CAR_Public/050921.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Wednesday, September 21, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 187

                         Headlines

ACTION PERFORMANCE: Shareholders Launch Securities Suit in NM
ALLIANCE SEMICONDUCTOR: Court Mulls Stock Suit Dismissal Appeal
AMERICAN MERCHANT: Settles FTC Franchise Rule Violations Charges
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Shareholders Sue V. Rubicon Acquisition in DE
BRI-MAR MANUFACTURING: Recalls 123 Trailers Due to Crash Hazard

BUFFALO MEAT: Possible Listeria Contamination Prompts Recall
CELL THERAPEUTICS: Shareholders Launch Securities Lawsuits in WA
CENTRAL ADMIXTURE: Recalls Injectable Products For Health Hazard
CRYOLIFE INC.: SEC Files Suit v. Sales Employees, Spouses
CRYOLIFE INC.: SEC Lodges Illegal Insider Trading Suit v. Couple

ESS TECHNOLOGY: Trial in CA Securities Suit Expected Early 2007
GABLES RESIDENTIAL: Agrees To Settle Consumer Fraud Suit in FL
GABLES RESIDENTIAL: Shareholders File MD Lawsuits V. ING Merger
HEALTHPLAN SERVICES: Discovery Proceeds in Unfair Trade Lawsuit
INFOUSA INC.: Shareholders Launch Securities Fraud Suits in NE

LOUISIANA: Fishermen's Group Files Damage Suit V. Oil Companies
LOWE'S HOME: Judge Grants Certification to Employee Wage Lawsuit
MOTHERS WORK: Working To Resolve CT Employee Overtime Wage Suit
NAVARRE CORPORATION: Shareholders File Securities Suits in MA
NEBRASKA: Groups Launch Suit Over Inadequate Foster Care System

NEW YORK: Group Launches Suit V. Brookhaven Town, Suffolk County
NEW YORK: Shareholders Launch Securities Fraud Suits in E.D. NY
NEW YORK: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Lawsuit For ERISA Violations
NTL EUROPE: NY Court Partially Dismisses Securities Fraud Suit
PANTRY INC.: Plaintiffs File Amended FLSA Violations Suit in NC

POST PROPERTIES: Shareholders Appeals Suit Settlement Approval
PREMIERE GLOBAL: MD Consumer Launches TCPA Violations Lawsuit
RENAISSANCERE HOLDINGS LTD: Shareholders File Fraud Suits in NY
ROAD RUNNER TRAILERS: Recalls 2005 Tri Axle Due to Crash Hazard
SC&E ADMINISTRATIVE: Suit Settlement Hearing Set January 6, 2006

SHURGARD STORAGE: Reaches Settlement For CA Overtime Wage Suit
SHURGARD STORAGE: Plaintiffs Withdraw Securities Suit in W.D. WA
VIRGINIA: Roanoke Sheriff Faces Lawsuit For Sexual Harassment
WAL-MART STORES: Jury Trials Begins in CA Employee Litigation
WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Phentermine HCl Product Litigation

WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: Plaintiffs Appeal Suit Summary Judgment
WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces New AWP Antitrust Litigation
WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: Plaintiffs Appeal CA Lawsuit Dismissal
WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces 90 Hormone Therapy Liability Suits
WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Reaches Agreement to Settle 2002 ERISA Suit

                Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

DHB INDUSTRIES: Chitwood Harley Files Securities Suit in E.D. NY
DHB INDUSTRIES: Wechsler Harwood Lodges Securities Suit in NY
GENERAL MOTORS: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
MANNATECH INC.: Glancy Binkow Schedules Lead Plaintiff Deadline
PATTERSON COMPANIES: Glancy Binkow Sets Lead Plaintiff Deadline

UBS-AG: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Suit Over UBS Mutual Funds

                        *********


ACTION PERFORMANCE: Shareholders Launch Securities Suit in NM
-------------------------------------------------------------
Action Performance Companies, Inc. and certain of its current
and former officers face a securities class action filed in the
United States District Court for the District of New Mexico,
entitled "The Cornelia Crowell, GST Trust v. Action Performance
Companies, Inc., et al."

The complaint alleges that the Company made false and misleading
statements concerning its financial results and business during
the period from July 23, 2003 to October 22, 2003, resulting in
violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.  The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages
and equitable relief.


ALLIANCE SEMICONDUCTOR: Court Mulls Stock Suit Dismissal Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Second Circuit Court of Appeals has yet to
decide on plaintiffs' appeal of the dismissal of the securities
class action filed against Alliance Semiconductor Corporation,
Tower Semiconductor Ltd. (Tower), certain of Tower's directors
(including N. Damodar Reddy), and certain of Tower's
shareholders (including the Company).

The lawsuit alleges that a proxy solicitation by Tower seeking
approval from the Tower shareholders for a restructuring of a
financing agreement between Tower and certain investors
(including the Company) contained false and misleading
statements and/or omitted material information in violations of
Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
14a-9 promulgated there under, and also alleges that certain
defendants (including N. Damodar Reddy and the Company) have
liability under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The lawsuit
was brought by plaintiffs on behalf of a putative class of
persons who were ordinary shareholders of Tower at the close of
business on April 1, 2002, the record date for voting on certain
matters proposed in a proxy statement issued by Tower.

On January 30, 2004, all the defendants, including the Company,
filed motions to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted. On August 19, 2004,
Judge Kimba Wood granted defendants' motions and dismissed the
complaint in its entirety with prejudice.  On September 29,
2004, plaintiffs appealed the dismissal the United States Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The appeal will likely be
decided some time in 2006.


AMERICAN MERCHANT: Settles FTC Franchise Rule Violations Charges
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) entered a stipulated final
order settling charges against two defendants targeted in
February 2005's "Project Biz Opp Flop" law enforcement
initiative for allegedly violating the FTC's Franchise Rule.

According to the Commission, the defendants sold consumers
cashless ATM and Internet kiosk franchises without providing
them with disclosures identifying prior franchisees or
justifying purported earnings. The final order announced today
settles the FTC's complaint and court action against defendants
American Merchant Technologies, Inc. and the company's
principal, Lawrence B. Albano, bars them from similar violations
in the future, and requires them to pay an $11,000 civil
penalty.

According to the Commission, the defendants sold cashless ATM
and Internet kiosk business opportunities in violation of the
FTC's Franchise Rule. The complaint specifically alleged that
they failed to provide prospective franchisees with a complete
and accurate basic disclosure document about the business
opportunity or an earning claim disclosure document as required
by the Rule. The Department of Justice filed the complaint on
behalf of the FTC in February 2005, as part of Project Biz Opp
Flop, a multi-agency law enforcement sweep targeting fraudulent
business opportunities.

The court order settling the charges bans the defendants from
selling franchises or business opportunities and contains other
relief to ensure they do not violate the Franchise Rule in the
future. In addition, it requires them to pay a civil penalty of
$11,000 and includes an avalanche clause that would require the
payment of $1.17 million if the defendants are found to have
misrepresented their financial condition to the Commission.
Finally, the order contains standard monitoring and compliance
provisions to ensure the defendants' compliance with its terms.

The Commission vote approving the stipulated final order was 4-
0. The order was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida and has been signed by the judge in
this case.

Copies of the complaint and stipulated 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 Katz, Office of Public Affairs by Phone: 202-326-2161
or contact Michael Davis, Bureau of Consumer Protection by
Phone: 202-326-2458 or visit the Website:
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2005/09/bizzopflop.htm/


BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Shareholders Sue V. Rubicon Acquisition in DE
----------------------------------------------------------------
Boston Scientific Corporation faces a class action filed in the
New Castle County Chancery Court for the State of Delaware,
seeking to enjoin its proposed acquisition of Rubicon Medical
Corporation's publicly-owned shares.

The suit, filed on April 14, 2005, also names as defendants
Rubicon, the directors of Rubicon, and Nemo I Acquisition
Corporation, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company.  The suit
generally alleges breach of fiduciary duties and seeks to enjoin
the acquisition.  The acquisition was completed on June 14,
2005.


BRI-MAR MANUFACTURING: Recalls 123 Trailers Due to Crash Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bri-Mar Manufacturing, LLC, in cooperation with the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Office of Defects
Investigation (ODI) is voluntarily recalling about 123 units of
2005 Bri-Mar trailers due to crash hazard. NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID
Number: 05V401000.

According to the ODI, on certain dump, equipment haulers and
hydraulic tilt trailers equipped with Global Direct Components
(GDC) axles, the weld which fastened the axle spindle to the
axle tube was improperly welded. The spindle could separate from
the trailer increasing the risk of a crash.

As a remedy, Bri-Mar is working with GDC to notify owners and
have the axles replaced.  For more details, contact Bri-Mar,
Phone: 717-709-2009 and NHTSA Auto Safety Hotline:
1-888-327-4236 or (TTY) 1-800-424-9153, Web site:
http://www.safecar.gov.


BUFFALO MEAT: Possible Listeria Contamination Prompts Recall
------------------------------------------------------------
Buffalo Meat & Provision, a Linden, N.J., firm, is voluntarily
recalling approximately 890 pounds of sausage products that may
be cross contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes, the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service
announced today.

Products subject to recall include:

     (1) One- and 10-pound packages of "SOMOS HISPANOS, CHORIZO
         JALAPENO BRAND, EL CASERO." Each package bears the sell
         by date "111505."

     (2) 10-pound packages of "San Carlos Authentic Morcilla,
         Argentine Brand Blood Sausage."

     (3) 10-pound packages of "MORCILLA 'COOKED BLOOD PUDDING'."

All products bear the establishment number "EST. 7847" inside
the USDA seal of inspection. All shipping containers bear the
packaging date "SEP 08 2005."  The products were produced on
September 7 and were distributed to restaurants and distribution
centers in New Jersey and New York.  The problem was discovered
through FSIS microbiological sampling. FSIS has received no
reports of illnesses associated with consumption of these
products.

Consumption of food contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes can
cause listeriosis, an uncommon but potentially fatal disease.
Healthy people rarely contract listeriosis. However, listeriosis
can cause high fever, severe headache, neck stiffness and
nausea. Listeriosis can also cause miscarriages and stillbirths,
as well as serious and sometimes fatal infections in those with
weakened immune systems, such as infants, the elderly and
persons with HIV infection or undergoing chemotherapy.

Consumers with questions about the recall should contact company
Office Manager Stacy Armendariz at (908) 486-9610. Media with
questions about the recall should contact company President Reno
Armendariz at (908) 486-9610.  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.


CELL THERAPEUTICS: Shareholders Launch Securities Lawsuits in WA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cell Therapeutics, Inc. faces several securities class actions
filed in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Washington, alleging violations of federal
securities laws.  The suit also names as defendants James Bianco
and Max Link.

The securities lawsuits assert claims arising 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 common
stock during the period from June 7, 2004 to March 4, 2005, or
the Class Period.  Plaintiffs allege that the defendants
violated federal securities laws by, among other things, making
false statements of material facts and/or omitting to state
material facts to make the statements not misleading, in
connection with the results of the Company's STELLAR clinical
trials for its drug XYOTAX.

The first identified complaint in the litigation is styled "F.L.
Heywood, et al. v. Cell Therapeutic Inc., et al.," filed in the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington.  The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

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

     (2) Chitwood & Harley, 7945 East Paces Ferry Road, 1400
         Resurgens Plaza, Atlanta, GA, 30326, Phone:
         404.266.1650,

     (3) Dyer & Shuman, LLP, 801 East 17th Avenue, Denver, CO,
         80218-1417, Phone: 303.861.3003, Fax: 800.711.6483, E-
         mail: info@dyershuman.com

     (4) Keller, Rohrback L.L.P., 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200,
         Seattle, WA, 98101-3052 Av, Phone: 800.776.6044, Fax:
         206.623.3384, E-mail: investor@kellerrohrback.com

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

     (6) 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

     (7) 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

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

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

    (10) Schoengold & Sporn, P.C., 233 Broadway 39Th Floor, New
         York, NY, 10279, Phone: 212.964.0046,

    (11) Scott & Scott LLC, P.O. Box 192, 108 Norwich Avenue,
         Colchester, CT, 06415, Phone: 860.537.5537, Fax:
         860.537.4432, E-mail: scottlaw@scott-scott.com

    (12) Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC, 35 East State
         Street, Media, PA, 19063, Phone: 877.891.9880, E-mail:
         jshah@classactioncounsel.com

    (13) 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


CENTRAL ADMIXTURE: Recalls Injectable Products For Health Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is notifying healthcare
professionals and hospitals about a product recall involving all
injectable products manufactured by Central Admixture Pharmacy
Services, Inc. of Lanham, Maryland (CAPS) due to concerns
regarding the sterility of these injectable products. CAPS
distributed the affected injectable products to hospitals in
Maryland, Delaware, Washington, D.C., and Virginia. Gram
negative rods have been identified in two lots of Cardioplegia
solution manufactured by CAPS. Non-sterility of injectable
products could represent a serious hazard to health that could
lead to life-threatening injuries and death.

The following products distributed up to September 16, 2005, are
affected by this action:

     (1) Cardioplegia solutions including: Cardioplegia, Cold
         Cardioplegia, Warm Cardioplegia, Blood Cardioplegia 1,
         Blood Cardioplegia 2, Cardioplegia Base 1, Cardioplegia
         Base 2, Cardioplegia Base, Cardioplegia Reperfusion,
         Cardioplegia High Potassium, Cardioplegia Low
         Potassium, Cardioplegia #1, Cardioplegia #2
         Cardioplegia #3; Maintenance Cardioplegia, Enriched
         Cardioplegia, Cardioplegia Hot Shot, Cardioplegia Base
         Enriched

     (2) Oxytocin injectable products including: Oxytocin
         Infusion, Oxytocin 20 units, Oxytocin 30 units,
         Oxytocin D5 NS, Oxytocin in Lactated Ringers

     (3) Promethazine

     (4) Magnesium-containing injectable products including:
         Magnesium 1 GM, Magnesium 2 GM, Magnesium Sulfate 2 GM,
         Magnesium 4 GM, Hydration-Magnesium in D5W, Magnesium
         Infusion, Magnesium in Lactated Ringers

     (5) Heparin Replacement

     (6) Antibiotic Irrigation Bag and Bottle

     (7) Bupivicaine 0.25 % and 0.5%, Pain Bags (Bupivicaine
         0.25 %)

     (8) Dialysate solutions including: Citrate Dialysate,
         Heparin Dialysate, Pediatric Dialysate, Hydration
         Dialysate #1, Hydration Dialysate #2, CRRT Dialysate,
         CVVHD (Dialysate) 300, CVVHD (Dialysate) 342, CVVHD
         Pediatric Formula (Normocarb), CVVHD Formalin #1, CVVHD
         Formalin #2, CVVHD Formalin #3, CVVHD Non-Standard,
         CVVHD D5W, CVVHD NS, CVVHD NS

     (9) Total Parenteral Nutrition (TPN) products including:
         TPN-Day, TPN-Day 1 Neonatal Stock Solution

    (10) Diltiazem (Cardizem)

    (11) Norepinephrine (Levophed)

    (12) Cefazolin

Although CAPS has directly notified known hospital customers of
the recall, hospitals, physicians, and health care workers are
urged to examine their supplies for any CAPS of Lanham, MD
injectable products and immediately discontinue their use and
quarantine the products.


CRYOLIFE INC.: SEC Files Suit v. Sales Employees, Spouses
---------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed a complaint against
six individuals for engaging in illegal insider trading in the
securities of CryoLife, Inc. CryoLife is a Georgia company that
preserves and sells implantable human tissue.  The six
defendants are Rodney R. Drinen, a CryoLife salesman prior to
being promoted to a regional manager; Gerald R. Holmes, a
CryoLife salesman; Thomas P. McHugh, a CryoLife salesman and his
wife, Nancy M. McHugh; Prescott B. Nash a manager for CryoLife's
Mountain Region until September 2002 and his wife Christina H.
Nash.

The complaint, alleges that in August 2002, the defendants
learned that CryoLife had placed a nationwide "quality
assurance" hold on a significant amount of tissue shipments.
CryoLife imposed this hold shortly after the FDA issued a Recall
Order, which required CryoLife to retain, recall and destroy the
majority of its human tissue products. The complaint alleges
that, before this information was disseminated to the public,
the defendants dumped substantially all of their CryoLife stock,
sold additional shares "short" and purchased put options.  The
complaint alleges that, cumulatively, the defendants' losses
avoided and ill-gotten gains from the insider trading totaled
approximately $136,334.

The Commission's complaint alleges that defendants' conduct
violated the antifraud provisions of the federal securities
laws, Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
thereunder.  Simultaneously with the filing of the Commission's
action, each of the defendants agreed, without admitting or
denying the allegations in the complaint, to the entry of a
final judgment permanently enjoining each of them from future
violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, and
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 thereunder. Additionally, the six defendants consented
cumulatively to disgorge $136,334 of losses avoided and ill-
gotten gains, plus pay prejudgment interest of $19,583 and a
one-time penalty on their profits of $136,334. The suit is
styled, SEC v. Rodney R. Drinen, Gerald R. Holmes, Thomas P.
McHugh, Nancy M. McHugh, Prescott B. Nash, and Christina H.
Nash, Civil Action No., 05-CV-8015, S.D.N.Y. (LR-19378).


CRYOLIFE INC.: SEC Lodges Illegal Insider Trading Suit v. Couple
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed a complaint against
two individuals for engaging in illegal insider trading in the
securities of CryoLife, Inc., a Georgia company that preserves
and sells implantable human tissue.  The two defendants are
James J. Farley, a former salesman for CryoLife and his wife,
Shelley J. Farley, both of Medford, New Jersey.

The complaint, alleges that in August 2002, the defendants
learned that CryoLife had placed a nationwide "quality
assurance" hold on a significant amount of tissue shipments.
CryoLife imposed this hold shortly after the FDA issued a Recall
Order, which required CryoLife to retain, recall and destroy the
majority of its human tissue products. The complaint alleges
that, before this information was disseminated to the public,
the defendants dumped substantially all of their CryoLife stock.
The complaint alleges that, cumulatively, the defendants' losses
avoided and ill-gotten gains from the insider trading totaled
approximately $56,832.

The Commission's complaint alleges that defendants' conduct
violated the antifraud provisions of the federal securities
laws, Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
thereunder.  The complaint seeks permanent injunctions and an
order seeking disgorgement of $56,832, representing their losses
avoided, plus prejudgment interest and civil penalties. The suit
is styled, SEC v. James J. Farley and Shelley J. Farley,
Defendants, Civil Action File No. 05-CV-8016, S.D.N.Y. (LR-
19379).


ESS TECHNOLOGY: Trial in CA Securities Suit Expected Early 2007
---------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the consolidated securities class action filed against
ESS Technology, Inc. and certain of its present and former
officers and directors is set for early 2007 in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California.

On September 12, 2002, following the Company's downward revision
of revenue and earnings guidance for the third fiscal quarter of
2002, a series of putative federal class action lawsuits were
filed against the Company.  The complaints alleged that the
Company and certain of its present and former officers and
directors made misleading statements regarding its business and
failed to disclose certain allegedly material facts during an
alleged class period of January 23, 2002 through September 12,
2002, in violation of federal securities laws.  These actions
were consolidated and are proceeding under the caption "In re
ESS Technology Securities Litigation."  The plaintiffs seek
unspecified damages on behalf of the putative class.

Plaintiffs amended their consolidated complaint on November 3,
2003, which the Company then moved to dismiss on December 18,
2003.  On December 1, 2004, the Court granted in part and denied
in part the Company's motion to dismiss, and struck from the
complaint allegations arising prior to February 27, 2002.  On
December 22, 2004, based on the Court's order, the Company moved
to strike from the complaint all remaining claims and
allegations arising prior to September 10, 2002.  On February
22, 2005, the Court granted the Company's motion in part and
struck all remaining claims and allegations arising prior to
August 1, 2002 from the complaint. Plaintiffs have moved to
certify the class. The court is awaiting class certification
discovery and briefing before ruling on that motion.  Discovery
is now proceeding in the case.

The suit is styled "In re ESS Technology, Inc. Securities
Litigation, case no. 02-CV-4497," filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, under
Judge Ronald M. Whyte.  Representing the Company are Meredith N.
Landy and Joshua D. Baker of O'Melveny & Myers, 2765 Sand Hill
Road, Menlo Park, CA 94025-7019, Phone: 650.473.2600, Fax:
650.473.2601, E-mail: mlandy@omm.com or jbaker@omm.com.
Representing the plaintiffs are:

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

     (2) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (S.F., CA),
         100 Pine Street - Suite 2600, San Francisco, CA, 94111,
         Phone: 415.288.4545, Fax: 415.288.4534,

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


GABLES RESIDENTIAL: Agrees To Settle Consumer Fraud Suit in FL
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gables Residential Trust reached a settlement for a class action
filed against it in Florida State Circuit Court alleging that
fees charged when residents terminate their leases prior to the
end of term or terminate without sufficient notice are not in
compliance with state law.

The Company has appealed the Court's December 2004 Order
certifying the class.  In the first quarter of 2005, the Company
recorded $1.8 million of expected costs associated with a
preliminary agreement to settle the lawsuit.  The preliminary
agreement to settle the class action lawsuit is subject to court
approval once finalized between the parties and published to the
class.  The charge of $1.8 million represents an estimate and is
comprised of two components - expected plaintiffs' attorneys
fees and other costs of the settlement of approximately $1.2
million, payable upon court approval of the settlement, and an
estimate of $0.6 million for the amount of contested fees the
Company expects to be substantiated by eligible class members
who elect to make a claim, payable if and when proven according
to procedures included in the settlement.  The proposed
settlement caps contested fees at $3.0 million, with no minimum
and requires that $0.35 million be initially placed into an
escrow account controlled by the Company to pre-fund the payment
of expected claims.


GABLES RESIDENTIAL: Shareholders File MD Lawsuits V. ING Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gables Residential Trust faces two class actions filed in the
Circuit Court for Baltimore City in Maryland, opposing an
agreement and plan of merger pursuant to which a newly formed
affiliate of ING Clarion Partners, LLC, an indirect wholly owned
subsidiary of ING Groep, N.V. will acquire the Company and its
subsidiaries through the mergers of Gables Residential Trust and
Gables Realty Limited Partnership with merger subsidiaries of
the ING Groep, N.V.

On June 10, 2005, an alleged shareholder of the Trust filed the
suit, naming as defendants the company, each member of the Board
of Trustees and Clarion.  The suit principally alleges that the
merger and the acts of the trustees constitute a breach of the
company's and its Board of Trustees' duties to its shareholders.
The plaintiff in the lawsuit seeks, among other things, a
declaration that the merger agreement was entered into in a
breach of the defendants' duties and is therefore unenforceable
and unlawful, to enjoin the merger unless and until the Company
adopts and implements a process to obtain the highest possible
price for the company, to rescind the merger agreement to the
extent already implemented, an order directing the defendants to
exercise their duties to obtain a transaction which is in the
best interests of the shareholders until the process for the
sale or auction of the company is completed, unspecified
compensatory damages and attorneys' and experts' fees.

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


HEALTHPLAN SERVICES: Discovery Proceeds in Unfair Trade Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in the class action filed against
HealthPlan Services, Inc. (HPS), Fidelity Group, Inc.
(Fidelity), HPS, Third Party Claims Management, and others, for
unspecified damages.

The complaint stems from the failure of a Fidelity insurance
plan, and alleges, against Fidelity, and the Company, which is
its contracted administrator:

     (1) unfair and deceptive trade practices;

     (2) negligent undertaking;

     (3) fraud;

     (4) negligent misrepresentation;

     (5) breach of contract;

     (6) civil conspiracy; and

     (7) Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO)
         violations

Two principals of the Fidelity plan have been convicted of
insurance fraud and sentenced to prison in a separate
proceeding.  The class has been certified.


INFOUSA INC.: Shareholders Launch Securities Fraud Suits in NE
--------------------------------------------------------------
infoUSA Inc. and its directors were named as defendants in two
purported class action lawsuits filed in the District Court of
Douglas County, Nebraska, entitled "Eileen Tyrrell vs. infoUSA,
Inc., et al." (filed in June 2005) and "Robert Bartow vs.
infoUSA, Inc., et al." (filed in July 2005).

The complaints allege, among other things, that the defendants
breached their fiduciary duties to the stockholders of the
Company in connection with Vinod Gupta's proposal to acquire the
outstanding common stock of the Company not held by Mr. Gupta.
The complaints seek the certification of a class of the
Company's stockholders, preliminary and permanent injunctive
relief prohibiting the defendants from proceeding with Mr.
Gupta's proposal, an accounting or compensatory damages,
attorneys' fees and costs, and other relief.


LOUISIANA: Fishermen's Group Files Damage Suit V. Oil Companies
---------------------------------------------------------------
A group of commercial fishermen sued several oil companies over
suspected fisheries damage caused by millions of gallons of oil
that spilled into coastal waters after Hurricane Katrina, The
2theadvocate.com reports.

The class action lawsuit, which was filed in federal court in
Houma, seeks unspecified damages from Shell Pipeline Co.,
Chevron Corp., Bass Enterprises Production Co. and Sundown
Energy. The suit was filed on behalf of "all commercial
fishermen whose livelihoods depend upon the estuaries and
waterways of southeastern Louisiana" that were affected by the
spills.  According to the suit, hurricane damage to the
companies' facilities resulted in more than 5 million gallons of
oil spilling into coastal waters. In addition, the suit alleges
that the companies "did not design their facilities to withstand
the known hazards posed by . hurricanes or to protect the
environmentally sensitive estuaries which surrounded their
facilities."

Though the U.S. Coast Guard has estimated that about 6.7 million
gallons spilled as Katrina flooded and damaged oil facilities,
the full impact of the spills on fisheries has yet to be
determined.  Among the three named plaintiffs in the suit is
George Barasich, who is a St. Bernard Parish fisherman and the
president of the United Commercial Fisherman's Association.


LOWE'S HOME: Judge Grants Certification to Employee Wage Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys are preparing to notify as much as 75,000 employees of
Lowe's Home Centers that they may be able to participate in
suing the company for back pay in a Kansas federal lawsuit,
which alleges that the company failed to pay overtime
compensation, The Kansas City Business Journal reports.

U.S. District Judge Carlos Murguia recently certified the
employees as a class, thus expanding a lawsuit with about 30
plaintiffs into a class action suit with potentially thousands
of plaintiffs.

Originally filed in October 2002 and amended in November 2003,
the suit alleged that Lowe's Home Center stores in Shawnee and
Olathe:

     (1) Switched employees' method of payment from salaried to
         hourly.

     (2) Failed to pay for "off the clock" work.

     (3) Failed to pay overtime when employees' pay mode was
         converted from salaried to hourly.

     (4) Maintained an improper sick leave policy.

     (5) Failed to pay for "comp time."

Three Kansas City-area law firms are among the five handling the
plaintiffs' case: The Law Office of Michael Brady of Overland
Park, The Law Office of Thomas Brill of Mission Hills and The
Popham Law Firm PC of Kansas City.

In a written statement regarding the class certification, Mr.
Brady said, "We are satisfied with Judge Murguia's decision and
are making plans to carry out the notification process. This
class represents a vast number of employees, and we are working
with our co-counsel around the country to facilitate the process
and bring the matter to a satisfactory conclusion."

The company though continues to maintain that it did not violate
the Fair Labor Standards Act and argues that Lowe's had abided
by agreements it made with plaintiffs regarding the terms of
their payment.

Polsinelli Shalton Welte Suelthaus PC is local counsel for
Lowe's in the case.

The suit is styled, Hammond, et al v. Lowe's Home Centers, Case
No. 2:02-cv-02509-CM-GLR, pending in the United States District
Court for the District of Kansas, Judge Carlos Murguia,
presiding. James R. Becker, Jr. and Alan G. Crone of Crone &
Mason, PLC, 5100 Poplar Avenue, Suite 3200, Memphis, TN 38137,
Phone: 901-683-1850, Fax: 901-683-1963, E-mail:
jbecker@cronemason.com or acrone@cronemason.com; Michael F.
Brady, 5350 College Blvd.-Ste. 118, Overland Park, KS 66211-
1621, Phone: 913-696-0925, Fax: 913-696-0468, E-mail:
mbrady@kc.rr.com; Thomas H. Brill of The Office of Thomas H.
Brill, 6552 Sagamore Road, Mission Hills, KS 66208-3712, Phone:
913-677-2004, Fax: 913-677-2152, E-mail: brillkc@aol.com;
Stephen J. Dennis or Dennis E. Egan of The Popham Law Firm,
P.C., 323 West 8th St.-Ste. 200, Kansas City, MO 64105-1679,
Phone: 816-221-2288, Fax: 816-221-3999, E-mail:
sdennis@pophamlaw.com or degan@pophamlaw.com; James Nelson
Thomas of Dolin, Thomas & Solomon, LLP, 693 East Ave.,
Rochester, NY 14607, Phone: 585-272-0540, Fax: 585-272-0574, E-
mail: nthomas@theemploymentattorneys.com; and James J. Webb, Jr.
Crone & Mason, PLC, 5100 Poplar Ave., Suite 3200, Memphis, TN
38137, Phone: 901-683-1850, Fax: 901-683-1963, E-mail:
jwebb@cronemason.com, are representing the Plaintiff/s. Richard
R Fritz or Anthony J. Romano of Polsinelli Shalton Welte
Suelthaus, P.C. -- KC, 700 West 47th Street, Suite 1000, Kansas
City, MO 64112-1802, Phone: 816-753-1000, Fax: 816-753-1536, E-
mail: rfritz@pswslaw.com or aromano@pswslaw.com; Keith Hult,
Marko J. Mrkonich or John A. Ybarra of Littler Mendelson, PC --
Chicago, 200 North LaSalle, Suite 2900, Chicago, IL 60601-1014,
Phone: 312-795-3206 or 312-372-5520, Fax: 312-372-7880 or
312-372-7880, E-mail: khult@littler.com, mmrkonich@littler.com
or JYbarra@Littler.com; Andrew J Voss of Littler Mendelson, PC -
- Minneapolis, 33 South 6th St., Suite 3110, Minneapolis, MN
55402, Phone: 612-313-7605, Fax: 512-630-9626, E-mail:
avoss@littler.com; and Matthew R. O'Connor of Cosentio's Service
Corporation, 8700 E. 63rd St., Kansas City, MO 64133, Phone:
816-358-6511, E-mail: moconnor@pswslaw.com.


MOTHERS WORK: Working To Resolve CT Employee Overtime Wage Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mothers Work, Inc. is working to resolve the class action filed
in the United States District Court for the District of
Connecticut against it, alleging that under applicable federal
and state law, certain former and current employees should have
received overtime compensation.  The plaintiffs in this case are
seeking unspecified actual damages, penalties and attorneys'
fees.

At this stage in these proceedings, the Company is unable to
predict the outcome of this case, which the Company is
vigorously defending.  The Company is engaged in efforts to
resolve these claims.

The suit is styled "Gillmore v. Mothers Work Inc. et al., case
no. 3:03-cv-01900-JCH," filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Connecticut, under Judge Janet C.
Hall.  Representing the plaintiffs is Anthony J. Pantuso, III of
Hayber & Pantuso, 221 Main Street, Ste 400 Hartford, CT 06106,
Phone: 860-522-8888, Fax: 860-240-7945, E-mail:
apantuso@hayberandpantuso.com.  Representing the Company are
Howard K. Levine and Ann H. Rubin of Carmody & Torrance, 195
Church St., PO Box 1950, 18th Floor, New Haven, CT 06509-1950,
Phone: 203-784-3102, Fax: 203-784-3199, E-mail:
hlevine@carmodylaw.com or arubin@carmodylaw.com


NAVARRE CORPORATION: Shareholders File Securities Suits in MA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Navarre Corporation faces three securities class actions filed
in the United States District Court for the District of
Minnesota.  These actions were commenced in June 2005. The
allegations in each of these lawsuits are virtually identical,
and essentially claim that the Company and certain of its
officers and/or directors violated federal securities laws and
regulations because the Company's financial results were
materially inflated and not prepared in accordance with
generally accepted accounting principles.

The complaints allege that these accounting irregularities
benefited Company insiders including the individual defendants.
The Complaints further allege that the Company failed to
properly recognize executive deferred compensation and
improperly recognized a deferred tax benefit as income.
Plaintiffs allege violation of Sec. 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10(b)(5), promulgated under the
Act, and as to the individual defendants only, violation of Sec.
20(a) of the Act.  Plaintiffs seek certification of the actions
as class actions, compensatory but unspecified damages allegedly
sustained as a result of the alleged wrongdoing, plus costs,
counsel fees and experts fees.

The actions are identified as follows:


     (1) AVIVA Partners, Ltd. v. Navarre Corp., et al., case no.
         05-1151 (PAM/RLE)

     (2) Vivian Oh v. Navarre Corp., et al., case no. 05-01211
         (MJD/JGL)

     (3) Matthew Grabler v. Navarre Corp., et al., case no. 05-
         1260 (DWF/JSM)

Defendants entered into a stipulation with counsel for
plaintiffs in each of these cases to postpone the time for
bringing a motion to dismiss until after a lead plaintiff and
lead counsel are appointed by the Court, and an amended
consolidated complaint is filed.  Prospective lead plaintiffs
must file their motions for appointment by August 12, 2005,
following which the Court will rule, and the designated lead
plaintiff will prepare and file the amended consolidated
complaint. All of this will take a considerable period of time.


NEBRASKA: Groups Launch Suit Over Inadequate Foster Care System
---------------------------------------------------------------
A recently filed federal lawsuit alleges that the state of
Nebraska is endangering children with an "understaffed, under
funded and unresponsive" foster care system, The Associated
Press reports.

Filed in U.S. District Court in Lincoln, the class action suit
was brought by New York-based Children's Rights, the Nebraska
Appleseed Center for Law in the Public Interest and several
private law firms on behalf of the 6,000 children in the state's
foster-care system.  The suit contends, "Defendants' failure to
protect Nebraska's foster children and provide them with legally
required services subjects these children to significant and
ongoing harm, deprives them of a chance for a safe and stable
childhood, and violates their rights under the United States
Constitution and various federal statutes."

Kathie Osterman, spokeswoman for the state Health and Human
Services System, told The Associated Press that she had not seen
the lawsuit and could not comment. She stressed though that the
state has a plan in place to address concerns about the system.


NEW YORK: Group Launches Suit V. Brookhaven Town, Suffolk County
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Manhattan-based Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education
Fund launched a federal class action suit against Brookhaven
Town and Suffolk County, accusing them of illegally targeting
Latinos in a housing crackdown that already led to the eviction
of at least 100 tenants in Farmingville this summer, Newsday.com
reports.

Filed in federal court in Brooklyn by the Latino rights group,
the suit states that all the residents in 11 houses shut down
recently were Latinos, although Latinos make up only 8 percent
of Brookhaven's population. Additionally, the suit also alleges
that a town-housing inspector used an expletive and a racial
slur against a day laborer during a confrontation last month.

The lawsuit seeks to order the town to give the tenants
sufficient notice to find other housing when carrying out the
evictions.

George Hoffman, a spokesman for Brookhaven Town denied the
allegations and told Newsday.com, "The Town's principal
responsibility is to make sure it enforces its fire and building
codes." He added that the Puerto Rican Fund has tried and failed
several times in state supreme court to sue the town over the
housing crackdown.

Suffolk County Executive Steve Levy also told Newsday.com, "The
day that municipalities are barred from enforcing housing codes
will mark the end of suburbia as we know it."

In a recent preliminary hearing on the case in federal court in
Central Islip, a special counsel hired by Brookhaven, Jeltje
DeJong, described tenants illegally cramming houses, living in
attics and operating propane barbecues in makeshift kitchens in
basements. "It's clear that the tenants were not there legally,"
she said.

Foster Maer, an attorney for the Puerto Rican Fund, said the
group isn't opposed to safe housing, but that tenants were being
told on the same day by authorities that they had to leave the
houses that night.

Irma Solis, an organizer at the nonprofit Hempstead-based
Workplace Project, testified at the recent hearing that some of
the displaced tenants have been living in tents in the backyard
at 196 Berkshire Dr., since it was shut down on August 10. In an
incident August 25 in Farmingville, the suit alleges that town
investigator Patrick Campbell yelled an expletive and a racial
slur at a Workplace Project volunteer, and later threatened to
have Ms. Solis arrested after she arrived at the scene.

Mr. Hoffman though dismissed the allegation, saying, "I would
think that is highly unlikely any of our employees would do
that."


NEW YORK: Shareholders Launch Securities Fraud Suits in E.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
New York Community Bancorp, Inc. faces several securities class
actions brought in the United States District Court, Eastern
District of New York, alleging violations of federal securities
laws on behalf of persons and entities, other than the
defendants, who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's
securities during the period June 27, 2003 to July 1, 2004, or
such shorter period as defined in some of the actions.

The lawsuits are all related to the same sets of facts and
circumstances and all but one allege that the Company violated
Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act of 1933, Sections 10
and 14 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5,
promulgated pursuant to Section 10 of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.  Plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the
Registration Statement issued in connection with the Company's
merger with Roslyn Bancorp, Inc. and other documents and
statements made by executive management were inaccurate and
misleading, contained untrue statements of material facts,
omitted other facts necessary to make the statements made not
misleading, and concealed and failed to adequately disclose
material facts.

The first identified complaint in the litigation is styled "Toby
Olsen, et al. v. New York Community Bancorp, Inc., et al., case
no. 04-CV-4165," filed in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of New York.  The plaintiff firms in this
litigation are:

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

     (2) 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

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

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


NEW YORK: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Lawsuit For ERISA Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
New York Community Bancorp, Inc. asked the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York to dismiss
the class action filed against it, alleging violations of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act on behalf of a putative
class of participants in the New York Community Bank Employee
Savings Plan.

On February 8, 2005, the Company's Board of Directors received a
letter, dated January 31, 2005, from a law firm purporting to
represent a shareholder of the Company that repeats many of the
allegations made in the putative class actions, and demands that
the Board take a variety of actions allegedly required to
address those allegations.

The suit is in its preliminary stages. The defendants moved to
dismiss the action, but no defendant has answered or otherwise
responded to any of the putative securities class action
complaints.


NTL EUROPE: NY Court Partially Dismisses Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted in part NTL Europe, Inc.'s (now known as PTV)
motion to dismiss the consolidated securities class action filed
against it, NTL Europe, Inc and some of its former officers,
including Barclay Knapp, the Company's former president and
chief executive officer.

Several suits were initially filed, generally alleging that the
defendants failed to disclose NTL Europe's financial condition,
finances and future prospects accurately in press releases and
other communications with investors prior to filing its Chapter
11 case in federal court.

The defendants filed motions to dismiss the actions and, on
July 31, 2003, the court entered an order dismissing the
complaint in the individual action without prejudice to filing
an amended complaint and deferred its decision on the complaint
in the class action lawsuits.  On August 20, 2003, the plaintiff
in the individual action filed an amended complaint.   The
Company then asked the court to dismiss the suit.

On December 7, 2004, the court denied in part and granted in
part the defendants' motions to dismiss all actions.  The court
denied the defendants' motions to dismiss claims based on
factual allegations that NTL Europe failed to disclose material
difficulties it faced in integrating acquired companies, failed
to disclose material practices that inflated subscriber numbers
(with respect to some defendants), and failed to disclose the
cash flow status of its largest acquisition during the relevant
period (with respect to some defendants).  The court found no
factual support for the plaintiffs' other allegations.

While PTV has been released from monetary liability (other than
PTV's insurance coverage) in these actions as a result of the
completion of the Plan, the case remains pending against PTV and
the individuals named as defendants.

The suit is styled "In Re: Ntl, Inc. Securities Litigation, case
no. 1:02-cv-03013-LAK-AJP," filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, under Judge Lewis
A. Kaplan.  Representing the Company is Seth Marc Schwartz,
Skaddden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP (NYC), Four Times
Square, New York, NY 10036, Phone: 212-735-3000, Fax:
917-777-2710, Email: sschwart@skadden.com.  Representing the
plaintiffs are:

     (1) Cary L. Talbot, Daniel Bernard Scotti, Steven G.
         Schulman, Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (NYC),
         One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY 10119, Phone:
         (212) 594-5300, Fax: (212) 868-1229, Email:
         dscotti@milberg.com and sschulman@milbergweiss.com

     (2) David Arthur Scott, Michael A. Swick, Scott & Scott,
         L.L.C., P.O. Box 192, 108 Norwich Avenue, Colchester,
         CT 06415, Phone: (860) 537-5537

     (3) Nadeem Faruqi, Farrell & Thurman, PC, P.O. Box 671,
         Princeton, NJ 08542, Phone: (212)983-9330, Fax: (212)
         983-9331, Email: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com

     (4) Samuel Howard Rudman, Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia, Geller,
         Rudman & Robbins, LLP, 200 Broadhollow Road, Ste. 406,
         Melville, NY 11747, Phone: 631-367-7100, Fax: 631-367-
         1173, Email: srudman@lerachlaw.com


PANTRY INC.: Plaintiffs File Amended FLSA Violations Suit in NC
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed an amended class action against Pantry, Inc. in
the United States District Court for the Middle District of
North Carolina, styled "Constance Barton, Kimberly Clark, Wesley
Clark, Tracie Hunt, Eleanor Walters, Karen Meredith, Gilbert
Breeden, LaCentia Thompson, and Mathesia Peterson, on behalf of
themselves and on behalf of classes of those similarly situated
vs. The Pantry, Inc."

The suit, filed in June 2004, seeks class action status and
asserts claims on behalf of the Company's North Carolina present
and former employees for unpaid wages under North Carolina Wage
and Hour laws. The suit also seeks an injunction against any
unlawful practices, damages, liquidated damages, costs and
attorneys' fees.

The suit originally was filed in the Superior Court for Forsyth
County, State of North Carolina. On August 17, 2004, the case
was removed to the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina and on July 18, 2005, plaintiffs
filed an Amended Complaint asserting certain additional claims
under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act on behalf of present
and former store employees in the southeastern United States and
adding one additional named plaintiff, Chester Charneski.


POST PROPERTIES: Shareholders Appeals Suit Settlement Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
An alleged Post Properties, Inc. appealed the Superior Court of
Fulton County, Atlanta, Georgia's approval of the settlement of
the shareholder derivative and purported class action lawsuits
filed against members of the Company's board of directors and
the Company (as a nominal defendant).

This complaint alleged various breaches of fiduciary duties by
the board of directors of the Company and sought, among other
relief, the disclosure of certain information by the defendants.
This complaint also sought to compel the defendants to undertake
various actions to facilities a sale of the Company.

On May 7, 2003, the plaintiff made a request for voluntary
expedited discovery. On May 13, 2003, the Company received
notice that a similar shareholder derivative and purported class
action lawsuit was filed against certain members of the board of
directors of the Company and against the Company as a nominal
defendant.  The complaint was filed in the Superior Court of
Fulton County, Atlanta, Georgia on May 12, 2003 and alleged
breaches of fiduciary duties, abuse of control and corporate
waste by the defendants.  The plaintiff sought monetary damages
and, as appropriate, injunctive relief.

These lawsuits were settled, and in October 2004, the Superior
Court of Fulton County entered an order approving the settlement
and related orders dismissing the litigation. The estimated
legal and settlement costs, not covered by insurance, associated
with the expected resolution of the lawsuits were recorded in
the second quarter of 2003 as a component of a proxy contest and
related costs charge.  An alleged Company shareholder, who has
filed a separate purported derivative and direct action against
the Company and certain of its officers and directors, has
appealed from the Superior Court's orders approving the
settlement, overruling the shareholder's objection to the
settlement, denying the shareholder's motion to intervene, and
dismissing the litigation with prejudice.


PREMIERE GLOBAL: MD Consumer Launches TCPA Violations Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
One of Premiere Global Services, Inc.'s subsidiaries, Xpedite,
faces a class action filed in the Circuit Court for Montgomery
County, Maryland, alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (TCPA).

Paul Worsham filed the suit on February 22, 2005, alleging that
Xpedite transmitted pre-recorded telephone calls advertising
Data Communications services to telephone numbers in Maryland,
including to Mr. Worsham's telephone number, in violation of the
TCPA, as amended, and applicable Federal Communication
Commission (FCC) rules.  The complaint also alleges violations
of federal caller identification requirements under FCC rules
and violations of the Maryland Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.  The complaint seeks statutory damages under the federal
and Maryland statutes for each of four alleged violations of the
two statutes and injunctive relief. The case is proceeding in
state court with initial discovery likely.


RENAISSANCERE HOLDINGS LTD: Shareholders File Fraud Suits in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
Renaissancere Holdings, Ltd. faces several securities class
actions filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York by purchasers of the Company's
common stock, alleging violations of federal securities laws.
The suits also name as defendants certain of the Company's
present and former executive officers and directors.

The complaints allege that the Company and the other defendants
violated the federal securities laws by making material
misstatements and failing to state material facts about the
Company's business and financial condition, among other things,
in securities act filings and public statements. Plaintiffs seek
damages in an unspecified amount to compensate an alleged class
of persons who purchased the Company's stock between January 24,
2002 and July 25, 2005.  One of the actions also includes claims
on behalf of purchasers of the Company's 6.08% Series C
perpetual preference shares.


ROAD RUNNER TRAILERS: Recalls 2005 Tri Axle Due to Crash Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
Road Runner Trailers, Inc., in cooperation with the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Office of Defects
Investigation (ODI) is voluntarily recalling about 1 unit of
2005 Adrenaline and 2005 Road Runner Tri Axle due to crash
hazard. NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID Number: 05V402000.

According to the ODI, on one boat trailer 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 a 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 a crash.

As a remedy, Road Runner is working with Tredit tire to notify
the owner and have the rims replaced. The recall is expected to
begin during October 2005.

For more details, contact Road Runner, Phone: 972-492-0285 and
NHTSA Auto Safety Hotline: 1-888-327-4236 or (TTY)
1-800-424-9153, Web site: http://www.safecar.gov.


SC&E ADMINISTRATIVE: Suit Settlement Hearing Set January 6, 2006
----------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court of the State of Nevada for the County of
Clark will hold a fairness hearing for the proposed settlement
in the matter, Reuben J. Rocker, et al. v. SC&E Administrative
Services, Case Nos. A-458551 & A-470558. (Consolidated), on
behalf all persons who bought or possessed a Vehicle Service
Contract "VSC" for which the obligations of the issuer were
insured by National Warranty Insurance Risk Retention Group
(NWIG) that was purchased directly or indirectly from SC&E, APA
or Triad prior to June 6, 2003 pursuant to which there is an
unreimbursed claim incurred during the term of the VSC, or for
which there remained an unexpired term on June 6, 2003, or
otherwise purchased their VSC from one of the Settling Car
Dealers.

The settling Defendants are Painters Autoland, Amigo Autosales,
Honda West, Nevada Dodge, Bill Heard Chevrolet Corporation NW,
Bill Heard Chevrolet Corporation NW Las Vegas, City Oldsmobile,
Inc., Courtesy Cars, Inc., Courtesy Oldsmobile, Inc., Courtesy
North, LLC, Courtesy Imports, Foothills Motors, Norm Baker
Motors (settling car dealers), Triad Marketing, LLC, SC&E
Administrative Services, Inc., American prime Asset, Inc., A.M.
Best Company and Yamagata Enterprises, Inc.

The Nevada State Court has scheduled a hearing on January 6,
2006 at 10:30 a.m. before the Honorable Valerie Adair in the
District Court of the State of Nevada for the County of Clark,
Dept. No. XXI, located at 8th Judicial District Court, Dept.
XXI, Clark County Court House, 200 South Third Street, Las
Vegas, NV 89101, to consider whether to grant final approval of
the settlement.

For more details, contact SC&E Claims Administrator, c/o Gilardi
& Co. LLC, P.O. Box 8060, San Rafael, CA 94912-8060, before
November 2, 2005 OR Norman B. Blumenthal of Blumenthal and
Markham, Phone: 858-551-1223.


SHURGARD STORAGE: Reaches Settlement For CA Overtime Wage Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Shurgard Storage Centers, Inc. reached a settlement for the
class action filed against it in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California styled as
"Patricia Scura et al. v. Shurgard Storage Centers, Inc. (Case
No. C 02-5246-WDB)."

The complaint alleges that the Company required its hourly store
employees to perform work before and after their scheduled work
times and failed to pay overtime compensation for work performed
before and after hours and during meal periods. The lawsuit
seeks class action status and seeks damages, injunctive relief
and a declaratory judgment against the Company under the federal
Fair Labor Standards Act and California statutory wage and hour
laws and laws relating to unlawful and unfair business
practices.

In December 2004, the Company reached a tentative agreement to
settle this lawsuit. The basis terms of the proposed agreement
are reflected in a Memorandum of Understanding which was
incorporated into a definitive settlement agreement that was
submitted for approval by the District Court.  The District
Court established October 7, 2005, as the date for final
approval of the settlement agreement. Any class member who
objects to the settlement agreement must file objections on or
before September 23, 2005.

The suit is styled "Scura et al v. Shurgard Storage Centers,
Inc., case no. 3:02-cv-05246," filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, under
Judge Charles R. Breyer.  Representing the plaintiffs are J.E.B.
Pickett and Matthew Rigetti of Righetti Wynne, 456 Montgomery
Street Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: 415-983-0900 E-
mail: jebp@righettilaw.com, or matt@righettilaw.com.
Representing the Company is Clemens H. Barnes and James D.
DeRoche of Perkins Coie LLP, 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4800
Seattle, WA 98101-3099  Phone: 206-359-3861 E-mail:
jderoche@perkinscoie.com.


SHURGARD STORAGE: Plaintiffs Withdraw Securities Suit in W.D. WA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed a second securities class
action filed against Shurgard Storage Centers, Inc. in the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington.

On January 19, 2005, David Gross filed a purported class action
suit styled as "David Gross v. Shurgard Storage Centers, Inc.,
Charles K. Barbo, and Harrell L. Beck. (Case No. CV05-0098)."
The suit alleges violations of federal securities law.  Mr.
Gross claimed that the Company made material misleading
misstatements and omissions relating to the Company's financial
statements in various public statements and filings, which Mr.
Gross alleges led to the artificial inflation of our stock
price.  On March 9, 2005, the Company received a copy of a
Notice of Dismissal without Prejudice filed by the law firms
that had represented the plaintiffs.

On March 15, 2005, the law firms in the Gross matter filed a
class action suit in U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington styled as "Stephen Zak, et al. v.
Shurgard Storage Centers, Inc., Charles K. Barbo, and Harrell
Beck (Case No. CV05-0417C)."  The suit alleges violations of
federal securities law and makes substantially similar claims to
those in the Gross complaint above.  The suit seeks unspecified
damages including attorneys' fees and costs.

On May 26, 2005, the Company received a copy of a notice of
Dismissal without Prejudice filed by the law firms that had
represented the plaintiffs.  A dismissal without prejudice does
not preclude plaintiffs from re-filing the claim in the future.

The remaining suit is styled "Zak v. Shurgard Storage Centers
Inc et al., case no. 2:05-cv-00417-JCC," filed in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Washington,
under Judge John C. Coughenour.  Representing the Company is
Stellman Keehnel, DLA PIPER RUDNICK GRAY CARY US LLP, 701 Fifth
Avenue, Ste 7000, Seattle WA 98104-7044 Phone: 206-839-4800 E-
mail: stellman.keehnel@dlapiper.com.  Representing the
plaintiffs is Steve W. Berman, HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
1301 5th Ave. Ste 2900, Seattle WA 98101 Phone: 206-623-7292 E-
mail: steve@hagens-berman.com


VIRGINIA: Roanoke Sheriff Faces Lawsuit For Sexual Harassment
-------------------------------------------------------------
A former deputy who is suing Roanoke Sheriff George McMillan for
sexual harassment is seeking class action status for her lawsuit
as three more former employees of the department came forward to
back her up, The Roanoke Times reports.

According to Terry Grimes, the attorney for former deputy Lespia
J. King, if a federal judge certifies class action status in the
case against the sheriff, it would allow the lawsuit to proceed
on behalf of any woman in the country who says Sheriff McMillan
has sexually harassed her.

Court records revealed that former deputies Kristin Darnell and
Malinda Bland, along with former public information officer
Jennifer Donovan, have made statements in support of the motion,
saying Sheriff McMillan, harassed them too. Mr. Grimes told The
Roanoke Times that several other women have also reported
harassment, although he could not provide a number.

When asked about the motion, Sheriff McMillan, 53, told The
Roanoke Times that he had not heard about it and added, "I don't
know the allegations and I don't know who the women might be.
All I can still say is I know it's political because I know that
my opponent and some of her supporters have been calling some
women who used to work for me."

Sheriff McMillan's Republican opponent in the November election,
Octavia Johnson, told The Roanoke Times that her campaign had
nothing to do with the lawsuit.

Mr. Grimes as well denied having any contact with Ms. Johnson or
her campaign saying, "It has nothing to do with his election,"
and pointed out, "The purpose of this lawsuit is to try to
obtain justice for the apparently large number of women who have
been sexually harassed."

Ms. King filed a complaint against Sheriff McMillan and his
office in August, alleging gender discrimination, sexual
harassment, and assault and battery. She began working for the
department in August 2000, but the complaint covers a period of
time between January 2003 and her resignation in March 2004.

Sheriff McMillan, who has held his position since 1997, also
told The Roanoke Times that he has not yet been served with the
original complaint and has not been appointed an attorney by the
State Division of Risk Management, which insures elected
officials.

Mr. Grimes told The Roanoke Times that his office has 120 days
to serve the complaint against Sheriff McMillan and has held
off, in part, because women were contacting his office. He added
that the sheriff would likely be served with the complaint
within the next week.

In her complaint, Ms. King claims that Sheriff McMillan embraced
her and groped her buttocks, asked her to sit on his lap and
questioned her about her personal life and relationships. In
recently filed declarations along with a memorandum in support
of the motion, Ms. Donovan, Ms. Bland and Ms. Darnell allege
similar behavior.

According to her declaration, Ms. Donovan claims that during her
job interview, Sheriff McMillan said "the public information
officer was like his mistress" and that they would "become best
friends" and be "closer than spouses." During her employment
from January through October 2002, Ms. Donovan claims, Sheriff
McMillan touched her inappropriately. After the sheriff touched
her lower back one-day, she complained to him, at which point he
hinted she would be fired, her statement says. She soon
resigned.

Court records also revealed that Ms. Darnell was 18 years old
when she was hired as a deputy. She alleges the sheriff told her
he was a very "touchy, feely person," called her pretty and
hinted that they could have sex. She worked at the department
from January 2001 until August 2002, when she resigned.

Ms. Bland's declaration includes claims that Sheriff McMillan
told her "that he knew that my mother had voted for Octavia
Johnson (I do not know how the sheriff knew this), and he said
something like, 'you better know - the jail is all about
politics - you have to vote for me,' or words to that effect."
She claims that the sheriff found frequent ways to call her into
his office, where he would grab her buttocks or say, "that he
liked big breasts."

Mr. Grimes told The Roanoke Times that the court documents
include some possible rationales for the women's decisions to
work for Sheriff McMillan despite the alleged harassment. Those
include their youth, their desire to work in law enforcement
and, in Ms. Bland's case, money.

Her declaration states that McMillan started her out at a salary
of $33,000 - far more than she was making at the time - and once
even slipped a $100 bill into her pants pocket, saying he would
provide her money "as long as you will come into my office and
let me feel you up from time to time."

Ms. Johnson, Sheriff McMillan's opponent, was an employee of the
sheriff's office for 25 years before retiring last year. She
declined to comment when asked about the specifics of the
lawsuit, or if she'd heard similar accusations while she was a
sheriff's department employee. But she did say that the sheriff
is in an "unfortunate" predicament. She also told The Roanoke
Times, "This is his personal tragedy. I will pray for him, his
family and the department. I am not going to judge George
McMillan."

However, McMillan wondered whether the lawsuit would even be
pursued after the November election saying, "None of this is
true. This is just hogwash."


WAL-MART STORES: Jury Trials Begins in CA Employee Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys representing approximately 116,000 former and current
Wal-Mart Stores Inc. employees in California told a jury that
the world's largest retailer systematically and illegally denied
workers lunch breaks, The Associated Press reports.

Attorney Fred Furth told the 12 jurors and four alternates that
the workers in the class action lawsuit, which was filed in
Alameda County Superior Court, are owed more than $66 million
plus interest. "I will prove the reason they did this was for
the God almighty dollar," he said in his opening statement.

The case, which needs nine jurors to side with it to prevail,
concerns a 2001 state law, which is among the nation's most
worker friendly. That state law stipulates that employees who
work at least six hours must have a 30-minute, unpaid lunch
break. If they do not get that, the law requires they be must
paid for an additional hour of pay. The suit covers former and
current employees in California from 2001 to 2005.

Wal-Mart declined to give an opening statement, reserving its
right to give one later. Its lawyers also declined comment.

According to court documents, the Bentonville, Arkansas-based
retailer claims that workers did not demand penalty wages on a
timely basis and added that it did pay some employees their
penalty pay and, in 2003, most workers agreed to waive their
meal periods as the law allows.

In addition, Wal-Mart also pointed out that some violations were
minor, such as demanding employees punch back in from lunch and
work during their meal breaks. In essence, workers were provided
a shorter meal period than the law allows.

The case, which does not claim that employees were forced to
work off the clock during their lunch breaks, was brought in
2001 by a handful of San Francisco-area former Wal-Mart
employees and took four years of legal wrangling to get to
trial. During that time, Wal-Mart produced internal audits that
plaintiffs' lawyers maintain showed the company knew it was not
granting meal breaks on thousands of occasions. That 2000 audit
was given to top-level executives, according to evidence
submitted to jurors.


WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Phentermine HCl Product Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and its affiliates face
approximately 50 suits in various state and federal courts,
alleging personal injury as a result of using phentermine
hydrochloride products.  The suits also name other
pharmaceutical firms.

Most of the cases involve multiple plaintiffs, and several were
filed or certified as class actions.  The Company believes it
will be fully indemnified by Rugby's former owner, Aventis
Pharmaceuticals (Aventis, formerly known as Hoechst Marion
Roussel, Inc., and now known as Sanofi-Aventis) for the defense
of all such cases and for any liability that may arise out of
these cases, the Company said in a disclosure to the Securities
and Exchange Commission.  Aventis is currently controlling the
defense of all these matters as the indemnifying party under its
agreements with the Company.


WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: Plaintiffs Appeal Suit Summary Judgment
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the consolidated antitrust litigation filed
against Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and other pharmaceutical
firms appealed the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York's ruling granting summary judgment in favor
of the defendants.

Beginning in July 2000, a number of suits have been filed
against the Company, Rugby Group and other company affiliates in
various state and federal courts, alleging violations of federal
antitrust laws, related to its Ciprofloxacin hydrochloride
product.  The suits allege claims under various federal and
state competition and consumer protection laws. Several
plaintiffs have filed amended complaints and motions seeking
class certification.  The defendants have opposed these class
certification motions, which remain pending, an earlier Class
Action Reporter story (April 11,2005) states.

As of March 7, 2005, approximately 42 cases had been filed
against the Company, Rugby and other Watson entities. Twenty-two
of these actions have been consolidated in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York, styled "In re:
Ciprofloxacin Hydrochloride Antitrust Litigation, MDL Docket No.
001383."  In May 2003, the court hearing the consolidated action
granted the Company's motion to dismiss and made rulings
limiting the theories under which plaintiffs can seek recovery
against Rugby and the other defendants.  Portions of that
decision are expected to be appealed.

On May 28, 2004, the defendants, including the Company and
certain of its affiliates, filed motions for summary judgment in
the consolidated action pending in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York, seeking dismissal of several
of the claims asserted by the plaintiffs, including claims
alleging violation of the antitrust laws.  On July 9, 2004, the
plaintiffs filed oppositions to the defendants' summary judgment
motions, and the direct purchasers filed a cross-motion for
partial summary judgment on their claims.  A hearing on these
motions took place on February 28, 2005.

On May 7, 2005, three groups of plaintiffs from the consolidated
action, including the direct purchaser plaintiffs, the indirect
purchaser plaintiffs, and plaintiffs Rite Aid and CVS
Corporation, filed Notices of Appeal in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit, appealing, among other
things, the March 31, 2005 Order granting summary judgment in
favor of the defendants.

The suit is styled "In Re: Ciprofloxin Hydrochloride Antitrust
Litigation, case no. 1:00-md-01383-DGT-SMG," filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York,
under Judge David G. Trager.  Representing the Company is David
E. Everson of Stinson, Mag & Fizzell, P.C., 1201 Walnut, Suite
2900, Kansas City, MO 64106, Phone: 816-842-8600, Fax:
816-691-3495, E-mail: deverson@stinsonmoheck.com.  Representing
the plaintiffs are Robert S. Schachter, Joseph S. Tusa of
Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP, 41 Madison Avenue, 32nd
Floor, New York, NY 10010, Phone: 212-223-3900, Fax:
212-371-5969, E-mail: rschachter@zsz.com.


WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces New AWP Antitrust Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------
Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and certain of its subsidiaries
face new litigation, alleging improper or fraudulent reporting
practices related to the reporting of average wholesale prices
of certain products.

Several suits were filed in June and July of 2005, including
actions by six counties in New York State, styled:

     (1) County of Columbia v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et
         al., United States District Court for the Northern
         District of New York, Case No. 05-CV-0867-GLS/RFTl;

     (2) County of Cortland v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et
         al., United States District Court for the Northern
         District of New York, Case No. 05-CV-0881-NAM/GJD;

     (3) County of Dutchess v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et
         al., United States District Court for the Southern
         District of New York, Case No. 05-CV-06458-ESJ/KNF;

     (4) Essex County v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al.,
         United States District Court for the Northern District
         of New York, Case No. 05-CV-0878-TJM/DRH;

     (5) County of Lewis v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al.,
         United States District Court for the Northern District
         of New York, Case No. 05-CV-0839-DNH/GHL; and

     (6) County of Orleans v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al.,
         United States District Court for the Western District
         of New York, Case No. 05-CV-06371-MAT).

In the Consolidated Action pending in the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts, styled "In re
Pharmaceutical Industry Average Wholesale Price Litigation, MDL
Docket No. 1456, Civil Action No. 01-CV-12257-PBS," on June 15,
2005, a separate consolidated complaint was filed that adds six
other New York counties (County of Jefferson, County of Madison,
County of Niagra, County of Putnam, County of Steuben, and
County of Suffolk) to those that had earlier sued the Company
and certain subsidiaries.  On July 20, 2005, an action was filed
against the Company and a subsidiary by the Attorney General for
the State of Florida, styled "The State of Florida ex rel. Ven-
A-Care of the Florida Keys, Inc. et al. v. Mylan Laboratories,
Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 98-3032G," in the Florida Leon
County Court.

As of August 8, 2005, in addition to the Consolidated Action
pending in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, there were approximately 45 plaintiffs in 40
cases pending against the Company or its subsidiaries and other
third parties, including actions by eight State Attorneys
General, the City of New York, and 36 counties in New York
State. The defendants have removed several of these actions
(originally filed in state court) to federal court, and are
seeking eventual transfer of these cases into the Consolidated
Action.  However, the plaintiffs have filed motions to remand
several of the cases back to state court.  The Company has been
served in several of the actions filed by New York counties.
Additional actions are anticipated.


WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: Plaintiffs Appeal CA Lawsuit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appeal the United States District Court for the
Central District of California's dismissal of a consolidated
securities class action filed against Watson Pharmaceuticals,
Inc. and certain of its present and former officers and
directors.

Beginning in November 2003, several securities class action
lawsuits were commenced, and on February 9, 2004, the federal
court issued an order consolidating all of the federal actions,
under the caption "In re: Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Securities Litigation, Case No. CV-03-8236 AHM."  In addition to
the federal consolidated actions, two shareholder derivative
actions were filed in California Superior Court for the County
of Riverside, styled "Philip Orlando v. Allen Chao, et al., Case
No. 403717;" and "Charles Zimmerman v. Allen Chao, et al, Case
No. 403715."

These federal and state cases all relate to the drop in the
price of the Company's common stock in November 2001, and allege
generally that the Company failed to timely advise investors
about matters such as falling inventory valuations, increased
competition and manufacturing difficulties, and therefore, the
Company's published financial statements and public
announcements during 2000 and 2001 were false and misleading.

The shareholder derivative actions were dismissed without
prejudice on November 16, 2004.  On August 2, 2004, the court
granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the federal
consolidated action, and allowed plaintiffs until August 30,
2004 to file an amended complaint.  On August 30, 2004, the lead
plaintiff in the federal consolidated action notified the court
that it did not intend to file an amended complaint in response
to the court's order granting the defendants' motion to dismiss.
On September 2, 2004, the court entered a judgment of dismissal
in favor of the defendants.  On October 1, 2004, one of the non-
lead plaintiffs in the consolidated action filed a Notice of
Appeal of the dismissal of the action with the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, styled "Pension Fund v.
Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., USCA Docket No. 04-56791."  The
court has set a briefing schedule for the appeal, but has not
yet set a date for oral argument on the appeal.  On May 31,
2005, the appellants filed their reply brief.  The appellate
court has not yet scheduled a hearing on the appeal.


WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces 90 Hormone Therapy Liability Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and its affiliates face
approximately ninety cases in various state and federal courts,
representing claims by approximately 800 plaintiffs, in relation
to alleged personal injury caused by the Company's hormone
replacement therapy products.  The suits also name other
pharmaceutical firms as defendants.

Many of the cases seek certification as class actions.  These
actions, if successful, could adversely affect the Company and
could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business,
results of operations, financial condition and cash flows, the
company stated in a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange
Commission.


WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Reaches Agreement to Settle 2002 ERISA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Williams Companies, Inc. (NYSE: WMB) reached an agreement to
settle class action litigation filed in 2002 under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act against the company, its board of
directors as well as members of the company's investment and
benefits committees.

The plaintiffs are individuals who participated in the company's
401(k) retirement plan during a period that began July 24, 2000.
In the lawsuit, plaintiffs alleged that the defendants breached
their fiduciary duties to 401(k) plan participants related to
investments in the common stock of Williams and Williams' former
subsidiary, Williams Communications Group.

The settlement, which is subject to court approval and certain
other conditions, provides for Williams to pay $55 million to
plaintiffs. Of that amount, $50 million is covered and will be
paid by insurance.  As part of the settlement, plaintiffs will
release all defendants from claims related directly or
indirectly to the suit and company's 401(k) plan.  The company's
401(k) retirement plan that is, in part the subject of today's
announced settlement continues to be under investigation by the
U.S. Department of Labor.



                Meetings, Conferences & Seminars




* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
-------------------------------------------------

September 26-27, 2005
CONSUMER FINANCE LITIGATION & CLASS ACTIONS
American Conferences
New York
Contact: http://www.americanconference.com

September 26-27, 2005
REINSURANCE SUMMIT
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Boston
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

September 26-27, 2005
WATER CONTAMINATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Marina del Rey Los Angeles
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

September 26-27, 2005
BAD FAITH LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Philadelphia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

September 27, 2005
INSURANCE FRAUD CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Philadelphia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

September 27, 2005
REINSURANCE CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Boston
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

September 27, 2005
REINSURANCE ARBITRATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Boston
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

September 27-28, 2005
PREPARING FOR THE FUTURE OF FINITE AND STRUCTURED RISK
(RE)INSURANCE
American Conferences
New York
Contact: http://www.americanconference.com

September 29-30, 2005
RAA'S RE CLAIMS SEMINAR: REINSURANCE CLAIMS MANAGEMENT BY CLAIMS
PROFESSIONALS FOR CLAIMS PROFESSIONALS
Mealey Publications
New York, New York
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

October 2005
ASBESTOS LIABILITY FORUM
Mealey Publications
London, England
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

October 2005
LAW CLIENT DEVELOPMENT CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

October 6-7, 2005
ASBESTOS LITIGATION IN THE 21ST CENTURY
ALI-ABA
Chicago
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

October 7, 2005
REINSURANCE LAW & PRACTICE 2005: NEW LEGAL & BUSINESS
DEVELOPMENTS IN A CHANGING ENVIRONMENT
Practising Law Institute
New York, NY
Contact: 800-260-4PLI; 212-824-5710; info@pli.edu

October 17-18, 2005
BENZENE LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz Carlton, Phoenix
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

October 17-18, 2005
INSURANCE COVERAGE DISPUTES CONCERNING CONSTRUCTION DEFECTS
Mealey Publications
The Ritz Carlton, New Orleans
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

October 18-19, 2005
RAA'S REFINANCE SEMINAR--ABC'S OF FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
Mealey Publications
The Ritz Carlton, New Orleans
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

October 19, 2005
LEXISNEXIS PRESENTS WALL STREET FORUM: MASS TORT LITIGATION
Mealey Publications
The Carlyle Hotel
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

October 24-25, 2005
C-8/PFOA SCIENCE, RISKS LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Rittenhouse Philadephia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

October 26-27, 2005
PREVENTING AND DEFENDING WAGE & HOUR CLAIMS & CLASS ACTIONS
American Conferences
Sheraton Fisherman's Wharf Hotel, San Francisco, CA
Contact: http://www.americanconference.com;877-927-1563

October 27, 2005
HEART DEVICE LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Mandalay Bay Resort & Casino, Las Vegas
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

October 27-28, 2005
RETAIL & HOSPITALITY LIABILITY CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Mandalay Bay Resort & Casino, Las Vegas
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

October 28, 2005
PREVENTING AND DEFENDING EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION CLAIMS &
LITIGATION
American Conferences
Sheraton Fisherman's Wharf Hotel, San Francisco, CA
Contact: http://www.americanconference.com;877-927-1563

October 28, 2005
DRUG AND MEDICAL DEVICE LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Mandalay Bay Resort & Casino, Las Vegas
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

November 3-4, 2005
CONFERENCE ON LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY PRODUCTS
ALI-ABA
Washington DC
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

November 3-4, 2005
MANUFACTURER'S LIABILITY CONFERENCE: LEGAL PROTECTIONS CRUCIAL
TO YOUR BOTTOM LINE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Coconut Grove, Miami
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

November 7, 2005
ALL SUMS: REALLOCATION & SETTLEMENT CREDITS CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton, Boston
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

November 7-8, 2005
LEXISNEXIS PRESENTS: COPYRIGHT - FROM TRADITIONAL CONCEPTS TO
THE DIGITAL AGE
Mealey Publications
Downtown Conference Center at Pace University, New York City
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

November 7-8, 2005
CONSTRUCTION DEFECT & MOLD LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz Carlton Phoenix, Phoenix
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

November 7-8, 2005
FUNDAMENTALS OF REINSURANCE LITIGATION & ARBITRATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Downtown Conference Center at Pace University, New York City
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

November 9, 2005
CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION DEFECT LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Four Seasons Resort, Santa Barbara
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

November 10-11, 2005
CALIFORNIA SECTION 17200 CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Four Seasons Resort Santa Barbara
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

November 14-15, 2005
SILICA LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton, New Orleans
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

November 15-16, 2005
12TH ADVANCED NATIONAL FORUM ON LITIGATING BAD FAITH AND
PUNITIVE DAMAGES
American Conferences
Fontainebleau Resort, Miami, FL, United States
Contact: http://www.americanconference.com;877-927-1563

November 17-18, 2005
ASBESTOS LIABILITY FORUM
Mealey Publications
London, England
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

November 17-18, 2005
Mass Torts Made Perfect Seminar
MassTortsMadePerfect.Com
Las Vegas, Nevada
Contact: 800-320-2227; 850-436-6094 (fax)

December 1-2, 2005
REINSURANCE GENERAL COUNSEL'S CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Fairmont Scottsdale Princess
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 5-6, 2005
ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton New York, Battery Park
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 6, 2005
ASBESTOS INSURANCE CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton New York, Battery Park
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 7, 2005
ASBESTOS INSURANCE CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton New York, Battery Park
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 12-14, 2005
10th Annual Drug & Medical Device Litigation
10TH ANNUAL DRUG & MEDICAL DEVICE LITIGATION
American Conferences
The Waldorf Astoria, New York, NY, United States
Contact: http://www.americanconference.com;877-927-1563

December 12-13, 2005
VIOXX LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Caesars Palace, Las Vegas
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 12-13, 2005
LEAD LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Pentagon City, Washington DC
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

January 23-24, 2005
ADVANCED INSURANCE COVERAGE ISSUES
Mealey Publications
The Four Seasons Hotel, Philadelphia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

April 5-8, 2006
INSURANCE INSOLVENCY AND REINSURANCE ROUNDTABLE
Mealey Publications
The Fairmont Scottsdale Princess, Scottsdale, AZ
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

February 16-17, 2006
ACCOUNTANTS' LIABILITY
ALI-ABA
Coral Gables, Miami, Florida
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

May 25-26, 2006
INSURANCE COVERAGE 2006: CLAIM TRENDS & LITIGATION
Practising Law Institute
New York
Contact: 800-260-4PLI; 212-824-5710; info@pli.edu

September 28-30, 2006
LITIGATING MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CLAIMS
ALI-ABA
Boston
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614


* Online Teleconferences
------------------------

September 01-30, 2005
HBA PRESENTS: AUTOMOBILE LITIGATION: DISPUTES AMONG
CONSUMERS, DEALERS, FINANCE COMPANIES AND FLOORPLANNERS
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

September 01-30, 2005
CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION DEFECT
LIABILITY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

September 01-30, 2005
HBA PRESENTS: ETHICS IN PERSONAL INJURY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

September 01-30, 2005
IN-HOUSE COUNSEL AND WRONGFUL DISCHARGE CLAIMS:
CONFLICT WITH CONFIDENTIALITY?
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

September 01-30, 2005
BAYLOR LAW SCHOOL PRESENTS: 2004 GENERAL PRACTICE INSTITUTE --
FAMILY LAW, DISCIPLINARY SYSTEM, CIVIL LITIGATION, INSURANCE
& CONSUMER LAW UPDATES
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

October 05, 2005
LIFE OF A REINSURANCE CLAIM
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

October 06, 2005
EMAIL DISCOVERY AND RETENTION POLICIES FOR CORPORATE COUNSEL
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

October 11, 2005
MTBE TELECONFERENCE: NEW GROUNDBREAKING RULINGS IN THE FEDERAL
MDL
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

October 11, 2005
ASBESTOS INSURANCE
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

October 25, 2005
ASBESTOS MEDICINE
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

October 26, 2005
CA SUPREME COURT DECISION--SEXUAL HARRASSMENT
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

November 01, 2005
REAL WORLD APPLICATION OF ADDITIONAL INSURED CLAIMS
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

November 16, 2005
HRT
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

November 17, 2005
FOOD LIABILITY--ADVERTISING PRACTICES
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

November 17, 2005
ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY TUTORIAL
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

November 30, 2005
PESTICIDES
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

November 30, 2005
ASBESTOS SCREENINGS
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 6, 2005
WELDING RODS
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 7, 2005
PERCHLORATE
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 8, 2005
SSRI's TELECONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 14, 2005
FINITE RISK REINSURANCE
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 14, 2005
CLASS CERTIFICATION--HOW TO GET A CLASS CERTIFIED OR DEFEAT
CERTIFICATION
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 15, 2005
D&O TELECONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 15, 2005
PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ISSUES
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

TORTS PRACTICE: 18TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS #1
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

TORTS PRACTICE: 18TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS #2
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

TORTS PRACTICE: 18TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS #3
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

TORTS PRACTICE: 19TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 21ST ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS #1
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 21ST ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS #2
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 21ST ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS #3
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 22ND ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

PUNITIVE DAMAGES: MAXIMIZING YOUR CLIENT'S SUCCESS OR MINIMIZING
YOUR CLIENT'S EXPOSURE
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

EFFECTIVE DIRECT AND CROSS EXAMINAITON
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

STRATEGIC TIPS FOR SUCCESSFULLY PROPOUNDING & OPPOSING WRITTEN
DISCOVERY
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

CACI: CALIFORNIA'S NEW CIVIL JURY INSTRUCTIONS
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

ADVERSARIAL PROCEEDINGS IN ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCIES
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY - PANEL OF CREDITORS COMMITTEE MEMBERS
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

EXPERT WITNESS ADMISSIBILITY IN MOLD CASES
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

INTRODUCTION TO CLASS ACTIONS AND LARGE RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

NON-TRADITIONAL DEFENDANTS IN ASBESTOS LITIGATION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

PAXIL LITIGATION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS INVOLVING BAYCOL
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

SELECTION OF MOLD LITIGATION EXPERTS: WHO YOU NEED ON YOUR TEAM
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

SHOULD I FILE A CLASS ACTION?
LawCommerce.Com / Law Education Institute
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

THE EFFECTS OF ASBESTOS ON THE PULMONARY SYSTEM
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

THE STATE OF ASBESTOS LITIGATION: JUDICIAL PANEL DISCUSSION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

TRYING AN ASBESTOS CASE
LawCommerce.Com
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

THE IMPACT OF LORILLAR ON STATE AND LOCAL REGULATION OF TOBACCO
SALES AND ADVERSTISING
American Bar Association
Contact: 800-285-2221; abacle@abanet.org

________________________________________________________________
The Meetings, Conferences and Seminars column appears in the
Class Action Reporter each Wednesday. Submissions via e-mail to
carconf@beard.com are encouraged.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

DHB INDUSTRIES: Chitwood Harley Files Securities Suit in E.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Chitwood Harley Harnes, LLP, initiated a lawsuit
seeking class action status in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of all persons
(the "Class") who purchased the securities of DHB Industries,
Inc., (Amex: DHB) ("DHB" or the "Company") during the period
April 21, 2004 and August 29, 2005, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). The Defendants are DHB Industries, Inc., David H.
Brooks, Sandra Hatfield, Cary L. Chasin, Jerome Krantz, Barry
Berkman, Gary Nadelman and Dawn Schlegel.

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, DHB violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
SEC Rule 10b-5. The Complaint alleges that defendants' Class
Period positive representations regarding DHB's fast-growing
business, disseminated in press release and SEC filings, were
materially false and misleading because they failed to disclose
that a material portion of the Company's bulletproof vests
contained a material amount of Zylon fibers whose effectiveness
at stopping bullets degraded over time. By the beginning of the
Class Period, the Complaint alleges, defendants knew, or
recklessly disregarded, that vests containing Zylon could
potentially fail to stop bullets because of fiber degradation,
and that serious concerns about their use in body armor was
growing in the law enforcement community. Defendants, however,
failed to warn investors of the palpable and substantial risk
that its Zylon products posed to the Company's business. The
Complaint charges, inter alia, that:

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

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

     (3) 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) DHB lacked adequate internal controls and, therefore,
         failed to determine the true financial impact of
         withdrawal of any of its products.

During the Class Period, defendants sold millions of dollars
worth of stock in the Company, despite knowledge of the
foregoing.

On August 30, 2005, the truth began to emerge. 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 Lauren S. Antonino, Esq. or Katie
King, Esq. of Chitwood Harley Harnes, LLP, Phone: 1-888-873-3999
ext. 6888 or 1-888-873-3999 ext. 6826, E-mail:
lantonino@chitwoodlaw.com or kking@chitwoodlaw.com.


DHB INDUSTRIES: Wechsler Harwood Lodges Securities Suit in NY
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Wechsler Harwood, LLP, initiated a Federal
Securities fraud class action suit on behalf of all purchasers
of the common stock of DHB Industries, Inc. ("DHB" or the
"Company") (AMEX:DHB) acquiring the stock between April 29, 2004
and August 29, 2005, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period").

The action, entitled, Cohutt v. DHB Industries, Inc., et al.,
Case No. (not yet assigned), is pending in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York, and names
as defendants, the Company, its Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer, David H. Brooks, its Chief Financial Officer, Principal
Accounting Officer, Treasurer and Secretary, Dawn Marie
Schlegel, its Chief Operating Officer, Sandra Hatfield, and the
following directors: Cary Lawrence Chasin, Jerome Krantz, Barry
Berkman is and has been a director of the Company since February
2003. Defendant Berkman and Gary Nadelman.

The Complaint charges defendants with violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder. More specifically, the complaint
alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants' positive
representations regarding DHB's fast-growing business,
disseminated in press releases and SEC filings, were materially
false and misleading because they failed to disclose that a
material portion of the Company's bulletproof vests contained a
material amount of Zylon fibers whose effectiveness at stopping
bullets degraded over time. By the beginning of the Class
Period, defendants knew, or recklessly disregarded, that vests
containing Zylon could potentially fail to stop bullets because
of fiber degradation, and that serious concerns about their use
in body armor was growing in the law enforcement community.
Defendant, however, failed to warn investors of the palpable and
substantial risk that its Zylon products posed to the Company's
business.

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

On August 30, 2005, before the open of ordinary trading, DHB
issued a press release announcing that it stopped using Zylon in
its body armor after the National Institute of Justice revoked
its certification of Zylon-containing body armor. In addition,
the Company announced that it would replace all Zylon vests in
the field. This replacement program would result in an estimated
$60 million charge in the third quarter of 2005. On this news,
the price of DHB common stock fell by 23 percent in one day,
from $6.66 per share on August 29, 2005 to $5.10 per share on
August 30, 2005, on unusually heavy trading volume. DHB's tock
price continued to decline, falling to $4.58 by the close of
August 31, 2005. The insiders who sold their shares during the
Class Period, at the average price of $19.51 per share, avoided
tremendous losses.

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


GENERAL MOTORS: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP, initiated
a class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired $1-2/3 par value common stock (the "common
stock") and/or debt securities of the General Motors Corporation
("GM" or the "Company") (NYSE: GM) between February 25, 2002 and
March 16, 2005 inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue
remedies under the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act")
and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The complaint alleges, inter alia, that defendants issued or
caused to be issued materially false and misleading statements
to the investing public with respect to the Company's financial
performance and condition during the relevant time. In addition,
during the fourth quarter of 2004 and the first quarter of 2005,
defendants, with knowledge or reckless disregard of facts then
in their possession, disseminated materially false and
misleading projections, lacking in reasonable basis, with
respect to GM's first-quarter and year 2005 revenues, earnings
and cash flow.

During the Class Period, when the Company's debt ratings were
materially inflated by defendants' materially false and
misleading statements and omissions, defendants caused GM to
issue more than $18 billion in debt securities. When the true
facts finally began to come out at the end of the Class Period,
the price of GM stock, which had closed at $32.71 on March 15,
2005, declined by $4.57 per share, or 14%, to close at $28.14
per share on March 16, 2005. The prices of the Company's debt
securities also declined in the market.

The action, numbered 05-CV-8088, is pending before the Honorable
Richard M. Berman in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against defendants GM; GM's
wholly-owned subsidiary, General Motors Acceptance Corporation
("GMAC"); Peter R. Bible (GM's Chief Accounting Officer); Walter
G. Borst (GM's Treasurer); John M. Devine (GM's CFO and Vice
Chairman); and G. Richard Wagoner Jr. (GM's CEO and Chairman).

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


MANNATECH INC.: Glancy Binkow Schedules Lead Plaintiff Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP, which is
representing shareholders of Mannatech, Inc., states that there
are only 28 days remaining to move to be a lead plaintiff in the
shareholder lawsuit. All persons and institutions who purchased
securities of Mannatech, Inc. ("Mannatech" or the "Company")
(Nasdaq:MTEX) between August 10, 2004 and May 8, 2005, inclusive
(the "Class Period"), may move the Court not later than October
17, 2005, to serve as lead plaintiff; however, you must meet
certain legal requirements.

The Complaint charges Mannatech and Samuel L. Caster with
violations of federal securities laws. Plaintiff claims
defendants issued false or misleading statements concerning the
Company's business and operations, which caused Mannatech's
stock price to become artificially inflated, inflicting damages
on investors. Mannatech operates in the field of
"glyconutrients" and designs and develops proprietary
nutritional supplements, topical products and weight management
products, sold primarily by purportedly independent sales
associates and members through a network-marketing system --
commonly known as "multilevel marketing." The Complaint alleges
Mannatech failed to adequately supervise and/or monitor the
conduct of its associates, including those who maintain websites
that prominently display misleading testimonials and/or falsely
suggest that Mannatech products are effective in the treatment
and prevention of certain specific diseases. The Complaint
alleges that, unbeknownst to public investors, the true facts
which defendants knew and/or recklessly disregarded and failed
to disclose to the investing public during the Class Period,
included:

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

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

     (3) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' statements
         with respect to Mannatech's operations, performance and
         prospects were lacking in any reasonable basis when
         made.

On May 9, 2005, an article published in Barron's revealed the
misleading nature of claims made on certain Mannatech
associates' websites. This news shocked the market, causing the
price of Mannatech shares to plummet more than 26 percent in one
day, thereby damaging investors. The next day, May 10, 2005,
Mannatech shares fell an additional 19 percent as a result of
this news.

For more details, contact Lionel Z. Glancy or Michael Goldberg
of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP, Phone: (310) 201-9150 or
(888) 773-9224, E-mail: info@glancylaw.com, Web site:
http://www.glancylaw.com.


PATTERSON COMPANIES: Glancy Binkow Sets Lead Plaintiff Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP, which is
representing shareholders of Patterson Companies, Inc. stated
that interested parties have only up to October 10, 2005 to move
to be a lead plaintiff in the shareholder lawsuit. The suit is
on behalf of all persons and institutions that purchased
securities of Patterson Companies, Inc. ("Patterson" or the
"Company") (Nasdaq:PDCO) between February 24, 2005 and May 25,
2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

Filed in the in the United States District Court for the
District of Minnesota, the Complaint charges Patterson and
certain of the Company's executive officers with violations of
federal securities laws. Patterson distributes dental,
companion-pet veterinary and rehabilitation supplies, and
offers, among other things, consumable dental supplies,
infection control products and dental accessories for dentists
and other healthcare professionals. The Complaint alleges
defendants' Class Period representations concerning Patterson's
operations and performance were materially false and misleading
when made for the following reasons:

     (1) demand for the Company's dental products, consumable
         dental supplies and printed office products had
         significantly declined;

     (2) due to a decline in overall sales, Patterson had
         offered incentives to its dental segment personnel to
         push sales, which resulted in higher expenses for the
         Company;

     (3) the Company's Canadian dental operations were
         experiencing a steep decline in equipment sales caused
         by severe operational difficulties within the dental
         supply division;

     (4) the Company experienced difficulties in integrating its
         multiple recent acquisitions; and

     (5) as a consequence of the foregoing, defendants' positive
         statements concerning Patterson's growth and progress
         were lacking in any reasonable basis when made.

On May 26, 2005, the Company reported that Patterson had missed
its fourth quarter 2005 earnings projections, and that it would
need to dramatically reduce its expectations for the first
quarter of 2006. This news shocked the market, causing the price
of Patterson shares to fall $7.50 per share, or 14.16 percent,
to close on May 26, 2005 at $45.46 per share.

For more details, contact Lionel Z. Glancy or Michael Goldberg
of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP, Phone: (310) 201-9150 or
(888) 773-9224, E-mail: info@glancylaw.com, Web site:
http://www.glancylaw.com.


UBS-AG: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Suit Over UBS Mutual Funds
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Stull, Stull & Brody initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against UBS-AG (NYSE: UBS) and its
affiliated entities ("UBS"), on behalf of those who purchased
UBS mutual funds from UBS between May 1, 2000 and April 30,
2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies
under the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") and the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The UBS mutual funds and their respective trading symbols are as
follows:

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

The action is pending in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York against defendant UBS and its
affiliated entities. 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 funds that participated in the
UBS revenue sharing program (collectively, Shelf Space Funds)
that provided financial incentives and rewards to UBS and its
personnel based on sales. The complaint alleges that defendants'
undisclosed sales practices created an insurmountable conflict
of interest by providing substantial monetary incentives to sell
Shelf-Space Funds to their clients, even though such investments
were not in the clients' best interest. UBS' failure to disclose
the incentives constituted violations of federal securities
laws.

The action also includes a subclass of people 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 Tzivia Brody, Esq. of Stull, Stull &
Brody, Phone: 1-800-337-4983, Fax: 212-490-2022, E-mail:
SSBNY@aol.com, Web site: http://www.ssbny.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  * * *