CAR_Public/050809.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, August 9, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 156

                            Headlines

BRUSH WELLMAN: Continues To Face 16 Beryllium Injury Proceedings
CALIFORNIA: Court Dismisses Lawsuit Over Merchant Discount Rates
CREDIT CARDS: New Suits Filed Over "No Surcharge" Rule V. Banks
CANADA: NAN Chief Backs AFN Lawsuit V. Residential School System
CHI-CHI's RESTAURANT: Notices For $800T Settlement to be Mailed

CINTAS CORPORATION: Employees Launch Discrimination Suit in CA
COMCAST CORPORATION: Faces Suits For At Home Corp. Relationship
CONSOLIDATED EDISON: NY Court Briefs Lost Premium Claim Appeal
DOMINO'S PIZZA: Faces Two Employee Wage Suits in CA State Court
DYNAMIC ENVIRONMENTAL: KS Judge Approves Settlement of SEC Case

ENOGEX INC.: Oil, Gas Well Owners File Royalties Lawsuit in OK
GIRARDIN MINIBUS: Recalls 2002 MB II / MBIV Buses Due To Defect
KB HOME: Pays $2M Civil Penalty For FTC Consent Order Violations
MASSACHUSETTS: Suit For Mentally Ill Children to Conclude Soon
METALS USA: Shareholder File Suit V. Flag Holdings Merger in DE

METLIFE INC.: Shareholders Initiate Fraud Lawsuits in S.D. NY
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Continues To Face Sales Practice Litigation
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Policyholders' Suit
METROPOLITAN LIFE: NY Court Certifies Lawsuit V. Reorganization
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Canadian Policyholders Launch Fraud Lawsuit

METROPOLITAN LIFE: NY Court Dismisses Opt-Out Plaintiffs' Suit
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Former Employees Launch DC Pension Fund Suit
METROPOLITAN PROPERTY: Working To Resolve MT Consumer Fraud Suit
NEW MEXICO: Suit Filed V. Ex-Doa Ana County Sheriff, Department
ONEOK INC.: Appeals Jury Award in Yaggy Gas Leak Suit Verdict

PACIFICARE HEALTH: Approval of AL Fraud Suit Settlement Appealed
PACIFICARE HEALTH: Trial in FL Managed Care Suit Set Jan. 2006
PARTNERS' HEALTH: Reaches Settlement For FTC Antitrust Complaint
POZEN INC.: NC Court Fully Briefs Motion To Dismiss Stock Suit
QUOVADX INC.: Appeals Court Affirms NY Stock Suit Certification

QUOVADX INC.: CO Court Refuses To Expedite Suit Discovery, Trial
QUOVADX INC.: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Lawsuit in CO
REEBOK INTERNATIONAL: SEC Wants Asset Freeze V. Croatian Citizen
RODALE INC.: Suit Over Firm's Sales Tactics Granted Class Status
SOCIAL SECURITY: African American Female Workers Allege Bias

SONIC AUTOMOTIVE: Reaches Settlement For TX Inventory Tax Suit
SONIC AUTOMOTIVE: Appeals Certification For FL Consumer Lawsuit
STATE FARM: MO Jury Awards $20M to Terminated Insurance Agents
UTAH: SEC Files Suit V. Dale Hatch For Misappropriation of Funds

                  New Securities Fraud Cases

AVON PRODUCTS: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in NY
LAZARD LTD.: Wolf Haldenstein Provides Updates For NY Stock Suit
MOLINA HEALTHCARE: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Stock Suit in CA
STARTEK INC.: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CO
UNITED AMERICAN: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Suit in E.D. MI

                          *********

BRUSH WELLMAN: Continues To Face 16 Beryllium Injury Proceedings
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brush Wellman, Inc. continues to face 16 proceedings in various
state and federal courts brought by plaintiffs alleging that
they have contracted, or have been placed at risk of
contracting, chronic beryllium disease or other lung conditions
as a result of exposure to beryllium.

Plaintiffs in beryllium cases seek recovery under negligence and
various other legal theories and seek compensatory and punitive
damages, in many cases of an unspecified sum. Spouses of some
plaintiffs claim loss of consortium.

During the second quarter of 2005, the number of beryllium cases
remained unchanged from 16 (involving 61 plaintiffs) as of April
1, 2005 to 16 cases (involving 61 plaintiffs) as of July 1,
2005. During the second quarter, one third-party case (involving
two plaintiffs) was filed. One third-party case (involving two
plaintiffs) was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff. One
third-party case (involving one plaintiff) was settled; however,
the Company is awaiting final court dismissal.

The 16 pending beryllium cases as of July 1, 2005 fall into two
categories: 12 cases involving third-party individual
plaintiffs, with 20 individuals (and six spouses who have filed
claims as part of their spouse's case and two children who have
filed claims as part of their parent's case); and four purported
class actions, involving 33 plaintiffs.  Claims brought by third
party plaintiffs (typically employees of the Company's customers
or contractors) are generally covered by varying levels of
insurance.

The first purported class action is styled "Manuel Marin, et al.
v. Brush Wellman Inc.," filed in Superior Court of California,
Los Angeles County, case number BC299055, on July 15, 2003. The
named plaintiffs are Manuel Marin, Lisa Marin, Garfield Perry
and Susan Perry. The defendants are Brush Wellman, Appanaitis
Enterprises, Inc., and Doe Defendants 1 through 100. A First
Amended Complaint was filed on September 15, 2004, naming five
additional plaintiffs. The five additional named plaintiffs are
Robert Thomas, Darnell White, Leonard Joffrion, James Jones and
John Kesselring. The plaintiffs allege that they have been
sensitized to beryllium while employed at the Boeing Company.
The plaintiffs' wives claim loss of consortium. The plaintiffs
purport to represent two classes of approximately 250 members
each, one consisting of workers who worked at Boeing or its
predecessors and are beryllium sensitized and the other
consisting of their spouses.  They have brought claims for
negligence, strict liability - design defect, strict liability -
failure to warn, fraudulent concealment, breach of implied
warranties, and unfair business practices.  The plaintiffs seek
injunctive relief, medical monitoring, medical and health care
provider reimbursement, attorneys' fees and costs, revocation of
business license, and compensatory and punitive damages. Mr.
Marin, Mr. Perry, Mr. Thomas, Mr. White, Mr. Joffrion, Mr. Jones
and Mr. Kesselring represent current and past employees of
Boeing in California; and Ms. Marin and Ms. Perry are spouses.
Defendant Appanaitis Enterprises, Inc. was dismissed on May 5,
2005.

The second purported class action is styled "Neal Parker, et al.
v. Brush Wellman Inc., filed in Superior Court of Fulton County,
State of Georgia, case number 2004CV80827, on January 29, 2004.
The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia, case number 04-CV-606, on March 4, 2004.
The named plaintiffs are Neal Parker, Wilbert Carlton, Stephen
King, Ray Burns, Deborah Watkins, Leonard Ponder, Barbara King
and Patricia Burns.  The defendants are Brush Wellman; Schmiede
Machine and Tool Corporation; Thyssenkrupp Materials NA Inc.,
d/b/a Copper and Brass Sales; Axsys Technologies, Inc.; Alcoa,
Inc.; McCann Aerospace Machining Corporation; Cobb Tool, Inc.;
and Lockheed Martin Corporation.  Mr. Parker, Mr. Carlton,
Mr. King and Mr. Burns and Ms. Watkins are current employees of
Lockheed.  Mr. Ponder is a retired employee, and Ms. King and
Ms. Burns are family members.  The plaintiffs have brought
claims for negligence, strict liability, fraudulent concealment,
civil conspiracy and punitive damages.  The plaintiffs seek a
permanent injunction requiring the defendants to fund a court-
supervised medical monitoring program, attorneys' fees and
punitive damages.

On March 29, 2005, the Court entered an order directing
plaintiffs to amend their pleading to segregate out those
plaintiffs who have endured only subclinical, cellular, and
subcellular effects from those who have sustained actionable
tort injuries, and that following such amendment, the Court will
enter an order dismissing the claims asserted by the former
subset of claimants; dismissing Count I of the complaint, which
sought the creation of a medical monitoring fund; and dismissing
the claims against defendant Axsys Technologies Inc.  On April
20, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a Substituted Amended Complaint
for Damages, contending that each of the eight named plaintiffs
and the individuals listed on the attachment to the original
Complaint, and each of the putative class members have sustained
personal injuries; however, they allege that they identified
five individuals whose injuries have manifested themselves such
that they have been detected by physical examination and/or
laboratory test.

The third purported class action is styled "George Paz, et al.
v. Brush Engineered Materials Inc., et al." filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi,
case number 1:04CV597 on June 30, 2004. The named plaintiffs are
George Paz, Barbara Faciane, Joe Lewis, Donald Jones, Ernest
Bryan, Gregory Condiff, Karla Condiff, Odie Ladner, Henry Polk,
Roy Tootle, William Stewart, Margaret Ann Harris, Judith Lemon,
Theresa Ladner and Yolanda Paz. The defendants are Brush
Engineered Materials Inc.; Brush Wellman Inc.; Wess-Del Inc.;
and the Boeing Company.  Plaintiffs seek the establishment of a
medical monitoring trust fund as a result of their alleged
exposure to products containing beryllium, attorneys' fees and
expenses, and general and equitable relief. The plaintiffs
purport to sue on behalf of a class of present or former Defense
Contract Management Administration (DCMA) employees who
conducted quality assurance work at Stennis Space Center and the
Boeing Company at its facility in Canoga Park, California;
present and former employees of Boeing at Stennis; and spouses
and children of those individuals.  Mr. Paz and Mr. Lewis and
Ms. Faciane represent current and former DCMA employees at
Stennis.  Mr. Jones represents DCMA employees at Canoga
Park.  Mr. Bryan, Mr. Condiff, Mr. Ladner, Mr. Park, Mr. Polk,
Mr. Tootle and Mr. Stewart and Ms. Condiff represent Boeing
employees at Stennis.  Ms. Harris, Ms. Lemon, Ms. Ladner and Ms.
Paz are family members.  The Company filed a Motion to Dismiss
on September 28, 2004, which was granted and judgment was
entered on January 11, 2005; however, the plaintiffs have filed
an appeal.

The fourth purported class action is styled "Gary Anthony v.
Brush Wellman Inc., et al." filed in the Court of Common
Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, case number 01718 on
March 3, 2005.  The case was removed to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, case
number 05-CV-1202, on March 14, 2005.  The only named plaintiff
is Gary Anthony. The defendants are Brush Wellman Inc., Gary
Kowalski, and Dickinson Associates Manufacturers
Representatives. The plaintiff purports to sue on behalf of a
class of current and former employees of the U.S. Gauge facility
in Sellersville, Pennsylvania who have ever been exposed to
beryllium for a period of at least one month while employed at
U.S. Gauge. The plaintiff has brought claims for negligence.
Plaintiff seeks the establishment of a medical monitoring trust
fund, cost of publication of approved guidelines and procedures
for medical screening and monitoring of the class, attorneys'
fees and expenses.


CALIFORNIA: Court Dismisses Lawsuit Over Merchant Discount Rates
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit challenging merchant discount rates,
known as the Kendall suit, was recently thrown out of a San
Francisco federal court, The Electronic Payments Week reports.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs though told The Electronic Payments
Week that they will appeal, based on what they allege was the
ruling judge's error in law. Richard Archer of Archer & Hansen,
one of two law firms representing the plaintiffs even told The
Electronic Payments Week, Federal Judge Jeffrey S. White's
"ruling is a question of law, and he didn't accept our view of
the law, nor did he follow the Ninth Circuit precedent in that
regard. His view of the law is incorrect; the merchants can sue,
and are the only ones in a position to sue."

The plaintiffs, Judge White stated in his final ruling, lacked
standing to bring the suit, because they didn't pay interchange
directly, according to him, only the banks that paid interchange
to Visa and MasterCard could bring the suit.  Additionally,
Judge White wrote, "Plaintiffs lack standing to assert such
claims because they have not suffered the requisite antitrust
injury from the Consortiums' [MasterCard and Visa] setting of
the interchange rate."

Ignored in the ruling was the fact that the banks in question
are the owners of both Visa and MasterCard, and that Judge White
was in effect asking them to sue themselves. However, observers
of the case say that was Mr. Archer's fault.

According to K. Craig Wildfang, a partner with Robins, Kaplan,
Miller & Ciresi LLP, which is bringing a separate class action
suit against both MasterCard and Visa in Connecticut federal
court, "The lawyers in Kendall (Sheri L. Kendall, et al, V. Visa
USA Inc., et al) did not make it clear to the court that the
acquiring banks are part of the conspiracy--they are members of
Visa [and MasterCard] and, in fact, many of the acquiring banks
are also issuing banks."

This was Judge White's second ruling on the matter. In his first
ruling, he told the Kendall attorneys that they hadn't made
their case, and asked them to come back with a better argument.
"The second time, Judge White said, 'I gave you one chance to
fix it; you didn't fix it, so now you're out,'" says Mr.
Wildfang. He also told The Electronic Payments Week, "I think
the judge should have gone the other way, but I think the
lawyers in the Kendall case did a very poor job of pleading
their case to the court, and the court has to make his decision
based on what's in front of him. They just didn't do a very good
job of laying out the facts and the law."

Even with the ruling, officials involved in the other
interchange lawsuits filed recently think it will have little
effect on their efforts, in part because they felt the pleadings
were weak to begin with.  Mallory Duncan, general counsel for
the National Retail Federation told The Electronic Payments
Week, "I never thought the Kendall suit would have any effect
(on the other efforts); we never felt it was particularly well-
pled to begin with, and it turns out, the judge agreed with us.
In our view, it was not a particularly important case."

Mr. Wildfang even thinks that the Kendall suit's dismissal makes
his life simpler. He told The Electronic Payments Week, "We
think it's actually not that harmful a decision for our case. In
fact, there's a silver lining because now it's less likely we
run the risk of being consolidated in front of that judge. So as
a practical matter, it's not a bad result for us."

In his ruling, Judge White forbade the Kendall lawyers from re-
filing their case in his court. However, Mr. Archer says that
won't stop him from filing an appeal, once the court files the
final ruling, because the Ninth Circuit precedent, Freeman v.
San Diego Board of Realtors, gives his arguments standing. Thus,
he expects his appeal, to the Ninth Circuit's Court of Appeals,
to be successful. That appeal will probably take several years,
according to him.

While that case is proceeding, of course, so will Mr. Wildfang's
case, as well as the more recent Kroger case filed in the
Southern District of New York against Visa. However, whether Mr.
Archer's appeal ultimately prevails or not, there's little doubt
that Judge White's ruling will be raised by both card
associations' lawyers in those cases.

Mr. Wildfang though is not too worried about that, because he
feels the Kendall case isn't relevant to his pleadings. In any
event, if he knows the argument is coming, he can be ready for
it. He pointed out, "We know that Visa is going to make the same
arguments, but one of the advantages of the order coming down
now is that this is a decision based just on the pleadings, and
we can distinguish the way we plead our case from the way the
Kendall lawyers pled their case."

For more details, contact Richard Archer of Archer & Hansen,
Phone: 707-874-3438 or K. Craig Wildfang of Robins, Kaplan,
Miller & Ciresi, LLP, Phone: 952-975-9293 OR Mallory Duncan of
National Retail Federation, Phone: 202-626-8119.


CREDIT CARDS: New Suits Filed Over "No Surcharge" Rule V. Banks
---------------------------------------------------------------
Two new class action lawsuits were launched against MasterCard
and Visa USA in San Francisco federal court on July 19 and 22,
challenging the "No Surcharge" rule, which forbids merchants to
add the discount fee to prices paid by consumers, The Electronic
Payments Week reports.

Both cases were brought by Markin Zusman & Compton, LLP, a San
Francisco law firm, one on behalf of Randall Jasperson, the
operator of Frankville, Wisconsin-based Jasperson Sod Service,
and the other on behalf of Rookies Inc., and Jasa Inc., two New
Orleans-based companies that are not otherwise identified.

Damages are being sought for the period after the settlement of
Wal-Mart v. Visa USA--that is, beginning on January 1, 2004--in
one case in the amount of all the discount fees paid by the
class since that time, and in the other, for an amount to be
decided at trial.

The questions to be settled, which are identical and written in
identical language, are:

     (1) Whether the card associations forbid merchants from
         adding the merchant discount fee to the price paid by
         consumers;

     (2) If that policy entrenches Visa and MasterCard's
         marketplace position;

     (3) Whether the No Surcharge rule forces merchants and
         consumers paying with cash, or with online debit cards,
         to subsidize "the perquisites and benefits enjoyed by
         users of high-cost payment media, including defendant's
         branded credit and debit cards," like frequent flier
         miles; and

     (4) If the merchant discount rates merchants need to pay
         are greater than they would be without the No Surcharge
         rule.

In court papers, the firms presented the "No Surcharge" rule as
being inflationary, as well as monopolistic, and an unreasonable
contract in restraint of trade, under the Sherman Anti-Trust
Act. They allege that doing away with the rule would increase
competition among the various card associations to the benefit
of consumers. The reason, according to the court papers, is
that, "Because of the interchange system, each [Card]
Association will be able to respond efficiently to the
introduction of price-based competition in the market for
payment card services, upon abolition of the NSR [No Surcharge
rule]."

If successful, the suit's practical effects will really be to
eliminate loyalty programs like frequent flyer miles, which, in
the process, would eliminate much of the relative competitive
advantages of one card brand over another. This would result in
the credit/debit card business becoming less and less
profitable, and more and more like utilities--only utilities
providing payment services, rather than electricity or water.

However, from the card associations' perspective, that would be
bad enough, and thus plenty of reason to wage all-out war
against these lawsuits. Taken together with the two interchange
suits filed recently, successful prosecution across the board
would put the associations in an impossible situation.

On the one hand, they would have to permit merchants to pass
along merchant discount fees to consumers, thus forcing them to
compete on price--because consumers would, if they acted
rationally, choose cards with the lowest discount fees. On the
other hand, they wouldn't be able to "respond efficiently" to
price-based competition in the market for card services.

For more details, contact Markin Zusman & Compton, LLP, Phone:
415-438-4525.


CANADA: NAN Chief Backs AFN Lawsuit V. Residential School System
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nishnawbe Aski Nation (NAN) Grand Chief Stan Beardy supports
Assembly of First Nations (AFN) National Chief Phil Fontaine as
he and the AFN enter into a class action lawsuit against the
Government of Canada seeking compensation to those affected by
the residential school system.

"The issue of residential school is part of Canada's dark
history that has been there for many years along with the
refusal of Canada to resolve the issue," said NAN Grand Chief
Stan Beardy. "It's unfortunate that our treaty partners are
forcing us to resort to legal avenues to try to bring justice to
our issues - this is an issue that has to be resolved now."

Approximately 90 per cent of the residents of Nishnawbe Aski
Nation - an area covering two-thirds of Ontario spanning west to
Manitoba's border, East to the coast of James Bay and north from
the 51st parallel to Hudson's Bay - were impacted by the
residential school system directly and indirectly.

The AFN class action filed Thursday August 4, 2005 deals with
the loss of language and culture and not only specific acts of
physical and sexual abuse, but also truth and reconciliation
mechanisms, including other collective remedies that will
benefit all First Nation people.

For more details, contact Jenna Young, Communications Officer,
Nishnawbe Aski Nation, Phone: (807) 625 4952 or (807) 628 3953.


CHI-CHI's RESTAURANT: Notices For $800T Settlement to be Mailed
---------------------------------------------------------------
More than 9,000 people who received shots to ward off hepatitis
A after an outbreak at a Chi-Chi's restaurant are set to receive
later this month notices that will instruct then on how they can
claim their share of an $800,000 class action settlement, The
Beaver County Times reports.

The federal judge overseeing Chi-Chi's bankruptcy last month
approved a schedule to mail the notices by August 24 to the
9,489 people who got immune globulin shots from the Pennsylvania
Department of Health after the outbreak was publicized in early
November 2003.

More than 650 people were sickened, and at least four eventually
died, from eating tainted green onions served at the Beaver
County Chi-Chi's. In the weeks leading up to the outbreak,
health officials urged shots for family members of people who
became ill, as well as those who ate in the restaurant.

The settlement though does not cover anybody who filed a lawsuit
over damages or death. More than 550 people, and all four
families of those who died, also filed claims for out-of-pocket
medical expenses or for more serious damages. According to Chi-
Chi's attorney Fred Gordon, all but a handful of those cases
including all four wrongful death suits settled for a total of
about $40 million.

William Marler, the Seattle attorney who represents the class
told The Beaver County Times that the $800,000 class action
settlement is separate and meant to compensate those, whose
damages were limited to the inconvenience of having to get a
shot. He explains that the money will be divided equally among
everyone who files a claim form postmarked by the October 24
deadline, so the value of the claims depends on how many are
made. For example, if 3,000 claims are filed, each will be worth
about $266.

Additionally, Mr. Marler told The Beaver County Times, "The
notice is going to go out, and then, about the same time, there
will be notices in newspapers just in case there are some people
who may have gotten the shots in their doctor's office rather
than through the health department."

Settlement notices will be published in the New York Times and
Wall Street Journal as well as in several major newspapers in
Pennsylvania and smaller papers that cover the Pennsylvania and
Ohio counties closest to the restaurant, Mr. Marler said. He
also said that people can opt out of the settlement by the
October 24 deadline, and would then be free to sue Chi-Chi's for
damages on their own. The judge must approve the final claims
group at a hearing on December 12 and checks could be mailed as
soon as five days later, he explains.

Court documents revealed that Chi-Chi's has sued Castellini Co.
of Wilder, Kentucky, accusing the firm of supplying the tainted
onions, which the Food and Drug Administration traced to several
Mexican farms. Castellini officials though denied wrongdoing and
have a motion pending in U.S. District Court to dismiss the
lawsuit.

Chi-Chi's had filed for bankruptcy shortly before the outbreak,
citing cash flow problems. The chain and its insurers are
seeking reimbursement for the settlements, and Chi-Chi's also
wants another $55 million because the outbreak scuttled a
pending plan to sell the chain, Mr. Gordon said. The restaurant
chain liquidated last September.


CINTAS CORPORATION: Employees Launch Discrimination Suit in CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Two former employees of Cintas Corporation in California
initiated a lawsuit suit against the Mason uniform maker,
alleging racial bias against African-Americans in the company's
uniform rental division, The Cincinnati Enquirer reports.

Larry Houston and Clifton Cooper filed the suit in the U.S.
District Court in San Francisco. It is seeking class action
status.  The suit is the third discrimination case brought
against Cintas since January 2004, according to Unite Here, a
New York-based union representing laundry and hospitality
workers. Earlier suits were filed in San Francisco on behalf of
black, Hispanic and female employees and in Detroit on behalf of
women denied jobs as truck drivers.

Cintas told The Cincinnati Enquirer that it did not discriminate
against the two men. It adds that the suit is another attempt by
Unite Here to use litigation as a tool to organize Cintas'
workers.

In a press statement, the company further said, "Unite has
admitted in court filings that it is supporting, both
financially and otherwise, several class action and other
lawsuits against Cintas."

The suit seeks to represent current and former African-American
employees of Cintas' rental division who believe they were
discriminated against in seeking or retaining management jobs.
It also seeks unspecified damages.  According to the suit, Mr.
Cooper joined Cintas as a service manager in the company's Pico
Rivera plant in California in July 2000. He would later be
promoted to assistant general manager of that plant, then to
branch manager of Cintas' El Segundo facility in West Los
Angeles, only to learn of "significant" salary disparities
between him and white managers with comparable experience, the
suit states. Mr. Cooper stated in the suit that his supervisors
began to hold him accountable for poor plant performance, in
contrast to white predecessors who had failed similar audits. He
also stated that he was demoted and given a lower salary in
January 2004. He then quit in July to take a job with a company
in Missouri.

On the other hand, Mr. Houston stated in the suit, that he
joined Cintas as a management trainee at its San Leandro
facility in March 2002 and entered a 90-day training program
with the understanding that, upon completion, he would become a
service manager. However, according to him, after the 90 days,
Cintas told him that he would have to work two years as a
service sales representative before becoming a service manager.
Like Mr. Copper soon after that event, he left to join another
company.

