CAR_Public/050812.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Friday, August 12, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 159

                         Headlines


AK STEEL: OH Court Grants ERISA Suit Summary Judgment in Part
AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: OH Funds Chosen to Lead NY Investor Suit
AMERITRADE HOLDING: Faces Lawsuits Over Trades, Appeals Another
AUSTRALIAN FINANCE: Suit Over Kaye Course Allowed by High Court
BANK OF AMERICA: NY Judge Allows Parmalat's $10B Suit to Proceed

BELLSOUTH CORPORATION: Faces ERISA Violations Lawsuit in N.D. GA
BELLSOUTH CORPORATION: Appeals Court Reviews NY Suit Dismissal
BELO CORPORATION: TX Judge Asked to Dismiss Circulation Lawsuit
BEVERLY ENTERPRISES: AR High Court Orders Firm to Pay $20M Bond
BURLINGTON RESOURCES: Trial in OK Royalties Suit Set Oct. 2005

CHOLESTECH CORPORATION: Final Approval Granted To IL Suit Pact
CITIGROUP: SEC Sues Former Executives Over Affiliated Transfer
CONCORD EFS: TN Court Yet To Rule on Shareholder Suit Dismissal
CONCORD EFS: Seeks Summary Judgment in CA Antitrust Fraud Suit
DOWNEY SAVINGS: CA Court Preliminarily OKs Wage Suit Settlement

HARLEY-DAVIDSON: Shareholders Launch Securities Suits in E.D. WI
HARLEY-DAVIDSON: WI Court Mulls Re-filing of Cam Bearing Lawsuit
HILB ROGAL: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Securities Suit in NJ
HILB ROGAL: Plaintiffs File Consolidated ERISA Fraud Suit in NJ
HILB ROGAL: MA Residents Launch Insurance Fees Antitrust Lawsuit

HILB ROGAL: Shareholders Launch Insurance Fraud Suit in E.D. VA
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL: NJ Court Approves ERISA Suit Settlement
INVESTMENT PROPERTY: SEC Files GA Suit V. Jeffrey Gibson, Firm
KENSINGTON LIGHTING: Locklear Files IL Suit Over Unsolicited Fax
KNIGHT SECURITIES: SEC Files NJ Fraud Suit V. Former Officials

KPMG LLP: Federal Suit Launched in NY Over Illegal Tax Shelter
LANDAMERICA FINANCIAL: Subsidiaries Working on RESPA Suit Pact
MARTHA STEWART: IL Resident Files Fraud Suit Over Faulty Tables
MARYLAND: Outside Administrator Sought in Special Education Case
MASSACHUSETTS: Judge Says State Efforts For Ill Kids Are Paltry

ONTARIO POWER: Named Lead Defendant in $50B in Pollution Lawsuit
OWENS CORNING: Status Conference in Suit V. Execs Set Sept. 2005
OWENS CORNING: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of OH Securities Suit
OWENS CORNING: Roofing Product Purchasers File Claim in DE Court
RELIANT ENERGY: Faces $50 Bil Environmental Lawsuit in Ontario

SOUTHLAND TITLE: Reaches Settlement For CA Representative Suit
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Regents Sued Over Professional Fees
WALT DISNEY: DE Judge Rules in Board's Favor in Ovitz Case

                         Asbestos Alert

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MS Courts Name Sensus Metering in Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EnPro Reports 35% Claims Decrease from 2Q04
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: AWI Records US$3.2 Billion Liability Claim  
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: USG Subsidiary Defends 100,000 Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: UCC Discloses US$1.5 Bil Asbestos Liability

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Allstate Corp.'s 2Q05 Reserves at US$1.5Bil
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NL Industries Named in 490 Injury Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 3M Co. Discloses 56,300 Injury Claimants
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MSA Faces About 2,800 Liability Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Manitowoc Company Defends Injury Lawsuits

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MetLife Inc. Receives 9,110 Claims in 2Q05
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Honeywell Concludes 74,000 Bendix Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Owens Corning Faces Personal Injury Suits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ampco-Pittsburgh Corp Battles 16,600 Claims  
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hanson Posts 6,700 New Claims for 2Q 2005

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cooper Industries Ltd. Assumes Abex Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Reynolds American Holds One Pending Lawsuit
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crown Cork & Seal Receives 6,000 New Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MeadWestvaco Discloses 250 Asbestos Suits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Former M&F Subsidiary Named in Lawsuits

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Allmerica Posts US$25.3M Reserves in 2Q05
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hartford Faces More Personal Injury Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Goodyear Resolves 28,600 Asbestos Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Harsco Corp. Reveals 31,409 Injury Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: SEE Posts Update on W.R. Grace Settlement

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Thomas & Betts Faces Lawsuits in Six States
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Viacom Posts 104,700 Pending Claims in 2Q05
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Allegheny, Affiliates Defend Injury Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Illinois Tool Works Named in Exposure Suits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hercules Inc Posts 31,670 Unresolved Claims

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ITT, Goulds Pumps Named in Liability Suits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ingersoll-Rand Settles US$7.7 Mil in 2Q05
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tenneco Automotive Faces Exposure Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: FMC Agrees to Settle US$115 Mil in Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: UIC, Detroit Stoker Note Decrease in Claims

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: BG&E Deals with Direct and 3rd Party Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Badger Meter Defends Multi-Party Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: IDEX, Subsidiaries Face Claims in 22 States
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Goodrich and Subsidiaries Named in Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: St. Paul Subsidiary Faces ACandS Lawsuits

                 New Securities Fraud Cases

COGENT COMMUNICATIONS: Finkelstein Thompson Lodges DC Stock Suit
CUSTOM DESIGNED: Rosen Law Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NM
CUSTOM DESIGNED: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Stock Fraud Suit in NM
HOST AMERICA: Barrack Rodos Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CT
HOST AMERICA: Sarraf Gentile Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CT

HOST AMERICA: Shepherd Finkelman Lodges Securities Suit in CT
PATTERSON COMPANIES: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Suit in MN
PATTERSON COMPANIES: Reinhardt Wendorf Lodges Stock Suit in MN
PATTERSON COMPANIES: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Suit in MN
PRESTIGE BRANDS: Roy Jacobs Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY

WORKSTREAM INC.: Shalov Stone Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY


                         *********


AK STEEL: OH Court Grants ERISA Suit Summary Judgment in Part
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Ohio granted in part AK Steel Corporation's motion for summary
judgment in a class action filed against it, alleging violations
of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

On January 2, 2002, John D. West, a former employee, filed a
class action against the AK Steel Corporation Retirement
Accumulation Pension Plan, or AK RAPP, and the AK Steel
Corporation Benefit Plans Administrative Committee, or AK BPAC.
Mr. West claims that the method used under the AK RAPP to
determine lump sum distributions does not comply with the ERISA
and resulted in underpayment of benefits to him and the other
class members.

The case was certified as a class action on March 9, 2004 and
notices of the class action determination have been mailed to
the approximately 1,330 members of the class. On April 8, 2004,
the trial court granted a motion for partial summary judgment
filed by the plaintiff and held that the manner in which the
plaintiff's lump sum disbursements were calculated under the AK
RAPP violated ERISA and the Internal Revenue Code. On October
15, 2004, the plaintiff filed a motion for partial summary
judgment on the issues of damages and prejudgment interest. On
December 1, 2004, defendants filed a cross-motion for partial
summary judgment on the issues of damages and prejudgment
interest.  Defendants further filed a motion for summary
judgment, or in the alternative to amend the class
certification, as to ninety-two specific class members on the
ground that they had executed general releases which barred
their claims.

On July 25, 2005, the Court denied the defendants' motion for
summary judgment against such class members, but granted
defendants' motion insofar as it sought to exclude these
individuals from the class. The Court further ordered the
parties to send notices to the ninety-two individuals informing
them that they are excluded from the class, but providing them
with additional information to enable them to meaningfully
evaluate whether to pursue their claims independently. No trial
date has been set on the remaining damage issues in the case,
and the Court may elect to decide these issues on motion without
a trial.

As the case currently is postured, an adverse judgment at the
trial court level against the AK RAPP and AK BPAC is probable.
At this time, the Company cannot reasonably predict what the
monetary amount of that judgment may be. The plaintiff, however,
has claimed in briefs filed with the court that the total
damages to class members are between $41.5 million and $57.3
million. The defendants continue to contest liability, but have
asserted in their briefs that, assuming a finding of liability,
the total damages to class members would be between $30.4
million and $40.2 million.


AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: OH Funds Chosen to Lead NY Investor Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Two Ohio-based pension funds will lead a class action lawsuit
against American International Group, Inc. (AIG), the world's
largest insurer, which accuses it of defrauding investors before
the company restated five years of profit by $3.9 million, The
Bloomberg News reports.

According to Louis Gottlieb, one of their lawyers, U.S. District
Judge John Sprizzo in New York picked the Ohio Public Employees
Retirement System and the State Teachers Retirement System of
Ohio, both of whose combined losses exceeded $150 million. The
funds were chosen as lead plaintiffs last month, but their
selection was entered into court records on August 2. Mr.
Gottlieb told The Bloomberg News that as lead plaintiffs in the
shareholder suit, the funds' lawyers would map strategy, draft
legal papers, and run settlement talks.  Mr. Gottlieb declined
to comment on the damages being sought, but he told The
Bloomberg News that the suit will focus on allegations of "bid
rigging, payment of contingent commissions," and other
wrongdoing by New York-based AIG.

Court documents show that an investigation by New York Attorney
General Eliot Spitzer and U.S. regulators triggered a $3.9
billion earnings restatement in May and led to the ouster of
Maurice "Hank" Greenberg, who had been chief executive of the
company for almost 40 years.

Mr. Gottlieb also told The Bloomberg News that another judge
previously appointed the Ohio funds as lead plaintiffs. The case
though was later transferred to Judge Sprizzo, and a fund from
San Francisco sought to take control, he said. He however,
explained to The Bloomberg News that Judge Sprizzo's recent
ruling affirms the earlier selection of the Ohio funds to lead
the case.


AMERITRADE HOLDING: Faces Lawsuits Over Trades, Appeals Another
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit was filed against Omaha-based Ameritrade
Holding Corporation, alleging the Company cost investors $100
million by delaying orders to buy and sell stock, The Associated
Press reports.

According to attorney Max Folkenflik, who filed the lawsuit for
Telco Group, Inc., a telecommunications company based in
Flushing, New York, on behalf of all Ameritrade customers since
April 2000, in one instance took more than an hour to execute a
trade, costing an investor more than $26,000. He added, "Some of
the trades ... were delayed hours."  Mr. Folkenflik told The
Associated Press that Online broker Ameritrade advertised that
the median time to execute all trades from August 2003 to
January 2004 was less than three seconds.

In one example listed in the lawsuit, Telco placed an order to
buy 175,000 shares on the Nasdaq Stock Market on January 7,
2004. The high price when the trade order was received was
$37.54 per share, while the low price was $37.53. The suit
contends that the transaction was received at approximately 3:05
p.m., but was not executed until 4:20 p.m., when the shares were
trading at $37.68 per share.  The suit thus alleges, "As a
result of Ameritrade's failure to process the trade promptly and
at the best possible price under the circumstances ... Telco
lost $26,250."

Another class action lawsuit against Ameritrade is also pending,
which has similar allegations as the abovementioned suit. That
suit was filed by David Zannini of Angier, North Carolina, and
three other Ameritrade customers who said the glitches in
Ameritrade's online system were caused by "antiquated and
inadequate systems and an insufficient number of employees" to
help customers make trades.  The lawsuit, which is pending in
Douglas County District Court, claims Ameritrade spent its money
on recruiting new subscribers rather than fixing the problems.

In a related matter, the dismissal of another class action
lawsuit against Ameritrade is on appeal to the Nebraska Court of
Appeals. The lawsuit was filed by Mitchell Green of Los Angeles,
who agreed in 1998 to pay $20 a month for an Ameritrade service
to get real-time information on stocks and options.  However,
his lawsuit alleged that the information on the options, which
are agreements to buy or sell a stock at a certain time or
price, was "stale."


AUSTRALIAN FINANCE: Suit Over Kaye Course Allowed by High Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Investors who paid $15,000 to attend a course by the now
disgraced Melbourne property investment spruiker Henry Kaye won
the right to take a class action against the finance company
that funded their study, The Age reports.

In a ruling by Supreme Court Justice Elizabeth Hollingworth,
Australian Finance Direct Ltd. failed to stop investors from
bringing a class action against the company, which supplied
loans for students Mr. Kaye's National Investment Institute
(NII), which was in liquidation.

Slater & Gordon partner Rob Lees told The Age that in a hearing
last august he represented more than 200 people. The class
action would open the door to compensation for an estimated 2000
investors who used AFD to pay for the now discredited property
investment seminar.  Mr. Lees also said that since bringing the
case, AFD had forced investors to settle their loans. Mr. Lees
told The Age that he would seek court permission to write to
investors to tell them of the class action.

As previously reported in July 14, 2004 edition of the Class
Action Reporter, Slater and Gordon initiated the class action
against AFD on behalf of lead plaintiff Daniel Hall, a
dissatisfied former student of one of Mr. Kaye's property
investment courses. Mr. Lees stated that the action was brought
as AFD was pursuing students of Mr. Kaye's courses for fees they
had borrowed for the courses, despite the students seeking
refunds. The plaintiffs allege that as a linked credit provider,
AFD is liable for misrepresentations that NII made to students.

According to Mr. Lees, "Each of the victims was told that the
course that NII was conducting was approved by ASIC when in fact
it wasn't. Secondly they were told they could get their money
back at any time if they were dissatisfied with the course; that
was false as well." He added the amount AFD was sued for could
reach up to $60 million.

An AFD spokeswoman told The Age that the company was yet to
determine whether it would appeal the decision. In distancing
the company from Mr. Kaye, the spokeswoman pointed out that AFD
only provided finance to people who attended the course. The
spokeswoman also said, "AFD provided no advice on whether people
should attend those courses. We simply became a party to the
transaction once people had made their own individual decision
to attend a Henry Kaye course and sought finance to do so," she
went on to say, "It is AFD's intent to defend itself vigorously
on that point."


BANK OF AMERICA: NY Judge Allows Parmalat's $10B Suit to Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Lewis Kaplan of the U.S. District Court in Manhattan is
allowing Parmalat Finanziaria SpA to proceed with its $10
billion lawsuit against Bank of America Corporation, but
dismissed most of the Italian food company's claims, The
Reuters.com reports.  In his ruling, Judge Kaplan granted Bank
of America's motion to dismiss 10 of 12 counts, and parts of the
two others. The judge though gave Parmalat permission to re-
plead two of the dismissed counts.

Court documents show that Parmalat's administrator, Enrico
Bondi, sued the two largest U.S. banks, Bank of America and
Citigroup Inc. and former auditors Deloitte & Touche and Grant
Thornton International for $10 billion over the company's
collapse. Previously Judge Kaplan ruled that Mr. Bondi could
proceed with his lawsuits against the auditors.  Parmalat filed
for insolvency in December 2003, which at the time was burdened
by about $17.3 billion (14 billion euros) of debt, after
learning of a $4.9 billion (4 billion euros) hole in its
accounts.

Specifically, Judge Kaplan threw out claims against Bank of
America including fraud, negligence, unjust enrichment and theft
of corporate assets in his August 5 ruling.  However, the judge
let stand claims asserted on behalf of creditors involving
alleged conspiracy and breach of fiduciary duty, and a
conspiracy claim that Parmalat insiders looted the company. He
is letting Parmalat re-plead claims alleging racketeering.

After the ruling was handed down, a spokesman for Mr. Bondi told
Reuters.com, "We can now move on to the next stage of the
lawsuit, which includes pressing ahead with discovery."


BELLSOUTH CORPORATION: Faces ERISA Violations Lawsuit in N.D. GA
----------------------------------------------------------------
BellSouth Corporation continues to face a consolidated class
action filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia, alleging violations of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

In September and October 2002, three substantially identical
class action lawsuits were filed against the Company, its
directors, three of its senior officers, and other individuals.  
The cases were later consolidated and on April 21, 2003, a
Consolidated Complaint was filed. The plaintiffs, who seek to
represent a putative class of participants and beneficiaries of
BellSouth's 401(k) plans (the Plans), allege in the Consolidated
Complaint that the company and the individual defendants
breached their fiduciary duties in violation of ERISA, by among
other things:

     (1) failing to provide accurate information to the Plans'
         participants and beneficiaries;

     (2) failing to ensure that the Plans' assets were invested
         properly;

     (3) failing to monitor the Plans' fiduciaries;

     (4) failing to disregard Plan directives that the
         defendants knew or should have known were imprudent and

     (5) failing to avoid conflicts of interest by hiring
         independent fiduciaries to make investment decisions.

The plaintiffs are seeking an unspecified amount of damages,
injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs.

The suit is styled "In re BellSouth Corporation ERISA
Litigation, case no. 1:02-cv-02440-JOF," filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, unde
Judge J. Owen Forrester.  Representing the Company are Patrick
Connors DiCarlo, Howard Douglas Hinson, Alston & Bird, 1201 West
Peachtree Street, One Atlantic Center, Atlanta, GA 30309-3424,
Phone: 404-881-4512, E-mail: pdicarlo@alston.com or
dhinson@alston.com.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (i) Scott L. Adkins, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman &
         Robbins, Suite 200 197 South Federal Hwy., Boca Raton,
         FL 33432, Phone: 561-750-3000

    (ii) Katherine B. Bornstein, Edward W. Ciolko, Joseph H.
         Meltzer, Richard S. Schiffrin, Schiffrin & Barroway,
         280 King of Prussia Road, Radnor, PA 19087, Phone: 610-
         676-7706, E-mail: kbornstein@sbclasslaw.com,
         eciolko@sbclasslaw.com, jmeltzer@sbclasslaw.com

   (iii) Christi A. Cannon, Michael Fistel, Holzer Holzer &
         Cannon, 1117 Perimeter Center West, Suite E-107
         Atlanta, GA 30338, Phone: 770-392-0090, E-mail:
         mfistel@holzerlaw.com

    (iv) S. Gene Cauley, Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, 11001
         Executive Center Drive, Suite 200, Little Rock, AR
         72211, Phone: 501-312-8500

     (v) Ron Kilgard, Elizabeth A. Leland, Lynn Lincoln Sarko,
         Keller Rohrback, 3101 North Central Avenue, Suite 900
         Phoenix, AZ 85012-2600, Phone: 602-230-6322, E-mail:
         bleland@kellerrohrback.com

    (vi) Steven A. Owings, Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, 11001
         Executive Center Drive, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR
         72211, Phone: 501-312-8500


BELLSOUTH CORPORATION: Appeals Court Reviews NY Suit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit has yet
to rule on plaintiffs' appeal of the dismissal of the consumer
antitrust class action filed against BellSouth Corporation and
other telecommunications firms live Verizon, SBC and Qwest,
styled "William Twombley, et al v. Bell Atlantic Corp., et al."

The suit was filed in December 2002 in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging
antitrust violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act
was filed.  The complaint alleged that defendants conspired to
restrain competition by "agreeing not to compete with one
another and otherwise allocating customers and markets to one
another."  The plaintiffs are seeking an unspecified amount of
treble damages and injunctive relief, as well as attorneys' fees
and expenses.

In October 2003, the district court dismissed the complaint for
failure to state a claim and the case is now on appeal.  In June
2004, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit affirmed
the District Court's dismissal of most of the antitrust and
state law claims brought by a plaintiff competitive local
exchange carrier (CLEC) in a case captioned "Covad
Communications Company, et al v. BellSouth Corporation, et al."  
The appellate court, however, permitted a price squeeze claim
and certain state tort claims to proceed.


BELO CORPORATION: TX Judge Asked to Dismiss Circulation Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Belo Corporation (NYSE: BLC) is asking a federal judge to
dismiss a lawsuit related to overstatement of circulation at The
Dallas Morning News, arguing that officials of the media company
properly investigated the fraud allegations, The Associated
Press reports.

However, investors suing Belo contend that the top executives
defrauded advertisers and investors by lying about newspaper
sales for more than a year before disclosing the problem. They
also contend that supervisors forced distributors to take more
papers than they could possibly sell, then told them to lie
about the numbers.

Additionally, the investors claims that a former distributor
taped incriminating conversations with supervisors and gave a
copy to Belo Chairman and Chief Executive Robert Decherd in
January 2003, but the over-circulation wasn't disclosed until
August 2004.

In asking the judge to drop the case, Belo lawyers did not
directly dispute the plaintiffs' account but said the
allegations failed to prove fraud. Specifically, the lawyers
stated in their brief that was filed in a federal district court
in Dallas, "The facts alleged show only a completely proper and
thorough corporate response by Belo and The Morning News to a
complaint by one contractor of an instance of misconduct by one
or two bottom-level circulation supervisors."

The Morning News is one of several newspapers to recently
acknowledge overstating circulation. Others include Tribune
Co.'s Newsday and Spanish-language Hoy newspaper, and the
Chicago Sun-Times, owned by Hollinger International Inc.

As reported in previous editions of the Class Action Reporter,
several law firms launched securities class action lawsuits in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Texas, on behalf of all persons who purchased or acquired Belo
securities between May 12, 2003 and August 6, 2004.

The Plaintiffs allege that during the Class Period the Company
failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material,
adverse facts, which were known to defendants or recklessly
disregarded by them:

     (1) that defendants implemented a circulation sales rewards
         program designed to incentivise contractors to sell
         more of The Dallas Morning News newspapers to the
         general public;

     (2) that the contractors, in order to qualify for the
         circulation sales rewards, were overstating the true
         amounts of newspapers that were sold to the public;

     (3) that circulation managers failed to verify the
         contractors' sales in order to take advantage of the
         rewards program;

     (4) that as a consequence of the foregoing, Belo's reported
         audited circulation numbers were materially inflated,
         which in turn allowed Belo to sell more advertisements
         thereby achieving higher advertising revenues for the
         Company; and

     (5) that Belo's reported financial results, as a result of
         the aforementioned scheme, were materially inflated at
         all relevant times.


BEVERLY ENTERPRISES: AR High Court Orders Firm to Pay $20M Bond
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Arkansas Supreme Court ordered Beverly Enterprises Inc. to
comply with a judge's ruling to post a $20 million bond for
failing to produce documents in a lawsuit, The Arkansas
Democrat-Gazette reports.  Specifically, the state Supreme Court
denied Fort Smith-based Beverly's appeal of judge's order and
ordered the company to comply with the said order.

Court documents revealed that Saline County Circuit Judge
Grisham Phillips ordered Beverly in a July 22 filing to post the
bond by August 2 after becoming frustrated in obtaining
documents in a nursing home care case. The hudge threatened
Beverly executives with jail in June after he found the company
in contempt for failing to release e-mail messages and other
electronic data, the documents revealed.

The Saline County lawsuit, which was filed on behalf of former
residents of the company's Bryant nursing home, alleges that
Beverly executives maximized profits by failing to provide
enough staff for proper care. It seeks class action
certification for residents who stayed in the Regional Nursing
Center of Bryant from December 16, 1998 to June 30, 2004.

In its appeal and motion for an accelerated hearing before the
state Supreme Court, Beverly argued that the requirement of a
bond is without precedent and unconstitutional. Larry Joseph,
Beverly's vice president of risk management, filed an affidavit
in the appeal stating that he had not been able to secure a bond
because of the company's impending sale. An auction of the
nursing home operator has been under way since March. Beverly
also stated in its appeal that it would be forced to pay the
bond in cash, which would hinder the auction. The appeal also
noted that Beverly is also defending itself against about 350
lawsuits nationwide.

In their response to the appeal, plaintiffs' attorneys Jack
Wagoner and Gene Ludwig told the state Supreme Court that the
company's stalling had gone on long enough. They further stated
in their filing, "Given the Beverly petitioners' year-long
pattern of delaying and dodging discovery, and the circuit
court's repeated orders, this compliance bond simply cannot be
equated with some pre-judgment attachment done in the dark of
night."


BURLINGTON RESOURCES: Trial in OK Royalties Suit Set Oct. 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the consolidated class action filed against Burlington
Resources, Inc. and its former affiliate El Paso Natural Gas
Company is scheduled to start in October 2005 in the District
Court of Washita County, State of Oklahoma.

Two class action lawsuits were initially filed, styled "Bank of
America, et al. v. El Paso Natural Gas Company, et al., Case No.
CJ-97-68," and "Deane W. Moore, et al. v. Burlington Northern,
Inc., et. al., Case No. CJ-97-132."  The suits were subsequently
consolidated by the court.

Plaintiffs contend that the defendants underpaid royalties from
1982 to the present on natural gas produced from specified wells
in Oklahoma through the use of below-market prices, improper
deductions and transactions with affiliated companies and in
other instances failed to pay or delayed in the payment of
royalties on certain gas sold from these wells.  The plaintiffs
seek an accounting and damages for alleged royalty
underpayments, plus interest from the time such amounts were
allegedly due.  Plaintiffs additionally seek the recovery
of punitive damages.  

The plaintiffs have not specified in their pleadings the amount
of damages they seek from the Company. However, through pre-
trial discovery, plaintiffs have provided defendants with
alternative theories of recovery claiming monetary damages of up
to $57 million in principal, plus $417 million in interest, and
unspecified punitive damages and attorney's fees.  The court has
certified the plaintiff classes of royalty and overriding
royalty interest owners, and the parties are proceeding with
pre-trial discovery.


CHOLESTECH CORPORATION: Final Approval Granted To IL Suit Pact
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois granted final
approval to the settlement of the class action filed against
Cholestech Corporation, styled "Northshore Dermatology Center,
S.C. v. Cholestech Corporation, and Does 1-10, Case No.
04CH05342."

The Company was served with the complaint and summons on March
31, 2004.  The complaint alleged that the Company violated the
federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act and various Illinois
state laws by sending unsolicited advertisements via facsimile
transmission to residents of Illinois.  The complaint sought
class certification and statutory damages of $500 to $1,500 each
on behalf of a class that would include all residents of
Illinois who received an unsolicited facsimile advertisement
from the Company.

On January 18, 2005 the parties entered into an agreement to
settle all claims on behalf of a nationwide class. Under the
terms of the settlement, the Company paid $625,000 in cash to
settle all claims, $600,000 of which was funded by insurance.
The Company also agreed to pay up to $50,000 for providing
notice to the class and for processing claims. The Court gave
final approval to the settlement on July 11, 2005, and a final
accounting is scheduled for November 2005.


CITIGROUP: SEC Sues Former Executives Over Affiliated Transfer
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed an enforcement
action in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York charging former Citigroup executives Thomas
W. Jones and Lewis Daidone with fraud relating to Citigroup's
creation of an affiliated transfer agent to serve its Smith
Barney family of mutual funds at steeply discounted rates.  
Rather than passing the substantial fee discount on to the
mutual funds, Citigroup took most of the benefit of the discount
for itself, reaping tens of millions of dollars in profit at the
expense of mutual fund shareholders.
     
The actions against the individuals follows the Commission's
settlement with the company in May in which Citigroup agreed to
pay $208 million that will distributed to victims of the fraud.
     
In its complaint filed today, the Commission alleges that Mr.
Jones and Mr. Daidone were two of the officers principally
responsible for the fraud. The complaint alleges that Mr. Jones,
the former chairman and chief executive officer of the asset
management division, directed an effort to negotiate a deal that
would permit Citigroup to reap much of the profit that the
funds' third party transfer agent had been making. Mr. Jones
approved the final structure of the deal fully aware that the
affiliated transfer agent was projected to make tens of millions
of dollars in profit each year for doing minimal work.  The
complaint further alleges that Jones intentionally or recklessly
acted in disregard of his fiduciary duty by failing to take
steps to ensure the funds' independent directors were fully
informed of the details of the proposal and that Mr. Jones
approved the presentation delivered to the funds' boards seeking
approval of the self-dealing transaction knowing or recklessly
disregarding that the presentation was materially misleading.
     
The complaint alleges that Mr. Daidone, a senior vice president
of the Adviser and the funds' treasurer and chief financial
officer, participated in the negotiations with the existing
third party transfer agent and was the person responsible for
making the presentation to the funds' boards in a way that led
the boards to believe the affiliated transfer agent proposal was
in the funds' best interests, which was not true.

The complaint charges Mr. Jones and Mr. Daidone with aiding and
abetting the Adviser and Global Markets' violations of Sections
206(1) and 206(2) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, which
prohibit registered investment advisers from employing devices,
schemes or artifices to defraud clients or prospective clients
and from engaging in transactions, practices, or courses of
business that operated or would operate as a fraud or deceit
upon clients or prospective clients.  The complaint seeks
permanent injunctions against future violations of those
provisions, disgorgement of any ill-gotten gains and civil
penalties. The action is styled, SEC v. Thomas W. Jones and
Lewis E. Daidone, 05 Civ. 7044.
     

CONCORD EFS: TN Court Yet To Rule on Shareholder Suit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------  
The Shelby County Circuit Court for the States of Tennessee has
yet to rule on the motion to dismiss the consolidated
shareholder class action filed against Concord EFS Inc.'s
current and former officers and directors.

On April 3 and 4, 2003, two purported class action complaints
were filed on behalf of the public holders of the Company's
common stock (excluding shareholders related to or affiliated
with the individual defendants). The defendants in those actions
were certain current and former officers and directors of
Concord. The complaints generally alleged breaches of the
defendants' duty of loyalty and due care in connection with the
defendants' alleged attempt to sell Concord without maximizing
the value to shareholders in order to advance the defendants'
alleged individual interests in obtaining indemnification
agreements related to the securities litigation discussed above
and other derivative litigation.  The complaints sought class
certification, injunctive relief directing the defendants'
conduct in connection with an alleged sale or auction of
Concord, reasonable attorneys' fees, experts' fees and other
costs and relief the Court deems just and proper.

On April 2, 2003 an additional purported class action complaint
was filed by Barton K. O'Brien.  The defendants were the
Company, certain of its current and former officers and
directors. This complaint contained allegations regarding the
individual defendants' alleged insider trading and alleged
violations of securities and other laws and asserted that this
alleged misconduct reduced the consideration offered to Concord
shareholders in the proposed merger between Concord and a
subsidiary of First Data Corporation.  The complaint sought
class certification, attorneys' fees, experts' fees, costs and
other relief the Court deems just and proper.  Moreover, the
complaint also sought an order enjoining consummation of the
merger, rescinding the merger if it is consummated and setting
it aside or awarding rescissory damages to members of the
putative class, and directing the defendants to account to the
putative class members for unspecified damages.

These complaints were consolidated in a second amended
consolidated complaint filed September 19, 2003 into one action
(In re Concord EFS, Inc. Shareholder Litigation) in the Shelby
County Circuit for the State of Tennessee.  On October 15, 2003,
the plaintiffs In re Concord EFS, Inc. Shareholder Litigation
moved for leave to file a third amended consolidated complaint
similar to the previous complaints but also alleging that the
proxy statement disclosures relating to the antitrust regulatory
approval process were inadequate.

On October 17, 2003, the plaintiffs filed a motion for
preliminary injunction to enjoin the shareholder vote on the
proposed merger and/or the merger itself. The Court denied the
plaintiffs' motion on October 20, 2003 but ordered deposition
discovery on an expedited basis. On October 27, 2003 the
plaintiffs filed a renewed motion to enjoin the shareholder
vote, which was denied by the Court the same day. A motion to
dismiss was filed on June 22, 2004 alleging that the claims
should be denied and are moot since the merger has occurred. On
October 18, 2004, the Court heard arguments on the plaintiff's
motion to amend complaint and the defendant's motion to dismiss.


CONCORD EFS: Seeks Summary Judgment in CA Antitrust Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Concord EFS, Inc. asked the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California to grant summary judgment in its
favor in the consolidated class action filed against it, its
parent company First Data Corporation and various financial
institutions.

On July 2, 2004, Pamela Brennan, Terry Crayton, and Darla
Martinez filed a class action complaint on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California against the
Company, First Data Corporation, and various financial
institutions. Plaintiffs claim that the defendants have violated
antitrust laws by conspiring to artificially inflate foreign ATM
fees that were ultimately charged to ATM cardholders.  
Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgement, injunctive relief,
compensatory damages, attorneys' fees, costs and such other
relief as the nature of the case may require or as may seem just
and proper to the court.

Five similar suits were filed and served in July, August and
October 2004, two in the Central District of California
(Los Angeles), two in the Southern District of New York, and one
in the Western District of Washington (Seattle).  The Plaintiffs
sought to have all of the cases consolidated by the Multi
District Litigation panel. That request was denied by the panel
on December 16, 2004 and all cases have been transferred to the
Northern District Court of California and assigned to a single
judge.  All cases other than Brennan have been stayed.

In Brennan, on May 4, 2005 the Court ruled on Defendants' Motion
to Dismiss and Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. The Court
did not dismiss the complaint, except for a technical dismissal
of the claims against First Data Corporation, Bank One
Corporation and JP Morgan Chase. On May 25, 2005 the Plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint which clarified the basis for
alleging that the holding companies First Data Corporation, Bank
One Corporation and JP Morgan Chase were liable.  On July 3,
2005 the Court's stay on discovery expired. On July 13, 2005 the
Court held a status conference in which it ruled that the
Brennan Plaintiffs would file their motion for class
certification in November 2005 with the Defendants' responses
due in February 2006.  On July 21, 2005, Concord filed a motion
for summary judgment asking to foreclose claims arising after
February 1, 2001, the date that Concord acquired the STAR
network.


DOWNEY SAVINGS: CA Court Preliminarily OKs Wage Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Los Angeles Superior Court in California granted preliminary
approval to the settlement of the class action filed against
Downey Savings and Loan Association, styled "Michelle Cox and
Mary Ann Tierra, et al. case no. BC-318964."

On July 23, 2004, two former in-store banking employees filed
the suit, which seeks unspecified damages for alleged unpaid
overtime wages, inadequate meal and rest breaks, and other
unlawful business practices and related claims.  The plaintiffs
also obtained class action status to represent all other current
and former California employees who held the position of branch
manager or assistant manager at in-store branches who were
treated as exempt and not paid overtime between July 23, 2000
and November 2002 and allegedly received inadequate meal/rest
periods since October 1, 2000.  

At a mediation in March 2005, the parties agreed to settle the
lawsuit and in June 2005 the court preliminarily approved the
settlement, with final approval expected later this year.  


HARLEY-DAVIDSON: Shareholders Launch Securities Suits in E.D. WI
----------------------------------------------------------------
Harley-Davidson, Inc. faces several shareholder class actions
filed between May 18, 2005 and July 1, 2005 in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.  The suits
also name as defendants several Company officers:

     (1) Jeffrey L. Bleustein,

     (2) James M. Brostowitz,

     (3) R. Jon Flickinger,

     (4) John A. Hevey,

     (5) Ronald M. Hutchinson,

     (6) Gail A. Lione,

     (7) James A. McCaslin,

     (8) W. Kenneth Sutton, Jr.,

     (9) Donna F. Zarcone and

    (10) James L. Ziemer

The complaints allege securities law violations and seek
unspecified damages relating generally to the Company's April
13, 2005 announcement that it was reducing short-term production
growth and planned increases of motorcycle shipments from last
year's 317,000 units to a new 2005 target of 329,000 units
(compared to its original target of 339,000 units).

The first identified complaint in the litigation is styled
"Raymond Kadagian, et al. v. Harley-Davidson, Inc., et al., case
no 05-CV-00547," filed in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Wisconsin, under Judge J. P.
Stadtmueller.  The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

     (i) Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, 3620 East Layton Ave., Cudahy,
         WI, 53110, Phone: 866-264-3995, Fax: 414-482-8001, E-
         mail: inquiry@ademilaw.com

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

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

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

     (v) Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP (LA), 1801 Ave. of the
         Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles, CA, 90067, Phone: (310)
         201-915, Fax: (310) 201-916, E-mail: info@glancylaw.com

    (vi) Law Offices of Alfred G. Yates, 519 Alleghany Bldg.,
         429 Forbes Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA, 15219, Phone:
         412.391.5164,

   (vii) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (NY),
         200 Broadhollow Road, Suite 406, Melville, NY, 11747,
         Phone: 631-367-7100, Fax: 631-367-1173,

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

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

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

    (xi) Scott & Scott LLC, P.O. Box 192, 108 Norwich Avenue,
         Colchester, CT, 06415, Phone: 860.537.5537, Fax:
         860.537.4432, E-mail: scottlaw@scott-scott.com

   (xii) Spector, Roseman & Kodroff (Philadelphia), 1818 Market
         Street; Suite 2500, Philadelphia, PA, 19103, Phone:
         215.496.0300, Fax: 215.496.6610, E-mail:
         classaction@srk-law.com  


HARLEY-DAVIDSON: WI Court Mulls Re-filing of Cam Bearing Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Wisconsin Court of Appeals has yet to decide on plaintiffs'
appeal of the Court's refusal to allow them to re-file and amend
their dismissed consumer class action against Harley-Davidson,
Inc., related to the Company's 1999 and early-2000 model year
Harley-Davidson motorcycles equipped with Twin Cam 88 and Twin
Cam 88B engines.

In January 2001, the Company, on its own initiative, notified
each owner of 1999 and early-2000 model year Harley-Davidson
motorcycles equipped with Twin Cam 88 and Twin Cam 88B engines
that the Company was extending the warranty for a rear cam
bearing to 5 years or 50,000 miles.  

Subsequently, on June 28, 2001, a putative nationwide class
action was filed against the Company in state court in Milwaukee
County, Wisconsin, which was amended by a complaint filed
September 28, 2001.  The complaint alleged that this cam bearing
is defective and asserted various legal theories. The complaint
sought unspecified compensatory and punitive damages for
affected owners, an order compelling the Company to repair the
engines, and other relief.

On February 27, 2002, the Company's s motion to dismiss the
amended complaint was granted by the Court and the amended
complaint was dismissed in its entirety.  An appeal was filed
with the Wisconsin Court of Appeals.  On April 12, 2002, the
same attorneys filed a second putative nationwide class action
against the Company in state court in Milwaukee County,
Wisconsin relating to this cam bearing issue and asserting
different legal theories than in the first action.  The
complaint sought unspecified compensatory damages, an order
compelling the Company to repair the engines and other relief.

On September 23, 2002, the Company's motion to dismiss was
granted by the Court, the complaint was dismissed in its
entirety, and no appeal was taken. On January 14, 2003, the
Wisconsin Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's February
27, 2002 dismissal of the complaint in the first action, and the
Company petitioned the Wisconsin Supreme Court for review.  On
March 26, 2004, the Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed the Court
of Appeals and dismissed the remaining claims in the action.

On April 12, 2004, the same attorneys filed a third action in
the state court in Milwaukee County, on behalf of the same
plaintiffs from the action dismissed by the Wisconsin Supreme
Court.  This third action was dismissed by the court on July 26,
2004.  In addition, the plaintiffs in the original case moved to
reopen that matter and amend the complaint to add new causes
of action, which motion was denied on August 23, 2004. A notice
of appeal to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals from the latter
dismissal was filed by the plaintiffs.


HILB ROGAL: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Securities Suit in NJ
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action against Hilb Rogal
& Hobbs Co. and several other large commercial insurers in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey,
alleging violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act (RICO)

In August 2004, OptiCare Health Systems Inc. filed a putative
class action suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York (Case No. 04-CV-06954) against a number of
the country's largest insurance brokers and several large
commercial insurers.  The Company was named as a defendant in
the Opticare suit in November 2004.  In December 2004, two other
purported class action suits were filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division,
by Stephen Lewis (Case No. 04-C-7847) and Diane Preuss (Case No.
04-C-7853), respectively, against certain insurance brokers,
including the Company, and several large commercial insurers.

On February 17, 2005, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation (JPMDL) ordered that the Opticare suit, along with
three other purported antitrust class actions filed in New York,
New Jersey and Pennsylvania against industry participants, be
centralized and transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey.  In addition, by Conditional Transfer
Order dated March 10, 2005, the Panel conditionally transferred
the Lewis and Preuss cases to the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey.  As a result of the Panel's transfer
orders, the Opticare, Lewis and Preuss cases are proceeding on a
consolidated basis with other purported class action suits
styled as "In re: Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation (MDL
1663)."

On August 1, 2005, the plaintiffs in MDL 1663 filed a First
Consolidated Amended Commercial Class Action Complaint (the
Commercial Complaint) in the United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey (Civil No. 04-5184) against the
Company and certain other insurance brokers and insurers.  In
the Commercial Complaint, the named plaintiffs purport to
represent a class consisting of all persons who, between August
26, 1994 and the date on which class certification may occur,
engaged the services of any one of the broker defendants or any
of their subsidiaries or affiliates to obtain advice with
respect to the procurement or renewal of insurance and who
entered into or renewed a contract of insurance with one of the
insurer defendants.  The plaintiffs allege in the Commercial
Complaint, among other things:

     (1) that the broker defendants engaged in improper steering
         of clients to the insurer defendants for the purpose of
         obtaining undisclosed additional compensation in the
         form of contingent commissions from insurers;

     (2) that the defendants were engaged in a bid-rigging
         scheme involving the submission of false and/or
         inflated bids from insurers to clients;

     (3) that the broker defendants improperly placed their
         clients' insurance business with insurers through
         related wholesale entities where an intermediary was
         unnecessary for the purpose of generating additional
         commissions from insurers;

     (4) that the broker defendants entered into unlawful tying
         arrangements to obtain reinsurance business from the
         defendant insurers; and

     (5) that the defendants created centralized internal
         departments for the purpose of monitoring, facilitating
         and advancing the collection of contingent commissions,
         payments and other improper fees.

The plaintiffs allege violations of federal and state antitrust
laws, violations of the RICO 18 U.S.C.  1962(c) and (d),
fraudulent misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, aiding
and abetting breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment. The
plaintiff seeks monetary relief, including treble damages,
injunctive and declaratory relief, restitution, interest,
attorneys' fees and expenses, costs and other relief.

The OptiCare suit is styled "In Re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust
Litigation, case no. 2:05-cv-01168-FSH," filed in the United
States District Court in New Jersey, under Judge Faith S.
Hochberg.  Representing the Company is Shawn Patrick Regan,
HUNTON AND WILLIAMS, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166 Phone:
212-309-1046.  Representing the plaintiffs are Joseph P.
Guglielmo and Edith M. Kallas, MILBERG WEISS BERSHAD & SCHULMAN
LLP (NYC) One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York NY 10119 Phone:
212-594-5300; and Mark C. Rifkin, WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN
& HERZ LLP, 270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016 Phone:
212 545-4600 E-mail: rifkin@whafh.com.


HILB ROGAL: Plaintiffs File Consolidated ERISA Fraud Suit in NJ
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action against
Hilb Rogal & Hobbs Co. and certain other insurance brokers and
insurers in the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey, alleging violations of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act (ERISA).

The suit, styled "In the Employee Benefits Complaint (Civil Nos.
04-5184, et al.)," the named plaintiffs purport to represent two
separate classes consisting of ERISA and non-ERISA plan
employees and employers, respectively, that have acquired
insurance products from the defendants in connection with an
employee benefit plan between August 26, 1994 and the date on
which class certification may occur.  The plaintiffs allege in
the Employee Benefits Complaint, among other things:

     (1) that the broker defendants secretly conspired with the
         insurer defendants to steer plaintiffs and members of
         the classes to the insurer defendants in exchange for
         undisclosed fees, including communication fees,
         enrollment fees, service fees, finders fees and/or
         administrative fees, contingent commissions and other
         payments, including broker bonuses, trips and
         entertainment, from the insurer defendants;

     (2) that the defendants were engaged in a bid-rigging
         scheme involving the submission of false and/or
         inflated bids from insurers to clients;

     (3) that the broker defendants improperly placed their
         clients' insurance business with insurers through
         related wholesale entities where an intermediary was
         unnecessary for the purpose of generating additional
         commissions from insurers; and

     (4) that the defendants entered into unlawful tying
         arrangements under which the broker defendants would
         place primary insurance contracts with insurers on the
         condition that the insurers use the broker defendants
         for placing their reinsurance coverage with reinsurance
         carriers.

The plaintiffs allege violations of federal and state antitrust
laws, violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 1962(c) and (d), fraudulent
misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting
breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment.  The plaintiff
seeks monetary relief, including treble and punitive damages,
injunctive and declaratory relief, restitution, interest,
attorneys' fees and expenses, costs and other relief.


HILB ROGAL: MA Residents Launch Insurance Fees Antitrust Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hilb Rogal & Hobbs Co. faces a class action filed in the United
States District Court in Massachusetts, alleging violations of
federal antitrust law.

In May 2005, Bensley Construction, Inc. filed a putative class
action suit in the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts (Case No. ESCV2005-00277) against the Company and
certain large commercial insurers and brokers.  In the amended
complaint, the plaintiff alleges, among other things, that the
broker defendants entered into contingent commission agreements
with the insurer defendants without disclosing the existence
and/or terms of the agreements to clients to whom the defendants
owed a fiduciary duty and that certain of the defendants engaged
in a bid-rigging and customer allocation scheme to maximize
their revenues under the contingent commission agreements.  The
plaintiff alleges breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment,
aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty, breach of
contract and breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing. The plaintiff seeks monetary damages for each member of
the class in an amount not to exceed $74,999 per class member,
costs and other relief.

The defendants removed the case to federal court and filed a
notice to transfer the case to the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey pursuant to the Panel order consolidating
similar insurance antitrust suits in New Jersey.


HILB ROGAL: Shareholders Launch Insurance Fraud Suit in E.D. VA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hilb Rogal & Hobbs Co. faces a class action filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia,
styled "Iron Workers Local 16 Pension Fund v. Hilb Rogal &
Hobbs, et al., Case No. 1:05-CV-00735-GBL-TCB."  The suit also
names as defendants:

     (1) Andrew L. Rogal,

     (2) Martin L. Vaughan, III,

     (3) Timothy J. Korman,

     (4) Carolyn Jones,

     (5) Robert W. Blanton, Jr. and

     (6) Robert B. Lockhart

Each of the individual defendants is a current or former officer
and/or director of the Company. In the complaint, the plaintiff
alleges, among other things, that the defendants made false and
misleading statements to the public in the Company's filings
with the Securities and Exchange Commission, press releases and
other public statements between February 14, 2002 and May 26,
2005 by failing to disclose that the Company's contingent and
override commissions were designed to allow the Company to steer
its flow of business to those insurance carriers that agreed to
pay it such commissions; that the Company's business practices
were in direct conflict of interest with its customers and were
fraudulent and illegal; and that the Company's financial results
were materially inflated as a result of the recognition of
improper commissions as revenues.

The complaint further alleges that the individual defendants
were able to and did control the content of the Company's public
statements as a result of their positions as officers and/or
directors of the Company. The plaintiff alleges violations by
each of the defendants of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and
violations by the individual defendants of Section 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The plaintiff seeks monetary
damages, interest, costs, legal fees and other relief.

The suit is styled "Iron Workers Local 16 Pension Fund v. Hilb
Rogal & Hobbs Co. et al., case no. 1:05-cv-00735-GBL-TCB," filed
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia, under Judge Gerald Bruce Lee.  Representing the
plaintiffs is Benjamin Joseph Weir of Finkelstein Thompson &
Loughran, 1050 30th St NW, Washington, DC 20007, Phone:
(202) 337-8000.


HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL: NJ Court Approves ERISA Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
approved the settlement for a class action filed against
Honeywell International, Inc. and several of its current and
former officers and directors.

The complaint principally alleges that the defendants breached
their fiduciary duties to participants in the Honeywell Savings
and Ownership Plan (the "Savings Plan") by purportedly making
false and misleading statements, failing to disclose material
information concerning Honeywell's financial performance, and
failing to diversify the Savings Plan's s assets and monitor the
prudence of Honeywell stock as a Savings Plan investment.

In September 2004, the Company reached an agreement in principle
to settle this matter for $14 million plus an agreement to
permit Savings Plan participants greater diversification rights.
The settlement will be paid in full by the Company's insurers.  


INVESTMENT PROPERTY: SEC Files GA Suit V. Jeffrey Gibson, Firm
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed a complaint in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia, against Jeffrey L. Gibson and Investment Property
Management, LLC (IPM).  IPM is a limited liability company owned
by Gibson.

The Commission's complaint alleges that, from approximately
December 2002 through the present, Mr. Gibson misappropriated
for his personal use approximately $450,000 from investors in
American Car Wash Fund, LP (ACW), a limited partnership.  IPM
serves as ACW's general manager. Between December 2002 and April
2003, Mr. Gibson, through IPM, sold approximately 43 limited
partnership interests in ACW, raising approximately $875,000.  
Approximately 38 of the limited partners were also clients of
his advisory business.  Almost as soon as he began selling
interests, Mr. Gibson began writing checks, payable to cash, on
ACW's bank accounts and then misappropriating the funds from
those checks for his personal use.  In an effort to conceal the
misappropriation of funds, Mr. Gibson and IPM regularly sent
letters to ACW investors describing annualized rates of return,
dividends and purchases of various properties. None of those
letters disclosed the ongoing misuse of proceeds by Mr. Gibson
and IPM.
     
The Commission's complaint charges defendants Mr. Gibson and IPM
with violations 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 thereunder, and Gibson with violations of Section 206
of the Investment Advisers Act of 1933.  The complaint seeks to
permanently enjoin Gibson and IPM from further violations.  The
Commission also seeks an accounting by Gibson and IPM,
disgorgement of all ill-gotten gains from the illegal conduct
with prejudgment interest, civil penalties, and an order
expediting discovery and preventing the destruction of
documents.  On the same day the complaint was filed, the
defendants consented to a preliminary injunction, an asset
freeze, an accounting and an order-expediting discovery. The
action is styled, SEC v. Jeffrey L. Gibson and Investment   
Property Management, LLC, Civil Action No. 1:05-CV-163-RLV,
NDGA.


KENSINGTON LIGHTING: Locklear Files IL Suit Over Unsolicited Fax
----------------------------------------------------------------
Locklear Electric initiated a class action lawsuit in Madison
County Circuit Court against Kensington Lighting Corporation of
Greensburg, Pennsylvania, after the Wood River firm received yet
another unsolicited fax, The Madison County Record reports.

The complaint, which is its third class action complaint in
2005, is accusing Kensington of unlawfully taking the company's
fax paper, toner ink and electricity.  Filed on August 9, the
suit claims that Locklear received one or more unwanted faxes
from Kensington on May 18, in violation of the Federal Telephone
Consumer Protection Act and Illinois Consumer Fraud Act. Also,
Locklear claims that Kensington "willfully" sent or caused to be
sent unsolicited fax advertisements, and therefore it is liable
for $1,500 in damages for each separate unsolicited fax sent.

According to the complaint, Kensington did not obtain "prior
express invitation or permission" before sending the fax
advertisement in violation of the Federal Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, which provides that it is unlawful for any
person to use a fax machine to send an unsolicited
advertisement.  Locklear, which is represented by Lanny Darr of
Schrempf, Blaine, Kelly & Darr of Alton, is also seeking an
injunction to prohibit and prevent future violations.

Additionally, in order to keep the case in state court to comply
with the Class Action Fairness Act, Locklear's suit claims that
"the aggregate of the class is less than $5 million" and no
member of the class is seeking damages in excess of $75,000.


KNIGHT SECURITIES: SEC Files NJ Fraud Suit V. Former Officials
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed a civil fraud
action in the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey against Kenneth D. Pasternak, the former Chief
Executive Officer and Head of the Trading Desk of Knight
Securities, L.P., now known as Knight Equity Markets, L.P.
(Knight), and John P. Leighton, the former head of the
Institutional Sales Desk at Knight, for their role in the "best
execution" scheme that defrauded Knight's institutional
customers.
    
The Commission alleges in its complaint that Mr. Pasternak and
Mr. Leighton violated Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of
1933 (Securities Act), Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (Exchange Act), and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.  The
Commission also alleges that Mr. Pasternak and Mr. Leighton
aided and abetted Knight's violations of Sections 15(c)(1),
10(b) and 17(a) of the Exchange Act and Rules 10b-5 and 17a-3
thereunder.  The Commission also alleges that Mr. Pasternak is
liable as a control person, under Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act, for Knight's violations of Sections 15(c)(1) and 17(a) of
the Exchange Act and Rule 17a-3 thereunder.  In its action, the
Commission is seeking against each defendant a permanent
injunction, disgorgement of all ill-gotten gains plus pre-
judgment interest and civil penalties.  

The Commission acknowledges the assistance of the NASD in the
investigation of this matter. The action is styled, SEC v.
Kenneth D. Pasternak and John P. Leighton, No. 05-3905, JAP,
D.N.J.


KPMG LLP: Federal Suit Launched in NY Over Illegal Tax Shelter
--------------------------------------------------------------
Former clients of KPMG, LLP, the U.S. arm of the world's fourth
largest accounting firm, launched a federal lawsuit over the
sale of an illegal tax shelter, The Bloomberg News reports.

The plaintiffs in the class action suit, Roger Heumann and
Gilman Sentry Photo Inc., brought the case on behalf of all
clients to whom the shelter was sold. Both plaintiffs claim in
their suit that they are facing millions of dollars in back
taxes, interest and penalties. Their suit seeks compensation for
damages without specifying an amount.

Court documents revealed that KPMG is negotiating with federal
prosecutors in New York in a bid to avoid potentially fatal
criminal charges over its sale of tax shelters.  Mr. Heumann,
president of Gilman Sentry, said in the complaint, "KPMG
knowingly approved and marketed abusive tax shelters."

Additionally, in the suit, which was filed on August 3, the
plaintiffs are also claiming that KPMG knew the shelter was an
illegal tax-avoidance device that should have been registered
with the IRS. The IRS classified the shelter as such last year,
the suit states.


LANDAMERICA FINANCIAL: Subsidiaries Working on RESPA Suit Pact
--------------------------------------------------------------
Two of Landamerica Financial Group, Inc.'s subsidiaries are
finalizing the proposed settlement of the consolidated class
action filed against them in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan, alleging violations of the
Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA).  

On May 9, 2000, Romeo Jergess filed a putative class action suit
against the Company's subsidiary Transnation Title Insurance
Company, alleging that the Company's rate for an owner's title
insurance policy, charged in accordance with rates for new
construction filed with the Insurance Bureau of the State of
Michigan, are less than the rate paid by the lender for a
simultaneously issued lender's title insurance policy, and that
the lower rate paid by the builder/developer for the owner's
policy involves an illegal kickback for a referral and an
illegal splitting of fees in violation of the RESPA.

On April 27, 2001, a similar suit was filed by Elaine Miller in
the same court (Case No. 01-71647) against Lawyers Title
Insurance Corporation, a subsidiary of the Company. The
plaintiffs in both suits seek an unspecified amount of damages
equal to three times the amount of the charge for each
simultaneously issued lender's title insurance policy in
connection with a new home purchase commencing with the period
one year before the filing of each complaint, plus costs,
interest and attorneys' fees.

Transnation and Lawyers Title have engaged a forensic accountant
to review plaintiffs' estimate that the charges collected for
such policies by Transnation and Lawyers Title from the class as
originally defined is approximately $15 million.  The Jergess
Suit and the Miller Suit were consolidated on July 18, 2002 with
cases pending against First American Title Insurance Company and
Chicago Title Insurance Company.  On December 5, 2002, the court
certified a class defined as all individuals who, during the
period commencing prior to one year of the filing of the
applicable suit and ending on October 30, 2002, purchased a
newly constructed one to four family dwelling or condominium and
were charged for a lender's title insurance policy allegedly in
violation of RESPA.

On February 12, 2003, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Sixth Circuit denied Transnation's and Lawyers Title's petitions
for an interlocutory appeal of the class certification order.  
On October 30, 2003, the judge ordered that individuals
otherwise meeting the class definition, but who closed
transactions involving relevant policies between October 31,
2002 through October 30, 2003, would not be subject to a statute
of limitations defense raised by Transnation Title or Lawyers
Title between October 30, 2003 and October 31, 2004.  On October
28, 2004, Transnation and Lawyers Title stipulated to an order
that individuals otherwise meeting the class definition, but who
closed transactions involving relevant policies between October
31, 2002 through October 30, 2004, would not be subject to a
statute of limitations defense raised by Transnation or Lawyers
Title between October 30, 2004 and October 31, 2005.  The court
reserved decision on a Motion to proceed to trial with the
certified class as originally defined.

On January 13, 2005, the court denied Transnation's and Lawyers
Title's motion to dismiss the case for lack of standing. On
February 7, 2005, the court dismissed without prejudice
Transnation's and Lawyers Title's Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment with respect to those members of the class covered by
the affiliated business exception under RESPA with the court
indicating that the parties could resubmit the motion with
additional information.  The court has not yet ruled on the
parties' cross Motions for Summary Judgment on Count II of
plaintiffs' complaint alleging an illegal splitting of fees
under RESPA.

On April 21, 2005, Transnation and Lawyers Title filed various
Motions for Summary Judgment and Limine with respect to multiple
issues. The parties participated in nonbinding mediation
beginning May 3, 2005. On May 19, 2005, Transnation and Lawyers
Title entered into a binding term sheet to settle the
consolidated suits. The terms of the settlement are subject to
court approval. If approved, Transnation and Lawyers Title will
be obligated to make a single aggregate payment of $10,325,000
into a settlement fund to be established for the benefit of
eligible class members. Transnation and Lawyers Title, who did
not admit any liability in the settlement, would be required to
deposit the settlement funds into escrow within seven days
following the issuance of a final order by the court approving
the settlement. The parties intend to enter into a final
Settlement Agreement that will incorporate the provisions of the
Term Sheet.   Pursuant to the Term Sheet, the Settlement
Agreement will provide for the dismissal with prejudice of all
claims by plaintiffs against Transnation and Lawyers Title and a
release of all claims by plaintiffs except claims under their
title policies.


MARTHA STEWART: IL Resident Files Fraud Suit Over Faulty Tables
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit against Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia
and KMart was launched in a federal district court in East St.
Louis, which charges both firms with selling defective glass-top
patio tables that are prone to shatter without warning, The
Consumer Affairs reports.

The suit was filed on behalf of Michelle Ronat, who bought one
of the tables, which were sold exclusively by Kmart, for use in
her Bond County, Illinois, home from a local KMart store. It
charges that Martha Stewart Living and KMart violated the
Illinois Consumer Fraud Act and breached the implied warranty
that is part of every retail transaction.

In addition, the suit alleges that substandard parts were used
in the construction of the tables as well as "materials that are
inappropriate for the use for which they are intended" and that
the tables have "inherent design and manufacturing defects" that
caused the glass tops to shattered unexpectedly during ordinary
use.

In the suit, Ms. Ronat also stated that she purchased her table
for more than $300 in May of 2003 and used it for about two
years on her home's deck. Then, according to the suit, on July
7, 2005, Ms. Ronat was sitting in her living room with her two
young children when she heard a loud crash from her deck. She
looked out and saw that "glass from the Martha Stewart patio
table had shattered into thousands of small pieces," the suit
says. "Smaller pieces of glass were quickly shattering into even
smaller pieces, making the shattering glass pop like popcorn,"
the suit alleges.

Court documents reveal that Ms. Ronat contacted KMart and was
told that the glass was not covered under the 90-day warranty.
The manufacturer, JRA Furniture Industries, offered her a
replacement but Ms. Ronat "was not interested in receiving
another glass top patio table that was apt to shatter" and asked
for a refund. JRA, however, refused to give her a refund.

The suit charges that Martha Stewart Living and KMart knew that
the tables had the tendency to shatter during ordinary use and
that the company had received complaints from consumers who had
purchased the defective tables and that it committed fraud by
continuing to sell the tables.

The suit seeks actual and punitive damages on behalf of all
consumers who purchased the tables. Attorney Richard Doherty of
Horwitz, Horwitz & Associates is representing the plaintiffs.

For more details, contact Richard Doherty of Horwitz, Horwitz &
Associates, Phone: 312 372-8822 or 815-723-8822, E-mail:
cliff@horwitzlaw.com.


MARYLAND: Outside Administrator Sought in Special Education Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Donna Wulkan, an attorney with the Maryland Disability Law
Center, which is representing Baltimore's special education
students told a federal judge that ongoing disagreements between
the city school system and the state Department of Education
will likely block special education students from getting the
services they are owed, The Associated Press reports.

At a recent hearing, Ms. Wulkan urged the judge to bring in a
temporary, outside administrator to oversee special support
services provided to Baltimore's disabled students. She quips,
"It's pretty clear the defendants - the state and BCPS - are at
loggerheads."

Court papers revealed that the state and Baltimore City Public
Schools are co-defendants in a 21-year-old class action lawsuit,
in which lawyers for disabled students allege that the city
schools failed to give them appropriate services and to
accurately diagnose disabilities.

At the recent hearing, the State Department of Education, the
Baltimore City Public Schools and attorneys for the disabled
students each offered solutions.  An attorney for the Baltimore
City Public Schools asked U.S. District Judge Marvin J. Garbis
to leave that responsibility with the school system. Douglas
Nazarian even told the judge that schools Chief Executive
Officer Bonnie S. Copeland and the board of education have
crafted a plan that includes a partnership with a special-
education consultant and a "turnaround" expert.

However, Elizabeth Kameen, an assistant attorney general arguing
the state's case, asked Judge Garbis to consider Baltimore's
long and spotty track record in providing service to its
disabled students. Thus, Ms. Kameem asked the court to order the
Maryland State Department of Education to step in with a
remedial plan, arguing that the order would boost the state's
authority to make changes and perhaps prevent the department
from having to go through another administrative hearing.

Ms. Wulkan stated during the hearing that her group is proposing
that the court appoint David Gilmore of Gilmore Kean LLC as a
temporary administrator for related services. Mr. Gilmore, who
has a reputation as a problem fixer, is an independent
Transportation Administrator for the District of Columbia Public
Schools.  According to Ms. Wulkan, having a third party step in
and administer related services will give the city and state the
ability to work together to improve special education overall.


MASSACHUSETTS: Judge Says State Efforts For Ill Kids Are Paltry
---------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge in Springfield stated that he's heard strong
evidence, which suggest that the state isn't doing all it should
to care for mentally ill children, The Associated Press reports.

In a recent hearing, U.S. District Judge Michael Ponsor also
stated that it's going to take him four to six weeks before
issuing a ruling in a class action lawsuit brought by nine
families against the state for not providing enough home-based
services for their troubled children. The plaintiffs stated at
the hearing that the state isn't living up to federal Medicaid
standards that require certain levels of care for qualifying
children.  During closing arguments delivered in his courtroom,
Judge Ponsor said that the plaintiffs have done a good job
showing that many children have "fallen through the cracks."

As previously reported in the August 9, 2005 edition of the
Class Action Reporter, attorneys were set to give their closing
arguments in Springfield and end the four-year-old class action
lawsuit.

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 in the suit even claim
that about three thousand mentally ill children in Massachusetts
need special care.


ONTARIO POWER: Named Lead Defendant in $50B in Pollution Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ontario Power Generation Inc. was named as the lead defendant in
a $50-billion lawsuit that alleges the provincially owned
utility polluted the air with emissions from coal-fired plants,
damaging the health of Ontario residents, The Globe and Mail
reports.  OPG along with 20 U.S. electricity firms are named in
the lawsuit seeking to certify a class action in the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice.

According to a 17-page statement of claim that was filed in
Toronto, the pollutants emitted by the defendants have allegedly
caused "premature death, aggravation of existing cardiac and
respiratory illnesses, loss of lung capacity and lung
inflammation, coughing, wheezing and respiratory and eye
irritation, weakened immune system and increased susceptibility
to pulmonary and other infections."

An OPG spokesman told The Globe and Mail that the electricity
utility has yet to be served with the lawsuit, thus he declined
to comment until he had a chance to read the document.

Attorneys filed the suit on behalf of three plaintiffs,
Elizabeth May, the executive director of environmental group
Sierra Club of Canada, Hamilton public health consultant
Kimberly Perrotta and Christopher M. Robinson, a professor of
finance at York University.


OWENS CORNING: Status Conference in Suit V. Execs Set Sept. 2005
----------------------------------------------------------------
A status conference on the consolidated securities class action
filed against Owens Corning's current and former directors and
officers is scheduled for September 8,2005 in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

On April 30, 2001, certain of the Company's current and former
directors and officers, as well as certain underwriters, were
named as defendants in a lawsuit captioned "John Hancock Life
Insurance Company, et al. v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., et al."  An
amended complaint was filed by the plaintiffs on July 5, 2001.
The Company is not named in the lawsuit.

The suit purports to be a securities class action on behalf of
purchasers of certain unsecured debt securities of Owens Corning
in offerings occurring on or about April 30, 1998 and July 23,
1998. The complaint alleges that the registration statements
pursuant to which the offerings were made contained untrue and
misleading statements of material fact, omitting material facts
which were required therein and necessary to make the statements
not misleading, in violation of sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933.  The amended complaint seeks an
unspecified amount of damages or, where appropriate, rescission
of the plaintiffs' purchases.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the action on November
20, 2001. A hearing was held on this motion on April 11, 2002,
and the Court issued a decision denying the motion on August 26,
2002. On March 9, 2004, the Court granted class certification as
to those claims relating to written representations but denied
certification as to claims relating to alleged oral
representations.


OWENS CORNING: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of OH Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio, Western Division's ruling dismissing
the consolidated securities class action filed against certain
of the Company's current and former officers and directors.

On January 27, 2003, certain of the Company's current and former
directors and officers were named as defendants in a lawsuit
captioned "Robert Greenburg, et al. v. Glen Hiner, et al."
Subsequent to January 27, 2003, three substantially similar
actions, with named plaintiffs Nicholas Radosevich, Howard E.
Leppla, and William Benanchietti, respectively, were filed
against the same defendants in the same court.  On July 30,
2003, the court consolidated the four cases under the caption
"Robert Greenburg, et al. v. Glen Hiner, et al.," and appointed
lead plaintiffs JKF Investment Co., Icarus Trading, Inc. and HGK
Asset Management.  The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on
September 8, 2003.  The Company was not named in the lawsuit.

The suit purported to be a class action for securities fraud
under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, on behalf of a class comprised of persons who purchased
stock of the Company during the period from September 20, 1999,
through October 4, 2000. The complaint sought an unspecified
amount of damages and/or, where appropriate, rescission.

On March 3, 2005, the Court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss the action, on the grounds that the plaintiffs' claims
are time-barred under the applicable statute of limitations. The
plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal of the dismissal.


OWENS CORNING: Roofing Product Purchasers File Claim in DE Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Owens Corning faces two proofs of claims filed by purchasers of
a specialty roofing product in the United States Bankruptcy
Court for the District of Delaware.

Three purchasers of a specialty roofing product initially filed
proofs of claim in the aggregate amount of $275 million on
behalf of themselves individually and on behalf of a purported
class of pre-petition claimants with respect to such product,
and have moved the Court to certify such class. The Court has
continued class certification for pre-petition claimants pending
mediation of the claims.

In addition, the Company has been named a defendant in a
purported class action, originally filed in the Superior Court
for the County of San Joaquin, California, on behalf of post-
petition claimants with respect to such product.  Subsequently,
the company removed the California proceeding to the United
States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of California
(CBC), and the CBC, upon the Company's motion, ordered that the
proceeding be transferred to the Delaware Bankruptcy court.


RELIANT ENERGY: Faces $50 Bil Environmental Lawsuit in Ontario
--------------------------------------------------------------
Reliant Energy Inc. is the subject of a $50 billion
environmental class action lawsuit in Ontario, according to the
company's regulatory filings with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission, The Globe and Mail reports.

In the filings, the energy company stated, "We received notice
of a class action lawsuit filed in Superior Court in Ontario,
Canada against us and approximately 20 other utility and power
generation companies alleging various claims relating to
environmental emissions from coal-fired power generation
facilities in the United States and Canada. We have not yet been
served in the lawsuit."

The filings revealed that the lawsuit is alleging damages of
approximately $50 billion, with continuing damages of about $4
billion annually. It also claims entitlement to punitive and
exemplary damages of $1 billion. The plaintiffs were not named
in Reliant's filing though.

Additionally, the company stated in the filings, "We are not in
a position at this time to assess what impact, if any, an
adverse decision might have on our results of operations,
financial condition and cash flows. However, we are confident
that we have operated and continue to operate our coal-fired
generation facilities in material compliance with all applicable
federal and state environmental regulations."


SOUTHLAND TITLE: Reaches Settlement For CA Representative Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Southland Title Corporation, a subsidiary of Landamerica
Financial Group, Inc., reached a settlement for the
representative suit filed against it in the Los Angeles Superior
Court in California, under Case No. BC-280961.

On September 5, 2002, Thomas Branick and Ardra Campbell filed a
representative suit on behalf of the general public against the
Company, pleading causes of action for unfair competition
(California Business and Professions Code Sections 17200, et.
seq.) and unfair business practices (California Business and
Professions Code Sections 17500, et. seq.).  The suit generally
alleges that the Company improperly charged its customers for
recording documents incident to real estate transactions and
overcharged its customers for administrative fees. Plaintiffs
seek injunctive relief and restitution.

On September 3, 2004, the trial court granted the Company's
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and on September 16, 2004
entered a final judgment dismissing this case. On November 15,
2004, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal of the judgment. The
parties executed a settlement agreement that provides for
injunctive relief and a cash payment of $75,000 for attorneys'
fees and costs. The appeal was dismissed by the Second District
of the California Court of Appeals on June 13, 2005.  On June
24, 2005, Plaintiffs filed a dismissal with prejudice with the
Los Angeles Superior Court.  The attorneys' fees and costs have
been paid.


UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Regents Sued Over Professional Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
Andrea Luquetta is the lead plaintiff in a class action, filed
recently against the University of California Regents, which
accuses them breaking their promise to not raise professional
fees for students who started law school in 2003, The Recorder
reports.

According to the third-year student at UCLA School of Law, "I
think that every time they increase the cost, it makes it harder
for low-income people to access education. The increases make
public-interest law only available to very few people who can
afford it. It is a disservice to low-income students and low-
income communities."

Her suit, Luquetta v. UC Regents, 05-443007, is the second class
action brought in the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of San Francisco against UC by students who see the
latest fee increases as not just a betrayal but a breach of
contract.

As previously reported in July 19, 2005 edition of the Class
Action Reporter, the suit, which was filed in San Francisco
Superior Court, alleges breach of contract by UC for raising
fees in 2004-05 for previously enrolled professional school
students specifically those in advanced graduate programs such
as medicine, business and law.

Additionally, the suit challenges additional fee increases UC's
governing board of regents approved for 2005-06. The suit states
that those increases, coupled with an earlier one, would raise
most professional school fees 10 percent during the next two
years and would boost a separate educational fee. Additionally,
the suit contends that professional school students enrolled
since fall 2003 should be exempt from the increases because UC
literature promised their fees would remain constant throughout
their studies.

The latest suit is similar to another one that was filed in
2003, which seeks to exempt professional school students
enrolled prior to December 2002 from higher fees, also because
they were promised a constant fee. That case, styled, Kashmiri
v. Regents is yet to be heard in court, but an injunction that
was granted by San Francisco Judge James Warren has prevented UC
from collecting the higher fees while the case proceeds. The
plaintiffs in the case though recently filed a motion for
summary judgment. Mohammad Kashmiri is the lead plaintiff in the
first class action.

In both cases, the plaintiffs are not seeking damages, instead
they want only to not pay the fee increases and to be refunded
any increases already paid. In the Kashmiri case alone, that
would cost UC about $55 million, according to Ravi Poorsini,
spokeswoman for the University of California Office of the
President. There has been no request to recover legal costs,
since the students' attorneys are working pro bono.

Jonathan Weissglass, of Altshuler, Berzon, Nussbaum, Rubin &
Demain, and counsel for the plaintiffs in both cases told The
Recorder, "I'm certainly hoping the university will be held to
the promise it made to its students. They made decisions based
on cost and then get socked with thousands of dollars of fees
they were promised they wouldn't have to pay."

The plaintiffs claim that they entered a contract with the
university when they accepted admission based on information
they'd been provided. They pointed out to the 2002 and 2003
Boalt Hall School of Law catalogs and applications, which state
that "the professional degree fee remains at the same level for
the three years in which the student is enrolled in the
program."

University officials cite statements found throughout school
publications and on the Internet, which warn students that "all
fees are subject to change." In the Kashmiri cased though, Judge
Warren found those statements too broad and not applicable to
the professional degree fee.

UC officials contend that they had no choice but to raise fees.
According to university counsel Christopher Patti, "The
University is faced with the problem of either cutting programs
and undermining education in either the short or long term or
increasing fees." Mr. Patti also says that the class actions
only make things worse explaining, "The main effect of the
lawsuits and injunctions and any possible damages awarded is the
shift of the cost of the plaintiffs' education to other
students." He has hired Howard, Rice, Nemerovski, Canady, Falk &
Rabkin to represent the Regents in both suits.

The latest suit is styled, Luquetta v. UC Regents, 05-443007,
which was filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of San Francisco. The plaintiffs are
represented by the Jonathan Weissglass, of Altshuler, Berzon,
Nussbaum, Rubin & Demain, 117 Post St., Suite 300, San
Francisco, CA, 94108, Phone: (415) 421-7151, Fax:
(415) 362-8064. The defendant is represented by the Howard,
Rice, Nemerovski, Canady, Falk & Rabkin, Three Embarcadero
Center, Seventh Floor, San Francisco, CA, 94111-4024, Phone:
415-434-1600, Fax: 415-217-5910, Web site:
http://www.howardrice.com.

For more details, visit
http://www.educationisaright.org/Luquetta%20Complaint.pdf.


WALT DISNEY: DE Judge Rules in Board's Favor in Ovitz Case
----------------------------------------------------------
A Delaware judge ruled that Walt Disney Company directors
weren't negligent in the handling of the hiring and firing of
former executive Michael Ovitz, The Street.com reports.

The victory for the company comes in a class action lawsuit that
accused the directors of putting their allegiance to CEO Michael
Eisner ahead of their duties to look out for shareholders. The
money Disney lavished on the former Hollywood talent agent over
his brief tenure at the Burbank, California media giant, sparked
the suit.

Court papers revealed that the board gave Mr. Ovitz cash
payments of $39 million and stock options worth over $101
million for just 14 months' work in the mid-1990s. The episode
fueled growing investor disenchantment with Mr. Eisner's
imperial rule. Mr. Eisner agreed last fall to step aside a year
early for successor Bob Iger, who has won over many former foes
of the company.

As previously reported in the October 19, 2005 edition of the
Class Action Reporter, the class action lawsuit, which was
brought by shareholders in Delaware's Court of Chancery, seeks
$200 million from Mr. Ovitz and the board, claiming he should
have been fired, rather than awarded the severance package.

According to the suit, Disney Chief Executive Michael Eisner
engineered the deal to hire his friend Mr. Ovitz, one of
Hollywood's most powerful talent agents and co-founder of
Creative Artists Agency, as president.

Steven Schulman, the head Milberg Weiss attorney representing
shareholders says directors gave the deal a cosmetic glance and
approved it, including the severance package.

Mr. Eisner's lawyer, Gary Naftalis stated previously that their
goal in the recently concluded four-week trial is to convince
the judge that Disney's board members were on the right track
when they approved the contract. Mr. Naftalis further adds, "We
plan to show that the board was fully involved in all matters
concerning Michael Ovitz's employment contract and dismissal and
that upon termination Mr. Ovitz received not one penny more than
his contract required."

Mr. Schulman though argued that Mr. Ovitz during his tenure was
untrustworthy, unethical and unable to delegate. He previously
revealed that he has evidence to prove his clients' allegations
which range from Mr. Ovitz giving free Disneyland tickets to a
friend's child's birthday party to allegations he had financial
interests in conflict with his job at Disney.

However, Mark Epstein, of Munger Tolles & Olson, which
represents Mr. Ovitz denied that his client had misused his
power or had a conflict of interest and reiterated that his
client only walked away with his due.

The ruling caps off a trial that started last fall and ended
with Chief Chancery Court Judge William B. Chandler III finding
that the board didn't breach its fiduciary duty.

Former directors and onetime dissidents Stanley Gold and Roy
Disney commented on the ruling through a lawyer saying, "We are
pleased that the Court confirmed that we did not breach our
fiduciary duties as directors of The Walt Disney Company in
connection with the hiring and subsequent termination of Mr.
Ovitz. We have always acted in the best interests of the Company
and its shareholders."

The high-profile suit pitted Mr. Eisner against his former
friend Mr. Ovitz in a courthouse in Delaware. Mr. Eisner
testified that he hired Mr. Ovitz, a former talent agent, in
August 1995 to groom him as his successor. He said he later
decided to fire Mr. Ovitz in December 1996 after concluding that
his friend of 30 years couldn't make the transition to corporate
executive, as reported previously by Bloomberg News. During his
five days on the witness stand, Mr. Ovitz testified that Mr.
Eisner betrayed him by not giving him time to learn the
president's job before firing him.


                         Asbestos Alert

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MS Courts Name Sensus Metering in Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sensus Metering Systems-North America Inc., a subsidiary of
Sensus Metering Systems Inc., together with 200 or more other
companies, is a defendant in several lawsuits filed in
Mississippi state courts by plaintiffs alleging asbestos-related
illnesses and seeking unspecified compensatory and punitive
damages.

It is unclear whether any plaintiffs who have dealt with any of
the subsidiary's products, were exposed to an asbestos-
containing component part of a product of the subsidiary or
whether such part could have been a contributing factor to the
alleged illness.

Although the Company is entitled to indemnification for legal
and indemnity costs for asbestos claims related to these
products from certain subsidiaries of Invensys PLC, under the
stock purchase agreement pursuant to which the Company acquired
Invensys Metering Systems, such indemnities, when accumulated
with other indemnity claims, are limited to the purchase price
paid by the Company in connection with the Acquisition.

The Raleigh, NC-based Company is, from time to time, party to
legal proceedings arising out of the operations of its business.
The Company believes that an adverse outcome of its existing
legal proceedings would not have a material adverse impact on
its business, financial condition or results of operations.

A leading manufacturer of water and wastewater treatment
products, Sensus Metering Systems Inc., serves municipal and
industrial markets including computer software, meters,
turbines, encoders, and instrumentation.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EnPro Reports 35% Claims Decrease from 2Q04
----------------------------------------------------------------
In a recent report filed by EnPro Industries Inc., the Company
posts 2,200 new asbestos-related cases filed in the second
quarter of 2005, a 35% drop from the same period in 2004.

The decline in new filings, the continued resolution of
significant numbers of claims and increased dismissals of claims
as the result of state reforms contributed to a 10% decrease in
the number of claims remaining to 123,200 at the end of the
second quarter of 2005 from 137,500 at the end of the first
quarter of 2005.

"The downward trends in claims and the improvement in cash flows
are encouraging and a reflection of the effectiveness of our
settlement strategy," said Ernie Schaub, Company president and
CEO. "We will continue to pursue our strategy to minimize the
effect of asbestos claims on our cash flows. At the same time,
we continue to support the FAIR Act and urge its passage as a
way to provide a certain and equitable solution for both victims
and defendants."

Charlotte, NC-based EnPro Industries, Inc. (NYSE: NPO) is a
leading provider of engineered industrial products for
processing, general manufacturing and other industries
worldwide.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: AWI Records US$3.2 Billion Liability Claim  
---------------------------------------------------------------
Armstrong World Industries Inc., a subsidiary of Armstrong
Holdings Inc. (OTC: ACKHQ), records its asbestos-related
liability for personal injury claims of about US$3.2 billion at
June 30, 2005 and December 31, 2004.  

The estimated amount represents the liability that is implied
based upon the negotiated resolution reflected in the Plan of
Reorganization, the total consideration expected to be paid to
the Asbestos PI Trust pursuant to the POR and an assumption for
this purpose that the recovery value percentage for the allowed
claims of the Asbestos PI Trust is equal to the estimated
recovery value percentage for the allowed non-asbestos unsecured
claims.

Based upon events through early March 2003, primarily the
parties' agreement on the basic terms of the Plan of
Reorganization's treatment of AWI's asbestos-related
liabilities, management concluded that it could reasonably
estimate its probable liability for AWI's current and future
asbestos-related personal injury claims.

AWI is unable to predict whether the POR will be confirmed or
when AWI would emerge from Chapter 11.  Therefore, the timing
and terms of resolution of the Chapter 11 Case remain uncertain.
As long as this uncertainty exists, future changes to the
recorded asbestos-related liability are possible and could be
material to AWI's financial position and the results of its
operations.

Based in Lancaster, PA, Armstrong Holdings, Inc., through its
subsidiary, Armstrong World Industries, Inc., designs and
manufactures flooring, ceilings, and cabinets to serve the
construction sector worldwide.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: USG Subsidiary Defends 100,000 Lawsuits
------------------------------------------------------------
A USG Corporation subsidiary, US Gypsum Co, currently defends
more than 100,000 asbestos lawsuits alleging personal injury or
property damage liability seeking compensatory and, in most
cases, punitive damages.

US Gypsum's asbestos liability derives from its sale of several
asbestos-containing products beginning in the late 1920s.  The
products were discontinued or asbestos was removed from the
formula by 1972, and no asbestos-containing products were
produced after 1978.

In addition to the Personal Injury Cases pending against US
Gypsum, L&W Supply and Beadex Manufacturing LLC, have been named
as defendants in a small number of asbestos personal injury
cases.

The Official Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants,
the legal representative for future asbestos claimants, and the
Official Committee of Asbestos Property Damage Claimants have
also asserted in a court filing that all of the Debtors are
liable for the asbestos liabilities of AP Green Refractories Co.

The amount of the Debtors' present and future asbestos
liabilities is the subject of significant dispute in Debtors'
Chapter 11 Cases. If the amount of the Debtors' asbestos
liabilities is not resolved through negotiation in the Chapter
11 Cases or addressed by federal legislation, the amount of
those liabilities may be determined through litigation
proceedings in the Chapter 11 Cases.

USG Corporation (NYSE: USG), through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and distributes building materials.  Its products
are used for various applications, such as interior walls,
ceilings, and floors in residential, commercial, and
institutional construction, as well as for industrial uses.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: UCC Discloses US$1.5 Bil Asbestos Liability
----------------------------------------------------------------
Union Carbide Corporation divulged its asbestos-related
liability for pending and future claims at US$1.5 billion in
June 30, 2005 and US$1.6 billion in December 31, 2004.

For June 30, 2005, about 39% of the recorded liability is
related to pending claims and about 61% related to future
claims. For December 31, 2004, about 37% of the recorded
liability is related to pending and about 63% related to future
claims.

The Corporation is and has been involved in asbestos-related
suits filed mainly in state courts during the past three
decades, seeking actual and punitive damages.  In many cases,
plaintiffs are unable to validate that they have suffered any
compensable loss as a result of exposure, or that injuries
incurred in fact resulted from exposure to the Corporation's
products.

On December 31, 2002, the Corporation increased the receivable
for asbestos liability related insurance recoveries to US$1.35
billion.  The insurance receivable related to the asbestos
liability was determined after a thorough review of applicable
insurance policies and the 1985 Wellington Agreement, to which
the Corporation and many of its liability insurers are signatory
parties, as well as other insurance settlements, with due
consideration given to applicable deductibles, retentions and
policy limits, and taking into account the solvency and
historical payment experience of various insurance carriers. The
Wellington Agreement and other agreements with insurers are
designed to facilitate an orderly resolution and collection of
the Corporation's insurance policies and to resolve issues that
the insurance carriers may raise.

The Corporation's receivable for insurance recoveries related to
its asbestos liability was US$590 million on June 30, 2005 and
US$712 million on December 31, 2004.

For June 30, 2005, US$453 million (US$543 million at December
31, 2004) of the receivable for insurance recoveries was related
to insurers that are not signatories to the Wellington Agreement
and/or do not otherwise have agreements in place regarding their
asbestos-related insurance coverage.

Union Carbide Corporation is a wholly owned subsidiary of The
Dow Chemical Company (NYSE: DOW).  It is a chemical and polymers
company that possesses some of the industry's most advanced
process and catalyst technologies and operates some of the most
cost-efficient, large-scale production facilities in the world.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Allstate Corp.'s 2Q05 Reserves at US$1.5Bil
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Allstate Corporation (NYSE: ALL) posted asbestos claims
reserves at US$1.35 billion and US$1.46 billion, net of
reinsurance recoverables of US$870 million and US$963 million on
June 30, 2005 and December 31, 2004, respectively.  

The Northbrook, IL-based Company posted environmental claims
reserves at US$221 million and US$232 million, net of
reinsurance recoverables of US$45 million and US$49 million on
June 30, 2005 and December 31, 2004, respectively.  

About 63% and 62% of the total net asbestos and environmental
reserves at June 30, 2005 and December 31, 2004, respectively,
were for incurred but not reported estimated losses.

Management believes its net loss reserves for environmental,
asbestos and other discontinued lines exposures are sufficiently
established based on available facts, technology, laws and
regulations.  However, establishing net loss reserves for
asbestos, environmental and other discontinued lines claims is
subject to uncertainties that are greater than those presented
by other types of claims.  

Management believes these issues are not likely to be resolved
in the near future, and the ultimate cost may vary materially
from the amounts currently recorded resulting in an increase in
loss reserves.  While the Company believes that improved
actuarial techniques and databases have assisted in its ability
to estimate asbestos, environmental, and other discontinued
lines net loss reserves, these refinements may subsequently
prove to be inadequate indicators of the extent of probable
losses.  

Founded in 1931, The Allstate Corporation sells 13 major lines
of insurance, including auto, property, life and commercial. The
Company offers retirement and investment products and banking
services. It became a publicly traded company in 1993.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NL Industries Named in 490 Injury Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
NL Industries Inc. (NYSE: NL) defends about 490 pending lawsuits
with about 14,500 plaintiffs and their spouses that claim
personal injuries for occupational exposure to products
manufactured by previous Company operations containing asbestos,
silica or mixed dust, in the recent 10-Q report submitted to the
Securities and Exchange Commission.  

The Dallas, TX-based Company has not accrued any amounts for
this litigation because liability that might result to it cannot
be reasonably estimated.  The Company has continually received
notices regarding asbestos or silica claims purporting to be
brought against former subsidiaries, including notices provided
to insurers with which the Company has entered into settlements
extinguishing certain insurance policies.

The Company believes that the disposition of all claims and
disputes, individually or in the aggregate, should not have a
material adverse effect on its consolidated financial position,
results of operations or liquidity.

NL Industries, Inc. operates through its majority-owned
subsidiary, CompX International, Inc.  The Company owns a
significant interest in Kronos Worldwide, Inc., a global
producer and marketer of value-added titanium dioxide pigments.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 3M Co. Discloses 56,300 Injury Claimants
-------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company (NYSE: MMM) revealed that, as of June 30, 2005, it
defends lawsuits in various courts that purport to assert claims
by about 56,300 individual claimants, according to the latest
10-Q report submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission.

For more than 25 years, the St. Paul, MN-based Company has
defended and resolved the claims of over 350,000 individual
claimants alleging injuries from occupational dust exposures.

The Company increased its reserves during the second quarter of
2005 by US$30 million to US$242 million and increased its
receivables for insurance recoveries by US$15 million to US$452
million related to this litigation.  

On June 30, 2005, the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas issued a ruling imposing sanctions on
a law firm representing numerous plaintiffs in the consolidated
proceedings involving about 7,600 silica-related claims that had
been removed to the federal court from state courts in
Mississippi and elsewhere.  The Court's opinion criticized the
x-ray screening and recruitment practices by the plaintiffs'
lawyers, the screening companies and the physicians they
employed and remanded almost all of the cases to the state
courts where they had initially been filed.

The majority of the lawsuits resolved by and currently pending
against the Company allege use of some of the Company's mask and
respirator products and seek damages from the Company and other
defendants for alleged personal injury from workplace exposures
to asbestos, silica, coal or other occupational dusts, found in
products manufactured by other defendants or generally in the
workplace.

The remaining claimants generally allege personal injury from
occupational exposure to asbestos from products previously
manufactured by the Company, which are often unspecified, and by
other defendants, or occasionally at Company premises.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MSA Faces About 2,800 Liability Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mine Safety Appliances Co. (NYSE: MSA), a safety equipment and
systems manufacturer, revealed that it currently faces about
2,800 lawsuits involving respiratory protection products
allegedly manufactured and sold by the Company.

These lawsuits represent a total of about 33,000 plaintiffs.
About 90% of these lawsuits involve plaintiffs alleging they
suffer from silicosis, with the rest alleging they suffer from
other or combined injuries, including asbestosis. These lawsuits
typically allege that these conditions resulted in part from
respirators that were negligently designed or manufactured by
the Pittsburgh, PA-based Company.

The number of asserted claim that could potentially involve the
Company has increased. It cannot determine its potential maximum
liability for such claims, in part because the defendants in
these lawsuits are often numerous, and the claims generally do
not specify the amount of damages sought.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Manitowoc Company Defends Injury Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Manitowoc Company, Inc. (NYSE: MTW) confronts numerous
lawsuits involving asbestos-related claims in which the Company
is one of numerous defendants, in the second quarter report
submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission.  

After taking into consideration legal counsel's evaluation of
such actions, the current political environment with respect to
asbestos related claims, and the liabilities accrued with
respect to such matters, in the opinion of management, ultimate
resolution is not expected to have a material adverse effect on
the financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows of
the Company.

Headquartered in Manitowoc, Wisconsin, The Manitowoc Company,
Inc. engages in the manufacture and sale of cranes, foodservice
equipment, and marine equipment worldwide.  The Company operates
in three segments: Cranes and Related Products, Foodservice
Equipment, and Marine.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MetLife Inc. Receives 9,110 Claims in 2Q05
---------------------------------------------------------------
MetLife Inc. (NYSE: MET) reported that, during the first six
months of 2005 and 2004, the Company received about 9,110 and
12,900 asbestos-related claims, respectively.

The New York, NY-based insurer defends thousands of lawsuits
seeking compensatory and punitive damages for personal injuries
allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos or asbestos-containing
products. The Company has never engaged in the business of
manufacturing, producing, distributing or selling asbestos or
asbestos-containing products nor has it issued liability or
workers' compensation insurance to companies in the business of
manufacturing, producing, distributing or selling asbestos or
asbestos-containing products.

These lawsuits principally have been based upon allegations
relating to certain research, publication and other activities
of one or more of MetLife's employees during the period from the
1920's through about the 1950's and have alleged that the
Company learned or should have learned of certain health risks
posed by asbestos and, improperly publicized or failed to
disclose those health risks.  

MetLife continues to study its claims experience, review
external literature regarding asbestos claims experience in the
United States and consider numerous variables that can affect
its asbestos liability exposure, including bankruptcies of other
companies involved in asbestos litigation and legislative and
judicial developments, to identify trends and to assess their
impact on the recorded asbestos liability.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Honeywell Concludes 74,000 Bendix Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc. (NYSE: HON) resolved about 74,000
of subsidiary Bendix Commercial Vehicle Systems LLC's asbestos
claims including trials covering 120 plaintiffs, which resulted
in 115 favorable verdicts, from 1981 through June 30, 2005.

Trials covering five individuals resulted in adverse verdicts;
however, two of these verdicts were reversed on appeal and the
remaining three claims were settled.

The Morristown, NJ-based Company defends personal injury actions
related to asbestos. The Company did not mine or produce
asbestos, nor did it make or sell insulation products or other
construction materials that have been identified as the primary
cause of asbestos related disease in the majority of claimants.

A leader in diversified technology and manufacturing, Honeywell
International Inc. serves customers worldwide with aerospace
products and services; control technologies for buildings, homes
and industry; automotive products; turbochargers; and specialty
materials.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Owens Corning Faces Personal Injury Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Numerous claims have been asserted against Owens Corning (OTC:
OWENQ) alleging personal injuries arising from inhalation of
asbestos fibers arising out of the Company's manufacture,
distribution, sale or installation of an asbestos-containing
calcium silicate, high temperature insulation product, which was
discontinued in 1972.

The Toledo, OH-based building materials manufacturer received
about 18,000 asbestos personal injury claims during 2000, about
32,000 such claims during 1999 and about 69,000 such claims
during 1998. Owens Corning cautions that it has limited
information about many of such claims, and the actual numbers of
claims asserted remain subject to adjustment.

Owens Corning expects that all pending and future asbestos
claims against it and Fibreboard Corp. will be resolved pursuant
to a plan or plans of reorganization. The Company is unable to
determine at this time whether asbestos-related claims asserted
against Fibreboard will be treated in the same manner as those
asserted against Owens Corning in any such plan or plans
ultimately confirmed.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ampco-Pittsburgh Corp Battles 16,600 Claims  
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation (NYSE: AP), and its subsidiaries,
faces allegations in various courts of personal injury from
exposure to asbestos-containing components formerly used in some
products of certain of the Corporation's subsidiaries.  

Of about 16,600 claims pending as of June 30, 2005, over 8,600
were made in five lawsuits filed in Mississippi in 2002.  
Substantially all settlement and defense costs in the above
table were paid by insurers.

Based on the Corporation's claims experience to date with the
underlying asbestos claims, the available insurance coverage and
the identity of the subsidiaries that are named in the cases,
the Corporation believes that the pending legal proceedings will
not have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial
condition or liquidity.  

The outcome of particular lawsuits, however, could be material
to the consolidated results of operations of the period in which
the costs, if any, are recognized.

Three business segments carry out the Pittsburgh, PA-based
Corporation's principal activities: Forged and Cast Rolls, Air
and Liquid Processing and Plastics Processing Machinery.  Forged
& Cast Roll accounted for 45% of 2002 revenues; Air & Liquid
Processing, 43% and Plastics Processing Machinery, 12%.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hanson Posts 6,700 New Claims for 2Q 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------
In a recent filing submitted to the Securities and Exchange
Commission, Hanson PLC reported about 6,700 new asbestos
claimants in the first half of 2005 (11,700).

The Company posted resolutions for the same period at about
8,850 (3,500), over 90% of which were dismissals (70%).
Outstanding claimants at the half-year were about 133,600,
compared to 135,750 at the end of December 2004.

First half gross costs were US$22.2 million, compared to US$32.0
million in the first half and US$27.3 million in the second
half, of 2004. US$6.8 million of the insurance asset was
utilized in the period, giving a net cost before tax of US$15.4
million (US$2.6m). The annual gross cost is assumed to average
$60 million over the next eight years, equivalent to
approximately GBP20 million post-tax. The charge for the half-
year is therefore US$30 million, or about GBP10 million post-
tax. This is funded by the group's annual net cash flow from
operating activities, which was GBP507.5 million last year. The
closing gross cost provision at June 30, 2005 was US$487.8
million before insurance, tax and discounting.

The London-based building materials Company supports Federal
reform but believes that the likelihood of success remains
uncertain given the complexities involved and the political
nature of the process. The Company's subsidiaries will continue
to litigate and negotiate for additional insurance cover and
will look to settle only those cases with proven disease and
product identification.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cooper Industries Ltd. Assumes Abex Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cooper Industries Ltd. (NYSE: CBE) is subject to various suits,
legal proceedings and claims that arise in the normal course of
business.

While it is not feasible to predict the outcome of these matters
with certainty, management is of the opinion that their ultimate
disposition should not have a material adverse effect on
Cooper's financial statements.

In October 1998, Cooper sold its Automotive Products business to
Federal-Mogul Corp. These discontinued businesses (including the
Abex product line obtained from Pneumo-Abex Corp in 1994) were
operated through subsidiary companies, and the stock of those
subsidiaries was sold to Federal-Mogul pursuant to a Purchase
and Sale Agreement dated August 17, 1998.

From August 28, 1998 through June 30, 2005, a total of 135,971
Abex Claims were filed, of which 94,292 claims have been
resolved leaving 41,679 Abex Claims pending at June 30, 2005,
that are the responsibility of Federal-Mogul.  

During the three months ended June 30, 2005, 1,756 claims were
filed and 6,931 claims were resolved. Since August 28, 1998, the
average indemnity payment for resolved Abex Claims was US$2,130
before insurance.

A total of US$72.4 million was spent on defense costs for the
period August 28, 1998 through June 30, 2005. Existing insurance
coverage has provided 50% to 80% of the total defense and
indemnity payments for Abex Claims.

While the Houston, TX-based Company believes that the insurance
has significant additional value, extensive litigation with the
insurance carriers and other parties that have access to the
insurance may be required to receive recoveries and there is
risk that court decisions could reduce the value of the
recoveries.

The assumptions on liability payments could prove inaccurate
over time. If Cooper is unable to reach a settlement with the
Representatives and the 1998 Agreement is rejected, Cooper would
be required to reflect an accrual for the asbestos liability and
a related receivable for the probable insurance recoveries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Reynolds American Holds One Pending Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. (NYSE: RAI) disclosed that as of July 15,
2005, one lawsuit was pending against RJR Tobacco and Brown &
Williamson in which asbestos companies and asbestos-related
trust funds allege that they "overpaid" claims brought against
them.  These companies claim that tobacco use, not asbestos
exposure, was the cause of the alleged personal injuries for
which they paid compensation.

On May 24, 2001, a Mississippi state court judge dismissed all
such claims by Owens-Corning in Estate of Ezell Thomas v. RJR
Tobacco Co. Owens-Corning appealed the dismissal to the
Mississippi Supreme Court on August 15, 2001, which, on March
18, 2004, affirmed the trial court's dismissal.  In Fibreboard
Corp. v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case pending in state
court in California, Owens-Corning and Fibreboard asserted the
same claims as those asserted in the Mississippi case.  Motions
to dismiss those claims have been stayed indefinitely.

In June 2004, the contribution claims in three separate cases
were voluntarily dismissed, leaving the cases pending as to the
claims of the individual plaintiffs only.  These cases are
Kaiser Aluminum, Chemical Corp. v. R.J.R. Tobacco Holdings,
Inc., TN, Ltd., R.J.Reynolds Tobacco Co. and Gasket Holdings
f.k.a. Flexitallic Inc. v. RJR Nabisco, Inc.

R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings and Brown & Williamson merged in
2004 to create Reynolds American.  Increasing competition and
the need to cut costs encouraged the #2 US tobacco Company to
merge with #3 Brown & Williamson.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crown Cork & Seal Receives 6,000 New Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crown Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: CCK) stated that its operating
subsidiary, still known as Crown Cork & Seal Company, a
global producer of consumer packaging, is one of many
defendants in a significant number of lawsuits filed throughout
the United States by persons alleging bodily injury as a result
of asbestos exposure.

These claims arose from the insulation operations of a US
company, the majority of whose stock Crown Cork purchased in
1963.  About ninety days after the stock purchase, this US
Company sold its insulation assets and was later merged into
Crown Cork.

During the six months ended June 30, 2005, Crown Cork received
about 6,000 new claims, settled or dismissed about 2,000 claims
for a total of US$5 million and had about 78,000 outstanding
claims at the end of the period.  

As of June 30, the Company's accrual for pending and future
asbestos-related claims was US$223 million.  The Company
estimates that its probable and estimable liability for pending
and future asbestos-related claims will range between US$223
million and US$341 million.  The accrual balance of US$223
million includes US$104 million for unasserted claims and US$9
million for committed settlements that will be paid over time.

Prior to 1998, the amounts paid to asbestos claimants were
covered by a fund made available to Crown Cork under a 1985
settlement with carriers insuring Crown Cork through 1976, when
Crown Cork became self-insured. The fund was depleted in 1998
and the Company has no remaining coverage for asbestos-related
costs.

In May 2005, January 2005 and April 2004, the States of Florida,
Ohio and Mississippi, respectively, enacted legislation that
limits the asbestos-related liabilities under state law of
companies such as Crown Cork that allegedly incurred these
liabilities because they are successors by corporate merger to
companies that had been involved with asbestos.  The new
legislation caps asbestos-related liabilities at the fair market
value of the predecessor's total gross assets adjusted for
inflation.  Crown Cork has paid significantly more for asbestos-
related claims than the total adjusted value of its
predecessor's assets.  Crown Cork has integrated the legislation
into its claims defense strategy.  The Company cautions,
however, that the legislation may be challenged and there can be
no assurance regarding the ultimate effect of the legislation on
Crown Cork.
  
Historically (1977-2004), Crown Cork estimates that about one-
quarter of all asbestos-claimants who claim first exposure to
asbestos after 1964 have asserted related claims made against
it.  However, because of Crown Cork's settlement experience to
date and the increased difficulty of establishing identification
of the subsidiary's insulation products as the cause of injury
by persons alleging first exposure to asbestos after 1964, the
Company has not included in its accrual and range of potential
liability any amounts for settlements by persons alleging first
exposure to asbestos after 1964.
    
While it is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome of the
asbestos-related claims and settlements, the Company believes
that resolution of these matters is not expected to have a
material adverse effect on the Company's financial position.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MeadWestvaco Discloses 250 Asbestos Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
MeadWestvaco Corporation (NYSE: MVW), a packaging company and
paper products manufacturer, has been named a defendant in
asbestos-related personal injury litigation which also name many
other corporate defendants.  As of July 31, 2005, there were
about 250 lawsuits.

All of the claims against the Stamford, CT-based Company
resolved to date have been concluded before trial, either
through dismissal or through settlement with payments to the
plaintiff that are not material to the Company.  

Management believes that the Company has substantial
indemnification protection and insurance coverage, subject to
applicable deductibles and policy limits, with respect to
asbestos claims. The Company has valid defenses to these claims
and intends to continue to defend them vigorously.

As of June 30, 2005, the Company has litigation liabilities of
about US$29 million, a significant portion of which relates to
asbestos.

Should the volume of litigation grow substantially, it is
possible that the company could incur significant costs
resolving these cases.  In any given period, however, it is
possible such proceedings or matters could have a material
effect on the results of operations.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Former M&F Subsidiary Named in Lawsuits
------------------------------------------------------------
In its latest filing submitted to the Securities and Exchange
Commission, M&F Worldwide Corporation (NYSE: MFW) declared that
a former subsidiary, Pneumo Abex has been named, with 10 to as
many as 100 or more other companies, as a defendant in various
personal injury lawsuits claiming damages relating to asbestos
exposure.

Pursuant to indemnification agreements, PepsiAmericas, Inc.,
formerly known as Whitman Corporation (the "Original
Indemnitor"), has ultimate responsibility for all the remaining
asbestos-related claims asserted against Pneumo Abex through
August 1998 and for certain asbestos-related claims asserted
thereafter.

In connection with the sale by Abex in December 1994 of its
Friction Products Division, a subsidiary (the "Second
Indemnitor") of Cooper Industries, Inc. (the "Indemnity
Guarantor") assumed responsibility for substantially all
asbestos-related claims asserted against Pneumo Abex after
August 1998 and not indemnified by the Original Indemnitor.
Federal-Mogul Corporation purchased the Second Indemnitor in
October 1998.

In October 2001, the Second Indemnitor filed a petition under
Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code and stopped performing
its indemnity obligations to the Company.

Pneumo Abex's former subsidiary maintained product liability
insurance covering substantially all of the period during which
asbestos-containing products were manufactured. The subsidiary
commenced litigation in 1982 against a portion of these insurers
in order to confirm the availability of this coverage.

As a result of settlements in that litigation, other coverage
agreements with other carriers and payments by the Original
Indemnitor, the Second Indemnitor and the Indemnity Guarantor
pursuant to their indemnities, Pneumo Abex is receiving
reimbursement each month for substantially all of its monthly
expenditures for asbestos-related claims.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Allmerica Posts US$25.3M Reserves in 2Q05
--------------------------------------------------------------
Although Allmerica Financial Corporation (NYSE: AFC) does not
specifically underwrite policies that include asbestos,
environmental damage and toxic tort liability; it may be
required to defend such claims.

Ending loss and LAE reserves for all direct business written by
Allmerica's property and casualty companies related to asbestos,
environmental damage and toxic tort liability, were US$25.3
million and US$24.7 million at June 30, 2005 and December 31,
2004, respectively, net of reinsurance of US$16.1 million and
US$16.3 million at June 30, 2005 and December 31, 2004,
respectively.

Allmerica has established loss and LAE reserves for assumed
reinsurance and pool business with asbestos, environmental
damage and toxic tort liability of US$48.0 million and US$48.2
million at June 30, 2005 and December 31, 2004, respectively.

These reserves relate to pools in which Allmerica has terminated
its participation; however, Allmerica continues to be subject to
claims related to years in which it participated.

A significant part of Allmerica's pool reserves relates to its
participation in the Excess and Casualty Reinsurance Association
voluntary pool from 1950 to 1982.  In 1982, the pool was
dissolved and since that time, the business has been in runoff.

Allmerica's percentage of the total pool liabilities varied from
1.15% to 6.00% during these years.  Its participation in this
pool has resulted in average paid losses of US$2.0 million
annually over the past ten years.  

Allmerica estimates its ultimate liability for asbestos, whether
resulting from direct business or assumed reinsurance and pool
business, environmental and toxic tort liability claims based
upon currently known facts, reasonable assumptions where the
facts are not known, current law and methodologies currently
available.

The Worcester, MA-based Company believes that, notwithstanding
the evolution of case law expanding liability in asbestos and
environmental claims, recorded reserves related to these claims
are adequate.  In addition, Allmerica is not aware of any
litigation or pending claims that are expected to result in
additional material liabilities in excess of recorded reserves.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hartford Faces More Personal Injury Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. (NYSE: HIG)
continues to receive asbestos and environmental claims that
relate primarily to bodily injuries asserted by people who came
in contact with asbestos or products containing asbestos.

It is unknown whether potential Federal asbestos-related
legislation will be enacted or what its effect would be on the
Company's aggregate asbestos liabilities.

The reporting pattern for assumed reinsurance claims, including
those related to asbestos and environmental claims, is much
longer than for direct claims.  The delay in reporting
reinsurance claims and exposures adds to the uncertainty of
estimating the related reserves.

The Company believes the actuarial tools and other techniques it
employs to estimate the ultimate cost of claims for more
traditional kinds of insurance exposure are less precise in
estimating reserves for its asbestos and environmental
exposures.  For this reason, the Company relies on exposure-
based analysis to estimate the ultimate costs of these claims
and regularly evaluates new information in assessing its
potential asbestos and environmental exposures.

The Hartford, CT-based Company is a leading provider of
investment products, life insurance and group and employee
benefits; automobile and homeowners products; and business
insurance.  It is the largest seller of individual annuities in
the US and has been a provider of auto and homeowners insurance
to members of AARP since 1984.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Goodyear Resolves 28,600 Asbestos Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company (NYSE: GT) is a defendant in
numerous lawsuits alleging various asbestos-related personal
injuries purported to result from alleged asbestos exposure in
certain rubber encapsulated products or aircraft braking systems
manufactured by the Company in the past, or to asbestos in
certain of its facilities.

The Company has disposed of about 28,600 claims by defending and
obtaining the dismissal thereof or by entering into a
settlement.  The sum of its accrued asbestos-related liability
and gross payments to date, including legal costs, totaled about
US$235 million through June 30, 2005 and US$226 million through
December 31, 2004.

During the second quarter of 2005, about 1,200 new claims were
filed against the Company and about 1,200 were settled or
dismissed.  The amount expended on asbestos defense and claim
resolution by the Company and its insurance carriers during the
second quarter and first six months of 2005 were US$5 million
and US$13 million, respectively.

As of June 30, 2005, the Akron, OH-based Company reported about
129,100 claims pending against it relating to alleged asbestos-
related diseases allegedly resulting from exposure to asbestos
in products manufactured by us or in materials containing
asbestos present in our facilities.  The plaintiffs are seeking
unspecified actual and punitive damages and other relief.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Harsco Corp. Reveals 31,409 Injury Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
As of June 30, 2005, Harsco Corporation (NYSE: HSE) has been
named a defendant in 31,409 legal actions alleging personal
injury from airborne asbestos exposure over the past decades.

Of these cases, 26,318 were pending in the New York Supreme
Court for New York County in New York State and 4,799 of the
cases were pending in state courts of various counties in
Mississippi.  The other claims totaling about 292 are filed in
various state and federal courts and assert lesser amounts of
damages than the NY cases or do not state any claim amount.

To date, the Company has been dismissed from 11,735 cases.

Almost all of the New York complaints contain a standard claim
for damages of US$20 million or US$25 million against about 90
defendants, regardless of the individual's alleged medical
condition, and without identifying any Company product as the
source of plaintiff's asbestos exposure.  As for Mississippi,
most cases contain a standard claim for an unstated amount of
damages against the numerous defendants (typically 240 to 270),
without naming any Company product as the source.

The Company believes that the claims against it are without
merit and has never produced, manufactured or processed asbestos
fibers.  Finally, in most of the depositions taken of plaintiffs
to date in the litigation against the Company, plaintiffs have
failed to identify any Company products as the source of their
asbestos exposure.

Based in Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, Harsco Corporation provides
high-value industrial services and engineered products to major
global industries.  The Company's market-leading businesses are
organized in four business sectors: Mill Services, Access
Services, Engineered Products and Services, and Gas
Technologies.  Operating in more than 40 countries, Harsco
employs over 18,500 people.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: SEE Posts Update on W.R. Grace Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sealed Air Corporation (NYSE: SEE) expects that the settlement
agreement between the Company and W.R. Grace & Co. will become
effective upon Grace's emergence from bankruptcy with a plan of
reorganization that is consistent with the terms of the
settlement agreement.  

Although Grace filed a proposed plan of reorganization with the
Bankruptcy Court in January 2005, the Company cannot predict
when a final plan of reorganization will become effective.

On June 27, 2005, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in the District of
Delaware, where the Grace bankruptcy case is pending, signed an
order approving the definitive settlement agreement.  Although
Grace is not a party to the settlement agreement, under the
terms of the order, Grace is directed to comply with the
settlement agreement subject to limited exceptions.  

The order also provides that the Court will retain jurisdiction
of any dispute involving the interpretation or enforcement of
the terms and provisions of the definitive settlement agreement.

On July 11, 2005, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order closing
the proceeding brought in 2002 by the committees appointed to
represent asbestos claimants in the Grace bankruptcy proceeding
against the Company without prejudice to the Company's right to
reopen the matter and renew in its sole discretion its prior
motion to vacate the July 2002 interim ruling on the legal
standards to be applied relating to the fraudulent transfer
claims against the Company.

Headquartered in Saddle Brook, NJ, Sealed Air is a leading
global manufacturer of a wide range of food and protective
packaging materials and systems.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Thomas & Betts Faces Lawsuits in Six States
----------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas and Betts Corporation (NYSE: TNB) and its subsidiary
since 1995, Amerace Corporation, are subject to asbestos
lawsuits in Mississippi, New Jersey and four other states,
related to either undefined and unidentified or historic
products.  

Amerace is one of hundreds of defendants and the Corporation is
one of dozens of defendants in each case.  No asbestos-
containing product of Amerace or the Corporation has been
identified in these cases to date.

In the Amerace cases, twenty-two lawsuits have already been
dismissed.  Potential exposure at this time cannot be estimated.  
Management believes that there is no merit to these claims, that
damages are remote and believes that a loss is not probable in
any of these cases.

As discussed in the Corporation's Annual Report on Form 10-K for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004, the Corporation's
subsidiary, L.E. Mason (Red Dot), acquired in 1999, was
previously subject to certain asbestos lawsuits.  During the
second quarter of 2005, the Corporation was dismissed, with no
liability, from all such asbestos lawsuits in which it was named
as a defendant.

Headquartered in Memphis, TN, the Corporation provides
electrical connectors, HVAC equipment, and transmission towers
to the commercial, communications, industrial, and utility
markets.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Viacom Posts 104,700 Pending Claims in 2Q05
----------------------------------------------------------------
Viacom Inc. (NYSE: VIA) is a defendant in lawsuits claiming
various personal injuries related to asbestos and other
materials, which allegedly occurred principally as a result of
exposure caused by various products manufactured by
Westinghouse, a predecessor, generally prior to the early 1970s.
Westinghouse was neither a producer nor a manufacturer of
asbestos.

As of June 30, 2005, the Company had about 104,700 pending
asbestos claims, as compared with about 112,140 as of December
31, 2004 and about 116,180 as of June 30, 2004.

Of the claims pending in the same period, about 74,700 were
pending in state courts, 27,470 in federal courts and about
2,530 were third party claims.  During the second quarter of
2005, the Company received about 2,060 new claims and closed or
moved to an inactive docket about 12,090 claims.

In most of asbestos lawsuits, the plaintiffs have not identified
which of the Company's products is the basis of a claim.  Claims
against the Company in which a product has been identified
principally relate to exposures allegedly caused by asbestos-
containing insulating material in turbines sold for power-
generation, industrial and marine use, or by asbestos-containing
grades of decorative micarta, a laminate used in commercial
ships.

Claims are frequently filed or settled in large groups, which
may make the amount and timing of settlements, and the number of
pending claims, subject to significant fluctuation from period
to period.  The Company does not report as pending those claims
on inactive, stayed, deferred or similar dockets that some
jurisdictions have established for claimants who allege minimal
or no impairment.

To date, the Company has not been liable for any third party
claims.  The Company's total recovery costs for the years 2003
and 2004 for settlement and defense of asbestos claims after
insurance recoveries and net of tax benefits were about US$58.4
million and US$(8.7) million, respectively.  A portion of such
costs relates to claims settled in prior years.

A New York, NY-based global media company, Viacom Inc. believes
that its reserves and insurance are adequate to cover its
asbestos liabilities and that these asbestos liabilities are not
likely to have a material adverse effect on its results of
operations, financial position or cash flows.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Allegheny, Affiliates Defend Injury Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Allegheny Energy, Inc. (NYSE: AYE) and several of its regulating
utilities have been named as defendants in pending asbestos
cases alleging bodily injury involving multiple plaintiffs and
multiple sites.

These suits have been brought mostly by seasonal contractors'
employees and do not involve allegations of either the
manufacture, sale or distribution of asbestos-containing
products by Allegheny.

These asbestos suits arise out of historical operations and are
related to the installation and removal of asbestos-containing
materials at Allegheny's generation facilities.  Various foreign
and domestic insurers, including Lloyd's of London, insured
Allegheny's historical operations.

Asbestos-related litigation expenses have to date been
reimbursed in full by recoveries from these historical insurers,
and Allegheny believes that it has sufficient insurance to
respond fully to the asbestos suits.  Certain insurers, however,
have contested their obligations to pay for the future defense
and settlement costs relating to the asbestos suits.

Allegheny is currently involved in two asbestos insurance-
related actions, Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London et al.
v. Allegheny Energy, Inc. et al., Case No. 21-C-03-16733
(Washington County, Md.), and Monongahela Power Company et al.
v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London and London Market
Companies, et al., Civil Action No. 03-C-281 (Monongalia County,
W.Va.).

In connection with a settlement, Allegheny received payment from
one of its insurance companies in the amount of US$625,000 on
July 5, 2005, with the next payment of US$625,000 due July 1,
2006. As part of the settlement, Allegheny released this
insurance company from potential liabilities associated with
claims against Allegheny alleging asbestos exposure.

Allegheny does not believe that the existence or pendency of
either the asbestos suits or the actions involving its insurance
will have a material impact on its consolidated financial
position, results of operations or cash flows.

Allegheny believes that it has established adequate reserves,
net of insurance receivables and recoveries, to cover existing
and future asbestos claims.  As of July 9, 2005, Allegheny had
826 open cases remaining in West Virginia, and five in
Pennsylvania.

Greensburg, PA-based Allegheny Energy, Inc. is a utility holding
company that has both regulated and unregulated operations.  Its
regulated utilities, doing business as Allegheny Power, are West
Penn Power Company (Pennsylvania); Monongahela Power Company
(Ohio and West Virginia); The Potomac Edison Company (Maryland,
Virginia, and West Virginia); and Mountaineer Gas Company (West
Virginia).


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Illinois Tool Works Named in Exposure Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Illinois Tool Works Inc. and its subsidiaries, Hobart Brothers
Company and Miller Electric Mfg. Co., have been named, along
with numerous other defendants, in lawsuits alleging injury from
exposure to welding rod fumes.

The plaintiffs in these suits claim unspecified damages for
injuries resulting from the plaintiffs' alleged exposure to
asbestos, manganese or toxic fumes in connection with the
welding process.

Based upon the Company's experience in defending these claims,
the Company believes that the resolution of these proceedings
will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's
financial position, liquidity or future operations.

Glenview, IL-based Illinois Tool Works Inc. (NYSE: ITW) designs
and produces an array of highly engineered fasteners and
components, equipment and consumable systems, and specialty
products and equipment for customers around the world. Operating
in 45 countries, the Company employs nearly 49,000 men and women
who are focused on creating value-added products and innovative
customer solutions.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hercules Inc Posts 31,670 Unresolved Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hercules Incorporated (NYSE: HPC) is a defendant in numerous
personal injury lawsuits and claims that typically arise from
alleged exposure to asbestos fibers from resin encapsulated pipe
and tank products which were sold by one of the Company's former
subsidiaries to a limited industrial market.  The Company is
also a defendant in lawsuits alleging asbestos exposure at
facilities formerly or presently owned or operated by the
Company.  

As of June 30, 2005, there were about 31,670 unresolved claims,
of which about 965 were premises claims and the rest were
products claims.  There were also about 1,750 unpaid claims,
which have been settled or are subject to the terms of a
settlement agreement.  As of June 30, 2005, there were about
1,148 claims which have either been dismissed without payment or
are in the process of being dismissed without payment, but with
plaintiffs retaining the right to re-file should they be able to
establish exposure to an asbestos-containing product for which
the Company bears liability.

Between January 1, 2005 and June 30, 2005, the Company received
about 2,555 new claims, none of which were in consolidated
complaints.

The Company has fully funded the costs associated with the
defense and settlement of its asbestos-related liabilities.  
From January 1, 2005 through June 30, 2005, the Company spent
about US$21.9 million on these matters, including about US$17.4
million in settlement payments and about US$4.5 million for
defense costs.

The amounts the Company anticipates paying to resolve those
claims which are not dismissed or otherwise resolved without
payment, and anticipated future claims, the Company believes
that the total monetary recovery under the settlements noted
above will cover the majority of the Company's monetary exposure
for its current and estimated future asbestos-related
liabilities.  


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ITT, Goulds Pumps Named in Liability Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
ITT Industries Inc. (NYSE: ITT) and its subsidiary, Goulds
Pumps, Inc. have been joined as defendants with numerous other
industrial companies in product liability lawsuits alleging
injury due to asbestos.

These claims stem primarily from products sold before 1985 that
contained a part manufactured by a third party, e.g., a gasket,
which allegedly contained asbestos.  In certain other cases, it
is alleged that former ITT companies were distributors for other
manufacturers' products that may have contained asbestos.  The
plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate any injury or do not
identify any Company or Goulds product as a source of asbestos
exposure.

In 2004, ITT and Goulds resolved in excess of 4,200 claims
through settlement or dismissal.  The average amount of
settlement per plaintiff has been nominal and substantially all
defense and settlement costs have been covered by insurance.

Management believes that these matters will not have a material
adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial position,
results of operations, or cash flows.

The White Plains, NY-based Company is the world's leading
supplier of pumps, systems and services to move, control and
treat water and other fluids.  The company is a major supplier
of sophisticated military defense systems, and provides advanced
technical and operational services to a broad range of
government agencies.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ingersoll-Rand Settles US$7.7 Mil in 2Q05
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ingersoll-Rand Company Ltd. (NYSE: IR) disclosed in its 10-Q
report to the Securities and Exchange Commission that its
subsidiary, Ingersoll-Rand Company (IR-New Jersey), along with
other companies, is a defendant in numerous asbestos-related
lawsuits in state and federal courts.

Although IR-New Jersey was neither a producer nor a manufacturer
of asbestos, some of its formerly manufactured products utilized
asbestos-containing components, such as gaskets, purchased from
third-party suppliers.  All claims resolved to date have been
dismissed or settled.

For the six months ended June 30, 2005, total costs for
settlement and defense of asbestos claims after insurance
recoveries and net of tax were about US$7.7 million as compared
to US$7.9 million for the six months ended June 30, 2004.

The Company believes that its reserves and insurance are
adequate to cover its asbestos liabilities, and that these
liabilities are not likely to have a material effect on its
financial position, results of operations, liquidity or cash
flows.

Hamilton, Bermuda-based Ingersoll-Rand Co. Ltd. is a global
innovation and solutions provider with powerful brands and
leading positions within its markets.  


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tenneco Automotive Faces Exposure Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tenneco Automotive Inc. (NYSE: TEN) is subject to a number of
lawsuits initiated by a significant number of individual
claimants alleging health problems as a result of asbestos
exposure.

Only a small percentage of these claimants allege that they were
automobile mechanics allegedly exposed to the Company's former
muffler products and a significant number appear to involve
workers in other industries or otherwise do not include
sufficient information to determine whether there is any basis
for a claim against the Company.

The Lake Forest, IL-based Company believes it is unlikely that
mechanics were exposed to asbestos by its former muffler
products and that they would not be at increased risk of
asbestos-related disease based on their work with these
products.

Many of these cases involve numerous defendants, with the number
of each in some cases exceeding 200 defendants from a variety of
industries.  As major asbestos manufacturers continue to go out
of business, the Company may experience an increased number of
these claims.

The Company vigorously defends itself against these claims as
part of its ordinary course of business.  In the future, the
Company could be subject to cash costs or non-cash charges to
earnings if any of these matters is resolved unfavorably to it.   
Accordingly, the Company presently believes that these asbestos-
related claims will not have a material adverse impact on its
future financial condition or results of operations.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: FMC Agrees to Settle US$115 Mil in Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
In 2003, Fresenius Medical Care AG (NYSE: FMS) reached agreement
with the asbestos creditors' committees on behalf of the W.R.
Grace & Co. bankruptcy estate and W.R. Grace & Co. in the
matters pending in the Grace Chapter 11 Proceedings for the
settlement of all fraudulent conveyance and tax claims against
the Company and other claims related to it that arise out of the
bankruptcy of W.R. Grace & Co.

Under the terms of the settlement agreement as amended,
fraudulent conveyance and other claims raised on behalf of
asbestos claimants will be dismissed with prejudice and the
Company will receive protection against existing and potential
future W.R. Grace & Co. related claims and indemnification
against income tax claims related to the non-NMC members of the
W.R. Grace & Co. consolidated tax group upon confirmation of a
W.R. Grace & Co. bankruptcy reorganization plan that contains
such provisions.

Under the Settlement Agreement, the Company will pay a total of
US$115 million to the W.R. Grace & Co. bankruptcy estate, or as
otherwise directed by the Court, upon plan confirmation.  No
admission of liability has been or will be made.  

Prior to and after the commencement of the Grace Chapter 11
Proceedings, class action complaints were filed against W.R.
Grace & Co. and the Company by plaintiffs claiming to be
creditors of W.R. Grace & Co.- Conn., and by the asbestos
creditors' committees on behalf of the W.R. Grace & Co.
bankruptcy estate in the Grace Chapter 11 Proceedings, alleging
among other things that the Merger was a fraudulent conveyance,
violated the uniform fraudulent transfer act and constituted a
conspiracy.

Bad Homburg, Germany-based Fresenius Medical Care AG is the
world's largest, integrated provider of products and services
for individuals with chronic kidney failure.  Fresenius Medical
Care is also the world's largest provider of dialysis products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: UIC, Detroit Stoker Note Decrease in Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
United Industrial Corporation (NYSE: UIC) and Detroit Stoker
Company, its wholly owned subsidiary, have been named as
defendants in asbestos-related personal injury litigation.  

As of June 30, 2005, there were about 13,750 pending claims,
compared to about 21,123 pending claims as of December 31, 2004
and about 20,485 pending claims as of June 30, 2004.  In the
same period, the Company and Detroit Stoker were named in
asbestos litigation pending in Arkansas, California, Louisiana,
Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Jersey, New York and North
Dakota.

Cases involving United Industrial and Detroit Stoker typically
name 80 to 120 defendants, although some cases have as few as 6
and as many as 250 defendants.

The Hunt Valley, MD-based Company and Detroit Stoker made
several products, some of the parts and components of which used
asbestos-containing material fabricated and provided by third
parties.  The use of asbestos-containing materials ceased in
about 1981.

The Company's asbestos liability was US$31,852,000 and
US$31,437,000 in June 30, 2005 and 2004, respectively, and its
insurance receivables for asbestos-related liabilities were
US$20,343,000 and US$20,256,000 in June 30, 2005 and 2004,
respectively.  

Management continues to believe that a majority of the claimants
in pending cases will not be able to demonstrate that they have
been exposed to the Company's or Detroit Stoker's asbestos-
containing products or suffered any compensable loss as a result
of any such exposure.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: BG&E Deals with Direct and 3rd Party Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Baltimore Gas and Electric Company, a subsidiary of Baltimore,
MD-based Constellation Energy Group Inc. (NYSE: CEG), reports
that, since 1993, it has been involved in several actions
concerning asbestos based on the "premises liability" theory.

The theory alleges that BGE knew of and exposed individuals to
asbestos in the course of the construction of certain power
plants constructed by independent contractors on behalf of BGE.

BGE and numerous other parties are defendants in these cases.
About 515 individuals who were never employees of BGE have filed
claims each seeking several million dollars in compensatory and
punitive damages.  Cross-claims and third party claims brought
by other defendants may also be filed against BGE in these
actions.  

To date, 42 asbestos claims have been settled for amounts that
were not significant and about 319 were dismissed without
payment.  The remaining claims are currently pending in state
courts in Maryland and Pennsylvania.

BGE does not know the specific facts necessary for it to assess
its potential liability for the pending cases, such as the
identity of the facilities at which the plaintiffs allegedly
worked as contractors, the names of plaintiffs' employers, the
dates on which the exposure allegedly occurred and the facts and
circumstances relating to the alleged exposure.

Until the relevant facts for the above referenced pending cases
are established, Constellation cannot determine if the pending
cases will be dismissed prior to trial, be postponed or be
settled, and Constellation is unable to estimate what its, or
BGE's, liability might be.  

Although insurance and hold harmless agreements from contractors
who employed the plaintiffs may cover a portion of any awards in
the actions, the potential effect on Constellation's, or BGE's,
financial results could be material.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Badger Meter Defends Multi-Party Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Badger Meter Inc. (NYSE: BMI) is a defendant in a number of
multi-party asbestos lawsuits pending in various state courts.
These lawsuits assert claims alleging that certain industrial
products were manufactured by the defendants and were the cause
of injury and harm.

The Company is defending itself against these alleged claims.  
Although it is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome of
these matters, the Company does not believe the ultimate
resolution of these issues will have a material adverse effect
on the Company's financial position or results of operations,
either from a cash flow perspective or on the financial
statements as a whole.

Headquartered in Milwaukee, WI, Badger Meter Inc. is a leading
marketer and manufacturer of products using flow measurement and
control technologies developed both internally and with other
technology companies.  Its products are used to measure and
control the flow of liquids in various applications.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: IDEX, Subsidiaries Face Claims in 22 States
----------------------------------------------------------------
IDEX Corporation (NYSE: IEX) and five of its subsidiaries have
been named as defendants in a number of lawsuits claiming
various asbestos-related personal injuries, allegedly as a
result of exposure to products manufactured with components that
contained asbestos.  Such components were acquired from third
party suppliers, and were not manufactured by any of the
subsidiaries.

To date, all of the Company's settlements and legal costs,
except for costs of coordination, administration, insurance
investigation and a portion of defense costs, have been covered
in full by insurance subject to applicable deductibles.  

Claims have been filed in Alabama, California, Connecticut,
Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan,
Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, New York,
Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, Washington and Wyoming.

Most of the claims resolved to date have been dismissed without
payment.  The balance has been settled for reasonable amounts.
Only one case has been tried, resulting in a verdict for the
Company's business unit.

No provision has been made in the financial statements of the
Company, other than for insurance deductibles in the ordinary
course, and IDEX does not currently believe the asbestos-related
claims will have a material adverse effect on the Company's
business or financial position.

Northbrook, IL-based IDEX Corporation is the global leader in
fluid-handling technologies for positive displacement pumps and
dispensing equipment for color formulation.  


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Goodrich and Subsidiaries Named in Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Goodrich Corporation and a number of its subsidiaries have been
named as defendants in various actions by plaintiffs alleging
injury or death as a result of exposure to asbestos fibers in
products, or which may have been present in its facilities,
according to the Company's latest report submitted to the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

A number of these cases involve maritime claims, which have been
and are expected to continue to be administratively dismissed by
the court. These actions primarily relate to previously owned
businesses.

The Charlotte, NC-based Company believes that substantial
insurance coverage is available to it related to any remaining
claims. However, the primary layer of insurance coverage for
some of these claims is provided by the Kemper Insurance
Companies.

Kemper has indicated that, due to capital constraints and
downgrades from various rating agencies, it has ceased
underwriting new business and now focuses on administering
policy commitments from prior years.  Kemper has also indicated
that it is currently operating under a "run-off" plan approved
by the Illinois Department of Insurance.  The Company cannot
predict the impact of Kemper's financial position on the
availability of the Kemper insurance.

Goodrich Corporation (NYSE: GR) is a leading global supplier of
systems and services to the aerospace and defense industry.  The
Company offers an extensive range of products, systems and
services for aircraft and engine manufacturers, airlines and
defense forces worldwide.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: St. Paul Subsidiary Faces ACandS Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Travelers Property Casualty, a subsidiary of The St. Paul
Travelers Cos. Inc. (NYSE: STA), is involved in three
significant proceedings relating to ACandS, Inc., formerly a
national distributor and installer of products containing
asbestos, including ACandS' bankruptcy proceedings.

The proceedings involve disputes as to whether and to what
extent any of ACandS' potential liabilities for bodily injury
asbestos claims are covered by insurance policies issued by TPC.  
These proceedings have resulted in decisions favorable to TPC,
although are subject to appellate review.  

ACandS filed for bankruptcy in September 2002 (pending in the US
Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware).  In its proposed
POR, ACandS sought to establish a trust to pay asbestos bodily
injury claims against it and sought to assign to the trust its
rights under the insurance policies issued by TPC.  The proposed
plan and disclosure statement filed by ACandS claimed that
ACandS had settled the majority of asbestos-related bodily
injury claims currently pending against it for about US$2.80
billion.  ACandS asserts that TPC is liable for 45% of the
US$2.80 billion.  

On January 26, 2004, the bankruptcy court issued a decision
rejecting confirmation of ACandS' proposed plan of
reorganization.  ACandS has filed a notice of appeal of the
bankruptcy court's decision and has filed objections to the
bankruptcy court's findings of fact and conclusions of law in
the United States District Court.  

On July 31, 2003, the arbitration panel ruled in favor of TPC
that asbestos bodily injury claims against ACandS are subject to
the aggregate limits of the policies issued to ACandS, which
have been exhausted.  In October 2003, ACandS commenced a
lawsuit seeking to vacate the arbitration award as beyond the
panel's scope of authority.  On September 16, 2004, the Court
entered an order denying ACandS' motion to vacate the
arbitration award.  On October 6, 2004, ACandS filed a notice of
appeal.  Oral argument was presented on July 11, 2005.

In the other proceeding, a related case pending before the same
court and commenced in September 2000, ACandS sought a
declaration of the extent to which the asbestos bodily injury
claims against ACandS are subject to occurrence limits under
insurance policies issued by TPC.  TPC filed a motion to dismiss
this action based upon the July 31, 2003 arbitration decision
described above.  The Court found the dispute was moot as a
result of the arbitration panel's decision.  The Court,
therefore, based on the arbitration panel's decision, dismissed
the case. On October 6, 2004, ACandS filed a notice of appeal.  
This appeal has been consolidated with the appeal referenced in
the paragraph above.  Briefing of the appeal is complete, and
oral argument was presented on July 11, 2005.

While the Company cannot predict the outcome of the appeals of
the various ACandS rulings or other legal actions, based on
these rulings, the Company would not have any significant
obligations remaining under any policies issued by TPC to
ACandS.

The St. Paul, MN-based Company is a leading provider of property
casualty insurance and surety products and of risk management
services to a wide variety of businesses and organizations and
to individuals.


                 New Securities Fraud Cases

COGENT COMMUNICATIONS: Finkelstein Thompson Lodges DC Stock Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Finkelstein, Thompson & Loughran commenced a
lawsuit seeking class action status in the United States
District Court for the District of Columbia on behalf of all
persons who purchased the common stock of Cogent Communications
Group, Inc. (Amex: COI) ("Cogent") between February 14, 2005 and
June 7, 2005 inclusive (the "Class Period"). Finkelstein,
Thompson & Loughran is investigating similar claims at this time
and welcomes inquiries from potential class members concerning
their rights and interests in this matter.

The lawsuit alleges that Cogent violated the federal securities
laws by issuing false or misleading public statements.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that Cogent and various
officers of Cogent, throughout the class period, failed to
disclose that the Company intended to sell shares of common
stock to the public at a price well below Cogent's then-
prevailing market price. The complaint further alleges the
defendants either knew or recklessly disregarded the fact that
such a sub-market offering price would have the immediate effect
of causing a decline in the value of shares held by current
Cogent shareholders.

On June 7, 2005, after the close of trading, Cogent announced it
had agreed to sell 10,000,000 shares of stock at a public
offering price of $6.00 per share, a price substantially below
Cogent's then-current $10.12 share price. The next day, Cogent's
stock price opened at $7.69, down $2.43 from the prior day's
closing price, and ultimately closed at $7.15 on extremely high
trading volume. This was a dramatic, single-day decline of 29%.

For more details, contact Donald J. Enright, Esq. of
Finkelstein, Thompson & Loughran, Phone: +1-202-337-8000, E-
mail: contact@ftllaw.com.


CUSTOM DESIGNED: Rosen Law Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NM
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm initiated a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of Custom Designed Compressor Systems, Inc. (Pink
Sheets: CYPJ) ("CDC" or the "Company") common stock during the
period September 14, 2004 through October 22, 2004, inclusive
(the "Class Period"). The case is pending in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Mexico, case no. 05-cv-848.

The complaint charges that CDC and its Chief Executive, Shelby
Ball, violated Securities 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and
Exchange Act, as well as state securities laws, by issuing false
press releases describing CDC as a profitable manufacturer of
custom compressor systems using proprietary designs that enabled
marginally producing natural gas wells to extract and distribute
gas. In reality, CDC owned few assets and its repeated claims of
revenue streams, lucrative contracts with major producers, and
unique compressor technologies were gross exaggerations of CDC's
actual business operations. Ball condoned the further
distribution of CDC's false press releases through spam emails
and broadcast faxes.

For more details, contact Laurence Rosen, Esq. of The Rosen Law
Firm P.A., Phone: (212) 686-1060 or (866) 767-3653, Fax:
(212) 202-3827, E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com, Web site:
http://www.rosenlegal.com.


CUSTOM DESIGNED: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Stock Fraud Suit in NM
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C., filed a lawsuit seeking
class action status in the United States District Court for the
District of New Mexico on behalf of all persons who purchased
the common stock of Custom Designed Compressor Systems, Inc.
(OTC: CPYJ.PK; formerly OTC: CPYJ and CUPY) ("the Company")
between September 14, 2004 and October 22, 2004 (the "Class
Period").

The Complaint alleges that the Company violated federal
securities laws by issuing materially false or misleading public
statements. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that press
releases describing the Company as a profitable and successful
business were false or misleading given that, in reality, the
Company owned few assets and its repeated claims of revenue
streams, lucrative contracts with major producers and unique
compressor technologies were gross exaggerations of its actual
operations. On February 28, 2005, the Company announced that the
SEC had filed a complaint charging the Company with securities
law violations.

For more details, contact Wayne T. Boulton or Nancy A. Kulesa,
of Schatz & Nobel, Phone: +1-800-797-5499, E-mail:
sn06106@aol.com, Web site: http://www.snlaw.net.


HOST AMERICA: Barrack Rodos Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CT
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Barrack, Rodos & Bacine initiated a class action
in the United States District Court for the District of
Connecticut on behalf of purchasers of the publicly traded
securities of Host America Corporation (Nasdaq: CAFE) ("Host
America" or the "Company") between July 12, 2005 to July 22,
2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Host America and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. The complaint alleges that the defendants issued a
press release on July 12, 2005, stating that the Company was
starting to survey ten Wal-Mart stores in the southwest, in
preparation for installation of its LightMasterPlus on the
fluorescent lighting system of each store and quoting Host
America's CEO, Geoffrey Ramsey, as saying "This is a major event
for our company, which we have been working towards since last
year. We expect this prestigious customer will like the savings
they receive from this first-phase roll-out and believe that the
next phase will involve a significant number of stores."

On July 19, the Company announced that it had been "contacted
informally" by a regional office of the SEC requesting documents
and information relating to its July 12 press release "and into
related developments in the trading of Host securities." After
the close of trading on July 22, the Company disclosed that it
was informed that the SEC had commenced a formal investigation
of Host America, certain of its officers, directors and others
in connection with the July 12 press release. On the same day,
the SEC temporarily suspended trading in its stock over concerns
that the statement about a deal with Wal-Mart stores may have
been misleading. The NASDAQ stock market has since informed the
Company that its shares may be delisted.

According to the complaint, the statements in the Company's July
12, 2005 press release were false and misleading because they
misrepresented the nature of the Wal-Mart transaction as one
whereby the Company had a firm commitment by Wal-Mart to
purchase Host America's LightMasterPlus for installation in Wal-
Mart stores. The complaint alleges that Wal-Mart was not a
customer of the Company in connection with purchasing
LightMasterPlus, that the Wal-Mart transaction was limited to a
test installation unrelated to any commitment by Wal-Mart to
install the LightMasterPlus in any of its facilities on a
permanent basis, and that Wal-Mart had made no commitment to
purchase or install the LightMasterPlus outside of the test
installation. As a result, the complaint alleges, defendants had
no basis for stating that the test installation was a "first-
phase roll-out," that "the next phase will involve a significant
number of stores," or that the Wal-Mart test installation was a
"major event" for Host America.

News reports on July 22 noted that during the period after the
July 12 announcement, three major shareholders of the Company
had cashed in shares of Host America's stock, with one selling
off 94% of his stake for a total of more than $6 million and
another selling about two-thirds of his shares.

For more details, contact Leslie Bornstein of Molder, Esq. of
Barrack, Rodos & Bacine, 3300 Two Commerce Square, 2001 Market
Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19103, Phone: 215-963-0600, Fax:
215-963-0838, E-mail: lmolder@barrack.com, Web site:
http://www.barrack.com.  


HOST AMERICA: Sarraf Gentile Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CT
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm of Sarraf Gentile LLP initiated a securities class
action on behalf of those who acquired the securities of Host
America Corporation ("Host America" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:
CAFE) between July 12, 2005 through July 22, 2005 (the "Class
Period"). A case is pending in the United States District Court
for the District of Connecticut against the Company and certain
of its officers and directors.

Host America provides food service management and energy
conservation systems. On July 12, 2005, the Company announced a
deal with Wal-Mart to provide it with an energy efficient
lighting system. That announcement contained material
misrepresentations concerning the Company's business
relationship with Wal-Mart. As a result of that announcement,
the value of the Company's stock, which opened at $4.25 on July
12, 2005, prior to the announcement, closed at $6.35, after
reaching a high of $7.47. Over the next eight trading days the
Company's stock price reached a high of $16.88 on July 19, 2005.
The action further alleges that defendants and employees of Host
America profited from those misrepresentations, selling over
$6.92 million of Host America securities during the Class
Period. No class has yet been certified in the above action.

For more details, contact Joseph Gentile, Esq. of SARRAF
GENTILE, LLP, 485 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1005, New York, NY,
10018, Phone: 212-868-3610, Fax: 212-918-7967, Web site:
http://www.sarrafgentile.com.


HOST AMERICA: Shepherd Finkelman Lodges Securities Suit in CT
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC filed a
lawsuit seeking class action status in the United States
District Court for the District of Connecticut on behalf of all
persons (the "Class") who purchased the securities of Host
America Corporation (Nasdaq: CAFE) ("Host America" or the
"Company") during the period between and including July 12, 2005
and July 22, 2005 (the "Class Period"). In addition to Host
America, the Complaint names certain individual officers,
directors and shareholders of the Company, as well as
EnergyNSync, a "principally inactive" company, which is owned by
Host America and certain of the other Defendants.

As the Complaint details, Host America provides food service
management, energy management conservation, and pre-employment
background screening. The Company operates four divisions: Host
America Business Dining, Lindley Food Service, SelectForce, and
GlobalNet Energy Investors ("GlobalNet"). The GlobalNet division
markets, sells, and installs control panels and other electrical
energy saving devices for commercial and industrial users.

As the Complaint also explains, from May 12, 2004 to June 15,
2005, the Company often announced agreements to install its
LightMasterPlus product or perform other energy saving services
for various companies. The Company claims that the
LightMasterPlus "efficiently runs your lighting systems by
reducing kilowatt consumption yet maintaining visible light. It
also allows for fully automated dimming or accent lighting
throughout your building."

On July 12, 2005, Host America filed a Form 8-K with the SEC and
issued a press release entitled, "Host America's Energy Division
Announces Wal-Mart Transaction Ten Store First-Phase for
LightMasterPlus." Market reaction to this announcement was
enormous. Trading volume increased from 41,000 trades on July
11, 2005 to 13,813,100 on July 12, 2005. Furthermore, the
Company's stock, which opened at $4.25 on July 12, 2005 prior to
the announcement, closed at $6.35, after reaching a high of
$7.47. Over the next eight trading days, volume reached a high
of approximately 32,569,600 shares on July 18, 2005, and the
Company's stock price reached a high of $16.88 on July 19, 2005.

The Complaint pleads that the above statements in the July 12,
2005 Form 8-K and press release were false and misleading
because they misrepresented the nature of the "Wal-Mart
Transaction" as one whereby the Company had a firm commitment by
Wal-Mart to purchase the Company's LightMasterPlus for
installation in Wal-Mart stores. In fact, although not disclosed
by Host America, Wal-Mart had not become a customer of the
Company in connection with the purchasing of the LightMasterPlus
product and the purported "Wal-Mart Transaction" was limited to
a test installation unrelated to any commitment by Wal-Mart to
install the LightMasterPlus in any of its facilities on a
permanent basis. Moreover, Wal-Mart had made no commitment to
purchase or install the LightMasterPlus outside of the test
installation. As a result, Defendants had no basis for stating
that the test installation was a "first-phase roll-out" or that
"the next phase will involve a significant number of stores."
Moreover, Defendants lacked any basis for stating that the Wal-
Mart test installation was a "major event for our company." In
fact, such test installations in the past had resulted in no
future customer relationship and no actual purchases of the
LightMasterPlus by the party solicited for the test
demonstration.

On July 22, 2005, trading of Host America securities was halted,
pending SEC review. In halting trading, the SEC cautioned
brokers, dealers, shareholders, and prospective purchasers that
they should carefully consider the foregoing information, along
with all other currently available information, and any
information subsequently issued by the Company. At the time
trading was halted, Host America stock was priced at $13.92 per
share -- down from $16.88 on July 19, 2005.

For more details, contact James E. Miller, Esq. or James C.
Shah, Esq. of Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC, Phone:
1-866-540-5505 or 1-877-891-9880, E-mail:
jmiller@classactioncounsel.com or jshah@classactioncounsel.com,
Web site: http://www.classactioncounsel.com.


PATTERSON COMPANIES: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Suit in MN
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
LLP ("Lerach Coughlin") initiated a class action in the United
States District Court for the District of Minnesota on behalf of
purchasers of Patterson Companies, Inc. ("Patterson")
(NASDAQ:PDCO) publicly traded securities during the period
between February 24, 2005 and May 25, 2005 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Patterson and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Patterson distributes dental, companion-pet veterinary and
rehabilitation supplies.

The complaint alleges that the Company's Q4 was historically its
largest quarter in terms of both revenue and earnings, but that
defendants knew by February 2005 that the Company's Q4 and FY
2005 sales, operating profit, operating profit margin, net
income and gross margin would actually decline materially in Q4
2005 and that based on business conditions knowable and then
known to the defendants, the Company's Q4 and FY 2005 EPS
targets were impossible to meet. According to the complaint,
defendants knew missing the Company's Q4 estimates would not
only be detrimental to the Company's share price, sending the
Company's shares into a freefall, but also evidence the
Company's inability to successfully grow the Company through
acquisitions.

The complaint further alleges that as a result of the
defendants' false and misleading Class Period statements,
Patterson's stock traded at inflated levels during the Class
Period, increasing to its historical all-time high of $53.85 per
share, allowing the Company's top officers and directors to sell
more than $44 million worth of their own shares at inflated
prices. The Company's true financial status, including its Q4
2005 declining gross sales, declining Dental Supply segment
sales, declining Dental Supply operating profits, declining
Dental Supply operating profit margin, declining net income and
declining gross margin growth, was ultimately disclosed on May
26, 2005. On May 26, 2005, following defendants' revelations,
the Company's share price plummeted 14%, erasing $1.1 billion in
market capitalization as it fell below $46 per share on record
volume of over 10 million shares traded.

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/patterson/.  


PATTERSON COMPANIES: Reinhardt Wendorf Lodges Stock Suit in MN
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Reinhardt Wendorf & Blanchfield initiated a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of Minnesota, on behalf of purchasers of Patterson
Companies, Inc. ("Patterson" or "the Company") (Nasdaq:PDCO)
publicly traded securities during the period between February
24, 2005 and May 25, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Patterson and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Patterson distributes dental, companion-pet veterinary and
rehabilitation supplies.

The complaint alleges that the Company's Q4 was historically its
largest quarter in terms of both revenue and earnings, but that
defendants knew by February 2005 that the Company's Q4 and FY
2005 sales, operating profit, operating profit margin, net
income and gross margin would actually decline materially in Q4
2005 and that based on business conditions knowable and then
known to the defendants, the Company's Q4 and FY 2005 EPS
targets were impossible to meet. According to the complaint,
defendants knew missing the Company's Q4 estimates would not
only be detrimental to the Company's share price, sending the
Company's shares into a freefall, but also evidence the
Company's inability to successfully grow the Company through
acquisitions.

The complaint further alleges that as a result of the
defendants' false and misleading Class Period statements,
Patterson's stock traded at inflated levels during the Class
Period, increasing to its historical all-time high of $53.85 per
share, allowing the Company's top officers and directors to sell
more than $44 million worth of their own shares at inflated
prices. The Company's true financial status, including its Q4
2005 declining gross sales, declining Dental Supply segment
sales, declining Dental Supply operating profits, declining
Dental Supply operating profit margin, declining net income and
declining gross margin growth, was ultimately disclosed on May
26, 2005. On May 26, 2005, following defendants' revelations,
the Company's share price plummeted 14%, erasing $1.1 billion in
market capitalization as it fell below $46 per share on record
volume of over 10 million shares traded.

For more details, contact Garrett D. Blanchfield of Wendorf &
Blanchfield, Phone: (800) 465-1592 or (651) 287-2100, Fax:
(651) 287-2103, E-mail: g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com, Web site:
http://www.rwblawfirm.com.


PATTERSON COMPANIES: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Suit in MN
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C. initiated a lawsuit seeking
class action status has been filed in the United States District
Court for District of Minnesota on behalf of all persons who
purchased the publicly traded securities of Patterson Companies,
Inc. (Nasdaq: PDCO) ("Patterson") between February 24, 2005 and
May 25, 2005, inclusive, (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that Patterson, and certain of its
officers and directors, violated federal securities laws by
issuing misleading public statements. Specifically, defendants
knew by February 2005 that the Company's Q4 and FY 2005 sales,
operating profit, operating profit margin, net income and gross
margin would actually decline materially in Q4 2005 and that
based on business conditions knowable and then known to the
defendants, Patterson's Q4 and FY 2005 EPS targets were
impossible to meet. It is alleged that defendants knew missing
the Company's Q4 estimates would not only be detrimental to the
share price, sending Patterson's shares into a freefall, but
also evidence the Company's inability to successfully grow the
Company through acquisitions.

While Patterson's shares were artificially inflated, the
Company's top officers and directors sold more than $44 million
worth of their own shares. The Company's true financial status,
including its Q4 2005 declining gross sales, declining Dental
Supply segment sales, declining Dental Supply operating profits,
declining Dental Supply operating profit margin, declining net
income and declining gross margin growth, was ultimately
disclosed on May 26, 2005. On this news, Patterson shares
plummeted 14% to close at $45.46. During the Class Period,
Patterson traded as high as $53.85 per share.

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


PRESTIGE BRANDS: Roy Jacobs Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices Roy Jacobs & Associates initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of all purchasers of Prestige
Brands Holdings, Inc. ("Prestige" or the "Company") (NYSE:PBH)
securities from April 1, 2005 through July 27, 2005 (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit, alleging securities fraud, was filed
against Prestige, Peter C. Mann, its CEO, and Peter J. Anderson,
its CFO.

Please be advised that this action is different from an earlier
action filed by other counsel on or about August 3, 2005 against
Prestige, a number of its officers and directors and various
underwriters of the February 2005 Initial Public Offering (the
"IPO"). The earlier action claims that the IPO Prospectus was
materially false and misleading. The non-fraud claims asserted
in that action are for a class who purchased in the IPO or which
are traceable to the IPO. The Class Period in the earlier action
is February 9, 2005 through July 28, 2005.

In this action, plaintiff does not challenge the IPO Prospectus.
Rather, plaintiff claims that the Company and the named
defendants defrauded purchasers of Prestige securities from
April 1, 2005 through July 27, 2005. The Complaint alleges that
defendants misrepresented the success of the Company's flagship
product, the over-the-counter wart remover, Compound W, by
repeatedly stating that it was selling well and there was every
expectation that it would continue to do so. The defendants
reiterated positive projections prior to and throughout the
Class Period, and never retracted them. The positive statements
continued throughout the Class Period, and Prestige stock
reached prices as high as $21 per share.

Unbeknownst to the Class, Wal-Mart, the Company's primary mass
distributor, had purchased a significant inventory of Compound W
in or about late December 2004 for an early 2005 promotion. By
April 1, 2005, the beginning of the Class Period, defendants
knew that the Wal-Mart promotion had fallen seriously short of
its goals, leaving Wal-Mart with significant excess inventory of
Compound W. This, in turn, materially depressed Compound W sales
in the following quarter, causing Prestige to suffer sales
declines, and not the increases projected. Despite this
knowledge, defendants failed to retract, and even reiterated,
their earlier projections, and concealed the true results of the
Wal-Mart sales promotion.

On May 9, 2005, defendant Mann in a conference call described
sales of Compound W at Wal-Mart as "very good" and "strong" when
in fact Wal-Mart was struggling to move this inventory off the
shelves, and orders for new Compound W shipments were materially
depressed. By no later than June 2005, not only were Wal-Mart
sales depressed, but it was abundantly clear that the wart
removal category for all sellers was contracting, not expanding.
Nonetheless, the defendants failed to update or correct previous
statements.

On July 27, 2005, Prestige shocked the market by announcing
sales for the first quarter of fiscal 2006, which ended on June
30, 2005, that were 6% below sales for the comparable quarter of
the previous year. In it largest business segment, OTC products,
sales dropped 10% year-over-year. When trading in Prestige
shares opened for trading the next day, shares dropped from a
previous closing price of $20.04 to a close of $11.90, on
extraordinary trading volume of 14.7 million shares. On July 28,
2005, defendant Mann finally admitted during a conference call
that he knew that the Wal-Mart promotion had been unsuccessful,
that Wal-Mart was carrying substantial excess inventory and that
the wart removal consumer segment had suffered a material 13%
decline. He also stated that inventory "overhang" at Wal-Mart
was continuing and that this would affect the future quarter
sales as well.

For more details, contact Roy Jacobs, Esq. of Roy Jacobs &
Associates, Phone: 888-884-4490, E-mail:
classattorney@pipeline.com.


WORKSTREAM INC.: Shalov Stone Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Shalov Stone & Bonner LLP filed a class action
lawsuit on behalf of investors in Workstream, Inc. (NASDAQ:
WSTM), common stock between January 14, 2005, and April 14,
2005. The lawsuit is pending in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York against Workstream,
Michael Mullarkey, and David Polansky.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the relevant period, the
defendants failed to disclose and misrepresented material
adverse facts which were known to defendants or recklessly
disregarded by them and which caused the defendants to issue
materially false and misleading financial statements and
projections which, among other things, caused the price of
Workstream stock to trade at artificially inflated prices. The
complaint alleges, for example, that defendants purposefully
overstated and exaggerated Workstream's projected revenues and
earnings, and other related measures of the company's financial
condition, by improperly recognizing revenue for sales of
software using inapplicable "percentage of completion"
accounting methodologies.

For more details, contact Thomas G. Ciarlone, Jr. of Shalov
Stone & Bonner LLP, 485 Seventh Ave., Suite 1000, New York, NY,
10018, Phone: (212) 239-4340, E-mail: tciarlone@lawssb.com, Web
site: http://www.lawssb.com.



                            *********


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

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

                            *********


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

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

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

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

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

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

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *