CAR_Public/050830.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Tuesday, August 30, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 171

                         Headlines

ACXIOM CORPORATION: Investors Commence Fraud Suit V. Directors
APPLE COMPUTER: Deal Gives iPod Users Free Replacement Batteries
ARIZONA: State, Groups Urge Judge to Keep Federal Money Flowing
CALIFORNIA: Agreement Halts Exit Exam For Special Ed Students
CALLAWAY GOLF: Nationwide Certification For TN Lawsuit Denied

CALLAWAY GOLF: Plaintiff Withdraws Consumer Fraud Lawsuit in FL
CARRINGTON LABS: Recalls Medline Mouthwash Due to Illness Risk
COMMERCE BANCORP: Asks NJ Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
DENTSPLY CORPORATION: Plaintiffs Appeal Trubyte Suits Dismissal
DENTSPLY CORPORATION: 168 Dentists Join Class in CA Fraud Suit

EASY HEAT: IN Judge Approves $10M Pact With ND, MN, WI Consumers
FLORIDA: SEC Halts Securities Fraud at Par Three Financial, Inc.
INTERNATIONAL TRUCK: Recalls 13,654 Vehicles Due to Crash Hazard   
IVAX CORPORATION: Shareholders Launches Lawsuit V. TEVA Merger
IVAX PHARMACEUTICALS: FL Court Preliminarily OKs Suit Settlement

IVAX PHARMACEUTICALS: Continues To Face Medicaid Fraud Lawsuits
LAFARGE CANADA: Continues To Face Ontario Homeowners' Lawsuit
LAFARGE NORTH: Personal Injury Suit Remanded To E.D. Michigan
MAJESTIC INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Spices Due To Salmonella Content
MERCK & Co.: Vioxx Lawsuits in Canada Increasing After TX Ruling

MERCK & CO.: Lawyers Say Trial in Vioxx Litigation Possible
MERCURY INSURANCE: Trial in CA Consumer Suit Set February 2006
MERCURY INSURANCE: Plaintiffs File Amended CA Consumer Lawsuit
MERRILL LYNCH: Plaintiffs Seek Summary Judgment in TX Enron Suit
MERRILL LYNCH: Appeals Court To Review NY Lawsuit Certification

ODIMO INC.: Securities Fraud Suit Filed in FL V. Firm, Officers
ONE PRICE: SEC Lodges Fraud Charges V. Former, Current Officials
PERINI CORPORATION: MA Court Approves Securities Suit Settlement
PNC FINANCIAL: PA Court Mulls Approval for Stock Suit Settlement
PNC FINANCIAL: Plaintiffs File Amended PA ERISA Violations Suit

QUANTUM CORPORATION: CA Court Mulls Consumer Suit Certification
REHABCARE GROUP: CA Court Refuses Certification To Wage Lawsuit
SCANA CORPORATION: SC Court Dismisses Right-of-Way Litigation
SOUTH CAROLINA: Supreme Court Grants Class Status For TERI Case
WYNDHAM INTERNATIONAL: Investors Sue V. Blackstone Merger in DE

                  New Securities Fraud Cases

AMERICAN ITALIAN: Kaplan Fox Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in MO
MOLINA HEALTHCARE: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Suit in CA
RAMP CORPORATION: Bull & Lifshitz Lodges Securities Suit in NY
SYMBOL TECHNOLOGIES: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in NY
WORKSTREAM INC.: Law Firms Jointly File Securities Suit in NY


                            *********


ACXIOM CORPORATION: Investors Commence Fraud Suit V. Directors
--------------------------------------------------------------
Acxiom Corporation's board of directors faces a class action
filed in Pulaski County Circuit Court in Arkansas, styled
"Indiana State District Council of Laborers and HOD Carriers
Pension Fund v. Morgan, et al., CV05-8498."

The suit alleges that the board members are not independent from
Charles Morgan, the Company's chief executive officer and
chairman of the board of directors.  Based on this purported
lack of independence, the lawsuit alleges that the board did not
use good faith in considering the June 3, 2005 letter from
ValueAct Capital.

In addition to seeking class action status, the plaintiffs are
also seeking an order requiring the defendants to properly
consider the ValueAct transaction or any other transaction in
the best interests of Acxiom shareholders and to rescind any
measures that would prevent ValueAct from negotiating for the
purchase of the Company.  The suit is in its early stages and
the defendants have not yet responded to the complaint.  


APPLE COMPUTER: Deal Gives iPod Users Free Replacement Batteries
----------------------------------------------------------------
As many as 1.3 million owners of iPod music players will be able
to replace their defective batteries at Apple Computer, Inc.'s
expense, after a judge approved the settlement of a class action
lawsuit against the company, The Associated Press reports.

The suit claimed that Apple failed to disclose battery
limitations on its first three iPod models. The device, which
has a rechargeable battery that cannot be replaced because of
its design, was advertised to have eight hours of play when
fully charged, but users complained that play time gradually
decreased after months of use.

Under the settlement approved by San Mateo County Superior Court
Judge Beth Labson Freeman, customers who bought iPod's first two
models will be entitled to either $25 cash or $50 credit at an
Apple store or if they paid Apple to repair an iPod battery, the
company must refund half of the cost to them. On the other hand,
those who own iPod's third model will be entitled to a free
replacement battery if it fails.

Steve Williams, lead counsel for the lawsuit, which began in
December 2003, told The Associated Press, "When people were
paying $250 to $500 for this, they deserve to know its
limitations." Mr, Williams also said that based on the number of
people continuing to make claims, the settlement has a minimum
value of about $15 million.

Court documents show that in the fall of 2003, eight consumers
filed suit alleging that the iPod failed to live up to claims
that the rechargeable battery would last the product's lifetime
and play music continuously for up to 10 hours, an earlier Class
Action Reporter story (June 6, 2005) reports.

Consumers who qualify for reimbursement under the settlement
have until May to file and can get instructions on how to file
at http://www.appleipodsettlement.com.


ARIZONA: State, Groups Urge Judge to Keep Federal Money Flowing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Construction groups argue that stopping the flow of federal
highway dollars to Arizona to prod the state into action on a
school finance issue would deal a severe blow to an industry
that is a crucial part of the state's economy, The Associated
Press reports.

In separately filed responses construction groups and the state
are urging a federal judge to refuse to block hundreds of
millions of highway dollars that Arizona receives annually
arguing that the request goes beyond the judiciary's authority.  
The proposed cutoff was requested by plaintiffs in a class
action lawsuit over the adequacy of the state's instruction of
students learning the English language, who contend that a
cutoff of highway funding is within the court's broad powers to
enforce its orders.

In a long-anticipated motion filed in U.S. District Court in
Phoenix, the plaintiffs' attorneys told the court that the state
Legislature failed to meet deadlines set by itself and the
federal court. Also, the attorneys pointed out that the forceful
sanctions are needed to prod the state into action and that
cutting off highway dollars would do that because of the state's
interest in building new roadways, an earlier Class Action
Reporter story (August 4, 2005) reports.


CALIFORNIA: Agreement Halts Exit Exam For Special Ed Students
-------------------------------------------------------------
Special education students won a possible one-year reprieve from
the requirement that they pass California's high school exit
exam, according to a recently reached legal settlement, The
Tracy Press reports.

The California Department of Education and the Oakland-based
Disability Rights Advocates, which filed the class action
lawsuit on behalf of students, announced the agreement.

According to Stephen Tollafield, staff attorney for the advocacy
group, which represents the students, "The settlement is a
lifeline for special education students in this class."

The California High School Exit Exam, which also is being
challenged in other lawsuits and bills before the Legislature,
takes effect this year with students in the class of 2006 as the
first to be required to pass it before they can receive a
diploma.

Filed in Alameda County Superior Court, the settlement calls for
Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell to propose
and support legislation that would exempt special education
students from the requirement this year only, according to Mr.
Tollafield. That bill will have to be approved by the
Legislature by September 9 and signed by the governor.

Mr. Tollafield told The Tracy Press that students requesting the
exemption would have to show they have taken the exit exam at
least twice since their sophomore year and at least once during
their senior year. He also added that they would have to meet
all other requirements for graduation, including those for
course credits and grades.

Special education students also will have to take remediation
classes if offered by their district.

"We want to make sure kids keep trying to pass it," Mr.
Tollafield pointed out. "The problem is that students get
discouraged and drop out, and we're trying to prevent that."

The class action suit is known as Chapman case after the lead
plaintiff and contends that the exit exam discriminates against
disabled students. According to Mr. Tollafield, "There are a
number of problems with the exit exam that limit special-needs
students' ability to participate." At issue are the
accommodations that some disabled students needed in order to
take the exam, he said, an earlier Class Action Reporter story
(August 29, 2005) reports.


CALLAWAY GOLF: Nationwide Certification For TN Lawsuit Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Tennessee refused to grant nationwide class certification to the
lawsuit filed against Callaway Golf Co., styled "Lundsford v.
Callaway Golf, Case No. 3:04-cv-442" (Lundsford II).

In the fall of 1999 the Company adopted a unilateral sales
policy called the "New Product Introduction Policy" (NPIP).  The
NPIP sets forth the terms on which the Company chooses to do
business with its customers with respect to the introduction of
new products.

Customers filed several suits against the policy, including:

     (1) Lundsford v. Callaway Golf, Case No. 2001-24-IV,
         pending in Tennessee state court (Lundsford I);

     (2) Foulston v. Callaway Golf, Case No. 02C3607, pending in
         Kansas state court;

     (3) Murray v. Callaway Golf Sales Company, Case No.
         3:04CV274-H, pending in the United States District
         Court for the Western District of North Carolina; and

     (4) Lundsford v. Callaway Golf, Civil Action No. 3:04-cv-
         442, pending in the United States District Court for
         the Eastern District of Tennessee (Lundsford II)

Lundsford I was filed on April 6, 2001, and seeks to assert a
putative class action by plaintiff on behalf of himself and on
behalf of consumers in Tennessee and Kansas who purchased select
Callaway Golf products covered by the NPIP on or after March 30,
2000. Plaintiff asserts violations of Tennessee and Kansas
antitrust and consumer protection laws and is seeking damages,
restitution and punitive damages. The court has not made any
determination that the case may proceed in the form of a class
action.  In light of the subsequently filed Lundsford II case,
the parties agreed to stay Lundsford I and to dismiss it without
prejudice once the federal court proceedings in Lundsford II are
underway. Subsequent to this agreement, plaintiff moved to
reactivate Lundsford I and that motion is currently pending.

In Foulston, filed on November 4, 2002, plaintiff seeks to
assert an alleged class action on behalf of Kansas consumers who
purchased Callaway Golf products covered by the NPIP and seeks
damages and restitution for the alleged class under Kansas law.
The trial court in Foulston stayed the case in light of
Lundsford I. The Foulston court has not made any determination
that the case may proceed in the form of a class action.

The complaint in Murray was filed on May 14, 2004, alleging that
a retail golf business was damaged by the alleged refusal of
Callaway Golf Sales Company to sell certain products after the
store violated the NPIP, and by the failure to permit plaintiff
to sell Callaway Golf products on the internet. The proprietor
seeks compensatory and punitive damages associated with the
failure of his retail operation. The Company removed the case to
the United States District Court for the Western District of
North Carolina, and has answered the complaint denying
liability. The parties are currently engaged in discovery, and a
trial date in December 2005 has been set by the court.

Lundsford II was filed on September 28, 2004 and the complaint
asserts that the NPIP constitutes an unlawful resale price
agreement and an attempt to monopolize golf club sales
prohibited by federal antitrust law. The complaint also alleges
a violation of the state antitrust laws of Tennessee, Kansas,
South Carolina and Oklahoma.  Lundsford II seeks to assert a
nationwide class action consisting of all persons who purchased
Callaway Golf clubs subject to the NPIP on or after March 30,
2000. Plaintiff seeks treble damages under the federal antitrust
laws, compensatory damages under state law, and an injunction.
The Lundsford II court has not made a determination that the
case may proceed in the form of a class action.  The parties are
engaged in discovery and motion practice.  Plaintiff has moved
for summary judgment and to certify the case as a nationwide
class action. On July 13, 2005 the court denied the plaintiff's
motion for summary judgment. On July 20, 2005, the court denied
plaintiff's motion to certify the case as a nationwide class
action.


CALLAWAY GOLF: Plaintiff Withdraws Consumer Fraud Lawsuit in FL
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs dismissed the class action filed against Callaway
Golf Sales Company, styled "York v. Callaway Golf Sales Company,
case no. 04-25625 CA 11," filed in the Circuit Court for Dade
County, Florida.

The suit was initially filed on December 14, 2004, asserting a
purported class action on behalf of all consumers who purchased
allegedly defective HX Red golf balls with cracked covers. The
complaint contains causes of action for strict liability, breach
of implied and express warranties, and violation of the
Magnuson-Moss Consumer Product Warranty Act.

On January 12, 2005, the Company removed the case to the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
Plaintiff subsequently dismissed his federal claim, and two of
his state court claims, and the case was remanded to the Circuit
Court for Dade County, Florida.  Thereafter, plaintiff dismissed
the complaint without prejudice, terminating the matter.


CARRINGTON LABS: Recalls Medline Mouthwash Due to Illness Risk
--------------------------------------------------------------
Carrington Labs, Irving, TX has issued a voluntary recall of
Medline labeled alcohol-free mouthwash. As a result of this
recall, Medline Industries, Inc. Mundelein, IL is initiating a
voluntary recall of Personal Hygiene Admission kits containing
the same alcohol-free mouthwash. The FDA has been apprised of
this action. The mouthwash has been tested and been found
positive for Burkholderia cepacia (B. cepacia). The CDC has
confirmed hospital illnesses in two states associated with the
use of the affected mouthwash.

Product was distributed to hospitals, medical centers, and long
term care facilities nationwide.

B. cepacia poses little medical risk to healthy people. However,
people who have certain health problems such as weakened immune
systems or chronic lung diseases, particularly cystic fibrosis
(CF), may be more susceptible to infections with B. cepacia. B
cepacia is a known cause of infections in hospitalized patients.
B. cepacia bacteria are often resistant to common antibiotics.
The effects of B. cepacia on people vary widely, ranging from no
symptoms at all, to serious respiratory infections, especially
in patients with CF.

The recall includes the following products: [Description =
Reorder Number]
     
     (1) Alcohol-Free Mouthwash, Medline Label, 2 oz. =
         MDS095029;

     (2) Alcohol-Free Mouthwash, Medline Label, 4 oz. =
         MDS095030

Product lot numbers beginning 0503 through 0508 are affected.
Affected product can be identified by checking the lot code
stamped on the bottom of the bottle. Additionally, affected
product can be identified by checking for the identification
code RA05CRR on the lower portion of back display panel of the
product label.

The mouthwash may also be found in certain Medline Personal
Hygiene Hospital Admission Kits. If you received mouthwash
labeled for Medline Industries, Inc. from your healthcare
provider please check to see if the reorder number on the label
matches the recalled reorder numbers listed above, then check to
see if the lot number matches the recalled lot number(s).

Customers who have Medline labeled alcohol free mouthwash which
is being recalled should stop using the product and contact
Medline Industries, Inc. for instructions.

For a complete list of admission kits involved, go to
http://www.medline.comor call Medline Industries at  
1-800-MEDLINE for details.

Medline Industries, Inc. is notifying their customers via
overnight mail and is arranging for all products to be returned
for credit.


COMMERCE BANCORP: Asks NJ Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Commerce Bancorp, Inc. asked the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey, Camden Division to dismiss the
consolidated securities class action filed against it and
certain Company (or subsidiary) current and former officers and
directors.

During July and August 2004, six class action complaints were
filed, and later consolidated in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey, Camden Division. As a
result of the consolidation, a single consolidated complaint has
been filed. It alleges that the defendants violated federal
securities laws, specifically Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities and
Exchange Commission.  The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages on
behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the Company's
securities during various periods.

The suit is styled "Galati v. Commerce Bancorp, Inc., et al.,
case no. 1:04-cv-03252-RBK-JBR," filed in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey, Camden Division,
under Judge Robert B. Kugler.  Representing the Company is
Joseph J. DePalma, LITE, DEPALMA, GREENBERG & RIVAS, LLC, Two
Gateway Center, 12th Floor, Newark, NJ 07102-5003, Phone:
(973) 623-3000, E-mail: jdepalma@ldgrlaw.com; and Olimpio Lee
Squitieri, SQUITIERI & FEARON, LLP, 26 South Maple Avenue, Suite
202, Marlton, NJ 08053, Phone: (856) 797-4611, Fax:
(856) 797-4612, E-mail: lee@sfclasslaw.com.  Representing the
Company is J. Llewellyn Mathews of BLANK ROME LLP, Woodland
Falls Corporate Park, 210 Lake Drive East, Suite 200, Cherry
Hill, NJ 08002, Phone: (856) 779-3600, E-mail:
mathews@blankrome.com.


DENTSPLY CORPORATION: Plaintiffs Appeal Trubyte Suits Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the United States District Court in
Wilmington, Delaware's ruling dismissing the class actions filed
against Dentsply Corporation on behalf of laboratories, and
denture patients in seventeen states who purchased Trubyte teeth
or products containing Trubyte teeth. The private party suits
seek damages in an unspecified amount.  

The Court has granted the Company's Motion on the lack of
standing of the laboratory and patient class actions to pursue
damage claims.  The Plaintiffs in the laboratory case have
appealed this decision to the Third Circuit and the Court held
oral argument in April 2005.  

Also, private party class actions on behalf of indirect
purchasers were filed in California and Florida state courts.  
The California and Florida cases have been dismissed by the
Plaintiffs following the decision by the Federal District Court
Judge issued in August 2003.


DENTSPLY CORPORATION: 168 Dentists Join Class in CA Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
168 dentists licensed to practice in California have opted-in to
the class in the suit filed against Dentsply International, Inc.
in Los Angeles County Superior Court in California.

On March 27, 2002, a Complaint was filed in Alameda County,
California (which was transferred to Los Angeles County) by
Bruce Glover, D.D.S. alleging, inter alia, breach of express and
implied warranties, fraud, unfair trade practices and negligent
misrepresentation in the Company's manufacture and sale of
Advance(R) cement.  The Complaint seeks damages in an
unspecified amount for costs incurred in repairing dental work
in which the Advance(R) product allegedly failed.

The Judge has entered an Order granting class certification, as
an Opt-in class (this means that after Notice of the class
action is sent to possible class members, a party will have to
determine they meet the class definition and take affirmative
action in order to join the class) on the claims of breach of
warranty and fraud.  In general, the Class is defined as
California dentists who purchased and used Advance(R) cement and
were required, because of failures of the cement, to repair or
reperform dental procedures.

The Notice of the class action was sent on February 23, 2005 to
the approximately 29,000 dentists licensed to practice in
California during the relevant period and a total of 168
dentists have opted into the class action.  The Advance(R)
cement product was sold from 1994 through 2000 and total sales
in the United States during that period were approximately $5.2
million.  The Company's primary level insurance carrier has
confirmed coverage for the breach of warranty claims in this
matter.


