CAR_Public/050713.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, July 13, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 137

                          Headlines

AG EDWARDS: Continues To Face Employees' Wage Lawsuit in S.D. CA
CAPITAL ONE: WV Attorney General Launches Consumer Fraud Lawsuit
CROCUS INVESTMENT: Shareholders Mull Suit V. Manitoba Government
ENRON CORPORATION: Settles Government Action, Related Litigation
IMPERIAL PETROLEUM: Settlement Reached For TX Gas Royalties Suit

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Shareholders Lodge Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
INTERVOICE-BRITE INC.: Fifth Circuit Modifies Ruling in TX Suit
IRVINE MATERIALS: Construction Firm Launches Price-Fixing Suit
LOUISIANA-PACIFIC: CA Court Allows Consumer Lawsuit To Proceed
MAYTAG CORPORATION: Shareholders File Securities Suit in S.D. IO

MERCK & Co.: Jury Selection Begins In Texas Vioxx Injury Lawsuit
MESABA AVIATION: WI DOJ Reaches Settlement For Mass Layoff Suit
MOLSON COORS: Shareholder Lodges Suit Over Misrepresented Merger
MORGAN STANLEY: Asks FL Court To Dismiss Arbitrators' Lawsuit
NORTH DAKOTA: Farmers To Opt Out of Discrimination Suit V. USDA

OBIM: Recalls Cantaloupe Items Due To Salmonella Contamination
OHIO: AG Petro Announces Share in Relafen Antitrust Settlement
SCHOOL SPECIALTY: Faces Securities Fraud Suits in WI State Court
SHAVER AUTO: Offers Cash Payments to Settle Car Buyers' Lawsuit
SHELL GROUP: Reaches $90M Settlement For ERISA Litigation in NJ

SIGNING RESOURCES: Reaches Settlement For Utah AG Antitrust Suit
SOUTH CALIFORNIA: Workers File Suit Over Pension Plan Conversion
SOUTH DAKOTA: Enters Agreement V. Telemarketing Fraud With AG
STARTEK INC.: Shareholders Launch Securities Fraud Lawsuit in CO
TIBCO SOFTWARE: Shareholders File Securities Fraud Suits in CA

TREX COMPANY: Shareholders Launch Stock Fraud Suits in W.D. VA
WELLPOINT INC.: Reaches Settlement For Physicians' Federal Suit

              Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

BOSTON COMMUNICATIONS: Charles J. Piven Lodges Stock Suit in MA
BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS: Scott + Scott Lodges Stock Lawsuit in CA
CRAY INC.: Glancy Binkow Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in W.D. WA
CRAY INC.: Shalov Stone Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in W.D. WA
DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit in CA

DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Scott + Scott Lodges Securities Suit in CA
GUIDANT CORPORATION: Brodsky & Smith Files Securities Suit in IN
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Murray Frank Files Stock Suit in S.D. NY
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Stock Suit in NY
OCA INC.: Kahn Gauthier Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. LA

OCA INC.: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. LA
OCA INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Fraud Suit in LA
TIBCO SOFTWARE: Scott + Scott Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CA

                          *********

AG EDWARDS: Continues To Face Employees' Wage Lawsuit in S.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
AG Edwards, Inc. is still facing a class action filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
California on behalf of all financial consultants and trainees
who worked for the Company in California after June 30, 2000.  

The action, among other relief, seeks overtime pay for financial
consultants, including trainees, on the basis that the financial
consultants should be classified as non-exempt employees under
California law, restitution of amounts that were deducted from
commissions owed to financial consultants to repay advances made
in prior months, payment for meal rest breaks to which financial
consultants are claimed to be entitled, and reimbursement for
certain alleged business-related expenses paid by financial
consultants.  

Several other financial services firms have been sued in
California in similar actions, the Company said in a disclosure
to the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The suit is styled "Mitchell v. AG Edwards and Sons, et al.,
case no. 3:02cv2218," filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California (San Diego), under Judge
Barry Ted Moskowitz.  Representing the plaintiffs is Joshua D.
Gruenberg of Larabee and Gruenberg, 2169 First Avenue, San
Diego, CA 92101, Phone: (619)230-1234.  Representing the Company
is Daryl Steven Landy of Steefel Levitt and Weiss, One
Embarcadero Center, Suite 3000, San Francisco, CA 94111-3600,
Phone: (415)788-0900.


CAPITAL ONE: WV Attorney General Launches Consumer Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
West Virginia Attorney General Darrell McGraw filed a lawsuit
against Capital One Bank and Capital One Services, Inc. in the
Circuit Court of Lincoln County for unfair, deceptive, or
unconscionable acts or practices in the marketing and issuance
of credit cards and the marketing and sales of other products.

Capital One Bank is a Virginia bank that markets and issues
credit cards to West Virginia consumers; Capital One Services,
Inc. is a Delaware corporation that services the credit cards
issued by Capital One Bank.

Mr. McGraw's Consumer Protection Division has received numerous
complaints about the Company's credit cards and lending
practices.  Consumers complained that the Company sent them pre-
approved offers of credit that advertised credit limits of "up
to" $5000 but when they accepted the offer they received cards
with a much lower credit limit such as $200 or $300.  The
Company charged annual "membership" fees of $59 per year on
these cards. The entire "membership" fee was charged on the
consumer's first monthly statement.  As a result, a consumer
with a $59 fee and a $200-limit account had only $141 of credit
available the first month.

During the activation call, the Company marketed additional
products and services to consumers: Payment Protection Plan,
$.89 per $100 of balance per month; Privacy Guard, $69 per year;
National Card Registry membership, $49.95 per year. Many
consumers had substantially less than the $200 or $300 credit
limit available to them during the first month as a result of
charges for annual "membership" fees and ancillary products and
services. The fees on these cards were substantial: $25 or $29
per month for overlimit fees and late fees.

Consumers who charged amounts close to the $200 limit the first
month would already be overlimit when they received their first
statements because of the $59 "membership" fee.  The Company did
not refuse credit charges that would cause consumers to exceed
their credit limits but charged an overlimit fee of $29 every
month that the consumer's balance exceeded his credit limit.  
The Company set the minimum monthly payment on these low-limit
accounts at three percent (3%) of the balance (but not less than
$10) or the amount by which the balance exceeded the consumer's
credit limit, whichever was greater. A consumer with an
overlimit balance who made only the monthly minimum payment
would never bring his or her account balance below the credit
limit: each monthly payment would reduce the balance to the
credit limit; each monthly addition of interest would increase
the balance so as to exceed the credit limit.

Some consumers realized they could not afford to keep the card
because of the high fees and high interest rates. When they
tried to cancel the cards they learned that they could not
cancel them so long as there was an outstanding balance.  The
Company continued to add late fees, overlimit fees, and annual
"membership" fees even after the consumers tried to close their
accounts. These consumers fell deeper and deeper into debt even
while continuing to make payments every month. Many eventually
became discouraged and stopped paying. Their balances then began
to increase by the addition of interest plus $58 of late fees
and overlimit fees every month. Some consumers with credit
limits of $200 soon owed more than $1000.

Other consumers complained that the Company used misleading
advertising about interest rates for transferring balances to
new credit card accounts. One consumer responded to a pre-
approved offer of credit for a credit card with "a fixed APR as
low as 2.99% on balances you transfer . for as long as the
balances exist." The consumer called to apply and told the
Capital One representative that she would like to transfer her
balances from other cards only if she could get the 2.99% APR
(annual percentage rate); otherwise she could transfer the
balances elsewhere at an APR of 4.9%. Capital One transferred
her balances and charged her interest at the rate of 9.9% APR.

Mr. McGraw stated, "Consumers need to read every bit of fine
print in credit card solicitations and cardholder agreements.
Many advertise low fixed rates for the life of the balance but
only disclose in fine print that this is only true so long as
the account remains in good standing. Making a single payment
just one day late, going over the credit limit, or having a
returned payment may put the account in bad standing. When that
happens, the bank raises the interest rate on the account to a
high penalty rate. Many credit card agreements now have a
"universal default" provision. Under this provision, the credit
card issuer raises the consumer's interest rate as a penalty if
he pays late or misses a payment on a different credit card or
loan, if the issuer considers the consumer's balance on any
account too high, or if the consumer's credit score decreases
because of a single month of large expenditures."

For more information or to file a complaint, please contact the
Attorney General's Consumer Protection Division by Mail: P.O.
Box 1789, Charleston, WV 25326-1789, by Phone: 1-800-368-8808 or
visit the Website:
http://www.wvs.state.wv.us/wvag/PDFReader/CapitalOneComplaint.pd
f.


CROCUS INVESTMENT: Shareholders Mull Suit V. Manitoba Government
----------------------------------------------------------------
Angry shareholders in the Crocus Investment Fund along with
their lawyers, who are set to file a class action lawsuit
against the fund, were debating whether to include the Manitoba
government, The Canada Press reports.

Bernie Bellan, a shareholder who has helped organize the lawsuit
told the Canada Press, "There has been a certain amount of
discussion as to who the final parties will be." The Manitoba
government set up Crocus as a labour-sponsored investment fund,
but did not direct its operations and had only one member on the
fund's board of directors.

However, the government still came under fire in a report last
May from auditor general Jon Singleton, who stated that the
province failed to heed warning signs that the fund was heading
for trouble.

Mr. Bellan points out to the Canada Press, "It's pretty clear
from (Singleton's) report that the government did have a very
strong role in overlooking what was going on with Crocus." He
goes on to say, "But . they put up walls between themselves (and
Crocus), and it's a question of are going to be able to knock
down those walls to get at them? I think that right now the
thinking is 'yes,' but that's still a matter for consideration."

Previously, Mr. Bellan and other shareholders indicated their
intent to file a lawsuit, which will likely name the fund's
former board of directors and other officials.

The Crocus fund, which had 34,000 investors, suddenly halted
trading last December as questions arose about the true value of
the fund's assets. The fund had issued a $15-million writedown
in its value weeks earlier, and soon announced a further
writedown of $46 million. Shares that were sold for more than
$15 were suddenly estimated to be worth $7.

The auditor general's report stated that the fund's directors
misled shareholders by overstating the fund's value. The
Manitoba Securities Commission and police are now investigating
the fund, which is currently in receivership.


ENRON CORPORATION: Settles Government Action, Related Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Enron Corporation reached agreements to settle a governmental
action and related class action lawsuit currently pending
against the company and certain of its former officers, Northern
Trust Company and Arthur Anderson. Under the proposed
settlement, the United States Department of Labor (DOL) and the
class action plaintiffs will have a shared allowed general
unsecured claim of $356.25 million and receive distribution
pursuant to Enron's Chapter 11 Plan. Funds above the settlement
amount held in reserve by Enron on account of these claims can
now be released for distribution to creditors.

The agreement applies to Pamela A. Tittle, et al. v. Enron
Corp., et al. (the Tittle Action) and Elaine L. Chao v. Enron
Corp., et al. (the DOL Action). The cases were brought on behalf
of the DOL and former and current Enron employees who allege
certain breaches of fiduciary duty by the company and related
parties with respect to the management of Enron's retirement
plans. The cases were consolidated in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Texas.

In connection with these settlements, Enron will move forward
with a standard termination of these plans, which requires it to
fully fund the pension plans, establish an orderly process to
distribute the value of benefits from each plan to its
participants, and pay all benefits earned under these plans, all
in accordance with a process overseen by the Pension Benefit
Guaranty Corporation (PBGC). Once those actions have been taken,
the PBGC has agreed to withdraw its action to involuntarily
terminate Enron's Cash Balance Plan, as well as the pension
plans for Enron subsidiaries Enron Facility Services, Garden
State Paper Company and San Juan Gas Company.

"We are extremely pleased to have resolved another issue in the
bankruptcy proceedings and removed a significant hurdle in the
termination of Enron's pension plans," said Stephen Cooper,
Enron's interim CEO and chief restructuring officer. "These
settlements remove more than seven billion dollars of claims
against the Enron estate and will accelerate distributions to
all other creditors."

Cooper added, "Everyone benefits from a standard termination of
the plans -- participants win by having their benefits secured
or paid under the plans, the PBGC benefits because it is not
required to take over and administer the plans, and the estate
and its creditors benefit because a standard termination
represents the most cost-effective method of terminating the
plans."

Enron has also reached an agreement with the DOL that required
the appointment of an administrative committee to oversee the
retirement plans. The committee is required to retain
independent fiduciaries that will select an annuity provider for
the plans and oversee the enforcement of the class action
settlement agreement. The committee and its independent
fiduciaries will replace State Street Bank & Trust Company.

The proposed settlement remains subject to approval by the
Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York and the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas.
Attorneys for the class will address terms for distribution of
the settlement fund to class members.

The above settlement is separate and apart from the previously
announced settlements involving proceeds from director and
officer liability insurers, and those settlements in shareholder
actions in the consolidated Newby litigation involving Citibank
and J.P. Morgan Chase.

For more details, contact Jennifer Lowney of Brunswick Group,
LLC, Phone: 212-333-3810 or 917-215-1598.


IMPERIAL PETROLEUM: Settlement Reached For TX Gas Royalties Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Imperial Petroleum, Inc. reached a settlement for a class action
filed against it, through its predecessor in interest, and other
natural gas companies, seeking damages for inadequate
development of the Moss Unit located in Panola County, Texas.  
The plaintiffs sought unspecified damages.  

The lawsuit was settled subsequent to year-end through the
execution of a farmout agreement with a company nominated by the
plaintiffs to drill additional wells in the Unit.  The Company
retained an over-riding royalty interest in the farmout wells to
be drilled and all rights to its existing proration unit
surrounding the Moss well, as well as $132,500 as consideration
for executing the farmout.  Three additional producing wells
have subsequently been drilled in the Unit.


INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Shareholders Lodge Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
International Business Machines Corporation faces a shareholder
class action filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's common stock from April 5,2005 to May 15,2005.  The
suit is styled "Donald R. Lomax, et al. v. International
Business Machines Corporation, et al."

According to a press release dated July 8, 2005, the complaint
alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. Specifically, the complaint alleges that Defendants
failed to disclose that at the time of its analyst conference
call on April 5, 2005, which was purportedly to discuss the
impact of expensing options under SFAS 123R:

     (1) the Company was experiencing significant operational
         issues in multiple areas of its business. In
         particular, the Company had been unable to close
         significant transactions late in the first quarter, it
         was experiencing elongated sales cycles, and was having
         product-transition problems in its hardware segment.

     (2) The Company intentionally accelerated the adoption of
         SFAS 123R, despite having an additional two quarters to
         implement it, in order to sufficiently lower analyst
         expectations so that when it later disclosed the
         operational issues and reported earnings from
         continuing operations of $0.85 per share for the first
         quarter 2005, it would have the effect of cushioning
         the blow of the significant earnings miss.

     (3) The Company intentionally misrepresented the impact
         from expensing options, indicating an earnings impact
         of $0.14 per share on April 5, 2005 (versus the actual
         impact of $0.10 per share reported on April 14, 2005),
         in order to disguise a significant and material
         operating miss.

The complaint further alleges that on April 14, 2005, IBM
reported first quarter 2005 financial results. The Company
posted net income of $1.4 billion, or $0.84 per share, which
represented an additional miss of $0.06 per share, undisclosed
nine days earlier. The Company also revealed that the miss was
significantly attributable to operations, rather than wholly
attributable to SFAS 123R, as the Company had previously
indicated. Shares reacted negatively to the news, falling from
$83.64 per share on April 14, 2005, to $76.70 per share on April
15, 2005. Before the markets opened on evening, April 18, 2005,
the Wall Street Journal published an article characterizing
IBM's April 5, 2005 announcement as "clouding" IBM's true
financial position, and "cushioning the blow" of its earnings
miss. On May 4, 2005, IBM announced that it would be reducing
its workforce by 10,000 to 13,000 employees. On June 27, 2005,
the Company announced that the SEC had begun an informal
investigation into the Company's statements regarding the
earnings miss.

The suit is styled "Donald R. Lomax, et al. v. International
Business Machines Corporation, et al.," filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York.  
Representing the plaintiffs are:

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

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

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


INTERVOICE-BRITE INC.: Fifth Circuit Modifies Ruling in TX Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals modified its
opinion upholding in part the dismissal of the class action
filed against InterVoice-Brite, Inc. in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas
Division, styled "David Barrie, et al., on Behalf of Themselves
and All Others Similarly Situated v. InterVoice-Brite, Inc., et
al., No. 3-01CV1071-D."

Several related class action lawsuits were filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Texas on
behalf of purchasers of common stock of the Company during the
period from October 12, 1999 through June 6, 2000.  Plaintiffs
have filed claims, which were consolidated into one proceeding,
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 against
the Company as well as certain of its current and former
officers and directors on behalf of the alleged class members.

In the complaint, plaintiffs claim that the Company and the
named current and former officers and directors issued false and
misleading statements during the Class Period concerning the
financial condition of the Company, the results of the merger
with Brite Voice Systems, Inc. and the alleged future business
projections of the Company.  Plaintiffs have asserted that these
alleged statements resulted in artificially inflated stock
prices.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in the
consolidated proceeding, asserting that the complaint lacked the
degree of specificity and factual support to meet the pleading
standards applicable to federal securities litigation.  On this
basis, the Company requested that the court dismiss the
complaint in its entirety.  Plaintiffs responded to the
Company's request for dismissal.  On August 8, 2002, the Court
entered an order granting the Company's motion to dismiss the
class action lawsuit. In the order dismissing the lawsuit, the
Court granted plaintiffs an opportunity to reinstate the lawsuit
by filing an amended complaint.

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint which the Court dismissed
on September 15, 2003.  Plaintiffs appealed the District Court
decision to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.  On January 12,
2005, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion in
which it affirmed, in part, the District Court's order of
dismissal.  The Court of Appeals' opinion also reversed a
limited number of issues in the District Court's proceedings.  
On February 25, 2005, the Company filed a motion for rehearing
with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals requesting the Court to
modify its opinion.  On May 12, 2005, the Fifth Circuit Court of
Appeals denied the Company's petition for rehearing but modified
its opinion to clarify the Court's decision.  The case has been
remanded to the District Court for further proceedings
consistent with the Fifth Circuit's opinion.

The suit is styled "Barrie, et al v. Intervoice Brite Inc, et
al., case no. 3:01-cv-01071," filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas
Division, under Judge Ed Kinkeade.  Representing the plaintiffs
are Marc R. Stanley, Stanley Mandel & Iola, 3100 Monticello Ave,
Suite 750, Dallas, TX 75205, Phone: 214/443-4301, Fax: 214/443-
0358, E-mail: mstanley@smi-law.com; and Lauren M. Winston,
Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins- San Francisco,
100 Pine St, Suite 2600 San Francisco, CA 94111, Phone:
415/288-4545.  Representing the company is Timothy R. McCormick,
Thompson & Knight, 1700 Pacific Ave, Suite 3300, Dallas, TX
75201-4693, Phone: 214/969-1103, Fax: 214/880-3253, E-mail:
timothy.mccormick@tklaw.com.


IRVINE MATERIALS: Construction Firm Launches Price-Fixing Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A second construction firm initiated a lawsuit seeking class
action status against Irving Materials Inc., claiming that it
was forced to overpay for ready-mix concrete because of price-
fixing, The Indianapolis Star reports.  In its suit,
Indianapolis-based Kort Builders Inc. seeks triple damages on
concrete it purchased from Irving between July 2000 and May
2004.

Last week, Irvine pleaded guilty and agreed to pay a $29.2
million fine. Additionally, four of its executives will pay
fines and serve five months in jail. The Department of Justice
contends that Irving conspired with other area concrete
companies.

As previously reported in the July 4, 2005 edition of the Class
Action Reporter, the Justice Department's price-fixing
investigation into the Indianapolis-area ready mix concrete
industry triggered lawsuits by contractors claiming they were
forced to overpay for concrete.

The first of this suits was by Boyle Construction Management Co.
Inc. of Indianapolis, which filed a class action complaint
against concrete maker Irving Materials Inc., a day after the
Greenfield firm pleaded guilty and accepted a $29.2 million
fine, the highest fine ever in a domestic antitrust case.


LOUISIANA-PACIFIC: CA Court Allows Consumer Lawsuit To Proceed
--------------------------------------------------------------
A recent ruling by a Judge William A. Mayhew of Stanislaus
County Superior Court gave plaintiffs in a class action suit
against Louisiana-Pacific Corporation the green light to proceed
with their consumer fraud suit, The Nashville Business Journal
reports.  

Previously, the Nashville-based company filed a motion to de-
certify the class-action suit, originally certified in 2002, but
the California judge denied the request.  With the ruling, the
trial is set to begin on December 6, and LP could pay up to $100
million in damages resulting from allegedly faulty shingles.

The suit is the latest challenge for LP, which endured a
protracted product liability lawsuit in the early 1990s and
ousted longtime Chairman Harry Merlo in 1995 amid a swirl of
fraud and sexual harassment lawsuits.

Company officials downplayed the effect of the recent ruling by
saying that it is just one more step in the legal process and
not a particularly exciting one. Mary Cohn, spokeswoman for LP
even told The Nashville Business Journal, "This is old news. We
stopped manufacturing this product in 1998 - it was not
commercially viable because of the high cost of production."

The current suit, filed on behalf of 5,300 California
homeowners, alleges company leaders knowingly failed to disclose
that LP's Nature Guard shingles were potentially defective
before introducing them to the market in 1995.

The cement/wood fiber composite shingles were introduced to
mimic the look of cedar shakes, while also being non-flammable
and lightweight. LP was one of several companies to develop such
products after fires in the late 1980's wiped out more than
1,000 Oakland, California houses.

According to the plaintiff's attorney Jonathan Selbin of Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, the shingles began to fail in as
few as three years. Mr. Selbin, who pointed out that the
shingles came with a 25-year warranty, told the Nashville
Business Journal, "This was a high-end product. They were bought
by wealthy, middle-aged people who were told they'd never have
to replace their roof in their lifetime."  Additionally, he
alleges that LP's warranty department is merely offering
temporary solutions to homeowners with complaints about the
shingles' durability.

However, Ms. Cohn disagrees and instead told the Nashville
Business Journal, "It's unfortunate the plaintiffs' attorneys
have said we don't have a remedy. People have been very
successful with our warranty department."

Louisiana-Pacific manufactures and distributes building products
in three segments: oriented strand board, siding, and engineered
wood products. The company, which maintains corporate offices in
downtown Nashville and a research and development facility in
Cool Springs, netted $420.7 million in 2004.


MAYTAG CORPORATION: Shareholders File Securities Suit in S.D. IO
----------------------------------------------------------------
Maytag Corporation faces a shareholder class action filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa,
on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock from March
7,2005 to April 21,2005.  The suit is styled "Barry Yellen, et
al. v. Maytag Corp., et al., case no. 05-CV-00388."

According to a press release dated July 5, 2005, the complaint
alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the defendants failed
to disclose and misrepresented material adverse facts which were
known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them and which
caused the defendants to issue materially false and misleading
financial projections, among other things, which caused the
price of Maytag stock to trade at artificially inflated prices.
Among other things, the complaint alleges that the defendants
attempted to inflate the price of Maytag stock in an effort to
secure a higher price for the company in connection with its
buyout negotiations with Ripplewood Holdings LLC.

The suit is styled "Barry Yellen, et al. v. Maytag Corp., et
al., case no. 05-CV-00388," filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Iowa.  Representing the
plaintiffs is Shalov Stone & Bonner LLP (New York), 485 Seventh
Avenue, Suite 1000, New York, NY, 10018, Phone: (212) 239-4340,
Fax: (212) 239-4310, E-mail: lawyer@lawssb.com.


MERCK & Co.: Jury Selection Begins In Texas Vioxx Injury Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jury selection began on the first of thousands of lawsuits
against Merck & Co.'s Vioxx, as the drug giant sought to defend
itself against claims that it hid the risks of the popular
painkiller, The Reuters News Agency reports.

The case, which was filed in a Texas state court in Angleton,
near Houston, pits the family of deceased Texan Robert Ernst
against the big drug maker, which pulled Vioxx off the market in
September after studies showed prolonged use could increase the
risk of heart attack and stroke.

According to Chip Babcock, a partner at law firm Jackson Walker
LLP in Houston, the suit could help determine the direction
litigation will take in the other state courts in New Jersey,
California and Texas, and in the U.S. federal court in New
Orleans. He also pointed out to Reuters, "The first case has a
lot of impact on what comes afterward."  Court documents
revealed that Mr. Ernst had been taking Vioxx for six months
when he died at age 59 in May 2001 of complications from heart
arrhythmia. In the suit, his family blames the drug for his
death and is seeking unspecified damages from Merck, which is
based in Whitehouse Station, New Jersey.

Judge Ben Hardin recently assembled a 100-member jury pool,
which will be whittled down to 12 plus alternates for a trial
expected to last four to five weeks. Opening arguments in the
case are likely to begin either on Wednesday or Thursday.

Vioxx is the trade name for rofecoxib, which is part of the
class of drugs called NSAIDs. It was touted as a pain and
inflammation reliever that did not cause ulcers or
gastrointestinal bleeding, a side effect of many such
medications.  Merck, which faces nearly 4,000 lawsuits and 118
class-action suits, previously said that it tested Vioxx on
nearly 10,000 patients during clinical trials and pulled the
drug as soon as the danger of its prolonged use became clear.
The company argued in court documents that the heightened risk
did not occur unless patients took the drug for longer than 18
months, far longer than Ernst had taken it.  Vioxx has also not
been shown to raise the risk of heart arrhythmia, which was
believed to cause Mr. Ernst's death.

Merck has said in court papers, "Both the nature of the death in
this case, and the facts concerning the (Ernst's) Vioxx use put
the claims in this case totally outside the area of that
controversy."

However, the Ernst family's lawyer, Mark Lanier, argued that
Merck had declined to disclose studies that showed risks began
as early as six weeks after starting Vioxx usage, and that
arrhythmia was one of those risks.  A member of Merck's legal
team, Jonathan Skidmore, a partner at Fulbright & Jaworski in
Dallas, denied the company had hidden any information about
Vioxx. He said, "Merck disclosed information about the safety
problems of Vioxx in a prompt and responsible manner. There are
no secret studies."


MESABA AVIATION: WI DOJ Reaches Settlement For Mass Layoff Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Wisconsin Department of Justice (DOJ) reached a settlement
with Mesaba Aviation, Inc., over a mass layoff claim related to
the closure of its aircraft heavy maintenance operations at its
Mosinee, Wisconsin outstation in October of 2003, state Attorney
General Peg Lautenschlager announced in a statement.

"I am very pleased these workers will be compensated and their
rights under the law upheld," Ms. Lautenschlager said.  
"Wisconsin workers are our state's most vital economic resource,
and protecting workers' rights helps Wisconsin families -- and
helps create a better future for all our citizens."   

The claim, originally filed in November, 2003 with the Wisconsin
Department of Workforce Development (DWD), and referred to the
Attorney General in January, 2005, alleged that Mesaba failed to
provide 25 employees 60 days advance notice of their furloughs
in violation of Wisconsin's Business Closing and Mass Layoff
law, Wis. Stat. s. 109.07.   

The agreement calls for the payment of $100,000, which will be
distributed to the employees, pro-rata, after deductions for
back wages paid as the result of an arbitration award to certain
of the employees represented by the Aircraft Machinists
Fraternal Association and severance payments made to certain
employees.

Workers will be notified directly by DWD.  For More Information
contact Brian Rieselman by Phone: 608/266-7876 or visit the
Website: http://www.doj.state.wi.us/


MOLSON COORS: Shareholder Lodges Suit Over Misrepresented Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Due to disappointing first-quarter results that were followed by
a 20 percent drop in the stock price of Molson Coors Brewing
Co., one of the firm's shareholders launched a federal lawsuit,
which is claiming the merger that created the company in
February was misrepresented to shareholders, The Associated
Press reports.

The shareholder, Brian Crombie, who is seeking class action
status for his suit, claims that the two companies "issued
materially false and misleading statements of fact to the
market" when it asked shareholders in January to approve the
deal.

Mr. Crombie, who is seeking monetary and other damages, also
claims in his suit that shareholders were told, "the merger
would result in synergies and cost savings and that the
combination of Coors and Molson would result in a substantially
stronger and more profitable company." The suit goes on to
state, "Instead, the first-quarter earnings of the combined
companies, reported in late April, were disappointing and
resulted in class B shares of the company falling almost $14.50
per share to $63, or almost 20 percent."

Last April though, Leo Kiely, president and CEO cited weak
industry conditions as well as lack of volume growth in Canada,
the United States, the United Kingdom and Brazil affected Molson
Coors' results. The company's reported quarterly loss excluding
one-time items initially was reported at $5.1 million then
revised in May to $8.4 million.

The Golden-based Adolph Coors Co. and the Montreal-based Molson
Inc. merged in February to form Molson Coors.

Additionally, the suit states that investors were erroneously
led to believe that the "financial and operational strength of
Coors" would help the combined company reach its projected
goals, however, Coors was not performing up to the standards it
originally reported. The companies violated the terms of the
merger by failing to disclose that Coors' business was
performing "well below plan and consensus estimates," the suit
further states.

According to the company's filing with the Securities and
Exchange Commission, which is seeking documents related to the
merger, Mr. Crombie's suit is one of several that have been
filed alleging the world's fifth-largest brewer and some of its
officers and directors misled shareholders by not disclosing
first-quarter business trends before shareholders voted on the
merger.


MORGAN STANLEY: Asks FL Court To Dismiss Arbitrators' Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Morgan Stanley DW, Inc. asked the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida to dismiss a putative class
action filed against it on behalf of individuals or entities
that had arbitrated claims against the Company to award between
January 1, 1999 and April 25, 2005.

The complaint, initially filed in Miami-Dade County, Florida
Circuit Court, alleges that the Company did not properly comply
with its discovery obligations in arbitrations given its recent
statements concerning potentially additional sources of
responsive emails. The complaint asserts common law causes of
action for breach of contract, negligence and breach of
fiduciary duty and seeks, among other things, compensatory
damages of approximately $100 million, attorneys' fees and
costs.

On May 24, 2005, the Company filed a notice of removal to the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida and, on June 22, 2005, filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint.


NORTH DAKOTA: Farmers To Opt Out of Discrimination Suit V. USDA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Farmers and ranchers from the Fort Berthold reservation in North
Dakota are seeking to opt out of a class action discrimination
lawsuit against the federal Agriculture Department, saying their
claims are separate from the others, The Associated Press
reports.

A federal judge though is yet to rule on the request from the
group of about 28 Fort Berthold members, who say in court
documents that they "continue to be held captive in a suit in
which they did not voluntarily become a part."

The suit involves Indian farmers and ranchers who allege the
Agriculture Department treated them differently than white
farmers and ranchers in federal farm programs.  The case
Keepseagle vs. Johanns, formerly Veneman, refers to George
Keepseagle, one of the lead plaintiffs from Fort Yates on the
Standing Rock Reservation, and Mike Johanns, the U.S. Secretary
of Agriculture. Ann Veneman was Agriculture Secretary when the
lawsuit was filed.

Joseph Sellers, a Washington, D.C., an attorney for the
plaintiffs, told The Associated Press that the class action
involves more than 10,000 Indians who farmed or ranched between
January 1, 1981, and November 24, 1999, who applied to
participate in a federal farm program during that time and who
filed a discrimination complaint with USDA during that time.

Mr. Sellers also told The Associated Press, "If they're truly
unique compared to the rest of the class, then the judge may
allow them to opt-out. These folks - the 28 - have said their
claims are unique. We don't think they're unique, but we think
at some point they ought to be granted the right to opt-out,
anyway."

Former Three Affiliated Tribes chairman Wilbur Wilkinson,
according to court documents, represents the Fort Berthold
group.  The Indian farmers and ranchers lawsuit against the
USDA, filed in federal court in Washington, D.C., is going into
its sixth year. Mr. Sellers told The Associated Press that he
did not think the actions of the Fort Berthold group would
change the case pointing out, "I assume at some point the judge
is going to hold a hearing and resolve all these things."
Additionally, Mr. Seller told The Associated Press that he hopes
the case can go to trial in a few months.


OBIM: Recalls Cantaloupe Items Due To Salmonella Contamination
--------------------------------------------------------------
OBIM, a Ready Pac affiliated producer of fresh cut fruit,
announces a one-time recall of various fresh cut cantaloupe
items with Best Before dates of 7/17 and 7/18 due to a small
potential risk of salmonella contamination.  These items are
sold to retail stores under both the OBIM and Ready Pac brand
names and are packaged in sealed, clear plastic containers
ranging in size from 6 to 80 oz. They are distributed in the
states of Arkansas, Colorado, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi,
Oklahoma, Alabama, Kentucky, Missouri, Tennessee, and Texas. For
a complete product listing of the items that may be impacted,
please visit http://www.readypac.com.  

OBIM was informed that one of its cantaloupe suppliers, Martori
Farms of Scottsdale, Arizona indicated that a sample of raw
cantaloupes tested positive for salmonella on the cantaloupe
skin.  While fresh cut and packaged fruit processing includes
extensive exterior washing, peeling and cleaning, nevertheless,
immediate measures were taken to temporarily stop distribution
of the product in question before it was shipped to stores.  

OBIM, FDA, and Martori Farms continue to investigate the cause
of the problem and the potential health risk.  As a precaution,
Ready Pac is making every effort to inform consumers of the
potential risk. There have been no reported illnesses to date.

If any consumer has purchased these products, please return them
to the place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers with any
questions may contact Ready Pac at 1-800-800-7822.


OHIO: AG Petro Announces Share in Relafen Antitrust Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nearly $400,000 in court-approved compensation will be
distributed to Ohio health agencies for massive overpayments for
the brand-name drug Relafen from 1998 to 2003, Ohio Attorney
General Jim Petro announced in a statement.  The compensation is
part of a $75 million settlement of a nationwide class-action
lawsuit alleging the overpayments resulted from anticompetitive
practices by drug maker GlaxoSmithKline PLC and a number of
allied companies.

Mr. Petro also said many Ohio consumers may be individually
entitled to compensation under the settlement but have only a
few days left - until July 29 - to make their claims. "My office
worked hard to make sure state agencies and consumers in all
states were included in any recovery obtained in this important
settlement," he said.  His office helps assure fair competition
in the marketplace by enforcing state and federal antitrust
laws.

Mr. Petro last week sent checks for more than $396,000 to the
Ohio Department of Job and Family Services and more than $3,300
to the Ohio Department of Mental Health under an April 14
settlement of a portion of the class-action lawsuit brought in
U.S. District Court in Massachusetts by a number of states,
insurance companies, and other third party payors of health care
costs across the country.

Another portion of the national settlement approved by the court
in November called for compensating consumers who were
individually overcharged in Relafen purchases during the same
time period, September 1, 1998 through June 30, 2003.
Instructions on how to document and submit consumer compensation
claims by the July 29 deadline are available on the Web:
http://www.relafensettlement.com. Relafen is a brand name for  
the drug nabumetone, a non-steroid anti-inflammatory drug
commonly prescribed for the treatment of chronic arthritis.

The plaintiffs alleged GlaxoSmithKline used lawsuits against
competitors to keep them from selling low-cost generic versions
of Relafen and as a result could charge much higher prices for
the brand-name drug - causing the plaintiffs to pay millions of
dollars in overcharges. The defendants contended their lawsuits
were filed to enforce legitimate patent rights. The court did
not decide in favor of the plaintiffs or defendants.  

For more details, contact Mark Anthony, Attorney General's
Office, by Phone: (614) 466-3840 or visit the Website:
http://www.ag.state.oh.us/  


SCHOOL SPECIALTY: Faces Securities Fraud Suits in WI State Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
School Specialty, Inc. faces several securities class actions
filed in the Circuit Court for Outagamie County, Wisconsin,
following its May 31, 2005 announcement that it had signed the
merger agreement to be acquired by an affiliate of Bain Capital
Partners, LLC.  The suits are styled:

     (1) Neal Auman v. School Specialty, Inc., et al., Case No.
         05-CS-765;

     (2) Adams Family Trust v. School Specialty, Inc., et al.,
         Case No. 05-CA-771; and

     (3) Alaska Hotel and Restaurant Employees Pension Trust
         Fund v. School Specialty, Inc., et al., Case No. 05-CA-
         797

The complaint in each action purports to have been filed by a
shareholder of the Company who seeks to maintain the suit as a
class action on behalf of all holders of Company common stock,
excluding those related to or affiliated with any of the
defendants.  The complaints assert claims arising out of the
Company's May 31, 2005 announcement and allege that the
Company and its directors breached fiduciary duties to the
Company's shareholders by negotiating and agreeing to the
transaction with Bain Capital at a price that the plaintiffs
claim to be inadequate.  Among all three actions the plaintiffs
seek, among other things, to enjoin or to rescind the
transaction with Bain Capital, other injunctive relief and/or
damages and other monetary relief.


SHAVER AUTO: Offers Cash Payments to Settle Car Buyers' Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Customers who bought vehicles from Shaver Auto Center Inc. in
San Bernardino, California over the past six years may be
eligible for payments of up to $1,000 as part of the settlement
of a lawsuit, according to a letter that was sent to some Shaver
customers, The Press-Enterprise reports.

In 2003, Deborah DeLoach launched a lawsuit against the auto
dealer, claiming it used multiple agreements in selling her a
car, didn't properly disclose the terms of her down payment and
sold her a former rental car without informing her, all in
violation of state law.

Ms. DeLoach was the lead plaintiff in the class action case. In
an ensuing legal battle, Shaver, countered in its court filings
with 25 separate defenses, including: Ms. DeLoach didn't
sufficiently protect her own interests, that she acted
negligently and that if the dealership did violate the law, it
was an error, not intentional.

According to the letter, which was sent to some Shaver customers
earlier this month, the following customers who must have
purchased or leased a vehicle between Oct. 17, 1999, and May 31,
2005 are eligible for compensation:

     (1) Anyone who made a deferred down payment and signed a
         "Pay Day Security Agreement" or similar agreement.

     (2) Anyone who signed a backdated, re-written sales
         contract.

     (3) Anyone who bought a vehicle that had been a rental, but
         was not told.

The letter goes on to say that eligible people in the first
group could get a $500 voucher from the dealership, which could
be used to buy a car, eligible people in the second group could
get a check for $30 and eligible people in the third group could
get a check for $1,000.

A person though who is eligible for benefits must submit the
claim form included in the letter they receive to the settlement
administrator by August 23, it said. Those with questions can
contact the administrator at (800) 281-6590.

Nancy Huebner, a paralegal handling the case for the firm
representing Ms. DeLoach, told The Press-Enterprise that she had
already received about 100 calls from people who believe they
are eligible for the settlement. She estimates that only about
25 percent of them meet the criteria. She further estimates that
the eligible class could be as large as 30,000, but did not have
a specific figure.


SHELL GROUP: Reaches $90M Settlement For ERISA Litigation in NJ
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Royal Dutch/Shell Group of Companies (NYSE: SC, LSE: SHEL)
reached a settlement in a class action and related litigation
brought against certain Group companies on behalf of employees
participating in certain United States employee savings plans
that are subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974 (ERISA). The class action, which is pending in United
States Federal Court in New Jersey, makes certain ERISA-based
claims based upon Shell's re-categorizations of its proved oil
and gas reserves.

An order preliminarily approving the proposed settlement has
been entered. If the settlement is finally approved by the
court, Shell will pay $90 million which - after certain expenses
(including court-approved attorneys' fees) are deducted - will
be distributed to eligible participants in the relevant employee
savings plans. Shell also has agreed to pay up to $1 million of
plaintiffs' counsel's out-of-pocket expenses and the costs of
providing notice to class members. An allocation plan will be
prepared by the lead plaintiffs and approved by the court. In
addition, as part of the settlement agreement, Shell has agreed
to adopt certain new procedures for monitoring and training
individuals appointed to fiduciary positions in savings plans
that are subject to ERISA. Of the proposed settlement amount,
$25 million is covered by insurance policies. The settlement
relates to all ERISA-based claims relating to the reserves re-
categorizations, but does not relate to or affect pending
securities claims.

Beat Hess, Shell's Legal Director, commented, "Shell believes
that this is a good settlement for plan participants and for the
companies. We are hopeful that the court will approve the
settlement, which represents an important step toward putting
litigation relating to the reserves re-categorizations behind
us."


SIGNING RESOURCES: Reaches Settlement For Utah AG Antitrust Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff filed an antitrust lawsuit
accusing two sign language interpreting services of bid rigging.  
Signing Resources and InterWest Interpreting were under state
contracts to provide interpreting services to state agencies and
universities.  Both companies have already agreed to settle the
lawsuits and pay fines.

"There was no room for misinterpretation. What happened here was
wrong. Taxpayers should be grateful that our antitrust attorneys
and the Utah Division of Purchasing are looking after their
interests," Mr. Shurtleff said.

According to the complaint, after the Company and InterWest
Interpreting discovered they were the only qualified bidders on
the state contract to provide sign language interpreting
services to state agencies, they began discussing with each
other the expected bid prices and what comments they could
suggest to amend the bid structure.  Ultimately, both companies
bid identical prices to the state and the contract was awarded
to both companies.  The Utah Division of Purchasing noticed the
suspicious bidding pattern and referred the case to the Utah
Attorney General.

The companies also allegedly shared with each other and other
interpreting companies what rates they pay to particular
interpreters working for both companies. They are also accused
of making false statements to the state during the bid process.

Signing Resources, LLC, of American Fork, Utah, InterWest
Interpreting, Inc. of Orem, Utah, and the presidents of the two
companies, Wing Butler and Jeff Born, agreed to settle the
lawsuit and admitted the conduct could be construed as violating
the law. They will now have to abide by a court order
prohibiting bid rigging in the future and pay fines of $120,000.

Assistant Attorney General Wayne Klein agreed on behalf of the
state to waive most of the fines if the defendants comply with
the law in the future. The Utah Division of Purchasing has
canceled these contracts and is in the process of issuing new
bid invitations for sign language interpreting services.

For more details, contact Paul Murphy by Phone: (801)538-1892 or
visit the Website: http://www.attygen.state.ut.us/  


SOUTH CALIFORNIA: Workers File Suit Over Pension Plan Conversion
----------------------------------------------------------------
Two Southern California Gas Co. employees launched a lawsuit
seeking class action status against their employer, alleging
that its conversion to a so-called cash-balance pension plan
discriminated against older workers, The Los Angeles Times
reports.

Filed in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles, the suit alleges
that the company illegally halted benefits paid to older workers
after it converted from a traditional pension system to a cash-
balance plan in 1998.  The suit, which seeks class action status
on behalf of an estimated 1,000 workers, was filed by David
Hurlic, 51, and Susana H. Selesky, 54, who have each worked for
the company for more than 20 years.

Traditional pensions promise to pay a set percentage of working
income for the rest of a worker's life, however, in cash-balance
plans, retirement payouts are based instead on how much money is
accrued on an employee's behalf in a company-sponsored savings
plan.  Both employees allege that the payouts under the cash-
balance plan would be grossly inferior to what they would have
received under the old pension plan, and that the company did
not provide proper disclosure of the reduction in benefits as
required under federal law.  In addition, the employees allege
the plan was discriminatory because older, long-time workers
would be most adversely affected by the conversion to the new
plan.

Ed Van Herik, a spokesman for Southern California Gas, told The
Times that the Los Angeles-based unit of Sempra Energy had not
seen the suit and could not comment, but he did point out that
the company believes the cash-balance plan would withstand any
legal challenge.

The pair's attorney, Jeffrey Lewis, a partner at Lewis,
Feinberg, Renaker & Jackson in Oakland told The Times that the
plaintiffs did not file the suit until now because the plan had
a five-year grandfather clause that temporarily disguised the
effect of the change.

The suit is similar to dozens of class action cases that were
filed against Fortune 500 companies across the country, stemming
from a wave of conversions from traditional pensions to cash
balance plans.


SOUTH DAKOTA: Enters Agreement V. Telemarketing Fraud With AG
-------------------------------------------------------------
South Dakota Attorney General Larry Long and First PREMIER Bank
in Sioux Falls entered an agreement to adopt a set of proactive
measures designed to prevent fraudulent telemarketers from
gaining access to consumers' bank accounts, Mr. Long announced
in a statement.

"Fraudulent telemarketers often use electronic withdrawals to
take money from consumers' checking accounts," Mr. Long said.
"This voluntary agreement addresses that type of fraud . This
agreement does two things: First, it requires the Bank to
tighten its screening process to prevent fraudulent
telemarketers from gaining access to consumers' bank accounts,"
Long said. "Secondly, the agreement establishes procedures for
monitoring electronic banking activity, which will allow
detection of fraudulent telemarketers much more quickly than
before."

Because of the Bank's leadership role in the Automated Clearing
House (ACH) Network, they implemented a variety of policies,
procedures and controls prior to the Attorneys General
involvement, which will prevent this type of activity in the
future.

"First PREMIER Bank is a national leader in providing electronic
banking services," Mr. Long said. "We are pleased that First
PREMIER Bank is setting such a high standard for fraud
prevention and detection, and we are hopeful that other banks
will follow First PREMIER's lead and become part of the
solution."

The agreement is the result of an investigation of fraudulent
telemarketing that was initiated by the Attorneys General in
Minnesota and Iowa. The South Dakota Consumer Protection
Division joined the investigation last year.

The Attorneys General allege that several fraudulent
telemarketers used deceptive sales pitches to induce consumers
to reveal their checking account information.  The fraudulent
telemarketers then took that information and withdrew money from
those consumers' checking accounts, using the banking industry's
electronic payment system, known as the ACH Network. The
fraudulent telemarketers initiated the withdrawals from
consumers' checking accounts by telling First PREMIER Bank that
the withdrawals were legitimate. With the controls that the
industry had in place at the time, First PREMIER Bank identified
this activity and the questionable companies and ultimately
stopped processing their ACH transactions.

First PREMIER Bank was not directly involved with any
telemarketing misconduct and assisted the Federal Trade
Commission in connection with its investigation and prosecution
of the telemarketers. Subsequently, the Bank responded to
inquiries from the Attorneys General regarding the Bank's
origination of the ACH transactions for the telemarketers in
question.  The bulk of the telemarketing fraud occurred in 2001
and 2002, during a nationwide ACH "pilot program." First PREMIER
Bank, and other banks in the ACH system, have since upgraded
electronic banking technology and procedures to help reduce the
chance of this type of telemarketing fraud. Consumers, however,
must still be diligent, Long warned.

"Consumers must safeguard their personal information, including
bank account information, to avoid telemarketing fraud," said
Mr. Long.

For more details, contact Sara Rabern by Phone: (605) 773-3215
or visit the Website: http://www.state.sd.us/attorney.


STARTEK INC.: Shareholders Launch Securities Fraud Lawsuit in CO
----------------------------------------------------------------
StarTek, Inc. and certain of its officers face a shareholder
class action filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
common stock from February 26,2003 to May 5,2005.

According to a press release dated July 8, 2005, the complaint
alleges that the Company and certain of its officers and
directors, violated federal securities laws. Specifically,
defendants issued false statements concerning strong existing
demand for StarTek's outsourced services from four of the
Company's customers that accounted for 90% of StarTek's revenue,
the Company's healthy sales pipeline and the completion of a
management transition and restructuring plan, which artificially
inflated StarTek's stock price during the Class Period.

On May 6, 2005, StarTek announced that its first quarter 2005
earnings per share from continuing operations decreased to $0.18
compared to $0.49 for the first quarter of 2004. The Company
also announced that its revenues declined 14.2% from the same
period in 2004. On this news, StarTek's stock price fell over
18% from a close of $15.20 on May 5, 2005 to $12.40 on May 6,
2005.

Representing the plaintiffs are Dyer & Shuman, LLP, 801 East
17th Avenue, Denver, CO, 80218-1417, Phone: 303.861.3003, Fax:
800.711.6483, E-mail: info@dyershuman.com; and Schatz & Nobel,
P.C., 330 Main Street, Hartford, CT, 06106, Phone: 800.797.5499,
Fax: 860.493.6290, E-mail: sn06106@AOL.com.


TIBCO SOFTWARE: Shareholders File Securities Fraud Suits in CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tibco Software, Inc. and several of its officers face three
purported securities class actions filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California.  The
plaintiffs in such actions are seeking to represent a class of
purchasers of our common stock from September 21, 2004 through
March 1, 2005.

The complaints generally allege that the Company made false or
misleading statements concerning its operating results, its
business and internal controls, and the integration of Staffware
and seek unspecified monetary damages.  The complaints charge
the Company and certain of its officers and directors with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The first identified complaint in the litigation is styled
"Lance Siegall, et al. v. Tibco Software, Inc., et al., case no.
05-CV-02146," filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California.  The plaintiff firms in this
litigation are:

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

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

     (3) Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (New York), One
         Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor, New York, NY, 10119,
         Phone: 212.594.5300, Fax: 212.868.1229, E-mail:
         info@milbergweiss.com

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

     (5) Wechsler Harwood LLP, 488 Madison Avenue 8th Floor, New
         York, NY, 10022, Phone: 212.935.7400, E-mail:
         info@whhf.com


TREX COMPANY: Shareholders Launch Stock Fraud Suits in W.D. VA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Trex Company and executives Robert G. Matheny and Paul D.
Fletcher face a securities class action filed in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, on
behalf of purchasers of the company's common stock from October
25,2004 to June 22,2005.

According to a press release dated July 8, 2005, the complaint
charges the company, Mr. Matheny, and Mr. Fletcher with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  More
specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed to
disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts
which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by
them:

     (1) that the expected re-orders of inventory were not
         materializing, as Trex distributors worked to dispose
         of excess inventory;

     (2) that the expansion of the Company's distribution
         program with The Home Depot materially slowed due to
         delays in rolling out the Company's products;

     (3) that the Company cost cutting initiatives failed to
         limit the impact of higher raw material costs;

     (4) that there were manufacturing issues with the Artisan
         and Brasilia rail lines; and

     (5) that as a consequence of the foregoing, defendants'
         positive statements about the Company's growth and
         progress lacked in any reasonable basis when made.

On June 22, 2005, Trex announced that the Company expected a
substantial loss for the quarter and guided its earnings lower
for the year. On this news, shares of Trex fell $10.59 per
share, or 29.66%, on June 23, 2005, to close at $25.11 per
share. During the Class Period, while Trex stock was trading at
artificially inflated prices, insiders sold 680,395 shares for
gross proceeds of $29,833,121.

Representing the plaintiffs are Schatz & Nobel, P.C., 330 Main
Street, Hartford, CT, 06106, Phone: 800.797.5499, Fax:
860.493.6290, E-mail: sn06106@AOL.com; and Schiffrin & Barroway,
LLP, 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone:
610.667.7706, Fax: 610.667.7056, E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com.


WELLPOINT INC.: Reaches Settlement For Physicians' Federal Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
WellPoint, Inc. (NYSE: WLP) reached an agreement with
representatives of more than 700,000 physicians nationwide
involved in class action lawsuits filed in federal court.
WellPoint is the nation's leading health benefits company, with
28.5 million members. The agreement is an important step that
will further accelerate the company's current efforts to work
collaboratively with physicians to support the delivery of high-
quality, affordable health care coverage.

"We see this agreement as a very important step in further
collaborating with physicians. By working together, we can find
ways to continuously improve the health of our members and find
real solutions to the most complex health care issues facing our
country today -- affordability of care, access to care and the
uninsured," said Larry C. Glasscock, president and chief
executive officer of WellPoint, Inc. "We look forward to forging
a closer partnership with the physician community in order to
truly transform health care for the better."

"We continue to build relationships with physicians in industry-
leading ways -- through innovative quality care programs,
improved information technology solutions and constructive
dialogue around important health care issues at the national,
regional, state and local levels," said Sam Nussbaum M.D.,
executive vice president and chief medical officer of WellPoint,
Inc. "This agreement will also help to support more efficient
and high quality health care that will enable physicians to
spend more time with patients and that ultimately benefits
everyone, including our members."

As a part of the agreement, WellPoint has agreed to pay $135
million to physicians and to contribute $5 million to a not-for-
profit foundation whose mission is to promote higher quality
health care and to enhance the delivery of care to the
disadvantaged and underserved. In addition, up to $58 million
will be paid in legal fees, to be determined by the court.
WellPoint expects to incur a pre-tax expense of $103 million or
$.10 per share diluted after tax in the second quarter of 2005
as a result of this agreement.

If approved by the court, the agreement includes the resolution
of two national lawsuits against both pre-merger companies,
WellPoint Health Networks Inc. and Anthem, Inc. One suit
involved a nationwide class of physicians against major national
managed care companies. A second physician suit was brought
against the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association and Blue Cross
and Blue Shield companies. The physicians' suit contend that
they have been systematically cheated by insurance companies,
which programmed computers to pay for less intensive services
than were actually provided.

The following medical societies and professional organizations
have endorsed the proposed agreement:

     (1) Rhode Island Medical Society

     (2) New Hampshire Medical Society
    
     (3) California Medical Association

     (4) Connecticut State Medical Society

     (5) El Paso County Medical Society

     (6) Florida Medical Association

     (7) Medical Society of New Jersey

     (8) Louisiana State Medical Society

     (9) Medical Association of Georgia

    (10) Hawaii Medical Association

    (11) Medical Society of Northern Virginia

    (12) Nebraska Medical Association

    (13) North Carolina Medical Society

    (14) South Carolina Medical Association

    (15) Tennessee Medical Association

    (16) Texas Medical Association

    (17) Colegio de Medicos y Cirujanos de Puerto Rico

    (18) Washington State Medical Society

For more details, contact Tami Durle, Investor Relations and
James P. Kappel, Media Contact, both of WellPoint, Inc., Phone:
+1-317-488-6390 or +1-317-488-6400, E-mail:
http://www.wellpoint.comOR Audrey Mullen, Phone: 703-548-1160  
or 202-270-2772, E-mail: Audrey@advocacyink.com, Web site:
http://www.hmocrisis.com/index1.html.



                Meetings, Conferences & Seminars




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


                  New Securities Fraud Cases


BOSTON COMMUNICATIONS: Charles J. Piven Lodges Stock Suit in MA
---------------------------------------------------------------
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 Boston
Communications Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: BCGI) between November 15,
2000, and May 20, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts against defendant Boston
Communications Group, Inc., Karen A. Walker and Edward Y.
Snowden. 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 by E-mail:
hoffman@pivenlaw.com.


BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS: Scott + Scott Lodges Stock Lawsuit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Scott + Scott LLC initiated a class action in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California for the benefit of purchasers of the common stock or
other securities of Brocade Communication Systems, Inc. (Nasdaq:
BRCD) between February 21, 2001 and May 15, 2005, inclusive (the
"Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants issued materially false and misleading financial
statements to the investing public. On May 16, 2005, the Company
issued a press release announcing the restatement of its fiscal
2001 to fiscal 2004 earnings. The release stated that "the
Company will restate its financial statements for the fiscal
years ending 2002 through 2004 to record additional charges for
stock-based compensation expense." The release noted that the
Company estimated the impact of the restatement would be to
reduce fiscal 2001 and fiscal 2002 earnings per share by up to
$0.11 and $0.19, respectively. The Company also estimated that
fiscal 2003 and fiscal 2004 earnings per share would be reduced
as well. As a result of this announcement, Brocade's stock
dropped to $4.13 per share, compared to the $40+ per share
prices it traded at during the Class Period.

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


CRAY INC.: Glancy Binkow Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in W.D. WA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP initiated a Class
Action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington on behalf of a class (the
"Class") consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired securities of Cray, Inc. ("Cray" or the
"Company") (Nasdaq:CRAY), between July 31, 2003 and May 12,
2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint charges Cray and certain of the Company's
executive officers with violations of federal securities laws.
The Complaint alleges defendants' omissions and material
misrepresentations during the Class Period artificially inflated
the Company's stock price, inflicting damages on investors.
Cray, Inc. designs, develops, markets and services computer
systems commonly known as supercomputers -- designed to provide
high actual sustained performance on difficult computational
problems. Plaintiff claims that, unbeknownst to public
investors, defendants knew or recklessly disregarded and failed
to disclose to the investing public that:

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

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

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

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

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

For more details, contact Lionel Z. Glancy or Michael Goldberg
of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, Phone: (310) 201-9150 or
(888) 773-9224, E-mail: info@glancylaw.com, Web site:
http://www.glancylaw.com.


CRAY INC.: Shalov Stone Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in W.D. WA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Shalov Stone & Bonner LLP filed a class action
lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Cray,
Inc. ("Cray" or the "Company") (Nasdaq: CRAY) between July 31,
2003, and May 12, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking
to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The lawsuit is pending in the United States District Court for
the Western District of Washington against Cray, James E.
Rottsolk, Peter J. Ungaro, Scott J. Poteracki, David R. Keifer,
and Kenneth W. Johnson.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the
defendants failed to disclose and misrepresented the following
material adverse facts, which were known to defendants or
recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) that Cray's system of internal controls was inadequate
         because, among other things, it did not include an
         adequate review of third-party contracts and because
         there was a lack of software application controls and
         documentation;

     (2) that, as a result of the foregoing, it was difficult
         for Cray to manage fundamental operational tasks, such
         as the development of software applications, and the
         management of customer requirements and specifications;
         and

     (3) that the defendants' statements about the Company's
         status and progress were without any reasonable basis
         when made.

For more details, contact Thomas G. Ciarlone, Jr. of Shalov
Stone & Bonner LLP, 485 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1000, New York,
NY, 10018, Phone: (212) 239-4340, E-mail: tciarlone@lawssb.com,
Web site: http://www.lawssb.com.


DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP initiated a
class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities
of DreamWorks Animation SKG, Inc. ("DreamWorks" or the
"Company") (Nasdaq: DWA) between October 28, 2004 and May 10,
2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The action is pending in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California against defendants
DreamWorks, Ann Daly (COO), Jeffrey Katzenberg (CEO) and
Kristina M. Leslie (CFO).

The complaint alleges that defendants made materially false and
misleading statements with respect to DreamWorks's sales of
Shrek 2 home video units that dramatically inflated the price of
DreamWorks's common shares. At the commencement of the Class
Period, on October 28, 2005, in the Prospectus issued in
connection with DreamWorks's Initial Public Offering, defendants
claimed that they estimated the future returns of unsold home
video units based on enumerated factors. Three days after the
November 5, 2004 release of the Shrek 2 home video units, the
Company proclaimed that the Shrek 2 release had given "retailers
a fairytale beginning to the holiday season."

The complaint also alleges that on January 3, 2005, defendants
stated that they had already sold 37 million home video units
and, thereafter, variously projected sales of 40 million and 55
million Shrek 2 home video units by the end of the first quarter
of 2005. Both before and during the Class Period, defendants
assured investors that they had in place procedures that enabled
them to track home video unit sales and that they were capable
of establishing reserves for returned home video units based on
actual sales data and "their historical experience with similar
types of sales."

The complaint further alleges that, in truth and in fact,
defendants flooded the market with Shrek 2 home video units and
reported corresponding sales and revenues for each shipped unit,
all the while knowing or recklessly disregarding that:

     (1) the Company could not sustain the high rate of initial
         sales;

     (2) a material number of home video units were and would be
         returned and that, therefore,

     (3) defendants' statements with respect to both the present
         and projected volume of Shrek 2 home video unit sales
         were materially false and misleading.

The complaint alleges that the truth was revealed on May 10,
2005. On that date, the Company was forced to announce that
Shrek 2 home video sales had fallen well short of forecasts of
sales of at least 40 million, that the Company was not reporting
any first-quarter revenue attributable to sales of Shrek 2 home
video units and that the Company's first quarter net income
would be $46 million, or $0.44 per share, on revenue of $167
million -- a far cry from Company-sponsored and endorsed analyst
estimates of $0.58 per share. On this news, DreamWorks's share
price tumbled 15.6%, from a closing price of $36.50 on May 10,
2005 to a low of $30.80 on May 11, 2005. Insiders, including
several of the defendants named herein, profited handsomely from
defendants' materially false and misleading statements during
the Class Period, having sold shares of DreamWorks's stock for
proceeds of more than $188,274,108.

If you bought the securities of DreamWorks between October 28,
2004 and May 10, 2005 and sustained damages you may, no later
than August 1, 2005, request that the Court appoint you as lead
plaintiff. A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts
on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. In
order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine
that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other
class members, and that the class member will adequately
represent the class. Under certain circumstances, one or more
class members may together serve as "lead plaintiff." Your
ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by
the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. You
may retain Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP, or other
counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in this action.

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


DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Scott + Scott Lodges Securities Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Scott + Scott, LLC initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on behalf of purchasers of DreamWorks
Animation SKG, Inc. (NYSE: DWA) common stock during the period
between January 3, 2005 and May 10, 2005 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges DreamWorks and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. DreamWorks develops and produces CG animated films. The
complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants made
materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business and prospects, including statements regarding
the continuing strong sales of its "Shrek 2" DVD. Then, on May
10, 2005, one or more Company insiders leaked inside information
to a reporter at Newsweek. The same day, Newsweek ran a story
titled "Insiders say DreamWorks is about to report surprisingly
bad results," which stated that "the studio expects to report
earnings substantially below the 60 cents per share that Wall
Street analysts have estimated for the quarter." After the
market closed on May 10, 2005, DreamWorks released its financial
and operating results for Q1 2005 and reported revenues and
earnings far short of previous guidance and analysts'
expectations of earnings of $0.58 a share on revenue of $175.2
million.

As a result of the defendants' false statements, DreamWorks'
stock price traded at inflated levels during the Class Period,
increasing to as high as $41.09 per share. However, when the
truth was revealed in the Newsweek story and DreamWorks' press
release on May 10, 2005, the Company's shares fell to below $33
per share.

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


GUIDANT CORPORATION: Brodsky & Smith Files Securities Suit in IN
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC initiated a securities
class action lawsuit on behalf of shareholders who purchased the
common stock and other securities of Guidant Corporation. (NYSE:
GDT) ("Guidant" or the "Company") between December 15, 2004 and
June 23, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The class action
lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana.

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 Guidant securities.
No class has yet been certified in the above action.

For more details, contact Evan J. Smith, Esq. or Marc L.
Ackerman, Esq. of Brodsky & Smith, LLC, Two Bala Plaza, Suite
602, Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 877-LEGAL-90, E-mail:
clients@brodsky-smith.com.


INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Murray Frank Files Stock Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP filed a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, on behalf of persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of International
Business Machines Corporation ("IBM" or the "Company")
(NYSE:IBM) between April 5, 2005 and April 15, 2005, inclusive,
(the "Class Period"). The lawsuit was filed against IBM and Mark
Loughridge ("Defendants").

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period Defendants
issued materially false and misleading financial statements to
the investing public regarding its financial performance and
prospects in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b 5 promulgated
thereunder. Specifically, the complaint alleges that Defendants
failed to disclose, despite having a duty to do so, that:

     (1) At the time of its analyst conference call on April 5,
         2005, which was purportedly to discuss the impact of
         expensing options under SFAS 123R, the Company was
         experiencing significant operational issues in multiple
         areas of its business. In particular, the Company had
         been unable to close significant transactions late in
         the first quarter, it was experiencing elongated sales
         cycles, and was having product-transition problems in
         its hardware segment.

     (2) The Company intentionally accelerated the adoption of
         SFAS 123R, despite having an additional two quarters to
         Implement it, in order to sufficiently lower analyst
         expectations so that when it later disclosed the
         operational issues and reported earnings from
         continuing operations of $0.85 per share for the first
         quarter 2005, it would have the effect of cushioning
         the blow of the significant earnings miss.

     (3) The Company intentionally misrepresented the impact
         from expensing options, indicating an earnings impact
         of $0.14 per share on April 5, 2005 (versus the actual
         impact of $0.10 per share reported on April 14, 2005),
         in order to disguise a significant and material
         operating miss.

On April 14, 2005, IBM reported first quarter 2005 financial
results. The Company posted net income of $1.4 billion, or $0.84
per share, which represented an additional miss of $0.06 per
share, undisclosed nine days earlier. The Company also revealed
that the miss was significantly attributable to operations,
rather than wholly attributable to SFAS 123R, as the Company had
previously indicated. Shares reacted negatively to the news,
falling from $83.64 per share on April 14, 2005, to $76.70 per
share on April 15, 2005. Before the markets opened on evening,
April 18, 2005, the Wall Street Journal published an article
characterizing IBM's April 5, 2005 announcement as "clouding"
IBM's true financial position, and "cushioning the blow" of its
earnings miss. On May 4, 2005, IBM announced that it would be
reducing its workforce by 10,000 to 13,000 employees. On June
27, 2005, the Company announced that the SEC had begun an
informal investigation into the Company's statements regarding
the earnings miss.

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


INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Stock Suit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C. initiated a lawsuit seeking
class action status has been filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all
persons who purchased the common stock of International Business
Machines Corporation (NYSE: IBM - News; "IBM") between April 5,
2005 and April 15, 2005 (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that IBM violated federal securities laws
in regard to public statements it made prior to the official
announcement of its first quarter, 2005 financial results.
Specifically, IBM held an analyst conference call on April 5,
2005 during which (the Complaint alleges) IBM misrepresented the
nature of an anticipated earnings miss. The Complaint alleges
that IBM wrongly blamed the expected shortfall on the
implementation of SFAS 123R (options expensing) rather than
properly disclosing its significant and material operations
problems. On April 14, 2005, IBM officially reported first
quarter 2005 financial results that were even lower than it had
revealed on April 5 and it further disclosed that this earnings
miss was significantly attributable to problems with operations,
rather than wholly attributable to the implementation of SFAS
123R.

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.


OCA INC.: Kahn Gauthier Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. LA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kahn Gauthier Law Group, LLC ("Kahn Gauthier")
initiated a class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana on behalf of
purchasers of OCA, Inc. ("OCA" or "the Company") (NYSE: OCA)
common stock during the period between May 18, 2004, and June 6,
2005 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges OCA, a Metairie, Louisiana based company,
and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. 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.

For more details, contact Lewis S. Kahn of Kahn Gauthier, Phone:
1-866-467-1400, ext. 100 or 504-648-1850, Web site:
http://www.kglg.com/case/case.asp?lngCaseId=4301.


OCA INC.: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. LA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP initiated a
class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities
of OCA, Inc. ("OCA" or the "Company") (NYSE: OCA) between May
18, 2004 and June 6, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"),
seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The action is pending in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Louisiana, against defendants OCA,
Bartholomew F. Palmisano, Sr. (Chief Executive Officer) and
David E. Verret (Chief Financial Officer).

The Complaint alleges that Defendants issued, or caused to be
issued, false and misleading statements during the Class Period
to artificially inflate the value of OCA stock. Specifically, on
June 7, 2005, the Defendants admitted that they overstated
patient receivables in the 2004 Form 10-Q's filed for the
periods ending March 31, June 30 and September 30 of that year.
The Company has not yet disclosed the extent of the necessary
restatement of these periods, but has indicated that the amount
is material and that these statements should not be relied upon
by investors. The Company also disclosed that its Board of
Directors had appointed a Special Committee to review "certain
journal entries recorded in the Company's general ledger, the
circumstances in which they originated and their impact on the
Company's financial statements." In addition, the Special
Committee is reviewing "certain alleged changes in data provided
to the Company's independent registered public accounting firm."
On this news, and the Company's continued delay in filing its
annual report on Form 10-K, OCA's stock plummeted just shy of 40
percent on June 7, 2005, to close at $2.58 per share on
unusually high trading volume of 9 million shares.

For more details, contact Steven G. Schulman, One Pennsylvania
Plaza, 49th fl., New York, NY, 10119-0165, Phone:
(800) 320-5081, E-mail: sfeerick@milbergweiss.com OR Maya Saxena
or Joseph E. White III, 5200 Town Center Circle, Suite 600, Boca
Raton, FL, 33486, Phone: (561) 361-5000, E-mail:
msaxena@milbergweiss.com or jwhite@milbergweiss.com, Web site:
http://www.milbergweiss.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.


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  * * *