CAR_Public/050824.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, August 24, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 167

                            Headlines

AVISTA CORPORATION: Asks Review of Refusal To Dismiss WA Lawsuit
CHIQUITA BRANDS: Customers Launch Antitrust Lawsuits in S.D. FL
CORN PRODUCTS: Shareholders Launch Securities Fraud Suits in IL
CORN PRODUCTS: Faces Corn Syrup Antitrust Suit in Canadian Court
COX RADIO: Plaintiffs Drop Appeal of GA TCPA Lawsuit Dismissal

DECODE GENETICS: NY Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Litigation
DOMINO'S PIZZA: Faces Two Employee Wage, Hour Suits in CA Court
EPIX PHARMACEUTICALS: Shareholders Launch Securities Fraud Suits
FREEMARKETS INC.: Settlement Reached in Shareholder Fraud Suit
ISOLAGEN INC.: To Ask TX Court To Dismiss Shareholder Fraud Suit

KADANT COMPOSITES: Recalls 11T Constructed Decks For Injury Risk
LOUISIANA: Lawyers Say TX Ruling V. Merck Could Spur More Suits
LOUISIANA: Protracted Drinking Water Case to go to Trial in 2006
MATRIXX INITIATIVES: Faces Injury Lawsuits V. Zicam Cold Remedy
MATRIXX INITIATIVES: Plaintiffs File AZ Amended Securities Suit

MISSOURI: Homeowners Can Benefit on Suits Over Preparation Fees
MORRISON MILLING: Recalls Muffin Mixes For Undeclared Whey, Eggs
NATIONWIDE INSURANCE: Inks Pact For Allied Policyholders' Suit
NOVASTAR FINANCIAL: MO Court Refuses To Dismiss Securities Suit
NOVASTAR HOME: Reaches Settlement For CA Employee Wage Lawsuit

PACIFIC INVESTMENT: Investor's Suit Alleges Futures Manipulation
PDI INC.: NJ Court Dismisses Second Consolidated, Amended Suit
PEROT SYSTEMS: Asks TX Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Lawsuit
PFIZER INC.: IN Resident Launches Suit Over Viagra's Side Effect
PIONEER NATURAL: KS Court Yet To Rule in Royalty Owners Lawsuit

PRAECIS PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces MA Consolidated Securities Suit
SIEBEL SYSTEMS: Plaintiffs File Second Amended Securities Suit
STORK CRAFT: Recalls 3.3T Toy Boxes Due to Strangulation Hazard
TUT SYSTEMS: NY Court Preliminarily Approves Lawsuit Settlement
TANYA IVELISSE: Recalls Cheese Due to Raw Milk, Improper Aging  

TASER INTERNATIONAL: Police Chief Sues, Alleging Severe Injury
VICURON PHARMACEUTICALS: PA Court Refuses To Dismiss Stock Suit
WELLS REAL: Plaintiffs To Appeal GA Investor Lawsuit Dismissal


             Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences

                New Securities Fraud Cases

ATI TECHNOLOGIES: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in PA
ATI TECHNOLOGIES: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Suit in PA
COGENT COMMUNICATIONS: Marc S. Henzel Lodges DC Securities Suit
HOST AMERICA: Scott + Scott Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CT
ISOLAGEN INC.: Charles J. Piven Files Securities Suit in S.D. TX


                            *********


AVISTA CORPORATION: Asks Review of Refusal To Dismiss WA Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Avista Corporation asked the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Washington to reconsider its ruling
denying its motion to dismiss the consolidated securities class
action filed against it.  The suit also names as defendants:

     (1) Thomas M. Matthews, the former Chairman of the Board,
         President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,

     (2) Gary G. Ely, the current Chairman of the Board,
         President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
         and

     (3) Jon E. Eliassen, the former Senior Vice President and
         Chief Financial Officer of the Company.

The suit, styled "In re Avista Corp. Securities Litigation,"
alleges violations of the federal securities laws in connection
with alleged misstatements and omissions of material fact
pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.  The plaintiffs allege that the Company did not
have adequate risk management processes, procedures and
controls. The plaintiffs further allege that the Company engaged
in unlawful energy trading practices and allegedly manipulated
western power markets. The plaintiffs assert that alleged
misstatements and omissions regarding these matters were made in
the Company's filings with the Securities and Exchange
Commission and other information made publicly available by the
Company, including press releases.  The class action complaint
asserts claims on behalf of all persons who purchased,
converted, exchanged or otherwise acquired the Company's common
stock during the period between November 23, 1999 and August 13,
2002.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss this complaint in October
2003 and the plaintiffs filed an answer to this motion in
January 2004.  Arguments before the Court on the motion were
held on March 19, 2004.  On April 15, 2004, the Court called for
additional briefing on what effect, if any, the FERC proceedings
have on this case.  On July 30, 2004, the Court denied the
Company's motion to dismiss this complaint, holding, among other
things, that the FERC proceedings may ultimately have some
evidentiary value relevant to the disclosure issues raised in
this case, but they do not preclude the resolution of those
issues by the Court.  In November 2004, the Company filed its
answer to the complaint, denying the plaintiffs' allegations.

On June 13, 2005, the Company filed a motion for reconsideration
of its earlier motion to dismiss this complaint, based, in part,
on a recent United States Supreme Court decision with respect to
the pleading requirements surrounding a sufficient showing of
loss causation. In July 2005, the plaintiffs responded to the
Company's motion for reconsideration and the matter is scheduled
for arguments in September 2005 before the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Washington.


CHIQUITA BRANDS: Customers Launch Antitrust Lawsuits in S.D. FL
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chiquita Brands International, Inc. and three of its competitors
face five class actions filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Florida on behalf of entities
that purchased bananas in the United States directly from the
defendants from May 2003 (in one case from July 2001) until the
present.

The complaints allege that the defendants engaged in a
conspiracy to artificially raise or maintain prices and control
and restrict output of bananas in the United States. The
plaintiffs seek treble damages for violation of Section 1 of the
Sherman Antitrust Act. The complaints provide no specific
information regarding the allegations.


CORN PRODUCTS: Shareholders Launch Securities Fraud Suits in IL
---------------------------------------------------------------
Corn Products International, Inc. and certain of its officers
face several securities class actions filed between May 20, 2005
and June 27, 2005 in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois.

Specifically, the suits were filed by these plaintiffs, in each
case individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, on
the following dates:

     (1) Monty Blatt, May 20, 2005;

     (2) Dale Anderson, May 27, 2005;

     (3) Adam Shapiro, June 1, 2005;

     (4) Neil Hildebrand, June 24, 2005; and

     (5) Philip Brust, June 27, 2005

The complaints allege violations of certain federal securities
laws and seek unspecified damages on behalf of a class of
purchasers of the Company's common stock between January 25,
2005 and April 4, 2005.  The plaintiffs allege that the Company
made false and misleading statements and omissions of material
facts based on its disclosure regarding earnings projections and
operating margins, claiming alleged violations by each named
defendant of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and alleged
violations by certain of the Company's officers of Section 20A
of Securities Exchange Act of 1934.


CORN PRODUCTS: Faces Corn Syrup Antitrust Suit in Canadian Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Corn Products International, Inc. faces an antitrust class
action filed on June 13, 2005 in the Supreme Court of British
Colombia.

The suit also names five other defendants.  Although the Company
has not been served, the complaint purportedly alleges fixing
the price of high-fructose corn syrup sold in Canada during the
period from 1988 to June 1995.


COX RADIO: Plaintiffs Drop Appeal of GA TCPA Lawsuit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their appeal of the dismissal
of a class action against Cox Radio, Inc., alleging violations
of the Federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).

On June 13, 2001, the Company was named as defendant in a
putative class action suit filed in an amended complaint in the
state court in Fulton County, Georgia.  The complaint seeks
statutory damages in the amount of $1,500, plus attorneys' fees,
on behalf of each person "throughout the State of Georgia" who
received an unsolicited pre-recorded telephone message
delivering an "unsolicited advertisement" from a Cox Radio radio
station.  

The Company filed an answer to the complaint denying liability
and asserting numerous defenses. Thereafter, proceedings in this
case were stayed pending rulings by the Georgia Court of Appeals
in a similar action pending against another radio broadcast
company. On July 3, 2003, the FCC issued a Report and Order
holding, among other things, that pre-recorded telephone
messages by broadcasters made for the purpose of inviting
consumers to listen to a free broadcast are not "unsolicited
advertisements" prohibited by the TCPA.

On October 24, 2003, the Company filed a motion for judgment on
the pleadings seeking the dismissal of plaintiffs' claims on
grounds that the calls in question were permissible under the
TCPA and the FCC's implementing rules and, alternatively, that
the application of the TCPA to the facts of this case would
violate the Company's constitutional rights to free speech,
equal protection and due process. On February 3, 2004,
plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint in support of their
contention that the messages at issue were not exempted by the
terms of the FCC Report and Order. On March 25, 2004, the court
entered an order ruling that the calls at issue were not
prohibited by the TCPA and its implementing regulations,
granting the Company's motion for judgment on the pleadings, and
dismissing the plaintiffs' claims.  Plaintiffs filed a notice of
appeal from these rulings on April 21, 2004 but voluntarily
dismissed their appeal on June 8, 2005.


DECODE GENETICS: NY Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
deCODE Genetics, Inc., its chief executive officer and chief
financial officer faces a consolidated class action filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.  

Several suits were initially filed, alleging violations of
federal securities laws arising from certain of the Company's
public statements.  The complaints are brought by plaintiffs
seeking to represent a purported class consisting of all persons
who purchased the Company's common stock during the period from
October 29, 2003 through August 26, 2004.  The complaints also
allege that the Company made misleading statements,
misrepresentations and omissions regarding its financial
performance, compliance with generally accepted accounting
principles and its internal controls.  The complaints all arise
out of the same alleged statements, and have been consolidated
before a single Judge.  The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary
damages and other relief.

On May 13, 2005, the court approved the Notice of Agreed Motion
and Proposed Order of Voluntary Dismissal filed by the
plaintiffs on May 4, 2005, thereby terminating the action.

The lead case in the litigation is styled "Bassin v. deCode
Genetics, Inc., et al., case no. 1:04-cv-07050-RJH," filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York, under Judge Richard J. Holwell.  Lead counsel for the
plaintiffs is David Avi Rosenfeld, Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia,
Geller, Rudman & Robbins, LLP 200 Broadhollow Road, Ste. 406
Melville, NY 11747 Phone: 631-367-7100 Fax: 631-367-1173 Email:
drosenfeld@lerachlaw.com.


DOMINO'S PIZZA: Faces Two Employee Wage, Hour Suits in CA Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Domino's Pizza, Inc. faces several lawsuits related to
employment practices and wage and hour claims filed in the
Orange County, California Superior Court by certain of the
Company's former employees.

On June 10, 2003, a class action complaint was filed alleging
that the Company failed to provide meal and rest breaks to its
employees.  This case is in the discovery stage and no
determination with respect to class certification has been made.

On August 19, 2004, a former general manager filed a lawsuit,
alleging that the Company misclassified the position of general
manager as an exempt employee.  This case involves the issue of
whether employees and former employees in the general manager
position who worked in the Company's 60 California stores during
specified time periods were misclassified as exempt and deprived
of overtime pay. This case is in the earliest stages of
discovery, and the status of the class action certification is
yet to be determined.


EPIX PHARMACEUTICALS: Shareholders Launch Securities Fraud Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs asked the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts to consolidated the securities class
actions filed against EPIX Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and certain of
its officers, alleging federal securities law violations.

On January 27, 2005, a securities class action was filed on
behalf of persons who purchased the Company's common stock
between July 10, 2003 and January 14, 2005.  The complaint
alleges that the defendants violated of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 by issuing a series of materially false and
misleading statements to the market throughout the class period,
which statements had the effect of artificially inflating the
market price of the Company's securities.  

After this initial complaint was filed, other similar actions
were filed against the Company and the same officers in the same
court.  One of these later-filed complaints purports to be
brought on behalf of persons who purchased the Company's common
stock between March 18, 2002 and January 14, 2005.

Since these actions were filed, various plaintiffs have filed
motions to consolidate the related actions, and to appoint a
lead plaintiff and lead counsel.  These motions are currently
pending decision by the U.S. District Court.


FREEMARKETS INC.: Settlement Reached in Shareholder Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A $3.4 million preliminary settlement was reached in a class
action lawsuit filed against FreeMarkets Inc. in 2001, The
PittsburghLIVE.com reports.

Acquired by Sunnyvale, California-based Ariba Inc. in July 2004
for $500 million, FreeMarkets was accused of inflating revenue
from one of its largest customers, the car-part manufacturer
Visteon Corporation, between July 24, 2000, and April 23, 2001.

FreeMarkets admitted no wrongdoing as part of an agreement to
settle the suit, wherein investors claimed that Visteon payments
should not have been counted as revenue as FreeMarkets issued
Visteon discounted stock warrants in exchange for Visteon's
purchase of software and services from FreeMarkets.

Since April 27, 2001, securities fraud class action complaints
have been filed against the Company and two executive officers
in federal court in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The complaints,
all of which assert the same claims, stem from the Company's
announcement on April 23, 2001 that, as a result of ongoing
discussions with the staff of the SEC, the Company was
considering amending its 2000 financial statements for the
purpose of reclassifying fees earned by the Company under a
service contract with Visteon. The Company and the individual
defendants though believe that the plaintiffs' allegations are
completely without merit and they intend to defend these claims
vigorously, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (May 17,
2001) reports.


ISOLAGEN INC.: To Ask TX Court To Dismiss Shareholder Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Isolagen, Inc. (Amex: ILE) and certain of its current and former
officers and directors intend to ask the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Texas to dismiss the
consolidated class action filed against them, alleging
violations of federal securities laws.  

The action purports to be a class action brought on behalf of
all persons who purchased publicly traded securities of Isolagen
between March 3, 2004 and August 1, 2005. The Complaint asserts
claims under section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  The
company and the individual Defendants have engaged counsel and
expect to file a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint under the
provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of
1995.


KADANT COMPOSITES: Recalls 11T Constructed Decks For Injury Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC), Kadant Composites Inc., of Bedford, Massachusetts is
voluntarily recalling about 11,000 units of GeoDeckT Decking and
Railing Materials/constructed decks.

When the decking or railing material is exposed to hot
temperatures and sunlight, it can prematurely degrade. The
degraded material could break, posing a fall hazard to
consumers. Kadant Composites has received about 370 reports of
accelerated degradation of the decking material. No injuries
have been reported.

GeoDeckT is a composite decking product that looks similar to
natural wood and is sold in three colors including: driftwood,
cedar and mahogany. The decking materials were manufactured
between April 2002 and October 2003. Each decking and railing
component has a manufacturing date stamp (day/month/year) on the
cut end, which may still be visible on uninstalled materials.
Picture of the recalled materials:

     (1) http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml05/05247.jpg.

Manufactured in the United States, GeoDeck was sold at all
retail lumberyards nationwide from April 2002 through July 2005
for between about $2 and $2.50 per linear foot.

Consumers should check their GeoDeckT decking materials for
visible cracks on the surface and check to see if the surface
can be easily scratched with a fingernail or the corner of a
credit card. If the deck/rail is degrading, contact GeoDeckT
customer service to receive replacement decking and/or railing
materials.

Consumer Contact: Contact GeoDeckT customer service at
(800) 545-1710 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through
Friday, or visit their Web site:
http://www.KadantCompositesRecall.com.


LOUISIANA: Lawyers Say TX Ruling V. Merck Could Spur More Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Texas jury's recent $253 million verdict against the maker of
painkiller Vioxx, Merck & Co. is likely to spur additional
lawsuits by patients who took the once-popular drug, according
to a Louisiana attorney who has filed a federal suit against the
pharmaceutical giant, The Shreveport Times reports.

Shreveport attorney Ron Miciotto, who recently fielded phone
calls from 15 potential claimants after the decision was handed
down last week told The Shreveport Times, "I think it's going to
have a continued effect on filing more suits," adding, "I don't
think it's the money. It's the idea that finally somebody has
brought the drug company to task."

The court verdict could lay the precedent for approximately
4,200 pending suits over the drug Vioxx, most of which were
filed when Merck voluntarily pulled Vioxx off the market last
September after studies raised concerns the drug increased the
risk of heart attack or stroke.

The next few days might be the most critical for Merck. The
question that is especially disturbing to the company will be
whether the Texas case will resonate in the class action cases
that Merck is currently facing, an earlier Class Action Reporter
story (August 23, 2005) reports.

Twenty-two of those lawsuits were eventually filed in the
Western District of Louisiana's Shreveport division, some within
a month of Vioxx's removal from pharmacy shelves. All of them
more or less make the same claim, that Vioxx caused heart
problems, heart attacks, strokes, blood clots in arteries,
congestive heart failure and other problems.

The recent ruling will likely spur new cases. As of mid-August,
there were 119 Vioxx-related class actions and approximately 20
more in state courts, each of which could have hundreds or
thousands of claimants.

Another Shreveport attorney Willie Singleton, who since the
start of the Texas trial has spoken with 14 people about
potential claims told The Shreveport Times, "People have gained
more of an awareness that Vioxx may cause strokes or heart
attacks and now they're more likely than not going to be seeking
counsel to see if they have a viable claim."  

Mr. Singleton is one of seven lawyers selected nationwide to
serve on the state liaison committee that will coordinate trial
and deposition dates in the first federal class action lawsuit
in New Orleans. Existing and new federal lawsuits nationwide
will be transferred to the Eastern District of Louisiana where
U.S. District Judge Eldon E. Fallon will oversee proceedings. It
could be at least a year before the outcome of existing lawsuits
is determined, according to individuals familiar with the
matter.

The Texas case involves Carol Ernst, who is seeking compensation
for the death of her husband Robert, allegedly of arrhythmia, in
2001. Mr. Ernst, a produce manager at a Wal-Mart near Fort Worth
who ran marathons and worked as a personal trainer, took Vioxx
for eight months to alleviate pain in his hands until he died in
his sleep, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (July 27,
2005) reports.

Mrs. Ernst's lawsuit alleges that Merck & Co. knew of the
dangers of using Vioxx years before it recalled the drug.  
However, the Company allegedly ignored those concerns in favor
of aggressive marketing for a multibillion-dollar seller, an
earlier Class Action Reporter story (July 27, 2005) reports.

Merck's lawyers though denied the charges, saying that the
company studied whether Vioxx caused arrhythmias in nine
clinical trials before the drug went on the market in May 1999
and found "no clinically meaningful differences" in patients who
took the painkiller compared to those who took sugar pills or
other anti-inflammatory pain relievers, an earlier Class
Action Reporter story (July 28,2005) reports. The lawyers
further asserted that the Company acted responsibly, disclosed
studies on Vioxx and believed it to be safe until results from
the long-term study last year prompted pulling the drug.

In addition, Merck's lawyers contends that a heart attack most
likely killed Mr. Ernst, not arrhythmia, but he died too quickly
for his heart to show damage. They have singled out Mr. Ernst's
autopsy, which attributed his death to arrhythmia, or an
irregular heartbeat, secondary to clogged arteries, an earlier
Class Action Reporter story (August 23, 2005) reports.


LOUISIANA: Protracted Drinking Water Case to go to Trial in 2006
----------------------------------------------------------------
A five-year-old Ferriday drinking water case is finally moving
forward, The Natchez Democrat reports.

After a recent court hearing, attorneys for both sides told The
Natchez Democrat that the case, Gloria Martello v. the City of
Ferriday and Owen and White, Inc., will go to trial in May 2006.
The second phase, the liability trial, will be heard in court in
October 2006.

The suit stems from a 124-day long "boil water" notice the city
issued in 1999 because of a breakdown in Ferriday's water
treatment plant. Gloria Martello, the owner of Ferriday
restaurant Brocato's, filed the suit, seeking damages against
the city and the firm that built the plant, citing losses she
suffered because she was forced to bring in water and ice during
the notice. Later, it was expanded into a class action suit and
has been winding its way through the courts with several trips
to the Circuit Court of Appeals in Lake Charles ever since.

Lawyers for all parties recently agreed on a schedule for the
remaining hearings and trial dates, according to Stephen Wilson,
attorney for Owen and White, and Lynda Harang, a lawyer for Ms.
Martello and the plaintiffs. Mr. Wilson also told The Natchez
Democrat that he is waiting to find out from the plaintiffs what
the specific allegations of fraud in the case entail.

Ms. Harang told The Natchez Democrat that she and her fellow
lawyers, including Vidalia's Chuck Norris, are still taking
depositions and getting discovery information at this point in
preparation for the trial.

The suit is styled, Gloria Martello v. the City of Ferriday and
Owen and White, Inc. Linda Suzanna Harang of the Law Offices of
Linda S. Harang, LLC, 5817 Citrus Blvd., Suite H, Jefferson, LA,
70123, Phone: (504) 734-2486 and Charles Shelby Norris, Jr.,
Attorney at Law, P.O. Box 400, Vidalia, LA, 71373, Phone:
(318) 336-1999, are representing the Plaintiffs. Stephen R.
Wilson of Keogh, Cox & Wilson, Ltd., 701 Main St., P.O. Box
1151, Baton Rouge, LA, 70821, Phone: (225) 383-37.

For more details, visit:
http://la3circuit.org/opinions/2004/11/110304/04-0090opi.pdf.


MATRIXX INITIATIVES: Faces Injury Lawsuits V. Zicam Cold Remedy
---------------------------------------------------------------
Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. faces approximately 368 claims in
different lawsuits generally alleging that the Company's Zicam
Cold Remedy product caused the permanent loss or diminishment of
the sense of smell or smell and taste.  Two of these lawsuits
were filed as class action lawsuits covering named and unnamed
plaintiffs, but one of the class action lawsuits has been
dismissed, as have the claims of several individual plaintiffs.  
The current cases that have been filed against the Company are:

     (1) Abramsen, et al. vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al.,
         filed March 8, 2004, in the Superior Court of Arizona
         (Maricopa County), Case No. CV2004-04415, consolidated
         under In Re Consolidated Zicam Product Liability Cases,
         Superior Court of Arizona (Maricopa County), Case No.
         CV2004-001338;

     (2) Adams, et al., vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al.,
         filed May 6, 2004, in the Superior Court of Arizona
         (Maricopa County), Case No. CV2004-008929, consolidated
         under In Re Consolidated Zicam Product Liability Cases,
         Superior Court of Arizona (Maricopa County), Case No.
         CV2004-001338;

     (3) Adamson, et al. vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al.,
         filed February 1, 2005, in the Superior Court of
         Arizona (Maricopa County), Case No. CV2005-001880,
         consolidated under In Re Consolidated Zicam Product
         Liability Cases, Superior Court of Arizona (Maricopa
         County), Case No. CV2004-001338;

     (4) Akers, et al. vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al.,
         filed August 20, 2004, in the Superior Court of Arizona
         (Maricopa County), Case No. CV2004-016010, consolidated
         under In Re Consolidated Zicam Product Liability Cases,
         Superior Court of Arizona (Maricopa County), Case No.
         CV2004-001338;

     (5) Alexander, et al. vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et
         al., filed June 30, 2005, in the Superior Court of
         Arizona (Maricopa County), Case No. CV2005-051224;

     (6) Benkwith, et al. vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al.,
         filed May 3, 2004, in the Circuit Court for Montgomery
         County, Alabama, Case No. CV04-1180 CNP; removed to
         United States District Court for the Middle District of
         Alabama, Case No. 2:04 CV-00623-F;

     (7) Bentley, et al. vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al.,
         filed January 23, 2004, in the Superior Court of
         Arizona (Maricopa County), Case No. CV2004-001338,
         consolidated under In Re Consolidated Zicam Product
         Liability Cases, Superior Court of Arizona (Maricopa
         County), Case No. CV2004-001338;

     (8) Bourgeois, Deborah vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et
         al., filed February 22, 2005, in the United States
         District Court for the Northern District of Alabama,
         Middle Division, Case No. CV-05-PT-0393-M;

     (9) Bryant vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al., filed
         June 9, 2004, in the District Court, Boulder County,
         Colorado, Case No. 04CV808, removed to United States
         District Court for the District of Colorado, Case No.
         04-MK-2317 (BNB);

    (10) Cappy, et al. vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al.,
         filed November 17, 2004, in the Superior Court of
         Arizona (Maricopa County), Case No. CV2004-021668,
         consolidated under In Re Consolidated Zicam Product
         Liability Cases, Superior Court of Arizona (Maricopa
         County), Case No. CV2004-001338;

    (11) Cash, Katie and David vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et
         al., filed January 13, 2005, in the Superior Court of
         California (Fresno County, Central Division), Case No.
         05 CE CG 00124;

    (12) Cheney, Sharon vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al.,
         filed April 20, 2005, in the Superior Court of Arizona
         (Maricopa County), Case No. CV2005-050458;

    (13) Connolly, Gay vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al.,
         filed October 22, 2004, in the State Court of Georgia
         (Cobb County), Case No. 2004A 9564-5;

    (14) Douillard, John R. vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et
         al., filed May 6, 2004, in the Superior Court of
         Arizona (Maricopa County), Case No. CV2004-008950,
         consolidated under In Re Consolidated Zicam Product
         Liability Cases, Superior Court of Arizona (Maricopa
         County), Case No. CV2004-001338;

    (15) Flores vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al., filed on
         December 30, 2004, in the Superior Court of California
         (Santa Clara County), Case No. 1:04-CV033194; removed
         to United States District Court Northern District of
         California (San Jose Division), Case No. C05 01090 PVT;

    (16) Flynn, Richard vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al.,
         filed May 20, 2005, in the Superior Court of California
         (Orange County), Case No. 05CC06403;

    (17) Gillespie, Julie vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al.,
         filed December 8, 2004, in the Superior Court of
         California (Orange County), Case No. 04CC11976; removed
         to United States District Court Central District of
         California (Southern Division), Case No. SACV 05-0047-
         DOC(ANx);

    (18) Goetz, Linda vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al.,
         filed May 18, 2005, in the Superior Court of Arizona
         (Maricopa County), Case No. CV2005-050298;

    (19) Hans, et al. vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al.,
         filed September 13, 2004, in the United States District
         Court, Western District of Kentucky, Case No.
         3:04CV540-R;

    (20) Hilton, Heather vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al.,
         filed June 17, 2004, in the State of Texas District
         Court, Tarrant County, Case No. 048-206162-04; removed
         to the United States District Court for the Northern
         District of Texas Fort Worth Division, Case No. 04CV-
         519-Y;

    (21) Hood, Michael and Terri vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc.,
         et al., filed April 14, 2004, in the Circuit Court of
         the 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County,
         Florida, General Jurisdiction Division, Case No.
         04006193;

    (22) Horvat, Diane vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al.,
         filed February 28, 2005, in Circuit Court of Cook
         County, Illinois County Department, Law Division, Case
         No. 2005L02324;


    (23) Hudson, et al. vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al.,
         filed February 11, 2005, in the Superior Court of
         Arizona (Maricopa County), Case No. CV2005-002569,
         consolidated under In Re Consolidated Zicam Product
         Liability Cases, Case No. CV 2004-001338;

    (24) Hunter, et al. vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al.,
         filed June 4, 2004, in the Superior Court of Arizona
         (Maricopa County), Case No. CV2004-010830, consolidated
         under In Re Consolidated Zicam Product Liability Cases,
         Superior Court of Arizona (Maricopa County), Case No.
         CV2004-001338;

    (25) Hurst, Janet vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al.,
         filed May 13, 2005, in the Superior Court of the State
         of California (Orange County), Case No. 05CC06195;

    (26) Kalfian, Carol A. vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et
         al., filed April 20, 2004, in the United States
         District Court for the District of Rhode Island, Case
         No. 04-119-ML;

    (27) Lusch, Barbara A. vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et
         al., filed January 14, 2005, in the Circuit Court of
         the State of Oregon, Case No. 0501-00588; removed to
         the United States District Court for the District of
         Oregon, Case No. 3:05-CV-292-HA;

    (28) Lutche, Lucy B. vs. vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et
         al., filed May 7, 2004, in the Superior Court of
         Arizona (Maricopa County), Case No. CV2004-008704,
         consolidated under In Re Consolidated Zicam Product
         Liability Cases, Superior Court of Arizona (Maricopa
         County), Case No. CV2004-001338;

    (29) Mayo, Derek vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al.,
         filed May 26, 2004, in the Superior Court of New
         Jersey, Law Division: Essex County, Docket No. ESX-L-
         3551-04; removed to the United States District Court
         for the District of New Jersey, Case No. 2:04-cv-3197;

    (30) Nelson vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al., filed
         December 8, 2003, in the Superior Court of the Sate of
         California for the County of Los Angeles, Case No.
         YC048136;

    (31) Nelson, Tommy Ray and Sherry vs. Matrixx Initiatives,
         Inc., et al., filed February 28, 2005, in the Circuit
         Court for Roane County, Tennessee, Case No. 13328,
         removed to the United States District Court for the
         Eastern District of Tennessee Northern Division, Case
         No. 3:05-CV-193;

    (32) O'Hanlon, Dennis and Bonnie vs. Matrixx Initiatives,
         Inc., et al., filed October 29, 2004, in the Superior
         Court of California (Los Angeles County), Case No.
         BC322039; removed to United States District Court
         Central District of California (Los Angeles), Case No.
         CV04-10391 AHM(JTLx);

    (33) Orlansky, Robin vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al.,
         filed February 9, 2005, in the Superior Court of
         California (San Diego County), Case No. GIC 842519;

    (34) Ringbauer, et al. vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et
         al., filed February 11, 2004, in the Superior Court of
         Arizona (Maricopa County), Case No. CV2004-002822,
         removed to the United States District Court for the
         District of Arizona, Case No. CIV04-0513-PHX-EHC;
         remanded to the Superior Court of Arizona (Maricopa
         County), consolidated under In Re Consolidated Zicam
         Product Liability Cases, Superior Court of Arizona
         (Maricopa County), Case No. CV2004-001338;

    (35) Rostron, et al. vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al.,
         filed November 4, 2004, in the United States District
         Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Middle
         Division, Case No. CV-04-AR-3136-M, originally
         involving plaintiffs Rostron and McCune, was severed,
         Rostron was transferred to the United States District
         Court for the District of New Jersey by Order filed on
         March 15, 2005, Case No. 05-1547, and McCune continues
         in the United States District Court for the Northern
         District of Alabama, Middle Division, under Case No.
         CV-04-AR-3136-M;

    (36) Sutherland, Janie vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et
         al., filed December 18, 2003, in the Circuit Court of
         Etowah, Alabama, Case No. CV-2003-1635-WHR; removed to
         United States District Court for the Northern District
         of Alabama, Middle Division, Case No. CV-04-AR-0129-M;

    (37) Swanbeck, Steven vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al.,
         filed November 18, 2004, in the Superior Court of New
         Jersey Law Division: Morris County, Dock No. L-3096-04;

    (38) Wagner, Nicole vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al.,
         filed February 24, 2005, in Superior Court of
         California, County of San Diego, Case No. GIC 843335;

    (39) Williams, Rose Mary et al. vs. Matrixx Initiatives,
         Inc., et al., filed December 29, 2004, in the United
         States District Court for the Northern District of
         Alabama, Middle Division, Case No. 4:04cv-3548-UWC; and

    (40) Wyatt, Susan vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al.,
         filed June 15, 2004, in the United States District
         Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Southern
         Division, Case No. CV-04-AR-1230-S.

Generally, the cases filed in the Superior Court of Arizona have
been or the company expects will be consolidated under "In Re
Consolidated Zicam Product Liability Cases, Case No. CV
2004-001338."  Various defendants in the lawsuits, including
manufacturers and retailers, have sought indemnification or
other recovery from the Company for damages related to the
lawsuits. These cases are generally in the early stages and the
Company expects the first trial to begin in August 2005, the
Company said in a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange
Commission.  Also, plaintiffs' law firms continue to solicit
potential claimants through the Internet and other media.

In its filing, the Company said it believes the allegations
relating to Zicam Cold Remedy are unfounded. Zicam Cold Remedy
has been studied in two independent, placebo-control studies. In
those studies, there was no statistically significant difference
in adverse events between the placebo and non-placebo group, and
there was no indication in either group of impairment to the
sense of smell. Further, the incidence of smell disorders is
reported at 1% to 2% of the population on average, and is very
common in those over age 50. Upper respiratory infections are
among the most common causes of impairment to sense of smell.
Therefore, any product such as Zicam Cold Remedy designed to
treat upper respiratory illnesses may be mistakenly associated
with distortion of sense of smell. The rate of reported
complaints of distortion of sense of smell associated with Zicam
Cold Remedy is well below these national incidence levels, the
Company said in the filing.

The Company also convened a two-day meeting of its Scientific
Advisory Board in September 2004 to review the findings of
studies initiated in the first quarter of fiscal 2004. The
Scientific Advisory Board is comprised of medical doctors and
researchers that are independent of the Company.  The Company
provided honorariums for members' attendance at meetings, travel
expenses, and funded grants to design and perform research
studies investigating the contention that Zicam Cold Remedy zinc
gluconate nasal gel is associated with disorders of smell.  
Members of the Scientific Advisory Board presented the results
of their studies on the epidemiology, anatomy, and physiology of
smell disorders. It was the unanimous opinion of the Scientific
Advisory Board that the cumulative scientific evidence does not
support the contention that Zicam Cold Remedy zinc gluconate
nasal gel is associated with disorders of smell. The Scientific
Advisory Board plans to do further testing of the zinc gluconate
nasal gel on human volunteers and animal models.  The Company
said in the filing that it anticipates the Scientific Advisory
Board will reconvene from time to time to review the findings of
ongoing studies.


MATRIXX INITIATIVES: Plaintiffs File AZ Amended Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated securities class action
against Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., its President and Chief
Executive Officer, Carl J. Johnson, and its Executive Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer, William J. Hemelt,
alleging violations of federal securities laws.

Several suits were initially filed in April and May 2004.  On
January 18, 2005, the cases were consolidated and the court
appointed James V. Sircusano as lead plaintiff.  The amended
complaint also includes our Vice President of Research and
Development, Timothy L. Clarot, as a defendant and was filed
March 4, 2005. The consolidated case is "Sircusano, et al. vs.
Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al.," in the United States
District Court, District of Arizona, Case No. CV04-0886 PHX DKD.

Among other things, the lawsuit alleges that between October
2003 and February 2004, the Company made materially false and
misleading statements regarding its Zicam Cold Remedy product,
including failing to adequately disclose to the public the
details of allegations that its products caused damage to the
sense of smell and of certain of the product liability lawsuits.

The suit is styled "Siracusano, et al v. Matrixx Initiatives, et
al., case no. 2:04-cv-00886-MHM," filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Arizona under Judge
Mary H. Murguia.  Representing the plaintiffs are Ramzi Abadou,
Lukas F. Ohltz, Scott M. Saham, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller
Rudman & Robbins LLP, 401 B St, Ste 1600, San Diego, CA 92101,
Phone: (619)231-1058, E-mail: LukeO@Lerachlaw.com,
ScottS@Lerachlaw.com; and Francis Joseph Balint, Jr., Andrew S.
Friedman of Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman & Balint PC, 2901 N
Central Ave, Ste 1000, Phoenix, AZ 85012-3311, Phone:
602-274-1100, Fax: 602-274-1199, E-mail: fbalint@bffb.com,
afriedman@bffb.com.  Representing the Company are Maureen
Beyers, and David Rosenbaum of Osborn Maledon P.A., 2929 North
Central Avenue Phoenix, AZ 85012-2794, Phone: 602-640-9305, Fax:
602-664-2053, E-mail: mbeyers@omlaw.com and
drosenbaum@omlaw.com; and Amy J. Longo, Molly J. Magnuson, David
B. Rosenbaum and Michael Yoder of O'Melveny & Myers, 610 Newport
Center Dr, 17th Floor, Newport Beach, CA 92660, Phone:
949-823-7175, Fax: 949-823-6994, E-mail: alongo@omm.com,
mmagnuson@omm.com, myoder@omm.com  


MISSOURI: Homeowners Can Benefit on Suits Over Preparation Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tens of thousands of Missouri homeowners could benefit from
lawsuits that take issue with the legality of document
preparation fees, The Associated Press reports.  The suits
allege lending institutions cannot charge borrowers a legal fee
for preparing mortgage documents if they don't use a lawyer.

Last week, the Clayton firm of Green Schaaf and Jacobson, won a
judgment of $1.2 million in St. Louis County Circuit Court. In
addition, the law firm also got legal fees, plus costs, of
nearly $408,000.  The class action case was filed against
Midwest Bankcentre. An attorney for the company told The
Associated Press that he will appeal, pointing out that the
Missouri statute on practicing law does not apply.  Midwest was
the first lending institution to go to trial. A partner in the
firm told The Associated Press that a few smaller lenders have
settled.


MORRISON MILLING: Recalls Muffin Mixes For Undeclared Whey, Eggs
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Morrison Milling Company of Denton, Texas is voluntarily
recalling all lots of HyTopr Blueberry Muffin Mix because it
contains undeclared whey and eggs. People who have an allergy or
severe sensitivity to milk proteins or eggs run the risk of
serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume
the product.

The product was sold to consumers at retail stores in Texas, New
Mexico, and Louisiana and is identified as follows: "HyTopr
Blueberry Muffin Mix, Packaged in paper pouches. Net Wt 7 oz,
UPC 50700 06006, All lot codes."

The company has received information about a reported allergic
reaction concerning this product. An investigation is ongoing.  
The recall was initiated after if was discovered that an
incorrect ingredient statement was on the package. The packaging
error was limited to two day's production, and no other Morrison
Milling or HyTopr products are part of this recall.

Consumers who have purchased this muffin mix and who are known
to be allergic to milk proteins or eggs should contact The
Morrison Milling Company at 800-866-5487 or 800-580-5487 for
instructions for product disposal and a refund.


NATIONWIDE INSURANCE: Inks Pact For Allied Policyholders' Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nationwide Insurance will pay as much as $163 million to settle
a class action lawsuit that predates its 1998 purchase of Des
Moines-based Allied Insurance, The DesMoinesRegister.com
reports.

Court papers revealed that policyholders of Allied Mutual
Insurance sued the Nationwide Insurance and certain directors in
1997, charging that the property and casualty insurer improperly
transferred assets to a publicly held subsidiary company, Allied
Group.

In addition, the plaintiffs charged that those actions lowered
the value of the mutual insurer and increased the value of the
publicly held side of the company.

Nationwide Mutual Insurance, of Columbus, Ohio, bought Allied
Group in 1998 in what was one of the biggest business deals ever
for an Iowa company. Nationwide Insurance specifically paid
Allied Group stockholders $1.6 billion, while Allied Mutual
policyholders received $110 million.

Joe Case, Nationwide's spokesman told DesMoinesRegister.com that
after seven years of legal wrangling, "We think it's in the best
interest of everyone to move on."

The insurer is in the process of notifying policyholders who
could be eligible to participate in the settlement. To be
eligible, they would have had to own a policy issued by Allied
Mutual on February 18, 1993.

The suit is styled, Rieff et al., v. Evans, et al., (No.
CE35780) and is pending in the District Court for Polk County.
Thomas D. Waterman of LANE & WATERMAN, LLP, 220 N. Main St.,
Suite 600, Davenport, IA, 52801-1987 is representing the
Plaintiff/s. Harold N. Schneebeck of BROWN, WINICK, GRAVES,
GROSS, BASKERVILLE & SCHOENEBAUM, P.L.C., 666 Grand Ave., Suite
2000 Des Moines, IA, 50309-2510 and Kent M. Forney of Bradshaw,
Fowler, Proctor & Fairgrave, P.C., 801 Grand Ave., Suite 3700,
Des Moines, IA 50309-2727, are representing the Defendant/s.

For more details, on the settlement, call 1-800-589-7679 or
visit http://www.alliedmutualsettlement.com.  


NOVASTAR FINANCIAL: MO Court Refuses To Dismiss Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Missouri refused to dismiss the consolidated securities class
action filed against NovaStar Financial, Inc. and three of its
executive officers.

Since April 2004, a number of substantially similar class action
lawsuits have been filed and consolidated into a single action.  
The suit alleges that the defendants made public statements that
were misleading for failing to disclose certain regulatory and
licensing matters.  The plaintiffs purport to have brought this
consolidated action on behalf of all persons who purchased the
Company's common stock (and sellers of put options on the
Company's stock) during the period October 29, 2003 through
April 8, 2004.

On January 14, 2005, the Company filed a motion to dismiss this
action, and on May 12, 2005, the court denied such motion.

The suit is styled "In Re: Novastar Financial Securities
Litigation, case no. 4:04-cv-00330-ODS," filed in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Missouri under
Judge Ortrie D. Smith.  Representing the Company is Erin Bansal
of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, 405 Howard Street, San
Francisco, CA 94105, Phone: 415-773-5700.  Representing the
plaintiffs are Bruce D. Bernstein, Michael B. Eisenkraft and
Richard H. Weiss of Milberg, Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP,  One
Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor, New York, NY 10119, Phone:
212-594-5300; and James M. Evangelista of Chitwood Harley Harnes
LLP, 1230 Peachtree St., N.E., Suite 2300, Atlanta, GA 30309,
Phone: (404) 607-6871, fax: (404)876-4476, E-mail:
jevangelista@chitwoodlaw.com.  


NOVASTAR HOME: Reaches Settlement For CA Employee Wage Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
NovaStar Home Mortgage, Inc. (NHMI) and NovaStar Mortgage, Inc.
(NMI) reached a settlement for the class and collective action
filed in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California by an NHMI employee.

The suit was initially filed in July 2004 in the Superior Court
of California, Los Angeles County.  Subsequently, NHMI and NMI
removed the matter to the United States District Court for the
Central District of California.  The plaintiff brought this
class and collective action on behalf of herself and all past
and present employees of NHMI and NMI who were employed since
May 1, 2000 in the capacity generally described as Loan Officer.  
The plaintiff alleged that NHMI and NMI failed to pay her and
the members of the class she purported to represent overtime
premium and minimum wage as required by the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA) and California state laws for the period commencing
May 1, 2000.

In 2005, the plaintiff and NHMI agreed upon a nationwide
settlement in the amount of $3.3 million on behalf of a class of
all NHMI Loan Officers nationwide.  The settlement, which is
subject to court approval, covers all minimum wage and overtime
claims going back to July 30, 2001, and includes the dismissal
with prejudice of the claims against NMI.  Since not all class
members will elect to be part of the settlement, the Company
estimated the probable obligation related to the settlement to
be in a range of $1.5 million to $1.9 million.  

The suit is styled "Dawn Robertson v. Novastar Mortgage Inc et
al., case no. 2:04-cv-08444-NM-CT," filed in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California under
Judge Nora M. Manella.  Representing the Company are Maria A.
Audero, Paul Grossman and Stephen P. Sonnenberg, Paul Hastings
Janofsky and Walker, 515 South Flower Street, 25th Floor, Los
Angeles, CA 90071, Phone: 213-683-6000, E-mail:
mariaaudero@paulhastings.com, paulgrossman@paulhastings.com.  
Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Michael S. Duberchin, Michael S Duberchin Law Offices,
         4768 Park Granada, Suite 212, Calabasas, CA 91302-3349,
         Phone: 818-222-7484

     (2) Andre E. Jardini, Knapp Petersen & Clarke, 500 N Brand
         Blvd, 20th Fl, Glendale, CA 91203-1094, Phone: 818-547-
         5000, E-mail: aej@kpclegal.com

     (3) Dennis F. Moss, Spiro Moss Barness Harrison and Barge,
         11377 West Olympic Blvd, 5th Floor, Los Angeles, CA
         90064, Phone: 310-235-2468, E-mail:
         secretary@smbhblaw.com


PACIFIC INVESTMENT: Investor's Suit Alleges Futures Manipulation
----------------------------------------------------------------
An investor initiated a lawsuit against Pacific Investment
Management Co. (PIMCO), manager of the world's biggest bond
fund, alleging that the firm manipulated the price of June 10-
year Treasury futures contracts on the Chicago Board of Trade,
The Bloomberg News reports.

In his suit, which was filed on August 16 in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and seeks
class action status, Raymond Chiu claims PIMCO violated the
Commodity Exchange Act through "manipulative conduct" that
created "artificially high prices" in the futures market to its
benefit.

Responding to the allegations in the suit, Mark Porterfield, a
spokesman for Newport Beach-based PIMCO told The Bloomberg News,
"We strongly believe the complaint is without merit and we
intend to vigorously defend ourselves." The firm, whose chief
investment officer is Bill Gross, manages more than $400
billion. Last week, Mr. Gross gave an "unequivocal" denial to
financial news network CNBC that his firm was involved in a
shortage, or "squeeze" of Treasuries related to the contract on
which Mr. Chiu based his complaint.

Mr. Chiu stated in his suit that PIMCO owned about $10 billion
in contracts and "billions of dollars worth" of the most sought
after notes that could be used to fulfill the futures contract,
which in essence are agreements to buy or sell securities at a
set price and time.

Under the Commodity Exchange Act, it is illegal to manipulate
prices in the futures market by attempting to corner supply of a
deliverable security.

The suit is styled, Chiu v. Pacific Investment Management
Company, LLC, 1:05-cv-04681, which was filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois with
the Honorable Ronald A. Guzman, presiding. The lead Plaintiff,
Raymond Chiu is represented by the following:

     (1) Louis F. Burke of Louis F. Burke, P.C., 360 Lexington
         Ave., 14th Floor, New York, NY, 10017, Phone: (212)
         682-1700, Fax: (212) 808-4280.

     (2) Anthony F. Fata of Miller Faucher and Cafferty, LLP, 30
         North LaSalle St., Suite 3200, Chicago, IL, 60602,
         Phone: (312) 782-4880, E-mail: afata@millerfaucher.com.
  
     (3) Gary Jacobson of Lovell, Stewart Halebian, LLC, 500
         Fifth Ave., New York, NY, 10110, Phone: (212) 608-1900,
         Fax: (212) 719-4677.

     (4) Ryan Long of Lovell, Stewart Halebian, LLC, 500 Fifth,
         Ave., New York, NY, 10110, Phone: (212) 608-1900, Fax:
         (212) 719-4677.

     (5) Christopher Lovell of Lovell, Stewart Halebian, LLC,         
         500 Fifth Ave., New York, NY, 10110, Phone: (212) 608-
         1900, Fax: (212) 719-4677.

     (6) Marvin Alan Miller of Miller Faucher and Cafferty, LLP,
         30 North LaSalle St., Suite 3200, Chicago, IL, 60602,  
         Phone: (312) 782-4880, E-mail:
         mmiller@millerfaucher.com.

     (7) Jennifer Winter Sprengel of Miller Faucher and
         Cafferty, LLP, 30 North LaSalle St., Suite 3200,
         Chicago, IL, 60602, Phone: (312) 782-4880, E-mail:
         jsprengel@millerfaucher.com.


PDI INC.: NJ Court Dismisses Second Consolidated, Amended Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
PDI, Inc. (Nasdaq: PDII) reports that the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey dismissed the Second
Consolidated and Amended Class Action Complaint in In re PDI
Securities Litigation (Civil Action No.: 02-cv-0211-JLL) without
prejudice to plaintiffs.

The action was originally filed in January 2002 against PDI, its
CEO and CFO. In February 2003, PDI filed a motion to dismiss the
Second Consolidated and Amended Complaint under the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and Rules 9(b) and
12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

"We are extremely pleased with this ruling. We have said all
along that this lawsuit was totally without merit," said Charles
T. Saldarini, Vice Chairman and CEO of PDI.

The suit is styled, GARY KESSEL v. PDI SECURITIES, et al. 2:02-
cv-00211-JLL-RJH, which was filed in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey with the Honorable Jose L.
Linares presiding.

The Lead Plaintiff, Gary Kessel is represented by Allyn Zissel
Lite and Joseph J. Depalma of Lite, Depalma, Greenberg and
Rivas, LLC, Two Gateway Center, 12th Floor, Newark, NJ, 07102-
5003, Phone: (973) 623-3000, E-mail: alite@ldgrlaw.com or
jdepalma@ldgrlaw.com.  The Defendant, PDI, Inc. is represented
by Alan S. Naar of Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis, Metro
Corporate Campus One, P.O. Box 5600, Woodbridge, NJ, 07095-0988,
Phone: (732) 549-5600, E-mail: anaar@greenbaumlaw.com.

For more details, contact Stephen P. Cotugno, Executive Vice
President-Corporate Development of PDI, Inc., Phone:
+1-201-574-8617.


PEROT SYSTEMS: Asks TX Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Perot Systems Corporation asked the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division to dismiss
the second amended consolidated class action filed against Perot
Systems Corporation, Ross Perot and Ross Perot, Jr., styled
"Vincent Milano v. Perot Systems Corporation."

Eight suits were initially filed in June, July and August 2002,
alleging violations of Rule 10b-5, and, in some of the cases,
common law fraud. These suits allege that the Company's filings
with the Securities and Exchange Commission contained material
misstatements or omissions of material facts with respect to its
activities related to the California energy market. All of these
eight cases were later consolidated.

On October 19, 2004, the court dismissed the case with leave for
plaintiffs to amend. In December 2004, the plaintiffs filed a
Second Amended Consolidated Complaint.

The suit is styled "Milano v. Perot Systems Corp, et al., case
no. 3:02-cv-01269," filed in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas, under Judge Sidney A.
Fitzwater.  Representing the plaintiffs is William B. Federman,
Federman & Sherwood - Oklahoma City, 120 N Robinson, Suite 2720,
Oklahoma City, OK 73102, Phone: 405/235-1560, Fax: 405/239-2112,
E-mail: wfederman@aol.com.  Representing the Company are Stephen
G. Gleboff of Hughes & Luce, BankOne Center, 1717 Main St, Suite
2800, Dallas, TX 75201, Phone: 214/939-5500, Fax: 214/939-6100,
E-mail: steve.gleboff@hughesluce.com; and Stephen C. Rasch,
Thompson & Knight, 1700 Pacific Ave, Suite 3300, Dallas, TX
75201-4693, Phone: 214/969-1700, Fax: 214/969-1751, E-mail:
raschs@tklaw.com.  


PFIZER INC.: IN Resident Launches Suit Over Viagra's Side Effect
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Troutman, a Fort Wayne, Indiana resident launched a class
action lawsuit against the country's largest pharmaceutical
company, Pfizer Inc., alleging that the drug Viagra left him
partially blind in one eye, The Journal Gazette reports.

According to the suit, which was filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Mr.
Troutman, who received a Viagra sample package from his family
doctor, took a pill August 27, 2003, and woke the next morning
to find "dramatic reduction in vision in his left eye."

Mr. Troutman alleges that Pfizer Inc. acted negligently in the
promotion, production and distribution of the drug intended to
aid men suffering from erectile dysfunction. He claims in the
suit that he was hospitalized and underwent medical procedures
to determine the cause of the partial blindness. Mr. Troutman,
according to the suit, was not taking other medications that are
warned against in the labeling of Viagra.

In addition, Mr. Troutman contends that Pfizer misrepresented
the results of studies during promotional efforts, therefore
minimizing the risk of vision problems when marketing the drug
to the public. Pfizer, according to the suit, had the duty to
responsibly research and develop the drug but failed to do so
and failed to effectively alert consumers to the risks.

Thus, on behalf of men similarly situated, Mr. Troutman thru the
suit is seeking an unspecified amount of damages for medical
expenses incurred, loss of earnings, diminished earnings and
future medical expenses, as well as punitive damages.

In a May 2005 press release on the Pfizer Web site, Viagra has
been used in 103 clinical trials with 13,000 patients, none of
who reported having the specific eye injury that Mr. Troutman is
suing over. However, the press release also says Pfizer was in
the midst of trying to update the prescription labels to reflect
the "rare ocular occurrences." Also, the release stated that
Viagra is a safe drug that has helped more than 23 million men
and continues to be the leading drug to help those with erectile
dysfunction.

So far, according to J. Michael Loomis, Mr. Troutman's attorney,
he (Troutman) is the only person being represented in this class
action lawsuit. He told The Journal Gazette that if other men
come forward and wish to become part of the lawsuit, they could
be added as a party.

Mr. Loomis pointed out that other people who would be considered
part of the class are individuals who live in Indiana, orally
ingested Viagra at the advice of their doctor for the treatment
of erectile dysfunction, and who suffered irreversible vision
loss as a result.

The suit is styled Robert Troutman v. Pfizer Inc., 1:05-cv-
00286-WCL-RBC, which was filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Indiana with the Honorable
William C. Lee presiding. The Plaintiff, Robert Troutman is
represented by J Michael Loomis and Trisha K. Walls of Loomis
Law Office, Suite A, 1000 Airport North Office Park, Fort Wayne,
IN, 46825, Phone: 260-490-6100, Fax: 260-489-7002, E-mail:
loomislawoffice@verizon.net.


PIONEER NATURAL: KS Court Yet To Rule in Royalty Owners Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The 26th Judicial District Court of Stevens County, Kansas has
yet to enter a judgment in the class action filed against
Pioneer Natural Resources Company by two classes of royalty
owners, one for each of its gathering systems connected to its
Satanta gas plant.

The case was relatively inactive for several years.  In early
2000, the plaintiffs amended their pleadings and it now contains
two material claims.  First, the plaintiffs assert that they
were improperly charged expenses (primarily field compression),
which are a "cost of production," and for which the plaintiffs,
as royalty owners, are not responsible.  Second, the plaintiffs
claim they are entitled to 100 percent of the value of the
helium extracted at PNR's Satanta gas plant.

If the plaintiffs were to prevail on the above two claims in
their entirety, it is possible that PNR's liability (both for
periods covered by the lawsuit and from the last date covered by
the lawsuit to the present because the deductions continue to be
taken and the plaintiffs continue to be paid for a royalty share
of the helium) could reach $67.0 million, plus prejudgment
interest, the Company stated in a regulatory filing.  However,
PNR believes it has valid defenses to the plaintiffs' claims,
has paid the plaintiffs properly under their respective oil and
gas leases and other agreements, and intends to vigorously
defend itself.

The factual evidence in the case was presented to the 26th
Judicial District Court without a jury in December 2001. Oral
arguments were heard by the court in April 2002, and although
the court has not yet entered a judgment or findings, it could
do so at any time.


PRAECIS PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces MA Consolidated Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended securities class action
against Praecis Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and certain of its
officers in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts.

In December 2004 and January 2005, the Company, Chairman and
(now former) Chief Executive Officer Malcolm Gefter, President
and (now former) Chief Operating Officer Kevin F. McLaughlin,
Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer Edward C. English, and
former President and Chief Operating Officer William K. Heiden,
were named as defendants in three purported class action
securities lawsuits.  The complaints generally allege securities
fraud during the period from November 25, 2003 through December
6, 2004. Each of the complaints purports to assert claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and alleges that the
Company and the individually named defendants made materially
false and misleading public statements concerning the Company's
business and financial results, particularly relating to
statements regarding the commercialization of Plenaxis.

On February 7, 2005, a motion was filed to consolidate the three
actions and to appoint lead plaintiffs and lead counsel. On
February 18, 2005, the Company and the individual defendants
filed a brief response to that motion, reserving their rights to
challenge the adequacy and typicality, among other things, of
the proposed lead plaintiffs in connection with class
certification proceedings, if any.  On April 13, 2005, the Court
entered an Order granting the plaintiffs' motion to consolidate
the three actions (as well as each case that relates to the same
subject matter that may be subsequently filed in or transferred
to the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts), appoint lead plaintiffs and approve such
plaintiffs' selection of co-lead counsel. On August 1, 2005,
lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint.

Those purported class actions are captioned:

     (i) Katz v. Praecis Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Malcolm Gefter,
         Kevin McLaughlin, Edward English and William K. Heiden,
         Civil Action No. 04-12581-GAO (filed December 9, 2004),
         under Judge George A. O'Toole, Jr.

    (ii) Schwartz v. Praecis Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Malcolm
         Gefter, Kevin McLaughlin, Edward English and William K.
         Heiden, Civil Action No. 04-12704-REK (filed December
         27, 2004) under Judge Robert E. Keeton and

   (iii) Bassin v. Praecis Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Malcolm L.
         Gefter, Ph.D., Kevin F. McLaughlin, Edward C. English
         and William K. Heiden, Civil Action No. 05-10134-GAO
         (filed January 21, 2005) under Judge George A. O'Toole,
         Jr.

The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

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

     (b) Dyer & Shuman, LLP 801 East 17th Avenue, Denver, CO,
         80218-1417, Phone: 303.861.3003, Fax: 800.711.6483, E-
         mail: info@dyershuman.com

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

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

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

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

     (g) Shapiro, Haber & Urmy LLP 75 State Street, Boston, MA,
         02109, Phone: 617.439.3939, Fax: 617.439.0134, E-mail:
         info@shulaw.com  


SIEBEL SYSTEMS: Plaintiffs File Second Amended Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a second amended class action against Siebel
Systems, Inc. and certain of its officers in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California.

On March 10, 2004, William Wollrab, on behalf of himself and
purportedly on behalf of a class of the Company's stockholders,
filed the suit, alleging claims in connection with various
public statements made by the Company and seeking damages
together with interest and reimbursement of costs and expenses
of litigation.

This complaint was consolidated and amended on August 27, 2004,
with the Policemen's Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chicago being
appointed to serve as lead plaintiff. In October 2004, the
Company filed a motion for dismissal of this case, which was
granted on January 28, 2005. Plaintiffs in this case filed a
second amended complaint on February 28, 2005, and the Company
intends to file a motion to dismiss as soon as practical.

Another securities class action is pending against the Company
and certain members of its board of directors in the Superior
Court of California.  On April 12, 2004, Pamela Plotkin, on
behalf of herself and purportedly on behalf of a class of the
Company's stockholders, filed the suit, which alleges claims in
connection with various public statements made by the Company
and seeks damages together with interest and reimbursement of
costs and expenses of litigation.

The court dismissed the complaint on September 23, 2004, but
gave Ms. Plotkin leave to file a new, amended complaint, which
was subsequently filed by Ms. Plotkin. The court dismissed the
amended complaint on December 28, 2004, but again gave Ms.
Plotkin leave to file a new, amended complaint. Ms. Plotkin
filed a new amended complaint on January 14, 2005. On February
2, 2005, the parties to this complaint agreed to stay (i.e.,
place on hold) the entire case until June 1, 2005.

The suit is styled "In re Siebel Systems, Inc. Securities
Litigation, case no. 04-CV-00983," filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California.  The
plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

     (1) Barrack, Rodos & Bacine (Main office, Philadelphia),
         3300 Two Commerce Square, 2001 Market Street,
         Philadelphia, PA, 19103, Phone: 215.963.0600, Fax:
         215.963.0838, E-mail: info@barrack.com

     (2) Barrack, Rodos & Bacine (San Diego), 402 West Broadway,
         San Diego, CA, 92101, Phone: 619.230.0800, Fax:
         619.230.1874, E-mail: info@barrack.com

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

     (4) Finkelstein & Krinsk LLP

     (5) Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP, 100 Park
         Avenue, New York, NY, 10017, Phone: 212.907.0700, Fax:
         212.818.0477, E-mail: info@glrslaw.com

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

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

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

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

    (10) Law Offices of Bernard M. Gross, 1515 Locust Street,
         2nd Floor, Philadelphia, PA, 19102, Phone: 215-561-
         3600, Fax: 215-561-3000, bmgross@bernardmgross.com

    (11) Law Offices of Marc Henzel, 273 Montgomery Ave., Suite
         202, Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610.660.8000, Fax:
         610.660.8080, E-mail: mhenzel182@aol.com


STORK CRAFT: Recalls 3.3T Toy Boxes Due to Strangulation Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC), Stork Craft Manufacturing Inc., of Richmond, British
Columbia, Canada is voluntarily recalling about 3,300 units of
Stork Craft Toy Boxes.

The toy box's lid support can fail, allowing the lid to collapse
suddenly. This poses a strangulation hazard to young children,
and possible impact injuries to a child's head, neck, fingers or
hands. CPSC and Stork Craft have received two reports of the lid
collapsing. No injuries have been reported. Stork Craft has
received 11 consumer requests for replacement lid supports.

The recall includes toy boxes with manufacture date codes
between November 2002 and July 2004 and the following model
numbers and colors: 01520-331 - white, 01520-334 - cherry,
01520-33C - cognac, 01520-33L - oak, and 01520-33N - natural.
The manufacture date codes, model numbers, and colors are
located on a label underneath the toy boxes. The toy boxes
measure 27-inches long by 18-inches wide and 17-inches high. The
boxes are constructed of pine.

Manufactured in China, the toy boxes were sold at Wal-Mart and
J.C. Penney Web sites, and at furniture, baby and juvenile
stores nationwide from December 2002 through April 2005 for
about $90.

Consumers should immediately stop young children from using
these toy boxes and contact Stork Craft for information to
determine if their toy box lid support needs to be replaced. If
so, the firm will provide a free replacement lid support.

Consumer Contact: Contact Stork Craft toll-free at
(877) 274-0277 between 7 a.m. and 3 p.m. PT Monday through
Friday, or go to the firm's Web site: http://www.Storkcraft.com.


TUT SYSTEMS: NY Court Preliminarily Approves Lawsuit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against Tut Systems,
Inc. and certain of its current and former officers and
directors.

On October 30, 2001, the Company and certain of its current and
former officers and directors were named as defendants in a suit
styled "Whalen v. Tut Systems, Inc., et al., Case No. 01-CV-
9563."  An amended complaint was filed on December 5, 2001. A
consolidated amended complaint was filed on April 19, 2002.

The consolidated amended complaint asserts that the prospectuses
from the Company's January 29, 1999 initial public offering and
its March 23, 2000 secondary offering failed to disclose certain
alleged actions by the underwriters for the offerings. The
complaint alleges claims against the Company and certain of its
current and former officers and directors under Section 11 of
the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and under Section 10(b)
and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and alleges claims against certain of its current and
former officers and directors under Sections 15 and 20(a) of the
Securities Act. The complaint also names as defendants the
underwriters for the Company's initial public offering and
secondary offering.

Similar suits were filed in the Southern District of New York
challenging over 300 other initial public offerings and
secondary offerings conducted in 1999 and 2000.  Therefore, for
pretrial purposes, the "Whalen" action is being coordinated with
the approximately 300 other suits before United States District
Court Judge Shira Scheindlin of the Southern District of New
York under the matter "In Re Initial Public Offering Securities
Litigation."  "The individual defendants in the "Whalen" action,
namely, Nelson Caldwell, Salvatore D'Auria and Matthew Taylor,
were dismissed without prejudice by an October 9, 2002 Order of
the Court, approving the parties' October 1, 2002 Stipulation of
Dismissal. On February 19, 2003, the Court issued an Opinion and
Order denying the Company's motion to dismiss.

In June 2004, a stipulation of settlement for the claims against
the issuer-defendants, including the Company, was submitted to
the Court on June 14, 2004 in the "In Re Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation."  On February 15, 2005, the Court granted
preliminary approval of the settlement, conditioned upon the
parties' modification of a proposed bar order with respect to
potential contribution claims. The settlement is subject to a
number of conditions, most of which are outside of the Company's
control, including approval by the Court. The underwriters named
as defendants in the "In Re Initial Public Offering Securities
Litigation" (collectively, the "underwriter-defendants"),
including the underwriters named in the "Whalen" suit, are not
parties to the stipulation of settlement.

The stipulation of settlement provides that, in exchange for a
release of claims against the settling issuer-defendants, the
insurers of all of the settling issuer-defendants will provide a
surety undertaking to guarantee plaintiffs a $1 billion recovery
from the non-settling defendants, including the underwriter-
defendants. The ultimate amount, if any, that may be paid on
behalf of the Company will therefore depend on the final terms
of the settlement, including the number of issuer-defendants
that ultimately participate in the final settlement, and the
amounts, if any, recovered by the plaintiffs from the
underwriter-defendants and other non-settling defendants.

In the event that all or substantially all of the issuer-
defendants participate in the final settlement, the amount that
may be paid to the plaintiffs on behalf of the Company could
range from zero to approximately $7.0 million, depending on
plaintiffs' recovery from the underwriter-defendants and from
other non-settling parties and the amount of insurance available
under the Company's applicable insurance policies. If the
plaintiffs recover at least $1 billion from the underwriter-
defendants, no settlement payments would be made on behalf of
the Company under the proposed terms of the settlement.  If the
plaintiffs recover less than $1 billion, the Company believes
that its insurance will likely cover some or all of its share of
any payments towards satisfying plaintiffs' $1 billion recovery
deficit.

The suit is styled "In re Tut Systems, Inc. Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, case no. 01-CV-9563-SAS" filed
in relation to "IN RE INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERING SECURITIES
LITIGATION, Master File No. 21 MC 92 (SAS)," both pending in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, under Judge Shira N. Scheindlin.  The plaintiff firms in
this litigation are:

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

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

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

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

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

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


TANYA IVELISSE: Recalls Cheese Due to Raw Milk, Improper Aging  
--------------------------------------------------------------  
State Agriculture Commissioner Nathan L. Rudgers alerted
consumers that Tanya Ivelisse Torres, DBA NY Dominican Cheese
Factory, 693 Rhinelander Avenue, Bronx, NY 10462 is recalling
certain packaged cheese products because the cheese was made
from unpasteurized milk and not properly aged. Unpasteurized
milk may contain pathogens which can cause severe illness and in
certain cases death.

The cheese is marketed under the brand name "Don Chepe" and two
styles of cheese are involved in this recall: "Queso Blanco De
Freir" and "Queso Amarillo De Freir."  The processing plant code
"36-8588" appears on the label and the products are packaged in
shrink wrapped plastic. Both products, regardless of date code,
are involved in the recall.   The products are sold in the
metropolitan New York area.

The packaged cheese is being recalled because it has been made
from unpasteurized or raw milk and has not been properly aged.  
Raw milk may contain pathogens and the consumption of raw milk
products increases the risk of gastrointestinal illness due to
the likelihood that it may contain infective doses of human
pathogens.

The cheese products were distributed to customers in the New
York City Metro Area.

No illnesses have been reported to the Department to date.

The recall was initiated after sampling by New York State
Department of Agriculture and Markets Dairy Products Specialists
and subsequent analysis by the Department's Food Laboratory
personnel revealed that milk used to manufacture the cheese was
not pasteurized.  An investigation discovered that the cheese
was not properly aged according to Department dairy product
safety regulations.


TASER INTERNATIONAL: Police Chief Sues, Alleging Severe Injury
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jacob "Pete" Herring, chief of police in Hallsville, Missouri
initiated a lawsuit against Taser International and two police
equipment supply companies, claiming that he was severely
injured when shocked with a Taser weapon during training, The
St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports.

The police chief's suit joins more than 30 others from around
the country that claim Tasers caused or contributed to injuries
or deaths. Hallsville, a town of about 1,000 people, is
approximately 10 miles northeast of Columbia, Missouri.

One of those suits was filed by a Florida attorney Paul Geller,
which claimed that that the company used bogus safety claims to
market its stun guns to police departments across the country,
leaving officers with weapons that they can't use as intended
without risking harm and liability. That suit was filed on
behalf of the police department of Dolton, Illinois, a small
agency that spent $8,572 on Tasers and accessories but stopped
using the weapons after the village's mayor asked for a
moratorium on Taser use, an earlier Class Action Reporter story
(July 21, 2005) reports

According to company numbers, more than 7,000 law enforcement
agencies worldwide use the devices as a non-lethal alternative
to firearms. Technically, the devices resemble pistols but fire
tiny metal barbs up to 21 feet to carry a high-voltage
electrical charge that causes quick but generally brief
incapacitation. Many law enforcement departments across Missouri
and Illinois armed at least some of their officers with the
devices.

The suit by the police chief states that he suffered at least
two strokes, loss and impairment of his vision and hearing,
neurological damage, a head injury and "significant cardiac
damage" after being shocked by a Taser M26 during a class on
April 20, 2004. He is seeking unspecified financial damages.

In an e-mail responding to a reporter's questions though, Taser
spokesman Steve Tuttle wrote to The St. Louis Post-Dispatch, "We
are aware of this (lawsuit) filing and intend to aggressively
fight any such claim."

Police Chief Herring's suit, filed in St. Louis Circuit Court,
states that Hallsville bought an M26 Taser in November 2003 from
the Ed Roehr Auto Radio Company in St. Louis, which is named as
a co-defendant.

According to Spencer Eisenmenger, one of the police chief's
lawyers, in April 2004, during a training session conducted by
the Law Enforcement Equipment Co., another firm that was named
as a co-defendant, the police chief agreed to be shot with the
Taser after being assured that it was safe. The suit contends
that the training staff didn't have adequate padded mats to
protect him when he fell and weren't in the right position to
catch him after he was shocked. Mr. Eisenmenger stated that the
police chief had been attached to an electrocardiogram machine
at the time he was shot, at his insistence.

The suit also says that Taser did not conduct enough research on
the effect on people with heart conditions and didn't warn users
of the danger. It also said that the police chief bought the
Taser and allowed it to be tested on him because of Taser
International ads, informational packets and product manuals
that promised that the Taser posed a minimal risk of injury. The
suit thus states that the company either knew its safety claims
were false or didn't know whether they were true or false.

Taser's August 12 quarterly financial report reveals that the
company has been sued 14 times since 2003 in state and federal
court over allegations of injuries during training. That same
report also stated that the company faces 12 wrongful death
lawsuits and four lawsuits alleging injuries during arrest or
detention. Three other wrongful death suits have been dismissed,
while one is on hold.

Additionally, Taser's financial report also revealed that
lawsuits have been filed against the company and certain
executives, alleging that executives made false and misleading
statements about the safety of their products. Those suits were
reported in previous editions of the Class Action Reporter.

Countering the allegations of severe injuries from being shocked
with the devices, the Taser Web page cites several police
department studies that showed reductions in the need to use
force and in reports of injuries to officers and arrestees,
since Tasers were implemented. The studies also document
attempted suicides thwarted through the use of Tasers. The Web
site even cited a British study that found "very low" risk of
life-threatening or serious injuries from the M26 Taser.

