CAR_Public/050922.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Thursday, September 22, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 188

                            Headlines

ACACIA MORTGAGE: Court Says 1991 Law Applies to Cell Phone Spam
ARIZONA: Motion Argues Against AIMS Exemption For Some Students
BED BATH: SEC Files Insider Trading Charges V. Stanford Cohen
BROADVISION INC.: Shareholders Launch Stock Fraud Lawsuits in CA
BUSINESS OBJECTS: CA Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit

CALPINE CORPORATION: Trial For CA Securities Suit Set Nov. 2005
CALPINE CORPORATION: CA Fraud Suit Conference Set January 2006
CALPINE CORPORATION: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Amended ERISA Suit
CALPINE ENERGY: Enters Settlement Discussions For Overtime Suit
CALPINE ENERGY: Court Upholds Energy Antitrust Suit Dismissal

CANADA: Families Launch Suit to Stop Closure of Mental Center
CITY AUTO INC.: IL Attorney General Launches Consumer Fraud Suit  
CRAY INC.: Shareholders File Securities Fraud Suits in W.D. WA
FLEMING COMPANIES: SEC Files Securities Fraud Suit V. 5 Officers
GOOGLE INC.: Authors Guild Launches Copy Infringement Suit in NY

HEALTH NET: Trial in ERISA Violations Suit Set This Month in NJ
HEALTH NET: FL Court Holds Managed Care Lawsuit Fairness Hearing
HENRY FORD: Ordered to Pay $2.1M to Settle Discrimination Suit
INVESTORS FINANCIAL: Shareholders Launch Fraud Suit in MA Court
MASSACHUSETTS: Lerach Coughlin Files V. Funeral Home Operators

MCLEODUSA INC.: IA Court Refuses To Dismiss Securities Lawsuit
MERCK & CO.: 150 Puerto Ricans to Join Vioxx Consumer Lawsuit
MERCK & CO.: Madison County Vioxx Case up For Case Management
MERIX CORPORATION: Court Dismisses Stock Suit Without Prejudice
MITSUBISHI FUSO: Recalls 301 2004 Trucks Due to Crash Hazard   

MITSUBISHI FUSO: Recalls 4,981 Trucks Due to Improper Routing   
MITSUBISHI MOTORS: Recalls 2,901 2005 Vehicles For Crash Hazard   
NEOPHARM INC.: Discovery Proceeds in IL Securities Fraud Lawsuit
PALM INC.: CA Consumer Suit Filed Over Faulty Treo Smartphones
PEMSTAR INC.: Discovery Proceeds in Securities Suit in MN Court

PENNSYLVANIA: Deal Forces State Officials to Comply with IDEA
SIEBEL SYSTEMS: CA Complaints Seek to Block Siebel-Oracle Deal
SOUTH KOREA: Four of Ten Companies Insured V. Suits, Survey Says
TRANSACTION SYSTEMS: Discovery Proceeds in NE Securities Lawsuit
TRIPOS INC.: MO Court Yet To Rule On Securities Suit Dismissal

UNITED STATES: CALA Says Lawsuit Abuse Compromises Health Care
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Plaintiffs Appeal CA Lawsuit Dismissal
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Argentine Unit Faces Antitrust Probe
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Permax Product Liability Lawsuits
VIRGINIA: Tobacco Growers Launch Suit Over USDA's Payment Method

WAVE SYSTEMS: Plaintiff Files Consolidated Securities Suit in MA
WFS FINANCIAL: CA Court OKs Settlement of Shareholder Fraud Suit

                 New Securities Fraud Cases

ARBINET-THEXCHANGE: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Suit in NJ
IMMUCOR INC.: Lasky & Rifkind Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in GA
ISOLAGEN INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in TX
RENAISSANCERE HOLDINGS: Scott + Scott Sets Plaintiff Deadline
TXU CORPORATION: Law Firms Commence Securities Fraud Suit in TX


                            *********


ACACIA MORTGAGE: Court Says 1991 Law Applies to Cell Phone Spam
---------------------------------------------------------------
A three-judge panel of an Arizona appellate court ruled that a
1991 federal law's ban against using auto dialers to call cell
phones applies to sending e-mail text messages with unsolicited
advertisements, a technology not in vogue when the law was
enacted, The Associated Press reports.

The unanimous ruling by the court upholds a trial judge's
pretrial ruling in favor of a man who had sued a mortgage
company in 2001 after it sent two unsolicited text messages to
his cell phone. L. Joffe claimed that the calls by Acacia
Mortgage Corporation violated the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act of 1991.

In its defense, the Company argued that it only sent an e-mail
and did not "call" Mr. Joffe's cell phone. However, the Court of
Appeals said that that was an incomplete description of what the
company did when it used e-mail to indirectly connect to Mr.
Joffe's cell phone via his service provider's e-mail system.
Writing on behalf of the panel, Judge Patricia K. Norris,
pointed out, "Even though Acacia used an attenuated method to
dial a cell phone telephone number, it nevertheless did so."  
The Company also argued that the 1991 law did not apply to cell
phone text messaging and that Congress first restricted use of
that technology in a 2003 law against unsolicited commercial e-
mail known as "spam" that was sent to wireless devices. On that
argument the Court of Appeals though pointed out that Congress
wrote the 1991 law in a way that anticipated advances in
automatic telephone dialing technology.

The Court of Appeals rejected the Company's argument that the
1991 law was an infringement on the company's First Amendment
rights to free speech. The law's prohibition on use of auto
dialers to call cell phones was a narrowly drawn restriction
that did not hinge on content, according to the ruling.  When
the Company filed its appeal, the case was awaiting a ruling by
the trial judge on the man's motion to make the case a class
action lawsuit on behalf of 90,000 other cell-phone users.

Attorneys for both parties did not immediately return calls by
The Associated Press for comment on the ruling and the status of
the case.


ARIZONA: Motion Argues Against AIMS Exemption For Some Students
---------------------------------------------------------------
The state of Arizona recently filed a motion in a case over how
the state's schools teach English to foreign-speaking students,
which includes a response to an attempt to exempt such students
from passing the AIMS test to graduate high school, The Arizona
Capitol Times reports.

Tim Hogan, executive director of Arizona Center for Law in the
Public Interest and attorney to the plaintiffs in the class
action Flores vs. State of Arizona suit previously asked the
federal judge in the case to exempt students learning English
from the looming requirement that high school seniors pass the
AIMS (Arizona's Instrument to Measure Standards) test in order
to graduate. Mr. Hogan argued that its unfair to require English
language learners to pass the AIMS test to graduate when they've
been denied equal educational opportunities guaranteed to them
under federal law. He also accuses the state of violating the
federal Equal Education Opportunity Act, an earlier Class Action
Reporter story (July 27, 2005) reports.

The AIMS graduation requirement begins in 2006 with students
becoming seniors this fall. However, a law passed by the
Legislature this spring is expected to allow small numbers of
students who don't pass the test to still graduate by getting
extra points through good grades on required courses, an earlier
Class Action Reporter story (July 27, 2005) reports.

The motion was filed as part of the 1992 Flores lawsuit, in
which a federal court ruled in 2000 that the state was not
adequately funding public school programs to teach English to
students who spoke another language.  However, in its response
to Mr. Hogan's motion, the state argues that the courts rejected
a nearly identical request five years ago. The states cited that
in a January 2000 order, the court said the plaintiffs failed to
present evidence to make a prima facie case. In the lengthy
finding of fact, the court found that the evidence presented by
Mr. Hogan to demonstrate whether the AIMS test disparately
impacts the students was "of little use to the court for the
purpose of establishing whether minority students fail
standardized tests because of their race, national origin,
limited English proficiency, because they attend schools in low
valuation districts, for some other socio-economic reason, or
for some combination of all these factors."

In his most recent AIMS motion, Mr. Hogan argues that the
situation is different now than it was in 1999, when he first
sought to exempt students from AIMS, because "Arizona is
approaching the first year in which passing the AIMS test will
be a requirement for graduation from high school for all
students."

The state counters in its response that that was also the case
six years ago, when the court previously heard the issue and
cited that at the time, the State Board of Education had
intended to implement the test as a graduation requirement in
the 2000-2001 school year.

Aside from ruling against the plaintiffs with regard to the AIMS
issue, the January 2000 court ruling also found the state was in
violation of the federal EEOA. The latest AIMS motion
essentially argues that, since the state is violating that
federal law, the students should be allowed to graduate without
passing an exam.

The state responded by calling the motion "bootstrapping," and
pointing out that the "argument leads to absurd results, well
outside the bounds of logic and basic jurisprudence." Also, the
state argues that, if the court finds in favor of the plaintiffs
concerning the AIMS test, then the state could not impose any
graduation requirements on the students, including the minimum
number of credits completed.

Additionally, the states argues that the plaintiffs' request
would also create, rather than eliminate, disparate treatment
and raise at least two equal protection issues. First, the state
would be treating the students differently than other students
without the necessary evidence to support such a distinction.
Second, the court could only exempt Nogales Unified School
District students, which is the scope of the original class
action suit, from the test. Although the scope of the class is
not limited regarding rectifying the EEOA violation because
funding formulas apply to all state school districts,
application of the AIMS test as a graduation requirement is a
different animal, the state argues.

When the court rejected the AIMS request in 2000, it did so
because the plaintiffs did not provide data specific to the
Nogales school district, instead relying on an expert witness
who testified that minority students in Phoenix Union High
School District fail standardized tests far more than their
Anglo counterparts. The states thus wrote in its response,
"Plaintiffs cannot redefine the class at this point, which means
this court could not exempt students statewide from the AIMS
test."

Mr. Hogan told The Arizona Capitol Times that he will be filing
a reply to the state's response by September 19, and that the
state will have a chance to respond to that before the judge
makes a ruling.


BED BATH: SEC Files Insider Trading Charges V. Stanford Cohen
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed an insider trading
complaint against Stanford Cohen, 63, a resident of Marlton,
N.J., in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania alleging that in 2001 and 2002 Mr.
Cohen illegally purchased, and tipped others to purchase, the
securities of Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc. after learning material
nonpublic information about Bed Bath & Beyond's positive
earnings and revenues.  Without admitting or denying the
allegations in the complaint, Mr. Cohen consented to the entry
of a Final Judgment, subject to the court's approval, in which
he is permanently enjoined from further violations of the
antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws and ordered
to pay disgorgement of his and his tippees' trading profits,
plus prejudgment interest, and a one time civil penalty, all
totaling $138,800.
     
The Commission's complaint alleges that prior to Bed Bath &
Beyond's positive earnings announcements on September 25, 2001,
April 3, 2002, June 20, 2002, and December 18, 2002, Mr. Cohen
received nonpublic earnings and revenue information from a Bed
Bath & Beyond employee with whom he had a relationship of trust
and confidence (the Employee).  The Employee is an accountant at
Bed Bath & Beyond who had access to Bed Bath & Beyond's earnings
and revenue information prior to its public dissemination.  On
the basis of the information he received from the Employee, Mr.
Cohen effected unlawful trades in his own brokerage accounts,
his wife's account, his business' accounts, and his business
partner's account prior to these public announcements.  Further
relying on that information, Mr. Cohen tipped a friend,
relatives, and his broker who also purchased Bed Bath & Beyond
stock prior to the public dissemination of the earnings
information.
     
The Commission's complaint further alleges that the market
reacted to Bed Bath & Beyond's earnings announcements on
September 25, 2001, April 3, 2002, June 20, 2002, and December
18, 2002.  The price of Bed Bath & Beyond stock rose 10%, 7%, 5%
and 4.5%, respectively, from the close of trading on the days
before the announcements to the close of trading on the days
after the announcements.  Mr. Cohen and his friend, relatives,
broker, and a client of his broker, collectively profited by
$63,795, by selling the Bed Bath & Beyond stock that they bought
prior to the earnings announcements after the announcements at
higher prices than what they paid for the stock.
     
The Commission's complaint alleges that Mr. Cohen's purchases
and tips to purchase Bed Bath & Beyond stock prior to the public
announcements violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The suit is styled, SEC
v. Stanford Cohen, Civil Action No. 05-CV-4976, E.D.Pa. (LR-
19383).


BROADVISION INC.: Shareholders Launch Stock Fraud Lawsuits in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
BroadVision, Inc. faces four class actions, each filed by an
alleged holder of shares of the Company's common stock in
California Superior Court for the county of San Mateo. These
complaints are captioned:

     (1) Gary Goberville, et al., vs. Pehong Chen, et al., Civ
         448490,

     (2) Cookie Schwartz, et al., vs. BroadVision, Inc., et al,
         Civ 448516,

     (3) Leon Kotovich, et al., vs. BroadVision, Inc., et al,  
         Civ 448518 and

     (4) Anthony Noblett, et al., vs. BroadVision, Inc., et al,
         Civ 448519

Each claim names the Company and its directors as defendants,
and each alleges that the director defendants violated their
fiduciary duties to stockholders by, among other things, failing
to maximize the Company's value and ignoring, or failing to
adequately protect against, certain purported conflicts of
interest. Each complaint seeks, among other things, injunctive
relief and damages in an unspecified amount.


BUSINESS OBJECTS: CA Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California granted Business Objects S.A.'s motion to dismiss the
consolidated securities class action filed against it and
certain of its current and former officers and directors.

Between June 2 and July 1, 2004, four purported class action
complaints were filed, alleging violations of the Exchange Act,
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  The plaintiffs seek to
represent a putative class of investors in the Company's
American Depositary Shares (ADSs) who purchased ADSs between
April 23, 2003 and May 5, 2004.

A consolidated amended complaint has been filed.  The complaints
generally alleged that, during that Class Period, the Company
and the individual defendants made false or misleading
statements in press releases and SEC filings regarding, among
other things, the Company's acquisition of Crystal Decisions,
its Enterprise 6 product and its forecasts and financial results
for the three months ended March 31, 2004.

The suits are styled:

     (1) Rosenbaum Partners LP v. Business Objects S. A. et al.,
         3:04-cv-02863-MJJ, under Judge Martin J. Jenkins,

     (2) Judkins et al v. Business Objects S. A. et al., 5:04-
         cv-03103-JW, under Judge James Ware

     (3) City of Pontiac Policemen and Firemen Retirement System
         v. Business Objects S.A. et al., 3:04-cv-02401-MJJ,
         under Judge Martin J. Jenkins,

     (4) Campagnuola v. Business Objects S.A., et al, 5:04-cv-
         03085-JW, under Judge James Ware

The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

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

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

   (iii) Geller Rudman, PLLC, 197 South Federal Highway, Suite
         200, Boca Raton, FL, 33432, Phone: 561.750.3000, Fax:
         888.262.3131, E-mail: info@geller-rudman.com

    (iv) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins (Los
         Angeles), 355 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 4170, Los Angeles,
         CA, 90071, Phone: 213.617.9007, E-mail: 213.617.9185,
         E-mail: info@lerachlaw.com

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

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

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


CALPINE CORPORATION: Trial For CA Securities Suit Set Nov. 2005
---------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the consolidated securities class action filed against
Calpine Corporation and certain of its employees, officers and
directors is set for November 7,2005 in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California.

Beginning on March 11, 2002, fifteen securities class action
complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.  All of these actions were
ultimately assigned to Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong, and Judge
Armstrong ordered the actions consolidated for all purposes on
August 16, 2002, as "In re Calpine Corp. Securities Litigation,
Master File No. C 02-1200 SBA."  There is currently only one
claim remaining from the consolidated actions: a claim for
violation of Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933.  The
Court has dismissed all of the claims brought under Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 with prejudice.

On October 17, 2003, plaintiffs filed their third amended
complaint (TAC), which alleges violations of Section 11 of the
Securities Act by the Company, Peter Cartwright, Ann B. Curtis
and Charles B. Clark, Jr.  The suit alleges that the
registration statement and prospectuses for the Company's 2011
Notes contained materially false or misleading statements about
the factors that caused the power shortages in California in
2000-2001 and the resulting increase in wholesale energy prices.
The suit alleges that the true but undisclosed cause of the
energy crisis is that the Company and other power producers were
engaging in physical withholding of electricity.

In discovery, plaintiff has argued that the suit is not based
solely on allegedly concealed physical withholding, but instead
is based on alleged undisclosed market manipulation in the form
of physical withholding, economic withholding, and trading
strategies.  The suit defines the potential class to include all
purchasers of the Notes pursuant to the registration statement
and prospectuses on or before January 27, 2003.  The Court has
not yet certified the class, although class certification
hearing was held on May 3, 2005.

On April 15, 2004, The Policemen and Firemen Retirement
System of the City of Detroit (the "Detroit Fund") filed a
request to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the case.  The
Court granted the Detroit Fund's request for appointment as lead
plaintiff on May 7, 2004.  The Court also approved the Detroit
Fund's choice of Kohn, Swift & Graf, P.C. (Philadelphia) as lead
counsel for the class.

At the Court's invitation, defendants subsequently moved for
summary judgment on grounds that the Section 11 claim was barred
by the statute of limitations. On November 2, 2004, the Court
denied the motion on grounds that defendants had not established
as a matter of law that plaintiff was on notice of the alleged
misstatement prior to January 27, 2002, one year before
plaintiff first alleged that the Company had misrepresented the
causes of the energy crisis.

On June 10, 2005, the Court held a hearing on the motion for
class certification, and denied the motion without prejudice.  
Lead plaintiff asked for, and received, leave to file a brief on
June 24, 2005 to attempt to demonstrate why a class should be
certified, and what its parameters should be. Defendant
responded to that brief on July 8, 2005. The parties are
awaiting Judge Armstrong's ruling.  The Court has set a November
7, 2005 trial date. Fact discovery was closed August 1, 2005.  

The suit is styled "In re Calpine Corp. Securities Litigation,
Master File No. C 02-1200 SBA" filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California under
Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong.  Representing lead plaintiff The
Policemen and Firemen Retirement System of the City of Detroit
is Joseph C. Kohn of Kohn Swift & Graf P.C., One South Broad
Street, Suite 2100 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Phone: 215-238-1700.  
Representing the Company is D. Anthony Rodriguez of Morrison &
Foerster LLP, 425 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94105-2482
Phone: (415) 268-6685 Fax: (415) 268-7522 E-mail:
drodriguez@mofo.com.


CALPINE CORPORATION: CA Fraud Suit Conference Set January 2006
--------------------------------------------------------------
The California Superior Court for Santa Clara County held a case
management conference for the class action filed against Calpine
Corporation on July 5,2005.  The suit is styled "Hawaii
Structural Ironworkers Pension Fund v. Calpine, et al."

This case is a Section 11 case brought as a class action on
behalf of purchasers in the Company's April, 2002 stock
offering. This case was filed in San Diego County Superior Court
on March 11, 2003, but defendants won a motion to transfer the
case to Santa Clara County.  The suit also names as defendants:

     (1) Peter Cartwright, its Chairman, President and Chief
         Executive Officer,

     (2) Ann B. Curtis, director

     (3) John Wilson,

     (4) Kenneth Derr,

     (5) George Stathakis,

     (6) Credit Suisse First Boston (CSFB),

     (7) Banc of America Securities,

     (8) Deutsche Bank Securities, and

     (9) Goldman, Sachs & Co.

Plaintiff is the Hawaii Structural Ironworkers Pension Trust
Fund.  The Hawaii Fund alleges that the prospectus and
registration statement for the April 2002 offering had false or
misleading statements regarding:

     (i) the Company's actual financial results for 2000 and
          2001;

    (ii) its projected financial results for 2002;

   (iii) Mr. Cartwright's agreement not to sell or purchase
         shares within 90 days of the offering; and

    (iv) the Company's alleged involvement in "wash trades."

The core allegation of the complaint is that a March 2003
restatement (concerning two sales-leaseback transactions)
revealed that the Company had misrepresented its financial
results in the prospectus/registration statement for the April
2002 offering.

There is no discovery cut off date or trial date in this action.
The next scheduled court hearing will be a case management
conference on January 10,2006, at which time the court may set a
discovery deadline and trial date.


CALPINE CORPORATION: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Amended ERISA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Calpine Corporation asked the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California to dismiss the amended
consolidated class action filed against it, alleging violations
of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

On April 17, 2003, James Phelps filed a complaint, styled
"Phelps v. Calpine Corporation, et al., alleging claims under
ERISA.  On May 19, 2003, Lenette Poor-Herena filed a nearly
identical class action complaint in the Northern District.  The
parties agreed to have both of the ERISA actions assigned to
Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong.  On August 20, 2003, pursuant to
an agreement between the parties, Judge Armstrong ordered that
the two ERISA actions be consolidated under the caption, "In re
Calpine Corporation ERISA Litig., Master File No. C 03-1685
SBA."  Plaintiff James Phelps filed a consolidated ERISA
complaint on January 20, 2004.  Ms. Poor-Herena is not
identified as a plaintiff in the Consolidated Complaint.

The Consolidated Complaint defines the class as all participants
in, and beneficiaries of, the Calpine Corporation Retirement
Savings Plan (the "Plan") for whose accounts investments were
made in Company stock during the period from January 5, 2001 to
the present. The Consolidated Complaint names as defendants the
Company, the members of its Board of Directors, the Plan's
Advisory Committee and its members (Kati Miller, Lisa
Bodensteiner, Rick Barraza, Tom Glymph, Patrick Price, Trevor
Thor, Bob McCaffrey, and Bryan Bertacchi), signatories of the
Plan's Annual Return/ Report of Employee Benefit Plan Forms 5500
for 2001 and 2002 (Pamela J. Norley and Marybeth Kramer-Johnson,
respectively), an employee of a consulting firm hired by the
Plan (Scott Farris), and unidentified fiduciary defendants.

The Consolidated Complaint alleges that defendants breached
their fiduciary duties involving the Plan, in violation of
ERISA, by misrepresenting the Company's actual financial results
and earnings projections, failing to disclose certain
transactions between the Company and Enron that allegedly
inflated revenues, failing to disclose that the shortage of
power in California during 2000-2001 was due to withholding of
capacity by certain power companies, failing to investigate
whether the Company's common stock was an appropriate investment
for the Plan, and failing to take appropriate actions to prevent
losses to the Plan.  In addition, the consolidated ERISA
complaint alleges that certain of the individual defendants
suffered from conflicts of interest due to their sales of
Company stock during the class period.

Defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint. At a
February 11, 2005 hearing, Judge Armstrong granted the motion
and dismissed three of the four claims with prejudice.  The
fourth claim was dismissed with leave to amend. This claim was
based, in part, on the same statements that are at issue in the
Section 11 bond class action. Plan participants did not receive
the prospectus supplements that are at issue in the Section 11
bond class action, but plaintiffs' counsel told Judge Armstrong
that these statements appeared in documents that were given to
Plan participants. Relying on assurances by plaintiffs' counsel
that misstatements about the California energy crisis appeared
in documents that were given to Plan participants (or that were
incorporated by reference into documents given to participants),
the Court granted leave to re-plead this claim.

Plaintiff filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint on June 3,
2005.  The Consolidated Amended Complaint names as defendants
Calpine Corporation and the members of the Advisory Committee
for the Plan. Defendants have filed motions to dismiss the
Consolidated Amended Complaint.  

The suit is styled "In re Calpine Corporation ERISA Litig.,
Master File No. C 03-1685 SBA," filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, under
Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong.  Representing the Company is
Robert L. McKague of Morrison & Foerster LLP, 755 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, CA 94304 Phone: 650/813-5835 Fax: 650-494-0792 E-
mail: rmckague@mofo.com.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Edward W. Ciolko, F. Andre Delfi, and Joseph H.
         Meltzer, Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 280 King of Prussia
         Radnor, PA 19087 Phone: 610-667-7706 Fax: 610-667-7056
         E-mail: jmeltzer@sbclasslaw.com;

     (2) Robert S. Green and Robert A. Jigarjian, Green Welling
         LLP, 235 Pine Street 15th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104
         Phone: 415/477-6700 Fax: 415-477-6710 E-mail:
         CAND.USCOURTS@CLASSCOUNSEL.COM


CALPINE ENERGY: Enters Settlement Discussions For Overtime Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Calpine Corporation has entered preliminary settlement
discussions for the class action filed in the Santa Clara County
Superior Court in California, styled "Hulsey, et al. v. Calpine
Corporation."

On September 20, 2004, Virgil D. Hulsey, Jr. (a current
employee) and Ray Wesley (a former employee) filed a class
action wage and hour lawsuit against the Company and certain of
its affiliates.  The complaint alleges that the purported class
members were entitled to overtime pay and the Company failed to
pay the purported class members at legally required overtime
rates.  

The Company filed an answer on January 7, 2005, denying
plaintiffs' claims.  The parties are currently engaged in
settlement discussions as an alternative to litigation.


CALPINE ENERGY: Court Upholds Energy Antitrust Suit Dismissal
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the
dismissal of the class action filed against Calpine Energy
Services, Inc. and other energy traders and energy companies,
alleging violations of the California Business & Professions
Code Section 17200.

The lead case is T&E Pastorino Nursery v. Duke Energy Trading
and Marketing, L.L.C., et al.  This purported class action
complaint filed in May 2002 alleges that defendants exercised
market power and manipulated prices in violation of California
Business & Professions Code.  The suit seeks injunctive relief,
restitution, and attorneys' fees.  The Company also has been
named in eight other similar complaints for violations of
Section 17200.  All eight cases were removed from the various
state courts in which they were originally filed to the United
States District Court in California for pretrial proceedings
with other cases in which the Company is not named as a
defendant.  

The Company considers the allegations to be without merit, and
filed a motion to dismiss on August 28, 2003.  The court granted
the motion, and plaintiffs have appealed.  The Ninth Circuit has
issued a decision affirming the dismissal of the Pastorino group
of cases.  The Plaintiffs did not attempt to appeal the Ninth
Circuit's ruling to the Supreme Court so the matter is resolved.

Prior to the motion to dismiss being granted, one of the
actions, captioned Millar v. Allegheny Energy Supply Co., LLP,
et al., was remanded to state superior court of Alameda County,
California. On January 12, 2004, the Company was added as a
defendant in Millar.  This action includes similar allegations
to the other Section 17200 cases, but also seeks rescission of
the long-term power contracts with the California Department of
Water Resources.  Upon motion from another newly added
defendant, Millar was recently removed to federal court, but has
now been remanded back to State Superior Court for handling.  
Hearings on multiple demurrers are to be held on September 7,
2005.  The Company considers the allegations to be without
merit, and has filed a demurrer.


CANADA: Families Launch Suit to Stop Closure of Mental Center
-------------------------------------------------------------
Three families launched a class action lawsuit against the
Ontario government in a bid to forestall the closure of the
Huronia Regional Center, a home for the mentally disabled, The
Canadian Press reports.  Named as the defendants are the
government of Ontario, Social Services Minister Sandra Pupatello
and the center's administrator.

Located in Orillia, Ontario and housing more than 300 residents,
Huronia is one of three homes in the province scheduled to close
by March 2009.  In a news conference at the legislature, Doug
Elliott, one of the attorneys representing the families said,
"We believe the minister lacks the statutory authority to close
Huronia and that the process undertaken has breached her legal
duties to the residents and violated their charter rights." He
added, "Efforts to dissuade the minister from her zealous
pursuit of this misguided approach have failed. She is
determined to put timetables ahead of the best interests of the
residents."

Additionally, the families are also seeking an injunction to
stop the transfer of any residents without approval of the
relatives and the court. Mr. Elliot pointed out, "We want to
ensure that the only transfers that will proceed are those that
do not put the residents at risk, and are in the best interests
of the residents, and not in the best interests of meeting the
government's timetable," adding that, "We will be seeking an
early date for an interim injunction from the Superior Court of
Justice to stop the imminent transfers."

Ms. Pupatello told The Canadian Press that she could not discuss
the specifics of the lawsuit, but noted that the remaining 1,000
patients being transferred from three group homes will receive
services tailored to their needs, such as physiotherapy, in
their own homes. She explains, "We have our very best staff
people who are working to develop individualized plans so that
we meet the needs of every individual." She pointed out,
"Governments of every political stripe have been leaning towards
community integration since the mid-1980s."

A judge must certify the proposed class action, whose claims
have yet been proven in court, before it can proceed.


CITY AUTO INC.: IL Attorney General Launches Consumer Fraud Suit  
----------------------------------------------------------------
Attorney General Lisa Madigan filed a lawsuit against a suburban
Chicago auto auction company and its president, manager and two
customer service managers for allegedly deceiving consumers
through advertisements and sales tactics that falsely describe
the quality of the cars being auctioned and the price of the
cars.

Ms. Madigan's lawsuit, which was filed in Cook County Circuit
Court, names as defendants City Auto, Inc., doing business as
City Auto Auction of Chicago, Inc., Yousef Abdeh, company
president, Adnan Abdeh, manager, and customer service managers
Waleed Shakir and Khal Shakir. The defendants are charged with
numerous violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Business Practices Act.

The attorney general alleges in her lawsuit that three of the
defendants - Adnan Abdeh, Waleed Shakir and Khal Shakir - have
engaged in such actions previously and enlisted Yousef Abdeh,
Adnan's father, as the company's president to circumvent
previous court orders prohibiting them from participating in the
auto auction business.

"City Auto Auction sells junk cars but it's only after a bid has
been placed and a down payment has been made that the consumer
finds out the true value of these automobiles," Ms. Madigan
said. "We allege that these repeat offenders knew what they were
doing and intentionally lured consumers into their auto auction
scam."

City Auto Auction opened for business in November 2003, and
holds auto auctions every Wednesday evening and Saturday
afternoon on its lot, located at 400 E. 147th St., in Harvey.
Ms. Madigan's Consumer Protection Division has received 39
complaints against City Auto Auction from consumers in Cook,
DuPage, Kankakee and Will Counties as well as out-of-state
consumers from LaPorte, Indiana, and Milwaukee and Dodgeville,
Wisconsin.

According to consumer complaints, City Auto Auction did not
allow consumers to perform a complete inspection of the vehicles
prior to the auction. The consumers were given only an hour
before the auction started to visually inspect vehicles. In most
cases, consumers reported that the cars were locked during this
inspection period, prohibiting the consumers from checking
inside the car or under the hood. The defendants actively
concealed numerous defects on vehicles sold to consumers, the
attorney general's lawsuit states.

One complaint filed with Ms. Madigan's office alleges the
consumer bought a car from City Auto Auction and drove it home
from the auction. When the consumer rolled down the car's window
to pay for a toll, the window crashed down in the door and
shattered. The consumer then saw that a wooden wedge had been
inserted to hold the window up. Another consumer reported to Ms.
Madigan's office that after he bought a car, he found that the
driver's door had been welded shut.

Ms. Madigan's lawsuit alleges that City Auto Auction
misrepresented the price of their cars in their print and
broadcast advertisements, including a 30-minute infomercial
broadcast on CLTV, by comparing the price of their cars to
prices listed in the Kelley Blue Book. City Auto Auction
allegedly falsely claimed their prices are lower than the prices
listed in the Blue Book without making an accurate comparison.

While City Auto Auction allegedly implies in its advertisements
and fliers that consumers will pay what they bid, the consumers
actually have to pay a higher amount than the bid because City
Auto Auction adds an "auction fee" and "buyer's premium." The
auction fee is an additional $99 and the buyer's premium is a
sliding scale percentage, ranging from 10 percent to more than
24 percent.

In numerous complaints received by Ms. Madigan's office,
consumers state that they believed they had purchased a vehicle
for a certain price but, upon remitting the balance in full,
discovered from the defendants that they owed more money.
However, the consumers were already locked into their purchases
because the defendants required a 25 percent non-refundable cash
deposit immediately following each winning bid.

In addition, some consumers have paid such deposits and then
ultimately have received vehicles that were different from the
ones that they purchased.

Finally, City Auto Auction allegedly sold vehicle service
contracts to consumers without disclosing the mileage of the
vehicles. In one case reported to Ms. Madigan's office, a
consumer purchased a vehicle service contract from the
defendants, but the contract was of no value whatsoever because
the mileage on the vehicle exceeded the contract's limits. Ms.
Madigan's lawsuit also alleges that City Auto Auction
deceptively sold vehicle service contracts to consumers even
though the cars were sold "AS IS," effectively disclaiming the
warranty.

Ms. Madigan alleges in the lawsuit that Adnan Abdeh, Waleed
Shakir and Khal Shakir all have been the subject of previous
lawsuits filed by the Illinois Attorney General's office for
allegations of unlawful acts in the auto auction business. Adnan
Abdeh was named in a lawsuit filed in 2000 against the Illinois
State Public Auto Auction. In that case, the court entered an
order against Mr. Abdeh prohibiting him from continuing certain
business practices found to be unlawful under the Consumer Fraud
Act. In 1994, Waleed Shakir and Khal Shakir were named in a
lawsuit against Sibley Auto Sales. The court entered a final
order and consent decree in that case, prohibiting Waleed Shakir
and Khal Shakir from participating in any retail motor vehicle
sales or lease business.

Ms. Madigan's lawsuit asks the court to prohibit the defendants
from engaging in the business of auctioning and selling
automobiles and from further violating Illinois' consumer
protection laws. The lawsuit also seeks a civil penalty of
$50,000 and additional penalties of $50,000 per violation found
to be committed with the intent to defraud. Additionally, the
suit seeks $10,000 per violation committed against a person 65
or older. Finally, Ms. Madigan's lawsuit asks the court to order
the defendants to pay restitution to consumers.

Assistant Attorney General Henry Ford, Jr., and Senior Assistant
Attorney General Harvey Levin are handling the case for Ms.
Madigan's Consumer Protection Division.


CRAY INC.: Shareholders File Securities Fraud Suits in W.D. WA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cray, Inc. and certain of its current and former officers face
several securities class actions filed in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Washington, on behalf
of purchasers of its securities during periods that begin as
early as October 23, 2002, and end as recently as May 12, 2005.

The complaints allege federal securities law violations in
connection with the issuance of various reports, press releases
and in some cases, statements in investor telephone conference
calls. Each complaint requests certification of the class
described therein and seeks unspecified damages, interest,
attorneys' fees, costs and other relief.  The Company expects
that these cases will be consolidated into a single action.


FLEMING COMPANIES: SEC Files Securities Fraud Suit V. 5 Officers
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission sued five former
executives of now-bankrupt grocery wholesaler Fleming Companies,
Inc. of Lewisville, Texas, for securities fraud and other
violations arising from material earnings overstatements during
late 2001 and the first half of 2002. The defendants are Mark
David Shapiro, former chief accounting officer and senior vice
president of finance and operations; Philip B. Murphy, former
vice president of the wholesale procurement department; Thomas
Gerald Dahlen, Jr., president of the Fleming Retail Group;
Albert M. Abbood, a vice president in the wholesale procurement
department; and James H. Thatcher, a vice president in the
Fleming Retail Group.

The Commission alleges that defendants obtained misleading
letters from Fleming's vendors to justify improperly   
accelerating earnings recognition of the vendors' up-front
payments, in violation of GAAP. The Commission also alleges that
defendants Mr. Shapiro and Mr. Murphy inflated earnings by
executing large quarter-end inventory purchases solely to
generate discounts that Fleming could immediately recognize to
increase earnings.   Fleming failed to disclose to investors
that these purchases were part of an intentional scheme to
inflate earnings.  In addition, Mr. Shapiro improperly inflated
Fleming's 2001 earnings by releasing extensive accounting
reserves, without proper justification or disclosure.  Finally,
Mr. Dahlen helped Fleming report misleading same store sales
numbers by repeatedly changing the methodology behind the
calculation, without disclosure to the public, and by approving
financing transactions disguised as sales.
          
The Commission seeks against Mr. Shapiro, Mr. Murphy, Mr. Abbood
and Mr. Thatcher permanent injunctions, disgorgement of ill-
gotten gains plus prejudgment interest, officer and director
bars and civil penalties.   Mr. Dahlen has agreed to settle the
Commission's charges by consenting to a permanent injunction
enjoining him from aiding and abetting violations of Sections
10(b), 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A) and 13(b)(2)(B) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rules 10b-5, 12b-20, 13a-1 and 13a-13
thereunder. Mr. Dahlen also has agreed to pay a civil penalty of
$100,000. The suit is styled, SEC v. Mark David Shapiro, Philip
B. Murphy, Thomas Gerald Dahlen, Jr., Albert M. Abbood and James
H. Thatcher, Civil Action No. 4:05-CV-0364, USDC, EDTX, Sherman
Division (LR- 19380).


GOOGLE INC.: Authors Guild Launches Copy Infringement Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Authors Guild and a Lincoln biographer, a children's book
author, and a former Poet Laureate of the United States are
filing a class action suit today in federal court in Manhattan
against Google over its unauthorized scanning and copying of
books through its Google Library program. The suit alleges that
the $90 billion search engine and advertising juggernaut is
engaging in massive copyright infringement at the expense of the
rights of individual writers.

Through its Library program, Google is reproducing works still
under the protection of copyright as well as public domain works
from the collection of the University of Michigan's library.

"This is a plain and brazen violation of copyright law," said
Authors Guild president Nick Taylor. "It's not up to Google or
anyone other than the authors, the rightful owners of these
copyrights, to decide whether and how their works will be
copied."

The individual plaintiffs are Herbert Mitgang, a former New York
Times editorial writer and the author of numerous fiction and
nonfiction books, including "The Fiery Trial: A Life of
Lincoln," published by Viking Press; Betty Miles, the award-
winning author of many works for children and young adults, and
the co-author of "Just Think," published by Alfred A. Knopf; and
Daniel Hoffman, the author and editor of many volumes of poetry,
translation, and literary criticism, including "Barbarous
Knowledge: Myth in the Poetry of Yeats, Graves and Muir" and
"Striking the Stones," both published by Oxford University
Press. Mr. Hoffman was the 1973-74 Poet Laureate of the United
States.

Google has agreements with four academic libraries -- those of
Stanford, Harvard, Oxford and the University of Michigan -- and
with the New York Public Library to create digital copies of
substantial parts of their collections and to make those
collections available for searching online. Google has not
sought the approval of the authors of these works for this
program.

The complaint seeks damages and an injunction to halt further
infringements.

The Authors Guild, the largest society of published writers in
the United States, represents more than 8,000 authors.

For more details, contact Paul Aiken of Authors Guild, Phone:
+1-212-563-5904, E-mail: staff@authorsguild.org, Web site:
http://www.authorsguild.org.  


HEALTH NET: Trial in ERISA Violations Suit Set This Month in NJ
---------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the class actions filed against Health Net, Inc. is set
to begin late this month in the United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey.  The two suits are styled "McCoy v.
Health Net, Inc. et al.," and "Wachtel v. Guardian Life
Insurance Co."

These two lawsuits are styled as class actions and were filed on
behalf of a class of subscribers in a number of the Company's
large and small employer group plans in the Northeast. The
Wachtel complaint was filed on July 30, 2001 and the McCoy
complaint was filed on April 23, 2003.  These two cases have
been consolidated for purposes of trial.  Plaintiffs allege that
Health Net, Inc., Health Net of the Northeast, Inc. and Health
Net of New Jersey, Inc. violated the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA) in connection with various practices
related to the reimbursement of claims for services provided by
out-of-network providers.  Plaintiffs seek relief in the form of
payment of benefits, disgorgement, injunctive and other
equitable relief, and attorneys' fees.

During 2001 and 2002, the parties filed and argued various
motions and engaged in limited discovery. On April 23, 2003,
plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification seeking to
certify a nationwide class of Health Net subscribers.  The
Company opposed that motion and the Court took it under
submission.  On June 12, 2003, the Company filed a motion to
dismiss the case, which was ultimately denied.

On August 8, 2003, plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint,
adding the Company as a defendant and expanding the alleged
violations. On December 22, 2003, plaintiffs filed a motion for
summary judgment on the issue of whether the Company utilized an
outdated database for calculating out-of-network reimbursements,
which we opposed. That motion, and various other motions seeking
injunctive relief and to narrow the issues in this case, are
still pending.

On August 5, 2004, the District Court granted plaintiffs' motion
for class certification and issued an Order certifying a
nationwide class of Health Net subscribers who received medical
services or supplies from an out-of-network provider and to whom
Defendants paid less than the providers' actual charge during
the period from 1997 to 2004. On August 23, 2004, the Company
requested permission from the Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit to appeal the District Court's class certification Order
pursuant to Rule 23(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  
On November 14, 2004, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
granted the Company's motion to appeal. On March 4, 2005, the
Third Circuit issued a briefing and scheduling order for the
Company's appeal.  Briefing on the appeal was completed on June
15, 2005. Although oral argument has not yet been scheduled, the
Third Circuit recently inquired as to counsels' availability to
present oral argument in October 2005.

On December 13, 2004, Plaintiffs filed a motion to further amend
their complaint to add additional class representatives. On
January 12, 2005, the District Court denied the plaintiffs'
motion because it lacked jurisdiction as a result of the
Company's pending appeal of its class certification order.
Thereafter, the District Court certified to the Third Circuit
that, if it were vested with jurisdiction, it would grant the
motion to amend the complaint to add the additional class
representatives, and would be inclined to amend its prior class
certification order. Plaintiffs and defendants have submitted
letter briefs to the Third Circuit concerning the effect, if
any, of the District Court's certification; the Third Circuit
has not yet ruled on this issue.

On January 13, 2005, counsel for the plaintiffs in the
McCoy/Wachtel actions filed a separate class action against
Health Net, Inc., Health Net of the Northeast, Inc., Health Net
of New York, Inc., Health Net Life Insurance Co., and Health Net
of California, Inc. captioned "Sharman v. Health Net, Inc., 05-
CV-00301 (FSH)(PS)" (United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey) on behalf of the same parties who would
have been added to the McCoy/Wachtel action as additional class
representatives had the District Court granted the plaintiffs'
motion for leave to amend their complaint in that action. This
new action contains similar allegations to those made by the
plaintiffs in the McCoy/Wachtel action.

Discovery has concluded and a final pre-trial order was
submitted to the District Court on June 28, 2005. Both sides
have moved for summary judgment, and briefing on those motions
has been completed. In their summary judgment briefing,
plaintiffs also sought appointment of a monitor to oversee
certain of our claims payment practices which plaintiffs allege
are wrongful.  The Company opposed the appointment of a monitor.
Notwithstanding its pending Third Circuit appeal of the District
Court's class certification order, a trial date was set for
September 19, 2005.  On July 29, 2005, the Company filed a
motion in the District Court to stay the District Court action
and the trial in light of the pending Third Circuit appeal. On
August 4, 2005, the District Court denied the motion to stay and
instead adjourned the September 19 trial date and ordered that
the parties be prepared to go to trial on seven days' notice as
of September 19, 2005.  Plaintiffs have not specified the amount
of damages being sought in this litigation, but they have
indicated that they believe the amount of damages recoverable
could be substantial.


The suits are styled "WACHTEL, et al v. GUARDIAN LIFE INSURA, et
al., case no. 2:01-cv-04183-FSH-PS," and "MCCOY v. HEALTH NET,
INC., et al., case no. 2:03-cv-01801-FSH-PS," filed in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey,
under Faith S. Hochberg.  Representing the defendants are Herve
Gouraige of EPSTEIN BECKER & GREEN, P.C., Two Gateway Center,
12th Floor, Newark, NJ 07102-5003, Phone: 973 642-1900, E-mail:
hgouraige@ebglaw.com; and Heather V. Taylor, MCCARTER & ENGLISH,
Four Gateway Center, 100 Mulberry Street, Newark NJ 07102,
Phone: 973-639-5905, E-mail: htaylor@mccarter.com.  Representing
the plaintiffs is Barry M. Epstein of SILLS CUMMIS EPSTEIN &
GROSS PC, One Riverfront Plaza, Newark, NJ 07102-5400, Phone:
(973) 643-7000, E-mail: bepstein@sillscummis.com.


HEALTH NET: FL Court Holds Managed Care Lawsuit Fairness Hearing
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida held final fairness hearing for the settlement proposed
by Health Net, Inc. for "Shane v. Humana," the lead physician
provider track class action in the "In re Managed Care
Litigation, MDL 1334" on September 19,2005.

Various class action lawsuits against managed care companies,
including the Company, were transferred by the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation (JPMDL) to the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Florida for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings in "In re Managed Care
Litigation, MDL 1334."  This proceeding was divided into two
tracks, the subscriber track, comprising actions brought on
behalf of health plan members, and the provider track,
comprising actions brought on behalf of health care providers.

On September 19, 2003, the Court dismissed the final subscriber
track action involving the Company, styled "The State of
Connecticut v. Physicians Health Services of Connecticut, Inc."
(filed in the District of Connecticut on September 7, 2000), on
grounds that the State of Connecticut lacked standing to bring
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) claims
asserted in the complaint. That same day, the Court ordered that
the subscriber track be closed "in light of the dismissal of all
cases in the Subscriber Track."  The State of Connecticut
appealed the dismissal order to the Eleventh Circuit Court of
Appeals and on September 10, 2004, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed
the District Court's dismissal. On February 22, 2005, the
Supreme Court of the United States denied plaintiffs' Petition
for Writ of Certiorari on the Eleventh Circuit's decision to
uphold the dismissal.

The provider track includes the following actions involving the
Company:

     (1) Shane v. Humana, Inc., et al. (including Health Net,
         Inc.) (filed in the Southern District of Florida on
         August 17, 2000 as an amendment to a suit filed in the
         Western District of Kentucky),

     (2) California Medical Association v. Blue Cross of
         California, Inc., PacifiCare Health Systems, Inc.,
         PacifiCare Operations, Inc. and Foundation Health
         Systems, Inc. (filed in the Northern District of
         California in May 2000),

     (3) Klay v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America, et al.
         (including Foundation Health Systems, Inc.) (filed in
         the Southern District of Florida on February 22, 2001
         as an amendment to a case filed in the Northern
         District of California),

     (4) Connecticut State Medical Society v. Physicians Health
         Services of Connecticut, Inc. (filed in Connecticut
         state court on February 14, 2001),

     (5) Lynch v. Physicians Health Services of Connecticut,
         Inc. (filed in Connecticut state court on February 14,
         2001),

     (6) Sutter v. Health Net of the Northeast, Inc. (filed in
         New Jersey state court on April 26, 2002),

     (7) Medical Society of New Jersey v. Health Net, Inc., et
         al., (filed in New Jersey state court on May 8, 2002),

     (8) Knecht v. Cigna, et al. (including Health Net, Inc.)
         (filed in the District of Oregon in May 2003),

     (9) Solomon v. Cigna, et. al. (including Health Net, Inc.)
         (filed in the Southern District of Florida on October
         17, 2003),

    (10) Ashton v. Health Net, Inc., et al. (filed in the
         Southern District of Florida on January 20, 2004), and

    (11) Freiberg v. UnitedHealthcare, Inc., et al. (including
         Health Net, Inc.) (filed in the Southern District of
         Florida on February 24, 2004)

These actions allege that the defendants, including the Company,
systematically underpaid providers for medical services to
members, have delayed payments to providers, imposed unfair
contracting terms on providers, and negotiated capitation
payments inadequate to cover the costs of the health care
services provided and assert claims under the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), ERISA, and
several state common law doctrines and statutes.  "Shane," the
lead physician provider track action, asserts claims on behalf
of physicians and seeks certification of a nationwide class.  
The "Knecht," "Solomon," "Ashton" and "Freiberg" cases all are
brought on behalf of health care providers other than physicians
and seek certification of a nationwide class of similarly
situated health care providers. Other than "Shane," all provider
track actions involving the Company have been stayed.

On May 3, 2005, the Company and the representatives of
approximately 900,000 physicians and state and other medical
societies announced that the Company had signed an agreement
settling "Shane," the lead physician provider track action. The
settlement agreement requires the Company to pay $40 million to
general settlement funds and an expected award of up to $20
million for plaintiffs' legal fees.

The settlement agreement also includes a commitment that we
institute a number of business practice changes. Among the
business practice changes the Company agreed to implement are:
enhanced disclosure of certain claims payment practices;
conforming claims-editing software to certain editing and
payment rules and standards; payment of electronically submitted
claims in 15 days (30 days for paper claims); use of a uniform
definition of "medical necessity" that includes reference to
generally accepted standards of medical practice and credible
scientific evidence published in peer-reviewed medical
literature; establish a billing dispute external review board to
afford prompt, independent resolution of billing disputes;
provide 90-day notice of changes in practices and policies and
implement various changes to standard form contracts; establish
an independent physician advisory committee; and, where
physicians are paid on a capitation basis, provide projected
cost and utilization information, provide periodic reporting and
not delay assignment to the capitated physician.

On May 10, 2005, the District Court issued an order granting its
preliminary approval of the settlement agreement and scheduled a
hearing for September 19, 2005 to address final approval. If
finally approved by the District Court, the Company anticipates
that the settlement agreement would result in the conclusion of
substantially all pending provider track cases filed on behalf
of physicians.


HENRY FORD: Ordered to Pay $2.1M to Settle Discrimination Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Henry Ford Hospital, which is one of Detroit's oldest and
largest medical institutions was ordered to pay $2.1 million to
settle two federal court employment discrimination class actions
involving several thousand employees in mostly entry-level jobs,
The Detroit Free Press reports.

Announced recently by the hospital and attorneys in the case,
the preliminary settlement is an attempt to settle complaints
filed by dozens of Ford Hospital employees dating back to 1998.

The settlement, before U.S. District Judge Avern Cohn, calls for
payments of $1.1 million, or about $350 each, to those in the
class, while the rest of the money will pay for career
development programs, mentoring, career counselors and diversity
training. It affects people employed at the Detroit hospital,
between July 10, 1998 and December 31, 2002. Physicians, nurses,
students and managers are not part of the class action though.

In a carefully worded statement jointly released by the hospital
and plaintiff's attorneys, Patricia Stamler and Don Gasiorek of
Southfield, and Dewey Rick Martin, of Detroit Nancy Schlicting,
Ford Health System Chief Executive Officer and President said,
"Settling this case.was the appropriate thing to do because we
wanted to move forward rather than spend a lot of time and
resources on expensive litigation." The statement added that
there was no finding that the hospital discriminated against
African American workers.


INVESTORS FINANCIAL: Shareholders Launch Fraud Suit in MA Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Investors Financial Services Corporation and five of its
officers are named as defendants in a purported class action
complaint filed on August 4, 2005 in the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts, Boston, Massachusetts.

Among other things, the complaint asserts that the defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 during the period October 15, 2003 until July 15, 2005.  
The allegations in the Complaint predominantly relate to the
Company's October 2004 restatement of its financial results, and
the Company's July 2005 revision of public guidance regarding
its future financial performance.  The complaint seeks
unspecified damages, interest and costs.


MASSACHUSETTS: Lerach Coughlin Files V. Funeral Home Operators
--------------------------------------------------------------
The national class action law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia
Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP, filed another suit in federal
court in Boston against more than a dozen New England funeral
homes and related businesses, along with the owners of the
closed Bayview Crematory. The suit, filed on behalf of an
additional nineteen plaintiffs, charges that the funeral home
operators knew or should have known that Bayview was commingling
bodies during cremation and mishandling the remains.

The prior complaint, filed on behalf of Lorraine Hunt, named
numerous defendants, including, American Society for Cremation,
American Society for Funeral Services, Inc., Haverhill, MA,
Commonwealth Funeral Service, Inc., Brighton, MA, Farrah Funeral
Home, Lawrence, MA, Keefe Funeral Home, Inc., Cambridge, MA,
Scatamacchia Funeral Home, Haverhill, MA, William F. Spencer
Funeral Services, South Boston, MA.

The new complaint, like the previous complaint filed in federal
court, alleges that thousands of New England families cannot be
sure that Bayview Crematory, a high-volume, low-price
crematorium, gave them back the correct ashes, because the
funeral homes allowed Bayview employees to pick up bodies in a
box truck, take them to the facility where multiple bodies were
cremated together, then return the remains with no certainty
that families would, as promised, receive the ashes of their
loved ones.

"Our continued investigation of the wrongdoing at Bayview and
the funeral homes that did business with Bayview, further
supports our claims that those funeral homes either knew, or
should have known, about Bayview's utter disregard for the
decedents under their care or the family members whose lives
would be shattered when the truth about Bayview was finally
revealed," said Samuel Rudman, a name partner with Lerach
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP, based in Melville,
NY.

In addition to naming nineteen new plaintiffs, the complaint
names several new defendants, including the Cremation Society of
Massachusetts and Stephen G. Scatamaccia, the President of
American Cremation Society, Inc. and the President of American
Society For Funeral Services, Inc., both located in Haverhill,
MA.

"The plaintiffs in this lawsuit are haunted by the horrible
things that have occurred at Bayview since they may never know
if they received the ashes of their loved ones," added Samuel
Rudman.

Bayview Crematory handled thousands of cremations a year from
funeral homes in Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Maine and Rhode
Island until it was closed down by state officials in February
2005. It had operated without a license for at least six years.

The suit alleges that Bayview contracted with funeral homes for
a $190 package deal, in which Bayview sent a truck to pick up
bodies, hauled them to Seabrook for cremation and then delivered
ashes back to the funeral homes. If funeral homes followed
standard industry practice, transporting the bodies themselves
and witnessing the cremation, it would cost as much as $265, the
complaint says.

New Hampshire officials shut down Bayview Crematory on Feb. 23,
2005. Police arrived there to obtain financial records and
discovered unlabeled urns filled with ashes, two bodies stuffed
into a single oven, a body rotting in a broken freezer and a
trash bin heaped with charred pacemakers, hip replacements and
prosthetics. During the summer, Derek Wallace and several
cohorts were arrested by the Massachusetts State Police and
criminal charges were brought against them in connection with
the wrongful conduct at Bayview Crematory.

For more details, contact Evan J. Kaufman, Esq., Phone:
631-367-7100, E-mail: ekaufman@lerachlaw.com Web Site:
http://www.lerachlaw.com.  


MCLEODUSA INC.: IA Court Refuses To Dismiss Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in the consolidated securities class action
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Iowa against McLeodUSA, Inc.'s officers, namely:

     (1) Former Chairman Clark E. McLeod,

     (2) President Stephen C. Gray (then also Chief Executive
         Officer),

     (3) Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Chris A. Davis
         (then Chief Operating and Financial Officer) and

     (4) former Chief Financial and Accounting Officer J. Lyle
         Patrick

The suit is styled "In Re McLeodUSA Incorporated Securities
Litigation, Civil Action No. C02-0001 (N.D. Iowa)."  The suit
alleged the defendants misled investors about the company's
financial performance and that the Company routinely backdated
contracts and booked non-existent orders to meet revenue
forecasts, according to an earlier Class Action Reporter story
(May 7,2003).

The Individual Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended
consolidated complaint in the Iowa Class Action, which was
denied by the district judge.  

The suit is styled "New Millenium Fund, et al v. McLeodUSA Inc,
et al., Case No. 1:02-cv-00001-MWB," filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Iowa, under Judge
Mark W. Bennett.  

Lawyers for the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Andrew L Barroway, Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, Three
         Bala Plaza East, Suite 400, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004,
         Phone: 610 667 7706, Fax: 667 7056

     (2) David L Phipps, Whitfield & Eddy, PLC, 317 Sixth Avenue
         Suite 1200, Des Moines, IA 50309-4110, Phone: 515 288        
         6041, fax: 246 1474, E-mail: phipps@whitfieldlaw.com

     (3) Peter C. Riley and Tom J. Riley, Tom Riley Law Firm,
         4040 First Avenue NE, PO Box 998, Cedar Rapids, IA
         52406-0998, Phone: 319 363 4040, fax: 363 9789, E-mail:
         peterr@trlf.com or rtom@trlf.com

     (4) Steven G Schulman of Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes &
         Lerach, LLP, One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY
         10119-0165, Phone: 212 594 5300 Fax: 868 1229

     (5) Joseph H Weiss, Weiss & Yourman, 551 Fifth Avenue, New
         York, NY 10176, Phone: 212 682 3025, Fax: 682 3010

Lawyers for the defendants are:

     (i) Kevin H Collins, Richard S. Fry, Diane Kutzko of
         Shuttleworth & Ingersoll, 115 Third Street, SE, PO Box
         2107 Suite 500, Cedar Rapids, IA 52406-2107, Phone: 319
         365 9461, Fax: 365 8443, E-mail:
         khc@shuttleworthlaw.com or rsf@shuttleworthlaw.com or
         dhk@shuttleworthlaw.com

    (ii) Samuel A. Gunsburg, David B. Hennes, Sherita M. Perry,
         Mark J. Stein, Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson
         LLP, One New York Plaza New York, NY 10004, Phone: 212
         859 8674, Fax: 212 859 8584, E-mail:
         David.Hennes@friedfrank.com or
         Sherita.Perry@friedfrank.com or steinma@ffhsj.com


MERCK & CO.: 150 Puerto Ricans to Join Vioxx Consumer Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Approximately 150 people in Puerto Rico will file lawsuits
against the maker of withdrawn painkiller Vioxx, according to
attorney Archie Lamb, a nationally recognized leader in national
healthcare and physician issues, The Associated Press reports.

Working with Consejo de Latinos Unidos (Council of United
Latinos), a consumer advocacy group advising former Vioxx users
in the island, Mr. Lamb told The Associated Press that the
plaintiffs will soon file their cases against Merck & Co. in
U.S. District Court and ask for class action status.

According to Mr. Lamb, the plaintiffs include relatives of 18
people who died, allegedly from heart complications related to
Vioxx use, while the others suffered heart attacks, strokes or
other heart ailments.

Whitehouse Station, New Jersey based Merck & Co. pulled the
popular pain reliever from the market on September 30, 2004,
after a study found it doubled patients' risks of heart attacks
and strokes after 18 months.

The advocacy group is evaluating the cases of hundreds more
people in the U.S. Caribbean territory who may file claims
before a September 29 deadline, according to Mr. Lamb. Puerto
Rican law requires consumers to file lawsuits within a year of
learning a product is flawed.

Mr. Lambs adds that among other complaints, the plaintiffs are
arguing Merck did not inform Puerto Ricans of the dangers of
Vioxx in Spanish. He pointed out that Merck had revised the
painkiller's warning label and prescribing information for
physicians in April 2002 to warn of possible side effects. But,
according a March report by Consejo de Latinos Unidos, those new
labels were published in English in Puerto Rico, even though
Spanish is the most common language spoken on the island.

Kent Garrell, a spokesman for Merck's defense team, told The
Associated Press that the Food and Drug Administration required
the labels to be in English. He added that the company would
fight the claims saying, "We intend to vigorously defend each of
these cases. Merck acted responsibly concerning Vioxx, from
researching the medicine to selling it and to finally
withdrawing it from the market place."

Currently, Merck faces more than 5,000 lawsuits filed in state
and federal courts by former Vioxx users alleging the medicine
harmed them.  The first trial ended last month when a Texas jury
stunned Merck with a $253 million liability verdict, which will
be slashed to about $26 million because Texas caps punitive
damages.  The Texas case involves, Texan Carol Ernst, who is
seeking compensation for the death of her husband Robert,
allegedly of arrhythmia, in 2001. Mr. Ernst, a produce manager
at a Wal-Mart near Fort Worth, who ran marathons and worked as a
personal trainer, took Vioxx for eight months to alleviate pain
in his hands until he died in his sleep, an earlier Class Action
Reporter story (July 27, 2005) reports.

Mrs. Ernst's lawsuit alleges that Merck & Co. knew of the
dangers of using Vioxx years before it recalled the drug. But,
the Company allegedly ignored those concerns in favor of
aggressive marketing for a multibillion-dollar seller. The case
was the first of 4,200 other suits that have been filed in the
United States and thousands more from other countries that are
being prepared to reach trial after the drug's withdrawal, an
earlier Class Action Reporter story (July 27, 2005) reports.


MERCK & CO.: Madison County Vioxx Case up For Case Management
-------------------------------------------------------------
One of the many pending Vioxx class action lawsuits filed in
Madison county that was launched by Earl Gori of Madison County
and Michael Elward of Wabash County, Indiana will be in court on
September 28, for a case management conference and Merck's
motion to transfer, The Madison County Record reports.

The conference, which is to be presided by Circuit Judge George
Mora, involves a case that was filed in November 10, 2004,
wherein each class plaintiff, represented by Christopher Byron
and Brian Kalb of Edwardsville, seeks up to $75,000.  Mr. Gori
and Mr. Elward allege that Merck's misrepresentations and
concealment of the true extent of health hazards of Vioxx
allowed them to charge prices for Vioxx that were far in excess
of the fair market value.

Vioxx was introduced in the United States in 1999. A Cyclo-
Oxygenase-2 (cox2) inhibitor, it was used to treat arthritis and
is in the class of drugs called NSAIDs (non-steroidal anti-
inflammatory). Other NSAID drugs include Ibuprofen, Celebrex and
Aleve.  Merck, which will be represented by Dan Ball of St.
Louis in the conference, pulled Vioxx from the market on
September 30, 2004, after a study confirmed that it increased
the risk of heart attack and stroke if taken for more than 18
months. Within days, the first of many class action lawsuits
were filed across the country against Merck & Co.

Mr. Gori and Mr. Elward's class action case involves all people
who purchased Vioxx during or after 1999 for personal, family,
or household purposes, who are residents of Illinois or Indiana.  
The complaint states that Mr. Gori purchased Vioxx July through
September 2004 in Staunton without knowledge of the facts
regarding the health risks of Vioxx allegedly concealed by
Merck. It also states that Mr. Elward purchased Vioxx from
December 2000 through May 2002, in Wabash County, Indiana.  Both
of them claim that because of Merck's failure to disclose the
health risks associated with Vioxx, they were both unable to
discover the acts until Merck withdrew the products from the
market in September.


MERIX CORPORATION: Court Dismisses Stock Suit Without Prejudice
---------------------------------------------------------------
Merix Corporation (Nasdaq: MERX) reports that the complaint in
the securities class action lawsuit, (In re Merix Corporation
Securities Litigation, U.S. District Court Case No. CV 04-826-
MO) which was filed against Merix and four of its officers has
been dismissed without prejudice to plaintiffs' right to refile.

The complaint, which was originally filed on June 17, 2004,
named Merix and four of its officers as defendants in a class
action lawsuit alleging violations of federal securities laws.
The Company vigorously defended itself and its officers with the
filing of a motion to dismiss in February 2005. The motion was
granted on September 15, 2005. In the event the plaintiffs
exercise their right to refile, the Company will continue to
vigorously defend itself and its officers.

Merix is a leading manufacturer of technologically advanced,
multilayer, rigid printed circuit boards for use in
sophisticated electronic equipment. Merix provides high-
performance materials, quick-turn prototype, pre-production and
volume board production to its customers. Principal markets
served by Merix include data communications and wireless
telecommunications, high-end computing, and test and measurement
end markets in the electronics industry. Additional corporate
information is available at www.merix.com.

For more details, contact Janie Brown of Merix Corporation,
Phone: 503-359-2653, Web site: http://www.merix.com.


MITSUBISHI FUSO: Recalls 301 2004 Trucks Due to Crash Hazard   
------------------------------------------------------------
Mitsubishi Fuso Truck of America, Inc., in cooperation with the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Office of
Defects Investigation (ODI) is voluntarily recalling about 301
units of 2004 FE640 and 2004 FH210 trucks due to crash hazard.
NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID Number: 05V411000.

According to the ODI, on certain trucks, the cylinder haed idler
gear bushing may have been improperly machined, causing
excessive stress on the cylinder head gear shaft. Continued
operation in this condition could cause the idler gear shaft
flange to break and generate abnormal engine noise and/or engine
leaks. In the worst case, the engine could stall and would not
restart, increasing the risk of a crash.  
  
As a remedy, dealers will measure the inside diameter of the
cylinder head idler gear bushing. If the bushing is out of
specification, dealers will replace the idle gear bushing, idler
gear shaft and idler gear assembly. The recall is expected to
begin during November 2005.

For more details, contact Mitsubishi Fuso, Phone: 1-856-467-4500
and NHTSA Auto Safety Hotline: 1-888-327-4236 or (TTY)
1-800-424-9153, Web site: http://www.safecar.gov.


MITSUBISHI FUSO: Recalls 4,981 Trucks Due to Improper Routing   
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mitsubishi Fuso Truck of America, Inc., in cooperation with the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Office of
Defects Investigation (ODI) is voluntarily recalling about 4,981
units of 2005 Fuso FE83D, 2005-06 Fuso FE84D, 2005-06 Fuso FE85D
and 2005-06 FUSO FG84D trucks due to improper routing. NHTSA
CAMPAIGN ID Number: 05V410000.

According to the ODI, on certain trucks, the door wiring harness
interferes with the turn signal and hazard lamp wiring harness
due to improper routing. Repeated opening and closing of the
doors could break the turn signal and hazard lamp wiring
harness, causing the lamps to become inoperative.

As a remedy, dealers will add protective tubing at the door
wiring harness grommet and install a protective cap on the turn
signal and hazard is expected to begin during November 2005.

For more details, contact Mitsubishi Fuso, Phone: 1-856-467-4500
and NHTSA Auto Safety Hotline: 1-888-327-4236 or (TTY)
1-800-424-9153, Web site: http://www.safecar.gov.


MITSUBISHI MOTORS: Recalls 2,901 2005 Vehicles For Crash Hazard   
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mitsubishi Motors North America, Inc. in cooperation with the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Office of
Defects Investigation (ODI) is voluntarily recalling about 2,901
units of 2005 Endeavor and 2005 Gallant passenger vehicles due
to crash hazard. NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID Number: 05V409000.

According to the ODI, on certain vehicles equipped with anti-
lock brakes, the brake master cylinder, which controls the fluid
pressure to the vehicle's brakes, may allow brake fluid to
bypass internally during stopping. This may result in a partial
loss of braking, increased stopping distances, and could lead to
vehicle crash.

As a remedy, dealers will replace the brake master cylinder. The
recall is expected to begin during October 2005.

For more details, contact Mitsubishi, Phone: 1-800-222-0037 and
NHTSA Auto Safety Hotline: 1-888-327-4236 or (TTY)
1-800-424-9153, Web site: http://www.safecar.gov.


NEOPHARM INC.: Discovery Proceeds in IL Securities Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in the consolidated securities class
action filed against Neopharm, Inc. in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division.  

The suit alleges various violations of the federal securities
laws in connection with the Company's public statements during
the period from October 31,2001 through April 19, 2002 as they
relate to the Company's LEP drug.  The original lawsuits also
named as individual defendants:

     (1) John N. Kapoor, Chairman of the Company,

     (2) James M. Hussey, President and CEO, and

     (3) Dr.Imran Ahmad, current Chief Scientific Officer and
         Senior Vice President of Research and Development

On November 4, 2002, the Company moved to have the complaint
dismissed.  The Company's motion to dismiss was granted in part
and denied in part in February 2003.  Dr. Kapoor was dismissed
from the lawsuit at that time.  In November 2004, the plaintiffs
filed a motion to amend and a motion for summary adjudication.  
The motion to amend seeks to again make Dr. Kapoor a defendant,
and realleges that certain pre-class period statements are
actionable. The Company opposed both motions.  No trial date has
been set and discovery is ongoing.


PALM INC.: CA Consumer Suit Filed Over Faulty Treo Smartphones
--------------------------------------------------------------
A new lawsuit is being brought against Palm, Inc. over defective
Treo 600 and Treo 650 smartphones, which claims that the Treos
fail at an unacceptably high rate, are inherently defective and
that Palm has mislead customers concerning the defects, The Palm
Infocenter reports.

The suit, which is styled, Palza v. Palm, was filed in the
Superior Court of California, in Santa Clara County. It was
brought on behalf of three Treo customers, but seeks to be
certified as a class action lawsuit so as to inclued all Treo
users.

Specifically, the claims that Palm made misrepresentations and
concealed information in the marketing, advertising, sale and
servicing of its Treo 600 and Treo 650 models. Additionally, it
claims that Palm has been aware for a substantial period of time
that the Treos were failing at a very high rate and Palm has not
warned its customers or tried to prevent them from suffering
system failures and data loss.

Some of the complaints include:

     (1) Extremely poor sound quality and buzzing which is heard
         by the recipients of telephone calls, which makes the
         Treo unusable and makes recipients believe that the
         Treo owner is in a very noisy place when making the
         phone call (not caused by telephone service provider).

     (2) Voice choppiness heard by the recipients of
         telephone calls which makes the Treo an extremely poor
         telephone (not caused by telephone service provider).

     (3) Speakerphone problems making the speakerphone unusable
         or seriously impaired.

     (4) Phone freezes and crashes often causing restarts and
         lost calls, which often require the use of a hard reset
         which loses all stored information (not caused by
         telephone service provider).

     (5) Replacement of defective Treo 600 phones with defective
         and/or "refurbished" Treo 600 phones - creating a cycle
         of defective product - whereby owners continue to
         receive defective products until either they tire of
         the process or their warranty runs out.

For more details, visit
http://www.techfirm.com/treocomplaint.pdf.

The suit is styled, Mario Palza, et al. V. Palm, Inc., aka
Palmone, Inc., et al., which is pending in the Superior Court
for the State of California, County of Santa Clara. Stan S.
Mallison, SBN 184191 and Hector R. Martinez, SBN 206336 of THE
LAW OFFICES OF MALLISON & MARTINEZ, 1042 Brown Avenue, Suite A
Lafayette, CA 94549, Phone: (925) 283-3842, Fax: (925) 283-3426;
and Ira P. Rothken, SBN 160029 of THE ROTHKEN LAW FIRM, 1050
Northgate Drive, Suite 520, San Rafael, CA 94903, Phone: (415)
924-4250, Fax: (415) 924-2905, are representing the Plaintiff/s.


PEMSTAR INC.: Discovery Proceeds in Securities Suit in MN Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in the consolidated securities class action
filed against PEMSTAR, Inc. in the United States District Court
for the District of Minnesota, styled "In re PEMSTAR Securities
Litigation."  The suit also names as defendants certain of the
Company's officers and directors.

The suit alleges violations of Section 10(b) and Section 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Sections 11 and 12 of
the Securities Act of 1933.  The lawsuit is a consolidation of
several lawsuits, the first of which was commenced in United
States District Court for the District of Minnesota on July 24,
2002.  The plaintiffs, several individual shareholders, allege,
in essence, that the defendants defrauded the shareholders by
making optimistic statements during a time when they should have
known that business prospects were less promising and allege
that the registration statement filed by the Company in
connection with a secondary offering contained false, material
misrepresentations.  An Amended Consolidated Complaint was filed
January 9, 2003.

The suit is styled "In re PEMSTAR, Inc. Securities Litigation,"
pending in the United States District Court in Minnesota.  The
plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

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

     (2) Mark McNair, 1919 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 800,
         Washington, DC, 20006, Phone: 703.273.3070, E-mail:
         wmmcnair@justice4investors.com

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

     (4) Rabin & Peckel LLP, 275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor, New
         York, NY, 10016, Phone: 212.682.1818, Fax:
         212.682.1892, E-mail: email@rabinlaw.com

     (5) Reinhardt, Wendorf & Blanchfield Attorneys at Law, E-
         1000 First National Bank Building, 332 Minnesota
         Street, St. Paul, MN, 55101, Phone: 800.465.1592, Fax:
         651.297.6543, E-mail: info@ralawfirm.com


PENNSYLVANIA: Deal Forces State Officials to Comply with IDEA
-------------------------------------------------------------
An agreement recently approved in U.S. District Court in
Philadelphia will make it easier for Pennsylvania families with
disabled children to mainstream their kids, The Pittsburgh Post-
Gazette reports.

According to court documents, the settlement gives more power to
the parents of disabled children and forces state officials to
make sure school districts comply with the federal Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).

Barbara Ransom, a lawyer for the Public Interest Law Center of
Philadelphia, which represented the plaintiffs in the 11-year-
old class action case, told The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, "We've
worked with parents whose children were systematically excluded
from the regular education environment just because of their
disabilities." She added, "Discrimination is bad no matter who
does it or who is affected. These children have been excluded
because of the prejudices associated with being different."

Court records show that the Public Interest Law Center
represented a class of 280,000 special education students in a
lawsuit with 12 named plaintiffs and 11 disabilities advocacy
organizations. The plaintiffs claimed that the state's school-
age students with physical, behavioral and development
disabilities are not given enough time in regular classrooms and
don't get appropriate instruction, with adjustments for their
disabilities, to help them learn.

Under the settlement, the state is required to set up a five-
year monitoring system, along with a parent-dominated advisory
board. The settlement also requires that school districts be
graded on how well they include disabled children in regular
classrooms with those with the worst records of including
disabled students being placed on a monitoring list. The state
will then help the failing districts improve and impose
penalties on those who don't. Additionally, the settlement
stipulates that the most severe penalties include losing state
funds and disciplinary action against school administrators.

Commenting on the settlement, Marsha Blanco, CEO of Achieva, a
South Side-based organization that advocates and provides
services for people with mental retardation told The Pittsburgh
Post-Gazette, "It should put school districts on notice that
they've got to be more serious and work harder to include all
children." She also added, "The segregation and isolation of
children in education will work against a child for the rest of
their life in all of their life pursuits."

Under the federal IDEA law passed in 1974, state public schools
are required to make sure disabled students spend as much time
with non-disabled students as possible and receive as much
academic instruction as possible. It covers mental retardation,
physical handicaps and autism.

The suit came about when the Carlisle Area School District in
Cumberland County refused to allow the parents of Lydia Gaskin,
who has Down syndrome, to place her in a regular kindergarten
classroom. Ms. Gaskin, now 21, graduated this year from high
school in Carlisle, having completed almost all of her education
in regular classes.

J. Kaye Cupples, executive director of support services for
Pittsburgh Public Schools told The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, "We
in the Pittsburgh Public Schools district have been doing this
for years," adding that, "As far as Ms. Gaskin is concerned, we
in Pittsburgh Public Schools are already ahead of the curve as
far as implementing whatever requirements come out from the
settlement."

As of the moment the there are 7,000 school-age students in
Pittsburgh Public Schools who are eligible for special education
services, all of whom fall under the requirements of the Gaskin
lawsuit. Pittsburgh's special education budget this year is
approximately $90 million.


SIEBEL SYSTEMS: CA Complaints Seek to Block Siebel-Oracle Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Siebel Systems Inc. (NASDAQ:SEBL) faces three purported class
action suits seek to block its sale to Oracle Corporation, The
San Francisco Business Times reports.

According to the company's filing, two of the complaints naming
Siebel were filed on September 12, the same day Redwood City-
based Oracle (NASDAQ: ORCL) said it would pay an estimated $5.85
billion for San Mateo-based Siebel. Both of these suits, which
were filed in San Mateo County Superior Court, claim that the
deal was timed to a low point in Siebel's stock price and that
the price was not high enough.  On the other hand the third
lawsuit was also filed in the San Mateo court, but alleges that
there should have been an open bidding process for Siebel and
that the price was too low.

Siebel stated in it filing that it believes the allegations are
without merit, but that its acquisition could be prevented or
delayed if any of the court actions succeed.


SOUTH KOREA: Four of Ten Companies Insured V. Suits, Survey Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Four out of ten listed companies have at least one insurance
policy against class action lawsuits, according to the Korea
Listed Companies Association (KLCA), The Korea Times reports.

The survey was an attempt by KCLA to find out how many of the
104 companies surveyed had bought an insurance policy against
class action suits.  The survey revealed that of the companies,
43.3 percent indicated that they had at least one policy and
another 43.3 percent replied they had no plan to buy one, while
the others were considering buying one.  With regard to the
listed companies that have the insurance, 20 percent of them
posted an average of $9.712 million (10 billion won) to $19.42
million (20 billion won) in insurance premiums while companies
that that pay more than that accounted for 15.5 percent.


TRANSACTION SYSTEMS: Discovery Proceeds in NE Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in the consolidated securities class
action filed against Transaction Systems Architects, Inc. and
certain individuals in the United States District Court for the
District of Nebraska.

In November 2002, two class action complaints were filed,
alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.
Pursuant to a Court order, the two complaints were consolidated
as "Desert Orchid Partners v. Transaction Systems Architects,
Inc., et al.," with Genesee County Employees' Retirement System
designated as the Lead Plaintiff.

The First Amended Consolidated suit, filed on June 30, 2003,
alleges that during the purported class period, the Company and
the named defendants misrepresented the Company's historical
financial condition, results of operations and its future
prospects, and failed to disclose facts that could have
indicated an impending decline in the Company's revenues.  The
Consolidated Complaint seeks unspecified damages, interest,
fees, costs and rescission.  The class period alleged in the
Consolidated Complaint is January 21, 1999 through November 18,
2002.  

The Company and the individual defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the Consolidated Complaint.  In response, on December
15, 2003, the Court dismissed, without prejudice, Gregory
Derkacht, the Company's President and Chief Executive Officer,
as a defendant, but denied the motion to dismiss with respect to
the remaining defendants, including the Company.  On February 6,
2004, the Court entered a mediation reference order requiring
the parties to mediate before a private mediator.  The parties
held a mediation session on March 18, 2004, which did not result
in a settlement of the matter.  On July 1, 2004, lead plaintiff
filed a motion for class certification wherein, for the first
time, lead plaintiff sought to add an additional class
representative, Roger M. Wally.  On August 20, 2004, defendants
filed their opposition to the motion. On March 22, 2005, the
Court issued an order certifying the class. Discovery is
continuing.

The suit is styled "Desert Orchid Partners v. Transaction
Systems Architects et al, case no. 8:02-cv-00553-JFB-TDT," filed
in the United States District Court in Nebraska, under Judge
Joseph F. Bataillon.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Gerald L. Friedrichsen of FITZGERALD, SCHORR LAW FIRM,
         13220 California Street, Suite 400, Omaha, NE 68154-
         5228, Phone: (402) 342-1000, Fax: (402) 342-1025,
         Email: gfriedrichsen@fitzlaw.com.

     (2) Louis Gottlieb of GOODKIND, LABATON LAW FIRM - NEW
         YORK, 100 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10017, Phone: (212)
         907-0872, Fax: (212) 883-7072, Email:
         lgottlieb@glrslaw.com

     (3) Marc I. Gross of POMERANTZ, HAUDEK LAW FIRM, 100 Park
         Avenue, 26th Floor, New York, NY 10017, Phone: (212)
         661-1100, Fax: (212) 661-8665, Email:
         migross@pomlaw.com  

     (4) David W. Rowe, KINSEY, RIDENOUR LAW FIRM, P.O. Box
         85778, Lincoln, NE 68501-5778, Phone: (402) 438-1313,
         Fax: (402) 438-1654, Email: drowe@krbklaw.com

     (5) Emily C. Komlossy, GOODKIND, LABATON LAW FIRM -
         FLORIDA, 2455 East Sunrise Boulevard, Suite 813, Fort
         Lauderdale, FL 33304, Phone: (954) 630-1000, Fax: (954)
         565-1312 Email: ekomlossy@glrslaw.com

     (6) Jonathan M. Plasse of GOODKIND, LABATON LAW FIRM -
         FLORIDA, 2455 East Sunrise Boulevard, Suite 813, Fort
         Lauderdale, FL 33304, Phone: (212) 907-0863, Fax: (212)
         883-7063 Email: jplasse@glrslaw.com

Lawyers for the defendants are Elizabeth L. Yingling and Joel
Held of BAKER, MCKENZIE LAW FIRM, 2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 2300
Dallas, TX 75201, Phone: (214) 978-3000, Fax: (214) 978-3099,
Email: elizabeth.l.yingling@bakernet.com or
joel.held@bakernet.com and Thomas J. Culhane of ERICKSON,
SEDERSTROM LAW FIRM, 10330 Regency Parkway Drive, Suite 100
Omaha, NE 68114, Phone: (402) 397-2200, Fax: (402) 390-7137,
Email: tculh@eslaw.com.


TRIPOS INC.: MO Court Yet To Rule On Securities Suit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court in St. Louis, Missouri has yet
to rule on Tripos, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the second amended
class action filed against it and two of its executive officers,
Dr. John P. McAlister and Mr. B. James Rubin, on behalf of
purchasers of the Company's common stock during the first half
of 2002.

The consolidated class action complaint alleged that statements
made by the Company in press releases and other public
disclosures contained materially false and misleading
information in violation of the federal securities laws.  The
suit, filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common
stock between February 9, 2000 and July 1, 2002, generally
alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants made false or
misleading statements of material fact about the Company's
prospects and failed to follow generally accepted accounting
principles in violation of the federal securities laws.  The
second amended complaint also names Ernst & Young LLP as a co-
defendant.  The amount of damages being sought is unspecified at
this time.  The Company and the individual defendants and Ernst
& Young filed motions to dismiss the second amended complaint.  
The amount of damages being sought is unspecified at this time.

The suit is styled "Montalvo v. Tripos, Inc., et al., case no.
4:03-cv-00995-SNL," filed in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri, under Judge Stephen N.
Limbaugh.  Representing the plaintiffs is Don R. Lolli of DYSART
AND TAYLOR, 4420 Madison Avenue, Suite 200, Kansas City, MO
64111, Phone: 816-931-2700, Fax: 816-931-7377, E-mail:
dlolli@dysarttaylor.com.  Representing the Company is Cheryl W.
Foung, Steven M. Schatz, Diane M. Walters and Lloyd Winawer,
WILSON AND SONSINI, 650 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA 94304-
1050, Phone: 650-493-9300, Fax: 650-565-5100, E-mail:
cfoung@wsgr.com, sschatz@wsgr.com, dwalters@wsgr.com,
lwinawer@wsgr.com.  


UNITED STATES: CALA Says Lawsuit Abuse Compromises Health Care
--------------------------------------------------------------
A new poll by the Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse (CALA) claims
that eight out of 10 Americans are wary of frivolous lawsuits,
The Washington Times reports.

According to the survey by the 165,000-member CALA through its
"Sick of Lawsuits," a public education campaign that equates
litigation with compromised health care, it was discovered that
79 percent of the respondents "believe advertising by personal-
injury lawyers encourages people to sue, even if they have not
been injured." The poll of 800 likely voters was taken on August
16-18.

CALA also cites a damaging array of research statistics
surrounding class action or personal lawsuits made against
pharmaceutical companies, obstetricians and medical-device
manufacturers, among others.

Among CALA's findings are that the American Medical Association
has identified 20 states now facing a "medical-liability
crisis," while $70 billion to $126 billion could be saved in
annual health care costs by limiting "unreasonable" jury awards.

According to Dr. Evelyn Tobias-Merrill, a Texas physician and
member of the CALA branch in Corpus Christi, "Americans
undoubtedly consider lawsuit abuse to be a significant barrier
to quality health care. These survey results make it painfully
clear that we need meaningful legislative reforms to protect our
health care from abuse." She thus added, "We hope Congress will
protect our health care system from unscrupulous personal-injury
lawyers and frivolous lawsuits before it's too late."

However, the California-based National Association of Personal
Injury Lawyers (NAPIL) takes exception to the idea that
litigation is a potential barrier to affordable heath care.

NAPIL spokesman David Sheehan argues, "I disagree with that
view. I think plaintiffs' rights are trampled each day because
they get sick and tired of fighting the big corporations." He
goes on to say, "Big corporations have huge resources and can
kill plaintiff lawyers in litigations. It happens every day.
Only when the wrong is so blatant can a plaintiff succeed, and
then they have to fight it in higher courts."

In addition, Mr. Sheehan added, "These are only efforts by big
corporations that want to change laws to their advantage, slowly
taking away the little that has been achieved in the way of
compensation through the courts."

Some research also suggested that the CALA claims of an
imperiled medical community are exaggerated with a report from
the Kaiser Family Foundation released in May indicating that the
total medical-malpractice payments increased by fewer than 2
percent annually from 1991 to 2003 when adjusted for medical
care inflation. In the same time period, the foundation points
out that the number of physicians rose from 623,378 in 1992 to
814,909 in 2003.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Plaintiffs Appeal CA Lawsuit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California has yet to rule on plaintiffs' appeal of the
dismissal of the consolidated securities class action filed
against Valeant Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and certain of its current
and former executive officers.

Since July 25, 2002, multiple class actions have been filed
against the Company and some of its current and former executive
officers alleging that the defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by issuing false and misleading
financial results to the market during different class periods
ranging from May 3, 2001 to July 10, 2002, thereby artificially
inflating the price of the Company's stock.  The lawsuits
generally claim that the Company issued false and misleading
statements regarding its earnings prospects and sales figures
(based upon "channel stuffing" allegations), its operations in
Russia, the marketing of Efudex, and the earnings and sales of
its Photonics division. The plaintiffs generally seek to recover
compensatory damages, including interest.

On June 24, 2004, the court dismissed the Second Amended
Complaint as to the channel stuffing claim.  The plaintiffs then
stipulated to a dismissal of all the claims against the Company.
The plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit seeking review of
the dismissal of the claims against the Company.  The plaintiffs
filed their opening brief in the Ninth Circuit on February 7,
2005. Although a schedule for deciding the appeal has not yet
been set by the court, the Company expects a ruling on this
matter by late fall 2005.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Argentine Unit Faces Antitrust Probe
-------------------------------------------------------------
Valeant Pharmaceuticals, Inc.'s Argentine subsidiary faces
allegations by the Argentine Antitrust Agency that it abused a
dominant market position in 1999 by increasing its price on
Mestinon in Argentina and not supplying the market for
approximately two months.

The agency informed the company of the charges in June 2004.  
The subsidiary filed documents with the agency offering an
explanation justifying its actions, but the agency has now
rejected the explanation. The agency is collecting evidence
prior to issuing a new decision. Argentinean law permits a fine
to be levied of up to $5,000,000 plus 20% of profits realized
due to the alleged wrongful conduct. Counsel in the matter
advises that the size of the transactions alleged to have
violated the law will unlikely draw the maximum penalty.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Permax Product Liability Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Valeant Pharmaceuticals, Inc. faces several product liability
cases as a result of its acquisition of Amarin Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., namely:

     (1) Debra Ann Blackstone v. Amarin Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
         Amarin International Company, Eli Lilly & Company,
         Health Net, Inc., Blue Shield of California, Inc.,
         Walgreen Co., Gaye Swenn, R.Ph., and John Lowhon, R.Ph.
         Case No. 017 201332 03, filed in the District Court of
         Tarrant County, Texas

     (2) Jerry G. Miller and Karren M. Miller v. Eli Lilly and
         Company, Elan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Valeant
         Pharmaceuticals International, Amarin Corporation PLC,
         Amarin Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Reasor's, Inc., Reasor's
         LLC and Athena Neurosciences, Inc., Case No. CJ-2004-
         6757, filed in the District Court of Tulsa County,
         Oklahoma

     (3) Jimmy Ruth Carson v. Eli Lilly and Company, Elan
         Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Valeant Pharmaceuticals
         International, Case No. 05CV106, in the United States
         District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma

     (4) Beverly Hover and Philip Hover, Plaintiffs, against Eli
         Lilly and Company, Elan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Athena
         Neurosciences, Inc., Amarin Corporation PLC, Amarin
         Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Valeant Pharmaceuticals
         International, Case No. 101859/05, filed in the Supreme
         Court of New York, New York

     (5) Martha Putney and Gordon W. Putney against Eli Lilly
         and Company, Elan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Athena
         Neurosciences, Inc., Amarin Corporation PLC, Amarin
         Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Valeant Pharmaceuticals
         International, Case No. 101860/05, filed in the Supreme
         Court of New York, County of New York

In general, these cases allege that the use of Permax, a drug
for the treatment of Parkinson's Disease marketed and sold by
Amarin, caused valvular heart disease. The Company has also
received from time to time other claims alleging that the use of
Permax caused congestive heart failure and other coronary-
related damage, including a letter from an attorney purporting
to represent five persons with such claims.

Eli Lilly, holder of the right granted by the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) to market and sell Permax in the United
States, though such right was licensed to Amarin and the source
of the manufactured product, has also been named in the suits.
Under an agreement between the Company and Eli Lilly, Eli Lilly
will bear a portion of the liability associated with these
claims. Many of these cases are in preliminary stages and it is
difficult to assess whether the Company will have any liability
as to any particular case or, if such liability exists, what the
extent of the liability would be.


VIRGINIA: Tobacco Growers Launch Suit Over USDA's Payment Method
----------------------------------------------------------------
Two Virginia tobacco growers initiated a lawsuit that challenges
the U.S. Department of Agriculture's method for determining
payments to farmers from the $10 billion national tobacco-quota
buyout, The Richmond Times Dispatch reports.

Filed in U.S. District Court in Abingdon, the suit claims U.S.
Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns exceeded his authority by
deviating from the formula Congress approved to calculate
payments to farmers. As a result of the changes, according to
Washington County burley-tobacco growers William J. Neese and
Daniel M. Johnson, they will lose hundreds of thousands of
dollars.

Daniel Caldwell of the Penn, Stuart and Eskridge law firm in
Abingdon, who is representing the farmers, contends that
Congress established clear rules for calculating buyout
payments. However, according to him, Mr. Johanns instead applied
a "convoluted formula" that has the effect of benefiting tobacco
companies, who are financing the buyout.

Mr. Caldwell explained to The Richmond Times Dispatch, "There is
a huge savings to the tobacco industry by using the secretary
[of agriculture's] formula instead of Congress' formula. We have
been told by authorities in the industry that the secretary's
formula probably will result in savings to the industry of about
$600 million. That is $600 million that should go into the
pockets of farmers."

Additionally, Mr. Caldwell told The Richmond Times Dispatch that
he is seeking to have the lawsuit certified as a class action,
which in essence could impact thousands of other tobacco
farmers, though an exact number is unknown.

The lawsuit stems from Congress' decision last year to terminate
the federal government's nearly 70-year-old supply-and price-
control program for tobacco crops, returning U.S. leaf
production to a fully free-market system for the first time
since the Great Depression.

In that decision, Congress along with extensive lobbying by
farmer organizations also approved a nearly $10 billion buyout
to compensate farmers for the loss of tobacco quotas,
essentially government-issued production licenses that had been
treated as assets over the years. The buyout is expected to
channel about $660 million to farmers and quota owners in
Virginia during the next 10 years.

Under the legislation passed by Congress, farmers who grew
tobacco in 2002, 2003 and 2004 should be compensated $3 per
pound based on their 2002 quota. Owners of tobacco quota, which
includes people who don't farm but owned these production
licenses and leased it to active farmers, should be compensated
$7 per pound.

The suit alleges that Mr. Johanns issued regulations in April
that include other factors in the calculations for active
producers. The regulations shift the calculations from the
amount of quota to a farmer's actual sales of tobacco, according
to Mr. Caldwell. "The secretary simply does not have discretion
to come along and change the formula and substitute his judgment
for the judgment of Congress," he said.

The lawsuit contends that Mr. Neese should receive $563,307 from
the buyout, but he will only get $189,948 under the USDA
calculations, while Mr. Johnson should receive $503,166 but will
only get $216,977. It also states that Mr. Neese tried to appeal
the calculations but was told by the Washington County Farm
Service Agency that the formula could not be appealed.

To reinforce their case, the farmers also submitted to the court
a letter from Sen. George Allen, R-Va., to J.B. Penn, the USDA's
undersecretary of farm and foreign agriculture services. In that
letter, which was written three months before the deadline for
farmers to apply for buyout payments, Sen. Allen expressed
concerns that the USDA's formula "appears to deviate from the
clear direction of the Congress" and "could lead to a less than
equitable result for some active producers."

The suit is styled, Neese et al v. Johanns, Case No. 1:05-cv-
00071-gmw-pms, pending in United States District Court for the
Western District of Virginia, the Honorable Glen M. Williams,
presiding. Cameron Scott Bell and Daniel Hill Caldwell of PENN
STUART & ESKRIDGE, P.O. BOX 2288, ABINGDON, VA 24212-2288,
Phone: 276-628-5151 and 276-623-4410, Fax: 276-628-1730 and
276-628-5621, E-mail: cbell@pennstuart.com and
dcaldwell@pennstuart.com, are representing the Plaintiff/s.
Marcia Nancy Tiersky of THe UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
20 MASSACHUSETTS AVE., NW WASHINGTON, DC 20530, Phone:
202-514-1359, Fax: 202-318-0486, E-mail:
marcia.tiersky@usdoj.gov, is representing the Defendant/s.


WAVE SYSTEMS: Plaintiff Files Consolidated Securities Suit in MA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action complaint
in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, against Wave Systems Corporation, its Chief
Executive Officer and its Chief Financial Officer, styled
"Brumbaugh et al. v. Wave Systems Corp. et al., Civ. No. 04-
30022 (MAP)."

The purported class action has been filed by alleged purchasers
of the Company's Class A Common Stock during the purported class
period July 31, 2003 through February 2, 2004.  The complaint
claims that the Company and the named individuals violated
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule
10(b)-5 promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the 1934 Act
by publicly disseminating materially false and misleading
statements, relating to the Company's agreements with Intel and
IBM.  The complaint does not specify the amount of alleged
damages plaintiffs seek to recover.

The suit is styled "Brumbaugh v. Wave Systems Corporation et
al., case no. 3:04-cv-30022-MAP," filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts, under Judge
Michael A. Ponsor.  Representing the Company are Michael D.
Blanchard and Robert A. Buhlman of Bingham McCutchen LLP -
Hartford, One State Street, Hartford, CT 06103, Phone:
860-240-2700, Fax: 860-240-2818, E-mail:
michael.blanchard@bingham.com or robert.buhlman@bingham.com; and
Eunice E. Lee and Raquel J. Webster, Bingham McCutchen LLP, 150
Federal Street, Boston, MA 02110, Phone: 617-951-8000, Fax:
617-951-8736, E-mail: eunice.lee@bingham.com or
raquel.webster@bingham.com.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Stuart L. Berman and Darren Check of Schiffrin &
         Barroway LLP, Three Bala Plaza East, Suite 400, Bala
         Cynwyd, PA 19004, Phone: 610-667-7706

     (2) David Pastor, Gilman and Pastor, LLP, 60 State Street,
         37th Floor, Boston, MA 02109, Phone: 617-742-9700, Fax:
         617-742-9701, E-mail: dpastor@gilmanpastor.com

     (3) John C. Martland, Martland & Brooks LLP, Stonehill
         Corporate Center, Suite 500, 999 Broadway, Saugus, MA
         01906, Phone: 617-742-9700, Fax: 617-742-9701, E-mail:
         jcmartland@gilmanpastor.com

     (4) Karen Reilly and Marc I. Willner, Schiffrin & Barroway,
         LLP, 280 King of Prussia Road, Radnor, PA 19087, Phone:
         610-667-7706, Fax: 610-667-7056


WFS FINANCIAL: CA Court OKs Settlement of Shareholder Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Orange Count Superior Court in California granted
preliminary approval to the settlement of the consolidated
securities class action filed against WFS Financial, Inc. and
Westcorp in the Orange County, California Superior Court, styled
"In re WFS Financial Shareholder Litigation, case no.
04CC00559."

Beginning on May 24, 2004 and continuing thereafter, a total of
four separate purported class action lawsuits relating to the
announcement by the Company and Westcorp that they were
commencing an exchange offer for the Company's outstanding
public shares.  The suit also names as defendants the Company's
individual board members.  On June 24, 2004, the actions were
consolidated.

On July 16, 2004, the court granted a motion by plaintiff Alaska
Hotel & Restaurant Employees Pension Trust Fund, in Case No.
04CC00573, to amend the consolidation order to designate it the
lead plaintiff in the litigation.  The lead plaintiff filed a
consolidated amended complaint on August 9, 2004, and then filed
the present "corrected" consolidated amended complaint on
September 15, 2004.  All of the shareholder-related actions
allege, among other things, that the defendants breached their
respective fiduciary duties and seek to enjoin or rescind the
transaction and obtain an unspecified sum in damages and costs,
including attorneys' fees and expenses.

The parties have tentatively agreed to a full and final
resolution of the Action and, on January 19, 2005, the parties
entered into a Memorandum of Understanding, also known as the
MOU, concerning the terms of the tentative settlement. The
parties are in the process of preparing a formal settlement
agreement based on the terms of the MOU and will present it to
the Court for approval.

Pursuant to the terms of the MOU, the parties have agreed, among
other things, that additional disclosures will be made in our
Registration Statement on Form S-4 (as filed with the SEC on
July 16, 2004), the claims asserted in the Action will be fully
released, and the Action will be dismissed with prejudice.
Further, pursuant to the MOU, WFS has agreed to pay plaintiffs'
attorneys' fees and expenses in the amount of $675,000, or in
such lesser amount as the Court may order.  The effectiveness of
the settlement agreement is contingent on the transaction
actually occurring. The parties prepared a formal settlement
agreement based on the terms of the MOU and obtained preliminary
approval for the settlement from the Court on June 17, 2005. The
parties have further agreed, with the Court's consent, that the
parties will not proceed with providing notice of the proposed
settlement to shareholders nor schedule a final hearing on
approval of the settlement unless and until the necessary
regulatory approvals for the transaction have been obtained.


                New Securities Fraud Cases


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

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

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

     (2) the relevance of certain statistical data; and

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


RENAISSANCERE HOLDINGS: Scott + Scott Sets Plaintiff Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Scott + Scott, LLC, which filed a securities
fraud class action against RenaissanceRe Holdings Ltd.
("RenaissanceRe") (NYSE: RNR) and individual defendants on
August 25, 2005, and represents investors in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York (1:05-cv-
07525-UA). Purchasers of RenaissanceRe securities between
January 24, 2002 and July 25, 2005, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), are purported class members. RenaissanceRe is a global
provider in re-insurance and insurance, maintaining its
principle place of business in Bermuda.

The firm is reminding potential class members that they have
until September 26, 2005 to filed a motion to serve as Lead
Plaintiff in the case.

The complaint filed on August 5th by Scott + Scott, LLC alleges
that during the Class Period, RenaissanceRe and certain
individual defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Specifically, the complaint alleges that various Company
financial statements filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission ("SEC") were fraudulent as a result of:

     (1) problematic finite reinsurance recoverables, which led
         to a misstatement of net income by as much as 12% in a
         given year;

     (2) improper accounting for the timing of recognition of
         premiums on multi-year ceded reinsurance contracts
         during the first three quarters of 2004; and

     (3) noncompliance with rules outlined in the Generally
         Accepted Accounting Principals ("GAAP").

On July 25, 2005, RenaissanceRe reported that the SEC served the
Company's Chief Executive Officer, James N. Stanard, with a
Wells Notice, indicating that SEC officials plan to recommend
that charges be brought against Mr. Stanard for violations of
federal securities laws. In its statement, RenaissanceRe also
said the SEC separately issued a Wells Notice to Michael W.
Cash, formerly Senior Vice President of Specialty Reinsurance.
Mr. Cash resigned last month, after refusing to comply with a
SEC subpoena requesting his testimony in an investigation into
the three-year restatement of the Company's earnings announced
by RenaissanceRe in February.

The SEC has been conducting an ongoing investigation into the
restatement of the Company's 2001, 2002 and 2003 financial
statements. The effect of the restatement was to lift the
Company's 2001 and 2003 net income by $20.6 million and $1.3
million, respectively, and lower its 2002 net income by $21.9
million, the Company reported and the complaint alleges.
RenaissanceRe, like many insurance industry companies, has been
subpoenaed in recent months by state and federal regulators
investigating whether companies have used finite risk products
to manipulate their results.

RenaissanceRe, like many insurance industry companies, has been
subpoenaed in recent months by state and federal regulators
investigating whether companies have used finite risk products
to manipulate their results. The SEC has been conducting an
ongoing investigation into the restatement of RenaissanceRe's
2001-2003 financial statements. On July 25, 2005, RenaissanceRe
reported that the SEC served RenaissanceRe's Chief Executive
Officer, James N. Stanard, with a Wells Notice, indicating that
SEC officials plan to recommend that charges be brought against
Mr. Stanard for federal securities law violations. On September
9, 2005, Morgan Stanley downgraded RenaissanceRe.

For more details, contact Neil Rothstein or Amy K. Saba of of
Scott + Scott, LLC, Phone: +1-800-332-2259, ext. 22 or
+1-619-251-0887 (cell) or +1-800-332-2259, ext. 26, E-mail:
nrothstein@scott-scott.com or asaba@scott-scott.com.


TXU CORPORATION: Law Firms Commence Securities Fraud Suit in TX
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Bonnett, Fairbourn, Friedman & Balint, P.C.,
along with Shockman Law Offices, P.C. and Dodge & Gillman, P.C.,
commenced a Class Action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Texas on behalf of a class
(the "Class") of all persons who sold certain securities of TXU
Corporation (NYSE: TXU) ("TXU" or the "Company") in the TXU
Tender Offer between September 15, 2004 and October 13, 2004
("the Tender Offer").

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b),
14(e) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and common law fiduciary duties,
by purchasing certain Corporate Units (NYSE: TXU PrC) and PRIDES
(NYSE: TXU PrD) (collectively, "the Convertible Securities")
without disclosing its plan to dramatically increase the
dividend payout on TXU common stock upon completion of the
Tender Offer. The complaint alleges that TXU in September 2004
made a self-tender offer to purchase the Convertible Securities
at a price linked to the value of its common stock, without
disclosing its plan to dramatically increase the common stock's
dividend payout immediately following completion of the Tender
Offer. Nine short days after the Tender Offer expired, TXU
adopted a 350% increase in its common stock dividend, resulting
in a 20% increase in the common stock price. To keep the common
stock price low during the Tender Offer pricing period, however,
TXU injected a false air of uncertainty into the market
concerning its plan to increase the dividend, which enabled it
to purchase the Convertible Securities from Plaintiffs and other
Class members at a substantial and artificial discount.

For more details, contact Andrew S. Friedman, Esq. or
Francis J. Balint Jr., Esq. of Bonnett, Fairbourn, Friedman &
Balint, P.C., 2901 N. Central Ave., Suite 1000, Phoenix, AZ
85012, Phone: 602-274-1100 or 800-847-9094, E-mail:
afriedman@bffb.com; Rosemary J. Shockman, Esq. of Shockman Law
Offices, P.C., 8170 N. 86th Place, Suite 102, Scottsdale, AZ
85258-4308, Phone: 480-596-1986, E-mail: rshock@aol.com; and
Michael C. Dodge, Esq. or David W. Dodge, Esq. of Dodge &
Gillman, P.C., One Lincoln Centre, Suite 910, Dallas, TX 75240,
Phone: 972-960-3248, E-mail: davidd@texasatty.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  * * *