CAR_Public/050909.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Friday, September 9, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 179

                         Headlines

BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Continues To Face Silicone Implants Suits
BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Faces Various Hemophiliac Injury Lawsuits
BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Faces Litigation V. GAMMAGARD IVIG Product
BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Faces Injury Suits v. Althane Dialyzers
BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Continues To Face Thimerosal-Related Suits

BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Faces 40 Lawsuits For AWP Pricing Fraud
BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: High Court Nixes IL Stock Suit Certiorari
BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: IL Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Suit
BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Securities Suit Remanded To IL State Court
BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Asks IL Court To Dismiss ERISA Fraud Suit

BLUE CROSS: Obtains Court Approval in Suit Over Tobacco Proceeds
CANADA: Legal Battle Begins For Ragweed Case V. City of Montreal
CANADIAN NATIONAL: Suit Over Spill a Waste of Time, Lawyer Says
CH ROBINSON: MN Court Refuses To Certify FLSA Violations Suits
CHAPARRAL NETWORK: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Securities Lawsuit

HYPERCOM CORPORATION: Shareholders File Securities Suits in AZ
INTEGRATED ELECTRICAL: Asks TX Court To Dismiss Securities Suit
INTEGRATED ELECTRICAL: Unit Faces EEOC Race, Sex Bias Lawsuit
KING PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Shareholder Derivative, Class Suit
KING PHARMACEUTICALS: TN Court Dismisses ERISA Violations Suit

MEDTRONIC INC.: $500M Suit Commenced in Canada Over Faulty ICDs
NEW YORK: Distributors Sues Publisher, Alleges Pyramid Scheme
NEW YORK: Energy Department Sued For Failing Energy Standards
ORCHID ISLAND: Recalls Orange Juice For Salmonella Contamination
PRAXAIR INC.: Lawsuit Launched in MO Over June 24 Fire, Cleanup

RCN CORPORATION: Faces Consolidated ERISA Litigation in NJ Court
REALNETWORKS INC.: Reaches Settlement For WA Consumer Fraud Suit
TRIPATH TECHNOLOGY: Langley Partners File Suit V. Stock Purchase
WASHINGTON: A.G. to Assist in Inquiry Over Escalating Gas Prices
ZEON CORPORATION: KY Subsidiary Settles Rubber Price-Fixing Suit

                      Asbestos Alerts

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PPL Subsidiaries Charged in Asbestos Suits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Death Risk Higher in Kubota Plant Proximity
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cement-Asbestos Tiles Still Used in Japan
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CA Widow Gets $30T for False Asbestos Alarm
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: SRE, SDG&E Charged for Abatement Violations

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PEOSHA Inspection Reveals Basement Hazard
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MDR Deal Bolsters Other Firms in Litigation
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: UK Devt. Fuels Residents' Fears in ERI Site
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CA College Cited For Asbestos Violations
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tainted Soil Forces Aussie Park Closure

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: JPN Ministry to Cut Asbestos Allowable Rate   
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mesothelioma Rate Higher in Amagasaki City
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kubota Addresses Key Asbestos Health Issues
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Japan Engages in Health Concern Measures
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: US Sen. Hopes for October Asbestos Hearing

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: T&N's Personal Injury Claims Set at US$9B
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: OC Continues Bankruptcy Exit Strategies
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Aid For Victims May Stall, TX Senator Says
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: LFB Reports Positive Court Updates in 3Q05
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Met-Pro Attests Claims Are Without Merit

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bridgestone To Recall Bikes With Asbestos
ASBESTOS ALERT: KY Court Affirms NB's Move for Summary Judgment

                  New Securities Fraud Cases

ARBINET-THEXCHANGE: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Suit in NJ
BUCA INC.: Zimmerman Reed Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in MN
MANNATECH INC.: Federman & Sherwood Lodges Securities Suit in NM
MANNATECH INC.: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Fraud Suit in NM
RENAISSANCERE HOLDINGS: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Fraud Suit in NY

SYMBOL TECHNOLOGIES: Kaplan Fox Files Securities Suit in E.D. NY
UBS-AG: Murray Frank Files NY Securities Suit Over Davis Funds
UBS-AG: Murray Frank Files Fraud Suit in NY Over Franklin Funds
UBS-AG: Murray Frank Files NY Fraud Suit Over Oppenheimer Funds
WORLD HEALTH: Federman & Sherwood Lodges Securities Suit in PA


                         *********


BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Continues To Face Silicone Implants Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Baxter International, Inc. and certain of its subsidiaries face
several lawsuits filed in various courts seeking damages for
injuries of various types allegedly caused by silicone mammary
implants previously manufactured by the Heyer-Schulte division
of American Hospital Supply Corporation (AHSC).

AHSC, which was acquired by Baxter in 1985, divested its Heyer-
Schulte division in 1984.  It is not known how many of these
claims and lawsuits involve products manufactured and sold by
Heyer-Schulte, as opposed to other manufacturers.  In December
1998, a panel of independent medical experts appointed by a
federal judge announced its findings that reported medical
studies contained no clear evidence of a connection between
silicone mammary implants and traditional or atypical systemic
diseases.  In June 1999, a similar conclusion was announced by a
committee of independent medical experts from the Institute of
Medicine, an arm of the National Academy of Sciences.  The
majority of the claims and lawsuits against the company have
been resolved. Certain of the proceedings are ongoing.

As of June 30, 2005, the Company, together with certain of its
subsidiaries, was named as a defendant or co-defendant in 35
lawsuits relating to mammary implants, brought by approximately
91 plaintiffs, of which 80 are implant plaintiffs and the
remainder are consortium or second generation plaintiffs. Of
those plaintiffs, two currently are included in the Lindsey
class action Revised Settlement described below, which accounts
for one of the pending lawsuits against the company.
Additionally, 34 plaintiffs have opted out of the Revised
Settlement (representing approximately 21 pending lawsuits), and
the status of the remaining plaintiffs with pending lawsuits is
unknown. Some of the opt-out plaintiffs filed their cases naming
multiple defendants and without product identification; thus,
the company believes that not all of the opt-out plaintiffs will
have viable claims against the company.  As of June 30, 2005, 25
of the opt-out plaintiffs had confirmed Heyer-Schulte mammary
implant product identification.  Furthermore, during the second
quarter of 2005, the Company obtained dismissals, or agreements
for dismissals, with respect to 9 plaintiffs.

In addition to the individual suits against the company, a class
action on behalf of all women with silicone mammary implants was
filed on March 23, 1994 and is pending in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama involving
most manufacturers of such implants, including the Company as
successor to AHSC.  The suit is styled "Lindsey, et al., v. Dow
Corning, et al., U.S.D.C., N. Dist. Ala., CV 94-P-11558-S."

The class action was certified for settlement purposes only by
the court on September 1, 1994, and the settlement terms were
subsequently revised and approved on December 22, 1995 (the
Revised Settlement).  All appeals directly challenging the
Revised Settlement have been dismissed.  In addition to the
Lindsey class action, the company also has been named in three
other purported class actions in various state and provincial
courts, only one of which is certified.


BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Faces Various Hemophiliac Injury Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Baxter International, Inc. faces a number of claims and lawsuits
brought by individuals who have hemophilia, and their families,
all seeking damages for injuries allegedly caused by anti-
hemophilic factor concentrates VIII or IX derived from human
blood plasma (factor concentrates) processed by the company from
the late 1970s to the mid-1980s.

The typical case or claim alleges that the individual was
infected with the HIV virus by factor concentrates, which
contained the HIV virus.  None of these cases involves factor
concentrates currently processed by the Company.

As of June 30, 2005, the Company was named as a defendant in 82
lawsuits most of which have been or are expected to be
consolidated in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois and has received 161 claims in the
United States, France, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Spain and
Argentina.  Among the lawsuits, the company and other
manufacturers have been named as defendants in 70 lawsuits
pending or expected to be transferred to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf
of claimants, who are primarily non-U.S. residents, seeking
unspecified damages for HIV and/or Hepatitis C infections from
their use of plasma-based factor concentrates.

In March 2005, the District Court denied plaintiff's motion to
certify the purported classes. Thereafter, plaintiffs have filed
additional lawsuits on behalf of individual claimants outside of
the United States.  The defendants, including the Company, have
filed motions to dismiss these lawsuits based on "forum non
conveniens" grounds.  The United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois has approved a settlement of U.S.
federal court HIV factor concentrate cases.  As of December 31,
2004, all 6,246 claimant groups eligible to participate in the
settlement have been paid.

In addition, Immuno International AG (Immuno), acquired by the
Company in 1996, has unsettled claims and lawsuits for damages
for injuries allegedly caused by its plasma-based therapies. The
typical claim alleges that the individual with hemophilia was
infected with HIV and/or Hepatitis C by factor concentrates.
Immuno's successor is a participant in a foundation that would
make payments to Italian applicants who are HIV positive. At
least 370 applications are pending before that foundation.

Additionally, Immuno faces multiple claims stemming from its
vaccines and other biologically derived therapies. A portion of
the liability and defense costs related to these claims will be
covered by insurance, subject to exclusions, conditions, policy
limits and other factors. Pursuant to the stock purchase
agreement between the company and Immuno, as revised in April
1999, approximately 26 million Swiss Francs, which is the
equivalent of approximately $20 million based on the exchange
rate as of June 30, 2005, of the purchase price is being
withheld to cover these contingent liabilities.


BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Faces Litigation V. GAMMAGARD IVIG Product
----------------------------------------------------------------
Baxter International, Inc. is currently named in a number of
claims and lawsuits brought by individuals who infused the
Company's GAMMAGARD IVIG (intravenous immunoglobulin), all of
whom are seeking damages for Hepatitis C infections allegedly
caused by infusing GAMMAGARD IVIG.

As of June 30, 2005, the Company was a defendant in nine
lawsuits and has received notice of four claims in the United
States, France, Denmark, Italy, Germany and Spain. One class
action in the United States has been certified. In September
2000, the United States District Court for the Central District
of California approved a settlement of the class action that
would provide financial compensation for U.S. individuals who
used GAMMAGARD IVIG between January 1993 and February 1994.


BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Faces Injury Suits v. Althane Dialyzers
-------------------------------------------------------------
Baxter International, Inc. was named as a defendant in a number
of civil cases seeking unspecified damages for alleged injury
from exposure to the Company's Althane series of dialyzers,
which were withdrawn from the market in 2001.

All of these suits have been resolved, although the possibility
of additional suits being filed cannot be excluded. Currently,
there are a number of claims from Croatian citizens and one from
the Spanish Ministry of Health, although suits have not been
filed.  The company previously reached settlements with a number
of families of patients who died or were injured in Spain,
Croatia and the United States allegedly after undergoing
hemodialysis on an Althane dialyzer.  The U.S. government is
investigating the matter and the Company received a subpoena in
December 2002 to provide documents.  The Company is fully
cooperating with the Department of Justice.


BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Continues To Face Thimerosal-Related Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
As of June 30, 2005, Baxter International, Inc. and certain of
its subsidiaries have been named as defendants, along with
others, in 142 lawsuits filed in various state and U.S. federal
courts, four of which are purported class actions, seeking
damages, injunctive relief and medical monitoring for claimants
alleged to have contracted autism or other attention deficit
disorders as a result of exposure to vaccines for childhood
diseases containing the preservative, Thimerosal.

These vaccines were formerly manufactured and sold by North
American Vaccine, Inc., which was acquired by the Company in
June 2000, as well as other companies.  As of December 31, 2004,
ten suits have been dismissed based on the application of the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Act. Additional Thimerosal
cases may be filed in the future against the Company and
companies that marketed Thimerosal-containing products.


BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Faces 40 Lawsuits For AWP Pricing Fraud
-------------------------------------------------------------
As of June 30, 2005, Baxter International, Inc. and certain of
its subsidiaries were named as defendants, along with others, in
approximately 40 lawsuits brought in various state and U.S.
federal courts which allege that the Company and other
defendants reported artificially inflated average wholesale
prices for Medicare and Medicaid eligible drugs.

These cases have been brought by private parties on behalf of
various purported classes of purchasers of Medicare and Medicaid
eligible drugs, as well as by state attorneys general. As
further explained below, all but nine of these cases were
consolidated in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts for pretrial case management under
Multi District Litigation rules.  In July 2005, the defendants,
including Baxter, removed an additional five lawsuits from state
courts to the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts.  Claimants seek unspecified damages and
declaratory and injunctive relief under various state and/or
federal statutes.

After the partial dismissal of the consolidated amended
complaint, Plaintiffs filed an amended master consolidated class
action complaint that the defendants, including the Company,
moved to dismiss. In February 2004, the court granted in part
and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss.  The lawsuits
against the Company include eight lawsuits brought by state
attorneys general, which allege that prices for Medicare and
Medicaid eligible drugs were artificially inflated and seek
unspecified damages, injunctive relief, civil penalties,
disgorgement, forfeiture and restitution.

Specifically, in January 2002, the Attorney General of Nevada
filed a civil suit in the Second Judicial District Court of
Washoe County, Nevada.  In February 2002, the Attorney General
of Montana filed a civil suit in the First Judicial District
Court of Lewis and Clark County, Montana.  In June 2003, the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
remanded the Nevada case to Washoe County, Nevada and denied
plaintiffs' motion to remand the Montana case. In January 2004,
the District Court remanded another case filed in state court to
the Superior Court of Maricopa County, Arizona. In March 2004,
the Attorney General of Pennsylvania filed a civil suit in the
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. That action was dismissed in
February 2005.  In March 2005, the Attorney General of
Pennsylvania filed an amended complaint.  In May 2004, the
Attorney General of Texas filed a civil suit in the District
Court of Travis County, Texas. In June 2004, the Attorney
General of Wisconsin filed a civil suit in the Circuit Court of
Dane County, Wisconsin. In November 2004, the Attorney General
of Kentucky filed a civil suit in the Circuit Court of Franklin
County, Kentucky.

During the first quarter of 2005, the Company was named as a
defendant in 14 additional cases, 13 of which have been served
upon the company. Additionally, during April 2005, the Company
was named as a defendant in eight cases, five of which have been
served.  In January 2005, the Attorney General of Alabama filed
a civil suit in the Circuit Court of Montgomery County, Alabama.
In February 2005, the Attorney General of Illinois filed a civil
suit in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. In July
2005, the lawsuits filed by the attorneys general of
Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Kentucky, Alabama and Illinois were
removed by the defendants to the U.S.D.C. for the District of
Massachusetts. Each of the state attorneys general has moved to
remand these cases.

Various state and federal agencies are conducting civil
investigations into the marketing and pricing practices of the
Company and others with respect to Medicare and Medicaid
reimbursement. These investigations may result in additional
cases being filed by various state attorneys general.


BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: High Court Nixes IL Stock Suit Certiorari
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Supreme Court denied Baxter International,
Inc.'s petition for certiorari with regard to a lower court
ruling refusing to dismiss the consolidated securities class
action filed against it and its then Chief Executive Officer and
then Chief Financial officer.

In August 2002, six purported class action lawsuits were filed
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois.  These lawsuits, which were consolidated and sought
recovery of unspecified damages, alleged that the defendants
violated the federal securities laws by making misleading
statements that allegedly caused the Company common stock to
trade at inflated levels.

In December 2002, plaintiffs filed their consolidated amended
class action complaint which named nine additional Company
officers as defendants. In July 2003, the court dismissed in its
entirety the consolidated amended class action complaint.  In
July 2004, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the
order of dismissal and remanded the case to the District Court.
In September 2004, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals denied
motions by the Company for rehearing, rehearing en banc and to
stay the order to remand the case pending a petition for a writ
of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court.  In December 2004, the
Company filed its petition for a writ of certiorari in the U.S.
Supreme Court.  Plaintiffs filed a revised consolidated amended
complaint in the District Court in November 2004.  The Company
filed its motion to dismiss the complaint in December 2004. The
District Court denied the Company's motion to dismiss in
February 2005.

The suit is styled "Asher, et al v. Baxter Intl Inc, et al.,
case no. 1:02-cv-05608," filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, under Judge Blanche
M. Manning.  Representing the plaintiffs is Steven G. Schulman
of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP, One Pennsylvania Plaza,
49th Floor, New York, NY 10119-0165, Phone: (212)594-5300.  
Representing the Company is Matthew Robert Kipp, Skadden Arps
Slate Meagher & Flom, LLP, 333 West Wacker Drive, Suite 2100,
Chicago, IL 60606, Phone: (312) 407-0700, E-mail:
mkipp@skadden.com.


BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: IL Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois dismissed the consolidated amended class action filed
against Baxter International, Inc., its current Chief Executive
Officer, its Chief Financial Officer and their predecessors.

In July 2004, a purported class action lawsuit was filed.  The
suit, which seeks recovery of unspecified damages, alleges that
the defendants violated the federal securities laws by making
false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
financial results, which allegedly caused Baxter common stock to
trade at inflated levels during the period between April 2001
and July 2004.  

Three similar purported class action lawsuits were filed in the
third quarter of 2004 in the same court against the same
defendants. These cases have been consolidated before a single
judge. In January 2005, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint in the District Court.  In February 2005, the Company
filed its motion to dismiss.  In May 2005, the District Court
granted the Company's motion to dismiss this action in its
entirety. One of the consolidated plaintiffs has moved to alter
the judgment terminating its case and to file an amended
complaint. That motion is pending before the District Court.

The suit is styled "Higginbotham v. Baxter Intl Inc, et al.,
case no. 1:04-cv-04909," filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, under Judge William
T. Hart.  Representing the Company is Matthew Robert Kipp of
Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom, LLP, 333 West Wacker Drive,
Suite 2100, Chicago, IL 60606, Phone: (312) 407-0700, E-mail:
mkipp@skadden.com.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Marvin Alan Miller, Christopher B. Sanchez and Jennifer
         Winter Sprengel of Miller Faucher and Cafferty, LLP, 30
         North LaSalle Street, Suite 3200, Chicago, IL 60602,
         Phone: (312) 782-4880, E-mail:
         mmiller@millerfaucher.com, csanchez@millerfaucher.com,
         or jsprenger@millerfaucher.com

     (2) Peter A. Binkow, Glancy & Binkow, LLP, 1801 Avenue of
         the Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles, CA 90067, Phone:
         (310) 201-9150

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


BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Securities Suit Remanded To IL State Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois remanded the class action filed against Baxter
International, Inc. to the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois.

In October 2004, a solitary plaintiff filed a purported class
action against the Company in the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois alleging a breach of federal securities law through its
secondary offering of common stock in September 2003.  The
plaintiff alleges that the offering price of these shares was
artificially inflated by virtue of the financial statements that
the company filed prior to and concurrent with the offering,
which the company later amended in connection with the
restatement, and seeks unspecified damages.  

In November 2004, the Company removed this case to the Northern
District of Illinois.  In December 2004, plaintiff moved to
remand the proceeding to state court.  In May 2005, the District
Court remanded the case back to state court.


BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Asks IL Court To Dismiss ERISA Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Baxter International, Inc. asked the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois to dismiss the class
action filed against it, its current Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer and their predecessors for alleged
violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974 (ERISA), as amended.

In October 2004, a sole plaintiff filed the suit, alleging that
these defendants, along with the Administrative and Investment
Committees of the Company's Incentive Investment Plan and Puerto
Rico Savings and Investment Plan (the Plans), which are the
company's 401(k) plans, breached their fiduciary duties to the
Plans' participants by offering Company common stock as an
investment option in each of the Plans during the period of
January 2001 to October 2004.  Plaintiff alleges that Baxter
common stock traded at artificially inflated prices during this
period and seeks unspecified damages and declaratory and
equitable relief.  The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of
the Plans' participants who elected to acquire Baxter common
stock through the Plans between January 2001 and the present.
The defendants have moved to dismiss this action and the motion
currently is pending before the District Court.


BLUE CROSS: Obtains Court Approval in Suit Over Tobacco Proceeds
----------------------------------------------------------------
Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota (Blue Cross) recently
received court approval to end a class action lawsuit, which
prevented the company from fully launching its plan to make
Minnesota a healthier place to live and work. The court order
moves Blue Cross an important step closer to launching its plan
for tobacco proceeds received as a result of Blue Cross'
historic 1998 settlement with the tobacco industry.

The settlement between Blue Cross and the employer groups who
filed the class action in 2002 received final approval today
from a Dakota County court. Approval by the court represents a
significant development toward releasing the money that Blue
Cross has earmarked for health improvement initiatives and other
health-related investments under the Healthier Minnesota plan.
Blue Cross received the money from the tobacco industry to
settle the consumer fraud and conspiracy lawsuit the health plan
filed against tobacco companies in 1994.

Two key elements of the plan are the Community Clinics Fund,
which will improve access to health care services for thousands
of Minnesotans, and Prevention Minnesota, Blue Cross'
settlement-funded health improvement effort that will tackle
Minnesota's leading killers: tobacco use, heart disease and
cancer by reducing tobacco use, promoting physical activity and
improving nutrition.

As part of the tobacco proceeds spending plan approved more than
three years ago, eligible Blue Cross groups and individual
subscribers will begin receiving checks by mid September.
Approximately 200,000 eligible individual and Medicare
Supplement customers will share in $30.1 million. Checks will
range from $20 to $260, with $150 being the median amount
dispersed to these customers.

Additionally, as a result of the settlement approved today, Blue
Cross is adding $11 million to the $30 million originally
dedicated to eligible subscriber groups in the Blue Cross
tobacco proceeds plan. A total of $41 million, less plaintiffs'
attorneys fees and costs, will be distributed to approximately
10,000 fully insured employer groups by the end of December,
provided no appeal is taken from the court order.

"For many years, this money has been tied up in court and, with
it, our plan to use it to improve health for all Minnesotans,"
said Mark W. Banks, M.D., Blue Cross CEO. "With the courts'
final approval of that case today, Blue Cross is finally able to
fulfill our promise."

With the final court approval, Blue Cross will be able to move
forward with its five-point plan:

     (1) $30 million will support community clinics serving the
         uninsured and under-insured.

     (2) $70 million will go to offset the deficit of the
         Minnesota Comprehensive Health Association (MCHA).  
         MCHA provides health coverage to those who, because of
         health reasons, aren't able to obtain coverage through
         other channels.  MCHA's deficit is underwritten by a
         tax on insured health plans that are regulated by
         the state, mainly those plans offered by small
         businesses.  The Blue Cross contribution will reduce
         the tax.  Individual MCHA members are not eligible for
         the distributions to individual Blue Cross
         policyholders.

     (3) $30 million will be distributed to approximately
         200,000 fully insured individuals and Medicare
         supplement members who had Blue Cross coverage on June
         15, 2001.

     (4) $41 million, less plaintiffs' attorneys fees and costs,
         will be distributed to approximately 38,000 fully
         insured employer groups that had Blue Cross coverage at
         any time from January 1, 1978, through June 15, 2001.

     (5) $241 million will be invested in prevention and health
         improvement programs to benefit all Minnesotans, which
         Blue Cross anticipates will save $3 in future health
         care costs for every $1 invested.

For more details, contact Karl Oestreich or Monika Strom of Blue
Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota, Phone: +1-651-662-1502 or
+1-651-662-6889, Web site: http://www.bluecrossmn.com.


CANADA: Legal Battle Begins For Ragweed Case V. City of Montreal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Opposing attorneys recently fired the opening salvoes in a $2-
billion class action lawsuit in Quebec Superior Court pitting
ragweed-allergy sufferers against the city of Montreal, The 940
News reports.

The suit, launched more than a decade ago against 23
municipalities in the former Montreal Urban Community, alleges
that city authorities did not do enough to eradicate ragweed,
especially on municipal land. It is seeking up to $2,000 for
each of an estimated 200,000 allergy sufferers for every summer
they lived on the island from 1991 to 1995.  The plant releases
a pollen in late summer that triggers fits of sneezing, nasal
congestion, watery eyes and allergic asthma in some people.

City lawyer Pierre Lepage though rejected the idea of forcing
the city to eradicate ragweed when no such bylaw exists. In
1996, the MUC revoked its ragweed bylaw, due to concerns about
mounting civil liability in the class action.


CANADIAN NATIONAL: Suit Over Spill a Waste of Time, Lawyer Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Seeking certification of a class action lawsuit or launching a
lawsuit of any kind against Canadian National Railway Co. right
now over last month's toxic spill at an Alberta lake is a "waste
of time," according to Daniel Hagg, the attorney that represents
the Lake Wabamun Citizens Committee, The Globe and Mail reports.

Mr. Hagg told The Globe and Mail that CN has accepted liability
for the spill and has offered to compensate residents for
legitimate claims of damages, costs and other losses. He added,
"Quite frankly, an attempt to certify a class action at this
time is premature and ill-advised."

Claims are being processed in connection with the August 3
derailment of 45 cars about 65 kilometers west of Edmonton,
which spewed bunker oil and pole-treating oil into Lake Wabamun.  
Mr. Hagg, whose firm, Bryan & Company, was paid by CN to work on
behalf of residents, told The Globe and Mail that although it
will take some time to determine the impact on property values
CN has responded to claims to date at a breakneck pace. In his
experience, it normally takes years after an incident before
this stage of the claim process is reached.

CN spokesman Jim Feeny told The Globe and Mail that it's too
early to tally the value of all claims, but so far the company
has paid out of pocket expenses such as meals and hotels for
those affected. "Our preference is to settle, not litigate," he
pointed out.

Hundreds of the estimated 1,500 property owners at the lake have
contacted Mr. Hagg for legal advice. The advice he is giving
them is outlined in a recent letter he sent to the citizens
committee, which states, "Presently, we do not anticipate that
court action will be necessary in order to compel CN to accept
its legal responsibility and to pay all legitimate claims,
including claims for loss of use and enjoyment of property, loss
of rental income, loss of business income, damage to water
systems, damage to personal property, loss of property value, or
damage to health." He explained in the letter that filing a
lawsuit will not speed up the claims process and will not result
in a windfall to residents.

However, Clint Docken, a Calgary lawyer who has acted in a
number of class action lawsuits, told The Globe and Mail that he
has accepted retainer agreements from "a number" of individuals
affected by the Wabamun spill who will seek certification for a
class action suit, as has the Edmonton firm Kolthammer Batchelor
& Laidlaw.  The residents who signed on are claiming that they
have suffered a loss in property values and paid out of pocket
expenses. Their claims could also include health problems that
may arise from exposure to the toxins as well as suffering from
"nervous shock," according to Mr. Docken.

Though the residents who plan to seek help from the court aren't
prevented from negotiating with CN at the same time, Mr. Docken
was quieck to point out that CN's current compensation plans
"may or may not be adequate at the end of the day."

Every resident has got to do what's in their best interest,"
said Doug Goss, a spokesman for the residents' group. But so
far, according to him, most are choosing to file claims with CN
to avoid getting their complaints bogged down with litigation.


CH ROBINSON: MN Court Refuses To Certify FLSA Violations Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota
denied class certification and granted summary judgment in favor
of C H Robinson Worldwide, Inc., in the class actions filed
against the Company, alleging violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA).

In 2002, a number of the company's present and former employees
filed two suits.  The first lawsuit, brought by a group of 14
current and former female employees, alleges gender
discrimination, including hostile working environment, and
violations of the FLSA. The second lawsuit, brought by a group
of 6 current and former male employees, alleges violations of
the FLSA.  The plaintiffs in both lawsuits seek unspecified
monetary and non-monetary damages and class action
certification.

On March 31, 2005, the judge issued an order denying class
certification for the hostile working environment claims, and
allowing class certification for the claims of gender
discrimination in pay and promotion. This is a procedural step,
and the Company continues to deny all allegations and vigorously
defend the suits.  The judge also granted the Company's motions
for summary judgment as to the hostile working environment
claims of ten of the named plaintiffs, and dismissed those
claims.  


CHAPARRAL NETWORK: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chaparral Network Storage, Inc. (now acquired by Dot Hill
Systems Corporation) and certain of its former officers and
directors asked the United States District Court for the Central
District of California to dismiss the third amended class action
filed against them.

The lawsuit, among other things, alleges violations of federal
securities laws and purports to seek damages on behalf of a
class of shareholders who purchased Chaparral securities during
a defined period prior to Dot Hill's acquisition of Chaparral.
In May 2005, the Second Amended Complaint was dismissed with
leave to amend.  Plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint,
which the Company and other defendants are again moving
to dismiss.  Those motions are set for hearing on November 7,
2005.

The suit is styled "in re Robert T Harvey Securities Litigation,
8:04-cv-00876-DOC-PJW," filed in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California, under Judge David
O. Carter.  Representing the Company is Eric H. Macmichael and
Meghan Oryan Spieker of Cooley Godward, 4401 Eastgate Mall, San
Diego, CA 92121, Phone: 858-550-6000, E-mail:
mspieker@cooley.com.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Brian Barry, Jill Levine Betts of Brian Barry Law
         Offices, 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Ste 307, Los
         Angeles, CA 90067, Phone: 310-788-0831, E-mail:
         bribarry1@yahoo.com or jilllevine1@yahoo.com;

     (2) Kenneth J. Catanzarite and Jim T. Tice, Catanzarite Law
         Offices, 2331 W Lincoln Ave, Anaheim, CA 92801, Phone:
         714-520-5544, E-mail: kcatanzarite@catanzarite.com or
         jtice@catanzarite.com;

     (3) Laurence M. Rosen, Rosen Law Firm, 350 Fifth Avenue,
         Suite 5508, New York, NY 10118, Phone: 212-686-1060, E-
         mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com or jtice@catanzarite.com  


HYPERCOM CORPORATION: Shareholders File Securities Suits in AZ
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hypercom Corporation, its former Chief Executive Officer and its
former Chief Financial Officer face several shareholder class
action lawsuits filed in United States District Court, District
of Arizona, on behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities
during the period from April 30, 2004 to February & 3, 2005,
alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

These lawsuits are based on the Company's February 2005
announcement that certain leases originated in the United
Kingdom had been incorrectly accounted for as sales-type leases,
rather than operating leases, and that the Company would restate
its financial statements for the first three quarters of 2004.
The lawsuits seek damages against the defendants in an
unspecified amount.  The court has selected a lead plaintiff
that is expected to file a consolidated amended complaint.


INTEGRATED ELECTRICAL: Asks TX Court To Dismiss Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Integrated Electrical Services, Inc. asked the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Texas to dismiss the
consolidated securities class action filed against it and
certain of its officers and directors, styled "In re Integrated
Electrical Services, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 4:04-CV-
3342."

On March 23, 2005, the Court appointed Central Laborers' Pension
Fund as lead plaintiff and appointed lead counsel.  Pursuant to
the parties' agreed scheduling order, lead plaintiff filed its
amended complaint on June 6, 2005.  The amended complaint
alleges that defendants violated Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making materially false and
misleading statements during the proposed class period of
November 10, 2003 to August 13, 2004.

Specifically, the amended complaint alleges that defendants
misrepresented the Company's financial condition in 2003 and
2004 as evidenced by the restatement, violated generally
accepted accounting principles, and misrepresented the
sufficiency of the Company's internal controls so that they
could engage in insider trading at artificially-inflated prices,
retain their positions at the Company, and obtain a $175 million
credit facility for the Company.

On August 5, 2005, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint for failure to state a claim. The defendants argued
that the amended complaint fails to allege fraud with
particularity as required by Rule 9(b) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure and fails to satisfy the heightened pleading
requirements for securities fraud class actions under the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Specifically,
defendants argue that the amended complaint does not allege
fraud with particularity as to numerous GAAP violations and
opinion statements about internal controls, fails to raise a
strong inference that defendants acted knowingly or with severe
recklessness, and includes vague and conclusory allegations from
confidential witnesses without a proper factual basis.  The lead
plaintiff will have 45 days to respond and defendants will have
21 days to file a reply.

The suit styled "In re Integrated Electrical Services, Inc.
Securities Litigation, No. 4:04-CV-3342" is pending in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York under Judge Melinda Harmon.  Representing the Company is
Fraser A. McAlpine, Akin Gump et al, 1111 Louisiana St, 44th
Floor Houston, TX 77002, Phone: 713-250-8129, Fax: 713-236-0822
E-mail: fmcalpine@akingump.com.  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) Brian Felgoise, 230 South Broad Street, Suite 404 ,
         Philadelphia, PA, 19102, Phone: 215.735.6810, Fax:
         215/735.5185,

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

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

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

     (6) Federman & Sherwood, 120 North Robinson, Suite 2720,
         Oklahoma City, OK, 73102, Phone: 405-235-1560, E-mail:
         wfederman@aol.com

     (7) Hoeffner & Bilek, LLP, 440 Louisiana - Suite 720,
         Houston, TX, 77002, Phone: 713.227.7720,

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

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

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


INTEGRATED ELECTRICAL: Unit Faces EEOC Race, Sex Bias Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
One of Integrated Electrical Services, Inc.'s wholly-owned
subsidiaries faces a lawsuit filed on March 10, 2005 by Cynthia
People alleging thirteen causes of action including employment,
race and sex discrimination as well as claims for fraud,
intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence and
conversion.  On each claim plaintiff is demanding $5-10 million
in compensatory damages; $10-20 million in punitive damages;
attorneys’ fees and costs.

This action was filed after the local office of the Equal
Employment Opportunities Commission (EEOC) terminated their
process and issued plaintiff a right to sue per her request.  
The Company intends to vigorously contest any claims of
wrongdoing in this matter and does not believe the claimed
damages bear any likelihood of being found in this case.
However, because this case is in its early stages, it is
premature to predict liability or estimate damages, if any.


KING PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Shareholder Derivative, Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
King Pharmaceuticals, Inc. continues to face a consolidated
amended shareholder derivative and class action lawsuit filed in
Tennessee state court, alleging a breach of fiduciary duty,
among other things, by some of the Company's officers and
directors.

Several derivative suits were initially filed and later
consolidated and amended to include class action claims.  On
October 26, 2004, all of the defendants named in this action
filed an answer to the amended consolidated derivative and class
action complaint. Discovery in this action has commenced. No
trial date has been set.

Another purported class action complaint was filed on August 16,
2004 in Tennessee state court against the Company and the
members of the Company's board of directors. This new case
largely asserts substantially the same claims and seeks the same
relief as the class action claim that was recently added to the
state derivative action described above.  Defendants in that
action filed a motion to dismiss on November 30, 2004; that
motion is pending and no hearing date has been set.


KING PHARMACEUTICALS: TN Court Dismisses ERISA Violations Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Tennessee dismissed the class action field against King
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., alleging violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

As amended, the complaint alleges that the Company and certain
of its executive officers, former executive officers, directors,
former directors and an employee of the Company violated
fiduciary duties that they allegedly owed the Company's 401(k)
Retirement Savings Plan's participants and beneficiaries under
ERISA.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the ERISA action on
March 5, 2004.  The District Court Judge referred the motion to
a Magistrate Judge for a report and recommendation. On
December 8, 2004, the Magistrate Judge held a hearing on this
motion, and, on December 10, 2004, he recommended that the
District Court Judge dismiss the action.  The District Court
Judge accepted the recommendation and dismissed the case on
February 4, 2005. The plaintiffs have not appealed this
decision, and the deadline for filing any appeal has now passed.


MEDTRONIC INC.: $500M Suit Commenced in Canada Over Faulty ICDs
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit seeking approximately $500 million in
damages was commenced against Medtronic, Inc. and Medtronic of
Canada Ltd. ("Medtronic"), a global manufacturer of medical
products.

On February 10, 2005, Medtronic acknowledged that a potential
battery-shorting problem may result in rapid battery depletion
in certain of its implantable cardiac defibrillators ("ICDs")
and cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillators (CRT-Ds).
If the battery in the ICD or CRT-D shorts out, the device loses
function and cannot deliver the therapy required if the user
develops potentially life-threatening arrhythmias. To replace
the battery, the device must be surgically removed. Only ICDs
and CRT-Ds manufactured between April 2001 and December 2003 are
affected. To date, 13,000 people worldwide have had the devices
surgically removed.

ICDs are implantable devices that treat rapid, life-threatening
heart rhythm disturbances originating in the lower chambers of
the heart that can lead to sudden cardiac arrest. CRT-Ds are
implantable devices used to treat heart failure and life-
threatening heart rhythm disturbances.

The plaintiffs allege that Medtronic implemented battery design
changes in December 2003 that corrected the problem, but
continued to market and sell existing inventory of ICDs and CRT-
Ds and failed to disclose the problem to medical professionals,
patients and the regulatory authorities until February, 2005.

Brian Foote of Windsor, Ontario, Rhonda Lynn Lo Monaco of
London, Ontario and Francine Norovzi of Toronto, Ontario
commenced the lawsuit on behalf of all persons implanted in
Canada with one of the affected Medtronic devices that may be
subject to the battery-shorting problem.

The plaintiffs are represented by Harvey T. Strosberg, Q.C. of
Sutts, Strosberg LLP, a Windsor, ON law firm and Joel Rochon of
Rochon Genova LLP, a Toronto, ON law firm. Both law firms
specialize in class action lawsuits.

The notice of action, which sets out the particulars of the
allegations in the action, may be reviewed at
http://www.medtronic-classaction.com.

For more details, contact Harvey T. Strosberg, Q.C., Sutts,
Strosberg, LLP, Phone: (519) 561-6285 or 1-800-229-5323, ext.
8285, Fax: (519) 561-6203, E-mail: harvey@strosbergco.com, Web
site: http://www.strosbergco.comOR Joel Rochon of Rochon  
Genova, LLP, Phone: (416) 363-1867 or 1-866-881-2292, Fax:
(416) 363-0263, E-mail: jrochon@rochongenova.com, Web site:
http://www.rochongenova.com.


NEW YORK: Distributors Sues Publisher, Alleges Pyramid Scheme
-------------------------------------------------------------
A South Setauket man who launched a free weekly magazine called
TV Time was recently sued by 20 of his distributors, who alleged
that the venture was a pyramid scheme, which bilked them and
others out of more than $1million, The Newsday reports.

The suit, which was filed recently in State Supreme Court in
Nassau and seeks class action status, alleges that Anthony Conte
used "high-pressure tactics, trickery" and the "false
representation that he was running out of [delivery] routes" to
lure the distributors into paying as much as tens of thousands
of dollars each for exclusive rights to deliver TV Time.
However, according to the suit, Mr. Conte schemed to "use the
funds derived from later investors for his own personal use and
to keep the scheme afloat by making minor payments owed to
printers and the initial investors for delivery of TV Time."

Manhattan attorney Roger Bernstein, who represents Mr. Conte
denied the claims saying, "The business was properly run and was
run in good faith, and there's every reason to be confident the
allegations in the lawsuit will be rejected." Mr. Bernstein
though declined to comment further because, according to him,
Mr. Conte had not yet been served with the suit.

According to the distributors' suit, while distributors haven't
received copies of TV Time since April, Mr. Conte, in a series
of letters, e-mails and phone calls, blamed the magazine's
problems on various entities, including the distributors and
Newsday.

Just recently, Mr. Conte called a Newsday reporter who was
working on a story about TV Time since June, demanding that he
reveal sources and threatening legal action. Mr. Conte though
declined in that phone call to comment on the distributors'
suit.  In previous e-mails and letters, he has alleged that two
of the distributors sought to extort money from him.  Newsday
spokesman Stu Vincent stated, "This is a dispute that Newsday
has nothing to do with. It's a dispute between Conte" and
distribution agents, some of whom also distribute Newsday."

In May and June e-mails, which are included as exhibits in the
suit, Mr. Conte blamed late payments and other TV Time problems
on printing issues and "a significant shortfall in the timely
receipt of revenues."

Joseph Giaimo, a Queens-based attorney representing the
distributors called the Conte case unprecedented. Noting that
he'd alerted authorities to the claims, Mr. Giaimo told Newsday,
"I've been practicing law 45 years, and I've never seen such an
obvious and profound fraud committed upon hardworking, blue-
collar workers who in some cases poured their life savings into
a nonexisting TV guide."

In making its allegations, the suit alludes to Mr. Conte's 1994
conviction of a "federal crime." According to court records, Mr.
Conte pleaded guilty to a federal bank fraud charge in 1994 and,
after a period of cooperation, was sentenced to a year's
probation. He was later sentenced to four months in prison for
violating the terms of probation.

Mr. Bernstein though, who was his lawyer for the federal case
told the Newsday, "The bank matter was years ago. It was
completely unrelated to - and entirely dissimilar from - a
newspaper distribution business."

The distributors' suit accuses Mr. Conte of using legally
dissolved, nonexisting corporations to launch an entity called i
Media Corporation of Melville, to "give the appearance that he
was a legitimate publisher engaged in a successful business."   
The suit also alleges that Mr. Conte recruited distributors
through newspaper and Internet ads promising the free weekly
would earn them "a minimum" of $600 a week. However, the suit
charges that Mr. Conte failed to deliver the full supply of
magazines and failed to pay a significant portion of delivery
fees. Distributors named in the suit are owed nearly $270,000 in
back delivery fees, it adds.

TV Time failed, according to the suit, "because [Mr. Conte]
never had a single paid advertisement and he had no funds to pay
printing costs or delivery fees."  It also charges that Mr.
Conte failed to tell distributors that, during the time he was
signing up distributors, he had filed a personal bankruptcy
petition. While telling distributors he was the "designer" of TV
Time, the suit claims he "illegally copied and duplicated"
photographs from Newsday. And while giving the impression that
he had an office and staff, according to the suit, Mr. Conte
paid for hourly use of a "small cubicle-sized space" and had "no
support staff, no employees, no telephone service . and no
office furniture."  Finally, the distributors' suit charges that
Mr. Conte went through a series of printers of TV Time from
Atlanta to Quebec, and that he still owes one of them $33,000.


NEW YORK: Energy Department Sued For Failing Energy Standards
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wisconsin Attorney General Peg Lautenschlager stated that a
coalition of 14 states and the City of New York are suing the
federal Department of Energy for failing to adopt stronger
energy-saving standards mandated by Congress for twenty-two
common appliances that use large amounts of electricity, natural
gas and oil.

"The Administration's failure to act on these standards will
have a devastating effect on Wisconsin consumers as we head
toward winter," Ms. Lautenschlager said.  "With fuel prices
rocketing out of control and other energy costs rising, it's
critical we demand enforcement of the energy efficiency
standards as soon as possible."

The efficiency standards sought by the lawsuit, according to the
federal government's own numbers, would generate substantial
savings for consumers and reduce air pollution and global
warming emissions from power plants.

The United States Congress directed the Department of Energy to
strengthen efficiency standards for a wide range of household
and commercial products, including furnaces, water heaters,
clothes washers, dryers, air conditioners, dishwashers, heat
pumps, motors, ranges, ovens and lamps.

Ms. Lautenschlager said that while the updated energy saving
standards for each appliance type were to be adopted by specific
dates, the Department of Energy is six to thirteen years behind
schedule, and has not adopted any appliance efficiency standards
since January 2001.

The appliance efficiency standards capitalize on improved
technology and require that the covered appliances use less
electricity, gas or oil while providing the same or improved
levels of service and reliability. In the past, both the federal
government and industry have agreed that efficiency standards
are among the fairest and most cost-effective way to reduce the
use of energy.

Energy efficiency experts estimate that existing federal
appliance efficiency standards will save U.S. consumers nearly
$200 billion in lower energy costs by 2030 -- about $2,000 per
household.

The new and strengthened standards that Congress required and
that the states are suing to implement would vastly increase
those savings.

The energy savings, over time, will be equal to the total amount
used by all American households over a one-to-three year span.
Electricity savings alone would be equal to the output of
approximately 30-80 large power plants per year, using
Department of Energy estimates of potential savings.

The states wrote to the Department of Energy on July 1, 2005,
requesting that it comply with the law and commit to a binding
schedule for the establishment of stronger efficiency standards.
They alerted the agency that without such a schedule, the states
would commence federal litigation. To date, the Department of
Energy has not responded to the letter.

The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court,
Southern District of New York. It is available on the Wisconsin
Department of Justice Website at:
http://www.doj.state.wi.us/news/nr090705_PL-DOEcomplaint.pdf.  

Parties to the suit include: New York Attorney General Eliot
Spitzer; California Attorney General Bill Lockyer; Connecticut
Attorney General Richard Blumenthal; Illinois Attorney General
Lisa Madigan; Iowa Attorney General Thomas J. Miller; Maine
Attorney General G. Steven Rowe; Massachusetts Attorney General
Thomas F. Reilly; New Hampshire Attorney General Kelly A.
Ayotte; New Jersey Attorney General Peter C. Harvey; New Mexico
Attorney General Patricia A. Madrid; Pennsylvania Dept. Of
Environmental Protection Commissioner Kathleen McGinty; Rhode
Island Attorney General Patrick C. Lynch; Vermont Attorney
General William H. Sorrell; Wisconsin Attorney General Peggy A.
Lautenschlager; and The City of New York.


ORCHID ISLAND: Recalls Orange Juice For Salmonella Contamination
----------------------------------------------------------------
As a precautionary measure, Orchid Island Juice Company of Fort
Pierce, Florida, is voluntarily recalling fresh squeezed (only)
orange juice with an expiration code date of 9/15/05 thru
9/22/05, because it has the potential to be contaminated with
Salmonella, an organism that can cause serious and sometimes
fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and
others with weakened immune systems. Otherwise healthy
individuals may suffer short-term symptoms such as high fever,
severe headache, vomiting, nausea, abdominal pain and diarrhea.
Long-term complications can include severe arthritis.

Orchid Island Juice Company distributes fresh squeezed orange
juice in the following states: Connecticut, Delaware, Florida,
Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Maine,
Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, New
Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia,
Washington, D.C., West Virginia, and Wisconsin. Consumers may
have purchased or consumed the product through retail or
foodservice establishments such as restaurants, hotels, resorts,
or country clubs.

Orchid Island Juice Company's fresh squeezed (only) orange juice
can be identified by the Natalie's Orchid Island Juice Company
label as well as Albritton Fruit, Nino Salvaggio, Balducci's,
Gourmet Garage, Zabar's and Ultimate label. Orange juice is sold
in gallon, half gallon, quart, pint, 12 oz, and 8 oz sizes. The
containers are made of plastic and are clear in color so the
orange juice is visible. This recall is for only fresh squeezed
orange juice product with an expiration date code of 9/15/05
thru 9/22/05.

A concern was noted after routine testing by the company
revealed the potential to be contaminated with salmonella. No
illnesses have been reported associated with this recall.

The company will temporarily delicately pasteurize all their
fresh squeezed products until the new season 2005-2006 Florida
fruit is available.

Consumers who have purchased fresh squeezed (only) orange juice
distributed by Orchid Island Juice Company with the specific
code dates should throw the juice away and return just the
container to the store of purchase for a full refund. Consumers
with questions may contact Orchid Island Juice Company directly
at 772-465-1122.

PRAXAIR INC.: Lawsuit Launched in MO Over June 24 Fire, Cleanup
---------------------------------------------------------------
A business owner and downtown loft resident initiated a lawsuit
seeking class action status in St. Louis Circuit Court against
Praxair, Inc. (NYSE: PX) over the explosive, hours-long fire in
June that left debris scattered around the city, including some
that contained asbestos, The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports.

The suit, filed by Bruce Hopson and David Bruno, alleges that
the June 24 explosions and fire released asbestos fibers
throughout the city and that the Danbury, Connecticut-based firm
failed to adequately notify the public. By seeking class action
status, it could eventually include as many as 5,000 residents
and business owners, according to one of the lawyers who filed
the suit, David Dolan.  Mr. Dolan told The St. Louis Post-
Dispatch that Mr. Bruno is a building owner in the Locust
business district while Mr. Hopson is a resident in the downtown
loft district.

The suit also alleges that Praxair "carelessly and recklessly
generated, handled, stored, treated, disposed of and failed to
control and contain the asbestos and other substances generated
at the PDI plant, resulting in the release of asbestos and toxic
substances."  In addition, it also charges that Praxair said
publicly that it had hired a contractor to clean the three
blocks around the property, then expanded the cleanup without
public notice and conducted cleanups in the middle of the night
"in no apparent uniform, organized and/or systematic manner."

Mr. Dolan told The St. Louis Post-Dispatch that the suit is not
intended to imply that Praxair was intentionally concealing
information or trying to avoid responsibility. He pointed out,
"The purpose of the lawsuit is to ensure that everybody's
interests are being protected and the cleanup is being done
correctly and completely."

Praxair spokesman Nigel Muir though told The St. Louis Post-
Dispatch that he was unaware of the lawsuit and could not
comment on it. He also said that the Praxair site is 95 percent
cleaned up and added that the firm also finished cleaning up
debris in surrounding areas, with the exception of areas where
property owners have not given Praxair permission.  Debris from
the explosions and fires was blown north, away from residential
areas, according to Mr. Muir. He also told The St. Louis Post-
Dispatch that Praxair, the Missouri Department of Natural
Resources and the St. Louis Division of Air Pollution Control
have identified the area affected by the debris plume as a
roughly triangular, 193-acre area.

Sandra Knepp, bureau chief of environmental health services for
the St. Louis Health Department, told The St. Louis Post-
Dispatch that the city is certifying the cleanup work as Praxair
completes each area. However, she stated that she couldn't say
how much of the affected area has been cleaned up.

The suit, which names Praxair, Praxair Distribution and Chouteau
facility manager Jeffrey Grimes, seeks more than $25,000 for
testing and remediation and punitive damages.


RCN CORPORATION: Faces Consolidated ERISA Litigation in NJ Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
RCN Corporation faces a consolidated class action filed in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey,
styled "In re: RCN Corporation ERISA Litigation, case no. 04-CV-
5068 (SRC)."

On May 16, 2005, a consolidated class action was filed against
the Company and certain of its current and former directors,
officers, employee administrators and managers, as well as
Merrill Lynch Trust Company, FSB, as defendants for alleged
violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974 (ERISA).  The suit seeks recovery of unspecified money
damages for the benefit of a purported class of participants and
beneficiaries of the RCN Savings And Stock Ownership Plan (the
"Savings Plan") as a result of the defendants' breaches of their
fiduciary duties under ERISA.  No motion for class certification
has been filed by Plaintiffs.  The litigation is subject to
certain limitations ordered by the Bankruptcy Court.

Previously, on September 22, 2004, former employee Deborah K.
Craig, on behalf of the Savings Plan and its participants and
beneficiaries, filed a Motion For Leave To File Proof Of Claim
(the "Late Claim Motion"), seeking to assert a claim against the
Company, after the claims bar date of August 11, 2004, for
alleged violations of ERISA to recover alleged losses similar to
those alleged in the suit.  

On October 5, 2004, Ms. Craig filed a purported class action
complaint against certain fiduciaries of the Savings Plan within
the meaning of ERISA in a lawsuit captioned "Craig v.
Filipowicz, et al., Case No. 04-cv-07875 (JSR) (S.D.N.Y.),"
which was subsequently transferred to the District of New
Jersey, with a new Case No. 04-cv-05940 (SRC) (D.N.J.).

On November 3, 2004, the Bankruptcy Court issued an order
denying the Late Claim Motion in its entirety, which Ms. Craig
appealed to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.  On December 20, 2004, Ms. Craig sought
from the Bankruptcy Court limited relief (the "Injunction Relief
Motion"), for the benefit of herself and all other similarly
situated beneficiaries of the Savings Plan, from the injunction
issued by the Bankruptcy Court's order confirming the Plan for
the purpose of naming the Company as a nominal defendant in the
NJ Action.

On February 16, 2005, Ms. Craig filed a motion on the NJ Action
docket to have the NJ Action consolidated with certain other
related actions.  On March 18, 2005, the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York issued an order
affirming the Late Claim Order.  On April 1, 2005, the
Bankruptcy Court entered an order (the "Injunction Relief
Order") granting the Injunction Relief Motion to the extent that
Ms. Craig and all other similarly situated parties
(collectively, the "Plaintiffs") are permitted to name the
Company as a nominal defendant in the pending Consolidated
Action and the Plaintiffs may enforce any judgment obtained
against the Company solely against any applicable insurance
companies and only up to limits of any applicable insurance
coverage, to the extent such coverage is available. The
Injunction Relief Order does not prevent the Plaintiffs from
pursuing litigation claims against others, including current or
former directors, officers, employees, partners, members, or
managers (collectively, the "Third Parties") of the Company or
any other reorganized debtor and collecting in full any judgment
Plaintiffs may obtain against such Third Parties. As an express
condition to the entry of the Injunctive Relief Order, Ms. Craig
waived any right of further appeal the denial of the Late Claim
Order.  Subsequently, Plaintiffs filed the Class Action
Complaint in the ERISA Litigation to pursue their remedies
against the Company, subject to the limitations imposed by the
Bankruptcy Court, and additional Third Parties.

The suit is styled "THOMAS v. MCCOURT et al., case no. 3:04-cv-
05068-SRC-TJB," filed in the United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey, under Judge Stanley R. Chesler.  
Representing the Company is Peter Michael Avery, PROSKAUER ROSE
LLP, One Newark Center, Newark NJ 07102, Phone: 973-274-3223, E-
mail: pavery@proskauer.com.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Lisa J. Rodriguez, TRUJILLO RODRIGUEZ & RICHARDS, LLP,
         8 Kings Highway West, Haddonfield NJ 08033, Phone:
         (856) 795-9002, E-mail: lisa@trrlaw.com

     (2) Ronen Sarraf, SARRAF GENTILE, LLP, 485 Seventh Avenue,
         Suite 1005, New York, NY 10018, Phone: (212) 868-3610,
         Fax: (212) 918-7967

     (3) Gary S. Graifman, KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN,
         ESQS., 210 Summit Avenue, Montvale, NJ 07645, Phone:
         (201) 391-7000, E-mail: ggraifman@kgglaw.com


REALNETWORKS INC.: Reaches Settlement For WA Consumer Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Realnetworks, Inc. reached a settlement for the consumer class
action filed against it in Washington State Court, alleging
causes of action based on the Washington Consumer Protection Act
and unjust enrichment.  

In March 2003, William Cirignani filed the suit, alleging that
consumers who attempted to download or purchase certain of the
Company's products and services were fraudulently and
deceptively enrolled in, and prevented from canceling, the
Company's subscription services.  The plaintiff seeks
compensatory damages, equitable relief in the form of an order
prohibiting the alleged false and deceptive practices, treble
damages and other relief. The parties reached a confidential
settlement in June 2005 and the case was dismissed with
prejudice.  


TRIPATH TECHNOLOGY: Langley Partners File Suit V. Stock Purchase
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tripath Technology, Inc. faces a securities class action filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York by Langley Partners, L.P.  The suit was filed on or
about June 2, 2005 against the Company, Dr. Adya Tripathi, the
Company's President and Chief Executive Officer, and David
Eichler, the Company's former Chief Financial Officer.

The plaintiff alleges that it entered into a stock purchase
agreement with the Company on or about August 2, 2004 in which
Langley purchased 1 million shares of Company common stock at a
purchase price of $2.00 per share. Langley also alleges that it
consented to the receipt of the Company's Prospectus dated
August 2, 2004 and the accompanying Prospectus dated June 1,
2004 which specifically incorporated certain of the Company's
filings with the SEC from March through July 2004.

The complaint generally alleges that the Company and the
individual defendants made materially false and misleading
statements with respect to the Company's financial results and
with respect to its business, prospects, internal accounting
controls and design wins on Godzilla products in the Company's
filings with the SEC, press releases and other documents. The
complaint alleges claims against the Company and the individual
defendants for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act, fraud, breach of contract, unjust enrichment and
money had and received, rescission and violations of Sections 11
and 15 of the Securities Act.  On this basis, the complaint
seeks unspecified compensatory damages and restitution in an
amount in excess of $2 million, rescission of the purchase
agreement and a return of $2 million, unspecified punitive
damages, costs and such other relief as may be awarded by the
Court.

On July 12, 2005, the Company served a motion to transfer this
action from the Southern District of New York to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California on
plaintiff. The Company filed this motion with the Court on July
20, 2005. This motion has not yet been fully briefed. On June
29, 2005, the Court entered a stipulation and order extending
the time for all defendants to respond to the complaint until
August 2, 2005. On July 28, 2005, the Court entered a further
stipulation and proposed order extending the time for all
defendants to respond to the complaint until 14 days after the
Court's ruling on the motion to transfer or 40 days after all
briefing on the motion to transfer is filed, whichever is
earlier. A Pre-Trial Conference is scheduled before the Court on
August 25, 2005.


WASHINGTON: A.G. to Assist in Inquiry Over Escalating Gas Prices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Attorney General Rob McKenna stated that while the Attorney
General's Office has not seen any activity by Washington
gasoline suppliers or retailers that would warrant taking legal
action, his office will assist with a national inquiry into the
causes of escalating gas prices.

"As part of our active effort to monitor the gas market, both
here and nationally," Mr. McKenna announced, "we will
participate in an inquiry by attorneys general throughout the
country to determine the reasons behind gas price increases,
particularly in areas surrounding the Gulf Coast. So far,
however, we have seen no evidence that Washington gas producers
or retailers are violating state consumer protection or anti-
trust laws."

"With prices reaching record highs, it's understandable that
drivers are feeling frustrated," Mr. McKenna continued. "In
light of the Hurricane Katrina disaster, drivers should conserve
as much as possible - and consumers and businesses need to show
restraint. Rushing to the station to fill up actually increases
demand and can create the anticipation of a shortage, which, in
turn, can further spike prices."

"The Attorney General's Office will continue to closely watch
the gas market and will take action against any company that
engages in illegal business practices," he said.


ZEON CORPORATION: KY Subsidiary Settles Rubber Price-Fixing Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Japan's Zeon Corporation stated that its Kentucky subsidiary
would pay $16 million to settle a U.S. damages suit over an
alleged price-fixing for a synthetic rubber product, The Jiji
Press reports.

Court documents revealed that Zeon and wholly owned Zeon
Chemicals, LP, were sued along with other firms in a class
action by purchasers of acrylonitrile-butadiene rubber, which is
used to make automotive parts, hoses, belting, cables, seals and
adhesives.

According to the company, the class action will be over upon a
federal court authorization of the out-of-court settlement. Zeon
also stated that the damages payment would be booked as a
special group loss for the six months ending on September 30.



                        Asbestos Alerts


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PPL Subsidiaries Charged in Asbestos Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Several PPL Corporation (NYSE: PPL) generation and energy
services subsidiaries, such as those that have supplied, may
have supplied or installed asbestos material relating to the
repair or installation of process piping and heating,
ventilating and air conditioning systems, have been named as
defendants in asbestos-related lawsuits.

The power utility Company cannot predict the outcome of these
lawsuits or whether additional claims may be asserted against
its subsidiaries in the future. PPL does not expect that the
resolution of the current lawsuits will have a material adverse
effect on its results of operations.

Based in Allentown, Pennsylvania, PPL Corporation controls about
12,000 megawatts of generating capacity in the United States,
sells energy in major US markets, and delivers electricity to
nearly 5 million customers in Pennsylvania, the United Kingdom
and Latin America.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Death Risk Higher in Kubota Plant Proximity
----------------------------------------------------------------
Norio Kurumatani, a Nara Medical University industrial
epidemiology expert, states that the risk of dying from
mesothelioma is 9.5 times higher than the Japanese national
average among people residing within 500 meters of the old
Kubota Corp asbestos plant in Amagasaki, Hyogo Prefecture, The
Japan Times reports.

Moreover, Mr. Kurumatani added that the risk is 4.7 times higher
than the national average among residents living between 500
meters and 1 kilometer from the Amagasaki plant.

When Kubota declared in late June that 79 employees had died of
asbestos-linked diseases, Mr. Kurumatani and his research team
began studying residents' health problems near the plant. The
team concluded that of 55 patients studied, 46 contracted the
disease after inhaling asbestos fibers that had aerially drifted
from the plant to nearby areas.

Forty-one of the 46 patients had died, 15 of them before 2000
and the remaining 26 after 2000. Of the 26 deceased, six lived
within 500 meters of the plant and the rest further away.

The six deaths in the 500-meter area of the Amagasaki plant
means the risk is 9.5 times higher than the national average,
Mr. Kurumatani said.

The average mortality rate from mesothelioma, a rare type of
asbestos-related cancer, over the past six years in an area
within a 500-meter radius is 0.63.

An average of about 880 people die of mesothelioma each year
throughout Japan, Mr. Kurumatani added.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cement-Asbestos Tiles Still Used in Japan
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tile manufacturers state that up to five million Japanese homes
still use cement-asbestos roofing tiles, The Japan Times
reports.

The revelation could force the Japanese Government and housing
industries to take further preventive measures. Experts say the
roofing tiles can scatter asbestos when damaged or demolished.

The Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry said it is inquiring
how much asbestos-containing construction materials have been
produced in the past.

The cement-asbestos products were popular because they weigh
less than the traditional clay-made Japanese-style roof tiles
and caused less damage to houses during earthquakes.

The cement tiles contain 25% asbestos, manufacturers said,
adding that asbestos-free tiles are the ones currently
manufactured.

Among the roof tile manufacturers were Kubota Corp, which
produced tiles between 1961 and 2001, and Matsushita Electric
Works Group between 1971 and 2003.

Kubota Matsushitadenko Exterior Works Ltd, a company created in
2003 through a Kubota and Matsushita tie-up, said the two
companies sold about 600 million square meters of cement-
asbestos roofing tiles. Other manufacturers like Daiken Corp and
Yamato Slate both said they had produced or sold such tiles.

Asbestos has been widely used in other construction materials,
such as exterior walls. An industry insider calculates that
asbestos-containing products have been used in some form in
about 70% of Japan's houses.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CA Widow Gets $30T for False Asbestos Alarm
----------------------------------------------------------------
In an Orange County Superior Court settlement, Seal Beach
Leisure World resident Erika Furlong-Swenson, 65, receives
nearly US$30,000 in damages after suing the retirement community
for an erroneous asbestos alarm causing her to lose basically
all her belongings, The Los Angeles Times reports.

Under the terms of the settlement, Leisure World will pay Mrs.
Furlong-Swenson US$5,000 and remove a lien for US$4,995 that was
placed on her apartment's cleanup bill, said her attorney, David
Wayne Williams. The cleanup company, Alliance Environmental
Group Inc, is to pay Mrs. Furlong-Swenson US$19,000.

In January 2003, Mrs. Furlong-Swenson's and a neighbor's,
Hildegard Zeller, apartments sustained smoke damage from a fire
in an adjacent unit. Leisure World officials informed the widows
that the fire had caused their units to be contaminated with
asbestos, which turned out to be false.

However, after cleanup crews disposed of the widows' belongings,
Leisure World billed them for cleanup costs: US$4,995 for Mrs.
Furlong-Swenson and US$2,475 for Mrs. Zeller.

Mrs. Furlong-Swenson sued in 2004 while Mrs. Zeller did not
pursue her case in court.

Neither the Golden Rain Foundation - the community's elected
governing body - nor Alliance admitted wrongdoing.

"I'm glad it is over with," Mrs. Furlong-Swenson said. "It's
been a long 2 1/2 years."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: SRE, SDG&E Charged for Abatement Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
The San Diego County Air Pollution Control District and
Department of Environmental Health filed a lawsuit against
Sempra Energy (NSYE: SRE) and its subsidiary, San Diego Gas &
Electric Co, for violating asbestos-abatement laws and is also
seeking civil penalties that could exceed US$1 million, The San
Diego Daily Transcript reports.

The lawsuit alleged that Sempra and SDG&E did not properly
remove asbestos materials found in the protective wrap of 9.23
miles of buried pipes, possibly forcing the asbestos in the air,
during a 2001 cleanup of Lemon Grove's Encanto Gas Holder
Station site.

In a statement, SDG&E said San Diego County advised the public
during the project that the "site is safe" and that there was no
evidence of asbestos discharge. The Company added it retained
qualified experts to decommission the facility and handled
asbestos-containing materials properly, safely and in compliance
with the law.

Health and Safety Code fines could range from US$10,000 per day,
per violation to as high as US$75,000 per day, per violation,
Laurie Orange, a senior deputy in the San Diego County Counsel
Office, said.

Ms. Orange added that the materials were sent improperly off the
site, violating hazardous waste laws, which could cost an
additional $25,000 per violation.

According to the county, asbestos can lead to cancer and
respiratory diseases if inhaled. A county release asserted the
pipe-stripping work was performed next to a residential
community, and that several residents already have expressed
concern about any health risks they might face from the work.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PEOSHA Inspection Reveals Basement Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nathan Rudy, Public Employees Occupational Safety and Health
spokesperson, states that a confidential PEOSHA inspection in
May of the Silver Lake Firehouse in Belleville, New Jersey
confirmed asbestos contamination in the firehouse's basement,
The Observer reports.

Fire Chief Robert Caruso warned firehouse personnel to use
caution if and when they needed to go down to the basement. He
added that the existence of asbestos, however, does not affect
operations in any way. He said the basement is used only for hot
water heater maintenance and no equipment is ever stored down
there.

Captain Thomas Grande, who contended that operations would
continue to run normally, said the warning had not incited any
of firefighters to undergo health exams.   

As of press time, it was not known whether an investigation is
underway for the time frame between inspections, and whether or
not the asbestos has caused any health problems among fire
personnel.     

According to Mr. Caruso, there had been a similar inspection
about eight to 10 years ago through the local health department.
He would not address the results of the initial inspection.   


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MDR Deal Bolsters Other Firms in Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shares of companies facing asbestos exposure litigation surged
after energy services company McDermott International Inc (NYSE:
MDR) came to a revised settlement with asbestos claimants groups
in the bankruptcy proceedings of subsidiary Babcock & Wilcox and
putting US$350 million in trust for the claimants, The Dow Jones
reports.

McDermott shares soared by US$6.68, or more than 26%, to
US$32.08. Other movers included W. R. Grace & Co. (NYSE: GRA),
up US$0.76 to US$10.45; Armstrong Holdings Inc. (OTC: ACKHQ),
higher by US$0.15 to US$2.65; Owens Corning (OTC: OWENQ), up
US$0.12 to US$5.15; and USG Corp. (NYSE: USG), climbing by 54
cents to US$61.22.

New Orleans, LA-based McDermott will also issue a US$250 million
promissory note and in exchange be released from all asbestos
claims related to Babcock & Wilcox.

Analysts said the settlement could at least US$9 a share to the
value of McDermott's shares.

A bill to reform asbestos litigation, establishing a US$140
billion fund financed industrial companies, would have to be
squeezed onto the Senate's schedule in a busy fall, according to
analysts.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: UK Devt. Fuels Residents' Fears in ERI Site
----------------------------------------------------------------
Residents living near the old Edinburgh Royal Infirmary call for
contractors to test their homes for asbestos contamination,
after it was confirmed asbestos was being removed from an old
laundry yards from their properties, the Evening News reports.

The site is being transformed into a new multi-million pound
residential area, called the Quartermile development, and it had
been known for months that asbestos would need to be disposed.
Southside Capital, the developer, has been forced to spend
around GBP11 million to rid the area of the material.

Work on the old laundry started last month. Contractors wearing
protective clothing and masks have been smashing rocks, causing
dust to fly in the air. However, nearby residents claim they
were not informed about the latest work.

Friends of the Earth Scotland said Southside Capital should
honor the request to test homes in the ERI area.

Southside Capital has been charged with a high clean-up bill for
the GBP400 million conversion of the old Edinburgh Royal
Infirmary because of widespread asbestos in the former hospital
buildings, and the age of drains, sewers and pipes on the site.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CA College Cited For Asbestos Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Air Pollution Control District cites Santa Barbara City
College for emission violations due to a remodeling project that
released asbestos into a building filled with office workers and
adds the agency could impose fines of up to US$25,000, The
Associated Press reports.

District director Terry Dressler said the agency cited the
college when asbestos-containing material was removed without
dust control at the campus' 60-year-old administration building
and for not notifying the agency about the project at least ten
days prior. The violations focused on asbestos-containing
ceiling tiles that were removed from the building's main
hallway.

Settlement talks are planned to ascertain the amount of fines,
up to US$1,000 for the advance-notice violation and up to
US$25,000 for negligence.

College president John Romo said "the project overall could have
been managed better."

"We will follow up with staff to see what we can learn from this
and put in place better procedures so things like this don't
happen again," Mr. Romo added.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tainted Soil Forces Aussie Park Closure
------------------------------------------------------------
The Environment Protection Authority shut down the Fairbairn
Motor Sports Park because of the illegal dumping of 1,600 tons
of asbestos-contaminated soil. The soil was noticed missing from
a holding yard at Mitchell.

The EPA traced the soil to the motor park where it has been used
in noise abatement mounds. David Butt, EPA acting director, says
the entire park is now closed as a safety precaution.

"At this stage our prime concern is to make sure that the whole
thing is secure and that there's no risk at all to the public
and we've done that," Mr. Butt said. "We'll then look at what
the options are for addressing or rectifying where the soil is
and then we'll be looking into how it got there and what the
circumstances were behind that."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: JPN Ministry to Cut Asbestos Allowable Rate   
----------------------------------------------------------------
Japan's Health, Labor and Welfare Ministry plans to decrease the
allowable minimum asbestos rate in construction materials from
1% to 0.1%, therefore tightening asbestos control, sources close
to the Ministry say.

The Government currently bans products containing more than 1%
asbestos, which is defined as dangerous to public health.
Materials containing less than 1% asbestos are regarded as "non-
asbestos products."

In 2003, the United Nations suggested the minimum allowable
workplace asbestos level be 0.1 fiber/cc. However, the
Government came under fire for not enforcing the recommendation.

In October 2004, the Ministry revised an ordinance to ban the
production, import and sale of products containing more than 1
fiber/cc of asbestos. The revision made it mandatory for
businesses to inform consumers when they sell products
containing asbestos, by attaching information indicating the
content of the carcinogenic substance.

Violators face maximum imprisonment of six months or a fine of
up to JPY500,000.

An ordinance, introduced in July, on the prevention of asbestos
diseases stipulated that measures should prevent the fallout of
asbestos from buildings being demolished, including the
obligatory use of protective suits for workers and sealing of
debris.

A Ministry official was protective of the promptness of the
Government's response, saying it was limited in its ability to
conduct inspections and asserted "regulations on products
containing less than 1% asbestos are senseless, since asbestos
is a naturally occurring mineral."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mesothelioma Rate Higher in Amagasaki City
---------------------------------------------------------------
Officials of Amagasaki, Hyogo Prefecture state that the number
of people who died in the city due to mesothelioma from 2002 to
2004 is more than five times higher than the Japanese national
average, The Asahi Shimbun reports.

Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare statistics showed that of
about 10,000 deaths in Amagasaki in 2002 to 2004, 50 were caused
by mesothelioma, city officials said. They added that the
results highlighted the high incidence of mesothelioma in
residents who lived near machinery manufacturer Kubota Corp.'s
former Kanzaki plant.

The deaths comprise about one-quarter of the 213 mesothelioma
victims recorded between 2002 and 2004 in Hyogo Prefecture,
which has a population of about 5.5 million residents, officials
added.

Amagasaki has a population of 460,000 residents with an average
of 3.6 deaths per 100,000 people annually. The figure is 5.2
times higher than the national average of 0.69 per 100,000
people recorded in 2003, when a total of 878 people died from
the disease.

Because the Ministry statistics, which show the date, time and
cause of death, only relate to those who died in Amagasaki, city
officials said the actual figure was likely to be far greater
when taking into account victims who moved out of the city.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kubota Addresses Key Asbestos Health Issues
----------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding matters related to the health hazard of asbestos,
which became an object of public concern in Japan, Kubota
Corporation (NYSE: KUB), declared its intention to act seriously
and faithfully for various issues of the asbestos health hazard.

In April 2005, an Amagasaki City Council member first advised
the Company that people living near the Company's former Kanzaki
Plant suffered from mesothelioma. On notice of that fact, the
Company held discussions with patients and their private support
group, being mindful of what the Company could and should do for
them as a manufacturer, which once made asbestos-containing
products.

The Company, which previously manufactured asbestos-containing
products for a long time, has decided to take the actions from
the view point of Corporate Social Responsibility.

Osaka, Japan-based Kubota Corporation, which dates to 1890, is
Japan's leading producer of tractors and farm equipment such as
rice transplanters and combine harvesters. The Company is also
the nation's leading manufacturer of iron ductile pipe used in
water-supply systems.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Japan Engages in Health Concern Measures
-------------------------------------------------------------
Fueled by the rising tide of asbestos-related deaths and
illnesses, Japan takes steps to address the current health
problem.

Firms authorized to conduct asbestos inspections have been
inundated with calls from companies and private citizens over
the summer.

There are over 600 companies and organizations that are licensed
to carry out inspections. However, they face the urgent task of
training people to handle the huge demand for their services.

Routine inspections cost about JPY15,000 a time.

Officials of the Japan Labor Health and Welfare Organization
launched asbestos consultation centers at 22 hospitals
nationwide. The sites were chosen for their proximity to the
country's top respiratory doctors.

Several officials are set to be available at the consultation
center at Yokohama Rosai Hospital.

"We have already received more applications for consultations
than expected," an official said. "I now understand that people
are worried about asbestos-causing illnesses and what their
expectations for hospitals are."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: US Sen. Hopes for October Asbestos Hearing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, a
Pennsylvania Republican, hopes that the US$140 billion Asbestos
Compensation Fund Bill would come to the US Senate during the
first week of October, Reuters reports.

Senator Specter noted that "a lot of variables are in play" as
Congress rewrites its agenda after Hurricane Katrina and
prepares for Supreme Court hearings. However, he added that he
thought chances were good the Senate would tackle the bill
before the chamber goes out on recess the week of Monday, Oct.
10.

Voted out by the Senate Judiciary Committee in May 2005, the
asbestos bill, which Senator Specter co-authored with Senator
Patrick Leahy, a Vermont Democrat, would stop asbestos injury
suits and pay the claims from a private fund instead.

Senators Specter and Leahy are also busy preparing for hearings
on Judge John G. Roberts' nomination to succeed William
Rehnquist, who died on September 3, 2005, as Chief Justice of
the United States.

Asbestos was used for insulation and fireproofing until the
1970s. Its fibers are linked to cancer and other diseases.
Asbestos-related injury claims have bankrupted dozens of
companies.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: T&N's Personal Injury Claims Set at US$9B
--------------------------------------------------------------
US District Judge Joseph H. Rodriguez of the District of
Delaware pegs the value of Turner & Newall Ltd's future
asbestos-related personal-injury claims in the United States at
US$9 billion.

The US$9 billion figure falls in a range suggested by the
personal-injury claimants' expert witness, who estimated T&N
would face between 700,000 and 1.1 million future personal-
injury claims.

Judge Rodriguez accepted the expert's uncontested appraisal of
about US$400 million for present and future injury claims in UK
courts and found less reliable the estimation methodology used
by the property claimants' witness and specifically discounted
the notion that tort-reform legislation pending in Congress will
drive down the costs of future personal-injury settlements.

Judge Rodriguez rejected a considerably lower US$2.5 billion
estimate proposed by a group of building owners who claim T&N's
fireproofing and insulation products damaged the buildings.

Acquired by Federal-Mogul in 1998, Turner & Newall Ltd once
manufactured a spray-on asbestos and cement mixture called
Limpet used for fireproofing and insulation in public and
commercial buildings in the United States from 1934 to 1974.

Three high-profile projects used Limpet during construction:
Chase Manhattan Plaza in New York, the Prudential Center in
Boston and the Central Terminal Building at New York's LaGuardia
International Airport, Judge Rodriguez noted.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: OC Continues Bankruptcy Exit Strategies
------------------------------------------------------------
Fiberglass and composite products manufacturer Owens Corning
(OTC: OWENQ) continues to meet with feuding bond, bank, and
asbestos claim creditors to discuss the framework of a new
bankruptcy-exit plan after a ruling by the 3rd US Circuit Court
of Appeals in Philadelphia upset the existing proposal, The
Toledo Blade reports.

The Court has given concerned parties to reply to a request for
a re-hearing on the issue of whether Owens Corning and its
subsidiaries should be treated as one company or separately. The
request came from Owens Corning's bondholders and a lawyer
representing future asbestos claimants' interests.

Lawyers in the case assert that the issue is vital because it
could prod to creditors an additional US$1 billion in new stock,
bonds, and cash the Company will distribute when it emerges from
Chapter 11 bankruptcy. They added that debt re-payment
guarantees made by subsidiaries on behalf of the parent company
in the late 1990s would have much greater value if the entities
were treated individually.

Hearing the case in Wilmington, Delaware's US Bankruptcy Court,
Judge Judith Fitzgerald may merely extend the deadline for
another six months as she has done repeatedly over the past five
years.

The banks have previously indicated they were disappointed with
management's handling of the Chapter 11 proceedings, asking
Judge Fitzgerald to appoint a trustee to take charge of the case
and end what they regard as the Company's bias in favor of
asbestos claimants.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Aid For Victims May Stall, TX Senator Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Senator John Cornyn, a Texas Republican, states that chances for
a Senate passage this year of a proposed bill to compensate
asbestos-exposure victims from a US$140 billion fund were hurt
by a report that the trust may not have enough funds to pay all
claims, the Los Angeles Times reports.

The report warned that the funds the compensation trust was to
collect from companies "could be significantly lower" than the
US$140 billion proposed in the legislation.

The Congressional Budget Office said claims to the fund over a
50-year period would range from US$120 billion to US$150
billion.

The US$140 billion Asbestos Compensation Fund aims to end
asbestos personal injury lawsuits that drove 77 companies into
bankruptcy.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: LFB Reports Positive Court Updates in 3Q05
---------------------------------------------------------------
Longview Fibre Company (NYSE: LFB) divulges in its 3rd quarter
report to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there have
been favorable developments in actions pending in Washington
courts.

In January 2003 the Company was subject to a complaint filed in
King County, Washington Superior Court and entitled Gerald
Shellenbarger v. Longview Fibre Company, et al. where plaintiffs
alleged that one of the Company's former employees was exposed
to asbestos when he worked at the Longview paper mill.

Plaintiffs further alleged that the Company was subject to civil
tort liability because it had actual knowledge of certain
injuries arising out of asbestos exposure and willfully
disregarded that knowledge.

In October 2003, the Court granted the Company's motion for
summary judgment on the basis that the Company was immune from a
civil lawsuit under Washington's workers' compensation law.

In November 2004, the Washington Court of Appeals (Division I)
affirmed the dismissal. The plaintiffs sought review of the
Court of Appeals decision by the Washington Supreme Court, but
the Supreme Court denied review of the case in July 2005.

In February 2004 the Company named as one of eight defendants in
a case filed in Cowlitz County, Washington Superior Court and
entitled Brent v. Weyerhaeuser Corp., et al. Among other
allegations, the plaintiff alleged that he suffers from an
asbestos-related lung disease as a result of his exposure to
asbestos during his work at the Longview mill as a carpenter's
apprentice for a third-party contractor.

In June 2005, the Washington Superior Court granted the
Company's motion for summary judgment.

The Longview, WA-based Company owns and operates tree farms, a
pulp and paper mill, and 15 converting plants in a dozen states.
Its paper mill and converting plants produce a broad range of
paper products, including craft paper, containerboard, and
converted products such as shipping containers. The Company is
considering converting itself into a real estate investment
trust (REIT).


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Met-Pro Attests Claims Are Without Merit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Met-Pro Corporation (NYSE: MPR) reports a significant increase
during the last several years in asbestos-related claims filed
in particular states on both a single plaintiff and on a mass
basis by large numbers of plaintiffs against a large number of
industrial companies including those in the pump and fluid
handling industries.

Beginning in 2002, the Company or one of its divisions began to
be named as one of many defendants in a number of such cases,
predominantly in Mississippi. The Company or the division has
also recently experienced an increase in the number of single
plaintiff asbestos cases filed against us and numerous other
industrial companies in two other states.

The allegations against the Company or the division are vague
but allege that the Company, or division, along with numerous
other defendants, sold unidentified asbestos-containing products
and engaged in other related actions which caused injuries and
loss to the plaintiffs.

The Company believes that these cases are without merit and that
none of its products were a cause of any injury or loss to any
of the plaintiffs. The Company or the division has resolved and
been dismissed from a number of these cases.

The Harleysville, PA-based Company does not presently believe
that these proceedings will have a material adverse impact upon
its results of operations, liquidity or financial condition.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bridgestone To Recall Bikes With Asbestos
--------------------------------------------------------------
Officials of Bridgestone Cycle Company discovered that about
19,500 bicycles for small children sold between October 2004 and
August 2005 in Japan were furnished with asbestos-lined
handbrake components that may violate Japan's industrial health
and safety laws, Kyodo News reports.

Bridgestone Cycle, an affiliate of tire maker Bridgestone
Corporation (OTC: BRDCY), will offer free exchanges.

The asbestos, used in the brake lining, poses little health risk
because the material is securely encased to prevent it from
flaking off and experience little wear and tear, even over long
periods of use, according to the Company.

The Company said it was investigating the exact content of
asbestos in its hand brakes, adding that the levels may have
violated an October 2004 health and safety regulation.

The Japanese government pledged earlier this summer to take
rapid measures to deal with a rising number of asbestos-related
health cases, with new studies putting the number of deaths from
the illnesses at over 500. Most victims had worked in asbestos
plants or factories with high asbestos levels.

The Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry said similar
problems might also exist in bicycles imported from China by
other companies, Kyodo News reported.


ASBESTOS ALERT: KY Court Affirms NB's Move for Summary Judgment
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Kentucky Court of Appeals on July 29, 2005 granted North
Brothers Company's (now known as National Services Industries,
Inc) motion for summary judgment against 2 appellants, Michael
Killebrew and Willis McCracken, on the basis that evidence
presented by the appellants failed to establish that either of
them were exposed to asbestos-containing products sold,
installed, or distributed by North Brothers.

Judges Michael Henry and Wilfrid Schroder with Judge Thomas
Emberton, as presiding judge, review the cases.
                      
Judge Emberton states that the appeals should be heard together
because they involve identical issues as to whether each case's
appellants produced enough proof in the development of asbestos-
related disease to withstand appellee's motions for summary
judgment.

Mr. Killebrew worked as an electrician and foreman at several
sites including the Tennessee Valley Authority's Paradise plant
in Drakesboro and its Shawnee plant in Paducah. He alleges that
he was injured due to asbestos found in products installed or
sold by appellee North Brothers while he was employed at the two
plants.  

Mr. Killebrew and several of his product identification
witnesses were unable to specify that North Brothers' insulation
work involved any asbestos-containing material at either site.

Mr. McCracken worked at numerous TVA sites including Shawnee in
Paducah, Paradise in Drakesboro, New Johnsonville in Tennessee,
and Widow's Creek in Alabama. He testified awareness of asbestos
products at the TVA plants but denied working directly with any
of them and could not identify any product or manufacturer to
which he may have been exposed.  

Kenneth Earle, a product identification witness of Mr.
McCracken, testified that while North Brothers was working in
the Paradise plant at the same time as Mr. McCracken, Mr. Earle
failed to state that North Brothers had been working at the
Shawnee plant the same time as Mr. McCracken.  

Both appellants do not dispute North Brothers' argument that in
order to prove liability they are required to demonstrate that
North Brothers' conduct was a factor in causing their injury.

Mr. Killebrew and Mr. McCracken point to the identification of
Dr. Arthur Frank stating that he would have testified concerning
asbestos exposure throughout their careers as a substantial
contributing factor in the development of their asbestos-related
disease, as well increased their risk of developing lung cancer
or mesothelioma.  

The judges found no evidence being produced in either case and
thus they find nothing in either record sufficient to bring the
element of legal causation from the realm of mere possibility
into probability.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


ARBINET-THEXCHANGE: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Suit in NJ
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C., initiated a lawsuit
seeking class action status in the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey on behalf of all persons who
purchased the Common stock of Arbinet-Thexchange, Inc
(Nasdaq:ARBX) ("Arbinet" or "the Company") pursuant or traceable
to Arbinet's December 16, 2004 initial public offering ("IPO" or
the "Offering").

The Complaint alleges that Arbinet and certain of its officers,
directors and underwriters violated federal securities laws by
issuing false statements in connection with the Company's IPO.
Specifically, the Registration Statement and Prospectus (the
"Registration Statement") failed to adequately disclose and
misrepresented material information concerning, among other
things:

     (1) the negative impact that certain factors, including,
         but not limited to, increases in wireless calls and
         shifts in the geographic market usage mix, would have
         on Arbinet's revenues and profits;

     (2) the relevance of certain statistical data; and

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

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

For more details, contact Wayne T. Boulton or Nancy A. Kulesa of
Schatz & Nobel, P.C., Phone: (800) 797-5499, E-mail:
sn06106@aol.com, Web site http://www.snlaw.net.


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

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

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

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

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

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

For more details, contact Carolyn Anderson or Bob Moilanen of
Zimmerman Reed, Phone: 612-341-0400, Web site:
http://www.zimmreed.com/Buca.


MANNATECH INC.: Federman & Sherwood Lodges Securities Suit in NM
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Federman & Sherwood initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of
New Mexico against Mannatech, Inc. (Nasdaq: MTEX).

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of
material misrepresentations to the market which had the effect
of artificially inflating the market price. The class period is
from August 10, 2004 through May 8, 2005.

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


MANNATECH INC.: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Fraud Suit in NM
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C., initiated a lawsuit
seeking class action status in the United States District Court
for the District of New Mexico on behalf of all persons who
purchased the securities of Mannatech, Inc. (Nasdaq:MTEX)
("Mannatech" or "the Company") between August 10, 2004, and May
8, 2005 (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that Mannatech and certain of its
officers, directors and violated federal securities laws.
Specifically, Mannatech failed to adequately supervise and
monitor the conduct of its associates, including those who
maintain websites that prominently display misleading
testimonials that Mannatech products are effective in the
treatment and prevention of certain specific diseases. The
Complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose the
following:

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

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

On May 9, 2005, an article published in Barron's revealed the
misleading nature of claims made on certain Mannatech
associates' websites. On this news, the price of Mannatech
shares to plummet more than 26%. The next day, May 10, 2005,
Mannatech shares fell an additional 19%.

For more details, contact Wayne T. Boulton or Nancy A. Kulesa of
Schatz & Nobel, P.C., Phone: (800) 797-5499, E-mail:
sn06106@aol.com, Web site: http://www.snlaw.net.


RENAISSANCERE HOLDINGS: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Fraud Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
LLP ("Lerach Coughlin") initiated a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York on behalf of purchasers of RenaissanceRe Holdings Ltd.
("RenaissanceRe" or the "Company") (NYSE: RNR) common stock
during the period between January 24, 2002 and July 25, 2005
(the "Class Period").

The complaint charges RenaissanceRe and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. RenaissanceRe, through its subsidiaries, provides
reinsurance and insurance worldwide.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
Defendants issued numerous positive statements and filed
quarterly and annual reports with the Securities and Exchange
Commission ("SEC"), which described the Company's increasing
financial performance. As alleged in the complaint, these
statements were materially false and misleading because they
failed to disclose and misrepresented the following adverse
facts, among others:

     (1) that the Company was materially overstating its
         financial results by engaging in improper accounting
         practices. According to the complaint, the Company has
         admitted that its prior financial reports are
         materially false and misleading as it announced that it
         is going to restate its results for the years ended
         December 31, 2001, 2002 and 2003;

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

     (3) that the Company's Chairman and CEO, along with a
         former senior officer, would be subject to civil
         penalties in connection with the restatement of the
         previous financial periods; and

     (4) that as a result of the foregoing, the values of the
         Company's net income and earnings were materially false
         at all relevant times.

Then, on July 25, 2005, the Company issued a press release
announcing that defendant James N. Stanard, the Company's CEO
and Chairman, received a Wells Notice from the staff of the SEC
in connection with the SEC's ongoing investigation into the
restatement of the Company's financial statements. Upon this
shocking news, shares of the Company's stock fell $4.25 per
share, or almost 10%, to close at $42.98 per share on unusually
heavy trading volume.

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


SYMBOL TECHNOLOGIES: Kaplan Fox Files Securities Suit in E.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP, initiated a class
action suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York against Symbol Technologies, Inc.
("Symbol") (NYSE: SBL) and certain of its officers and
directors, on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased
Symbol common stock between May 10, 2004 and August 1, 2005 (the
"Class Period").

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange
Act of 1934 by publicly issuing a series of false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's financial condition, thus
causing Symbol's common stock to trade at artificially inflated
levels.

More specifically, the complaint alleges that, throughout the
Class Period, defendants issued numerous positive statements
about the Company's performance and future prospects that, in
fact, were false and misleading. As alleged in the Complaint,
these statements were materially false and misleading because
defendants failed to disclose and/or misrepresented the
following adverse facts, which were known, or recklessly
disregarded by them, at all relevant times:

     (1) Symbol's financial results for the first three quarters
         of 2004 were materially overstated;

     (2) Symbol's financial and internal controls were
         ineffective; and

     (3) the demand for the Company's products was materially
         declining such that its earnings guidance was lacking a
         reasonable basis.

For more details, contact Frederic S. Fox, Joel B. Strauss or
Jeffrey P. Campisi of KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER, LLP, 805 Third
Ave., 22nd Floor, New York, NY 10022, Phone: (800) 290-1952 or
(212) 687-1980, Fax: (212) 687-7714, E-mail: mail@kaplanfox.com
OR Laurence D. King of KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER, LLP, 555
Montgomery St., Suite 1501, San Francisco, CA 94111, Phone:
(415) 772-4700, Fax: (415) 772-4707, Web site:
http://www.kaplanfox.com.


UBS-AG: Murray Frank Files NY Securities Suit Over Davis Funds
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Murray, Frank & Sailer initiated a class action
lawsuit on behalf of all persons who purchased from UBS-AG
("UBS") Davis Funds, 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 Davis Funds named
below, are as follows:

     (1) Davis Appreciation & Income Fund (Nasdaq:RPFCX);
         (Nasdaq:DCSBX); (Nasdaq:DCSCX); (Nasdaq:DCSYX)

     (2) Davis Financial Fund (Nasdaq:RPFGX); (Nasdaq:DFIBX);
         (Nasdaq:DFFCX); (Nasdaq:DVFYX)

     (3) Davis Government Bond Fund (Nasdaq:RFBAX);
         (Nasdaq:VRPFX); (Nasdaq:DGVCX); (Nasdaq:DGVYX)

     (4) Davis NY Venture Fund (Nasdaq:NYVTX); (Nasdaq:NYVBX);
         (Nasdaq:NYVCX); (Nasdaq:DNVYX)

     (5) Davis Opportunity Fund (Nasdaq:RPEAX); (Nasdaq:RPFEX);
         (Nasdaq:DGOCX); (Nasdaq:DGOYX)

     (6) Davis Real Estate Fund (Nasdaq:RPFRX); (Nasdaq:DREBX);
         (Nasdaq:DRECX); (Nasdaq:DREYX)

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 (collectively,
"Shelf Space Funds") that provided financial incentives and
rewards to UBS and its personnel based on sales. The complaint
alleges that defendants' undisclosed sales practices created an
insurmountable conflict of interest by providing substantial
monetary incentives to sell Shelf-Space Funds to their clients,
even though such investments were not in the clients' best
interest. UBS' failure to disclose the incentives constituted
violations of federal securities laws.

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

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

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


UBS-AG: Murray Frank Files Fraud Suit in NY Over Franklin Funds
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Murray, Frank & Sailer initiated a class action
lawsuit on behalf of all persons who purchased Franklin 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 Franklin Funds
named below, are as follows:

Franklin AGE High Income Fund (Nasdaq:AGEFX), (Nasdaq:FAHAX),
(Nasdaq:FHIBX), (Nasdaq:FRAIX), (Nasdaq:FAHRX)

Franklin Adjustable U.S. Government Securities Fund
(Nasdaq:FISAX), (Nasdaq:FCSCX)

Franklin Aggressive Growth Fund (Nasdaq:FGRAX), (Nasdaq:FRAAX),
(Nasdaq:FKABX), (Nasdaq:FKACX), (Nasdaq:FKARX)

Franklin Alabama Tax-Free Income Fund (Nasdaq:FRALX),
(Nasdaq:FALEX)

Franklin Arizona Tax-Free Income Fund (Nasdaq:FTAZX),
(Nasdaq:FBAZX), (Nasdaq:FAZIX)

Franklin Balance Sheet Investment Fund (Nasdaq:FRBSX),
(Nasdaq:FBSAX), (Nasdaq:FBSBX), (Nasdaq:FCBSX), (Nasdaq:FBSRX)

Franklin Biotechnology Discovery Fund (Nasdaq:FBDIX)

Franklin Blue Chip Fund (Nasdaq:FKBCX), (Nasdaq:FKBBX),
(Nasdaq:FBCCX), (Nasdaq:FBCRX)

Franklin California High Yield Municipal Fund (Nasdaq:FCAMX),
(Nasdaq:FBCAX), (Nasdaq:FCAHX)

Franklin California Insured Tax-Free Income Fund (Nasdaq:FRCIX),
(Nasdaq:FRCBX), (Nasdaq:FRCAX)

Franklin California Intermediate-Term Tax-Free Income Fund
(Nasdaq:FKCIX)

Franklin California Limited Term Tax-Free Income Fund

Franklin California Tax-Exempt Money Fund (Nasdaq:FCLXX)

Franklin California Tax-Free Income Fund (Nasdaq:FKTFX),
(Nasdaq:FCAVX), (Nasdaq:FCABX), (Nasdaq:FRCTX)

Franklin Capital Growth Fund (Nasdaq:FKREX), (Nasdaq:FEACX),
(Nasdaq:FKEQX), (Nasdaq:FREQX), (Nasdaq:FKIRX)

Franklin Colorado Tax-Free Income Fund (Nasdaq:FRCOX),
(Nasdaq:FCOIX)

Franklin Connecticut Tax-Free Income Fund (Nasdaq:FXCTX),
(Nasdaq:FCTIX)

Franklin Convertible Securities Fund (Nasdaq:FISCX),
(Nasdaq:FROTX)

Franklin Double Tax-Free Income Fund (Nasdaq:FPRTX),
(Nasdaq:FPRIX)

Franklin DynaTech Fund (Nasdaq:FKDNX), (Nasdaq:FDNBX),
(Nasdaq:FDYNX)

Franklin Equity Income Fund (Nasdaq:FISEX), (Nasdaq:FBEIX),
(Nasdaq:FRETX), (Nasdaq:FREIX)

Franklin Federal Intermediate-Term Tax-Free Income Fund
(Nasdaq:FKITX)

Franklin Federal Limited Term Tax-Free Income Fund
(Nasdaq:FFTFX)

Franklin Federal Money Fund (Nasdaq:FMNXX)

Franklin Federal Tax-Free Income Fund (Nasdaq:FKTIX),
(Nasdaq:FAFTX), (Nasdaq:FFTBX), (Nasdaq:FRFTX)

Franklin Flex Cap Growth Fund (Nasdaq:FKCGX), (Nasdaq:FKCBX),
(Nasdaq:FCIIX), (Nasdaq:FRCGX)

Franklin Floating Rate Daily Access Fund (Nasdaq:FAFRX),
(Nasdaq:FBFRX), (Nasdaq:FCFRX)

Franklin Floating Rate Trust (Nasdaq:XFFLX)

Franklin Florida Insured Tax-Free Income Fund (Nasdaq:FFLTX)

Franklin Florida Tax-Free Income Fund (Nasdaq:FRFLX),
(Nasdaq:FRFBX), (Nasdaq:FRFIX)

Franklin Georgia Tax-Free Income Fund (Nasdaq:FTGAX),
(Nasdaq:FGAIX)

Franklin Global Aggressive Growth Fund

Franklin Global Communications Fund (Nasdaq:FRGUX)

Franklin Global Growth Fund

Franklin Global Health Care Fund (Nasdaq:FKGHX), (Nasdaq:FGHBX),
(Nasdaq:FGIIX)

Franklin Gold and Precious Metals Fund (Nasdaq:FKRCX),
(Nasdaq:FGADX), (Nasdaq:FAGPX), (Nasdaq:FRGOX)

Franklin Growth Fund (Nasdaq:FKGRX), (Nasdaq:FCGAX),
(Nasdaq:FKGBX), (Nasdaq:FRGSX), (Nasdaq:FGSRX)

Franklin High Yield Tax-Free Income Fund (Nasdaq:FRHIX),
(Nasdaq:FYIBX), (Nasdaq:FHYIX)

Franklin Income Fund (Nasdaq:FKINX), (Nasdaq:FRIAX),
(Nasdaq:FBICX), (Nasdaq:FICBX), (Nasdaq:FCISX), (Nasdaq:FISRX)

Franklin Insured Tax-Free Income Fund (Nasdaq:FTFIX),
(Nasdaq:FBITX), (Nasdaq:FRITX)

Franklin Kentucky Tax-Free Income Fund (Nasdaq:FRKYX)

Franklin Large Cap Growth Fund (Nasdaq:FKGAX), (Nasdaq:FRGAX),
(Nasdaq:FKGCX), (Nasdaq:FRLGX)

Franklin Large Cap Value Fund (Nasdaq:FLVAX), (Nasdaq:FBLCX),
(Nasdaq:FLCVX), (Nasdaq:FLCRX)

Franklin Louisiana Tax-Free Income Fund (Nasdaq:FKLAX),
(Nasdaq:FLAIX)

Franklin Maryland Tax-Free Income Fund (Nasdaq:FMDTX),
(Nasdaq:FMDIX)

Franklin Massachusetts Insured Tax-Free Income Fund
(Nasdaq:FMISX), (Nasdaq:FMAIX)

Franklin Michigan Insured Tax-Free Income Fund (Nasdaq:FTTMX),
(Nasdaq:FBMIX), (Nasdaq:FRMTX)

Franklin MicroCap Value Fund (Nasdaq:FRMCX)

Franklin Minnesota Insured Tax-Free Income Fund (Nasdaq:FMINX),
(Nasdaq:FMNIX)

Franklin Missouri Tax-Free Income Fund (Nasdaq:FRMOX),
(Nasdaq:FMOIX)

Franklin Money Fund (Nasdaq:FMFXX)

Franklin Natural Resources Fund (Nasdaq:FRNRX), (Nasdaq:FNRAX)

Franklin New Jersey Tax-Free Income Fund (Nasdaq:FRNJX),
(Nasdaq:FNJBX), (Nasdaq:FNIIX)

Franklin New York Insured Tax-Free Income Fund (Nasdaq:FRNYX),
(Nasdaq:FNYKX)

Franklin New York Intermediate-Term Tax-Free Income Fund
(Nasdaq:FKNIX)

Franklin New York Limited Term Tax-Free Income Fund

Franklin New York Tax-Exempt Money Fund (Nasdaq:FRNXX)

Franklin New York Tax-Free Income Fund (Nasdaq:FNYTX),
(Nasdaq:FNYAX), (Nasdaq:FTFBX), (Nasdaq:FNYIX)

Franklin North Carolina Tax-Free Income Fund (Nasdaq:FXNCX),
(Nasdaq:FNCIX)

Franklin Ohio Insured Tax-Free Income Fund (Nasdaq:FTOIX),
(Nasdaq:FBOIX), (Nasdaq:FOITX)

Franklin Oregon Tax-Free Income Fund (Nasdaq:FRORX),
(Nasdaq:FORIX)

Franklin Pennsylvania Tax-Free Income Fund (Nasdaq:FRPAX),
(Nasdaq:FBPTX), (Nasdaq:FRPTX)

Franklin Real Estate Securities Fund (Nasdaq:FREEX),
(Nasdaq:FRLAX), (Nasdaq:FBREX), (Nasdaq:FRRSX)

Franklin Rising Dividends Fund (Nasdaq:FRDPX), (Nasdaq:FRDBX),
(Nasdaq:FRDTX), (Nasdaq:FRDRX)

Franklin Short-Intermediate U.S. Government Securities Fund
(Nasdaq:FRGVX), (Nasdaq:FSUAX)

Franklin Small Cap Growth Fund II (Nasdaq:FSGRX),
(Nasdaq:FSSAX), (Nasdaq:FBSGX), (Nasdaq:FCSGX), (Nasdaq:FSSRX)

Franklin Small Cap Value Fund (Nasdaq:FRVLX), (Nasdaq:FVADX),
(Nasdaq:FBVAX), (Nasdaq:FRVFX), (Nasdaq:FVFRX)

Franklin Small-Mid Cap Growth Fund (Nasdaq:FRSGX),
(Nasdaq:FSGAX), (Nasdaq:FBSMX), (Nasdaq:FRSIX), (Nasdaq:FSMRX)

Franklin Strategic Income Fund (Nasdaq:FRSTX), (Nasdaq:FKSAX),
(Nasdaq:FKSBX), (Nasdaq:FSGCX), (Nasdaq:FKSRX)

Franklin Strategic Mortgage Portfolio (Nasdaq:FSMIX)

Franklin Tax-Exempt Money Fund (Nasdaq:FTMXX)

Franklin Technology Fund (Nasdaq:FTCAX), (Nasdaq:FRTCX),
(Nasdaq:FFTCX), (Nasdaq:FTERX)

Franklin Templeton Conservative Target Fund (Nasdaq:FTCIX),
(Nasdaq:FTCCX), (Nasdaq:FTCRX)

Franklin Templeton CoreFolio Allocation Fund (Nasdaq:FTCOX)

Franklin Templeton Founding Funds Allocation Fund
(Nasdaq:FFALX), (Nasdaq:FFABX), (Nasdaq:FFACX)

Franklin Templeton Growth Target Fund (Nasdaq:FGTIX),
(Nasdaq:FTGTX), (Nasdaq:FGTRX)

Franklin Templeton Hard Currency Fund (Nasdaq:ICPHX)

Franklin Templeton Moderate Target Fund (Nasdaq:FMTIX),
(Nasdaq:FTMTX), (Nasdaq:FTMRX)

Franklin Templeton Money Fund (Nasdaq:FMBXX), (Nasdaq:FRIXX),
(Nasdaq:FMRXX)

Franklin Tennessee Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq:FRTIX)

Franklin Texas Tax-Free Income Fund (Nasdaq:FTXTX),
(Nasdaq:FTXIX)

Franklin Total Return Fund (Nasdaq:FKBAX), (Nasdaq:FBDAX),
(Nasdaq:FBTLX), (Nasdaq:FCTLX), (Nasdaq:FTRRX)

Franklin U.S. Government Securities Fund (Nasdaq:FKUSX),
(Nasdaq:FUSAX), (Nasdaq:FUGBX), (Nasdaq:FRUGX), (Nasdaq:FUSRX)

Franklin U.S. Long-Short Fund (Nasdaq:FUSLX)

Franklin Utilities Fund (Nasdaq:FKUTX), (Nasdaq:FRUAX),
(Nasdaq:FRUBX), (Nasdaq:FRUSX), (Nasdaq:FRURX)

Franklin Virginia Tax-Free Income Fund (Nasdaq:FRVAX),
(Nasdaq:FVAIX)

Templeton China World Fund (Nasdaq:TCWAX), (Nasdaq:TACWX)

Templeton Developing Markets Trust (Nasdaq:TEDMX),
(Nasdaq:TDADX), (Nasdaq:TDMBX), (Nasdaq:TDMTX), (Nasdaq:TDMRX)

Templeton Foreign Fund (Nasdaq:TEMFX), (Nasdaq:TFFAX),
(Nasdaq:TFRBX), (Nasdaq:TEFTX), (Nasdaq:TEFRX)

Templeton Foreign Smaller Companies Fund (Nasdaq:FINEX),
(Nasdaq:FTFAX), (Nasdaq:FCFSX)

Templeton Global Bond Fund (Nasdaq:TPINX), (Nasdaq:TGBAX),
(Nasdaq:TEGBX)

Templeton Global Long-Short Fund (Nasdaq:TLSAX), (Nasdaq:TLSBX)

Templeton Global Opportunities Trust (Nasdaq:TEGOX),
(Nasdaq:TEGPX)

Templeton Global Smaller Companies Fund), (Nasdaq: Inc. (Nasdaq:
TEMGX), (Nasdaq: TGSAX. TESGX)

Templeton Growth Fund), (Nasdaq: Inc. (Nasdaq:TEPLX),
(Nasdaq:TGADX), (Nasdaq:TMGBX), (Nasdaq:TEGTX), (Nasdaq:TEGRX)

Templeton International (Ex EM) Fund (Nasdaq:TEGEX),
(Nasdaq:TGEFX)

Templeton Latin America Fund (Nasdaq:TELAX), (Nasdaq:TLAAX),
(Nasdaq:TLAIX)

Templeton Pacific Growth Fund (Nasdaq:FKPGX), (Nasdaq:FPGCX)

Templeton World Fund (Nasdaq:TEMWX), (Nasdaq:TWDBX),
(Nasdaq:TEWTX)

Mutual Beacon Fund (Nasdaq:TEBIX), (Nasdaq:TEBBX),
(Nasdaq:TEMEX), (Nasdaq:BEGRX)

Mutual Discovery Fund (Nasdaq:TEDIX), (Nasdaq:TEDBX),
(Nasdaq:TEDSX), (Nasdaq:TEDRX), (Nasdaq:MDISX)

Mutual European Fund (Nasdaq:TEMIX), (Nasdaq:TEUBX),
(Nasdaq:TEURX), (Nasdaq:MEURX)

Mutual Financial Services Fund (Nasdaq:TFSIX), (Nasdaq:TBFSX),
(Nasdaq:TMFSX), (Nasdaq:TEFAX)

Mutual Qualified Fund (Nasdaq:TEQIX), (Nasdaq:TEBQX),
(Nasdaq:TEMQX), (Nasdaq:MQIFX)

Mutual Recovery Fund (Nasdaq:FMRVX)

Mutual Shares Fund (Nasdaq:TESIX), (Nasdaq:FMUBX),
(Nasdaq:TEMTX), (Nasdaq:TESRX), (Nasdaq:MUTHX)

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 Franklin Funds, that provided financial incentives and
rewards to UBS and its personnel based on sales. The complaint
alleges that defendants' undisclosed sales practices created an
insurmountable conflict of interest by providing substantial
monetary incentives to sell Shelf-Space Funds to their clients,
even though such investments were not in the clients' best
interest. UBS' failure to disclose the incentives constituted
violations of federal securities laws.

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

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

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


UBS-AG: Murray Frank Files NY Fraud Suit Over Oppenheimer Funds
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Murray, Frank & Sailer initiated a class action
lawsuit on behalf of all persons who purchased Oppenheimer 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 Oppenheimer Funds
named below, are as follows:

  Oppenheimer AMT-Free NY Municipal B           Nasdaq:ONYBX
  Oppenheimer AMT-Free Municipals A             Nasdaq:OPTAX
  Oppenheimer AMT-Free Municipals B             Nasdaq:OTFBX
  Oppenheimer AMT-Free Municipals C             Nasdaq:OMFCX
  Oppenheimer AMT-Free NY Municipal A           Nasdaq:OPNYX
  Oppenheimer AMT-Free NY Municipal C           Nasdaq:ONYCX
  Oppenheimer Balanced A                        Nasdaq:OPASX
  Oppenheimer Balanced B                        Nasdaq:OASBX
  Oppenheimer Balanced C                        Nasdaq:OASCX
  Oppenheimer Balanced N                        Nasdaq:OASNX
  Oppenheimer CA Municipal A                    Nasdaq:OPCAX
  Oppenheimer CA Municipal B                    Nasdaq:OCABX
  Oppenheimer CA Municipal C                    Nasdaq:OCACX
  Oppenheimer Capital Appreciation A            Nasdaq:OPTFX
  Oppenheimer Capital Appreciation B            Nasdaq:OTGBX
  Oppenheimer Capital Appreciation C            Nasdaq:OTFCX
  Oppenheimer Capital Appreciation N            Nasdaq:OTCNX
  Oppenheimer Capital Appreciation Y            Nasdaq:OTCYX
  Oppenheimer Capital Income A                  Nasdaq:OPPEX
  Oppenheimer Capital Income B                  Nasdaq:OPEBX
  Oppenheimer Capital Income C                  Nasdaq:OPECX
  Oppenheimer Capital Income N                  Nasdaq:OCINX
  Oppenheimer Champion Income A                 Nasdaq:OPCHX
  Oppenheimer Champion Income B                 Nasdaq:OCHBX
  Oppenheimer Champion Income C                 Nasdaq:OCHCX
  Oppenheimer Champion Income N                 Nasdaq:OCHNX
  Oppenheimer Convertible Securities A          Nasdaq:RCVAX
  Oppenheimer Convertible Securities B          Nasdaq:RCVBX
  Oppenheimer Convertible Securities C          Nasdaq:RCVCX
  Oppenheimer Convertible Securities M          Nasdaq:RCVGX
  Oppenheimer Convertible Securities N          Nasdaq:RCVNX
  Oppenheimer Core Bond A                       Nasdaq:OPIGX
  Oppenheimer Core Bond B                       Nasdaq:OIGBX
  Oppenheimer Core Bond C                       Nasdaq:OPBCX
  Oppenheimer Core Bond N                       Nasdaq:OPBNX
  Oppenheimer Core Bond Y                       Nasdaq:OPBYX
  Oppenheimer Developing Markets A              Nasdaq:ODMAX
  Oppenheimer Developing Markets B              Nasdaq:ODVBX
  Oppenheimer Developing Markets C              Nasdaq:ODVCX
  Oppenheimer Developing Markets N              Nasdaq:ODVNX
  Oppenheimer Disciplined Allocation A          Nasdaq:CNMTX
  Oppenheimer Disciplined Allocation B          Nasdaq:CDABX
  Oppenheimer Disciplined Allocation C          Nasdaq:CDACX
  Oppenheimer Disciplined Allocation N          Nasdaq:CDANX
Oppenheimer Discovery A                        Nasdaq:OPOCX
Oppenheimer Discovery B                        Nasdaq:ODIBX
Oppenheimer Discovery C                        Nasdaq:ODICX
Oppenheimer Discovery N                        Nasdaq:ODINX
Oppenheimer Discovery Y                        Nasdaq:ODIYX
Oppenheimer Dividend Growth Fund               Nasdaq:OADGX
   Class A
Oppenheimer Dividend Growth Fund               Nasdaq:OBDGX
   Class B
Oppenheimer Dividend Growth Fund               Nasdaq:OCDGX
   Class C
Oppenheimer Dividend Growth Fund               Nasdaq:ONDGX
   Class N
Oppenheimer Emerging Growth A                  Nasdaq:OEGAX
Oppenheimer Emerging Growth B                  Nasdaq:OEGBX
Oppenheimer Emerging Growth C                  Nasdaq:OEGCX
Oppenheimer Emerging Growth N                  Nasdaq:OEGNX
Oppenheimer Emerging Growth Y                  Nasdaq:OEGYX
Oppenheimer Emerging Technologies A            Nasdaq:OETAX
Oppenheimer Emerging Technologies B            Nasdaq:OETBX
Oppenheimer Emerging Technologies C            Nasdaq:OETCX
Oppenheimer Emerging Technologies N            Nasdaq:OETNX
Oppenheimer Emerging Technologies Y            Nasdaq:OETYX
Oppenheimer Enterprise A                       Nasdaq:OENAX
Oppenheimer Enterprise B                       Nasdaq:OENBX
Oppenheimer Enterprise C                       Nasdaq:OENCX
Oppenheimer Enterprise N                       Nasdaq:OENNX
Oppenheimer Enterprise Y                       Nasdaq:OENYX
Oppenheimer Equity A                           Nasdaq:OEQAX
Oppenheimer Equity B                           Nasdaq:OEQBX
Oppenheimer Equity C                           Nasdaq:OEQCX
Oppenheimer Equity N                           Nasdaq:OEQNX
Oppenheimer Equity Y                           Nasdaq:OEQYX
Oppenheimer Global A                           Nasdaq:OPPAX
Oppenheimer Global B                           Nasdaq:OGLBX
Oppenheimer Global C                           Nasdaq:OGLCX
Oppenheimer Global N                           Nasdaq:OGLNX
Oppenheimer Global Opportunities A             Nasdaq:OPGIX
Oppenheimer Global Opportunities B             Nasdaq:OGGIX
Oppenheimer Global Opportunities C             Nasdaq:OGICX
Oppenheimer Global Opportunities N             Nasdaq:OGINX
Oppenheimer Global Opportunities Y             Nasdaq:OGIYX
Oppenheimer Global Y                           Nasdaq:OGLYX
Oppenheimer Gold & Special Minerals A          Nasdaq:OPGSX
Oppenheimer Gold & Special Minerals B          Nasdaq:OGMBX
Oppenheimer Gold & Special Minerals C          Nasdaq:OGMCX
Oppenheimer Gold & Special Minerals N          Nasdaq:OGMNX
Oppenheimer Growth A                           Nasdaq:OPPSX
Oppenheimer Growth B                           Nasdaq:OPSBX
Oppenheimer Growth C                           Nasdaq:OGRCX
Oppenheimer Growth N                           Nasdaq:OGRNX
Oppenheimer Growth Y                           Nasdaq:OGRYX
Oppenheimer High-Yield A                       Nasdaq:OPPHX
Oppenheimer High-Yield B                       Nasdaq:OHYBX
Oppenheimer Main Street Y                      Nasdaq:MIGYX
Oppenheimer MidCap A                           Nasdaq:OMDAX
Oppenheimer MidCap B                           Nasdaq:OMDBX
Oppenheimer MidCap C                           Nasdaq:OMDCX
Oppenheimer MidCap N                           Nasdaq:OMDNX
Oppenheimer MidCap Y                           Nasdaq:OMDYX
Oppenheimer NJ Municipal A                     Nasdaq:ONJAX
Oppenheimer NJ Municipal B                     Nasdaq:ONJBX
Oppenheimer NJ Municipal C                     Nasdaq:ONJCX
Oppenheimer PA Municipal A                     Nasdaq:OPATX
Oppenheimer PA Municipal B                     Nasdaq:OPABX
Oppenheimer PA Municipal C                     Nasdaq:OPACX
Oppenheimer Port Series Active Alloc A         Nasdaq:OAAAX
Oppenheimer Port Series Active Alloc B         Nasdaq:OAABX
Oppenheimer Port Series Active Alloc C         Nasdaq:OAACX
Oppenheimer Port Series Active Alloc N         Nasdaq:OAANX
Oppenheimer Port Series Active Alloc Y         Nasdaq:OAAYX
Oppenheimer Port Series Agg Inv A              Nasdaq:OAAIX
Oppenheimer Port Series Agg Inv B              Nasdaq:OBAIX
Oppenheimer Port Series Agg Inv C              Nasdaq:OCAIX
Oppenheimer Port Series Agg Inv N              Nasdaq:ONAIX
Oppenheimer Port Series Agg Inv Y              Nasdaq:OYAIX
Oppenheimer Port Series Conserv Inv A          Nasdaq:OACIX
Oppenheimer Port Series Conserv Inv B          Nasdaq:OBCIX
Oppenheimer Port Series Conserv Inv C          Nasdaq:OCCIX
Oppenheimer Port Series Conserv Inv N          Nasdaq:ONCIX
Oppenheimer Port Series Conserv Inv Y          Nasdaq:OYCIX
Oppenheimer Port Series Moderate Inv A         Nasdaq:OAMIX
Oppenheimer Port Series Moderate Inv B         Nasdaq:OBMIX
Oppenheimer Port Series Moderate Inv C         Nasdaq:OCMIX
Oppenheimer Port Series Moderate Inv N         Nasdaq:ONMIX
Oppenheimer Port Series Moderate Inv Y         Nasdaq:OYMIX
Oppenheimer Principal Prot Main St A           Nasdaq:OAPPX
Oppenheimer Principal Prot Main St B           Nasdaq:OBPPX
Oppenheimer Principal Prot Main St C           Nasdaq:OCPPX
Oppenheimer Principal Prot Main St II A        Nasdaq:OAPMX
Oppenheimer Principal Prot Main St II B        Nasdaq:OBPMX
Oppenheimer Principal Prot Main St II C        Nasdaq:OCPMX
Oppenheimer Principal Prot Main St             Nasdaq:OAPRX
   III A
Oppenheimer Principal Prot Main St             Nasdaq:OBPRX
   III B
Oppenheimer Principal Prot Main St             Nasdaq:OCPRX
   III C
Oppenheimer Principal Prot Main St             Nasdaq:ONPRX
   III N
Oppenheimer Principal Prot Main St N           Nasdaq:ONPPX
Oppenheimer Principal Protected Main           Nasdaq:OAPSX
  Streed Fd Iv Cl A
Oppenheimer Principal Protected Main           Nasdaq:OBPSX
  Streed Fd IV Cl B
Oppenheimer Principal Protected Main           Nasdaq:OCPSX
  Street Fd IV Cl C
Oppenheimer Principal Protected Main           Nasdaq:ONPSX
   Street Fd IV Cl N
Oppenheimer Principal Protected Main           Nasdaq:ONPMX
   Street Fund II - Class N
Oppenheimer Quest Balanced A                   Nasdaq:QVGIX
Oppenheimer Quest Balanced B                   Nasdaq:QGRBX
Oppenheimer Quest Balanced C                   Nasdaq:QGRCX
Oppenheimer Quest Balanced N                    Nasdaq:QGRNX
Oppenheimer Quest Balanced Y                    Nasdaq:QGRYX
Oppenheimer Quest Capital Value A               Nasdaq:QCVAX
Oppenheimer Quest Capital Value B               Nasdaq:QCVBX
Oppenheimer Quest Capital Value C               Nasdaq:QCVCX
Oppenheimer Quest Capital Value N               Nasdaq:QCVNX
Oppenheimer Quest International Value  A        Nasdaq:QIVAX
Oppenheimer Quest International Value  B        Nasdaq:QIVBX
Oppenheimer Quest International Value  C        Nasdaq:QIVCX
Oppenheimer Quest International Value  N        Nasdaq:QIVNX
Oppenheimer Quest Opportunity Value A           Nasdaq:QVOPX
Oppenheimer Quest Opportunity Value B           Nasdaq:QOPBX
Oppenheimer Quest Opportunity Value C           Nasdaq:QOPCX
Oppenheimer Quest Opportunity Value N           Nasdaq:QOPNX
Oppenheimer Quest Opportunity Value Y           Nasdaq:QOPYX
Oppenheimer Quest Value A                       Nasdaq:QFVFX
Oppenheimer Quest Value B                       Nasdaq:QFVBX
Oppenheimer Quest Value C                       Nasdaq:QFVCX
Oppenheimer Quest Value N                       Nasdaq:QFVNX
Oppenheimer Quest Value Y                       Nasdaq:QFVYX
Oppenheimer Real Asset A                        Nasdaq:QRAAX
Oppenheimer Real Asset B                        Nasdaq:QRABX
Oppenheimer Real Asset C                        Nasdaq:QRACX
Oppenheimer Real Asset N                        Nasdaq:QRANX
Oppenheimer Real Asset Y                        Nasdaq:QRAYX
Oppenheimer Real Estate A                       Nasdaq:OREAX
Oppenheimer Real Estate B                       Nasdaq:OREBX
Oppenheimer Real Estate C                       Nasdaq:ORECX
Oppenheimer Real Estate N                       Nasdaq:ORENX
Oppenheimer Real Estate Y                       Nasdaq:OREYX
Oppenheimer Rochester National Muni A           Nasdaq:ORNAX
Oppenheimer Rochester National Muni B           Nasdaq:ORNBX
Oppenheimer Rochester National Muni C           Nasdaq:ORNCX
Oppenheimer Select Value A                      Nasdaq:OSVAX
Oppenheimer Select Value B                      Nasdaq:OSVBX
Oppenheimer Select Value C                      Nasdaq:OSCVX
Oppenheimer Select Value N                      Nasdaq:OSVNX
Oppenheimer Select Value Y                      Nasdaq:OSVYX
Oppenheimer Senior Floating Rate A              Nasdaq:XOSAX
Oppenheimer Senior Floating Rate B              Nasdaq:XOSBX
Oppenheimer Senior Floating Rate C              Nasdaq:XOSCX
Oppenheimer Small & Mid Cap Value A             Nasdaq:QVSCX
Oppenheimer Small & Mid Cap Value B             Nasdaq:QSCBX
Oppenheimer Small & Mid Cap Value C             Nasdaq:QSCCX
Oppenheimer Small & Mid Cap Value N             Nasdaq:QSCNX
Oppenheimer Strat Income A                      Nasdaq:OPSIX
Oppenheimer Strat Income B                      Nasdaq:OPSGX
Oppenheimer Strat Income C                      Nasdaq:OSICX
Oppenheimer Strat Income N                      Nasdaq:OSINX
Oppenheimer Strat Income Y                      Nasdaq:OSIYX
Oppenheimer Total Return Bond A                 Nasdaq:OTRAX
Oppenheimer Total Return Bond B                 Nasdaq:OTRBX
Oppenheimer Total Return Bond C                 Nasdaq:OTRCX
Oppenheimer Total Return Bond N                 Nasdaq:OTRNX
Oppenheimer U.S. Government A                   Nasdaq:OUSGX
Oppenheimer U.S. Government B                   Nasdaq:UGTBX
Oppenheimer U.S. Government C                   Nasdaq:OUSCX
Oppenheimer U.S. Government N                   Nasdaq:OUSNX
Oppenheimer U.S. Government Y                   Nasdaq:OUSYX
Oppenheimer Value A                             Nasdaq:CGRWX
Oppenheimer Value B                             Nasdaq:CGRBX
Oppenheimer Value C                             Nasdaq:CGRCX
Oppenheimer Value N                             Nasdaq:CGRNX
Oppenheimer Value Y                             Nasdaq:CGRYX

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 Oppenheimer Funds, that provided financial incentives
and rewards to UBS and its personnel based on sales. The
complaint alleges that defendants' undisclosed sales practices
created an insurmountable conflict of interest by providing
substantial monetary incentives to sell Shelf-Space Funds to
their clients, even though such investments were not in the
clients' best interest. UBS' failure to disclose the incentives
constituted violations of federal securities laws.

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

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

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


WORLD HEALTH: Federman & Sherwood Lodges Securities Suit in PA
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Federman & Sherwood initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania against World Health Alternatives, Inc.
(OTC Bulletin Board: WHAIE).

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of
material misrepresentations to the market which had the effect
of artificially inflating the market price. The class period is
from October 7, 2003 through August 18, 2005.

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