/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/050728.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, July 28, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 148


ALDERWOODS GROUP: Faces 3 Casket Price Antitrust Suits in CA, TN
ALDERWOODS GROUP: Faces Nationwide Consumer Fraud Lawsuit in CA
BRAKES PLUS: CT AG Files "Ghost Emissions Tests" Fraud Lawsuit
BUCA INC.: Parties Reach Settlement for CA Overtime Wage Lawsuit
CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Penn Capital Lodges Lawsuit Over Dolan Plan

CARDIZEM CD: FL Consumers To Get Share in Antitrust Settlement
CARDSYSTEMS SOLUTIONS: CEO Says Firm Might Go Out of Business
CARIBOU COFFEE: Former Managers Launch Overtime Pay Suit in MN
DAIMLERCHRYSLER SERVICES: Settles NJ Racial Discrimination Suit
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Appeals Court Dismisses Disability Lawsuit

GERBER SCIENTIFIC: Ex-Officers Settle SEC Enforcement Actions
H&M: Recalls 750 Baby Denim, Knit Jackets Due to Injury Hazard
HERON CAY: Opening Arguments Begin For Homeowners' Suit in FL
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: NZ Sugar Farmers Hail Fraud Suit V. Splenda
LIBERTY LIFE: Starts Handing Out Settlement Checks to Minorities

LONE STAR: Forges Settlement For CA Securities, Derivative Suit
MASTERCARD INTERNATIONAL: CA Judge Dismisses Merchants' Lawsuit
MERIX CORPORATION: SEC Files Insider Trading Case V. Brothers
PHILIP MORRIS: KS Residents Sue Over False "Lights" Advertising
PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Faces Suits Over Franconia Deli Products Recall

PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Plaintiff Voluntarily Dismissed From Bias Suit
PRUDENTIAL EQUITY: Reaches Settlement For SEC Investor Lawsuit
QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: SEC Settles Claims V. Former Executive VP
RADIO FLYER: Recalls 38T Classic Walker Wagons For Injury Hazard
RJ REYNOLDS: CT, Eight States File False Advertising Suit in VT

TASER INTERNATIONAL: Southern NV Police Oppose Stun Gun Lawsuits
VIOXX LITIGATION: Lawyers Block Physician's Testimony in TX Suit

                 New Securities Fraud Cases

CONAGRA FOODS: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
CYBERONICS INC.: Scott + Scott Provides Litigation Update
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Schiffrin & Barroway Files NY Stock Suit
POSSIS MEDICAL: Emerson Poynter Sets Lead Plaintiff Deadline
RAMP CORPORATION: Federman & Sherwwod Lodges Stock Suit in NY


ALDERWOODS GROUP: Faces 3 Casket Price Antitrust Suits in CA, TN
Alderwoods Group, Inc. faces several class actions filed in
Tennessee and California federal courts, on behalf of all
persons and entities that have purchased caskets in the United

The first suit, styled "Funeral Consumers Alliance, Inc. et al
v. Alderwoods Group, Inc. et al, case no. C0501804," is pending
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.  The suit, filed in April 2005 and served on the
Company in May 2005, is a purported class action on behalf of
all persons and entities that have purchased caskets in the
United & States.

The suit names as defendants the Company and four other public
companies involved in the funeral or casket industry.  The
plaintiffs allege that defendants violated federal and state
antitrust laws by engaging in anticompetitive practices with
respect to sales of caskets and overcharged for caskets. The
lawsuit seeks injunctions, an unspecified amount of monetary
damages and treble damages.

A second suit, styled "Ralph Fancher et al v. Alderwoods Group,
Inc. et al, case no. 2:05CV145," is pending in the United States
District Court, Eastern District of Tennessee at Greenville.
This lawsuit, filed and served on the Company in May 2005, makes
claims similar to those made in the Funeral Consumers Alliance
lawsuit, again purporting to allege a national class action and
seeking relief which would be essentially duplicative of that
sought in the Funeral Consumers Alliance lawsuit.

A third lawsuit, styled "Maria Magsarili, et al v. Alderwoods
Group, Inc. et al, case no. C052792MEJ," is pending in the
United States District Court, Northern District of California.
This lawsuit, filed and served on the Company in July 2005,
makes claims similar to those made in the Funeral Consumers
Alliance lawsuit and Fancher lawsuit described above, purporting
to allege a national class action and seeking relief which would
be essentially duplicative of the other two suits.

ALDERWOODS GROUP: Faces Nationwide Consumer Fraud Lawsuit in CA
Alderwoods Group, Inc. faces a class action filed in the
Superior Court for the State of California for the County of Los
Angeles, Central District, styled "Richard Sanchez el al v.
Alderwoods Group, Inc. et al, case no. BC328962."

This lawsuit, filed in February 2005 and served on the Company
in April 2005, seeks to certify a nationwide class on behalf of
all plaintiffs who purchased funeral goods and services from the
Company.  Plaintiffs allege that federal and California
regulations and statutes required the Company to disclose its
markups on all items obtained from third parties in connection
with funeral service contracts and that the failure to make
certain disclosures of markups resulted in breach of contract
and other legal claims.  Plaintiffs seek to recover an
unspecified amount of monetary damages, attorneys' fees, costs
and unspecified "injunctive and declaratory relief."

BRAKES PLUS: CT AG Files "Ghost Emissions Tests" Fraud Lawsuit
Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal reached a
settlement with Brakes Plus garage over "ghost" emission tests,
the Attorney General announced in a statement.

"Brakes Plus violated the public trust and helped pollute our
air by passing vehicles that should have failed," Mr. Blumenthal
said. "This garage's illegal action - ghost testing - was
unconscionable, causing more toxins to be spewed into
Connecticut's environment and misleading consumers. This
settlement sends a powerful message: Anyone illegally exploiting
this program and preying on the public will pay a swift and
severe price.

"My investigation is continuing, and I will vigorously pursue
legal action against any unscrupulous garage owners who corrupt
this vital anti-pollution program. These wrongdoers are a small
minority of station owners involved in this program, and they do
a disservice to the great majority who are honest and
hardworking," he added.

"Gov. Rell believes that integrity in this program is critical
to customer confidence," Department of Motor Vehicles
Commissioner Ralph J. Carpenter said.  "I will continue to root
out fraud wherever it is found."

"Emissions testing is one of those programs that is least liked
by the public; nonetheless it's a federal mandate," Department
of Consumer Protection Commissioner Edwin R. Rodriguez said.
"It is essential to keep public confidence in the garages that
are contracted to do emissions testing in order for the program
to be successful."

Under the settlement, the Company will pay the state $15,000,
plus $500 for attorneys' fees.  DMV removed the Company, located
at 438 Coleman St., New London, and five other garages from the
emissions program last year after a joint DMV-DCP investigation
uncovered evidence they were ghost-testing vehicles.

Mr. Blumenthal's office continues to pursue actions filed in
September against the other five garages, Advanced Automotive
LLC of Griswold, Biggins Auto Repair LLC of Willimantic, Blue
Hills Getty of Bloomfield, John's Auto and Truck Repair Inc. of
Danbury and Le Mans 24 Inc. of the Cos Cob. DMV removed all five
garages from the testing program about a year ago.

BUCA INC.: Parties Reach Settlement for CA Overtime Wage Lawsuit
Parties in the class action filed against Buca, Inc. in the Los
Angeles County Superior Court in California reached a settlement
for the suit after entering mediation.

Two of the Company's former hourly employees initially filed the
suit in March 2004 in the Orange County Superior Court, State of
California.  The action was later transferred to the Los Angeles
Court.  The complaint alleges causes of action for failure to
pay wages/overtime, failure to allow meal breaks, failure to
allow rest breaks, failure to pay reporting time pay, violation
of California Business & Professions Code Section 17200, and
certain statutory damages and penalties.

Mediation occurred in February 2005, at which time the parties
reached a tentative settlement. The settlement has not yet been
approved by the court. The proposed settlement structure is
expected to result in a liability which the Company currently
estimates to be between $1.5 and $2.0 million.  The actual
amount under the proposed settlement structure will be dependent
on how many members of the putative class file timely claims,
assuming judicial approval.

CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Penn Capital Lodges Lawsuit Over Dolan Plan
Investment management firm, Penn Capital Management initiated a
lawsuit challenging the Dolan family's plan to take Cablevision
Systems Corporation private without considering other potential
bidders, Newsday (Melville, N.Y.) reports.

The lawsuit, which was filed in Delaware Chancery Court states
that the Cablevision board "has chosen to abrogate its fiduciary
duties through exclusive pursuit of the proposal to allow the
Dolans to take the cable business private and retain control of
Cablevision's remaining operating businesses."

The Dolans, who control 71 percent of the company's shareholder
votes, proposed on June 19 paying stockholders $21 per share in
cash for the telecommunications operations after spinning off
the sports operations, including Madison Square Garden, and the
entertainment operations to shareholders. The family previously
stated that they would not consider offers from other possible
bidders for its 20 percent stake. The board chose a special
committee of independent directors to review the proposal.

Seeking class action status, the suit is at least the third to
be filed challenging the Dolan plan, but apparently the first by
an investment firm rather than an individual shareholder.

Penn Capital, which is based in Cherry Hill, N.J., also in the
suit criticized Cablevision's board for shrinking the committee
from three to two directors without explaining why and for
declining to identify committee members for weeks. It stated
that the $7.9-billion plan for the company grew out of a months-
long battle between Cablevision chairman Charles Dolan and his
chief executive son, James, over the fate of the now-shut Voom
satellite TV venture. Charles Dolan would be chairman of the
private company, and James would be chairman of the public
Rainbow Media spin-off.  The suit also states, "The Dolans'
proposal is triggered largely by a family feud between Charles
and James Dolan, who seek to divide Cablevision between them so
each will have a personal fiefdom to control."

CARDIZEM CD: FL Consumers To Get Share in Antitrust Settlement
More than $2.5 million in checks are now on their way to Florida
consumers and public agencies from two prescription drug
settlements, Florida Attorney General Charlie Crist announced in
a statement. More than 5,600 individual Floridians who overpaid
for the common heart medication Cardizem CD should begin
receiving their checks.

The checks mailed to consumers come as part of the Cardizem CD
settlement, reached in January 2003 to resolve antitrust claims
against Aventis Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Andrx Corporation and
affiliated entities. Florida consumers who previously submitted
valid claims will share $1.95 million in restitution to cover
amounts they overpaid for the medication. The settlement
represents the third highest consumer recovery ever among
Florida pharmaceutical antitrust cases in which restitution has
been made to consumers. Based on the number of claims received
from residents, Florida will receive more for consumer
restitution than any other state.

"Obviously, when Floridians are able to get back money they
overpaid for necessary medical care, it's a good day in the
state of Florida," said Mr. Crist. "These settlements will help
us keep our citizens in good health while easing undue financial

A separate settlement, involving the anti-inflammatory drug
Relafen, was reached in February between the Attorney General's
Office and SmithKline Beecham Corporation and SmithKline
Beecham, Plc. The settlement resolved allegations that public
entities overpaid for medications because SmithKline's conduct
prevented a low-priced generic equivalent of Relafen from being
available. Florida taxpayers will recover $597,000 to make up
for overcharges paid by the state's Medicaid program and other
state and local public health entities. Attorney General Crist
has also filed a claim for more than $480,000 from a private
class action settlement to reimburse the state for purchases it
made on behalf of government employees. Attorney General's
Offices in Florida, Maryland and New York negotiated the
settlement on behalf of all 50 states, as well as the District
of Columbia and U.S. territories.

Since 2003, the Attorney General's Antitrust Division has
produced close to $37 million in recoveries in antitrust

CARDSYSTEMS SOLUTIONS: CEO Says Firm Might Go Out of Business
Beleaguered data company CardSystems Solutions, Incl. says it
may go out of business due because of the business it's lost
since a major security breach, ConsumerAffairs.com reports.

The Company's chief executive officer John Perry said in a
testimony before a House Financial Services subcommittee, that
the firm might have to shut down after Visa USA, Inc. and
American Express severed its ties with them last week.

In June 2005, hackers installed a rogue computer program that
extracted data, potentially compromising as many as 22 million
Visa-branded cards and 14 million MasterCard-branded cards, as
well as others.  According to news reports, records on about
200,000 credit cards may have been stolen, but not birth dates
or Social Security numbers.

On June 17,2005, MasterCard International also issued a
statement notifying its member financial institutions of a
breach of payment card data, which potentially exposed more than
40 million cards of all brands to fraud, of which approximately
13.9 million are MasterCard-branded cards. The Company's team of
security experts identified that the breach occurred at the
Tucson-based Company.  The security breach occurred after
CardSystems the Company inappropriately held onto card data for
"research purposes" rather than deleting it, an earlier Class
Action Reporter story (June 5,2005) states.

Last week, Visa USA, Inc. and American Express Co. announced it
was breaking away from the Company.  Mr. Perry called the
industry response "Draconian" and stated that it would put 115
people out of work, Newsday reports.

Visa has agreed to put off its business termination date with
CardSystems until October 31st, 2005, pending a meeting between
Visa representatives and the Company to determine if the
relationship can be salvaged, and to allow merchants time to set
up alternative credit processing solutions so as not to disrupt
business, The Washington Post reported.

Rep. Rick Renzi (R-Ariz.) scheduled the hearing. Most of
CardSystems' operations are based in Tucson, where most of the
job losses would occur.

MasterCard has said that it is monitoring the Company for
"compliance" with its standards on a weekly basis, and that it
has given the company until August 31st to submit a better
business plan, ConsumerAffairs.com reports.

The Company also faces a class action lawsuit in California
alleging it was negligent and in "violation of Payment Card
Industry Data Standard(s), and rules and regulations it was
bound to obey for the benefit of consumers concerning the
storage of consumers' private identifying transaction and credit
card information."

Mr. Perry said his company is "still working with the payment
card networks, as well as with our customers, who have stood by
us as we have investigated this attack on our system,"
ConsumerAffairs.com reports.

CARIBOU COFFEE: Former Managers Launch Overtime Pay Suit in MN
Three former Caribou Coffee managers from Minnesota filed a
nationwide wage and overtime class action lawsuit in Hennepin
County Court against Caribou. The class action suit, first
served on Caribou on May 25, 2005, charges Caribou with
wrongfully denying overtime pay due to current and former
Caribou store managers and managers-in-training (MITs).

The lawsuit contends that Caribou misclassified its Store
Manager and MIT positions as exempt under the Minnesota and
Federal Fair Labor Standards Acts to avoid paying overtime
compensation. It also alleges that Store Managers and MITs
worked over 40 hours per week and spent the majority of their
time engaged in non-managerial "barista" work, such as waiting
on customers, making various coffee drinks, serving the
customers, ringing up the sales and the like. Consequently,
according to the complaint, Store Managers and MITs should have
been paid overtime for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours
per week.

"Caribou directed me to work a minimum of 55 hours per week,"
said former manager and current plaintiff Daniel Williams-
Goldberg. "Some weeks I worked much more than the required 55
hours, and Caribou never paid me overtime. Instead, Caribou told
me to 'do what it takes' to get the job done. The primary goals
of this lawsuit are to change the way Caribou treats these
Managers and MITs, and to recover lost overtime wages," added
Williams- Goldberg.

"These employees work incredibly long hours -- this lawsuit
seeks a structural change at Caribou that guarantees them
overtime for hours worked in excess of 40," stated one of the
plaintiffs' attorneys, Jon Tostrud.

Several other retail restaurant chains, including Starbucks
Corp., have been sued for similar violations.

The managers and MIT's are represented by the law firms of Cuneo
Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP; Lockridge Grindal & Nauen, PLLP; and
Halunen & Associates.

For more details, contact Jon Tostrud of Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca,
LLP, Phone: +1-310-418-8262.

DAIMLERCHRYSLER SERVICES: Settles NJ Racial Discrimination Suit
DaimlerChrysler Services North America, the U.S. consumer credit
unit of DaimlerChrysler AG settled a nationwide class action
lawsuit that claimed its lending practices discriminate against
black and Hispanic car buyers, The Bloomberg.com reports.

According to the proposed settlement that was filed in federal
court in New Jersey, the credit unit will limit the amount
dealers can mark up interest rates and will offer several
billion dollars in no mark-up loans to African American and
Hispanic customers.

Wyman Gilmore, a lawyer for consumers in the case told
Bloomberg.com, "The markups were costing consumers several
hundred dollars to more than $1,000 per car, depending on the
value of the car and the length of the loan."

The agreement, which was recently given preliminary approval, is
similar to settlements previously reached in suits against the
credit arms of other automakers, including General Motors
Corporation and Nissan Motor Co. The settlement does not require
DaimlerChrysler to pay anything to the class members. Darnley
Stewart, another consumer attorney in the case told
Bloomberg.com, "The Company is changing its practices instead of
paying money out."

DaimlerChrysler Services spokesman Stephen Koller declined to
comment on specific provisions of the settlement, but he did
state that the company settled "to avoid the cost and
uncertainty of litigation."

The lawsuit was filed in a New Jersey federal district court in
2000 on behalf of all black and Hispanic customers in the U.S.
who used DaimlerChrysler Services to finance their
DaimlerChrysler vehicle purchases. It claimed that dealers
charged black and Hispanic customers higher interest on car
loans than whites.

Additionally, Mr. Stewart told Bloomberg.com that under the
terms of the settlement, DaimlerChrysler Services will also
contribute $1.8 million to non-profit groups to assist and
educate consumers on lending practices. He also added that U.S.
District Court Judge Dennis M. Cavanaugh would hold a hearing in
October to consider final approval of the agreement.

The lawsuit is styled, Smith v. Chrysler Financial Co., No. 00-
CV-6003 in U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.
The defendants are represented by R. Mark Amburst of ARMBRUST &
ASSOCIATES, P.C., 1601 Market St., 16th Floor, Philadelphia, PA,
19103, Phone: 215-567-3700, E-mail: mark@rutharm.com, Robert L.
Newman of NEWMAN & WEINER L.L.C., 20 Brace Road, Cherry Hill,
NJ, 08034, Phone: 856-616-2900, E-mail:

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Appeals Court Dismisses Disability Lawsuit
In a decision written by Supreme Court nominee, Judge John
Roberts, Jr., a federal appeals court dismissed a class action
lawsuit seeking higher disability benefits for certain retired
federal law enforcement officers and firefighters, The
Associated Press reports.

According to the ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit, federal courts lacked jurisdiction
because Congress gave the job of administering specific claims
for retirement benefits to the Office of Personnel Management
and to a civil service appeals board.  In a decision that
reaffirmed the district court's dismissal of the suit Judge
Roberts wrote, "Congress has prescribed a route other than

Federal law enforcement officers and firefighters who retire on
disability are generally entitled to a more generous retirement
annuity than other civil service employees. That higher benefit,
though, is contingent on their having worked past age 50 and
attaining more than 20 years of service.

The suit was filed on behalf of a group of officers who retired
on disability before reaching age 50 and before attaining 20
years of service. OPM agreed to pay retroactive benefits to
those who retired before 50 and after serving 20 years but said
those who didn't attain 20 years of service weren't eligible for
higher benefits.

Additionally, Judge Roberts wrote that determination fell within
OPM's discretionary powers and noted that OPM decisions can be
appealed to the Merit Systems Protection Board. He also wrote,
"Allowing district court actions challenging how OPM calculates
civil service benefits for particular classes of beneficiaries
would plainly undermine the whole point of channeling review of
benefits determination to the MSPB," and thereby "erode the
primacy of the MSPB for administrative and judicial review of
personnel action."

GERBER SCIENTIFIC: Ex-Officers Settle SEC Enforcement Actions
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed complaints in the
United States District Court for the District of Columbia
against Gary K. Bennett and Bernard J. Demko.  The Commission
charged Bennett and Demko with violating the antifraud
provisions of the federal securities laws for engaging in
misconduct that led Gerber Scientific, Inc. to improperly
exclude a $1.5 million charge from its financial results when
the company filed its Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended April
30, 2000. At the time, Mr. Bennett was the company's Chief
Financial Officer and Mr. Demko was its Controller.  Mr. Bennett
was also charged with improperly maintaining and using certain
corporate reserves in 1998 and 1999.

The complaints allege that in June 2000, while Gerber was
finalizing its annual report on Form 10-K for fiscal year 2000,
Bennett and Demko learned that, due to a clerical error, the
company had failed to record approximately $1.5 million of a
required $6 million inventory write-down.  Instead of correcting
the mistake, the company went ahead and filed its Form 10-K,
which contained materially inaccurate financial statements and
related disclosures.  Then, without disclosure, Mr. Bennett and
Mr. Demko sought to eliminate the error by improperly amortizing
the $1.5 million charge over the next four fiscal quarters.  As
a result, Gerber's reported earnings for the fourth quarter of
fiscal 2000 were overstated by 100% and reported earnings for
the year were overstated by 3.5%.  According to the complaint,
after discovering the $1.5 million error, Mr. Bennett also
failed to correct a press release, dated May 25, 2000, that he
knew or was reckless in not knowing was materially inaccurate,
and he signed a subsequent events letter to the company's
auditor that omitted any reference to the error.

With respect to the improper corporate reserves, the complaint
alleges that Mr. Bennett approved the maintenance and use of
corporate-level reserves for which there was no specific
contingency.  He also approved the establishment and use of a
reserve set up in connection with Gerber's sale of a subsidiary
for which there was insufficient support. The use of the
corporate-level reserves resulted in overstatements of net
earnings in both 1998 and 1999, and the use of the reserve
relating to the subsidiary sale in 1999 resulted in an increase
in Gerber's reported income for that year.

Without admitting or denying the Commission's allegations, Mr.
Bennett and Mr. Demko consented to the entry of final judgments
that permanently enjoin them from violating or aiding and
abetting violations of Sections 10(b), 13(a) and 13(b)(2)(A) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rules 10b-5, 12b-20,
13a-1 and 13a-13 thereunder. Mr. Bennett also consented to be
enjoined from violating Exchange Act Rule 13b2-2 and to be
barred from serving as an officer or director of a public
company for five years.  In addition, Mr. Bennett and Mr. Demko
each agreed to pay a civil penalty of $25,000.  The final
judgments are subject to Court approval.

On July 26 in a related enforcement action, the Commission
instituted a settled cease-and-desist proceeding against Michael
J. Cheshire, who was Gerber's Chief Executive Officer during the
relevant time.  Mr. Cheshire consented to the issuance of the
order instituting proceedings without admitting or denying the
findings therein, including findings that he was a cause of
Gerber's reporting violations.  He was ordered to cease and
desist from committing or causing violations of Section 13(a) of
the Exchange Act and Rules 12b-20 and 13a-1 thereunder.

The Commission previously issued a settled cease-and-desist
order against Gerber relating to the same issues (In the Matter
of Gerber Scientific, Inc., Exchange Act Release No. 49541,
April 8, 2004).  The action is styled, SEC v. Gary K. Bennett,
United States District Court for the District of Columbia, Civil
Action No. 1:05CV 01464, GK; SEC v. Bernard J. Demko, United
States District Court for the District of Columbia, Civil Action
No. 1:05CV 10465, CKK.

H&M: Recalls 750 Baby Denim, Knit Jackets Due to Injury Hazard
In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC), H&M, of New York, N.Y. is voluntarily recalling about
750 units of Baby Denim and Knit Jackets.

The metal buttons can come loose and detach from these garments,
posing a choking hazard to young children. H&M has received one
report of the metal buttons detaching. No injuries have been

These jackets are light blue denim with two breast pockets, a
gray knit hood and gray knit sleeves. The buttons have "BABY"
written on the front. A red and white "A" patch is sewn on the
front, a blue "3" decal is on one sleeve and a red football is
on the other sleeve. The recall included jackets sold in sizes 2
months through 18 months. Style number "432740" is written on
the laundry care tag inside the jacket. "H&M" is written on the
collar label.

Manufactured in China, the jackets were sold at all H&M retail
stores nationwide from January 2005 through May 2005 for about

Remedy: Take these jackets away from young children immediately,
and return the jacket to any H&M store for a full refund.

Consumer Contact: Contact H&M toll-free at (877) 439-6261
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or visit the
firm's Web site: http://www.hm.com.

HERON CAY: Opening Arguments Begin For Homeowners' Suit in FL
Opening arguments began recently in Circuit Judge Robert
Hawley's courtroom for a suit that covers complex financial
formulas used to tax homeowners at the Heron Cay manufactured
home park, The Vero Beach Press-Journal reports.

Approximately 40 individuals packed the Indian River County
Courtroom and 20 more waited outside, carefully listening as
both side presented its respective arguments in a 4-year-old
lawsuit against Heron Cay park owners. Heron Cay is a
manufactured home community where residents 55 and older own
their homes and rent the land it stands on.

Court documents revealed that in 2001, members of the Heron Cay
Homeowners Association filed suit against Cay of Heron Ltd.,
after the park owner began passing annual property tax costs to
residents through the rent. They also questioned whether the
correct formula is being used to calculate rent increases.

What is now a class action suit representing about 250 residents
is now before Judge Hawley in a non-jury trial. Court testimony
indicated that there are currently 535 occupied home sites on
the property, and slightly fewer than 1,000 residents.

The law governing the relationship between mobile home park
owners and renters allows an owner to pass through to renters
amounts charged to the park by governmental authorities or
assessing authorities such as utility companies.

However, Daniel W. Perry, the association's Orlando attorney,
told Judge Hawley in his opening arguments that Cay of Heron is
violating the law in the way it does so.  In addition to asking
Judge Hawley to crunch numbers and make financial findings,
residents want the court to decide if the owner has decreased
the services offered without decreasing the rent. They claim
that the clubhouse is dirty, the lighting in the auditorium is
poor, landscaping is insufficient and roads aren't clean. The
residents also want him to find that the owner's failure to
maintain the community amounts to a reduction in service.

In his opening arguments, Sarasota attorney J. Allen Bobo, who
represents the park owner, used charts to show that all
prospectuses and leases dating back through 1984 contain
provisions allowing park owners to pass through any amounts
charged to the park by governmental authorities or assessing
authorities such as utility companies. He also defended the
rent-increase formula used by the owners, and told Judge Hawley
the allegations that the maintenance of the park is substandard
are incorrect. Mr. Bobo used an example of park residents with
cameras turning over the park's garbage cans in their search for
maintenance problems. "Some (residents) may have unrealistic
expectations," he said.

The trial is scheduled to last four days. Gwen Ripp, president
of the association's board of directors, was scheduled to
testify on July 27, 2005.

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: NZ Sugar Farmers Hail Fraud Suit V. Splenda
New Zealand sugar producers and farmers praised the New Zealand
Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) decision upholding a
complaint against Johnson & Johnson for misleading marketing
practices in advertisements for the chlorinated artificial
sweetener Splenda.

The suit was filed ".on the basis that Splenda is being compared
directly to sugar and misleading and confusing consumers into
thinking it's as natural as sugar because it's 'made from sugar
and tastes like sugar.'"

The Authority's Advertising Standards Complaints Board, made up
of representatives from New Zealand's advertising and marketing
agencies, reviewed 15 second and 30 second versions of an ad for
the artificial sweetener along with focus group input. The Board
determined that the ad deceived consumers into thinking Splenda
is all natural like sugar, when it is actually a chemical
compound.  "The (Splenda) advertisement . gave rise to a
likelihood of a consumer being confused and misled as a result
of the comparison in the advertisement," the Board decided.
According to the ASA, when the Board upholds a complaint, they
ask the company not to run the ad again.

In reality, the product Splenda does not contain and is not
sugar. The artificial sweetener ingredient (sucralose) in
Splenda is manufactured chemically. The sweetness of Splenda is
due to the chlorocarbon chemical (sucralose) that contains three
atoms of chlorine in every one of its molecules. In fact, the
name sucralose is misleading because it is not a sugar but a
chlorinated chemical.

In the United States, Johnson & Johnson is currently involved in
more than ten federal and consumer class action lawsuits
alleging misleading marketing for the chlorinated artificial
sweetener Splenda.

"This is an important ruling for consumers. As more and more
sweeteners are used to formulate foods in the U.S., consumers
need to be vigilant in reading the ingredients part of the Food
Label to verify if the product is made with all natural real
sugar or some man-made, chemical sweetener. To help consumers,
advertising of these food products must be accurate and not
misleading," Andy Briscoe, President of the Sugar Association
said in a statement.

For more information, contact Rich Masters at Qorvis
Communications by Phone: 202-496-1000, by E-mail:
rmasters@qorvis.com or visit the Website:

LIBERTY LIFE: Starts Handing Out Settlement Checks to Minorities
Liberty Life Insurance Co. began paying a multimillion-dollar
settlement to minority policyholders who paid more for premiums
than whites, The Associated Press reports.

According to company spokesman Bill Free, it expects to pay $11
million to minorities in 24 states as part of a settlement
spearheaded by the South Carolina Department of Insurance. He
was quick to state though that it is unclear what portion of
that will be paid to policyholders in South Carolina.

Under the settlement, the life insurance company is required to
pay those who are eligible a third more than the value of the
policy they are holding or the dollar claim they received when a
relative died; blacks and other minorities typically were
charged about a third more than whites.

The Greenville-based company says it based pricing for its
burial insurance policies on mortality tables that showed blacks
and other minorities die younger than whites. It was common
practice in the insurance industry to use the mortality tables
through the 1980s, when the practice was banned. Mr. Free told
The Associated Press, "The intent was to offset or equalize the
benefits of those policies."

The settlement with states was finalized in January 2003 but put
on hold pending the outcome of a class action suit, which was
disbanded earlier this year. It includes the company's 170,000
burial insurance policyholders, about a third of whom live in
South Carolina.

The policies, first marketed to mill workers in the early 1900s,
are typically sold to the elderly and industrial workers and
used to defray funeral costs. Liberty sold burial policies from
1905 to 1968.

Additionally, the settlement requires the insurer to advertise
in major newspapers and publications that target minority
audiences. It also requires the insurer to make a $2 million
charitable contribution to an organization focusing on minority
health issues.

LONE STAR: Forges Settlement For CA Securities, Derivative Suit
Lone Star Steakhouse & Saloon, Inc. reached a settlement for the
shareholder derivative and class action lawsuit filed against
certain of its present and former directors in California state

The California Public Employees Retirement System ("CalPERS")
filed the shareholders derivative action on October 16, 2001,
alleging breach of fiduciary duties by certain present and
former Directors and that certain of such defendants were
unjustly enriched through related party transactions and by the
re-pricing of stock options previously issued.  The lawsuit also
seeks to prevent enforcement of certain change of control
agreements granted to executive officers of the Company, seeks
declaratory and injunctive relief and seeks damages to be paid
to the Company.  The Company is a nominal defendant.  The
Company has indemnified present and former Directors with
respect to the shareholders derivative action filed by CalPERS
by contractual agreement, as well as by the Articles of
Incorporation of the Company as provided in accordance with the
Delaware General Corporation Law.

On January 9, 2002, CalPERS filed an amended complaint and added
a class action claim to attempt to certify a class action based
on their allegation that a provision in the change of control
agreements violates Delaware law. A motion to dismiss was filed
by all defendants on February 8, 2002, seeking to dismiss all
claims of CalPERS.  Discovery was stayed pending a court
decision on the motion to dismiss.

The Vice Chancellor issued his decision on December 18, 2002
dismissing numerous counts and also substantially reducing the
scope of two other claims, both involving the repricing of stock
options.  Two of the counts sustained by the court involve
challenges to change of control agreements which have now
expired.  On January 17, 2003, the Vice Chancellor agreed to
permit the plaintiff to proceed with its discovery to obtain
certain documents from certain third parties and the named
defendants, and ordered the plaintiff to timely file its motion
to amend its complaint.

On April 16, 2003, CalPERS filed a Motion for Leave to Amend
Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, which complaint added no
additional causes but added allegations which are subsequent to
the date of the first complaint and allegations which also
address counts which were dismissed by the Vice Chancellor on
December 18, 2002.  All defendants filed objections to CalPERS
attempt to amend and oral argument was heard by the Vice
Chancellor on August 21, 2003.  On May 26, 2004, the Court
rendered its decision and allowed CalPERS to amend their

On June 1, 2005, the Company announced that it had entered into
a Stipulation of Settlement agreement with the California Public
Employees Retirement System ("CalPERS").  The settlement, which
is subject to court approval, resolves all claims raised by the
parties in litigation.  As part of the Stipulation of
Settlement, the parties agreed to release each other from any
and all current and future claims related to the litigation.

MASTERCARD INTERNATIONAL: CA Judge Dismisses Merchants' Lawsuit
Judge Jeffrey S. White of the federal court in the Northern
District of California dismissed a lawsuit brought on behalf of
merchants against MasterCard International, Visa U.S.A., and a
number of banks, finding that the merchants did not have
standing under the U.S. antitrust laws to bring their claims.
The court also found that the merchants had no factual basis to
support their allegation that MasterCard set the merchant
discount fee.

The lawsuit, filed by several merchants last year, was directed
at payment card transaction fees, alleging that the defendants
violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act by setting merchant
discount and interchange fees. The plaintiffs sought both
monetary relief and an injunction.

The Court found that the retailers lacked standing to challenge
the payment card transaction fees MasterCard establishes for the
merchants' banks to compensate issuing banks, commonly known as
interchange fees. The Court also found that the retailers
alleged no facts to challenge MasterCard or the other defendants
with regard to the setting of the merchant discount fees - the
fees merchants are charged.

"This is the first recent decision to address the challenge to
POS interchange fees in the United States. The strength of the
decision, coupled with its conclusiveness, represents a key win
for MasterCard and our customers. We are pleased that Judge
White applied existing antitrust precedent and dismissed
plaintiffs' claims that the setting of interchange rates and the
merchant discount rates somehow violate the U.S. antitrust
laws," said Noah J. Hanft, MasterCard General Counsel. "We have
always maintained that interchange fees are efficient, pro-
competitive and essential to the operation of a four-party
system. Judge White's decision should send a strong message to
class action plaintiffs' lawyers who have recently sought to
bring similar claims against MasterCard and our members."

Significantly, Judge White dismissed this case based on the
arguments MasterCard and other defendants made in motions to
dismiss, the earliest stage in which a case can be dismissed.
Judge White relied on antitrust precedent, which bars antitrust
recovery for indirect purchasers. Since the merchants' theory in
the complaint was based on the claim that MasterCard set
interchange fees to acquirers who pass along such fees to
merchants in the merchant discount rates, the Court found that
the merchants, as indirect purchasers, lacked antitrust standing
to assert such claims. Judge White dismissed the case and
rejected the plaintiffs' request to file another complaint,
concluding that future attempts by the plaintiffs in this
context would be 'futile' as plaintiffs would be 'unable to
marshal sufficient facts to confer standing."

MERIX CORPORATION: SEC Files Insider Trading Case V. Brothers
The Securities and Exchange Commission charged a financial
analyst for Beaverton, Oregon, circuit board company Merix
Corporation with trading on inside information and tipping his
brother, allowing the pair to net over $400,000 in illegal
profits.  The Commission alleges that Philip E. Evans, 43, of
Beaverton, Ore., sold Merix stock in May 2004 after learning the
company was preparing to report disappointing financial news.
According to the Commission, Evans also passed the information
to his brother Paul, 41, of Mt. Shasta, Calif., who bought
speculative Merix put options - securities of value only if the
company's stock price fell in the short term.  When the company
publicly announced the bad news days later, Merix investors saw
the value of their stock plummet by 30% while the Evans brothers
reaped substantial profits.

The Commission's complaint alleges that through their fraudulent
trading and tipping, Philip and Paul Evans violated Section
17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.  The
Commission seeks injunctive relief, disgorgement of all ill-
gotten gains as well as the gains of the people they tipped and
civil monetary penalties.  The action is styled, SEC v. Philip
Evans and Paul Evans, Case No. CV 05 1168 AA, D. Or.

PHILIP MORRIS: KS Residents Sue Over False "Lights" Advertising
Instead of arguing that smoking cigarettes physically harmed
them, Kansas City, Kansas resident Kristina L. Benedict and
Olathe resident Tammy Brown are claiming that they were duped
into thinking that "light" cigarettes contained lower levels of
tar and nicotine than regular cigarettes, The Kansas City Star

In an interesting variation on the garden-variety smoker's
liability case, the two women are specifically disclaiming
damages for any personal injuries they might have sustained from
smoking, which is the usual request in cases against tobacco
companies. Rather, they're seeking damages under the Kansas
Consumer Protection Act for what amounts to a claim of false

According to an attorney for the plaintiffs, Jim Wirken of The
Wirken Law Group, "Basically, the long and the short of it is
that the defendants advertised this product as having less this,
less that and it turns out it's not the case at all. In fact, in
many cases it has more problems than the regular cigarettes,
and, therefore, we believe it's a consumer-protection-
misrepresentation-type lawsuit."

While the class action lawsuit, which was filed last month in
Wyandotte County District Court against Philip Morris USA and
its parent company, Altria Group Inc., appears to be the first
of its kind in the area, similar cases have been brought in
recent years around the country.

In the first such case to go to trial, an Illinois court in 2003
handed down a $10.1 billion verdict against Philip Morris after
finding that the company had tricked smokers into believing that
Marlboro Lights were less harmful than regular Marlboros. Philip
Morris has appealed the verdict.

And last year, in a 4-3 decision, Massachusetts' highest court
certified a similar case as a class action, allowing potentially
millions of smokers in that state to assert similar claims
against Philip Morris.

Specifically, the Wyandotte County action states that Ms.
Benedict smoked about one-and-a-half packs of Marlboro Lights
per day for 20 years and that Ms. Brown smoked about one pack a
day of Marlboro Lights for eight years. Both are seeking damages
for anyone who purchased Cambridge Lights and Marlboro Lights in
Kansas, which could run to potentially millions of people, since
those products were put on the market decades ago.

The case is especially intriguing, since the suit limits its
damage claims to $74,000 for each potential plaintiff. If the
suit is certified as a class action, that could spell billions
of dollars in potential liability for Philip Morris. However, by
limiting the individual claims, the plaintiffs are clearly
hoping to avoid federal court, which requires that a plaintiff's
damages exceed $75,000. In fact, the plaintiffs appear to be
asking for a refund of the money they spent on the cigarettes
they smoked.

Mr. Wriken even told The Kansas City Star, "We're just going to
have to figure out how much money these people paid for this
stuff versus what they would have paid with regard to regular

Even with the outcome of the case uncertain, Philip Morris and
Altria are seeking to transfer the case to federal court in
Kansas City, Kansas, arguing that the amount in controversy
cumulatively exceeds $5 million, which is the threshold for
removing cases from state to federal court under newly enacted
federal legislation known as the Class Action Fairness Act.

The Wyandotte County lawsuit is relying on internal tobacco
company documents indicating that light cigarettes, which were
marketed as less harmful than regular ones, often delivered more
tar and nicotine because smokers inhaled them more deeply.

PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Faces Suits Over Franconia Deli Products Recall
Pilgrim's Pride Corporation faces several lawsuits filed over
its recall of cooked deli products produced from its Franconia,
Pennsylvania Plant from May 1,2003 through October 11,2002.

In October 2002, a limited number of USDA environmental samples
from our Franconia, Pennsylvania plant tested positive for
Listeria.  As a result, the Company voluntarily recalled all
cooked deli products produced at the plant from May 1, 2002
through October 11, 2002.  No illnesses have been linked to any
of our recalled products, and none of such products have tested
positive for the strain of Listeria associated with an outbreak
in the Northeastern U.S. that occurred during the summer of

However, following this recall, a number of demands and cases
have been made and filed alleging injuries purportedly arising
from the consumption of products produced at this facility.
These include:

     (1) "Lawese Drayton, Individually and as Personal
         Representative of the Estate of Raymond Drayton,
         deceased, Plaintiff, v. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation,
         Jack Lambersky Poultry Company, Inc. d/b/a JL Foods Co,
         Inc., Defendants," filed in the United States District
         Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on April
         15, 2003;

     (2) "Laron Harvey, by his mother and natural guardian,
         Shakandra Hampton, and Shakandra Hampton in her own
         right v. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation and Jack Lambersky
         Poultry Company, Inc.," which was filed in the
         Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas on May 5, 2003, and
         has since been removed to the U.S. District Court of
         the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia;

     (3) "Ryan and Dana Patterson v. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation
         and Jack Lambersky Poultry Company, et al" which was
         filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
         Division, Passaic County, on August 12, 2003;

     (4) "Jamar Clarke, an infant under the age of fourteen (14)
         years, by his mother and natural guardian, Wanda
         Multrie Clarke, and Wanda Multrie Clarke, individually
         v. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation d/b/a Wampler Foods,
         Inc., H. Schrier and Co., Inc., Board of Education of
         the City of New York and Public School 251" which was
         filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York,
         County of Queens, on August 1, 2003;

     (5) "Peter Roselle, as Administrator and Prosequendum for
         the heirs-at-Law of Louis P. Roselle, deceased; and
         Executor of the Estate of Louis P. Roselle, deceased,
         and individually v. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation,
         Wampler Foods, Inc., Jack Lambersky Poultry Company,
         Inc., d.b.a. J.L. Foods Co. Inc." which was filed in
         the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Union
         County, on June 14, 2004;

     (6) "Jody Levonchuk, administratrix of the Estate of Joseph
         Cusato v. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation and Jack
         Lambersky Poultry Company." which was filed in the U.S.
         District Court for the Eastern District of
         Pennsylvania, on July 28, 2004;

     (7) "Mary Samudovsky v. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation and
         Jack Lambersky Poultry Company, Inc., et al," which was
         filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
         Division: Camden County, and served on October 26,
         2004 (which case was voluntarily dismissed by the
         plaintiff on May 8, 2005);

     (8) Nancy Cirigliano and Scott Fischer v. Pilgrim's Pride
         Corporation and Jack Lambersky Poultry Company, et al,"
         which was filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey,
         Union County, on August 10, 2004;

     (9) "Dennis Wysocki, as the Administrator of the Estate of
         Matthew Tyler Wysocki, deceased, and Dennis Wysocki and
         Karen Wysocki, individually v. Pilgrim's Pride
         Corporation and Jack Lambersky Poultry Company, et al,"
         which was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of
         New York, County of New York, on July 30, 2004;

    (10) "Randi Carden v. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation and Jack
         Lambersky Poultry Company, et al," which was filed in
         the Superior Court of New Jersey, Camden County, on
         August 10, 2004; and

    (11) "Catherine Dillon, individually and as guardian ad
         litem for her infant son, Brian Dillon, and Joseph
         Dillon, individually" v. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation
         and Jack Lambersky Poultry Company, et al," which was
         filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Essex
         County, on September 10, 2004 (which case has recently
         been settled); and

    (12) Roberta Napolitano, as Trustee of the Bankruptcy Estate
         of Burke Caren Kantrow v. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation,
         Wampler Foods, Inc. and Jack Lambersky Poultry Company,
         d/b/a J. L. Foods, Inc., which was filed in the
         Superior Court of Connecticut, New Haven, on June 16,

On August 20, 2004, the Estate of Frank Niemtzow re-filed his
individual action from the previously filed and voluntarily
dismissed class action suit.  Neither the likelihood of an
unfavorable outcome nor the amount of ultimate liability, if
any, with respect to any of these cases can be determined at
this time.

PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Plaintiff Voluntarily Dismissed From Bias Suit
Two of the named plaintiffs in the class action filed against
Pilgrim's Pride Incorporated in the United States District Court
for the Western District of Arkansas, El Dorado Division has
been voluntarily dismissed from the suit.

On December 31, 2003, the Company was served with a purported
class action complaint styled "Angela Goodwin, Gloria Willis,
Johnny Gill, Greg Hamilton, Nathan Robinson, Eddie Gusby, Pat
Curry, Persons Similarly Situated v. ConAgra Poultry Company and
Pilgrim's Pride, Incorporated."  The suit alleges racial and age
discrimination at one of the facilities the Company acquired
from ConAgra.  Two of the named plaintiffs, Greg Hamilton and
Gloria Willis, were voluntarily dismissed from this action.

PRUDENTIAL EQUITY: Reaches Settlement For SEC Investor Lawsuit
Prudential Equity Group LLC reached a settlement for the United
States Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) allegations
that it failed to disclose it had been paid for an October 2001
research report it issued on a company, Newsday reports.

The SEC did not name the company involved in its announcement.
It said that the Company also failed to promptly provide
documents related to the alleged payment to the agency staff in
its investigation.  Under a rule adopted by the SEC in February
2003, financial analysts have to certify that their reports and
public comments reflect their true personal views and that they
weren't paid by the companies they assessed.  The rule was in
response to the collapses of Enron and other big companies whose
stock analysts had publicly promoted despite harboring doubts
about the companies' finances.

Under the settlement, the Company agreed to pay a $125, fine.
The firm neither admitted nor denied the allegations but did
agree to refrain from future violations of the securities laws
under the deal.

"We cooperated fully with the inquiry," Prudential spokesman Bob
DeFillippo said from the company's headquarters in Newark, N.J.
He declined further comment, Newsday reports.

QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: SEC Settles Claims V. Former Executive VP
The Securities and Exchange Commission settled its claims
against Gregory M. Casey, a resident of Houston, Texas, and a
former executive vice president of Qwest Communications
International Inc.  Mr. Casey, without admitting or denying the
Commission's claims, consented to the entry of a judgment
dismissing the claims against him for primary liability pursuant
to Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Exchange Act Rule
10b-5 thereunder; enjoining him from violating Sections 10(b)
and 13(b)(5) of the Exchange Act and Exchange Act Rules 10b-5,
13b2-1, and 13b2-2 thereunder, and aiding and abetting
violations of Sections 13(a) and 13(b)(2) of the Exchange Act
and Rules 12b-20, 13a-1, 13a-11, and 13a-13 thereunder;
directing him to pay $1,390,344 of disgorgement, plus $456,481
of prejudgment interest, and a $250,000 civil penalty; and
prohibiting him from acting as an officer or director of any
public company for five years.

According to the SEC's complaint, filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Colorado in March 2005, Mr.
Casey's actions in several indefeasible rights of use (IRUs)
transactions were part of a scheme by Qwest to inflate revenue
and earnings artificially. Specifically, Mr. Casey provided, or
knew others provided, secret side agreements to IRU customers
allowing those customers to exchange, or port, the capacity
purchased for different capacity.  The purpose of the secret
side agreements was to conceal from Qwest's accountants and
auditors the purchasers' ability to port, as such exchange
rights would have defeated, under GAAP, the immediate
recognition of revenue. Additionally, Mr. Casey participated in
backdating IRU agreements to demonstrate falsely that the
agreements were completed by the end of the quarter as required
by GAAP to recognize revenue in that quarter. Finally, to close
IRU sales, Mr. Casey caused Qwest to purchase capacity Qwest did
not need.  Under GAAP, Qwest should not have recognized revenue
where there was no legitimate business need for the IRU assets
received. The action styled, SEC v. Joseph P. Nacchio, Robert S.
Woodruff, Robin R. Szeliga, Afshin Mohebbi, Gregory M. Casey,
James J Koslowski and Frank T. Noyes, Civ. No. 05-MK-480, OES,
USDC D. Colorado.

RADIO FLYER: Recalls 38T Classic Walker Wagons For Injury Hazard
In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC), Radio Flyer Inc. of Chicago, Illinois is voluntarily
recalling about 38,000 units of Classic Walker Wagons.

The tips of the clickers, which make a clicking sound when the
Walker Wagon wheels move, can break off. The broken clickers
pose a choking or aspiration hazard to young children. Radio
Flyer has received 11 reports of the tips breaking off the
clickers on these Walker Wagons. No injuries have been reported.

The recalled wooden Walker Wagon has a push handle and removable
wooden stake sides. It is 22-inches long, 12-inches wide and 16
-inches high at the top of the handle. The Walker Wagon body is
red and has the name "Radio Flyer" in white lettering on each
side. The recalled Walker Wagons have black plastic clickers
that make a clicking sound when the plastic wheels turn. The
clickers are located between the rear wheels and the wagon. The
Walker Wagon is intended for children 1 to 4 years old. The
Walker Wagons with clear plastic clickers are not included in
this recall.

Manufactured in China, the walkers were sold at all toy,
department and discount stores, in catalogs, and by Web
retailers from August 2003 through May 2005 for about $80.

Consumers should immediately take these recalled Walker Wagons
away from young children and contact Radio Flyer for free
replacement clickers.

Consumer Contact: Call Radio Flyer Inc. toll-free at
(800) 621-7613 between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. CT Monday through
Friday, log onto the company's Web site at
http://www.radioflyer.comor e-mail Radio Flyer Inc. at

RJ REYNOLDS: CT, Eight States File False Advertising Suit in VT
Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal joined eight
other states and the District of Columbia today in suing R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Company for falsely claiming that its Eclipse
cigarettes may pose a lower health risk than other brands.

The action also charges that Eclipse advertising violates the
Master Settlement Agreement that ended the multi-state lawsuit
against the tobacco industry. The agreement prohibits tobacco
companies from misrepresenting the health consequences of
tobacco use.

"These claims for a safer cigarette are specious - a total
eclipse of the truth - because smoking cannot be made safer or
safe, now or ever," Mr. Blumenthal said.  "No one has ever
proven one cigarette 'safer' than another, and anyone claiming
otherwise willfully and knowingly misleads the public. R. J.
Reynolds' studies fail to back its spurious assertions that
Eclipse may present a lower health risk than other cigarettes.
No amount of advertising or spin can conceal the simple fact
that cigarettes sicken and kill.

"The Eclipse campaign is yet another chapter in Big Tobacco's
long and shameful history of lies about the health hazards of
cigarettes. Eclipse is in the tradition of false claims that
filtered and 'low tar' cigarettes are less hazardous. The
company has violated the Master Settlement Agreement, and we
will hold it accountable . Our alliance of attorneys general
will continue to vigorously fight any attempt by tobacco
companies to downplay or deny the dangers of their product," Mr.
Blumental continued

During an approximately 18-month investigation, Mr. Blumenthal
and others asked R.J. Reynolds for scientific proof of its
advertising claims that smokers of Eclipse cigarettes may have a
reduced risk of cancer, chronic bronchitis, emphysema and other
smoking-related illnesses compared with smokers of other brands.
Evidence presented by the company failed to prove those

The suit cites the following specific advertising claims as
false or misleading:

     (1) "Scientific studies show that, compared to other
         cigarettes, Eclipse may present less risk of cancer,
         chronic bronchitis and possibly emphysema."

     (2) "Eclipse responds to concerns about certain smoking-
         related illnesses. Including cancer."

     (3) "The best choice for smokers who worry about their
         health is to quit. The next best choice is Eclipse."

The lawsuit demands that the Company stop making unsubstantiated
health claims about its Eclipse cigarettes. It also seeks
monetary damages.

Mr. Blumenthal joined California, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Maine,
New York, Tennessee and Vermont in today's lawsuit, which was
filed in state court in Burlington, Vermont.

TASER INTERNATIONAL: Southern NV Police Oppose Stun Gun Lawsuits
The Southern Nevada police departments won't join in any
litigation filed against Taser International, Inc. concerning
its "Taser" stun guns, the Las Vegas Sun reports.

The Company faces a class action filed in the United States
District Court in Chicago, Illinois, alleging that the Company
failed to thoroughly test the device and marketed it as "falsely
safe."  The suit, filed by the Village of Dolton, alleges that
the Company sells the device as non-lethal "despite the fact
that the product has never been adequately or independently
tested for safety and has been involved in numerous deaths and
serious injuries across the county."  The Company also faces a
similar class action filed in the United States District Court
in California.

At least 140 people have died in the United States and Canada
after police deployed Taser shocks, according to reports from
the Arizona Republic.  The Village of Dolton, a city south of
Chicago in Cook County with about 33,000 residents, brought the
suit on behalf of its police department.

Metro Police Deputy Chief Mike Ault, a supporter of Tasers, told
the Las Vegas Sun the department would likely not join in any
litigation against the Company because Metro remains confident
that Tasers are an effective alternative to using deadly force.
"Anything can cause death, but Tasers are an option provided to
our officers where deadly force would have previously been the
only option," Mr. Ault told the Sun.

With more than 1,380 Tasers, Metro is the second highest user of
the devices in the United States, according to Company. It is
tied for second with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and is
behind only Houston Police, according to the company, the Sun

Tim Bedwell, spokesman for North Las Vegas Police, said he
couldn't comment on the suit but backed the use of Tasers.  "To
us it's a life-saving measure," Mr. Bedwell told the Sun.
"We're responding to a person's actions. We have to use the
appropriate level of force, and Tasers give us that level."

He said he didn't believe the company ever misled the department
in the lethality of Tasers.  North Las Vegas Police classify the
Taser as a less lethal device than pepper spray.

Sean Howard, spokesman for Dolton Mayor William Shaw, told the
Sun part of the reason Dolton filed the suit was to avoid any
wrongful death or personally injury lawsuits brought against the
city and police department by people or families who claim to
have been injured by Tasers.  "We don't want any lawsuits
creeping up on us," Mr. Howard said, adding that there have been
no fatalities or serious injury cases related to police use of
Tasers in Dolton.

Taser International denied the claims in the lawsuit, calling
them "based on inaccurate and incomplete news clippings," Steve
Tuttle, Taser International vice president of communications,
said, via e-mail, the Sun reports.  "The Taser brand devices
have been the most thoroughly tested of any use-of-force tools
available to law enforcement," said Mr. Tuttle. "While we
understand the concerns of the public concerning the topic of
in-custody deaths following Taser usage, there are medical
experts who dispute the few cases, out of tens of thousands of
life-saving uses, where the Taser device has been cited as a
contributing factor to an in-custody death."

Advocacy groups like Amnesty International and the American
Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) have called for the suspension of
the use of Taser guns, until studies are done on how the device
affects people on drugs or with heart conditions, an earlier
Class Action Reporter story (July 21,2005) reports.

The International Association of Chiefs of Police, the largest
nonprofit organization of police executives, is also looking at
Tasers with a critical eye.  "They're out there and they have a
practical application, but there needs to be more study before
judged nonlethal," said Albert Arena, project manager at the
association's research center directorate, told the Sun.

VIOXX LITIGATION: Lawyers Block Physician's Testimony in TX Suit
Lawyers for Merck & Co. in the first ever Vioxx-related civil
trial have used a Texas man's autopsy to reiterate that Vioxx
wasn't responsible for his death, the Associated Press reports.

Earlier, Mark Lanier, lawyer for Carol Ernst, whose husband
Robert died of arrhythmia in 2001, had planned to present the
Dr. Maria Araneta, the physician who performed the autopsy on
Mr. Ernst, as a surprise witness.  The physician would
supposedly testify that a heart attack more than likely killed
Mr. Ernst, but he died too quickly for his heart to show damage.
Mr. Ernst, a produce manager at a Wal-Mart near Fort Worth who
ran marathons and worked as a personal trainer, took Vioxx for
eight months to alleviate pain in his hands until he died in his
sleep, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (July 27,2005)

The Company's legal team managed to block her testimony - at
least temporarily - with state District Judge Ben Hardin's
approval to depose Dr. Araneta before she testifies.  The judge
ruled late Monday that jurors would be released around midday
Tuesday so lawyers could conduct the deposition, which Mr.
Lanier said would be videotaped to show to the jury in case Dr.
Araneta's schedule prevents her from staying at the trial long
enough to testify.  "She'll tell the truth," Mr. Lanier said
late Monday, AP reports. "They said they built (the) case around
her not coming."

Jonathan Skidmore, one of Merck's lawyers, said the company's
legal team believes "the autopsy was conducted in a professional
manner, and the reported results are scientifically correct. We
are not worried about the testimony, but rules are rules, and
the identification of expert or fact witnesses are required to
be listed well before trial starts," AP reports.

Last week, Merck & Co.'s lawyers presented evidence that the
company studied whether Vioxx caused arrhythmias in nine
clinical trials before the drug went on the market in May 1999
and found "no clinically meaningful differences" in patients who
took the painkiller compared to those who took sugar pills or
other anti-inflammatory pain relievers, AP reports.  The lawyers
asserted that the company acted responsibly, disclosed studies
on Vioxx and believed it to be safe until results from the long-
term study last year prompted pulling the drug.

Mr. Lanier contends Mr. Ernst died too quickly for his heart to
show damage.  He also pointed to Merck's medical manual used by
doctors across the country, which says arrhythmia in some form
occurs in more than 90 percent of heart attack patients.  He
also asserted that the Company knew of the dangers of using
Vioxx years before it recalled the drug.  However, the Company
allegedly ignored those concerns in favor of aggressive
marketing for a multibillion-dollar seller, an earlier Class
Action Reporter story (July 27,2005) reports.

On Monday, UCLA Medical Center cardiologist Isaac Wiener told
jurors that he believed Vioxx contributed to Ernst's death.
Asked by Mr. Lanier if he believed Vioxx was a significant
contributing factor in Ernst's heart attack or sudden cardiac
death, Dr. Isaac Wiener replied, "I would call it sudden cardiac
death, and I would answer yes," AP reports.

However, under questioning by Merck lawyer David Kiernan, the
doctor admitted he couldn't be medically certain that Mr. Ernst
had a genuine heart attack, AP reports.  "I think the
traditional ways of diagnosing myocardial infarction (heart
attacks) do not apply in sudden cardiac death," Dr. Wiener said.
"If you have chest pain and die 10 minutes later, the autopsy
will not show myocardial infarction."

More than 4,200 state and federal lawsuits are pending across
the country.  They were filed after the Company recalled the
drug in September last year, after a study linked it to greater
risk of heart attack or stroke if taken for 18 months or more.
About 20 million people have taken Vioxx after its launch in

                 New Securities Fraud Cases

CONAGRA FOODS: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
The law firm of Stull, Stull & Brody initiated a class action
lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, on behalf of all persons who
purchased the common stock of ConAgra Foods, Inc. ("ConAgra")
(NYSE: CAG) between September 18, 2003 and June 7, 2005,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint alleges that ConAgra violated federal securities
laws by issuing materially false financial statements. On March
24, 2005, ConAgra announced that it would be restating its
financial statements for fiscal 2002 through the first half of
fiscal 2005 due to improper accounting for income taxes. On June
7, 2005, ConAgra also announced that its fiscal 2005 fourth
quarter would be lower than expected primarily due to continued
weak profitability in its packaged meats operations.

For more details, contact Tzivia Brody, Esq. of Stull, Stull &
Brody, 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY, 10017, Phone:
1-800-337-4983, Fax: 212/490-2022, E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com, Web
site: http://www.ssbny.com.

CYBERONICS INC.: Scott + Scott Provides Litigation Update
The law firm of Scott + Scott, LLC, which initiated a class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Texas on behalf of the purchasers of Cyberonics,
Inc. (Nasdaq: CYBX) securities during the Class Period between
June 15, 2004, through October 1, 2004, inclusive (the "Class")
is providing updates in regards to the litigation.

Cyberonics engages in the design, development, and
commercialization of medical devices, which claim to provide
therapy, Vagus Nerve Stimulation (VNS), for the treatment of
epilepsy and other debilitating neurological and psychiatric
disorders. Plaintiff alleges that defendants violated the
federal securities laws (Securities Exchange Act of 1934) during
the Class Period by failing to disclose and misrepresenting
material adverse facts known to defendants or recklessly
disregarded by them, including that defendants were engaged in
serious violative manufacturing and quality practices that would
have a serious negative impact on prospects for the Company's
VNC product approval and that, while well aware of true nature
of the serious issues facing FDA approval of the VNC system for
the depression indication, Company insiders sold over $1.98
million of Company stock during the Class Period. As a result,
the Complaint alleges, the value of the Company's stock was
materially and artificially inflated during the Class Period.

Cyberonics reported financial results for the fourth quarter and
fiscal year ended April 29, 2005. Shares fell more than 10
percent on Tuesday after the Company revised its financial
outlook. The Company revised its long term outlook through 2010
and the fiscal year 2006 revised plan anticipates that funding
for the planned loss, capital expenditures and investments in
working capital will be provided by existing cash and marketable
securities, as well as an increase in credit lines and senior
debt. The Company also changed its guidance for the first
quarter ending July 29, 2005.

Shares of Cyberonics fell $4.72 to $39.95 today. The Company's
shares closed yesterday at $44.07.

For more details, contact Neil Rothstein or Amy K. Saba of of
Scott + Scott, LLC, Phone: +1-619-251-0887 or +1-800-332-2259,
ext. 26, E-mail: nrothstein@scott-scott.com or asaba@scott-
scott.com, Web site: http://www.scott-scott.com.

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Schiffrin & Barroway Files NY Stock Suit
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of all purchasers of the
common stock of the International Business Machines Corporation
(NYSE: IBM) ("IBM" or the "Company") from January 19, 2005
through April 14, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges IBM and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. IBM operates as an information technology company
worldwide. The complaint alleges that defendants' Class Period
representations regarding IBM were materially false and
misleading when made for the following reasons:

     (1) that IBM knew and/or recklessly disregarded the fact
         that its first quarter, fiscal year 2005 earnings would
         fall short of both the Company's projections and
         analysts' expectations;

     (2) that defendants used the timing of the expensing of
         stock options' announcement to deflect attention from
         earnings that failed to match analysts' and the
         Company's expectations; and

     (3) as such, defendants' positive statements regarding
         IBM's outlook were lacking in any reasonable basis when

On April 5, 2005, a week before releasing first-quarter results
in April, IBM said it would begin treating stock options as an
expense and urged analysts to reduce profit estimates to reflect
the change. Then, on April 14, 2005, IBM announced that first-
quarter profit fell short of the mean analyst estimate by 5
cents per share -- a big miss for IBM. But many analysts
eventually concluded the miss was 9 cents per share, or nearly
double the apparent shortfall, once they understood IBM
accounting for options. On news of this, shares of IBM, on April
15, 2005, fell $6.94 per share, or 8.30 percent, to close at
$76.70 per share on heavy trading volume. In mid-April, Sanford
C. Bernstein analyst Toni Sacconaghi had called the moves
"hocus- pocus" on the part of IBM, which had been struggling
with slowing growth in the technology market. Additionally, UBS
analyst Benjamin Reitzes also said in the wake of the bad news
he felt IBM had misled him, leading him to cut his quarterly
forecast by a greater amount than was warranted.

Then on June 27, 2005, IBM, after the market closed, announced
that it had received a request to voluntarily comply with an
informal investigation by the staff of the SEC concerning IBM's
disclosures relating to IBM's first quarter earnings and
expensing of equity compensation.

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

POSSIS MEDICAL: Emerson Poynter Sets Lead Plaintiff Deadline
The law firm of Emerson Poynter LLP said that the deadline for
shareholders to move for appointment as Lead Plaintiff is on
August 2, 2005 for the class action lawsuit filed on behalf of
purchasers of Possis Medical, Inc.'s ("Possis") (Nasdaq:POSS)
common stock during the period between September 25, 2002 and
August 24, 2004 (the "Class Period").

The complaint, filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Minnesota, charges Possis and certain of its
officers and directors with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. Possis engages in the development,
manufacture, and marketing of medical devices. The complaint
further alleges that during the Class Period, defendants made
false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business
and prospects, including about the capabilities and safety of
its primary product, the AngioJet system. As a result of
defendants' false statements, Possis stock traded at inflated
levels during the Class Period, whereby the Company's top
officers and directors arranged for the sale of more than $1.2
million worth of Company shares.

Then, in August 2004, Possis reported its results from its 480
patient, post-marketing study called AiMI. The study used the
Company's AngioJet catheter for removing thrombus prior to
balloon angioplasty and stinting in acute myocardial
infarctions. The primary endpoint of the trial was the final
infarct size at 14-28 days. The results of the trial not only
showed that the primary endpoint was not achieved, but that the
control arm had statistically significant, smaller infarcts than
the AngioJet arm. These revelations sent the Company's shares
into a free-fall. The complaint alleges that Possis had led
investors to believe that the AiMI study would show that there
was a clear benefit from prophylactic use in all "heart attack"
patients and this would convince the medical community that this
should become the standard of care in such cases.

Once this news was released, Possis stock collapsed 40 percent
from $30.76 to $18.53 per share on volume of 14.8 million
shares. According to the complaint, the true facts, which were
concealed from the investing public during the Class Period,
were as follows:

     (1) defendants' claims relating to the utility of the
         AngioJet catheter were materially false, as the study
         cited as a basis for these claims was, like defendants'
         projections, manipulated and/or simply manufactured,
         since the study proved what defendants already knew --
         there was no statistically significant difference;

     (2) defendants' study was manipulated and/or manufactured,
         as the August 2004 revelations suggest that the control
         group was different at baseline than the AngioJet arm;

     (3) the AngioJet system was not more effective than
         existing alternatives, nor did the AngioJet system
         reduce significant procedural complications or
         significantly increase positive benefits such as
         improved blood flow or other similar effects; and

     (4) the Company's clarifications relating to the benefits
         of the AngioJet issued during the Class Period were not
         based on fact or scientifically based assumptions, but
         rather on defendants' own fabricated "guess work."

For more details, contact Charlie Gastineau, Tanya Autry, or
Michelle Raggio of Emerson Poynter LLP, Phone: 800-663-9817 or
501-907-2555, Fax: 501-907-2556, E-mail:

RAMP CORPORATION: Federman & Sherwwod Lodges Stock Suit in NY
The law firm of Federman & Sherwood initiated a class action
lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against Ramp Corporation (OTC:

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 of issuing a series of
material misrepresentations to the market which had the effect
of artificially inflating the market price. The class period is
from April 14, 2004 through May 20, 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.


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  * * *