/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/050705.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, July 5, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 131


ALLEGHENY ENERGY: States File Suit For Clean Air Act Violations
ALLIED INTERSTATE: Reaches Settlement For MN AG Consumer Lawsuit
AM CORPORATION: Faces Fraud Lawsuit Over SuperAnnuation Funds
ARIZONA: Tucson Citizen Nets Victory In Inflammatory Letter Suit
ASSOCIATED CREDIT: Credit Union Issues 3T New Visa Credit Cards

ATLAS AIR: FL Court Subordinates Claims in Securities Fraud Suit
BROWN-FORMAN: Faces Additional Suits For Advertising To Minors
BROWN-FORMAN: Tableware Buyers File Antitrust Suit in N.D. CA
CALIFORNIA: Mother Launches Complaint V. TSA Over No-Fly List
CARDSYSTEMS SOLUTIONS: AZ AG Joins Call For More Info on Breach

CARDSYSTEMS SOLUTIONS: CA AG To File Subpoena Over Data Breach
CENTERPOINT ENERGY: MN AG Probe Reveals Cold Weather Violations
COLD STONE: FDA Warns V. "Cake Batter" Ice Cream For Health Risk
CVS CORPORATION: Proposes $3M Settlement For Workers' 401K Suit
DAIRY INDUSTRY: Group Says Suit Front For Animal Rights Groups

DELPHI CORPORATION: Shareholders Launch ERISA, Stock Fraud Suits
GRUPO JERONIMO: Workers File Suit in Poland Over Unpaid Overtime
GUIDANT CORPORATION: Firms File Amended Suit Over Defibrillators
ILLINOIS NATURAL: Reaches Settlement for IL AG Fraud Complaint

KANSAS: Daughter Lodges Wrongful Death Suit V. BTK Serial Killer
LIQIANG RESEARCH: FDA Warns V. Use for Possible Health Hazard
MAIN STREET: Recalls Chocolate Biscotti Due to Undeclared Milk
MAINE: Blueberry Growers to Receive Checks From $5M Settlement
NAUTILUS INC.: Recalls 10T Exercise Benches Due to Injury Hazard

NYFIX INC.: CT Court Mulls Dismissal of Securities Fraud Lawsuit
ROTH KASE: Recalls "Spreadables" Due to Undeclared Ingredients
RUBIO'S FRESH: Lead Attorney Answers Company Statement Re Suit
TERRY'S TIPS: SEC Lodges Suit in VT Over "Autotrading Programs"
UTAH: Assistant A.G. Says Tax Refund Lawsuit Was Unnecessary

VIISAGE TECHNOLOGY: Plaintiffs Seek Consolidation of MA Lawsuits
VIVENDI UNIVERSAL: Lawsuit Launched in France Over 2002 Losses
WILLOW CREEK: Illinois AG Files Fraud Suit V. Campground Owners

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

AUTHENTIDATE HOLDING: Wechsler Harwood Lodges Stock Suit in NY
BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS: Spector Roseman Lodges Stock Suit in CA
DRDGOLD LTD.: Wechsler Harwood Files Securities Fraud Suit in NY
FRIEDMAN BILLINGS: Scott + Scott Sets Lead Plaintiff Deadline
GUIDANT CORPORATION: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Suit in IN

GUIDANT CORPORATION: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Stock Suit in IN
SCHOOL SPECIALTY: Bull & Lifshitz Lodges Securities Suit in WI


ALLEGHENY ENERGY: States File Suit For Clean Air Act Violations
Maryland, Pennsylvania, New York, Connecticut, and New Jersey
filed a federal lawsuit in June 2005, charging that the
corporate owners of three large coal-fired power plants in
Pennsylvania have violated the Clean Air Act.  Some of the
plants have been operating since the 1950's with inadequate air
pollution controls.

The power plants are owned by Allegheny Energy, Inc. and its
subsidiaries.  While major upgrades have been made to improve
the plants' power-producing capacity, their owners failed to
install modern pollution controls as required by law. As a
result, the plants emit thousands of tons of air pollution each
year and that pollution causes smog and acid rain in
Pennsylvania communities and nearby downwind states.

Extensive documentation turned over to the states by the federal
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) revealed that the power
plant owners violated the New Source Review provision of the
Clean Air Act. Despite having developed cases against the power
plants for ongoing Clean Air Act violations, the federal
government has not brought enforcement actions.

Maryland Attorney General J. Joseph Curran, Jr. said:
"Maryland's air quality and the Chesapeake Bay are directly and
adversely impacted by emissions from coal-fired power plants in
upwind states. Fair and uniform application of the nation's
clean air laws, which is the goal of this litigation, will
significantly advance Maryland's efforts to attain the federal
ambient air quality standards."

Pennsylvania Environmental Secretary Kathleen A. McGinty said:
"We are calling on Allegheny Energy to put in place equipment
and operational changes that will enable its plants to perform
in a manner that meets the highest standards for environmental
protection. We hope that Allegheny Energy will work with us
expeditiously to clean up their plants and protect public
health. Allegheny's new management team has been working to
clean up the company's financial and environmental performance.
It's time now to get the job done for the people of

New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer said: "The sky is not a
dumping ground for industrial pollution. Pollution from these
coal-fired power plants operating without adequate emission
controls harms the public health and the environment in New York
and other states. It is fair and right to hold these plants
accountable to the law."

Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said, "This
aggressive action is necessary to protect our health because the
federal government has unconscionably orphaned this case and
abandoned environmental protection. We waited for the federal
government to act responsibly and now must fill the vacuum left
by its surrender to special interests. Recent court decisions
are consistent with our case, which relies on the Clean Air
Act's clear language. We will hold these plants accountable for
causing more smog and acid rain and more asthma and respiratory

New Jersey Attorney General Peter C. Harvey said: "Allegheny
Energy has ignored the requirements of the Clean Air Act at
these three plants, increasing emissions that harm our children
with asthma and our senior citizens with respiratory ailments.
The Hatfield's Ferry plant is among the worst coal-fired power
plants in terms of its harm to public health and the environment
of New Jersey."

The enforcement lawsuit against the Company was given a boost by
last week's decision by the District of Columbia federal Circuit
Court of Appeals.  That case found unconvincing an argument from
the power industry that only an increase in the hourly emission
rate, as opposed to an increase in actual annual pollution,
would trigger the Clean Air Act's pollution control requirement.

The Pennsylvania coal-fired plants that are the subject of the
clean air suit are:

    (1) Armstrong Plant, Armstrong County

    (2) Hatfield's Ferry Plant, Greene County

    (3) Mitchell Plant, Washington County

The legal complaint is available on the New York Attorney
General's website: http://www.oag.state.ny.us. The case was
filed on June 28,2005 in the U.S. District Court, Western
District of Pennsylvania.  The case is being handled by: Susan
Shinkman, Marianne Mulroy and Robert Reiley of the Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Protection; Peter Lehner, Jared
Snyder, Andrew Frank and Jacob Hollinger of the New York
Attorney General's Office; Lori DiBella and Kimberly Massicotte
of the Connecticut Attorney General's Office; Susan Martielli
and Kathy Kinsey of the Maryland Attorney General's Office; and
Lisa Morelli, Jean Reilly and Kevin Auerbacher of the New Jersey
Attorney General's Office.)

For more details, contact Kevin Enright by Phone: 410-576-6357
or visit the Attorney General's Website:

ALLIED INTERSTATE: Reaches Settlement For MN AG Consumer Lawsuit
Minnesota Attorney General Mike Hatch reached a settlement
agreement with Allied Interstate, Inc. ("Allied"), resolving the
consumer protection lawsuit filed in June 2004 against the debt
collection agency.  The lawsuit alleged that the Company used
unlawful tactics to collect debts that were not valid or to
collect money from the wrong Minnesota consumer.

Under the settlement terms, the Company agreed to cease making
false representations about the status or character of consumer
debt by discontinuing phone calls to innocent consumers after
these consumers have orally told the debt collector they have
the wrong person or that they do not owe the debt.  The Company
also agreed to provide proper notification to consumers who have
debt to be collected and that notification will include
information on how to dispute their debt or request debt
validation from the company. Furthermore, the company will no
longer place debt collection calls without a live operator
introducing the call.

Consumers harmed by the Company's practices will be compensated
with restitution. Consumers who previously filed "wrong person"
complaints were identified and will receive $500. Minnesota
consumers who have not previously filed complaints with the
Attorney General's Office are entitled to participate in an
arbitration process. Minnesota consumers who are able to show
that the Company continued collection efforts after the consumer
advised the Company that it had the wrong person or that prove
they received recorded messages from the Company will be
entitled to a payment ranging from $100 to $1000. Minnesota
consumers with complaints against the Company should submit a
written complaint to the Minnesota Attorney General's Office no
later than August 29, 2005.

If consumers have any questions about the settlement or their
eligibility, they should call the Attorney General's Consumer
Assistance Line at (651) 296-3353 or (800)-657-3787. Complaint
forms can be obtained by printing a form from the Attorney
General's website at http://www.ag.state.mn.usand click on
Consumer Complaint Form or simply contact the Office at the
below address or phone number and you will be sent a complaint

AM CORPORATION: Faces Fraud Lawsuit Over SuperAnnuation Funds
Documents filed with prominent Australian law firms Goldman
Partners of Melbourne and Maurice Blackburn Cashman of Sydney in
relation to a class action in New South Wales Supreme Court on
behalf of investors in AM Corporation's LifeTrack fund showed
that at one point in 2001 the fund held $700 million worth of
policies on behalf of 7000 investors, many of them retirees,

The two firms filed the suit on behalf of more than 700
investors suit against the LifeTrack SuperAnnuation Fund, who
bought endowment policies from policyholders who had signed up
with life insurance companies to pay premiums for long periods
but who did not want to wait and wanted to cash in the equity in
their policy.  The fund was started in 1996, with the investment
described as low risk.  The policies were marketed as a long-
term investment and paid no cash bonuses, smh.com.au reports.
Bonuses were instead compounded each year to mature on a certain
date, usually when the insured reached 65.  In the interim the
policyholder had to keep paying the premium or it would lapse
and the benefits would be forfeited.

As investment horizons shrank, many policyholders thought that
instead of taking the life office's poor surrender values, they
would transfer the policies to LifeTrack, get some money for
them years before maturity, and leave the premium-paying to
LifeTrack.  In turn, LifeTrack would sell units in its fund,
which bought and held the policies, to retirees and self-managed
super funds, marketing the investment as a low-risk one with
capital gain potential, smh.com.au reports.  After all, the
members of the super funds did not need the money right away.
Instead they could wait for their safe investment to grow to
maturity.  The Company made money through management fees levied
on the fund.

Then trouble struck, with two major insurance companies, MLC and
AMP, drastically cutting the bonuses paid on all policies,
including those held by LifeTrack.  As a result, returns fell,
liquidity problems emerged, and new money was hard to attract.
Liquidity problems increased, and the fund was frozen. Investors
were told to expect a capital loss when they eventually were
able to withdraw funds, smh.com.au reports.

In August 2003 the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority
and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission sought
and received undertakings from AM Corporation directors David
Smith and Alan Rich that they would not to be a director or
officer of a company holding a financial services license for 10
years. LifeTrack was also ordered to pay APRA $1 million in
settlement of any potential civil penalty actions.

According to the plaintiff lawyers, none of that $1 million went
to investors. Hence the current action, which will have its
first day in the NSW Supreme Court next month.  The lawyers say
they are funding the action and investors do not have to pay
anything now, smh.com.au reports.

David Goldman, a senior associate of Goldman Partners, told
smh.com.au he does not know how big the damages claim may be, as
it depends on the number of investors who ultimately join the
action.  He says his best guess at this stage is "tens of
millions of dollars."  His phone has been running hot since the
case was filed.

According to the filed court documents, investors were not to be
levied an exit cost if an entry fee had been paid and were to be
periodically updated with all information about the management
and financial condition of traded policies. It is claimed that
these representations were misleading and deceptive.  It is also
claimed that LifeTrack failed to prevent excessive investment in
traded policies through diversification and to maintain adequate
levels of cash or liquidity, smh.com.au reports.

ARIZONA: Tucson Citizen Nets Victory In Inflammatory Letter Suit
The Arizona Supreme Court ruled that a Tucson newspaper couldn't
be sued for publishing a letter, which suggested that a proper
response for the killing of American soldiers in Iraq would be
to go to the nearest mosque and kill five Muslims, The
Associated Press reports.

As previously reported in the September 21, 2004 edition of the
Class Action Reporter, the letter in question was written by a
certain Dr. Emory Metz Wright, Jr., as deadly attacks against
U.S. troops in Iraq intensified.  The Tucson Citizen had
published the controversial letter on December 2, 2003.
Immediately thereafter, the letter prompted protests and some
Muslims were so scared they kept their kids home from school.

The newspaper immediately issued an apology and sent staff
members to meet with members of a local mosque in a bid to
diffuse tensions. In a December 6, 2003, column apologizing for
the newspaper's decision to print the letter, Publisher and
Editor Michael Chihak said the letter's author had written a
second letter to clarify that his comments referred only to
military actions in combat zones. The original letter did not
specify where the suggested killings should take place though.
The two men initiated a class action lawsuit against the
newspaper on behalf of Islamic-Americans on January 13, 2004.

The newspaper responding to the filing of the suit by arguing
that its First Amendment rights protect it from such lawsuits
and that the most fundamental of this rights, the right to
engage in robust political debate, is at stake, but the
plaintiffs contend that the newspaper, by deciding to publish
the letter, crossed the line.

However, Aly Elleithee, an accountant and immigrant from Egypt,
who is one of plaintiffs in the case pointed out, "You can
express your opinion but not - especially with what's going on
in the Middle East - if you put some people's lives at risk.
Somebody has to be accountable for what they did."

Plaintiffs' attorney Herbert Beigel further adds that publishing
the letter was not constitutionally protected because the letter
"was a direct call to violence against innocent Islamic-
Americans."  On May 10, 2004, Judge Leslie Miller of Pima County
Superior Court in Tucson dismissed an assault count in the
original lawsuit, but allowed the suit's claim of intentional
infliction of emotional distress to stand. A pretrial fact-
finding is currently on hold while the ruling is appealed to the
Arizona Supreme Court.

In its decision, the Supreme Court unanimously reversed Pima
County Superior Court Judge Leslie Miller's ruling in the case
from Tucson and ordered that the lower court dismiss the lawsuit
accusing the Tucson Citizen of distressing residents by printing
the letter.

Writing for the court, Justice Andrew Hurwitz ruled that the
letter "does not fall within one of the well-recognized
exceptions to the general rule of First Amendment protection for
political speech."

ASSOCIATED CREDIT: Credit Union Issues 3T New Visa Credit Cards
Georgia-based Associated Credit Union is issuing 3,000 new Visa-
branded check cards and credit cards to replace accounts exposed
to possible fraud in a security breach, the GJSentinel.com

In a press release issued June 17,2005, MasterCard International
notified its member financial institutions of a breach of
payment card data, which potentially exposed more than 40
million cards of all brands to fraud, of which approximately
13.9 million are MasterCard-branded cards, an earlier Class
Action Reporter story (June 28,2005) reports.

The Company's team of security experts identified that the
breach occurred at Tucson-based CardSystems Solutions, Inc., a
third-party processor of payment card data.  Third party
processors process transactions on behalf of financial
institutions and merchants.  The security breach occurred after
CardSystems inappropriately held onto card data for "research
purposes" rather than deleting it.  Forty million accounts were
exposed, and records pertaining to at least 200,000 are known to
have been stolen, primarily MasterCard and Visa cards.

Visa USA informed the credit union the information stored on the
cards' magnetic stripes - names, account numbers and expiration
dates - were compromised at a credit card processor, Glenn
Miller, ACU's senior vice president of marketing told
GJSentinel.com.  He added that Visa did not identify the third-
party processor.

In letters to metro Atlanta customers, ACU said the card
processor handles transactions for more than 100,000 small-to-
midsize businesses.  That essentially matches a company
description on CardSystems' Website.  CardSystems declined to
comment, GJSentinel.com reports.

Mr. Miller added ACU has not found any instances of fraud but
reissued cards as a precaution.

Last week, the Rothken Law firm filed a class action against
CardSystems Solutions, Inc. in San Francisco Superior Court in
California, alleging a failure to maintain adequate data
security, which led to a security breach exposing over 40
million credit card holders to potential fraud, an earlier Class
Action Reporter story (June 28,2005) reports.  The suit also
names as defendants MasterCard International, Visa USA, Merrick
Bank Corporation, a Utah-based issuer of Visas and MasterCards,
and as-yet-unnamed defendants, or "John Does."

CardSystems said it had no immediate comment on the letter from
the National Association of Attorneys General or the lawsuit,
GJSentinel.com reports.

ATLAS AIR: FL Court Subordinates Claims in Securities Fraud Suit
The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of
Florida subordinated the claims in the consolidated securities
class action filed against Atlas Air Worldwide Holdings, Inc. to
general unsecured claims in The Company's Plan of

Seven putative class action complaints were initially filed
against the Company and several of its former officers and
former directors in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York. The seven class actions were
filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's publicly traded
common stock during the period from April 18, 2000 through
October 15, 2002.

These class actions alleged, among other things, that during the
time period asserted, the Company and the individual defendants
knowingly issued materially false and misleading statements to
the market in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The class actions included
claims under the Securities Act of 1933 on behalf of purchasers
of common stock issued by the Company in a September 2000
secondary public offering pursuant to, or traceable to, a
prospectus supplement dated September 14, 2000 and filed with
the SEC on September 18, 2000 (the "September Secondary
Offering").  The complaints sought unspecified compensatory
damages and other relief.

On May 19, 2003, these seven class actions were consolidated
into one proceeding. A lead plaintiff and a lead counsel were
appointed by that court.  Plaintiffs filed a single consolidated
amended class action complaint in August 2003 and a second
consolidated amended class action complaint in October 2003. The
second consolidated amended class action complaint supersedes
and replaces all prior complaints, and alleges violation of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
against the Company and six of its former officers or directors
on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the
common stock of AAWW between April 18, 2000 and October 15,
2002, inclusive, and violation of Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 against the Company, four of its former
officers or directors and Morgan Stanley Dean Witter on behalf
of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Company
common stock issued in the September Secondary Offering.

Each defendant moved to dismiss the second consolidated amended
class action complaint on or about December 17, 2003. On
February 3, 2004, the Company notified the court hearing the
consolidated action of the Company's January 30, 2004 bankruptcy
filing staying the litigation against the Company.

Since confirmation of the Plan of Reorganization, the Bankruptcy
Court has entered an order subordinating claims arising from
these class action proceedings to general unsecured claims. The
Plan of Reorganization provides that subordinated claims receive
no distribution.

The consolidated securities class action is styled "Barry Zemel
Trust v. Atlas Worldwide Inc., et al., case no. 7:02-cv-08566-
WCC," filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, under Judge William C. Conner.
Representing the plaintiffs are Gustavo Bruckner and Lawrence P.
Kolker of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP, 270 Madison
Avenue, New York, NY 10017, Phone: (212) 545-4600, E-mail:

BROWN-FORMAN: Faces Additional Suits For Advertising To Minors
Brown-Forman Corporation and many other manufacturers of
spirits, wine, and beer are defendants in a series of
essentially similar class action lawsuits seeking damages and
injunctive relief for alleged marketing of beverage alcohol to
underage consumers.

Nine lawsuits have been filed to date.  The first three were
filed against eight defendants, including the Company and

     (1) Hakki v. Adolph Coors Company, et al., District of
         Columbia Superior Court No. CD 03-9183 (November 2003);

     (2) Kreft v. Zima Beverage Co., et.al., District Court,
         Jefferson County, Colorado, No. 04cv1827 (December
         2003); and

     (3) Wilson v. Zima Company, et.al., U.S. District Court for
         the Western District of North Carolina, Charlotte
         Division, No. 3:04cv141 (January 2004).

Two virtually identical suits with allegations similar to those
in the first three lawsuits were filed in Cleveland, Ohio, in
April and June, 2004, respectively, against the original eight
defendants as well as an additional nine manufacturers of
spirits and beer, and are now consolidated as " Eisenberg v.
Anheuser-Busch, U.S. District Court for the District of Northern
Ohio, No. 1:04cv1081."

Five similar suits were filed in 2005, styled:

     (i) Elizabeth H. Sciocchette v. Advanced Brands, Albany
         County, New York Supreme Court No. 102205 (February 16,

    (ii) Roger and Kathy Bertovich v. Advanced Brands, Hancock
         County, West Virginia, Circuit Court No. 05-C-42M
         (February 17, 2005);

   (iii) Jacquelin Tomberlin v. Adolph Coors, Dane County
         (Madison, Wisconsin) Circuit Court, (February 23,

    (iv) Viola Alston v. Advanced Brands, Wayne County,
         Michigan, Circuit Court No. 05-509294, (March, 30,
         2005), and

     (v) Craig Konhauzer v. Adolph Coors Company, Broward County
         Florida Circuit Court, No. 05004875 (March 30, 2005)

In addition, the Company received in February 2004, a pre-
lawsuit notice under the California Consumer Protection Act
indicating that the same lawyers intend to file a lawsuit there
against many industry defendants, including the Company,
presumably on the same facts and legal theories.

The suits allege that the defendants have engaged in deceptive
marketing practices and schemes targeted at underage consumers,
negligently marketed their products to the underage, and
fraudulently concealed their alleged misconduct.  Plaintiffs
seek class action certification on behalf of:

     (a) a guardian class consisting of all persons who were or
         are parents of children whose funds were used to
         purchase beverage alcohol marketed by the defendants
         which were consumed without their prior knowledge by
         their children under the age of 21 during the period
         1982 to present; and

     (b) an injunctive class consisting of the parents and
         guardians of all children currently under the age of

The lawsuits seek a finding that defendants engaged in a
deceptive scheme to market alcoholic beverages to underage
persons and an injunction against such alleged practices;
disgorgement and refund to the guardian class of all proceeds
resulting from sales to the underage since 1982; and judgment to
each guardian class member for a trebled award of actual
damages, punitive damages, and attorneys fees.  The lawsuits,
either collectively or individually, if ultimately successful,
represent significant financial exposure.

The Company, in coordination with other defendants, is
vigorously defending itself in these cases, four of which are
pending on motions to dismiss.

BROWN-FORMAN: Tableware Buyers File Antitrust Suit in N.D. CA
Brown-Forman Corporation's subsidiary Lenox, Inc. continues to
face a class action filed in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California, on behalf of a class of
consumers who purchased tableware sold in the United States from
May 1, 2001, through the present.  The suit also names as
defendants Federated Department Stores, the May Department
Stores Company and Waterford Wedgwood U.S.A.

In November 2004, plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint
alleging that the defendants violated Section 1 of the Sherman
Act by conspiring to fix prices and to boycott sales to Bed,
Bath & Beyond.  The cases are consolidated in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, Nos. C-04-3514VRW
and C-04-3622VRW.  Plaintiffs seek to recover an undisclosed
amount of damages, trebled in accord with the anti-trust laws,
as well as costs, attorney fees and injunctive relief.

The suit is styled "Young v. Federated Department Stores, Inc.
et al., case no. 3:04-cv-03514-VRW," filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, under
Judge Vaughn R. Walker.  Representing Lenox, Inc. are Tammy
Albarran and Terri Garland, Morrison & Foerster, 425 Market
Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, Phone: (415) 268-7657, E-mail:
talbarran@mofo.com or tgarland@mofo.com.  Representing the
plaintiffs are Henry A. Cirillo, Michael P. Lehmann and Alex C.
Turan of The Furth Firm LLP, 225 Bush Street 15th Floor, San
Francisco, CA 94104, Phone: (415) 433-2070, Fax: 415-982-2076,
E-mail: Hcirillo@furth.com, mplehmann@furth.com or

CALIFORNIA: Mother Launches Complaint V. TSA Over No-Fly List
Christy Anthony, a Northern California mother filed a complaint
against the Transportation Security Administration for holding
her up at the San Francisco Airport as a security risk, The
Vallejo Times-Herald reports.

Mrs. Anthony, who hails from Vallejo, was initially not allowed
to fly from San Francisco to Hawaii for a family vacation last
June 14 because an airline employee told her she was on the
federal agency's no-fly list. The list was compiled by federal
agencies in the wake of 9/11 with names of people considered
security threats and barred from air travel.  In her complaint,
Mrs. Anthony stated to airline officials, "I'm not a terrorist.
I'm a 43-year-old homemaker." She later told the Vallejo Times-
Herald, "It was pretty traumatic."

Eventually, after being grilled by security personnel, she was
allowed to board. Mrs. Anthony told the Vallejo Times-Herald
that she was later informed by officials that she shared a name
with someone linked to an Irish terrorist group.  However, she
was so upset about the incident that she filed a complaint with
the American Civil Liberties Union. The ACLU later filed a class
action lawsuit against the TSA, arguing that the no-fly list
violates travelers' rights.

TSA spokeswoman Jennifer Peppin told the Vallejo Times-Herald
that the list helps keep the skies safe and inconveniences few
people. She also explains, "Out of the however-many million
people flying each day, there's a relatively small number of
people stopped."

CARDSYSTEMS SOLUTIONS: AZ AG Joins Call For More Info on Breach
Attorney General Terry Goddard called on Tucson-based
CardSystems Solutions, Inc., to immediately notify any Arizona
consumers whose information may have been stolen following a
recent security breach.

Mr. Goddard joined 44 state attorneys general as well as the
attorneys general representing the District of Columbia,
American Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands, and Puerto Rico in
a letter calling for notification.

The Company, a credit card processing company, recently
experienced a security breach of nonpublic personal information
affecting as many as 22 million Visa-branded cards and 14
million MasterCard-branded cards.  The Company notified Visa and
MasterCard in late May; most consumers affected, however, have
yet to be notified. Only California has a state law that
requires companies to notify residents of a security breach.

The letter references a recent report that the Company may have
violated provisions of the Payment Card Industry Data Security
Standard, a set of security requirements for merchants and
payment processors that includes implementing strong access-
control measures, regularly monitoring and testing networks, and
maintaining an information security policy.

"Violating the security standards is unacceptable," Mr. Goddard
said. "Arizona consumers could be doing everything right and
still be identity theft victims because of corporate ID theft
incidents that have occurred over the last six months.
CardSystems should do the right thing in this case and start
notifying all affected consumers."

The letter asked the Company to provide the following to
participating attorneys general:

     (1) A total number of consumers impacted by this security
         breach in each state;

     (2) An explanation of how the breach occurred and steps the
         company is taking to mitigate the consumer injury
         caused by the breach, including efforts to notify
         affected consumers;

     (3) An outline of the plan CardSystems Solutions, Inc. has
         developed to prevent another security breach; and

     (4) A timeline to implement the plan

According recent news accounts, the breach at the Company became
public on June 17, when MasterCard International announced that
computer hackers had accessed the account numbers of 13.9
million of its cardholders.

Mr. Goddard suggested that consumers worried about the breach
may consider ordering a credit report to check for any
suspicious activity. Arizona consumers can now get a free annual
credit report from all three credit reporting agencies under a
new Federal Trade Commission rule. Consumers may want to order
the three reports over a period of several months so they can
better follow their credit records.  To obtain the free reports,
consumers can call 1-877-322-8228, order online at
www.annualcreditreport.com or complete the Annual Credit Report
Request Form, available at the Website:
http://www.ftc.gov/credit,and mail it to: Annual Credit Report
Request Service, P.O. Box 105281, Atlanta, GA 30348-5281.

Others signing the letter include Attorneys General of Alabama,
Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho,
Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland,
Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska,
Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North
Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania,
Rhodes Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont,
Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming,
American Samoa, the District of Columbia, Northern Mariana
Islands, and Puerto Rico.

A copy of the letter sent to CardSystems Solutions, Inc. is
attached. For more information please visit the Arizona Attorney
General's Office Web site: http://www.azag.gov.

CARDSYSTEMS SOLUTIONS: CA AG To File Subpoena Over Data Breach
California Attorney General Bill Lockyer threatened to file
subpoenas against data processing company CardSystems Solutions,
as a result of a privacy breach that exposed around 40 million
credit card holders exposed to possible identity theft and
fraud, Mercury News reports.

The data company already faces a class action filed in San
Francisco Superior Court in California, on behalf California
credit card holders and merchants, alleging that it was
negligent for failing to adequately secure consumers' credit
card data, and for breaking Visa and MasterCard "Data Security
Standards" which prohibit storing certain kinds of confidential
consumer information, an earlier Class Action Reporter story
(June 29,2005) reports.

The National Association of Attorney Generals (NAAG) has also
issued a letter, seeking more information into the security
breach, which was revealed by credit card firm MasterCard in a
press release.

Under rules established by Visa and MasterCard, processors
aren't allowed to keep card information after the transaction is
complete. The Company did keep such information.  Nearly two
weeks ago, the company disclosed that a hacker accessed its
database of improperly stored credit and debit card information.
It has been more than a month since the company apparently first
learned of the hacking.

Mr. Lockyer is seeking information from the Company about
whether it complied with California law, which requires timely
notification of consumers about privacy breaches and which
requires that companies safely store personal information,
attorney general's office spokesman Tom Dresslar told Mercury
News.  Even though the company has declined to answer letters
for the past week, "we obviously have the authority under
California law to obtain the information we need through
subpoenas," Mr. Dresslar said.

Few consumers have been directly contacted because of Visa,
MasterCard and bank policies, Mercury News reporrts.  Both
MasterCard and Visa have said that they will not contact
consumers directly, leaving that decision to the discretion of
the banks that issue the cards.  However, banks themselves --
including Wells Fargo and Bank of America -- have declined to
commit to informing all of their consumers whose data was
exposed to the hackers, saying it will be done on a case-by-case

San Rafael attorney Ira Rothken, who brought the class action,
told Mercury News "we're suing to force MasterCard and Visa to
tell consumers the nature and the degree that their data was
compromised so consumers can make an informed decision to change
their credit card number or seek some other remedy."

Visa, in a prepared statement, said it "soundly" rejected the
allegations made in the lawsuit, but declined to state whether
it had the responsibility to contact consumers, Mercury News
reports.  MasterCard and CardSystems were not immediately
available for comment Tuesday.

CENTERPOINT ENERGY: MN AG Probe Reveals Cold Weather Violations
Minnesota Attorney General Mike Hatch filed the results of a
six-month long investigation into CenterPoint Energy's
reconnection practices during the cold weather months with the
Minnesota Public Utilities Commission on June 21,2005.

The report is based on a review of thousands of records from the
Company, including company training manuals, form letters,
customer service representative notes, billing records, and
recordings of customer calls to the company.  The final report
outlines widespread violations of the Cold Weather Rule by the

"CenterPoint Energy's own documents show that their aim was to
violate the Cold Weather Rule with no regard for the safety or
welfare of its customers," said Mr. Hatch. "I am hopeful that
the PUC will take action to make sure that the company can
never, ever treat people so poorly again."

The Cold Weather Rule is designed to ensure that Minnesotans of
limited financial means are not forced to live without heat
during the winter months. The Cold Weather Rule limits the
amount of money the Company can demand from customers when they
call to be reconnected between October 15 and April 15 and
requires the Company to reconnect customers who agree to a
payment plan.

The report concludes that the Company willfully and repeatedly
violated the Minnesota Cold Weather Rule. For example, the
report found that:

     (1) CPE's training documents instruct customer service
         representatives to always ask for payment-in-full and
         offer a payment plan "only as a last resort." (AGO
         Report, page 4).  Rarely did CPE offer a payment plan,
         even when a customer specifically called to arrange
         one. For example, one customer asked:  [C]an you guys
         put me on some kind of a budget or something to pay you
         your money a good little bit at a time?  The customer
         service representative refused and continued to demand
         full payment plus a $150 reconnection fee. (AGO Report,
         pages 8-9).

     (2) CPE took energy assistance money for more than 600
         customers but routinely delayed reconnecting those
         customers -- persons whom the government aid was
         specifically targeted to help . (AGO Report, pages 14-
         15). In more than 60 cases, service was not reconnected
         for 10 or more days after CPE received the energy
         assistance funds. (AGO Report, page 15).

     (3) CPE customer service representatives repeatedly
         provided customers with false information about the
         Cold Weather Rule. (AGO Report, page 11). Some
         customers were told that they had to obtain energy
         assistance funds in order to fall within the
         protections of the Cold Weather Rule. (AGO Report, page
         11). In one case, the representative even denied that
         there was a Cold Weather Rule when speaking with a
         woman with a small child and a newborn, who was
         pleading to have her heat turned back on: "There's no
         law at all that states that [the heat] has to be on.I
         mean, for accounts where the bill never gets paid, when
         we see that, we're thinking it's never going to get
         paid. So we have to turn-off to force it to get paid.
         (AGO Report, page 13).

The report recommends that the Commission fine CPE $5 million
for its unlawful conduct. The Attorney General's Office also
requests that the Commission establish a claims process so that
customers can be reimbursed for damages, such as burst pipes,
resulting from CPE's violations of the Cold Weather Rule. The
report also suggests changes to CPE's reconnection policies and
procedures to make sure that customers are not unlawfully denied
reconnection in the future. (AGO Report , pages 26-27).

For more details, contact the Office of Minnesota Attorney
General Mike Hatch, 1400 Bremer Tower, 445 Minnesota Street, St.
Paul, MN 55101, Phone: (651) 296-3353 or 1-800-657-3787 or TTY:
(651) 297-7206 or TTY: 1-800-366-4812.

COLD STONE: FDA Warns V. "Cake Batter" Ice Cream For Health Risk
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is alerting the
public that products containing "cake batter" ice cream sold at
Cold Stone Creamery stores throughout the country may be
associated with an outbreak of Salmonella Typhimurium infection
in several states.

After being informed by FDA of the potential contamination
problem, Cold Stone Creamery has agreed to immediately remove
all "cake batter" ice cream products from its stores throughout
the country. Consumers who may have purchased take home products
from Cold Stone Creamery containing "cake batter" ice cream
should not eat them, but instead dispose of them immediately.

"FDA is working with the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC) and our state partners to determine the source
of the contaminated product and is issuing this alert to protect
the public," said Dr. Robert Brackett, Director of the FDA's
Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition."

Salmonella Typhimurium is an organism, which can cause serious
and sometimes fatal infections in small children, frail or
elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems. Healthy
people may only suffer short-term symptoms, such as high fever,
severe headache, vomiting, nausea, abdominal pain, and diarrhea.
Long term complications can include arthritis.

The ice cream's possible contamination with this organism came
to light after multiple cases of infection with this form of
Salmonella were reported in late May and early June, 2005 in
Minnesota, Washington, Oregon and Ohio. To date, 14 people are
ill from this unusual strain of Salmonella. Many of the people
reporting this illness also reported consuming "cake batter" ice
cream at a Cold Stone Creamery shortly before the onset of their

Individuals who believe they have become ill as a result of
eating this ice cream should consult their health care provider
and contact their local health department.  FDA will keep the
public aware as more information develops. For more details,
visit the Website: http://www.fda.gov.

CVS CORPORATION: Proposes $3M Settlement For Workers' 401K Suit
CVS Corporation, one of the nation's largest pharmacy chains,
proposed a $3 million payment to settle a class action lawsuit
over its 401(k) and employee stock-ownership plans, The
Associated Press reports.  Under the settlement plan, which was
filed in a Boston federal court, CVS admitted no wrongdoing. The
proposal though needs to be approved by a federal judge in order
to take effect.

The suit, which was filed last year by former CVS employee James
Fescina alleged that executives "should have known that CVS
stock was an imprudent investment alternative for the
(retirement) plan due to the substantial and material accounting
and business improprieties occurring at the company."  The
investment period covered in the lawsuit runs from December 1,
2000, to October 31, 2001, but it is unclear how many people are
eligible for payments.

In addition to the money, the proposed settlement also calls for
the Woonsocket-based chain to adopt guidelines for reviewing
retirement plan investments. To that end, CVS would be required
to form a committee to assess investments made with retirement
money and advise the company's board of directors about the
chain's financial and operational health.

In a related matter that was reported in the June 9, 2005
edition of the Class Action Reporter, CVS agreed to a $110
million settlement of a shareholders' lawsuit that accused the
company of making misleading statements and violating accounting
practices. That settlement was also filed in a Boston federal

Filed in mid-2001, the lawsuit alleges that CVS executives lied
to artificially raise the company's stock price. The case
consolidated nine similar lawsuits filed in August of that year,
which eventually led to the Plumbers & Pipefitters National
Pension Fund becoming the lead plaintiff in the consolidated
case. The lawsuit accuses the company of delaying accounting on
merchandise discounts -- counting the items' full value in its
financial reports to help boost earnings.

DAIRY INDUSTRY: Group Says Suit Front For Animal Rights Groups
Advocacy group Center for Consumer Freedom criticized the
lawsuit filed against dairy companies over their alleged
"deceptive" advertising campaign over the effects of milk on
weight loss as a front for animal rights activists,
Nutraingredients.com reports.

Last week, the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine
(PCRM) filed a lawsuit against food companies Kraft Corporation,
General Mills, and Dannon; and three main dairy industry trade
groups - the International Dairy Foods Association, National
Dairy Council, and Dairy Management.  The suit, filed January
28, 2005, in the United States District Court in Virginia,
targeted industry-funded TV and print ads that claim consuming
24 ounces of fat-free or low-fat dairy per day can help the body
burn fat.  The suit alleged that the defendants are misleading
consumers with deceptive advertising that makes scientifically
unsubstantiated claims about the effect of dairy products on
weight-loss.  The group, which advocates a vegan diet, is
seeking an injunction banning the ads.

"To stem declining sales and boost their bottom line, the dairy
industry is duping overweight Americans into believing that milk
and other dairy are the magic bullet to weight control," said
Dan Kinburn, PCRM senior legal counsel, Nutraingredients.com
reports.  "We are serving notice with these lawsuits that we
will not continue to let these false health claims go

However, the Center for Consumer Freedom believes that the group
is deliberately misleading consumers and has animal rights
motivations.  "PCRM is an animal rights group that opposes the
sale of all food derived from animals," claimed the Center for
Consumer Freedom in a press release.

The center goes on to claim that less than five percent of the
group's members are physicians, and that People for the Ethical
Treatment of Animals (PETA) has already steered more than $1.3
million to PCRM.  "Despite its name, this Physicians Committee
is not a legitimate health charity," said Richard Berman,
executive director of the Center for Consumer Freedom,
Nutraingredients.com reports.  "PCRM is made up of activists
whose constant demands for a milk-free America are rooted in an
animal-rights philosophy, not in concern for Americans' health.
If PCRM is truly interested in truth-in-advertising, it should
advertise itself as an animal-rights group that is '95-percent
doctor- free.'"

PCRM disputed the allegations, saying that the issue at hand is
the weight-loss campaign, which is erroneous and based solely on
two small-scale studies using questionable methodology.  "The
overwhelming weight of scientific evidence confirms that dairy
products either cause weight gain or, at best, have no effect on
weight whatsoever," said Amy Lanou, PCRM senior nutrition
scientist, Nutraingredients.com reports.  "Since 1989 there have
been 35 clinical trials that have explored the relationship
between dairy products and/or calcium supplements and body
weight . Thirty-one found no relation; two indicated that milk
and other dairy products actually contributed to weight gain."

Indeed, a recent study carried out by scientists from Purdue
University concluded that increased consumption of dairy calcium
was not associated with reduced weight and fat mass, as had been
suggested by previous results.  The researchers came to this
conclusion after following 155 women aged 18-30 for one year.
They found that those who ate the most dairy - the equivalent of
three to four glasses of milk per day - were no more likely to
gain or lose weight than people who took in no more than the
equivalent of one glass of milk per day, Nutraingredients.com

PCRM said it filed the suits on behalf of Catherine Holmes, a
Virginia resident, who it claims relied on these false claims
and actually gained weight while following recommendations
contained in a series of dairy weight-loss ads. The suits - one
for money damages, the other a class-action suit seeking
injunctive relief - were filed in Alexandria Circuit Court in

DELPHI CORPORATION: Shareholders Launch ERISA, Stock Fraud Suits
Delphi Corporation faces several class actions, subsequent to
its announcement of its intention to restate originally issued
financial restatements.  The suits also name as defendants
several of the Company's subsidiaries, certain of the Company's
current and former directors and officers, General Motors
Investment Management Corporation (the named fiduciary for
investment purposes and investment manager to the Company's
employee benefit plans), and several current and former
employees of the Company's subsidiaries.

The lawsuits fall into three categories.  One group has been
brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974, as amended (ERISA), purportedly on behalf of participants
in certain of the Company's and its subsidiaries' defined
contribution employee benefit pension plans who invested in the
Delphi Corporation Common Stock Fund. Plaintiffs allege that the
plans suffered losses due to the defendants' breaches of
fiduciary duties under ERISA.  To date, the Company has received
service in five such lawsuits and is aware of an additional
eleven that are pending. All pending cases have been filed in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of

The second group of purported class action lawsuits variously
alleges that the Company and certain of its current and former
directors and officers made materially false and misleading
statements in violation of federal securities laws. To date, the
Company has been served in six such lawsuits and is aware of
eight additional lawsuits. The lawsuits have been filed in the
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan, the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, and the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Florida.

The third group of lawsuits pertains to two shareholder
derivative cases and a demand. To date, certain current and
former directors and officers have been named in two such
lawsuits. One has been served in Oakland County Circuit Court in
Pontiac, Michigan, and a second is pending in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

In addition, the Company has received a demand letter from a
shareholder requesting that the Company consider bringing a
derivative action against certain current and former officers.
The derivative lawsuits and the request demand the Company
consider further derivative action premised on allegations that
certain current and former officers made materially false and
misleading statements in violation of federal securities laws.
The Company has appointed a special committee of the Board of
Directors to consider the demand request.

GRUPO JERONIMO: Workers File Suit in Poland Over Unpaid Overtime
Portuguese food distributor and retailer Grupo Jeronimo Martins
faces a two million zloty ($600,000) class action suit that was
launched by 100 former employees over thousands of hours of
unpaid overtime at the company's "Biedronka" supermarket chain
in Poland, The Gazeta Wyborcza reports.

According to a Saturday report by Poland's Gazeta Wyborcza
daily, one of the former Biedronka employees alleges that he was
made to work more than 2,000 hours overtime for the company for

The class action suit comes on the heels of a landmark case by a
former Biedronka store manager, Bozena Lopacka, who recently re-
filed a case for 52,000 zloty ($15,500) compensation at a labor
court in Elblag, northern Poland, citing similar labor code
violations.   Last year, she was the first to launch and win a
labor suit against a supermarket retailer in Poland when the
Elblag court ruled in her favor against Grupo Jeronimo Martins,
ordering a payout of 35,000 zloty ($10,404). Subsequently though
an appeals court in Gdansk struck down that verdict, ruling that
further review of the terms of payment for overtime was

In a reference to Poland's communist-era Solidarity trade union
labor legend Lech Walesa, Ms. Lopacka has been dubbed the "New
Walesa" for her determined legal struggle for unpaid overtime
and exposing employee exploitation in the booming hypermarket
retail sector.

With Poland facing parliamentary elections on September 25, the
popular Ms. Lopacka is now being wooed by leading political
parties keen to have her as a candidate.

Grupo Jeronimo Martins operates Pingo Doce, Feira Nova and
Recheio super- and hypermarket chains in Portugal and the
Biedronka chain in Poland. Auchan, Carrefour, Geant, Leclerc,
and Tesco are among other foreign super- and hypermarkets
operating in Poland.

Gazeta Wyborcza notes that the class action suit against the
Portuguese retailer is only the second ever of it's kind in
Poland and comes on the heels of suit by some 2,000 smokers
against a tobacco company claiming smoking-related illnesses.

GUIDANT CORPORATION: Firms File Amended Suit Over Defibrillators
The law firm Seeger Weiss LLP, along with Weitz and Luxenberg,
initiated a second amended class action complaint against
Guidant Corporation (NYSE:GDT) and Guidant Sales Corporation
(collectively "Guidant") relating to its manufacturing and sales
of defective defibrillators. Additionally, Seeger Weiss
established a presence on http://www.ZapLife.org,an Internet
based Newsletter directed to defibrillator patients, to provide
patients with information about their rights and the litigation
concerning allegedly defective Guidant, Medtronic (NYSE:MDT) and
St. Jude (NYSE:STJ) defibrillators.

Jon Duffey started the Web site after he suffered a heart attack
ten years ago while working as a television producer. After his
heart attack, Mr. Duffey was implanted with a defibrillator and
quickly realized that there should be a place on the Internet
where defibrillator patients could exchange information. With
that in mind, Mr. Duffey started http://www.ZapLife.orgas a way
to facilitate the exchange of information among defibrillator
patients. The site now publishes a Newsletter that is
distributed to thousands of online subscribers and literally
thousands of defibrillator patients visit the site on a regular
basis. With regard to the decision to invite Seeger Weiss to
help provide information to the http://www.zaplife.orgfamily,
Mr. Duffey said, "It is a pleasure to have Seeger Weiss present
on our site. I started http://www.zaplife.orgas a way to
facilitate information exchange among defibrillator patients.
The recently announced defects in devices manufactured by the
industry's largest manufacturers is troublesome and potentially
life threatening to many of our visitors, as reflected by the
FDA's classification today of three of the recalls of Guidant
devices as Class I Recalls. Our community wants to know their
rights and stay up to date on the litigation and by having
Seeger Weiss, which is one of the nation's preeminent plaintiff
law firms, present on the site, we believe our audience will
stay better informed. If you would like to visit our site or
become a ZapLife.org Newsletter member, go to
http://www.zaplife.org."The Web site will soon feature a link
to Seeger Weiss LLP's Web site, http://www.seegerweiss.com,
where the community can learn about the litigation.

As to the amended complaint, Seeger Weiss said that it adds a
class claim against Guidant on behalf of patients who are
implanted with the devices that were the subject of the Guidant
announcement on June 24, 2005. The devices at issue in the class
action now include: the Guidant Ventak Prizm 2 DR, Model 1861
ICD manufactured prior to November 2002; the Guidant Contak
Renewal, Model H135 CRT-D and Contak Renewal 2 Model H155 CRT-D
manufactured on or before August 26, 2004; Guidant Ventak Prizm
AVT, Guidant Vitality AVT and Guidant Renewal AVT (all series
numbers); and Contak Renewal 3, Contak Renewal 4, Renewal 3 AVT,
Renewal 4 AVT or Renewal RF.

For more details, contact Christopher A. Seeger, Esq., Eric T.
Chaffin, Esq. or Donald A. Ecklund, Esq. of Seeger Weiss LLP,
One William Street, New York, NY, 10004, Phone: (212) 584-0700
or (877) 541-3273, E-Mail: cseeger@seegerweiss.com,
echaffin@seegerweiss.com or decklund@seegerweiss.com, Web site:

ILLINOIS NATURAL: Reaches Settlement for IL AG Fraud Complaint
Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan reached a settlement
agreement with a natural gas supplier over allegations the
company earlier this year sent a confusing, governmental-looking
mailer to Illinois residents that made big promises on the front
but only disclosed actual terms of the agreement - often
detrimental to the consumer - on a hard-to-read, green-colored
back page. The settlement was entered in Cook County Circuit
Court on June 29, 2005.

Ms. Madigan said Illinois Natural Gas Savings Corporation, doing
business as Illinois Natural Gas Corporation, has agreed not to
raise the price of natural gas during the course of its
contracts.  In addition, the natural gas supplier has agreed to
clearly and conspicuously disclose in all future contracts and
solicitations that it is not affiliated with any state agency or
public utility and disclose the details of its consumer
contracts.  The defendants also have agreed to honor all
requests for cancellation of contracts for any consumer that
signed up for the program prior to today's filing of the
settlement agreement. The cancellation requests must be made by
July 29, within 30 days of the consent decree's filing.

"This settlement agreement ensures that Illinois consumers who
believe they were misled into signing a contract with Illinois
Natural Gas due to misleading advertisements can cancel their
contracts with no financial penalties," Ms. Madigan said. "We
have been assured by Illinois Natural Gas that in the future
they will provide promotional materials and contracts that
inform - not confuse - consumers."

Ms. Madigan said the consent decree is for settlement purposes
and does not constitute an admission of guilt by Illinois
Natural Gas Corporation.  She also said the company will make a
$5,000 contribution to a consumer education fund.

Illinois Natural Gas is an alternative natural gas supplier that
earlier this year was certified by the Illinois Commerce
Commission (ICC) to participate in a program that allows
consumers in northern Illinois to choose a company to supply
natural gas. Illinois Natural Gas is one of 11 suppliers that
consumers can choose to supply their gas while regulated
utilities continue to deliver the gas and provide service and

In April 2005, Illinois Natural Gas began sending letters and
two-sided forms to hundreds of thousands of Illinois consumers.
The marketing materials urged consumers to sign up for Illinois
Natural Gas' "Year 2005 Stable Price and Refund Program."
However, the lawsuit, filed on April 26, alleged the mailing
used deceptive and unclear language to confuse consumers about
the terms of the offer and the affiliation of the company.

Ms. Madigan's office, which has received 223 complaints directly
and approximately 570 complaints from the Citizens Utility
Board, believes that at least 200,000 letters were mailed to
Illinois consumers.

The suit alleged that Illinois Natural Gas led certain consumers
to believe through its mailing that the natural gas supplier is
actually a government entity and that consumers must sign up for
this program to achieve stable pricing for their natural gas.
In addition, the suit alleged that many terms laid out on the
front of the two-sided form have conditions that were not
clearly and conspicuously disclosed. Those conditions were typed
in small print on a green background on the back of the form and
were detailed using confusing language. The conditions often
changed the actual terms listed on the front of the form or
inserted additional terms that were never mentioned on the front
of the form or in the letter.

For example, on the front of the form, Illinois Natural Gas
promised consumers refunds, savings and stable prices. The suit
alleges that Illinois Natural Gas failed to clearly and
conspicuously disclose that the natural gas supplier may amend
the terms and conditions of the contract and raise gas prices in
the future.  The suit also alleged Illinois Natural Gas violated
the Automatic Contract Renewal Act by failing to clearly and
conspicuously disclose the automatic renewal clause, including
the procedure for canceling the contract.

Assistant Attorney General Katrina Wanzer handled the case for
Madigan's Consumer Protection Division.  For more details,
contact Ms. Madigan's Consumer Protection Division by Phone: 1-
800-386-5438, contact the Company by Phone: 1-800-309-5160 or by
faxing in a written notice of cancellation to the company at 1-
800-306-5016; and mailing in a written notice of cancellation by
registered mail to Illinois Natural Gas Corporation, PO Box
7336, Chicago, IL 60680.

A quick thinking bank employee from Plainville, Kansas, reported
that con artists are attempting to wrongfully profit from the
Vioxx recall.  The drug Vioxx has been pulled from the market
and legitimate efforts are underway to reimburse those who may
still have the drug, Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline

Illegitimate efforts to steal money from Vioxx-using Kansans are
underway as well. An elderly Kansan recently heard of the
recall, sent forms to California, and received, in response, a
forged check. The check, which was difficult to recognize as a
forgery, was followed by a call originating in Canada. The con
artist asked the consumer to deposit the check and then
immediately wire money to a New York address. Thanks to the bank
teller the Kansan did not fall victim to this scam.

In the scam brought to the attention of General Kline today the
con artists are calling themselves "International Promotions"
and using the Vioxx recall as a guise. General Kline would like
all Kansans contacted by this group to call his Consumer
Protection Division toll-free at

While the cover story has changed, General Kline's Consumer
Protection Division has received multiple reports of similar
scams. Kansans must always be suspicious when anyone unknown to
them sends them a check and then requests an immediate return of
funds. If the check is forged then it can take many days to
discover that fact. Kansans who have sent their own hard earned
money off thinking that the forged check will clear the bank are
then sadly disappointed.

These scams often originate on the internet as overpayment for
goods sold, or arise in response to ads placed in local papers
as advance payment for big ticket items like tractors, or arrive
in the mail under the guise of sweepstakes winnings.

For more details, contact Jan Lunsford by Phone: (785) 296-3459
or visit the Website: http://www.accesskansas.org/ksag/.

KANSAS: Daughter Lodges Wrongful Death Suit V. BTK Serial Killer
Carolyn Hook, the daughter of one of the 10 people Dennis Rader
has admitted murdering as the serial killer BTK recently filed a
wrongful death lawsuit in Sedgwick County District Court, The
Wichita Eagle reports.

According to the suit, which was filed as a class action, Mr.
Rader killed Marine Hedge, Ms. Hook's mother on April 27, 1985
in what the filing describes as "an outrageous, cruel, wanton
and heinous manner." Being filed as a class action, the suit is
open to all the heirs of Mr. Rader's other nine victims.

For almost 20 years, Mrs. Hedge's murder had remained unsolved
until Mr. Rader confessed to the crime following his arrest near
his Park City home February 25. Ms. Hook's civil suit asks for
more than $75,000 in damages for her mother's wrongful death,
more than $75,000 in damages for her own emotional distress, and
for the payment of the funeral expenses.

Though Rod and Carolyn Hook filed for bankruptcy about 20 years
ago, Rod Hook told the Wichita Eagle that his wife's suit is not
about getting money it's about preventing Mr. Rader from making
money from any books, movies or appearances. He also pointed
out, "No one should profit from these heinous activities," and
said, "My wife's not in this to make one red cent. That's not
going to bring her mother back."

In addition to Mrs. Hedge, Mr. Rader admitted to killing Joseph,
Julie, Josephine and Joseph Otero Jr. on January 15, 1974;
Kathryn Bright on April 4, 1974; Shirley Vian Relford on March
17, 1977; Nancy Fox on December 8, 1977; Vicki Wegerle on
September 16, 1986; and Dolores Davis on January 19, 1991. His
sentencing hearing is set for August 17.

Additionally, Mr. Hook the Wichita Eagle that his wife has no
interest in interfering with the planned auction of Dennis
Rader's home on July 11. He said that money from that sale
should go to Mr. Rader's wife and two grown children. He
reiterates, "My wife does not want to take away from Mrs. Rader
-- that (sale) has absolutely nothing to do with what Mr. Rader
did. His (Mr. Rader) family's been victims just like all of the
rest of us."

LIQIANG RESEARCH: FDA Warns V. Use for Possible Health Hazard
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is warning consumers
not to take Liqiang 4 Dietary Supplement Capsules because they
contain glyburide - a drug that could have serious, life-
threatening consequences in some people.

Glyburide is a drug used to lower blood sugar, and is safe and
effective when used as labeled in FDA-approved medications.
People who have low blood sugar or those with diabetes can
receive dangerously high amounts of glyburide by consuming
Liqiang 4. Consumers should immediately stop using these
products and seek medical attention, especially if they are
currently being treated with diabetes drugs or if they have
symptoms of fatigue, excessive hunger, profuse sweating, or
numbness of the extremities. Consumers who have this product
should dispose of it immediately.

The product is sold as part of a shrink-wrapped two bottle set.
One of the 90 capsule bottles is labeled Liqiang 4 Dietary
Supplement Capsules, the other bottle is promoted as a "bonus
pack" of Liqiang 1. At this time FDA is evaluating Liquang 1 and
other versions of this line of products to determine their
composition and safety. The product is manufactured by Liqiang
Research Institute, China, and marketed throughout the United
States in herbal stores and through mail order by Bugle
International of Northridge CA.

The FDA learned of the potential problem through an anonymous
consumer complaint and followed up with testing that revealed
the presence of glyburide in this product.

The product has also been termed "Liqiang Xiao Ke Ling" (Liqiang
Thirst Quenching Efficacious) in ads in Chinese language
publications which also promote it as useful for the control of
diabetes and being derived from only natural ingredients.

FDA encourages consumers, health care providers, and caregivers
to report any adverse events related to this product to
MedWatch, the FDA's voluntary reporting program at
1-800-FDA-1088; by FAX at 1-800-FDA-0178; by mail to MedWatch,
Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD,
20857-9787; or visit the Website:

MAIN STREET: Recalls Chocolate Biscotti Due to Undeclared Milk
Main Street Gourmet of Akron, Ohio is recalling all of its
Cinnamon Almond Dark Chocolate Biscotti because the product
contains undeclared milk. People who have an allergy or severe
sensitivity to milk run the risk of serious or life-threatening
allergic reaction if they consume this product.

The product brand name is Cinnamon Dark Chocolate Almond
Biscotti from Main Street Gourmet and was sold from bulk
containers in grocery stores and restaurants in Ohio, Maryland,
Pennsylvania, Indiana, Michigan, Virginia and Illinois. No
illnesses have been reported to date.

The labeling issue was discovered by a routine inspection by the
Ohio Department of Agriculture and the recall is being monitored
by the US Food and Drug Administration.

Consumers who have purchased this product and are allergic to
milk are urged to return it to the place of purchase for a full
refund. Questions can be directed to Main Street Gourmet at 1-

MAINE: Blueberry Growers to Receive Checks From $5M Settlement
Wild blueberry growers who filed claims to share in the $5
million settlement of a class action case alleging that four
Maine processors engaged in price-fixing will soon get their
initial payments, according to the lawyer who handled the claims
settlement process, The Associated Press reports.

Washington, D.C. attorney Charles Tompkins told AP, "We are in
the final steps of getting the checks cut," and added that they
should be in the mail within a week. He also stated that the
checks, based on the number of pounds of blueberries sold to
processors between 1996 and 1999, would range from $5.03 for
Dennis Hatton of Charlotte to $126,392 for Guptill Farms of

The class action, which was previously reported in the August
30, 2004 issue of the Class Action Reporter, was Maine's first-
ever class action lawsuit and was decided last November 2003
when a Superior Court civil jury in Rockland awarded an $18.6
million judgment against Allen's, Cherryfield Foods of
Cherryfield and Jasper Wyman & Son of Milbridge. Since antitrust
issues were involved in the case, the damages were automatically
tripled, raising the total to more than $56 million. After the
case went to mediation though, the damages were eventually
negotiated down to $5 million.

In the settlement, Cherryfield Foods agreed to pay $2.5 million,
and Wyman agreed to pay $1.5 million, reducing the processors'
payout to a more manageable $5 million once Allen's, which
initially challenged the settlement reached by Cherryfield and
Wyman's, fell into step. The fourth and smallest processor sued,
Merrill's Blueberry Farms of Ellsworth, reached its settlement
with the growers for $85,000 last October, days before the case
went to trial.

According to attorneys, approximately 400 growers have submitted
claims to share in the settlement, which will be disbursed in
four annual payments.

The lead plaintiff in the case, Nathan Pease of Unity was
overjoyed over the checks that were finally being sent. He
however, was miffed that several growers who opposed the legal
battle will collect a share of the settlement. He told AP,
"There is one couple who are part of the local co-op who are
getting $6,500. They were strictly against the whole thing, and
now they turned around and put in a claim."

Another plaintiff, Alan Johnson of Rockport, told the AP that
the payments fall short of what the growers should be receiving
by saying, "We are only getting what the blueberries were worth,
it's that simple. The settlement was negotiated down to a
ridiculous level."

The plaintiffs in the class action represented the majority of
the more than 800 growers in Washington, Hancock, Waldo, Knox
and Lincoln counties.

NAUTILUS INC.: Recalls 10T Exercise Benches Due to Injury Hazard
In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC), Nautilus Inc., of Vancouver, Washington and Daytona
Fitness Co., of Xiamen, China is voluntarily recalling about
10,000 units Nautilus NT 1020 Exercise Benches.

A weld on the bench frame under the seat can crack and separate
from the main frame, allowing the bench to collapse and the user
to fall and suffer injuries. Nautilus has received four reports
of the main pivot separating from the exercise bench's
mainframe. No injuries have been reported.

Nautilus NT 1020 is a free-standing exercise bench typically
used for free weight workouts. It is comprised of a white steel
base with wheels on one end, with a black vinyl bench and back
support. The fronts of both the white base and the black vinyl
back support are stamped with the name "Nautilus." A tag affixed
to the reverse side of the back support includes "Distributed by
Nautilus/Schwinn Fitness Group Inc." and "Made in China." At the
bottom of the product's base, near its wheels, is a sticker that
includes the words "Production Date Code" and a 4-digit number.
The first three digits of the date code identify the day and the
fourth digit identifies the year in which the unit was built.
Units included in this recall have Production Date Codes from
year 2002 that run between code numbers 1952 and 3652, and
Production Date Codes from year 2003 that run between code
numbers 0013 and 1903. Benches that are white in color and do
not have a Production Date Code sticker also are included in
this recall.

Manufactured in China, the exercise benches were sold at all
specialty health and fitness stores nationwide from November
2000 through January 2004 for between $300 and $400.

Consumers should stop using these exercise benches immediately
and contact Nautilus to receive a free repair kit.
Consumer Contact: Call Nautilus toll-free at (800) 621-4570
between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. MT Monday through Friday or visit the
firm's Web site: http://www.nautilus.com.

NYFIX INC.: CT Court Mulls Dismissal of Securities Fraud Lawsuit
The United States Distirct Court for the District of Connecticut
has yet to rule on NYFIX, INC.'s motion to dismiss an amended
securities class action filed against it.  The suit, initially
styled "JOHNSON ET AL. V. NYFIX, INC., ET AL.," also names as
defendants the Company's Chairman and CEO, its former CFO, its
current CFO and certain of its directors.

The complaint was initially filed as a purported class action
claim on behalf of all buyers of the Company's stock between
March 30, 2000 and March 30, 2004 and seeks an unspecified
amount of damages.  The complaint alleged violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
("Exchange Act"), based on the issuance of a series of allegedly
false and misleading financial statements and press releases
concerning, among other things, the Company's investment in
NYFIX Millennium.

On July 20, 2004, the court appointed three different plaintiffs
to be the lead plaintiffs, as Fuller & Thaler Asset Management
withdrew as the named plaintiff.  The action became styled
JOHNSON, ET AL. V. NYFIX, INC., ET AL.  The newly named
plaintiffs filed a first amended class action complaint, which
added, among other things, allegations of violations of Sections
11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.  The new
allegations are based fundamentally on the same allegations as
the plaintiffs asserted in the original complaint.

The suit is styled "Fuller & Thaler Asset Mgmt v Nyfix Inc et
al, case no. 3:04-cv-00802-JCH," filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Connecticut, under Judge
Janet C. Hall.  Representing the plaintiffs are Justin Scott
Kudler of Schatz & Nobel-Hartford, One Corporate Center, 20
Church St., Suite 1700, Hartford, CT 06103, Phone: 860-493-6292,
Fax: 860-493-6290, E-mail: justin@snlaw.net; and James S. Notis
and Henry J. Young of Abbey Gardy, LLP-NY, 212 E. 39th St., New
York, NY 10016, Phone: 212-889-3700, Fax: 212-684-5191, E-mail:
jnotis@abbeygardy.com or hyoung@abbeygardy.com.  Representing
the Company are Michael J. Chepiga , Paul C. Curnin and Michael
D. Kibler of Simpson, Thacher & Bartlett, 425 Lexington Ave.,
New York, NY 10017-3954, Phone: 212-455-2000, Fax: 212-455-2502,
E-mail: mchepiga@stblaw.com, pcurnin@stblaw.com or
mkibler@stblaw.com; and James T. Shearin, Pullman & Comley, 850
Main St., Po Box 7006, Bridgeport, CT 06601-7006, Phone:
203-330-2000, E-mail: jshearin@pullcom.com.

ROTH KASE: Recalls "Spreadables" Due to Undeclared Ingredients
Roth Kse USA, Ltd is recalling all Spreadables brand Lobster
Bisque and Crab Creole cheese spreads because they contain egg
protein, wheat and fish, which are not declared on the label.
Individuals with severe sensitivity to one or all of these
allergens may run the risk of serious or life-threatening
allergic reactions if these products are consumed.

Lobster Bisque and Crab Creole Spreadables were sold in 2 lb.
and 7oz. containers with various code dates. Consumers may have
purchased this product that was repackaged by a grocer's deli
into retail size containers labeled as Spreadables Lobster
Bisque and Crab Creole. These products were sold in Wisconsin,
Michigan, Massachusetts, Florida, New Jersey and Illinois.

No illnesses have been reported in connection with the
consumption of Lobster Bisque or Crab Creole Spreadables.

Consumers who have purchased Lobster Bisque or Crab Creole
Spreadables should return the product(s) to the place of
purchase or call 608-328-2122 x1. Consumers with questions
regarding the recall of Lobster Bisque and Crab Creole
Spreadables should contact Roth Kse USA, Ltd Customer Service
at 608-328-2122 x1.

RUBIO'S FRESH: Lead Attorney Answers Company Statement Re Suit
Ray Gallo, lead attorney for a class action filed in California
Superior Court in Los Angeles, made the following response to a
corporate press release distributed by Rubio's Fresh Mexican
Grill(R) (Nasdaq: RUBO), the self-described "Home of the
Original Fish Taco."

"I am delighted that Rubio's, one of my favorite fast-food
eateries, has responded so quickly to the allegations in our
class action, which was filed on behalf of all consumers of
Rubio's' 'lobster burritos.' This spring Rubio's changed the
name of this product to 'langostino lobster burrito,' but for
years this burrito was simply called a 'lobster burrito' on
Rubio's menus and on its website."

Mr. Gallo made the following points about Rubio's June 29th
press release:

     (1) Rubio's has attempted to change the issue for obvious
         reasons.  But the pending class action says nothing
         about "langostino lobster burritos."

     (2) Instead, the lawsuit alleges that Rubio's sold "lobster
         burritos" with no lobster in them for years-an
         allegation Rubio's press release doesn't deny.

     (3) Rubio's admits that the meat in the burrito is
         langostino meat.

     (4) Rubio's doesn't claim it has (or ever had) any
         authorization from the FDA to call its langostino
         burrito a "lobster burrito."

     (5) Rubio's doesn't deny that over the past few years it
         has sold thousands and thousands of langostino burritos
         from its 100+ restaurants, all labeled as "lobster
         burritos," and that each of these sales could give
         rise to liability under the allegations of the

Mr. Gallo also noted that as of June 30, 2005, Rubio's website
still claimed that Rubio's "langostino lobster burrito" contains
"tender grilled lobster." Gallo further noted that world wide
web archives reviewed by Gallo & Associates (and available to
the public at http://www.webarchive.org)show that Rubio's has
been making that claim about its langostino burrito on its
website since at least June 2001. "My opinion is that it is
misleading to call a langostino burrito a lobster burrito. You
tell me. If you ordered lobster and got langostino, would you
feel ripped off?"

Rubio's lobster burrito consumers who feel wronged are invited
to contact the firm's Los Angeles offices at

For more details, contact Joanne Lessner of Miller DeMartine
Group, Phone: +1-203-221-2790, E-mail: jlessner@mdgpr.com OR
Gallo & Associates, Phone: 310-338-1114, Web site:

TERRY'S TIPS: SEC Lodges Suit in VT Over "Autotrading Programs"
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed a complaint in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont, on June 30,
2005, seeking a permanent injunction against Terry's Tips, Inc.,
a Vermont corportation and Terry F. Allen for violations of the
antifraud provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
the Investment Advisers Act related to their operation of
"autotrading" programs.

The complaint alleges that Terry's Tips and Allen have had more
than 1200 clients who have invested through its autotrading
programs. The complaint also alleges that Terry's Tips and Allen
published performance projections in which they stated
subscribers could expect annualized returns of 100% by following
Allen's trading strategies, while at the same time portfolios
following these strategies were actually experiencing
substantial losses.

The complaint seeks permanent injunctive relief, disgorgement of
illegal profits with prejudgment interest and civil monetary
penalties based on alleged violations of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and
violations of Sections 206(1) and 206(2) of the Investment
Advisers Act of 1940.  The action is styled, SEC v. Terry's
Tips, Inc. and Terry F. Allen; Docket No. 2:05-cv-188 (U.S.D.C.,
D.Vt.) (LR-19291)

UTAH: Assistant A.G. Says Tax Refund Lawsuit Was Unnecessary
A class action lawsuit seeking refunds for 120,000 Utah
residents wrongly charged millions of dollars in sales taxes for
floor coverings and installation was being criticized as a full-
retirement plan for attorneys rather than a boon to consumers,
The Salt Lake Tribune reports.

That is because the erroneously taxed consumers could have
gotten a full refund by simply calling the Utah State Tax
Commission and making a claim, Assistant Attorney General Clark
Snelson said.

According to the state's Assistant Attorney General Clark, who
represented the Utah State Tax Commission in litigation against
those challenging the tax collections, "There was no need for a
class action lawsuit. Individuals had the ability to come to the
Tax Commission to get their refund, which made the lawsuit

Recently, Fourth District Court Judge Lynn Davis certified the
overcharged taxpayers' case as a class action and approved a
final, $5.7 million settlement, which covered incorrect tax
charges from late 1997 to the fall of 2004.

The law firm of Holme Roberts & Owen said that refund checks
will be mailed within two weeks with lead plaintiff Dorothy
Monson receiving a refund check for $93. The law firm stated
that the average refund check would be $25. More than 2,000 Utah
residents overcharged less than $1 were deemed ineligible for
compensation and dropped from the suit.

However, class action status means half of the $5.7 million
settlement goes to plaintiffs' attorneys and investigators in a
deal so controversial that then-Gov. Olene Walker sent her legal
counsel to sign the agreement, rather than appearing herself.

Nonetheless, plaintiffs' attorney Mark Buchi, a state tax
commissioner in the 1980s, defended the split and explained that
many refund recipients would not have known of their entitlement
without the lawyers' effort.

At least, according to Assistant Attorney General Snelson, the
money could have been better spent on schools and other public
services, rather than enriching the plaintiffs' attorneys.

VIISAGE TECHNOLOGY: Plaintiffs Seek Consolidation of MA Lawsuits
Plaintiffs asked the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts to consolidated eight securities class
actions filed agianst Viisage Technology, Inc. and

     (1) Bernard C. Bailey,

     (2) William K. Aulet and

     (3) Denis K. Berube and

     (4) other members of the Company's Board of Directors

In March and April 2005, eight putative class action lawsuits
were filed.  The Turnberry Group has filed a motion to
consolidated these suits under the case name: "Darquea v.
Viisage Technology, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 05-10438-MLW."
This motion also seeks to have the Turnberry Group designated as
lead plaintiff and its counsel designated as lead counsel.

The suits allege violations of the federal securities laws by
the Company and certain of its officers and directors arising
out of purported misrepresentations in the guidance that the
Company provided on its anticipated financial results for fiscal
2004 following the release of its 2004 second and third quarter
results, which allegedly artificially inflated the price of the
Company's stock during the period May 3, 2004 through March 2,

In April 2005, two purported shareholder derivative actions also
were filed against the Company's directors, naming the Company
as a nominal defendant. The suits claim that these directors
breached their fiduciary duties to shareholders and to the
Company generally in connection with the same set of
circumstances alleged in the class action lawsuits. The
complaints are derivative in nature and do not seek relief from
the Company.  One of these actions has been filed in
Massachusetts Superior Court and the other has been filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

The Company has filed a motion to dismiss the state court
action.  The Company's response to the federal court action is
not yet due.
The first identified complaint in the litigation is styled
"Ernesto Darquea, et al. v. Viisage Technology, Inc., et al.,
case no. 05-CV-10438," filed in the United States District Court
for the District of Massachusetts.  The plaintiff firms in this
litigation are:

     (1) Baron & Budd, P.C., 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100,
         Dallas, TX, 75219, Phone: 800-946-9646, E-mail:

     (2) Berman, DeValerio, Pease, Tabacco Burt & Pucillo (MA),
         One Liberty Square, Boston, MA, 2109, Phone:
         617.542.8300, Fax: 617.230.0903, E-mail:

     (3) Berman, DeValerio, Pease, Tabacco Burt & Pucillo (MA),
         One Liberty Square, Boston, MA, 2109, Phone:
         617.542.8300, Fax: 617.230.0903, E-mail:

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

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

     (6) Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP (New York, NY), 805 Third
         Avenue, 22nd Floor, New York, NY, 10022, Phone:
         212.687.1980, Fax: 212.687.7714, E-mail:

     (7) Klafter & Olson LLP, 2121 K St., NW Suite 800,
         Washington, DC, 20037, Phone: 202.261.3553, Fax:
         202.261.3533, E-mail: info@klafterolsen.com

     (8) Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C., Esquire at 261
         Old York Road, Suite 423, Jenkintown, PA, 19046, Phone:
         215.886.1900, E-mail: securitiesfraud@comcast.net

     (9) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
         (Melville), 200 Broadhollow, Suite 406, Melville, NY,
         11747, Phone: 631.367.7100, Fax: 631.367.1173, E-mail:

    (10) Paskowitz & Associates, Phone: 800.705.9529, E-mail:

    (11) Roy Jacobs & Associates, 350 Fifth Avenue Suite 3000,
         New York, NY, 10118, E-mail: classattorney@pipeline.com

    (12) Schatz & Nobel, P.C., 330 Main Street, Hartford, CT,
         06106, Phone: 800.797.5499, Fax: 860.493.6290, E-mail:

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

    (14) Seeger Weiss LLP (New York Old Address), 40 Wall
         Street. The Trump Building, New York, NY, 10005, Phone:
         212.584.0700, E-mail: info@seegerweiss.com

    (15) Shapiro, Haber & Urmy LLP, 75 State Street, Boston, MA,
         02109, Phone: 617.439.3939, Fax: 617.439.0134, E-mail:

    (16) Wechsler Harwood LLP, 488 Madison Avenue 8th Floor, New
         York, NY, 10022, Phone: 212.935.7400, E-mail:

VIVENDI UNIVERSAL: Lawsuit Launched in France Over 2002 Losses
French attorney Frederik-Karel Canoy launched a class action
lawsuit to recover losses, which small French shareholders
incurred when telecoms and media group Vivendi Universal nearly
collapsed in 2002, The Reuters News Agency reports.

Though Vivendi may be willing to pay 2 billion euros, APPAC, an
association representing small shareholders said it was not
aware of any figures and wanted the lawsuit withdrawn, according
to Mr. Canoy.

The action, launched on last week, was the first of its kind in
France. Mr. Canoy told Reuters that a website was seeking to
attract more small shareholders who had suffered losses between
January 1999 and April 2005. "On losses of more than 100 billion
euros, compensation of 2 billion euros is proposed to us," he
told France Info radio.

Mr. Canoy told Reuters that the amount being offered by Vivendi
was "a drop in the ocean" and "an insult and affront to small

However, APPAC President Didier Cornardeau told Reuters that he
had no knowledge of any such offer and said that the class
action would not help small shareholders saying, "APPAC is
against this procedure and wants it withdrawn."

In a press statement released by Mr. Canoy recently, he said
that Vivendi had painted an optimistic and reassuring picture of
its accounts in the past, which had subsequently proven
misleading. He goes on to say, "Between 1999 until April 2005,
Vivendi Universal's shareholders were seriously misled by the
firm's financial communication."

He also pointed out that Vivendi is currently facing a class
action in the United States, where there is a long precedent of
this legal practice, which claims to lower the cost of tackling
major litigation for individual shareholders, particularly small
ones. "Until now, no one has had the courage to do this" in
France, Mr. Canoy told Reuters. He adds, "But why can the
Americans do certain things and not the French?"

According to the website, which laid out the details of those
who could take part in the class action, the lawyer would demand
up to 160 euros per share for losses suffered.

A source close to the matter told Reuters that Vivendi was
expected to meet representatives of small shareholders, from a
group called APPAC, to discuss possible compensation for losses
suffered by past sharp declines in the price of Vivendi shares.
Though a Vivendi spokesman could not confirm the date and
declined to comment on the nature of the discussions, he did
tell Reuters, CEO "Jean-Bernard Levy wanted to meet all
shareholders' associations and it is in this framework that
there will be a meeting with APPAC."

WILLOW CREEK: Illinois AG Files Fraud Suit V. Campground Owners
Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan filed a lawsuit in
Winnebago County alleging a once idyllic members-only campground
became anything but beautiful after floods in a nearby river
caused extensive damage and owners failed to bring the facility
back to state public health standards.

Ms. Madigan's lawsuit alleges the Willow Creek Resort, located
on the banks of the Kishwaukee River at 3905 S. Bend Rd., in
Rockford, failed to provide contracted services, including
electrical hook-ups, sewage disposal systems and drinking water
systems, after floods in 1993 and 1996 damaged the property.
Madigan's office has received 40 consumer complaints against
Willow Creek.

The lawsuit charges Ronald Ulakovich, developer, owner and
operator of the campground, Willow Creek Resorts, Ltd., owner of
the campground property, and Willow Creek Resort Corporation, a
dissolved not-for-profit corporation that operates and manages
the campground, with violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud
and Deceptive Business Practices Act.

"Some Willow Creek members signed long-term contracts in the
hopes of spending many years to come relaxing with family and
friends in a beautiful campground environment," Ms. Madigan
said. "When the facility was no longer a sanitary or desirable
place to vacation, however, members found themselves unfairly
trapped in contracts and facing collection actions."

Opened in 1985 as a members-only campground, Willow Creek
provided members with amenities including utility hook-ups for
recreational vehicles and access to a waste dumping station,
clubhouse, pool, petting zoo, miniature golf course and fishing.
Ms. Madigan said members of the 140-site campground signed
contracts - some for 99-year enrollments at the campground - and
paid membership sign-up costs of $4,495 and higher. Once
enrolled, consumers also paid yearly membership dues averaging
$400 per year.

In spring 1993 and again in spring 1996, heavy rains caused the
Kishwaukee River to overflow its banks and flood Willow Creek
with as much as five feet of water. After failing to restore the
property to suitable operating conditions, the campground was
repeatedly cited between 1996 and 2001 by the Illinois
Department of Public Health (IDPH) for failing to meet state
codes. Willow Creek's Recreation Area license expired in
February 2002 and was not renewed until August 2004, when the
campground was returned to proper, operating condition. A
separate license to operate a pool at the campground has not
been renewed since it expired in May 2002.

During the same period that the site was in decline, owners of
the campground began aggressively attempting to collect dues
from members who no longer used their memberships and who
stopped paying dues. In some instances, Willow Creek told
delinquent members they could walk away from their contracts if
they agreed to pay their overdue fees and additional "walk away"
fees ranging from $1,000 to $2,500.

Willow Creek allegedly told other members interested in
terminating their contracts that the only way to get out of a
contract would first be to upgrade to a 99-year "Charter"
membership at a cost of between $1,824 and $2,995. Those members
allegedly were told that only after the upgrade was paid for
would the campground be able to resell the memberships.

Ms. Madigan's lawsuit alleges Willow Creek violated Illinois'
consumer protection laws by failing to improve and maintain its
facilities as represented in its contracts, operating without a
recreational license between February 2002 and August 2004 and
continuing to sell membership upgrades during the period when
the campground did not have an operating license.

In addition, the lawsuit alleges Willow Creek used language in
various contracts and certificates that was unfair to consumers
because lifetime members were required to pay dues regardless of
whether they used the facilities. Willow Creek also allegedly
told members they could not abandon their memberships even
though the campground was offering "buyouts" to other members,
represented the campground would resell memberships on behalf of
members but then failed to do so, and failed to maintain
accurate financial records.

The lawsuit asks the court to prohibit the defendants from
further violating Illinois' consumer protection laws. The
lawsuit also seeks a civil penalty of $50,000 and additional
penalties of $50,000 per violation found to be committed with
the intent to defraud. Additionally, Madigan's lawsuit asks the
court to order the defendants to allow members to abandon their
membership contracts without being required to pay dues.

Assistant Attorneys General Janice Parker and Monica Grubbs are
handling the case for Madigan's Consumer Protection Division.
For more details, contact Melissa Merz by Phone: 312-814-3118 or
877-844-5461 (TTY) or by E-mail: mmerz@atg.state.il.us.

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

AUTHENTIDATE HOLDING: Wechsler Harwood Lodges Stock Suit in NY
The law firm of Wechsler Harwood LLP initiated a class action in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of purchasers of AuthentiDate Holding
Corporation ("AuthentiDate") (Nasdaq:ADAT) publicly traded
securities during the period between September 29, 2003 and May
27, 2005 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges AuthentiDate and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. AuthentiDate provides web-based content authentication
services that address the verification of digital information in
all business processes.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business and prospects, specifically about revenues to
be derived from an agreement with the U.S. Postal Service. The
Company also concealed certain internal control problems. These
false statements caused AuthentiDate stock to trade at
artificially inflated levels, reaching as high as $18.69 per
share in January 2004. Taking advantage of this artificial
inflation, AuthentiDate completed a private placement of its
stock in February 2004, raising $69 million in net proceeds.
AuthentiDate's CFO and former CEO also took advantage of the
inflation, selling 156,000 shares of their AuthentiDate stock
for proceeds of $1.7 million.

On April 13, 2005, AuthentiDate announced the dismissal of its
accounting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. Later, on April 29,
2005, AuthentiDate filed a Form 8-K with the SEC disclosing it
had hired a new accounting firm and also that on April 15, 2005,
its CFO had sent a letter to certain members of the Company's
Board of Directors, advising them of the existence of corporate
governance issues. The Company hired special counsel to
investigate the letter.

Then, on May 27, 2005, the Company issued a press release
announcing that "its ongoing discussions with the United States
Postal Service regarding the status of its Strategic Alliance
Agreement had reached a critical stage with the receipt of a
second notice from the Postal Service stating that it had failed
to attain the performance metrics required by the Strategic
Alliance Agreement during the period February 2005 through April
2005." On this news, AuthentiDate's stock collapsed to $2.94 per
share on volume of 1.28 million shares.

For more details, contact Craig Lowther, Shareholder Relations
Department, Wechsler Harwood LLP, Phone: (877) 935-7400, E-mail:
clowther@whesq.com, Web site: http://www.whesq.com.

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

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

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

     (2) did not follow appropriate option granting guidelines;

     (3) lacked adequate internal controls. As a result of this
         improper accounting, the Company's financial results
         were in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting
         Principles and were materially inflated at all relevant

On January 6, 2005, Brocade announced that as a result of an
internal review it expected to restate its financial statements
for fiscal years ending 2002 and 2003 to record additional
stock-based compensation expense. On January 7, 2005, shares of
Brocade fell $0.52 per share or 7.51 percent to close at $6.40
per share. On January 24, 2005, Brocade also announced that it
expected to record additional stock-based compensation charges.
On May 16, 2005, prior to the opening of the markets, the
Company disclosed that it will restate its financial statements
for the fiscal years ending 2002 through 2004 to record
additional charges for stock-based compensation expense. On this
news, shares of Brocade fell $0.12 per share or 2.91 percent, on
May 17, 2005, to close at $4.01 per share.

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

DRDGOLD LTD.: Wechsler Harwood Files Securities Fraud Suit in NY
The law firm of Wechsler Harwood LLP initiated a class action in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of all securities purchasers of DRDGOLD Ltd.
(Nasdaq:DROOY); (f/k/a Durban Roodepoort Deep, Limited)("DRD" or
the "Company") between October 23, 2003 and February 25, 2005,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). A copy of the complaint can be
obtained from the Court or can be viewed on Wechsler Harwood web
site at: www.whesq.com.

The complaint charges DRD, Mark Wellesley-Wood and Ian Louis
Murray with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed
to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse
facts, which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded
by them:

     (1) that the Company's South African operations,
         specifically the North West Operations, were
         underperforming due to production problems;

     (2) that the South African Rand was negatively impacting
         the Company's operations;

     (3) that due to (1) and (2), DRD materially overstated its
         net worth by failing to take timely writedowns;

     (4) that the Company lacked the cash to adequately cover
         future commitments and continue as a going concern;

     (5) that defendants' statements about the Company's growth
         and progress were lacking in any reasonable basis when

On February 18, 2005, DRD announced that Company headline loss
per share would be more than 200 percent higher than the
previous reporting period. Then, on February 24, 2005, DRD
released its interim financial results, which revealed that the
Company incurred and continued to incur significant losses and
that operations were in process of being restructured. On this
news, the shares of DRD fell by $0.38 per share, or 25 percent,
on February 24, 2005, to close at $1.11 per share.

For more details, contact Craig Lowther, Shareholder Relations
Department, Wechsler Harwood LLP, Phone: (877) 935-7400, E-mail:
clowther@whesq.com, Web site: http://www.whesq.com.

FRIEDMAN BILLINGS: Scott + Scott Sets Lead Plaintiff Deadline
Scott + Scott, LLC reminds interested parties that they have
until July 11, 2005 to file for Lead Plaintiff Petitions in the
class action lawsuit against Friedman, Billings, Ramsey Group,
Inc. (NYSE:FBR - News) that was launched on May 11, 2005 in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New

The firm filed shareholder class action lawsuit on behalf of all
purchasers of Company's securities who purchased between January
29, 2003 and April 25, 2005 (the ``Class Period''). During the
Class Period the stock plunged from $28.70 per share to $12.63
per share.

According to an article published on The Street.com on Wednesday
May 25, former FBR co-chief-executive officer Emanuel Friedman
learned that he might face potential civil charges. The article
further states that regulators from the Securities and Exchange
Commission and the NASD served Friedman with a so-called Wells
notice. A Wells notice is a preliminary determination by
regulators that an investigation warrants the filing of civil

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Friedman
along with other defendants misled investors when they
concealed: misconduct by FBR's top officials in connection with
the Company's role as a placement agent for an issuer in a 2001
private investment placement equity transaction (``PIPE'');
related insider trading; and the material adverse impact in the
ensuing investigation into the PIPE transaction had on FBR's

For more details, contact Neil Rothstein or Amy K. Saba 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.

GUIDANT CORPORATION: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Suit in IN
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C. initiated a lawsuit seeking
class action status filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Indiana on behalf of all persons
who purchased the publicly traded securities of Guidant
Corporation (NYSE: GDT) ("Guidant") between December 15, 2004
and June 23, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that Guidant violated federal securities
laws by issuing misleading public statements. On December 15,
2004 Guidant entered a $24.5 billion merger deal with Johnson &
Johnson. The complaint alleges that Guidant concealed
significant product defect and liability issues of its
defibrillator products. Specifically, it is alleged that Guidant
knew as early as 2002 that its defibrillator products were
defective and Guidant did not take corrective action in order to
maintain its revenue stream and make itself a more attractive
merger candidate.

On June 17, 2005, the Food and Drug Administration ("FDA")
issued a recall notification, impacting Guidant's implantable
defibrillators and cardiac resynchronization therapy
defibrillators. The FDA advised that the malfunction of
Guidant's devices could lead to a serious, life-threatening

Then, on June 24, 2005, Guidant announced that as a
precautionary measure, physicians should discontinue implants of
certain devices pending further notice. On this news, Guidant
shares fell $4.70 per share, or 6.85%, to close at $63.90 per
share. During the Class Period, Guidant insiders sold a total of
894,081 shares for gross proceeds of $65,703,975.60.

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

GUIDANT CORPORATION: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Stock Suit in IN
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, on behalf
of purchasers of the publicly traded securities of Guidant
Corporation (NYSE: GDT) ("Guidant" or the "Company") between
December 15, 2004 June 23, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Guidant and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Guidant describes itself as a company that "pioneers
lifesaving technology, giving an opportunity for better life
today to millions of cardiac and vascular patients worldwide."
On December 15, 2004, Guidant management entered into a $24.5
billion merger deal with Johnson & Johnson. The complaint
alleges that defendants' Class Period representations regarding
Guidant were materially false and misleading when made because
defendants concealed the following:

     (1) that defendants knew as early as 2002 that its
         defibrillator products were defective and caused harm
         to patients;

     (2) that defendants concealed the fact that its
         defibrillator products were defective in order to
         maintain the revenue stream it received from its
         lucrative defibrillator products and make itself a more
         attractive merger candidate; and

     (3) that once Guidant forged a deal with Johnson & Johnson,
         defendants continued to conceal from its shareholders
         and public that its defibrillator products were
         defective because such information caused an
         overwhelming threat to the Guidant/Johnson & Johnson

On June 17, 2005, the FDA issued a nationwide recall
notification, impacting Guidant's implantable defibrillators and
cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillators. Within that
notification, the Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") advised
the public that the malfunction of Guidant's devices could lead
to a serious, life-threatening event for a patient. By June 20,
2005, shares of Guidant fell $3.36 per share, or 4.23 percent,
to close at $70.33 per share on heavy trading volume.

Then, on June 24, 2005, Guidant announced that it was
voluntarily advising physicians about important safety
information regarding certain devices. Guidant apprised FDA of
this action, and the FDA may classify this action as a recall.
At this time, Guidant was in the very early stages of a diligent
evaluation of the component failure. Moreover, the Company
stated that as a precautionary measure, physicians should
discontinue implants of these devices pending further notice. On
news of this, shares of Guidant fell $4.70 per share, or 6.85
percent, to close at $63.90 per share on unusually heavy volume.

Moreover, defendants were motivated to commit the fraudulent
scheme alleged herein so that Guidant insiders could sell their
personally held Guidant stock at artificially inflated prices.
All told, Guidant insiders sold a total of 894,081 of their
personally held shares for gross proceeds of $65,703,975.60.

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

SCHOOL SPECIALTY: Bull & Lifshitz Lodges Securities Suit in WI
The law firm of Bull & Lifshitz, LLP initiated a securities
class action in the State of Wisconsin Circuit Court, Outagamie
County on behalf of owners of the common stock of School
Specialty, Inc. ("School Specialty" or the "Company")

The Plaintiff is seeking to enjoin the agreement entered into by
the Company to be acquired by an affiliate of Bain Capital
Partners, LLC based on the proposed transaction being grossly
unfair to School Specialty's public shareholders.

For more details, contact Joshua M. Lifshitz, Esq. of Bull &
Lifshitz, LLP, Phone: (212) 213-6222, Fax: (212) 213-9405 E-
mail: counsel@nyclasslaw.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


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

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

Copyright 2005.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

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

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

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

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *