CAR_Public/050725.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, July 25, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 145

                          Headlines

BAXTER HEALTHCARE: Recalls Infusion Pumps For Production Defect
BROADCOM CORPORATION: Profits Fall 76%, Cites Costs of Lawsuit
CALIFORNIA: Three Insurance Firms To Halt Fraudulent Kickbacks
CAMINUS CORPORATION: Suit Settlement Hearing Set October 7, 2005
CARDIZEM CD: West Virginia Residents To Receive Settlement Share

CARDIZEM CD: WI Consumers To Receive Antitrust Settlement Share
CARDIZEM CD: AZ Customers To Participate in Antitrust Settlement
CARDIZEM CD: CT Consumers To Receive Antitrust Settlement Share
CARDIZEM CD: ID Customers To Receive Antitrust Settlement Share
CONTINENTAL AIRLINES: No Appeal of NC Summary Judgment Ruling

DEY INC.: Forges Settlement For CT Average Wholesale Price Suit
FIRST CENTURY: Suit Launched Over Illegal Financial Transactions
EXCELLUS INC.: Lawsuit Settlement Hearing Set November 1, 2005
FLORIDA: AG Crist Sues 3 Pharmaceutical Firms For Medicaid Fraud
HOME DEPOT: Bookkeeping Employees File Payroll Shaving Suit

HYATT INTERNATIONAL: Cullen Law Firm Lodges Suit V. Moscow Hotel
KIA MOTORS: Recalls 118,447 Sedona Mini-Vans For Crash Hazard
MANAGED CARE: Lawsuit Settlement Hearing Set September 19, 2005
MAZDA NORTH: Recalls 27,800 RX8 Passenger Cars For Crash Hazard
MERCK & CO.: IL Judge Transfers Granite City Woman's Vioxx Case

NEWMAR CORPORATION: Recalls Essex Motor Homes For Crash Hazard
NORTH CAROLINA: Durham County Launches School Impact Fees Appeal
PENNSYLVANIA: Public Library Gets Windfall From Record Companies
PERINI CORPORATION: Expects Numerous Participants For Settlement
POLARIS INDUSTRIES: Recalls 4,244 Motorcycles Due To Fire Hazard

QUALCOMM INC.: CA Court Hears Wage Suit Decertification Appeal
QUALCOMM INC.: Cellphone Injury Suits Remanded To WA State Court
RAILTRACK PLC: UK Government's Attorney Makes Closing Arguments
SMART & FINAL: CA Court Orders Further Mediation For Wage Suit
STAN LEE MEDIA: SEC Says Final Judgments Entered V. Defendants

TIP TOP: Recalls Cooked Chicken Due To Listeria Contamination
TOYOTA MOTOR: Recalls 345,443 Mini-vans Due To Seatbelt Defect
TOYOTA MOTOR: Recalls Tundra Trucks For Failing Safety Standard
UNINSURED PATIENTS: Group Seeks Transparency on Charity Policies
UNITED STATES: Plaintiff Says Indian Settlement Bill A Disaster

UNITED STATES: SEC Lodges Amended Suit Over Investment Scheme
WAL-MART STORES: Failed To Act On Gender Discrimination Report
WISCONSIN: Trial Set For Suit Over Disabled Students' Treatment

                  New Securities Fraud Cases

DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Milberg Weiss Lodges Amended Suit in CA
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Stock Suit in NY
MAJESCO ENTERTAINMENT: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in NY
OCA INC.: Allan Kanner Reminds Parties of Lead Plaintiff Cutoff
STARTEK INC.: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CO


                          *********


BAXTER HEALTHCARE: Recalls Infusion Pumps For Production Defect
---------------------------------------------------------------
Baxter Healthcare Corporation of Deerfield, Illinois, has
initiated a worldwide recall of all models of its Colleague
Volumetric Infusion Pumps because they can shut down while
delivering critical medication and fluids to patients, the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced in a statement.

The Company has received six reports of serious injury and three
reports of death associated with this shut-down problem.  The
affected models are:

     (1) 2M8151,

     (2) 2M8151R,

     (3) 2M8161,

     (4) 2M8161R,

     (5) 2M8153,

     (6) 2M8153R,

     (7) 2M8163, and

     (8) 2M8163R

Based on information from a current FDA inspection and
independent analysis of the failure modes by FDA's Office of
Science and Engineering Laboratories, as well as a comprehensive
review of adverse event reports in FDA's database, FDA has
determined that this action is a Class I recall. Class I recalls
are the most serious type of recall and involve situations in
which there is a reasonable probability that use of the affected
product will cause serious injury or death.

"Given the widespread use of these pumps and the multiple
failure modes, FDA is quickly informing users of this important
safety issue," said Daniel Schultz, M.D., Director of FDA's
Center for Devices and Radiological Health. "We will continue to
monitor the situation closely and inform the public immediately
of any new developments."

The firm notified customers today that it has voluntarily
stopped shipping Colleague Volumetric Infusion Pumps until the
problems are resolved.  The Company also advised customers on
March 15, 2005, to stop using any pumps that exhibit a failure
code beginning with 402, 403, 533, 535, or 599, related to these
electronic problems. Additionally, Baxter advised customers to
take out of service any pumps that exhibit failure codes 810:04
and 810:11 related to air-in-line sensor problems, until they
are inspected by authorized service personnel.

In addition to the shut-down problem, the device may exhibit two
additional failure modes.  Users may inadvertently press the
on/off key instead of the start key when attempting to start an
infusion.  Disconnecting or connecting the pump from the
hospital monitoring system while the pump is powered "on" can
result in a failure code, requiring the infusion to be
restarted.  Also, these failures may occur during the infusion
of therapy, so it is imperative that health care institutions
have a contingency plan to mitigate any disruptions of infusions
of life-sustaining drugs or fluids.

Approximately 255,000 Colleague Volumetric Infusion Pumps are
currently in use, including 206,000 distributed in the United
States. They have been sold to physicians, hospitals,
pharmacies, and a variety of other medical facilities.

At this time, users should not return the pumps to Baxter.
Baxter's letters to customers are available on its Web site:
http://www.Baxter.com. Consumers who have questions about the
recall may contact Baxter Healthcare at 1-800-422-9837. Those
who have technical questions may contact Baxter Healthcare at
1-800-THE-PUMP (800-843-7867).  If you are a physician or a
patient who has experienced a problem with any of these infusion
pumps, please send a report to FDA's MedWatch program and to
Baxter. See http://www.fda.gov/medwatch/for filing information
or call 1-800-FDA-1088 (1-800-332-1088).


BROADCOM CORPORATION: Profits Fall 76%, Cites Costs of Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Citing the costs of settling a lawsuit, chipmaker Broadcom
Corporation recently stated that its second-quarter profit fell
76% with sales beating forecasts, thus sending the shares up as
much as 12% in after-hours trading, The Los Angeles Times
reports.

The Irvine-based company, which makes microchips for consumer
electronics and computer networks, told the Los Angeles Times
net income fell to $15.1 million, or 4 cents a share, from $63.8
million, or 18 cents, a year earlier. Sales were $604.9 million,
down 5.7% from a year earlier but still exceeding the highest
analyst estimate of $585 million.

Chief Executive Scott McGregor also told the Los Angeles Times
that rising sales of chips for TV set-top boxes and high-speed
Internet access countered a $70-million drop in sales of server
chipsets to Intel Corp.

Broadcom also stated that it paid $110 million to settle a class
action lawsuit that accused the company of withholding
information from shareholders. That lawsuit charged that
Broadcom's executives failed to disclose the financial details
of warrants related to five acquisitions in 2000 and 2001.
Broadcom admitted no wrongdoing, and its insurers paid $40
million, for a total of $150 million in settlements.  Broadcom's
shares fell $1.13 to $38.61 before the earnings announcement.


CALIFORNIA: Three Insurance Firms To Halt Fraudulent Kickbacks
--------------------------------------------------------------
Three of California's largest title insurers will halt an
alleged "kickback scheme" that cost home buyers 25.4 million,
state insurance commissioner John Garamendi said, according to
the Associated Press.  LandAmerica Financial Corporation, First
American Title Insurance Co. and Fidelity National Financial,
Inc. also agreed to pay homebuyers more than $38 million in
refunds and fines.

Mr. Garamendi told AP that the three companies and their
subsidiaries paid kickbacks to lenders, builders and real estate
agents to steer homeowner title insurance business their way.
The builders, lenders and real estate agents then allegedly
created reinsurance companies that were nothing more than shell
outfits with few, if any, full-time employees.  These three
insurance companies and their subsidiaries then charged
homeowners buying title insurance additional reinsurance fees of
hundreds of dollars each and then send these fees to the
reinsurance companies owned by the builders, lenders and real
estate agents - the very same entities that initially referred
the homeowners to the insurance companies.

Reinsurance is a legitimate and routine way insurers hand off
some of their risk.  However, Mr. Garamendi said very little
risk is involved in issuing title insurance and that the
insurance companies' accounting books indicated that they never
intended to file claims with the reinsurance companies.  "Eighty
two thousand California homeowners have been ripped off by the
title insurance industry," Mr. Garamendi said at a news
conference in San Francisco, AP reports.

Lenders require title insurance when financing a home loan to
guarantee that the property is free of other ownership claims or
liens.  The average title policy in California costs about
$1,400.  "It's just incredible that the nation's largest title
insurance companies would conspire with homebuilders, with
realtors and with the nation's largest banks to rip off
consumers," Mr. Garamendi said, according to AP. "But that's
what happened."

He said the kickback scheme began as early as 1995, but has
picked up steam only recently. The three insurers agreed to stop
their title reinsurance practices.

Lloyd Osgood, a spokeswoman for Richmond, Va.-based LandAmerica,
told AP the company doesn't believe it did anything illegal with
its reinsurance relationships. She said the company terminated
those relationships in February and is paying $2.6 million in
refunds and $1.9 million in fines "to put the matter behind us."


CAMINUS CORPORATION: Suit Settlement Hearing Set October 7, 2005
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York will hold a fairness hearing for the proposed $1.9
million settlement in the matter: In re: Dennis Fasano, et al.
v. Caminus Corporation, David Stoner, John Andrus and Joseph
Dwyer, Consolidated Civil Case No. 1:03cv1743 (JGK) on behalf of
all persons who purchased or acquired shares of Caminus
Corporation common stock between February 12, 2002 and July 8,
2002.

The hearing will be held before the Honorable John G. Koeltl on
October 7, 2005, at 4:00 p.m. in Courtroom 12B of the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl
Street, New York, NY.

For more details, contact Caminus Securities Litigation, c/o The
Garden City Group, Inc., Claims Administrator, P.O. Box 9000
#6299, Merrick, NY, 11566-9000 OR Kay E. Sickles, Esq. of
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, Phone: +1-610-667-7706 OR Samuel H.
Rudman, Esq. of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
LLP, Phone: +1-631-367-7100.


CARDIZEM CD: West Virginia Residents To Receive Settlement Share
----------------------------------------------------------------
More than $600,000 in antitrust settlement funds will be
distributed to West Virginia consumers who purchased Cardizem
CD, a prescription heart medication, state Attorney General
Darrell McGraw announced in a statement dated July 18,2005.

A total of $605,246.94 in refunds will be paid to 2,113 West
Virginia consumers to compensate them for overpayments they made
for Cardizem CD and its generic equivalents between 1998 and
2004. Nationwide, $24 million is being distributed to more than
76,000 consumers. The states' plan to distribute money to
consumers was approved by United States District Court Judge
Nancy Edmonds on May 31, 2005.

"My office aggressively tried to notify consumers about their
rights to a refund under the terms of this settlement. As a
result, West Virginia received more money than 40 other states
and territories," said Mr. McGraw.  "The television commercials
were extremely effective."

The distribution is the result of a 2003 settlement in a market
allocation antitrust case against two pharmaceutical companies,
Aventis and Andrx. The states charged that beginning in July
1998, Hoechst, a pharmaceutical company acquired by Aventis in
2000, paid Andrx not to market a generic version of Cardizem CD.
The delay in the availability of the generic form of Cardizem CD
meant that consumers, medical insurance companies, and the
government had to purchase the higher priced brand name version
of the drug for a least an extra year.

For more details, contact Douglas L. Davis by Phone:
1-800-368-8808 or 304-558-8986 or visit the Website:
http://www.wvs.state.wv.us/wvag/.


CARDIZEM CD: WI Consumers To Receive Antitrust Settlement Share
---------------------------------------------------------------
Settlement checks totaling $431,900 will be mailed to 1,297
Wisconsin consumers who purchased the widely prescribed heart
drug Cardizem, beginning July 18,2005, state Attorney General
Peg Lautenschlager said in a statement.  The drug is prescribed
to treat patients with high blood pressure and angina.

"Wisconsin consumers have a right to fair prices for their
prescription drugs," Ms. Lautenschlager said.  "These settlement
payments will assist Wisconsin's seniors who are increasingly
burdened by the rising costs of health care."

The payments result from the settlement of an antitrust lawsuit
brought by Ms. Lautenschlager against two major drug companies,
Aventis and Andrx.  The lawsuit alleges that Aventis paid Andrx
more than $100 million dollars to keep the generic version of
Cardizem off the market.  These actions, the Attorney General
maintained, forced consumers to pay higher prices for Cardizemr
and prevented consumers from receiving substantial cost savings
for the generic version of  the drug.  In May 2005 the drug
companies agreed to a settlement negotiated by the Attorneys
General of all fifty states.

As a result of the settlement, individuals who paid for Cardizem
between January 1, 1998, through January 29, 2003, and who
submitted valid claims during the court-established claims
period ending in November 2003 will receive reimbursement.  The
1,297 Wisconsin consumers will receive checks totaling $431,900.
The average reimbursement will be approximately $330 for each
Wisconsin consumer.

Wisconsin consumers seeking more information can contact the
Cardizem settlement administrator by Mail: Cardizemr CD
Settlement Administrator, P.O. Box 1675, Faribault, MN,
55021-1675, or visit the Website:
http://www.cardizemsettlement.com.


CARDIZEM CD: AZ Customers To Participate in Antitrust Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
More than $24 million nationwide in antitrust settlement funds
to consumers purchased Cardizem CD, a prescription heart
medication, Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard announced in
a statement dated July 18,2005.

Approximately 1,275 consumers in Arizona will receive
approximately $364,200 as compensation for overpayment for
Cardizem CD and its generic equivalents between 1998 and 2004.
Nationwide, the distribution will compensate more than 76,000
consumers. The states' plan to distribute money to consumers was
approved by United States District Court Judge Nancy Edmunds on
May 31, 2005.

A distribution to third-party purchasers of the drug will begin
later this year. In addition, approximately $4.5 million will be
distributed among the States to reimburse certain government
purchasers, including Arizona's AHCCCS, for their damages.

The distribution is the result of a 2003 multi-state settlement
involving all 50 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto
Rico against two pharmaceutical companies, Aventis and Andrx.
The States charged that beginning in July 1998, Hoechst, a
pharmaceutical company acquired by Aventis in 2000, paid Andrx
not to market a generic version of Cardizem CD. The delay in the
availability of the generic form of Cardizem CD meant consumers,
medical insurance companies and the government paid higher
prices for the name brand version for at least an extra year.

Settlement details are available at the Website:
http://www.cardizemsettlement.com.


CARDIZEM CD: CT Consumers To Receive Antitrust Settlement Share
---------------------------------------------------------------
More than 1,000 Connecticut consumers will soon receive checks
in the mail as part of a nationwide distribution of $24 million
- the result of an antitrust settlement involving the heart
disease medication Cardizem CD, state Attorney General Richard
Blumenthal announced in a statement dated July 18,2005.

Mr. Blumenthal said 1,043 consumers in Connecticut will receive
a total of $361,976 from the settlement.  In addition, $4.5
million will be distributed among the states to reimburse
government programs for overpayments. Connecticut will receive
$86,000 for the state Department of Social Services and the
general fund.

The settlement was the result of a multi-state lawsuit alleging
overpayments for Cadizem CD and its generic equivalents between
1998 and 2003. Hoechst, a pharmaceutical company acquired by
Aventis in 2000, allegedly paid Andrx just under $90 million to
withhold from the market a generic version of Cardizem CD. The
medication is used to treat blood pressure and heart pain.

"This money vindicates and aids consumers deprived of an
affordable effective vital heart medication," Mr. Blumenthal
said. "Consumers deserve every option and opportunity to treat
blood pressure and heart pain with the best and most affordable
medication. This long-overdue money should sound an alarm to the
industry: endangering affordable healthcare has real
consequences."


Payments to consumers who filed legitimate claims for
reimbursement will be mailed beginning this week. Nationally,
76,417 consumers will receive settlement money.  For more
details, visit the Website: http://www.cardizemsettlement.com.


CARDIZEM CD: ID Customers To Receive Antitrust Settlement Share
---------------------------------------------------------------
343 Idahoans who were overcharged for the heart medication,
Cardizem CD, and its generic equivalent, will receive more than
$108,000 in refunds, state Attorney General Lawrence Wasden
announced in a statement dated July 18,2005.  The refunds are
the result of a multi-state antitrust settlement announced
January 27, 2003.

"Idahoans who purchased Cardizem CD can expect to receive an
average refund of $314," Mr. Wasden said. "The checks will begin
to be mailed from the court-appointed administrator this week."

The State of Idaho will receive more than $130,000 to recover
damages incurred by the state, including attorneys fees, and
costs and interest earned while the settlement was pending.

The distribution is the result of a 2003 lawsuit filed by Idaho
and 28 other states against two pharmaceutical companies,
Aventis Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Andrx Corporation. The lawsuit
alleged that in July 1998, Hoechst, a pharmaceutical company
acquired by Aventis in 2000, paid Andrx to withhold marketing of
a generic version of Cardizem CD. The delay in the availability
of the generic form of Cardizem CD meant that consumers, medical
insurance companies and the State of Idaho had to purchase the
higher priced brand name version of the drug for at least a
year.

For more details, contact the Office of Attorney General by
Mail: 700 W. Jefferson Street, P.O. Box 83720, Boise, ID 83720
by Phone: (208) 334-2400 by Fax: (208) 334-2530 or visit the
Website:
http://www2.state.id.us/ag/consumer/settlementclaims.htm.


CONTINENTAL AIRLINES: No Appeal of NC Summary Judgment Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the class action filed against Continental
Airlines, Inc. and other defendants will not file anymore
appeals after the United States Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals
denied plaintiffs' petition for rehearing of a lower court
ruling granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants.

The suit, styled "Sarah Futch Hall d/b/a/ Travel Specialists v.
United Air Lines, et al.," was filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina on
behalf of all U.S. travel agents, challenging the reduction and
subsequent elimination of travel agent base commissions.  The
amended complaint alleged an unlawful agreement among the
airline defendants to reduce, cap or eliminate commissions in
violation of federal antitrust laws during the years 1997 to
2002.  The plaintiffs sought compensatory and treble damages,
injunctive relief and their attorneys' fees.

The class was certified on September 18, 2002.  On October 30,
2003, a summary judgment and order was granted in favor of all
of the defendants.  Plaintiffs filed their appeal to this
judgment and order on November 5, 2003.  On December 9, 2004,
the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the award of
summary judgment.  On January 4, 2005, the plaintiffs' Petition
for Rehearing with the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals was
denied.

The suit is styled "Sarah Futch Hall d/b/a Travel Specialists v.
United Air Lines, et al, case no. 00-CV-123," filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of North
Carolina, under Judge W. Earl Britt.  Representing the
plaintiffs are A.L. Butler Daniel of Anderson, Daniel & Coxe, P.
O. Box 1309, Wrightsville Beach, NC 28480, Phone: 910-256-6896,
Fax: 910-256-3472; and Bradley Coxe of Hodges & Cox, 3138
Wrightsville Ave., Wilmington, NC 28403, Phone: 910-772-1678, E-
mail: bcoxe@attorneysada.com.  Representing the Company are
Julia F. Youngman and Wendy I. Sexton of Ellis & Winters, LLP,
P. O. Box 33550, Raleigh, NC 27636, Phone: 919-865-7036, Fax:
919-865-7000, E-mail: julie_youngman@elliswinters.com or
wendy_sexton@elliswinters.com; and Benjamin F. Davis, Jr., 3027
Redford Dr., Greensboro, NC 27408, Phone: 336-282-2095, Fax:
336-282-2095, E-mail: benfdavisjr@hotmail.com.


DEY INC.: Forges Settlement For CT Average Wholesale Price Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dey Inc. agreed to pay the state of Connecticut $1.7 million and
donate $800,000 worth of pharmaceuticals to be used at free
clinics, settling charges of illegally inflating drug costs,
state Attorney General Richard Blumenthal announced in a
statement dated July 19,2005.

On behalf of the state, Mr. Blumenthal sued the Company and six
other pharmaceutical companies for artificially inflating the
average wholesale prices (AWP) of pharmaceuticals. The state and
federal government use AWP to determine reimbursement rates for
health care programs such as Medicaid and ConnPace.

When the AWP were artificially inflated, health care providers
could increase their profits by prescribing or dispensing drugs
from those companies because of the greater difference between
the prices they paid for the drugs and the price the state
reimbursed.  The price manipulation - inducing the distribution
of drugs where the artificially inflated prices provided greater
profit - was designed to increase the pharmaceutical companies'
market shares.

"Dey overcharged for medicine necessary to help children breathe
- and now will pay back both taxpayers and children," Mr.
Blumenthal said. "Our message is clear to pharmaceutical drug
companies: We will be relentless in fighting inflated and
manipulated drug prices. Dey callously overcharged patients and
taxpayers along with other companies that we've sued. These
companies manipulated the market - illegally inflating the
published cost of critical prescriptions that children need for
asthma and other ailments. We will continue to fiercely pursue
other companies in our ongoing lawsuit."

Mr. Blumenthal negotiated the settlement with cooperation from
the Department of Consumer Protection (DCP) Commissioner Edwin
R. Rodriguez, Department of Public Health (DPH) Commissioner Dr.
J. Robert Galvin and Department of Social Services (DSS)
Commissioner Patricia A. Wilson-Coker.

Ms. Wilson-Coker said, "We hope today's important announcement
is heard loud and clear in any venue where state and federal tax
dollars, intended for children's health initiatives or
treatments for seniors needing breathing treatments, are wrongly
manipulated to bolster profits."

"This settlement will provide medications to underserved
children and adults with certain respiratory diseases who access
health services through Community Health Centers statewide," Mr.
Galvin said. "We are pleased that this settlement addresses
health disparities, which is a priority goal for both the state
of Connecticut and the federal government."

Mr. Rodriguez said, "What this case illustrates is fraudulent
behavior, where the price structure was dictated not by
competition or market-driven forces, but by Dey forcing inflated
prices upon consumers."

The $1.7 million will be divided primarily among state and
federal medical assistance programs. The state's costs will also
be covered.  The Company will also donate 404,296 vials of
DuoNeb, 709,488 vials of Albuterol and 1,574,307 vials of
Ipratroprium Bromide - all treatments for respiratory ailments
such as asthma.  The donated pharmaceuticals will be distributed
to certain community health care clinics, which operate under
the auspices of DPH, as well as the AmeriCares Free Clinics in
Norwalk, Danbury and Bridgeport. The drugs will be available to
these clinics over three years.

Lawsuits against the other six defendants - Schering-Plough
Corporation, GlaxoSmithKline, Aventis, Roxane Laboratories Inc.,
Warrick Pharmaceuticals, and Pharmacia Corporation - are
pending.


FIRST CENTURY: Suit Launched Over Illegal Financial Transactions
----------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Knoxville by 11 Union
County, Tennessee residents accuses First Century Bank and three
former bank employees of stealing bank customers' identities to
fraudulently issue loans, siphon funds from their checking and
savings accounts, transfer property interests and conduct other
illegal financial transactions, The Knoxville News-Sentinel
reports.

Terminally ill retired truck driver Ernest Nicely, who is one of
the customers who has sued the Tazewell-based community bank
told The Knoxville News-Sentinel that hundreds of thousands of
dollars may have been lost or stolen from First Century
customers. He added, "They've ruined me and my wife. There are
23 or 24 forged documents that we know of. There was a $100,000
(certificate of deposit) they said my wife cashed in 2002. My
wife didn't cash it. There was a $26,000 loan with my pontoon
boat as collateral that I told the bank wasn't my loan."

However, in court papers filed in response to the suit, which is
scheduled for a January 24, 2006 trial, the bank claims it is a
victim of fraud committed by Connie Dyer, a former assistant
vice president of the bank's Union County branch, who, the bank
says, signed the names of bank customers to various financial
documents.

Additionally, the bank claims that any illegal actions by Ms.
Dyer were committed by and on behalf of the individual
defendants and "First Century Bank received no benefit from such
acts." Also, the bank stated that it reimbursed more than
$583,000 "to make up fraud losses" suffered by its customers and
reported the fraudulent activities to the FBI, the Federal
Deposit Insurance Corp. and the Tennessee Department of
Financial Institutions.

The bank also stated in a court brief filed on July 11, "The
bank has been cooperating fully with the FBI in its
investigation of this matter."

Gary Kidder, spokesman for the Knoxville office of the FBI, told
The Knoxville News-Sentinel that he could not comment on whether
the bureau is investigating Ms. Dyer. Ms. Dyer's attorney, K.O.
Herston though told The Knoxville News-Sentinel that his client
denies the allegations.

First Century President Rob Barger told The Knoxville News-
Sentinel that he could not "comment at this point" about the
case and referred questions to Thomas Mottern, the bank's vice
chairman and CEO, who did not return a phone call seeking
comment as well.

However, First Century's attorney, M. Edward Owens Jr., did tell
The Knoxville News-Sentinel that the bank would "vigorously
defend" the lawsuit. First Century is a state-chartered bank
with offices in Tazewell, New Tazewell, Maynardville, Powell,
Sneedville and Harrogate.

The bank customers' attorney, Adrienne Anderson, declined to
discuss specifics of the case but told The Knoxville News-
Sentinel that the most recent court hearing was on the
plaintiff's request to have the matter certified as a class
action suit. Ms. Anderson explains that class action status
would allow other First Century customers whose identities may
have been stolen to recover damages. The court though has not
yet ruled on the request for class action status.

The alleged fraud occurred from January 1998 to August 2004,
according to the bank customers' lawsuit. The suit claims that
Ms. Dyer and former bank employees Sheri Lawson and Deloris
Graves forged and notarized bank customers' signatures and used
the identities without permission to "fraudulently obtain loans,
obtain credit, obtain funds, transfer funds, transfer property
interests and convert assets of plaintiffs and other bank
customers."

The suit further claims that following these acts, the
plaintiffs received notice of late payments on loans they did
not receive and for which they had not applied. It also alleges
that the bank customers also "received notice of unauthorized
transfers of funds from their checking accounts, savings
accounts or other assets, including certificates of deposit."

Ms. Graves and Ms. Lawson vehemently deny the suit's
allegations, according to court documents. The bank itself
contends that it is as much a victim as some of its customers,
the documents revealed.

In an e-mail to The Knoxville News-Sentinel, Mr. Owens wrote,
"The bank is not guilty of any wrongdoing. We do not think a
class action is appropriate. That issue has been argued to the
judge and we are awaiting his decision. As stated in our
pleadings in the case, there were some transactions by a
specific former employee that are at issue, in which she engaged
in unauthorized transactions for her benefit and the benefit of
family members and relatives, several of whom are plaintiffs in
the lawsuit. We will vigorously defend the lawsuit."

In court documents, the bank claims some of the customers who
have sued First Century are related to Ms. Dyer and they
received money that Ms. Dyer took from the bank. Specifically,
the bank says that Boyd Smith, a cousin of Ms. Dyer's, and his
wife, Nancy, received about $108,310. According to a brief filed
by the bank, "Ms. Dyer has admitted that she engaged in
manipulation of accounts under pressure from Nancy Smith, who
needed money."


EXCELLUS INC.: Lawsuit Settlement Hearing Set November 1, 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------
The State of New York, Supreme Court, County of New York will
hold a fairness hearing in the proposed settlement in the
matter: In re William A. Dolan, M.D. and Sylvia W. Norton, M.D.
v. Excellus, Inc., Excellus Health Plan, Inc. and Excellus
Benefit Services, Inc., Index no. 9768-01 and a companion case,
Medical Society of the State of New York v. Excellus, et al., on
behalf of a physician, physician group or physician organization
who provided covered services in the state of New York to any
Excellus plan member or any individual, enrolled in or covered
by an insurance plan in the state of New York offered or
administered by the Defendants from August 15, 1996 through June
3, 2005. The hearing will be held on November 1, 2005.

For more details, contact Kimberly C. Lawrence, Esq. of Hinman
Straub P.C., 121 State St., Albany, NY, 12207, Phone:
(518) 436-0751 OR Edith M. Kallas, Esq. or Joseph P. Guglielmo,
Esq. of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP, One Pennsylvania
Plaza, New York, NY, 10119-0165, Phone: (212) 594-5300.


FLORIDA: AG Crist Sues 3 Pharmaceutical Firms For Medicaid Fraud
----------------------------------------------------------------
Florida Attorney General Charlie Crist filed a lawsuit against
three pharmaceutical manufacturers for defrauding Florida's
Medicaid program in a scheme that cost Florida taxpayers $25
million.

The lawsuit alleges that the companies wrongfully inflated
prices in a way that let pharmacies receive excessive
reimbursement for filling prescriptions for Medicaid patients
who bought generic drugs for depression, schizophrenia,
seizures, angina and other serious illnesses.

An investigation by the Attorney General's Medicaid Fraud
Control Unit revealed that the three companies - Mylan
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd., and
Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. - and various parent and subsidiary
companies enabled Medicaid pharmacies to obtain reimbursements
that far exceeded the actual cost of the drugs. The
manufacturers then used this potential windfall as a marketing
tool, telling pharmacies they could make more money in Medicaid
reimbursements if they sold the companies' products rather than
those of their competitors. The fraudulent practices began as
early as 1994 and allegedly resulted in hundreds of thousands of
false claims. The lawsuit was prompted by a whistle-blower
lawsuit filed by a small Key West pharmacy.

"These companies ripped off Florida's Medicaid program and
cheated the public," Mr. Crist said. "They profited by helping
pharmacies line their pockets with Medicaid money that was
supposed to help needy Floridians obtain medicine and health
care."

Like most Medicaid programs around the country, the Florida
program reimburses pharmacies, physicians and other medical
providers for the drugs they dispense to Medicaid patients. The
reimbursements are based on the drugs' "average wholesale
prices," which the manufacturers are required to accurately
report. If manufacturers report inflated prices to the Medicaid
program, the bogus amounts can cause the taxpayer-supported
program to overpay for medications. The result of this scheme is
that the manufacturers sell more of their products, pharmacies
receive excessive reimbursement and the taxpayers pay more than
they should, thereby depleting limited Medicaid resources.

Today's lawsuit marks the third case of its kind Attorney
General Crist has brought against drug manufacturers for
defrauding Medicaid and Florida taxpayers. Crist brought similar
allegations against three pharmaceutical manufacturers in July
2003, and filed a second lawsuit against an additional three
companies in April 2005. Today's lawsuit alleges violations of
the Florida False Claims Act and common law fraud. The False
Claims Act authorizes triple damages, increasing the state's
potential recovery to $75 million.

For more details, contact the Attorney General by Mail: The
Capitol PL-01, Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050 by Phone: 850-414-3300
or 1-866-966-7226 (fraud hotline).  A copy of the civil
complaint is available at the Website:
http://myfloridalegal.com/webfiles.nsf/WF/MRAY-
6EFRYC/$file/AWP_Complaint.pdf.


HOME DEPOT: Bookkeeping Employees File Payroll Shaving Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Two former bookkeeping employees at the Flushing, N.Y. store of
home improvement giant Home Depot, Inc. (NYSE: HD) filed a
federal class action lawsuit alleging that hours were routinely
shaved from payroll reports, improperly cutting wages from
hundreds of workers' paychecks.

The practice violated state and federal labor laws, according to
Outten & Golden LLP, the New York law firm that filed the case
Tuesday on behalf of Dora Hernandez and Debra Gutierrez in the
United States District Court of New York for the Eastern
District.

The lawsuit alleges that Home Depot store managers were
pressured to keep labor costs low and that a Flushing store
manager ordered computer payroll records to be altered in
violation of federal Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and New
York state labor laws. The law firm will seek certification of
the case as a class action.

According to the complaint, after Ms. Hernandez objected to the
scheme, the manager was transferred out of the Flushing store
and the practice stopped. He returned as the store's head
manager, however, and the scheme resumed. In October 2003, he
terminated Ms. Hernandez, who had worked for the Company for
more than five years, while she was on vacation. Ms. Gutierrez
reported receiving the same instructions from the manager to
shave payroll hours after Ms. Hernandez had left the company.

Attorney Jack Raisner, of Outten & Golden, said, "Shaving hours
from payroll is all too common in the retail workplace. But it
is distressing to find it at this store which has been reported
to be the chain's highest-grossing in the nation and in the
community where Home Depot co-founder Arthur Blank was raised."

Outten & Golden attorney Adam Klein said, "Overtime-eligible
employees are commonly misled by managers about issues such as
working through lunch or what 'approved' overtime is, but the
bottom line is, shaving payroll hours is a violation of wage-
and-hour laws."

Ms. Hernandez said, "We brought this suit because this type of
activity hurts the workers who can least afford it. Most people
working at companies like Home Depot need every penny they earn,
and we certainly earned what we believe we are owed."

The suit is styled, Dora Hernandez and Debra Gutierrez v. The
Home Depot, Inc., Case No. CV-05 3433. Jack Raisner, Tarik F.
Ajami and Adam Klein of Outten & Golden are representing the
plaintiffs.

For more details, contact Jack Raisner, Adam Klein or Tarik F.
Ajami of Outten & Golden LLP, Phone: (877) 468-8836, E-mail:
jar@outtengolden.com, atk@outtengolden.com or
tfa@outtengolden.com, Web site: http://www.outtengolden.com.


HYATT INTERNATIONAL: Cullen Law Firm Lodges Suit V. Moscow Hotel
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Cullen Law Firm, PLLC initiated a consumer class action
lawsuit on July 20, 2005 in the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois against Hyatt International Corporation, on behalf of
all guests of Hyatt's hotel in Moscow since July 2002.

The complaint, filed under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Business Practices Act, alleges that Hyatt made
deceptive and misleading representations through its worldwide,
Internet based reservation system on the rates that would be
charged at the Ararat Park Hyatt in Moscow, Russia.

According to the complaint, Hyatt quotes rates in U.S. dollars
knowing that the final hotel bill will be paid in Russian rubles
in amounts that are higher than those calculated at the official
exchange rate. Hotel guests generally find out about the problem
when they get their credit card statement in dollars.  Consumers
generally pay upwards of 16 percent more than the amount quoted
by Hyatt when their reservations were made. Paul D. Cullen Sr.,
counsel for the plaintiffs, estimates that there have been
several thousand hotel guests possibly victimized by the alleged
deceptive practices in the complaint during the period covered
by the three year statute of limitations.

Separate cases have been filed by The Cullen Law Firm against
Marriott International, Inc. and against Radisson Hotels
International, Inc., dealing with the same problem addressed in
the Hyatt litigation.

"The practice of inflating hotel charges quoted in dollars, but
paid in rubles, seems to be widespread," Mr. Cullen said. "The
issue presented by these cases is not whether the practice is
lawful under the Russian legal system. The real issue is whether
a U.S. based hotel chain can be held accountable under domestic
law if it makes false or misleading statements to potential
hotel guests that conceal this practice when it books
reservations for its overseas hotel properties."

Hyatt International Corporation is incorporated in Delaware and
is headquartered in Chicago, Ill. The complaint seeks damages
under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business
Practices Act, as well as injunctive relief restraining Hyatt
from continuing the alleged conduct.

For more details, contact Paul D. Cullen, Sr. of The Cullen Law
Firm, PLLC, 1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 300, Washington, D.C.,
20007, Phone: (202) 944-8600 Ext. 777, Fax: (202) 944-8611, Web
site: http://www.cullenlaw.com/.


KIA MOTORS: Recalls 118,447 Sedona Mini-Vans For Crash Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kia Motors America, Inc. is cooperating with the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration by voluntarily recalling
118,447 Kia Sedona mini-vans, models 2003-2005.

On these mini-vans, freezing conditions can cause water on the
throttle cable to freeze during normal operation.  Resistance to
movement of the throttle cable can occur when the driver lifts
their foot off the pedal.  This can cause the cable to hand up,
thus allowing the vehicle to maintain speed or accelerate.  Such
an event can occur without warning and could cause a crash.

Dealers will modify a protective sleeve around the throttle
cable.  The recall is expected to begin in September 2005.  For
more details, contact the Company by Phone: 1-800-333-4542,
contact the NHTSA auto safety hotline: 1-888-327-4236; (TTY:
1-800-424-9153); or visit the Website: http://www.safercar.gov.


MANAGED CARE: Lawsuit Settlement Hearing Set September 19, 2005
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida, Miami Division will hold a fairness hearing for the
proposed settlement in the matter: Shane V. Humana, Inc. Et al.,
Master File no. 00-1334-MD-MORENO, which is part of a federal
multi-district litigation that is pending in the court called In
re Managed Care Litigation, MDL No. 1334, (Provider Track Cases)
on behalf of all physicians who provided covered services to any
individual enrolled in or covered by certain health care plans
at anytime between August 4, 1990 and May 10, 2005, or any
physician group or other physicians organization.

The hearing will be held on September 19, 2005, at 9:00 a.m., at
the United States Courthouse, Courtroom IV, Tenth Floor, Federal
Justice Building, 99 Northeast Fourth St., Miami, FL, 33132.

For more details, contact Edith M. Kallas, Esq. of Milberg Weiss
Bershad & Schulman, LLP, One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY,
10119-0165, Phone: (212) 594-5300 OR Archie C. Lamb of the law
offices of Archie C. Lamb, LLC, 2017 Second Ave. North,
Birmingham, AL, 35203, Phone: (800) 324-4425 or E-mail:
alamb@archielamb.com or call 1-866-809-8003 or visit
http://www.hmocrisis.com/index1.html.


MAZDA NORTH: Recalls 27,800 RX8 Passenger Cars For Crash Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mazda North American Operations is cooperating with the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) by voluntarily
recalling 27,800 Mazda RX8 Cars, model 2004.

On these cars, cracks may occur in the ball joint socket due to
improper forging of the lower control arm.  In severe driving
conditions, the ball may separate from the ball joint socket and
a loss of steering may occur, which could result in a crash.

Dealers will repair these vehicles.  The recall is expected to
begin during August 2005.  For more details, contact the Company
by Phone: 1-800-222-5500, contact the NHTSA auto safety hotline:
1-888-327-4236; (TTY: 1-800-424-9153); or visit the Website:
http://www.safercar.gov.


MERCK & CO.: IL Judge Transfers Granite City Woman's Vioxx Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
After deliberating the merits of Merck & Co.'s motion to
transfer venue in a Vioxx class action suit filed by a Granite
City woman for a month, Madison County Circuit Judge George
Moran, Jr. transferred the case to Cook County, The Madison
County Record reports.

Myrna Amisch filed suit just one week after Merck removed its
arthritis pain medication from the market for safety reasons on
September 30.

Dan Ball, of Bryan Cave in St. Louis, who represents Merck on
many Vioxx suits in Madison County including the one filed by
Ms. Amisch, argued that there is no relief that she can obtain
here that she cannot also obtain in other class action lawsuits
filed over Vioxx. In his motion to dismiss, Mr. Ball
specifically wrote, "Merck should be protected from facing
identical allegations in multiple jurisdictions, as it would be
manifestly unfair for Merck to answer the same allegations in
multiple courts and repeat the discovery process multiple
times."

Attorneys for the family of decedent Robert Ernst--whose first-
ever Vioxx trial is currently under way in Texas--are focusing
on a letter Merck sent to doctors in 2001 stating that only .5
percent of patients taking the drug in the largest clinical
trial had incurred cardiovascular events or heart and
circulation problems. The suit alleges Mr. Ernst died because of
his Vioxx use.

However, Merck vehemently denies that Vioxx was responsible for
the plaintiff's death, which according to an autopsy report was
the result of arrhythmia. Merck contends Vioxx has never been
linked to arrhythmia.

Ms. Amisch's class action complaint, the third and latest
against Vioxx filed in Madison County, alleges that Merck
deceived consumers into believing Vioxx was a superior product
over others and that it hid the drug's dangerous side effects.
The suit, which suit seeks to recover no more than $75,000 minus
costs and interest, states, "The plaintiff would not have
purchased Vioxx had they known of the increased risks of
hypertension, stroke and/or myocardial infarcts."

Additionally, Mr. Ball also claims in his motion that allowing
Ms. Amisch's suit to proceed would encourage others to file
lawsuits to circumvent adverse rulings or force settlements. He
reasoned that Merck will suffer substantial prejudice if it is
forced to simultaneously litigate identical claims in multiple
courts by facing the risk of inconsistent rulings and judgments.

Ms. Amisch's consumer fraud class action suit further alleges
that Merck concealed and misrepresented the risks of taking
Vioxx and that it was not superior to other safer and less
expensive pain relievers. She also claims that because of
Merck's failure to disclose the health risks of Vioxx, she was
unable to discover the acts until Merck withdrew the products
from the market in September.

The drug was approved by the FDA in 1999, and was marketed as a
safe alternative pain medication for people who suffer from
arthritis, but Merck voluntarily pulled Vioxx from the market
last September after a study confirmed that it increased the
risk of heart attack and stroke if taken for more than 18
months.

After the judge ordered the transfer, Elizabeth Heller of the
Edwardsville firm Goldenberg, Miller, Heller & Antognoli, who
represents Ms. Amisch, appealed Judge Moran's decision, so
technically the case will not be transferred until the appellate
court rules on her motion. If the appellate court agrees with
Ms. Heller, the case will stay in Madison County.


NEWMAR CORPORATION: Recalls Essex Motor Homes For Crash Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
Newmar Corporation is cooperating with the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration by voluntarily recalling 87 Newmar
Essex motor homes, model 2005.

These motor homes are built on Spartan chassis and equipped with
I-shafts supplied by ZF Heavy Duty Steering.  There is a
potential for a failure of the fork/shaft connection.  At the
non-welded side of the I-shaft, there is a universal joint.  It
is possible that the fork shaft connection could be lost.
Drivers will lose steerability of the vehicle and a crash could
occur without prior warning.

The Company, with the assistance of Spartan, intends to
establish a program for remedying the defective I-shafts.  For
more details, contact Spartan by Phone: 517-543-6400, the
Company by Phone: 1-574-773-7791, contact the NHTSA's auto
safety hotline: 1-888-327-4236; (TTY: 1-800-424-9153); or visit
the Website: http://www.safercar.gov.


NORTH CAROLINA: Durham County Launches School Impact Fees Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Durham County recently began its attempt to convince the state
Court of Appeals to reverse a lower-court ruling and allow it to
levy school impact fees, The Durham Herald Sun reports.

Filing a 114-page brief, County Attorney Chuck Kitchen rehashed
many of the arguments he made in January before Superior Court
Judge Orlando Hudson, who ruled that the county lacks the
authority to charge developers a per-home fee to raise money for
school construction.

Meanwhile, lawyers from two coastal counties and the N.C. School
Boards Association filed friend-of-the-court briefs supporting
Mr. Kitchen's argument that Durham in fact has the authority
under state law to levy the fees. At least two of those briefs,
the third was unavailable for inspection Thursday because Court
of Appeals clerks had sent it to a printer for copying, noted
that counties throughout the state face a serious backlog of
school construction needs and don't have the money to deal with
it.

The school board association argued, if North Carolina's 100
counties can't craft their own strategies for raising school-
construction money, they might have to raise property taxes to
the point of choking off economic growth or else risk lawsuits
accusing them of neglecting their duties to provide for K-12
education. The association's brief specifically said, "If the
[county] commissioners are denied the authority to use impact
fees to help meet that obligation, the commissioners run the
risk of not being able to adequately fund school facilities --
and thus run the risk of losing control to the courts of one of
the largest components of the county's budget."

The ruling Durham County wants overturned could force it to
repay at least $2.2 million it has collected from developers
since the county's impact fees went into effect at the start of
2004. Additionally, that ruling by Judge Hudson directed the
county to pay interest -- at an annual rate of 8 percent -- to
any developer who's due a refund.

The Court of Appeals has allowed the county to continue
collecting the fees while the appeal unfolds. The case stems
from a class action lawsuit filed late in 2003 by the Durham
Land Owners Association, an unincorporated group of developers,
and 13 area builders.

Hank Fordham, the developers' lawyer, who couldn't be reached
for comment previously argued that in levying the fee, Durham
County lacked the sort of specific authorization from the N.C.
General Assembly that the courts have ordinarily required.

In a January hearing before Judge Hudson, Mr. Fordham noted that
county officials had asked the General Assembly at least nine
times for the power to levy impact fees and had been turned down
each time. By imposing the fees anyway, "they decided to test
the waters," he said.

Mr. Kitchen though argued in his Court of Appeals brief that
state law already gives counties all the power they need. He
also noted that one statute specifically allows them to charge
fees necessary for "performing services or duties permitted or
required by law," and another instructs judges to read such
grants of power in a way that gives counties the latitude they
need to do their job. He also argued that precedent suggests the
court should presume the County Commissioners' decision on the
fees was proper and put the burden for proving otherwise on Mr.
Fordham and his clients.

As a fallback argument, Mr. Kitchen pointed out another statute
gives counties broad power to "abate ... conditions detrimental
to the health, safety or welfare of [their] citizens," a concept
judges sometimes have understood to cover the imposition of
fees. Though he conceded that if the appeals court goes along
with that idea, the fees would be valid inside the city of
Durham only if the city allowed county officials to enforce them
there.

The two counties that filed friend-of-the-court briefs,
Currituck County and Camden County, are both on the North
Carolina coast. The Currituck brief was the one unavailable
because clerks had sent it to the printers.

The Camden brief, authored by Camden County Attorney Herbert
Mullen, stressed the dilemma officials in that community are
facing because it almost completely lacks a property tax base.
Mr. Mullen's brief essentially backed Mr. Kitchen's basic legal
arguments, adding that in a case like Camden's where the
property tax base is so small, state law would essentially
require the courts to allow county officials to levy fees to
address their legal responsibilities to provide for the schools.

The only counties now levying school impact fees are Orange,
Chatham, Durham, Granville and Stanly. "Local acts" approved by
the General Assembly specifically authorize the Orange and
Chatham fees.

Individuals familiar with the case told the Durham Herald Sun
that the next move in Durham County's appeal is up to Mr.
Fordham, who has 30 days to file a response to Mr. Kitchen's
brief.


PENNSYLVANIA: Public Library Gets Windfall From Record Companies
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tunkhannock Public Library in Pennsylvania recently received a
windfall from a settlement by major record companies that were
sued by 43 states in a class action suit in 2000, The Wyoming
County Press Examiner reports.

The companies were accused of illegally raising and/or
controlling the minimum advertised price of compact digital
disks (CDs) and other music products in 1995. Some of the
companies named in the suit were Capitol Records, Time Warner,
Universal, Atlantic Recording and Sony.

Under the settlement, the companies are required to give about
5.5 million CDs to libraries and schools that bought CDs between
1995 and 2000.

Schools and libraries in Pennsylvania that were part of the suit
will also split about $150,000. Tunkhannock Public Library has
received its share 175 CDs and about $125 in cash. Some of the
CDs are in boxed sets.

The collection is an eclectic mix of classical, country, jazz,
rock and contemporary music. Library director Susan Turrell the
Wyoming County Press Examiner, "It's a wonderful selection, and
it was absolutely free. We could never have otherwise afforded a
collection like this."

Ms. Turrell estimates that if the library bought these CDs on
its own it would have spent more than $600, depending on the
CDs' cost.

Currently, the library staff is cataloging the CDs and preparing
them for circulation. Ms. Turrell told the Wyoming County Press
Examiner that they should be ready for borrowing around shortly.

She added, whether your musical tastes run to Bach cantatas and
piano concerti by Mozart or Rachmaninov, '50s hits or '60s rock,
Johnny Paycheck or Dolly Parton, Ringo Starr or Jefferson
Airplane, or instrumental music by George Winston and Yanni,
you'll probably find something you like, or a new favorite.


PERINI CORPORATION: Expects Numerous Participants For Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Perini Corporation (NYSE:PCR) expects approximately 357,285
shares of outstanding $2.125 Depositary Convertible Exchangeable
Preferred Shares (the "Depositary Shares") to participate in the
previously announced settlement of the class action lawsuit
filed by holders of Perini's Depositary Shares. The settlement
and the final number of Depositary Shares participating in the
settlement remain subject to Court approval. The hearing for the
Court to consider approval of the settlement currently is
scheduled for August 8, 2005.

Under the terms of the settlement, Perini would purchase all of
the participating Depositary Shares that are submitted, along
with a validly completed Claim Form, for $19.00 in cash and one
share of Perini common stock for each Depositary Share. Perini
has been advised by EquiServe Trust Company, N.A., the Class
Administrator for the settlement that approximately 201,988
Depositary Shares opted out of the settlement. The "opt out"
period expired on July 11, 2005.


POLARIS INDUSTRIES: Recalls 4,244 Motorcycles Due To Fire Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
Polaris Industries, Inc. is cooperating with the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) by voluntarily
recalling 4,244 motorcycles, namely:

     (1) VICTORY / 8-BALL, model 2005

     (2) VICTORY / HAMMER, model 2005

     (3) VICTORY / KINGPIN, model 2005

     (4) VICTORY / NESS KINGPIN, model 2005

     (5) VICTORY / NESS VEGAS, model 2005

     (6) VICTORY / VEGAS, model 2005

On these motorcycles, the fuel supply hose leading from the fuel
tank to the fuel rail may be incorrect for use in a pressurized
fuel system application.  Incorrect hoses may leak fuel or
crack.  Fuel leakage, in the presence of an ignition source,
could result in a fire.

Dealers will inspect the markings on the fuel hose to determine
if replacement is required.  For those machines that fail the
visual inspection, dealers will replace the fuel hose with a new
one of the correct material.  The recall is expected to begin on
August 1,2005.  For more details, contact the Company by Phone:
1-763-417-8650, contact the NHTSA auto safety hotline:
1-888-327-4236; (TTY: 1-800-424-9153); or visit the Website:
http://www.safercar.gov.


QUALCOMM INC.: CA Court Hears Wage Suit Decertification Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
California heard arguments for the plaintiffs' appeal of the
decertification of the class action filed against QUALCOMM,
Inc., styled "Durante, et al v. QUALCOMM."

On February 2, 2000, three former employees filed a putative
class action against the Company, ostensibly on behalf of
themselves and those former employees of ours whose employment
was terminated in April 1999.  Virtually all of the purported
class of plaintiffs received severance packages at the time of
the termination of their employment, in exchange for a release
of claims, other than federal age discrimination claims, against
the Company, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (November
9,2004) reports.

The complaint purports to state 10 causes of action including
breach of contract, age discrimination, violation of Labor Code
Section 200, violation of Labor Code Section 970, unfair
business practices, intentional infliction of emotional
distress, unjust enrichment, breach of the covenant of good
faith and fair dealing, declaratory relief and undue influence.
The complaint seeks an order accelerating all unvested stock
options for the members of the class, plus economic and
liquidated damages of an unspecified amount.

On June 27, 2000, the case was ordered transferred from Los
Angeles County Superior Court to San Diego County Superior
Court.  On July 3, 2000, the Company removed the case to the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
California, and discovery commenced.

On May 29, 2001, the Court dismissed all plaintiffs' claims
except for claims arising under the federal Age Discrimination
in Employment Act.  On July 16, 2001, the Court granted
conditional class certification on the remaining claims, to be
revisited by the Court at the end of the discovery period.  On
April 15, 2003, the Court granted the Company's summary judgment
motions as to all remaining class members' disparate impact
claims.  On June 18, 2003, the Court ordered decertification of
the class and dismissed the remaining claims of the opt-in
plaintiffs without prejudice.  Plaintiffs have filed an appeal.

On June 20, 2003, 76 of the opt-in plaintiffs filed, but have
not yet served, a new action in the same court, alleging
violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act as a
result of their layoffs in 1999.  To date, all but 27 of the
class members and plaintiffs agreed to dismiss all pending
appeals and claims against the Company in exchange for a waiver
of litigation costs.


QUALCOMM INC.: Cellphone Injury Suits Remanded To WA State Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class actions filed against QUALCOMM INC. and other
manufacturers of wireless phones, wireless operators and
industry related organizations have been remanded to the
Washington D.C. Superior Court.

Several purported class action lawsuits, including In re
Wireless Telephone Frequency Emissions Products Liability
Litigation, have been filed, seeking monetary damages out of the
sale and use of cellular phones.  The suits were later
coordinated in the United States District Court for the District
of Maryland.

On March 5, 2003, the Court granted the defendants' motions to
dismiss five of the consolidated cases (Pinney, Gimpleson,
Gillian, Farina and Naquin) on the grounds that the claims were
preempted by federal law.  On March 21, 2005, the 4th Circuit
Court of Appeals reversed the ruling by the District Court and
ordered the cases remanded to state court.

All remaining cases filed against the Company allege personal
injury as a result of their use of a wireless telephone. Those
cases have been remanded to the Washington, D.C. Superior Court.
The courts that have reviewed similar claims against other
companies to date have held that there was insufficient
scientific basis for the plaintiffs' claims in those cases.


RAILTRACK PLC: UK Government's Attorney Makes Closing Arguments
---------------------------------------------------------------
An attorney for the government argued before a London court that
the shareholders suing the British government over the collapse
of Railtrack Plc have no evidence that former Transport
Secretary Stephen Byers acted "maliciously' in putting the
former railways operator into administration, The Bloomberg.com
reports.

Some 49,000 former Railtrack investors are suing the U.K.
Department of Transport at the High Court, claiming it and
Secretary Byers abused their powers by forcing the company into
insolvency in October 2001.

In his closing argument in the case, the department's attorney,
Jonathan Sumption QC, said that blame for the company's failure
lies not with the government, but with its own poor financial
management. He told the court, "The shareholders have not been
injured by the government, which had to pick up the pieces left
by the bad management of Railtrack."

The lawsuit, which opened June 27, is Britain's largest-ever
class action style case. According to a government estimate,
shareholders could receive as much as 157 million pounds ($272
million) in damages if they succeed with their claim.

Attorneys for the shareholders claim that Secretary Byers
plotted to force Railtrack into insolvency to "renationalize"
Britain's railways without having to compensate the company's
shareholders.

The former minister, who resigned from the Department of
Transport in May 2002 and is currently a Labour party member of
parliament, recently testified that he had given "untrue"
evidence to a parliamentary committee about when his department
began talks on changing the ownership structure of Railtrack
Plc. That admission, which was made during his third day of
cross-examination in the lawsuit, prompted calls for an official
inquiry into his conduct.

Secretary Byers claims that he acted in the public interest in
putting Railtrack, which operated around 2,500 rail stations and
10,000 miles of track, into administration. According to him,
the company had run up a projected multi-billion pound funding
gap in the wake of a train derailment in Hatfield, north of
London, a year earlier in which four people died. Railtrack
eventually spent around 650 million pounds on subsequent repairs
and fines for train delays.

Mr. Sumption told the court that Secretary Byers consulted with
other senior government officials, including Prime Minister Tony
Blair, on the decision and was backed by legal advisors.

London-based Network Rail Ltd., which is partly funded by the
U.K. government, acquired Railtrack's shares in October 2002 for
500 million pounds.

The case, which is expected to conclude this week, is Geoffrey
Rutherford Weir and ors. v. The Secretary of State for Transport
HC03CO4185.


SMART & FINAL: CA Court Orders Further Mediation For Wage Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Orange County Superior Court of the States of California
ordered parties in the class action filed against Smart & Final,
Inc. to undergo further mediation to reach a resolution for the
suit.

In May 2001, the Company was named as a defendant in the suit,
styled "Olivas vs. Smart & Final Inc."  The plaintiff and
another former hourly store employee filed the suit, on their
behalf and on behalf of all hourly store employees in
California, alleging that the Company failed to pay proper
overtime, failed to pay for all hours worked, failed to pay for
certain meal and rest periods, and failed to pay for other
compensation.  The action seeks to be classified as a "class
action" and seeks unspecified monetary damages and statutory
penalties thereon.

On August 9, 2001, the Company filed a general denial to these
claims and asserted numerous defenses.  A hearing on plaintiff's
motion for class certification was heard and certification as to
nine sub-classes was granted on January 22, 2004.  The class
consists of approximately 13,200 current and former hourly store
employees in California and the suit covers the period May 1997
through January 2004.  Discovery is now underway in the case.

In February 2005, the court ordered the parties to commence
mediation. In March 2005, the court set a trial date of March 6,
2006. Mediations have been held on April 27, 2005, June 6, 2005
and July 14, 2005 with no resolution to the matter reached.  The
court has ordered the parties to engage in further settlement
discussions.


STAN LEE MEDIA: SEC Says Final Judgments Entered V. Defendants
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission recently stated that
final judgments were entered in federal court in Los Angeles
against the two remaining defendants in a market manipulation
case involving the securities of Stan Lee Media, Inc. -- Peter
F. Paul, the co-founder of Stan Lee Media, and Jeffrey L.
Pittsburg, formerly an officer and part-owner of Pittsburg
Institutional, Inc., a registered broker-dealer.  The
Commission's action, filed in August 2004, alleged that, between
October 2, 2000, and November 24, 2000, Mr. Paul, Mr. Pittsburg
and Stephen M. Gordon, Stan Lee Media's former executive vice
president of operations, manipulated the market for Stan Lee
Media stock. Stan Lee Media, located in Encino, California, was
founded by comic book icon Stan Lee and Mr. Paul. Stan Lee was
not named as a defendant in the action. In September 2004, a
final judgment was entered against Gordon, pursuant to his
consent.

Mr. Paul, without admitting or denying the Commission's
allegations, consented to the entry of a judgment permanently
enjoining him from future violations of the antifraud provisions
of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder,
the credit provisions of Section 7(f) of the Exchange Act and
Regulation X thereunder, the securities reporting requirements
of Section 16(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 16a-3 thereunder,
and the stock ownership reporting requirements of Section 13(d)
of the Exchange Act and Rules 13d-1 and 13d-2 thereunder;
prohibiting him from serving as an officer or director of any
reporting company; and not ordering civil penalties based on his
sworn representations in his statement of financial condition.

Mr. Pittsburg, without admitting or denying the Commission's
allegations, consented to the entry of a judgment permanently
enjoining him from future violations of the antifraud provisions
of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act and Section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The judgment also waives
all but $100,000 of $315,000 in disgorgement and does not order
civil penalties based on Mr. Pittsburg's sworn representations
in his statement of financial condition. Additionally, as part
of the settlement of a related administrative proceeding, Mr.
Pittsburg has agreed to be barred from association with any
broker or dealer.

The U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of New York
previously charged Mr. Paul, Mr. Gordon, and Mr. Pittsburg with
conspiracy to commit securities fraud and securities fraud,
related to their manipulative conduct involving Stan Lee Media
stock. Mr. Paul and Mr. Gordon have pled guilty to securities
fraud and are awaiting sentencing. The suit is styled, SEC v.
Peter F. Paul, Stephen M. Gordon and Jeffrey L. Pittsburg, Civil
Action No. CV 04-6613 SVW (SSx) C.D. Cal.


TIP TOP: Recalls Cooked Chicken Due To Listeria Contamination
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tip Top Poultry, Inc., a Rockmart, Georgia, firm, is voluntarily
recalling approximately 170 pounds of cooked chicken products
that may be contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes, the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service
announced.

The products subject to recall are 10 lb. cases of "DICED IN.,
COOKED CHICKEN MEAT, CARNE DE POLLO COCINADA, NATURAL
PROPORTION." The cases carry a code of "15310" and labels bear
the establishment number "P-17453" inside the USDA seal of
inspection.

The chicken was produced on June 30 and distributed to
restaurants and institutions in Florida.  The problem was
discovered through USDA laboratory sampling.  FSIS has received
no reports of illnesses associated with consumption of these
products.

Consumption of food contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes can
cause listeriosis, an uncommon but potentially fatal disease.
Healthy people rarely contract listeriosis. However, listeriosis
can cause high fever, severe headache, neck stiffness and
nausea. Listeriosis can also cause miscarriages and stillbirths,
as well as serious and sometimes fatal infections in those with
weak immune systems, such as infants, the elderly and persons
with HIV infection or undergoing chemotherapy.

Consumers and media with questions about the recall should
contact company Chief Operating Officer Mike Brooks at
(770) 973-8070.  Consumers with food safety questions can call
the toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline at (888) 674-6854.
The hotline is available in English and Spanish and can be
reached from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through
Friday. Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a
day.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Recalls 345,443 Mini-vans Due To Seatbelt Defect
--------------------------------------------------------------
Toyota Motor North America, Inc. is cooperating with the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) by
voluntarily recalling 345,443 Toyota Sienna mini-vans, models
2004-2005.

On these mini-vans, in the middle row seating position, the
shoulder portion of the seat belt may bind in the bezel trim
piece.  The affected seat belt bezel is located on the shoulder
portion of the seat in the right side seat of the seven
passenger models and the center seating position in the eight
passenger models.  If the seat belt binds in the bezel, that
extra webbing may exist in the seat belt, which could result in
an improperly fitted seat belt on a passenger.  In the event of
a crash, a seat occupant may not be properly restrained,
increasing the risk of personal injury.

Dealers will inspect the seat belt bezel and replace the bezel
and clip, if necessary.  The recall is expected to begin during
August 2005.  For more details, contact the Company by Phone:
1-800-331-4331 or contact the NHTSA auto safety hotline:
1-888-327-4236; (TTY: 1-800-424-9153); or visit the Website:
http://www.safercar.gov


TOYOTA MOTOR: Recalls Tundra Trucks For Failing Safety Standard
---------------------------------------------------------------
Toyota Motor North America, Inc. is cooperating with the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) by
voluntarily recalling 2,527 Toyota Tundra pick-up trucks, model
2005.

Certain pickup trucks equipped with automatic transmissions and
optional fabric front captain's chairs fail to comply with the
requirements of federal motor vehicle safety standard no. 208 -
"occupant crash protection."  These vehicles were built with an
incorrect front passenger occupant classification system
indicator light lens, which will not display the status of the
front passenger air bag.  The vehicles do not meet the
requirements of the standard.

Dealers will replace the front passenger occupant classification
system indicator lens.  The recall is expected to begin in late
July 2005.  For more details, contact the Company by Phone:
1-800-331-4331, contact the NHTSA auto safety hotline:
1-888-327-4236; (TTY: 1-800-424-9153); or visit the Website:
http://www.safercar.gov.


UNINSURED PATIENTS: Group Seeks Transparency on Charity Policies
----------------------------------------------------------------
Local consumer advocacy group Association of Community
Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) - Allegheny County chapter
called on hospitals to publicize their charity care policies, so
that fewer people are burdened with medical debts, the
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports.

In a statement, ACORN said that new studies it and the Access
Project sponsored found out that "hospitals are reluctant to
share with the public their policies for providing free and
reduced cost care, known as "charity care."

"The result of this failure to communicate their policies is
that many low and middle income, uninsured or under-insured
people, are having their lives ruined by crushing medical debt.
Over a year ago, the American Hospital Association
issued charity care guidelines for hospitals across the
country, but in city after city people are visiting hospitals
and finding that they are not following the guidelines," the
statement continued.

The East Liberty-based group says 180 consumers that it expects
to testify have debts that range from $200 to $9,000, but their
low incomes prevent them from making payments.  The consumers
should have qualified for charity care, Ruthisha Johnson, the
local campaign's organizer, told the Post-Gazette but they were
not told about the hospitals' programs.  "We feel that it's a
huge problem for the uninsured and underinsured," Ms. Johnson
said. "We really want to work with the hospitals about how to
get the word out."

Lately, several class actions have been filed against hospitals
nationwide, after low-income, uninsured patients were allegedly
asked to pay the full charge for their care, while insured
patients were given discounted rates.  The suits argue that the
billing practices of nonprofit hospitals call into question
whether they are charities worthy of tax exemptions.

Hospitals have countered that they don't, in fact, collect many
of these debts. They also contend that federal law prevented
them from extending discounts to uninsured patients.  In
February 2004, the government clarified that Medicare rules
don't prohibit discounts for people who can't pay their bills.
Following that ruling, hospitals across the country, including
the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, revised their
policies.

UPMC's new policy, which is scheduled to be approved this month,
will provide discounts to uninsured patients based on a formula
that considers income and net assets, Robert J. Cindrich,
general counsel for UPMC, told the Post-Gazette.

The policy puts "severe limitations" on collection activities,
Mr. Cindrich said.  What's more, UPMC will not place a lien on a
patient's primary residence if it is the patient's sole real
asset -- unless the value of the property clearly indicates an
ability to assume significant financial obligations.

"We are doing the best we can to treat all people fairly and
humanely without violating any federal or state laws," Mr.
Cindrich told the Post-Gazette.  "We actually collect only a
small portion of our charges from the patient and will almost
always accept a reasonable compromise based on his or her
ability to pay."

ACORN will hold a North Side forum on medical debt next month to
call attention to the issue, the Post-Gazette reports.


UNITED STATES: Plaintiff Says Indian Settlement Bill A Disaster
---------------------------------------------------------------
The long-awaited Indian trust legislation introduced in the U.S.
Senate was recently criticized as "a disaster" for Indian
people, The Lee Enterprises reports.

Senators John McCain, R-Ariz., and Byron Dorgan, D-N.D.,
chairman and vice chairman, respectively, of the Senate
Committee on Indian Affairs, introduced the Indian Trust Reform
Act, SB1439, in a to resolve Indian landowners' nearly decade
long class action lawsuit against the federal government.

Elouise Cobell, lead plaintiff in the lawsuit against the
Interior Department, was at a late afternoon meeting in Denver
when she received a copy of the legislation. Ms. Cobell, who has
been asked to testify about the reform act during a Senate
hearing next week told The Lee Enterprises, "I want to say some
strong things like: This is a disaster. Let's kill it. But it
will come back to haunt us."

However, Senator Dorgan defended the legislation by saying,
"Both the court of appeals and the Government Accountability
Office have encouraged Congress to try to resolve this matter.
This legislation is about hundreds of thousands of Indians who
were denied their rights and the money due to them from their
land and their natural resources." He also stated, "Senator
McCain and I know there are strong opinions on both sides. The
introduction of the bill and the upcoming hearing reflect our
commitment to work with all parties toward a resolution of this
longstanding matter. It is only a starting point."

Chief Jim Gray of the Osage Nation and chairman of the
InterTribal Monitoring Association, a trust-reform monitoring
group representing 64 tribes, also spoke in support of the
legislation. He told The Lee Enterprises, "Congress has taken a
courageous step. It's the first step to getting some justice to
all the individuals and the tribes."

Additionally, Mr. Gray lauded a provision in the bill that would
take settlement payments from a claims judgment fund, rather
than from the Interior Department though it's still uncertain
how much money is owed to individuals. Estimates however place
it at billions of dollars.

Still, Tex Hall, president of the National Congress of American
Indians and Mr. Gray of the InterTribal Monitoring Association,
as well as Ms. Cobell, issued the following statement recently:
"We are disappointed that most of the 50 trust principles that
Indian Country put forth to the committee are not incorporated
in the draft legislation. However, we look forward to working
with Chairman McCain and Vice Chairman Dorgan and the members of
the Committee on Indian Affairs to implement the trust
principles that we submitted in June. Those principles are the
views of Indian Country. Any legislation that has a hope of
gaining the support of Indian Country has to strongly reflect
those views."

Although Mr. Gray represents tribes' interests, Ms. Cobell told
The Lee Enterprises that she stands by justice for individuals.
She also said the legislation in its current form has shaken her
faith in Senator McCain, who she trusted to bring integrity to
resolving the litigation. Speaking of the senator, Ms. Cobell
said, "He didn't deliver. What was sad is he challenged Indian
Country to unite and come up with 50 principles as the basis for
the legislation. He basically tossed the vast majority of the
principles. He took away the court decisions that were victories
for us."

Senator Dorgan though maintains that the trust principles
submitted in June helped guide the drafting of the bill. He also
said, "The current language of the bill is not perfect."

Ms. Cobell described the legislation as "Interior's bill - it's
everything they ever wanted." According to her, the bill
"reminded me of the Baker Massacre at Blackfeet when they gave
Heavy Runner this piece of paper. They said, `Hold it up. It
will keep you safe.'"

A U.S. Cavalry commander later described the 1870 attack against
Chief Heavy Runner's village near the Marias River in Montana as
"the greatest slaughter of Indians ever made by U.S. troops."

Ms. Cobell filed suit in 1996 after experiencing years of
frustration with the Interior Department and Bureau of Indian
Affairs' accounting systems. The department and its bureau have
managed royalty and lease money earned by more than a half-
million Indian landowners for more than a century.

Additionally, Ms. Cobell told The Lee Enterprises, "We're worse
off than when we filed this suit." She also said that one of her
biggest disappointments is tied to a reform act provision that
would negate one of the suit's most significant court victories.

The McCain-Dorgan legislation calls for the Interior secretary
to consider payment to landowners' Individual Indian Money
accounts dating to between January 1980 and December 2005. The
Senate bill outlined several reasons for expediting the
accounting. Congress has already appropriated tens of millions
of dollars to provide a historical accounting.

A U.S. Appeals Court decision, however, has ordered a historical
accounting of individual accounts dating to 1887. "That's huge
for us," Ms. Cobell said. "That's our case."

A historical accounting though might not even be possible
because necessary records are missing or have been destroyed -
in some cases by the U.S. Treasury. The delays have brought
considerable hardship to the beneficiaries.

After a recent nine-month mediation failed to resolve the Cobell
litigation, Senators McCain and Dorgan called on tribal
organizations to help lead a consultation process to gather
Indian Country reform views.

For the last three years, Senator McCain has wanted to introduce
trust reform legislation. All parties involved have been seeking
resolution to end the suit that brought contempt rulings on
three Cabinet members - two Interior secretaries and a Treasury
secretary - during the Clinton and second Bush administrations.
Additionally, two former assistant secretaries of the Bureau of
Indian Affairs also were found in contempt of court. The
Interior Department though does not dispute that hundreds of
thousands of Individual Indian Money accounts have been
historically mismanaged.


UNITED STATES: SEC Lodges Amended Suit Over Investment Scheme
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed an amended
complaint in an emergency civil action originally filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, on July
1, 2005.

The amended complaint alleges that James A. Rumpf (Rumpf),
individually, and operating under the assumed name, Cilak
International, along with his offshore company, CIG Ltd.  (CIG),
participated in a "High Yield" investment scheme in which at
least $13.8 million was fraudulently raised from 70 investors
nationwide. Other defendants in the case are Megafund
Corporation (Megafund), its president, Stanley A. Leitner
(Leitner), Bradley C. Stark (Stark), and Mr. Stark's offshore
company, Sardaukar Holdings, IBC (Sardaukar).

The Commission's amended complaint alleges that, from June 2004
through the present, the defendants engaged in a scheme to
defraud investors with promises of 120 percent annual investment
returns and safety of investment principal. It is further
alleged that the defendants targeted Christian ministries and
other non-profit organizations with claims that a portion of the
profits generated would benefit charitable causes.  According to
the amended complaint, the defendants represented that investor
funds would be placed in an "account at a major U.S. Brokerage
firm" where an unnamed "Trader" would engage in "arbitrage"
transactions involving, among other things,  "Treasury bills"
and "certificates of deposits."  In truth, the amended complaint
alleges that Megafund and Mr. Leitner transferred nearly $11
million of investor funds to a Netherlands Antilles bank account
controlled by Mr. Rumpf and CIG, and subsequently, Sardaukar and
Mr. Stark received at least $9.5 million of these funds.

On July 19, U.S. District Judge Sam A. Lindsay entered a
temporary restraining order and asset freeze against Mr. Rumpf
and CIG, appointed a receiver to preserve assets, ordered the
repatriation of all funds in offshore accounts, and directed Mr.
Rumpf to immediately surrender his passport. The court had
previously entered similar orders against the other defendants,
each of whom consented to preliminary injunctions entered on
July 14, 2005.

The amended complaint charges each of the defendants with
violations of Sections 5(a), 5(c) and 17(a) of the Securities
Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. In addition to the emergency
relief listed above, the amended complaint seeks preliminary and
permanent injunctive relief, an accounting, disgorgement of
profits, and the imposition of civil penalties against the
defendants.  The suit is styled, SEC v. Megafund Corporation,
Stanley A. Leitner, Sardaukar Holdings, IBC, Bradley C. Stark,
CIG Ltd., and James A. Rumpf, individually and d/b/a Cilak
International, defendants, and Pamela C. Stark, relief
defendant, Civil Action No. 3-05-CV-1328-L, USDC, NDTX, Dallas
Division.


WAL-MART STORES: Failed To Act On Gender Discrimination Report
--------------------------------------------------------------
Retail giant Wal-Mart Stores Inc. took no action on internal
warnings seven years ago that it was falling short in promoting
women, documents in a federal sex-discrimination lawsuit, the
South Florida Sun-Sentinel reports.

Documents were presented before the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California, related to the lawsuit
filed against the retailer, styled "Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores,
Inc."  The suit was filed in June 2001 on behalf of all past and
present female employees in all of the Company's retail stores
and wholesale clubs in the United States. The complaint alleges
that the Company has engaged in a pattern and practice of
discriminating against women in promotions, pay, training and
job assignments. The complaint seeks, among other things,
injunctive relief, front pay, back pay, punitive damages, and
attorneys' fees, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (June
15,2004) reports.

According to company memos, reports and depositions filed in the
case, the Company failed to implement the 1998 recommendations
of a diversity task force and disbanded the panel.  Two years
later, the Company had a reduced percentage of female managers.

The chain of events may lead Bentonville, Ark.-based Wal-Mart to
settle the lawsuit out of court to avoid paying damages as the
result of a trial, say employment lawyers not involved in the
case, the Sun-Sentinel reports.  Losing at a trial may cost the
company as much as $10 billion for back pay, punitive damages
and raises, California employment lawyer Morris Baller, 60, who
isn't connected to the Wal-Mart lawsuit, told the Sun-Sentinel.
A verdict costing $10 billion would almost equal the $10.3
billion in profit Wal-Mart reported for the fiscal year ended on
January 31, 2005, and would be the biggest U.S. sex-
discrimination verdict ever.

The Company has denied the charges.  In June 2004, the District
Court issued an order granting in part and denying in part the
plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The class, which was
certified by the District Court for purposes of liability,
injunctive and declaratory relief, punitive damages, and lost
pay, subject to certain exceptions, includes all women employed
at any Wal-Mart domestic retail store at any time since December
26, 1998, who have been or may be subjected to the pay and
management track promotions policies and practices challenged by
the plaintiffs. The class as certified currently includes
approximately 1.6 million present and former female Associates.
The Company has appealed the ruling.  The 9th U.S. Circuit Court
of Appeals in San Francisco has scheduled oral arguments on the
appeal for August 8,2005.

The suit is styled "Dukes et al v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., case
no. 3:01-cv-02252," filed in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California, under Judge Martin J.
Jenkins.  Representing the plaintiffs is Brad Seligman of The
Impact Fund, 125 University Avenue, Berkeley, CA 94710, Phone:
510-845-3473 ext 304, Fax: 510-845-3654, E-mail:
bs@impactfund.org.  Representing the Company is Nancy L. Abell
of Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP - Employment, 555 South
Flower Street, 25th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90071-2371, Phone:
213 683-6162, Fax: (213) 627-0705, E-mail:
nancyabell@paulhastings.com.


WISCONSIN: Trial Set For Suit Over Disabled Students' Treatment
--------------------------------------------------------------
A Wisconsin federal judge called for a limited trial in the
ongoing lawsuit that accuses the city's public school district
of violating laws governing the treatment of students with
disabilities, The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports.

According to a district spokeswoman, since the Wisconsin
Coalition for Advocacy brought the lawsuit in 2001, Milwaukee
Public Schools has racked up about $1.8 million on its defense.
Some of that could be recovered through insurance, the
spokeswoman pointed out.

The trial, which is to take place in October, is not a classic
jury trial. Instead, experts from both sides are to testify
before the judge.

Jeff Spitzer-Resnick, a managing attorney for the coalition told
the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, "This moves the case along. The
case is almost four years old. The sooner we can get some
finality to this case, the better for everyone."

Though she was unable to comment on the trial MPS spokeswoman
Roseann St. Aubin did state, "We remain committed to working
with families to provide high-quality services for students with
disabilities."

In 2003, U.S. Magistrate Judge Aaron Goodstein declared that the
suit would proceed as a class action case, which meant that the
coalition could represent hundreds of city schoolchildren,
instead of merely the seven original plaintiffs.

The definition of the "class" though was not as broad as the
coalition had hoped. The coalition had asked to represent
school-age children living in the district, but in his 2003
decision, Judge Goodstein defined the class as being those
students who are eligible for special-education services and
whose entry into initial services had been "denied or delayed."

The suit alleges that MPS systematically violated federal
special-education laws by failing to draw up individual learning
plans for students, for instance.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases


DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Milberg Weiss Lodges Amended Suit in CA
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP initiated
an amended class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of DreamWorks Animation SKG, Inc. ("DreamWorks" or
the "Company") (NYSE: DWA) that extends the Class Period. The
previous Class Period was from October 28, 2004 to May 10, 2005.
The new Class Period is from October 28, 2004 to July 11, 2005.
The amended complaint seeks remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and the Securities Act
of 1933 ("Securities Act")

The action, captioned RD Partners LLC v. DreamWorks Animation
SKG, Inc., et al., No. CV-05-4240 MRP-VBK, is pending in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California against DreamWorks, Ann Daly (COO), Jeffrey
Katzenberg (CEO) and Kristina M. Leslie (CFO). The amended
complaint adds as additional defendants DreamWorks directors
Paul G. Allen and David Geffen.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The complaint alleges that the truth began to emerge on May 10,
2005. On that date, the Company was forced to announce that
Shrek 2 home video sales had fallen well short of forecasts of
sales of at least 40 million, that the Company was not reporting
any first-quarter revenue attributable to sales of Shrek 2 home
video units and that the Company's first quarter net income
would be $46 million, or $0.44 per share, on revenue of $167
million -- a far cry from Company-sponsored and endorsed analyst
estimates of $0.58 per share. On this news, DreamWorks's share
price tumbled 15.6%, from a closing price of $36.50 on May 10,
2005 to a low of $30.80 on May 11, 2005.

The Class Period ends on July 11, 2005, when the defendants
announced that DreamWorks would lose as much as $0.09 per share
in the second quarter of 2005 - primarily as a result of weak
Shrek 2 video sales - and that the SEC had queried the Company
with respect to DreamWorks's insider sales shortly before the
May 10, 2005 disclosure of the shortfall in Shrek 2 sales. On
this news, DreamWorks shares fell 15%, trading as low as $22.80
per share, down over $4.00 from the prior day's closing price.

Insiders, including several of the defendants named herein,
profited handsomely from defendants' materially false and
misleading statements during the Class Period, having sold
shares of DreamWorks's stock for proceeds of more than $140
million.

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


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

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

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


MAJESCO ENTERTAINMENT: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of purchasers of the securities
of Majesco Entertainment Company (NASDAQ: COOL) between December
8, 2004 to July 12, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period") seeking
to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the "Exchange Act").

The action is pending in the United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey against defendants Majesco, Carl
Yankowski (CEO, Chairman), Jan E. Chason (CFO) and Jesse Sutton
(President).

The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
defendants represented that the Company's revenue and income
would continue to grow over its impressive 2004 and first half
of 2005 results in its fiscal year 2005, even as the Company
increased its investment in product development and marketing.
According to defendants, the Company expected $175-$185 million
in net revenues and operating income of $16-$18 million in 2005,
representing strong growth over Majesco's 2004 results.
Unbeknownst to investors, however, Majesco's strong reported
growth resulted, in material part, from the Company having
inundated its retailers with product that defendants knew was in
excess of end-user demand. Defendants representations regarding
the Company's expected 2005 revenues and earnings lacked any
basis and deceived investors about the true state of Majesco's
business and prospects. As defendants knew or recklessly
disregarded, the Company's strong growth was unsustainable
because retailers would either return a material quantity of
unsold products or would meet 2005 demand by selling off excess
inventory instead of ordering new products. In addition,
unbeknownst to investors, but known to or recklessly disregarded
by defendants, two of the Company's new video game titles
flopped, and the Company could not meet its earnings
expectations without the success of these new titles. Defendants
were motivated to engage in the wrongdoing alleged herein so
that Majesco's planned secondary offering, which allowed many
large stockholders, mostly institutions, to sell their
personally held Majesco shares, would be priced higher than it
would have been had investors known the truth about the
Company's business.

On July 12, 2005, after the close of regular trading, Majesco
issued a press release announcing a dramatic reduction in its
expected 2005 results. Rather than earning $16-$18 million in
2005, defendants announced that the Company would swing to a
loss of $16-$19 million on revenues of $120 to $125 million. The
Company attributed this astounding reversal to: substantially
weaker demand for all of the Company's products; a glut of
Majesco products sitting on retailers' shelves or in their
stockrooms; and weak reorders. Majesco also announced that
defendant Yankowski had resigned his positions as Majesco's
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer. In response to this
announcement, the price of Majesco common stock plummeted,
falling by 48% in one day, from $6.89 per share on July 12, 2005
to $3.56 per share on July 13, 2005, earning it the dubious
distinction of being the largest percentage loser on the Nasdaq
for the day.

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.


OCA INC.: Allan Kanner Reminds Parties of Lead Plaintiff Cutoff
---------------------------------------------------------------
The offices of Allan Kanner & Associates, P.L.L.C., which filed
a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Louisiana on behalf of purchasers of
Orthodontic Centers of America, Inc. ("OCA" or "the Company")
(NYSE:OCA) common stock during the period between May 18, 2004,
and June 6, 2005 (the "Class Period") urges investors to explore
legal options prior to the upcoming expiration of lead plaintiff
deadline on August 8, 2005. The.

The complaint, whose civil action number is 05-2173, asserts
claims against the Defendants under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges
that during the Class Period, Defendants issued false and
misleading financial statements and failed to present the
Company's financial statements in conformity with Generally
Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP"). In addition,
Defendants' Sarbanes-Oxley certifications during the Class
Period were false and misleading.

On June 7, 2005, before the opening of trading, OCA shocked the
market by announcing it had determined that the amount of
patient receivables reported at each of March 31, June 30, and
September 30, 2004 was overstated by material amounts. Although
the Company said that it has not yet determined the amount by
which the receivables were overstated or their impact on patient
revenue, the Company announced its Audit Committee's conclusion
that, due to these overstatements, the previously issued
quarterly financial statements for the first, second and third
quarters of 2004 will need to be restated and should no longer
be relied upon. OCA also announced that it had discovered other
accounting errors, which it was still reviewing, and had placed
its Chief Operating Officer, Bartholomew F. Palmisano, Jr., on
administrative, leave as of June 1, 2005.

In response to this news, OCA stock lost approximately 40% of
its value on enormous trading volume of over 9 million shares,
dropping $1.57 to close at $2.46. Accordingly, as a result of
the Company's misrepresentations, OCA investors have sustained
tremendous losses, and stand to lose much more as the full
extent and magnitude of the restatement and fraud is disclosed.

For more details, contact Allan Kanner or Conlee Whiteley of
Allan Kanner & Associates, Phone: 1-800-331-1546 or
504-524-5777, Web site: http://www.kanner-law.com.


STARTEK INC.: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CO
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
LLP ("Lerach Coughlin") initiated a class action on behalf of an
institutional investor in the United States District Court for
the District of Colorado on behalf of purchasers of StarTek,
Inc. ("StarTek") (NYSE:SRT) common stock during the period
between February 26, 2003 and May 5, 2005 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges StarTek and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. StarTek is a provider of
business process outsourced services, which consist of business
process management and supply chain management services.

The complaint alleges that defendants issued false statements
about strong existing demand for StarTek's outsourced services
from four of the Company's customers that accounted for 90% of
StarTek's revenue, the Company's healthy sales pipeline, and the
completion of a management transition and restructuring plan,
which artificially inflated StarTek's stock price during the
Class Period. Then, on May 6, 2005, StarTek announced that its
first quarter 2005 "earnings per share from continuing
operations decreased...to $0.18 compared to $0.49 for the first
quarter of 2004." The Company also announced that its revenues
declined 14.2% from the same period in 2004. On this news,
StarTek's stock price fell over 18% from a closing price on May
5, 2005 of $15.20 to $12.40 per share on May 6, 2005.

For more details, contact William Lerach or Darren Robbins of
Lerach Coughlin, Phone: 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, E-mail:
wsl@lerachlaw.com, Web site:
http://www.lerachlaw.com/cases/startek/.


                            *********


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  * * *