/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/050726.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Tuesday, July 26, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 146


ADVANCED BUILDING: MD AG Issues Final Order For Homeowner Fraud
CANADA: Travelers Stranded by "Emily" Threaten To Sue Airlines
CARDIZEM CD: MO Consumers To Receive Antitrust Settlement Shares
CARDIZEM CD: NM Consumers To Participate in Antitrust Settlement
CARDIZEM CD: ME Residents To Participate in Antitrust Settlement

CARDIZEM CD: MD Customers To Get Share in Antitrust Settlement
CARDIZEM CD: MI Consumers To Get Share in Antitrust Settlement
CYBER POWER: Recalls 60,556 Power Inverters Due to Shock Hazard
DRAXIS HEALTH: Faces Statement of Claim Over Permax Side Effects
DTE ENERGY: Dearborn City Mulls Possible Suit Over Power Outages

E.I. DUPONT: Denies Consumer Suit Charges, Says Teflon is Safe
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Faces FL Suit Due To Defective Refrigerators
GUIDANT CORPORATION: FDA Bares Details Of Pacemaker Recall
HEALTHSOUTH CORPORATION: Scrushy Seeks Dismissal of SEC Lawsuit

IRVING MATERIALS: Eight Firms File Concrete Antitrust Lawsuits
KENTUCKY: Certification Sought for Sex Abuse Suit V. Orphanage
MASSACHUSETTS: East Boston Man Arrested For Ebay Car Sale Fraud
MCI INC.: Girard Gibbs Lodges Suit Over Illegally Collected Fees
MICHIGAN: Taxpayers Launch Suit V. City of Detroit Over Lay-Offs

MISSOURI: AG Files Lawsuit v. 3 Homebuilders For Consumer Fraud
MORGAN STANLEY: Investors Sue To Recover Payout To Former Execs
PAYPAL: Phraudsters Phish for Claimants' Bank Account Details
PHOEBE PUTNEY: Appeal Filed With GA Court For Overcharging Suit
PUBLIX SUPER MARKETS: Settles Protracted Disability Suit in FL

RENT-A-CENTER INC.: Non-Profit Receives Share in Suit Settlement
SAN FRANCISCO: Student Groups Commence Discrimination Lawsuit
TRILLIUM BANQUET: Reaches Settlement For E. Coli Poisoning Suit
WALGREEN CO.: Workers Allege Nationwide Racial Discrimination
WASHINGTON GROUP: $39 Mil Settlement Over 2001 Bankruptcy Ready

ZYPREXA LITIGATION: Complaints Continue Over Drug Side Effects

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

GUIDANT CORPORATION: Goldman Scarlato Lodges IN Securities Suit
GUIDANT CORPORATION: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit in IN
MAJESCO ENTERTAINMENT: Federman & Sherwood Lodges Lawsuit in NJ
OCA INC.: Kaplan Fox Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in E.D. LA
PEMSTAR INC.: Glancy Binkow Schedules Lead Plaintiff Deadline


ADVANCED BUILDING: MD AG Issues Final Order For Homeowner Fraud
Maryland Attorney General J. Joseph Curran, Jr.'s Consumer
Protection Division issued a final order requiring a builder and
his companies to refund payments of $762,494.90 collected from
consumers in Montgomery and Prince George's Counties and pay
penalties of $516,000.

The Division found that Jeffrey Bryant and his companies,
Advanced Building Solutions, Inc. and the Precision Group, Inc.:

     (1) violated Maryland's Custom Home Protection Act and New
         Home Deposits Act by failing to place money paid by
         consumers into an escrow account or having a surety
         bond to cover the deposits;

     (2) violated the Home Builder Registration Act by acting as
         a home builder without being registered with the
         Division's Home Builder Registration Unit; and

     (3) violated the Consumer Protection Act by failing to
         build homes as promised.

The Division found that Mr. Bryant and his companies collected
substantial advance payments from at least 32 consumers toward
new homes, failed to protect those advance payments as required
by Maryland law, and failed to complete, or in many cases even
begin, construction of the homes, and that Mr. Bryant failed to
pay refunds to any of the consumers.

The order bars Mr. Bryant, Advanced Building Solutions, Inc. and
the Precision Group, Inc. from acting as a home builder in the
State of Maryland unless registered as a home builder under
Maryland's Home Builder Registration Act, requires payment of
restitution of the $762,494.90 they received from consumers for
new homes that were never built or completed, payment of civil
penalties in the amount of $516,000 and payment of costs in the
amount of $7,120.53.

"Before paying any money, consumers need to protect the biggest
investment of their lifetime by ensuring that their home is
being built by a registered home builder and that any deposits
they make are protected by an escrow account, bond or letter of
credit," said Attorney General Curran.

For more details, contact the state's Home Builder Registration
Unit by Phone: (410) 576-6573 in Baltimore or (877) 259-4525
(toll-free), or visit the Website:

CANADA: Travelers Stranded by "Emily" Threaten To Sue Airlines
Disgruntled Canadian travelers threatened to file legal action
against several travel and airline companies, after they were
stranded in Mexico's Yucatan Peninsula due to Hurricane Emily,
the Winnipeg Sun reports.

Last week, Hurricane Emily rushed through the Yucatan
Peninsula's resorts, ripping roofs of luxury hotels, stranding
thousands of tourists and leaving hundreds of local residents
homeless, forcing many to remain in crowded, leaky shelters.

Some Quebecers who were stranded in Cancun threatened to file a
class action against Air Transat, the Montreal-based charter
airline they used to fly south.  Air Transat, however, has no
plans to reimburse passengers because the hurricane is a "force
of nature" and many people were warned when they headed to
Mexico there might be powerful storms, Pierre Tessier, an
airline spokesman told the Winnipeg Post.

Other Canadian vacationers were shuttled by bus to hotels inland
after Skyservice, a charter airline company, cancelled its
flight from Cancun to Toronto.  An airline spokeswoman told the
Post a piece of ground equipment on the runway damaged the
plane's left wing.

More than 200 passengers awaiting their return flight Saturday
night were told they would have to wait until this morning
before they'd be able to return home.  Canadian Skyservice
customers complained it took the company too long to secure
another flight, and were not given access to enough food or
water. One said there was no running water or electricity in his
hotel, the Winnipeg Post reports.

CARDIZEM CD: MO Consumers To Receive Antitrust Settlement Shares
About 1,900 Missourians soon will receive checks totaling almost
$600,000 from two pharmaceutical companies as part of a
settlement agreement with Missouri Attorney General Jay Nixon.

Mr. Nixon and the 49 other states' attorneys general sued
Aventis Pharmaceuticals and Andrex Corporation in 2003, alleging
that Aventis paid Andrex not to release a generic version of
Cardizem CD, a prescription heart medication.  Because a generic
version of the drug was delayed, consumers, insurers and other
health care providers had to pay more for the brand-name version
for at least one additional year.

"I'm pleased to announce that Missourians will receive their
share of this settlement in the next few weeks," Mr. Nixon said.
"We will continue to hold companies accountable when they try to
profit unfairly at the expense of consumers in our state."

Aventis and Andrex will pay a total of $599,347.83 to 1,886
Missourians as compensation for overpayments from 1998 to 2004.
Around the country, more than 76,000 consumers filed claims
against the companies.

Missourians with questions about the settlement should contact
the Cardizem CD Settlement Administrator by Mail: P.O. Box 1675,
Faribault, MN 55021-1675, or visit the Website:
http://www.cardizemsettlement.com. For more details, contact
Press Secretary Jim Gardner by Phone: 573-751-8844, by Fax:
573-751-5818 by e-mail: communications@ago.mo.gov or visit the
Website: http://www.ago.state.mo.us/

CARDIZEM CD: NM Consumers To Participate in Antitrust Settlement
New Mexico is part of a $24 million antitrust settlement that
will compensate consumers overcharged for Cardizem CD, a
prescription heart medication, state Attorney General Patricia
Madrid announced in a statement.

This distribution is the result of a 2003 settlement with
pharmaceutical companies Aventis and Andrx.  311 consumers in
New Mexico will receive an aggregate total of more than $86,000
to compensate them 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, after the United States Supreme Court refused on May 23,
2005, to review judicial approval of the settlement.

"The high cost of prescription drugs is a health crisis in
America.  While comparing prices can help control the cost of
prescriptions, it will do little if pharmaceutical companies
operate as Aventis and Andrx.  That Aventis could give Andrx
money to stay out of the market and still rack up great profits
is a terrible sign of how badly the purchasers were overcharged.
This cannot be tolerated.  When pharmaceutical companies
intentionally manipulate prices, keeping prices unnecessarily
high while Americans suffer, they must be penalized, as we are
doing here. I am glad the Attorneys General acted together to
put a stop to this and require the companies to return money to
consumers and others who overpaid for Cardizem CD and the
generic equivalents," Ms. Madrid said.

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 Medicaid, for their damages.

The distribution is the result of a 2003 settlement in a case
co-led by New York and Michigan.  The case 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 at least an
extra year.

Further details are available on the settlement administration's
Website: http://www.cardizemsettlement.com. For more
information, contact Sam Thompson by Phone: (505) 222-9174 or
visit the Attorney General's Website:

CARDIZEM CD: ME Residents To Participate in Antitrust Settlement
A settlement agent is cutting checks totaling more than $82,000
to 264 Maine heart patients who purchased the drug Cardizem CD
at a price that was inflated by corporate practices that
violated the antitrust laws, state Attorney General Steve Rowe
announced in a statement.

The distribution is the result of a 2003 settlement in a case
brought by Maine and many other states against two
pharmaceutical companies, Aventis and Andrx.  The case 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 required consumers, health insurance
companies, and the government to purchase the higher priced,
brand-name version of the drug for at least an extra year.

Nationwide, the distribution will compensate more than 76,000
individual consumers who bought Cardizem between 1998 and 2004.
The states' plan to distribute money to consumers was approved
by United States District Court Judge Nancy Edmunds on May 31,
2005, after the United States Supreme Court refused on May 23,
2005, to review judicial approval of the settlement.
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 state Medicaid programs, for their

Further details are available on the settlement administration's
Website: http://www.cardizemsettlement.com.

CARDIZEM CD: MD Customers To Get Share in Antitrust Settlement
More than $24 million in antitrust settlement funds to thousands
of consumers from all 50 states that purchased Cardizem CD, a
prescription heart medication, Maryland Attorney General J.
Joseph Curran, Jr. announced in a July 18,2005 statement.

Thirteen hundred consumers in Maryland will receive an aggregate
total of approximately $400,000 to compensate for overpayment
for Cardizem CD and its generic equivalents between 1998 and
2004. Nationwide, the distribution will compensate more than
76,000 individual consumers. The states' plan to distribute
money to consumers was approved by United States District Court
Judge Nancy Edmunds on May 31, 2005, after the United States
Supreme Court refused on May 23, 2005, to review judicial
approval of the settlement.

The distribution is the result of a 2003 settlement in a case
brought by State Attorneys General against two pharmaceutical
companies, Aventis and Andrx. The case 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 at least an extra year.

Attorney General Curran said "This national settlement not only
brings relief to drug purchasers who overpaid for their medicine
but also aids in the effort to rein in prescription drug costs
which have been rising so rapidly."

For more details, contact Kevin Enright by Phone: 410-576-6357
or visit the Website:

CARDIZEM CD: MI Consumers To Get Share in Antitrust Settlement
More than $24 million in antitrust settlement funds will be
distributed to consumers nationwide who purchased Cardizem CD, a
prescription heart medication.  An aggregate total of more than
$901,000 is directed to 3,529 Michigan consumers, Michigan
Attorney General Mike Cox announced in a statement.

"This settlement stands as a warning that anticompetitive
behavior will not be tolerated," said Mr. Cox.  "My office is
committed to continuing to aggressively protect consumers from
this sort of unfair activity."

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

Consumers are being reimbursed for overpayments made for
Cardizem CD and its generic equivalents between 1998 and 2004.
Nationwide, the distribution will compensate more than 76,000
individuals. The states' plan to distribute money to consumers
was approved by United States Eastern District of Michigan Judge
Nancy Edmunds on May 31, 2005, after the United States Supreme
Court refused to review judicial approval of the settlement.

Later this year, settlement money will also be distributed to
third party purchasers, a group consisting primarily of medical
insurance companies and self-insured health plans. In addition,
approximately $4.5 million will be distributed among the states
to reimburse certain government purchasers for their damages.

Further details are available on the settlement administration's
Website: http://www.cardizemsettlement.com. For more details,
also contact Allison Pierce, by Phone: 517-373-8060 or visit the
Michigan Attorney General's Website: http://www.ag.state.mi.us/.

CYBER POWER: Recalls 60,556 Power Inverters Due to Shock Hazard
Cyber Power Systems (USA), Inc. in cooperation with the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Office of Defects
Investigation (ODI) is voluntarily recalling about 60,556 units
of 2004-2005 Targus / APV0601US, 2004-05 Targus / APV07US, 2004-
05 Targus / APV08US, 2004-05 Targus / BUS0008 power inverters
due to potential electrical shock hazard. NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID
Number: 05E045000.

According to the ODI, Targus slimline power inverters, P/NOS.
APV0601US, APV07US and APV08US, manufactured between June 2004
and May 2005. It is possible for a user to plug a computer or
other AC electrical device into the inverter incorrectly, in
such a way as to leave one of the two AC power plug exposed. In
some circumstances, this pin can become "live." If the user were
to touch a "live" pin while the user was in contact with a
grounded object or become grounded, the user could receive a
potentially serious electrical shock.

As a remedy, Targus will notify its distributors and any
identified customers to return the inverters for a full refund.

For more details, contact Targus, Phone: 714-765-5555 OR the
NHTSA Auto Safety Hotline: 1-888-327-4236 or 1-800-424-9153, Web
site: http://www.safecar.gov.

DRAXIS HEALTH: Faces Statement of Claim Over Permax Side Effects
DRAXIS Health Inc. (TSX: DAX) (Nasdaq: DRAX), together with
other defendants, received a Statement of Claim filed before the
Superior Court of Justice of Ontario. The plaintiff alleges that
Permax(R), a drug that DRAXIS distributed in Canada for a third
party manufacturer prior to July 2003, causes "compulsive /
obsessive behavior, including pathological gambling". The
plaintiff is seeking to have this action certified as a class

DRAXIS believes this claim against it is without merit and
intends to fight this proceeding and any motion for
certification.  Prior to July 2003, Permax(R) was distributed in
Canada by Draxis Pharmaceutica, the Canadian pharmaceutical
sales and marketing division of DRAXIS Health Inc. In July 2003
DRAXIS completed the divestiture of the Draxis Pharmaceutical
division to Shire BioChem, Inc.

DTE ENERGY: Dearborn City Mulls Possible Suit Over Power Outages
DTE Energy faces a possible class action in Michigan, due to the
blackouts, brownouts and low voltage periods experienced by
residents of the city of Dearborn, heritagenews.com reports.

Residents like Karen Nigosian are sick and tired of the
electricity problems.  Since the beginning of the year, Ms.
Nigosian has been unable to operate her west Dearborn store,
Nigosian Oriental Rugs, for a total of six days.

"People just think the lights go off," Ms. Nigosian told
heritagenews.com.  "It's so much more than that. The cost of
business continues, whether you're open or not."

City mayor Michael A. Guido recently bared five action steps he
plans on taking to solve the energy problem, including possibly
pursuing a class action lawsuit and acquiring services from a
different power supplier, Pereto Energy.  Mr. Guido's steps are:

     (1) Joining the West Dearborn Business Association in a
         class action suit against DTE for loss of business,
         perishables and lack of reliability within the system;

     (2) Circulating a petition to be presented to the Michigan
         Public Service Commission, asking that DTE be ordered
         to upgrade the entire Dearborn system to provide
         adequate and reliable power now and in the future;

     (3) Asking the Legislature and the PSC to amend rules to
         allow for the placement of cables, wires, etc., across
         the public right-of-way, a privilege Mr. Guido said is
         now reserved by DTE, which he views as a monopoly;

     (4) Creating an energy improvement district that would
         provide for a mini-electric generation plant, using gas
         turbine engines. The power would be produced by the
         turbines and distributed over the existing DTE grid;

     (5) Hiring an electrical consultant/engineer to survey the
         power supply and needs throughout the city. The
         consultant would survey and log the age and condition
         of infrastructure. If necessary, Mr. Guido plans to
         determine the amount of capital expended by DTE on the
         Dearborn system over a period of time by obtaining
         records through the Freedom of Information Act.

Mr. Guido believes DTE has failed to plug its dollars back into
the community through much-needed infrastructure updates, and
that it is spreading the available power too thin among too many
customers, heritagenews.com reports.  "I don't think the company
is meeting requirements," he said.

He is encouraging residents and business owners to attend a
public forum at 7 p.m. August 17 in the City Council Chambers to
formally log complaints about DTE as a way of building a case
against the company.  Though he hopes to resolve the situation
amicably through a meeting scheduled for the last week of July
between himself and DTE management, he thinks legal action may
become necessary.  "Unless we're in front of DTE - adversarial
or holding hands - nothing will get done," Mr. Guido told

DTE spokesman Scott Simons told heritagenews.com the regional
manager was surprised to hear about the mayor's five
initiatives, but acknowledged they were planning on meeting next
week.  He said the company is currently investigating Dearborn's
most recent outages and that it is exploring the future capacity
of the system.

"The main electrical distribution system is the highest priority
in Dearborn," Mr. Simons told heritagenews.com.  "We're also
looking at adding capacitor banks, upgrading overloaded
equipment and transferring load, which are some examples of some
easier ways to remedy the problem."

He said long-term solutions include building new substations and
expanding older ones.  The problems could be stemming from a
variety of reasons, but weather - such as the abnormally high
temperatures this summer- is not a main cause.  "Actually, the
electrical system has held up pretty well as far as the weather
goes," Mr. Simons told heritagenews.com.

As for accusations that DTE is addressing the needs of outlying
and fast-growing suburbs before turning its attention to metro
Detroit's older communities, Mr. Simons said that was absolutely
not true at all.  "We treat all customers the same, whether
they're living in the outer or inner ring," Mr. Simons told

The mayor and Corporation Counsel Debra Walling are encouraging
Dearborn DTE customers to call the Public Service Commission
each time there is a problem so it can be logged.  Ms. Walling
said complaints can be left at 1(800) 292-9555, heritagenews.com

E.I. DUPONT: Denies Consumer Suit Charges, Says Teflon is Safe
E.I. DuPont De Nemours Company answered the charges in the
lawsuits filed against it last week, alleging that the Company
for more than 20 years that Teflon and its component chemicals
had the potential to make people sick -- and hid that fact from

The Company has consistently represented to consumers in public
statements and documents that there is no danger to human health
posed from using cooking products that are coated with Teflon.
The suit contends that information known to the Company for
decades may prove otherwise, an earlier Class Action Reporter
story (July 21,2005) reports.

The Department of Justice is also investigating DuPont in
connection with its concealment of the company's 1981 study on
its own employees of the effect of a key component of Teflon
(Perflouroctanoic acid or PFOA). Earlier this year in May 2005,
the Justice Department issued a criminal subpoena to DuPont.  In
May 2005, DuPont set aside $15 million to respond to civil
charges that it hid from the public and regulators the potential
health hazards of PFOA stemming from the Environmental
Protection Agency's charges that the company violated the
Federal Toxic Substances Control Act from June 1981 to March

In a statement dated July 19,2005, the company said that
consumers using products sold under the Teflonr brand are safe.

"Cookware coated with DuPont(TM) Teflonr non-stick coatings does
not contain PFOA (perfluorooctanoic acid). This has been
verified by an independent peer-reviewed study of consumer
products published in April 2005 in Environmental Science and
Technology. Approved standard FDA tests also show that non-stick
coatings used for cookware sold under the Teflonr brand, do not
contain any PFOA," Clif Webb, Director, DuPont Public Affairs,
said in a statement.

"Like any household product, cookware coated with Teflonr non-
stick is safe when used properly. Teflonr is a trusted brand and
is used all over the world by millions of people every day.
Independent U.S. public agencies have studied non-stick coatings
and have approved their use. The Food and Drug Administration,
the leading U.S. health regulatory agency, has found non-stick
coating acceptable for conventional kitchen use," Mr. Webb
asserted.  "Also, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
recently rejected a petition to require a label warning for non-
stick coatings. Health regulatory agencies across the globe have
approved the use of Teflonr coatings for non-stick cooking

"DuPont(TM) Teflonr non-stick coatings will not begin to
deteriorate until the temperature of the cookware reaches about
500 degrees Fahrenheit or 260 degrees Celsius. Significant
decomposition of the coating will occur only when temperatures
exceed about 660 degrees Fahrenheit or 340 degrees Celsius -
well above the smoke point for cooking oil, fats or butter.
Therefore, it is unlikely that decomposition temperatures for
non-stick cookware would be reached without burning food to an
inedible state. However, these high temperatures can be reached
if dry or empty cookware is neglected on a hot burner or in an
oven. Over the past 40 years, there is only one documented case
of a minor health effect as a result of non-stick cookware," Mr.
Webb said.

Mr. Webb also stated that the Company will dispute the suits
filed against it.

GENERAL ELECTRIC: Faces FL Suit Due To Defective Refrigerators
Appliance manufacturer General Electric Co. faces an amended
class action filed in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers Division, over the sale
of defective "General Electric" and "Hotpoint" brand

Plaintiff William F. Turner filed the suit on his own behalf and
on behalf of a class of persons in the State of Florida who
purchased and/or own the makes and models of Refrigerator
manufactured, marketed, advertised, warranted and/or sold by GE,
under the "General Electric" and "Hotpoint" brands.

The suit asserts breach of express warranty and implied warranty
of merchantability, unjust enrichment/restitution and negligence
in connection with the defective refrigerators.  The suit
alleges that the Company designed, manufactured, marketed,
advertised, warranted and/or sold to Plaintiff and the Class the
refrigerators.  In conjunction with each sale, the Company
marketed, advertised and warranted that each refrigerator was
fit for the ordinary purpose for which such goods were used and
was free from defects in materials and workmanship, the suit

The suit further alleged that the Company knew or should have
known that the refrigerators were defective in design, were not
fit for their ordinary and intended use, and did not perform in
accordance with the advertisements, marketing materials and
warranties disseminated by the Company nor with the reasonable
expectations of ordinary consumers.

The suit specifically alleges that at the time of sale, the
refrigerators contained a defect that results in the formation
of excessive moisture, especially in the icemaker compartment,
which causes, among other things, development of iron oxide or
rust, puddling on the floor beneath the refrigerator and rust or
water running down the side of the refrigerator.  The defect in
the refrigerators also caused the formation of metal shavings
and shards of plastic which are frequently found in the ice
created in the freezer section of the refrigerators. In
addition, the defect causes the refrigerators to suffer from
wavering temperature controls and excessive frost.  "The defect
reduces the effectiveness and performance of the Refrigerators
and renders them unable to perform the ordinary purposes for
which they are used," the suit alleged.

For example, in many instances, the suit states that the members
of the class experienced spoilation of their food resulting from
the refrigerator's failure to maintain proper temperatures.  The
defect also causes water damage and other property damage to the
floor and/or walls in the area(s) where the refrigerators are

The suit further stated that the Company knew and has admitted
that the Refrigerators were defectively designed, and that it
instituted a program whereby it will, under certain
circumstances, replace the refrigerators with non-defective
refrigerators.  However, the suit asserts the replacement
program is inadequate.

According to the suit, the Company did not publicized it to all
persons who purchased the refrigerators.  In addition, "GE will
only replace a Refrigerator under certain limited circumstances.
And, there is no indication that GE will reimburse consumers who
have paid for repairs to their Refrigerator, nor is there any
indication that GE will reimburse consumers who have paid to
replace their defective Refrigerator," the suit states.

The suit is styled "WILLIAM F. TURNER, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. GENERAL ELECTRIC
CO., case no. 2:05-CV-186-FtM-33 DNF," filed in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Fort
Myers Division.  Representing the plaintiff are Scott Wm.
Weinstein and Jordan L. Chaikin of Weinstein, Bavly & Moon,
P.A., 2400 First Street, Suite 303, Fort Myers, Florida 33901,
Phone: (239) 334-8844, Fax: (239) 334-1289.

GUIDANT CORPORATION: FDA Bares Details Of Pacemaker Recall
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is notifying health
care providers and patients that Guidant Corporation is
voluntarily recalling certain pacemakers.

A seal within the devices can leak, allowing moisture to affect
the electronic circuits.  This defect can cause the pacemakers
to fail to provide pacing or can cause a rapid heart rate.
Other unexpected device behaviors are also possible.  The
problems may occur without warning and can lead to loss of
consciousness, and possibly heart failure and death.

Only the following models are affected by this recall. All were
manufactured between November 25, 1997 and October 26, 2000.
The models are:

     (1) PULSARr MAX Models 1170, 1171, 1270

     (2) PULSAR Models 0470, 0870, 0970, 0972, 1172, 1272

     (3) DISCOVERYr Models 1174, 1175, 1273, 1274, 1275

     (4) MERIDIANr Models 0476, 0976, 1176, 1276

     (5) PULSAR MAX II Models 1180, 1181, 1280

     (6) DISCOVERY II Models 0481, 0981, 1184, 1186, 1187, 1283,
         1284, 1285, 1286

     (7) CONTAK TRr Model 1241

     (8) VIRTUS PLUSr II* Models 1380, 1480

     (9) INTELIS II Models 1483, 1484, 1485, 1384, 1385, 1349,

VIRTUS PLUS II and INTELIS II models are available only outside
the U.S.

The Company announced the initiation of a voluntary recall on
July 18, 2005. The recall action consisted of a letter to
physicians that describes the problem and provides
recommendations about how to minimize the risk of pacemaker

The FDA has classified the Company's action as a Class I recall.
Recall classifications can fall into one of three categories,
with Class I being the most serious. These numerical
classifications are based on the probability that the device
failure could lead to adverse health effects. In a Class I
recall, there is a reasonable probability that the
malfunctioning device will cause serious adverse health
consequences or death.

"Pacemakers are complex medical devices that can extend and
improve the lives of many people who have heart rate
abnormalities. However, they are not perfect and can
malfunction," said Daniel Schultz, M.D., Director, FDA's Center
for Devices and Radiological Health. "We are notifying patients
and physicians about this important safety matter so they can
take prompt action to reduce the risk of serious health

Some patients are very dependent on pacemakers to maintain an
adequate heart rate. For these patients, failure of the device
to provide pacing output can cause sudden faintness or loss of
consciousness, and can result in death. The leakage defect can
also cause a sustained rapid heart rate, which can cause heart
failure and result in death.

While the failures can occur without warning, sometimes a leak-
related malfunction can be detected by a physician before the
malfunction causes serious problems. Guidant has provided
information to physicians about ways to identify a leak-related
malfunction. However, the Company is not aware of any test that
will show if a normally functioning pacemaker is likely to fail
in the future.

As of July 11, 2005, the Company had received reports that 69
pacemakers may have failed because of the leakage. Twenty of the
devices were confirmed to have stopped providing pacing output,
resulting in loss of consciousness in five patients.  The
Company also received reports of two patients who had sustained
pacing at a rapid rate. A patient whose device exhibited
sustained pacing at a rapid rate was admitted to the hospital
and later died. The device problem could not be confirmed as
leakage since the device was not returned.

Approximately 18,000 of the affected devices remain in service
in the United States and an additional 10,000 are in service in
other countries.  The Company estimates that the failure rate
from the leakage defect will be between 0.17% and 0.51% (i.e.,
between 1.7 per one thousand and 5.1 per one thousand) over the
remaining lifetime of the devices. It is possible that the
actual failure rate will be greater than this, in part, because
some past failures may not have been reported to the Company.

The FDA is not making a recommendation about whether a patient
who has one of the Company pacemakers affected by this recall
should have it replaced.  This is a decision that should be made
by the patient in consultation with his or her physician, based
on the patient's history and medical condition. Removal and
replacement of the device may pose some risk, so it is important
that patients and physicians carefully discuss this matter
before making a decision.

The FDA concurs with the Company's proposed recommendation to
patients, which are consistent with the physician
recommendations previously set forth in the Company's July 18

     (i) If you believe you are pacemaker dependent, contact
         your physician soon to discuss your treatment options.

    (ii) Continue your normal doctor appointments.

   (iii) If you experience symptoms of shortness of breath,
         dizziness, lightheadedness, loss of consciousness, or a
         prolonged fast heart rate, you should consult with your
         physician or go to the emergency room immediately.

    (iv) If you are not sure which model you have, or if you
         have other questions regarding your device, you should
         consult with your physician.

     (v) If you know your device's model and serial number and
         want to find out if it is affected by the leakage
         problem, you can check the Website:
         contact Guidant Technical Services at 1-866-GUIDANT (1-

    (vi) If you are a physician or a patient who has experienced
         a problem with any of these pacemakers, please send a
         report to FDA's MedWatch program and to the Company.

For more details, contact the FDA By Phone: 1-800-FDA-1088
(1-800-332-1088) or visit the Website:
http://www.fda.gov/medwatch/for filing information.  The
Company has also posted information for physicians on its Web
site: http://www.guidant.com. Information for patients will be
posted soon.  Concerned individuals may also contact the Company
by Phone: 1-866-GUIDANT (1-866-484-3268).

HEALTHSOUTH CORPORATION: Scrushy Seeks Dismissal of SEC Lawsuit
Beleaguered former HealthSouth Corporation chief Richard Scrushy
asked the United States District Court for the Northern District
of Alabama to dismiss the Securities and Exchange Commission's
civil suit against him, styled "Securities and Exchange
Commission v. HealthSouth Corporation and Richard M. Scrushy,
CV-03-J-0615-S (N.D. Ala.)"

The Commission's complaint alleges that since 1999, at the
insistence of Mr. Scrushy, the Company systematically overstated
its earnings by at least $1.4 billion in order to meet or exceed
Wall Street earnings expectations.  The false increases in
earnings were matched by false increases in the Company's
assets. By the third quarter of 2002, the Company's assets were
overstated by at least $800 million, or approximately 10
percent.  The complaint further alleges that, following the
Commission's order last year requiring executive officers of
major public companies to certify the accuracy and completeness
of their companies' financial statements, Mr. Scrushy certified
the Company's financial statements when he knew or was reckless
in not knowing they were materially false and misleading.

On June 28,2005, a jury in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Alabama acquitted Mr. Scrushy of
criminal wrongdoing, finding him not guilty of all 36 charges he
faced, which included conspiracy, mail fraud, making false
statements, securities and wire fraud, and money laundering.  In
a statement read by U.S. District Judge Karon Bowdre, jury
members said they believed that the government case lacked
substantial evidence and that the prosecution witnesses lacked

The SEC sued HealthSouth and Mr. Scrushy in 2003, seeking
penalties and asking the court to bar Mr. Scrushy from serving
as an officer or director of any publicly held company.  The SEC
earlier claimed that it would push through with its lawsuit,
despite the acquittal.

In a 24-page brief, Mr. Scrushy sought the dismissal of the SEC
suit, saying that the Department of Justice criminal
investigation failed to result in his conviction.  "After being
pursued for years by all the king's horses and all the king's
men, (Scrushy) stands before this court having been acquitted of
all charges against him," his lawyers wrote, AP reports.

"Neither of the government agencies involved, the SEC or the
DOJ, have produced credible evidence that Mr. Scrushy knew
others at HealthSouth were engaged in any accounting
improprieties, much less fraud," Mr. Scrushy argued, according
to AP.

Birmingham-based HealthSouth, which cooperated with prosecutors
in their investigation of Scrushy, settled its part of the civil
case last month for $100 million in penalties.  ifteen former
HealthSouth executives pleaded guilty in the fraud, including
five finance chiefs who testified that Mr. Scrushy directed the
fraud because the company was missing Wall Street forecasts.
Jurors in Mr. Scrushy's criminal trial rejected their testimony
as not being credible.

The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California heard Intrabiotics Pharmaceuticals, Inc.'s motion to
dismiss the consolidated securities class action filed against
it and certain of its officers.

Beginning on July 2, 2004, three purported class action
shareholder complaints were filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern of California against the Company and
several of its officers.  The actions were consolidated and a
consolidated amended complaint has been filed, purportedly
brought on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock
between September 5, 2003 and June 22, 2004.  The amended
complaint generally alleges that the Company and several of its
officers and directors made false or misleading statements
concerning the clinical trial of iseganan. The plaintiffs seek
unspecified monetary damages.

On February 28, 2005, the Company and the individual defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.  A hearing on
the motion to dismiss was held on June 17, 2005 and a ruling on
the motion is pending.

The suit is styled "In Re: IntraBiotics Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Securities Litigation, case no. 04-CV-2675," filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California,
under Judge Jeffrey S. White.  Lawyers for the Company are Boris
Feldman, Cheryl W. Foung, Kassra Powell Nassiri and Ignacio E.
Salceda of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, 650 Page Mill Road,
Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050, Phone: 650-493-9300, Fax:
650-565-5100, E-mail: boris.feldman@wsgr.com, cfoung@wsgr.com,
knassiri@wsgr.com, isalceda@wsgr.com.

The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

     (1) Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP (New York, NY), 10 E.
         40th Street, 22nd Floor, New York, NY, 10016, Phone:
         800.217.1522, E-mail: info@bernlieb.com

     (2) Brodsky & Smith, LLC, 11 Bala Avenue, Suite 39, Bala
         Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610.668.7987, Fax:
         610.660.0450, E-mail: esmith@Brodsky-Smith.com

     (3) Bruce G. Murphy, 265 Llwyds Lane, Vero Beach La, FL,
         32963, Phone: 561.231.4202,

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

     (5) Green & Jigarjian LLP, 235 Pine Street, 15th Floor, San
         Francisco, CA, 94104, Phone: 415.477.6700, Fax:

     (6) Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (Los Angeles), 355
         South Grand Avenue, Suite 4170, Los Angeles, CA, 90071,
         Phone: 213.617.9007, Fax: 213.617.9185, E-mail:

     (7) Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (New York), One
         Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor, New York, NY, 10119,
         Phone: 212.594.5300, Fax: 212.868.1229, E-mail:

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

     (9) Schatz & Nobel, P.C., 330 Main Street, Hartford, CT,
         06106, Phone: 800.797.5499, Fax: 860.493.6290, E-mail:

    (10) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd,
         PA, 19004, Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax: 610.667.7056, E-
         mail: info@sbclasslaw.com

IRVING MATERIALS: Eight Firms File Concrete Antitrust Lawsuits
Irving Materials, Inc. faces eight class actions filed by
construction companies or heads of companies, alleging price-
fixing in the ready-mixed concrete market, the Indianapolis Star

The U.S. Department of Justice's investigators from their
Chicago office contended the Company and rivals colluded to set
ready mix concrete prices in metropolitan Indianapolis between
2000 and 2004, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (July
4,2005) reports.  Early this month, the company pleaded guilty
and agreed to pay a $29.2 million fine. Additionally, four of
its executives will pay fines and serve five months in jail. The
Department of Justice contends that the Company conspired with
other area concrete companies.

CWE Concrete Construction Inc., a now closed company in the
Indianapolis suburb of Hamilton County, was the first to file a
price-fixing lawsuit. Kort Builders, Inc. filed a second class
action status on July 13 against the Company, seeking triple
damages on concrete it purchased from the Company between July
2000 and May 2004.

Several other firms have followed, filing their own suits.
These are:

     (1) Van Valkenburg Builders of Avon;

     (2) Siniard Concrete Services of Bloomington;

     (3) Dan Grote of Crawfordsville;

     (4) Michael Reisert of Greenfield;

     (5) R. Shane Tharp of Indianapolis;

     (6) Boyle Construction Management of Indianapolis and
         Environ of Noblesville.

KENTUCKY: Certification Sought for Sex Abuse Suit V. Orphanage
A lawsuit alleging sexual abuse at a Roman Catholic orphanage in
Jefferson County over a 50-year period is seeking class action
status, according to the attorney who brought the suit, The
Associated Press reports.

The attorney, William McMurry told The Associated Press that he
wants to expand the suit beyond the current 50 plaintiffs
because he thinks there are at least several hundred other
victims. Judge Denise Clayton will consider the request at a
hearing this week.

Mr. McMurry explained to The Associated Press that a class
action designation would allow victims to make a claim without
being publicly identified and would lead to advertising that
would notify former orphanage residents who might live across
the country and might not know of the litigation or of their

The suit filed, which was filed last year against the Sisters of
Charity of Nazareth and the Archdiocese of Louisville's Catholic
Charities, alleges sexual abuse and other physical abuse during
about 50 years, primarily at three orphanages.

The St. Thomas orphanage near Anchorage, the St. Vincent
orphanage in Clifton and the St.Thomas-St.Vincent orphanage were
operated by Catholic Charities and staffed by the order of
religious sisters. The combined orphanage was created after a
1952 merger and closed in 1983.

Additionally, the suits allege abuse by several nuns, volunteers
at the orphanage and the late Rev. Herman J. Lammers, who was
director of Catholic Charities from 1939-76 and lived at St.

Diane Curtis, spokeswoman for the Sisters of Charity told The
Associated Press that the order opposes making the case a class
action lawsuit. In a statement from the order, she said, "We are
saddened by this latest development because our hope is that a
respectful process would take place where each person could be
heard and treated as an individual. Such an approach would seem
more compassionate."

Mr. McMurry filed the request to pursue class action status in
the case on July 14 and as part of that motion, he also seeks to
add two more plaintiffs, which would bring the total to 50.

MASSACHUSETTS: East Boston Man Arrested For Ebay Car Sale Fraud
An East Boston man has been arraigned as part of an ongoing
investigation into an online car sales scam in which consumers
sent money for vehicles that were never delivered, Massachusetts
Attorney General Tom Reilly announced in a statement.

Odilon DeMoura, 22, who also goes by the name Adam DeMoura, of
East Boston, was arraigned this morning in East Boston District
Court on four counts of larceny over $250 and one count of
conspiracy.  He pleaded not guilty and is next expected to
appear in court on August 25.

State Police assigned to the Attorney General's Office arrested
Mr. DeMoura on the charges and executed a warrant at Mr.
DeMoura's East Boston apartment where financial records were
seized.  Mr. DeMoura's arrest follows an investigation by the
Attorney General's Office into allegations from at least four
victims from around the country that he was offering cars for
sale on Ebay, taking payments from buyers and then allegedly
never delivering on the motor vehicles.

Mr. DeMoura and a co-conspirator allegedly acted on Ebay using
the two screen names "aladdinautosales" and "rockstar6474." As
such, Mr. DeMoura offered several vehicles up for auction with
detailed photos of the cars. The winners of the bids negotiated
shipping costs with Mr. DeMoura or his co-conspirator into their
price and then allegedly sent payment to Mr. DeMoura's East
Boston apartment.  Mr. DeMoura has allegedly cashed victim's
checks totaling over $28,000 since March. The investigation is

Victims involved in the scam live in Missouri, Illinois and
Texas and paid between $6,000 and $10,000 for the cars, which
included a black 2001 Toyota Celica, and a green 1997 Ford
Mustang Cobra.

Assistant Attorney General Marc Jones of the Attorney General's
Corruption, Fraud and Computer Crime Division is prosecuting the
case, which was investigated by State Police assigned to the
Attorney General's Office with assistance from Boston Police and
Everett Police.  For more details, contact Corey Welford by
Phone: (617) 727-2543 or visit the Attorney General's Website:

MCI INC.: Girard Gibbs Lodges Suit Over Illegally Collected Fees
The law firm Girard Gibbs & De Bartolomeo LLP initiated a class
action complaint on behalf of telephone customers nationwide
that were unlawfully billed by MCI, Inc. (NASDAQ:MCIP) for
monthly service charges despite the fact they were not MCI
customers. The complaint alleges that MCI assesses the monthly
fees directly or through consumers' local phone bills.

"MCI has been charging non-customers minimum usage fees and
other monthly service fees without authorization even though MCI
provided no service to these persons," said Daniel Girard, one
of the attorneys for the plaintiff. "Consumers who mistakenly
paid MCI or paid in response to a threatening collections notice
should get their money back."

The case was brought by Shary Everett, a Goodyear, Arizona
resident who repeatedly was assessed monthly service charges by
MCI even though she had a different long distance carrier and
had terminated MCI service at a former address several years
earlier. MCI refused to reverse the unauthorized charges and
threatened Ms. Everett with a collections notice for failing to
pay. To stop MCI from continuing to bill her without
authorization, she was forced to restrict all long-distance
service on her telephone line.

The complaint alleges that MCI enrolled non-customers and former
MCI long-distance subscribers without their knowledge or consent
in the "Basic Dial-1 Plan" or another MCI calling plan that
carries a monthly service fee. In 2002, MCI began charging a
$3.00 or $5.00 minimum usage fee (MUF) and a $3.95 monthly
recurring fee to consumers who did not have active billing
accounts with MCI and whom MCI has no reasonable basis to
believe are current MCI customers.

The class action lawsuit against MCI was filed in federal
district court in Phoenix on July 18, 2005 and asserts claims
against MCI for violations of the federal Communications Act and
for unjust enrichment.

The complaint alleges that MCI's policy and practice is to
reverse, refund, or credit back unauthorized charges only to
consumers who threaten to bring legal action, lodge complaints
with regulatory authorities, or take other action. According to
the complaint, consumers who do not pay the unauthorized charges
are turned over to collections agencies.

Girard Gibbs & De Bartolomeo LLP is one of the nation's leading
firms representing individuals in consumer fraud class actions
and investors in securities fraud litigation.

For more details, contact Girard Gibbs & De Bartolomeo, LLP, 601
California Street, Suite 1400, San Francisco, CA, 94108, Phone:
415-981-4800, Fax: 415-981-4846, E-mail: mail@girardgibbs.com.

MICHIGAN: Taxpayers Launch Suit V. City of Detroit Over Lay-Offs
Three taxpayers, two of whom are City employees, initiated a
lawsuit for damages and injunctive relief, which is claiming
that the City of Detroit, the City Council and the Detroit
Building Authority have violated the anti-privatization
ordinance adopted by the Detroit City Council on March 21, 2004.

This ordinance, which was passed by a unanimous vote of the
Council, requires the City to provide specified information
before subcontracting the work of regular employees and it also
provides an opportunity for City employees to bid on work before
it is subcontracted.

The lawsuit was filed as a class action. The plaintiffs will be
requesting the court to certify the class to include all regular
City employees who were laid off due to a failure of the
defendants to abide by the terms of the ordinance. The suit
seeks lost wages and an order of the court to require the
defendants to abide by the ordinance's provisions.

The plaintiffs allege in their complaint that subcontracting has
been going on since the ordinance has been passed and not one
contract has been subject to the provisions of the ordinance.
These contracts, according to the complaint, provide for labor
costs which are in excess of the labor costs paid by the City to
its employees for the same work. Employees for the Department of
Transportation are paid between $19 and $21 dollars per hour.
One subcontractor located in Chicago, Illinois does the same
work at an hourly rate between $45 and $53 per hour. The effect
of this disparity in rates is that the subcontracting increases
City costs at a time when it can least afford it.

The ordinance requires the City to advise the Council how much
the work that is being let costs the City to perform, whether
the letting of the work will result in a reduction in City
employment, a comparison in the work rules followed by the sub-
contractor compared to those followed by the City, the social
costs of subcontracting and the effect of subcontracting on
accountability. The ordinance requires that the City take into
consideration the social costs of subcontracting such as the
payment of unemployment compensation and the need for public
assistance to unemployed workers.

Al Garrett, a plaintiff who is also President of Michigan AFSCME
Council 25, noted that one of the most significant aspects of
the ordinance is the provision that effected workers have the
opportunity to bid on the work. "Obviously this provision
protects the City by getting the work done in a cost efficient
way while preserving employment opportunities for City workers,"
Garrett said.

"The ordinance was adopted after the citizens of the City voted
to approve the 1997 Charter. That Charter contained provisions
setting up procedures for the letting of City work and called
upon the Council to enact an ordinance effectuating the Charter
provisions. Since the ordinance was passed on March 21, 2004
many contracts have been let for work performed by regular City
employees but not one contract has been subject to the
provisions of the ordinance," Garrett noted.

The Detroit Building Authority was named as a defendant in the
case because it is an agent of the City of Detroit yet
subcontracts City work without bringing those contracts to the
City Council for review. The suit claims that it is used as a
conduit by the City to evade the process for review that City
contracts must observe.

The plaintiffs have filed a request for Production of Documents
seeking copies of contracts for the performance of labor that
have been let since the adoption of the ordinance and lists of
employees laid off since that time. A response to this request,
under the provision of court rules, must be made within 42 days
of receipt of the suit papers.

Bruce A. Miller and Richard G. Mack of Miller Cohen, P.L.C are
prosecuting the suit.

For more details, contact Bruce A. Miller of Miller Cohen,
P.L.C., Phone: +1-313-964-4454.

MISSOURI: AG Files Lawsuit v. 3 Homebuilders For Consumer Fraud
Missouri Attorney General Jay Nixon filed lawsuits against three
home repair businesses that defrauded dozens of St. Louis-area
residents through shoddy work, incomplete jobs, or taking the
homeowners' money without performing any work at all.

"If your home is your castle, these home repair charlatans are
barbarians at the gate," Mr. Nixon said. "If you see them coming
your way, you'd best raise the drawbridge - and keep your hand
on your wallet."

A lawsuit filed in St. Louis County Circuit Court against David
W. Smith, of Edwardsville, Illinois, and James Triplett, East
Carondelet, Illinois, doing business as American Vinyl Touch.
The business allegedly took nearly $84,000 from two dozen St.
Louis-area residents for home repair work, including windows,
roofing, shutters, gutters and siding. Consumers complain that
the work was either shoddy, incomplete, and in several cases,
never done at all. Some of the victims are elderly and living on
fixed incomes.

A lawsuit filed in St. Charles County Circuit Court against Paul
McElrath, Ozark, Missouri, who did business as Amazing Plumbing,
Drain-A-Way Sewer, Drain Busters Plumbing, Sewer and Drain
Service, A.J. Hoffman & Sons Plumbing, Allegiant Plumbing and
Advantage Plumbing. Since 1999, McElrath allegedly charged 25
known consumers, most from the St. Louis region, down payments
ranging from $250 to $8,900 for plumbing work.  Mr. McElrath
never performed the contracted services. In one case a consumer
who paid with a credit card reported that upon receiving her
statement, she discovered that Mr. McElrath had charged more
than $5,800 in personal expenses without her permission.

A third lawsuit, filed in Franklin County Circuit Court, names
Timothy "Bud" Potts, formerly of New Haven, Missouri, owner of
Clinton All State Builders.  Mr. Potts allegedly contracted with
at least 28 individuals, primarily in Franklin County, for the
construction of metal pole barns, metal sheds, storage sheds,
livestock barns, and similar structures.  In August 2004, Mr.
Potts sent all customers with pending and unfinished jobs a form
letter stating that he had to leave the state temporarily due to
an illness in the family. He has never returned, never completed
- and in some cases, even started - any of the contracted work,
has not contacted pending customers, and has not issued any

Mr. Nixon noted that summertime is the time of year when home
repair schemes are the most prevalent, and by taking a few extra
precautions, Missourians can safeguard against becoming a victim
of home repair scams.  Some of those measures include:

     (1) Always check workers' credentials.

     (2) Ask for names and references and call them.

     (3) Get all estimates, guarantees, and the scope of the
         work - including starting and completion dates - in

     (4) Never pay for an entire job in advance.

Mr. Nixon is asking the courts in each jurisdiction where
actions were filed to order the defendants to cease any
fraudulent practices, pay restitution to any victims, and pay
monetary civil penalties.

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

MORGAN STANLEY: Investors Sue To Recover Payout To Former Execs
Morgan Stanley's board of directors faces a class action filed
by prominent class action lawyer William Lerach, alleging that
the directors breached their fiduciary duties by paying two top
executives $113 million in cash, after their resignation,
USAToday.com reports.

The suit alleges that former chief executive officer Philip
Purcell and ally Stephen Crawford, who served as co-president
from March until mid-July did not deserve the bonuses given to
them.  Mr. Purcell received around $81 million in cash and
stock, while Mr. Crawford was awarded $32 million.  Mr. Purcell
was ousted after a long and rancorous battle in which former
executives accused him of mismanagement.  Mr. Crawford, a
prot‚g‚, quit last week to take advantage of a big payout that
would vanish if he stayed beyond August, USAToday.com reports.

The lawsuit, brought in the name of a small Illinois pension
fund that owns 7,000 shares of Morgan Stanley, seeks to recover
the payout.   "This action is necessary," said Ed Smith,
chairman of Central Laborers' Pension Fund, in a conference
call, USAToday reports.  "Escalating CEO pay levels seem to go
on and on. There's got to be some sanity somewhere."

During the call, Mr. Lerach wouldn't comment on a federal
investigation into allegations that his former law firm once
paid kickbacks to a California attorney.  In an indictment last
month, that attorney was accused of posing as an aggrieved
investor so that Mr. Lerach's firm at the time, Milberg Weiss,
could file class-action lawsuits against companies whose stock
prices fell, USAToday reports.

Based on recent rulings in Delaware, where a judge allowed a
similar lawsuit against the board of directors of Disney to
proceed, the Morgan Stanley lawsuit might gain traction, Jack
Coffee, an expert in securities law at Columbia University told
USAToday.  Mr. Coffee says the big payout to Purcell, who had
been CEO since 1997, would be easier to defend, but the $32
million windfall awarded to Mr. Crawford after only three months
as a senior executive "looks disingenuous."

Representatives of Morgan Stanley had no comment, USAToday.com

PAYPAL: Phraudsters Phish for Claimants' Bank Account Details
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on July 19,
2005, the Claims Administrator in In Re PayPal Litigation is
planning to make payments to claimants in three stages in July,
August and September, 2005.

E-mail messages blasted from brett@1v1.webair.com at IP address to claimants in the class action settlement
proceeding last week phished for bank account information.
Phishing is the term used to describe distributing e-mail
messages designed to fool people into providing personal
information via the Web by fooling users with a genuine-
looking message.  If the recipient clicks on a hyperlink
buried in that fake message, they are taken to fake Web site
that will relay the personal information to the perpetrator
of the fraud.

The spoofed e-mail messages distributed last week say:

     [PayPal Logo] The way to send and receive money online


     Congratulations! You have received this Notice because
     the records of PayPal, Inc. indicate you are a current
     or former PayPal account holder who has been deemed
     eligible to receive a payment from the class action
     settlement in accordance with PayPal Litigation,
     Case No. 02 1227 JF PVT, pending in the United States
     District Court for the Northern District of California
     in San Jose.

     In your specific case you have been found to be eligible
     for a payment of $86.99 USD.

     Confirm Your Bank Account.

     Call your bank to find out your 2 deposit amounts from
     PayPal [printed in white text on a white background.]
     The aforementioned settlement funds may be transferred
     directly to your bank account providing you have a linked
     card.  The funds may not be credited directly to your
     PayPal account as this would render Paypal to be
     accumulating interest and thus profiting on litigation
     settlement funds which contravenes Federal law.  Your
     bank account will be credited within 7 days upon submission
     of account details.

     Enter the exact amounts of the 2 deposits into your
     PayPal accoTo credit your bank account please click here
     [redirecting to http://ns2.eworld.net.pk:443/].

     Don't forget to check your bank account for the PayPal
     deposits and get Verified!

     If you are seeking an alternate method of receiving your
     funds PayPal will be contacting those who do not submit
     their details by the 31th of March with instructions to
     receive a cheque in the mail.  However this will incur a
     7.5% processing fee deducted from the settlement amount
     and therefore PayPal only recommends this option to those
     users who do not currently have a bank account with linked
     Bank Card.

     Please Note that under United States federal law credit
     cards are not a legally approved method of settlement for
     Class Action suits and cannot be processed for transferal
     of funds in this case.

     This notice is a summary and does not describe all details
     of the settlement.  For full details of the matters
     discussed in this notice, you may wish to review the
     Settlement Agreement dated January 11, 2005 and on file
     with the Court or visit https://www.paypal.com/settlement/.
     Complete copies of the Settlement Agreement and all other
     pleadings and papers filed in the lawsuit are also
     available for inspection and copying during regular
     business hours, at the Office of the Clerk of the Court,
     United States District Court for the Northern District of
     California, 280 South First Street, San Jose, California

     DATED: July 21, 2005


     This PayPal notification was sent in accordance with your
     PayPal notification preferences.  To modify your
     notification preferences, go here and log in to your
     account.  PayPal will not sell or rent any of your
     personally identifiable information to third parties.

     For more information about the security of your
     information, read our Privacy Policy at here [redirecting
     to http://ns2.eworld.net.pk:443/].

     Replies to this email will not be processed.

     Copyrightc 2005 PayPal, Inc.  All rights reserved.
     Designated trademarks and brands are the property of their
     respective owners.
     PayPal is located at 2211 N. First St., San Jose, CA 95131.

     Thank you for using PayPal!

     The PayPal Team

     Please do not reply to this email.  This mailbox is not
     monitored and you will not receive a  response. For
     assistance, log in [redirecting to
     http://ns2.eworld.net.pk:443/]to your PayPal account and
     choose the Help link located in the top right corner of
     any PayPal page.

     To receive email notifications in plain text instead of
     HTML, update your preferences here [redirecting to

     PayPal Email ID PP4214

PayPal, Inc., confirms that these e-mail messages to the class
action claimants are bogus.

According to PayPal, each claimant in the class action
litigation settlement proceeding will receive an e-mail message
notifying them when the settlement payment has been deposited
into their PayPal account.

Additional information about the litigation and the settlement
is available at https://www.paypal.com/settlement-faq/

PHOEBE PUTNEY: Appeal Filed With GA Court For Overcharging Suit
An Albany, Georgia attorney is appealing a state court decision
to throw out a lawsuit against Phoebe Putney, which claimed
claiming that the non-profit hospital overcharged uninsured
patient, The WALB-TV, Albany reports.

Attorney Ralph Scoccimaro recently filed the appeal with the
Georgia Supreme Court for the case. Class action litigation was
pursued in state court, but last month, Dougherty County
Superior Court Judge John Harvey dismissed the case.

Now, however, Mr. Scoccimaro hopes the state Supreme Court will
reverse that decision. He told WALB-TV, Albany, "If the Supreme
Court sends it back to the trial court, we will then be able to
put the truth before a jury for them to decide. That's all we're
asking for is for a jury to decide the issues in this case."

Currently, Phoebe Putney is one of ten non-profit hospitals in
the nation under investigation by Congress. The Senate Finance
Committee is looking into the hospital's tax-exempt status and
charitable contributions.

PUBLIX SUPER MARKETS: Settles Protracted Disability Suit in FL
In an attempt to settle a 7-year-old federal class action suit,
which charges Publix Super Markets of violating requirements of
the Americans with Disabilities Act, the supermarket chain
promised to improve disabled access at its 857 stores and pay up
to $260,000, The Herald.com reports.

The agreement between Publix and the Association for Disabled
Americans recently received final approval in Miami from U.S.
District Court Judge William M. Hoeveler.

Filed in 1998 by the Miami Beach group and several individual
plaintiffs, the suit charged that Publix violated terms of the
Americans with Disabilities Act. It was primarily based on
violations at seven Publix stores predominantly in Miami-Dade
and Monroe counties, but was later expanded to include all
stores in the five states where Publix operates.  Both sides
stated that the delay in settling did not reflect an
unwillingness by Publix to make changes, but the complexity
involved in a chain with multiple store formats and varying

According to Carol Lumpkin, a Miami attorney representing
Publix, "It would have been easier on the defendant if they were
going to fight." She also adds, "It's because of the
coordination required to create an enhanced environment for
persons with disabilities that it took so long."

Under the settlement, Publix has up to six years to implement
the stipulations the agreement, which according to estimates by
the chain's lawyers would involve millions of dollars in
remodeling.  Additionally, some of the required changes include
adjusting heights of items like ATMs, service counters, deli
ticket number dispensers and produce bags to accommodate people
in wheelchairs. Each store will also get a text telephone and
some stores will get additional handicap parking spaces.

Publix has 30 days to pay $160,000 as a settlement to the
attorneys' fees, costs and litigation expenses for the disabled
plaintiffs. Over the six-year implementation period, Publix is
also required to pay up to $100,000 to cover any additional

Attorneys for both sides told Judge Hoeveler that the company
had agreed to go beyond the level of improvements actually
required under the law. William Charouhis, a Miami attorney who
represented the disabled plaintiffs, even stated, "We were able
to obtain more relief than if we had litigated against each of
the more than 800 stores separately," and added, "Publix was
interested in doing whatever they could to assist their patrons
with disabilities."

Publix spokeswoman Anne Hendricks told The Herald.com that the
company is already more than 85 percent in compliance regarding
the store improvements required by the settlement. In an e-mail
to The Herald.com, Ms. Hendricks said, "Publix started making
the needed changes as soon as we became aware of the problem. We
strive to offer superior customer service to 100 percent of our
customers 100 percent of the time. A big part of that is being

The recent approval by the judge came despite objections from
one former plaintiff, Denny Wood, who argued that he had not
been given enough time to review the settlement. Mr. Wood also
complained that Publix should be prohibited from placing
displays that block access to areas like the fish and deli
counters for patrons in wheelchairs. However, Publix argued that
the law does not require these types of changes.

RENT-A-CENTER INC.: Non-Profit Receives Share in Suit Settlement
Wichita, Kansas non-profit organization Dress for Success
received a $15,000 donation from money left over following a
settlement of a class action filed against Rent-A-Center, Inc.,
the Wichita Business Journal reports.

Rent-A-Center used to be headquartered in Wichita.  In September
1999, an action was filed against the Company in federal court
in the Western District of Tennessee by the US Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC), alleging that the Company engaged
in gender discrimination with respect to four named females and
other unnamed female employees and applicants within the
Company's Tennessee and Arkansas region.  The allegations
underlying this EEOC action involve charges of wrongful
termination and denial of promotion, disparate impact and
failure to hire.  The group of individuals on whose behalf EEOC
seeks relief is approximately seventy individuals.

In August 2000, a putative nationwide class action was filed
against the Company in federal court in East St. Louis, Illinois
by Claudine Wilfong and eighteen other plaintiffs, alleging that
the Company engaged in class-wide gender discrimination
following its acquisition of Thorn Americas.  The allegations
underlying Wilfong involve charges of wrongful termination,
constructive discharge, disparate treatment and disparate
impact.  In addition, the EEOC filed a motion to intervene on
behalf of the plaintiffs, which the court granted on May 14,
2001.  On December 27, 2001, the court granted the plaintiff's
motion for class certification.

In December 2000, similar suits filed by Margaret Bunch and
Tracy Levings in federal court in the Western District of
Missouri were amended to allege class action claims similar to
those in Wilfong.

In November 2001, the Company announced that it has reached an
agreement in principle for the settlement of the Bunch matter.
Under the terms of the Bunch settlement, while not admitting any
liability, the Company agreed to pay an aggregate of $12.25
million to the agreed upon class, plus plaintiffs' attorneys
fees as determined by the court and costs to administer the
settlement subject to an aggregate cap of $3.15 million.  On
November 29, 2001, the court in Bunch granted preliminary
approval of the settlement and set a fairness hearing on such
settlement for March 6, 2002.

In early March 2002, the Company reached an agreement in
principle with the plaintiffs' attorneys in Wilfong and the EEOC
to resolve the Wilfong suit and the Tennessee EEOC action.  At
the parties' request, the court in the Bunch case stayed the
proceedings in that case, including postponing the fairness
hearing previously scheduled for March 6, 2002.

Similarly, the court in the Tennessee EEOC action stayed the
proceeding in that case.  The definitive settlement agreement
documents were filed with the Wilfong court in June 2002, and
the court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on June
19, 2002.  The court held a fairness hearing, approved the
settlement and entered its order and judgment of final approval
on October 4, 2002.  Assuming there are no appeals, the order
and judgment will become effective on December 4, 2002.

Under the terms of the Wilfong settlement, while not admitting
any liability, the Company agreed to pay an aggregate of $47.0
million to approximately 6,000 female employees and
approximately 2,300 female applicants who were employed by or
applied for employment with the Company during the period
commencing on April 19, 1998 and ending on June 19, 2002, plus
up to $375,000 in settlement administrative

The $47.0 million payment includes the $12.25 million payment
discussed in connection with the Bunch settlement.  Attorney
fees of approximately $10.5 million for class counsel in Wilfong
will be paid out of the $47.0 million settlement fund.  Pursuant
to the settlement procedures approved by the court,
approximately fifty class members opted out of the settlement.

In June 2002, the Company separately agreed to contribute an
additional $2.0 million to a dispute resolution fund in which
approximately 100 class members in Bunch will participate.  This
dispute resolution fund has been approved by the Bunch court and
counsel to the plaintiffs in Bunch support the dispute
resolution fund and the Wilfong settlement.

The $47 million settlement in 2002 was one of the largest in the
country for women in a sex discrimination case. The $15,000
check was given to Dress for Success Thursday, July 21.  Dress
for Success is a nonprofit that gives clothing to low-income
women looking for jobs. It also provides education and job
skills for those looking for work.  Executive Director Pat Jones
told the Business Journal that the money will be used to expand
those services.

SAN FRANCISCO: Student Groups Commence Discrimination Lawsuit
The San Francisco State University faces a lawsuit filed on
behalf of two student groups, Students Against War and the
International Socialist Organization, alleging the university
violated its own policies on discrimination, SF Bayview.com

The National Lawyers Guild attorneys filed the suit, which arose
from a protest against military recruiters on campus on March 9.
The suit alleges SFSU administrators violated their own policies
against discrimination and the due process rights of the student
organizations by punishing them at the end of an unfair
disciplinary process.

"It is appalling that university officials would choose to
punish students for basic free speech activity, while allowing
military recruiters on their campus in violation of their own
anti-discrimination policy," Sharon Adams, an attorney member of
the NLG, told Bayview.com.

Recruiters eventually left the March 9 job fair when they
realized they would not be able to recruit students - an
enormous victory for these student groups, Bayview.com reports.

TRILLIUM BANQUET: Reaches Settlement For E. Coli Poisoning Suit
The former owners of Trillium Banquet Hall in Mississauga,
Ontario, Canada agreed to settle a class action filed against it
by high school students and other guests who fell ill with E.
coli poisoning after attending events at the hall, the
Mississauga News reports.

In June 2003, forty-one E. C. Drury High School students became
ill after eating food at the banquet hall during their
graduation.  The Peel Region Health Department immediately
investigated 117 people who reported having symptoms associated
with food borne illness after eating at the hall between June 25
to 29.  Out of the 117, 85 attended the EC Drury graduation.  46
tested positive for E. coli 0157:H7, an earlier Class Action
Reporter story (July 31,2003) reports.  The department tested
samples from food, water, the kitchen environment and food
handlers through the Central Public Health Laboratory, but
despite a thorough investigation, they couldn't determine how
the contamination started.

At least 150 people will take part in the settlement, under
which the Company agreed to put up $1 million in insurance,
available to "all persons who attended at Trillium Banquet Hall
between June 25, 2003 and June 29, 2003 and all persons who were
secondarily infected with E. coli as a result of contact with a
person who attended (the hall between the same dates)."
Complainants will be paid on a scale of $500-$5,000 depending on
the severity of the infection, according to the proposed
settlement, the Mississauga News reports.  A person who was sick
for three days gets $500, while a person who displayed symptoms
for more than a month receives $5,000.

A superior court judge will hold an approval hearing on August
15, when he will review the settlement in a Brampton courtroom.
The proposed settlement states that "Trillium Banquet Hall Inc.
and Brunel Food Services Inc. do not admit any wrongdoing or
liability. The proposed settlement is a compromise of disputed

Trillium's lawyer, Steven Stieber, said the hall's insurer
apologized "on behalf of the banquet hall," to those who were
infected and their families.  "We feel this is a fair and
reasonable settlement," he told Mississauga News.

Sharon Strosberg, the lawyer representing the students, said
many people suffered and deserve to be compensated.  "Many of
the (students) became ill with symptoms of E. coli. They were
scared and worried because they didn't know what was happening
to them," she told Mississauga News. "They suffered as a

The money to be paid out is for the symptoms incurred, but
complainants can also file claims for lost income and other
damages, Ms. Strosberg added.

WALGREEN CO.: Workers Allege Nationwide Racial Discrimination
In a class action lawsuit that was filed in U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Illinois, eleven current and former
Walgreens Co. (dba "Walgreens") workers in seven states are
accusing the drugstore chain of systemic racial discrimination
and segregation against black employees nationwide, The Madison
County Record reports.

The suit, which seeks back pay, front pay, promotions, hiring
and benefits, as well as punitive and compensatory damages, also
asks that Walgreen be ordered to carry out affirmative action

According to the suit, "These decisions to discriminate and
segregate are based in most instances on very subjective
judgments of predominantly white upper level management."

As previously reported in the June 22, 2005 edition of the Class
Action Reporter, the suit is specifically claiming that
Deerfield, Illinois-based company has a "pervasive policy" of
steering black employees to work in stores in areas with mostly
black or lower-income customers, using an internal system to
categorize stores based on race and income.

In addition, the suit also alleges that black employees are
denied advancement opportunities because the company directs
them to its stores with lower profits, sometimes costing them
bonuses often tied to store sales and gross profits. It also
alleges that Walgreen categorizes its stores based on racial,
ethnic and income demographics and then uses that information to
intentionally "segregate" black management workers at stores
with large numbers of black or low-income customers.

The class covers more than 4,700 stores in 44 states. Walgreen,
which is the nation's largest drugstore chain by sales, has more
than 4,800 stores in 45 states and Puerto Rico, and 2004 sales
of $37 billion.

The plaintiffs in the suit include:

     (1) John Tucker, a clerk in Missouri

     (2) Angela Miller, a former store manager in Missouri

     (3) Jovan Haney, an assistant store manager in Indiana

     (4) Leon Bradley, an executive store assistant in Missouri

     (5) Arien Jackson, a former assistant store manager

     (6) William Strickland, an executive store assistant

     (7) Oscar Green, a store manager in Florida

     (8) Kevin Riddle, an executive store assistant in Florida

     (9) Avery Anderson, a store manager in Michigan

    (10) Malica Page, a former service clerk in Missouri

According to the suit, relief is also being sought for:

     (i) Denying black employees promotions in retail and non-
         retail management based on race

    (ii) Deterring and prohibiting black employees from seeking
         more desirable and/or higher paying positions and
         promotional opportunities

   (iii) Denying black employees training

    (iv) Assigning and segregating blacks to harder, less
         profitable store locations than white persons

     (v) Assigning and segregating black employees to locations
         and facilities in areas that have predominantly lower
         income customers

    (vi) Providing unequal terms and conditions of employment

   (vii) Subjecting black employees to a racially discriminatory
         work environment; and

  (viii) Failing to hire blacks into the Assistant Store
         Manager/Management Trainee positions on the same basis
         as whites.

The class is being represented by Tiffany B. Klosener, Amy L.
Coopman and W. James Foland of the Foland, Wickens, Eisfelder,
Roper & Hofer firm in Kansas City and Kent Spriggs of the
Spriggs Law Firm in Tallahassee, Florida.

WASHINGTON GROUP: $39 Mil Settlement Over 2001 Bankruptcy Ready
Individuals who invested in Washington Group International
before it went bankrupt in 2001 were officially awarded their
$39 million settlement last week, however attorneys are now
facing the difficult task of identifying who will get the money,
The Idaho Statesman reports.

The lawsuit began in 2001 after WGI filed for bankruptcy. WGI
blamed the bankruptcy on Raytheon Co. for misrepresenting the
financial condition of its subsidiary, Raytheon Engineers &
Constructors, when WGI purchased that subsidiary in 2000. Stocks
became worthless as a result of the bankruptcy so WGI
shareholders who bought stocks or bonds after the purchase filed
a class action lawsuit against Raytheon.

Last April, without admitting to any wrongdoing, Raytheon agreed
to settle the shareholders' lawsuit by paying them $39 million,
which U.S. District Judge B. Lynn Winmill approved on July 11.

However, the shareholders will only receive about $26.4 million
in the settlement because about $12.6 million will go toward
attorneys' fees and reimbursing the lawyers for money they spent
preparing the case. The shareholders' portion of the money will
be divided on a per-share basis among the people who file their
proof of claims by the deadline in October.

According to attorney Philip Gordon, he has sent out more than
25,000 proof of claims to eligible shareholders. He told The
Idaho Statesman that people are eligible if they bought WGI
stocks or bonds after April 17, 2000, the date WGI purchased
Raytheon's Engineers & Constructors division, and before March
2, 2001, which is when WGI filed a lawsuit against Raytheon,
claiming the company hid $700 million in overrun costs.

Mr. Gordon explained to The Idaho Statesman that to claim their
money, shareholders must fill out the proof of claims and mail
them back to him no later than October 20. Assuming about 25,000
people return the claims, each shareholder could earn about
$1,054 per share, he said. Additionally, He pointed out, "We
want to let everybody know that my office is available in
assisting them in filling out their proof of claims. We are
really hoping that no class member will miss out on what we
perceive to be a good settlement."

ZYPREXA LITIGATION: Complaints Continue Over Drug Side Effects
Zyprexa-related complaints continue to come in through the
website: http://www.lawyersandsettlements.comwhile Eli Lilly &
Co settle with $700 million dollar in damages, hoping it will
fulfill the majority of nationwide patient grievances.

In recent nationwide news and lawsuits, Eli Lilly & Co. has
received attention from the FDA, doctors, patients, and their
lawyers for complaints of hyperglycemia and diabetes from
unrevealed Zyprexa side effects. Zyprexa (Olanzapine) is
typically prescribed to those with symptoms of schizophrenia,
dementia, bipolar mania disorder, or other similar mental
illnesses. This widely prescribed drug now claims several
adverse side effects including risk of hyperglycemia, diabetes,
strokes, tardive dyskinesia (TD), and neuroleptic malignant
syndrome (NMS), a life-threatening problem affecting kidneys and
nervous system. To date, there have been 288 reported diabetes
cases and 23 alleged fatalities from Zyprexa.

Eli Lilly & Co. is accused of heavily promoting Zyprexa as a
safe and effective drug for psychotic disorders, while virtually
concealing the risks of side effects from doctors and patients.
This current settlement only covers the cases of diabetes-
related conditions from using Zyprexa prior to the warning label
changes in 2003.

While the health and drug control agencies of Japan and Great
Britain issued Zyprexa warnings in 2002, the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration approved the drug's continued distribution. Then
in September 2003, the FDA required label warning changes for
Zyprexa and all atypical anti-psychotic drugs. In a recent
analysis, the FDA noted that older patients using Zyprexa, an
atypical antipsychotic, had "a higher chance for death than
patients who did not take the medicine".

Zyprexa has been the blockbuster drug for Eli Lilly, bringing in
over $4 billion of its $13 billion net sales in 2004. The global
pharmaceutical giant produces other drugs for psychotic
disorders such as Prozac, Strattera, and Symbyax.

For more information, contact the Online Legal Services Ltd. by
Phone: 604-608-3435 or visit the Website:

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

GUIDANT CORPORATION: Goldman Scarlato Lodges IN Securities Suit
The law firm of Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C., initiated
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Indiana, on behalf of persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of Guidant
Corporation ("Guidant" or the "Company") (NYSE: GDT) between
December 15, 2004 and June 23, 2005, inclusive, (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit was filed against Guidant and certain
officers and directors ("Defendants").

The complaint alleges that Defendants violated the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. Specifically, on December 15, 2004,
Guidant management entered into a merger with Johnson & Johnson,
valued at $24.5 billion. While Guidant asserted its
defibrillator business was a key component to the value it was
able to exact in the deal for its shares, the Complaint alleges
that Guidant concealed from investors and patients material
product defects and potential liabilities of its defibrillator
product lines, thus inflating its share price. More
specifically, the complaint alleges that Guidant knew but
concealed that serious health issues encountered by patients
were caused by the defective nature of the defibrillators, and
that the disclosure of the product issues could potentially
derail a merger with Johnson & Johnson.

On June 17, 2005, the FDA issued a national recall notice, after
deaths had been linked to the failure of a magnetic switch. In
that notice, the FDA advised the public that the malfunction
could lead to serious life-threatening issues for a patient. In
reaction to this news, Guidant's shares fell $3.36, losing 4.5%
of their value in the two days following the FDA recall. On June
24, 2005, Guidant announced that it would voluntarily advise
physicians about important safety information regarding a number
of its defibrillator products. The Company indicated that as a
precautionary measure, physicians should discontinue implants of
the suspect devices. In reaction to this news, Guidant fell
$4.70 per share, or approximately 6.9% to close at $63.90 per

For more details, contact Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C., Phone:
(888) 753-2796, E-mail: Scarlato@gsk-law.com.

GUIDANT CORPORATION: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit in IN
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP initiated a
class action lawsuit was filed on July 22, 2005, on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Guidant Corporation ("Guidant"
or the "Company") (NYSE: GDT) between December 1, 2004 and June
23, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act").

The action, numbered 05-CV-1078-LJM-WTL, is pending in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
Indiana, Indianapolis Division, against defendants Guidant,
Ronald W. Dollens (CEO, President), Guido J. Neels (COO), Keith
E. Brauer and Peter J. Mariani.

The Complaint alleges that, defendants' positive Class Period
press releases and SEC filings were materially false and
misleading because:

     (1) a material portion of the Company's defibrillator
         products contained life-threatening defects;

     (2) the unsafe defibrillators presented a material,
         undisclosed risk to investors;

     (3) the Company faced tens and potentially hundreds of
         millions of dollars in unreserved liabilities related
         to the defective defibrillators, such that the
         Company's financial statements were not true or
         accurate or in compliance with Generally Accepted
         Accounting Principles ("GAAP");

     (4) as a result of the significant product defects in
         Guidant's defibrillators, the Company foreseeably faced
         a massive, expensive product recall, which would
         undermine the Company's market credibility, future
         sales of Guidant products and profitability; and

     (5) defendants lacked any reasonable basis to claim that
         Guidant was operating according to plan, or that the
         Company could maintain its growth in sales of
         defibrillators in the foreseeable near-term.

On June 17, 2005, Guidant announced a recall of approximately
50,000 defibrillators. Then, on June 24, 2005, before the open
of trading, defendants announced that it was investigating the
safety of certain defibrillator components and advised doctors
to "discontinue implants of these devices pending further
notice." In reaction to this announcement, the price of Guidant
stock fell to $63.90 per share, from $68.60 per share on June
22, 2005, on unusually heavy trading volume.

Defendants were motivated to engage in the wrongdoing alleged in
the complaint because it enabled company insiders to sell over
866,515 Guidant shares at artificially inflated prices, for
proceeds exceeding $63.5million.

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:

MAJESCO ENTERTAINMENT: Federman & Sherwood Lodges Lawsuit in NJ
The law firm of Federman & Sherwood initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey against Majesco Entertainment Company (Nasdaq: COOL).

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5, including allegations against certain officers
and directors that they issued a series of material
misrepresentations to the market which had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price. The class period is
from December 8, 2004 through July 12, 2005.

For more details, contact William B. Federman of Federman &
Sherwood, 120 N. Robinson, Suite 2720, Oklahoma City, OK, 73102,
Phone: (405) 235-1560, Fax: (405) 239-2112, E-Mail:
wfederman@aol.com, Web site: http://www.federmanlaw.com.

OCA INC.: Kaplan Fox Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in E.D. LA
The law firm of Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP initiated a class
action suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana against OCA, Inc. ("OCA" or the "Company")
(NYSE:OCA) and certain of its officers and directors, on behalf
of all persons or entities who purchased the publicly traded
common stock of OCA between May 18, 2004 and June 7, 2005 (the
"Class Period").

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange
Act of 1934 by publicly issuing a series of false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's financial condition, thus
causing OCA's shares to trade at artificially inflated levels.

On March 17, 2005, OCA announced that it was delaying the filing
of its annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December
31, 2004 because the Company had "not yet completed the closing
procedures required to prepare and finalize its annual financial
statements or its assessment of internal control over financial
reporting under Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002."
On April 15, 2005, the Company announced that CFO David M.
Verret would resign his position with the Company in May 2005.

On June 7, 2005, OCA disclosed that "(t)he Company anticipates
further delay in completing its 2004 financial close process and
audit and in filing the Form 10-K and Form 10-Q . . ." The
Company further revealed that "it has identified certain errors
in its calculation of patient receivables reported during 2004,
and has determined that the amount of patient receivables
reported at each of March 31, June 30 and September 30, 2004 was
overstated by material amounts (and that) . . . (t)he Company's
Audit Committee has concluded that, due to these overstatements,
these previously issued quarterly financial statements will need
to be restated and should no longer be relied upon." OCA's Board
of Directors "has appointed a Special Committee to review
certain journal entries recorded in the Company's general ledger
(and) . . . is reviewing certain alleged changes in data
provided to the Company's independent registered public
accounting firm."

The Company also announced that "(p)ending completion of the
internal review, the Company has placed Bartholomew F.
Palmisano, Jr., the Company's Chief Operating Officer, on
administrative leave."

On June 7, 2005, as a result of these disclosures, the price of
OCA common stock declined from $4.03 to $2.48 per share, a
decline of approximately 38%, on unusually heavy volume.

For more details, contact Frederic S. Fox, Jeffrey P. Campisi or
Joel B. Strauss of Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, 805 Third Ave.,
22nd Floor, New York, NY, 10022, Phone: (800) 290-1952 or
(212) 687-1980, Fax: (212) 687-7714, E-mail address:
mail@kaplanfox.com OR Laurence D. King of Kaplan Fox &
Kilsheimer, LLP, 555 Montgomery Street, Suite 1501, San
Francisco, California, 94111, Phone: (415) 772-4700, Fax:
415-772-4707, E-mail address: mail@kaplanfox.com.

PEMSTAR INC.: Glancy Binkow Schedules Lead Plaintiff Deadline
The law firm of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, which is
representing shareholders of PEMSTAR, Inc., reminds all parties
that there are only 24 days remaining to move to be a lead
plaintiff in the shareholder lawsuit. All persons and
institutions who purchased PEMSTAR, Inc. ("PEMSTAR" or the
"Company") (Nasdaq:PMTR) securities between January 29, 2003 and
January 24, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"), may ask the
Court not later than August 15, 2005, to serve as lead
plaintiff, however, you must meet certain legal requirements.

The Complaint charges PEMSTAR and certain of the Company's
executive officers with violations of federal securities laws.
PEMSTAR Inc. provides a range of global engineering, product
design, automation and test, manufacturing and fulfillment
services and solutions to its customers in the communications,
computing and data storage, industrial equipment and medical
industries. The Complaint alleges that, in order to make the
Company more competitive, defendants sought to and did
manipulate PEMSTAR's financials to inflate the Company's share
price and bolster the Company's opportunities to generate sales
from clients who might otherwise lack confidence in the Company.
To compete, PEMSTAR claimed it had superior engineering
capabilities, product quality, and flexibility and timeliness in
responding to design and schedule changes. The Complaint alleges
defendants knew but concealed from the public material adverse
facts, including that:

     (1) the Company, internally, needed margins of at least 9%
         in order to achieve profitability but was years away --
         if ever -- from achieving profitability or even
         breaking even;

     (2) the Company's financial results were false and

     (3) the Company had understated its liabilities associated
         with its Mexican facilities;

     (4) the Company's accounts receivables were overstated as
         this asset was materially impaired; and

     (5) as a result, certain of defendants' projections for the
         Company's financial results were materially false and

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


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

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


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  * * *