CAR_Public/050815.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Monday, August 15, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 160

                            Headlines

ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Continues To Defend V. MA Antitrust Lawsuit
ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Settles NY AWP Antitrust "Opt-Out" Claims
ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Settles Sibutramine Suits For $14.75 Mil
AFFIRMATIVE INSURANCE: Attorney Files Reimbursement Suit in IL
BEVERLY ENTERPRISES: DE Court Dismisses Shareholder Fraud Suit

CANADA: Man Wants Suit V. City of Longueuil Over Property Taxes
CATALINA RESTAURANT: Law Firms Lodges Employment Practices Suit
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: MO Court Approves Stock Suit Settlement
CINCINNATI GAS: Asks OH Court To Dismiss Clean Air Act Lawsuit
CINERGY CORPORATION: Asks OH Court To Dismiss Shareholder Suit

CINERGY MARKETING: Remains As Defendant in NYMEX Securities Suit
CR LITIGATION: Lawsuit Settlement Hearing Set September 21, 2005
CVS CORPORATION: Suit Settlement Hearing Set September 7, 2005
GIRARDIN MINBUS: Recalls Buses Due to Faulty Stop Arm Assembly  
HARTFORD LIFE: Faces Stock, ERISA Suits Related to NYAG Lawsuit

HOLMES GROUP: Recalls 180T Tower Heater Fans Due to Fire Hazard
IDACORP INC.: ID Court Hears Arguments on Stock Suit Dismissal
ILLINOIS: Another Madison County Lawsuit Moved to Federal Court
INSIGHT COMMUNICATIONS: Inks Settlement For DE Securities Suit
JAYCO INC.: Recalls 285 2004-05 Motor Homes Due to Fire Hazard  

KIA MOTORS: Recalls 2,935 2006 Sorento SUVs Due to Fire Hazard  
LAPPERT'S ICE: Recalls Ice Creams Due to Listeria Contamination
LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES: EEOC Launches Employee Bias Suit in C.D. CA
NATIONAL SECURITIES: CA Court Affirms Suit Certification Denial
NATIONWIDE LIFE: Court Mulls Appeal of MD Fraud Suit Dismissal

NATIONWIDE LIFE: Asks MD Court To Dismiss Mutual Fund Fraud Suit
NOVAE CORPORATION: Recalls 26 Utility Trailers For Crash Hazard  
PENNSYLVANIA: County Retains Lawyer in Suit Over Dutch Fork Dam
PENNSYLVANIA: National Guardsmen Lodges Suit Over Full Salary
PPL CORPORATION: Ontario Residents Launch $50B Pollution Lawsuit

RITCHEY DESIGN: Recalls 2T Bicycle Wheels Due to Injury Hazard
VAN KAMPEN: Lawsuit Settlement Hearing Set November 16, 2005
WELLS FARGO: Settles CA Suit Over Card Processing Fees For $34M
WEYERHAUSER CO.: Settling With Opt-Out Plaintiffs in PA Lawsuit
WEYERHAUSER CO.: Faces Linerboard Antitrust Suit in Canada Court

WEYERHAUSER CO.: Appeals Court Upholds Summary Judgment Ruling
WEYERHAUSER CO.: Trial in OR Alder, Maple Lawsuit Set Nov. 2005
WEYERHAUSER CO.: Trial in OR Antitrust Suit Set October 18,2005
WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Trial in OK Securities Suits Set August 2005
WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Plaintiffs File Amended ERISA Lawsuit in OK
      
                  New Securities Fraud Cases

BUCA INC.: Berman DeValerio Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in MN
DRDGOLD LTD.: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in NY
HOST AMERICA: Kaplan Fox Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in CT
HOST AMERICA: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CT
INVESTORS FINANCIAL: Brian M. Felgoise Lodges MA Securities Suit

PATTERSON COMPANIES: Goldman Scarlato Lodges Stock Suit in MN
PEMSTAR INC.: Murray Frank Schedules Lead Plaintiff Deadline
WORKSTREAM INC.: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
WORKSTREAM INC.: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY

                            *********

ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Continues To Defend V. MA Antitrust Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Abbott Laboratories will continue to defend against the
consolidated class action filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts, alleging violations of
federal antitrust laws.

The suits generally allege that the Company and numerous other
pharmaceutical companies reported false pricing information in
connection with certain drugs that are reimbursable under
Medicare and Medicaid.  These cases brought by private
plaintiffs and State Attorneys General generally seek damages,
treble damages, disgorgement of profits, restitution, and
attorneys fees.

The federal court cases have been consolidated in the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts under
the Multidistrict Litigation Rules as "In re: Pharmaceutical
Industry Average Wholesale Price Litigation, MDL 1456."  The
following previously reported cases have now been transferred to
MDL 1456:

     (1) International Union of Operating Engineers Local No. 68
         Welfare Fund;

     (2) County of Rockland;

     (3) County of Westchester;

     (4) Digel;

     (5) State of California ex rel. Ven-A-Care of the Florida
         Keys; and

     (6) Turner

One of the previously reported federal court cases, Rice, has
been dismissed without prejudice.  Two new federal cases have
been filed and have been or will be transferred to MDL 1456:
City of New York, filed in August 2004 in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York; and County
of Nassau, filed in November 2004 in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York.  

The suit is styled "In re Average Wholesale Price Litigation,
case no. 1:01-cv-12257-PBS," filed in the United States District
Court in Massachusetts, under Judge Patti B. Saris.  
Representing the plaintiffs are David J. Bershad and J. Douglas
Richards of Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP, One
Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor, New York, NY 10119, Phone: 212-
594-5300.  Representing the Company are Daniel E. Reidy, Jeremy
P. Cole, Jessie A. Witten, Tina M. Tabacchi, and Toni-Ann Citera
of Jones Day, 77 West Wacker Drive, Chicago, IL 60601-1692,
Phone: 312-782-3939, E-mail: tmtabacchi@jonesday.com,
jawitten@jonesday.com, tcitera@jonesday.com; and Jeffrey I.
Weinberger, Munger Tolles & Olson, 355 S. Grand Avenue, Suite
3500, Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560, Phone: 213-683-9100.


ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Settles NY AWP Antitrust "Opt-Out" Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Abbott Laboratories settled for $2.3 million the "opt-out"
Sherman Act claims in the settlement of prescription pricing
lawsuits filed in the United States District Courts for the
Eastern District of New York.  

Several suits were initially filed against the Company and
numerous other pharmaceutical companies, alleging that they
reported false pricing information in connection with certain
drugs that are reimbursable under Medicare and Medicaid.  These
cases brought by private plaintiffs and State Attorneys General
generally seek damages, treble damages, disgorgement of profits,
restitution, and attorneys fees.  These suits were initially
filed in eight state courts, namely:

     (i) Swanston, filed in March 2002 in the Superior Court for
         Maricopa County, Arizona;

    (ii) State of West Virginia ex rel. Darrell V. McGraw, Jr.,
         Attorney General, filed in October 2001 in the Circuit
         Court of Kanawha County, West Virginia;

   (iii) Peralta, a minor by and through his Guardian ad Litem,
         Filamena Iberia, filed in October 2001 in the Superior
         Court for Los Angeles County, California;  

    (iv) State of Nevada, filed in January 2002 in the Second
         Judicial District Court in Washoe County, Nevada;

     (v) Commonwealth of Kentucky ex rel. Albert B. Chandler
         III, Attorney General, filed in September 2003 in the
         Circuit Court of Franklin County, Kentucky;  

    (vi) Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, filed in March 2004 in
         the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania;

   (vii) State of Ohio, filed in March 2004 in the Court of
         Common Pleas, Hamilton County, Ohio;

  (viii) State of Texas ex rel. Greg Abbott, Attorney General,
         filed in May 2004 in the District Court of Travis
         County, Texas; and

    (ix) State of Wisconsin, filed in June 2004 in the Circuit
         Court of Dane County, Wisconsin

The Company settled all of the claims in the above suits, with
the exception of the claims brought on behalf of a group of
retail pharmacies that "opted-out" of the class action
settlement.   The Company later agreed to pay $2.3 million to
these opt-out plaintiffs to settle their Sherman Act claims.  
These plaintiffs' Robinson-Patman claims are pending in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York.


ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Settles Sibutramine Suits For $14.75 Mil
-------------------------------------------------------------
Abbott Laboratories, Inc. settled for $14.75 million several
lawsuits involving the drug sibutramine (sold under the
trademarks Meridia, Reductil, Reductyl, and Reductal) that have
been brought either as purported class actions or on behalf of
individual plaintiffs, the Company announced in its June 30,2005
10-Q filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.  The
lawsuits generally allege design defects and failure to warn.  
Certain lawsuits also allege consumer protection violations
and/or unfair trade practices.

An earlier Company filing stated that as of December 31, 2004,
118 lawsuits were pending in which the Company is a party.  113
cases are being or have been transferred to the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio and are
captioned, "In Re Meridia MDL No. 1481."  In July 2004, the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
granted the Company's motion for summary judgment and dismissed
the Company from the 113 cases pending before it.   Four cases
were mentioned as pending in state court:

     (1) Barley, filed in October 2002 in the Circuit Court of
         Jefferson County, Alabama;

     (2) Titus, filed in October 2002 in the District Court of
         Nueces County, Texas;

     (3) Killinger, filed in November 2002 in the Circuit Court
         in Lake County, Illinois; and

     (4) a consolidated case pending in the Circuit Court in
         Lake County, Illinois that includes Lemetti, filed in
         March 2004 in the Circuit Court of Cook County,
         Illinois; Mosbah, filed in July 2003 in the Circuit
         Court of Cook County, Illinois; and Olinger, filed in
         January 2003 in the Circuit Court of Madison County,
         Illinois.

The Company's June 30, 2005 filing, stated that "during the
second quarter, Abbott resolved pending state and twelve federal
lawsuits for $14.75 million."  

Outside of the United States, one case is pending in Canada,
styled "Mandel, et al. v. Abbott, filed in June 2002 in the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Toronto, Canada.  The Company
has been notified that an additional case, styled "Leathers v.
Abbott Laboratories," was filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts.


AFFIRMATIVE INSURANCE: Attorney Files Reimbursement Suit in IL
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ending a three-month drought of class action lawsuits since a
restrictive federal law was enacted, attorney Lanny Darr filed
suit in Madison County against Affirmative Insurance Company
because it would only reimburse him $18.90 per day for a rental
vehicle, The Madison County Record reports.

Though it is not the first class action lawsuit filed in the
county since President George W. Bush signed the Class Action
Fairness Act into law February 18, Mr. Darr's new case filed
July 11 is the fourth of five filed in that period in which he
was associated with.  Interestingly, Mr. Darr, of Schrempf,
Blaine, Kelly, & Darr, is the plaintiff's attorney in other
post-Class Action Fairness Act Madison County suit that
includes: Locklear Electric v. NAPP for unsolicited faxes, filed
February 23; Kyle Stark v. Madison Mutual over medical
repayment, filed March 11; Kesha Manning v. BA for moldy
conditions at an apartment complex and Locklear v. Improvenet
Inc. for unsolicited faxes both filed April 18.

In the new case, Mr. Darr claims he was involved in an auto
accident February 14 with Walter Price, who was negligent and
insured by Affirmative. He claims, "Affirmative refused to lease
a vehicle for Darr and failed to reimburse for an amount greater
than $18.90 per day, which is illegal under Illinois law." IN
addition, Mr. Darr claims he could not drive his Ford Explorer
for several days while it was being repaired.

According to the complaint, common questions of law and fact
predominate over any questions affecting only individual members
of the class, which include whether Affirmative acted illegally
when it:

      (1) refused to pay more than $18.90 a day for a substitute
          rental car;

      (2) represented to Darr and other class members that they
          only reimbursed $18.90 regardless of the vehicle
          damaged or the needs of the owner of the damaged
          vehicle;

      (3) concealed that they may reimburse more than $18.90 per
          day;


     (4) failed to rent a vehicle for those incapable of leasing
         substitute vehicles, either due to financial
         circumstances, credit history or age; and

     (5) violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act.

Mr. Darr, who is represented Evan Schaeffer of Schaeffer and
Lamere in Godfrey, maintains in the suit that he is not seeking
an amount greater than $75,000 for his individual damages as
well as stipulated no class member damages will exceed $75,000,
and the class as a whole is not seeking damages in excess of $5
million. Thus, according to his suit, he is seeking orders:

     (i) certifying the class of all Illinois residents involved
         in a traffic accident with Affirmative's customers in
         the past 10 years;

    (ii) declaring Affirmative's conduct unlawful

   (iii) requiring Affirmative to cease and desist all
         deceptive, unjust and unreasonable practices;

    (iv) requiring Affirmative to notify and properly disclose
         to whose they have overcharged; and

     (v) an award of reasonable attorney fees and costs of the
         suit, including fees of experts and an award of factual
         and compensatory damages in an amount less that $75,000
         per class member.


BEVERLY ENTERPRISES: DE Court Dismisses Shareholder Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Delaware Chancery Court in New Castle County dismissed the
consolidated shareholder class action filed against Beverly
Enterprises, Inc. and each of its directors with prejudice.  The
suit is styled "In re Beverly Shareholders Litigation, Civil
Action No. CA1050-N."

On January 26, 2005, a putative class action complaint brought
on behalf of all shareholders of the Company was filed against
the Company and each of its directors, under the caption "Chaya
Perlstein v. William R. Floyd, et. al., Civil Action No. CA1050-
N."  The suit asserted a claim for breach of fiduciary duty in
connection with our response to an unsolicited expression of
interest by a group of investors that collectively had purchased
8.1% of the Company's common stock on the open market prior to
January 24, 2005.  A second, substantially identical, putative
class action complaint was filed in the same court on February
1, 2005, bearing the caption "Robert Strougo v. Beverly
Enterprises, Inc., et. al., Civil Action No. CA1067-N."

On February 23, 2005, the Delaware Chancery Court consolidated
these cases and designated the "Floyd" complaint as operative.
The Company moved to dismiss the consolidated action on May 9,
2005. On July 13, 2005, the plaintiffs requested a voluntary
dismissal of the consolidated action.  The court granted the
request and dismissed the consolidated action with prejudice on
July 14, 2005.


CANADA: Man Wants Suit V. City of Longueuil Over Property Taxes
---------------------------------------------------------------
A taxpayer from the former municipality of St. Lambert filed a
motion to obtain authorization to launch a class action suit
against the City of Longueuil.

Petitioner Michel Marcotte, a property manager, seeks to
represent the taxpayers of Brossard, St.Bruno de Montarville and
St.Lambert, three former South Shore municipalities set to de-
merge in 2006. Mr. Marcotte is demanding that the City of
Longueuil refund the general property tax illegally charged to
the taxpayers of these three former municipalities.  The
taxpayers of the demerging municipalities account for 40% of all
the City of Longueuil taxpayers. As a result of this class
action, the City could be ordered by the Court to refund its
taxpayers several millions dollars in overpayments.

According to the motion for authorization, the City of Longueuil
illegally raised the general property tax over and above the
ceiling of five per cent (5%) established in Section 87.1 of the
Charter of the City of Longueuil. This ceiling was set by the
provincial government to protect taxpayers of former
municipalities against steep increases in property taxes, which
might result from the municipal merger initiatives in 2002.

The municipal taxes were frozen by the City of Longueuil in
2004, the year when the referendums on demergers were held. That
year, the citizens of the former municipalities of Brossard,
St.Bruno de Montarville and St.Lambert elected to demerge from
the City of Longueuil. These demergers will take effect in 2006.  
In the aftermath of these referendums, the City of Longueuil
raised the property taxes for 2005 in each of these demerging
sectors over and above the five per cent (5%) ceiling imposed by
law. Increases totalled 6.6% in Brossard, 7.6% in St.Bruno de
Montarville and 7.7% in St.Lambert.

"Property tax increases over and above the legal 5% ceiling in
the demerging sectors of the City of Longueuil can be construed
as punitive taxes imposed upon the taxpayers of these sectors. I
felt this was unjust, so I decided to launch a class action suit
against the City of Longueuil," stated petitioner Michel
Marcotte.

"The taxation powers of a city must be exercised in compliance
with the limits provided for in the charter of the city. In
failing to abide by the five per cent ceiling set out in Section
87.1 of the Charter of the City of Longueuil, Longueuil has
exceeded its taxation powers," explained Marie Audren, attorney
for the petitioner and chief of the class action group at Borden
Ladner Gervais.

The class action includes individuals as well as corporate
taxpayers with less than fifty (50) employees.

For more details, contact Hugo Leclerc, Massy-Forget Public
Relations, Phone: (514) 842-2455, ext. 31, E-mail:
hleclerc@mfrp.com OR Tiffany Schier, Media Relations, Borden
Ladner Gervais LLP, Phone: (416) 367-6610, E-mail:
tschier@blgcanada.com, Web site: http://www.blgcanada.com.


CATALINA RESTAURANT: Law Firms Lodges Employment Practices Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Daniel Feder and The Law Office of Patrick R.
Kitchin initiated a class action lawsuit against Catalina
Restaurant Group, Inc., regarding its employment practices in
Catalina's Carrows Restaurants.

The lawsuit alleges that the practice of requiring employees to
spend their wages on Carrows' work uniforms violates the
California Labor Code and California's Unfair Competition laws.
California law clearly states that if employers require
employees to wear distinctive clothing on the job, the clothing
is considered a "uniform" that must be provided by the employer.
Despite laws prohibiting these practices, some restaurants in
California still require their employees to buy and maintain
work uniforms.

In 1990, the California Department of Labor issued a formal
opinion letter stating that requiring restaurant workers to buy
and wear tropical shirts to wear as a uniform amounts to a
violation of California law. If the work attire cannot generally
be worn in the industry, then it is a uniform that the employer
must buy.

According to attorneys for [A.B.], a former Carrows'
employee, Carrows requires its employees to buy and wear
"tropical shirts" and specific-brand shoes to keep their jobs.
Mr. [B] seeks to have his expenditures reimbursed and to
have Carrows stop this illegal practice.

For more details, contact the Law Office of Patrick R. Kitchin,
San Francisco, Phone: 415-677-9058.


CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: MO Court Approves Stock Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri granted final approval to the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action and the shareholder
derivative suits filed against Charter Communications, Inc. and
certain of its officers and directors.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On May 23, 2005, the court conducted the final fairness hearing
for the Actions, and on June 30, 2005, the Court issued its
final approval of the settlements.  Members of the class had 30
days from the issuance of the June 30 order approving the
settlement to file an appeal challenging the approval.  Two
notices of appeal were filed relating to the settlement, but the
Company does not yet know the specific issues presented by such
appeals nor have briefing schedules been set.

As amended, the Stipulations of Settlement provide that, in
exchange for a release of all claims by plaintiffs against
Charter and its former and present officers and directors named
in the Actions, the Company would pay to the plaintiffs a
combination of cash and equity collectively valued at $144
million, which will include the fees and expenses of plaintiffs'
counsel. Of this amount, $64 million would be paid in cash (by
the Company's insurance carriers) and the $80 million balance
was to be paid (subject to the Company's right to substitute
cash therefor described below) in shares of Charter Class A
common stock having an aggregate value of $40 million and ten-
year warrants to purchase shares of Charter Class A common stock
having an aggregate warrant value of $40 million, with such
values in each case being determined pursuant to formulas set
forth in the Stipulations of Settlement.  However, Charter had
the right, in its sole discretion, to substitute cash for some
or all of the aforementioned securities on a dollar for dollar
basis. Pursuant to that right, Charter elected to fund the $80
million obligation with 13.4 million shares of Charter Class A
common stock (having an aggregate value of approximately $15
million pursuant to the formula set forth in the Stipulations of
Settlement) with the remaining balance (less an agreed upon $2
million discount in respect of that portion allocable to
plaintiffs' attorneys' fees) to be paid in cash. In addition,
Charter had agreed to issue additional shares of its Class A
common stock to its insurance carrier having an aggregate value
of $5 million; however, by agreement with its carrier Charter
has paid $4.5 million in cash in lieu of issuing such shares.
Charter delivered the settlement consideration to the claims
administrator on July 8, 2005, and it will be held in escrow
pending any appeals of the approval.  On July 14, 2005, the
Circuit Court for the City of St. Louis dismissed with prejudice
the State Derivative Actions.  As part of the settlements,
Charter has committed to a variety of corporate governance
changes, internal practices and public disclosures, some of
which have already been undertaken and none of which are
inconsistent with measures Charter is taking in connection with
the recent conclusion of the SEC investigation.


CINCINNATI GAS: Asks OH Court To Dismiss Clean Air Act Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company asked the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio to dismiss the
class action filed against it, alleging violations of the Clean
Air Act (CAA).

In November 2004, a citizen of the Village of Moscow, Ohio, the
town adjacent to the Company's Zimmer Station filed the suit,
which seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief against the
Company for alleged violations of the CAA, the Ohio State
Implementation Plan (SIP), and Ohio laws against nuisance and
common law nuisance.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit on primarily
procedural grounds.  The plaintiffs have filed a number of
additional notices of intent to sue and two lawsuits raising
claims similar to those in the original claim.

The suit is styled "Freeman v. Cincinnati Gas & Electric
Company, case no. 1:04-cv-00781-SJD," filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, under Judge
Susan J. Dlott.  Representing the Company are Louis Francis
Gilligan, Keating Muething & Klekamp - 1, One E Fourth Street,
Suite 1400, Cincinnati, OH 45202, Phone: 513-579-6400, Fax:
513-579-6523, E-mail: lgilligan@kmklaw.com; and Ariane Johnson,
Cinergy Services, Inc., 1000 East Main Street, Plainfield, IN
46168.  Representing the plaintiffs are Paul Alley and John
Charles Greiner of Graydon Head & Ritchey - 1, 2500 Chamber
Center Drive, PO Box 17070, Suite 300, Ft Mitchell, KY 41017,
Phone: 859-282-8800, E-mail: palley@graydon.com, and
jgreiner@graydon.com.


CINERGY CORPORATION: Asks OH Court To Dismiss Shareholder Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cinergy Corporation asked the Court of Common Pleas in Hamilton
County, Ohio to dismiss a shareholder class action filed against
it and each of the members of the Board of Directors.  The
lawsuit alleges that the defendants breached their duties of due
care and loyalty to shareholders by agreeing to the merger
agreement between the Company and Duke Energy Corporation.  The
suit seeks to either enjoin or amend the terms of the merger.

The Company and the individual defendants filed a motion to
dismiss this lawsuit in July.  The Company believes this lawsuit
is without merit and intends to defend this lawsuit vigorously
in court, the Company stated in a disclosure to the Securities
and Exchange Commission.

The suit is styled "Fred J. Stahl v. Cinergy Corporation, et al.
case no. A 0100934," filed in the Court of Common Pleas,
Hamilton County, Ohio, under Judge Melba D. Marsh.  Representing
the plaintiff is Attorney Steven F. Stuhlbarg.  Representing the
defendants are Julie L. Ezell, John W. Hust, Richard Dickinson
Brooks Jr., Robert R. Furnier, Scott R. Thomas and Jeannette N.
Dannenfelser.  


CINERGY MARKETING: Remains As Defendant in NYMEX Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cinergy Marketing & Trading, LP remains as a defendant in the
securities class action filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, after the court
granted Cinergy Corporation's motion to be dismissed from the
suit.

The suit, which also names 37 other companies as defendants, was
filed on behalf of all persons who purchased and/or sold New
York Mercantile Exchange natural gas futures and options
contracts between January 1, 2000, and December 31, 2002.  The
complaint alleges that improper price reporting caused damages
to the class.  The suit alleges that the defendants have engaged
in unlawful manipulation of the prices of natural gas futures
and options contracts traded on the New York Mercantile Exchange
(NYMEX) during the class period.

Two similar lawsuits have subsequently been filed, and these
three lawsuits have been consolidated for pretrial purposes.  
The plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint in
January 2004.  Cinergy Corporation's motion to dismiss was
granted in September 2004 leaving only Marketing & Trading in
the lawsuit.  

The suit is styled "Cornerstone Propane v. Reliant Energy, et
al., case no. 1:03-cv-06186-VM-AJP," filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, under
Judge Victor Marrero.  Representing the Company is Steven M.
Bierman of Sidley, Austin, Brown & Wood, 787 Seventh Avenue, New
York, NY 10019, Phone: (212) 839-5300.  Representing the
plaintiffs are:

     (1) Louis F. Burke, Louis F. Burke, P.C., 460 Park Avenue,
         21st Floor, New York, NY 10022, Phone: (212) 682-1700,
         Fax: (212) 808-4280

     (2) Christopher J. Gray, Law Office of Christopher J. Gray,
         P.C, 460 Park Avenue 21st Floor, New York, NY 10022,
         Phone: (212) 838-3221, Fax: (212) 508-3695, E-mail:
         gray@cjgraylaw.com

     (3) Gary S. Jacobson and Christopher Lovell of Lovell &
         Stewart, L.L.P., 500 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10110,
         Phone: (212) 608-1900


CR LITIGATION: Lawsuit Settlement Hearing Set September 21, 2005
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for District of Connecticut
will hold a fairness hearing for the proposed $4,200,000
settlement with Defendant Syndial S.p.A. ("Syndial") f/k/a
Enichem S.p.A. in the matter: In re Polychloroprene Rubber
("CR") Antitrust Litigation, MDL NO. 1642, on behalf of all
Persons and Entities Who Purchased Polychloroprene ("CR") in the
United States and all Persons and Entities Who Purchased CR from
a Facility Located in the United States Directly from a
Defendant or Co-Conspirator Listed Below at Any Time During the
Period January 1, 1999 to December 31, 2003.

The Court will hold a hearing on September 21, 2005, at 10:00
a.m., at the Richard C. Lee United States Courthouse,
141 Church Street, New Haven, CT, 06510.

For more details, contact In re CR Antitrust Litigation, c/o
Gilardi & Co. LLC, P.O. Box 1110, Corte Madera, CA, 94976-1100,
Web site: http://www.CRantitrustlitigation.com.


CVS CORPORATION: Suit Settlement Hearing Set September 7, 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts will hold a fairness hearing for the proposed $3
million settlement in the matter: Fescina V. CVS Corporation,
Civil Action no. 04-12309-JLT, on behalf of all persons who were
participants or beneficiaries in the CVS 401(k) Profit Sharing
Plan, the CVS Corporation and Subsidiaries Employees Ownership
Plan or the CVS Diversified ESOP Account and who held, acquired,
purchased or had contributed CVS common stock and/or CVS
preference stock to his/her account/s at anytime from December
1, 2000 to October 30, 2001.

The hearing will be held on September 7, 2005, at the United
States Courthouse, One Courthouse Way, Bosoton, MA, 02210

For more details, call 1-800-431-7540 or visit
http://www.cvserisalitigation.com/.


GIRARDIN MINBUS: Recalls Buses Due to Faulty Stop Arm Assembly  
--------------------------------------------------------------
Girardin Minibus Inc. in cooperation with the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration's Office of Defects Investigation
(ODI) is voluntarily recalling certain units of 2002 MB II and
2002 MB IV school buses due to defective stop arm assembly.
NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID Number: 05V352000.
  
According to ODI, some of the aforementioned school buses that
are equipped with "5" series stop arms manufactured by Specialty
Manufacturing Company. In extremely cold weather, the
microswitches used internally to position the sign in the open
and closed positions may malfunction, causing the sign to open
or close in an improper position, or to not open at all. Should
the stop arm not perform properly, a child or pedestrian may be
endangered by passing motorists should the motorist not stop at
the correct location.

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

For more details, Girardin, Phone: 05-010-SAS OR the NHTSA Auto
Safety Hotline: 1-888-327-4236 or 1-800-424-9153, Web site:
http://www.safecar.gov.


HARTFORD LIFE: Faces Stock, ERISA Suits Related to NYAG Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. and five of its
executive officers face two class actions filed in the United
States District Court in Connecticut, after New York Attorney
General Eliot Spitzer filed a civil complaint over insurance
fraud.

On October 14, 2004, the New York Attorney General's Office
filed a civil complaint (the "NYAG Complaint") against Marsh
Inc. and Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. (collectively,
"Marsh") alleging, among other things, that certain insurance
companies, including the Company, participated with Marsh in
arrangements to submit inflated bids for business insurance and
paid contingent commissions to ensure that Marsh would direct
business to them.  The Company is not joined as a defendant in
the action.

Since the filing of the NYAG Complaint, the Company has become
aware of several private actions against it asserting claims
arising from the allegations of the NYAG Complaint.  The
securities suits allege claims under Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5.  The complaints
allege on behalf of a putative class of shareholders that The
Company and the five named individual defendants, as control
persons of The Company, "disseminated false and misleading
financial statements" by concealing that "(The Hartford) was
paying illegal and concealed `contingent commissions' pursuant
to illegal `contingent commission agreements.'"  The class
period alleged is November 5, 2003 through October 13, 2004, the
day before the NYAG Complaint was filed.  The complaints seek
damages and attorneys' fees.  

In addition, the Company is aware of three putative class
actions filed in the same court on behalf of participants in The
Hartford's 401(k) plan against The Hartford, Hartford Fire
Insurance Company, The Hartford's Pension Fund Trust and
Investment Committee, The Hartford's Pension Administration
Committee, The Hartford's Chief Financial Officer, and John/Jane
Does 1-15.  The suits assert claims under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended ("ERISA"),
alleging that The Hartford and the other named defendants
breached their fiduciary duties to plan participants by, among
other things, failing to inform them of the risk associated with
investment in The Hartford's stock as a result of the activity
alleged in the NYAG Complaint.  The class period alleged is
November 5, 2003 through the present.  The complaints seek
restitution of losses to the plan, declaratory and injunctive
relief, and attorneys' fees.


HOLMES GROUP: Recalls 180T Tower Heater Fans Due to Fire Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC), The Holmes Group Inc., of Milford, Massachusetts is
voluntarily recalling about 180,000 units of Holmesr and
Bionairer Tower Heater Fans.

According to the recall, the power cord on the units can fray or
sever causing the fan to stop working and overheat. This could
pose a fire hazard to consumers. The Holmes Group has received
98 reports of minor property damage to the surface under the
heater. No injuries have been reported.

The recall involves Holmesr models HFH6498-U, HFH6500-U and
HFH6500TG-U and Bionairer model BFH3530-U. The recalled heaters
also have date codes beginning with 2604 through 3804 for all
units, except for Holmesr model 6500TG-U, which has date codes
ranging from 2604 through 4704. The model and date code can be
found on the silver label on the back of the unit. The heater
fans are 26 inches tall; come in all gray, two-tone gray, or
black and gray; and have either the word Holmesr or Bionairer
printed on the front of the base.

Manufactured in China, the heater fans were sold at all Wal-
Mart, Target, Linens N Things, Bed Bath & Beyond and additional
department and specialty stores nationwide from July 2004
through June 2005 for between $40 and $90.

Consumers should immediately stop using the heaters and contact
The Holmes Group for instructions on receiving a replacement
unit.

Consumer Contact: For additional information, call The Holmes
Group at (800) 593-4269 anytime.


IDACORP INC.: ID Court Hears Arguments on Stock Suit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Idaho heard
oral arguments on IDACORP Inc.'s motion to dismiss the
consolidated securities class action filed against it and
certain of its officers and directors.

On May 26, 2004 and June 22, 2004, respectively, two shareholder
lawsuits were filed against the Company and certain of its
directors and officers, styled "Powell, et al. v. IDACORP, Inc.,
et al." and "Shorthouse, et al. v. IDACORP, Inc., et al."  The
lawsuits are putative class actions brought on behalf of
purchasers of IDACORP stock between February 1, 2002 and June 4,
2002.  The named defendants in each suit, in addition to the
Company, are:

     (1) Jon H. Miller,

     (2) Jan B. Packwood,

     (3) J. LaMont Keen and

     (4) Darrel T. Anderson

The complaints allege that, during the purported class period,
the Company and/or certain of its officers and/or directors made
materially false and misleading statements or omissions about
the company's financial outlook in violation of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
and Rule 10b-5, thereby causing investors to purchase the
Company's common stock at artificially inflated prices.  More
specifically, the complaints alleged that the Company failed to
disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts
known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them:

     (i) the Company failed to appreciate the negative impact
         that lower volatility and reduced pricing spreads in
         the western wholesale energy market would have on its
         marketing subsidiary, IDACORP Energy;

    (ii) the Company would be forced to limit its origination
         activities to shorter-term transactions due to
         increasing regulatory uncertainty and continued
         deterioration of creditworthy counterparties;

   (iii) the Company failed to discount for the fact that IPC
         may not recover from the lingering effects of the prior
         year's regional drought and

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

The Powell complaint also alleged that the defendants' conduct
artificially inflated the price of the Company's common stock.  
The actions seek an unspecified amount of damages, as well as
other forms of relief.  By order dated August 31, 2004, the
court consolidated the Powell and Shorthouse cases for pretrial
purposes, and ordered the plaintiffs to file a consolidated
complaint within 60 days.

On November 1, 2004, the Company and the directors and officers
named above were served with a purported consolidated complaint
captioned "Powell, et al. v. IDACORP, Inc., et al.," which was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho.  
The new complaint alleges that during the class period, the
Company and/or certain of its officers and/or directors made
materially false and misleading statements or omissions about
its business operations, and specifically the IDACORP Energy
financial outlook, in violation of Rule 10b-5, thereby causing
investors to purchase the Company's common stock at artificially
inflated prices.

The new complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose
and misrepresented the following material adverse facts known to
it or recklessly disregarded by it:

     (a) IDACORP falsely inflated the value of energy contracts
         held by IE in order to report higher revenues and
         profits;

     (b) IDACORP permitted Idaho Power Company (IPC), its
         subsidiary, to inappropriately grant native load
         priority for certain energy transactions to IDACORP
         Energy;

     (c) IDACORP failed to file 13 ancillary service agreements
         involving the sale of power for resale in interstate
         commerce that it was required to file under Section 205
         of the Federal Power Act;

     (d) IDACORP failed to file 1,182 contracts that IPC
         assigned to IE for the sale of power for resale in
         interstate commerce that IPC was required to file under
         Section 203 of the Federal Power Act;

     (e) IDACORP failed to ensure that IE provided appropriate
         compensation from IE to IPC for certain affiliated
         energy transactions; and

     (f) IDACORP permitted inappropriate sharing of certain
         energy pricing and transmission information between IPC
         and IE.

These activities allegedly allowed IE to maintain a false
perception of continued growth that inflated its earnings.  In
addition, the new complaint alleges that those earnings press
releases, earnings release conference calls, analyst reports and
revised earnings guidance releases issued during the class
period were false and misleading.  The action seeks an
unspecified amount of damages, as well as other forms of relief.

The Company and the other defendants filed a consolidated motion
to dismiss on February 9, 2005, and the plaintiffs filed their
opposition to the consolidated motion to dismiss on March 28,
2005.  The Company and the other defendants filed their response
to the plaintiff's opposition on April 29, 2005 and oral
argument on the motion was held on May 19, 2005.

The suit is styled "Powell v. Idacorp, Inc, et al., case no.
1:04-cv-00249-EJL-MHW," filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Idaho, under Judge Edward J. Lodge.  
Representing the Company are Rex Blackburn, BLACKBURN & JONES,
PO Box 7808, Boise, ID 83707, Phone: (208) 489-8989, Fax:
(208) 489-8988, E-mail: rex@blackburnjoneslaw.com; and David G.
Hetzel and Dennis F. Kerrigan, Jr., LEBOEUF LAMB GREENE &
MACRAE, 125 W 55th St, New York, NY 10019, Phone:
(212) 424-8000, Fax: (212) 424-8000, E-mail: dghetzel@llgm.com
and dennis.kerrigan@llgm.com.  Representing the plaintiffs are
John K. Grant,  Eli Greenstein, David A. Rosenfeld and Samuel H.
Rudman, LERACH COUGHLIN STOIA & ROBBINS, 100 Pine St #2600, San
Francisco, CA 94111,Phone: (415) 288-4545, E-mail:
drosenfeld@lerachlaw.com, and e_file_ny@lerachlaw.com; and
Richard H. Greener and John T. Simmons of Greener Banducci
Shoemaker P.A., 815 W Washington, Boise, ID 83702, Phone:
(208) 319-2600, Fax: (208) 319-2601, E-mail:
rgreener@greenerlaw.com or jsimmons@greenerlaw.com.  


ILLINOIS: Another Madison County Lawsuit Moved to Federal Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Another Madison County lawsuit was moved to federal court under
the Class Action Fairness Act that Congress passed in February,
The Madison County Record reports.

Trilegiant, a credit card services company, filed notice on July
27 that it would remove to U.S. district court a suit that
Carlene Pederson of Edwardsville filed in 2001.  In that suit,
which is the second class action removed from Madison County
under the new national law, and the first in which a judge had
already certified a class action, Ms. Pederson claims that
Trilegiant posted charges for unsolicited services on credit
cards and other accounts.

According to Trilegiant, formerly known as Cendant Membership
Services, the filing of an amended complaint brought the suit
within the scope of the national law, which coincidentally
applies to suits filed after its enactment.  In his removal
notice, Trilegiant's attorney, Kenneth Kliebard of Chicago,
argued that a new plaintiff and new claims turned the old case
into a new one.  Earlier in July, Option One Mortgage applied a
similar argument to remove a suit. In that case, the original
plaintiffs withdrew and new plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint.

Ms. Pederson originally sued Fleet Boston Financial Corporation
and Cendant Membership Services, claiming that they conspired to
charge for services, such as Privacy Guard and Credit Alert,
which customers did not order or did not understand they
ordered. According to her attorney, Thomas Maag of the Lakin Law
Firm in Wood River the conspiracy damaged thousands and thus he
moved to certify his client as their representative.

Circuit Judge Phillip Kardis set a hearing on certification of a
plaintiff class in 2002, but on the hearing date Mr. Maag asked
leave to amend the complaint, which the judge granted.

Mr. Maag filed an amended complaint that dropped Fleet as a
defendant and substituted a fraud claim for the conspiracy
claim. Thus, Trilegiant moved to dismiss, arguing that Ms.
Pederson alleged no deception. Judge Kardis agreed but granted
leave to amend the complaint.

Mr. Maag then filed an amended complaint in 2003. Judge Kardis
again set a certification hearing, but again Mr. Maag asked
leave to amend the complaint, which the judge granted.  This
time the amended complaint that Mr. Maag filed accused
Trilegiant of marketing fraud. Judge Kardis held a certification
hearing in 2004 and certified the suit for class action. The
judge defined the class as those who had unsolicited charges
posted on their accounts. This fit Ms. Pederson, who claimed she
never agreed to enroll in Privacy Guard as well as claimed that
someone forged her signature on an application.  The definition
did not fit those who claimed Trilegiant tricked them into
ordering services. Judge Kardis told Mr. Maag that he could add
a plaintiff to assert that claim.

On June 8, 2005, Mr. Maag once again moved to amend the
complaint, which Judge Kardis granted on June 28. This time, the
complaint added Thomas Stackhouse of West Covina, California, as
a plaintiff. It claimed that Trilegiant advertised membership
services as free or nominal while burying in fine print charges
from $49 to $89 a year and that Trilegiant did not cancel
memberships when customers asked to cancel.

In Trilegiant's removal notice, Mr. Kliebard wrote that Mr.
Stackhouse brought his claim under a different theory from Ms.
Pederson. He pointed out that Mr. Stackhouse did not seek to
represent a subclass of the certified class, but sought to
represent a different class.


INSIGHT COMMUNICATIONS: Inks Settlement For DE Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Insight Communications Company, Inc. reached a settlement with
parties in the consolidated securities class action filed
against it in the Delaware Court of Chancery, styled "In Re
Insight Communications Company, Inc. Shareholders Litigation
(Civil Action No. 1154-N)."

Between March 7 and March 15, 2005, five purported class action
lawsuits were filed against the Company and each of its
directors.  Three of the lawsuits also named The Carlyle Group
as a defendant.  The cases were subsequently consolidated and,
on April 11, 2005, a Consolidated Amended Complaint was filed
against each director and The Carlyle Group.  The Complaint
alleges, among other things, that the defendant directors
breached their fiduciary duties to the Company's stockholders in
connection with a proposal from Sidney R. Knafel, Michael
Willner, together with certain related and other parties, and
The Carlyle Group to acquire all of the Company's outstanding,
publicly-held Class A common stock.

The Complaint also alleges that the proposed transaction
violates the Company's Charter and that The Carlyle Group has
aided and abetted the alleged fiduciary duty breaches.  The
Complaint seeks the certification of a class of the Company's
stockholders; a declaration that the proposed transaction
violates its Charter; an injunction prohibiting the defendants
from proceeding with the proposed transaction; rescission or
other damages in the event the proposed transaction is
consummated; an award of costs and disbursements including
attorneys' fees; and other relief.

On April 15, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a Motion for Preliminary
Injunction seeking an order enjoining the defendants from taking
any steps or acts in furtherance of the proposed transaction,
except in compliance with the duties set forth in "Revlon v.
MacAndrews & Forbes Holdings, Inc., 506 A.2d 173 (Del. 1976)."
On April 25, 2005, the Court refused to schedule a hearing on
plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction and entered an
order denying that motion, without prejudice to plaintiffs'
ability to re-file the motion, if appropriate, once the special
committee makes a recommendation.

On July 28, 2005, the parties to the action entered into a
memorandum of understanding setting forth the terms of a
proposed settlement of the litigation which, among other things,
provides that the buyers shall proceed with the merger, subject
to the terms and conditions of the merger agreement including
the "majority of the minority" stockholder voting condition, and
under which the defendants admit to no wrongdoing or fault. The
memorandum of understanding contemplates certification of a
plaintiff class consisting of all record and beneficial owners
of the Company's Class A common stock, other than the buyers,
during the period beginning on and including March 6, 2005,
through and including the date of the consummation of the
merger, a dismissal of all claims with prejudice, and a release
in favor of all defendants of any and all claims related to the
merger. The proposed settlement is subject to a number of
conditions, including consummation of the merger, the
plaintiffs' approval of a definitive settlement agreement and
final court approval of the settlement.


JAYCO INC.: Recalls 285 2004-05 Motor Homes Due to Fire Hazard  
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jayco, Inc. in cooperation with the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration's Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) is
voluntarily recalling about 285 units of 2004-05 Jayco /
Greyhawk and 2004-05 Starcraft / Ambient motor homes due to fire
hazard. NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID Number: 05V354000.

According to the ODI, certain motor homes, the cable ties, which
attach to the main wiring harness to the frame rails, may break
and cause the wire harness to drop into the exhaust system. This
could result in the cable melting and creating an electrical
short and/or fire.

As a remedy, dealers will inspect the motor homes and attach new
heavy duty UV rated cable ties. The recall is expected to begin
during August 2005.

For more details, Jayco, Inc. Phone: 1-574-825-5861 OR the NHTSA
Auto Safety Hotline: 1-888-327-4236 or 1-800-424-9153, Web site:
http://www.safecar.gov.


KIA MOTORS: Recalls 2,935 2006 Sorento SUVs Due to Fire Hazard  
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kia Motors America, Inc. in cooperation with the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Office of Defects
Investigation (ODI) is voluntarily recalling about 2,935 units
of 2003 Sorento SUVs due to fire hazard. NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID
Number: 05V353000.

According to the ODI, certain SUVs may experience a fuel leak
from fuel tubes near the fuel tank due to an interference fit
with the vehicle floor panel. Fuel leakage, in the presence of
an ignition source, could result in a fire.

As a remedy dealers will replace a section of the fuel line. The
recall is expected to begin on October 2005.

For more details, Kia Motors, Phone: 1-800-333-4542 OR the NHTSA
Auto Safety Hotline: 1-888-327-4236 or 1-800-424-9153, Web site:
http://www.safecar.gov.


LAPPERT'S ICE: Recalls Ice Creams Due to Listeria Contamination
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lappert's Ice Cream, Inc. of Richmond, CA is recalling its 8
ounce, pint, 1.5 gallon and 3 gallon packages of ice cream, all
flavors, because they have the potential to be contaminated with
Listeria monocytogenes, an organism which can cause serious and
sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly
people, and others with weakened immune systems. Although
healthy individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms such as
high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain
and diarrhea, listeria infection can cause miscarriages and
stillbirths among pregnant women.

The recalled ice cream was distributed to California, Oregon,
Washington, Nevada, Arizona, and Illinois. The ice cream may
have been distributed to other States by Lappert's wholesale
accounts. The 1.5 and 3 gallon containers were distributed to
Ice Cream shops; pint and 8 ounce containers to retail outlets.

The 1.5 and 3 gallon containers are packed in round cardboard
tubs; the 8 ounce and pint containers are packed in smaller
round cardboard containers. All packaging is labeled Lappert's
Ice Cream (plant number 06-6919). All lots of all flavors
produced on or before August 4, 2005 are under recall. All
products with a code of 216 or lower, or no code, on the bottom
of the tub is under recall.

Future products produced after August 4th, 2005 with
corresponding Julian date of 217 or higher coded on the bottom
on the 1.5 and 3 gallon tubs, or date coded on the pint
containers are not affected by this recall.

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
problem.

The potential for contamination was noted after testing by the
State of Washington Health Department revealed the presence of
Listeria monocytogenesin a pint container of Banana Carmel
Chocolate Chip packed by Lappert's ice Cream. Testing at the
firm's manufacturing site in Richmond, CA by the Food and Drug
Administration confirmed the presence of Listeria monocytogenes
on some production equipment.

Consumers who have purchased Lappert's ice cream are urged to
return them to the place of purchase for a full refund.
Consumers with questions may contact the company at Lappert's at
510-231-2340.


LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES: EEOC Launches Employee Bias Suit in C.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lucent Technologies, Inc. faces a class action filed in the
United States District Court in California, styled "EEOC v.
Lucent Technologies, Inc.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed the
suit, alleging gender discrimination in connection with the
provision of service credit to a class of present and former
Lucent employees who were out of work because of maternity prior
to 1980 and seeks the restoration of lost service credit prior
to April 29, 1979, together with retroactive pension payment
adjustments, corrections of service records, back pay and
recovery of other damages and attorneys fees and costs.

The suit is styled "Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v.
Lucent Technologies, case no. 2:04-cv-08168-RSWL-CT," filed in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California, under Judge Ronald S.W. Lew.  Representing the EEOC
are Elizabeth Esparza-Cervantes, Marcia L. Mitchell, Jonathan T.
Peck and William R. Tamayo, Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission, San Francisco District Office, 350 The Embarcadero,
Suite 500, San Francisco, CA 94105, Phone: 415-625-5658.  
Representing the Company are Sarah N. Chomiak, William J.
Dritsas, Allegra R. Rich of Seyfarth Shaw, 55 E Monroe St, Ste
4200, Chicago, IL 60603-5803, Phone: 312-269-8924.


NATIONAL SECURITIES: CA Court Affirms Suit Certification Denial
---------------------------------------------------------------
The California Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court ruling
denying class certification for the lawsuit filed against
National Securities Corporation and other companies relating to
a series of private placements of securities in Fastpoint
Communications, Inc.

The suit was filed in the Superior Court for the State of
California for the County of San Diego. Plaintiffs are seeking
approximately $14.0 million, but no specific amount of damages
has been sought against the Company in the complaint. National
filed its answer in April 2003.  In January 2004, the court
entered an order denying class certification.  As a result of
this order denying class certification, the only remaining
claims against the Company are the individual claims asserted by
the two class representatives totaling $60,000.

Plaintiffs thereafter filed an appeal of the order denying class
certification.  The action in the lower court, including a
pending motion for summary judgment, has been stayed. In May
2005, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the order denying
class certification.  As a result, the Company anticipates that
the order staying the action with respect to the remaining
$60,000 in claims will be lifted and the case will move forward.
At that time, the Company will press its pending motion for
summary judgment, the Company said in a disclosure to the
Securities and Exchange Commission.


NATIONWIDE LIFE: Court Mulls Appeal of MD Fraud Suit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has yet to rule
on the appeal of the dismissal of a class action filed against
Nationwide Life Insurance Company, styled "Robert Helman et al
v. Nationwide Life Insurance Company et al."

The suit, filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Arizona, challenges the sale of deferred annuity
products for use as investments in tax-deferred contributory
retirement plans. On April 8, 2004, the plaintiff filed an
amended class action complaint on behalf of all persons who
purchased an individual variable deferred annuity contract or a
certificate to a group variable annuity contract issued by the
Company or Nationwide Life Annuity and Insurance Company (NLAIC)
which were allegedly used to fund certain tax-deferred
retirement plans.  The amended class action complaint seeks
unspecified compensatory damages.

The Company and NLAIC filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on
May 24, 2004. On July 27, 2004, the court granted the motion to
dismiss. The plaintiff has appealed that dismissal to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The suit is styled "Helman v. Nationwide Life Ins, et al., case
no. 2:03-cv-02138-FJM," filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Arizona, under Judge Frederick J.
Martone.  Representing the plaintiffs are Andrew S. Friedman of
Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman & Balint PC, 2901 N Central Ave, Ste
1000, Phoenix, AZ 85012-3311, Phone: 602-776-5903, Fax:
602-274-1199, E-mail: afriedman@bffb.com; and Brian C. Kerr,
Janine L. Pollack, Michael C. Spencer and Lee A. Weiss, Milberg
Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP, 1 Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor,
New York, NY 10119-0165, Phone: (202)783-6091.  Representing the
Company are Arlo Devlin-Brown, Charles C. Platt, Susan
Schroeder, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP, 399 Park Ave
31st Floor, New York, NY 10022, Phone: (212)230-8800; and
Teresita Angela Tan Mercado and Donald A. Wall, Squire Sanders &
Dempsey LLP, 2 Renaissance Sq, 40 N Central Ave, Phoenix, AZ
85004-4441, Phone: 602-528-4000, Fax: 602-253-8129, E-mail:
tmercado@ssd.com and dwall@ssd.com.


NATIONWIDE LIFE: Asks MD Court To Dismiss Mutual Fund Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nationwide Life Insurance Company asked the United States
District Court for the District of Maryland to dismiss a class
action filed against it and other investment firms, alleging the
Company engaged in market-timing trading activity.

The suit was initially filed on April 13, 2004 in the Circuit
Court, Third Judicial Circuit, Madison County, Illinois,
captioned "Woodbury v. Nationwide Life Insurance Company."  The
plaintiff claims to represent a class of persons in the United
States who, through their ownership of a Company annuity or
insurance product, held units of any Company sub-account
invested in mutual funds which included foreign securities in
their portfolios and which allegedly experienced market timing
trading activity. The complaint contains allegations of
negligence, reckless indifference and breach of fiduciary duty.
The plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
in an amount not to exceed $75,000 per plaintiff or class
member.

The Company removed this case to the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Illinois on June 1, 2004. The
plaintiffs moved to remand on June 28, 2004. On July 12, 2004,
the Company filed a memorandum opposing remand and requesting a
stay pending the resolution of an unrelated case covering
similar issues, which is an appeal from a decision of the same
District Court remanding a removed market timing case to an
Illinois state court.  On July 30, 2004, the U.S. District Court
granted the Company's request for a stay pending a decision by
the Seventh Circuit on the unrelated case mentioned above. On
December 27, 2004, the case was transferred to the United States
District Court for the District of Maryland and included in the
multi-district proceeding there entitled "In Re Mutual Funds
Investment Litigation."

On April 25, 2005, the Company filed a motion to dismiss. In
response, on May 13, 2005, the plaintiff filed a First Amended
Complaint purporting to represent, with certain exceptions, a
class of all persons who held (through their ownership of an
NLIC annuity or insurance product) units of any the Company sub-
account invested in mutual funds that included foreign
securities in their portfolios and that experienced market
timing or stale price trading activity.  The First Amended
Complaint purports to disclaim, with respect to market timing or
stale price trading in the Company's annuities sub-accounts, any
allegation based on the Company's untrue statement, failure to
disclose any material fact, or usage of any manipulative or
deceptive device or contrivance in connection with any class
Member's purchases or sales of the Company annuities or units in
annuities sub-accounts.  The plaintiff claims, in the
alternative, that if the Company is found with respect to market
timing or stale price trading in its annuities sub-accounts, to
have made any untrue statement, to have failed to disclose any
material fact or to have used or employed any manipulative or
deceptive device or contrivance, then the plaintiff purports to
represent a class, with certain exceptions, of all persons who,
prior to the Company's untrue statement, omission of material
fact, use or employment of any manipulative or deceptive device
or contrivance, held (through their ownership of an NLIC annuity
or insurance product) units of any Company sub-account invested
in mutual funds that included foreign securities in their
portfolios and that experienced market timing activity.  The
First Amended Complaint alleges common law negligence and seeks
to recover damages not to exceed $75,000 per plaintiff or class
member, including all compensatory damages and costs.  On June
24, 2005, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the First
Amended Complaint.

The suit is styled "In re Mutual Funds Investment Litigation,
case no. 1:04-cv-03944-JFM," filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Maryland, under Judge J. Frederick
Motz.

Representing the Company are:

    (1) Shoshana Leah Gillers, Eric John Mogilnicki, Charles
        Collier Platt of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr
        LLP, 399 Park Ave, New York, NY 10022, Phone: 1-212-230-
        8841 Fax: 1-212-230-8888, E-mail:
        shoshana.gillers@wilmerhale.com,
        eric.mogilnicki@wilmerhale.com,
         charles.platt@wilmerhale.com  

     (2) Larry E. Hepler, W. Jason Rankin, Burroughs Hepler, 103
         W Vandalia St Ste 300, PO Box 510 Edwardsville, IL
         62025-0510, Phone: 1-618-656-0184

     (3) Gordon Pearson, Andrew R. Varcoe, Wilmer Cutler, 2445 M
         St NW, Washington, DC 20037 Phone: 1-202-663-6000 Fax:
         1-202-663-6363

Representing the Plaintiffs are:

     (i) Francis Joseph Balint, Jr., Andrew Steven Friedman,
         Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman and Balint PC, 2901 N
         Central Ave Ste 1000, Phoenix, AZ 85012, Phone: 1-602-
         776-5903 Fax: 1-602-274-1199, E-mail: fbalint@bffb.com
         or afriedman@bffb.com  

    (ii) Eugene Yevgeny Barash, George A. Zelcs, Korein Tillery
         701 Market St Ste 300, St. Louis, MO 63108, Phone: 1-
         314-241-4844, Fax: 1-314-241-3525, E-mail:
         ebarash@koreintillery.com, gzelcs@koreintillery.com  

   (iii) Timothy G Blood, William J. Doyle, John J. Stoia, Jr.,
         Milberg Weiss, 401 B St Ste 1700, San Diego, CA 92101-
         3311, Phone: 1-619-231-1058, Fax: 1-619-231-7423


NOVAE CORPORATION: Recalls 26 Utility Trailers For Crash Hazard  
---------------------------------------------------------------
Novae Corporation in cooperation with the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration's Office of Defects Investigation
(ODI) is voluntarily recalling about 26 units of 2005 Novae /
Sure Trac utility trailers due to crash hazard. NHTSA CAMPAIGN
ID Number: 05V350000.

According to the ODI, on certain utility trailers equipped with
RFD wheels, there is a defective weld of the wheels' center hub
wheel's rim. This could result in a separation, thus increasing
the risk of a crash.

As a remedy, RFD in conjunction with Novae is conducting the
owner notification and will replace the wheels on affected
trailers.

For more details, contact RFD Components, Phone: 574-295-3939 OR
Novae Corporation, Phone: 260-758-9838 OR the NHTSA Auto Safety
Hotline: 1-888-327-4236 or 1-800-424-9153, Web site:
http://www.safecar.gov.


PENNSYLVANIA: County Retains Lawyer in Suit Over Dutch Fork Dam
---------------------------------------------------------------
McKinleyville, Brooke County residents retained attorney Paul
Harris as their counsel in a class action lawsuit, which claims
that the state of Pennsylvania is liable for damages to homes
and property caused by last September's floods, The WTRF, WV
reports.

In their suit, residents claim that the Dutch Fork Dam failed
and caused the flooding. However, officials with the Department
of Environmental Protection recently ruled that the dam was not
to blame, WTRF reports.


PENNSYLVANIA: National Guardsmen Lodges Suit Over Full Salary
-------------------------------------------------------------
Some military policeman serving in the U.S. Army National Guard
filed a class action lawsuit against the state after it failed
to pay them, The Channel 6 News reports.

Although one of the military policeman got paid others including
Michael Marshall, are still waiting for their money. Mr.
Marshall, who is owed over $32,000, told Channel 6 News, "My
understanding was that when we got activated that we were to
receive full compensation, our full salary for the duration of
the time we were activated by the Governor."

Court documents revealed that Mr. Marshall's still waiting
nearly 3 years after serving. The documents show that after 9-11
he volunteers for active duty, then he serves at Three Mile
Island and in the Harrisburg area. In march 2003, he returns to
work and at that time, according to him, there was still no word
on getting paid for him or his fellow military policemen.

Mr. Marshall told Channel 6 News, "A bunch of Correction
Officers filed a class action lawsuit and it was won. They paid
one officer from SCI Greensburg but no one else has received any
monetary payments."

A spokesperson for the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections
told Channel 6 News the officer from Greensburg that Mr.
Marshall served with has been paid, while any other employees in
the Correction Officer Union that served will be paid as well as
soon as the paperwork is finished. The spokesperson added that
they're working on this now and those who served can expect
their money by the end of this year.


PPL CORPORATION: Ontario Residents Launch $50B Pollution Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Residents of Ontario, Canada, have brought a lawsuit against 13
major U.S. and Canadian power companies, including PPL
Corporation of Allentown, Pennsylvania seeking $50 billion to
compensate them for alleged pollution damage from the companies'
power plants, The Allentown Morning Call reports.

Filed last June 30 in the Superior Court of Ontario by province
residents Christopher M. Robinson, Elizabeth May and Kimberly
Perrotta, the suit asks the court to approve a class action
claim for all Ontario residents to join and collect damages from
the companies. In addition to $50 billion, the plaintiffs seek
$4 billion in annual payments due to continuing damages and $1
billion in punitive damages.

Ms. May is the executive director of Sierra Club Canada, while
according to media reports Mr. Robinson is a finance professor
at York University in Toronto. Mr. Perrotta is a public health
consultant in Toronto.

In their complaint, the plaintiffs allege, "The pollutants
emitted by the defendants, alone and in combination, contribute
to high levels of ambient air pollution, including ground-level
ozone and particulate matter throughout Ontario, causing or
contributing to severe public health and environmental
problems."

Additionally, the plaintiffs, who are represented by the Toronto
firm Robins, Appleby & Taub, LLP, argue that the power companies
knew or should have known the harm their pollution caused on
Ontario residents and that steps were available to limit this
pollution, such as switching to natural gas or installing
technology to reduce sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide
emissions.

PPL has yet to be served with papers for the lawsuit, according
to company spokesman George Lewis. He told The Allentown Morning
Call, "So, it's hard to say anything about the specifics." He
continued, "What we can say is that PPL's plants meet all the
emissions standards set by the government. The standards are set
by what [federal and state] government agencies feel is
appropriate to protect public health."

Aside from PPL, the Canadian complaint also focuses on pollution
from coal-burning power plants in Ontario, West Virginia,
Michigan, Ohio and Kentucky. Other corporations with
subsidiaries named in the complaint are Ontario Power, DTE
Energy Co., American Electric Power Co., FirstEnergy Corp.,
Reliant Energy, Public Service Enterprise Group, Exelon Corp.,
Allegheny Energy, Cinergy Corp., DPL Inc., Constellation Energy,
and Pepco Holdings Inc.

Before certifying a group of plaintiffs as a class, Canadian law
requires the court to determine that the claims of the proposed
class raise common issues and the class vehicle is the best way
to resolve these issues, among other conditions.

However, it appears that the lawsuit hasn't been served on most
of the other defendant companies, either. In its second quarter
filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Reliant
Energy stated it was aware of the suit but hadn't yet been
served with the complaint by the plaintiffs, while spokesmen at
AEP, DTE, Allegheny, FirstEnergy and Cinergy say that the
companies' lawyers were unaware of the complaint.

Under Canadian law, U.S. companies served with complaints in
Canadian court have 40 days to file notice that they plan to
contest the claims.


RITCHEY DESIGN: Recalls 2T Bicycle Wheels Due to Injury Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC), Ritchey Design, of San Carlos, California along with
American Classic Inc., of Tampa, Florida is voluntarily
recalling about 2,000 units of Ritchey WCS - Protocol, Carbon,
DS, DS Aero, Girder models (all rear wheels only).

According to the recall, the hub in the bicycle's rear wheel can
fail to engage properly, causing no resistance when pedaling.
The bicycle rider can lose balance, fall and suffer injuries.
Ritchey Design has received one report of a bicycle rider who
suffered minor bruises and abrasions after experiencing no pedal
resistance and falling from the bike.

The above wheels were sold by Ritchey as wheel sets and as rear
wheel only and as original equipment on 2004 model year Fuji and
Motobecane USA bicycles and the 2005 model year Prestige road
bike from Raleigh. The recalled wheels have high flange hubs
measuring 60-milimeters in diameter and the hub body is straight
between the flanges.

Manufactured in Taiwan, the wheels were sold at all bicycle
specialty stores nationwide from January 2003 through July 2005.
These wheels were sold separately for between $350 and $700.
They were sold also as original equipment on 2004 model year
Fuji and Motobecane USA bicycles and the 2005 model year
Prestige road bike form Raleigh, for between $2,100 and $4,000.

As a remedy, consumers should inspect the hub to determine if
the wheel is included in the recall and contact Ritchey to
schedule a free repair.

Consumer Contact: Contact Ritchey Design toll-free at
(888) 776-8625 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. PT Monday through
Friday, or visit their Web site:
http://www.ritcheylogic.com/wcsrecall.


VAN KAMPEN: Lawsuit Settlement Hearing Set November 16, 2005
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division will hold a fairness hearing for the
proposed $31,500,000 settlement in the matter, Irene Abrams v.
Van Kampen Funds, Inc., Van Kampen Investment Advisory
Corporation, Van Kampen Prime Rate Income Trust, Richard F.
Powers, III, Stephen L. Boyd, and Dennies J. McDonnell, No. 01 C
7538, on behalf of all persons who purchased shares of Van
Kampen Prime Rate Income Trust between September 30, 1998 and
March 26, 2001.

A Fairness Hearing will be held before the Honorable William T.
Hart, United States District Judge, on November 16, 2005 at 1:00
p.m. at the United States Courthouse, 219 South Dearborn Street,
Room 2243, Chicago, IL.

For more details, contact Tom Glenn of Abrams v. Van Kampen
Class Notices, c/o Complete Claim Solutions, Inc., P.O. Box
24611, West Palm Beach, FL, 33416, Phone: (877) 246-4167 or
561-651-7777, Fax: 561-651-7788 OR Marvin A. Miller, Esq.,
Miller Faucher and Cafferty LLP, 30 North LaSalle Street, Suite
3200, Chicago, IL 60602 OR Joel H. Bernstein, Esq., Goodkind
Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP, 100 Park Avenue, New York, NY,
10017, Phone: 800-321-0476, E-mail:
investorrelations@glrslaw.com OR Paul J. Geller, Esq., Lerach
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP, 197 South Federal
Highway, Boca Raton, FL 33432.


WELLS FARGO: Settles CA Suit Over Card Processing Fees For $34M
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wells Fargo & Co. agreed to pay as much as $34 million to settle
allegations that it imposed improper credit card processing
charges on about 96,000 California businesses over a four-year
period, The Los Angeles Times.

According to Howard M. Jaffe, a Los Angeles lawyer representing
the businesses, the settlement by the San Francisco bank amounts
to a partial return of what the plaintiffs contended were "junk
fees" that were never properly disclosed beforehand and never
explained when the merchants called to ask about them. He added
that those disputed charges included extra fees charged by the
bank when merchants had to punch in a credit card number by
hand.

Mr. Jaffe explains to The Los Angeles Times, "If a merchant
failed to swipe the card, couldn't get the machine to read it
and just manually input the numbers, they'd get dinged - usually
by a modest amount, but it added up to millions and millions of
dollars." He also said that other fees were charged for such
things as submitting paperwork late and failing to provide an
address for the customer when asked to do so as a confirmation
of identity. Some agreements between Wells Fargo and the
merchants, according to Mr. Jaffe, mentioned only the basic
charge for processing transactions, while others "made vague
references saying that's the rate that would apply if you jumped
through all the hoops, without saying what the hoops were."

In a statement, Wells Fargo said it "has always made full
disclosures to merchants" about its billing practices. But,
spokeswoman Mary Trigg said that the bank wouldn't discuss how
those disclosures were made. Instead the bank concluded in its
statement, "The settlement allows us to focus on providing great
service to our customers while meeting all of their credit card
and debit card processing needs."

In the settlement, which was approved by Los Angeles County
Superior Court Judge Anthony Mohr, Wells Fargo agreed to pay at
least $19 million and as much as $34 million to settle the
claims, covering charges made from March 1999 through March
2003.

Mr. Jaffe told The Los Angeles Times, that the bank will repay
29% of the charges made early in that period, 19% of those in
the middle, and 10% of the charges at the end, when disclosures
had improved.

Another lawyer for the plaintiffs, Niall McCarthy of Burlingame,
California told The Los Angeles times that if eligible
businesses fail to file for their share of the settlement, the
money would go to businesses that do file claims, which,
according to the attorney, will likely raise the average
distribution from the $300 range to perhaps double that, since
it's typical for only half of those eligible to file claims in
class actions when individual payments are relatively small.

Court papers revealed that the suit, which was filed by Mr.
Jaffe back in March 2003, named four small businesses as
plaintiffs, however the settlement was certified as a class
action that applied to about 96,000 California business
customers of Wells Fargo.

Some large retailers though, according to Mr. McCarthy, such as
the Ralphs and Safeway supermarket chains dropped out of the
case because they were pursuing damages in a separate lawsuit in
Connecticut that alleged broader antitrust violations by credit
card companies.


WEYERHAUSER CO.: Settling With Opt-Out Plaintiffs in PA Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Weyerhauser Co. is working to settle with opt-out plaintiffs in
the two civil antitrust lawsuits filed against it and other
major containerboard and packaging producers in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

The suits were filed in May 1999.  The complaint in the first
case alleged the defendants conspired to fix the price of
linerboard and that the alleged conspiracy had the effect of
increasing the price of corrugated containers.  The suit
requested class certification for purchasers of corrugated
containers during the period from October 1993 through November
1995.  The complaint in the second case alleged that the company
conspired to manipulate the price of linerboard and thereby the
price of corrugated sheets.  The suit requested class
certification for purchasers of corrugated sheets during the
period from October 1993 through November 1995.

In September 2001, the district court certified both classes. In
September 2003, the company, Georgia-Pacific and International
Paper requested preliminary approval of a $68 million settlement
of the class action litigation.  The company recognized a pretax
charge of $23 million in the third quarter of 2003, representing
the company's portion of the settlement.  Final approval of the
settlement occurred in December 2003.

Approximately 165 members of the classes opted out of the class
and filed thirteen lawsuits against the company and other
producers. In the fourth quarter of 2004, the Company settled
one of the opt-out claims for $165,000. In April 2005, the
company settled a second opt-out claim and recognized a pretax
charge of $12 million in the first quarter of 2005. It was the
only opt-out lawsuit set for trial.  In most of the cases the
plaintiffs are seeking both state and federal antitrust
remedies.  It is possible that additional class members that
opted out may file lawsuits against the company in the future.
The company has not recorded a reserve for the remaining opt-out
cases and is unable to estimate at this time the amount of
charges, if any, that may be required for this matter in the
future.


WEYERHAUSER CO.: Faces Linerboard Antitrust Suit in Canada Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Weyerhauser Co. and other linerboard manufacturers face a class
action filed in the Superior Court of Justice in Ontario,
Canada, alleging antitrust violations on behalf of all Canadians
who purchased corrugated products, including sheets and
containers and/or linerboard, during the period of time from
1993 and continuing until at least the end of 1995.

La Cie McCormick Canada Company filed the suit in March 2004,
seeking relief under various theories for $25 million in general
damages and $10 million in punitive damages. At this stage, the
company cannot calculate what portion of the damages requested
would be argued as the Company's responsibility. Canadian law
does not provide for a trebling of antitrust damages, the
company said in a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange
Commissions.


WEYERHAUSER CO.: Appeals Court Upholds Summary Judgment Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower
court ruling denying summary judgment in the class action filed
against Weyerhauser Co., alleging that from 1996 to the present,
the company had monopoly power or attempted to gain monopoly
power in the Pacific Northwest market for alder logs and
finished alder lumber.  The suit was initially filed in the
United States District Court in Oregon.

In April 2003, the jury returned a verdict in favor of one of
the plaintiffs in the amount of $26 million, which was
automatically trebled to $79 million under the antitrust laws.
The company recognized a pretax charge of $79 million in the
first quarter of 2003. The company's motion for a judgment
notwithstanding the verdict was denied in July 2003.  The
company appealed the matter.  A hearing on the appeal occurred
in December 2004.  The company plans to ask for discretionary
review by the U.S. Supreme Court.

In January 2005, the company received a copy of a "complaint in
equity" filed in U.S. District Court in Oregon to set aside the
judgment in the Initial Alder Case on behalf of a plaintiff who
did not prevail in the jury trial held in April 2003.  The
plaintiff alleges a fraud was committed on the court during the
initial trial and argues that as a result the judgment against
the plaintiff should be vacated and a new trial set on
plaintiff's claim of monopolization of the alder sawlog market.
The complaint alleges damages after trebling of $20 million.  
The company denies the allegations in the complaint and is
actively defending the matter.

In April 2003, two separate lawsuits were filed in U.S. District
Court in Oregon alleging that the company violated antitrust
laws by monopolizing the markets for alder sawlogs and finished
alder lumber. The first suit (the Westwood case) was settled in
March 2004, for approximately $35 million. The second suit was
brought by Coast Mountain Hardwoods, Inc., a Canadian company
that sold its assets to the company in 2000. In April 2004, the
company announced a settlement of the Coast Mountain case for
$14 million.


WEYERHAUSER CO.: Trial in OR Alder, Maple Lawsuit Set Nov. 2005
---------------------------------------------------------------
The trial involving the two remaining plaintiffs in the lawsuit
filed against Weyerhauser Co. is set for November 2005 in the
United States District Court in Oregon, alleging antitrust
violations in relation to alder and maple sawlogs.

Five hardwood mill owners filed the suit in May 2004, making the
same allegations as the other alder complaints but adding a new
species, maple. The maple allegations were dismissed in the
first quarter of 2005.  The plaintiffs originally sought trebled
damages of $56 million, including $4 million related to maple
sawlogs, and their complaint included a request that the judge
enjoin some of the company's business practices.  Thereafter, a
first amended complaint was filed which lowered the damage
demand to trebled damages of $53 million, including $4 million
related to maple sawlogs.

In April 2005, a second amended complaint was filed requesting
trebled damages related to the alder allegations of $53 million.
The lawsuit continues to request the judge enjoin many of the
company's key hardwoods business practices and divestment of a
part of the company's hardwood business.

In May 2005, the company settled claims by three of the
plaintiffs for a total of $2 million. A trial involving the two
remaining plaintiffs has been set for November 1, 2005. The
court has applied issue preclusion based upon the Initial
Alder Case so the jury will be instructed that it has already
been established that the company engaged in unspecified anti-
competitive conduct. Whether issue preclusion should be applied
in this circumstance is an issue that is before the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in the Washington Alder
case.


WEYERHAUSER CO.: Trial in OR Antitrust Suit Set October 18,2005
---------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the civil antitrust class action filed against
Weyerhauser Co. is set for October 18,2005 in the United States
District Court in Oregon.

On April 29, 2004, a civil antitrust lawsuit was filed against
the company, alleging that as a result of the Company's alleged
monopolization of the alder sawlog market in the Pacific
Northwest as determined in the Initial Alder Case the company
monopolized the market for finished alder lumber in the Pacific
Northwest and, as a consequence, has been able to charge
monopoly prices for finished alder lumber. The lawsuit requested
class certification primarily for businesses that purchased
finished alder lumber produced by the company from 2000 to the
present.  The original complaint alleged that the purported
class may have realized over $100 million in direct damages, and
sought direct and treble damages under the antitrust laws in an
amount to be determined at trial.  The lawsuit also requested
injunctive relief to ensure the availability of alder sawlogs
for sawmills competing with the company, which could include
termination of certain of the Company's contracts to purchase
alder logs or the Company's control over certain timberlands.  
The lawsuit was assigned to the same judge who presided over the
other alder cases.

In August 2004, the court dismissed the finished alder
allegations with leave to re-file and reserved ruling on whether
the sawlog allegations should be dismissed.  On August 30, 2004,
plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint which again asserted
monopolization of the alder finished lumber market and expanded
the claimed market from the Pacific Northwest to the entire U.S.
but deleted the allegations dealing with alder sawlogs.  The
amended complaint did not specify the amount of damages sought,
but asked that the company be enjoined from certain business
practices. The company received a revised plaintiffs' expert
report which calculated damages, after trebling, at $59 million.

In December 2004, the Judge issued an order certifying plaintiff
as a class representative for all U.S. purchasers of finished
alder lumber between April 28, 2000, and March 31, 2004, for
purposes of awarding monetary damages. The U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit denied the company's request that it
review the certification of the class.

The company disagrees with the allegations in the lawsuit and is
vigorously defending the case. The plaintiffs in the Initial
Alder Case also claimed that the company had monopolized the
finished alder lumber market in the Pacific Northwest, but the
jury found in favor of the company on this claim and that
finding was not appealed.  The claim of attempted monopolization
of the finished alder lumber market was also made in the
Washington Alder litigation, but was abandoned by plaintiff
during trial.  

In December 2004, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit refused to stay the matter pending a decision on the
Initial Alder Case.  In January 2005, the trial judge ruled
against class plaintiff's attempt at precluding the company from
disputing anticompetitive acts.  In January 2005, the company
filed a motion for summary judgment, which was argued in the
second quarter. No ruling has been issued. In February 2005,
class counsel notified the court that approximately 5 percent of
the class members opted out of the class action lawsuit. The
company has no litigation pending with any entity that has opted
out of the class, but it is possible that entities who have
opted out may file lawsuits against the company in the future,
the Company said in a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange
Commission.


WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Trial in OK Securities Suits Set August 2005
----------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the consolidated securities class actions filed against
Williams Companies, Inc., its co-defendant WilTel Communications
(WilTel), previously an owned subsidiary known as Williams
Communications, and certain corporate officers is set for August
16,2006 in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Oklahoma.

Numerous shareholder class action suits have been filed against
the defendants, with the majority alleging that they have acted
jointly and separately to inflate the stock price of both
companies.  Other suits allege similar causes of action related
to a public offering in early January 2002, known as the FELINE
PACS offering. These cases were filed against the Comapny,
certain corporate officers, all members of its board of
directors and all of the offerings' underwriters.  WilTel is no
longer a defendant as a result of its bankruptcy. These cases
have all been consolidated and an order has been issued
requiring separate amended consolidated complaints by the
Company's equity holders and WilTel equity holders.

The underwriter defendants have requested indemnification and
defense from these cases.  If the Company grants the requested
indemnifications to the underwriters, any related settlement
costs will not be covered by its insurance policies. The Company
is currently covering the cost of defending the underwriters.

The amended complaint of the WilTel securities holders was filed
in September 2002, and the amended complaint of the Company's
securities holders was filed in October 2002.  This amendment
added numerous claims related to Power.  Defendants moved to
dismiss the complaints and the Court largely denied the motions.
The parties are currently engaged in discovery.  

On April 2, 2004, the lead plaintiff for the purported class of
the Company's securities holders filed a partial motion for
summary judgment with respect to certain disclosures made in
connection with the Company's public offerings during the class
period. That lead plaintiff subsequently filed to withdraw from
the proceeding and a new process was held to determine the lead
plaintiff. This process has concluded with the appointment of a
new lead plaintiff and lead counsel and the motion for summary
judgment is no longer being pursued. The appointment of a new
lead plaintiff also resulted in a revised schedule with a trial
date currently set for August 16, 2006.


WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Plaintiffs File Amended ERISA Lawsuit in OK
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a third amended class action against Williams
Companies, Inc. in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Oklahoma, alleging violations of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

For class action complaints have been filed against the Company,
the members of its Board of Directors and members of its
benefits and investment committees under the ERISA by
participants in the Company's 401(k) plan.  A motion to
consolidate these suits has been approved.

In July 2003, the court dismissed the company and its Board from
the ERISA suits, but not the members of the benefits and
investment committees to whom the Company might have an
indemnity obligation.  If it is determined that the Company has
an indemnity obligation, it expects that any costs incurred will
be covered by its insurance policies.  On June 7, 2004, the
Court granted plaintiffs' request to amend their complaint to
add additional investment committee members and to again name
the Board of Directors.  On December 21, 2004, the Court denied
the Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment against the
Director Defendants and denied the Motions to Dismiss filed by
the Directors and certain Committee Defendants. On April 26,
2005, Plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint again adding
the Company as a defendant in this matter.  

      
                 New Securities Fraud Cases

BUCA INC.: Berman DeValerio Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in MN
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo
filed the class action in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota against Buca, Inc. ("Buca" or the
"Company") (Nasdaq: BUCA), alleging that the Company issued
materially false and misleading financial statements to the
investing public.

The lawsuit seeks damages for violations of federal securities
laws on behalf of all investors who purchased Buca common stock
between February 6, 2001 and March 11, 2005 (the "Class
Period").

The lawsuit alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the rules
and regulations promulgated thereunder, including U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") Rule 10b-5.

Buca is a Minneapolis-based company that owns and operates 107
restaurants around the country. The complaint alleges that the
defendants issued false and misleading financial statements
throughout the Class Period. During that time, according to the
complaint, the Company materially overstated its income (or
understated its losses), overstated its revenues, lacked
adequate internal controls, and failed to follow generally
accepted accounting practices.

Beginning in February 2005, Buca issued a series of news
releases and SEC filings that disclosed these facts to the
investing public, triggering a decline in the Company's stock
price, the complaint says.

Among other facts, the complaint alleges that:

     (1) On February 7, 2005, Buca announced that the SEC had
         ordered an investigation to determine whether the
         Company had violated securities laws.

     (2) On February, 11, 2005, the Company disclosed in an SEC
         filing that it had "incorrectly applied the accounting
         rules with respect to certain operating lease
         transactions." As a result, the company said, it
         planned to restate previously filed financial
         statements.

     (3) On March 11, 2005, the Company issued a news release
         saying it would notify the SEC it was delaying its
         fiscal year 2004 annual report.

     (4) On March 16, 2005, Buca announced the dismissal of two
         top executives.

     (5) On July 25, 2005, Buca filed a complaint against two
         former executives alleging, among other things, that
         the former executives took secret cash payments from
         vendors and misappropriated Company assets by having
         the Company pay for their personal travel and
         vacations.

Finally, on July 25, 2005, according to the complaint, the
Company restated certain of its financial results -- reducing
income by approximately $20 million over fiscal years 2000
through 2003 -- and stated that it was taking "remedial
measures" to correct material weaknesses in its "system of
internal control over financial reporting."

For more details, contact Michael J. Pucillo or Jay W. Eng of
Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo, Esperante
Building, 222 Lakeview Ave., Suite 900, West Palm Beach, FL,
33401, Phone: (561) 835-9400, E-mail: lawfla@bermanesq.com, Web
site: http://www.bermanesq.com/pdf/Buca-Cplt.pdf.


DRDGOLD LTD.: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of all securities
purchasers of DRDGOLD Ltd. (Nasdaq: DROOY) (f/k/a Durban
Roodepoort Deep, Limited)("DRD" or the "Company") between
October 23, 2003 and February 25, 2005, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

The complaint charges DRD, Mark Wellesley-Wood and Ian Louis
Murray with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed
to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse
facts, which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded
by them:

     (1) that the Company's South African operations,
         specifically the North West Operations, were
         under performing due to production problems;

     (2) that the South African Rand was negatively impacting
         the  Company's operations;

     (3) that due to (1) and (2), DRD materially overstated its
         net worth by failing to take timely writedowns;

     (4) that the Company lacked the cash to adequately cover
         future commitments and continue as a going concern;

     (5) that defendants' statements about the Company's growth
         and progress were lacking in any reasonable basis when
         made.

On February 18, 2005, DRD announced that Company headline loss
per share would be more than 200 percent higher than the
previous reporting period. Then, on February 24, 2005, DRD
released its interim financial results, which revealed that the
Company incurred and continued to incur significant losses and
that operations were in process of being restructured. On this
news, the shares of DRD fell by $0.38 per share, or 25 percent,
on February 24, 2005, to close at $1.11 per share.

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


HOST AMERICA: Kaplan Fox Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in CT
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP, initiated a class
action suit in the United States District Court for the District
of Connecticut against Host America Corporation ("Host America"
or the "Company") (NASDAQ: CAFE) and certain of its officers,
directors and certain shareholders, on behalf of all persons or
entities who purchased the publicly traded common stock of Host
America between July 12, 2005 and July 22, 2005, inclusive (the
"Class Period").

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Host America
and certain of its officers, directors and/or certain
shareholders violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
and Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") by making a series
of materially false and misleading statements concerning the
nature and scope of the Company's business relationship with
Wal-Mart, resulting in the price of Host America's stock being
artificially inflated during the Class Period. It is further
alleged that certain defendants violated Section 20A of the
Exchange Act by improperly selling during the Class Period vast
amounts of their respective stock holdings in the Company,
reaping millions of dollars in proceeds.

On July 22, 2005, the Securities and Exchange Commission ordered
a suspension of trading in Host America securities and on July
25, 2005, the Company disclosed that "the SEC had commenced a
formal investigation of Host, certain of its officers, directors
and others in connection with a press release issued by Host on
July 12, 2005 relating to dealings between Host and Wal-Mart
Stores Inc."

On August 5, 2005, Host America announced that it "was notified
by the Nasdaq Stock Market ('Nasdaq') that based on a review of
public documents and information provided by Host to Nasdaq,
related to the issuance of a July 12, 2005 press release, the
staff of Nasdaq Listing Investigations and Listing
Qualifications has determined that Host no longer qualifies for
inclusion in the Nasdaq stock market and its securities are
therefore subject to delistingA. "

As of the time of this release, trading in the securities of
Host America remains halted.

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


HOST AMERICA: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CT
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C. initiated a lawsuit seeking
class action status in the United States District Court for the
District of Connecticut (Case No. 3:05-cv-1269) on behalf of all
persons who purchased the publicly traded securities of Host
America Corp. (Nasdaq: CAFE or CAFEW) ("Host America") between
July 12, 2005 and July 22, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that Host America and certain of its
officers and directors knowingly or recklessly made a series of
material misrepresentations concerning the nature of the
business relationship between Host America and Wal-Mart.
Moreover, Defendants and employees of Host America profited
handsomely from those misrepresentations, selling over $6.92
million of Host America securities during the Class Period. Host
America is a company that, among other things, manufactures and
sells a computerized controller capable of reducing energy
consumption and demand fluctuations of electrical inductive
loads on motors and certain lighting systems.

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


INVESTORS FINANCIAL: Brian M. Felgoise Lodges MA Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C. initiated a
securities class action on behalf of shareholders who acquired
Investors Financial Services Corporation (NASDAQ: IFIN)
securities between October 15, 2003 and July 15, 2003, inclusive
(the Class Period).

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts, against the company and certain key
officers and directors.

The action charges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing a series of materially false and
misleading statements to the market throughout the Class Period
which statements had the effect of artificially inflating the
market price of the Company's securities. No class has yet been
certified in the above action.

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


PATTERSON COMPANIES: Goldman Scarlato Lodges Stock Suit in MN
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C., initiated a
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of
Minnesota, on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired publicly traded securities of Patterson Companies, Inc.
("Patterson" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:PDCO) between February
24, 2005 and May 25, 2005, inclusive, (the "Class Period"). The
lawsuit was filed against Patterson and certain of its officers
and directors ("Defendants").

The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of false and
misleading statements during the Class Period. More
specifically, the complaint alleges that Defendants knew but
failed to disclose that the Company's Q4 earnings targets,
showing sequential improvement, were impossible to meet because
business conditions that were knowable to Defendants were
deteriorating, causing significant pressure on gross and
operating margins. The alleged concealment of this material
information allowed Defendants to sell tens of millions worth of
their own shares at inflated prices.

On May 26, 2005, following the revelation by the Company that
results in the Company's dental supply business were below
targets, the Company's share price plummeted 14%, wiping out
$1.1 billion in market capitalization, as the stock fell below
$46 per share on very high volume.

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


PEMSTAR INC.: Murray Frank Schedules Lead Plaintiff Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP would like to inform
all shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired the
securities of PEMSTAR Inc. ("PEMSTAR" or the "Company")
(Nasdaq:PMTR) between January 29, 2003 and January 24, 2005,
inclusive (the "Class Period"), that August 15, 2005 is the last
day to move for lead plaintiff appointment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

For more details, contact Eric J. Belfi or Bradley P. Dyer of
Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP, Phone: (800) 497-8076 or
(212) 682-1818, Fax: (212) 682-1892, E-mail:
info@murrayfrank.com, Web site:
http://www.murrayfrank.com/CM/NewCases/NewCases.asp.


WORKSTREAM INC.: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C., initiated a lawsuit
seeking class action status in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons
who purchased the common stock of Workstream, Inc. (Nasdaq:
WSTM) ("Workstream") between January 14, 2005, and April 14,
2005 (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that Workstream violated federal
securities laws by issuing materially false or misleading
financial statements. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that
Workstream improperly recognized revenue for sales of computer
software by using an inapplicable "percentage of completion"
accounting methodology.

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


WORKSTREAM INC.: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Stull, Stull & Brody initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, on behalf of purchasers of Workstream,
Inc. ("Workstream") (NASDAQ: WSTM) common stock between January
14, 2005 and April 14, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

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

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



                            *********


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  * * *