CAR_Public/050916.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Friday, September 16, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 184

                            Headlines

AIKEN REGIONAL: Plaintiff Drops SC Uninsured Patients' Lawsuit
ALABAMA: Dismissal Sought For Appeal of Bond Sale Suit Ruling
AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Faces Consolidated RICO Lawsuit in NJ
BECTON DICKINSON: SAJ Distributors Launches Antitrust Complaint
BIOPURE CORPORATION: SEC Launches Securities Fraud Suit in MA

CONSTAR INTERNATIONAL: PA Court Refuses To Dismiss Stock Lawsuit
CONSTAR INTERNATIONAL: FL Court Refuses Summary Judgment in Suit
DANCING DEER: Recalls Streusel Cakes Due to Undeclared Pecans
DUQUESNE LIGHT: Reaches Settlement for PA Securities Fraud Suit
EASTMAN KODAK: Shareholders Launch Securities Fraud Suit in NY

GOOGLE INC.: 8th Circuit Sends "Click Fraud" Suit to State Court
GUAM: Federal Court Allows Governor to Intervene in EITC Case
HILLENBRAND INDUSTRIES: Faces Casket Antitrust Suits in N.D. CA
HILLENBRAND INDUSTRIES: Casket Distributors File Antitrust Suit
LOUISIANA: Suit Over Shreveport's New Hotel Goes to Caddo Parish

MASSEY ENERGY: Faces Property Damage Lawsuits in WV State Court
MCGLINCHEY STAFFORD: Starts Weblog on Class Action Fairness Act
NEW YORK: Survivor's Appeal in $1.25B Swiss Bank Case Rejected
PACIFIC CAPITAL: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of CA RAL Lawsuit
PACIFIC CAPITAL: Asks NY Court To Dismiss RAL Agreement Lawsuit

PENNSYLVANIA: Contamination Near Industrial Park Triggers Suits
PORTLAND GENERAL: OR Supreme Court Considers Rate Refund Request
PUBLIC STORAGE: Seeking Transfer of CA Lawsuit To Federal Court
PUBLIC STORAGE: FL, CA Employees Commence Overtime Wage Lawsuits
REEBOK INTERNATIONAL: NY Courts Enters Injunctions V. Defendants

SMART & FINAL: Reaches Tentative $19M Settlement For Wage Suit
SYNOPSYS INC.: Bares Dismissal of Securities Fraud Litigation
TAMPA ELECTRIC: Faces FL Litigation V. Transmission Structures
TECO ENERGY: Asks FL Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Lawsuit
THORATEC CORPORATION: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Securities Suit

UNIVERSAL HEALTH: PA Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Litigation
UNIVERSAL HEALTH: RICO Lawsuit Remanded To Nevada State Court
WESTAR ENERGY: Reaches Settlement For KS Securities Fraud Suit
WESTAR ENERGY: Mediation In Consolidated KS ERISA Lawsuit Fails
WHIRLPOOL INC.: Employees to Amend $50M TN Discrimination Suit


                         Asbestos Alert

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: JPN Govt. to Test Airborne Asbestos Levels
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Priest Gains AUD200T Payout in Aussie Court
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 3M Notes US$40M Litigation Reserves Surge
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Strike Rep Evaluates Latest Asarco Proposal
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Aussie, JPN Unions to Defy Canadian Exports

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kawasaki Group Tags Five Deaths to Asbestos
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Judiciary Committee Vested to Use Subpoenas
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Praxair Sued for June 23 MO Plant Explosion
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kaiser Could Exit Bankruptcy January 2006
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NSW Asbestos Payout Could Top AUD1 Billion

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Inn Owner Fined $5T For Asbestos Violations
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Japan Govt. To Compensate Asbestos Victims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: UK School Closed After Asbestos Discovery
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: WOS Reports Asbestos Liability at GBP27.9M
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Citigroup Pays TPC Excess Asbestos Charges

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Derby City To Conclude Demolition Lawsuit
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ulster Locals Outraged at Illegal Dumping
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Calif. State Asbestos Bill Defeated 42-35
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ex-Teacher to Deny School Asbestos Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kaiser Reports 247,000 Total Injury Claims

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: KACC Lists 5,200 Asbestos Premises Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NJ Law Firm Accused of Disclosure Failure
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: HSE Warns High Levels in Development Site
ASBESTOS ALERT: CA Court to Hear Unocal Premises Liability Case

                 New Securities Fraud Cases

ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit in OH
DHB INDUSTRIES: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
IMMUCOR INC.: Glancy Binkow Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in GA
IMMUCOR INC.: Wechsler Harwood Files Securities Fraud Suit in GA
MAJESCO ENTERTAINMENT: Barrack Rodos Files Securities Suit in NJ

PATTERSON COMPANIES: Pomerantz Haudek Lodges Fraud Suit in MN
WORLD HEALTH: Mager & Goldstein Files Securities Suit in W.D. PA

                         *********


AIKEN REGIONAL: Plaintiff Drops SC Uninsured Patients' Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the class action filed against
Aiken Regional Medical Centers, Inc., a subsidiary of Universal
Health Services, Inc. in South Carolina State Court, designated
Case No. 04-CP-02-1275.

The complaint, filed by the plaintiff individually and on behalf
of other unnamed, putative class members, alleges that the
Company breached its contract with the plaintiff (and other
putative plaintiffs), or in the alternative the Company was
unjustly enriched, by virtue of billing and collecting full
hospital charges from the plaintiff and other putative class
members.

The plaintiff has voluntarily dismissed the complaint, without
prejudice as to the purported class, but with prejudice as to
the named plaintiff.


ALABAMA: Dismissal Sought For Appeal of Bond Sale Suit Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
Three Jefferson County commissioners are urging a group of
taxpayers to not appeal a recent court ruling that upholds the
county's $1.05 billion bond sale for school construction, The
Birmingham News reports.  Commissioner Shelia Smoot questioned
the plaintiffs' motives while asking them to drop the suits,
which were dismissed by Circuit Court Judge Caryl Privett.

In that ruling, which possibly ended a class action lawsuit
challenging Jefferson County's revenue measures, Circuit Judge
Privett ruled that the county's new sales tax and billion dollar
education bond sale are legal. Specifically, Judge Privett
decided the county had the right to commit proceeds from the
sales tax to repay the bond, which it plans to distribute to 12
school systems for capital or building improvements. The judge
though stated that an appeal of the decision is possible, an
earlier Class Action story (September 6, 2005) reports.

Court documents revealed that the county started collecting the
1-cent tax on January 1. That money collected though, which is
currently being held in a bank account can't be spent until the
lawsuit is concluded, including any appeal, an earlier Class
Action story (September 6, 2005) reports.

Sam Pointer, a plaintiff attorney in two-combined class action
suits, told The Birmingham News that an appeal to the Alabama
Supreme Court is likely saying, "We anticipated all along this
case would wind up before the Alabama Supreme Court on appeal
from us or from the county." They (plaintiffs) have until mid-
October to appeal, according to Mr. Pointer.

Larry Langford, the commission president, told The Birmingham
News that the county's 12 school systems might have to wait
another year to get the money if an appeal is filed. He pointed
out though that dropping the cases would let the systems use the
bond money now.  Mr. Langford also told The Birmingham News,
"That would free up money to help them accommodate the extra
students they have from the hurricane evacuees. They can hire
additional teachers or buy new materials. That's why I'm begging
the people who filed the lawsuits: Please don't appeal."

Commissioner Mary Buckelew, who also supported the sales tax and
bond sale, supported Mr. Langford's request. While Ms. Smoot,
the third commissioner who supported the tax and bonds
speculated the plaintiffs were "mean-spirited."

In a wide-ranging speech at the end of a recent commission
meeting, Ms. Smoot touched on how conditions at the schools she
attended in Detroit compared favorably with those in Jefferson
County. She said she became a commissioner to make improvements,
but instead encounters people trying to block change. In her
speech, she stated, "I get kicked every time I turn around and
it gets old. I almost want to take my child out of this state."
In her speech, she also urged the plaintiffs to "go away and do
something else with their idle minds."

Mr. Pointer though told The Birmingham News that his side has
refrained from personal attacks on commissioners, their lawyers
and consultants, "although many have encouraged us to do so. We
will continue to act in a very professional manner."


AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Faces Consolidated RICO Lawsuit in NJ
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a consolidated antitrust class action against
American International Group, Inc. and its subsidiaries in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey,
alleging a conspiracy between insurance companies and insurance
brokers with regard to the bidding practices for insurance
coverage in certain sectors of the insurance industry.

Between October 19, 2004 and August 1, 2005, the Company or its
subsidiaries were named as a defendant in thirteen complaints
that were filed in federal court and two that were originally
filed in state court (Massachusetts and Florida) and removed to
federal court. These cases generally allege that the Company and
its subsidiaries violated federal and various state antitrust
laws, as well as federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organization Act (RICO) violations, various state deceptive and
unfair practice laws and certain state laws governing fiduciary
duties.

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPMDL) entered
an order consolidating most of these cases and transferring them
to the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey. The remainder of these cases are in the process of being
transferred to the District of New Jersey.

On August 1, 2005, the plaintiffs in the multidistrict
litigation filed a First Consolidated Amended Commercial
Class Action Complaint, which, in addition to the previously
named AIG defendants, names new AIG subsidiaries as defendants.

Also on August 1, 2005, AIG and a subsidiary were named as
defendants in a First Consolidated Amended Employee Benefits
Complaint filed in the District of New Jersey that adds claims
under Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). In
addition, one complaint was filed in Massachusetts state court
and one complaint was filed in Florida state court making claims
similar to those in the federal cases above.


BECTON DICKINSON: SAJ Distributors Launches Antitrust Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
Becton Dickinson & Co. (BDX) faces a purported class action
lawsuit that was filed by Arkansas-based SAJ Distributors Inc.,
according to a recent Securities and Exchange Commission filing,
MarketWatch reports.

The suit is alleging that Becton Dickinson violated federal
antitrust laws, resulting in higher prices being charged for
certain Becton Dickinson products to SAJ Distributors, according
to the filing. Becton Dickinson stated that SAJ Distributors is
seeking monetary damages in an undisclosed amount.


BIOPURE CORPORATION: SEC Launches Securities Fraud Suit in MA
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed a civil fraud
action against Biopure Corporation of Cambridge, Massachusetts,
and three top executives for misleading public statements about
the company's efforts to obtain FDA approval for its primary
product, while at the same time Biopure was raising millions of
dollars from investors.

The action, filed in federal district court in Massachusetts,
charges Biopure, its former CEO Thomas Moore of Boston, former
Senior Vice President of Regulatory Affairs and Operations
Howard Richman of Houston, Texas, and current General Counsel
Jane Kober of Bellport, N.Y., with violating or aiding and
abetting violations of the antifraud and reporting provisions of
the federal securities laws in connection with materially
misleading statements between April and December, 2003.

The Commission's complaint alleges that, beginning in April
2003, Biopure received negative information from the FDA
regarding its efforts to obtain FDA approval of its synthetic
blood product Hemopure but failed to disclose the information,
or falsely described it as positive. Specifically, the complaint
alleges that in April 2003, the FDA placed a clinical hold
barring Biopure from conducting clinical trials of Hemopure in
trauma settings such as emergency rooms, because of safety
concerns about Hemopure. As alleged, during the next eight
months, the company concealed the imposition of the clinical
hold while making public statements about its plans to obtain
approval for trauma uses of Hemopure. In addition, according to
the complaint, in July 2003 the FDA informed Biopure that it had
not approved Biopure's application for use of Hemopure in
orthopedic surgery, and instead conveyed serious concerns about
whether the materials Biopure had submitted in support of its
application were reliable and questioned the safety of Hemopure.
Biopure, however, issued public statements beginning on August
1, 2003, describing the FDA's communication as good news,
causing its stock price to increase by over 20%.  The Complaint
alleges that Biopure continued to make misleading statements
until December 2003.  During this period, Biopure raised over
$35 million from investors.  The complaint further alleges that
as the true status of Biopure's efforts to obtain FDA approval
gradually became public, through a series of incomplete and
misleading disclosures between late October and the end of
December 2003, the company's stock price plummeted almost 66%
from its August 1 price.

According to the complaint, Moore, the former CEO, personally
made and approved misleading statements; Richman, the former
officer responsible for FDA relations, made and provided
information for misleading statements; and Ms. Kober, who
continues to serve as Biopure's General Counsel, drafted and
approved misleading statements.  The Commission's complaint
charges Biopure and the three individual defendants with
violating Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 thereunder and with directly or indirectly violating
Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act and Rules 12b-20, 13a-1, 13a-
11 and 13a-13 thereunder, and charges Moore with violating Rule
13a-14 thereunder.   The Commission is seeking injunctive
relief, civil penalties, and an order barring Mr. Moore, Mr.
Richman and Ms. Kober from serving as officers or directors of
any public company. The case is styled, SEC v.  Biopure
Corporation, Thomas Moore, Howard Richman and Jane Kober, United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Civil
Action No. 05-11853-WGY (LR-19376).


CONSTAR INTERNATIONAL: PA Court Refuses To Dismiss Stock Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania refused to dismiss the consolidated securities
class action filed against Constar International, Inc., certain
of its present and former directors, Crown Holdings, Inc., as
well as various underwriters, styled "In re Constar
International, Inc. Securities Litigation (Master File No. 03-
CV-05020)."

This action consolidates previous lawsuits, namely "Parkside
Capital LLC v. Constar International Inc. et al. (Civil Action
No. 03-5020)," filed on September 5, 2003 and "Walter Frejek v.
Constar International Inc. et al. (Civil Action No. 03-5166),"
filed on September 15, 2003. The consolidated and amended
complaint, filed June 17, 2004, generally alleges that the
registration statement and prospectus for the Company's initial
public offering of its common stock on November 14, 2002
contained material misrepresentations and/or omissions.
Plaintiffs claim that defendants in these lawsuits violated
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. Plaintiffs
seek class action certification and an award of damages and
litigation costs and expenses.

Under the Company's charter documents, an agreement with Crown
and an underwriting agreement with Crown and the underwriters,
the Company has incurred certain indemnification and
contribution obligations to the other defendants with respect to
this lawsuit. The court denied the Company's motion to dismiss
for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted on
June 7, 2005 and the Company's answer was filed on August 8,
2005.

The suit is styled "In re Constar International Inc. Securities
Litigation (Master File No. 03-CV-05020," filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

     (1) Bernard M. Gross, 1500 Walnut Street, Suite 600,
         Philadelphia, PA, 19102, Phone: 215.561.3600, Fax:
         215.561.3000, E-mail: bmgross@BernardMGross.com

     (2) Cauley Geller Bowman Coates & Rudman, LLP (New York),
         200 Broadhollow, Suite 406, Melville, NY, 11747 Phone:
         631.367.7100, Fax: 631.367.1173,

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

     (4) Fruchter & Twersky, 60 East 42 Street, New York, NY,
         10021, Phone: 212.687.6655,

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

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


CONSTAR INTERNATIONAL: FL Court Refuses Summary Judgment in Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Ninth Judicial Circuit Court of Florida refused to grant
summary judgment in favor of Constar International, Inc. in the
lawsuit filed by its former and current employees of its
Orlando, Florida facility, seeking unspecified monetary damages.

The lawsuit alleges bodily injury as a result of exposure to
off-gasses from polyvinyl chloride (PVC) during the manufacture
of plastic bottles from 1980 to 1987.  PVC suppliers and a
manufacturer of the manufacturing equipment used to process the
PVC are also defendants.  The litigation is currently in the
discovery stage.

On May 5, 2005, the court denied the Company's motion for
summary judgment, which had been brought as to one of the
plaintiffs.  The Company believes the claims are without merit
and is aggressively defending against the claims.


DANCING DEER: Recalls Streusel Cakes Due to Undeclared Pecans
-------------------------------------------------------------
Effective immediately Dancing Deer Baking Co. is voluntarily
recalling its Maple Pumpkin Cranberry Streusel Cake, 20 oz, due
to undeclared pecans. Maple Pumpkin Cranberry Streusel Cakes
were mislabeled with a Maple Cranberry Pumpkin Cake label, which
did not contain the allergen ingredient. People who have an
allergy or severe sensitivity to pecans run the risk of serious
or life-threatening allergic reactions if they consume these
products.

Approximately 86 Maple Pumpkin Cranberry Streusel Cakes with an
"Enjoy By Date" from Sep 13 2005 through Sep 20 2005, a UPC code
of 674971227232 with the Maple Pumpkin Cranberry Cake labels are
affected. Consumers may have purchased these cakes directly at
the company's website (www.dancingdeer.com) and/or at their
local grocery stores in seven states. These include: Arizona,
California, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Hampshire,
and Washington.

The product is a shrink-wrapped 20 oz Bundt Cake in circular
cardboard ring with a sticker label across the top.

To date, no consumer complaints have been reported. This recall
was initiated after it was discovered by the firm that the Maple
Pumpkin Cranberry Streusel Cakes had been mislabeled with Maple
Pumpkin Cranberry Cakes labels.

Dancing Deer is working closely with FDA government officials.

Customers who have purchased Maple Pumpkin Cranberry Streusel
Cakes with an "Enjoy By Date" from 9/13/2005 through 9/20/2005
are urged to return the cakes to their place of purchase for a
refund or a replacement. If consumers purchased cakes form
directly from Dancing Deer, they should contact the company at
1-888-699-DEER.

For more details, contact Dancing Deer, Phone: 1-888-699-DEER,
E-mail: info@dancingdeer.com, Web site:
http://www.dancingdeer.com/customerquestions.


DUQUESNE LIGHT: Reaches Settlement for PA Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Duquesne Light Holdings, Inc. executed a definite settlement
agreement for the consolidated securities class action filed
against it and David Marshall, its former chairman, chief
executive officer and president, in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, styled "In re
DQE, Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No. 01-1851 (W.D.
Pa.)."

The plaintiffs filed a second consolidated amended complaint on
April 15, 2002. The complaint alleges violations of Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Section 12(a)(2) of the
Securities Act of 1933 (Securities Act). The complaint also
alleges controlling person liability under Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and Section 15 of the Securities Act.

The complaint alleges that between December 6, 2000 and April
30, 2001, the defendants issued a number of materially false and
misleading statements concerning investments made by the
Company's subsidiary, DQE Enterprises, Inc., and the impact that
these investments would have on its current and future financial
results.

On May 20, 2003, the court certified a class to include
purchasers of the Company's common stock during the period from
December 6, 2000 through April 30, 2001, and a sub-class to
include purchasers of the Company's common stock through its
dividend reinvestment and stock purchase plan during the same
period.  In March 2005, the Company reached an oral agreement in
principle with counsel for the plaintiffs to settle all claims
of the class and sub-class.  In April 2005, the Company agreed
in principle to settle all claims of the class and sub-class. A
settlement agreement has been executed, subject to court
approval.

The suit is styled "ELOVITZ v. DQE, INC., et al., case no. 2:01-
cv-01851-WLS-ARH," filed in the United States District Court for
the Western District of Pennsylvania, under Judge William L.
Standish.  Representing the Company are Keren Estime, Douglas M.
Krauss and Joseph N. Sacca, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher &
Flom, 4 Times Square, New York, NY 10036-3897, Phone:
(212) 735-3000; and Gary P. Hunt of Tucker Arensberg, 1500 One
PPG Place, Pittsburgh, PA 15222, Phone: (412) 566-1212, E-mail:
ghunt@tuckerlaw.com.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Matthew K. Bucher, J. Allen Carney, Steven A. Owings,
         T. Brent Walker of Cauley, Geller, Bowman & Coates,
         11311 Arcade Drive, Suite 200, Little Rock, AR 72212,
         Phone: (501) 312-8505

     (2) Susan M. Greenwood, Steven G. Schulman and Richard H.
         Weiss of Milberg, Weiss, Bershad & Schulman, One
         Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY 10119, Phone: (212)
         594-5300

     (3) James E. Tullman, Weiss & Yourman, 551 Fifth Avenue,
         New York, NY 10176, Phone: (212) 682-3025

     (4) Alfred G. Yates, Jr., Law Offices of Alfred G. Yates,
         Jr., 429 Forbes Avenue, 519 Allegheny Building,
         Pittsburgh, PA 15219, Phone: (412) 391-5164, E-mail:
         Yateslaw@aol.com


EASTMAN KODAK: Shareholders Launch Securities Fraud Suit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
Eastman Kodak Co. and two of its current executives face several
securities class actions filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging claims
under the Securities Exchange Act on behalf of a proposed class
of persons who purchased securities of the Company between April
23, 2003 and September 25, 2003, inclusive.

The substance of the Complaints is that various press releases
and other public statements made by the Company during the
proposed class period allegedly misrepresented the Company's
financial condition and omitted material information regarding,
among other things, the state of the Company's film and paper
business.

The first identified suit in the litigation is styled "Herbert
T. King, et al. v. Eastman Kodak Company, et al.," filed in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California.  The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

     (1) Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C., Phone: 888-753-2796,

     (2) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
         (Melville), 200 Broadhollow, Suite 406, Melville, NY,
         11747, Phone: 631.367.7100, Fax: 631.367.1173, E-mail:
         info@lerachlaw.com

     (3) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San
         Diego), 401 B Street, Suite 1700, San Diego, CA, 92101,
         Phone: 206.749.5544, Fax: 206.749.9978, E-mail:
         info@lerachlaw.com

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

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


GOOGLE INC.: 8th Circuit Sends "Click Fraud" Suit to State Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled that a
class action lawsuit that accuses Google Inc. and other Internet
companies of committing "click fraud" should be heard in state
court rather than in a federal courtroom, The Manteca Bulletin
Daily reports.

In its ruling, which was handed down on September 8, the federal
appeals court stated that the lawsuit, filed initially by Lane's
Gifts and Collectibles, a Texarkana gift shop, would be heard in
Miller County Circuit Court. Originally, defendants wanted the
case tried in federal court.

John C. Goodson and Dallas lawyer Joel Fineberg filed the
lawsuit on February 4 against Google, Yahoo! Inc., Overture
Services Inc., America Online Inc., Ask Jeeves Inc., Looksmart
Ltd., Lycos Inc., Netscape Communication Corp., Buena Vista
Internet Group, Findwhat.Com Inc. and Time Warner Inc.

The suit claims that the Internet companies knowingly charged
Lane's and other companies for advertising traffic not generated
by bona fide customers. It specifically alleges that the
defendant companies worked with one another in a conspiracy to
create an online environment that harms advertisers, an earlier
Class Action Reporter story (July 14, 2005) reports.  The suit
also alleges that the companies "have grown the Internet PPC
(pay per click) advertising market while failing to disclose
that they have routinely and systematically overcharged and-or
over collected for PPC advertising revenue from their
customers," an earlier Class Action Reporter story (July 14,
2005) reports.

In the online advertising world, businesses pay Internet
providers a fee based on the number of times their ads are
"clicked." The click takes would-be customers to another page
for more information.  The suit by Lane's, which was filed
before President Bush signed legislation that funnels most class
action lawsuits to federal court, alleges that these ads are
often clicked only to generate a bigger bill for advertisers,
not by someone truly seeking more information.

Previously, the companies filed a petition with the federal
appeals court in St. Louis, which is seeking permission to
appeal the court ruling by U.S. District Judge Harry Barnes, who
ruled that the suit properly belongs in Miller County Circuit
Court, since the new law does not apply to the case, an earlier
Class Action Reporter story (July 22, 2005) reports.

Under the new law, which Congress approved on February 18, class
action suits seeking $5 million or more would be heard in state
court only if the primary defendant and more than one-third of
the plaintiffs are from the same state. But if less than one-
third of the plaintiffs are from the same state as the primary
defendant, and more than $5 million is at stake, the case would
go to federal court, an earlier Class Action Reporter story
(July 22, 2005) reports.

However, the petition by the defendants argues that the date
Judge Barnes should have considered in deciding where the case
should be heard was March 30, which was the day a petition was
filed in federal court to remove the case from the state court.
In addition, the defendants' petition stated, "This appeal
presents the first opportunity for this circuit to decide the
proper interpretation of the act's effective-date provision.
Deciding the issue now will remove uncertainty, which was the
reason Congress altered long-standing law to permit an appeal
like this one, and ensure that these suits are heard in federal
court where they belong." The petition also argued, "it makes
sense to construe 'commenced' to include the date an action
begins in federal court with the filing of a removal notice," an
earlier Class Action Reporter story (July 22, 2005) reports.


GUAM: Federal Court Allows Governor to Intervene in EITC Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gov. Felix Camacho received federal court approval to intervene
in one of the Earned Income Tax Credit class action lawsuits,
The Pacific Daily News reports.

In June, Gov. Camacho signed a $90 million agreement to settle
the government's tax debt to the island's working poor, who were
denied the tax credit for nearly a decade.  The agreement would
settle a lawsuit filed by taxpayer Julie Babauta Santos. Ms.
Santos, represented by Mr. Phillips, filed the class action
lawsuit in February 2004 to force the government to pay up and
to resume yearly payments of the ETIC, which was suspended by
the government since 1998, an earlier Class Action Reporter
story (July 20, 2004) reports.  Despite the settlement though,
other civil cases related to the tax credit are still working
their way through the federal court system.

In an order signed recently, U.S. District Judge Ricardo
Martinez granted the governor's request to intervene in the
lawsuit filed by taxpayers Mary Grace Simpao, Christina Naputi
and Janice Cruz.  In his order Judge Martinez determined that
the governor is an important part of the case and his interests
are not being adequately represented by the attorney general's
office.

In addition, the judge noted that the attorney general's office
has rejected some of the governor's arguments in the tax case
and has conceded key issues. "Undoubtedly, the governor should
have input in this matter and his concerns considered because of
his role in the administration of the (Guam Territorial Income
Tax)," the judge wrote.  Judge Martinez further noted that the
governor needs to be able to plan the government's budget based
on the outcome of this case.


HILLENBRAND INDUSTRIES: Faces Casket Antitrust Suits in N.D. CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hillenbrand Industries faces several class actions filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, alleging that a conspiracy to suppress competition
in the funeral casket market.  The suits also name as defendants
the Company's Batesville Casket Company, Inc. subsidiary and
three of Batesville's national funeral home customers, Service
Corporation International (SCI), Alderwoods Group, Inc.
(Alderwoods), and Stewart Enterprises, Inc. (Stewart).

On May 2, 2005, a non-profit entity called Funeral Consumers
Alliance, Inc. (FCA) and several filed the first suit, alleging
a conspiracy to suppress competition in an alleged market for
the sale of caskets through a group boycott of so-called
"independent casket discounters;" a campaign of disparagement
against these independent casket discounters; and concerted
efforts to restrict casket price competition and to coordinate
and fix casket pricing, all in violation of federal antitrust
law and California's Unfair Competition Law.  The lawsuit
claims, among other things, that Batesville's maintenance and
enforcement of, and alleged modifications to, its long-standing
policy of selling caskets only to licensed funeral homes were
the product of a conspiracy among Batesville and the other
defendants to exclude "independent casket discounters," that is,
casket retailers who are not licensed funeral homes and who do
not offer funeral services, and this alleged conspiracy,
combined with other alleged matters, suppressed competition in
the alleged market for caskets and led consumers to pay higher
than competitive prices for caskets. The Complaint also alleges
that SCI, Alderwoods, Stewart and other unnamed co-conspirators
conspired to monopolize the alleged market for the sale of
caskets in the United States.

Since that case was filed, several more purported class action
lawsuits on behalf of consumers have been filed in the Court
based on essentially the same factual allegations and alleging
violations of federal antitrust law and related state law
claims. Two similar cases filed in other districts were
voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs.  The Company
anticipates that they will be refiled. Though the purported
classes vary slightly, all of these actions purport to represent
classes that include purchasers of Batesville caskets. Each case
alleges that two of Batesville's competitors, York Group, Inc.
and Aurora Casket Company, are co-conspirators but does not name
them as defendants.  It is not unusual to have multiple copycat
class action suits filed after an initial filing, and it is
possible that additional suits based on the same or similar
allegations will be brought against the Company and Batesville.
Some of these cases have been consolidated in the Court, and the
Company anticipates that any others will also be consolidated
with the Court, subject to the motion to transfer venue.

Plaintiffs are seeking certification of various classes,
including, among others, all United States consumers who
purchased Batesville caskets from the co-defendants at any time
from January 1, 1994 until the present. Plaintiffs generally
seek actual unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the
purported classes, trebling of any such damages that may be
awarded, recovery of attorneys' fees and costs and injunctive
relief.  In order to transfer the litigation to a venue that is
more convenient for all parties, the defendants have jointly
moved to transfer these cases to the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Texas.  All the plaintiffs
oppose this motion.  In addition, Batesville, the Company, and
the other defendants have moved to dismiss the FCA Action on the
grounds that it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted. Batesville and the Company intend to move to dismiss
the other cases at the appropriate time.  The motion to transfer
and the motion to dismiss are scheduled to be heard by the Court
on September 8, 2005.

The Court held a case management conference on August 4, 2005.
At the conference, the Court ordered discovery to commence
immediately, set a hearing for class certification of the FCA
plaintiffs' proposed class for January 24, 2006, and set a trial
date of December 4, 2006.  If the motion to transfer is granted,
it is likely, but not certain, that the new court to which the
case is assigned would set its own case management schedule.


HILLENBRAND INDUSTRIES: Casket Distributors File Antitrust Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hillenbrand Industries, Inc. faces a class action filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, on behalf of the class of "independent casket
distributors," alleging violations of state and federal
antitrust law and state unfair and deceptive practices laws.

Pioneer Valley Casket Co. (Pioneer Valley), a casket store and
Internet retailer, filed another class action lawsuit against
the Company, its Batesville Casket Company, Inc. subsidiary and
three of Batesville's national funeral home customers, Service
Corporation International (SCI), Alderwoods Group, Inc.
(Alderwoods), and Stewart Enterprises, Inc. (Stewart).

Pioneer Valley alleges that it and other independent casket
distributors were injured by the defendants' alleged conspiracy
to boycott and suppress competition in the alleged market for
caskets, and by a conspiracy among SCI, Alderwoods, Stewart and
other unnamed co-conspirators to monopolize the alleged market
for funeral caskets.

The defendants anticipate that they will move to transfer this
action to the Southern District of Texas, as well, and move to
dismiss at the appropriate time. Plaintiff Pioneer Valley seeks
certification of a class of all independent casket distributors
who are now in business or have been in business since July 8,
2001. Pioneer Valley generally seeks actual unspecified monetary
damages on behalf of the purported class, trebling of any such
damages that may be awarded, recovery of attorneys' fees and
costs and injunctive relief.


LOUISIANA: Suit Over Shreveport's New Hotel Goes to Caddo Parish
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Second Circuit Court of Appeal in Louisiana ruled that a
lawsuit over using state money to build Shreveport's new
convention center hotel should be heard by a Caddo Parish judge,
The Associated Press reports.

The group -- Citizens for Good Government -- argues that the $12
million in state capital outlay money should not be used to help
build the hotel.  The city administration wanted the case heard
in East Baton Rouge Parish since state money is involved.
However, in siding with a group of citizens who are trying to
shut down the Deja Vu strip club on Commerce Street, the appeal
court ruled that Caddo Parish is where the case should be
decided. In essence, the three-judge panel of the court upheld a
district court ruling that dismissed all but one plaintiff from
a lawsuit to close the club, since according to court records
the dismissed plaintiffs did not own any property near the
downtown club. Additionally, the appeal court also removed the
class action status from the lawsuit.

Attorney John Milkovich told The Associated Press that the city
misspent bond money that voters had dedicated to build a park
near downtown.


MASSEY ENERGY: Faces Property Damage Lawsuits in WV State Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Massey Energy Co. and 12 of its subsidiaries face litigation,
alleged that defendants illegally transported coal in overloaded
trucks, causing damage to state roads, thereby interfering with
plaintiffs' use and enjoyment of their properties and their
right to use the public roads.  Plaintiffs seek injunctive
relief and unquantified compensatory and punitive damages.

An advocacy group representing residents in the Counties of
Boone, Raleigh and Kanawha, West Virginia, and other plaintiffs,
filed 16 suits in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, West
Virginia filed the suit in January 2003.  The Supreme Court of
Appeals of West Virginia referred the consolidated lawsuits, and
three similar lawsuits against other coal and transportation
companies not involving the Company's subsidiaries, to the
Circuit Court of Lincoln County, West Virginia, to be handled by
a mass litigation panel.

In March 2004, seven residents of Mingo County, West Virginia,
filed a similar lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Mingo County,
West Virginia, against the Company and three subsidiaries,
raising similar claims and seeking similar relief. The Supreme
Court of Appeals referred this case to the mass litigation panel
also.  The plaintiffs in all five trucking cases have requested
that the cases be further consolidated, the scope of their
claims be expanded statewide, claims be added against land
companies, and class action status be granted.


MCGLINCHEY STAFFORD: Starts Weblog on Class Action Fairness Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
McGlinchey Stafford, a law firm recognized nationwide for its
practice defending class action lawsuits, recently launched the
first ever Web Log (Blog), http://www.cafalawblog.com,focused
on the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA). The interactive
Blog features cutting edge information providing readers with a
constantly renewed source of news and insights about CAFA and
its rapidly evolving case law.

Passed by Congress in February of this year, CAFA has
revolutionized and changed the class action landscape by
dramatically expanding federal court jurisdiction over class
actions, and by requiring close court supervision of class
settlements to avoid abuses and enhance consumer protection.

The CAFA Law Blog offers attorneys, courts, businesses and other
readers new and comprehensive information about this important
new law, discusses its implications and effect on companies
doing business, and contains summaries of case rulings as they
are decided by the courts, with links to the full texts of the
decisions.

McGlinchey Stafford offers clients a premier national class
action defense team. McGlinchey Stafford attorneys have
represented clients in hundreds of class action matters in more
than 25 states, including suits involving consumer financial
services, banking, insurance, deceptive trade practices,
products liability, environmental law, toxic torts, personal
injury, health care, public utilities, and labor and employment
issues and claims.

"We have always strived to provide top-flight legal services,
and to accommodate and support the changing needs of our clients
to the best of our ability. They have told us they want and need
more information about CAFA," said Anthony Rollo (New Orleans),
CAFA Law Blog Co-Editor and class action defense team leader
with McGlinchey Stafford.

"The flexibility and utility of the blog format allows us to
supplement our private advice to clients with a public forum to
disseminate information about CAFA and publish reader
commentary, and to remain a leader in the class action field,"
added Hunter Twiford (Jackson), Co-Editor of CAFA Law Blog and
partner in the firm's class action defense team.


NEW YORK: Survivor's Appeal in $1.25B Swiss Bank Case Rejected
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York rejected a
request from American Holocaust survivors for a greater share of
any remaining money in the $1.25 billion Swiss bank case, The
Forward reports.

Court documents show that the American survivors were appealing
a March 2004 memorandum that promised 75% of any remaining funds
in the case to needy survivors in the former Soviet Union.  In a
recent ruling, the federal appeals court stated that Judge
Edward Korman, who oversaw the case, had acted with "thoughtful
analysis and scrupulous fairness" when deciding to provide a
greater proportion of money to survivors living in Russia.

The Swiss bank case is a class action lawsuit brought by
Holocaust survivors who claimed that the banks had prevented
them from reclaiming their bank accounts after the war. As of
the moment, the dispute is over how any unclaimed deposits
should be distributed among the remaining survivors. Initially,
it appeared that these deposits could amount to as much as $600
million, however it now looks as though the figure will be much
smaller.  Early on in the case, Judge Korman decided that any
remaining funds, which was the subject of intense emotional
wrangling, would be distributed to the survivors most in need of
help, however the definition of need lately became the subject
of debate.  In 2004, however, despite those contentions, a
special adviser to Judge Korman recommended that the court
provide 75% of these funds to survivors in the former Soviet
Union, due to the intense poverty among survivors there.

American and Israeli survivor groups though opposed this formula
arguing that it ignores geographical distribution. Additionally,
in the current appeal, representatives for homosexual victims
are arguing that they should receive a larger share of any
remaining funds.  However, in the most recent ruling, the
appeals court agreed with Judge Korman that the condition among
survivors in the former Soviet Union "is woeful in comparison to
that of survivors in the United States," and that Judge Korman
acted "well within the bounds of [his] discretion" in
formulating the distribution plan.

In a related decision, the appeals court rejected a request from
Samuel Dubbin, a lawyer for the American survivors, who had
asked the court to award him attorney's fees for his work on the
case. In that ruling the court agreed with Judge Korman's
determination that Mr. Dubbin's work on the case was "late,
tangential, and ultimately irrelevant."

Despite the decisions, Leo Rechter, president of a national
survivors' organization, told The Forward, "We don't think the
court was fully aware of all the facts or details."


PACIFIC CAPITAL: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of CA RAL Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the Superior Court in Santa Barbara,
California's dismissal of the class action against Pacific
Capital Bancorp on behalf of persons who entered into a refund
anticipation loan application and agreement (the "RAL
Agreement") with the Company from whose tax refund the Company
deducted a debt owed by the applicant to another RAL lender.

The lawsuit was filed on March 18, 2003 in the Superior Court in
San Francisco, California as "Canieva Hood and Congress of
California Seniors v. Santa Barbara Bank & Trust, Pacific
Capital Bank, N.A., and Jackson-Hewitt, Inc."  The Company is a
party to a separate cross-collection agreement with each of the
other RAL lenders by which it agrees to collect sums due to
those other lenders on delinquent RALs by deducting those sums
from tax refunds due to its RAL customers and remitting those
funds to the RAL lender to whom the debt is owed.  This cross-
collection procedure is disclosed in the RAL Agreement with the
RAL customer and is specifically authorized and agreed to by the
customer. The suit was later moved to the Santa Barbara Superior
Court.

The plaintiff does not contest the validity of the debt, but
contends that the cross-collection is illegal and requests
damages on behalf of the class, injunctive relief against the
Company, restitution of sums collected, punitive damages and
attorneys' fees. The Company has filed an answer to the
complaint and has also filed a cross-complaint seeking indemnity
from the other RAL lenders for which the funds were cross-
collected.

The Company filed an answer to the complaint and a cross
complaint for indemnification against the other RAL lenders. On
May 4, 2005, a superior court judge in Santa Barbara granted a
motion filed by the Company and the other RAL lenders, which
resulted in the entry of a judgment in favor of the Company
dismissing the suit.  The plaintiffs have filed an appeal.


PACIFIC CAPITAL: Asks NY Court To Dismiss RAL Agreement Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Capital Bancorp asked the Supreme Court of the State of
New York, County of New York to dismiss the amended class action
filed against it on behalf of residents of the State of New York
who engaged Jackson Hewitt, Inc (JHI) to provide tax preparation
services and who through JHI entered into an agreement with the
Company to receive a refund anticipation loan (RAL).  JHI is
also a defendant.

The lawsuit was filed on June 18, 2004, as "Myron Benton v.
Jackson Hewitt, Inc. and Santa Barbara Bank & Trust Co."  As
part of the RAL documentation, the customer receives and signs a
disclosure form which discloses that the Company may share a
portion of the federal refund processing fee and finance charge
with JHI.  The plaintiffs allege that the failure of JHI and the
Company to disclose the specific amount of the fee which JHI
receives is unlawful and request damages on behalf of the class,
injunctive relief, punitive damages and attorneys' fees.

Following the filing of a motion to dismiss the complaint by the
Company, the plaintiff has filed an amended complaint.  The
amended complaint has added three new causes of action:

     (1) a cause of action for an alleged violation of
         California Business and Professions Code Sections
         17200, and 17500, et seq, as a result of alleged
         deceptive business practices and false advertising;

     (2) a cause of action for an alleged violation of the
         California Legal Remedies Act, California Civil Code
         Section 1750, et seq;

     (3) a cause of action for an alleged negligent
         misrepresentation.


PENNSYLVANIA: Contamination Near Industrial Park Triggers Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the wake of well contamination near the Ivy Industrial Park
in South Abington Township, Pennsylvania, a class action lawsuit
was launched against Metso Paper USA for negligence and
violating the Hazardous Sites Cleanup Act in Lackawanna County
Court, The Scranton Times reports.

In January, the company asked permission from the state to enter
its voluntary land-recycling program after identifying elevated
levels of two common industrial solvents in on-site groundwater
monitoring wells.

Court records revealed that levels of trichloroethylene (TCE)
and tetrachloroethylene (PCE) above the federal drinking water
standard were subsequently discovered in at least 30 residential
wells near the industrial park. State and federal officials
continue to try to pinpoint the radius of contamination and the
length of exposure for nearby residents.

The suit, which was filed by James J. Black whose home is less
than a mile from the industrial park, claims that the
contamination diminishes property values and heaps on costs for
environmental testing and monitoring. Mr. Black's well levels,
according to the suit, were 10.9 parts per billion each of TCE
and PCE, both above the 5 parts per billion drinking standard.

Four days after Mr. Black's suit was filed, Joseph P. Cumming, a
Carbondale Road homeowner filed a second, separate contamination
lawsuit. His class action suit claims Metso and park tenants
Sandvik Inc. and Sandvik Extruded Tube, Inc., knowingly
contaminated the area with TCE and PCE.


PORTLAND GENERAL: OR Supreme Court Considers Rate Refund Request
----------------------------------------------------------------
In a protracted dispute involving the now-defunct Trojan nuclear
power plant currently before Oregon's Supreme Court, Portland
General Electric customers could be due refunds of an estimated
$500 million, The Associated Press reports.

Court records show that PGE closed the Columbia County plant in
1993 after concluding that the expense of fixing steam generator
problems didn't justify continuing its operation. The state
Public Utility Commission though allowed it to recoup its
investment through electricity rates.  However, the Utility
Reform Project, a Portland-based ratepayer advocacy group,
launched a legal challenge since the PUC also permitted the
company to recover from ratepayers - from 1995 to 2000 - an
amount representing estimated profits on the plant had it
remained open.

Previously, the State Court of Appeals ruled that utility
regulators could not allow PGE to charge ratepayers for a return
on investment in a plant that no longer was operating.  In 2003,
Marion County Circuit Judge Paul Lipscomb ordered the PUC to
find a way to return the improperly collected money to
customers. That decision has led to legal disputes over whether
regulators can make refunds, so Judge Lipscomb allowed the
Reform Project to pursue a separate class action lawsuit in an
effort to get the money returned to PGE customers.  The Company
is asking the Supreme Court to step in and nullify the refund
decision and end the class action case.

Portland lawyer Dan Meek, a leader of the Reform Project, told
The Associated Press that roughly 800,000 current and former PGE
customers could be due refunds totaling about $500 million. He
added that a lump-sum refund would give an average residential
customer about $400.  Mr. Meek argues that since the PUC isn't
moving to get refunds to ratepayers, "We conclude the remedy is
a separate lawsuit."

PGE though disagrees, citing in its written court briefs that
any rate relief is up to the PUC and not to a damage lawsuit in
the courts, AP reports.


PUBLIC STORAGE: Seeking Transfer of CA Lawsuit To Federal Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Public Storage, Inc. sought to remove the class action filed
against it in the California Superior Court for Orange County,
styled "Serrao v. Public Storage, Inc.," to federal court.

The plaintiff in this case filed a suit against the Company on
behalf of a putative class of renters who rented self-storage
units from the Company.  Plaintiff alleges that the Company
misrepresented the size of its storage units, and has brought
claims under California statutory and common law relating to
consumer protection, fraud, unfair competition, and negligent
misrepresentation.  The suit seeks monetary damages,
restitution, and declaratory and injunctive relief.

On November 3, 2003, the court granted the Company's motion to
strike the plaintiff's nationwide class allegations and to limit
any putative class to California residents only.  In August
2005, the Company filed a motion to remove the case to federal
court.


PUBLIC STORAGE: FL, CA Employees Commence Overtime Wage Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Public Storage, Inc. faces two class actions filed in the
California and Florida courts, alleging violations of the
states' wage lawsuits.  The suits are:

     (1) Brinkley et al v. Public Storage, Inc., (filed April
         2005 in the Superior Court of California - Los Angeles
         County)

     (2) Inhan et al v. Public Storage, Inc. (filed May 2005 in
         the United States District Court - Southern District of
         Florida)

The Brinkley plaintiffs are suing the Company on behalf of a
purported class of California property managers who claim that
they were not compensated for all the hours they worked.  The
Brinkley suit is based upon California wage and hour laws.

The Inhan plaintiffs are suing the Company in Florida on behalf
of a purported class of property managers who claim they were
not compensated for all hours worked.  The Inhan suit is based
upon the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act.

The maximum potential liability cannot be estimated, but would
be increased if a class or classes are certified or, in
California, if claims are permitted to be brought on behalf of
others under the California Unfair Business Practices Act.


REEBOK INTERNATIONAL: NY Courts Enters Injunctions V. Defendants
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Kimba M. Wood of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York entered preliminary
injunctions against defendants Sonja Anticevic, David Pajcin,
Zoran Sormaz, Perica Lopandic, Ilija Borac and Certain Unknown
Persons trading in an account at an Austrian broker,
Direktanlage.at AG (the Direktanlage Traders).  Among other
things, the Court order requires the foreign defendants to
repatriate the proceeds of Reebok International Ltd. securities
transactions.

By virtue of this order, there are now preliminary injunctions
in place against all of the defendants in this action.  On
August 18, 2005, defendants Henry Siegel, Monika Vujovic and
Elvis Santana consented to the entry of preliminary injunctions
against them which, among, other relief, provided for certain
asset freezes.  Also on August 18, 2005, a separate preliminary
injunction was entered against Anticevic.

On August 18, 2005, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed
an amended complaint, charging the nine defendants with insider
trading for directing and/or conducting additional suspicious
trading in the securities of Reebok both domestically and abroad
just prior to Reebok's August 3, 2005, announcement that it had
agreed to be acquired by Adidas-Salomon AG. The Commission's
amended complaint alleges the following:

     (1) On August 1 and 2, 2005, through four domestic
         accounts, Mr. Anticevic, Mr. Siegel, Ms. Vujovic, and
         Mr. Santana purchased a total of 4,097 Reebok "out of
         the money" call options.  Collectively, these accounts
         comprised nearly 80% of the buy volume in Reebok call
         options on those days. All positions in each account
         were liquidated after the acquisition announcement on
         August 3, 2005.  In total, the domestic trading netted
         profits exceeding $4 million.

     (2) On those same days, through foreign accounts maintained
         at the same broker, Mr. Anticevic, Mr. Sormaz, Mr.
         Lopandic and Mr. Borac purchased the equivalent of
         145,240 shares of Reebok common stock.  Each of those
         accounts sold all of its Reebok shares on August 3,
         2005.  On August 2, 2005, an account maintained at an
         Austrian broker, Direktanlage, purchased 7,545 shares
         of Reebok common stock, which were also sold on August
         3, 2005.  Collectively, the proceeds from the foreign
         trading in Reebok shares were more than $2 million.

     (3) The Commission's complaint alleges that Mr. Pajcin, who
         is Mr. Anticevic's nephew, placed or directed some of
         the Reebok trades, and tipped other defendants who
         placed Reebok trades.

     (4) In addition to the Reebok trading, overlapping trades
         were placed at the same time in both the domestic and
         foreign accounts in the securities of other companies.

As a result of the defendants' conduct, the Commission alleges
that the defendants engaged in illegal insider trading in
violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5.  Among other things, the Complaint seeks
permanent injunctive relief, the disgorgement of all illegal
profits, and the imposition of civil monetary penalties.  The
case is styled, SEC v. Sonja Anticevic, et al. 05 Civ. 6991, KMW
(LR-19374).


SMART & FINAL: Reaches Tentative $19M Settlement For Wage Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Grocery chain Smart & Final reached a tentative $19 million
agreement in a class action lawsuit that accuses the chain of
not paying its employees properly, The Associated Press reports.

Filed in May 2001, the suit was certified as a class action in
2004 with about 13,000 potential plaintiffs who include current
and past employees of California stores.  The suit alleges that
the Los Angeles-based chain failed to properly calculate
overtime pay and also neglected to pay for all hours worked. It
also alleges that other compensation was not paid.

Larry Willis, an attorney for the plaintiffs told The Associated
Press, "This settlement gives back to the employees the money
they earned."  He added that the company agreed to settle for
$22 million, which includes compensation and attorney fees.

A statement released by the chain stated it would record an
estimated pretax charge of about $19 million to account for
compensation, attorney fees and administrative expenses
connected with the case.  Court records revealed that a judge is
scheduled to consider the proposed settlement on October 5,
2005.

Smart & Final, which currently operates 238 stores in
California, Oregon, Washington, Arizona, Nevada, Idaho and
Mexico, admitted no liability or wrongdoing as part of the
settlement. According to its President and Chief Executive
Officer Etienne Snollaerts, the grocery chain settled to avoid
dragged-out litigation.


SYNOPSYS INC.: Bares Dismissal of Securities Fraud Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Synopsys Inc., which makes semiconductor-design software, stated
that a class action lawsuit brought by shareholders was recently
dismissed, The CFO.com Magazine reports.

According to a report at the time in Electronic News, on August
2004, Synopsys announced preliminary results for its July 31
quarter that came in below its previous target range. About two
weeks later, the official results fell somewhere in between, but
the company warned that results for the then-current period and
fiscal year would fall far short of expectations, according to
the paper.

Not surprisingly, unhappy shareholders sliced off nearly one-
third of the company's market capitalization in one day of
trading. They then proceeded to file a class action lawsuit,
which named chairman and chief executive officer Aart J. de
Geus, senior vice president and chief financial officer Steven
K. Shevick, and corporate controller Richard T. Rowley, charging
them with "failing to disclose and misrepresenting material
adverse facts that were known to them or recklessly disregarded
by them," according to the Electronic News account.

In a press release regarding the case's dismissal, Mr. De Geus
stated, "This dismissal resolves in our favor a case we believed
from the beginning had no foundation," and added, "We are very
pleased to have won our motion to dismiss and to be able to move
forward without further management distraction or expense."

The Synopsys press release though did not provide reasons for
the dismissal or any further details, except for stating that
each party will bear its own fees and costs.


TAMPA ELECTRIC: Faces FL Litigation V. Transmission Structures
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tampa Electric Company faces three class actions filed in
Hillsborough County Circuit Court in Florida, in connection with
the location of transmission structures and upgrades to a
substation in certain residential areas by residents in the
areas surrounding the structures and substation.

In April 2005, a fourth lawsuit by another group of residents
who live in the vicinity of large transmission lines was filed
in the Circuit Court in Hillsborough County and has been
consolidated with the Jorissen case, one of the previously filed
lawsuits.  The high-voltage power lines are needed by the
Company to move electricity from its power generating facilities
in the eastern part of its service territory to the northwest
part of its service territory where significant population
growth has been experienced.  The design provided a loop in
order to enhance reliability for the benefit of customers, the
Company stated in a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange
Commission.  The resident plaintiffs are seeking to remove the
poles or to receive monetary damages.

The plaintiffs were seeking class action status, which was
denied. The three cases are pending before two separate judges.
Summary judgment denying injunctive relief (non-monetary relief)
has been granted in one of the cases and motions for summary
judgment in the other two cases (Shaw and Jorissen), which were
consolidated, were denied by Judge Isom who has now moved to
another division.  The cases are presently scheduled for trial
in September 2005, but the Company believes that they will be
transferred to the large case docket and scheduled for a later
date. Recently, the two consolidated cases have been severed,
and Tampa Electric has filed new motions for partial summary
judgment on injunctive relief in both of the cases raising
issues that have not yet been before the court.  The motion for
partial summary judgment in the Jorissen case was argued on
August 4, 2005, and the Court took it under advisement to rule
at a later date.   On August 3, 2005, the Court denied the Shaw
plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint to add punitive
damages.


TECO ENERGY: Asks FL Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
TECO Energy, Inc. asked the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Florida to dismiss the consolidated amended
securities class action filed against it and certain of its
current and former officers.

A number of securities class action lawsuits were filed in
August, September and October 2004 by purchasers of Company
securities.  These suits, which were filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Florida, allege disclosure
violations under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. These
actions were consolidated and remain in the initial pleading
stage.

On February 1, 2005, the Court entered its order appointing the
"TECO Lead Plaintiff Group," comprised of NECA-IBEW Pension Fund
(The Decatur Plan), Monroe County Employees Retirement System,
John Marder and Charles Korpak, as the Lead Plaintiff for the
Class and the law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman &
Robbins LLP as Lead Counsel.

The plaintiffs filed their Consolidated Class Action Complaint
for Securities Fraud on May 3, 2005.  The consolidated complaint
maintains the same class period, October 30, 2001 to February 4,
2003, and the same parties as those contained in the original
complaint. The nature of the claims, which relate to the
adequacy of the company's disclosures and financial reporting,
also remains the same. The defendants filed their motion to
dismiss on July 25, 2005, and the plaintiffs have 60 days to
file a response.  The motion would then be before the Court for
a decision, which could be made based on the papers or after a
hearing, if scheduled, at the Court's discretion.


THORATEC CORPORATION: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Thoratec Corporation asked the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California to dismiss the consolidated
securities class action filed against it on behalf of purchasers
of its publicly traded securities during the period between
April 28, 2004 and June 29, 2004.

Commencing on or about August 3, 2004, several federal
securities law putative class action suits were filed, alleging
the Company and certain of its officers and directors with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The
Complaints allege that during the Class Period, defendants made
a number of false and misleading statements regarding expected
sales and the market for the HeartMate as a "Destination
Therapy" treatment for end-stage heart failure patients.  As a
result of these statements, Thoratec's stock traded at
artificially inflated levels and defendants were able to
complete a $143.7 million note offering, an earlier Class Action
Reporter (September 30,2004) reports.

On November 24, 2004, the Court entered an order consolidating
the various putative class action complaints into a single
action entitled "In re Thoratec Corp. Securities Litigation" and
thereafter entered an order appointing Craig Toby as "Lead
Plaintiff" pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform
Act of 1995.  On January 18, 2005, Lead Plaintiff filed a
Consolidated Complaint. The Consolidated Complaint generally
alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by the
Company, its chief executive officer, cardiovascular division
president and former chief financial officer based upon, among
other things, alleged false statements about the Company's
expected sales and the market for HeartMate as a Destination
Therapy treatment.  The Consolidated Complaint seeks to recover
unspecified damages on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's
publicly traded securities during the putative class period.

The complaint seeks to recover unspecified damages on behalf of
all purchasers of the Company's publicly traded securities
during the class period.  On March 4, 2005, defendants moved to
dismiss the Consolidated Complaint and that motion currently is
pending.

The suit is styled "In re Thoratec Corporation Securities
Litigation, case no. 5:04-cv-03168-RMW," filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California,
under Judge Ronald M. Whyte.  Representing the plaintiffs are
Patrick J. Coughlin and Jeffrey W. Lawrence, Lerach Coughlin
Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP, 100 Pine Street, Suite 2600,
San Francisco, CA 94111, Phone: 415/288-4545, Fax: 415-288-4534,
Email: patc@mwbhl.com or jeffreyl@lerachlaw.com.  Representing
the Company is Michael B. Smith of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP,
1881 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA 94304, Phone: 650-849-5338,
Fax: 650-849-5038, Email: mbsmith@gibsondunn.com.


UNIVERSAL HEALTH: PA Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania granted Universal Health Services, Inc.'s motion to
dismiss the consolidated securities class action filed against
it and certain of its officers and directors.

On or about March 22 through March 26, 2004 two purported class
action complaints were filed against the Company and certain of
its officers and directors, alleging that defendants violated
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by disclosing materially false and misleading
information or failing to disclose material information
necessary to make other disclosure not misleading or to correct
prior disclosure with respect to the Company's financial
condition and operations.  A claim is asserted against the
individual defendants under section 20(a) of the Exchange Act
alleging that because they controlled the Company, they should
be held liable for damages caused by the Company's violation of
section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.  Plaintiffs seek, on
behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the Company's
common stock during a class period from July 21, 2003 through
February 27, 2004, unspecified money damages, restitution,
attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses.

Pursuant to an Order of the Court, these two cases were
consolidated into one action captioned: "In re Universal Health
Services, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. CV-04-01233-JP."
Subsequently, the plaintiffs filed an Amended Consolidated Class
Action Complaint.  The defendants have moved to dismiss that
complaint.  The motion to dismiss has been fully briefed and
oral argument was held on March 9, 2005. . The Court granted
defendants' motion to dismiss this complaint and thereafter
dismissed the action with prejudice when plaintiffs chose not to
replead.

The suit is styled "In re Universal Health Services, Inc.
Securities Litigation, Case No. CV-04-01233-JP," filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, under Judge John R. Padova.  Representing the
plaintiffs are:

     (1) Michael T. Fantini, Sherri R. Savett, BERGER AND
         MONTAGUE, P.C. 1622 Locust St., Philadelphia PA Phone:
         215-875-5710 Fax: 215-875-5804

     (2) Deborah R. Gross, LAW OFFICES BERNARD M. GROSS, PC, 100
         Penn Square West, Juniper & Market Sts., John Wanamaker
         Bldg, Suite 450 Philadelphia PA 19107 Phone: 215-561-
         3600 Fax: 215-561-3000 E-mail: debbie@bernardmgross.com

     (3) William S. Lerach, LERACH COUGHLIN STOIA GELLER RUDMAN
         & ROBBINS LLP, 401 B. Street Suite 1600, San Diego CA
         Phone: 619-231-1058

Representing the Company are:

     (1) Glen P. Banks and James Nespole, FULBRIGHT JAWORSKI,
         LLP 666 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10103-3198 Phone:
         212-318-3255

     (2) Neil G. Epstein, ECKERT, SEAMANS, CHERIN & MELLOTT,
         LLC, 1515 Market Street 9th Floor, Philadelphia PA
         19102-1909 Phone: 215-851-8408 Fax: 215-851-8383 E-
         mail: nge@escm.com


UNIVERSAL HEALTH: RICO Lawsuit Remanded To Nevada State Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action filed against Universal Health Services, Inc.
and its subsidiary Valley Hospital Medical Center, Inc., styled
"Deborah Louise Poblocki v. Universal Health Services, Inc., et
al., No. 04-A-489927-C," has been remanded to the District Court
of Clark County, Nevada.

The plaintiff alleges that the Company overcharged her and other
similarly situated patients who lacked health insurance. The
complaint seeks class action treatment.  The complaint, filed by
plaintiff individually and on behalf of other unnamed class
members, alleges that Valley Hospital Medical Center charged her
"unconscionable rates" because it charged her, an uninsured
outpatient, more than it charged insured patients and more than
the cost of the services provided.  She claims that this alleged
conduct violates state civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations (RICO) laws as well as other state statutory and
common law.  The company filed a notice of removal to federal
court, and plaintiff filed a motion to remand back to state
court.  The court granted plaintiff's motion to remand and the
case will proceed in Nevada state court.  On July 22, 2005,
plaintiff's counsel, with our consent, filed a first amended
complaint, adding two additional plaintiffs (husband and wife)
alleging similar "facts" and claiming similar federal and state
causes of action.  The Company anticipates filing a motion to
dismiss plaintiff's claims in the next few weeks, it said in a
disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The suit is styled "Deborah Louise Poblocki v. Universal Health
Services, Inc., et al., No. 04-A-489927-C," filed in the
District Court of Clark County, Nevada under Judge Mark R.
Denton.  Gerald I. Gillock is representing plaintiff Deborah
Poblocki.


WESTAR ENERGY: Reaches Settlement For KS Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Westar Energy, Inc. reached a settlement for the class action
filed against Westar Energy, Inc. and certain of its present and
former officers is proceeding.  The suit, styled "In Re Westar
Energy, Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No. 5:03-CV-
4003," is pending in the United States District Court in Topeka,
Kansas.

Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint on July 15,
2003.  The lawsuit is brought on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's common stock between March 29, 2000, the date the
Company announced its intention to separate its electric utility
operations from its unregulated businesses, and November 8,
2002, the date the KCC issued an order prohibiting the
separation.

The lawsuit alleges that the Company violated federal securities
laws by making material misrepresentations or omitting material
facts concerning the purpose and benefits of the previously
proposed separation of the Company's electric utility operations
from its unregulated businesses, the compensation of its senior
management and the independence and functioning of its board of
directors and that as a result the Company artificially inflated
the price of the Company's common stock.

On August 26, 2004, the court issued an order granting a joint
motion of all parties, which stayed the lawsuit until December
7, 2004, pending efforts to settle the lawsuit through
mediation.  The court also denied without prejudice motions to
dismiss the lawsuit filed by the Company and other defendants.
The court stated its intention to set aside the order upon
notice by any party that mediation efforts were unsuccessful, in
which case the court would address the motions to dismiss the
lawsuit.

In early April 2005, the Company reached an agreement in
principle with the plaintiffs to settle this lawsuit for $30.0
million.  The Company will pay $1.25 million of the settlement
and our insurance carriers will pay $28.75 million of the
settlement, which includes the payments by its insurance
carriers related to the settlement of the shareholder derivative
lawsuit described below, less legal fees for the plaintiffs'
counsel in that matter. The full terms of the proposed
settlement are set forth in a Stipulation and Agreement of
Compromise, Settlement and Release dated as of May 31, 2005
filed with the court.  The proposed settlement is subject to
approval by the court.  A hearing is scheduled on September 1,
2005 to address approval of the proposed settlement.


WESTAR ENERGY: Mediation In Consolidated KS ERISA Lawsuit Fails
---------------------------------------------------------------
Westar Energy failed to reach a settlement in the mediation for
the consolidated class action filed against it and certain of
its present and former officers and employees, styled "In Re
Westar Energy ERISA Litigation, Master File No. 03-4032-JAR."

The suit is pending in the United States District Court in
Topeka, Kansas, on behalf of participants in, and beneficiaries
of, the Company's Employees' 401(k) Savings Plan between July 1,
1998 and January 1, 2003.  The lawsuit alleges violations of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act arising from the conduct
of certain present and former officers and employees who served
or are serving as fiduciaries for the plan.

The conduct is related to alleged securities law violations
related to the previously proposed separation of the Company's
electric utility operations from our unregulated businesses, its
rate cases filed with the KCC in 2000, the compensation of and
benefits provided to its senior management, energy marketing
transactions with Cleco Corporation (Cleco) and the first and
second quarter 2002 restatements of its consolidated financial
statements related to the revised goodwill impairment charge and
the mark-to-market charge on its putable/callable notes.

On August 26, 2004, the court issued an order granting a joint
motion of all parties, which stayed the lawsuit until December
7, 2004, pending efforts to settle the lawsuit through
mediation.  The court also denied without prejudice motions to
dismiss the lawsuit filed by us and other defendants.  The court
stated its intention to set aside the order upon notice by any
party that mediation efforts were unsuccessful, in which case
the court would address the motions to dismiss the lawsuit.

On February 8, 2005, the court held a conference at which the
parties notified the court that efforts to settle the lawsuit
through mediation had not been successful.  The court then
issued an order renewing the previously filed motions to dismiss
and issued a scheduling order addressing the scope and timing of
discovery in the lawsuit.


WHIRLPOOL INC.: Employees to Amend $50M TN Discrimination Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
On September 15, 2005, 10 black and 10 white current and former
employees of the Whirlpool facility in La Vergne, Tennessee will
amend their complaint bringing a novel race discrimination class
action law suit against Whirlpool, Inc. and the International
Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths,
Forgers & Helpers, Local S-272, according to David Sanford of
Sanford, Wittels, & Heisler. (The original class action
complaint, Case No. 3-03-1250, was filed in Nashville, TN.)

"There has never been a class action law suit on record where
both blacks and whites have come together under such a united
front to say that such a grossly hostile work environment
exists, is perpetuated by management, and must come to an end."
Mr. Sanford further stated, "the Plaintiffs are suing because
both black and white employees at Whirlpool's La Vergne facility
have been and continue to be subjected to a gauntlet of racial
discrimination, verbal abuse, racist graffiti and hostile
treatment." Grant Morris, also counsel for Plaintiffs, said,
"Whites and blacks have a right to work in an environment free
of discrimination. The goal of this lawsuit is to protect that
right."

According to Plaintiffs, Whirlpool has done nothing to confront
and eliminate this racism, giving a green light to the company's
racist employees by failing to take any action to discipline or
discourage those responsible. According to one white employee,
Lynette Barrett, "Whirlpool managers routinely heard and
participated in the telling of racial jokes and slurs." Barrett
stated "no action was ever taken by management to eliminate the
behavior." Allegations are also made in the class action
complaint regarding rampant references to the Ku Klux Klan, the
creation of a James Earl Ray Day, and the widespread racist
graffiti. Plaintiffs possess photographs of the graffiti and
tape-recorded racist messages.

Whirlpool is the world's leading manufacturer and marketer of
major home appliances, with annual sales of over $13 billion and
68,000 employees. The La Vergne, Tennessee manufacturing
facility produces room air conditioners, built-in refrigerators,
air purifiers and dehumidifiers.

The Plaintiffs are seeking a permanent injunction to prevent
Whirlpool from any further unlawful practice, and $50 million in
compensatory and punitive damages.

The legal team for plaintiffs and the class includes David
Sanford of the Washington, D.C. office of Sanford, Wittels &
Heisler, LLP; Grant Morris of the Law Offices of Grant Morris;
Benedict Morelli of the New York law firm of Morelli Ratner, PC;
and Kevin Sharp of Drescher & Sharp in Nashville, Tennessee.

For more details, contact David Sanford of Sanford, Wittels, &
Heisler, Phone: 202-942-9124 or 202-276-4028, E-mail:
dsanford@nydclaw.com, Web site: http://www.nydclaw.com.



                         Asbestos Alert


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: JPN Govt. to Test Airborne Asbestos Levels
---------------------------------------------------------------
After a ten-year hiatus, Japan's Environment Ministry intends to
resume the measuring of aerial asbestos concentrations in areas
particularly demolition sites, beginning autumn, The Daily
Yomiuri reports.

The law sets a limit of 10 fibers per liter of atmosphere in the
border zone between asbestos manufacturing factories and
adjacent areas. A fiber is about 1/5000th the diameter of a
human hair.

In 1996, the Ministry's Central Council for Environment called
on the Government to set an environmental target based on the
premise that if a person was to breath the air in an area
throughout their entire life, only one in 100,000 people would
develop specified health problems.

Takehiko Murayama, a professor of Waseda University's Science
and Engineering Department, estimated a mortality rate of 1.7 in
10,000 people if there is one asbestos fiber per liter of
atmosphere.

There are no current environment standards governing atmospheric
asbestos concentrations in general. However, under the Air
Pollution Control Law, which was revised in 1989, asbestos was
designated as a "specific type of dust."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Priest Gains AUD200T Payout in Aussie Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Dust Diseases Tribunal grants Father Robert McNeill, an
Australian priest, AUD200,000 as asbestos-exposure compensation
from Seltsam Pty Ltd, which renders companies like James Hardie
Industries NV (NYSE: JHX), CSR Ltd and other firms with the
possibility of paying hundreds of millions of dollars more in
asbestos compensation, The Daily Telegraph reports.

The Tribunal found that the 78-year old Father McNeill, despite
being exposed briefly in 1961, deserved more than CSR Ltd
subsidiary Seltsam's AUD200,000 compensation. The priest had
spent only four hours on two or three days installing asbestos
cement at his sister's house but it led to his contracting the
deadly cancer, mesothelioma.

Judge Brian Duck found that, despite a large volume of material
warning of asbestos' danger, Seltsam had placed no warning on
its products.

Legal experts believe hundreds or thousands of claimants more
will appear. With an average payout of AUD250,000, 1000
claimants could cost manufacturers AUD250 million. The liability
now goes back to include the building and renovation boom in the
1960s, when almost every new home had asbestos.

Medical experts estimate 18,000 mesothelioma cases will have
been recorded in Australia by 2020.

Tanya Segelov, a partner in Turner Freeman, Australia's largest
dust disease law firm, said the firm already had many similar
cases ready to mount and predicted hundreds or thousands more
would be pursued in the future. She added that with mesothelioma
remaining latent for a 37-year average, Father McNeill's case
was the tip of the iceberg.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 3M Notes US$40M Litigation Reserves Surge
--------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company (NYSE: MMM) discloses that, in 2004, its Corporate
and Unallocated operating income includes increases of US$40
million in the respirator mask or asbestos litigation reserves,
partially offset by a US$20 million increase in the associated
receivables resulting in a net cost of US$20 million, and also
includes a US$6 million increase in implant litigation reserves
and a US$10 million decrease in implant receivables resulting in
a net cost of US$16 million, according to the Company's recap of
its 2004 annual report to the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

Subject to fluctuation on a quarterly and annual basis,
Corporate and Unallocated operating income comprises corporate
investment gains and losses, certain derivative gains and
losses, insurance-related gains and losses, certain litigation
expenses, corporate restructuring program charges and other
miscellaneous items.

In 2003, the Company's Corporate and Unallocated operating
income includes a pre-tax charge of US$93 million recorded
during the first quarter related to an adverse ruling associated
with a lawsuit filed against 3M in 1997 by LePage's Inc
Corporate and unallocated operating income in 2003 also includes
increases of US$231 million in the respirator mask or asbestos
litigation reserves, partially offset by a US$205 million
increase in the associated receivables, resulting in a net cost
of US$26 million.

In 2002, Corporate and Unallocated operating income includes
charges of US$202 million related to the 2001/2002 corporate
restructuring program. Depreciation and amortization of US$954
million included accelerated depreciation of US$47 million
related to the restructuring plan.

Headquartered in St. Paul, Minnesota, 3M Company operates as a
diversified technology company with seven segments: Health Care;
Industrial; Display and Graphics; Consumer and Office; Safety,
Security, and Protection; Electro and Communications; and
Transportation.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Strike Rep Evaluates Latest Asarco Proposal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Bonds, the chief mediator representing Asarco Inc.'s
striking workers, says that the union is assessing the Company's
latest proposal.  However, he does not know whether it would
incite a return to negotiations.

Around 1,500 workers walked out on their jobs over the July 4
weekend, refusing to accept benefit cuts despite record copper
prices.

As mentioned in the August 19, 2005 edition of the Class Action
Reporter, an extended strike forced the Company into bankruptcy,
citing towering clean-up costs at dozens of discontinued sites
and about 95,000 asbestos-related health claims from former
workers.

Asarco's unsecured creditors committee, which includes the union
and Deutsche Bank Trust Co that holds a lion's share of the
Company's US$490 million bond debt and lease obligations, was
due to meet to start talks about a Company reorganization.

Before the strike decimated production, Asarco estimated 2005
output at around 180,000 tons of copper products.

Phoenix, Arizona-based Asarco Inc., a subsidiary of diversified
mining firm Grupo M‚xico SA de CV (Pink Sheets: GMBXF), is a
leading miner, refiner, and smelter. The Company also produces
semi-finished copper products such as rod, cake, and billet and
sulfuric acid as a by-product of the smelting process.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Aussie, JPN Unions to Defy Canadian Exports
----------------------------------------------------------------
Building unions and community activists from Australia and Japan
plan to join an international protest against the Canadian
Government's export of asbestos products.

The Australian unions plan to protest in the cities of Canberra,
Sydney and Melbourne.

Australia's Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union
construction division secretary John Sutton said Canada was one
of the world's leading asbestos exporters, conveying over $100
million annually, mostly to developing countries. This was
despite the sale of asbestos products being illegal in Canada
and strict occupational health and safety rules limiting workers
exposure to the mineral, he added.

Paul Bastion from the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union
says it is disgraceful that countries in need of construction
materials after the Asian tsunami disaster are being sold the
potentially deadly substance.

Japanese unions' representatives delivered a letter of request
to the Canadian Embassy in Tokyo saying, "60% of asbestos used
in Japan is imported from Canada. We would like the export
promotion policy to be terminated, given the hazardous nature of
white asbestos has been confirmed."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kawasaki Group Tags Five Deaths to Asbestos
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kawasaki Heavy Industries Ltd (OTC: KWHIY) and Kawasaki
Shipbuilding Corp disclose that five former employees who made
asbestos-containing products at their factories have died of
asbestos-related diseases, Kyodo News reports.

Four of the workers worked at two Kawasaki Heavy Industries
factories in Kobe and succumbed to mesothelioma. Another worker,
who died of lung cancer, used to work at Kawasaki Shipbuilding's
Kobe plant. Two others are currently treated for mesothelioma,
representatives for both Companies added.

The seven workers, who had applied for workers' compensation,
were engaged in manufacturing ship engines, fixing the interiors
of trains, or placing pipes within ships.

In July, the two companies reported that 18 former workers had
contracted asbestos-linked diseases and 13 of them had died.

Based in Kobe, Japan, Kawasaki Heavy Industries Ltd's consumer
products and machinery make motorcycles, personal watercraft,
and all-terrain vehicles. The Company's aerospace and gas
turbine segments make jet engines, satellites, and structural
parts for passenger aircraft. Other Kawasaki products include
industrial robots, precision machinery, ships, and submarines.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Judiciary Committee Vested to Use Subpoenas
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Senate committee authorized the leaders of the Judiciary
Committee to subpoena information from firms facing asbestos
lawsuits as lawmakers work on legislation creating a US$140
billion asbestos compensation fund, Reuters reports.

The Senate Judiciary Committee heads are empowered to subpoena
information about how much companies would expect to contribute
to the privately financed fund.

Although the proposed bill has a formula for industry
contributions based on a company's size and previous asbestos
expenditures, many companies are hesitant to discuss how it
would affect them, saying the information could expose them to
more lawsuits.

Some Republican and Democrat senators say they cannot back the
bill unless they know how much each company would pay into the
fund. Others worry the costs will be unevenly distributed.

Senator Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican and Senate
Judiciary Committee chairman, told members he did not know if
subpoenas would be essential, but he wanted "a little muscle" in
case companies continued to resist delivering information.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Praxair Sued for June 23 MO Plant Explosion
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Bruno and Bruce Hopson, St. Louis, MO residents, sue
Praxair Inc, Praxair Distribution Inc, and Praxair's Chouteau
plant manager Jeffrey Grimes in a St. Louis Court for more than
US$25,000 in damages, claiming a massive plant explosion last
June 23 spread debris with asbestos in it, and that the Company
did not sufficiently inform the public.

The suit alleges Praxair carelessly generated, stored and failed
to control materials at its Lafayette Square plant, "resulting
in the release of asbestos and toxic substances." The suit
claims the Company publicly said it had hired a contractor to
clean three blocks around the property, but expanded the cleanup
without public notice and then cleaned in the middle of the
night.

David Dolan, one of the plaintiffs' attorneys, says the suit
seeks class-action status, which means it could eventually
include more residents and business owners.

Nigel Muir, a Praxair representative, said the Praxair site is
cleared by 95%. The Company expanded its cleanup to handle
debris in surrounding areas, unless property owners have not
given their permission, he added.

The Danbury, CT-based Company, the Missouri Department of
Natural Resources and the St. Louis Division of Air Pollution
Control determined the debris field to be over a 193-acre area
with a rough triangular shape, Mr. Muir added.

Five of seven air samples tested by the Missouri Department of
Natural Resources after the fire did not show the presence of
cancer-causing asbestos. Two more readings were below the
regulatory limit and posed no significant public risk, said Gale
Carlson, an environmental public health section chief with
Missouri's Department of Health and Senior Services.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kaiser Could Exit Bankruptcy January 2006
--------------------------------------------------------------
Officials of Kaiser Aluminum Corp (OTC: KLUCQ) say the US
Bankruptcy Court of the District of Delaware has approved a
disclosure statement for the Company's latest reorganization
plan, which could lead it to exit bankruptcy by late January or
early February 2006, Reuters reports.

The plan would result in the elimination of the equity interests
of current stockholders and the distribution of equity in the
emerging company to creditors or creditor representatives. The
Company said the Court set plan confirmation hearings for
January 9 and 10.

The Foothill Ranch, CA-based Company said its restructuring
would resolve pre-petition claims including retiree medical,
pension, asbestos and other tort, bond, and note claims that are
currently subject to compromise.

Company officials said that most new equity under the plan would
be distributed to two voluntary employee benefit associations
created in 2004 to provide medical benefits or funds to defray
the cost of medical benefits for salaried and hourly retirees.

The plan added that the formation of trusts would permanently
resolve all pre-petition and future personal injury claims for
asbestos, silica and coal tar pitch products, and existing
claims regarding noise-induced hearing loss.

Jack Hockema, Company president and CEO said the ruling was the
first of three final milestones for Kaiser's completion of its
reorganization.

"We anticipate that the remaining two, voting by the creditors
and confirmation by the bankruptcy and district courts, will be
completed according to the court's schedule within the next four
months," Mr. Hockema added.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NSW Asbestos Payout Could Top AUD1 Billion
---------------------------------------------------------------
The New South Wales Government could be accountable to pay more
that AUD 1 billion as extra compensation for thousands of
asbestos victims it abandoned because they were smokers, The
Daily Telegraph reports.

For years, Australia's Dust Diseases Board had cast aside the
claims of victims of asbestos-related lung cancer because the
workers were also smokers. The District Court, in a case filed
against the Board, ruled asbestos exposure multiplied a smoker's
cancer risk and that the Board had to pay compensation.

Medical experts interviewed by The Daily Telegraph estimate
victims of asbestos-related lung cancer could number from 6,000
to 12,000 by 2020. If 6,000 claimants came forward and with a
typical payout of about AUD200,000, it would cost the Government
AUD1.2 billion.

Medical evidence suggests there are up to two cases of asbestos-
related lung cancer for every mesothelioma case. There have been
recent claims that the ratio could even be three to one.

The Board paid out only 300 claims for lung cancer compared to
almost 1,800 mesothelioma victims from 1968 to 2004. In 2004, it
handed out 1,555 mesothelioma payments compared to 170 lung
cancer payments.

Smoking was extremely common among the blue-collar workers
exposed to asbestos, exclaimed epidemiologist Doug Henderson, an
international expert on the link between asbestos exposure,
smoking and lung cancer.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Inn Owner Fined $5T For Asbestos Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Southern Berkshire District Court in Massachusetts fined 70-
year-old David Rothstein, owner of the Stagecoach Inn in
Sheffield, US$5,000 after the latter pleaded guilty to two
counts of violating the state's Clean Air Act by removing
asbestos in a way that caused or aided air pollution and one
count of breaching the Labor and Industries Act, the Berkshire
Eagle reports.

District Court Judge James B. McElroy oversaw the proceedings.
Assistant Attorney General Douglas Rice of the Attorney
General's Office Criminal Bureau prosecuted the case.

On Nov. 13, 2002, Mr. Rothstein ordered an employee to remove
pipe insulation from the Undermountain Road Inn's basement. A
tenant at the inn called the Department of Environmental
Protection when he observed the employee tearing down asbestos
without any protective measures.

The Environmental Crimes Strike Force, an interagency
enforcement team overseen by State Attorney General Thomas F.
Reilly and Environmental Affairs Secretary Stephen R. Pritchard,
conducted an investigation that revealed the presence of
asbestos in the insulation.

The employee told investigators that he was not informed that he
was dealing with asbestos-containing material. He cited that he
was not provided with the mandatory protective equipment worn by
asbestos abatement workers.

A set of strict regulations promulgated by the DEP to prevent
the release of asbestos fibers in the air governs asbestos
abatement. Under state law, homeowners who remove asbestos on
their own are required to follow the same DEP standards followed
by authorized asbestos abatement contractors.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Japan Govt. To Compensate Asbestos Victims
---------------------------------------------------------------
In light of the current asbestos crisis, the Japanese Government
plans to introduce a bill to enable financial aid to victims of
asbestos-related mesothelioma and the next of kin of those who
have died from the disease, The Japan Times reports.

The proposed law is expected to include lump-sum payments for
workers' families and people who lived near asbestos factories
and died of mesothelioma, medical fees, and monthly benefits to
mesothelioma sufferers, sources said.

Because mesothelioma symptoms do not immediately surface, the
Government deemed it vital to put up some of the compensation
money because in some cases, the firms responsible for the
asbestos use have gone out of business.

The sources added that companies, which have used asbestos,
including automakers and shipbuilders, would be asked to
partially fund the project.

A Government survey covering more than 20,000 firms making
household appliances and other consumer goods shows that 19
products being made by 14 firms contain asbestos. The makers
said there was no airborne diffusion of the fibrous cancer-
causing material for 18 of the 19 items.

The survey also disclosed that 502 household items produced by
118 firms contained asbestos. Of the 502, two products, ashes
sold with electric hibachis sold by Noritake Co. and gas
hibachis sold by Osaka Gas Co. up to 1966, included asbestos.

Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi and Takenori Kanzaki, head of
New Komeito, the junior member of the ruling coalition, agreed
to make an all-out effort to address the asbestos problem.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: UK School Closed After Asbestos Discovery
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tests conducted at Walker Road Primary School in Aberdeen
revealed asbestos in ducts beneath unused nursery classrooms,
which could possibly shut down the school for a few weeks.

Although asbestos was detected in ducts under the floor, tests
proved negative for the unused classrooms themselves and there
was no airborne contamination.

The situation was explained to parents in letters from Ann
Landels, the Aberdeen City Council's Head of Service for Culture
and Learning in the city's south.

Ms. Landels said, "Following the testing of the building on
Wednesday, I have been assured that there is no immediate risk
to pupils or staff, and the decision to close and temporarily
relocate the school has been taken as a precautionary measure to
enable further testing and any required remedial work to be
undertaken."

The school's 308 pupils will miss lessons before temporary
accommodation is set up for them at other schools in the Torry
area. It is not yet known when pupils will return to their own
school, but a restriction notice issued by the Health and Safety
Executive prevents access to the affected area until October 1.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: WOS Reports Asbestos Liability at GBP27.9M
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wolseley Plc, in a filing submitted to the Securities and
Exchange Commission, recognized a discounted liability of
GBP27.9 million in respect of asbestos litigation, in accordance
with the UK GAAP. An equal debtor account of GBP27.9 million is
shown in other debtors reflecting the discounted sum recoverable
from insurers in respect of this liability.

There were 308 (2003: 484) claims outstanding at the 2004 fiscal
year end.

The Company employs independent professional advisers to
actuarially determine the potential gross liability, which
necessitates the application of certain assumptions relating to
claims development and the cost of settling such claims over the
remaining lifetime of the potential litigants, which is about 50
years.

Under US GAAP, provisions arising in respect of an acquired
business can be discounted, but subsequent adjustments to the
provision should be recorded gross, although they relate to
changes in the estimated cost of settling liabilities incurred
prior to acquisition. Provisions for liabilities arising in
respect of continuing businesses should be recorded gross.

Accordingly, the Company's provision for asbestos litigation as
reported under US GAAP would be GBP45.9 million (2003: GBP33.8
million), of which GBP38.1 million (2003: GBP25.1 million) is an
undiscounted amount with the balance representing a discounted
amount.

West Berkshire, UK-based Wolseley Plc (NYSE: WOS) is the world's
largest distributor of heating and plumbing supplies. Nearly 60%
of the Company's sales are made by its North American
subsidiaries, including Ferguson Enterprises and Stock Building
Supply, formerly Carolina Holdings.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Citigroup Pays TPC Excess Asbestos Charges
---------------------------------------------------------------
Travelers Property Casualty Corp, an indirect wholly owned
subsidiary of Citigroup Inc. since December 31, 2001, sold 231
million shares of its class A common stock representing about
23.1% of its outstanding equity securities in an initial public
offering on March 27, 2002.

In 2002, Citigroup recognized an after-tax gain of US$1.158
billion as a result of the IPO. In connection with the IPO,
Citigroup entered into an agreement with TPC that provided that,
in any fiscal year in which TPC recorded asbestos-related income
statement charges in excess of US$150 million, net of any
reinsurance, Citigroup would pay to TPC the amount of any such
excess up to a cumulative aggregate of US$520 million after-tax.

A portion of the gross IPO gain was deferred to offset any
payments arising in connection with this agreement.  During 2002
and 2003, US$159 million and US$361 million, respectively, was
paid under this agreement.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Derby City To Conclude Demolition Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Derby City in Connecticut is close to settling a year-old
lawsuit with Standard Demolition Services, which sued the city
last September 2004 for withholding payments, the Connecticut
Post reports.

Standard Demolition Services was hired in the fall of 2003 to
take down six connected buildings at 256 to 284 Main St.
Asbestos removal disputes, including a US$466,173 bill, stopped
the work the following spring.

The Board of Aldermen authorized Mayor Marc Garofalo to sign a
settlement agreement. Officials familiar with the agreement said
that while the city would pay US$350,000 upfront, its developer,
Ceruzzi Derby Redevelopment LLC, would reimburse the city in
four payments.

After more than a year of inactivity inside the remaining
buildings slated to be demolished, Ceruzzi's crews recently
started work on removing asbestos from the walls inside 256 Main
St. Mayor Garofalo said that work would take about four to six
weeks, after which the demolition would likely resume.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ulster Locals Outraged at Illegal Dumping
--------------------------------------------------------------
Residents of Drumbo Parish in the Northern Ireland part of
Ulster province express "shock" and anger at the presence of
five boiler-suited men removing mounds of alleged asbestos from
near their front doors, asking why they weren't informed of the
abatement.

Arthur Glenn, a Dow's Road businessman, claimed that he took
action only to get rid of the suspected stone chippings - after
he had commissioned an independent scientific report. He said
that the health alert was raised after suspected rock chippings
were discovered scattered along the road.

Mr. Glenn claimed, "The report which I commissioned identified
this material as being asbestos. I then sent the report to
Lisburn City Council and the planning department. It was only
then that anything seemed to get done."

The source was eventually traced to the site of a debatable new
building development where workmen removed the chippings from
mounds of landfill.

David and Sydney Glenn are due to appear at Lisburn Magistrates
Court on September 22, charged with illegal dumping at the Dow's
Road site, a Court Service representative said. Plant hire
contractor, Mark Samuel is due to appear before the same court,
on the same charge, on October 27.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Calif. State Asbestos Bill Defeated 42-35
--------------------------------------------------------------
Senate Bill 655, an asbestos-control bill authored by Sacramento
Democrat Senator Deborah Ortiz, suffers a defeat on the
California State Assembly floor following a 42-35 vote that
should satisfy real estate and construction interests throughout
the state but will have little effect on asbestos-controversy
embroiled El Dorado County.

The California Building Industry Association, with the commerce
lobby and the farm lobby, worked relentlessly to defeat SB 655,
which would have required that real-estate agents disclose
natural asbestos existing on a property, and that local general
plans address asbestos-hazard zones.

Assemblyman Ira Ruskin, a Redwood City Democrat and floor jockey
for the bill, presented Ortiz' case that airborne asbestos has
been found to be harmful enough to require state controls to
protect residents. A state geologist's report found asbestos
occurring naturally in 49 of the state's 58 counties.

El Dorado and neighboring Placer County have significant amounts
of serpentine rock, in which asbestos occurs naturally, running
through tracts of land that otherwise are regarded as profitable
to sell and easy to build on. Representing El Dorado and Placer,
Assemblyman Tim Leslie, a Rocklin Republican, voted "nay" on SB
655.

El Dorado influenced the initiation of SB 655 after concerns
arose about airborne asbestos fibers around construction sites
in El Dorado Hills. Real estate agent disclosure and General
Plan addressing of asbestos zones are two SB 655 pillars
specifically covered by El Dorado County regulations.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ex-Teacher to Deny School Asbestos Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Robinson, former head teacher of Silverhill School in Derby
City, UK and solicitors acting on behalf of the City Council
hinted that they would plead not guilty to allegations brought
against them in an asbestos exposure incident, the Evening
Telegraph reports.

More than 400 staff and pupils at the school, located at
Draycott Drive in Mickleover, were exposed to potentially lethal
asbestos during a 30-window replacement project over a three-
week period from February 16 to March 9, 2004.

Forty-nine-year-old Mr. Robinson appeared at Southern Derbyshire
Magistrates' Court, together with the City Council solicitors
and Peter Westran, the managing director of Horizon Windows and
Glass Ltd, which carried out the work that led to the
contamination.

Mr. Robinson faces one charge of failing to ensure the health
and safety of others from asbestos exposure, including the
employees of Horizon Windows and Glass Ltd, by not acting upon
or omitting to provide information within his possession
including an asbestos survey for the school.

The City Council solicitors face a charge of failing to ensure
the safety of employees and another charge, relating to non-
employees, regarding the health and safety arrangements for
asbestos in school premises between December 19, 1999, and
October 31, 2004.

Mr. Westran, 56, however, did not enter pleas to charges brought
by the Health and Safety Executive relating to failing to carry
out a risk assessment and not identifying the type of asbestos.
He also faces four charges brought by the Environment Agency
relating to asbestos disposal.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kaiser Reports 247,000 Total Injury Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kaiser Aluminum Corp (OTC: KLUCQ) and subsidiary Kaiser Aluminum
and Chemical Corp, in a filing submitted to the Securities and
Exchange Commission, report that their asbestos-related
liabilities arose from former operations of KACC.

As of KACC's February 12, 2002 bankruptcy petition date, an
aggregate of about 247,000 asbestos-related personal injury
lawsuits had been asserted against KACC since receipt of the
first such claim in the late 1970s.

After elimination of duplicates, about 104,000 Asbestos Personal
Injury Claims remained unresolved as of KACC's petition date,
including about 11,000 claims for which KACC had received
releases but had not fully satisfied its payment obligations to
the claimants.

No claim for asbestos-related property damage or abatement costs
has ever been filed against Kaiser Aluminum and KACC.

Foothill Ranch, CA-based Kaiser Aluminum Corporation operates 11
fabricated products manufacturing plants in the US and Canada
and owns a minor stake in an aluminum smelting facility in the
UK. The company's main customers are in the aerospace,
industrial, and transportation markets.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: KACC Lists 5,200 Asbestos Premises Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
In a report submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission,
Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corp, as of its February 12, 2002
bankruptcy petition date, declares an aggregate of about 5,200
Asbestos-Related Premises Claims asserted against it, of which
fewer than 900 were then still pending.

About 2% of the historical asbestos-related personal injury
lawsuits against KACC involved claims alleging exposure to
asbestos-containing materials at KACC-owned facilities mainly in
Louisiana and West Virginia. More than three-quarters of the
pending Premises Claims were filed in Louisiana.

The Louisiana Premises Claims included liability allegations
against former "executive officers" of KACC to whom
responsibility for plant safety issues allegedly had been
delegated. KACC defended and indemnified these "executive
officers" sued in such cases. The Louisiana Premises Claims
settlement represents about 95% of all amounts paid by KACC to
resolve Asbestos-Related Premises Claims.

A small number of Asbestos-Related Premises Claims have been
filed against Kaiser Center Inc, a wholly owned KACC subsidiary
that owned and managed the office facilities in Oakland,
California where KACC once was headquartered.

Workers who claimed exposure to asbestos-containing materials
allegedly present at these premises brought these Claims. KACC
was sometimes sued as a co-defendant in such Asbestos-Related
Premises Claims.

About 1% of the historical asbestos-related personal injury
lawsuits asserted against KACC involved claims alleging asbestos
exposure to persons working on ships built, repaired or managed
by KACC.

The Asbestos-Related Ships Claims arise principally from KACC's
construction and repair of ships in the 1940's, but have also
arisen from its management of ships through former subsidiary
Hendy International Corp. All Ships Claims combined represent
about 0.4% of all historical amounts paid by KACC to resolve
asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits.

The Asbestos Personal Injury Claims will be resolved in
accordance with the terms of the Asbestos Distribution
Procedures and the Asbestos PI Channeling Injunction to be
established as part of the Reorganization Plan.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NJ Law Firm Accused of Disclosure Failure
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Joel A. Pisano of the District of New Jersey concluded on
August 29 that a lawyer's professional liability insurance
policy excludes coverage for a client's claim that arises out of
the presence, failure to disclose and cleanup of asbestos in a
new home that law firm, Edwards & Caldwell in Hawthorne, NJ,
assisted its clients, Ted and Anne Mroz, in purchasing.

The firm assisted the Mroz couple to obtain an inspection of the
home, which revealed the presence of asbestos. The couple
claimed that they never received the inspection report and that
they discovered asbestos three months after closing the purchase
deal.

Contending that they never would have bought the home had they
been made aware of asbestos' presence, the Mroz couple sought
damages for the law firm's failure to disclose asbestos presence
in their home, the cost of remediation and reimbursement costs
incurred during the remediation process, including the cost of
relocation.

The firm's insurer, Gulf Insurance Co., denied coverage based on
the pollution exclusion.

New Jersey considers asbestos a hazardous substance based on the
fact that the Department of Environmental Protection includes
asbestos in its list of hazardous substances and because case
law refers to the substance as toxic or hazardous.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: HSE Warns High Levels in Development Site
--------------------------------------------------------------
Anna Bliss, an inspector of the Health and Safety Executive,
warns that sections to the north of the former Turner's Brothers
Asbestos Factory site could be 100% contaminated with asbestos,
the Rochdale Observer reports.

Waste with over 0.1% of asbestos is considered hazardous, while
3% is categorized as toxic.

Countryside Properties and MMC Developments, the developers who
want to build 650 homes on the site, commissioned tests that
revealed small traces of asbestos in only one out of 86 soil
samples.

Campaigners against the development had one of their worst fears
confirmed when fibers were exposed after a number of trees were
blown during a storm.

Ken Smith, a senior Rochdale Council planning officer, revealed
the developers had been told to submit a planning application
for the whole of the 72-acre site, which should indicate any
asbestos tests and abatement plans.

The HSE and Rochdale Council are awaiting the results of a
GBP35,000 survey carried out by independent consultants, which
could pinpoint the presence of the potentially dangerous
substance in the woodland area.


ASBESTOS ALERT: CA Court to Hear Unocal Premises Liability Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
The California Supreme Court is set to hear on October 5 a
premises liability suit involving Unocal Corporation that claims
the Company is 15% liable for the asbestos-disease development
of Ray Kinsman in his contracting job in the Company's
Wilmington, CA oil refinery in the 1950s.

Mr. Kinsman alleged he was exposed to asbestos fibers that
gathered on scaffolds and floated in the air due to the work of
other tradesmen. While he was in the refinery as an employee of
an independent contractor, Burke & Reynolds, a jury in San
Francisco found that Unocal was careless in the refinery's "use,
maintenance or management."

The California 1st District Court of Appeal reversed the
judgment and ordered a new trial, finding that the trial court
erroneously instructed the jury on the general rule of asbestos
liability.

Mr. Kinsman appealed the ruling to the California Supreme Court,
which granted the petition for review.

Consumer Attorneys of California, a consumer rights group, said
this is a clear case of premises liability because Unocal knew
there was a dangerous substance on the jobsite.

Unocal supporters have argued that a premises owner has no
liability to an independent contractor's employee for a
dangerous condition that the contractor created.


COMPANY PROFILE

Unocal Corporation
2141 Rosecrans Ave., Ste. 4000
El Segundo, CA 90245
Phone: 310-726-7600
Fax: 310-726-7817
http://www.unocal.com

Description:
Unocal Corporation, formerly a prominent gasoline retailer in
the western US, is now part of the Chevron family of companies.
Unocal develops crude oil and natural gas properties in the Gulf
of Mexico, Asia, Africa, and Latin America, and it has proved
reserves of 6.5 trillion cu. ft. of natural gas and 665 million
barrels of crude oil and condensate.



                 New Securities Fraud Cases


ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit in OH
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP, initiated
a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities
of Abercrombie & Fitch Co. ("Abercrombie" or the "Company")
(NYSE: ANF) between May 17, 2005 and August 3, 2005, inclusive
(the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The action, numbered 05-CV-848, is pending in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio against
defendants Abercrombie, Michael S, Jeffries (CEO and Chairman)
and Robert S. Singer (President and COO).

The complaint's allegations entail that during the Class Period,
defendants touted the apparent strength of Abercrombie's
business, which caused the Company's stock price to rise
dramatically. Shortly after positive statements were issued by
the Company, Abercrombie's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
sold substantial amounts of his personally held Abercrombie
stock. Defendant Jeffries's Class Period stock sales were highly
suspicious in both timing and amount. After defendant Jeffries
sold 2,027,574 shares of Abercrombie stock for proceeds of
$142,895,129, the Company announced, on August 4, 2005, weaker
than expected sales for the month of July. Same store sales were
reportedly up 22% over July 2004. This figure disappointed
investors because, while the growth seemed impressive, in July
2004, the Company reported a 9% decline from July 2003, and July
2003 saw an 11% decline from July 2002. Accordingly, in reality,
the Company's July 2005 sales were less than its sales from
three years earlier.

This announcement caused the price of Abercrombie stock to fall
dramatically, from $70.03 per share on August 3, 2005 and to
$65.36 per share on August 4, 2005, on unusually heavy trading
volume.

For more details, contact Steven G. Schulman, Peter E. Seidman
or Andrei V. Rado of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP, One
Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th fl., New York, NY, 10119-0165, Phone:
(800) 320-5081, E-mail: sfeerick@milbergweiss.com, Web site:
http://www.milbergweiss.com.


DHB INDUSTRIES: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP, initiated
a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities
of DHB Industries Inc. ("DHB" or the "Company") (AMEX: DHB)
between April 29, 2004 to August 29, 2005, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The action, numbered 05-CV-4332, is pending in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York against
defendants DHB, David H. Brooks (CEO and Chairman), Dawn M.
Schlegel (CFO) and Sandra L. Hatfield (COO).

The complaint alleges that defendants' Class Period positive
representations regarding DHB's fast-growing business,
disseminated in press releases and SEC filings, were materially
false and misleading because they failed to disclose that a
material portion of the Company's bulletproof vests contained a
material amount of Zylon fibers whose effectiveness at stopping
bullets degraded over time. By the beginning of the Class
Period, defendants knew, or recklessly disregarded, that vests
containing Zylon could potentially fail to stop bullets because
of fiber degradation, and that serious concerns about their use
in body armor was growing in the law enforcement community.
Defendant, however, failed to warn investors of the palpable and
substantial risk that its Zylon products posed to the Company's
business.

While the price of the Company's securities was artificially
inflated, and before its collapse, DHB insiders, including
defendants Brooks, Schlegel and Hatfield, sold a total of
11,288,789 million shares of DHB common stock, reaping gross
proceeds of over $220 million. Of that amount, defendant Brooks
sold over 10.4 million shares for proceeds exceeding $204
million. The average price at which insiders sold their DHB
stock was $19.51.

On August 30, 2005, before the open of ordinary trading, DHB
issued a press release announcing that it stopped using Zylon in
its body armor after the National Institute of Justice revoked
its certification of Zylon-containing body armor. In addition,
the Company announced that it would replace all Zylon vests in
the field. This replacement program would result in an estimated
$60 million charge in the third quarter of 2005.

On this news, the price of DHB common stock fell by 23% in one
day, from $6.66 per share on August 29, 2005 to $5.10 per share
on August 30, 3005, on unusually heavy trading volume. DHB's
tock price continued to decline, falling to $4.58 by the close
of August 31, 2005. The insiders who sold their shares during
the Class Period, at the average price of $19.51 per share,
avoided tremendous losses.

For more details, contact Steven G. Schulman, Peter E. Seidman
or Andrei V. Rado of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP, One
Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th fl., New York, NY, 10119-0165, Phone:
(800) 320-5081, E-mail: sfeerick@milbergweiss.com, Web site:
http://www.milbergweiss.com.


IMMUCOR INC.: Glancy Binkow Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in GA
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP, initiated a Class
Action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Georgia on behalf of a class (the
"Class") consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired securities of Immucor, Inc. ("Immucor" or the
"Company") (Nasdaq:BLUD) (Nasdaq:BLUDE), between January 7, 2005
and August 29, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint charges Immucor and certain of the Company's
executive officers with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), and
Rule10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Plaintiff claims Defendants
misrepresented that Immucor's financial statements and
disclosures fairly and accurately reflected the Company's
results of operations as required by Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles ("GAAP") and the Exchange Act. The
Complaint also alleges that during the Class Period Defendants'
certifications pursuant to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act also were
false and misleading, as the Company knowingly, or with severe
recklessness, lacked adequate internal controls and failed to
maintain proper books and records in violation of its well-
publicized Code of Corporate Conduct. The nature of Defendants'
fraud was revealed initially on August 26, 2005, when the
Company was forced to announce that the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the "SEC") had launched a formal investigation into
payments made in October 2003 by Immucor's Italian subsidiary
and Immucor's president, Defendant De Chirico, to a physician
connected with a hospital with which the Company was doing
business. After the market closed on August 29, 2005, the
Company revealed further that its Chief Financial Officer had
resigned, that it would be revising its previously issued
financial results for at least two quarters in order to account
for a previously unrecorded accrued bonus, and that its Form 10
K for fiscal 2005 would be further delayed due to additional
accounting and auditing procedures, which the Company claimed
were necessary to properly reflect the accrued bonus and to
render the internal controls report required by Section 404 of
Sarbanes-Oxley.

In response to this news, Immucor common stock dropped from a
closing price of $28.61 per share on August 25, 2005 -- before
the market learned of the SEC's formal investigation -- to close
at $24.00 on August 30, 2005, in extremely heavy trading, nearly
ten times the average daily volume.

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

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


IMMUCOR INC.: Wechsler Harwood Files Securities Fraud Suit in GA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Wechsler Harwood, LLP, initiated a federal
securities fraud class action suit on behalf of all purchasers
of the common stock of Immucor, Inc. ("Immucor"or the "Company")
(Nasdaq:BLUDE) between January 7, 2005 and August 29, 2005,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

The action, entitled, Fioretti v. Immucor, Inc., et al., Case
No. 1:05-cv-2407, is pending in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia, and names as defendants
the Company, Edward L. Gallup, Gioacchino De Chirico, and Steven
C. Ramsey.

The Complaint charges defendants with violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder. More specifically, the complaint
alleges that the Company failed to disclose and misrepresented
material adverse facts known to defendants or recklessly
disregarded by them. In particular, the Complaint alleges that
during the Class Period, defendants misrepresented that
Immucor's financial statements and disclosures fairly and
accurately reflected the Company's results of operations as
required by Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP")
and the Exchange Act. The Complaint further charges that
defendants' Sarbanes-Oxley certifications during the Class
Period were false and misleading, as the Company, knowingly or
with severe recklessness, lacked adequate internal controls and
failed to keep proper books and records, in violation of its
well-publicized Code of Corporate Conduct.

On August 26, 2005, Immucor announced that the SEC issued a
Formal Order in the previously reported investigation into
issues related to payments made by the Company's Italian
subsidiary to individuals associated with government medical
facilities. On this news, shares of Immucor fell $1.00 per
share, or 3.5 percent, to close at $27.61 per share. Thereafter
on August 29, 2005, Immucor announced that it would revise its
Fiscal 2005 earnings to account for employee bonus accrual. The
Company also reported that it had accepted the resignation of
defendant Steven C. Ramsey as Chief Financial Officer of the
Company. On this news, shares of Immucor fell $3.54 per share,
or 12.85 percent, to close, on August 30, 2005, at $24.00 per
share.

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

For more details, contact Jeffrey M. Norton, Esq. of Wechsler
Harwood, LLP, 488 Madison Ave., 8th Floor, New York, NY 10022,
Phone: (877) 935-7400, E-mail: jmn@whesq.com.


MAJESCO ENTERTAINMENT: Barrack Rodos Files Securities Suit in NJ
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Barrack, Rodos & Bacine on behalf of the Denver
Employees Retirement Plan and all persons, other than
defendants, who purchased shares of Majesco Entertainment
Company ("Majesco" or the "Company") common stock issued
pursuant to the prospectus and registration statement
("Registration Statement") filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission in connection with the Company's January 26,
2005 public offering of six million shares of common stock at a
price of $12.50 per share (the "Offering"), commenced a class
action in the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey.

The complaint charges the Company, its directors, and certain
underwriter banks with violations of Sections 11, 12, and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. Sections 77k, 77l, and
77o. The complaint alleges that defendants made materially false
and misleading statements in the Registration Statement about
the Company's financial results, operations and sales, including
its expected results for fiscal year 2005. Specifically, the
complaint alleges that the defendants falsely reported Majesco's
financial results for 2004 by inflating its capitalized software
costs, under-accruing for bad debt expense, and overstating
operating income thereby. Defendants also reported, without a
basis, that for 2005 Majesco would bring in $175-$185 million in
revenue and operating income of $16-$18 million. The
Registration Statement failed to disclose that Majesco reported
on its balance sheet capitalized costs associated with product
development at an inflated value. The Registration Statement
further failed to disclose that the Company failed to accrue
reserves for risky accounts receivables that were not likely to
be paid and that the Company could not factor with its normal
accounts receivable servicing vendor. The Registration Statement
further failed to adequately disclose that the Company would
need to substantially increase price protection and other
allowances offered to customers, and, therefore, the related
accruals, to create customer demand in 2005. The Registration
Statement also failed to disclose that Majesco had engaged in
huge channel stuffing initiatives to achieve 2004 goals and
that, as a result, defendants possessed information that the
Company would be facing weak sales across all product lines
throughout 2005. The complaint also sets forth additional
material misrepresentations in the Registration Statement,
including misstatements and omissions that were necessary to
make the statements that were contained in the Registration
Statement not misleading. The complaint seeks to recover damages
on behalf of all persons who purchased Majesco securities
pursuant to the Registration Statement for the Offering.

On July 12, 2005, Majesco drastically lowered its guidance for
its fiscal year 2005, cutting its expected results from $175 to
$185 million of net revenues and $16 to $18 million of operating
income downward to between $120 million and $125 million in net
revenues and an operating loss of $16 million to $19 million.
Additionally, the Company announced that its Chief Executive
Officer, Carl Yankowski, had resigned his position. This news
shocked the market. Shares of Majesco fell $3.33 per share, or
48.33 percent, on unusually high volume, on July 13, 2005, to
close at $3.56 per share. The stock has since dropped further
due to subsequent announcements.

For more details, contact Leslie Bornstein Molder, Esq. of
Barrack, Rodos & Bacine, 3300 Two Commerce Square, 2001 Market
Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone: +1-215-963-0600, Fax:
+1-215-963-0838, E-mail: lmolder@barrack.com, Web site:
http://www.barrack.com.


PATTERSON COMPANIES: Pomerantz Haudek Lodges Fraud Suit in MN
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross, LLP,
initiated a class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court, District of Minnesota, against Patterson Companies, Inc.
("Patterson" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:PDCO) and certain of its
officers and directors, on behalf of purchasers of the common
stock of Patterson during the period from February 24, 2005 to
May 25, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

Patterson Companies, Inc. distributes dental, companion-pet
veterinary, and rehabilitation supplies. The company is based in
St. Paul, Minnesota.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Patterson consistently reported record results quarterly that
were purportedly achieved as a result of the successful
execution of the Company's business strategy, which included
acquiring numerous companies over the past several years. The
Complaint continues to allege that defendants knew that the
publicly issued estimates for the fourth quarter of 2005 were
impossible to meet due to the Company's inability to
successfully integrate these acquisitions, and increased costs
such as previously undisclosed personnel incentive programs
needed to boost lagging sales. During the class period and
before the true facts were revealed, Company insiders, including
Peter L. Frechette, Chairman of the Board and CEO, Jeffrey H.
Webster, President, Webster Veterinary Supply, and Ronald E.
Ezerski, Director at Patterson Companies, sold over $44 million
worth of Patterson Stock.

On May 26, 2005, defendants reported that the Company had missed
its fourth quarter 2005 earnings projections, and that it would
need to dramatically reduce its expectations for first quarter
2006. In response to this announcement, the price of Patterson
stock dropped from $52.96 per share on May 25, 2005 to $45.46
per share on May 26, 2005.

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


WORLD HEALTH: Mager & Goldstein Files Securities Suit in W.D. PA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Mager & Goldstein, LLP, initiated a class action
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania on behalf of all purchasers of securities of World
Health Alternatives, Inc. ("World Health" or the
"Company")(OTCBB:WHAIE) between June 26, 2003 and August 18,
2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that World Health, certain of its
officers, and its former auditor violated the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing materially false and misleading
statements during the Class Period which resulted in
artificially inflating the value of World Health stock.
Specifically, defendants misrepresented and failed to disclose
that:

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

     (2) convertible debt and warrant agreements connected with
         the Company's preferred stock were not properly
         accounted for;

     (3) there was underpayment by defendants of certain tax
         liabilities exceeding $4 million;

     (4) the Company's misstatements to its lenders resulted in
         $6.5 million in excess funding under the Company's loan
         arrangements; and

     (5) the Company was unable to determine its actual
         financial condition due to the lack of proper internal
         controls.

Because of the above activities, World Health had terminated its
outside auditor, Daszkal Bolton LLP, and CEO Richard E. McDonald
had resigned. The Company announced that it would be restating
its prior financial statements in light of the above
revelations, and investors were warned not to rely on the
information. The market reacted to this news and on August 19,
2005, the price of World Health common stock tumbled 86%,
trading as low as $.25 per share after closing at $1.85 per
share on August 18, 2005.

For more details, contact Jayne Arnold Goldstein of Mager &
Goldstein, LLP, 2825 University Drive, Suite 350 Coral Springs,
FL 33065, Phone: 954-341-0844 or 866-274-8258, Fax:
954-341-0855, E-mail: jgoldstein@mwg-law.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  * * *