CAR_Public/050902.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Friday, September 2, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 174

                            Headlines

ACCUTANE: Program Aims To Halt Use of Acne Drug During Pregnancy
AMERICA FIRST: Faces Shareholder Lawsuit V. America First Merger
AUSTRALIA: High Court Upholds NSW's Ban on Lawyer Advertising
BENNETT ENVIRONMENTAL: Settles NY Consolidated Securities Suit
CANADIAN PACIFIC: Files Motion V. All Claims Over ND Derailment

CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: SC Consumers Commence Antitrust Litigation
CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Seeks Arbitration For CA Overtime Wage Suit
CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: To Oppose MD Antitrust Suit Reinstatement
CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Inks Settlement For CA Consumer Fraud Suit
CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Plaintiffs Oppose Transfer of Lawsuit To NY

CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: CA Court Approves Employee Suit Settlement
CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Plaintiffs Seek Arbitration For CA Wage Suit
CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Settles Consumer Lawsuits in OH, NY Courts
CHUBB CORPORATION: No Appeal Filed, Suit Dismissal Deemed Final
CHUBB CORPORATION: Policyholders Sue Over Commission Agreements

CONSECO INC.: IN Court Dismisses Consolidated Securities Lawsuit
CONSECO INC.: Trial in Consumer Fraud Lawsuit Set May 2006 in CA
CONSECO INC.: Reaches Settlement for IN Securities Fraud Lawsuit
CONSECO LIFE: Trial in FL Nationwide Suit Set September 6,2005
CONSECO INC.: CO Court Hears Appeal of Suit Certification Denial

FLORIDA: Banana Price Fixing Lawsuits Pile up in District Court
GENESIS MICROCHIP: CA Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit
HOUSE OF FLAVORS: Recalls Ice Cream For Undeclared Peanut Butter
LANDSTAR SYSTEM: FL Court Grants Certification To Drivers' Suit
LEE MEMORIAL: FL Judge Dismisses Suit Over Collection Practices

MANHATTAN NATIONAL: Continues To Face NM Policyholder Fraud Suit
MANNTECH INC.: Shares Nose-Dive Due to Securities Suit in NM
NEW YORK: Suit Accuses Firms of Colluding to Promote Arbitration
TARGET: Recalls 494,000 Bicycle Helmets Due to Injury Hazard
TILE PERFECT: Recalls 300T Grout Sealers Due to Respiratory Risk

VERIZON WIRELESS: Arbitration Sought For FL Consumer Fraud Suit
WILLIS GROUP: CA Suit Reactivation Hinges on High Court Decision
WILLIS GROUP: Faces 9 Fraud Lawsuits V. Compensation Agreements
WISCONSIN: Federal Judge Dismisses Suit Over MLS-Realtors Tie-In
WYETH: AR Judge Denies Class Certification For Prempro Complaint


                       Asbestos Alert

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PX Asbestos Extent Not Known, MO Official
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Used in 3,700 Stations, JPN Report
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CA Law Firms Attack US$140Bil Asbestos Bill
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Contaminated Soil Found in JPN Plant Sites
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: New TX Law Could Allow Fewer Asbestos Suits

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NY Public Bldg. Closed for Asbestos Cleanup
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Japan Govt. Mulls Asbestos Compensation Law
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: UK Woman Fined for Fake Asbestos Packaging
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Survey Reports 190 Asbestos-Linked Deaths
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MA School Building Razing Uncovers Hazard

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: UK Locals Fear Asbestos Landfill Excavation
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CBO Marks US$70 Billion for Asbestos Bill
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Fund Authors Satisfied Over CBO Estimates  
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Abatement to Cost Aussie Ratepayers AUD1000
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: UK Expert Guilty for Faking Qualifications

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: UK Crimes Remind of Safe Asbestos Disposal
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lloyd's to Settle US$137 Million With KACC
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Equitas Settles US$300M for Injury Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Health Ministry Says Pros to Mull Options
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hardie Continues Agreement With NSW Govt.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MDR Acknowledges Revised B & W Settlement
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MDR Share Prices Climb After B&W Settlement
ASBESTOS ALERT: Indoor Air, 2 Defendants in Abatement Violations
ASBESTOS ALERT: AEP, Appalachian Fined US$110,000 for Breaches

                 New Securities Fraud Cases

IMMUCOR INC.: Chitwood Harley Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in GA
INTERMIX MEDIA: Kreindler & Kreindler Lodges CA Fiduciaries Suit
MANNATECH INC.: Charles J. Piven Lodges NM Securities Fraud Suit  
MANNATECH INC.: Glancy Binkow Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NM
PATTERSON COMPANIES: Glancy Binkow Lodges Securities Suit in MN

SYMBOL TECHNOLOGIES: Pomerantz Haudek Lodges NY Securities Suit
WORLD HEALTH: Pomerantz Haudek Files Securities Fraud Suit in PA

                         *********

ACCUTANE: Program Aims To Halt Use of Acne Drug During Pregnancy
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing
approval of a strengthened distribution program for
isotretinoin, called iPLEDGE, aimed at preventing use of the
drug during pregnancy. Women who are pregnant or who might
become pregnant should not take the drug. Isotretinoin (Accutane
and its generics) is a highly effective drug for severe
recalcitrant nodular acne, but it carries a significant risk of
birth defects if taken during pregnancy.

The manufacturers are implementing a program that requires
registration in iPLEDGE by doctors and patients who agree to
accept specific responsibilities before receiving authorization
to prescribe or use the drug. These measures are designed to
guard against pregnancies while using the drug. Wholesalers and
pharmacies must also comply with the manufacturers' program
requirements in order to distribute and dispense the product.
FDA is approving this program under its regulations, known as
Subpart H, that require restrictions on the distribution of a
drug to assure safe use.

"This stronger program is a major step in protecting against
inadvertent pregnancy exposure by tightly linking negative
pregnancy testing with dispensing of isotretinoin." said Dr.
Steven Galson, Director, FDA's Center for Evaluation and
Research. "iPLEDGE, using a computer-based and telephone system,
will provide health care professionals with the real time
information necessary to effectively manage the risks of
isotretinoin."

In February 2004, at a joint meeting, FDA's Drug Safety and Risk
Management Advisory Committee and Dermatologic and Ophthalmic
Drugs Advisory Committee reviewed the existing isotretinoin risk
management programs in effect at that time. Based upon their
review, the joint committee called for major improvements in the
restricted distribution program, including mandatory
registration to ensure that patients who could become pregnant
have negative pregnancy testing and birth control counseling
before receiving the drug.

To inform health care providers about iPLEDGE, FDA has issued a
Public Health Advisory and revised the Patient and Health Care
Provider Information Sheets that detail the tightened
restrictions and increased responsibilities under iPLEDGE for
prescribing, dispensing, distributing, and obtaining
isotretinoin.

To obtain the drug, in addition to registering with iPLEDGE,
patients must comply with a number of key requirements that
include completing an informed consent form, obtaining
counseling about the risks and requirements for safe use of the
drug, and, for women of childbearing age, complying with
required pregnancy testing.

A reporting and collection system for serious adverse events
associated with the use of istotretinoin has also been
implemented. All pregnancy exposures to isotretinoin must be
reported immediately to the FDA via the MedWatch 1800-FDA-1088
and to the iPLEDGE pregnancy registry at 1-866-495-0654 or on
the iPLEDGE website.  Doctors, patients, and pharmacies can
obtain program information and register with iPLEDGE via the
internet, beginning August 22, 2005, at the Website:
http://www.ipledgeprogram.comor telephone 1-866-495-0654.  

In addition to approving the iPLEDGE program, FDA has approved
changes to the existing warnings, patient information and
informed consent document so that patients and prescribers can
better identify and manage the risks of psychiatric symptoms and
depression before and after prescribing isotretinoin.

Under the program, after October 31, 2005, wholesalers and
pharmacies will have to register with iPLEDGE to obtain
isotretinoin from a manufacturer. Starting December 31, 2005,
all patients and prescribers (doctors) must register and comply
with requirements for office visits, counseling, birth control
and other responsibilities.

The manufacturers participating in the iPLEDGE program include:
Hoffman-LaRoche manufacturer of Accutane; Genpharm manufacturer
of Amnesteem which is distributed by Mylan/Bertek; Ranbaxy
Pharmaceuticals manufacturer of Sotret; and Barr Laboratories
manufacturer of Claravis.

For additional consumer information, visit the following
website:
http://www.fda.gov/cder/drug/infopage/accutane/default.htm.


AMERICA FIRST: Faces Shareholder Lawsuit V. America First Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
America First Real Estate Investment Partners, L.P. (AFREZ), its
general partner and America First Companies LLC face a class
action filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery, on behalf of the
Partnership's units holders.

The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the defendants
acted in violation of their fiduciary duties to the Unit holders
in connection with the merger of AFREZ with and into the America
First Apartment Investors, Inc.  The merger of AFREZ with and
into the Company was completed on June 3, 2004 and, as a result,
the Company assumed all liabilities of AFREZ, including any
liability that may be imposed as a result of this lawsuit. To
date, the plaintiffs have not amended their complaint to
formally name the Company as a defendant or to modify the relief
they are seeking.


AUSTRALIA: High Court Upholds NSW's Ban on Lawyer Advertising
-------------------------------------------------------------
Australia's High Court upheld a New South Wales ban on lawyers
advertising for personal injury business, The Melbourne Herald
Sun reports.

In a 5-2 majority, the High Court rejected claims by the
Australian Plaintiff Lawyers Association and lawyers Maurice
Blackburn Cashman and Robert Leslie Whyburn who challenged the
validity of a regulation under the NSW Legal Profession Act.  
Under the Act, the publication of an advertisement, including
any reference to personal injury or any legal service relating
to an entitlement to recover money for personal injury by a
barrister or solicitor is regarded as both an offense and
professional misconduct.  Taking effect in May 2003, the Act was
one of several NSW government measures aimed at reducing the
volume of personal injury litigation and the growing cost of
public liability insurance premiums.

The lawyers involved in the High Court case wanted to run
advertisements in newspapers, the Yellow Pages, on trade union
journals, on the Internet and in Maurice Blackburn Cashman's
case, it also wanted to send letters to legally un-represented
people affected by faulty heart pacemakers to invite them to
seek legal advice about a class action against the
manufacturers.  They argued that the regulations were invalid as
they infringed the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of
communication on government and political matters. They also
argued that it infringed on constitutional requirements for the
rule of law as well as the section guaranteeing freedom of
interstate trade, commerce and intercourse.  The lawyers also
pointed out that the regulation exceeded NSW's legislative and
regulatory powers by their operation beyond NSW and were
inconsistent with various Commonwealth laws.


BENNETT ENVIRONMENTAL: Settles NY Consolidated Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bennett Environmental Inc. (TSX: BEV, AMEX: BEL) reached an
agreement in principle to settle the previously disclosed
consolidated securities class action against it and certain of
its present or former officers that is pending in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Under the proposed settlement, all claims asserted against the
Company and the other named defendants in that action will be
dismissed with prejudice with no admission or finding of
wrongdoing on the part of any defendant. The proposed settlement
will provide for an aggregate cash payment to class members of
US$9.75 million, which will be paid primarily by the Company's
insurance carriers with a contribution of US$750,000 to come
from the Company.

The proposed settlement is subject to negotiation of definitive
settlement documents and preliminary and final court approvals
following notices to shareholders and members of the class.

The consolidated securities class action, In re Bennett
Environmental Inc. Securities Litigation, arose from a number of
purported class actions that were originally filed in 2004 based
on the Company's public statements concerning its subcontract
for Phase III of the Manville, New Jersey federal creosote soil
remediation project. The class is represented by Metropolitan
Capital Advisors, L.P. and Metropolitan Capital Partners III,
L.P., the Court- appointed lead plaintiffs, and by Bernstein
Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP as the Court-appointed lead
plaintiffs' counsel.


CANADIAN PACIFIC: Files Motion V. All Claims Over ND Derailment
---------------------------------------------------------------
Canadian Pacific Railway Ltd. (TSX: CP) filed a motion in U.S.
District Court in Bismarck, asking a judge to dismiss all claims
in connection with a January 2002 derailment that spilled more
than 220,000 gallons of anhydrous ammonia and sent a deadly
chemical cloud over Minot, North Dakota, The Associated Press
reports.

The railroad's motion came after two wrongful death lawsuits in
the case. The latest of which alleges that David Cramer, 83, of
Minot, died of injuries he suffered during the disaster, which
seeks more than $50,000 in damages.

Canadian Pacific filed its motion citing a recent decision by
the St. Louis-based 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a case
involving a November 2000 Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad
derailment and chemical spill in Scottsbluff, Nebraska. In that
case judges upheld a lower court ruling that said violation of a
federal regulation or law "is generally not recognized as
negligence" under Nebraska law.

Commenting on the Company's motion, Mike Miller and Mark Larson,
the attorneys representing hundreds of people in their injury
claims against Canadian Pacific, called the railroad's motion
shameful and ludicrous. According to Mr. Miller, "It's just one
more roadblock the railroad is throwing in front of us."  Mr.
Miller also said that the railroad's motion to dismiss would
likely delay a decision from U.S. District Judge Daniel Hovland
on whether to approve a plan to notify people who might have a
claim under a class action lawsuit seeking damages.

Judge Hovland granted class action status in May. In that
ruling, the judge wrote, "It is clear from the record that
issues concerning CPR's alleged negligence or fault can be
established through common evidence . The Court recognizes that
even though important issues will need to be addressed
separately, common issues of CPR's alleged negligence, the toxic
nature of the anhydrous ammonia, and the injuries caused by
exposure are issues at the heart of this litigation. The
Plaintiffs have clearly established that they are a 'group
seeking to remedy a common legal grievance,'" an earlier Class
Action Reporter story (May 10, 2005) reports.

As a result of the decision, everyone who was exposed to the
toxic release and who did not sign a release after February 18,
2002, is part of the class. That date is significant, according
to the judge's ruling, because a North Dakota law allows those
hurt to void any release they may have signed within 30 days of
an incident, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (May 10,
2005) reports.  Mr. Miller proposes notifying every household in
Ward County that it might have a claim, potentially more than
10,000 people. The railroad though objected, arguing that would
be more notice than required and might result in confusion.  

Thirty-one cars on the 112-car Canadian Pacific train derailed
on the west edge of Minot and five broke open early on the
morning of January 18, 2002. John Grabinger, who lived close to
the wreck site, died and hundreds of people were injured when
the derailment spilled anhydrous ammonia farm fertilizer,
sending a toxic cloud into the air.  Federal investigators
described the tank car ruptures as "catastrophic." The National
Transportation Safety Board said the wreck was caused by
inadequate track maintenance and inspections, a conclusion
disputed by Canadian Pacific, an earlier Class Action Reporter
story (July 11, 2005) reports.

Mr. Grabinger's widow filed the first wrongful death case, which
is scheduled for trial on October 10 in Minneapolis.  Mr. Larson
is one of the attorneys representing the plaintiffs in the
Cramer lawsuit. He told The Associated Press that Mr. Cramer
suffered permanent injuries to his respiratory system when his
car was caught in the chemical cloud, and that it led to his
death in December 2003. The railroad has until mid-September to
respond, he cited.


CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: SC Consumers Commence Antitrust Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cellco Partnership faces a class action filed in the United
States District Court for the District of South Carolina, styled
"Maloney v. Sprint Corp., et al."  This class action also names
Verizon Wireless and other carriers as defendants.

The suit was initially filed in the in the Court of Common
Pleas, Akin County, South Carolina on behalf of a class of South
Carolina customers based on allegations that defendants
conspired to restrain trade, conspired to monopolize, and
entered agreements in restraint of trade by locking cellular
phones, tying the sale of handsets to service, eliminating
alternative sources of handsets and horizontally dividing the
market for handsets. Plaintiff asserts causes of action for
violation of the South Carolina Antitrust Act, unjust
enrichment, money had and received, civil conspiracy, and
fraudulent concealment.  Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction,
compensatory damages, restitution and punitive damages.

On July 13, 2005 defendants removed the action to federal court.
On July 14, 2005, defendants filed a notice of potential tag-
along action with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
(JPMDL) to consolidate this matter with the pending MDL 1513 of
the "In re Wireless Telephone Services Antitrust Litigation."

The suit is styled "Maloney v. Sprint Corporation et al., case
no. 1:05-cv-01994-MBS," filed in the United States District
Court for the District of South Carolina, under Judge Margaret
B. Seymour.  Representing the Company are John Marion S. Hoefer
and Randy Lowell of Willoughby and Hoefer, PO Box 8416,
Columbia, SC 29202-8416, Phone: 803-252-3300, Fax: 803-256-8062,
E-mail: jhoefer@willoughbyhoefer.com, and
rlowell@willoughbyhoefer.com.  Representing the plaintiffs are
John Gressette Felder, Jr., Chad A. McGowan and Kevin Hane
Sitnick of McGowan Hood and Felder, 3710 Landmark Drive, Suite
114, Columbia, SC 29204, Phone: 803-327-7800, Fax: 803-328-5656,
E-mail: jfelder@mcgowanhood.com, cmcgowan@mcgowanhood.com,
ksitnik@mcgowanhood.com.  


CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Seeks Arbitration For CA Overtime Wage Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cellco Partnership (doing business as Verizon Wireless) is
seeking to compel arbitration for the class action filed in the
California Superior Court for Los Angeles County, styled "DeLeon
v. Verizon Wireless LLC."

The suit, filed on February 15, 2005, alleges that Verizon
Wireless failed to pay regular and overtime wages to a class of
California sales employees. Plaintiff seeks unspecified money
damages in the form of unpaid wages, unpaid overtime, statutory
penalties, pre-judgment interest, punitive damages and
attorneys' fees and injunctive relief.  


CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: To Oppose MD Antitrust Suit Reinstatement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cellco Partnership and other defendants filed a writ of
certiorari for the United States Fourth Circuit Court of
Appeals' reversal of the dismissal of the consolidated class
action filed against them concerning wireless phone use, in the
United States District Court for the District of Maryland.

In addition, between April and June 2001, the Company and
various other wireless carriers and various phone manufacturers
became defendants in statewide class actions relating to
wireless phone use, including:

     (1) Farina, et al. v. Nokia Inc., et al., Pennsylvania
         Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, filed April
         19, 2001;

     (2) Gilliam, et al. v. Nokia Inc., et al., New York Supreme
         Court, Bronx County, filed April 23, 2001;

     (3) Pinney, et al. v. Nokia Inc., et al., Maryland Circuit
         Court, Baltimore County, filed April 19, 2001; and

     (4) Gimpelson et al. v. Nokia Inc., et al., Georgia
         Superior Court, Fulton County, filed June 8, 2001

     (5) Naquin v. Nokia, Inc., et al

Plaintiffs in these suits claim that wireless phones are
defective and unreasonably dangerous because the defendants
failed to include a proper warning about alleged adverse health
effects, failed to encourage the use of a headset, and failed to
include a headset with the phone.  

The suits were later consolidated in the United States District
Court for the District of Maryland.  The Court of Appeals held
that there was no federal jurisdiction over the "Pinney, Farina,
Gilliam, and Gimpelson" actions (to which the Partnership is a
party) and directed that the actions be remanded to state court.  
The Fourth Circuit also reversed the District Court holding that
the action (to which the Partnership is not a party) is
preempted by federal law. On April 12, 2005, the Fourth Circuit
denied defendants' petition for rehearing en banc.

Plaintiffs have agreed to stay all state court proceedings in
"Pinney, et al. v. Nokia Inc., et al.;" "Farina, et al. v. Nokia
Inc., et al.;" "Gilliam, et al. v. Nokia Inc., et al.;"
"Gimpelson et al. v. Nokia Inc., et al.;" and "Brower, et al. v.
Motorola, Inc., et al.," pending resolution of defendants'
petition for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court, to
be filed by August 10, 2005.

The suit is styled "In re Wireless Telephone Personal Injury
Litigation, et al, case no. 1:01-md-01421-CCB," filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Maryland under
Judge Catherine C. Blake.  Representing the plaintiffs is Mayer
Morganroth, Morganroth and Morganroth PLLC 3000 Town Cntr Ste
1500 Southfield, MI 48075 Phone: 1-248-355-3084 Fax:
1-248-355-3017, E-mail: jgurfinkel@morganrothlaw.com.  
Representing the Company are:

     (i) Brian Paul Brooks, O Melveny and Myers LLP 1625 I St NW
         Washington, DC 20006, Phone: 1-202-383-5300, Fax: 1-
         202-383-5414, E-mail: bbrooks@omm.com

    (ii) Scott Elder, Laura Owens, Jane Fugate Thorpe, Alston
         and Bird LLP 1201 W Peachtree St One Atlantic Ctr
         Atlanta, GA 30309-3424 Phone: 1-404-881-7000 Fax: 1-
         404-881-7777, E-mail: jthorpe@alston.com

   (iii) M King Hill, III, John Henry Lewin, Jr., Venable LLP
         210 Allegheny Ave PO Box 5517 Towson, MD 21285-5517,
         Phone: 1-410-494-6200, Fax: 1-410-821-0147, E-mail:
         mkhill@venable.com or jhlewin@venable.com  


CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Inks Settlement For CA Consumer Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cellco Partnership (doing business as Verizon Wireless) reached
a settlement for three purported class actions, alleging that
Verizon Wireless did not adequately disclose certain limitations
on the Bluetooth technology that was included in the Motorola
V710 handset that has been available for use on the Verizon
Wireless network since August 2004.

The suits are styled:

     (1) Opperman, et al. v. Cellco Partnership, et al.,
         (Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County);

     (2) Zhao v. Verizon Wireless, Inc., (Ohio Court of Common
         Pleas, Cuyahoga County); and

     (3) Kaner, et al. v. Cellco Partnership, (American
         Arbitration Association)

A preliminary approval hearing will be held in California
Superior Court, Los Angeles County, on August 25, 2005.  The
settlement, if approved by the court, will provide claimants who
submit a claim form under penalty of perjury with the option of
either:
          
     (i) retaining their V710 handset and receiving a $25 bill
         credit;

    (ii) returning their phone and accessories, receiving the
         actual purchase price or $200 if they do not have a
         receipt, and canceling service; or

   (iii) returning their phone and receiving a credit (for $200
         or the actual purchase price) towards a new phone.

The agreement does not address attorneys' fees, which will be
determined by the court.


CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Plaintiffs Oppose Transfer of Lawsuit To NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs moved to vacate the Judicial Panel on Multi-District
Litigation's (JPMDL) order conditionally transferring the class
action filed against Cellco Partnership, styled "McClain v.
Sprint Corporation, et al." to the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York.

The suit was initially filed on February 23, 2005, in Tennessee
Circuit Court.  Plaintiffs allege that the Company and other
defendants engage in the illegal tying of wireless handsets and
wireless service and monopolization in violation of antitrust
law, and seek certification of a nationwide class of wireless
customers from 1998 to the present.  The plaintiffs seek
compensatory and treble damages, fees and injunctive relief. The
suit purports to be brought on behalf of Tennessee residents who
purchased wireless service from the defendants.

On March 25, 2005, defendants removed the suit from Tennessee
state court to federal court. On April 4, 2005, defendants filed
a notice of potential tag-along action with the JPMDL to join
this matter with the pending MDL 1513 - In re Wireless Telephone
Services Antitrust Litigation. On May 16, 2005, plaintiffs filed
a motion to remand the case to state court. On May 24, 2005, the
MDL Panel issued a Conditional Transfer Order, conditionally
transferring the case to the Southern District of New York for
coordinated pretrial proceedings with the JPMDL 1513 litigation.
On June 23, 2005, plaintiffs moved to vacate the Order.


CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: CA Court Approves Employee Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County approved
the settlement of the class action filed against Cellco
Partnership (doing business as Verizon Wireless), styled
"Ramirez v. Verizon Wireless."

The suit, filed on November 20, 2002, alleged the
misclassification of retail managers and assistant managers
under California law and was settled for a non-material amount.
The settlement has been implemented.


CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Plaintiffs Seek Arbitration For CA Wage Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a demand for class action arbitration with the
American Arbitration Association for the lawsuit filed against
Cellco Partnership, styled "Evenson v. Verizon Wireless."

The suit was filed on March 6, 2003 in the Superior Court of
California, Los Angeles County, alleging improper wage deduction
and failure to pay overtime on a timely basis.  The arbitration
demand was filed on behalf of a class of employees who have
signed arbitration agreements.


CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Settles Consumer Lawsuits in OH, NY Courts
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cellco Partnership (doing business as Verizon Wireless) reached
a settlement on July 15,2005 for three purported class actions
alleging that Verizon Wireless did not adequately disclose
certain limitations on the Bluetooth technology that was
included in the Motorola V710 handset that has been available
for use on the Verizon Wireless network since August 2004.  The
suits are styled:

     (1) Opperman, et al. v. Cellco Partnership, et al., filed
         on December 30, 2004 in the Superior Court of
         California, Los Angeles County;

     (2) Zhao v. Verizon Wireless, Inc., filed on January 7,
         2005 in the Ohio Court of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga
         County; and

      (3) Kaner, et al. v. Cellco Partnership, filed on January
          20, 2005 as a purported class action arbitration with
          the American Arbitration Association in New York.

The Opperman action is brought on behalf of a purported class of
California residents who purchased the V710 handset; the Zhao
actions are brought on behalf of a purported nationwide class.  
These actions assert claims for violation of state consumer
fraud statutes and claims of common law fraud and unjust
enrichment; they seek compensatory, consequential and exemplary
damages, recovery of attorney's fees, and injunctive relief.

A preliminary approval hearing was held in California Superior
Court, Los Angeles County, on August 25, 2005.  The settlement,
if approved by the court, will provide claimants who submit a
claim form under penalty of perjury with the option of either:

     (i) retaining their V710 handset and receiving a $25 bill
         credit;

    (ii) returning their phone and accessories, receiving the
         actual purchase price or $200 if they do not have a
         receipt, and canceling service; or

     (3) returning their phone and receiving a credit (for $200
         or the actual purchase price) towards a new phone.

The agreement does not address attorneys' fees, which will be
determined by the court.  


CHUBB CORPORATION: No Appeal Filed, Suit Dismissal Deemed Final
---------------------------------------------------------------
The dismissal of the securities class action against Chubb
Corporation and certain of its current and former officers and
directors is deemed final, after plaintiffs failed to file an
appeal.

The California Public Employees' Retirement System filed a
purported class action complaint in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey on August 31, 2000.  The
complaint alleged that the Company and one current officer,
Henry B. Schram, and two former officers, Dean R. O'Hare and
David B. Kelso, and Executive Risk Inc. and three of its former
officers, Stephen J. Sills, Robert H. Kullas and Robert V.
Deutsch, were liable for certain misrepresentations and
omissions regarding, among other matters, disclosures made
between April 27, 1999 and October 15, 1999 relating to the
improved pricing in the Corporation's standard commercial
insurance business and relating to the offer of the Company's
securities to, and solicitation of votes from, the former
shareholders of Executive Risk Inc. in connection with the
Corporation's acquisition of Executive Risk Inc.  The complaint
sought unspecified damages, a rescission of the sale of
Executive Risk Inc. to the Corporation or a new vote on the
merger, and such other relief as the court may deem proper.

On June 26, 2002, the court entered an order dismissing in its
entirety the previously reported purported class action
complaint originally filed on August 31, 2000, as amended on
September 4, 2001, and granting plaintiffs the right to file a
Second Amended Complaint. On August 9, 2002, plaintiffs filed a
Second Amended Complaint based on substantially the same
allegations as previously reported. On August 11, 2003, the
trial court dismissed the entire action with prejudice. On
September 10, 2003, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to
the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. On
December 30, 2004, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial
court's dismissal in all respects.  On February 1, 2005, the
plaintiffs filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for
rehearing or for rehearing en banc. On February 14, 2005, the
Court of Appeals denied this petition.  The plaintiffs failed to
appeal the decision of the Court of Appeals by petitioning for a
writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court and the
period of time for them to do so lapsed on May 27, 2005.  
Therefore, this matter is concluded and cannot be reinstated by
the plaintiffs or the court.


CHUBB CORPORATION: Policyholders Sue Over Commission Agreements
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Company and several of its subsidiaries face class actions
in various federal and state courts, related to the use of
contingent commission agreements.  The suits also name as
defendants several brokers and insurers.

One suit is pending in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey on behalf of the Company's alleged
policyholders, or persons who purchased insurance through the
broker defendants.  The suit asserts claims under the Sherman
Act and state law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act ("RICO"), arising from the unlawful use of
contingent commission agreements.  The complaint seeks treble
damages, injunctive and declaratory relief, and attorneys' fees.  

The Company also has been named in two purported class actions
in state court relating to allegations of unlawful use of
contingent commission arrangements.  The first was filed in
Seminole County, Florida.  The second, filed on May 17, 2005,
was filed in Essex County, Massachusetts.  In both actions, the
plaintiffs generally allege that the Company and the other non-
affiliated defendants unlawfully used contingent commission
agreements.  The actions seek unspecified damages and attorneys'
fees.  


CONSECO INC.: IN Court Dismisses Consolidated Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Indiana dismissed the consolidated securities class action filed
against Conseco, Inc. and certain of its former officers.

After its Predecessor (Conseco, Inc., incorporated in Indiana)
announced its intention to restructure on August 9, 2002, eight
purported securities fraud class action lawsuits were filed on
behalf of persons or entities who purchased the Predecessor's
common stock on various dates between October 24, 2001 and
August 9, 2002.  The plaintiffs allege claims under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended (the "Exchange Act") and allege material omissions and
dissemination of materially misleading statements regarding,
among other things, the liquidity of Conseco and alleged
problems in Conseco Finance Corporation (CFC's) manufactured
housing division, allegedly resulting in the artificial
inflation of the Company's Predecessor's stock price.

On March 13, 2003, all of these cases were consolidated into one
case in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Indiana, captioned "Franz Schleicher, et al. v.
Conseco, Inc., Gary Wendt, William Shea, Charles Chokel and
James Adams, et al., Case No. 02-CV-1332 DFH-TAB."  The
complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages.   The
plaintiffs have filed a consolidated class action complaint with
respect to the individual defendants.

The Company's liability with respect to this lawsuit was
discharged in its Predecessor's plan of reorganization and its
obligation to indemnify individual defendants who were not
serving as an officer or director on the Effective Date is
limited to $3 million in the aggregate under such plan.  This
limit was reached in May 2005.  Its liability to indemnify
individual defendants who were serving as an officer or director
on the Effective Date, of which there is one such defendant, is
not limited by such plan.  

A motion to dismiss was filed on behalf of defendants Shea,
Wendt and Chokel and on July 14, 2005, this matter was
dismissed.  Plaintiffs were given until August 24, 2005 to amend
their complaint. James S. Adams filed for bankruptcy on July 29,
2005, Case No. 1:02-cv-1332-DFH-TAB (Southern District,
Indiana).


CONSECO INC.: Trial in Consumer Fraud Lawsuit Set May 2006 in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the consolidated life insurance fraud class action
filed against Conseco, Inc. and certain certain subsidiaries,
including principally Conseco Life Insurance Company ("Conseco
Life") is set for May 2006 in the United States District Court
for the Central District of California.

Numerous purported class action and individual lawsuits were
initially filed, alleging, among other things, breach of
contract, fraud and misrepresentation with regard to a change
made in 2003 and 2004 in the way cost of insurance charges are
calculated for life insurance policies sold primarily under the
names "Lifestyle" and "Lifetime."  Approximately 86,500 of these
policies were subject to the change, which resulted in increased
monthly charges to the policyholders' accounts.  Many of the
purported class action lawsuits were filed in Federal courts
across the United States.  On June 23, 2004, the Judicial Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated these lawsuits into the
action now referred to as "In Re Conseco Life Insurance Co. Cost
of Insurance Litigation, Cause No. MDL 1610 (Central District,
California)."

On September 23, 2004, plaintiffs in the multi-district action
filed an amended consolidated complaint and, at that time, added
the Company as a defendant. The amended complaint alleges, among
other things, that the change enabled the Company to add $360
million to its balance sheet. The amended complaint seeks
unspecified compensatory, punitive and exemplary damages as well
as an injunction that would require the Company to reinstate the
prior method of calculating cost of insurance charges and refund
any increased charges that resulted from the change.  On April
26, 2005, the Judge in the multi-district action certified a
nationwide class on the claims for breach of contract and
injunctive relief. On April 27, 2005, the Judge certified a
statewide California class for injunctive and restitutionary
relief pursuant to California Business and Professions Code
Section 17200 and breach of the duty of good faith and fair
dealing, but denied certification on the claims for fraud and
intentional misrepresentation and fraudulent concealment. Trial
is currently set to begin on or about May 9, 2006.

Other cases now pending include purported nationwide class
actions in Indiana and California state courts. Those cases
filed in Indiana state courts have been consolidated into the
case now referred to as "Alene P. Mangelson, et al. v. Conseco
Life Insurance Company, Cause No. 29D01-0403-PL-211 (Superior
Court, Hamilton County, Indiana)."  Four putative nationwide
and/or statewide class-action lawsuits filed in California state
courts have been consolidated and are being coordinated in the
Superior Court of San Francisco County under the new caption
"Cost of Insurance Cases, Judicial Council Coordination
Proceeding No. 4384 (Judicial Council of California)."  On
January 25, 2005 an Amended Complaint making similar allegations
was filed in the case captioned "William Schwartz v. Jeffrey
Landerman, Diann P. Urbanek, Metro Insurance, Inc., Samuels
Jacky Insurance Agency, Conseco Life Insurance Company,
Successor to Philadelphia Life Insurance Company, Case No. GD
00-011432 (Court of Common Pleas, Allegheny County,
Pennsylvania)."  Additionally, Schwartz filed a purported
nationwide class action captioned "William Schwartz and Rebecca
R. Frankel, Trustee of the Robert M. Frankel Irrevocable
Insurance Trust v. Conseco Life Ins. Co. et al., Case No. GD 05-
3742 (Court of Common Pleas, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania)."

On May 16, 2005 an individual lawsuit was filed in Illinois
captioned "Sidney Bark, Shirley Bark, Marla Bark Dembitz, Caryn
Bark and Toni Bark v. Conseco Life Insurance Company,
Massachusetts General Life Insurance Company, Brown, Brown and
Gomberg, LTD; and Gerald R. Gomberg, Case No. 2005L005353
(Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, County Department, Law
Division)," which has been removed to the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

On May 24, 2005 a lawsuit was filed in Illinois on behalf of a
putative statewide class captioned "William J. Harte,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Conseco Life Insurance Company, Case No. 05CH08925 (Circuit
Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division)," which has
been removed to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois. On May 25, 2005 an individual
lawsuit was filed in California captioned "Leslie C. Garland,
M.D., and the Leslie C. Garland Irrevocable Trust v. Conseco
Life Insurance Company, successor to Massachusetts General Life
Insurance Company and DOES 1 through 50 inclusive, Case No.
BC330898 (Superior Court, County of Los Angeles, California),"
which has been removed to the United States District Court for
the Central District of California and consolidated and
coordinated with MDL 1610.

The suit is styled "In re Conseco Life Insurance Company Cost of
Insurance Litigation, case no. 2:04-ml-01610-AHM-Mc," filed in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California, under Judge A. Howard Matz.  Representing the
Company is Kirkland & Ellis, 777 S Figueroa St, Ste 3700, Los
Angeles, CA 90017, Phone: 213-680-8400.  Representing the
plaintiffs are Christopher Casper and John Yanchunis, James
Hoyer Newcomer & Smiljanich, 1 Urban Centre, 4830 W Kennedy
Blvd, Ste 550, Tampa, FL 33609, Phone: 813-286-4100; and Timothy
P. Dillon of Timothy P. Dillon Law Offices, 361 Forest Avenue,
Suite 205, Laguna Beach, CA 92651, Phone: 949-376-2800, E-mail:
timothy@dillonlaw.net.


CONSECO INC.: Reaches Settlement for IN Securities Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Conseco, Inc. reached a settlement for the class action filed
against certain of its current and former officers, its
Predecessor Conseco, Inc., and its subsidiary Conseco Services,
LLC ("Conseco Services").

Roderick Russell filed the suit in October 2002, on behalf of
himself and purportedly on behalf of a class of persons
similarly situated, and on behalf of the ConsecoSave Plan, filed
an action in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Indiana, styled "Roderick Russell, et al. v.
Conseco, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:02-CV-1639 LJM."  The
complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages.

The purported class action consists of all individuals whose
401(k) accounts held common stock of the Company's Predecessor
at any time since April 28, 1999. The complaint alleges, among
other things, breaches of fiduciary duties under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) by continuing to permit
employees to invest in the Company's Predecessor's common stock
without full disclosure of the Company's true financial
condition.

The Company reached a tentative settlement with the Russell
plaintiffs for $10 million in February 2005, subject to the
negotiation of a final settlement agreement.  A final settlement
agreement has been reached. The class action settlement must now
be approved by the district court, after a fairness hearing is
conducted.

The suit is styled "Roderick Russell, et al. v. Conseco, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 1:02-CV-1639 LJM," filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, under Judge
Larry J. McKinney.  Representing the Company are Shannon M.
Barrett, Robert N. Eccles, Garry S. Tell, O'MELVENY & MYERS,
LLP, 1625 Eye Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20006-4001 Phone:
(202) 383-5300 Fax: (202) 383-5414; and Steven Kenneth Huffer,
Scott A. Weathers, HUFFER & WEATHERS, 151 North Delaware Street
Suite 1850 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Phone: (317)822-8010 Fax:
(317)822-8088 E-mail: steve_huffer@hufferandweathers.com, and
scott_weathers@hufferandweathers.com.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) T. David Copley, Garry Gotto, Elizabeth T. Leland, Lynn
         Sarko, KELLER ROHRBACK, L.L.P. 1201 Third Avenue Suite
         3200 Seattle, WA 98101-3052  Phone: (206) 623-1900 Fax:
         (206) 623-3384 E-mail: dcopley@kellerrohrback.com,
         bleland@kellerrohrback.com, lsarko@kellerrohrback.com

     (2) Carol A. Nemeth, Henry J. Price, Ronald J. Waicukauski,
         Audrey M. Bogard, PRICE WAICUKAUSKI RILEY & DEBROTA 301
         Massachusetts Avenue Indianapolis, IN 46204 Phone:
         (317) 633-8787 Fax: (317) 633-8797 E-mail:
         cnemeth@price-law.com, hprice@price-law.com,
         rwaicukauski@price-law.com, abougard@price-law.com



CONSECO LIFE: Trial in FL Nationwide Suit Set September 6,2005
--------------------------------------------------------------
Trial for two claims in the consolidated nationwide class action
filed against Conseco Life Insurance Company is set for
September 6,2005 in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Florida.  

On June 27, 2001, two suits against Conseco Life, both purported
nationwide class actions seeking unspecified compensatory and
punitive damages, were consolidated in the U.S. District Court,
Middle District of Florida, in the suit styled "In Re PLI Sales
Litigation, Cause No. 01-MDL-1404."  The complaint alleges,
among other things, fraudulent sales and a "vanishing premium"
scheme.  

The Company filed a motion for summary judgment against both
named plaintiffs, which motion was granted in June 2002.
Plaintiffs appealed to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.
The 11th Circuit, in July 2003, affirmed in part and reversed in
part, allowing two fraud counts with respect to one plaintiff to
survive. The plaintiffs' request for a rehearing with respect to
this decision has been denied.  The Company filed a summary
judgment motion with respect to the remaining claims. This
summary judgment was denied in February 2004.

On April 23, 2004, a similar case was filed, styled "Harold R.
Arthur, individually and as Trustee of the Harold A. Arthur
Revocable Living Trust, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Conseco Life Insurance Company, Case No.
6:04-CV-587-ORL-31KRS (U.S. District Court, Middle District of
Florida)."  The case was consolidated with the PLI Sales
Practices Litigation in May 2004.  The plaintiff's motion for
class certification was denied.  The Company's motion for
summary judgment on Plaintiff Arthur's claim was denied.  Trial
of Arthur's claim and one claim of co-plaintiff Siegel is
scheduled for the period beginning September 6, 2005.

The suit is styled "In Re: Philadelphia Life Insurance Company
Sales Litigation, case no. 6:01-md-01404-PCF-DAB," filed in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida,
under Judge Patricia C. Fawsett.  Representing the plaintiffs is
Christopher Craig Casper and John Allen Yanchunis, Sr., James,
Hoyer, Newcomer & Smiljanich, P.A., One Urban Centre, Suite 550
4830 W. Kennedy Blvd., Tampa, FL 33609, Phone: 813/286-4100,
Fax: 813/286-4174, E-mail: ccasper@jameshoyer.com or
jyanchunis@jameshoyer.com.  Representing the Company are:

     (1) William James Albright, Scott, Douglass & McConnico,
         LLP, One American Center, 600 Congress Ave., Suite
         1500, Austin, TX 78701-2589, Phone: 512/495-6300, Fax:
         512/474-0731, E-mail: balbright@scottdoug.com;

     (2) Christian Watson Hancock, Gary L. Howard, Jamie L.
         Moore, Burr & Forman LLP, 420 North Twentieth Street,
         Suite 3100, Birmingham, AL 35203, Phone: 205-458-5120,
         Fax: 205-458-5100, E-mail: chancock@burr.com,
         ghoward@burr.com, jmoore@burr.com;  

     (3) Paul L. Nettleton, Carlton Fields, P.A., 4000 Bank of
         America Tower, 100 S.E. 2nd St. #4000, P.O. Box 019101,
         Miami, FL 33131-9101, Phone: 305/530-0050, Fax:
         305/530-0055, E-mail: pnettleton@carltonfields.com


CONSECO INC.: CO Court Hears Appeal of Suit Certification Denial
----------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court of Adams County, Colorado heard plaintiffs'
appeal of its ruling denying class certification for the
nationwide class action filed against four of Conseco, Inc.'s
subsidiaries, but has yet to issue a ruling.

The suit, styled "Jose Medina and others similarly situated v.
Conseco Annuity Assurance Company, Conseco Life Insurance
Company, Bankers National Life Insurance Company and Bankers
Life and Casualty Company, Cause No. 01-CV-2465," alleges among
other things breach of contract regarding alleged non-disclosure
of additional charges for those policyholders paying via premium
modes other than annual.

On November 10, 2003, the court denied the plaintiff's motion
for class certification.  On January 26, 2004, the plaintiff
appealed the trial court's ruling denying class certification.  
Oral argument was heard on July 26, 2005, and the Company is
waiting for the appellate court's decision.  All further
proceedings have been stayed pending the outcome of the appeal.  


FLORIDA: Banana Price Fixing Lawsuits Pile up in District Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Suspicions of price fixing in Europe triggered a series of U.S.
class action suits against the biggest names in bananas
including Chiquita, Dole and Del Monte, all alleging conspiracy
to hike or maintain banana prices, The Billings Gazette reports.

Court documents revealed that at least eight complaints were
initiated in U.S. District Court in Miami against Chiquita
Brands International and Dole Food Co., both U.S. companies;
Fresh Del Monte Produce, which is registered in the Cayman
Islands, with management offices in Coral Gables; and Grupo
Noboa, the largest banana producer in Ecuador, is run by the
Noboa family out of Guayaquil. The suits are alleging that these
four companies along with their associates exchanged information
that helped fix the price of the most popular fruit in the
world. The suits have been filed since late July as law firms
pile on, filing similar complaints asking for class action
status.
  
The lawsuits, which were filed by different law firms that
include: Hanzman & Criden of Coral Gables, and Shepherd,
Finkelman, Miller & Shah of Fort Lauderdale, allege that the
companies formed a cartel, exchanged information about prices
and sales volumes, arranged to sell bananas at agreed-upon
prices and agreed to reduce production capacity. The suits noted
that the price of bananas ranged from $5.40 a box to more than
$10 a box from May of 2003 to September 2004.

The banana companies reject the allegations. According to Mike
Mitchell, spokesman for Chiquita, which is headquartered in
Cincinnati, "We do believe that these lawsuits are without
merit. We are contesting them vigorously."

Among the produce companies and buyers that have brought the
suits so far are: Harvin Foods of Pennsylvania; RBest Produce of
the Bronx, NY; Susan Jockers, a Florida resident; Joelle
Prochera, an Arizona resident; Tim McGraw, a Kansas resident;
the Syracuse Banana Co., of Syracuse, NY; Brookshire Ltd. of
Lufkin, Texas; Brigiotta's Farmland Produce and Garden Center,
Jamestown, NY; VIP Sales, Tulsa, OK; and Christopher Farms, of
Wimauma, FL.  The lawsuits cite an ongoing probe in the European
Union into the activities of the large banana firms that began
in June.

Though some of the companies declined to comment pending
litigation, Dole vice president and general counsel Michael
Carter did say that the lawsuits are the actions of "the usual
suspects of opportunistic lawyers" and suggested they were
"triggered . by the disclosures relating to the European
Commission investigation into alleged competition law violations
in the European Union."


GENESIS MICROCHIP: CA Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California dismissed the securities class action filed against
Genesis Microchip, Inc., styled "Kuehbeck v. Genesis Microchip
et al., Civil Action No. 02-CV-05344."  The suit also names as
defendants former Chief Executive Officer Amnon Fisher, and
former Interim Chief Executive Officer Eric Erdman.  The suit
was later amended in July 2003 to include as defendant Executive
Vice President Anders Frisk.

The complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder against the Company and the Individual Defendants,
and violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the
Individual Defendants. The complaint seeks unspecified damages
on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of Company common
stock between April 29, 2002 and June 14, 2002.

In July 2005, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss
the case, with prejudice, but plaintiffs may appeal this
decision.

The suit is styled "Kuehbeck v. Genesis Microchip Inc et al,
case no. 3:02-cv-05344," filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, under Judge
Jeffrey S. White.  Defendants are represented by Nina F. Locker,
Ignacio E. Salceda and Bahram Seyedin-Noor, Wilson Sonsini
Goodrich & Rosati, 650 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050,
Phone: 650-493-9300, Fax: 650-565-5100, E-mail:
nlocker@wsgr.com, isalceda@wsgr.com, bnoor@wsgr.com.  
Representing the plaintiffs are William M. Audet and Ryan M.
Hagan, Alexander Hawes & Audet, LLP, 152 North Third Street,
Suite 600 San Jose, CA 95112, Phone: 408-289-1776, Fax:
408-287-1776, E-mail: waudet@alexanderlaw.com or
rhagan@alexanderlaw.com; and Patricia I. Avery, Kent A. Bronson,
Robert C. Finkel, and Marian P. Rosner, Wolf Popper LLP, 845
Third Avenue, New York, NY 10022, Phone: 212-759-4600, Fax: 212-
486-2093, E-mail: pavery@wolfpopper.com.


HOUSE OF FLAVORS: Recalls Ice Cream For Undeclared Peanut Butter
----------------------------------------------------------------
House of Flavors, Inc. of Ludington, Michigan is recalling Lot
CB L1 H26-426 05215 of Shurfine brand Butterscotch Twirl 1/2
Gallon Ice Cream, because it contains undeclared peanut butter.
People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to peanuts run
the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if
they consume this product.

The product label states "Distributed by Western Family Foods,
Inc., P.O. Box 4057, Portland, OR 97208" This lot of ice cream
was distributed by Associated Wholesalers, Inc., Robesonia, PA
and was delivered by them to retail stores in Delaware,
Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. The ice cream is
packaged in l/2 gallon rectangular paperboard containers and
only lot CB L1 H26-426 05215 of Shurfine brand Butterscotch
Twirl is affected.

To date no illnesses have been reported.

The recall was initiated after a consumer reported that the
product contained peanut butter and that the packaging did not
reveal the presence of peanut butter. Subsequent investigation
indicates a packaging mix-up. The U.S. Food and Drug
Administration is aware of this recall.

Consumers who have purchased the ice cream are urged to return
it to the place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers with
questions may contact the company at 1-800-930-7740 x 229.


LANDSTAR SYSTEM: FL Court Grants Certification To Drivers' Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court in Jacksonville, Florida granted class
action status to a suit filed against trucking company Landstar
System Inc. by a truck drivers' association, thus creating a
plaintiff group of about 7,000 people, according to a court
filing, The Associated Press reports.

The Company told The Associated Press that it plans to appeal
the class certification.  In a prepared statement, Michael
Kneller, Company vice president, general counsel and secretary
even said, "This class action ruling is based on perceived
efficiencies in resolving liability on a class wide basis,
rather than through a series of separate trials. Landstar
continues to believe, however, that individual contractor-
specific issues predominate over common issues, and will
therefore ask the U.S. Court of Appeals in Atlanta to overturn
this ruling."

The group which launched the suit, The Owner-Operator
Independent Drivers Association Inc. is charging Landstar, which
contracts out its shipping business to a host of independent
owner-operators, with failing to meet federal disclosure
requirements about its leasing practices, particularly regarding
charges for fuel, base plates and permits.  

Court documents revealed that the judge agreed to include in the
plaintiff class all truck owner-operators who had federally
regulated leases with Landstar or certain affiliates after Nov.
1, 1998. Originally, only the group and seven of its owner-
operator members filed the suit back in November 2002.  In
addition to expanding the class, documents revealed that the
case is set to go to trial in April 2006.

The suit is styled, Owner-Operator Independent Drivers
Association Inc. et al. v. Landstar System Inc., et al., Case
No. 3:02-cv-01005-HLA-MCR, which was filed in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Florida, The Honorable
Henry Lee Adams Jr., presiding. The following represented the
Plaintiff/s: Daniel E. Cohen, Daniel R. Unumb, Paul D. Cullen,
Mary Craine Lombardo, Joseph A. Black and Susan Van Bell of The
Cullen Law Firm, PLLC, 1101 30th St., N.W., Suite 300,
Washington, DC 20007-3770, Phone: 202/944-8600 or 202/965-6100;
and Michael R. Freed of Brennan, Manna & Diamond, PL,  Humana
Centre Building, 76 S. Laura Street, Ste. 2110, Jacksonville, FL
32202, Phone: 904/366-1500, Fax: 904/366-1501, E-mail:
mrfreed@bmdpl.com. The following are representing the
Defendant/s:

     (1) Daniel R. Barney of Scopelitis, Garvin, Light & Hanson,
         P.C., 1850 M St., NW, Suite 280, Washington, DC 20036-
         5804, Phone: 202/783-5485, E-mail:
         dbarney@scopelitis.com;  

     (2) Timothy W. Wiseman, Robert L. Browning and Gregory M.
         Feary of Scopelitis, Garven, Light & Hanson, P.C., 10
         W. Market St., Suite 1500, Indianapolis, IN 46204-2968,
         Phone: 317/637-1777, Fax: 317/687-2414;

     (3) Andrew Tysen Duva and Lawrence Joseph Hamilton, II of
         Holland & Knight, 50 North Laura St., Suite 3900,
         Jacksonville, FL 32202, Phone: 904/353-2000 or 904/353-
         2000 Ext. 25454, Fax: 904/358-1872, E-mail:
         lhamilton@hklaw.com.


LEE MEMORIAL: FL Judge Dismisses Suit Over Collection Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court in Fort Myers recently dismissed a
potential class action lawsuit filed against Lee Memorial Health
System, The Naples Daily News reports.

In his decision, Judge John Steele said that only one of nine
counts in the suit had merit, but dismissed that count was
itself since the court had no jurisdiction to hear the claim.  
At issue in the lawsuit, was Lee Memorial's practice of placing
a lien on potential settlements awarded to people with injuries
who seek treatment at one of its three acute care hospitals.

Filed by Fort Myers resident Scott Whitaker, the suit, which is
seeking class action status against Lee Memorial, claims that
his right to equal protection and due process were violated when
the system refused to bill his health insurance company after a
serious auto crash in 2003 and instead is going after his
settlement money. Mr. Whitaker, 29, was hospitalized for three
days after the September 14, 2003 crash and racked up close to
$50,000 in medical bills. He has health insurance under Blue
Cross Blue Shield of Florida, an earlier Class Action Reporter
story (March 2, 2005) reports.

The insurer, which is under contract with Lee Memorial, would
pay less perhaps less than half than the system's full price.
The suit states that Lee Memorial, which already collected
$12,000 under Mr. Whitaker's personal injury protection auto
benefits, placed a lien for an additional $37,328 against Mr.
Whitaker's $25,000 and $600,000 uninsured motorist policies, an
earlier Class Action Reporter story (March 2, 2005) reports.

According to Neal Sword, system director of business operations,
even as administrators are rethinking the collection method in
light of the negative publicity it generates and the increasing
legal costs that tend to cancel out gains, health system
officials still defend the practice. In theory, however, Mr.
Sword said it is absolutely fair that the hospital tries to
collect as much of its expenses as possible, especially when the
money is legally available, because most of the time the
hospital barely breaks even on these cases, an earlier Class
Action Reporter story (March 2, 2005) reports.

However, Mr. Whitaker's though still maintains that the practice
is discriminatory. Lee Memorial by law might be allowed to place
liens on settlements to pay for medical care, but according to
Mr. Whitaker's lawyers, the law was designed to protect
hospitals when patients are insolvent or indigent so providers
would not be reluctant to treat them. They also argue in their
suit, "There is no public or legislative purpose, or any
reasonable or rational basis for (Lee Memorial) to discriminate
against (Mr. Whitaker) or other similarly situated, insured,
non- indigent patients, by charging higher amounts of health
care services only because such patients have insurance claims
for injuries caused by third parties," an earlier Class Action
Reporter story (March 2, 2005) reports.

The suit is styled, Whitaker v. Lee Memorial Health System, Case
No. 2:05-cv-00072-JES-DNF, which was filed in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Florida, The Honorable
John E. Steele, presiding. The following represented the
Plaintiff/s:

     (1) Jay Cohen of Grossman & Roth P.A., 350 E. lasolas Blvd.
         #1120, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301, Phone: 954-767-8200,
         Fax: 954-764-1866, E-mail: jyc@grossmanandroth.com;

     (2) Joseph Cardwell Fuller, Jr. of Joseph C. Fuller, P.A.,
         1500 Colonial Blvd., Suite 105, P.O. Box 61407, Ft.
         Myers, FL 33907-1407, Phone: 239/939-2789, Fax:
         239/277-9021, E-mail: JCFullerLaw@aol.com;

     (3) Joel S. Perwin of Joel S. Perwin, P.A., 169 E. Flagler
         St., Suite 1422, Miami, FL 33131, Phone: 305/779-6090,
         Fax: 305/779-6095, E-mail: jperwin@perwinlaw.com;

     (4) Neal A. Roth of Grossman and Roth, P.A., Grand Bay
         Plaza, Penthouse One, 2665 South Bayshore Dr., Miami,
         FL 33133, Phone: 305/442-8666, Fax: 305/285-1668; and

     (5) Scott Wm. Weinstein of Weinstein, Bavly & Moon, 2400
         First St., Suite 303, Fort Myers, FL 33901-2620, Phone:
         239/334-8844, Fax: 239-334-1289, E-mail:
         scott@weinsteinlawfirm.com.

The Defendant is represented by H. Jack Klingensmith of Walters
Levine Brown Klingensmith & Thomison, PA, 1800 Second St., Suite
808, Sarasota, FL 34236-5986, Phone: 941/364-8787, Fax: 941/361-
3023, E-mail: sbrouhard@walterslevine.com.


MANHATTAN NATIONAL: Continues To Face NM Policyholder Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Conseco, Inc.'s former subsidiary, Manhattan National Life
Insurance Company, continues to face a purported nationwide
class action seeking unspecified damages in the First Judicial
District Court of Santa Fe, New Mexico, styled "Robert Atencio
and Theresa Atencio, for themselves and all other similarly
situated v. Manhattan National Life Insurance Company, an Ohio
corporation, Cause No. D-0101-CV-2000-2817."

The suit alleges among other things fraud by non-disclosure of
additional charges for those policyholders paying via premium
modes other than annual.  Conseco, Inc. retained liability for
this litigation in connection with the sale of Manhattan
National Life in June 2002.


MANNTECH INC.: Shares Nose-Dive Due to Securities Suit in NM
------------------------------------------------------------
Shares of network-marketing company Mannatech Inc. plummeted
after Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP hit the
company with a class action lawsuit, The Associated Press
reports.

Mannatech shares plunged $2.33, or 16 percent, to $12.26 in
afternoon trading on Nasdaq, putting it among Nasdaq's top price
losers. The company's shares are off 53 percent from their 52-
week high of $26.10, set back in March, and are hovering 8
percent above a low of $11.48.

Lerach Coughlin initiated the class action suit in the United
States District Court for the District of New Mexico on behalf
of purchasers of the Company's common stock during the period
between August 10, 2004 and May 9, 2005 (Class Period). It
charges Mannatech, which develops nutritional supplements,
topical products, and weight-management products, along with
certain of its officers and directors of violating provisions of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, an earlier Class Action
Story (September 1, 2005) reports.


NEW YORK: Suit Accuses Firms of Colluding to Promote Arbitration
----------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit filed in New York federal court alleges eight leading
credit card companies, violated U.S. antitrust laws by colluding
to promote arbitration of customer disputes, The Wall Street
Journal.

The complaint alleges Bank of America Corporation, Capital One
Financial Corporation, J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., Morgan Stanley's
Discover unit, Citigroup Inc., MBNA Corporation, Providian
Financial Corporation and Britain's HSBC Holdings, plc,
"combined, conspired and agreed to implement and/or maintain
mandatory arbitration."  

The suit, which was filed on behalf of seven plaintiffs who live
in California, Pennsylvania, New York, Illinois and New Jersey,
is challenging the practice of many of the largest U.S. credit-
card companies in which they require customers to sign away
their ability to take disputes to court and instead settle
disagreements in arbitration.  According to the complaint, some
of the banks named allegedly convened a group in 1999 called the
"Arbitration Coalition" or "Arbitration Group."

Filed last month, the suit is seeking class action status,
claiming that bank representatives spoke or met at least 20
times from 1999 to 2003 to share experiences from arbitration as
well as advise on how to set up arbitration agreements with
consumers that would withstand challenges in court.

A spokeswoman for Capital One said in a statement to the Wall
Street Journal that the company does not comment on pending
litigation. But she added that its "arbitration clause allows
either party involved in a dispute to have the case considered
by an impartial arbitrator to determine a final and binding
resolution to the problem."

There was no immediate comment from any of the other banks named
in the suit. The firms named in the case have yet to respond to
the substance of the allegations in court as well, the Wall
Street Journal reports.


TARGET: Recalls 494,000 Bicycle Helmets Due to Injury Hazard
------------------------------------------------------------
In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC), Target, of Minneapolis, Minnesota; UNA International
Limited, of China; and Dynacraft BSC Inc., of San Rafael,
California is voluntarily recalling about 494,000 units of Back
Trails Jr. Toddler, Youth and Child Bicycle Helmets.

According to the recall, some of these helmets do not meet CPSC
safety standards for bicycle helmets, which poses a risk of
riders suffering head injuries.

The recall includes Target's "Back Trails Jr." brand toddler,
youth and child bicycle helmets sold in various colors. They
were manufactured after January 1, 2004. Helmet model numbers:
89888 or 88003 (toddler), 89951 or 88001 (girl's 8-vent youth),
89952 or 88002 (boy's 8-vent youth), or 89917 (14-vent child's)
appear on a white label inside the helmets, along with date of
manufacture (YYYY/MM/DD) and the words "Made in China." Target
product identification numbers: 082-01-0520 (toddler), 082-01-
0149 (girl's 8-vent youth), 082-01-0189 (boy's 8-vent youth),
and 082-01-0334 (14-vent child's) and the brand name "back
trails jr.," appear on the product packaging.

Manufactured in China, the suit helmets were sold at all Target
stores nationwide from April 2004 through July 2005 for about
$13.

Consumers should take the helmets away from children and return
them to the nearest Target Store for a gift card in the amount
of a full refund.  For more information, consumers can contact
Target at (800) 440-0680 between 8 a.m. and 7 p.m. ET Monday
through Friday, or log on to the firm's Web site at
http://www.target.com.


TILE PERFECT: Recalls 300T Grout Sealers Due to Respiratory Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC), Tile Perfect, a division of Roanoke Companies Group
Inc., of Aurora, Illinois is voluntarily recalling about 300,000
cans of Stand'n Seal "Spray-On" Grout Sealer sold in 2005

According to the recall, the product's odor is not chemically
pungent enough to force consumers to minimize their exposure to
the fumes. Consumers overexposed to these fumes can experience
respiratory-related illness. There have been 88 reports from
consumers who have had adverse reactions after using the aerosol
product, including 28 confirmed reports of overexposure
resulting in respiratory symptoms for which medical attention
was sought for coughing, irritation, difficulty breathing,
dizziness and disorientation. Thirteen individuals required
medical treatment including overnight hospitalization.

The product is marketed under the brand name of Tile PerfectT
Stand'n Seal "Spray-On" Grout Sealer. The date/lot codes are
printed on the bottom of the can. All cans with date/lot codes
starting with the following six digits are included in the
recall: A20985; A30985; A10995; A20995; A30995; A11015; A21015;
A31015; A11025; A21445; A31445; A11455; A21455; A31455; A11465;
A21465. Units with other date/lot codes have been reformulated
and are not subject to this recall.  Manufactured in the United
States, the grout sealers were sold exclusively at Home Depot
Stores from April 2005 through June 2005 for about $10.

Consumers should not use the aerosol product and return it to
the Home Depot for a full refund.  For more information,
consumers can contact Tile Perfect Division at (800) 552-6225
Ext. 2572 between 8:30 am and 4:30 pm ET Monday through Friday
or visit their Web site at http://www.standandseal.com.  

The Rocky Mountain Poison and Drug Center, in Denver, Colorado,
informed Roanoke Companies Group that two people had been
hospitalized after using Stand'n Seal Grout Sealer, which led to
this recall.


VERIZON WIRELESS: Arbitration Sought For FL Consumer Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a demand for arbitration with the American
Arbitration Association in the litigation filed against Verizon
Wireless Services, LLC, styled "Brown v. Verizon Wireless
Services, LLC," filed in the Florida Circuit Court.

The suit was initially filed in Florida Circuit Court,
purportedly on behalf of a nationwide class of Verizon Wireless
subscribers (except for California subscribers).  The
arbitration demand generally alleges consumer fraud act
violations relating to early termination fees and handset
locking claims.  The suit also adds a claim for violation of
section 201 of the Communications Act.


WILLIS GROUP: CA Suit Reactivation Hinges on High Court Decision
----------------------------------------------------------------
The reactivation of a proceeding filed against Willis Group
Holdings, Inc. hinges on a California Supreme Court decision as
to whether newly passed legislation on compensation arrangements
between insurance companies and its carriers should have
retroactive application.

In August 2004, United Policyholders, an organization purporting
to act in a representative capacity on behalf of the California
general public, filed a proceeding in the Superior Court of the
State of California.  The suit alleged that the compensation
arrangements between the Company and insurance carriers
constitute deceptive trade practices, and it sought both
injunctive and equitable relief, including restitution.

That action was dismissed in December 2004. The dismissal of the
complaint was based on the retroactive application of newly
passed legislation. The Supreme Court of California is presently
considering whether this newly passed legislation should have
retroactive application.  The court's decision will determine
whether this case will be reactivated.


WILLIS GROUP: Faces 9 Fraud Lawsuits V. Compensation Agreements
---------------------------------------------------------------
Willis Group Holdings, Inc. and various insurance carriers and
insurance brokerage firms face nine purported class actions
filed in various courts, seeking monetary damages and equitable
relief.  The suits allege that practices and conduct, the
subject of investigation by state attorneys general and
insurance commissioners, include that the brokers are breaching
their duties to their clients by entering into contingent
compensation agreements with either no disclosure or limited
disclosure to clients. They also allege bid rigging, tying, and
of the improper use of affiliated wholesalers.  

One suit is filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, four in the Northern District of
Illinois, one in the Northern District of California, one in New
Jersey District court, one in the Superior Court in Essex
County, Massachusetts, and one in the Circuit Court for the
Eighteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Seminole County, Florida
Civil Division, and it is expected that further suits may be
filed.  In May 2005, one of the lawsuits in Illinois was
dismissed without prejudice.

The complaints also allege the existence of a conspiracy among
the insurance carriers and brokers and the federal court
complaints allege violations of the federal Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) statute. The actions filed in
federal court have been transferred to the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey for coordinated
pre-trial proceedings.  


WISCONSIN: Federal Judge Dismisses Suit Over MLS-Realtors Tie-In
----------------------------------------------------------------
They may be an exclusive club, but Realtors, the nation's most
powerful trade groups, are not illegally restricting trade by
closing their coveted Multiple Listing Service data bank of "for
sale" properties to outsiders, according a ruling by a federal
judge in Wisconsin, The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports.

In his ruling, U.S. District Judge John C. Shabaz concluded that
plaintiff Jay Reifert, a Madison Realtor who sued his own trade
group on the issue, failed to show the existence of any
competitor who lost sales because of the MLS-Realtors tie. While
other realty-related groups, such as appraisers, exclusive buyer
agents and ethnic alliances, exist, the judge found they have
only "superficial overlap" with the National Association of
Realtors network and do not constitute competitors.

Michael C. Theo, vice president of legal and public affairs for
Wisconsin Realtors Association, hailed the August 25 ruling as
proof that "there's no business collusion at all" in restricting
MLS access to members only.

However, Mr. Reifert, broker-owner of Excel-Exclusive Buyer
Agency and represented by San Francisco antitrust attorney David
Barry in the case, told The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that he
would take what he called "my pro-consumer and pro-free trade
fight" to the U.S. Court of Appeals. "I am already preparing the
appeal," he added.

The suit, which was filed in Madison's U.S. District Court,
challenges a longtime Realtor tradition: Buy trade group
membership and get permission to tap into the Multiple Listing
Service's detailed data on homes sold and listed for sale. The
suit seeks class action status on behalf of the estimated 3,000
Realtor members in that trade group chapter and up to $15
million in damages, an earlier Class Action Reporter story
(December 27, 2004) reports.

Through the suit, Mr. Reifert sought to unhook the MLS access he
wanted from the local, state and national Realtor membership
that he didn't want. Thus, he provided the court with survey
evidence indicating that 20% of Realtors would drop trade group
membership, for which Reifert pays $441 annually, if they could
obtain MLS information some other way.

However, Judge Shabaz rejected Mr. Reifert's request for class
action status and, ultimately, his claims that the tie-in was an
illegal restriction of trade. The judge threw out the case "with
prejudice" on summary judgment, which prevents Mr. Reifert from
re-filing his lawsuit.

After the decision was handed down, Mr. Theo told The Milwaukee
Journal Sentinel, "We are very pleased with the decision, which
supports our notion that claims made by Mr. Reifert were
baseless. One of the strengths of an organization like ours is
that it integrates information and facilitates transactions,
especially across-state transfers."

Mr. Barry though told The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that he
believes Judge Shabaz misinterpreted the evidence on
competitors, pointing out that Judge Shabaz conflicts with an
11th Circuit Appellate Court decision that found the Realtor-MLS
tie-in illegal. He thus said, "We will file our appeal later
this week in the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago," which
serves the upper Midwest.

He added that his research into non-Realtors' success in markets
where MLS must be open to all "proved they're being held back"
in states such as Wisconsin.

The suit is styled, Jay Reifert v. South Central Wisconsin MLS
Corporation, Case No. 04-C-0969-S, which was filed in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin,
Judge John C. Shabaz, presiding.


WYETH: AR Judge Denies Class Certification For Prempro Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Bill Wilson, Jr. denied class certification
for a lawsuit filed by former users of Prempro against Wyeth
(NYSE: WYE), the drug's manufacturer, The Arkansas Democrat-
Gazette reports.

If the suit, which follows a Women's Health Initiative study of
hormone-replacement drugs including Prempro that was stopped in
2002, had succeeded, it would have included millions of women
across the country that took Prempro from 1994 to 2002.

Judge Wilson's order though does not prevent the more than 2,000
personal-injury suits filed against the manufacturers of
Prempro, a menopause medication, and other hormone-replacement
drugs from going forward, of which some could include as many as
50 women.

The class certification hearing, which is one of several
pretrial motions he is handling for hormone-replacement drug
cases nationwide, began in Judge Wilson's courtroom in Little
Rock on June 1 and concluded on June 24.

In the suit denied class status, women who have used Prempro
claims that the Madison, New Jersey-based manufacturer falsely
advertised the benefits and failed to acknowledge the risks of
the drug, which is usually prescribed to treat menopause
symptoms, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (June 6, 2005)
reports.

The critical Women's Health Initiative study concluded that
Prempro raised the risk of heart attack, stroke, breast cancer,
cardiovascular disease and embolisms. Medical researchers also
concluded the following year that hormone replacement pills
should not be taken for any reason other than as brief treatment
to help women through the worst symptoms of menopause. These
findings triggered some of the first suits brought against
Wyeth, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (March 10, 2005)
reports.

However, during the recent hearing, Wyeth's attorneys called on
two medical experts who testified that the Women's Health
Initiative study's findings were more limited than at first
reported in 2002 and that they would still prescribe the drug.

The hearing did not intend to determine the merits of the study
or the claims of women who've used Prempro. Instead, at issue
was whether the case met the federal criteria of class action
status.

In his 40-page order, Judge Wilson disappointed the plaintiffs
by ruling that the suit did not meet the requirement for class
certification. "No matter how you cut it, cube it, or slice it,"
Judge Wilson wrote, the women's attorneys "cannot overcome the
problems with individual issues of law and fact, which eclipse
any possible questions or cohesion among their claims."

Thus, in his ruling, Judge Wilson sided with Wyeth's attorneys,
who argued throughout the hearing that consumer-protection laws
differ so much from state to state and Prempro users themselves
differ so much that no single trial could resolve their issues.

Judge Wilson cited in his ruling that one of the main problems
is that the women's attorneys failed to develop adequate jury
instructions that took these differences into account. He wrote,
"Apparently the only way to encompass the various state common
law in one instruction - or a tight package of instructions - is
with the creation of an Esperanto instruction - a `solution'
that has been expressly rejected."

In a footnote, Judge Wilson defined "Esperanto" as an artificial
language created in 1887 that combines the roots of words common
in many European languages.

Additionally, Judge Wilson cited in his ruling that the remedy
the lawsuit sought was problematic. The women involved in the
suit, according to court documents, wanted Wyeth to return the
money they spent on the drug and to fund a medical-monitoring
program that would screen former Prempro users for breast cancer
and dementia. He specifically cited that the women's attorneys
did not establish that a monitoring procedure exists, which
differs from what the women would receive during their routine
medical checkups.

At the conclusion of his ruling, Judge Wilson noted that the
women's attorneys were fighting against legal precedent,
pointing out that no federal district court has certified a
multi-state class action suit against a pharmaceutical drug. He
also pointed out that most states allow medical monitoring only
of people exposed to a "hazardous substance," which would be
hard to prove since Prempro remains on the market with the Food
and Drug Administration's approval.

Though denying class action status, Judge Wilson noted in his
ruling that while these factors don't give enough to defeat
class certification efforts, "I believe they are weighty
concerns."

While attorneys for Wyeth, John Vardaman Jr. and F. Lane Heard
III as well as Lyn Pruitt, either declined to comment or were
unavailable, Russell Marlin, an attorney for the women in Little
Rock, told The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette that the judge's ruling
didn't surprise him.

In early July, Wilson had sent a fax to attorneys on both sides
of the case that he likely wouldn't grant certification. In that
letter he stated, "I am notifying you of this virtual certainty
in the hope that you can put things in a holding pattern so that
no one will expend more time, money or effort while the order is
being prepared," an earlier Class Action Reporter story (July
14, 2005) reports.

In addition, Mr. Marlin also told The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette
that the judge's decision does not prevent the class
representatives from bringing individual claims against Wyeth
and that it doesn't stop class action suits from being brought
in individual states.

In fact, Michel Mills, the women's lead attorney, stated in a
July status hearing that his team was considering seeking the
certification of a California class. "Our laws out there are
uniquely designed for class certification," he had said.

Though Mr. Mills could not be reached for comment Mr. Marlin did
tell The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette that the attorneys were
considering mounting a California case. According to him,
"What's next for us is analysis. We really have to analyze the
legal details between what Wilson said and what California law
says." He also explains that if they file another motion for
class certification, Judge Wilson as the judge handling pretrial
motions would likely hear the case.

In concluding his ruling, Judge Wilson indicated that unlike
some judges, he does not oppose class actions on principle. He
wrote, "They can be the Colt pistol of the little folks, i. e.,
in appropriate cases, they provide the key to the Temple of
Justice for those who could not possibly afford an individual
action against an economically advantaged defendant."


                       Asbestos Alert


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PX Asbestos Extent Not Known, MO Official
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sam Simon, St. Louis, MO Public Safety Director states he does
not know the extent of the asbestos contamination caused by the
Praxair plant explosion last June 23 and he is also unsure if
the contamination came from the factory, ksdk.com reports.

Praxair officials said that "chunks" of asbestos mixed with
other debris were left on the ground in and around the facility
after gas containers, which used asbestos as filler, exploded,
as previously reported in the July 1, 2005 edition of the Class
Action Reporter.

However, the Company is paying for the cleanup, and has put a
US$8 million dollar charge in the Company's 2nd quarter earnings
report to cover the cost.

The Danbury, CT-based Company says it has paid for cleanup at
the Carr Lane School, at the A.G. Edwards campus, and at other
places up to 1.5 miles from the explosions.

Health officials say that air monitoring showed no elevated
asbestos levels in the air.

Praxair Inc. (NYSE: PX) produces and sells atmospheric gases as
well as processes specialty gases for the chemical, food and
beverage, semiconductor, and health care industries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Used in 3,700 Stations, JPN Report
----------------------------------------------------------------
An Asahi Shimbun survey disclosed that at least 3,700 subway and
train stations used asbestos for construction purposes,
including 31 stations that left sprayed asbestos-containing
materials uncovered, the Asahi Shimbun reports.

The survey, conducted on 160 transportation operators, revealed
about 60% of the surveyed railway operators used asbestos-
containing construction materials at their stations and related
facilities.

Japan's Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, since
July, has instructed train and subway operators to report on
asbestos usage at station houses and train carriages, as well as
information on any health hazards caused by the toxic substance.

East Japan Railway Co., West Japan Railway Co., Nankai Electric
Railway Co., and Keihan Electric Railway Co. confirmed to have
left asbestos-related materials exposed at stations.

Officials of Nagoya Railroad Co. said they are planning
countermeasures for asbestos left bare at station sections, such
as the ceiling near a ticket gate at Jingumae Station.

According to the Asahi Shimbun survey, the Tokyo metropolitan
government's Bureau of Transportation, operator of the Toei
subway network, said finishing materials that could have
contained asbestos were used on the ceilings above the tracks at
34 stations.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CA Law Firms Attack US$140Bil Asbestos Bill
----------------------------------------------------------------
Political finance reports show that four San Francisco law firms
have helped create, and funded with at least US$435,000, the
Senate Accountability Project, a political advocacy group that
attacks a federal bill requiring insurers and businesses that
exposed workers to asbestos to pay into a US$140 billion trust
fund over 30 years to end all asbestos-related lawsuits, The
Oakland Tribune reports.

The firms of Kazan, McClain, Abrams, Fernandez, Lyons & Farrise
of Oakland and Paul, Hanley & Harley of Berkeley have each
contributed US$150,000 to the Group. San Francisco's Levin Simes
& Kaiser and Harowitz & Tigerman gave US$110,000 and US$25,000,
respectively.

Among the Group's nine directors are attorneys Steve Kazan of
Oakland, Dean Hanley of Berkeley, and Laurel Simes, Jeffrey
Kaiser and Steve Tigerman, all of San Francisco with Dallas
attorney Mark Iola as president and treasurer.

Mr. Kazan is nationally renowned as an asbestos litigation
pioneer who has represented thousands of clients in such cases
over the past 31 years, and who has testified twice before the
Senate Judiciary Committee on other asbestos-related bills.

The US$140 billion asbestos bill's author is Judiciary chairman
Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, and its 17 co-sponsors
include committee ranking Democrat Patrick Leahy, a Vermont
Democrat, and committee member Dianne Feinstein, a California
Democrat.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Contaminated Soil Found in JPN Plant Sites
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Yomiuri Shimbun reports the discovery of about 150 tons of
asbestos-contaminated soil at the former Kirin Brewery Co.'s
factory in Amagasaki, Hyogo Prefecture and a large volume of
tainted mud and waste at the nearby Kubota Corp.'s former
Kanzaki factory.

Kirin states it discovered a 150-square-meter patch of
discolored white soil in September 2004, when it was leveling
land on its former Amagasaki factory site. The 50-centimeter-
thick layer of tainted soil was found a meter underground in an
area where a wastewater-processing facility had been located.

Kirin informed the municipal government, which confirmed the
asbestos to be less toxic actinolite, when soil analysis proved
asbestos contamination.

About 510 cubic meters of asbestos-contaminated soil was found
at Kubota Corp.'s Kanzaki factory during a 2001 soil survey. A
leakage of asbestos-contaminated water that produced asbestos
pipes is believed to have caused the contamination.

Asbestos pipe scraps were also found buried about 1.2 meters
underground at Kubota's Nagasu factory, about a kilometer west
of Kubota's former Kanzaki factory.

Kubota said it reported the two incidents to the Amagasaki
municipal government, adding that it disposed of asbestos-
contaminated soil and waste by taking anti-scattering measures.

The Waste Management Law 1997 revision states that asbestos must
be buried at disposal sites that have containment measures to
prevent contaminated soil from scattering. Until then, it was
permissible to dispose of asbestos by burying it without taking
anti-scattering measures.

Sugio Furuya, secretary general of Ban Asbestos Network Japan,
said regulations concerning the disposal of asbestos are lax,
even though the nation has imported 1,000 tons of asbestos.  


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: New TX Law Could Allow Fewer Asbestos Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Texas Association of Business' Bill Hammond says a new state
law, which stipulates that anyone with less than 20% lung damage
due to asbestos cannot sue until the damage worsens, will unclog
the courts of trivial lawsuits.  

Real victims will gain quicker, bigger settlements with the new
law, even as businesses free up extra cash they had been keeping
in reserves for legal fees, Mr. Hammond added.

According to the House Research Organization, employers who knew
of asbestos' potential harm occasionally exposed more than 27
million workers to it between 1940 and 1979. In the last two
decades, the number of asbestos claimants has increased from
21,000 to 600,000.

A group called the Environmental Working Group says about 260
Texans died in 2002 of asbestos-related health problems. The
Group says a third of those came from three metropolitan areas:
Houston, Dallas and Beaumont.

The new law is not about a limit on unfounded lawsuits, but
rather a limit on victims' right to hold offending companies
accountable, attorney Rob Kientz said.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NY Public Bldg. Closed for Asbestos Cleanup
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Murphy, the Department of Public Works Commissioner of
Dutchess County in New York, temporarily closed the Board of
Elections Building at 47 Cannon Street in Poughkeepsie City due
to asbestos found inside the building, PoughkeepsieJournal.com
reports.

The asbestos discovered while the building's roof was replaced
and further found in a back stairwell, is below the standards
set by OSHA for workplaces but is above New York State standards
for public buildings, said Roman Yasiejko, director of physical
facilities for the Dutchess County Department of Public Works.  

As a precaution, employees were evacuated and the building is
temporarily closed until it can be cleaned and the air retested,
Mr. Yasiejko added.

The abrupt disruption came about two weeks away from the Sept.
13 primary elections, a particularly busy time for workers at
the elections office.

After a contractor was called to clear the place of asbestos and
the air tested, employees returned to the Board of Elections
Building a day after the harmful substance was discovered.

According to the website of Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, www.cdc.gov, prolonged exposure to high asbestos
levels can cause serious lung problems and cancer.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Japan Govt. Mulls Asbestos Compensation Law
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Japanese Government, amid rising public concerns of cases
numbering over 500, decided to propose legislation to compensate
asbestos victims, including workers and their families as well
as residents living near asbestos plants, the Asahi Shimbun
reports.

Japan has trailed other developed nations in outlawing asbestos,
only banning its most common forms last year. The country would
tacitly recognize asbestos as a pollutant by adopting the law.

Asbestos-related health problems occur decades after a victim is
exposed to the carcinogen, and many former employees are
ineligible for compensation under current laws.

A Transport Ministry survey said at least 130 transportation
workers succumbed to asbestos-related illnesses after being
exposed to the substance in stations and warehouses. A separate
government report had put the number of people who died from
asbestos-related cancers in the five years through March 2005 at
400.

At least 42 factories across the country still manufacture
asbestos products, the Environment Ministry said. A loophole
still exists in the country's asbestos ban that allows the
material to be used when there are no substitutes.

The Government, expecting compensation measures to be completed
by September, acknowledged at a Cabinet meeting that experts of
the World Health Organization and International Labor
Organization cited the carcinogenic asbestos threat in 1972.

The Government admitted that the use of asbestos continued
although the Government was aware of its dangers. Regulations
against asbestos based on the Air Pollution Control Law were not
taken until 1989.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: UK Woman Fined for Fake Asbestos Packaging
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Southampton Magistrates Court fined Sarah Jean Earney, a UK
sales woman, GBP2,500 with costs of GBP1,432.45 after she
admitted producing a false "certificate of packaging
performance" for plastic bags used to carry asbestos waste, the
Edie Newsroom reports.

A trade competitor sighted Mrs. Earney selling the bags on
behalf of Regal Polythene Ltd and at unusually low prices. When
asked for the supporting certificate, Mrs. Earney produced a
false one in the name of Regal Polythene Ltd by using a
photocopy of a real one she had acquired from her employer's
office.

HSE Inspector Clive Dennis who investigated the incident said,
"HSE and the Department for Transport emphasize that the regime
for testing and certifying packaging is crucial to the safe
transport of dangerous goods and that there must be confidence
in the integrity of the UK's certification procedures. HSE will
always prosecute if we find that false packaging certificates
are being produced."

Asbestos waste is categorized as "dangerous for carriage" and
has to be packed for transport in packaging that is tested to
internationally agreed standards and certified and marked
accordingly.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Survey Reports 190 Asbestos-Linked Deaths
--------------------------------------------------------------
A Japanese survey under the jurisdiction of the Economy, Trade
and Industry Ministry and the Construction and Transport
Ministry announces a total of 190 new asbestos-related deaths
pertaining to people who have never engaged in the production of
asbestos-containing materials, The Yomiuri Shimbun reports.

The victims died of mesothelioma and some of them worked in
electric power plants, shipyards and factories.  The asbestos
used in insulation materials and other products in their
workplaces probably caused their illnesses.

METI surveyed 10,000 companies from about 500 industry groups
and found 74 employees believed to be suffering from asbestos-
related diseases and 60 already dead. As of July 15, the
Ministry stated that 374 people, later revised to 391, who
worked for construction materials manufacturers using asbestos,
had died of asbestos-related diseases.

The Construction and Transport Ministry survey, through trade
organizations for transport firms, found 130 people in 13
different industry sectors had died of asbestos-related
diseases. Eighty-five victims worked in the shipbuilding
industry and 18 in railcar construction.

The Health, Labor and Welfare Ministry states that 856 people
were recognized as victims of work-related diseases under the
Workers Compensation Insurance Law by March 31, 2004.

However, because it takes asbestos illnesses a long time to
develop, many of the 190 people who died of asbestos exposure in
the latest surveys are believed to have not claimed workers'
compensation.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MA School Building Razing Uncovers Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
Demolition work in Massachusetts' Reading Memorial High School
uncovered an unexpected vein of asbestos material that will cost
at least US$50,000 to remove, Scott Dunlap, demolition project
manager, informs the School Committee.  

Workers at the high school found asbestos waterproofing embedded
in two four-inch layers of concrete cinderblocks within the
exterior walls of the old "A" building, Mr. Dunlap said. In
construction, brick veneer is backed by air space and eight
inches of concrete block, he further explained.

Superintendent Patrick Schettini reported that students will
soon occupy the high school and will be in close proximity to
the active construction site. Parking has been reconfigured, as
a precautionary measure, to allow students and staff to park
away from construction workers' vehicles.

Moreover, construction workers will be required to wear name
badges on the front and back of their hard hats, to aid in
identification in the event of any interaction with students,
Mr. Schettini said.

Abatement costs could rise to US$200,000 if more asbestos is
found lurking behind the building's walls, Mr. Dunlap adds. The
costs will be paid from the project's existing US$1.46 million
contingency fund, although the fund has already been tapped to
repair a damaged culvert under the playing field.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: UK Locals Fear Asbestos Landfill Excavation
----------------------------------------------------------------
A planned residential development on land west of Lanthorn
Close, close to a highly controversial asbestos landfill in
Hoddesdon Town and sealed in the mid 1980s after a lengthy
campaign, raises concerns that the dump could be unearthed, the
Mercury reports.

Giselle Cronin, who was involved in the 1986-1987 campaign,
believes the development plan currently with Broxbourne Council
could bring the ugly issue back to the limelight.

Thousands of tons of the substance were dumped at Cock Lane's
Broxbournebury Park site in the mid 1980s where activity at the
former quarry went on for months during 1986 and 1987. Waste
brought to the site, which originated from a closed factory in
Watford, is believed to have included blue asbestos - the most
lethal form of the mineral.

A relentless campaign by local residents and parents of children
at nearby schools ended in a special Hertfordshire County
Council inquiry and an investigation into the scandal by the
local government ombudsman. Asbestos dumping was finally halted
in 1987. The asbestos, already deposited at the site, capped
with 5 meters of clay and landscaped, brought an apparent end to
the saga.

Mrs. Cronin said "As far as I'm aware, there has only ever been
one landfill site down Cock Lane, so it seriously concerns me
that the land being talked about for possible development was
the asbestos dump."

"As I understand it, the site is safe with the asbestos sealed
deep under the ground, but if they start trying to put utilities
and foundations in for buildings there, it could all be exposed
again," Mrs. Cronin added.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CBO Marks US$70 Billion for Asbestos Bill
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Congressional Budget Office states that the proposed
legislation to set up an industry-funded asbestos compensation
trust would cost US$70 billion over the next decade.

Over the next ten years, companies, insurance firms and
bankruptcy trusts would need to pool US$63 billion to award
individuals who filed asbestos claims. The fund would also add
US$6.5 billion to the federal deficit, CBO said in its cost-
estimate report.

The 2005 Fairness in Asbestos Injury Resolution Act drafted by
Senators Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, and Patrick
Leahy, a Vermont Democrat, aims to raise US$140 billion over the
next 30 years to pay claims filed by employees diagnosed with
cancer stemming from asbestos exposure.

CBO estimates that the value of asbestos claims submitted to the
fund over the life of the program, estimated to be 50 years,
could range from US$120 billion to US$150 billion, a figure that
does not include administrative and financing expenses for the
fund.

CBO added that the fund is likely to be hit with more than half
of all claims in the first 10 years. In the first three years of
operation, CBO expects the fund to receive around 185,000 claims
a year with a possible 1.5 million claims over the life of the
fund.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Fund Authors Satisfied Over CBO Estimates  
--------------------------------------------------------------
The legislation authors of the proposed US$140 billion Asbestos
Compensation Fund, Senators Arlen Specter and Patrick Leahy,
express satisfaction that the Congressional Budget Office
estimate may have enough funds to pay for asbestos claims over a
50-year period, Dow Jones reports.

The CBO said it estimates claims from the trust at US$132
billion over the next 50 years, while contributions to the trust
were estimated to be about US$140 billion.

However, the CBO warned that the industry-funded trust would
need to borrow about US$8 billion to stay afloat in its first 10
years. Over the same period, the fund would collect about US$63
billion from firms and insurance companies with asbestos
liabilities that includes US$7.5 billion seized from already
existing private asbestos injury trusts, CBO added.

CBO said that the maximum actual revenues collected by the trust
would be around US$140 billion over the next 50 years. However,
the value of valid claims during that time period could be
between $120 billion and $150 billion.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a Tennessee Republican, has
promised the bill will be considered by the Senate this fall
despite opposition on a number of fronts, including members of
his own party.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Abatement to Cost Aussie Ratepayers AUD1000
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Rayner, Goulburn Mulwaree Council's facilities manager,
declares that an accredited asbestos abatement contractor has
been hired to remove asbestos in a project that could cost
ratepayers more than AUD1000, the Goulburn Post reports.

The Council, coursing through broken asbestos roofing material
and other rubbish in bush land near Yarra, is trying to
determine the person who dumped it. The Goulburn Post joined Mr.
Rayner and his engineering assistant, Rebecca Butler on site to
gauge the problem's extent.

"Cleaning up a mess like this one certainly soaks up council's
resources and finances, particularly when asbestos is involved
for the material needs to be handled with the utmost care - and
disposed of in the same manner," Mr. Rayner states.

Apart from three distinct disposals of the asbestos material,
other articles such as an abandoned car, bathtub, refrigerator,
old tires, plastics, rubbish and sundry other items including
building materials were scattered around the place, a Goulburn
Post reader said.

Asked if rubbish dumping was becoming a problem throughout the
Council's territory given the closure of rural collection
points, Mr. Rayner said "no".


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: UK Expert Guilty for Faking Qualifications
---------------------------------------------------------------
The UK Barry Magistrates' Court convicted John Bridle of J & S
Bridle Associates for falsifying in his Company's letterheads
that he carries a P402 qualification, described by the British
Occupational Hygiene Society as a "basic minimum for individuals
carrying out asbestos surveys," the Leeds Today Evening Post
reports.

Mr. Bridle was found guilty on two counts of breaching the Trade
Descriptions Act, given a two-year conditional discharge, and
ordered to pay GBP4,000 costs to Vale of Glamorgan Council.

However, Mr. Bridle's conviction has not prevented Hewlett Civil
Engineering, a firm working on the Shepherd Homes development at
the former Killingbeck Hospital site, paying him thousands to
assess asbestos levels after the carcinogenic substance was
found.

Shepherd Homes admitted it found Asbestolux, which contains
dangerous brown asbestos, and say it will take weeks to clear,
as reported in the August 26, 2005 Class Action Reporter
edition.

Mr. Bridle said, "My conviction is about my stupidity, not my
dishonesty. The judge stated I was totally honest and had not
attempted to deceive anyone.

"Incredibly, in spite of all these facts, the judge
conditionally discharged me with a zero fine. I am at present
taking legal action against some of the parties involved," Mr.
Bridle added.

Mr. Bridle claimed he was the victim of a conspiracy designed to
raise public fears about asbestos and cause a compensation
culture.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: UK Crimes Remind of Safe Asbestos Disposal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Two separate burglary incidents, where thieves exposed
themselves to asbestos, remind the public of the significance of
proper asbestos removal and disposal, Thames Laboratories
reports.

London police announced that thieves scampered off with an
entire asbestos waste filled-skip. The container was used for a
college's asbestos abatement and must have been taken away with
the use of a lorry.

Second, vandals in Cumbria broke into a locked skip to find that
it contained asbestos dust and tiles, which had been removed
from a school kitchen.

Environment Agency guidelines state that any material with
asbestos should be disposed of in covered skips or should be
double bagged. In either case, the material must be clearly
labeled.

Contractors who specialize in removing asbestos should use red,
thick plastic sacks with asbestos warnings printed on the
outside for disposing of asbestos contaminated materials.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lloyd's to Settle US$137 Million With KACC
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corp, a wholly owned subsidiary of
Kaiser Aluminum Corp (OTC: KLUCQ), and various underwriters at
Lloyd's of London reinsured by Equitas entered into a settlement
agreement, where the underwriters have agreed to pay US$137
million to settle their obligations under insurance policies
with a face value of about US$170 million and certain other
coverage, according to a report submitted to the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

In return for the cash payment, the Settlement, if ultimately
approved, would release the underwriters from their coverage
liabilities, which were part of the litigation described above,
and certain other coverage. The US$137 million payment by the
underwriters is required to be made to a settlement agent within
30 days of Bankruptcy Court approval of the Settlement.

The Lloyds Settlement is subject to Bankruptcy Court approval
and approval of a plan of reorganization for the Debtors, and
may be terminated in certain other circumstances, including if
certain asbestos-related legislation pending in the United
States of America is enacted into law on or before December 31,
2005. The Debtors have filed a motion with the Bankruptcy Court
seeking approval of the Lloyds Settlement, and such motion has
been set for hearing on September 26, 2005.

Settlements with other insurers may occur in the future,
although no assurances can be given that any such additional
settlements will occur.  

Foothill Ranch, CA-based Kaiser Aluminum Corporation is a
leading producer of fabricated aluminum products for aerospace
and high-strength, general engineering, automotive and custom
industrial applications.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Equitas Settles US$300M for Injury Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Equitas states it had settled some of its largest remaining
direct liabilities with six major policyholders including Kaiser
Aluminum Corp, Crane Co, and Congoleum, for US$300 million
(GBP167.1 million), Reuters reports.

The reinsurer has decreased its asbestos exposure claims by
paying upfront cash settlements worth hundreds of millions of
dollars with some of its biggest claimants.

Equitas admitted that the Kaiser and Congoleum sums were
"subject to conditions relating to the pending bankruptcies" of
the companies and that, if the conditions were not met, the
settlements would be void and the money repaid to Equitas.

Since April 2001, Equitas has paid over US$2.9 billion in 35
major asbestos settlements.

In March, Equitas agreed to pay GBP415 million to settle claims
arising through Babcock & Wilson, the engineering group, which
was its third-biggest claims settlement.

In June 2005, Equitas said it had theoretical asbestos reserves
of GBP3.4 billion at March 31.

Equitas was set up in the mid-1990s to take over and pay off
Lloyd's huge pre-1993 exposures, largely to asbestos claims,
which threatened to bankrupt the world's oldest insurance
market. The reinsurer assumed all the market's pre-1993
liabilities so that Lloyd's could continue underwriting.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Health Ministry Says Pros to Mull Options
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Japanese Health, Labor and Welfare ministry called on nine
medical and engineering specialists to examine asbestos
substitute materials amid rising concerns over asbestos-related
deaths and health problems, the Kyodo News reports.

The experts seek to determent the range of asbestos-containing
products, decide when to replace them and explore alternatives.
By January next year, the team is expected to submit a report to
fully ban asbestos through legal revisions and administrative
directives.

The ministry said it plans to fully ban asbestos production and
use by 2008.

Asbestos is a naturally occurring fibrous material used for
insulation and other industrial purposes. Exposure to the
substance can cause mesothelioma, lung cancer and other health
problems.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hardie Continues Agreement With NSW Govt.
--------------------------------------------------------------
James Hardie Industries NV (NYSE: JHX), a building materials
manufacturer, is continuing work to complete a Principal
Agreement with the NSW Government to establish and fund a
special purpose fund to provide long-term asbestos compensation
for proven claims against Amaba, Amaca, ABN 60 and Asbestos
Mines (former James Hardie Australian subsidiaries), in a
Company report submitted to the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

When the Company entered into the non-binding Heads of Agreement
in December 2004, it specified that tax deductibility of
payments to the special purpose fund was a prerequisite to a
binding agreement. This recognized that all parties to the Heads
of Agreement (The Australian Council of Trade Unions, Unions
NSW, the NSW Government, a representative of the asbestos
claimants and the Company) agreed that tax deductibility of the
payments is a critical factor regarding affordability of the
proposed voluntary funding arrangements.

The Company is continuing to discuss tax deductibility of the
payments with the Australian Taxation Office and the
Commonwealth Treasury.

Under applicable accounting standards, the Company has not
established a provision for asbestos-related liabilities as of
June 30, 2005 because at this time such liabilities do not fall
within the relevant accounting definitions of being probable and
estimable.

The need for the establishment of a provision for asbestos-
related liabilities will continue to be reviewed as discussions
on the voluntary funding proposal continue.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MDR Acknowledges Revised B & W Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
In a report submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission,
McDermott International Inc. (NYSE:MDR) and its affiliates
announced that the Company and some of its subsidiaries,
together with the Asbestos Claimants' Committee and the Legal
Representative for Future Asbestos-Related Claimants, have
agreed upon the terms of a revised settlement agreement in the
Chapter 11 Bankruptcy proceedings involving its subsidiary, The
Babcock & Wilcox Company.

Under the proposed revised settlement, the Company said it would
put US$350 million in a trust. Babcock & Wilcox will also issue
a US$250 million contingent promissory note, and the Company
will provide a contingent payment right of US$355 million.

The deal hangs on the proposed Fairness in Asbestos Injury
Resolution Act of 2005. If the law is enacted before Nov. 30,
2006, the Company said the promissory note will be cancelled;
the contingent payment right will not vest and the company will
pay only US$25 million.

If the Proposed Settlement Agreement becomes effective by
February 22, 2006, the existing settlement arrangement will be
modified, and the Company will not be required to issue the 4.75
million shares of Company stock or the US$92 million note
contemplated.

The Proposed Settlement Agreement is subject to many conditions
and events including but not limited to the parties negotiating
and entering into acceptable definitive agreements, any
approvals required by applicable bankruptcy law, Company Board
and shareholder approval, resolution of all objections to the
Proposed Settlement Agreement and Court approval.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MDR Share Prices Climb After B&W Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Energy service provider McDermott International Inc.'s (NSYE:
MDR) share prices jumped higher after the Company announced it
entered a revised settlement with representatives of asbestos
claimants in the bankruptcy proceedings of its subsidiary,
Babcock & Wilcox.

Under the settlement agreement, the Company will put US$350
million in trust for the claimants. Furthermore, Babcock &
Wilcox will issue a US$250 million contingent promissory note.
The Company will also provide a contingent payment right in the
amount of US$355 million.

Analysts at Hibernia Southcoast Capital raised their target
price on the stock to US$40 from US$31 after the announcement.
Analysts at both Hibernia and Jefferies said the deal could add
at least US$9 a share to the Company's valuation.

If the legislation, or a similar bill, is enacted before
November 30, 2006, the Company will pay US$25 million to the
claimants. In exchange for the payments, the New Orleans, LA-
based Company will be released from all asbestos claims related
to Babcock & Wilcox.

Acquired by McDermott in 1978, Babcock & Wilcox filed for
Chapter 11 Bankruptcy protection in 2000 over asbestos claims.


ASBESTOS ALERT: Indoor Air, 2 Defendants in Abatement Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Indoor Air Quality Inc., Company owner Wallace Heidelmark, 48,
and principal supervisor Jason Scardecchio, 30, face a 34-count
indictment for improper asbestos removal from homes and
businesses and using fake air samples for testing, The
Associated Press reports.

The Phoenixville, PA-based Company failed to use enough water
during the process to keep the asbestos sufficiently wet on
several jobs from 2001 and 2004, the indictment charged.

"The deliberate shortcuts taken by these defendants put people
at risk," US Attorney Patrick Meehan said. "There are
significant dangers associated with the improper removal of
asbestos. That's why there are laws governing how it is removed
and disposed of."

Donald S. Welsh, EPA administrator for the Mid-Atlantic region
said, "The defendants are charged not only with unsafe asbestos
removal practices that put the public health at risk, but with
trying to cover up their illegal activity as well. The message
is clear that the government will take action against those who
allegedly put illegal financial gain ahead of their obligation
to obey the law."

Mr. Welsh added that he appreciates the assistance of the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration in the case.

If convicted, Mr. Heidelmark faces a maximum possible sentence
of 387 years imprisonment, Mr. Scardecchio faces a maximum
possible sentence of 342 years imprisonment, and Indoor Air
Quality faces a substantial fine.


ASBESTOS ALERT: AEP, Appalachian Fined US$110,000 for Breaches
--------------------------------------------------------------
Federal officials announced that the US Occupational Safety and
Health Administration fined American Electric Power Co Inc and
its subsidiary, Appalachian Power Co, US$110,000 for two willful
violations of asbestos safety regulations at the Company's
Philip Sporn plant in New Haven, WV, The Charleston Gazette
reports.

The alleged willful violations included the Company's failure to
determine the presence of asbestos prior to a contractor
beginning work and failure to communicate the results of
asbestos samples prior to work commencing that resulted in
potential exposure, OSHA said.

OSHA also fined Fluor Maintenance, a contractor performing
boiler repair services for Appalachian Power, US$1,875 for
allegedly failing to require employees potentially exposed to
asbestos to decontaminate their clothing. It turned out that
Appalachian Power had not told Fluor Maintenance about the
asbestos, OSHA officials said.

Under OSHA rules, a willful violation is one committed with an
intentional disregard of, or plain indifference to, the
requirements of the Occupational Safety and Health Act and its
regulations. A serious violation is a condition where there is a
substantial possibility that death or serious physical harm can
result to an employee.


COMPANY PR0FILE:

American Electric Power Co. Inc. (NYSE: AEP)
1 Riverside Plaza
Columbus, OH 43215-2372
Phone: 614-716-1000
Fax: 614-716-1823
http://www.aep.com

DESCRIPTION:
American Electric Power Co Inc is one of the largest power
generators and distributors in the US. Its electric utilities
serve some 5 million customers in 11 states and have more than
34,000 MW of primarily coal-fired generating capacity.


COMPANY PROFILE:

Fluor Corporation (NYSE: FLR)
One Enterprise Drive
Aliso Viejo, CA 92656-2606
Phone: 949.349.2000
Fax: 949.349.2585
http://www.fluor.com/

DESCRIPTION:
Fluor Maintenance is a part of Fluor Corporation; one of the
world's largest publicly owned engineering, construction and
maintenance firms. Fluor was the parent company of Massey Energy
before the latter was spun off in 2000.


                New Securities Fraud Cases


IMMUCOR INC.: Chitwood Harley Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in GA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Chitwood Harley Harnes, LLP, initiated a
securities fraud class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia against
Immucor, Inc. ("Immucor", "BLUD" or the "Company"), Dr.
Gioacchino De Chirico, Steven C. Ramsey, and Edward L. Gallup on
behalf of persons who purchased BLUD common stock (NasdaqNM:
BLUD-News) between January 7, 2005 through and including August
29, 2005 (the "Class Period"). The case number is 1:05-cv-02276.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange
Act"), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. During the Class
Period, the complaint claims that Defendants misrepresented that
Immucor's financial statements and disclosures fairly and
accurately reflected the Company's results of operations as
required by Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP")
and the Exchange Act. The Complaint also charges that
Defendants' Sarbanes-Oxley certifications during the Class
Period were also false and misleading, as the Company, knowingly
or with severe recklessness, lacked adequate internal controls
and failed to keep proper books and records in violation of
their well publicized Code of Corporate Conduct.

The nature of Defendants' fraud began to come to light on August
26, 2005 when the Company was forced to announce that the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") had launched a
formal investigation into payments made by its Italian unit and
its president, Defendant De Chirico, in October 2003 to a
physician connected with a hospital with which the Company was
doing business. After the market closed on August 29, 2005, the
Company revealed further that its Chief Financial Officer had
resigned, that it would be revising its previously issued
results for at least two quarters in order to account for a
previously unrecorded accrued bonus, and that its Form 10-K for
fiscal year 2005 would be further delayed due to additional
accounting and auditing procedures the Company claimed was
necessary to properly reflect the accrued bonus and to render
the internal controls report required by Section 404 of Sarbanes
Oxley.

In response to this news, the price of BLUD common stock dropped
from a closing price of $28.61 on August 25, 2005 before the
market learned of the SEC's formal investigation to close at
$24.00 per share on August 30, 2005. A staggering 6 million
shares of BLUD common stock were traded on August 30, 2005
alone. This volume is nearly ten times the average daily volume.

During the first six months of 2005, Immucor insiders sold
approximately 186,000 shares for proceeds of about $4,970,000.
During this time, Defendants led the market to believe that the
internal control issue involving the Italian subsidiary was "an
isolated event" that was not expected to lead to more than a
$350,000 fine and increased investigation expenses that had
already been factored into the Company's bottom line. In fact,
however, the opposite was true. Immucor's internal control
problems, as the market later learned, were not confined to its
Italian subsidiary and did not center solely around this alleged
"isolated event."

For more details, contact Lauren S. Antonino of Chitwood Harley
Harnes, LLP, Phone: (888) 873-3999, ext. 6888, E-mail:
lantonino@chitwoodlaw.com, Web site: http://www.chitwoodlaw.com
OR Meryl Edelstein, 1230 Peachtree St., Suite 2300, Atlanta, GA
30309, Phone: (888) 873-3999, ext. 6881, E-mail:
medelstein@chitwoodlaw.com.


INTERMIX MEDIA: Kreindler & Kreindler Lodges CA Fiduciaries Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kreindler & Kreindler, LLP, initiated a class
action lawsuit on behalf of shareholders of Intermix Media, Inc.
(AMEX:MIX), which includes MySpace.com, alleging that current
directors, officers and controlling shareholders of Intermix
designed a sale to News Corporation (NYSE:NWS) that benefited
themselves at the expense of the Company and its public
shareholders. The class action lawsuit was filed in the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles.

The complaint alleges that in a flawed process tainted by
conflicts of interest, the defendants arranged a sale of
Intermix to News Corporation at a glaringly inadequate and
unfair price that virtually guaranteed Intermix shareholders
would receive far less than optimal value for their shares.
Furthermore, defendants failed to take all necessary steps to
maximize stockholder value, and did not institute a bidding
mechanism to foster a fair auction of the Company to the highest
bidder or explore other strategic alternatives.

"It is unconscionable that the Intermix board failed to initiate
a proper auction process for the Company that owns MySpace.com,
one of the world's most viewed Internet sites, which continues
to enjoy phenomenal growth and makes an attractive target," said
Gretchen Nelson of Kreindler & Kreindler LLP's Los Angeles
Office. "Indeed, our investigation has revealed that other
prominent companies expressed interest in advancing more
attractive acquisition proposals, only to be given the cold
shoulder by the self-interested defendants."

"To make matters worse, the agreement with News Corp. severely
limits communications with any third party interested in
submitting a competing proposal, and establishes an unreasonable
$25 million termination fee if the News Corp. deal is abandoned
in favor of a preferable deal with another party that actually
maximizes Intermix shareholder value," said Mark Labaton,
another Kreindler attorney working on the matter.

The complaint alleges that instead of attempting to obtain the
best terms for Intermix and its shareholders, the defendants
structured the transaction to reduce their liability and
maximize their gain. In doing so, the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties to Intermix by:

     (1) Failing to provide a bidding mechanism to foster a fair
         auction of the Company;

     (2) Failing to solicit alternative transactions or other
         potential acquirers;

     (3) Failing to take steps to maximize the value of Intermix
         to its public shareholders;

     (4) Failing to value, and thereby undervaluing Intermix and
         its assets including its "crown jewel," a popular
         social networking Web site called MySpace.com, which is
         currently the second ranked Web domain in terms of
         pages viewed;

     (5) Failing to structure the transaction so the Company's
         shareholders would receive a change of control premium,
         which is customary for a takeover of this sort; and

     (6) Tailoring the proposed acquisition to advance their own
         financial, legal and other personal interests at the
         expense of plaintiff and Intermix's public
         shareholders.

The lawsuit seeks preliminary and permanent injunctive relief
and to recover damages.

For more details, contact Kreindler & Kreindler, LLP, 707
Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 5070, Los Angeles, CA 90017, Phone:
213-622-6469 OR 100 Park Ave., New York, NY 10017, Phone:
212-687-8181.


MANNATECH INC.: Charles J. Piven Lodges NM Securities Fraud Suit  
----------------------------------------------------------------
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 Mannatech,
Inc. (NASDAQ: MTEX) between August 10, 2004 and May 9, 2005,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
District of New Mexico against defendant Mannatech 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 St.,
Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD 21202, Phone: 410/986-0036, E-mail:
hoffman@pivenlaw.com.


MANNATECH INC.: Glancy Binkow Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NM
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of New Mexico against Mannatech, Inc. ("Mannatech" or
the "Company") (Nasdaq:MTEX) on behalf of a class (the "Class")
consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired Mannatech securities between August 10, 2004 and May 8,
2005 (the "Class Period").

The Complaint charges Mannatech and Samuel L. Caster with
violations of federal securities laws. Plaintiff claims
defendants issued false or misleading statements concerning the
Company's business and operations, which caused Mannatech's
stock price to become artificially inflated, inflicting damages
on investors. Mannatech operates in the field of
"glyconutrients" and designs and develops proprietary
nutritional supplements, topical products and weight management
products, sold primarily by purportedly independent sales
associates and members through a network-marketing system --
commonly known as "multilevel marketing." The Complaint alleges
Mannatech failed to adequately supervise and/or monitor the
conduct of its associates, including those who maintain websites
that prominently display misleading testimonials and/or falsely
suggest that Mannatech products are effective in the treatment
and prevention of certain specific diseases. The Complaint
alleges that, unbeknownst to public investors, the true facts
which defendants knew and/or recklessly disregarded and failed
to disclose to the investing public during the Class Period,
included:

     (1) that the Company's internal controls were inadequate,
         and failed in several key aspects, resulting in
         inadequate monitoring and supervision of the Company's
         associates;

     (2) as a consequence of defendants' failure to supervise,
         Mannatech associates made false and unfounded claims
         concerning the efficacy of the Company's products; and

     (3) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' statements
         with respect to Mannatech's operations, performance and
         prospects were lacking in any reasonable basis when
         made.

On May 9, 2005, an article published in Barron's revealed the
misleading nature of claims made on certain Mannatech
associates' websites. This new shocked the market, causing the
price of Mannatech shares to plummet more than 26 percent in one
day, thereby damaging investors. The next day, May 10, 2005,
Mannatech shares fell an additional 19 percent as a result of
this news.

For more details, contact Lionel Z. Glancy or Michael Goldberg
of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP, 1801 Avenue of the Stars,
Suite 311, Los Angeles, CA 90067, Phone: (310) 201-9150 or
(888) 773-9224, E-mail: info@glancylaw.com, Web site:
http://www.glancylaw.com.


PATTERSON COMPANIES: Glancy Binkow Lodges Securities Suit in MN
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of Minnesota on behalf of a class (the "Class")
consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired securities of Patterson Companies, Inc. ("Patterson" or
the "Company") (Nasdaq:PDCO), between February 24, 2005 and May
25, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint charges Patterson and certain of the Company's
executive officers with violations of federal securities laws.
Patterson distributes dental, companion-pet veterinary and
rehabilitation supplies, and offers, among other things,
consumable dental supplies, infection control products and
dental accessories for dentists and other healthcare
professionals. The Complaint alleges defendants' Class Period
representations concerning Patterson's operations and
performance were materially false and misleading when made for
the following reasons:

     (1) demand for the Company's dental products, consumable
         dental supplies and printed office products had
         significantly declined;

     (2) due to a decline in overall sales, Patterson had
         offered incentives to its dental segment personnel to
         push sales, which resulted in higher expenses for the
         Company;

     (3) the Company's Canadian dental operations were
         experiencing a steep decline in equipment sales caused
         by severe operational difficulties within the dental
         supply division;

     (4) the Company experienced difficulties in integrating its
         multiple recent acquisitions; and

     (5) as a consequence of the foregoing, defendants' positive
         statements concerning Patterson's growth and progress
         were lacking in any reasonable basis when made.

On May 26, 2005, the Company reported that Patterson had missed
its fourth quarter 2005 earnings projections, and that it would
need to dramatically reduce its expectations for the first
quarter of 2006. This news shocked the market, causing the price
of Patterson shares to fall $7.50 per share, or 14.16 percent,
to close on May 26, 2005 at $45.46 per share.

For more details, contact Lionel Z. Glancy or Michael Goldberg
of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP, 1801 Avenue of the Stars,
Suite 311, Los Angeles, CA 90067, Phone: (310) 201-9150 or
(888) 773-9224, E-mail: info@glancylaw.com, Web site:
http://www.glancylaw.com.


SYMBOL TECHNOLOGIES: Pomerantz Haudek Lodges NY Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross, LLP,
initiated a class action lawsuit against Symbol Technologies,
Inc. ("Symbol Technologies" or the "Company") (NYSE:SBL) and two
of the Company's senior officers, on behalf of all persons or
entities who purchased the securities of Symbol Technologies
during the period between May 10, 2004 and July 14, 2005,
inclusive (the "class period"). The case is being filed in the
United States District Court, Eastern District of New York.

The complaint alleges that Symbol Technologies and the Company's
President, Chief Executive Officer and Director, William R.
Nuti, and Mark T. Greenquist, the Company's Chief Financial
Officer, violated the federal securities laws arising out of
defendants' dissemination of false and misleading statements
concerning the Company's results and operations. Symbol
Technologies, a corporation headquartered in Holtsville, New
York and organized under the laws of Delaware, is a recognized
worldwide leader in enterprise mobility, delivering products and
solutions that capture, move and manage information in real time
to and from the point of business activity. Symbol enterprise
mobility solutions integrate advanced data capture products,
radio frequency identification technology, mobile computing
platforms, wireless infrastructure, mobility software and world-
class services programs under the Symbol Enterprise Mobility
Services brand.

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 that

     (1) the Company's reported financial results and revenue
         projections during the class period were materially
         false and misleading and lacked a reasonable bases when
         made;

     (2) Symbol Technologies had inadequate and deficient
         internal and financial controls which caused the
         financial statements to be unreliable;

     (3) the Company had massive overcapacity, inefficient
         operations and obsolete assets which were not properly
         accounted for;

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

     (5) the Company's reported expenses were understated and
         its reported revenues were overstated; and

     (6) the financial statements did not fairly present in all
         material respects the financial condition, results of
         operations and cash flows, as sworn to by defendants in
         their quarterly and year end filings with the SEC.

These alleged false statements caused the Company's stock to
trade at artificially inflated levels during the Class Period.
As the market learned the true information about Symbol
Technologies, the inflation caused by defendants'
misrepresentations was removed and the price of Symbol common
stock fell by nearly 50% from its Class Period high.

For more details, contact Teresa Webb or Carolyn Moskowitz of
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross, LLP, Phone
(888) 476-6529, E-mail: tlwebb@pomlaw.com or
csmoskowitz@pomlaw.com.


WORLD HEALTH: Pomerantz Haudek Files Securities Fraud Suit in PA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross, LLP,
initiated a class action lawsuit against World Health
Alternatives, Inc. (World Health or the "Company") (OTCBB:
WHAIE), three of the Company's senior officers and Daszkal
Bolton LLP, the Company's independent outside auditor, on behalf
of all persons or entities who purchased the securities of World
Health between June 26, 2003 and August 18, 2005 (the "class
period"). The case is being filed in the United States District
Court, Western District of Pennsylvania. The lawsuit is seeking
to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

World Health is a Pittsburgh based company that provides
medical, professional, and administrative staffing services to
the healthcare industry in the United States. During the class
period, Defendants issued, or caused to be issued, false and
misleading statements to artificially inflate the value of World
Health Stock. Through Defendants' false and misleading
statements, the Company was

     (1) able to mislead investors as to the number of
         outstanding shares the Company had,

     (2) manipulate financial statement recognition of a
         convertible debenture and warrant agreement,

     (3) underpay certain tax liabilities in excess of $4
         million, and

     (4) obtain an additional $6.5 million in funding from its
         lenders that was in excess to its loan agreements by
         submitting irregular reports to the Company's lenders.

As a result, the Company has terminated its outside auditor,
Daszkal Bolton LLP, retained outside counsel and the Board of
Directors has retained special counsel to assist it with its
investigation. Further, the Company has determined that it will
be restating its prior financial statements and has warned
investors not to rely on the information contained therein.
Thus, Company's reported earnings statements for the interim
periods were inflated in violation of Generally Accepted
Accounting principles ("GAAP").

The complaint also alleges that World Health and Richard E.
McDonald, the Company's Chairman of the Board and President,
Marc D. Roup, Chief Executive Officer and Director, John C.
Sercu, Chief Operating Officer and subsequent Interim Chief
Executive Officer and Acting President, were privy to
confidential and proprietary information concerning the Company.
By reasons of their positions with the Company, the Individual
Defendants had access to internal Company documents, reports and
other information, including the adverse non-public information
concerning the Company's services, financial condition, and
future prospects. As a result of the foregoing, they were
responsible for the truthfulness and accuracy of the Company's
public reports and released described herein.

The complaint further alleges that Daszkal Bolton LLP, the
Company's independent outside auditor at all relevant times,
issued audit reports on the Company's publicly filed annual
financial statements certifying:

     (i) that it had audited World Health's financial statements
         in accordance with generally accepted auditing
         standards;

    (ii) that it had planned and performed its audits "to obtain
         reasonable assurance about whether the financial
         statements are free of material misstatements";

   (iii) that, in its opinion, the Company's financial
         statements "present fairly, in all material respects,
         the financial position" of World Health in conformity
         with generally accepted accounting principles; and

    (iv) that its audits provided "a reasonable basis for (its)
         opinions."

For more details, contact Teresa Webb or Carolyn Moskowitz of
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross, LLP, Phone
(888) 476-6529, E-mail: tlwebb@pomlaw.com or
csmoskowitz@pomlaw.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  * * *