---

            C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Thursday, September 8, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 178

                            Headlines

AUSTRALIA: Former F-111 Workers Reject Offer, Mulls Legal Action
AUSTRALIA: Multiplex Group Could Face Suit Over Wembley Project
BOSTON COMMUNICATIONS: Shareholders File Securities Suit in MA
CANADIAN NATIONAL: Suit Over Train Derailment to Start Anytime
CANADIAN SUPERIOR: Settles Lawsuits Over I-85 Exploration Well

CERUS CORPORATION: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Securities Lawsuit
CHINA: Activist Leading Drive V. Population Control Arrested
COI SOLUTIONS: FL Judge Enters Default Judgment in SEC Lawsuit
CORNELL COMPANIES: Reaches Settlement For TX Securities Lawsuit
DEL GLOBAL: CEO Leonard Trugman Agrees to $1.25M SEC Settlement

DIRECT GENERAL: Asks TN Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
FLORIDA: TX Lawyer Helps Reach $75M Settlement in Toxic-Ash Case
GABLES REALTY: Reaches Settlement For FL Lease Termination Suit
GABLES RESIDENTIAL: Faces Breach of Fiduciary Duty Suits in MD
GROUP 1: Forges Settlement For TX State, Federal Antitrust Suits

GUITAR CENTER: CA Overtime Wage Suits Consolidated For Mediation
INSPIRE PHARMACEUTICALS: Shareholders Launch Fraud Suits in NC
ISRAEL: 523 Passengers Sue EL AL Over 2003 "Traumatic" Flight
KEYNOTE SYSTEMS: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Lawsuit Settlement
LEXAR MEDIA: CA State, Federal Securities Litigation Dismissed

LUFKIN INDUSTRIES: Judge Awards Plaintiffs in Racial Bias Suit
MERCK & CO.: Law Firm Files Vioxx Suit on Behalf of Australians
MICROMUSE INC.: Reaches Settlement For CA Securities Fraud Suit
MIDWAY GAMES: DE Court Dismisses Two Shareholder Fraud Lawsuits
NETOPIA INC.: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Securities Suit in CA

PROVIDIAN FINANCIAL: NY Court Nixes Portions of Suit Dismissal
PROVIDIAN FINANCIAL: IL Consumers Launch FCRA Violations Lawsuit
PROVIDIAN FINANCIAL: Consumers Launch Antitrust Suit in CT Court
RHINO ECOSYSTEMS: FL Judge Enters Final Judgment V. Defendant
SLM CORPORATION: DC Court Hears Consumer Suit Dismissal Appeal

STARTEK INC.: CO Court Consolidates Securities Fraud Lawsuits
TRUSTREET PROPERTIES: Plaintiffs Appeal TX Fraud Suit Dismissal
TUMBLEWEED COMMUNICATIONS: Plaintiffs Appeal NY Suit Dismissal
ULTIMATE CHOPPER: Recalls 1.5M Food Processors For Injury Hazard
UTSTARCOM INC.: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit in CA

VERISIGN INC.: Removes Consumer Fraud Suit To CA Federal Court
VISHAY INTERTECHNOLOGY: Reaches Settlement For DE Siliconix Suit
WELLS FARGO: Reaches Settlement in Suit V. $5 Check Cashing Fee
WEST CORPORATION: NV Court To Grant Motion To Remand Fraud Suit

                 New Securities Fraud Cases

ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Charles J. Piven Lodges OH Securities Suit
ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Goldman Scarlato Lodges Suit in S.D. OH
HOST AMERICA: Rosen Law Firm Schedules Lead Plaintiff Deadline
IMMUCOR INC.: Brian M. Felgoise Files Securities Suit in N.D. GA
IMMUCOR INC.: Lasky & Rifkind Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in GA

ISOLAGEN INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in TX
UBS-AG: Murray Frank Lodges Complaint in NY Over American Funds


                            *********


AUSTRALIA: Former F-111 Workers Reject Offer, Mulls Legal Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Approximately 250 former Royal Australian Air Force workers
rejected the Federal Government's compensation package for
illnesses they suffered while working on the fuel tanks of F-111
fighter-bombers, The Seven.com.au reports.

The workers were offered lump sum payments of between $10,000
and $40,000, however they argued that it's not enough. According
to former worker Tony Brady, with the rejection of the offer
they will now take the Government to court, however they have
yet to decide if they will pursue a class action or individual
claims.

He told The Seven.com.au, "Broken marriages, children alienated
because of aggressive behavior, I mean how do you compensate for
that? It's almost impossible."  He added, "What you could do is
give us full health cover[age] most of us have asked for our
gold card. If we get our gold card then that would make sure
that we're consistently going to have our health looked after
for life."


AUSTRALIA: Multiplex Group Could Face Suit Over Wembley Project
---------------------------------------------------------------
Multiplex Group could potentially face a class action from
shareholders angry at the plunge in its share price this year
due to losses on its massive Wembley Stadium project, according
to the law firm Slater & Gordon, which is conducting
investigations into whether the construction group misled
investors, The Sydney Morning Herald reports.

Slater & Gordon partner Lisa Nichols told The Sydney Morning
Herald, "Late last year Multiplex was still indicating publicly
that the Wembley project was on track to return a large profit.
But then in February Multiplex announced that the Wembley
project would break even instead of making a profit and in May
Multiplex announced that in fact the Wembley project would
return a STG45 million ($A109 million) loss." She goes on to
state, "Over that period shares in the company were dropping
from $6.15 to a record low of $2.27. Many shareholders suffered
serious losses."

Ms. Nichols also told The Sydney Morning Herald that the
question was what Multiplex management knew, and when, about
losses on the $1.2 billion reconstruction of the famous London
stadium, home to English football. She pointed out, "If there is
a viable claim for shareholders, a class action may well be the
appropriate vehicle."

A recent report on ABC television's Four Corners program
revealed that an internal Multiplex budget memo pointed to heavy
losses from the Wembley Stadium reconstruction four months
before the extent of the losses were made public. The same
program also revealed that a senior manager raised concerns
about the group's half-yearly results with both the board and
the corporate regulator in the week before they were announced
in February.  Last month, Multiplex stated that it still
expected the Wembley project to be completed by the end of March
next year, in time for the FA Cup final in May.


BOSTON COMMUNICATIONS: Shareholders File Securities Suit in MA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Boston Communications Group, Inc. faces several securities class
actions filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts, on behalf of persons who purchased
its common stock between November 15, 2000 and May 20, 2005.  
The suits also names as defendants the Company's Chief Executive
Officer and its Chief Financial Officer.

The complaints allege that the defendants violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act as well as Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder by allegedly failing to disclose adverse
facts regarding the Freedom Wireless, Inc. lawsuit, including
that the Company had willfully infringed the Freedom Wireless
patents.

Within ten days of the appointment of a lead counsel and a lead
plaintiff in this case, the parties will submit for the Court's
consideration a proposed schedule for this case, including
defendants' time to respond to the complaint by motion to
dismiss or otherwise.

The first identified complaint in the litigation is styled
"Rosenbaum Capital LLC, et al. v. Boston Communications Group,
Inc., et al., case no. 05-CV-11165," filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts, under Judge
William G. Young.  The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

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

     (2) Gilman & Pastor, Stonehill Corporate Center 999
         Broadway Suite 500, Saugus, MA, 01906, Phone:
         781.231.7850, Fax: 781.231.7840;

     (3) Marc S. Henzel, 210 West Washington Square, Third
         Floor, Philadelphia, PA, 19106, Phone: 215.625.9999,
         Fax: 215.440.9475, E-mail: Mhenzel182@aol.com

     (4) 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


CANADIAN NATIONAL: Suit Over Train Derailment to Start Anytime
--------------------------------------------------------------
The process of filing a class action lawsuit against Canadian
National over a train derailment west of Edmonton could begin as
early as September 6, 2005, The Calgary Herald reports.

The suit would be open to residents of Wabamun affected by last
month's train derailment and oil spill into Lake Wabamun,
according to Sandy Clark, who also said that a statement of
claim would be filed in Edmonton court.  However, residents
committee chairman Doug Goss told The Calgary Herald that they
are against launching legal action because CN has accepted
liability for the spill.


CANADIAN SUPERIOR: Settles Lawsuits Over I-85 Exploration Well
--------------------------------------------------------------
Canadian Superior Energy Inc. ("Canadian Superior") (TSX: SNG)
(AMEX: SNG) of Calgary, Alberta, Canada and its insurers reached
an agreement with plaintiffs' legal counsel to settle all
securities class action litigation and actions pending in Canada
against the Company and certain of its officers and directors
resulting from the drilling last year of the "Mariner" I-85
exploration well drilled offshore Nova Scotia.

The CDN $2.15 million settlement, which is covered by the
Company's insurance, has been reached with no admission of
liability by any party and has been entered into to avoid costly
and time consuming litigation by all parties. All parties have
agreed to seek the required Canadian court approvals of the
settlement. Earlier this year Canadian Superior announced a
similar United States class action settlement.

Canadian Superior is a Calgary, Alberta-based oil and gas
exploration and production company with operations in Western
Canada, offshore Trinidad and Tobago and offshore Nova Scotia.

For more details, contact Canadian Superior Energy Inc. Investor
Relations, Suite 3300, 400 - 3rd Avenue S.W. Calgary, Alberta
Canada T2P 4H2, Phone: (403) 294-1411, Fax: (403) 216-2374, Web
site: http://www.cansup.com.  


CERUS CORPORATION: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cerus Corporation asked the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California to dismiss the third amended
consolidated securities class action filed against it and
certain of its current and former directors, alleging violations
of federal securities laws.

On December 8, 2003, a class action complaint was filed alleging
that the defendants violated the federal securities laws by
making certain alleged false and misleading statements regarding
the compound used in the Company's red blood cell system.  The
plaintiff seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a purported
class of purchasers of the Company's securities during the
period from October 25, 2000 through September 3, 2003.  As is
typical in this type of litigation, several other purported
securities class action lawsuits containing substantially
similar allegations have since been filed against the
defendants.

On May 24, 2004, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint.
The consolidated complaint abandons the allegations raised in
the original complaints. Instead, the plaintiffs claim that the
defendants issued false and misleading predictions regarding the
initiation and completion of clinical trials, submission of
regulatory filings, receipt of regulatory approval and other
milestones in the development of the INTERCEPT Blood Systems for
platelets, plasma and red blood cells. The consolidated
complaint retains the same class period alleged in the original
complaints.

On June 17, 2004, the plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated
complaint substantially similar to the previous consolidated
complaint with additional allegations attributed to a
confidential witness.  On July 20, 2004, the defendants moved to
dismiss the amended consolidated complaint. On January 20, 2005,
the Court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend within 60
days.  On March 21, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a second amended
consolidated complaint, and on May 24, 2005, the plaintiffs
filed a third amended consolidated complaint.  The allegations
of both the second and third amended consolidated complaints
were similar to those contained in the previous amended
consolidated complaint.  On July 8, 2005, the defendants moved
to dismiss this third amended consolidated complaint.

The suit is styled "In re Cerus Corporation Securities
Litigation, 5:03-cv-05517-JF," filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Texas, under Judge
Jeremy Fogel.  Representing the plaintiffs are Patrick J.
Coughlin and William S. Lerach of Lerach Coughlin Stoia &
Robbins LLP, 100 Pine Street, Suite 2600, San Francisco, CA
94111, Phone: 415-288-4545, Fax: 415-288-4534, E-mail:
patc@mwbhl.com or billl@lerachlaw.com.  Representing the Company
are Terri Garland and Raymond M. Hasu of Morrison & Foerster,
425 Market Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-2482, Phone:
415-268-7000, Fax: rhasu@mofo.com or tgarland@mofo.com.


CHINA: Activist Leading Drive V. Population Control Arrested
------------------------------------------------------------
In an apparent attempt to block him from meeting with senior
government officials who had expressed support for his cause,
local authorities recently seized a rural activist in Beijing,
who is leading a high-profile legal campaign against the use of
forced sterilization and abortion in China, The Washington Post
reports.

The arrest of Chen Guangcheng, 34, a blind peasant who is a
class action lawsuit to challenge population-control abuses in
the eastern city of Linyi, occurred a few days after he arrived
in Beijing for meetings with lawyers and journalists. Mr. Chen
was seized just as the Chinese government opened an
international legal conference here.

According to witnesses, several men in plain clothes grabbed Mr.
Chen when he left an apartment building. They stated that Mr.
Chen resisted the men, who did not identify themselves, shouting
for help as they dragged him across a parking lot and pushed him
headfirst into an unmarked car with tinted windows.

When the unidentified men finally secured Mr. Chen into the car,
a small group of people, upset by seeing the rough treatment,
surrounded the vehicle and prevented it from driving away. As
two men held Mr. Chen down in the back seat, he could be heard
screaming and appeared to be in pain, witnessed said.

Eventually, residents called Beijing police and thus later two
uniformed officers arrived, consulted with the men who had
seized Mr. Chen, but then cleared a way for the car to leave.
The officers said that the men who seized Chen were police from
China's Shandong province, where the city of Linyi is located.

Tu Bisheng, a friend who was with Mr. Chen at the time, told The
Washington Post that local officials from Linyi were also
present.

Li Heping, another of the lawyers working with Mr. Chen also
told The Washington Post, "We feel this is extremely
inappropriate." He added that the Linyi officials appeared to be
"taking revenge on him for trying to protect the rights of local
citizens and exercising his right to criticize the government."

A Shandong public security bureau though told The Washington
Post that he knew nothing about Mr. Chen's arrest and declined
to accept questions about the incident.

Mr. Chen was seized just hours after meeting with a reporter who
works for Time magazine, according to Mr. Tu. Over the past few
days, Mr. Chen also met with a Washington Post correspondent,
diplomats from the U.S. Embassy and several lawyers in Beijing
who have volunteered to help him sue officials in Linyi, a city
of 10 million located about 400 miles southeast of Beijing.

In March, residents claimed that the Linyi government began
requiring parents with two children to be sterilized and forcing
women pregnant with a third child to have abortions. In
addition, officials were detaining family members of such people
who fled, beating them and holding them hostage until their
relatives return and submit to the operations, according to
residents interviewed in Linyi.

Mr. Chen's attempt to organize a class action lawsuit against
Linyi was the subject of a report in The Washington Post on
August 27. During that time, officials in Beijing stated that
the practices described by Linyi residents were illegal and
expressed support for the lawsuit.

After publication of that article, the National Population and
Family Planning Commission, the cabinet-level ministry, which
manages population growth in China, sent a team of officials to
investigate the allegations in Linyi. They tried to meet with
Mr. Chen, but he had already traveled to Beijing.

In an interview before his arrest, Mr. Chen told The Washington
Post that he was thinking about meeting with commission
officials, but was worried about being arrested.

A commission official, contacted by telephone, told The
Washington Post that the ministry was unaware of Mr. Chen's
detention and could not immediately comment on it. The official
also told The Washington Post that the ministry would try to
contact Shandong authorities to determine what happened to him.
In addition, the official also told the newspaper that the
ministry considers the Linyi case a priority and will severely
punish family planning officials who violate the law.

Provincial authorities wield tremendous power in China's one-
party political system and often disobey ministries in the
central government. However, the seizure of Mr. Chen represents
an unusually public act of defiance, which could embarrass the
governing Communist Party as it seeks to project an image that
it has abandoned coercive methods to limit population growth.

In the early 1980s, local officials throughout China began using
forced abortions and compulsory sterilization to enforce the
one-child policy, however since the mid-1990s, the central
government tried to eliminate such practices and move toward a
more flexible system of economic rewards and fines to slow
population growth.

Jerome Cohen, a specialist on Chinese law at New York University
who is teaching in Beijing this fall, told The Washington Post
that he met with Mr. Chen recently and discussed the risks of
the lawsuit with him. According to him, Mr. Chen was determined
to press ahead. Commenting on the arrest Mr. Cohen told The
Washington Post, "This seems to be a case of local officials who
have blatantly abused their legal powers, and have no legitimate
defense against the case he brought against them, resorting to
extralegal methods to cut off his ability to pursue justice.
It's very, very sad, and another example of how rough the legal
situation is in rural areas."


COI SOLUTIONS: FL Judge Enters Default Judgment in SEC Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Daniel T.K. Hurley of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Florida entered a default
judgment of permanent injunction against Defendant Robert
Wilder.  

The Court found that Defendant Mr. Wilder violated Section 10(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5,
thereunder. In addition to injunctive relief, the judgment
provided for the imposition of a civil penalty.   

On June 30, 2005, the Honorable Daniel T. K. Hurley ordered
Wilder to pay a civil money penalty in the amount of $110,000.
   
In its complaint the Commission charged defendant Wilder and
others with filing materially false and misleading statements
and failing to disclose material information in filings with the
Commission in violation of the federal securities laws.  The
suit is styled, SEC v. COI Solutions, Inc., et al., Case No. 02-
80767-CIV-HURLEY/LYNCH, S.D. FL. (LR-19361).


CORNELL COMPANIES: Reaches Settlement For TX Securities Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cornell Companies, 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 Texas, Houston
Division.

In March and April 2002, the company, Steven W. Logan (its
former President and Chief Executive Officer), and John L.
Hendrix (its former Chief Financial Officer), were named as
defendants in four federal putative class action lawsuits
styled:

     (1) Graydon Williams, On Behalf of Himself and All Others
         Similarly Situated v. Cornell Companies, Inc, et al.,
         case no. H-02-0866, in the United States District
         Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston
         Division;

     (2) Richard Picard, On Behalf of Himself and All Others
         Similarly Situated v. Cornell Companies, Inc., et al.,
         case no. H-02-1075, in the United States District
         Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston
         Division;

     (3) Louis A. Daly, On Behalf of Himself and All Others
         Similarly Situated v. Cornell Companies, Inc., et al.,
         case No. H-02-1522, in the United States District Court
         for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division,
         and

     (4) Anthony J. Scolaro, On Behalf of Himself and All Others
         Similarly Situated v. Cornell Companies, Inc., et al.,
         case No. H-02-1567, in the United States District Court
         for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division

The aforementioned lawsuits were putative class action lawsuits
brought on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's common
stock between March 6, 2001 and March 5, 2002 and relate to the
Company's restatement in 2002 of certain financial statements.  
The lawsuits involved disclosures made concerning two prior
transactions executed by the Company: the August 2001 sale
leaseback transaction and the 2000 synthetic lease transaction.  
These four lawsuits were consolidated into the "Graydon
Williams" action and Flyline Partners, LP was appointed lead
plaintiff.  As a result, a consolidated complaint was filed by
Flyline Partners, LP.  Richard Picard and Anthony Scolaro were
also named as plaintiffs.

Since then, the court has allowed plaintiffs to file an amended
consolidated complaint. The amended consolidated complaint
alleges that the defendants violated Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), Rule 10b-5
promulgated under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act, Section 11 of the Securities Act of
1933 (the "Securities Act") and/or Section 15 of the Securities
Act.  The amended consolidated complaint seeks, among other
things, restitution damages, compensatory damages, rescission or
a rescissory measure of damages, costs, expenses, attorneys'
fees and expert fees.  

In an order entered April 1, 2005, the court granted the motion
to dismiss with respect to the plaintiffs' securities fraud
claims pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act
and Rule 10b-5.  The court denied the motion to dismiss as to
the remaining claims covering the Company's secondary offering
in 2001.  Subject to court approval and documentation, the
parties have agreed to settle this matter.  

Under the proposed agreement, the Company has not admitted any
wrongdoing.  Settlement in the amount of $7 million will be
funded through the Company's Directors' and Officers' liability
insurance.  


DEL GLOBAL: CEO Leonard Trugman Agrees to $1.25M SEC Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission announced today that it
has reached a settlement of its pending financial fraud case
against Leonard A. Trugman, the former chairman and chief
executive officer of Del Global Technologies Corp., Inc., a
company based in Valhalla, N.Y.   

The Commission's complaint, filed June 1, 2004 in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleged
that Mr. Trugman, along with five former officers and/or
directors of Del, participated in a multi-year financial fraud
at Del between 1997 and 2000.  Mr. Trugman consented to the
entry of a final judgment against him without admitting or
denying the allegations in the Commission's complaint. On August
23, 2005, the Honorable Colleen McMahon, U.S. District Judge for
the Southern District of New York, entered a final judgment that
requires Mr. Trugman to pay $885,000 in disgorgement of ill-
gotten gains, $255,000 in prejudgment interest thereon, and a
$110,000 civil penalty, for a total of $1.25 million.  The final
judgment also enjoins Trugman from (i) violations of Section
17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Sections 10(b) and 13(b)(5)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Exchange Act Rules
13b2-1 and 13b2-2, (ii) aiding and abetting violations of
Sections 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A) and 13(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act,
and (iii) controlling any person (pursuant to Exchange Act
20(a)) that violates these provisions.  Additionally, the final
judgment permanently bars Mr. Trugman from acting as an officer
or director of a public company.

The Commission's complaint alleged, among other things, that Mr.
Trugman orchestrated a financial fraud at Del that resulted in
Del materially overstating its reported revenues and caused Del
to make numerous material misrepresentations in Commission
filings and in press releases. According to the complaint, Del
routinely engaged in improper revenue recognition when it held
open quarters, prematurely shipped products to third-party
warehouses, and recorded sales on products that Del had not yet
manufactured. The complaint also alleged that Del improperly
accounted for inventory by recording obsolete inventory at full
value and overstating certain engineering work in process
values. In addition, the complaint alleged that Del improperly
characterized certain ordinary expenses as capital expenditures.
As alleged in the complaint, these actions contravened Generally
Accepted Accounting Principles and resulted in the overstatement
of Del's reported pre-tax income by at least $3.7 million (110%)
in fiscal year 1997, $5.2 million (161%) in fiscal year 1998,
and $7.9 million (466%) in fiscal year 1999 - and allowed Del to
represent that its performance was on par with internal and
external expectations in the first three quarters of fiscal year
2000, when in fact those expectations outpaced the company's
actual performance by a wide margin.

The complaint further alleged that Mr. Trugman and others
engaged in a cover-up to prevent Del's outside auditors from
discovering the fraud.  Del kept two sets of books (one set for
its auditors and one correct set) and falsified documents such
as shipping logs, quality control records, and accounts
receivable documents to hide its fraudulent accounting practices
from its outside auditors.  The suit is styled, SEC v. Del
Global Technologies Corp., Inc., et al., 04 CV 4092, S.D.N.Y.
(LR-19360).


DIRECT GENERAL: Asks TN Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Direct General Corporation asked the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Tennessee to dismiss the
consolidated securities class actions filed against it and
certain of its officers and directors.

Four putative class action lawsuits were initially filed between
January 31, 2005 and February 8, 2005.  In each of these
lawsuits, the plaintiffs allege that the Company and certain of
its officers and directors made false and misleading statements
with respect to liabilities that had been recorded for unpaid
losses and loss adjustment expenses.  Plaintiffs allege that the
Company's reported results did not fairly and adequately
represent its financial position, that certain legislation in
Florida which became effective in October 2003 negatively
impacted the Company's business and increased its liability and
risk of litigation and that the Company failed to adequately
strengthen its loss reserves to account for this increased risk.  
The lawsuits further allege that certain officers and directors
sold shares of Company stock while they knew of the negative
impact of the change but before it was publicly released.  The
plaintiffs in the case seek to recover damages on behalf of all
purchasers of Company stock during a class period to be
determined and attorneys' fees on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated.

These cases have been consolidated and Lead Plaintiffs have been
appointed. Lead Plaintiffs allege that the Company and certain
of its officers and directors made false and misleading
statements with respect to liabilities that had been recorded
for unpaid losses and loss adjustment expenses.  Lead Plaintiffs
assert claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the
Securities Act of 1933.

Lead Plaintiffs generally contend that the Company and certain
of its officers and directors knew that certain legislation in
Florida, which became effective in October 2003, would
necessarily negatively impact its business by increasing its
liability and risk of litigation and that the Company failed to
timely strengthen its loss reserves to account for this alleged
known increased future risk. Lead Plaintiffs further assert that
certain officers and directors sold shares of Company stock
while they were aware of the allegedly known future negative
impact of the legislation, but before the reserves were
strengthened.  Lead Plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf
of all purchasers of Company stock during a class period to be
determined and attorneys' fees.

The suit is styled "In Re: Direct General Corporation Securities
Litigation case no. 3:05-cv-00077," filed in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, under Judge
Todd J. Campbell.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Ramzi Abadou, X. Jay Alvarez, Brian O. O'mara, Darren
         J. Robbins of Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman &
         Robbins, LLP, 401 B Street, Suite 1600, San Diego, CA
         92101, Phone: (619) 231-1058, E-mail:
         ramzia@lerachlaw.com, jaya@lerachlaw.com,
         briano@lerachlaw.com;  

     (2) Gordon Ball of Ball & Scott, Bank of America Center,
         550 Main Avenue, Suite 750, Knoxville, TN 37902, Phone:
         (865) 525-7028; and  

     (3) Karen Hanson Riebel, Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P.,
         100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200, Minneapolis,
         MN 55401, Phone: (612) 339-6900

Representing the Company are Peter Q. Bassett and Scott P.
Hilsen of Alston & Bird, One Atlantic Center, 1201 W Peachtree
Street, Atlanta, GA 30309-3424, Phone: (404) 881-7000, E-mail:
pbassett@alston.com or shilsen@alston.com.  


FLORIDA: TX Lawyer Helps Reach $75M Settlement in Toxic-Ash Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Austin, Texas attorney Tommy Jacks helped settle a toxic-ash
lawsuit against the city of Jacksonville, Florida for $75
million, The Austin Business Journal reports.

Mr. Jacks whose Jacks Law Firm and two other firms represented
4,600 Jacksonville residents harmed by ash residue from city-
operated incinerators told The Austin Business Journal that the
settlement brings justice to residents of predominately African-
American neighborhoods on the city's north side.  According to
Mr. Jacks, "This will finally bring some compensation to these
families who have lived in contaminated homes, sent their
children to schools with contaminated playgrounds and worked on
contaminated job sites." He told The Austin Business Journal
that of the $75 million the city is responsible for paying the
first $25 million in cash by December. The Jacksonville City
Council recently approved the settlement on September 1.

Under the settlement, the families affected would receive about
$17,000 each on average, however money will be awarded on a
points system, based on length of exposure to the toxins, among
other factors, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (August
25, 2005) reports.  The city and plaintiffs' attorneys are
seeking jointly to recover the balance of the $75 million from
insurance companies that covered the city over much of the
roughly 40-year period that the incinerators and ash dump sites
were active.

Mr. Jacks told The Austin Business Journal that the class action
lawsuit, which was filed in 2003, claimed that city polluted
neighborhoods surrounding four former dump sites, as wells as
areas surrounding three old incinerators. The plaintiffs claimed
exposure to pollutants caused health problems. Media reports
indicated that contaminants in the incinerator ash, included:
arsenic, lead and mercury.


GABLES REALTY: Reaches Settlement For FL Lease Termination Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gables Realty Limited Partnership reached a settlement for the
class action filed against it in the Florida State Circuit
Court, alleging that fees charged when residents terminate their
leases prior to the end of term or terminate without sufficient
notice are not in compliance with state law.

In December 2004, the Court granted class certification to the
suit, which the company appealed.  In the first quarter of 2005,
the Company recorded $1.8 million of expected costs associated
with a preliminary agreement to settle the class action lawsuit.  
The preliminary agreement to settle the class action lawsuit is
subject to court approval once finalized between the parties and
published to the class.  The charge of $1.8 million represents
an estimate and is comprised of two components:

     (1) expected plaintiffs' attorneys fees and other costs of
         the settlement of approximately $1.2 million, payable
         upon court approval of the settlement, and

     (2) an estimate of $0.6 million for the amount of contested
         fees the Company expect to be substantiated by eligible
         class members who elect to make a claim, payable if and
         when proven according to procedures included in the
         settlement.

The proposed settlement caps contested fees at $3.0 million,
with no minimum and requires that $0.35 million be initially
placed into an escrow account controlled by the Company to pre-
fund the payment of expected claims.  There can be no assurance
that the settlement of the class action lawsuit will be
finalized as currently proposed or that actual contested fees
will not ultimately exceed its current estimate.


GABLES RESIDENTIAL: Faces Breach of Fiduciary Duty Suits in MD
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gables Residential Trust faces two purported class action
complaints filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City in the
State of Maryland on behalf of the Trust's shareholder.  The
suit also names as defendants each member of the Trust's Board
of Trustees and ING Clarion Partners.

The suit principally alleges that the merger and the acts of the
trustees constitute a breach of the Trust's and the Board of
Trustees' duties to the Trust's shareholders.  The plaintiff in
the lawsuit seeks, among other things:

    (1) a declaration that the merger agreement was entered into
        in a breach of the defendants' duties and is therefore
        unenforceable and unlawful,

    (2) to enjoin the merger unless and until the Company adopt
        and implement a process to obtain the highest possible
        price for the company,

    (3) to rescind the merger agreement to the extent already
        implemented,

    (4) an order directing the defendants to exercise their
        duties to obtain a transaction which is in the best
        interests of the shareholders until the process for the
        sale or auction of the company is completed,

    (5) unspecified compensatory damages and

    (6) attorneys' and experts' fees

On June 20, 2005, a purported second class action complaint was
filed in the Circuit Court of Baltimore City in the State of
Maryland.  This complaint names as defendants the Trust, each
member of the Trust's Board of Trustees and Clarion and alleges
the same or substantially similar causes of action and seeks the
same or substantially similar relief as the first complaint.  


GROUP 1: Forges Settlement For TX State, Federal Antitrust Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Group 1 Automotive, Inc. reached a settlement for the three
class actions filed against certain of its Texas dealerships,
the Texas Automobile Dealers Association (TADA), and certain new
vehicle dealerships in Texas that are members of TADA.

Two state court class action lawsuits and one federal court
class action lawsuit were initially filed, alleging that since
January 1994, Texas dealers have deceived customers with respect
to a vehicle inventory tax and violated federal antitrust and
other laws.

In April 2002, the state court in which two of the actions are
pending certified classes of consumers on whose behalf the
action would proceed.  In October 2002, the Texas Court of
Appeals affirmed the trial court's order of class certification
in the state action.  The defendants requested that the Texas
Supreme Court review that decision, and the Court declined their
request on March 26, 2004.  The defendants petitioned the Texas
Supreme Court to reconsider its denial, and that petition was
denied on September 10, 2004.  

In the federal antitrust action, in March 2003, the federal
district court also certified a class of consumers. Defendants
appealed the district court's certification to the Fifth Circuit
Court of Appeals, which on October 5, 2004, reversed the class
certification order and remanded the case back to the federal
district court for further proceedings.  In February 2005, the
plaintiffs in the federal action sought a writ of certiorari to
the United States Supreme Court in order to obtain review of the
Fifth Circuit's order. The defendants notified the U.S. Supreme
Court that they would not respond to the writ unless requested
to do so by the Court.

Also in February 2005, settlement discussions with the
plaintiffs in the three cases culminated in formal settlement
offers pursuant to which the Company could settle the state and
federal cases.  The Company has not entered into the settlements
at this time, and, if it does, the settlements will be
contingent upon court approval.  The proposed settlements
contemplate the Company's dealerships issuing certificates for
discounts off future vehicle purchases, refunding cash in some
circumstances, and paying attorneys' fees and certain costs.
Dealers participating in the settlements would agree to certain
disclosures regarding inventory tax charges when itemizing such
charges on customer invoices.  

In June 2005, the Company's Texas dealerships and certain other
defendants in the lawsuits entered settlements with the
plaintiffs in each of the cases.  The settlements are contingent
upon and subject to court approval. Estimated expenses of the
proposed settlements include the Company's dealerships issuing
certificates for discounts off future vehicle purchases,
refunding cash in some circumstances, and paying attorneys' fees
and certain costs. Dealers participating in the settlements
would agree to certain disclosures regarding inventory tax
charges when itemizing such charges on customer invoices.
Estimated expenses of the proposed settlements of $1.5 million
have been included in accrued expenses in the accompanying
consolidated balance sheet.


GUITAR CENTER: CA Overtime Wage Suits Consolidated For Mediation
----------------------------------------------------------------
The two overtime wage class actions filed against The Guitar
Center, Inc. have been consolidated in the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of Los Angeles, for mediation
purposes.

On October 13, 2004, a putative class action lawsuit entitled
"Carlos Rodriguez v. The Guitar Center, Inc., Case No.
GC322958," was filed on behalf of all hourly retail store
employees employed by the Company within the State of
California.  On December 15, 2004, a putative class action
lawsuit entitled "James McClain et. al. v. Guitar Center Stores,
Inc., Case No. BC326002," was filed also on behalf of all hourly
retail store employees employed by the Company within the State
of California.

Among other things, the lawsuits allege that the Company
improperly failed to document and enforce break-time and
lunchtime periods for such employees and seek an unspecified
amount of damages, penalties and attorneys' fees.  In the
Rodriguez case, the Company has filed an answer to the
plaintiff's complaint and are in the process of responding to
the plaintiff's requests for discovery.  The McClain complaint
has been served on the Company, and its response to the
complaint was filed on May 11, 2005.  The McClain and Rodriguez
lawsuits are now pending before the same court.


INSPIRE PHARMACEUTICALS: Shareholders Launch Fraud Suits in NC
--------------------------------------------------------------
Inspire Pharmaceuticals, Inc. faces several class actions filed
in the United States District Court for the Middle District of
North Carolina, alleging violations of federal securities laws.

Mirco Investors, LLC filed the first suit in February 2005 on
behalf of itself and all other similarly situated investors
against the Company and certain of its senior officers. The
complaint alleges violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Securities and Exchange
Commission Rule 10b-5, and focuses on statements that are
claimed to be false and misleading regarding a Phase 3 clinical
trial of the Company's dry eye product candidate, diquafosol
tetrasodium. The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages on behalf
of a purported class of purchasers of Company securities during
the period from June 2, 2004 through February 8, 2005.

Four additional proposed stockholder class actions have been
filed in the same court, making substantially the same
allegations against the same parties as defendants and seeking
certifications of the same class of purchasers.  It is possible
that additional complaints may be filed in the future.  The
Company expects that these individual lawsuits will be
consolidated into a single civil action, the Company stated in a
disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission.


ISRAEL: 523 Passengers Sue EL AL Over 2003 "Traumatic" Flight
-------------------------------------------------------------
Some 523 passengers traveling from Tel Aviv to New York aboard a
EL AL flight two years ago initiated a suit against the carrier
for what they claim was a "traumatic" experience, The Ynetnews
reports.

According to the Shpitzer family, who were one of those
passengers, their flight had to make an emergency landing in
Israel, causing them great "anxiety, panic and trauma."  They
are now suing EL AL for millions of shekels to compensate them
for their harrowing experience and are requesting that part of
the claim be recognized as a class action suit.  Attorney Amir
Shpitzer, who was also on the plane at the time, filed the
lawsuit.  

Court documents revealed that two years ago the Shpitzer family
flew from Tel Aviv to New York. However, the plane suffered
difficulties during takeoff and had to return to Ben-Gurion
International Airport two hours later.  One passenger recalling
the flight told The Ynetnews, "It was very tense. When we
approached the landing strip, we noticed that the entire airport
had prepared for an emergency landing."

EL AL officials told The Ynetnews that they have not yet
received the claim.


KEYNOTE SYSTEMS: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Lawsuit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against Keynote
Systems, Inc., certain of its officers and the underwriters of
its initial public offering.

In August 2001, hundreds of suits were filed against over 300
issuers of securities including the Company, certain of its
officers, and the underwriters of its initial public offering.  
These lawsuits were essentially identical, and were brought on
behalf of those investors who purchased the Company's securities
between September 24, 1999 and August 19, 2001.  These
complaints alleged generally that the underwriters in certain
initial public offerings, including the Company, allocated
shares in those initial public offerings in unfair or unlawful
ways, such as requiring the purchaser to agree to buy in the
aftermarket at a higher price or to buy shares in other
companies with higher than normal commissions.  The complaint
also alleged that the Company had a duty to disclose the
activities of the underwriters in the registration statement
relating to its initial public offering.

The plaintiffs' counsel and the issuer defendants' counsel
reached a preliminary agreement to settle these actions,
including the Company, without any payments by the Company. The
settlement awaits approval by the Court.   

The suit is styled " In re Keynote Systems, Inc. Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, 01 Civ 7666 (SAS)," filed in
relation to "IN re IPO Securities Litigation, 21-MC-92 (Sas),"
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York, under Judge Shira A. Scheindlin.  The plaintiff firms
in this litigation are:

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

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

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

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

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

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


LEXAR MEDIA: CA State, Federal Securities Litigation Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lexar Media, Inc. (Nasdaq:LEXR), a world leader in advanced
digital media technologies, reports that both federal and state
securities litigation that is pending against Lexar were
recently dismissed.

In May 2004, plaintiffs brought an action in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California allegedly
on behalf of a class of plaintiffs who purchased Lexar common
stock and asserted claims under Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act, as well as Rule 10b-5 based principally on
allegations that executives misrepresented Lexar's business.
This action was dismissed without prejudice and plaintiffs
determined that they would not file an amended complaint.

In June 2004, two derivative lawsuits based on allegations
substantially similar to those in the federal class actions were
filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, Alameda
County, in which Lexar was a nominal defendant and certain of
its officers and directors were defendants. The Court dismissed
this action without leave to amend and plaintiffs have decided
not to pursue an appeal of this action.

"We are extremely pleased with these results," said Eric
Whitaker, executive vice president and general counsel, Lexar.
He added, "We maintained throughout the litigation that these
lawsuits should not be permitted to proceed, and are gratified
that we are now able to put them behind us."


LUFKIN INDUSTRIES: Judge Awards Plaintiffs in Racial Bias Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge awarded $3.4 million in back pay plus interest
to Lufkin Industries employees, who claimed in their lawsuit
that alleged racial discrimination in hiring and workplace
behavior goes back decades, according to court documents, The
Lufkin Daily News reports.

The class action lawsuit, which involves employees who worked
for Lufkin for 30 or 40 years, was filed in 1997 and became a
class action suit in 1999.  The suit alleges more than 700 black
employees suffered racial workplace behavior, were skipped over
for jobs or missed promotions, while white employees were
selected and groomed for advancement, moving into managerial
positions.

Lufkin Industries' attorneys are appealing U.S. District Judge
Howell Cobb's 39-page judgment and are thus currently asking the
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to dismiss the case.  However,
with the Fifth Circuit based in New Orleans, Louisiana, it was
not immediately clear how hurricane Katrina's assault on the
city last week would affect court schedules.

In his ruling Judge Cobb wrote, "Black employees are more likely
to be placed in dead-end positions and left to seek training on
their own, outside of regular work hours." His ruling includes
an order to the company to stop all racial hiring and promotion
practices. The court will consider appointing someone to oversee
changes, ensuring his orders are carried out, Judge Cobb stated.

Even with the settlement, it is unknown though when the
employees will see their money, according to plaintiff's
attorney Timothy Garrigan, of Nacogdoches. He told The Lufkin
Daily News, "I simply don't know. It could drag on for several
more years. As time passes, more and more of the class members
will pass away."

While employees are "mostly thrilled" with the award, concern
remains over how Lufkin Industries will make those changes,
according to Mr. Garrigan. He told The Lufkin Daily News that
employees are gratified that the court continues to recognize
discrimination is happening and pointed out, "That's the first
step to correcting things."

In addition, Mr. Garrigan also told The Lufkin Daily News that
the company needs to train human resources employees, using
proper documentation and objective criteria for making promotion
and compensation decisions, pointing out that those are moves
that most employers have been doing for years.

Judge Cobb also wrote in his ruling that while he can order
company-hiring practices to change, he can't change the racist
feelings inside the people behind those practices. He pointed
out that some discrimination at Lufkin was subtler, giving white
workers an unfair advantage such as training on new machines or
ignoring absences. Human resources members routed blacks away
from certain jobs, overstating the difficulty of qualifying
tests or limiting skills training opportunities, according to
Judge Cobb.

With no women or minorities at the highest levels of the company
for more than 100 years, with the exception of Paul Perez, the
vice president for Lufkin Industries, who is of Hispanic origin,  
whites make up just one-third of foundry positions, where the
hottest, dirtiest and most physically-demanding jobs are, Judge
Cobb wrote.

Lufkin Industries argued that there were flaws in the
plaintiffs' statistical models used to calculate the disparity
between actual and expected racial distribution across the
corporation's divisions.  However, Judge Cobb's response was to
question Lufkin's expert, asking why calculations evaluating
minority job assignments to divisions outside the foundry were
ignored and thus wrote, "Lufkin's discrimination in initial
assignments and promotions has concentrated blacks in lower-
paying jobs."

Judge Cobb's decision included a formula to pay workers varying
amounts for hours worked per year, based on their positions and
division. Determining monetary damages for promotions that never
happened was impossible though, according to Judge Cobb.

Despite the company's fervent vow to appeal the case, Mr.
Garridan pointed out that the employees remain committed to
seeing the case through to its end. He told The Lufkin Daily
News, "I have not talked to any of them who just want to walk
away from it."

Aside from awarding back pay and interest, Judge Cobb also
slashed fees the attorneys were seeking, originally set at $6
million. Rates were cut substantially, with no pay awarded for
lengthy failed negotiations.  Though he is committed to the
Lufkin case, Mr. Garrigan told The Lufkin Daily News, that Judge
Cobb's decisions on attorney fees might affect whether lawyers
will be willing to take civil rights cases in the future.

The case arose from a lawsuit originally filed in 1997 by
Sylvester McClain and others against the Company for employment
discrimination. The plaintiffs' claims were certified as a class
action in 1999. The case was closed from 2001-2003 while the
parties unsuccessfully attempted mediation. The only claims made
at trial were those of discrimination in initial assignments,
promotions and compensation. In a recent ruling, the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Texas - Lufkin
Division found that Lufkin discriminated against African-
American employees when awarding initial assignments and
promotions, an earlier Class Action story (January 20, 2005)
reports.

The suit is styled, McClain, et al v. Lufkin Industries et al,
Case No. 9:97-cv-00063-HC, which was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Texas - Lufkin Division, The
Honorable Howell Cobb, presiding. The following represented the
Plaintiff/s:

     (1) Morris J. Baller, Darci E. Burrell, Linda M. Dardarian,
         Teresa Demchak, Meetali Jain and Nina Rabin of
         Goldstein, Demchak, Baller, Borgen & Dardarian, 300
         Lakeside Dr., Suite 1000, Oakland, CA 94612, Phone:
         510-763-9800, Fax: 510-835-1417, E-mail:
         mjb@gdblegal.com, deb@gdblegal.com, dem@gdblegal.com,
         mjain@gdblegal.com and nrabin@gdblegal.com.  

     (2) Timothy Borne Garrigan of Stuckey Garrigan & Castetter,
         2803 North St., P.O. Box 631902, Nacogdoches, TX 75963-
         1902, Phone: 936/560-6020, Fax: 19365609578, E-mail:
         tbgstugar@cox-internet.com.

     (3) Joshua G. Konecky of Schneider & Wallace, 180
         Montgomery St., Suite 2000, San Francisco, CA 94104,
         Phone: 415/421-7100, Fax: 415/421-7105, E-mail:
         jkonecky@schneiderwallace.com.

The Defendant is represented by Christopher V. Bacon, Douglas
Edward Hamel and John H. Smither of Vinson & Elkins, 1001 Fannin
St., Suite 2300, Houston, TX 77002-6760, Phone: 713/758-2222,
Fax: 17136155014, E-mail: cbacon@velaw.com and dhamel@velaw.com.


MERCK & CO.: Law Firm Files Vioxx Suit on Behalf of Australians
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kenneth B. Moll & Associates, Ltd. filed the
first class action lawsuit on behalf of all citizens of
Australia who allegedly died or were seriously injured by the
pain medication Vioxx.

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

On September 30, 2004, Merck withdrew Vioxx from all worldwide
markets after studies showed a three-fold risk of heart attack
and stroke. "Merck's decision to withdraw Vioxx from the market
came years after the company first learned of the health risks,"
said Mr. Moll. "Countless individuals in Australia and around
the world have suffered severe and fatal injuries which could
have been avoided if Merck had acted responsibly." On August 19,
2005, a Texas jury awarded $253.5 million to a widow of a man
who died after taking Vioxx. "The verdict clearly shows Merck's
culpability in their decision to put profits ahead of the safety
of their consumers," said Mr. Moll.

For more details, contact Tiffany Donnelly of Kenneth B. Moll &
Associates, Ltd., Phone: 312-558-6444, Fax: 312-558-1112, Web
site: http://www.kbmoll.com.


MICROMUSE INC.: Reaches Settlement For CA Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Micromuse, Inc. reached a settlement for the consolidated
securities class action filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California against it and
certain of its current and former officers and directors.

Between January 12, 2004 and March 5, 2004, seven securities
class action complaints were filed, by individuals who allege
that they purchased the Company's common stock during a
purported class period and seek an unspecified amount of
damages.  The complaints assert causes of action for alleged
violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5, arising out of the Company's
decision to restate its previously issued financial statements
for the fiscal years ended September 30, 2001 and 2002 and for
the quarters ended December 31, 2000 through June 30, 2003 and
the Company's decision to adjust its preliminary consolidated
financial statement information for the quarter and fiscal year
ended September 30, 2003, as initially announced on October 29,
2003.

The Court has granted plaintiffs' motion to consolidate those
actions and name the law firm of Berman, DeValerio, Pease,
Tabacco, Burt & Pucillo as Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel.  Plaintiffs
have filed a consolidated amended complaint in accordance with
the court-ordered schedule.  In response, the Company has filed
its Motion to Dismiss the amended complaint.  A hearing on the
Company's Motion to Dismiss was scheduled in March 2005.

On June 27, 2005, the Company announced that settlement
agreements relating to the federal securities class action
lawsuit and related federal derivative suit had been reached.
The agreements have been submitted to the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California for approval. If
the agreements are approved, the lawsuits will be terminated in
exchange for a payment by the Company that will have no material
adverse financial impact on the Company, as it will be covered
largely by the Company's insurance policies. The agreements were
reached with no admission of liability by any party and were
entered into to avoid costly and time consuming litigation by
all parties.

The suit, styled "In Re: Micromuse Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case No. C-04-0136 SBA," is pending in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California under
Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong.  Representing the Company is Dale
E. Barnes, Jr., McCutchen Doyle Brown & Enersen LLP, Three
Embaracadero Center, San Francisco, CA 94111-4067, Phone:
415-393-2000, E-mail: dbarnes@mdbe.com.

Lead plaintiffs counsel are Jeffrey C. Block, N. Nancy Ghabai,
and Michael G. Lange of Berman Devalerio & Pease LLP, One
Liberty Square, Boston, MA 02109, Phone: 617-542-8300, Fax:
617-542-1194 or Christopher T. Heffelfinger, Nicole Lavallee and
Joseph J. Tabacco, Jr., Berman DeValerio Pease & Tabacco, P.C.,
425 California Street, Suite 2025, San Francisco, CA 94104,
Phone: 415/433-3200, Fax: 415-433-6382, E-mail:
cheffelfinger@bermanesq.com, nlavallee@bermanesq.com,
jtabacco@bermanesq.com.


MIDWAY GAMES: DE Court Dismisses Two Shareholder Fraud Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware in and for New
Castle County dismissed two class actions filed against Midway
Games, Inc., Sumner M. Redstone and several of the Company's
directors.

Two suits were initially filed in June 2004 on behalf of all
persons, other than defendants, who own Company securities and
allege, among other things, that the Company and its directors
breached their fiduciary duties to the Company's other
shareholders by allowing Sumner M. Redstone to purchase a
substantial amount of the Company's common stock from other
Company shareholders. Plaintiffs in these two class action
complaints filed for and were granted dismissal on March 18,
2005 and May 5, 2005.


NETOPIA INC.: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Securities Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended securities class action
against Netopia, Inc. in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California, styled "In re Netopia, Inc.
Securities Litigation."

In August 2004, the first of four purported class action
complaints, "Valentin Serafimov, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, v. Netopia, Inc., Alan B. Lefkof and
William D. Baker," was filed, alleging violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended.  The complaint alleged that during the purported class
period, November 6, 2003 and July 6, 2004, the Company made
materially false, misleading and incomplete statements and
issued false and misleading reports regarding its earnings,
product costs, and sales to foreign customers.  The other three
complaints that subsequently were filed made additional related
claims based on the same announcements and allegations of
misstatements.

As provided in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of
1995, the plaintiffs in these actions filed motions to
consolidate and to appoint lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff
counsel.  On December 3, 2004, the court issued an order
consolidating the cases and appointing a lead plaintiff and
plaintiff's counsel.  On June 29, 2005, the lead plaintiff filed
its consolidated amended complaint. The consolidated amended
complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The consolidated
amended complaint alleges that during the purported class
period, November 6, 2003 through August 16, 2004, the Company
made false and misleading statements or failed to disclose
material facts, and that the market price of its common stock
was artificially inflated as a result of such alleged conduct.

The litigation is styled "In re Netopia, Inc. Securities
Litigation," filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California under Judge Ronald M. Whyte.  
The Levy Group has been assigned as Lead Plaintiff.  The law
firms in this litigation are:

     (1) Braun Law Group, P.C., Phone: (888)658-7100, E-mail:
         info@braunlawgroup.com

     (2) Brian Felgoise, 230 South Broad Street, Suite 404,
         Philadelphia, PA, 19102, Phone: 215.735.6810, Fax:
         215/735.5185,

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

     (4) Kirby, McInerney & Squire LLP, 830 Third Avenue 10th
         Floor, New York Ave, NY, 10022, Phone: 212.317.2300,

     (5) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins (San
         Diego), 401 B Street, Suite 1700, San Diego, CA, 92101,
         Phone: 619.231.1058, Fax: 619.231.7423, E-mail:
         info@lerachlaw.com

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

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

     (8) Spector, Roseman & Kodroff (Philadelphia), 1818 Market
         Street; Suite 2500, Philadelphia, PA, 19103, Phone:
         215.496.0300, Fax: 215.496.6610, E-mail:
         classaction@srk-law.com

     (9) 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


PROVIDIAN FINANCIAL: NY Court Nixes Portions of Suit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York denied several portions of the motions to dismiss the
consolidated antitrust class action filed against Providian
Financial Corporation, seven other banks, and credit card firms
Visa USA Inc., and MasterCard International.

The suit, styled "American Express Travel Related Services
Company, Inc. v. Visa U.S.A. Inc., et al." arises from the
Department of Justice's successful antitrust suit against Visa
and MasterCard challenging the associations' rules prohibiting
member banks from issuing American Express or Discover cards.

All defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint. In April
2005 the court denied some portions of these motions but
reserved rulings on other portions.


PROVIDIAN FINANCIAL: IL Consumers Launch FCRA Violations Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Providian Financial Corporation and Providian National Bank
(PNB) face a class action filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, styled "Wanek v.
Providian Financial Corporation and Providian National Bank."

The suit was filed on behalf of Illinois residents and alleges
that defendants improperly accessed plaintiffs' consumer reports
without their consent or a "permissible purpose," in violation
of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).  Plaintiffs also assert
that the Company's pre-screen solicitations did not constitute
"firm offers of credit" under FCRA due, in part, to inadequate
disclosures.  The matter is in the discovery phase.


PROVIDIAN FINANCIAL: Consumers Launch Antitrust Suit in CT Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Providian Financial Corporation faces a putative class action
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Connecticut, styled "Photos Etc. Corporation v. Providian
Financial Corporation et al."

The suit was filed on behalf of retailers in several states, and
also name as defendants Visa USA, Inc., MasterCard
International, and over two dozen member banks, including
Providian National Bank (PNB).  The lawsuit alleges antitrust
violations, including price-fixing, collusion and conspiracy in
the setting of interchange fees and the "tying" of products and
services.


RHINO ECOSYSTEMS: FL Judge Enters Final Judgment V. Defendant
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission stated that the Honorable
Daniel T.K. Hurley of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida entered a Final Judgment of
Permanent Injunction against Defendant Mark Wiertzema.

The Final Judgment, entered with the consent of Mr. Wiertzema,
enjoins him from further violation of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and
from aiding and abetting violation of Section 13(a) of the
Exchange Act and Rules 12b-20 and 13a-1, thereunder. Based upon
Mr. Wiertzema's poor health and financial condition, the
Commission is not seeking a civil money penalty.

The Commission alleged in its Complaint that Mr. Wiertzema and
others made materially false and misleading statements and
failed to disclose material information in filings with the
Commission in violation of the federal securities laws.  The
suit is styled, SEC v. Rhino Ecosystems, Inc., et al., Case No.
02-80768-CIV-URLEY/LYNCH, SD FL (LR-19362).


SLM CORPORATION: DC Court Hears Consumer Suit Dismissal Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The District of Columbia Court of Appeals heard plaintiffs'
appeal of the dismissal of the class action filed against SLM
Corporation over its late fees.

Three Wisconsin residents filed the suit on December 20, 2001 in
the Superior Court for the District of Columbia.  The plaintiffs
sought to represent a nationwide class action on behalf of all
borrowers who allegedly paid "undisclosed improper and
excessive" late fees over the past three years. The plaintiffs
sought damages of one thousand five hundred dollars per
violation plus punitive damages and claimed that the class
consisted of two million borrowers. In addition, the plaintiffs
alleged that the Company charged excessive interest by
capitalizing interest quarterly in violation of the promissory
note.

On February 27, 2003, the Superior Court granted the Company's
motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety. On March 4,
2004, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed the
Superior Court's decision granting the Company's motion to
dismiss the complaint, but granted plaintiffs leave to re-plead
the first count, which alleged violations of the D.C. Consumer
Protection Procedures Act.  On September 15, 2004, the
plaintiffs filed an amended class action complaint.

On December 27, 2004, the Superior Court granted the Company's
motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' amended compliant. Plaintiffs
have appealed the Superior Court's December 27, 2004 dismissal
order to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. All
appellate briefing has been completed.


STARTEK INC.: CO Court Consolidates Securities Fraud Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Colorado
ordered consolidated the securities class actions filed against
StarTek, Inc. and certain of its current and former officers and
directors.

Two lawsuits, styled "West Palm Beach Firefighters' Pension Fund
v. StarTek, Inc., et al." and "John Alden v. StarTek, Inc., et
al.," were initially filed in July 2005.  Each action is a
purported class action brought on behalf of all persons (except
defendants) who purchased shares of the Company's common stock
in a secondary offering by certain of the Company's stockholders
in June 2004, and in the open market between February 26, 2003,
and May 5, 2005.  The complaints allege that the defendants made
false and misleading public statements about the Company and its
business and prospects in the prospectus for the secondary
offering, as well as in filings with the Securities and Exchange
Commission and in press releases issued during the Class Period,
and that the market price of the Company's common stock was
artificially inflated as a result. The complaints allege claims
under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, and
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. The plaintiffs in both cases seek compensatory damages on
behalf of the alleged class and award of attorneys' fees and
costs of litigation.  

On July 28, 2005, the court entered an order allowing the
plaintiffs to file a single consolidated and amended complaint
up to 60 days after the appointment of a lead plaintiff in the
case, and allowing the Company up to 60 days following the
filing of the amended complaint in which to file an answer.


TRUSTREET PROPERTIES: Plaintiffs Appeal TX Fraud Suit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the District Court of Dallas County, Texas'
dismissal of the class action filed against Trustreet
Properties, Inc.  The suit also names as defendants:

     (1) U.S. Restaurant Properties, Inc. (USRP),

     (2) 18 CNL Income Fund partnerships (the income funds) and
         their general partners - namely James M. Seneff, Jr.,
         Robert A. Bourne, and CNL Realty Corporation

     (3) the Company's subsidiaries

Robert Lewis and Sutter Acquisition Fund, LLC, two limited
partners in several Income Funds, filed the suit on January
18,2005 under the case number 05-00083-F.  The suit was filed as
a purported class action lawsuit on behalf of the limited
partners of the Income Funds.  The complaint alleged that the
general partners of the Income Funds breached their fiduciary
duties in connection with the proposed mergers between the
Income Funds and USRP and that the Company, subsidiaries of the
Company and USRP aided and abetted in the alleged breaches of
fiduciary duties.  

The complaint further alleged that the Income Fund general
partners violated provisions of the Income Fund partnership
agreements and demanded an accounting as to the affairs of the
Income Funds.  On April 26, 2005, a supplemental plea to
jurisdiction was held.  On May 2, 2005, the plaintiffs filed
their First Amended Petition for Class Action.  In the Amended
Petition the plaintiffs did not add any parties or claims, but
they did add allegations that the general partners of the Income
Funds, with CNL Restaurant Properties, Inc. (CNLRP) and USRP,
prepared and distributed a false and misleading final proxy
statement filing to the limited partners of the Income Funds and
the shareholders of CNLRP and USRP.  The plaintiffs are seeking
unspecified compensatory and exemplary damages and equitable
relief, which also included an injunction preventing the
defendants from proceeding with the mergers.  

On May 26, 2005, the Court entered a Final Order Dismissing
Action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  On June 22,
2005, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal of the Order of
Dismissal.


TUMBLEWEED COMMUNICATIONS: Plaintiffs Appeal NY Suit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of the consolidated amended
securities class action filed against Tumbleweed Communications,
Inc. in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, styled "Liu v. Credit Suisse First Boston,
et alia."

The suit alleges the violation of federal and state securities
laws, purportedly on behalf of persons who acquired the common
stock of Tumbleweed (other than purchasers of Tumbleweed's
initial public offering) from August 6, 1999 to October 18,
2000.

In September 2004, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion for
leave to file a third amended complaint, and the Company filed a
motion to dismiss this case pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b).  
In November 2004, the Company asked the court to dismiss the
suit.  In March 2005, the Court dismissed the case with
prejudice. In June 2005 plaintiffs filed an appeal of the
dismissal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, which remains pending.

The suit is styled "Liu v. Credit Suisse First Boston Corp.,
1:04-cv-03757-SAS," filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York, under Judge Shira A.
Scheindlin.  Lawyer for the company is Robert L. Dell Angelo of
Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, 355 South Grand Avenue, 35th Floor,
Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560, Phone: (213) 683-9100, Fax:
(213) 687-3702.  Lawyer for the plaintiffs is John G. Watts,
Yearout & Traylor, P.C., 800 Shades Creek Parkway, Ste 500,
Birmingham, Al 35209, Phone: (205) 414-8160


ULTIMATE CHOPPER: Recalls 1.5M Food Processors For Injury Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC), Ultimate Chopper LLC, of Los Angeles, California is
voluntarily recalling about 1,500,000 units of Ultimate ChopperT
food processors.

According to the company, the interlocking lid assembly on the
appliance can malfunction, allowing the food processor to be
operated when the lid is off. This can result in a laceration or
fingertip amputation hazard if consumers insert their hands into
the food processor. CPSC and Ultimate Chopper LLC have received
17 reports of injuries resulting from a failure of the
interlocking lid assembly or the blade assembly breaking. Five
of those injured required stitches or surgery, and the remaining
12 consumers received cuts or scratches.

The Ultimate Chopper is a compact, single-speed food processor
that can also function as a blender when an optional attachment
is used with the base. The product is comprised of a white base
unit with a 600-watt motor (750 watts peak power), a plastic
blade assembly that contains two stainless steel blades, a
chopping bowl, and a clear, interlocking lid. The name "Ultimate
Chopper" is stamped on the product's base. The optional blender
attachment is sold separately. Picture of the recalled food
processors:

     (1) http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml05/05258.jpg

Manufactured in China, The Ultimate ChopperT has been marketed
and distributed through television infomercial sales, the firm's
Web site, and various retailers nationwide from March 2002
through July 2005 for about $40.

Remedy: Consumers should immediately inspect their Ultimate
Chopper food processor to determine if the interlocking lid is
functioning properly. Consumers should remove the lid and blade
assembly and test to see if the unit will operate without the
lid on. If the unit turns on when the lid is removed, consumers
should stop using it immediately and contact Ultimate Chopper
LLC to receive a free replacement unit. Also, if blade
assemblies are worn, damaged or broken for any reason, consumers
should stop using the unit and contact the company to receive a
free replacement blade assembly. Consumers also can access an
instructional video demonstrating how to inspect their Ultimate
Chopper at http://demo.ultimatechopper.com.  

Consumer Contact: Call Ultimate Chopper LLC toll-free at
(800) 819-6297 between 6 a.m. and 5 p.m. PT Monday through
Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at www.ultimatechopper.com.


UTSTARCOM INC.: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit in CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
UTStarcom, Inc. and certain of its officers and/or directors
faces a consolidated securities class action filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California.

On October 26, 2004, an alleged former shareholder of the
Company filed a class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the District of Idaho against the Company and
two of its directors and/or officers, purporting to assert
claims under the federal securities laws on behalf of a class of
purchasers of the Company's publicly traded securities in the
period from April 16, 2003 through September 20, 2004.

Among other things, the complaint refers to the Company's
disclosures as to "significant control deficiencies" related to
revenue recognition and as to the deferral of revenue
recognition on a particular transaction and the related lowering
of the Company's financial guidance.  The complaint further
alleges that the defendants previously made positive statements
regarding the Company's business and financial performance that
were false and misleading because such statements, among other
things, failed to disclose problems with the Company's internal
controls and revenue recognition policies and procedures and
failed to disclose that the revenue on the transaction at issue
would need to be deferred, which allegedly caused the price of
the Company's publicly traded securities to be artificially
inflated. The complaint claims that the plaintiff and other
class members were damaged as a result thereof, and seeks
monetary recovery in their favor in an unspecified amount.

Four similar class action complaints were later filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California against the Company and several of its directors and
officers. In both the Idaho court and the California court,
competing motions were filed for appointment of lead plaintiff
and approval of lead plaintiffs' counsel, and in the California
court various motions for consolidation of actions were filed as
well.

On March 15 and 16, 2005, the California court entered orders
consolidating the cases pending in that court, appointing the
lead plaintiff and approving the lead plaintiff's counsel.
Pursuant to those orders, a consolidated complaint is to be
filed in that court within 60 days thereafter.  On April 6,
2005, the Idaho court entered an order appointing the lead
plaintiff and approving the lead plaintiff's counsel.

The lead plaintiffs in the case filed a First Amended
Consolidated Complaint on July 26, 2005 in the Northern District
of California.  The Complaint alleges violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  In addition to the Company
defendants, the plaintiffs also sued Banc of America Securities
LLC and Softbank. The Complaint seeks recovery of damages in an
unspecified amount.  The Company anticipates that it will move
to dismiss the Complaint on October 10, 2005.


VERISIGN INC.: Removes Consumer Fraud Suit To CA Federal Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
The consumer fraud class action filed against Verisign, Inc. has
been removed to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California.

On March 8, 2005, plaintiff Charles Ford filed a putative class
action in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego,
alleging fraud, negligent misrepresentation, false advertising,
and violations of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act
and unfair competition laws relating to marketing and
advertising of mobile phone "ringtones" and other content by
VeriSign's subsidiaries, Jamster International Sarl and Jamba!
GmbH.  The complaint is brought on behalf of classes of persons
who responded to advertising by sending a text message on their
mobile phones or registered over the Internet to purchase
ringtone or other content.  On April 18, 2005, the Company
removed the action to the federal district court for the
Southern District of California.


VISHAY INTERTECHNOLOGY: Reaches Settlement For DE Siliconix Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vishay Intertechnology, Inc. reached a settlement for the
consolidated class action filed in the Delaware Court of
Chancery for New Castle County, on behalf of all non-Vishay
shareholders of the Company's 80.4% owned subsidiary, Siliconix,
Inc.  

Following the announcement of the Company's intention to make
the tender offer for the remaining shares of Siliconix that the
Company did not already own, several purported class-action
complaints were filed in the Delaware Chancery Court, alleging,
among other things, that the intended offer was unfair and a
breach of fiduciary duty, and seeking, among other things, to
enjoin the transaction.  

The hese actions were consolidated into a single class action,
and the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on April 18, 2005
further alleging that defendants failed to disclose or
misrepresented material information relating to the tender
offer.  The suit also names as defendants:

     (1) Ernst & Young LLP (independent registered public
         accounting firm that audits the Company's consolidated
         financial statements),

     (2) Dr. Felix Zandman, Chairman and Chief Technical and
         Business Development Officer of Vishay, and

     (3) Siliconix, Inc. as a nominal defendant,

The suit purports to state various derivative and class claims
against the defendants, including:

     (i) the purported taking by the Company of Siliconix sales
         subsidiaries and the profits of those subsidiaries;

    (ii) the purported taking by the Company of Siliconix's SAP
         software system without compensation to Siliconix;

   (iii) the alleged use by the Company of Siliconix's assets as
         security for Vishay loans without compensation to
         Siliconix;

    (iv) the purported misappropriation by the Company of
         Siliconix's identity;

     (v) the alleged taking by Vishay of Siliconix testing
         equipment;

    (vi) the alleged use by Vishay of Siliconix to save Vishay
         certain credits made available by an Israeli business
         development agency;

   (vii) the alleged misuse by Vishay of Siliconix's patents to
         help Vishay acquire General Semiconductor; and

  (viii) the allegedly improper identification of Dr. Zandman as
         a co-inventor on certain Siliconix patents.

On April 28, 2005, the parties to the Delaware consolidated
action executed a memorandum of understanding providing for the
settlement of all claims relating to the tender offer.  The
settlement agreement reached with the plaintiffs is pending
court approval.


WELLS FARGO: Reaches Settlement in Suit V. $5 Check Cashing Fee
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wells Fargo Bank settled a California class action lawsuit about
its $5 check cashing fee. The suit was brought April of last
year by Chaffee Enterprises on behalf of California employers
who claim that the bank's check cashing fee, charged to non-
accountholder employees, could place employers in violation of
the California Labor Code.

Under the terms of the settlement, Wells Fargo will offer free
direct deposit for certain small business customers for a period
of one year commencing September 1, 2005. By having their
payroll deposited into an account through Direct Deposit,
qualifying employees of Wells Fargo small business customers
will be able to open a Wells Fargo checking account free of
monthly service fees, therefore, avoiding non-accountholder
check cashing fees.

"The vast majority of businesses in the U.S. are small
businesses. As the number one lender to small businesses in the
country, Wells Fargo is committed to providing products and
services that help our small business customers and their
employees succeed financially," said Laura Schulte, president of
Wells Fargo's California Community Bank. "Settling this lawsuit
makes good sense for our small business customers, their
employees and for Wells Fargo."

"We are proud to have helped employers in this matter, while at
the same time assisting those employees who may not otherwise be
able to afford the check cashing fee imposed by the bank," said
Nicholas P. Roxborough of Roxborough, Pomerance & Nye LLP.

Wells Fargo will mail information to its small business
customers in California, as identified in the settlement
agreement, about direct deposit payroll services.


WEST CORPORATION: NV Court To Grant Motion To Remand Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Bankruptcy Court in Nevada has indicated that
it will grant plaintiffs' motion to remand or for mandatory
abstention in the class action filed against West Corporation
and Billy Blanks Enterprises in the Court of Common Pleas,
Cuyahoga County, Ohio.

The suit, styled "Brandy L. Ritt, et al. v. Billy Blanks
Enterprises, et al." was filed in January 2001 in the Court of
Common Pleas in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, against two of the
Company's clients.  The suit, a purported class action, was
amended for the third time in July 2001 and the Company was
added as a defendant at that time.  The suit, which seeks
statutory, compensatory, and punitive damages as well as
injunctive and other relief, alleges violations of various
provisions of Ohio's consumer protection laws, negligent
misrepresentation, fraud, breach of contract, unjust enrichment
and civil conspiracy in connection with the marketing of certain
membership programs offered by the Company's clients.

On February 6, 2002, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification.  On July 21, 2003, the Ohio Court of
Appeals reversed and remanded the case to the trial court for
further proceedings.  The plaintiffs have filed a Fourth Amended
Complaint naming West Telemarketing Corporation as an additional
defendant and a renewed motion for class certification.

One of the defendants, NCP Marketing Group, filed bankruptcy and
on July 12, 2004 removed the case to federal court. Plaintiffs
filed a motion to remand the case back to state court. One of
the defendants moved to transfer the case from the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio to the federal
Bankruptcy Court in Nevada.  On October 29, 2004, the district
court referred the case to the Bankruptcy Court for the Northern
District of Ohio.  On February 22, 2005, the Bankruptcy Court
for the Northern District of Ohio referred the case to the
Bankruptcy Court for the District of Nevada.

A hearing was held on August 1, 2005 in Nevada on plaintiffs'
motion to remand or for mandatory abstention. At the hearing,
the Bankruptcy Court indicated that it would grant the motion on
the grounds of permissive abstention and equitable remand. As a
result, the parties anticipate that the case will be transferred
back to the state court in Cuyahoga County, Ohio. At the
hearing, the Bankruptcy Court also tentatively approved a
settlement between the named Plaintiffs and NCP and two other
defendants, Shape The Future International LLP and Integrity
Global Marketing LLP. It is uncertain when the motion for class
certification will be ruled on and when the case will be tried.


                 New Securities Fraud Cases

ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Charles J. Piven Lodges OH Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of Abercrombie
& Fitch Co. (NYSE: ANF) between June 2, 2005 and August 16,
2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

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

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


ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Goldman Scarlato Lodges Suit in S.D. OH
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C., initiated a
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio, on behalf of persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of Abercrombie &
Fitch Co. ("Abercrombie" or the "Company") (NYSE:ANF) between
June 2, 2005 and August 16, 2005, inclusive, (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit was filed against Abercrombie, Michael S.
Jefferies, Robert Singer and Michael W. Kramer ("Defendants").

The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. Specifically, the complaint alleges that
Abercrombie made a series of false and misleading statements
regarding its monthly and quarterly sales results, while at the
same time failing to disclose that margins were rapidly
deteriorating, and that the Company had built a significant
amount of inventory going into the Company's fiscal second
quarter.

On August 16, 2005, Abercrombie reported that its fiscal second
quarter earnings, while up on a year-over-year basis at $0.63
per share, dramatically missed analyst estimates of $0.69 per
share and that its full-year results would be below
expectations. Shares of Abercrombie fell from $61.23 per share
to $58.85 per share in reaction to the news. Subsequent to the
negative report, and the acknowledgement that Abercrombie's
Chairman and CEO sold more than 1.6 million shares for
approximately $118 million in proceeds during the class period
leading up to the negative earnings announcement, shares have
continued to slide, to as low as $53.53 per share, a decline of
12.6% since the negative results were announced.

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


HOST AMERICA: Rosen Law Firm Schedules Lead Plaintiff Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm P.A., which filed class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the District of Connecticut
against Host America Corporation (Nasdaq: CAFE) (Nasdaq: CAFEW),
is issuing a notice to update investors.

According to the firm, the deadline for seeking appointment as
lead plaintiff is October 7, 2005. Investors who have suffered
large losses in Host America stock or warrants during the Class
Period (July 12, 2005 and July 22, 2005) are encouraged to seek
appointment as lead plaintiffs in the litigation. For more
details on the litigation, visit,
http://www.rosenlegal.com/join.php?id=29&text=1.  

For more details, contact Laurence Rosen, Esq. of The Rosen Law
Firm P.A., Phone: (212) 686-1060 or 1-866-767-3653, Fax:
(212) 202-3827, E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com, Web site:
http://www.rosenlegal.com.


IMMUCOR INC.: Brian M. Felgoise Files Securities Suit in N.D. GA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C. initiated a
securities class action on behalf of shareholders who acquired
Immucor, Inc. (NASDAQ: BLUDE) securities between January 7, 2005
and August 29, 2005, inclusive (the Class Period).

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia, against the company and certain
key officers and directors.

The action charges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing a series of materially false and
misleading statements to the market throughout the Class Period
which statements had the effect of artificially inflating the
market price of the Company's securities. No class has yet been
certified in the above action.

For more details, contact Brian M. Felgoise, Esq., 261 Old York
Road, Suite 423, Jenkintown, PA 19046, Phone: (215) 886-1900, E-
mail: FelgoiseLaw@verizon.net.


IMMUCOR INC.: Lasky & Rifkind Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in GA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd., initiated a lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia, on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired publicly traded securities of Immucor, Inc. ("Immucor"
or the "Company") (NASDAQ:BLUDE) between January 7, 2005 and
August 29, 2005, inclusive, (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit
was filed against Immucor, Dr. Gioacchino De Chirico, Steven C.
Ramsey and Edward L. Gallup ("Defendants").

The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. Specifically, the complaint alleges that
Defendants misrepresented that the Company's financial
statements and disclosures fairly and accurately reflected the
Company's results from operations as required by Generally
Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP").

On August 26, 2005, the Company was forced to announce that the
SEC had launched a formal investigation into payments made by
its Italian unit and its President, Mr. De Chirico, in October
2003 to a physician connected with a hospital with which the
Company was doing business. Then, after the market closed on
August 29, 2005, the Company indicated in a press release that
it would be revising its previously issued results for at least
two quarters in order to account for previously unrecorded
accrued bonuses. In reaction to the news, Immucor's common stock
price fell from $28.61 on August 25, 2005 to close at $24.00 on
August 20, 2005.

For more details, contact Leigh Lasky, Esq. of The Law Firm of
Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd., Phone: 800-495-1868, E-mail:
investorrelations@laskyrifkind.com.


ISOLAGEN INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in TX
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initaited a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas on behalf of all securities
purchasers of Isolagen, Inc. (Amex: ILE) ("Isolagen" or the
"Company") between March 3, 2004 and August 1, 2005, inclusive
(the "Class Period"), including purchasers of Isolagen stock
issued in connection with or traceable to Isolagen's June 9,
2004, common stock offering.

The complaint charges Isolagen, Frank M. Delape, Robert J.
Bitterman, Michael Macaluso, Jeffrey W. Tomz, Olga Marko,
William K. Boss, Jr. and Michael Avignon with violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. More specifically, the
Complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose and
misrepresented the following material adverse facts which were
known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) that U.K. demand for the Isolagen Process had declined;

     (2) that $51.8 million in marketable debt securities were
         improperly recorded as cash, thereby overstating the
         Company's financial results;

     (3) that the clinical trials of the Isolagen Process for
         dermal and dental applications were not being conducted
         in a controlled environment and that the efficacy of
         the process was insignificant;

     (4) that the Company's science was not advanced and, as a
         result, the Company's products would not become
         commercially available in the United States as early as
         2005, and the "ACE System" would not be introduced for
         new patents in the United Kingdom facility in the
         fourth quarter of 2004;

     (5) that the transport medium Isolagen was using was not
         commercially or scientifically viable;

     (6) that the marketing and promotion processes employed by
         the Company in the U.K. to determine demand for the
         Isolagen Process violated U.K. advertising laws and
         regulations;

     (7) that as a result of increased expenses and pricing
         pressures, Isolagen's gross profit margins were
         declining;

     (8) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls; and

     (9) that the Company's positive statements about its
         operational and financial performance, cash position
         and future guidance were lacking in a reasonable basis.

On August 1, 2005, the Company disclosed that its preliminary
results from its phase III clinical trial of the Isolagen
Process had not met all four primary end points and that neither
of the two dermal studies had achieved independent statistical
significance. On this news, shares of Isolagen fell $2.75 per
share, or 49.19 percent, on August 1, 2005, to close at $2.84
per share. Thereafter, on August 10, 2005, Isolagen released the
Company's 2Q 2005 financial results, reporting a net loss per
share. Following these revelations, the Company's stock declined
further to $2.50 per share, down from the Class Period high of
$12.04 per share.

For more details, contact Darren J. Check, Esq. or Richard A.
Maniskas, Esq. of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 280 King of Prussia
Road, Radnor, PA 19087, Phone: 1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706,
E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com, Web site:
http://www.sbclasslaw.com.


UBS-AG: Murray Frank Lodges Complaint in NY Over American Funds
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP initiated 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 as follows:

Nasdaq = Ticker

CAFAX             American Funds Amcap 529A
CAFBX             American Funds Amcap 529B
CAFCX             American Funds Amcap 529C
CAFEX             American Funds Amcap 529E
CAFFX             American Funds Amcap 529F
AMCPX             American Funds Amcap A
AMPBX             American Funds Amcap B
AMPCX             American Funds Amcap C
AMPFX             American Funds Amcap F
RAFAX             American Funds Amcap R1
RAFBX             American Funds Amcap R2
RAFCX             American Funds Amcap R3
RAFEX             American Funds Amcap R4
RAFFX             American Funds Amcap R5
CLBAX             American Funds American Balanced 529A
CLBBX             American Funds American Balanced 529B
CLBCX             American Funds American Balanced 529C
CLBEX             American Funds American Balanced 529E
CLBFX             American Funds American Balanced 529F
ABALX             American Funds American Balanced A
BALBX             American Funds American Balanced B
BALCX             American Funds American Balanced C
BALFX             American Funds American Balanced F
RLBAX             American Funds American Balanced R1
RLBBX             American Funds American Balanced R2
RLBCX             American Funds American Balanced R3
RLBEX             American Funds American Balanced R4
RLBFX             American Funds American Balanced R5
CITAX             American Funds American Hi Inc Tr 529A
CITBX             American Funds American Hi Inc Tr 529B
CITCX             American Funds American Hi Inc Tr 529C
CITEX             American Funds American Hi Inc Tr 529E
CITFX             American Funds American Hi Inc Tr 529F
AHITX             American Funds American Hi Inc Tr A
AHTBX             American Funds American Hi Inc Tr B
AHTCX             American Funds American Hi Inc Tr C
AHTFX             American Funds American Hi Inc Tr F
RITAX             American Funds American Hi Inc Tr R1
RITBX             American Funds American Hi Inc Tr R2
RITCX             American Funds American Hi Inc Tr R3
RITEX             American Funds American Hi Inc Tr R4
RITFX             American Funds American Hi Inc Tr R5
CMLAX             American Funds American Mutual 529A
CMLBX             American Funds American Mutual 529B
CMLCX             American Funds American Mutual 529C
CMLEX             American Funds American Mutual 529E
CMLFX             American Funds American Mutual 529F
AMRMX             American Funds American Mutual A
AMFBX             American Funds American Mutual B
AMFCX             American Funds American Mutual C
AMFFX             American Funds American Mutual F
RMFAX             American Funds American Mutual R1
RMFBX             American Funds American Mutual R2
RMFCX             American Funds American Mutual R3
RMFEX             American Funds American Mutual R4
RMFFX             American Funds American Mutual R5
CFAAX             American Funds Bond Fund of Amer 529A
CFABX             American Funds Bond Fund of Amer 529B
CFACX             American Funds Bond Fund of Amer 529C
CFAEX             American Funds Bond Fund of Amer 529E
CFAFX             American Funds Bond Fund of Amer 529F
ABNDX             American Funds Bond Fund of Amer A
BFABX             American Funds Bond Fund of Amer B
BFACX             American Funds Bond Fund of Amer C
BFAFX             American Funds Bond Fund of Amer F
RBFAX             American Funds Bond Fund of Amer R1
RBFBX             American Funds Bond Fund of Amer R2
RBFCX             American Funds Bond Fund of Amer R3
RBFEX             American Funds Bond Fund of Amer R4
RBFFX             American Funds Bond Fund of Amer R5
CIRAX             American Funds Capital Inc Bldr 529A
CIRBX             American Funds Capital Inc Bldr 529B
CIRCX             American Funds Capital Inc Bldr 529C
CIREX             American Funds Capital Inc Bldr 529E
CIRFX             American Funds Capital Inc Bldr 529F
CAIBX             American Funds Capital Inc Bldr A
CIBBX             American Funds Capital Inc Bldr B
CIBCX             American Funds Capital Inc Bldr C
CIBFX             American Funds Capital Inc Bldr F
RIRAX             American Funds Capital Inc Bldr R1
RIRBX             American Funds Capital Inc Bldr R2
RIRCX             American Funds Capital Inc Bldr R3
RIREX             American Funds Capital Inc Bldr R4
RIRFX             American Funds Capital Inc Bldr R5
CCWAX             American Funds Capital World Bd 529A
CCWBX             American Funds Capital World Bd 529B
CCWCX             American Funds Capital World Bd 529C
CCWEX             American Funds Capital World Bd 529E
CCWFX             American Funds Capital World Bd 529F
CWBFX             American Funds Capital World Bd A
WBFBX             American Funds Capital World Bd B
CWBCX             American Funds Capital World Bd C
WBFFX             American Funds Capital World Bd F
RCWAX             American Funds Capital World Bd R1
RCWBX             American Funds Capital World Bd R2
RCWCX             American Funds Capital World Bd R3
RCWEX             American Funds Capital World Bd R4
RCWFX             American Funds Capital World Bd R5
CWIAX             American Funds Capital World G/I 529A
CWIBX             American Funds Capital World G/I 529B
CWICX             American Funds Capital World G/I 529C
CWIEX             American Funds Capital World G/I 529E
CWIFX             American Funds Capital World G/I 529F
CWGIX             American Funds Capital World G/I A
CWGBX             American Funds Capital World G/I B
CWGCX             American Funds Capital World G/I C
CWGFX             American Funds Capital World G/I F
RWIAX             American Funds Capital World G/I R1
RWIBX             American Funds Capital World G/I R2
RWICX             American Funds Capital World G/I R3
RWIEX             American Funds Capital World G/I R4
RWIFX             American Funds Capital World G/I R5
CEUAX             American Funds EuroPacific Gr 529A
CEUBX             American Funds EuroPacific Gr 529B
CEUCX             American Funds EuroPacific Gr 529C
CEUEX             American Funds EuroPacific Gr 529E
CEUFX             American Funds EuroPacific Gr 529F
AEPGX             American Funds EuroPacific Gr A
AEGBX             American Funds EuroPacific Gr B
AEPCX             American Funds EuroPacific Gr C
AEGFX             American Funds EuroPacific Gr F
RERAX             American Funds EuroPacific Gr R1
RERBX             American Funds EuroPacific Gr R2
RERCX             American Funds EuroPacific Gr R3
REREX             American Funds EuroPacific Gr R4
RERFX             American Funds EuroPacific Gr R5
CFNAX             American Funds Fundamental Invs 529A
CFNBX             American Funds Fundamental Invs 529B
CFNCX             American Funds Fundamental Invs 529C
CFNEX             American Funds Fundamental Invs 529E
CFNFX             American Funds Fundamental Invs 529F
ANCFX             American Funds Fundamental Invs A
AFIBX             American Funds Fundamental Invs B
AFICX             American Funds Fundamental Invs C
AFIFX             American Funds Fundamental Invs F
RFNAX             American Funds Fundamental Invs R1
RFNBX             American Funds Fundamental Invs R2
RFNCX             American Funds Fundamental Invs R3
RFNEX             American Funds Fundamental Invs R4
RFNFX             American Funds Fundamental Invs R5
CGFAX             American Funds Grth Fund of Amer 529A
CGFBX             American Funds Grth Fund of Amer 529B
CGFCX             American Funds Grth Fund of Amer 529C
CGFEX             American Funds Grth Fund of Amer 529E
CGFFX             American Funds Grth Fund of Amer 529F
AGTHX             American Funds Grth Fund of Amer A
AGRBX             American Funds Grth Fund of Amer B
GFACX             American Funds Grth Fund of Amer C
GFAFX             American Funds Grth Fund of Amer F
RGAAX             American Funds Grth Fund of Amer R1
RGABX             American Funds Grth Fund of Amer R2
RGACX             American Funds Grth Fund of Amer R3
RGAEX             American Funds Grth Fund of Amer R4
RGAFX             American Funds Grth Fund of Amer R5
AMHIX             American Funds High-Inc Muni Bond A
ABHMX             American Funds High-Inc Muni Bond B
AHICX             American Funds High-Inc Muni Bond C
ABHFX             American Funds High-Inc Muni Bond F
CIMAX             American Funds Inc Fund of Amer 529A
CIMBX             American Funds Inc Fund of Amer 529B
CIMCX             American Funds Inc Fund of Amer 529C
CIMEX             American Funds Inc Fund of Amer 529E
CIMFX             American Funds Inc Fund of Amer 529F
AMECX             American Funds Inc Fund of Amer A
IFABX             American Funds Inc Fund of Amer B
IFACX             American Funds Inc Fund of Amer C
IFAFX             American Funds Inc Fund of Amer F
RIDAX             American Funds Inc Fund of Amer R1
RIDBX             American Funds Inc Fund of Amer R2
RIDCX             American Funds Inc Fund of Amer R3
RIDEX             American Funds Inc Fund of Amer R4
RIDFX             American Funds Inc Fund of Amer R5
AIBAX             American Funds Intm Bd Fd of Amer A
IBFBX             American Funds Intm Bd Fd of Amer B
IBFCX             American Funds Intm Bd Fd of Amer C
IBFFX             American Funds Intm Bd Fd of Amer F
CBOAX             American Funds IntmBd Fd of Amer 529A
CBOBX             American Funds IntmBd Fd of Amer 529B
CBOCX             American Funds IntmBd Fd of Amer 529C
CBOEX             American Funds IntmBd Fd of Amer 529E
CBOFX             American Funds IntmBd Fd of Amer 529F
RBOAX             American Funds IntmBd Fd of Amer R1
RBOBX             American Funds IntmBd Fd of Amer R2
RBOCX             American Funds IntmBd Fd of Amer R3
RBOEX             American Funds IntmBd Fd of Amer R4
RBOFX             American Funds IntmBd Fd of Amer R5
CICAX             American Funds Invmt Co of Amer 529A
CICBX             American Funds Invmt Co of Amer 529B
CICCX             American Funds Invmt Co of Amer 529C
CICEX             American Funds Invmt Co of Amer 529E
CICFX             American Funds Invmt Co of Amer 529F
AIVSX             American Funds Invmt Co of Amer A
AICBX             American Funds Invmt Co of Amer B
AICCX             American Funds Invmt Co of Amer C
AICFX             American Funds Invmt Co of Amer F
RICAX             American Funds Invmt Co of Amer R1
RICBX             American Funds Invmt Co of Amer R2
RICCX             American Funds Invmt Co of Amer R3
RICEX             American Funds Invmt Co of Amer R4
RICFX             American Funds Invmt Co of Amer R5
RTXFX             American Funds Ltd-Term Tax-Ex Bd R5
LTEBX             American Funds Ltd-Term Tx-Ex Bd A
LTXBX             American Funds Ltd-Term Tx-Ex Bd B
LTXCX             American Funds Ltd-Term Tx-Ex Bd C
LTXFX             American Funds Ltd-Term Tx-Ex Bd F
CNGAX             American Funds New Economy 529A
CNGBX             American Funds New Economy 529B
CNGCX             American Funds New Economy 529C
CNGEX             American Funds New Economy 529E
CNGFX             American Funds New Economy 529F
ANEFX             American Funds New Economy A
ANFBX             American Funds New Economy B
ANFCX             American Funds New Economy C
ANFFX             American Funds New Economy F
RNGAX             American Funds New Economy R1
RNGBX             American Funds New Economy R2
RNGCX             American Funds New Economy R3
RNGEX             American Funds New Economy R4
RNGFX             American Funds New Economy R5
CNPAX             American Funds New Perspective 529A
CNPBX             American Funds New Perspective 529B
CNPCX             American Funds New Perspective 529C
CNPEX             American Funds New Perspective 529E
CNPFX             American Funds New Perspective 529F
ANWPX             American Funds New Perspective A
NPFBX             American Funds New Perspective B
NPFCX             American Funds New Perspective C
NPFFX             American Funds New Perspective F
RNPAX             American Funds New Perspective R1
RNPBX             American Funds New Perspective R2
RNPCX             American Funds New Perspective R3
RNPEX             American Funds New Perspective R4
RNPFX             American Funds New Perspective R5
CNWAX             American Funds New World 529A
CNWBX             American Funds New World 529B
CNWCX             American Funds New World 529C
CNWEX             American Funds New World 529E
CNWFX             American Funds New World 529F
NEWFX             American Funds New World A
NEWBX             American Funds New World B
NEWCX             American Funds New World C
NWFFX             American Funds New World F
RNWAX             American Funds New World R1
RNWBX             American Funds New World R2
RNWCX             American Funds New World R3
RNWEX             American Funds New World R4
RNWFX             American Funds New World R5
CSPAX             American Funds Smallcap World 529A
CSPBX             American Funds Smallcap World 529B
CSPCX             American Funds Smallcap World 529C
CSPEX             American Funds Smallcap World 529E
CSPFX             American Funds Smallcap World 529F
SMCWX             American Funds Smallcap World A
SCWBX             American Funds Smallcap World B
SCWCX             American Funds Smallcap World C
SCWFX             American Funds Smallcap World F
RSLAX             American Funds Smallcap World R1
RSLBX             American Funds Smallcap World R2
RSLCX             American Funds Smallcap World R3
RSLEX             American Funds Smallcap World R4
RSLFX             American Funds Smallcap World R5
AFTEX             American Funds Tax-Exempt Bond A
TEBFX             American Funds Tax-Exempt Bond B
TEBCX             American Funds Tax-Exempt Bond C
AFTFX             American Funds Tax-Exempt Bond F
RTAFX             American Funds Tax-Exempt Bond R5
TAFTX             American Funds Tax-Exempt Fund CA A
TECBX             American Funds Tax-Exempt Fund CA B
TECCX             American Funds Tax-Exempt Fund CA C
TECFX             American Funds Tax-Exempt Fund CA F
RTCFX             American Funds Tax-Exempt Fund CA R5
TMMDX             American Funds Tax-Exempt Fund MD A
TEMBX             American Funds Tax-Exempt Fund MD B
TEMCX             American Funds Tax-Exempt Fund MD C
TMDFX             American Funds Tax-Exempt Fund MD F
RTMFX             American Funds Tax-Exempt Fund MD R5
TFVAX             American Funds Tax-Exempt Fund VA A
TEVBX             American Funds Tax-Exempt Fund VA B
TEVCX             American Funds Tax-Exempt Fund VA C
TEVFX             American Funds Tax-Exempt Fund VA F
RTVFX             American Funds Tax-Exempt Fund VA R5
CGTAX             American Funds US Government Sec 529A
CGTBX             American Funds US Government Sec 529B
CGTCX             American Funds US Government Sec 529C
CGTEX             American Funds US Government Sec 529E
CGTFX             American Funds US Government Sec 529F
AMUSX             American Funds US Government Sec A
UGSBX             American Funds US Government Sec B
UGSCX             American Funds US Government Sec C
UGSFX             American Funds US Government Sec F
RGVAX             American Funds US Government Sec R1
RGVBX             American Funds US Government Sec R2
RGVCX             American Funds US Government Sec R3
RGVEX             American Funds US Government Sec R4
RGVFX             American Funds US Government Sec R5
CWMAX             American Funds Washington Mutual 529A
CWMBX             American Funds Washington Mutual 529B
CWMCX             American Funds Washington Mutual 529C
CWMEX             American Funds Washington Mutual 529E
CWMFX             American Funds Washington Mutual 529F
AWSHX             American Funds Washington Mutual A
WSHBX             American Funds Washington Mutual B
WSHCX             American Funds Washington Mutual C
WSHFX             American Funds Washington Mutual F
RWMAX             American Funds Washington Mutual R1
RWMBX             American Funds Washington Mutual R2
RWMCX             American Funds Washington Mutual R3
RWMEX             American Funds Washington Mutual R4
RWMFX             American Funds Washington Mutual R5

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 and
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.

   
                            *********


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  * * *