The Company told The Cincinnati Enquirer though that Mr. Houston
was never hired as a management trainee and did not participate
in the company's two-year management training program. It
further said, "Cintas unequivocally believes it treated both Mr.
Houston and Mr. Cooper justly in all respects."

Additionally, the Company, which operates 351 facilities in
North America, including 15 manufacturing plants and seven
distribution centers, and employs more than 30,000 people, told
The Cincinnati Enquirer that they do not tolerate
discrimination, harassment or retaliation.


COMCAST CORPORATION: Faces Suits For At Home Corp. Relationship
---------------------------------------------------------------
Comcast Corporation continues to face litigation as a result of
its alleged conduct with respect to its investment in and
distribution relationship with At Home Corporation.  At Home was
a provider of high-speed Internet services that filed for
bankruptcy protection in September 2001.  Filed actions are:

     (1) class action lawsuits against the Company, Brian L.
         Roberts (its Chairman and Chief Executive Officer and a
         director), AT& T (the former controlling shareholder of
         At Home and also a former distributor of the At Home
         service) and others in the Superior Court of San Mateo
         County, California, alleging breaches of fiduciary duty
         in connection with transactions agreed to in March 2000
         among At Home Corporation, AT&T Corporation, Cox
         Communications, Inc. (Cox is also an investor in At
         Home and a former distributor of the At Home service)
         and the Company;

     (2) class action lawsuits against the Company, AT& T and
         others in the United States District Court for the
         Southern District of New York, alleging securities law
         violations and common law fraud in connection with
         disclosures made by At Home in 2001;

     (3) a lawsuit brought in the United States District Court
         for the District of Delaware in the name of At Home by
         certain At Home bondholders against the Company, Brian
         L. Roberts, Cox and others, alleging breaches of
         fiduciary duty relating to the March 2000 transactions
         and seeking recovery of alleged short-swing profits of
         at least $600 million, pursuant to Section 16(b) of the
         Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, purported
         to have arisen in connection with certain transactions
         relating to At Home stock, effected pursuant to the
         March 2000 agreements; and

     (4) a lawsuit brought in the United States Bankruptcy Court
         for the Northern District of California by certain At
         Home bondholders against the Company, AT& T, AT& T
         Credit Holdings, Inc. and AT& T Wireless Services,
         Inc., seeking to avoid and recover certain alleged
         "preference" payments in excess of $89 million,
         allegedly made to the defendants prior to the At Home
         bankruptcy filing.

The actions in San Mateo County, California (item (i) above),
have been stayed by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the
Northern District of California, the court in which At Home
filed for bankruptcy, as violating the automatic bankruptcy
stay.  The decision to stay the actions was affirmed by the
District Court, and an appeal to the Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit is pending.

In the Southern District of New York actions (item (ii) above),
the court has dismissed the common law fraud claims against all
defendants, leaving only the securities law claims. In a
subsequent decision, the court limited the remaining claims
against the Company and Mr. Roberts to disclosures that are
alleged to have been made by At Home prior to August 28, 2000.
On March 10, 2005, the court certified a class of all purchasers
of publicly traded At Home stock between March 28, 2000, and
September 28, 2001.  Plaintiffs have moved to amend the
complaint so as to move the commencement of the class period
back to November 9, 1999.  The Company is opposing this
amendment.

The Delaware case (item (iii) above) was transferred to the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.  The court dismissed the Section 16(b) claims against the
Company for failure to state a claim and the breach of fiduciary
duty claim for lack of federal jurisdiction. The plaintiffs have
appealed the decision dismissing the Section 16(b) claims and
have indicated that they intend to recommence the breach of
fiduciary duty claim.  In the meantime, the Company entered into
an agreement with plaintiffs tolling the statute of limitations
for the breach of fiduciary duty claim.

In the action in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the
Northern District of California (item (iv) above), the parties
filed a stipulation in January 2004, staying the case until such
time as either party elects to resume the case.  Pursuant to the
settlement between At Home's bondholders and AT& T described
below, this action will be dismissed upon approval of the
settlement by the Bankruptcy Court.

Under the terms of the Company's acquisition of AT&T's Broadband
operations, the Company is contractually liable for 50% of any
liabilities of AT& T relating to certain At Home litigation. For
litigation in which the Company is contractually liable for 50%
of any liabilities, AT& T will be liable for the other 50%.  In
addition to the actions against AT& T described in items (i),
(ii) and (iv) above, (in which the Company is also a defendant),
such litigation matters included two additional actions brought
by At Home's bondholders' liquidating trust against AT& T (and
not naming the Company):

     (i) a lawsuit filed against AT& T and certain of its senior
         officers in Santa Clara, California, state court
         alleging various breaches of fiduciary duties,
         misappropriation of trade secrets and other causes of
         action in connection with the transactions and prior
         and subsequent alleged conduct on the part of the
         defendants and

    (ii) an action filed against AT& T in the District Court for
         the Northern District of California, alleging that AT&T
         infringes an At Home patent by using its broadband
         distribution and high-speed Internet backbone networks
         and equipment.

In May 2005, At Home bondholders' liquidating trust and AT&T
agreed to settle these two actions. Pursuant to the settlement,
AT& T agreed to pay $340 million to the bondholders' liquidating
trust. The settlement is subject to the approval of the
Bankruptcy Court.  Upon approval, these two actions, as well as
the action described in item (iv) above, will be dismissed.  As
a result of the settlement by AT&T, the Company recorded a $170
million charge to other income (expense), reflecting our its
portion of the settlement amount, in its first quarter financial
results. In May 2005, the Company paid $170 million representing
its share of the settlement amount, and the Company has
classified such payment as an operating activity in its
statement of cash flows.

Under the terms of the Broadband acquisition, the Company is
also potentially responsible for a portion of the liabilities
arising from two purported securities class action lawsuits
brought against AT&T and others and consolidated for pre-trial
purposes in the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey.  These lawsuits assert claims under Section 11 and
Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and
Section 10(b) of the 1934 Act.

The first lawsuit, for which the Company's portion of any loss
is up to 15%, alleges, among other things, that AT& T made
material misstatements and omissions in the Registration
Statement and Prospectus for the AT& T Wireless initial public
offering ("Wireless Case").  In March 2004, the plaintiffs, and
AT& T and the other defendants, moved for summary judgment in
the Wireless Case. The New Jersey District Court denied the
motions, and the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
remanded the cases for trial to the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York, where they had originally
been brought. No trial date has been set.

The second lawsuit, for which the Company's portion of any loss
is 50%, alleges, among other things, that AT& T knowingly
provided false projections relating to AT& T common stock
("Common Stock Case").  In October 2004, the plaintiffs, and AT&
T and the other defendants, agreed to settle the Common Stock
Case for $100 million.  In April 2005, the court entered an
order approving the proposed settlement.  In May 2005, the
Company paid $50 million representing its share of the
settlement amount and the Company has classified such payment as
an operating activity in its statement of cash flows.

In November 2004, AT& T brought suit against the D& O insurers
in Delaware Superior Court, seeking a declaration of coverage
and damages in the At Home cases, the Wireless Case and the
Common Stock Case. This litigation is in its very early stages.


CONSOLIDATED EDISON: NY Court Briefs Lost Premium Claim Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York has fully briefed Consolidated Edison, Inc.'s appeal of
its ruling related to the lost premium claim in litigation filed
against the Company over its merger with Northeast Utilities.

In March 2001, the Company commenced an action in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the
District Court), entitled "Consolidated Edison, Inc. v.
Northeast Utilities" (the First Federal Proceeding), seeking a
declaratory judgment that Northeast Utilities has failed to meet
certain conditions precedent to Con Edison's obligation to
complete its acquisition of Northeast Utilities pursuant to
their agreement and plan of merger, dated as of October 13,
1999, as amended and restated as of January 11, 2000 (the merger
agreement).

In May 2001, the Company amended its complaint.  As amended, the
complaint seeks, among other things, recovery of damages
sustained by it as a result of the material breach of the merger
agreement by Northeast Utilities, the District Court's
declaration that under the merger agreement the Company has no
further or continuing obligations to Northeast Utilities and
that Northeast Utilities has no further or continuing rights
against Con Edison.

In June 2001, Northeast Utilities withdrew the separate action
it commenced in March 2001 in the same court and filed as a
counter-claim in the First Federal Proceeding its claim that the
Company materially breached the merger agreement and that, as a
result, Northeast Utilities and its shareholders have suffered
substantial damages, including the difference between the
consideration to be paid to Northeast Utilities' shareholders
pursuant to the merger agreement and the market value of
Northeast Utilities common stock (the so-called "lost premium"
claim), expenditures in connection with regulatory approvals and
lost business opportunities.

Pursuant to the merger agreement, the Company agreed to acquire
Northeast Utilities for $26.00 per share (an estimated aggregate
of not more than $3.9 billion) plus $0.0034 per share for each
day after August 5, 2000 through the day prior to the completion
of the transaction, payable 50 percent in cash and 50 percent in
stock.

In March 2003, the District Court ruled on certain motions filed
by the Company and Northeast Utilities in the First Federal
Proceeding.  The District Court ruled that the Company's claim
against Northeast Utilities for hundreds of millions of dollars
for breach of the merger agreement, as well as its claim that
Northeast Utilities underwent a material adverse change, will go
to trial.  The District Court also dismissed Con Edison's fraud
and misrepresentation claims.

In addition, the District Court ruled that Northeast Utilities'
shareholders were intended third-party beneficiaries of the
merger agreement and the alleged $1.2 billion lost premium claim
against Con Edison would go to trial.

May 2003, a lawsuit by a purported class of Northeast Utilities'
shareholders, entitled "Rimkoski, et al. v. Consolidated Edison,
Inc.," was filed in New York County Supreme Court (the State
Proceeding) alleging breach of the merger agreement.  The
complaint defined the putative class as holders of Northeast
Utilities' common stock on March 5, 2001, and alleged that the
class members were intended third party beneficiaries of the
merger agreement.  The complaint sought damages believed to be
substantially duplicative of those sought by Northeast Utilities
on behalf of its shareholders in the First Federal Proceeding.
In December 2003, the District Court granted Rimkoski's motion
to intervene in the First Federal Proceeding and, in February
2004, the State Proceeding was dismissed without prejudice.

In January 2004, Rimkoski filed a motion in the First Federal
Proceeding to certify his action as a class action on behalf of
all holders of Northeast Utilities' common stock on March 5,
2001 and to appoint Rimkoski as class representative.  The
motion is pending.   In May 2004, the District Court ruled that
the Northeast Utilities' shareholders who may pursue the lost
premium claim against Con Edison are the holders of Northeast
Utilities' common stock on March 5, 2001 and the District Court
therefore dismissed Northeast Utilities' lost premium claim.
The District Court certified its ruling regarding the lost
premium claim for interlocutory appeal to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (the Court of Appeals),
and in June 2004 Northeast Utilities filed its motion for leave
to appeal the issue to the Court of Appeals.  The District Court
further certified for interlocutory appeal its March 2003
determination that Northeast Utilities' shareholders are
intended third-party beneficiaries under the merger agreement,
and in June 2004 Con Edison filed its motion for leave to appeal
the issue to the Court of Appeals.  In October 2004, the Court
of Appeals granted both Con Edison's motion and Northeast
Utilities' motion.

In May 2004, the District Court dismissed the lawsuit that was
commenced in October 2003 by a purported class of Northeast
Utilities' shareholders, entitled "Siegel et al. v. Consolidated
Edison, Inc." (the Second Federal Proceeding).  The Second
Federal Proceeding had sought unspecified injunctive relief and
damages believed to be substantially duplicative of the damages
sought from Con Edison in the First Federal Proceeding. A motion
by the plaintiffs in the Second Federal Proceeding to intervene
in the First Federal Proceeding is pending.

The suit is styled "Consolidated Edison v. Northeast Utilities,
et al., case no. 1:01-cv-01893-JGK," filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, under
Judge John G. Koeltl.  Representing the Company are Stuart Jay
Baskin, John Gueli and Kenneth M. Kramer, Shearman & Sterling
LLP (New York), 599 Lexington Avenue, New York, NY 10022, Phone:
(212) 848-4000, Fax: (646) 848-4974, E-mail:
sbaskin@shearman.com, jgueli@shearman.com.


DOMINO'S PIZZA: Faces Two Employee Wage Suits in CA State Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Domino's Pizza, Inc. faces two employee and overtime wage
lawsuits filed in California Superior Court.

On June 10, 2003, a class action complaint was filed alleging
that the Company failed to provide meal and rest breaks to its
employees. This case is in the discovery stage and no
determination with respect to class certification has been made.

On August 19, 2004, a class action complaint was filed by a
former general manager alleging that the Company misclassified
the position of general manager.  The Company classifies the
general manager of a Domino's Pizza store as an exempt employee.
This case involves the issue of whether employees and former
employees in the general manager position who worked in the
Company's 60 California stores during specified time periods
were misclassified as exempt and deprived of overtime pay. This
case is in the earliest stages of discovery, and the status of
the class action certification is yet to be determined.


DYNAMIC ENVIRONMENTAL: KS Judge Approves Settlement of SEC Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission stated that the Honorable
Sam A. Crow of the United States District Court for the District
Of Kansas approved a settlement between the Commission and
Dynamic Environmental Solutions, Inc. (DES).

Under the terms of the settlement, the Commission's claims
against DES were dismissed with prejudice.  Along with the
dismissal, $65,000 previously frozen by the Court was returned
to DES and the court-appointed Receiver kept $190,439.62 for the
benefit of defrauded investors.

The Commission's civil action named as defendants David A.
Tanner, d/b/a Capital Enhancement Club (CEC) and others (Civil
Action No. 05-4057-SAC, United States District Court; District
of Kansas; Topeka Division). The Commission alleges that Tanner
master-minded a scheme to bilk investors of at least $15 million
in a fraudulent high-yield investment program promising returns
of between 7% to 11% per month, or annual returns of 120% to
260%.  DES, who the Commission did not allege was involved in
the fraudulent conduct, was a "relief defendant" who allegedly
received funds traceable to CEC investors for no consideration.

The pending District Court action is continuing against Tanner,
CEC and others.  The action is styled, SEC v. David A. Tanner,
et al., United States District Court for the District of Kansas,
Civil Action No. 05-4057-SAC.


ENOGEX INC.: Oil, Gas Well Owners File Royalties Lawsuit in OK
--------------------------------------------------------------
Enogex Inc., Enogex Products Corporation and Enogex Gas
Gathering, L.L.C. face a purported class action filed in the
District Court of Canadian County, Oklahoma.

Farris Buser and other named plaintiffs filed the suit on
February 7,2005.  The plaintiffs own royalty interests in
certain oil and gas producing properties and allege they have
been under-compensated by the named defendants, including the
Companies, relating to the sale of liquid hydrocarbons recovered
during the transportation of natural gas from the plaintiffs'
wells.  The plaintiffs assert breach of contract, implied
covenants, obligation, fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment,
conspiracy and fraud causes of action and claim actual damages
in excess of $10,000, plus attorneys' fees and costs, and
punitive damages in excess of $10,000.


GIRARDIN MINIBUS: Recalls 2002 MB II / MBIV Buses Due To Defect
---------------------------------------------------------------
Girardin Minibus, Inc. in cooperation with the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration's Office of Defects Investigation
(ODI) is voluntarily recalling 2002 Girardin / MB II and 2002
Girardin / MB IV buses due to defective stop arm assembly. NHTSA
CAMPAIGN ID Number: 05V352000.

According to the ODI, certain Girardin through (TBD) model year
MB II and MB IV school buses equipped with "5" series stop arms
manufactured by Specialty Manufacturing Company. In extremely
cold weather, the microswitches used internally to position the
sign in the open and closed positions may malfunction, causing
the sign to open or close in an improper position, or to not
open at all. Should the stop arm not perform properly, a child
or pedestrian may be endangered by passing motorists should the
motorist not stop at the correct location.

As a remedy, Girardin will notify owners and replace the
original switch with a switch pack that is not sensitive to
extreme cold weather and will inspect to ensure the microswitch
heater wiring is properly connected, free of charge.

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


KB HOME: Pays $2M Civil Penalty For FTC Consent Order Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Under the terms of a stipulation and modified consent decree
approved by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and submitted in
federal court by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), KB Home,
a California-based homebuilder formerly known as Kaufman and
Broad, Inc., will pay a $2 million civil penalty to settle
charges that it violated the terms of a 1979 consent order with
the Commission. The modified consent decree also bars KB Home
from violating the terms of the original order in the future,
and requires the company to modify existing home repair
warranties to comply with the consent order and extend for one
year certain homeowners' two-year warranty coverage for major
home components. The FTC also has issued a new publication for
consumers to help them understand the issue of home warranties.

This case concerns a 1979 FTC consent order against KB Home
that, among other things, required it to make timely warranty
repairs and to furnish home purchasers with a warranty that is
"substantially identical" to the Home Owners Warranty
Corporation warranty. Under the consent order, warranties must
provide for mandatory arbitration of warranty repair disputes
that is binding upon KB Home, but is not binding on homeowners.
In addition, the warranties must provide for arbitration for
which no fee or deposit is required of homeowners. In 1991, the
DOJ filed a complaint in U.S. District Court alleging that KB
Home had violated several provisions of the 1979 order related
in part to the timing and quality of warranty repairs.
Ultimately, the court entered a consent decree under which KB
Home paid a civil penalty of $595,000 and stipulated to a
permanent injunction requiring it to comply with the 1979 order.
The action approved by the Commission alleges that KB Home
violated specific terms of the original order, as detailed
below.

The stipulation and decree submitted today resolve allegations
that KB Home violated Part III.B of the FTC's order by
furnishing new home buyers with a warranty providing for
arbitration of warranty disputes that is binding on homeowners;
and requiring homeowners to pay fees and costs to initiate and
conduct such dispute arbitration. KB Home also allegedly
violated Part III.B by furnishing new home purchasers with
purchase agreements that required binding arbitration of
warranty disputes.

According to the Commission's amicus brief filed earlier in
private litigation involving KB Home, the company knowingly
violated the consent order's provisions. Despite having sought
and received a staff advisory opinion in 1995 that explained to
do so would violate the 1979 order, KB Home nonetheless provided
homeowners with warranties that provided for mandatory binding
arbitration of warranty disputes. In addition, the amicus brief
contended that KB Home violated commitments to the FTC staff
that it would not seek to enforce its binding warranty
arbitration provisions while the staff was investigating its
conduct. The amicus brief and the press release announcing its
filing are available from the FTC's Web site:
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2003/08/fyi0350.htm.

The modified consent decree, which replaces the consent decree
entered in 1991, resolves the Commission's allegations that KB
Home violated the prior order. It enjoins KB Home from violating
the 1979 consent order and requires KB Home to:

     (1) modify the dispute resolution provisions of existing
         warranties to comply with the 1979 order;

     (2) comply with the warranties as so modified;

     (3) extend for one year the two-year warranty coverage for
         major home components for homeowners whose homes were
         delivered during 2002 through 2004; and

     (4) reimburse homeowners for fees they had to pay to
         arbitrate warranty disputes in alleged violation of
         Part III.B of the order.

In addition, the decree will require KB Home to pay a civil
penalty of  $2 million to settle the Commission's charges that
it violated the order.  Finally, the modified decree contains
terms requiring KB Home to distribute the order to certain
company personnel, as well as to keep relevant records and
provide them to the Commission to ensure its compliance with the
order's terms.

The Commission vote approving the stipulation and modified
consent decree and authorizing transmission to the DOJ for
filing was 5-0. DOJ submitted the modified consent decree in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on
August 3, 2005.

Copies of the stipulation and modified consent decree 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 hundreds of civil and criminal law
enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad.  For more details,
contact Mitchell J. Katz, Office of Public Affairs, Phone:
202-326-2161 or contact Pat Bak and Jim Prunty, Bureau of
Consumer Protection by Phone: 202-326-2842 and 202-326-2438 or
visit the Website: http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2005/08/kbhome.htm.


MASSACHUSETTS: Suit For Mentally Ill Children to Conclude Soon
--------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys are set to give their closing arguments on in the U.S.
District Court in Springfield that ends a four-year-old class
action lawsuit in which plaintiffs are seeking more help for
mentally ill children, The Providence Eyewitness News reports.

Advocates for mentally ill children and their families argue
Massachusetts should be required to provide the kids with care
in their homes and communities. Currently, according to them,
the state provides services to children only when they're in
psychiatric hospitals.

The Plaintiffs claim that about three thousand mentally ill
children in Massachusetts need special care.  The six-week trial
began in April. It was recently halted to give both sides the
opportunity to prepare closing statements.


METALS USA: Shareholder File Suit V. Flag Holdings Merger in DE
---------------------------------------------------------------
Metals USA, Inc. and each of its directors face a consolidated
class action filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery, related to
the merger it entered into with Flag Holdings Corporation in
March 2005.

Two suits were initially filed, namely "Robert I. Mawinney v.
James E. Bolin, et al., C.A. No. 1367-N," filed on May 20, 2005
and "Taam Associates, Inc. v. James E. Bolin, et al., C. A. No.
1383-N," filed on May 26, 2005.  The suits were later
consolidated and a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint
was filed on July 22, 2005.  The amended complaint alleges,
among other things, that the merger consideration to be paid to
the Company's stockholders is "grossly unfair, inadequate and
substantially below the fair or inherent value of the Company."
In addition, the amended complaint alleges that the Company's
directors violated their fiduciary duties by, among other
things, agreeing to the merger price in order to benefit
themselves personally and financially and by failing to engage
in a fair sales process and invite other bidders, and failing to
conduct an active market check of the Company's value.  The
amended complaint further alleges that the proxy statement fails
to disclose material information regarding the proposed
transaction.  The amended complaint seeks, among other things,
certification of the lawsuit as a class action, a declaration
that the defendants have breached their fiduciary duties, an
injunction preventing completion of the merger (or rescinding
the merger if it is completed prior to the receipt of such
relief), and ordering the board of directors to permit a
stockholders' committee to ensure a fair procedure and adequate
safeguards in connection with any transaction for the Company's
shares, compensatory damages to the class, and attorneys' fees
and expenses, along with such other relief as the court might
find just and proper.


METLIFE INC.: Shareholders Initiate Fraud Lawsuits in S.D. NY
-------------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc. faces several securities class actions filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of proposed classes of all persons who
purchased the Company's securities between April 5, 2000 and
October 19, 2004.  The suit also names as defendants certain of
the Company's officers.

In the context of contingent commissions, the complaints allege
that defendants violated the federal securities laws by issuing
materially false and misleading statements and failing to
disclose material facts regarding the Company's financial
performance throughout the class period that had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price of the Company's
securities.


METROPOLITAN LIFE: Continues To Face Sales Practice Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, New England Mutual Life
Insurance Company ("New England Mutual") and General American
Life Insurance Company ("General American") continue to face
numerous claims, including class action lawsuits, alleging
improper marketing and sales of individual life insurance
policies or annuities. These lawsuits generally are referred to
as "sales practices claims."

In December 1999, a federal court approved a settlement
resolving sales practices claims on behalf of a class of owners
of permanent life insurance policies and annuity contracts or
certificates issued pursuant to individual sales in the United
States by Metropolitan Life, Metropolitan Insurance and Annuity
Company or Metropolitan Tower Life Insurance Company between
January 1, 1982 and December 31, 1997.

Similar sales practices class actions against New England
Mutual, with which Metropolitan Life merged in 1996, and General
American, which was acquired in 2000, have been settled. In
October 2000, a federal court approved a settlement resolving
sales practices claims on behalf of a class of owners of
permanent life insurance policies issued by New England Mutual
between January 1, 1983 through August 31, 1996. A federal court
has approved a settlement resolving sales practices claims on
behalf of a class of owners of permanent life insurance policies
issued by General American between January 1, 1982 through
December 31, 1996. An appellate court has affirmed the order
approving the settlement.

Certain class members have opted out of the class action
settlements noted above and have brought or continued non-class
action sales practices lawsuits.  In addition, other sales
practices lawsuits, including lawsuits relating to the sale of
mutual funds and other products, have been brought. As of June
30, 2005, there are approximately 334 sales practices lawsuits
pending against the Company; approximately 52 sales practices
lawsuits pending against New England Mutual, New England Life
Insurance Company, and New England Securities Corporation
(collectively, "New England"); approximately 56 sales practices
lawsuits pending against General American and approximately 34
sales practices lawsuits pending against Walnut Street
Securities, Inc. ("Walnut Street").

Metropolitan Life, New England, General American and Walnut
Street continue to defend themselves vigorously against these
lawsuits. Some individual sales practices claims have been
resolved through settlement, won by dispositive motions, or, in
a few instances, have gone to trial. Most of the current cases
seek substantial damages, including in some cases punitive and
treble damages and attorneys' fees. Additional litigation
relating to the Company's marketing and sales of individual life
insurance, mutual funds and other products may be commenced in
the future.

The Metropolitan Life class action settlement did not resolve
two putative class actions involving sales practices claims
filed against Metropolitan Life in Canada, and these actions
remain pending.

Regulatory authorities in a small number of states have had
investigations or inquiries relating to Metropolitan Life's, New
England's, General American's or Walnut Street's sales of
individual life insurance policies or annuities or other
products. Over the past several years, these and a number of
investigations by other regulatory authorities were resolved for
monetary payments and certain other relief. The Company may
continue to resolve investigations in a similar manner.


METROPOLITAN LIFE: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Policyholders' Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company asked the New York Superior
Court to dismiss a consolidated class action filed against it,
challenging the fairness of the Company's plan of
reorganization, as amended and the adequacy and accuracy of the
Company's disclosure to policyholders regarding the plan.

Several lawsuits were initially filed in 2000, which also named
as defendants the Company, MetLife, Inc., the two firms'
individual directors, the New York Superintendent of Insurance
and the underwriters for MetLife, Inc.'s initial public
offering, Goldman Sachs & Company and Credit Suisse First
Boston.  In 2003, a trial court within the commercial part of
the New York State court granted the defendants' motions to
dismiss two purported class actions. In 2004, the appellate
court modified the trial court's order by reinstating certain
claims against the Company, MetLife and the individual
directors.  Plaintiffs in these actions have filed a
consolidated amended complaint.

Defendants' motion to dismiss part of the consolidated amended
complaint, and plaintiffs' motion to certify a litigation class
are pending.  Another purported class action filed in New York
State court in Kings County has been consolidated with this
action.  The plaintiffs in the state court class actions seek
compensatory relief and punitive damages.

Five persons have brought a proceeding under Article 78 of New
York's Civil Practice Law and Rules challenging the Opinion and
Decision of the Superintendent who approved the plan. In this
proceeding, petitioners seek to vacate the Superintendent's
Opinion and Decision and enjoin him from granting final approval
of the plan. Respondents have moved to dismiss the proceeding.


METROPOLITAN LIFE: NY Court Certifies Lawsuit V. Reorganization
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York granted class certification to the lawsuit filed against
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company and MetLife, Inc., alleging
violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the Company's
plan of reorganization.

The amended suit claims that the Policyholder Information
Booklets failed to disclose certain material facts and contained
certain material misstatements.  The suit seeks rescission and
compensatory damages.

On June 22, 2004, the court denied the defendants' motion to
dismiss the claim of violation of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. The court had previously denied defendants' motion to
dismiss the claim for violation of the Securities Act of 1933.
In 2004, the court reaffirmed its earlier decision denying
defendants' motion for summary judgment as premature. On July
19, 2005, this federal trial court certified a class action
against the Company and MetLife, Inc.

The suit is styled "Benesowitz v. Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company et al, case no. 2:04-cv-00805-TCP-JO," filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York, under Judge Thomas C. Platt.  Representing the plaintiffs
is Eve-Lynn Gisonni of Gisonni & Harms, LLP, 20 Crossways Park
North, Suite 412, Woodbury, NY 11797, Phone: 516-921-7773, Fax:
516-364-3717, E-mail: elgisonni@gisonniandharms.com.
Representing the Company is Allan M. Marcus of Lester Schwab
Katz & Dwyer, LLP, 120 Broadway, 38th Floor, New York, NY 10271,
Phone: 212-964-6611, Fax: 212-267-5916, E-mail:
amarcus@lskdnylaw.com.


METROPOLITAN LIFE: Canadian Policyholders Launch Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company faces a class action filed
in the Superior Court of Justice, Ontario, Canada on behalf of a
proposed class of certain former Canadian policyholders.  The
suit also names as defendants MetLife, Inc. and Metropolitan
Life Insurance Company of Canada.

Plaintiffs' allegations concern the way that their policies were
treated in connection with the demutualization of the Company;
they seek damages, declarations, and other non-pecuniary relief.
The defendants believe they have meritorious defenses to the
plaintiffs' claims and will contest vigorously all of
plaintiffs' claims in this matter, the Company stated in a
disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission.


METROPOLITAN LIFE: NY Court Dismisses Opt-Out Plaintiffs' Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The New York Superior Court in New York County dismissed the
lawsuit filed against Metropolitan Life Insurance Company and
MetLife, Inc. on behalf of a proposed class comprised of the
settlement class in the Metropolitan Life sales practices class
action settlement approved in December 1999 by the United States
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.  In
their amended complaint, plaintiffs challenged the treatment of
the cost of the sales practices settlement in the
demutualization of Metropolitan Life and asserted claims of
breach of fiduciary duty, common law fraud, and unjust
enrichment.

In an order dated July 13, 2005, the court granted the
defendants' motion to dismiss the action and the plaintiffs have
filed a notice of appeal.


METROPOLITAN LIFE: Former Employees Launch DC Pension Fund Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company faces a class action filed
in the United States District Court for the District of
Columbia, in which plaintiffs allege that they were denied
certain ad hoc pension increases awarded to retirees under the
Metropolitan Life retirement plan.

The ad hoc pension increases were awarded only to retirees
(i.e., individuals who were entitled to an immediate retirement
benefit upon their termination of employment) and not available
to individuals like these plaintiffs whose employment, or whose
spouses' employment, had terminated before they became eligible
for an immediate retirement benefit.  The plaintiffs seek to
represent a class consisting of former Company employees, or
their surviving spouses, who are receiving deferred vested
annuity payments under the retirement plan and who were
allegedly eligible to receive the ad hoc pension increases
awarded in 1977, 1980, 1989, 1992, 1996 and 2001, as well as
increases awarded in earlier years.

The suit is styled "BRUBAKER, et al v. METROPOLITAN LIFE, et
al., case no. 1:00-cv-02511-EGS," filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Columbia, under Judge Emmet
G. Sullivan.  Representing the plaintiffs is Tas Coroneos, 5801
Highland Drive, Chevy Chase, MD 20815-5531, Phone:
(301) 656-1124, Fax: (301) 656-1460.  Representing the Company
are Emmett Boaz Lewis, Mark J. Rochon and Anthony F. Shelley of
MILLER & CHEVALIER, CHARTERED, 655 Fifteenth Street, NW, Suite
900, Washington, DC 20005, Phone: (202) 626-6090, Fax:
(202) 628-0858, E-mail: elewis@milchev.com, mrochon@milchev.com,
ashelley@milchev.com.


METROPOLITAN PROPERTY: Working To Resolve MT Consumer Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Property and Casualty Insurance Company is working
to settle a class action filed in Montana Superior Court,
alleging breach of contract and bad faith for not aggregating
medical payment and uninsured coverages provided in connection
with the several vehicles identified in insureds' motor vehicle
policies.

A recent decision by the Montana Supreme Court in a suit
involving another insurer determined that aggregation is
required. The Company has recorded a liability in an amount it
believes is adequate to resolve the claims underlying this
matter.  The Company said in a disclosure to the Securities and
Exchange Commission that the amount to be paid will not be
material to it.  Certain plaintiffs' lawyers in another action
have alleged that the use of certain automated databases to
provide total loss vehicle valuation methods was improper.

The Company, along with a number of other insurers, tentatively
agreed in January 2004 to resolve this issue in a class action
format. The amount to be paid in resolution of this matter will
not be material to the Company.


NEW MEXICO: Suit Filed V. Ex-Doa Ana County Sheriff, Department
----------------------------------------------------------------
An employee and a former employee of the Doa Ana County
Sheriff's Department launched a class action lawsuit alleging
that former Sheriff Juan Hernandez and others "rigged" the
hiring and promotion system to benefit his friends and punish
his enemies, The Las Cruces Sun-News reports.

According to a complaint filed on July 26 in District Court by
former Undersheriff Frank Ruiz and Annette Apodaca Jones, a
document technician in the sheriff's department, the system was
designed to ensure that Sheriff Hernandez's friends "received
promotions and lucrative raises and benefits, while at the same
time ensuring that Defendant Hernandez's enemies were denied
such benefits, regardless of merit, qualifications, and
legitimate job related concerns."

The plaintiffs' attorney, James P. Lyle of Albuquerque, told The
Las Cruces Sun-News that he knows of "more than 20" current and
former employees who were wronged. "I'm sure there are more," he
adds.

The lawsuit, which lists 17 specific actions of favoritism as
examples, threatens to further strain a department hampered by
low salaries and lots of vacancies. Mrs. Jones' husband,
Sheriff's Capt. Robert Jones, and others filed grievances
against Sheriff Hernandez last year alleging favoritism,
harassment and retaliation. In part because of those
allegations, morale was low when Sheriff Hernandez retired in
December after being diagnosed with dementia. Many employees
though told The Las Cruces Sun-News that morale improved
dramatically in recent months.  Defendants named in the lawsuit
are Sheriff Hernandez, County Manager Brian Haines, Human
Resources Director Arturo Rodriguez, Senior Human Resources
Specialist Vicki Lusk and the Board of County Commissioners.

Commenting on the suit's allegations, current Sheriff Todd
Garrison, who was appointed by the commission in February, told
The Las Cruces Sun-News that there is no favoritism in the
hiring and promotion process at the department now. He added,
"I'm trying to gain respect by letting these guys see we're
doing things fairly," he goes on to say, "When I get a friend
that calls and wants a job, I tell them to go fill out an
application."

The spokesman for sheriff's department employees' union, Sgt.
Craig Buckingham, even told The Las Cruces Sun-News that the
union doesn't approve of favoritism. "Hopefully, through
negotiations, that will never happen again," he said. However,
when asked if he was confirming that it happened under Sheriff
Hernandez, Sgt. Buckingham told The Las Cruces Sun-News that he
did not want to comment.

Court documents revealed that Annette Jones has worked at the
department since 1985, while Undersheriff Ruiz, who began
working there in 1982, retired earlier this year after the
commission appointed Sheriff Garrison to the job Undersheriff
Ruiz had sought. Both plaintiffs are seeking unspecified damages
and the appointment of a special master to oversee future hiring
practices at the sheriff's department for a period of time
determined by the court.

Though no hearing dates were scheduled, the case has been
assigned to District Judge Jerald A. Valentine, who will have to
rule on whether to allow the complaint to proceed as a class
action lawsuit. If he OKs it, other current and former employees
of the department could opt to join the lawsuit.


ONEOK INC.: Appeals Jury Award in Yaggy Gas Leak Suit Verdict
-------------------------------------------------------------
ONEOK Inc. appealed the residential class verdict and the
attorney fee award in the class action filed three years ago
against it in Wyandotte County Court in Kansas, in connection
with the natural gas explosions and eruptions of natural gas
geysers that occurred at, and in the vicinity of, the Company's
Yaggy facility in January 2001.

The suit, which was originally filed in Reno County but later
moved by District Judge Richard Rome to Wyandotte County,
Kansas, hearing alleges that the January 2001 gas leaks in
ONEOK's Yaggy storage field northwest of Hutchinson is believed
to be responsible for a series of explosions that destroyed
several businesses and killed two people in Hutchinson, an
earlier Class Action Reporter story (September 27,2004) states.
The lawsuit includes anyone who owns a business or property in
the county, with attorneys contending that a gas leak and deadly
explosions in 2001 devalued all those properties.

While the plaintiffs sought damages in excess of $50 million
exclusive of punitive damages, the jury awarded $5 million in
actual damages to the residential class. No damages were awarded
to the business class. No punitive damages were awarded. The $5
million is covered by insurance.  The jury awarded the
plaintiffs in the residential class $5.0 million in actual
damages, and the judge ordered the payment of $2.0 million in
attorney fees and $0.6 million in expenses, all of which is
covered by insurance.  In the other class action relating to
business claims, the jury awarded no damages.  The jury rejected
claims for punitive damages in both cases.

On April 11, 2005, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for a
new trial and denied a post-trial motion filed by defendants.
The Company filed its notice of appeal of the residential class
verdict and the attorney fee award.  The cases have now been
transferred to the Kansas Supreme Court for appeal.


PACIFICARE HEALTH: Approval of AL Fraud Suit Settlement Appealed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Alabama Supreme Court heard plaintiffs' appeal of a lower
court ruling granting final approval to the settlement of a
class action filed against the American Medical Security Group,
Inc., styled "Gadson v. United Wisconsin Life Insurance
Company."

The lawsuit was filed in the Circuit Court of Montgomery County,
Alabama in 2001.  The suit involves issues relating to the
rating methodology formerly used by the Company for group health
benefit plans marketed to individuals in Alabama and Georgia.

All claims of participating class members have been dismissed in
exchange for the settlement consideration.  On September 29,
2004, the court granted final approval of the certification and
settlement of the suit, although approval of the settlement was
appealed to the Alabama Supreme Court. Oral argument on this
appeal was heard on August 2, 2005.  The Circuit Court had
granted preliminary approval of the certification and settlement
in March 2004.

On June 14, 2004, the Superior Court of Cobb County, Georgia,
issued in a class action, styled "Parker v. American Medical
Security Group, Inc.," an order enjoining the Company from
settling with Georgia residents who are members of the Gadson
class.  On September 2, 2004 the Superior Court certified a
class of Georgia residents.  On March 31, 2005, the Georgia
Supreme Court ruled that the Georgia plaintiffs lacked standing
to challenge the Gadson settlement and held that the injunction
was invalid.


PACIFICARE HEALTH: Trial in FL Managed Care Suit Set Jan. 2006
--------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the litigation filed against Pacificare Health Systems,
Inc. and other managed care companies, styled "In Re Managed
Care Litigation" is set for January 2006 in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

In mid-2000, various federal actions against managed care
companies, including the Company, were joined in a multi-
district litigation that was coordinated for pre-trial
proceedings in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida.  Thereafter, Dr. Dennis Breen, Dr. Leonard
Klay, Dr. Jeffrey Book and several other physicians, along with
several medical associations, including the California Medical
Association, joined the litigation as plaintiffs.  These
physicians sued several managed care companies, including the
Company, alleging, among other things, that the companies have
systematically underpaid providers for medical services to
members, have delayed payments, and that the companies impose
unfair contracting terms on providers and negotiate capitation
payments that are inadequate to cover the costs of health care
services provided.

The Company sought to compel arbitration of all of Dr. Breen's,
Dr. Book's and other physician claims against it.  The District
Court granted the motion to compel arbitration against all of
these claims except for claims for violations of the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), and for their
RICO conspiracy and aiding and abetting claims that stem from
contractual relationships with other managed care companies.  On
April 7, 2003, the United States Supreme Court held that the
District Court should have compelled arbitration of the Direct
RICO Claims filed by Dr. Breen and Dr. Book.

On September 15, 2003, the District Court entered another ruling
on several of the Company's motions to compel arbitration,
ordering arbitration of all claims arising out of the Company's
contracts with plaintiffs containing arbitration clauses.  The
District Court, however, also ruled that plaintiffs' RICO
conspiracy and aiding and abetting claims against the Company
that stem from contractual relationships with other managed care
companies and plaintiffs' claims based on services they provided
to the Company's members outside of any contractual relationship
with the Company or assignments from its members do not need to
be arbitrated.  As a result, the order to compel arbitration
does not cover part of the conspiracy and aiding and abetting
claims of all plaintiffs or any of the direct claims by a subset
of plaintiffs (non-contracted plaintiffs who provide services to
the Company's members but do not accept assignments from them).

On September 26, 2002, the District Court certified a nationwide
RICO class of virtually all physicians in the country as well as
a nationwide state-law subclass of physicians.  On September 1,
2004, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld part of the
class certified by the District Court.  Specifically, the
Eleventh Circuit upheld the District Court's certification of a
nationwide RICO class of physicians, but reversed the District
Court's certification of plaintiffs' state law claims.  On July
25, 2005, the District Court amended the class certification to,
among other things, exclude "any claims that the methods by
which negotiated capitation rates are derived and calculated are
actuarially unsound."

The District Court's July 25, 2005 order amended and certified
plaintiffs' class as to both "In re Managed Care" and also as to
the essentially identical lawsuit filed in the Southern District
of Florida, styled "Shane et al. v. Humana et al. Case No. 04-
21589-CIV-MORENO (Shane II)."

Several additional lawsuits have been filed against the Company
and the other defendants in the "In re Managed Care Litigation"
by non-physician providers of health care services, such as
chiropractors and podiatrists. Those lawsuits have been assigned
to the District Court for pre-trial proceedings, but are
currently stayed pending the completion of pre-trial matters in
the physician class action.

The suit is styled "In Re Humana Inc. Managed Care Litigation,
MDL 1334," filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, Miami Division, under Judge
Federico Moreno.  The suit names as defendants Humana, Inc.,
Aetna, Inc., Aetna-USHC, Inc., Cigna, Health Net, Inc., Human
Health Plan, Inc., Pacificare Health Systems, Inc., Prudential
Insurance Company of America, United Health Group, United Health
Care and Wellpoint Health Networks, Inc.  Cigna and Aetna have
entered settlements with the plaintiffs.  Lead Plaintiffs'
Attorneys are Barry Meadow of Podhurst, Orseck, et al., Harley
Tropin of Kozyak, Tropin & Throckmorton and Archie Lamb.


PARTNERS' HEALTH: Reaches Settlement For FTC Antitrust Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
Partners Health Network, Inc., a physician-hospital organization
(PHO) operating in northwestern South Carolina, has agreed to
settle Federal Trade Commission (FTC) charges that it
orchestrated and carried out agreements among its physician
members to set the prices they would accept from health plans,
and to refuse to deal with health plans that did not agree to
its collectively determined prices. The consent order settling
the FTC's charges would prohibit the PHO from engaging in such
anticompetitive conduct in the future, to the benefit of
consumers in the Pickens County, SC area.

Partners Health is a PHO consisting of approximately 225
doctors, as well as Palmetto Health Baptist Medical Center and
Cannon Memorial Hospital. The organization does business in the
Pickens County, SC, area, which is in the northwestern part of
the state. The PHO's physician members make up approximately 75
percent of all independently practicing doctors in and around
Pickens County.  Partners Health was created to develop,
negotiate, enter into, and administer contracts for its member
physicians. To be marketable in the Pickens County area, a
health plan must have access to a large number of physicians who
are Partners Health members.

Partners Health is charged with violating Section 5 of the FTC
Act by orchestrating and implementing agreements among its
physician members to fix prices and other terms on which they
would deal with health plans, and to refuse to deal with such
plans except on collectively determined terms. Partners Health
at times has claimed to be a "messenger model" - that is, an
arrangement that does not facilitate horizontal agreements on
price. The FTC complaint, however, charges Partners Health with:

     (1) orchestrating collective agreements on fees and other
         terms of dealing with health plans;

     (2) carrying out collective negotiations with health plans;

     (3) fostering refusals to deal; and

     (4) threatening to refuse to deal with health plans that
         resisted Partner Health's desired terms.

As a result of these actions, the complaint alleges, Partners
Health succeeded in forcing many health plans to raise the fees
paid to its physician members, thereby raising the cost of
medical care in the Pickens County, SC, area. Further, according
to the complaint, the PHO engaged in no efficiency-enhancing
integration that would justify its joint fee negotiations.

The Commission's proposed consent order is designed to eliminate
the illegal anticompetitive conduct alleged in the complaint. It
would prohibit Partners Health from entering into or
facilitating agreements between or among physicians:

     (i) to negotiate on behalf of any physician with any payor;

    (ii) to deal, refuse to deal, or threaten to refuse to deal
         with any payor;

   (iii) to designate the terms, conditions, or requirements
         upon which any physician deals, or is willing to deal,
         with any payor, including, but not limited to price
         terms;

    (iv) not to deal individually with any payor, or not to deal
         with any payor through any arrangement other than one
         involving Partners Health.

The consent order allows Partners Health to undertake certain
kinds of joint contracting arrangements - "qualified risk-
sharing joint arrangements" and "qualified clinically integrated
joint arrangements" - terms that are defined in the order. These
are types of arrangements in which physician participants engage
in joint activities to control costs and improve quality by
managing the provision of services, and any agreement concerning
reimbursement or other terms or conditions of dealing must be
reasonably necessary to obtain significant efficiencies through
the joint arrangement.

The order requires Partners Health to notify the FTC for three
years before participating in contracting with health plans on
behalf of a qualified risk-sharing joint arrangement or
clinically integrated joint arrangement, or before entering into
any arrangement under which it would act as a messenger or agent
on behalf of any physicians with payors regarding contracts.

Finally, the order requires Partners Health to distribute the
complaint and order to all doctors who have participated in it,
and to payors with which it has negotiated contracts or which
have expressed interest in contracting with Partners Health. The
order requires that Partners Health must terminate its current
contracts with respect to providing physician services within
one year, and it also contains compliance and reporting
requirements. The order will expire in 20 years.

The Commission vote to place the consent order on the public
record for comment and publish a copy in the Federal Register
was 3-0-1, with Chairman Deborah Platt Majoras recused. The
Commission is accepting public comments on the order for 30
days, until September 3, 2005, after which it will decide
whether to make it final. Comments should be sent to: FTC Office
of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Washington, DC
20580.

Copies of the complaint, consent order, and an analysis to aid
in public comment 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's Bureau of Competition seeks to prevent
business practices that restrain competition. The Bureau carries
out its mission by investigating alleged law violations and,
when appropriate, recommending that the Commission take formal
enforcement action. To notify the Bureau concerning particular
business practices, call or write the Office of Policy and
Evaluation, Room 394, Bureau of Competition, Federal Trade
Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Ave, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580,
Electronic Mail: antitrust@ftc.gov; Telephone (202) 326-3300.
For more information on the laws that the Bureau enforces, the
Commission has published "Promoting Competition, Protecting
Consumers: A Plain English Guide to Antitrust Laws," which can
be accessed at http://www.ftc.gov. For more details, contact
Mitchell J. Katz, Office of Public Affairs, by Phone:
202-326-2161 or contact Karan Singh, Bureau of Competition by
Phone: 202-326-2274 or visit the Website:
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2005/08/partners.htm.


POZEN INC.: NC Court Fully Briefs Motion To Dismiss Stock Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of
North Carolina has fully briefed Pozen, Inc.'s motion to dismiss
the consolidated securities class action filed against it and
certain of its current and former officers.

Holders of the Company's securities filed five purported class
action lawsuits in 2004, alleging violations of securities
laws,. These actions were filed as a single consolidated class
action complaint on December 20, 2004.  The consolidated
complaint alleges, among other claims, violations of federal
securities laws, including Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and Rule 10b-5 and Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act against the Company and a current
officer, arising out of allegedly false and misleading
statements made by the Company concerning its product
candidates, MT 100 and MT 300, during the class period.

On January 27, 2005, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated class action complaint.  All briefing on the motion
to dismiss has been completed and the Company is awaiting the
Court's ruling on the motion.

The suit is styled "In Re: POZEN, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case 04-CV-505," filed in the United States District Court for
the Middle District of North Carolina, under Judge Frank W.
Bullock, Jr.  Lead counsel for the plaintiffs is Cohen,
Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. (New York, NY), 825 Third
Avenue - 30th Floor, New York, NY, 10022, Phone: 212.838.7797,
Fax: 212.838.7745, E-mail: lawinfo@cmht.com.  Representing the
defendants is Pressly McAuley Millen of Womble Carlyle Sandridge
& Rice, POB 831 Raleigh, NC 27601, USA, Phone: 919-755-2100


QUOVADX INC.: Appeals Court Affirms NY Stock Suit Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York's ruling certifying the consolidated securities class
action filed against Quovadx, Inc., certain of its officers and
directors and the underwriters of the Company's initial public
offering, for settlement purposes.

The amended complaint asserts that the prospectus from the
Company's February 10, 2000 initial public offering (IPO) failed
to disclose certain alleged improper actions by various
underwriters for the offering in the allocation of the IPO
shares. The amended complaint alleges claims against certain
underwriters, the Company and certain officers and directors
under the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934.  The suit is styled "Bartula v. XCare.net, Inc., et
al., Case No. 01-CV-10075."

Similar complaints have been filed concerning more than 300
other IPOs; all of these cases have been coordinated as In re
Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92.  In a
negotiated agreement, individual defendants, including all of
the individuals named in the complaint filed against the
Company, were dismissed without prejudice, subject to a tolling
agreement. Issuer and underwriter defendants in these cases
filed motions to dismiss and, on February 19, 2003, the Court
issued an opinion and order on those motions that dismissed
selected claims against certain defendants, including the Rule
10b-5 fraud claims against the Company, leaving only the Section
11 strict liability claims under the Securities Act of 1933
against the Company.

A committee of the Company's Board of Directors has approved a
settlement proposal made by the plaintiffs.  On February 15,
2005, the Court issued an order granting conditional preliminary
approval of the settlement.  On June 30, 2005, the Second
Circuit granted cert on the lower court's order certifying a
class for settlement purposes.

The suit is styled "In Re Quovadx, Inc. Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation," related to "In re Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, Master File No. 21 MC 92 (SAS),"
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York under Judge Shira A. Scheindlin.  The
plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

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

     (2) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP (New York,
         NY), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY, 10119-1065,
         Phone: 212.594.5300,

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

     (4) Sirota & Sirota, LLP, 110 Wall Street 21st Floor, New
         York, NY, 10005, Phone: 888.759.2990, Fax:
         212.425.9093, E-mail: Info@SirotaLaw.com

     (5) Stull, Stull & Brody (New York), 6 East 45th Street,
         New York, NY, 10017, Phone: 310.209.2468, Fax:
         310.209.2087, E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com

     (6) Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz LLP, 270
         Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10016, Phone:
         212.545.4600, Fax: 212.686.0114, E-mail:
         newyork@whafh.com


QUOVADX INC.: CO Court Refuses To Expedite Suit Discovery, Trial
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Colorado
refused plaintiffs' request to expedite discovery and set trial
for the securities class action filed against Quovadx, Inc. and
certain of its former officers, styled "Heller v. Quovadx, Inc.,
et al."

On March 18, 2004, a purported class action complaint, styled
"Smith v. Quovadx, Inc. et al, Case No. 04-M-0509," was filed
against the Company, its now-former Chief Executive Officer and
its now-former Chief Financial Officer.  The complaint alleged
violations of Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, purportedly on behalf of all
persons who purchased the Company's common stock from October
22, 2003 through March 15, 2004.  The claims are based upon
allegations the Company:

     (1) purportedly overstated its net income and earnings per
         share during the class period,

     (2) purportedly recognized revenue from contracts between
         the Company and Infotech Networks Group (Infotech)
         prematurely, and

     (3) purportedly lacked adequate internal controls and was
         therefore unable to ascertain the financial condition
         of the Company.

Eight additional, nearly identical class action complaints were
filed in the same Court based on the same facts and allegations.
The actions seek damages against the defendants in an
unspecified amount.  On May 17 and 18, 2004, the Company filed
motions to dismiss each of the complaints.  Since then, all but
one of the actions, entitled "Heller v. Quovadx, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 1:04-cv-00665-RPM (D. Colo.)," have been dismissed.
Thereafter, the plaintiff in "Heller" filed a first amended
complaint, which asserts the same claims as those asserted in
the original complaint, and includes allegations regarding the
Company's accounting for certain additional transactions.

On September 8, 2004, the Court approved the appointment of
David Heller as lead plaintiff.  On September 29, 2004, the
Court denied defendants' motions to dismiss the first amended
complaint and approved the appointment of Mr. Heller's counsel
as lead plaintiff's counsel.  On October 14, 2004, the Company
and the other defendants filed answers to the first amended
complaint, denying allegations of wrongdoing and asserting
various affirmative defenses.

On January 13, 2005, the Court approved a scheduling order that,
"inter alia," requires fact discovery, which has commenced, to
conclude eight months after the Court issues an order certifying
a class.  The Court issued its order certifying the class action
on April 12, 2005.  The deadline for completing fact discovery
is December 12, 2005.  On July 5, 2005, the plaintiff filed a
request to amend the scheduling order to accelerate the
discovery deadline to October 31, 2005 and to set the trial date
for December 5, 2005.  In an order dated July 22, 2005, the
Court denied the request.

The suit is styled "Heller v. Quovadx, Inc., et al, case no.
1:04-cv-00665-RPM," filed in the United States District Court
for the District of Colorado, under Judge Richard P. Matsch.
Representing the Company are John Alonzo Hutchings and Adam
Philip Stapen of Dill, Dill, Carr, Stonbraker & Hutchings, PC,
455 Sherman Street #300, Denver, CO 80203, U.S.A, Phone:
303-777-7373, Fax: 303-777-3823, E-mail:
jhutchings@dillanddill.com or astapen@dillanddill.com.
Representing the plaintiffs are Dennis Jeremy Herman, Jeffrey W.
Lawrence and Ex Kano S. Sams of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller
Rudman & Robbins, LLP-SF CA, 100 Pine Street #2600, San
Francisco, CA 94111, U.S.A, Phone: 415-288-4545, Fax: 415-288-
4534, E-mail: dherman@lerachlaw.com, jeffreyl@lerachlaw.com,
exkanos@lerachlaw.com; and Kip Brian Shuman of Dyer & Shuman,
LLP, 801 East 17th Avenue, Denver, CO 80218-1417, U.S.A, Phone:
303-861-3003, Fax: 303-830-6920, E-mail: KShuman@DyerShuman.com.


QUOVADX INC.: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Lawsuit in CO
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed an amended securities class action against
Quovadx, Inc., its now-former Chief Executive Officer, its now-
former Chief Financial Officer and its Board of Directors in the
United States District Court for the District of Colorado,
styled "Henderson v. Quovadx, Inc., et al, Case No. 04-M-1006
(OES)."

On May 17, 2004, a purported class action complaint was filed in
the United States District Court for the District of Colorado,
alleging violations of Section 11 and Section 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, purportedly on behalf of all
former shareholders of Rogue Wave Software, Inc. who acquired
the Company's common stock in connection with the Company's
exchange offer effective December 19, 2003.  The claims are
based upon the same theories and allegations as asserted in the
Section 10(b) class action (Heller v. Quovadx, et al.).

The Court denied plaintiff's motion to consolidate this Section
11 action with the Section 10(b) cases and authorized the two
competing lead plaintiff candidates to take discovery of each
other in advance of a hearing on the appointment of lead
plaintiff.  On July 14, 2004, the Company and outside director
defendants filed an answer to the complaint, denying allegations
of wrongdoing and asserting various affirmative defenses. On
September 8, 2004, the Court directed the plaintiff to publish
new notice of pendency of this action inviting potential class
members to submit motions for appointment as lead plaintiff.  On
October 4, 2004, the Company's former CEO and CFO filed an
answer to the complaint, denying allegations of wrongdoing and
asserting various affirmative defenses.

On June29, 2005, the Court ordered the appointment of Special
Situations Fund as lead plaintiff.  On July 26, 2005, the lead
plaintiff filed an amended complaint and a motion for
appointment of lead counsel. The amended complaint asserts the
same claims as those asserted in the original complaint, and
includes an additional allegation that the Infotech revenue was
falsely recognized as part of a fraud to inflate the Company's
stock price for the Rogue Wave acquisition.  On August 1, 2005,
the Court approved the appointment of Special Situations Fund's
counsel as lead plaintiff's counsel.

The suit is styled "Henderson v. Quovadx, Inc., et al., case no.
1:04-cv-01006-RPM," filed in the United States District Court in
Colorado, under Judge Richard P. Matsch.  Representing the
plaintiffs are Marcela A. Kirberger and Gavin J. Rooney of
Lowenstein Sandler, PC, 65 Livingston Avenue, Roseland, NJ
07068, U.S.A, Phone: 973-597-2450, Fax: 973-597-2451, E-mail:
mkirberger@lowenstein.com or grooney@lowenstein.com.
Representing the Company are John Alonzo Hutchings and Adam
Philip Stapen of Dill, Dill, Carr, Stonbraker & Hutchings, PC,
455 Sherman Street #300, Denver, CO 80203, U.S.A, Phone:
303-777-7373, Fax: 303-777-3823, E-mail:
jhutchings@dillanddill.com or astapen@dillanddill.com.


REEBOK INTERNATIONAL: SEC Wants Asset Freeze V. Croatian Citizen
----------------------------------------------------------------
In a recently filed emergency federal court action, the
Securities and Exchange Commission obtained a court order
freezing a securities account in the name of Sonja Anticevic, a
Croatian national and resident.

The Anticevic account engaged in a series of highly suspicious,
and highly profitable, trades in "out of the money" call options
of Reebok International Ltd. just prior to Reebok's August 3,
2005, announcement that it had agreed to be acquired by Adidas-
Salomon AG.

Ms. Anticevic bought the options through an account maintained
at CyberTrader, Inc., a Texas-based subsidiary of Charles Schwab
& Co. Inc. Over the course of two days, August 1 and August 2,
2005, the Anticevic account purchased a total of 1,997 out-of-
the-money call options for the shares of Reebok at a cost of
approximately $130,000.

The acquisition transaction was announced prior to the opening
of the market on Wednesday, August 3, 2005.  When Reebok opened
for trading on August 3, the price of Reebok's common stock rose
by nearly 30% from the previous day's closing price, opening at
$57.40, an increase of over $13.45 per share.  On August 3, the
Anticevic account sold all of the call options, realizing
profits of over $2.04 million.  On August 3, 2005, shortly after
her sale of the call options, CyberTrader received a wire
instruction request to transfer approximately $870,000 from the
account to an account in Salzburg, Austria.

As a result of the foregoing, the Commission alleges that
Anticevic engaged in illegal insider trading in violation of
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5.  The complaint seeks permanent injunctive relief, the
disgorgement of all illegal profits, and the imposition of civil
monetary penalties.  Among other relief, the Court's Temporary
Restraining Order freezes the proceeds from the Reebok
transactions.  In addition, the Order imposes an expedited
discovery schedule and prohibits the defendant from destroying
documents.

The Commission acknowledges the assistance of the Philadelphia
Stock Exchange. The action is styled, SEC v. Sonja Anticevic,
Civil Action No. 05 Civ. 6991, KMW.


RODALE INC.: Suit Over Firm's Sales Tactics Granted Class Status
----------------------------------------------------------------
A federal lawsuit in Pennsylvania against Rodale Inc., which
alleges that the company used illegal marketing tactics, was
recently certified as a class action suit, The Allentown Morning
Call reports.  Even with the certification, it is unclear though
how far the case will proceed since U.S. District Judge Paul
Diamond dismissed two of the three legal claims last month and
classified the third as weak.

The suit, which started in 2003 when several law firms that
specialize in class action cases filed it in the U.S. District
Court for Eastern Pennsylvania, alleges that the Rodale had a
practice of sending unordered books to customers, then billing
the customers, violating federal and state consumer protection
laws. One of the law firms who filed the suit was the
Philadelphia firm of Meredith Cohen Greenfogel & Skinick.  The
suit also alleges that Rodale had a program in which it sent
mailings to consumers, asking them to buy an initial book. After
the customer bought and paid for the first book, Rodale
allegedly sent additional books that were not ordered.

According to court papers from lawyer Daniel Allanoff of the
Meredith Cohen firm, when the customers balked at paying,
"Rodale unleashed an aggressive, sophisticated and effective
collection campaign." Mr. Allanoff also stated in court papers
that Rodale used a "negative option marketing scheme," treating
customers as if they've ordered the books unless they've taken
steps to return them or taken steps to stop the books from
coming.

Rodale's lawyers though vehemently maintained that the wording
on the marketing material explaining the program was sufficient
to comply with the laws.  Mr. Allanoff wants the suit to proceed
on behalf of all people adversely affected by the program for
the six years before the suit was filed.  Previously, Rodale
raised questions about the first proposed class representative,
Michael Karnuth of Chicago. Research indicated he had actually
ordered and paid for the ''unordered'' book. Mr. Karnuth, a
lawyer, was replaced.

The Company later raised questions about his replacement, David
Wisniewski, also a Chicago attorney. Rodale's lawyers wanted
Judge Diamond to reject Mr. Wisniewski too since he said he
hadn't read all the marketing materials Rodale sent to him. He
had discarded much of it as "junk mail," without reading it.
However, Judge Diamond, of Philadelphia, disagreed and thus
ruled that Mr. Wisniewski is a suitable class representative.

Judge Diamond dismissed the two claims that allege Rodale
violated Pennsylvania consumer protection laws, because the
consumer protection laws of all 50 states would have to be
included in the suit, making the suit too unwieldy.  The only
remaining claim alleges that Rodale violated the federal Postal
Reorganization Act, which provides conditions for sending
unsolicited merchandise to consumers.

Rodale, represented by Gross, McGinley, Labarre & Eaton, an
Allentown law firm, recently appealed Judge Diamond's
certification of the case as a class action suit to the Third
Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Philadelphia.  Depending on the
outcome, the case could benefit tens of thousands of consumers
across the nation that Rodale supposedly targeted.


SOCIAL SECURITY: African American Female Workers Allege Bias
------------------------------------------------------------
African-American women working for the Social Security
Administration (SSA) claim that they are being passed over for
promotion, despite years of experience, The United Press
International reports.

According to a report by the Baltimore Sun, there were 274
discrimination complaints awaiting a ruling from the agency as
of June 30, a backlog that has more than tripled over the past
five years and drawn criticism from the NAACP.

Workers told The United Press International that they are
frustrated by what they see as management's failure to reward
their efforts. Debra Harley, who is part of a class action suit
against SSA by black women, even told The United Press
International, "We went out and got an education, but now it's
evolving so that you need a master's degree to occupy the same
job."

Three years ago, SSA agreed to a $7.75 million settlement of a
class action lawsuit by black men contending they were passed up
for promotions and training opportunities, unfairly evaluated
and punished too harshly.  Agency officials say the agency has
made great strides in the hiring and promotion of minorities,
UPI reports.


SONIC AUTOMOTIVE: Reaches Settlement For TX Inventory Tax Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Several of Sonic Automotive, Inc.'s Texas subsidiaries reached a
settlement for the three class actions filed against the Texas
Automobile Dealers Association (TADA) and new vehicle
dealerships in Texas that are members of the TADA, including the
Company's subsidiaries.

Approximately 630 Texas dealerships are named as defendants in
two of the actions, and approximately 700 dealerships are named
as defendants in the other action.  The three actions allege
that since 1994, Texas automobile dealerships have deceived
customers with respect to a vehicle inventory tax and violated
federal antitrust and other laws.

In April 2002, in two actions, the Texas state court certified
two classes of consumers on whose behalf the actions would
proceed.  The Texas Court of Appeals subsequently affirmed the
trial court's order of class certification in the state actions,
and the Texas Supreme Court issued an order for the second time
in September 2004 stating that it would not hear the merits of
the defendants' appeal on class certification.  The federal
trial court conditionally certified a class of consumers in the
federal antitrust case, but on appeal by the defendant
dealerships, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
reversed the certification of the plaintiff class in October
2004 and remanded the case back to the federal trial court for
further proceedings not inconsistent with the Fifth Circuit's
ruling.  The plaintiffs appealed this ruling by the Fifth
Circuit.

In June 2005, the Company's Texas dealerships and several other
dealership defendants entered into a settlement agreement with
the plaintiffs in both the state and the federal cases that
would settle each of the cases on behalf of the Texas
dealerships.  The settlements are contingent upon court
approval, and the court has not yet scheduled a date for a
hearing on that approval.  Under the terms of the settlements,
the Company's Texas dealerships would continue to itemize and
pass through to the customer the cost of the inventory tax.


SONIC AUTOMOTIVE: Appeals Certification For FL Consumer Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sonic Automotive, Inc. appeals the Circuit Court of Hillsborough
County, Florida's ruling granting class certification to the
consumer suit filed against it, styled "Galura, et al. v. Sonic
Automotive, Inc."

In this action, originally filed on December 30, 2002, the
plaintiffs allege that the Company and its Florida dealerships
sold an antitheft protection product in a deceptive or otherwise
illegal manner, and further sought representation on behalf of
any customer of any of the Company's Florida dealerships who
purchased the antitheft protection product since December 30,
1998.  The plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages and
injunctive relief on behalf of this class of customers.

In June 2005, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for
certification of the requested class of customers, but the court
has made no finding to date regarding actual liability in this
lawsuit.  On July 1, 2005, the Company filed a notice of appeal
of the court's class certification ruling with Florida's Second
District Court of Appeal.


STATE FARM: MO Jury Awards $20M to Terminated Insurance Agents
--------------------------------------------------------------
After a three-week trial, a Jackson County jury, which ruled
that State Farm Insurance improperly terminated five former
agents for criticizing the way the Company, treated its
policyholders, awarded approximately $20 million to the
terminated agents.

The ruling, which was deliberated by the jury for about five
hours before issuing its verdict awarded $9 million in actual
damages and $11 million in punitive damages to the agents, whose
contracts were terminated back in January 2000.

Norman Siegel of Kansas City, one of the plaintiffs' lawyers
told The Associated Press, "At its heart, this case was about
whether State Farm could terminate an agent in retaliation for
speaking out publicly to protect policyholder interests."

John Wiscaver, a spokesman for Bloomington, Illinois-based State
Farm, told The Associated Press that the company was
disappointed but declined further comment.

One of the plaintiffs, Joseph J. Kelly of Joplin, Missouri,
testified at trial that he was frequently concerned about the
company's treatment of its policyholders. In December 1999, the
five agents allowed their names to be used in a letter critical
of State Farm that was sent to the Texas insurance commissioner.
That letter alleged in part that the company overcharged for
homeowner's insurance, engaged in sales discrimination and
attempted to defraud accident victims of the full amount they
were due.  Two of the plaintiffs, Tana Glockner of California,
Maryland, and Michael Lee Morgan of Centerville, Ohio, already
signed a similar letter to the Senate Commerce Committee and
taken part in a news conference in Washington.

Additionally, both letters also alleged that State Farm
specified the use of substandard replacement auto parts, an
issue that prompted a class action lawsuit in Illinois in 1999
and a $1.18 billion verdict against the company. That case is
still on appeal, and the company suspended its use of
replacement parts shortly after the Illinois verdict.


UTAH: SEC Files Suit V. Dale Hatch For Misappropriation of Funds
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed a complaint in the
United States District Court for the District of Utah, against
Dale C. Hatch, the former director of the Utah Educational
Savings Plan.

The complaint alleges that Mr. Hatch violated the securities
laws by misappropriating funds that should have been allocated
to the accounts of participants who had placed their money with
the UESP.  The complaint also alleges that Mr. Hatch established
secret accounts and transferred over $500,000 in unallocated
participant funds into Mr. Hatch's nominee accounts.  Finally,
the complaint alleges that Mr. Hatch transferred approximately
$85,000 from the secret nominee accounts into personal bank
accounts for his own use.

The complaint alleges that Mr. Hatch violated the antifraud
provisions of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The Commission seeks an injunction
from future antifraud violations and civil money penalties. The
action is styled, SEC v. Hatch, Docket No. 2:05CV00654,
U.S.D.C., D.Ut.


                 New Securities Fraud Cases

AVON PRODUCTS: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
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 Avon Products, Inc. (NYSE: AVP) ("Avon" or the
"Company") between February 1, 2005 and July 18, 2005, inclusive
(the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Avon, Andrea Jung, Susan J. Kropf and
Robert J. Corti 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 which were known to defendants or
recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) that the Company knew that the hybrid direct
         selling/retail model could hurt its existing business
         in China, as kiosk owners, who paid substantial amounts
         for their businesses, resisted the introduction of
         commissioned representatives into their territory;

     (2) that the Company's sustained revenue growth in
         expanding markets, such as Russia and Central Europe,
         had slowed down dramatically due to increased
         competition; and

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

On July 19, 2005, Avon announced that its revenue for the second
quarter 2005 was below expectations. On news of this, shares of
Avon fell $5.30 per share, or 14.48 percent, on July 19, 2005,
to close at $31.30 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.


LAZARD LTD.: Wolf Haldenstein Provides Updates For NY Stock Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP, which
filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of all persons
who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Lazard
Ltd. (NYSE: LAZ) pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's
false and misleading Registration Statement/Prospectus,
inclusive, (the "Class Period") together with those who
purchased their shares in the open market between May 4, 2005
and May 12, 2005 inclusive (the "Class Period") against
defendants Lazard and certain officers of the Company is
providing updates regarding the status of the litigation.

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

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

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

     (3) that a true market for the IPO at a price of $27 per
         share did not exist.

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

The moment the Company's stock began trading, thousands of
shares flooded the market. Goldman bought back, in less than 48
hours, 3.1 million shares from the funds. At one point, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"), Goldman
owned more than 16% of the Company's publicly traded shares.

On May 12, 2005, once no longer supported by Goldman, the price
of the Company's shares plunged to less than $21 per share, a
16% drop from the IPO price.

On June 15, 2005, Lazard issued its First Quarter Financial
Results at 10:55 am. Lazard stock closed lower than its opening
price that day. The current price of Lazard stock remains below
its IPO price. Wolf Haldenstein is continuing its investigation
into the matter.

For more details, contact Fred Taylor Isquith, Esq., Gustavo
Bruckner, Esq. or Derek Behnke of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman
& Herz LLP, 270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10016, Phone:
(800) 575-0735, E-mail: classmember@whafh.com, Web site:
http://www.whafh.com.


MOLINA HEALTHCARE: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Stock Suit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California on behalf of all securities
purchasers of Molina Healthcare, Inc. (NYSE: MOH) ("Molina
Healthcare" or the "Company") between November 3, 2004 and July
20, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Molina Healthcare, J. Mario Molina, and
John C. Molina 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, which were known to defendants or recklessly
disregarded by them:

     (1) that as the Company aggressively expanded through
         acquisitions, Molina Healthcare underestimated the
         financial impact of absorbing new members and failed to
         close favorable contracts with providers;

     (2) that as a result of the foregoing the Company
         experienced significant increases in medical costs;

     (3) that the Company failed to identify and mitigate the
         impact of higher-than-expected catastrophic cases and
         increased maternity costs; and

     (4) as such, defendants' positive statements regarding the
         Company's outlook were lacking in any reasonable basis
         when made.

On July 20, 2005, after the market closed, Molina Healthcare
slashed its forecast for 2005, blaming rising medical costs, and
said it expects a loss in the range of 15 to 20 cents per share
for the second quarter. More specifically, Molina Healthcare cut
its earnings forecast to 73 cents to 80 cents per share for the
full year, from a prior $2.40 to $2.45 per share. On news of
this, shares of Molina Healthcare fell $20.00 per share, or
43.48 percent, to close at $26.00 per share on unusually heavy
trading volume.

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


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

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

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

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


UNITED AMERICAN: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Suit in E.D. MI
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C. initiated a lawsuit seeking
class action status in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan on behalf of all persons who
purchased the common stock of United American Healthcare
Corporation (Nasdaq: UAHC) ("United American" or the "Company")
between May 26, 2000, and April 22, 2004, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

The Complaint alleges that United American and certain of its
officers and directors violated federal securities laws.
Specifically, defendants failed to disclose the Company's
improper business and financial relationship with a legislator
having oversight of United American's Healthplan. The Complaint
further alleges that this relationship was in violation of the
Company's contract with Tennessee and has caused the State of
Tennessee to place United American's Healthplan under
administrative supervision. As a result, investors could not
accurately assess the extent to which United American's ongoing
operations, reported revenue, and income were dependent upon the
improper political payments scheme.

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


                            *********


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  * * *