CAR_Public/050706.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, July 6, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 132

                         Headlines

AMERICAN EXPRESS: To Pay New Jersey $5 Mil For Financial Fraud
ARKANSAS: Judge Dismisses Federal Version of Apartment Lawsuit
AUSTRALIA: Anticipated CFS Brushfire Suit Could Be Detrimental
BOEING ELECTRON: Black Woman Commences Race Bias Lawsuit in CA
BOIES SCHILLER: NY Court Refuses To Vacate $25,000 in Sanctions

CARDSYSTEMS SOLUTIONS: LA AG Joins Call For More Info on Breach
CONAGRA FOODS: Shareholders Launch Securities Fraud Suits in NE
ELECTRONIC DATA: Judge Refuses To Approve 401(k) Suit Settlement
GUIDANT CORPORATION: Shareholders Launch Fraud Suit in S.D. IN
HARRAH'S ENTERTAINMENT: Appeals Court Hears Gender Bias Lawsuit

HILB ROGAL: Shareholders Lodge Securities Fraud Suits in E.D. VA
HIPER TECHNOLOGY: Recalls 875 ATV Wheels Due to Injury Hazard
INDIANA: Commissioners OK's Partial Settlement For Suit V. Jail
INTEL CORPORATION: Owners Launch Separate Antitrust Suits in CA
JK HARRIS: Agrees To Reimburse Consumers For Debt Relief Fraud

LOUISIANA: Teachers Seek Certification For Suit V. SPAR Program
MDS INC.: Reaches Agreement For NY AG Suit V. Improper Billing
MERCK & CO.: French Users Join U.S. Suit Over Vioxx Side Effects
MISSOURI: 3 Travel Agencies Settle No-Call Law Violations Suit
MITSUBISHI MOTORS: Recalls 649 Vehicles Due to Defective Brakes  

MITSUBISHI MOTORS: Recalls Fuso Trucks Due to Faulty A/T Systems  
MITSUBISHI MOTORS: Recalls Fuso Trucks For Faulty Engine System
MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Federal Appeals Court OK's Employees' Lawsuit
NEW YORK: 3 Residents Face AG Lawsuit Due To Immigration Fraud
NORFOLK SOUTHERN: SC Residents Consider Train Crash Settlement

RALPH LAUREN: Mediation Continues in CA Employee Wardrobing Suit
TE MORTGAGE: MO AG Nixon Gets TRO For No-Call List Violations
TOYOTA MOTOR: Recalls 11,592 Trucks Due to Faulty Air Bag System  
TWO'S COMPANY: Recalls 18T Sea Urchin Candles Due to Fire Hazard
UTAH: Tax Unit To Refund $5.6 Mil To Floor Covering Purchasers

WASTE MANAGEMENT: AZ Employees Sue Over Videotaping in Restrooms

                Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences

                 New Securities Fraud Cases

ABLE LABORATORIES: Kaplan Fox Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NJ
CONAGRA FOODS: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Lawsuit in TX
GUIDANT CORPORATION: Marc S. Henzel Files Securities Suit in IN
LAZARD LTD.: Abraham Fruchter Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
NAVARRE CORPORATION: Lockridge Grindal Lodges Stock Suit in MN

                            *********


AMERICAN EXPRESS: To Pay New Jersey $5 Mil For Financial Fraud
--------------------------------------------------------------
American Express Financial Advisors Inc. ("AEFA") will pay New
Jersey $5 million and implement company-wide reforms to address
allegations that it failed to reasonably supervise its financial
advisers, New Jersey Attorney General Peter C. Harvey announced
in a press release dated June 9,2005.

The settlement, reached cooperatively with AEFA, follows an
investigation by the New Jersey Bureau of Securities within the
Attorney General's Office that initially focused on Arthur
Davidson, of West High Ridge Road, Cherry Hill.  Mr. Davidson, a
financial adviser in AEFA's Voorhees office, stole more than
$400,000 from at least 22 clients.  Mr. Davidson pleaded guilty
Monday to a charge of theft by deception brought by the Attorney
General through the Division of Criminal Justice.

The Bureau's investigation quickly expanded with the uncovering
of widespread problems involving AEFA's failure to reasonably
supervise financial advisers within its franchise offices. Under
the settlement reached by the Attorney General, AEFA will reform
the way it supervises financial advisers and will increase its
oversight of financial advisory services to protect clients from
misconduct by financial advisers.

"In investigating and prosecuting this individual, we identified
a larger issue of inadequate supervision of the company's
financial advisers," said Mr. Harvey.  "To its credit, American
Express has worked cooperatively with our office to address
deficiencies in its oversight of financial advisers. Our shared
goal is to ensure that investors who rely on the American
Express brand are treated fairly and that American Express
supervises its agents so that investors' dollars are protected."

AEFA offers a range of products and services, including
insurance, mutual funds and college savings plans, primarily
through its financial advisers, many of whom work as independent
contractors under franchise agreements.  Mr. Davidson worked as
a "franchisee adviser" in the company's Voorhees branch office
from 1997 until October 2004, when he was suspended by the
company pending investigation of his activities.

AEFA has paid full restitution to known victims of Mr. Davidson
and has agreed to compensate any additional victims who are
found. AEFA also will pay the Bureau a civil penalty of $5
million.  Under the terms of his guilty plea, Mr. Davidson faces
a three-year prison sentence and has signed an agreement to
surrender his broker's license and fully reimburse AEFA and any
additional clients found to have lost money as a result of his
conduct.

"We seek to protect investors through our enforcement efforts,
both by weeding out brokers and financial advisers who break the
law and by promoting practices within the industry that will
eliminate fraud and safeguard investments," said Franklin L.
Widmann, Chief of the Bureau of Securities. "This investigation
is a good example of those dual goals."

"The first line of protection for investors who entrust their
money to an investment firm should be the firm's own supervisory
procedures," said Mr. Harvey. "We are taking a hard look at the
industry. Where we find firms failing in this area and the
failures are significant, we will be imposing major penalties
and demanding significant reforms."

From around June 2001 through October 2004, Mr. Davidson forged
client signatures on mutual fund redemption forms and financial
advisory service agreements so as to liquidate investments in
client accounts and withdraw commissions and fees without the
client's knowledge or consent. About 85 percent of the
fraudulent charges to clients were withdrawn as commissions by
Mr. Davidson for his personal use. AEFA uncovered his conduct
through an internal investigation and reported it to the Bureau
of Securities, which conducted its own investigation.

Through his forgeries, Mr. Davidson charged certain clients for
multiple financial plans at excessive rates. For example:

     (1) an apartment manager in her mid-60s earning $44,000 per
         year with about $25,000 in assets at AEFA was charged
         $7,000 for four plans in a single year;

     (2) a retiree in her mid-60s earning $22,000 per year with
         about $10,000 in assets at AEFA was charged $3,500 for
         two plans in a single year; and

     (3) a recent college graduate in her early 20s earning
         $24,000 per year with $35,000 in assets at AEFA
         was charged $4,000 for two plans in a single year.

The Bureau's investigation uncovered broader weaknesses in
AEFA's supervision and surveillance of its franchisee advisers.
A critical defect identified by the Bureau was that franchisee
advisers selected the person at AEFA who was to serve as their
own compliance supervisor and paid the supervisor directly for
acting in that capacity, creating a conflict of interest for
those supervisors responsible for ensuring compliance with laws
and regulations. Franchisee advisers could select a supervisor
outside of their office, as Mr. Davidson did.

AEFA has since implemented a system that assigns an on-site
supervisor where possible and eliminates the ability of a
franchisee adviser to choose his or her own supervisor.
Franchisee advisers now pay AEFA, not the supervisor, for the
cost of supervision. Moreover, AEFA has eliminated in New Jersey
a practice that allowed supervisors who had compliance
responsibilities to also act as business consultants for the
same financial advisers and receive additional fees in their
business consulting role.

AEFA has agreed by November 30, 2005 to, among other things,
implement new training and surveillance procedures to better
detect instances of forgery, unauthorized account activity and
improper fees.  In addition, AEFA has agreed to hire an
independent expert, approved by the Bureau, to review its
supervisory procedures and consult with AEFA and the Bureau to
identify areas of concern. The expert will issue a report within
90 days concerning its review. Within 30 days after it receives
the report, AEFA will submit a plan acceptable to the Bureau
outlining changes to be implemented in response to concerns
raised by the review.

The Bureau's investigation was conducted by Chief of Enforcement
Richard Barry, Supervising Investigator Michael McElgunn,
Regulatory Attorney Kevin O'Brien and Investigators Dick Smullen
and Dean Kuehnen. Deputy Attorney General Anna Lascurain, Chief
of the Securities Fraud Prosecution Section of the Division of
Law, handled the case for the Attorney General. For more
details, contact Peter Aseltine by Phone: 609-292-4791 or visit
the Website: http://www.state.nj.us/lps/newsreleases05/am-x-
consent-order.pdf to access the consent order.


ARKANSAS: Judge Dismisses Federal Version of Apartment Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Jimm Larry Hendren dismissed a lawsuit
against a Springdale apartment complex that was evacuated after
a carbon monoxide problem was discovered, The Morning News
reports.

According to the federal judge's order of dismissal, since a
state court case containing identical allegations is still
pending, the claims in the dismissed federal case will be rolled
into one. A hearing is set for July 6 on the case.

The lawsuit states that the city ordered gas service to the
Springdale Ridge apartment complex on South 40th Street turned
off and declared the facility unfit for occupancy after a high
level of carbon monoxide was discovered in almost every
apartment tested by the Springdale Fire Department. As a result,
residents were without central heat and air, hot water and the
ability to cook for nearly a week.  The cases were filed only
days apart, naming the same defendants and making the same
arguments.

Melanie Cash, who along with family lived at the Springdale
Ridge apartment complex but has since moved to Maryland, filed
her suit in U.S. District Court in Fayetteville. She contended
that she and others living at the apartments suffered carbon
monoxide poisoning requiring medical treatment.

The state case seeks class action status to represent all
residents of the apartments since they were constructed in 1999,
including those still living in Arkansas. According to an
affidavit that was recently filed by the plaintiffs in the state
case, there could be more than 1,000 potential members if class
action is certified.


AUSTRALIA: Anticipated CFS Brushfire Suit Could Be Detrimental
--------------------------------------------------------------
The South Australian Volunteer Fire Brigades Association warned
that a class action against the Country Fire Service (CFS) for
the Eyre Peninsula's January bushfires might be damaging to the
volunteer organization.

According to persons familiar with the incident, approximately
30 victims of the fires plan to launch the action because they
say that the CFS should have taken more prevention measures when
the fire started in order to control it, despite extreme weather
conditions the following day. They argued that the fires could
have been contained by back-burning and water bombing the night
before they claimed the lives of nine people, destroyed 93 homes
and blackened 77,000 hectares of farmland.

The Volunteer Fire Brigades Association President Ken Schutz,
says it could turn people away from the CFS. He told the ABC
Regional Online, "Volunteers who do join the CFS join because
they want to help their community and . this may change that
trend, you know that mind-set of . 'if I help the community I'm
going to get bagged for it', so therefore it certainly won't
have a positive effect I don't think."

Port Lincoln Mayor Peter Davis says the class action will open
up a can of worms. He told ABC Regional Online that he respects
the right of the fire victims to seek compensation, but says the
legal action raises many difficult issues. He also told ABC
Regional Online, "Who will pay? At the end of the day it will be
the taxpayer, presuming the CFS does not have appropriate public
liability. I mean, to me it's just an absolute can of worms, but
I do think we've got to respect the legal rights of those
affected fire victims."


BOEING ELECTRON: Black Woman Commences Race Bias Lawsuit in CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Former Boeing unit Boeing Electron Dynamic Devices faces a
lawsuit filed by the United States Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC), alleging that it refused to hire a black
woman because of her race, The Seattle Times reports.

The suit, filed in the United States District Court in Los
Angeles, California, also names as defendant an L-3
Communications Holdings unit that bought the Boeing division in
February, the EEOC said in a statement.

The Torrance, California-based Company makes satellite and
military components.  It repeatedly passed over the woman for
positions for which she was qualified, the EEOC said. Attempts
to settle the case before filing a lawsuit failed, the
commission said, The Seattle Times states.

Boeing spokesman Ken Mercer said he hasn't seen the suit and was
unable to comment immediately, The Seattle Times reports.  Abby
Cohen, a spokeswoman for New York-based L-3 Communications, said
the company doesn't comment on litigation in progress.


BOIES SCHILLER: NY Court Refuses To Vacate $25,000 in Sanctions
---------------------------------------------------------------
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York magistrate judge Henry Pitman refused to vacate his earlier
order imposing $25,000 in sanctions against law firm Boies,
Schiller & Flexner, for its conduct as plaintiffs counsel in a
recently settled antitrust class action against several major
modeling agencies, law.com reports.

Boies Schiller, the firm co-founded by well-known litigator
David Boies, filed the class action suit in 2002 on behalf of
models who claimed the leading agencies colluded in charging
them exorbitant commissions.  The plaintiffs made claims under
Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The suit alleged a "a per se restraint of trade or commerce in
violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, forfeiture and
disgorgement of all fees paid to Que received as a result of its
alleged wrongful conduct, punitive and exemplary damages and
accounting of all costs and expenses, pre-judgment and post-
judgment interest, reasonable attorneys fees and costs and such
other relief as the Court deems appropriate," an earlier Class
Action Reporter story (October 4,2002) reports.  Among the 13
modeling agencies named in the suit were Ford Models,
represented by Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, and Wilhelmina
Models, represented by Frankel & Abrams.
The parties in the suit later reached a settlement, which was
approved by Judge Harold Baer. The Judge awarded Boies Schiller
attorney fees and expenses of $5.3 million, considerably less
than the $8.9 million the firm sought.  

Judge Pitman issued the sanctions against the firm in May 2004,
citing repeated failures by the firm to properly respond to
interrogatories.  Judge Pitman cited in particular several
instances in which Boies Schiller responded to interrogatory
requests for the identities of relevant witnesses by merely
referring back to other interrogatory answers, some of which the
judge said were also unresponsive.  In one instance, the firm
answered an interrogatory seeking witness identities by saying
the witness were identified in 113 other interrogatory answers.  
Judge Pitman's sanction had been preceded by two other sanctions
orders against Boies Schiller for $250 and $5,000, also arising
from discovery issues, law.com reports.

The sanctions orders remain under appeal before Southern
District Judge Harold Baer.  In his May 5 decision approving the
settlement in the case, Judge Baer said he was factoring the
sanctions orders into his determination of attorney fees "to
include and emphasize my concern on this score."  Judge Baer
last week denied the firm's motion to reconsider the fees award
and other aspects of the settlement.

The defendants had agreed not to oppose the motion to vacate as
part of a $22 million settlement approved last month, but Judge
Pitman said the settlement "does not lessen the general and
specific deterrent effects of the sanction."  

"If anything, vacating the sanction would suggest to counsel
that any tactic, regardless of how much judicial time is wasted,
is permissible so long as the case ends by settlement," he
wrote, law.com reports.  In his denial of the motion to vacate,
Judge Pitman said the firm's interrogatory answers were
"unquestionably designed to obfuscate rather than illuminate."

Andrew Hayes, the lead Boies Schiller partner in the matter,
declined to comment, citing the pending appeals, law.com
reports.  The defendants who moved for sanctions against Boies
Schiller were Next Management Co., represented by Jerome Gotkin
of Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky & Popeo, and Click Model
Management, represented by Aaron Richard Golub.


CARDSYSTEMS SOLUTIONS: LA AG Joins Call For More Info on Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
Louisiana Attorney General Charles C. Foti, Jr., signed a letter
authored by Attorney General Rob McKenna of Washington calling
on CardSystems Solutions to notify consumers whose credit card
information may have been compromised in the latest security
breach that possibly exposed 22 million VISA card numbers and 14
million MasterCard numbers.  The letter is also signed by 44
other Attorneys General from around the country as well as the
District of Columbia, American Samoa and Puerto Rico.

The letter asks CardSystems Solutions to notify all affected
consumers immediately and provide the Attorneys General with the
following information:

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

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

     (3) An outline of the plan the company has developed to
         prevent the reoccurrence of such a security breach and
         a timeline for implementing that plan.

The letter was sent by the Attorneys General in reaction to the
latest news that the Company may have violated provisions of the
Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard that requires
merchants and payment processors to implement strong access
control measures.

"We are so dependent upon technology today that we have to make
sure companies that are entrusted with nonpublic personal
information employ the highest levels of security," stated Mr.
Foti.  "That's why we also helped to author and push for Senate
Bill 205, the Database Security Breach Notification Law. This
will make it mandatory for companies to let consumers know about
any security problems that might expose their personal
information to the outside world."

Mr. Foti suggests Louisiana consumers who believe their credit
cards may have been compromised contact their credit card
provider to determine if they may be at risk. Consumers should
also carefully monitor their credit card statements for any
suspicious activity. For additional information on how to
protect personal information, consumers can visit the Attorney
General's Website: http://www.ag.state.la.usor the Federal  
Trade Commission's Website: http://www.ftc.gov.  


CONAGRA FOODS: Shareholders Launch Securities Fraud Suits in NE
---------------------------------------------------------------
ConAgra Foods, Inc. and its chief executive officer face several
securities class actions filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Nebraska on behalf of purchasers of
the Company's common stock from September 18,2003 to June
7,2005.

The suits allege the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b 5
promulgated thereunder by issuing materially false and
misleading financial statements to the investing public
regarding the Company's financial performance and prospects.

The Company is a packaged food company serving a wide variety of
food customers.  The complaints allege that during the Class
Period, defendants made materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business and prospects and
issued false and misleading financial statements.  According to
the complaints, as a result of defendants' false statements,
ConAgra's stock traded at inflated levels as high as $30 per
share during the Class Period, which allowed its top officers to
reap tens of millions of dollars in ill-gotten bonuses. Among
the facts concealed from the investing public during the Class
Period, included the following:

     (1) the Company lacked requisite internal controls, and, as
         a result, the Company's projections and reported
         results were based upon defective assumptions and/or
         manipulated facts;

     (2) contrary to defendants' claims of fourth quarter 2005
         and/or fiscal year 2005 profitability, the Company was
         actually on track to report losses;

     (3) the Company's income was overstated due to improper tax
         accounting; and

     (4) as a result of the above, the Company's projections for
         fiscal year 2005 were grossly inflated.

The complaints further allege that on or around March 24, 2005,
the Company announced it would be restating its financial
statements for fiscal 2002 through the first half of fiscal 2005
due to improper accounting for income taxes. ConAgra stock fell
to around $26 per share on this news. Then, on June 7, 2005, the
Company announced that its fiscal 2005 fourth quarter would be
lower than expected primarily due to continued weak
profitability in the packaged meats operations. On this news the
stock fell further to $24.32 per share.

The first identified complaint in the litigation is styled
"David P. Berlien, et al. v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., et al.," filed
in the United States District Court for the District of
Nebraska.  The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

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

    (ii) 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

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


ELECTRONIC DATA: Judge Refuses To Approve 401(k) Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
A U.S. district judge denied approval for a proposed settlement
between the Plano-based Electronic Data Systems Corporation and
a group of current and former EDS employees who had sued the
company over claims that it had mismanaged its 401(k) retirement
plan, The Dallas Morning News reports.

In his ruling, Judge Leonard Davis of Tyler said that the
proposed settlement, which would have included a $16.5 million
payment to the plaintiffs as well as a restructuring of EDS'
401(k) plan, did not provide enough compensation for the roughly
90,000 people affected.

With the decision, the case now goes back to the 5th Circuit
Court, which will decide whether it should go ahead as a class
action lawsuit.

EDS, which was surprised by the judge's ruling and believes the
proposed settlement was fair, said in a prepared statement that
it would ask the district judge to reconsider his ruling.


GUIDANT CORPORATION: Shareholders Launch Fraud Suit in S.D. IN
--------------------------------------------------------------
Guidant Corporation faces a securities class action filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
Indiana on behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities from
December 15,2004 to June 17,2005.

According to a press release dated June 25, 2005, the Complaint
charges the Company and certain of its officers and directors
with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The
Company develops, manufacturers, and markets products that focus
on the treatment of cardiac arrhythmias, heart failure, and
coronary and peripheral disease, including implantable
defibrillator systems. The implantable defibrillator systems are
used to detect and treat abnormally fast heart rhythms that
could result in sudden cardiac death.

On December 15, 2004, Guidant management entered into a $24.5
billion merger deal with Johnson & Johnson. While the Company
pointed to its defibrillator business as a key component of that
deal, the Complaint alleges, it concealed from investors
significant un-addressed product defect and liability issues of
the Company's implantable defibrillator product lines. Although
life-threatening, defendants knew or consciously disregarded the
fact that these mechanical problems were difficult to
characterize and observe in implanted patients, making unlikely
that any temporary physical disablement in patients would be
attributed to device malfunction.

On June 17, 2005, the FDA issued a nationwide recall
notification, impacting Guidant's implantable defibrillators and
cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillators. Within that
notification, FDA advised the public that the malfunction of
Guidant's devices could lead to a serious, life-threatening
event for a patient. On this news, the Company's shares fell
$3.36, losing 4.5% percent of their value over the two trading
days following the FDA recall, closing at $70.33, on a combined
volume of over 25 million shares. As a result, Guidant investors
lost over $1.09 billion in the value of their shares as a result
of the surprise announcement of the FDA recall. Guidant's stock
price closed today at $63.90 on tremendous volume exceeding 49
million shares on further news and Company warnings concerning
problems with another of Guidant's implantable heart devices.

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Guidant knew
and concealed:

     (1) the serious health issues encountered by patients
         caused by the malfunctioning and defective nature of
         the defective devices;

     (2) the overwhelming threat to the deal Guidant had forged
         with Johnson & Johnson for the sale of the Company,
         including the threat to the ability of insiders to
         profit as a result of stock sales during the Class
         Period;

     (3) the lack and insufficiency of communications to
         healthcare providers and patients regarding the
         defective nature of the Company's defibrillator
         products, even when adequate communications were
         essential to protect the lives of its implant patients;
         and

     (4) the troubling decision to await overwhelming negative
         media accounts before taking affirmative actions
         regarding the Company's defibrillator products.

The suit is styled "Moussa Yeroushalmi, et al. v. Guidant
Corporation, et al., case no. 05-CV-00951," filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana,
under Judge Daniel Tinder.  Representing the plaintiffs is Scott
& Scott LLC, P.O. Box 192, 108 Norwich Avenue, Colchester, CT,
06415, Phone: 860.537.5537, Fax: 860.537.4432, E-mail:
scottlaw@scott-scott.com.


HARRAH'S ENTERTAINMENT: Appeals Court Hears Gender Bias Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals heard the
appeal of a woman whose lawsuit was fired from her bartending
job at a casino in Harrah's for refusing to wear make-up, the
Associated Press reports.

Darlene Jespersen filed the suit against Harrah's Entertainment,
after the Company fired her in August 2000 after 21 years of
service and high-performance marks.  The policy requiring women
to wear makeup and lipstick was put in place at 20 of Harrah's
casinos in April 2000; males were forbidden to wear makeup,
ponytails or hair below the top of their shirt collar.  "I
wanted to be taken seriously at my job. Makeup wasn't going to
make me any better of a bartender," she said after the hearing,
AP reports.

In December, a three-judge panel dismissed the suit, ruling that
the Company had a right to fire her since the company required
male workers to be equally well-groomed.  The full court heard
the case Wednesday.  No decision was reached.

Ms. Jespersen's firing was "an affront to female employees,
Jennifer Pizer, her lawyer, told the appeals court, according to
AP.  Patrick Hicks, an attorney for Harrah's Entertainment,
however, argued that the makeup policy is necessary to "create a
professional image."

During questioning, the judges appeared torn over whether the
policy discriminated against women.  Judge Alex Kozinski
suggested that demanding a woman wear makeup was "an intrusive
thing for an employer to ask."

"Would you consider that a burden on yourself to do that?" Mr.
Kozinski asked Mr. Hicks, according to AP.

"I don't know if it's a greater burden on men than women," Hicks
said.

"You're kidding me," the judge replied.

Judge Connie Callahan wondered if employers would always face
lawsuits if the court sided with Jespersen. "How could an
employer ever have a grooming policy, because somebody would
always be unhappy with it?" she asked, AP reports.

The court's ruling could help two Atlantic City, N.J., casino
employees, who filed civil rights complaints in April in
response to the Borgata Hotel Casino & Spa's weight-limit
policy. One of the women said she was fired for gaining weight;
the other took a leave of absence citing job stress.  Borgata
officials have declined to comment on the cases, AP reports.


HILB ROGAL: Shareholders Lodge Securities Fraud Suits in E.D. VA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hilb Rogal & Hobbs Co. and certain of its present and former
executive officers face several purported shareholder class
action lawsuits filed in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Virginia, on behalf of purchasers of the
company's common stock from February 14,2002 to May 26,2005.

Specifically, the complaints allege that defendants violated the
federal securities laws by issuing a series of false and
misleading statements in its quarterly and annual filings with
the Securities and Exchange Commission.  Plaintiffs specifically
allege that defendants violated the federal securities laws by
failing to disclose that:

     (1) the company was paying or receiving the equivalent of
         kickbacks when placing its clients' insurance business;

     (2) the Company's contingent and override commissions were
         designed to steer its business to insurance carriers
         who provided kickbacks;

     (3) the Company's business practices were against the
         interests of its clients, were fraudulent and illegal,
         and could potentially result in civil and/or criminal
         liability; and

     (4) a substantial portion of the Company's revenues were
         derived from kickbacks and improper commissions, making
         the Company's financial statements substantially
         inflated throughout the Class Period.

The complaints further allege that on or around May 26, 2005,
the Company announced that its Chief Operating Officer had
resigned following an internal review of business practices.
This review discovered that the Company made improper payments
out of Hilb Rogal's Hartford offices related to the placement of
insurance policies. In reaction to this revelation, Hilb Rogal's
share price fell $4.51 on May 27, 2005, down nearly 12 percent
from its prior closing price, thereby damaging plaintiff and the
Class.

The first identified complaint in the litigation is styled "Iron
Workers Local 16 Pension Fund, et al. v. Hilb Rogal & Hobbs Co.,
et al., case no. 05-CV-735," filed in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.  The plaintiff firms
in this litigation are:

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

    (ii) Finkelstein, Thompson & Loughran, 1050 30th Street, NW,
         Washington, DC, 20007, Phone: 202.337.8000, Fax:
         202.337.8090, E-mail: contact@ftllaw.com

   (iii) Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP, 100 Park
         Avenue, New York, NY, 10017, Phone: 212.907.0700, Fax:
         212.818.0477, e-mail: info@glrslaw.com

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


HIPER TECHNOLOGY: Recalls 875 ATV Wheels Due to Injury Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------
In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC), HiPer Technology Inc., of Lawrence, Kansas is
voluntarily recalling about 875 units of All-terrain vehicle
(ATV) 9-inch wheels, with aluminum center section.

The aluminum center section of the wheel can come apart causing
the tire and rim to unexpectedly separate from the ATV, posing a
risk of serious injury if the rider loses control of the
vehicle. HiPer has 12 reports of wheel center section breakage
and separation.

The recalled 9-inch ATV aftermarket rear wheels have a model
number of 0990 YHR. The rear wheels were manufactured from
February 15, 2005 through May 2005. The recalled wheel can be
used as the rear wheel on ATVs having the following bolt
patterns: four bolts on a 110mm circle or four bolts on a 115mm
circle. The center section of the wheel is made of aluminum and
has eight boltholes.

Manufactured in the United States, the wheels were sold at all
ATV dealers and HiPer Technology from February 2005 through May
2005 for about $190.

Consumers should immediately stop using the 9-inch ATV wheels
and contact HiPer Technology to receive a replacement wheel
center section and or wheel repair, free of charge.

Consumer Contact: For additional information, contact HiPer
Technology at (800) 464-4737 anytime or visit the firm's Web
site: http://www.hiper-technology.com.


INDIANA: Commissioners OK's Partial Settlement For Suit V. Jail
---------------------------------------------------------------
In a rescheduled regular meeting, Perry County commissioners
approved part of a settlement for a class action lawsuit brought
a year ago by Joseph Dixon, a 28-year-old prisoner incarcerated
at the county jail, and the Indiana Civil Liberties Union, which
accused the county of violating the rights of jail inmates.

Specifically, the commissioners approved the addition of two
full-time and deletion of one part-time jailer positions to the
sheriff's department staff as a step toward settling the year
old litigation.

In the suit Mr. Dixon alleged that the jail's small size forces
jailers to crowd inmates, that lighting and ventilation were
inadequate and under-staffing left one jailer at times to care
for the entire jail population. ICLU Legal Director Kenneth Falk
even called the facility "antiquated, dangerous and
unconstitutional."

County Auditor Debbie Elder told Perry County News that the
commissioners' motion to increase staffing included a request to
the county council for funding for the positions. If the council
approves them, the positions will be advertised, he adds.

The county was represented in the case by the Evansville law
firm of Ziemer, Stayman, Weitzel and Shoulders, since the firm
employing the county attorney, Chris Goffinet, provides pauper
services for the county and regularly represents inmates who
could have become involved in the case, creating a potential
conflict of interest.

Mr. Goffinet told Perry County News that the settlement is
tentative because the plaintiff hasn't yet agreed it to, but the
staffing increase "is an attempt to show the plaintiff we're
serious. We hope to have a settlement worked out by the end of
July." He adds that the settlement was negotiated between
attorneys for both sides, with regular updates going to William
Hussman Jr., magistrate for the U.S. District Court's Southern
District, Evansville.

Additionally, Mr. Goffinet pointed out that if the plaintiff
accepts it, the commissioners would need to approve the full
settlement. He, however, declined to discuss other aspects of
the agreement before they've been presented to the plaintiff.


INTEL CORPORATION: Owners Launch Separate Antitrust Suits in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Two P.C. owners, whose units are equipped with Intel Corporation
microprocessors, initiated separate class action suits against
the chip making giant in a U.S. District Court, according to the
San Jose Mercury News, the EE Times reports.

The paper reported that Ronald Konieczka of Cincinnati, Ohio,
and Maria Prohias of Miami filed the suits in San Francisco,
alleging that Intel engaged in anti-competitive practices
resulting in higher priced personal computers and other
electronics products. According to the Mercury News, both P.C.
owners, who are each represented by Los Angels law firm Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro, asked the court for unspecified
restitution.

The class action suits come just days after rival Advanced Micro
Devices Inc. (AMD) filed an antitrust suit against Intel in a
U.S. District Court in Delaware on June 27, alleging that Intel
operated an unlawful monopoly in the x86 microprocessor market.

Intel though responded with a statement on June 28 that said, it
"strongly disagrees" with AMD's complaints and vowed to fight
the suit in court. Intel President and CEO Paul Otellini later
affirmed his company's stance by saying in a prepared statement
that Intel would not change its business practices and expects
any court decision to be resolved in its favor.

In addition to the Delaware suit, AMD also filed two lawsuits in
Japan, alleging violations of Japan's Antimonopoly Act.


JK HARRIS: Agrees To Reimburse Consumers For Debt Relief Fraud
--------------------------------------------------------------
J.K. Harris Holding Co., a company that advertised it would
settle delinquent tax debt for "pennies on the dollar," will
fully reimburse $18,118 to nine consumers and pay the state of
Missouri $25,000 in costs under an agreement with state Attorney
General Jay Nixon.

In a consent judgment filed in Jackson County Circuit Court,
J.K. Harris Holding of North Charleston, S.C., will cease
deceptive sales practices and will refund the fees paid for
services to negotiate lower tax liabilities. Individuals paid
from $390 to $2,700 for services that either were not delivered
or were not delivered as promised.

"This company told Missouri consumers that it could reduce their
tax debt to practically nothing, but for several consumers, that
was not the case," Mr. Nixon said. "Companies need to know that
deceptive sales pitches are against the law in Missouri, and we
will zealously protect the rights of the consumer in these
matters."

In a lawsuit filed in January, Mr. Nixon alleged that J.K.
Harris conducted business in Missouri without being registered
with the Secretary of State, and made misleading claims that the
company could settle tax debt for "pennies on the dollar." The
company also made claims that tax professionals and former IRS
agents were available to consult with clients. In reality,
consumers only talked to sales representatives.

In addition to the monetary restitution and payment to the
state, J.K. Harris must provide a full listing of all complaints
it has received from consumers located in Missouri. Under the
consent judgment, for the next 90 days J.K. Harris will remain
liable for any new verifiable complaints it might receive
related to allegations in the lawsuit.

For more details, contact Press Secretary Jim Gardner by Phone:
573-751-8844 by Fax: 573-751-5818 by E-mail:
communications@ago.mo.gov or visit the Website:
http://www.ago.state.mo.us.


LOUISIANA: Teachers Seek Certification For Suit V. SPAR Program
---------------------------------------------------------------
Five teachers who claim they were misled when they signed up for
an investment plan are asking a judge in St. Tammany Parish,
Louisiana to certify their lawsuit against the plan's hawkers as
a class action and add to the list of plaintiffs dozens of their
colleagues.

Court documents revealed that the Summer Pay Annuity Retirement
(SPAR) program was marketed to teachers who received paychecks
year-round, instead of just the months they spent teaching.
School districts typically offer the option of withholding
income from each pay period to fund teachers' summertime checks.

According to plaintiff's lawyer Kevin Tully, his clients were
pitched a savings plan that would have allowed them to earn
interest on that withheld money. However, in reality, the
program established annuities, which are tax-deferred
investments that guarantee specific payments, usually upon
retirement, with the deferred summer income, from which teachers
unknowingly took out loans to cover their summer paychecks, Mr.
Tully tells AP. Mr. Tully further told AP that his clients were
expected to repay the loans in the following year or face
penalties.

Defendants named in the suit are John C. Hazard, who pitched the
investment plan to underwriters and sold it to teachers, his
company, Teachers Retirement Services, fellow salesman William
Tyson Vanlandingham and underwriters Columbia Universal Life
Insurance Co. and American Heritage Life Insurance Co.

Defense attorneys, who are disputing the teachers' claims, hope
to halt the case before it becomes a class action by challenging
its timeliness. They pointed out that the St. Tammany teachers
signed up in spring 2000 and sued three years later.

Plaintiffs' lawyers though argued that their year to sue didn't
start until well into the program, when they first started to
understand its terms.

However, defense lawyers countered by saying that their
testimony proves they knew or should have known the terms of the
program at least by fall 2001, still more than a year before
they sued.

Judy Barrasso, who represents the three insurance providers in
the St. Tammany suit, described as preposterous the teachers'
claims that they knew nothing of the plan's actual terms, given
that they signed contracts that contained the words "annuity"
and "loan" dozens of times and received subsequent mailings
about their enrollment. She recounted to AP the plaintiffs'
testimony in preliminary court hearings by saying, "Lots of them
said, 'Oh, we didn't know this involved a loan.' "But it's all
over there in one document, 30 times."



MDS INC.: Reaches Agreement For NY AG Suit V. Improper Billing
--------------------------------------------------------------
To protect consumers from paying health care bills for which
they are not responsible, New York Attorney General Eliot
Spitzer announced an agreement with one of North America's
leading providers of medical laboratory services.  The
settlement is the latest in the Attorney General's statewide
"Project Clean Bills of Health" initiative.

Under terms of the agreement, MDS Inc., a Canadian-based
company, will provide refunds to New York consumers who were
improperly billed for services covered or already paid for by
their health plans. In addition, the company agreed to reform
its billing practices, promising that, when it submits a claim
to a health plan, it will not bill consumers until the plan
notifies MDS that the consumer may be liable.  

It is estimated that as many as two million claims could be
subject to the agreement with MDS.  "My office is committed to
protecting consumers from unwittingly paying out-of-pocket for
services and care that actually is covered by their health
plans," Mr. Spitzer said.

Specifically, MDS will publish newspaper advertisements
informing consumers of their right to submit claims to MDS if
they were improperly balance billed or double billed by the
company.  The advertisements will run in at least two successive
issues of daily newspapers in the Hudson Valley region, where
MDS's New York operations were located. Consumers may submit
claims to MDS within 60 days of the second advertisement. MDS
also will post information on how to submit claims on its
website: http://www.mdsdx.com.

The Attorney General's Health Care Bureau investigated
complaints from consumers who received bills from MDS even
though the company was a "participating provider" with their
health plans and the consumers received covered services.
Spitzer's office determined that MDS improperly "balance billed"
some consumers by charging them for the entire balance of the
bill when MDS had submitted a claim to the consumer's health
plan but received no response from the health plan. In certain
instances, both the health plan and the consumer paid the billed
amount in full, resulting in MDS improperly receiving double
payment on a single bill.

Under New York law and contracts that health plans have with
most health care providers, a provider cannot bill a consumer
who is properly enrolled in a health plan if the provider is a
"participating provider" and the services received from the
provider are covered under the plan. Exceptions to this
prohibition are bills for deductibles, coinsurance and amounts
designated by the health plan as the consumer's responsibility.

The Attorney General also found that certain bills to consumers
contained potentially misleading language which suggested that
the consumer was liable for amounts which, by law or by
contract, actually were not the consumer's responsibility.

MDS also has agreed that it will not engage in such practices in
the future if it re-enters the market in New York. During the
course of the Attorney General's investigation, MDS sold its New
York State business to Laboratory Corporation of America
Holdings ("Labcorp"), a Delaware corporation.

Richard Kirsch, executive director of Citizen Action: "Consumers
should not have to worry that their health care providers are
charging them for services that are covered by their health
plans. I commend Attorney General Spitzer for his efforts to
clean up these improper billing practices that add to families'
health care cost burdens."

In the past two years, "Project Clean Bills of Health" has
obtained restitution for consumers who were balance-billed or
double-billed by Quest Diagnostics, Inc., Vineall Ambulance Co.
of Oneida County and WellCare of New York.

For more details, contact the Attorney General's Health Care
Bureau Hotline by phone: 1-800-771-7755 (option 3).

The investigation was handled by Assistant Attorney General
Heather Hussar under the direction of Health Care Bureau Chief
Joe Baker and Deputy Bureau Chief Troy Oechsner.


MERCK & CO.: French Users Join U.S. Suit Over Vioxx Side Effects
----------------------------------------------------------------
Approximately 50 French individuals, who claim that they
suffered cardiac problems after using the arthritis painkiller
Vioxx, are joining a U.S. lawsuit against the drug's maker,
Merck & Co., according to an association representing them, The
MediaCorp Press reports.

In a prepared statement, the Georges Alexandre Imbert
association said that an agreement with a U.S. law firm meant
their cases would be included in a class action suit being
readied against the pharmaceutical group.

In the United States, more than 2,400 lawsuits were filed, with
the first of the trials expected to begin soon. Many these suits
are to rely on an in-house study by Merck and later independent
tests showing that use of Vioxx was associated with a higher
risk of heart problems. Individual damages sought range up to $3
million dollars (2.5 million euros).


MISSOURI: 3 Travel Agencies Settle No-Call Law Violations Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Three Branson travel companies must pay the state of Missouri a
total of $22,500 and promise to comply fully with the state's No
Call law as part of an agreement announced in mid-June 2005 by
state Attorney General Jay Nixon.

Wilderness Point Services Unlimited, Destination Adventures and
Ozark Ticket and Travel allegedly made telemarketing calls to
Missourians on the state's No Call list, according to assurances
of voluntary compliance signed by St. Louis County Circuit Court
Judge Bernhardt C. Drumm Jr. As part of the settlement,
Wilderness Point will pay $7,500 to the Missouri Merchandising
Practices Revolving Fund. Destination Adventures and Ozark
Ticket and Travel, which are owned by the same individual, will
pay a total of $15,000 to the fund.

"Travel companies should help consumers relax and unwind, not
bother them incessantly with unwanted telemarketing calls," Mr.
Nixon said. "Missouri continues to be at the forefront in
eliminating unwanted telemarketing calls, and anyone who plans
to solicit in Missouri needs to realize we are serious about
enforcing our No Call law."

All three companies also must develop a plan to ensure
compliance with the No Call law and submit a copy of the plan to
Mr. Nixon's office. Future violations of the law could cost the
companies $5,000 per call.

Missouri residents who wish to register their telephone numbers
on the No Call list or file a complaint regarding a No Call
violation can do so by calling 1-866-NOCALL1.  To date, Mr.
Nixon's office has obtained more than $1,285,500 from businesses
that have violated Missouri's No Call law.  For more details,
contact Press Secretary Jim Gardner by Phone: 573-751-8844, by
Fax: 573-751-5818, by E-mail: communications@ago.mo.gov or visit
the Website: http://www.ago.state.mo.us.


MITSUBISHI MOTORS: Recalls 649 Vehicles Due to Defective Brakes  
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mitsubishi Motors North America, Inc. in cooperation with the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Office of
Defects Investigation (ODI) is voluntarily recalling about 3760
2006 Mitsubishi Eclipse vehicles due to defective service
brakes. NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID Number: 05V299000.

According to the ODI, on certain vehicles, one of four seals
inside the master cylinder may have been installed improperly.
As a result, the master cylinder may unexpectedly by-pass
braking force pressure and allow a longer than normal pedal
stroke. Should this condition occur, the braking distance
required to stop the vehicle will increase and could lead to a
vehicle crash.

As a remedy, dealers will the master cylinder assembly.   

For more details, contact Mitsubishi by Phone: 1-888-648-7820 or
the NHTSA Auto Safety Hotline: 1-888-327-4236.


MITSUBISHI MOTORS: Recalls Fuso Trucks Due to Faulty A/T Systems  
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mitsubishi Motors North America, Inc. in cooperation with the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Office of
Defects Investigation (ODI) is voluntarily recalling about
15,549 1999-2004 Mitsubishi Fuso FE639, 2001-04 Mitsubishi Fuso
FE640, 1999-2004 Mitsubishi Fuso FE649, 1999-2004 Mitsubishi
Fuso FG639 and 2003-04 Mitsubishi Fuso FH210 trucks due to
automatic transmission (A/T) system defects. NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID
Number: 05V304000.

According to the ODI, on certain medium trucks, rust build-up on
the automatic transmission (A/T) may cause the linkage to bind.
Rust buildup is accelerated in geographic locations that are
situated near large bodies of salt water, or in regions with
heavy snow/ice melting compound usage in winter months. The
effort required to operate the A/T shift control lever may
increase if the linkage binds due to rust build-up. The shift
control lever may become inoperative, or the transmission gear
actual gear selection at the transmission.

As a remedy dealers will install a modified A/T shift control
lever assembly.

For more details, contact Mitsubishi by Phone: 1-856-467-4500 or
the NHTSA Auto Safety Hotline: 1-888-327-4236.


MITSUBISHI MOTORS: Recalls Fuso Trucks For Faulty Engine System
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mitsubishi Motors North America, Inc. in cooperation with the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Office of
Defects Investigation (ODI) is voluntarily recalling about
15,307 1999-2004 Mitsubishi Fuso FE639, 2001-04 Mitsubishi Fuso
FE640, 1999-2004 Mitsubishi Fuso FE649 and 2003-04 Mitsubishi
Fuso FH210 trucks due to engine system defects. NHTSA CAMPAIGN
ID Number: 05V303000.

According to the ODI, on medium duty trucks, the rear engine
support bracket is composed of materials of insufficient
strength. Normal vehicle vibrations may cause the bracket to
crack. If the vehicle is continually operated in this condition,
the bracket may break apart, causing the transmission to drop
out of alignment with the drive train.

As a remedy dealers will install a modified rear engine support
bracket.

For more details, contact Mitsubishi by Phone: 1-856-467-4500 or
the NHTSA Auto Safety Hotline: 1-888-327-4236.


MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Federal Appeals Court OK's Employees' Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A federal appeals court cleared the way for an employee lawsuit
against Calhoun, Georgia-based Mohawk Industries Inc., which
claims that the nation's No. 2 carpet and rug manufacturer hired
illegal immigrants instead of legal workers to cut labor costs,
The MSNBC.com reports.

According to the original complaint that was filed 18 months ago
in U.S. District Court in Rome by four current and former Mohawk
workers, the company (NYSE: MHK) sent its employees "to the
United States border, including areas near Brownsville, Texas,
to recruit undocumented aliens that recently entered the United
States in violation of federal law" and transport them to North
Georgia.

It also alleges that Mohawk employees and other recruiters
provided these illegal immigrants with housing and found them
jobs with the company. The suit even charges that although some
of the illegal workers were arrested, Mohawk's supervisors
helped others evade detection.

In addition, the suit claims that even though Mohawk fired
several illegal immigrants after discovering them among its work
force during internal audits, the company soon rehired them
under different names. The suit also claims Mohawk destroyed
documents in an effort to conceal the fact that it employed
illegal workers.

One of Mohawk's objectives, according to the suit, was to
inflate the size of the pool from which it hires hourly workers,
thereby depressing wages. Another was to reduce the number and
expense of workers' compensation claims, since "illegal
employees are unlikely to file," the suit states.

The plaintiffs' legal team, which includes Atlanta's Bondurant
Mixson & Elmore LLP and noted North Georgia defense attorney
Bobby Lee Cook, argued the bulk of their case falls under the
state and federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
(RICO) acts. RICO primarily is used to prosecute tax evaders and
organized crime, but it also permits civil suits against those
who break immigration law, and the damages awarded can be triple
the norm.

In April 2004, district judge Harold Murphy shot down a request
by Mohawk to throw out the RICO claims. The company, which has
denied all charges, took the unusual step of appealing the case
to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals before legal proceedings
went any further.

On June 9, an appeals court panel finally ruled that the RICO
case could proceed. Following that decision, Carl Cannon, a
partner with Constangy Brooks & Smith LLC, the Atlanta-based law
firm representing Mohawk, stated that the defense would ask the
entire 12-member appeals court to review the decision and would
also consider taking things all the way to the U.S. Supreme
Court.

Bondurant Mixson partner Joshua Thorpe, told MSNBC.com that if
the district court is given the case again, the plaintiffs' team
will try to get it certified as a class action. He estimated
that the number of people working for the company in Georgia at
more than 20,000, spread across about two-dozen facilities.


NEW YORK: 3 Residents Face AG Lawsuit Due To Immigration Fraud
--------------------------------------------------------------
New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer filed a lawsuit against
three New York City residents who are alleged to have defrauded
dozens of immigrants out of at least $175,000 with false
promises of permanent residency status.

Pending a hearing on the lawsuit, the court ordered the
defendants - Angela Pasquino, Luis Cuero and Francisco Morales -
not to accept any fees for immigration services or solicit new
clients.

The lawsuit, filed in State Supreme Court in Manhattan, charges
that since 2001, the defendants operated a fraudulent
immigration services business out of a botanica (herbal remedy
store) called Eduang, which is located in Queens.  According to
the Attorney General's complaint, the defendants preyed upon the
largely immigrant clientele of the store, luring them into the
scheme with false promises of helping people obtain permanent
residency cards. The defendants guaranteed that they could
obtain green cards for applicants within five to eight months.
Typically defendants charged each consumer $4,000 up front, with
an additional $4,000 due upon receipt of the green card, the
lawsuit alleges.

The Attorney General's investigation revealed that the
defendants never submitted applications to federal immigration
authorities. In an effort to convince clients that applications
had been filed, the defendants fabricated excuses, such as
blaming the delay on legal changes in the wake of September 11th
and showing clients phony INS file numbers.  The defendants
refused to refund money to their victims.

Mr. Spitzer said, "Immigration consultant fraud is a serious
problem. We will not tolerate unscrupulous individuals who prey
upon the vulnerable by offering empty promises to immigrants who
are seeking a better life for themselves and their families."

Mr. Spitzer thanked the New York Association of Community
Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) for referring the matter to
his office.

ACORN Executive Director Bertha Lewis said, "Those who take
advantage of immigrants should be forewarned by the Attorney
General's action on this case. Fraud will not be tolerated and
they will be brought to justice."

New York State and New York City passed separate laws last year
to protect immigrant consumers seeking help with immigration
matters. Both laws prohibit immigration service providers from
engaging in the unauthorized practice of law, and both require
providers to post signs stating that they are not attorneys and
cannot give legal advice. The new state law also requires
written contracts with specific provisions, prohibits
consultants from making false statements or implying that they
have special influence with the immigration authorities, and
requires consultants to maintain a surety so that any consumers
harmed by the consultants can be compensated. Failure to comply
with these new laws can result in penalties up to $2,500 for
initial violations and up to $5,000 for each repeat violation
under the City law, and up to $7,500 for each violation of the
state law.

For more details, contact the New York State Attorney General's
Consumer Helpline by Phone: 1-800-771-7755 or download the
complaint form at the Office of the Attorney General's website:
http://www.oag.state.ny.us.   

The case is being handled by Assistant Attorney General Hilary
B. Klein of the Civil Rights Bureau, under the supervision of
Deputy Bureau Chief Natalie Williams and Bureau Chief Dennis
Parker, and Jose Perez, Deputy Bureau Chief of the Consumer
Frauds and Protection Bureau, under the supervision of Bureau
Chief Thomas Conway. Consumer Frauds Representative Marisol Lugo
assisted in the investigation.


NORFOLK SOUTHERN: SC Residents Consider Train Crash Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Graniteville residents are now debating whether to accept a
proposed settlement with Norfolk Southern that would cover un-
reimbursed property damages, evacuation and minor medical costs
that stemmed from a lawsuit over a January 6 train crash in
South Carolina.

Under the proposed settlement, residents who accept waive the
right to sue Norfolk Southern. The deadline to decide whether to
accept the seal or not is July 15.

One of the plaintiffs' attorneys though, Douglas Schmidt, a New
Orleans attorney who is also licensed in South Carolina, was
quick to point out to The State.com that as of the moment he has
about 700 clients who will likely opt out of the proposed
settlement. Mr. Schmidt, who opened an office in Graniteville
after the crash, told The State.com, "It just shocks the
conscience. When you've got the worst train wreck (of its kind
in the U.S.) since 1978, you shouldn't get the lowest settlement
since 1910."

However, according to Claire Xidis, another of the plaintiffs'
attorneys, since the Ascauga Lake Road claims center opened last
June 1, more than 600 households have filed claims. Ms. Xidis
works for Motley Rice, a Mount Pleasant firm that is one of the
lead plaintiff's firms in the proposed settlement.

Another Motley Rice lawyer, Frederick Baker, described the
settlement as fair and reasonable. He told The State.com, "We
have been able to turn this around very quickly so people can
get their money as soon as possible."

In the proposed settlement, the plaintiffs' lawyers are set to
receive 25 percent of the total paid claims. Their fees and
expenses would be paid separately by the railroad, though it is
still subject to court approval.

Mr. Schmidt told The State.com that he couldn't guarantee how
much his clients would receive if they file individual lawsuits,
but expected they would receive more money than under the
proposed settlement. He reasoned that the problem with the
current settlement is that people can develop serious medical
problems long after signing away their rights to sue the
railroad.

Mr. Baker though pointed out that the settlement wasn't designed
to cover wrongful death and serious injury cases.

Though Norfolk Southern spokeswoman Susan Terpay declined
comment on the specifics of the proposed settlement, the
railroad has previously said that it expects to pay about $35
million for all claims resulting from the wreck.

Asked about what he will do if the settlement pushes through,
Mr. Schmidt told The State.com that he might file a motion
asking a federal judge overseeing the proposed settlement to
extend the July 15 deadline to opt out of all or portions of the
proposed settlement. Mr. Baker though declined to comment on the
possibility of extending the opt-out deadline until he sees Mr.
Schmidt's motion.

U.S. District Judge Margaret Seymour is expected to decide
whether to give final approval to the settlement at an August 17
hearing. Settlement checks though would not be mailed before
then.

The precise number of eligible households is not known, but
according to Aiken County building official, Earnie Knight, an
estimated 750 houses are located within a one-mile-radius
evacuation zone. An unknown number of homes are located within
several smaller evacuation sections bordering the zone.

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

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


RALPH LAUREN: Mediation Continues in CA Employee Wardrobing Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mediation is still proceeding for class action filed against
Polo Ralph Lauren Corporation and its Polo Retail, LLC
subsidiary in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California.

On September 18, 2002, an employee at one of the Company's
stores filed a lawsuit, alleging violations of California
antitrust and labor laws.  The plaintiff purports to represent a
class of employees who have allegedly been injured by a
requirement that certain retail employees purchase and wear
Company apparel as a condition of their employment.  The
complaint, as amended, seeks an unspecified amount of actual and
punitive damages, disgorgement of profits and injunctive and
declaratory relief.  

The Company answered the amended complaint on November 4, 2002.
A hearing on cross motions for summary judgment on the issue of
whether the Company's policies violated California law took
place on August 14, 2003.  The Court granted partial summary
judgment with respect to certain of the plaintiff's claims, but
concluded that more discovery was necessary before it could
decide the key issue as to whether the Company had maintained
for a period of time a dress code policy that violated
California law.  The parties are engaged in settlement
discussions, and during Fiscal 2005, the Company recorded a
reserve for our estimate of the settlement cost, the amount of
which is not material.

On April 14, 2003, a second putative class action was filed in
the San Francisco Superior Court in California.  This suit,
brought by the same attorneys, alleges near identical claims to
those in the federal class action. The class representatives
consist of former employees and the plaintiff in the federal
court action.  Defendants in this class action include the
Company and its subsidiaries Polo Retail, LLC, Fashions Outlet
of America, Inc., Polo Retail, Inc. and San Francisco Polo, Ltd.
as well as a non-affiliated corporate defendant and two current
managers.  As in the federal action, the complaint seeks an
unspecified amount of actual and punitive restitution of monies
spent, and declaratory relief.  The state court class action has
been stayed pending resolution of the federal class action.

The suit is styled "Young v. Polo Retail, LLC et al., 3:02-cv-
04546-VRW," filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, under Judge Vaughn R. Walker.  
Lead plaintiff is Toni Young.  Lawyers for the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Daniel L. Feder, Law Offices of Daniel Feder, 807
         Montgomery Street San Francisco, CA 94133, Phone: 415-
         391-9476, Fax: 415-391-9432, E-mail:
         danfeder@pacbell.net

     (2) Joseph Lewis Fogel, Tonita Marie Helton, Richard B.
         Levy, Freeborn & Peters, 311 S. Wacker Drive, Suite
         3000 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: 312-360-6568, E-mail:
         jfogel@freebornpeters.com or thelton@freebornpeters.com

Lawyers for the defendants are:

     (i) Mary L. Guilfoyle and Joseph D. Miller, Epstein Becker
         & Green, P.C., One California Street, 26th Floor, San
         Francisco, CA 94111-5427, Phone: 415-398-3500, Fax:
         415-398-0955 or E-mail: mguilfoyle@ebglaw.com or
         jmiller@ebglaw.com

    (ii) Patrick R. Kitchin, Law Office of Patrick R. Kitchin,
         807 Montgomery Street, San Francisco, CA, Phone: (415)
         677-9058 E-mail: prk@investigationlogic.com


TE MORTGAGE: MO AG Nixon Gets TRO For No-Call List Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Missouri Attorney General Jay Nixon obtained in early June 2005
a temporary restraining order against a Springfield-based
mortgage services company for allegedly calling Missouri
residents who have registered for the state No Call list.

The lawsuit, filed in the City of St. Louis Circuit Court,
alleges that TE Mortgage Corporation, 1540 W. Battlefield,
formerly known as Liberty Financial, has made at least 300
telemarketing calls soliciting the sale of mortgage services to
households on the state's No Call list.

In issuing the restraining order, the court ordered the Company
to refrain from calling residential telephone numbers on the
list, and the company is prohibited from blocking phone numbers
from residential caller identification systems.

"For more than four years, Missouri has been at the forefront in
protecting the privacy of residents that do not want to be
annoyed by telemarketing calls," Mr. Nixon said.  "Our
aggressive enforcement efforts have made that possible, and we
will continue to enforce No Call to the fullest extent of the
law."

The lawsuit names the Company and its president, Terry E.
Elliott of Ozark, as defendants.  Mr. Nixon is asking the court
to order the company to pay civil penalties of up to $5,000 per
call, plus attorney's fees and all court costs.

Missouri residents not yet on the list can have their numbers
included or can file a complaint regarding a No Call violation
via the Attorney General's Web site or by calling 1-866-NOCALL1.  
To date, Nixon's office has obtained more than $1,263,000 from
businesses for violating Missouri's No Call law. More than 2
million Missouri households have signed up for the No Call list.  
For more details, contact Press Secretary Jim Gardner by Phone:
573-751-8844, by Fax: 573-751-5818, by E-mail:
communications@ago.mo.gov or visit the Website:
http://www.ago.state.mo.us.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Recalls 11,592 Trucks Due to Faulty Air Bag System  
----------------------------------------------------------------
Toyota Motor North America, Inc. in cooperation with the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Office of
Defects Investigation (ODI) is voluntarily recalling about
11,592 2005 Toyota Tacoma trucks due defects in air bag system.
NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID Number: 05V302000.

According to the ODI, on certain regular cab pickup trucks
equipped with a bench seat, the seat position and seat belt
buckle sensor connector pins are incorrectly positioned due to a
wire harness manufacturing process error. In this condition, the
seat position and seat belt buckle sensor may not function as
designed, which if the vehicle is involved in a crash, could
result in improper occupant restraint.

As a remedy, dealers will inspect the seat position and seat
belt fastening condition sensor connector. An additional sub-
wire harness will be installed to correct the connector pin
manufacturing error, if necessary.

For more details, contact Toyota by Phone: 1-800-431-4331 or the
NHTSA Auto Safety Hotline: 1-888-327-4236.


TWO'S COMPANY: Recalls 18T Sea Urchin Candles Due to Fire Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC), Two's Company Inc., of Mount Vernon, New York is
voluntarily recalling about 18,000 units of Sea Urchin Shell
Candles.

The candles can burn at an excessive height or cause the outer
shell to catch fire, posing a potential fire and burn hazard.
There have been four reports of the candles catching fire, but
no reports of property damage. No injuries have been reported.

These recalled candles are wax-filled sea urchin shells, and
were sold under item number 2659, which is found on the
packaging tag. The candles are about 2.5-inches in diameter.

Manufactured in the Philippines, the candles were sold in
various gift and specialty stores nationwide from April 2005
through June 2005 for about $5.

Consumers should stop using these candles and return them to the
place of purchase for a full refund.

Consumer Contact: For additional information, contact Two's
Company at (800) 896-7266 between 8:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. ET
Monday through Thursday, between 8:30 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Friday,
or visit the firm's Web site: http://www.twoscompany.com.


UTAH: Tax Unit To Refund $5.6 Mil To Floor Covering Purchasers
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Fourth District Tax Court in Utah approved a settlement
requiring the Utah State Tax Commission give refunds amounting
to $5.6 million to more than 120,000 Utahns who overpaid sales
taxes on purchases of floor coverings, The Daily Herald reports.

The suit was filed on behalf of consumers who overpaid sales
taxes on their floor covering purchases in Utah between December
22, 1997 and October 20, 2004.  A group of Utahns who suspected
they had been overcharged for floor coverings filed the suit,
which violations of the Utah Sales Tax Act.  The suit alleges as
many as 125 vendors including hardware stores, salespeople and
large chains including The Home Depot, Lowe's, R.C. Willey, and
Granite Furniture were mistakenly assessing its customers sales
taxes on purchases of flooring materials and installation.

Fourth District Tax Court Judge Lynn Davis approved the
settlement that requires the state Tax Commission to refund
eligible consumers.  The refunds average as little as $25 to as
large as about $26,000.  During the next two weeks, refund
checks will be mailed to eligible consumers and must be cashed
by November 30.  Those not cashed by that deadline will be
returned to the state's Unclaimed Property Division, the Daily
Herald reports.

"Under Utah law, floor coverings are deemed real property, or
property that's permanent, and such sales aren't subject to
sales taxes," Mark Buchi, a partner with the Salt Lake City law
office of Holme Roberts & Owen of Denver told the Herald. "Some
vendors were charging taxes on carpet, tile, linoleum sales, or
deliveries, and installation."

"These are charges that should never have been made, but the
Utah State Tax Commission and our accountants have worked hard
to educate vendors on the correct way to tax such sales in the
future," he said.

Because of such measures to fix the problem, error rates among
Utah flooring material stores have dropped, Mr. Buchi said.
"Once we brought the action, the Tax Commission issued a
clarifying bulletin to vendors in September 2001, so we've seen
compliance with the law improve significantly," he told the
Herald.

For other questions regarding the settlement, visit the Website:
http://www.hro.com,or E-mail: settlement@hro.com.  


WASTE MANAGEMENT: AZ Employees Sue Over Videotaping in Restrooms
----------------------------------------------------------------
Waste Management faces a lawsuit filed by almost 92 of its
employees in Phoenix, Arizona, alleging that people were
videotaped while using the restroom, the Associated Press
reports.

The employees filed the suit on June 21,2005 in Maricopa County
Superior Court in Arizona, alleging that the Company secretly
taped people in the act of "urinating or undressing" inside an
employees' restroom.  The suit also named eight supervisors and
managers who allegedly knew about the recordings.

Company lawyer Michael Manning told AP there was videorecording
equipment in the men's restroom of the company's building but it
was to catch vandals and drug users at night.  He said nobody
ever watched the recordings unless there were signs of vandalism
or drug use in the restroom first, which there were none after
the equipment was installed.  Mr. Manning added the lawsuit is
an attempt by union organizers to malign the national trash
collection company, which is based in Houston.



                Meetings, Conferences & Seminars




* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
-------------------------------------------------

July 21-22, 2005
ASBESTOS LITIGATION 101 CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, New Orleans
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

July 28-29, 2005
CLASS ACTION LITIGATION: PROSECUTION & DEFENSE STRATEGIES 2005
Practising Law Institute
New York, NY
Contact: 800-260-4PLI; 212-824-5710; info@pli.edu

August 18-19, 2005
PRODUCTS LIABILITY: PHARMACEUTICAL AND MEDICAL DEVICE ISSUES
ALI-ABA
San Francisco
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

August 25-26, 2005
CLASS ACTION FAIRNESS ACT OF 2005 AND OTHER EMERGING CLASS
ACTION ISSUES
ALI-ABA
Chicago
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

September 8-9, 2005
CLASS ACTION LITIGATION: PROSECUTION & DEFENSE STRATEGIES 2005
Practising Law Institute
Chicago, IL
Contact: 800-260-4PLI; 212-824-5710; info@pli.edu

September 19-20, 2005
NATIONAL ASBESTOS LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Four Seasons Hotel, Philadelphia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

September 26-27, 2005
CONSUMER FINANCE LITIGATION & CLASS ACTIONS
American Conferences
New York
Contact: http://www.americanconference.com

September 26-27, 2005
REINSURANCE SUMMIT
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Boston
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

September 26-27, 2005
WATER CONTAMINATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Marina del Rey Los Angeles
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

September 26-27, 2005
BAD FAITH LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Philadelphia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

September 27, 2005
ARBITRATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Boston
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

September 27-28, 2005
PREPARING FOR THE FUTURE OF FINITE AND STRUCTURED RISK
(RE)INSURANCE
American Conferences
New York
Contact: http://www.americanconference.com

October 2005
ASBESTOS LIABILITY FORUM
Mealey Publications
London, England
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

October 2005
LAW CLIENT DEVELOPMENT CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

October 6-7, 2005
ASBESTOS LITIGATION IN THE 21ST CENTURY
ALI-ABA
Chicago
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

October 7, 2005
REINSURANCE LAW & PRACTICE 2005: NEW LEGAL & BUSINESS
DEVELOPMENTS IN A CHANGING ENVIRONMENT
Practising Law Institute
New York, NY
Contact: 800-260-4PLI; 212-824-5710; info@pli.edu

October 17-18, 2005
BENZENE LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz Carlton, Phoenix
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

October 17-18, 2005
INSURANCE COVERAGE DISPUTES CONCERNING CONSTRUCTION DEFECTS
Mealey Publications
The Ritz Carlton, New Orleans
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

October 27-28, 2005
RETAIL LIABILITY CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Mandalay Bay Resort & Casino,Las Vegas
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

November 3-4, 2005
CONFERENCE ON LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY PRODUCTS
ALI-ABA
Washington DC
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

November 3-4, 2005
NATIONAL MANUFACTURING CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Coconut Grove, Miami
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

November 7, 2005
ALL SUMS: REALLOCATION & SETTLEMENT CREDITS CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton, Boston
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

November 7-8, 2005
LEXISNEXIS PRESENTS: COPYRIGHT - FROM TRADITIONAL CONCEPTS TO
THE DIGITAL AGE
Mealey Publications
Downtown Conference Center at Pace University, New York City
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

November 7-8, 2005
CONSTRUCTION DEFECT & MOLD LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz Carlton Phoenix, Phoenix
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

November 7-8, 2005
FUNDAMENTALS OF REINSURANCE LITIGATION & ARBITRATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Downtown Conference Center at Pace University, New York City
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

November 9, 2005
CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION DEFECT LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Four Seasons Resort, Santa Barbara
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

November 10-11, 2005
CALIFORNIA SECTION 17200 CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Four Seasons Resort Santa Barbara
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

November 14-15, 2005
SILICA LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton, New Orleans
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

November 17-18, 2005
ASBESTOS LIABILITY FORUM
Mealey Publications
London, England
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

November 17-18, 2005
Mass Torts Made Perfect Seminar
MassTortsMadePerfect.Com
Las Vegas, Nevada
Contact: 800-320-2227; 850-436-6094 (fax)

December 1-2, 2005
REINSURANCE GENERAL COUNSEL'S CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Fairmont Scottsdale Princess
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

December 5-6, 2005
ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton New York, Battery Park
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

December 6, 2005
ASBESTOS INSURANCE CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton New York, Battery Park
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

December 12-13, 2005
VIOXX LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Caesars Palace, Las Vegas
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

December 12-13, 2005
LEAD LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Pentagon City, Washington DC
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

February 16-17, 2006
ACCOUNTANTS' LIABILITY
ALI-ABA
Coral Gables, Miami, Florida
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

September 28-30, 2006
LITIGATING MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CLAIMS
ALI-ABA
Boston
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614


* Online Teleconferences
------------------------

July 01-30, 2005
HBA PRESENTS: AUTOMOBILE LITIGATION: DISPUTES AMONG
CONSUMERS, DEALERS, FINANCE COMPANIES AND FLOORPLANNERS
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

July 01-30, 2005
CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION DEFECT
LIABILITY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

July 01-30, 2005
HBA PRESENTS: ETHICS IN PERSONAL INJURY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

July 01-30, 2005
IN-HOUSE COUNSEL AND WRONGFUL DISCHARGE CLAIMS:
CONFLICT WITH CONFIDENTIALITY?
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

July 01-30, 2005
BAYLOR LAW SCHOOL PRESENTS: 2004 GENERAL PRACTICE INSTITUTE --
FAMILY LAW, DISCIPLINARY SYSTEM, CIVIL LITIGATION, INSURANCE
& CONSUMER LAW UPDATES
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

July 21, 2005
HEART DEVICE LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

July 28-29, 2005
CLASS ACTION LITIGATION: PROSECUTION & DEFENSE STRATEGIES 2005
(VIDEOCONFERENCE)
Practising Law Institute
Contact: 800-260-4PLI; 212-824-5710; info@pli.edu

TORTS PRACTICE: 18TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS #1
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

TORTS PRACTICE: 18TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS #2
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

TORTS PRACTICE: 18TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS #3
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

TORTS PRACTICE: 19TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 21ST ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS #1
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 21ST ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS #2
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 21ST ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS #3
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 22ND ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

PUNITIVE DAMAGES: MAXIMIZING YOUR CLIENT'S SUCCESS OR MINIMIZING
YOUR CLIENT'S EXPOSURE
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

EFFECTIVE DIRECT AND CROSS EXAMINAITON
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

STRATEGIC TIPS FOR SUCCESSFULLY PROPOUNDING & OPPOSING WRITTEN
DISCOVERY
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

CACI: CALIFORNIA'S NEW CIVIL JURY INSTRUCTIONS
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

ADVERSARIAL PROCEEDINGS IN ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCIES
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY - PANEL OF CREDITORS COMMITTEE MEMBERS
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

EXPERT WITNESS ADMISSIBILITY IN MOLD CASES
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

INTRODUCTION TO CLASS ACTIONS AND LARGE RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

NON-TRADITIONAL DEFENDANTS IN ASBESTOS LITIGATION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

PAXIL LITIGATION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS INVOLVING BAYCOL
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com  

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

SELECTION OF MOLD LITIGATION EXPERTS: WHO YOU NEED ON YOUR TEAM
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

SHOULD I FILE A CLASS ACTION?
LawCommerce.Com / Law Education Institute
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

THE EFFECTS OF ASBESTOS ON THE PULMONARY SYSTEM
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

THE STATE OF ASBESTOS LITIGATION: JUDICIAL PANEL DISCUSSION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

TRYING AN ASBESTOS CASE
LawCommerce.Com
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com  

THE IMPACT OF LORILLAR ON STATE AND LOCAL REGULATION OF TOBACCO
SALES AND ADVERSTISING
American Bar Association
Contact: 800-285-2221; abacle@abanet.org

________________________________________________________________
The Meetings, Conferences and Seminars column appears in the
Class Action Reporter each Wednesday. Submissions via
e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.


                 New Securities Fraud Cases


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


CONAGRA FOODS: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Lawsuit in TX
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of ConAgra
Foods, Inc. (NYSE: CAG) between September 18, 2003 and June 7,
2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

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

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


GUIDANT CORPORATION: Marc S. Henzel Files Securities Suit in IN
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Indiana on behalf of purchasers of Guidant
Corporation (NYSE: GDT) securities during the period between
December 15, 2004 and June 17, 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. The Company develops, manufacturers, and markets products
that focus on the treatment of cardiac arrhythmias, heart
failure, and coronary and peripheral disease, including
implantable defibrillator systems. The implantable defibrillator
systems are used to detect and treat abnormally fast heart
rhythms that could result in sudden cardiac death.

On December 15, 2004, Guidant management entered into a $24.5
billion merger deal with Johnson & Johnson. While the Company
pointed to its defibrillator business as a key component of that
deal, the Complaint alleges, it concealed from investors
significant un-addressed product defect and liability issues of
the Company's implantable defibrillator product lines. Although
life-threatening, defendants knew or consciously disregarded the
fact that these mechanical problems were difficult to
characterize and observe in implanted patients, making unlikely
that any temporary physical disablement in patients would be
attributed to device malfunction.

On June 17, 2005, the FDA issued a nationwide recall
notification, impacting Guidant's implantable defibrillators and
cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillators. Within that
notification, FDA advised the public that the malfunction of
Guidant's devices could lead to a serious, life-threatening
event for a patient. On this news, the Company's shares fell
$3.36, losing 4.5% percent of their value over the two trading
days following the FDA recall, closing at $70.33, on a combined
volume of over 25 million shares. As a result, Guidant investors
lost over $1.09 billion in the value of their shares as a result
of the surprise announcement of the FDA recall. Guidant's stock
price closed today at $63.90 on tremendous volume exceeding 49
million shares on further news and Company warnings concerning
problems with another of Guidant's implantable heart devices.

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Guidant knew
and concealed:

     (1) the serious health issues encountered by patients
         caused by the malfunctioning and defective nature of
         the defective devices;

     (2) the overwhelming threat to the deal Guidant had forged
         with Johnson & Johnson for the sale of the Company,
         including the threat to the ability of insiders to
         profit as a result of stock sales during the Class
         Period;

     (3) the lack and insufficiency of communications to
         healthcare providers and patients regarding the
         defective nature of the Company's defibrillator
         products, even when adequate communications were
         essential to protect the lives of its implant patients;
         and

     (4) the troubling decision to await overwhelming negative
         media accounts before taking affirmative actions
         regarding the Company's defibrillator products.

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


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

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

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

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

     (2) that prior to the IPO, market demand had indicated that
         the proper price for the IPO was only $22 per share;
   
     (3) that to "create a market" and thereby manufacture an
         appearance that Lazard's IPO was fairly and properly
         priced, Goldman arranged to sell millions of shares to
         hedge funds with side agreements that they could
         immediately "flip the shares" and that Goldman would
         immediately buy them back;

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

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

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

For more details, contact Jack G. Fruchter, Esq. of Abraham,
Fruchter & Twersky, LLP, One Penn Plaza, Suite 2805, New York,
NY, 10119, Phone: (212) 279-5050 or (800) 440-8986, Fax:
(212) 279-3655, E-mail: jfruchter@aftlaw.com.


NAVARRE CORPORATION: Lockridge Grindal Lodges Stock Suit in MN
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P. announces that
it filed class action lawsuit on Monday, June 13 on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Navarre Corporation ("Navarre"
or the "Company") (Nasdaq:NAVR) between July 23, 2003 and May
31, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period") seeking to pursue
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act").

The action is pending in the United States District Court for
the District of Minnesota against defendants Navarre, Eric H.
Paulson (CEO, President, Chairman) and James Gilbertson (CFO). A
copy of the complaint filed in this action is available from the
Court.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period
defendants reported quarter after quarter of record results that
were purportedly achieved by successful execution of the
Company's business strategy. As particularized in the complaint,
defendants' class period representations concerning the
Company's financial results and its business were materially
false and misleading for the following reasons:

     (1) Defendants had materially inflated Navarre's reported
         income by failing to properly recognize expenses
         relating to executive deferred compensation;

     (2) Defendants' seeming success was attributable, in
         material part, to improper accounting;

     (3) The Company's financial results, reported in press
         releases and SEC filings were not, contrary to
         defendants' express representations, prepared in
         accordance with generally accepted accounting
         principles;

     (4) The certifications signed by defendants Paulson and
         Gilbertson in Navarre's SEC filings, attesting to the
         accuracy of the financial results included therein,
         were false because the financial results were
         artificially inflated through improper accounting;

     (5) during the third fiscal quarter of 2005, Navarre
         improperly recognized millions in deferred tax benefits
         as income; and

     (6) Navarre was experiencing a significant slowdown in
         demand for its anti-virus software products that was
         materially and negatively impacting its overall
         business.

On May 31, 2005, Navarre issued a press release announcing that
it would postpone release of its fourth quarter and fiscal year
2005 results pending an accounting review focused on the
recognition of deferred compensation expense for payments made
to defendant Paulson and the classification of fiscal 2005 tax
items. In response to this announcement, the price of Navarre
common stock dropped from $9.00 per share on May 31, 2005 to
$8.02 per share on June 1, 2005, a one-day drop of 10.8% on
unusually heavy trading volume.

The complaint further alleges that defendants were motivated to
commit the wrongdoing alleged therein so that Navarre insiders,
including defendants Paulson and Gilbertson, could sell their
personally held Navarre shares at artificially inflated prices.
During the Class Period, insiders sold a total of 1,269,000
shares, for total proceeds of $16,183,254.58.

For more details, contact Gregg M. Fishbein, Esq. or Robert J.
Linsmier of Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., 100 Washington
Avenue South, Suite 2200, Minneapolis, MN, 55401, Phone:
(612) 339-6900, E-mail: gmfishbein@locklaw.com or
rjlinsmier@locklaw.com.

                            *********


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

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

                            *********


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

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

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

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

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

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

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *