CAR_Public/050621.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, June 21, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 121

                          Headlines

ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Settles Suit Over Costly Dress Code Policy
ABLE ENERGY: NJ Court Judge Certifies April 2003 Fire Lawsuit
ARKANSAS: Taxol Settlement Funds Given To Children's Hospital
CAN-SPAM ACT: FTC Says Adding "ADV" to E-mail Won't Stop SPAM
CANADA: Westmount Man Sues City of Montreal Over Property Taxes

CONCORD CAMERA: Trial in Securities Lawsuit Set Nov. 2006 in FL
CONCORD CAMERA: Discovery Proceeds in FL Securities Fraud Suits
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Employees File Overtime Lawsuits in CA Courts
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Female Managers Launch Gender Bias Suit in CA
COUNTRY COACH: Recalls 17 2006 Motor Homes Due To Crash Hazard

DUANE READE: Continues To Face Investor Fraud Suits in DE Court
EL PASO: Continues To Face Shareholder Fraud Lawsuits in NY, TX
EL PASO: TX Fraud Lawsuit For ERISA Violations Remains Stayed
EL PASO: Pension Plan Participants File ERISA Fraud Suit in CO
EL PASO: Faces New Natural Gas Price Antitrust Suit in TN Court

EL PASO: Plaintiffs Ask KS Court To Certify 2nd Antitrust Suit
EL PASO: Continues To Face Oklahoma Natural Gas Royalties Suit
FORD MOTOR: Reaches Settlement For CA Product Defect Lawsuit
GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls 291,652 Vehicles Due To Crash Hazard
GUIDANT CORPORATION: Recalls Defibrillators For Circuit Defect

H.A. BERKHEIMER: PA Court Grants Certification To Fraud Lawsuit
INTERPLASTICS CORPORATION: Residents Collect $2M From Settlement
KEMPS LLC: Recalls Ice Cream Due to Undeclared Ingredient
LAW CENTERS: KY Consumers Entitled To Consumer Fraud Restitution
MITLITSKY'S EGG FARM: To Pay $70T For "Connecticut Grown" Claims

MITSUBISHI MOTORS: Recalls 1,151 Vehicles Due To Crash Hazard
NISSAN NORTH: To Recall 44T Sentras For Fire Hazard in Aug. 2005
NORVERGENCE INC.: CA Business To Receive $2.6 Mil In Settlement
OREGON: Workers Launch Suit V. MSEA Over Nonunion Members' Fees
PRESTIGE BRANDS: Consumers Launch Fraud Suit V. Cough Products

PRICESMART INC.: Lawsuit Settlement Hearing Set August 18, 2005
PSS WORLD: Trial in FL Securities Fraud Suit Set November 2005
RBS GLOBAL: Named as Third-Party Defendant in Contamination Suit
ROUSH PERFORMANCE: Recalls Leather Seat Packages For Injury Risk
SHAKESPEARE FISHING: Recalls 438T Fishing Kits For Injury Hazard

TIFFIN MOTORHOMES: Recalls 302 Motorhomes Due To Fire Hazard
T.W. ENTERPRISES: Recalls Pet Treats Due to Salmonella Content
UNITED RETAIL: Reaches Settlement For CA Overtime Wage Lawsuit
US BUS: Recalls Schoolbuses For Barrier Defect, Injury Hazard
US BUS: Recalls 200 Sturdibus School Buses Due To Injury Hazard

VICTOR PRODUCTS: Recalls 31,000 Pressure Valve Caps For Defect
VIRTUAL REALTY: AZ Attorney General Files Consumer Fraud Lawsuit
YAMAHA MOTOR: Recalls 46,000 Motorcycles Due To Injury Hazard

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

CYBERONICS INC.: Finkelstein & Krinsk Lodges Stock Suit in TX
CYBERONICS INC.: Scott + Scott Files Securities Fraud Suit in TX
DITECH COMMUNICATIONS: Schiffrin & Barroway Files CA Stock Suit
LAZARD LTD.: Goldman Scarlato Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
NEWMONT MINING: Scott + Scott Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CO

OCA INC.: Allan Kanner Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. LA
OCA INC.: Berman DeValerio Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in LA
OCA INC.: Goldman Scarlato Lodhes Securities Fraud Suit in LA
OCA INC.: Kaplan Fox Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in E.D. LA
PEMSTAR INC.: Brian M. Felgoise Lodges Securities Lawsuit in MN

PEMMSTAR INC.: Goldman Scarlato Lodges Securities Lawsuit in MN


                           *********


ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Settles Suit Over Costly Dress Code Policy
---------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys representing Abercrombie & Fitch employees report that
a settlement was reached in the class action lawsuit filed
against the retailers, the KING5.com reports.  The lawsuit
targeted a policy that forced employees to buy the clothes to
wear on the job, a policy, which the employees claimed was
draining their bank accounts.

According to former manager Lindsey King, "We had to wear a
certain look every season and we were required to purchase the
look for that season, which changed every three months."

Anne-Marie Sargent, attorney for the plaintiffs told KING5.com
that for brand reps (sales) the average claim would be $130, and
for managers it will be in the $300 to $400 range.

Thought a call to Abercrombie's corporate headquarters has yet
to be returned, it has said before that employees were not
forced to buy company clothes.  Abercrombie's "look" has already
had costly legal consequences. The company settled an employee
race discrimination case in California for $40 million. It
pulled catalogs with nude models, and it's already settled suits
similar to the one in King County in other states. A similar
case in California, Ambercrombie settled with employees for more
than $2 million.


ABLE ENERGY: NJ Court Judge Certifies April 2003 Fire Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
A judge allowed a protracted class action lawsuit that was filed
on behalf of residents affected by the 2003 Able Energy propane
explosion to move forward, The New Jersey Herald reports.

The original complaint, which was filed April 7, 2003, less than
four weeks after the thunderous blast and resulting fire that
displaced nearly 1,000 people for a week on behalf of anyone
who, on the day of the explosion, lived within 1,000 yards of
the Able fuel depot on Diller Avenue.

Newton attorney Paul Hunczak filed the paperwork seeking a class
certification in November 2003. After the ruling was handed
down, Mr. Hunczak explained to the Herald, "It can now move
forward. Anyone who wants to participate (as a member of the
'class') now can sign on."

Stephen Snyder, Mr. Hunczak's partner at the Morris, Downing &
Sherred law firm, also told the Herald that so far about 75
people have become their clients in addition to the three listed
as plaintiffs in the original complaint. He added, "And that's
just the beginning now that (the certification) is granted." He
also pointed out that anyone who lived in the area of Able's
facility at the time of the explosion is actually a class
member.

Aside the class action, Able is also facing at least seven
pending lawsuits from people and businesses that were injured or
suffered severe property damage in the explosion. Able officials
have also settled at least 185 claims through their insurer, but
many - including some who later sued on their own - have
complained the settlements were inadequate.

In her decision, Superior Court Judge Karen Russell ruled
essentially that a class action is likely the best way to
address the many outstanding grievances against Able, as opposed
to dealing with hundreds of small claims. She wrote in her
ruling, "The court is aware that individual claims may involve
too small an amount to warrant recourse in litigation.
Therefore, the wrongs would go without redress. Thus, an
advantage to certification as a class action is that resources
are made available to the parties who may not otherwise be
capable of asserting their legal rights."

Francis Crotty as well as other attorneys for Able challenged
the class certifications on the grounds that the potential
plaintiffs - and the damages they claim - are too "diverse" to
be lumped together.  In addition they also argued that the three
named plaintiffs: Karen Hicks, Karen Lewis and William Dolan,
all residents of the Merriam Gateway apartments suffered only
minor damages, according to Judge Russell's summary of the case.

Judge Russell further wrote, "Defendant argues that ... Dolan's
only out of pocket loss was spoiled food." They also said, "the
claims of the named plaintiffs are trivial and the named class
members do not have the same interest as a class member who may
have suffered significant losses."  However, the judge
ultimately disagreed by ruling, "Each of the plaintiffs' claims
seeks to redress a 'common legal grievance. Although absolute
uniformity of facts may not exist between all members of the
proposed class, uniformity is not necessary to satisfy the
certification requirements."

As previously reported in the October 6, 2003 edition of the
Class Action Reporter, a class action filed against Able Energy
after its Newton, New Jersey facility experienced an explosion
and fire on March 14, 2003, which resulted in the destruction of
an office building on the site, as well as damage to 18 company
vehicles and neighboring properties.

Due to the immediate response by employees at the site, a quick
evacuation of all personnel occurred prior to the explosion,
preventing any serious injuries.  The preliminary results of the
company's investigation indicate that the explosion was an
accident that occurred as a result of a combination of human
error, mechanical malfunction, as well as the failure to follow
prescribed state standards for propane delivery truck loading.

On April 3, 2003, Able Energy received a Notice of Violation
from the New Jersey Department of Community Affairs.  The dollar
amount of the assessed penalty totaled $414,000.  Able Energy
has contested the Notice of Violation as well as the assessed
penalties with the State of New Jersey and is waiting for a
hearing date.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of property owners who allegedly
suffered property damages as a result of the March 14, 2003
explosion and fire. The Company's insurance carrier is defending
as related to compensatory damages, while the company's legal
counsel is defending on the punitive damage claim.


ARKANSAS: Taxol Settlement Funds Given To Children's Hospital
-------------------------------------------------------------
Newly dispensed funds from a pharmaceutical settlement have been
earmarked for use at Arkansas Children's Hospital (ACH),
Arkansas Attorney General Mike Beebe announced in a June 2,2005
statement.  This will mean $44,188 in additional money for
treating patients in ACH's Hematology/Oncology Unit.

The funds resulted from a settlement with Bristol-Myers Squibb,
a pharmaceutical company that allegedly overcharged patients for
the prescription drug Taxol.  Taxol is commonly used in
chemotherapy treatments for cancer patients. Last year, the
settlement brought more than $900,000 in refunds to Arkansas
consumers and state agencies.

Although 215 individual Arkansans received refunds, there was
still unclaimed money in the national allotment set aside for
individual claims. Under the settlement terms, the remaining
money was divided between the states based on population.

"This settlement continues to benefit Arkansans," Mr. Beebe
said. "First, individuals received money back after being
overcharged for medication. Then, state agencies recovered
similar refunds to use toward taxpayer-funded programs. And now,
the cancer patients at Children's will get additional help as
they fight the very disease this drug was created to treat."


CAN-SPAM ACT: FTC Says Adding "ADV" to E-mail Won't Stop SPAM
-------------------------------------------------------------
In a report to Congress required by the Controlling the Assault
of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act of 2003 ("CAN-
SPAM Act"), the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) says it does not
recommend requiring unsolicited commercial e-mail to include a
label in the subject line as a means to reduce spam.

CAN-SPAM directed the FTC to prepare "a report that sets forth a
plan for requiring commercial electronic mail to be identifiable
from its subject line . or an explanation of any concerns the
Commission has that cause the Commission to recommend against
the plan." A subject line labeling requirement would compel
senders of unsolicited commercial e-mail ("UCE") to include
specific characters, such as "ADV:" in the subject lines of
their messages. The idea is that subject line labeling could
make it easier for Internet Service Providers ("ISPs") to
identify and screen out unwanted UCE, and for consumers to block
or segregate UCE, or to tell at a glance whether individual
messages that reach their in-boxes are commercial.

The report says that although subject line labeling may appear
to offer a simple legislative fix for the problem of spam, the
Commission doubts that it would materially help consumers or
ISPs to block unwanted commercial e-mail or to segregate
commercial e-mail from other e-mail messages. The Report states
that subject line labeling requirements enacted by numerous
states and foreign countries have not been effective to reduce
spam.

According to the Report, mandatory subject line labeling would
be a less precise tool for consumers to use for sorting out spam
than spam filters that are widely available now at little or no
cost (through ISPs or commercial companies). The Report states
that these filters empower consumers to set individualized e-
mail preferences to reduce unwanted UCE from both spammers and
legitimate marketers more effectively than would filtering based
on subject line labeling.

The Report notes that "it is extremely unlikely that outlaw
spammers would comply with a requirement to label the e-mail
messages they send." By contrast, according to the Report,
legitimate marketers likely would comply with a subject line
labeling requirement. As a result, if ISPs were to filter based
on the subject line label - or if consumers were to set their
personal e-mail programs to direct labeled e-mail messages to
their junk mail folders - then labeled UCE messages sent by law-
abiding senders would be filtered out. Meanwhile, unlabeled UCE
messages sent by outlaw spammers would still reach consumers'
in-boxes. The Report points out that noncompliance would not
carry any negative consequences for a spammer, because subject
line labeling would do nothing to enhance the ability of law
enforcers to track down and exact a penalty from those who do
not comply.

"The Commission continues to believe that emphasis should be
placed on encouraging industry to develop alternatives, such as
e-mail authentication, in lieu of a requirement for subject line
labeling," the report concludes.

The Commission vote to submit the report was 4-1, with
Commissioner Pamela Jones Harbour issuing a separate concurring
statement and Commissioner Jon Leibowitz issuing a dissenting
statement.

In his dissenting statement, Commissioner Leibowitz said,
"Requiring commercial e-mail to be labeled is not a panacea but,
as the CAN-SPAM Act clearly recognizes, there is no single
bullet theory for solving the spam problem. An ADV labeling
requirement could be a modest tool to empower consumers to
filter and sort commercial e-mails - to read them later,
evaluate them individually, or delete them in bulk if they
choose - and for that reason I respectfully dissent from the
majority and urge Congress to consider a labeling requirement."

Commissioner Leibowitz agreed that ADV labeling would have only
a minor impact on deceptive and fraudulent spam, but believed
that Congress intended ADV labeling primarily as a device to
help consumers deal with unsolicited commercial e-mail from
legitimate marketers.

In her concurring statement, Commissioner Harbour said that she
would have preferred that the Report further emphasize the
importance of providing adequate tools to enable consumers to
filter UCE, even from legitimate marketers. She noted, however,
that "the Report does . set forth a number of technological
options that consumers can use to sort, delete, or block UCE .
If consumers choose to avoid receiving UCE from legitimate
marketers, it appears that existing technological solutions will
allow them to do so. While ADV labeling would provide consumers
with an easy way to sort UCEs from legitimate marketers who
would adhere to an ADV labeling requirement, it appears that
consumers already have acceptable tools available to assist
them."

Copies of the report 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 visit the
Website: http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2005/06/adv1.htm.


CANADA: Westmount Man Sues City of Montreal Over Property Taxes
---------------------------------------------------------------
Westmount resident Jon Breslaw launched a $12.5-million class-
action lawsuit against the City of Montreal for charging him too
much in property taxes, the CBC News reports.

According to Mr. Breslaw, the city raised his tax bill by more
than the five-per-cent limit imposed by law. He also said that
he paid $1,312 more in property taxes than he should have.  He
further claims that that as many as 50,000 Montreal residents
who might also have paid too much in property taxes.

The City of Montreal is in the process of harmonizing property-
tax rates, following the merger of former municipalities on the
island. Until that is done, tax increases are supposed to be
capped at five per cent, CBC News reports.


CONCORD CAMERA: Trial in Securities Lawsuit Set Nov. 2006 in FL
---------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the consolidated securities class action filed against
Concord Camera Corporation and certain of its officers is set to
commence on November 13,2006 in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida.

In July 2002, individuals purporting to be shareholders of the
Company filed the suit.  On August 20, 2002, the Company filed a
motion to dismiss the complaint and in December 2002, the court
granted the Company's motion and dismissed the complaint.  In
January 2003, an amended class action complaint was filed adding
certain of the Company's current and former directors as
defendants.  The lead plaintiffs in the Amended Complaint sought
to act as representatives of a class consisting of all persons
who purchased the Company's Common Stock issued pursuant to the
Company's September 26, 2000 secondary offering (the "Secondary
Offering") or during the period from September 26, 2000 through
June 22, 2001, inclusive.

On April 18, 2003, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
Amended Complaint and on August 27, 2004, the court dismissed
all claims against the defendants related to the Secondary
Offering and dismissed all claims against the defendants related
to allegations of misconduct occurring before February 2001 or
after April 2001 (the period February 2001 through April 2001
hereinafter referred to as the "Shortened Class Period").  The
allegations remaining in the Amended Complaint are centered
around claims that the Company failed to disclose, in periodic
reports it filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
("SEC") and in press releases it made to the public during the
Shortened Class Period regarding its operations and financial
results, that a large portion of its accounts receivable was
represented by a delinquent and uncollectible balance due from
then customer, KB Gear Interactive, Inc. ("KB Gear"), and claims
that such failures artificially inflated the price of the Common
Stock.  The Amended Complaint seeks unspecified damages,
interest, attorneys' fees, costs of suit and unspecified other
and further relief from the court.

The suit is styled "Berger, et al. v. Concord Camera Corp., et
al.," filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida, under Judge Patricia Seitz.  The plaintiff
firms in this litigation are:

     (1) Cauley Geller Bowman Coates & Rudman LLP (Little Rock,
         AR), P.O. Box 25438, Little Rock, AR, 72221-5438,
         Phone: 501.312.8500, Fax: 501.312.8505,

     (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) Leo W. Desmond, 2161 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, Suite
         204, West Palm Beach, FL, 33409, Phone: 561.712.8000,
         E-mail: stocklaw@bellsouth.net

     (4) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP (Boca Raton,
         FL), 5355 Town Center Road - Suite 900, Boca Raton, FL,
         33486, Phone: 561.361.5000, Fax: 561.367.8400,

     (5) Emerson Poynter LLP, P.O. Box 164810, Little Rock, AR,
         72216-4810, Phone: 800.663.981, E-mail:
         tanya@emersonfirm.com

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


CONCORD CAMERA: Discovery Proceeds in FL Securities Fraud Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in the litigation filed against Concord
Camera Corporation and certain of its officers in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Florida by
individuals purporting to be shareholders of the Company.  If
not dismissed by the court, the Company expects these cases to
be consolidated into one case.

The plaintiffs in these class actions seek to act as
representatives of a class consisting of all persons who
purchased the Company's Common Stock during either the period
from August 14, 2003 through May 10, 2004, inclusive, or the
period from August 14, 2003 through October 4, 2004, inclusive
(the "Class Period"), and who were allegedly damaged thereby.

The allegations in the complaints are centered around claims
that the Company failed to disclose, in periodic reports it
filed with the SEC and in press releases it made to the public
during the Class Period regarding its operations and financial
results, the full extent of the Company's excess, obsolete and
otherwise impaired inventory, and claims that such failures
artificially inflated the price of the Common Stock.  The
complaints seek unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees,
costs of suit and unspecified other and further relief from the
court.

The first identified complaint in the litigation is styled
"Martin Brustein, et al. v. Concord Camera Corporation, et al.,
case no. 04-CV-61159," filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida, under Judge Andrea M.
Simonton.  The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

     (1) Berger & Montague, P.C., 1622 Locust Street,
         Philadelphia, PA, 19103, Phone: 800.424.6690, Fax:
         215.875.4604, E-mail: investorprotect@bm.net;

     (2) 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;

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

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

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

     (6) Vianale & Vianale LLP, The Plaza - Suite 801, 5355 Town
         Center Road, Boca Raton, FL, 33486, Phone:
         561.391.4900, Fax: 561.368.9274, E-mail:
         info@vianalelaw.com


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Employees File Overtime Lawsuits in CA Courts
---------------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corporation faces several overtime wage
lawsuits filed in California State Court.

The Company is a defendant in two actions purportedly brought as
class actions on behalf of certain present and former Costco
managers in California, in which plaintiffs allege that they
have not been properly compensated for overtime work.  The suits
are styled:

     (1) Scott M. Williams v. Costco Wholesale Corporation,
         United States District Court (San Diego), Case No. 02-
         CV-2003 NAJ (JFS); Superior Court for the County of San
         Diego, Case No. GIC-792559; and

     (2) Greg Randall v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, Superior
         Court for the County of Los Angeles, Case No. BC-
         296369.

The Company is also a defendant in an overtime compensation case
purportedly brought as a class action on behalf of present and
former hourly employees in California, in which plaintiffs
allege that the Company's semi-annual bonus formula is improper
with regard to retroactive overtime pay.  The suit is styled
"Anthony Marin v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, Superior Court
for the County of Alameda, Case No. RG-04150447."

The Company is also a defendant in an action purportedly brought
as a class action on behalf of present and former hourly
employees in California, in which plaintiffs allege that the
Company did not properly compensate and record hours worked by
employees, and failed to provide meal and rest breaks.  The suit
is styled "Kevin Doty and Sarah Doty v. Costco Wholesale
Corporation, United States District Court (Los Angeles), Case
No. CV-05-3241 FMC (JWJx)."

Claims in these four actions are made under various provisions
of the California Labor Code and the California Business and
Professions Code. Plaintiffs seek restitution/disgorgement,
compensatory damages, various statutory penalties, liquidated
damages, punitive, treble and exemplary damages, and attorneys'
fees.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Female Managers Launch Gender Bias Suit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corporation faces a class action filed in the
United States District Court in the Northern District of
California, on behalf of certain present and former female
managers, in which plaintiffs allege denial of promotion based
on gender in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964.

The suit is styled "Shirley "Rae" Ellis v. Costco Wholesale
Corporation, Case No. C-04-3341-MHP."  Plaintiffs seek
compensatory damages, exemplary and punitive damages, injunctive
relief, and attorneys' fees.

The suit is styled "Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, case
no. 3:04-cv-03341-MHP," filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, under Judge
Marilyn H. Patel.  Representing the Company are David D. Kadue
of Seyfarth Shaw LLP, 2029 Century Park East Suite 3300, Los
Angeles, CA 90067, Phone: 310-201-5211, Fax: 310-201-5219, E-
mail: dkadue@seyfarth.com; and Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Seyfarth
Shaw LLP, 55 East Monroe Street, Suite 4200, Chicago, IL 60603-
5803, Phone: 312-346-8000, Fax: 312-269-8869.  Representing the
plaintiffs is Bill Lann Lee of Leiff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein LLP, 275 Battery Street 30th Floor, San Francisco, CA
94111-3339, Phone: 415-956-1000, Fax: 415-956-1008, E-mail:
blee@lchb.com.


COUNTRY COACH: Recalls 17 2006 Motor Homes Due To Crash Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
Country Coach, Inc. is cooperating with the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration by voluntarily recalling 17
Country Coach/Prevost Conversion motor homes, model 2006.

On certain motor home shells supplied by Prevost Car, Inc., it
was determined that a large quantity of anti-seize compound was
used in the mounting of 3 radius rod supports.  The bolts
securing the radius rod supports can loosen and could completely
detach.

A loose attachment should be detected at regular inspections.  
This condition will create some unusual noise and the vehicle
stability will deteriorate gradually.  If a rod is detached
completely it will create a large amount of noise and the
vehicle stability will be reduced.  This could result in a
crash.

Dealers will reinstall radius rod supports using Loctite Product
on the bolts.  The recall began on June 15,2005.  For more
details, contact the Company by Phone: 1-800-452-8015 or contact
the NHTSA's auto safety hotline: 1-888-327-4236.


DUANE READE: Continues To Face Investor Fraud Suits in DE Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Duane Reade, Inc. continues to face a consolidated shareholder
class action filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware, challenging the merger transaction consummated by the
Company and Duane Reade Acquisition.

Six purported class action complaints were initially filed in
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware and three
purported class action complaints that have been filed in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York. Two of the New York
complaints have been dismissed without prejudice. The other New
York complaint is pending, but has not been served on the
Company.

The Delaware Complaints also name Anthony J. Cuti, the Company's
chairman, chief executive officer and president and certain
other members of the Company's board of directors and executive
officers as defendants.  Four of the Delaware Complaints name
Oak Hill Capital Partners L.P. as a defendant.  The New York
Complaint names Mr. Cuti and certain other members of the
Company's board of directors and executive officers as well as
the Company as defendants. One of the dismissed New York
complaints named Oak Hill as a defendant.

The Delaware Complaints were consolidated on January 28, 2004,
and on April 8, 2004 the plaintiffs in the Delaware actions
filed a consolidated class action complaint.  The Consolidated
Complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose material
information in the preliminary proxy statement, which was filed
with the SEC on March 19, 2004.  Specifically, the Consolidated
Complaint alleges that the defendants failed to disclose:

     (1) the precise nature of the "Current Employment Agreement
         Estimated Payments," as that term is used in the
         preliminary proxy, and the reasons for these payments;

     (2) the materials and data purportedly used by Bear Stearns
         in calculating the "Current Employment Agreement
         Estimated Payments," instead of the disclosure in the
         preliminary proxy statement that these calculations
         were "approximations based on various assumptions since
         the precise amounts payable would require actuarial or
         other expert valuation," even though Bear Stearns
         allegedly relied on these calculations;

     (3) the methodology, projections and other information used
         by Bear Stearns to calculate the estimated present
         value of the company; and

     (4) that the merger consideration represented an
         approximately 11.7% premium based upon the trading
         price of Duane Reade shares on December 22, 2003,
         instead of the disclosure in the preliminary proxy that
         shareholders would be receiving a much higher premium
         of 22.0%.

The Consolidated Complaint and the New York Complaint allege,
among other things, that the defendants purportedly breached
duties owed to the Company's stockholders in connection with the
transaction by failing to:

     (i) appropriately value the Company as a merger candidate;

    (ii) expose the Company to the marketplace in an effort to
         obtain the best transaction reasonably available,
         including to market it to industry participants; and

   (iii) adequately ensure that no conflicts of interest exist
         between defendants' own interests and their fiduciary
         obligation to maximize stockholder value.

Plaintiffs seek, among other things: an order that the
complaints are properly maintainable as a class action; a
declaration that defendants have breached their fiduciary duties
and other duties; injunctive relief; an unspecified amount of
monetary damages; attorneys' fees, costs and expenses; and such
other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper.


EL PASO: Continues To Face Shareholder Fraud Lawsuits in NY, TX
---------------------------------------------------------------
El Paso Corporation continues to face numerous purported
shareholder class action lawsuits filed against it and certain
of its current and former directors and officers since 2002,
alleging violations of federal securities laws.  One of these
lawsuits has been dismissed and the remaining lawsuits have been
consolidated in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas, Houston Division.

The consolidated lawsuit generally challenges the accuracy or
completeness of press releases and other public statements made
during the class period from 2001 through early 2004, related to
wash trades, mark-to-market accounting, off-balance sheet debt,
overstatement of oil and gas reserves and manipulation of the
California energy market. The consolidated lawsuit is currently
stayed.

The purported shareholder class actions filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas,
Houston Division, are:

     (1) Marvin Goldfarb, et al v. El Paso Corporation, William
         Wise, H. Brent Austin, and Rodney D. Erskine, filed
         July 18, 2002;

     (2) Residuary Estate Mollie Nussbacher, Adele Brody Life
         Tenant, et al v. El Paso Corporation, William Wise, and
         H. Brent Austin, filed July 25, 2002;

     (3) George S. Johnson, et al v. El Paso Corporation,
         William Wise, and H. Brent Austin, filed July 29, 2002;

     (4) Renneck Wilson, et al v. El Paso Corporation, William
         Wise, H. Brent Austin, and Rodney D. Erskine, filed
         August 1, 2002;

     (5) Sandra Joan Malin Revocable Trust, et al v. El Paso
         Corporation, William Wise, H. Brent Austin, and Rodney
         D. Erskine, filed August 1, 2002;

     (6) Lee S. Shalov, et al v. El Paso Corporation, William
         Wise, H. Brent Austin, and Rodney D. Erskine, filed
         August 15, 2002;

     (7) Paul C. Scott, et al v. El Paso Corporation, William
         Wise, H. Brent Austin, and Rodney D. Erskine, filed
         August 22, 2002;

     (8) Brenda Greenblatt, et al v. El Paso Corporation,
         William Wise, H. Brent Austin, and Rodney D. Erskine,
         filed August 23, 2002;

     (9) Stefanie Beck, et al v. El Paso Corporation, William
         Wise, and H. Brent Austin, filed August 23, 2002;

    (10) J. Wayne Knowles, et al v. El Paso Corporation, William
         Wise, H. Brent Austin, and Rodney D. Erskine, filed
         September 13, 2002;

    (11) The Ezra Charitable Trust, et al v. El Paso
         Corporation, William Wise, Rodney D. Erskine and H.
         Brent Austin, filed October 4, 2002.

The purported shareholder class actions relating to the
Company's reserve restatement filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, which have
now been consolidated with the above referenced purported
shareholder class actions, are:

     (i) James Felton v. El Paso Corporation, Ronald Kuehn, Jr.,
         Douglas Foshee and D. Dwight Scott;

    (ii) Sinclair Haberman v. El Paso Corporation, Ronald Kuehn,
         Jr., and William Wise;

   (iii) Patrick Hinner v. El Paso Corporation, Ronald Kuehn,
         Jr., Douglas Foshee, D. Dwight Scott and William Wise;

    (iv) Stanley Peltz v. El Paso Corporation, Ronald Kuehn,
         Jr., Douglas Foshee and D. Dwight Scott;

     (v) Yolanda Cifarelli v. El Paso Corporation, Ronald Kuehn,
         Jr., Douglas Foshee and D. Dwight Scott;

    (vi) Andrew W. Albstein v. El Paso Corporation, William
         Wise;

   (vii) George S. Johnson v. El Paso Corporation, Ronald Kuehn,
         Jr., Douglas Foshee, and D. Dwight Scott;

  (viii) Robert Corwin v. El Paso Corporation, Mark Leland,
         Brent Austin; Ronald Kuehn, Jr., D. Dwight Scott and
         William Wise;

    (ix) Michael Copland v. El Paso Corporation, Ronald Kuehn,
         Jr., Douglas Foshee and D. Dwight Scott;

     (x) Leslie Turbowitz v. El Paso Corporation, Mark Leland,
         Brent Austin, Ronald Kuehn, Jr., D. Dwight Scott and
         William Wise;

    (xi) David Sadek v. El Paso Corporation, Ronald Kuehn, Jr.,
         Douglas Foshee, D. Dwight Scott;

   (xii) Stanley Sved v. El Paso Corporation, Ronald Kuehn, Jr.,
         and William Wise;

  (xiii) Nancy Gougler v. El Paso Corporation, Ronald Kuehn,
         Jr., Douglas Foshee and D. Dwight Scott;

   (xiv) William Sinnreich v. El Paso Corporation, Ronald Kuehn,
         Jr., Douglas Foshee, D. Dwight Scott and William Wise;

    (xv) Joseph Fisher v. El Paso Corporation, Ronald Kuehn,
         Jr., Douglas Foshee, D. Dwight Scott and William Wise;
         
   (xvi) Glickenhaus & Co. v. El Paso Corporation, Rod Erskine,
         Ronald Kuehn, Jr., Brent Austin, William Wise, Douglas
         Foshee and D. Dwight Scott;

  (xvii) Haberman v. El Paso Corporation et al and Thompson v.
         El Paso Corporation et al.

The purported shareholder action filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York is styled
"IRA F.B.O. Michael Conner et al v. El Paso Corporation, William
Wise, H. Brent Austin, Jeffrey Beason, Ralph Eads, D. Dwight
Scott, Credit Suisse First Boston, J.P. Morgan Securities, filed
October 25, 2002.


EL PASO: TX Fraud Lawsuit For ERISA Violations Remains Stayed
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action filed against El Paso Corporation in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, styled
"William H. Lewis, III v. El Paso Corporation, et al." has been
stayed.

The suit was filed in December 2002, alleging generally that the
Company's direct and indirect communications with participants
in the El Paso Corporation Retirement Savings Plan included
misrepresentations and omissions that caused members of the
class to hold and maintain investments in El Paso stock in
violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
(ERISA). That lawsuit was subsequently amended to include
allegations relating to the Company's reporting of natural gas
and oil reserves.

The suit is styled "Lewis, et al v. EL Paso Corporation, et al.,
case no. 4:02-cv-04860," filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Texas, under Judge Lynn N.
Hughes.  Representing the plaintiffs are Thomas E. Bilek of
Hoeffner and Bilek LLP, 1000 Louisiana, Suite 1302 Houston, TX
77002, Phone: 713-227-7720, Fax: 713-227-9404, E-mail:
tbilek@hb-legal.com; and Joseph H. Meltzer, Schiffrin & Barroway
LLP, Three Bala Plz E, Ste 400, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, Phone:
610-667-7706.  Representing the Company is Stephen D. Susman of
Susman Godfrey, 1000 Louisiana Ste 5100, Houston, TX 77002-5096,
Phone: 713-651-9366, Fax: 713-654-6670, E-mail:
ssusman@susmangodfrey.com.


EL PASO: Pension Plan Participants File ERISA Fraud Suit in CO
--------------------------------------------------------------
El Paso Corporation faces a class action filed in the United
States District Court for Denver, Colorado, styled "Tomlinson,
et al. v. El Paso Corporation and El Paso Corporation Pension
Plan," alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA).

The lawsuit seeks class action status and alleges that the
change from a final average earnings formula pension plan to a
cash balance pension plan, the accrual of benefits under the
plan, and the communications about the change violate the ERISA
and/or the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.

The suit is styled "Tomlinson et al v. El Paso Corporation et
al., case no. 1:04-cv-02686-WDM-OES," filed in the United States
District Court in Denver, Colorado under Judge Walker D. Miller.  
Representing the plaintiffs are Stephen R. Bruce of Stephen R.
Bruce, Law Offices, 805 15th Street, NW #210, Washington, DC
20005, U.S.A., Phone: 202-371-8013, Fax: 202-371-0121, E-mail:
stephen.bruce@prodigy.net; and Barry Douglas Roseman of Roseman
& Kazmierski, LLC, 1120 Lincoln Street #1607, Denver, CO 80203-
2141, U.S.A, Phone: 303-839-1771, Fax: 861-9214, E-mail:
broseman@nela.org.  Representing the Company are Raymond W.
Martin of Wheeler Trigg Kennedy LLP, United States District
Court Box 19, 1801 California Street #3600, Denver, CO 80202
U.S.A, Phone: 303-244-1863, Fax: 303-244-1879, E-mail:
martin@wtklaw.com; and Christopher James Rillo of Sonnenschein,
Nath & Rosenthal, 685 Market Street, Sixth Floor, San Francisco,
CA 94105, U.S.A., Phone: 415-882-5000, Fax: 543-5472.


EL PASO: Faces New Natural Gas Price Antitrust Suit in TN Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
El Paso Corporation faces a new class action filed in the
Chancery Court of Tennessee for the Twenty-Fifth Judicial
District at Somerville, styled "Legett et al. v. Duke Energy
Corporation et al."  The suit also names as defendants El Paso
Marketing L.P. and a number of other energy companies.

The suit was filed on behalf of the all residential and
commercial purchasers of natural gas in the state of Tennessee
during the past three years.  Plaintiffs allege the defendants
conspired to manipulate the price of natural gas by providing
false price reporting information to industry trade publications
that published gas indices.

The Company has also had similar claims asserted by individual
commercial customers.  Beginning in August 2003, several
lawsuits were filed against the Company and EPM, in which
plaintiffs alleged, in part, that the Company, EPM and other
energy companies conspired to manipulate the price of natural
gas by providing false price reporting information to industry
trade publications that published gas indices.  Those cases, all
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, are as follows:

     (1) Cornerstone Propane Partners, L.P. v. Reliant Energy
         Services Inc., et al.;

     (2) Roberto E. Calle Gracey v. American Electric Power
         Company, Inc., et al.; and

     (3) Dominick Viola v. Reliant Energy Services Inc., et al.

In December 2003, those cases were consolidated with others into
a single master file in federal court in New York for all pre-
trial purposes.  In September 2004, the court dismissed El Paso
from the master litigation.  EPM and approximately 27 other
energy companies remain in the litigation.


EL PASO: Plaintiffs Ask KS Court To Certify 2nd Antitrust Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs asked the District Court of Stevens County, Kansas to
grant class certification to the second class action filed
against a number of El Paso Corporation's subsidiaries and other
natural gas companies, styled "Will Price, et al. v. Gas
Pipelines and Their Predecessors, et al."

The suit was originally filed in 1999, alleging that the
defendants mis-measured natural gas volumes and heating content
of natural gas on non-federal and non-Native American lands.  
The plaintiffs seek to recover royalties that they contend they
should have received had the volume and heating value of natural
gas produced from their properties been differently measured,
analyzed, calculated and reported, together with prejudgment and
postjudgment interest, punitive damages, treble damages,
attorneys' fees, costs and expenses, and future injunctive
relief to require the defendants to adopt allegedly appropriate
gas measurement practices.  No monetary relief has been
specified in this case.

Plaintiffs' motion for class certification of a nationwide class
of natural gas working interest owners and natural gas royalty
owners was denied in April 2003.  Plaintiffs were granted leave
to file a Fourth Amended Petition, which narrows the proposed
class to royalty owners in wells in Kansas, Wyoming and Colorado
and removes claims as to heating content. A second class action
has since been filed as to the heating content claims. The
plaintiffs have filed motions for class certification in both
proceedings and the defendants have filed briefs in opposition
thereto.


EL PASO: Continues To Face Oklahoma Natural Gas Royalties Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
El Paso Corporation was named as a defendant, along with
Burlington Resources, Inc., in two class action lawsuits styled
as "Bank of America, et al. v. El Paso Natural Gas Company, et
al.," and "Deane W. Moore, et al. v. Burlington Northern, Inc.,
et al.," each filed in 1997 in the District Court of Washita
County, State of Oklahoma and subsequently consolidated by the
court.

The plaintiffs seek an accounting and damages for alleged
royalty underpayments from 1982 to the present on natural gas
produced from specified wells in Oklahoma, plus interest from
the time such amounts were allegedly due, as well as punitive
damages. The court has certified the plaintiff classes of
royalty and overriding royalty interest owners, and the parties
have completed discovery.  The plaintiffs have filed expert
reports alleging damages in excess of $1 billion.

Pursuant to a recent summary judgment decision, the court ruled
that claims previously released by the settlement of "Altheide
v. Meridian," a nation-wide royalty class action against
Burlington and its affiliates are barred from being reasserted
in this action.  The Company believe that this ruling eliminates
a material, but yet unquantified portion of the alleged class
damages, it stated in a disclosure to the Securities and
Exchange Commission.  While Burlington accepted the Company's
tender of the defense of these cases in 1997, pursuant to the
spin-off agreement entered into in 1992 between El Paso Natural
Gas (EPNG) and Burlington Resources, Inc., and had been
defending the matter since that time, at the end of 2003 it
asserted contractual claims for indemnity against the Company.

A third action, styled "Bank of America, et al. v. El Paso
Natural Gas and Burlington Resources Oil and Gas Company," was
filed in October 2003 in the District Court of Kiowa County,
Oklahoma asserting similar claims as to specified shallow wells
in Oklahoma, Texas and New Mexico. Defendants succeeded in
transferring this action to Washita County.  A class has not
been certified.


FORD MOTOR: Reaches Settlement For CA Product Defect Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Ford Motor Company, the second-largest U.S. automaker, agreed to
settle customer lawsuits over alleged defects in the intake
manifolds of as many as 2 million vehicles, Bloomberg News
reports.

Under the settlement, which was filed last week in federal court
in Oakland, California, Ford will pay owners of some Mercury
Grand Marquis, Lincoln Town Cars and Ford Crown Victorias at
least $735 to reimburse them for repairs made on faulty
manifolds, which route air to an engine's cylinders. The
settlement could cost Ford as much as $375 million if every
customer files a claim, said Richard Dorman, a plaintiffs'
attorney.

In the class action suit, car owners had claimed that Ford
installed plastic intake manifolds that were prone to cracking
and causing coolant leaks on some 1996 to 2001 models. Mr Dorman
told Bloomberg News, "According to Ford's own documents, about
450,000 to 500,000 manifolds in the class members' vehicles have
failed.

Ford spokeswoman Kathleen Vokes told Bloomberg News that this
claim on the number of manifold failures is "grossly inflated"
and wouldn't comment on the possible cost to Ford. She did add
though, "Ford believes it is inappropriate to comment upon the
terms of a class settlement that is not final, at least until
official notice has been provided by the court to the class."

In addition to the money, under the settlement, Ford will also
reimburse consumers with receipts for any repairs related to the
intake manifold. The agreement stated that the company would
also pay $735 to anyone without receipts who verifies with a
company dealership that the repair was made. It also stated that
Ford would also extend the warranties of customers who haven't
had manifold failures.

This, according to Mr. Dorman, could cost Ford additional money
to replace manifolds in future. He added that Ford's offer of
$735 or full reimbursement of repair costs is higher than most
such settlements and could lead to a claim rate of 30 percent to
50 percent, based on consumer responses in other lawsuits.


GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls 291,652 Vehicles Due To Crash Hazard
------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Corporation is cooperating with the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration by voluntarily recalling
291,652 passenger vehicles, namely:

     (1) SATURN / L-SERIES SEDAN, model 2000-2002

     (2) SATURN / L-SERIES WAGON, model 2000-2004

On certain sedans and wagons, the plastic housing in the rear
tail lamp assembly can become distorted if the brake lamps
remain on for an extended time.  This can cause an
intermittently inoperative brake/tail lamp bulb or a short
circuit that opens a fuse causing inoperative brake lamps
(including the center high-mounted stop lamp) or tail lamps.  A
following driver may not know when the brakes have been applied
and a rear-end crash could occur without prior warning.  

Dealers will install a reinforcing socket adapter (and
corresponding new socket) to the back of the existing lamp
assembly.  If necessary, the reinforcing socket adapter will be
installed into a new lamp assembly and then installed in the
vehicle.  The recall is expected to begin in September 2005.  
For more details, contact the Company by Phone: 1-800-972-8876
or contact the NHTSA's auto safety hotline: 1-888-327-4236.


GUIDANT CORPORATION: Recalls Defibrillators For Circuit Defect
--------------------------------------------------------------
FDA is notifying health care providers and patients that the
Guidant Corporation is recalling certain of its implantable
defibrillators and cardiac resynchronization therapy
defibrillators. These devices can develop an internal short
circuit without warning, resulting in failure to deliver a shock
when needed.

The devices affected by this notification are:

     (1) PRIZM 2 DR, Model 1861, manufactured on or before April
         16, 2002

     (2) CONTAK RENEWAL, Model H135, manufactured on or before
         August 26, 2004

     (3) CONTAK RENEWAL 2, Model H155, manufactured on or before
         August 26, 2004

The devices are surgically implanted in persons who have a type
of heart disease that creates the risk of a life-threatening
heart arrhythmia (abnormal rhythm). The devices deliver an
electrical shock to the heart to restore normal heart rhythm.
The PRIZM 2 and RENEWAL devices are subject to different
failures, resulting in the devices' inability to deliver an
electrical shock during episodes of arrhythmia -- which could
lead to a serious, life-threatening event for a patient. There
have been two deaths reported to FDA suspected to be associated
with this malfunction.

"FDA's first priority is patient safety," said Daniel Schultz,
MD, Director of FDA's Center for Devices and Radiological
Health. "We want to ensure that all patients who may be affected
by this problem are notified and seek appropriate medical advice
from their physicians."

FDA is not making a recommendation on whether individual
patients who have one of the Guidant devices should have it
removed and replaced. This is a decision that should be made by
a patient in consultation with his or her physician, based on
the specific medical situation of the patient. Removal and
replacement of the device may pose some risk, so it is important
that patients and physicians carefully discuss this matter
before making a decision.

FDA advises patients to take the following steps:
     
     (i) If you have not already been notified, contact your
         doctor to determine if you have an affected PRIZM 2,
         CONTAK RENEWAL, or CONTAK RENEWAL 2 device.

    (ii) Continue to keep your regular doctor appointments.

   (iii) If you feel an electrical shock from your device,
         immediately contact your doctor.

    (iv) If there is an audible "beeping" from your CONTAK
         RENEWAL or RENEWAL 2 device, immediately contact your
         doctor or go to the nearest emergency room. Beeping may
         mean that your defibrillator is damaged.

Guidant also recently informed FDA that it is recalling another
set of defibrillator devices called PRIZM AVT, VITALITY AVT,
RENEWAL 3 AVT and RENEWAL 4 AVT. The company has said the
devices are subject to a memory error, which may affect device
performance. Currently, FDA is evaluating this information.

If you are a physician or a patient who has experienced a
problem with any of these defibrillators, please send a report
to FDA's MedWatch program and to Guidant. See
http://www.fda.gov/medwatch/for filing information or call  
1-800-FDA-1088 (1-800-332-1088).

Guidant will be posting information for physicians on its web
site: http://www.guidant.com.If you have further questions, you  
may contact Guidant at 1-866-GUIDANT (1-866-484-3268).


H.A. BERKHEIMER: PA Court Grants Certification To Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Slapped with two bills totaling $57 for "collection costs" that
they believed to be unfair, Robert and Kathleen Cheeseman of
Bucks County initiated a lawsuit against H.A. Berkheimer Inc.,
the Bangor company that collects earned income taxes for 1,100
school districts and municipalities in Pennsylvania, the
Allentown Morning Call reports.

That class action was recently certified as a class action
lawsuit after a Bucks County judge indicated Berkheimer's
collection costs may have had no purpose other than to add to
the company's profits. Acting on the Cheesemans' lawsuit, Judge
Robert E. Mellon certified the case, which could entitle
approximately 70,000 Pennsylvania taxpayers to refunds from
Berkheimer, which average about $30 each.

Bernard M. Gross, the Cheesemans' attorney told the Morning
Call, "The little guy said, 'We're not going to take this
anymore.'"

According to Judge Mellon's order, which was filed recently, the
case unfolded in 2000 when the Cheesemans, who live in
Warrington Township, filed an earned income tax return for 1999,
but didn't enclose payment. Berkheimer, which collects the 1
percent levy for Warrington, sent the Cheesemans a form titled
"Failure to File Local Earned Income Tax Return" that included a
bill for the taxes owed as well as a 4 percent charge for
penalties and interest. In addition, the bill included an $18
fee for "costs."

Court papers revealed that the Cheesemans paid the $18 and
attempted to negotiate a payment plan with Berkheimer for the
tax, penalties and interest. Later though the Cheesemans
received a notice from Berkheimer advising them that their wages
may be attached. Included in that notice, according to court
papers, was another bill for "costs." This time, the bill was
$39.  Though the Cheesemans paid the $39, court papers later
revealed that Berkheimer never pursued the back taxes or fines
owed by the couple for 1999. Nevertheless, in 2002 the
Cheesemans filed suit against Berkheimer, alleging the $18 and
$39 bills for "costs" were improper, and asking the court to
declare the case a class action.

In papers filed in the case, the company suggested that by
charging collection costs to delinquent taxpayers, Berkheimer is
able to keep down its expenses, which indirectly benefits school
districts and municipalities.

Judge Mellon, however, found no validity to that argument saying
that the earned income tax as well as penalties and interest are
assessed under the state's Local Tax Enabling Act, which gives
authority to municipalities and school boards to collect the 1
percent earned income levy. He further said that the law
contains no provision for the tax collector to tack on extra
costs.

In his ruling, Judge Mellon wrote, "These costs are being
collected by and paid directly to Berkheimer. The money goes
directly to Berkheimer and is not being passed on to the
treasury of a political subdivision. The costs that comprise the
subject of this lawsuit are assessed by Berkheimer and are kept
by Berkheimer. They do not reduce the cost to the political
subdivision, but merely increase Berkheimer's profit."

In addition, Judge Mellon also found that Berkheimer made a
"tacit admission" that its costs are improper by revealing in
documents filed in the case that it frequently refunds the
collection costs when taxpayers complain. The judge wrote,
"Berkheimer knows that its assessment and collection of such
costs is beyond its authorization."

He thus ruled that all taxpayers who paid collection costs to
Berkheimer between 1995 and 2001 are members of the class, which
according to his order, Berkheimer indicated at about 70,000
taxpayers. These taxpayers had paid collection costs to the
company during that period. The judge estimated the average
refund to each taxpayer would amount to $30.  The judge also
wrote, "It would be unconscionable to permit Berkheimer to
continue to collect costs to which it was not entitled to
thousands of taxpayers."

Mr. Gross, who declined to permit his clients to be interviewed,
told the Morning Call that the case is far from over. Now that
the class has been certified, Mr. Gross states, the Cheesemans
can obtain access to company records that are likely to show
exactly how many taxpayers have been hit with Berkheimer's
collection costs over the years. In addition, Accoridng to Mr.
Gross, the case could continue to trial, where a jury could
decide whether the costs are improper.

As a final note, Mr. Gross also told the Morning Call that Judge
Mellon's opinion makes it very clear what the judge thought
about the collection costs levied on the Cheesemans and other
taxpayers. "The judge's opinion is intelligent and well-
reasoned," he said.


INTERPLASTICS CORPORATION: Residents Collect $2M From Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Latonia residents are collecting more than $2 million from a
class action lawsuit that was settled with owners of the former
Filon-Silmar factory, The Kentucky Post reports.

Covington attorneys Rob and Bob Sanders, whose firm took the
lead in the case along with fellow Covington attorney Paul
Dickman, handed out 823 checks at the American Legion Hall in
Latonia from Wednesday through Friday.  Mr. Rob Sanders told the
Post, "This is the most rewarding part of the job. It's been a
long, hard case that we put thousands of hours into. It's nice
to see the smiles on peoples' faces when they get their checks."

A group of Latonia residents filed suit against Interplastics
Corporation, contending that emissions from the company's
factory in Fort Wright, formerly Filon-Silmar, was slowly
poisoning residents in their community. Going to trial in August
2004 and the legal action ended a week later with a $4.75
million settlement between the residents and the current and
former owners of the factory.

Before the trial started, BP Chemicals, which had owned the
plant until October 1993, agreed to pay a $1 million settlement.
Later, when Interplastics bought it from BP, it agreed to pay
$3.75 million.  

In addition to the money, Interplastics promised to add controls
to significantly reduce future pollution from the plant.  Checks
ranged from $327 to over $13,000 with each eligible person
receiving an individual check. The rest of the amount went to
attorneys' fees and expenses.

Mr. Rob Sanders also told the Post, "Most of them are very happy
and surprised that they are getting a significant sum of money.
Usually, in class action suits people will get a check for a few
cents, and they're getting hundreds and thousands of dollars."

The class was defined as people who either lived or owned
property within a 2,000-foot radius of the Interplastics resin
plant between July 30, 1993, and July 29, 1998.

"The best part is that protective measures have been put into
place so these residents won't have to worry about their health
again in the future," Mr. Rob Sanders adds.


KEMPS LLC: Recalls Ice Cream Due to Undeclared Ingredient
---------------------------------------------------------
Kemps LLC, of Minneapolis is voluntarily recalling half-gallon
packages of Kemps Bakery Classics French Silk Pie Ice Cream
because one of the ingredients in the ice cream contains wheat
and it is not declared on the ingredient label. People who have
an allergy to wheat run the risk of a serious allergic reaction
if they consume these products.

The recalled ice cream was distributed to retail supermarkets in
Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, North Dakota, South Dakota,
Nebraska, Tennessee, Texas, Illinois and Michigan. The product
comes in half-gallon square paper packages, with a UPC code of
"41483 00407." All code dates are affected.

The product recall was initiated by Kemps. No illnesses have
been reported to date in connection with this problem.

Consumers who have purchased half-gallon packages of Kemps
Bakery Classics French Silk Pie Ice Cream are urged to return
them to the place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers with
questions may contact Kemps at 1-800-726-6455.


LAW CENTERS: KY Consumers Entitled To Consumer Fraud Restitution
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kentucky consumers who were victimized by the Law Centers for
Consumer Protection, a Bennington, Vermont-based debt reduction
business, may be entitled to restitution through the U.S.
Department of Justice, Kentucky Attorney General Greg Stumbo
announced in a statement.  This business formerly operated under
the name Andrew F. Capoccia Law Centers of Albany, New York.

Between 1997 and 2003, this business represented nearly 20,000
clients who had problems with unsecured debt, primarily credit
card debt. In 2003, the business declared bankruptcy while owing
approximately $23 million to about 13,000 clients. Through a
series of court actions, the U.S. Department of Justice has
recovered a portion of this money and will distribute it to
affected consumers. The Department of Justice now seeks to
locate affected consumers, particularly those who may have moved
since last being contacted by the Law Centers.

Any consumer who believes he or she is owed money by the Law
Centers should contact the Department of Justice's centralized
Victim Notification Center toll-free at 1-866-DOJ-4YOU or the
U.S. Attorney's Office at 1-802-951-6725.  For more information,
please contact the Office of the Attorney General, State
Capitol, Suite 118, Frankfort, Kentucky 40601, by Phone:
(502) 696-5300.


MITLITSKY'S EGG FARM: To Pay $70T For "Connecticut Grown" Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mitlitsky's Egg Farm of Lebanon agreed to pay the state of
Connecticut $70,075 for falsely claiming that eggs it sold were
produced in Connecticut and to stop using "farm" in its trade
name, state Attorney General Richard Blumenthal and Department
of Consumer Protection (DCP) Commissioner Edwin R. Rodriguez
announced in a statement.

In reality, the Company bought all its eggs from farms outside
Connecticut and has produced no eggs at its Lebanon facility
since at least August 2001.  Since then, the Company has
nonetheless sold more than 200,000 cartons of eggs mislabeled as
"Connecticut Grown."

"Mitlitsky scrambled the truth by mislabeling out-of-state eggs
Connecticut Grown," Mr. Blumenthal said. "The Mitlitsky farm was
just a distribution facility for out-of-state eggs, but
consumers were misled to believe they were buying locally
produced eggs. The Connecticut Grown label must mean that the
crops come from Connecticut soil, eggs from Connecticut
chickens, and milk from Connecticut cows, not just that they're
sold in Connecticut. Stretching the label is a disservice to our
hardworking farmers, and consumers."

"The outcome of this action against Mitlitsky Egg Farm
highlights our concern that deception and misrepresentation to
consumers is not only illegal, but also diminishes consumer
confidence in the marketplace," Mr. Rodriguez said. "Connecticut
will impose penalties on businesses that engage in this
deceptive behavior."

Under the agreement, Mitlitsky's packaging will no longer say
its eggs are "Connecticut Grown" or use the word "farm." The
total includes $45,000 in civil penalties and $8,700 in
disgorged profits from the sale of the mislabeled eggs, all of
which will go into the state's general fund.


MITSUBISHI MOTORS: Recalls 1,151 Vehicles Due To Crash Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mitsubishi Motors North America, Inc. is cooperating with the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) by
voluntarily recalling 1,151 Eclipse passenger vehicles, model
2006.  

Certain passenger vehicles may have been fitted with a defective
brake booster assembly.  The booster body could separate due to
improper crimp joints, resulting in a total loss of brake system
performance, which could result in a crash.

Dealers will inspect and repair the brake booster assembly.
Owners were notified by telephone on May 24,2005, to stop
driving their vehicles and arrangements were made for a loaner
vehicle.  For more details, contact the Company by Phone: 1-800-
222-0037 or contact the NHTSA's auto safety hotline: 1-888-327-
4236.


NISSAN NORTH: To Recall 44T Sentras For Fire Hazard in Aug. 2005
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nissan North America, Inc. is cooperating with the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) by voluntarily
recalling 44,000 Nissan Sentra cars, model 2005.

On certain passenger vehicles, a vapor hose located in the fuel
tank may not have been formed correctly during the manufacturing
process.  When the vehicle is parked with a full fuel tank, fuel
may flow into the vapor hose, which is connected to a vapor
canister.  The vapor canister could become full and excess fuel
could spill out onto the ground.  Fuel leakage, in the presence
of an ignition source, could result in a fire.

Dealers will check the vapor hose connections in the fuel tank
to determine if a poor seal exists.  If a poor seal is
identified, a new fuel tank will be installed.  The recall is
expected to begin on August 15,2005.  For more details, contact
the Company by Phone: 1-800-647-7261 or contact the NHTSA auto
safety hotline: 1-888-327-4236.


NORVERGENCE INC.: CA Business To Receive $2.6 Mil In Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
California businesses will receive up to $2.6 million in
financial benefits under an agreement between his office and
U.S. Bancorp (USB) to resolve a case connected to a consumer
fraud perpetrated by NorVergence, Inc., a bankrupt New Jersey-
based telecommunications company, California Attorney General
Bill Lockyer announced in a statement dated June 8,2005.

"NorVergence scammed nearly 1,000 California small businesses,"
said Mr. Lockyer. "And when it went under, NorVergence left its
victims on the hook to pay thousands of dollars for nonexistent
service and high-priced equipment. This agreement with U.S.
Bancorp provides a much-deserved remedy to defrauded California
companies."

Under the agreement approved today by the San Diego County
Superior Court, USB subsidiary Lyon Financial Services (Lyon),
Inc. will forego collecting on potential rental contract
obligations totaling approximately $2.6 million. USB is one of
the finance companies that bought rental contracts from
NorVergence.

Starting in 2002 until its bankruptcy in July 2004, NorVergence
defrauded small businesses across the country in marketing and
selling telecommunications services and equipment. NorVergence
promised victims multi-year savings of up to 30 percent on their
phone, cellular and Internet bills. The savings would be
produced, NorVergence told customers, by a "Matrix" black box
installed on businesses' premises that would allow customers to
integrate their telecommunications systems. The Matrix services
cost businesses between $500 and $2,000 a month under rental
contracts that typically lasted five-years. For fast cash,
NorVergence sold the contracts at a discount to about 40 finance
companies, including USB.

Contrary to NorVergence's representations, there was nothing
special about the Matrix black box. It was nothing more than
standard routing equipment that had no value without a
connection to phone carriers' networks. NorVergence had no means
to guarantee the long-term savings it promised because it had no
long-term contracts with carriers. NorVergence's victims totaled
an estimated 11,000 nationwide, including about 1,000 in
California.

When NorVergence filed for bankruptcy, USB and other finance
companies that bought the rental contracts demanded that
businesses continue making payments under their five-year
agreements, even though the businesses were not receiving the
promised services.

The contracts purported to require customers to pay in full even
if they received no services. Additionally, customers often
found it difficult to challenge charges because the contracts
allowed the finance companies to pursue collection lawsuits in
venues far from customers' locations. USB's venue of choice was
its home state of Minnesota, an extremely inconvenient forum for
California businesses.

Under the settlement, customers will have the opportunity to
bring their contract current through January 31, 2005, and will
have the option of making such payments in installments. In
return, USB will forgive the balance of the contract
obligations. If all California customers accept, USB will
forgive about $2.6 million in payments. USB will mail to
eligible customers a notice advising them of the opportunity to
participate in the settlement, with instructions on how to
participate.  As part of the settlement, USB has agreed to not
enforce the provision of the rental contracts that purportedly
allows USB to choose the venue to resolve disputes


OREGON: Workers Launch Suit V. MSEA Over Nonunion Members' Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
Approximately 20 state employees launched a federal lawsuit in
U.S. District Court in Portland challenging the fees that
nonunion members of a 10,000-member state workers' union must
pay in lieu of dues, The Associated Press reports.

The workers, whose lawsuit seeks to block compulsory payments of
union dues by workers who are not union members, but receive
union protection, is being assisted legally by the National
Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.

The lawsuit, which seeks class Action status, names the Maine
State Employees Association and some senior state officials as
defendants. It asks the court to block fee collections until the
union provides an independent audit of its expenditures.

In addition, the suit also asks that MSEA pay back all of the
past payments, which are equal to weekly dues paid by union
members, not including what's spent for political purposes.

In response to the suit, MSEA President Dana Graham told AP that
the "fair share fees" have been upheld in the courts and are
"perfectly legal." Mr. Graham also stated that the union has
made available all of the financial information it's obligated
to disclose. He however, deferred further comment until union
officials have seen the lawsuit.


PRESTIGE BRANDS: Consumers Launch Fraud Suit V. Cough Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
Prestige Brands Holdings, Inc. faces a class action filed in
Essex County Court, Massachusetts, styled as "Dawn Thompson v.
Wyeth, Inc. et al."  The suit relates to the Company's "Little
Remedies" pediatric cough products.

The Company is one of several corporate defendants, all of whom
market over-the-counter cough syrup products for pediatric use.
The complaint alleges that the ingredient dextromethorphan is no
more effective than a placebo. There is no allegation of
physical injury caused by the product or the ingredient.

The Company is still evaluating its position in this litigation;
however, the use of dextromethorphan in pediatric products is
fully consistent with and supported by FDA regulations, the
Company stated in a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange
Commission.


PRICESMART INC.: Lawsuit Settlement Hearing Set August 18, 2005
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
California will hold a fairness hearing for the proposed $2.35
million settlement in the matter: In re Pricesmart, Inc.
Securities Litigation, Master File No.: 03 Cv 2260 JAH - (BLM),
on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the
company's common stock during the period November 1, 2001
through December 16, 2003.

The hearing will be held on August 18, 2005, at 3:00 p.m.,
before the Honorable John A. Houston, at the United States
Courthouse, 940 Front Street, San Diego, CA 92101, Courtroom 11.

For more details, contact In re PriceSmart Securities
Litigation, c/o Complete Claim Solutions, Inc., P.O. Box 24661,
West Palm Beach, FL 33416, Phone: (888) 299-7501 OR Jonathan M.
Plasse, Esq. or Louis Gottlieb, Esq. of GOODKIND LABATON RUDOFF
& SUCHAROW LLP, 100 Park Avenue, New York, NY, 10017, Phone:  
(212) 907-0700, Fax: (212) 818-0477 OR Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. or
Peter A. Binkow, Esq. of GLANCY BINKOW LLP, 1801 Avenue of the
Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles, CA, 90067 OR Peter Benzian, Esq.
of LATHAM & WATKINS LLP, 600 West Broadway, Suite 800, San
Diego, CA, 92101, Phone: (619) 236-1234 Fax: (619) 696-7419.


PSS WORLD: Trial in FL Securities Fraud Suit Set November 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the securities class action filed against PSS World
Medical, Inc. and certain of its current and former officers and
directors is set for November 2005 in the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Florida, Jacksonville Division.

The suit, styled "Jack Hirsch v. PSS World Medical, Inc., et
al., Civil Action No. 3:98-CV 502-J-32TEM, was filed on behalf
of a purported class of similarly situated stockholders who
purchased the Company's stock between December 23, 1997 and May
8, 1998.  The suit alleged that the defendants engaged in
violations of certain provisions of the Securities Exchange Act,
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  The allegations
reference a decline in the Company's stock price following an
announcement by the Company in May 1998 regarding the Gulf South
Medical Supply, Inc. merger, which resulted in earnings below
analysts' expectations.

In December 2002, the Court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss the plaintiff's second amended complaint with prejudice
with respect to the Section 10(b) claims.  The plaintiffs filed
their third amended complaint in January 2003 alleging claims
under Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act on behalf of
a putative class of all persons who were shareholders of the
Company as of March 26, 1998. In May 2003, the Court denied the
defendants' motion to dismiss.  By order dated February 18,
2004, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.  

Court ordered mediation occurred on June 10, 2004 and April 6,
2005, during which the parties were not able to resolve their
dispute.  The parties all served motions for summary judgment
and motions in limine to strike the opposing experts on May 11,
2005.  These motions are currently pending.

The suit, styled "Hirsch v. PSS World Medical, et al, 3:98-cv-
00502-TJC-TEM," filed in the United States District Court for
the Middle District of Florida, Jacksonville Division, under
Judge Timothy J. Corrigan.  Law firms for the defendants are:

     (1) Peter Bassett, John A. Jordak, Jr., Alston & Bird, LLP,
         1201 W. Peachtree St., N.E., Atlanta, GA 30309-3424,
         Phone: 404/881-7000, E-mail: jjordak@alston.com

     (2) Robert Eric Bilik, McGuireWoods LLP, 50 N. Laura St.,
         Suite 3300, Jacksonville, FL 32202-3661, Phone:
         904/798-3200, E-mail: ebilik@mcguirewoods.com

     (3) Darlene DeMelo, Inez H. Friedman-Boyce, Gary M.
         Grossman, Jordan D. Hershman, Testa, Hurwitz &
         Thibeault, High Street Tower, 125 High Street, Boston,
         MA 02110, Phone: 617/248-7000, E-mail: demelod@tht.com
        or friedman@tht.com

     (4) Robert Bruce George, Liles, Gavin, Costantino & Murphy
         225 Water St., Suite 1500, Jacksonville, FL 32202,
         Phone: 904/634-1100, Fax: 904/634-1234, E-mail:
         rgeorge@lgcmlaw.com

Law firms for the plaintiffs are:

     (i) Lee G. Kellison, J Michael Lindell, Lindell & Kellison,
         P.A., 12276 San Jose Blvd., Suite 126, Jacksonville, FL
         32223-8630, Phone: 904/880-4000, fax: 904-880-4013, E-
         mail: lkellison@lindellkellison.com or
         mlindel@lindelkellison.com

    (ii) Seth R. Klein, Jeffrey S. Nobel, Andrew Schatz, Schatz
         & Nobel, P.C., One Corporate Center, 20 Church St.,
         Hartford, CT 06103, E-mail: sklein@snlaw.net

   (iii) Richard B. Margolies, Abbey & Gardy, LLP, 2l2 E. 39th
         St., New York, NY 10016, Phone: 212/889-3700, Fax:
         212/684-5191

    (iv) James Notis, Lee Squitieri, Abbey & Gardy, LLP
         2l2 E. 39th St., New York, NY 10016, Phone: 212/889-
         3700, E-mail: jnotis@abbeygardy.com


RBS GLOBAL: Named as Third-Party Defendant in Contamination Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
RBS Global, Inc. was named as a third-party defendant in two
separate class action suits for alleged groundwater
contamination in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, styled "Teresa and Al LeClercq et
al v. Lockformer et al v. Arrow Gear Company et al." and
"Mejdrech et al v. Met-Coil Systems/The Lockformer Company v.
Arrow Gear Company et al."  

The original defendant, Lockformer Company, has settled with the
LeClercq plaintiffs for $10 million and with the Mejdrech
plaintiffs for $12.5 million.  Lockformer is now seeking
contribution under various theories of alleged groundwater
contamination in Lisle, Illinois from at least ten other
companies, including the Company.  The contribution claims for
both suits have been combined into one suit.  

The outcome of this litigation cannot presently be determined;
however, the Company believes it has not contributed to the
groundwater contamination and have meritorious defenses to the
suit, the Company said in a disclosure to the Securities and
Exchange Commission.


ROUSH PERFORMANCE: Recalls Leather Seat Packages For Injury Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
Roush Performance Products, Inc. is cooperating with the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) by
voluntarily recalling 680 leather seat packages found in Mustang
GT cars, model 2005.

On certain altered passenger vehicles equipped with Roush
Leather Seat Packages, the occupant classification system (OCS)
sensor system can intermittently deactivate the passenger air
bags and illuminate the dash display showing "passenger airbag
deactivated" while the vehicle is operating.  

In certain crash conditions, the passenger's air bag may not
deploy, increasing the risk of injury to a seat occupant.

Roush is conducting the owner notification and remedy for this
campaign.  The remedy for this campaign is still under
development.  For more details, contact the Company by Phone:
1-800-597-6874 or contact the NHTSA's auto safety hotline:
1-888-327-4236.


SHAKESPEARE FISHING: Recalls 438T Fishing Kits For Injury Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC), Shakespeare Fishing Tackle Division, of Columbia, South
Carolina voluntarily recalling about 438,000 Children's Fishing
Kits.

The paint on the rods of these fishing poles contains lead. Lead
is toxic if ingested by young children and can cause adverse
health effects. The firm has not received any reports of
complaints related to this product. This voluntary recall is
being conducted to prevent any possibility of injury or illness.

The recalled Shakespearer brand fishing kits feature the
following characters: TAZr (Tazmanian Devilr), Tweetyr, Mucha
Luchar and Spider-Manr. Other fishing kits feature Fishing
HeroesT, sold with a silver-colored badge; Kids KitsT, sold with
tackle boxes; and SharkT and DolphinT Kits, which have reels in
the shape of a shark or dolphin. The fishing kits have brightly
colored red and yellow fishing rods, and "Shakespeare" is
written on the reels. Fishing kits with purple, blue and pink
rods are not included in this recall. Certain translucent red
and yellow and metallic-colored red rods also are not included
in this recall.

Manufactured in China, the kits were sold at all discount
departments, sporting good and toy stores nationwide from August
2001 through June 2005 for between $9 and $13.

Consumers should stop using the recalled fishing poles and
contact Shakespeare Fishing Tackle for information on receiving
a free replacement fishing kit.

Consumer Contact: For more information, call Shakespeare Fishing
Tackle toll-free at (866) 466-0559 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET
Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.shakespeare-fishing.com/recall.


TIFFIN MOTORHOMES: Recalls 302 Motorhomes Due To Fire Hazard
------------------------------------------------------------
Tiffin Motorhomes, Inc. is cooperating with the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration by voluntarily recalling 302
motorhomes, namely:

     (1) TIFFIN / BUS, model 2004-2005

     (2) TIFFIN / PHAETON, model 2004

     (3) TIFFIN / ZEPHYR, model 2005

On certain class A motor homes equipped with Vehicle Systems'
Aqua-hot and Hydro-hot water heaters, which use Webasto Burner
Tubes, the burner tubes do not meet specifications and could
fail prematurely.  The surface temperature of the exhaust tube
exiting from the heater can increase and could potentially
ignite combustible materials in or around the vehicle.  

The company is working with Vehicle Systems to notify owners and
have the repair performed on their vehicles.  For more details,
contact Vehicle Systems by Phone: 1-800-685-4298 or the Company
by Phone: 256-356-8661 or the NHTSA's auto safety hotline:
1-888-327-4236.


T.W. ENTERPRISES: Recalls Pet Treats Due to Salmonella Content
--------------------------------------------------------------
T.W. Enterprises of Ferndale, Washington alerted consumers that
it is recalling its entire line of dog and cat treats it markets
because they may be contaminated with Salmonella. On June 8, the
company recalled some of its products because of this
contamination. Subsequent testing indicates that its other pet
treat products may also be contaminated.

People handling these treats can become infected with
Salmonella, especially if they have not thoroughly washed their
hands after having contact with any the treats or any surfaces
exposed to these products.

Salmonella is an organism, which can cause serious and sometimes
fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and
others with weakened immune systems. Healthy persons infected
with Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea (which may be
bloody), nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain. In rare
circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result in the
organism getting into the bloodstream and producing more severe
illnesses such as arterial infections (i.e., infected
aneurysms), endocarditis and arthritis.

The newly recalled products include:
http://www.fda.gov/oc/po/firmrecalls/TWenterprises06_17.html.


UNITED RETAIL: Reaches Settlement For CA Overtime Wage Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
United Retail Incorporation (URI) reached a settlement for a
class action filed against it in the California Superior Court,
Los Angeles County, styled "Erik Stanford vs. United Retail
Incorporated."

Two former store managers in California filed the suit on behalf
of certain current and former Company associates employed in
California. The plaintiffs in the Stanford case assert wage and
hour claims and related claims against the Company with respect
to the period since April 1999.

On December 29, 2004, in mediation proceedings, the Company and
the plaintiffs in the Stanford case entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding that provided for a settlement in the total amount
of up to approximately $2.3 million, including interest and
payroll taxes, payable on a claims made basis in installments of
approximately $1.3 million during the third quarter of fiscal
2005 and up to approximately $1.0 million on April 28, 2006. In
connection with the settlement, compensation of store managers
employed by the Company in California was converted from
salaries to hourly wages in January 2005.

On March 18, 2005, the Company and the plaintiffs in the
Stanford case replaced the Memorandum of Understanding with a
Stipulation and Settlement Agreement, which provides for the
same payment terms as the Memorandum of Understanding.  The
Settlement Agreement has received preliminary court approval.  A
final Court hearing to rule on the fairness of the terms of the
Settlement Agreement is scheduled to be held in the third
quarter of fiscal 2005.


US BUS: Recalls Schoolbuses For Barrier Defect, Injury Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Bus Corporation is cooperating with the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) by voluntarily recalling
schoolbuses, namely:

     (1) US BUS / STURDIBUS, models 2004-2005

     (2) US BUS / UNIVERSE, models 2004-2005

Certain 2004 and 2005 My Sturdibus and Universe School Buses
were manufactured with improper/missing welds on the 30" wide
barrier support which fails to conform to federal motor vehicle
safety standard no. 222, school bus passenger seating and crash
protection.

In the event of a frontal crash, the barrier may fail to
properly restrain the front seated passenger, possibly resulting
in serious injury.

The Company will notify its customers and will visually inspect
each suspect barrier for missing welds and repair the barriers
as necessary free of charge.  The recall is expected to begin
during June 2005.  Owners who do not receive the free remedy
within a reasonable time should contact the Company by Phone:
845-357-2510 or contact the NHTSA's auto safety hotline:
1-888-327-4236.  


US BUS: Recalls 200 Sturdibus School Buses Due To Injury Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Bus Corporation is cooperating with the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) by voluntarily recalling
200 Sturdibus school buses, model 2005.

These buses fail to comply to federal motor vehicle safety
standard no. 217 - "Window Retention."  In the event of a
vehicle crash, it is possible that passenger contact with the
window could cause the window to dislodge from its gasket/seal,
and permit passage of a passenger's head through the resulting
opening.  This could result in serious injury or even death.

The manufacturer has not provided the agency with a remedy and
notification schedule for this campaign.  For more details,
contact the Company by Phone: 845-357-2510 or contact the
NHTSA's auto safety hotline: 1-888-327-4236.  


VICTOR PRODUCTS: Recalls 31,000 Pressure Valve Caps For Defect
----------------------------------------------------------------
Victor Products, Inc. is cooperating with the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) by voluntarily recalling
31,000 pressure indicator valve caps, namely:

     (1) VICTOR / A703       

     (2) VICTOR / A704       

     (3) VICTOR / A705       

     (4) VICTOR / M703       

     (5) VICTOR / M704       

     (6) VICTOR / M705       

     (7) VICTOR / V703       

     (8) VICTOR / V704       

     (9) VICTOR / V705       

The clear plastic top of certain pressure indicator valve caps
(PIVC) with product numbers V703/705; M703/705; and A703/705 can
break off, allowing the air in the tire to escape very rapidly.  
Should this occur while the car is in use, the driver could lose
control, possibly resulting in a vehicle crash.

The Company will notify its customer and either they will
replace the indicator caps or issue credit.  The recall began
May 16,2005.  Owners who do not receive the free remedy within a
reasonable time should contact the Company by Phone:
847-298-8870 or contact the NHTSA's auto safety hotline:
1-888-327-4236.


VIRTUAL REALTY: AZ Attorney General Files Consumer Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard and Bank Superintendent
Richard Houseworth filed a lawsuit on June 2,2005 against
Virtual Realty Company, Virtual Realty Funding Company, and
their owner Kenneth D. Perkins, alleging the companies misled
homeowners into signing over their homes.  The company's Tucson
agent, James Busche, was also named in the lawsuit.

According to court documents filed in Maricopa County Superior
Court, beginning in 2003 Virtual Realty Funding Company began
advertising through newspaper classified ads, the Internet and
direct mail that the company could assist homeowners who were
behind in their mortgage payments from losing their homes.  
Company sales representatives led homeowners to believe that
they could help save their homes, but in fact the transactions
offered by VRF were structured so that homeowners would transfer
title to VRF or sell the home to a business associate of VRF.

"This case represents the worst in our community," Mr. Goddard
said. "This company's end game was to get the house. They took
advantage of homeowners desperate to save their homes from
foreclosure, and deceived them into turning over their homes. In
order for homeowners to keep their homes, they had to pay an
outrageous sum, and many lost their homes because of VRF's
deceptive sales tactics."

Court documents allege that the Company targeted Spanish-
speaking communities, and applied high-pressure tactics to
convince homeowners to sign densely worded legal documents the
homeowners often did not understand. In some cases the Company
representative refused to allow the homeowner to read the
documents before signing, making the homeowner dependant on the
Company representative's explanation.

The Company representatives did not tell homeowners they were
deeding their homes to the company, and if the homeowner failed
to meet any requirement of the agreement, the home could be
sold. The homeowners believed the company would help keep their
homes and their possessions.   The Sale/Repurchase Agreement
required the homeowner to rent his/her home back from the
Company for a monthly rental equal to the monthly mortgage
payment plus an additional amount. In the case of one homeowner,
the monthly mortgage payment was $613 and the additional amount
was $157, making a monthly rental payment of $770.

In addition to the rental payment, the homeowners were also
required to make a deposit payment. In return for "helping" the
homeowners keep their homes, the Company agreed to transfer
title back to the homeowner through a warranty deed if the
homeowner met specific conditions. These included the payment of
all rent on time and, prior to a specified date, payment to VRF
for bringing the mortgage current, unspecified escrow fees and a
"funding fee," which was at times as high as $4,000.

The lawsuit alleges the following:

     (1) Violation of the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act by falsely
         advertising and selling foreclosure assistance products
         and services;

     (2) Violation of the Debt Management Companies Act by
         contracting with homeowners through a Sale/Repurchase
         Agreement where VRF acted as a debt management company.
         VRF is not licensed as a debt management company;

     (3) Violation of the Mortgage Brokers and Mortgage Bankers
         Act. VRF acted as an unlicensed mortgage broker and/or
         mortgage banker;

The Attorney General's Office is asking the Maricopa County
Superior Court to:

     (i) Prohibit the Company and its owners from violating the
         Arizona Consumer Fraud Act, the Arizona Debt Management
         Companies Act and the Arizona Mortgage Brokers and
         Mortgage Bankers Act;

    (ii) Require the defendants to return to all the victims any
         money or property acquired through deceptive practices.

   (iii) Impose a penalty of up to $10,000 for each violation of
         the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act.

    (iv) Require the defendants to reimburse the Attorney
         General and the Arizona Superintendent of Banks for
         costs of the investigation and reasonable attorneys'
         fees.


YAMAHA MOTOR: Recalls 46,000 Motorcycles Due To Injury Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------
Yamaha Motor Corporation USA is cooperating with the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration by voluntarily recalling
46,000 motorcycles, namely:

     (1) YAMAHA / XVS11, model 1998-2005

     (2) YAMAHA / XVS65, model 1998-2005

On certain motorcycles, the original replacement mounting
hardware holding the passenger seat to the fender could break if
the mounting hardware is overtightened.  If the hardware breaks,
the passenger seat can fall off the rear fender.  The passenger
could lose balance and fall, causing serious injury or death.

Owners may already have received a letter from the Company dated
March 3,2005 about this defect.  In order to provide an improved
remedy to the repair of the previous recall, the Company is
recalling certain motorcycles again.  Dealers will replace the
hardware holding the passenger seat to the fender with
components of a different type that will not allow the seat to
fall off.  The recall began on June 15,2005.  For more details,
contact the Company by Phone: 1-800-88-YAMAHA or contact the
NHTSA's auto safety hotline: 1-888-327-4236.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


CYBERONICS INC.: Finkelstein & Krinsk Lodges Stock Suit in TX
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Finkelstein & Krinsk, LLP, initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas on behalf of the purchasers of
Cyberonics, Inc. (Nasdaq:CYBX) securities between June 15, 2004,
through October 1, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

Cyberonics is in the business of designing, developing amd
commercializing medical devices including one allegedly
providing therapy, the Vagus Nerve Stimulation, for the
treatment of epilepsy and other debilitating neurological and
psychiatric disorders. Plaintiff alleges defendants violated the
federal securities laws during the Class Period by failing to
disclose and misrepresenting material information known to
defendants or recklessly disregarded by them concerning this
device. This included defendants' knowledge that the
manufacturing and quality assurance process had significant
flaws that would negatively impact the Company and VNC product
approval. While aware of the true facts and the serious issues
facing FDA approval of the VNC system, Company insiders sold
over $1.98 million of Cyberonics stock. As a result the value of
Cyberonics stock was materially artificially inflated during the
Class Period.

For more details, contact Jeffrey R. Krinsk or Mark L. Knutson
of Finkelstein & Krinsk, LLP, 501 West Broadway, Ste. 1250, San
Diego, CA, 92101, Phone: 619-238-1333 or 877-493-5366, E-mail:
jrk@classactionlaw.com or mlk@classactionlaw.com.


CYBERONICS INC.: Scott + Scott Files Securities Fraud Suit in TX
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Scott + Scott, LLC, initiated a class action
today in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Texas on behalf of the purchasers of Cyberonics,
Inc. (Nasdaq: CYBX) securities during the Class Period between
June 15, 2004, through October 1, 2004, inclusive (the "Class").

Cyberonics engages in the design, development, and
commercialization of medical devices, which claim to provide
therapy, Vagus Nerve Stimulation (VNS), for the treatment of
epilepsy and other debilitating neurological and psychiatric
disorders. Plaintiff alleges that defendants violated the
federal securities laws (Securities Exchange Act of 1934) during
the Class Period by failing to disclose and misrepresenting
material adverse facts known to defendants or recklessly
disregarded by them, including that defendants were engaged in
serious violative manufacturing and quality practices that would
have a serious negative impact on prospects for the Company's
VNC product approval and that, while well aware of true nature
of the serious issues facing FDA approval of the VNC system for
the depression indication, Company insiders sold over $1.98
million of Company stock during the Class Period. As a result,
the Complaint alleges, the value of the Company's stock was
materially and artificially inflated during the Class Period.

For more details, contact Neil Rothstein or Amy K. Saba of of
Scott + Scott, LLC, Phone: +1-619-251-0887 or +1-800-332-2259,
ext. 26, E-mail: nrothstein@scott-scott.com or
asaba@scott-scott.com, Web site: http://www.scott-scott.com.  


DITECH COMMUNICATIONS: Schiffrin & Barroway Files CA Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers of the
publicly traded securities of Ditech Communications Corp.
(Nasdaq: DITC) ("Ditech" or the "Company") between August 24,
2004 and May 26, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Ditech and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Ditech is a Mountain View-based designer and marketer of
telecommunications equipment and provides network operators with
echo cancellation and voice processing systems. According to the
complaint, defendants failed to disclose and misrepresented the
following material adverse facts which were known to defendants
or recklessly disregarded by them: The complaint alleges that
defendants' Class Period representations regarding Ditech were
materially false and misleading when made for the following
reasons:

     (1) that the highly-touted Voice Quality Assurance ("VQA")
         orders was a huge disappointment because VQA orders
         were not as secured as defendants represented because
         the purported new clients were under no obligation to
         purchase Ditech's services; thus, Ditech's positive
         statements about its VQA success were lacking in any
         reasonable basis when made;

     (2) that the Sprint/Nextel merger would not be a positive
         development for Ditech; and

     (3) that the Sprint/Nextel merger presented a serious
         threat to Ditech's business because it was foreseeable
         that Ditech would experience a shortfall in revenue
         received from Nextel because of the merger.

On November 3, 2004, Ditech issued a press release announcing
poor second quarter results due to a "delay" in shipping the
highly-touted VQA orders from Asia and weaker domestic demand
for wireless products. On November 4, 2004, the price of Ditech
stock dropped $5.69 per share, or 25.53 percent, to $16.60 per
share, on unusually heavy trading volume. On May 26, 2005,
Ditech announced that orders from Nextel declined substantially
as a result of the Nextel/Sprint merger, and would continue to
do so. On news of this, shares of Ditech, on May 27, 2005, fell
$4.80 per share or 38.13 percent to close at $7.79 per share on
unusually heavy trading volume.

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


LAZARD LTD.: Goldman Scarlato Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C. filed a lawsuit
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York, on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired publicly traded securities of Lazard Ltd. ("Lazard" or
the "Company") (NYSE:LAZ) between May 4, 2005 and May 12, 2005,
inclusive, and those 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") (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit was filed against Lazard and Goldman
Sachs, and certain officers and directors ("Defendants").

The complaint alleges that Defendants 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
Company's true value of Lazard's stock after it began to trade
freely in the market.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that the Registration
Statement and Prospectus failed to disclose that:

     (1) the $25 offering price for the shares in the IPO was
         solely to enable Bruce Wasserstein, the Company's CEO,
         to wrest control of Lazard from the Company's founders;

     (2) that prior to the IPO, market demand indicated that the
         proper initial value of Lazard was closer to $22 per
         share;

     (3) that in order to support the stock for Lazard's IPO,
         Goldman Sachs sold millions of shares to funds who in
         turn flipped them back to Goldman Sachs, creating an
         air of false demand for the securities; and,

     (4) that internal strife continued within Lazard, and that
         Gerardo Braggiotti, the Company's deputy Chairman in
         Europe would likely leave the Company if he were not
         appointed head of Lazard's European operations.

On May 12, 2005, several days after the IPO, and at the time
Goldman Sachs ceased buying shares, shares of Lazard fell from
approximately $25 per share to $21 per share.

For more details, contact Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C., Phone:
888-753-2796, E-mail: penny@gsk-law.com.  


NEWMONT MINING: Scott + Scott Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CO
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Scott + Scott, LLC, initiated a class action
suit in the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado on behalf of purchasers of Newmont Mining Corporation
(NYSE: NEM) securities during the Class Period between July 28,
2004, and April 26, 2005, inclusive (the "Class ").

Newmont primarily engages in the acquisition, production and
exploration of gold properties. The Company has mining
operations in the United States and various other locations
worldwide. The Complaint alleges violations of the federal
securities laws (Securities Exchange Act of 1934). Specifically,
the Complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose and
misrepresented material adverse facts know to or recklessly
disregarded by them, including, among other things, that:
Newmont had been processing only stockpiled low- grade ore at
certain mines during the Class Period, which costs more to
process; the amount of copper and gold Newmont claimed it could
extract in 2005 was overstated; and, as a result of Q1 2005
operating difficulties, Newmont's cash generation had declined
by 50% while its exploration costs would significantly increase.
On disclosure of these facts, Newmont's stock price fell from
its April 26, 2005 $40.25 closing price to less than $38 per
share on April 27, 2005, on extremely high trading volume.

For more details, contact Neil Rothstein or Amy K. Saba of of
Scott + Scott, LLC, Phone: +1-619-251-0887 or +1-800-332-2259,
ext. 26, E-mail: nrothstein@scott-scott.com or
asaba@scott-scott.com, Web site: http://www.scott-scott.com.  


OCA INC.: Allan Kanner Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. LA
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Allan Kanner & Associates, P.L.L.C., filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana on behalf of purchasers of
Orthodontic Centers of America, Inc. ("OCA" or "the Company")
(NYSE:OCA-News) common stock during the period between May 18,
2004, and June 6, 2005 (the "Class Period"). The civil action
number is 05-2173.

The complaint asserts claims against the Defendants under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of
1934. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period,
Defendants issued false and misleading financial statements and
failed to present the Company's financial statements in
conformity with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles
("GAAP"). In addition, Defendants' Sarbanes-Oxley certifications
during the Class Period were false and misleading.

On June 7, 2005, before the opening of trading, OCA shocked the
market by announcing it had determined that the amount of
patient receivables reported at each of March 31, June 30, and
September 30, 2004 was overstated by material amounts. Although
the Company said that it has not yet determined the amount by
which the receivables were overstated or their impact on patient
revenue, the Company announced its Audit Committee's conclusion
that, due to these overstatements, the previously issued
quarterly financial statements for the first, second and third
quarters of 2004 will need to be restated and should no longer
be relied upon. OCA also announced that it had discovered other
accounting errors, which it was still reviewing, and had placed
its Chief Operating Officer, Bartholomew F. Palmisano, Jr., on
administrative leave as of June 1, 2005.

In response to this news, OCA stock lost approximately 40% of
its value on enormous trading volume of over 9 million shares,
dropping $1.57 to close at $2.46. In fact, the stock hit a 52-
week low during trading yesterday. Accordingly, as a result of
the Company's misrepresentations, OCA investors have sustained
tremendous losses, and stand to lose much more as the full
extent and magnitude of the restatement and fraud is disclosed.

For more details, contact Allan Kanner or Conlee Whiteley of
Allan Kanner & Associates, Phone: 1-800-331-1546 or
504-524-5777, Web site: http://www.kanner-law.com.


OCA INC.: Berman DeValerio Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in LA
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo
initiated a class action in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana on behalf of an OCA, Inc. ("OCA"
or the "Company") (NYSE: OCA) investor, claiming that the
Company issued materially false and misleading financial
statements to the investing public. The lawsuit seeks damages
for violations of federal securities laws on behalf of all
investors who purchased OCA common stock between May 18, 2004
and June 7, 2005 (the "Class Period").

The lawsuit claims that the defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the rules
and regulations promulgated thereunder, including U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") Rule 10b-5.

OCA, a provider of business services to orthodontic and
pediatric dentists, issued numerous positive statements
throughout the Class Period touting the Company's financial
performance, the complaint says.

Then on June 7, 2005, OCA shocked the market when it announced
that it was further delaying the filing of its annual report,
that it intended to restate its quarterly financial statements
for 2004 and that it had placed the Company's chief operating
officer on administrative leave. Specifically, the Company
admitted that, among other things, it had materially overstated
its patient receivables and patient revenue for the first three
quarters of 2004.

On this news, shares of the OCA stock fell $1.53 per share or
almost 38% to close at $2.50 per share on June 7, 2005.

For more details, contact Jeffrey C. Block or Leslie R. Stern,
One Liberty Square, Boston, MA, 02109, Phone:  (800) 516-9926 OR
Joseph J. Tabacco, Jr. or Michael W. Stocker, 425 California
St., Suite 2100, San Francisco, CA, 94104, Phone:
(415) 433-3200, E-mail: law@bermanesq.com, Web site:
http://www.bermanesq.com/pdf/OCA-Cplt.pdf.


OCA INC.: Goldman Scarlato Lodhes Securities Fraud Suit in LA
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C., initiated a
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana, on behalf of persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of OCA, Inc.
("OCA" or the "Company") (NYSE:OCA) between May 18, 2004 and
June 7, 2005, inclusive, (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit was
filed against OCA and certain officers and directors
("Defendants").

The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. Specifically, the complaint alleges that
Defendants issued numerous positive statements that were
materially false and misleading. More specifically, these
statements were false and misleading because Defendants
misrepresented or failed to disclose that 1) defendants had
engaged in improper accounting practices and that now the
Company would be forced to restate prior financial results; 2)
that certain journal entries on the Company's general ledger
were not recorded properly; and, 3) that certain data provided
to the Company's independent accounting firm had been improperly
changed.

On June 7, 2005, the Company announced that it was delaying the
filing of its annual report and that it intended to restate its
quarterly financial results for 2004 and that it had places its
Chief Operating Officer, Bartholomew E. Palmisano Jr. on
administrative leave. The Company commented in its release that
it had overstated patient receivables and patient revenues for
the first three quarters of 2004. Shares of OCA reacted
dramatically to the news, dropping $1.53 per share or
approximately 38% to close at $2.50 per share.

For more details, contact Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C., Phone:
888-753-2796, E-mail: penny@gsk-law.com.  


OCA INC.: Kaplan Fox Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in E.D. LA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP initiated a class
action suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana against OCA, Inc. ("OCA" or the "Company")
(NYSE: OCA) and certain of its officers and directors, on behalf
of all persons or entities who purchased the publicly traded
common stock of OCA between May 18, 2004 and June 7, 2005 (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, thus
causing OCA's shares to trade at artificially inflated levels.

On March 17, 2005, OCA announced that it was delaying the filing
of its annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December
31, 2004 because the Company had "not yet completed the closing
procedures required to prepare and finalize its annual financial
statements or its assessment of internal control over financial
reporting under Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002."
On April 15, 2005, the Company announced that CFO David M.
Verret would resign his position with the Company in May 2005.

On June 7, 2005, OCA disclosed that "the Company anticipates
further delay in completing its 2004 financial close process and
audit and in filing the Form 10-K and Form 10-Q, and is
currently in discussions with its lenders about obtaining an
additional extension and waiver."

The Company also announced that "it has identified certain
errors in its calculation of patient receivables reported during
2004, and has determined that the amount of patient receivables
reported at each of March 31, June 30 and September 30, 2004 was
overstated by material amounts [and that] . . . the Company's
Audit Committee has concluded that, due to these overstatements,
these previously issued quarterly financial statements will need
to be restated and should no longer be relied upon." OCA's Board
of Directors "has appointed a Special Committee to review
certain journal entries recorded in the Company's general ledger
[and] . . . is reviewing certain alleged changes in data
provided to the Company's independent registered public
accounting firm."

The Company also announced that "pending completion of the
internal review, the Company has placed Bartholomew F.
Palmisano, Jr., the Company's Chief Operating Officer, on
administrative leave."

On June 7, 2005, as a result of these disclosures, the price of
OCA common stock declined from $4.03 to $2.48 per share, a
decline of approximately 38%, on unusually heavy volume.

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


PEMSTAR INC.: Brian M. Felgoise Lodges Securities Lawsuit in MN
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C. initiated a
securities class action on behalf of shareholders who acquired
PEMSTAR, Inc. (NASDAQ: PMTR) securities between January 29, 2003
and January 24, 2005, inclusive (the Class Period).

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

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

For more details, contact Brian M. Felgoise, Esq., 261 Old York
Road, Suite 423, Jenkintown, PA, 19046, Phone: (215) 886-1900 E-
mail: FelgoiseLaw@verizon.net.


PEMMSTAR INC.: Goldman Scarlato Lodges Securities Lawsuit in MN
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C. initiated a
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of
Minnesota, on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired publicly traded securities of PEMSTAR, Inc. ("PEMSTAR"
or the "Company") (NASDAQ:PMTR) between January 29, 2003 and
January 24, 2005, inclusive, (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit
was filed against PEMSTAR, Allen Berning, Roy Bauer and Gregory
Lea ("Defendants").

The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. Specifically, the complaint alleges that
Defendants issued a series of false and misleading financial
statements to the investing public regarding the Company's
financial position. More specifically, the complaint alleges
that during the Class Period, PEMSTAR was suffering from
liquidity constraints that prohibited it from achieving gross
margin expansion, a prerequisite to generating accounting
profits. In addition, the Company failed to disclose that it
needed to attain approximately a 9% gross margin in order to
reach profitability, a level, which would be unattainable in a
reasonable period of time.

Additionally, the complaint alleges Defendants misrepresented
the Company's financial condition through the understatement of
the Company's liabilities associated with its Mexican facilities
and overstating its accounts receivables that were in fact
impaired.

On January 24, 2005, PEMSTAR issued a press release announcing
that it was revising its outlook for the third quarter of fiscal
2005 and that the Company had implemented a cost-reduction
initiative. In addition, it announced that it was restating its
financial results for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2004 due
to accounting issues at it Mexican facility. Shares reacted
negatively to the news, falling to a level roughly 70% below the
Company's Class Period high.

For more details, contact Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C., Phone:
888-753-2796, E-mail: penny@gsk-law.com.  


                            *********

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

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

                            *********


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

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

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

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

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

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

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *