CAR_Public/050831.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Wednesday, August 31, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 172

                            Headlines

AUTOBYTEL INC.: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
AUTOBYTEL.COM: Submits Revised Stock Suit Settlement To NY Court
AUTOWEB.COM: Parties Submit Revised Securities Suit Settlement
CALIFORNIA: Attorney Files Suit V. County Over Hotel-Tax Refunds
CAPTARIS INC.: Discovery Proceeding in Unsolicited Fax Lawsuits

CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Argues Suit Belongs in AR PSC, Not in Court
CHOICEPOINT INC.: FL Court Hears Motion To Re-open Privacy Suit
CHOICEPOINT INC.: Reaches Settlement For IL Consumer Fraud Suit
CHOICEPOINT INC.: Seeks Consolidation of FCRA Suits in C.D. CA
CHOICEPOINT INC.: Shareholders Launch Securities Fraud Lawsuits

CHOICEPOINT INC.: Pension Plan Members File ERISA Lawsuit in GA
COMDISCO INC.: IL Court OKs Securities Fraud Lawsuit Settlement
CONSTELLATION ENERGY: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Antitrust Lawsuit
CONSTELLATION ENERGY: MD Court Dismisses Claims in Mercury Suits
CONSTELLATION ENERGY: Reaches Settlement for MD Race Bias Suit

CONSTELLATION POWER: Canadians Launch Personal Injury Litigation
CUSTOM RX: Recalls 0.06% Ophthalmic Solution For Injury Hazard
DATATECH COMMUNICATIONS: FTC Sues Due To Business Listing Fraud
EMERSON DIRECT: Settles FTC Suit For Fake Diet Supplement Claims
GREEN BAY: Recalls Beef for Age Discrepancy, Risk Factors   

GUIDANT CORPORATION: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuits in S.D. IN
GUIDANT CORPORATION: Faces ERISA Violations Lawsuit in S.D. IN
GUIDANT CORPORATION: Faces Product Lawsuits V. Defibrillator
GUIDANT CORPORATION: Former Employees File Bias Suit With EEOC
INDIAN FUNDS: Cobell To Discuss Royalties Lawsuit With Tribes

INTERPOOL INC.: NJ Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Litigation
JANUS CAPITAL: Judge Says Plaintiffs Unlikely to get Big Payout
LORAL SPACE: Reaches Settlement For NY Securities Fraud Lawsuit
MASSACHUSETTS: Ex-BankBoston Customers Join Merger Suit Pact
MEDLINE INDUSTRIES: Recalls Mouthwashes, Kits Due to Health Risk

MERCK & CO.: NJ Judge Denies Motion to Postpone 2nd Vioxx Trial
MERCK & CO.: Firm Files Vioxx Suit on Behalf of French Citizens
MINNESOTA: Law Firm's Fees in Time-AOL Case Scrutinized by GOP
NATIONAL TESTING: Faces FTC Lawsuit For False Employment Scheme
NEKTAR THERAPEUTICS: Plaintiff Drops Securities Suit in N.D. CA

SOUTHWEST RESEARCH: Ex-Researcher Files Gender Bias Suit in TX
SPX CORPORATION: Asks NC Court To Junk Securities, ERISA Suits
SYNOVIS LIFE: MN Court Dismisses Shareholder Suit With Prejudice
TOBACCO LITIGATION: ME Residents Sue "Lights" Cigarette Makers
TYSON FRESH: Court Orders Plaintiffs to Pay Firm's Court Costs


                    Meetings and Conferences

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

AMERICAN ITALIAN: Smith & Smith Lodges Securities Suit in MO
ATI TECHNOLOGIES: Smith & Smith Lodges Securities Suit in PA
SYMBOL TECHNOLOGIES: Abbey Gardy Lodges NY Securities Fraud Suit
WORLD HEALTH: Cohen Milstein Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in PA
WORLD HEALTH: Goldman Scarlato Files Securities Fraud Suit in PA

WORLD HEALTH: Smith & Smith Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in PA

                          *********


AUTOBYTEL INC.: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Autobytel, Inc. asked the United States District Court for the
Central District of California to dismiss the consolidated
securities class action filed against it and certain of its
current directors and current and former officers.

Several claims were initially filed between October and December
2004 on behalf of stockholders who purchased shares during the
period July 24, 2003 through October 21, 2004. The claims
alleged in all of these purported class actions are virtually
identical, and purport to allege violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. In this regard, the plaintiffs allege
that the Company misrepresented and omitted material facts with
respect to its financial results and operations during the time
period between July 24, 2003 and October 20, 2004.  The
complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages, and attorneys'
fees and costs, as well as accountants' and experts' fees.

On January 28, 2005, the court ordered the consolidation of the
currently pending class actions into a single case pursuant to a
stipulation for consolidation signed by all parties.  On March
14, 2005, the court appointed a lead plaintiff and approved the
selection of lead counsel and liaison counsel.  Additional
lawsuits asserting the same or similar claims may be filed as
well.

On June 30, 2005, the lead plaintiff filed and served a
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint alleging violations
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The putative class
period is July 24, 2003 to October 21, 2004.  Defendants filed
and served a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Class
Action Complaint on August 1, 2005. The hearing is currently set
for November 2005.

The first identified complaint in the litigation is styled
"Scott Tanne, et al. v. Autobytel, Inc., et al., case no. 04-CV-
8987," filed in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California.  The plaintiff firms in this litigation
are:  

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

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

     (3) Lim, Ruger & Kim, LLP, 1055 West Seventh Street, Suite
         2800, Los Angeles, CA, 90017, Phone: 213-955-9500, Fax:
         213-955-9511, E-mail: info@lrklawyers.com

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

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

     (6) Pomerantz,Haudek, Block, Grossman & Gross, 100 Park
         Avenue, 26th Floor, New York, NY, 10017-5516, Phone:
         212.661.1100,

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

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

     (9) Smith & Smith LLP, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112,
         Bensalem, PA, 19020, Phone: (866)759-2275, E-mail:
         howardsmithlaw@hotmail.com  


AUTOBYTEL.COM: Submits Revised Stock Suit Settlement To NY Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the consolidated securities class action filed
against Autobytel.com, Inc., certain of its current and former
officers and directors and the underwriters in its initial
public offering submitted revised settlement documents to the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.

In August 2001, several suits were filed, and later ordered
consolidated.  A Consolidated Amended Complaint, which is now
the operative complaint, was filed on April 19, 2002. This
action purports to allege violations of the Securities Act of
1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Plaintiffs allege
that the underwriter defendants agreed to allocate stock in the
Company's initial public offering to certain investors in
exchange for excessive and undisclosed commissions and
agreements by those investors to make additional purchases of
stock in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices.  Plaintiffs
allege that the prospectus for the Company's initial public
offering was false and misleading in violation of the securities
laws because it did not disclose these arrangements. The action
seeks damages in an unspecified amount.

The action is being coordinated with approximately 300 other
nearly identical actions filed against other companies. A motion
to dismiss addressing issues common to the companies and
individuals who have been sued in these actions was filed on
July 15, 2002.  On October 9, 2002, the Court dismissed the
Autobytel Individual Defendants from the case without prejudice
based upon Stipulations of Dismissal filed by the plaintiffs and
the Autobytel Individual Defendants.  On February 19, 2003, the
Court denied the motion to dismiss the complaint against the
Company.  On October 13, 2004, the Court certified a class in
six of the approximately 300 other nearly identical actions and
noted that the decision is intended to provide strong guidance
to all parties regarding class certification in the remaining
cases. Plaintiffs have not yet moved to certify a class in the
case.

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

On February 15, 2005, the Court granted preliminary approval of
the settlement agreement, subject to certain modifications
consistent with its opinion. The Court ruled that the issuer
defendants and the plaintiffs must submit a revised settlement
agreement which provides for a mutual bar of all contribution
claims by the settling and non-settling parties and does not bar
the parties from pursuing other claims. The issuers and
plaintiffs have negotiated a revised settlement agreement
consistent with the Court's opinion and are in the process of
obtaining approval from those issuer defendants that are not in
bankruptcy.  At this point, all but one of the issuer defendants
that are not in bankruptcy have approved the revised settlement
agreement, which has been submitted to the Court.  The
underwriter defendants will have an opportunity to object to the
revised settlement agreement. There is no assurance that the
Court will grant final approval to the settlement.

The suit is styled "In re Autobytel.Com, Inc. Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, 01 Civ. 6825 (Sas) (Dab)," filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York, under Judge Shira A. 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, 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, newyork@whafh.com


AUTOWEB.COM: Parties Submit Revised Securities Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the class action filed against Autoweb.com, Inc.,
certain of its current and former officers and directors and the
underwriters of its initial public offering, submitted revised
settlement documents to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

Between April and June 2001, eight separate purported class were
filed and later consolidated.  A Consolidated Amended Complaint,
which is now the operative complaint, was filed on April 19,
2002. The foregoing action purports to allege violations of the
Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Plaintiffs allege that the underwriter defendants agreed to
allocate stock in the Company's initial public offering to
certain investors in exchange for excessive and undisclosed
commissions and agreements by those investors to make additional
purchases of stock in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices.
Plaintiffs allege that the prospectus for the Company's initial
public offering was false and misleading in violation of the
securities laws because it did not disclose these arrangements.
The action seeks damages in an unspecified amount.

The action is being coordinated with approximately 300 other
nearly identical actions filed against other companies.  A
motion to dismiss addressing issues common to the companies and
individuals who have been sued in these actions was filed on
July 15, 2002.  On October 9, 2002, the Court dismissed the
Autoweb Individual Defendants from the case without prejudice
based upon Stipulations of Dismissal filed by the plaintiffs and
the Autoweb Individual Defendants. On February 19, 2003, the
Court dismissed the Section 10(b) claim without prejudice and
with leave to replead but denied the motion to dismiss the claim
under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 against the
Company.  On October 13, 2004, the Court certified a class in
six of the approximately 300 other nearly identical actions and
noted that the decision is intended to provide strong guidance
to all parties regarding class certification in the remaining
cases.  Plaintiffs have not yet moved to certify a class in the
case.

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

On February 15, 2005, the Court granted preliminary approval of
the settlement agreement, subject to certain modifications
consistent with its opinion. The Court ruled that the issuer
defendants and the plaintiffs must submit a revised settlement
agreement which provides for a mutual bar of all contribution
claims by the settling and non-settling parties and does not bar
the parties from pursuing other claims.  The issuers and
plaintiffs have negotiated a revised settlement agreement
consistent with the Court's opinion and are in the process of
obtaining approval from those issuer defendants that are not in
bankruptcy.  At this point, all but one of the issuer defendants
that are not in bankruptcy have approved the revised settlement
agreement, which has been submitted to the Court.  The
underwriter defendants will have an opportunity to object to the
revised settlement agreement. There is no assurance that the
Court will grant final approval to the settlement.

The suit is styled "In re Autoweb.Com, Inc. Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, 01 Civ. 3360 (Sas)(Gbd)," filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York, under Judge Shira A. 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, 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, newyork@whafh.com


CALIFORNIA: Attorney Files Suit V. County Over Hotel-Tax Refunds
----------------------------------------------------------------
San Diego attorney, Alan Mansfield filed a class action lawsuit,
which is demanding that the county government be more aggressive
in reimbursing hotel and motel guests who were overtaxed for
their rooms, The Signonsandiego.com reports.

The suit was filed to challenge the county's "bogus" efforts to
refund people who unknowingly paid the excessive levy at hotels
and motels in the unincorporated areas the past several years.   
Mr. Mansfield wants a judge to force the county to embark on a
campaign to notify consumers who were overcharged, and he wants
hotels and motels to dig through their old records and help
their patrons get refunds. He argued, "If the county's goal is
truly to get money back to consumers, (it) should be able to
work with the hotels to do that."

County Counsel John Sansone countered though that there's no
basis for a lawsuit because the county has agreed to refund
people with legitimate claims. He pointed out, "Under the law,
people are provided the opportunity to first file claims, and if
those claims are denied, they may then file lawsuits."

Court records revealed that Mr. Mansfield was involved in a
legal battle that forced the county to reimburse consumers
nearly $455 million after the state Supreme Court in 1991
declared illegal a half-cent-on-the-dollar sales tax increase.  
The latest snafu stems from a decision by county supervisors to
raise the room tax to 9 percent from 8 percent in 1990. Five
years later, the state Supreme Court ruled that such an increase
required voter approval, however nothing was done until lawyers
suing the county over its efforts to levy room taxes on a hotel
on Indian land uncovered the mistake.  All in all, since 1990,
the county erroneously collected more than $4 million and
because of the statute of limitations only $1 million in refunds
is available for those who stayed at hotels and motels the past
three years.

According to Mr. Mansfield, a Riverside County woman prompted
the latest lawsuit. That woman, he said, was staying at the San
Vicente Inn and Resort in Ramona in mid-July when she read about
the error, days before supervisors voted to roll back the tax.
He told Signonsandiego.com, "For her, it may only be $15 total,
but she thought, 'If it's happening to me, it's happening to
hundreds of other people.' "

Though some say that the county has done little to advertise the
refunds and rejected the only two requests it received because
they didn't meet the requirements, Dan McAllister, the county's
treasurer-tax collector countered, "We're trying as best we can
to get the word out, and we'll continue to do that."

The county didn't expect many claims because people who pay for
the room tax are usually tourists who would never know about the
refunds, according to county officials. They also said the
refund amount could be a deterrent, since for example, a hotel
guest who paid $109 for a one-night stay could claim a $1
refund.

Mr. Mansfield though contended that the county should stop
making excuses pointing out that the county has several options
including asking hotels and motels to share their patrons'
addresses because most people use a credit card to rent a room.
He explains to Signonsandiego.com, "There's lots of ways to do
it. It's just a question of coming up with the most
comprehensive and efficient way of doing it."  Mr. Mansfield
told Signonsandiego.com that he would ask for "court-approved
fees and expenses" if he prevails.


CAPTARIS INC.: Discovery Proceeding in Unsolicited Fax Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in litigation filed against Captaris,
Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiary MediaTel Corporation,
alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

One of the services provided by MediaTel Corporation was the
transmission of facsimiles to travel industry participants on
behalf of travel service providers. MediaTel held a license to
use a database supplied by NFO PLOG and then Northstar Travel
Media that listed recipients for these facsimiles. All of the
assets of MediaTel were sold to a subsidiary of PTEK Holdings,
Inc. ("PTEK") on September 1, 2003.

On July 29, 2003, Travel 100 Group, Inc. filed three lawsuits in
Circuit Court in Cook County, Illinois, one against
Mediterranean Shipping Company ("Mediterranean"), the second
against The Melrose Hotel Company ("Melrose") and the third
against Oceania Cruises ("Oceania").  On April 13, 2004, a
fourth lawsuit was filed by another travel agent, Travel Travel
Kirkwood, Inc. ("Kirkwood"), against Oceania Cruises. That case
was subsequently removed to the U.S. District Court, Eastern
District of Missouri.  The complaints are substantially
identical in form and allege violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act in connection with the receipt of
facsimile advertisements that were transmitted by MediaTel.  
Each of the Travel 100 complaints seeks injunctive relief and
unspecified damages and certification as a class action on
behalf of Travel 100 and others similarly situated throughout
the United States that received the facsimile advertisements.
The Kirkwood complaint seeks injunctive relief and unspecified
damages but does not seek to certify a class action.

Under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, a court can impose
liability of $500 per fax on a party that sends a fax without
the consent of the recipient. A court can increase the liability
to $1,500 per fax if the sending of the fax is willful.

In its answer filed on September 23, 2003, Mediterranean named
the Company as a third-party defendant and asserted that, to the
extent that Mediterranean is liable, the Company should be
liable under theories of indemnification, contribution or breach
of contract for any damages suffered by Mediterranean.
Similarly, in its answer filed on October 14, 2003, Melrose
named the Company, as well as PTEK, as third-party defendants
based on allegations of breach of contract, indemnification and
contribution. On September 8, 2004 and November 18, 2004,
Oceania filed Answers and Third-Party Complaints against the
Company and MediaTel in the Travel 100 and Kirkwood cases,
respectively, making similar allegations to those made in the
other two cases in its counts for fraud, indemnification and
contribution.

In response to Mediterranean's third-party complaint, the
Company filed its answer on November 3, 2003, denying the
allegations filed by Mediterranean and further answering by way
of affirmative defenses that to the extent the Company is found
liable for any damages allegedly suffered by plaintiffs or any
third-party plaintiffs in this action, it is entitled to
indemnification and/or contribution from other non-parties to
this action.  The Company filed similar answers to the Melrose
complaint on November 20, 2003 and the Oceania complaints on or
about January 19, 2005 and January 12, 2005, respectively. Both
the Company and MediaTel have denied any liability in the cases
because, among other facts and defenses, MediaTel understood
that the database and lists of travel agent recipients to whom
faxes were sent had authorized that information could be sent to
them by fax.  Based on the Company's analysis to date, the
Company estimates that there were approximately 500,000 faxes
sent relating to the Mediterranean case and approximately
200,000 faxes sent relating to the Melrose case. The Company has
not yet determined how many faxes were sent relating to the
Oceania cases.

In Oceania, plaintiff, Travel 100, filed a motion to voluntarily
dismiss the Oceania complaint because, according to Travel 100's
counsel, Travel 100 no longer wanted to participate in the
prosecution of that case.  Plaintiff's counsel requested that it
be given 90 days to find another plantiff to pursue the claim
that Travel 100 had filed, and that if it could not find a
plaintiff within that period then the complaint would be
dismissed.  The Company and Oceania opposed allowing plaintiff's
counsel 90 days to find a substitute plaintiff.  On March 24,
2005, the Court agreed with the Company and Oceania and
dismissed Travel 100's complaint against Oceania, without
allowing 90 days to find a substitute plaintiff.  The Court in
turn dismissed Oceania's complaint against the Company and
MediaTel without prejudice.  Accordingly, the Oceania case is no
longer pending.

The Oceania case was dismissed without prejudice in March 2005.
In June 2005, the parties entered into a cash settlement of the
Kirkwood case, the Company's portion of which was not material,
and that case was dismissed with prejudice as to all parties on
June 28, 2005.

Discovery is ongoing in all other cases and the parties are in
the process of working out a schedule for class certification
briefing.  The Company expects the plaintiffs in the
Mediterranean case to push for a hearing on class certification
in the second half of 2005.  


CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Argues Suit Belongs in AR PSC, Not in Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
In a recent hearing before Circuit Judge Jim Hudson that seeks
to hash out how the case over alleged natural gas price fixing
will be tried, CenterPoint Energy argued that the dispute
belongs in the Arkansas Public Service Commission and not in
circuit court in Miller County, The Texarkana Gazette reports.  
The dispute stems from the alleged artificial inflation of gas
prices from October 1, 1994 to the present.

At that hearing, Dennis Chambers, of Atchley, Russell, Waldrop &
Hlavinka, which represents CenterPoint told Judge Hudson, "The
problem is that this is not the proper forum. The proper forum
is the Public Service Commission. If the case involves the rate
charged to consumers, this court has no jurisdiction."

Rick Adams, of Patton, Roberts, McWilliams, Greer and Capshaw,
however, told Judge Hudson that the case is a class-action
lawsuit but that it is national in scope. He said, "It's an
important case. The direct impact is far reaching. It affects
all consumers of CenterPoint's natural gas sales and that's
pretty much everybody in this region... This is important to
people in Arkansas, people in Texas who have been overcharged
for gas."  Mr. Adams argued venue, the motion to dismiss by
subject matter, and class certification should be the three
issues first addressed in the case.

In contrast, the defense attorneys in the case would like
dispositive motions (non-merits) heard first and then the class
certification hearing.

The suit was filed almost a year ago and since then has bounced
between civil court and federal court. It was later determined
though by U.S. District Judge Harry F. Barnes that the case
belonged in Judge Hudson's court.  The suit against the gas
companies, which was filed in Miller County Circuit Court,
alleges violations of fraud, unjust enrichment and civil
conspiracy concerning the cost of natural gas delivered to
customers. Three local law firms represented the customers,
namely: Patton, Roberts, McWilliams, Greer & Capshaw; Nix,
Patterson & Roach; and Keil & Goodson, an earlier Class Action
Reporter story (October 14, 2004) reports.

Judge Hudson was originally assigned to the case, which includes
customers from Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Mississippi
and Minnesota.  According to the lawsuit the issues of the case
come down to:

     (1) whether Centerpoint Energy and the other companies
         artificially inflated the natural gas commodity costs
         that were passed on to customers.

     (2) whether Centerpoint Energy and the other companies
         passed on to its customers fraudulently inflated costs
         for natural gas.

     (3) whether Centerpoint Energy and the other companies
         misrepresented to its customers that it acquired
         natural gas for sale to customers at the best possible
         price.


CHOICEPOINT INC.: FL Court Hears Motion To Re-open Privacy Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida heard plaintiffs' motion to re-open a class action filed
against ChoicePoint, Inc., styled "Fresco, et al. v. Automotive
Directions Inc., et al."

The suit alleges that the Company has obtained, disclosed and
used information obtained from the Florida Department of Highway
Safety and Motor Vehicles (Florida DHSMV) in violation of the
federal Driver's Privacy Protection Act (DPPA).  The plaintiffs
seek to represent classes of individuals whose personal
information from Florida DHSMV records has been obtained,
disclosed and used for marketing purposes or other allegedly
impermissible uses by the Company without the express written
consent of the individual.

A number of the Company's competitors have also been sued in the
same or similar litigation in Florida. This complaint seeks
certification as a class action, compensatory damages,
attorneys' fees and costs, and injunctive and other relief.  The
Company has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and has joined
in a motion for judgment on the pleadings.  On March 8, 2005,
the Court administratively closed the Fresco action until the
11th Circuit rules on a dispositive DPPA issue in another case.
On March 16, 2005, Plaintiffs filed a motion to re-open the
case, which the Company and the other defendants opposed. The
motion was heard on July 21, 2005 and has been taken under
advisement by the court.


CHOICEPOINT INC.: Reaches Settlement For IL Consumer Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
ChoicePoint, Inc. reached a settlement for the class action
filed against it in the Circuit Court of the First Judicial
Circuit, Williamson County, Illinois, alleging that it violated
the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act by
selling information that it received from insurance agent
customers through underwriting inquiries as leads (names of
individuals seeking insurance) for automobile and homeowner's
insurance to those same insurance agent customers as well as
their competitors. The complaint seeks certification as a class
action, compensatory damages, attorney's fees and costs and
injunctive and other relief.  

Though the Company denies any and all charges of wrongdoing or
liability alleged by the plaintiffs, the Company believes that
it is in the best interest of the Company, the shareholders, and
the Company's customers to settle this matter, the Company said
in a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission.  
Therefore, the Company entered a Settlement Agreement in this
action, which will be filed with and is subject to Court
approval after a fairness hearing. If approved, the Company will
establish a cash fund for the benefit of qualifying class
members, the payouts from which could total up to $7,000,000.
The Company shall also fund redeemable certificates of value to
qualifying class members that may be used to obtain certain
direct marketing services.  The aggregate value of the
redeemable certificates available to qualifying class members
could total as much as $7,000,000. The Company will also pay
$500,000 in cy pres funds, up to $2,950,000 toward plaintiffs'
attorneys' fees, costs and expenses, settlement administration
costs, and an aggregate sum of $10,000 to the named plaintiffs.


CHOICEPOINT INC.: Seeks Consolidation of FCRA Suits in C.D. CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
ChoicePoint, Inc. is seeking to consolidate several class
actions filed against it, alleging violations of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act (FCRA) in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California.

The Company is a defendant in a purported class action lawsuit
that resulted from the consolidation of four previously filed
class actions in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California.  The consolidated suit, styled
"Harrington, et al. v. ChoicePoint, CV05-1294," names as
defendants the Company and three subsidiaries.  The amended
complaint alleges violations of the federal Fair Credit
Reporting Act (FCRA) and certain California statutes.

The plaintiffs purport to bring the lawsuit on behalf of a
national class of persons about whom ChoicePoint provided a
consumer report as defined in the FCRA to rogue customers, as
well as five California classes of affected persons. Plaintiffs
seek actual, statutory and exemplary damages and injunctive
relief, attorneys' fees and costs.

On June 15, 2005, a similar purported class action lawsuit was
filed against the Company in the United States District Court,
Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, styled "Wilson
v. ChoicePoint Inc., 1-05-CV-1604."  The plaintiffs allege
violations of the FCRA, the Driver's Privacy Protection Act
(DPPA), and Georgia's Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act and
purport to represent a national class of persons whose consumer
credit reports as defined in the FCRA or personal or highly
restricted personal information as defined in the DPPA was
disclosed to third parties as a result of acts or omissions by
the Company.  Plaintiffs seek actual, statutory, and punitive
damages, injunctive relief and fees and costs.  On July 17,
2005, the Company filed a motion to transfer the Wilson case to
the U.S. District Court, Central District of California.


CHOICEPOINT INC.: Shareholders Launch Securities Fraud Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
ChoicePoint, Inc. and certain of its officers face several class
actions, alleging violations of the federal securities laws.

On March 4, 2005, a purchaser of the Company's securities filed
a lawsuit against the Company and certain of its officers in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California.  The complaint alleges that the defendants violated
federal securities laws by issuing false or misleading
information.  

Since then, additional complaints alleging substantially similar
claims have been filed by other purchasers of the Company's
securities in the Central District of California on March 10,
2005 and in the Northern District of Georgia on March 11, 2005,
March 22, 2005 and March 24, 2005.  By court order the cases
pending in the Central District of California have been
transferred to the Northern District of Georgia.

Each of these lawsuits purports to be filed on behalf of a class
of the Company's shareholders who purchased the Company's common
stock between certain specified dates and seeks certification as
a class action and unspecified compensatory damages, attorneys'
fees, costs, and other relief.  Motions seeking consolidation of
the class action complaints filed in the Northern District of
Georgia and appointment of a lead plaintiff and lead counsel for
the putative class of shareholders have been filed.  


CHOICEPOINT INC.: Pension Plan Members File ERISA Lawsuit in GA
---------------------------------------------------------------
ChoicePoint, Inc. faces a class action filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia,
alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act (ERISA).  The suit also names as defendants certain
individuals who are alleged to be fiduciaries under the
Company's 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan.

The suit alleges violations of ERISA fiduciary rules through the
acquisition and retention of Company stock by the Plan on and
after November 24, 2004.  Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages,
injunctive and equitable relief, attorneys' fees and costs.


COMDISCO INC.: IL Court OKs Securities Fraud Lawsuit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, entered an Order and Final Judgment
approving the settlement of the consolidated securities class
action filed against two of Comdisco, Inc.'s officers, alleging
violations of federal securities laws.

On February 7, 2001, a purported class action complaint was
filed against the Company, Nicholas K. Pontikes, and John J.
Vosicky, alleging violations of Section 10(b) and Section 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The suit is
styled "Blitzer v. Comdisco, et al., No. 01-C-0874." Nicholas
K. Pontikes is a former chief executive officer and director of
Comdisco, Inc.; John J. Vosicky formerly served as a director,
executive vice president, and chief financial officer of
Comdisco, Inc. In addition, fourteen other similar purported
class action lawsuits were filed against the same defendants in
the same court. Those individual class action lawsuits, along
with the first-filed Blitzer case, were dismissed and the
complaints were combined into a single action, captioned "In re:
Comdisco Securities Litigation, No. 01-C-2110."

In connection with the confirmation process for the Plan for
Comdisco, Inc., the lead plaintiff in the consolidated action
agreed to dismiss the action with respect to Comdisco, Inc., but
maintained all rights, if any, against Nicholas K. Pontikes,
John Vosicky, and any person not released from liability by the
Plan. This resolution was made effective pursuant to a
stipulation and agreed order dated June 13, 2002.

On November 15, 2002, the lead plaintiff in the consolidated
lawsuit filed an Amended Class Action Complaint under Master
File No. 01 C 2110. The Company was not named as a defendant in
the Amended Complaint, which included claims against only
Nicholas K. Pontikes and John J. Vosicky. On December 10, 2002,
Mr. Pontikes and Mr. Vosicky filed a motion to dismiss the
Amended Complaint. The court denied that motion on March 31,
2003. Since that time, the parties have been engaged in
discovery. On November 5, 2004, the lead plaintiff filed a
Motion for Class Certification.

Parties in the suit later reached a settlement for the
litigation. A Preliminary Approval Order had been issued on May
10, 2005, preliminarily certifying the Settlement Class for
settlement purposes and, inter alia, directing that notices be
mailed and published with respect to the settlement. The
Settlement Class consists of persons who purchased Company stock
between November 3, 1999 and October 3, 2000. No objections
were filed to the settlement. The deadline for filing claims
with respect to the $13.75 million Settlement Fund is September
12, 2005, and the Settlement Fund is being administered by The
Garden City Group, Inc.

The suit is styled "In re Comdisco Securities Litigation,
Master File No. 01 C 2110," filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, under Judge Milton
I. Shadur. Representing the plaintiffs is Adam J. Levitt of
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLC, 55 West Monroe
Street, Suite 1111, Chicago, Illinois 60603, Phone:
(312) 984-0000. Representing the defendants is John J. Tharp,
Jr. of Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP, 71 South Wacker Drive,
Chicago, Illinois 60606, Phone: (312) 782-0600.


CONSTELLATION ENERGY: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Antitrust Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Constellation Energy Commodities Group, Inc. asked the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of San Diego to dismiss
the proceedings against it and 29 other companies, entitled
"Wholesale Electricity Antitrust Cases I and II, Case Nos. 4204
and 4205."  Reliant Energy Services (Reliant) and certain of its
affiliates have joined the original defendants as cross-
defendants.

The proceeding is a putative class action brought by various
plaintiffs on behalf of California residents and alleges claims
under certain California antitrust and fair competition laws. In
general, the plaintiffs allege that Reliant and the other
original defendants engaged in certain anti-competitive actions
causing prices not reflective of market in the California
electricity markets.  Motions to dismiss the cases have been
recently filed by the original defendants, and counsel has
entered its appearance in this action in June 2005 for the
Company.  No action is required by the Company or the other
cross-defendants until the court addresses the pending motions
to dismiss filed by the original defendants.


CONSTELLATION ENERGY: MD Court Dismisses Claims in Mercury Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland dismissed with
prejudice all claims against Constellation Energy Group, Inc.
and Baltimore Gas & Electric Company (BGE) in the lawsuits filed
against them, alleging mercury poisoning from several sources,
including coal plants formerly owned by BGE.

Beginning in September 2002, numerous suits were filed,
alleging mercury poisoning from several sources, including coal
plants formerly owned by BGE and now owned by a subsidiary of
the Company.  In addition to BGE and the Company, approximately
11 other defendants, consisting of pharmaceutical companies,
manufacturers of vaccines and manufacturers of Thimerosal have
been sued. Approximately 70 cases have been filed to date, with
each case seeking $90 million in damages from the group of
defendants.

In a ruling applicable to all but several of the cases, the
Circuit Court for Baltimore City dismissed with prejudice all
claims against BGE and the Company and entered into a stay of
the proceedings as they relate to other defendants. Plaintiffs
may attempt to pursue appeals of the rulings in favor of BGE and
the Company once the cases are finally concluded as to all
defendants.


CONSTELLATION ENERGY: Reaches Settlement for MD Race Bias Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Constellation Energy Group reached a settlement for the class
action filed against it in the United States District Court for
the District of Maryland, styled "Miller, et. al v. Baltimore
Gas and Electric Company, et al."   The suit also names as
defendants Baltimore Gas and Electric Company (BGE),
Constellation Nuclear, and Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant.

The action seeks class certification for approximately 150 past
and present employees and alleges racial discrimination at
Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant.  The amount of damages is
unspecified, however the plaintiffs seek back and front pay,
along with compensatory and punitive damages.

The suit is styled "Miller, et al v. Baltimore Gas, et al, case
no. 1:00-cv-02808-CCB," filed in the United States District
Court in Maryland, under Judge Catherine C. Blake.  Representing
the plaintiff is Timothy B. Fleming of Gordon Silberman Wiggins
and Childs PC, 7 Dupont Circle NW Ste 200, Washington, DC 20036,
Phone: 1-202-263-3683, Fax: 1-202-467-4489, E-mail:
tfleming@gswc.com.  Representing the Company is Elena D. Marcuss
of McGuire Woods LLP, Seven Saint Paul St Ste 1000, Baltimore,
MD 21202-1671, Phone: 14106594454, Fax: 14106594547, E-mail:
emarcuss@mcguirewoods.com.


CONSTELLATION POWER: Canadians Launch Personal Injury Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Constellation Power Source Generation, Inc. faces a class action
filed in the Superior Court of Justice in Ontario, Canada,
styled "Christopher M. Robinson, et. al. v. Ontario Power
Generation Inc., et. al."  

Three individuals filed the suit, which also named as defendants
21 other companies.  The complaint alleges claims on behalf of
residents of Ontario, Canada that have allegedly suffered
adverse health effects as a result of emissions of sulfur
dioxide, nitrogen oxide and particulate matter from
approximately 60 different coal-fired power plants operating in
Ontario, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, and West
Virginia.  The Company is named as a defendant as a result of
its ownership interests in two coal-fired power plants located
in Pennsylvania. The complaint requests past damages of
approximately CDN$50 billion plus future annual damages of
approximately CDN$4 billion until trial.


CUSTOM RX: Recalls 0.06% Ophthalmic Solution For Injury Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
Custom RX Compounding Pharmacy of Richfield, Minnesota, is
initiating a nationwide recall of Trypan Blue 0.06% Ophthalmic
Solution because it may be contaminated with Pseudomonas
aeruginosa, a bacteria that, if applied to the eyes, might lead
to serious injury, including possible blindness. Use of Trypan
Blue, which is being recalled, should stop immediately.

Trypan Blue was distributed to hospitals and clinics in MD, MN,
IL, NE, ND, MI, DC, and PA. This product is intended for
ophthalmic use (in the eyes) during cataract surgery. FDA
requires that all ophthalmic products be sterile.

The solution is dark blue in appearance and is packaged in one
cc sterile tuberculin syringes. Custom Rx Pharmacy is asking
that all unexpired syringes be collected and returned to the
pharmacy. The recall includes, but may not be limited to the
following lot numbers: 05042005:86@17, 05252005:36@13,
06282005:91@27, 08012005:63@24, and 08182005:43@17.

The pharmacy has voluntarily recalled the products based on 2
reports of loss of vision possibly associated with use of the
product as reported by CDC and positive bacterial culture
obtained at an outside hospital. Custom RX has verified the
processes and technicians involved in the preparation of this
medication. The pharmacy has been apprising the Food & Drug
Administration (FDA) of the recall efforts and is working them
on its investigation into the cause of the contamination.

The pharmacy immediately began notifying customers and/or
distributors and working with the Centers for Disease Control
(CDC) has called each individual hospital and clinic to arrange
for the return, destruction and reimbursement of all recalled
product.

For more information on the recall, please contact Verne Betlach
with Custom RX Pharmacy at 612-866-2211, 612-810-1363 (mobile)
for information.


DATATECH COMMUNICATIONS: FTC Sues Due To Business Listing Fraud
---------------------------------------------------------------
Canadian defendants accused of fraudulently selling business
directory listings have been banned from the business directory
industry to settle charges brought by the Federal Trade
Commission. The primary defendants are paying $165,000 in
consumer redress. The FTC alleged the defendants called small
U.S. businesses saying they wanted to "renew" the company's
directory listings when, in fact, no prior relationship existed.
One individual defendant is subject to a default judgment of
almost $9 million. Today the FTC also is announcing a new
consumer education brochure, entitled: Business Directory Scams
Try to `Give You the Business'.

The defendants, Datatech Communications Inc.; 9102-3127 Quebec,
Inc. (doing business as I-Point Media); Elias Bakomichalis;
Gregory MacNeil; and Robert Brewer are based in Montreal,
Canada. They targeted American consumers exclusively, contacting
small businesses and representing that they were calling to
"renew" the businesses' directory listings. Some employees who
talked with the defendants agreed to the "renewal" because they
thought they were merely continuing an existing business
relationship. When invoices for $299 were forwarded to their
accounts payable departments, however, the businesses allegedly
found that they were billed for "purchasing" a directory
listing, and that the company had never purchased such a listing
before. The defendants routinely denied requests to cancel the
directory listings and harassed customers who refused to pay,
according to the FTC, saying their credit rating would be
damaged and sometimes referring their accounts to collections.

As part of a default judgment against Brewer and a settlement
against the others, the defendants are banned from the business
directory industry and from assisting others involved in the
industry. They also are prohibited from misrepresenting any
future sales they make and required to disclose: their identity
when they make outbound sales calls; that the purpose of the
call is to make a sale; and the nature of what they are selling.
They must stop all collections related to the business directory
sales. Finally, the defendants (except Brewer) will pay $165,000
in consumer redress, which is based on their ability to pay.
They are also subject to a suspended judgment of $9.1 million,
the total amount of consumer injury in this case, which they
will be responsible for if it is later found they misrepresented
their financial status. The FTC received a default judgement
against Brewer for $8,986,759. Finally, both orders contain
standard record-keeping provisions to ensure the defendants'
compliance with their terms.

The FTC amended its complaint to dismiss charges against 9106-
3925 Quebec Inc. Canadian authorities are conducting a criminal
investigation into the defendants' deceptive practices, and have
taken action against the defendants for unpaid income and
payroll taxes. This case represents successful cooperation
between the U.S. and Canadian authorities, especially Canada's
Competition Bureau.

In its new brochure, Business Directory Scams Try to `Give You
the Business,' the FTC notes that businesses, churches, and
fraternal and charitable organizations lose millions of dollars
a year to bogus firms that mislead them into paying for
unordered and unwanted directory listings. The FTC offers tips
to avoid these scams, including asking the caller for a previous
edition of the directory and contacting the listed advertisers.
The brochure is available on the FTC's Web site at
http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/buspubs/directoryalrt.htm.

The Commission vote authorizing the staff to file the stipulated
final order was 4-0. On August 11, 2005, the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division entered
the stipulated final order for permanent injunction; the order
of dismissal for 9106-3925 Quebec Inc.; and the default judgment
against Brewer.

Copies of the stipulated final order are available from the
FTC's Web site at http://www.ftc.govand also from the FTC's  
Consumer Response Center, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue,
N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580. The FTC works for the consumer to
prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices in
the marketplace and to provide information to help consumers
spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or
Spanish (bilingual counselors are available to take complaints),
or to get free information on any of 150 consumer topics, call
toll-free, 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357), or use the complaint
form at http://www.ftc.gov.The FTC enters Internet,  
telemarketing, identity theft, and other fraud-related
complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database
available to hundreds of civil and criminal law enforcement
agencies in the U.S. and abroad.  For more details, contact
Mitchell J. Katz or Jackie Dizdul, Office of Public Affairs by
Phone: 202-326-2161 or 202-326-2472 or contact Rolando Berrelez
or Theresa McGrew, FTC Midwest Region by Phone: 312-960-5634 or
visit the Website: http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2005/08/datatech.htm.


EMERSON DIRECT: Settles FTC Suit For Fake Diet Supplement Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
The marketers of "Smoke Away" have settled Federal Trade
Commission charges that they deceptively marketed the dietary
supplement kits by claiming they would allow smokers to quit
smoking quickly, easily, permanently, and without cravings or
other side effects. The FTC alleged the defendants did not have
a reasonable basis for the claims they made about Smoke Away or
for their claims that it is more effective than FDA-approved
smoking-cessation products. The FTC also charged that two
doctors who endorsed Smoke Away in advertisements did not
properly use their expertise, and that one, a chiropractor, did
not actually have the expertise she was represented as having.

The company marketing Smoke Away and its owner have agreed to
pay $1.3 million to settle the charges. They also are prohibited
from making any claims about the benefits, performance,
efficacy, safety, or side effects of Smoke Away or any other
smoking cessation product or program unless those claims are
true, non-misleading, and substantiated. All of the defendants
are prohibited from making any claims about the benefits,
performance, or efficacy of any food, drug, or dietary
supplement unless those claims are backed by scientific
evidence. If either doctor is endorsing one of those products as
an expert, they must actually have exercised their expertise by
examining or testing the product. The chiropractor cannot
misrepresent her expertise, training, and experience.

The FTC filed a complaint against Emerson Direct, Inc. (doing
business as the Council on Natural Health) of Naples, Florida,
the corporation that marketed Smoke Away; its owner Michael J.
Connors, also of Naples, Florida; Thomas De Blasio, M.D., a
physician from Manalapan, New Jersey; and Sherry Bresnahan,
D.C., a chiropractor from Algonquin, Illinois. Emerson Direct
marketed Smoke Away, while De Blasio and Bresnahan appeared as
expert endorsers in advertisements.

Emerson Direct and Connors offered two versions of Smoke Away.
Each version included various dietary supplements made of
combinations of vitamins, herbs, and other ingredients.

The FTC's complaint challenges a number of claims made about
Smoke Away in a national television infomercial, 60- and 120-
second national television ads, 60-second radio spots, and on
Web sites. Specifically, the FTC alleges the advertising claimed
that:

     (1) Smoke Away enables smokers to quit smoking in seven
         days or less;

     (2) Smoke Away enables smokers to quit smoking quickly,
         effortlessly, and permanently;

     (3) Smoke Away eliminates nicotine cravings;

     (4) Smoke Away users have no withdrawal symptoms or side
         effects, such as weight gain, insomnia, or tension; and

     (5) Smoke Away is more effective than nicotine patches,
         nicotine gum, and prescription medications for smoking
         cessation.

The FTC's complaint further alleges that those five claims made
by Emerson Direct and Connors were false or unsubstantiated, and
that Emerson Direct and Connors also misrepresented that they
provide timely refunds to consumers who requested such refunds.
The FTC also alleged that Emerson Direct, Connors, and Bresnahan
misrepresented that Bresnahan was an expert in nicotine
addiction or smoking cessation. Finally, the complaint alleges
that Bresnahan and De Blasio both made the five claims listed
above concerning Smoke Away, and that they did not have a
reasonable basis for those representations or exercise their
purported expertise in the fields of nicotine addiction or
smoking cessation by adequately testing or examining Smoke Away.

The FTC filed three separate orders to settle the charges
against these defendants. The Commission's settlement with
Emerson Direct and Connors prohibits any claims about the
benefits, performance, efficacy, safety, or side effects of any
smoking cessation product or program, unless those claims are
true, non-misleading and supported by competent and reliable
scientific evidence at the time they are made. It also requires
that Emerson Direct and Connors have such substantiation for any
claim about the benefits, performance, or efficacy of any food,
drug, or dietary supplement; prohibits them from misrepresenting
in connection with the marketing and sale of any smoking
cessation product or program or any food, drug, or dietary
supplement that any person, organization, or group is an expert
with respect to any endorsement message provided by that person,
organization, or group; prohibits them from misrepresenting any
material aspect of their refund policy in connection with the
marketing and sale of any smoking cessation product or program;
and requires them to make timely refunds to consumers who
request them in the future.

The order against Emerson Direct and Connors requires them to
pay $1.3 million; if they misrepresented their financial
condition, the full $61 million suspended judgment will be due.
Finally, Emerson Direct and Connors must notify current and
future distributors, resellers, and sales agents about the
settlement.

The De Blasio order prohibits any claims about the benefits,
performance, efficacy, safety, or side effects of any smoking
cessation product or program, unless those claims are true, non-
misleading, and supported by competent and reliable scientific
evidence at the time they are made. It also requires that De
Blasio have competent and reliable scientific evidence
substantiating any claims he makes about the benefits,
performance, or efficacy of any food, drug, or dietary
supplement. Furthermore, all such representations that De Blasio
makes as an expert endorser must be supported not only by
competent and reliable scientific evidence, but also by an
actual exercise of his represented expertise.

The Bresnahan order prohibits her from representing herself as
an expert in nicotine addiction or smoking cessation in
connection with the marketing of any smoking cessation product
or program, unless she has the appropriate education, training,
or experience that experts in those fields generally recognize
as sufficient. It also prohibits her from misrepresenting her
profession, expertise, training, or experience in connection
with the marketing or sale of any smoking cessation product or
program or any food, drug, or dietary supplement. Finally, it
requires that she have competent and reliable scientific
evidence substantiating any claims she makes about the benefits,
performance, or efficacy of any smoking cessation product or
program or any food, drug, or dietary supplement, and that all
such representations that she makes as an expert endorser be
supported not only by competent and reliable scientific
evidence, but also by an actual exercise of her represented
expertise.

All three orders contain reporting and record-keeping provisions
to allow the FTC to monitor the defendants' compliance.

The Commission vote to authorize staff to file the complaint and
to approve consents in settlement of the court action was 4-0.
The complaints and stipulated final orders were filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida on August
9, 2005, and the orders were entered by the court on August 11,
2005.

Copies of the complaint and stipulated final orders are
available from the FTC's Web site at http://www.ftc.govand also  
from the FTC's Consumer Response Center, Room 130, 600
Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580. The FTC works
for the consumer to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair
business practices in the marketplace and to provide information
to help consumers spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a
complaint in English or Spanish (bilingual counselors are
available to take complaints), or to get free information on any
of 150 consumer topics, call toll-free, 1-877-FTC-HELP
(1-877-382-4357), or use the complaint form at
http://www.ftc.gov.The FTC enters Internet, telemarketing,  
identity theft, and other fraud-related complaints into Consumer
Sentinel, a secure, online database available to hundreds of
civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and
abroad.  For more details, contact Mitch Katz or Jackie Dizdul,
Office of Public Affairs, by Phone: 202-326-2161 or
202-326-2472, or contact Shira Modell and Rosemary Rosso, Bureau
of Consumer Protection, by Phone: 202-326-3116 and 202-326-2174
or visit the Website:
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2005/08/emerson.htm.


GREEN BAY: Recalls Beef for Age Discrepancy, Risk Factors   
---------------------------------------------------------
Green Bay Dressed Beef, a Green Bay, Wis., establishment, is
voluntarily recalling approximately 1,856 pounds of beef
products that may contain portions of the backbone from a cow
just over 30 months old, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
Food Safety and Inspection Service announced today. The product
was from a cow imported directly for slaughter from Canada.

Based on information provided by Canada, the products subject to
this Class II recall are from a cow that is approximately one
month older than the 30-month age limit. Both ante-mortem and
post-mortem inspections were performed on the cow in question.
FSIS inspection program personnel determined the cow to be
healthy and fit for human food. FSIS' designation of this recall
as Class II is because it is a situation where there is a remote
probability of adverse health consequences from the use of the
product.

FSIS learned about this as a result of a Canadian audit of their
health certificate that accompanied the imported cow. Prior to
slaughter, the health certificate accompanying the cow was
presented to the establishment, and it appeared complete and
accurate. However, a subsequent audit of information related to
the health certificate by Canadian officials found that it was
not accurate. Action has been taken by Canadian Food Inspection
Agency officials in response to findings from the audit.

The products subject to recall are:

     (1) Five boxes of 243 lb. vacuum pouched packages of
         "American Foods Group, NECKBONE UNTRIM'D, USDA CHOICE
         OR HIGHER" with the case code of 77333;

     (2) One box of 50 lb. vacuum pouched package of "American
         Foods Group, SHORTLOIN 2X2, USDA SELECT OR HIGHER" with
         the case code of 75231;

     (3) One box of 60 lb. vacuum pouched package of "American
         Foods Group, SHORTLOIN 2X2, USDA CHOICE OR HIGHER" with
         the case code of 75060;

     (4) Five boxes of 258 lb. vacuum pouched packages of
         "Dakota Supreme Beef, SHORTLOIN 0X11/4, USDA SELECT OR
         HIGHER" with the case code of 75442;

     (5) Sixteen boxes of 811 lb. vacuum pouched packages of
         "American Foods Group, BLADE BI N/O CHUCK, USDA CHOICE
         OR HIGHER" with the case code of 75955;

     (6) Nine boxes of 435 lb. vacuum pouched packages of
         "American Foods Group, BLADE BI N/O CHUCK, USDA SELECT
         OR HIGHER" with the case code of 75952.

Each box bears the establishment number "410" inside the USDA
seal of inspection. The products were produced on August 4, and
were distributed to wholesale distributors in Pennsylvania,
Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota and Wisconsin.

Under the interim final rules FSIS implemented on January 12,
2004, certain specified risk materials must be removed from all
cattle depending on the age of the animal. On this animal all
specified risk materials for cattle 30 months and over were
removed, with the exception of the vertebral column. At the time
of slaughter, the animal was certified to be under 30 months of
age and removal of the vertebral column was not required. A
subsequent audit determined the animal was just over 30 months
of age; therefore, the vertebral column is required to be
removed. This is the reason for the recall of the selected
products.

Consumers with questions about the recall may contact Sally
VandeHei, Executive Assistant at 1-877-894-3927. National media
with questions may contact Jim Mulhern at (202) 496-2468. Local
media with questions may contact Susan Finco at (920) 965-7750
ext.158.

Consumers with other food safety questions can phone the toll-
free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline at 1-888-MPHotline
(1-888-674-6854). The hotline is available in English and
Spanish and can be reached from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern
Time), Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety messages are
available 24 hours a day.


GUIDANT CORPORATION: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuits in S.D. IN
---------------------------------------------------------------
Guidant Corporation and several of its officers face securities
class actions filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana, on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's securities from December 15,2004 to June 17,2005.

The suits charge the Company and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  The Company develops, manufacturers, and markets products
that focus on the treatment of cardiac arrhythmias, heart
failure, and coronary and peripheral disease, including
implantable defibrillator systems. The implantable defibrillator
systems are used to detect and treat abnormally fast heart
rhythms that could result in sudden cardiac death.

On December 15, 2004, Guidant management entered into a $24.5
billion merger deal with Johnson & Johnson. While the Company
pointed to its defibrillator business as a key component of that
deal, the suits alleges, it concealed from investors significant
un-addressed product defect and liability issues of the
Company's implantable defibrillator product lines. Although
life-threatening, defendants knew or consciously disregarded the
fact that these mechanical problems were difficult to
characterize and observe in implanted patients, making unlikely
that any temporary physical disablement in patients would be
attributed to device malfunction.

On June 17, 2005, the FDA issued a nationwide recall
notification, impacting Guidant's implantable defibrillators and
cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillators. Within that
notification, FDA advised the public that the malfunction of
Guidant's devices could lead to a serious, life-threatening
event for a patient. On this news, the Company's shares fell
$3.36, losing 4.5% percent of their value over the two trading
days following the FDA recall, closing at $70.33, on a combined
volume of over 25 million shares. As a result, Guidant investors
lost over $1.09 billion in the value of their shares as a result
of the surprise announcement of the FDA recall. Guidant's stock
price closed today at $63.90 on tremendous volume exceeding 49
million shares on further news and Company warnings concerning
problems with another of Guidant's implantable heart devices.

The suits allege that during the Class Period, Guidant knew and
concealed:

     (1) the serious health issues encountered by patients
         caused by the malfunctioning and defective nature of
         the defective devices;

     (2) the overwhelming threat to the deal Guidant had forged
         with Johnson & Johnson for the sale of the Company,
         including the threat to the ability of insiders to
         profit as a result of stock sales during the Class
         Period;

     (3) the lack and insufficiency of communications to
         healthcare providers and patients regarding the
         defective nature of the Company's defibrillator
         products, even when adequate communications were
         essential to protect the lives of its implant patients;
         and

     (4) the troubling decision to await overwhelming negative
         media accounts before taking affirmative actions
         regarding the Company's defibrillator products.


The complaints seek class certification, monetary damages, and
injunctive relief.

The first identified complaint in the litigation is styled
"Moussa Yeroushalmi, et al. v. Guidant Corporation, et al., case
no. 05-CV-00951," filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Indiana under Judge John Daniel Tinder.  
Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (i) Brodsky & Smith, LLC, 11 Bala Avenue, Suite 39, Bala
         Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610.668.7987, Fax:
         610.660.0450, E-mail: esmith@Brodsky-Smith.com;

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

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

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

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

    (vi) Scott & Scott LLC, P.O. Box 192, 108 Norwich Avenue,
         Colchester, CT, 06415, Phone: 860.537.5537, Fax:
         860.537.4432, E-mail: scottlaw@scott-scott.com


GUIDANT CORPORATION: Faces ERISA Violations Lawsuit in S.D. IN
--------------------------------------------------------------
Guidant Corporation and its directors face a class action filed
on behalf of participants in the Company's employee pension
benefit plans in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana.

The complaint alleges breaches of fiduciary duty under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C.
Section 1132. Specifically, the complaint alleges that Company
fiduciaries concealed adverse information about the Company's
defibrillators and imprudently made contributions to the
Company's 401(k) plan and employee stock ownership plan in the
form of Company stock.  The complaint seeks class certification,
declaratory and injunctive relief, monetary damages, the
imposition of a constructive trust, and costs and attorneys'
fees.


GUIDANT CORPORATION: Faces Product Lawsuits V. Defibrillator
------------------------------------------------------------
Guidant Corporation faces approximately twenty-one product
liability class actions and eleven individual actions filed in
various state and federal jurisdictions against the Company as a
result of the Company's recent implantable defibrillator and
pacemaker systems field actions.  An additional action is filed
in Canada.

The Guidant defibrillator is a device used to control irregular
heartbeats, rapid heartbeats and slow heartbeats. When the
device detects an irregular rhythm it sends an electrical shock
to the heart to restore normal heart rhythm. When the
defibrillator short circuits, it is no longer able to detect the
irregular heart rhythm.  The defibrillator has been linked to a
number of short-circuiting incidences, which have, in at least
one case, resulted in the death of a patient in the United
States.

In May 2005, the Company communicated to physicians about a
failure in its defibrillators, but, it is alleged, that they had
reason to know of the defect in its implantable defibrillators
since 1994.  The Company maintains that under most circumstances
their product works properly and does not recommend replacement
surgery, however, in the United States replacement or explant
surgeries are being performed, an earlier Class Action Reporter
story (June 6,2005) reports.

The complaints generally allege strict liability, negligence,
warranty and other common law and/or statutory claims. The
majority of claimants alleges no physical injury, but is suing
for medical monitoring and anxiety. The complaints generally
seek class certification, monetary damages and injunctive
relief.  The suits specifically allege that despite its
knowledge that the device was defective, the Company continued
to market the defibrillators without disclosing the problem to
medical professionals and patients.  


GUIDANT CORPORATION: Former Employees File Bias Suit With EEOC
--------------------------------------------------------------
Guidant Corporation faces charges filed by approximately seventy
former employees have filed with the United States Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).  Most of the charges
were filed in the Minneapolis Area Office.

The charges allege that the Company discriminated against the
former employees on the basis of their age when the Company
terminated their employment in August 2004.  The EEOC has not
yet rendered a decision on the charges.


INDIAN FUNDS: Cobell To Discuss Royalties Lawsuit With Tribes
-------------------------------------------------------------
Elouise Cobell, the Blackfoot woman who is leading a protracted
nine-year legal to make the federal government show an
accounting of Indian trust funds will visit Arizona on August
30, 2005 to discuss the case and answer questions from tribal
members, The Arizona Republic reports.

Ms. Cobell, the lead plaintiff in Cobell vs. Norton, will
discuss recent hearings, efforts to settle the lawsuit and the
U.S. Department of Interior's efforts to oust the judge hearing
the case. The Montana rancher and banker filed the class action
lawsuit in 1996 to force the federal government to account for
billions of dollars held in trust for 500,000 American Indians
and their heirs.

The case, which has become the longest and largest class action
suit brought against the government, involves royalties for
farming, grazing, mining, logging and other economic activities
on tribal lands.  The suit dates back to the 1880s, when the
government, trying to break up reservations, "allotted" some
Indian lands, giving 40 to 160 acres to some individual Native
Americans. Back then the government leased the lands for oil,
gas, timber, grazing and coal, and collected the fees to put
into trust funds.

The government was supposed to distribute the money to
individuals but has been unable to account for the funds,
blaming lost records, poor computer systems and incompetent
administrators. Estimates are that more than $100 billion have
been lost.  

In June, tribes offered to settle the case for $27.5 billion,
but Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, chairman of the Senate Indian
Affairs Committee, called the figure "out of sight" and said
Congress would never approve it.

Although Arizona tribes are less affected than some Eastern
tribes with oil leases, there were allotted lands on the Gila
River Reservation, the Salt River Reservation and the Tohono
O'odham Reservation. Though hundreds of Arizona tribal members
may be owed money no one knows how much.  However, Interior
Secretary Gale Norton and her predecessor Bruce Babbitt
vehemently argued that it is impossible to provide an accurate
accounting.

Previously, U.S. Department of Justice attorneys asked a U.S.
District Court to replace, U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth,
who is presiding over the case, after he issued a scathing
ruling saying information from the Department of the Interior is
unreliable. According to the attorneys, the judge made
inappropriate "gratuitous references to murder, dispossession,
and numerous incidents of cultural genocide" against Native
Americans, and charging him with numerous "legal errors," an
earlier Class Action Reporter story (August 17, 2005) reports.


INTERPOOL INC.: NJ Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
dismissed the consolidated securities class action filed against
Interpool Inc. and certain of its present and former executive
officers and directors.

In February and March 2004, several lawsuits were filed,
alleging violations of the federal securities laws relating to
the Company's reported Consolidated Financial Statements for the
years ended December 31, 2000 and 2001 and the nine months ended
September 30, 2002, which the Company announced in March 2003
would require restatement. Each of the complaints purported to
be a class action brought on behalf of persons who purchased our
securities during a specified period.  

In April 2004, the lawsuits, which seek unspecified amounts of
compensatory damages and costs and expenses, including legal
fees, were consolidated into a single action with lead
plaintiffs and lead counsel having been appointed. The
plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint in September
2004, which includes allegations of purported misstatements and
omissions in the Company's public disclosures throughout an
expanded purported class period from March 31, 1999 through
December 26, 2003.  In November 2004, the Company filed a motion
to dismiss the amended complaint.

The suit is styled "Hurtado, et al v. Interpool, Inc et al.,
case no. 3:04-cv-00321-SRC-TJB," filed in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey, under Judge
Stanley R. Chesler.  Representing the plaintiffs 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.  Representing the
Company is Matthew M. Oliver, LOWENSTEIN SANDLER, 65 Livingston
Avenue, Roseland, NJ 07068, E-mail: moliver@lowenstein.com.


JANUS CAPITAL: Judge Says Plaintiffs Unlikely to get Big Payout
---------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge J. Frederick Motz, who is overseeing the
class action lawsuits against Janus Capital Group for mutual-
fund market timing will let some of the claims proceed, but
signaled that the plaintiffs may get no payoff, The Rocky
Mountain News reports.

According to the Baltimore federal judge, holders of the Janus
funds affected by the improper trading "are entitled to no
further recovery," if Janus has already set aside enough money
to cover their damages.

In an earlier settlement with the Securities and Exchange
Commission and state regulators, Denver-based Janus, already
promised to pay its fundholders $100 million to compensate them
for damages caused by market timing.

In a statement sent via e-mail to Rocky Mountain News, Janus
General Counsel John Bluher said, "The court's decision
validates the position Janus has maintained through this
litigation process. Given the SEC regulatory settlements - and
the thoughtful and comprehensive distribution process put in
place to distribute proceeds to potentially affected claimants -
the need for the extremely expensive machinery of the civil
justice system has been eliminated."

The ruling, issued recently in federal court in Baltimore,
dismissed a number of claims arising from Janus' involvement in
the industry's trading scandal.  Like a number of other mutual-
fund companies, Janus, according to court documents, allowed
hedge funds and other special customers the right to rapidly
trade the funds and exploit price discrepancies. Though this
market timing was not illegal it siphoned off profits from the
funds' long-term holders.

Janus' fund prospectuses said the company discouraged the
practice and because of that, New York Attorney General Eliot
Spitzer launched a probe of the mutual-fund industry in 2003.  
Although Janus settled with most regulators in 2004, paying a
total of $226 million, the company continues to face a series of
civil lawsuits filed by fundholders and stockholders with a
number of other financial companies, alleged to have assisted in
the scheme, being named as co-defendants. The ruling from Judge
Motz pertained to two of the major fundholder cases.

In his recent ruling, Judge Motz rejected defendants' arguments
that because market timing is not illegal, no fraudulent scheme
occurred. He said, "Although market timing itself may be lawful,
it nevertheless is prohibited . if it is engaged in by favored
market insiders at the expense of long-term mutual fund
investors from whom it is concealed and who have a right to rely
upon its prevention by fund advisers' and managers' good faith
performance of their fiduciary obligations."

However, in a footnote to that portion of the ruling, Judge Motz
pointed out, "the SEC and state regulatory authorities have been
actively pursuing enforcement proceedings and achieving
regulatory settlements. If the settlements provide full
restitution to those who were harmed, plaintiffs are entitled to
no further recovery."

An independent consultant, University of Florida finance
professor Christopher James, which was hired by Janus and
approved by the SEC, determined that investors lost about $22
million because of the market timing. Professor James considered
lost profits, inappropriate management fees and extra trading
costs in arriving at the amount. The SEC though must approve his
calculations.

In July, Janus used the finding in its argument that the civil
suit should be dismissed arguing that the money that will be
returned to investors as a result of the settlement "is more
than sufficient to compensate Janus fund investors." Thus, Judge
Motz said that issue "needs to be promptly addressed as the
proceedings go forward."


LORAL SPACE: Reaches Settlement For NY Securities Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Loral Space & Communications Ltd. reached a settlement for the
consolidated securities class action filed against it in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.  The suit also names as defendants Globalstar
Telecommunications Limited (GTL), Bernard L. Schwartz, the
Company's chief executive officer and chairman of the board of
directors and other defendants and is styled "In re Globalstar
Securities Litigation."

On September 26, 2001, the nineteen separate purported class
action lawsuits filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York by various holders of
securities of GTL and Globalstar L.P. (Globalstar) were
consolidated.  In November 2001, plaintiffs in the consolidated
action filed a consolidated amended class action complaint,
alleging:

     (1) that all defendants (except Loral) violated Section
         10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
         10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by making material
         misstatements or failing to state material facts about
         Globalstar's business and prospects,

     (2) that defendants Loral and Mr. Schwartz are secondarily
         liable for these alleged misstatements and omissions
         under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act as alleged
         "controlling persons" of Globalstar,

     (3) that defendants GTL and Mr. Schwartz are liable under
         Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the
         "Securities Act") for untrue statements of material
         facts in or omissions of material facts from a
         registration statement relating to the sale of shares
         of GTL common stock in January 2000,

     (4) that defendant GTL is liable under Section 12(2)(a) of
         the Securities Act for untrue statements of material
         facts in or omissions of material facts from a
         prospectus and prospectus supplement relating to the
         sale of shares of GTL common stock in January 2000, and

     (5) that defendants Loral and Mr. Schwartz are secondarily
         liable under Section 15 of the Securities Act for GTL's
         primary violations of Sections 11 and 12(2)(a) of the
         Securities Act as alleged "controlling persons" of GTL.

The class of plaintiffs on whose behalf the lawsuit has been
asserted consists of all buyers of securities of Globalstar,
Globalstar Capital and GTL during the period from December 6,
1999 through October 27, 2000, excluding the defendants and
certain persons related to or affiliated with them.

In December 2003, a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in
its entirety was denied by the court insofar as GTL and Mr.
Schwartz are concerned, and discovery has commenced and is
ongoing.  In December 2004, plaintiffs' motion for certification
of the class was granted. In June 2004, Globalstar was
dissolved, and in October 2004, GTL was liquidated pursuant to
chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code.

This case was preliminarily settled in July 2005, which
settlement might give rise to a general unsecured prepetition
claim by Mr. Schwartz against the company to the extent, if any,
the $20 million settlement amount is not reimbursed by
Globalstar's insurers.

The suit is styled "In re Globalstar Securities Litigation, Case
No. 01-CV-1748 (SHS)," filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York, under Judge P. Kevin
Castel.  Representing the plaintiffs is Eric James Belfi of
Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP, 275 Madison Avenue, Ste. 801, New
York, NY 10016, Phone: 212-682-1818, Fax: 212-682-1892, E-mail:
ebelfi@murrayfrank.com.  Representing the Company and Bernard
Schwartz are Jeanne Marie Luboja, Francis James Menton of
Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP (NY), 787 Seventh Avenue, New York,
NY 10019, Phone: (212) 728-8000, Fax: (212) 728-8111, E-mail:
maosdny@willkie.com


MASSACHUSETTS: Ex-BankBoston Customers Join Merger Suit Pact
------------------------------------------------------------
Former BankBoston customers may be eligible for payments of $25
apiece under the settlement of a class action lawsuit alleging
customers were notified too late about merger-related changes
involving fees and minimum balance requirements, The Providence
Journal reports.

Court documents revealed that five years ago the former Fleet
National Bank, which last year was acquired by Bank of America
Corporation, absorbed BankBoston.

Under a recently reached settlement, Bank of America has agreed
to pay up to $12.5 million to settle with former BankBoston
customers in 68 communities, mostly in the Boston area, the
South Shore and Cape Cod, according to a report by The Patriot
Ledger.  The suit alleged that BankBoston customers were told
too late about new fees and minimum balance requirements
implemented after the purchase by Fleet. Under federal law banks
are required to provide at least 30 days' notice to bank
customers about "adverse" changes to their accounts.

With the settlement, Bank of America is now notifying former
BankBoston customers who may be eligible via newspaper ads and
mailings to many former BankBoston customers. If too many come
forward to seek payment, they will receive less than $25 apiece
from the settlement fund.


MEDLINE INDUSTRIES: Recalls Mouthwashes, Kits Due to Health Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is notifying the
public of a nationwide voluntary recall of alcohol-free
mouthwash and hygiene kits containing mouthwash distributed by
Medline Industries, Inc., Mundelein, Ill. because of the
potential contamination with Burkholderia cepacia. Consumers and
health care providers who have Medline brand alcohol free
mouthwash should stop using the product immediately and check to
see if it is being recalled.

"[The] FDA is committed to informing the public about products that
may be contaminated and can potentially cause illness", said Dr.
Lester M. Crawford, FDA Commissioner. "Consumers are encouraged
to pay close attention to the identifying information for
product information associated with this recall."

Products being recalled can be identified by checking the lot
code stamped on the bottom of the bottle. Product lot numbers
beginning 0503 through 0508 are affected. 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 recall includes the following products:

Description = Reorder Number

     (1) Alcohol-Free Mouthwash, Medline Label, 2 oz. =
         MDS095029; and

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

The Medline labeled mouthwash packaged in 2 and 4 oz bottles
were recently recalled by the manufacturer, Carrington
Laboratories, Inc, Irving, Texas. The mouthwash may also be
found in certain Medline Personal Hygiene Hospital Admission
Kits.

The product was distributed to hospitals, medical centers, and
long term care facilities nationwide. There is no known
distribution through retail sales. The CDC has confirmed
hospital illness associated with the use of the affected
mouthwash in Texas and Florida.

For a complete list of admission kits involved, go to
http://www.medline.comor call Medline Industries at  
1-800-950-0128.

B. cepacia is a known cause of infections in hospitalized
patients. The effects of B. cepacia on people vary widely,
ranging from no symptoms at all, to serious respiratory
infections, especially in patients with CF. 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. Of note, B.
cepacia bacteria are often resistant to common antibiotics.


MERCK & CO.: NJ Judge Denies Motion to Postpone 2nd Vioxx Trial
---------------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co.'s recent request to postpone the next trial over its
withdrawn painkiller Vioxx was turned down by Superior Court
Judge Carol E. Higbee, the New Jersey judge presiding over the
case, The Associated Press reports.

Additionally, Judge Higbee, who is overseeing nearly 2,500 Vioxx
product liability cases that have been filed in New Jersey, also
rejected several other Merck motions related to the upcoming
trial.

In a motion filed last week, the Whitehouse Station, New Jersey-
based drug maker urged Judge Higbee to postpone the trial's
start for 45 days, citing a "media blitz" after the first Vioxx
trial in Texas, which awarded $253 million to the widow of a man
who died after taking the drug for 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.

The $253 million award though is expected to be reduced to about
$26 million due to Texas caps on punitive damages.

Set to start on September 12 in Atlantic City, the second trial
over the drug involves a 60-year-old postal worker and former
Marine from Boise, Idaho. Frederick "Mike" Humeston suffered a
heart attack, but survived, four years ago shortly after he
began taking Vioxx for pain from old war wounds.

More than 20 million people took Merck's blockbuster arthritis
treatment in the U.S. before the it was withdrawn in September
after a Company-sponsored clinical trial found that Vioxx
increased the risk of heart attack and stroke in people who took
the medicine daily for more than 18 months, an earlier Class
Action Reporter story (August 29, 2005) reports.

However, the first two cases to come to trial in state courts
both involve plaintiffs, Mr. Ernst and Mr. Humeston, who had
taken the drug for a much shorter time.

Mr. Humeston's attorney, Chris Seeger of Seeger Weiss in
Manhattan told the Associated Press, "I'm just absolutely
thrilled," adding, "I just can't wait to get in a courtroom with
this company."

Additionally, Mr. Seeger pointed out that the judge also ruled
against Merck on motions to exclude some Merck marketing and
promotional materials about Vioxx, evidence about Merck's
efforts to sway or discredit doctors raising concerns about the
safety of Vioxx and information about Mr. Humeston's record of
valor in the Vietnam War. Merck's lawyers, according to Mr.
Seeger, had argued that evidence was not directly related to the
issues in the Humeston case.

Despite the ruling, however, Jim Fitzpatrick, outside counsel
and a Merck spokesman told The Associated Press, "All of these
rulings, they're preliminary," and can be raised again when they
come up during the trial. "A lot of them relate to what can be
said at opening (arguments)."

According to the most recent tally, 4,951 product-liability
suits and cases seeking to be made class action cases had been
filed in state and federal courts. Attorneys are expecting the
Texas verdict to result in more filings. It wasn't known how
many of those 4,951 suits might be eligible for settlement under
Merck's criteria, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (August
29, 2005) reports.

Plaintiff lawyer Mark Lanier, who won the Ernst case, told The
Associated Press that Merck will likely face at least 50,000
U.S. product liability suits over Vioxx, plus thousands more
from patients overseas. Analysts even estimate Merck's liability
over Vioxx could run from several billion dollars to as high as
$50 billion, but the company has yet to set aside any reserves
to cover jury awards or settlements.


MERCK & CO.: Firm Files Vioxx Suit on Behalf of French Citizens
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kenneth B. Moll & Associates initiated the first
class action lawsuit on behalf of all citizens of France who
allegedly died or were seriously injured by the pain medication
Vioxx.

The suit accuses United States pharmaceutical giant Merck & Co.
of failing to properly research the known risks of Vioxx and
warn French consumers of potentially fatal side effects. "Vioxx
should never have been marketed in the first place," said
Kenneth B. Moll, whose firm filed the first worldwide class
action regarding Vioxx last fall.

On September 30, 2004, Merck withdrew Vioxx from all worldwide
markets after studies showed a three-fold risk of heart attack
and stroke. "Merck's decision to withdraw Vioxx from the market
came years after the company first learned of the health risks,"
said Mr. Moll. "Countless individuals in France and around the
world have suffered severe and fatal injuries which could have
been avoided if Merck had acted responsibly." Last week a Texas
jury awarded $253.5 million to a widow of a man who died after
taking Vioxx. "The verdict clearly shows Merck's culpability in
their decision to put profits ahead of the safety of their
consumers," said Mr. Moll.

For more details, contact Tiffany K. Donnelly of Kenneth B. Moll
& Associates, Ltd., Three First National Plaza, 50th Floor,
Chicago, IL 60602, Phone: 312-558-6444 or 888-882-3453, Fax:
312-558-1112, E-mail: lawyers@kbmoll.com, Web site:
http://www.kbmoll.com.


MINNESOTA: Law Firm's Fees in Time-AOL Case Scrutinized by GOP
--------------------------------------------------------------
As Minnesota reaps as much as $30 million in a securities fraud
settlement with Time Warner Inc., a Republican legislator is
questioning the fee due the state's lead attorney in the case,
who is a prominent campaign contributor to DFL Attorney General
Mike Hatch, The Star tribune reports.

Samuel Heins of the Minneapolis law firm of Heins Mills & Olson
said told The Star Tribune that the fee for work on the
worldwide class action suit has not yet been set by a federal
judge in New York, but that it will be "many millions" of
dollars.

A pretrial settlement of the case negotiated by Mr. Heins and
other lawyers calls for Time Warner and its accountants to pay
$2.5 billion to perhaps millions of shareholders in the world's
largest communications company, including the Minnesota State
Board of Investment. A.G. Hatch, who assigned the case to the
Heins firm in 2002, estimated the board's share at $25 million
to $30 million.

According to Mr. Heins, "The deal is done. However it could be
years before we get paid or the class gets paid." He pointed out
that several court approvals along with time-consuming
notification of shareholders plus possible appeals by some of
them might drag the process out.

The investment board has claimed losses of up to $249 million to
the public employee pension funds it manages because of alleged
false revenue reporting by Time Warner and a merger partner,
AOL.  Reports of the proposed settlement prompted Rep. Marty
Seifert, R-Marshall, to raise questions with A.G. Hatch about
Mr. Heins' role in the case and his prospective compensation. He
told A.G. Hatch, "Obviously, he should be paid. But there needs
to be some legislative parameters in these kinds of things or
you end up enriching a very few people at the expense of
something else."

Mr. Heins has been a generous political donor to A.G. Hatch and
his predecessor as attorney general, Hubert Humphrey III. Since
1996, Mr. Heins has given $1,900 to Hatch's campaigns and $3,000
to Humphrey's. A.G. Humphrey was the DFL nominee for governor in
1998 with A.G. Hatch is considered a likely candidate for the
job in 2006.

Mr. Hatch told The Star Tribune that no political favoritism was
extended to Mr. Heins because no other law firms were seeking to
press any of the cases. He pointed out that such suits are
initiated by proposals from class action law firms to public
entities such as the Board of Investment, which typically lack
the resources to conduct them. He also said, "There are very few
class-action firms. They invest tens of millions of dollars in
cases like this, usually with lines of credit against all they
own. It's a very high-risk business."  According to Mr. Hatch,
he had sole authority to put Mr. Heins on the Time Warner case
in 2002, but as a courtesy got the approval of all other members
of the Board of Investment.

Secretary of State Mary Kiffmeyer, then the only Republican on
the board, told The Star Tribune that she did not object to Mr.
Heins' appointment, which was backed by the board's staff,
saying, "We defer to the expertise of the staff and the right of
the attorney general to choose." She added that she is
"delighted" with the prospective settlement and considers it
outside the realm of partisan politics.

Under an agreement signed by Mr. Hatch and Mr. Heins, the law
firm's fee will be set by U.S. District Judge Shirley Wohl Kram,
who also designated it as lead counsel because Minnesota's
claimed losses were larger than any other plaintiff's.

Several other law firms that assisted in the complex case will
also get compensation, according to Mr. Heins. Including a dozen
that Heins Mills hired just for that purpose, Mr. Heins told The
Star Tribune, "There were 40 or 45 lawyers working on it on any
given day." They pored over 13 million documents in Minneapolis
and did "a tremendous amount of forensic accounting," Mr. Heins
adds.

The steep costs of that effort, which Mr. Heins said was
"heavily contested" by top East Coast law firms representing
Time Warner, will figure prominently in Heins Mills' fee request
to Judge Kram. Noting that it got result, Mr. Heins told The
Star Tribune, "It was an enormously expensive undertaking, but
Mike Hatch has nothing to do with how much we get paid. It's not
state money, and the amount will all be public."


NATIONAL TESTING: Faces FTC Lawsuit For False Employment Scheme
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has charged an employment-
opportunity scammer and his three companies with marketing a
fraudulent U.S. Postal Service employment program. The program
offered consumers help in getting jobs with the Postal Service
and guaranteed them job placement if they were able to get a
certain score on the Service's entrance exam. In reality, jobs,
or even the opportunity to apply for jobs, were not available
through the defendants. For many consumers, the advertised
postal jobs were not available in their area at all.

The FTC alleged the defendants, Sean Terrance Asberry and his
companies, National Testing Services, LLC; Exam Preparation,
LLC; and Future Planning, LLC, doing business as Exam Prep, LLC
and Registration Department, put classified ads in newspapers
across the country. The ads, which read $ ATTENTION $ Now Hiring
for Postal Jobs and offered hourly salary rates, paid training
and full benefits, led consumers to believe the defendants were
connected with the U.S. Postal Service and the hiring process.
When consumers called the toll-free numbers listed in the ads,
they were told there were jobs available at their local post
office. The defendants offered consumers an exam-preparation
package and told consumers they had to pay a "one-time
refundable fee" for the study materials. According to the
defendants, the materials would assist consumers in getting jobs
with the Postal Service by helping them pass the required
entrance exam. The defendants also told consumers that if they
scored high enough on the exam, they would receive immediate job
placement.

The defendants said that their product would include an
employment application, a book entitled "Exam Prep Guide," 12
practice exams, and a copy of the actual exam. Customers who
ordered the defendants' products did receive some of the
materials, but did not get the practice exams or a copy of the
actual exam. In addition, the defendants' materials did not
address the current postal entrance exam for many of the jobs
they claimed were available. According to the FTC, the
defendants have no connection to the Postal Service. In many
areas, the jobs the defendants described simply were not
available. When consumers attempted to have their money
refunded, they found out additional terms of the refund policy
that hadn't been disclosed before.

The FTC has filed a complaint and asked the court for consumer
redress and to stop the defendants' allegedly false and
deceptive selling practices. The FTC charged that the defendants
violated the FTC Act by misrepresenting: they have an
affiliation with the U.S. Postal Service; the availability of
jobs with the Postal Service; that consumers who use their
materials are more likely to pass the employment exam than those
who do not; that achieving a certain score on the exam will
guarantee employment; and their refund policy.

The FTC received invaluable assistance in this matter from the
Nashville office of the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, arising
out of a December 2004 law enforcement conference.  The
Commission vote authorizing the staff to file the complaint was
4-0. The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division. The court
issued a temporary restraining order August 8, 2005.

Copies of the complaint are available from the FTC's Web site at
http://www.ftc.govand also from the FTC's Consumer Response  
Center, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington,
D.C. 20580. The FTC works for the consumer to prevent
fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices in the
marketplace and to provide information to help consumers spot,
stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish
(bilingual counselors are available to take complaints), or to
get free information on any of 150 consumer topics, call toll-
free, 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357), or use the complaint form
at http://www.ftc.gov.The FTC enters Internet, telemarketing,  
identity theft, and other fraud-related complaints into Consumer
Sentinel, a secure, online database available to hundreds of
civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and
abroad.  For more details, contact Mitch Katz or Jackie Dizdul,
Office of Public Affairs, Phone: 202-326-2161 or 202-326-2472 or
contact Valerie Verduce, FTC's Southeast Region, by Phone:
404-656-1390 or visit the Website:
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2005/07/natiionaltesting.htm.


NEKTAR THERAPEUTICS: Plaintiff Drops Securities Suit in N.D. CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff withdrew the securities class action filed against
Nektar Therapeutics, Inc. in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California, styled "Norman Rhodes,
et al. v. Nektar Therapeutics, Ajit Gill, J. Milton Harris, and
Robert B Chess, Case No. C 04-03735 JSW."  The suit also names
as defendants certain of the Company's current officers and
directors.

The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5. The
plaintiff seeks to represent a putative class of all purchasers
of the Company's s securities between March 4, 2004 and August
4, 2004 (the "Class Period").  The complaint generally alleges
that, during that Class Period, the Company and the individual
defendants made false or misleading statements in certain press
releases regarding Exubera.  The Complaint seeks unspecified
monetary damages and other relief against all defendants.  One
motion for appointment of a lead plaintiff has been filed, and
that motion is pending.

The suit is "Norman Rhodes, et al. v. Nektar Therapeutics, Ajit
Gill, J. Milton Harris, and Robert B Chess, Case No. C 04-03735
JSW," filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, under Judge Jeffrey S. White.  
Representing the Company are Boris Feldman, Cheryl W. Foung,
Ignacio E. Salceda, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati 650 Page
Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050 Phone: 650-493-9300 Fax:
650-565-5100, E-mail: boris.feldman@wsgr.com or cfoung@wsgr.com
or isalced@wsgr.com; and Claudia N. Main, Wilson Sonsini
Goodrich & Rosati One Market Street Spear Tower Suite 3300 San
Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: 415-947-2053 E-mail: cmain@wsgr.com.  
Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Robert S. Green, Green Welling LLP 235 Pine Street 15th
         Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: 415/477-6700 Fax:
         415-477-6710 E-mail: CAND.USCOURTS@CLASSCOUNSEL.COM;
    

     (2) Richard A. Maniskas, Marc A. Topaz, Schiffrin &
         Barroway, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087
         Phone: 610-667-7706 Fax: 610-667-7056

     (3) Tamara Skvirky Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP Three Bala
         Plaza East Suite 400 Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Phone: 610-
         667-7706


SOUTHWEST RESEARCH: Ex-Researcher Files Gender Bias Suit in TX
--------------------------------------------------------------
With the backing of a Washington, D.C., legal group, Lauren
Browning, a former Southwest Research Institute scientist
initiated a lawsuit against SwRI on charges of gender
discrimination, The San Antonio Express-News reports.

A geochemist until May 2004 at SwRI's Center for Nuclear Waste
Regulatory Analyses, Ms. Browning alleges in her suit that she
was treated differently than the male scientists, kept at very
low pay after more than five years and had responsibilities
stripped from her.

Additionally, Ms. Browning alleges in her suit, which was filed
in federal court in San Antonio, that SwRI "refused to promote
her, even though her qualifications were similar or superior to
male colleagues promoted over her head after working as research
scientists for a shorter time."

Southwest Research though denies the allegations and told the
San Antonio Express-News that it will vigorously defend its
actions. SwRI spokesman Craig Witherow even said, "While it is
unfortunate that Ms. Browning feels litigation is necessary,
Southwest Research Institute has not, in any manner whatsoever,
discriminated against Ms. Browning because of her gender. To the
contrary, her allegations are wholly without merit."

He further told the San Antonio Express-News that Ms. Browning
left of her own accord and that an Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission investigation "was unable to conclude that the
information obtained established any violation of the law."

However, in a recent interview, Ms. Browning countered that
there is a pattern of women at SwRI being kept in the lowest two
of the six rankings for scientists. "It was a very male-
dominated place," she describes of SwRI. She also told the San
Antonio Express-News that her work and her credibility were
unfairly undermined in front of colleagues after she complained
about the discrimination.

Trial Lawyers for Public Justice in Washington recently took on
Browning's civil rights suit along with local lawyers. According
to a lawyer for the group, Adele Kimmel, this case is part of a
longstanding gender bias in the sciences. She recounted that the
group was involved in the 2003 multimillion-dollar settlement of
a class action suit over alleged discriminatory practices at
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

Ms. Kimmel hopes other women will step forward to combat gender
discrimination, but Ms. Browning said she is not sure others at
SwRI will risk their jobs saying, "Everybody has their own set
of priorities, and righting this wrong was a very high priority
for me."

The lawsuit seeks for changes to be made in the employment
practices at SwRI, for lost wages and benefits, and $300,000 in
punitive damages.


SPX CORPORATION: Asks NC Court To Junk Securities, ERISA Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
SPX Corporation asked the United States District Court for the
Western District of North Carolina to dismiss the consolidated
class actions filed against it and certain of its current and
former executive officers.

Beginning in March 2004, multiple class action complaints
seeking unspecified monetary damages were filed or announced by
certain law firms representing or seeking to represent
purchasers of the Company's common stock during a specified
period, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The plaintiffs generally allege
that the Company made false and misleading statements regarding
the forecast of the Company's 2003 fiscal year business and
operating results in order to artificially inflate the price of
Company stock. These complaints have been consolidated into a
single amended complaint against the Company and its former
Chairman, CEO and President.  On September 20, 2004, the Company
filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated action in its
entirety.

Additionally, on April 23, 2004, an additional class action
complaint was filed in the same court, alleging breaches of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) by the
Company, its then general counsel and the Administrative
Committee regarding one of the Company's 401(k) defined
contribution benefit plans arising from the plan's holding of
Company stock.  On June 10, 2005 a first amended Complaint was
filed in the ERISA suit, adding as defendants certain current
and former directors and Administrative Committee members, and
conforming the complaint to the allegations in the Securities
Class Action.  On July 25, 2005, the Company filed a motion to
dismiss the amended ERISA complaint in its entirety.

The litigation is styled "Belafey et al v. SPX Corporation, et
al, case no. 3:04cv99," filed in the United States District
Court for the Western District of North Carolina, under Judge H.
Brent McKnight.  Representing the Company are David C Wright,
III and Julian H. Wright of Robinson, Bradshaw & Hinson, PA,
Mail: 101 No Tryon St Suite 1900, Charlotte, NC 28246 USA,
Phone: 704-377-2536; and Ross B. Bricker, Anton R. Valukas and
Ronald L. Malmer of Jenner & Block, One IBM Plaza, Chicago, IL
60611-3608 Phone: 312/ 923-4524.  The plaintiff firms in this
litigation are:

     (1) Brodsky & Smith, LLC, 11 Bala Avenue, Suite 39, Bala
         Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610.668.7987, Fax:
         610.660.0450, E-mail: esmith@Brodsky-Smith.com

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

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

     (4) Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. (Washington,
         DC), 1100 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 500, West Tower,
         Washington, DC, 20005, Phone: 202.408.4600, Fax:
         202.408.4699, E-mail: lawinfo@cmht.com

     (5) Faruqi & Faruqi LLP, 320 East 39th Street, New York,
         NY, 10016, Phone: 212.983.9330, Fax: 212.983.9331, E-
         mail: Nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com

     (6) Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C., Esquire at 261
         Old York Road, Suite 423, Jenkintown, PA, 19046, Phone:
         215.886.1900, E-mail: securitiesfraud@comcast.net

     (7) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP (Boca Raton,
         FL), 5355 Town Center Road - Suite 900, Boca Raton, FL,
         33486, Phone: 561.361.5000, Fax: 561.367.8400,

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

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

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

    (11) 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


SYNOVIS LIFE: MN Court Dismisses Shareholder Suit With Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------------
Synovis Life Technologies, Inc. (Nasdaq: SYNO), reports the
dismissal with prejudice of the shareholder class action that
was brought against the company and its current CEO and former
CFO.

In an order dated August 25, 2005, the United States District
Court for the District of Minnesota concluded that the
Consolidated Complaint failed to meet the legal pleading
requirements.

"We are pleased that the Court concluded that the case should
not be allowed to go forward. We were steadfast in our belief
that the lawsuit lacked merit and to have the Court agree with
our belief is heartening," said Karen Gilles Larson, Synovis
Life Technologies president and chief executive officer.


TOBACCO LITIGATION: ME Residents Sue "Lights" Cigarette Makers
--------------------------------------------------------------
Three Penobscot County residents initiated a class action
lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Maine against the makers of
Marlboro Lights and Cambridge Lights, The Bangor Daily News
reports.

Though the lawsuit is not seeking damages for personal injuries
or health problems caused from cigarette smoking, it alleges
that they were hoodwinked into thinking that "light" cigarettes
contained less tar and nicotine. The smokers are thus seeking
compensatory, punitive and other damages.  The suit was filed
earlier this month Bangor attorney Samuel W. Lanham Jr. on
behalf of Lori A. Spellman of Levant, Stephanie Good and Allain
L. Thibodeau, both of Bangor. According to court documents, each
smoked Marlboro Lights for 15 years or more.   Court documents
revealed that Ms. Spellman has smoked between one and 11/2
packages of Marlboro Lights per day, while Ms. Good has smoked
one pack every two to three days and Allain Thibodeau has smoked
an average of 10 packs a week.  

The suit also alleges that Philip Morris, USA Inc. and its
parent company, Altria Group Inc., used unfair and deceptive
practices to market the cigarettes and induce smokers to
continue smoking even though the manufacturers knew their
products were not lower in tar or nicotine than regular
cigarettes. It also alleges that the cigarette makers' marketing
practices violated Maine's Unfair Trade Practices Law that
prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct
of any trade or commerce.

Mr. Lanham's complaint is the first of its kind filed in federal
court in Maine, but one of hundreds filed in state and federal
courts around the country.  According to the complaint, Phillip
Morris introduced Marlboro Lights in 1971, while Altria began
marketing Cambridge Lights 15 years later. The packages of both
brands stated that they contained "lowered tar and nicotine."
That language though was removed in 2003 after an Illinois court
handed down a $10.1 billion verdict against Philip Morris that
found the company guilty of fraud.

The cigarette companies based their claims on tests conducted by
the Federal Trade Commission, an agency charged with protecting
consumers from misleading or fraudulent advertising. To measure
the tar and nicotine levels, the FTC used machines that drew one
carefully calibrated puff every minute.  Court documents show
that the primary design difference between light cigarettes and
their regular counterparts is the increased ventilation allowed
by the strategically placed rings of ventilation holes in the
filter of each cigarette.

The companies, according to the complaint, knew that smokers
compensated for the restrictive filters by covering the holes
with their fingers or by taking more and deeper drags in order
to receive 100 percent of the tar and nicotine that would be
received from regular cigarettes. It further claims that the
smoke produced by Marlboro Lights and Cambridge Lights causes
more genetic and chromosomal damage than the smoke of regular
cigarettes due to the increased ventilation.

An article published last year about the Illinois case in
Chicago Lawyer magazine stated that shortly after its
introduction 34 years go, Marlboro Lights became the most
popular cigarette brand in the country, and "light" cigarettes
came to dominate the market. Light cigarettes now account for
almost 89 percent of the cigarette market.

Although it could be several years before the Maine case goes to
trial, Mr. Lanham was quick to note that it will most likely be
combined with similar lawsuits filed in other federal courts
around the country.

An appeal of the $10.1 billion decision in Illinois is currently
pending before the Illinois Supreme Court. Attorneys for
cigarette manufacturers previously said that they would appeal a
loss in the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.  Mr. Lanham though
vowed that he would pursue his clients' case no matter the
outcome of the Illinois appeal.

The suit is styled, GOOD et al v. ALTRIA GROUP INC., Case No.
1:05-cv-00127-JAW, which is pending before the United States
District Court for the District of Maine the honorable John A.
Woodcock, presiding. Samuel J. Lanham, Jr. of CUDDY & LANHAM,
470 EVERGREEN WOODS, BANGOR, ME 04401, Phone: (207) 942-2898, E-
mail: slanham@cuddylanham.com, is representing the Plaintiff/s.


TYSON FRESH: Court Orders Plaintiffs to Pay Firm's Court Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------
The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled that the
plaintiffs must pay Tyson's court expenses in the class action
lawsuit Pickett v. Tyson Fresh Meats, The Agriculture Online
reports.

In unanimously supporting a district court decision, the three
judge panel ordered the plaintiffs, which include five
individuals and one corporation, to pay Tyson Fresh Meats more
than $70,000 in expenses related to the trial held last year in
Montgomery, Alabama.

The appeals court affirmed a lower court's decision to reverse a
jury verdict against Tyson Fresh Meats in which they found Tyson
did not violate the law through its supply agreements with
independent cattle producers and said the company has legitimate
business reasons for entering into such agreements.

The suit is styled, Henry Lee "Leroy" Pickett, et al v. Tyson
Fresh Meats, Inc., [United States District Court for the Middle
District of Alabama, Case No. CV-96-A-1103-N], which went before
the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, No.
04-12137. The following represents the Plaintiff/s:

     (1) Andrew Clay Allen, Peter Harrington Burke and Joe R.
         Whatley, Jr. of Whatley Drake, LLC, P.O. Box 10647,
         Birmingham, AL 35202-0647, Phone: 205-328-9576, Fax:
         328-9669, E-mail: aallen@whatleydrake.com,
         measterwood@whatleydrake.com and
         jwhatley@whatleydrake.com;

     (2) Randy Beard of Beard & Beard, P.O. Box 88,
         Guntersville, AL 35976-0088, Phone: (256) 582-3189,
         Fax: (256) 582-6787, E-mail: randy@beardandbeard.com;

     (3) Stephen K. Griffith of Knight Griffith McKenzie Knight
         McLeroy & Little, LLP, P.O. Box 930, Cullman, AL 35056,
         Phone: 256-734-0456, Fax: 256-734-0466, E-mail:
         skgriff@knight-griffith.com;

     (4) David Alan Domina and Nora M. Kane of Domina Law, PC,
         1065 North 115th St., Suite 150, Omaha, NE 68154,
         Phone: 402-493-4100, Fax: 402-493-9782, E-mail:
         dad@dominalaw.com and nmk@dominalaw.com;

     (5) Ernest Clayton Hornsby, Jr. of Morris Haynes & Hornsby,
         The Financial Center, 505 North 20th Street, Suite
         1150, Birmingham, AL 35203, Phone: 205-324-4008, Fax:
         205-324-0803, E-mail: chornsby@bellsouth.net; and

     (6) Larry Wade Morris of Morris, Haynes & Hornsby, P.O. Box
         1660, Alexander City, AL 35011-1660, Phone: 256-329-
         2000, Fax: 329-2015, E-mail: paralegal888@yahoo.com.

The following represents the Defendant/s:

     (i) Louis E. Fogel of Sidley Austin Brown & Wood, Bank One
         Plaza, 10 S. Dearborn St., Chicago, IL 60603, Phone:
         312-853-7000, Fax: 312-853-7036, E-mail:
         lfogel@sidley.com;

    (ii) Thomas C. Green, Mark Daniel Hopson, Jay T. Jorgensen,
         Kristin G. Koehler and Frank Robert Volpe of Sidley
         Austin Brown & Wood, 1501 K Street, NW Washington, DC
         20005, Phone: 202-736-8000, Fax: 736-8711, E-mail:
         tcgreen@sidley.com, mhopson@sidley.com,
         jjorgensen@sidley.com, kkoehler@sidley.com and
         fvolpe@sidley.com; and

   (iii) Nathan Hodne of Tyson Foods, Inc., Asst. General
         Counsel, 2210 West Oaklawn Drive, Springdale, AR 72762,
         Phone: 479-290-4706, Fax: 479-290-7967, E-mail:
         Nathan.Hodne@Tyson.com;



                    Meetings and Conferences


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


                 New Securities Fraud Cases


AMERICAN ITALIAN: Smith & Smith Lodges Securities Suit in MO
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Smith & Smith LLP initiated a securities class
action lawsuit on behalf of shareholders who purchased
securities of American Italian Pasta Company (the "Company")
(NYSE:PLB), between October 4, 2000 and August 9, 2005,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). The class action lawsuit was
filed in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Missouri.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period
concerning the Company's operations and performance, thereby
artificially inflating the price of American Italian Pasta
Company securities. No class has yet been certified in the above
action.

For more details, contact Howard Smith of Smith & Smith LLP,
Phone: (866) 759-2275, E-mail: howardsmithlaw@hotmail.com.


ATI TECHNOLOGIES: Smith & Smith Lodges Securities Suit in PA
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Smith & Smith LLP initiated a securities class
action lawsuit on behalf of shareholders who purchased
securities of ATI Technologies, Inc. ("ATI" or the "Company")
(Nasdaq:ATYT), between October 7, 2004 and June 23, 2005,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). The class action lawsuit was
filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period
concerning the Company's operations and financial performance,
thereby artificially inflating the price of ATI securities. No
class has yet been certified in the above action.

For more details, contact Howard Smith of Smith & Smith LLP,
Phone: (866) 759-2275, E-mail: howardsmithlaw@hotmail.com.


SYMBOL TECHNOLOGIES: Abbey Gardy Lodges NY Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Abbey Gardy, LLP commenced a Class Action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York on behalf of a class (the "Class") of all
persons who purchased or acquired securities of Symbol
Technologies, Inc. ("Symbol" or the "Company")(NYSE: SBL - News)
between May 10, 2004 and August 1, 2005 inclusive (the "Class
Period").

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period thereby
artificially inflating the price of Symbol securities. The
Complaint names as defendants Symbol, William R. Nuti and Mark
T. Greenquist. The Complaint alleges that Symbol failed to
disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts
which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by
them:

     (1) that the Company was materially overstating its
         financial results by engaging in improper accounting
         practices;

     (2) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls and
         was therefore unable to ascertain the Company's true
         financial condition; and

     (3) as a result, there was no reasonable basis for the
         Company's revenue and earnings guidance.

In addition, notwithstanding Symbol's agreement as part of the
settlement of the SEC lawsuit to appointment of an independent
examiner to review Symbol's accounting practices and internal
control systems and assess the status of remedial actions
undertaken or planned by the company in those and other areas,
Symbol's financial statements and other representations during
the Class Period were materially false and misleading and in
violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Practices because
such financial statements materially overstated Symbol's
revenues.

On August 1, 2005 Symbol announced that Bill Nuti, president and
chief executive officer has resigned his management and director
roles to become CEO of NCR Corporation (NYSE: NCR). Also, on
August 1, 2005, Symbol announced a loss in its financial results
for the second quarter of 2005, ended June 30, 2005. In response
to the earnings announcement and the resignation of Nuti, the
price of Symbol stock dropped from $11.64 to $9.85 pre share.

For more details, contact Susan Lee or Nancy Kaboolian, Esq. of
Abbey Gardy, LLP, Mail: 212 East 39th St., New York, NY, 10016,
Phone: (212) 889-3700 or (800) 889-3701 (Toll Free), E-mail:
slee@abbeygardy.com.


WORLD HEALTH: Cohen Milstein Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in PA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. filed
a lawsuit on behalf of its client and a proposed class of
purchasers of the securities of World Health Alternatives, Inc.
(OTCBB:WHAIE) ("World Health" or the "Company") between June 26,
2003 and August 18, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period") in the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania.

The complaint charges World Health, Daszkal Bolton LLP (World
Health's recently terminated outside auditor), Richard E.
McDonald (the Company's former Chairman, Chief Executive
Officer, President, Principle Financial Officer, and Principle
Accounting Officer), Mark D. Roup (Chief Executive Officer), and
John C. Sercu (Acting President and Interim Chief Executive
Officer, and previously Chief Operating Officer) with violations
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. According to the
complaint, the defendants allegedly knowingly or recklessly
issued false and misleading statements that materially
misrepresented World Health's financial results, business
condition, and internal controls, causing the Company's stock
price to be artificially inflated.

On August 16, 2005, World Health announced that its then Chief
Executive Officer, Richard E. McDonald had resigned, and claimed
the resignation was for family and health reasons. Three days
later, on August 19, 2005, the Company announced that it
expected to restate its prior financial statements. World Health
also announced that an independent investigation had been
commenced, and that its outside auditors, Daszkal Bolton LLP,
would be terminated. The Company revealed, among other things,
that the investigation targeted apparent discrepancies in the
amount of the Company's shares outstanding, financial statement
recognition of a convertible debenture and warrant agreement
associated with the Company's preferred stock, the underpayment
of certain tax liabilities in excess of $4 million, and
irregular reports to the Company's lenders that resulted in
excess funding under the Company's lending arrangements of
approximately $6.5 million. In response to this news, the
Company's stock lost over 85% of its value in a three day
period, wiping out millions of dollars of market capitalization.
World Health stock has continued to fall, now trading below 30
cents per share.

For more details, contact Steven J. Toll, Esq., Matthew K.
Handley, Esq. or Kari Fiore of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll,
P.L.L.C., 1100 New York Avenue, N.W., West Tower, Suite 500,
Washington, D.C., 20005, Phone: (888) 240-0775 or
(202) 408-4600, E-mail: stoll@cmht.com or kfiore@cmht.com.


WORLD HEALTH: Goldman Scarlato Files Securities Fraud Suit in PA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C., initiated a
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania, on behalf of persons who have
purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities
of World Health Alternatives, Inc. ("World Health" or the
"Company") (OTCBB: WHAIE) between October 7, 2003 and August 18,
2005, inclusive, (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit was filed
against World Health, certain officers and directors and its
former auditors ("Defendants").

The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. Specifically, the complaint alleges that
the Company's financial statements during the class period were
materially false and misleading as the Company

     (1) underpaid taxes owed by approximately $4 million, and
         thus overstated net income by the same amount;

     (2) was in breach of its lending agreements as a result of
         having misrepresented its financial condition;

     (3) misrepresented the amount of debentures and warrants
         associated with the Company's preferred stock; and

     (4) misstated, in public filings, the academic credentials
         of its President and Chief Executive Officer.

As a result of this activity, the Company has terminated its
external auditor, its CEO has resigned, and the Company's audit
committee has retained outside counsel to assist with an
investigation into the allegations. The Company has also
announced that it will be restating its financial results.

The announcements of this activity shocked the market and World
Health's share price has plummeted nearly 86% to trade as low as
$0.25 per share, after closing at $1.85 per share on August 18,
2005.

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


WORLD HEALTH: Smith & Smith Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in PA
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Smith & Smith LLP initiated a securities class
action lawsuit on behalf of shareholders who purchased
securities of World Health Alternatives, Inc. ("World Health
Alternatives" or the "Company") (OTCBB:WHAIE), between June 26,
2003 and August 18, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The
class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period
concerning the Company's financial performance, thereby
artificially inflating the price of World Health Alternatives'
securities. No class has yet been certified in the above action.

For more details, contact Howard Smith of Smith & Smith LLP,
Phone: (866) 759-2275, E-mail: howardsmithlaw@hotmail.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  * * *