In the e-mail response to The St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Mr.
Tuttle also wrote, "Studies ... have reaffirmed the overall
general safety and effectiveness of the TASER life-saving
technology. It is the safer use of force alternative available
for law enforcement agencies to subdue violent individuals who
could harm law enforcement officers, innocent citizens or
themselves."

However, another study cited on the Web site, which was released
this March, found that while Tasers are "generally effective"
and not expected to cause heart trouble, there is not enough
research to determine the consequences to people who may be
vulnerable to the effects.

Despite the new suit and others that are pending, Taser in a
statement released this month after announcing the dismissal of
an Arizona lawsuit maintains, "Our ongoing strategy is to never
settle these baseless claims and we will continue to
aggressively defend this type of frivolous litigation."


VICURON PHARMACEUTICALS: PA Court Refuses To Dismiss Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania refused to dismiss the consolidated securities
class action filed against Vicuron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and
certain of its senior officers.

Beginning on June 15, 2004, six shareholder securities class
action complaints were filed, namely:

     (1) Perry Paragamian vs. Vicuron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et
         al. (Case No. 04cv2627);

     (2) John H. Taylor vs. Vicuron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al.
         (Case No. 04cv2685);

     (3) Security Police-Fire Professionals of America vs.
         Vicuron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. (Case No.
         04cv2708);

     (4) Fred Zucker vs. Vicuron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al.
         (Case No. 04cv2745);

     (5) Brian B. Steketee vs. Vicuron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et
         al. (Case No. 04cv3365); and

     (6) Brad Staton vs. Vicuron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Case No.
         04cv3422)

On August 18, 2004, counsel for all parties involved in the
Federal Class Actions stipulated to consolidation of the six
actions.  Under the stipulation, defendants are not required to
respond to the six individual complaints. Rather, defendants
will respond to an amended, consolidated class action complaint
that will be filed by the court-appointed lead plaintiff and
lead plaintiff counsel, or the "Consolidated Complaint."  The
District Court approved the Consolidation Stipulation on August
23, 2004.  The Court's order provides that:

     (i) the designated lead plaintiff will have 60 days to file
         the Consolidated Complaint once appointed by the
         District Court;

    (ii) defendants will file a responsive pleading within 60
         days of service of the Consolidated Complaint; and

   (iii) in the event defendants' responsive pleading is a
         motion to dismiss, plaintiffs' opposition papers will
         be due 60 days from the filing of the motion, and any
         reply papers by defendants will be due 30 days
         thereafter.

Three motions were filed with the District Court pursuant to 15
U.S.C. 78u-4(a)(3)(A)(i)(II) proposing a lead plaintiff and lead
plaintiff counsel. On October 7, 2004, the Court entered an
order appointing the group of institutional investors
(Massachusetts State Guaranteed Annuity Fund, Massachusetts
State Carpenters Pension Fund, and Greater Pennsylvania
Carpenters Pension Fund) as lead plaintiffs, the law firm of
Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins as lead plaintiffs
counsel, and the law offices of Marc S. Henzel as liaison
counsel.

Based on the Court's order of August 23, 2004, plaintiffs filed
the Consolidated Complaint on December 6, 2004. The Consolidated
Complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Section 11 of the Securities
Act of 1933, arising from the Company's May 24, 2004 press
release announcing the issuance of an approvable letter by the
FDA indicating that our proposed pharmaceutical, anidulafungin,
does not currently support a labeling claim for initial
treatment of esophageal candidiasis.  The Consolidated Complaint
alleges a putative class period from January 6, 2003 through May
24, 2004.

The Sections 10(b) and 20(a) claims are based on the allegation
that defendants artificially inflated the price of the Company's
stock during the class period by making allegedly false and
misleading statements concerning anidulafungin, the prospects
that the FDA would approve the drug for initial treatment of
esophageal candidiasis, and the prospects for the drug's
marketing success.  The Section 11 claim is based on the
allegation that the Company's July 2003 Registration Statement
and Prospectus for a secondary public stock offering contained a
false statement about anidulafungin's expected competitive
advantages over existing therapies.  The complaints seek
compensatory damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and injunctive
and equitable relief.

Pursuant to the District Court's first scheduling order entered
on November 2, 2004, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Consolidated Complaint on January 20, 2005. Lead plaintiffs
filed an opposition on February 22, 2005. The Defendants' reply
was filed on March 9, 2005. Defendants' motion to dismiss stayed
all discovery, pending the District Court's resolution of the
motion.  On July 1, 2005, the Court issued an order denying the
defendants' motion to dismiss.

The lead case is styled "Paragamian v. Vicuron Pharmaceuticals
Incorporated, et al. case no. 2:04-cv-02627-HB," filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania under Judge Harvey Bartle III.  Representing the
plaintiffs are Leslie Weaver, Nicholas J. Licato of LERACH
COUGHLIN STOIA GELLER RUDMAN & ROBBINS 100 Pine St. Ste 2600 San
Francisco, CA 94111, Phone: 415-288-4545 and Marc S. Henzel LAW
OFFICES OF MARC S. HENZEL 273 Montgomery Avenue Suite 202, Bala
Cynwyd, PA 19004 Phone: 610-660-8000 Email: mhenzel182@aol.com.  
Representing the Company is O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP 400 S. Hope
St., Los Angeles CA 90071 Email: asmith@omm.com.


WELLS REAL: Plaintiffs To Appeal GA Investor Lawsuit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs seek opportunity to appeal the dismissal of a class
action filed against Wells Real Estate Investment, Inc.'s
president and director Leo. F. Wells III in the Superior Court
of Gwinnett County, Georgia.

A suit styled "Hendry et al. v. Leo F. Wells, III et al., Civil
Action No. 04-A-2791 2," was initially filed.  The Court granted
the plaintiffs' motion to permit voluntary dismissal of this
suit, and it was subsequently dismissed without prejudice.  In
November 2004, the same plaintiffs filed a second putative class
action complaint against, among others, Mr. Wells, Wells Capital
and Wells Management, styled "Hendry et al. v. Leo F. Wells, III
et al., Civil Action No. 04A-13051 6."

On January 28, 2005, the defendants filed motions for summary
judgment and motions to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims.  
Pursuant to orders entered July 1, 2005, the Court granted the
defendants' motions to dismiss and for summary judgment on all
counts in the complaint. Thus, this action has now been
dismissed, subject to the plaintiffs' right to file a notice of
appeal within the required time period.  On August 3, 2005, the
plaintiffs filed a motion requesting the Court to re-enter the
orders to give the plaintiffs an opportunity to file a motion
for reconsideration or notice of appeal.



                 Meetings, Conferences & Seminars




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                New Securities Fraud Cases

ATI TECHNOLOGIES: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in PA
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania on behalf of purchasers of ATI
Technologies Inc. (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 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.


ATI TECHNOLOGIES: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Suit in PA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of ATI
Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: ATYT) between October 7, 2004 and
June 23, 3005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania against defendant ATI
Technologies, Inc. and one or more of its officers and/or
directors. The action charges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of materially false and
misleading statements to the market throughout the Class Period,
which statements had the effect of artificially inflating the
market price of the Company's securities. No class has yet been
certified in the above action.

For more details, contact the Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven,
P.A., The World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street,
Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD, 21202, Phone: 410/986-0036, E-mail:
hoffman@pivenlaw.com.


COGENT COMMUNICATIONS: Marc S. Henzel Lodges DC Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of
Columbia on behalf of all persons who purchased securities of
Cogent Communications Group, Inc. (AMEX: COI) between February
14, 2005 and June 7, 2005, inclusive.

According to the complaint, defendants failed to publicly
disclose that Cogent intended to sell shares of Cogent common
stock in a secondary public offering at a materially reduced
price from the stock's then-current market price. Defendants
knew or recklessly disregarded that the sale of Cogent common
stock at a material discount to its trading price would cause a
steep decline in the market price of its shares held by
plaintiff and other class members. After Cogent announced that
it would sell 10,000,000 shares of its stock at $6.00 a share,
the stock price fell 29.4%.

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.


HOST AMERICA: Scott + Scott Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CT
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Scott + Scott, LLC, initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of
Connecticut on behalf of purchasers of Host America Corporation
("Host America") (Nasdaq: CAFE) publicly traded securities
during the period of July 12, 2005 and July 22, 2005 (the "Class
Period").

The firm reminds investors that they have until October 7, 2005
to move for lead plaintiff appointment in the case.

The Complaint alleges Host America and certain of its officers
and directors violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Host
America operates employee cafeterias and executive restaurants
at corporations and develops energy conservation software
products and systems.

The Complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding a
purported agreement the Company had reached with Wal-Mart stores
for installation of its LightMaster Plus on the fluorescent
lighting system of ten Wal-Mart stores (as a first-phase roll-
out). These statements were materially false and misleading
because defendants knew, but failed to disclose:

     (1) that the Company's relationship with Wal-Mart was
         limited to a test installation;

     (2) that Host America had no agreement for any subsequent
         installations in other Wal-Mart stores; and

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

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

These false statements caused Host America stock to skyrocket
from a close of $3.12 per share on July 11, 2005, to an intra-
day high of $16.88 per share on July 19, 2005, only one week
later.

Then, on July 22, 2005, the Securities and Exchange Commission
("SEC") halted trading in the Company's shares amid concerns
that the Company's July 12 press release had been "misleading."
Prior to the halt in trading, Host America insiders sold
millions of dollars worth of their personally-held Host America
shares at artificially inflated prices.

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


ISOLAGEN INC.: Charles J. Piven Files Securities Suit in S.D. TX
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of Isolagen,
Inc. (AMEX: ILE) between March 3, 2004 and August 1, 2005,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas against defendant Isolagen, Inc. and
one or more of its officers and/or directors. The action charges
that defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a
series of materially false and misleading statements to the
market throughout the Class Period, which statements had the
effect of artificially inflating the market price of the
Company's securities. No class has yet been certified in the
above action.

For more details, contact the Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven,
P.A., The World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street,
Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD, 21202, Phone: 410/986-0036, E-mail:
hoffman@pivenlaw.com.


                            *********


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  * * *