CAR_Public/050808.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Monday, August 8, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 155

                            Headlines

ADVERTISING.COM: Reaches Settlement For FTC Complaint V. Spyware
AON CORPORATION: Lawsuit Settlement Hearing Set October 11, 2005
ARTHUR ANDERSEN: Settles Lawsuit Over Global Crossing Collapse
ASSOCIATED ESTATES: Asks OH Court For Summary Judgment in Suit
AZTAR CORPORATION: AZ Court Dismiss Hotel Phone Surcharge Suit

BJ'S RESTAURANTS: Reaches Settlement For Employee Lawsuit in CA
BJ'S RESTAURANTS: Enters Arbitration For CA Employee Wage Suit
BJ'S RESTAURANTS: CA Employees Launch 2005 Overtime Wage Lawsuit
BROADCOM CORPORATION: Settlement Hearing Set September 12, 2005
CANADA: Law Firm Plans Suit V. Air France Over Flight 358 Crash

CARRIER ACCESS: Shareholders Commence Securities Fraud Lawsuits
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Working on MO Securities Suit Settlement
COAMERICA INC.: Lawsuit Settlement Hearing Set October 24, 2005
CORE LABORATORIES: TX Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit
FIRST HORIZON: Asks GA Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Lawsuit

JOURNAL SENTINEL: Asks WI Court To Dismiss Advertisers' Lawsuit
KPNQWEST N.V.: Plaintiffs Launch Second Amended Securities Suit
MACK TRUCKS: Recalls 12 2006 Mack / CL Trucks For Crash Hazard  
MACK TRUCKS: Recalls 23 2006 CV, DM Trucks Due to Crash Hazard  
MAINE: Judge Mulls $3.3M Deal For York County Strip-Search Case

MCA FINANCIAL: Former CEO Sentenced to Prison Term, Restitution
NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Extension of Deadline For SC Settlement Sought
NORTHWESTERN CORPORATION: Working To Settle MT Securities Suit
NVE PHARMACEUTICALS: IL Woman Files Suit Over Dietary Supplement
PEROT SYSTEMS: Plaintiffs Seek Review of CA Lawsuit Dismissal

PEROT SYSTEMS: Asks TX Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Lawsuit
PIPER JAFFRAY: Court Grants Appeal of NY Lawsuit Certification
PIPER JAFFRAY: Discovery Proceeds in NY Fee Antitrust Lawsuit
PUGET SOUND: CA Court Considering Energy Firms' Suit Settlement
QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: CO Court Preliminarily OKs Suit Settlement

QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: CO Court Mulls Securities Suit Dismissal
QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Faces ERISA Violations Lawsuit in CO Court
QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Continues To Face CO State Securities Suit
RHODE ISLAND: Defendant in Lead Paint Litigation Seeks New Judge
ROYAL DUTCH: ERISA Suit Settlement Hearing Set August 22, 2005

SOUTH CAROLINA: Student's Parents Sue Beaufort School District
SYMBOL TECHNOLOGIES: SEC Suspends Ex-CAO Over Accounting Fraud
VOLVO TRUCKS: Recalls 958 2004-06 Trucks For FMVSS Noncompliance   

                 New Securities Fraud Cases

AVON PRODUCTS: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
INVESTORS FINANCIAL: Scott + Scott Lodges Securities Suit in MA
LEAPFROG ENTERPRISES: Cohen Milstein Lodges CA Consolidated Suit
PRESTIGE BRAND: Marc S. Henzel Files Securities Fraud Suit in NY
RENAISSANCERE HOLDINGS: Schiffrin & Barroway Files NY Stock Suit

RENAISSANCERE HOLDINGS: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Suit in NY

                          *********


ADVERTISING.COM: Reaches Settlement For FTC Complaint V. Spyware
----------------------------------------------------------------
Advertising.com, Inc., now a subsidiary of America Online, Inc.,
has agreed to settle FTC charges that it violated federal law by
offering free security software, but failing to disclose
adequately that adware was bundled with that software. The
settlement will require that the company clearly and prominently
disclose adware bundled with software advertised to enhance
security or privacy.

"This company offered SpyBlast, a free security program to
protect against hackers," said Lydia Parnes, Director of the
FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection. "But consumers who
downloaded SpyBlast also downloaded a form of software that
followed their electronic comings and goings and force-fed them
pop-up ads."

The FTC complaint charged that Advertising.com, Inc., and its
co-founder, John Ferber, distributed ads stating that because a
consumer's computer was broadcasting an Internet IP address, it
was at risk from hackers. Consumers who clicked on one of the
ads were shown an Active X "security warning" installation box,
with a hyperlink describing SpyBlast as "Personal Computer
Security and Protection Software from unauthorized users" and
telling them, "once you agree to the License Terms and Privacy
policy - click YES to continue." The hyperlink did not indicate
the nature and significance of the terms of the licensing
agreement - namely that adware would be installed on their
computers. Consumers were not required to read the agreement
before installing the software. If consumers had read the
agreement, they might have seen a statement saying that by
accepting the software, they agreed to receive marketing
messages, including pop-up ads, based on their Internet browsing
habits.

According to the complaint, the SpyBlast software was bundled
with a software program that collected information about
consumers, including the URLs of pages they visited, that was
used to send them advertisements.  The complaint charges that in
representing that SpyBlast is an Internet security program, the
respondents did not adequately disclose that SpyBlast included
adware that caused consumers to receive pop-up ads. It alleges
that the presence of the bundled adware would be material to
consumers deciding whether to install SpyBlast, and, therefore,
that the failure to disclose it adequately was deceptive.

The proposed consent order prohibits the respondents from making
any representations about the performance, benefits, efficacy,
or features of SpyBlast or any of their other programs promoted
as security or privacy software, unless they clearly and
conspicuously disclose that consumers who install the program
will receive advertisements, if that is the case. The settlement
also requires that the respondents comply with standard record-
keeping and other provisions to allow the Commission to monitor
compliance with the order. The proposed consent order does not
cover America Online, Inc., the parent company of respondent
Advertising.com, Inc.

The accompanying analysis to aid public comment notes that this
complaint, "applies general Commission law on deception. The
application of this law in an online context was illustrated in
a 2000 FTC staff guidance document, Dot Com Disclosures:
Information About Online Advertising, which is available at:
http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/buspubs/dotcom/index.pdf."

The analysis also states: "The proposed order is designed
specifically to address the facts of the case at hand. However,
the limitation in the proposed order to respondents' software
programs whose principal function is to enhance security or
privacy should not be read more broadly to suggest that the
requirement for clear and prominent disclosure is necessarily
limited to those situations. Moreover, the problem here was not
the security software that Advertising.com disseminated with its
adware. Instead, it was the respondents' practice of downloading
software onto users' computers, without adequate notice and
consent, that generated repeated pop-up ads as the computer
users surfed the Web."

The Commission vote to accept the proposed consent agreement was
4-0. The FTC will publish an announcement regarding the
agreement in the Federal Register shortly. The agreement will be
subject to public comment for 30 days, beginning today and
continuing through August 31, after which the Commission will
decide whether to make it final. Comments should be addressed to
the FTC, Office of the Secretary, Room H-159, 600 Pennsylvania
Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580. The FTC is requesting that
any comment filed in paper form near the end of the public
comment period be sent by courier or overnight service, if
possible, because U.S. postal mail in the Washington area and at
the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security
precautions.

Copies of the complaint and consent agreement are available from
the FTC's Web site at http://www.ftc.govand also from the FTC's  
Consumer Response Center, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue,
N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580. The FTC works for the consumer to
prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices in
the marketplace and to provide information to help consumers
spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or
Spanish (bilingual counselors are available to take complaints),
or to get free information on any of 150 consumer topics, call
toll-free, 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357), or use the complaint
form at http://www.ftc.gov.The FTC enters Internet,  
telemarketing, identity theft, and other fraud-related
complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database
available to thousands of civil and criminal law enforcement
agencies in the U.S. and abroad.  For more details, contact
Claudia Bourne Farrell, Office of Public Affairs by Phone: 202-
326-2181; Thomas B. Pahl or Michael Ostheimer by Phone: 202-326-
2128 or 202-326-2699 or visit the Website:
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2005/07/spyblast.htm.


AON CORPORATION: Lawsuit Settlement Hearing Set October 11, 2005
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois will hold a farness
hearing for the proposed settlement in the matter: Daniel v. Aon
Corporation, Case No. 99 CH 11893, on behalf of persons who used
Aon Company, Affiliate or Subsidiary for insurance services from
January 1, 1994 through December 31, 2004.

The hearing will be held on October 11, 2005 at 10:00 a.m.
before Judge Nowicki in Room 2510 of the Richard J. Daley
Center, 50 W. Washington, Chicago, IL, 60602.

For more details, contact Daniel Settlement Administrator, 2807
Allen St., PMB #801, Dallas, TX, 75204-4094, Phone:
1-800-714-9815, Web site: http://www.aon-daniel-settlement.com.


ARTHUR ANDERSEN: Settles Lawsuit Over Global Crossing Collapse
--------------------------------------------------------------
The now defunct auditor Arthur Andersen LLP agreed to pay $25
million to settle a lawsuit brought by investors over its role
in the collapse of telecommunications network provider, Global
Crossing Ltd., according to lawyers for the plaintiffs.

Simultaneously denying that it committed any crime, or any act
of omission, Andersen, which used to be Global Crossing's
auditor between 1998 and 2000, stated that it was settling to
eliminate the uncertainties and expense surrounding protracted
litigation.  The company, now based in Florham Park, New Jersey,
emerged from Chapter 11 in December 2003. Global Crossing's
bankruptcy remains the sixth largest in U.S. history, according
to experts.

The settlement adds to the lengthening list of parties that have
agreed to settle with former investors in Global Crossing, which
was forced into bankruptcy by financial fraud in January 2002.
It wiped out $45 billion in stock value.

New York-based Citigroup, one of Global Crossing's former
financial advisors, agreed in March to settle its share of the
lawsuit with $75 million. According Grant & Eisenhofer law firm,
which represents the lead plaintiffs in the case, a federal
judge overseeing the Global Crossing securities fraud class
action has approved that settlement.

Citigroup was accused in the three-year-old class action lawsuit
of issuing inflated research reports, mostly written by former
star analyst Jack Grubman and failing to disclose conflicts of
interest.  As of the moment, defendants have committed a total
of $345 million as compensation to investors. Apart from
Citigroup and Andersen's share, 38 individuals, including former
members of Global Crossing's board are paying $195 million with
former chairman and founder Gary Winnick paying up to $19.5
million.  

Global Crossing filed for Chapter 11 protection after struggling
with too much debt and undersea fiber-optic cable capacity, and
amid questions about its accounting practices.  The investors
accused Global Crossing, former officers and directors, and
advisers of falsifying financial filings to hide losses. The
lead plaintiffs, the Public Employees Retirement System of Ohio
and the State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio, represented by
Grant & Eisenhofer, claimed they lost more than $110 million.

With the settlement, Grant & Eisenhofer partner Jay Eisenhofer
told Reuters Limited, "We are now focusing on the remaining
portion of investment banking defendants for their part in
structuring enormous securities under writings by Global
Crossing that should never have been offered to the public." A
spokesman for the law firm Grant & Eisenhofer confirmed by
telling Reuters Limited that the investors' case against three
other investment banks, Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch and CIBC
was still going on.


ASSOCIATED ESTATES: Asks OH Court For Summary Judgment in Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Ohio Court of Common Pleas, Franklin County has yet to rule
on Associated Estates Realty Corporation's motion seeking
summary judgment in the class action filed against it by Melanie
and Kyle Kopp, seeking undetermined damages, injunctive relief
and class action certification.  

This case arose out of the Company's Suredeposit program.  This
program allows cash short prospective residents to purchase a
bond in lieu of paying a security deposit.  The bond serves as a
fund to pay those resident obligations that would otherwise have
been funded by the security deposit.  

Plaintiffs allege that the non-refundable premium paid for the
bond is a disguised form of security deposit, which is otherwise
required to be refundable in accordance with Ohio's Landlord-
Tenant Act.  Plaintiffs further allege that certain
nonrefundable pet deposits and other nonrefundable charges
required by the Company are similarly security deposits that
must be refundable in accordance with Ohio's Landlord-Tenant
Act.  

On January 15, 2004, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification.  The Company subsequently filed a motion for
summary judgment.  Both motions are pending before the Court.  


AZTAR CORPORATION: AZ Court Dismiss Hotel Phone Surcharge Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of Maricopa County, Arizona dismissed the
class action filed against Aztar Corporation without prejudice,
due to lack of prosecution.

Plaintiff Aaron Dolgin filed the suit, relating to a $1 per day
telephone surcharge assessed to certain guests at check-in at
the Tropicana Resort and Casino in Las Vegas, Nevada and the
Tropicana Casino and Resort in Atlantic City, New Jersey (the
"Tropicana Hotels").  The hotels are owned and operated by
subsidiaries of the Company.

Plaintiff, Aaron Dolgin, brings claims based upon:

     (1) alleged violation of the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act;

     (2) fraudulent advertising;

     (3) breach of contract;

     (4) breach of the implied-in-law covenant of good faith and
         fair dealing; and

     (5) unjust enrichment

In an order dated February 28, 2005, the Court denied the
plaintiff's motion to certify this matter as a class action.  As
a result, only the plaintiff's individual claims based on the
single $1 telephone surcharge he paid to the Tropicana Resort
and Casino in Las Vegas, Nevada are still pending.  The
plaintiff has not actively litigated this matter since the
denial of the motion for class certification.  The Court
subsequently placed the case on the Inactive Calendar for
dismissal on June 20, 2005 unless the plaintiff filed a motion
to set the matter for trial before that date.  The plaintiff
failed to file a motion to set the matter for trial before the
June 20, 2005 deadline.  

On July 15, 2005, the Court ordered dismissing this case without
prejudice due to lack of prosecution. The possibility still
remains that the plaintiff may appeal the denial of class
certification.


BJ'S RESTAURANTS: Reaches Settlement For Employee Lawsuit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
BJ's Restaurants, Inc. paid in full the settlement of the class
action filed against it in the Superior Court of California for
the County, alleging violations of provisions of the California
Labor Code covering meal and rest beaks for employees, along
with associated acts of unfair competition.  The suit seeks
payment of wages for all meal and rest breaks allegedly denied
to the Company's California employees for the period from
October 1, 2000 to the present.  

The Company reached an agreement with the class counsel to
settle the meal and rest break class action case pending in
California, and the settlement has been approved by the court.  
The amount of the settlement was developed from mediation, which
was concluded in December 2003.


BJ'S RESTAURANTS: Enters Arbitration For CA Employee Wage Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
BJ's Restaurants, Inc. entered arbitration for the class action
filed against it in Los Angeles County Superior Court in
California, alleging causes of action for:

     (1) failure to pay reporting time minimum pay;

     (2) failure to allow meal breaks;

     (3) failure to allow rest breaks;

     (4) waiting time penalties;

     (5) civil penalties;

     (6) reimbursement for fraud and deceit;

     (7) punitive damages for fraud and deceit; and

     (8) disgorgement of illicit profits

On June 28, 2004, the Plaintiff stipulated to dismiss her
second, third, fourth, and fifth causes of action. During
September 2004, the Plaintiff stipulated to arbitration of the
action.  No further court action has been taken since that date.


BJ'S RESTAURANTS: CA Employees Launch 2005 Overtime Wage Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
BJ's Restaurants, Inc. faces a class action filed in Los Angeles
Superior Court in California, alleging various wage claims,
including failure to pay overtime wages and failure to provide
meal and rest breaks.  

The plaintiff also alleges causes of action for contract
rescission and negligence based upon the Company's alleged
failure to properly classify certain employees as "non-exempt"
under California's overtime laws. Finally, the plaintiff alleges
a cause of action for unfair business practices under California
Business & Professions Code Section 17200 et seq. The plaintiff
purported to bring the causes of action in the complaint on
behalf of a class of current and former employees comprised of
all individuals who worked as salaried kitchen managers in our
California restaurants at any time from June 2001 to the
present.


BROADCOM CORPORATION: Settlement Hearing Set September 12, 2005
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California, Southern Division will hold a fairness hearing for
the proposed $150 million settlement in the matter: In re
Broadcom Corporation Securities Litigation, Master File No. SCAV
01-275 GLT (MLGx) on behalf of all persons or entities who
purchased or acquired the publicly traded securities of the
Company and/or bought or sold options on Company stock, during
the period July 31, 2000 through February 26, 2001.

The hearing will be held on September 12, 2005, at 10:00 a.m.,
before the Honorable Dickran Tevrizian, Judge of the United
States District Court, at Roybal Federal Building, Courtrrom
880, 225 East Temple St., Los Angeles, CA, 90012.

For more details, contact Broadcom Corporation Securities
Litigation, Claims Administrator, c/o Gilardi & Co., LLC, P.O.
Box 8040, San Rafael, CA, 94912-8040, Phone: 415-461-0410, E-
mail: classact@gilardi.com Web site:
http://www.gilardi.com/broadcomlitigation/.


CANADA: Law Firm Plans Suit V. Air France Over Flight 358 Crash
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Toronto law firm that is partnered with one of the largest
class action specialists in the United States plans to hold a
public meeting that seeks to inform passengers of Air France
Flight 358 of their legal rights after last week's fiery crash,
The National Post reports.

Paul Miller, a lawyer with Will Barristers in Toronto, told The
National Post that the 297 passengers who scrambled out of the
burning wreckage of the Airbus A340 appear to have a strong case
for financial damages from the Paris-based airline.  Mr. Miller
also noted that in March, Air Transat settled a class action
lawsuit stemming from a 2001 Toronto-to-Lisbon flight forced to
make a hard landing in the Azores after running out of fuel.
That settlement paid 175 passengers a total of $7.65-million.

Speaking of the more recent accident, Mr. Miller told The
National Post, "This one is a lot worse. In terms of legal
perspectives, it's a nice case." He also said that his firm
wants to tell Flight 358 passengers they need to take
precautions now to ensure all legal options remain open in the
future.

The Warsaw Convention, an international treaty that requires
passengers to report injuries to a doctor as soon as possible,
governs the liability of airlines in international accidents,
Mr. Miller noted. "If you don't report them to a physician as
soon as you become aware of them, or within a reasonable amount
of time, you could lose your claim," Mr. Miller said.

The time and location of next week's meeting are still being
determined, but Mr. Miller expects to be joined at the session
by Mary Schiavo, the former inspector general for the U.S.
Department of Transportation and an aviation litigation
specialist with the South Carolina law firm Motley Rice, LLC,
which is one of the largest class action specialists in the
United States.

Ms. Schiavo told The National Post that survivors of airline
crashes often go through a period of immense relief before anger
sets in. She further pointed out, "They'll start to ask, 'Why
did this have to happen?' and they'll find that it didn't. Then
they're going to be angry that someone made a poor decision."

The Warsaw Convention caps individual damages at $75,000, unless
it can be proven that an airline displayed "willful misconduct"
or that air-traffic control decisions contributed to the
accident.


CARRIER ACCESS: Shareholders Commence Securities Fraud Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Carrier Access Corporation and certain of its officers and
directors face three shareholder class actions filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Colorado,
styled:

     (1) Croker v. Carrier Access Corporation, et al., Case No.
         05-cv-1011-LTB;

     (2) Chisman v. Carrier Access Corporation, et al., Case No.
         05-cv-1078-REB, and

     (3) Sved v. Carrier Access Corporation, et al, Case No. 05-
         cv-1280-EWN,

The suits are purportedly brought on behalf of those who
purchased the Company's publicly traded securities between
October 21, 2003 and May 20, 2005.  Plaintiffs allege that
defendants made false and misleading statements, purport to
assert claims for violations of the federal securities laws, and
seek unspecified compensatory damages and other relief. The
complaints are based upon allegations of wrongdoing in
connection with the Company's announcement of its intention to
restate previously issued financial statements for the year
ended December 31, 2004 and certain interim periods in each of
the years ended December 31, 2004 and 2003.

The first identified litigation in the suit is styled "Jerry
Croker, et al. v. Carrier Access Corporation, et al., case no.
05-CV-1011," filed in the United States District Court in
Colorado.  The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

     (1) 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

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

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

     (4) Federman & Sherwood, 120 North Robinson, Suite 2720,
         Oklahoma City, OK, 73102, Phone: 405-235-1560, Fax:
         wfederman@aol.com

     (5) Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C., Esquire at 261
         Old York Road, Suite 423, Jenkintown, PA, 19046, Phone:
         215.886.1900, E-mail: securitiesfraud@comcast.net

     (6) Leo W. Desmond, 2161 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, Suite
         204, West Palm Beach, FL, 33409, Phone: 561.712.8000,
         E-mail: stocklaw@bellsouth.net

     (7) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins (San
         Diego), 401 B Street, Suite 1700, San Diego, CA, 92101,
         Phone: 619.231.1058, Fax: 619.231.7423, E-mail:
         info@lerachlaw.com

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

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

    (10) Smith & Smith LLP, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112,
         Bensalem, PA, 19020, Phone: (866)759-2275, E-mail:
          howardsmithlaw@hotmail.com  


CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Working on MO Securities Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Charter Communications, Inc. is working on the settlement of the
federal class actions and shareholder derivative lawsuits filed
against it and certain of its present and former officers and
directors in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri.

Fourteen putative federal class action lawsuits were filed
against the Company and certain of its former and present
officers and directors in various jurisdictions allegedly on
behalf of all purchasers of the Company's securities during the
period from either November 8 or November 9, 1999 through July
17 or July 18, 2002.  Unspecified damages were sought by the
plaintiffs.

In general, the lawsuits allege that the Company utilized
misleading accounting practices and failed to disclose these
accounting practices and/or issued false and misleading
financial statements and press releases concerning its
operations and prospects.

In October 2002, the Company filed a motion with the Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPMDL) to transfer the
Federal Class Actions to the Eastern District of Missouri. On
March 12, 2003, the Panel transferred the six Federal Class
Actions not filed in the Eastern District of Missouri to that
district for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings
with the eight Federal Class Actions already pending there. The
Panel's transfer order assigned the Federal Class Actions to
Judge Charles A. Shaw.  By virtue of a prior court order,
StoneRidge Investment Partners LLC became lead plaintiff upon
entry of the Panel's transfer order.  StoneRidge subsequently
filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint.  The Court subsequently
consolidated the Federal Class Actions into a single action for
pretrial purposes.

On June 19, 2003, following a status and scheduling conference
with the parties, the Court issued a Case Management Order
setting forth a schedule for the pretrial phase of the
Consolidated Federal Class Action.  Motions to dismiss the
Consolidated Amended Complaint were filed.  On February 10,
2004, in response to a joint motion made by StoneRidge and
defendants the Company, Carl E. Vogel, president and chief
executive officer and Paul Allen, the court entered an order
providing, among other things, that the parties who filed such
motion engage in a mediation within ninety (90) days; and all
proceedings in the Consolidated Federal Class Actions were
stayed until May 10, 2004.  On May 11, 2004, the Court extended
the stay in the Consolidated Federal Class Action for an
additional sixty (60) days.  On July 12, 2004, the parties
submitted a joint motion to again extend the stay, this time
until September 10, 2004.  The Court granted that extension on
July 20, 2004.  

On August 5, 2004, StoneRidge, the Company and the individual
defendants who were the subject of the suit entered into a
Memorandum of Understanding setting forth agreements in
principle to settle the Consolidated Federal Class Action. These
parties subsequently entered into Stipulations of Settlement
dated as of January 24, 2005 (described more fully below) which
incorporate the terms of the August 5, 2004 Memorandum of
Understanding.

The Consolidated Federal Class Action is entitled, "In re
Charter Communications, Inc. Securities Litigation, MDL Docket
No. 1506 (All Cases), StoneRidge Investments Partners, LLC,
Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
Charter Communications, Inc., Paul Allen, Jerald L. Kent, Carl
E. Vogel, Kent Kalkwarf, David G. Barford, Paul E. Martin, David
L. McCall, Bill Shreffler, Chris Fenger, James H. Smith, III,
Scientific-Atlanta, Inc., Motorola, Inc. and Arthur Andersen,
LLP, Consolidated Case No. 4:02-CV-1186-CAS."

On September 12, 2002, a shareholders derivative suit was filed
in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, State of Missouri
against the Company and its then current directors, as well as
its former auditors.  A substantively identical derivative
action was later filed and consolidated into the State
Derivative Action.  The plaintiffs allege that the individual
defendants breached their fiduciary duties by failing to
establish and maintain adequate internal controls and
procedures.  Unspecified damages, allegedly on the Company's
behalf, are sought by the plaintiffs.

The consolidated State Derivative Action is entitled "Kenneth
Stacey, Derivatively on behalf of Nominal Defendant Charter
Communications, Inc., v. Ronald L. Nelson, Paul G. Allen, Marc
B. Nathanson, Nancy B. Peretsman, William Savoy, John H. Tory,
Carl E. Vogel, Larry W. Wangberg, Arthur Andersen, LLP and
Charter Communications, Inc."

On March 12, 2004, an action substantively identical to the
State Derivative Action was filed in the Missouri State Court,
against the Company and certain of its current and former
directors, as well as its former auditors. The plaintiffs in
that case alleged that the individual defendants breached their
fiduciary duties by failing to establish and maintain adequate
internal controls and procedures.  Unspecified damages,
allegedly on the Company's behalf, were sought by plaintiffs. On
July 14, 2004, the Court consolidated this case with the State
Derivative Action.  This action is entitled "Thomas Schimmel,
Derivatively on behalf on Nominal Defendant Charter
Communications, Inc., v. Ronald L. Nelson, Paul G. Allen, Marc
B. Nathanson, Nancy B. Peretsman, William D. Savoy, John H.
Tory, Carl E. Vogel, Larry W. Wangberg, and Arthur Andersen,
LLP, and Charter Communications, Inc."

Separately, on February 12, 2003, a shareholders derivative
suit, was filed against the Company and its then current
directors in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri. The plaintiff in that suit alleged that
the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties and
grossly mismanaged the Company by failing to establish and
maintain adequate internal controls and procedures. Unspecified
damages, allegedly on the Company's behalf, were sought by the
plaintiffs.  The Federal Derivative Action is entitled "Arthur
Cohn, Derivatively on behalf of Nominal Defendant Charter
Communications, Inc., v. Ronald L. Nelson, Paul G. Allen, Marc
B. Nathanson, Nancy B. Peretsman, William Savoy, John H. Tory,
Carl E. Vogel, Larry W. Wangberg, and Charter Communications,
Inc."

The Company entered into Memoranda of Understanding on August 5,
2004 setting forth agreements in principle regarding settlement
of the Consolidated Federal Class Action, the State
Derivative Action(s) and the Federal Derivative Action.  The
Company and various other defendants in those actions
subsequently entered into Stipulations of Settlement dated as of
January 24, 2005, setting forth a settlement of the Actions in a
manner consistent with the terms of the Memoranda of
Understanding. The Stipulations of Settlement, along with
various supporting documentation, were filed with the Court on
February 2, 2005.

The Stipulations of Settlement provide that, in exchange for a
release of all claims by plaintiffs against the Company and its
former and present officers and directors named in the Actions,
the Company will pay to the plaintiffs a combination of cash and
equity collectively valued at $144.0 million, which will include
the fees and expenses of plaintiffs' counsel.  Of this amount,
$64.0 million will be paid in cash (by Charter's insurance
carriers) and the balance will be paid in shares of Charter
Class A common stock having an aggregate value of $40.0 million
and ten-year warrants to purchase shares of Charter Class A
common stock having an aggregate warrant value of  $40.0
million, with such values in each case being determined pursuant
to formulas set forth in the Stipulations of Settlement.  The
warrants would have an exercise price equal to 150% of the fair
market value (as defined) of Charter Class A common stock as of
the date of the entry of the order of final judgment approving
the settlement.  In addition, Charter expects to issue
additional shares of its Class A common stock to its insurance
carrier having an aggregate value of $5.0 million. In the event
that the valuation formula in the Stipulations provides for a
per share value of less than $2.25, Charter may elect to
terminate the settlement. As part of the settlements, Charter
will also commit to a variety of corporate governance changes,
internal practices and public disclosures, some of which have
already been undertaken and none of which are inconsistent with
measures Charter is taking in connection with the recent
conclusion of the SEC investigation.  Documents related to the
settlement of the Actions have now been executed and filed.  On
February 15, 2005, the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri gave preliminary approval to the
settlement of the Actions. The settlement of each of the
lawsuits remains conditioned upon, among other things, final
judicial approval of the settlements following notice to the
class, and dismissal with prejudice of the consolidated
derivative actions now pending in Missouri State Court, which
are related to the Federal Derivative Action.

The court conducted the final fairness hearing for the Actions,
and on June 30, 2005, the Court issued its final approval of the
settlements.  Members of the class had 30 days from the issuance
of the June 30 order approving the settlement to file an appeal
challenging the approval.  Two notices of appeal were filed
relating to the settlement, but the Company does not yet know
the specific issues presented by such appeals nor have briefing
schedules been set.

As amended, the Stipulations of Settlement provide that, in
exchange for a release of all claims by plaintiffs against the
Company and its former and present officers and directors named
in the Actions, the Company would pay to the plaintiffs a
combination of cash and equity collectively valued at $144
million, which will include the fees and expenses of plaintiffs'
counsel.  Of this amount, $64 million would be paid in cash (by
Charter's insurance carriers) and the $80 million balance was to
be paid (subject to Charter's right to substitute cash therefor)
in shares of Charter Class A common stock having an aggregate
value of $40 million and ten-year warrants to purchase shares of
Charter Class A common stock having an aggregate warrant value
of $40 million, with such values in each case being determined
pursuant to formulas set forth in the Stipulations of
Settlement.  However, the Company had the right, in its sole
discretion, to substitute cash for some or all of the
aforementioned securities on a dollar for dollar basis.  
Pursuant to that right, the Company elected to fund the $80
million obligation with 13.4 million shares of its Class A
common stock (having an aggregate value of approximately $15
million pursuant to the formula set forth in the Stipulations of
Settlement) with the remaining balance (less an agreed upon $2
million discount in respect of that portion allocable to
plaintiffs' attorneys' fees) to be paid in cash. In addition,
Charter had agreed to issue additional shares of its Class A
common stock to its insurance carrier having an aggregate value
of $5 million; however, by agreement with its carrier Charter
has paid $4.5 million in cash in lieu of issuing such shares.
Charter delivered the settlement consideration to the claims
administrator on July 8, 2005, and it will be held in escrow
pending any appeals of the approval. On July 14, 2005, the
Circuit Court for the City of St. Louis dismissed with prejudice
the State Derivative Actions.

As part of the settlements, the Company has committed to a
variety of corporate governance changes, internal practices and
public disclosures, some of which have already been undertaken
and none of which are inconsistent with measures Charter is
taking in connection with the recent conclusion of the SEC
investigation.

The suit is styled "StoneRidge Investments, et al v. Charter
Comm Inc., et al, case no. 4:02-cv-01186-CAS," filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri under Judge Charles A. Shaw.  Representing the
plaintiffs are Paul J. D'Agrosa and Donald L. Wolff, WOLFF AND
D'AGROSA, 8019 Forsyth, Clayton, MO 63105, Phone: 314-725-8019,
Fax: 314-725-8443 and E-mail: paul@wolffdagrosa.com or
wolffdagrosa@birch.net; and Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Marc I. Gross,
Stanley M. Grossman, Leigh R. Handelman, Greg B. Linkh,
POMERANTZ AND HAUDEK, One N. LaSalle Street, Suite 2225,
Chicago, IL 60602, Phone: 312-377-1181, Fax: 312-377-1184, E-
mail: migross@pomlaw.com, SMGrossman@pomlaw.com,
lrhandelman@pomlaw.com.  Representing the Company are David A.
Schwarz, David E. Siegel, Craig Varnen, IRELL AND MANELLA, LLP,
1800 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900, Los Angeles, CA 90067,
Phone: 310-277-1010, Fax: 310-203-7199, E-mail:
dschwarz@irell.com, dsiegel@irell.com, cvarnen@irell.com; and
Sherri C. Strand, Danielle T. Uy, Robert J. Wagner, Roman P.
Wuller, THOMPSON COBURN, One US Bank Plaza, St. Louis, MO 63101,
Phone: 314-552-6000, Fax: 314-552-7199, E-mail:
sstrand@thompsoncoburn.com, duy@thompsoncoburn.com,
rwagner@thompsoncoburn.com, or rwuller@thompsoncoburn.com.


COAMERICA INC.: Lawsuit Settlement Hearing Set October 24, 2005
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan, Southern Division will hold a fairness hearing for the
proposed settlement in the matter: In re Comerica, Inc.
Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 2:02cv60233 (MOB), on
behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the
common stock of Comerica, Inc. (ticker symbol: CMA; CUSIP No.
200340107) during the period between July 17, 2002 and October
1, 2002, inclusive (the "Class").  

A hearing will be held before the Honorable Marianne O. Battani
in the United States District Courthouse, 231 W. Lafayette
Blvd., Detroit, Michigan 48226, at 2:00 p.m., on October 24,
2005.

For more details, contact In re Comerica, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Claims Administrator, c/o The Garden City Group,
Inc., P.O. Box 9000 #6331, Merrick, NY, 11566-9000, Phone: (800)
261-5158, Web site: http://www.gardencitygroup.comOR Barry A.  
Weprin, Esq. of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP, One
Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY, 10119-0165, Phone:
(212) 594-5300.


CORE LABORATORIES: TX Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Texas dismissed the consolidated securities class action filed
against Core Laboratories, NV and certain of its officers.

In April 2003, four putative class action lawsuits were filed
and later consolidated.  On March 22, 2004, lead plaintiffs
filed their consolidated amended complaint, which generally
alleges, among other things, that the defendants violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
by making false and misleading statements about the Company's
financial results for 2001 and 2002 and by employing inadequate
internal controls.  The amended complaint sought unspecified
monetary damages.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on May 21, 2004. The lead
plaintiff advised the Company that it intended to voluntarily
dismiss the amended complaint and accordingly, on May 13, 2005,
the parties filed an agreed motion to dismiss the amended
complaint with prejudice.  The Court granted the motion and
dismissed the case with prejudice on May 16, 2005.  In
connection with the dismissal, no monies will be paid to the
plaintiff, but the parties agreed to be responsible for their
own costs and legal fees.  


FIRST HORIZON: Asks GA Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
First Horizon Pharmaceutical Corporation asked the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia to dismiss
with prejudice the second amended securities class action filed
against it and certain of its former and current officers and
directors.

A consolidated securities lawsuit was filed on August 22, 2002
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia.  Plaintiffs in the class action alleged in general
terms that the Company violated Sections 11 and 12(a)(a) of the
Securities Act of 1933 and that the Company violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  In an amended complaint,
Plaintiffs claimed that the Company issued a series of
materially false and misleading statements to the market in
connection with its public offering on April 24, 2002 and
thereafter relating to alleged "channel stuffing" activities.
The amended complaint also alleged controlling person liability
on behalf of certain of the Company's officers under Section 15
of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 20 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  Plaintiffs sought an unspecified amount
of compensatory damages to be proven at trial.

On September 29, 2004, the court dismissed, without prejudice,
the class action lawsuit. Although the class action lawsuit was
dismissed, the court granted the plaintiffs the right to refile
their class action lawsuit provided that the plaintiffs pay all
of the defendants' fees and costs associated with filing the
motions to dismiss the class action lawsuit.  Plaintiffs did not
file a second amended complaint as permitted.  The Company has
submitted a proposed order to the Court to dismiss the case with
prejudice and enter a final judgment in favor of all defendants.  
If the Plaintiffs choose to appeal any final judgment to the
11th Circuit Court of Appeals, they will have 30 days to file a
Notice of Appeal once the judgment is entered, if at all, by the
federal court.

The suit is styled "In Re: First Horizon Pharmaceutical
Securities Litigation, case no. 1:02-cv-02332-JOF," filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia under Judge J. Owen Forrester, presiding.  Representing
the Company are Scott P. Hilsen, John Ludlow Latham, Oscar N.
Persons of Alston & Bird, 1201 West Peachtree Street, One
Atlantic Center, Atlanta, GA 30309-3424, Phone: 404-881-7000, E-
mail: shilsen@alston.com, jlatham@alston.com,
opersons@alston.com; and Kathleen D. Zylan, #208, 6555 Sugarloaf
Parkway Suite 307, Duluth, GA 30097, Phone: 770-853-5143, E-
mail: kzylan@charter.net.  Representing the Company are David
Andrew Bain, Martin D. Chitwood, Chitwood Harley Harnes, LLP,
1230 Peachtree Street, N.E., 2300 Promenade II, Atlanta, GA
30309, Phone: 404-873-3900, E-mail: dab@classlaw.com,
mdc@classlaw.com; and Jack Reise, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller
Rudman & Robbins, Suite 200, 197 South Federal Hwy., Boca Raton,
FL 33432, Phone: 561-750-3000, Fax: 561-750-3364, E-mail:
jreise@lerachlaw.com.  Representing the Company is Karen Hanson
Riebel of Lockridge Grindal Nauen, 100 Washington Avenue South,
2200 Washington Square, Minneapolis, MN 55401-2179, Phone:
612-339-6900, E-mail: bgilles@locklaw.com.


JOURNAL SENTINEL: Asks WI Court To Dismiss Advertisers' Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Journal Sentinel, Inc., a subsidiary of Journal Communications,
Inc., asked the Milwaukee County Circuit Court, Wisconsin to
dismiss a class action filed in April 2005 against it, alleging
it misstated its circulation numbers.

The plaintiff, Shorewest Realtors, seeks to bring a class action
lawsuit on behalf of "Milwaukee Journal Sentinel" advertisers,
alleging that the newspaper improperly inflated its circulation
numbers from 1996 on.  Shorewest is seeking disgorgement or
restitution by Journal Sentinel of alleged improperly collected
charges (with interest), plus an unspecified amount of damages.



KPNQWEST N.V.: Plaintiffs Launch Second Amended Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a second amended class action against Qwest
Communications International, Inc. and Willems Ackermans, the
former executive vice president and chief financial officer of
KPNQwest N.V. in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

The complaint alleges, on behalf of certain purchasers of
KPNQwest securities, that Mr. Ackermans engaged in a fraudulent
scheme and deceptive course of business in order to inflate
KPNQwest revenue and securities.  Mr. Ackermans was the only
defendant named in the original complaint.  On January 9, 2004,
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding as defendants the
Company, certain of its former executives who were also on the
supervisory board of KPNQwest, and others.  Plaintiffs seek
compensatory damages and/or rescission as appropriate against
defendants, as well as an award of plaintiffs' fees and costs.


The suit is styled "Taft v. Ackermans, case no. 1:02cv7951,"
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, under Judge Peter K. Leisure, Representing
the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Ira M. Press and Mark Booker of Kirby, McInerney &
         Squire, LLP, 830 Third Avenue, 10TH Floor, New York, NY
         10022 USA, Phone: (212) 317-2300

     (2) Jacob A. Goldberg, Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, Three
         Bala Plaza East, Suite 400, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, USA,
         Phone: (610) 667-7706

     (3) Lionel Z. Glancy and Robert M. Zabb, Glancy, Binkow &
         Goldberg, LLP, 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311, Los
         Angeles, CA 90067, USA, Phone: (310) 201-9150

Representing the Company are Barry Howard Goldstein, O'Melveny &
Myers LLP, Seven Times Square, New York, NY 10036, USA, Phone:
212-326-2000, Fax: 212-326-2061, E-mail: Bgoldstein@omm.com; and
Matthew W. Close, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, 400 S Hope Street, Los
Angeles, CA 90071, USA, Phone: (213) 430-6000.


MACK TRUCKS: Recalls 12 2006 Mack / CL Trucks For Crash Hazard  
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mack Trucks, Inc. in cooperation with the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration's Office of Defects Investigation
(ODI) is voluntarily recalling about 12 units of 2006 Mack / CL
trucks due to crash hazard. NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID Number: 05V348000.

According to the ODI, on certain heavy-duty class 8 trucks, the
bolts that attach the steering gear to the frame may not be
tightened properly. This may affect the performance of the
steering, which may result in a vehicle crash.

As a remedy, dealers will check the torque on the bolts that
attach the steering gear to the frame and tighten the bolts
properly. The recall is expected to begin on August 5, 2005.

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


MACK TRUCKS: Recalls 23 2006 CV, DM Trucks Due to Crash Hazard  
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mack Trucks, Inc. in cooperation with the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration's Office of Defects Investigation
(ODI) is voluntarily recalling about 23 units of 2006 Mack / CV
and 2006 Mack / DM trucks due to crash hazard. NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID
Number: 05V349000.

According to the ODI, on certain trucks, the bolt that attaches
the Pitman Arm to the steering gear may not be tightened
properly. This may affect the performance of the steering, which
may result in a crash.

As a remedy, dealers will check the torque on the bolt that
attaches the Pitman Arm to steering gear and tighten the bolt
properly. The recall is expected to begin on August 5, 2005.

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


MAINE: Judge Mulls $3.3M Deal For York County Strip-Search Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Judge D. Brock Hornby said he will rule within a few
weeks on whether to accept a proposed $3.3 million settlement of
a class action lawsuit by people who were strip-searched at the
York County Jail between 1996 and 2004, The Associated Press
reports.

While some of the 1,350 people who stand to share in the
settlement expressed relief that the case appears to be
resolved, Margaret Hand told The Associated Press that money was
not her only concern and she would want most of all to get an
apology. Ms. Hand, whose share of the settlement would be $2,800
said, "For me, it was more about healing. What I most want is a
sincere apology, and that is what I am most unlikely to get."

Ms. Hand told The Associated Press that she was traumatized by
the search, which occurred after she was arrested in 2001 for
disorderly conduct when she objected to her truck being towed.
The charges were eventually dropped.

The lawsuit, which was filed by Michelle Nilsen of North
Andover, Massachusetts, contended that the York County Sheriff's
Department broke the law by requiring all persons brought to the
jail to strip and shower in front of an officer no matter how
minor the charge brought against them.

Previously, plaintiffs' lawyers estimated that as many as 7,500
people could be eligible for payments, but less than one-fifth
that number came forward.  Under the proposed settlement, which
is one of Maine's largest civil rights settlements ever, the
county agreed to change its search policy by giving detainees a
place behind an opaque glass screen to change into jail
uniforms. People arrested for violent felonies, drug offenses
and weapons charges are still subject to full strip searches.  
Additionally, the county also agreed to pay money to the class
members, but did not acknowledge any pattern of constitutional
violations. According to county lawyer Peter Marchesi, York
County agreed to settle the case because its size and complexity
would have made it expensive to litigate.

An agreement reached between the two sides in December received
preliminary approval, and Judge Hornby's decision would be the
final step toward compensating the class members. Women would
receive $2,800 payments and men would get $1,400 under the
settlement.  As a previously reported in the August 4, 2005
edition of the Class Action Reporter, a recent hearing in the
case failed to rule on the propriety of a settlement.


MCA FINANCIAL: Former CEO Sentenced to Prison Term, Restitution
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission reports that the
Honorable Judge Nancy G. Edmunds of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan sentenced Patrick D.
Quinlan, Sr., former CEO of MCA Financial Corporation, to ten
years in prison for his involvement in a fraudulent scheme
perpetrated by MCA.  Judge Edmunds also ordered Mr. Quinlan to
pay $256.6 million in restitution.  Previously, in February
2004, Mr. Quinlan pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to
commit mail, wire and bank fraud and to make false statements in
a matter within the jurisdiction of a federal agency and one
count of making false statements to the Commission.
     
Quinlan, Lee Wells, Keith Pietila, Alexander Ajemian, John
O'Leary, Cheryl Swain and Kevin Lasky are the defendants in a
pending civil injunctive action filed by the Commission on April
23, 2002, in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan.  The complaint in that case alleges that
Mr. Quinlan and the other six defendants violated, or aided and
abetted violations of, the antifraud provisions of the federal
securities laws, among other things, as a result of their
involvement in a financial and offering fraud by MCA.  The
complaint further alleges that MCA sold $71 million of
securitized interests in pools of mortgage loans from 1994
through 1999 while knowingly misrepresenting the risk, rate of
return and historical performance of the interests in the
offering materials and that as a result, investors lost at least
$49 million.  The complaint also alleges that MCA engaged in the
fraudulent sale of $19 million in debentures between 1994 and
1999 by including financial statements that materially inflated
its assets, income and equity in registration statements and
annual and quarterly reports filed with the Commission and that,
as a result, investors in the debentures lost all $19 million
invested.
     
All seven defendants have pled guilty to federal criminal
charges arising out of MCA's fraudulent scheme.  Mr. Ajemian,
Mr. Pietila and Mr. Lasky have been sentenced to 37 months, 48
months and 24 months in prison respectively and were ordered to
pay $256.6 million, $256.6 million and $128 million respectively
in restitution.  Mr. Wells, Mr. Swain and Mr. O'Leary have not
been sentenced yet. In addition, the Michigan Attorney General's
Office has filed state felony securities fraud charges against
Mr. Quinlan, Mr. Wells, Mr. Pietila and Mr. Ajemian.
     
The Commission wishes to thank the Office of the United States
Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan for its assistance
and cooperation in this matter.  [US v. Quinlan, Wells, Pietila,
Ajemian, O'Leary, Swain and Lasky, Case No. 01-80514, E.D.
Mich., Judge Feikens; SEC v. Quinlan, Wells, Pietila, Ajemian,
O'Leary, Swain and Lasky, Case No. 02-60082, USDC, E.D. Mich.,
Judge Battani]  (LR-19323; AAER-2289)


NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Extension of Deadline For SC Settlement Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
People who were evacuated for days after a deadly chlorine leak
following a train wreck in Graniteville need an extra month to
file claims against the railroad company, a lawyer in a class
action suit against the railroad company said, The Associated
Press reports.

The claim period had been extended two weeks to August 15, but
plaintiffs' attorney Joe Rice wants a judge to extend the period
to September 15. Mr. Rice contended that the extensions are
needed because filling out a claim can take time and many people
don't show up with all the information they need, like proof
they lived inside the 1-mile area evacuated after the January 6
train wreck. He pointed out, "Where we are working out of is a
fairly small location and it's taking people longer to fill out
their claim forms."

Mr. Rice told The Associated Press that Norfolk Southern lawyers
have agreed to the extension, which must be approved by a
federal judge.  Nearly 2,000 claims have been filed, according
to Mr. Rice. He did not have an estimate though on the average
value of each claim.

As previously reported in the January 18, 2005 edition of the
Class Action Reporter, a week after the train crash spilled a
toxic chemical, killing nine people and sickening hundreds in
South Carolina, the evacuated residents of Graniteville, some
not yet able to returns to their homes filed lawsuits against
Norfolk Southern, claiming negligence and nuisance.

About 5,400 residents were evacuated from a one-mile radius of
the crash site after the train wreck ruptured a railcar carrying
chlorine and released a toxic cloud over the town of
Graniteville, killing nine people, injuring hundreds and forcing
the evacuation of thousands.

Under the settlement, Norfolk Southern agreed to compensate
residents fully for property damage and lost wages and
businesses for lost profits. The company also is paying for the
inconvenience of the evacuation and minor personal injuries.  
Specifically, the settlement requires Norfolk Southern to pay
$2,000 per household within one mile of the crash site for
inconvenience as well as $200 per day, per person for those who
didn't seek medical attention within 72 hours after the crash.

It is unclear how much money the railroad will spend on the
settlement. Company spokesman Robin Chapman did tell The
Associated Press that Norfolk Southern expects to spend $35
million for cleanup costs, legal claims and other expenses from
the wreck.

Mr. Rice told The Associated Press that the families of those
killed and anyone injured seriously enough to go to the hospital
is excluded from the settlement and can sue the railroad company
on their own. He pointed out that anyone else evacuated must opt
out of the settlement to be able to sue Norfolk Southern
individually.

According to Mr. Rice, approximately 500 people have opted out
so far, but half of them live outside the evacuation zone and
wouldn't have been included in the class action suit anyway. He
also told The Associated Press that other lawyers would ask for
the claim deadline to be extended at a hearing in Aiken on
August 17. Additionally, Mr. Rice explains that at the same
hearing, a federal judge is expected to hear arguments from
other lawyers that the payments from Norfolk Southern are too
low.


NORTHWESTERN CORPORATION: Working To Settle MT Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Northwestern Corporation is working to resolve the class action
filed against it and other defendants in the United States
District Court for the District of Montana, styled "McGreevey,
et al. v. The Montana Power Company, et al."

The lawsuit, which was filed by former shareholders of The
Montana Power Company (most of whom became shareholders of Touch
America Holdings, Inc. as a result of a corporate reorganization
of the Montana Power Company), claims that the disposition of
various generating and energy-related assets by The Montana
Power Company were void because of the failure to obtain
shareholder approval for the transactions. Plaintiffs thus seek
to reverse those transactions, or receive fair value for their
stock as of late 2001, when plaintiffs claim shareholder
approval should have been sought.  The Company is named as a
defendant due to the fact that it purchased The Montana Power
L.L.C., which plaintiffs claim is a successor to the Montana
Power Company.

On November 6, 2003, the Bankruptcy Court approved a stipulation
between the Company and the plaintiffs in the suit, providing
that litigation, as against the Company, CFB, The Montana Power
Company, The Montana Power L.L.C. and Jack Haffey, be
temporarily stayed for 180 days from the date of the
stipulation. As a result of the confirmation of our plan of
reorganization, the stay has been made permanent.

On July 10, 2004, the Company and the other insureds under the
applicable directors and officers liability insurance policies
along with the plaintiffs and the Touch America Creditors
Committee reached a tentative settlement through mediation.
Among the terms of the tentative settlement, the Company, CFB
and other parties will be released from all claims in this case,
the plaintiffs in McGreevey will dismiss their claims against
the third party purchasers of the generation assets and non-
regulated energy assets of Montana Power Company, including PPL
Montana, and a settlement fund in the amount of $67 million (all
of which will be contributed by the former Montana Power Company
directors and officers liability insurance carriers) will be
established. The settlement is subject to the occurrence of
several conditions, including approval of the proposed
settlement by the Bankruptcy Court in our bankruptcy proceeding,
and approval of the proposed settlement by the Federal District
Court for the District of Montana, where the class actions are
pending.

On April 29, 2005, the Federal District Court in Montana denied
the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of the proposed
settlement without prejudice and ordered the parties to work out
their differences and present a global settlement agreement in
60 days; otherwise, the court will order the parties to resume
trial preparations.  Even though the parties requested
additional time to continue to negotiate to reach a consensus on
a global settlement agreement, the Federal District Court
requsted the parties to respond to certain issues by August 12,
2005.


NVE PHARMACEUTICALS: IL Woman Files Suit Over Dietary Supplement
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Centreville woman who suffered a hemorrhagic stroke after
taking an herbal dietary supplement, Stacker 2, launched a class
action suit in U.S District Court of Southern Illinois against
the manufacturer NVE Pharmaceuticals and Quik Trip convenience
store, The Madison County Record reports.

Represented by Trent B. Miracle and Virginia L. Borden of
SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Marguerite Johnson claims the
product's health hazards were purposefully downplayed and
understated. Her complaint states, "Much of the truth is now
known about Stacker 2," it goes on to state, "Stacker 2 can
raise the blood pressure, increase the heart rate, and can cause
seizures, strokes, brain injury, heart failure and sudden death
. Instead of pulling Stacker 2 from the market, defendants kept
selling the product and allowed the plaintiff to take Stacker 2
and suffer a hemorrhage stroke."

According to the complaint, Ms. Johnson bought the supplement
from a Quik Trip located at 970 West Highway 50 in O'Fallon and
ingested it on October 22, 2003.  The suit is contending that
the federal court venue is appropriate because there is a
"diversity of citizenship" and "damages exceed the
jurisdictional amount required." It also stated that Ms. Johnson
is seeking to recover damages on counts of product liability,
negligence, breach of warranty and deceit and fraud.

Additionally, the suit alleges, "Stacker 2 was defective
because, for example, it combined ephedra extract and kola nut
extract." It pointed out that the Food and Drug Administration
has banned the use of ephedra in dietary supplements.  Ms.
Johnson's suit also claims the product's labeling was defective
because the warnings could not "reasonably be expected to catch
the attention of a reasonably prudent person" and were not
"comprehensible to the average person."


PEROT SYSTEMS: Plaintiffs Seek Review of CA Lawsuit Dismissal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs asked the California Supreme Court to review a lower
court ruling dismissing the class action filed against Perot
Systems Corporation and other energy traders in the Superior
Court of California in San Diego.

In June 2002, the Company was named as a defendant in a
purported class action lawsuit that alleges that it conspired
with energy traders to manipulate the California energy market.
This lawsuit, styled "Art Madrid v. Perot Systems Corporation et
al.," seeks unspecified damages, treble damages, restitution,
punitive damages, interest, costs, attorneys' fees and
declaratory relief.

In September 2003, the Company filed a demurrer to the complaint
and an alternative motion to strike all claims for monetary
relief. In January 2004, the court granted the Company's
demurrer and did not grant the plaintiffs leave to amend their
complaint.  The plaintiffs appealed to the Third Appellate
District of the California Court of Appeals.  The appellate
court affirmed the lower court's dismissal and denied the
plaintiffs' request for a rehearing.  


PEROT SYSTEMS: Asks TX Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Perot Systems Corporation asked the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division to dismiss
the second amended consolidated class action filed against Perot
Systems Corporation, Ross Perot and Ross Perot, Jr., styled
"Vincent Milano v. Perot Systems Corporation."

Eight suits were initially filed in June, July and August 2002,
alleging violations of Rule 10b-5, and, in some of the cases,
common law fraud. These suits allege that the Company's filings
with the Securities and Exchange Commission contained material
misstatements or omissions of material facts with respect to its
activities related to the California energy market. All of these
eight cases were later consolidated.

On October 19, 2004, the court dismissed the case with leave for
plaintiffs to amend. In December 2004, the plaintiffs filed a
Second Amended Consolidated Complaint.


PIPER JAFFRAY: Court Grants Appeal of NY Lawsuit Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Second Circuit Court of Appeals granted Piper
Jaffray Companies, Inc.'s and other defendants' appeal of the
class certification for the consolidated securities class action
filed against them and other leading securities firms.

Many putative class actions were initially filed in 2001 and
2002 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York involving the allocation of securities in certain initial
public offerings.  The court's order, dated August 8, 2001,
transferred all related class action complaints for coordination
and pretrial purposes as "In re Initial Public Offering
Allocation Securities Litigation, Master File No. 21 MC 92
(SAS)."

These complaints assert claims pursuant to Section 11 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The
claims are based, in part, upon allegations that between 1998
and 2000, in connection with acting as an underwriter of certain
initial public offerings of technology and Internet-related
companies, the Company obtained excessive compensation by
allocating shares in these initial public offerings to preferred
customers who, in return, purportedly agreed to pay additional
compensation to the Company in the form of excess commissions
that we failed to disclose.  The complaints also allege that the
Company's customers who received favorable allocations of shares
in initial public offerings agreed to purchase additional shares
of the same issuer in the secondary market at pre-determined
prices.  These complaints seek unspecified damages.  The
defendants' motions to dismiss the complaints were filed on July
1, 2002, and oral argument on the motions to dismiss was heard
on November 14, 2002.  The court entered its order largely
denying the motions to dismiss on February 19, 2003.  A status
conference was held with the court on July 11, 2003, for
purposes of establishing a case management plan setting forth
discovery deadlines, selecting focus cases and briefing class
certification.

Seventeen focus cases were selected, including eleven cases for
purposes of merits discovery and six cases for purposes of class
certification.  The Company was named defendants in two of the
merits focus cases and none of the class certification focus
cases.  On October 13, 2004, the court issued an opinion largely
granting plaintiffs' motions for class certification in the six
class certification focus cases.  Defendants filed a petition
seeking leave to appeal the class certification ruling on
October 27, 2004.  Plaintiffs filed their opposition to the
petition on November 8, 2004, and defendants filed their reply
in further support of the petition on November 15, 2004.  The
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted
the defendants' petition on June 30, 2005.  A briefing schedule
has not yet been established in connection with this appeal.  
Discovery is proceeding with respect to the remaining eleven
focus cases selected for merits discovery.


PIPER JAFFRAY: Discovery Proceeds in NY Fee Antitrust Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in the consolidated class action filed
against Piper Jaffray Companies, Inc. and other leading
securities firms in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

Several suits were initially filed in 1998.  The court's order,
dated February 11, 1999, consolidated these purported class
actions for all purposes as "In re Public Offering Fee Antitrust
Litigation, Case No. 98 CV 7890 (LMM)."  The consolidated
amended complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages, treble
damages and injunctive relief.  The consolidated amended
complaint was filed on behalf of purchasers of shares issued in
certain initial public offerings for U.S. companies and alleges
that defendants conspired in offerings of an amount between $20
million and $80 million to fix the underwriters' discount at 7.0
percent of the offering amount in violation of Section 1 of the
Sherman Act. The court dismissed this consolidated action with
prejudice and denied plaintiffs' motion to amend the complaint
and include an issuer plaintiff. The court stated that its
decision did not affect any class actions filed on behalf of
issuer plaintiffs.

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district
court's decision on December 13, 2002 and remanded the action to
the district court. A motion to dismiss was filed with the
district court on March 26, 2003 seeking dismissal of this
action and the issuer plaintiff action described below in their
entirety, based upon the argument that the determination of
underwriting fees is implicitly immune from the antitrust laws
because of the extensive federal regulation of the securities
markets.  Plaintiffs filed their opposition to the motion to
dismiss on April 25, 2003.  The underwriter defendants filed a
motion for leave to file a supplemental memorandum of law in
further support of their motion to dismiss on June 10, 2003.  
The court denied the motion to dismiss based upon implied
immunity in its memorandum and order dated June 26, 2003. A
supplemental memorandum in support of the motion to dismiss,
applicable only to this action because the purported class
consists of indirect purchasers, was filed on June 24, 2003 and
seeks dismissal based upon the argument that the proposed class
members cannot state claims upon which relief can be granted.
Plaintiffs filed a supplemental memorandum in opposition to
defendants' motion to dismiss on July 9, 2003.  Defendants filed
a reply in further support of the motion to dismiss on July 25,
2003.  The court entered its memorandum and order granting in
part and denying in part the motion to dismiss on February 24,
2004. Plaintiffs' damage claims were dismissed because they were
indirect purchasers. The motion to dismiss was denied with
respect to plaintiffs' claims for injunctive relief. We filed
our answer to the consolidated amended complaint on April 22,
2004.  Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification and
supporting memorandum of law on September 16, 2004.  Class
discovery concluded on April 11, 2005.  Defendants filed their
brief in opposition to plaintiffs' motion for class
certification on May 25, 2005.  Oral argument with respect to
the class certification motion has not yet been scheduled.  
Discovery is proceeding at this time.

Similar purported class actions have also been filed against us
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
on behalf of issuer plaintiffs asserting substantially similar
antitrust claims based upon allegations that 7.0 percent
underwriters' discounts violate the Sherman Act.  These
purported class actions were consolidated by the district court
as "In re Issuer Plaintiff Initial Public Offering Fee Antitrust
Litigation, Case No. 00 CV 7804 (LMM)," on May 23, 2001.  These
complaints also seek unspecified compensatory damages, treble
damages and injunctive relief.  

Plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint on July
6, 2001. The district court denied defendants' motion to dismiss
the complaint on September 30, 2002. Defendants filed a motion
to certify the order for interlocutory appeal on October 15,
2002.  On March 26, 2003, the motion to dismiss based upon
implied immunity was also filed in connection with this action.
The court denied the motion to dismiss on June 26, 2003.
Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification and supporting
memorandum of law on September 16, 2004.  Class discovery
concluded on April 11, 2005.  Defendants filed their brief in
opposition to plaintiffs' motion for class certification on May
25, 2005.  Oral argument with respect to the class certification
motion has not yet been scheduled.  Discovery is proceeding at
this time.


PUGET SOUND: CA Court Considering Energy Firms' Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of San Diego, California indicated that it
intends to grant preliminary approval to the settlement of the
consolidated class actions filed against Reliant Energy Services
and Duke Energy Trading & Marketing, where Puget Sound Energy,
Inc. is named in cross-complaints.

Reliant Energy Services and Duke Energy Trading & Marketing
filed the two cross-complaints against the Company.  Plaintiffs
in the lawsuits seek, among other things, restitution of all
funds acquired by means that violate the law and payment of
treble damages, interest and penalties. The cross-complaints
asserted essentially that the cross-defendants, including the
Company, were also participants in the California energy market
at relevant times, and that any remedies ordered against some
market participants should be ordered against all. Reliant and
Duke also seek indemnification and conditional relief as buyers
in transactions involving cross-defendants should the plaintiffs
prevail.

The case was removed to federal court and in December 2002, the
federal district court remanded the proceeding to state court,
an action which Duke and Reliant later appealed to the Ninth
Circuit.  The Ninth Circuit remanded the case to state court. On
June 3, 2005, the cross-defendants, including the Company, filed
a demurrer seeking to dismiss the action. Further briefing and
hearing on the demurrer is currently stayed pending the outcome
of demurrers filed by Duke and Reliant on the main complaint,
which currently is set to be heard on September 9, 2005.  In
addition, on July 22, 2005 the court considered a proposed
settlement that would resolve all claims against the Duke
parties and indicated "preliminary approval," setting a hearing
date for final approval of December 9, 2005.


QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: CO Court Preliminarily OKs Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Denver District Court granted preliminary approval to the
settlement of the consolidated securities class action filed
against Qwest Communications International, Inc., the
individuals who served on the U S WEST Board of Directors in
June 2000, and Joseph Nacchio.

In January 2001, an amended class action complaint was filed on
behalf of a class of U S WEST stockholders of record as of June
30, 2000, the day of the U S WEST/Qwest merger, alleging that
the Company had a duty to pay a quarterly dividend that had been
declared by the USWEST Board of Directors on June 2, 2000.
Plaintiffs claimed that the defendants attempted to avoid paying
the dividend by changing the record date from June 30, 2000 to
July 10, 2000.  Plaintiffs sought damages of approximately $273
million plus interest, a constructive trust upon the Company's
assets in the amount of the dividend, costs, and attorneys' fees
on behalf of the class, which was certified by the court in
January 2005.

On June 24, 2005, the court preliminarily approved a $50 million
settlement, almost half of which will be funded by the
defendants' insurers. The settlement is still subject to final
court approval, and will be reviewed at a hearing on August 30,
2005 to determine whether it is fair, just, reasonable and
adequate as to the class.


QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: CO Court Mulls Securities Suit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court of Colorado has yet to rule on
the motion to dismiss the consolidated securities class action
filed against Qwest Communications International, Inc., alleging
violations of federal securities laws.

Since July 27, 2001, 13 putative class action complaints have
been filed against the Company.  One of those cases has been
dismissed. By court order, the remaining actions have been
consolidated into a consolidated securities action.

On August 21, 2002, plaintiffs in the consolidated securities
action filed their Fourth Consolidated Amended Class Action
Complaint, or the Fourth Consolidated Complaint, which
defendants moved to dismiss.  On January 13, 2004, the court
granted the defendants' motions to dismiss in part and denied
them in part.  In that order, the court allowed plaintiffs to
file a proposed amended complaint seeking to remedy the pleading
defects addressed in the court's dismissal order.  

On February 6, 2004, plaintiffs filed a Fifth Consolidated
Amended Class Action Complaint, or the Fifth Consolidated
Complaint.  The Fifth Consolidated Complaint is purportedly
brought on behalf of purchasers of publicly traded securities of
the Company between May 24, 1999 and July 28, 2002, and names as
defendants the Company and:

     (1) former Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Joseph P.
         Nacchio,

     (2) former Chief Financial Officers, Robin R. Szeliga and
         Robert S. Woodruff,

     (3) other of Qwest's former officers and current directors
         and

     (4) Arthur Andersen LLP

The Fifth Consolidated Complaint alleges, among other things,
that during the putative class period, the Company and certain
of the individual defendants made materially false statements
regarding the results of Qwest's operations in violation of
section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or the
Exchange Act, certain of the individual defendants are liable as
control persons under section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and
certain of the individual defendants sold some of their shares
of Qwest's common stock in violation of section 20A of the
Exchange Act.

The Fifth Consolidated Complaint further alleges that Qwest and
certain other defendants violated section 11 of the Securities
Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Act, by preparing and
disseminating false registration statements and prospectuses for
the registration of Qwest common stock to be issued to US WEST
shareholders in connection with the merger of the two companies
(the "Merger"), and for the exchange of $3 billion of Qwest's
notes pursuant to a registration statement dated January 17,
2001, $3.25 billion of Qwest's notes pursuant to a registration
statement dated July 12, 2001, and $3.75 billion of Qwest's
notes pursuant to a registration statement dated October 30,
2001.

Additionally, the Fifth Consolidated Complaint alleges that
certain of the individual defendants are liable as control
persons under section 15 of the Securities Act by reason of
their stock ownership, management positions and/or membership or
representation on the Company's Board of Directors, or the
Board.  The Fifth Consolidated Complaint seeks unspecified
compensatory damages and other relief.  However, counsel for
plaintiffs has indicated that the putative class will seek
damages in the tens of billions of dollars.  On March 8, 2004,
Qwest and other defendants filed motions to dismiss the Fifth
Consolidated Complaint.

The suit is styled "New England Health, et al v. Qwest Comm Intl
Inc, et al, case no. 1:01-cv-01451-REB-CBS," filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Colorado under Judge
Robert E. Blackburn.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

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

     (2) Leo W. Desmond, 2161 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, Suite
         204, West Palm Beach, FL, 33409, Phone: 561.712.8000,
         E-mail: stocklaw@bellsouth.net

     (3) Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Hynes & Lerach LLP (San Diego,
         CA), 600 West Broadway, 1800 One America Plaza, San
         Diego, CA, 92101, Phone: 800.449.4900, E-mail:
         support@milberg.com


QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Faces ERISA Violations Lawsuit in CO Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Qwest Communications International, Inc. faces a consolidated
class action filed in the United States District Court in
Colorado, on behalf of all participants and beneficiaries of the
Qwest Savings and Investment Plan and predecessor plans, or the
Plan from March 7,1999 to the present.

Since March 2002, seven putative class action suits brought
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
(ERISA), as amended, were filed.  These suits purport to
seek relief on behalf of the Plan.  By court order, these
putative class actions have been consolidated and a Second
Amended and Consolidated Complaint was filed on May 21, 2003,
referred to as the "consolidated ERISA action."

An eighth case was filed in June 2004, which, although not a
putative class action, purports to seek relief on behalf of the
Plan.  This case contains allegations similar to those in the
consolidated ERISA action, and thus the Company expects it to be
consolidated with that action.

Defendants in the consolidated ERISA action include the Company,
several of its former and current directors, certain of its
former officers, Qwest Asset Management, Qwest's Plan Design
Committee, the former Plan Investment Committee and the former
Plan Administrative Committee of the pre-Merger Qwest 401(k)
Savings Plan.

The consolidated ERISA action alleges, among other things, that
the defendants breached fiduciary duties to the Plan
participants and beneficiaries by allegedly allowing excessive
concentration of the Plan's assets in Qwest's stock, requiring
certain participants in the Plan to hold the matching
contributions received from Qwest in the Qwest Shares Fund,
failing to disclose to the participants the alleged accounting
improprieties that are the subject of the consolidated
securities action, failing to investigate the prudence of
investing in Qwest's stock, continuing to offer Qwest's stock as
an investment option under the Plan, failing to investigate the
effect of the Merger on Plan assets and then failing to vote the
Plan's shares against it, preventing Plan participants from
acquiring Qwest's stock during certain periods, and, as against
some of the individual defendants, capitalizing on their private
knowledge of Qwest's financial condition to reap profits in
stock sales.  Plaintiffs seek equitable and declaratory relief,
along with attorneys' fees and costs and restitution.


QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Continues To Face CO State Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Qwest Communications International, Inc. faces a class action
filed on behalf of purchasers of its stock between June 28, 2000
and June 27, 2002 and owners of U S WEST stock on June 28, 2000
in the District Court for the County of Boulder, Colorado.

Plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the defendants
issued false and misleading statements and engaged in improper
accounting practices in order to accomplish the U S WEST/Qwest
merger, to make the Company appear successful and to inflate the
value of its stock. Plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary
damages, disgorgement of illegal gains and other relief.


RHODE ISLAND: Defendant in Lead Paint Litigation Seeks New Judge
----------------------------------------------------------------
As a second trial looms for Rhode Island's nuisance lawsuit
against the companies that once made lead-based paint, a lawyer
for one of the defendants, Sherwin Williams Co. is asking
Superior Court Judge Michael A. Silverstein to disqualify
himself from the case because he owns a house that was built at
a time when lead paints were still being sold, The Providence
Journal reports.

Filed by attorney Paul Michael Pohl, the motion caused Judge
Silverstein to postpone the beginning of the trial from
September 7 to September 19 and to schedule a hearing on August
4, 2005, at 9:30 to review Mr. Pohl's arguments.  The motion
triggered an angry response and a 128-page brief from Attorney
General Patrick C. Lynch, who called the motion despicable. In
his brief he stated that sanctions should be brought against Mr.
Pohl.

Court documents revealed that the case is nearly six years old
and Judge Silverstein has presided throughout, making a series
of rulings that shaped what everyone agreed is a unique lawsuit.
In the suit, the state wanted the paint companies to pay to
inspect and repair all houses in Rhode Island that were painted
with lead-based paints two generations ago.

A.G. Lynch pointed out in his brief that Mr. Pohl's motion is a
"ploy to delay the trial," and it was improper, according to
him, because Mr. Pohl communicated directly with the judge
rather than bringing up his concerns in court in front of all
parties in the case.

The Sherwin Williams motion drew a mixed reaction from other
defendants. Atlantic Richfield and NL Industries told The
Providence Journal that they supported Sherwin Williams' legal
arguments. However, American Cyanamid Co. and Cytec Industries
told Judge Silverstein that they would not join Sherwin Williams
in its motion, while another defendant, Conagra and Millenium
Holdings LLC took no position.  The state agreed to drop DuPont
deNemours & Co. several weeks ago after it agreed to a $12-
million settlement.

Mr. Pohl opened the issue with a letter to Judge Silverstein on
July 7, wherein he wrote that at that point depositions had made
it clear that the state in its lawsuit was seeking inspections
of every property built in Rhode Island before 1978 (when lead
paints were commonly used), repairs of any lead problems, and
"services" for children who live in those properties. He further
wrote that state rules of judicial conduct require judges to
ascertain whether they or family members have an economic
interest in cases they are hearing. Mr. Pohl stated that he felt
it was appropriate "to flag this issue by letter rather than in
open court."

Judge Silverstein responded with a letter to all the parties in
the case, wherein he wrote that he and his wife live in a
suburban home which "we caused to be built in 1968-69." He also
said that he was unaware of any lead paint being present and
that he never investigated. His son, now 43, also shared the
house before he went off to college, Judge Silverstein added.  
Additionally, the judge contended in his letter that he didn't
believe he had any interest in the case that would be cause for
recusal, pointing out that he and his wife have waived any
potential entitlement as members of a previous class action
lawsuit that Silverstein presided over, and they would be
willing to do so for this case.

However, Mr. Pohl replied in a letter July 25 that he believed
Judge Silverstein should disqualify himself. He explained that
throughout the case, Sherwin Williams sought to enjoin owners of
pre-1978 properties as third-party defendants in the case. He
pointed out in his response to the judge's letter, "At that
time, Sherwin Williams was not aware, nor was it disclosed on
the record, that you were the owner of an affected property."  
Mr. Pohl also said that Judge Silverstein declined to require
notice of all the pre-1978 property owners at a time when he was
one of those property owners. He pointed out that the fact that
Judge Silverstein's house is pre-1978 cannot be waived and he
has an economic interest in the outcome of the case. Thus, he
asked that the case be reassigned to a judge who doesn't own or
rent pre-1978 property.

A.G. Lynch told The Providence Journal that his office is ready
to go to trial "despite a continuing barrage of obfuscation and
attempts to muddy the water" by the defense.

Previously, the state's first trial against the paint companies
ended in a mistrial because the jury couldn't reach a unanimous
decision.


ROYAL DUTCH: ERISA Suit Settlement Hearing Set August 22, 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
will hold a fairness hearing for the proposed settlement in the
matter: In re Royal Dutch/Shell Transport ERISA Litigation,
Civil Action No. 04-1398 (JWB) on behalf of all persons who
participated or had an interest in the Shell Pay Deferral
Investment Fund, the Shell Provident Fund, the Shell Trading
Savings Plan, or any predecessor or successor plan or fund, from
December 3, 1999 through April 29, 2004.

The hearing will beheld on August 22, 2005, at 10:00 a.m., EDT
in Courtroom 3 in the United States Courthouse located at U.S.
Post Office and Courthouse Building, Federal Square, Newark, NJ,
07101.

For more details, contact Royal Dutch/Shell Transport ERISA
Litigation, Claims Administrator, c/o Berdon Claims
Administration, LLC, P.O. Box 9014, Jericho, NY 11753-8914,
Phone: (800) 766-3330, Fax: (516) 931-0810, Web site:
http://www.berdonllp.com/claimsOR David R. Scott, Esq. of Scott  
+ Scott, LLC, Phone: (860) 537-5537, E-mail: drscott@scott-
scott.com OR Brad N. Friedman, Esq. of Milberg Weiss Bershad &
Schulman, LLP, Phone: (212) 594-5300, E-mail:
Bfriedman@milbergweiss.com OR Robert I. Harwood, Esq. of
Wechsler Harwood, LLP, Phone: (212) 935-7400, E-mail:
rharwood@whesq.com.  


SOUTH CAROLINA: Student's Parents Sue Beaufort School District
--------------------------------------------------------------
The parents of a former student at Hilton Head Elementary and
Hilton Head Middle schools in South Carolina are filing a suit
against the Beaufort County School District, claiming that their
son developed respiratory problems from being exposed to toxic
mold and fungus at the schools, The Island Packet reports.

Ian Freeman, a Charleston lawyer who is representing the
parents, told The Island Packet that Carl and Cindy Frankett are
asking the district to cover medical and other expenses for Ryan
Frankett, their 15-year-old son who attended Hilton Head
Elementary School from 1996 to 2002 and Hilton Head Middle
School for one semester in the fall of 2002. The young Frankett
is now attending a private school in Jasper County.

The Franketts, who are asking for the lawsuit to be certified as
a class action on behalf of students, faculty and staff at the
two schools who have been exposed to toxic mold and fungus. They
are also asking for a "medical monitoring fund" to be
implemented.

The suit claims that the buildings and improvements at the two
schools suffered from substantial design and construction
defects, which resulted in the schools becoming contaminated
with the mold and fungus.

Additionally, the suit claims that toxic mold and fungus growing
in Ryan Frankett's nasal cavities and passages and his
respiratory system cannot be permanently removed or destroyed.
The families' expenses as a result of the problem include
medical expenses, surgery, hospitalization and tuition for the
private school.


SYMBOL TECHNOLOGIES: SEC Suspends Ex-CAO Over Accounting Fraud
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission instituted and
simultaneously settled an administrative proceeding pursuant to
Rule 102(e) of the Commission's Rules of Practice against Robert
Korkuc, the former chief accounting officer of Symbol
Technologies, Inc. and a certified public accountant licensed to
practice in the State of New York.  Without admitting or denying
the Commission's findings, Mr. Korkuc consented to a Commission
order suspending him from appearing or practicing before the
Commission as an accountant.
     
The administrative proceeding was based on the entry of a
partial final judgment against Mr. Korkuc on May 11, 2005 by the
Honorable Leonard D. Wexler of the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of New York, in the action entitled SEC
v. Robert Korkuc, 03 CV 3017 (LDW). Mr. Korkuc consented,
without admitting or denying the allegations in the Commission's
complaint, to the entry of the partial final judgment that bars
him from serving as an officer and director of a public company
and permanently enjoins him from violating Section 17(a) of the
Securities Act of 1933, Sections 10(b), 13(a), 13(b)(2),
13(b)(5) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Exchange
Act Rules 10b-5, 13b2-1 and 13b2-2, 12b-20, 13a-1 and 13a-13.  
In its complaint, filed on June 19, 2003, the Commission alleged
that Mr. Korkuc employed a number of improper accounting
practices that violated generally accepted accounting principles
while engaged in a fraudulent scheme to manipulate Symbol's
reported financial results. The action is styled, SEC v. Robert
Korkuc, 03 CV 3017, LDW, EDNY.
     

VOLVO TRUCKS: Recalls 958 2004-06 Trucks For FMVSS Noncompliance   
----------------------------------------------------------------
Volvo Trucks North America, Inc. in cooperation with the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Office of
Defects Investigation (ODI) is voluntarily recalling about 958
units of 2004-06 Volvo / VNL and 2004-06 Volvo / VNM trucks due
to FMVSS noncompliance. NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID Number: 05V346000.

According to the ODI, certain heavy-duty trucks fail to comply
with the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicles Safety Standard
No. 120, "tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than
passenger cars." The tire size designation on the certification
label is shown. The certification label is incorrect giving
improper information.

As a remedy, dealers will replace the certification labels. The
recall is expected to begin on August 19, 2005.

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


                 New Securities Fraud Cases


AVON PRODUCTS: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Avon Products,
Inc. (NYSE: AVP) common stock during the period between April 8,
2005 and July 18, 2005 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Avon and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Avon engages in the manufacture and marketing of beauty
and related products primarily in North America, Latin America,
Europe, and Asia Pacific.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
defendants issued numerous positive statements about the
Company's performance and future prospects. As alleged in the
Complaint, these statements were materially false and misleading
because defendants failed to disclose and/or misrepresented the
following adverse facts, which were known, or recklessly
disregarded by them, at all relevant times:

     (1) that the Company was experiencing increasing resistance
         to its expansion efforts in China because local
         businesses were dissatisfied with the Company's plans
         to direct sell in that market;

     (2) that the Company's revenue growth in its Central and
         Eastern Europe markets was dramatically slowing from
         internally forecasted levels such that the Company
         would be unable to reach its stated earnings
         projections;

     (3) that the Company's expansion efforts in Russian were
         being delayed due to a variety of adverse factors; and

     (4) that as a result of the foregoing, defendants lacked a
         reasonable basis for their earnings projections and
         positive statements about the Company.

On July 19, 2005, before the start of trading, Avon issued a
press release announcing that its earnings for the second
quarter of 2005 would be below expectations because of two
factors: "an unexpected temporary decline in China as Beauty
Boutique owners reacted with concern to the imminent resumption
of direct selling in that country;" and "lower-than- anticipated
revenue growth in Central and Eastern Europe resulting from
underperformance of several key marketing offers as well as
delayed expansion into new geographies within Russia."

Upon this news, shares of Avon common stock closed at $31.30 per
share, a decline of $5.30 per share, or over 14%, from the
previous trading day's close, on unusually heavy trading volume.

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


INVESTORS FINANCIAL: Scott + Scott Lodges Securities Suit in MA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Scott + Scott, LLC, initiated a class action in
the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts on behalf of the purchasers of Investors Financial
Services Corp. (Nasdaq: IFIN) securities during the Class Period
between October 15, 2003, through July 15, 2005 inclusive (the
"Class").

Investors Financial Services Corp. ("IFIN") operates as a bank
holding company for Investors Bank & Trust Company that provides
asset managers with services including global custody, multi-
currency accounting and mutual fund administration in the United
States.

The Complaint alleges that Defendants caused IFIN shares to
trade at artificially inflated levels through the issuance of
false and misleading financial statements and guidance. The
Company's statements served to convince investors that the
Company's financial statements were accurate, including results
for revenues, growth and interest income, and the Company had
shrewdly built into its models and assumptions the impact of
continued interest rate compression and flattening of the US
interest rate yield curve.

In October 2004, the Company surprised the market when they
finally revealed the need to restate financial results over a
three-year period. On October 21, 2004, the price of IFIN stock
plummeted, from its previous close of $43.70 to $36.50, on
volume of over 11 million shares. Later, the Company revealed
that during the period from 2001 to 2004, Investors had
overstated net interest income by as much as $6.2 million.

On July 14, 2005, IFIN dropped 15% after the financial back-
office company slashed earnings guidance, citing interest rate
pressure. Once again, the Company announced an unprecedented
"reset" of their 2005 quarterly and 2005 yearly guidance.
Defendants did this, allegedly, to bring their numbers in line
with the "new" realities of market-driven rates and rate
spreads. The Complaint alleges further that IFIN's assertions
that an interest rate event peculiar to the second quarter
served as the purported "trigger" for the Company's changed
circumstances. This was false. In fact, the Complaint alleges,
the change in the Company's fortunes was a direct result of the
dramatic flattening of the yield curve and contraction of rate
spreads. The Company cited a flatter-than-expected yield curve;
narrower-than-expected reinvestment spreads; weaker-than-
expected market-sensitive revenues, which included fees, linked
to both the equity and foreign currency markets; and continued
investments in headcount and technology to support new and
existing clients.

On July 15, 2005, the price of IFIN shares plummeted from its
previous close of $41.52 to $34.05 for a loss 17.9% percent of
their value on unprecedented volume of over 22 million shares.
The Class Period high was $53.44; it now trades under $35 per
share.

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


LEAPFROG ENTERPRISES: Cohen Milstein Lodges CA Consolidated Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C.
reports that a consolidated class action complaint on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of LeapFrog Enterprises, Inc.
(NYSE:LF) ("LeapFrog" or the "Company") from July 24, 2003,
through October 18, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period"), was
filed on June 17, 2005, in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California.

Notice of this filing was first announced on August 3, 2005,
pursuant to a July 5, 2005 Court Order (the "July 5 Order"), a
copy of which can be found at http://www.cmht.com.The July 5  
Order was prompted by the fact that the consolidated class
action complaint filed on June 17, 2005 (the "Consolidated
Complaint") encompassed a substantially different class period
and different allegations than the July 24, 2003 to February 10,
2004 class period for which the Court had previously appointed
Alice Cupples and William Sullivan (the "Cupples Movants") as
lead plaintiffs in an April 6, 2005 order. The new class period
and allegations encompassed by the Consolidated Complaint
include new allegations about LeapFrog's supply chain and IT
system. Similar allegations about LeapFrog's supply chain and IT
system had already been made in a different class action
complaint filed on April 25, 2005 by the law firm of Cohen,
Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. on behalf of the Parnassus
Fund and the Parnassus Equity Fund ("Parnassus") and other
purchasers of LeapFrog securities between February 11, 2004 and
October 18, 2004. In the July 5 Order, the Court found that "the
new claims and new scope of the (Consolidated Complaint)
necessitates new notice and lead plaintiff selection." The Court
further noted that "(t)he fact that Parnassus claims to be an
institutional investor with losses of over $10 million, while
the Cupples Movants are individuals with alleged losses of only
approximately $36,000 reinforces the conclusion that Parnassus
may be better-suited to represent the class under the amended
LeapFrog complaint."

The Consolidated Complaint charges LeapFrog and certain of its
current and former officers and directors with violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Specifically, the Consolidated
Complaint alleges that the defendants misled investors by making
numerous false and misleading statements about LeapFrog's
current and future business results, including allegations that
LeapFrog falsely claimed to have remedied deficiencies with its
supply chain and IT system and allegations that defendants knew
that LeapFrog was losing millions of dollars in sales and
profits to Mattel's competing PowerTouch product. The
Consolidated Complaint further alleges that defendants' false
and misleading statements caused the price of LeapFrog stock to
trade at artificially inflated prices and took advantage of the
artificial inflation to sell millions of their own LeapFrog
shares.

After the close of the market on October 18, 2004, and after
repeated assurance to investors that LeapFrog would report solid
financial results in the third and fourth quarters of 2004 and
that the distribution and supply chain problems had been fixed,
the defendants announced that LeapFrog's 2004 third quarter
results would be significantly worse than the guidance
previously provided by the defendants. In response, the price of
LeapFrog's stock plummeted $6.21, or approximately 34%, causing
class members to suffer actual economic losses.

For more details, contact Steven J. Toll, Esq., Matthew K.
Handley, Esq. or Kari Fiore of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll,
P.L.L.C., 1100 New York Avenue, N.W., West Tower, Suite 500,
Washington, D.C., 20005, Phone: (888) 240-0775 or
(202) 408-4600, E-mail: stoll@cmht.com or kfiore@cmht.com.


PRESTIGE BRAND: Marc S. Henzel Files Securities Fraud Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of all persons who purchased
Prestige Brand Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: PBH) securities pursuant
and/or traceable to the Company's initial public offering on or
about February 9, 2005 (the "IPO") through July 28, 2005 (the
"Class").

The complaint charges Prestige, certain of its officers and
directors, and other insiders with violations of the Securities
Act of 1933. Prestige describes itself as a seller of "well-
recognized, brand name over-the-counter drug, household cleaning
and personal care products." The complaint also names as
defendants Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated,
Goldman, Sachs & Co and J.P. Morgan Securities Inc., the lead or
co-lead underwriters of the IPO.

The complaint alleges that the prospectus (the "Prospectus")
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") in
connection with the initial public offering of Prestige common
stock, which took place on or about February 9, 2005 (the
"IPO"), was materially false and misleading. The Prospectus,
which forms part of the Registration Statement, became effective
on or about February 9, 2005, and 32,200,000 shares of Prestige
common stock were sold to the public, thereby raising
approximately $515 million. Of the $515 million raised,
approximately $67 million went to certain selling shareholders.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that the Prospectus was
materially false and misleading because it failed to disclose
and misrepresented the following adverse facts, among others:
  
     (1) that demand for the Company's products was declining
         and certain brands, including Compound W products were
         failing to maintain their market position and/or
         initial product sales levels;

     (2) that the Company was planning to withdrawal several
         products from the market, including Comet-brand
         housecleaning products that had proved unsuccessful,
         thus further eroding the Company's revenues and market
         share; and

     (3) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' statements
         and opinions concerning the Company's sales, earnings,
         profitability and future prospects were lacking in
         reasonable basis.

On July 27, 2005, after the market close, Prestige announced its
financial results for the quarter ended June 30, 2005. The
Company reported that it experienced sales declines in each of
its three business segments: OTC medicines, Household Cleaning
products and Personal Care products. The Company also lowered
its earning guidance for the remainder of fiscal 2005. In
response to this announcement, the price of Prestige common
stock declined to a low of $10.10 during trading on July 28,
2005, before closing for the day at $11.90 per share, a 40% one-
day decline, on extremely heavy volume of more than 14 million
shares. The July 28, 2005 closing price represented a 25%
decline form the $16.00 per share offering price just five
months before.

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


RENAISSANCERE HOLDINGS: 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 securities
purchasers of RenaissanceRe Holdings, Ltd. (NYSE: RNR)
("RenaissanceRe" or the "Company") between January 24, 2002 and
July 25, 2005 inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges RenaissanceRe, James Stanard, Michael
Cash, William Riker, John M. Lummis, and Martin J. Merritt, with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. More
specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed to
disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts
known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) that the Company entered into and improperly accounted
         for various contracts with Inter-Ocean Reinsurance
         Company, Ltd., which allowed the Company to effectively
         manipulate and smooth its earnings during the Class
         Period:

     (2) that the Company improperly accounted for premiums
         received during the first three quarters of 2004 on
         multi-year reinsurance contracts, which all caused the
         Company to misstate its net income figures for the
         Class Period;

     (3) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls;

     (4) that the Company's financial results were in violation
         of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP").

On February 22, 2005, RenaissanceRe announced its plan to
restate its financial statements. On February 28, 2005,
RenaissanceRe announced that it had received a subpoena from the
SEC in connection with an industry-wide investigation into non-
traditional insurance products. On June 15, 2005, RenaissanceRe
announced that it had received a subpoena from the United States
Attorney for the Southern District of New York. On July 11,
2005, RenaissanceRe announced that Michael W. Cash resigned
following his refusal to accept service of a subpoena from the
SEC calling for his testimony in its investigation into the
restatement of the Company's financial statements. On July 25,
2005, the Company announced that James N. Stanard, the Company's
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, had received a "Wells
Notice" from the SEC staff in connection with the SEC's ongoing
investigation into the restatement of the Company's financial
statements. On this news, shares of RenaissanceRe fell $4.25 per
share, or 9 percent, to close on July 25, 2005, at $42.98 per
share.

For more details, contact Darren J. Check, Esq. or Richard A.
Maniskas, 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:
http://www.sbclasslaw.com.


RENAISSANCERE HOLDINGS: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Stull, Stull & Brody initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, on behalf of purchasers of RenaissanceRe
Holdings Ltd ("RenaissanceRe") (NYSE: RNR) publicly traded
securities between January 24, 2002 and July 25, 2005, inclusive
(the "Class Period").

Stull, Stull & Brody has substantial experience representing
employees who suffered losses from purchases of their employer's
stock in their 401(k) plans. If you bought RenaissanceRe stock
through your RenaissanceRe retirement account and have
information or would like to learn more about these claims,
please contact us.

The Complaint alleges that RenaissanceRe violated federal
securities laws by issuing improper financial results. On
February 22, 2005, RenaissanceRe announced that it planned to
restate its financial statements for 2001, 2002 and 2003 to
correct "accounting errors associated with reinsurance ceded by
the Company." RenaissanceRe also announced that it "had
discovered an error in the timing of the recognition of premium
on multi-year ceded reinsurance contracts for the first three
quarters of 2004." On July 11, 2005, RenaissanceRe announced
that it had received and accepted the resignation of Michael W.
Cash, Senior Vice President of Specialty Reinsurance, after he
voluntarily refused to accept the subpoenas of the SEC for
testimony concerning this restatement. On July 25, 2005,
RenaissanceRe announced that its CEO had received a "Wells
Notice" from the SEC. On this news shares of RenaissanceRe
dropped from a close of $47.23 on July 22, 2005, to close at
$2.27 on July 25, 2005 (the next trading day).

For more details, contact Tzivia Brody, Esq. of Stull, Stull &
Brody, Phone: 1-800-337-4983, Fax: 212/490-2022, E-mail:
SSBNY@aol.com, Web site: http://www.ssbny.com.  


                            *********


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

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

                            *********


S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland
USA.   Glenn Ruel Senorin, Aurora Fatima Antonio and Lyndsey
Resnick, Editors.

Copyright 2005.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without
prior written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed
to be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Christopher
Beard at 240/629-3300.

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *