CAR_Public/050923.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Friday, September 23, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 189

                            Headlines

BANK OF AMERICA: Settles Loan Employees' Overtime Lawsuit in CA
CENTRAL FREIGHT: Asks TX Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
CITIZENS INC.: TX Court Yet To Rule on Suit Certification Appeal
COORS BREWING: CO Judge Dismisses Suit Over Ads Targeting Minors
COTT CORPORATION: Faces Canadian Consumer Recycling Fee Lawsuits

COTT CORPORATION: Receives $4.9M Share in Corn Syrup Settlement
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: ILR Discourages Suits in Wake of "Katrina"
EINSTEIN AND NOAH: CA Court Mulls Wage Suit Settlement Approval
ELDORADO NATIONAL: Recalls 989 Various Buses Due to Crash Hazard
FLORIDA: Union Settles Discrimination Suit by Female Dockworkers

FORD MOTOR: Recalls 6,298 F650, F750 Vehicles For Crash Hazard
GRILL CONCEPTS: Discovery Proceeds in CA Employee Wage Lawsuit
GUESS INC.: Store Managers Launch Overtime Wage Suit in CA Court
GUIDANT CORPORATION: Viles & Beckman Sues Over Faulty Devices
HARMONIC INC.: Court Yet To Rule on CA Suit Dismissal Appeal

INTRALASE CORPORATION: Eye Doctor Files TCPA Violations Suit
KOPPERS INC.: TX Property Owners Launch Personal Injury Lawsuit
MAIN STREET: Employees Initiate Meal Break Lawsuits in CA Court
MERIX CORPORATION: OR Court Mulls Securities Lawsuit Dismissal
MICHIGAN: Judge Defers Hearing For Suit V. Saginaw County Jail

MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Seeks Review For Ruling in GA Employee Suit
MOTOROLA INC.: Continues To Face DC Securities Fraud Lawsuit
MOTOROLA INC.: Right To Appeal IL Suit Dismissal Terminated
MOTOROLA INC.: Plaintiffs Appeal Personal Injury Suit Dismissal
PACCAR INC.: Recalls 333 2005 Peterbilt Trucks For Crash Hazard

PMI: Recalls 45T Stanley Thermos Bottles Due to Health Hazard
QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Retirees to Appeal Attorneys' Fees Ruling
ROCKSTAR GAMES: Sexually Explicit Content Prompts Parent to Sue
SL INDUSTRIES: NJ Residents Launch Water Contamination Lawsuit
STAAR SURGICAL: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit

STAKTEK HOLDINGS: Asks TX Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
TELLABS INC.: Court Yet To Rule on Appeal of IL Suit Dismissal
TELLABS INC.: Plaintiffs Drop DE Suit V. Advanced Fiber Merger
TITAN CORPORATION: Faces Two Suits Over Abuse in Iraqi Prisons
TITAN INC.: Working To Settle Securities Fraud, Derivative Suits

TITAN INC.: Shareholder Files Amended CA Securities Fraud Suit
VERITAS SOFTWARE: Asks DE Court To Dismiss Securities Lawsuit
WIRELESS FACILITIES: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Securities Lawsuit
WORLDCOM INC.: NY Judge Gives Final Approval to $3.6B Settlement

                      Asbestos Alert

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Found in 22 Hyogo Govt. Facilities
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EPA To Inspect Demolition Site in Tennessee
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Doe Run Resources Named in Injury Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Japan Firms Ban Asbestos in Overseas Units
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NSW Aborigines Sick With Asbestos Illnesses

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: OSHA Orders Abatement at CO Humane Society
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hardie Accused of Bogus Statements Re Deal
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asarco Plans to Replace Striking Employees
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: UK Man Fined GBP5T for Illegal Tile Dumping
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Detection Forces Studio Closure

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: JPN Govt. to Extend Aid to Asbestos Victims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Retired Driver Sues Ex-Boss for GBP100,000
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PMA Capital Allocates $27.9M Loss Reserves
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Fund Could Risk Quick Depletion, ALEC Study
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ILO Declares 100,000 Asbestos Deaths Yearly

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: DE Court Backs Kaiser Disclosure Statement
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: "Health Lottery" Denies Workers Treatment
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Believed Used in 1,600 JPN Schools
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ZAR41M Payout Granted to Asbestos Claimants
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Find Halts PA Demolition Project

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: OH Court Rules City Not Liable in Lawsuit
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: UK Widow Awarded in Out of Court Settlement
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Found in Japanese Housing Estates
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hedman Discloses US$35.0 M Insurance Cover
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: KY Judge Rules Retrial for Case v. 2 Firms

                 New Securities Fraud Cases

ATI TECHNOLOGIES: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in PA
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Scott + Scott Lodges Securities Suit in MA
DHB INDUSTRIES: Bull & Lifshitz Files Securities Suit in E.D. NY
DHB INDUSTRIES: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Fraud in NY
ISOLAGEN INC.: Bernard M. Gross Lodges PA Securities Fraud Suit

PRESTIGE HOLDINGS: Roy Jacobs Schedules Lead Plaintiff Deadline
UBS-AG: Stull Stull Lodges Suit in NY Over Putnam Mutual Funds

                        *********


BANK OF AMERICA: Settles Loan Employees' Overtime Lawsuit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bank of America Corporation agreed to settle a class action
lawsuit by loan department employees in California who claim the
company failed to pay them overtime, The Associated Press
reports.

The suit, filed on September 16 in U.S. District Court in San
Francisco, claims that the bank owed overtime pay to account
executives, trainees and other workers selling home mortgages
and handling personal loans.

Under the settlement, Charlotte, North Carolina-based bank will
pay $6.68 million to the workers and up to $2.25 million to the
workers' attorneys, according to company spokeswoman Shirley
Norton.  In addition, Ms Norton told The Associated Press that
under the settlement, Bank of America denies any wrongdoing or
liability and pointed out, "Bank of America values its work
force and believes it has treated its associates appropriately
and in full accordance with applicable laws and continues to do
so."


CENTRAL FREIGHT: Asks TX Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Central Freight Lines, Inc. asked the United States District
Court for the Western District of Texas to dismiss the
consolidated securities class action filed against it and
certain of its officers and directors.

Several suits were initially filed, generally alleging that
false and misleading statements were made in the initial public
offering registration statement and prospectus, during the
period surrounding the initial public offering and up to the
press release dated June 16, 2004.  The class actions were
subsequently consolidated, under the title In re Central Freight
Lines Securities Litigation.   The Oklahoma Firefighters Pension
and Retirement System has been named lead plaintiff in the
consolidated action, and a Consolidated Amended Class Action
Complaint was filed on May 9, 2005.

The consolidated suit generally alleges that false and
misleading statements were made in its initial public offering
registration statement and prospectus, during the period
surrounding the initial public offering and up to March 17,
2005.  On July 8, 2005, the Company responded to the suit by
filing a motion to dismiss.

The suit is styled "In re Central Freight Lines Securities
Litigation, case no. 04-CV-177," filed in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Texas (Waco), under
Judge Walter S. Smith.  Representing the plaintiffs are Michael
Klein of Smith Robertson Elliott Glen Klein & Bell, LLP, 221
West 6th Street, Suite 1100, Austin, TX 78701, Phone:
(512) 225-5808; and Michelle N. Peterson and Michael K. Yarnoff
of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 280 King of Prussia Road, Radnor,
PA 19087, Phone: (610) 667-7706.  Representing the Company are
John L. Malesovas, Malesovas & Martin, L.L.P., P.O. Box 1709,
Waco, TX 76703-1709, Phone: (254)753-1777; and Nicole M. Healy,
Kent W. Easter, Randolph Gaw and Lloyd Winawer of Sonsini,
Goodrich & Rosati, 650 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA 84306,
Phone:
(415) 493-9300.


CITIZENS INC.: TX Court Yet To Rule on Suit Certification Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Texas has yet to rule on Citizens, Inc.'s
appeal of a lower court decision affirming in part class
certification for a lawsuit filed against it, styled "Delia
Bolanos Andrade, et al v. Citizens Insurance Company of America,
Citizens, Inc., Negocios Savoy, S.A., Harold E. Riley, and Mark
A. Oliver, Case Number 99-09099."

The suit was filed in Travis County, Texas district court.  The
suit alleges that life insurance policies offered or sold to
certain non-U.S. residents by Citizens Insurance Company of
America (CICA) are actually "securities" that were offered or
sold in Texas by unregistered dealers in violation of the
registration provisions of the Texas securities laws. The suit
seeks class action status naming as a class all non-U.S.
residents who purchased insurance policies or made premium
payments since August 1996 and assigned policy dividends to an
overseas trust for the purchase of the Company's Class A common
stock.  The remedy sought is rescission of the insurance premium
payments.

In July 31,2002, the court granted class certification to the
suit.  On April 24, 2003, the Court of Appeals for the Third
District of Texas affirmed the ruling in part and modified it in
part.  The Supreme Court of Texas granted the Company's Petition
for Review and heard oral arguments on the case on October 21,
2004.  The Company believes the Plaintiffs' claim under the
Texas Securities Act is not valid and the class defined is not
appropriate for class certification and does not meet the legal
requirements for class action treatment under Texas law.

Recent decisions from the Texas Supreme Court indicate a more
defense-oriented approach to class certification cases,
especially in class action cases encompassing claimants from
more than one state or jurisdiction. Although a decision is not
expected until sometime in 2005, the Company expects the Supreme
Court of Texas will ultimately rule in the Company's favor,
decertify the class and remand the matter to district court for
further action. During the time of the Company's appeal to the
Texas Supreme Court, there are no further district court
proceedings in the case.


COORS BREWING: CO Judge Dismisses Suit Over Ads Targeting Minors
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jefferson County, Colorado District Judge James Zimmerman,
dismissed a class action lawsuit that accused Coors Brewing Co.
and other alcoholic-beverage makers of targeting minors with
advertisements, The Denver Post reports.

In a seven-page order, Judge Zimmerman berated the suit saying
that the plaintiffs failed to show that they or any of their
children suffered damages because of the advertisements. In his
order, the judge stated, "It clearly appears that the plaintiffs
cannot prove facts in support of their claims."  In addition to
dismissing the suit, Judge Zimmerman also ordered the plaintiffs
to pay the defendants' legal fees.

The suit, which was originally filed in December 2003 by law
firm Straus & Boies LLP, also named as defendants Bacardi USA,
Heineken NV, Mike's Hard Lemonade Co. and several other beverage
makers. It listed Randy and Colleen Kreft as lead plaintiffs.
The alcohol-marketing lawsuit had accused the company of using
the Coors Light Twins to promote the PG-13-rated film "Scary
Movie 3."

Golden-based Coors told The Denver Post that it was gratified by
the court's decision. According to Coors spokeswoman Kabira
Hatland, "The court found the case so lacking in merit that it
took the unusual step of ordering the plaintiffs to pay the
legal fees of the companies they sued."

"The target market for that movie clearly was under age 21,"
David Boies III of Straus & Boies told The Denver Post in April
2004. He pointed out, "It's pretty heinous to target your
marketing effort in a very narrow way where a majority of the
viewers are underage."

The lawsuit also alleged that Bacardi advised website visitors
how to "avoid any dirty looks from Mom as you reach for a
Bacardi bottle at 8 a.m." while preparing a "breakfast with a
bang" consisting of rum, grapefruit and sugar.

Legal experts have said that there are similarities between the
alcohol-marketing cases and the national tobacco litigation of
the 1990s that culminated with a settlement payment by tobacco
companies of more than $246 billion. However they stressed that
a "smoking gun" is needed to incriminate the alcoholic-beverage
makers.


COTT CORPORATION: Faces Canadian Consumer Recycling Fee Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cott Corporation was named as one of many defendants in a class
action claim, styled "The Consumers' Association of Canada and
Bruce Cran v. Coca-Cola Bottling Ltd. et al.," filed in the
Supreme Court of British Columbia.

The plaintiffs are suing over 30 defendants, consisting of
beverage manufacturers, retailers and Encorp Pacific (Canada),
the government-approved steward of British Columbia's container
deposit program, alleging the unauthorized use by the defendants
of container deposits collected from consumers and the
imposition of an unlawful container recycling fee on consumers.
The relief sought by the plaintiffs includes a declaration that
C$70 million in container deposits were unlawfully converted by
the defendants and are held on constructive trust for consumers
and the repayment of C$60 million collected as container
recycling fees.


COTT CORPORATION: Receives $4.9M Share in Corn Syrup Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cott Corporation received approximately $4.9 million related to
the settlement of a class action lawsuit concerning price-fixing
in the sale of high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) purchased by the
Company during the years 1991 to 1995.

The suit, styled "In re: High Fructose Corn Syrup Antitrust
Litigation Master File No. 95-1477," filed in the United States
District Court for the Central District of Illinois," relates to
purchases of high fructose corn syrup made by the Company and
others.  About 20 corn syrup buyers initially filed the suit in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
Illinois against several corn processors, alleging that they
violated antitrust laws from 1988 to 1995 by conspiring to
artificially inflate the price of high fructose corn syrup.
About 2,000 plaintiffs joined the suit, including Coca-Cola Co.,
PepsiCo Inc., Kraft Foods Inc. and Quaker Oats, an earlier Class
Action Reporter story (July 30,2004) states.

In July 2004, the parties in the suit forged a $531 million
settlement for the suit.  The settlement amount was allocated to
each class action recipient based on the proportion of its
purchases of high fructose corn syrup from these suppliers
during the period 1991 through 1995 to the total of such
purchases by all class action recipients.


DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: ILR Discourages Suits in Wake of "Katrina"
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform (ILR) is warning
that the financial devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina could
be made worse by a rash of lawsuits that will delay and
complicate recovery efforts for hundreds of thousands of the
storms' victims. ILR urged citizens and government officials to
work together to help the Gulf Coast region recover from this
disaster, and not rush to the courthouse.

"We're concerned about the growing number of lawsuits that have
been filed in the wake of Katrina," said Lisa A. Rickard,
President of ILR. "For example, last week's filing by
Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood against the insurance
industry will not help victims' long-term recovery, and will
further burden the state's already fragile economy."

In addition to the Mississippi AG lawsuit, other Katrina-related
litigation has already been filed or is being contemplated
across the region. Just last week a class action lawsuit was
filed in Louisiana blaming various companies for the
environmental destruction caused by the hurricane. More lawsuits
are expected to be filed in the coming weeks.

"Hurricane Katrina is one of the worst natural disasters in
American history and an added tragedy is the fact that many of
the storms' victims are uninsured or underinsured," Rickard
said. "The business community is united behind all efforts to
quickly and effectively help our fellow citizens recover from
this catastrophe, but more lawsuits are not the solution."


EINSTEIN AND NOAH: CA Court Mulls Wage Suit Settlement Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court for the State of California, San Francisco
County heard oral arguments for final approval of the settlement
of the overtime class action filed against Einstein and Noah
Corporation (ENC).

On July 31, 2002, Tristan Goldstein, a former store manager, and
Valerie Bankhordar, a current store manager, filed a putative
class action, alleging that the Company failed to pay overtime
wages to managers and assistant managers of its California
stores who were improperly designated as exempt employees.

In April 2004, the Company reached an agreement in principle to
settle the litigation, subject to final court approval. Notice
to members of the class was mailed on or about May 25, 2005.
The final hearing on the fairness of the settlement was held on
September 21, 2005.


ELDORADO NATIONAL: Recalls 989 Various Buses Due to Crash Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eldorado National - California, Inc. in cooperation with the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Office of
Defects Investigation (ODI) is voluntarily recalling about 989
units of 2004-06 ENC / AXES, 2004-06 ENC / ESCORT RE, 2004-06
ENC / ESCORT RE-A, 2004-06 ENC / EZ-RIDER II, 2004-06 ENC /
TRANSMARK and 2004-06 ENC / XHF buses due to crash hazard. NHTSA
CAMPAIGN ID Number: 05V416000.

According to the ODI, on certain buses equipped with Cummins
ISB-02 diesel engines built with EMC controlled fuel lift pumps.
Erratic Voltage supply to the fuel lift pump causes premature
electric brush wear internal to the fuel lift pump. The
premature wear could result in fuel lift pump failure and in
some cases may cause an engine stall. Should the engine stall, a
vehicle crash could occur.

As a remedy, Cummins, in conjunction with Eldorado National,
will notify owners and repair the engine by EMC calibration and
replacement of the fuel lift pump at no charge to the customer.
The recall is expected to begin during October 2005.

For more details, contact Cummins Assistance Center, Phone:
1-800-DIESELS, Eldorado National, Phone: 1-909-591-9557 and
NHTSA Auto Safety Hotline: 1-888-327-4236 or (TTY)
1-800-424-9153, Web site: http://www.safecar.gov.


FLORIDA: Union Settles Discrimination Suit by Female Dockworkers
----------------------------------------------------------------
After a contentious three-hour hearing, female dockworkers, who
are claiming that they were forced to perform sexual favors to
get work, settled a class action lawsuit against a
longshoreman's union, The Associated Press reports.

At that hearing, Circuit Judge Charles Mitchell approved the
settlement a 6-year-old gender discrimination and sexual
harassment lawsuit after a hearing attended by about two dozen
members of the International Longshoremen's Union Deep Sea Local
1408.

The protracted class action lawsuit alleged that women were
denied work or forced to perform sexual favors in exchange for
work. Under the settlement, the union doesn't admit the
allegations.

The settlement, under which the union doesn't admit the
allegations, increases seniority levels for women who worked or
sought work at the union hall, where jobs to load and unload
cargo are awarded based on seniority. The settlement also
requires that the union to pay $1.65 million, of which $1.5 will
go to the women's lawyers.  The plaintiffs, Vonceil Fisher and
Traveine Howard, who filed the suit in 1999, will split $50,000
and the remaining class members will split the remaining
$100,000, according to the settlement terms. The plaintiff's
lawyers told The Associated Press that they identified 226 women
potentially affected, although only 159 filed objections.


FORD MOTOR: Recalls 6,298 F650, F750 Vehicles For Crash Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ford Motor Company in cooperation with the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration's Office of Defects Investigation
(ODI) is voluntarily recalling about 6,298 units of 2005 F650
and 2005 F750 vehicles due to crash hazard. NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID
Number: 05V415000.

According to the ODI, on certain medium duty chassis cab
vehicles equipped with hydraulic brakes, the driveline park
brake anchor bolt may be susceptible to fatigue loading. The
bolt could fracture over time due to insufficient clamp load as
a result of improper anchor bolt plating. If the brake anchor
bolt fatigues and ultimately fractures, the park brake may not
function and there maybe no indication to the driver of the
malfunction when the park brake is set. This may cause the
vehicle to roll away without warning, which could result in a
crash.

As a remedy, dealers will replace the park brake anchor bolt.
The recall is expected to begin on October 13, 2005.

For more details, contact Ford, Phone: 1-800-392-3673 and NHTSA
Auto Safety Hotline: 1-888-327-4236 or (TTY) 1-800-424-9153, Web
site: http://www.safecar.gov.


GRILL CONCEPTS: Discovery Proceeds in CA Employee Wage Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in the employee class action filed
against Grill Concepts, Inc. in the Superior Court of California
for Los Angeles County.

One of the Company's former hourly restaurant employees filed
the suit in June 2004.  The Company requested and was granted a
motion to move the suit from Orange County to Los Angeles
County.  The lawsuit was then filed in the Superior Court of
California of Los Angeles in December 2004.  The plaintiff has
alleged violations of California labor laws with respect to
providing meal and rest breaks. The lawsuit sought unspecified
amounts of penalties and other monetary payments on behalf of
the plaintiffs and other purported class members.

The Court has issued a total stay on the case until the Court of
Appeals hears two similar cases.  The next hearing is scheduled
for October 2005.


GUESS INC.: Store Managers Launch Overtime Wage Suit in CA Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Guess Inc. faces a class action filed in the Superior Court of
California for the County of San Francisco, alleging violations
of the state's overtime laws.

Michele Evets filed the suit on February 1, 2005.  The suit
purports to be a class action filed on behalf of current and
former Guess store managers in California.  Plaintiffs seek
overtime wages and a preliminary and permanent injunction.  The
Company answered the complaint on April 28, 2005.  No trial date
has been set.


GUIDANT CORPORATION: Viles & Beckman Sues Over Faulty Devices
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Fort Myers-based law firm of Viles & Beckman, LLC, filed a
class action product liability lawsuit against Guidant
Corporation, one of the nation's largest manufacturers of
medical devices. The complaint states that Guidant Corporation
learned well in advance of the recall that their devices were
faulty, but delayed notification to physicians and the general
public hoping that future models would correct any flaws.
Subsequently, two cases of death associated with Guidant's
recalled pacemakers have already been reported to the FDA.

On June 17th, 2005, Guidant Corporation announced that it would
recall nearly 50,000 Implantable Cardiac Defibrillators (ICD)
distributed worldwide due to faulty insulation in the wiring.
Defibrillators, which are largely used by people who suffer from
life-threatening arrhythmia or an irregular heartbeat, are
designed to emit a life-saving electrical shock to the heart to
restore normal rhythm. Faulty insulation in the wiring of the
defibrillator has the potential to cause short circuits and
prevent the device from shocking the heart during a cardiac
event.

The following defibrillator devices were affected by the recall:

     (1) PRIZM 2 DR, Model 1861 (manufactured on or before
         April, 2002)

     (2) CONTAK RENEWAL, Model H135 (manufactured on or before
         August 26, 2004)

     (3) CONTAK RENEWAL 2, Model H155 (manufactured on or before
         August 26, 2004

On July 19, 2005, Guidant Corporation announced a second recall
affecting approximately 28,000 patients worldwide.

Like defibrillators, pacemakers are also implantable devices
that are designed to electrically stimulate the heart. The
difference is that pacemakers emit electrical shocks to the
heart causing it to contract and pump blood when the heart's
electrical system is dysfunctional, whereas defibrillators shock
the heart when an irregular heartbeat is sensed. The flaw
resides in the hermetic seal on some Guidant pacemaker devices,
whereby moisture can seep in and potentially cause damage to the
device. There has been at least one death thought to be
attributed with this product failure. Guidant has also
identified that some of their pacemakers may have a defective
magnetic switch which may be stuck in the closed position,
hindering the pacemaker from delivering an electric charge when
needed.

The following Guidant pacemaker devices, manufactured between
November 25, 1997 and October 26, 2000, were affected by the
recall:

     (i) PULSAR MAX Models 1170, 1171, 1270

    (ii) PULSAR Models 0470, 0870, 0970, 0972, 1172, 1272

   (iii) DISCOVERY Models 1174, 1175, 1273, 1274, 1275

    (iv) MERIDIAN Models 0476, 0976, 1176, 1276

     (v) PULSAR MAX II Models 1180, 1181, 1280

    (vi) DISCOVERY II Models 0481, 0981, 1184, 1186, 1187, 1283,
         1284, 1285, 1286

   (vii) CONTAK TR Model 1241

  (viii) VIRTUS PLUS II Models 1380, 1480

    (ix) INTELIS II Models 1483, 1484, 1485, 1384, 1385, 1349,
         1499

Potentially 78,000 persons may now require surgery to replace
defibrillators and pacemaker devices produced and subsequently
recalled by Guidant Corp. Some Guidant devices that were not
recalled may be subject to a memory error, which can also lead
to malfunction of the device.

Incorporated in 1994, Guidant quickly became the leading medical
device supplier in the United States, earning over 3.8 billion
dollars in the past 11 years. Its medical devices were hailed as
some of the most dependable machines ever produced, until 2002
when they received some unfortunate news regarding a potential
problem with its Ventak Prizm 2 DR (model 1861), indicating that
faulty insulation in some of its wires could lead the device to
short circuit. Apparently, Guidant was sure this flaw would be
corrected in future models, and waited until May 2005 to notify
doctors of this potential malfunction. The Contak Renewal
(models H135 and H155) made prior to 2004 are also subject to
this flaw.

Designated as a Class I recall by the Federal Drug
Administration (FDA), Guidant's products may fail to deliver the
lifesaving shock during the time when patients would need it
most. Class I is the most serious category in the recall system
used by the FDA; it identifies a "reasonable probability that
the malfunctioning device will cause serious adverse health
consequences or death."

Signs of a failing product may include sudden faintness, a loss
of consciousness, shortness of breath, dizziness,
lightheadedness, prolonged fast heart rate, and heart failure or
death.

For more details, contact Mike Fallon of Viles & Beckman, Phone:
+1-239-334-3933 or 1-800-648-4537.


HARMONIC INC.: Court Yet To Rule on CA Suit Dismissal Appeal
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has yet to rule
on plaintiffs' appeal of the dismissal of the consolidated
securities class action filed against Harmonic, Inc. and certain
of its officers and directors.

Between June 28 and August 25, 2000, several actions alleging
violations of the federal securities laws by the Company and
certain of its officers and directors (some of whom are no
longer with the Company) were filed in or removed to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
The actions subsequently were consolidated.

A consolidated complaint, filed on December 7, 2000, was brought
on behalf of a purported class of persons who purchased the
Company's publicly traded securities between January 19 and June
26, 2000.  The complaint also alleged claims on behalf of a
purported subclass of persons who purchased C-Cube securities
between January 19 and May 3, 2000.  In addition to the company
and certain of its officers and directors, the complaint also
named C-Cube Microsystems Inc. and several of its officers and
directors as defendants.

The complaint alleged that, by making false or misleading
statements regarding the Company's prospects and customers and
its acquisition of C-Cube, certain defendants violated sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The
complaint also alleged that certain defendants violated section
14(a) of the Exchange Act and sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933 by filing a false or misleading
registration statement, prospectus, and joint proxy in
connection with the C-Cube acquisition.

On July 3, 2001, the Court dismissed the consolidated complaint
with leave to amend. An amended complaint alleging the same
claims against the same defendants was filed on August 13, 2001.
Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on September
24, 2001. On November 13, 2002, the Court issued an opinion
granting the motions to dismiss the amended complaint without
leave to amend. Judgment for defendants was entered on December
2, 2002. On December 12, 2002, plaintiffs filed a motion to
amend the judgment and for leave to file an amended complaint
pursuant to Rules 59(e) and 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.  On June 6, 2003, the Court denied plaintiffs' motion
to amend the judgment and for leave to file an amended
complaint. Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on July 1, 2003.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit heard oral
arguments on February 17, 2005, but has not ruled on the appeal
yet.

The suit is styled "Smith et al v. Harmonic, Inc., et al., case
no. 00-CV-2287," filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California, under Judge Phyllis J.
Hamilton.  Representing the plaintiffs are William S. Lerach and
Patrick J. Coughlin, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman &
Robbins LLP, 401 B Street, Suite 1700, San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: 619-231-1058.  Representing the Company are Terri A.
Garland, Margaret L. Wu, Melinda S. Blackman, Morrison &
Foerster LLP 425 Market St San Francisco, CA 94105-2482 Phone:
(415) 268-7000.


INTRALASE CORPORATION: Eye Doctor Files TCPA Violations Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Intralase Corporation faces a class action filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York,
alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(TCPA).

Ari Weitzner M.D., P.C., a Brooklyn ophthalmologist, commenced
the suit on May 24, 2005, alleging that the Company violated the
TCPA by sending unsolicited fax advertisements.  The complaint
seeks statutory damages, costs and attorneys fees. The TCPA
provides for statutory damages of $500 per violation ($1,500 if
knowing and willful).

The suit is styled "Weitzner v. Intralase Corp., Case no. 1:05-
cv-02529-NGG-KAM," filed in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of New York, under Judge Nicholas G.
Garaufis.  Representing the Company is Glenn Charles Colton and
Randollph Gaw of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, 12 E. 49th
Street, 30th Floor, New York, NY 10017, Phone: 212-999-5800,
Fax: 212-999-5899, E-mail: gcolton@wsgr.com.  Representing the
plaintiff is Todd C. Bank, Law Office of Todd C. Bank, 119-40
Union Pike, Fourth Floor, Kew Gardens, NY 11415, Phone:
718-520-7125, E-mail: TBLaw101@aol.com.


KOPPERS INC.: TX Property Owners Launch Personal Injury Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Koppers Inc. faces a putative class action lawsuit filed in the
United States District Court in Austin, Texas, alleging that
several categories of past and present property owners and
residents in the Somerville, Texas area have suffered property
damage and risk of personal injury as a result of exposure to
various chemicals from the operations of the Company's
Somerville, Texas wood treatment plant.

The complaint seeks certification of several classes and further
seeks to recover damages for alleged injuries to property,
medical monitoring and injunctive relief.  The Company has not
yet been served with process in this case.


MAIN STREET: Employees Initiate Meal Break Lawsuits in CA Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Main Street Restaurant Group, Inc. faces two employee wage
suits filed in California Superior Court on behalf of current
employees seeking damages, under California law, for both missed
breaks and missed meal breaks the employees allege they did not
receive.  The lawsuits seek to establish a class action relating
to the Company's California operations.

The Company has been vigorously defending these lawsuits, both
on the merits of the employees' case and the issues relating to
class action status. Recently in one of the suits the court
granted class action status, although the Company's attorney
strenuously objected to this decision, which will be vigorously
contested through the course of the litigation, the company said
in a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission.


MERIX CORPORATION: OR Court Mulls Securities Lawsuit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Oregon has
yet to rule on Merix Corporation's motion to dismiss the
consolidated securities class action filed against it and
certain of its executive officers and directors, styled "In re
Merix Securities Litigation, Lead Case No. CV 04-826-MO."

Four similar suits were initially filed.  A lead plaintiff was
appointed, who filed a consolidated and amended class action
complaint on November 15, 2004. In the consolidated and amended
complaint, lead plaintiff alleges that the defendants violated
the federal securities laws by making certain allegedly false
and misleading statements. The lead plaintiff seeks unspecified
damages on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the
Company's securities during the period from October 14, 2003,
through May 13, 2004.  On February 25, 2005, the defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the amended and consolidated
complaint, which is pending.


MICHIGAN: Judge Defers Hearing For Suit V. Saginaw County Jail
--------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge David M. Lawson once again put off a hearing
in a lawsuit filed by former Saginaw County Jail inmates who
claim jail guards abused them and held them naked for hours, The
Saginaw News reports.  According to court officials, Judge
Lawson will hear arguments on November 9, over whether to
certify as a class action the suit first filed by 22 inmates in
2003

Plaintiffs' lawyer Christopher Pianto of Flint told The Saginaw
News that the case was originally set for an early August
hearing, which Judge Lawson had rescheduled for September 21 to
allow more time to consider the county lawyer's motions.
However, Judge Lawson pushed the date into November because,
according to officials at the federal courthouse in Bay City, he
is in the midst of a jury trial.

Plaintiffs are suing for damages after Judge Lawson ruled last
winter that the county's conduct was unconstitutional, which
prompted an FBI probe that began in April.  Originally, the suit
had claimed that 27 inmates suffered mistreatment at the hands
of jail workers who forced uncooperative pre-arraignment
detainees to remove their clothes and submit to solitary
confinement. If the inmates refused, deputies took their
clothing off for them, according to court documents, an earlier
Class Action story (March 28, 2005) reports.

Since the suit's filing and the various delays, plaintiffs
represented by Mr. Pianto and his colleagues have also leveled
more claims, including physical and sexual abuse, all of which
Saginaw County Sheriff Charles L. Brown has repeatedly denied.
Sheriff Brown defended the policy as an effort to balance inmate
safety with privacy rights. But he pointed out that the practice
was discontinued in 2001 or 2002, a claim that the plaintiffs'
lawyers and the ACLU dispute. Mr. Pianto even stated that he has
heard from former detainees who say it happened in 2003 and
possibly 2004, an earlier Class Action story (April 13, 2005)
reports.


MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Seeks Review For Ruling in GA Employee Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mohawk Industries, Inc. is requesting for a review by the full
United States Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals of a ruling
upholding in part a lower court's refusal to dismiss class
action filed against it, styled "Shirley Williams, et al vs.
Mohawk Industries, Inc."

Four plaintiffs filed the suit in January 2004, in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia, alleging that they are former and current employees of
the Company and that the Company's actions and conduct,
including the employment of persons who are not permitted to
work in this country, have damaged them and the other members of
the purported class by suppressing the wages of the Company's
hourly employees in Georgia.  The plaintiffs seek a variety of
relief, including treble damages; return of any allegedly
unlawful profits; and attorney's fees and costs of litigation.

In February 2004, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss the
Complaint, which was denied by the Northern District in April
2004.  The Company then sought and obtained permission to file
an immediate appeal of the Northern District's decision to the
United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit.  In June
2005, the 11th Circuit reversed in part and affirmed in part the
lower court's decision.  In June 2005, the Company filed a
motion requesting review by the full 11th Circuit.


MOTOROLA INC.: Continues To Face DC Securities Fraud Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Motorola, Inc. and Iridium World Communications continues to
face the consolidated securities class action filed against them
in the United States District Court for the District of
Columbia, styled "Freeland v. Iridium World Communications,
Inc., et al."

The consolidated suit arose out of alleged misrepresentations or
omissions regarding the Iridium satellite communications
business.  The suit was originally filed on April 22, 1999.  On
August 31, 2004, the court denied the motions to dismiss that
had been filed on July 15, 2002 by the Company and the other
defendants.  While the still pending cases are in various stages
and the outcomes are not predictable, an unfavorable outcome of
one or more of these cases could have a material adverse effect
on the Company's consolidated financial position, liquidity or
results of operations, the Company stated in a disclosure to the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The suit is styled "FREELAND, et al v. IRIDIUM WORLD COMM, et
al., case no. 1:99-cv-01002," filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Columbia, under Judge Nanette
K. Laughrey.  Representing the plaintiffs are Douglas Graham
Thompson, Jr. of FINKELSTEIN, THOMPSON & LOUGHRAN, 1050 30th
Street, NW, Washington, DC 20007, Phone: (202) 337-8000, Fax:
202-337-8090, E-mail: dgt@ftllaw.com; and Eric J. Belfi of
MURRAY, FRANK & SAILER LLP, 275 Madison Avenue, Suite 801, New
York, NY 10016, Phone: (212) 682-1818, Fax: (212) 682-1892, E-
mail: ebelfi@murrayfrank.com.  Representing the Company is
Jeffrey L. Willian of KIRKLAND & ELLIS, 200 East Randolph Drive,
Chicago, IL 60601, Phone: (312) 861-2000, Fax: 312-861-2200, E-
mail: jwillian@kirkland.com.


MOTOROLA INC.: Right To Appeal IL Suit Dismissal Terminated
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs' right to appeal the appeal the dismissal of the
class action filed against Motorola, Inc., arising out of its
manufacture and sale of wireless telephones, styled "Jerald P.
Busse, et al. v. Motorola, Inc. et al.," has terminated.

The suit, filed October 26, 1995 in the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois, Chancery Division, alleges that defendants
have failed to adequately warn consumers of the alleged dangers
of cellular telephones and challenging ongoing safety studies as
invasions of privacy.

On October 9, 2002, the Circuit Court entered summary judgment
in defendants' favor.  On June 22, 2004, the Illinois Appellate
Court affirmed the lower court's entry of summary judgment and
dismissal of the case.  On July 13, 2004, plaintiffs filed a
petition for rehearing with the Illinois Appellate Court.  On
August 3, 2004, the Illinois Appellate Court denied the petition
for rehearing.  On October 12, 2004, plaintiffs served
defendants with a Petition for Leave to Appeal to the Illinois
Supreme Court.  On May 30, 2005, plaintiffs' right to file a
petition seeking a writ of certiorari to the United States
Supreme Court terminated, exhausting all avenues of appeal for
the plaintiffs.


MOTOROLA INC.: Plaintiffs Appeal Personal Injury Suit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs' appeal of the dismissal of the consolidated class
action filed against Motorola, Inc. and other cellular phone
manufacturers in the United States District Court for the
District of Maryland has been briefed and argued, but no
decision has been released yet.

During 2001, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
transferred five cases, "Naquin, et al. v. Nokia Mobile Phones,
et al.," "Pinney and Colonell v. Nokia, Inc., et al.," "Gillian
et al., v. Nokia, Inc., et al.," "Farina v. Nokia, Inc., et
al.," and "Gimpelson v. Nokia Inc, et al.," which allege that
the failure to incorporate a remote headset into cellular phones
rendered the phones defective and that cellular phones cause
undisclosed injury to cells and other health risks, to the
United States District Court for the District of Maryland for
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings in the matter
called "In re Wireless Telephone Radio Frequency Emissions
Products Liability Litigation."

On March 5, 2003, the MDL Court dismissed with prejudice, on
federal preemption grounds, the five cases. Plaintiffs then
appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit.

During 2002, the MDL panel transferred and consolidated six
additional cases with the MDL Proceeding, namely:

     (1) "Murray v. Motorola, Inc., et al.," "Agro et. al., v.
         Motorola, Inc., et al.," "Cochran et. al.,v. Audiovox
         Corporation, et al.,"  "Schofield et al.,v. Matsushita
         Electric Corporation of America, et al.," each of which
         alleges that use of a cellular phone caused a malignant
         brain tumor,

     (2) "Dahlgren v. Motorola, Inc., et al.," which alleges
         that defendants manufactured and sold cell phones that
         increase the risk of adverse cellular reaction and or
         cellular dysfunction and failed to disclose biological
         effects, and

     (3) "Brower v. Motorola, Inc., et al.," which contains
         allegations similar to Murray and Dahlgren,

On July 19, 2004, the court for the District of Maryland found
that there was no federal court jurisdiction over Murray, Agro,
Cochran and Schofield and remanded those cases to the Superior
Court for the District of Columbia.  On November 30, 2004,
defendants moved to dismiss the Murray, Agro, Cochran and
Schofield complaints.

The suit is styled "In re Wireless Telephone Radio Frequency
Emissions Products Liability Litigation, case no. 1:01-md-01421-
CCB," filed in the United States District Court in Maryland,
under Judge Catherine C. Blake.

Representing the plaintiffs is Mayer Morganroth, Morganroth and
Morganroth PLLC, 3000 Town Cntr Ste 1500, Southfield, MI 48075,
Phone: 1-248-355-3084, Fax: 1-248-355-3017, E-mail:
jgurfinkel@morganrothlaw.com.  Representing the Company is
Kenneth L. Thompson and Michael E. Yaggy, DLA Piper Rudnick Gray
Cary US LLP, 6225 Smith Ave, Baltimore, MD 21209-3600, Phone:
1-410-580-3000, Fax: 1-410-580-3001, E-mail:
kenneth.thompson@dlapiper.com, michael.yaggy@dlapiper.com;
Anthony Michael Conti, Conti and Fenn LLC, 36 S Charles St Ste
2501, Baltimore, MD 21201, Phone: 1-410-837-6999, Fax:
1-410-510-1647, E-mail: tony@contifenn.com.


PACCAR INC.: Recalls 333 2005 Peterbilt Trucks For Crash Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
Paccar, Inc. in cooperation with the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration's Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) is
voluntarily recalling about 333 units of 2005 Peterbilt / 201
buses due to crash hazard. NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID Number: 05V417000.

According to the ODI, on certain trucks equipped with hydraulic
brakes, there may be a defect in the anchor bolt of some Bosch
Model #305 parking brake assemblies. A different coating was
applied to the bolt, which did not meet Paccar specifications.
This could reduce the fatigue life of the bolt and lead to
premature failure. If this bolt were to fail, the trucks could
roll away while parked without warning, which could result in a
crash.

As a remedy, dealers will inspect the parking brake assembly and
replace the defective bolts. The recall is expected to begin on
September 23, 2005.

For more details, contact Kenworth, Phone: 1-425-828-5440,
Peterbilt, Phone: 1-940-591-4201 and NHTSA Auto Safety Hotline:
1-888-327-4236 or (TTY) 1-800-424-9153, Web site:
http://www.safecar.gov.


PMI: Recalls 45T Stanley Thermos Bottles Due to Health Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------
In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC), PMI, of Seattle, Washington is voluntarily recalling
about 45,000 units of Stanley thermos bottles.

The handle on the thermos bottles can break, causing the vacuum
seal to fail and release organic, non-toxic charcoal powder
insulation into the air. This can cause consumers to suffer
short-term vision problems and temporary breathing problems when
they inhale the powder. PMI has received 654 reports of handles
breaking and non-toxic charcoal powder insulation releasing into
the air. The firm has received 23 reports of consumers who had
difficulty breathing or seeing, and in some cases, began
vomiting and coughing. More than 60 of the incidents occurred in
trucks or cars creating the potential for impaired vision. There
have been 446 reports of property damage.

The recall involves the brushed stainless steel and the green 1-
liter and 2-quart bottles, and the 24-oz. wide mouth food jar.
The recalled thermos bottles have only two spot welds per handle
bracket and contain any of the following date code numbers: C
02, D 02, or A 03.

The date code is located on the bottom of the bottles just above
the "S" and "Y" on the word "STANLEY."

Manufactured in Korea and China, the Stanley thermos bottles
were sold at all Wal-Mart, Kmart, Target and other discount
department stores nationwide from October 2002 through February
2003 for about $25.

Consumers should immediately stop using the product and contact
PMI for a free replacement thermos bottle. PMI will provide all
shipping charges for returned bottles.

Consumer Contact: Contact PMI at (800) 919-6330 anytime, or
visit the firm's Web site: http://www.Stanley-pmi.com.


QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Retirees to Appeal Attorneys' Fees Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. West retirees filed notice to appeal a Denver District
Court decision last month awarding plaintiff attorneys $16.3
million of a $50 million class action shareholder settlement,
The Rocky Mountain News reports.

Curtis Kennedy, an attorney for the Association of U.S. West
Retirees, told The Rocky Mountain News, "I just think these
(awards) have gotten out of hand. It's an example of greed gone
wild with these trial lawyers. Where does it end?"

Las month, Denver District Judge John Coughlin ruled that the
class action attorneys, led by the California law firm of Lerach
Coughlin, were entitled to their full request of $15 million,
plus $1.3 million in out-of-pocket expenses. The explained his
decision by saying that the lawyers had been the only ones to
step up to the plate and take on the risky case on behalf of
U.S. West shareholders.

The suit alleged that Qwest Communications had breached its
fiduciary duty by failing to pay a 53-cents-a-share, second-
quarter dividend after the merger with U.S. West in June 2000.
The plaintiffs originally sought $273 million in damages, but
lawyers settled the case for $50 million on the eve of the
scheduled trial.

Although plaintiff attorneys usually get a contingency fee of
around 30 percent, Mr. Kennedy questioned whether it should
apply in a case where the final award is of such magnitude. The
Colorado Court of Appeals would hear an appeal by their side,
Mr. Kennedy said.

Mr. Kennedy told The Rocky Mountain News that he particularly is
troubled by the court not requiring Mr. Lerach to provide
evidence of how it spent the $1.3 million, noting that it would
be easy to slip in bar or expensive restaurant tabs, limousine
services and the like. He pointed out, "If we were in federal
court, I think the judge would say that they have to show some
supporting paperwork."

Though Lerach attorneys could not immediately be reached for
comment, one Lercah attorney, Michael Dowd defended the fee last
month, arguing that the law firm took on a complex case without
any financial guarantees. He told The Rocky Mountain News, "We
were the ones at risk . all by ourselves."


ROCKSTAR GAMES: Sexually Explicit Content Prompts Parent to Sue
---------------------------------------------------------------
A concerned mother filed a class action lawsuit in St. Clair
County Court against the promoters of "Grand Theft Auto: San
Andreas (GTA)," claiming her teenage children were exposed to
sexually explicit content in a popular video game, The Madison
County Record reports.

In her suit, Mrs. Brenda Stanhouse claims that at the time she
bought the game in which police-shooting characters are heroes
it was rated "M" for mature by the Entertainment Software
Ratings Board (ESRB).   An "M" rating signifies that the game
contains some mature content, but no sexually explicit content
that would merit an adults-only "AO" rating.

Mrs. Stanhouse filed the suit against Take-Two Interactive
Software and Rockstar Games on September 8. It was the 28th
class action lawsuit of the year in St. Clair County.  Mrs.
Stanhouse, who is represented by John Steward and Lance Harke of
Nester and Constance in Belleville, is asking that the court
maintain her case as a class action and appoint her as the class
representative with no class member seeking damages in excess of
$75,000. Her complaint specifically, states, "All persons in the
United States who purchased at retail, GTA that contained an "M"
rating are eligible to join the class."

Mrs. Stanhouse claims that prior to marketing GTA, the video
games developers and marketers, submitted the game to the ESRB
for review and rating, but allegedly did not inform them that
GTA contained embedded sexually explicit content, which could
easily be accessed by children. She thus contends in her
complaint that, "Had ESRB known of the embedded sexually
explicit content, GTA would have received an "AO" rating."
Additionally, Mrs. Stanhouse claims that when she purchased the
game she was unaware of the sexually explicit content of the
game.

According to the complaint, in July of 2005, an investigation by
the ESRB revealed that it had been deceived into bestowing the
"M" rating on GTA. The rating was revoked and replaced with an
"AO," which prompted many national retailers to pull GTA from
their shelves.

Mrs. Stanhouse is also claiming that the defendants failed to
disclose to consumers material facts about the sexually explicit
content of GTA and provided misleading and deceptive information
that GTA was an "M" rated game, rather than an "AO." She further
states in her complaint, "The unlawful method, act or practice
has caused economic loss and damage to plaintiff, and, upon
information and belief, has caused similar injury to millions of
other persons who purchased the deceptively rated game." It goes
on to state, "Defendants, as a result of their unfair and
deceptive marketing of GTA, profited at the expense of Mrs.
Stanhouse and the class."


SL INDUSTRIES: NJ Residents Launch Water Contamination Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
SL Industries, Inc. and its wholly owned subsidiary, SL Surface
Technologies, Inc. continue to face a class action complaint
filed in Superior Court of New Jersey for Camden County.

SurfTech once operated a chrome-plating facility in Pennsauken,
New Jersey (the "SurfTech Site").  Substantially all of the
operating assets of SurfTech were sold in November 2003.

The Company and SurfTech are currently two of approximately 39
defendants in this action. The complaint alleges, among other
things, that the plaintiffs suffered personal injuries as a
result of consuming water distributed from the Puchack Wellfield
in Pennsauken, New Jersey (which supplied Camden, New Jersey).
The suit also alleges that SurfTech and other defendants
contaminated ground water through the disposal of hazardous
substances at industrial facilities in the area.


STAAR SURGICAL: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs asked the United States District Court for the
Central District of California to dismiss consolidated
securities class action against Staar Surgical Co. and its Chief
Executive Officer, alleging violations of federal securities
laws.

Since September 1, 2004, multiple class action lawsuits have
been filed in the United States District Courts for the
Central District of California and the District of New Mexico on
behalf of all persons who acquired the Company's securities
during various periods between April 3, 2003 and September 28,
2004.  On December 15, 2004, the Court ordered consolidation of
the complaints that had been filed in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California and directed that
the plaintiffs file a consolidated complaint as soon as
practicable.  The New Mexico action was voluntarily dismissed on
January 28, 2005.  Plaintiffs filed a consolidated suit on April
29,2005

The lawsuit generally alleges that the defendants violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by
issuing false and misleading statements regarding intraocular
lenses and implantable lenses, and failing timely to disclose
significant problems with the lenses, as well as the existence
of serious injuries and/or malfunctions attributable to the
lenses, thereby artificially inflating the price of the
Company's Common Stock.  The plaintiffs generally seek to
recover compensatory damages, including interest.

The suit is styled "In re STAAR Surgical Co. Securities
Litigation, No. CV 04-8007S," filed in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California, under
Judge James Otero.  Representing the plaintiffs is Avi N. Wagner
of Glancy Binkow and Goldberg, 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite
311, Los Angeles, CA 90067, Phone: 310-201-9150.  Representing
the Company are Dan Marmalefsky and Mark R. McDonald of Morrison
& Foerster, 555 W 5th St, Ste 3500, Los Angeles, CA 90013-1024,
Phone: 213-892-5200, E-mail: mmcdonald@mofo.com.


STAKTEK HOLDINGS: Asks TX Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Staktek Holdings, Inc. asked the United States District Court in
Austin, Texas to dismiss a securities class action filed against
it and two of its executive officers, alleging violations of
federal securities laws.

On October 22, 2004, a class action complaint was filed in the
United States District Court in New Mexico, alleging that the
Defendants failed to disclose to the public an anticipated
shortage of computer memory chips and that they knew or
recklessly disregarded that the anticipated shortage would have
a materially adverse impact on our revenue and earnings. In
addition, the plaintiff claims that the Defendants failed to
disclose to investors that the industry's transition to a new
generation of higher-capacity memory chips was causing computer
makers to stockpile supplies of older memory chips, increasing
the shortage.  The suit covers individuals who purchased Company
stock between November 26, 2003 and May 19, 2004.

In April 2005, the case was transferred to federal district
court in Austin, Texas, and in June the plaintiff amended her
complaint, adding the Company's chairman of the board as a
defendant. In July 2005, the Company filed a motion to dismiss
the amended complaint.


TELLABS INC.: Court Yet To Rule on Appeal of IL Suit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has yet to
decide on plaintiffs' appeal of the dismissal of a consolidated
class action filed against Tellabs, Inc., Michael Birck and
Richard Notebaert, its former chief executive officer, president
and director, and certain of its other officers and directors.

The suit was filed in the United States District Court of the
Northern District of Illinois, alleging that during the class
period (December 11, 2000-June 19, 2001) the defendants violated
the federal securities laws by making materially false and
misleading statements, including, among other things, allegedly
providing revenue forecasts that were false and misleading,
misrepresenting demand for the Company's products, and reporting
overstated revenues for the fourth quarter 2000 in the Company's
financial statements.  Further, certain of the individual
defendants were alleged to have violated the federal securities
laws by trading the Company's securities while allegedly in
possession of material, non-public information about the Company
pertaining to these matters.

On January 17, 2003, the Company and the other named defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended class action
complaint in its entirety.  On May 19, 2003, the Court granted
the motion and dismissed all counts of the consolidated amended
complaint, while affording plaintiffs an opportunity to replead.
On July 11, 2003, plaintiffs filed a second consolidated amended
class action complaint against the Company, Mr. Birck and Mr.
Notebaert, and many (although not all) of the other previously
named individual defendants, re-alleging claims similar to those
contained in the previously dismissed consolidated amended class
action complaint.  The Company filed a second motion to dismiss
on August 22, 2003, seeking the dismissal with prejudice of all
claims alleged in the second consolidated amended class action
complaint.  On February 19, 2004, the Court issued an order
granting that motion and dismissed the action with prejudice.
On March 18, 2004, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to
the United States Federal Court of Appeal for the Seventh
Circuit appealing the dismissal. The appeal was fully briefed,
oral argument was heard on January 21, 2005 and the parties are
awaiting a decision.

The suit is styled "Johnson, et al v. Tellabs Inc, et al., case
no. 1:02-cv-04356," filed in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois, under Judge Amy J. St.
Eve.  Representing the Company is David F. Graham, Sidley Austin
Brown & Wood LLP, 10 South Dearborn Street, Bank One Plaza,
Chicago, IL 60603, Phone: (312) 853-7000.  Representing the
Company is Steven G. Schulman, Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman
LLP, One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor, New York, NY 10119-
0165, Phone: (212) 594-5300.


TELLABS INC.: Plaintiffs Drop DE Suit V. Advanced Fiber Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the class action filed against
Tellabs, Inc. in the Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware
in and for New Castle County, on behalf of a putative class of
Advanced Fiber Communications, Inc. (AFC) stockholders.  The
suit also names as defendants AFC and certain of AFC's current
officers and directors.

The complaint alleges that the Defendants breached their
fiduciary duties to AFC's public stockholders by acting to cause
or facilitate the merger of the Company and AFC for inadequate
consideration, and that the Company acted to aid and abet the
alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.  In particular, plaintiff
alleges that the merger consideration originally offered by the
Company to AFC's public stockholders prior to the amendment and
restatement of the merger agreement is unfair and inadequate
because, according to the plaintiff:

     (1) the intrinsic value of the stock of AFC is materially
         in excess of the $21.24 per share being proposed,
         giving due consideration to the possibilities of growth
         and profitability of AFC in light of its business,
         earnings and earnings power, present and future;

     (2) the $21.24 per share price is inadequate and offers an
         inadequate premium to the public shareholders of AFC;
         and

     (3) the $21.24 per share price is not the result of any
         structured auction process by which AFC sought to
         obtain the best deal possible for its shareholders.

The plaintiff sought either to enjoin the merger or to rescind
the transaction, in the event the merger is completed, and also
asserts claims for unspecified compensatory and/or rescissory
damages, and an award of costs, including attorneys' fees.

On June 3, 2005, plaintiff dismissed the complaint without
prejudice and without notice.  No compensation in any form was
paid directly or indirectly from any of the defendants to the
plaintiff or plaintiff's attorneys, and no promise to give any
such compensation was made.


TITAN CORPORATION: Faces Two Suits Over Abuse in Iraqi Prisons
--------------------------------------------------------------
Titan Corporation and other defendants faces two lawsuits,
alleging they either participated in, approved of, or condoned
the mistreatment of prisoners by United States military
officials in certain prison facilities in Iraq in violation of
federal, state and international law.

The first of these cases, "Saleh v. Titan Corporation, No. 04-
CV-1143 R," was filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of California against The Titan
Corporation, CACI International, Inc. (CACI), and its
affiliates, and three individuals (one formally employed by
Titan and one by a Titan subcontractor). Plaintiffs in "Saleh"
seek class certification.

The second case, styled "Ibrahim v. Titan Corporation, Case no.
04-CV-1248," was filed on July 27, 2004, on behalf of five
individual plaintiffs against the Company, CACI and CACI
affiliates, and contains allegations similar to those in
"Saleh."


TITAN INC.: Working To Settle Securities Fraud, Derivative Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Titan, Inc. is working to settle litigation filed against it and
its officers and directors, arising out of its settlement of a
United States Department of Justice probe over alleged Foreign
Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) violations and its failed merger
with Lockheed Martin Corporation.

A consolidated securities class action, styled "In re Titan Inc.
Securities Litigation, No. 04-CV-0701-K(NLS)," is pending in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
California.  The complaint alleges, among other things, that the
Company and its officers and directors violated Section 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange
Act), and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act,
by issuing a series of press releases, public statements and
filings disclosing significant historical and future revenue
growth, but omitting to mention certain allegedly improper
payments involving international consultants in connection with
the Company's international operations, thereby artificially
inflating the trading price of its common stock.

On July 18, 2005, an amended complaint in the securities action
was filed that, among other things, added the claims that were
previously pled in the "Holder Actions" described below.  The
Federal Securities Action and the Holder Actions are referred to
collectively as the "Securities Action."

Certain Company officers are also parties to putative class
action complaints filed in the Superior Court for the State of
California in and for San Diego County (the Holder Actions).
These cases include "Paul Berger v. Gene W. Ray, et al., No. GIC
828346," and "Robert Garfield v. Mark W. Sopp, et. al., No. GIC
828345."  These actions purport to be brought on behalf of all
holders of the Company's common stock as of April 7, 2004. The
Holder Actions allege, among other things, that the defendants
breached their fiduciary duties by acquiescing in or condoning
the Company's alleged violations of the FCPA by failing to
establish adequate procedures to prevent the alleged FCPA
violations, and by failing, in bad faith, to voluntarily report
the alleged FCPA violations to government officials.

Certain of the Company's directors and officers, with the
Company as a nominal defendant, are also party to:

     (1) Theodore Weisgerber v. Gene Ray, et al., No. 832018,
         filed in the Superior Court for the State of
         California, San Diego;

     (2) Robert Ridgeway v. Gene Ray, et al., No. 542-N, filed
         in Delaware Court of Chancery, New Castle County;

     (3) Bernd Bildstein v. Gene Ray, et al., No. 833701, filed
         in the Superior Court for the State of California, San
         Diego County; and

     (4) Madnick v. Gene Ray, et al., No. 1215-N, filed in the
         Delaware Court of Chancery, New Castle County

The Derivative Actions purport to be brought for the benefit of
the nominal defendant, the Company, and allege that the
defendants breached their fiduciary duties by failing to monitor
and supervise management in a way that would have either
prevented the alleged FCPA violations or would have detected the
alleged FCPA violations. The "Weisberber" complaint was
subsequently amended to include allegations that the defendants
breached their fiduciary duties by failing to monitor and
supervise management in a way that would have prevented the
alleged mistreatment of prisoners at the Abu Ghraib prison in
Iraq, alleged billing errors relating to the work performed by
foreign nationals, and the loss of contracts with the
government.

On June 3, 2005, an amended complaint was filed in the
"Ridgeway" action that added, among other things, a claim
alleging that Company directors breached their fiduciary duty in
connection with their approval of the merger with the Company.
The Company was named as a defendant in the "Ridgeway" action
for allegedly aiding and abetting this alleged breach of
fiduciary duty.

On June 6, 2005, a putative class action, styled "Gentsch v.
Titan Corporation, No. GIC 848598," was filed in Superior Court
for the State of California against the Company and its board of
directors challenging the merger between Titan and L3
Communications, Inc.

Concurrently with entering into the merger agreement relating to
the Company acquisition, two memoranda of understanding were
executed. First, the defendants in the Securities Action,
including the Company and certain of its directors and officers,
entered into a memorandum of understanding (the Securities MOU)
with plaintiffs in the Federal Securities and Holder actions.
Pursuant to the Securities MOU, plaintiffs and their counsel
will receive $61.5 million.

Second, the defendants in the Derivative Actions, including the
Company and certain of its directors and officers and the
Company, entered into a separate memorandum of understanding
(the Derivative MOU) with plaintiffs in the Derivative Actions.
As a result of negotiations by the plaintiffs in the Derivative
Actions, the Company agreed to, among other things, increase the
purchase price it was willing to pay for the Company's common
stock to $23.10 per share of its common stock and to reduce the
termination fee potentially payable by the Company. Pursuant to
the Derivative MOU, the Company has agreed to pay any plaintiff
attorneys' fees awarded by the Delaware Court of Chancery, up to
$5.9 million.

After the completion of confirmatory discovery, including the
review by plaintiffs' counsel of certain documents of Titan and
the Company and the taking of several depositions, the parties
executed stipulations of settlement on July 22, 2005.  A
Preliminary Fairness and Certification Hearing is scheduled for
September 26, 2005 to consider preliminary approval of the
Securities Settlement. The Derivative Settlement was
preliminarily approved on August 8, 2005 and a Final Settlement
Hearing is scheduled for November 2, 2005. Both settlements
remain subject to court approval.


TITAN INC.: Shareholder Files Amended CA Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Titan, Inc. faces an amended shareholder class action filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
California, in relations to its spin-off of its former
subsidiary, SureBeam Corporation.

On January 19, 2004, SureBeam voluntarily filed for bankruptcy
relief to be liquidated under Chapter 7 of the United States
Bankruptcy Court. Various lawsuits have been filed against the
Company and/or certain of its directors and executive officers
in connection with SureBeam.

The Company, certain corporate officers of SureBeam, Dr. Gene
Ray and Susan Golding, as SureBeam directors, and certain
investment banks that served as lead underwriters for SureBeam's
March  2001 initial public offering, have been named as
defendants in several purported class action lawsuits filed by
holders of common stock of SureBeam.  On October 6, 2003, these
lawsuits were consolidated into "In re SureBeam Corporation
Securities Litigation, No. 03-CV-001721-JM (POR)."

The consolidated action seeks an unspecified amount of damages
and alleges that each of the defendants, including the Company,
as a "control person" of SureBeam within the meaning of Section
15 of the Securities Act, should be held liable under Section 11
of the Securities Act because the prospectus for SureBeam's
initial public offering was allegedly inaccurate and misleading,
contained untrue statements of material facts, and omitted to
state other facts necessary to make the statements made therein
not misleading.  The consolidated action further alleges that
the defendants, including the Company, as a control person of
SureBeam within the meaning of Section  20(a) of the Exchange
Act, should be held liable under Section  10(b) of the Exchange
Act for false and misleading statements made during the period
from March  16, 2001 to August  27, 2003. On January 3, 2005,
the court granted in part and denied in part motions to dismiss
the operative complaint.  An amended complaint was filed on
March 1, 2005.

The suit is styled "In re SureBeam Corporation Securities
Litigation, No. 03-CV-001721-JM (POR)," filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of California,
under Judge Jeffrey T Miller.  Representing the plaintiffs is
Darren Jay Robbins of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman and
Robbins, 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA 92101,
Phone: (619)231-1058.


VERITAS SOFTWARE: Asks DE Court To Dismiss Securities Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
VERITAS Software Corporation asked the United States District
Court for the District of Delaware to dismiss the consolidated
securities class action filed against it, alleging violations of
federal securities laws.

On July 7, 2004, a purported class action complaint entitled
"Paul Kuck, et al. v. VERITAS Software Corporation, et al.," was
filed.  The lawsuit alleges violations of federal securities
laws in connection with the Company's announcement on July 6,
2004 that it expected its results of operations for the fiscal
quarter ended June 30, 2004 to fall below estimates that were
earlier provided by the Company.  The complaint generally seeks
an unspecified amount of damages.

Subsequently, additional purported class action complaints have
been filed in Delaware federal court against the same defendants
named in the Kuck lawsuit.  These complaints are based on the
same facts and circumstances as the Kuck lawsuit.  On March 3,
2005, the Court entered an order consolidating these actions and
appointing lead plaintiffs and counsel. A consolidated amended
complaint was filed on May 27, 2005, expanding the class period
back one year, to between April 23, 2004 and July 6, 2004. The
suit also named another officer as a defendant and added
allegations that the Company and the named officers made false
or misleading statements in the company's press releases and SEC
filings regarding the company's financial results, which
allegedly contained revenue recognized from contracts that were
unsigned or lacked essential terms.


WIRELESS FACILITIES: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wireless Facilities, Inc. asked the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California to dismiss the second
amended consolidated securities class action filed against it
and certain of its officers and directors.

Several securities class action lawsuits were initially filed on
behalf of those who purchased, or otherwise acquired, the
Company's common stock between April 26, 2000 and August 4,
2004. The lawsuits generally allege that, during that time
period, Defendants made false and misleading statements to the
investing public about the Company's business and financial
results, causing its stock to trade at artificially inflated
levels. Based on these allegations, the lawsuits allege that
Defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the
plaintiffs seek unspecified damages. These actions have been
consolidated into a single action in "In re Wireless Facilities,
Inc. Securities Litigation Master File No. 04CV1589-JAH."

The plaintiffs filed their consolidated complaint in January
2005 and did not name the Company a defendant in that complaint.
After the individual defendants filed their motion to dismiss,
the plaintiffs requested leave to amend their complaint to add
the Company as a defendant.  Plaintiffs filed the First Amended
Consolidated Class Action Complaint on April 1, 2005.
Defendants filed their motion to dismiss this first amended
complaint on April 14, 2005.  Defendants then requested leave to
amend their first amended complaint.  The plaintiffs filed their
second amended complaint on June 9, 2005.  Defendants filed
their motion to dismiss this second amended complaint on July
14, 2005.  The motion to dismiss is currently scheduled to be
heard on September 22, 2005.

The first identified complaint is styled "Cole, et al. v.
Wireless Facilities, Inc., et al. case no. 04-CV-1589," filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
California.  The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

     (1) 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

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

     (3) Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP, 100 Park
         Avenue, New York, NY, 10017 Phone: 212.907.0700, Fax:
         212.818.0477, E-mail: info@glrslaw.com

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

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

     (6) Shalov, Stone & Bonner, 276 Fifth Avenue, Suite 704,
         New York, NY, 10001, Phone: 212.686.8004, Fax:
         212.686.8005, E-mail: lawyer@lawssb.com

     (7) Spector, Roseman, & Kodroff (San Diego), 600 West
         Broadway, Suite 1800, San Diego, CA, 92101, Phone:
         619.338.4514,

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

     (9) Wolf Popper, LLP, 845 Third Avenue, New York, NY,
         10022-6689 Phone: 877.370.7703, Fax: 212.486.2093, E-
         mail: IRRep@wolfpopper.com


WORLDCOM INC.: NY Judge Gives Final Approval to $3.6B Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Manhattan federal Judge Denise Cote gave final approval to a
$3.6 billion settlement in a class action case involving more
than a dozen investment banks and WorldCom Inc. investors that
stems from the telecommunications company's collapse three years
ago, Reuters reports.

Court records show that along with an earlier settlement by
Citigroup Inc. that is worth nearly $2.6 billion, investors in
total are expected to recover more than $6.1 billion. That
amount will be distributed among the more than 830,000
individual and institutional investors who are part of the case.

Former WorldCom Chief Executive Bernard Ebbers and former
financial chief Scott Sullivan along with other former directors
as well as the company's ex-auditor, Arthur Andersen, LLP, were
part of the recent settlement.

The class action case was brought by New York State Comptroller
Alan Hevesi on behalf of WorldCom stock and bond holders who
lost billions when WorldCom descended into bankruptcy in July
2002 after an $11 billion accounting fraud was uncovered. It
accused investment banks of helping WorldCom sell bonds when
they should have known the company was concealing its true
financial condition.

The settlement stipulated that about $5 billion of the more than
$6 billion total recovery would go to WorldCom bond holders,
while stock investors would get more than $1 billion.  Judge
Cote approved in a written ruling the settlement, which involves
banks, JP Morgan Chase & Co. and Bank of America Corporation.
Judge Cote approved the Citigroup settlement last November.

In concluding her final approval order, Judge Cote wrote that
the banks that settled the case "obviously have the financial
resources to pay more than they have, but (their) settlements
have contributed to a total recovery that goes a long way toward
making bondholders whole."

Despite the hefty payout, it's not yet known how much each
individual investor would receive under the settlement. In
addition, the deadline for claims has passed, but an
administrator is still processing all of the claims and deciding
which ones are valid.


                          Asbestos Alert


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Found in 22 Hyogo Govt. Facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------
In an interim report pertaining to a recent asbestos study of
about 2,400 prefectural facilities, the Hyogo Prefectural
Government discloses that asbestos-containing materials were
used in the construction of 22 Hyogo Prefecture governed
facilities, including a school for disabled students, The Daily
Yomiuri reports.

While the potentially lethal substance is feared to have
dispersed in the air, the report added that the atmospheric
concentration at the facilities in question was below the level
stipulated by the Air Pollution Law, fewer than 10 asbestos
fibers per liter of air.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EPA To Inspect Demolition Site in Tennessee
----------------------------------------------------------------
Criminal investigators from the Environmental Protection Agency
are set to inspect hazardous wastes at the site of the old
Standard-Coosa-Thatcher plant torn down by businessman Gary
Fillers at 17th and Watkins streets in Ridgeside.

John Schultz, an inspector with the Air Pollution Control Bureau
who spotted the debris at the SCT site, said the partially
demolished SCT building is also dangerous. He said there are
holes in the building where vagrants have apparently been
entering and the building is several stories high.

Bob Colby, executive director of the Air Pollution Control
Bureau, said he had been "working with my state and federal
partners in examining this site." He said there is asbestos-
containing material lying out in the open as well as a number of
other potential hazardous substances.

Mr. Colby said the property is registered to a corporation that
is no longer operating. He said Mr. Fillers and his brother, Don
Fillers, are listed as principals in the firm.

Mr. Schultz noted that the site is across a day care center. He
added that when asbestos is disturbed, the fibers could become
airborne and endanger those living nearby.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Doe Run Resources Named in Injury Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
In a quarterly report to the Securities and Exchange Commission,
The Doe Run Resources Corp declares that it faces several
asbestos injury lawsuits.

The Company, together with numerous companies and public
entities, confronts an injury suit in the City of St. Louis by
an individual who alleged that he was exposed to asbestos.

Doe Run was named in two similar suits filed in Madison County,
Illinois, one alleging that a worker was exposed to asbestos at
premises of the St. Joe Minerals Corporation, Doe Run's
predecessor. The other was filed by a person who did laundry for
family members who were insulation workers allegedly exposed to
asbestos at Doe Run's Herculaneum, Missouri facility.

Doe Run was served a Writ of Summons in a fourth case filed in
Pennsylvania in May 2003.

The St. Louis, MO-based Company is primarily involved in mining,
milling, smelting, and refining lead. The Company operates in
the US and South America.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Japan Firms Ban Asbestos in Overseas Units
---------------------------------------------------------------
Japanese manufacturers of auto parts, construction materials and
other products eliminate the use of asbestos at their overseas
plants amid worries of impending health liabilities, The Asahi
Shimbun reports.

In August, two major automobile brake makers, Nisshinbo
Industries Inc and Akebono Brake Industry Co, banned asbestos at
their Thailand and Indonesia plants, respectively.

Officials of Nichias Corp, a major sealants producer, said it
would stop using asbestos in pipe valves at its China plant at
the end of September.

Bridgestone Cycle Co announced that asbestos-containing brakes
might have been used for children's bicycles. A local subsidiary
of bicycle parts maker Karasawa Seisakusho Ltd designed the
brakes to be used only in bicycles sold in China.

Kazuyuki Karasawa, vice president of the brake supplier,
admitted that asbestos is used in bicycles for the China market
because it is cheap and regulations are loose. The Company says
it will switch to alternative materials.

Use of asbestos is restricted in Japan.  However, because of the
hazardous materials' cheap cost, it is still used in other Asian
nations where relevant regulations are often lax.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NSW Aborigines Sick With Asbestos Illnesses
----------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos-related illnesses afflict the people of Baryulgil, a
tiny New South Wales Aboriginal community with barely 100
settlers and located about 80 km northwest of Grafton.

Dr Ray Jones, of the Grafton Aboriginal Medical Service, said
the number of people with asbestos-related illnesses had risen
from six to 18 in the past three months, in which the victims
are identified through a screening program.

James Hardie Industries NV, a building products manufacturer,
operated an asbestos mine in Baryulgil from the 1950s to 1979.

Dr. Jones cited nearly all the miners had died, and those
battling sickness were their children, most of who were now aged
30 to 50.

While may Baryulgil inhabitants smoked, smoking-related diseases
normally manifested in patients in their 60s, while people 20
years younger than that were developing cancer and other
maladies.

Several of the more severely ill asbestos victims who had lived
in Baryulgil had employed Sydney law firm Stephen Smart and
Associates to work on a possible law suit against James Hardie,
Dr. Jones said.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: OSHA Orders Abatement at CO Humane Society
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration orders
the Roice-Hurst Humane Society at 3320 D Road to eliminate
asbestos from its Clifton, Colorado building, temporarily
displacing resident cats and dogs for the rest of the month, The
Daily Sentinel reports.

The humane society was issued several citations and owes
US$1,000 in fines under an OSHA settlement. According to OSHA
documents, the fines were reduced from almost US$3,000.

"OSHA told us that we had to get the asbestos removed by the end
of the month," said Christopher Aguiniga, humane society
director. "The asbestos has been here for a little bit, but we
haven't had the money to get it taken care of."

Herb Gibson, area director for OSHA, said the percentage of
asbestos at the facility was "not that great," and the substance
was located at the facility's ceiling.

Mr. Aguiniga said it would cost US$15,000 for the removal,
effectively wiping out the society's reserves for additional
building projects. The humane society has been saving donations
for its building program, but nearly all of that money will now
be used for the asbestos removal, he added.

All of the animals currently at the society's shelter will be
adopted or fostered during the abatement.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hardie Accused of Bogus Statements Re Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Morris Iemma, the NSW Premier, alleges James Hardie Industries
NV made false statements about agreements on a finalized
compensation deal for asbestos disease victims, the Australian
Associated Press reports.

Mr. Iemma criticized James Hardie for saying a final deal had
not been attained because of new issues raised by the Government
during negotiations.

James Hardie spokesman James Rickards said a new draft agreement
was delivered to the Government addressing all of Mr. Iemma's
concerns. He added the Company stood by its previous statements
that the Government had raised new issues during negotiations.

Mr. Iemma said the Government wanted three issues resolved
before reaching a final agreement. He said James Hardie had
accepted the government's first concern, that all victims
covered by the heads of agreement were eligible for
compensation.

"The second area of concern is that James Hardie is seeking to
water down measures to ensure changes to its corporate structure
will not reduce or eliminate its obligation to asbestos
victims," Mr. Iemma.

"The third area of concern is that James Hardie is opposed to
our measures to prevent the firm and its creditors using Dutch
or United States law to reduce or eliminate James Hardie's
obligations to asbestos victims."

Mr. Iemma demands the Company to adequately address the
Government's final concerns prior to signing a final
compensation agreement.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asarco Plans to Replace Striking Employees
---------------------------------------------------------------
Asarco Llc intends to hire hourly employees to replace striking
union workers at its Mission, Silver Bell and Ray copper mines;
its Hayden smelter in Arizona; and a refinery in Amarillo,
Texas, The Herald reports.

Daniel Tellechea, Asarco CEO, said that copper production
dropped by about half as the Company relied on about 420
salaried employees to fill in for 1,500 strikers.

The walkout added to concerns that copper supplies would not
cover demand. The Company and the union failed to agree on
whether a new contract should include a guarantee that any
change in ownership would require the new owner to negotiate
with workers.

Asarco filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on August 9
after the strike cut output and asbestos claims reached US$1
billion.

Phoenix, AZ-based Asarco Inc is a subsidiary of diversified
mining firm Grupo M‚xico SA de CV (Pink Sheets: GMBXF), a
leading miner, refiner, and smelter. Asarco's mines are located
primarily in the southwestern US. The Company produces about 1%
of the world's copper supply.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: UK Man Fined GBP5T for Illegal Tile Dumping
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Carlisle Magistrates Court found guilty businessman Andrew
Armatage, proprietor of Apex PVC Roofline, of five counts of
waste storage regulations and fined him GBP5,000.  The Court
also ordered him to pay GBP2,010 for court costs.

The Court heard how a member of the public complained that waste
was being dumped between two skips at the Station Yard Business
Park, in Wigton, where Mr. Armatage's Company was located. An
environment officer was sent out and found what was seemingly 20
bags containing asbestos tiles. Analysis later confirmed this.

Mr. Armatage blamed contractors, whom he hired to do work, of
dumping the waste. However, he admitted that there were no waste
transfer notes that the contracting company was not registered
as a carrier for waste. He also did not check if the contractors
were registered carriers.

An environment officer said after the hearing, "Asbestos is a
dangerous substance - breathing air contaminated by asbestos can
lead to fatal illnesses, including many cancers of the lungs and
chest lining.

"Waste management licenses are in place to impose strict
criteria to protect the environment and human health. Sites such
as this are not controlled. It is illegal, irresponsible and
anti-social to operate one and we will continue to take action
against anyone caught doing so."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Detection Forces Studio Closure
-------------------------------------------------------------
The discovery of asbestos, which insulated a pipe in the Jamaica
Street Artist Studio's main stairwell, forces the Stokes Croft-
based art studio's closure.

One of the artists in the four-story building became suspicious
of the pipe and contacted the Bristol City Council.

"Our public health and safety team has visited the site,"
Council spokeswoman Tamsin May said. "We have now served a
prohibition notice on the owners, which means no one is allowed
access to the affected part of the building unless they are
wearing protective clothing because of the risk of exposure to
asbestos fibers."

Ms. May could not confirm how long the studio would be closed.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: JPN Govt. to Extend Aid to Asbestos Victims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Japan's Environment Ministry and Health, Labor and Welfare
Ministry propose a law to extend the compensation period
currently received by sufferers of asbestos-related illnesses,
The Yomiuri Shimbun reports.

The proposed law promulgates that the family of a worker whose
compensation period expires five years after he or she dies will
continue to receive financial support.

The new law will also provide medical expenses to family members
of workers. Victims who developed illnesses without working in
asbestos-related factories are set to benefit from the law. The
families of these people will also receive a lump-sum payment
upon victim's death.

The two ministries will finalize details of the planned law,
such as the level of compensation payments, to be presented to
the ordinary Diet session next year. The Health Ministry has
been discussing workers' compensation at asbestos factories,
while the Environment Ministry has been focusing on workers'
families and residents living nearby.

The compensation will be paid to workers at asbestos-related
factories, their families, and those who are not obviously
victims of asbestos-related illnesses, but who live near the
factories. Those suffering from mesothelioma will receive
medical expenses and a lump-sum payment.

In concurrence with the polluter-pays principle, the Government
will ask companies who used asbestos to shoulder the costs.
However, since many of these companies have gone bankrupt, the
government will shoulder some of the expense.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Retired Driver Sues Ex-Boss for GBP100,000
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rowland Maggs, a retired Coalpit Heath lorry driver, launches a
GBP100,000 compensation claim against his former boss Alfred
Anstey, operator of transport company AJ Anstey, after being
exposed to asbestos while employed in the firm from 1966 to
1973.

Badminton Road-based Mr. Maggs has been diagnosed with
mesothelioma, which has left him with serious breathing problems
and in need of constant nursing care.

The Queen's Bench Division in the Royal Courts of Justice will
hear Mr. Maggs' compensation claim against his former employer,
which ceased trading last year.

Mr. Maggs claims he was asked to take an HGV lorry to Avonmouth
docks during an August Bank Holiday to pick up a load of
asbestos which had been bagged into sacks. He said huge amounts
of dust were generated aerially during loading and delivery.

Bristol based law firm Humphreys, representing Mr. Maggs, will
claim that Mr. Anstey failed to put any safety procedure in
place to prevent Mr. Maggs from breathing in the dust or
allowing him to come into direct contact with it.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PMA Capital Allocates $27.9M Loss Reserves
---------------------------------------------------------------
PMA Capital Corp (NASDAQ: PMACA) declares in a report to the
Securities Exchange Commission that at December 31, 2004, 2003
and 2002, asbestos-related losses gross reserves were US$27.9
million, US$37.8 million and US$42.1 million, respectively
(US$14.0 million, US$17.8 million and US$25.8 million, net of
reinsurance, respectively).

Of the net asbestos reserves, about US$10.3 million, US$14.9
million and US$22.9 million related to IBNR losses at December
31, 2004, 2003 and 2002, respectively.

The Company further stated that at December 31, 2004, 2003 and
2002, environmental-related losses gross reserves were US$16.1
million, US$14.2 million and US$18.2 million, respectively
(US$6.4 million, US$8.8 million and $14.3 million, net of
reinsurance, respectively).

Of the net environmental reserves, about US$3.0 million, US$3.7
million, and US$7.9 million related to IBNR losses at December
31, 2004, 2003 and 2002, respectively. All incurred asbestos and
environmental losses were for accident years 1986 and prior.

The Philadelphia, PA-based PMA Capital Corp is a holding company
for several insurers selling property & casualty insurance
primarily in the eastern US. The Company targets middle-market
and large accounts; most of its policies are sold through
independent brokers and agents.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Fund Could Risk Quick Depletion, ALEC Study
----------------------------------------------------------------
A study by Washington, DC-based economic consulting firm Bates
White for the American Legislative Exchange Council established
that the Fairness in Asbestos Injury Resolution Act of 2005,
which removes asbestos claims from the courts and creates an
industry financed US$140 billion asbestos trust fund, could be
bankrupt in just 1-3 years, according to a recent ALEC press
release.

This financial shortfall would result primarily from individuals
with lung and other cancers, who were not historically
compensated with asbestos lawsuits, to be compensated by the
FAIR Act. Claimants who have settled with most defendants could
now be able to use the FAIR Act to recover additional payments.

The study states that the FAIR Act would create asbestos claims
valued between US$301 billion and US$561 billion for individuals
who assert a work history either with, or in the vicinity of
asbestos.

Since the funding level of the Asbestos Compensation Trust Fund
is US$140 billion over 30 years, the result would be a funding
shortfall of US$161 billion to US$421 billion and could leave
383,000 - 913,000 potential future asbestos victims
uncompensated.

The Bates White estimate of the Fund's payouts was much larger
than the Congressional Budget Office's figures. The CBO said the
proposed Fund would have to dole out between US$120 billion and
US$150 billion in claims to asbestos victims. The estimate said
it differed with the CBO because the CBO had assumed that people
with lung and other cancers would file claims to the new fund at
the same rate that they had filed asbestos claims in court.

Sandy Liddy Bourne, ALEC's legislation and policy director, in a
statement said that ALEC prefers state-level action to curb
asbestos claims.

The Senate Judiciary Committee approved the Asbestos
Compensation Fund Bill in May. However, with doubts about how
much support it has in the Democrat and Republican parties, it
has not been brought to the Senate floor.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ILO Declares 100,000 Asbestos Deaths Yearly
----------------------------------------------------------------
The International Labor Organization says in a report that
hazardous substances cause an estimated 440,000 worker deaths
each year worldwide while asbestos kills some 100,000
individuals, The Japan Times reports.

The ILO report puts the number of deaths caused by dangerous
substances at 102,606 in China each year, 64,894 in India and
10,278 in Japan. Worldwide mesothelioma and lung cancer deaths
total about 166,050, it added.

Asbestos diseases kills some 3,500 every year in Britain, more
than 10 times the number of workers killed in accidents there,
the ILO said, citing Britain's own estimates.

While the number of work-related illnesses and deaths has fallen
somewhat in the developed world, the report says the number of
accidents, in particular fatal accidents, appears to be rising,
particularly in parts of Asia, due to poor reporting, rapid
development and strong competitive globalization pressures.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: DE Court Backs Kaiser Disclosure Statement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The District of Delaware US Bankruptcy Court approved Kaiser
Aluminum Corp's (OTC: KLUCQ) Disclosure Statement that relates
to the Company's Second Amended Plan of Reorganization, the
Company reports in its latest press release.

The Court has scheduled a confirmation hearing with respect to
the POR for January 9, 2006 and January 10, 2006. If the POR is
confirmed at that time, the Company could emerge from Chapter 11
by the end of January or early February 2006.

"Today's ruling completes the first of three final milestones to
the company's successful completion of its reorganization," said
Jack Hockema, Company president and CEO. "We anticipate that the
remaining two, voting by the creditors and confirmation by the
bankruptcy and district courts, will be completed according to
the court's schedule within the next four months. As a result,
we now have a definitive, court-approved schedule to emerge
early next year as a globally competitive company with a strong
balance sheet, best-in-class operations, and the ability to grow
in our key transportation and industrial markets."

The Company expects to initiate a 60-day solicitation of
acceptances of the POR by creditors by September 15, 2005.
Because the POR reflects previously disclosed agreements reached
with the Company's major creditor constituents, it is optimistic
that it will receive the necessary acceptances for plan
confirmation.

The POR would also result in the elimination of the equity
interests of current stockholders and the distribution of equity
in the emerging company to creditors or creditor reps. The
majority of the new equity would be distributed to two voluntary
employee benefit associations that were created in 2004 to
provide medical benefits or funds to defray the cost of medical
benefits for salaried and hourly retirees.

All personal injury claims relating to both pre-petition and
future claims for asbestos, silica and coal tar pitch volatiles,
and existing claims regarding noise-induced hearing loss, would
be permanently resolved by the formation of certain trusts
funded mainly by the Company's rights to proceeds from certain
of its insurance policies and the establishment of channeling
injunctions that would permanently channel these liabilities
away from the company and into the trusts.

Based in Foothill Ranch, CA Kaiser Aluminum Corp operates 11
fabricated products manufacturing plants in the US and Canada
and holds a minority stock in a UK aluminum smelting facility.
The Company's main customers are in the aerospace, industrial,
and transportation markets.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: "Health Lottery" Denies Workers Treatment
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sources say that a "health postcode lottery" denies dying
Teesside, UK industrial workers life-prolonging treatment for
asbestos illnesses.

Terminally ill Bernard Hoyland, 63, accused the Langbaurgh
Primary Care Trust of depriving him and fellow dying workers the
new drug Alimta, a clear liquid used in mesothelioma treatment
for sufferers who have not had chemotherapy or surgery.

Mr. Hoyland worked for ICI and William Press on Teesside
throughout his career as a mechanical fitter from 1958 to 1980
when he says he regularly breathed in asbestos dust mainly from
disturbed lagging insulation.

Ian McFall of Thompson's Solicitors said, "Patients such as Mr.
Hoyland are being forced to decide whether to pay privately for
treatment which can cost GBP24,000 in the region."

A spokesman for Langbaurgh Primary Care Trust confirmed that
funding is not approved for Alimta for patients in the Teesside,
South Durham and North Yorkshire area, who come under their
'Cancer Care Alliance' network.

Alimta is licensed to treat mesothelioma in the UK but so far
has not been approved by the National Institute of Clinical
Excellence, and is not widely available on the NHS. However, in
August the Scottish Medicines Consortium approved it for use in
Scotland.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Believed Used in 1,600 JPN Schools
----------------------------------------------------------------
According to a recent survey, facilities at nearly 1,600 public-
run schools in 44 prefectures used or supposedly used asbestos-
containing materials, The Yomiuri Shimbun reports.

Asbestos was sprayed onto building materials in classrooms,
gymnasiums, kitchens and other places at 580 public-run schools
in 40 prefectures. Meanwhile, 1,011 other schools are having
such materials analyzed, with the possibility that such
materials were used within their buildings.

The survey disclosed that in some cases, asbestos-containing
materials were used in classrooms. Eighty-seven schools in 26
prefectures have closed some classrooms, gymnasiums, music rooms
and computer labs because of the presence of asbestos materials.
Twenty-one schools either temporarily suspended or postponed new
school terms.

The latest finding contrasts the Ministry of Education, Science
and Technology's previous statement that, "On the whole,
necessary measures have been taken within schools."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ZAR41M Payout Granted to Asbestos Claimants
----------------------------------------------------------------
Established by GenCorp Inc (NYSE: GY) to compensate people who
have become ill through asbestos dust and fiber exposure, South
Africa's Asbestos Relief Trust paid out more than ZAR41 million
to 467 claims in the past two years.

The trust compensates ex-miners, or people living in the mining
area, who suffered from asbestos-related diseases, as well as
the families of people who have died from asbestos exposure. To
qualify, the claimant must have been employed by one of the
qualifying operations during certain times when Gencor Ltd,
Gefco or Msauli Asbestos Mine owned the mines.

Trust Chairman John Doidge said since the first claim was
received in March 2004, the Trust had worked closely with
accredited claims handlers and set up offices in Johannesburg,
Kuruman and Mpumalanga, to ensure claims were processed
speedily. He said another 1,379 claims had been approved and
compensation for those would be paid out within the next two
months. The average payment per claim is ZAR68,000.

Trust manager Tina da Cruz said it also provided facilities for
people to go for medical examinations to check if they were
suffering from asbestos poisoning.

The Asbestos Relief Trust is expected to continue operating for
the next 25 years.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Find Halts PA Demolition Project
--------------------------------------------------------------
Health officials say that the discovery of asbestos in a site in
East Liberty, located in Pittsburgh, PA's East End, halted the
demolition work of the old East Mall Apartments on Penn Circle.

Allegheny Health Department's Guillermo Cole said that abatement
contractor Precision Environmental Co Inc removed all known
asbestos from the buildings before they were knocked down. He
added that the contractor and officials did not know there was
additional asbestos between some of the 68 elevator doors that
was discovered within the past several days.

Mr. Cole said that the asbestos at the site poses little health
risk, and that the demolition contractor, Titan Wrecking And
Environmental Llc, is keeping debris wet to prevent dust.

Titan Wrecking was fined US$1,425 in August for excessive dust
at the site, Mr. Cole said, but noted that was well before the
asbestos was discovered. The Allegheny Health Department does
not believe there is any airborne asbestos at the site, Mr. Cole
added.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: OH Court Rules City Not Liable in Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The 10th District Court of Appeals of Franklin County in Ohio
ruled that the city of Columbus is not responsible for the death
of firefighter Jerome Keller's wife, Merelle, due to asbestos
exposure, says The Daily Reporter.

Mr. Keller was employed by the Columbus Fire Department from
1966 to 2000 and during that time worked directly with asbestos-
containing products. In the lawsuit, Mr. Keller said fibers from
those products clung to his work clothes, which he often wore to
his house, and therefore Mrs. Keller also was exposed to the
substance that caused her cancer and eventual death.

In May 2003, Mr. Keller filed a suit against several
manufacturers of asbestos-containing products and against the
City. He alleged Columbus should have known asbestos was harmful
and should have warned him.

Because of the city's negligence, Mr. Keller argued that Mrs.
Keller's estate is entitled to damages for her medical bills,
lost earning capacity and wages, physical and mental pain, and
death.

Two months later, the City filed a motion to have the suit
dismissed and in March 2004 the Franklin County Court of Common
Pleas dismissed Mr. Keller's suit because the City is immune
from such tort claims.

The City countered that a plaintiff's "injury," not the fire
department's negligence, must occur on public grounds.
Therefore, since the injury to Mrs. Keller occurred in the
couple's home, the City is not liable, the Court ruled.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: UK Widow Awarded in Out of Court Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The UK Home Office compensated Gladys Price, for her husband
Barry's death three years ago to asbestos-related mesothelioma,
an undisclosed six-figure amount in an out of court settlement,
the Daily Mail reports.

Mr. Price, who died at the age of 67, worked as a carpenter at
HMP Hewell Grange in Redditch, Worcestershire between 1973 and
2000. Most of his work involved asbestos handling and cutting.
Mrs. Price described him as always being covered in asbestos
dust when he returned home.

The HM Prison Hewell Grange is an "open" style prison catering
to around 200 non-violent adult male prisoners. It accepts
inmates of any term, including life, but not those physically
disabled, or with psychiatric issues.

Adam Wilson, from law firm Russell Jones & Walker, said, "This
was a particularly sad case where public sector employers simply
failed to protect Mr. Price with disastrous and fatal
consequences.

"The law was already in place to protect Mr. Price and his
employers, the Home Office, should have provided masks, clothing
and equipment to remove the dust but they neglected to do so.
Mr. Price paid the ultimate cost for this neglect."

A 2003 Health and Safety Executive report estimated that
asbestos-related deaths could peak at between 1,950 to 2,450-a-
year between 2011 and 2015.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Found in Japanese Housing Estates
---------------------------------------------------------------
The discovery of asbestos in the ceilings in 48 units of three
municipal housing complexes in Yugagawaramachi, Kanagawa
Prefecture prompts the town office to consider relocating 97 of
its residents from 47 families to other housing complexes
because asbestos fibers could be released in the air if the
materials containing it were damaged, the Yomiuri Shimbun
reports.

Asbestos was used in 36 of the 48 units, all located on the
first three floors. The housing complexes are all four-story
reinforced concrete buildings built between 1971 and 1975, when
the hazardous was frequently used in construction for its heat
resistance and sound insulation.

The asbestos had been covered with the other materials in 14
units to prevent it from dispersing in the air, but the
hazardous material was exposed in the rest, the municipal
officials said.

Officials said the town considered financing the rent difference
between the municipal housing complexes and the housing
complexes run by the municipal housing corporation because the
latter's rent is about JPY23,000 higher.

"Many of the residents in this complex are senior citizens
dependent on pensions," said a 68-year-old tenant. "Some of them
don't want to leave. Though it's not easy for us to move from
here, I'm concerned if asbestos used here is said to be a health
threat. We'd like the town to subsidize everything, including
moving expenses."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hedman Discloses US$35.0 M Insurance Cover
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hedman Resources Ltd announces that up to US$35.9 million in
additional excess liability coverage will be used in the
continuing defense of asbestos litigation lawsuits, the Company
reports.

The Toronto, ON-based Company is a defendant in numerous legal
actions in the United States. It is alleged that in the 1970s,
Hedman sold a mineral filler known as hedmanite and that it
posed health hazards similar to asbestos. Hedman has been
resolving them at an average of under US$2,000 per claim.

Stephen A. Edell, Hedman's President and CEO, completed an
archival search and forensic analysis of historical Company
records to determine the extent of potentially available, and
previously unknown, insurance.

The Company retained Proskauer Rose, a prominent New York law
firm, to pursue newly discovered leads into additional insurance
coverage. It has been determined that up to US$35.9 million in
excess liability coverage is available for these purposes. The
respective carriers were put on written notice by its solicitors
of Hedman's right to coverage in July of 2005, as to US$35
million of this total.

Company information, including earlier news releases and
financial disclosure, may be viewed at www.sedar.com and at
www.hedmanresources.com.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: KY Judge Rules Retrial for Case v. 2 Firms
---------------------------------------------------------------
Oldham County Circuit Judge Paul Rosenblum ruled that Garlock
Sealing Technologies LLC and CertainTeed Corp, companies a
Marshall County jury blamed for the death of Dayton Dexter due
to asbestos exposure, are entitled to a new trial, the Tribune
Courier reports.

The lawsuit, filed three years ago, originally named 19
companies but 17 of them were dismissed voluntarily or settled.

Garlock and CertainTeed appealed the first judgment that they
knew the dangers of asbestos and Mr. Dexter's death from lung
cancer was a result of exposure to asbestos fibers in their
products. The jury had ordered Garlock and CertainTeed to pay
US$3.25 million to Mr. Dexter's son Jimmy and daughter Sue
Newton at the conclusion of the June 10, 2005 trial.

The jury's June verdict awarded US$5.1 million but Kentucky law
requires juries to assess the relative faults of the parties, so
35% fault was assigned to Dexter, who smoked for many years.

Judge Rosenblum heard the case because the regular Marshall
Circuit judge, Dennis Foust, cannot hear asbestos cases since
his father died as a result of an asbestos-related cancer.

"Garlock Sealing Technologies, LLC, and CertainTeed Corporation
are entitled to a new trial on the issue of apportionment
because the jury's verdict finding no fault to be apportioned to
any defendant except [Garlock and CertainTeed] is manifestly
unsupported by the evidence and manifestly a product of jury
passion and prejudice," Judge Rosenblum wrote in his discourse.


                 New Securities Fraud Cases

ATI TECHNOLOGIES: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in PA
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District Of Pennsylvania on behalf of all persons who purchased
or otherwise acquired the securities of ATI Technologies Inc.
("ATI" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: ATYT), between October 7, 2004
and June 22, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint alleges that ATI designs and manufactures graphics
processing products and technology for desktop and notebook
personal computers ("PCs"), and for consumer electronic devices.
Throughout the Class Period, ATI reported strong financial
results in publicly disseminated press releases and in filings
with the SEC. In addition, defendants repeatedly issued positive
guidance, claiming that ATI's purported leadership in graphics
and multimedia technologies in the consumer electronics and PC
markets would "continue driving growth for ATI in fiscal 2005."
As a result of these statements, the price of ATI stock became
artificially inflated during the Class Period. Certain Company
insiders, including defendants Kwok Yuen Ho and David E. Orton,
took advantage of the artificial inflation in the price of the
Company's stock, and during the Class Period, each sold
approximately 40% of their personally held ATI stock for total
proceeds of over $54 million. Ho and his wife had allegedly
engaged in a similar pattern of insider trading in 2000, and
reaped $7 million in proceeds there from.

The truth began to emerge on June 6, 2005. On that day, ATI
warned that its revenues for the third quarter 2005 would be
$530 million, 5% below the Company's guidance. The Company
stated that a shift in its product mix towards the lower end of
the desktop and notebook market contributed to a decline in
gross margin for the quarter. In addition, ATI claimed that the
production of integrated graphics processor products, which had
margins well below the corporate average, contributed to lower
profit margins, and stated that it was experiencing lower than
anticipated yields on certain products due to operational
issues. As a result, the Company lowered its guidance for its
third and fourth quarter of 2005. In reaction to this news, the
price of ATI stock fell $1.58, or 10.3%, from its previous
trading day's closing price of $15.26 per share, to close at
$13.68 on June 7, 2005. On June 23, 2005, the Company revealed
in a press release that it had experienced a net loss of
$400,000 in the third quarter 2005, compared to a $49 million
profit in the same period in 2004. In addition, defendants
slashed their guidance for the fourth quarter, projecting
revenues to be approximately $550-580 million, 10% lower than
previously projected, and that gross margins to be 29-30%,
approximately 5% lower than defendants' previous guidance of
34%. In reaction to this news, the price of ATI stock declined
even further, falling $0.98, or 7.6%, to close at $11.80 on June
23, 2005. On the same day, Smartmoney.com published an article
stating that ATI's disappointing results and lower guidance was
due, in part, to the Company's "difficulty in rolling out its
new graphics processor, while supercharged competitor Nvidia
(NVDA) is already in full production with its new high-end
GeForce 7800 GTX processor. And as the topper, ATI's sitting on
a fat pile of inventory, some $456 million worth -- much more
than the $255 million it had at the end of fiscal 2004."

For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel, Esq. of The Law
Offices of Marc S. Henzel, 273 Montgomery Ave, Suite 202 Bala
Cynwyd, PA 19004-2808, Phone (888) 643-6735 or (610) 660-8000,
Fax: (610) 660-8080, E-mail: Mhenzel182@aol.com, Web site:
http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182.


BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Scott + Scott Lodges Securities Suit in MA
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Scott + Scott, LLC, initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts against Boston Scientific Corporation ("Boston
Scientific") (NYSE: BSX). Boston Scientific securities
purchasers between March 31, 2003 and August 23, 2005, inclusive
(the "Class Period") are putative class members. Boston
Scientific engages in the development and marketing of
cardiovascular and endosurgery medical device products.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Boston
Scientific and certain individual defendants violated provisions
of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, causing its stock to
trade at artificially inflated levels. The complaint alleges
that Boston Scientific provided highly explicit false and
misleading assurances of the Company's ability to satisfy FDA
regulations governing its medical device product quality, as
well as affirmative representations as to the Company's
knowledge and expertise regarding design, development, marketing
approval and sales of its medical devices. The complaint further
alleges over $400 million sold in insider trading.

On August 23, 2005, based on the cumulative impact of three
separate FDA Warning Letters, investors learned of defendants'
broad-based concealment of its broken quality program and the
risks the Company faced. As a result, Boston Scientific's stock
price dropped $1.23, or 4.5% to $25.92, on volume of 15.8
million shares -- nearly $19.89 or 43.4% from its Class Period
high of $45.81 on April 5, 2004.

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


DHB INDUSTRIES: Bull & Lifshitz Files Securities Suit in E.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Bull & Lifshitz, LLP, initiated a securities
class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of DHB Industries, Inc. ("DHB" or
the "Company") (AMEX:DHB) between April 29, 2004 to August 29,
2005, inclusive (the "Class Period") seeking to pursue remedies
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
defendants disseminated in press releases and SEC filings
positive statements that were materially false and misleading
because they failed to disclose that a material portion of the
Company's bulletproof vests contained a material amount of Zylon
fibers whose effectiveness at stopping bullets degraded over
time. By the beginning of the Class Period, defendants knew, or
recklessly disregarded, that vests containing Zylon could
potentially fail to stop bullets because of fiber degradation,
and that serious concerns about their use in body armor was
growing in the law enforcement community.

While the price of the Company's securities was artificially
inflated, and before its collapse, DHB insiders sold a total of
11,288,789 shares of DHB common stock, reaping gross proceeds of
over $220 million.

On August 30, 2005, following disclosure of the above
information, the price of DHB common stock fell by 23%, from
$6.66 per share on August 29, 2005 to $5.10 per share on August
30, 3005, on unusually heavy trading volume. DHB's stock price
continued to decline, falling to $4.58 by the close of August
31, 2005.

For more details, contact Joshua M. Lifshitz, Esq. of Bull &
Lifshitz, LLP, New York, Phone: (212) 213-6222, Fax:
(212) 213-9405, E-mail: counsel@nyclasslaw.com, Web site:
http://www.nyclasslaw.com/infopackage.html.


DHB INDUSTRIES: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Fraud in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, LLP,
initiated a class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York, on behalf of all
persons who purchased the securities of DHB Industries, Inc.
("DHB" or the "Company") (Amex: DHB) between November 18, 2003
and August 29, 2005, inclusive, (the "Class Period") against
defendants DHB and certain officers of the Company.

The case name is Bushnell v. DHB Industries, Inc., et al. The
complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading
statements throughout the Class Period that had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price of the Company's
securities.

The complaint further alleges that during the Class Period,
defendants made statements that were materially false and
misleading because they failed to disclose the following facts,
among others:

     (1) the Company's body armor products containing Zylon were
         potentially dangerous because they could fail to stop
         bullets due to Zylon-fiber degradation;

     (2) because of the foregoing, the Company was subject to
         potentially ruinous liability from regulatory, criminal
         or civil actions;

     (3) the Company's business was dependent, in material part,
         on the sale of products whose safety was in serious
         doubt, which once such potential problems became widely
         known, would cause a dramatic, if not total, decline in
         demand;

     (4) the Company was at risk that the National Institute of
         Justice would revoke its certification of DHB's Zylon
         containing armor, which was required by many of DHB's
         customers, and that the revocation would have a
         materially negative impact on its business; and

     (5) defendants Brooks and Schlegel's express assurances
         that the Form 10-K was free from materially false and
         misleading statements were untrue because of the above-
         noted misrepresentations. Such assurances were
         themselves deceptive and provided false comfort to
         investors.

For more details, contact Fred Taylor Isquith, Esq., Gregory M.
Nespole, Esq., George T. Peters, Esq., or Derek Behnke of Wolf
Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP, 270 Madison Ave., New
York, NY 10016, Phone: 1-800-575-0735, E-mail:
classmember@whafh.com, Web site: http://www.whafh.com.


ISOLAGEN INC.: Bernard M. Gross Lodges PA Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C. initiated a class action,
numbered 05cv4983, in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, against defendants Isolagen,
Inc. (AMEX:ILE) and Frank M. Delape (Chairman and interim CEO),
Robert J. Bitterman (former "CEO"), Michael Macaluso (former
Founder, CEO, President, and Director), Jeffrey W. Tomz
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer and Secretary), Olga
Marko (Founder and former Senior Vice President and Director of
Research), William K. Boss, Jr. (Founder and former Manager of
International Operations and Director), and Michael Avignon
(Founder and former Director) on behalf of all persons who
purchased the common stock of Isolagen between March 3, 2004 and
August 1, 2005, (the "Class Period"), including purchasers of
Isolagen stock issued in connection with and traceable to
Isolagen's offering ("June 2004 Offering") seeking remedies
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").
The case is being presided by the Honorable Ronald L.
Buckwalter.

The complaint charges Isolagen and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Isolagen specializes in the development and
commercialization of autologous cellular therapies for soft and
hard tissue regeneration (the "Isolagen Process"). Autologous
cellular therapy utilizes a process whereby a patient's own
cells are extracted, allowed to multiply, and then injected into
the patient. In January 2003, defendants began phase I clinical
trials aimed at demonstrating the safety and efficacy of using
the Isolagen Process to treat dermal defects.

The complaint alleges that without solid clinical data developed
under controlled conditions, the data gathered in the clinical
trials would never meet the FDA's "adequate and well-controlled"
criteria for acceptable clinical trials and the Company's
business plan would lack credibility to the investment
community. Defendants' own internal testing showed the Isolagen
Process had demonstrated nowhere near the efficacy required to
obtain FDA approval, which was needed to make the Company
profitable. However, during the Class Period, defendants touted
the efficacy of the Isolagen Process both for dermal and dental
treatments, running up the Company's stock price to a Class
Period high of $12 per share on April 2, 2004.

Then, on August 5, 2005, the Company shocked the market by
disclosing that the preliminary results from its phase III
clinical trial of the Isolagen Process for the treatment of
contour deformities (wrinkles) had not met all four primary end
points and that neither of the two dermal studies had achieved
independent statistical significance. As a result of this
announcement, the Company's stock price plummeted more than 45
percent, from $5.50 per share to below $3 per share, on very
high volume.

For more details, contact Susan R. Gross, Esq. or Deborah R.
Gross, Esq. of the Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C., The
Wanamaker Bldg., 100 Penn Sq. East, Suite 450, Philadelphia, PA
19107, Phone: (866) 561-3600 or (215) 561-3600, E-mail:
susang@bernardmgross.com or debbie@bernardmgross.com, Web site:
http://www.bernardmgross.com.


PRESTIGE HOLDINGS: Roy Jacobs Schedules Lead Plaintiff Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Roy Jacobs & Associates stated that
interested purchasers of Prestige Brands Holdings, Inc.
("Prestige" or the "Company") (NYSE:PBH) securities from April
1, 2005 through July 27, 2005 must file their motions for
appointment to the Lead Plaintiff position no later than October
3, 2005

The securities fraud class action is pending in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against Prestige, Peter C. Mann, its CEO, and Peter J. Anderson,
its CFO. The Complaint alleges that defendants misrepresented
the success of the Company's flagship product, the over-the-
counter wart remover, Compound W, by repeatedly stating that it
was selling well and there was every expectation that it would
continue to do so. The positive statements continued throughout
the Class Period, and Prestige stock reached prices as high as
$21 per share.

Unbeknownst to the Class, Wal-Mart, the Company's primary mass
distributor, had purchased a significant inventory of Compound W
in or about late December 2004 for an early 2005 promotion. By
April 1, 2005, the beginning of the Class Period, defendants
knew that the Wal-Mart promotion had fallen seriously short of
its goals, leaving Wal-Mart with significant excess inventory of
Compound W. Defendants failed to retract, and even reiterated
their earlier projections, and concealed the unfavorable results
of the Wal-Mart sales promotion.

On July 27, 2005, Prestige shocked the market by announcing
sales for the first quarter of fiscal 2006, which ended on June
30, 2005, that were 6 percent below sales for the comparable
quarter of the previous year. When Prestige shares opened for
trading the next day, shares dropped from a previous closing
price of $20.04 to a close of $11.90, on extraordinary trading
volume of 14.7 million shares. On July 28, 2005, defendant Mann
finally admitted during a conference call that he knew that the
Wal-Mart promotion had been unsuccessful, that Wal-Mart was
carrying substantial excess inventory, and that the wart removal
consumer segment had suffered a material 13 percent decline.

For more details, contact Roy Jacobs, Esq. of Roy Jacobs &
Associates, Phone: (888) 884-4490, E-mail:
classattorney@pipeline.com.


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

Putnam American Government Income Fund (NASDAQ: PAGVX) (NASDAQ:
PAMBX)
(NASDAQ: PAMMX)
Putnam Arizona Tax Exempt Income Fund (NASDAQ: PTAZX) (NASDAQ:
PAZBX)
Putnam Asset Allocation:Balanced Portfolio (NASDAQ: PABAX)
(NASDAQ: PABBX)
(NASDAQ: AABCX) (NASDAQ: PABMX)
Putnam Asset Allocation:Conservative Portfolio (NASDAQ: PACAX)
(NASDAQ: PACBX) (NASDAQ: PACCX) (NASDAQ: PACMX)
Putnam Asset Allocation:Growth Portfolio (NASDAQ: PAEAX)
(NASDAQ: PAEBX)
(NASDAQ: PAECX) (NASDAQ: PAGMX)
Putnam California Tax Exempt Income Fund (NASDAQ: PCTEX)
(NASDAQ: PCTBX)
(NASDAQ: PCLMX)
Putnam Capital Appreciation Fund (NASDAQ: PCAPX) (NASDAQ: PCABX)
(NASDAQ: PCAMX)
Putnam Capital Opportunities Fund (NASDAQ: PCOAX) (NASDAQ:
POPBX)
(NASDAQ: PCOCX)
Putnam Classic Equity Fund (NASDAQ: PXGIX) (NASDAQ: PGIIX)
(NASDAQ: PGTCX)
(NASDAQ: PGIMX)
Putnam Convertible Income-Growth Trust (NASDAQ: PCONX) (NASDAQ:
PCNBX)
(NASDAQ: PCNMX)
Putnam Discovery Growth Fund (NASDAQ: PVIIX) (NASDAQ: PVYBX)
(NASDAQ: PVYCX) (NASDAQ: PVYMX)
Putnam Diversified Income Trust (NASDAQ: PDINX) (NASDAQ: PSIBX)
(NASDAQ: PDVCX) (NASDAQ: PDVMX)
Putnam Equity Income Fund (NASDAQ: PEYAX) (NASDAQ: PEQNX)
(NASDAQ: PEQCX)
(NASDAQ: PEIMX)
Putnam Europe Equity Fund (NASDAQ: PEUGX) (NASDAQ: PEUBX)
(NASDAQ: PEUMX)
Putnam Florida Tax Exempt Income Fund (NASDAQ: PTFLX) (NASDAQ:
PFLBX)
Putnam Fund for Growth and Income (NASDAQ: PGRWX) (NASDAQ:
PGIBX)
(NASDAQ: PGRIX) (NASDAQ: PGRMX)
George Putnam Fund of Boston (NASDAQ: PGEOX) (NASDAQ: PGEBX)
(NASDAQ: PGPCX) (NASDAQ: PGEMX)
Putnam Global Equity Fund (NASDAQ: PEQUX) (NASDAQ: PEQBX)
(NASDAQ: PUGCX)
(NASDAQ: PEQMX)
Putnam Global Income Trust (NASDAQ: PGGIX) (NASDAQ: PGLBX)
(NASDAQ: PGGMX)
Putnam Global Natural Resources Fund (NASDAQ: EBERX) (NASDAQ:
PNRBX)
(NASDAQ: PGLMX)
Putnam Growth Opportunities Fund (NASDAQ: POGAX) (NASDAQ: POGBX)
(NASDAQ: POGCX) (NASDAQ: PGOMX)
Putnam Health Sciences Trust (NASDAQ: PHSTX) (NASDAQ: PHSBX)
(NASDAQ: PCHSX) (NASDAQ: PHLMX)
Putnam High Yield Advantage Fund (NASDAQ: PHYIX) (NASDAQ: PHYBX)
(NASDAQ: PHYMX)
Putnam High Yield Trust (NASDAQ: PHIGX) (NASDAQ: PHBBX) (NASDAQ:
PCHYX)
(NASDAQ: PHIMX)
Putnam Income Fund (NASDAQ: PINCX) (NASDAQ: PNCBX) (NASDAQ:
PUICX)
(NASDAQ: PNCMX)
Putnam Intermediate U.S. Government Income Fund (NASDAQ: PBLGX)
(NASDAQ: PBGBX) (NASDAQ: PVICX)
Putnam International Capital Opportunities Fund (NASDAQ: PNVAX)
(NASDAQ: PVNBX) (NASDAQ: PUVCX) (NASDAQ: PIVMX)
Putnam International Equity Fund (NASDAQ: POVSX) (NASDAQ: POVBX)
(NASDAQ: PIGCX) (NASDAQ: POVMX)
Putnam International Growth and Income Fund (NASDAQ: PNGAX)
(NASDAQ: PGNBX)
(NASDAQ: PIGRX) (NASDAQ: PIGMX)
Putnam International New Opportunities Fund (NASDAQ: PINOX)
(NASDAQ: PINWX)
(NASDAQ: PIOCX) (NASDAQ: PINMX)
Putnam Investors Fund (NASDAQ: PINVX) (NASDAQ: PNVBX) (NASDAQ:
PCINX)
(NASDAQ: PNVMX)
Putnam Massachusetts Tax Exempt Income Fund (NASDAQ: PXMAX)
(NASDAQ: PMABX)
Putnam Michigan Tax Exempt Income Fund (NASDAQ: PXIMX) (NASDAQ:
PMEBX)
Putnam Mid Cap Value Fund (NASDAQ: PMVAX) (NASDAQ: PMVBX)
(NASDAQ: PMPCX)
Putnam Minnesota Tax Exempt Income Fund (NASDAQ: PXMNX) (NASDAQ:
PMTBX)
Putnam Money Market Fund (NASDAQ: PDDXX) (NASDAQ: PTBXX)
(NASDAQ: PFCXX)
(NASDAQ: PTMXX)
Putnam Municipal Income Fund (NASDAQ: PTFHX) (NASDAQ: PFHBX)
(NASDAQ: PMUMX)
Putnam New Jersey Tax Exempt Income Fund (NASDAQ: PTNJX)
(NASDAQ: PNJBX)
Putnam New Opportunities Fund (NASDAQ: PNOPX) (NASDAQ: PNOBX)
(NASDAQ: PNOMX)
Putnam New Value Fund (NASDAQ: PANVX) (NASDAQ: PBNVX) (NASDAQ:
PNVCX)
(NASDAQ: PMNVX)
Putnam New York Tax Exempt Income Fund (NASDAQ: PTEIX) (NASDAQ:
PEIBX)
Putnam New York Tax Exempt Opportunities Fund (NASDAQ: PTNHX)
(NASDAQ: PTNBX) (NASDAQ: PNYMX)
Putnam OTC & Emerging Growth Fund (NASDAQ: POEGX) (NASDAQ:
POTBX)
(NASDAQ: POEXC) (NASDAQ: POEMX)
Putnam Ohio Tax Exempt Income Fund (NASDAQ: PHOHX) (NASDAQ:
POXBX)
Putnam Pennsylvania Tax Exempt Income Fund (NASDAQ: PTEPX)
(NASDAQ: PPNBX)
Putnam Research Fund (NASDAQ: PNRAX) (NASDAQ: PRFBX) (NASDAQ:
PRACX)
Putnam Small Cap Growth Fund (NASDAQ: PNSAX)
Putnam Small Cap Value Fund (NASDAQ: PSLAX) (NASDAQ: PSLBX)
(NASDAQ: PSLCX)
(NASDAQ: PSLMX)
Putnam Tax Exempt Income Fund (NASDAQ: PTAEX) (NASDAQ: PTBEX)
(NASDAQ: PTXMX)
Putnam Tax Exempt Money Market Fund (NASDAQ: PTXXX)
Putnam Tax Smart Equity Fund (NASDAQ: PATSX) (NASDAQ: PBTSX)
(NASDAQ: PCSMX)
Putnam Tax-Free High Yield Fund (NASDAQ: PTHAX) (NASDAQ: PTHYX)
(NASDAQ: PTYMX)
Putnam Tax-Free Insured Fund (NASDAQ: PPNAX) (NASDAQ: PTFIX)
Putnam U.S. Government Income Trust (NASDAQ: PGSIX) (NASDAQ:
PGSBX)
(NASDAQ: PGVCX) (NASDAQ: PGSMX)
Putnam Utilities Growth and Income Fund (NASDAQ: PUGIX) (NASDAQ:
PUTBX)
(NASDAQ: PUTMX)
Putnam Vista Fund (NASDAQ: PVISX) (NASDAQ: PVTBX) (NASDAQ:
PCVFX)
(NASDAQ: PVIMX)
Putnam Voyager Fund (NASDAQ: PVOYX) (NASDAQ: PVOBX) (NASDAQ:
PVFCX)
(NASDAQ: PVOMX)

The action is pending in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York against defendant UBS and its
affiliated entities. The following mutual funds participated in
the UBS Revenue Sharing Program (the "UBS Tier I Funds"): AIM,
Alliance, American Funds, Columbia, Davis Funds, Dreyfus, Eaton
Vance, Federated, Fidelity, Franklin Templeton, John Hancock,
Hartford, Lord Abbett, MFS, Oppenheimer, PIMCO, Pioneer, Putnam,
Scudder, UBS Global Asset Management, and Van Kampen.

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

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

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

For more details, contact Tzivia Brody, Esq. of Stull, Stull &
Brody, 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY 10017, Phone:
1-800-337-4983, Fax: 212/490-2022, E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com, Web
site: http://www.ssbny.com.


                            *********


A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each
Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissions
via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.

Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring
news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target
asbestos defendants that, according to independent researches,
collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related
liabilities.

                            *********


S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland
USA.   Glenn Ruel Senorin, Aurora Fatima Antonio and Lyndsey
Resnick, Editors.

Copyright 2005.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without
prior written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed
to be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Christopher
Beard at 240/629-3300.

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *