---

            C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Tuesday, July 19, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 141


                            Headlines

AMAZON.COM: WA Court Approves $20M Securities Lawsuit Settlement
ARMOR HOLDINGS: Chosen as Bullet-Proof Vest Exclusive Supplier
AT&T CORPORATION: TX AG Reaches Agreement For Consumer Fraud
ATHEROGENICS INC.: Suits Voluntarily Dismissed, Others Pending
BLUE CROSS: Judge OKs $17.5M Settlement Over Withheld Discounts

CANADA: Former Soldiers Launch Agent Orange Suit V. Ottawa Gov?t
COLORADO: Government Settles Property Damage Suit For $100,000
COLORADO: Residents Allowed To Sue Subcontractors For Negligence
COLUMBIA HOUSE: Settles FTC Do Not Call Law Violations Charges
CVS CORPORATION: Suit Settlement Hearing Set September 7, 2005

EL PASO ELECTRIC: Suit Settlement Hearing Set September 15, 2005
ENRON CORPORATION: CA AG Inks $1.52B Energy Antitrust Settlement
ENRON CORPORATION: OR AG Bares Racketeering Settlement Details
FENTANYL PATCHES: Issues Health Advisory Due To Link to Deaths
GEORGIA POWER: Employees File For Hearing Before Supreme Court

IDAHO: Insurers of Grass Farmers Agree To Settle Pollution Suit
KENTUCKY: Insurers Dispute $80M Claim For Clergy Sex Abuse Suit
MACK TRUCKS: Recalls 127 Various 2004-05 Trucks For Fire Hazard
MAZDA NORTH: Recalls 56T 2004-05 RX8 Vehicles Due to Fire Hazard
NATIONWIDE PAYMENT: OK AG Edmondson Warns V. Cashier Check Scam

NORTH DAKOTA: ND Court Sends Resident To Jail For Consumer Fraud
PAYPAL INC.: Plans to Make Settlement Payments by September 30
PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS: To Settle Overbilling Claims For $41.9M
QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Notice Program Starts For Fiber-Optic Suit
SOUTH CAROLINA: Four Employees Seek Certification For TERI Suit

TOYOBO CO.: Plaintiffs? Firm Hails Bullet Proof Vest Settlement
TOYOBO CO.: OH AG Reveals Zylon Bullet Proof Vests Settlement
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Faces Second Suit Over Tuition Hikes
VISA USA: Large Retailers Commence Antitrust Lawsuit in S.D. NY
VOLVO TRUCKS: Recalls 10 VH, VN, VT Trucks Due to Fire Hazard

WORLDCOM INC.: OK AG Edmondson Satisfied With Ebbers? Sentence

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

CRAY INC.: Scott + Scott Provides Securities Litigation Updates
DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Abbey Gardy Provides Litigation Updates
LAZARD LTD.: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
LAZARD LTD.: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
NET2PHONE, INC.: Bull & Lifshitz Lodges Securities Suit in DE

POSSIS MEDICAL: Zimmerman Reed Files Securities Fraud Suit in MN
STOCKERYALE INC.: Rosen Law Firm Sets Lead Plaintiff Deadline
UNITED AMERICAN: Rosen Law Firm Sets Lead Plaintiff Deadline

                            *********


AMAZON.COM: WA Court Approves $20M Securities Lawsuit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------The U.S.
District Court for Western Washington granted preliminary approval for a $20
million settlement by Amazon.com in a class action lawsuit brought against
it by Argent Classic Convertible Arbitrage Fund, The Seattle Post
Intelligencer reports.

The settlement affects all people who bought Amazon's 6.875 percent
premium-adjusted convertible securities due 2010 between February 7, 2000,
and October 24, 2000.  The court hearing is set for October 20 in Courtroom
15106 of U.S. District Court in Seattle.


ARMOR HOLDINGS: Chosen as Bullet-Proof Vest Exclusive Supplier
--------------------------------------------------------------
Armor Holdings (NYSE: AH), through its Armor Holdings Products Division, has
been selected as the exclusive supplier to replace up to 156,000 Second
Chance bullet-resistant vests (body armor) to the law enforcement community
as part of a legal settlement reached between Toyobo Company, Ltd. and
Toyobo America, Inc. (Toyobo), the Japanese manufacturer of the
bullet-resistant fiber ZylonŽ, and a certified class of national police
organizations, departments, agencies and officers who purchased certain
models of Zylon-containing vests manufactured by Second Chance Body Armor.

The settlement in the Oklahoma state court case of "Lemmings, et al. v.
Second Chance Body Armor, Inc. and Toyobo Company, Ltd., et al. (Lemmings),"
is subject to final court approval, which the parties anticipate will occur
in October, 2005, and follows the recent announcement by Second Chance that
certain of its vest models need to be replaced but their poor financial
position prevents them from offering any replacement option. Second Chance
filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in the Western District of
Michigan, in October 2004.

Based on information received from Class Counsel, there are approximately
156,000 vests sold by Second Chance which may need to be replaced through
this program. Although Armor Holdings is not a party in the Lemmings case,
in order to assist the law enforcement community in their efforts to quickly
replace their Second Chance Ultima/Ultimax or Triflex vests, Armor Holdings
has agreed to offer a special one-time, promotional price for its
concealable body armor. Armor Holdings is the largest supplier of
concealable and tactical body armor to the U.S. law enforcement community
through its American Body ArmorŽ, PROTECH(TM) Tactical and Safariland
Armorwear(TM) brands.

Robert R. Schiller, President of Armor Holdings, Inc., said, "As a leader in
this industry, we are both pleased and proud to be able to offer the law
enforcement community a much-needed solution to this problem. Ensuring the
safety of the members of the law enforcement community is one of our most
important priorities. It is also a great responsibility which we assume with
the utmost care and concern, both in the conduct of our business and in the
quality of our products."

The settlement provides various benefits to officers and departments,
including a $29 million fund established by Toyobo. The Settlement Fund will
provide class members with two options:

The first is a one-time cash payment whereby each class member will receive
a pro rata portion of the fund.  Attorneys representing the class have
estimated the amount of cash each class member will receive as somewhere
between $370.00 and $965.00, depending on the number of class members that
decide to participate in the Settlement.

The second is an Armor Holdings voucher for the same amount of cash each
class member would otherwise receive, plus an additional $25.00 credit
provided by Armor Holdings.  The voucher, redeemable for up to five (5)
years, may be used to purchase any model of American Body Armor or
Safariland vest or to purchase any other law enforcement product offered by
any of Armor Holdings APEX distributors, including duty gear, less lethal
munitions, tactical/SWAT safety gear, riot protection helmets and shields,
batons, ballistic resistant enclosures, protective gloves, drug detection
and forensic products and other products.  Armor Holdings manufactures many
of the world's most well-recognized brands of security products, which it
offers through a network of more than 500 distributors and agents
domestically and internationally.

Scott O'Brien, President of Armor Holdings, Inc.'s Products Division,
commented, "We believe the settlement announced by Toyobo and the class
action attorneys represents an important benefit to the law enforcement
community. We are proud to have been able to contribute by offering both a
promotional price vest replacement option and a voucher worth an additional
$25 to affected officers and departments. We strongly encourage all affected
officers to learn more about this settlement by either calling
(877)567-2754, or visiting the settlement website at
http://www.zylonvestclassaction.com,and return their claim form before the  
specified deadline."

Mr. O'Brien continued, "We take great care to ensure the safety and efficacy
of our products. As part of that effort, Armor Holdings has established
VestCheck(TM), an industry-leading safety initiative geared to raising
awareness for proper fit, coverage, maintenance and evaluation of body armor
worn by law enforcement officers. An important component of VestCheck(TM) is
our used-vest testing program, which began in 2003 and provides an
evaluation and assessment of the useful service life of body armor that has
been worn in the field. The VestCheck(TM) evaluation process includes the
physical inspection and ballistic performance testing of every vest
collected, as well as an in-depth review of individual officer wear, storage
and maintenance habits. We also feel it is important to act immediately upon
what we learn from these tests, which is why we decided last year to reduce
the warranty on our Xtreme ZX model and establish a Warranty/Exchange
program for officers wearing that vest model. Utilizing our state of the art
in-house ballistic laboratory, we believe that since the inception of
VestCheck(TM), Armor Holdings has done more used-vest testing than virtually
all of the other body armor manufacturers combined. We think it is important
to share the information we learn from this testing, so we have shared this
data with the law enforcement departments that participate in the tests, as
well as with the National Institute of Justice, and we will continue to do
so."


AT&T CORPORATION: TX AG Reaches Agreement For Consumer Fraud
------------------------------------------------------------
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott filed an agreement in court that
acknowledges AT&T's role in overcharging thousands of its customers a total
of more than $800,000 for long-distance phone service. The "monthly
recurring fees" began appearing on residential bills beginning in January
2004.  The Public Utility Commission also approved this agreement on July
15,2005.

According to the agreement, AT&T overcharged 75,000 of its customers a
monthly recurring fee of $3.95 per household bill. The company has already
refunded or credited the money back to consumers.  "The company's
correspondence with its customers about this 'charge' was so misleading -
and, as it turns out, erroneous - that most consumers were confused at best
and deceived into paying it at worst," said Mr. Abbott. "I am pleased the
company saw the error of its ways and made total refunds to all affected
consumers."

PUC Commissioner Julie Parsley agreed, saying, "Phone companies that
continue to bill customers for unauthorized charges must stop these illegal
cramming operations immediately, or they will pay a severe price. At the
same time, the PUC urges all phone customers to review all their telecom
bills - local, long distance and Internet - and eliminate unnecessary and
duplicate services to save money."

The Attorney General and the PUC alleged the company's intent was to apply
the monthly recurring fee to consumers enrolled in its interstate basic rate
plan for current long distance service. However, the company also sent
notices of this fee to many other residential consumers who were not
required to pay the fee. These included:

     (1) consumers who were already enrolled in one of AT&T's
         other domestic long-distance calling plans;

     (2) customers of the company's "Lifeline" plan, which
         assists certain residents with costs of basic service;
         and

     (3) any AT&T local service customer

Moreover, consumers who reported the apparent billing errors to the company
were either told they must pay the charge or were misled about the charges
and their rights to appeal the billings. Further, consumers were often
subjected to sales pitches about new products and services available to AT&T's
customers when they called to make reports.

Under the terms of the agreement, the company may not implement such a
monthly fee without clearly indicating to its customers the nature of the
charge and how it fits into their calling plans.

The Attorney General's Office and the PUC will receive $195,000 each from
AT&T to cover attorneys' fees and civil penalties, respectively.  For more
details, visit the Website:
http://www.oag.state.tx.us/newspubs/releases/2005/071505att_avc.pdf.


ATHEROGENICS INC.: Suits Voluntarily Dismissed, Others Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in lawsuits filed last January, which sought class action status
against AtheroGenics Inc. voluntarily dismissed the actions on July 14,
according to a Securities and Exchange Commission filing, The American City
Business Journals Inc. reports.

Atlanta-based AtheroGenics (NASDAQ: AGIX) stated in its filing that the
suits in federal court in Atlanta alleged the company misrepresented the
results of an inconclusive and limited study of its experimental drug
AGI-1067. It sought unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class of
buyers of AtheroGenics securities September 2004 to December 31, 2004.

Although several other suits filed in New York remain pending, AtheroGenics
stated in it's filing that it has "meritorious defenses to the plaintiffs
allegations" and it will "defend this matter vigorously."  AtheroGenics
reported increasing research and development costs and a deeper loss for the
first quarter of 2005.


BLUE CROSS: Judge OKs $17.5M Settlement Over Withheld Discounts
---------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement in a multimillion-dollar class action lawsuit against Blue
Cross & Blue Shield of Rhode Island that involves tens of thousands of
customers won final approval recently, The NBC 10 News reports.

Nearly a decade in the making, the suit was reached in December and needed
the approval of two judges since the lawsuit was filed in state court and in
federal court.  The class action lawsuit against Blue Cross, which was filed
in 1996, alleges that the health insurer failed to pass along discounts it
negotiated for prescription drugs and other services to thousands of its
customers.

The settlement totals $17.5 million. However, after administrative costs and
legal fees, the actual amount to be distributed to subscribers is closer to
$11.3 million, which will eventually be divided among 116,000 people. Many
customers though will see their settlements in installments.  Checks will
range from $10 to $1,400 in the initial distribution. The first round of
checks should be going out by the end of the summer, while a second round of
checks will go out by the end of this year or early next year.

At the court, the attorney for Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Rhode Island
stated that the company's agreement to the settlement was by no way an
admission of guilt or wrongdoing on behalf of the health insurer.  Blue
Cross maintains that if the case had gone to trial, the plaintiffs would
have gotten little, if anything. The health insurer reiterates that it
agreed to the settlement to avoid one, and perhaps two, lengthy trials,
appeals, and all of the costs associated with the legal action. Blue Cross
adds that it felt it was in the best interest of the company and subscribers
to agree to the settlement.


CANADA: Former Soldiers Launch Agent Orange Suit V. Ottawa Gov't
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Ottawa provincial government faces a class-action filed by a group of
former soldiers and civilians in the Federal Court of Canada, alleging they
were exposed to Agent Orange and other defoliants at Canadian Forces Base
Gagetown, the Canadian Press reports.

The 41-page statement of claim names Kenneth Dobbie, Charles McLeod, Stewart
McLeod, Derrick Williams, John Williams and Mary Williams as claimants.
Stewart McLeod, of Springhill, N.S., was stationed at the base between 1967
and 1980, and states he was "directly exposed to the chemicals sprayed by
the defendant."  Charles McLeod, Stewart's son, argues he was born with a
variety of illnesses.

Mary Williams, of St. John's, Nfld., was also exposed to the chemicals while
her husband, John Williams, was stationed at the base.  John Williams later
died of cancer.  In the statement, Mary Williams argues she suffered from
type-2 diabetes and the increased costs of raising sick children, the
Canadian Press reports.  The document says one of her daughters suffered
from a brain tumor and cancer of the ovary; another son died of brain cancer
in 1991.  Kenneth Williams, one of her sons, died in 1991 of brain cancer.
His brother, Derrick, is suing on his own behalf for lost companionship.

According to the claim, Mr. Dobbie worked in the woods as a 19-year-old,
clearing brush that had been sprayed with defoliants.  "During Christmas of
1966, (Dobbie) began to suffer severe stomach problems," says the document.
"Subsequently, he was also diagnosed with toxic hepatitis, stomach ailments,
acne, seizure, blackouts and other neurological disorders," according to the
Canadian Press.

The suit states several illnesses ranging from birth defects in children to
cancer in adults.  The chemical sprayed on the woods near Oromocto, New
Brunswick allegedly caused the illnesesses.  The claim seeks punitive and
aggravated damages, but no figure is mentioned in the court document.

The Canadian military has acknowledged that Agent Orange and other
defoliants were tested at the base by the U.S. military in 1966 and '67, the
Canadian Press reports.  A base spokesman has said the testing occurred in
two "very short test periods on very small pieces of ground."

However, the statement of claim says "the defendant has never been truthful
when inquired about the full extent of the spraying operations that were
conducted."  The claimants allege that "over one million litres had been
sprayed between 1956 to 1984" as part of a testing program to determine the
effectiveness of the defoliants, according to the Canadian Press.  A group
of landowners, who are not named, are also suing for damage to their land.

Brig.-Gen. Ray Romses, commander of Atlantic land forces for the past two
years, has said he is confident tests being done on the base will prove
there is no reason for concern about the defoliants, the Canadian Press
reports.


COLORADO: Government Settles Property Damage Suit For $100,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
Two-dozen residents of Denver's East Colfax neighborhood who allege their
property values were damaged by a chemical leak from the former Lowry Air
Force Base settled a 5-year-old class-action lawsuit against the federal
government, The Rocky Mountain News reports.

Under the settlement terms, the government, which admitted no wrongdoing as
part of the deal, must pay the plaintiffs $100,000, an amount that satisfies
any damage claims related to the presence of trichloroethylene, or TCE, a
cancer-causing chemical that was used to clean jet engines on the base.

Henry Miller, senior counsel for the U.S. Department of Justice, represented
the government told The Rocky Mountain News that both parties agreed it was
in their best interests to settle the suit.

Plaintiff Bruce Wheelock, who moved into his home on Ulster Street in 1998,
told The Associated Press that he was happy to finally be done with the
long-running case. He further said, "It wasn't about the money anyway. We
just wanted to make sure the government didn't weasel out of its
responsibility."

According to Jeff Edson of the Colorado health department's federal
facilities remediation and restoration unit, which is overseeing the
cleanup, TCE, which is also found in dry-cleaning solutions, nail polish
remover and glue, was first detected in groundwater north of Lowry in the
early 1990s. He told The Rocky Mountain News that the 3-mile-long chemical
plume stretches north from the former air base to the southern portion of
the Stapleton site, going right through the East Colfax neighborhood.

Though residents in the area get their drinking water from the city rather
than from groundwater, TCE can vaporize into a gas and seep into basements
and crawl spaces. The chemical is capable of causing headaches and
dizziness, liver and kidney problems, and even cancer.

Mr. Edson pointed out that no health problems have been documented in the
neighborhoods around Lowry as a result of exposure to TCE, but one home and
several apartment buildings did register higher than acceptable levels of
the chemical a few years ago.   Though the government installed ventilation
systems at those sites to draw the TCE vapor out of the buildings, many of
the residents feared their neighborhood would be forever marred by the
presence of the underground chemical plume.  Thus in October 2000, they sued
the federal government as a group for "loss of use of properties, annoyance
and discomfort, and decreased value of the properties," among other claims.
The case was about to go to trial when both parties agreed to settle.

Karen Garvin, sister of one of the plaintiffs, told The Rocky Mountain News
that she isn't expecting to get rich off of her portion of the settlement,
but looks forward to receiving a check nonetheless. "Which is nothing. Not
even to pay the water bill to water these dead plants," she said, pointing
to wilted vegetation in front of her home.

However, Roger Freeman, an environmental lawyer who has been following the
case told The Rocky Mountain News that the settlement amount seemed low,
particularly given the fact it still must cover the cost of any legal fees
due the plaintiffs' lawyers. He pointed out though that it probably signaled
acknowledgment on the part of the residents that because there had been no
documented TCE-related health issues in the neighborhood, they didn't stand
to make a massive amount of money. "It takes the lawyers out of the equation
and gets the cleanup back on track," Mr. Freeman adds.

The remediation process was contracted out by the Air Force to the Lowry
Redevelopment Authority, which in turn hired Lowry Assumptions in August
2002 to do the actual work. Joe Aiken, who oversees the cleanup for Lowry
Assumptions told The Rocky Mountain News, "We made the off-site plume a
priority and did the first treatability study out in the neighborhood where
the risk was greatest." He estimates the amount of TCE throughout the entire
plume to be around 70 gallons. Last fall, Mr. Aiken tells The Associated
Press that the company injected a first round of potassium permanganate, a
chemical oxidant, into the groundwater to break down the TCE and render it
harmless.

Mr. Edson, with the state's health department, told The Rocky Mountain News
that data shows a 50 percent decline in the amount of TCE in the groundwater
so far.


COLORADO: Residents Allowed To Sue Subcontractors For Negligence
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Colorado Supreme Court allowed homeowners to sue for construction defects
caused by negligence, saying in a June 26 decision that subcontractors, as
well as builders, "owe homeowners a duty of care, independent of any
contractual obligations, to act without negligence in the construction of
homes," Rocky Mountain News reports.

The ruling was made in a lawsuit filed against several Colorado
subcontractors by the Yacht Club II Homeowners Association, which charged
that the subcontractors were responsible for a host of building defects.

Denver attorney Cass McKenzie, counsel for the plaintiffs, hailed the
ruling, calling it a victory for homeowners.  This is important because
builders don't actually build homes, Mr. McKenzie, principal of McKenzie
Rhody & Hearn, a law firm that specializes in residential defect litigation,
told Rocky Mountain News.  Instead, builders subcontract the work to
framers, carpenters, electricians, plumbers and others.

Homeowners typically not only don't have contracts with the subcontractors,
but they played no role in negotiating the contract between the builder and
the subcontractors, Mr. McKenzie added.  He stated that with this ruling,
the court rejected what is known as the "economic loss rule," which
generally limits homeowners' remedies to those specified in limited
warranties or contracts between the builders and the subcontractors.  Those
contracts typically provide limited remedies to homeowners, he told the
Rocky Mountain News.

However, Ryan Williams, one of the many attorneys on the other side, told
Rocky Mountain News the ruling will "have a pretty profound negative impact"
on the home-building industry.  He said the decision will ultimately drive
some subcontractors out of business and increase insurance costs for
framers, plumbers, electricians, carpenters and other subcontractors. Those
costs will be passed on to buyers, said Wiliams, a lawyer at Messner &
Reeves, which represented one of the subcontractors in the case, A.C.
Excavating.

The court also ruled that homeowner associations can bring negligence suits
on behalf of the homeowners, Mr. McKenzie said.  "So if you have 100 condo
units in a project, you don't need to file 100 individual suits, or file a
class-action lawsuit," he told Rocky Mountain News, because the association
can file one suit on behalf of all of the owners.

Dennis Polk, a partner with Holley, Albertson & Polk, in Golden, who has
represented builders and homeowners in construction defect cases, said he
doesn't think the decision will have a huge impact.  "On a scale of one to
10, with 10 being revolutionary and one being 'so what?' I'd give it a four.
But it is good lawyering," he told Rocky Mountain News.


COLUMBIA HOUSE: Settles FTC Do Not Call Law Violations Charges
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Columbia House Company, a well-known direct marketer of home
entertainment products, has settled Federal Trade Commission charges that it
violated federal law by calling existing or past subscribers of its home
entertainment clubs after the subscribers had placed their telephone numbers
on the National Do Not Call Registry, and after the subscribers had made
specific requests to the company that they not be called. Columbia House
will pay a $300,000 civil penalty and is barred from making illegal
telemarketing calls in the future.

Columbia House markets its home entertainment products to consumers through
a variety of membership clubs, including a DVD club, a video club, and music
clubs. Consumers who join the clubs receive a number of DVDs, CDs, or videos
at a reduced price if they sign on to purchase a designated number of
additional products over the next two years. According to a complaint filed
by the Department of Justice on the FTC's behalf, Columbia House conducts
telemarketing campaigns to existing and former members of its home
entertainment clubs, soliciting former members to rejoin one of its clubs
and existing members to purchase additional products.

Under the Do Not Call Rule, a company may call consumers whose telephone
numbers are on the National Registry if the company has an established
business relationship with the consumer, unless the consumer has asked not
to be called. Companies with whom a consumer has an existing business
relationship may call the consumer for up to 18 months after the consumer's
last business transaction with the company. In addition, since 1995, the FTC's
Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR) has required companies to keep a
company-specific do not call list and to honor consumers' specific requests
that they not be called. Such a request must be honored even if the company
has an established business relationship with the consumer. Companies are
not permitted to call former customers whose numbers appear on the National
Registry after the 18-month period has elapsed.

According to the FTC, from October 2003 through March 2004, Columbia House
placed tens of thousands of calls to former members whose phone numbers were
registered on the National Registry, after the company no longer had an
established business relationship with those members as defined by the law.
The FTC's complaint further alleged that, since December 1995, Columbia
House violated the company-specific do not call provision of the TSR by
calling consumers who had previously asked that they not be called. The FTC's
complaint stated that although the company had implemented procedures to
attempt to prevent future calls to such consumers, those procedures had
proven ineffective in preventing the alleged calls.

The stipulated judgment and order bars Columbia House from calling any
consumer who has previously asked not to be called. It also prohibits
Columbia House from calling any consumer whose number is registered on the
National Do Not Call Registry, unless the company has received a request, in
writing, from the consumer permitting future calls; or the company has an
established business relationship with the consumer and the consumer has not
previously requested to be removed from the company's call list. The order
further requires Columbia House to pay a $300,000 civil penalty. The order
contains recordkeeping provisions to assist the FTC in monitoring the
company's compliance.

The FTC reminds businesses that, before calling a former customer based on
an established business relationship, they must ensure that the relationship
has not expired and that the customer has not made a specific request not to
be called. Entities that hire third parties to telemarket on their behalf
are responsible for ensuring that the telemarketers comply with federal law
by downloading the appropriate area codes of data from the Registry;
scrubbing their call lists every 31 days; making sure established business
relationships are current before calling consumers whose numbers are
registered; and honoring company-specific do not call requests.

The Commission vote to refer the complaint and stipulated judgment and order
to the Department of Justice for filing was 5-0. The complaint and
stipulated judgment and order were filed on July 14, 2005, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, by
the Department of Justice at the request of the FTC.

The Commission files a complaint when it has "reason to believe" that the
law has been or is being violated, and it appears to the Commission that a
proceeding is in the public interest. The complaint is not a finding or
ruling that the defendant has actually violated the law.  This stipulated
order is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission
by the defendant of a law violation. A consent decree is subject to court
approval and has the force of law when signed by the judge.

Copies of the complaint and stipulated judgment and order are available from
the FTC's Web site at http://www.ftc.govand also from the FTC's Consumer  
Response Center, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.
20580. The FTC works for the consumer to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and
unfair business practices in the marketplace and to provide information to
help consumers spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or
Spanish (bilingual counselors are available to take complaints), or to get
free information on any of 150 consumer topics, call toll-free,
1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357), or use the complaint form at
http://www.ftc.gov.Consumers who wish to file a Do Not Call Registry  
complaint may do so at http://www.donotcall.govor by calling  
1-888-382-1222. The FTC enters Internet, telemarketing, identity theft, and
other fraud-related complaints into
Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to hundreds of civil
and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad.  For more
details, contact Jen Schwartzman, Office of Public Affairs by Phone:
202-326-2674, contact Todd M. Kossow, FTC Midwest Region by Phone:
312-960-5634 or visit the Website:
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2005/07/columbiahouse.htm.


CVS CORPORATION: Suit Settlement Hearing Set September 7, 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts will hold
a fairness hearing in the proposed $110 million settlement in the matter: In
re CVS Corporation Securities Litigation, C.A. No. 01-11464 JLT, on behalf
of all holders of the common stock of CVS Corporation between as of June 7,
2005.

The hearing will be held before the Honorable Joseph L. Tauro in the John
Joseph Moakley United States Courthouse, 1 Courthouse Way, Boston, MA 02210,
at 11:30 a.m., on September 7, 2005.

For more details, contact Robert I. Harwood, Esq. of Wechsler Harwood, LLP,
488 Madison Ave., 8th Floor, New York, N.Y., 10022, Fax: (212) 753-3630 OR
Dennies E. Glazer, Esq. of Davis Polk & Wardwell, 450 Lexington Ave., New
York, NY 10017, Fax: (212) 450-3800 OR visit the Settlement Web site:
http://www.berdonlp.com/claims.


EL PASO ELECTRIC: Suit Settlement Hearing Set September 15, 2005
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas - El Paso
Division will hold a fairness hearing for the proposed $10 million
settlement in the matter: In re El Paso Electric Company Securities
Litigation, EP-03-0004-DB, on behalf of all persons who purchased or
acquired the common stock of El Paso Electric during the period form
February 14, 2000 through and including October 21, 2002.

The hearing will be held on September 15, 2005, at 10:00 a.m., before the
Honorable David Briones, at the United States Courthouse, 511 East San
Antonio Ave., El Paso, TX, 79901.

For more details, contact Robert A. Wallner or Clifford Goodstein of Milberg
Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP, One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY,
10119-0165, Phone: (212) 594-5300 OR Katharine M. Ryan or Kay E. Sickles of
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 280 King of Prussia Road, Radnor, PA, 19087,
Phone: (610) 667-7706 OR El Paso Electric Securities Litigation, c/o The
Garden City Group, Inc., Claims Administrator, P.O. Box 9000 #6327, Merrick,
NY, 11566-9000, Phone: (800) 339-0243, Web site:
http://www.gardencitygroup.com.


ENRON CORPORATION: CA AG Inks $1.52B Energy Antitrust Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
California Attorney General Bill forged a $1.52 billion settlement with
Enron to resolve market manipulation and price gouging claims against the
architect of gaming strategies that powered the plundering of California
ratepayers during the Energy Crisis of 2000-2001.

"After masterminding one of the largest rip-offs in history, Enron collapsed
under the weight of its own greed and corruption," said Mr. Lockyer.
"Still, with this settlement, Grandma Millie and the rest of California will
squeeze justice from this corporate turnip. All things considered, this is a
good resolution for the state's ratepayers."

Besides Mr. Lockyer, who represented the people, other California parties to
the proposed settlement include: the California Department of Water
Resources (CDWR), the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), the
Electricity Oversight Board (EOB), Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E), Southern
California Edison (SCE) and San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E). Washington
Attorney General Rob McKenna and Oregon Attorney General Hardy Myers also
are parties to the settlement.  Before it becomes final, the settlement must
be approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the Enron
bankruptcy court.

The proposed settlement calls for the California parties to receive an $875
million unsecured claim in the Enron bankruptcy proceeding, plus $47.5
million in cash. The California parties would provide the Washington and
Oregon attorneys general $22.5 million each from the unsecured bankruptcy
claim. Additionally, Lockyer and the other attorneys general would receive a
combined $600 million penalty, which would be a subordinated claim in the
bankruptcy proceeding.  The amount ultimately paid by Enron under the
settlement will not be known until its Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding is
completed.

Funds paid to the California parties under the settlement would resolve the
state's and utilities' claims for refunds now pending before FERC. The money
would compensate businesses and individuals for overcharges, reduce the
financial burden of PG&E ratepayers under that utility's bankruptcy
settlement, and reduce all utility ratepayers' obligation to retire bonds
sold by the state to finance power purchases at the height of the Energy
Crisis.

Aside from resolving the refund claims, the proposed settlement would end a
lawsuit filed by Lockyer against Enron. The enforcement action alleged the
Enron-devised market manipulation games with exotic names such as Fat Boy,
Death Star, Get Shorty and Ricochet violated California's commodities fraud
laws. Mr. Lockyer's complaint was on hold pending resolution of Enron's
bankruptcy proceeding.  Mr. Lockyer filed the lawsuit in the wake of the
release of audio tapes and transcripts of Enron trader conversations that
provided disturbing evidence of the firm's market behavior.

On the tapes, the traders not only brazenly talk about exporting power and
gaming the market, they spew profanity-laced boasts about bringing
California to its knees, inflicting financial pain on "Grandma Millie" and
Enron's influence with President Bush. Seeing profit in destruction, they
express hope fires will torch California power lines, chanting, "Burn baby,
burn." Additionally, the tapes indicate Enron's top two executives, Ken Lay
and Jeff Skilling, had some knowledge of the market manipulation and
received briefings on how it enriched the company.

When he filed the lawsuit, Mr. Lockyer noted he was Grandma Millie's lawyer
and was seeking justice for her and all California ratepayers. In the
complaint, he said, "While the state reeled from the combined impact of sky
high power prices, supply shortages and rolling blackouts, the Enron
defendants enjoyed massive, unprecedented profits, and extracted millions of
dollars in ill-gotten gains from utilities and their customers ... And
through it all, the Enron defendants displayed a shocking disregard for the
public welfare, as numerous telephone conversations involving their
personnel vividly demonstrate."

The Enron settlement is the 10th produced by Lockyer's Energy Task Force,
working in cooperation with the CPUC, EOB, Governor's Office, CDWR, PG&E and
SCE. The 10 settlements have a combined value of $4.9 billion. Of that
total, an estimated $3.64 billion represents ratepayer relief.

For more details, contact the Attorney General by Phone: (916) 324-5500 or
visit the Website: http://caag.state.ca.us/.


ENRON CORPORATION: OR AG Bares Racketeering Settlement Details
--------------------------------------------------------------
Oregon Attorney General Hardy Myers announced a settlement agreement in the
Enron bankruptcy proceedings that resolves claims by the Oregon Department
of Justice (DOJ) alleging that, between January 2000 and December 2001, the
company engaged in over a thousand violations of Oregon's racketeering law.

The agreement, which settles a large number of outstanding claims in the
bankruptcy proceeding, must be approved by the United States Bankruptcy
Court in New York State and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).

In October 2002, Mr. Myers filed a claim in the Enron bankruptcy alleging
that the company violated state and federal statutes, including Oregon's
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). DOJ specified
civil penalties totaling over $336 million, asserting the company engaged in
a concerted effort to drive up energy prices across the west coast. Enron
objected to the claims; yet never denied the allegations of misconduct.

"If approved by the bankruptcy court and FERC, today's settlement will bring
some closure to one of the most egregious cases of business misconduct in
Oregon history," Mr. Myers said. "Unfortunately, Enron will never be held
fully accountable for its role in the collapse of the energy market during
2000 and 2001."

The settlement resolves claims filed by numerous west coast agencies and
organizations, as well as the Attorneys General of Oregon, California and
Washington. The proposed settlement calls for the California parties to
receive an $875 million unsecured claim in the Enron bankruptcy proceeding,
plus $47.5 million in cash.   The agreement allows an unsecured claim of
over $22 million each for Oregon and Washington.   Because total claims
against Enron in the bankruptcy greatly exceed total assets, all claims will
be further discounted before final distribution is made to Oregon and the
other states.  Currently, the parties to the settlement estimate that Oregon
may receive up to $5 million upon approval and payment of the settlement.

For more details, contact Kevin Neely by Phone: (503) 378-6002 or contact
the state Department of Justice by Mail: 1162 Court Street NE Salem, OR
97301-4096, by Phone: (503) 378-4400 or (503) 378-5938 or visit the Website:
http://www.doj.state.or.us/


FENTANYL PATCHES: Issues Health Advisory Due To Link to Deaths
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Food and Drugs Administration (FDA) issued a Public Health Advisory
regarding the safe use of transdermal fentanyl patches in response to
reports of deaths in patients using this potent narcotic medication for pain
management.

In addition, a patient information sheet and an alert to healthcare
professionals were issued identifying several important safety precautions
for the use of fentanyl transdermal patches. These safety precautions
include but are not limited to patient education regarding signs of
overdose, proper patch application, use of other medications while using the
patch, safeguards for children, and proper storage and disposal.

The FDA is conducting an investigation into the deaths associated with these
patches. The Agency has been examining the circumstances of product use to
determine if the reported adverse events may be related to inappropriate use
of the patch or factors related to the quality of the product. It is
possible that some patients and their health care providers may not be
completely aware of the dangers of these potent narcotic drug products and
the important recommendations regarding their safe use.

The Agency is working closely with the manufacturers of fentanyl patches to
fully evaluate the risks associated with their use and to develop a plan to
help patients avoid accidental fentanyl overdose.  For more information,
contact Laura Alvey by Phone: 301-827-6242 or 888-INFO-FDA or visit the
Website: http://www.fda.gov/cder/drug/infopage/fentanyl/default.htm.


GEORGIA POWER: Employees File For Hearing Before Supreme Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Seven current and former Georgia Power employees who sued the company for
racial discrimination in 2000 recently filed for a hearing by the U.S.
Supreme Court, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports.

In 2003, a federal judge dismissed the case, after an earlier ruling denying
minority employees of Georgia Power and its parent, Southern Co., the right
to sue as a class. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal
late last year.  The case involved complaints of unequal pay and promotion
opportunities for black employees, and a more unusual and incendiary
complaint -- nooses left hanging in Georgia Power work sites.

In asking for Supreme Court review, attorneys Michael Terry and Steven
Rosenwasser of the Bondurant Mixon law firm argued that the Atlanta federal
courts created un-surmountable and unconstitutional barriers to class action
discrimination claims.

Georgia Power spokeswoman Lolita Browning told The Atlanta
Journal-Constitution that the company expects the Supreme Court to side with
the lower federal court rulings, if it decides to hear the case at all. She
also said,  "This case has been reviewed now at several different layers of
the federal court. On each occasion the court has found the plaintiffs'
claims and allegations to be without merit and substance."

Though the Supreme Court does not have to take the petition for review, Mr.
Rosenwasser, the plaintiffs' attorney, told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
that the court accepts roughly 80 cases a year of the 5,000 it is asked to
consider.


IDAHO: Insurers of Grass Farmers Agree To Settle Pollution Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Insurance companies for northern Idaho grass farmers agreed to settle a
class action lawsuit brought by area residents over pollution from growers'
annual field burning, The Associated Press reports.

According to an attorney for most of the 70 farmers, although no amount was
specified, the insurance companies will put the money into a fund to pay
claims to eligible people with respiratory problems who live in northern
Idaho or Spokane County in eastern Washington.

The agreement covers damages for the 1999, 2000 and 2001 burn seasons and
nothing beyond that since in 2002, the Idaho Legislature passed a law
prohibiting lawsuits against farmers for field burning, if the farmer
followed state smoke-management rules.

Washington prohibits burning grass fields but the practice is allowed in
Idaho. Some Kentucky bluegrass farmers have maintained they must burn their
fields to shock the soil into producing a strong crop the following season.

Brent Walton, a Seattle attorney representing residents in the class action
lawsuit told the Spokesman-Review newspaper, "Ultimately, this practice
needs to stop in north Idaho."

Coeur d'Alene attorney Peter Erbland, who represents 50 of the farmers who
were sued, told The Associated Press that many growers were unhappy with the
settlement decision because they felt they were winning the case. He pointed
out though that, "The decision to pay is the insurance companies' not the
farmers'."

Bluegrass farmer Wayne Meyer told The Associated Press that he and a group
of other farmers had wanted the insurance companies to give them the money
to continue the legal fight, rather than settle. "I felt that I hadn't done
anything wrong," said Mr. Meyer, a former Idaho lawmaker. "I was legal under
the law. And yet I'm paying for damages."

The leader of an organization that advocates against field burning on behalf
of northern Idaho and eastern Washington residents was pleased by the
settlement. "It's a very positive step forward for public health in north
Idaho," Patti Gora of Safe Air For Everyone tells The Associated Press.

The settlement means only one defendant remains in the lawsuit pending in
4th District Court, the North Idaho Farmers Association, an organization
that represents grass growers. Just recently though, the association's
attorney Don Farley argued before retired District Judge William Woodland
that the group should be dismissed because it "didn't own any bluegrass
fields. We didn't burn any bluegrass fields." Judge Woodland took the motion
to dismiss under advisement and indicated it may be several weeks before he
rules.


KENTUCKY: Insurers Dispute $80M Claim For Clergy Sex Abuse Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Diocese of Covington's demand that its insurance carrier pay at least
two-thirds of its $120 million settlement with victims of priestly sexual
abuse is in line with other settlements around the United States, according
to lawyers familiar with the issue and a review of other agreements, The
Cincinnati Post reports.  However, according to them, the diocese's decision
to sue for that money is unusual, although not unprecedented.

The $120 million proposed settlement of a class action lawsuit against the
diocese calls for at least $80 million to come from insurance companies that
covered the diocese over the past 50 years.  Though the settlement includes
several companies, the main one appears to be Catholic Mutual Group, which
has its headquarters in Omaha, Nebraska. The company, which is a
self-insurance fund that is part of the Catholic Church, previously said
that it was not invited to the negotiations where a final settlement was
reached.

Both the Covington Diocese and those who have sued it dispute that claim,
saying that the company refused to participate and arbitrarily said it would
deny or limit coverage. Due to that dispute, the diocese has sued the firm,
and those who sued the diocese have joined in the lawsuit, which is in its
early stages in U.S. District Court in Covington.

Though Catholic Mutual has not filed its formal response to the lawsuit it
is in the process of doing so, according to its general counsel, Richard
Novak. He also told The Cincinnati Post, "That matter is in litigation.
We're not going to be discussing that in the media."

Previously, Catholic Mutual has participated in other settlement talks.
According to Angela Ford, a Lexington attorney who settled 27 cases against
the dioceses of Lexington and Covington for $5.2 million, a representative
of the company was intimately involved in the discussions. She pointed out
to The Cincinnati Post that the insurance, which paid $3.23 million on the
claims, was instrumental in reaching an agreement. She also told The
Cincinnati Post, "At the time we were negotiating, (the diocese) made it
clear that we were approaching what they could award my clients." Having
insurance "allowed them to increase the amounts of the financial awards to
each person," she further said.

Additionally, she also told The Cincinnati Post that Catholic Mutual was
specific about what claims it would pay - those for which the diocese had
legitimate coverage, and for which no compelling legal argument could be
made against. The church agreed to pay the rest of the claims, Ms. Ford
said.

Barbara Bonar, a Covington attorney who has settled about a dozen claims
against the diocese, told The Cincinnati Post that whether insurance would
cover the agreement played a major role in how much the diocese was willing
to pay. But that's the case in almost any lawsuit involving liability, she
pointed. Ms. Bonar also told The Cincinnati Post that she doesn't know how
much of her clients' settlement money came from insurance and how much was
paid directly by the diocese. "I was never told that," she said. "It really
didn't matter to myself or my client."


MACK TRUCKS: Recalls 127 Various 2004-05 Trucks For Fire Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mack Trucks, Inc. in cooperation with the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration's Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) is voluntarily
recalling about 127 units of 2005 Mack / CL, 2004-05 Mack / CV, 2005 Mack /
CX, 2004-05 Mack / VR, 2004 Mack / RD trucks due to fire hazard. NHTSA
CAMPAIGN ID Number: 05V312000.

According to the ODI, on certain heavy-duty class 8 trucks, equipped with
Holland Air Suspension Systems, a transverse beam casting may fracture under
normal loads. If a casting breaks when the vehicle is traveling on a roadway
there is the potential for pieces of the casting to become projectiles and
the suspension's transverse beam may drop down low enough to contact the
road surface. This will cause sparks that could potentially ignite and cause
a fire.

As a remedy dealers will inspect and replace the defective transverse beam
assemblies.

For more details, contact Mack by Phone: 610-709-2131 or the NHTSA Auto
Safety Hotline: 1-888-327-4236 or 1-800-424-9153, Web site:
http://www.safecar.gov.


MAZDA NORTH: Recalls 56T 2004-05 RX8 Vehicles Due to Fire Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mazda North America Operations in cooperation with the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration's Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) is
voluntarily recalling about 56,000 units of 2004-05 Mazda / RX8 passenger
vehicles due to fire hazard. NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID Number: 05V317000.

According to the ODI, if certain passenger vehicles are parked and the
engine is operated at high RPM'S for an excessive length of time, some of
the parts around the exhaust system can melt and produce a variety of
malfunctions. Problems caused by the excessive heat build-up can range from
inoperative oxygen sensor, neutral switch and back up lights, problems with
the parking brakes, malfunctions of the gas gauge and/or possible fuel leaks
resulting from heat damage to the fuel tank. Fuel leakage, in the presence
of an ignition source, could result in a fire.

For more details, contact Mazda by Phone: 1-800-222-5500 or the NHTSA Auto
Safety Hotline: 1-888-327-4236 or 1-800-424-9153, Web site:
http://www.safecar.gov.


NATIONWIDE PAYMENT: OK AG Edmondson Warns V. Cashier Check Scam
---------------------------------------------------------------
Oklahoma Attorney General Drew Edmondson issued a consumer alert warning
Oklahomans about a scam that promises easy money, but could easily cost
people thousands of dollars.

Mr. Edmondson's Consumer Protection Unit is currently investigating the scam
in which consumers receive an Award Claim Notification from Nationwide
Payment and Security, Inc. (NPSI) of Salt Lake City, Utah.  With the
notification also comes a counterfeit cashier's check and a request for the
consumer to call NPSI's office to claim funds.

"One person has already reported receiving a $4,200 check from this
company," Mr. Edmondson said. "She contacted our office to verify its
authenticity, but our investigators have thus far been unable to track down
the company who claims to have sent the check."

He added his investigators now believe NPSI is sending out counterfeit
cashier's checks in the hopes of fraudulently collecting surcharges and
processing fees from unsuspecting consumers.  "The consumer who called us
did exactly the right thing," Mr. Edmondson said. "Had she paid the company
the money for the 'surcharges' and 'processing fees,' she would've been left
holding only a counterfeit cashier's check and a smaller balance in her bank
account."

Mr. Edmondson said his office is currently investigating the scam, and is
asking others who have received the offer from NPSI to contact his Consumer
Protection Unit at (405) 521-2029.  "We are working to track down this
company," he said. "In the mean time, we want to remind consumers of the old
adage, 'if it seems to good to be true, it probably is.' In this case, it
definitely is."

For more details, contact the Office of the Attorney General by Mail: 2300
N. Lincoln Blvd, Ste 112, Oklahoma City, OK 73105 by Phone: 405.521.3921 or
918.581.2885 or visit the Website: http://www.oag.state.ok.us/.


NORTH DAKOTA: ND Court Sends Resident To Jail For Consumer Fraud
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Bismarck, North Dakota man has been sentenced to six months in the county
jail for fraudulent vacuum cleaner sales in North Dakota. Attorney General
Wayne Stenehjem brought the action against Terry Gourneau after Gourneau
violated an agreement last
year to discontinue sales in North Dakota.

"Based on complaints received by our Consumer Protection Division, Mr.
Gourneau made a practice of targeting elderly victims, arriving uninvited at
their homes and not leaving until he sold a vacuum cleaner at several times
over retail value," Mr. Stenehjem said.

All of the complaints were from consumers over the age of 65 and half were
80 years or older.  "Mr. Gourneau intimidated his victims, who often felt
that he would not leave until
they wrote a check," said Mr. Stenehjem.  "Mr. Gourneau also misled elderly
consumers into believing they were buying new machines when he actually
recycled trade-ins from previous unlawful sales. He also failed to notify
consumers of their right to cancel the sale within 15 days, which is
required under state law."

District Court Judge Bruce Romanick found Mr. Gourneau in contempt of court
and granted him credit for 11 days of jail time already served.  Judge
Romanick suspended the remainder of the six month jail term on the condition
that Mr. Gourneau cease all sales in North Dakota and make payment of $6,000
to the Attorney General.

"I will not tolerate these fraudulent and abusive sales practices directed
at our elderly consumers, and I'm very pleased the Court recognized the
seriousness of Mr. Gourneau's illegal conduct," Mr. Stenehjem said.

Assistant attorney general Todd Sattler of the Attorney General's Consumer
Protection Division handled the case. Consumers with questions may contact
the Consumer Protection Division by Phone: 701-328-3404, or 1-800-472-2600
(toll-free) or visit the Website: http://www.ag.state.nd.us/.


PAYPAL INC.: Plans to Make Settlement Payments by September 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
PayPal Inc. notified claimants in the In Re PayPal Litigation class action
case that the settlement payments would be deposited automatically into
their PayPal accounts.

The Claims Administrator is planning to make payments in three
circumstances:

     (1) If a claimant filled out a Statutory Fund Claim Form,
         then the settlement payment will be automatically
         deposited into the claimant's PayPal account by July
         31, 2005.

     (2) If the claimant filled out a Short Form Claim Form,
         then the settlement payment will be automatically
         deposited into the claimant's PayPal account by August
         31, 2005.

     (3) If the claimant filled out a Long Form Claim Form,
         those settlement payments will be processed as soon as
         they are approved by the Court.  The Claims
         Administrator expects to have the settlement by
         September 30, 2005.

According to PayPal claimants will receive an e-mail message notifying them
when the settlement payment has been deposited into their account.

Additional information about the litigation and the settlement is available
at no charge at https://www.paypal.com/settlement-faq/.


PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS: To Settle Overbilling Claims For $41.9M
---------------------------------------------------------------
PricewaterhouseCoopers agreed to pay $41.9 million in civil penalties to
settle claims that it over-billed the government for travel-related
expenses, WebCPA reports.

A lawsuit was initially filed in 2001, alleging violations under the federal
False Claims Act.  The suit prompted an investigation by the United States
Attorney's office related to bills paid directly by the Defense Department
and other federal agencies that used the prominent accounting firm, as well
as inflated bills passed on to the government by contractors working on
federal projects.  A company spokesman told Reuters that PwC had already
changed the policy before becoming aware of the government investigation.

The U.S. Justice Department announced the settlement on Monday.
PricewaterhouseCoopers previously paid $54.5 million to settle its share of
a class-action lawsuit over travel-billing issues in another case filed in
2001 in state court in Texarkana, Arkansas, which accused the firm and
others of over-billing clients by charging them the full face amount of
travel costs, while receiving back-end rebates from vendors, WebCPA reports.


QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Notice Program Starts For Fiber-Optic Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action notice program that was ordered by the Illinois Circuit Court
for St. Clair County to those who own or have owned property underlying or
next to railroad rights of way where Qwest fiber-optic cable was installed
was set into motion recently. Notices will be mailed to at least 12,500
landowners in Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, Ohio
and Wisconsin, and widely published in the media.

The notices are a result of the Court establishing, or "certifying," a class
action lawsuit against Qwest Communications International, Inc., Qwest
Communications Corporation, USLD Communications Corporation and Qwest
Network Construction Services involving the use and operation of the
fiber-optic cable.

This lawsuit is about whether Qwest unlawfully trespassed on land owned by
Class Members. Qwest installed fiber-optic cable on railroad rights of way
throughout the eight states involved in this class action. Qwest made
contracts with railroads and paid money to railroads to get permission from
the railroads to install the fiber-optic cable. Qwest did not get permission
from the landowners who owned the land under or next to the railroad right
of way. The lawsuit claims that the agreements that Qwest had with railroads
did not give them the rights they needed to lawfully use the property
without also getting permission from the landowners in the Class.

Qwest denies the claims against them, and claim that Class Members are not
entitled to compensation.

The Class includes those who own or owned property in Illinois, Iowa,
Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, Ohio and Wisconsin, under or next
to railroad rights of way where Qwest installed, operates or uses
fiber-optic cable. The landowners are represented by John Massopust and
Daniel Millea of Zelle, Hofmann, Voelbel, Mason & Gette LLP in Minneapolis,
MN; Elizabeth Heller of Goldenberg, Miller, Heller & Antognoli, P.C. in
Edwardsville, IL; Kevin Hoerner of Becker, Paulson, Hoerner & Thompson, P.C.
in Belleville, IL; Nels Ackerson and Kathleen Kauffman of Ackerson Kauffman
Fex, PC in Washington, DC; Henry Price of Price, Waicukauski, Riley &
DeBrota, LLC in Indianapolis, IN; Roger Johnson of Koonz, McKenney, Johnson,
DePaolis & Lightfoot, LLP in Washington, DC; and Catherine Colinvaux of
Zelle, Hofmann, Voelbel, Mason & Gette LLP in Waltham, MA.

Affected landowners may choose to exclude themselves from any potential
compensation that may result if Qwest is found liable in the case. Those who
wish to stay in the Class don't have to do anything now, and will be able to
participate in any compensation that may result from the trial or any
settlement.

For more details, contact Daniel J. Millea, Esq., Zelle, Hofmann, Voelbel,
Mason & Gette, LLP, Phone: +1-612-339-2020 OR Bob Toevs, Director of Public
Relations, Qwest Communications International, Inc., Phone: +1-303-965-6264
OR Qwest Class Action, P.O. Box 130993, Dallas, TX, 75313-0993, Web site:
http://www.qwestfiberopticclassaction.com.


SOUTH CAROLINA: Four Employees Seek Certification For TERI Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys for four TERI employees suing the South Carolina's retirement
system filed papers to seek for class action status for their lawsuit, which
covers more than 14,000 employees statewide, The State, SC reports

In their suit, the employees claim the state is violating their contracts by
deducting more than 6 percent of their paychecks to put back in the pension
plan. They claim that TERI employees previously paid nothing.

Last week, a judge imposed a temporary restraining order against the state,
thus barring the deductions, but it only applies to the four plaintiffs.
The TERI program allows employees to defer their pensions while they
continue to work for five years after retirement.


TOYOBO CO.: Plaintiffs' Firm Hails Bullet Proof Vest Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Counsel for plaintiffs Allan Kanner & Associates, P.L.L.C. of New Orleans,
Louisiana hailed the $29 million class action settlement reached between a
certified national class of consumers who purchased Second Chance Ultima,
Ultimax, and Tri-Flex vests and Defendants Toyobo Company, Ltd. and Toyobo
America, Inc.  This settlement does not resolve claims against Second
Chance, which is in Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

A nationwide class action was filed against the defendants in relation to
several bullet proof vests that used Zylon material.  According to the
complaints, as early as 2000, the defendants discovered that the Zylon
material used in the vests was degrading after exposure to heat, humidity,
light, wear, care and in-service flex, resulting in the vests losing their
protective qualities.  The Complaint alleges that the defendants failed to
take prompt and adequate steps to notify purchasers of the defects and
continued to sell the vests with knowledge that their representations and
warranties concerning the performance characteristics were false.  The
Complaint further alleges that the defective vests are unsuitable for the
intended uses and thus, purchasers are entitled to a refund of the purchase
price or replacement, at no cost, with non-Zylon vests that meet or exceed
the warranted performance specifications for the Ultima and Ultimax vests,
and that are proven, tested and certified by the National Institute of
Justice, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (November 7,2004) reports.

In a press statement, the firm said "We would like to thank the various
state attorneys general, police fraternal organizations and professional
police organizations for their support in achieving this important
Settlement. Allan Kanner & Associates also thanks the network of law firms
nationwide that have worked hard over the past year and a half to achieve
the benefits obtained in this Settlement for law enforcement officers and
agencies throughout the United States. We will do everything we can in order
to get the benefits provided by this settlement to Class Members as soon as
possible. Throughout the process that led to the settlement it was readily
apparent that Toyobo's primary interest was to create a fund designed to
allow police officers to quickly have the means to receive certified vests
so that they can be properly protected."

For further information about the settlement, please visit the settlement
Website: http://www.zylonvestclassaction.comor call 1-877-567-2754.


TOYOBO CO.: OH AG Reveals Zylon Bullet Proof Vests Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
A court approved preliminary settlement could provide Ohio law enforcement
with a refund or assist in the replacement of defective Second Chance-brand
bullet proof vests in a nationwide class action case, Ohio Attorney General
Jim Petro stated in a press release dated July 15,2005.

The proposed settlement comes as part of a private class action by the
Southern States Police Benevolent Association ("SSPBA") against Toyobo Co.,
Ltd. and Toyobo America, Inc., as well as Second Chance Body Armor, Inc. and
others. The District Court of Mayes County, Oklahoma, issued a preliminary
order approving the settlement with Toyobo Co., Ltd. and Toyobo America,
Inc. This settlement does not include Second Chance Body Armor, Inc.
Litigation against that company is currently stayed due to its bankruptcy
status.

"Through letters to the law enforcement community I am recommending that
they review the proposed preliminary settlement carefully with their local
prosecutor or legal representative," said Mr. Petro.  "My office will
continue to update Ohioans about additional information regarding Second
Chance."

The settlement provides $29 million to purchasers and owners of Second
Chance vests containing ZylonŽ, including Ultima, Ultimax and Triflex model
vests. Purchasers and owners of these vests will have three options to
choose from if they elect to participate in the settlement.

Purchasers and owners should receive notification by mail soon that will
explain the settlement options in detail, along with instructions on how to
file a claim to participate in the settlement or how to opt out or object to
it. More information can be found at the Website:
http://www.zylonvestclassaction.comor by calling the claims administrator  
by Phone: 1-877-567-2754. Additional information may be found on the SSPBA
website: http://www.sspba.org,or by contacting class counsel W. Pitts Carr  
by Phone: 1-888-755-1649 or Allan Kanner by Phone: 1-800-331-1546.

Summaries of the three settlement options are:

    (1) Option 1 - A cash option to receive a pro rata share of
        the $29 million settlement fund. The amount each officer
        or agency receives is dependent on the total number of
         Class Members that participate in the settlement. Each
         Class Member selecting this option is free to use the
         money received from the Settlement Fund in any manner
         they choose.

     (2) Option 2 - Class members may elect to use their pro
         rata share of cash from the Settlement Fund to purchase
         a replacement vest from Armor Holdings Products, L.L.C.
         The company will be responsible for all transaction
         costs associated with the purchase and delivery of
         these vests.

     (3) Option 3 - Class members may elect to receive a
         nonrefundable credit or voucher from Armor worth $25
         more than their pro rata share of cash from the
         settlement fund to purchase an Armor replacement vest
         or any other Armor product available from its
         distributors.

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


UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Faces Second Suit Over Tuition Hikes
--------------------------------------------------------------
University of California faces a second lawsuit over tuition increases from
a group of professional school students who say they should be exempt from
increases, The InsideBayArea.com reports.

The class action lawsuit, which was filed in San Francisco Superior Court,
alleges breach of contract by UC for raising fees in 2004-05 for previously
enrolled professional school students specifically those in advanced
graduate programs such as medicine, business and law.  Additionally, the
suit challenges additional fee increases UC's governing board of regents are
expected to approve next week for 2005-06. Those increases, coupled with an
earlier one, would raise most professional school fees 10 percent during the
next two years and would boost a separate educational fee.  According to the
suit, professional school students enrolled since fall 2003 should be exempt
from the increases because UC literature promised their fees would remain
constant throughout their studies.

Danielle Leonard, one of the attorneys representing students in both suits
told InsideBayArea.com, "Once the price was set for 2003-04, that's the
price they should have been charged for the duration of their enrollment."

The latest suit is similar to another one that was filed in 2003, which
seeks to exempt professional school students enrolled prior to December 2002
from higher fees, also because they were promised a constant fee. That case
has yet to be heard in court, but an injunction has prevented UC from
collecting the higher fees while the case proceeds.

Ironically, UC officials say the injunction is one of the reasons
professional students are now facing increases. UC even says that the
injunction will cost them more than $20 million by the end of 2005-06. The
loss, coupled with state cuts, means schools have to raise fees to help
maintain program quality, faculty salaries and financial aid offerings,
according to UC spokeswoman Ravi Poorsina. She explains to
InsideBayArea.com, "UC does have legal authority to protect the quality of
the program through fee increases. I don't know how there could have been
any question to entering students in the fall of 2003 that they might (not)
be subject to fee increases, judging by the budget discussions that were
going on."


VISA USA: Large Retailers Commence Antitrust Lawsuit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
Credit card company Visa USA, Inc. faces a federal lawsuit filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York by
several large retailers, alleging the Company fixed the price and restricted
competition in credit-card transactions, the Associated Press reports.

Grocery chain operator Kroger Co. and several other large retailers filed
the suit, charging Visa USA Inc. and Visa International Service Association
with colluding with member banks to illegally fix prices on interchange
fees, which credit card issuers like Visa and MasterCard charge merchants
each time a customer pays with a credit card.  Kroger also alleged that Visa
set rules and restrictions that forbid merchants like Kroger from
negotiating lower fees. Interchange fees are a source of hefty profits for
the credit card industry.  Other plaintiffs in the lawsuit are Ahold USA
Inc., Albertson's Inc., Eckerd Corporation, Maxi Drug Inc., Safeway Inc.,
and Walgreen Co.

Last month, a group of small retailers filed a lawsuit in Connecticut
federal court against Visa, MasterCard and several big banks including Bank
of America Corporation and Citigroup alleging they set "exorbitant"
interchange fees.  In response to the suit filed by the smaller retailers in
June, Visa said it would vigorously defend its use of interchange fees.

Visa representatives were not immediately available Friday for comment, the
Associated Press reports.


VOLVO TRUCKS: Recalls 10 VH, VN, VT Trucks Due to Fire Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------
Volvo Trucks North America in cooperation with the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration's Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) is voluntarily
recalling about 10 units of 2004-05 Volvo / VH, 2005 Volvo / VN, 2005 Volvo
/ VT trucks due to fire hazard. NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID Number: 05V311000.

According to the ODI, on certain heavy-duty class 8 trucks, equipped with
Holland Air Suspension Systems, a transverse beam casting may fracture under
normal loads. If a casting breaks when the vehicle is traveling on a roadway
there is the potential for pieces of the casting to become projectiles and
the suspension's transverse beam may drop down low enough to contact the
road surface. This will cause sparks that could potentially ignite and cause
a fire.

As a remedy dealers will inspect and replace the defective transverse beam
assemblies.

For more details, contact Volvo by Phone: 1-800-528-6586 or the NHTSA Auto
Safety Hotline: 1-888-327-4236 or 1-800-424-9153, Web site:
http://www.safecar.gov.


WORLDCOM INC.: OK AG Edmondson Satisfied With Ebbers' Sentence
--------------------------------------------------------------
Oklahoma Attorney General Drew Edmondson said the 25-year sentence given in
former WorldCom Chief Executive Officer Bernard Ebbers' federal trial
satisfies the state's prosecution, and his office will not pursue its case
against Mr. Ebbers in state court.

Mr. Edmondson charged Mr. Ebbers, WorldCom and five other executives in
August 2003 with 15 counts of violating the Oklahoma Securities Act.  He
delayed Oklahoma's case against the six executives at the request of United
States Attorney David Kelley, whose office charged Mr. Ebbers in March 2004.
Mr. Ebbers was convicted March 15 in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York on one count of securities fraud, one
count of conspiracy to commit securities fraud and seven counts of filing
false documents with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

"Ebbers was sentenced to 25 years," Mr. Edmondson said. "Justice has been
served in this case, and Ebbers' federal sentence is sufficient to satisfy
the state. In the interests of judicial economy, I see no reason to further
pursue Ebbers in state court."

The attorney general said he was confident of convicting Mr. Ebbers in state
court, but because of the severity of the federal sentence, his office's
financial and personnel resources are better directed at other issues.

"Ebbers could spend the rest of his life in federal prison, and there is no
justification for bringing him here to impose a sentence he will never
serve," Mr. Edmondson said. "The remaining five defendants in our case,
including former Chief Financial Officer Scott Sullivan, will be sentenced
federally in the next few weeks. No action will be taken in Oklahoma until
those sentences are levied."

Mr. Edmondson said he expects the federal sentences for the remaining
defendants will take care of the state's interests as well.  "I anticipate
adequate sentences in each of these cases," Edmondson said. "We will
evaluate each sentence and proceed accordingly."

He also praised Assistant Attorney General Tom Bates for his efforts
directing the state's case. At the invitation of federal prosecutors, Mr.
Bates attended parts of Mr. Ebbers' federal trial.  "Assistant Attorney
General Tom Bates directed the entire WorldCom case with precision and
professionalism," Mr. Edmondson said. "I appreciate his work."


                            New Securities Fraud Cases


CRAY INC.: Scott + Scott Provides Securities Litigation Updates
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Scott + Scott, LLC, which filed a class action in the United
States District Court for the District of Washington on behalf of the
purchasers of Cray Inc. (Nasdaq: CRAYE; "Cray" or the "Company") securities
between July 31, 2003 and May 12, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"),
intends to move the Court for lead plaintiff/lead counsel on July 25, 2005.

Cray Inc. is engaged in the design, development, marketing and support of
high-performance computer systems, commonly known as supercomputers.

The complaint alleges that Cray's manufacturing processes, internal controls
and testing were flawed and ineffective and that Cray's own auditors and
Audit Committee knew of the flawed and ineffective internal controls.
Further, the complaint alleges that unknown to investors delays in inventory
recognition realization and revenue were a recurring and unpredictable
feature of Cray's business model. Additionally, it is alleged that during
the Class Period, Cray failed to disclose and misrepresented that business
metrics having a direct bearing on revenue recognition were increasingly
unfavorable and unlikely to improve anytime soon.

On May 9, 2005, Cray revealed that it had failed to include an auditor's
opinion on management's assessment of internal control over financial
reporting. Moreover, Cray continued to report revenue results adversely
impacted by faulty internal controls and past quarter practices. Cray's
stock price, which was as high as $13.49 during the Class Period closed on
May 12, 2005 at $1.34. On July 1, 2005, Cray issued a Form 8-K stating that
it had hired a new independent auditor.

For more details, contact Neil Rothstein of Scott + Scott, LLC, 108 Norwich
Ave., Colchester, CT, 06415, Phone: 860/537-3818 or +1-619-251-0887, Fax:
860/537-4432.


DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Abbey Gardy Provides Litigation Updates
-------------------------------------------------------------
The firm of Abbey Gardy, LLP, which represents purchasers of DreamWorks
Animations SKG, Inc. ("DreamWorks" or the "Company") (NYSE: DWA - News)
common stock between October 27, 2004 and May 10, 2005, inclusive (the
"Class Period") in a class action filed in the United States District Court
for the Central District of California is providing updates on the status of
the litigation.

On May 10, 2005, DreamWorks announced that Shrek 2 did not meet the
company's retail sales expectations for the first quarter. The Company
reported for the first time that the "sales shortfall resulted in a higher
level of returns than expected. As a result, DWA recorded no revenue from
Shrek 2 in the quarter other than from licensing and merchandising." On this
news the price of DreamWorks stock dropped from $36.50 to close at $32.05.

On July 11, 2005, DreamWorks disclosed that the Securities and Exchange
Commission is conducting an informal inquiry into trading of its securities
and its first quarter earnings announcement.

DreamWorks also acknowledged that its DVD problem appears to be wider than
just one film and one market. Sales of Shrek 2 and DreamWorks other 2004
release out on home video, Shark Tale are falling short of forecasts both at
home and overseas. On this news DreamWorks stock dropped to $22.96, its
lowest level since the Company's initial public offering in 2004.

For more details, contact Susan Lee or Nancy Kaboolian, Esq. of Abbey Gardy,
LLP, Mail: 212 East 39th St., New York, NY, 10016, Phone: (212) 889-3700 or
(800) 889-3701 (Toll Free), E-mail: slee@abbeygardy.com.


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

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

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

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

     (2) that prior to the IPO, market demand had indicated that
         the proper price for the IPO was only $22 per share;

     (3) that to "create a market" and thereby manufacture an
         appearance that Lazard's IPO was fairly and properly
         priced, Goldman arranged to sell millions of shares to
         hedge funds with side agreements that they could
         immediately "flip the shares" and that Goldman would
         immediately buy them back;

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

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

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

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


LAZARD LTD.: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The firm of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York, on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
the common stock of Lazard, Ltd. ("Lazard" or the "Company") (NYSE: LAZ)
pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's false and misleading Registration
Statement/Prospectus, inclusive, (the "Class Period") together with those
who purchased their shares in the open market between May 4, 2005 and May
12, 2005 inclusive (the "Class Period") against defendants Lazard and
certain officers of the Company. The case name is Sved v. Lazard, et al.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities laws
by issuing materially false and misleading statements throughout the Class
Period that had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the
Company's securities. The complaint further alleges that defendants knew,
that the Company's registration statement/prospectus was misleading when
issued because defendants failed to disclose the following material adverse
facts:

     (1) that to "create a market" and thereby manufacture an
         appearance that Lazard's IPO was fairly and properly
         priced, Goldman arranged to sell millions of shares to
         hedge funds with side agreements that they could
         immediately "flip the shares" and that Goldman would
         immediately buy them back;

     (2) that Goldman entered into side agreements whereby
         several hedge funds agreed to "theoretically" buy the
         shares in the IPO so that the IPO would be considered
         "consummated" and Goldman could receive its
         underwriting fee, but again with the understanding the
         hedge funds could immediately sell the shares back to
         Goldman -- without affecting their standing in future
         IPOs;

     (3) that a true market for the IPO at a price of $27 per
         share did not exist. In fact, the $25 price that was
         dictated by defendant Wasserstein did not exist. If the
         IPO took place at any price below $27 per share,
         defendant Wasserstein would not be able to fund the
         acquisition of David-Weill's equity stake by only using
         the proceeds of the IPO. At $25 per share an additional
         3.5 millions shares were sold to effectuate the IPO.

This scheme:

     (i) deceived the investing public regarding Lazard's
         business, operations, management and the intrinsic
         value of Lazard common stock;

    (ii) enabled the defendants to raise $855 million in the
         Company's IPO;

   (iii) enabled the defendants to raise $1.1 billion in equity
         security units issued by the Company;

    (iv) enabled defendant Wasserstein to acquire David-Weill's
         shares using the proceeds received in the IPO; and

     (v) caused plaintiff and other members of the Class to
         purchase Lazard publicly traded securities at
         artificially inflated prices.

For more details, contact Fred Taylor Isquith, Esq., Gustavo Bruckner, Esq.
or Derek Behnke of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP, Phone:
1-800-575-0735, E-mail: classmember@whafh.com, Web site:
http://www.whafh.com/cases/lazard.htm.


NET2PHONE, INC.: Bull & Lifshitz Lodges Securities Suit in DE
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Bull & Lifshitz, LLP initiated a securities class action in
the State of Delaware, Court of Chancery, New Castle County on behalf of
owners of the common stock of Net2Phone, Inc. ("Net2Phone" or the "Company")
(Nasdaq:NTOP).

The Complaint alleges that IDT allegedly owns securities representing
approximately 41% of Net2Phone's outstanding equity securities and
approximately 57% of the total voting power of Net2Phone's outstanding
equity securities. IDT intends to make an offer to purchase all outstanding
shares of common stock of Net2Phone not owned by IDT or its affiliates, at a
price of $1.70 per share, net to the sellers in cash, without interest.

The Complaint alleges that the price of $1.70 per share offered to the class
members is unconscionable, unfair and grossly inadequate consideration and
has been the object of manipulation because, among other things:

     (1) the intrinsic value of the stock of Net2Phone is
         materially in excess of $1.70 per share, giving due
         consideration to the possibilities of growth and
         profitability of Net2Phone in light of its business,
         earnings and earnings power, present and future;

     (2) the $1.70 per share price is inadequate and offers an
         inadequate premium to the public stockholders of
         Net2Phone; and

     (3) the $1.70 per share price is not the result of arm's
         length negotiations but was fixed arbitrarily by IDT to
         "cap" the market price of Net2Phone stock, as part of a
         plan for defendants to obtain complete ownership of
         Net2Phone assets and business at the lowest possible
         price.

Additionally, the Complaint alleges that the negative revelations concerning
the Company's lack of internal controls was calculated to depress the
Company's stock in order to facilitate the Proposed Transaction on behalf of
IDT.

For more details, contact Joshua M. Lifshitz, Esq. of Bull & Lifshitz, LLP,
18 East 41st St., New York, NY, 10017, Phone: (212) 213 6222, Fax: (212)213
9405, E-mail: counsel@nyclasslaw.com, Web site:
http://www.nyclasslaw.com/infopackage.html.


POSSIS MEDICAL: Zimmerman Reed Files Securities Fraud Suit in MN
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Zimmerman Reed PLLP initiated, along with Lerach Coughlin
Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP ("Lerach Coughlin"), a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota,
on behalf of investors in Possis Medical, Inc. (NASDAQ:POSS) who purchased
common stock on the open market between September 25, 2002 and August 24,
2004 (the "Class Period").

The shareholder bringing the lawsuit is a resident of Orange County, CA who
purchased Possis securities on the open market during the Class Period.

The Complaint alleges that Possis and certain of its officers and directors
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
and Rule 10b-5 by issuing a series of materially false statements during the
Class Period, thereby artificially inflating the price of Possis securities
and inflicting damages on investors.

The shareholder seeks to recover damages on behalf of all Class members.
During the course of the Class Period, the stock traded as high as $34/share
and has recently been trading around $10/share. If you bought Possis common
stock between September 25, 2002 and August 24, 2004, and you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must make a motion to the Court no later than August
2, 2005. Any member of the purported Class may move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff through Zimmerman Reed and Lerach Coughlin or other counsel
of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent Class
member.

For more details, contact Carolyn Anderson or Robert Moilanen of Zimmerman
Reed, Phone: (800) 755-0098, Web site: http://www.zimmreed.comOR Lerach  
Coughlin in San Diego, Phone: 1-800-449-4900, Web site:
http://www.lerachlaw.com.


STOCKERYALE INC.: Rosen Law Firm Sets Lead Plaintiff Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm reminds investors that they have until July 24, 2005 to
seek appointment by the Court as Lead Plaintiff in the class action lawsuit
filed by the Rosen Law Firm on behalf of purchasers of StockerYale Inc.
(Nasdaq:STKR) (the "Company"), securities during the period from April 19,
2004 through November 9, 2004.

The case, Libert v. Blodgett et al, 05-cv-00177-JM, is pending in the United
States District Court for the District of New Hampshire, Warren B. Rudman
U.S. Courthouse, 55 Pleasant Street, Room 110, Concord, NH.

The complaint charges that StockerYale and certain of its officers and
directors violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange
Act by issuing false and misleading press releases on April 19 and April 21,
2004 in which the Company falsely announced that StockerYale had entered
into a contract with BAE Systems to develop a laser for a missile
countermeasure system to protect commercial planes. Additionally, the press
releases misrepresented that StockerYale was supplying the lasers as part of
a Department of Homeland Security project. In fact, StockerYale was not
involved in any Department of Homeland Security project and was not
developing a laser missile countermeasure system for commercial planes.

For more details, contact Laurence Rosen, Esq. of The Rosen Law Firm P.A.,
Phone: (212) 686-1060 or 1-866-767-3653, Fax: (212) 202-3827, E-mail:
lrosen@rosenlegal.com, Web site: http://www.rosenlegal.com.


UNITED AMERICAN: Rosen Law Firm Sets Lead Plaintiff Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm reminds investors that they have until July 26, 2005 to
seek appointment by the Court as Lead Plaintiff in the class action lawsuit
filed by the Rosen Law Firm on behalf of purchasers of United American
Healthcare Corporation (the "Company") (Nasdaq:UAHC) common stock during the
period from May 26, 2000, through April 22, 2005.

The complaint charges that United American Healthcare and certain of its
officers and directors violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
and Exchange Act by failing to disclose the Company's improper business and
financial relationship with a legislator having oversight of UAHC's
Healthplan. According to the complaint, this relationship was in violation
of the Company's contract with Tennessee and has caused the State to place
UAHC's Healthplan under administrative supervision. The complaint alleges
that as a result, investors could not understand or accurately assess the
extent to which UAHC's ongoing operations, reported revenue, and income were
dependent upon the improper political payments scheme.

For more details, contact Laurence Rosen, Esq. of The Rosen Law Firm P.A.,
Phone: (212) 686-1060 or 1-866-767-3653, Fax: (212) 202-3827, E-mail:
lrosen@rosenlegal.com, Web site: http://www.rosenlegal.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  * * *