CAR_Public/050919.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Monday, September 19, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 185

                         Headlines

APPLE COMPUTER: CA Court Refuses To Dismiss Antitrust Lawsuit
BRADSHAW INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Bottle Caps For Choking Hazard
CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: DE Court Partially Dismisses Fraud Lawsuit
CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: NY Court Stays Suit, DE Allows Intervention
CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Antitrust Lawsuit

CINCINNATI BELL: Reaches Settlement For OH, KY Consumer Suits
COACHMEN RV COMPANY: Recalls 806 Trailers Due to Crash Hazard
CVS CORPORATION: Reaches Settlement For MA Securities Fraud Suit
CVS CORPORATION: Pension Plan Participants File ERISA Suit in MA
DST SYSTEMS: Dismissed From AL State Lawsuit V. Joint Venture

ENSLIN & SONS: Recalls Meat Processed in Unsanitary Conditions
FORTUNE BRANDS: Consumers Sue For Advertising Alcohol To Minors
FREIGHTLINER LLC: Recalls 116 School Buses Due to Crash Hazard
GOLD'N PLUMP: MN Judge Grants Certification To Wage Lawsuit
HANGER ORTHOPEDIC: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Securities Lawsuit

HEXCEL CORPORATION: Settles CA, MA Consumer Antitrust Lawsuits
HOOPER HOLMES: Examiners Commence Overtime Wage Suit in CA Court
HYDROGEL SLIM PATCH: Firm Reaches Settlement For FTC Fraud Suit
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Recalls 240T Elantra Vehicles Due to Injury Risk
IMCLONE SYSTEMS: NY Court Approves Securities Lawsuit Settlement

ITT EDUCATIONAL: IN District Judge Dismisses Shareholder Suit
LOUISIANA: Attorneys Sue Oil Companies Over Drilling Activities
MARSH & MCLENNAN: Working On NYAG Probe, Civil Suit Settlement
MARSH & MCLENNAN: Continues To Face Broker Fee Agreements Suits
MARSH & MCLENNAN: Named in AXIS Capital Securities Lawsuit in NY

MARSH & MCLENNAN: Faces Market-Timing, Late Trading Litigation
MCI INC.: Shareholders Commence DE Lawsuits V. Verizon Merger
MISSOURI: Scott County Judge Issues Injunction in Cemetery Case
NATIONAL SEMICONDUCTOR: Discovery Proceeds in CA Injury Lawsuit
NBTY INC.: To Ask NY Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Lawsuit

NEW JERSEY: Overcharging Suit Generates Windfall For Motorists
NJ AFFORDABLE: SEC Gets Emergency Relief to Stop Ponzi Scheme
ORTOVOX USA: Recalls Avalanche Transceivers Due to Faulty Design
OSI PHARMACEUTICALS: Shareholders Launch Securities Suits in NY
PACIFIC LIFE: Variable Annuities Sales Targeted in GA Lawsuit

PHARMOS CORPORATION: NJ Court Consolidates Securities Lawsuits
PIER 1 IMPORTS: Recalls Candle Holders Due to Laceration Hazard
PIONEER ELECTRONICS: NY Court Certifies DVD Player Consumer Suit
REWARDS NETWORK: Plaintiffs Asks CA Court To Certify Fraud Suit
ROYAL DUTCH SHELL: Suit Settlement Hearing Set October 21, 2005

SARA LEE: Recalls Products For Possible Metal, Plastic Content
UICI: Asks TX Court To Dismiss Lawsuit For Securities Violations
UNIZAN FINANCIAL: Consumers File Suit Over Fraudulent Investment
UNSOLICITED SPAM: FTC Warns Consumers About Katrina Spam E-mails
USF CORPORATION: Red Star Employees Launch WARN Suits in PA, NY

WET SEAL: CA Judge Grants Motion to Dismiss Consolidated Action

                  New Securities Fraud Cases

DHB INDUSTRIES: Marc S. Henzel Files Securities Fraud Suit in NY
DHB INDUSTRIES: Murray Frank Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
HUTCHINSON TECHNOLOGY: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Fraud Suit in MN
UBS-AG: Murray Frank Lodges NY Suit Over AllianceBernstein Funds
UBS-AG: Murray Frank Files Fraud Suit in NY Over Federated Funds

UBS-AG: Murray Frank Files NY Securities Suit Over PIMCO Funds
UBS-AG: Murray Frank Lodges Securities Suit in NY Over UBS Funds

                        *********


APPLE COMPUTER: CA Court Refuses To Dismiss Antitrust Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
denied Apple Computer's motion to dismiss an antitrust suit
brought by a disgruntled iTunes Music Store customer, The
AppleInsider reports.

Filed by Thomas Slattery, the class action suit is alleging that
the company violated federal antitrust laws and California's
unfair competition law by requiring that the customers use an
iPod in order to listen to music purchased from its industry-
leading iTunes Music Store.

Despite the dismissal, United States District Judge James Ware
in his 9-page ruling dated September 9, did side with Apple in
dismissing a few individual claims. Specifically, Judge Ware
threw out a claim arguing that Apple was unjustly enriched from
sales of iTunes and iPods. In addition, the judge also dismissed
two claims of attempted monopolization against the iPod maker.

Judge Ware though did grant Mr. Slattery and his attorneys a
month to amend the two arguments. Essentially, the court is
requiring Mr. Slattery to file an amended complain on or before
October 11 with Apple being given up to 15 days to respond.

However, in the long run, the judge denied Apple's overall
motion for a dismissal in the case and is allowing Mr. Slattery
to proceed with seven of his ten original claims. These include
allegations that Apple possesses monopoly power and thus coerced
customers into purchasing both iPods and iTunes files. Mr.
Slattery also argues that Apple violated state law under the
Cartwright Act and California's unfair competition law.

Antitrust lawyers told The AppleInsider that the key to such a
lawsuit would be convincing a court that a single product brand
like iTunes is a market in itself, separate from the rest of the
online music market.

The suit is styled, Slattery v. Apple Computer, Inc., 5:05-cv-
00037-JW, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, the Honorable James Ware, presiding.
Eric J. Belfi of Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP, 275 Madison Ave.,
Suite 801, New York, NY 10016, Phone: 212-682-1818, Fax:
212-682-1892, E-mail: ebelfi@murrayfrank.com; Michael David
Braun and Marc L. Godino of BRAUN LAW GROUP, P.C., 12400
Wilshire Blvd., Suite 920, Los Angeles, CA 90025, Phone:
310-442-7755, Fax: (310) 442-7756, E-mail:
service@braunlawgroup.com; Roy A. Katriel of The Katriel Law
Firm, P.L.L.C., 1101 30th St., NW
Suite 500, Washington, DC 20007, Phone: 202-625-4342, E-mail:
rak@katriellaw.com; and Jacqueline Sailer of Rabin & Peckel,
LLP, 275 Madison Ave., New York, NY 10016, Phone: 212-682-1818,
Fax: 212-682-1892, are representing the Plaintiff/s. Caroline N.
Mitchell, Robert A. Mittelstaedt, Adam Richard Sand, Esq. and
Tracy Strong of JONES DAY, 555 California St., 25th Floor, San
Francisco, CA 94104, Phone: 415-875-5712, 415-875-5710,
415-875-5716 and 415-626-3939, Fax: 415-680 2344 and
415-875-5700, E-mail: cnmitchell@jonesday.com,
ramittelstaedt@jonesday.com, arsand@JonesDay.com and
tstrong@jonesday.com, are representing the Defendant.


BRADSHAW INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Bottle Caps For Choking Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC), Bradshaw International Inc., of Rancho Cucamonga,
California is voluntarily recalling about 500,000 units of
"Bottle Sippers" Pull-Up Bottle Caps.

According to the company, the pull-up valve can detach from the
cap, posing a choking hazard to young children. Bradshaw
International has received one report of a pull-up valve
detaching from the screw-on cap. The incident involved a young
child who began to choke after a pull-up valve detached in her
mouth while she was drinking.

The recalled bottle sippers have white screw-on bases with dark
blue, green or red pull-up valves. They are sold in packages of
three. The package is labeled "Bottle Sippers." Bradshaw
International Inc. and #70118 are written on the back of the
package.  Manufactured in China, the bottle sipper caps were
sold at grocery stores nationwide from January 2002 through
August 2005 for about $2 per package.

Consumers should stop using these recalled bottle sippers
immediately and return them to the store where purchased for a
refund.  Consumers should call Bradshaw International toll-free
at (800) 421-6290 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. PT, Monday through
Friday, or visit the firm's Web site: http://www.goodcook.com.


CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: DE Court Partially Dismisses Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Delaware Chancery Court dismissed in part the consolidated
class action filed against Cablevision Systems Corporation and
each of its directors, alleging breach of fiduciary duties and
breach of contract with respect to the exchange of the Rainbow
Media Group tracking stock for Cablevision NY Group common
stock.

In August 2002, purported class actions filed on behalf of all
holders of publicly traded shares of Rainbow Media Group
tracking stock.  The actions sought to:

     (1) enjoin the exchange of Rainbow Media Group tracking
         stock for Cablevision NY Group common stock,

     (2) enjoin any sales of "Rainbow Media Group assets," or,
         in the alternative, award rescissory damages,

     (3) if the exchange is completed, rescind it or award
         rescissory damages,

     (4) award compensatory damages, and

     (5) award costs and disbursements

The actions were consolidated into one action on September 17,
2002, and on October 3, 2002, the Company filed a motion to
dismiss the consolidated action.  The action was stayed by
agreement of the parties pending resolution of a related action
brought by one of the plaintiffs to compel the inspection of
certain books and records of the Company.  On October 26, 2004,
the parties entered into a stipulation dismissing the related
action, and providing for the Company's production of certain
documents.  On December 13, 2004, plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended complaint. The Company has filed a motion
to dismiss the amended complaint.  On April 19, 2005, the
court granted that motion in part, dismissing the breach of
contract claim but declining to dismiss the breach of fiduciary
duty claim on the pleadings.


CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: NY Court Stays Suit, DE Allows Intervention
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Teachers Retirement System of Lousiana filed a motion in New
York Supreme Court to vacate the stay of a class action filed
against Cablevision Systems, Corporation, its directors and
officers and certain current and former officers and employees
of the Company's Rainbow Media Holdings and American Movie
Classics subsidiaries.

In August 2003, a purported class action was filed, relating to
the August 2002 Rainbow Media Group tracking stock exchange.
The suit alleged, among other things, that the exchange ratio
was based upon a price of the Rainbow Media Group tracking stock
that was artificially deflated as a result of the improper
recognition of certain expenses at the national services
division of Rainbow Media Holdings. The complaint alleges
breaches by the individual defendants of fiduciary duties.  The
complaint also alleges breaches of contract and unjust
enrichment by the Company.  The complaint seeks monetary damages
and such other relief as the court deems just and proper.

On October 31, 2003, the Company and other defendants moved to
stay the action in favor of the previously filed actions pending
in Delaware or, in the alternative, to dismiss for failure to
state a claim.  On June 10, 2004, the court stayed the action on
the basis of the previously filed action in Delaware.  The
Teachers Retirement System of Louisiana has filed a motion to
vacate the stay in the New York action, and has simultaneously
filed a motion to intervene in the Delaware action and to stay
that action. The Company has opposed both motions.  On April 19,
2005, the court in the Delaware action denied the motion to stay
the Delaware action and granted TRSL's motion to intervene in
that action.  On June 22, 2005, the court in the New York action
denied TRSL's motion to vacate the stay in that action.


CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Antitrust Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cablevision Systems Corporation asked the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York to dismiss the
lawsuit filed against it, CSC Holdings, Inc., and Madison Square
Garden LP.

On March 16, 2005, the New York Jets LLC and Jets Development
LLC ("Jets") filed a complaint, relating to various actions
allegedly taken by defendants in connection with a proposed
football stadium for the Jets on the West Side of Manhattan.
Specifically, the complaint alleges:

     (1) that the Company "possesses monopoly power in the
         markets for facility rental and ticket sales for large-
         scale events in enclosed spectator facilities and suite
         rentals in Manhattan" and has acted anti-competitively
         in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act;

     (2) that defendants have tortiously interfered with the
         Jets' prospective business relations by making a "sham
         bid" for the MTA land that is the site of the proposed
         stadium "to injure the Jets and deprive them of an
         advantageous existing and prospective business
         relationship";

     (3) that defendants have tortiously interfered with the
         Jets' prospective business relations with networks
         carried on defendants' cable system; and

     (4) that defendants have "engaged in deceptive and
         misleading conduct, including dissemination of
         deceptive and materially misleading advertising and
         preventing dissemination of accurate information," in
         violation of New York General Business Law Section 349.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss all claims asserted in the
complaint.  On July 27, 2005, the court issued an order allowing
certain limited discovery and requesting supplemental briefing
on the defendants' motion to dismiss.


CINCINNATI BELL: Reaches Settlement For OH, KY Consumer Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cincinnati Bell Wireless Company and Cincinnati Bell Wireless
LLC reached a settlement for the consumer fraud class actions
filed in Ohio and Kentucky State Courts, relating to the
Company's wireless phone service.

A class action complaint was filed in Hamilton County, Ohio,
alleging that the plaintiff and similarly-situated customers
were wrongfully assessed roaming charges for wireless phone
calls made or received within the Company's Home Service Area
and/or within major metropolitan areas on the AT&T Wireless
Network.  The complaint asserts several causes of action,
including negligent and/or intentional misrepresentation, breach
of contract, fraud, unjust enrichment, conversion and violation
of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act.  The plaintiff seeks
economic and punitive damages on behalf of himself and all
similarly-situated customers.

On January 31, 2005, another class action complaint against
Cincinnati Bell Wireless Company and Cincinnati Bell Wireless
LLC was filed in Kenton County, Kentucky.  The allegations
raised and damages sought by plaintiffs in this action are very
similar to those previously described.

During the second quarter of 2005, a tentative settlement
agreement was reached in the class action complaints.  With the
proposed settlement, the Company would establish a fund capped
at $6 million from which customers who qualify and submit a
claim would receive a voucher of up to $50 toward certain
Cincinnati Bell services. Customers who can demonstrate that
they had applicable roaming charges in excess of $100 are
eligible to be reimbursed for up to half of such charges in lieu
of the $50 voucher.


COACHMEN RV COMPANY: Recalls 806 Trailers Due to Crash Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------
Coachmen RV Company, LLC, in cooperation with the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Office of Defects
Investigation (ODI) is voluntarily recalling about 806 units of
2005 Adrenaline and 2005 Somerset trailers due to crash hazard.
NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID Number: 05V394000.

According to the ODI, on certain fifth wheel trailers equipped
with Tredit wheels, the rims may have poor weld quality and
insufficient press fit between the wheel rim and disc. The
center of the wheel could separate from the rim. The wheel may
wobble and cause vibration or the mounted tire could lose air
causing the tire to go flat, resulting in a loss of control of
the vehicle and increasing the risk of crash.

As a remedy Coachmen is working with Tredit tire to notify
owners and have the wheels replaced with a 16" Aluminum Wheel.
The recall is expected to begin during October 2005.

For more details, contact Coachmen, Phone: 1-800-453-6064 and
NHTSA Auto Safety Hotline: 1-888-327-4236 or (TTY)
1-800-424-9153, Web site: http://www.safecar.gov.


CVS CORPORATION: Reaches Settlement For MA Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts reached a settlement for the consolidated
securities class action filed against CVS Corporation, styled
"In re CVS Corporation Securities Litigation, No. 01-CV-11464
(JLT)."

Beginning in August 2001, a total of nine actions were filed
against the Company, asserting claims under the federal
securities laws.  The actions were subsequently consolidated and
on April 8, 2002, a consolidated and amended complaint was
filed.  The consolidated amended complaint names as defendants
the Company, its chief executive officer and its chief financial
officer, and asserts claims for alleged securities fraud under
sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 thereunder on behalf of a class of persons who
purchased shares of the Company's common stock between February
6, 2001 and October 30, 2001.

On June 7, 2002, all defendants moved to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint. This motion was denied by the
court on December 18, 2002, and on January 24, 2003, defendants
accordingly filed an answer to the consolidated amended
complaint.  Discovery on merits issues concluded in September
2004 and expert discovery concluded in December 2004. On January
14, 2005, all defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. On
March 8, 2005 this motion was denied and a trial date has been
set for May 9, 2005.

Although the Company believes the securities suit is without
merit, it has entered into a settlement agreement, which has
been preliminarily approved by the court, to avoid the risk and
diversion of resources associated with trial. The settlement is
subject to final approval by the court and is being paid for
primarily by the Company's insurers.

The suit is styled "In re CVS Corporation Securities Litigation,
No. 01-CV-11464 (JLT)," filed in the United States District
Court in Massachusetts, under Judge Joseph L. Tauro.  The
Company is represented by:

     (1) John J. Clarke, Jr., Dennis E. Glazer, Helen Harris,
         Trisha Lawson, Davis Polk & Wardwell 450 Lexington
         Avenue New York, NY 10017 Phone: 212-450-4000;

     (2) Michael S. Gardener and Kevin M. McGinty, Mintz, Levin,
         Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky & Popeo, PC, One Financial Center
         Boston, MA 02111 Phone: 617-542-6000 Fax: 617-542-2241
         E-mail: mgardener@mintz.com

The plaintiffs are represented by:

     (i) Nancy F. Gans, Moulton & Gans, PC, 33 Broad Street
         Suite 1100 Boston, MA 02109 Phone: 617-369-7979 Fax:
         617-369-7980 E-mail: nfgans@aol.com

    (ii) Charles S. Hellman, Jared Specthrie, Milberg Weiss
         Bershad & Schulman LLP One Pennsylvania Plaza New York,
         NY 10119-0165 Phone: 212-594-5300 Fax: 212-868-1229

   (iii) Thomas G. Shapiro, Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP 53 State
         Street Boston, MA 02108 Phone: 617-439-3939 Fax: 617-
         439-0134 E-mail: tshapiro@shulaw.com

    (iv) Benjamin J. Sweet, Michael K. Yarnoff, Schiffrin &
         Barroway, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087
         Phone: 610-667-7706 Fax: 610-667-7056


CVS CORPORATION: Pension Plan Participants File ERISA Suit in MA
----------------------------------------------------------------
CVS Corporation reached a settlement for the class action filed
against it in the United States District Court in Massachusetts,
asserting claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act (ERISA), styled "Fescina v. CVS Corp., et. al., No. 04-CV-
12309 (JLT)."

The purported class includes persons who were participants in or
beneficiaries of the CVS 401(k) plan between December 1, 2000
and October 30, 2001. The suit was filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts and designated
as related to the Securities Action.  The complaint names as
defendants the Company, its chief executive officer, certain
members of the CVS Board of Directors, and certain unnamed
fiduciaries.

Although the Company believes the ERISA suit is without merit,
it entered into a settlement, which has been preliminarily
approved by the court, to avoid the risk and diversion of
resources associated with trial.  The settlement is subject to
final approval by the court and is being paid for primarily by
the Company's insurers.

The suit is styled "Fescina v. CVS Corporation et al, case no.
1:04-cv-12309-JLT," filed in the United States District Court in
Massachusetts, under Judge Joseph L. Tauro.  Representing
plaintiff Joseph Fescina is Deborah R. Gross of Law Office of
Bernard M. Gross, PC Suite 200 1515 Locust Street 2nd Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19102 Phone: 215-561-3600 Fax: 215-561-3000 E-
mail: debbie@bernardmgross.com


DST SYSTEMS: Dismissed From AL State Lawsuit V. Joint Venture
-------------------------------------------------------------
DST Systems, Inc. and the co-owner of one of its corporate joint
venture affiliates were dismissed from the class action lawsuit
filed in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama.

The complaint alleges that amounts due from the joint venture
affiliate to the plaintiff and any other parties that may
eventually join the putative class action were incorrectly
calculated.  The complaint does not identify the extent of the
alleged monetary damages for the named plaintiff or the class as
a whole.  The Company is not a party to the joint venture
affiliate's customer contracts.


ENSLIN & SONS: Recalls Meat Processed in Unsanitary Conditions
--------------------------------------------------------------
Enslin & Sons Packing Co., a Hattiesburg, Miss., firm, is
voluntarily recalling approximately 2,890 pounds of sausage and
bacon products processed under unsanitary conditions due to the
company's water system being inadvertently compromised by
Hurricane Katrina, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food
Safety and Inspection Service announced today.

Products subject to recall include:

     (1) 10-pound boxes of "ENSLIN QUALITY MEATS, SINCE 1924, A
         FAMILY TRADITION, HICKORY SMOKED BACON," Each box label
         bears the production code "250 05" and the
         establishment number, "EST. 31806" inside the USDA seal
         of inspection.

     (2) 10-pound boxes of "ENSLIN QUALITY MEATS, SINCE 1924, A
         FAMILY TRADITION, HICKORY SMOKED, FULLY COOKED PORK
         SMOKED SAUSAGE, Natural Hickory Smoke Flavor Added."
         Each box label bears the production code "250 05" and
         the establishment number, "EST. 31806" inside the USDA
         seal of inspection.

     (3) 10-pound boxes of "GLENDALE BRAND, HICKORY SMOKED HOT
         SAUSAGE." Each box bears the production code "250 05"
         and the establishment number, "EST. 31806" inside the
         USDA seal of inspection.

     (4) 10-pound boxes of "BOWIE RIVER SWAMP HOT SAUSAGE MADE
         WITH CHICKEN AND PORK, HICKORY SMOKED." Each box bears
         the production code "250 05" and the establishment
         number, "EST. 31806" inside the USDA seal of
         inspection.

The sausage and bacon were produced and packaged on September 7
and 8 and were distributed to retail stores in Mississippi.  The
problem was discovered after the company requested that its
private water source be tested. FSIS has received no reports of
illnesses associated with consumption of these products.

Consumers and media with questions about the recall should
contact company General Manager Freddie Enslin at 601-582-9300.

Consumers with food safety questions can call the toll-free USDA
Meat and Poultry Hotline at (888) 674-6854. The hotline is
available in English and Spanish and can presently be reached
24-hours-a-day.


FORTUNE BRANDS: Consumers Sue For Advertising Alcohol To Minors
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fortune Brands, Inc., its Spirits and Wine business and numerous
other manufacturers and importers of beer, spirits and wine are
named as defendants in purported consolidated class action
lawsuits in Florida, Michigan, New York, Ohio, West Virginia and
Wisconsin seeking damages and injunctive relief regarding
alleged marketing of beverage alcohol to people under the legal
purchase age for alcohol.

The Florida lawsuit, styled "Konhauzer v. Adolph Coors Company,
et al.," was filed March 30, 2005 in the Circuit Court of the
Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County, Florida. The
Michigan lawsuit, "Alston v. Advanced Brands & Importing Co., et
al.," was filed March 30, 2005 in the Circuit Court for the
Third Judicial Circuit, Michigan.  The New York lawsuit,
"Sciocchetti v. Advanced Brands & Importing Co., et al.," was
filed February 16, 2005 in the Supreme Court, Albany County, New
York.  The Company and its Spirits and Wine business have not
yet been served in the Florida and New York lawsuits.  The Ohio
lawsuit, "Eisenberg v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., et al.," was filed
April 30, 2004 in the Court of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga County,
Ohio and removed to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio. The West Virginia lawsuit, styled "Bertovich
v. Advanced Brands & Importing Co., et al.," was filed February
17, 2005 in the Circuit Court of Hancock County, West Virginia.
The Wisconsin lawsuit, "Tomberlin v. Adolph Coors Company, et
al.," was filed February 24, 2005 in the Circuit Court, Dane
County, Wisconsin.

The lawsuits are similar in that each alleges that the
defendants have engaged in deceptive marketing practices and
schemes targeted at people under the legal purchase age,
negligently marketed their products to the underage and
fraudulently concealed their alleged misconduct. Plaintiffs seek
the disgorgement of unspecified profits earned by the Company's
Spirits and Wine business in the past and other unspecified
damages and equitable relief.  Other purported class actions are
pending against other producers of alcoholic beverages for
alleged marketing to persons under the legal drinking age.

The Company denies that its Spirits and Wine business markets
beverage alcohol products to persons under the legal purchase
age and denies that the advertising practices of its Spirits and
Wine business are illegal or in violation of industry codes
concerning responsible marketing practices, the Company said in
a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission.


FREIGHTLINER LLC: Recalls 116 School Buses Due to Crash Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
Freightliner, LLC in cooperation with the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration's Office of Defects Investigation
(ODI) is voluntarily recalling about 116 units of 2005 Thomas
Built / SAF-T-LINER C2 school buses due to crash hazard. NHTSA
CAMPAIGN ID Number: 05V397000.

According to the ODI, on certain 2004 and 2005 Thomas Built SAF-
T-LINER C2 school buses equipped with 30" or 40" left side
emergency door exits manufactured between December 17, 2004 and
August 28, 2005, the a telescopic slide that holds the side
emergency door open is located such that it will move past its
normal travel and the mechanism may latch on the end of the
slide preventing the door from opening. The manufacturer though
has not provided the agency with a description of the
consequence.

As a remedy, Thomas Built will notify its customers and will
repair the buses free of charge. The recall is expected to begin
on October 24, 2005.

For more details, contact Freightliner, Phone: 1-800-547-0712
and NHTSA Auto Safety Hotline: 1-888-327-4236 or (TTY)
1-800-424-9153, Web site: http://www.safecar.gov.


GOLD'N PLUMP: MN Judge Grants Certification To Wage Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Joan N. Ericksen certified a class action
suit against Gold'n Plump Poultry, Inc. by the poultry
producer's employees, who are requesting additional pay for
certain tasks, including getting dressed for work, The WCCO.com
reports.

Filed on February 24, the suit claims that current and former
Gold'n Plump workers are owed overtime pay for the practice of
"donning and doffing," according to Zimmerman Reed, a law firm
representing Gold'n Plump employees.

Zimmerman Reed explains that "donning and doffing" is the act of
putting on and taking off the clothing and protective gear
required during the workday.  Additionally, attorneys are also
claiming employees are owed overtime pay for time spent
sanitizing those items, as well as for preparing and sanitizing
equipment required for use during a shift.

However, according to the certification order filed in U.S.
District Court, St. Cloud, Minnesota-based Gold'n Plump argues
that each employee's pay standards and time spent "donning and
doffing" may differ depending on variables such as that
employee's supervisor, position, shift, department or place of
work.  Employees who may qualify for a potential settlement
include current and former production, maintenance and
sanitation workers at plants located in Luverne, Minnesota; Cold
Spring, Minnesota; and Arcadia, Wisconsin, according to
attorneys.

Judge Ericksen certified the action under the Fair Labor
Standards Act. The judge thus ordered each party to reach an
agreement within 30 days or make an additional filing with the
court by October 31.


HANGER ORTHOPEDIC: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hanger Orthopedic Group, Inc. asked the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York to dismiss the
consolidated amended securities class action filed against it,
styled "In re Hanger Orthopedic Group, Inc. Securities
Litigation, No. 1:04-cv-2585."

Between June 22, 2004 and July 1, 2004, five putative securities
class action complaints were filed against the Company.  Four
were filed in the Eastern District of New York, namely:

     (1) Twist Partners v. Hanger Orthopedic Group, Inc., et
         al., No. 1:04-cv-02585 (filed 06/22/2004, E.D.N.Y);

     (2) Shapiro v. Hanger Orthopedic Group, Inc., et al., No.
         1:04-cv-02681 (filed 06/28/2004, E.D.N.Y.);

     (3) Imperato v. Hanger Orthopedic Group, Inc., No. 1:04-cv-
         02736 (filed 06/30/2004, E.D.N.Y.);

     (4) Walters v. Hanger Orthopedic Group, Inc., et al., No.
         1:04-cv-02826 (filed 07/01/2004, E.D.N.Y.)

One is pending in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia, styled "Browne v. Hanger
Orthopedic Group, Inc., et al., No. 1:04-cv-715 (filed
06/23/2004, E.D. Va.)."

The complaints asserted that the Company's reported revenues
were inflated through certain billing improprieties at one of
the Company's facilities.  The plaintiffs in "Browne"
subsequently dismissed their complaint without prejudice, and
the four remaining cases were consolidated into a single action
in the Eastern District of New York.

On February 15, 2005, the lead plaintiffs in the Consolidated
Securities Class Action filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint.
The Amended Complaint asserts that the Company's reported
revenues were inflated through certain billing improprieties at
some of the Company's facilities.  In addition, the Amended
Complaint asserts that the Company violated the federal
securities laws in connection with a restatement announced by
the Company on August 16, 2004, restating certain of the
Company's financial statements during 2001 through the first
quarter of 2004.  The Amended Complaint purports to allege
violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, as well as
violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by certain of
the Company's executives as "controlling persons" of the
Company.

The suit is styled "In re: Hanger Orthopedic Group Securities
Litigation, case no. 1:04-cv-02585-FB-RLM," filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York,
under Judge Frederic Block.  Representing the Company are Paul
H. Dawes, Patrick E. Gibbs, and Gregory Alan Harris of Latham &
Watkins, 135 Commonwealth Drive, Menlo Park, CA 94025, Phone:
(650)-328-4600, Fax: (650) 463-2600, E-mail: paul.dawes@lw.com
or patrick.gibbs@lw.com.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (i) Evan Jason Smith, Brodsky & Smith, LLC, 240 Mineola
         Boulevard, Mineola, NY 11501, Phone: 516-741-4977, E-
         mail: esmith@brodsky-smith.com;

    (ii) Robert Craig Finkel, Wolf Popper LLP, 845 Third Avenue,
         New York, NY 10022, Phone: 212-451-9620, Fax: 212-486-
         2093, E-mail: rfinkel@wolfpopper.com

   (iii) Peter E. Seidman and Peter Sloane, Milberg,Weiss
         Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP, One Pennsylvania Plaza, New
         York, NY 10119, Phone: 212-613-5625, Fax: 212-868-1229,
         E-mail: pseidman@milbergweiss.com or
         psloane@milbergweiss.com

    (iv) Mark Casser Gardy, Abbey, Gardy, LLP, 212 East 39th
         Street, New York, NY 10016, Phone: (212) 889-3700, fax:
         212-684-5191, E-mail: mgardy@abbeygardy.com


HEXCEL CORPORATION: Settles CA, MA Consumer Antitrust Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hexcel Corporation agreed to settle the class actions filed in
California and Massachusetts courts, spawned by an earlier
lawsuit filed against it and others, styled "Thomas & Thomas
Rodmakers v. Newport Adhesives and Composites, Case No. CV-99-
07796-GHK (CTx)."

The Thomas & Thomas Rodmakers suit was filed on behalf of
purchasers (excluding government purchasers) of carbon fiber and
carbon prepreg in the United States from the named defendants
from January 1, 1993 through January 31, 1999.  The suit alleges
violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act for alleged
price fixing.  On August 26, 2004, the Company entered into a
stipulation of settlement with the plaintiffs in the suit for
$7.0 million.  The settlement was approved by the court on
January 31, 2005 and the Company has paid the settlement amount
in full, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (March 29,2005)
states.

The new actions also allege antitrust violations and are brought
on behalf of purchasers located in California and in
Massachusetts, respectively, who indirectly purchased carbon
fiber products. The California cases have been ordered to be
coordinated in the Superior Court for the County of San
Francisco and are currently referred to as Carbon Fibers Cases
I, II and III, Judicial Council Coordinator Proceeding Numbers
4212, 4216 and 4222. The California cases are:

     (1) Lazio v. Amoco Polymers Inc., et. al., filed August 21,
         2000;

     (2) Proiette v. Newport Adhesives and Composite, Inc. et.
         al., filed September 12, 2001;

     (3) Simon v. Newport Adhesives and Composite, Inc., et.
         al., filed September 21, 2001;

     (4) Badal v. Newport Adhesives and Composite, Inc. et. al.,
         filed September 26, 2001;

     (5) Yolles v. Newport Adhesives and Composite, Inc. et.
         al., filed September 26, 2001;

     (6) Regier v. Newport Adhesives and Composite, Inc. et.
         al., filed October 2, 2001;

     (7) Connolly v. Newport Adhesives and Composite, Inc. et.
         al., filed October 4, 2001;

     (8) Elisa Langsam v. Newport Adhesives and Composites, Inc,
         et. al., filed October 4, 2001;

     (9) Jubal Delong et. al. v. Amoco Polymers, Inc. et. al.,
         filed October 26, 2001; and

    (10) Louis V. Ambrosio v. Amoco Polymers, Inc. et. al.,
         filed October 25, 2001

The Massachusetts case is "Ostroff v. Newport Adhesives and
Composites, Inc. et. al.," filed June 7, 2002 in the Superior
Court Department of the Trial Court of Middlesex, Massachusetts,
Civil Action No. 02-2385.

The Company has agreed to settle all such suits for nonmaterial
amounts subject to formal documentation and court formalities.


HOOPER HOLMES: Examiners Commence Overtime Wage Suit in CA Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hooper Holmes, Inc. faces a class action filed in the Superior
Court of California, Los Angeles County, alleging violations of
the state's wage and hour laws.

On January 25, 2005 Sylvia Gayed, one of the Company's examiners
in California, filed the suit, alleging that the Company failed
to pay overtime wages, to provide meal and rest periods, and
reimbursement for expenses incurred in performing examinations.
The plaintiff is attempting to have the lawsuit certified as a
class action on behalf of other examiners who perform similar
work for the Company in California.

The Company currently employs 441 examiners in California and
has employed in excess of 1,200 examiners in California over the
past 48 months.  The Company believes that it has properly paid
its California examiners for overtime worked and intends to
provide a vigorous defense to the litigation, the Company said
in a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission.


HYDROGEL SLIM PATCH: Firm Reaches Settlement For FTC Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The alleged masterminds behind a fraudulent scheme to market two
seaweed-based patches as weight-loss products to U.S. consumers
have settled Federal Trade Commission charges. The defendants,
all based in the United Kingdom, will pay $150,000 - the profits
they made from selling Hydro-Gel Slim Patch and Slenderstrip in
the United States. Under the settlement, the defendants will be
banned in the U.S. from making, advertising, or selling any
dietary supplement, food, drug, or weight-loss product, and
cannot make claims about other health-related products or
services unless the claims are backed by scientific evidence.

The FTC filed a complaint in December 2003 to stop the allegedly
false and unsubstantiated weight-loss claims for the two
patches. In May 2004, the FTC amended its complaint to include
Kingstown Associates, Ltd.; BVW Associates, Inc.; Gary Bush;
David Varley; and Laurence White, the defendants named in
today's announced settlement. The FTC added the defendants when
the Commission discovered they were allegedly orchestrating the
manufacturing, advertising, and selling of the patches in the
United States. In September 2004, the original defendants
settled FTC charges.

The settlement announced today against the U.K.-based defendants
bans them from manufacturing, labeling, advertising, promoting,
offering for sale, selling, or distributing any dietary
supplement, food, drug, or weight-loss product, or assisting
others to do so. The defendants are further prohibited from
making representations about the health benefits, performance,
or efficacy of any health-related service or program, or device
unless the representations are true, non-misleading, and
substantiated by competent and reliable scientific evidence at
the time they are made.

The order also requires the defendants to give the FTC a list of
people who bought Hydro-Slim Patch and Slenderstrip, and
prohibits them from disclosing their mailing lists to others,
except as required by law. They are required to pay $150,000,
but if it is found that the defendants misrepresented their
financial status, they will be responsible for the full judgment
of $5.3 million - the total U.S. sales of the two patches. The
order also contains standard record-keeping provisions.

The Commission vote to authorize staff to file the stipulated
final order was 4-0. The stipulated final order for permanent
injunction was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of New York on September 9, 2005, and requires the
signature of the judge.

Copies of the stipulated final order are available from the
FTC's Web site at http://www.ftc.govand also from the FTC's
Consumer Response Center, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue,
N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580. The FTC works for the consumer to
prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices in
the marketplace and to provide information to help consumers
spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or
Spanish (bilingual counselors are available to take complaints),
or to get free information on any of 150 consumer topics, call
toll-free, 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357), or use the complaint
form at http://www.ftc.gov.The FTC enters Internet,
telemarketing, identity theft, and other fraud-related
complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database
available to hundreds of civil and criminal law enforcement
agencies in the U.S. and abroad.  For more details, contact
Mitchell J. Katz or Jackie Dizdul, Office of Public Affairs, by
Phone: 202-326-2161 or 202-326-2472 or David Koehler or Karen
Muoio, Division of Advertising Practices by Phone: 202-326-3627
or 202-326-2491, or visit the website:
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2005/09/hydrogel.htm.


HYUNDAI MOTOR: Recalls 240T Elantra Vehicles Due to Injury Risk
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hyundai Motor Company in cooperation with the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration's Office of Defects Investigation
(ODI) is voluntarily recalling about 240,000 units of 2004-05
Elantra vehicles due to injury risk. NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID Number:
05V395000.

According to the ODI, certain vehicles equipped with an Occupant
Classification System (OCS) fail to comply with the requirements
of Federal Motor vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208,
"Occupant Crash Protection." The OCS installed in the right
front seat of the vehicle may misclassify a Child Restraint Seat
(CRS) as an adult. This may occur if the CRS is installed after
an adult has been seated in the right front seat. If there has
not been a "KEY ON/KEY OFF" cycle with the right front passenger
seat empty prior to installation of the CRS. The possibility of
misclassification of a CRS as an adult may allow the right front
airbag or side impact airbag to deploy in a crash and could
result in injury to the right front occupant.

As a remedy, dealers will reprogram the vehicle's OCS Electronic
Control Unit (ECU) to remove the feature that may cause the CRS
to be recognized as an adult. The recall is expected to begin
during October 2005.

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


IMCLONE SYSTEMS: NY Court Approves Securities Lawsuit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York approved the settlement for the consolidated securities
class action filed against ImClone Systems, Inc. and certain of
its officers and directors, styled "Irvine v. ImClone Systems
Incorporated, et al., No. 02 Civ. 0109 (RO)."

In the corrected consolidated amended complaint, filed on
October 22, 2002, plaintiffs asserted claims against the
Company, its former President and Chief Executive Officer, Dr.
Samuel D. Waksal, its former Chief Scientific Officer and then-
President and Chief Executive Officer, Dr. Harlan W. Waksal, and
several of the Company's other present or former officers and
directors, for securities fraud under sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Securities and
Exchange Commission Rule 10b5-1, on behalf of a purported class
of persons who purchased the Company's publicly traded
securities between March 27, 2001 and January 25, 2002.  The
complaint also asserted claims against Dr. Samuel D. Waksal
under section 20A of the Exchange Act on behalf of a separate
purported sub-class of purchasers of the Company's securities
between December 27, 2001 and December 28, 2001.

The complaint generally alleged that various public statements
made by or on behalf of the Company or the other defendants
during 2001 and early 2002 regarding the prospects for FDA
approval of ERBITUX were false or misleading when made, that the
individual defendants were allegedly aware of material non-
public information regarding the actual prospects for ERBITUX at
the time that they engaged in transactions in the Company's
common stock and that members of the purported stockholder class
suffered damages when the market price of the Company's common
stock declined following disclosure of the information that
allegedly had not been previously disclosed.  The complaint
sought to proceed on behalf of the alleged classes described
above, sought monetary damages in an unspecified amount and
sought recovery of plaintiffs' costs and attorneys' fees.

On June 3, 2003, the court granted, in part, a motion to dismiss
filed by all defendants and dismissed plaintiff's claims except
those asserted against the Company, Dr. Samuel D. Waksal, and
Dr. Harlan W. Waksal.  On April 14, 2004, the court granted
plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  On January 24,
2005, the Company announced that it had reached an agreement in
principle to settle the consolidated class action for a cash
payment of $75 million, a portion of which will be paid by the
Company's insurers.  The settlement is subject to the
negotiation and execution of definitive settlement documents and
to Court approval.

On July 29, 2005 the Court approved the proposed settlement.  On
August 5, 2005, the Company paid the remaining $25 million into
escrow.  These funds will be held in escrow until such time that
the settlement becomes final and thereafter will be distributed
pursuant to the terms of the settlement documents.  As of August
4, 2005, the Company has received from its insurers $20.5
million, which was reflected as a receivable in Other current
assets, as of June 30, 2005. The amount received from the
insurers includes $8.75 million, less attorneys' fees of
$875,000, that was paid to the Company under the derivative
settlement.


The suit is styled "Irvine v. ImClone Systems Incorporated, et
al., No. 02 Civ. 0109 (RO)," filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, under Judge Richard
Owen.  Representing the Company are John J. Clarke, Jr., DLA
Piper Rudnick Gray Cary US LLP(NYC) 1251 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020 Phone: 212-835-6120 Fax: 212-835-6001 E-mail:
john.clarke@dlapiper.com; and Dennis E. Glazer, Patrick J.
Murray and Jocelyn Emily Strauber, Davis Polk & Wardwell 450
Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017 Phone: (212)450-4000.
Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Ken H. Chang, Robert Craig Finkel, Marian Probst
         Rosner, Wolf Popper LLP 845 Third Avenue New York, NY
         10022 Phone: (212) 451-9667 Fax: (212) 486-2093 E-mail:
         kchang@wolfpopper.com, rfinkel@wolfpopper.com,
         mrosner@wolfpopper.com;

     (2) Erin Green Comite, Edmund Scott, David Searby, Scott
         and Scott LLC 108 Norwich Avenue P.O.Box 192
         Colchester, CT 06415 Phone: 860-537-5537

     (3) William C. Fredericks, Ann Meredith Lipton, Peter
         Sloane, Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (NYC) One
         Pennsylvania Plaza New York, NY 10119 Phone: (212) 594-
         5300 Fax: (212) 868-1229 E-mail: alipton@milberg.com,
         psloane@milberg.com


ITT EDUCATIONAL: IN District Judge Dismisses Shareholder Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Court Judge David F. Hamilton dismissed a
shareholder lawsuit against ITT Educational Services Inc.,
citing that the shareholders did not adequately demonstrate
securities fraud, The Indianapolis Star reports.  The federal
judge in Indianapolis gave the shareholders, who had been
seeking class action status, until October 14 to file an amended
complaint.

The shareholder lawsuit accuses ITT Educational, a Carmel-based
for-profit educator that operates 79 technical institutes in 31
states, which serves about 40,000 students, of inflating
enrollment figures, falsifying grades, attendance and placement
records, and shredding documents just before visits by
government investigators. It was sparked after the Justice
Department sent federal agents in February 2004 to raid ITT
Educational's headquarters and 10 of its campuses. The raid sent
ITT Educational's stock plunging, however they have since
recovered most of their value.

However, Judge Hamilton found that none of the accusations were
precise or strong enough under the Securities Exchange Act and
the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, which govern
shareholder lawsuits.  The dismissal comes less than three
months after the U.S. Justice Department concluded in its
investigation that they had found no evidence of wrongdoing by
the ITT Educational or its executives. The Justice Department
has instead shifted its focus to "local issues" at individual
ITT campuses.


LOUISIANA: Attorneys Sue Oil Companies Over Drilling Activities
---------------------------------------------------------------
Two Louisiana attorneys initiated a class action lawsuit against
major oil and gas companies on behalf of victims of Hurricane
Katrina, tagging their drilling activities throughout Southeast
Louisiana as the culprit in the destruction of hundreds of acres
of wetlands that served as natural barriers for New Orleans, The
BizNewOrleans.com reports.

The lawsuit alleges that over a million acres of marshlands in
Southeast Louisiana were destroyed primarily because of oil &
gas exploration during the past 70 years.   In addition, the
suit also alleges that the oil companies didn't maintain canals
which caused damage to the stability and ecological functions of
marshes, leading to land erosion, the creation of spoil banks
and impairment of natural ebb and flow of tidal water.

Val P. Exnicios of Liska, Exnicios & Nungesser told The
BizNewOrleans.com, "Everyone has been talking about the failures
of the state, local and federal governments in the wake of
Hurricane Katrina," adding, "We believe it's the right time to
pinpoint who's essentially responsible for the devastation
caused by Katrina in the first place - the major oil and gas
companies, who haphazardly dredged thousands of miles of
exploration and drill site canals throughout South Louisiana to
extract oil and gas."

Mr. Exnicios and Conrad S.P. "Duke" Williams of the New Orleans
law firm of St. Martin & Williams filed the suit in U.S.
District Court recently. It names 10 oil and gas companies,
including ExxonnMobil Corporation, Chevron Corporation, BP
Corporation, Shell Oil Co., Transcontinental Gas Pipeline Corp.
Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co., Shell Pipeline Co., Gulf South
Pipeline Co., Koch Pipeline Co. and Columbia Gulf Transmission
Co.

The lawsuit though, which was assigned to Chief Judge Ginger
Berrigan, doesn't specify a damage amount.  Mr. Exnicios told
The BizNewOrleans.com that the lawsuit doesn't blame private
companies for a natural disaster. However, he said they are
responsible for leaving the city of New Orleans vulnerable to a
strong hurricane like Katrina.  He specifically told The
BizNewOrleans.com, "I'm blaming oil companies for destroying
what previously existed. They are the ones that destroyed the
100 miles of natural barriers."


MARSH & MCLENNAN: Working On NYAG Probe, Civil Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. continues to work on the
settlement of the investigation and civil complaint filed by the
Office of the New York State Attorney General (NYAG) Eliot
Spitzer over broker compensation arrangements, generally and
compensation under placement or market service agreements,
specifically.

In April 2004, the NYAG commenced an investigation, and issued a
subpoena to the Company on April 7, 2004.  The NYAG followed
with additional subpoenas in the summer and fall of 2004.  On
October 14, 2004, NYAG filed a civil complaint in New York State
court against the Company and Marsh Inc. (collectively "Marsh")
asserting claims under New York law for fraudulent business
practices, antitrust violations, securities fraud, unjust
enrichment, and common law fraud.

The complaint alleged that market service agreements between
Marsh and various insurance companies (the "Agreements"),
created an improper incentive for Marsh to steer business to
such insurance companies and to shield them from competition.
The complaint further alleged that these Agreements were not
adequately disclosed to Marsh's clients or to Marsh's investors.
In addition, the complaint alleged that Marsh engaged in bid-
rigging and solicited fraudulent bids to create the appearance
of competitive bidding.  The complaint sought relief that
included an injunction prohibiting Marsh from engaging in the
alleged wrongful conduct, disgorgement of all profits related to
such conduct, restitution and unspecified damages, attorneys'
fees, and punitive damages.

On October 21, 2004, the New York State Insurance Department
(the "NYSID") issued a citation, amended on October 24, 2004
(the "Amended Citation"), that ordered the Company and a number
of its subsidiaries and affiliates that hold New York insurance
licenses to appear at a hearing and show cause why regulatory
action should not be taken against them. The amended citation
charged the respondents with the use of fraudulent, coercive and
dishonest practices; violations of Section 340 of the New York
General Business Law relating to contracts or agreements for
monopoly or in restraint of trade; and violations of the New
York Insurance Law that resulted from unfair methods of
competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices.  The
Amended Citation contemplated a number of potential actions the
NYSID could take, including the revocation of licenses held by
the respondents.

On October 25, 2004, NYAG announced that it would not bring
criminal charges against Marsh.  On January 30, 2005, Marsh
entered into an agreement (the "Settlement Agreement") with NYAG
and the NYSID to settle the NYAG Lawsuit and the Amended
Citation.

Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, Marsh will establish a
fund of $850 million (the "Fund"), payable over four years, for
Marsh policyholder clients.  As a general matter, U.S.
policyholder clients who retained Marsh to place insurance
between 2001 and 2004 that resulted in Marsh receiving market
service revenue will be eligible to receive a pro rata
distribution. No showing of fault, harm or wrongdoing is
required in order to receive a distribution. No portion of the
Fund represents a fine or penalty against Marsh and no portion
of the Fund will revert to Marsh. Clients who voluntarily elect
to participate in the Fund will tender a release relating to the
matters alleged in the NYAG Lawsuit or the Amended Citation,
except for claims which are based upon, arise out of or relate
to the purchase or sale of Marsh securities. The Settlement
Agreement further provides that Marsh will not seek or accept
indemnification pursuant to any insurance policy for amounts
payable pursuant to the Settlement Agreement.

Marsh also agreed to undertake the following business reforms
within 60 days of the date of the Settlement Agreement:

     (1) Marsh will accept compensation for its services in
         placing, renewing, consulting on or servicing any
         insurance policy only by a specific fee paid by the
         client; or by a specific percentage commission on
         premium to be paid by the insurer; or a combination of
         both. The amount of such compensation must be fully
         disclosed to, and consented to in writing, by the
         client prior to the binding of any policy;

     (2) Marsh must give clients prior notification before
         retaining interest earned on premiums collected on
         behalf of insurers;

     (3) In placing, renewing, consulting on or servicing any
         insurance policy, Marsh will not accept from or request
         of any insurer any form of contingent compensation;

     (4) In placing, renewing, consulting on or servicing any
         insurance policy, Marsh will not knowingly use
         wholesalers for the placement, renewal, consultation on
         or servicing of insurance without the agreement of its
         client;

     (5) Prior to the binding of an insurance policy, Marsh will
         disclose to clients all quotes and indications sought
         or received from insurers, including the compensation
         to be received by Marsh in connection with each quote.
         Marsh also will disclose to clients at year-end Marsh's
         compensation in connection with the client's policy;
         and

     (6) Marsh will implement company-wide written standards of
         conduct relating to compensation and will train
         relevant employees in a number of subject matters,
         including business ethics, professional obligations,
         conflicts of interest, anti-trust and trade practices
         compliance, and record keeping.

The Company's Board of Directors has established a committee of
the Board to monitor compliance with the standards of conduct
regarding compensation from insurers and will make quarterly
reports to the Board of the results of its monitoring activity
for a period of five years.  The Settlement Agreement further
provides that Marsh reserves the right to request that NYAG and
the NYSID modify the Settlement Agreement if compliance with any
portion thereof proves impracticable.

Though Mercer Inc. ("Mercer") was not a defendant in the NYAG
Lawsuit, U.S. policyholder clients that retained Mercer to
place, renew, consult on or service insurance between 2001 and
2004 that related to Mercer receiving contingent commissions or
overrides are eligible to participate in the Fund.

On January 6, 2005, NYAG filed a felony complaint against former
Marsh employee Robert Stearns as to which Mr. Stearns has
entered a guilty plea.  On February 15, 2005 and February 24,
2005, former Marsh employees, Joshua Bewlay and Kathryn Winter,
respectively, pled guilty to certain claims.

The Settlement Agreement does not resolve any investigation,
proceeding or action commenced by NYAG or NYSID against any
former or current employees of Marsh. As part of the Settlement
Agreement, Marsh apologized for the improper conduct of certain
employees.  Marsh also agreed to continue to cooperate with NYAG
and NYSID in connection with their ongoing investigations of the
insurance industry, and in any related proceedings or actions.

NYAG has publicly stated that additional charges and/or guilty
pleas involving Marsh personnel and others are highly likely.
Investigations by the offices of attorneys general in 18
jurisdictions, and the departments of insurance or other state
agencies in 29 other jurisdictions remain pending.  The
Company's Board of Directors has established a committee of the
Board to monitor compliance with the standards of conduct
regarding compensation from insurers.  The committee will make
quarterly reports to the Board of the results of its monitoring
activity for a period of five years.

The Settlement Agreement further provides that the Company
reserves the right to request that NYAG and the NYSID modify the
Settlement Agreement if compliance with any portion thereof
proves impracticable.  On April 28, 2005, the parties entered
into Amendment No. 1 to the Settlement Agreement, which modifies
the scope of the application of the business reforms provisions
with respect to Company operations outside the United States. On
May 20, 2005, the Company distributed notices to eligible
policyholders entitled to receive a distribution of at least $10
from the settlement fund.

Though Mercer Inc. (Mercer) was not a defendant in the NYAG
Lawsuit, U.S. policyholder clients that retained Mercer to
place, renew, consult on or service insurance between 2001 and
2004 that related to Mercer receiving contingent commissions or
overrides are eligible to participate in the Fund.

Following the filing of the NYAG Lawsuit, the Company and
certain of its subsidiaries received notices of investigations
and inquiries, together with requests for documents and
information, from attorneys general, departments of insurance
and other governmental entities in a number of jurisdictions
(other than New York) that relate to the allegations in the NYAG
Lawsuit. As of August 3, 2005, offices of attorneys general in
21 jurisdictions have issued one or more requests for
information or subpoenas calling for the production of documents
or for witnesses to provide testimony.  Subpoenas, letters of
inquiry and other information requests have been received from
departments of insurance or other state agencies in 31
jurisdictions.  The Company and its subsidiaries are cooperating
with these requests from regulators.  It is possible that the
Company or its subsidiaries could face administrative
proceedings or other regulatory actions, fines or penalties,
including, without limitation, actions to revoke or suspend
their insurance broking licenses.

In Australia, the Australian Securities and Investments
Commission (ASIC) requested information and documents from
insurers and brokers, including the Company, as part of an
examination of brokers' remuneration practices.  ASIC released
its report on insurance broker remuneration arrangements on June
30, 2005.  The report concluded that ASIC did not find evidence
of systemic misconduct, but it did identify deficiencies in
certain Australian brokers' management of conflicts of interest
and disclosure of remuneration.  The report did not identify any
brokers by name, but indicated ASIC will be in contact with
individual entities to seek to remedy any potential breaches
identified.  Subject to satisfactory resolution of such
breaches, ASIC said it is unlikely any enforcement action would
be required.  The Company has not been contacted further by ASIC
and has had no indication from the regulator of deficiencies in
its practices and procedures in this area.


MARSH & MCLENNAN: Continues To Face Broker Fee Agreements Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc., one or more of its
subsidiaries, and its current and former directors and officers,
continue to face numerous lawsuits, relating to matters alleged
in the New York Attorney General Lawsuit, relating to broker
compensation arrangements, generally and compensation under
placement or market service agreements, specifically.

Approximately twenty-one putative class actions purportedly
brought on behalf of policyholders were initially filed in
various federal courts, like the Southern and Eastern Districts
of New York, the District of New Jersey, the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, the Northern District of Illinois, the Southern
District of Texas and the Northern District of California.
These actions generally include statutory claims for violations
of the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act,
federal and state antitrust laws and state unfair business
practice laws, and common law claims for, among other things,
breach of contract, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of
duty of loyalty, and unjust enrichment.  The complaints seek a
variety of remedies including unspecified monetary damages,
treble damages, disgorgement, restitution, punitive damages,
injunctive relief, an accounting, and attorneys' fees and costs.
The longest class period alleged in these policyholder cases
begins on January 1, 1994 and continues to February 4, 2005.

On February 17, 2005, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation transferred a number of these federal cases to the
District of New Jersey for coordination or consolidated pretrial
proceedings. A number of additional cases have since been
transferred to that court, and it is expected that nearly all
federal putative class actions by policyholders either now
pending or filed hereafter will be transferred there as well.
Five similar class or representative actions are pending in
state courts -- two in California, one in New York, one in
Massachusetts and one in Texas.  Two putative class actions are
pending in Canada. There are at least two actions brought by
individual policyholders and additional suits may be filed by
other policyholders

On August 1, 2005, two consolidated amended complaints were
filed in the MDL Cases (one on behalf of a purported class of
"commercial" policyholders and the second on behalf of a
purported class of "employee benefit" policyholders), which as
against the Company include statutory claims for violations of
the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act,
federal and state antitrust laws, state unfair business practice
laws, and common law claims for, among other things, breach of
fiduciary duty, breach of duty of loyalty, and unjust
enrichment. The complaints seek a variety of remedies including
unspecified monetary damages, treble damages, disgorgement,
restitution, punitive damages, declaratory and injunctive
relief, and attorneys' fees and costs. The class periods alleged
in the MDL Cases begin on August 26, 1994 and purport to
continue to the date of any class certification.

Six class or representative actions on behalf of policyholders
are pending in state courts. Two putative class actions are
pending in Canada. There are also several actions brought by
individual policyholders and others and additional suits may be
filed.

On January 21, 2005, the State of Connecticut commenced a
lawsuit against the Company, challenging its conduct in
connection with the placement of a loss portfolio transfer of
workers' compensation claims for the State of Connecticut's
Department of Administrative Services.  The complaint alleges
that the Company violated Connecticut's Unfair Trade Practices
Act by, among other things, failing to disclose a $50,000
payment the Company received from the insurer in connection with
the transfer. The complaint seeks remedies that include an
accounting, actual and punitive damages, and the costs of
investigation and conduct of the lawsuit.  The State of
Connecticut may amend its civil complaint against the Company.

Four purported class actions on behalf of individuals and
entities who purchased or acquired the Company's publicly-traded
securities during the purported class periods are pending in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York. On January 26, 2005, the Court issued an order
consolidating these complaints into a single proceeding and
appointing co-lead plaintiffs and co-lead counsel to represent
the purported class. On April 19, 2005, the co-lead plaintiffs
filed a lengthy consolidated complaint.

The consolidated complaint names the Company, Marsh, Inc., the
Company's independent registered public accounting firm and
twenty of its present and former directors and officers and
certain affiliates, as defendants. The purported class period in
the consolidated complaint extends from October 14, 1999 to
October 13, 2004.

The consolidated complaint alleges, among other things, that the
Company inflated its earnings during the class period by
engaging in unsustainable business practices based on contingent
commissions. The consolidated complaint further alleges, among
other things, that defendants deceived the investing public
regarding the Company's business, operations, management, and
the intrinsic value of the Company's stock, and caused the
plaintiffs and other members of the purported class to purchase
the Company's securities at artificially inflated prices. The
consolidated complaint further alleges that the Company failed
to disclose that the revenue derived from MSA agreements with
insurers was part of an unlawful scheme, which could not be
sustained and which exposed the Company to significant
regulatory sanctions, and that the Company failed to disclose
certain alleged anti-competitive and illegal practices, such as
"bid rigging" and soliciting fictitious quotes, at the Company's
subsidiaries. The consolidated complaint further alleges that
the Company's revenues and earnings would have been
significantly lower had its subsidiaries not engaged in these
allegedly unlawful business practices, and that the Company's
earnings were allegedly overstated because the Company failed to
establish a reserve for contingent losses associated with its
allegedly improper activities.

The consolidated complaint further alleges that the Company
misled its clients and the investing public concerning, among
other things, its business ethics, its loyalty to its clients'
interests, the magnitude of its contingent commissions, and the
nature of any services provided to insurers in exchange for
contingent commissions. The consolidated complaint includes,
among other things, factual allegations similar to those
asserted in the NYAG Lawsuit.  It also includes, among other
things, factual allegations concerning alleged misconduct at
Mercer and Putnam and alleged conflicts of interests associated
with MMC Capital.  The consolidated complaint includes claims
for violations of Sections 10(b), 18 and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities
Act of 1933, based on the company's s allegedly false or
incomplete disclosures. In addition, the consolidated complaint
includes claims for common law fraud and deceit, negligent
misrepresentation, and violations of state securities laws,
which are being asserted on behalf of a subclass of municipal
and state pension funds. The consolidated complaint seeks
unspecified compensatory damages and attorneys' fees.  Following
the announcement of the NYAG Lawsuit and related actions taken
by the Company, the MMC stock price dropped from approximately
$45 per share to a low of approximately $22.75 per share.

Fourteen shareholder derivative actions have been filed against
the Company's current and former directors and officers in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York and the New
York Supreme Court for New York County. These actions allege,
among other things, that current and former directors and
officers of the Company breached their fiduciary duties with
respect to the alleged misconduct described in the NYAG Lawsuit,
are liable to the Company for damages arising from their
breaches of fiduciary duty, and must contribute to or indemnify
the Company for any damages it has suffered.  Three of the
shareholder derivative actions filed in the Southern District of
New York have been voluntarily dismissed. The remaining five
actions pending in the Southern District of New York have been
consolidated under the caption In re Marsh & McLennan Derivative
Litigation, No. 04-Civ.-8516 (RMB).  The five actions pending in
the Court of Chancery have been consolidated under the caption
"In re Marsh & McLennan Derivative Litigation, C.A No. 753."  On
April 4, 2005, the plaintiffs in the Delaware Derivative Action
filed an amended and consolidated complaint that named American
International Group, Inc. (AIG), Maurice R. Greenberg, and ACE
Limited as additional defendants. The derivative action pending
in the New York Supreme Court has been stayed pending resolution
of the Federal Derivative Action.  MMC has also received six
demand letters from stockholders asking the MMC Board of
Directors to take appropriate legal action against those
directors and officers who are alleged to have caused damages to
MMC based on the facts alleged in the NYAG Lawsuit. MMC has
advised the stockholders making demands that their demands are
under consideration by the MMC Board of Directors.

Twenty purported class actions alleging violations of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended
(ERISA) have been filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York on behalf of participants and
beneficiaries of the Marsh & McLennan Companies Stock Investment
Plan (the "Plan").  On February 9, 2005, the Court issued an
order consolidating these complaints into a single proceeding
and appointing co-lead plaintiffs and lead counsel to represent
the purported class.  Plaintiffs filed the Consolidated Class
Action Complaint on June 15, 2005, naming MMC and various
current and former employees, officers and directors as
defendants. The Consolidated Complaint alleges, among other
things that, in view of the purportedly fraudulent bids and the
receipt of contingent commissions pursuant to the Agreements,
the defendants knew or should have known that the investment of
the Plan's assets in MMC stock was imprudent. The Consolidated
Complaint also asserts that certain defendants failed to provide
the Plan's participants with complete and accurate information
about MMC stock, that certain defendants responsible for
selecting, removing and monitoring other fiduciaries did not
comply with ERISA, and that MMC knowingly participated in other
defendants' breaches of fiduciary duties. The Consolidated
Complaint seeks, among other things, unspecified compensatory
damages, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees and costs. The
amount of Plan assets invested in MMC stock at October 13, 2004
(immediately prior to the announcement of the NYAG Lawsuit) was
approximately $1.2 billion.  The Consolidated Complaint alleges
that during the purported class period, which extends from July
1, 2000 until January 31, 2005, MMC stock fell from $52.22 to
$32.50.

On February 23, 2005, the plaintiffs in a shareholders
derivative suit pending in the Delaware Court of Chancery
against the directors and officers of American International
Group, Inc. (AIG) filed a consolidated complaint that named MMC,
Marsh, Inc., Marsh USA Inc., Marsh Global Broking Inc.
(collectively, the "MMC Defendants") and Jeffrey W. Greenberg as
additional defendants. This action alleges, among other things,
that the MMC Defendants and Mr. Greenberg aided and abetted the
current and former directors and officers of AIG in breaching
their fiduciary duties to AIG with respect to AIG's
participation in the alleged misconduct described in the NYAG
Lawsuit, including, but not limited to, illegal bid rigging and
kickback schemes. The consolidated complaint also asserts a
claim for unjust enrichment against the MMC Defendants. The
consolidated complaint asserts that the Company Defendants and
Greenberg are liable to AIG for damages arising from allegedly
aiding and abetting the AIG directors and officers' breaches of
their fiduciary duties, and also seeks the return of all
contingent commission payments made by AIG to the MMC
Defendants.

In addition, on May 6, 2005, the plaintiffs in a shareholder
derivative suit pending in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York (the "AIG Federal Suit")
against the directors and officers of AIG filed a consolidated
complaint that names the Company and Jeffrey W. Greenberg as
additional defendants and asserts claims against the Company and
Mr. Greenberg for allegedly aiding and abetting breaches of
fiduciary duties by AIG's directors and officers and for unjust
enrichment. On July 18, 2005, the plaintiffs in the AIG Federal
Suit filed an amended shareholder derivative complaint
containing substantially identical allegations against the
Company, Marsh USA, Inc., Marsh Global Broking, Inc. and Jeffrey
Greenberg.


MARSH & MCLENNAN: Named in AXIS Capital Securities Lawsuit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. was named as defendant in a
consolidated amended securities class action filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on
behalf of all persons and entities that purchased or acquired
Axis Capital Holdings Limited (Axis) publicly traded common
stock during a purported class period from August 6, 2003 to
October 14, 2004.

On May 13, 2005, the Company was added to the suit, which was
initially filed against Axis and certain of its officers.  The
complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws in
connection with defendants' alleged failure to disclose alleged
improper business practices concerning incentive commission
payments by Axis to (among others) Marsh Inc.  With regard to
the Company, the complaint also alleges that various entities
and partnerships managed by or associated with MMC Capital Inc.
sold Axis common stock to members of the purported class knowing
of the alleged inflated valuation of such stock, and seeks
damages for alleged violations of federal securities laws.

The suit is styled "Dolan v. AXIS Capital Holdings Ltd. et al.,
case no. 1:04-cv-08564-RJH," filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, under Judge Richard
J. Holwell.  Representing the plaintiffs is Samuel Howard Rudman
of Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins, LLP, 200
Broadhollow Road, Ste. 406, Melville, NY 11747, Phone:
631-367-7100, Fax: 631-367-1173, E-mail: srudman@lerachlaw.com.
Representing the Company is Jennifer Laurie Conn of Gibson, Dunn
& Crutcher LLP (NYC), 200 Park Avenue, 48th Floor, New York, NY
10166, Phone: 212-351-4086, Fax: 212-351-5353, E-mail:
jconn@gibsondunn.com.


MARSH & MCLENNAN: Faces Market-Timing, Late Trading Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Marsh & McLennan, Inc. and Putnam Investments Trust have
received complaints in over 70 civil actions based on
allegations of "market-timing" and in some cases "late trading"
activities.

These actions were filed in courts in various states. All of the
actions filed in federal court have been transferred, along with
actions against other mutual fund complexes, to the United
States District Court for the District of Maryland for
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. The lead
plaintiffs in those cases filed consolidated amended complaints
on September 29, 2004.  The Company and Putnam have moved to
dismiss the various complaints pending in federal court in
Maryland.

The Company and Putnam, along with certain of their former
officers and directors, have been named in a consolidated
amended class action complaint (the "MMC Class Action")
purportedly brought on behalf of all purchasers of the publicly-
traded securities of the Company between January 3, 2000 and
November 3, 2003.  In general, the MMC Class Action alleges that
the defendants, including the Company, allowed certain mutual
fund investors and fund managers to engage in market-timing in
the Putnam family of funds. The complaint further alleges that
this conduct was not disclosed until late 2003, in violation of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint alleges
that, as a result of defendants' purportedly misleading
statements or omissions, Company stock traded at inflated levels
during the Class Period.  The suit seeks unspecified damages and
equitable relief.

The Company and Putnam have also been named as defendants in a
consolidated amended complaint filed on behalf of a putative
class of investors in certain Putnam Funds, and in another
consolidated amended complaint in which certain fund investors
purport to assert derivative claims on behalf of all Putnam
Funds. These suits seek to recover unspecified damages allegedly
suffered by the funds and their shareholders as a result of
purported market-timing and late-trading activity that allegedly
occurred in certain Putnam Funds.

The derivative suit seeks additional relief, including
termination of the investment advisory contracts between Putnam
and the funds, cancellation of the funds 12b-1 plans and the
return of all advisory and 12b-1 fees paid by the funds over a
certain period of time.  In addition to MMC and Putnam, various
Putnam affiliates, certain trustees of Putnam Funds, certain
present and former Putnam officers and employees, and persons
and entities that allegedly engaged in or facilitated market-
timing or late trading activities in Putnam Funds are named as
defendants. The complaints allege violations of Sections 11,
12(a), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, Sections 36(a) and (b), 47 and 48(a) of
the Investment Company Act of 1940, and Sections 206 and 215 of
the Investment Advisers Act, as well as state law claims for
breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, unjust enrichment
and civil conspiracy. Putnam has also been named as a defendant
in its capacity as a sub-advisor to a non-Putnam fund in a class
action suit pending in the District of Maryland against another
mutual fund complex.

A consolidated amended complaint asserting shareholder
derivative claims has been filed, purportedly on behalf of the
Company, against current and former members of the Company's
Board of Directors, two of Putnam's former officers, and the
Company as a nominal defendant (the "MMC Derivative Action").
The MMC Derivative Action generally alleges that the members of
MMC's Board of Directors violated the fiduciary duties they owed
to MMC and its shareholders as a result of a failure of
oversight of market-timing in Putnam mutual funds.  The MMC
Derivative Action alleges that, as a result of the alleged
violation of defendants' fiduciary duties, MMC suffered damages.
The suit seeks unspecified damages and equitable relief. MMC has
also received two demand letters from stockholders asking the
MMC Board of Directors to take action to remedy alleged breaches
of duty by certain officers, directors, trustees or employees of
MMC or Putnam, based on allegations of market timing in the
Putnam Funds. The first letter asked to have the Board of
Trustees of the Putnam Funds, as well as the MMC Board, take
action to remedy those alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The
second letter demanded that the Company commence legal
proceedings against the MMC directors, the senior management of
Putnam, the Putnam Trustees and MMC's auditor to remedy those
alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.

The Company, Putnam, and various of their current and former
officers, directors and employees have been named as defendants
in two consolidated amended complaints that purportedly assert
class action claims under Employee Retirement Income Security
Act (ERISA).  The ERISA Actions, which have been brought by
participants in the Company's Stock Investment Plan and Putnam's
Profit Sharing Retirement Plan, allege, among other things,
that, in view of the market-timing trading activity that was
allegedly allowed to occur at Putnam, the defendants knew or
should have known that the investment of the plans' funds in
Company stock and Putnam's mutual fund shares was imprudent and
that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to
the plan participants in making these investments. The ERISA
actions seek unspecified damages, as well as equitable relief
including the restoration to the plans of all profits the
defendants allegedly made through the use of the plans' assets,
an order compelling the defendants to make good to the plans all
losses to the plans allegedly resulting from defendants' alleged
breaches of their fiduciary duties, and the imposition of a
constructive trust on any amounts by which any defendant
allegedly was unjustly enriched at the expense of the plans.

Putnam has agreed to indemnify the Putnam Funds for any
liabilities arising from market-timing activities, including
those that could arise in the above securities litigations, and
MMC has agreed to guarantee Putnam's obligations in that regard.


MCI INC.: Shareholders Commence DE Lawsuits V. Verizon Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
MCI Inc. faces several class actions filed in the Delaware Court
of Chancery, opposing the Company's merger with Verizon
Communications, Inc. and a Verizon subsidiary.

The first suit was filed on February 15, 2005 on behalf of
Company stockholders.  The suit also named as defendants the
individual members of the Company's Board of Directors.
Subsequently, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint to include
additional allegations and add Verizon as a defendant in the
case. Plaintiff alleges that the Company and its Board of
Directors breached their fiduciary duties to stockholders in
entering into the Merger Agreement with Verizon rather than
accepting the merger proposal proposed by Qwest. Plaintiff also
alleges that Verizon aided and abetted and benefited from these
breaches. As a remedy, Plaintiff requests, among other things,
that the Chancery Court issue an injunction prohibiting closing
of the merger.

Additionally, the Company received notice that three additional
putative class actions containing similar allegations were filed
on February 18, 2005 against it and its Board of Directors in
the Chancery Court in the State of Delaware.  Subsequent to
February 18, 2005, in one of these three actions, Plaintiff has
sought relief to amend his complaint on two occasions seeking to
add additional factual allegations. These additional allegations
relate to subsequent bids by Verizon and Qwest for the Company,
the responses of the Company's Board of Directors to those bids,
and Verizon's purchase of Company shares from entities
affiliated with Mr. Carlos Slim Helu.  Specifically, the amended
complaints include allegations that:

     (1) the Company's Board of Directors did not negotiate in
         good faith with Qwest, ignored certain Company
         stockholders who indicated that they preferred Qwest's
         offer, and arbitrarily assumed that, in the future,
         Qwest's shares will likely decrease in value;

     (2) several Qwest bids were rejected by the Company's
         Board of Directors for improper reasons;

     (3) Verizon paid Mr. Slim $2.62 per share more that the
         Verizon offer for other MCI shares, demonstrating the
         Verizon's bid undervalued the Company; and

     (4) Verizon's offer is insufficient


MISSOURI: Scott County Judge Issues Injunction in Cemetery Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
A court order by Circuit Judge David Dolan will money and other
assets from the Garden of Memories and Memorial Park cemeteries
from being sent elsewhere while the lawsuit against the
cemeteries' owners is decided, The Standard Democrat reports.

According to Joseph C. Blanton Jr., who is one the lead counsels
for the plaintiffs in this lawsuit, Judge Dolan recently ordered
a preliminary injunction to prevent the transfer of assets from
the Garden of Memories and Memorial Park cemeteries in Sikeston
and the Forest Hills Cemetery in Morley outside the ordinary
course of business.

Mr. Blanton, who along with John E. Cozean is serving as lead
counsel for the lawsuit, told The Standard Democrat that the
injunction is similar to the temporary restraining order
previously obtained to keep the defendants from diverting funds
but "doesn't have the 15-day time limit that a TRO has."

The request for the injunction is part of a class action lawsuit
filed by the Sikeston law firm Blanton, Rice, Sidwell, Nickell,
Cozean and Collins LLC on August 25 in the Scott County Circuit
Court in Missouri on behalf of Charles Ulmer, Charles DeWitt and
Genie Rice against the companies and individuals associated with
the ownership and operation of the three cemeteries.

The suit alleges that the defendants failed to maintain and
repair the individual plots and the cemetery as a whole as
obligated by representing itself to the public as a perpetual
care cemetery which maintains a minimum endowed care and
maintenance fund, an earlier Class Action Reporter story
(September 12, 2005) reports.


NATIONAL SEMICONDUCTOR: Discovery Proceeds in CA Injury Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in the class action filed against
National Semiconductor Corporation and a number of its suppliers
in California Superior Court, alleging damages for personal
injury.

Plaintiff James Harris filed the suit in January 1999 on behalf
of the Company's former and present employees, alleging that
cancer and/or reproductive harm were caused to employees as a
result of alleged exposure to toxic chemicals while working at
the company.  Plaintiffs claim to have worked at sites in Santa
Clara and/or in Greenock, Scotland.  In addition, one plaintiff
claims to represent a class of children of company employees who
allegedly sustained developmental harm as a result of alleged in
utero exposure to toxic chemicals while their mothers worked at
the Company.  Although no specific amount of monetary damages is
claimed, plaintiffs seek damages on behalf of the classes for
personal injuries, nervous shock, physical and mental pain, fear
of future illness, medical expenses and loss of earnings and
earnings capacity.

The court has required the Scottish employees to seek their
remedies in Scottish courts.  The court has also denied
plaintiffs' motion for certification of a medical monitoring
class.  Discovery in the case is proceeding.


NBTY INC.: To Ask NY Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
NBTY, Inc. intends to ask the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of New York to dismiss the consolidated
securities class action filed against it and certain of its
officers and directors.

During the period from June 24, 2004 through September 3, 2004,
six separate shareholder class actions were filed against the
Company and certain of its officers and directors on behalf of
shareholders who purchased shares of the Company's common stock
between February 9, 2004 and July 22, 2004.  The actions allege
that the Company failed to disclose material facts during the
Class Period that resulted in a decline in the price of the
Company's stock after June 16, 2004 and July 22, 2004,
respectively.

The Court consolidated the six class actions in March 2005, and
appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel for the plaintiffs.
Newly appointed lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint
alleging a Class Period from November 10, 2003 to July 22, 2004.
The Company, its officers and directors intend to file a motion
to dismiss the action.

The consolidated suit is styled "In Re: NBTY, Inc. Securities
Litigation, case no. 04-CV-2619," filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York, under Judge
Leonard D. Wexler.  Representing the Company are Charles W.
Stotter and Robert Novack of Edwards & Angell, LLP, 750
Lexington Avenue, New York, NY 10022-1200, USA, Phone:
212-308-4411, Fax: 212-308-4844, E-mail:
Cstotter@edwardsangell.com or Rnovack@ealaw.com.  Representing
the plaintiffs are Paskowitz & Associates, Phone: 800.705.9529,
E-mail: classattorney@aol.com; and Roy Jacobs & Associates, 350
Fifth Avenue Suite 3000, New York, NY, 10118, E-mail:
classattorney@pipeline.com.


NEW JERSEY: Overcharging Suit Generates Windfall For Motorists
--------------------------------------------------------------
Thousands of New Jersey motorists, who bought or leased a new or
used vehicle from one of more than 397 dealerships in the last
eight years, will be eligible for a payback under terms of a
class action settlement, The ConsumerAffairs.Com reports.

Specifically, the motorist would be eligible for a $100 discount
on the purchase or lease of a new or used vehicle. In addition,
the settlement will let some class members receive higher
refunds and a discount on parts and service.

The suit, which was launched by 113 consumers who bought or
leased cars after April 17, 1997 in Superior Court in
Hackensack, alleges that they (consumers) were charged excessive
registration and title fees, were overcharged for document
service fees and were not told that the services are not
required by law. It also alleges that the dealers violated state
consumer fraud laws.

According to the settlement, set out in an order signed by Judge
Jonathon N. Harris on July 1 and amended on August 19, to get
their discounts, consumers must fill out and mail in a
certificate being mailed to their home address or they can also
fill in and mail a "cash reimbursement certificate" that will be
used to determine whether they were overcharged for registration
and title fees. The settlement also stipulated that if the
refund were more than $35.01, the applicant would receive the
parts and service discount.


NJ AFFORDABLE: SEC Gets Emergency Relief to Stop Ponzi Scheme
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission obtained emergency relief
in an action to halt fraudulent unregistered offerings of
securities and an ongoing Ponzi scheme orchestrated by NJ
Affordable Homes Corporation (NJ Affordable) and its owner and
president, Wayne Puff (collectively, the Defendants).

On September 12, the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey entered a temporary restraining order
that, among other things, froze the Defendants' assets and
appointed a temporary receiver over NJ Affordable.  The
emergency relief ordered will be in place pending a preliminary
injunction hearing scheduled for October 11, 2005.  In its
enforcement action, the Commission is seeking additional
relief, including orders permanently enjoining the Defendants
from committing future violations of the federal securities
laws, and a final judgment ordering the Defendants to disgorge
ill-gotten gains, and assessing civil penalties.

The Commission's complaint alleges that from at least from 1999
to the present, NJ Affordable and Mr. Puff have sold, in
unregistered offerings, at least $40 million in notes to more
than 490 investors located throughout the United States.   In
selling the notes, the defendants made, and continue to make,
materially misleading misrepresentations and omissions
concerning investment risk and the nature of NJ Affordable's
business. The Commission alleges that NJ Affordable and Mr. Puff
guaranteed investors high rates of return, between 15% and 20%,
based on promises that NJ Affordable and Mr. Puff would use the
investors' money to fund the purchase, renovation, and resale of
real property.  The defendants failed to disclose to investors
that they could not pay such high rates of return, are funding
payments to existing investors by soliciting new investor money,
and are generating fictitious revenue by selling their
properties to insiders, investors, and affiliated entities.
Moreover, the Commission alleges that NJ Affordable and Puff
failed to tell investors that the investment is not as secure as
promised because NJ Affordable and Mr. Puff routinely inflate
the value of the property upon which NJ Affordable granted
mortgage interests.

The complaint charges NJ Affordable and Puff with violating
Sections 5(a), 5(c) and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933,
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule
10b-5 thereunder. The action is styled, SEC v. NJ Affordable
Homes Corporation and Wayne Puff, Civil Action No. 2:05-cv-
04403, JLL, D.N.J. (LR-19372).


ORTOVOX USA: Recalls Avalanche Transceivers Due to Faulty Design
----------------------------------------------------------------
In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC), Ortovox USA, of Hopkinton, New Hampshire is voluntarily
recalling about 15,500 units of Ortovox M1 and M2 Avalanche
Transceivers, which is a device worn to help locate a buried
avalanche victim.

According to the company, the batteries in these devices can
become dislodged when the transceiver is struck sharply. The
transceiver could fail to function properly in the aftermath of
an avalanche, and result in the buried victim not being found in
time to avoid serious injury or death. There have been three
reports by consumers of the batteries in these devices becoming
dislodged. No injuries have been reported.

Both models of avalanche transceivers are plastic and measure
5.5-inches by 2.5-inches by 1-inch. The M1 has a navy blue body
and a yellow volume control switch. The M2 avalanche transceiver
comes in two colors: glacier white (grey) with a red volume
control switch, and orange with a grey volume control switch.
The model name and "ORTOVOX" are written on the front of the
transceivers.

Manufactured in Germany, the devices were sold by outdoor
specialty stores nationwide from January 1997 through July 2005
for about $300.

Consumers should stop using the recalled avalanche transceivers
and contact the firm to receive a new battery door that will
help prevent the batteries from becoming dislodged.

Consumer Contact: Call Ortovox USA toll-free at (888) 215-3131
between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or visit the
firm's Web site: http://www.ortovox.com.


OSI PHARMACEUTICALS: Shareholders Launch Securities Suits in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
OSI Pharmaceuticals, Inc., certain of its executive officers and
the members of its board of directors face several purported
shareholder class action lawsuits filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

The lawsuits were brought on behalf of those who purchased or
otherwise acquired the Company's common stock during certain
periods in 2004, which periods differ in the various complaints.
The complaints allege that defendants have made material
misstatements concerning the survival benefit associated with
Tarceva and the size of Tarceva's potential market upon the
FDA's approval of the drug.  The complaints allege violations of
Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  The complaints seek
unspecified compensatory damages and other relief.

The first identified suit in this litigation is styled
"Kassover, et al. v. OSI Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., case no.
04-CV-05505," filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York, under Judge Joanna Seybert.
Plaintiff firms in this litigation are Dyer & Shuman, LLP, 801
East 17th Avenue, Denver, CO, 80218-1417, Phone: 303.861.3003,
Fax: 800.711.6483, E-mail: info@dyershuman.com; and Schoengold &
Sporn, P.C., 233 Broadway 39Th Floor, New York, NY, 10279,
Phone; 212.964.0046.


PACIFIC LIFE: Variable Annuities Sales Targeted in GA Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Approximately 120,000 Americans who purchased variable annuities
from Pacific Life will soon receive notices in the mail, which
informs them that they are part of a class action lawsuit
alleging they paid big commissions for something they did not
need, Reuters reports.

The case, which Pacific Life and the American Council of Life
Insurers sought unsuccessfully to have it thrown out, was
certified as a class action in the U.S. District Court in
Georgia last May. Specifically, the court certified as a class
those individuals who purchased a Pacific Life variable annuity
within a qualified retirement plan between August 19, 1998, and
April 30, 2002, including individuals who made additional
payments during that period to annuities previously purchased
for qualified plans.

According to court documents the suit is alleging that Pacific
Life did not make adequate disclosure that the tax deferral
feature of a variable annuity is unnecessary if the product is
used in a qualified retirement plan, since such plans, including
individual retirement accounts, already provide for tax
deferral.

Variable annuities are contracts offered by insurance companies
that provide income, typically after the purchaser retires from
the work force. Investment options in a variable annuity usually
include mutual funds that invest in stocks, bonds or money
markets.

Specifically, the suit alleges that people who bought the
annuities paid substantial commissions, sometimes 10 times as
much as they would have paid had they simply purchased a mutual
fund. In addition, it is alleged that a death benefit that was
part of the product was overpriced.

Newport Beach, California-based mutual holding company, Pacific
Life, said in a statement that it strongly disagrees with the
allegations in the lawsuit and adding that it will mount a
vigorous defense.

All 119,352 Pacific Life customers who bought the variable
annuities were automatically made a member of the class unless
they choose to "opt-out" of the litigation.

Ronald Uitz, a Washington lawyer who is co-counsel in the case,
told Reuters, "We allege that Pacific Life is responsible for
supervising sales of the product (variable annuities)."

The case is known as Cooper v. Pacific Life. The named
plaintiffs, which are represented mainly by Milberg Weiss
Bershad & Schulman, LLP, are retirees from forest products
company Georgia-Pacific.

The suit is styled, Samuel Cooper, et al v. Pacific Life Ins, et
al, Case No. 2:03-cv-00131-AAA, pending in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Georgia, the
Honorable Anthony A. Alaimo, presiding. Brian C. Kerr, Janine L.
Pollack, Michael Champlin Spencer and Lee A. Weiss of Milberg,
Weiss, Bershad & Schulman, LLP, One Pennsylvania Plaza, New
York, NY 10119-0165, Phone: 212/594-5300, Fax: 212/868-1229; and
John B. Long and Thomas W. Tucker of Tucker, Everitt, Long,
Brewton & Lanier, PC, P.O. Box 2426, Augusta, GA 30901, Phone:
706/722-0771, Fax: 706/722-7028 are representing the
Plaintiff/s. James R. Carroll and Kurt Wm. Hemr of Skadden,
Arps, Slate, Meagher, Flom, LLP, One Beacon St., Boston, MA
02108, Phone: 617/573-4800; and Wallace E. Harrell and Lisa
Godbey Wood of Gilbert, Harrell, Gilbert, Sumerford & Martin,
PC, 777 Gloucester St., Suite 200, Brunswick, GA 31520, Phone:
912/265-6700, Fax: 912/264-3917 are representing the
Defendant/s.


PHARMOS CORPORATION: NJ Court Consolidates Securities Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
ordered consolidated the securities class actions filed against
Pharmos Corporation and three of its current officers alleging
violations of federal securities laws.

These lawsuits assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder on
behalf of a class of purchasers of the Company's common stock
during the period from February 10, 2000 through and including
December 17, 2004.  The complaints allege generally that the
defendants knowingly or recklessly made false or misleading
statements during the Class Period regarding the effectiveness
of dexanabinol in treating traumatic brain injury (TBI), which
had the effect of artificially inflating the price of the
Company's shares. The complaints seek unspecified damages.

These class actions have been consolidated by order of the Court
and lead plaintiffs and lead plaintiffs' counsel have been
appointed.

The first identified complaint in the litigation is styled
"Shlomi Cohen, Israel Manela, Eli More, et al. v. Pharmos Corp.,
et al."  The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

     (1) Berman, DeValerio, Pease, Tabacco Burt & Pucillo (MA),
         One Liberty Square, Boston, MA, 2109, Phone:
         617.542.8300, Fax: 617.230.0903, E-mail:
         info@bermanesq.com

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

     (3) Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. (New York,
         NY), 825 Third Avenue - 30th Floor, New York, NY,
         10022, Phone: 212.838.7797, Fax: 212.838.7745, E-mail:
         lawinfo@cmht.com

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

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

     (6) Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C., Esquire, 261
         Old York Road, Suite 423, Jenkintown, PA, 19046, Phone:
         215.886.1900, E-mail: securitiesfraud@comcast.net

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

     (8) Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP, 275 Madison Ave 34th Flr,
         New York, NY, 10016, Phone: 212.682.1818, Fax:
         212.682.1892, E-mail: email@rabinlaw.com

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

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

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

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

    (13) Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz LLP, 270
         Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10016, Phone:
         212.545.4600, Fax: 212.686.0114,


PIER 1 IMPORTS: Recalls Candle Holders Due to Laceration Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC), Pier 1 Imports, of Fort Worth, Texas is voluntarily
recalling about 10,000 units of Glass Candle Holders.

According to the company, the candle holders can unexpectedly
break, posing a laceration hazard to consumers. There have been
eight reports of the candle holders breaking. No injuries or
property damage has been reported.

The recall includes clear, Glass Floater Bowl candle holders.
The candleholders measure 3-inches high, 10 inches in diameter
and have a 3-inch diameter base. A sticker on the bottom of the
candle holder has model number SKU 2040310 printed on it.
Manufactured in China, the candle holders were sold at all Pier
1 Stores nationwide from February 2005 through August 2005 for
about $15.

Consumers should stop using these candle holders and return them
to their nearest Pier 1 store for a full refund.

Consumer Contact: For additional information, contact Pier 1
Imports at (800) 245-4595 between 9 a.m. and midnight ET Monday
through Saturday and between 10 a.m. and 10 p.m. ET Sunday.
Consumers also can visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.pier1.com.


PIONEER ELECTRONICS: NY Court Certifies DVD Player Consumer Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Nassau
granted class action status to a lawsuit by New York consumers
who purchased Pioneer Brand DVD Players between March 1, 1997
and January 1, 2004.

Plaintiffs alleged in the suit that DVD Players manufactured and
distributed by the Pioneer contain a defect rendering them
incompatible with the DVD Video Standard, and as such, incapable
of playing all DVD Video discs. They further alleged that
although Pioneer was aware of this defect it affirmatively
misrepresented to the consumer public that its DVD Players were
fully compatible and defect free, and failed to honor its
warranties by failing to repair its machines.

The suit is seeking remedies on behalf of purchasers of Pioneer
DVD player within the state of New York for breach of warranty
and consumer fraud. For more details, visit
http://www.pioneerdvdclassaction.com/.

The suit is styled, Christopher Eusini et al. v. Pioneer
Electronics (USA) Inc. The Plaintiffs are represented by Michael
R. Reese, Esq. of Milberg, Weiss, Bershad & Schulman, One
Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY 10119, Phone: (212) 594-5300,
E-mail: sdumain@milbergweiss.com or
pioneerdvdinfo@milbergweiss.com and Robert I. Lax, Esq. of
Robert I. Lax & Associates, 535 Fifth Ave., 21st Floor, New
York, NY 10017, Phone: (212) 818-9150, E-mail: rlax@lax-law.com
or dvdinfo@lax-law.com.


REWARDS NETWORK: Plaintiffs Asks CA Court To Certify Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs asked the United States District Court for the
Central District of California to grant class certification to
the lawsuit filed against Rewards Network, Inc. and certain of
its subsidiaries.

Bistro Executive, Inc., Westward Beach Restaurant Holdings, LLC
and MiniBar Lounge, all of which were participants in the
Company's Dining Credits Purchase Program (the "Dining Plan"),
and their respective owners filed the suit on May 25, 2004, a
complaint was filed in the Los Angeles County Superior Court.
The suit was filed on behalf of a class consisting of all
restaurants located in California who participated in the Dining
Plan and all persons in California who provided personal
guaranties of obligations under the Dining Plan.  The complaint
claims that amounts we paid under the Dining Plan constituted
loans, and asserts claims for damages and equitable and
injunctive relief for violations of California usury laws and
the California Unfair Business Practices Act and declaratory
relief.  The complaint seeks, among other relief, disgorgement
of all purported "interest" and profits earned by us from the
Dining Plan in California, which plaintiffs allege to be a
significant portion of an amount in excess of $300 million, and
treble damages for all purported "interest" paid within one year
prior to the filing of the complaint.  The suit was later
removed to federal court.

The court heard plaintiffs' motion for class certification on
August 22, 2005, but has yet to rule on the motion.


ROYAL DUTCH SHELL: Suit Settlement Hearing Set October 21, 2005
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New Jersey will hold a fairness hearing for the proposed
settlement in the matter: Unite National Retirement Fund et al.
v. Philip Watts, et al., Civil Action No. 2:04-cv-03603, on
behalf of persons or entities who hold or beneficially own,
directly or indirectly, common stock, ADRs or other equity
securities of Royal Dutch Shell PLC ("Royal Dutch Shell") as of
August 11, 2005.

The hearing will be held in the Martin Luther King, Jr. Federal
Building & U.S. Courthouse, 50 Walnut St., Newark, New Jersey
07101, on October 21, 2005, at 9:30 a.m.

For more details, contact Joy Ann Bull, Esq., of Lerach Coughlin
Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP, 401 B St., Suite 1600, San
Diego, CA 92101-4297, Fax: 619-231-7423.


SARA LEE: Recalls Products For Possible Metal, Plastic Content
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sara Lee Food & Beverage is voluntarily recalling as a
precaution artisan breads, bagels, English muffins, garlic bread
and pita bread produced at the company's Vernon, Calif., bakery
and sold at grocery retailers or distributed to institutional
customers in Arizona, California, Hawaii and Nevada because they
may contain metal and plastic.

The company has not received any consumer complaints regarding
these products. Sara Lee is working with the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration in undertaking this voluntary recall.

Only the following products are affected:

     (1) Sara Lee, Stater Bros., Sunnyside, Country Farms,
         International Baking Company and Fry's fresh bagels.
         The packages are marked with use-by dates of September
         16 to 22. The bag closure tags will have the printed
         code "347 X 5 Sept 16" through "347 X 5 Sept 22."

     (2) Sara Lee and Mr. Pita fresh pita bread. The packages
         are marked with use-by dates of September 11 to 18. The
         bag closure tags will have the printed code "347 X 5
         Sept 11" through "347 X 5 Sept 18."

     (3) Sara Lee, Sun-Maid, Bay View, Rainbo, Western Family,
         Late Bake, Best Yet, Sunnyside, Van de Kamps and
         Albertsons fresh English muffins. The packages are
         marked with use-by dates of September 14 to 20. The bag
         closure tag will have the printed code "347 X 5 Sept
         14" through "347 X 5 Sept 20."

     (4) Sara Lee and Earth Grains fresh garlic bread. The
         packages are marked with use-by dates of October 1 to
         7. The bread closure tag will have the printed code
         "347 Oct 01 5" through "347 Oct 07 5."

     (5) Alfaro's artisan breads and Sara Lee fresh Sourdough
         Round, Sourdough Loaf and 100% Whole Wheat Sourdough
         artisan breads. Also, Ralph's and Sara Lee breakfast
         breads. The packages are marked with use-by dates of
         September 12 to 23. The bread bag closure tag will have
         the printed code "347 X 5 Sept 12" through "347 X 5
         Sept 23."

     (6) Bagels, dinner rolls, English muffins and pita bread
         shipped frozen to institutional foodservice customers.
         The affected products are shipped in cases with the
         Julian code 248 to 251 prefaced by the number 347.
         Affected cases will have the printed case codes of 347-
         248 through 347-251.

The retail products are being removed from store shelves, but
some may remain in consumer possession. Consumers may return
affected product to the store where it was purchased for a full
refund. All retail and institutional foodservice customers are
being notified, and arrangements for product retrieval will be
made.

The recall applies only to products listed above, which are
produced in Vernon, Calif. The recall does not apply to any
other Sara Lee brand bread, including Sara Lee fresh Heart
Healthy, Heart Healthy Plus, Delightful and Soft & Smooth
breads.

Consumers who may have questions or concerns should call Sara
Lee's toll-free consumer line at (800) 683-3466. The consumer
line is available from 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Central Time.


UICI: Asks TX Court To Dismiss Lawsuit For Securities Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
UICI asked the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Texas, Dallas Division to dismiss the consolidated
securities class action filed against it and certain of its
current and former officers and directors.

Four suits were initially filed in May and June 2004, and on
October 18, 2004, the four separate cases were consolidated as a
single action, styled "In re UICI Securities Litigation, Case
No. 3-04-CV-1149-P."  On May 27, 2005, plaintiffs on behalf of
the purported class of similarly situated individuals who
purchased UICI common stock during the period commencing
February 7, 2002 and ending on July 21, 2003, filed a First
Amended Consolidated Complaint alleging among other things that
the Company, Academic Management Services, Inc. (AMS) and the
Company's current chief financial officer, the Company's former
chief executive officer and AMS' former president failed to
disclose all material facts relating to the condition of AMS, in
violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.


UNIZAN FINANCIAL: Consumers File Suit Over Fraudulent Investment
----------------------------------------------------------------
Unizan Bank, N.A. and more than fifty banks and financial
institutions face a class action, charging them with inducing
plaintiffs into making fraudulent investments.

The plaintiffs further allege that the checks they wrote for the
investments were drawn on some of the defendant banks and
financial institutions and deposited with other defendant banks
and financial institutions.  With respect to the Bank,
plaintiffs allege that the checks deposited with the Bank were
not endorsed by an authorized agent of the payee and were not
deposited into accounts that were authorized by the payee. The
claims against the Bank are for:

     (1) fraud;

     (2) conversion;

     (3) negligence;

     (4) failure to act with ordinary care (UCC);

     (5) breach of duty of good faith (UCC);

     (6) conversion (UCC); and

     (7) money had and received

Plaintiffs are seeking compensatory damages from the Bank in the
amount of $4 million, plus punitive damages. This case is in the
initial stages and the Company disputes the case's allegations.


UNSOLICITED SPAM: FTC Warns Consumers About Katrina Spam E-mails
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, many consumers are looking for
news about the hurricane or information about charities that are
helping victims.  The Federal Trade Commission cautions
consumers to be careful of email messages that make these
offers.  A new Consumer Alert from the FTC warns that fraud
artists are sending spam trying to rip-off consumers.

"After a Disaster: Spam May Scam" can be found online the
Website:
http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/alerts/disaster_spamalrt.htm
.  The alert describes two common spam emails - one requests
donations, claiming to provide aid to victims, when in fact, the
spammers keep most or all of the funds; the other offers news
about the hurricane if readers click on a link.  Clicking
secretly installs spyware onto the user's computer, however,
giving hackers control of the computer, and could possibly lead
to identity theft.

The FTC advises consumers that they should not reply to these
unsolicited emails, click on links in the emails, or even cut
and paste the links into their own Internet browsers, as
scammers can make links look like they go one place, but
actually send computer users somewhere else. For more
information from the FTC about Hurricane Katrina, consumers can
visit the website:
http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/events/katrina/index.html,
http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/alerts/disaster_spamalrt.htm
and also from the FTC's Consumer Response Center, Room 130, 600
Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580. Call toll-
free: 1-877-FTC-HELP.


USF CORPORATION: Red Star Employees Launch WARN Suits in PA, NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
USF Corporation faces several class actions filed in
Pennsylvania and New York federal courts, alleging violations of
the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act
(WARN).

On November 19, 2004, the Teamsters National Freight Industry
Negotiating Committee (TNFINC) filed a complaint against the
Company, USF Red Star Inc. and USF Holland Inc. in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
On January 13, 2005, service of process was effectuated on all
three USF defendants.  TNFINC alleges certain violations of the
National Labor Relations Act and asks for damages.

Additionally, TNFINC filed a class action suit on behalf of the
employees of USF Red Star alleging violations of the WARN Act.
The Company and/or USF Red Star, Inc. are currently named in
five class action lawsuits alleging violations of the federal
WARN Act. Three WARN class actions are pending in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
and one each is pending in the United States District Court for
the District of Connecticut and the United States District Court
for the Western District of New York.  The WARN action in the
Western District of New York was filed in late January 2005 by
former mechanics of USF Red Star's Buffalo, New York terminal.

On September 30, 2004 USF Red Star filed a motion to transfer
and consolidate the three original WARN actions with the
Multidistrict Litigation Judicial Panel (MDL Panel) requesting
that all three cases be consolidated and transferred to the
United States District Court for Northern District of New York
where USF Red Star's former headquarters are located in Auburn,
New York. On February 16, 2005, the MDL Panel transferred three
of the five WARN cases to the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.


WET SEAL: CA Judge Grants Motion to Dismiss Consolidated Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Specialty retailer The Wet Seal, Inc. (Nasdaq: WTSLA) reports
that at a hearing of the motion to dismiss the Consolidated
Class Action brought against the Company and several of its
former directors and officers in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California, Judge Gary Feess
granted the motion to dismiss against all the defendants in the
lawsuit, including the Foothill Ranch, California-based Company.

In his ruling Judge Feess cited that many of the misstatements
alleged in the Complaint were forward-looking statements
protected by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act's Safe
Harbor and that plaintiffs had not adequately alleged any
actionable misstatements under the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act. Judge Feess granted plaintiffs leave to file an
amended Complaint, which is due on November 10, 2005.


                 New Securities Fraud Cases

DHB INDUSTRIES: Marc S. Henzel Files Securities Fraud Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel filed a class action lawsuit
was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York on behalf of purchasers of DHB Industries
(AMEX: DHB) publicly traded securities during the period between
April 21, 2004 and August 29, 2005 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges DHB and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. DHB designs, manufactures and markets protective armor,
through its subsidiaries, Point Blank Body Armor, Inc. ("Point
Blank") and Protective Apparel Corporation of America ("PACA").

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period,
defendants issued numerous statements concerning the quality of
the Company's bulletproof vests. Recently, DHB announced it
would stop manufacturing and selling certain of its vests due to
their being decertified by a government agency and took a write-
off. Following this announcement, shares of DHB stock declined
in value.

For more details, contact the Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel, 273
Montgomery Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone:
610-660-8000 or 888-643-6735, Fax: 610-660-8080, E-Mail:
mhenzel182@aol.com, Web site: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182.


DHB INDUSTRIES: Murray Frank Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP, initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York on behalf of shareholders who
purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of DHB Industries
Inc. ("DHB" or the "Company") (AMEX:DHB) between April 21, 2004
through August 29, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges DHB, David H. Brooks, Sandra Hatfield, and
Dawn M. Schlegel, with violations of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the
Company failed to disclose and misrepresented the following
material adverse facts, known to defendants or recklessly
disregarded by them:

     (1) that DHB's body armor products were unsafe and
         defective;

     (2) that despite knowledge of this, the Company continued
         to falsely represent that its body armor products were
         safe and of high quality;

     (3) that defendants knew and/or recklessly disregarded that
         continued sales of its unsafe and defective body armor
         products could have a material adverse effect on DHB's
         finances; and

     (4) that DHB lacked adequate internal controls and because
         of this, was unable to determine the true financial
         impact of withdrawal of any of its products.

On August 30, 2005, DHB announced that it would take a charge of
up to $60 million in the third quarter to discontinue production
of certain bullet-proof vests because of safety concerns.
Following this announcement, shares of DHB, on August 30, 2005,
fell $1.56 per share, or 23.42 percent, to close at $5.10 per
share on unusually heavy trading volume.

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


HUTCHINSON TECHNOLOGY: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Fraud Suit in MN
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel filed a class action lawsuit
was filed in the United States District Court for the District
of Minnesota on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired the securities of Hutchinson Technology, Inc.
(NasdaqNM: HTCH), between October 4, 2004 and August 29, 2005,
inclusive seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The action, is pending before the Honorable Michael J. Davis in
the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota
against defendants Hutchinson, Wayne M. Fortun (President and
CEO), John A. Ingleman (CFO and Vice President), and Jeffrey W.
Green (Chairman). According to the complaint, defendants
violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule
10b-5, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the
market during the Class Period.

The complaint alleges that Hutchinson designs, manufactures, and
supplies suspension assemblies that hold magnetic read-write
heads at microscopic distances above disks in disk drives.
According to the Company, the smaller the distance between a
read-write head and the surface of a disk, the greater the
storage capacity of a disk drive. During the Class Period,
Hutchinson presented itself as a company that successfully
manufactured and marketed suspension assemblies, and a company
that was consistently beating guidance issued by defendants. As
a result of the defendants' positive statements, the price of
Hutchinson common stock was artificially inflated during the
Class Period. Defendants took advantage of the artificial
inflation by selling their personally-held shares of Hutchinson
stock for more than $12.1 million in proceeds. Unbeknownst to
investors, defendants' statements were materially false and
misleading because defendants overstated the demand for the
Company's products, defendants failed to disclose that a shift
in the mix of products toward new, low-yielding products was
negatively impacting the Company's business and prospects, and
defendants failed to disclose that they had not implemented an
adequate system of internal controls. As a result of the
foregoing, defendants' statements that Hutchinson was operating
according to plan, and their guidance lacked any reasonable
basis in fact.

On August 30, 2005, before the market opened, Hutchinson issued
a press release announcing lowered guidance for the fourth
quarter 2005. The Company stated that earnings would be $0.05
per share, compared to previous guidance of $0.65, and that the
Company's gross margins would fall as low as 19%, significantly
lower than the Company's previous estimate of as high as 30%. In
reaction to this news, the price of Hutchinson stock fell $5.35
per share, or 17%, from its closing price of $31.51 on August
29, 2005, to $26.16 on August 30, 2005.

For more details, contact the Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel, 273
Montgomery Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone:
610-660-8000 or 888-643-6735, Fax: 610-660-8080, E-Mail:
mhenzel182@aol.com, Web site: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182.


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

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

AllianceBernstein Growth & Income Fund (Nasdaq:CABDX)
(Nasdaq:CBBDX) (Nasdaq:CBBCX)

AllianceBernstein Health Care Fund (Nasdaq: AHLAX)
(Nasdaq:CBBDX) (Nasdaq: CBBCX)

AllianceBernstein Disciplined Value Fund (Nasdaq: ADGAX)
(Nasdaq: ADGBX) (Nasdaq: ADGCX)

AllianceBernstein Mid-Cap Growth (Nasdaq: CHCAX) (Nasdaq: CHCBX)
(Nasdaq: CHCCX)

AllianceBernstein Real Estate Investment Fund (Nasdaq: AREAX)
(Nasdaq: AREBX) (Nasdaq: ARECX)

AllianceBernstein Growth Fund (Nasdaq: AGRFX) (Nasdaq: AGBBX)
(Nasdaq: AGRCX)

AllianceBernstein Select Investor Series Biotechnology Portfolio
(Nasdaq: ASBAX) (Nasdaq: AIBBX) (Nasdaq: ASBCX)

AllianceBernstein Small CapValue Fund (Nasdaq: ABASX) (Nasdaq:
ABBSX) (Nasdaq: ABCSX)

AllianceBernstein Premier Growth Fund (Nasdaq: APGAX) (Nasdaq:
APGBX) (Nasdaq: APGCX)

AllianceBernstein Select Investor Series Technology Portfolio
(Nasdaq: AITAX) (Nasdaq: AITBX) (Nasdaq: AITCX)

AllianceBernstein Value Fund (Nasdaq: ABVAX) (Nasdaq: ABVBX)
(Nasdaq: ABVCX)

AllianceBernstein Quasar Fund (Nasdaq: QUASX) (Nasdaq: QUABX)
(Nasdaq: QUACX)

AllianceBernstein Technology Fund (Nasdaq: ALTFX) (Nasdaq:
ATEBX) (Nasdaq: ATECX)

AllianceBernstein Select Investor Series Premier Portfolio
(Nasdaq: ASPAX) (Nasdaq: ASPBX) (Nasdaq: ASPCX)

AllianceBernstein Utility Income Fund (Nasdaq: AUIAX) (Nasdaq:
AUIBX) (Nasdaq: AUICX)

Value Funds

AllianceBernstein Balanced Shares (Sym: CABNX, CABBX, CBACX)
AllianceBernstein Disciplined Value Fund (Sym: ADGAX, ADGBX,
ADGCX) AllianceBernstein Global Value Fund (Sym: ABAGX, ABBGX,
ABCGX) AllianceBernstein International Value Fund (Sym: ABIAX,
ABIBX, ABICX) AllianceBernstein Real Estate Investment Fund
(Sym: AREAX, AREBX, ARECX) AllianceBernstein Small Cap Value
Fund (Sym: ABASX, ABBSX, ABCSX) AllianceBernstein Utility Income
Fund (Sym: AUIAX, AUIBX, AUICX) AllianceBernstein Value Fund
(Sym: ABVAX, ABVBX, AVBCX)

Blended Style Series

AllianceBernstein Blended Style Series - U.S. Large Cap
Portfolio (Sym:ABBAX, ABBAX, ABBCX)

Global & International Stock Funds

AllianceBernstein All-Asia Investment Fund (Sym: AALAX, AAABX,
AAACX) AllianceBernstein Global Value Fund (Sym: ABAGX, ABBGX,
ABCGX) AllianceBernstein Greater China '97 Fund (Sym: GCHAX,
GCHBX, GCHCX) AllianceBernstein International Premier Growth
Fund (Sym: AIPAX, AIPBX, AIPCX)

AllianceBernstein International Value Fund (Sym: ABIAX, ABIBX,
ABICX) AllianceBernstein Global Small Cap Fund (Sym: GSCAX,
AGCBX, GSCCX) AllianceBernstein New Europe Fund (Sym: ANEAX,
ANEBX, ANECX) AllianceBernstein Worldwide Privatization Fund
(Sym: AWPAX, AWPBX, AWPCX)

Select Investor Series

AllianceBernstein Select Investor Series Biotechnology Portfolio
(Sym: ASBAX, AIBBX, ASBCX)

AllianceBernstein Select Investor Series Premier Portfolio (Sym:
ASPAX, ASPBX, ASPCX) AllianceBernstein Select Investor Series
Technology Portfolio (Sym: AITAX, AITBX, AITCX)

Taxable Bond Funds

AllianceBernstein Americas Government Income Trust (Sym: ANAGX,
ANABX, ANACX)

AllianceBernstein Bond Fund Corporate Bond Portfolio (Sym:
CBFAX, CBFBX, CBFCX)

AllianceBernstein Bond Fund Quality Bond Portfolio (Sym: ABQUX,
ABQBX, ABQCX)

AllianceBernstein Bond Fund U.S. Government Portfolio (Sym:
ABUSX, ABUBX ABUCX)

AllianceBernstein Emerging Market Debt Fund (Sym: AGDAX, AGDBX,
AGDCX)

AllianceBernstein Global Strategic Income Trust (Sym: AGSAX,
AGSBX, AGCCX)

AllianceBernstein High Yield Fund (Sym: AHYAX, AHHBX, AHHCX)

AllianceBernstein Multi-Market Strategy Trust (Sym: AMMSX,
AMMBX, AMMCX)

AllianceBernstein Short Duration (Sym: ADPAX, ADPBX, ADPCX)

Tax-Exempt Bond Funds

AllianceBernstein Intermediate California Muni Portfolio (Sym:
AICBX, ACLBX, ACMCX)

AllianceBernstein Intermediate Diversified Muni Portfolio (Sym:
AIDAX, AIDBX, AIMCX)

AllianceBernstein Intermediate New York Muni Portfolio: (Sym:
ANIAX, ANYBX, ANMCX)

AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund National Portfolio (Sym:
ALTHX, ALTBX, ALNCX)

AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund Arizona Portfolio (Sym:
AAZAX, AAZBX, AAZCX)

AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund California Portfolio (Sym:
ALCAX, ALCBX, ACACX)

AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund Insured California Portfolio
(Sym: BUICX, BUIBX, BUCCX)

AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund Insured National Portfolio
(Sym: CABTX, CBBBX, CACCX)

AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund Florida Portfolio (Sym:
AFLAX, AFLBX, AFLCX)

AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund Massachusetts Portfolio (Sym:
AMAAX, AMABX)

AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund Michigan Portfolio (Sym:
AMIAX, AMIBX, AMICX)

AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund Minnesota Portfolio (Sym:
AMNAX, AMNBX, AMNCX)

AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund New Jersey Portfolio (Sym:
ANJAX, ANJBX, ANJCX)

AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund New York Portfolio (Sym:
ALNYX, ALNBX, ANYCX)

AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund Ohio Portfolio (Sym: AOHAX,
AOHBX, AOHCX)

AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund Pennsylvania Portfolio (Sym:
APAAX, APABX, APACX)

AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund Virginia Portfolio (Sym:
AVAAX, AVABX, AVACX)

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

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

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

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


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

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

Adjustable Rate Securities Fund (Nasdaq: FEUGX) (Nasdaq: FASSX)
Alabama Municipal Cash Trust (Nasdaq: ALMXX)
American Leaders Fund, Inc. (Nasdaq: FALDX) (Nasdaq: FALBX)
    (Nasdaq: FALCX) (Nasdaq: FALFX) (Nasdaq: FALKX)
Arizona Municipal Cash Trust (Nasdaq: AZMXX)
Automated Cash Management Trust (Nasdaq: ACCXX) (Nasdaq: ACMXX)
Automated Government Cash Reserves (Nasdaq: AGSXX)
Automated Government Money Trust (Nasdaq: AGMXX)
Automated Treasury Cash Reserves (Nasdaq: ATTXX)
Bond Fund (Nasdaq: FDBAX) (Nasdaq: FDBBX) (Nasdaq:  FDBCX)
    (Nasdaq: ISHIX)
California Municipal Cash Trust (Nasdaq: CALXX) (Nasdaq:
CAIXX)
    (Nasdaq: CACXX)
California Municipal Income Fund (Nasdaq: FCMIX) (Nasdaq:
CMUIX)
Capital Appreciation Fund (Nasdaq: FEDEX (Nasdaq: CPABX)
    (Nasdaq: CPACX)(Nasdaq: CPAKX)
Capital Income Fund (Nasdaq: CAPAX) (Nasdaq: CAPBX) (Nasdaq:
CAPCX)
    (Nasdaq: CAPFX)
Capital Preservation Fund
Communications Technology Fund (Nasdaq: FCTAX) (Nasdaq: FCTEX)
    (Nasdaq: FCTYX)
Connecticut Municipal Cash Trust (Nasdaq: FCTXX)
Conservative Allocation Fund (Nasdaq: FMCGX) (Nasdaq: FCGSX)
Equity Income Fund, Inc. (Nasdaq: FLEIFX) (Nasdaq: LEIBX)
    (Nasdaq: LEICX) (Nasdaq: LFEIX)
European Equity Fund (Nasdaq: EURAX) (Nasdaq: EURBX) (Nasdaq:
EURCX)
Florida Municipal Cash Trust (Nasdaq: FLCXX) (Nasdaq: FLMXX)
Fund for U.S. Government Securities (Nasdaq: FUSGX) (Nasdaq:
FUSBX)
    (Nasdaq: FUSCX)
GNMA Trust (Nasdaq: FGMAX) (Nasdaq: FGSSX)
Georgia Municipal Cash Trust (Nasdaq: GAMXX)
Global Equity Fund (Nasdaq: FGEIX) (Nasdaq: FGEFX) (Nasdaq:
FGEDX)
Global Value Fund (Nasdaq: WUFAX) (Nasdaq: WUFBX) (Nasdaq:
WUFCX)
Government Cash Series (Nasdaq: CTGXX)
Government Income Securities, Inc (Nasdaq: FGOAX) (Nasdaq:
FGOBX)
    (Nasdaq: FGOCX)  (Nasdaq: FGOIX)
Government Obligations Fund  (Nasdaq: GOIXX) (Nasdaq: GOSXX)
    (Nasdaq: GORXX)
Government Obligations Tax-Managed Fund (Nasdaq: GOTXX)
    (Nasdaq: GTSXX)
Government Ultrashort Duration Fund (Nasdaq: FGUAX) (Nasdaq:
FGUSX)
    (Nasdaq: FEUSX)
Growth Allocation Fund (Nasdaq: FMGPX) (Nasdaq: FMGSX)
Growth Strategies Fund (Nasdaq: FGSAX) (Nasdaq: FGSBX)
    (Nasdaq: FGSCX)
Growth Strategies Fund II
High Income Bond Fund II
High Income Bond Fund, Inc. (Nasdaq: FHIIX) (Nasdaq: FHBBX)
    (Nasdaq: FHICX)
High Yield Trust (Nasdaq: FHYTX)
Income Trust (Nasdaq: FICMX) (Nasdaq: FITSX)
Institutional High Yield Bond Fund (Nasdaq: FIHBX)
Intermediate Income Fund (Nasdaq: FIIFX) (Nasdaq: INISX)
Intermediate Municipal Trust (Nasdaq: FIMTX) (Nasdaq: FIMYX)
International Bond Fund (Nasdaq: FTIIX) (Nasdaq: FTBBX)
    (Nasdaq: IFTIBX)
International Capital Appreciation Fund (Nasdaq: IGFAX)
    (Nasdaq:  IGFBX)(Nasdaq: IGFCX)
International Equity Fund (Nasdaq: FTITX) (Nasdaq: FIEBX)
    (Nasdaq: FIECX)
International High Income Fund (Nasdaq: IHIAX) (Nasdaq: IHIBX)
    (Nasdaq: IHICX)
International Small Company (Nasdaq: ISCAX) (Nasdaq:  ISCBX)
    (Nasdaq: ISCCX)
International Value Fund (Nasdaq: FGFAX) (Nasdaq: FGFBX)
    (Nasdaq: FGFCX)
Kaufmann Fund (Nasdaq: KAUAX) (Nasdaq: KAUBX) (Nasdaq: KAUCX)
    (Nasdaq: KAUFX)
Kaufmann Small Cap Fund (Nasdaq: FKASX) (Nasdaq: FKBSX)
    (Nasdaq: FKCSX)
Large Cap Growth Fund (Nasdaq: FLGAX) (Nasdaq: FLGBX)
    (Nasdaq: FLGCX)
Liberty U.S. Government Money Market Trust (Nasdaq: LUGXX)
    (Nasdaq: LIBXX)
Limited Duration Fund (Nasdaq: FTRLX) (Nasdaq: FTRDX)
    (Nasdaq: FLDIX) (Nasdaq: FLDSX)
Limited Term Fund (Nasdaq: LTDFX) (Nasdaq: LTFSX)
Limited Term Municipal Fund (Nasdaq: LMINX)
    (Nasdaq: LFEDERATEDX)
Liquid Cash Trust (Nasdaq: LCTXX)
Managed Income Portfolio (Nasdaq: FMIPX) (Nasdaq: FIPSX)
Market Opportunity Fund (Nasdaq: FMAAX) (Nasdaq: FMBBX)
    (Nasdaq: FMRCX)
Maryland Municipal Cash (Nasdaq: MDMXX)
Massachusetts Municipal Cash Trust (Nasdaq: MMCXX)
Master Trust (Nasdaq: FMTXX)
Max-Cap Index Fund (Nasdaq: MXCCX) (Nasdaq:  FISPX) (Nasdaq:
FMXKX)
    (Nasdaq: FMXSX)
Michigan Intermediate Municipal Trust (Nasdaq: MMIFX)
Michigan Municipal Cash Trust (Nasdaq: MIIXX) (Nasdaq: MINXX)
    (Nasdaq: MIMXX)
Mid-Cap Index Fund (Nasdaq: FMDCX)
Mini-Cap Index Fund (Nasdaq: MNCCX) (Nasdaq: FMCPX)
Minnesota Municipal Cash Trust (Nasdaq: MNMXX) (Nasdaq: FEMXX)
Moderate Allocation Fund (Nasdaq: FMMGX) (Nasdaq: FMMSX)
Money Market Trust (Nasdaq: MMTXX)
Mortgage Fund (Nasdaq: FGFIX) (Nasdaq: FGFSX)
Muni and Stock Advantage Fund (Nasdaq: FMUAX) (Nasdaq: FMNBX)
    (Nasdaq: FMUCX)
Municipal Cash Series (Nasdaq: CMSXX) (Nasdaq: MCTXX)
Municipal Obligations Fund (Nasdaq: MFCXX) (Nasdaq: MOFXX)
    (Nasdaq: MOSXX)
Municipal Opportunities Fund, Inc. (Nasdaq: FMOAX) (Nasdaq:
FMOBX)
    (Nasdaq: FMNCX) (Nasdaq: FMTFX)
Municipal Securities Fund, Inc. (Nasdaq: LMSFX) (Nasdaq: FMSBX)
    (Nasdaq: LMSCX)
Municipal Ultrashort Fund (Nasdaq: FMUUX) (Nasdaq: FMUSX)
New Jersey Municipal Cash Trust (Nasdaq: NJMXX) (Nasdaq: NJSXX)
New York Municipal Cash Trust (Nasdaq: NYCXX) (Nasdaq: FNTXX)
New York Municipal Income Fund (Nasdaq: NYIFX) (Nasdaq: NYIBX)
North Carolina Municipal Cash Trust (Nasdaq: NCMXX)
North Carolina Municipal Income Fund (Nasdaq: NCIFX)
Ohio Municipal Cash Trust (Nasdaq: FOHXX) (Nasdaq: OHIXX)
    (Nasdaq: OHTXX)
Ohio Municipal Income Fund (Nasdaq: OMIFX)
Pennsylvania Municipal Cash Trust (Nasdaq: PACXX) (Nasdaq:
PAMXX)
    (Nasdaq: FPAXX)
Pennsylvania Municipal Income Fund (Nasdaq: PAMFX)
    (Nasdaq: FPABX)
Prime Cash Obligations Fund (Nasdaq: PCCXX) (Nasdaq: PCOXX)
    (Nasdaq: PRCXX)
Prime Cash Series (Nasdaq: CTPXX)
Prime Money Fund II
Prime Obligations Fund (Nasdaq: POIXX) (Nasdaq: PRSXX) (Nasdaq:
POLXX)
Prime Value Obligations Fund (Nasdaq: PVCXX) (Nasdaq: PVOXX)
    (Nasdaq: PVSXX)
Quality Bond Fund II
Short-Term Income Fund (Nasdaq: FSTIX) (Nasdaq: FSISX)
Short-Term Municipal Trust (Nasdaq: FSHIX) (Nasdaq: FSHSX)
Short-Term U.S. Government Trust (Nasdaq: FSUXX)
Stock Trust (Nasdaq: FSTKX)
Stock and Bond Fund, Inc. (Nasdaq: FSTBX) (Nasdaq: FSBBX)
    (Nasdaq: FSBCX) (Nasdaq: FSBKX)
Strategic Income Fund (Nasdaq: STIAX) (Nasdaq: SINBX)
    (Nasdaq: SINCX) (Nasdaq: STFSX)
Tax-Free Instruments Trust  (Nasdaq: TFIXX) (Nasdaq: TFSXX)
Tax-Free Obligations Fund (Nasdaq: TBIXX) (Nasdaq: TBSXX)
    (Nasdaq: TBTXX)
Tax-Free Trust (Nasdaq: FTFXX)
Total Return Bond Fund (Nasdaq: TLRAX) (Nasdaq: TLRBX)
    (Nasdaq: TLRCX) (Nasdaq: FTRBX) (Nasdaq: FTRKX)
    (Nasdaq: FTRFX)
Total Return Government Bond Fund (Nasdaq: FTRGX)
    (Nasdaq: FTGSX)
Treasury Cash Series (Nasdaq: CTTXX) (Nasdaq: CTWXX)
Treasury Obligations Fund (Nasdaq: TOCXX) (Nasdaq: TOIXX)
    (Nasdaq: TOSXX) (Nasdaq: TOTXX)
Trust for Government Cash Reserves (Nasdaq: TGCXX)
Trust for Short-Term U.S. Government Securities  (Nasdaq:
TUSXX)
Trust for U.S. Treasury Obligations (Nasdaq: TTOXX)
U.S. Government Bond Fund  (Nasdaq: FEDBX)
U.S. Government Securities Fund: 1-3 Years (Nasdaq: FSGVX)
    (Nasdaq: UFSGIX) (Nasdaq: FSGTX)
U.S. Government Securities Fund: 2-5 Years (Nasdaq: FIGTX)
    (Nasdaq: FIGKX) (Nasdaq: FIGIX)
U.S. Treasury Cash Reserves (Nasdaq: UTIXX) (Nasdaq: TISXX)
Ultrashort Bond Fund (Nasdaq: FULAX) (Nasdaq: FULIX)
    (Nasdaq: FULBX)
Virginia Municipal Cash Trust (Nasdaq: VAIXX) (Nasdaq: VACXX)

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

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

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

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


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

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

PIMCO All Asset Fund (Nasdaq:PASAX), (Nasdaq:PASBX),
(Nasdaq:PASCX),
  (Nasdaq:PAAIX), (Nasdaq:PAALX)
PIMCO Asset Allocation Fund (Nasdaq:PALAX), (Nasdaq:PALBX),
  (Nasdaq:PALCX)
PIMCO CA Intermediate Muni Bond Fund (Nasdaq:PCMBX),
(Nasdaq:PCIMX)
PIMCO CA Muni Bond Fund (Nasdaq:PCAAX), (Nasdaq:PICMX)
PIMCO CCM Capital Appreciation Fund (Nasdaq:PCFAX),
(Nasdaq:PFCBX),
  (Nasdaq:PFCCX), (Nasdaq:PAPIX)
PIMCO CCM Mid-Cap Fund (Nasdaq:PFMAX), (Nasdaq:PFMBX),
  (Nasdaq:PFMCX), (Nasdaq:PGMIX)
PIMCO CommodityRealReturn Strategy Fund (Nasdaq:PCRAX),
  (Nasdaq:PCRBX), (Nasdaq:PCRCX), (Nasdaq:PCRIX)
PIMCO Diversified Income Fund (Nasdaq:PDVAX), (Nasdaq:PDVBX),
  (Nasdaq:PDICX), (Nasdaq:PDIIX)
PIMCO Emerging Markets Bond Fund (Nasdaq:PAEMX),
(Nasdaq:PBEMX),
  (Nasdaq:PEBCX), (Nasdaq:PEBIX)
PIMCO Foreign Bond Fund (Nasdaq:PFOAX), (Nasdaq:PFOBX),
  (Nasdaq:PFOCX), (Nasdaq:PFORX)
PIMCO GNMA Fund (Nasdaq:PAGNX), (Nasdaq:PGGNX), (Nasdaq:PCGNX),
  (Nasdaq:PDMIX)
PIMCO Global Bond II Fund (Nasdaq:PAIIX), (Nasdaq:PBIIX),
  (Nasdaq:PCIIX), (Nasdaq:PGBIX)
PIMCO High Yield Fund (Nasdaq:PHDAX), (Nasdaq:PHDBX),
(Nasdaq:PHDCX),
  (Nasdaq:PHIYX)
PIMCO International StocksPlus TR Strategy Fund (Nasdaq:PIPAX),
  (Nasdaq:PIPBX), (Nasdaq:PIPCX)
PIMCO Investment Grade Corporate Bond Fund (Nasdaq:PIGIX)
PIMCO Long-Term U.S. Govt. Fund (Nasdaq:PFGAX), (Nasdaq:PGGBX),
  (Nasdaq:PFGCX), (Nasdaq:PGOVX)
PIMCO Low Duration Fund (Nasdaq:PTLAX), (Nasdaq:PTLBX),
  (Nasdaq:PTLCX), (Nasdaq:PLDTX)
PIMCO Low Duration II Fund (Nasdaq:PLDTX)
PIMCO Low Duration III Fund (Nasdaq:PLDIX)
PIMCO Moderate Duration Fund (Nasdaq:PMDRX)
PIMCO Money Market Fund (Nasdaq:PYAXX), (Nasdaq:PYCXX),
  (Nasdaq:PKCXX), (Nasdaq:PMIXX)
PIMCO Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq:PMLAX), (Nasdaq:PNFBX),
  (Nasdaq:PMLCX), (Nasdaq:PFMIX)
PIMCO NACM Flex-Cap Fund (Nasdaq:PNFAX), (Nasdaq:PNFBX),
  (Nasdaq:PNFCX)
PIMCO NACM Global Fund (Nasdaq:NGBAX), (Nasdaq:NGBBX),
(Nasdaq:NGBCX)
PIMCO NACM Growth Fund (Nasdaq:NGWAX), (Nasdaq:NGWBX),
(Nasdaq:NGWCX)
PIMCO NACM International Fund (Nasdaq:PILAX), (Nasdaq:PILBX),
  (Nasdaq:PILCX)
PIMCO NACM Pacific Rim Fund (Nasdaq:PPRAX), (Nasdaq:PPRBX),
  (Nasdaq:PPRCX), (Nasdaq:NAPRX)
PIMCO NACM Value Fund (Nasdaq:PVUAX), (Nasdaq:PVUBX),
(Nasdaq:PVUCX)
PIMCO NFJ Dividend Value Fund (Nasdaq:PNEAX), (Nasdaq:PNEBX),
  (Nasdaq:PNECX), (Nasdaq:NFJEX)
PIMCO NFJ Large-Cap Value Fund (Nasdaq:PNBAX), (Nasdaq:PNBBX),
  (Nasdaq:PNBCX)
PIMCO NFJ Small-Cap Value Fund (Nasdaq:PCVAX), (Nasdaq:PCVBX),
  (Nasdaq:PCVCX), (Nasdaq:PSVIX)
PIMCO NY Muni Bond Fund (Nasdaq:PNYAX)
PIMCO PEA Growth Fund (Nasdaq:PGWAX), (Nasdaq:PGFBX),
(Nasdaq:PGWCX),
  (Nasdaq:PGFIX)
PIMCO PEA Growth and Income Fund (Nasdaq:PGRAX),
(Nasdaq:PGRBX),
  (Nasdaq:PGNCX), (Nasdaq:PMEIX)
PIMCO PEA Innovation Fund (Nasdaq:PIVAX), (Nasdaq:PIVBX),
  (Nasdaq:PIVCX), (Nasdaq:PIFIX)
PIMCO PEA Opportunity Fund (Nasdaq:POPAX), (Nasdaq:PQNBX),
  (Nasdaq:POPCX), (Nasdaq:POFIX)
PIMCO PEA Renaissance Fund (Nasdaq:PQNAX), (Nasdaq:PGNBX),
  (Nasdaq:PQNCX), (Nasdaq:PRNIX)
PIMCO PEA Target Fund (Nasdaq:PTAAX), (Nasdaq:PTABX),
(Nasdaq:PTACX),
  (Nasdaq:PFTIX)
PIMCO PEA Value Fund (Nasdaq:PDLAX), (Nasdaq:PDLBX),
(Nasdaq:PDLCX),
  (Nasdaq:PDLIX)
PIMCO RCM Biotechnology Fund (Nasdaq:RABTX), (Nasdaq:RBBTX),
  (Nasdaq:RCBTX)
PIMCO RCM Global Healthcare Fund (Nasdaq:RAGHX),
(Nasdaq:RBGHX),
  (Nasdaq:RCGHX)
PIMCO RCM Global Small-Cap Fund (Nasdaq:RGSAX), (Nasdaq:RGSBX),
  (Nasdaq:RGSCX), (Nasdaq:DGSCX)
PIMCO RCM Global Technology Fund (Nasdaq:RAGTX),
(Nasdaq:RBGTX),
  (Nasdaq:RCGTX), (Nasdaq:DRGTX)
PIMCO RCM International Growth Equity Fund (Nasdaq:RAIGX),
  (Nasdaq:RBIGX), (Nasdaq:RCIGX), (Nasdaq:DRIEX)
PIMCO RCM Large-Cap Growth Fund (Nasdaq:RALGX), (Nasdaq:RBLGX),
  (Nasdaq:RCLGX), (Nasdaq:DRLCX)
PIMCO RCM Mid-Cap Fund (Nasdaq:RMDAX), (Nasdaq:RMDBX),
  (Nasdaq:RMDCX), (Nasdaq:DRMCX)
PIMCO RCM Tax-Managed Growth Fund (Nasdaq:PMWAX),
(Nasdaq:PMWBX),
  (Nasdaq:PMWCX), (Nasdaq:DRTIX)
PIMCO Real Return Fund (Nasdaq:PRTNX), (Nasdaq:PRRBX),
  (Nasdaq:PRTCX), (Nasdaq:PRRIX), (Nasdaq:PARRX), (Nasdaq:PRRRX)
PIMCO Real Return Fund (Nasdaq:PRRIX)
PIMCO Real Return II Fund (Nasdaq:PIRRX)
PIMCO Real Estate Real Return Strategy Fund (Nasdaq:PETAX),
  (Nasdaq:PETBX), (Nasdaq:PETCX)
PIMCO Short Duration Municipal Income Fund (Nasdaq:PSDAX),
  (Nasdaq:PSDCX), (Nasdaq:PSDIX)
PIMCO Short-Term Fund (Nasdaq:PSHAX), (Nasdaq:PTSBX),
(Nasdaq:PFTCX),
  (Nasdaq:PTSHX)
PIMCO Stocks PLUS Fund (Nasdaq:PSPAX), (Nasdaq:PSPBX),
  (Nasdaq:PSPCX), (Nasdaq:PSTKX)
PIMCO Stocks PLUS Total Return Fund (Nasdaq:PTOAX),
(Nasdaq:PTOBX),
  (Nasdaq:PSOCX), (Nasdaq:PSPTX)
PIMCO Total Return Fund (Nasdaq:PTTAX), (Nasdaq:PTTBX),
  (Nasdaq:PTTCX), (Nasdaq:PTTRX)
PIMCO Total Return II Fund (Nasdaq:PMBIX)
PIMCO Total Return III Fund (Nasdaq:PTSAX)
PIMCO Total Return Mortgage Fund (Nasdaq:PMRAX),
(Nasdaq:PMRBX),
  (Nasdaq:PMRCX), (Nasdaq:PTRIX)

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

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

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

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


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

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

Nasdaq:
BNRAX   UBS Absolute Return Bond A
BNRCX   UBS Absolute Return Bond C
BNRYX   UBS Absolute Return Bond Y
BNAAX   UBS Dynamic Alpha A
BNABX   UBS Dynamic Alpha B
BNACX   UBS Dynamic Alpha C
BNAYX   UBS Dynamic Alpha Y
BNGLX   UBS Global Allocation A
BNPBX   UBS Global Allocation B
BNPCX   UBS Global Allocation C
BPGLX   UBS Global Allocation Y
BNGBX   UBS Global Bond A
BNDBX   UBS Global Bond B
BNDCX   UBS Global Bond Fd Class C
BPGBX   UBS Global Bond Y
BNGEX   UBS Global Equity A
BNEBX   UBS Global Equity B
BNECX   UBS Global Equity C
BPGEX   UBS Global Equity Y
BNHYX   UBS High Yield A
BNHBX   UBS High Yield B
BNHCX   UBS High Yield C
BIHYX   UBS High Yield Y
BNIEX   UBS International Equity A
BNIBX   UBS International Equity B
BNICX   UBS International Equity C
BNUEX   UBS International Equity Y
PWFAX   UBS PACE Global Fixed-Income A
PWFBX   UBS PACE Global Fixed-Income B
PWFCX   UBS PACE Global Fixed-Income C
PCGLX   UBS PACE Global Fixed-Income P
PWFYX   UBS PACE Global Fixed-Income Y
PFXAX   UBS PACE Government Secs Fix-Income A
PFXBX   UBS PACE Government Secs Fix-Income B
PFXCX   UBS PACE Government Secs Fix-Income C
PCGTX   UBS PACE Government Secs Fix-Income P
PFXYX   UBS PACE Government Secs Fix-Income Y
PIFAX   UBS PACE Intermediate Fixed-Inc A
PIFBX   UBS PACE Intermediate Fixed-Inc B
PIICX   UBS PACE Intermediate Fixed-Inc C
PCIFX   UBS PACE Intermediate Fixed-Inc P
PIFYX   UBS PACE Intermediate Fixed-Inc Y
PWEAX   UBS PACE International Em Mkts Eq A
PWEBX   UBS PACE International Em Mkts Eq B
PWECX   UBS PACE International Em Mkts Eq C
PCEMX   UBS PACE International Em Mkts Eq P
PWEYX   UBS PACE International Em Mkts Eq Y
PWGAX   UBS PACE International Equity A
PWGBX   UBS PACE International Equity B
PWGCX   UBS PACE International Equity C
PCIEX   UBS PACE International Equity P
PWIYX   UBS PACE International Equity Y
PLAAX   UBS PACE Large Company Growth Eq A
PLABX   UBS PACE Large Company Growth Eq B
PLACX   UBS PACE Large Company Growth Eq C
PCLCX   UBS PACE Large Company Growth Eq P
PLAYX   UBS PACE Large Company Growth Eq Y
PCPAX   UBS PACE Large Company Value Equity A
PCPBX   UBS PACE Large Company Value Equity B
PLVCX   UBS PACE Large Company Value Equity C
PCLVX   UBS PACE Large Company Value Equity P
PLVYX   UBS PACE Large Company Value Equity Y
PMUAX   UBS PACE Municipal Fixed-Income A
PFIBX   UBS PACE Municipal Fixed-Income B
PMUCX   UBS PACE Municipal Fixed-Income C
PCMNX   UBS PACE Municipal Fixed-Income P
PMUYX   UBS PACE Municipal Fixed-Income Y
PQUAX   UBS PACE Small/Medium Company Gr Eq A
PUMBX   UBS PACE Small/Medium Company Gr Eq B
PUMCX   UBS PACE Small/Medium Company Gr Eq C
PCSGX   UBS PACE Small/Medium Company Gr Eq P
PUMYX   UBS PACE Small/Medium Company Gr Eq Y
PEVAX   UBS PACE Small/Medium Company Vl Eq A
PEVBX   UBS PACE Small/Medium Company Vl Eq B
PEVCX   UBS PACE Small/Medium Company Vl Eq C
PCSVX   UBS PACE Small/Medium Company Vl Eq P
PVEYX   UBS PACE Small/Medium Company Vl Eq Y
PBNAX   UBS PACE Strategic Fixed-Income A
PBNBX   UBS PACE Strategic Fixed-Income B
PBNCX   UBS PACE Strategic Fixed-Income C
PCSIX   UBS PACE Strategic Fixed-Income P
PSFYX   UBS PACE Strategic Fixed-Income Y
PSPIX   UBS S&P 500 Index A
PWSPX   UBS S&P 500 Index C
PWSBX   UBS S&P 500 Index Fund Class B
PWSDX   UBS S&P 500 Index Fund Class C2
PSPYX   UBS S&P 500 Index Y
PWTAX   UBS U.S. Allocation A
PWTBX   UBS U.S. Allocation B
KPAAX   UBS U.S. Allocation C
PWTYX   UBS U.S. Allocation Y
BNBDX   UBS U.S. Bond A
BNOBX   UBS U.S. Bond B
BNOCX   UBS U.S. Bond C
BPBDX   UBS U.S. Bond Y
BNEQX   UBS U.S. Large Cap Equity A
BNQBX   UBS U.S. Large Cap Equity B
BNQCX   UBS U.S. Large Cap Equity C
BPEQX   UBS U.S. Large Cap Equity Y
BNLGX   UBS U.S. Large Cap Growth A
BNWBX   UBS U.S. Large Cap Growth B
BNWCX   UBS U.S. Large Cap Growth C
BLGIX   UBS U.S. Large Cap Growth Y
BNVAX   UBS U.S. Large Cap Value Equity A
BNVBX   UBS U.S. Large Cap Value Equity B
BNVCX   UBS U.S. Large Cap Value Equity C
BUSVX   UBS U.S. Large Cap Value Equity Y
BNSCX   UBS U.S. Small Cap Growth A
BNMBX   UBS U.S. Small Cap Growth B
BNMCX   UBS U.S. Small Cap Growth C
BISCX   UBS U.S. Small Cap Growth Y

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

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

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

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


                            *********


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  * * *