CAR_Public/050822.mbx            C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Monday, August 22, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 165

                         Headlines

ALMAR SALES: Recalls 50.4T Water Watches Due to Injury Hazard
BRISTOL-MYERS: NJ Court Refuses To Dismiss Securities Lawsuit
CALIFORNIA: County Sues Drug Makers For Overcharging Hospitals
CALIFORNIA: Panel Says L.A. County Failed Settlement's Terms
CALIFORNIA: Sutter Health Launches Lawsuit V. Uninsured Patients

CANADA: Seniors Group Files Suit Over Nursing Home Rent Hikes
CNA FINANCIAL: Continues To Face Several Insurance Fraud Suits
COMERICA INC.: Lawsuit Settlement Hearing Set October 24, 2005
COOPER CAMERON: Working To Resolve TX Contaminated Water Suits
COOPER CAMERON: Trial in TX Landowner Suit Set For August 2005

DARDEN RESTAURANTS: CA Court Approves Settlement For Wage Suits
DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Working To Resolve CA Overtime Wage Lawsuits
ENRON CORPORATION: ERISA Settlement Hearing Set Sept. 12, 2005
FIRST AMERICAN: Settled Actions Filed V. Ex-Officers, Auditor
FIRST CHOICE: Ex-President, COO Sentenced to 15 Years in Prison

GENERAL ELECTRIC: Asks IL Court To Dismiss Insurance Fraud Suit
ICT GROUP: Working To Settle Consumer Fraud Lawsuits in IL, LA
ILLINOIS: Chamber Hails High Court Ruling in State Farm V. Avery
IRWIN MORTGAGE: Seeks Summary Judgment For AL Broker Fees Suit
IRWIN UNION: JPMDL Orders RICO, RESPA Suits Consolidated in PA

JACKSON HEWITT: Discovery Proceeds in CA Consumer Loans Lawsuit
MAINE: Judge Refuses To Approve $3.3M Strip-Search Settlement
MASSACHUSETTS: Judge Certifies Average Wholesale Pricing Lawsuit
NATIONAL BEVERAGE: Receives $7.7M Share in Corn Syrup Settlement
NEW YORK: Judge Rules in Favor of Immigrants in Benefits Lawsuit

NEW YORK: SEC Charges Ex-Officer, Brokers with Securities Fraud
OJIA VALLEY INN: Judge Approves Settlement of Worker's Wage Suit
OKLAHOMA: Residents Meet with PSO, Officials Over Tree Trimming
RENT-A-CENTER INC.: Reaches Settlement For Oregon Wage Lawsuits
RENT-A-CENTER INC.: CA Court Refusal To Remove Judge Appealed

RENT-A-CENTER INC.: Faces Several Employee Wage Lawsuits in WA
SOLUTIA INC.: Flexsys Continues to Face Rubber Antitrust Suits
SOLUTIA INC.: Faces 3 Rubber Chemical Antitrust Suits in Canada
SOLUTIA INC.: CA Court Approves Rubber Antitrust Suit Settlement
SOLUTIA INC.: CA Securities Fraud Lawsuit Dismissal Deemed Final

SONUS NETWORKS: MA Judge Decertifies Lawsuit by Daniel Higgins
STATE FARM: IL High Court Denies Class Status in Auto Parts Case
TORELLI IMPORTS: Recalls 50.4T Water Watches Due to Injury Risk
UNITED STATES: Government Study Indicates Drop in Tort Trials
UNITED STATES: Lawsuits Filed V. 3 Forestry Firms Over Low Wages
              
                 New Securities Fraud Cases

ATI TECHNOLOGIES: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Fraud in PA
HOST AMERICA: Rosen Law Clarifies Certain Aspects of Fraud Suit
ISOLAGEN INC.: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Fraud in S.D. TX
ISOLAGEN INC.: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in TX
RED ROBIN: Rosen Law Firm Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CO

STARTEK INC.: Dyer & Shuman Schedules Lead Plaintiff Deadline
SYMBOL TECHNOLOGIES: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Suit in NY
WORKSTREAM INC.: Lasky & Rifkind Lodges Securities Suit in NY
WORKSTREAM INC.: Law Firms Jointly File Securities Suit in NY


                         *********


ALMAR SALES: Recalls 50.4T Water Watches Due to Injury Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------
In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC), Almar Sales Co. Inc., of New York, N.Y. is voluntarily
recalling about 50,400 units of Water Watches.

According to the recall, the band on the watch contains liquid
petroleum distillates. If punctured the watchband could leak.
Petroleum distillates could be harmful if ingested and cause
irritation to the skin or eyes on contact. CPSC and Almar Sales
Co. have received one report of a 2-year-old child who ingested
the petroleum distillate after biting into the watchband. The
child suffered irritation of the mouth and throat.

The watches are made of clear plastic with white snaps. The
watch bands have clear glitter-filled liquid and colored liquid
inside including pink, blue, red and yellow. The watch face is
digital and measures about two inches in width. "Water Watch"
and "Almar Sales Company" is printed on the original clear
bubble packaging of the watches. Pictures of the recalled
product:     
     
     (1) http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml05/05244a.jpg

     (2) http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml05/05244b.jpg

Manufactured in China, the watches were sold exclusively at
Dollar General Stores nationwide from March 2005 through July
2005 for about $2.

Consumers should immediately take these watches away from young
children and return the watches to the store where purchased for
a refund or contact the firm.

Consumer Contact: For additional information, contact Almar
Sales at (800) 251-2522 between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. ET Monday
through Friday.


BRISTOL-MYERS: NJ Court Refuses To Dismiss Securities Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Stanley Chesler denied a bid by Bristol-
Myers Squibb to dismiss a shareholder lawsuit, thus clearing the
way for a jury trial as soon as this winter, The Star-Ledger
reports.

The case involves Vanlev, a high-blood-pressure drug Bristol
tried to develop and once touted as a potential blockbuster but
abruptly abandoned after clinical trials showed it had
potentially fatal side effects for some African-American
patients.  The Trenton, New Jersey federal judge issued a series
of rulings that significantly narrow the scope of the
shareholders' case, which alleges Bristol officials hyped Vanlev
even though they knew the Food and Drug Administration would
reject it all in an effort to boost the company's stock price.

In response to the judge's action, Bristol and the lead
plaintiff, Long View Collective Investment Fund, both claimed
victory and vowed to go to trial. Court papers revealed that
pretrial discovery, which has taken four years, has generated
nearly 4 million pages of documents and sworn statements from 44
witnesses and 23 experts,

Manhattan-based lawyer Thomas Dubbs, who represents Long View
told The Star-Ledger, "We are pleased with Judge Chesler's
decision and anxious to go to trial." He added, "We believe that
juries throughout America want to hold big pharma companies
responsible for their actions, just like other Americans are
expected to be responsible."

Tony Plohoros, a spokesman for Bristol-Myers, on the other hand
told The Star-Ledger that the company is "pleased with the
judge's ruling." In a statement he said, "The court's decision
eliminated many of the plaintiffs' claims against Bristol-Myers
Squibb, dismissed some of the other defendants and further
narrowed the issues that plaintiffs must prove at trial."

The original shareholder lawsuit covered the period from 1999 to
April 2002, when an FDA advisory panel voted against Vanlev, and
named as defendants a number of current and former Bristol
officials.  In his 109-page ruling, Judge Chesler removed Peter
Dolan, Bristol's chief executive, as a defendant in the case,
and limited the liability of former Chairman and Chief Executive
Charles Heimbold Jr. The judge also excluded six of 11 public
statements by Bristol about Vanlev that the lawsuit claimed were
misleading.  The judge also dismissed all claims related to the
period from March 2001 to March 2002, when Bristol was
conducting a massive clinical trial on Vanlev.

However, the most notable dismissal by Judge Chesler is the
suit's allegations that Bristol executives personally profited
from the inflated stock price. Most shareholder lawsuits allege
"pump and dump" deals in which executives profit from cashing
stock options. In this case though Judge Chesler ruled, "the
plaintiff will have to rely on conscious misbehavior or
recklessness" to establish motive.

Vanlev was supposed to be unlike any other high-blood-pressure
medication on the market. It promised dual action, treating both
systolic (the high number) and diastolic (the low number)
dysfunction, which was virtually unheard of at the time. But, in
clinical trials beginning in 1999, a handful of 4,284 patients
taking different Vanlev doses developed angioedema, an allergic
reaction that results in swelling of the eyelids, lips and face.
Four patients, all African-American women, suffered potentially
fatal airway constriction.  Bristol promptly withdrew its
application for Vanlev then launched another clinical trial in
2000 aimed at proving the drug safe at lower dosages. But, again
the trials found a high incidence of life-threatening angioedema
in African-Americans, one of the target patient groups.  Despite
the problem, the FDA granted Vanlev fast-track review, prompting
Bristol officials to claim the drug could be a commercial
blockbuster. In April 2002 though, an FDA advisory panel voted
5-1 against Vanlev, saying the benefits did not outweigh the
risks of angioedema, prompting Bristol to abandon the drug and
$200million in development costs.


CALIFORNIA: County Sues Drug Makers For Overcharging Hospitals
--------------------------------------------------------------
Santa Clara County is the latest government entity to launch a
lawsuit against the world's largest drug makers for allegedly
overcharging Medicaid programs for their products, The
Associated Press reports.  The county alleges that a dozen
pharmaceutical companies illegally charged too much for drugs
supplied to public hospitals, clinics and jails.

Medicaid rules require drug companies that participate in the
federal program to provide counties discounts up to 30 percent
on drugs distributed by public hospitals and other government-
backed programs for the poor.  The suit, filed in Alameda
County, seeks class action status, arguing that other California
counties were similarly overcharged. Additionally, the suit also
wants the drug companies to turn over to the county their drug
pricing data, which the industry said is confidential trade
secrets.

Santa Clara County counsel Ann Miller Ravel told The Associated
Press, "We have no information about how the drugs are priced,"
adding, "We are in the dark."

Court papers show that the county spent $30 million on drugs
under the discount program in 2004, and already has spent $31
million this year.

Asked for comment regarding the lawsuit, Brian Henry, a
spokesman for Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., one of the companies
being sued told The Associated Press, "We are in full compliance
with the law, guidelines and contacts."


CALIFORNIA: Panel Says L.A. County Failed Settlement's Terms
------------------------------------------------------------
A panel of experts says thousands of mentally ill and troubled
children in the Los Angeles County child-welfare system are
still not receiving the intensive care they need, two years
after the county pledged to do better, The North County Times
reports.

The court-appointed panel, which monitors a 2-year-old legal
settlement, said the county failed to provide mental health
services to children while they were at home with their families
or foster parents, meaning many may wind up in group homes and
psychiatric hospitals, The Los Angeles Times reported.

The panel's report, which was filed recently in federal court,
stated that the county Department of Children and Family
Services "has still not demonstrated a commitment to achieving
the objectives of the settlement" and has failed to develop a
comprehensive plan to deliver home-care services, The Los
Angeles Times reported.

Additionally, the panel, according to the newspaper, stated that
it had "little confidence" that county officials were committed
to the promised reforms and accused them of making their
obligations under the settlement a "low priority."

Paul Vincent, the panel's chairman and director of the Alabama-
based Child Welfare Policy and Practice Group, even stated in
remarks reported by The Los Angeles Times that the panel
estimated at least 10,000 children under the department's
jurisdiction needed intensive home-based mental health services.
The county does not track those numbers, the newspaper added.

County officials acknowledged that they continue to rely on
institutional care for many mentally ill children, but said they
had made far more progress than the report suggested, The Los
Angeles Times reported.  The settlement stems from a class
action lawsuit that lists as plaintiffs, five children who claim
they received substandard care from the county.


CALIFORNIA: Sutter Health Launches Lawsuit V. Uninsured Patients
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sutter Health, one of nation's wealthiest not-for-profit
hospital chains, filed the nation's first class action lawsuit
against price-gouged uninsured patients claiming breach of
contract and seeking the difference between what the uninsured
had already paid and what the hospital's inflated list prices
are.

"Sutter Health continues its immoral and unconscionable conduct
by filing a depraved class-action lawsuit against uninsured
families who have been price gouged," said K.B. Forbes,
Executive Director of the Consejo de Latinos Unidos. "Sutter
Health charges the uninsured three or four times more than what
they would accept as payment in full from an insurance company.
Many uninsured families face financial ruin because of callous
organizations like Sutter Health."

According to Medicare data, Sutter Medical Center in Sacramento,
the flagship operation of the chain, had a cost to charge ratio
of .21 -- meaning Sutter marks up their prices on average 479%
above cost. Sutter Medical Center appears to be the third most
profitable not-for-profit hospital in America, pulling in $177
million in profits at the end of 2003 while the 24 hospital
chain as a whole pulled in $453 million in profits at the end of
2003. According to IRS filings, Sutter Health is sitting on $431
million in cash and marketable securities as of December 31,
2003.

"According to national studies, approximately 50 percent of
bankruptcies are caused by medical debt. We are not talking
about a doctor's bill for a running nose; we are talking about a
hospital bill that has been marked up 500 percent. Sutter Health
ought to be ashamed of their belligerent behavior," Forbes
stated.

Sutter's class action lawsuit came as a counter-claim to a class
action lawsuit filed by price gouged uninsured plaintiffs.

For more details, contact Audrey Mullen of Consejo de Latinos
Unidos, Phone: +1-703-548-1160.


CANADA: Seniors Group Files Suit Over Nursing Home Rent Hikes
-------------------------------------------------------------
In a bid to force the provincial government to take action on
what it calls a long-term care crisis, an Alberta seniors group
launched a class action lawsuit over nursing home rent hikes,
The Canadian Press reports.

Filed last month in Court of Queen's Bench on behalf of more
than 13,000 seniors across Alberta, the suit alleges that rent
hikes of more than 40 per cent imposed by the province's nine
health authorities in 2003 were unjustified and arbitrary.  The
suit alleges that in announcing the rate hikes, the government
made "untrue or inaccurate" statements when it said the $58
million generated by the fee increase would allow continuing
care facilities to "improve the living environment of its class
members."  The suit also alleges that the higher accommodation
fees helped subsidize health-care costs in nursing homes. Thus,
the statement of claim alleges, "As a result, the class members,
by paying a higher accommodation charge, in effect subsidized
the health-care costs, which are the responsibility of the
Crown."

Officials with Elder Advocates of Alberta Society told The
Canadian Press since their previous pleas, which included
showing graphic pictures of nursing home neglect and abuse to
government members, appeared to have fallen on deaf ears, they
thought a lawsuit focused on rent increases just might get the
government's attention.

"That was something we could hold them accountable for,"
according to society spokeswoman, Ruth Adria in a recent news
conference. "Something we could nail them to the wall for," she
adds.

None of the statements in the lawsuit has been proven in court
and no statement of defense has yet been filed.

Randy Garber, the Edmonton lawyer handling the suit for the
seniors group, hopes the legal action sends a message. He told
The Canadian Press, "As I think about us celebrating the 100th
anniversary of the founding of our province, I wonder if the
founders would be pleased if they were to see we have or have
not taken care of their children and grandchildren in their
elderly years." He goes on to say, "I think it's a matter of
public interest to see whether or not that's been done."

In a news release on June 17, 2003, the Alberta government
announced that accommodation rates would rise to "improve the
quality of resident care and services," and noted rates hadn't
risen since 1994. In that release, Stan Woloshyn, then minister
of Alberta seniors, announced about 7,000 seniors in long-term
care facilities would have provincial benefits boosted by up to
$370 per month to help offset the increase in accommodation
fees, with similar increases for 775 other seniors to be paid
for by other government departments.

Some advocates believe the lawsuit may put teeth into their
demands for improved care for seniors, and accuse the provincial
government of "robbing" nursing home clients. Pounding on the
lectern at the news conference, James Darwish said, "This is
shameful and illegal."

Mr. Darwish, a former provincial assistant deputy minister of
Consumer and Corporate Affairs, saw the bill for his mother's
care at an Edmonton nursing home rise from $800 per month to
$1,200 after the fee hikes. He also stated at the news
conference, "They're doing it at a time when they are frail and
don't even know they're being shafted by their own government.
It's daylight robbery of our mothers and fathers."

The association that represents Alberta's long-term care homes
says its members are frustrated, too. Dianne Nielsen, executive
director of the Alberta Long Term Care Association, told The
Canadian Press that when facilities negotiated hefty rent
increases in 2003, it was the first extra money they'd seen in
10 years for things like food, linen service and maintenance.

"There was basically rent control for 10 years," she said. "It
was the lowest in Canada. It still is," she added.

According to Ms. Nielsen, long-term care homes would like to see
more gradual increases in future. "Nobody liked to see that big
of an increase. We're saying the government should increase it
according to inflationary rates," she adds.


CNA FINANCIAL: Continues To Face Several Insurance Fraud Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
CNA Financial Corporation, along with dozens of other insurance
companies, is a defendant in twelve cases, including eleven
purported class actions, brought by large policyholders which
generally allege that the defendants, as part of an industry-
wide conspiracy, included improper charges in their
retrospectively rated and other loss-sensitive insurance
programs.  Among the claims asserted are:

     (1) violations of state antitrust laws,

     (2) breach of contract,

     (3) fraud and

     (4) unjust enrichment

In one federal court case, styled "Sandwich Chef of Texas, Inc.
v. Reliance National Indemnity Insurance Co., 202 F.R.D. 480
(S.D. Tex. 2001), rev'd, 319 F.3d 205 (5th Cir. 2003), cert.
denied, 72 USLW 3235 (U.S. Oct 6, 2003)," the United States
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed a decision by
the District Court for the Southern District of Texas certifying
a multi-state class.  

The Company intends to vigorously contest these claims.  Based
on facts and circumstances presently known, in the opinion of
management, an unfavorable outcome will not materially affect
the equity of the Company, although results of operations may be
adversely affected, the Company said in a disclosure to the
Securities and Exchange Commission.


COMERICA INC.: Lawsuit Settlement Hearing Set October 24, 2005
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan, Southern Division will hold a fairness hearing for the
proposed settlement in the matter: In re Comerica, Inc./Imperial
Bancorp Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 2:02cv60211
(MOB), on behalf of all persons who held shares of Imperial and
received Comerica common stock as a result of the merger between
the two firms on January 29, 2001, or whose share ownership in
Comerica is or was, all or in part, traceable to the 21 million
shares issued in the merger share exchange.

A hearing will be held before the Honorable Marianne O. Battani
in the United States District Courthouse, 231 W. Lafayette
Blvd., Second Floor, Detroit, MI, 48226, at 2:00 p.m., on
October 24, 2005.

For more details, contact In re Comerica, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Claims Administrator, c/o The Garden City Group,
Inc., P.O. Box 9000 #6332, Merrick, NY, 11566-9000, Phone:
(800) 281-9202, Web site: http://www.gardencitygroup.comOR  
Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP, 1801
Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles, CA, 90067, Phone:
(310) 201-9150.


COOPER CAMERON: Working To Resolve TX Contaminated Water Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cooper Cameron Corporation is working to resolve lawsuits filed
against it regarding contaminated underground water in a
residential area adjacent to a former manufacturing site of one
of its predecessors.

The first suit is styled "Valice v. Cooper Cameron Corporation,"
and is pending in the 80th Judicial District Court, Harris
County, Texas.  The plaintiffs claim that the contaminated
underground water has reduced property values and threatens the
health of the area residents and request class action status
which, to date, has not been granted.  The plaintiffs seek an
analysis of the contamination, reclamation, and recovery of
damages for the loss of property value.

Another suit, styled "Oxman vs. Meador, Marks, Heritage Texas
Properties, and Cooper Cameron Corporation," is pending in the
same court, while "Kramer v. Cooper Cameron," is pending in the
190th Judicial District, Harris County, Texas.  The two suits
allege that the plaintiffs purchased property in the area and
allege a failure by the defendants to disclose the presence of
contamination and seek to recover unspecified monetary damages.

The Company has been and is currently working with the Texas
Commission of Environmental Quality and continues to monitor the
underground water in the area.  The Company is of the opinion
that there is no risk to area residents and that the lawsuits
essentially reflect concerns over possible declines in property
value.

In an effort to mitigate homeowners' concerns and reduce
potential exposure from any such decline, the Company has
entered into 21 agreements with residents that obligate the
Company to either reimburse the residents for the estimated
decline in value due to a potential buyer's concerns related to
the contamination should they sell their properties or to
purchase the property after an agreed marketing period.

Eight of these agreements remain outstanding. To date the
Company has four properties it has purchased that remain unsold,
with an aggregate appraised value of $10,944,000. The Company
has also negotiated settlements with owners of six properties
sold in the area which were not subject to any written agreement
with the Company. The Company has recognized total expenses of
$6,896,000 related to the various agreements or settlements with
homeowners.


COOPER CAMERON: Trial in TX Landowner Suit Set For August 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the lawsuit filed against Cooper Cameron Corporation
and its predecessor Cooper Industries, Inc. is set to begin this
month in the 212th Judicial District Court in Galveston County,
Texas.

A purchaser of an option to purchase a parcel of the same former
manufacturing site filed the suit, styled "Silber/I-10 Venture
Ltd., f/k/a Rocksprings Ltd. v. Falcon Interests Realty Corp.,
Cooper Industries Inc. and Cooper Cameron Corporation (212th
Judicial District Court, Galveston County) on August 15, 2002.  
The suit alleges fraud and breach of contract regarding the
environmental condition of the parcel under option. Plaintiffs
are claiming compensatory damages of approximately $7,500,000
plus punitive damages.

The sale was made by Cooper Industries, Inc. prior to its split-
off of Cooper Cameron, but plaintiffs allege successor liability
on the part of Cooper Cameron. The trial has been rescheduled to
start in August 2005.


DARDEN RESTAURANTS: CA Court Approves Settlement For Wage Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of Orange County, California approved the
settlement of the two class actions filed against Darden
Restaurants, Inc., alleging violations of the state's wage and
hour laws.

In March 2002 and March 2003, three current and former hourly
restaurant employees filed two purported class actions against
the Company, alleging violations of California labor laws with
respect to providing meal and rest breaks.  Although the Company
continues to believe it provided the required meal and rest
breaks to its employees, to avoid potentially costly and
protracted litigation, the Company agreed during the second
quarter of fiscal 2005 to settle both lawsuits and a similar
case filed in Sacramento County, for approximately $9.5 million.  
Terms of the settlement, which do not include any admission of
liability by the Company, received preliminary judicial
approval, but completion of the settlement may not occur for
several months.  

In August 2003, three former employees in Washington filed a
similar purported class action in Washington State Superior
Court in Spokane County, alleging violations of Washington labor
laws with respect to providing rest breaks.  The Court stayed
the action and ordered the plaintiffs into the Company's
mandatory arbitration program; the plaintiffs' motion for
reconsideration was not granted, and their appeal of the denial
of reconsideration was also not granted.  


DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Working To Resolve CA Overtime Wage Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Darden Restaurants, Inc. is working to resolve five purported
class actions filed against it in the Superior Courts of
California (two each in Los Angeles County and Orange County,
and one in Sacramento County), alleging that the Company
improperly classified its current and former service managers,
beverage and hospitality managers and culinary managers as
exempt employees under California labor laws.  The plaintiffs
seek unpaid overtime wages and penalties.

Two of the cases have been removed to arbitration under the
Company's mandatory arbitration program, and the Company is
seeking to cause the remaining cases to be stayed pending
resolution of the earliest-filed cases.


ENRON CORPORATION: ERISA Settlement Hearing Set Sept. 12, 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Texas will hold a fairness hearing for the proposed settlement
in the matter: In re Enron Corporation ERISA Litigation, Case
No. H-01-3913 (Consolidated Cases), on behalf of all persons who
were participants in the Enron Corporation Savings Plan (401k),
the Enron Corporation Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP) and/or the
Enron Corporation Cash Balance Plan and any and all predecessors
and successors to such plans during the period from January 21,
1998, up through and including December 2, 2001.

The Courts will hold a joint hearing in this case, In re Enron
Corporation ERISA Litigation, Case No. H-01-3913, and in the
United States Bankruptcy for the Southern District of New York
in In re Enron Corporation, et al., Case No. 01-16034 (AJG), at
1:00 p.m., Central Standard Time, September 12, 2005.

For more details, call 1-866-560-4043, or visit
http://www.enronerisa.com,http://www.erisafraud.comor  
http://www.hbsslaw.com.


FIRST AMERICAN: Settled Actions Filed V. Ex-Officers, Auditor
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed a settled civil
action in federal district court against John Behrmann, the
former Chairman of First American Health Concepts Inc., and
Margaret Eardley, the company's former Chief Financial Officer.  
First American, an Arizona vision care company, overstated its
assets and net income in reports filed with the Commission for
its 1999 fiscal year and the second quarter of its 2000 fiscal
year by, primarily, overstating its accounts receivable.  

In 2001, Luxottica Group S.p.A., an Italian company, acquired
First American; it is no longer a public company.  The
Commission also has issued orders in two related administrative
proceedings against Ms. Eardley and John V. Back, Jr. (formerly
of KPMG LLP), who was the audit engagement partner responsible
for First American's fiscal year 1999 audit.
    
The Commission's complaint alleges that in October 1998, Mr.
Behrmann learned from KPMG, First American's independent
auditors, that the company's accounts receivable had not been
reconciled for at least a year and were out of balance with the
general ledger.  At about the same time, Ms. Eardley, the
company's recently hired CFO, became aware of the accounting
irregularity and also brought it to Mr. Behrmann's attention.
Rather than address the problem, Mr. Behrmann directed Ms.
Eardley to focus on other unrelated projects and Ms. Eardley
complied.  On October 19, 1999, Mr. Behrmann and Ms. Eardley
signed First American's 1999 Form 10-KSB filed with the
Commission knowing that the accounts receivable ledgers and the
general ledger had not been reconciled and without regard for
whether this significant accounting issue would have a material
impact on the company's financial statements.  The statements
included with the filing, as signed by Mr. Behrmann and Ms.
Eardley and filed with the Commission, overstated the company's
reported receivables by $892,000 or 59 percent. But for the
overstatement, the company's $693,000 reported pre-tax income
for 1999 would have been a $199,000 loss.
     
The Commission's complaint further alleges that in early March
2000, KPMG was preparing a restatement of the company's 1999
Form 10-KSB and the first quarter 2000 Form 10-QSB and
recommended that the company obtain a five-day extension to file
its second quarter 2000 Form 10-QSB because the financials for
the second quarter would be affected by the restatement.  At a
March 13, 2000, Board of Directors meeting, Mr. Behrmann
recommended that the Board ignore the KPMG recommendation and
file the second quarter 10-QSB "as-is."  As a result, First
American's second quarter 2000 Form10-QSB filed with the
Commission overstated income by 46 percent.
     
Mr. Behrmann, without admitting or denying the allegations in
the complaint, consented to entry of a final judgment:  

     (1) permanently enjoining him from violating Sections 10(b)
         and 13(b)(5) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
         (Exchange Act) and Rules 10b-5 and 13b2-1 thereunder,
         and from aiding and abetting violations of Sections
         13(a), 13(b)(2)(A) and 13(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act
         and Rules 12b-20, 13a-1 and 13a-13 thereunder;

     (2) permanently barring him from serving as an officer or
         director of a public company; and

     (3) ordering him to pay a civil money penalty of $75,000.

Mr. Behrmann also consented, without admitting or denying the
Commission's findings, to a permanent suspension from appearing
or practicing before the Commission as an accountant pursuant to
Rule 102(e) of the Commission's Rules of Practice in a related
settled administrative proceeding to be instituted once the
injunction against Mr. Behrmann is entered.
     
Ms. Eardley, without admitting or denying the allegations in the
complaint, consented to entry of a final judgment finding that
she violated Section 13(b)(5) of the Exchange Act and ordering
her to pay a civil money penalty of $25,000.  In a related
settled administrative proceeding, Ms. Eardley consented,
without admitting or denying the Commission's findings, to entry
of a Commission order to cease and desist from committing or
causing any violation and any future violation of Section
13(b)(5) of the Exchange Act, and from causing any violation and
any future violation of Sections 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A) and
13(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act and Rules 12b-20 and 13a-1
thereunder.
     
In a related settled administrative proceeding, John Back, the
KPMG audit engagement partner responsible for the 1999 audit of
First American, consented, without admitting or denying the
Commission's findings, to entry of a Commission order
permanently denying him the privilege of practicing or appearing
before the Commission as an accountant pursuant to Rule 102(e)
of the Commission's Rules of Practice. The Commission's Order
finds that Mr. Back knew, or should have known, that First
American's accounts receivable balances had not been reconciled
and that neither Mr. Back, nor anyone he supervised, performed
the work necessary to reconcile the balances in accordance with
generally accepted auditing standards (GAAS).  The Order finds
that Mr. Back falsely represented that KPMG's audit had been
performed in accordance with GAAS and that First American's
financials complied with generally accepted accounting
principles.  As a result, the Commission found that Mr. Back
engaged in improper professional conduct pursuant to Rule
102(e)(1)(ii) of the Commission's Rules of Practice.  

The action is styled, SEC v. John R. Behrmann and Margaret M.
Eardley, Civil Action No. 1:05CV01640, D.D.C., JDB.


FIRST CHOICE: Ex-President, COO Sentenced to 15 Years in Prison
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission stated that the Honorable
Allen Sharp of the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Indiana sentenced Gary Van Waeyenberghe to fourteen
years in prison as a result of his July 2005 jury convictions on
charges of conspiracy, mail fraud, wire fraud and money
laundering.  

The charges were based on Mr. Van Waeyenberghe's misconduct
while he was President and Chief Operating Officer of First
Choice Management Services (First Choice). Mr. Van Waeyenberghe
also was ordered to pay $20 million in restitution and sentenced
to two years of supervised release after the completion of his
prison term.

The Commission charged Mr. Van Waeyenberghe with violations of
the federal securities laws based on related conduct in July
2000.  Shortly after the filing of the Commission's Complaint,
the Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order and subsequently
a Preliminary Injunction freezing First Choice's and Mr. Van
Waeyenberghe's assets and appointed a receiver to manage First
Choice's assets during the pendency of the litigation.  On
January 8, 2003, by consent, the Court permanently enjoined
First Choice and Van Waeyenberghe from future violations of the
antifraud and securities registration provisions of the federal
securities laws, ordered First Choice and Van Waeyenberghe
jointly and severally to pay $31.3 million in disgorgement and
prejudgment interest and imposed a $110,000 civil penalty on Van
Waeyenberghe.  On the same day, the Court entered an Order
Liquidating First Choice which required the court-appointed
receiver for First Choice to liquidate First Choice's remaining
assets in order to satisfy, at least in part, First Choice's
disgorgement obligation.

The actions are styled, U.S. V. Gary Van Waeyenberghe, Case No.
3:04CR0087AS, N.D. Ind.; SEC V. Gary Van Waeyenberghe ET AL.,
Case No. 3:00CV0446RM, N.D. Ind.


GENERAL ELECTRIC: Asks IL Court To Dismiss Insurance Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
General Electric Capital Assurance Company asked the Circuit
Court for the Third Judicial District in Madison County,
Illinois, to dismiss the class action filed against it, styled
"Wilma Juanita Kern, et al. v. General Electric Capital
Assurance Company."

The suit, filed on February 16, 2005, seek to proceed on the
basis of a class action, brought on behalf of Illinois
purchasers of long term care insurance. Plaintiffs allege the
improper refusal to provide long term care benefits to long term
care insureds who were cared for in unlicensed facilities in
Illinois, and the improper sale of policies requiring insureds
to reside in licensed assisted care facilities during a time
period when no licensed facilities, or too few licensed
facilities, were available in Illinois.  Plaintiffs seek
unspecified damages for breach of contract, violation of the
Illinois Consumer Fraud Act and unjust enrichment.

The Company has filed a motion to dismiss and, in the
alternative, a motion to transfer venue.


ICT GROUP: Working To Settle Consumer Fraud Lawsuits in IL, LA
--------------------------------------------------------------
ICT Group, Inc. is working on the settlement of several class
actions filed against it and Time Warner, Inc. or America
Online, alleging violations of consumer protection laws.

12 putative consumer class action lawsuits were initially filed
against Time Warner, Inc., or America Online, in various state
and federal courts during the period from July 2003 to December
2004. No class has been certified in any of these suits. All of
these suits allege that America Online, a customer of ICT,
violated consumer protection laws by charging members for
accounts they purportedly did not agree to create and that
America Online and the Company violated consumer protection laws
in the handling of subscribers' calls seeking to cancel accounts
and obtain refunds of amounts paid for such accounts.

America Online contracted with the Company to answer customer
service calls from America Online subscribers in accordance with
instructions provided by America Online.  America Online
employees and other call center contractors also answered
customer service calls from subscribers using the same
instructions.  Nine of the lawsuits that were filed in, or
removed to, Federal court have been centralized in the Central
District of California for consolidated or coordinated pre-trial
proceedings pursuant to a February 27, 2004 order of the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPMDL).  The
defendants' Motion to Dismiss that complaint was denied. The
three remaining lawsuits were filed and remain in state courts.

The Company believes the allegations against it are without
merit and intend to vigorously defend against them, including
seeking dismissals and summary judgments, as appropriate.
America Online is paying for the Company's defense and has
agreed to indemnify it against any costs or damages that it may
incur as a result of these lawsuits, the Company stated in a
regulatory filing.

On April 5, 2005, the Company was joined as a co-defendant in
three additional cases and America Online and the Company signed
a settlement agreement with plaintiffs' counsel in the three
cases on behalf of a putative national class of all persons and
entities who were charged or billed by or through America Online
or its agents, assigns, contracted customer service providers,
or other designees acting on behalf of or through America
Online, for services and/or goods without their consent or
authorization. Consistent with America Online's agreement to
indemnify the Company against any costs or damages that it may
incur as a result of these lawsuits, all settlement payments or
services under the settlement agreement will be paid or provided
by America Online.  On April 7, 2005, the Circuit Court for St.
Clair County, Illinois, certified the settlement class, which
includes the putative classes alleged in all of the cases
discussed above, and preliminarily approved the settlement.

On May 9, 2005, the judge in the MDL Litigation issued an order
enjoining America Online and the Company from proceeding with
the settlement in St. Clair County, Illinois, to the extent that
the settlement releases the plaintiffs' claims in the MDL
Litigation. America Online and the Company have appealed this
decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.

On June 22, 2005, one of the putative consumer class action
lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Louisiana was settled by agreement of the parties,
and the Court issued a joint motion to dismiss the matter with
prejudice. Consistent with America Online's agreement to
indemnify the Company against any costs or damages that it may
incur as a result of these lawsuits, all costs and payments
associated with the settlement were paid by America Online.


ILLINOIS: Chamber Hails High Court Ruling in State Farm V. Avery
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Chamber of Commerce hailed the Illinois
Supreme Court's decision stripping class action status in State
Farm v. Avery. The case was originally filed in Williams County,
which ranked as one of the worst jurisdictions in the country
for class action abuse.

"This is a victory for businesses and it sends a strong signal
that class action abuse won't be tolerated," said Robin Conrad,
senior vice president of the National Chamber Litigation Center,
the Chamber's public policy law firm, which filed an amicus
brief supporting class decertification. "The aggregation of 4.7
million claims in one lawsuit defied common sense and violated
State Farm's due process rights. Had this case gone forward as a
class action, it would have been a travesty of justice."

The case dates back to a 1999 challenge of State Farm's use of
generic aftermarket parts that resulted in a $1.18 billion
judgment against the firm. The plaintiffs complained that State
Farm repaired their vehicles using inferior replacement crash
parts rather than original equipment manufacture parts and
affirmatively misrepresented the quality of these replacements.
The court found the company liable and certified the case as a
48-state class action.

"This case represented an extreme departure from the permissible
use of the class action device," Conrad said. "The improper
certification of this case as a class action was responsible for
turning Southern Illinois into a class action haven. Hopefully,
today's ruling by the Illinois Supreme Court will signal the end
of this long history of exploitation."

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is the world's largest business
federation representing more than three million businesses and
organizations of every size, sector, and region.


IRWIN MORTGAGE: Seeks Summary Judgment For AL Broker Fees Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Irwin Mortgage Corporation (formerly known as Inland Mortgage
Corporation) asked the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama, to grants summary judgment in its
favor in the lawsuit filed against it, styled "Culpepper v.
Inland Mortgage Corporation."

The suit alleges that the Company violated the federal Real
Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) relating to the
Company's payment of broker fees to mortgage brokers.  In June
2001, the Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit upheld the
district court's certification of a plaintiff class and the case
was remanded for further proceedings in the federal district
court.

In November 2001, by order of the district court, the parties
filed supplemental briefs analyzing the impact of an October 18,
2001 policy statement issued by the Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD) that explicitly disagreed with the
judicial interpretation of RESPA by the Court of Appeals for the
11th Circuit in its ruling upholding class certification in this
case.  In response to a motion from the Company, in March 2002,
the district court granted the Company's motion to stay
proceedings in this case until the 11th Circuit decided the
three other RESPA cases originally argued before it with this
case.

The 11th Circuit subsequently decided all of the RESPA cases
pending in that court. In one of those cases, the 11th Circuit
concluded that the trial court had abused its discretion in
certifying a class action under RESPA.  Further, in that
decision, the 11th Circuit expressly recognized it was, in
effect, overruling its previous decision upholding class
certification in our case.  In March 2003, the Company filed a
motion to decertify the class and the plaintiffs filed a renewed
motion for summary judgment.  On October 2, 2003 the case was
reassigned to another U.S. district court judge.  In response to
an order from the court, the parties met and submitted a joint
status report at the end of October 2003.  On June 14, 2004, at
the court's request, the parties engaged in mediation, which was
unsuccessful.  The court then reassigned this case to a new
judge.  Pursuant to the court's order on March 17, 2005, the
Company filed a motion for summary judgment and updated its
motion to decertify the class; the plaintiffs updated their
motion for summary judgment.

If the class is not decertified and the district court finds
that the Company violated RESPA, the Company could be liable for
damages equal to three times the amount of that portion of
payments made to the mortgage brokers that is ruled unlawful.
Based on notices sent by the plaintiffs to date to potential
class members and additional notices that might be sent in this
case, the Company believes the class is not likely to exceed
32,000 borrowers who meet the class specifications.

The suit is styled Culpepper et al. v. Inland Mortgage
Corporation, case no. 2:96-cv-00917-VEH-HGD Culpepper, filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Alabama, under Judge Virginia Emerson Hopkins.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) David R. Donaldson, David J. Guin, Tammy McClendon
         Stokes, DONALDSON & GUIN LLC, Two North Twentieth
         Building 2 North 20th Street, Suite 1100, Birmingham,
         AL 35203, Phone: 226-2282, Fax: 226-226-2357, E-mail:
         DavidD@dglawfirm.com, davidg@dglawfirm.com,
         tstokes@dglawfirm.com

     (2) Richard S Gordon, Kieron F. Quinn, QUINN GORDON & WOLF,
         40 West Chesapeake Avenue, Suite 408, Baltimore, MD
         21204-4803, Phone: 1-410-825-2300, Fax: 1-410-825-0066

Representing the Company are:

     (i) David S. Hay, Janel E. LaBoda, Alan Hall Maclin, J.
         Patrick McDavitt, Robert J. Pratte, Margaret K. Savage,
         BRIGGS & MORGAN, 2200 IDS Center, 80 South 8th Street,
         Minneapolis, MN 55402, Phone: 1-612-977-8400, Fax: 1-
         612-977-8650

    (ii) Sarah Y. Larson, Alexander J. Marshall III, Cathy S.
         Wright, MAYNARD COOPER & GALE PC, AmSouth Harbert
         Plaza, Suite 2400, 1901 6th Avenue North, Birmingham,
         AL 35203-2618, 254-1000, Fax: 254-1999, E-mail:
         slarson@mcglaw.com


IRWIN UNION: JPMDL Orders RICO, RESPA Suits Consolidated in PA
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation (JPMDL)
consolidated three additional individual lawsuits with the class
action filed against Irwin Union Bank and Trust Company in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, filed in connection with loans Irwin Union Bank
purchased from Community Bank of Northern Virginia (Community).

The first suit, styled "Hobson v. Irwin Union Bank and Trust
Company" was filed on July 30, 2004 in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.  As amended
on August 30, 2004, the "Hobson" complaint, seeks certification
of both a plaintiffs' and a defendants' class, the plaintiffs'
class to consist of all persons who obtained loans from
Community and whose loans were purchased by Irwin Union Bank.
The suit alleges that defendants violated the Truth-in-Lending
Act (TILA), the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act
(HOEPA), the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) and
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).
On October 12, 2004, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
"Hobson" claims as untimely filed and substantively defective.
On March 4, 2005, the court held a hearing on the Company's
motion to dismiss.

The second suit is styled "Kossler v. Community Bank of Northern
Virginia" and was originally filed in July 2002 in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.
The Company was added as a defendant in December 2004.  The
complaint seeks certification of a plaintiffs' class and seeks
to void the mortgage loans as illegal contracts. Plaintiffs also
seek recovery against the Company for alleged RESPA violations
and for conversion. On June 23, 2005, the company filed a motion
to dismiss the Kossler action.

The plaintiffs in both suits claim that Community was allegedly
engaged in a lending arrangement involving the use of its
charter by certain third parties who charged high fees that were
not representative of the services rendered and not properly
disclosed as to the amount or recipient of the fees. The loans
in question are allegedly high cost/high interest loans under
Section 32 of HOEPA.  Plaintiffs also allege illegal kickbacks
and fee splitting.

In "Hobson," the plaintiffs allege that the Company was aware of
Community;s alleged arrangement when it purchased the loans and
that it participated in a RICO enterprise and conspiracy related
to the loans.  Because the Company bought the loans from
Community, the "Hobson" plaintiffs are alleging that the Company
has assignee liability under HOEPA.

The Company and Community Bank also face two individual actions,
styled "Chatfield v. Irwin Union Bank and Trust Company, et al."
and "Ransom v. Irwin Union Bank and Trust Company, et al.,"
filed on June 9, 2004 in the Circuit Court of Frederick County,
Maryland, involving mortgage loans the Company purchased from
Community.  On July 16, 2004, both of these lawsuits were
removed to the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland. The complaints allege that the plaintiffs did not
receive disclosures required under HOEPA and TILA.  The lawsuits
also allege violations of Maryland law because the plaintiffs
were allegedly charged or contracted for a prepayment penalty
fee.  The Company believes the plaintiffs received the required
disclosures and that Community, a Virginia-chartered bank, was
permitted to charge prepayment fees to Maryland borrowers. Under
the loan purchase agreements between the Company and Community,
the Company has the right to demand repurchase of the mortgage
loans and to seek indemnification from Community for the claims
in these lawsuits.  On September 17, 2004, the Company made a
demand for indemnification and a defense to "Hobson,"
"Chatfield" and "Ransom."  Community denied this request as
premature.

On December 22, 2004, the Company filed a motion with the
Judicial Panel On Multidistrict Litigation requesting a transfer
of "Hobson," "Chatfield" and "Ransom" to the United States
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania for
coordinated or consolidated proceedings with the "Kossler"
action.  On April 28, 2005, the JPMDL granted the Company's
motion and consolidated the four cases in the Western District
of Pennsylvania for all pretrial proceedings.

The consolidated suit is styled "DAVIS, et al v. COMMUNITY BANK
OF NO, et al., case no. 2:02-cv-01201-GLL, (formerly Kossler),"
filed in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania, under Judge Gary L. Lancaster.  
Representing the company is Larry K. Elliott, Cohen & Grigsby,
11 Stanwix Street, 15th Floor, Pittsburgh, PA 15222-1319, Phone:
(412) 297-4962, E-mail: lelliott@cohenlaw.com.  Representing the
plaintiffs are:

     (1) Eric G. Calhoun, Lawson, Fields, McCue, Lee & Campbell,
         14135 Midway Road, Suite 250, Addison, TX 75001, Phone:
         (972) 490-0808

     (2) R. Bruce Carlson, Caron, McCormick, Gordon & Constants,
         201 Route 17 North, 2nd Floor, Rutherford, NJ 07070,
         Phone: (412) 749-1667, E-mail:
         bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com

     (3) Michael E. McCarthy, 2500 Lawyers Building, Pittsburgh,
         PA 15219, Phone: (412) 281-1288

     (4) R. Hoyt Rowell, III, Ness, Motley, Loadholt, Richardson
         & Poole, P.O. Box 1792, Mt. Pleasant, SC 29465, Phone:
         (843) 216-9471


JACKSON HEWITT: Discovery Proceeds in CA Consumer Loans Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of California, Santa Barbara County dismissed
the defendant banks in the class action filed against Jackson
Hewitt Tax Service, Inc. and the Santa Barbara Bank & Trust
(SBB&T).

On April 4, 2003, Canieva Hood and Congress of California
Seniors filed the suit in connection with the provision of
refund anticipation loans, seeking declaratory relief as to the
lawfulness of the practice of cross-lender debt collection, the
validity of Santa Barbara's cross-lender debt collection
provision and whether the method of disclosure to customers with
respect to the provision is unlawful or fraudulent.  Jackson
Hewitt was joined in the action for allegedly collaborating, and
aiding and abetting, in the actions of SBB& T.  

The Company filed a demurrer and subsequently answered the
amended complaint, denying any liability.  The Court has granted
a motion to dismiss SBB& T and other banks who are third-party
defendants on the ground that the claims are preempted by
federal law.  Plaintiffs have appealed that decision.  The
Court, sitting in Santa Barbara, has stayed all other
proceedings, pending appeal.

Ms. Hood has also filed a separate suit against the Company and
Cendant Corporation on December 18, 2003 in the Ohio Court of
Common Pleas (Montgomery County) and is seeking to certify a
class in the action.  The allegations relate to the same set of
facts as the California action.  In January 2004, the Company
filed a motion to remove this case to federal court in Ohio and
also moved the federal court to stay, or dismiss, the Ohio
action while permitting the California action to proceed.  The
case was remanded to state court where the Company filed a
motion to stay or dismiss, which was denied.  


MAINE: Judge Refuses To Approve $3.3M Strip-Search Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge D. Brock Hornby disapproved a $3.3 million
settlement of a class action lawsuit because it proposed
awarding twice as much in damages to women who were strip-
searched at the York County Jail as it did to men, The
Associated Press reports.

Under the proposed settlement, women that were strip-searched at
the jail were to be paid $2,800 each, while men would get $1,400
each.  The plaintiffs' lawyers argued that the double payment
was justified because women have a legally recognized privacy
interest in their upper bodies, and experienced two searches
that prolonged and caused additional humiliation and emotional
distress.

However, in his 30-page ruling, Judge Hornby stated that he
could not approve double payment to women, since it doesn't pass
constitutional muster. Judge Hornby though approved the rest of
the settlement, which is one of Maine's largest civil rights
settlements ever.

According to David Webbert, an attorney for the plaintiffs, it's
an "easy fix" to recalculate the settlement to equalize the
payments to men and women. If that happens, he told The
Associated Press that each member of the suit men and women
alike would get $1,670.

AS previously reported in the August 8, 2005 edition of the
Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit, which was filed by Michelle
Nilsen of North Andover, Massachusetts contended that the York
County Sheriff's Department broke the law by requiring all
persons brought to the jail to strip and shower in front of an
officer no matter how minor the charge brought against them.


MASSACHUSETTS: Judge Certifies Average Wholesale Pricing Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In a case charging the nation's leading drug companies with
defrauding consumers and inflating the cost of prescriptions,
U.S. District Court Judge Patti B. Saris ruled that she will
grant the case national class action status once attorneys for
the plaintiffs make technical changes to the complaint.

The complaint was originally filed in 2002 by Seattle attorney
Steve W. Berman, managing partner of Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro, and alleges that drug manufacturers including
AstraZeneca (NYSE: AZN), Bristol-Myers Squibb (NYSE: BMY) and
GlaxoSmithKline (NYSE: GSK), routinely inflate the Average
Wholesale Price (AWP) they report to trade publications as part
of a scheme to defraud consumers. The Average Wholesale Price is
the average cost of a drug on the wholesale market.

According to Judge Saris' class certification order, issued on
August 16, 2005, the redefined class will include all persons
who received physician-administered drugs manufactured by the
drug companies in question.

Steve Berman said that the judge's order was made with the
expectation that the suit against the defendants will move to
trial. "Once technical changes are made to the complaint, Judge
Saris ruled she will certify the class and that charges against
the defendants will move forward."

The complaint focuses on a range of often-expensive drugs
administered in a clinical setting. These medications are used
in the treatment of many types of cancer and other serious
illnesses. The new proposed class will include thousands of
patients who received such treatments.

Attorneys said that it will be important to demonstrate the
large number of individuals included in the class. As the case
moves forward, attorneys are urging all people who received
certain physician-administered drugs to add their name to a
growing list of potential plaintiffs.

"Once we prove that thousands, even millions of innocent people
have been defrauded and forced to pay inflated prices for their
medications, the drug companies will be forced to give an
account," Berman said. "That's why it is essential that
individuals who have received these drugs stand up and be
counted."

The prescription drugs mentioned in the complaint include:
     
     (1) Alkeran

     (2) Blenoxane
    
     (3) Cytoxan

     (4) Etopophos

     (5) Kytril

     (6) Navelbine

     (7) Paraplatin

     (8) Procrit

     (9) Remicade

    (10) Rubex

    (11) Taxol

    (12) Vepesid

    (13) Zofran

    (14) Zoladex

    (15) Zovirax

All persons who have received treatment with any of the above
drugs will be considered a part of the class and may be eligible
for monetary restitution.

For more details, contact Steve Berman of Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, Phone: 1-206-623-7292 or E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com,
Web site: http://www.hbsslaw.com/awp_infoOR Mark Firmani of  
Firmani + Associates, Inc., Phone: +1-206-443-9357, E-mail:
mark@firmani.com.  


NATIONAL BEVERAGE: Receives $7.7M Share in Corn Syrup Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
National Beverage Corporation received approximately $7.7
million in June 2005 from the settlement of its claim in a class
action lawsuit known as "In re: High Fructose Corn Syrup
Antitrust Litigation Master File No. 95-1477," filed in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
Illinois.

The lawsuit related to purchases of high fructose corn syrup
made by the Company and others.  About 20 corn syrup buyers
initially filed the suit in the United States District Court for
the Central District of Illinois against several corn
processors, alleging that they violated antitrust laws from 1988
to 1995 by conspiring to artificially inflate the price of high
fructose corn syrup.  About 2,000 plaintiffs joined the suit,
including Coca-Cola Co., PepsiCo Inc., Kraft Foods Inc. and
Quaker Oats, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (July
30,2004) states.

In July 2004, the parties in the suit forged a $531 million
settlement for the suit.  The settlement amount was allocated to
each class action recipient based on the proportion of its
purchases of high fructose corn syrup from these suppliers
during the period 1991 through 1995 to the total of such
purchases by all class action recipients.  The amount received
by the Company to date represents approximately 90% of the
expected recovery and payment of the remaining balance is
subject to final resolution of all claims.

The suit is styled "In Re High Fructose Corn Syrup Antitrust
Litigation, Master File No. 95-1477," filed in the United States
District court for the Central District of Illinois, Peoria
Division.  Representing the plaintiffs were:

     (1) Mr. Michael J. Freed of Much Shelist Freed Denenberg
         Ament Bell & Rubenstein, P.C., 200 N. LaSalle Street,
         Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60601-1095

     (2) Mr. Robert N. Kaplan, Kaplan, Kilsheimer & Fox, LLP
         805 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10022

     (3) Mr. H. Laddie Montague, Jr., Berger & Montague, P.C.
         1622 Locust Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103-6365


NEW YORK: Judge Rules in Favor of Immigrants in Benefits Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In a decision that was released recently, a state judge said
that New York State couldn't give low-income people who are
elderly, blind and disabled less benefit money just because they
are immigrants, even though the federal government stopped
paying its share, The New York Times reports.

The ruling restores higher aid payments to thousands of disabled
legal immigrants, many of them elderly refugees who were facing
eviction after being cut off from federal and state disability
benefits because they had not become United States citizens
within a seven-year period set by Congress.

After the ruling by Justice Jane S. Solomon of State Supreme
Court in Manhattan, Jennifer Baum, a Legal Aid Society lawyer
representing some of the plaintiffs, told The New York Times,
"It's a complete and total victory," and adds, "It's a victory
for New York State's constitution and a victory for elderly,
frail and disabled immigrants who have been struggling to
survive."

However, according to John Madden, a spokesman for the state's
Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance, New York State
will appeal the decision, "because of its severe fiscal impact
on the state." The office's commissioner, Robert Doar, who is
named as a defendant, is still calculating the potential cost,
Mr. Madden adds.

As previously reported in the December 8, 2004 edition of the
Class Action Reporter, Boris Khrapunskiy, a 97-year-old widower,
who arrived in Brooklyn as a refugee from Ukraine seven years
ago and has subsisted on federal and state disability payments,
as elderly or disabled poor people in New York State have done
for the past 60 years is the lead plaintiff the class action
lawsuit, which charges that New York State is violating the
federal and state Constitutions by using alien status to deny
impoverished elderly, blind or disabled residents the lawful
standard of need, which in New York has been set at $651 a
month.

A letter from the government that Mr. Khrapunskiy received in
June 2004, saying his benefits would be cut off until he became
a United States citizen, prompted the legal action, The New York
Times reported.

The letter from the government was the result of a 1996 decision
by Congress to eliminate Supplemental Security Income, or
S.S.I., for most immigrants who entered the country after August
22 of that year, and to set a seven-year time limit for others -
mainly refugees - receiving the welfare payment. New York State
echoed those restrictions in a 1998 law denying state aid to
anyone ineligible for federal benefits because of immigration
status. Congress had reasoned that seven years was long enough
to achieve citizenship, however time is up for the first wave of
refugees and those granted asylum, who number as many as 48,000
around the country, including 7,000 in New York. Most are
refugees from the former Soviet Union; others fled persecution
in Asia, Bosnia, Cuba or Africa. Hundreds have already lost
their benefits.

The case, which was brought by a coalition of lawyers for the
poor, argues that many refugees here have been caught short by
the deadline because of growing backlogs in naturalization since
the terror attacks of September 2001, and infirmities of age and
illness that prevented them from taking the citizenship test.

Among the 20 plaintiffs who have signed affidavits in the
lawsuit, some said they had been waiting for a citizenship
interview for as long as four years or that they had to reapply
when immigration authorities lost their documents. Meanwhile,
they are reduced to public assistance grants of $352 a month,
which is too little to even cover their rent. Many are borrowing
from hard-pressed relatives to stave off eviction.

According to Barbara Weiner, a lawyer with the Greater Upstate
Law Project, one of several legal-service programs for the poor
involved in the lawsuit, "The state has established a minimum
income level that is necessary for people who are elderly and
disabled to live on, but it denies that same level of assistance
to some people just because they're immigrants. That violates
the state's constitutional duty to take care of poor people
without making distinctions that have nothing to do with their
need."

The lawyers point out that in 2001, New York's highest court
struck down a similar state restriction on non-emergency
Medicaid coverage for the immigrant poor, saying that it
violated the federal Constitution's guarantee of equal
protection and the state Constitution's requirement that the
state help the needy. The decision, which also said that the
state had usurped the federal government's exclusive
responsibility for regulating immigration, will dictate a
similar finding in this lawsuit, they contend.

According to the coalition of lawyers for the poor who brought
the suit, it is estimated that the state will owe a total of
less than $1.5 million in retroactive payments to 487 refugees
cut off during the last two years, and as much as $3 million a
year for 2,000 refugees likely to reach the cutoff at some point
during the next six or seven years, unless Congress extends the
aid.

The lawyers say that the decision also makes the state liable
for providing additional aid to other legal immigrants who are
disabled or elderly but now considered for only the lowest level
of public assistance, typically $352 a month.

Since the suit's filing, 10 of the 18 named plaintiffs who are
refugees have become citizens and begun receiving their S.S.I.
payments, but every month, new cases reach the time limit and
are cut off, according to Ms. Baum.

In the hearing, the state had argued in part that the immigrants
had no right to be heard in court because the cutoff was the
result of a political decision on benefits reached in Congress.
It also contended that the immigrants had no independent right
to aid at the level set by the state.

However, Justice Solomon rejected that view, saying it would
lead to "the perverse result" that the state would be providing
extra money to people whose income was too high to qualify for
federal S.S.I., while denying it to people who need it more
solely because they were immigrants.


NEW YORK: SEC Charges Ex-Officer, Brokers with Securities Fraud
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed a civil injunctive
action in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York alleging securities fraud against John J.
Amore, the former CEO of A.B. Watley Group, Inc.; Ralph D.
Casbarro, a former broker at Citigroup Global Markets, Inc.;
David G. Ghysels, Jr., a former broker at Lehman Brothers, Inc.;
Kenneth E. Mahaffy, Jr., a former broker at Merrill Lynch,
Pierce, Fenner, & Smith, Inc. and Citigroup Global Markets,
Inc.; and Timothy J. O'Connell, a former broker at Merrill
Lynch.
     
The Commission's complaint alleges that Mr. Casbarro, Mr.
Ghysels, Mr. Mahaffy, and Mr. O'Connell regularly provided Amore
with confidential information about unexecuted customer orders,
and Amore, along with day traders under his supervision, then
traded ahead of those orders.
     
The complaint was filed against:
     
Mr. Amore, age 42, a resident of Manhasset, N.Y.  From
approximately February 2002 through September 2003, Amore was
the CEO of A.B. Watley Group. Mr. Amore, among others at A.B.
Watley Group and its broker-dealer subsidiary A.B. Watley, Inc.
(A.B. Watley), was responsible for establishing and managing the
day trading desk at A.B. Watley.
          
Mr. Casbarro, age 43, is a resident of Bayside, N.Y.  From
February 1995 through March 2005, Citigroup employed Casbarro in
an office in New York City.  Mr. Casbarro has had a Series 7
license since January 1995.
          
Mr. Ghysels, age 47, is a resident of West Palm Beach, Fla.  
From March 2001 through March 2003, Lehman employed Ghysels in
its Palm Beach, Florida office.  From April 2003 through May
2005, Citigroup employed Mr. Ghysels in its Boca Raton, Florida,
office.  Mr. Ghysels has had a Series 7 license since November
1983.
          
Mr. Mahaffy, age 50, a resident of Huntington, N.Y.  From
December 1997 through February 2003, Merrill Lynch employed Mr.
Mahaffy in its Garden City, N.Y., office.  From February 2003
through June 2005, Mr. Mahaffy was employed as a broker at
Citigroup in its Melville, N.Y., office.  Mr. Mahaffy has had a
Series 7 license since March 1997.
          
Mr. O'Connell, age 40, a resident of Carle Place, N.Y.  From
August 1997 through February 2005, Merrill Lynch employed Mr.
O'Connell in its Garden City, N.Y., office.  Mr. Mahaffy and Mr.
O'Connell established a partnership at Merrill Lynch that lasted
until Mr. Mahaffy's departure from the company. Mr. O'Connell
has had a Series 7 license since July 1995.

More specifically, the complaint alleged the following.  Between
at least June 2002 through September 2003, Mr. Casbarro, Mr.
Ghysels, Mr. Mahaffy and Mr. O'Connell frequently allowed the
traders at A.B. Watley to listen to squawk boxes, internal
broadcast systems used by the brokers' employers. Traders at
Citigroup, Lehman and Merrill Lynch often announced customer
block orders over their firms' respective squawk boxes.  Large
orders can affect the market price of a stock by affecting the
supply or demand for the stock.  On more than 400 occasions, the
day traders at A.B. Watley used the information obtained from
Mr. Casbarro, Mr. Ghysels, Mr. Mahaffy and Mr. O'Connell to
trade ahead of customer block orders.
     
For example, shortly before 9:52 a.m. on July 24, 2002, while
Mr. Casbarro was providing an open phone line between his office
at Citigroup and Watley's headquarters, a Citigroup trader
announced a block order to sell Noble Corporation stock over the
Citigroup squawk box.  From 9:52 a.m. through 9:55 a.m., over
ten Watley traders sold short at least 36,000 shares of Noble
Corporation stock at an average price of approximately $28.63.
From 9:56 a.m. through 9:57 a.m., Citigroup executed at least
one large sell order of Noble Corporation stock.  From 9:56 a.m.
through 9:57 a.m., the Watley traders purchased at least 36,000
shares of Noble Corporation stock at an average price of
approximately $28.10 per share.  The fall in share price
resulted in the Watley traders making a gross profit of at least
$19,000.
     
Overall, Mr. Amore and the day traders at A.B. Watley made more
than $650,000 in gross profit from this scheme.  Amore and the
day traders compensated Mr. Casbarro, Mr. Ghysels, Mr. Mahaffy
and Mr. O'Connell for the confidential order flow information
through gross commissions totaling approximately $290,000.  
Additionally, Amore, directly or through his subordinates, made
cash payments to Mr. Casbarro and Mr. Mahaffy.
     
The Commission charged Mr. Amore, Mr. Casbarro, Mr. Ghysels, Mr.
Mahaffy, and Mr. O'Connell with violating Section 17(a) of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The Commission
seeks a permanent injunction against future violations of these
provisions, disgorgement plus prejudgment interest, and civil
penalties.
  
The Commission expresses its appreciation to the United States
Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of New York and the
United States Postal Inspection Service for their assistance in
the investigation of this matter. The Action is styled, SEC v.
John J. Amore, Ralph D. Casbarro, David G. Ghysels, Jr., Kenneth
E. Mahaffy, Jr., and Timothy J. O'Connell, (Civil Action No. CV-
053885, Glasser, E.D.N.Y.)


OJIA VALLEY INN: Judge Approves Settlement of Worker's Wage Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Ojai Valley Inn & Spa, which is on the verge of fully
reopening after undergoing more than two years and $80 million
worth of renovation and construction, settled a class action
suit with employees who accused the luxury resort of underpaying
them during the project, thus violating wage-and-hour laws, The
Ventura County Star reports.

Attorneys for both sides told The Ventura County Star that in a
settlement agreement approved on August 8 by Ventura County
Superior Court Judge Vincent J. O'Neal, some of the resort's
workers could get payments ranging from $200 to more than
$2,000, depending on how long they were on the payroll and what
their jobs and wages were during the construction.

Both lawyers though reneged to estimate how many will be paid or
what the total payout will be even though several hundred
workers filed claims.

Merrill Williams, the Inn's spokeswoman, told The Ventura County
Star that management believes about 75 workers will be declared
eligible for payments after a case-by-case check of payroll
records. The total award should be less than $100,000, she
added.

The massive makeover project triggering the suit began early in
2003 and should end this weekend when the last R.D. Olson Co.
construction crews scheduled to leave the property. The project
was supposed to be completed about a year ago, however last
winter's storms and a host of problems including the discovery
of an 800-year-old landslide area requiring some buildings to be
relocated or redesigned caused repeated delays.

To avoid massive layoffs, management offered to keep its nearly
500 workers on the payroll by training them in trades like
plumbing construction, painting and electrical work. Many
accepted, some doing the new work along with their hotel jobs.

The suit stemmed from a requirement that workers ride a hotel
tram to work sites, clothes-changing rooms, the parking lot and
stops on a lunch truck's route.

According to Denver attorney Donald Samuels, who defended the
Inn, "They made a business decision which I think was quite
commendable, because it was an open construction site, to ensure
their safety, they had them in trams going from the parking lot
to their work areas. ... The issue in the lawsuit was whether or
not that was compensable time, and quite frankly there is no
clear law on it."

Court papers revealed that Camarillo attorney Thomas Milhaupt
filed the suit on November 16, naming former employee Gabriella
Sandoval of Oxnard as the original plaintiff. Ms. Sandoval, who
is a front-desk worker, who did not do construction work, but
was required to ride the tram from the employee parking area and
usually had to wait for it because work areas were scattered
throughout the Inn's 223-acre property.

The suit alleged that workers clocked in and out of work areas,
but were not paid while waiting for and riding the tram or
changing into hotel uniforms. It also claimed that some workers
were not paid for state-required lunch and rest breaks. The Inn
vehemently denied the allegations though.

According to Mr. Milhaupt "Historically there has been a
distance to traverse for employees. Parking is somewhere and
they have to go somewhere else, and generally that somewhere
else is quite far," he adds, "The fact unique to the period
focused on in the lawsuit is that the tram was mandatory. ...
There was certainly waiting time involved as well."

In settling the suit, the Inn did not admit to any wrongdoing or
concede that any of the allegations were true, Mr. Samuels said.

In his order approving the settlement, Judge O'Neal included an
agreement by both sides that claims the Inn violated wage-and-
hours regulations "are to varying degrees uncertain or
potentially the subject of differing legal interpretation."

Both of the attorneys told The Ventura County Star that
determining who is eligible to share the settlement and how much
each will be paid probably will take two to three months, since
pay rates and jobs of those affected varied widely. While riding
the tram was mandatory, many workers did not have to change into
hotel uniforms. Breaks were documented for some, but not others.

The two sides began settlement talks in February then about
spent three months negotiating and drafting the specifics,
according to Mr. Milhaupt said. Judge O'Neal preliminarily
approved the agreement in May and made the order final after a
summary of it was distributed to workers. The Inn agreed to pay
Mr. Milhaupt's fee, but he declined to say how much it is.

Asked for comment on the settlement, Ms. Williams told The
Ventura County Star that management calls the settlement a good
business decision. She adds, "We have acknowledged along with
the plaintiff that no wrongdoing was done. We feel that we did
everything we could to keep our employees safe during
construction time ... But here we are. We're anxious to just
move on, and we will certainly settle and pay any eligible
employee. ... Our focus now is to reopen the resort and not get
distracted by expensive and prolonged litigation."


OKLAHOMA: Residents Meet with PSO, Officials Over Tree Trimming
---------------------------------------------------------------
Concerned about the work of trimming crews and the condition of
Tulsa's they leave behind, approximately 150 angry residents
turned out for a meeting with the Public Service Company of
Oklahoma (PSO) and state officials regarding the matter, The
KOTV.com reports.

According to PSO, it boils down to a battle between beautiful
trees and reliable electricity. They contended that cutting the
trees back is part of providing power. However, homeowners
pointed out that their trees are being hacked. Homeowner Clark
Wiens: "I'm just concerned do we really have to destroy the
trees to protect the wires."

PSO maintains that sometimes crews would rather remove the tree
than leave an eyesore, because keeping lines clear often calls
for extensive pruning.  The reason for the increase in trimming
the trees is part of PSO's policy to provide maintenance every
four years. That's a rule residents say is resulting in severe
and unnecessary cutting.

Property owners at the meeting were invited to join a class
action lawsuit against PSO. Several people though brought up the
idea of putting the power lines underground. PSO's spokesperson
says they're all for it, however she pointed out that the
project would cost about $600,000 a mile.


RENT-A-CENTER INC.: Reaches Settlement For Oregon Wage Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rent-A-Center, Inc. reached a settlement for two class actions
filed against it in the State Court in Multnomah County, Oregon,
alleging violations of the state's wage and hour laws.

On August 20,2001, a class action styled "Rob Pucci, et. al. v.
Rent-A-Center, Inc." was filed, alleging that the Company
violated various provisions of Oregon state law regarding
overtime, lunch and work breaks, that the Company failed to pay
all wages due to our Oregon employees, and various contract
claims that the Company promised but failed to pay overtime.  
The suit seeks to represent a class of all present and former
executive assistants, inside/outside managers and account
managers employed by us within the six year period prior to the
filing of the complaint as to the contract claims, and three
years as to the statutory claims, and seeks class certification,
payments for all unpaid wages under Oregon law, statutory and
civil penalties, costs and disbursements, pre- and post-judgment
interest in the amount of 9% per annum and attorneys' fees.

On July 25, 2002, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification and on July 31, 2002, the Company filed its motion
for summary judgment.  On January 15, 2003, the court orally
granted the Company's motion for summary judgment in part,
ruling that the plaintiffs were prevented from recovering
overtime payments at the rate of "time and a half," but stated
that the plaintiffs may recover "straight-time" to the extent
plaintiffs could prove purported class members worked in excess
of forty hours in a work week but were not paid for such time
worked. The court denied the Company's motion for summary
judgment on the remaining claims.

The Company strongly disagreed with the court's rulings against
its positions and requested that the court grant it
interlocutory appeal on those matters.  The plaintiffs
subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment seeking to
resolve certain factual issues related to the purported class,
which was denied on July 1, 2003.  On October 10, 2003, the
court issued an opinion letter stating that it would certify a
class and not permit an interlocutory appeal, and issued its
written order to that effect on December 9, 2003.  The Company
subsequently filed a petition for a writ of mandamus with the
Oregon Supreme Court, which was denied on January 24, 2004.  On
June 15, 2004, notice to the class was distributed advising them
of their right to opt out of the class.  The Company has not
been advised that any class member has opted out of the class.

On January 31, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a partial motion for
summary judgment regarding their allegation that the Company
failed to timely pay wages on termination. On February 25, 2005,
the court denied the Company's motion to compel arbitration with
respect to class members that signed agreements to arbitrate
claims against it. In addition, the court rejected the Company's
proposal to enter an order permitting interlocutory appeal.

On March 17, 2005, "Pucci" class members Jeremy Chess and Chad
Clemmons filed an amended class action complaint entitled
"Jeremy Chess et al. v. Rent-A-Center, Inc. et al," alleging
similar claims as the plaintiffs in Pucci and seeking
unspecified statutory and contractual damages and penalties, as
well as injunctive relief.  The Chess plaintiffs seek to
represent a class of all present and former executive
assistants, inside/outside managers and account managers
employed by the Company within the six year period prior to the
filing of the complaint as to the contract claims, and three
years as to the statutory claims.  On April 15, 2005, we filed
pleadings removing the case to the federal court for the
District of Oregon under the newly enacted Class Action Fairness
Act of 2005. The "Chess" plaintiffs are represented by the same
attorneys as the "Pucci" plaintiffs.

On June 23, 2005, the Company reached an agreement in principle
to settle the claims in the two suits.  Under the terms of the
prospective settlement, the Company agreed to pay $1.75 million
to settle total class claims, provided that the class does not
exceed 650 individuals.  If the class exceeds 650 individuals,
the Company agreed to pay an additional $750.00 per individual
class member over 650.  The parties propose to administer the
proposed settlement through the federal court in "Chess."  The
terms of the prospective settlement are subject to the parties
entering into a definitive settlement agreement and obtaining
court approval.


RENT-A-CENTER INC.: CA Court Refusal To Remove Judge Appealed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the California Superior Court for Los
Angeles' ruling refusing to remove the trial judge handling the
purported class action filed against Rent-A-Center, Inc.,
alleging wage and hour law violations.

Two suits were initially filed in October 2001, styled "Jeremy
Burdusis, et al. v. Rent-A-Center, Inc., et al." and "Israel
French, et al. v. Rent-A-Center, Inc."  The suits allege that
the Company violated various provisions of state law regarding
overtime, lunch and work breaks, that the Company failed to pay
all wages due to its California employees, and various contract
claims that the Company promised but failed to pay overtime

The same law firm seeking to represent the purported class in
"Pucci" is seeking to represent the purported class in
"Burdusis."  The "Burdusis" and "French" proceedings are pending
before the same judge in California. On March 24, 2003, the
"Burdusis" court denied the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification in that case, which the Company views as a
favorable development in that proceeding.  On April 25, 2003,
the plaintiffs in "Burdusis" filed a notice of appeal of that
ruling, and on May 8, 2003, the "Burdusis" court, at its
request, stayed further proceedings in "Burdusis" and "French"
pending the resolution on appeal of the court's denial of class
certification in "Burdusis."

In June 2004, the "Burdusis" plaintiffs filed their appellate
brief. The Company's response brief was filed in September 2004,
and the "Burdusis" plaintiffs filed their reply in October 2004.  
On February 9, 2005, the California Court of Appeals reversed
and remanded the trial court's denial of class certification in
"Burdusis" and directed the trial court to reconsider its ruling
in light of two other recent appellate court decisions,
including the opinions of the California Supreme Court in
"Sav-On Drugs Stores, Inc. v. Superior Court," and of the
California appeals court in "Bell v. Farmers Insurance
Exchange."  After remand, the plaintiffs filed a motion with the
trial court seeking to remove from the case the trial court
judge who previously denied their motion for class
certification. The trial court denied the motion. In response,
plaintiffs' filed a petition for writ of mandate with the
California Court of Appeals requesting review of the trial
court's decision.  The California Court of Appeals is scheduled
to hear arguments in this matter on August 29, 2005.


RENT-A-CENTER INC.: Faces Several Employee Wage Lawsuits in WA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rent-A-Center, Inc. continues to face several lawsuits,
including class actions, filed in Washington state courts,
alleging violations of the state's wage and hour laws.

A lawsuit, styled "Kevin Rose, et al. v. Rent-A-Center, Inc. et
al." was filed on June 26,2001, in the Clark County Circuit
Court in Washington.  The suit alleges similar violations of the
wage and hour laws of Washington as those in "Pucci."  The same
law firm seeking to represent the purported class in "Pucci" is
seeking to represent the purported class in this matter.

On May 14, 2003, the "Rose" court denied the plaintiffs' motion
for class certification in that case, which the Company viewed
as a favorable development in that proceeding.  On June 3, 2003,
the plaintiffs in "Rose" filed a notice of appeal.  On September
8, 2003, the Commissioner appointed by the Court of Appeals
denied review of the "Rose" court decision.  On October 10,
2003, the "Rose" plaintiffs filed a motion seeking to modify the
Commissioner's ruling, to which the Company responded on October
30, 2003. The Court of Appeals denied the plaintiffs' motion on
November 26, 2003.

Following the denial by the Court of Appeals, the plaintiffs'
counsel filed 14 county-wide putative class actions in
Washington with substantially the same claims as in "Rose."  In
April 2005, the plaintiffs' counsel filed another putative
county-wide lawsuit, bringing the total to 15. The purported
classes in these county-wide class actions range from
approximately 20 individuals to approximately 100 individuals.

Subsequently, the Company filed motions to dismiss and/or stay
the class allegations in each of the county-wide actions, and
also filed motions for summary judgment in various counties with
respect to the individual claims of some of the plaintiffs.
Following disposition of these motions by the applicable courts,
approximately 13 individual plaintiffs and class representatives
remain with respect to the claims made in 12 counties. Ten of
these county-wide claims are now proceeding as putative county-
wide class actions and two are proceeding on an individual
plaintiff basis.  Certain plaintiffs have appealed some of the
orders granting summary judgment.  The plaintiffs in eight of
the 12 counties have filed motions to certify a county-wide
class.

The company also filed motions to compel arbitration with
respect to 20 individual purported plaintiffs and class
representatives in 10 counties. All 20 of these motions to
compel arbitration have been granted.  Certain plaintiffs have
appealed one of these orders compelling arbitration.  The 20
arbitration plaintiffs filed separate putative nationwide class
arbitration demands. In response, the Company filed motions to
clarify the respective county courts' orders compelling
arbitration.  Specifically, the Company asked each county court
that previously struck all class allegations to make clear that
the arbitration plaintiffs in those counties could not pursue
any class claims, and the Company asked each county court in
those counties that allowed plaintiffs to plead putative county-
wide class claims, to make clear that such plaintiffs could only
pursue county-wide claims.  The three courts that granted the
Company's motions to compel arbitration and had previously
struck all class allegations granted the motions and ruled that
the plaintiffs could not pursue any class arbitration claims.  
Five courts ruled that the arbitration plaintiffs could only
pursue county-wide class arbitration claims, and two of the
county courts refused to limit the arbitration plaintiffs'
ability to pursue class arbitration demands.


SOLUTIA INC.: Flexsys Continues to Face Rubber Antitrust Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Flexsys, Solutia, Inc.'s 50/50 venture with Akzo Nobel NV, and
other rubber chemical producers continue to face 23 class
actions filed in various state courts, alleging violations of
antitrust law.  Solutia is only named as a defendant in one of
these cases, which was automatically stayed as against Solutia.

In 20 of these cases, plaintiffs seek actual and treble damages
under state law on behalf of all retail purchasers of tires in
that state since as early as 1994.  In the other three cases,
plaintiffs make similar allegations and seek similar relief on
behalf of all consumers of products containing rubber, including
tires.  

Eleven of these cases remain pending at the trial level in
procedural stages or are pending on appeal following dismissal
as to Flexsys either by plaintiffs or by the trial court on
procedural grounds. The remaining cases have been dismissed
voluntarily by plaintiffs or by the court on procedural grounds
and are not on appeal.


SOLUTIA INC.: Faces 3 Rubber Chemical Antitrust Suits in Canada
---------------------------------------------------------------
Flexsys, Solutia Inc.'s 50/50 venture with Akzo Nobel, continues
to face several class actions in Canadian courts, alleging
violations of antitrust laws.

In May 2004, two class actions were filed in the Province of
Quebec, Canada, against Flexsys and other rubber chemical
producers alleging that collusive sales and marketing activities
of the defendants damaged all persons in Quebec during the
period July 1995 through September 2001. Plaintiffs seek
statutory damages of (CAD) $14.6 along with exemplary damages of
(CAD) $0.000025 per person.  A hearing will be scheduled to
determine which case will be allowed to go forward.  Solutia is
not a defendant in either of these class actions.

In May 2005, Solutia became aware of a case filed in Ontario,
Canada against Flexsys and other rubber chemical producers
alleging the same claims as the Quebec cases and seeking on
behalf of the citizens of Ontario (CAD) $95 in damages. No
response is yet due nor has any been filed by defendants in the
Ontario case.  Solutia is not a defendant in that case.


SOLUTIA INC.: CA Court Approves Rubber Antitrust Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California approved the settlement for the consolidated class
action filed against Solutia, Inc., Flexsys and several other
companies, on behalf of all individuals and entities that had
purchased rubber chemicals in the United States during the
period January 1, 1995 until October 10, 2002.

Eight suits were initially filed and were later consolidated
into a single action called "In Re Rubber Chemicals Antitrust
Litigation."  The consolidated action alleges price-fixing and
seeks treble damages and injunctive relief under U.S. antitrust
laws on behalf of all the plaintiffs.

The Company filed a Suggestion of Bankruptcy in this
consolidated action staying the litigation against it.  A
settlement agreement was approved by the court on June 21,
2005 releasing Flexsys, Solutia, Akzo and their predecessors in
interest from any further liability to the members of the class
with respect to the allegations in the action.

As described in Solutia's 2004 Form 10-K and Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2005, RBX Industries,
Inc. and Parker Hannifin Corporation had filed separate cases
against Flexsys and other rubber chemical producing companies
seeking the same relief as requested by the class in "In Re
Rubber Chemicals" with respect to RBX's and Parker Hannifin's
own purchases of rubber chemicals during the relevant period.
Both RBX and Parker Hannifin elected to join the class in
"In re Rubber Chemicals" prior to the class settlement. Other
than potential claims by two small direct purchasers of rubber
chemicals that elected to opt out of the settlement and whose
purchases from Flexsys were immaterial in amount, the class
settlement resolves all remaining claims against Solutia and
Flexsys under U.S. antitrust laws of direct purchasers of rubber
chemicals whose purchases were made in the United States during
the alleged class period.


SOLUTIA INC.: CA Securities Fraud Lawsuit Dismissal Deemed Final
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California's dismissal of the consolidated securities class
action filed against Solutia, Inc., its then and former chief
executive officers and its then chief financial officer is
deemed final, after plaintiffs failed to file an appeal.

Six shareholder class actions were initially filed and later
consolidated into a single action called "In Re Solutia
Securities Litigation."  A consolidated complaint which named
two additional defendants, Solutia's then current and past
controllers, was filed.  The consolidated complaint alleges
that, from December 16, 1998 to October 10, 2002, the Company's
accounting practices regarding incorporation of Flexsys' results
into its financial reports violated federal securities laws by
misleading investors as to the Company's actual results and
causing inflated prices to be paid by purchasers of Solutia's
publicly traded securities during the period. The plaintiffs
seek damages and any equitable relief that the court deems
proper.  

The consolidated action is automatically stayed with respect to
Solutia by virtue of Section 362(a) of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.
On March 24, 2005, the court issued a final order dismissing the
complaint against the individual defendants and, on March 29,
2005, issued an order dismissing the case pending resolution of
Solutia's bankruptcy case. Plaintiffs did not file an appeal
within the applicable appeals period.


SONUS NETWORKS: MA Judge Decertifies Lawsuit by Daniel Higgins
--------------------------------------------------------------
Boston Federal Judge Mark Wolf decertified a class action
lawsuit against Sonus Networks Inc. (Nasdaq: SONS) and several
of its executives, and said that he is considering forcing the
plaintiffs to cover Sonus's legal expenses, The Boston Business
Journal reports.

Despite the ruling though, Sonus still faces two other class
action suits in Boston, with U.S. District Judge Douglas
Woodcock presiding.  Judge Wolf dismissed the suit in which
Daniel Higgins sought to intervene as lead plaintiff, after
original class representative Andrew Scibelli withdrew following
the revelation of his conviction on a drug charge in 1991.

In his ruling, Judge Wolf wrote, "As time passes, memories may
fade, witnesses may die or otherwise become available, and the
truth may be harder to ascertain reliably. In addition, many of
the defendants are individuals who are potentially personally
liable for substantial damages. It would be unfair in the
circumstances of this case to perpetuate their uncertainty, if
not anxiety, because Higgins and his counsel miscalculated."

In addition, the judge wrote that it would be unfair to require
Sonus to incur additional expense to investigate whether Mr.
Higgins meets court standards and chided the plaintiffs'
attorneys for pressing the case. He also wrote, "Litigants, not
lawyers, direct and control class-action litigation. It is clear
to the court that this has not been occurring in this case."

The Chelmsford Company sells gear for use in voice-over-
Internet-protocol networks. It has battled multiple lawsuits
from disgruntled investors.


STATE FARM: IL High Court Denies Class Status in Auto Parts Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Illinois Supreme Court reversed a billion-dollar judgment
against State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., which is the
biggest U.S. insurer of autos and homes, in a case alleging the
company used unsafe parts to repair damaged vehicles, The
Reuters News Service.

In a landslide 6-0 vote, the state high court ruled that the
trial court erred in certifying the case as a nationwide class
action. It also ruled that the plaintiffs' claims weren't
similar enough to be grouped together. A 4-2 majority found that
the plaintiffs failed to establish damages.

In her opinion for the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Mary Ann
McMorrow even said Illinois' consumer fraud act does not apply
outside the state, and that plaintiffs may invoke the act only
on matters that are "primarily and substantially" in Illinois.

Robert Clifford, who argued the plaintiffs' case, which affected
4.7 million policyholders, told The Reuters News Service, "We're
obviously disappointed. The ruling allows insurance companies to
mislead customers through contract language that ultimately
limits their remedies when things go wrong."

On the other hand, State Farm spokesman Phil Supple told The
Reuters News Service his company was reviewing the decision and
thus could not comment further.

According to court papers, the State Farm plaintiffs accused the
Bloomington, Illinois-based insurer of breach of contract and
consumer fraud in requiring auto repair shops to use generic
replacement parts rather than manufacturers' parts.

State Farm though contended that the generic parts were neither
poor quality nor unsafe, and that using them saved policyholders
hundreds of millions of dollars.

In 1999, a judge ordered State Farm to pay $1.19 billion in
damages. An appeals court reduced the sum to $1.06 billion.

After the ruling was handed down, Michael Hyman, a partner at
Much Shelist in Chicago who also represented the plaintiffs told
The Reuters News Service, "It's an empty day for automobile
insureds in Illinois, and across the country." He added that his
clients might appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court or seek a
rehearing. He pointed out that many states have consumer fraud
laws similar to Illinois' law saying, "This can create a
Balkanization in class action cases."


TORELLI IMPORTS: Recalls 50.4T Water Watches Due to Injury Risk
---------------------------------------------------------------
In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC), Torelli Imports, of Camarillo, California is voluntarily
recalling about 1,100 units of Bicycle Tires.

The tire can separate from the wheel, resulting in a flat tire.
This can cause the rider to lose control and fall. No incidents
or injuries have been reported.

This recall involves Torelli Verona and Lugano Open Tubular
bicycle tires with folding Kevlar beads, used to hold the tire
to the rim. A red and white label on the sidewall of the Verona
model has "Torelli Verona 700 X 23 100-130 psi Handmade Open
Tubular" printed on it. A green and white label on the lowed
edge of the Lugano model has "Torelli Lugano 700 X 23 100-130
psi Handmade Open Tubular" printed on it. The tires are packaged
in red and white boxes with the Torelli logo on the front.

Manufactured in Thailand, the tires were sold by bicycle
specialty stores nationwide from February 2005 through July 2005
for between $30 to $60.

Consumers should stop using the tires immediately and contact
their local bicycle retailer or Torelli Imports to receive a
free replacement tire.

Consumer Contact: For additional information, contact Torelli
Imports at (800) 523-6604 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. PT Monday
through Friday or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.torelli.com.


UNITED STATES: Government Study Indicates Drop in Tort Trials
-------------------------------------------------------------
A government study finds that the number of tort trials in
federal courts recently fell by nearly 80 percent in less than
two decades, The Associated Press reports.

Legal experts attribute the drop in tort lawsuits, which are
those filed for civil claims such as injury, to Supreme Court
rulings in the 1990s that made it much more difficult for people
bringing lawsuits in federal courts to win.

Last February President George Bush signed legislation that lets
federal judges take most large class action lawsuits away from
state courts saying it was only a beginning in his drive to end
"the lawsuit culture."

The head of the Alliance for Justice, which opposed that
legislation, told The Associated Press the study shows victims
of corporate misconduct may have "great difficulty obtaining
redress in the federal courts."


UNITED STATES: Lawsuits Filed V. 3 Forestry Firms Over Low Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Three class action lawsuits were launched against forestry
companies for allegedly taking unlawful advantage of Mexicans
and Guatemalans who do seasonal work in the Southeast, The
Associated Press reports.

The lawsuits claim that the workers, who are in the United
States on temporary work visas, often make less than minimum
wage, do not receive overtime pay and work upward of 70 hours a
week planting trees.

Mary Bauer, an attorney with the Southern Poverty Law Center
(SPLC), told the Montgomery Advertiser in a recent story, "The
workers are essentially being cheated in fairly dramatic ways
and pretty systematically."

Filed by the SPLC in federal court, the suit list as defendants
Eller & Sons Trees Inc. in Franklin, Georgia, Idaho-based Alpha
Services LLC and Arkansas-based Express Forestry. The companies,
responding in court filings denied the accusations though.

Larry Stine, an attorney representing Eller & Sons, told The
Associated Press that the claims are ludicrous. He pointed out
that the workers make at least $8.29 an hour planting trees, but
they have complained of not being paid for the time they are
traveling from where they stay to where they work.

Ms. Bauer stated in the Montgomery Advertiser story that the
lawsuits represent about 2,000 workers in a major Southern
industry. According to her, the workers are seeking repayment of
lost wages for the forestry workers. She also adds that the
litigation may be expanded.

              
                 New Securities Fraud Cases

ATI TECHNOLOGIES: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Fraud in PA
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
LLP ("Lerach Coughlin") initiated a class action United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on
behalf of purchasers of ATI Technologies Inc. ("ATI")
(NASDAQ:ATYT) publicly traded securities during the period
between October 7, 2004 and June 23, 2005 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges ATI and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. ATI is the world's second largest computer graphics chip
maker.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
made false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
business and prospects. As a result of defendants' false and
misleading statements, ATI's stock traded at inflated levels,
allowing the Company's top officers and directors to sell or
otherwise dispose of more than $54 million worth of their own
shares at artificially inflated prices.

The complaint alleges that 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 was selling desktop and notebook products
         with lower and lower profit margins;

     (2) ATI's gross margins were being weakened by high sales
         of its IGP products, which have profit margins well
         below the corporate average;

     (3) the Company was earning lower-than-anticipated yields
         on certain products due to operational issues in its
         own packaging and test areas of its manufacturing
         process;

     (4) the Company was experiencing production/design/yield
         issues with its R520 chip;

     (5) the Company was losing market share to arch-rivals
         Nvidia Corp. and Intel Corp.; and

     (6) despite defendants' previous statements to the
         contrary, a fire at one of the Company's primary
         suppliers in Taiwan was preventing the Company from
         receiving necessary supplies.

On June 6, 2005, ATI warned that its revenue for the third
quarter 2005 would fall well below its previously announced
forecast. Thereafter, when the Company issued its actual third
quarter 2005 financial results on June 23, 2005, reporting a
quarterly loss of $445,000 in the third quarter 2005 compared to
a profit of $48.6 million in the third quarter 2004 and further
reducing fourth quarter 2005 revenue expectations by $20-$50
million, the Company's stock price fell another 8% to its lowest
point since July 2003 on extremely high volume.

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/atitechnologies/.


HOST AMERICA: Rosen Law Clarifies Certain Aspects of Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, which filed the first of several class
action lawsuits on behalf of purchasers of Host America
Corporation (Nasdaq:CAFEW) (Nasdaq:CAFE) ("Host America" or the
"Company"), is clarifying investor uncertainty as to whether
certain securities are covered under the action.

The firm would like to inform investors that the lawsuit it
filed asserts claims on behalf of a proposed class that includes
purchasers of warrants issued by Host America traded under the
ticker symbol CAFEW, as well as common stock purchasers during
the period from July 12, 2005 and July 22, 2005, inclusive (the
"Class Period").

Previously, the firm initiated the class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the District of Connecticut,
which names as defendants Host America, EnergyNSync, Geoffrey
Ramsey, David Murphy, Roger Lockhart, and Peter Sarmanian.

The complaint charges that On July 12, 2005, Host America issued
a press release titled "Host America's Energy Division Announces
Wal-Mart Transaction Ten Store First-Phase for LightMasterPlus."
Market reaction to this announcement was fast and furious.
Trading volume increased from 41,000 trades on July 11, 2005, to
13,813,100 on July 12, 2005. The Company's stock, which opened
at $4.25 on July 12, 2005 prior to the announcement, closed at
$6.35, after reaching a high of $7.47. Over the next eight
trading days, volume reached a high of approximately 32,569,600
shares on July 18, 2005, and the Company's stock price reached a
high of $16.88 on July 19, 2005. This stock price rise and
increased volume were the result of false information issued to
the market, according to the complaint.

On July 22, 2005, the SEC halted trading of Host America
securities, as a result of the Wal-Mart related press release.
At the time trading was halted, Host America stock was priced at
$13.92 per share, down from $16.88 on July 19, 2005.

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


ISOLAGEN INC.: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Fraud in S.D. TX
----------------------------------------------------------------
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 Southern District of Texas on
behalf of purchasers of Isolagen, Inc. ("Isolagen") (AMEX:ILE)
publicly traded securities during the period between March 3,
2004 and August 1, 2005 (the "Class Period"), including
purchasers of Isolagen stock issued in connection with and
traceable to Isolagen's June 2004 stock offering.

The complaint charges Isolagen and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Isolagen specializes in the development and
commercialization of autologous cellular therapies for soft and
hard tissue regeneration (the "Isolagen Process"). Autologous
cellular therapy utilizes a process whereby a patient's own
cells are extracted, allowed to multiply and then injected into
the patient. In January 2003, defendants began phase I clinical
trials aimed at demonstrating the safety and efficacy of using
the Isolagen Process to treat dermal defects.

The complaint alleges that without solid clinical data developed
under controlled conditions, the data gathered in the clinical
trials would never meet the FDA's "adequate and well-controlled"
criteria for acceptable clinical trials and the Company's
business plan would lack credibility to the investment
community. Defendants' own internal testing showed the Isolagen
Process had demonstrated nowhere near the efficacy required to
obtain FDA approval, which was needed to make the Company
profitable. However, during the Class Period, defendants touted
the efficacy of the Isolagen Process both for dermal and dental
treatments, running up the Company's stock price to a Class
Period high of $12 per share on April 2, 2004.

On August 1, 2005, the Company disclosed that the preliminary
results from its phase III clinical trial of the Isolagen
Process for the treatment of contour deformities (wrinkles) had
not met all four primary end points and that neither of the two
dermal studies had achieved independent statistical
significance. On this news, the Company's stock price plummeted
more than 45%, from $5.50 per share to below $3 per share, on
very high volume.

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/isolagen/.


ISOLAGEN INC.: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in TX
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Texas on behalf of purchasers of Isolagen, Inc.
(AMEX: ILE) publicly traded securities during the period between
March 3, 2004 and August 1, 2005 (the "Class Period"), including
purchasers of Isolagen stock issued in connection with and
traceable to Isolagen's June 2004 stock offering.

The complaint charges Isolagen and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Isolagen specializes in the development and
commercialization of autologous cellular therapies for soft and
hard tissue regeneration (the "Isolagen Process"). Autologous
cellular therapy utilizes a process whereby a patient's own
cells are extracted, allowed to multiply and then injected into
the patient. In January 2003, defendants began phase I clinical
trials aimed at demonstrating the safety and efficacy of using
the Isolagen Process to treat dermal defects.

The complaint alleges that without solid clinical data developed
under controlled conditions, the data gathered in the clinical
trials would never meet the FDA's "adequate and well-controlled"
criteria for acceptable clinical trials and the Company's
business plan would lack credibility to the investment
community. Defendants' own internal testing showed the Isolagen
Process had demonstrated nowhere near the efficacy required to
obtain FDA approval, which was needed to make the Company
profitable. However, during the Class Period, defendants touted
the efficacy of the Isolagen Process both for dermal and dental
treatments, running up the Company's stock price to a Class
Period high of $12 per share on April 2, 2004.

On August 1, 2005, the Company disclosed that the preliminary
results from its phase III clinical trial of the Isolagen
Process for the treatment of contour deformities (wrinkles) had
not met all four primary end points and that neither of the two
dermal studies had achieved independent statistical
significance. On this news, the Company's stock price plummeted
more than 45%, from $5.50 per share to below $3 per share, on
very high volume.

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


RED ROBIN: Rosen Law Firm Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CO
------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm initiated a class action lawsuit in 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.

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


STARTEK INC.: Dyer & Shuman Schedules Lead Plaintiff Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Dyer & Shuman, LLP is encouraging all persons
who purchased the common stock of StarTek, Inc. (NYSE:SRT)
between February 26, 2003 and May 5, 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 filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Colorado against
StarTek and certain of its officers and directors.

The firm reminds investors that they have until September 6,
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.


SYMBOL TECHNOLOGIES: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Suit in NY
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Stull, Stull & Brody 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) publicly traded
securities between May 10, 2004 and August 1, 2005, inclusive
(the "Class Period"). Also included are all those who acquired
Symbol's shares through its acquisition of Matrics, Inc.

The Complaint alleges that Symbol, and certain of its officers
and directors, violated federal securities laws by issuing
misleading public statements. Specifically, throughout the Class
Period, defendants issued numerous positive statements about the
Company's performance and future prospects. The complaint
alleges that defendants failed to disclose and/or misrepresented
the following adverse facts:

     (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.

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


WORKSTREAM INC.: Lasky & Rifkind Lodges Securities Suit in NY
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd. initiated a lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
publicly traded securities of Workstream, Inc. ("Workstream" or
the "Company") (NASDAQ:WSTM) between January 14, 2005 and April
14, 2005, inclusive, (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit was filed
against Workstream, Michael Mullarkey and David Polansky
("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
Defendants failed to disclose or misrepresented that the Company
purposefully overstated Workstream's projected revenue and
earnings, by improperly recognizing revenue on sales of software
using the "percentage of completion" accounting method.

On April 14, 2005, Workstream reported a loss of $0.08 per
share, compared to a $0.07 per share loss a year earlier.
Reported revenue was $6.87 million. Shares of Workstream
plummeted in reaction to the news, declining from $3.99 per
share to $1.90 per share, a one-day decline of 52.3%.

For more details, contact Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd., Phone:
(800) 495-1868, E-mail: investorrelations@laskyrifkind.com.  


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

Investors should be advised that, while other law firms have
issued press releases about the Workstream securities class
action, only one lawsuit has actually been filed, by the laws
firms of Shalov Stone & Bonner LLP and Sarraf Gentile LLP, who
jointly investigated the company and filed a lawsuit against it
on behalf of Workstream investors.

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

For mor details, contact Thomas G. Ciarlone, Jr., at Shalov
Stone & Bonner LLP, 485 Seventh Ave., Suite 1000, New York, NY,
10018, Phone: (212) 239-4340, E-mail: tciarlone@lawssb.com, Web
site: http://www.lawssb.comOR Joseph Gentile, Esq. of Sarraf  
Gentile, LLP, 485 Seventh Ave., Suite 1005, New York, NY, 10018,
Phone: 212-868-3610, Fax: 212-918-7967, Web site:
http://www.sarrafgentile.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  * * *