreement covers a
group of employees, mostly Hispanic women, who were allegedly
sexually harassed, retaliated against for complaining, and
segregated into certain jobs based on gender.

Rivera Vineyards and its affiliated companies, prior to this
litigation, were the largest growers and packers of table
grapes, encompassing more than 2,000 acres of vineyards in
California's Coachella Valley. The settlement, obtained by the
agency's Los Angeles District Office under Title VII of the 1964
Civil Rights Act, will benefit a class of women who were
allegedly sexually harassed, including one who was allegedly
raped; a class of workers who were allegedly fired and not hired
back after opposing the harassment; and a class of women who
were denied certain job opportunities in positions of pruning,
vine tying, girdling, swamping (loading field trucks) and
irrigating.

In addition to the $1,050,000 monetary settlement, the company
also agreed to a Consent Decree to last three to eight years
that provides significant injunctive remedies, including:

     (1) Reinstatement for workers who were allegedly wrongfully
         terminated;

     (2) Hiring of an outside consultant specifically to handle
         complaints of harassment;

     (3) Implementing anti-discrimination policies and
         procedures;

     (4) Providing EEO training for managers and employees;

     (5) Establishing anti-discrimination and retaliation
         complaint procedures;

     (6) Hiring goals for positions that were not open to women;
         and

     (7) Reporting to the EEOC to show compliance with the
         Consent Decree.

Eric Dreiband, General Counsel for the Commission, who
participated in a press conference to announce the landmark
settlement, said: "I commend both the individuals who sought the
EEOC's assistance and Rivera Vineyards for taking this case
seriously and for doing what is right to ensure a workplace free
of discrimination."

Rivera's trial counsel, Shawn Caine, and general business
counsel and chief negotiator, Charles Ellis, said Rivera
Vineyards vehemently denied the allegations. Ellis said, "Rivera
Vineyards made a practical business decision that the settlement
terms presented an economic arrangement which, when balanced
against the overall costs of completing the litigation process,
was clearly advantageous. Moreover, while sincerely hurt and
offended by the allegations, Rivera Vineyards' core beliefs and
support for Title VII convinced them that the negotiated
settlement would add considerable weight to the EEOC's cause at
a cost benefit to all concerned when compared with litigation.
Thus, the settlement presented Rivera Vineyards with a win/win
situation- a confirmation of their long term support of the
goals of Title VII and economic advantage to all parties."

The EEOC's lawsuit was filed on September 5, 2003, in the
Eastern Division of the Federal District Court for the Central
District of California (EEOC v. Rivera Vineyards, Inc., et al,
Case No. CV-01117-RT-SGL), after the agency first attempted to
reach a voluntary pre-litigation settlement.

Specifically, the EEOC alleged that some of the women were
subjected to touching, groping, breast grabbing, leering, and
derogatory comments. EEOC also alleged that when a longtime
employee tried to complain about the harassment, she and her
entire crew were terminated and not hired back. The EEOC further
alleged that women were excluded from certain jobs at the
vineyard.

Anna Y. Park, Regional Attorney for the EEOC's Los Angeles
District Office, said, "We hope this case will give other farm
worker women the strength to come forward if they are facing
workplace harassment or retaliation. The EEOC is determined to
erase barriers to justice by actively investigating farm
workers' claims of discrimination and seeking judicial
enforcement of the law, when necessary."

Olophius Perry, Director of the EEOC's Los Angeles District
Office, said, "I am pleased with the results of this case and
commend Mr. Rivera for implementing sweeping policy changes for
his company. We hope other employers in the agricultural
industry take Mr. Rivera's lead in proactively ensuring a
workplace free of harassment."

The EEOC is the federal government agency responsible for
enforcing the nation's anti-discrimination laws in the
workplace. Further information the EEOC and on the Freedom to
Compete Award is available online at the Website:
http://www.eeoc.gov.


SALLY SHERMAN: Recalls Chicken Salad For Listeria Contamination
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sally Sherman Foods, a Mount Vernon, N.Y., firm, is voluntarily
recalling approximately 5,065 pounds of chicken salad that may
be contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes, the U.S. Department
of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS)
announced.

Subject to recall are:

     (1) 5 lb. plastic containers of "Sally Sherman, CHICKEN
         SALAD, WITH MAYONNAISE, CELERY, BREAD CRUMBS." Each
         package bears one of the following codes "FO81,"
         "FO82," "FO83," "FO84," "FO85," "FO86," "FO87" or
         "FO88."

     (2) 5 lb. plastic containers of "SALLY SHERMAN FOODS,
         CHICKEN PASTA CAESAR, MT VERNON, NY. Each package bears
         either the date code "FO81" or FO82."

Each product bears the establishment code "P-4400" inside the
USDA mark of inspection. The products were produced on June 8,
2005 and distributed to restaurants, retail stores and other
institutions in Connecticut, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts,
New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont.  The problem was
discovered through routine FSIS microbial sampling. FSIS has
received no reports of illnesses associated with consumption of
these products.  

Consumption of food contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes can
cause listeriosis, an uncommon but potentially fatal disease.
Healthy people rarely contract listeriosis. However, listeriosis
can cause high fever, severe headache, neck stiffness and
nausea.  Listeriosis can lead to miscarriages and stillbirths,
as well as serious and sometimes fatal infections in infants,
the elderly and persons with compromised immune systems.

Media and consumers with questions about the recall should
contact Vasili Zisis, company vice president of operations, at
(914) 664-6262.  Consumers with food safety questions can phone
the toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline at 1-888-MPHotline
(1-888-674-6854). The hotline is available in English and
Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time)
Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety messages are
available 24 hours a day.


SIDLEY & AUSTIN: Attempt To Avoid IL Bias Suit Liability Refused
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on
June 9,2005 a written opinion by Judge James Zagel decisively
rejecting the attempt of international law firm Sidley & Austin
to avoid any possible liability for individual relief in a
closely watched age discrimination lawsuit by the U.S. Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

In the ongoing litigation, the EEOC asserts that Sidley violated
the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) by downgrading a
group of law firm partners to "senior counsel" or "counsel"
status in the fall of 1999 and by maintaining a mandatory
retirement age for partners. EEOC's court-filed complaint seeks
monetary damages and reinstatement for these partners. The
EEOC's lawsuit was originally filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois in Chicago on January 13,
2005. The parties are now engaged in the discovery process, and
a trial date has not yet been set.

"Today's decision is a complete rejection of Sidley's attempt to
avoid the possibility of payment of monetary damages or other
individual relief if it is found liable," said EEOC Trial
Attorney Laurie Elkin, who is working on the government's case.
"But it is more than that, it is confirmation that in any case
brought by the EEOC, the Commission is empowered to seek relief
for the victims of discrimination - whether or not the victims
could seek relief on their own behalf."

In the EEOC's case against Sidley, the agency's Chicago District
Office began its investigation into Sidley & Austin's compliance
with the ADEA not as a result of a Charge of Discrimination
filed by an individual but after Sidley & Austin made statements
to the news media that it had demoted partners to create
opportunity for younger lawyers and referenced its mandatory
retirement age.

In its motion, Sidley argued that because none of the individual
partners filed a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC, and
therefore could not themselves file an action in court for
individual relief, the EEOC could not seek monetary relief on
their behalf.

Relying on Supreme Court precedent, Judge Zagel, said: "The
EEOC's right to bring suit seeking individual relief goes beyond
that of the individual and reaches the territory of public
interest, thereby allowing EEOC to seek relief for individuals,
like the affected Sidley partners in this case, who could not,
for any variety of reasons, do so themselves."

EEOC Chicago Regional Attorney John C. Hendrickson, who is lead
counsel for the government in the case, said: "Sidley's motion
was the legal equivalent of a `Hail Mary' pass in football - one
that is thrown at the end of a game to avoid a loss, and has
little chance of success. There really was no legal basis for
Sidley's argument that the EEOC's litigation authority is the
same as an individual's litigation authority under the federal
anti-discrimination laws."

Hendrickson continued: ""We are very pleased that Judge Zagel
recognized the EEOC's unique role in protecting the public
interest by pursuing claims for individual relief and that we
will be able to continue to pursue our claims for money damages
and reinstatement on behalf of partners affected by Sidley's
discriminatory practices."

EEOC Trial Attorney Deborah Hamilton, who is also working on the
case, said, "The Commission will now proceed vigorously in this
case, with the assurance that if the suit is successful, the
affected individuals will be made whole via monetary relief."

EEOC Supervisory Trial Attorney, Gregory Gochanour noted,
"Today's decision is part of a pattern of case law that has
developed in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision in EEOC v.
Wafflehouse. This line of cases holds that the EEOC's ability to
bring claims for relief is not dependent on whether an affected
individual could bring a claim for relief."

The EEOC is the federal government agency responsible for
enforcing the nation's anti-discrimination laws in employment
based on race, color, sex, religion, national origin,
retaliation, age and disability. Further information about the
agency is available on its Web site: http://www.eeoc.gov.


SOUTH DAKOTA: Sioux Falls Homeowners Sue City Over 2004 Floods
--------------------------------------------------------------
Seven flooded-out homeowners initiated a class action lawsuit
against the City of Sioux Falls, citing its negligence for their
losses during last year's flooding, KELOLAND TV reports.

The homeowners filed the suit on behalf of themselves and anyone
in the city whose property was damaged in the May 29th and June
16th storms. The plaintiffs' attorney, John Hughes told KELOLAND
TV that as many as 40 people have been significantly involved in
the process and he expects hundreds more to be included in the
suit.

Court documents claim that the rains flooded streets and
basements and sent up to several feet of raw sewage into homes
across Sioux Falls. It also claims that homeowners suffered
personal injury and property damage because the City of Sioux
Falls negligently designed, constructed, maintained and
inspected it's sanitary and storm sewer lines and systems.

Mr. Hughes told KELOLAND TV the City did not respond when asked
for help, and gave people no alternative. He also adds that
anyone whose property was damaged or destroyed or paid for clean
up expenses can be included in the class action suit.

The suit claims that members of the class are so numerous,
single action by each one would be impractical, that the class
has well over 100 members, and that the member's identities can
be ascertained from the city's records.


SPARTAN CHASSIS: Recalls 609 Motor Homes For Electrical Defects
---------------------------------------------------------------
Spartan Chassis, Inc. in cooperation with the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration's Office of Defects Investigation
(ODI) is voluntarily recalling about 609 2005-2006 Spartan
Mountain Masters due to electrical systems defect.

According to the ODI, on certain motor homes, the harness and
cables were routed incorrectly. Sharp casting edges of the
transmission lifting ear cur into cables or the wire harness.
Smoke may occur which may not be visible to the driver and an
electrical short may occur which could result in a fire.

As a remedy, dealers will route the harness and cables away from
the transmission-lifting ear, avoiding the casted part, which
was the source of chaffing. NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID Number: 05V273000,
Recall Date: June 08, 2005

For more details, contact Spartan by Phone: 517-543-6400 or the
NHTSA Auto Safety Hotline: 1-888-327-4236.


STELLENT INC.: Reaches Settlement For MN Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stellent, Inc. reached a settlement for the consolidated
securities class action filed against it and certain of its
current and former officers in the United States District Court
for the District of Minnesota, styled "In re Stellent Securities
Litigation."

The plaintiff alleges that the defendants made false and
misleading statements relating to the Company and its future
financial prospects in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The plaintiff seeks
monetary damages against the defendants in unspecified amounts.

In fiscal year 2005 a settlement was reached, subject to final
documentation and preliminary and final court approval. No
further expenses of any significance are anticipated with this
lawsuit, the Company said in a disclosure to the Securities and
Exchange Commission.


TRIUMPH MOTORCYCLES: Recalls 969 Motorcycles For Cooling Defects
----------------------------------------------------------------
Triumph Motorcycles (America) Ltd. in cooperation with the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Office of
Defects Investigation (ODI) is voluntarily recalling about 969
2005 Triumph Daytona 955I/Speed Triple/Sprint St/Sprint ST ABS
due to cooling system defects.

According to the ODI, on certain motorcycles, the lower by-pass
coolant hose can rupture. A loss of coolant from the engine can
result in the engine overheating and seizure, which could result
in a crash.

As a remedy, dealers will replace the coolant hose. NHTSA
CAMPAIGN ID Number: 05V276000, Recall Date: June 13, 2005.

For more details, contact Triumph by Phone: 1-678-854-2010 or
the NHTSA Auto Safety Hotline: 1-888-327-4236.


UNITED STATES: MN Judge OK's Deal With Political Asylum Refugees
----------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge in Minnesota approved a court-ordered government
plan to reduce the backlog of permanent resident applications or
green cards giving some relief to as many as 180,000 political-
asylum refugees in the Bay Area and across the country who have
been waiting a decade for the applications' approval, The
Mercury News reports.

Under the terms of a court settlement finalized in Minneapolis,
the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services will step up
processing of the applications for tens of thousands of
immigrants in the United States who have been granted political
asylum. In that agreement, the government will be required to
reduce the backlog by more than one-third in the next three
years, which means processing 61,000 new green cards. However,
individuals familiar with the case pointed out that the court-
ordered reduction could be as much as half or more than 90,000
new green cards.

Steve Baughman, a San Francisco attorney who represents hundreds
of political-asylum refugees in the Bay Area who have been
waiting for years to get their green cards told Mercury News,
"It's in nobody's interest to have people sitting in limbo for a
decade. It was an absurd situation. We were having to tell
people to come back in 10 years and we'll help you get your
green card."

Attorneys, immigrants and their advocates in the Bay Area and
the United States praised the settlement, which stemmed from a
2002 lawsuit filed by the American Immigration Law Foundation
(AILF) against the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the
federal immigration agency now known as USCIS.

The class action lawsuit was filed in Minnesota because one of
the plaintiffs, Venatius Nkafor Ngwanyia, a political refugee
from Cameroon, lives in St. Paul. It alleged that the government
failed to process the green-card applications of Mr. Ngwanyia,
who has been waiting since 1996 for a green card, and other
political-asylum refugees in a timely manner.

As previously reported in the March 6, 2002 edition of the Class
Action Reporter, the suit specifically alleges that the
government:

     (1) failed to distribute more than 18,000 "green cards" in
         the last eight years while more than 60,000 asylees
         wait in legal limbo;

     (2) failed to process applications in the required first-   
         in, first-out order; and

     (3) kept thousands of asylees in the wait list who are
         exempt from the cap.

In addition the suit challenges the government's practice of
requiring the asylum seekers to obtain a new employment
authorization card (EAD) each year while they wait for their
permanent status. Under the law, they have the right to work and
should not be required to shoulder the $120 annual fee the INS
charges for renewal of their employment authorization.

Attorneys for Mr. Ngwanyia and the government agreed that part
of the problem was a yearly limit imposed by Congress of 10,000
green cards that can be issued to those who have been granted
asylum. Many more immigrants were granted political asylum each
year. The cap has now been removed.

"The delays have been so harmful," Michele Garnett McKenzie, an
attorney with Minnesota Advocates for Human Rights, a
Minneapolis legal-aid group that represents refugees seeking
political asylum tells Mercury News. She also adds, "These are
people who fled terrible situations. They're trying to build
lives here and really can't do that until they're permanent
residents."

Ms. McKenzie also told Mercury News that they were unable to get
school or home loans because of their temporary status, were
required to renew work permits every year and were turned away
for good jobs because employers preferred those with permanent
status.

It still will take years for many in the line for green cards,
but the 10-year wait they once faced has been reduced by at
least three years, according to individuals familiar with the
matter.

As part of the court settlement, political asylum refugees will
also no longer be required to renew their work permits yearly,
instead they will be issued five-year work permits.


WEBMETHODS INC.: NY Court Preliminarily Approves Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted preliminary approval for the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against webMethods,
Inc., several of its executive officers at the time of the
Company's initial public offering (IPO) and the managing
underwriters of the Company's initial public offering as
defendants.

The amended complaint alleges, among other things, that
underwriters of webMethods' IPO solicited and received excessive
commissions and demanded tie-in arrangements from the
underwriters' customers in connection with their allocation of
shares in webMethods' IPO, and that those activities allegedly
undertaken by the underwriters of webMethods' IPO were not
disclosed in the registration statement and final prospectus for
webMethods' IPO or disclosed to the public after the IPO.

The amended complaint also alleges that false analysts' reports
were issued by the underwriters.  The amended complaint seeks
unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class of purchasers
of webMethods, Inc. common stock between February 10, 2000 and
December 6, 2000.  This case has been consolidated as part of
"In Re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation (SDNY)."

Claims against webMethods' executive officer defendants have
been dismissed without prejudice.  webMethods has considered and
conditionally agreed to enter into a proposed settlement with
representatives of the plaintiffs in the consolidated
proceeding.  Under the proposed settlement, the plaintiffs would
dismiss and release their claims against webMethods in exchange
for a contingent payment guaranty by the insurance companies
collectively responsible for insuring the issuers in the
consolidated action and assignment or surrender to the
plaintiffs by the settling issuers of certain claims that may be
held against the underwriter defendants.

The Suit is styled "In RE WebMethods, Inc. Securities
Litigation, case no. 1:01-cv-10830-SAS," related to "In Re IPO
Securities Litigation 21-MC-92," filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, under
Judge Shira A. Scheindlin.

Representing the Company is John Luke Cuddihy of Williams &
Connelly L.L.P., 725 Twelfth Street N.W., Washington, DC 20005,
by Phone: (202) 434-5000.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Stanley D. Bernstein, Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz,
         LLP, 10 East 40th Street, New York, NY 10016, Phone:
         (212) 779-1414 Fax: (212) 779-3218, E-mail:
         bernstein@bernlieb.com

     (2) Melvyn I. Weiss and Peter G.A. Safirstein, Milberg,
         Weiss, Bershad, Hynes & Lerach, LLP, One Pennsylvania
         Plaza, New York, NY 10119-0165 by Phone: (212) 594-5300


WESTELL TECHNOLOGIES: Finalizing Settlement of IL Investor Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Westell Technologies, Inc. is finalizing the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against it and
certain of its executive officers and directors, which was
already approved by the Company in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois.  The Company also
reached an agreement to settle the related consolidated
derivative action, filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois.

Several suits were initially filed, generally alleging that the
defendants violated the antifraud provisions of the federal
securities laws or state common laws by making false and
misleading statements in 2000 regarding forecasts for the second
quarter of Westell's fiscal 2001.  Under the terms of the
settlement agreement, all claims will be dismissed without any
admission of liability or wrongdoing by any defendant.

Under the terms of the settlement, the Company's and its
directors' and officers' liability insurers will pay a total of
$3.95 million to the plaintiffs and their counsel.  The Company
does not expect to pay anything in connection with the
settlement.  The shareholder class will receive $3.35 million
out of which the court will be asked to award attorneys' fees
and expenses to class counsel.  Counsel to plaintiffs in the
derivative action will receive the remaining $600,000 to settle
the derivative claim.  Beyond the financial settlement, the
Company agreed to adopt certain corporate governance and
communications procedures.  The agreement is subject court
approval.

"These cases represent the last of any material litigation in
which Westell was involved when I arrived in July 2001 ", Van
Cullens Westell's President and CEO, said in a statement.  "We
are very pleased to have advanced the cases to this stage."

The suit is styled "In re Westell Technologies, Inc. Securities
Litigation, case no. 1:00-cv-06735," filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, under
Judge Amy J. St. Eve.  Representing the plaintiffs is Robert
James Berg of Bernstein, Liebhard & Lipshitz, LLP, 10 East 40th
Street, New York, NY 10016, Phone: (212) 779-1414.  Representing
the Company is Steven Samuel Scholes of McDermott, Will & Emery
LLP, 227 West Monroe Street #4400, Chicago, IL 60606-5096,
Phone: (312) 372-2000.


WET SEAL: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Wet Seal, Inc. asked the United States District Court for
the Central District of California to dismiss the consolidated
securities class action filed against it and certain of its
present and former directors and executives.

Between August 26, 2004 and October 12, 2004, six securities
class action lawsuits were filed on behalf of persons who
purchased the Company's common stock between January 7, 2003 and
August 19, 2004.  The complaints allege violations of Section
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 of the
Exchange Act, on the grounds that, among other things, the
Company failed to disclose and misrepresented material adverse
facts that were known to the defendants or disregarded by them.

On November 17, 2004, the Court consolidated the actions and
appointed lead plaintiffs and counsel. On January 29, 2005, the
lead plaintiffs filed their consolidated class action complaint
with the Court, which consolidated all of the previously
reported class actions.  The consolidated complaint alleges that
the defendants, including the Company, violated the federal
securities laws by making material misstatements of fact or
failing to disclose material facts during the class period, from
March 2003 to August 2004, concerning its prospects to stem
ongoing losses in its Wet Seal division and return that business
to profitability.  The consolidated complaint also alleges that
certain former directors and La Senza Corporation, a Canadian
company controlled by them, unlawfully utilized material non-
public information in connection with the sale of the Company's
common stock by La Senza. The consolidated complaint seeks class
certification, compensatory damages, interest, costs, attorney's
fees and injunctive relief.

The suit is styled "In Re: The Wet Seal, Inc. Securities
Litigation, case no. 04-CV-07159," filed in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California, under
Judge Gary A. Feess.  Representing the plaintiffs in this
litigation are:

     (1) Barrack, Rodos & Bacine (San Diego), 402 West Broadway,
         San Diego, CA, 92101, Phone: 619.230.0800, Fax:
         619.230.1874, E-mail: info@barrack.com

     (2) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins (San
         Diego), 401 B Street, Suite 1700, San Diego, CA, 92101,
         Phone: 619.231.1058, Fax: 619.231.7423, E-mail:
         info@lerachlaw.com


WET SEAL: Working To Settle CA Jewelry Lead Contamination Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Wet Seal, Inc. is mediating a class action filed in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California against it and over two dozen retailers, including
teen retailers like Claire's and Hot Topic, department stores
like Sears, Nordstrom, Macy's and J.C. Penney, and large
retailers like Wal-Mart and Target.

In May 2004, the Company was notified by consumer group Center
For Environmental Health (CEH), alleging that five products
consisting of certain rings and necklaces contained an amount of
lead that exceeded the maximum .1 parts per million of lead
under Proposition 65 of the California Health and Safety Code;
however, no money damages were requested.  Each such contact
constitutes a separate violation.  The maximum civil penalty for
each such violation is $2,500.

The vendor of the products confirmed that the jewelry in
question contained some lead. The vendor has confirmed, however,
that it will accept the Company's tender of liability. The
Company has no outstanding invoices with the vendor.  The
Company has placed all future jewelry orders, effective October
2004, as lead free orders, which may lead to a 10% to 30%
increase in cost.

On June 22, 2004, the California Attorney General filed a
complaint on behalf of the Center for Environmental Health. On
June 24, 2004, the Company was added to that complaint as a
named defendant. The case is currently being mediated for
resolution on industry standards.  


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


ABLE LABORATORIES: Kaplan Fox Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NJ
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP initiated a class
action suit in the United States District Court for the District
of New Jersey against Able Laboratories, Inc. ("Able" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: ABRX) and certain of its officers and
directors, on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased
the publicly traded common stock of Able between October 30,
2002, and May 18, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange
Act of 1934 by publicly issuing a series of false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's financial condition and its
compliance with the FDA's current Good Manufacturing Practices
regulations relating to the manufacture and other processing of
drugs, thus causing Able's shares to trade at artificially
inflated levels.

On May 10, 2005, Able disclosed that during the quarter ended
March 31, 2005, the Company "conducted voluntary product recalls
affecting three product families" and the Company "initiated a
thorough internal evaluation" of its operating practices "with
the knowledge of the FDA."

On May 19, 2005, Able disclosed that it "identified apparent
departures from standard operating procedures with respect to
certain laboratory testing practices" and the Company decided
"to suspend shipment of each of its products until such time as
it can assure itself that the product has been manufactured and
tested in compliance with standard operating procedures and
current good manufacturing practices." The Company stated that
the disruption in shipment "is expected to have a material
effect." Able also announced that its chairman and CEO would
resign.

On May 19, 2005, as a result of these disclosures, the price of
Able common stock declined nearly 75%, closing at $6.26 per
share, down $18.37 per share form its previous close, on heavier
than usual volume.

On May 23, 2005, Able announced that the Company decided to
suspend "the manufacture and distribution of its products until
such time as it can assure itself that its products are
manufactured and tested in compliance with standard operating
procedures and current good manufacturing practices." The
Company also announced that it "intends to withdraw seven of its
approved Abbreviated New Drug Applications filed with the FDA. "
Then on May 27, Able disclosed that it reduced its staff by
about 200 employees. On June 9, 2005, Able announced further
staff reductions.

For more details, contact Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, E-mail:
mail@kaplanfox.com, Web site: http://www.kaplanfox.com.  


ABLE LABORATORIES: Spector Roseman Lodges Securities Suit in NJ
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C. initiated a
securities class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey, on behalf of purchasers of
the common stock of Able Laboratories, Inc. ("Able" or the
"Company") (Nasdaq: ABRX) between October 30, 2002 through May
18, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading
statements contained in press releases and filings with the
Securities and Exchange Commission during the Class Period.
Specifically, the Complaint alleges that Able failed to disclose
that its product testing procedures failed to meet standard
industry practices and good manufacturing practices established
by the FDA and as a result of the violations of FDA regulations,
it was subject to potential liabilities and fines, including
jeopardizing its current drug offerings and the likelihood that
drugs in development would receive FDA approval.

On May 19, 2005, the Company announced that it had identified
apparent departures from standard operating procedures with
respect to certain laboratory testing practices and that as a
result of these observations, the Company will be recalling
additional products in the future. As a result of this
disclosure, shares of Able fell $18.37 per share or 75%, to
close at $6.25 per share.

For more details, contact Robert M. Roseman, Spector, Roseman &
Kodroff, P.C., Phone: +1-888-844-5862 E-mail:
classaction@srk-law.com, Web site: http://www.srk-law.com.


BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS: Spector Roseman Lodges Stock Suit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C. initiated a
securities class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, on behalf of
purchasers of the common stock of Brocade Communication Systems,
Inc. ("Brocade" or the "Company") (Nasdaq: BRCDE) between
February 21, 2001 through May 15, 2005, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading
statements contained in press releases and filings with the
Securities and Exchange Commission during the Class Period.
Specifically, the Complaint alleges that during the Class Period
defendants:

     (1) improperly accounted for the cost of stock-based
         compensation;

     (2) did not follow appropriate option granting guidelines;
         and

     (3) lacked adequate internal controls.

As a result of this improper accounting, 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, Brocade announced that as a result of an
internal review it expected to restate its financial statements
for fiscal years ending 2002 and 2003 to record additional
stock-based compensation expense. On January 7, 2005, shares of
Brocade fell $0.52 per share or 7.51 percent to close at $6.40
per share. On January 24, 2005, Brocade also announced that it
expected to record additional stock-based compensation charges.
On May 16, 2005, prior to the opening of the markets, the
Company disclosed that it 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 Robert M. Roseman, Spector, Roseman &
Kodroff, P.C., Phone: +1-888-844-5862 E-mail:
classaction@srk-law.com, Web site: http://www.srk-law.com.


BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Stock Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP filed
a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California, on behalf of all persons
who purchased the securities of Brocade Communication Systems,
Inc. ("Brocade" or the "Company") (Nasdaq: BRCDE) between
February 21, 2001 and May 15, 2005, inclusive, (the "Class
Period") against defendants Brocade, and certain officers and
directors of the Company.

The case name is Armour v. Brocade Communication Systems Inc.,
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 defendants' Class Period
representations regarding Brocade's business outlook were
materially false and misleading when made for the following
reasons:

     (1) the Company restated its financial statements for
         fiscal years ending 2002 through 2004 to record
         additional charges for stock-based compensation
         expense;

     (2) the Company's internal controls were lacking as the
         Company did not follow its guidelines regarding stock
         option granting practices from August 2003 through
         November 2004;

     (3) the Company's financial statements failed to comply
         with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP");
         and

     (4) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' opinions and
         statements concerning the Company's current and future
         earnings were lacking in any reasonable basis when
         made.

For more details, contact Fred Taylor Isquith, Esq. or Derek
Behnke of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP, 270 Madison
Avenue, New York, NY, 10016, Phone: (800) 575-0735 E-mail:
classmember@whafh.com, Web site: http://www.whafh.com.  


CRAY INC.: Murray Frank Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in W.D. WA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington on behalf of shareholders who
purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Cray, Inc.
("Cray "or the "Company") (Nasdaq:CRAY) (XETRA:TE4)
(Stuttgart:TE4) (Berlin:TE4) (Frankfurt:TE4) (Munich:TE4)
between July 31, 2003 and May 12, 2005, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period Cray and
certain of the Company's executive officers issued materially
false and misleading financial statements to the investing
public regarding its financial outlook, in violation of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b 5 promulgated thereunder.

Cray, Inc. designs, develops, markets, and services high-
performance computer systems commonly known as supercomputers.
During the Class Period, defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business, product
development and financial performance. Unbeknownst to public
investors, the true facts, which defendants knew and/or
recklessly disregarded and failed to disclose to the investing
public during the Class Period, included:

     (1) that the Company's internal controls were inadequate,
         and failed in several key aspects, which included
         inadequate review of third-party contracts and lack of
         software application controls and documentation;

     (2) as a consequence of the above, it was difficult for the
         Company to manage basic operational tasks, such as the
         development of software applications, or customer
         requirements and specifications for systems per
         contract; and

     (3) that defendants' statements with respect to Cray's
         status and progress were lacking in any reasonable
         basis when made.

As a result of the defendants' false statements, Cray's stock
price traded at inflated levels during the Class Period, thereby
damaging investors.

On March 16, 2005, Cray disclosed that it was delaying the
filing of its 2004 annual report with the SEC due to an ongoing
review of the Company's internal controls. In its announcement,
the Company stated that it "expects that it will identify one or
more material weaknesses, including inadequate review of third-
party contracts and lack of software application controls and
documentation." The news caused Cray shares to plummet more than
25%, to close on Mach 17, 2005, at $2.23 per share.

On May 9, 2005, Cray reported financial results for the first
quarter ended March 31, 2005, including a $21.0 million loss, or
$0.24 per share -- compared to a net loss of $3.8 million, or
$0.05 per share in the first quarter last year. This news caused
Cray's share price to decline another 29%, to close on May 10,
2005 at $1.47 per share.

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


CRAY INC.: Spector Roseman Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in WA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C. initiated a
securities class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Washington, on behalf of
purchasers of the common stock of Cray Inc. ("Cray" or the
"Company") (Nasdaq: CRAY) between July 31, 2003 through May 12,
2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading
statements contained in press releases and filings with the
Securities and Exchange Commission during the Class Period.
Specifically, the Complaint alleges that defendants knew or
recklessly disregarded and failed to disclose to the investing
public that:

     (1) the Company's internal controls were inadequate
         resulting in, among other things, inadequate review of
         third-party contracts and lack of software application
         controls and documentation;

     (2) as a result, the Company was unable to manage basic
         operational tasks, such as the development of software
         applications or customer requirements and
         specifications for systems per contract; and

     (3) contrary to is public statements, the Company could not
         achieve sustained periods of revenue growth and
         profitability.

On March 16, 2005, Cray disclosed that it will delay filing its
2004 annual report with the SEC due to an ongoing review of the
Company's internal controls, with a preliminary assessment that
Cray, among other things, "expects that it will identify one or
more material weaknesses, including inadequate review of third-
party contracts and lack of software application controls and
documentation." This disclosure caused Cray shares to drop more
than 25%, to close on March 17, 2005, at $2.23 per share.

Subsequently, on May 9, 2005, Cray reported its financial
results for the first quarter ended March 31, 2005, including a
$21.0 million loss, or $0.24 per share -- compared to a net loss
of $3.8 million, or $0.05 per share in the first quarter last
year. Also on May 9, 2005, Cray revealed that it had received a
Notice of Potential Delisting from the Nasdaq. This news caused
Cray's share price to drop an additional 29%, to close on May
10, 2005 at $1.47 per share.

For more details, contact Robert M. Roseman, Spector, Roseman &
Kodroff, P.C., Phone: +1-888-844-5862 E-mail:
classaction@srk-law.com, Web site: http://www.srk-law.com.


DITECH COMMUNICATIONS: Charles J. Piven Lodges Stock Suit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of Ditech
Communications Corp. (NASDAQ: DITC) between August 25, 2004 and
May 26, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California against defendant and one or
more of its officers. 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., The World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street,
Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD, 21202, Phone: 410/986-0036, E-mail:
hoffman@pivenlaw.com.


EXIDE TECHNOLOGIES: Charles J. Piven Lodges Stock Lawsuit 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 Exide
Technologies (NASDAQ: XIDE) between November 16, 2004 and May
17, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey against defendant Exide 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., The World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street,
Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD, 21202, Phone: 410/986-0036, E-mail:
hoffman@pivenlaw.com.


EXIDE TECHNOLOGIES: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Fraud in NJ
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP initiated a
class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the securities of Exide Technologies ("Exide"
or the "Company") (NasdaqNM: XIDE), between November 16, 2004
and May 17, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to
pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act").

The action is pending in the United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey against defendants Exide, Gordon A.
Ulsh (President, CEO and a Director), Craig Muhlhauser (former
President and CEO), and J. Timothy Gargaro (CFO and Executive
VP). According to the complaint, defendants violated sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5, by issuing
a series of material misrepresentations to the market during the
Class Period.

The complaint alleges that Exide, a producer and recycler of
lead-acid batteries, was heavily dependent on financing to
support its operations during the Class Period, having emerged
from bankruptcy protection in May 2004. The Company had
negotiated a $365 million senior secured credit facility which
required the Company to comply with several financial covenants,
including; that the Company maintain a specified ratio of debt
to equity (the "Leverage Ratio Covenant") and that the Company
maintain minimum consolidated earnings before income, taxes,
depreciation, amortization ("EBITDA") (the "EBITDA Covenant")
(collectively, with the Leverage Ratio Covenant, the
"Covenants"). Throughout the Class Period, defendants
represented that the Company could maintain compliance with the
Covenants because, among other things, they had reorganized
Exide's business, successfully implemented cost-savings measures
and increased productivity. In addition, defendants stated that
they had hedged against commodity price fluctuations, including
the price of lead, which was the primary material used in the
production of batteries. On February 14, 2005, defendants
revealed that the Company was in violation of the Leverage Ratio
Covenant, however, assured investors, that Exide's lenders would
waive the Leverage Ratio Covenant. Moreover, defendants
emphasized that the Company was in compliance with the EBITDA
Covenant, and that it was not at risk of defaulting on the
credit facility.

The truth began to emerge on May 16, 2005. On that day, after
the market closed, defendants issued a press release stating
they expected Exide to violate the Covenants for the fiscal
year-ended March 31, 2005 as a result of the "impact of
commodity costs; the loss of overhead absorption due to an
inventory-reduction initiative; other fourth-quarter inventory
valuation adjustments; and costs associated with Sarbanes-Oxley
compliance efforts." In reaction to this announcement, the price
of Exide stock, which had closed at $11.15 per share on May 16,
2005, fell to an opening price of $5.75 per share the following
trading day, representing a one-day decline of $5.40, or 48%,
and closed out the day at $6.88 per share on extremely heavy
volume of over nine million shares, 50 times the daily average
volume. On May 17, 2005, after the market closed, defendant
Gargaro made the following additional shocking revelations:

     (1) the Company expected to report adjusted EBITDA of $100
         million to $107 million for the full-year 2005, and
         therefore, failed to satisfy the minimum EBITDA
         Covenant which required minimum EBITDA of $130 million;

     (2) several "unanticipated and unusual items," including
         write-offs of obsolete and discontinued products, had
         resulted in a reduction of earnings of between $15
         million and $20 million;

     (3) the Company lacked the ability to properly forecast its
         inventory requirements; and

     (4) the Company had violated the terms of a contract with a
         large customer and, consequently, was required to
         record an adjustment of $1.5 to $2 million.

In reaction to this news, the price of Exide shares fell another
$1.55, or 22 %, from their closing price of $6.88 on May 17,
2005, to close at $5.33 on May 18, 2005. Defendants were
motivated to commit the fraud alleged herein so that Exide could
complete a $350 million private placement of senior notes and
floating rate convertible senior subordinated notes.

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


EXIDE TECHNOLOGIES: 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 persons
who purchased the securities of Exide Technologies (Nasdaq:
XIDE) ("Exide") between November 16, 2004 and May 17, 2005,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

Schatz & Nobel, P.C. also has substantial experience
representing employees who are damaged by losses in their
employer's stock purchased and held by their company 401(k)
plans. If you bought Exide stock through your Exide retirement
account and have information or would like to learn more about
these claims, please contact us.

The Complaint alleges that Exide violated federal securities
laws. Under a $365 million senior secured credit facility, Exide
was required to maintain a specified ratio of debt to equity
("Leverage Ratio Covenant"), and to maintain minimum
consolidated earnings before income, taxes, depreciation,
amortization ("EBITDA") ("EBITDA Covenant") (collectively, the
"Covenants"). Defendants represented that Exide could maintain
compliance with the Covenants, however, on February 14, 2005,
defendants revealed that Exide was in violation of the Leverage
Ratio Covenant. Defendants assured investors, that Exide's
lenders would waive the Leverage Ratio Covenant and emphasized
that Exide was in compliance with the EBITDA Covenant, and was
not at risk of default.

On May 17, 2005 defendants announced that:

     (1) Exide failed to satisfy the minimum EBITDA Covenant;
   
     (2) several "unanticipated and unusual items," had resulted
         in a reduction of earnings

     (3) Exide was unable to properly forecast its inventory
         requirements; and

     (4) because Exide had violated a contract, it was required
         to record an adjustment of $1.5 to $2 million.

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


LAZARD LTD.: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. today initiated a
securities class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased,
converted, exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of
Lazard Ltd. (NYSE: LAZ) pursuant and/or traceable to the
Company's false and misleading Registration Statement and
Prospectus issued in connection with the initial public offering
of Lazard shares, together with those who purchased their shares
in the open market between May 4, 2005 and May 12, 2005,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against defendant Lazard, Goldman
Sachs & Co. and one or more of Lazard's 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., The World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street,
Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD, 21202, Phone: 410/986-0036, E-mail:
hoffman@pivenlaw.com.


LAZARD LTD.: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
LLP ("Lerach Coughlin") initiated a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York on behalf of purchasers of Lazard Ltd. ("Lazard" of the
"Company") (NYSE:LAZ) publicly-traded securities who purchased
such securities pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's false
and misleading Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in
connection with the initial public offering of Lazard shares
(the "IPO"), together with those who purchased their shares in
the open market between May 4, 2005 and May 12, 2005 inclusive
(the "Class Period").

Lazard is a financial advisory and asset management firm. The
complaint alleges that Lazard, Goldman Sachs & Co ("Goldman")
(the lead underwriter of the IPO), and certain of the Company's
officers and directors violated the Securities Act of 1933 and
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing a materially
false and misleading Registration and Prospectus in connection
with the Company's IPO, which was priced at $25 per share, and
continuing to conceal material facts about the true value of the
Company's stock price after the stock began to trade on the open
market.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that the Registration
Statement/Prospectus failed to disclose, among other things,
that:

     (1) the basis for the $25 price for shares sold in the IPO
         was to enable defendant Bruce Wasserstein (the
         Company's Chief Executive Officer) to raise sufficient
         funds to gain control of the Company from Michel David
         Weill ("David Weill"), a cousin of the Company's
         founders;

     (2) that prior to the IPO, market demand had indicated that
         the proper price for the IPO was only $22 per share;

     (3) that to "create a market" and thereby manufacture an
         appearance that Lazard's IPO was fairly and properly
         priced, Goldman arranged to sell millions of shares to
         hedge funds with side agreements that they could
         immediately "flip the shares" and that Goldman would
         immediately buy them back;

     (4) that the Prospectus had failed to adequately and fully
         comply with S-K Item 505 which requires a prospectus to
         describe "the various factors considered in determining
         the offering price" when common shares without an
         established public trading market are being registered;
         and

     (5) that, in violation of Securities and Exchange
         Commission regulations, the Registration
         Statement/Prospectus failed to disclose that Gerardo
         Braggiotti, the Company's deputy Chairman in Europe and
         a major rainmaker of new business for the Company, who
         had only supported the IPO because of a promise (which
         was later reneged on) that he would be appointed as
         head of Lazard's European operations, was likely to
         leave Lazard and/or cause turmoil within the
         organization as he opposed the IPO and opposed
         defendant Wasserstein's purchase of David Weill's
         shares.

On May 12, 2005, only days after the IPO, and right after
Goldman stopped buying back the Company's shares, the price of
the Company's shares plunged from $25 per share to less than $21
per share.

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


LAZARD LTD.: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C. initiated a lawsuit seeking
class action status has been filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all
persons who purchased the securities of Lazard, Ltd. (NYSE: LAZ)
("Lazard") between May 4, 2005 and May 12, 2005, inclusive (the
"Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that Lazard, Goldman Sachs & Co
("Goldman") (the lead underwriter of the IPO), and certain of
the Company's officers and directors violated federal securities
laws. Specifically, the Registration Statement/Prospectus failed
to disclose that:

     (1) the basis for the $25 IPO price was to enable defendant
         Bruce Wasserstein (the Company's CEO) to raise
         sufficient funds to gain control of Lazard from Michel
         David Weill ("David Weill");

     (2) prior to the IPO, market demand had indicated that the
         proper price for the IPO was $22 per share;

     (3) Goldman arranged to sell millions of shares to hedge
         funds with side agreements that they could immediately
         "flip the shares" and that Goldman would immediately
         buy them back;

     (4) the Prospectus had failed to adequately comply with S-K
         Item 505 which requires a prospectus to describe "the
         various factors considered in determining the offering
         price" when common shares without an established public
         trading market are being registered; and

     (5) the Registration Statement/Prospectus failed to
         disclose that Gerardo Braggiotti, Lazard's deputy
         Chairman in Europe and a major rainmaker of new
         business for Lazard, who would be appointed as head of
         Lazard's European operations, was likely to leave
         Lazard and/or cause turmoil within the organization as
         he opposed the IPO and opposed defendant Wasserstein's
         purchase of David Weill's shares.

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

MAGMA DESIGN: Murray Frank Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for Northern
District of California on behalf of shareholders who purchased
or otherwise acquired the securities of Magma Design Automation,
Inc. ("Magma" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:LAVA) between October
23, 2002 through April 12, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period
defendants failed to disclose that Magma faced the serious risk
of infringing on intellectual property rights of competitor
Synopsys, Inc. because inventions that were critical to Magma's
business, and which were patented by Magma, were designed by
Magma's Chief Scientist, Lukas van Ginneken, while he was
employed by Synopsys. This fact, and the significant risk it
posed, was known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by
them, but was concealed from Magma investors. Instead of
admitting to the degree of seriousness of the Synopsis
infringement action at the time it was filed, defendants
adamantly denounced the allegations, characterizing them as
completely baseless. While Magma's stock price was artificially
inflated, Magma insiders, including each of the individual
defendants, sold 4,436,163 shares of Magma common stock at
artificially inflated prices, reaping gross proceeds of
$82,385,174.

The truth was disclosed on April 13, 2005 when the market
learned that Magma's Chief Scientist admitted, in a sworn
declaration filed in the Synopsys infringement action, that
inventions covered by two of Magma's patents were conceived by
him while he was employed by Synopsys and that his supervisor at
Magma, and likely others, knew that the inventions covered by
the patents were conceived by him at Synopsis and were
encompassed by an agreement with Synopsis that established that
it owned the rights to those inventions.

This news caused Magma's stock to plummet by 40.7% in one day,
from $9.42 per share on April 12, 2005 to $5.58 per share on
April 13, 2005, on unusually high trading volume exceeding 14.4
million shares.

Magma Design Automation, Inc. provides electronic design
automation software products and related services.

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


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

The complaint charges that Pathmark and is board of directors
provided materially misleading information to shareholders in
connection with a Proxy Solicitation seeking shareholder
approval of an investment in Pathmark by Yucaipa Partners, LLC.
The proxy solicitation was misleading because it failed to
inform investors of an alternative cash-out transaction, through
which all Pathmark shareholders would receive $8.75 per share
that had been presented to Pathmark's Board of Directors on June
1. This alternative offer represented a greater value than the
Yucaipa Transaction, which the Board was recommending. The
Complaint also alleges that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties in negotiating with Yucaipa by continuing to
recommend that shareholders approve the Yucaipa Transaction even
after the alternative offer had been made.

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

PEMSTAR INC.: Murray Frank Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in MN
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of Minnesota on behalf of shareholders who purchased or
otherwise acquired the securities of PEMSTAR, Inc. ("PEMSTAR" or
the "Company") (Nasdaq:PMTR) between January 29, 2003 to January
24, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The action is
captioned The Cornelia I. Crowell GST Trust v. PEMSTAR, Inc., et
al., Civ. No. 05-1182 (D. Minn.).

The complaint charges PEMSTAR and certain of the Company's
executive officers, including Allen Berning, Roy Bauer, and
Gregory Lea, with issuing materially false and misleading
financial statements to the investing public regarding the
Company's financial condition and outlook in violation of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b 5 promulgated thereunder.

PEMSTAR is a provider of electronics manufacturing services to
OEMs in the communications, computing, data storage, industrial
and medical equipment markets. The complaint alleges that during
the Class Period defendants issued numerous positive statements
that misrepresented the true financial status of the Company and
its business prospects. In fact, throughout the Class Period,
PEMSTAR suffered from extensive liquidity constraints that
inhibited the Company's ability to achieve the necessary gross
margin expansion that was required for the Company to create and
sustain accounting profits. The Complaint alleges that the
defendants failed to disclose that the Company needed gross
margins of at least 9% in order to achieve profitability, a
level that defendants knew it was years away from attaining, if
ever. Moreover, defendants further misrepresented the Company's
financial condition by understating its liabilities associated
with its Mexican facilities and overstating the Company's
accounts receivables, which had become materially impaired. The
complaint alleges that, in part, defendants carried out the
fraudulent scheme in order to revive and strengthen the
Company's image, as perceived by its customer base, and enable
the Company to raise much needed capital through the issuance of
its common stock to the public at levels advantageous to the
Company.

On January 24, 2005, the Company issued a press release
announcing that it was revising its outlook for the fiscal 2005
third quarter, implementing additional cost-reduction
initiatives and restating its financial results for its fiscal
year ended March 31, 2004, due to accounting discrepancies at
its Mexico facility. By the time the Company made this
disclosure, the Company's common stock had declined nearly 70%
from its Class Period high.

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


UNITED AMERICAN: Rosen Law Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in MI
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm initiated a securities class action against
United American Healthcare Corporation and certain of its
officers and directors on behalf of purchasers of United
American Healthcare Corporation (NASDAQ: UAHC) publicly traded
common stock during the period between from May 26, 2000,
through April 22, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period'). This
lawsuit expands the Class Period an additional year beyond the
class period in the lawsuit the firm previously filed on behalf
of investors.

The complaint charges that United American Healthcare and
certain of its officers and directors violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act by failing to
disclose the Company's improper business and financial
relationship with a legislator having oversight of UAHC's
Healthplan. According to the complaint, this relationship was in
violation of the Company's contract with Tennessee and has
caused the State of Tennessee to place UAHC's Healthplan under
administrative supervision. The complaint alleges that as a
result, investors could not understand or accurately assess the
extent to which UAHC's ongoing operations, reported revenue, and
income were dependent upon the improper political payments
scheme.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed on behalf of
United American Healthcare shareholders by plaintiffs' counsel
The Rosen Law Firm P.A. The case titled Coleman v. United
American Healthcare Corporation; Civ. No. 05-72384 is pending in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.
You can obtain a copy of the complaint from the clerk of court
or you may contact counsel for the plaintiffs Laurence Rosen,
Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email lrosen@rosenlegal.com.

For more details, contact Laurence Rosen, Esq. of The Rosen Law
Firm, Phone: 866-767-3653 or E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com, Web
site: http://www.rosenlegal.com.

                            *********


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  * * *