EASY HEAT: IN Judge Approves $10M Pact With ND, MN, WI Consumers
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court in Indiana approved a
settlement in a class action lawsuit that will pay up to $10
million to consumers in North Dakota, Minnesota and Wisconsin
who had purchased allegedly defective radiant heating cables
used in floor based heating systems, The Grand Forks Herald
reports.

Under the settlement, which resolves the claims made on behalf
of consumers in Klabo v. Easy Heat Inc., individual class
members may receive lump sum payments up to $2,500 or be
provided with an alternative heating system paid for by Easy
Heat along with a heating subsidy and payment for the disruption
to their home or business.

Mike Miller, a partner at Fargo's Solberg, Stewart, Miller and
Tjon, represented Portland, North Dakota resident Clarence
Klabo, the lead plaintiff in the class action litigation.  The
class action settlement is "unique" according to Mr. Miller
because it includes only consumers who want to be in the
settlement. He explained that people who want to continue to
litigate their claims can do so through a separate class action
in Minnesota that has not settled.

The suit is styled, Klabo v. Easy Heat Inc., 3:02-cv-00877-AS-
CAN, which was filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Indiana, with the Honorable Allen Sharp,
presiding. Mike Miller PHV, Timothy M. O'Keeffe PHV, Patricia A.
Roscoe PHV of Solberg Stewart Miller & Tjon, Ltd., 1129 Fifth
Ave. South, P.O. Box 1897, Fargo, ND 58107-1897, Phone:
701-237-3166, Fax: 701-237-4627, E-mail: mmiller@solberglaw.com;
Wood R. Foster Jr. PHV of Siegel Brill Greupner Duffy & Foster
PA - Min/MN, 100 Washington Square Suite 1300, Minneapolis, MN
55401, Phone: 612-337-6100, Fax: 612-339-6591, E-mail:
woodfoster@sbgdf.com; Jordan M. Lewis of Siegel Brill Greupner
Duffy & Foster PA - Phi/PA, 1845 Walnut Street 24th Floor,
Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone: 215-814-9322, Fax: 215-814-9323,
E-mail: jordanlewis@sbgdf.com; and Richard A. Waples of Waples &
Hanger, 410 N Audubon Rd., Indianapolis, IN 46219, Phone:
317-357-0903, Fax: 317-357-0275, E-mail: richwaples@aol.com, are
representing the Plaintiff/s. Evelyn L. Becker PHV, John H.
Beisner PHV, Adam J. Coates PHV, Theodore H. Frank PHV and
Matthew M. Shors PHV of O'Melveny and Myers, Suite 10, 1625 Eye
St. NW, Washington, DC 20006-4001, Phone: 202-383-5378; and
Philip E. Kalamaros of Hunt Suedhoff Kalamaros LLP - SB/IN, 120
W. LaSalle Ave. 12th Floor, P.O. Box 4156, South Bend, IN 46634-
4156, Phone: 269-983-4405, Fax: 269-983-5645, E-mail: phil@hsk-
law.com.


FLORIDA: SEC Halts Securities Fraud at Par Three Financial, Inc.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission obtained a temporary
restraining order halting an ongoing securities fraud by Melvin
D. Ruth, age 64, of Boca Raton, Florida, and an entity that he
controls, Par Three Financial, Inc., a Nevada corporation
operating in Boca Raton, Florida.

The Commission's complaint, which was recently filed in United
States District Court in Miami, alleges that, since
approximately November 2003, the defendants have sold more than
$8 million in securities in connection with a purported program
to lend monies to check cashing/payday loan stores.  The
defendants represent that Par Three loans money to these check
cashing stores at rates of interest sufficiently high to allow
it to pay its investors returns of 2% per month or more.
     
The complaint alleges that, in reality, Par Three is not
profitable and is operating an undisclosed Ponzi scheme-using
new investor monies to make the interest payments to existing
investors-in violation of the federal securities laws.  The
complaint further alleges that the defendants have
misappropriated investor funds to purchase a yacht, automobiles,
jewelry, and several parcels of real property, and to make
undisclosed payments to sales agents.  In addition, the
complaint alleges that the defendants failed to disclose that
Ruth is a control person of Par Three and that, in 2000, Ruth
was convicted of a felony in connection with an investment
scheme substantially similar to the Par Three scheme.  Finally,
the complaint alleges that the defendants engaged in an unlawful
unregistered securities offering by selling Par Three's
securities to at least 120 investors nationwide through
advertising in newspapers and Internet publications.

Acting on the Commission's lawsuit, the Honorable Linnea R.
Johnson, United States District Judge for the Southern District
of Florida, granted the Commission's application for a temporary
restraining order against the defendants and issued orders
freezing the defendants' assets, appointing a temporary receiver
over the assets of Par Three, prohibiting the destruction of
documents by the defendants, granting expedited discovery, and
requiring accountings from the defendants.  The Court appointed
Michael I. Goldberg, Esq. as the temporary receiver. The Court
ordered the temporary restraining order and asset freeze to
remain in effect until Sept. 6, 2005.  The Court will determine
the date that it will hold a hearing on the Commission's motion
for a preliminary injunction and appointment of a permanent
receiver at a future time.  In addition to emergency relief, the
Commission's complaint seeks from each defendant preliminary and
permanent injunctions, disgorgement with prejudgment interest,
and a civil penalty.

The Commission's complaint alleges that the defendants violated
the antifraud provisions of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act
of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and the securities registration
provisions of Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act. The
suit is styled, SEC v. Par Three Financial, Inc. and Melvin D.
Ruth, Case No. 05-807, S.D. Florida (LR-19348).


INTERNATIONAL TRUCK: Recalls 13,654 Vehicles Due to Crash Hazard   
----------------------------------------------------------------
International Truck & Engine Corporation, in cooperation with
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Office of
Defects Investigation (ODI) is voluntarily recalling about
13,654 units of 2005-06 IC/CESB, 1300FBC, 3200, 3300 4200, 4300
and 4400 trucks and buses due to crash hazard. NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID
Number: 05V368000.

According to the ODI, certain of the recalled vehicles that were
manufactured between June 4, 2004 and March 31, 2005, has an
anchor bolt, which is the pivot point for the driveline parking
brake shoes, may fatigue and thus break as a result of incorrect
surface treatment. If the bolt breaks, the park break may not
engage. This could cause the vehicle to roll away without
warning and could result in a vehicle crash, possibly resulting
in property damage, personal injury or death.

For more details, contact International, Phone: 1-800-448-7825
and NHTSA Auto Safety Hotline: 1-888-327-4236 or (TTY)
1-800-424-9153, Web site: http://www.safecar.gov.


IVAX CORPORATION: Shareholders Launches Lawsuit V. TEVA Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
IVAX Corporation and all of its directors face a class action
filed on July 25, 2005, in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh
Judicial Circuit in and for Dade County, Florida styled "Kops v.
IVAX Corporation, Betty G. Amos, et al."

In this suit, the plaintiff alleges that the directors breached
their fiduciary duties by, among other things, approving for
allegedly grossly inadequate consideration the merger agreement
entered into by the Company and TEVA Pharmaceutical Industries
Ltd. The suit seeks to enjoin the defendants from proceeding
with the proposed merger, to rescind the transaction if
consummated and for the recovery of damages, including attorney
fees.


IVAX PHARMACEUTICALS: FL Court Preliminarily OKs Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida granted final approval to the settlement of a class
action filed against Ivax Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and others,
styled "Louisiana Wholesale Drug Co. vs. Abbott Laboratories,
Geneva Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Zenith Goldline
Pharmaceuticals, Inc."

The suit alleges a violation of Section 1 of the Sherman
Antitrust Act.  Plaintiffs purport to represent a class
consisting of customers who purchased a certain proprietary drug
directly from Abbott Laboratories during the period beginning on
October 29, 1998.  Plaintiffs allege that, by settling patent-
related litigation against Abbott in exchange for quarterly
payments, the defendants engaged in an unlawful restraint of
trade.  The complaint seeks unspecified treble damages and
injunctive relief.

Eighteen additional class action lawsuits containing allegations
similar to those in the "Louisiana Wholesale" case were filed in
various jurisdictions between July 1999 and February 2001, the
majority of which have been consolidated with the "Louisiana
Wholesale" case.

On March 13, 2000, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced
that it had issued complaints against, and negotiated consent
decrees with, Abbott Laboratories and Geneva Pharmaceuticals
arising out of an investigation of the same subject matter that
is involved in these lawsuits. The FTC took no action against
IPI. On December 13, 2000, plaintiffs' motion for summary
judgment on the issue of whether the settlement agreement
constituted a "per se" violation of Section 1 of the Sherman
Antitrust Act in the "Louisiana Wholesale" case was granted.

On September 15, 2003, the United States Court of Appeals for
the Eleventh Circuit reversed the order. On September 20, 2001,
the District Court entered an order certifying the direct
purchaser class and in early 2002, IPI entered into a settlement
with the direct purchaser class. In November 2003, the appellate
court also issued a ruling de-certifying the class. On remand
and following class discovery, the District Court entered an
order on June 23, 2004, denying the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs'
renewed motion for class certification. In light of these
orders, on August 31, 2004, the Company elected to terminate the
Settlement Agreement with the direct purchasers and requested
the return of the settlement payment less notice and Settlement
Fund administrative fees.

On February 16, 2005, the Company announced to the Court its
willingness to re-enter into the settlement with the direct
purchasers on substantially the same terms as the previous
settlement, provided that the court certifies a settlement class
of direct purchasers that is not materially different from the
previously de-certified direct purchaser class.  On February 25,
2005, the Court indicated its preliminary approval of a
settlement containing these terms and provisions.  On April 19,
2005, the Court entered an Order and Final Judgment specifically
providing, "inter alia," that the settlement with the direct
purchasers is reaffirmed and remains in full force and effect.
To date, sixteen of the actions naming IPI have either been
settled or dismissed.


IVAX PHARMACEUTICALS: Continues To Face Medicaid Fraud Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
IVAX Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (IPI) and IVAX Corporation (IVAX)
continue to face lawsuits from several states, alleging schemes
to overcharge for prescription drugs paid for by Medicaid.  

New York City and a number of counties in the State of New York
have filed complaints against IVAX and IPI and other
pharmaceutical companies alleging a scheme to overcharge for
prescription drugs paid for by Medicaid, a portion of which is
paid for by these New York municipalities and counties.  IVAX
and IPI have been named as defendants in actions filed by the
County of Nassau, the County of Erie and a consolidated
complaint brought by the City of New York and thirty New York
Counties.  In these cases, plaintiffs seek the recovery of
unspecified damages, including restitution, treble and punitive
damages, civil penalties, interest and attorneys fees.

Other than the County of Erie case which was originally filed in
the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Erie County but
removed by the defendants on April 15, 2005, these actions were
filed in the United States District Court for the applicable
district in New York and, thereafter, were either transferred to
the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts as part of the Pharmaceutical Industry Average
Wholesale Price Multi-District Litigation, MDL 1456 (MDL), or
are in the process of being transferred to the MDL.

The "County of Suffolk vs. Abbott Laboratories, Inc. et al."
action (Suffolk Action) was previously treated as the lead New
York county case in the MDL.  In the Suffolk Action, the court
dismissed IVAX and IPI from the complaint by order dated October
26, 2004.  On April 8, 2005, the Court entered a further Order
dismissing the complaint with respect to the remaining
defendants based upon insufficiency of the allegations.  New
York City and the New York counties, including Suffolk County,
have re-filed an amended complaint.

IVAX was named as a defendant, along with other generic drug
manufacturers, in "The Commonwealth of Massachusetts vs. Mylan
Laboratories, et al." filed in the United States District Court
for the District of Massachusetts (Massachusetts Action). The
Massachusetts Action alleges that through fraudulent and
deceptive schemes thirteen manufacturers of generic
pharmaceuticals caused Massachusetts to overpay pharmacies. The
state seeks unspecified damages, including injunctive relief,
restitution, treble damages, civil penalties, interest, attorney
fees and investigation and litigation costs. The case is pending
before the same judge that is handling the MDL. The defendants
in the Massachusetts Action moved to dismiss the complaint and
by order dated February 4, 2005, the Court denied the motion in
part, granted the motion in part, and deferred ruling in part.
On April 5, 2005, the Court dismissed the complaint for failure
to plead with specificity the allegations of false and
fraudulent representations. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
filed an amended complaint and motions to dismiss that complaint
are pending before the Court.

A number of states have filed actions against IVAX and IPI and
other pharmaceutical companies alleging schemes to overcharge
for prescription drugs. IVAX and IPI have been named as
defendants in the following actions filed by the State of
Wisconsin, the Commonwealth of Kentucky, the State of Alabama,
the State of Illinois and the State of Florida. IVAX and IPI
were added as defendants in:

     (1) State of Wisconsin vs. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et
         al., Circuit Court of Dane County, Case No. 04 CV 1709,
         filed on November 1, 2004

     (2) Commonwealth of Kentucky vs. Alpharma, Inc., Franklin
         Circuit Court, Case No. 04-CI-1487, filed on November
         4, 2004

     (3) State of Alabama vs. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al.,
         Circuit Court of Montgomery County, Case No. CV-2005-
         219, filed on January 26, 2005

     (4) The People of the State of Illinois vs. Abbott
         Laboratories, Inc., Circuit Court of Cook County, Case
         No. 05CH02474, filed on February 7, 2005l and

     (5) State of Florida v. Alpharma, et al., Second Judicial
         Circuit in and for Leon County, Florida, Case Nos. 98-
         3032F and 03-CA1165A

In each of these actions, the States seek unspecified damages,
including treble and punitive damages, interest, civil penalties
and attorneys' fees.  The Wisconsin, Kentucky, Alabama and
Illinois cases were removed to federal court on July 13, 2005,
and have been identified to the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation for potential transfer to the JPMDL proceeding in
Boston. However, Wisconsin, Kentucky, Alabama and Illinois are
seeking to remand the cases to state court.  Motions to dismiss
the complaints are pending in these four cases.


LAFARGE CANADA: Continues To Face Ontario Homeowners' Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
LaFarge Canada, Inc. continues to face a class action filed on
behalf of approximately 215 homeowners regarding defective
concrete foundations, in Ontario Superior Court in Canada.  The
class action is related to a 1992 lawsuit against the Company in
which similar claims were alleged for which the Company paid
Canadian $15.6 million (approximately U.S. $10 million) as its
share of damages.

The Ontario Court of Appeal confirmed that most of the amounts
paid by the Company in the lawsuit were to be reimbursed by its
insurers, as well as most of the Company's defense expenses and
third party costs it paid in the lawsuit.  In April 2004, the
Ontario Superior Court confirmed the Company's insurance
coverage in the class action.


LAFARGE NORTH: Personal Injury Suit Remanded To E.D. Michigan
-------------------------------------------------------------
The personal injury class action filed against LaFarge North
America, Inc. has been remanded to the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.

On April 19, 1999, several individuals living in Alpena,
Michigan filed the suit, claiming personal injury and property
damages allegedly stemming from certain emissions which they
claim originated from the Company's cement manufacturing plant
in Alpena.  

On October 24, 2001, the trial court ordered that the case could
proceed as a class action on behalf of all persons who owned
single family residences in Alpena from April 1996 to the
present who have suffered damage from emissions from the Alpena
plant.  The Company appealed the court's decision on several
grounds, including that the court did not have jurisdiction over
the putative class as not all class member's claims satisfied
the $75,000 amount in controversy for diversity jurisdiction.
The Company's appeals on this issue, up to the U.S. Supreme
Court, proved unsuccessful and the Company's case has been
remanded back to the trial court.

The suit is styled "Unique Paving Mtrl v. QPR Corp, et al., case
no. 2:02-cv-72623-ADT," filed in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, under Judge Anna
Diggs Taylor.  Representing the Company is Thomas W. Emery of
Garan Lucow (Detroit), 1000 Woodbridge Street, Detroit, MI
48207-3192, Phone: 313-446-1530, E-mail: temery@garanlucow.com.  
Representing the Company is John C. Blattner and J. Michael
Huget, Butzel Long, 350 S. Main, Suite 300, Ann Arbor, MI 48104-
2131, Phone: 734-995-3110, E-mail: blattner@butzel.com or
huget@butzel.com.  


MAJESTIC INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Spices Due To Salmonella Content
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is advising
processors and re-packers that Majestic International Spice
Corporation of Montebello, CA, is voluntarily recalling its
dried "Extra Fancy Basil" spice in 12.5 kilogram bags because
FDA found the product contaminated with Salmonella Blockley.  
Salmonella is a well-known cause of both outbreaks and sporadic
disease in various parts of the world and as such poses a
potential health threat. FDA is issuing this advisory because we
are concerned that the firm has not adequately alerted its
consignees to the problem.

The only identification on the 12.5 kilogram paper bags is a
white paper label stating "EXTRA FANCY BASIL 12.5 KGS."  The
exact dates of sale are unknown but we believe the product was
sold beginning in late April 2005.

Salmonella is a microorganism that can cause serious and
sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly
people, and others with weakened immune systems. Healthy persons
infected with Salmonella bacteria often experience fever,
diarrhea (which may be bloody), nausea, vomiting and abdominal
pain. In rare circumstances, infection with Salmonella can
result in the microorganism getting into the bloodstream and
producing more severe illnesses such as arterial infections,
endocarditis and arthritis.

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

The contamination was noted after routine testing by FDA
revealed the presence of Salmonella Blockley. The recall was the
result of the FDA sampling. The company has ceased the
distribution of the product in question.

Processors or repackers who received this product should
discontinue using it and contact their local FDA office.  

Processors or repackers who have questions for Majestic
International Spice Corporation can contact the company at
1-323-838-1300.


MERCK & Co.: Vioxx Lawsuits in Canada Increasing After TX Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pharmaceutical giant Merck & Co. faces a growing number of class
action lawsuits in Canada after it lost a wrongful death case
related to its arthritis painkiller Vioxx, according to an
attorney representing plaintiffs, Finance24.com reports.

In that case a Texas jury awarded damages totaling more than
$253m to Carol Ernst after they found Merck guilty of liability,
negligence and malice over the sale of Vioxx. Mrs. Ernst had
sought 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. But,
the Company allegedly ignored those concerns in favor of
aggressive marketing for a multibillion-dollar seller. The case
was the first of 4,200 other suits that have been filed in the
United States and thousands more from other countries that are
being prepared to reach trial after the drug's withdrawal, an
earlier Class Action Reporter story (July 27, 2005) reports.

Murray Miskin, a Toronto attorney who represents 300 Vioxx users
suing Merck told Finance24.com that since that ruling, the
number of legal complaints has spiked in Canada. He added,
"People are seeing that there is something happening, there is
actually a decision and it is a warning: big money to somebody
who used Vioxx."

Additionally, Mr. Miskin pointed out that about 3,000 people
have filed about 30 lawsuits in several Canadian courts. He also
said that Merck could face damages of $41.5 million (Cad$50
million).

Vioxx was introduced to the Canadian market in 1999 and
withdrawn in September 2004. Approximately 700,000 Canadians are
believed to have used the drug.

Merck has been deluged with lawsuits around the world since it
withdrew the 2.5-billion-dollar-a-year seller Vioxx from the
market after an internal study showed it increased the risk of
strokes and heart attacks. More than 20 million people took the
drug worldwide before its withdrawal.


MERCK & CO.: Lawyers Say Trial in Vioxx Litigation Possible
-----------------------------------------------------------
Willie Gary's law firm, Gary, Williams, Parenti, Finney, Lewis,
McManus, Watson, & Sperando, P.L., is not optimistic it will
settle a local Vioxx case despite reports that drug maker Merck
& Co. is considering settling some of the lawsuits filed over
the drug, The Fort Pierce Tribune reports.

A mediation session is scheduled for September between Merck and
lawyers for Mark Tomlin, a Stuart man who suffered a massive
heart attack at 49 after taking Vioxx for more than two years,
according to court papers.
  
According to Madison McClellan, who is handling Mr. Tomlin's
case, the firm would consider settling for a fair offer, but was
doubtful that it would happen in light of Merck's announcement.  
A Merck spokesman previously said that the company would
consider settling a limited number of lawsuits that meet certain
conditions.

Mr. McClellan told The Fort Pierce Tribune that it was "too
little, too late" and that he and Mr. Tomlin were not optimistic
about reaching an accord with the pharmaceutical company. He
adds, "Now they're setting out the rules of this," he said.
"We're not going to let them dictate the [settlement] terms."

A Texas jury on August 19 awarded $253.4 million to the widow of
a man who died in 2001 of heart arrhythmia, or irregular
heartbeat, after taking Vioxx for about eight months.  The Texas
case involves, Texan 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. But,
the Company allegedly ignored those concerns in favor of
aggressive marketing for a multibillion-dollar seller. The case
was the first of 4,200 other suits that have been filed in the
United States and thousands more from other countries that are
being prepared to reach trial after the drug's withdrawal, an
earlier Class Action Reporter story (July 27, 2005) reports.

Vioxx, which is used to treat arthritis and acute pain, was
taken off the market in September 2004 after a study found that
the drug actually doubled the risk of heart attacks and strokes
in patients taking it longer than 18 months.

Mr. McClellan told The Fort Pierce Tribune that his team would
proceed in good faith during mediation, but that a trial seems
certain. According to him, the Tomlin case, filed in St. Lucie
County, could be the first Vioxx-related suit to be tried in
Florida.

Previously company lawyers were saying that they intend to fight
each personal injury lawsuit. Nearly 5,000 lawsuits, including
dozens of class action cases, had been filed as of August 15,
claiming patients were harmed by the drug's side effects.  
Currently, Merck faces its second state trial in Atlantic City
beginning September 12, and its first trial in federal court
starting November 28 in New Orleans.


MERCURY INSURANCE: Trial in CA Consumer Suit Set February 2006
--------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the class action filed against Mercury Insurance
Company, styled "Marissa Goodman, on her own behalf and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Mercury Insurance
Company," is set for

The suit, filed June 16, 2002, challenges the Company's use of
certain automated database vendors to assist in valuing claims
for medical payments. The suit alleges that these automated
databases systematically undervalue medical payment claims to
the detriment of insureds.  The Plaintiff is seeking unspecified
actual and punitive damages.  The Plaintiff is seeking to have
the case certified as a class action and is required to file
their motion for class certification by September 30, 2005.  

Similar lawsuits have been filed against other insurance
carriers in the industry. The case has been coordinated with two
other similar cases, and also with ten other cases relating to
total loss claims. The Company and the other defendants were
successful on Demurrer. The Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended
Complaint on June 28, 2004, which was substantially the same as
the original Complaint. The Company has answered the Second
Amended Complaint and filed a Motion for Summary Judgment as to
the claims of Ms. Goodman. The Court denied the Company's Motion
holding that there is an issue of fact as to whether Ms. Goodman
sustained any damages as result of the Company's handling of her
medical payments claim.


MERCURY INSURANCE: Plaintiffs File Amended CA Consumer Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a fourth amended class action against Mercury
Insurance Company in the California Superior Court for Los
Angeles County, styled "Sam Donabedian, individually and
on behalf of those similarly situated v. Mercury Insurance
Company."

The suit originally asserted, among other things, a claim that
the Company's calculation of persistency discounts to determine
premiums is an unfair business practice, a violation of the
California Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) and a breach of
the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.  

The Company originally prevailed on a Demurrer to the Complaint
and the case was dismissed; however, the California Court of
Appeal reversed the trial court's ruling, deciding that the
California Insurance Commissioner does not have the exclusive
right to review the calculation of insurance rates/premiums. On
June 28, 2005, the Plaintiff filed a Fourth Amended Complaint,
which asserts a claim for violation of California Business &
Professions Code Section 17200 as well as a claim for breach of
the covenant of good faith and fair dealing (the CLRA claim was
dismissed with prejudice).  In its Fourth Amended Complaint, the
Plaintiff again seeks injunctive relief, unspecified restitution
and monetary damages as well as punitive damages and attorney's
fees and costs. Without leave of court, the Plaintiff also has
attempted to state claims for breach of contract and fraud.

The Company has filed a Demurrer to the Plaintiff's Fourth
Amended Complaint and the hearing on this Demurrer is scheduled
for September 12, 2005.  On June 9, 2005, the trial court
overruled a separate Demurrer by the Company and permitted The
Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights to file a Complaint
in Intervention alleging that the Company's calculation of
persistency discounts constitutes a violation of Insurance Code
Section 1861.02 (a) and (c).  The Company has filed an answer to
The Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights' pleading and
intends to vigorously defend the entire case.  No trial date has
been scheduled and the Plaintiff has not filed a motion to
certify the putative class. There currently is a stay on
discovery in place.


MERRILL LYNCH: Plaintiffs Seek Summary Judgment in TX Enron Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs asked the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas for partial summary judgment against
Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. in the class action styled "Newby v.
Enron Corp. et al.," where the Company is named as a defendant.

The suit is brought on behalf of individuals who purchased Enron
securities.  The suit alleges violations of Sections 11 and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, an
earlier Class Action Reporter story (April 23,2004) states.

On July 27, 2005, the Company filed a Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings based, in part, on the Supreme Court's April 19, 2005,
decision in "Dura Pharmaceuticals v. Broudo," which addressed
the standards for pleading and proving loss causation.  On
August 3, 2005, plaintiff filed a Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment against the Company, which seeks a judgment that the
Company knowingly committed deceptive acts in furtherance of a
scheme to defraud.  The Company is opposing that motion. The
parties are still awaiting the court's ruling on whether the
case should be certified as a class action.

The suit is styled "Newby, et al v. Enron Corporation, et al,
case no. 4:01-cv-03624," filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Texas, under Judge Melinda
Harmon.  Representing the plaintiff are Steve W. Berman of
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, 1301 Fifth Ave, Ste 2900,
Seattle, WA 98101, Phone: 206-623-7292, Fax: 206-623-0594, E-
mail: William S. Lerach, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller et al.,
9601 Wilshire Bld, Ste 510, Los Angeles, CA 90210, Phone:
310-859-3100; and William S. Lerach of Lerach Coughlin Stoia
Geller et al, 9601 Wilshire Bld, Ste 510, Los Angeles, CA 90210,
Phone: 310-859-3100.  Representing the Company is Seth M. Kean
and William J. Roll of Shearman & Sterling LLP, 599 Lexington
Avenue, New York, NY 10022, Phone: 212-848-4575.


MERRILL LYNCH: Appeals Court To Review NY Lawsuit Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court off Appeals for the Second Circuit
entered an order agreeing to review the district court's order
granting plaintiffs' motion for class certification for the
consolidated securities class action filed against Merrill Lynch
& Co., Inc. and other investment firms.

The suit, styled "IN re IPO Allocation Litigation," is pending
in the United States District Court in the Southern District of
New York.  In general, the complaint alleges that the
Underwriter Defendants:

     (1) allocated shares of the Company's offering of equity
         securities to certain of their customers, in exchange
         for which these customers agreed to pay the Underwriter
         Defendants extra commissions on transactions in other
         securities; and

     (2) allocated shares of the Company's initial public
         offering to certain of the Underwriter Defendants'
         customers, in exchange for which the customers agreed
         to purchase additional common shares of the Company in
         the after-market at certain pre-determined prices.

Approximately 300 other issuers and their underwriters have had
similar suits filed against them, all of which are included in a
single coordinated proceeding in the Southern District of New
York.  On July 1, 2002, the underwriter defendants moved to
dismiss all of the IPO allocation litigation complaints against
them, including the action involving the Company.  On July 15,
2002, the defendant companies, along with the other non-
underwriter defendants in the coordinated cases, also moved to
dismiss the litigation.  Those motions were fully briefed on
September 13 and September 27, 2002, respectively.  

In October 2002, the Individual Defendants were dismissed from
the IPO Allocation Litigation without prejudice.  In July 2003,
the defendants companies reached a proposed partial settlement
with the plaintiffs in this matter.  In late 2004, the court
granted class certification in six "focus" cases that have been
used to test the sufficiency of the overall allegations.  

The plaintiffs and the issuer defendants in the IPO allocation
cases have obtained preliminary court approval of their $1
billion settlement, originally agreed to back in June 2003. The
cases were brought against nearly 300 companies and 55
investment banks involved in initial public offerings during the
tech boom.  

The committee agreed to approve the settlement subject to a
number of conditions, including the participation of a
substantial number of other issuer defendants in the proposed
settlement, the consent of the Company's insurers to the
settlement, and the completion of acceptable final settlement
documentation.  Furthermore, the settlement is subject to a
hearing on fairness and approval by the Court overseeing the IPO
Allocation Litigation.

The Company, however, appealed the class certification granted
to the amended complaint.  On June 30, 2005, the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit entered an order
agreeing to review the district court's order granting
plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

The suit is styled "INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERING SECURITIES
LITIGATION, Master File No. 21 MC 92 (SAS)," 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


ODIMO INC.: Securities Fraud Suit Filed in FL V. Firm, Officers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Odimo Incorporated (Nasdaq: ODMO), an online retailer that
offers high quality diamonds, fine jewelry, brand name watches
and luxury goods through three websites (http://www.diamond.com,
http://www.ashford.com,and http://www.worldofwatches.com),
received notice that a securities class action complaint has
been filed against the Company and two of its officers in
Circuit Court in Broward County, Florida on behalf of a
purported class of purchasers of the Company's common stock.

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws due
to allegedly false and misleading statements in Odimo's public
disclosures in connection with its initial public offering.

Alan Lipton, Odimo's President and Chief Executive Officer,
commented: "We firmly believe that this lawsuit is without merit
and we intend to vigorously defend the Company and our
employees."


ONE PRICE: SEC Lodges Fraud Charges V. Former, Current Officials
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed a complaint in the
United States District Court for the District of South Carolina
against four former officers and employees of One Price Clothing
Stores, Inc., a national clothing retailer that is currently in
bankruptcy.  The defendants in the Commission's complaint
include One Price's former Chief Executive Officer, Leonard M.
Snyder, Chief Financial Officer, H. Dane Reynolds, Treasurer and
successor Chief Financial Officer, C. Burt Duren, and
Controller, R. Carey Johnson.

The Commission's complaint alleges that, during the period from
late 2002 through December 2003, Mr. Snyder, Mr. Reynolds, Mr.
Mr. Duren, and Mr. Johnson caused One Price to misrepresent in
its Commission filings that it was in compliance with its credit
facility, on which the company relied to provide cash for its
operations.  The complaint further alleges that One Price was
actually in default because the defendants caused the company to
artificially inflate its inventory levels, which collateralized
its debt, in weekly reports to its lender.  The complaint also
alleges that One Price filed false and misleading periodic
reports with the Commission because the inflated inventory
levels were included in the financial statements that were filed
with those reports.

The Commission's complaint charges Mr. Snyder, Mr. Reynolds, and
Mr. Duren with violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act
of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 13(b)(5) of the Securities and
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rules 10b-5, 13a-14, 13b2-1, and 13b2-2
thereunder, and with aiding and abetting One Price's violations
of Sections 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A), and 13(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange
Act and Rules 12b-20, 13a-1, and 13a-13 thereunder.  The
Commission's complaint seeks permanent injunctions, disgorgement
with prejudgment interest, civil penalties, and officer and
director bars.

The Commission's complaint also charges Mr. Johnson with
violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act and Sections
10(b) and 13(b)(5) of the Exchange Act and Rules 10b-5 and 13b2-
1 thereunder, and with aiding and abetting One Price's
violations of Sections 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A), and 13(b)(2)(B) of
the Exchange Act and Rules 12b-20, 13a-1, and 13a-13 thereunder.   
Mr. Johnson, without admitting or denying the allegations in the
Commission's complaint, consented to a entry of a final judgment

     (1) permanently enjoining him from violating and aiding and
         abetting violations of these provisions of the federal
         securities laws;

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

     (3) ordering him to pay a civil monetary penalty of
         $25,000.  

The suit is styled, SEC v. Leonard M. Snyder, H. Dane Reynolds,
C. Burt Duren, and R. Carey Johnson,
Civil Action No. 7-05-2471-RBH, D.S.C., August 25, 2005
(LR-19349; AAER-2297).


PERINI CORPORATION: MA Court Approves Securities Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts granted preliminary approval of the settlement of
the consolidated class action filed against certain of Perini
Corporation's current and former directors.

Frederick Doppelt, Arthur I. Caplan and Leland D. Zulch filed a
lawsuit individually, and as representatives of a class of
holders of the $2.125 Depositary Convertible Exchangeable
Preferred Shares, representing 1/10 Share of $21.25 Convertible
Exchangeable Preferred Stock against certain current and former
directors of the Company.  This lawsuit is captioned "Doppelt,
et al. v. Tutor, et al."  Mr. Doppelt is a current director of
Perini and Mr. Caplan is a former director of the Company.

Specifically, the original complaint alleged that the defendants
breached their fiduciary duties owed to the holders of the
Depositary Shares and to the Company. The plaintiffs principally
allege that the defendants improperly authorized the exchange of
Series B Preferred Stock for common stock while simultaneously
refusing to pay accrued dividends due on the Depositary Shares.

In July 2003, the plaintiffs filed an amended Complaint. The
amended complaint added an allegation that the defendants have
further breached their fiduciary duties by authorizing a tender
offer for the purchase of up to 90% of the Depositary Shares and
an allegation that the collective actions of the defendants
constitute unfair and deceptive business practices under the
provisions of the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act.  The
amended complaint withdrew the allegation of a breach of
fiduciary duty owed to Perini, but retained the allegation with
respect to a breach of those duties owed to the holders of the
Depositary Shares.

On April 12, 2004, pursuant to Defendants' Motions to Dismiss,
the Court dismissed the claim under the Massachusetts Consumer
Protection Act. The Court did not dismiss the claim for breach
of fiduciary duty, except as such claim relates to the tender
offer for the purchase of the Company's Depositary Shares.
Pursuant to the Court's April 12, 2004 Order, in May 2004 the
plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint and a motion for
class certification.  Defendants filed an answer denying any and
all claims of wrongdoing and asserting affirmative defenses.

On November 30, 2004, Perini announced that the parties had
reached an agreement for settlement of the Action.  Under the
terms of the settlement, Perini would purchase all of the
Depositary Shares submitted in the settlement for consideration
of $19.00 per share in cash and one share of Perini common
stock.  On April 19, 2005, the District Court of Massachusetts
conditionally certified a class of holders of Depositary Shares
for purposes of settlement only.  On May 5, 2005, the Court
preliminarily approved the settlement as being fair, just,
reasonable and adequate, pending a final hearing.

As of July 25, 2005, of the 559,273 Depositary Shares
outstanding, 357,285 shares were participating in the settlement
and 201,988 shares were the subject of requests for exclusion
from the settlement.  No one has objected to the settlement. The
proposed settlement and the final determination of which shares
will participate in the settlement remain subject to approval of
the Court and a hearing before the Court for that purpose will
be scheduled.  Frederick Doppelt will resign from his position
as a director of the Company upon Court approval of the
settlement.

The suit is styled Doppelt, et al v. Tutor, et al., 1:02-cv-
12010-MLW, and is pending in the United States District Court
for the District of Massachusetts, under Judge Mark L. Wolf.  
The law firms involved in this litigation are:

     (1) Samuel E. Bonderoff of Paul, Weis, Rifkind, Wharton &
         Garrison, NY, representing plaintiffs Leland D. Zulch,
         Arthur I. Caplan and defendants Arthur J. Fox, Jr.,
         Bonnie R. Cohn, Christopher H. Lee, Douglas J.
         McCarron, Jane E. Newman, Marshall M. Crider, Nancy
         Hawthorne, Peter Arkley, Raymond R. Oneglia, Richard J.
         Boushka, Robert A. Band, Robert A. Kennedy, Ronald N.
         Tutor and Wayne L. Berman;

     (2) Robert T. Cronan of Goodwin Procter LLP Mail: Exchange
         Place, 53 State Street, Boston, MA 02109, Phone:
         617-570-1389 or 617-523-1231, E-mail:
         tcronan@goodwinproctor.com, representing defendants
         Arthur J. Fox, Jr., Bonnie R. Cohn, Christopher H. Lee,
         Douglas J. McCarron, Jane E. Newman, Marshall M.
         Crider, Nancy Hawthorne, Peter Arkley, Raymond R.
         Oneglia, Richard J. Boushka, Robert A. Band, Robert A.
         Kennedy, Ronald N. Tutor and Wayne L. Berman and
         plaintiff Arthur I. Caplan;

     (3) Felicia S. Ennis of Robinson Brog Leinwand Greene
         Genovese & Gluck, Mail: 31st Floor, 1345 Avenue of the
         Americas New York, NY 10105-0143, Phone: 212-603-6300,
         Fax: 212-956-2164 E-mail: fse@robinsonbrog.com
         representing plaintiffs Frederick Doppelt and Arthur I.
         Caplan and defendant Richard J. Boushka;

     (4) Stuart M. Glass of Goodwin Procter, LLP, Mail: Exchange
         Place, 53 State Street, Boston, MA 02109, Phone:
         617-570-1920, Fax: 617-523-1231, E-mail:
         sglass@goodwinprocter.com, representing defendants
         Arthur J. Fox, Jr., Bonnie R. Cohn, Christopher H. Lee,
         Douglas J. McCarron, Jane E. Newman, Marshall M.
         Crider, Nancy Hawthorne, Peter Arkley, Raymond R.
         Oneglia, Richard J. Boushka, Robert A. Band, Robert A.
         Kennedy, Ronald N. Tutor, Michael R. Klein and Wayne L.
         Berman and plaintiff Arthur I. Caplan;

     (5) Daniel J. Kramer of Paul Weiss Rivkind Wharton &
         Garrison LLP, Mail: 1285 Avenue of the Americas, New
         York, NY 10019 Phone: 212-373-300 Fax: 212-757-3990 E-
         mail: dkramer@paulweiss.com, representing plaintiff
         Arthur I. Caplan,

     (6) Alan M. Pollack of Robinson Brog Leinwand Greene
         Genovese & Gluck, Mail: 31st Floor, 1345 Avenue of the
         Americas, New York, NY 10105-0143 Phone: 212-603-6316,
         Fax: 212-956-2164 or E-mail: amp@robinsonbrog.com
         representing plaintiff Frederick Doppelt and defendant
         Richard J. Boushka;

     (7) Steven L. Schreckinger of Palmer & Dodge, LLP, Mail:
         111 Huntington Avenue, Boston, MA 02199, Phone: 617-
         239-0167, Fax: 617-227-4420, E-mail:
         sschreckinger@palmerdodge.com, representing plaintiffs
         Arthur I. Caplan, Frederick Doppelt, Yvonne Weber,
         Leland D. Zulch and defendants Richard J. Boushka, and
         Martin Ahubik,

     (8) Eryn Starun of Paul Weiss Rivkind Wharton & Garrison
         LLP, Mail: 1285 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY
         10019, Phone: 212-373-300, Fax: 212-757-3990, E-mail:
         estarun@paulweiss.com, representing plaintiff Arthur I.
         Caplan

     (9) Matthew J. Weiss of Weiss & Associates, 419 Park Avenue
         South 2nd Floor New York, NY 10016, Phone: 212-683-7373
         Fax: 212-726-0135 E-mail:
         mjweiss@weissandassiciatespc.com representing
         plaintiffs Arthur I. Caplan, Frederick Doppelt, Leland
         D. Zulch, Martin Ahubik and Yvonne Weber


PNC FINANCIAL: PA Court Mulls Approval for Stock Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania held a fairness hearing on the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against PNC Financial
Services Group, Inc. on August 4,2005, but has yet to issue a
ruling.

The settlement relates to certain lawsuits and other claims
related to three 2001 transactions (labeled the "PAGIC
transactions") that gave rise to a financial statement
restatement the Company announced on January 29, 2002 and that
were the subject of a July 2002 consent order between the
Company and the United States Securities and Exchange Commission
and a June 2003 Deferred Prosecution Agreement between the
United States Department of Justice and PNC ICLC Corp., one of
its indirect non-bank subsidiaries.

The several putative class action complaints filed during 2002
in the United States District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania arising out of the PAGIC transactions have been
consolidated in a consolidated class action complaint brought on
behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock between July
19, 2001 and July 18, 2002.  The consolidated class action
complaint names the Company, its Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer, its former Chief Financial Officer, its Controller, and
its independent auditors for 2001 as defendants and seeks
unquantified damages, interest, attorneys' fees and other
expenses.  The consolidated class action complaint alleges
violations of federal securities laws related to disclosures
regarding the PAGIC transactions and related matters.

In August 2002, the United States Department of Labor began a
formal investigation of the Administrative Committee of the
Company's Incentive Savings Plan ("Plan") in connection with the
Administrative Committee's conduct relating to the Company's
common stock held by the Plan. Both the Administrative Committee
and PNC are cooperating fully with the investigation.  

In June 2003, the Administrative Committee retained Independent
Fiduciary Services, Inc. (IFS) to serve as an independent
fiduciary charged with the exclusive authority and
responsibility to act on behalf of the Plan in connection with
the pending securities litigation referred to above and to
evaluate any legal rights the Plan might have against any
parties relating to the PAGIC transactions.  This authority
includes representing the Plan's interests in connection with
the Restitution Fund set up under the Deferred Prosecution
Agreement. The Department of Labor has communicated with IFS in
connection with the engagement.

On December 17, 2004, the Company entered into a tentative
settlement of the consolidated putative class actions, reflected
in a Memorandum of Understanding between the plaintiffs and the
Company, its former and current executive officers who are
defendants in the lawsuit, and AIG Financial Products
Corporation.  The tentative settlement is subject to completion
of final documentation, court approval and other conditions,
including some that are outside the control of the parties.

The suit is styled "KETTERMAN v. PNC FINANCIAL, et al., case no.
2:05-cv-00629-DSC," filed in the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania, under Judge David S.
Cercone.  Representing the plaintiffs is Gregory G. Paul of
Peirce Law Offices, 707 Grant Street, 2500 Gulf Tower,
Pittsburgh, PA 15219, Phone: (412) 281-7229, Fax: (412)281-4229,
E-mail: gpaul@peircelaw.com.  Representing the Company is Mark
R. Hornak of Buchanan Ingersoll, 301 Grant Street, One Oxford
Centre, 20th Floor, Pittsburgh, PA 15219, Phone: 412-562-8859,
E-mail: hornakmr@bipc.com.


PNC FINANCIAL: Plaintiffs File Amended PA ERISA Violations Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. asked the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, to
dismiss the consolidated amended class action filed against it,
alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974 (ERISA).  The suit also names as defendants PNC
Bank, N.A., the Company's Pension Plan and its Pension
Committee.

The complaint alleges ERISA violations arising out of the
January 1, 1999 conversion of the Company's Pension Plan from a
traditional defined benefit formula into a "cash balance"
formula, the design and continued operation of the Plan, and
other related matters. Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of
all current and former employee-participants in and
beneficiaries of the Plan as of December 31, 1998 and
thereafter.  Plaintiffs also seek to represent a subclass of all
current and former employee-participants in and beneficiaries of
the Plan as of December 31, 1998 and thereafter who were or
would have become eligible for an early retirement subsidy under
the former Plan at some time prior to the date of the amended
complaint.  The plaintiffs are seeking damages and equitable
relief available under ERISA, including interest, costs, and
attorneys' fees.

The suit is styled "Register et al v. PNC Financial Services
Group, Inc., et al., case no. 2:04-cv-06097-LDD," filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, under Judge Legrome D. Davis.  Representing the
plaintiffs is Michael S. Tarringer, MILLER FAUCHER AND CAFERTY,
LLP, One Logan Sq., 18th and Cherry Streets, Ste 1700,
Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone: 215-864-2800, E-mail:
mtarringer@millerfaucher.com.  Representing the Company is
William A. Slaughter, BALLARD SPAHR ANDREWS AND INGERSOLL, 1735
Market Street, 51st Floor, Philadelphia PA 19103, Phone:
215-665-8500, E-mail: slaughter@ballardspahr.com.


QUANTUM CORPORATION: CA Court Mulls Consumer Suit Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
San Francisco heard the motion to grant class certification to
the lawsuit filed against Quantum Corporation and other data
storage tape companies, namely:

     (1) Hitachi Maxell, Ltd.,

     (2) Maxell Corporation of America,

     (3) Fuji Photo Film Co., Ltd., and

     (4) Fuji Photo Film U.S.A., Inc.

Plaintiff Franz Inc. filed the suit on August 8, 2003, alleging
violation of California antitrust law, violation of California
unfair competition law, and unjust enrichment.  The Company
charges, among other things, that the defendants entered into
agreements and conspired to monopolize the market and fix prices
for data storage tape compatible with DLT tape drives.  Franz
seeks an order that the lawsuit be maintained as a class action
and that defendants be enjoined from continuing the violations
alleged in the complaint.  The Company also seeks compensatory
damages, treble damages, statutory damages, attorneys' fees,
costs, and interest.

The suit is styled "Franz, Inc., Individually, on behalf of all
others v. Quantum Corporation, et al, Case Number: CGC-03-
423301," filed in the Superior Court of San Francisco
California, under Judge Richard A. Kramer.

Attorneys for plaintiff Franz, Inc. are:

     (1) David Lorie, 555 12th Street, Suite 1450, Oakland, CA
         94607 USA, Phone: (510) 452-2000

     (2) Raymond W. Morganti, Siemion, Huckabay, Bodary,
         Padilla, Morganti & Bowerman, P.C., One Towne Square,
         Suite 1400, P.O. Box 5068, Southfield, MI 40808-6506,
         Phone: (248) 357-1400

     (3) Robert C. Schubert, Schubert & Reed LLP, Two
         Embarcadero Center, Suite 1660, San Francisco CA 94111,
         Phone: (415) 788-4220

Defending the Company are:

     (i) Loren Kieve, Oliver & Hedges, LLP, 50 California, 22nd
         Floor, San Francisco CA 94111

    (ii) Robert P. Mallory, McDermott, Will & Emery, 2049
         Century Park East. 34th, Los Angeles CA 90067, Phone:
         (310) 277-4110

   (iii) Charles H. Samel, Howrey Simon Arnold & White LLP, 550
         South Hope Street, Suite 110, Los Angeles, CA 90071,
         Phone: (213) 892-1800


REHABCARE GROUP: CA Court Refuses Certification To Wage Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California refused to grant class certification to a
consolidated employee suit against RehabCare Group, Inc.

Several of the Company's former employees from its former
staffing division files several suits, seeking overtime
compensation and related damages under both federal and state
law.  Three of these cases were consolidated.  The plaintiffs
sought to bring a collective or class action on behalf of all
similarly situated persons.  

In January 2005, the court granted plaintiffs' motion to send
notices of collective action to present and former staffing
division employees, while denying plaintiffs' request to proceed
as a class action under the California state law claims.  The
notices of collective action have been mailed to each person in
the class of employees approved by the court and August 15, 2005
was been set as the deadline for employees receiving notices to
opt-in to the collective action.  Claims of an employee who opts
in to the case will date back two years (three years if a
willful violation is proven) from the date that the employee
files consent to join the case.  

Plaintiffs' counsel has also filed a separate federal suit
asserting that the failure to pay overtime compensation to
employees constituted a breach of contract by the Company.  
Plaintiffs' counsel had earlier filed a separate California
state court class action reasserting the state law claims.


SCANA CORPORATION: SC Court Dismisses Right-of-Way Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
South Carolina's Circuit Court of Common Pleas for the Ninth
Judicial Circuit dismissed the class action filed against SCANA
Corporation, styled "Douglas E. Gressette, individually and on
behalf of other persons similarly situated v. South Carolina
Electric & Gas Company and SCANA Corporation."

The case alleges the Company made improper use of certain
easements and rights-of-way by allowing fiber optic
communication lines and/or wireless communication equipment to
transmit communications other than the Company's electricity-
related internal communications.  The plaintiff asserted causes
of action for unjust enrichment, trespass, injunction and
declaratory judgment.  The plaintiff did not assert a specific
dollar amount for the claims.

The Company believes its actions are consistent with governing
law and the applicable documents granting easements and rights-
of-way, it stated in a regulatory filing.  The Court granted the
Company's motion to dismiss and issued an Order dismissing the
case on June 29, 2005.  An appeal by the Plaintiff is expected.


SOUTH CAROLINA: Supreme Court Grants Class Status For TERI Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
South Carolina's Supreme Court recently ruled that a lawsuit by
four retirees about pension contributions applies to all state
workers in the program, The Myrtle Beach Sun News reports.  
Along with granting the suit class action status, the justices
ordered the state to keep money contributed to the Teacher and
Employee Retention Incentive, or TERI, program in an interest-
bearing escrow account until the lawsuit is settled.

The employees initiated the lawsuit, which is seeking class
action status, claiming changes approved this year to South
Carolina's retirement system shortchange them of pay. The TERI
program allows employees to return to work after retirement and
earn both pension benefits and a salary without contributing to
the retirement system. Under the new law, which is being
disputed by the plaintiffs, workers will be required to chip in
6.25 percent of their paycheck, an earlier Class Action Reporter
story (June 28, 2005) reports.

The workers filed the suit on June 13 alleging the state broke
its contract with TERI workers and asked a judge to temporarily
stop the state from deducting the money from their paychecks. In
their suit, which could potentially include 13,670 TERI workers,
the plaintiffs claim that requiring them to pay into the system
but denying the credit for extra service, which would increase
their pension, is like a sudden pay cut, an earlier Class Action
Reporter story (June 28, 2005) reports.

According to state Budget and Control Board spokesman Mike
Sponhour, the change in the law would bring in about $50 million
a year. The pension system needs the extra cash or it might not
meet 30-year federal guidelines for solvency, he added.

Mr. Sponhour pointed out that one of the issues before the
justices is whether pensions are a contract between state
workers and government that can't be altered. He told The Myrtle
Beach Sun News that if the Justices rule in favor of the
retirees, the results could cost the state up to $500 million if
applied to a second suit. In that case, retirees claim the state
broke its contract when it began taxing state pensions. He
contends, "This is a case that just doesn't affect retirees,"
Sponhour said. "It involves every taxpayer and their wallet."

However, one of the attorneys for the retirees told The Myrtle
Beach Sun News, the state should be forced to do the right thing
no matter how much it costs. "They are taking these people's
money," lawyer Cam Lewis said.

Attorneys on both sides of the TERI case should submit briefs to
the state Supreme Court in the next few months.


WYNDHAM INTERNATIONAL: Investors Sue V. Blackstone Merger in DE
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wyndham International, Inc. and certain of its directors and
officers face several class actions filed in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware for New Castle County, related
to a proposal by an affiliate of The Blackstone Group to acquire
the Company.

On June 14, 2005, a suit, styled "Shaev v. Kleisner et al (C.A.
No. 1417-N)," was filed, on behalf of a putative class
comprising all Company stockholders (except for the Company's
directors and any persons related to or affiliated with the
Company or any of its directors). The suit that the company's
directors owe a fiduciary duty to the Company's stockholders,
and that the directors breached such asserted duty in
authorizing the Company's entry into the Blackstone merger
agreement, by, among other things, allegedly failing to conduct
an auction or explore strategic alternatives to a merger, and/or
allegedly failing to obtain sufficient value for stockholders.
The alleged class representative seeks various remedies on
behalf of himself and the putative class, including declaratory
relief affirming the claims set forth in the complaint, an
injunction preliminarily and permanently enjoining the proposed
merger transaction, an award of compensatory damages against all
defendants and an award of attorney's fees.

On June 16, 2005, another suit, similar to the Shaev action was
filed, styled "Hwang v. Kleisner et al (C.A. No. 1422-N."  The
parties, purported class, allegations and relief requested in
the Hwang Action complaint are materially identical to those in
the Shaev Action, save that the Hwang Action additionally
asserts that the Company directors violated fiduciary duties in
allegedly failing to obtain a control premium; and allegedly
approving improper compensation arrangements with certain
Company officers, including the Company's Chairman and chief
executive officer.  

On June 17, 2005, another similar class action was filed, styled
"Zucker v. Kleisner et al (C.A. No. 1425-N)."  The parties,
purported class, allegations and relief requested in the Zucker
Action complaint are materially identical to those in the Hwang
Action.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases


AMERICAN ITALIAN: Kaplan Fox Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in MO
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP, initiated a class
action suit in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Missouri against American Italian Pasta Company
("AIPC" or the "Company") (NYSE: PLB) and certain of its
officers and directors, on behalf of all persons or entities who
purchased the publicly traded securities of AIPC between October
25, 2000 and August 9, 2005 (the "Class Period").

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange
Act of 1934 by publicly issuing a series of false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's financial condition, thus
causing AIPC's securities to trade at artificially inflated
levels.

On August 9, 2005, after the close of trading, AIPC disclosed
that it was "delaying the release of its full financial results
for the third fiscal quarter ended July 1, 2005, and is also
delaying the filing of its third quarter Form 10-Q with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)." The Company stated
that "it will not achieve in fiscal year 2005 the expected range
of margin performance, overall profitability and free cash flow
as set forth in the Company's earnings release on April 27,
2005."

AIPC also disclosed that the Company's "Audit Committee has
recently commenced an internal investigation, undertaken at the
Committee's own initiative, of certain matters including:
certain accounting procedures and practices including those
relating to material weaknesses in internal controls identified
by the Company. financial statement adjustments. and the
circumstances surrounding such adjustments; and, certain
transactions and possible past accounting errors and their
causes." The Company "indicated that the investigation relates
to transactions and other matters occurring as early as the
Company's 2000 fiscal year. The internal investigation has not
yet been completed and the Company indicated that financial
statement adjustments might be necessary in addition to those
outlined in this release. Until the internal investigation is
completed by the Audit Committee and any financial statement
adjustments and their causes are determined, the Company's third
quarter results and any impact on prior period results cannot be
finalized."

In addition, the Company stated "that in late 2004 and early
2005, it received inquiries from the Philadelphia and New York
Stock Exchanges concerning trading activity in the Company's
stock, by persons outside of the Company, during time periods
surrounding certain of the Company's public announcements." The
Company stated that "[s]ome of the issues under discussion with
the SEC staff relate" to "financial statement adjustments" by
the Company.

On August 10, 2005, the following trading day, shares of AIPC
declined from $20.94 to $13.28 per share, a decline of
approximately 37%, on unusually heavy volume.

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


MOLINA HEALTHCARE: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Suit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
LLP ("Lerach Coughlin") initiated a class action in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California on
behalf of purchasers of Molina Healthcare, Inc. ("Molina")
(NYSE:MOH) publicly traded securities during the period between
November 4, 2004 and July 20, 2005 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Molina and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Molina operates as a multi-state managed care organization
that arranges for the delivery of health care services.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
caused Molina's shares to trade at artificially inflated levels,
increasing to as high as $53.23 per share, by issuing a series
of materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business and prospects. As the price of the Company's
securities increased, defendants planned a secondary offering of
3 million shares of Molina securities, with 1 million shares to
be sold by the Company and 2 million shares to be sold by family
trusts controlled by certain of the defendants.

Then on July 20, 2005, Molina announced that it expected to
report a loss per diluted share for the second quarter of 2005
in the range of $0.15 to $0.20, rather than the profit
previously forecast. The Company also announced that it was
revising its guidance for fiscal year 2005 and expected that its
net income per diluted share for fiscal year 2005 would be in
the range of $0.73 to $0.80. The Company had previously issued
guidance for fiscal year 2005 of $2.40 to $2.45 per share. On
this news the Company's shares fell to as low as $20 per share.

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


RAMP CORPORATION: Bull & Lifshitz Lodges Securities Suit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Bull & Lifshitz, LLP, initiated a securities class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Ramp Corporation ("Ramp" or the "Company"), (Other
OTC: RCOCQ) between August 19, 2003, and May 20, 2005, inclusive
(the "Class Period").

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Ramp and
certain of the Company's executive officers issued materially
false and misleading financial statements to the investing
public regarding its financial performance and prospects in
violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint
alleges that on May 21, 2005, Seidman resigned as the Company's
auditor and advised Ramp that the Company's 2003 and 2004 audit
reports were unreliable. The complaint further alleges that as a
result of such information, Ramp stated that it would not file
its quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March
31, 2005 on time. The Complaint also alleges that, on May 22,
2005, defendant Brown resigned due to violations of Company
policies and/or the law when he received an unspecified amount
of cash as a gift in December 2003.

Upon disclosure of the above news, the Company's stock halted
trading for approximately two weeks. Since resumption of
trading, the stock trades below $0.10 per share, down from the
closing price of $1.25 on May 20, 2005.

For more details, contact Joshua M. Lifshitz, Esq. of Bull &
Lifshitz, LLP, Phone: (212) 213-6222, Fax: (212) 213-9405, E-
mail: counsel@nyclasslaw.com, Web site:
http://www.nyclasslaw.com.


SYMBOL TECHNOLOGIES: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Symbol
Technologies, Inc. (NYSE: SBL) securities during the period
between May 10, 2004 and August 1, 2005 (the "Class Period").

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For more details, contact 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.



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

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

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

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


                            *********


A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each
Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissions
via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.

Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring
news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target
asbestos defendants that, according to independent researches,
collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related
liabilities.

                            *********


S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland
USA.   Glenn Ruel Senorin, Aurora Fatima Antonio and Lyndsey
Resnick, Editors.

Copyright 2005.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without
prior written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed
to be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Christopher
Beard at 240/629-3300.

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *