CAR_Public/050817.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Wednesday, August 17, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 162

                         Headlines

ACCUTANE: Program Started To Halt Acne Drug Use During Pregnancy
ACTIVISION INC.: Plaintiffs Drop CA Securities Fraud Litigation
BAYER CORPORATION: FDA Bans Distribution of Enrofloxacin Drug
CALIFORNIA: Deadline Nears For $600T Migrant Workers' Settlement
CAMBREX CORPORATION: NJ Court Yet To Rule on Lawsuit Dismissal

CENTRAL GARDEN: Finalized Settlement of August 2000 Fire Suits
CHIRON CORPORATION: Trial in CA Securities Suit Set For May 2006
CHIRON CORPORATION: New York City, Counties Join MA AWP Lawsuit
CRYOLIFE INC.: Reaches Settlement For GA Securities Fraud Suit
CYBERONICS INC.: Shareholders File Securities Fraud Suits in TX

EXXON MOBIL: FL Court Allowed To Hear Claims in Allapatah Suit
FAIRFIELD RESORTS: Worthless Time-Share Purchases Triggers Suit
GENERAL ELECTRIC: More Models Added to FL Consumer Fraud Lawsuit
GILEAD SCIENCES: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
LEGAL BUCKS: NC Woman Launches Consumer Financing Fraud Lawsuit

MISSOURI: Parents File Foster Care Funding Lawsuit V. Governor
NEW HAMPSHIRE: Lawsuit Settlement Hearing Set October 24, 2005
NUVEEN INVESTMENTS: IL Court Dismisses Shareholder Fraud Lawsuit
OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Stock Lawsuit
PATINA OIL: CO Court Mulls Certification of Gas Royalties Suit

PHARMAKON LABS: FDA Shuts Down Operations For Substandard Drugs
POF INTERNATIONAL: NJ Court Seizes Rice For Insect Contamination
RELIANT ENERGY: Pays $445M to Settle CA Utilities Litigation
RENAL CARE: Shareholders Launch Suit V. Fresenius Merger in TN
RYLAND GROUP: Shareholders Launch Securities Lawsuits in N.D. TX

SAVIENT PHARMACEUTICALS: NJ Consolidated Amended Suit Dismissed
SNAP-ON TOOLS: Arbitrator Rules Franchisees Can Bring Lawsuit
SUPERCUTS: Employees Launch Bias Suit V. English Speaking Policy
TACO BELL: ADA Suit Filed Over Accessibility of CA Restaurants
THAXTON GROUP: Two Defendants Settles Suit Over 2003 Bankruptcy

TRAFFIX INC.: IL Appeals Court Refuses To Review Suit Dismissal
TRINITY INC.: Lawsuit Over 2002 Bus Accident Settled For $5.5M
UNITED STATES: DOJ Seeks New Judge For Indian Trust Fund Lawsuit
UNOCAL CORPORATION: AK Pension Fund Lodges Securities Lawsuit
UNOCAL CORPORATION: Inks Settlement For Suit V. Chevron Merger

UST INC.: FL Injury Suit To Be Converted Into Individual Action
WASHINGTON: Tribe Files Suit Over Desecration of Indian Graves
XL CAPITAL: Asks CT Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Lawsuit


               Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

AMERICAN ITALIAN: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Suit in MO
AMERICAN ITALIAN: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Suit in MO
HOST AMERICA: Kirby McInerney Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CT
HOST AMERICA: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Fraud Suit in CT
INVESTORS FINANCIAL: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Stock Suit in MA

PATTERSON COMPANIES: Federman & Sherwood Files Stock Suit in MN
RED ROBIN: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CO
RENAISSANCERE HOLDINGS: Scott + Scott Lodges Stock Suit in NY

                          *********

ACCUTANE: Program Started To Halt Acne Drug Use During Pregnancy
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing
approval of a strengthened distribution program for
isotretinoin, called iPLEDGE, aimed at preventing use of the
drug during pregnancy. Women who are pregnant or who might
become pregnant should not take the drug. Isotretinoin (Accutane
and its generics) is a highly effective drug for severe
recalcitrant nodular acne, but it carries a significant risk of
birth defects if taken during pregnancy.

The manufacturers are implementing a program that requires
registration in iPLEDGE by doctors and patients who agree to
accept specific responsibilities before receiving authorization
to prescribe or use the drug. These measures are designed to
guard against pregnancies while using the drug. Wholesalers and
pharmacies must also comply with the manufacturers' program
requirements in order to distribute and dispense the product.
FDA is approving this program under its regulations, known as
Subpart H, that require restrictions on the distribution of a
drug to assure safe use.

"This stronger program is a major step in protecting against
inadvertent pregnancy exposure by tightly linking negative
pregnancy testing with dispensing of isotretinoin." said Dr.
Steven Galson, Director, FDA's Center for Evaluation and
Research. "iPLEDGE, using a computer-based and telephone system,
will provide health care professionals with the real time
information necessary to effectively manage the risks of
isotretinoin."

In February 2004, at a joint meeting, FDA's Drug Safety and Risk
Management Advisory Committee and Dermatologic and Ophthalmic
Drugs Advisory Committee reviewed the existing isotretinoin risk
management programs in effect at that time. Based upon their
review, the joint committee called for major improvements in the
restricted distribution program, including mandatory
registration to ensure that patients who could become pregnant
have negative pregnancy testing and birth control counseling
before receiving the drug.

To inform health care providers about iPLEDGE, FDA has issued a
Public Health Advisory and revised the Patient and Health Care
Provider Information Sheets that detail the tightened
restrictions and increased responsibilities under iPLEDGE for
prescribing, dispensing, distributing, and obtaining
isotretinoin.

To obtain the drug, in addition to registering with iPLEDGE,
patients must comply with a number of key requirements that
include completing an informed consent form, obtaining
counseling about the risks and requirements for safe use of the
drug, and, for women of childbearing age, complying with
required pregnancy testing.

A reporting and collection system for serious adverse events
associated with the use of istotretinoin has also been
implemented. All pregnancy exposures to isotretinoin must be
reported immediately to the FDA via the MedWatch 1800-FDA-1088
and to the iPLEDGE pregnancy registry at 1-866-495-0654 or on
the iPLEDGE website.

Doctors, patients, and pharmacies can obtain program information
and register with iPLEDGE via the internet, beginning August 22,
2005, at www.ipledgeprogram.com or telephone 1-866-495-0654.

In addition to approving the iPLEDGE program, FDA has approved
changes to the existing warnings, patient information and
informed consent document so that patients and prescribers can
better identify and manage the risks of psychiatric symptoms and
depression before and after prescribing isotretinoin.

Under the program, after October 31, 2005, wholesalers and
pharmacies will have to register with iPLEDGE to obtain
isotretinoin from a manufacturer. Starting December 31, 2005,
all patients and prescribers (doctors) must register and comply
with requirements for office visits, counseling, birth control
and other responsibilities.

The manufacturers participating in the iPLEDGE program include:

Hoffman-LaRoche manufacturer of Accutane; Genpharm manufacturer
of Amnesteem which is distributed by Mylan/Bertek; Ranbaxy
Pharmaceuticals manufacturer of Sotret; and Barr Laboratories
manufacturer of Claravis.

For additional consumer information, visit the following
website:
http://www.fda.gov/cder/drug/infopage/accutane/default.htm


ACTIVISION INC.: Plaintiffs Drop CA Securities Fraud Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs dismissed the consolidated securities class action
filed against Activision, Inc. and certain of its current and
former officers and directors in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California.

On March 5, 2004, a class action lawsuit was filed, asserting
claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.  The suit was based on allegations that the
Company's revenues and assets were overstated during the period
between February 1, 2001 and December 17, 2002.  The
Construction Industry and Carpenters Joint Pension Trust for
Southern Nevada filed the suit, purporting to represent a class
of purchasers of Activision stock.  Five additional purported
class actions were subsequently filed by Gianni Angeloni,
Christopher Hinton, Stephen Anish, the Alaska Electrical Pension
Fund and Joseph A. Romans asserting the same claims.

Consistent with the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act
(PSLRA), the court appointed lead plaintiffs consolidating the
six putative securities class actions into a single case.  In an
Order dated May 16, 2005, the court dismissed the consolidated
complaint because the plaintiffs failed to satisfy the
heightened pleading standards of the PSLRA.  The court did,
however, give the lead plaintiffs leave to file an amended
consolidated complaint within 30 days of the order.  Rather than
file a new complaint, the Plaintiff agreed to dismiss the entire
case with prejudice.  The Order dismissing the action with
prejudice was entered on June 17, 2005.

The consolidated suit is styled "In Re Activision, Inc
Securities Litigation, lead docket 2:04-cv-01501-PA-E," filed in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California, Western Division, under Judge Percy Anderson,
referred to Magistrate Judge Charles F. Eick.  Plaintiffs are
Construction Industry and Carpenters Joint Pension Trust for
Southern Nevada, on Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plumbers and Pipefitters National Pension Fund,
Logan Capital Management, Inc. and Trust Mark Group.

Law firms for the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Darren J. Robbins of Lerach Coughlin Stein and Robbins,
         Mail: 401 B Street, Suite 1700 San Diego, CA 92101-4297
         Phone: 619-231-1058 E-mail: Denisey@lcsr.com

     (2) Jason Robert Llorens, Jonathan Behar and William S.
         Lerach of Lerach Coughlin Stoia and Robbins, Mail: 355
         South Grand Avenue, Suite 4170 Los Angeles, CA 90071
         Phone: 213-617-9007

     (3) Daniel E. Bacine, David E. Robinson, Leonard Barrack of
         Barrack Rodos and Bacine, Mail: 3300 Two Commerce
         Square, 2001 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Phone: 215-963-0600

     (3) John L. Haeussler, Marisa Livesay, Samuel L. Ward,
         Stephen R. Basser of Barrack Rodos and Racine, Mail:
         402 West Broadway, Suite 850 San Diego, CA 92101,
         Phone: 619-230-0800

     (4) Christopher Kim and Lisa Yang of Lim Ruger & Kim, Mail:
         1055 W 7TH St, Ste 2800, Los Angeles, CA 90017, Phone:
         213-955-9500, Email: Ckim@lrklawyers.com

     (5) Marc A. Topaz and Richard A. Maniskas of Schiffrin and
         Barroway, Mail: Three Bala Plaza East, Suite 400 Bala
         Cynwyd, PA 19004, Phone: 610-667-7706, Fax: 610-667-
         7056

     (6) Aaron L Brody and Jules Brody of Stull Stull and Brody
         Mail: 6 East 45TH Street New York, NY 10017, Phone:
         212-687-7230

     (7) Joseph H Weiss of Weiss and Yourman, Mail: 551 Fifth
         Avenue, New York, NY 10176, Phone: 212-682-3025, Fax:
         212-682-3010

     (8) Michael D Braun of Stull Stull and Brody, Mail: 10940
         Wilshire Blvd, Suite 2300, Los Angeles, CA 90024,
         Phone: 310-209-2468 Email: Service@secfraud.com

Lawyers for the defendants are:

     (i) Harriet S Posner and Robert F. Lemoine, Mail: Skadden  
         Arps Slate Meagher and Flom, 300 South Grand Avenue Los
         Angeles, CA 90071-3144, Phone: 213-687-5000 Fax: 213-
         687-5600 E-mail: lacefax@skadden.com

    (ii) James E Lyons of Skadden Arps Slate Meagher and Flom
         4 Embarcadero Center, Suite 3800 San Francisco, CA
         94111, Phone: 415-984-6400 Fax: 415-984-2698


BAYER CORPORATION: FDA Bans Distribution of Enrofloxacin Drug
-------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner Lester
Crawford is announcing the Agency's final decision to no longer
allow distribution or use of the antimicrobial drug enrofloxacin
for the purpose of treating bacterial infections in poultry.
This ruling does not affect other approved uses of the drug.
This animal drug belongs to a class of drugs known as
fluoroquinolones and is marketed under the name Baytril by Bayer
Corporation.

The FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) began proceedings
to withdraw use of this animal drug in poultry because of
scientific data that showed that the use of enrofloxacin in
poultry caused resistance to emerge in Campylobacter, a
bacterium that causes foodborne illness. Chickens and turkeys
normally harbor Campylobacter in their digestive tracts without
causing poultry to become ill. Enrofloxacin does not completely
eliminate Campylobacter from the birds' intestinal tracts, and
those Campylobacter bacteria that survive are resistant to
fluoroquinolone drugs. These resistant bacteria multiply in the
digestive tracts of poultry and persist and spread through
transportation and slaughter, and are found on chicken carcasses
in slaughter plants and retail poultry meats.

Campylobacter bacteria are a significant cause of foodborne
illness in the U.S. Antimicrobial treatment is recommended for
people with severe illness as well as the very young, the
elderly, and people with certain medical conditions.
Complications of such infections can include reactive arthritis
and, more rarely, blood stream infections. Early treatment can
mitigate symptoms and may decrease the risk of complications.
Fluoroquinolones used in humans are ineffective if used to treat
Campylobacter infections that are resistant to them. This
failure can significantly prolong the duration of the infections
and may increase the risk of complications. The proportion of
Campylobacter infections that are resistant to fluoroquinolones
has increased significantly since the use of enrofloxacin in
poultry was approved in the U.S.

Bayer Corporation has 60 days from the date of the decision to
appeal the withdrawal to a U.S. Court of Appeals. The Final Rule
withdrawing approval of the antimicrobial drug enrofloxacin for
the purpose of treating bacterial infections in poultry will be
effective on September 12, 2005. For the Final Decision please
go to www.fda.gov/oc/antimicrobial/baytril.pdf and for the
Federal Register documents please go to the Website:
http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets.


CALIFORNIA: Deadline Nears For $600T Migrant Workers' Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Time is running out for migrant workers who lived at state-run
farm labor camps to receive their portion of a $600,000 class
action settlement with the state over illegal rent hikes in 1996
and 1997, according to state officials, The Lodi News-Sentinel
reports.

Aaron Peter, operations manager for volunteer Western Farm
Workers Association told The Lodi News-Sentinel that some 12,000
migrant workers, some of whom lived at the Artesi Migrant Center
in French Camp, California are entitled to reimbursement checks
after the state raised their rents from $3.50 to $7 per person
per day without notice.

Janet Huston, spokeswoman for the California Department of
Housing and Community Development, which funds the camps, also
told The Lodi News-Sentinel that as of July 8, $361,630 in
claims payments had been paid or authorized for payment to 717
camp residents.  The checks, which can range between $200 and
$700, can be equal to a month of income for some workers. The
deadline for filing a claim is October 31.  

The class action suit began after a group of camp residents at
the Artesi center, joined by Western Farm Workers Association
and other groups, in 1996 filed suit against the state. The
residents ultimately won, but when they returned to the camp the
rent on the two and three-bedroom units there were at the same
rate as before, Mr. Peter said. The group thus went back to
court and attained class action status, according to Mr. Peter.
They eventually settled with the state last year.

Mr. Peter called the settlement a significant victory for
migrant workers' rights saying, "For a long time people have not
considered the farm workers to have particular rights at all."
He goes on to say, "We've demonstrated that they do have rights,
(and) that the procedures that apply to everyone else apply to
the farm workers, too."

Camp residents who wish to submit claims can call claims
administrator Poorman Douglas, at (866) 422-0150.


CAMBREX CORPORATION: NJ Court Yet To Rule on Lawsuit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
has yet to rule on Cambrex Corporation's motion to dismiss a
securities class action lawsuit filed against it and five of its
former and current Company officers.

The lawsuit has been brought as a class action in the names of
purchasers of the Company's common stock from October 21, 1998
through July 25, 2003.  The complaint alleges that the Company
failed to disclose in timely fashion the January 2003 accounting
restatement and subsequent SEC investigation, as well as the
loss of a significant contract at the Baltimore facility.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss in May 2004.  Thereafter
the plaintiff filed a reply brief.  The Company responded and is
awaiting a decision from the Court.

The suit is styled "Stephen Dodge, Individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Cambrex Corporation, James A.
Mack, Douglas H. MacMillan, Claes Glasell, Salvatore J. Guccione
and Luke M. Beshar," filed in the United States District Court
in New Jersey.

Counsel for the plaintiff:

     (1) Patrick L. Rocco and Jennifer Sullivan of Shalov Stone
         & Bonner LLP, 163 Madison Ave. P.O. Box 1277
         Morristown, New Jersey 07692-1277, Phone: 973-775-8897;

     (2) Steven G. Schulman, Peter Seidman and Sharon M. Lee of
         Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP, One
         Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY 10119-0165, Phone:
         212-594-5300, Fax: 212-868-1229;

     (3) Marc S. Henzel of the Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel,
         273 Montgomery Avenue, Bala Cynwyd PA 19004, Phone:
         610-660-8000


CENTRAL GARDEN: Finalized Settlement of August 2000 Fire Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Central Garden & Pet Company reached a settlement for a class
action filed against it in the Superior Court of Arizona,
Maricopa County, related to an August 2, 2000 fire that
destroyed its leased warehouse space in Phoenix, Arizona, and an
adjoining warehouse space leased by a third party.

On July 31, 2001, the adjoining warehouse tenant filed a lawsuit
against the Company and other parties in the Superior Court of
Arizona, Maricopa County, seeking to recover $47 million for
property damage from the fire.  Local residents also filed a
purported class action lawsuit alleging claims for bodily injury
and property damage as a result of the fire.

This class action lawsuit has now been settled as to all
parties, and has received Court approval.  As part of the
settlement, the company's liability insurers paid $7,825,000 on
behalf of the Company in May 2004.

The building owner and several nearby businesses have also filed
lawsuits for property damage and business interruption, which
are being coordinated with the remaining tenant lawsuit. Each of
these lawsuits is currently pending in the Superior Court of
Arizona, Maricopa County. The trial for the remaining cases is
currently scheduled for March 2006.


CHIRON CORPORATION: Trial in CA Securities Suit Set For May 2006
----------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the consolidated securities class action filed against
Chiron Corporation and certain of its officers is set for May
1,2006 in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California.

Between October 2004 and December 2004, five securities class
action lawsuits were filed on behalf of purchasers of Company
securities for class periods ranging from July 23, 2003 through
October 13, 2004. Four of the suits were filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California.
One action, although originally filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, was
later transferred to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California.

In March 2005, the Court named lead counsel and plaintiff, and
in April 2005, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint.
The consolidated complaint alleges, among other things, that the
defendants violated certain provisions of the federal securities
laws by making false and misleading statements from July 23,
2003 through October 5, 2004 concerning the amount of FLUVIRIN
vaccine the Company projected to produce and its historical and
forecasted financial results, and seeks unspecified monetary
damages and other relief from all defendants.

The consolidated suit is styled "Richard Gregory, et al. v.
Chiron Corporation, et al., case no. 04-CV-04293," filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.  The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

     (1) Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP, 355 South Grand
         Avenue, Suite 4170, Los Angeles, CA, 90071, Phone:
         213.617.9007, Fax: 213.617.9185, E-mail:
         info@milbergweiss.com

     (2) Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (New York), One
         Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor, New York, NY, 10119,
         Phone: 212.594.5300, Fax: 212.868.1229, E-mail:
         info@milbergweiss.com    


CHIRON CORPORATION: New York City, Counties Join MA AWP Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The City of New York and several New York State counties filed a
complaint in the In Re Pharmaceutical Industry Average Wholesale
Price Litigation in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts against numerous biotechnology and
pharmaceutical companies, including Chiron Corporation, in June
2005, in connection with setting average wholesale prices for
various products reimbursed by Medicaid, including TOBI
Proleukin and certain generic oncology drugs sold by the Cetus-
Ben Venue Therapeutics partnership.

Plaintiffs allege that defendants violated federal and state
laws regarding Medicaid fraud, and state laws regarding social
services fraud, health regulations, breach of contract, unfair
trade practices, and unjust enrichment, and seek declaratory
relief, as well as compensatory and punitive damages.  

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.  The Company is represented by Ronald L. Castle,
Lisa A. Estrada and D. Jacques Smith of Arent, Fox PLLC, 1050
Connecticut Ave., N.W., Washington, DC 20036-6188, Phone:
202-857-6188, Fax: 202-857-6395, E-mail:
Castle.Ronald@arentfox.com.


CRYOLIFE INC.: Reaches Settlement For GA Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cryolife, Inc. reached a settlement for the consolidated
securities class action filed against it and certain of its
officers in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia.

Several putative class action lawsuits were filed in July
through September 2002, alleging violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on a
series of purportedly materially false and misleading statements
to the market. The suits were consolidated, and a consolidated
amended complaint filed, that principally alleges that the
Company made misrepresentations and omissions relating to
product safety and the Company did not comply with certain FDA
regulations regarding the handling and processing of certain
tissues and other product safety matters.  The consolidated
complaint seeks certification of a class of purchasers between
April 2, 2001 and August 14, 2002, compensatory damages, and
other expenses of litigation.  

The Company and the other defendants filed a motion to dismiss
the consolidated complaint on February 28, 2003, which motion
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
denied in part and granted in part on May 27, 2003.  The
discovery phase of the case commenced on July 16, 2003. On
December 16, 2003 the Court certified a class of individuals and
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Company stock from
April 2, 2001 through August 14, 2002.

On March 11, 2005 defendants moved for summary judgment on all
of plaintiffs' claims, and plaintiffs moved for partial summary
judgment as to some of their claims against certain defendants.
On June 17, 2005 the court denied plaintiffs' motion for partial
summary judgment and granted in part and denied in part
defendants' motion for summary judgment.

On July 21, 2005 the Company reached an agreement in principle
to settle the securities class action lawsuit.  The settlement
will resolve all claims asserted against the Company and the
individual defendants in this case.  The terms of the
settlement, which must be approved by the court following notice
to the class, include a total settlement of $23.25 million,
approximately $11.5 million of which is expected to be paid from
insurance proceeds. The remainder of the settlement is comprised
of a cash payment from the Company of approximately $8.0
million, expected to be paid in the third or fourth quarter of
2005, and common stock with a stipulated value of approximately
$3.75 million.

The suit is styled "Robert Murray and Richard A. Pearson,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Cryolife, Inc., Steven G. Anderson, Albert E. Heacox, James C.
Vander Wyk and D. Ashley Lee," and pending in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta
Division.  Attorneys for the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Martin D. Chitwood and Nikole Davenport of Chitwood &
         Harley, Mail: 2900 Promenade II, 1230 Peachtree Street,
         NE Atlanta, Georgia 30309, Phone: 404-873-3900, Fax:
         404-876-4476

     (2) Sherrie R. Savett, Carole A. Broderick, Barbara A.
         Podell, David F. Sorensen of Berger & Montague PC, 1622
         Locust Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone: 215-875-
         3000, Fax: 215-875-4604

For more information, visit
http://securities.stanford.edu/1024/CRY02-
01/20020827_o01c_022388.pdf


CYBERONICS INC.: Shareholders File Securities Fraud Suits in TX
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cyberonics, Inc. and certain of its current officers face two
securities class actions filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Texas.  The suits are styled
"Richard Darquea v. Cyberonics Inc., et al., Civil Action No.
H:05-cv-02121," and "Stanley Sved v. Cyberonics, Inc., et al.,
Civil Action No. H:05-cv-2414."

The complaints generally allege, among other things, that the
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making false and misleading
statements relating to the Company's Vagus Nerve Stimulation
Therapy System device (the "VNS Device").

Specifically, the plaintiffs allege that the defendants failed
to disclose that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had
"safety and efficacy concerns" about the use of the VNS Device
for the treatment of depression and that the defendants failed
to disclose the existence of certain "manufacturing and quality
practices," as detailed in the FDA's December 22, 2004 Warning
Letter, that negatively impacted the Company's prospects for
obtaining FDA approval to use the VNS Device to treat
depression. Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of all persons
and entities, except those named as defendants, who purchased or
otherwise acquired Company securities during the period
June 15, 2004 through October 1, 2004. The complainants seek
unspecified monetary damages and equitable or injunctive relief,
if available.


EXXON MOBIL: FL Court Allowed To Hear Claims in Allapatah Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Supreme Court granted Florida federal court
the right to hear the claims of class members that did not
satisfy the $50,000 minimum amount-in-controversy requirement in
the class action filed against Exxon Mobil Corporation, styled
"Allapattah Services, Inc. et al. v. Exxon Corporation, Case No.
04-70."

The suit was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida on behalf of current or former
direct-served gas station dealers who owned or operated an Exxon
service station between March 1, 1983 and August 28, 1994.  The
dispute centered on the Company's August 1982 "discount for
cash" program, which promised station owners a price reduction
to offset a new fee on credit-card sales.  The suit alleges that
the Company overcharged the plaintiffs for the wholesale price
of motor fuel for eleven years and then fraudulently concealed
the charges.  The law firm of Stearns Weaver Miller Weissler
Alhadeff & Sitterson, P.A. represents the class, an earlier
Class Action Reporter story (June 17,2005) states.

The court determined in January 2001 that a class of all Exxon
dealers between March 1983 and August 1994 had been overcharged
between 1.03 and 1.4 cents per gallon for gasoline.  The Company
sold a total of 39.8 billion gallons of gasoline to its dealers
during this period. The estimated value of the potential claims
associated with the 39.8 billion gallons of gasoline is $494
million. Including related interest, the total is approximately
$1.3 billion.

On June 11, 2003, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed
the judgment and on March 15, 2004, denied a petition for
Rehearing En Banc.  On October 12, 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court
granted review of an issue raised by the Company as to whether
the class in the District Court judgment should include members
that individually do not satisfy the $50,000 minimum amount-in-
controversy requirement in federal court.

In light of the Supreme Court's decision to grant review of only
part of ExxonMobil's appeal, ExxonMobil took an after-tax charge
of $550 million in the third quarter of 2004 reflecting the
estimated liability, including interest and after considering
potential set-offs and defenses, for the claims in excess of
$50,000.  By a 5-to-4 decision in June 2005, the Supreme Court
granted the District Court the right to hear the claims of class
members that did not satisfy the $50,000 minimum amount-in-
controversy requirement.


FAIRFIELD RESORTS: Worthless Time-Share Purchases Triggers Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Two families initiated a lawsuit against Fairfield Resorts,
claiming that their time-share purchases of Fairfield vacation
time in recent years proved to be virtually worthless, The
Orlando Sentinel reports.

Wendell and Sandra Grimes of Albertville, Alabama, and Robin and
Barry Dillard of Danville, Virginia, filed the suit on July 18
in federal court in Orlando. It is seeking class action status
for thousands of people who have purchased vacation time from
the Orlando-based time-share giant. The case has been assigned
to U.S. District Judge Anne Conway.

Fairfield, which is owned by the Cendant Corporation, is the
nation's largest time-share company and has been in business
since 1966, growing to become a more than $500 million a year
powerhouse in competition with Marriott, Hilton and other
brands.  Despite repeated attempts to reserve time in their
favorite resorts, among some 70 operated by Fairfield, the
families claim they have been told that space was not available.
In a telephone interview retiree Wendell Grimes, 64, told The
Orlando Sentinel, "We could never get reservations. We tried and
tried."

Mr. Grimes also told The Orlando Sentinel that he agreed in June
2002 to pay Fairfield $14,200 plus about $440 in closing costs,
but has yet to stay a single night in the Fairfield Smoky
Mountain Resort near Gatlinburg, Tennessee. He adds that he
always vacationed in the Smoky Mountains and wanted to stay in
that resort and was assured by the Fairfield sales staff that
his family could stay there. However, according to Mr. Grimes,
"We ended up staying in a motel," despite repeatedly requesting
a weekend in the Fairfield resort, even more than a year in
advance.

The suit contends Fairfield Resorts "diluted" the interests of
fee-simple purchasers such as the Grimeses in recent years by
aggressively expanding into the "points-based" system.  The fee-
simple model is the traditional time-share method that typically
guarantees one-week for life at a resort of the buyer's choice,
with possible options to use other affiliated resorts. The newer
points-based system adopted by Fairfield and other companies
offer more flexibility, to divvy up the time in weekends or
other increments.

However, according to Steven Berk, an attorney representing the
families for Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca law firm in Washington,
D.C., the net effect of programs implemented by Fairfield since
Cendant acquired it in 2001 is to make it virtually impossible
for many of the fee-based buyers to get into resorts of their
choice.

Mr. Berk pointed out that though there may be space at some
Fairfield resorts at any given time, Fairfield now has too many
people eligible, and clamoring to stay in, popular resorts such
as the Smoky Mountains property. He adds, "The system might not
be oversold systemwide, but certain resorts might be. I know for
a certainty that their interest has been diluted."

Mr. Berk also told The Orlando Sentinel that he thinks the case
has a good chance of being certified for class action status
because it is not the typical time-share suit that challenges
the marketing techniques of a company. "This is not a he-said,
she-said case," he explains.


GENERAL ELECTRIC: More Models Added to FL Consumer Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A federal class action lawsuit launched against General Electric
now includes more than a 100 model numbers listed as possibly
defective, The NBC 2 News reports.

As previously reported in the May 23, 2005 edition of the Class
Action Reporter, a southwest Florida man initiated a lawsuit
seeking class action status against Fairfield, Connecticut-based
General Electric alleging that the company sold refrigerators
with a defect that caused them to leak water and form metal
shavings and shards of plastic in ice.

According to William F. Turner, the refrigerators have a defect
that causes excessive moisture to build up, particularly in the
icemaker. That buildup, Mr. Turner further states in his
complaint, causes rust, water puddles on the floor and the
formation of metal shavings and shards of plastic, "which pose
real and unreasonable safety hazards to consumers who may
unwittingly ingest these dangerous materials as they consume ice
created in the freezer section." He also alleges that the defect
also causes the temperature control problems and makes excessive
frost.

Mr. Turner, a resident of Collier County filed the suit in U.S.
District Court in Fort Myers. Additionally, his attorney, Scott
Weinstein plans to file similar suits in other states. Mr.
Weinstein previously stated that his client, who had bought his
refrigerator for about $1,200 in 2002, is seeking replacement of
faulty machines, warranties for new units and reimbursement for
repairs and fridges that were already replaced.

Due to the addition of other models, GE will get more time to
respond to the lawsuit because the complaint will be amended
once again.  On the second amended complaint there are now
nearly 140 model numbers listed. All are 22-cubic-foot models
made in Indiana in 2001 and 2002. The models start with GSS-22,
ESS-22, GSH-22, GST-22 and GE brand "Hotpoint" models HSS-22 and
HST-22.  The full list of models involved in the suit are
available at: http://www.nbc-2.com/News/documents/050815_ge-
suit2ndamend.pdf.


GILEAD SCIENCES: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gilead Sciences, Inc. asked the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California to dismiss the third amended
securities class action filed against it, its Chief Executive
Officer, Chief Financial Officer, former Executive Vice
President of Operations (and current Senior Business Advisor),
Executive Vice President of Research and Development, and Senior
Vice President of Manufacturing and Research.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated the federal
securities laws, specifically Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities
and Exchange Commission, by making certain alleged false and
misleading statements.  The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages
on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the Company's
securities during the period from July 14, 2003 through October
28, 2003.

Other similar actions were subsequently filed and the court
issued an order consolidating the lawsuits into a single action
on December 22, 2003.  On February 9, 2004, the court issued an
order appointing lead plaintiffs in the consolidated action.  On
April 30, 2004 lead plaintiffs, on behalf of the purported
class, filed their consolidated amended complaint.  On June 21,
2004 the Company and individual defendants filed their motion to
dismiss the consolidated amended complaint.  On January 4, 2005
the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss with leave to
amend.  Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint on February
25, 2005.  On March 11, 2005 Plaintiffs filed a Third Amended
Complaint.  Defendants filed a motion to dismiss this complaint
by May 10, 2005 and the matter is set to be heard on September
27, 2005.  No trial date has been scheduled.

The suit is styled "In re Gilead Sciences Securities litigation,
case no. 03-CV-4999," filed in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California under Judge Martin J.
Jenkins.  The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

     (1) Geller Rudman, PLLC, 197 South Federal Highway, Suite
         200, Boca Raton, FL, 33432, Phone: 561.750.3000, Fax:
         888.262.3131, E-mail: info@geller-rudman.com;

     (2) Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP (San Francisco, CA), 100
         Pine Street, 26th Floor, San Francisco, CA, 94111,
         Phone: 415.772.4700, Fax: 415.677.1233, E-mail:
         info@kaplanfox.com

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

     (4) Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Hynes & Lerach LLP (Seattle,
         WA), 1001 Fourth Avenue - Suite 3200, Seattle, WA,
         98154, Phone: 206.839.0730


LEGAL BUCKS: NC Woman Launches Consumer Financing Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers for Nancy Odell of North Carolina initiated a class
action lawsuit in June that is requesting a permanent injunction
that would shut down Legal Bucks, a Pfafftown company that
provides advance money to people preparing to bring lawsuits in
exchange for a percentage of future lawsuit proceeds, The
Winston-Salem Journal reports.

According to Fred Berry, Ms. Odell's lawyer, the suit, which so
far has had no members, added to it, alleges that Legal Bucks
entered into agreements with other personal-injury claimants,
who are potential members of the class action, throughout North
Carolina. The suit also alleges that people seeking insurance
claims who typically "have a desperate need for money" agree to
pay unusually high interest rates on a loan, which is often used
to pay for living expenses until insurance claims are settled.

Police reports show that Ms. Odell was driving a van in Eden in
2001 when a car hit the van. She was hurt in the wreck and
turned to Legal Bucks to advance her money to pay for living
expenses while her attorney negotiated her insurance claim,
court papers revealed.

Litigation-financing companies such as Legal Bucks have become
popular in past 10 years, but they remain unregulated, according
to Susan Martin, a professor of business law at Hofstra
University. Such businesses advance cash to people with legal
claims in exchange for a share of the expected proceeds of their
lawsuits or settlements. The companies though typically get
nothing if a client does not recover any money.

The suit states that Ms. Odell agreed to accept a $3,000 cash
advance from Legal Bucks and to repay that amount out of the
money she recovered and in May, she settled her insurance claim
for $18,000. She now owes Legal Bucks $9,750, according to the
Legal Bucks contract.

Keith Tart, a lawyer and the owner of Legal Bucks, told The
Winston-Salem Journal in an e-mail that Ms. Odell's lawsuit is
"baseless, shortsighted and selfish." Mr. Tart, who started
Legal Bucks after he saw a similar company on the Web, maintains
that the transactions Legal Bucks make with clients are not
loans, but investments. He went on to state, "Had Ms. Odell
presented the merits of her case to a judge or jury and lost,
Legal Bucks would have lost its investment. This contingency ...
prevents the transaction from being considered a loan."  Asked
about Ms. Odell's employment status and financial situation at
the time of the wreck and settlement period, Mr. Berry declined
to give details. He would only say that Ms. Odell "needed the
money." The Legal Bucks contract spelled out how she was to
repay the $3,000 she received.

The contract stipulated that Ms. Odell would pay Legal Bucks
$4,200 if the claim was paid before July 1, 2003, which is about
two months after she signed it. That payment consisted of the
$3,000 advance and an additional 40 percent, the contract says.  
If Ms. Odell paid Legal Bucks on or after July 1, 2003, she
would pay $4,200 plus an additional $234 for each month that
passed before the debt was paid in full. That total was capped
at $9,750, more than three times the $3,000 she got from Legal
Bucks.

State law says that for non-real-estate loans of $25,000 or
less, the interest rate is capped at 16 percent, according to
the Web site for the N.C. Commissioner of Banks. The interest
rate is negotiable by law for any amount over $25,000, said
consumer finance experts at the office of the commissioner's
office.  Typically, companies such as Legal Bucks advance money
only to clients with cases that they perceive as "slam dunks,"
and they charge "exorbitant rates," according to J.D. Byers, a
local personal-injury lawyer.


MISSOURI: Parents File Foster Care Funding Lawsuit V. Governor
--------------------------------------------------------------
A federal class action lawsuit filed against Gov. Matt Blunt may
be the last hope for the parents of more than 2,700 adopted
children who stand to lose monthly support checks later this
month, The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports.

The suit, filed on behalf of 16 children, claims Missouri failed
to protect abused and neglected children when it slashed
payments to parents who adopt children from foster care. The
suit also names Gary Sherman, director of Missouri's Department
of Social Services.

According to the suit, budget cuts approved earlier this year
stipulated that monthly checks were eliminated for families
earning more than 250 percent of the poverty level, or about
$48,375 for a family of four. In most cases, the payments are
$225 a month per child.  The suit argues that the state cannot
legally end the payments without violating contracts signed at
the time of adoption and that the cuts are unconstitutional,
since they treat different classes of adopted children
differently.  The suit asks the U.S. District Court in Kansas
City to halt the cuts, at least until the case can be heard.
Checks will otherwise be discontinued on August 28.

John Ammann, law professor and director of the St. Louis
University Law Clinic, one of several groups that filed the suit
told The St. Louis Post-Dispatch, "They're trying to balance the
budget on the backs of these children." The national advocacy
group Children's Right Inc. is also supporting the suit.

Gov. Blunt repeatedly stated that the cuts are necessary to
sustain a program that adds hundreds of families each year. The
governor's spokesman even issued a statement describing
remaining adoption benefits as generous. "In addition to
generous subsidies, taxpayers spent tens of millions of dollars
last year alone paying for free health care and child care for
Missouri's adopted children, a generous program by any
standard," said Spence Jackson, the governor's communications
director.

As is the case with all states, Missouri's adoption subsidies
are offered as an incentive to families who provide permanent
homes to foster children. Supporters say the program saves the
state money by reducing the need for more expensive foster care.
Federal law limits the ability of states to alter their subsidy
programs. At a minimum, states cannot cut off monthly checks to
adoptive children who once lived in impoverished homes. Such
children qualify for federal funds.  

Missouri officials argued that they have the legal right to cut
payments to other children.  According to Mr. Ammann, the state
had only one adoption subsidy program, which relies on a mix of
state and federal money. He adds, that by cutting payments to
certain parents the state is violating regulations dealing with
the federal money.


NEW HAMPSHIRE: Lawsuit Settlement Hearing Set October 24, 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court for Jefferson County Arkansas will hold a
fairness hearing for the proposed settlement in the matter: Gray
v. New Hampshire Indemnity Company, Inc., Case No. 2002-952-2-3
on behalf of all individuals who bought certain private auto
insurance policies offered by Defendants through independent
agents between January 1, 1991 and January 1, 2004.

The Defendants are: New Hampshire Indemnity Company, Inc.;
Illinois National Insurance Company; Granite State Insurance
Company; American International South Insurance Company;
American International Pacific Insurance Company; American
Global Insurance Company; American Fidelity Company; and Old
American County Mutual Fire Insurance Company. These companies
sold auto insurance policies under several common brand names
including: The New Hampshire; New Hampshire Specialty Auto; NH
Specialty Auto; AIG Specialty Auto; and AIG Agency Auto.

The Court has scheduled a Fairness Hearing at 9:00 a.m., on
Monday, October 24, 2005, at the Courthouse for the Circuit
Court of Jefferson County, 101 East Barraque, Pine Bluff,
Arkansas.

For more details, contact the Settlement Administrator, P.O. Box
9000 #6337, Merrick, NY, 11566, Phone: 1-800-261-6791, Web site:
http://WWW.GRAYSETTLEMENT.COM.


NUVEEN INVESTMENTS: IL Court Dismisses Shareholder Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois dismissed the securities class action filed against
Nuveen Investments, Inc., styled "James Jacobs et al v Nuveen
Investments, Inc. et al., No. 05 C0143 (N.D. Ill.)"  An
individual purporting to be a shareholder of one open-end fund
sponsored by Nuveen filed the suit, which also names as
defendants:

     (1) Nuveen Investments, Inc.,

     (2) Nuveen Institutional Advisory Corp. (merged into NAM as
         of 1/1/05),

     (3) NWQ Investment Management Company, LLC,

     (4) Rittenhouse Asset Management, Inc.,

     (5) Institutional Capital Corp, and

     (6) the individual Nuveen fund directors, including
         Nuveen's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Timothy
         R. Schwertfeger

Purporting to sue on behalf of investors in all Nuveen-sponsored
open-end mutual funds with equity holdings, the plaintiff
alleged that the defendants breached common law fiduciary
duties, duties of care and Sections 36(a), 36(b) and 47(b) of
the Investment Company Act of 1940 by failing to ensure that
open-end funds participated in securities class action
settlements for which these funds were eligible. The complaint
contained no specific allegations that the Nuveen funds failed
to participate in particular settlements but lists 136
settlements during the period from January 10,2000 through
January 10,2005, and alleged that the funds failed to submit
claims in some of those proceedings. The plaintiff claimed as
damages disgorgement of fees paid to the investment advisers,
compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorney's fees, and
other unspecified relief.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on March
14, 2005.  By Memorandum Opinion and Order dated July 20, 2005,
the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint,
dismissing the plaintiff's federal claims under Sections 36(a),
36(b), and 47(b) with prejudice, and dismissing the plaintiff's
common law or state law claims without prejudice.  The Company
has no information regarding whether the plaintiff intends to
appeal the court's decision.

The suit is styled "Jacobs v. Bremner, et al, case no. 1:05-cv-
00143," filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, under Judge Milton I. Shadur.  
Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Hank Bates and J. Allen Carney, Cauley Bowman Carney &
         Williams, LLP, 11311 Arcade Drive, Suite 200, Little
         Rock, AR 72212, Phone: (501) 312-8500

     (2) Marvin Alan Miller, Jennifer Winter Sprengel and
         Matthew Eric Van Tine, Miller Faucher and Cafferty,
         LLP, 30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 3200 Chicago, IL
         60602, Phone: (312) 782-4880

     (3) Randall K Pulliam, Baron & Budd, P.C., 3102 Oak Lawn
         Avenue, Suite 1100, Dallas, TX 75219, Phone: (214) 521-
         3605
  
Representing the Company are James Kevin McCall and James L.
Thompson of Jenner & Block, LLC, One IBM Plaza, 330 North Wabash
Avenue, 40th Floor, Chicago, IL 60611, Phone: (312) 222-9350


OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Stock Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
OmniVision Technologies, Inc. asked the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California to dismiss the
consolidated securities class action filed against it, styled
"In re OmniVision Technologies, Inc., No.C-04-2297-SC."

On June 10, 2004, the first of several putative class actions
filed against the Company and certain of its present and former
directors and officers on behalf of investors who purchased the
Company's common stock at various times from February 2003
through June 9, 2004.  Those actions were later consolidated.

The consolidated complaint asserts claims on behalf of
purchasers of the Company's common stock between June 11, 2003
and June 9, 2004, and seeks unspecified damages.  The
consolidated complaint generally alleges that defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 by allegedly engaging in improper accounting practices
that purportedly led to the Company's financial restatement.

The suit is styled, "In re OmniVision Technologies, Inc.
Securities Litigation, case no. 04-CV-2297," filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California,
under Judge Samuel L. Conti.  The plaintiff firms in this
litigation are:

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

     (2) Girard Gibbs & De Bartolomeo LLP, 601 California
         Street, Suite 1400, San Francisco, CA, 94108, Phone:
         415.981.4800, Fax: 415.981.4846, E-mail:
         girardgibbs@girardgibbs.com

     (3) Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP, 355 South Grand
         Avenue, Suite 4170, Los Angeles, CA, 90071, Phone:
         213.617.9007, Fax: 213.617.9185, E-mail:
         info@milbergweiss.com

     (4) Seeger Weiss LLP (New York), One William Street, New
         York, NY, 10004, Phone: 212.584.0700, E-mail:
         info@seegerweiss.com  


PATINA OIL: CO Court Mulls Certification of Gas Royalties Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court for Weld County, Colorado will hear on August
18,2005 the motion seeking class certification for the lawsuit
filed against Patina Oil & Gas Corporation, styled "Jack Holman,
et al v. Patina Oil & Gas Corporation; Case No. 03-CV-09."

The suit was initially filed in January 2003, alleging that the
Company had improperly deducted certain costs in connection with
its calculation of royalty payments relating to its Colorado
operations.  In May 2004, the plaintiff filed an amended
complaint narrowing the class of potential plaintiffs, and
thereafter filed a motion seeking to certify the narrowed class
as described in the amended complaint.


PHARMAKON LABS: FDA Shuts Down Operations For Substandard Drugs
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced a
permanent injunction shutting down operations at Pharmakon Labs
of Florida. The company manufactured and distributed cough and
cold liquids, tablets and caplets.

Following inspections by FDA and a trial in U.S. District Court,
Judge Richard A. Lazzara found that drug products sold by
Pharmakon Labs, Inc., its president Abelardo L. Acebo, and its
secretary/treasurer Edward R. Jackson (the defendants) did not
meet current good manufacturing practice (cGMP) standards and
other legal requirements.

Judge Lazzara stated that he was "simply unwilling as a court of
equity to place the health, safety, and welfare of the general
public at risk in order to accommodate the economic well-being
of Defendants." Thus, the defendants were ordered to stop
manufacturing and distributing drugs until they become compliant
with CGMP standards to the satisfaction of FDA and obtain
marketing approvals.

"This action by Judge Lazzara sends a strong signal that FDA
will take action against drugs that fail to meet quality
standards," said FDA Commissioner Dr. Lester M. Crawford. "As
the nation's top enforcer of manufacturing standards, the FDA
will continue to ensure that drugs being sold in this country
meet those crucial requirements."

The defendants have a long history of continued violations of
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. The government's
initial complaint alleged numerous manufacturing violations
documented in four inspections dating back to 2001. FDA later
added charges related to Pharmakon's manufacture and
distribution of unapproved new drugs, as part of the agency's
longstanding policy to seek relief for all legal violations by a
firm at the same time.

The government's request for a permanent injunction was based on
the defendants' demonstrated unwillingness to comply with the
law.


POF INTERNATIONAL: NJ Court Seizes Rice For Insect Contamination
----------------------------------------------------------------
At the request of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey issued a
seizure warrant on July 25, 2005 for the seizure of over
$80,000.00 worth of basmati rice at POF International, Inc.
(POF) located in Irvington, NJ. The U.S. Marshals Office
executed the seizure warrant July 26, 2005.

The seized basmati rice, which had been imported from Pakistan,
is adulterated under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
because of insect contamination. Specifically, laboratory
analysis of the rice revealed that it contained substantial
numbers of weevils, beetles and insect larvae, which rendered it
unfit for human consumption.

Prior to the seizure, the basmati rice had been placed under
embargo by the New Jersey Department of Health and Senior
Services to ensure that the product was not distributed to
consumers. FDA initiated the seizure after POF declined to
destroy the rice or recondition it in appropriate manner.

The FDA has initiated this action to promote and protect the
public health by enforcing the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act. FDA's mission includes ensuring the safety or safety and
effectiveness of a broad spectrum of regulated products,
including food, human and animal drugs, vaccines, blood
products, medical devices, electronic products that emit
radiation, and cosmetics.


RELIANT ENERGY: Pays $445M to Settle CA Utilities Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------
Reliant Energy Inc. agreed to pay $445 million to settle
lawsuits filed by investor-owned utilities that claimed the
company attempted to pump up trade volumes and revenues in the
midst of an energy crisis in Western states, The Associated
Press reports.

The settlements with San Diego Gas & Electric, Edison
International, Pacific Gas & Electric Co., and other entities
requires Reliant to pay as much as $150 million in cash. The
settlements also call on Reliant to waive claims to its
receivables for power deliveries from January 1, 2000, to June
21, 2001.

The Company, which provides electricity to retail and wholesale
customers, told The Associated Press that the settlements are
still subject to approval by a federal court in Texas and
regulators. It came just weeks after Reliant agreed to settle
all shareholder class action lawsuits for about $68 million.

In a prepared statement Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said, "This
settlement is great news for California. The people of
California deserve affordable and reliable energy supplies. I
will continue to fight for justice from companies that took
advantage of California residents and businesses during the
energy crisis."

In addition to the money, the agreement also ends investigations
conducted by attorneys general in California, Washington and
Oregon. All civil litigation filed by the California attorney
general's office, including a pending antitrust lawsuit, also
were resolved.

Southern California Edison said in a statement that it will
likely receive more than $130 million under the latest
settlement, while San Diego Gas & Electric said it expects to
receive about $42.1 million, while Pacific Gas & Electric
expects about $230 million.

The Company told The Associated Press that all private
electricity-related class action lawsuits filed on behalf of
ratepayers in California, Washington, Oregon, Idaho and Utah
were also resolved under the agreement. In a prepared statement,
Company Chairman and CEO Joel Staff even said, "Part of moving
forward is responsibly addressing legacy issues such as these.
Today, Reliant is a very different company than it was in 2000
and 2001."

The Company will record an estimated $350 million pretax charge
in the third quarter of 2005 to reflect the agreement. As in
other settlements, Reliant did not admit to any liability by the
company or its directors and officers, and there were no
findings of any violations of securities laws.

Court papers show that the Houston-based company was accused of
failing to disclose certain trading activities from 1999 to 2001
that took advantage of a power shortage in the West to pump up
revenues. An energy shortage, mostly centered in California,
caused rolling blackouts and skyrocketing electricity rates.


RENAL CARE: Shareholders Launch Suit V. Fresenius Merger in TN
--------------------------------------------------------------
Renal Care Group, Inc. faces an amended shareholder class action
pending in the United States District Court in Tennessee,
related to its merger agreement with Fresenius Medical Care.

On May 11, 2005, the Company was served with a complaint
initially filed in the Chancery Court for the State of Tennessee
Twentieth Judicial District at Nashville, styled "Plumbers Local
65 Pension Fund, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. Renal Care Group, Inc., William P.
Johnston, Gary Brukardt, Peter J. Grua, Joseph C. Hutts, Harry
R. Jacobson, William V. Lapham, Thomas A. Lowery, Stephen D.
McMurray and C. Thomas Smith, Defendants."  On May 26, 2005,
another suit ws filed in the same court, styled "Hawaii
Structural Ironworkers Pension Trust Fund, on behalf of itself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. Renal Care
Group, Inc., William P. Johnston, Gary Brukardt, Peter J. Grua,
Joseph C. Hutts, Harry R. Jacobson, William V. Lapham, Thomas A.
Lowery, Stephen D. McMurray and C. Thomas Smith, Defendants."  
On May 31, 2005, another complaint was filed in the same court,
styled "Indiana State District Council of Laborers and Hod
Carriers Pension Fund, on behalf of itself and others similar
situated, Plaintiff, vs. Renal Care Group, Inc., William P.
Johnston, Gary Brukardt, Peter J. Grua, Joseph C. Hutts, Harry
R. Jacobson, William V. Lapham, Thomas A. Lowery, Stephen D.
McMurray and C. Thomas Smith, Defendants."

The original complaints in these three lawsuits were
substantially identical. Each complaint was brought by the
plaintiff shareholder as a purported class action on behalf of
all shareholders similarly situated. The complaints allege that
the Company and its directors engaged in self-dealing and
breached their fiduciary duties to its shareholders in
connection with the merger agreement because, among other
things, the Company used a flawed process, the existence of the
previously disclosed subpoena from the Department of Justice,
the lack of independence of one of its financial advisors and
the existence of its supplemental executive retirement plan. The
Company removed these cases to federal court in June 2005.

The plaintiffs in the first two cases dismissed them without
prejudice in July 2005, and the third plaintiff filed an amended
complaint.  The amended complaint asserts the same grounds
articulated in the original complaint adding more specific
allegations regarding the termination fee, the no solicitation
clause and the matching rights provision in the Merger Agreement
and adds allegations that the Company's Proxy Statement makes
material misrepresentations and omissions regarding the process
by which the Merger Agreement was negotiated.  Specifically, the
Amended Complaint asserts that the Proxy Statement makes
material misstatements or omissions regarding:

     (1) the reason why Company management and Board engaged in
         a closed process of negotiating a potential merger with
         Fresenius and did not solicit potential competing bids
         from alternative purchasers;

     (2) the reason why the Company's Board did not appoint a
         special committee to evaluate the fairness of the
         merger;

     (3) the alternatives available to Renal Care, including
         potential alternative transactions and other strategic
         business opportunities, which purportedly were
         considered by the Renal Care Board during the strategic
         planning process the Board engaged in during the second
         half of 2004;

     (4) all information regarding conflicts of interest
         suffered by defendants and their financial and legal
         advisors as alleged herein;

     (5) all information regarding past investment banking
         services Bank of America has performed for Renal Care
         and Fresenius and the compensation Bank of America
         received for those services;

     (6) the forecasts and projections prepared by Renal Care's
         management for fiscal years 2005 through 2008 that were
         referenced in the fairness opinions by Morgan Stanley;

     (7) the estimates of transaction synergies provided by
         Renal Care management that were referenced in the
         fairness opinions by Morgan Stanley; and

     (8) information concerning the amount of money Bank of
         America and Morgan Stanley will receive in connection
         with the Proposed Acquisition.

The Company believes that the allegations in the pending
complaint are without merit. Completion of the merger is subject
to customary conditions, including the absence of any order or
injunction prohibiting the closing. The pending complaint seeks
to enjoin and prevent the parties from completing the Fresenius
Medical Care transaction.

The suit is styled "Hawaii Structural Ironworkers Pension Trust
Fund, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, vs. Renal Care Group, Inc., et al., case no. 3:05-cv-
00451," filed in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee, under Judge Aleta A. Trauger.  
Representing the plaintiffs are A. Rick Atwood, Randall J.
Atwood, Shaun L. Grove, and Darren J. Robbins of Lerach,
Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins, LLP, 401 B Street,
Suite 1600, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone: (619) 231-1058, E-mail:
ricka@lerachlaw.com; and James Gerard Stranch, III of
Branstetter, Kilgore, Stranch & Jennings, 227 Second Avenue, N
4th Floor, Nashville, TN 37201, Phone: (615) 254-8801, E-mail:
jstranch@branstetterlaw.com.  Representing the Company are
Jessica Perry Corley, Todd R. David of Alston & Bird, One
Atlantic Center, 1201 W Peachtree Street, Atlanta, GA 30309-
3424, Phone: (404) 881-7000, E-mail: tdavid@alston.com; and Ames
Davis of Waller, Lansden, Dortch & Davis, Nashville City Center,
511 Union Street, Suite 2100, Nashville, TN 37219, Phone:
(615) 244-6380, E-mail: ames.davis@wallerlaw.com.


RYLAND GROUP: Shareholders Launch Securities Lawsuits in N.D. TX
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ryland Group, Inc. and two of its officers face several
securities class actions filed on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's publicly traded securities during the period between
October 22, 2003 through January 7, 2004, inclusive.

The complaints, filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Texas, charges Ryland Group, R. Chad
Dreier, and Gordon Milne with violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. Between October 22, 2003 and January 7,
2004, the defendants issued a series of material
misrepresentations to the market concerning the Company's
financial results.

The first identified complaint in this litigation is styled "TDH
Partners, LLP, et al. v. Ryland Group, Inc., et al., case no.
04-CV-0073," filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas.  The plaintiff firms in this
litigation are:

     (1) Cauley Geller Bowman Coates & Rudman, LLP (New York),
         200 Broadhollow, Suite 406, Melville, NY, 11747, Phone:
         631.367.7100, Fax: 631.367.1173,

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

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

     (4) Paskowitz & Associates, Phone: 800.705.9529, E-mail:
         classattorney@aol.com

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

     (6) The Brualdi Law Firm, 29 Broadway - Suite 1515, New
         York, NY, 10006, Phone: 212.952.0602, Fax:
         212.952.0608,

     (7) Wechsler Harwood LLP, 488 Madison Avenue 8th Floor, New
         York, NY, 10022, Phone: 212.935.7400, E-mail:
         info@whhf.com


SAVIENT PHARMACEUTICALS: NJ Consolidated Amended Suit Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
dismissed, without prejudice, the Consolidated Amended Class
Action Complaint filed on December 20, 2002 against Savient
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and three of its officers.

The complaint was filed against Bio-Technology General
Corporation (BTG), now known as Savient Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
asserting that BTG's financial statements were materially false
and misleading because, on September 25, 2002, the Company filed
restated year end and quarterly reports of its earnings and
related financial statements for the years 1999, 2000 and 2001,
which the Company had previously announced would be forthcoming
in its Form 8-K and accompanying press release issued August 2,
2002.

The Court's decision is based, in part, on the failure of the
complaint by the plaintiffs, investors who purchased shares of
BTG during the Class Period of April 19, 1999 through August 2,
2002, to set forth particularized facts that give rise to a
strong inference that the defendants acted with scienter (the
required state of mind), had a motive to commit fraud upon the
subject investors or acted with conscious disregard of the truth
or recklessness. In the Court's dismissal without prejudice, the
plaintiffs were granted leave to file an amended Consolidated
Complaint within 30 days. The Company has no information as to
whether such an amended Consolidated Complaint is planned by the
plaintiffs.


SNAP-ON TOOLS: Arbitrator Rules Franchisees Can Bring Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In an arbitration decision that causes nationwide ramifications
for the Snap-on Tool Corporation, American Arbitration
Association Arbitrator and former California Superior Court
Presiding Judge, James M. Slater, ruled that Snap-on
franchisees, can bring a class action in arbitration against
Snap-on for alleged fraudulent practices.

Judge Slater held that Snap-on's franchisees "cannot
meaningfully pursue their claims outside a class action" because
the cost of litigation would cause "each case to be a negative
return case even if successful".

"This is good news for lead plaintiff Richard Fortuna of
Middletown, NJ and for all other Snap-on franchisees" said both
Gerald A. Marks and Justin M. Klein, Red Bank, New Jersey
attorneys for the former dealer. "It sends a message that Snap-
on will no longer have the ability to implement deceptive
business practices that have caused financial devastation to
many franchisees. This decision will help to expose Snap-on's
abuse of its franchisees as detailed on
http://www.snap-onfranchisefraud.com/,"Mr. Marks said.

"This is just one of multiple lawsuits being brought against
Snap-on, both in arbitration and in court and the decision has
nationwide implications for all 3,400 current Snap-on
franchisees, as well as all former franchisees who claim that
they were defrauded by Snap-on," said Mr. Klein.


SUPERCUTS: Employees Launch Bias Suit V. English Speaking Policy
----------------------------------------------------------------
Former workers claiming that the only language they were allowed
to speak was English launched a class action lawsuit against
their employer Supercuts hair salon chain and some of its
Chicago area franchises, The CBS 2 Chicago reports.

Court documents show that it was a notice from the manager
prohibiting employees to speak Spanish that motivated one former
Supercuts employee to eventually quit her job. The notice reads:
"Speaking a language other than English is not only
disrespectful, it's also prohibited."

Former Supercuts employee Rosa Gonzalez told CBS 2 Chicago,
"She'd stop and give a dirty look and a rude voice and say,
`Don't you know guys you cannot speak Spanish nowhere on the
floor even if the customers are not present?'"

Supercuts is now facing a federal discrimination lawsuit for
allegedly violating the civil rights of Hispanic employees.

According to attorney Kamran Memon, "Telling employees that they
cannot speak their own language during breaks are national
origin discrimination."

Two Hispanic hair stylists from the Supercuts store on South
Michigan Avenue originally brought the complaint, however it has
now become a class action lawsuit that includes Hispanic
employees in 22 stores across the Chicago area.

According to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,
even if the store argued the employees were making customers
uncomfortable by speaking Spanish on the job that would not be a
valid argument in a courtroom. EEOC regional attorney John
Hendrickson told CBS 2 Chicago, "Employers cannot use customer
preference in order to justify discrimination against Hispanics,
against Polish, against Blacks, against Jews, against
Catholics."

In response to the suit, Supercuts' parent company, Primps,
L.L.C released a statement recently were they said that they
have complied with all applicable laws and EEOC regulations with
respect to its treatment of Hispanic employees and their ability
to converse in Spanish while at Supercuts locations. Requests
for an on-camera interview though were denied.


TACO BELL: ADA Suit Filed Over Accessibility of CA Restaurants
--------------------------------------------------------------
Edward Muegge, a junior college teacher, who in 2000 was forced
to use an electric scooter to get around due to injuries from a
long-ago car accident, is one of four lead plaintiffs in a
lawsuit filed against Taco Bell alleging that the restaurant
chain persistently violated the federal Americans With
Disabilities Act and state disability access codes at its 220
company-owned restaurants in California, The Los Angeles Times
reports.

Filed in December 2002 in federal court in San Francisco, the
suit was granted class action status by U.S. District Judge
Martin J. Jenkins in February 2004, creating a potential pool of
thousands of plaintiffs.

Taco Bell though denies the suit's allegations, saying it has
made every effort to follow the applicable laws. According to
Laurie Schalow, a spokeswoman for Irvine-based Taco Bell, "All
of our restaurants comply with the ADA and state regulations."

However, the plaintiffs describe the nation's largest Mexican
fast-food chain as out of sync with basic access codes, citing
what they allege are metal line dividers, which are metal
fencing used to keep waiting lines orderly, that are too narrow,
soft-drink stations that are out of reach and doors that are too
heavy for wheelchair users to open.

Recalling the day in 2002 when she and her daughter Mitsuko,
both in wheelchairs, visited a Taco Bell in Richmond, plaintiff
Katherine Corbett told The Los Angeles Times, "It was hard to
want to do business again with them." Mrs. Corbett added that
they had to wait off to the side until someone at the counter
noticed them and then had to eat at separate tables, divided by
the fixed plastic seating. When they left, Ms. Corbett recalled,
Mitsuko turned to her and said: "I don't like this. It isn't
fair."

Such complaints though are not new to Taco Bell. In 2000,
according to court papers, the company settled a similar lawsuit
in Colorado, agreeing to modify the 40 company-owned restaurants
in the state by the end of 2001 and ensure that all new
restaurants it opened in Colorado would comply with
accessibility requirements.

Tim Fox, the Denver lawyer who was lead counsel in the Colorado
case, told The Los Angeles Times that after the settlement, he
began hearing similar complaints about Taco Bell restaurants in
California. With the backing of his by wife and law partner Amy
Robertson along with a cadre of Bay Area civil rights lawyers,
Mr. Fox decided to sue in an effort to force Taco Bell to make
its California restaurants more accessible to disabled
customers.

Mr. Fox also told The Los Angles Times that the plaintiffs were
seeking $4,000 in damages for each visit by an individual using
a wheelchair or scooter to a company-owned Taco Bell restaurant
in California since December 17, 2001. The more than 500
franchisee-owned Taco Bells in California aren't included in the
suit though.

Early last year, Oakland attorney Brad Seligman joined the case
against Taco Bell as a co-counsel. Almost a decade ago, Mr.
Seligman reached a settlement with United Artists Theatres in
which the company agreed to pay $500,000 in damages, which is
still considered as one of the largest settlements in an ADA
case. As of the moment, Mr. Seligman is lead counsel in a high-
profile class action sexual discrimination lawsuit against Wal-
Mart Stores Inc. Mr. Seligman, whose nonprofit civil rights fund
had given a grant to Mr. Fox to pursue the Colorado case, told
The Los Angeles Times, "What attracted me was the size of the
case, the potential for damages and the fact that Taco Bell has
been a recidivist."

Taco Bell, owned by Yum Brands Inc., the Louisville, Kentucky
dining conglomerate that also owns the KFC and Pizza Hut chains,
contends that it hasn't broken any laws and that access for all
customers is a priority.

For moment, the two sides have adopted a cooperative approach,
agreeing to have court-appointed inspector Bob Evans, an
accessibility consultant from San Diego, evaluate how each of
the California restaurants complies with more than 600
structural issues that can affect disabled customers. After the
evaluation are made, the two parties will then spend the next
few months in pretrial discussions looking at the compliance
reports and discussing what changes, if any, need to be made.
Once the accessibility questions are decided, they will turn to
the more controversial question of damages. If the two sides
fail to reach an agreement, the case is set to go to trial next
year.


THAXTON GROUP: Two Defendants Settles Suit Over 2003 Bankruptcy
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers representing jilted investors of The Thaxton Group
agreed to settle with two of three defendants named in a lawsuit
over the investment firm's failure, The State reports.

According to recently released federal court filings, Moore and
Van Allen, the law firm that represented Thaxton, and Cherry
Bekaert and Holland, the accounting firm that offered advice to
Thaxton's management, agreed to pay $9.35 million.  Charis
Wilson, marketing director for Moore and Van Allen in Charlotte
told The State, "We are pleased we have reached a settlement so
we can continue serving our clients with sound legal advice."

As previously reported in the April 28, 2005 edition of the
Class Action Reporter, investors initiated a lawsuit against The
Thaxton Group over the company's bankruptcy and asked a federal
judge to give their suit class action status.  Bankruptcy court
documents show that a subsidiary of the Lancaster-based company,
which offered high-interest loans and insurance products to
people with poor credit histories, owes more than $120 million
to about 3,800 people who invested in its subordinated note
program. The company, which filed for bankruptcy in October
2003, discontinued the program last fall at the request of the
attorney general's office. Up to 6,800 note holders lost more
than $120 million.  

Exactly how much money investors will receive will not be known
until the legal wrangling is concluded with the third defendant,
Scottsdale, Arizona-based Finova Capital Corporation.  The
Company, however, is not a defendant in the case since the
creditors' lawyers believe Finova controlled the investment
firm. James D. Thaxton, the head of The Thaxton Group, died the
week before Christmas 2003. Chesterfield County authorities say
he committed suicide.

Randall Eason, a lawyer representing Thaxton's former investors
in the class action lawsuit, estimates the bankrupt Thaxton firm
has approximately $160 million in cash, liquid assets and a line
of business that hasn't been sold. However, before the money can
be divided among Thaxton's former investors, federal judges have
to rule on who gets first dibs.

Lawyers representing the committee of unsecured creditors, which
is separate from Mr. Eason's class action case are trying to
push Finova to the back of the line. In court filings, the
creditors claim that Finova officials knew Thaxton was in
trouble and helped cause the bankruptcy by pressuring the
Lancaster firm to continue selling junk bonds.

Finova earned about $60 million in fees from loans it made to
Thaxton before the company filed for bankruptcy. Meanwhile
Finova, which has since filed for bankruptcy, has claimed it is
owed more than $100 million from Thaxton.

Through court filings attorneys representing Finova made it
clear they intend to fight Mr. Eason's class action lawsuit and
to fend off the attempts to push Finova to the back of the line
when divvying up Thaxton's assets.

Though no exact was set, Mr. Eason told The State that these
issues will likely be sorted out at a federal court hearing
early next month. He also added that without the accounting and
law firm as defendants, "the case is much more focused. We
believe that will come across at trial."


TRAFFIX INC.: IL Appeals Court Refuses To Review Suit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Illinois Appeals Court refused to review its ruling
affirming the dismissal of claims against Traffix, Inc. in the
class action filed against it, alleging violations of the
state's electronic mail act.

In August 2002, Columbia House, one of the Company's clients,
notified it of an indemnification claim relating to a class
action filed against Columbia House, among others, in Illinois,
styled "Rydel v. Comtrad Industries, Inc. et al., Circuit Court
of Cook County, Illinois, No. 02 CH 13269."  In that action,
plaintiff claims to have received unsolicited commercial e-mail
from, among others, Columbia House, in violation of Illinois
law, and asserts two basic claims against Columbia House, one
for violation of Illinois' Consumers Fraud Statute, the second
for violation of Illinois' Electronic Mail Act.

Columbia House advised the Company that it believes that the
email in question was not approved by Columbia House when it was
sent, and asserted a claim for indemnification against us
pursuant to our contract.  The Company and Columbia House agreed
to defer resolution of the indemnification claim (and reserved
each of their respective rights).  Columbia House is defending
against the class action.  Its motion to dismiss was granted as
to the Consumer Fraud claim, but denied as to the Electronic
Mail Act claim. The plaintiff has appealed the partial
dismissal.

In January 2003, the Company was added as a defendant to the
suit.  In an additional count in the complaint, the plaintiff
asserted that the Company violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud
and Deceptive Business Practices Act by providing to a co-
defendant a list of consumers who had consented to receive
commercial e-mails when, the complaint alleges, they had not.
The complaint sought injunctive relief and unspecified damages.

The Company's motion to dismiss the claim as against it was
granted in June 2003, and the plaintiff filed an appeal.  In
late 2004, the appellate court affirmed the decision, so that
the claim against the Company is dismissed; the Consumer Fraud
claim against Columbia House is dismissed; and the Electronic
Mail Act claim against Columbia House remains.  The plaintiff
asked the appellate court to reconsider its decision, and the
court denied that request on April 14, 2005.


TRINITY INC.: Lawsuit Over 2002 Bus Accident Settled For $5.5M
--------------------------------------------------------------
The last of the lawsuits filed in a 2002 school bus accident in
Erie Township, which is about 10 miles northeast of Toledo,
Ohio, was settled in Monroe County Circuit Court, The Toledo
Blade.com reports.

According to attorney Rebecca Walsh of Fieger, Fieger, Kenney &
Johnson, of Southfield, Michigan, the settlement, on behalf of
Annie Ewing, 70, of Detroit brought to $5.5 million the total
amount paid for the 37 claims in the class action suit. The
amount of Ms. Ewing's very own settlement was not disclosed.

Court documents revealed that Ms. Ewing was serving as a
chaperone for her grandson on the bus, which collided with a
tractor-trailer at Erie and Telegraph roads on October 10. There
were 41 children and 17 chaperones aboard the vehicle from
Pierre Toussaint Academy, a Detroit charter school, documents
revealed.  In the ensuing accident 14 children and 7 chaperones
were hurt. The bus driver, Beverly Smith, who was employed by
Trinity, Inc., of Wyandotte, Michigan, was cited for careless
driving.

The suit filed was filed in Monroe County Circuit Court and
names Trinity Inc., Pierre Toussaint Academy, Northern Steel
Transport Company, The Leona Group, bus driver Beverly Smith and
truck driver "Joe Doe" as defendants.  For more details, contact
Rebecca Walsh of Fieger, Fieger, Kenney & Johnson, 19390 West
Ten Mile Road, Southfield, MI, 48075-2463, Phone: 248-355-5555,
Fax: 248-355-5148, E-mail: info@feigerlaw.com.


UNITED STATES: DOJ Seeks New Judge For Indian Trust Fund Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Department of Justice attorneys asked a U.S. District Court
to replace the judge presiding over an Indian trust class action
lawsuit filed in 1996, The JURIST's Paper Chase reports.

Class representatives in Corbell v. Norton are suing to force
the federal government to account for billions of dollars
belonging to approximately 500,000 American Indians and their
heirs, and held in trust since the late 19th century.   The
attorneys filed the motion after a July 12 opinion issued by
U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth. According to them, the judge
made inappropriate "gratuitous references to murder,
dispossession, and numerous incidents of cultural genocide"
against Native Americans, and charging him with numerous "legal
errors."

As previously reported in the July 14, 2005 edition of the Class
Action Reporter, in a scathing condemnation of the government's
treatment of American Indians, U.S. District Judge Royce
Lamberth, who called the Interior Department a "pathetic
outpost," recently ordered the department to admit that it can't
provide accurate information about lost royalties owed to
American Indians.

Specifically, Judge Lamberth directed the department to enclose
notices in its correspondence saying information provided on
trust assets may not be credible.  Interior officials though
called Judge Lamberth's language "intemperate rhetoric uncommon
to jurisprudence but made common in this case."

The notices also are meant to alert people that they may be
members of the class action lawsuit brought by lead plaintiff
Eloise Cobell in 1996 on behalf of more than 300,000 American
Indians. Under Judge Lamberth's order, the notices must say:
"Evidence introduced in the Cobell case shows that any
information related to (American Indian trust accounts) ... from
the Department of the Interior may be unreliable."

Judge Lamberth has been locked in a protracted nine-year legal
battle with both Secretary Gale Norton and her Clinton
administration predecessor, Bruce Babbitt over the Interior
Department's inability to come up with an accurate accounting of
what American Indians are owed. The judge went as far as to hold
both administrators in contempt of court.

In his recently issued opinion, Judge Lamberth wrote that "one
would expect, or at least hope, that the modern Interior
Department and its modern administrators would manage it in a
way that reflects our modern understandings of how the
government should treat people. He goes on to write, "Alas, our
'modern' Interior Department has time and again demonstrated
that it is a dinosaur - the morally and culturally oblivious
hand-me-down of a disgracefully racist and imperialist
government that should have been buried a century ago, the last
pathetic outpost of the indifference and Anglocentrism we
thought we had left behind."

Tina Kreisher, the Interior Department's communications
director, responded to the judge's opinion with a statement
saying that the agency's "historical accounting efforts have
consumed approximately $100 million in taxpayer funding and have
found a net error of approximately $15,000. That statement also
said, "Although our accounting efforts are not complete, the
accounting firms have not found any evidence of systemic fraud
or accounting system error. The facts, to date, do not support
the rhetoric being advanced in this case."

Calculating payments of oil, gas, grazing and timber royalties
from American Indian lands dating back to when the trust fund
was created in 1887 and adding accrued interest, Indian
plaintiffs in the suit against the government say they are owed
at least $27.5 billion.

A federal appeals court has occasionally reversed Judge
Lamberth's decisions in the case. In one instance, the court
threw out a plan he had for making the Interior Department
account for the money and told Judge Lamberth he could no longer
"micromanage" how the system gets fixed.

In addition to the scathing condemnation of the Interior
Department, the judge's 34-page opinion was also accompanied by
a three-page order.

He further wrote: "For those harboring hope that the stories of
murder, dispossession, forced marches, assimilationist policy
programs, and other incidents of cultural genocide against the
Indians are merely the echoes of a horrible, bigoted government-
past that has been sanitized by the good deeds of more recent
history, this case serves as an appalling reminder of the evils
that result when large numbers of the politically powerless are
placed at the mercy of institutions engendered and controlled by
a politically powerful few."


UNOCAL CORPORATION: AK Pension Fund Lodges Securities Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Unocal Corporation is facing a securities class action lawsuit
by the Alaska Electrical Pension Fund, which accuse the company
of breaching its fiduciary duty regarding the acquisition by
Chevron Corporation, The Los Angeles Business Journal Online
reports.

The complaint alleges that the El Segundo-based company's
directors provided insiders with preferential treatment in
connection with the proposed sale, which the shareholder claims
was negotiated as part of an unfair process.  The shareholder
asserts the Company wasn't adequately "shopped" by the
defendants, and that the competing offer by CNOOC Ltd. was not
properly considered.


UNOCAL CORPORATION: Inks Settlement For Suit V. Chevron Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Unocal Corporation reached a settlement for the consolidated
class action filed against it and its ten directors, challenging
the acquisition of the Company by Chevron Corporation in the
Superior Court of California in Los Angeles.

Two suits were initially filed in April 2005.  The actions were
consolidated and a consolidated complaint was filed on July 14,
2005 alleging that the Company and its directors breached their
fiduciary duties by:

     (1) failing to maximize stockholder value;

     (2) securing benefits for certain officers and directors of
         Unocal at the expense of its stockholders; and

     (3) improperly favoring Chevron over other potential
         bidders by tailoring the merger agreement to Chevron
         and erecting obstacles to deter other interested
         bidders.

In general terms, the plaintiffs challenge the acquisition
price, officer compensation, and the size of the termination fee
contained in the Chevron merger agreement.  The consolidated
complaint brings a single claim of breach of fiduciary duties.  
The lawsuit, styled "Lieb v. Unocal et al.," seeks equitable
relief by way of an injunction against the Chevron merger, an
order directing the Company to obtain a transaction more
favorable to its stockholders, an order to set aside the merger
if consummated and the imposition of a constructive trust, as
well as unspecified amount of damages to the Company's
stockholders sustained as a result of the Chevron merger and
attorney's fees.

On July 27, 2005, a separate lawsuit was filed in federal court
in Los Angeles, purportedly brought on behalf of a class of
Unocal stockholders.  The action, entitled "Alaska Electrical
Pension Fund v. Unocal Corp., et al., Case No. CV05-5420 JFW,"
asserts claims and allegations, and seeks relief, substantially
similar to the consolidated actions filed in California state
court, which are described above.

The Company and Chevron have reached an agreement in principle
with the state court plaintiffs providing for the settlement of
the putative stockholder class action brought in California
state court in connection with the proposed Chevron merger. In
connection with the settlement, it was agreed that the Company
would make certain disclosures, which are set forth in the
Additional Disclosure Relating to the Proposed Merger with
Chevron Corporation filed with the SEC on July 29, 2005.
Further, under the terms of settlement, and subject to certain
conditions, all claims relating to the merger agreement and the
proposed merger will be dismissed and released on behalf of the
settlement class and the state court plaintiffs will withdraw
their challenges to the proposed merger.  The settlement is
subject to California state court approval. Prior to the time at
which the settlement will be submitted to the California state
court for final approval, additional information will be
provided to class members in a notice of settlement.


UST INC.: FL Injury Suit To Be Converted Into Individual Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs' counsel asked the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Florida to turn the purported class
action filed against UST Inc. and other smokeless tobacco
manufacturers into an individual action.

Six plaintiffs initially filed the class action "on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated" against various
smokeless tobacco manufacturers including the Company and other
organizations for personal injuries, including cancers of the
mouth and larynx, oral lesions, leukoplakia, facial
disfigurement, gum and tooth loss, fear of cancer, death and
depression and other injuries allegedly resulting from the use
of the Company's smokeless tobacco products.  Plaintiffs also
claimed nicotine "addiction" and sought unspecified compensatory
damages and certain equitable and other relief, including but
not limited to, medical monitoring.

On July 12, 2005, plaintiffs' counsel served papers that seek to
convert this purported class action into an individual action on
behalf of a single plaintiff.


WASHINGTON: Tribe Files Suit Over Desecration of Indian Graves
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe filed a class action lawsuit that
accuses the state of Washington of knowing and willful
desecration of Indian graves, and demanded reburial of its
ancestors, The Seattle times reports.

Filed in Thurston County Superior Court, the suit demands that
the state allow reburial of 316 cedar boxes containing the
remains of ancestors dug up during a state Department of
Transportation construction project in Port Angeles. The site
was home to the largest Indian village ever found in Washington.

The tribe also wants the state to return some 2,000 truckloads
of material taken by state contractors to a nearby landfill, and
screen a portion of that for human remains, as promised in an
agreement under which the construction project proceeded.  The
tribe also asks the court to designate the construction site,
which is owned by the state as a historic cemetery, to be used
only as a burial ground in perpetuity.

Court papers revealed that the state launched its construction
project on the Port Angeles waterfront in August 2003, intending
to build a dry dock for construction of pontoons and anchors to
repair the east half of the Hood Canal Bridge. Within three
weeks of breaking ground, state contractors uncovered the
remains of the village of Tse-whit-zen, portions of which date
back 2,700 years. Subsequently, at the tribe's request, the
state terminated work at the site in December 2004, after
unearthing the 335th intact skeleton, thousands of bone
fragments and more than 10,000 artifacts.

Negotiations have continued for the past seven months on
reburial of the remains, which the tribe wants put back on the
site as close to their original resting place as possible. Talks
though foundered on what to do about the material at the
Shotwell landfill, about six miles from the site.  Agreement had
been tentatively reached to rebury the boxes at the construction
site, however the state insisted on a package deal, including
resolution of the dispute over the material at the landfill.

Tribal Chairwoman Frances Charles told The Seattle Times, "We
feel our ancestors are being held hostage in the negotiations."
The tribe felt it had no choice but to file the suit, because
the statute of limitations for claiming damages for destruction
of the graves just ended. She adds, "We had to protect our legal
rights." Ms. Charles also said that she hoped negotiations would
continue.

So did state Transportation Secretary Doug MacDonald and the
lead negotiator for the state, Tim Thompson, a private
consultant. Mr. MacDonald told The Seattle Times that he didn't
think the two sides were that far apart, and that he was
surprised by the lawsuit. He also said, "No one is holding
anyone hostage. We have supported reburial for months. The
material at Shotwell is a very small part of all the soil that
was excavated and examined at the site, and it mostly consists
of fill. We have disagreed about whether there is archaeological
material mixed in with that fill. We have never actually seen
any evidence of human remains in that fill, and there surely
were no intact remains moved to Shotwell. It is possible that
there are fragments." He goes on to say, "We would like to see
the material returned to the site, but it has been very hard to
agree on how to do that."

About 20,000 cubic yards of material were trucked to the
landfill. The tribe wants the 1,400 cubic yards estimated to
contain some human remains screened, and the rest sampled to
recover human remains if they are present.

The tribe and archaeologists told the state in fall 2003 that
its contractors had trucked archaeological material to the
landfill. One of the plaintiffs in the suit, Arlene Wheeler told
The Seattle times that she brought stone tools to a meeting with
state and federal officials and laid them out on a towel. "We
had to prove our point, and the only way we could do it was to
get this material and bring it to them and say, 'This is what is
at Shotwell. Now do you believe us?'"

Ms. Wheeler and other tribal members went to the landfill after
more than 2,000 truckloads of material were taken there during
the early days of construction. She told The Seattle Times that
she saw chunks of shell midden, which are bits of shell and
other organic material that are a sign of early human habitation
as well as stone tools.

Archaeologist Lynn Larson, an investigator for the site, told
The Seattle Times that the material at the landfill probably
contains human remains. She added, "We saw marks from the
equipment in the shell midden adjacent to partial burials. That
led us to think the rest of the burial that wasn't there had
been removed."

In the fall of 2003, another principal archaeologist on the Tse-
whit-zen site estimated that more than 50 percent of the known
archaeological site at the time was destroyed in the early days
of construction.

The suit is styled, Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe, et al. v. The
State of Washington, et al., which was filed in the Superior
Court of Washington for Thurston County. John A. Knox, Debora G.
Juarez and Gabriel S. Galanda of Williams, Kastner & Gibbs,
PLLC, Two Union Square, Suite 4100 (98101-2380), P.O. Box 21926,
Seattle, WA, 98111-3926, Phone: (206) 628-6600 are representing
the plaintiffs.


XL CAPITAL: Asks CT Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
XL Capital Ltd. asked the United States District Court for the
District of Connecticut to dismiss the consolidated securities
class action filed against it and certain of its present and
former directors and officers, styled "Malin et al. v. XL
Capital Ltd et al."

The suit purports to be on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
common stock between November 1, 2001 and October 16, 2003, and
alleges claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  The
Amended Complaint alleges that the defendants violated the
Securities Laws by, among other things, failing to disclose in
various public and shareholder and investor reports and other
communications the alleged inadequacy of the Company's loss
reserves for its NAC Re subsidiary (now known as XL Reinsurance
America, Inc.) and that, as a consequence, the Company's
earnings and assets were materially overstated.  

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint which
motion is pending before the Court. There has been no discovery
in the Malin Action.

The suit is styled "Malin et al v. XL Capital Ltd. et al., case
no. 3:03-cv-02001-PCD," filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Connecticut, under Judge Peter C.
Dorsey.  Representing the Company is Leonard A. Spivak of
Cahill, Gordon & Reindel, 80 Pine St., New York, NY 10005,
Phone: 212-701-3000, Fax: 212-269-5420, E-mail:
lspivak@cahill.com.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Ramzi Abadou, Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman - CA,
         401 B Street, Suite 1700, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone:
         619-231-1058, Fax: 619-231-7423, E-mail:
         ramzia@mwbhl.com  

     (2) George Edward Barrett, Barrett, Johnston & Parsley, 217
         Second Avenue, Nashville, TN 37201, Phone: 615-244-
         2202, E-mail: gbarrett@barrettjohnston.com

     (3) Patrick A. Klingman, Sheperd Finkelman Miller & Shah-
         Chester, 65 Main St., Chester, CT 06412, Phone: 860-
         526-1100, Fax: 860-526-1120, E-mail:
         pklingman@sfmslaw.com

     (4) James W. Oliver, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman &
         Robbins - SF, 100 Pine St., Suite 2600, San Francisco,
         CA 94111, Phone: 415-288-4545, Fax: 415-288-4534, E-
         mail: jimO@lcsr.com

     (5) David A. Rosenfeld, Cauley Geller Bowman & Rudman, LLP,
         200 Broadhollow Rd., Suite 406, Melville, NY 11747-
         4806, Phone: 631-367-7100, E-mail:
         drosenfeld@cauleygeller.com  



                   Meetings, Conferences & Seminars




* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
-------------------------------------------------

August 18-19, 2005
PRODUCTS LIABILITY: PHARMACEUTICAL AND MEDICAL DEVICE ISSUES
ALI-ABA
San Francisco
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

August 25-26, 2005
CLASS ACTION FAIRNESS ACT OF 2005 AND OTHER EMERGING CLASS
ACTION ISSUES
ALI-ABA
Chicago
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

September 8-9, 2005
CLASS ACTION LITIGATION: PROSECUTION & DEFENSE STRATEGIES 2005
Practising Law Institute
Chicago, IL
Contact: 800-260-4PLI; 212-824-5710; info@pli.edu

September 19-20, 2005
NATIONAL ASBESTOS LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Four Seasons Hotel, Philadelphia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

September 26-27, 2005
CONSUMER FINANCE LITIGATION & CLASS ACTIONS
American Conferences
New York
Contact: http://www.americanconference.com

September 26-27, 2005
REINSURANCE SUMMIT
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Boston
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

September 26-27, 2005
WATER CONTAMINATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Marina del Rey Los Angeles
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

September 26-27, 2005
BAD FAITH LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Philadelphia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

September 27, 2005
INSURANCE FRAUD CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Philadelphia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

September 27, 2005
REINSURANCE CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Boston
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

September 27, 2005
REINSURANCE ARBITRATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Boston
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

September 27-28, 2005
PREPARING FOR THE FUTURE OF FINITE AND STRUCTURED RISK
(RE)INSURANCE
American Conferences
New York
Contact: http://www.americanconference.com

September 29-30, 2005
RAA'S RE CLAIMS SEMINAR: REINSURANCE CLAIMS MANAGEMENT BY CLAIMS
PROFESSIONALS FOR CLAIMS PROFESSIONALS
Mealey Publications
New York, New York
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

October 2005
ASBESTOS LIABILITY FORUM
Mealey Publications
London, England
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

October 2005
LAW CLIENT DEVELOPMENT CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

October 6-7, 2005
ASBESTOS LITIGATION IN THE 21ST CENTURY
ALI-ABA
Chicago
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

October 7, 2005
REINSURANCE LAW & PRACTICE 2005: NEW LEGAL & BUSINESS
DEVELOPMENTS IN A CHANGING ENVIRONMENT
Practising Law Institute
New York, NY
Contact: 800-260-4PLI; 212-824-5710; info@pli.edu

October 17-18, 2005
BENZENE LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz Carlton, Phoenix
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

October 17-18, 2005
INSURANCE COVERAGE DISPUTES CONCERNING CONSTRUCTION DEFECTS
Mealey Publications
The Ritz Carlton, New Orleans
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

October 19, 2005
LEXISNEXIS PRESENTS WALL STREET FORUM: MASS TORT LITIGATION
Mealey Publications
The Carlyle Hotel
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

October 24-25, 2005
C-8/PFOA SCIENCE, RISKS LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Rittenhouse Philadephia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

October 26-27, 2005
PREVENTING AND DEFENDING WAGE & HOUR CLAIMS & CLASS ACTIONS
American Conferences
Sheraton Fisherman's Wharf Hotel, San Francisco, CA
Contact: http://www.americanconference.com;877-927-1563

October 27, 2005
HEART DEVICE LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Mandalay Bay Resort & Casino, Las Vegas
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

October 27-28, 2005
RETAIL & HOSPITALITY LIABILITY CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Mandalay Bay Resort & Casino, Las Vegas
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

October 28, 2005
PREVENTING AND DEFENDING EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION CLAIMS &
LITIGATION
American Conferences
Sheraton Fisherman's Wharf Hotel, San Francisco, CA
Contact: http://www.americanconference.com;877-927-1563

October 28, 2005
DRUG AND MEDICAL DEVICE LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Mandalay Bay Resort & Casino, Las Vegas
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

November 3-4, 2005
CONFERENCE ON LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY PRODUCTS
ALI-ABA
Washington DC
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

November 3-4, 2005
MANUFACTURER'S LIABILITY CONFERENCE: LEGAL PROTECTIONS CRUCIAL
TO YOUR BOTTOM LINE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Coconut Grove, Miami
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

November 7, 2005
ALL SUMS: REALLOCATION & SETTLEMENT CREDITS CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton, Boston
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

November 7-8, 2005
LEXISNEXIS PRESENTS: COPYRIGHT - FROM TRADITIONAL CONCEPTS TO
THE DIGITAL AGE
Mealey Publications
Downtown Conference Center at Pace University, New York City
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

November 7-8, 2005
CONSTRUCTION DEFECT & MOLD LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz Carlton Phoenix, Phoenix
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

November 7-8, 2005
FUNDAMENTALS OF REINSURANCE LITIGATION & ARBITRATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Downtown Conference Center at Pace University, New York City
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

November 9, 2005
CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION DEFECT LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Four Seasons Resort, Santa Barbara
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

November 10-11, 2005
CALIFORNIA SECTION 17200 CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Four Seasons Resort Santa Barbara
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

November 14-15, 2005
SILICA LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton, New Orleans
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

November 15-16, 2005
12TH ADVANCED NATIONAL FORUM ON LITIGATING BAD FAITH AND
PUNITIVE DAMAGES
American Conferences
Fontainebleau Resort, Miami, FL, United States
Contact: http://www.americanconference.com;877-927-1563

November 17-18, 2005
ASBESTOS LIABILITY FORUM
Mealey Publications
London, England
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

November 17-18, 2005
Mass Torts Made Perfect Seminar
MassTortsMadePerfect.Com
Las Vegas, Nevada
Contact: 800-320-2227; 850-436-6094 (fax)

December 1-2, 2005
REINSURANCE GENERAL COUNSEL'S CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Fairmont Scottsdale Princess
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

December 5-6, 2005
ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton New York, Battery Park
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

December 6, 2005
ASBESTOS INSURANCE CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton New York, Battery Park
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

December 12-14, 2005
10th Annual Drug & Medical Device Litigation
10TH ANNUAL DRUG & MEDICAL DEVICE LITIGATION
American Conferences
The Waldorf Astoria, New York, NY, United States
Contact: http://www.americanconference.com;877-927-1563

December 12-13, 2005
VIOXX LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Caesars Palace, Las Vegas
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

December 12-13, 2005
LEAD LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Pentagon City, Washington DC
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

February 16-17, 2006
ACCOUNTANTS' LIABILITY
ALI-ABA
Coral Gables, Miami, Florida
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

May 25-26, 2006
INSURANCE COVERAGE 2006: CLAIM TRENDS & LITIGATION
Practising Law Institute
New York
Contact: 800-260-4PLI; 212-824-5710; info@pli.edu

September 28-30, 2006
LITIGATING MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CLAIMS
ALI-ABA
Boston
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614


* Online Teleconferences
------------------------

August 01-31, 2005
HBA PRESENTS: AUTOMOBILE LITIGATION: DISPUTES AMONG
CONSUMERS, DEALERS, FINANCE COMPANIES AND FLOORPLANNERS
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

August 01-31, 2005
CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION DEFECT
LIABILITY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

August 01-31, 2005
HBA PRESENTS: ETHICS IN PERSONAL INJURY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

August 01-31, 2005
IN-HOUSE COUNSEL AND WRONGFUL DISCHARGE CLAIMS:
CONFLICT WITH CONFIDENTIALITY?
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

August 01-31, 2005
BAYLOR LAW SCHOOL PRESENTS: 2004 GENERAL PRACTICE INSTITUTE --
FAMILY LAW, DISCIPLINARY SYSTEM, CIVIL LITIGATION, INSURANCE
& CONSUMER LAW UPDATES
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

TORTS PRACTICE: 18TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS #1
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

TORTS PRACTICE: 18TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS #2
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

TORTS PRACTICE: 18TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS #3
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

TORTS PRACTICE: 19TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 21ST ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS #1
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 21ST ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS #2
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 21ST ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS #3
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 22ND ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

PUNITIVE DAMAGES: MAXIMIZING YOUR CLIENT'S SUCCESS OR MINIMIZING
YOUR CLIENT'S EXPOSURE
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

EFFECTIVE DIRECT AND CROSS EXAMINAITON
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

STRATEGIC TIPS FOR SUCCESSFULLY PROPOUNDING & OPPOSING WRITTEN
DISCOVERY
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

CACI: CALIFORNIA'S NEW CIVIL JURY INSTRUCTIONS
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

ADVERSARIAL PROCEEDINGS IN ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCIES
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY - PANEL OF CREDITORS COMMITTEE MEMBERS
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

EXPERT WITNESS ADMISSIBILITY IN MOLD CASES
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

INTRODUCTION TO CLASS ACTIONS AND LARGE RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

NON-TRADITIONAL DEFENDANTS IN ASBESTOS LITIGATION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

PAXIL LITIGATION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS INVOLVING BAYCOL
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com  

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

SELECTION OF MOLD LITIGATION EXPERTS: WHO YOU NEED ON YOUR TEAM
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

SHOULD I FILE A CLASS ACTION?
LawCommerce.Com / Law Education Institute
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

THE EFFECTS OF ASBESTOS ON THE PULMONARY SYSTEM
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

THE STATE OF ASBESTOS LITIGATION: JUDICIAL PANEL DISCUSSION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

TRYING AN ASBESTOS CASE
LawCommerce.Com
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com  

THE IMPACT OF LORILLAR ON STATE AND LOCAL REGULATION OF TOBACCO
SALES AND ADVERSTISING
American Bar Association
Contact: 800-285-2221; abacle@abanet.org

_______________________________________________________________
The Meetings, Conferences and Seminars column appears in the
Class Action Reporter each Wednesday. Submissions via e-mail to
carconf@beard.com are encouraged.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

AMERICAN ITALIAN: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Suit in MO
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of American
Italian Pasta Company (NYSE: PLB) between October 25, 2000 and
August 9, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Missouri against defendant American Italian
Pasta Company and one or more of its officers and/or directors.
The action charges that defendants violated 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 Charles J. Piven,
P.A., The World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street,
Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD, 21202, Phone: 410/986-0036, E-mail:
hoffman@pivenlaw.com.


AMERICAN ITALIAN: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Suit in MO
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
LLP ("Lerach Coughlin") initiated a class action in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Missouri on
behalf of purchasers of American Italian Pasta Company ("AIPC")
(NYSE:PLB) common stock during the period between October 4,
2000 and August 9, 2005 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges AIPC and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. AIPC engages in the production and marketing of dry pasta
in North America.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
caused AIPC's shares to trade at artificially inflated levels by
issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's financial statements, business and
prospects. This caused the Company's stock to trade as high as
$51.78 per share during the Class Period and allowed defendants
to sell 551,888 shares of their AIPC stock at artificially
inflated prices for proceeds of $19.4 million.

Then, on August 9, 2005, the Company issued a press release
announcing that it was "delaying the release of its full
financial results for the third fiscal quarter ended July 1,
2005, and is also delaying the filing of its third quarter Form
10-Q with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The
Company stated that its Audit Committee is conducting an
internal investigation of certain accounting procedures and
practices and certain other matters. The Company also outlined
impairment charges and other financial statement adjustments
that will be recorded and provided an overview of its business
results for the third quarter." On this news, AIPC's stock
collapsed to as low as $13.10 per share before closing at $13.28
per share on volume of 4.7 million shares.

According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known by
each of the defendants but concealed from the investing public
during the Class Period, were as follows:

     (1) the Company lacked requisite internal controls, and, as
         a result, the Company's projections and reported
         results were based upon defective assumptions and/or
         manipulated facts;

     (2) contrary to defendants' claims of fiscal 2005
         profitability, the Company was actually on track to
         report losses;

     (3) the Company lacked the necessary personnel to issue
         accurate financial reports and projections;

     (4) the Company's financial statements were presented in
         violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles;
         and

     (5) as a result of the above, the Company's projections for
         fiscal year 2005 were grossly inflated.

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


HOST AMERICA: Kirby McInerney Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CT
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of Connecticut on behalf of all purchasers of Host
America Corporation ("Host America" or the "Company")
(Nasdaq:CAFE) securities during the period from July 12, 2005
through July 22, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The action charges Host America and certain of its senior
officers with violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. The alleged violations stem from the dissemination
of false and misleading statements, which had the effect --
during the Class Period -- of artificially inflating the price
of Host America's shares.

Investors allege that during the Class Period, the Company made
material misrepresentations concerning the nature of the
business relationship between Host America and Wal-Mart, which
triggered a run-up in Host America's stock price from $3.12 to
$14.25 in a span of 9 trading days. Moreover, insiders of Host
America profited handsomely from those misrepresentations,
selling over $6.92 million of Host America securities just after
this run-up.

On July 22, 2005, trading of Host America securities was halted,
pending SEC review in regards to its misleading announcement
made on July 12. At the time trading was halted, Host America
stock was priced at $13.92 per share.

For more details, contact Vivian Lee of Kirby McInerney &
Squire, LLP, Phone: (212) 317-2300 or (888) 529-4787, E-mail:
vlee@kmslaw.com, Web site: http://www.kmslaw.com.


HOST AMERICA: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Fraud Suit in CT
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP filed
a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for
the District of Connecticut, on behalf of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Host America
Corporation ("Host America" or the "Company") (Nasdaq: CAFE)
between July 12, 2005 and July 20, 2005 inclusive (the "Class
Period") against defendants Host America and certain officers of
the Company. The case name is Conlin v. Host America, et al.

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

     (1) they misrepresented the nature of the "Wal-Mart
         Transaction" as one whereby the Company had a firm
         commitment by Wal-Mart to purchase the Company's
         LightMasterPlus for installation in Wal-Mart stores.

     (2) the true facts which were not disclosed are that Wal-
         Mart was not a customer of the Company's in connection
         to purchasing the LightMasterPlus and that the "Wal-
         Mart Transaction" was limited to a test installation
         unrelated to any commitment by Wal-Mart to install the
         LightMasterPlus in any of its facilities on a permanent
         basis. In fact, Wal-Mart had made no commitment to
         purchase or install the LightMasterPlus outside of the
         test installation.

     (3) as a result, defendants had no basis for stating that
         the test installation was a "first-phase roll-out" or
         that "the next phase will involve a significant number
         of stores."

In fact, defendants lacked any basis for stating that the Wal-
Mart test installation was a "major event for our company."
Further, such test installations in the past had resulted in no
future customer relationship and no actual purchases of the
LightMasterPlus by the party solicited for the test
demonstration.

This scheme deceived the investing public regarding Host
America's business, operations, management and the intrinsic
value of Host America common stock and caused plaintiff and
other members of the Class to purchase Host America publicly
traded securities at artificially inflated prices.

For more details, contact Fred Taylor Isquith, Esq., Gustavo
Bruckner, Esq., or Derek Behnke, of Wolf Haldenstein Adler
Freeman & Herz LLP, 270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10016,
Phone: 1-800-575-0735, E-mail: classmember@whafh.com, Web site:
http://www.whafh.com.


INVESTORS FINANCIAL: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Stock Suit in MA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts on behalf of all securities purchasers
of Investors Financial Services Corporation (Nasdaq: IFIN)
("Investors Financial" or the "Company") between October 15,
2003 and July 14, 2005 inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Investors Financial, Kevin J. Sheehan,
Michael F. Rogers, John N. Spinney Jr., Robert D. Mancuso, and
Edmund J. Maroney 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 improper accounting practices
         resulted in a $6.2 million reduction in net interest
         income;

     (2) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls;

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

     (4) that due to the impact of interest rate yield
         compression and the flattening of the interest rate
         curve the Company's 2005 guidance was not achievable;

     (5) that defendants' use of interest rate swaps to hedge
         against the negative impact to the balance sheet was
         ineffective; and

     (6) that as a consequence of the foregoing, defendants'
         statements with respect to the Company's growth and
         progress lacked in all reasonable basis when made.

On July 14, 2005, the Company announced that its 2005 and 2006
previously announced earnings guidance was not achievable. On
this news, shares of Investors Financial fell $7.47 per share,
or 17.99 percent, on July 15, 2005, to close at $34.05 per
share.

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


PATTERSON COMPANIES: Federman & Sherwood Files Stock Suit in MN
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Federman & Sherwood initiated a class action
lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Minnesota against Patterson Companies, Inc. (Nasdaq:
PDCO).

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of
material misrepresentations to the market which had the effect
of artificially inflating the market price. The class period is
from February 24, 2005 through May 25, 2005.

For more details, contact William B. Federman of FEDERMAN &
SHERWOOD, 120 N. Robinson, Suite 2720, Oklahoma City, OK, 73102,
Phone: (405) 235-1560, Fax: (405) 239-2112, E-mail:
wfederman@aol.com, Web site: http://www.federmanlaw.com.


RED ROBIN: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CO
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
LLP ("Lerach Coughlin") initiated a class action in the United
States District Court for the District of Colorado on behalf of
purchasers of Red Robin Gourmet Burgers, Inc. ("Red Robin")
(NASDAQ:RRGB) common stock during the period between November 8,
2004 and August 11, 2005 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Red Robin and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Red Robin, together with its subsidiaries, operates a
casual dining restaurant chain that serves gourmet burgers in
the United States and Canada.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
caused Red Robin's shares to trade at artificially inflated
levels by issuing a series of materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business and prospects and by
concealing improper self dealing by the Company's CEO. This
caused the Company's stock to trade as high as $62.38 per share.
Defendants took advantage of this inflation, selling or
otherwise disposing of 320,000 shares of their Red Robin stock
then valued at more than $17 million. On August 11, 2005, Red
Robin reported that Q2 2005 results would be worse than
expectations due to charges and adjustments to various accounts
and that its Chairman, President and CEO had resigned in light
of an investigation into his personal use of Company assets. On
this news, Red Robin's stock collapsed to as low as $44.13 per
share before closing at $45.55 per share on volume of 9.8
million shares.

According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known by
each of the defendants but concealed from the investing public
during the Class Period, were as follows:

     (1) the Company lacked requisite internal controls and
         corporate governance procedures to safeguard the
         Company from abuse by the CEO of his position at the
         Company;
   
     (2) contrary to defendants' claims of fiscal 2005 growth
         and profitability, the Company was actually on track
         for lower results than represented;

     (3) the Company lacked the necessary personnel to issue
         accurate financial reports and projections; and

     (4) as a result of (a)-(c) above, the Company's projections
         for fiscal year 2005 were grossly inflated.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers
of Red Robin common stock during the Class Period (the "Class").
The plaintiff is represented by Lerach Coughlin, which has
expertise in prosecuting investor class actions and extensive
experience in actions involving financial fraud.

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


RENAISSANCERE HOLDINGS: Scott + Scott Lodges Stock Suit in NY
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Scott + Scott, LLC, initiated a securities class
action filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against RenaissanceRe Holdings
Ltd. ("RNR") (NYSE: RNR; "RenaissanceRe" or the "Company").
Purchasers of securities in RNR during the Class Period from
January 24, 2002 through July 25, 2005 inclusive (the "Class
Period") are members of the purported class. RNR is a global
provider in reinsurance and insurance and maintains its
principal place of business in Bermuda. Scott + Scott has had
success in litigating securities cases involving Bermudian
reinsurance companies.

The complaint filed on August 5th by Scott + Scott, LLC alleges
that during the Class Period, RenaissanceRe and certain
individual defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Specifically, the complaint alleges that various Company
financial statements filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission ("SEC") were fraudulent as a result of:

     (1) problematic finite reinsurance recoverables, which led
         to a misstatement of net income by as much as 12% in a
         given year;

     (2) improper accounting for the timing of recognition of
         premiums on multi-year ceded reinsurance contracts
         during the first three quarters of 2004; and

     (3) noncompliance with rules outlined in the Generally
         Accepted Accounting Principals ("GAAP").

On July 25, 2005, RenaissanceRe reported that the SEC served the
Company's Chief Executive Officer, James N. Stanard, with a
Wells Notice, indicating that SEC officials plan to recommend
that charges be brought against Mr. Stanard for violations of
federal securities laws. In its statement, RenaissanceRe also
said the SEC separately issued a Wells Notice to Michael W.
Cash, formerly Senior Vice President of Specialty Reinsurance.
Mr. Cash resigned last month, after refusing to comply with a
SEC subpoena requesting his testimony in an investigation into
the three-year restatement of the Company's earnings announced
by RenaissanceRe in February.

The SEC has been conducting an ongoing investigation into the
restatement of the Company's 2001, 2002 and 2003 financial
statements. The effect of the restatement was to lift the
Company's 2001 and 2003 net income by $20.6 million and $1.3
million, respectively, and lower its 2002 net income by $21.9
million, the Company reported and the complaint alleges.
RenaissanceRe, like many insurance industry companies, has been
subpoenaed in recent months by state and federal regulators
investigating whether companies have used finite risk products
to manipulate their results.

For more details, contact Neil Rothstein or Amy K. Saba of Scott
+ Scott, LLC, Phone: +1-800-332-2259, ext. 22, +1-619-251-0887
or +1-800-332-2259, ext. 26, E-mail: nrothstein@scott-scott.com
or asaba@scott-scott.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  * * *