CAR_Public/050906.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Tuesday, September 6, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 176

                            Headlines

ABATIX CORPORATION: TX Court Mulls Lawsuit Settlement Approval
ALABAMA: Judge Rules Jefferson County's Revenue Measures Legal
ARCHIPELAGO HOLDINGS: Judge Rejects NYSE Attempt to Dismiss Suit
AUDIOVOX SPECIALIZED: Recalls Stop Lamps For FMVSS Noncompliance   
CALIFORNIA: SLOCOG Upgrades 162 Call Boxes For Hearing-Impaired

CALIFORNIA: SAG Members Could Get Windfall From Greenberg Case
CONTINENTAL MILLS: Recalls Brownie Mixes For Undeclared Walnuts
CRT PROPERTIES: Settles FL Lawsuits V. DRA Acquisition Merger
CUMMINS INC.: Recalls 2,860 ISB-02 Engines Due to Crash Hazard   
DANKA BUSINESS: TN Court Yet To Rule on Lawsuit Summary Judgment

DHB INDUSTRIES: Joins FL Zylon Body Armor Litigation Settlement
DIGI INTERNATIONAL: Parties Submit Revised NY Suit Settlement
E.D. SMITH: Recalls Dijon Dressing Due To Undeclared Milk, Egg
HARRY & DAVID: Recalls Spiced Apple Almonds For Undeclared Milk
IAC/INTERACTIVECORP: Faces Consolidated Securities Lawsuit in NY

IAC/INTERACTIVECORP: TX Court Certifies Consumer Fraud Lawsuit
IAC/INTERACTIVECORP: Consumer Lawsuit Remanded To WA State Court
IAC/INTERACTIVECORP: CA Consumer Lawsuit Remanded To State Court
IAC/INTERACTIVECORP: To Appeal Remand of CA Suit To State Court
INDONESIA: Walhi Plans Suit V. 10 Companies For Starting Fires

ITXC CORPORATION: SEC Files Action V. Ex-Regional Director in NJ
KANSAS: Valley Center Family Files Racial Bias Suit V. District
LANDSTAR SYSTEM: To Appeal Certification of FL OOIDA Lawsuit
LOUISIANA: Appeals Court Rejects Tax Money Refund For Park Suit
MINNESOTA: Metropolitan Airports Commission Faces Injury Suit

OLD SOUTH: Lawsuit Over SC Outbreak Might Not Get Certification
PITNEY BOWES: AL Court OKs Settlement For Consumer Fraud Suits
REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS: Reaches Settlement For NY Stock Suit
SAFEGUARD SCIENTIFICS: DE Court Mulls Securities Suit Dismissal
SAFEGUARD SCIENTIFICS: PA Suit Summary Judgment Appeal Pending

SHERWIN WILLIAMS: RI Lead-Based Paint Trial Set September 2005
ST. PAUL: Named in NJ Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation
SWITZERLAND: ERTF Seeks Share of Holocaust Survivors Settlement
TRANSKARYOTIC THERAPIES: SEC Lodges Fraud Lawsuit V. Former CEO
TRAVELERS PROPERTY: Faces Consolidated Shareholder Lawsuit in MN

                  New Securities Fraud Cases    

ARBINET-THEXCHANGE: Bernard M. Gross Files Securities Suit in NJ
ARBINET-THEXCHANGE: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Suit in NJ
BUCA INC.: Seeger Weiss Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in MN
HOST AMERICA: Lockridge Grindal Lodges Securities Suit in CT
HOST AMERICA: Nygaard Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Suit in CT

IMMUCOR INC.: Finkelstein Thompson Lodges Securities Suit in GA
IMMUCOR INC.: Landskroner Grieco Lodges Securities Suit in GA
PRESTIGE BRANDS: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
UBS-AG: Murray Frank Lodges Fraud Suit in NY Over American Funds
UBS-AG: Murray Frank Lodges Fraud Suit in NY Over Fidelity Funds

UBS-AG: Murray Frank Lodges Securities Suit in NY Over MFS Funds
WORLD HEALTH: Abbey Gardy Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in PA

                          *********

ABATIX CORPORATION: TX Court Mulls Lawsuit Settlement Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Texas, Dallas Division held a fairness hearing for the
settlement of the consolidated securities class action filed
against Abatix Corporation and certain of its officers and
directors.

Several suits were initially filed, alleging that defendants
violated the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 by allegedly
making a series of materially false and purportedly misleading
statements concerning the Company's business agreement with the
Goodwin Group LLC and, as a result, the price of the Abatix
stock was allegedly artificially inflated causing plaintiff and
other members of the class to allegedly suffer damages.  All of
the lawsuits were transferred to one Federal District Court in
the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division and have been
consolidated into a single case under "Family Medicine
Specialists, et al v. Abatix, et al., case no. Cause No. 3-04CV-
872-D."

On May 27, 2004, the Company's officers and directors were also
named as defendants in a lawsuit filed in the District Court of
Dallas County, Texas, 162nd Judicial District styled "Daniel M.
Johnson Plaintiff v. Terry Shaver; Frank Cinatl IV; Gary L Cox;
Donald N. Black; Eric A. Young; and A. David Cook; Defendants v.
Abatix Corp. Nominal Defendant (Cause No. 2004-04-4841)."
Plaintiff has dismissed A. David Cook from this case.  This suit
is a stockholder derivative action that alleges that all of the
defendants breached certain fiduciary duties and abused their
control of the Company.  Further, the plaintiff seeks
contribution and indemnification.  In addition, this petition
alleges that Donald Black, an outside board of director of the
Company, breached his fiduciary duties by selling securities
based on allegedly material, non-public information and by
allegedly misappropriation of information.

On May 6, 2005, the Company executed a Stipulation and Agreement
of Settlement to settle the suit.  On May 9, 2005, the Company
executed a Stipulation of Compromise and Settlement to settle
the Derivative Suit ("Derivative Stipulation," and the Class
Stipulation, "Stipulations") are now pending in the State
District Court. The Company recently agreed to settle the Class
Action for $900,000 in cash and will adhere to certain corporate
governance provisions to settle the Derivative Suit, so that
management and its employees can concentrate their full
attention on growing the business by eliminating the distraction
of further protracted litigation.  In addition, the Company
agreed to the Stipulations in order to eliminate the litigation
risk and expense.  The settlement funds are expected to be
covered by the Company's insurance policy.  These proposed
settlements expressly provide that the Company and its officers
or directors do not admit or concede any violation of law or
wrongdoing of any kind.

On May 16, 2005, the State District Court signed the "Order
Regarding Proposed Derivative Action Settlement, Settlement
Hearing and Notice Thereof" which allows the notification of the
proposed settlement to the stockholders of record as of May 9,
2005.  In addition, August 11, 2005 was established as the date
for, among other things, determining whether the proposed
settlement is fair, reasonable and in the best interest of the
nominal defendant, the Company, and its stockholders and whether
it should be approved by the State District Court.

On May 17, 2005, the Federal Court signed the "Preliminary Order
for Notice and Hearing in Connection with Settlement
Proceedings" which allows the notification of the proposed
settlement to the class.  In addition, August 11, 2005 was
established as the date for, among other things, determining
whether the proposed settlement is fair, reasonable and
adequate.  

It is the understanding of the Company that the counsel for the
plaintiffs in both the Class Action and the Derivative Suit have
complied with the applicable procedures to notify the
appropriate parties, the Company said in a disclosure to the
Securities and Exchange Commission.  It is also the Company's
understanding that one class member has opted out of the
proposed settlement in the Class Action and that no members of
the Class Action or the Derivative Suit have objected to the
proposed settlement.  The proposed settlement remains subject to
final approval by the Courts.  Members of the class are defined
as purchasers of Company common stock from 5:05 p.m. Eastern
Standard Time on April 14, 2004 through and including April 30,
2004.

The suit is styled "Family Medicine Specialists et al v. Abatix
Corporation et al., case no. 3:04-cv-00872," filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, under
Judge Jane J. Boyle.  Representing the Company are Richard S.
Krumholz, Fulbright & Jaworski Texas Commerce Bank Tower 2200
Ross Ave Suite 2800 Dallas, TX 75201-2784 Phone: 214/855-8000
Fax: 214/855-8200 E-mail: rkrumholz@fulbright.com; and Gerard G.
Pecht, Fulbright & Jaworski - Houston 1301 McKinney St Suite
5100 Houston, TX 77010-3095 Phone: 713/651-5151 Fax: 713/651-
5246 E-mail: gpecht@fulbright.com.  Representing the plaintiffs
are Sharon M. Lee and Lee A. Weiss of Milberg Weiss Bershad &
Schulman - New York, 1 Pennsylvania Plaza 49th Floor New York,
NY 10119 Phone: 212/594-5300 E-mail: lweiss@milbergweiss.com,
and W D Masterson, III of Kilgore & Kilgore, 3109 Carlisle
Suite 200 Dallas, TX 75204 Phone: 214/969-9099 Fax: 214/953-0133
E-mail: wdm@kilgorelaw.com.  


ALABAMA: Judge Rules Jefferson County's Revenue Measures Legal
--------------------------------------------------------------
In a ruling that possibly ended a class action lawsuit
challenging Jefferson County's revenue measures, Circuit Judge
Caryl P. Privett ruled that their new sales tax and $1 billion
education bond sale are legal, The Birmingham News reports.  The
judge also stated in his ruling that an appeal of that decision
is possible, which prompted attorneys for the residents who
argued the bond sale was invalid to tell The Birmingham News
that they might do just that to the Alabama Supreme Court.

Court documents revealed that the county started collecting the
1-cent tax on January 1. That money collected, which is
currently being held in a bank account, can't be spent until the
lawsuit is concluded, including any appeal.  Judge Privett
decided the county had the right to commit proceeds from the
sales tax to repay the bond, which it plans to distribute to 12
school systems for capital or building improvements.


ARCHIPELAGO HOLDINGS: Judge Rejects NYSE Attempt to Dismiss Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
New York State Supreme Court Judge Charles Ramos rejected an
attempt by the New York Stock Exchange to stop a class action
suit seeking to block the NYSE's proposed merger with
Archipelago Holdings Inc., saying that "Defendants again fail to
recognize the nature of the harm Plaintiffs allege."  The ruling
is the latest in a string of victories led by longtime seat
holder William Higgins, who claims the merger is wholly
unfavorable to the Exchange's 1,366 members.

Mr. Higgins, who continues to gain support from fellow seat
holders, is joined by fellow Exchange member William Tipton
Caldwell in what is now a consolidated class action. Their
lawsuit alleges that the NYSE board abdicated its fiduciary
duties by structuring merger terms with Chicago-based
Archipelago (AX) that grossly undervalues seat holders' stake in
a combined, for-profit trading company -- NYSE Group Inc.

They also accuse NYSE Chair John Thain and fellow board members
of numerous conflicts of interest in using Goldman Sachs to
arrange the deal, as well as the firm of Lazard Freres, which
issued an appraisal valuing the merger. Goldman Sachs serves as
investment banker to both the Exchange and to Archipelago on the
merger, and also holds a major investment stake in Archipelago.
Mr. Thain, meanwhile, previously served as president of Goldman
Sachs prior to becoming chair of the NYSE last year.

In a 53-page opinion issued on September 1, Judge Ramos tossed
out a joint motion by the NYSE and Goldman Sachs to dismiss the
suit. The ruling is a virtual green light for Mr. Higgins and
Mr. Caldwell to pursue their action on behalf of all seat
holders.

Prominent shareholder law firm Grant & Eisenhofer P.A., along
with the major Philadelphia-based firm Raynes McCarty,
represents Mr. Higgins jointly.

"Judge Ramos recognized that this proposed deal is strikingly
unfair to the seat holders of the New York Stock Exchange," said
Jay Eisenhofer, name partner of Grant & Eisenhofer, which
represents Mr. Higgins and Mr. Caldwell. "The decision
highlights that the merger was in fact one huge conflict of
interest -- one that was approved with the intent of harming and
devaluing the property of the Exchange's true owners."

Pointing out a web of apparent conflicts undermining the
Exchange/Archipelago merger, the court's decision has propelled
the class action forward to trial. In addition to addressing
allegations of unfair pricing, the decision focuses in on the
conflicts surrounding the Exchange's two principal advisors,
Goldman Sachs and Lazard. Lazard served as an advisor to both
Archipelago and the NYSE in the proposed merger, while Goldman
was simultaneously underwriting Lazard's IPO. John Thain, CEO of
the Exchange, is a former president, CEO and current shareholder
of Goldman.

Among the highlights of Judge Ramos's ruling:

" ... the court concludes that Plaintiffs have raised doubt of
the Board members' independence sufficient to overcome dismissal
at this stage of the pleading."

"Plaintiffs' allegations raise doubt that the Board effectively
discharged its obligation to oversee Lazard ... "

"The Court is satisfied that the facts alleged in the complaints
and accompanying affidavits sufficiently state that by relying
on Lazard, an allegedly conflicted financial advisor to render a
fairness opinion that contained serious omissions, such as
failure to assess several key terms of the merger that
plaintiffs complain of, in addition to errors, the defendants
did not discharge their duty of care."

" ... the Engagement Letter establishes Goldman's knowledge of
the alleged improprieties involved in such a role."

In previous seat holder victories, Judge Charles Ramos ordered
the Exchange to grant seat holders Robert Dill and Michael Quinn
access to all books and records associated with the Archipelago
deal.

For more details, contact Allan Ripp, Phone: 212-721-7468, E-
mail: arippnyc@aol.com OR Jay Eisenhofer of Grant & Eisenhofer,
P.A., 1201 N. Market St., Suite 2100, Wilmington, DE 19801,
Phone: (302) 622-7000, Fax (302) 622-7100, E-mail:
lawyers@gelaw.com OR Raynes McCarty, 18445 Walnut St., 20th
Floor, Philadelphia, PA 19013, Phone: 215-568-6190, Fax:
215-988-0618.


AUDIOVOX SPECIALIZED: Recalls Stop Lamps For FMVSS Noncompliance   
----------------------------------------------------------------
Audiovox Specialized Applications, LLC (ASA) in cooperation with
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Office of
Defects Investigation (ODI) is voluntarily recalling about 133
units of Stop Lamps due to noncompliance with Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, "Lamps, Reflective Devices and
Associated Equipment." NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID Number: 05E055000.

According to the ODI, certain ASA Chevy van center high mounted
stop lamp with an observation camera installed, model VCCBLCHV,
manufactured between April and May 2005. The housing lens does
not conform to the photometric requirements of FMVSS No. 108.
The light emitting from the center high-mounted stop lamp is
decreased and may not be immediately visible to following
motorists and could possibly result in a vehicle crash.

As a remedy, ASA will notify its customers and replace the
noncompliant lamps free of charge. The recall is expected to
begin during October 2005.

For more details, contact ASA, Phone: 574-266-3172 and NHTSA
Auto Safety Hotline: 1-888-327-4236 or (TTY) 1-800-424-9153, Web
site: http://www.safecar.gov.


CALIFORNIA: SLOCOG Upgrades 162 Call Boxes For Hearing-Impaired
---------------------------------------------------------------
Though the six phones previously adapted for the deaf have not
been used in the past two years, the local transportation
agency, The San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG),
intends to adapt 162 emergency call phones or boxes on county
roads for use by the deaf. SLOCOG will then close the book on a
class action lawsuit alleging the inadequacy of call boxes for
use by the hearing-impaired, The San Luis Obispo Tribune
reports.

The adaptation will cost $323,000. The money will come from a $1
charge in motor vehicle license fees. With news of the change,
the plaintiffs dropped SLOCOG as defendants last June.

An attorney for the deaf, who filed suit in order to have the
call boxes adapted for use by the hearing-impaired, told The San
Luis Obispo Tribune that it does not matter whether the phones
are used. He asserted that they should be there in case of an
emergency, just as they are for those who can hear.

The California Center for Law and the Deaf filed the class
action suit in April alleging that San Luis Obispo and eight
other counties, as well as the CHP and Caltrans, were violating
the Americans with Disabilities Act for having call boxes that
are inaccessible to deaf and hard-of-hearing motorists.

In a nutshell, call boxes are solar-powered cellular phones with
a link to the CHP. Services are funded in participating counties
by a $1 fee assessed by the Department of Motor Vehicles on
vehicle registration, an earlier Class Action Reporter story
(May 23, 2005) reports.

A call box without the TTY or teletypewriters (the adaptation
for the hearing-impaired) is both dangerous and discriminatory,
according to Jennifer Pesek of the Center for Law and the Deaf.
She pointed out that if you're using the emergency phone you're
already in a bad situation, and "you need to be able to both see
and hear."

She told The San Luis Obispo Tribune that her organization filed
the lawsuit in order to pressure defendants. They have worked
hard to settle, according to her, and the results are evident:
Of the original nine defendants only two counties -- San
Bernardino and Riverside remain, along with the CHP and
Caltrans.

Phil Chu of SLOCOG told The San Luis Obispo Tribune that six of
the phones were installed on the Cuesta Grade two years ago
because that is the area where emergency call boxes get the most
use. The hearing-impaired have not used them. According to Mr.
Chu, the boxes were used by hearing people an average of about
five or six times a month during the last two years. Figures
indicate that countywide, the 168 call boxes are used between
1.6 and 1.8 times a month.

Ms. Pesek contends that asking about usage misses the point.
"You and I may not have used a call box," according to her, "but
we want it to be there."

The installation comes as some counties prepare to cut the
number of call boxes, rendered less necessary because people
have cell phones.


CALIFORNIA: SAG Members Could Get Windfall From Greenberg Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Screen Actors Guild is telling its members that "thousands"
of them nationwide may be entitled to money from a class action
lawsuit against payroll houses, studios, and production
companies, The Back Stage reports.

According to SAG, thousands of its actors who have worked in
California have already received letters regarding the case from
the state Superior Court of Los Angeles County, as have
thousands of other industry employees. The deadline for
submitting a claim is October 15 with three different claim
forms available, depending on the wages earned between September
1, 1996, and October 8, 2005. Sag says that claimants are
required to provide documentation, such as W-2 forms or Social
Security records.  The $5.3 million settlement of the case
entitled "Bill Greenberg, et al. v. E.P. Management Services,
L.P., et al." is awaiting final approval, to be decided in
November in November. Among the many defendants are some of
Hollywood's major studios, television networks, production
companies, and ad agencies.

Seth Oster, SAG's press chief, did call Back Stage at press time
to say that a payment cap of $550 presently exists for claims
adding that it could be altered depending on how many claims are
filed.  SAG's Web site states, "The lawsuit relates to issues
with the timing of payments and the information on pay stubs
used by major payroll houses and the studios. The Greenberg
settlement combines 14 separate lawsuits, which sought damages
from a number of payroll houses, studios, and production
companies for alleged violations of certain provisions of the
[California] Labor Code. The issues addressed by the lawsuits
include whether all legally required information was included on
pay stubs and whether payment of wages was made on time when
employees' work for the employer ended."

According to court papers, a final approval hearing will be
conducted on November 18 at 9 a.m. in the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County.

For more details, contact SAG, Phone: (866) 686-8704, Web site:
http://www.motionpicturesettlement.com.  


CONTINENTAL MILLS: Recalls Brownie Mixes For Undeclared Walnuts
---------------------------------------------------------------
Continental Mills, Seattle WA is recalling Ghirardelli Chocolate
Syrup Brownie Premium Mix because it may contain undeclared
walnuts. People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to
walnuts run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic
reaction if they consume the product.

Ghirardelli Chocolate Syrup Brownie Premium Mix was distributed
to various states located east of the Rockies through retail
stores. The product is packaged in an 18.75 oz retail box with
the code date embossed on the top flap. The code dates involved
are K_5181_; K_5182_; K_5194_; K_5195_; K_5201_; and K_5231_.
(Underscore could represent any letter).

To date no illnesses have been reported from this product.

The company initiated a recall when it was discovered that a
product containing walnuts was packaged into the Ghirardelli
Chocolate Syrup Brownie Premium Mix retail box. Upon
investigation, the company determined there were a small number
of the wrong boxes used on the production line. The company has
notified its distributors and retailers where the product was
distributed. The company is working in cooperation with the
Federal Food and Drug Administration until the recall is
complete.

Consumers who have Ghirardelli Chocolate Syrup Brownie Premium
Mix with any of these codes should return them to the place of
purchase for a full refund. They may also contact Continental
Mills at 1-800-457-7744 (Monday -Friday 7AM - 5PM Pacific
Standard Time) or via email: baking@continentalmills.com.



CRT PROPERTIES: Settles FL Lawsuits V. DRA Acquisition Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
CRT Properties, Inc. reached a settlement for the class actions
filed in against it in the Circuit Court of the 15th Judicial
Circuit, Palm Beach County, Florida related to the Company's
pending merger transaction with DRA CRT Acquisition Corporation.  
The suits also name as defendants each of the Company's
directors and DRA Advisors LLC, and are styled "Sam Leff et al
v. CRT Properties, Inc. et al., Case No. 50 2005CA
005704XXXXMB(AJ)," filed on June 21, 2005, and "Robert Dee et al
v. CRT Properties, Inc. et al., Case No. 50 2005CA
006374XXXXMB(AH), filed on July 8, 2005."

The suits allege, among other things, that the merger
consideration to be paid to the Company's shareholders in the
Merger is unfair and inadequate and unfairly favors insiders.  
In addition, the complaints allege that our directors violated
their fiduciary duties by, among other things, failing to take
all reasonable steps to assure the maximization of shareholder
value, including the implementation of a bidding mechanism to
foster a fair auction of our company to the highest bidder or
the exploration of strategic alternatives that will return
greater or equivalent short-term value to the Company's
shareholders. The complaints seek, among other relief,
certification of the lawsuit as a class action, a declaration
that the Merger is unfair, unjust and inequitable to the
Company's shareholders, an injunction preventing completion of
the Merger at a price that is not fair and equitable,
compensatory damages to the class, attorneys' fees and expenses,
along with such other relief as the court might find just and
proper.

On August 8, 2005, the Company entered into a memorandum with
the plaintiffs in the two cases, pursuant to which it agreed in
principal to settle these lawsuits. Under the terms of the
proposed settlement, which is subject to the execution of the
definitive settlement documents, completion by plaintiffs'
counsel of confirmatory discovery and court approval, the
Company agreed to make certain additional disclosures in its
definitive proxy statement dated August 8, 2005, which were not
contained in the preliminary proxy statement the company filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 15, 2005.  
In addition, the Company agreed not to oppose application by
plaintiffs' counsel to the court for an award of attorneys' fees
and expenses in an amount not to exceed the aggregate $400,000,
which would be paid by the Company or its successors.


CUMMINS INC.: Recalls 2,860 ISB-02 Engines Due to Crash Hazard   
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cummins Inc. in cooperation with the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration's Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) is
voluntarily recalling about 2,860 units of the ISB-02 Engines
due to crash hazard. NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID Number: 05E054000.

According to the ODI, certain of the aforementioned engines
equipped with EMC calibrated fuel lift pumps have an erratic
voltage supply that causes premature brush wear internal to the
fuel lift pump. This premature wear could result in fuel lift
pump failure and in some cases may cause an engine stall
condition. Should the engine stall, a vehicle crash could occur.

As a remedy, Cummins will notify owners and repair the engines
by EMC raclibration and replacement to the fuel lift pump at no
charge to the customer. The recall is expected to begin during
October 2005.

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


DANKA BUSINESS: TN Court Yet To Rule on Lawsuit Summary Judgment
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of
Tennessee has yet to rule on Danka Business Systems, PLC's
petition to grant summary judgment in its favor in the putative
class action complaint titled "Stephen L. Edwards, et al.,
Plaintiffs vs. Danka Industries, Inc., et al., including
American Business Credit Corporation, Defendants."  The suit
alleges claims of breach of contract, fraud/intentional
misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, violation of the Florida
Deception and Unfair Trade Protection Act and injunctive relief.  

The claim was filed in the state court in Tennessee, and the
Company has removed the claim to the United States District
Court for Middle District of Tennessee for further proceedings.
The plaintiffs have filed a motion to certify the class, which
the Company has opposed. The Company has filed a motion for
summary judgment, which plaintiffs have opposed.


DHB INDUSTRIES: Joins FL Zylon Body Armor Litigation Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
DHB Industries, Inc. reached a preliminary settlement for a
class action filed against it in the Circuit Court of the
Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in Broward County, Florida.  A
police organization and individual police officers filed the
suit in January 2005, alleging concerns regarding the
effectiveness and durability of body armor with high
concentrations of Zylon in the Company's bullet-resistant soft
body armor (vests).  

In February 2005, the Company reached a preliminary settlement
with respect to the class action lawsuit filed, subject to final
court approval.  The Company does not expect this settlement to
have a material adverse effect on its financial position and has
set up a reserve in accrued expenses for the approximate cost of
the settlement, the Company said in a disclosure to the
Securities and Exchange Commission.


DIGI INTERNATIONAL: Parties Submit Revised NY Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the consolidated securities class action filed
against Digi International, Inc. submitted revised settlement
documents to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.  The suit also names as defendants
NetSilicon, certain of its officers and certain underwriters
involved in NetSilicon's initial public offering (IPO).

On April 19, 2002, a consolidated amended class action complaint
was filed asserting claims relating to NetSilicon's IPO and
approximately 300 other public companies. The complaint asserts,
among other things, that NetSilicon's IPO prospectus and
registration statement violated federal securities laws because
they contained material misrepresentations and/or omissions
regarding the conduct of NetSilicon's IPO underwriters in
allocating shares in NetSilicon's IPO to the underwriters'
customers.  Pursuant to a stipulation between the parties, the
two named officers were dismissed from the lawsuit, without
prejudice, on October 9, 2002.

In June 2003, the Company elected to participate in a proposed
settlement agreement with the plaintiffs in this litigation. If
ultimately approved by the Court, this proposed settlement would
result in a dismissal, with prejudice, of all claims in the
litigation against the Company and against any of the other
issuer defendants who elect to participate in the proposed
settlement, together with the current or former officers and
directors of participating issuers who were named as individual
defendants.

Consummation of the proposed settlement remains conditioned upon
obtaining both preliminary and final approval by the Court.
Formal settlement documents were filed with the Court in June
2004, together with a motion asking the Court to preliminarily
approve the form of settlement. Certain underwriters who were
named as defendants in the settling cases, and who are not
parties to the proposed settlement, opposed preliminary approval
of the proposed settlement of those cases.  On February 15,
2005, the Court issued an order preliminarily approving the
proposed settlement in all respects but one. In response to this
order, the plaintiffs and the issuer defendants are in the
process of submitting revised settlement documents to the Court.
The underwriter defendants may object to the revised settlement
documents.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


E.D. SMITH: Recalls Dijon Dressing Due To Undeclared Milk, Egg
--------------------------------------------------------------
E.D. Smith USA of North East, PA is recalling 16 ounce bottles
of "Classic Sensation and Garden Goodness Honey Dijon Dressing"
because they may contain undeclared milk and egg. People who
have allergies to milk or egg run the risk of an allergic
reaction if they consume these products.

The recalled "Classic Sensation and Garden Goodness Honey Dijon
Dressings" were distributed nationwide in retail stores.

The product comes in a 16 ounce, clear plastic bottle. Classic
Sensations Honey Dijon Dressing (UPC 36294-40006) is marked with
use by date code of 08-10-06 08C (This code is followed by a 4-
digit military time stamp), and Garden Goodness Honey Dijon
Dressing (UPC 36294-10511) marked with use by date codes of 07-
15-06 05C, 07-21-06 04C, 07-25-06 02C, 08-10-06 08C, and 08-18-
06 02C (The codes are followed by a 4-digit military time
stamp). The codes are located on the back label.

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
problem, and there is no risk to consumers who are not allergic
to milk or egg.

The recall was initiated after it was discovered that the milk
and egg-containing product was distributed in packaging that did
not reveal the presence of milk and egg. Subsequent
investigation indicates the two ingredients (milk, egg) were not
on the ingredient statement of the package. This has been
rectified.

Consumers who have purchased 16-ounce packages of "Classic
Sensations or Garden Goodness Honey Dijon Dressing" are urged to
return them to the place of purchase for a full refund.
Consumers with question may contact the company at
1-877-627-6271.


HARRY & DAVID: Recalls Spiced Apple Almonds For Undeclared Milk
---------------------------------------------------------------
Harry & David Operations, Corporation of Medford, Oregon is
recalling 1400 bags of Spiced Apple Almonds, because they
contain undeclared milk products. People who have an allergy or
severe sensitivity to milk products run the risk of serious or
life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume these
products.

The bags of Spiced Apple Almonds were distributed throughout the
United States in Harry and David retail stores and in mail order
gifts.

The Spiced Apple Almonds sold in Harry and David retail stores
are in 8 oz. clear plastic bags, tied with a ribbon. The lower
left hand corner of the back label shows a "Best if used by"
date of 07/28/06.

The mail order Spiced Apple Almonds are in 6 oz. bags in the
Harvest Home Collection Basket, item number 6266.. The lower
left hand corner of the Spiced Apple Almonds label shows a code
of 1815SF.

No illnesses have been reported to date.

The recall was initiated after it was discovered that product
containing milk products were distributed in packaging that did
not reveal the presence of milk products. Subsequent
investigation indicates the problem was caused by a data entry
error. The error has been corrected and future production will
be unaffected. Measures have been put in place to prevent such
errors in the future.

Consumers who have purchased Harry & David Spiced Apple Almonds
are urged to return them to any Harry & David Store for a full
refund. Consumers who have received Apple Spiced Almonds through
a mail order shipment should contact Harry & David Customer
Service at 800-345-5655 for a full refund. Consumers with
questions also may contact the company at 1-800-345-5655.


IAC/INTERACTIVECORP: Faces Consolidated Securities Lawsuit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a consolidated securities class action against
IAC/InterActiveCorp in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, styled "In re IAC/InterActiveCorp
Securities Litigation."  The suit also names as defendants
fourteen current or former officers or directors of the Company
or its Expedia travel business.

Several suits were initially filed, arising out of the Company's
August 4, 2004 announcement of its earnings for the second
quarter of 2004.  On May 20, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended complaint. Like the twelve complaints
previously filed in this case, this complaint generally alleges
that the value of the Company's stock was artificially inflated
by pre-announcement statements about its financial results and
forecasts that were false and misleading due to the defendants'
alleged failure to disclose various problems faced by the
Company's travel businesses.  The plaintiffs seek to represent a
class of shareholders who purchased the Company's common stock
between March 31, 2003 and August 3, 2004. The complaint
purports to assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, as well as Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act
of 1933, and seeks damages in an unspecified amount.

The suit is styled "In re IAC/InteractiveCorp Securities
Litigation, case no. 1:04-cv-07447-RJH," filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
under Judge Richard J. Holwell.  Representing the plaintiffs are
Frederick Taylor Isquith, Sr. and Gregory M. Nespole of Wolf
Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP, 270 Madison Avenue, New
York, NY 10016, Phone: 212-545-4600, Fax: 212-545-4653, E-mail:
isquith@whafh.com; and Jeffrey S. Nobel of Schatz & Nobel, One
Corporate Center, 20 Church Street, Suite 1700, Hartford, CT
06103, Phone: 860-493-6292.


IAC/INTERACTIVECORP: TX Court Certifies Consumer Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The 229th Judicial District Court in Duval County, Texas granted
class certification for the lawsuit filed against
IAC/InterActiveCorp and Hotels.com, L.P., alleging that the
Company collects "excess" hotel occupancy taxes from consumers
(i.e., allegedly charges consumers more for occupancy taxes than
it pays to the hotels for their use in satisfying their
obligations to the taxing authorities).

On June 20, 2003, a purported class action was filed, styled
"Nora J. Olvera, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Hotels.com, Inc., case no. DC-03-259.  The
complaint sought certification of a nationwide class of all
persons who have purchased hotel accommodations from Hotels.com
since June 20, 1999, as well as restitution of, disgorgement of,
and the imposition of a constructive trust upon all "excess"
occupancy taxes allegedly collected by Hotels.com.  On July 14,
2003, Hotels.com filed a responsive pleading that denied the
material allegations of the complaint and asserted a number of
defenses, including that the allegations in the complaint are
subject to mandatory arbitration.

On August 12, 2003, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint
containing substantially the same factual allegations and
requests for relief, but naming as defendants Hotels.com, L.P.,
Hotels.com (the parent company of the Hotels.com, L.P. operating
business), and IAC/InterActiveCorp (IAC).  On September 8, 2003,
the defendants filed responsive pleadings that denied the
material allegations of the amended complaint and asserted a
number of defenses, including that the allegations in the
amended complaint are subject to mandatory arbitration and, in
IAC's case, that the court lacks personal jurisdiction over the
Company.

On January 24, 2004, the Hotels.com defendants filed a motion to
stay the class-action litigation pending the outcome of an
arbitration proceeding that had been commenced by the plaintiff.
On January 30, 2004, the plaintiff opposed that motion and also
filed a second amended complaint containing substantially the
same factual allegations and requests for relief as her prior
pleadings, but slightly modifying the class allegations to take
account of the class period alleged in the arbitration
proceeding.

On February 4, 2004, Hotels.com, L.P. filed a motion to dismiss
the "Olvera" lawsuit for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction,
based upon the named plaintiff's not being in fact a member of
the class that she purports to represent. That motion, together
with the Hotels.com defendants' motion to stay the lawsuit, was
denied by the court on May 20, 2004.  On May 6, 2004, the
plaintiff in the Olvera lawsuit filed a third amended complaint
containing substantially the same factual allegations and
requests for relief as her prior pleadings, but with additional
allegations in support of her position that the court has
personal jurisdiction over IAC.

On December 29, 2004, following the scheduling of a class
certification hearing in the "Canales" lawsuit (as described
below), the plaintiff in the Olvera lawsuit filed a motion for
class certification.  On February 16, 2005, the plaintiff in the
Olvera lawsuit filed a motion to withdraw her request for class
certification. The Hotels.com defendants do not oppose this
motion.

On September 25, 2003, the plaintiff in the "Olvera" litigation
filed with the American Arbitration Association in Dallas,
Texas, a demand for arbitration against Hotels.com, L.P. The
arbitration claim contained substantially the same factual
allegations as in the Olvera lawsuit. The arbitration was
purportedly brought on behalf of a class comprised of all
persons who have purchased hotel accommodations from the Company
since October 31, 2001. The claimant sought a determination that
the arbitration is properly maintainable as a class proceeding
and an order requiring disgorgement and restitution to the class
members of excess profits allegedly derived from "assessing"
hotel occupancy taxes that were neither owed nor paid to any
taxing authority.  On October 27, 2003, Hotels.com, L.P. filed a
responsive pleading that denied the material allegations of the
arbitration claim and asserted a number of defenses.

On May 6, 2004, Hotels.com, L.P. filed a motion to dismiss the
Olvera arbitration claim for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction, on the grounds that under Texas law the tax-based
nature of the claim requires that it be adjudicated in a state
administrative proceeding, not a private-party proceeding such
as an arbitration. A hearing on that motion, as well as on the
issue whether the governing arbitration clause permits the
arbitration to be maintained as a class proceeding, was held on
July 9, 2004.  On September 2, 2004, the arbitrator, accepting
Hotels.com, L.P.'s position that the exclusive remedy for this
type of tax-related claim is a state administrative proceeding,
issued a final award dismissing Olvera's arbitration claim.

On March 26, 2004, the plaintiff in a separate class action
pending in Texas state court, styled "Mary Canales, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Hotels.com,
L.P., case no. No. DC-03-162," filed in the same court, filed a
second amended complaint containing allegations that are
substantially similar to allegations made in the Olvera lawsuit.
On May 13, 2004, the plaintiff in the Canales lawsuit filed a
third amended complaint alleging in essence:

     (1) that Hotels.com charges customers "taxes" that exceed
         the amount required by or paid to the applicable taxing
         authorities, and

     (2) that Hotels.com charges customers "fees" that do not
         correspond to any specific services provided.

The amended pleading continues to seek nationwide class
certification, asserts a claim only for breach of contract, and
seeks damages in an unspecified amount.  

Also on May 13, 2004, the plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification. On June 24, 2004, Hotels.com, L.P. filed its
opposition to that motion.  On July 9, 2004, the plaintiffs in
the Olvera lawsuit filed a petition in intervention in the
Canales lawsuit and a motion to stay the proceedings in that
lawsuit or, alternatively, for a continuance of the hearing on
the class-certification motion. The gravamen of the Olvera
plaintiffs' intervention and motion is that the Canales
plaintiff has transformed her lawsuit into a "copycat" of the
Olvera lawsuit, to the potential detriment of the Olvera
plaintiffs.  On July 13, 2004, the Canales plaintiff filed a
motion to strike the Olvera plaintiffs' intervention and motion.
On August 2, 2004, the court heard argument on the two motions.
On August 3, 2004, the court adjourned the hearing on the class-
certification motion.  On September 1, 2004, the court denied
the Canales plaintiff's motion to strike the Olvera plaintiffs'
intervention and motion.  On February 17, 2005, the court held a
hearing on the plaintiffs' motion for class certification, as
well as on the defendants' request for dismissal of the action
on the same jurisdictional grounds on which Olvera's arbitration
claim was dismissed.

On May 2, 2005, the court issued an order granting the
plaintiff's motion for class certification. On May 18, 2005, the
defendants filed an interlocutory appeal from the certification
order.  The appeal has been fully briefed, and oral argument
before the Texas Court of Appeals for the Fourth District was
held on August 10, 2005.


IAC/INTERACTIVECORP: Consumer Lawsuit Remanded To WA State Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The consolidated class action filed against IAC/InterActiveCorp
and Expedia, Inc., alleging improper charging of hotel occupancy
taxes, has been remanded to the King County Superior Court in
Washington from federal court.

On January 10, 2005, two purported class actions were filed in
the King County Superior Court in Washington against Expedia and
the Company, styled "C. Michael Nielsen et al. v. Expedia, Inc.
et al., case no. No. 05-2-02060-1, and "Bruce Deaton et al. v.
Expedia, Inc. et ano., case no. 05-2-02062-8."  The gravamen is
that Expedia is improperly charging and/or failing to pay hotel
occupancy taxes and engaging in other deceptive practices in
charging customers for taxes and fees.  The complaints seek
certification of a nationwide class of all persons who were
assessed a charge for "taxes/fees" when booking rooms through
Expedia.  The complaints allege violation of the Washington
Consumer Protection Act and common-law conversion.  The
complaints seek imposition of a constructive trust on monies
received from the plaintiff class, as well as damages in an
unspecified amount, disgorgement, restitution, interest, and
penalties.

On February 3, 2005, a third, substantially similar purported
class action was filed in the same court against the Company and
Expedia, styled "Jose Alba, on Behalf of Himself and All Others
Similarly Situated v. IAC/InterActiveCorp et ano., case no. 05-
2-04533-7."  The complaint seeks nationwide class certification,
alleges violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act, and
seeks damages in an unspecified amount, disgorgement,
restitution, interest, and penalties.

On February 18, 2005, the three cases were consolidated into one
action, styled "In re Expedia Hotel Taxes and Fees Litigation,
case No. 05-2-02060-1."  On March 7, 2005, Expedia invoking the
recently enacted federal Class Action Fairness Act (the "CAFA"),
removed this consolidated consumer class action from Washington
state court to the United States District Court for the Western
District of Washington.  On March 17, 2005, the plaintiffs filed
a motion to remand the case to state court, asserting that by
reason of its effective-date provision, the CAFA does not apply
to the case and thus does not afford a basis for removal.
Expedia opposed the motion.  On April 15, 2005, the federal
district court issued an order granting the motion to remand. On
April 22, 2005, Expedia filed in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit a petition for leave to appeal the
district court's remand order pursuant to the CAFA. The
plaintiffs opposed the petition. On July 15, 2005, the court of
appeals issued an order denying Expedia's petition for leave to
appeal.


IAC/INTERACTIVECORP: CA Consumer Lawsuit Remanded To State Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California remanded the consumer class action filed against
IAC/InterActiveCorp, Hotels.com, L.P., and other internet travel
companies including Expedia and Hotwire, for improperly charged
hotel occupancy fees has been remanded to the Los Angeles
Superior Court in California.  

The suit, filed by the City of Los Angeles, alleges that the
defendants are improperly charging and/or failing to pay hotel
occupancy taxes. The complaint seeks certification of a
statewide class of all California cities and counties that have
enacted uniform transient occupancy-tax ordinances effective on
or after December 30, 1990.  The complaint alleges violation of
those ordinances, violation of section 17200 of the California
Business and Professions Code, and common-law conversion. The
complaint seeks imposition of a constructive trust on all monies
owed by the defendants to the government, as well as
disgorgement, restitution, interest, and penalties.

On March 22, 2005, the plaintiffs moved to remand the three
cases to state court, based upon the same arguments made in the
case against Expedia.  Hotwire and the Company opposed those
motions. On April 19, 2005, the federal district court
consolidated the three cases into one action, "Jana Sneddon v.
Hotwire, Inc. et al."  On June 29, 2005, the district court
issued an order granting the motion to remand.  On July 6, 2005,
Hotwire and the Company filed in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit a petition for leave to appeal the
district court's remand order pursuant to the Class Action
Fairness Act (CAFA).


IAC/INTERACTIVECORP: To Appeal Remand of CA Suit To State Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals allowed
IAC/InterActiveCorp, and a number of internet travel companies
like Expedia and Hotels.com, Inc. to appeal The United States
District Court for the Central District of California's ruling
remanding the consumer fraud class action filed against them to
the Superior Court of California in Los Angeles County.

The suit, styled "Ronald Bush et al. v. CheapTickets, Inc. et
al., case no. BC329021," alleges that the defendants are
improperly charging and/or failing to pay hotel occupancy taxes
and engaging in other deceptive practices in charging customers
for taxes and fees.  The complaint seeks certification of a
statewide class of all California residents who were assessed a
charge for "taxes/fees" when booking rooms through the
defendants. The complaint alleges violation of Section 17200 of
the California Business and Professions Code and common-law
conversion.  The complaint seeks the imposition of a
constructive trust on monies received from the plaintiff class,
as well as damages in an unspecified amount, disgorgement,
restitution, and injunctive relief.

On March 28, 2005, the defendants invoking the Class Action
Fairness Act (CAFA), removed the case from California state
court to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California.  On March 31, 2005, the federal district
court issued an order to show cause why the case should not be
remanded to state court for lack of federal subject-matter
jurisdiction, on the grounds that the CAFA does not apply to the
case in light of the statute's effective-date provision.  On
April 11, 2005, the parties each filed responses to the order to
show cause.  On May 5, 2005, the district court issued an order
remanding the case to state court.  On May 16, 2005, the
defendants filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit a petition for leave to appeal the district
court's remand order pursuant to the CAFA.  On July 13, 2005,
the court of appeals issued an order granting the defendants'
petition and setting a briefing schedule.  Oral argument of the
appeal has been scheduled for September 16, 2005.


INDONESIA: Walhi Plans Suit V. 10 Companies For Starting Fires
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Indonesian Forum for the Environment (Walhi) will file a
class action suit against 10 companies in Riau for allegedly
starting forest fires during the month of August, according to a
spokesman, The ANTARA News reports.  Walhi Executive Director
Halid Muhammad told ANTARA News that the suit would be filed on
September 6.

Last August, the NOAA-12 AVHRR and NOAA-16 AVHRR satellites in
detected 3,258 hot spots spread in many parts of Riau province,
except Pekanbaru, and there were indications the fires had been
caused by the activities of 10 companies in the region. The
number of hot spots in Riau was much higher than those in other
provinces in the country.

According to Mr. Halid, "Details of the suit have almost been
completed and it will represent three groups of people in
society, namely parents whose children suffered from the smoke,
people who have lost their rights to enjoy clean air and
environment, and children who lost their right to get education
as thick smoke forced schools to suspend classes."

Walhi is hoping that the class action would teach the public on
their right to enjoy a healthy environment.  Additionally, Walhi
stated that the 10 companies to be named in the suit had been
burning forest in their concessions from year to year. The NGO
was also planning to give the names of companies that had set
forests on fire in Sumatra and Kalimantan last August to the
Forestry Minister and the Chief of the Indonesian Police.  Aside
from taking legal action Walhi wanted to present its
recommendations on the measures that need to be taken to
anticipate forest fires in the future and called on the police
to take legal measures.

Mr. Halid told The ANTARA News, "This is a complicated issue. It
happens almost every year and it has become an annual event in
the forestry business. Its time for the government to issue a
clear policy to punish perpetrators of forest fires and ban the
slash-and-burn system in land clearing."


ITXC CORPORATION: SEC Files Action V. Ex-Regional Director in NJ
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed a civil enforcement
action in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
against Yaw Osei Amoako, the former Regional Director for Africa
of ITXC Corporation, alleging that he violated the anti-bribery
provisions of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1997 (FCPA),
as amended, which is codified as Section 30A of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.
     
The Commission's complaint alleges that Mr. Amoako bribed a
senior official of the government-owned telephone company in
Nigeria, known as Nigerian Telecommunications Ltd., in order to
obtain a lucrative contract for ITXC.  The contract was
necessary for ITXC to be able to transmit telephone calls to
individuals and businesses in Nigeria.  According to the
complaint, Mr. Amoako paid the Nitel official a total of
$166,541.31 in bribes between November 2002 and May 2004, and
ITXC made $1,136,618 in net profits from the contract.  In 2004,
ITXC merged with Teleglobe International Holdings Ltd.

The Commission seeks to have the Court enjoin Mr. Amoako from
any future violations of the FCPA, require him to disgorge all
ill-gotten gains derived from his misconduct, and order him to
pay a civil money penalty. The Commission's investigation is
continuing. The suit is styled, SEC v. Yaw Osei Amoako, Civil
Action No. 05-4284, GEB, D.N.J. (LR-19356).


KANSAS: Valley Center Family Files Racial Bias Suit V. District
---------------------------------------------------------------
A family filed a lawsuit against Valley Center school district
or U.S.D. 262, alleging discrimination based on race in the high
school basketball program, The Ark Valley News reports.  Teresa
Garvey, whose son Joe is a Valley Center High School senior, is
the plaintiff in the class action complaint for civil rights
violations.

After a recent scheduling conference before Magistrate Judge
Karen Humphries in federal court, the Garveys' attorney,
Lawrence Williamson Jr., told The Ark Valley News that the case
is in the discovery phase when both sides may review records and
take depositions. A jury trial though has not been scheduled.
"It's still way early in the process," Mr. Williamson added.

Alan Rupe, Richard Olmstead and Patricia Dengler represent the
Valley Center school district in the case.  Court documents show
that Wayne Morrow spent five years as head coach for the high
school boys' basketball team. Matt Klusener and Kenny Carter
most recently assisted him. In March, Mr. Morrow, who is now
teaching and coaching in Larned, resigned and a new basketball
coach, Brett Flory, was hired for this school year.

The complaint alleges that selection procedures for the high
school basketball team are excessively subjective, stating,
"Selection of a sports team undoubtedly requires some
subjectivity and discretion. However, when that subjectivity and
discretion is without boundaries, in the hands of racially or
culturally biased coaches, such limitless discretion will have a
disparate impact against minorities: just as it has in this
case."

Additionally, the complaint outlines Valley Center's cut policy
and evaluation sheet for prospective basketball players. Under
that policy, which is listed in the Garveys' complaint, the
coaching staff makes a final cut for the basketball teams after
a minimum of three full practices in November. The complaint
also states that students are evaluated in the mile run,
vertical jump, consecutive tips, two-minute sprint, dribbling,
shooting and the following intangibles: team player; heart,
desire and dedication; caring; coachability; athleticism and
size (positions); character; competitiveness; past basketball
experiences observed; mental and physical toughness; basketball
savvy; poise; intensity; passion; will to win; and will to
persevere.

The Garveys are alleging that coaches often fail to correlate
players' scores to their completion of a task, and they fail to
place a numerical value on the intangibles listed. They accuse
the school district of "turning a blind eye to discriminatory
impact that the neutral policies had upon the plaintiff and
Class," failing to adequately train staff and showing a
deliberate indifference to Joe Garvey's constitutional rights.

The class action aspect pertains to minority students who were
enrolled since January 1, 1999, at Valley Center High School and
who may have been "excluded from athletic competition because of
their race, ethnicity and/or color," according to the complaint,
which goes on to state, "Such discrimination has undermined and
detracted from the plaintiff's educational experience that has
effectively denied plaintiff's equal access to his school's
resources and opportunities and has had a concrete, negative
effect on the plaintiff's education. Additionally, plaintiff's
concentration level has been reduced, and anxiety increased."

Thus, the complaint is arguing that damages should be awarded
for the continuing offenses of lost educational benefits,
financial loss, humiliation, embarrassment and mental anguish.
It is also asking for a declaration that the school district
violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and an order
to develop and implement a plan to ensure students will not face
a discriminatory educational environment. And finally, the
complaint seeks for the district to be ordered to provide an
annual report to Mr. Williamson for three years detailing the
implementation of its plan and that it be ordered to "provide
such relief as is necessary to compensate plaintiff for the
discrimination to which he was subjected."

Mr. Williamson told Ark Valley News that his clients' goal is to
persuade the district, either through a jury trial or
settlement, to initiate a policy that prevents coaches from
reaching decisions about players based on their race and to take
complaints seriously.


LANDSTAR SYSTEM: To Appeal Certification of FL OOIDA Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Jacksonville, Florida-based truckload carrier Landstar System
vows to appeal a recent ruling of the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Florida that certifies as a class action
a lawsuit pitting it against the Owner-Operator Independent
Drivers Association (OOIDA), The Fleet Owner reports.

According to Landstar, OOIDA and four owner-operators allege
that Landstar's contractual agreements with its independent
(referred to as "business capacity owners" or "BCOs") do not
strictly comply with certain disclosure requirements of the
federal leasing regulations, which is why the court's class
action certification is improper.

Landstar VP, general counsel & Secretary Michael Kneller told
Fleet Owner, "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." He further
stated, "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 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.


LOUISIANA: Appeals Court Rejects Tax Money Refund For Park Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shreveport won't have to pay back taxes that were supposed to be
used for a city park, according to a recent ruling by the 2nd
Circuit Court of Appeal, The Associated Press reports.

In its ruling state appeal court judges also rejected class
action status for the lawsuit filed by city voters upset because
the park on Cross Bayou still doesn't exist, after voters
approved $5 million in bonds to create it nearly a decade ago.

In the lawsuit, plaintiffs are claiming that the city of
Shreveport misused money designated for a downtown park,
instead, the city built a parking lot on the site and allowed
the DeJa Vu strip club to open up across the street, which uses
the lot in question. Additionally, because of the club's
proximity to that site, the plaintiffs are claiming that the
land is no longer legally suitable for a park. The suit calls
for Deja Vu to be shut down and for taxpayers to get a refund.  
John Milkovich filed the suit on behalf of taxpayers, an earlier
Class Action Reporter story (June 29, 2005) reports.

Previously, attorneys representing the city of Shreveport in the
legal battle asked the three-member panel of the Second Circuit
Court of Appeals, which is composed of Judges James Stewart,
Sr., Gay Gaskins and D. Milton Moore III, to throw out the
lawsuit, arguing that the class action case is unnecessary and
premature, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (June 29,
2005) reports.


MINNESOTA: Metropolitan Airports Commission Faces Injury Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Homeowners living near the Minneapolis-St. Paul International
Airport banded together and filed a lawsuit seeking class action
status against the Metropolitan Airports Commission, accusing it
of failing to provide soundproofing promised for their homes,
The Associated Press reports.

Filed in Hennepin County District Court, the suit purports to
represent a class of about 20,000 residents who live in an area
where airport noise levels range from 60 to 64 decibels. Also
named, as a defendant in the case is Northwest Airlines.  The
plaintiffs are arguing that the airports commission agreed to
buffer the homes from airport noise in the mid-1990s in return
for the cities' agreement to the commission's airport-expansion
plans.

However, the commission stated that it agreed to provide noise-
abatement packages only for homes that record a noise level of
65 decibels or greater. It has spent about $223 million to
soundproof about 7,700 homes at the higher decibel level,
according to the commission.  Pat Hogan, commission spokesman,
told Airport Business, "We believe we have kept our
commitments." He also said that airports commission is providing
air conditioning to homes in the 60-to-64-decibel areas but not
complete soundproofing packages arguing, "Is it prudent
government to provide the same level of insulation for houses
miles from the airport as we do to houses that are a few hundred
yards from the airport?" He further said, "The board decided
that wasn't good government."

Bob Moilanen, an attorney for the homeowners told Airport
Business, "This community feels it has been completely betrayed
by the MAC. It's troubling that after all these years, after all
this community's efforts, despite the involvement of numerous
political subdivisions and the state Legislature, that this
issue has not been resolved."

According to the homeowners' suit, the sound-insulation program
was to be funded by passenger fees and concessions at the
airport and that the money has instead been diverted to airport
expansion.


OLD SOUTH: Lawsuit Over SC Outbreak Might Not Get Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
An attorney representing more than 30 clients, who are suing Old
South restaurant in Camden, which was blamed for one of the
largest outbreaks of food-borne illness in South Carolina, is
reconsidering whether to seek class action status, The State
reports.

Robert Phillips of McGowan, Hood, Felder and Johnson in Rock
Hill brought the $5 million lawsuit in June on behalf of clients
who say they were sickened after eating at the restaurant in
May.  According to Mr. Phillips, he and the other attorneys
filing the suit against the Old South restaurant want to get
class certification so individual cases don't "clog up the
courts," an earlier Class Action Reporter story (June 24, 2005)
reports.

State health officials previously said that undercooked turkey
at the buffet likely caused the salmonella outbreak where one
person died and more than 300 became ill. In the wake of the
outbreak, the restaurant closed voluntarily for three weeks in
May and June as the Department of Health and Environmental
Control started their investigations into the incident an
earlier Class Action Reporter story (June 24, 2005) reports.  
Eight customers were named as plaintiffs in the suit, which
alleges that the restaurant was negligent in failing to store
and inspect its food, maintain proper procedures and safeguards,
and train and supervise its employees, an earlier Class Action
Reporter story (June 24, 2005) reports.

Mr. Phillips told The State that he is working with Old South
attorneys for a possible settlement and might not file a motion
for class action status.


PITNEY BOWES: AL Court OKs Settlement For Consumer Fraud Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Montgomery, Alabama Circuit Court approved the settlement
for the class actions filed against its wholly owned subsidiary
Pitney Bowes Credit Corporation (PBCC) arising out of the
equipment replacement program its wholly owned subsidiary,
offers to certain of its leasing customers.

Several suits were initially filed against the Company, alleging
that the PBCC program is mischaracterized in the lease contract
and is not properly communicated to the customers.  Plaintiffs
are seeking class-wide relief on their breach of contract claims
only and that the class-wide damages sought are reimbursement of
the fees paid. The complaints also seek to enjoin PBCC from
offering the program in the future, an earlier Class Action
Reporter story (March 15,2004) states.

The remaining class actions are:

     (1) Boston Reed v. Pitney Bowes, et al., filed in the
         Superior Court of California, County of Napa, filed
         January 16, 2002, on behalf of California customers,
         February 1998 to the present)

     (2) Harbin, et al. v. Pitney Bowes, et al., filed in the
         Montgomery, Alabama Circuit Court, on March 19, 2002,
         on behalf of Alabama customers, dating from March 1996
         to the present; the motion for summary judgment was
         denied in February 2004 but the court has granted the
         company the right to seek an immediate appeal of key
         aspects of that decision; the class certification
         motion is ready for decision with either party having
         the right to an immediate appeal of an adverse
         decision;

     (3) McFerrin Insurance v. Pitney Bowes, et al., filed in
         the District Court, Jefferson County, Texas, on May 29,
         2002, on behalf of a purported national class in
         September 2003;

     (4) Cred-X v. Pitney Bowes, et al., filed in the Circuit
         Court, Kanawha County West Virginia, on November 19,
         2003 on behalf of West Virginia customers with one
         claim purportedly on behalf of a national class of
         customers, with no date limitation disclosed.

Late last year, the Company entered into a mediation process
with counsel for the plaintiffs.  On December 31,2004, the
parties reached a tentative settlement for the litigation.  On
June 3, 2005, the Montgomery, Alabama Circuit Court granted
final approval of the settlement.


REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS: Reaches Settlement For NY Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. reached a settlement for the
consolidated securities class action filed against it and
certain of its officers and directors in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

In May 2003, securities class action lawsuits were commenced
against the Company and certain of its officers and directors.  
A consolidated amended class action complaint was filed in
October 2003.  The complaint, which purports to be brought on
behalf of a class consisting of investors in the Company's
publicly traded securities between March 28, 2000 and March 30,
2003, alleges that the defendants misstated or omitted material
information concerning the safety and efficacy of AXOKINE, a
product then being developed by the Company for the treatment of
obesity, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

On August 3, 2005, the plaintiffs and the Company entered into a
Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement settling all claims
against the Company in this lawsuit.  The settlement requires no
payment by the Company or any of the individual defendants named
in the lawsuit.  The Company's primary insurance carrier agreed
to make the required payment under the settlement, which is in
an immaterial amount to the Company. The settlement includes no
admission of wrongdoing by the Company or any of the individual
in defendants.  The settlement must be finally approved by the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York following notice and hearing.  Separately, the plaintiffs
and the individual defendants named in the lawsuit entered into
a Stipulation of Voluntary Dismissal, dismissing all claims
against the individuals. This voluntary dismissal shall
automatically become a dismissal with prejudice, without costs,
upon the court entering an order and final judgment approving
the settlement.

The suit is styled "Phillips v. Regeneron Pharm., et al., case
no. 1:03-cv-03111-RWS," filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, under Judge Robert
W. Sweet.  Representing the plaintiffs are Nadeem Faruqi of
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, 320 East 39th Street, New York, NY 10016,
Phone: (212)983-9330, Fax: (212) 983-9331, E-mail:
nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com; and Peter Edward Seidman and Richard H.
Weiss of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (NYC), One
Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY 10119, Phone: (212) 613-5625,
Fax: (212) 868-1229, E-mail: pseidman@milberg.com.  Representing
the Company are Dennis Patrick Orr of Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw
LLP(Chicago), 71 South Wacker Drive, Chicago, IL 60606, Phone:
(212)506-2500, Fax: (212)262-1910 E-mail:
dorr@mayerbrownrowe.com; and Lauren E. Aguiar of Skadden, Arps,
Slate, Meagher & Flom L.L.P., 4 Times Square, New York, NY
10036, Phone: (212) 735-3000.


SAFEGUARD SCIENTIFICS: DE Court Mulls Securities Suit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware has yet to rule
on Safeguard Scientific, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the class
action filed against it, CompuCom Systems, Inc. and members of
CompuCom's board of directors.

The suit was filed on behalf of CompuCom's minority stockholders
seeking to enjoin the proposed merger of CompuCom with Platinum
Equity, LLC on the ground that the members of the board of
directors of CompuCom and Safeguard have allegedly breached
fiduciary duties to CompuCom and its minority stockholders.

On July 27, 2004, the plaintiffs filed an amended class action
complaint, asserting claims similar to those brought in the
original complaints and adding claims relating to CompuCom's
disclosure in its Schedule 14A filed with the Securities &
Exchange Commission on July 15, 2004.  On July 27, 2004, the
plaintiffs also filed a motion for expedited proceedings and
discovery in connection with the injunctive relief sought and
requested that a preliminary injunction hearing be held before
August 19, 2004, the date of the special meetings of the
shareholders of the Company and the stockholders of CompuCom
relating to the CompuCom merger.

Defendants filed their opposition to the motion on July 28,
2004.  On July 29, 2004, the Court denied the plaintiffs' motion
to expedite.  On September 13, 2004, plaintiffs filed a Second
Amended Complaint alleging substantially similar claims.  On
November 5, 2004, Defendants filed motions to dismiss the Second
Amendment Complaint.


SAFEGUARD SCIENTIFICS: PA Suit Summary Judgment Appeal Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania has yet to rule on plaintiffs' appeal of an earlier
ruling granting summary judgment in favor of Safeguard
Scientifics, Inc. in the class action filed against the Company
and its former chairman Warren V. Musser.

On June 26, 2001, the Company and Mr. Musser were named as
defendants in a putative class action filed in United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.  
Plaintiffs allege that defendants failed to disclose that Mr.
Musser had pledged some or all of his Company stock as
collateral to secure margin trading in his personal brokerage
accounts.  Plaintiffs allege that defendants' failure to
disclose the pledge, along with their failure to disclose
several margin calls, a loan to Mr. Musser, the guarantee of
certain margin debt and the consequences thereof on the
Company's stock price, violated the federal securities laws.  
Plaintiffs allege claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On August 17, 2001, a second putative class action was filed
against the Company and Mr. Musser asserting claims similar to
those brought in the first proceeding.  In addition, plaintiffs
in the second case allege that the defendants failed to disclose
possible or actual manipulative aftermarket trading in the
securities of the Company's companies, the impact of competition
on prospects for one or more of the Company's companies and the
Company's lack of a superior business plan.

These two cases were consolidated for further proceedings under
the name "In Re: Safeguard Scientifics Securities Litigation"
and the Court approved the designation of a lead plaintiff and
the retention of lead plaintiffs' counsel.  The plaintiffs filed
a consolidated and amended complaint.  On May 23, 2002, the
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated and
amended complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted.  On October 24, 2002, the Court denied the
defendants' motions to dismiss, holding that, based on the
allegations of plaintiffs' consolidated and amended complaint,
dismissal would be inappropriate at that juncture.

On December 20, 2002, plaintiffs filed with the Court a motion
for class certification.  On August 27, 2003, the Court denied
plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  On September 12,
2003, plaintiffs filed with the United States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit a petition for permission to appeal the
order denying class certification.  On November 5, 2003, the
Third Circuit denied plaintiffs' petition and declined to hear
the appeal.  On November 18, 2003, plaintiffs' counsel moved to
intervene new plaintiffs and proposed class representatives,
which motion was denied by the Court on February 18, 2004.  

On July 12, 2004, a third putative class action complaint
captioned "Mandell v. Safeguard Scientifics, Inc., et al." was
filed against the Company and Mr. Musser in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.  The
new complaint asserts similar claims to those asserted in the
consolidated and amended class action complaint.  The complaint
also asserts individual claims on behalf of two individual
plaintiffs who had attempted unsuccessfully to intervene in the
consolidated action.

On August 10, 2004, the Court entered an order staying all
proceedings in the Mandell action pending the Court's ruling on
defendants' summary judgment motion in the consolidated action,
or until such later time as the Court may order. On November 23,
2004, the Court entered an order granting defendants' motion for
summary judgment.  On December 17, 2004, the plaintiffs filed a
notice of appeal with the Court, seeking to appeal the Court's
orders granting summary judgment to defendants, denying class
certification and denying the motion to intervene new
plaintiffs, among other matters.  The Court has not taken any
further action with respect to the Mandell action.


SHERWIN WILLIAMS: RI Lead-Based Paint Trial Set September 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------
A new trial has been set for litigation filed against Sherwin
Williams Co. and other lead-based paint manufacturers by the
State of Rhode Island, due to start in September 2005.

The Company's past operations included the manufacture and sale
of lead pigments and lead-based paints. The Company, along with
other companies, is a defendant in a number of legal
proceedings, including purported class actions, separate actions
brought by the State of Rhode Island, and actions brought by
various counties, cities, school districts and other government-
related entities, arising from the manufacture and sale of lead
pigments and lead-based paints.  The plaintiffs are seeking
recovery based upon various legal theories, including
negligence, strict liability, breach of warranty, negligent
misrepresentations and omissions, fraudulent misrepresentations
and omissions, concert of action, civil conspiracy, violations
of unfair trade practices and consumer protection laws,
enterprise liability, market share liability, nuisance, unjust
enrichment and other theories. The plaintiffs seek various
damages and relief, including personal injury and property
damage, costs relating to the detection and abatement of lead-
based paint from buildings, costs associated with a public
education campaign, medical monitoring costs and others.

The Company is also a defendant in legal proceedings arising
from the manufacture and sale of non-lead-based paints which
seek recovery based upon various legal theories, including the
failure to adequately warn of potential exposure to lead during
surface preparation when using non-lead-based paint on surfaces
previously painted with lead-based paint.  The Company expects
that additional lead pigment and lead-based paint litigation may
be filed against the Company in the future asserting similar or
different legal theories and seeking similar or different types
of damages and relief.

During September 2002, a jury trial commenced in the first phase
of the action brought by the State of Rhode Island against the
Company and the other defendants.  The sole issue before the
court in this first phase was whether lead pigment in paint
constituted a public nuisance under Rhode Island law. This first
phase did not consider the issues of liability or damages, if
any, related to the public nuisance claim. In October 2002, the
court declared a mistrial as the jury, which was split four to
two in favor of the defendants, was unable to reach a unanimous
decision.  This was the first legal proceeding against the
Company to go to trial relating to the Company's lead pigment
and lead-based paint litigation. The State of Rhode Island has
decided to retry the case and the new trial will decide all
issues, including liability and damages.  The trial is scheduled
for September 2005.  The Company believes it is possible that
additional legal proceedings could be scheduled for trial in
subsequent years in other jurisdictions.


ST. PAUL: Named in NJ Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
St. Paul Travelers Companies, Inc. continues to face a
consolidated class action filed in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey, styled "In re Insurance
Brokerage Antitrust Litigation."

Six putative class action lawsuits and one individual action
were initially filed against a number of insurance brokers and
insurers, including the Company, by plaintiffs who allegedly
purchased insurance products through one or more of the
defendant brokers.  Five of the class actions were filed in
federal district court, and the complaints are captioned:

     (1) Shell Vacations LLC v. Marsh & McLennan Companies,
         Inc., et al. (N.D. Ill. January 14, 2005),

     (2) Redwood Oil Company v. Marsh & McLennan Companies,
         Inc., et al., (N.D. Ill. January 21, 2005),

     (3) Boros v. Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc., et al. (N.D.
         Cal. February 4, 2005),

     (4) Mulcahey v. Arthur J. Gallagher & Co., et al. (D.N.J.
         February 23, 2005) and

     (5) Golden Gate Bridge, Highway, and Transportation
         District v. Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc., et al.
         (D.N.J. February 23, 2005)

Plaintiff in one of the five actions, "Shell Vacations LLC,"
later voluntarily dismissed its complaint.  The remaining
federal class actions were transferred by the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation to, or filed in, the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey and are being
coordinated or consolidated as part of "In re Insurance
Brokerage Antitrust Litigation," a multidistrict litigation
proceeding. Lead plaintiffs have been appointed.

On August 1, 2005, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended
consolidated complaint.  Plaintiffs allege that various
insurance brokers conspired with each other and with various
insurers, including the Company, to allocate brokerage customers
and rig bids for insurance products offered to those customers.  
The complaints include causes of action under the Sherman Act,
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, federal
and state common law and the laws of the various states
prohibiting antitrust violations and unfair and/or deceptive
trade practices.  Plaintiffs seek monetary damages, including
punitive damages and trebled damages permanent injunctive
relief, restitution, including disgorgement of profits, interest
and costs, including attorneys' fees.

The sixth class action, "Bensley Construction, Inc. v. Marsh &
McLennan Companies, Inc., et al. (Mass. Super. Ct. May 16,
2005)" and the individual action, "Office Depot, Inc. v. Marsh &
McLennan Companies, Inc., et al. (Fla. Cir. Ct. June 22, 2005),"
were brought in state court and assert state law claims based on
allegations similar to those made in "In re Insurance Brokerage
Antitrust Litigation." Certain defendants in "Bensley
Construction, Inc." have removed the action to the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts and moved to
stay it pending transfer to the District of New Jersey for
consolidation with "In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust
Litigation."

The OptiCare suit is styled "In Re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust
Litigation, case no. 2:05-cv-01168-FSH," filed in the United
States District Court in New Jersey, under Judge Faith S.
Hochberg.  Representing the plaintiffs are Joseph P. Guglielmo
and Edith M. Kallas, MILBERG WEISS BERSHAD & SCHULMAN LLP (NYC)
One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York NY 10119 Phone: 212-594-5300;
and Mark C. Rifkin, WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP,
270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016 Phone: 212 545-4600 E-
mail: rifkin@whafh.com.


SWITZERLAND: ERTF Seeks Share of Holocaust Survivors Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The European Roma and Travellers Forum stated that it was
seeking a share of a $1.25 billion settlement reached in the
United States in 1998 between Swiss banks and Holocaust
survivors, The AFX News Limited reports.

According to the Roma organization it had contacted Edward
Korman, the New York-based U.S. federal judge who is overseeing
the fund. The organization stated that it asked Judge Korman to
allocate an "equitable share" of the $500 million remaining in
the fund to finance "bottom-up, social and economic self-
development of Roma communities."

In addition to their 6 million Jewish victims, the Nazis are
believed to have killed at least 600,000 Roma during the
Holocaust. Roma organizations estimate that the number could
have been around 1.5 million.

The ERTF stated, "Many of the Romas' problems today are largely
rooted in the years of Nazi annihilation of the 'Gypsy'
communities, who, like Jews, were targeted by Nazi racial
ideology." The organization noted that Europe's eight to 10
million Roma were the continent's poorest ethnic group, and that
many lived in miserable conditions, facing discrimination on a
regular basis.

The Swiss fund was created after a class action lawsuit, itself
launched following a probe that found some Swiss banks did not
return deposits which people fleeing Nazi persecution had given
to them for safe keeping. The payouts are destined for account
holders or their heirs, as well as for aid projects helping
needy Holocaust survivors.


TRANSKARYOTIC THERAPIES: SEC Lodges Fraud Lawsuit V. Former CEO
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed a civil fraud
action against Richard B. Selden of Wellesley, Massachusetts,
concerning misrepresentations in public statements and
Commission filings by Transkaryotic Therapies, Inc., during Mr.
Selden's tenure as CEO and a director of the company.  The
action, filed in federal district court in Massachusetts,
charges Selden with violating or aiding and abetting violations
of the antifraud and reporting provisions of the federal
securities laws in connection with materially misleading
statements between October 2000 and October 2002 concerning
results of Transkaryotic's clinical trials and its FDA
application for its flagship drug, Replagal.  Transkayotic was a
biotechnology company that was headquartered in Cambridge,
Massachusetts, and was publicly traded until it was acquired by
another company in July 2005.
   
The Commission's complaint alleges that, in June 2000, after
completing clinical trials, Transkaryotic filed its application
for FDA approval of Replagal, a treatment for Fabry's Disease, a
rare genetic disorder in which patients suffer from extreme
pain.  From at least October 2000 until October 2002, Selden
and, under his direction, Transkaryotic, made positive
statements concerning Replagal's clinical benefits, describing
its pivotal clinical trial as a success, and made positive
statements about Replagal's chances of being approved by the
FDA.  However, according to the complaint, Selden knew, but
failed to disclose, material negative information about the
pivotal clinical trial and the FDA application, including that

     (1) the pivotal clinical trial had failed to meet the
         primary objective that Transkaryotic and the FDA had
         agreed would be necessary to demonstrate Replagal's
         clinical benefit for pain relief;

     (2) the FDA had informed Transkaryotic on several occasions
         beginning at least as early as January 2001 that the
         pivotal trial was a failed study, that the study's
         primary analysis had failed, and that the FDA
         recommended additional clinical trials; and

     (3) beginning in 2001, Transkaryotic had informed the FDA,
         based on the FDA's criticisms of its clinical pain
         results, that it did not intend to seek approval for
         Replagal based on a claim that the drug relieved the
         pain of Fabry's Disease.  

The complaint alleges that when Transkaryotic finally disclosed
some negative information about the FDA application after the
close of markets on October 2, 2002, the announcement caused the
company's stock price to plummet over $20 per share, from a
closing price of $33.25 per share on October 2 to $12.75 per
share on October 3. According to the complaint, prior to the
October 2002 disclosure, Transkaryotic's stock price had been
kept at artificially high levels by the misleading statements
and omissions about the Replagal clinical trials and FDA
application, and Selden benefited from the artificially high
prices by selling 90,000 shares of Transkaryotic stock between
May 2001 and February 2002.  By selling this stock at the time
he did, rather than after the negative information became public
in October 2002, Mr. Selden avoided a loss of $1,664,000.
     
The Commission's complaint charges Selden with violating Section
17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and
with aiding and abetting Transkaryotic's uncharged violations of
Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act and Rules 12b-20, 13a-1, 13a-
11 and 13a-13 thereunder.  The Commission is seeking injunctive
relief, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains plus prejudgment
interest, civil penalties, and an order barring Selden from
serving as an officer or director of a public company. The suit
is styled, SEC v. Richard B. Selden, U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts, Civil Action No. 0511805, NMG (LR-
19357).
     

TRAVELERS PROPERTY: Faces Consolidated Shareholder Lawsuit in MN
----------------------------------------------------------------
Travelers Property Casualty Corporation and its board of
directors continue to face securities fraud litigation in the
United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, in
connection with the Company's merger with St. Paul Companies,
Inc. (SPC).

The Company and its board of directors were initially named as
defendants in three putative class action lawsuits brought by
shareholders alleging breach of fiduciary duty in connection
with the merger of the Company and SPC and seeking injunctive
relief as well as unspecified monetary damages.  The actions
were captioned:

     (1) Henzel, et al. v. Travelers Property Casualty Corp.,
         et al., (Jud. Dist. of Waterbury, Ct. Nov. 17, 2003);

     (2) Vozzolo v. Travelers Property Casualty Corp., et al.,
         (Jud. Dist. of Waterbury, Ct. Nov. 17, 2003); and

     (3) Farina v. Travelers Property Casualty Corp., et al.
         (Jud. Dist. of Waterbury, Ct. December 15, 2003)

The "Farina" complaint also named SPC and its former subsidiary,
Adams Acquisition Corporation, as defendants, alleging that they
aided and abetted the alleged breach of fiduciary duty.  

On March 18, 2004, the company and SPC announced that all of
these lawsuits had been settled, subject to court approval of
the settlements.  The settlement included a modification to the
termination fee that could have been paid had the merger not
been completed, additional disclosure in the proxy statement
distributed in connection with the merger and a nominal amount
for attorneys' fees.  Before court approval of the settlement,
additional shareholder litigation was commenced, as described
below.  In light of that litigation, the parties are evaluating
how to proceed.  

Beginning in August 2004, following post-merger announcements by
the Company, various shareholders of the Company commenced
fourteen putative class action lawsuits against the Company and
certain of its current and former officers and directors in the
United States District Court for the District of Minnesota.  
Plaintiff shareholders allege that certain disclosures relating
to the April 2004 merger between the Company and SPC contained
false or misleading statements with respect to the value of
SPC's loss reserves in violation of federal securities laws.  
These actions have been consolidated under the caption "In re
St. Paul Travelers Securities Litigation I" and a lead plaintiff
and lead counsel have been appointed.  

An additional putative class action based on the same
allegations was brought in New York State Supreme Court.  This
action was subsequently transferred to the District of Minnesota
and was consolidated with "In re St. Paul Travelers Securities
Litigation I."  On June 24, 2005, the lead plaintiff filed an
amended consolidated complaint.  

The amended consolidated complaint asserts claims under Sections
10(b), 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933, as amended.  It does not specify damages.

Three other actions against the Company and certain of its
current and former officers and directors are pending in the
United States District Court for the District of Minnesota.  Two
of these actions, styled "Kahn v. The St. Paul Travelers
Companies, Inc., et al. (November 2, 2004) and "Michael A.
Bernstein Profit Sharing Plan v. The St. Paul Travelers
Companies, Inc., et al., (November 10, 2004)," are putative
class actions brought by certain shareholders of the Company
against the Company and certain of its current and former
officers and directors.  In these two actions, plaintiff
shareholders allege violations of federal securities laws in
connection with the Company's alleged failure to make disclosure
relating to the practice of paying brokers commissions on a
contingent basis.  These actions have been consolidated as "In
re St. Paul Travelers Securities Litigation II," and a lead
plaintiff has been appointed.  On July 11, 2005, the lead
plaintiff filed a consolidated class action complaint. The
consolidated action will be coordinated with "In re St. Paul
Travelers Securities Litigation I" for pretrial purposes.

In the third of these actions, an alleged beneficiary of the
Company's 401(k) savings plan has commenced a putative class
action against the Company and certain of its current and former
officers and directors captioned "Spiziri v. The St. Paul
Travelers Companies, Inc., et al." (Dec. 28, 2004).  The
plaintiff alleges violations of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act based on allegations similar to those in "In re St.
Paul Travelers Securities Litigation I."  On June 1, 2005, the
Company and the other defendants in "Spiziri" moved to dismiss
the complaint.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases    

ARBINET-THEXCHANGE: Bernard M. Gross Files Securities Suit in NJ
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C., initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey on behalf of purchasers of Arbinet-thexchange
("Arbinet" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:ARBX) common stock in
connection with or traceable to its December 16, 2004 Initial
Public Offering ("IPO") and who have been damaged thereby.

The action is pending against defendants Arbinet-thexchange,
Inc., Curt Hockemeier -- Director of the Company, John Roberts -
- Chief Financial Officer, Merrill Lynch & Co. -- underwriter of
the IPO, Lehman Brothers -- underwriter of the IPO, William
Blair & Co. -- underwriter of the IPO, Advanced Equities, Inc. -
- underwriter of the IPO.

The Complaint charges defendants with violations of the
Securities Act of 1933. Arbinet is the leading electronic market
for trading, routing and settling communications capacity.
Arbinet provides an efficient alternative to direct individual
negotiations and purchasers of access to the networks of other
communication service providers to send voice calls and internet
capacity outside their network.

In December, 2004, Arbinet completed an IPO of 6.5 million
shares of common stock pursuant to a Prospectus/Registration
Statement. The IPO, was comprised of 4.23 million shares of
common stock sold by Arbinet and 2.3 million shares of common
stock to be sold by the selling shareholders. The IPO was priced
at $17.50 per share for total proceeds of $68.9 million to
Arbinet and 37.4 million to the selling shareholders after
underwriting discounts and commissions. The Complaint alleges
that the Prospectus/Registration Statement was materially false
and misleading and failed to disclose the following:

     (1) that increases in wireless calls would decrease
         Arbinet's revenues and profits because wireless calls,
         on the average, are of shorter duration than wired
         calls and, therefore, generate less revenue and profits
         for Arbinet because Arbinet's fees are based primarily
         on numbers of minutes used;

     (2) that because certain geographic markets are
         characterized by shorter-duration calls and, therefore,
         generate lower fees, shifts in the geographic market
         usage mix will decrease revenues and profits;

     (3) that the growth in the number of calls completed is not
         the true indicator of Arbinet's revenues and profits
         because it the duration of the call completed, that is
         the number of minutes per call rather than the number
         of calls completed, that determines the fees Arbinet
         receives;

     (4) that the exchange lacked a sufficient liquidity "floor"
         to insure that there would be a sufficient number of
         buyers and that, as a result, Arbinet's revenues would
         be reduced by substantial price incentives Arbinet
         would offer in order to generate fee revenue;

     (5) that Arbinet's revenues would be materially adversely
         impacted if one or two of its larger customers
         experienced credit worthiness problems and reduced
         their trading, despite Arbinet's intensive credit risk
         management programs;

     (6) that Arbinet's business model for providing wholesale
         capacity, particularly in providing international voice
         capacity, is not significantly different from its
         competitors, including iBasic, and that as result,
         Arbinet will not be able to keep pace with the growth
         in the in the international wholesale market; and

     (7) that Arbinet did not have the lowest cost termination
         rates to a significant number of calling destinations
         in the international wholesale market and, therefore,
         would lose traffic to lower cost competitors and suffer
         reduced growth rates.

Then, on May 5, 2005, the price of Arbinet stock dropped almost
25% when the Company announced that its first quarter results
for 2005 would be greatly reduced. Subsequently on June 22,
2005, the price of Arbinet stock dropped another 35% when the
Company disclosed additional information that would cause its
second quarter 2005 revenues and profits, again, to be greatly
reduced.

For more details, contact Susan R. Gross, Esq. or Deborah R.
Gross, Esq. of the Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C., Phone:
866-561-3600 or 215-561-3600, E-mail: susang@bernardmgross.com
or debbie@bernardmgross.com, Web site:
http://www.bernardmgross.com.


ARBINET-THEXCHANGE: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Suit in NJ
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
LLP ("Lerach Coughlin") initiated a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on
behalf of purchasers of Arbinet-Thexchange, Inc. ("Arbinet")
(NASDAQ:ARBX) common stock who purchased their shares pursuant
or traceable to Arbinet's December 16, 2004 initial public
offering ("IPO" or the "Offering").

The complaint charges Arbinet and certain of its officers,
directors and underwriters with violations of the Securities Act
of 1933. Arbinet is the leading electronic market for trading,
routing and settling communications capacity.

The complaint alleges that, in connection with the Company's
IPO, defendants issued a materially false and misleading
Registration Statement and Prospectus (the "Registration
Statement"). Specifically, the Registration Statement failed to
adequately disclose and misrepresented material information
concerning, among other things:
       
     (1) the negative impact that certain factors, including,
         but not limited to, increases in wireless calls and
         shifts in the geographic market usage mix, would have
         on Arbinet's revenues and profits;

     (2) the relevance of certain statistical data; and

     (3) certain other material risks the Company faced which
         would negatively impact its future growth and revenues.

On May 4, 2005, Arbinet announced its results for the first
quarter of 2005, the three months ended March 31, 2005 and
reported that its results were "flat" compared to the fourth
quarter of 2004. Then, on June 21, 2005, Arbinet forecast
greatly reduced results for the second quarter of 2005, the
three months ending June 30, 2005. As alleged in the complaint,
Arbinet finally owned up to the true material facts that drive
its business, fee revenues and profits - information that had
been concealed until this point by defendants. Following the
June 21, 2005 disclosures, the price of Arbinet's common stock
fell by more than 20%.

For more details, contact Samuel H. Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld
of Lerach Coughlin, Phone: 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, E-mail:
wsl@lerachlaw.com, Web site:
http://www.lerachlaw.com/cases/arbinet/.  


BUCA INC.: Seeger Weiss Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in MN
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Seeger Weiss, LLP, initiated a class action lawsuit
in the United States District Court for the District of
Minnesota on behalf of a class consisting of all persons who
purchased the common stock of Buca, Inc. (Nasdaq:BUCA) ("Buca"
or the "Company") during the period of February 6, 2001, through
and including March 11, 2005, and who were damaged by the
decline of the Buca Stock. Plaintiff is seeking remedies under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). The
action is against Buca, Inc., Joseph Micatrotto, Pete Mihajlov,
and Greg A. Gadel ("Defendants").

The complaint alleges that Defendants caused the Company to
issue false and misleading financial statements misrepresenting:

     (1) the Company's financial position by overstating the
         Company's income by understating its lease costs
         through improper capitalization and deferral, by
         improperly capitalizing ordinary and routine repairs
         and maintenance and by understating its insurance
         reserves;

     (2) the Company's revenues by improperly including in
         revenues the value of meals provided to employees and
         provided for promotional purposes;

     (3) that the Company's financial statements were prepared
         in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting
         Principles ("GAAP") when in fact they were not.

The complaint further alleges that the Company lacked adequate
internal controls and, therefore, was unable to ascertain and
present the true financial condition of the Company.

For more details, contact Stephen A. Weiss, Esq. or Eric T.
Chaffin, Esq. of Seeger Weiss, LLP, One William St., New York,
NY 10004, Phone: (212) 584-0700 or (877) 541-3273, E-Mail:
sweiss@seegerweiss.com or echaffin@seegerweiss.com, Web site:
http://www.seegerweiss.com.


HOST AMERICA: Lockridge Grindal Lodges Securities Suit in CT
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P. initiated a
class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities
of Host America Corporation ("Host America" or the "Company")
(Nasdaq:CAFE) between July 12, 2005 and July 22, 2005, inclusive
(the "Class Period") seeking to pursue remedies under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The action is pending in the United States District Court for
the District of Connecticut against defendants Host America,
Geoffrey W. Ramsey, Roger D. Lockhart, Peter Sarmanian and
Gilberto Rossamondo. A copy of the complaint filed in this
action is available from the Court.

The complaint charges Host America and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. The complaint alleges that the defendants issued a
press release on July 12, 2005, stating that the Company was
starting to survey ten Wal-Mart stores in the southwest, in
preparation for installation of its LightMasterPlus on the
fluorescent lighting system of each store and quoting Host
America's CEO, Geoffrey Ramsey, as saying "This is a major event
for our company, which we have been working towards since last
year. We expect this prestigious customer will like the savings
they receive from this first-phase roll-out and believe that the
next phase will involve a significant number of stores."

On July 19, the Company announced that it had been "contacted
informally" by a regional office of the SEC requesting documents
and information relating to its July 12 press release "and into
related developments in the trading of Host securities." After
the close of trading on July 22, the Company disclosed that it
was informed that the SEC had commenced a formal investigation
of Host America, certain of its officers, directors and others
in connection with the July 12 press release. On the same day,
the SEC temporarily suspended trading in its stock over concerns
that the statement about a deal with Wal-Mart stores may have
been misleading. The NASDAQ stock market has since informed the
Company that its shares may be delisted.

According to the complaint, the statements in the Company's July
12, 2005 press release were false and misleading because they
misrepresented the nature of the Wal-Mart transaction as one
whereby the Company had a firm commitment by Wal-Mart to
purchase Host America's LightMasterPlus for installation in Wal-
Mart stores. The complaint alleges that Wal-Mart was not a
customer of the Company in connection with purchasing
LightMasterPlus, that the Wal-Mart transaction was limited to a
test installation unrelated to any commitment by Wal-Mart to
install the LightMasterPlus in any of its facilities on a
permanent basis, and that Wal-Mart had made no commitment to
purchase or install the LightMasterPlus outside of the test
installation. As a result, the complaint alleges, defendants had
no basis for stating that the test installation was a "first-
phase roll-out," that "the next phase will involve a significant
number of stores," or that the Wal-Mart test installation was a
"major event" for Host America.

On August 31, 2005, Host America confirmed that there is not,
and never has been, a formal, written agreement with Wal-Mart
concerning the proposed 10-store survey that was the subject of
the July 12, 2005 press release. The Company also confirmed that
there is no agreement with Wal-Mart for the installation of
LightMasterPlus and noted that has not received from Wal-Mart a
list of the 10 stores to be surveyed.

For more details, contact Gregg M. Fishbein, Esq. or Gregory J.
Myers of Lockridge Grindal Nauen, P.L.L.P., 100 Washington
Avenue South, Suite 2200, Minneapolis, MN 55401, Phone:
(612) 339-6900, E-mail: gmfishbein@locklaw.com or
gjmyers@locklaw.com.


HOST AMERICA: Nygaard Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Suit in CT
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Nygaard Law Firm initiated a lawsuit seeking class action
status in federal court in Hartford, Connecticut on behalf of
all persons (The "Class") who purchased the securities of Host
America (CAFE) ("Host America" or the "Company") during the
period from July 12, 2005 through July 22, 2005, inclusive (the
"Class Period"). The Defendants are Host America, EnergyNSync,
Geoffrey Ramsey, David Murphy, Roger Lockhart and Peter
Sarmanian.

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Host America
violated federal securities law when it issued a press release
claiming to have a contract with Wal-Mart. Trading volume jumped
from 41,000 trades on July 11, 2005 to 13,813,100 on July 12,
2005. The Company's stock jumped from $4.25 on July 12, 2005 to
$16.88 on July 19, 2005! While the stock soared, several
insiders sold shares of Host America (CAFE) to the flood of
unknowing buyers.

On July 22, 2005, the SEC halted trading of Host America
securities and announced an investigation. Trading resumed on
September 1, 2005 in the $4.00 range after Host America admitted
that it only had "oral" discussions with Wal-Mart and had never
even received a list of stores to survey. More information about
this alleged fraud and investors' losses can be found at The
Motley Fool.com website.

For more details, contact Diane A. Nygaard of The Nygaard Law
Firm, Phone: +1-888-469-5544, E-mail: diane@nygaardlaw.com, Web
site: http://www.nygaaardlaw.com.


IMMUCOR INC.: Finkelstein Thompson Lodges Securities Suit in GA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Finkelstein, Thompson & Loughran initiated a
lawsuit seeking class action status filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia against
Immucor, Inc. (Nasdaq: BLUDE) ("Immucor" or the "Company") on
behalf of persons who purchased Immucor common stock between
January 7, 2005 through and including August 29, 2005 ("Class
Period"). Finkelstein, Thompson & Loughran is investigating
similar claims at this time and welcomes inquiries from
potential class members concerning their rights and interests in
this matter.

The lawsuit alleges that Immucor violated federal securities
laws by issuing false or misleading public statements.
Specifically, the complaint alleges Immucor and various officers
of Immucor, throughout the class period, misrepresented that
Immucor's financial statements and disclosures fairly and
accurately represented Immucor's results of operations as
required by Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP")
and the Exchange Act.

On August 26, 2005 Immucor announced 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 it would be revising its
previously issued results for at least two quarters in order to
account for a previously unrecorded accrued bonus, that its Form
10-K for fiscal year 2005 would be further delayed, and that its
Chief Financial Officer had resigned.

In response to this information, the price of Immucor common
stock dropped from a closing price of $28.61 on August 25, 2005
to close at $24.00 per share on August 30, 2005 -- a dramatic
drop of 16%.

For more details, contact Donald J. Enright, Esq. of
Finkelstein, Thompson & Loughran, Phone: +1-202-337-8000 or
(877) 337-1050 E-mail: contact@ftllaw.com.


IMMUCOR INC.: Landskroner Grieco Lodges Securities Suit in GA
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Landskroner - Grieco - Madden, Ltd. 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 (Nasdaq:BLUDE)
between January 7, 2005 through and including August 29, 2005
(the "Class Period"). A copy of the complaint is available from
the court and will be posted on Landskroner - Grieco - Madden,
Ltd.'s Web site, www.landskronerlaw.com (click on "recent class
action cases") for the next two months.

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 was 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 were "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 Jack Landskroner of Landskroner -
Grieco - Madden, Ltd., Phone: (866) 522-9500, ext. 109, E-mail:
jack@landskronerlaw.com OR Debra Spaller, Phone: (866) 522-9500,
ext. 118, E-mail: debra@landskronerlaw.com, Web site:
http://www.landskronerlaw.com.


PRESTIGE BRANDS: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Stull, Stull & Brody initiated a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, on behalf of all persons who purchased the common stock of
Prestige Brands Holdings, Inc. ("Prestige Brands " or the
"Company") (NYSE: PBH) pursuant or traceable to Prestige Brands'
initial public offering on or about February 9, 2005 (the "IPO")
through July 27, 2005, seeking to pursue remedies under the
Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act"), against Prestige
Brands, GTCR Golder Rauner, LLC, Peter C. Mann, Peter J.
Anderson, David A. Donnini, Vincent J. Hemmer, Merrill Lynch,
Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc., Goldman, Sachs & Co., and J.P.
Morgan Securities Inc.

Stull, Stull & Brody has substantial experience representing
employees who suffered losses from purchases of their employer's
stock in their 401(k) plans. If you bought Prestige Brands stock
through your Prestige Brands retirement account and have
information or would like to learn more about these claims,
please contact us.

The complaint alleges that the prospectus (the "Prospectus")
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") in
connection with the IPO of Prestige Brands common stock, which
took place on or about February 9, 2005, was materially false
and misleading.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that Prestige Brands owns
and markets a portfolio of brand name products that primarily
include household cleaning products, personal care products and
over-the-counter consumer healthcare products, including
Compound Wr wart remover, Chlorasepticr sore-throat relief
products, Cutexr nail polish remover, Cometr and Spic & Spanr
household cleaners. According to the complaint, the Prospectus
filed with the SEC in connection with the IPO was false and
misleading because it failed to disclose that the demand for the
Company's products was declining, contrary to defendants'
representations that the Company was well positioned to compete
in "niche" product categories and that it had a diverse
portfolio of products that would provide multiple sources of
growth. In addition, the Prospectus failed to disclose that the
Company intended to withdraw certain of its Comet brand
housecleaning products from the market, thereby further eroding
the Company's revenues and market share. As a result of the
foregoing, defendants' positive statements and projections
concerning the Company's financial condition and prospects
lacked any reasonable basis in fact.

On July 27, 2005, after the market had closed, the Company
reported its financial results for the quarter ended June 30,
2005. The Company reported that it experienced sales declines in
each of its three business segments. In addition, the Company
lowered its guidance for the remainder of fiscal 2005, stating
that "revenue and earnings growth in the current year will fall
well below our original expectations," with sales and earnings
flat or slightly lower. In reaction to this news, shares of
Prestige Brands fell over 40%, to a close of $11.90 per share on
July 28, 2005, down $8.00 per share compared with the close of
$20.04 per share the prior day.

For more details, contact Tzivia Brody, Esq. of Stull, Stull &
Brody, 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY 10017, Phone:
1-800-337-4983, Fax: 212/490-2022, E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com, Web
site: http://www.ssbny.com.


UBS-AG: Murray Frank Lodges Fraud Suit in NY Over American Funds
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP announces that it has
filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who
purchased American Funds from UBS-AG ("UBS"), from May 1, 2000
through April 30, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking
to pursue remedies under the Securities Act of 1993 (the
"Securities Act") and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act").

The Funds, and the Symbols for the respective American Funds
named below, are:

AAAIX
American Century Strategic Asset Allocation Inc Aggressive Fund
Nasdaq, Large Blend AASLX, American Century Mutual Funds Inc
Select Fund, Nasdaq, Large Growth ABHIX, American Century Mutual
Funds Inc High Yield Bond Fund, Nasdaq, High Yield Bond ABHYX,
American Century High Yield Municipal Fund, Nasdaq, High Yield
Muni ABINX, American Century Balanced Fund, Nasdaq, Moderate
Allocation ABSLX, American Century Mutual Funds Inc Select Fund,
Nasdaq, Large Growth ABTAX, American Century Treasury Fund,
Nasdaq, Interm. Government ACAVX, American Century Capital
Portfolios Inc Value Fund, Nasdaq, Mid-Cap Value ACBFX, American
Century Florida Municipal Bond Fund, Nasdaq, Muni Florida ACBPX,
American Century Diversified Bond Fund, Nasdaq, Interm-Term Bond
ACCAX, American Century Strategic Asset Allocation Inc
Conservative Fund, Nasdaq, Conservative Allocation ACCCX,
American Century Florida Municipal Bond Fund, Nasdaq, Muni
Florida ACCGX, American Century Investments Capital Growth Fund,
Nasdaq, Large Growth ACCIX, American Century Strategic Asset
Allocation Inc Conservative Fund, Nasdaq, Conservative
Allocation ACCVX, American Century Capital Value Fund, Nasdaq,
N/A ACEBX, American Century Florida Municipal Bond Fund, Nasdaq,
Muni Florida ACECX, American Century Emerging Markets Fund,
Nasdaq, Divers. Emerging Mkt. ACFAX, American Century Florida
Municipal Bond Fund, Nasdaq, Muni Florida ACGBX, American
Century Investments Capital Growth Fund, Nasdaq, Large Growth
ACGCX, American Century Quantitative Equity Funds Income &
Growth Fund, Nasdaq, Large Value ACGGX, American Century
Quantitative Equity Fds Global Gold Fd, Nasdaq, Precious Metals
ACIDX, American Century World Mutual Fds Intl Discovery Fd,
Nasdaq, Foreign Small/Mid Gr. ACIIX, American Century Equity
Income Fund, Nasdaq, Mid-Cap Value ACIOX, American Century World
Mutual Funds Inc International Opportunites Fund, Nasdaq,
Foreign Small/Mid Gr. ACITX, American Century Inflation Adjusted
Bond Fund, Nasdaq, Interm. Government ACIVX, American Century
Capital Portfolios Inc Equity Index Fund, Nasdaq, Large Blend
ACLCX, American Century Value Fund, Nasdaq, Mid-Cap Value ACMVX,
American Century Mid Cap Value, Nasdaq, N/A ACOAX, American
Century Strategic Asset Allocation Inc Moderate Fund, Nasdaq,
Moderate Allocation ACPGX, American Century Investments Capital
Growth Fund, Nasdaq, Large Growth ACPIX, American Century
Capital Value Fund, Nasdaq, Large Value ACQIX, American Century
Capital Portfolios Inc Equity Index Fund, Nasdaq, Large Blend
ACSCX, American Century Capital Portfolios Inc Small Cap Value
Fund, Nasdaq, Small Value ACSLX, American Century Mutual Funds
Inc Select Fund, Nasdaq, Large Growth ACTAX, American Century
Target Maturities Trust Series 2030, Nasdaq, Long Government
ACTEX, American Century Target Maturities Trust Series 2020
Fund, Nasdaq, Long Government ACTIX, American Century Capital
Value Fund, Nasdaq, Large Value ACTRX, American Century Target
Maturities Trust Series 2010 Fund, Nasdaq, Long Government
ACTTX, American Century Target Maturities Trust Series 2015
Fund, Nasdaq, Long Government ACUTX, American Century
Quantitative Equity Fds Utilities Fd, Nasdaq, Utilities ACVAX,
American Century Strategic Asset Allocation Inc Aggressive Fund,
Nasdaq, Large Blend ACVCX, American Century Capital Portfolios
Inc Small Cap Value Fund, Nasdaq, Small Value ACVIX, American
Century Capital Portfolios Inc Small Cap Value Fund, Nasdaq,
Small Value ACYAX, American Century Investment Trust High Yield
Fund, Nasdaq, High Yield Bond ACYBX, American Century Investment
Trust High Yield Fund, Nasdaq, High Yield Bond ACZAX, American
Century Trust Arizona Municipal Bond Fund, Nasdaq, Muni Single
St. Interm ACZBX, American Century Trust Arizona Municipal Bond
Fund, Nasdaq, Muni Single St. Interm ACZCX, American Century
Trust Arizona Municipal Bond Fund, Nasdaq, Muni Single St.
Interm ADFAX, American Century Investment Trust Diversfied Bond
Fund, Nasdaq, Interm-Term Bond ADFIX, American Century
Investment Trust Diversfied Bond Fund, Nasdaq, Interm-Term Bond
AEMMX, American Century Emerging Markets Fund, Nasdaq, Divers.
Emerging Mkt. AEURX, American Century Mutual Funds Inc Growth
Fund, Nasdaq, Mid-Cap Value AEVIX, American Century Investment
Funds EmVee Fund, Nasdaq, Small Growth AEYCX, American Century
Equity Growth Fund, Nasdaq, Large Blend AEYIX, American Century
Equity Income Fund, Nasdaq, Mid-Cap Value AGGIX, American
Century World Mutual Funds Inc Global Growth Fund, Nasdaq, World
Stock AGGRX, American Century World Mutual Funds Inc Global
Growth Fund, Nasdaq, World Stock AGLCX, American Century World
Mutual Funds Inc Global Growth Fund, Nasdaq, World Stock AGMCX,
American Century Ginnie Mae Investors Fund, Nasdaq, Interm.
Government AGWRX, American Century Mutual Funds Inc Growth Fund,
Nasdaq, Large Growth AHDCX, American Century Investment Trust
High Yield Fund, Nasdaq, High Yield Bond AHGCX, American Century
Mutual Funds Inc Heritage Fund, Nasdaq, Mid-Cap Growth AHYVX,
American Century Investment Trust High Yield Fund, Nasdaq, High
Yield Bond AIANX, American Century Inflation Adjusted Bond Fund,
Nasdaq, Interm. Government AIAVX, American Century Inflation
Adjusted Bond Fund, Nasdaq, Interm. Government AIBDX, American
Century Intl Bd Fds Intl Bd Fd, Nasdaq, World Bond AICRX,
American Century Income & Growth Fund, Nasdaq, Large Value
AIGTX, American Century Variable Portfolios Inc VP Income &
Growth Fund, Nasdaq, N/A AILSX, American Century World Mutual
Funds Inc Life Sciences Fund, Nasdaq, Health AIOIX, American
Century World Mutual Funds Inc International Opportunites Fund,
Nasdaq, Foreign Small/Mid Gr. AIPTX, American Century Variable
Portfolios II Inc VP Inflation Protection Fund, Nasdaq, N/A
AIVPX, American Century Investment Trust VP International Fund,
Nasdaq, N/A AIWCX, American Century - Twentieth Century
International Growth Fund, Nasdaq, Foreign Large Growth ALAVX,
American Century Investments Large Company Value Fund, Nasdaq,
Large Value ALBVX, American Century Investments Large Company
Value Fund, Nasdaq, Large Value ALFSX, American Century World
Mutual Funds Inc Life Sciences Fund, Nasdaq, Health ALPAX,
American Century Investments Large Company Value Fund, Nasdaq,
Large Value ALPCX, American Century Investments Large Company
Value Fund, Nasdaq, Large Value ALSIX, American Century World
Mutual Funds Inc Life Sciences Fund, Nasdaq, Health ALSVX,
American Century World Mutual Funds Inc Life Sciences Fund,
Nasdaq, Health ALVIX, American Century Investments Large Company
Value Fund, Nasdaq, Large Value ALVRX, American Century
Investments Large Company Value Fund, Nasdaq, Large Value ALVSX,
American Century Investments Large Company Value Fund, Nasdaq,
Large Value AMADX, American Century Quantitative Equity Funds
Income & Growth Fund, Nasdaq, Large Value AMEIX, American
Century Equity Growth Fund, Nasdaq, Large Blend AMGIX, American
Century Quantitative Equity Funds Income & Growth Fund, Nasdaq,
Large Value AMKIX, American Century Emerging Markets Fund,
Nasdaq, Divers. Emerging Mkt. AMVIX, American Century Mutual
Funds Inc Veedot Fund, Nasdaq, Mid-Cap Growth ANOAX, American
Century Mutal Funds Inc New Opportunities II Fund, Nasdaq, Small
Growth ANOBX, American Century Mutal Funds Inc New Opportunities
II Fund, Nasdaq, Small Growth ANOCX, American Century Mutal
Funds Inc New Opportunities II Fund, Nasdaq, Small Growth ANOIX,
American Century Mutal Funds Inc New Opportunities II Fund,
Nasdaq, Small Growth ANVPX, American Century Investment Trust VP
International Fund, Nasdaq, N/A AREEX, American Century Real
Estate Fund, Nasdaq, Real Estate ASAMX, American Century
Strategic Asset Allocation Inc Moderate Fund, Nasdaq, Moderate
Allocation ASCQX, American Century Quantitative Equity Funds
Small Company Fund, Nasdaq, Small Blend ASCRX, American Century
Quantitative Equity Funds Small Company Fund, Nasdaq, Small
Blend ASMRX, American Century Strategic Asset Allocation Inc
Moderate Fund, Nasdaq, Moderate Allocation ASQAX, American
Century Quantitative Equity Funds Small Company Fund, Nasdaq,
Small Blend ASQIX, American Century Quantitative Equity Funds
Small Company Fund, Nasdaq, Small Blend ASTAX, American Century
Strategic Asset Allocation Inc Aggressive Fund, Nasdaq, Large
Blend ASTCX, American Century Strategic Asset Allocation Inc
Moderate Fund, Nasdaq, Moderate Allocation ASVIX, American
Century Capital Portfolios Inc Small Cap Value Fund, Nasdaq,
Small Value ATADX, American Century World Mutual Funds Inc
Technology Fund, Nasdaq, Technology ATCIX, American Century
World Mutual Funds Inc Technology Fund, Nasdaq, Technology
ATGCX, American Century Target Maturities Trust Series 2030,
Nasdaq, Long Government ATGRX, American Century - Twentieth
Century International Growth Fund, Nasdaq, Foreign Large Growth
ATHAX, American Century Mutual Funds Inc Heritage Fund, Nasdaq,
Mid-Cap Growth ATHIX, American Century Mutual Funds Inc Heritage
Fund, Nasdaq, Mid-Cap Growth ATRGX, American Century Target
Maturities Tr Series 2005, Nasdaq, Short Government ATYIX,
American Century World Mutual Funds Inc Technology Fund, Nasdaq,
Technology AULRX, American Century Mutual Funds Inc Ultra Fund,
Nasdaq, Large Growth AVBIX, American Century Variable Portfolios
Inc Balanced Portfolio, Nasdaq, N/A AVCIX, American Century
Varialble Portfolios Inc Capital Appreciation Portfolio, Nasdaq,
N/A AVDIX, American Century Mutual Funds Inc Veedot Fund,
Nasdaq, Mid-Cap Growth AVGIX, American Century Variable
Portfolios Inc VP Income & Growth Portfolio, Nasdaq, N/A AVIIX,
American Century Variable Portfolios Inc International
Portfolio, Nasdaq, N/A AVLIX, American Century Capital
Portfolios Inc Value Fund, Nasdaq, Mid-Cap Value AVPGX, American
Century Variable Portfolios Inc VP Income & Growth Portfolio,
Nasdaq, N/A AVPIX, American Century Variable Portfolios Inc
International Portfolio, Nasdaq, N/A AVPSX, American Century
Investment Trust VP Ultra Fund, Nasdaq, N/A AVPTX, American
Century Variable Portfolios Inc VP Value Fund, Nasdaq, N/A
AVPUX, American Century Investment Trust VP Ultra Fund, Nasdaq,
N/A AVPVX, American Century Variable Portfolios Inc VP Value
Fund, Nasdaq, N/A AVSIX, American Century Variable Portfolios
Inc VP Vista Fund, Nasdaq, N/A AVUTX, American Century
Investment Trust VP Ultra Fund, Nasdaq, N/A AYMAX, American
Century High Yield Municipal Fund, Nasdaq, High Yield Muni
AYMBX, American Century High Yield Municipal Fund, Nasdaq, High
Yield Muni AYMCX, American Century High Yield Municipal Fund,
Nasdaq, High Yield Muni BCHYX, American Century California High
Yield Municipal Fund, Nasdaq, Muni California Long BCITX,
American Century California Intermediate Term Tax Free Fund,
Nasdaq, Muni California Int/Sh BCLTX, American Century
California Long Term Tax Free Fund, Nasdaq, Muni California Long
BCSTX, American Century California Limited Term Tax Free Fund,
Nasdaq, Muni California Int/Sh BEAMX, American Century Trust
Arizona Municipal Bond Fund, Nasdaq, Muni Single St. Interm
BEGBX, American Century European Government Bond Fund, Nasdaq,
World Bond BEQAX, American Century Equity Growth Fund, Nasdaq,
Large Blend BEQGX, American Century Equity Growth Fund, Nasdaq,
Large Blend BGEIX, American Century Global Gold Fund, Nasdaq,
Precious Metals BGNAX, American Century Ginnie Mae Investors
Fund, Nasdaq, Interm. Government BGNMX, American Century Ginnie
Mae Investors Fund, Nasdaq, Interm. Government BIGRX, American
Century Income & Growth Fund, Nasdaq, Large Value BTFIX,
American Century Maturities Trust Target Maturities Trust 2005,
Nasdaq, Short Government BTFTX, American Century Target
Maturities Trust Series 2015 Fund, Nasdaq, Long Government
BTTNX, American Century Target Maturities Trust Series 2010
Fund, Nasdaq, Long Government BTTRX, American Century Target
Maturities Trust Series 2025 Fund, Nasdaq, Long Government
BTTTX, American Century Target Maturities Trust Series 2020
Fund, Nasdaq, Long Government BULIX, American Century Utilities
Income Fund, Nasdaq, Utilities CAIGX, American Century Twentieth
Century International Growth Fund, Nasdaq, Foreign Large Growth
CAYAX, American Century California High Yield Municipal Fund,
Nasdaq, Muni California Long CAYBX, American Century California
High Yield Municipal Fund, Nasdaq, Muni California Long CAYCX,
American Century California High Yield Municipal Fund, Nasdaq,
Muni California Long CBIGX, American Century Twentieth Century
International Growth Fund, Nasdaq, Foreign Large Growth CDBAX,
American Century Diversified Bond Fund, Nasdaq, Interm-Term Bond
CDBBX, American Century Diversified Bond Fund, Nasdaq, Interm-
Term Bond CDBCX, American Century Diversified Bond Fund, Nasdaq,
Interm-Term Bond CPTNX, American Century Government Bond Fund,
Nasdaq, Interm. Government IACIX, ING Partners Inc American
Century Small Cap Value Portfolio, Nasdaq, Small Value IAILX, TA
IDEX American Century Large Company Value Fund, Nasdaq, Large
Value IASAX, ING Partners Inc American Century Small Cap Value
Portfolio, Nasdaq, Small Value IASSX, ING Partners Inc American
Century Small Cap Value Portfolio, Nasdaq, Small Value ICILX, TA
IDEX American Century International Fund, Nasdaq, Foreign Large
Growth ICIMX, TA IDEX American Century International Fund,
Nasdaq, Foreign Large Growth REACX, American Century Real Estate
Fund, Nasdaq, Real Estate REAIX, American Century Real Estate
Fund, Nasdaq, Real Estate TCRAX, American Century Mutual Funds
Inc Growth Fund, Nasdaq, Large Growth TGRIX, American Century -
Twentieth Century International Growth Fund, Nasdaq, Foreign
Large Growth TIDIX, American Century International Discovery
Fund, Nasdaq, Foreign Small/Mid Gr. TWADX, American Century
Value Fund, Nasdaq, Mid-Cap Value TWAVX, American Century
Government Income Trust Short Term Government Funds, Nasdaq,
Short Government TWBAX, American Century Balanced Fund, Nasdaq,
Moderate Allocation TWBIX, American Century Mutual Funds Inc
American Century Balanced Fund, Nasdaq, Moderate Allocation
TWCAX, American Century Mutual Funds Inc Select Fund, Nasdaq,
Large Growth TWCCX, American Century Mutual Funds Inc Ultra
Fund, Nasdaq, Large Growth TWCGX, American Century Mutual Funds
Inc Growth Fund, Nasdaq, Large Growth TWCIX, American Century
Mutual Funds Inc Select Fund, Nasdaq, Large Growth TWCUX,
American Century Mutual Funds Inc Ultra Fund, Nasdaq, Large
Growth TWCVX, American Century Vista Fund, Nasdaq, Mid-Cap
Growth TWEAX, American Century Equity Income Fund, Nasdaq, Mid-
Cap Value TWEGX, American Century International Discovery Fund,
Nasdaq, Foreign Small/Mid Gr. TWEIX, American Century Equity
Income Fund, Nasdaq, Mid-Cap Value TWGAX, American Century
Twentieth Century International Growth Fund, Nasdaq, Foreign
Large Growth TWGCX, American Century Mutual Funds Inc Growth
Fund, Nasdaq, Large Growth TWGGX, American Century World Mutual
Funds Inc Global Growth Fund, Nasdaq, World Stock TWGIX,
American Century Mutual Funds Inc Growth Fund, Nasdaq, Large
Growth TWGTX, American Century Mutual Funds Inc Giftrust,
Nasdaq, Mid-Cap Growth TWHIX, American Century Mutual Funds Inc
Heritage Fund, Nasdaq, Mid-Cap Growth TWIEX, American Century -
Twentieth Century International Growth Fund, Nasdaq, Foreign
Large Growth TWMIX, American Century Emerging Markets Fund,
Nasdaq, Divers. Emerging Mkt. TWNOX, American Century New
Opportunities Fund, Nasdaq, Mid-Cap Growth TWSAX, American
Century Strategic Asset Allocation Inc Aggressive Fund, Nasdaq,
Large Blend TWSCX, American Century Strategic Asset Allocation
Inc Conservative Fund, Nasdaq, Conservative Allocation TWSIX,
American Century Select Fund, Nasdaq, Large Growth TWSMX,
American Century Strategic Asset Allocation Inc Moderate Fund,
Nasdaq, Moderate Allocation TWTIX, American Century Municipal
Trust Benham Tax Free Bond Fund, Nasdaq, Muni National Interm
TWUAX, American Century Ultra Fund, Nasdaq, Large Growth TWUIX,
American Century Ultra Fund, Nasdaq, Large Growth TWUSX,
American Century Mutual Funds Inc Short Term Government Fund,
Nasdaq, Short Government TWVAX, American Century Vista Fund,
Nasdaq, Mid-Cap Growth TWVCX, American Century Vista Fund,
Nasdaq, Mid-Cap Growth TWVIX, American Century Vista Fund,
Nasdaq, Mid-Cap Growth TWVLX, American Century Capital
Portfolios Inc Value Fund, Nasdaq, Mid-Cap Value

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
served as financial advisors who purportedly provided unbiased
and honest investment advice to their clients. Unbeknownst to
investors, defendants, in clear contravention of their
disclosure obligations and fiduciary responsibilities, failed to
properly disclose that they had engaged in a scheme to
aggressively push UBS sales personnel to steer clients into
purchasing certain UBS Funds and UBS Tier I Funds, which
included American Funds, that provided financial incentives and
rewards to UBS and its personnel based on sales. The complaint
alleges that defendants' undisclosed sales practices created an
insurmountable conflict of interest by providing substantial
monetary incentives to sell Shelf-Space Funds to their clients,
even though such investments were not in the clients' best
interest. UBS' failure to disclose the incentives constituted
violations of federal securities laws.

The action also includes a subclass of persons who held any
shares of UBS Mutual Funds. The complaint additionally alleges
that the investment advisor subsidiary of UBS, UBS Global Asset
Management created further undisclosed material conflicts of
interest by entering into revenue sharing agreements with UBS
financial Advisors to push investors into UBS proprietary funds,
regardless of whether such investments were in the investors'
best interests. The investment advisors financed these
arrangements by illegally charging excessive and improper fees
to the fund that should have been invested in the underlying
portfolio. In doing so they breached their fiduciary duties to
investors under the Investment Company Act and state law and
decreased shareholders' investment returns.

The action includes a second subclass of persons who purchased a
UBS Financial Plan that held Tier I mutual funds. The UBS
Financial Plans include, but are not limited to UBS Personalized
Asset Consulting and Evaluation Plan, InsightOne accounts,
and/or a resource management accounts.

For more details, contact Eric J. Belfi, Christopher Hinton or
Bradley P. Dyer of MURRAY, FRANK & SAILER, LLP, Phone:
(800) 497-8076 or (212) 682-1818, Fax: (212) 682-1892, E-mail:
info@murrayfrank.com.


UBS-AG: Murray Frank Lodges Fraud Suit in NY Over Fidelity Funds
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP, initiated a class
action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who purchased Fidelity
Funds from UBS-AG ("UBS"), from May 1, 2000 through April 30,
2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies
under the Securities Act of 1993 (the "Securities Act") and the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The Funds, and the Symbols for the respective Fidelity Funds
named below, are as follows:

FUND NAME                                   NASDAQ SYMBOL
Aggressive Growth                              FDEGX
Blue Chip Growth                               FBGRX
Blue Chip Value                                FBCVX
Capital Appreciation                           FDCAX
Contrafund                                     FCNTX
Disciplined Equity                             FDEQX
Discovery                                      FDSVX
Dividend Growth                                FDGFX
EquityIncome                                   FEQIX
EquityIncome II                                FEQTX
Export and Multinational                       FEXPX
Fidelity                                       FFIDX
Fidelity Fifty                                 FFTYX
Focused Stock Fund                             FTQGX
FourinOne Index Fund                           FFNOX
Growth & Income                                FGRIX
Growth & Income II                             FGRTX
Growth Company                                 FDGRX
Independence                                   FDFFX
Large Cap Growth                               FSLGX
Large Cap Stock                                FLCSX
Large Cap Value                                FSLVX
Leveraged Company Stock                        FLVCX
LowPriced Stock                                FLPSX
Magellan                                       FMAGX
Mid Cap Growth                                 FSMGX
Mid Cap Value                                  FSMVX
MidCap Stock                                   FMCSX
Nasdaq Composite Index Fund                    FNCMX
New Millennium                                 FMILX
OTC Portfolio                                  FOCPX
Small Cap Growth                               FCPGX
Small Cap Independence                         FDSCX
Small Cap Retirement                           FSCRX
Small Cap Stock                                FSLCX
Small Cap Value                                FCPVX
Spartan 500 Index Fund                         FSMKX
Spartan Total Market Index                     FSTMX
Spartan U.S. Equity Index                      FUSEX
Stock Selector                                 FDSSX
Tax Managed Stock Fund                         FTXMX
Trend                                          FTRNX
Value                                          FDVLX
Value Discovery                                FVDFX
Value Strategies                               FSLSX
Aggressive International                       FIVFX
Diversified International                      FDIVX
Global Balanced                                FGBLX
International Discovery                        FIGRX
International Small Cap                        FISMX
International Small Cap Opportunities          FSCOX
Overseas                                       FOSFX
Spartan International Index                    FSIIX
Worldwide                                      FWWFX
Canada                                         FICDX
China Region Fund                              FHKCX
Europe                                         FIEUX
Europe Capital Appreciation                    FECAX
Japan Fund                                     FJPNX
Japan Smaller Companies                        FJSCX
Nordic                                         FNORX
Pacific Basin                                  FPBFX
Emerging Markets                               FEMKX
Latin America                                  FLATX
Southeast Asia                                 FSEAX
Fidelity Utilities Fund                        FIUIX
Select Air Transportation Portfolio            FSAIX
Select Automotive Portfolio                    FSAVX
Select Banking Portfolio                       FSRBX
Select Biotechnology Portfolio                 FBIOX
Select Brokerage/Inv. Mgt. Portfolio           FSLBX
Select Business                                FBSOX
Svcs/Outsourcings Portfolio
Select Chemicals Portfolio                     FSCHX
Select Computers Portfolio                     FDCPX
Select Construction & Housing Portfolio        FSHOX
Select Consumer Industries Portfolio           FSCPX
Select Cyclical Industries Portfolio           FCYIX
Select Defense & Aerospace Portfolio           FSDAX
Select Developing Communications Portfolio     FSDCX
Select Electronics Portfolio                   FSELX
Select Energy Portfolio                        FSENX
Select Energy Service Portfolio                FSESX
Select Environmental Portfolio                 FSLEX
Select Food & Agriculture Portfolio            FDFAX
Select Gold Portfolio                          FSAGX
Select Health Care Portfolio                   FSPHX
Select Home Finance Portfolio                  FSVLX
Select Industrial Equipment Portfolio          FSCGX
Select Industrial Materials Portfolio          FSDPX
Select Insurance Portfolio                     FSPCX
Select Leisure Portfolio                       FDLSX
Select Medical Delivery Portfolio              FSHCX
Select Medical Equipment/Systems Portfolio     FSMEX
Select Multimedia Portfolio                    FBMPX
Select Natural Gas Portfolio                   FSNGX
Select Natural Resources Portfolio             FNARX
Select Networking & Infrastructure Portfolio   FNINX
Select Paper & Forest Products Portfolio       FSPFX
Select Pharmaceuticals Portfolio               FPHAX
Select Retailing Portfolio                     FSRPX
Select Software/Computer Svces Portfolio       FSCSX
Select Technology Portfolio                    FSPTX
Select Telecommunications Portfolio            FSTCX
Select Transportation Portfolio                FSRFX
Select Utilities Growth Portfolio              FSUTX
Select Wireless Portfolio                      FWRLX
Select Money Market                            FSLXX
International Real Estate                      FIREX
Real Estate                                    FRESX
Real Estate Income                             FRIFX
FourinOne Index Fund                           FFNOX
Nasdaq Composite Index Fund                    FNCMX
Spartan 500 Index Fund                         FSMKX
Spartan International Index                    FSIIX
Spartan Total Market Index                     FSTMX
Spartan U.S. Equity Index                      FUSEX
U.S. Bond Index Fund                           FBIDX
Asset Manager                                  FASMX
Asset Manager: Aggressive                      FAMRX
Asset Manager: Growth                          FASGX
Asset Manager: Income                          FASIX
Freedom 2000                                   FFFBX
Freedom 2005                                   FFFVX
Freedom 2010                                   FFFCX
Freedom 2015                                   FFVFX
Freedom 2020                                   FFFDX
Freedom 2025                                   FFTWX
Freedom 2030                                   FFFEX
Freedom 2035                                   FFTHX
Freedom 2040                                   FFFFX
Freedom Income                                 FFFAX
Balanced                                       FBALX
Convertible Securities                         FCVSX
Global Balanced                                FGBLX
Puritan                                        FPURX
Strategic Dividend & Income                    FSDIX
Ginnie Mae                                     FGMNX
Government Income                              FGOVX
InflationProtection                            FINPX
Intermediate Bond                              FTHRX
Intermediate Govt Income                       FSTGX
Investment Grade Bond                          FBNDX
Mortgage Securities                            FMSFX
ShortTerm Bond                                 FSHBX
Spartan Govt. Income                           SPGVX
Strategic Income                               FSICX
Total Bond                                     FTBFX
U.S. Bond Index                                FBIDX
UltraShort Bond                                FUSFX
Capital & Income                               FAGIX
Floating Rate High Income                      FFRHX
Focused High Income                            FHIFX
High Income                                    SPHIX
New Markets Income                             FNMIX
Intermediate Municipal Income                  FLTMX
Municipal Income                               FHIGX
ShortIntermediate Municipal Income             FSTFX
TaxFree Bond                                   FTABX
Arizona Municipal Income                       FSAZX
California Municipal Income                    FCTFX
Connecticut Municipal Income                   FICNX
Florida Municipal Income                       FFLIX
Maryland Municipal Income                      SMDMX
Massachusetts Municipal Income                 FDMMX
Michigan Municipal Income                      FMHTX
Minnesota Municipal Income                     FIMIX
New Jersey Municipal Income                    FNJHX
New York Municipal Income                      FTFMX
Ohio Municipal Income                          FOHFX
Pennsylvania Municipal Income                  FPXTX
Cash Reserves                                  FDRXX
FMMT: Retirement Government MM                 FGMXX
FMMT: Retirement MM                            FRTXX
Government Money Market                        SPAXX
Money Market                                   SPRXX
Select Money Market                            FSLXX
U.S. Government Reserves                       FGRXX
U.S. Treasury Money Market                     FDLXX
AMT TaxFree Money Fund                         FIMXX
Municipal Money Market                         FTEXX
TaxFree Money Market                           FMOXX
Arizona Municipal MM                           FSAXX
California AMT TaxFree MM                      FSPXX
Connecticut Municipal MM                       FCFXX
Florida Municipal MM                           FSFXX
Massachusetts AMT TaxFree MM                   FMSXX
Massachusetts Municipal MM                     FDMXX
Michigan Municipal MM                          FMIXX
New Jersey AMT TaxFree MM                      FSJXX
New Jersey Municipal MM                        FNJXX
New York AMT TaxFree MM                        FSNXX
New York Municipal MM                          FNYXX
Ohio Municipal MM                              FOMXX
Pennsylvania Municipal MM                      FPTXX

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
served as financial advisors who purportedly provided unbiased
and honest investment advice to their clients. Unbeknownst to
investors, defendants, in clear contravention of their
disclosure obligations and fiduciary responsibilities, failed to
properly disclose that they had engaged in a scheme to
aggressively push UBS sales personnel to steer clients into
purchasing certain UBS Funds and UBS Tier I Funds, which
included Fidelity Funds, that provided financial incentives and
rewards to UBS and its personnel based on sales. The complaint
alleges that defendants' undisclosed sales practices created an
insurmountable conflict of interest by providing substantial
monetary incentives to sell Shelf-Space Funds to their clients,
even though such investments were not in the clients' best
interest. UBS' failure to disclose the incentives constituted
violations of federal securities laws.

The action also includes a subclass of persons who held any
shares of UBS Mutual Funds. The complaint additionally alleges
that the investment advisor subsidiary of UBS, UBS Global Asset
Management created further undisclosed material conflicts of
interest by entering into revenue sharing agreements with UBS
financial Advisors to push investors into UBS proprietary funds,
regardless of whether such investments were in the investors'
best interests. The investment advisors financed these
arrangements by illegally charging excessive and improper fees
to the fund that should have been invested in the underlying
portfolio. In doing so they breached their fiduciary duties to
investors under the Investment Company Act and state law and
decreased shareholders' investment returns.

The action includes a second subclass of persons who purchased a
UBS Financial Plan that held Tier I mutual funds. The UBS
Financial Plans include, but are not limited to UBS Personalized
Asset Consulting and Evaluation Plan, InsightOne accounts,
and/or a resource management accounts.

For more details, contact Eric J. Belfi, Christopher Hinton or
Bradley P. Dyer of MURRAY, FRANK & SAILER, LLP, Phone:
(800) 497-8076 or (212) 682-1818, Fax: (212) 682-1892, E-mail:
info@murrayfrank.com.


UBS-AG: Murray Frank Lodges Securities Suit in NY Over MFS Funds
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP, initiated class
action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who purchased MFS Funds
from UBS-AG ("UBS"), from May 1, 2000 through April 30, 2005,
inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under
the Securities Act of 1993 (the "Securities Act") and the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The Funds, and the Symbols for the respective MFS Funds named
below, are as follows:

MFS Capital Opportunities Fund (Nasdaq: MCOFX), (Nasdaq: MCOBX),
(Nasdaq: MCOCX), (Nasdaq: MFCRX), (Nasdaq: MCOTX), (Nasdaq:
EACOX), (Nasdaq: EBCOX), (Nasdaq: ECCOX), (Nasdaq: MCOIX) MFS
Core Growth Fund (Nasdaq: MFCAX), (Nasdaq: MFCBX), (Nasdaq:
MFCCX), (Nasdaq: MCFRX), (Nasdaq: MCRRX), (Nasdaq: MFCIX) MFS
Emerging Growth Fund (Nasdaq: MEGRX), (Nasdaq: MEGBX), (Nasdaq:
MFECX), (Nasdaq: MFERX), (Nasdaq: MEGRX), (Nasdaq: EAGRX),
(Nasdaq: EBEGX), (Nasdaq: ECEGX), (Nasdaq: MFEGX), (Nasdaq:
MFEIX) MFS Growth Opportunities Fund (Nasdaq: MGOFX), (Nasdaq:
MGOBX MFS Large Cap Growth Fund (Nasdaq: MCGAX), (Nasdaq: MCGBX)
MFS Managed Sectors Fund (Nasdaq: MMNSX), (Nasdaq: MSEBX),
(Nasdaq: MMNCX) MFS Mid Cap Growth Fund (Nasdaq: OTCAX),
(Nasdaq: OTCBX), (Nasdaq: OTCCX), (Nasdaq: MMCRX), (Nasdaq:
MCPRX), (Nasdaq: EAMCX), (Nasdaq: EBCGX), (Nasdaq: ECGRX),
(Nasdaq: OTCIX) MFS New Discovery Fund (Nasdaq: MNDAX), (Nasdaq:
MNDBX), (Nasdaq: MNDCX), (Nasdaq: MFNRX), (Nasdaq: MNDRX),
(Nasdaq: EANDX), (Nasdaq: EBNDX), (Nasdaq: ECNDX), (Nasdaq:
MNDIX) MFS New Endeavor Fund (Nasdaq: MECAX), (Nasdaq: MECBX),
(Nasdaq: MECCX), (Nasdaq: MNERX), (Nasdaq: MENRX), (Nasdaq:
MECIX) MFS Research Fund (Nasdaq: MFRFX), (Nasdaq: MFRBX),
(Nasdaq: MFRCX), (Nasdaq: MFRRX), (Nasdaq: MSRRX), (Nasdaq:
EARFX), (Nasdaq: EBRFX), (Nasdaq: ECRFX) MFS Strategic Growth
Fund (Nasdaq: MFSGX), (Nasdaq: MSBGX), (Nasdaq: MFGCX), (Nasdaq:
MSGRX), (Nasdaq: MSTRX), (Nasdaq: EASGX), (Nasdaq: EBSGX),
(Nasdaq: ECSGX), (Nasdaq: MSGIX) MFS Technology Fund (Nasdaq:
MTCAX), (Nasdaq: MTCBX), (Nasdaq: MTCCX), (Nasdaq: MTQRX),
(Nasdaq: MTERX), (Nasdaq: MTCIX) Massachusetts Investors Growth
Stock (Nasdaq: MIGFX), (Nasdaq: MIGBX), (Nasdaq: MIGDX),
(Nasdaq: MIGRX), (Nasdaq: MIRGX), (Nasdaq: EISTX), (Nasdaq:
EMIVX), (Nasdaq: EMICX), (Nasdaq: MGTIX) MFS Mid Cap Value Fund
(Nasdaq: MVCAX), (Nasdaq: MCBVX), (Nasdaq: MVCCX), (Nasdaq:
MMVRX), (Nasdaq: MCVRX), (Nasdaq: EACVX), (Nasdaq: EBCVX),
(Nasdaq: ECCVX), (Nasdaq: MCVIX) MFS Research Growth and Income
Fund (Nasdaq: MRGAX), (Nasdaq: MRGBX), (Nasdaq: MRGCX), (Nasdaq:
MGIRX), (Nasdaq: MRERX), (Nasdaq: MRGRX) MFS Strategic Value
Fund (Nasdaq: MSVTX), (Nasdaq: MSVCX), (Nasdaq: MQSVX), (Nasdaq:
MSVRX), (Nasdaq: MVSRX), (Nasdaq: EASVX), (Nasdaq: EBSVX),
(Nasdaq: ECSVX), (Nasdaq: MSVLX), (Nasdaq: MISVX) MFS Total
Return Fund (Nasdaq: MSFRX), (Nasdaq: MTRBX), (Nasdaq: MTRCX),
(Nasdaq: MFTRX), (Nasdaq: MTRRX), (Nasdaq: EATRX), (Nasdaq:
EBTRX), (Nasdaq: ECTRX), (Nasdaq: MTRIX) MFS Union Standard
Equity Fund (Nasdaq: MUEAX), (Nasdaq: MUSBX), (Nasdaq: MUECX),
(Nasdaq: MUSEX) MFS Utilities Fund (Nasdaq: MMUFX), (Nasdaq:
MMUBX), (Nasdaq: MMUCX), (Nasdaq: MMURX), (Nasdaq: MURRX),
(Nasdaq: MMUIX) MFS Value Fund (Nasdaq: MEIAX), (Nasdaq: MFEBX),
(Nasdaq: MEICX), (Nasdaq: MFVRX), (Nasdaq: MVRRX), (Nasdaq:
EAVLX), (Nasdaq: EBVLX), (Nasdaq: ECVLX), (Nasdaq: MEIIX)
Massachusetts Investors Trust (Nasdaq: MITTX), (Nasdaq: MITBX),
(Nasdaq: MITCX), (Nasdaq: MITRX), (Nasdaq: MIRTX), (Nasdaq:
EAMTX), (Nasdaq: EBMTX), (Nasdaq: ECITX), (Nasdaq: MITIX) MFS
Aggressive Growth Allocation Fund (Nasdaq: MAAGX), (Nasdaq:
MBAGX), (Nasdaq: MCAGX), (Nasdaq: MAARX), (Nasdaq: MAWAX),
(Nasdaq: EAGTX), (Nasdaq: EBAAX), (Nasdaq: ECAAX), (Nasdaq:
MIAGX) MFS Conservative Allocation Fund (Nasdaq: MACFX),
(Nasdaq: MACBX), (Nasdaq: MACVX), (Nasdaq: MACRX), (Nasdaq:
MCARX), (Nasdaq: ECLAX), (Nasdaq: EBCAX), (Nasdaq: ECACX),
(Nasdaq: MACIX) MFS Growth Allocation Fund (Nasdaq: MAGWX),
(Nasdaq: MBGWX), (Nasdaq: MCGWX), (Nasdaq: MGARX), (Nasdaq:
MGALX), (Nasdaq: EAGWX), (Nasdaq: EBGWX), (Nasdaq: ECGWX),
(Nasdaq: MGWIX) MFS Moderate Allocation Fund (Nasdaq: MAMAX),
(Nasdaq: MMABX), (Nasdaq: MMACX), (Nasdaq: MAMRX), (Nasdaq:
MARRX), (Nasdaq: MAMDX), (Nasdaq: EBMDX), (Nasdaq: ECMAX),
(Nasdaq: MMAIX) MFS Bond Fund (Nasdaq: MFBFX), (Nasdaq: MFBBX),
(Nasdaq: MFBCX), (Nasdaq: MFBRX), (Nasdaq: MBRRX), (Nasdaq:
EABDX), (Nasdaq: EBBDX), (Nasdaq: ECBDX, (Nasdaq: MBDIX) MFS
Emerging Markets Debt Fund (Nasdaq: MEDAX), (Nasdaq: MEDBX),
(Nasdaq: MEDCX), (Nasdaq: MEDIX) MFS Government Limited Maturity
Fund (Nasdaq: MGLFX), (Nasdaq: MGLBX), (Nasdaq: MGLCX) MFS
Government Mortgage Fund (Nasdaq: MGMTX), (Nasdaq: MGTBX),
(Nasdaq: MGMIX) MFS Government Securities Fund (Nasdaq: MFGSX),
(Nasdaq: MFGBX), (Nasdaq: MFGDX), (Nasdaq: MGSRX), (Nasdaq:
MGVSX), (Nasdaq: EAGSX), (Nasdaq: EBGSX), (Nasdaq: ECGSX) MFS
High Income Fund (Nasdaq: MHITX), (Nasdaq: MHIBX), (Nasdaq:
MHICX), (Nasdaq: EAHIX), (Nasdaq: EMHBX), (Nasdaq: EMHCX),
(Nasdaq: MHIIX), (Nasdaq: MHIRX) MFS High Yield Opportunities
Fund (Nasdaq: MHOAX), (Nasdaq: MHOBX), (Nasdaq: MHOCX), (Nasdaq:
MHOIX) MFS Intermediate Investment Grade Bond Fund (Nasdaq:
MGBFX), (Nasdaq: MGBVX), (Nasdaq: MGBCX), (Nasdaq: MGBEX),
(Nasdaq: MIBRX) MFS Limited Maturity Fund (Nasdaq: MQLFX),
(Nasdaq: MQLBX), (Nasdaq: MQLCX), (Nasdaq: EALMX), (Nasdaq:
EBLMX), (Nasdaq: ELDCX), (Nasdaq: MLDRX) MFS Research Bond Fund
(Nasdaq: MRBFX), (Nasdaq: MRBBX), (Nasdaq: MRBCX), (Nasdaq:
EARBX), (Nasdaq: EBRBX), (Nasdaq: ECRBX), (Nasdaq: MRBIX),
(Nasdaq: MRBRX) MFS Strategic Income Fund (Nasdaq: MFIOX),
(Nasdaq: MIOBX), (Nasdaq: MIOCX), (Nasdaq: MFIIX) MFS Alabama
Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq: MFALX), (Nasdaq: MBABX) MFS
Arkansas Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq: MFARX), (Nasdaq: MBARX)
MFS California Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq: MCFTX), (Nasdaq:
MBCAX), (Nasdaq: MCCAX) MFS Florida Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq:
MFFLX), (Nasdaq: MBFLX) MFS Georgia Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq:
MMGAX), (Nasdaq: MBGAX) MFS Maryland Municipal Bond Fund
(Nasdaq: MFSMX), (Nasdaq: MBMDX) MFS Massachusetts Municipal
Bond Fund (Nasdaq: MFSSX), (Nasdaq: MBMAX) MFS Mississippi
Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq: MISSX), (Nasdaq: MBMSX) MFS
Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq: MMBFX), (Nasdaq: MMBBX) MFS
Municipal Limited Maturity Fund (Nasdaq: MTLFX), (Nasdaq:
MTLBX), (Nasdaq: MTLCX) MFS New York Municipal Bond Fund
(Nasdaq: MSNYX), (Nasdaq: MBNYX), (Nasdaq: MCNYX) MFS North
Carolina Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq: MSNCX), (Nasdaq: MBNCX),
(Nasdaq: MCNCX) MFS Pennsylvania Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq:
MFPAX), (Nasdaq: MBPAX) MFS South Carolina Municipal Bond Fund
(Nasdaq: MFSCX), (Nasdaq: MBSCX) MFS Tennessee Municipal Bond
Fund (Nasdaq: MSTNX), (Nasdaq: MBTNX) MFS Virginia Municipal
Bond Fund (Nasdaq: MSVAX), (Nasdaq: MBVAX), (Nasdaq: MVACX) MFS
West Virginia Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq: MFWVX), (Nasdaq:
MBWVX) MFS Emerging Markets Equity Fund (Nasdaq: MEMAX),
(Nasdaq: MEMCX), (Nasdaq: MEMIX), (Nasdaq: MEMBX) MFS Global
Equity Fund (Nasdaq: MWEFX), (Nasdaq: MWEBX), (Nasdaq: MWECX),
(Nasdaq: MWEIX), (Nasdaq: MGERX) MFS Global Growth Fund (Nasdaq:
MWOFX), (Nasdaq: MWOBX), (Nasdaq: MWOCX), (Nasdaq: MWOIX),
(Nasdaq: MGLRX) MFS Global Total Return Fund (Nasdaq: MFWTX),
(Nasdaq: MFWBX), (Nasdaq: MFWCX), (Nasdaq: MFWIX), (Nasdaq:
MGRRX) MFS International Growth Fund (Nasdaq: MGRAX), (Nasdaq:
MGRBX), (Nasdaq: MGRCX), (Nasdaq: MQGIX) MFS International New
Discovery Fund (Nasdaq: MIDAX), (Nasdaq: MIDBX), (Nasdaq:
MIDCX), (Nasdaq: EAIDX), (Nasdaq: EBIDX), (Nasdaq: ECIDX),
(Nasdaq: MWNIX), (Nasdaq: MINRX) MFS International Value Fund
(Nasdaq: MGIAX), (Nasdaq: MGIBX), (Nasdaq: MGICX), (Nasdaq:
MINIX) MFS Research International Fund (Nasdaq: MRSAX), (Nasdaq:
MRIBX), (Nasdaq: MRICX), (Nasdaq: EARSX), (Nasdaq: EBRIX),
(Nasdaq: ECRIX), (Nasdaq: MRSIX), (Nasdaq: MRIRX)

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
served as financial advisors who purportedly provided unbiased
and honest investment advice to their clients. Unbeknownst to
investors, defendants, in clear contravention of their
disclosure obligations and fiduciary responsibilities, failed to
properly disclose that they had engaged in a scheme to
aggressively push UBS sales personnel to steer clients into
purchasing certain UBS Funds and UBS Tier I Funds, which
included MFS Funds, that provided financial incentives and
rewards to UBS and its personnel based on sales. The complaint
alleges that defendants' undisclosed sales practices created an
insurmountable conflict of interest by providing substantial
monetary incentives to sell Shelf-Space Funds to their clients,
even though such investments were not in the clients' best
interest. UBS' failure to disclose the incentives constituted
violations of federal securities laws.

The action also includes a subclass of persons who held any
shares of UBS Mutual Funds. The complaint additionally alleges
that the investment advisor subsidiary of UBS, UBS Global Asset
Management created further undisclosed material conflicts of
interest by entering into revenue sharing agreements with UBS
financial Advisors to push investors into UBS proprietary funds,
regardless of whether such investments were in the investors'
best interests. The investment advisors financed these
arrangements by illegally charging excessive and improper fees
to the fund that should have been invested in the underlying
portfolio. In doing so they breached their fiduciary duties to
investors under the Investment Company Act and state law and
decreased shareholders' investment returns.

The action includes a second subclass of persons who purchased a
UBS Financial Plan that held Tier I mutual funds. The UBS
Financial Plans include, but are not limited to UBS Personalized
Asset Consulting and Evaluation Plan, InsightOne accounts,
and/or a resource management accounts.

For more details, contact Eric J. Belfi, Christopher Hinton or
Bradley P. Dyer of MURRAY, FRANK & SAILER, LLP, Phone:
(800) 497-8076 or (212) 682-1818, Fax: (212) 682-1892, E-mail:
info@murrayfrank.com.


WORLD HEALTH: Abbey Gardy Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in PA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Abbey Gardy, LLP commenced a Class Action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania on behalf of a class (the "Class") of
all persons who purchased or acquired securities World Health
Alternatives, Inc. (OTC Bulletin Board: WHAIE.OB) ("World
Health" or the "Company") between June 26, 2003 and August 19,
2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

On August 31, 2005, World Health announced that Daszkal Bolton
LLP ("Daszkal Bolton"), its former auditors, had informed the
Company's Audit Committee of difficulties encountered in
performing its audit of the Company's financial statements for
the year ended December 31, 2004. More specifically, World
Health admitted that the difficulties related to the timely
receipt of finalized documents such as asset acquisition
documents, board of directors' resolutions, and confirmations
from management.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period thereby
artificially inflating the price of Symbol securities. The
complaint alleges that the Company's publicly filed financial
statements during the Class Period were materially false and
misleading in that, among other things, the Company underpaid
more than $4 million in taxes during the Class period, and net
income was consequently overstated by a comparable amount; that
the Company was in breach of its lending agreements as a result
of having misrepresented its financial condition to its lenders,
resulting in the Company having fraudulently obtained more than
$6.5 million from its lenders; and that the Company misstated
the amount of debenture and warrants associated with the
Company's preferred stock. In addition, the Company misstated
the academic credentials of defendant McDonald in various SEC
filings during the Class Period, misleading investors as to the
training and integrity of the Company's senior management.

For more details, contact Susan Lee or Charles H. Dufresne, Jr.,
Esq. of Abbey Gardy, LLP, 212 East 39th St., New York, NY 10016,
Phone: (212) 889-3700 or (800) 889-3701, E-mail:
slee@abbeygardy.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  * * *