CAR_Public/050901.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Thursday, September 1, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 172

                            Headlines

AJ CETAK: Recalls 3400 lbs Pork Sausage For Undeclared Allergen
ALLISON'S GOURMET: Recalls Meat Due To Listeria Contamination
AXONYX INC.: Shareholders Commence Securities Suits in S.D. NY
ADAMS GOLF: Mediation in DE Securities Suit Set For Nov. 1, 2005
AMERICAN SUZUKI: Recalls 5,869 Scooters Due to Crash Hazard   

APPLE COMPUTER: Analyst Says iPod Settlement Won't Affect Firm
CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Defends Against CA Energy Antitrust Lawsuits
CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Continue To Face False Claims Act Litigation
CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Faces Consumer Fraud Lawsuits in TX, LA, AK
CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Faces Suits For Water Contamination in LA

CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Continues To Face ERISA Fraud Lawsuit in TX
CHINA: Blind Man Plans Suit Over Government's One Child Policy
DELPHI CORPORATION: Faces Securities, ERISA Suits in NY, MI, FL
EQ RESOURCE: MI Judge Orders Preservation of Evidence From Fire
FLANDERS PROVISION: Beef Recall Due to Possible E. Coli Presence

FIRST ENERGY: OH Residents Launch Suit Over Plant's Emissions
FLUOR CORPORATION: CA Court Approves Securities Suit Settlement
GOLD FIELDS: Trial in OK Injury Suits Set Nov. 2005, Jan. 2006
GOLD FIELDS: Quapaw Indian Tribes Launch Trespass Lawsuit in OK
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Recalls 36,000 Sonata Vehicles For Injury Hazard   

ISRAEL: Attorney Launches Suit V. Daka-90 Over Credit Card Fees
LAND ROVER: Recalls 17,263 2005 LR3 SUVs Due to Fire Hazard   
LYKES MEAT: Recalls 35T lbs Polish Sausage For Underprocessing
MASSACHUSETTS: Resident Lodges Suit Over 1997 Parking Ordinance
NEW FLYER: Recalls 665 2004-05 Buses Due to Possible Fire Hazard   

NEW YORK: Judge Dismisses Antitrust Suits V. 4 Mobile Carriers
NORTEL NETWORKS: Continues To Face NY Securities Fraud Lawsuit
NORTEL NETWORKS: Faces Amended Securities Fraud Suit in Canada
NORTEL NETWORKS: Asks TN Court To Dismiss ERISA Fraud Lawsuit
NORTEL NETWORKS: Plaintiffs Seek Certification For NY Stock Suit

NORTEL NETWORKS: Shareholders File Securities Lawsuit in Canada
PMA CAPITAL: PA Court Partially Dismisses Securities Fraud Suit
PURDUE PHARMA: 1,000 Individual Suits Files in NY Over OxyContin
QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: CO Judge Approves $16.3M in Lawyer Fees
RELIANT ENERGY: Reaches Settlement For TX Securities Fraud Suit

SEEBEYOND TECHNOLOGY: Shareholders File CA Suits V. Sun Merger
RELIANT ENERGY: Faces Individual Franchise Fee Claims in Texas
SONUS NETWORKS: MA Court Decertifies Securities Fraud Lawsuit
SONUS NETWORKS: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Lawsuit in MA
SUPPORTSOFT INC.: CA Court Junks Consolidated Securities Suit

SUPPORTSOFT INC.: NY Settlement Fairness Hearing Set Jan. 2006
UNITED STATES: Wireless Industry Asks DC Judge to Suspend Suits
WASTE MANAGEMENT: Founder, Ex-Officials Settle SEC Action in IL
WESTLAKE STYRENE: Suits Filed in Hamilton County Over Leakage
WILLIAMS TECHNOLOGIES: SC Suit Summary Judgment Ruling Appealed

WESTLAKE STYRENE: Suits Filed in Hamilton County Over Leakage
WISCONSIN: County Responds to Violations of 2001 Suit Settlement
WR GRACE: Inks Pact For Lawsuit V. Sealed Air, Fresenius Deals

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

ATI TECHNOLOGIES: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Suit in PA
MANNATECH INC.: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Stock Fraud Suit in NM
MANNATECH INC.: Marc S. Henzel Files Securities Fraud Suit in NM
SYMBOL TECHNOLOGIES: Federman & Sherwood Lodges Stock Suit in TX
WORLD HEALTH: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Fraud Suit in FL

                          *********

AJ CETAK: Recalls 3400 lbs Pork Sausage For Undeclared Allergen
---------------------------------------------------------------
A.J. Cetak's Meat Market, an Ord, Neb., firm, is voluntarily
recalling approximately 3,400 pounds of pork sausage due to an
undeclared allergen (wheat flour), the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service announced.

The package label indicates that bread is in the product but it
does not specifically state that wheat flour, a potential known
allergen, is an ingredient.

The products subject to recall are 12-ounce to 16-ounce clear
vacuum plastic packages of "CETAK'S Family Tradition for four
generations JATERNICE (Ring Pudding Sausage) Fully Cooked
Natural Casing." Each package includes the establishment number,
"EST. 21562" inside the USDA seal of inspection.  The sausage
was produced between January 9, 2003, and August 22, 2005. The
product was sold to retail stores in Nebraska and directly to
customers over the Internet.

FSIS has had no reports of illness due to consumption of this
product. Anyone concerned about an allergic reaction should
contact a physician.

Consumers with questions about the recall should call Allen or
Linda Cetak at (308) 728-3858. Media with questions about the
recall should contact Allen Cetak at (308) 728-3858.  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.


ALLISON'S GOURMET: Recalls Meat Due To Listeria Contamination
-------------------------------------------------------------
Allison's Gourmet Kitchens, Ltd., a Moore, Okla., firm, is
voluntarily recalling approximately 4,925 pounds of ready-to-eat
chicken and beef products that may be contaminated with Listeria
monocytogenes, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety
and Inspection Service announced today.

The following products are subject to recall:

     (1) Five-pound plastic containers of "Allison's Gourmet
         Kitchens Barbeque Beans with Beef." The containers bear
         the use-by-date "09 28 2005" or "09 29 2005" and each
         case bears the code "04075."

     (2) Five-pound and 12-ounce plastic containers of
         "Allison's HCF Classic Chicken Salad with White Meat."
         The containers bear the use-by-date "09 16 2005." Each
         case bears the code "08015" or "08018."

     (3) Three-pound plastic containers of "Classic Allison's
         Gourmet Kitchens Chicken Salad." The containers bear
         the use-by-date "09 23 2005" or "10 02 2005." Each case
         bears the code "08012."

Containers of barbeque beans and beef bear the establishment
number "EST.27404" inside the USDA seal of inspection.
Containers of chicken salad bear the establishment number "P-
27404" inside the USDA seal of inspection.

The products were produced on Aug. 17 and 18. The chicken salad
was distributed to delicatessens in Oklahoma and Texas. The
barbeque was distributed to delicatessens in Arkansas,
Mississippi, Nebraska, Oklahoma and Texas.

The problem was discovered through company testing. FSIS has
received no reports of illnesses associated with consumption of
these products.

Consumption of food contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes can
cause listeriosis, an uncommon but potentially fatal disease.
Healthy people rarely contract listeriosis. However, listeriosis
can cause high fever, severe headache, neck stiffness and
nausea. Listeriosis can also cause miscarriages and stillbirths,
as well as serious and sometimes fatal infections in those with
weak immune systems, such as infants, the elderly and persons
with HIV infection or undergoing chemotherapy.

Consumers and media with questions about the recall should
contact company President Herb Grimes at (405) 794-2530.

Consumers with food safety questions can call the toll-free USDA
Meat and Poultry Hotline at (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.


AXONYX INC.: Shareholders Commence Securities Suits in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
Certain of Axonyx, Inc.'s officers face several securities class
actions filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.  The suits name as defendants:

     (1) Dr. Marvin M. Hausman, chairman and former chief
         executive officer

     (2) Dr. Gosse Bruinsma, current president and chief
         executive officer and

     (3) Mr. S. Colin Neill

Nine suits were initially filed, alleging violations of federal
securities laws, one of which has been voluntarily dismissed.  
Eight of those lawsuits remain pending in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York and assert claims
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder on behalf of a class of
purchasers of the Company's common stock during the period from
June 26, 2003, through and including February 4, 2005.  The
complaints allege generally that the defendants knowingly or
recklessly made false or misleading statements during the Class
Period regarding the prospects of a trial regarding the
effectiveness of Phenserine in treating mild to moderate
Alzheimer's disease, which had the effect of, among other
things, artificially inflating the price of Company shares.  The
complaints seek unspecified damages.


ADAMS GOLF: Mediation in DE Securities Suit Set For Nov. 1, 2005
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mediation in the consolidated securities class action filed
against Adams Golf, Inc. is set for November 1, 2005 in the
United States District Court for the District of Delaware.

Beginning in June 1999, the first of seven class action lawsuits
was filed against the Company, certain of its current and former
officers and directors, and the three underwriters of the
Company's initial public offering (IPO) in the United States
District Court of the District of Delaware.  The complaints
alleged violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, in connection with the
Company's IPO.  

In particular, the complaints alleged that the Company's
prospectus, which became effective July 9, 1998, was materially
false and misleading in at least two areas.  Plaintiffs alleged
that the prospectus failed to disclose that unauthorized
distribution of the Company's products (gray market sales)
threatened the Company's long-term profits.  Plaintiffs also
alleged that the prospectus failed to disclose that the golf
equipment industry suffered from an oversupply of inventory at
the retail level, which had an adverse impact on the Company's

On May 17, 2000, these cases were consolidated into one amended
complaint, and a lead plaintiff was appointed.  The plaintiffs
were seeking unspecified amounts of compensatory damages,
interest and costs, including legal fees.  On December 10, 2001,
the United States District Court for the District of Delaware
dismissed the consolidated, amended complaint.  Plaintiffs
appealed.  On August 25, 2004, the appellate court affirmed the
dismissal of plaintiffs' claims relating to oversupply of retail
inventory, while reversing the dismissal of the claims relating
to the impact of gray market sales and remanding those claims
for further proceedings.  This case is now in the discovery
phase in the district court and a date of November 1, 2005 has
been set for mediation.


AMERICAN SUZUKI: Recalls 5,869 Scooters Due to Crash Hazard   
-----------------------------------------------------------
American Suzuki Motor Corporation in cooperation with the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Office of
Defects Investigation (ODI) is voluntarily recalling about 5,869
units of 2004 AN400, 2003 AN400 BURGMAN and 2003-04 AN650
BURGMAN scooters due to crash hazard. NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID Number:
05V372000.

According to certain scooters, if the ignition switch is not
fully turned from the 'OFF' to the 'ON' position, there may be
unstable contact between the ignition switch contacts. This can
cause arcing in the ignition switch. Heat from the arcing can
melt the internal switch base plate. If the scooter is ridden in
this condition, the ignition switch may fail. If this happens,
the engine will stall, the lights will go out, and the operator
may be unable to restart the scooter. This could result in a
crash.    

As a remedy dealers will replace the ignition switch terminal
case assembly. The recall is expected to begin during September
2005.

For more details, contact Suzuki, Phone: 1-800-255-2550 and
NHTSA Auto Safety Hotline: 1-888-327-4236 or (TTY)
1-800-424-9153, Web site: http://www.safecar.gov.


APPLE COMPUTER: Analyst Says iPod Settlement Won't Affect Firm
--------------------------------------------------------------
Apple Computer, Inc. settled a class action lawsuit over iPod
batteries, agreeing to provide compensation if iPod users demand
it, however an analyst says that that the settlement won't
affect the Cupertino, California-based company in any
significant way, The PC Magazine reports.

Under the settlement approved by San Mateo County Superior Court
Judge Beth Labson Freeman, customers who bought iPod's first two
models will be entitled to either $25 cash or $50 credit at an
Apple store or if they paid Apple to repair an iPod battery, the
company must refund half of the cost to them. On the other hand,
those who own iPod's third model will be entitled to a free
replacement battery if it fails, an earlier Class Action
Reporter story (August 30, 2005) reports.  Additionally, the
settlement stipulates that affected customers are only those who
bought their iPods before May 31, 2004. These customers must
have experienced battery failure to be eligible and all claims
must be postmarked by September 30, 2005, according to a Web
site created for the settlement.

The suit, which was brought in December 2003 by the San
Francisco-based law firm Girard Gibbs & De Bartolomeo LLP,
claimed that Apple Computer Inc. misrepresented the durability
and usability of the internal, rechargeable Lithium-Ion battery
in the company's popular personal digital music player.  
Specifically, the suit claimed that Apple failed to disclose
battery limitations on its first three iPod models. The device,
which has a rechargeable battery that cannot be replaced because
of its design, was advertised to have eight hours of play when
fully charged, but users complained that play time gradually
decreased after months of use, an earlier Class Action Reporter
story (August 30, 2005) reports.

Steve Williams, lead counsel for the lawsuit, which began in
December 2003, told The Associated Press, "When people were
paying $250 to $500 for this, they deserve to know its
limitations." Mr. Williams also said that based on the number of
people continuing to make claims, the settlement has a minimum
value of about $15 million, an earlier Class Action Reporter
story (August 30, 2005) reports.  Mathematically, two million
users who could claim $25 cash or a $50 credit could come to a
cost of $50 to $100 million for Apple.

However, according to Michael Gartenberg, a vice president and
research director for JupiterResearch of JupiterMedia
Corporation, this is unlikely to be the case. He told The PC
Magazine, "Many people don't have any [iPod battery] issues."
According to him, this development would significantly reduce
the potential cost to Apple, which recently reported a $320
million quarterly profit.  In addition, Mr. Gartenberg told The
PC Magazine, the issue itself will not likely slow or reverse
the strong iPod sales of recent years. He points out that if
customers who do file a claim opt for the store credit, the
settlement could even serve to bolster Apple sales.

According to Mr. Gartenberg, "The discussion of iPod battery
life has been around for four years." He adds that the reduction
of usable lifespan after multiple charge and discharge cycles
"happens to every rechargeable battery," he concludes by saying,
"It's a very unrealistic expectation to think batteries will
last forever."

Mr. Gartenberg though told The PC Magazine that he thought it
would be interesting to see if Apple would move at some point to
user-replaceable batteries. "I think Apple is doing the right
thing" in settling, he said, noting that it might have been
easier to settle than to fight and win such a suit.  "What most
users will get out of this is insignificant compared to what the
lawyers will get," Mr. Gartenberg pointed out. Thus, in the long
run, the effects of settling of a class action suit against
Apple Computer Inc. are "unlikely to affect Apple in any
significant way," he said.

Apple's normal warranty on the iPod covered battery replacement
if the battery's capacity dropped below 50 percent within one
year of the product's purchase. Apple also offered, for a fee,
an extended AppleCare Protection Plan.  Though Apple does not
mention the settlement on its Web site, their site does include
a page describing the charge life of rechargeable Lithium-Ion
batteries as well as a page outlining battery replacement
policies.  Consumers who qualify for reimbursement under the
settlement have until May to file and can get instructions on
how to file at http://www.appleipodsettlement.com.


CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Defends Against CA Energy Antitrust Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
CenterPoint Energy, Inc. continues to face lawsuits filed
against numerous market participants and remain pending in both
federal and state courts in California and Nevada in connection
with the operation of the electricity and natural gas markets in
California and certain other western states in 2000-2001, a time
of power shortages and significant increases in prices.

These lawsuits, many of which have been filed as class actions,
are based on a number of legal theories, including violation of
state and federal antitrust laws, laws against unfair and
unlawful business practices, the federal Racketeer Influenced
Corrupt Organization Act (RICO), false claims statutes and
similar theories and breaches of contracts to supply power to
governmental entities.  Plaintiffs in these lawsuits, which
include state officials and governmental entities as well as
private litigants, are seeking a variety of forms of relief,
including recovery of compensatory damages (in some cases in
excess of $1 billion), a trebling of compensatory damages and
punitive damages, injunctive relief, restitution, interest due,
disgorgement, civil penalties and fines, costs of suit,
attorneys' fees and divestiture of assets.  To date, several of
the electricity complaints have been dismissed by the trial
court and are on appeal, and several of the dismissals have been
affirmed by appellate courts. Others remain in the early
procedural stages. One of the gas complaints has also been
dismissed and is on appeal. The other gas cases remain in the
early procedural stages.

The Company's former subsidiary, Reliant Resources, Inc. (RRI),
was a participant in the California markets, owning generating
plants in the state and participating in both electricity and
natural gas trading in that state and in western power markets
generally. RRI, some of its subsidiaries and, in some cases,
former corporate officers or employees of some of those
companies have been named as defendants in these suits.

The Company or its predecessor, Reliant Energy, has been named
in approximately 30 of these lawsuits, which were instituted
between 2001 and 2005 and are pending in California state courts
in San Diego County and in federal district courts in San
Francisco, San Diego, Los Angeles, Fresno, Sacramento, San Jose
and Nevada and before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
However, the Company, CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC
and Reliant Energy were not participants in the electricity or
natural gas markets in California. The Company and Reliant
Energy have been dismissed from certain of the lawsuits, either
voluntarily by the plaintiffs or by order of the court and the
Company believes it is not a proper defendant in the remaining
cases and will continue to seek dismissal from such remaining
cases.

On July 6, 2004 and on October 12, 2004, the Ninth Circuit
affirmed the Company's removal to federal district court of two
electric cases brought by the California Attorney General and
affirmed the federal court's dismissal of these cases based upon
the filed rate doctrine and federal preemption. On April 18,
2005, the Supreme Court of the United States denied the Attorney
General's petition for certiorari in one of these cases.  No
petition for certiorari was filed in the other case, and both of
these cases are now finally resolved in favor of the defendants.
In one other case filed by the California Attorney General, a
claim for injunctive relief remains pending, with a trial
currently scheduled to begin in federal district court in
February 2006.  Several cases that are now pending in state
court in San Diego County were originally filed in several
California state courts but were removed by the defendants to
federal district court. When the federal district court remanded
those cases, they were coordinated in front of one San Diego
state court. In July 2005, that San Diego state court refused to
dismiss certain of those cases based on defendants' claims of
federal preemption and the filed rate doctrine.


CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Continue To Face False Claims Act Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
CenterPoint Energy Resources Corporation (CERC Corp.) and
certain of its subsidiaries continue to face a suit filed in
1997 under the Federal False Claims Act alleging mismeasurement
of natural gas produced from federal and Indian lands.  The suit
seeks undisclosed damages, along with statutory penalties,
interest, costs, and fees.

The complaint is part of a larger series of complaints filed
against 77 natural gas pipelines and their subsidiaries and
affiliates.  An earlier single action making substantially
similar allegations against the pipelines was dismissed by the
federal district court for the District of Columbia on grounds
of improper joinder and lack of jurisdiction.  As a result, the
various individual complaints were filed in numerous courts
throughout the country. This case has been consolidated,
together with the other similar False Claims Act cases, in the
federal district court in Cheyenne, Wyoming.

In addition, CERC Corp. and certain of its subsidiaries are
defendants in two mismeasurement lawsuits brought against
approximately 245 pipeline companies and their affiliates
pending in state court in Stevens County, Kansas. In one case
(originally filed in May 1999 and amended four times), the
plaintiffs purport to represent a class of royalty owners who
allege that the defendants have engaged in systematic
mismeasurement of the volume of natural gas for more than 25
years. The plaintiffs amended their petition in this suit in
July 2003 in response to an order from the judge denying
certification of the plaintiffs' alleged class. In the amendment
the plaintiffs dismissed their claims against certain defendants
(including two CERC subsidiaries), limited the scope of the
class of plaintiffs they purport to represent and eliminated
previously asserted claims based on mismeasurement of the Btu
content of the gas. The same plaintiffs then filed a second
lawsuit, again as representatives of a class of royalty owners,
in which they assert their claims that the defendants have
engaged in systematic mismeasurement of the Btu content of
natural gas for more than 25 years.  In both lawsuits, the
plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, along with statutory
penalties, treble damages, interest, costs and fees.


CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Faces Consumer Fraud Lawsuits in TX, LA, AK
---------------------------------------------------------------
CenterPoint Energy, Inc., CenterPoint Energy Resources
Corporation (CERC), Entex Gas Marketing Company and certain non-
affiliated companies face litigation in Texas, Louisiana and
Arkansas, alleging fraud with respect to rates charged to
certain natural gas consumers.

In October 2002, a suit was filed in state district court in
Wharton County, Texas against the Company, CERC, Entex Gas
Marketing Company, and certain non-affiliated companies alleging
fraud, violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act,
violations of the Texas Utilities Code, civil conspiracy and
violations of the Texas Free Enterprise and Antitrust Act with
respect to rates charged to certain consumers of natural gas in
the State of Texas.  Subsequently, the plaintiffs added as
defendants CenterPoint Energy Marketing Inc., CenterPoint Energy
Gas Transmission Company, United Gas, Inc., Louisiana Unit Gas
Transmission Company, CenterPoint Energy Pipeline Services,
Inc., and CenterPoint Energy Trading and Transportation Group,
Inc., all of which are subsidiaries of the Company.  The
plaintiffs alleged that defendants inflated the prices charged
to certain consumers of natural gas.

In February 2003, a similar suit was filed in state court in
Caddo Parish, Louisiana against CERC with respect to rates
charged to a purported class of certain consumers of natural gas
and gas service in the State of Louisiana. In February 2004,
another suit was filed in state court in Calcasieu Parish,
Louisiana against CERC seeking to recover alleged overcharges
for gas or gas services allegedly provided by Southern Gas
Operations to a purported class of certain consumers of natural
gas and gas service without advance approval by the Louisiana
Public Service Commission (LPSC).

In October 2004, a similar case was filed in district court in
Miller County, Arkansas against the Company, CERC, Entex Gas
Marketing Company, CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Company,
CenterPoint Energy Field Services, CenterPoint Energy Pipeline
Services, Inc., Mississippi River Transmission Corp. and other
non-affiliated companies alleging fraud, unjust enrichment and
civil conspiracy with respect to rates charged to certain
consumers of natural gas in at least the states of Arkansas,
Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma and Texas.

At the time of the filing of each of the Caddo and Calcasieu
Parish cases, the plaintiffs in those cases filed petitions with
the LPSC relating to the same alleged rate overcharges. The
Caddo and Calcasieu Parish cases have been stayed pending the
resolution of the respective proceedings by the LPSC. The
plaintiffs in the Miller County case seek class certification,
but the proposed class has not been certified. In November 2004,
the Miller County case was removed to federal district court in
Texarkana, Arkansas. In February 2005, the Wharton County case
was removed to federal district court in Houston, Texas, and in
March 2005, the plaintiffs voluntarily moved to dismiss the case
and agreed not to re-file the claims asserted unless the Miller
County case is not certified as a class action or is later
decertified. In June 2005, the Miller County case was remanded
to state district court in Miller County. The range of relief
sought by the plaintiffs in these cases includes injunctive and
declaratory relief, restitution for the alleged overcharges,
exemplary damages or trebling of actual damages, civil penalties
and attorney's fees. In these cases, the Company, CERC and their
affiliates deny that they have overcharged any of their
customers for natural gas and believe that the amounts recovered
for purchased gas have been in accordance with what is permitted
by state regulatory authorities.  The allegations in these cases
are similar to those asserted in the City of Tyler proceeding
described in Note 5(d).


CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Faces Suits For Water Contamination in LA
-------------------------------------------------------------
CenterPoint Energy Resources Corporation (CERC) and certain of
its subsidiaries are among the defendants in lawsuits filed
beginning in August 2001 in Caddo Parish and Bossier Parish,
Louisiana.

The suits allege that, at some unspecified date prior to 1985,
the defendants allowed or caused hydrocarbon or chemical
contamination of the Wilcox Aquifer, which lies beneath property
owned or leased by certain of the defendants and which is the
sole or primary drinking water aquifer in the area. The primary
source of the contamination is alleged by the plaintiffs to be a
gas processing facility in Haughton, Bossier Parish, Louisiana
known as the "Sligo Facility," which was formerly operated by a
predecessor in interest of the Company. This facility was
purportedly used for gathering natural gas from surrounding
wells, separating gasoline and hydrocarbons from the natural gas
for marketing, and transmission of natural gas for distribution.

Beginning about 1985, the predecessors of certain CERC Corp.
defendants engaged in a voluntary remediation of any subsurface
contamination of the groundwater below the property they owned
or leased. This work has been done in conjunction with and under
the direction of the Louisiana Department of Environmental
Quality. The plaintiffs seek monetary damages for alleged damage
to the aquifer underlying their property, unspecified alleged
personal injuries, alleged fear of cancer, alleged property
damage or diminution of value of their property, and, in
addition, seek damages for trespass, punitive, and exemplary
damages.


CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Continues To Face ERISA Fraud Lawsuit in TX
---------------------------------------------------------------
CenterPoint Energy, Inc. faces a class action filed in the
United States District Court in Houston, Texas, alleging
violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
(ERISA).

In May 2002, three class action lawsuits were filed in federal
district court in Houston on behalf of participants in various
employee benefits plans sponsored by the Company. Two of the
lawsuits have been dismissed without prejudice. The Company and
certain current and former members of its benefits committee are
the remaining defendants in the third lawsuit. That lawsuit
alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to
various employee benefits plans, directly or indirectly
sponsored by the Company, in violation of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The plaintiffs allege
that the defendants permitted the plans to purchase or hold
securities issued by the Company when it was imprudent to do so,
including after the prices for such securities became
artificially inflated because of alleged securities fraud
engaged in by the defendants. The complaint seeks monetary
damages for losses suffered on behalf of the plans and a
putative class of plan participants whose accounts held
CenterPoint Energy or RRI securities, as well as restitution.
Both the plaintiffs and the defendants have pending motions for
summary judgement before the court. The court is expected to
establish a trial date for this case later in the fall.


CHINA: Blind Man Plans Suit Over Government's One Child Policy
--------------------------------------------------------------
A Chinese advocate is seeking to bring a class action lawsuit
against China's Communist Party over human rights abuses
associated with the government's one-child-per-family policy,
The Washington Post reports.

Chen Guangcheng, 34 years old and blind, recently recorded
testimony from men and women in communities in and around Linyi,
China, a city of about 10 million people, located 400 miles
southeast of Beijing, who have experienced forced abortions and
sterilizations, as well as had family members captured and
tortured after they tried to hide or run from authorities.  Mr.
Chen now plans to bring a class action lawsuit to challenge the
government's use of coercive measures to enforce its policy,
which for a long time was regarded as "off-limits to public
debate."

"What these officials are doing is completely illegal," Mr. Chen
told the Washington Post, adding, "They've committed widespread
violations of citizens' basic rights, and they should be held
responsible."


DELPHI CORPORATION: Faces Securities, ERISA Suits in NY, MI, FL
---------------------------------------------------------------
Delphi Corporation, several of its subsidiaries, certain current
and former directors and officers, General Motors Investment
Management Corporation (the named fiduciary for investment
purposes and investment manager to the Company's employee
benefit plans), and several of the Company's or its
subsidiaries' current and former employees face several class
actions as a result of its announced intention to restate its
financial statements.

These lawsuits fall into three categories.  One group has been
brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974, as amended (ERISA), purportedly on behalf of participants
in certain of the Company's and its subsidiaries' defined
contribution employee benefit pension plans who invested in the
Delphi Common Stock Fund. Plaintiffs allege that the plans
suffered losses due to the defendants' breaches of fiduciary
duties under ERISA. To date, the Company has been served in
thirteen such lawsuits and is aware of an additional two that
are pending. All pending cases have been filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.

The second group of purported class action lawsuits variously
alleges that the Company and certain of its current and former
directors and officers made materially false and misleading
statements in violation of federal securities laws. To date, the
Company has been served in three such pending lawsuits and is
aware of five additional lawsuits. The lawsuits are currently
pending in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York and the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Florida.

The third group of lawsuits pertains to three shareholder
derivative cases and a demand. To date, certain current and
former directors and officers have been named in three such
lawsuits. One is pending in Oakland County Circuit Court in
Pontiac, Michigan, a second is pending in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, and a
third is pending in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan.  In addition, the Company has
received a demand letter from a shareholder requesting that the
Company consider bringing a derivative action against certain
current and former officers. The derivative lawsuits and the
demand that the Company consider further derivative action are
premised on allegations that certain current and former officers
made materially false and misleading statements in violation of
federal securities laws. The Company has appointed a special
committee of the Board of Directors to consider the demand.


EQ RESOURCE: MI Judge Orders Preservation of Evidence From Fire
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wayne County Circuit Judge Wendy Baxter ordered EQ Resource
Recovery to preserve evidence of fallout collected from
residents' yards following an August 9 chemical plant explosion
and fire at a hazardous waste treatment and storage facility in
Romulus, The Detroit News reports.

The order was issued at the request of Weiner & Cox, a
Southfield law firm representing over 100 households in a
potential class action lawsuit against the company.  
Additionally, Judge Baxter also ordered EQ Resource Recovery to
notify the attorneys when it visits homes to take samples or
clean up and that attorneys must be present at such
circumstances.

Elizabeth Thomson, attorney for some of the residents, told The
Detroit News that the court order was requested after several
residents reported having their yards cleaned of the black
fallout, without notice by EQ contractors. According to Ms.
Thomson, "We don't discourage cleaning (by the company) ... but
we feel it's not being done with the consent of the property
owners, or with ulterior motives that the court should know
about."

EQ spokesman Dan Gilbert though told The Detroit News that the
company did not authorize anyone to clean up the debris. He
pointed out, "We're not dumb people. ... We're not going to make
a situation worse by getting caught red-handed destroying
evidence."   In addition, Mr. Gilbert also told The Detroit News
that the only building the company cleaned up was a building
supply store across the street from the plant. The company hired
a toxicologist to take test samples from homes, according to Mr.
Gilbert, but only with homeowners' consent. Once the order is
lifted, the company will assist in cleanup if owners request it,
he adds.

Federal, state and county health agencies reviewed test results
of the fallout by the Environmental Protection Agency and
concluded that the black particles, left over from the fire,
were safe. The EPA has yet to release a final report detailing
the test results of the fallout, which is expected within
months.

U.S. Rep. John Dingell, D-Dearborn, who represents the area in
Congress, recently called for a quicker release of the report to
the public.  However, Jason El-Zein, on-site coordinator with
the EPA told The Detroit News, "We're trying to do this as fast
as possible but we don't want to release something that's not
accurate and reliable."

A Detroit firm, Macuga and Liddle, is representing an additional
560 households in a similar suit against the company, according
to attorney David Dubin.

As reported by CNN.com, authorities with the Romulus police
department and the fire department said the explosion happened
at a chemical plant shortly after 9 p.m. and that a one-mile
radius around the facility has been evacuated, including a
nearby Ford plant. Some workers were inside the waste plant at
the time of the blast, but all of them got out safely, said
Kathleen Trent, spokeswoman for the city of Romulus. No injuries
were reported. Eyewitnesses' accounts described the explosion as
big enough to send a mushroom cloud 500 feet into the air. Video
from the scene showed bright orange flames lighting up the
nighttime sky, with occasional explosions sending the flames
even higher. The fire engulfed much of the facility and spread
across nearby grassy areas, an earlier Class Action Reporter
story (August 16, 2005) reports.


FLANDERS PROVISION: Beef Recall Due to Possible E. Coli Presence
----------------------------------------------------------------
Flanders Provision Co., Inc., a Waycross, Ga., establishment, is
voluntarily recalling approximately 900,000 pounds of frozen
ground beef patties that may be contaminated with E. coli
O157:H7, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and
Inspection Service announced today.

The products subject to recall include:

     (1) Three- and five-pound packages of "FLANDERS BUN BUSTER,
         100% Beef Burgers." Each package contains the
         production code, "05053."

     (2) 10-pound packages of "FLANDERS BEEF PATTIES." Each
         package contains the production code "05053."

     (3) 10-pound packages of "FLANDERS HOMESTYLE CUBED BEEF
         PATTIES." Each package contains the production code,
         "05055."

     (3) Five-pound packages of "FLANDERS BEEF PATTIES." Each
         package contains the production code, "05052," "05053,"
         "05055," "05060," "05061," "05062," "05066" or "05069."

     (4) Two-pound packages of "AMERICA'S PRIDE BEEF PATTIES,
         Quarter Pound Beef Patties." Each package contains the
         production code, "05055."  

     (5) Two-pound packages of "FLANDERS BEEF PATTIES." Each
         package contains the production code, "05055."

     (6) 10-pound packages of "FLANDERS PATTY MIX." Each package
         contains the production code, "05060."

     (7) Five-pound packages of "VALUE TIME BEEF PATTIES." Each
         package contains the production code, "05060."

     (8) Five-pound packages of "GRILL MASTER BEEF PATTIES."
         Each package contains the production code, "05060" or
         "05062."

All of the products bear the establishment number "EST. 9145"
inside the USDA seal of inspection. The products were
distributed to retail stores nationwide.

The recall was initiated following a food safety assessment
triggered by an FSIS epidemiological investigation. E. coli
O157:H7 is a potentially deadly bacteria that can cause bloody
diarrhea and dehydration. The very young, seniors and persons
with weak immune systems are the most susceptible to foodborne
illness.

Media and consumers with questions about the recall should
contact Flanders Vice-President Steve Stipe at (912) 283-5191.

Consumers with food safety questions can call the toll-free USDA
Meat and Poultry Hotline at (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. "Ask Karen" is the
FSIS virtual representative available 24 hours a day to answer
your questions at
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/Food_Safety_Education/Ask_Karen/.


FIRST ENERGY: OH Residents Launch Suit Over Plant's Emissions
-------------------------------------------------------------
Two Empire residents filed a class action lawsuit in Jefferson
County Common Pleas Court seeking an order for First Energy
Corporation to establish a medical monitoring program and to
eliminate emissions from the Ohio Edison Sammis power plant at
Stratton, The Steubenville Herald-Star reports.

Filed by local attorney James T. Abrams for lead counsels Edward
Cochran of Shaker Heights and Robert Bishop of Louisville,
Kentucky, the suit alleges that emissions from the power plant's
seven coal-fired boilers have resulted in property and health
damage.  According to the suit, plaintiff Terry Reese of 403
Liberty St., Empire, has suffered reduced pulmonary function as
well as contamination to his property. The other plaintiff,
Connie Tice of 405 Liberty St., Empire, the suit states is said
to have not suffered physical injury but probably will in the
near future.

Both plaintiffs want the court to order an injunction to fund a
medical monitoring program, repair any damage to their property,
improve the operation of Sammis to eliminate emissions and to
refrain from allowing emissions to settle on their property.  

A spokesman for Akron-based First Energy told The Steubenville
Herald-Star that the company hadn't been served with the local
lawsuit as of August 29, but reiterated that it considers Sammis
an asset not only to the company but also to Jefferson County.  
According to Ralph DiNicola, First Energy spokesman, "We think
it's important to point out that we have nearly 400 employees at
the Sammis Plant who work hard every day to operate the plant
safely and in accord with all environmental laws and
regulations. They produce enough electricity to service more
than 1 million homes."

Additionally, Mr. DiNicola told The Steubenville Herald-Star
that Sammis is the largest taxpayer in Jefferson County, making
annual property tax payments of $5.9 million to benefit local
schools, governments and infrastructure improvements. But,
according to him, "If this case does proceed, we will defend
Jefferson County and First Energy's assets vigorously through
the courts."  Mr. DiNicola also said that the plant is subjected
to federal ambient air quality standards and is well within
them.

The suit alleges the class it seeks to represent includes in
excess of 100,000 Ohio residents who have, or who could, suffer
potential damage from pollutants emitted by the Sammis plant's
smokestacks. It even cites a 109-page order from U.S. District
Court in 2003 stating the Sammis Plant was operating in
violation of the Clean Air Act. Both Ms. Reese and Ms. Tice
allege in the suit that they live in a "fall-out zone" where
particulates from the plant regularly land on their property,
including times when the smoke plume from the plant has touched
at ground level at their property and where a haze is generally
overhead.  The particulates, according to the suit, are heavier
on windy days and fall in the form of white flakes that turn
black with time as they accumulate on the plaintiffs' property.
The suit alleges that the pollutants include nitrogen oxides,
which can form ground-level ozone, and sulfur dioxide.  The suit
charges the company with negligence, failure to warn, public
nuisance, toxic trespass and toxic assault and battery.


FLUOR CORPORATION: CA Court Approves Securities Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District,
Southern Division, California approved the $18 million
settlement of the consolidated securities class action filed
against Fluor Corporation and its officers and directors.

Several suits were initially filed, alleging that certain
Company officers and directors violated the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 by providing false or misleading statements about
the Company's business and prospects. These complaints purported
to be class action complaints brought on behalf of purchasers of
the Company's stock during the period from May 22, 1996 through
February 18, 1997.

The company's initial motion to dismiss the action was granted
by the court with leave to amend. The plaintiffs filed their
amended complaint and the company moved the court to dismiss the
new amended complaint. The Court granted the company's motion
and dismissed plaintiff's action without leave to amend on July
10, 2002.  Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal and the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals remanded the motion to the trial court
with instructions to allow plaintiff an additional chance to
plead additional claims.  During the first quarter of 2005 the
company, its insurer and the plaintiffs reached an agreement to
settle this proceeding for $18 million without any admission of
company liability, of which $16 million was paid by the
Company's insurers. The remaining $2 million had been previously
provided, and therefore, did not affect operating results for
the first quarter of 2005. A hearing to confirm the settlement
was held on June 27, 2005 and the court approved the settlement
on June 29, 2005.

The suit is styled "In re Fluor Corporation Securities
Litigation, case no. 97-CV-734," filed in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California, under
Judge Alicemarie H. Stotler.  Representing the Company is Wilson
Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, 650 Page Mill Rd Palo Alto, CA 94304-
1050 USA, Phone: 650-493-9300, Fax: 650-493-6811.  The plaintiff
firms in this litigation are:

     (1) Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP (New York, NY), 805 Third
         Avenue, 22nd Floor, New York, NY, 10022, Phone:
         212.687.1980, Fax: 212.687.7714, E-mail:
         info@kaplanfox.com

     (2) Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Hynes & Lerach LLP (San Diego,
         CA), 600 West Broadway, 1800 One America Plaza, San
         Diego, CA, 92101, Phone: 800.449.4900, E-mail:
         support@milberg.com

     (3) Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Hynes & Lerach, LLP (S.F.,
         CA), 100 Pine Street - Suite 2600, San Francisco, CA,
         94111, Phone: 415.288.4545, Fax: 415.288.4534,

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

     (5) Soltan & Associates, 660 Newport Center Driver Suite
         320, Newport Beach, CA, 92660, Phone: 949.729.3100,
         Fax: 949.729.1527


GOLD FIELDS: Trial in OK Injury Suits Set Nov. 2005, Jan. 2006
--------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the personal injury litigation filed against Gold
Fields Mining Corporation related to its lead mills operations
in Picher, Oklahoma is set for November 2005 and January 2006.

The Company and three other companies are defendants in two
class action lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Oklahoma, styled "Betty Jean Cole, et al.
v. Asarco Inc., et al." and "Darlene Evans, et al. v. Asarco
Inc., et al."  The plaintiffs have asserted nuisance and
trespass claims predicated on allegations of intentional lead
exposure by the defendants and are seeking compensatory damages
for diminution of property value, punitive damages and the
implementation of medical monitoring and relocation programs for
the affected individuals. A predecessor of the Company formerly
operated two lead mills near Picher, Oklahoma prior to the 1950s
and mined, in accordance with lease agreements and permits,
approximately 1.7% of the total amount of the ore mined in the
county.  The Company has agreed to indemnify one of the other
defendants, which is a former subsidiary of the Company.

The Company is also a defendant, along with other companies, in
five individual lawsuits arising out of the same lead mill
operations. In July 2004, two lawsuits were filed, one in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma and
one in Ottawa County, Oklahoma (subsequently removed to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma), on behalf
of 48 individuals against Gold Fields and three other companies,
styled "Billy Holder, et al. v. Asarco Inc., et al."  Plaintiffs
in these actions are seeking compensatory and punitive damages
for alleged personal injuries from lead exposure. The trials for
five of the individual plaintiffs have been set for November
2005.  A second trial for seven individuals has been set for
January 2006.


GOLD FIELDS: Quapaw Indian Tribes Launch Trespass Lawsuit in OK
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gold Fields Mining Corporation continues to face a class action
filed on behalf of the Quapaw Indian tribe and certain Quapaw
owners of interests in land in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Oklahoma.  The suit also names as
defendants five other companies.  

The plaintiffs are seeking compensatory and punitive damages
based on public and private nuisance, trespass, strict
liability, natural resource damage claims under the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA) and claims under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act.

The Company has denied liability to the plaintiffs, has filed
counterclaims against the plaintiffs seeking indemnification and
contribution and has filed a third-party complaint against the
United States, owners of interests in chat and real property in
the Picher area.

The suit is styled "Cole, et al v. Asarco Incorporated, et al,
case no. 4:03-cv-00327-JOE-PJC," filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma, under
Judge James O. Ellison.  Representing the plaintiffs are Tammy
R. Dodson, Donnamarie Antoinette Landsberg of Speer Law Firm PA,
104 W 9th St, Ste 305, Kansas City, MO 64105, Phone:
816-472-3560, Fax: 816-421-2150, E-mail:
tdodson@speerlawfirm.com; and Tony Wayne Edwards, Stipe Law Firm
(McAlester), P O BOX 1369, MCALESTER, OK 74501-1369, Phone:
918-423-0421, Fax: 918-423-0266, E-mail: twedwards@stipelaw.com.  
Representing the Company are:

     (1) Stacy L. Acord, Robert Joseph Joyce, Archer Scott
         McDaniel, Chris A. Paul, Joyce Paul & McDaniel PC, 1717
         S Boulder, Ste 200, Tulsa, OK 74119, Phone: 918-599-
         0700, Fax: 918-732-5370, E-mail: sacord@jpm-law.com,
         rjoyce@jpm-law.com, Smcdaniel@jpm-law.com,
         cpaul@jpm-law.com;

     (2) Mark Douglas Anstoetter, Stanley D. Davis, John K.
         Sherk, Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP (Kansas City), 2555
         GRAND BLVD, KANSAS CITY, MO 64108-2613, Phone: 816-474-
         6550, Fax: 816-421-5547, E-mail: manstoetter@shb.com or
         sddavis@shb.com  


HYUNDAI MOTOR: Recalls 36,000 Sonata Vehicles For Injury Hazard   
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hyundai Motor Company in cooperation with the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration's Office of Defects Investigation
(ODI) is voluntarily recalling about 36,000 units of 2006 Sonata
passenger vehicles due to injury hazard. NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID
Number: 05V377000.

According to ODI, on certain vehicles, the front seat belt may
interfere with the manual seat back recliner knob and could
cause the front manual seat belt back recliner to inadvertently
release. The inadvertent release of a front seat back recliner
may result in injury to vehicle occupants.

As a remedy, dealers will replace the manual seat back recliner
knob(s). The recall is expected to begin during October 2005.

For more details, contact Hyundai, Phone: 1-800-633-5151 and
NHTSA Auto Safety Hotline: 1-888-327-4236 or (TTY)
1-800-424-9153, Web site: http://www.safecar.gov.


ISRAEL: Attorney Launches Suit V. Daka-90 Over Credit Card Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
An attorney has filed a $15.98 million (NIS 72.5 million) class
action lawsuit against the Daka-90 travel agency for allegedly
taking credit card collection fees of $12-$18 per traveler
regardless of whether payment is made with a single credit card,
The Haaretz Daily reports.

In his suit, Tel Aviv attorney Eli Gur claims that made a
reservation to the travel agency for a trip to Cyprus. In
reviewing the details of the reserved ticket he noticed,
according to his suit, that Daka-90 had charged him a credit
card collection fee of $24, representing a cost of $12 per
traveler.

Mr. Gur states in his suit that Daka-90 had been paid in full
with one credit card, and therefore, only one traveler should be
charged for the collection fee. He wrote to the company
demanding a $12 refund, but Daka-90 ignored the letter. After
writing to the company a second time though, it refunded the
money, according to the lawsuit.

At that point, however, Mr. Gur says he began to suspect that
Daka-90 was charging all clients a $12-$15 "collection fee" per
traveler, even when the bill was paid with a single card. He
contends that there is no reason for any charge at all,
certainly not as high as $12 per order.  To prove his
suspicions, Mr. Gur carried out a simulation via the Daka-90 Web
site. Upon carrying out the simulation he discovered that when
he wanted to reserve a package deal for three additional people,
he was charged an additional $45.

Mr. Gur also claims in his suit that Daka-90 presents itself as
being cheaper than the competition. However, when the collection
fee is added, the lower price is wiped out.  In addition, Mr.
Gur claims that according to his calculations, Daka-90 in fact
has raised its collection fee to $18, which brings the company
an additional $2.3 million a year. Applying that annual figure
over the last seven years lead to the value of the lawsuit NIS
72.5 million.  As of the moment, Daka-90 has yet to file its
defense.


LAND ROVER: Recalls 17,263 2005 LR3 SUVs Due to Fire Hazard   
-----------------------------------------------------------
Land Rover in cooperation with the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration's Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) is
voluntarily recalling about 17,263 units of 2005 Land Rover LR3
sports utility vehicles due to fire hazard. NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID
Number: 05V376000.

According to ODI, certain SUVs may have fuel tanks that contain
an internal breather pipe that was not made to specification.
This could result in excessive swelling and cracking of a
grommet and subsequent detachment of the breather ipe from a
connector tube. When the fuel level in the tank is above the
level of the detached joint, fuel may then enter the breather
pipe. The vehicle may thus exhibit MIL illumination, fuel odor,
drivability concerns such as hesitation, misfire, stalling,
rough running, or difficulty in starting. If the amount of fuel
flowing into the breather ipe reaches the vapor canister and
exceeds its capacity, the excess fuel may be discharges onto the
ground. Fuel leakage in the presence of an ignition source could
result in a fire.

As a remedy, dealers will replace the fuel tanks. The Recall is
expected to begin on October 14, 2005.

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


LYKES MEAT: Recalls 35T lbs Polish Sausage For Underprocessing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lykes Meat Group, a Plant City, Fla., firm, is voluntarily
recalling approximately 35,830 pounds of Polish Sausage that may
have been under processed, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
Food Safety and Inspection Service announced today.

The products are subject to recall are 14 oz. packages of "JOHN
MORRELL, Polish Sausage, made with Chicken, Pork, Beef."  The
recalled products bear a package code of "162509A" or "162509B."
A sell by date of "SEP 08 2005" appears on the outside of the
package. The establishment number "EST. 8" also appears on the
outside of the package.  

The sausage was produced and packaged on June 11 and was
distributed to retail stores in Connecticut, Indiana, Kentucky,
Maine, Michigan, New York and Ohio. The problem was discovered
by the company. FSIS has received no reports of illnesses
associated with consumption of these products.

Consumers with questions about the recall should call the
company toll free at (800) 414-0600. Media with questions about
the recall should contact company representative David Bartlett
at (703) 234-4428.  Consumers with food safety questions can
phone the toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline at
1-888-MPHotline (l-888-674-6854). The hotline is available in
English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m.
(Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety
messages are available 24 hours a day.


MASSACHUSETTS: Resident Lodges Suit Over 1997 Parking Ordinance
---------------------------------------------------------------
Easthampton resident Vincent J. Gillespie initiated a lawsuit in
Hampshire Superior Court against the city of Northampton,
claiming that its 1997 ordinance, which bars parking anywhere
except "marked or designated" parking spots, is "an insidious
form of entrapment for local residents," The Republican reports.

"Instead of correcting this profitable little trap, the city of
Northampton maliciously continues to use it to rack up funds and
extort money from unsuspecting drivers again and again and
again," according to Mr. Gillespie, who is currently
representing himself, but hope to acquire legal representation.

Additionally, Mr. Gillespie, who is hoping others will join him
so his suit can become a class action lawsuit, claims the appeal
process violates his constitutionally guaranteed right to due
process, because appeals are first made to the same agency that
issues the ticket and to get "any kind of impartial hearing," a
person must pay the Hampshire Superior Court's $275 filing fee.  
Mr. Gillespie further stated in his suit, "Since that filing fee
is more than 18 times the amount of the $15 ticket, he is
effectively denied judicial review. Most people won't take such
a gamble."

Hampshire Superior Court Assistant Clerk Nancy A. Foley told The
Republican that most people are shocked and upset when they come
to file an appeal adding, "I've had belligerent people. I've had
people yell at me."  She also told The Republican that it's been
many years since anyone actually filed an appeal, and that one
was denied. According to her, that person had the fee waived,
because he was determined to be indigent.

City Solicitor Janet M. Sheppard pointed out to The Republican
that the process involving an appeal to the Superior Court was
created by the state and in 1992 the City Council voted to
participate in it.  In addition, she told The Republican that
appeals of parking tickets are made to a city employee who works
for the tax collector, not the parking department. "Those two
offices are separate, so you aren't appealing to the same person
who enforces the ticketing," Ms. Sheppard adds.

For more details, contact Vincent J. Gillespie, P.O. Box 741,
Northampton, MA 01061, E-mail: moltenplastic@yahoo.com.


NEW FLYER: Recalls 665 2004-05 Buses Due to Possible Fire Hazard   
----------------------------------------------------------------
New Flyer Industries, Ltd. in cooperation with the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Office of Defects
Investigation (ODI) is voluntarily recalling about 665 units of
2004-05 C30LF, C40LF, D30LF, D35LF, D40I, D40LF and L40LF buses
due to possible fire hazard. NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID Number:
05V370000.

According to the ODI, certain busses, hydraulic fluid can leak
at the flange fitting due to improper installation procedures.
Incorrect installation procedures may cause damage to the O-ring
of the flange assembly, compromising the sealing capability of
the o-ring. Leaks caused due to damaged o-rings could cause
hydraulic fluid to be sprayed onto hot surfaces and ignite.  

As a remedy, New Flyer will contact customers with parts and
instructions on how to complete the recall, which is expected to
begin during late August to early September 2005.

For more details, contact New Flyer, Phone: 204-934-4874 and
NHTSA Auto Safety Hotline: 1-888-327-4236 or (TTY)
1-800-424-9153, Web site: http://www.safecar.gov.


NEW YORK: Judge Dismisses Antitrust Suits V. 4 Mobile Carriers
--------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Denise Cote dismissed antitrust lawsuits
that accuse Cingular Wireless LLC, Verizon Communications Inc.,
Sprint Nextel Corp. and Deutsche Telekom AG's T-Mobile USA of
illegally forcing customers to buy phones that only worked on
their own networks, The Bloomberg News reports.

Specifically, the federal judge threw out allegations in a group
of lawsuits claiming that the requirements constitute an illegal
tying arrangement under antitrust law.

In her 63-page ruling, Judge Cote, which earlier rejected claims
that the companies illegally used monopoly power, wrote, "The
plaintiffs have not presented sufficient evidence to prove that
any one defendant has the degree of market power necessary to
sustain a tying claim or show that any of the defendants'
alleged tying arrangements has an actual adverse effect on
competition in the U.S. market for wireless handsets."

The recent ruling throws out the remaining claims in the cases,
the first of which was filed in 2002. In essence Judge Cotes'
ruling dismisses the five cases against U.S. wireless companies
that were filed by consumers who sought class action status to
represent all consumers who bought cellular service from the
companies since 1998.


NORTEL NETWORKS: Continues To Face NY Securities Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nortel Networks Corporation continues to face a consolidated
securities class action filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, related to the
Company's February 15, 2001 announcement in which it provided
revised guidance for financial performance for the 2001 fiscal
year and the first quarter of 2001.  The suit also names as
defendants certain of its then current officers and directors.

More than twenty-five purported class action lawsuits were
initially filed in the United States District Courts for the
Eastern District of New York, for the Southern District of New
York and for the District of New Jersey and in courts in the
provinces of Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia in Canada, on
behalf of shareholders who acquired Company securities as early
as October 24, 2000 and as late as February 15, 2001.  The suits
allege, among other things, violations of U.S. federal and
Canadian provincial securities laws.  These matters also have
been the subject of review by Canadian and U.S. securities
regulatory authorities.

On May 11, 2001, the defendants filed motions to dismiss and/or
stay in connection with the three proceedings in Quebec
primarily based on the factual allegations lacking substantial
connection to Quebec and the inclusion of shareholders resident
in Quebec in the class claimed in the Ontario lawsuit. The
plaintiffs in two of these proceedings in Quebec obtained court
approval for discontinuances of their proceedings on January 17,
2002.  The motion to dismiss and/or stay the third proceeding
was heard on November 6, 2001 and the court deferred any
determination on the motion to the judge who will hear the
application for authorization to commence a class proceeding.  
On December 6, 2001, the defendants filed a motion seeking leave
to appeal that decision. The motion for leave to appeal was
dismissed on March 11, 2002.

On October 16, 2001, an order in the Southern District of New
York was filed consolidating twenty-five of the related U.S.
class action lawsuits into a single case, appointing class
plaintiffs and counsel for such plaintiffs. The plaintiffs
served a consolidated amended complaint on January 18, 2002. On
December 17, 2001, the defendants in the British Columbia action
served notice of a motion requesting the court to decline
jurisdiction and to stay all proceedings on the grounds that
British Columbia is an inappropriate forum. The motion has been
adjourned at the plaintiffs' request to a future date to be set
by the parties.

On April 1, 2002, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
above consolidated U.S. shareholder class action on the ground
that it failed to state a cause of action under U.S. federal
securities laws. On January 3, 2003, the District Court denied
the motion to dismiss the consolidated U.S. class action
complaint.  The plaintiffs served a motion for class
certification on March 21, 2003.  On May 30, 2003, the
defendants served an opposition to the motion for class
certification. Plaintiffs' reply was served on August 1, 2003.
The District Court held oral arguments on September 3, 2003 and
issued an order granting class certification on September 5,
2003.  On September 23, 2003, the defendants filed a motion in
the Second Circuit for permission to appeal the class
certification decision.  The plaintiffs' opposition to the
motion was filed on October 2, 2003.  On November 24, 2003, the
Second Circuit denied the motion.  On March 10, 2004, the
District Court approved the form of notice to the class which
was published and mailed.


NORTEL NETWORKS: Faces Amended Securities Fraud Suit in Canada
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nortel Networks Corporation faces a second amended class action
filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Commercial List
in Canada, alleging violations of federal securities laws.

On July 17, 2002, a new purported class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company, certain of its current and former officers
and directors and its auditors.  The factual allegations in the
Ontario Claim are substantially similar to the allegations in
the consolidated amended complaint filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York, described above.
The Ontario Claim is on behalf of all Canadian residents who
purchased Nortel Networks Corporation securities (including
options on Nortel Networks Corporation securities) between
October 24, 2000 and February 15, 2001.  The plaintiffs claim
damages of Canadian $5,000, plus punitive damages in the amount
of Canadian $1,000, prejudgment and postjudgment interest and
costs of the action.

On September 23, 2003, the Court issued an order allowing the
plaintiffs to proceed to amend the Ontario Claim and requiring
that the plaintiffs serve class certification materials by
December 15, 2003.  On September 24, 2003, the plaintiffs filed
a notice of discontinuance of the original action filed in
Ontario.  On December 12, 2003, plaintiffs' counsel requested an
extension of time to January 21, 2004 to deliver class
certification materials.  On January 21, 2004, plaintiffs'
counsel advised the Court that the two representative plaintiffs
in the action no longer wished to proceed, but counsel was
prepared to deliver draft certification materials pending the
replacement of the representative plaintiffs.  On February 19,
2004, the plaintiffs' counsel advised the Court of a potential
new representative plaintiff.  On February 26, 2004, the
defendants requested the Court to direct the plaintiffs' counsel
to bring a motion to permit the withdrawal of the current
representative plaintiffs and to substitute the proposed
representative plaintiff.  On June 8, 2004, the Court signed an
order allowing a Second Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim that
substituted one new representative plaintiff, but did not change
the substance of the prior claim.


NORTEL NETWORKS: Asks TN Court To Dismiss ERISA Fraud Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nortel Networks Corporation asked the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Tennessee to dismiss the
consolidated class action filed against it, alleging violations
of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

A purported class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Tennessee on December 21, 2001,
on behalf of participants and beneficiaries of the Nortel Long-
Term Investment Plan (the "Plan") at any time during the period
of March 7, 2000 through the filing date and who made or
maintained Plan investments in Nortel Networks Corporation
common shares, under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
(ERISA) for Plan-wide relief and alleging, among other things,
material misrepresentations and omissions to induce Plan
participants to continue to invest in and maintain investments
in Nortel Networks Corporation common shares in the Plan.

A second purported class action lawsuit, on behalf of the Plan
and Plan participants for whose individual accounts the Plan
purchased Nortel Networks Corporation common shares during the
period from October 27, 2000 to February 15, 2001 and making
similar allegations, was filed in the same court on March 12,
2002.  A third purported class action lawsuit, on behalf of
persons who are or were Plan participants or beneficiaries at
any time since March 1, 1999 to the filing date and making
similar allegations, was filed in the same court on March 21,
2002. The first and second purported class action lawsuits were
consolidated by a new purported class action complaint, filed on
May 15, 2002 in the same court and making similar allegations,
on behalf of Plan participants and beneficiaries who directed
the Plan to purchase or hold shares of certain funds, which held
primarily Nortel Networks Corporation common shares, during the
period from March 7, 2000 through December 21, 2001.

On September 24, 2002, plaintiffs in the consolidated action
filed a motion to consolidate all the actions and to transfer
them to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York.  The plaintiffs then filed a motion to withdraw the
pending motion to consolidate and transfer. The withdrawal was
granted by the District Court on December 30, 2002.

A fourth purported class action lawsuit, on behalf of the Plan
and Plan participants for whose individual accounts the Plan
held Nortel Networks Corporation common shares during the period
from March 7, 2000 through March 31, 2001 and making similar
allegations, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York on March 12, 2003.  On March 18,
2003, plaintiffs in the fourth purported class action filed a
motion with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to
transfer all the actions to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York for coordinated or consolidated
proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1407.

On June 24, 2003, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
issued a transfer order transferring the Southern District of
New York action to the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee (the "Consolidated ERISA Action"). On
September 12, 2003, the plaintiffs in all the actions filed a
consolidated class action complaint. On October 28, 2003, the
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint and a motion
to stay discovery pending disposition of the motion to dismiss.
On March 30, 2004, the plaintiffs filed a motion for
certification of a class consisting of participants in, or
beneficiaries of, the Plan who held shares of the NNC Stock Fund
during the period from March 7, 2000 through March 31, 2001. On
April 27, 2004, the Court granted the defendants' motion to stay
discovery pending resolution of defendants' motion to dismiss.
On June 15, 2004, the plaintiffs filed a First Amended
Consolidated Class Action Complaint that added additional
current and former officers and employees as defendants and
expanded the purported class period to extend from March 7, 2000
through to June 15, 2004.

On June 17, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a Second Amended
Consolidated Class Action Complaint that added additional
current and former directors, officers and employees as
defendants and alleged breach of fiduciary duty on behalf of the
Plan and as a purported class action on behalf of participants
and beneficiaries of the Plan who held shares of the Nortel
Networks Stock Fund during the period from March 7, 2000 through
June 17, 2005.  On July 8, 2005, the defendants filed a Renewed
Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint.

On May 18, 2004, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee on
behalf of individuals who were participants and beneficiaries of
the Plan at any time during the period of December 23, 2003
through the filing date and who made or maintained Plan
investments in Nortel Networks Corporation common shares, under
the ERISA for Plan-wide relief and alleging, among other things,
breaches of fiduciary duty. On September 3, 2004, the Court
signed a stipulated order consolidating this action with the
Consolidated ERISA Action described above.  

On June 16, 2004, a second purported class action lawsuit, on
behalf of the Plan and Plan participants for whose individual
accounts the Plan purchased Nortel Networks Corporation common
shares during the period from October 24, 2000 to June 16, 2004,
and making similar allegations, was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York. On August 6, 2004,
the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation issued a
conditional transfer order to transfer this action to the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee for
coordinated or consolidated proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
section 1407 with the Consolidated ERISA Action described above.
On August 20, 2004, plaintiffs filed a notice of opposition to
the conditional transfer order with the Judicial Panel. On
December 6, 2004, the Judicial Panel denied the opposition and
ordered the action transferred to the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Tennessee for coordinated or consolidated
proceedings with the Consolidated ERISA Action described above.
On January 3, 2005, this action was received in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee and
consolidated with the Consolidated ERISA Action described above.


NORTEL NETWORKS: Plaintiffs Seek Certification For NY Stock Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs asked the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York to grant class certification to
the consolidated lawsuit filed against Nortel Networks
Corporation and certain of its then current and former officers
and directors.

Subsequent to the March 10, 2004 announcement in which the
Company indicated it was likely that it would need to revise its
previously announced unaudited results for the year ended
December 31, 2003, and the results reported in certain of its
quarterly reports for 2003, and to restate its previously filed
financial results for one or more earlier periods, the Company
and certain of its then current and former officers and
directors were named as defendants in 27 purported class action
lawsuits.  These lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York on behalf of shareholders
who acquired Nortel Networks Corporation securities as early as
February 16, 2001 and as late as May 15, 2004.

The suits allege, among other things, violations of U.S. federal
securities laws.  These matters are also the subject of
investigations by Canadian and U.S. securities regulatory and
criminal investigative authorities.  On June 30, 2004, the Court
signed Orders consolidating the 27 class actions and appointing
lead plaintiffs and lead counsel. The plaintiffs filed a
consolidated class action complaint on September 10, 2004,
alleging a class period of April 24, 2003 through and including
April 27, 2004.  On November 5, 2004, the Company and the Audit
Committee Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated
class action complaint.  On January 18, 2005, the lead
plaintiffs, NNC and the Audit Committee Defendants reached an
agreement in which NNC would withdraw its motion to dismiss and
plaintiffs would dismiss Count II of the complaint which asserts
a claim against the Audit Committee Defendants. On May 13, 2005,
the plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification.


NORTEL NETWORKS: Shareholders File Securities Lawsuit in Canada
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nortel Networks Corporation and certain of its officers and
directors continue to face a purported class proceeding in the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice on behalf of shareholders who
acquired Nortel Networks Corporation securities as early as
November 12, 2002 and as late as July 28, 2004.

This lawsuit alleges, among other things, breaches of trust and
fiduciary duty, oppressive conduct and misappropriation of
corporate assets and trust property in respect of the payment of
cash bonuses to executives, officers and employees in 2003 and
2004 under the NNC Return to Profitability bonus program and
seeks damages of Canadian $250 and an order under the Canada
Business Corporations Act directing that an investigation be
made respecting these bonus payments.


PMA CAPITAL: PA Court Partially Dismisses Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania partially granted PMA Capital Corporation's motion
to dismiss the consolidated securities class action filed
against it and certain of its directors and key executive
officers.

Several suits were initially filed on behalf of alleged
purchasers of the Company's Class A Common Stock, 4.25% Senior
Convertible Debt due 2022 (4.25% Convertible Debt) and 8.50%
Monthly Income Senior Notes. On June 28, 2004, the court issued
an order consolidating the cases under the caption "In Re PMA
Capital Corporation Securities Litigation (civil action no. 03-
6121)" and appointing Sheet Metal Workers Local 9 Pension Trust,
Alaska Laborers Employers Retirement Fund and Communications
Workers of America for Employees' Pension and Death Benefits as
lead plaintiff. On September 20, 2004, the plaintiffs filed an
amended and consolidated complaint on behalf of an alleged class
of purchasers of the Company's securities between May 5, 1999
and February 11, 2004.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants
violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5
thereunder by making materially false and misleading public
statements and material omissions during the class period
regarding the Company's underwriting performance, loss reserves
and related internal controls. The complaint alleges, among
other things, that the defendants violated Sections 11, 12(a)
(2) and 15 of the Securities Act by making materially false and
misleading statements in registration statements and
prospectuses about the Company's financial results, underwriting
performance, loss reserves and related internal controls.  The
complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages, the right to
rescind the purchases of securities in the public offerings,
interest, and plaintiffs' reasonable costs and expenses,
including attorneys' fees and expert fees.

By Order dated July 27, 2005, the Court partially granted the
Company's previously filed Motion to Dismiss the Amended
Complaint, dismissing all allegations with respect to the PMA
Insurance Group, and otherwise denying the Motion to Dismiss.
The lawsuit is in its earliest stages; therefore, it is not
possible at this time to reasonably estimate the impact on the
Company.

The suit is styled "AUGENBAUM v. PMA CAPITAL CORPORATION et al.,
case no. 2:03-cv-06121-PBT," filed in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, under Judge
Petrese B. Tucker.  Representing the plaintiffs are Robert A.
Kauffman, Arthur Stock and Sherri Savett of Berger and Montague,
1622 Locust Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone: 215-875-3000,
Fax: 215-875-4636, E-mail: astock@bm.net; and Salvatore J.
Graziano of MILBERG WEISS BERSHAD & SCHULMAN LLP, One
Pennsylvania Plaza, New York NY 10119, Phone: 212-594-5300.  
Representing the Company are David M. Howard, Michael L.
Kichline, Joseph A. Tate of Dechert LLP, 4000 Bell Atlantic
Tower, 1717 Arch Street, Philadelphia PA 19103-2973, Phone:
215-994-2218, E-mail: david.howard@dechert.com,
michael.kichline@dechert.com, joseph.tate@dechert.com.  


PURDUE PHARMA: 1,000 Individual Suits Files in NY Over OxyContin
----------------------------------------------------------------
Since a New York state judge refused to accept a class action
suit, about 1,000 individual lawsuits were recently filed in New
York City against the manufacturer of the controversial pain
drug OxyContin, The ScoutNews, LLC reports.

According to The Associated Press, 14 cartons containing the
legal papers for the case were dropped off at the State
courthouse in Staten Island and it took court employees four
hours just to establish the processing procedure.  The reason
that the cases have to be tried individually is that the hearing
judge decided that too many of them had different injury claims
and different evidence requirements. Oxycontin, which was
approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 1995, is a
powerful painkiller, often used in cancer cases, The Associated
Press reported.  However, it is also powerfully addictive,
something the plaintiffs claim the drug's manufacturer, Purdue
Pharma, L.P., of Stamford, Connecticut, failed to point out to
patients and doctors when it marketed the drug.

These lawsuits are the latest in a series of thousands that have
been filed against Purdue Pharma in the United States. The
Associated Press reported that though the company has never lost
an OxyContin lawsuit there was a settlement with the West
Virginia attorney general's office in November 2004.


QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: CO Judge Approves $16.3M in Lawyer Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Denver District Court judge overseeing a $50 million class
action settlement from Qwest Communications denied a shareholder
group's request to limit plaintiff attorney fees to $10 million,
The Rocky Mountain News reports.

Judge John Coughlin commented on arguments presented by the
Association of U.S. West Retirees, which asked the court at the
very least to delay settlement approval until attorneys
submitted detailed documentation of their hours and expenses.  
At a recent fairness, the judge ruled that the class counsel,
led by Los Angeles law firm Lerach Coughlin, was entitled to $15
million, or 30 percent of the settlement, plus an additional
$1.3 million in out-of-pocket expenses.

Mr. Coughlin told The Rocky Mountain News about Lerach
spearheading the case, "There weren't any other lawyers in the
United States that took the gamble that these people did - not
one other law firm anywhere."  

Previously, the firm submitted to the court last week a work
summary showing it and three other plaintiff law firms logged
15,000 hours, the equivalent of $6.5 million in legal fees.  The
20,000-member retiree association though wanted proof of each
firm's time records and questioned several six-figure expenses,
including $176,000 for meals, hotel and travel and $105,000 for
photocopying.

Commenting after the hearing, Denver attorney Curtis Kennedy,
who is representing the retirees, told Rocky Mountain News,
"That's 25 cents a page using your own office copy machine.
Don't we at least get a discount for volume? Why not 5 cents a
page?"

However, the judge noted that those standing on the sidelines
while the case was hotly litigated for five years included the
association. He suggested that the association just as easily
could have initiated the shareholder suit alleging Qwest
breached its fiduciary duty by failing to pay a second-quarter
dividend after the merger with U.S. West in 2000.

Mr. Coughlin pointed out to The Rocky Mountain News, "A lot of
lawyers had a crack at it but didn't do it," adding that Lerach
and Qwest attorneys spent an "astronomical" amount of time on
the case.

The suit sought $273 million in damages, plus interest and
attorney fees, for U.S. West shareholders as of June 30, 2000.
According to Lerach attorneys, that's how much the two telcos
saved by not making good on a 53 cents-per-share dividend that
U.S. West directors promised to shareholders before the
companies merged five years ago. Also named, as defendants were
former U.S. West and Qwest directors, including Sol Trujillo and
Joe Nacchio.  Eventually, Qwest agreed to settle the case in
June, just two days before the scheduled trial.

However, last month, the association filed its objections over
attorney fees, complaining that the more than $16.3 million
Lerach had requested would leave just $33 million to be
distributed among the thousands of plaintiff shareholders they
represented. In an August 5 motion that was prepared by Mr.
Kennedy, the association stated, "While attorneys seek to make
multimillions of dollars, the class of shareholders . stand to
receive less than 10 cents per share." Mr. Kennedy himself wrote
that the case and its accompanying settlement had a "stink like
a three-day-old un-refrigerated dead fish."

Though less descriptive after the recent hearing he was
nevertheless passionate saying that the blanket $15 million
contingency award represented 2.3 times what the plaintiff
lawyers actually put into the case. Paralegal time alone would
be compensated at the rate of more than $400 an hour.

Mr. Kennedy recounts to The Rocky Mountain News that argued at
the hearing, "Times are changing. Shareholders are beginning to
feel they need to step up and object . that these attorney fees
are getting out of hand."

Lerach attorney Michael Dowd counted though that his firm
deserved an incentive for taking on a complicated case that
could have gone to trial with no assurance of winning. "We were
the ones at risk . all by ourselves," he pointed out.


RELIANT ENERGY: Reaches Settlement For TX Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Reliant Energy, Inc. (formerly Reliant Resources, Inc. or RRI)
reached a settlement for the consolidated securities class
action file in the United States District Court for the District
of Texas, Houston Division.

Fifteen class action lawsuits were filed in May, June and July
2002 on behalf of purchasers of securities of RRI and/or Reliant
Energy, and later consolidated in federal district court in
Houston.  RRI and certain of its former and current executive
officers are named as defendants.  The consolidated complaint
also names the Company, the underwriters of the initial public
offering of RRI's common stock in May 2001 (RRI Offering), and
RRI's and the Company's independent auditors as defendants.

The consolidated amended complaint seeks monetary relief
purportedly on behalf of purchasers of common stock of Reliant
Energy or RRI during certain time periods ranging from February
2000 to May 2002, and purchasers of common stock that can be
traced to the RRI Offering. The plaintiffs allege, among other
things, that the defendants misrepresented their revenues and
trading volumes by engaging in round-trip trades and improperly
accounted for certain structured transactions as cash-flow
hedges, which resulted in earnings from these transactions being
accounted for as future earnings rather than being accounted for
as earnings in fiscal year 2001.

In January 2004, the trial judge dismissed the plaintiffs'
allegations that the defendants had engaged in fraud, but claims
based on alleged misrepresentations in the registration
statement issued in the RRI Offering remain. In June 2004, the
plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, which the
court granted in February 2005. The defendants appealed the
court's order certifying the class and asked the trial court to
reconsider its ruling certifying the class. In July 2005, the
parties announced that they had reached a settlement in this
matter, subject to court approval. The terms of the settlement
do not require a payment by the Company.


SEEBEYOND TECHNOLOGY: Shareholders File CA Suits V. Sun Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
SeeBeyond Technology Corporation faces several class actions
filed in the California Superior Court, County of Los Angeles,
styled "Paul L. Henderson v. SeeBeyond Technology Corporation et
al., Case No. BC336372" and "Manju Mehta, a/k/a Manju Kapoor v.
James T. Demetriades, et al., Case No. BC336523."  The suits
also name as defendants the Company's Chief Executive Officer
James Demetriades and the other members of our board of
directors:

     (1) Raymond Lane,

     (2) John Buckley,

     (3) Salah Hassanein and

     (4) Steven Ledger

The complaints allege that, in pursuing the transaction with Sun
Microsystems, Inc. and approving the merger agreement with Sun,
the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the holders of
SeeBeyond common stock by, among other things, engaging in self-
dealing, approving a transaction in which they allegedly stand
to receive financial benefits not shared by the other SeeBeyond
shareholders, failing to obtain the highest price reasonably
available for SeeBeyond and its shareholders, failing to
properly value SeeBeyond and agreeing to the termination fee
provisions of the merger agreement and voting agreements
relating to the Sun merger.

The complaints further allege that the merger agreement with Sun
resulted from a flawed process and that the defendants tailored
the terms of the merger to advance their own financial
interests. The complaints seek an injunction preventing the
completion of the merger with Sun an order directing the
Company's directors to exercise their fiduciary duties to obtain
a transaction in the best interests of its stockholders,
rescission of the proposed merger to the extent already
implemented, and reasonable costs and attorneys' fees.


RELIANT ENERGY: Faces Individual Franchise Fee Claims in Texas
--------------------------------------------------------------
Reliant Energy, Inc. and Houston Industries Finance, Inc.
(formerly a wholly owned subsidiary) face the remaining claims
in litigation filed in the state district court in Harris
County, Texas by the cities of Wharton, Galveston and Pasadena
("Three Cities").

The cities filed the suits in February 1996 for themselves and a
proposed class of all similarly situated cities in the Company's
electric service area, against the Company and alleging
underpayment of municipal franchise fees.  The plaintiffs
claimed that they were entitled to 4% of all receipts of any
kind for business conducted within these cities over the
previous four decades.

After a jury trial involving the Three Cities' claims (but not
the class of cities), the trial court entered a judgment on the
Three Cities' breach of contract claims for $1.7 million,
including interest, plus an award of $13.7 million in legal
fees. It also decertified the class. Following this ruling, 45
cities filed individual suits against the Company in the
District Court of Harris County.

On February 27, 2003, a state court of appeals in Houston
rendered an opinion reversing the judgment against the Company
and rendering judgment that the Three Cities take nothing by
their claims. The court of appeals held that all of the Three
Cities' claims were barred by the jury's finding of laches, a
defense similar to the statute of limitations, due to the Three
Cities' having unreasonably delayed bringing their claims during
the more than 30 years since the alleged wrongs began. The court
also held that the Three Cities were not entitled to recover any
attorneys' fees. The Three Cities filed a petition for review to
the Texas Supreme Court, which declined to hear the case. Thus,
the Three Cities' claims have been finally resolved in the
Company's favor, but the individual claims of the remaining 45
cities remain pending in the same court.


SONUS NETWORKS: MA Court Decertifies Securities Fraud Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts decertified the consolidated securities class
action filed against Sonus Networks, Inc., after the court heard
the plaintiffs' motion to substitute the lead plaintiff in the
litigation.

According to an earlier Class Action Reporter story (August
22,2005), Judge Mark Wolf decertified the suit said that he is
considering forcing the plaintiffs to cover Sonus's legal
expenses.  Judge Wolf dismissed the suit in which Daniel Higgins
sought to intervene as lead plaintiff, after original class
representative Andrew Scibelli withdrew following the revelation
of his conviction on a drug charge in 1991.

Beginning in July 2002, several purchasers of the Company's
common stock filed complaints against the Company, certain
officers and directors and a former officer under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  
The purchasers seek to represent a class of persons who
purchased the Company's common stock between December 11, 2000
and January 16, 2002, and seek unspecified monetary damages. The
Complaints were essentially identical and alleged that the
Company made false and misleading statements about its products
and business.  On March 3, 2003, the plaintiffs filed a
Consolidated Amended Complaint. On April 22, 2003, the Company
filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint on
various grounds. On May 11, 2004, the court held oral argument
on the motion, at the conclusion of which the court denied the
Company's motion to dismiss.  The plaintiffs filed a motion for
class certification on July 30, 2004, and Sonus filed its
opposition on September 10, 2004, to which the plaintiffs
replied on September 30, 2004.  On February 16, 2005, the court
certified the class and appointed a class representative.  On
March 9, 2005, the court appointed the law firm of Moulton &
Gans as lead counsel.  After the court requested additional
briefing on the adequacy of the class representative, the class
representative withdrew. Lead counsel filed a motion to
substitute a new plaintiff as the class representative.  On May
19, 2005, the court held a hearing on the motion and took the
matter under advisement.


SONUS NETWORKS: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Lawsuit in MA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed an amended securities class action against
Sonus Networks, Inc. and certain of its current officers and
directors in the United States District Court for the District
of Massachusetts.

Beginning in February 2004, a number of purported shareholder
class action complaints were filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts against the Company and
certain of its current officers and directors.  On June 28,
2004, the court consolidated the claims.  On December 1, 2004,
the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint.

The complaint asserts claims under the federal securities laws,
specifically Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Sections 11, 12(a), and 15 of the Securities Act
of 1933, relating to the Company's restatement of its financial
results for 2001, 2002, and the first three quarters of 2003.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that the Company issued a
series of false or misleading statements to the market
concerning the Company's revenues, earnings and financial
condition. Plaintiffs contend that such statements caused the
Company's stock price to be artificially inflated. The complaint
seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class of
purchasers of the Company's common stock during the period from
March 28, 2002, through March 26, 2004.

On January 28, 2005, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
Section 10(b) and 12(a) claims and joined the motion to dismiss
the Section 11 claim filed by the individual defendants. On June
1, 2005, the court held a hearing on the motion and allowed the
plaintiff to file an amended complaint. In August 2005, the
plaintiff filed an amended complaint.


SUPPORTSOFT INC.: CA Court Junks Consolidated Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California granted SupportSoft, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the
consolidated securities class action filed against it, its Chief
Executive Officer Radha R. Basu and its Chief Financial Officer
Brian M. Beattie.

Between December 9, 2004 and January 21, 2005, several purported
securities class action suits were filed, and later consolidated
on March 22, 2005 as "In re SupportSoft, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Civil Action No.: c 04-5222 SI."  The consolidated
complaint alleges generally violations of certain federal
securities laws and seek unspecified damages on behalf of a
class of purchasers of the Company's common stock between
January 20, 2004 and October 1, 2004.  Plaintiffs allege, among
other things, that defendants made false and misleading
statements concerning the Company's business and guidance for
the third quarter 2004, purportedly violating Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.

On July 15, 2005, the Court granted the motion to dismiss the
Complaint with leave to amend the Complaint. The plaintiffs must
file their First Amended Complaint on or before August 19, 2005.


SUPPORTSOFT INC.: NY Settlement Fairness Hearing Set Jan. 2006
--------------------------------------------------------------
Final fairness hearing for the settlement of the consolidated
securities class action filed against SupportSoft, Inc. and two
of its officers is set for January 9,2006 in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

In November 2001, a class action lawsuit was filed against the
Company and two of its officers, alleging that its registration
statement and prospectus dated July 18, 2000 for the issuance
and initial public offering of 4,250,000 shares of our common
stock contained material misrepresentations and/or omissions,
related to alleged inflated commissions received by the
underwriters of the offering.  The defendants named in the
lawsuit are SupportSoft, Radha Basu, Brian Beattie, Credit
Suisse First Boston Corporation, Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc. and
FleetBoston Robertson Stephens Inc.  The lawsuit seeks
unspecified damages as well as interest, fees and costs.

Similar complaints have been filed against 55 underwriters and
more than 300 other companies and other individual officers and
directors of those companies.  All of the complaints against the
underwriters, issuers and individuals have been consolidated for
pre-trial purposes before U.S. District Court Judge Scheindlin
of the Southern District of New York.  On June 26, 2003, the
plaintiffs announced that a proposed settlement between the
issuer defendants and their directors and officers had been
reached.  As a result of the proposed settlement, which is
subject to court approval, the Company anticipates that its
insurance carrier will be responsible for any payments other
than attorneys' fees prior to June 1, 2003.

On September 2, 2003, plaintiffs' executive committee advised
the court that the lead plaintiff in the action against us was
unwilling to serve as a class representative, and sought leave
to seek a new class representative. On October 20, 2003, the
Company was notified that a new class representative would be
substituted into the case against the Company, but its attempts
to formally confirm this substitution have not been successful.
At a court conference on March 4, 2004, plaintiffs' executive
committee advised the court that the negotiators for plaintiffs
and issuers have agreed on the terms of the settlement.  During
mid-2004, the plaintiffs moved for preliminary approval of the
proposed settlement. After full briefing and argument, on
February 15, 2005, the court issued an opinion preliminarily
approving the proposed settlement, contingent upon modifications
being made to one aspect of the proposed settlement the proposed
"bar order."  At a further conference on April 13, 2005, the
court set a further schedule for submission of documents
concerning the form and substance of class notice, and
tentatively set a Rule 23 public hearing on the fairness of the
proposed settlement for January 9, 2006.


UNITED STATES: Wireless Industry Asks DC Judge to Suspend Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys for the cell phone industry recently asked a District
of Columbia Superior Court judge to suspend proceedings in six
brain-cancer lawsuits, pending the industry's petition for the
U.S. Supreme Court to review a federal appellate court ruling
that revived five class action lawsuits seeking to force
wireless carriers to supply consumers with headsets, The
RCRNews.com reports.

The cell phone industry's request to halt action on the six
brain-cancer suits in the D.C. Superior Court came as the
Supreme Court neared a ruling on wireless firms' motion to
dismiss the cases. Industry argues cancer and other health-
related lawsuits are pre-empted by federal law.  However,
plaintiff's attorneys urged Judge Cheryl Long not to delay
action in the six brain-cancer suits, arguing that the 4th
Circuit's headset ruling is the law of the land.

According to court documents, the Supreme Court is expected to
rule on whether it will take the 4th Circuit appeal in October.  
U.S. District Judge Catherine Blake of Baltimore said she would
wait for the Supreme Court to decide federal pre-emption
questions before she proceeds with other wireless health suits
in her court.

Previously, a divided federal appeals court in Richmond,
Virginia reinstated five lawsuits claiming that the cell phone
industry, represented by attorney Kenneth W. Starr, has failed
to protect consumers from unsafe levels of radiation, an earlier
Class Action Reporter story (March 18, 2005) reports.

The class action lawsuits seek to force cell phone manufacturers
to provide headsets, which plaintiffs, represented by attorney
Michael R. Allweiss, say could reduce risks of brain tumors. In
addition, they also seek punitive damages. The suits were
originally filed in state courts in Maryland, Pennsylvania, New
York, Georgia and Louisiana, but were consolidated and
transferred to federal court in Baltimore, an earlier Class
Action Reporter story (March 18, 2005) reports.  

Though several studies have found no adverse health effects from
wireless handheld telephones (i.e. a "cell phone"), plaintiffs'
claims included allegations that the industry's actions violated
various state laws on consumer protection, product liability,
implied warranty, negligence, fraud and civil conspiracy, an
earlier Class Action Reporter story (March 18, 2005) reports.


WASTE MANAGEMENT: Founder, Ex-Officials Settle SEC Action in IL
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission reports that the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
entered final judgments as to defendants Dean L. Buntrock,
Phillip B. Rooney, Thomas C. Hau, and Herbert A. Getz in the
federal civil enforcement action filed by the Commission.  Mr.
Buntrock was the founder and former chief executive officer of
Waste Management, Inc., Mr. Rooney was the former chief
operating officer and later CEO, Mr. Hau was the former chief
accounting officer, and Mr. Getz was the former general counsel.
     
The Judgments permanently bar Mr. Buntrock, Mr. Rooney, Mr. Hau,
and Mr. Getz from acting as an officer or director of a public
company and enjoin them from violating, or aiding and abetting
violations of, Sections 10(b) and 13(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, Rules 10b-5, 12b-20, 13a-1, and 13a-13
promulgated thereunder, and Section 17(a) of the Securities Act
of 1933.  The Judgment as to Mr. Hau additionally enjoins him
from aiding and abetting violations of Section 13(b)(2)(A) of
Exchange Act, and from violating Exchange Act Rules 13b2-1 and
13b2-2.  The Judgments require payment of over $30 million in
total, comprised of $16.4 million in disgorgement, $10.4 million
prejudgment interest, and $4 million in civil penalties.  The
settling defendants consented to the Judgments without admitting
or denying the allegations in the Commission's complaint.
     
Additionally, Mr. Getz agreed to settle a related Rule 102(e)
administrative proceeding to be instituted by the Commission by
consenting to the entry of an order suspending him from
appearing or practicing before the Commission as an attorney for
five years.
     
The complaint in this action, which was filed on March 26, 2002,
charged six former top officers of Waste Management with
perpetrating a massive financial fraud lasting more than five
years.  The Commission alleges that, beginning in 1992 and
continuing into 1997, defendants engaged in a systematic scheme
to falsify and misrepresent Waste Management's financial results
with profits being overstated by $1.7 billion.  The fraud
resulted in a restatement in February 1998, which at the time
was the largest restatement in history.
     
The Commission previously announced a settlement with defendant
Bruce D. Tobecksen on September 30, 2004.  The Commission's
litigation is continuing against James E. Koenig, Waste
Management's former chief financial officer and executive vice
president. The suit is styled, SEC v. Buntrock, Civil Action No.
02-C-2180, N.D. Ill., Andersen, J. (LR-19351).


WESTLAKE STYRENE: Suits Filed in Hamilton County Over Leakage
-------------------------------------------------------------
Two lawsuits were filed in the Hamilton County Common Pleas
Court against Westlake Styrene Company seeking damages for
businesses forced to close and residents forced out of their
homes because of the styrene fumes leaking from a railroad car,
The Cincinnati Enquirer reports.  The Houston-based company
makes the styrene that is involved in the chemical release.

Attorney Alan J. Statman, who is seeking class action status for
his suit, filed one of the two. Currently though the suit only
names just two plaintiffs, James L. Deckebach of Wine Cellar
Innovations on Eastern Avenue and Earl D. Arnold Printing Co. on
Lunken Park Drive. Eventually there could be as many as 814
residents and 100 business owners, according to the suit, which
is seeking compensatory damages in excess of $25,000 and
punitive damages in excess of $25,000, plus costs and attorney's
fees for each person affected. Mr. Statman is from the law firm
of Statman, Harris, Siegel and Eyrich.

A second suit, filed by attorney Chris Jenkins of Mezibov &
Jenkins, hopes to recover damages on behalf of homeowners only.
Mr. Jenkins, whose suit targets CSX Transportation and the
railcar's owner, Westlake told The Cincinnati Enquirer that he
was unaware of the other suit being filed.  The lawsuit seeks
"injunctive relief requiring Defendants to perform such
investigations, studies, analyses, medical tests, and remedial
measures as are necessary, just and proper under the
circumstances" and at least $25,000 in compensatory and punitive
damages.


WILLIAMS TECHNOLOGIES: SC Suit Summary Judgment Ruling Appealed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs intend to appeal the Circuit Court of Dorchester
County, South Carolina's ruling granting summary judgment in
favor of Williams Technologies, Inc. in the class action filed
against it and the South Carolina Department of Corrections
(SCDC).

The suit was filed in January 2004, on behalf of all prisoners
who worked in an SCDC Services Training Program at Lieber
Correctional Institute.  The Plaintiffs claim that:

     (1) they should have been paid industry prevailing wage
         under a South Carolina prison industries authorization
         statute,

     (2) the SCDC and Williams violated the Payment of Wages Act
         and

     (3) the SCDC and Williams committed a tort under the South
         Carolina Tort Claims Act.

Under the terms of the sale, the Company retained liability and
responsibility for this claim. The Circuit Court for Dorchester
County granted summary judgment to the Company on April 21,
2005, and decertified the Plaintiff class. Plaintiffs filed a
Notice of Appeal with the Court on May 24, 2005, and a due date
for filling their Appeal Brief has not yet been set.


WESTLAKE STYRENE: Suits Filed in Hamilton County Over Leakage
-------------------------------------------------------------
Two lawsuits were filed in the Hamilton County Common Pleas
Court against Westlake Styrene Company seeking damages for
businesses forced to close and residents forced out of their
homes because of the styrene fumes leaking from a railroad car,
The Cincinnati Enquirer reports.

The Houston-based company makes the styrene that is involved in
the chemical release.

Attorney Alan J. Statman, who is seeking class action status for
his suit, filed one of the two. Currently though the suit only
names just two plaintiffs, James L. Deckebach of Wine Cellar
Innovations on Eastern Avenue and Earl D. Arnold Printing Co. on
Lunken Park Drive. Eventually there could be as many as 814
residents and 100 business owners, according to the suit, which
is seeking compensatory damages in excess of $25,000 and
punitive damages in excess of $25,000, plus costs and attorney's
fees for each person affected. Mr. Statman is from the law firm
of Statman, Harris, Siegel and Eyrich.

A second suit, filed by attorney Chris Jenkins of Mezibov &
Jenkins, hopes to recover damages on behalf of homeowners only.
Mr. Jenkins, whose suit targets CSX Transportation and the
railcar's owner, Westlake told The Cincinnati Enquirer that he
was unaware of the other suit being filed.

The lawsuit seeks "injunctive relief requiring Defendants to
perform such investigations, studies, analyses, medical tests,
and remedial measures as are necessary, just and proper under
the circumstances" and at least $25,000 in compensatory and
punitive damages.


WISCONSIN: County Responds to Violations of 2001 Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
In recently filed legal papers, Milwaukee County's attorneys
stated that the county and the sheriff's office stated that they
should not be held in contempt and ordered to pay damages to
thousands of inmates held in the county jail's booking area
longer than 30 hours, which is a violation of a 2001 class
action lawsuit settlement agreement, The Milwaukee Journal
Sentinel reports.

The filings in Milwaukee County Circuit Court were in response
to motions by attorneys with the Legal Aid Society of Milwaukee
Inc. and the American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin, who
represent jail inmates in a protracted class action suit about
conditions at the jail. The lawsuit was first filed in 1996.

In a motion filed against the Milwaukee County Sheriff's
Department, the ACLU and the Legal Aid accused the department of
illegally detaining 13,000 people in the County Jail's booking
room beyond the 30-hour limit over the past several years. The
motion follows the 2001 settlement agreement in the case in
which the court prohibited the Sheriff's Department from holding
people in the booking room or without a bed for longer than 30
hours, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (September 14,
2004) reports.

Additionally, the groups allege that too many people were held
in the booking room, which had no beds or showers, and that
people held there are not afforded privacy. They also alleged
that the department shifted detainees around before making daily
head-counts of the room. Thus, they stated in their motion that
they believe the county and sheriff are in breach of their
agreement and ask that a hearing be scheduled "to determine the
appropriate compensation for the victims," an earlier Class
Action Reporter story (September 14, 2004) reports.

Attorneys for the county though argued that once the county
became aware of the 30-hour booking situation in May 2004, the
problem was corrected. Additionally, they argue that the county
has been diligent and spent millions to make the county jail
"one of the best jails in the country for a metropolitan area of
its size." They even pointed out that the jail population is
down substantially, and that the jail is in good standing with
the Wisconsin Department of Corrections.  Finally, attorneys for
the county also argue that the breach of contract provisions
cited do not legally apply in this case.

The county has hired the law firm Whyte Hirschboeck Dudek in
this case, where a hearing on the plaintiffs' motion is
scheduled for October 3 before Circuit Judge Clare Fiorenza.


WR GRACE: Inks Pact For Lawsuit V. Sealed Air, Fresenius Deals
--------------------------------------------------------------
The California Bankruptcy Court approved the settlement of all
asbestos, successor liability and fraudulent transfer claims
related to the 1996 reorganization of a predecessor of W.R.
Grace & Co. and Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc. and the
1998 reorganization involving a predecessor of the Company and
Sealed Air Corporation.

In September 2000, the Company was named in a purported class
action lawsuit filed in California Superior Court for the
County of San Francisco, alleging that the 1996 reorganization
involving a predecessor of Grace and Fresenius and were
fraudulent transfers.  The Bankruptcy Court authorized the
Official Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants and the
Official Committee of Asbestos Property Damage Claimants to
proceed with claims against Fresenius and Sealed Air and Cryovac
on behalf of the Debtors' bankruptcy estate.

On November 29, 2002, Sealed Air (and Cryovac) and Fresenius
each announced that they had reached agreements in principle
with such Committees to settle asbestos, successor liability and
fraudulent transfer claims related to such transactions (the
"litigation settlement agreements"). Under the terms of the
Fresenius settlement, subject to the fulfillment of certain
conditions, Fresenius would contribute $115.0 million to the
Debtors' estate as directed by the Bankruptcy Court upon
confirmation of the Debtors' plan of reorganization.  In July
2003, the Fresenius settlement was approved by the Bankruptcy
Court.  Under the terms of the Sealed Air settlement, subject to
the fulfillment of certain conditions, Cryovac would make a
payment of $512.5 million (plus interest at 5.5% compounded
annually, commencing on December 21, 2002) and nine million
shares of Sealed Air common stock (collectively valued at
$1,034.8 million as of June 30, 2005), as directed by the
Bankruptcy Court upon confirmation of the Debtors' plan of
reorganization. In June 2005, the Sealed Air settlement was
approved by the Bankruptcy Court.          


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


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

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

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


MANNATECH INC.: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Stock Fraud Suit in NM
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
LLP ("Lerach Coughlin") commenced a class action in the United
States District Court for the District of New Mexico on behalf
of purchasers of Mannatech, Inc. ("Mannatech") (NASDAQ:MTEX)
common stock during the period between August 10, 2004 and May
9, 2005 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Mannatech and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Mannatech develops nutritional supplements, topical
products, and weight-management products.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
caused Mannatech's shares to trade at artificially inflated
levels by issuing a series of materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business and prospects and by
concealing improprieties by sale associates, allowed and
encouraged by the Company. This caused the Company's stock to
trade as high as $26.04 per share during the Class Period.
Defendants took advantage of this inflation, selling or
otherwise disposing of 178,100 shares of their Mannatech stock
then valued at more than $3.7 million.

On May 9, 2005, Barron's published a story on Mannatech
detailing CEO Caster's history and questioning the Company's
sales associates' methods and their "seemingly irrepressible
inclination . . . to make extraordinary therapeutic claims for
the supplements," which had "irked some foreign regulators." The
story also discussed a civil suit filed in Los Angeles County
against Mannatech for "'negligent misrepresentation'" and
"'conspiracy to commit fraud'" stemming from alleged misconduct
by its sales associates. On this news, Mannatech's stock fell to
as low as $11.64 per share on May 10, 2005 before closing at
$12.15 per share on volume of 2.2 million shares.

According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known by
each of the defendants but concealed from the investing public
during the Class Period, were as follows:

     (1) the Company was at least tacitly encouraging associates
         to make misleading claims about the Company's products;

     (2) contrary to defendants' claims of fiscal 2005 growth
         and profitability, the Company would experience much
         worse results once its misleading practices were
         disclosed;

     (3) the Company lacked the controls to prevent false
         statements by associates; and

     (4) as a result of above, the Company's earnings were based
         on misleading claims about the efficacy of its
         products.

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


MANNATECH INC.: Marc S. Henzel Files Securities Fraud Suit in NM
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of
New Mexico on behalf of purchasers of Mannatech, Inc. (NASDAQ:
MTEX) common stock during the period between August 10, 2004 and
May 9, 2005 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Mannatech and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Mannatech develops nutritional supplements, topical
products, and weight-management products.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
caused Mannatech's shares to trade at artificially inflated
levels by issuing a series of materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business and prospects and by
concealing improprieties by sale associates, allowed and
encouraged by the Company. This caused the Company's stock to
trade as high as $26.04 per share during the Class Period.
Defendants took advantage of this inflation, selling or
otherwise disposing of 178,100 shares of their Mannatech stock
then valued at more than $3.7 million.

On May 9, 2005, Barron's published a story on Mannatech
detailing CEO Caster's history and questioning the Company's
sales associates' methods and their "seemingly irrepressible
inclination . . . to make extraordinary therapeutic claims for
the supplements," which had "irked some foreign regulators." The
story also discussed a civil suit filed in Los Angeles County
against Mannatech for "'negligent misrepresentation'" and
"'conspiracy to commit fraud'" stemming from alleged misconduct
by its sales associates. On this news, Mannatech's stock fell to
as low as $11.64 per share on May 10, 2005 before closing at
$12.15 per share on volume of 2.2 million shares.

According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known by
each of the defendants but concealed from the investing public
during the Class Period, were as follows:

     (1) the Company was at least tacitly encouraging associates
         to make misleading claims about the Company's products;
   
     (2) contrary to defendants' claims of fiscal 2005 growth
         and profitability, the Company would experience much
         worse results once its misleading practices were
         disclosed;

     (3) the Company lacked the controls to prevent false
         statements by associates; and

     (4) as a result of above, the Company's earnings were based
         on misleading claims about the efficacy of its
         products.

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


SYMBOL TECHNOLOGIES: Federman & Sherwood Lodges Stock Suit in TX
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Federman & Sherwood initiated a class action
lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York against Symbol Technologies, Inc.
(NYSE: SBL).

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of
material misrepresentations to the market which had the effect
of artificially inflating the market price. The class period is
from May 10, 2004 through August 1, 2005.

For more details, contact William B. Federman of FEDERMAN &
SHERWOOD, 120 N. Robinson, Suite 2720, Oklahoma City, OK, 73102,
Phone: (405) 235-1560, Fax: (405) 239-2112, E-mail:
wfederman@aol.com, Web site: http://www.federmanlaw.com.


WORLD HEALTH: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Fraud Suit in FL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, LLP,
initiated a class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Florida, on behalf of all
persons who purchased the securities of World Health
Alternatives, Inc. ("World Health" or the "Company") [OTC
Bulletin Board: WHAIE] between May 17, 2004 and August 18, 2005,
inclusive, (the "Class Period") against defendants World Health
Alternatives, Inc, certain officers of the Company, and its
former auditor.

The case name is Blum v. World Health Alternatives, Inc., et al.
The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading
statements throughout the Class Period that had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price of the Company's
securities.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made statements that were materially false and
misleading which artificially inflated the value of World Health
and which the Company now admits require restatement. These
statements failed to disclose and misrepresented the following
adverse facts, among others:

     (1) that there were apparent discrepancies in the amount of
         the Company's shares outstanding;

     (2) that there were apparent discrepancies in the financial
         statement recognition of a convertible debenture and
         warrant agreement associated with the Company's
         preferred stock;

     (3) that there was underpayment of certain tax liabilities
         in excess of $4 million;

     (4) irregular reports to the Company's lenders resulted in
         excess funding under the Company's lending arrangements
         of approximately $6.5 million;

     (5) the Company is in breach of existing financing
         documents;

     (6) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls and
         was therefore unable to ascertain its true financial
         condition; and

     (7) that as a result of the foregoing, the defendants had
         engaged in improper accounting practices.

For more details, contact Fred Isquith, Esq., Gustavo Bruckner,
Esq., or Derek Behnke of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz,
LLP, 270 Madison Ave., New York, NY 10016, Phone:
1-800-575-0735, E-mail: classmember@whafh.com, Web site:
http://www.whafh.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  * * *