CAR_Public/050818.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, August 18, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 163

                         Headlines

AMERICAN EXPRESS: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Mutual Fund Lawsuit
ARGENTINA: Investor Group Sues Local Banks Over Defaulted Bonds
BIOGEN IDEC: TYSABRI Users Launch Medical Monitoring Suit in CA
BIOGEN IDEC: Faces Several Average Wholesale Pricing Lawsuits
BOSTON BEER: Faces Suits Over Advertising To Underage Consumers

BURLINGTON NORTHERN: TX Court Refuses To Certify Investor Suit
CALIFORNIA: Corn Syrup Antitrust Settlement to Benefit Charities
CALIFORNIA: Homeowners in Tribal Land Sues Indian Affairs Office
CALIFORNIA: San Diego Policemen File Overtime Wage Suit V. City
COLLINS BUS: Recalls Buses Due to FMVSS No. 221 Noncompliance   

CONSUMERINFO.COM: Settles FTC Deceptive Credit Marketing Lawsuit
FINLAND: Report Says Justice Ministry Considers Class Action Law
HINO MOTOR: Recalls 46 NE8J, NJ86 Trucks Due to Crash Hazard  
ILLINOIS: Locklear Electric's Suit V. NAAP up For Certification
MAJOR AUTOMOTIVE: Faces NY Suit For Sale of Defective Vehicles

MAJOR AUTOMOTIVE: Reaches Settlement For NJ Consumer Fraud Suit
PRE-PAID LEGAL: Working To Resolve Fraud Lawsuits V. Memberships
PRE-PAID LEGAL: Appeals Court Yet To Rule on OK Suit Dismissal
PRE-PAID LEGAL: Court Nixes Appeal of OK Certification Ruling
QUALCOMM INC.: CA Court Hears Wage Suit Decertification Appeal

QUALCOMM INC.: Cellphone Injury Suits Remanded To WA State Court
ROHM & HAAS: MO Court Dismisses Personal Injury, Damage Lawsuit
ROYAL DUTCH: NJ Judge Allows Securities Fraud Lawsuit to Proceed
SILICON LABORATORIES: Parties Submit Revised NY Suit Settlement
UTAH: Attorney General Says Body Armor Deadline Draws Nearer

WAL-MART STORES: $1.39 Gift Cards Suit in Management Conference


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

AMERICAN ITALIAN: Federman & Sherwood Lodges Stock Suit in MO
AMERICAN ITALIAN: Goldman Scarlato Lodges Securities Suit in MO
AMERICAN ITALIAN: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Suit in MO
BUCA INC.: Federman & Sherwood Files Securities Fraud Suit in MN
CUSTOM DESIGNED: Federman & Sherwood Files Securities Suit in NM

HILB ROGAL: Goodkind Labaton Schedules Lead Plaintiff Deadline
RED ROBIN: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CO
RED ROBIN: Dyer & Shuman Sets Lead Plaintiff October 15 Deadline
RED ROBIN: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in CO
RENAISSANCERE HOLDINGS: Alfred G. Yates Lodges Stock Suit in NY

SYMBOL TECHNOLOGIES: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Suit in NY



                          *********


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Mutual Fund Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
American Express Financial, Inc. asked the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York to dismiss
the consolidated securities class action filed against it,
American Express Financial Corporation and American Express
Financial Advisors, styled "In re American Express Financial
Advisors Securities Litigation."  The suit also names as
defendants James M. Cracchiolo in his capacity as President and
CEO of American Express Financial and Chairman and CEO of
American Express Advisors.  Certain of the Company's mutual
funds are also named as nominal defendants.


     (1) Naresh Chand v. American Express Company, American
         Express Financial Corporation and American Express
         Financial Advisors, Inc.;

     (2) Elizabeth Flenner v. American Express Company et al.
         (March 2004);

     (3) John B. Perkins v. American Express Company et al.
         (March 2004);

     (4) Kathie Kerr v. American Express Company et al. (April
         2004); and

     (5) Leonard D. Caldwell, Gale D. Caldwell and Richard T.
         Allen v. American Express Company et al. (April 2004)

The plaintiffs allege violations of certain federal securities
laws and/or state statutory and common law. The plaintiffs,
among other things, allege that the Company's financial plans
are used as a means to recommend mutual funds that pay
"undisclosed kickbacks." The class period at issue is March 10,
1999 through February 9, 2004.  Plaintiffs seek to represent one
class consisting of all of the Company's clients who purchased
the preferred mutual funds during the relevant period and
another class comprised of those of the Company's clients who
also purchased financial plans during the relevant period.  For
their damages, plaintiffs seek restitution of the "undisclosed
kickbacks" and the fees paid for the financial plans.

In addition, two lawsuits making similar allegations (based
solely on state causes of actions) were filed in the Supreme
Court of the State of New York and styled "Beer v. American
Express Company and American Express Financial Advisors" and
"You v. American Express Company and American Express Financial
Advisors."  The Company removed these two actions to the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Plaintiffs have moved to remand the cases to state court. The
Court's decision on the remand motion is pending.

The suit is styled "In Re American Express Financial Advisors
Securities Litigation, case no. 1:04-cv-01773-DAB," filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, under Judge Deborah A. Batts.  Representing the plaintiffs
is Michael Robert Reese of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP
(NYC), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY 10119, Phone:
212-631-8696, Fax: 212-629-0307, E-mail: mreese@milberg.com.  
Representing the Company is Peter Kristian Vigeland of Wilmer,
Cutler & Pickering (NYC), 399 Park Avenue, 30th Floor, New York,
NY 10022, Phone: 212-230-8800, Fax: 212-230-8888, E-mail:
Peter.Vigeland@wilmer.com.


ARGENTINA: Investor Group Sues Local Banks Over Defaulted Bonds
---------------------------------------------------------------
An association representing Argentine bondholders intends to
launch a lawsuit against the local banks, seeking $25 million in
damages for alleged malpractice in the sale of sovereign bonds,
The AFX News Limited reports.

According to the lawyer of the Civil Association of Financial
Victims, Osvaldo Prato, damages will be sought through a class
action, which means more investors could benefit from a
favorable ruling, besides the 9,000 members of the association.
He insists though that the legal action was being brought
against the banks, and not against the state.

The holders of Argentine sovereign bonds, in Argentina and
abroad, were caught in Argentina's debt moratorium declared in
December 2001. This debt was restructured at the beginning of
this year, when holders of bonds in default were issued new
securities in exchange for their notes.

Mr. Prato told AFX News Limited that banks should have been able
to know what was coming because they have tools, such as
country-risk indexes, to anticipate risks. He said that they
sold over $20 billion in bonds when Argentina's country-risk
premium was already high. Mr. Prato also said it could take at
least five years for a ruling to be pronounced on this matter.


BIOGEN IDEC: TYSABRI Users Launch Medical Monitoring Suit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Biogen Idec, Inc. and Elan Pharmaceutical Management Corporation
face a purported class action, captioned "Wayne v. Biogen Idec
Inc. and Elan Pharmaceutical Management Corp.," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

The complaint purports to assert claims for strict product
liability, medical monitoring and concert of action arising out
of the manufacture, marketing, distribution and sale of TYSABRI.
The action is purportedly brought on behalf of all persons in
the U.S. who have had infusions of TYSABRI and who have not been
diagnosed with any medical conditions resulting from TYSABRI
use.  The plaintiff alleges that defendants, acting individually
and in concert, failed to warn the public about purportedly
known risks related to TYSABRI use.  The plaintiff seeks to
recover the cost of periodic medical examinations, restitution,
interest, compensatory and punitive damages, and attorneys'
fees.


BIOGEN IDEC: Faces Several Average Wholesale Pricing Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Biogen Idec MA, Inc. (formerly Biogen, Inc.), several other
major pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, and in certain
cases, Biogen Idec Inc. face lawsuits filed by the City of New
York and the following Counties of the State of New York:

     (1) County of Albany,

     (2) County of Allegany,

     (3) County of Broome,

     (4) County of Cattaraugus,

     (5) County of Cayuga,

     (6) County of Chautauqua,

     (7) County of Chenango,

     (8) County of Erie,

     (9) County of Fulton,

    (10) County of Genesee,

    (11) County of Greene,

    (12) County of Herkimer,

    (13) County of Jefferson,

    (14) County of Madison,

    (15) County of Monroe,

    (16) County of Nassau,

    (17) County of Niagara,

    (18) County of Oneida,

    (19) County of Onondaga,

    (20) County of Putnam,

    (21) County of Rensselaer,

    (22) County of Rockland,

    (23) County of St. Lawrence,

    (24) County of Saratoga,

    (25) County of Steuben,

    (26) County of Suffolk,

    (27) County of Tompkins,

    (28) County of Warren,

    (29) County of Washington,

    (30) County of Wayne,

    (31) County of Westchester, and

    (32) County of Yates

All of the cases, except for the County of Erie and County of
Nassau cases, are the subject of a Consolidated Complaint, which
was filed on June 15, 2005 in U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts in Multi-District Litigation No. 1456.
The County of Nassau, which originally filed its complaint on
November 24, 2004, filed an amended complaint on March 24, 2005
and that case is also pending in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts.  The County of Erie originally filed
its complaint in Supreme Court of the State of New York on March
8, 2005. On April 15, 2005, the Company and the other named
defendants removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of New York. That case has been stayed pending
a decision by the Joint Panel on Multi-District Litigation
(JPMDL) regarding transfer to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts. On May 12, 2005, the JPMDL issued a
Conditional Transfer Order, transferring the case to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The County of
Erie filed a motion to vacate the Conditional Transfer Order on
June 7, 2005. The Company, together with other named defendants,
filed an opposition to the motion to vacate shortly thereafter.
The motion to vacate is currently pending before the JPMDL.

All of the complaints allege that the defendants fraudulently
reported the Average Wholesale Price for certain drugs for which
Medicaid provides reimbursement, also referred to as Covered
Drugs; marketed and promoted the sale of Covered Drugs to
providers based on the providers' ability to collect inflated
payments from the government and Medicaid beneficiaries that
exceeded payments possible for competing drugs; provided
financing incentives to providers to over-prescribe Covered
Drugs or to prescribe Covered Drugs in place of competing drugs;
and overcharged Medicaid for illegally inflated Covered Drugs
reimbursements. The complaints allege violations of New York
state law and advance common law claims for unfair trade
practices, fraud, and unjust enrichment. In addition, all of the
complaints, with the exception of the County of Erie complaint,
allege that the defendants failed to accurately report the "best
price" on the Covered Drugs to the Secretary of Health and Human
Services pursuant to rebate agreements entered into with the
Secretary of Health and Human Services, and excluded from their
reporting certain drugs offered at discounts and other rebates
that would have reduced the "best price."  

On April 8, 2005, the court dismissed similar claims, which were
brought by Suffolk County against the Company and eighteen other
defendants in a complaint filed on August 1, 2003. The court
held that Suffolk County's documentation was insufficient to
plead allegations of fraud. Neither the Company nor the other
defendants have answered or responded to the complaints that are
currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, as all of the plaintiffs have agreed to stay the
time to respond until a case management order and briefing
schedule have been approved by the Court.


BOSTON BEER: Faces Suits Over Advertising To Underage Consumers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Boston Beer Co., Inc., along with numerous other alcohol
beverage producers, has been named as a defendant in a number of
class action lawsuits in several states relating to advertising
practices and underage consumption.

Each complaint contains substantially the same allegations that
each defendant marketed its products to underage consumers and
seeks an injunction and unspecified money damages on behalf of a
class of parents and guardians.  The Company intends to defend
this litigation vigorously. All of these actions are in their
earliest stages and it is not possible at this time to determine
their likely impact on the Company, the Company stated in a
disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission.


BURLINGTON NORTHERN: TX Court Refuses To Certify Investor Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court of Tarrant County, Texas, 48th Judicial
District refused to certify the class action filed against
Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corporation, styled "Ray Ridgeway,
et al. v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corporation and The
Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company, No. 48-185170-
00."

The plaintiffs' causes of action include alleged breach of
contract, negligence, and breach of fiduciary duties with
respect to a special dividend that was paid in 1988 by a
Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corporation (BNSF) predecessor,
Santa Fe Southern Pacific Corporation (SFSP). The complaint
alleges that SFSP erroneously informed shareholders as to the
tax treatment of the dividend "specifically, the apportionment
of the dividend as either a distribution of earnings and profits
or a return of capital," which allegedly caused some
shareholders to overpay their income taxes. The plaintiffs
assert, through their expert's report, that SFSP had essentially
no accumulated earnings and profits and that the entire dividend
distribution should have been treated as a return of capital,
rather than the approximately 34 percent that SFSP determined
was a return of capital.

On July 8, 2005, the court entered a final order denying the
plaintiffs' requests to certify a class action. Plaintiffs have
filed a notice of intent to appeal this matter to the Texas
Court of Appeals.


CALIFORNIA: Corn Syrup Antitrust Settlement to Benefit Charities
----------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement of a class action lawsuit arising from a food-
products price-fixing scandal will bring nearly $2.7 million to
California charities that provide food or nutritional counseling
to the needy, including $869,000 to San Joaquin and Stanislaus
County groups, The Record reports.

Upon hearing that his agency, Second Harvest Food Bank of San
Joaquin and Stanislaus Counties, should receive $150,000, Paul
Rengh told The Record, "I have goose bumps, I've got to tell
you." According to the Second Harvest chief executive, "Our food
banks are always in need of truck repairs, and improving our
truck fleet and our freezers and coolers. If this is true, it
would be just wonderful."

Among other charities to benefit and their settlement awards
are: St. Mary's Interfaith Dining Hall in Stockton, $100,000;
Greater Stockton Emergency Food Bank, $59,000; Seniors First in
Stockton and Lodi Boys & Girls Club, $50,000 each; Stockton
Shelter for the Homeless, Women's Center of San Joaquin, Lodi
House and Loel Center in Lodi, $30,000 apiece; and Gospel Center
Rescue Mission in Stockton, $25,000.

Court documents reevaled that the settlement stems from a suit
that accuses four companies of conspiring to fix prices for high
fructose corn syrup. The companies are Archer-Daniels-Midlands
Co.; Cargill Inc.; A.E. Stanley Manufacturing Co.; and Corn
Products Corp., all of who will pay $20 million under the
settlement approved recently in Stanislaus County Superior
Court.

Most of the money will go to businesses that purchased the
overpriced corn syrup, said plaintiffs lead attorney James B.
Brown of Stockton. In announcing the settlement Mr. Brown also
told The Record, "The proof indicated the business purchasers
probably absorbed a good percentage of the overcharges in this
product."

Additionally, Mr. Brown, who is a partner in the firm Herum
Crabtree Brown told The Record that while virtually all
California residents in the 1990s were probably affected by the
price-fixing scheme, it would be impractical to try to
distribute settlement funds to each individual. He adds that as
a practical alternative, the law allows the money to be applied
for public good, in this case, to benefit charities providing
food and nutritional counseling to the poor.

He also stated, "It is particularly appropriate that some of the
proceeds from this lawsuit, which alleged that consumers were
gouged by price fixing into paying increased prices for products
that contained high fructose corn syrup, should be used to feed
poor people. This is the American system of justice at its best:
taking unjust profits from the corporate bad guys and
redistributing them to the most needy among us."

A preliminary settlement in the case, which was due to go to
trial in September, was reached in June, according to Mr. Brown
said. Notices were published, inviting anyone with objections to
raise them at a hearing in Modesto. No objections though were
heard and the judge signed off on the settlement, whose checks
could go out within two weeks.

As a final note, Mr. Brown told The Record, "We need to cut the
checks and we need to meet with the charities, but the checks
should go out within the next couple of weeks. It shouldn't take
any longer than that."


CALIFORNIA: Homeowners in Tribal Land Sues Indian Affairs Office
----------------------------------------------------------------
Three Palm Springs homeowners, who are living on Indian-owned
land filed a federal class action lawsuit that alleges the local
Bureau of Indian Affairs defrauds buyers by misrepresenting
future increases in land lease fees, The Press-Enterprise
reports.

Filed in U.S. District Court in Riverside under the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, the suit names the
Palm Springs bureau and 10,000 unnamed Realtors and Indian
lessors as defendants. It seeks at least $25 million in damages.  
The suit contends that a large number of employees in the bureau
are members of local tribes and therefore have a financial
interest in the land leases the agency administers. It further
contends that the bureau employees told Realtors during seminars
that future rent increases on Indian land leases would be
minimal, which the Realtors repeated to interested homeowners.

According to the suit, the bureau implemented policies to
prevent prospective buyers from ascertaining the true amount of
likely rent increases. Specifically, the suit states that the
bureau allegedly refuses to divulge past appraisals of Indian-
owned land to prospective buyers.

The plaintiffs, Alvin Annis, Richard J. Hussar and Gregory
Landenburg, according to the suit, would not have bought their
properties had they known their rental increases would be
substantial.

"How do you sell a home with a land lease that is potentially
close to a thousand dollars?" said Mr. Landenburg, adding that a
bureau appraisal for the square mile his lot is on has gone up
125 percent over last year. "It's just outrageous, it's
immoral," he told The Press-Enterprise.

Court documents indicate that potential class members could
include homeowners on tribal land who deal with the Palm Springs
bureau.


CALIFORNIA: San Diego Policemen File Overtime Wage Suit V. City
---------------------------------------------------------------
Approximately 1,100 San Diego police officers are claiming that
the city and police administrators bilked them out of overtime
income by illegally refusing to compensate officers for job-
related activities they perform out of uniform, such as getting
ready for court appearances and preparing investigative reports
at home, according to a recently filed lawsuit, The Voice of San
Diego reports.

The federal class action suit, which will seek a jury award of
$120 million or more for police officers who have been denied
overtime pay and were misinformed as to what they can claim as
overtime under federal labor law, alleges that the city treats
expense reimbursements as regular pay by taxing officers'
equipment and uniform allowances when the payments should be
made in full.

Asked for comment on the suit, Executive Assistant Chief of
Police Operations Bill Maheu, who oversees the department's
budget, told The Voice of San Diego that officers are fairly
compensated for overtime as it is laid out in the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

However, police officers' attorney Gregory Petersen contends
that police managers' concerns are more about cutting costs than
abiding by federal law. He told the Voice of San Diego,
"Homicide detectives, who aren't given time to work on their
cases at work, have to do it at home. That's pretty egregious."

Mr. Maheu though insists that he didn't know whether officers
were working on reports at home, but that doing so was
unnecessary. He adds, "There's not a reason to take it home and
do it there. At the very least, you can take initial information
and carry the report over to an investigator working the next
shift if you have to."

He acknowledged that the $900 annually doled out to an officer
as a uniform allowance is now taxed and it used to be paid in
whole "several years ago." He said he remembers a revised legal
interpretation of what the expense was as the cause for the
switch.  Mr. Petersen contends that if the city treats the
reimbursements like salary by taxing it then the San Diego City
Employees' Retirement System could make the case that employee
contributions should be coming out of repayments to officers as
well. He also added that cops in several instances were also not
being given uninterrupted half-hour breaks for each shift.

According to retirement board President Peter Prevolos, "The
board has an obligation to look at that if in fact that's true.
We've got to evaluate that and drill it down until it's either
incorrect or is indeed true. If it's the truth, than we need to
look at it."

The city charter orders the City Council to approve a balanced
budget every year, and Mr. Maheu acknowledged that,
traditionally, overtime costs are underestimated by millions of
dollars. In the 2005 fiscal year, the department racked up $15
million in overtime expenses when only $6 million was budgeted,
Mr. Maheu said.  The police department's handling of overtime
has gotten so bad, according to Mr. Petersen that managers
encourage patrol officers to "keep your eyes closed on the way
home" in order to avoid overtime costs that could incur if they
were to happen upon an incident just before clocking out. He
said that he has seen memos that direct officers to do just
that.

Mr. Maheu told The Voice of San Diego that he is unaware of
documents that bear those instructions, and said that such
direction was inappropriate.  He however asserted that the city
has "made a habit of funding its employment contracts with no
money." Department managers are mindful of keeping costs down,
he said, even if it means skirting the federal labor laws.

Mr. Maheu disagreed, saying that the police department complied
with the law. According to him, Police Chief Bill Lansdowne has
implemented ways to save on overtime costs, such as working with
the City Attorney's Office to make sure that only subpoenaed
officers go to court instead of every police officer listed in a
case. Also, overtime work is pre-approved before it is assigned,
he said, and people up and down the chain of command are
familiar with overtime laws. He also contends, "There's not a
police agency in the world where the budget is not an issue. In
the same breath, there's never someone who's asked, 'How much
did you spend saving that person's life?'"

Mr. Petersen told The Voice of San Diego that he was hired when
police officers wanted to know what was owed to them and what
their rights were, but he added that overtime law is non-
negotiable and not an item for collective bargaining
discussions.


COLLINS BUS: Recalls Buses Due to FMVSS No. 221 Noncompliance   
-------------------------------------------------------------
Collins Bus Corporation in cooperation with the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration's Office of Defects Investigation
(ODI) is voluntarily recalling about 201 units of 2004 Bantam
and 2004 Super Bantam school buses due to no compliance with
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards No. 221, "SCHOOL BUS BODY
JOINT STRENGTH." NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID Number: 05V359000.

According to the ODI, the recall affects certain 2004 Bantam and
Super Bantam school buses between July 2004 and November 2004.
The amount of adhesive applied to the roof seams of the buses
are inadequate for the type of adhesive used, which fails to
comply with the requirements of FMVSS No. 221.

As a remedy delers will correct the buses by adding two
additional screws between the current screws that attach the
seams of the ceiling skins to the structural roof bows. The
recall is expected to begin during the week of August 29, 2005.

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


CONSUMERINFO.COM: Settles FTC Deceptive Credit Marketing Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Consumerinfo.com, Inc., doing business as Experian Consumer
Direct, has settled Federal Trade Commission charges that it
deceptively marketed "free credit reports" by not adequately
disclosing that consumers automatically would be signed up for a
credit report monitoring service and charged $79.95 if they
didn't cancel within 30 days, in violation of federal law. The
settlement requires Consumerinfo to pay redress to deceived
consumers, bars deceptive and misleading claims about "free"
offers, requires disclosure of terms and conditions of any
"free" offers, and requires the defendant to give up $950,000 in
ill-gotten gains.

According to the FTC complaint, the defendant drove consumers to
their www.freecreditreport.com and www.consumerinfo.com Web
sites with radio, television, e-mail and Internet ads that
promised free credit reports and a bonus - free trials of a
credit-monitoring service. Ads made claims such as: "FREE! FREE!
FREE! Get Your FREE Credit Report Online in Seconds!!!!," "Click
here to get a FREE copy of your online Credit Report
Instantly!," "And that's not all . along with your INSTANT
credit report, we'll give you 30 FREE days of the Credit Check
Monitoring Service at no obligation."

Consumers were required to provide detailed personal information
and a valid credit card account number to get their credit
report. They were assured that, "Your card will not be charged
during the free trial period. However, valid credit card
information is required to establish your account."

According to the FTC's complaint, Consumerinfo's advertising and
Web sites failed to explain adequately that after the free trial
period for the credit monitoring service expired, consumers
automatically would be charged a $79.95 annual membership,
unless they notified the defendant within 30 days to cancel the
service. Consumerinfo billed the credit cards that it had told
consumers were "required only to establish your account," and,
in some cases, automatically renewed memberships by re-billing
consumers without notice. The FTC charged that the defendant's
failure to adequately disclose the automatic billing and to get
consumers' consent to bill their accounts violated federal law.

The complaint also alleges that Consumerinfo misled consumers
about their association with the annual free credit report
program for which U.S. consumers are eligible by federal law. A
federal law enacted in December 2003, gives consumers the right
to get one free credit report every 12 months from each of the
three national consumer reporting companies. This program began
in western states on December 1, 2004, and will cover all U.S.
consumers by September 1, 2005. Consumers can get their free
reports by phone, mail, or at one authorized Web site,
www.annualcreditreport.com. The FTC complaint alleges that
Consumerinfo deceptively advertised and promoted its "free
reports" at its "freecreditreport.com" Web site, without
disclosing that it was not associated with the official annual
free credit report program.

"Consumers paid the price for ordering free credit reports from
freecreditreport.com," said Lydia Parnes, Director of the FTC's
Bureau of Consumer Protection. "It's unfair and deceptive to
promise consumers something for free and then trick them into
paying for products they didn't want in the first place."

"Consumers also need to be alert about impostor sites - sites
that misspell annualcreditreport.com or use sound alike names,
but don't link to the authorized site. We are sending letters to
operators of more than 130 impostor sites to inform them that we
know they are out there and that attempts to mislead consumers
are illegal," she said.

The settlement is designed to assure that the defendant's
negative-option or "free" offers do not contain
misrepresentations, and that they disclose all terms and
conditions of the offers. The settlement establishes specific
disclosure requirements in promotions for the defendant's "free
credit report" offer. Among other things, the defendant must
clearly tell consumers that they will be charged unless they
cancel within the trial period, and that the offer is not
related to the free credit report program mandated by Congress.

The settlement requires redress for consumers who enrolled in
Consumerinfo's credit monitoring program between 2000 and 2003,
canceled the monitoring service and received a partial refund or
filed a complaint about the charges for the service. Consumers
who qualify for a refund should receive a notice from
Consumerinfo by email or first class mail within the next few
months. The FTC staff has released answers to frequently asked
questions available at www.ftc.gov/freereports to help
Consumerinfo customers determine if they're eligible for a
refund. It also has established an information hotline for
consumers to call for information on refunds. The phone number
is (202) 326-3457.

In addition to the redress program, the settlement requires the
defendant to pay $950,000 in ill-gotten gains to the Commission.
The money may be used to provide consumer education.  The
settlement also contains record-keeping and bookkeeping
provisions to allow the FTC to monitor compliance with the
order.

The complaint named Consumerinfo.com., Inc., doing business as
Experian Consumer Direct, Qspace, Inc., and Iplace Inc.
Consumerinfo.com is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Experian North
America, which is also the parent company of Experian
Information Services, one of the three national credit reporting
companies.

This case was brought with the invaluable assistance of the
office of California Attorney General, Bill Lockyer. The agency
also wishes to acknowledge the Electronic Privacy Information
Center, which filed a complaint about Consumerinfo.com with the
Commission, and the World Privacy Forum for reports it submitted
to the agency on imposter sites.

Copies of the complaint and consent agreement are available from
the FTC's Web site at http://www.ftc.govand also from the FTC's  
Consumer Response Center, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue,
N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580. The FTC works for the consumer to
prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices in
the marketplace and to provide information to help consumers
spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or
Spanish (bilingual counselors are available to take complaints),
or to get free information on any of 150 consumer topics, call
toll-free, 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357), or use the complaint
form at http://www.ftc.gov.The FTC enters Internet,  
telemarketing, identity theft, and other fraud-related
complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database
available to hundreds of civil and criminal law enforcement
agencies in the U.S. and abroad.  For more details, contact
Claudia Bourne Farrell, Office of Public Affairs, Phone:
202-326-2180 or contact the Consumerinfo Information Line:
202-326-3457 or visit the Website:
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2005/08/consumerinfo.htm.


FINLAND: Report Says Justice Ministry Considers Class Action Law
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Finnish ministry of justice reportedly asked a working group
to prepare a proposal for legislation on class action, The
Nordic Business Report reports.  The law would reportedly be
applied in cases pertaining to consumer issues. According to a
report by Finnish news agency STT, the working group is to file
its proposal by the end of January 2006.


HINO MOTOR: Recalls 46 NE8J, NJ86 Trucks Due to Crash Hazard  
------------------------------------------------------------
Hino Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc. in cooperation with the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Office of Defects
Investigation (ODI) is voluntarily recalling about 46 units of
2006 NE8J and 2006 NJ86 trucks due to crash hazard. NHTSA
CAMPAIGN ID Number: 05V356000.

According to the ODI, on certain chassis and cabs, the wheel
bearings were grease-packed onto the front axle rather than oil
lubricated as specified. It was later determined that the
caliper mounting bolts were not properly torqued and the proper
end play adjustment was not made. This can cause the caliper
mounting bolts could become disconnected from the rotor
assembly, which could cause a decrease in braking ability,
increasing the risk of a crash.
As a remedy, dealers will torque all affected caliper mounting
bolts and readjust each wheel for the proper end play
adjustment. The recall is expected to begin on August 19, 2005.

For more details, contact Hino, Phone: 248-648-6400 OR the NHTSA
Auto Safety Hotline: 1-888-327-4236 or 1-800-424-9153, Web site:
http://www.safecar.gov.


ILLINOIS: Locklear Electric's Suit V. NAAP up For Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
The first class action case filed in Madison County Circuit
Court after President George W. Bush signed the Class Action
Fairness Act into law last February 18 will be up for a case
management conference and class certification on August 24 in
Circuit Judge Daniel Stack's third floor courtroom, The Madison
County Record reports.

Locklear Electric of Wood River filed the suit back in February
25, alleging it received one or more unsolicited faxes from
National Association of Preferred Providers advertising the
availability of health care insurance.  The complaint contends
that NAPP did not obtain "prior express invitation or
permission" before sending the fax advertisement in violation of
the Federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Thus, according
to the compliant, "Defendant's transmission of unsolicited fax
advertisements constitutes an unlawful taking of Locklear's fax
paper, toner ink, and electricity."  Additionally, Locklear
claims in its suit that NAPP "willfully" sent or caused to be
sent unsolicited fax advertisements, and therefore it is liable
for $1,500 in damages for each separate unsolicited fax sent.

In order for the suit to be unaffected by a new federal law
which governs whether a class action lawsuit is filed in state
or federal court, the complaint is claiming, "the aggregate of
the class are less than $5 million."  The new Class Action
Fairness Act calls for all cases seeking more than $5 million in
damages to be heard in federal court.  As reported in previous
editions of the Class Action reporter, Locklear has filed two
similar class action suits against other companies that have
allegedly sent unsolicited faxes to them.

The suit is styled, Locklear Electric V. National Association of
Preferred Providers, which was filed in Madison County Circuit
Court. Locklear is represented by Lanny Darr of Schrempf,
Blaine, Kelly, & Darr of Alton. William Bunning of St. Louis
represents NAPP.


MAJOR AUTOMOTIVE: Faces NY Suit For Sale of Defective Vehicles
--------------------------------------------------------------
Major Automotive Companies, Inc. faces a summons and complaint
filed in the New York State Supreme Court, County of Bronx,
styled "Justin Jung et al. v. Major Automotive Companies, Inc."

Plaintiff filed the suit in December 2004, alleging the sale of
defective or otherwise dangerous vehicles.  Named plaintiff
bases his suit on a single-vehicle accident.  The action
includes provisions for the possible promulgation of a class
action lawsuit regarding the previous accusations.


MAJOR AUTOMOTIVE: Reaches Settlement For NJ Consumer Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Major Automotive Companies, Inc. forged a settlement in the
class action filed against it in the Superior Court of the State
of New Jersey, styled "Maryann Cerbo, et al. v. Ford of
Englewood, Inc., et al."

The lead plaintiff had alleged the systematic overcharge by all
New Jersey Licensed Automotive Dealers for the documentation
fees for the registration of new/used vehicles.

Under advice of counsel, the Company, through its Compass Dodge,
Inc. franchise, agreed to accept the proposed settlement offer
by the plaintiff's counsel. Using a complex set of guidelines,
including total sales and ratio of new and used vehicles sold,
we agreed to comply with the settlement provisions. The current
estimated cost of settlement is approximately $30,000, which has
been accrued in the fourth quarter of 2004.  The settlement
proposal awaits approval by the New Jersey Superior Court.


PRE-PAID LEGAL: Working To Resolve Fraud Lawsuits V. Memberships
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pre-paid Legal Services, Inc. is working to resolve the multiple
lawsuits filed against it, certain of its officers, employees,
sales associates and other defendants in various Alabama and
Mississippi state courts, beginning in the second quarter of
2001.

The suits seek actual and punitive damages for alleged breach of
contract, fraud and various other claims in connection with the
sale of memberships.  During 2004, there were at one time as
many as 30 separate lawsuits involving approximately 285
plaintiffs in Alabama.  As of July 22, 2005, as a result of
dismissals, summary judgments, or settlements for nominal
amounts, the Company is aware of approximately 8 separate
lawsuits involving approximately 11 plaintiffs that have been
filed in multiple counties in Alabama.  

As of July 22, 2005, the Company is aware of 15 separate
lawsuits involving approximately 425 plaintiffs in multiple
counties in Mississippi.  Certain of the Mississippi lawsuits
also name the Company's former provider attorney in Mississippi
as a defendant.  At least three complaints have been filed by
the law firm representing plaintiffs in eleven of the cases on
behalf of certain of the Mississippi plaintiffs and others with
the Attorney General of Mississippi in March 2002, December 2002
and August 2003.  The Company has responded to the Attorney
General's requests for information with respect to these
complaints, and as of July 22, 2005, is not aware of any further
actions being taken by the Attorney General.  In Mississippi,
the Company filed lawsuits in the United States District Court
for the Southern and Northern Districts of Mississippi in which
the Company seeks to compel arbitration of the various
Mississippi claims under the Federal Arbitration Act and the
terms of the Company's Membership agreements.  One of the
federal courts has ordered arbitration of a case involving 8
plaintiffs.  These cases are all in various stages of
litigation, including trial settings in Alabama in September
2005, and in Mississippi in November and December 2005, and seek
varying amounts of actual and punitive damages.  The first trial
in Mississippi on these cases resulted in a unanimous jury
verdict in the Company's favor, including other named
defendants, on all claims on October 19, 2004, while the second
and third trials in Mississippi resulted in insubstantial
plaintiffs' verdicts on February 15, 2005 and May 9, 2005
respectively.  As of July 22, 2005, post trial motions are
pending on both plaintiffs' verdicts.  On July 18, 2005 the
Circuit Judge in the May 9, 2005 trial entered an order granting
plaintiff's motion to reconsider the submission of the issue of
punitive damages to the jury, and set the case for trial on that
issue in November 2005.  The Company is seeking post trial and
appellate relief from the final judgment in that case and the
recent order.  Although the amount of Membership fees paid by
the plaintiffs in the Mississippi cases is $500,000 or less,
certain of the cases seek damages of $90 million.  Additional
suits of a similar nature have been threatened.

On April 19, 2002, counsel in certain of the above-referenced
Alabama suits also filed a similar suit against the Company and
certain officers in the District Court of Creek County, Oklahoma
on behalf of Jeff and Jana Weller individually and doing
business as Hi-Tech Auto making similar allegations relating to
the Company's Memberships and seeking unspecified damages on
behalf of a "nationwide" class.

The Pre-Paid defendants' preliminary motions in this case were
denied, and on June 17, 2003, the Oklahoma Court of Civil
Appeals reversed the trial court's denial of the Pre-Paid
defendants' motion to compel arbitration, finding that the trial
court erred when it denied Pre-Paid's motion to compel
arbitration pursuant to the terms of the valid Membership
contracts, and remanded the case to the trial court for further
proceedings consistent with that opinion.  On December 3, 2004,
the District Court ordered the plaintiffs to proceed with the
arbitration. The ultimate outcome of this case is not
determinable.


PRE-PAID LEGAL: Appeals Court Yet To Rule on OK Suit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals has yet to rule
on plaintiffs' appeal the dismissal of the securities class
action filed against Pre-paid Legal Services, Inc. and certain
of its executive officers in the United States District Court
for the Western District of Oklahoma.

The suit seeks unspecified damages on the basis of allegations
that the Company issued false and misleading financial
information, primarily related to the method it used to account
for commission advance receivables from sales associates.  

On March 5, 2002, the Court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss the complaint, with prejudice, and entered a judgment in
favor of the defendants.  Plaintiffs thereafter filed a motion
requesting reconsideration of the dismissal which was denied.  
The plaintiffs have appealed the judgment and the order denying
their motion to reconsider the judgment to the Tenth Circuit
Court of Appeals.  In August 2002, the lead institutional
plaintiff withdrew from the case, leaving two individual
plaintiffs as lead plaintiffs on behalf of the putative class.  

As of December 31, 2003, the briefing in the appeal had been
completed.  On January 14, 2004 oral argument was held in the
appeal and as of July 22, 2005, a decision was still pending.  

The suit is styled "In Re: Pre-Paid Securities Litigation, case
no. 5:01-cv-00182," filed in the United States District Court
for the Western District of Oklahoma, under Judge Robin J.
Cauthron.  Representing the plaintiffs are Stuart W. Emmons and
William B. Federman, Federman & Sherwood, 120 N Robinson Ave,
Suite 2720, Oklahoma City, OK 73102, Phone: 405-235-1560, Fax:
405-239-2112, E-mail: swe@federmanlaw.com or wfederman@aol.com.  
Representing the Company are:

     (1) Clayton Basser-Wall, Brobeck Phleger & Harrison-SAN
         FRANCISCO, Spear Street Tower, One Market Plaza, San
         Francisco, CA 94105, Phone: 415-442-0900

     (2) Brooke S. Murphy, Crowe & Dunlevy-OKC, 20 N Broadway
         Ave, Suite 1800, Oklahoma City, OK 73102, Phone: 405-
         235-7735, Fax: 405-272-5278, E-mail:
         murphyb@crowedunlevy.com

     (3) Margaret M. Snyder, Clifford Chance Rogers & Wells LLP,
         Steuart Street Tower, One Market Plaza, San Francisco,
         CA 94105-1420, Phone: 415-778-4700, Fax: 415-778-4701

     (4) Robert P. Varian, Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe, 405
         Howard St, The Orrick Building, San Francisco, CA
         94105, Phone: 415-773-5934, Fax: 415-773-5759, E-mail:
         rvarian@orrick.com


PRE-PAID LEGAL: Court Nixes Appeal of OK Certification Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals refused
plaintiffs' interlocutory appeal of a lower court ruling
refusing to grant class certification to a lawsuit filed against
Pre-Paid Legal Services, Inc. and certain of its executive
officers.

On March 1, 2002, Caroline Sandler, Robert Schweikert, Sal
Corrente, Richard Jarvis and Vincent Jefferson filed the suit,
seeking unspecified damages filed on behalf of the Company's
sales associates and alleges that the marketing plan offered by
the Company constitutes a security under the Securities Act of
1933.  The suit seeks remedies for failure to register the
marketing plan as a security and for violations of the anti-
fraud provisions of the Securities Act of 1933 and the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with
representations alleged to have been made in connection with the
marketing plan.

The complaint also alleges violations of the Oklahoma Securities
Act, the Oklahoma Business Opportunities Sales Act, breach of
contract, breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing and
unjust enrichment and violation of the Oklahoma Consumer
Protection Act and negligent supervision.  This case is subject
to the Private Litigation Securities Reform Act.

Pursuant to the Act, the Court has approved the named plaintiffs
and counsel and an amended complaint was filed in August 2002.  
The Pre-Paid defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint
and to strike the class action allegations on September 19,
2002, and discovery in the action was stayed pending a ruling on
the motion to dismiss.  On July 24, 2003, the Court granted in
part and denied in part the Pre-Paid defendants' motion to
dismiss.  The claims asserted under the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and the Oklahoma Securities were dismissed without
prejudice.  The motion was denied as to the remaining claims. On
September 8, 2004, the Court denied plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.  Plaintiffs petitioned the Tenth Circuit Court of
Appeals for permission to appeal the class certification ruling,
and the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the petition for
interlocutory appeal.  

The suit is styled "In Re: Pre-Paid Sec Lit II, case no. 5:02-
cv-00273," filed in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Oklahoma under Judge Robin J. Cauthron.  
Representing the plaintiffs are Clell I Cunningham, III of Dunn
Swan & Cunningham, 210 W Park Ave, Suite 2800, Oklahoma City, OK
73102-5604, Phone: 405-235-8318, Fax: 405-235-9605, E-mail:
skip@DSCPC.com; and Steven E. Fineman, Wendy R. Fleishman, and
Rachel Geman of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein-NEW YORK, 780
3rd Ave, 48th Fl, New York, NY 10017-2024, Phone: 212-355-9500,
Fax: 212-355-9592, E-mail: sfineman@lchb.com,
wfleishman@lchb.com or rgeman@lchb.com.


QUALCOMM INC.: CA Court Hears Wage Suit Decertification Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
California heard arguments for the plaintiffs' appeal of the
decertification of the class action filed against QUALCOMM,
Inc., styled "Durante, et al v. QUALCOMM."

On February 2, 2000, three former employees filed a putative
class action against the Company, ostensibly on behalf of
themselves and those former employees of ours whose employment
was terminated in April 1999.  Virtually all of the purported
class of plaintiffs received severance packages at the time of
the termination of their employment, in exchange for a release
of claims, other than federal age discrimination claims, against
the Company, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (November
9,2004) reports.

The complaint purports to state 10 causes of action including
breach of contract, age discrimination, violation of Labor Code
Section 200, violation of Labor Code Section 970, unfair
business practices, intentional infliction of emotional
distress, unjust enrichment, breach of the covenant of good
faith and fair dealing, declaratory relief and undue influence.  
The complaint seeks an order accelerating all unvested stock
options for the members of the class, plus economic and
liquidated damages of an unspecified amount.

On June 27, 2000, the case was ordered transferred from Los
Angeles County Superior Court to San Diego County Superior
Court.  On July 3, 2000, the Company removed the case to the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
California, and discovery commenced.

On May 29, 2001, the Court dismissed all plaintiffs' claims
except for claims arising under the federal Age Discrimination
in Employment Act.  On July 16, 2001, the Court granted
conditional class certification on the remaining claims, to be
revisited by the Court at the end of the discovery period.  On
April 15, 2003, the Court granted the Company's summary judgment
motions as to all remaining class members' disparate impact
claims.  On June 18, 2003, the Court ordered decertification of
the class and dismissed the remaining claims of the opt-in
plaintiffs without prejudice.  Plaintiffs have filed an appeal.  

On June 20, 2003, 76 of the opt-in plaintiffs filed, but have
not yet served, a new action in the same court, alleging
violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act as a
result of their layoffs in 1999.  To date, all but 27 of the
class members and plaintiffs agreed to dismiss all pending
appeals and claims against the Company in exchange for a waiver
of litigation costs.


QUALCOMM INC.: Cellphone Injury Suits Remanded To WA State Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class actions filed against QUALCOMM INC. and other
manufacturers of wireless phones, wireless operators and
industry related organizations have been remanded to the
Washington D.C. Superior Court.

Several purported class action lawsuits, including In re
Wireless Telephone Frequency Emissions Products Liability
Litigation, have been filed, seeking monetary damages out of the
sale and use of cellular phones.  The suits were later
coordinated in the United States District Court for the District
of Maryland.

On March 5, 2003, the Court granted the defendants' motions to
dismiss five of the consolidated cases (Pinney, Gimpleson,
Gillian, Farina and Naquin) on the grounds that the claims were
preempted by federal law.  On March 21, 2005, the 4th Circuit
Court of Appeals reversed the ruling by the District Court and
ordered the cases remanded to state court.

All remaining cases filed against the Company allege personal
injury as a result of their use of a wireless telephone. Those
cases have been remanded to the Washington, D.C. Superior Court.
The courts that have reviewed similar claims against other
companies to date have held that there was insufficient
scientific basis for the plaintiffs' claims in those cases.


ROHM & HAAS: MO Court Dismisses Personal Injury, Damage Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Missouri Superior Court dismissed a lawsuit filed against Rohm &
Haas Co., Morton International, Inc., which the Company
acquired, Joseph Magazzu, a former Morton employee, and the
Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality on behalf of
over 700 plaintiffs, alleging personal injury and property
damage caused by environmental contamination.

On April 7, 2005, this complaint was dismissed, without
prejudice, with respect to all the plaintiffs. Similar
complaints filed in Mississippi on behalf of approximately 1,800
other plaintiffs are pending.  These are individual plaintiffs
since Mississippi procedural rules do not permit class actions


ROYAL DUTCH: NJ Judge Allows Securities Fraud Lawsuit to Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Finding that the shareholders had "adequately" shown reason for
the court to examine their allegations concerning the company's
restatements of its oil reserves, a federal judge in Newark, New
Jersey allowed a securities fraud lawsuit against Royal Dutch
Shell, PLC, to proceed, The Associated Press reports.

The class action lawsuit questions whether the company's
statements on its reserves, an important measure of future
performance, purposely omitted or twisted important facts.

Royal Dutch Shell, which is based in The Hague, Netherlands,
told The Associated Press that it plans to appeal the ruling,
questioning whether the court has jurisdiction "over non-U.S.
purchasers who bought their securities on non U.S.-markets."

Court documents revealed that restatements of the reserves last
year led to stock declines, prompting shareholders to sue the
oil company, some executives and its accounting firms,
PricewaterhouseCoopers and KPMG.

The reduced projections also cost Shell, one of the world's
largest oil producers with BP PLC and Exxon Mobil Corp., almost
$150 million in fines imposed by U.S. and British regulators and
led to the dismissal of three senior executives.

As a result of the ruling, the plaintiffs and defendants are to
exchange information, which could include scheduling
depositions. The case though remains far from being presented to
a jury.

According to the opinion by U.S. Chief District John W. Bissell,
the company's global footprint does not prevent it from being
sued in New Jersey. Plaintiffs filed in the state because Shell
has gasoline distribution terminals there.

A lead lawyer for the shareholders, Stanley D. Bernstein, told
The Associated Press that they were satisfied with the decision,
even though it did dismiss several of the original counts
against certain defendants.

Reached in London, Shell spokesman Simon Buerk, told The
Associated Press, "The decision reflects a ruling at an early
procedural phase of the case that presents the court's views on
the scope of its statutory jurisdiction and the adequacy of
plaintiffs' complaint. The decision does not reflect whether
plaintiffs ultimately will be able to prove any of the claims
they have alleged."

The Anglo-Dutch oil company, formally unified last month,
resulted from the combination of Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. of
the Netherlands, and Shell Transport & Trading Co., of London.


SILICON LABORATORIES: Parties Submit Revised NY Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the consolidated securities class action filed
against Silicon Laboratories, Inc., four of its officers
individually and the three investment banking firms who served
as representatives of the underwriters in connection with the
Company's initial public offering of common stock, submitted a
revised suit settlement to the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York.

The Consolidated Amended Complaint alleges that the registration
statement and prospectus for the Company's initial public
offering did not disclose that the underwriters solicited and
received additional, excessive and undisclosed commissions from
certain investors, and the underwriters had agreed to allocate
shares of the offering in exchange for a commitment from the
customers to purchase additional shares in the aftermarket at
pre-determined higher prices.  The action seeks damages in an
unspecified amount and is being coordinated with approximately
300 other nearly identical actions filed against other
companies.

A court order dated October 9, 2002 dismissed without prejudice
the Company's four officers who had been named individually.  On
February 19, 2003, the Court denied the motion to dismiss the
complaint against the Company.  On October 13, 2004, the Court
certified a class in six of the approximately 300 other nearly
identical actions and noted that the decision is intended to
provide strong guidance to all parties regarding class
certification in the remaining cases.  Plaintiffs have not yet
moved to certify a class in the Company's case.

The company has approved a settlement agreement and related
agreements which set forth the terms of a settlement between the
Company, the plaintiff class and the vast majority of the other
approximately 300 issuer defendants.  Among other provisions,
the settlement provides for a release of the Company and the
individual defendants for the conduct alleged in the action to
be wrongful.  The Company would agree to undertake certain
responsibilities, including agreeing to assign away, not assert,
or release certain potential claims it may have against its
underwriters.  The settlement agreement also provides a
guaranteed recovery of $1 billion to plaintiffs for the cases
relating to all of the approximately 300 issuers.  To the extent
that the underwriter defendants settle all of the cases for at
least $1 billion, no payment will be required under the issuers'
settlement agreement.  To the extent that the underwriter
defendants settle for less than $1 billion, the issuers are
required to make up the difference.  

On February 15, 2005, the Court granted preliminary approval of
the settlement agreement, subject to certain modifications
consistent with its opinion.  The Court ruled that the issuer
defendants and the plaintiffs were required to submit a revised
settlement agreement which provides for a mutual bar of all
contribution claims by the settling and non-settling parties and
does not bar the parties from pursuing other claims.  The
issuers and plaintiffs have submitted to the Court a revised
settlement agreement consistent with the Court's opinion.  The
revised settlement agreement has been approved by all of the
issuer defendants who are not in bankruptcy.  The underwriter
defendants will have an opportunity to object to the revised
settlement agreement.  

The suit is styled "In re Silicon Laboratories, Inc. Initial
Public Offering Securities Litigation," filed in relation to "IN
RE INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERING SECURITIES LITIGATION, Master File
No. 21 MC 92 (SAS)," both pending in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, under Judge Shira
N. Scheindlin.  The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

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

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

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

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

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

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


UTAH: Attorney General Says Body Armor Deadline Draws Nearer
------------------------------------------------------------
Police officers have less than a month to take part in a
multimillion-dollar settlement from a class action lawsuit filed
against the Second Chance body armor company for manufacturing
faulty bulletproof vests, says Utah Attorney General Mark
Shurtleff, The Salt Lake Tribune reports.

According to A.G. Shurtleff, those officers who purchased a
Zylon vest are eligible to be included in the $29 million
settlement if they register their contact information by
September 9 at http://www.zylonvest-classaction.comor by  
calling 1-877-567-2754.

He adds that the funds are available for those who have already
replaced their vest with their own money. The amount awarded
will be determined by how many officers join in the settlement.

The Zylon vests were advertised as thin, lightweight and
flexible, offering full protection from bullets. But tests
showed the vests did not stop a .44 caliber bullet from
penetration and also deteriorated under high temperature,
humidity and sunlight.

A.G. Shurtleff told The Salt Lake Tribune that those wishing to
be excluded from the settlement could submit a request by the
September 9 deadline. More information about the lawsuit and
settlement procedures is online at
http://www.purchasing.utah.gov/vestsettlement.htm.    

The settlement actually stems from a lawsuit in the District
Court for Mayes County, in the State of Oklahoma, relating to
bullet proof vests manufactured by Second Chance Body Armor,
Inc. ("Second Chance"), which contains Zylonr, a fiber
manufactured and sold by Toyobo Company, Ltd. ("Toyobo"), and
sold by Second Chance and its distributors under the trade names
ULTIMA, ULTIMAX and TRIFLEX.

The lawsuit alleges that these vests fail to meet the
performance characteristics for which they were warranted, that
the vests are unfit for their intended purpose and that the
allegedly defective condition of the vests was withheld from the
marketplace.

The suit is styled, Lemmings, et al. v. Second Chance Body
Armor, Inc., et al., Case No. CJ-2004-62. The case is being
heard in the District Court for Mayes County, State of Oklahoma.
Allan Kanner, Esq. of ALLAN KANNER & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C., 701
Camp St., New Orleans, LA, 70130 is the Lead Class Counsel and
Notice Counsel for the Class. Arvin Maskin, Esq. of WEIL,
GOTSHAL & MANGES, L.L.P. 767 Fifth Ave., New York, NY, 10153 is
the Lead Counsel for Toyobo and Toyobo America and Notice
Counsel for Toyobo and Toyobo America.


WAL-MART STORES: $1.39 Gift Cards Suit in Management Conference
---------------------------------------------------------------
After months of delays, Wal-Mart Stores may finally get a chance
to present its argument that gift cards cannot be redeemed for
cash to Madison County Circuit Judge Nicholas Byron during a
case management conference on August 24, The Madison County
Record reports.

Ashley Peach filed the suit against Wal-Mart on June 16, 2004,
alleging that the cashier at Wal-Mart failed to return a $1.39
balance on her gift card.  As previously reported in the March
10, 2005 edition of the Class Action Reporter, Ms. Peach, who is
represented by Jeffery Millar of The Lakin Law Firm, alleges
that Wal-Mart wrongfully retained unused balances on gift cards.
In her complaint, she states that sometime after Mother's Day in
May of 2004 she purchased shampoo, conditioner, and other
toiletries from the Granite City Wal-Mart, using two separate
$10 gift cards to pay for the purchase that totaled $18.61.

However, after the sale was complete, Ms. Peach, who has also
filed class actions against Fashion Bug and K-Mart alleging the
retailers also would not give her cash for gift card balances,
alleges the cashier would not give her back the $1.39 balance as
cash even though she demanded it. According to her, that balance
on the gift card represents money to which she and the class has
the right to immediately possess.

According to Count I of the complaint, Ms. Peach claims she has
been damaged in the amount of the remaining balance on the gift
card, legal interest, as well as reasonable attorney fees and
court costs, plus treble punitive damages, but in no event an
amount in excess of $75,000 exclusive of costs and interest. In
Count II of her complaint, Ms. Peach alleges that Wal-Mart's
improper conduct constitutes unjust enrichment and it would
violate the fundamental principles of justice, equity, and good
conscience. Wal-Mart's consistent corporate practices wrongfully
retain the benefits received from the class, according to the
complaint.

Wal-Mart, which is represented by Jennifer Kingston of Bryan
Cave in St. Louis, contends that using the card constitutes
acceptance of its terms.

In the upcoming conference, Ms. Kingston will argue that Ms.
Peach's complaint fails as a matter of law because Ms. Peach
cannot prove she suffered any actual damages, and a claim is
only actionable if the damages alleged are real and present.  In
her court filing, Ms Kingston argues, "The gift card was bought
for the express purpose of purchasing Wal-Mart inventory and it
cannot now be transformed into a right to collect cash." Wal-
Mart back that up by saying in its own filings, "Ms. Peach has
not-and cannot-allege that she is unable to use the remaining
balance on her gift card."


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

AMERICAN ITALIAN: Federman & Sherwood Lodges Stock Suit in MO
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Federman & Sherwood initiated a class action
lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Missouri against American Italian Pasta
Company (NYSE: PLB).

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 October 25, 2000 through August 9, 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.


AMERICAN ITALIAN: Goldman Scarlato Lodges Securities Suit in MO
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C., initiated a
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Missouri, on behalf of persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of American
Italian Pasta Company ("Pasta" or the "Company") (NYSE:PLB)
between October 4, 2000 and August 9, 2005, inclusive, (the
"Class Period"). The lawsuit was filed against Pasta and Timothy
S. Webster, David B. Potter, Jerry H. Dear, Warren B.
Schmidgall, George D. Shadid and Horst W. Schroeder
("Defendants").

The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. Specifically, the complaint alleges that
The Company failed to disclose or misrepresented that the
Company failed to properly expense $6.6 million in promotional
allowances and deduction receivables, that the Company failed to
take timely write-downs for spare parts inventory, that the
Company maintained inadequate reserves for slow moving, damaged,
and discontinued inventories, the Company failed to record $1.9
million in certain fixed asset retirements, and that as a result
the Company's financials were not prepared in accordance with
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP").

On August 9, 2005, after the market closed, Pasta announced a
$60.7 million charge and an SEC inquiry into the Company's
results. Specifically, the Company stated the SEC was
investigating it for unspecified restatements and for
transactions in the Company's stock by outsiders in late 2004
and early 2005, for which the Company had received inquiries
from the New York Stock Exchange and the Philadelphia Stock
Exchange. In addition, the Audit Committee of Pasta is
conducting an internal investigation of certain accounting
procedures.

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


AMERICAN ITALIAN: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Suit in MO
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C. initiated a lawsuit seeking
class action filed in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Missouri on behalf of all persons who
purchased the common stock of American Italian Pasta Company
(NYSE: PLB - News; "AIPC") between October 25, 2000 and August
9, 2005 (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that AIPC violated federal securities laws
by issuing financial statements that did not conform to
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). On August 9,
2005, AIPC announced a $60.7 million accounting charge and a
Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") inquiry. AIPC stated
that the SEC was investigating it for various unspecified
financial restatements and for transactions of the company's
stock by outsiders in late 2004 and early 2005. AIPC also stated
that its Audit Committee was conducting an internal
investigation. On this news, AIPC stock fell from a close of
$20.94 per share on August 9, 2005, to close at $13.28 per share
on August 10, 2005.

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


BUCA INC.: Federman & Sherwood Files Securities Fraud 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 BUCA, Inc. (Nasdaq: BUCA).

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 6, 2001 through March 11, 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.


CUSTOM DESIGNED: Federman & Sherwood Files Securities Suit in NM
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Federman & Sherwood initiated a class action
lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of New Mexico against Custom Designed Compressor
Systems, Inc. (OTC Pink Sheets: CPYJ).

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 September 14, 2004 through October 22, 2004.

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.


HILB ROGAL: Goodkind Labaton Schedules Lead Plaintiff Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow, LLP, which
filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, on behalf of shareholders
who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded
securities of Hilb Rogal & Hobbs Co. ("Hilb Rogal" or the
"Company") (NYSE:HRH) between February 14, 2002 and May 26,
2005, inclusive, (the "Class Period"), reminds all parties that
Lead Plaintiff papers must be filed with the court no later than
August 22, 2005.

The lawsuit was filed against Hilb Rogal, Andrew L. Rogal,
Martin L. Vaughan III, Timothy J. Korman, Carolyn Jones, Robert
W. Blanton Jr. and Robert B. Lockhart ("Defendants"). The
deadline to move for Lead Plaintiff is August 22, 2005.

The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. Specifically, Defendants are alleged to
have issued a series of false and misleading statements during
the Class Period, which failed to disclose that:


     (1) the Company was paying or receiving the equivalent of
         kickbacks or bribes in connection with placing its
         clients' insurance business;

     (2) the Company's contingent and/or override commissions
         were designed to allow the Company to steer its flow of
         business to those insurance carriers which agreed to
         pay it kickbacks;

     (3) the Company's business practices were in direct
         conflict of interest with its customers, were
         fraudulent and illegal, and could open the Company up
         to civil and criminal liability, lost future revenues,
         tarnished reputation, potential inability to borrow,
         and potential loss of customers; and

     (4) a substantial portion of the Company's revenues were
         derived from the improper commissions, so that the
         Company's financial statements were materially inflated
         at all relevant times.

On May 26, 2005, the Company announced that its Chief Operating
Officer, Defendant Robert B. Lockhart, had resigned following a
review of the Company's business practices. The internal
inquiry, which was commenced in response to numerous states'
attorneys general and other legal and regulatory bodies
investigations, found that the Company made improper payments
out of its Hartford offices in connection with the placement of
insurance policies. Shares of Hilb Rogal reacted negatively to
the news, falling from $38.20 per share on May 26, 2005 to
$33.69 per share on May 27, 2005, on heavy trading volume.

For more details, contact Christopher Keller, Esq. of Goodkind
Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow, LLP, Phone: (800) 321-0476, E-mail:
http://www.glrslaw.com/get/?case=HilbRogal.


RED ROBIN: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CO
--------------------------------------------------------------
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 Red Robin
Gourmet Burgers, Inc. (NASDAQ: RRGB) between November 8, 2004
and August 11, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado against defendant Red Robin 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.


RED ROBIN: Dyer & Shuman Sets Lead Plaintiff October 15 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Dyer & Shuman, LLP is encouraging all persons
who purchased the common stock of Red Robin Gourmet Burgers,
Inc. (NASDAQ: RRGB) between November 8, 2004 and August 11, 2005
("Class Members") to contact Kip B. Shuman of Dyer & Shuman, LLP
at 1-800-711-6483 or via email at KShuman@DyerShuman.com, or
their counsel of choice, concerning their rights and interests
as potential class members in the shareholder class action
recently filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado against the firm and certain of its former
officers and directors.

The firm reminds investors that they have until October 14, 2005
to file for lead plaintiff in the case.

For more details, contact Kip B. Shuman of Dyer & Shuman, LLP,
Phone: 1-800-711-6483, E-mail: KShuman@DyerShuman.com, Web site:
http://www.dyershuman.com.


RED ROBIN: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in CO
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C. initiated a lawsuit seeking
class action status in the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado on behalf of all persons who purchased the
common stock of Red Robin Gourmet Burgers, Inc. (Nasdaq: RRGB)
("Red Robin") between November 8, 2004 and August 11, 2005 (the
"Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that Red Robin violated federal securities
laws. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that, during the Class
Period, Red Robin issued a series of materially false and
misleading statements regarding Red Robin's business and
prospects and concealed improper self-dealing by its CEO. On
August 11, 2005, Red Robin reported that its second quarter
results would be lower 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 Red Robin's assets. On this news, Red Robin
stock fell from a close of $59.79 per share on August 11, 2005,
to close at $45.55 per share on August 12, 2005.

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


RENAISSANCERE HOLDINGS: Alfred G. Yates Lodges Stock Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Office of Alfred G. Yates Jr., PC, initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of all securities
purchasers of RenaissanceRe Holdings, Ltd. (NYSE:RNR)
("RenaissanceRe" or the "Company") between January 24, 2002 and
July 25, 2005 inclusive (the "Class Period").

The action, case no. 05-CV-7232, is pending in United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York against
defendants RenaissanceRe, James Stanard, Michael Cash, William
Riker, John M. Lummis, and Martin J. Merritt. Defendants are
charged with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The Complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose and
misrepresented the following material adverse facts known to
defendants or recklessly disregarded by them:

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

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

     (3) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls;

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

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

For more details, contact Alfred G. Yates, Jr., Phone:
1-800-391-5164, E-mail: yateslaw@aol.com.  


SYMBOL TECHNOLOGIES: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
LLP ("Lerach Coughlin") initiated a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York on behalf of purchasers of Symbol Technologies, Inc.
("Symbol") (NYSE:SBL) securities during the period between May
10, 2004 and August 1, 2005 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Symbol and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Symbol engages in the design, development, manufacture,
and service of products and systems used in enterprise mobility
solutions.

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

     (1) that Symbol had inadequate and deficient internal and
         financial controls;

     (2) that Symbol's reported expenses were understated;

     (3) that Symbol had massive overcapacity, inefficient
         operations and obsolete assets;

     (4) that Symbol was experiencing declining demand for its
         products; and

     (5) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' statements
         concerning the Company's financial prospects were
         lacking in a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

As the market learned the true information about Symbol, the
inflation caused by Defendants' misrepresentations was removed
and the price of Symbol common stock fell by nearly 50% from its
Class Period high.

For more details, contact Samuel H. Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld
of Lerach Coughlin, Phone: 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, E-mail:
wsl@lerachlaw.com, Web site:
http://www.lerachlaw.com/cases/symbol/.


                            *********


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  * * *