CAR_Public/050711.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, July 11, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 135

                         Headlines

ALLEGHENY ENERGY: Five States Sue For Clean Air Act Violations
CALIFORNIA: Reality TV Writers Files Suit, Claims Exploitation
CANADIAN PACIFIC: Lawyer Seeks Participants in Derailment Suit
CHATTEM INC.: Plaintiffs Fail To Re-File DEXATRIM Consumer Suit
CHATTEM INC.: Faces Consumer Fraud Suit V. Dexatrim in CA Court

CINCINATTI BELL: KY Suit Over Wireless Roaming Charges Settled
COCA-COLA CO.: Shareholders Sue for Breach of Fiduciary Duties
COCA-COLA ENTERPRISES: Receives $48.3M of Corn Syrup Settlement
COMERICA INC.: MI Court OKs Settlement For Shareholders' Suits
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Lead Contamination Lawsuit V. WASA Dropped

FLORIDA: Suit Filed Over Neurontin Prescription Kickback Scheme
FORD MOTOR: Recalls 10,061 Sport Vehicles Due to Damaged Tires  
FORD MOTOR: Recalls 10,061 Sport Utility Vehicles For Crash Risk
GRACO CHILDREN'S: Recalls Various Strollers Due to Injury Hazard
GUIDANT CORPORATION: TX Resident Lodges Suit Over Defibrillator

HAWAII: ACLU Lodges Lawsuit Over Residency Restrictions on Jobs
KANSAS: Family Launches Wrongful Death Suit V. BTK Serial Killer
MASTEC INC.: FL Employees Launch Suit Over Withheld Overtime Pay
MASTERFOODS AUSTRALIA: No Link Between Chocolate and Illnesses
MERCK & CO.: Seeks To Postpone Vioxx Wrongful Death Trial in TX

PEEKAY INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Raisins Due to Undeclared Sulfites
TELCOLLECT INC.: To Resolve FTC Unfair Billing Charges Lawsuit
TENNESSEE: Attorney General Sets Deadline For Hytrin Settlement
TEXAS: High Court to Hear Gas Station Owners' Price-Fixing Case
UNOCAL CORPORATION: Shareholders Launch Lawsuit V. Chevron Offer

WASHINGTON: Kitsap County Victorious in $4M "Impact Fees" Suit

                 New Securities Fraud Cases

AUTHENTIDATE HOLDING: Marc S. Henzel Files Securities Suit in NY
CARRIER ACCESS: Marc S. Henzel Files Securities Fraud Suit in CO
EXIDE TECHNOLOGIES: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Suit in NJ
LAZARD LTD.: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
NEWMONT MINING: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Lawsuit in CO

NEWMONT MINING: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Fraud Suit in CO
NEWMONT MINING: Marc S. Henzel Files Securities Fraud Suit in CO
OCA INC.: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in LA
OCA INC.: Lockridge Grindal Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in LA
OCA INC.: Mager White Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in E.D. LA

OCA INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Fraud Suit in LA
POSSIS MEDICAL: Marc S. Henzel Files Securities Fraud Suit in MN
R&G FINANCIAL: Glancy Binkow Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
TIBCO SOFTWARE: Scott + Scott Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CA


                        *********


ALLEGHENY ENERGY: Five States Sue For Clean Air Act Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Allegheny Energy, Inc. and several of its subsidiaries face
lawsuits filed by Pennsylvania and four other states, alleging
violations of the federal Clean Air Act and state environmental
regulations, the Associated Press reports.

Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Maryland, New Jersey and New York
filed the suit in the United States District Court in
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, alleging that the Company modified
three western Pennsylvania coal fired-power plants without
getting the required approval of the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection.  The modifications were done to extend
the life of the plants but by circumventing the approval
process, the Company avoided having to install modern pollution
controls.

"This aggressive action is necessary to protect our health
because the federal government has unconscionably orphaned this
case and abandoned environmental protection," Connecticut
Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said in a statement,
according to AP.

Pennsylvania officials told AP that investigations by the
federal Environmental Protection Agency found power plants were
making modifications without updating pollution controls, but
the Bush administration dropped investigations and enforcement.  

"The states are picking up where the federal government has left
off in terms of enforcement," Kurt Knauss, a spokesman for the
state's Department of Environmental Protection, told AP.

The EPA did not immediately return a message seeking comment, AP
reports.

The Greensburg-based electric utility said it doesn't feel a
lawsuit was necessary, given that it is working to resolve
pending litigation in West Virginia that deals with the same
issues.  The company said it believes it is in compliance with
state and federal regulations.  "We consider this new action
unnecessary, given our pending lawsuit in West Virginia and our
plans to reduce the absolute level of emissions at our power
plants," Paul J. Evanson, Allegheny Energy's chairman, president
and chief executive officer, told AP.  "We are moving forward as
rapidly as our financial condition allows."

Mr. Knauss said discussions with the Company were amicable, but
that state officials felt progress was too slow in coming.  "In
the face of clear violations of law, we need to move to a
defined, enforceable schedule to get these facilities cleaned
up," Mr. Knauss told AP. "That's what we hope to achieve by
going to court."

The other states claim the plants contribute to acid rain and
smog in their states.  "The allegation is that because these
three power plants ... are opening without pollution controls,
the air pollution coming out of these stacks drifts on the
prevailing winds and comes into New York," Marc Violette, a
spokesman for New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, told AP.


CALIFORNIA: Reality TV Writers Files Suit, Claims Exploitation
--------------------------------------------------------------
In a bid to escalate its organizing campaign against reality TV
producers, the union representing Hollywood writers recently
unveiled a lawsuit initiated by a dozen scribes who allege they
were denied overtime and meal breaks and ordered to falsify time
cards, The Los Angeles Times reports.

The suit, which was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court,
seeks class-action status. It is the latest effort by the
Writers Guild of America, West, to keep up the pressure on
production companies and networks involved in the burgeoning
reality TV arena.

According to Daniel Petrie Jr., president of the WGA, West,
"These violations of California law are no mere accounting
errors. They are deliberately designed to deny these writers the
basic rights and legal protections."

The 12 writers, who filed the suit, allege that the violations
took place on eight shows, including "The Bachelor" "The
Bachelorette," "Are You Hot?" and "The Real Gilligan's Island."  
They named as defendants, the networks airing the shows,
including ABC, CBS, TBS and the WB, along with production
companies Next Entertainment, Telepictures Productions,
Syndicated Productions and Dawn Syndicated Productions.

The defendants would not comment on the lawsuit, nor would
Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers President J.
Nicholas Counter, who is the industry's chief labor negotiator.
Although he declined to comment on the complaint, an ABC
spokesman said, "We believe ABC is in compliance with all
applicable laws."

One of the plaintiffs in the suit, writer Harmon Sharp claims
that he never received any overtime pay as a story producer on
"The Bachelor" or "The Real Gilligan's Island," even though he
routinely worked 60 hours a week. He also claims that he was
paid a flat weekly rate of $2,000 regardless of how many hours
he worked, including putting in 12- to 18-hour days. He told the
Los Angeles Times, "We were asked to work whatever it took,
without any conversation. This is just a perfect example of how
we're being exploited."

Last month, the guild went public with its organizing drive,
announcing that more than 75% of writers on TV reality shows had
signed cards asking to be represented by the union. Their
organizing drive, according to WGA officials, seeks to broadly
define as reality TV storytellers such jobs as editors. In
reality TV, the work of editors is considered crucial because
they craft coherent, dramatic story lines from raw footage.  
That effort by the WGA though has sparked a potential turf war
with the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees,
an umbrella labor group that includes editors.

Though acknowledging the concern, Mr. Petrie downplayed the
possibility of a jurisdictional fight saying, "We have no desire
whatsoever to be in conflict with other unions and would be more
than happy to cooperate."

WGA officials contend in their organizing drive that because
writers are deeply involved in lucrative game shows, working
behind the scenes to craft game formats, coach contestants and
create dramatic story lines, they should get pay and benefits
similar to those of writers on conventional programs, the Los
Angeles Times reports.  Industry representatives, however,
dispute allegations that workers are subject to sweatshop
conditions and instead argue that writing for a reality show
aren't tantamount to working on a scripted program.


CANADIAN PACIFIC: Lawyer Seeks Participants in Derailment Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A lawyer for plaintiffs in a class action filed against Canadian
Pacific Railway, Ltd. is seeking more participants in the suit,
saying that he hopes every household in Ward County, North
Dakota will soon be notified that it might have a claim stemming
from a derailment and chemical spill three years ago, Money
Sense reports.

On January 18,2002, a Canadian Pacific freight train derailed on
the edge of Minot and released roughly 290,000 gallons of the
farm fertilizer. The toxic fumes from the spill killed one man
and injured more than 1,600 people.  Federal investigators
described the tank car ruptures as "catastrophic." The National
Transportation Safety Board said the wreck was caused by
inadequate track maintenance and inspections, a conclusion
disputed by the Company.

Three Minot residents filed the lawsuit on behalf of themselves
and other affected residents a week after the derailment.  Mike
Miller, the Fargo attorney whose firm represents the three
plaintiffs and roughly 900 other Minot residents, said the case
could bring 15,000 to 20,000 Minot residents into the lawsuit,
an earlier Class Action Reporter story (November 15,2004)
reports.

Mr. Miller released a notification plan for the class, which
includes radio and newspaper announcements and direct mailing.  
It is awaiting the approval of U.S. District Judge Daniel
Hovland, who in May granted class-action status to the lawsuit.  
"We don't know yet how large the class will be, but it certainly
will be in the 10,000 to 20,000 range," Mr. Miller told Money
Sense.

The Company sought permission to appeal Judge Hovland's ruling,
but the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last month denied the
request with no comment, clerk Michael Gans told Money Sense.

Mr. Miller said the railway has informally objected to his
proposed method for notifying potential claimants.  "I really
don't know what Canadian Pacific's problem is with what we've
proposed," he told Money Sense. "All we're trying to do is get
notice out."

Canadian Pacific spokeswoman Laura Baenen said the railroad will
file a formal objection.  "This is far more notice than is
required and will result in confusion among the public as to who
is in the class and who is not," she told Money Sense.


CHATTEM INC.: Plaintiffs Fail To Re-File DEXATRIM Consumer Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs failed to re-file a class action against Chattem,
Inc., seeking certification of a class consisting of New York
residents who have purchased DEXATRIM Results or DEXATRIM
Natural since January 2000.  

The suit was initially filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York.  The suit seeks
compensatory and punitive damages arising out of allegedly false
advertising in connection with the sale of DEXATRIM Results and
DEXATRIM Natural products.  None of the plaintiffs in this
action alleged personal injury as a result of the ingestion of a
DEXATRIM product.

On March 29, 2004, a stipulation was submitted to the court
dismissing the case on jurisdictional grounds.  Pursuant to the
stipulation, the plaintiffs may re-file the class action in New
York state court.  These plaintiffs have not re-filed this
lawsuit as of July 1, 2005.

The suit is styled "Eure, et al v. Chattem, Inc., case no. 1:03-
cv-08518-PKL," filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, under Judge Peter K. Leisure.  
Representing the plaintiffs is Samuel Hirsch, 350 Fifth Avenue,
Suite 2418, New York, NY 10118, Phone: (212) 947-3800.  
Representing the Company are Barbra Spalten Levy, McCarter and
English (NJ), Four Gateway Center, 100 Mulberry Street, Newark,
NJ 07102, Phone: (973)622-4444, Fax: (973) 624-7070.


CHATTEM INC.: Faces Consumer Fraud Suit V. Dexatrim in CA Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chattem, Inc. faces a class action filed in the Superior Court
of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, seeking
injunctive relief, compensatory damages and attorney fees
against it under the California Business and Professions Code.

The suit arose out of alleged deceptive, untrue or misleading
advertising and breach of express warranty in connection with
the manufacturing, labeling, advertising, promotion and sale of
certain DEXATRIM Natural products. The lawsuit seeks
certification of a class consisting of all persons who purchased
DEXATRIM Natural in California during the four-year period prior
to the filing of the lawsuit up to the date of any judgment
obtained. The plaintiff has stipulated that the amount in
controversy with individual claim and each member of the
proposed class in the action does not exceed $75.


CINCINATTI BELL: KY Suit Over Wireless Roaming Charges Settled
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cincinnati Bell reached a tentative settlement to a lawsuit
filed in Northern Kentucky over the telecommunication company's
billing practices for cellular roaming charges, The Cincinnati
Enquirer reports.

Colleen Hegge, a lawyer at the firm of Statman, Harris, Siegel
and Eyrich, told the Enquirer "We're extremely pleased that
Kentucky consumers are being protected." She filed the suit in
January for Covington residents Teresa and Jeff Berberich.

In their suit the coupled claimed that Cincinnati Bell's
wireless division improperly billed them for roaming charges
under a plan that they believe allowed free roaming.
Additionally, they also claimed the company would only correct
charges that the couple found and would not refund for other
incorrect charges or for the taxes on any improper charges.

Jill Cobb, a Bell spokeswoman, confirmed that a settlement,
which mirrors last month's resolution of a similar suit in Ohio,
had been reached but declined further comment since the case is
still pending in the courts, The Enquirer reports.

The Kentucky suit was awaiting a decision by Kenton Circuit
Judge Douglas Stephens over whether to grant it class action
status. Now the Kentucky case is being consolidated with the
Ohio suit.   The Ohio suit was filed last October in Hamilton
County Common Pleas Court. Judge Robert Ruehlman has given
preliminary approval to the settlement ending it, subject to a
fairness hearing in September.

The settlement of the two cases calls for the creation of a fund
to be capped at $6 million for affected customers to receive up
to $50 apiece in vouchers for certain Bell services. It also
allows customers who can demonstrate that they had roaming
charges in excess of $100 to receive up to half the money they
paid in cash instead of the $50 voucher.


COCA-COLA CO.: Shareholders Sue for Breach of Fiduciary Duties
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Coca-Cola Co. faces a class action filed by several of its
shareholders, alleging the administrators of the Company's
401(k) plan breached their fiduciary duty, the Atlanta Business
Journals reports.

In May, two heirs of a fortune in Coke stock sued SunTrust Banks
Inc. for failing to diversify their trusts out of the soft drink
giant's stock.  The plaintiffs in the suit alleged that the
administrators failed to reduce the amount of company stock in
the plan and subsequent losses of 401(k) plan participants.

The lawsuit claims the defendants "breached their fiduciary
duties because they knew or should have known that the company's
securities were not a prudent investment," among other
allegations.  Plaintiffs allege that at one point, Coca-Cola
common stock accounted for as much as 69 percent of the total
invested assets of the retirement plan.  The suit covers the
period between May 13, 1997, and April 18, 2005.

Coke's stock price has languished in recent years. A Coke
spokesman said the company had not been served with the
complaint and could not comment on it, the Atlanta Business
Journal reports.  The plaintiffs' case is being handled by the
Garber Law Firm P.C. in Atlanta and Milberg Weiss Bershad &
Schulman LLP out of Florida.


COCA-COLA ENTERPRISES: Receives $48.3M of Corn Syrup Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Coca-Cola Enterprises Inc., the largest bottler of Coca-Cola
soft drinks, said that it received a $48.3 million from the
settlement of a price fixing lawsuit against several big corn
processors, The Reuters News Agency reports.

In the class action suit, which was settled last year, food and
beverage companies accused processors including Archer Daniels
Midland Co. and Cargill Inc. of fixing the price of high-
fructose corn syrup (HFCS), which is used to sweeten soda and
other foods.

According to the company's filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission, the amount CCE received will be recorded as
a reduction in its cost of sales for the second quarter of 2005.
It also said in the filed that the amount represents about 90
percent of the company's anticipated total settlement. It also
noted that the remaining funds are expected to be received in
late 2005 or early 2006.


COMERICA INC.: MI Court OKs Settlement For Shareholders' Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Comerica Incorporated (NYSE: CMA) stated that the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan preliminarily
approved the settlement of two shareholder class action lawsuits
that were filed against Comerica in October 2002. The lawsuits
followed an October 2, 2002, announcement of an incremental
provision for credit losses, a related restatement of financial
statements for the second quarter of 2002, and goodwill
impairment for Comerica's Munder Capital Management subsidiary.

Comerica agreed to the settlement without admitting any
liability, and is settling the cases to avoid the risk and cost
of litigation. If the settlement receives final judicial
approval, Comerica will pay a total of $21 million in full
settlement of such lawsuits. The payment will not affect 2005
earnings and will largely be funded by insurance proceeds, with
the remainder coming from previously established reserves.

The court directed that a final hearing on the settlement be
held on October 24, 2005. Further details will be disclosed in a
notice of settlement that will be sent to class members shortly.

For more details, contact Sharon R. McMurray or Wayne J. Mielke,
Media Contacts of Comerica Inc., Phone: +1-313-222-4881 or
+1-313-222-4732 OR Helen L. Arsenault or Paul E. Burdiss,
Investor Contacts of Comerica Inc., Phone: +1-313-222-2840.


DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Lead Contamination Lawsuit V. WASA Dropped
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit initiated last year against the D.C.
Water and Sewer Authority over its management of lead
contamination was recently dropped because the utility took
adequate steps to improve water quality, according to the
attorney for the two Capitol Hill families that filed the
litigation, The Washington Post reports.

In a prepared statement, WASA officials said that the dropping
of the suit was a clear sign that they made progress in reducing
the risk of lead in drinking water. They also said that the
lawsuit cost them more than $1 million to defend.

Filed in D.C. Superior Court in March 2004, the suit claimed
that utility officials knew that the drinking water had high
lead levels in 2001 but failed to protect the public, which
found out only in early 2004. It sought damages on behalf of
pregnant women, parents and property owners who have spent money
for filters, lead pipe replacement and other costs.

In June 2004 though, the Environmental Protection Agency and
WASA signed a consent agreement in which the utility agreed to
take a variety of steps to address the high levels of lead found
in thousands of D.C. homes. Reciprocally, the WASA board later
vowed to replace all the lead pipes on public property by 2010
with the city's water treatment plants, which is being run by
the Army Corps of Engineers, using a chemical intended to
prevent lead from leaching off pipes.

Additionally, WASA officials said that the cost of defending the
utility against the lawsuit included expenses for outside
lawyers and experts. Officials also said they have filed an
insurance claim and according to spokeswoman Michelle Quander-
Collins, the deductible is $1 million.

WASA's General Manager, Jerry N. Johnson, also said in a
statement, "It has been WASA's position all along that this is a
regulatory issue and one that the authority is committed to
aggressively address with good results for our customers and the
general public."

James E. Berger, a lawyer in the D.C. office of Paul, Hastings,
Janofsky & Walker, told the Washington Post that he and his
clients agreed voluntarily to drop the lawsuit late last month
because it had achieved its goals. He also pointed out, "The
purpose of the litigation was to improve the drinking water, and
we think that's happened. We don't see any need to have private
litigation that's going to cost them money. We'd rather spend
that money on having them improve the drinking water."

The lawsuit was the first one brought against the utility since
the lead contamination was disclosed, and utility attorneys had
argued that it would impose excessive costs even as the problem
was being addressed.


FLORIDA: Suit Filed Over Neurontin Prescription Kickback Scheme
---------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit was initiated by two Florida plaintiffs, one a Lee
County resident, against Pfizer Inc., claiming the
pharmaceutical giant employed a kickback scheme with doctors to
prescribe an anti-epilepsy medication for off-label use that can
increase risk of cancer and other permanent health problems, The
Naples Daily News reports.

The lawsuit, which seeks class action status, was originally
filed February in Lee County Circuit Court but was removed and
filed recently in federal court in Fort Myers.

Another defendant in the suit is Eckerd Corporation, which the
suit accuses of failing to stop the flow of improperly
prescribed Neurontin, in part because of its own profit at
Eckerd pharmacies, and therefore placed its own customers at a
health risk.

In their suit, Joan Craft, 59 and Ronald Russell of Hillsborough
County claim Pfizer employed a kickback scheme with physicians
who prescribed Neurontin for purposes not approved by the Food
and Drug Administration, for which there is no scientific
evidence that the drug is safe and effective for other uses.

The plaintiffs are seeking the establishment of a medical
monitor program for class action plaintiffs who will require
continuous medical monitoring and treatment.

According to the suit, the kickback practice and other
questionable marketing techniques were initiated by Parke-Davis,
the maker of the anti-epilepsy drug and a division of Warner-
Lambert. It goes on to state that Pfizer acquired Warner-Lambert
in 2000 and is responsible for any acts or omissions of Parke-
Davis prior to the acquisition.

In a prepared statement, Pfizer spokesman Bryant Haskins
responded to the suit by saying, "We've reviewed the allegations
in this case and believe that the claim for medical monitoring
is supported neither by good medical practice nor by the law.
Physicians have relied on Neurontin to treat millions of
patients since its approval in 1994. Pfizer is not aware of any
medical issues involving the use of Neurontin that would justify
the medical monitoring called for in this lawsuit."

The FDA approved Neurontin as an add-on drug in the event a
primary anti-epilepsy medication is not effective. With a
limited potential market of just two million people living with
epilepsy in the United States and a patent expiration set for
December 1998, Parke-Davis decided in 1995 to increase Neurontin
sales by marketing the drug for other purposes.

Additionally, the suit states that rather than submit for FDA
approval to market the drug for other purposes, Parke-Davis
decided to market it illegally because of the significant profit
potential for off-label use, such as for bipolar disorder,
seizures, pain, attention deficit disorder, migraines, restless
leg syndrome, drug and alcohol withdrawal, and other uses.

While it is legal for physicians to write prescriptions for a
medication's use other than what it was approved for by the FDA,
the promotion by a drug manufacturer of off-label uses is
illegal, the suit pointed out.

Nonetheless, the suit goes on to state that Parke-Davis hosted
"consultants" meetings with physicians and funneled illegal
payments to them for writing off-label prescriptions of the
drug. At these events, according to the suit, doctors attended
dinners and were paid to listen to presentations about off-label
usage of the drug, which were done by company employees or
physicians hired to make pitches for the drug. The suit also
states that at these events, Parke-Davis got physicians to sign
consulting agreements and later tracked their prescribing habits
to see if they had increased prescribing of Neurontin for which
they were paid.

Often the consultants meetings were held in Florida with all
hotels and other expenses covered by Parke-Davis, the suit
states. Dozens of these consultants meetings were held from 1995
to 1997, including one on Marco Island in early February 1996,
another on Marco in April 1996, and a third event was held in
Naples, whose date was not included in the action.

No physicians were named in the lawsuit and it does not disclose
how many doctors accepted a $200 honorarium for just showing up
at these events or accepted some other form of payment for
writing off-label prescriptions for the drug.

The suit also states that Parke-Davis made kickbacks to doctors
to have them come to continuing medical education seminars about
off-label use of Neurontin. These events were set up to appear
to qualify for an exception to the FDA's "off-label" marketing
of a drug, whereby physicians are allowed to learn of other uses
for drugs at independent seminars. In this case, though,
according to the suit, Parke-Davis controlled all aspects of
these continuing medical education seminars despite the
involvement of a third-party organization.

Moreover, the suit states that the continuing medical education
seminars were accredited by continuing education organizations,
which virtually meant that physicians who accepted the Parke-
Davis junkets did not have to pay tuition and spend time
fulfilling licensure obligations of continuing education by
attending truly independent education programs.

Other ways that Parke-Davis recruited physicians was to pay them
grants to host their own Neurontin speaking events, and the
company hired "medical liaisons" to promote the drug, who were
in effect surrogate sales representatives that made
misrepresentations about their medical background, even
representing themselves as researchers, according to the
lawsuit.

Another technique was to pay doctors to lend their names to
scientific articles that were actually prepared and written by
third parties retained by the company. False statements made by
Parke-Davis employees to doctors included that scientific
evidence exists that the drug is effective for the off-label
uses promoted but which is not the case, according to the
lawsuit.

The company also made payments to its own employees to stay
silent about the practices and trained employees how to avoid
detection of their activities by the FDA, the lawsuit says.

In 2000, Warner-Lambert reported that more than 78 percent of
Neurontin prescriptions had been for conditions other than
epilepsy. According to the lawsuit, sales of the drug in 2000
were $1.3 billion and later rose to $1.7 billion.


FORD MOTOR: Recalls 10,061 Sport Vehicles Due to Damaged Tires  
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ford Motor Company in cooperation with the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration's Office of Defects Investigation
(ODI) is voluntarily recalling about 10061 units of both 2006
Ford Expedition and Lincoln Navigator vehicles due to damaged
tires. NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID Number: 05V310000.

According to the ODI, on certain sport utility vehicles, the
left hand side tires may have damage at the center tread. The
tread damage was caused by a section of steel fingerplate on a
conveyor that had become sharp over time due to ware. Overtime,
the damage may be sufficient to allow belt corrosion, which
could ultimately lead to a tread separation, which could result
in a crash.

As a remedy, the dealer will have all four tires inspected (to
ensure inspection of the left hand side tires that may have been
rotated to the other side of the vehicle) for tire tread damage
and, if necessary, replace the damaged tire.

For more details, contact Ford by Phone: 1-800-392-3673 or the
NHTSA Auto Safety Hotline: 1-888-327-4236 or 1-800-424-9153, Web
site: http://www.safecar.gov.


FORD MOTOR: Recalls 10,061 Sport Utility Vehicles For Crash Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ford Motor Company is cooperating with the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) by voluntarily recalling
10,061 sport utility vehicles (SUV), namely:

     (1) FORD / EXPEDITION, model 2006

     (2) LINCOLN / NAVIGATOR, model 2006

On these sport utility vehicles, the left hand side tires may
have damage at the center tread.  The tread damage was caused by
a section of steel fingerplate on a conveyor that had become
sharp over time due to wear.  Over time, the damage may be
sufficient to allow belt corrosion, which could ultimately lead
to a tread separation, which could result in a crash.

Dealers will have all four tires inspected (to ensure inspection
of the left hand side tires that may have been rotated to the
other side of the vehicle) for tire tread damage, and if
necessary, replace the damaged tire.  The recall is expected to
begin on July 15,2005.  For more details, contact the Company by
Phone: 1-800-392-3673 or contact the NHTSA's vehicle safety
hotline: 1-888-327-4236 (TTY 1-800-424-9153), or visit the
Company's Website: http://www.safercar.gov


GRACO CHILDREN'S: Recalls Various Strollers Due to Injury Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC), Graco Children's Products Inc., of Exton, Pennsylvania
is voluntarily recalling about 1 million units of Graco Duo
Tandem Strollers and 142T units of Graco MetroLite Strollers.

These strollers can fail to latch properly and unexpectedly
collapse while in use. This can result in broken bones, cuts,
bumps, bruises and other injuries to young children riding in
the stroller and consumers pushing the stroller. For the Duo
Tandem strollers, Graco has received reports of 306 collapses
causing 230 reported injuries, including a broken arm, and a cut
to a child requiring 46 stitches.

For the MetroLite strollers, Graco has received reports of 223
stroller collapses causing 34 reported injuries including 18
bumps and bruises to the head or body. Other injuries associated
with both strollers include cuts, scrapes, scratches, pinched
fingers and muscle pulls.

The recalled Duo Tandem strollers, manufactured between 1994 and
1999, have two seats, one seat in front and one seat in back.
The strollers have a blue, white or green plastic and steel
frame. They have four wheels in the front and two wheels in the
rear. The cloth seats and tops have various colors and patterns.
There is a label with the model and serial number on the
stroller's frame. Only strollers with serial numbers and model
numbers listed below are included in this recall.

Graco Duo Tandem Model Numbers = Serial Number Range
     (1) 7950, 7955, 7960, 7965, 7970, 7980 = Between 01011994
         and 12311999.

     (2) 7990 = Between 01011996 and 10311998.

The recalled MetroLite strollers, manufactured in 2000 and 2001,
have a blue, gray or black plastic and steel frame. The cloth
seat and top have various colors and patterns. The strollers
have four wheels in the front and two wheels in the rear. These
strollers were sold as a stand-alone stroller and also as part
of a travel system that included an infant car seat/carrier and
a base. The car seat/carrier is not affected. There is a label
on the cross bar under the footrest containing the model and
serial number. Only strollers with serial numbers between
10012000 and 12312001 in the first 8 digits and the following
model numbers are included in this recall.

Graco MetroLite Model Numbers: 6110DW, 6114NGS, 6110F3, 7410CON,
6111FKB, 7413CML, 6114HAV, 7413MRN, 6114JAM.

Manufactured in China, the Duo tandem strollers were sold at all
discount, department and juvenile product stores nationwide from
January 1994 through December 2000 for between $80 and $150.
While the MetroLite strollers were sold at all discount,
department and juvenile product stores nationwide from November
2000 through December 2002 for between $100 and $200.

Consumers should stop using these strollers immediately and
contact the firm to receive a free repair kit. The kit includes
a custom-designed latch that consumers should attach to the
stroller's frame to ensure it is properly latched. The repair
kit will be available in approximately 1 to 2 weeks.

Consumer Contact: Call Graco at (800) 981-4412 anytime or log on
to the firm's Web site: http://www.gracobaby.com.


GUIDANT CORPORATION: TX Resident Lodges Suit Over Defibrillator
---------------------------------------------------------------
Louis Motal, a 62-year-old Corpus Christi, Texas heart patient
stated that he filed a lawsuit against Guidant Corporation
claiming that the cardiovascular device maker concealed a
potentially life-threatening flaw in a defibrillator, the
Reuters News Agency reports.

Indianapolis-based Guidant last month recalled 50,000
implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) -- the stopwatch-
size devices that monitor and regulate errant heart beats --
after reports of two deaths and several reports of device
failure.  The U.S. Food and Drug Administration last week gave
the recall on some of the device models its highest priority
status.

In his suit filed on July 5 in the 94th State District Court in
Nueces County, Louis Motal claimed that Guidant knew his ICD, a
Ventak Prizm 2 Model 1861, was a flawed older version. In
addition, he also claimed that the device, implanted in 2001,
had a defect that could cause it to short-circuit at any time,
adding that he was shocked more than five times on one occasion
when it malfunctioned.

Previously, attorneys in New York filed a class action lawsuit
against Guidant, which agreed to be purchased by Johnson &
Johnson on behalf of patients who were implanted with the
recalled devices.


HAWAII: ACLU Lodges Lawsuit Over Residency Restrictions on Jobs
---------------------------------------------------------------
American Civil Liberties Union of Hawaii initiated a class
action lawsuit against Honolulu County and the state on behalf
of two men denied the opportunity to apply for government jobs,
TheHawaiiChannel.com reports.

According to ACLU officials, both Kevin Walsh and Blaine Wilson
were told not to apply because each of them maintains a legal
residence in Florida. Hawaii ACLU director Lois Perrin pointed
out that such residency restrictions are unconstitutional.

As the moment though, both the state attorney general's and the
Honolulu corporation counsel's offices had no comment on the
case, TheHawaiiChannel.com reports.


KANSAS: Family Launches Wrongful Death Suit V. BTK Serial Killer
----------------------------------------------------------------
According to the Witchita Eagle, Bill Wegerle, who was falsely
accused of the 1986 murder of his wife, Vicki, has filed suit
against admitted BTK serial killer Dennis Rader, the man who
really killed her.

The lawsuit brought by Mr. Wegerle and his children, Stephanie
Clyne and Brandon Wegerle is the second against Mr. Rader since
he pleaded guilty on June 27 to killing 10 people over the past
three decades.

Jim Thompson, the Wichita lawyer representing the Wegerles, told
the Wichita Eagle "We want to keep him from ever profiting from
his crimes."

Attorney Jim McIntyre filed a similar case just last week on
behalf of Carolyn Hook, daughter of Marine Hedge, whom Mr. Rader
killed in 1985.

Both lawsuits seek to attach a court judgment to any financial
reward Mr. Rader may realize from the sale of his story. And,
according to Mr. Thompson there will be more before Mr. Rader's
sentencing, which is scheduled for August 17. Mr. Thompson told
The Wichita Eagle, "We should be filing another one within the
next week."

Mr. McIntyre also expects more families affected by BTK's
killings to follow suit, since he had filed the Hedge family
suit as part of a class action, which still needs to be
certified by a judge. He also told The Wichita Eagle,
"Eventually, I'd expect them to all show up in court.
Ultimately, I expect them to all end up in one forum, whether it
be part of a class action or with multiple clients and multiple
lawyers."

Mr. Wegerle, according to his lawyers has a unique case, since
he lived for years under the cloud of being suspected in his
wife's brutal murder. Mr. Thompson pointed out, "He had to live
with that for so long." He also explains that the suit notes
that as a toddler, Brandon Wegerle was at home with his mother
when she was strangled.

Vicki Wegerle's killing went unsolved for nearly 20 years and
most of that time, it wasn't even officially tied to the BTK
case. However, in March 2004, after a quarter-century of
silence, BTK sent a letter to The Wichita Eagle. It contained a
copy of Mrs. Wegerle's driver's license, which was missing, and
pictures of her bound and on the floor of her home.

Mr. Wegerle's suit seeks unspecified damages for wrongful death
and intentional infliction of emotional distress. It also seeks
damages for trespassing, "intrusion upon seclusion" for entering
her house under false pretenses and "intentional
misrepresentation." The last two claims stem from Mr. Rader's
statement in court on June 27 in which he said that he gained
access to Mr. Wegerle's house by posing as a telephone
repairman. Damage claims would usually be limited by the law to
around $250,000.  Mr. Thompson told The Wichita Eagle that the
lawsuits ensure that any money Mr. Rader made would go to the
proper families.


MASTEC INC.: FL Employees Launch Suit Over Withheld Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------------------
A group of Tampa Bay area wire installers, who include five of
Hispanic origin, launched a class action lawsuit against their
South Florida employer for withholding overtime pay, The St.
Petersburg Times reports.

In their suit, the eleven former and current employees allege
that the publicly traded MasTec Inc. did not pay overtime and
pressured them not to report overtime hours worked. One of the
employees, Jose A. Gonzalez of Brandon, who was fired in March,
claims, "They want us to work six days a week, 10 to 12 hours a
day, and they're wanting us to lie about our time." Aside from
joining the suit, Mr. Gonzalez has also filed a complaint with
the National Labor Relations Board saying he was fired in
retaliation for his union organizing.

Coral Gables-based MasTec specializes in installing wire and
cable infrastructure for utility, telephone, Internet and
television companies. DirecTV and Comcast Cable Communications
are among the company's biggest contracts. MasTec is also one of
the largest Hispanic-owned companies in the nation. Chairman
Jorge Mas Jr. took over the reins from his late father, a Cuban
exile and founder of the Cuban American National Foundation. The
Mas family owns 42 percent of the company, according to federal
records. The company has a reputation for hiring workers of
Hispanic descent nationwide.

A MasTec attorney told the St. Petersburg Times that the company
follows federal standards for overtime pay. The attorney,
Michael Nearing, also told the St. Petersburg Times, "We're
certain our practices in the Tampa office are appropriate. It's
an unhappy event when the first remedy employees seek is to air
our laundry in public."

MasTec had weathered an accounting scandal in recent years and
has been fighting debt. The company recently cut its employee
force to 6,500 from about 10,000 and folded its international
operations in Brazil and Spain. MasTec president Austin
Shanfelter said in a June presentation with analysts that the
company is focused on improving its margins and reaching
profitability.  

Several employees involved in the lawsuit also started a union
organizing drive with the National Association of Broadcast
Employees and Technicians-Communications Workers of America
during their off hours. Unpaid overtime was an issue often
discussed by those contemplating a union.

For example, according to Mr. Gonzalez, the employees complained
that they were required to attend mandatory 6 a.m. company
meetings that would last 45 minutes, but they couldn't get
compensated for time spent at the meeting. Some employees also
complained that the company charged them if they took the
company van home overnight or they wouldn't get paid for the
time it took them to drive to an installation appointment, Mr.
Gonzalez said.

Former employee James Stahl, who like Mr. Gonzalez was also
fired in March and is leading the overtime complaint in federal
court told the St. Petersburg Times, "You were told not to put
down hours if you want work. If you put down overtime, sometimes
they'd change it, or they'd screw up your payroll and dock you
money."

Previously, Mr. Stahl helped direct union organizing until he
was fired, and again like Mr. Gonzalez, he has also filed an
NLRB complaint alleging retaliation. Additionally, Mr. Stahl had
also filed a couple of safety violation complaints against
MasTec with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

The MasTec attorney though called Mr. Stahl a "chronic
complainer" and at the same time denied the accusation that the
company docked workers and manipulated pay records, saying it
takes pay practices very seriously. The federal lawsuit has no
basis, he adds.


MASTERFOODS AUSTRALIA: No Link Between Chocolate and Illnesses
--------------------------------------------------------------
MasterFoods Australia New Zealand, the Company that makes the
Mars and Snickers bars in Australia, said that there was no
established link between its products and illnesses reported by
people who ate the chocolate, the Associated Press reports.

Last week, the Company received a letter claiming that seven
contaminated bars had been placed on shelves in the Sydney area.  
The Company immediately ordered the recall of Mars and Snickers
bars.

The company's President, Andy Weston-Webb, told AP that about 30
people had called a special phone line to report various health
complaints after eating the chocolate bars.  However, he said
"no proper connection" had been made between the chocolates and
the reported illnesses, which included stomach aches, diarrhea
and headaches.

Mr. Weston-Webb said the company planned to destroy hundreds of
thousands of the recalled chocolates later this week to ensure
that there was no risk of contamination.  "It will be done in a
safe and supervised way," he told the Australian Broadcasting
Corp. "We just want to make sure we destroy them properly and
safely."

Mr. Weston-Webb said he has not yet seen financial figures to
show how badly the recall has affected the company, and that
Mars and Snickers bars will only be returned to store shelves
once the company is confident they are safe.

A total of four letters have been sent to the Company's
headquarters in the southern city of Ballarat containing threats
against an unidentified company that is not related to
MasterFoods. Police say they don't know why MasterFoods was
targeted, AP reports.  

The first letter, received on June 8, contained a Snickers bar
that was later found to be laced with a pesticide-like
substance.  The latest letter, received late Wednesday, was
turned over to police, Mr. Weston-Webb told AP.


MERCK & CO.: Seeks To Postpone Vioxx Wrongful Death Trial in TX
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pharmaceutical firm Merck & Co. is seeking to postpone for at
least 60 days the first wrongful death trial over its
controversial pain reliever Vioxx, saying that it cannot receive
a fair trial in a lawsuit filed in Texas court if it begins next
week as scheduled, the Associated Press reports.

The lawsuit was filed by a woman whose husband died in 2001 due
to the use of the controversial drug.  Last September, the
Company withdrew the drug after research linked it to increased
risk for heart attack and stroke.  Since then, more than 2,400
Vioxx lawsuits have been filed nationwide.

The Company cited recent publicity about the drug as a reason
for their request.  New Jersey Superior Court Judge Carol E.
Higbee has questioned attorneys from both parties in the
litigation against Merck & Co.'s controversial arthritis drug
Vioxx, in the hopes of discovering how The Associated Press
obtained a potentially damaging document, an earlier Class
Action Reporter story (June 7,2005) story reports.   The
document indicated that Merck scientists were considering
combining Vioxx with another compound to lower the risk of heart
attacks and strokes.  The document appeared to undermine earlier
statements of the Company that officials believed the drug was
safe before they recalled last September 2004, after a study
linked Vioxx to increased heart attack and stroke risks.

Merck inadvertently gave the document to plaintiff lawyers
during evidence gathering in one of the hundreds of Vioxx
lawsuits.  On May 27, Judge Higbee ruled that the document was
privileged and could not be used at trial.  She ordered
attorneys with copies to destroy them or return them to Merck
immediately.  The Company had insisted the document was an
attorney-client communication between company scientists and in-
house patent counsel, AP reports.

A hearing on Merck's motion was slated for Tuesday in Wharton,
Texas.  Mark Lanier, attorney for the plaintiff in the suit,
said he will oppose a delay, AP reports.

The company also said in a motion that a lawsuit brought
Thursday by Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott seeking $250
million in damages for Vioxx purchases has "effectively
eliminated any possibility Merck can receive a fair trial
beginning July 11."  It also noted that a law firm which helped
the attorney general's office on the lawsuit represents at least
six plaintiffs suing the company, AP reports.  "The timing of
the (state) lawsuit is hardly a coincidence," according to
Merck's motion.

Mr. Lanier told AP Monday that the Company signed an agreement
with him in May not to postpone the trial for any reason other
than the health of the lead attorneys.  He also said he would
oppose the motion for a delay because the story about the Texas
attorney general's lawsuit did not receive prominent coverage in
the Houston Chronicle - the region's major newspaper - and that
the newspaper in Brazoria County did not publish the AP article.
The suit is expected to be heard in that county, south of
Houston.


PEEKAY INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Raisins Due to Undeclared Sulfites
----------------------------------------------------------------
Peekay International Inc. of Maspeth, New York is recalling
raisins because they may contain undeclared sulfites. People who
have severe sensitivity to sulfites run the risk of serious or
life threatening allergic reactions if they consume this
product.

The recalled raisins were packed in 7 oz., uncoded plastic bags
and distributed in New York City through retail stores.

The recall was initiated after routine sampling by New York
State Department of Agriculture and Markets Food Inspectors and
subsequent analysis of the product by Food Laboratory personnel
revealed the presence of sulfites in packages of raisins which
did not declare sulfites on the label. The consumption of 10
milligrams of sulfites per serving has been reported to elicit
severe reactions in some asthmatics. Anaphylactic shock could
occur in certain sulfite sensitive individuals upon ingesting 10
milligrams or more of sulfites.

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
problem.

Consumers who have purchased raisins should return it to the
place of purchase. Consumers with questions may contact the
company at 718-326-2045.


TELCOLLECT INC.: To Resolve FTC Unfair Billing Charges Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A company that sent bills to consumers for services consumers
did not order has agreed to settle Federal Trade Commission
(FTC) charges that the billing scheme violated federal law.  The
Company is barred from billing consumers without their express
consent and is required to monitor the vendors with which it
does business and take action, including ending its relationship
with a vendor, if the vendor engages in illegal billing
practices.

In May 2003, the FTC charged TelCollect, Inc., working on behalf
of Alyon Technologies, Inc., and its principal, Stephane
Touboul, with illegally billing consumers for adult videotext
services purportedly accessed on the Internet.  According to the
FTC, Alyon downloaded a dialing program onto consumers'
computers, allegedly after consumers clicked on a button to
agree to the terms and conditions for such a download.  The
dialing program then disconnected consumers' Internet
connections and reconnected them to the defendants' network,
then billed consumers $4.99 for each minute they had supposedly
purchased the services, regardless of whether the line
subscribers had authorized the purchase.

The FTC's complaint stated that the Company was responsible for
collecting on past-due payments, allegedly sending bills to
consumers on company letterhead that said the "delinquent
account formerly owed to Alyon Technologies Inc has been placed
with the Company for recovery . This communication is from a
debt collector."  The Company also was responsible for answering
the toll-free "customer service" hotline listed on some of the
allegedly delinquent bills.

In December 2004, Alyon and Stephane Touboul settled FTC charges
and dropped their claim to more than $17 million in consumer
bills. They are barred from billing a consumer or claiming a
consumer owes money for any videotext service without the
consumer's express, verifiable authorization. They are further
barred from planting software on consumers' computers without
their consent.

In the settlement announced July 7, 2005, the Company is
permanently barred from billing a consumer for any videotext
services unless it has verification that the consumer is an
adult who has expressly agreed to purchase the services and has
received clear and conspicuous notice of all the terms and
conditions associated with the purchase. The defendant also is
required to obtain written agreement from each vendor it works
with that the vendor will comply with the terms of the
stipulated order. The order requires that the Company monitor
each vendor, including conducting investigations of consumer
complaints of unauthorized billing, and take appropriate action,
which may include terminating its business relationship, against
any vendor who fails to comply. The order contains standard
recordkeeping and reporting provisions to assist the FTC in
determining the defendant's compliance.

The Commission vote authorizing staff to file the stipulated
final order was 5-0. The complaint was entered in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta
Division, on June 13, 2005.

Copies of the stipulated final order are available from the
FTC's Web site at http://www.ftc.govand also from the FTC's  
Consumer Response Center, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue,
N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580. The FTC works for the consumer to
prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices in
the marketplace and to provide information to help consumers
spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or
Spanish (bilingual counselors are available to take complaints),
or to get free information on any of 150 consumer topics, call
toll-free, 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357), or use the complaint
form at http://www.ftc.gov.The FTC enters Internet,  
telemarketing, identity theft, and other fraud-related
complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database
available to hundreds of civil and criminal law enforcement
agencies in the U.S. and abroad.  For more details, contact Jen
Schwartzman, Office of Public Affairs by Phone: 202-326-2674 or
contact David Torok, Bureau of Consumer Protection by Phone:
202-326-3075, or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2005/07/alyon.htm.


TENNESSEE: Attorney General Sets Deadline For Hytrin Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Tennessee Attorney General's Office said that a July 15
deadline was set for consumers who purchased the brand-name
prescription drug Hytrin and are eligible for refunds from a
$30.7-million, nationwide agreement, The Nashville City Paper
reports.

According to Attorney General Paul Summers, "It is imperative
[that] consumers who have purchased this drug file their claims
with the settlement administrator as soon as possible."

Hytrin is used in the treatment of hypertension and enlarged
prostate and is manufactured by Abbott Laboratories with its
generic version being called Terazosin and produced by Geneva
Pharmaceuticals.

According to a federal class action lawsuit, Abbott wrongfully
paid Geneva to delay introduction of its generic version of
Hytrin and took other steps to delay competition from lower-
priced generic versions of its product.

In his announcement of the settlement deadline, Mr. Summers
said, "Tennesseans should never be forced to pay higher prices
for brand named treatments when lower cost alternatives are
available. We hope this agreement will help compensate those who
were unjustly overcharged for their inconvenience."

Though the settlement agreement is still subject to final court
approval, if it were approved, Abbott and Geneva would provide
$28.7 million for consumers and third party payers (for example,
insurance companies) in Tennessee and 17 other states.

For more details, contact In re Terazosin Hydrochloride
Antitrust Litigation, c/o Complete Claim Solutions Inc., P.O.
Box 24607, West Palm Beach, Fl 33416, Phone: 1-877-886-0283, Web
site: http://www.terazosinlitigation.com.  


TEXAS: High Court to Hear Gas Station Owners' Price-Fixing Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court will hear a price-fixing case that pits big
oil companies against the owners of gas stations and could
affect some of the biggest names in American business, The
Houston Chronicle reports.

Accepted by the court at the end of its term, the case stems
from the issue of whether a joint venture created by Texaco and
Shell Oil Co. can sell gasoline at the same price to all
distributors under laws designed to preserve competition.

The case, which was dubbed by antitrust experts as to be one of
the more significant business issues that the high court
considers when it goes back to work in October, comes from the
San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which
ruled in favor of the gas station owners.

In a brief that was filed in favor of the oil companies, David
Price, an attorney with the Washington Legal Foundation said,
"Beyond the implications for these very major industry players,
the 9th Circuit's decision has far-reaching implications for all
kinds of joint ventures. It would create potential for antitrust
liability when a joint venture makes routine decisions, like
pricing."

Filed on behalf of 23,000 service station owners, the class
action lawsuit argues that the joint venture violated antitrust
laws making it illegal to limit competition by setting a common
price for a product made by competing companies.

The creation of two refining and marketing joint ventures in
1998 allowed Texaco and Shell to continue to sell their brands
separately but save an estimated $800 million each year by
sharing refining capacity and the cost of selling the fuels. At
the pump, consumers saw Texaco and Shell as two different brands
of gas, but the gas was sold at the same wholesale price by the
joint venture. The joint venture at the heart of the lawsuit,
Equilon, operated in the western United States. Texaco and Shell
were partners with Saudi Refining in a similar joint venture
called Motiva that operated in the eastern U.S. Recently though
Texaco's stake in the joint venture was sold to Shell Oil Co.
after Texaco was taken over by ChevronTexaco Corp.

For their part, the oil companies vehemently argued that setting
a price for gas produced under Equilon was a necessary part of
doing business, even if it was sold under two brand names.

According to the 9th Circuit Court though, the companies that
joined to create Equilon sharply increased the price of their
gasoline in some West Coast cities, including Los Angeles, at a
time when oil prices were at near-historic lows of $10 to $12
per barrel, which resulted in additional costs being passed by
distributors to consumers.

Daniel Shulman, an attorney for the plaintiffs, described the
move as price-fixing and pointed out that it falls under the
"per se" rule of antitrust law, which makes it illegal
regardless of the circumstances. He also argued, "The Supreme
Court has said for 50 years that joint ventures are not entitled
to any type of special protection."

However, those backing the oil company argue that the situation
should be judged according to the "rule of reason," which allows
joint ventures to set prices if they are efficient. The idea is
that such combinations may produce new products, made less
expensively or more plentiful for consumers.

The U.S. government in a court brief that reinforces the
defendants arguments, urged the high court to overturn what it
saw as an error by the appeals court and treat Equilon as a
separate company created to refine and sell fuel more
efficiently, which it said should exempt it from price-fixing
rules. The brief, which was written by, Paul Clement, acting
solicitor general also said that the appeals court's decision
poses a threat to the proper enforcement, both private and
public, of the antitrust laws.

Mr. Shulman countered that Equilon should not qualify as
efficient, since it did not create a product that was different
from what Texaco and Shell produced independently.

Though the American Antitrust Institute, a nonprofit group that
aims to increase competition among businesses, has not yet taken
a stance on the issue, its president, Bert Foer told the
Chronicle that a reversal by the high court has the potential to
set a precedent that could hurt consumers. He also told the
Chronicle that instead of doing a joint venture to create
something new, Texaco and Shell "are doing a joint venture to
eliminate the competition that previously existed between them."

Experts familiar with the matter pointed out to the Chronicle
that the last time the high court ruled on a similar antitrust
case was in 1979, in Broadcast Music v. CBS. In that case,
justices declared price-fixing is allowed only if the joint
venture can prove its efficiency.

The two cases, which will be combined for argument before the
court, are Texaco v. Dagher and Shell Oil Co. v. Dagher.


UNOCAL CORPORATION: Shareholders Launch Lawsuit V. Chevron Offer
---------------------------------------------------------------
Unocal Corporation's board of directors faces a class action
filed by its shareholders, alleging the directors breached their
fiduciary duty by accepting a bid from Chevron Corporation too
quickly, the South China Morning Post reports.

"It seemed to us that (Unocal's board) went very quickly to the
Chevron bid without fully testing the value of the company in
the marketplace," the report quoted Jeff Westerman, a lawyer
with Milberg Weiss that is leading the case, as saying.

Last week, a judge in the Superior Court of California of Los
Angeles, which has jurisdiction over El Segundo-based Unocal,
ordered that the two lawsuits, filed in April be combined in a
single suit, AFX reports.  The plaintiffs in the class action
suit, Michael Lieb and Paul Callan, have yet to take a public
position on China CNOOC Ltd.'s USD18.5 billion cash bid, which
is about USD2 billion higher than the current market value of
Chevron's cash-share offer.


WASHINGTON: Kitsap County Victorious in $4M "Impact Fees" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In a closely watched case with sweeping implications for
counties throughout Washington, the State Supreme Court ruled
that developers may not wait for years after receiving building
permits to challenge the imposition of "impact fees" that help
pay for new roads, parks and schools.

The Supreme Court's decision was a major victory for Kitsap
County, which otherwise faced losing nearly $4 million in such
fees (including interest) it imposed on 2,000 developers between
1995 and 1999. The developers brought a class action suit in
1999. By the time the suit was initiated, much of the building
had occurred and the County had no other way to fund roads,
schools and parks.

"This ruling shows that the State Supreme Court recognizes the
basic needs of local governments and that those needs must be
protected," said Russ Hauge, Kitsap County Prosecutor. "I
especially want to thank our attorneys at Buck & Gordon who have
passionately pursued this case for six years. But it is also
important to note the dedication of our County Commissioners,
and the County's Civil Division of the Prosecutor's Office,
whose diligent efforts paid off after years of hard work."

The County raised a number of defenses to the lawsuit, including
an argument that any land use challenges had to be brought under
the state Land Use Petition Act (LUPA) within 21 days after
permits were issued. The Supreme Court accepted this argument.
None of the 2,000 class action members had done so, thus their
claims were dismissed.

"On behalf of the taxpayers of Kitsap County, I'm grateful that
the Justices understood the importance of this issue to all
counties and cities," said Chris Endresen, Kitsap County
Commissioner. "There are many, many situations just like ours
throughout the state, and the message to developers in each is
now very clear -- you can't wiggle out of agreements to pay your
fair share of the public's cost of supporting your developments
after you've already built."

"When I was first elected, one of the first things I did was sit
in the Supreme Court Chambers during the argument and hear the
merits of this case. I feel the expert presentation of our case
by Buck & Gordon led to the decision coming out in favor of the
County," said Patty Lent, Kitsap County Commissioner.

The case, James T. James v. Kitsap County (Washington Supreme
Court No. 73747-9), hinged on Kitsap County's assessment of
impact fees for building permits issued during years in which it
had no approved comprehensive plan under the State's Growth
Management Act (GMA). The GMA mandates that counties have such a
plan to assure that roads, parks, schools and other
infrastructure exist to support growth, as a condition of
granting permits.

Kitsap County tried unsuccessfully for years to adopt a
comprehensive plan but was attacked on all sides by a variety of
competing interests. Faced with the prospect of a total
moratorium on development, the County and nearly 2,000 builders
and developers entered into agreements stating that the County
would issue permits and impose impact fees, but forestall
collection of the money until a comprehensive plan was adopted.
Only years later, when a comprehensive plan was finally adopted
and the County sought to collect the impact fees, did the
developers challenge them in court, arguing that the County had
no right to collect for the years it was out of compliance with
the GMA.

The majority, in what was a divided opinion, said:
"Additionally, and particularly with respect to impact fees, the    
purpose and policy of Chapter 82.02 RCW in correlation with the    
procedural requirements of LUPA ensure that local jurisdictions
have timely notice of potential impact fee challenges.  Without
notice of these challenges, local jurisdictions would be less
able to plan and fund construction of necessary public
facilities."

According to Peter Buck of Buck & Gordon, LLP, which represented
the County in the long-running case, "The Court has again
affirmed that, when people want to challenge a land use matter,
they must do so within 21 days. County officials and the
citizens they represent were blindsided by the delay, but
they've prevailed. It's a huge win for the people of Kitsap
County, who retain that $4 million for roads and parks."


                 New Securities Fraud Cases


AUTHENTIDATE HOLDING: Marc S. Henzel Files Securities Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of purchasers of AuthentiDate
Holding Corp. (NASDAQ: ADAT) publicly traded securities during
the period between September 29, 2003 and May 27, 2005 (the
"Class Period").

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

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

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

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

For more details, contact 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.


CARRIER ACCESS: Marc S. Henzel Files Securities Fraud Suit in CO
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado on behalf of purchasers of Carrier Access Corporation
(NASDAQ: CACSE) publicly traded securities during the period
between October 21, 2003 and May 20, 2005 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Carrier Access and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Carrier Access designs, manufactures and sells converged
access equipment to wireline and wireless carriers.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's financial results and its business prospects. As a
result of these false statements, the Company's shares traded at
inflated levels during the Class Period, allowing the defendants
to use the Company's shares as currency in its acquisition of
Paragon Networks and to sell 6 million shares to the public in a
secondary offering, raising proceeds of $78 million.

However, according to the complaint, by July 20, 2004, due to
the defendants' concerns about the government's stance towards
accounting fraud, the Company announced a reduction in the
Company's projections, sending its shares down 37%, a loss of
$4.73 to $8.06. On May 5, 2005, the Company issued a press
release in which it announced it had received a Nasdaq Staff
Determination letter which indicated that "although the company
filed its Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004,
the filing did not include management's assessment of its
internal controls over financial reporting and the associated
auditor attestation report . . . ." As a result, the Company's
stock was subject to delisting on the Nasdaq Stock Market. Then
on May 20, 2005, the Company issued a press release stating that
it was in the process of performing a detailed review of all
significant customer relationships and as part of those reviews
was evaluating the propriety of the timing of revenue and cost
recognition and other revenue recognition issues. The release
stated: "At this point in time, the Company has determined that
certain revenues and direct costs have been recorded in
incorrect periods. The amounts that have been quantified to date
are significant and, as a result, previously issued financial
statements for the year ended December 31, 2004, and certain
interim periods in each of the years ended December 31, 2004,
and 2003, will be restated." On this news the Company's stock
fell to $4.60 per share.

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.


EXIDE TECHNOLOGIES: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Suit in NJ
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C. initiated a lawsuit seeking
class action status has been filed in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of all persons
who purchased the securities of Exide Technologies (Nasdaq:
XIDE) ("Exide") between November 16, 2004 and May 17, 2005,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

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

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

On May 17, 2005 defendants announced that:

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


NEWMONT MINING: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Lawsuit in CO
----------------------------------------------------------------
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 Newmont
Mining Corporation (NYSE: NEM) between July 28, 2004 and April
26, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado against defendant Newmont 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.


NEWMONT MINING: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Fraud Suit in CO
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C. initiated a lawsuit seeking
class action status in the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado on behalf of all persons who purchased the
publicly traded securities of Newmont Mining Corporation (NYSE:
NEM) ("Newmont" or the "Company") between July 28, 2004 and
April 26, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that Newmont, a gold producer, and certain
of its officers and directors violated federal securities laws.
Specifically, defendants knew, but concealed the following:

     (1) Newmont had been processing only stockpiled low-grade
         ore at certain mines, which costs more to process;

     (2) Newmont's costs for commodities used in mining had
         increased, increasing total production costs;

     (3) the amount of copper and gold Newmont stated it could
         extract in 2005 was overstated; and

     (4) as a result of operating difficulties in Q1 2005,
         Newmont's cash generation had declined by 50% and its
         exploration costs would significantly increase.

On April 26, 2005 Newmont announced that the Company's Q1 2005
earnings would fall short by two-thirds of what analysts had
been expecting based on the Company's frequent guidance and
investor presentations. Unbeknownst to investors, Newmont's
Peruvian, Indonesian, Australian and New Zealand mines had
grossly underperformed. On this news, Newmont's stock dropped
from its April 26, 2005 closing price of $40.25 per share to
less than $38 per share on April 27, 2005. Before the truth
about Newmont's operational and financial difficulties was
disclosed, Newmont was able to place over $600 million worth of
notes in March 2005.

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


NEWMONT MINING: Marc S. Henzel Files Securities Fraud Suit in CO
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado on behalf of purchasers of Newmont Mining Corporation
(NYSE: NEM) publicly traded securities during the period between
July 28, 2004 and April 26, 2005 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Newmont and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Newmont is a gold producer with assets or operations in
the United States, Australia, Peru, Indonesia, Canada,
Uzbekistan, Bolivia, New Zealand, Ghana and Mexico.

The complaint alleges that despite making repeated positive
statements about the Company's operations and financial
expectations throughout the Class Period, defendants announced
on April 26, 2005 that the Company's Q1 2005 earnings would fall
short by two-thirds of what analysts had been expecting based on
the Company's frequent guidance and investor presentations.
Unbeknownst to investors, Newmont's Peruvian, Indonesian,
Australian and New Zealand mines had grossly underperformed. On
this news, Newmont's stock price fell precipitously from its
April 26, 2005 closing price of $40.25 per share to less than
$38 per share on April 27, 2005, on extremely high trading
volume. Meanwhile, because the Company's stock had traded at
inflated prices throughout the Class Period, Newmont was able to
place over $600 million worth of notes in March 2005, just weeks
before the truth about the Company's operational and financial
difficulties would be disclosed.

According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known by
each of the defendants but concealed from the investing public
during the Class Period, were as follows:

     (1) Newmont had been processing only stockpiled low-grade
         ore at certain mines, which costs more to process;

     (2) Newmont's costs for commodities used in mining had
         increased, increasing total production costs and cash
         production costs;

     (3) the amount of copper and gold Newmont stated it could
         extract in 2005 was overstated; and

     (4) as a result of operating difficulties in Q1 2005,
         Newmont's cash generation had declined by 50% and its
         exploration costs would significantly increase.

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.


OCA INC.: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in LA
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District
Court of Eastern District of Louisiana on behalf of purchasers
of OCA, Inc. (NYSE: OCA) common stock during the period between
May 18, 2004 and June 7, 2005 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges OCA and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. The Company provides business services to orthodontic and
pediatric dental practices in the United States. The company
provides affiliated practices with a range of operational,
purchasing, financial, marketing, administrative, and other
business services, as well as capital and proprietary
information systems.

The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
defendants issued numerous positive statements and filed
quarterly reports with the Securities and Exchange Commission,
which described the Company's financial performance. As alleged
in the Complaint, these statements were materially false and
misleading because they failed to disclose and/or misrepresented
the following adverse facts, among others:

     (1) that defendants had engaged in improper accounting
         practices. OCA has now admitted that its prior
         financial reports are materially false and misleading
         as it announced that it is going to restate its results
         for the first three quarters of 2004 and potentially
         prior periods;

     (2) that certain journal entries in the Company's general
         ledger were improperly recorded;

     (3) that certain data provided to the Company's independent
         accounting firm had been improperly changed;

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

     (5) that as a result of the foregoing, the values of the
         Company's patient receivables and patient revenue were
         materially overstated at all relevant times.

On June 7, 2005, the Company shocked the market when it issued a
press release announcing that it was further delaying the filing
of its annual report, that it intended to restate its quarterly
financial statements for 2004 and that it had placed the
Company's Chief Operating Officer, Bartholomew E. Palmisano Jr.,
on administrative leave. Specifically, the Company admitted
that, among other things, it had materially overstated its
patient receivables and patient revenue for the first three
quarters of 2004. Following this announcement, shares of the
Company's stock fell $1.53 per share, or almost 38%, to close at
$2.50 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

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.


OCA INC.: Lockridge Grindal Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in LA
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lockridge Grindal Nauen, P.L.L.P. initiated a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana on behalf of all purchasers of the
common stock of OCA, Inc. (NYSE:OCA) ("OCA" or the "Company")
between May 18, 2004 and June 7, 2005 (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period,
thereby artificially inflating the price of OCA securities. No
class has yet been certified in the above action.

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.


OCA INC.: Mager White Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in E.D. LA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Mager White & Goldstein, LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana on behalf of all purchasers of securities
of OCA, Inc. ("OCA" or the "Company")(NYSE:OCA) between May 18,
2004 and June 6, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that OCA and certain of its officers
violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing
materially false and misleading statements during the Class
Period which resulted in artificially inflating the value of OCA
stock. Specifically, on June 7, 2005, defendants disclosed that
they had overstated patient receivables in the 2004 Form 10-Q
filings for the quarters ending March 31, June 30, and September
30, 2004. The extent of restatement for these periods has yet to
be revealed by the Company. Additionally, defendants knew or
recklessly failed to disclose that:

     (1) they were involved in improper accounting practices;

     (2) the Company had improperly changed some of the data
         supplied to its independent accountants;

     (3) certain journal entries in OCA's general ledger were
         improperly recorded; and

     (4) the Company lacked the necessary internal controls to
         accurately determine its financial condition.

The market reacted to these disclosures and on June 7, 2005,
OCA's stock fell nearly 40%, closing at $2.58 per share.

For more details, contact Jayne Arnold Goldstein of Mager White
& Goldstein, LLP, 2825 University Drive, Suite 350 Coral
Springs, FL, 33065, Phone: 954-341-0844 or 866-274-8258, Fax:
954-341-0855, E-mail: jgoldstein@mwg-law.com, Web site:
http://www.mwglawfirm.com.  


OCA INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Fraud Suit in LA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana on behalf of all purchasers of the
common stock of OCA, Inc. (F/K/A Orthodontic Centers of America,
Inc.)("OCA" or the "Company")(NYSE: OCA) between May 18, 2004
and June 6, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges OCA and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. OCA provides business services to orthodontic and
pediatric dental practices in the United States. More
specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed to
disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse
facts, which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded
by them:

     (1) that the Company recorded certain revenues and direct
         costs in incorrect periods;

     (2) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls;

     (3) that the Company's financial results were in violation
         of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP");

     (4) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial
         results were materially inflated at all relevant times;
         and

     (5) the defendants' statements about the Company's status
         and progress were lacking in any reasonable basis when
         made.

On June 7, 2005, prior to the opening of the market, OCA
announced that it had identified certain errors in its
calculation of patient receivables reported during 2004, and had
determined that the amount of patient receivables reported at
each of March 31, June 30 and September 30, 2004 was overstated
by material amounts. News of this shocked the market. Shares of
OCA fell $1.55 per share or 38.4 percent, on June 7, 2005, to
close at $2.48 per share.

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


POSSIS MEDICAL: Marc S. Henzel Files Securities Fraud Suit in MN
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of
Minnesota on behalf of purchasers of Possis Medical, Inc.
(Nasdaq: POSS) between September 24, 2002 and August 24, 2004,
inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The action, is pending against defendants Possis, Robert G.
Dutcher (CEO and President) and Eapen Chacko (CFO).

The complaint alleges that Possis's primary product was the
AngioJet System, a non-surgical, minimally invasive catheter
system designed to rapidly remove blood clots using a stream of
water. The complaint further alleges that, unbeknownst to
investors, and contrary to defendants' representations:

     (1) the AngioJet System was not more effective than
         existing alternatives, including competing drug
         therapies, such as the leading product Urokinase, nor
         did AngioJet reduce significant procedural
         complications or significantly increase positive
         benefits such as improved blood flow or other similar
         effects;

     (2) AngioJet could not be expanded as a "technology
         platform" because AngioJet was not in the first
         instance effective for routine use in a broad range of
         heart attack patients to reduce the size of infracts;
         and

     (3) as a result of the foregoing problems, Possis could not
         maintain its projected revenue growth or achieve
         sustained revenue growth targets as high as 35%.

The truth emerged on August 24, 2004. On that date, shares of
Possis fell precipitously and the Company lost almost 40% of its
market capitalization after it was disclosed that AngioJet
failed to demonstrate clinical superiority in the majority of
heart attach patients. Shares of Possis traded down more than
$11.75 per share, or 38%, to $19.00 per share, as defendants
lowered 2005 earnings and revenue guidance.

The complaint further alleges that defendants were motivated to
and did conceal the true safety and efficacy of AngioJet, and
defendants' ability to expand and develop Prossis's AngioJet
technology, because it enabled defendants to artificially
inflate the price of Possis shares and then allowed defendants
and other Company insiders to sell more than 361,730 shares of
their privately held Possis stock to the unsuspecting public for
proceeds in excess of $7.07 million while in possession of
material adverse, non-public information about the Company.

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.


R&G FINANCIAL: Glancy Binkow Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP initiated a Class
Action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of a class (the "Class")
consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired securities of R&G Financial Corporation ("R&G
Financial" or the "Company'') (NYSE:RGF), between April 21, 2003
and April 25, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"). All persons
and institutions who purchased securities of R&G Financial
during the Class Period may move the Court not later than June
27, 2005, to serve as lead plaintiff, however, you must meet
certain legal requirements.

The Complaint charges R&G Financial and certain of the Company's
executive officers with violations of federal securities laws.
Plaintiff claims defendants' omissions and material
misrepresentations during the Class Period artificially inflated
the Company's stock price, inflicting damages on investors. R&G
Financial is a diversified financial holding company with
operations in Puerto Rico and the United States providing
banking, mortgage banking, investments, consumer finance and
insurance through its wholly-owned subsidiaries. The Complaint
alleges that during the Class Period defendants made materially
false and misleading statements concerning the Company's
operations and financial performance. Unbeknownst to public
investors, the true facts, which defendants knew or recklessly
disregarded and failed to disclose to the investing public
during the Class Period, included that the Company was using
fraudulent accounting practices, including failing to record
impairment losses for the deterioration in the value of residual
interests retained, and materially overstated its net income,
net gain on mortgage loan sales and net capital and that the
Company was using ineffective risk-management and hedging
strategies against the increasing risk of rising interest rates.

On April 25, 2005, defendants disclosed that the Company would
need to restate its earnings for the prior two-year period.
Specifically, R&G Financial disclosed that the Company's
financial reports from January 1, 2003 through December 31, 2004
would incur charges to reflect impairments of $90 million to
$150 million on retained residual interests. As a result of this
news, R&G Financial's stock price plummeted 35%, on unusually
high volume, falling $23.18 in one day.

The next day, April 26, 2005, the Company announced the
Securities and Exchange Commission had commenced an
investigation concerning the financial restatement announced by
R&G Financial the previous day, as well as the underlying issues
addressed in the Company's April 25 press release.

For more details, contact Michael Goldberg, Esq., of Glancy
Binkow & Goldberg LLP, 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311, Los
Angeles, CA, 90067, Phone: (310) 201-9150 or (888) 773-9224, E-
mail: info@glancylaw.com, Web site: http://www.glancylaw.com.


TIBCO SOFTWARE: Scott + Scott Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Scott + Scott LLC initiated a class action suit
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of
TIBCO Software, Inc. ("TIBCO" or the "Company") (Nasdaq: TIBX)
from September 21, 2004 through March 1, 2005, inclusive (the
"Class Period").

The complaint charges TIBCO and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. TIBCO engages in the development and marketing of software
solutions for the integration of business information,
processes, and applications in various industries outside the
financial services market. The Complaint alleges that the
Company failed to disclose and misrepresented the following
material adverse facts, which were known to defendants or
recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) that the Staffware PLC integration was not yet
         complete;

     (2) that the failed integration of Staffware was causing
         material disruptions for the Company;

     (3) that the failed Staffware integration caused a
         paralysis of leadership in the Company's European
         management, which resulted in a lack of execution in
         all European markets for the Company;

     (4) as such, the Company was unable to close any licensing
         deals that resulted in revenue of more than $5 million;
         and

     (5) that TIBCO did not maintain an adequate system of
         internal financial, operational or disclosure controls
         so as to reasonably assure the accuracy, completeness
         and veracity of the Company's public statements and
         representations to investors.

On March 1, 2005, defendants announced that TIBCO's results for
the first quarter of fiscal year 2005 were well below guidance.
Even worse, during TIBCO's first quarter of fiscal year 2005
conference call, defendants revealed that Staffware not only
remained unintegrated, but because of integration- related
problems, European sales had been paralyzed. News of this
shocked the market. Shares of TIBCO fell $1.86 per share, or
20.9 percent, to close at $7.04 per share on unusually heavy
trading volume.

For more details, contact Amy K. Saba of Scott + Scott, LLC,
Phone: +1-800-332-2259 ext. 26, E-mail: asaba@scott-scott.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  * * *