CAR_Public/050928.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Wednesday, September 28, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 192

                            Headlines

3M COMPANY: Suit Over Contamination Heads Toward Pivotal Trial
AIRSPAN NETWORKS: Parties Submit Revised NY Lawsuit Settlement
APROPOS TECHNOLOGY: Parties Submit Revised NY Lawsuit Settlement
BSQUARE CORPORATION: Parties Submit Revised NY Suit Settlement
CITGO PETROLEUM: NY Court Refuses To Dismiss MTBE Injury Suits

DQE INC.: Securities Suit Settlement Hearing Set October 7, 2005
DRUGSTORE.COM: Parties Submit Revised Settlement To NY Court
DRUGSTORE.COM: Asks WA Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Lawsuit
DYNEGY INC.: TX Court Approves Shareholder Fraud Suit Settlement
DYNEGY INC.: Seeks Transfer of ERISA Fraud Lawsuit To TX Court

FAIRPOINT COMMUNICATIONS: Shareholders File Fraud Lawsuit in NC
FLORIDA: Judge Grants Certification To Residents' Canker Lawsuit
HOMETOWN AUTO: Faces NJ Suit For Registration Fee Overcharging
HOMETOWN AUTO: Shareholder Launch Securities Fraud Lawsuit in DE
IBASIS INC.: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Investor Suit Settlement

LOUISIANA: Resident Sues Orleans Levee District Over Breaches
MAGMA DESIGN: Shareholders Initiate Securities Fraud Suit in CA
MERCK & CO.: Firm Lodges Vioxx Suit on Behalf of South Africans
MY OVERHEAD: Locklear Lodges Fourth Suit Over Unsolicited Faxes
NETGEAR INC.: Consumers Launch Two Fraud Lawsuits in CA Court

NEW YORK: Retail Groups File Antitrust Case V. Major U.S. Banks
ONVIA.COM: Asks NY Court To Approve Securities Suit Settlement
SANDISK CORPORATION: Court Mulls Investor Suit Dismissal Appeal
SANDISK CORPORATION: Faces Consumer Fraud Lawsuit in CA Court
TASER INTERNATIONAL: Shareholders Launch Securities Suit in AZ

TASER INTERNATIONAL: Faces Personal Injury, Wrongful Death Suits
THEGLOBE.COM: Parties Submit Revised Suit Settlement To NY Court
VI TECHNOLOGIES: Reaches Settlement For Overtime Wage Suit in NY
VI TECHNOLOGIES: Employees File Overtime Suit in NY State Court
VIISAGE TECHNOLOGY: Plaintiff Seek Consolidation of MA Lawsuits

WAL-MART STORES: Quebec Court Delays Ruling on Employee's Suit
WELLS REAL: Plaintiffs To Appeal GA Investor Lawsuit Dismissal
VERDISYS INC.: Reaches Settlement For TX Securities Fraud Suit
ZIPREALTY INC.: Reaches Settlement For CA Employee Agents' Suit


               Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences


                New Securities Fraud Cases


ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Suit in OH
ARBINET-THEXCHANGE: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Fraud Suit in NJ
DHB INDUSTRIES: Kirby McInerney Files Securities Suit in E.D. NY
DHB INDUSTRIES: Scott + Scott Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
UBS-AG: Stull Stull Files Suit in NY Over American Mutual Funds

UBS-AG: Stull Stull Lodges NY Fraud Suit Over Davis Mutual Funds
UBS-AG: Stull Stull Lodges Suit in NY Over Dreyfus Mutual Funds
UBS-AG: Stull Stull Lodges NY Suit Over Eaton Vance Mutual Funds
UBS-AG: Stull Stull Files Suit in NY Over Fidelity Mutual Funds
UBS-AG: Stull Stull Lodges Suit in NY Over Franklin Mutual Funds

UBS-AG: Stull Stull Files NY Suit Over Oppenheimer Mutual Funds

                            *********


3M COMPANY: Suit Over Contamination Heads Toward Pivotal Trial
--------------------------------------------------------------
Even with pretrial rulings that possibly make it harder to
obtain class action status, a lawsuit claiming that 3M Company
(NYSE: MMM) chemicals contaminated water in Washington County is
still shaping up as a critical case, The Pioneer Press reports.

Attorneys for 3M and Washington County residents went back to
court to argue eight pretrial motions, several of which are
related to each side's access to the other's documents. The
plaintiffs, for example, want Maplewood-based 3M to publicly
release thousands of pages of company documents, while 3M, in
one motion seeks access to the residents' medical records.

Past the flurry of legal filings, though, are larger questions
of whether 3M will be held liable for its perfluorochemicals or
PFCs making their way into residents' bodies. In addition, a
class action settlement of a similar case against DuPont in West
Virginia is expected eventually to play a significant role in
the Washington County case.

According to Rob Bilott, an attorney representing the Washington
County residents, out of the West Virginia settlement, "we hope
to have one of the largest studies to date done anywhere" of
people who were exposed to PFCs. As part of that settlement,
according to Mr. Bilott, who also worked on the West Virginia
case, as many as 60,000 people may have their blood tested for
PFCs. An independent panel to determine whether health problems
abound will then study the results.

Clashing interpretations of medical studies remain a key point
of contention in the local case, which revolves around 3M's
"Chemolite" plant in Cottage Grove. In its behalf 3M claims that
PFCs are not hazardous to humans. Though animal studies show
that large amounts of PFCs can damage organs, 3M argues that the
amount necessary to cause such damage is much higher than that
found in humans.

Last April, Washington County District Judge Stephen Muehlberg
granted 3M's motions to dismiss claims for medical monitoring
and public nuisance from the lawsuit. Had those claims
succeeded, it could have helped the case get class action
certification, which would then allow the plaintiffs to argue on
behalf of a larger group of people who are "similarly situated."

The original plaintiffs in the local case, Cottage Grove
residents Felicia Palmer and Sesario Briseno, filed the suit
last fall. Two couples eventually joined them. Gale Pearson, an
attorney representing the residents, told The Pioneer Press that
the plaintiffs' legal team has recently coordinated PFC blood
tests for more than 60 residents in the area. She added, "We
expect it to expand as we get documents from 3M and find where
(PFCs were) deposited over the last 50 years. People are very
interested in what their levels are."

With Judge Muehlberg set to retire soon, Judge Mary Hannon is
now handling the Washington County case. Attorneys for the
residents say they haven't given up on class action status
saying that they still have several intact claims that they
intend to argue, including a count of negligence on 3M's part.
Rhon Jones, an attorney representing the residents, told The
Pioneer Press, "We feel comfortable with those counts, and what
we've seen happen in Oakdale and Lake Elmo makes us feel more
confident."

Recently, Lake Elmo accepted a $3.3 million grant from 3M to pay
for public water extensions. A month earlier, 3M announced it
would put a filter on a city of Oakdale well to keep
contaminants at a safe level.

Mr. Jones noted that 3M's move to make the water safer came
after the lawsuit was filed last October. He told The Pioneer
Press, "That to me begs the question of what other communities
might be affected and what are the pathways to exposure."

While the attorneys for the Washington County residents argue
that 3M's actions show that the chemicals are a problem, 3M says
it is just being responsible. These actions include ending
production of PFCs, agreeing to treat homeowners' water and
providing bottled water for its workers at the Cottage Grove
plant.

According to Bill Nelson, a 3M spokesman, "It's important to
note that what we're doing in Lake Elmo and Oakdale are just
precautionary measures and over the long term it's important to
keep the drinking water within the state guidelines. This is the
responsible thing to do by a responsible company."

With regards to ending production of PFCs, Mr. Nelson said told
The Pioneer Press, "the phase-out decision is based on
responsible environmental management, and the fact that we
wanted to put our resources into more sustainable technologies."

Though 3M no longer produces PFCs, it uses the chemicals at one
of its plants in Antwerp, Belgium. The chemicals are either
eliminated in the production process or recaptured at that
plant, Mr. Nelson pointed out.

3M started manufacturing PFCs in the late 1940s, using them in
stain-resisting products such as Scotchgard and other nonstick-
coating applications. It also sold the chemicals to DuPont,
which used them at its plant in West Virginia to make Teflon and
other nonstick products. 3M decided in 2000 to phase out the
production of the chemicals. The Maplewood Company is also
facing two lawsuits in Alabama, where 3M had a plant that made
PFCs.


AIRSPAN NETWORKS: Parties Submit Revised NY Lawsuit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Parties submitted revised settlement documents for the
consolidated securities class action filed against Airspan
Networks, Inc. to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.  The suit also names as
defendants certain of the underwriters of the Company's initial
public offering, and:

     (1) Eric D. Stonestrom (President and Chief Executive
         Officer),

     (2) Joseph J. Caffarelli (former Senior Vice President and
         Chief Financial Officer),

     (3) Matthew Desch (Chairman) and

     (4) Jonathan Paget (Executive Vice President and Chief
         Operating Officer)

On and after July 23, 2001, three Class Action Complaints were
filed.  These suits were later consolidated.  The Consolidated
Amended Complaint, which is now the operative complaint, was
filed on April 19, 2002. The complaint alleges violations of
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for
issuing a Registration Statement and Prospectus that contained
materially false and misleading information and failed to
disclose material information.

In particular, Plaintiffs allege that the underwriter-defendants
agreed to allocate stock in the Company's initial public
offering to certain investors in exchange for excessive and
undisclosed commissions and agreements by those investors to
make additional purchases of stock in the aftermarket at pre-
determined prices. The action seeks damages in an unspecified
amount.

This action is being coordinated with approximately three
hundred other nearly identical actions filed against other
companies. On July 15, 2002, the Company moved to dismiss all
claims against it and the Individual Defendants. On October 9,
2002, the Court dismissed the Individual Defendants from the
case without prejudice based upon Stipulations of Dismissal
filed by the plaintiffs and the Individual Defendants. This
dismissal disposed of the Section 15 and 20(a) control person
claims without prejudice, since these claims were asserted only
against the Individual Defendants. On February 19, 2003, the
Court dismissed the Section 10(b) claim against the Company, but
allowed the Section 11 claim to proceed.  

On October 13, 2004, the Court certified a class in six of the
approximately 300 other nearly identical actions. In her
Opinion, Judge Shira Scheindlin noted that the decision is
intended to provide strong guidance to all parties regarding
class certification in the remaining cases. Judge Scheindlin
determined that the class period for Section 11 claims is the
period between the IPO and the date that unregistered shares
entered the market. Judge Scheindlin also ruled that a proper
class representative of a Section 11 class must have purchased
shares during the appropriate class period; and have either sold
the shares at a price below the offering price or held the
shares until the time of suit. In two of the six cases, the
class representatives did not meet the above criteria and
therefore, the Section 11 cases were not certified.  Plaintiffs
have not yet moved to certify a class in the Airspan case.

The Company has approved a settlement agreement and related
agreements which set forth the terms of a settlement between it,
the Individual Defendants, the plaintiff class and the vast
majority of the other approximately 300 issuer defendants and
the Individual Defendants currently or formerly associated with
those companies.  Among other provisions, the settlement
provides for a release of the Company and the individual
defendants for the conduct alleged in the action to be wrongful.
The Company would agree to undertake certain responsibilities,
including agreeing to assign away, not assert, or release
certain potential claims it may have against its underwriters.
The settlement agreement also provides a guaranteed recovery of
$1 billion to plaintiffs for the cases relating to all of the
approximately 300 issuers. To the extent that the underwriter
defendants settle all of the cases for at least $1 billion, no
payment will be required under the issuers' settlement
agreement.  To the extent that the underwriter defendants settle
for less than $1 billion, the issuers are required to contribute
the difference.

On February 15, 2005, the court granted preliminary approval of
the settlement agreement, subject to certain modifications
consistent with its opinion.  Judge Scheindlin ruled that the
issuer defendants and the plaintiffs must submit a revised
settlement agreement which provides for a mutual bar of all
contribution claims by the settling and non-settling parties and
does not bar the parties from pursuing other claims.  The
issuers and plaintiffs have submitted to the Court a revised
settlement agreement consistent with the Court's opinion. The
revised settlement agreement has been approved by all of the
issuer defendants that are not in bankruptcy. The underwriter
defendants will have an opportunity to object to the revised
settlement agreement.

The suit is styled "In re Airspan Networks, Inc. Initial Public
Offering Sec. Litigation," related to "In re Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, Master File No. 21 MC 92 (SAS),"
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York under Judge Shira A. Scheindlin.  The
plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

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

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

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

     (4) Sirota & Sirota, LLP, 110 Wall Street 21st Floor, New
         York, NY, 10005, Phone: 888.759.2990, Fax:
         212.425.9093, E-mail: Info@SirotaLaw.com

     (5) 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

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


APROPOS TECHNOLOGY: Parties Submit Revised NY Lawsuit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Parties submitted revised settlement documents for the
consolidated securities class action filed against Apropos
Technology, Inc., certain of its current and former officers and
the underwriters of the Company's initial public offering (IPO).
To the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York.

In November 2001, the Company was named as a defendant in
shareholder class action litigation, alleging, among other
things, that the underwriters of the Company's IPO improperly
required their customers to pay the underwriters excessive
commissions and to agree to buy additional shares of the
Company's stock in the aftermarket as conditions of receiving
shares in the Company's IPO.

The lawsuit further claims that these supposed practices of the
underwriters should have been disclosed in the Company's IPO
prospectus and registration statement. In April 2002, an amended
complaint was filed which, like the original complaint, alleges
violations of the registration and antifraud provisions of the
federal securities laws and seeks unspecified damages.

The Company understands that various other plaintiffs have filed
substantially similar class action cases against approximately
300 other publicly traded companies and their public offering
underwriters in New York City, which along with the case against
the Company have all been transferred to a single federal
district judge for purposes of coordinated case management.

In July 2002, the Company, together with the other issuers named
as defendants in these coordinated proceedings, filed a
collective motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaints
against them on various legal grounds common to all or most of
the issuer defendants.  In October 2002, the Court approved a
stipulation providing for the dismissal of the individual
defendants without prejudice. In February 2003, the Court issued
a decision granting in part and denying in part the motion to
dismiss the litigation filed by the Company and the other issuer
defendants. The claims against the Company under the antifraud
provisions of the securities laws were dismissed with prejudice;
the claims under the registration provisions of the securities
laws were not dismissed as to the Company or virtually any other
issuer defendant. The Court also denied the underwriter
defendants' motion to dismiss in all respects.

In June 2003, the Company elected to participate in a proposed
settlement agreement with the plaintiffs in this litigation.  If
ultimately approved by the Court, this proposed settlement would
result in a dismissal, with prejudice, of all claims in the
litigation against the Company and against any of the other
issuer defendants who elect to participate in the proposed
settlement, together with the current or former officers and
directors of participating issuers who were named as individual
defendants. The proposed settlement does not provide for the
resolution of any claims against the underwriter defendants, and
the litigation as against those defendants is continuing.  The
proposed settlement provides that the class members in the class
action cases brought against the participating issuer defendants
will be guaranteed a recovery of $1 billion by insurers of the
participating issuer defendants.  If recoveries totaling $1
billion or more are obtained by the class members from the
underwriter defendants, however, the monetary obligations to the
class members under the proposed settlement will be satisfied.
In addition, the Company and any other participating issuer
defendants will be required to assign to the class members
certain claims that they may have against the underwriters of
their IPOs.

The proposed settlement contemplates that any amounts necessary
to fund the settlement or settlement-related expenses would come
from participating issuers' directors and officers liability
insurance policy proceeds as opposed to funds of the
participating issuer defendants themselves.  A participating
issuer defendant could be required to contribute to the costs of
the settlement if that issuer's insurance coverage were
insufficient to pay that issuer's allocable share of the
settlement costs. The Company expects that its insurance
proceeds will be sufficient for these purposes and that it will
not otherwise be required to contribute to the proposed
settlement.

Consummation of the proposed settlement is conditioned upon
obtaining both preliminary and final approval by the Court.
Formal settlement documents were submitted to the Court in June
2004, together with a motion asking the Court to preliminarily
approve the form of settlement. Certain underwriters who were
named as defendants in the settling cases, and who are not
parties to the proposed settlement, opposed preliminary approval
of the proposed settlement of those cases.  The Court has issued
an order preliminarily approving the proposed settlement in all
respects but one. The plaintiffs and the issuer defendants are
in the process of assessing whether to proceed with the proposed
settlement, as modified by the Court. If the proposed
settlement, as modified by the Court, they will submit revised
settlement documents to the Court. The underwriter defendants
may then have an opportunity to object to the revised settlement
documents. If the Court approves the revised settlement
documents, it will direct that notice of the terms of the
proposed settlement be published in a newspaper and mailed to
all proposed class members and schedule a fairness hearing, at
which objections to the proposed settlement will be heard.
Thereafter, the Court will determine whether to grant final
approval to the proposed settlement.

The suit is styled "In Re Apropos Technology, Inc. Initial
Public Offering Securities Litigation," filed in relation to "IN
RE INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERING SECURITIES LITIGATION, Master File
No. 21 MC 92 (SAS)," both pending in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, under Judge Shira
N. Scheindlin.  The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

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

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

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

     (4) Sirota & Sirota, LLP, 110 Wall Street 21st Floor, New
         York, NY, 10005, Phone: 888.759.2990, Fax:
         212.425.9093, E-mail: Info@SirotaLaw.com

     (5) 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

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


BSQUARE CORPORATION: Parties Submit Revised NY Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Parties submitted a revised settlement for the consolidated
securities class action filed against BSquare Corporation,
certain of its current and former officers and directors and the
underwriters of its initial public offering to the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

In Summer and early Fall 2001, four purported shareholder class
action lawsuits were filed on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's common stock during the period from October 19, 1999
to December 6, 2000.  The complaints against the Company have
been consolidated into a single action and a Consolidated
Amended Complaint, which was filed on April 19, 2002 and is now
the operative complaint.

The plaintiffs allege that the underwriter defendants agreed to
allocate stock in our initial public offering to certain
investors in exchange for excessive and undisclosed commissions
and agreements by those investors to make additional purchases
of stock in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices. Plaintiffs
allege that the prospectus for the Company's initial public
offering was false and misleading in violation of the securities
laws because it did not disclose these arrangements. The action
seeks damages in an unspecified amount.

The action is being coordinated with approximately 300 other
nearly identical actions filed against other companies.  On July
15, 2002, the Company moved to dismiss all claims against it and
the Individual Defendants.  On October 9, 2002, the Court
dismissed the Individual Defendants from the case without
prejudice based upon Stipulations of Dismissal filed by the
plaintiffs and the Individual Defendants. On February 19, 2003,
the Court denied the motion to dismiss the complaint against the
Company.  On October 13, 2004, the Court certified a class in
six of the approximately 300 other nearly identical actions and
noted that the decision is intended to provide strong guidance
to all parties regarding class certification in the remaining
cases.  Plaintiffs have not yet moved to certify a class in the
case.  

The Company approved a settlement agreement and related
agreements, which set forth the terms of a settlement between
it, the Individual Defendants, the plaintiff class and the vast
majority of the other approximately 300 issuer defendants.  
Among other provisions, the settlement provides for a release of
the Company and the Individual Defendants for the conduct
alleged in the action to be wrongful.  The Company would agree
to undertake certain responsibilities, including agreeing to
assign away, not assert, or release certain potential claims it
may have against its underwriters.  The settlement agreement
also provides a guaranteed recovery of $1 billion to plaintiffs
for the cases relating to all of the approximately 300 issuers.
To the extent that the underwriter defendants settle all of the
cases for at least $1 billion, no payment will be required under
the issuers' settlement agreement. To the extent that the
underwriter defendants settle for less than $1 billion, the
issuers are required to cover the difference.  

On February 15, 2005, the court granted preliminary approval of
the settlement agreement, subject to certain modifications
consistent with its opinion. Judge Scheindlin of the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
ruled that the issuer defendants and the plaintiffs must submit
a revised settlement agreement which provides for a mutual bar
of all contribution claims by the settling and non-settling
parties and does not bar the parties from pursuing other claims.  
The issuers and plaintiffs have negotiated a revised settlement
agreement consistent with the Court's opinion.  All of the
issuer defendants who are not in bankruptcy have approved the
revised settlement agreement.  The parties have submitted a
revised settlement to the Court.  The underwriter defendants
will have an opportunity to object to the revised settlement
agreement.  There is no assurance that the Court will grant
final approval to the settlement.  If the settlement agreement
is not approved and the Company is found liable, the Company is
unable to estimate or predict the potential damages that might
be awarded, whether such damages would be greater than the
Company's insurance coverage, and whether such damages would
have a material impact on the Company's results of operations or
financial condition in any future period.


CITGO PETROLEUM: NY Court Refuses To Dismiss MTBE Injury Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York refused to dismiss the claims in the multidistrict
litigation filed against CITGO Petroleum Corporation and other
major oil companies, alleging contamination of contamination of
private and public water supplies by methyl tertiary butyl ether
("MTBE"), a gasoline additive.  

Several federal and state lawsuits were filed against the
defendants, alleging that MTBE renders the water not potable. In
addition to compensatory and punitive damages, plaintiffs seek
injunctive relief to abate the contamination.  The Company's
MTBE litigation can be divided into two categories -- pre and
post-September 30, 2003 litigation. Of the pre-September 30,
2003 cases, the Company has settled the two pending cases in
Madison County, Illinois state court.

The other remaining pre-September 30, 2003 case has been removed
to federal court in Multi-District Litigation ("MDL") 1358. The
post-September 30, 2003 cases were filed after new federal
legislation was proposed that would have precluded plaintiffs
from filing lawsuits based on the theory that gasoline with MTBE
is a defective product. These approximately 72 cases, the
majority of which were filed by municipal authorities, were
removed to federal court and at the defendants' request
consolidated in MDL 1358.

On March 16, 2004, the judge in MDL 1358 denied the plaintiffs'
motion to remand the cases to state court. Two plaintiffs have
appealed the denial of the remand to state court to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The Appeals Court
denied the defendants' motion for summary affirmance of the
denial of the remand order and the appeal will proceed. In an
April 20, 2005 ruling, the judge refused to dismiss most of the
plaintiffs' causes of action. In doing so, the judge held that
the plaintiffs might be able to prove liability under a
commingled product market share liability theory because the
plaintiffs could not identify the particular defendants which
had manufactured the gasoline that caused the alleged
contamination to drinking water supplies.

The suit is styled "In Re: Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether ("MTBE")
Products Liability Litigation, case no. 1:00-cv-01898-SAS,"
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, under Judge Shira A. Scheindlin.  
Representing the defendants is Peter John Sacripanti of
McDermott Will & Emory, 50 Rockefeller Plaza, New York, NY
10020, Phone: (212) 547-5400.  Representing the plaintiffs is
Morris A. Ratner of Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein,
L.L.P., 780 Third Avenue, 48th Floor, New York, NY 10017, Phone:
(212) 355-9500.


DQE INC.: Securities Suit Settlement Hearing Set October 7, 2005
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania will hold a fairness hearing for the proposed
settlement in the matter: In re DQE, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Master Files No. 01-1851, on behalf of all individuals who
bought DQE, Inc. ("DQE") Common Stock between December 6, 2000
and April 30, 2001. DQE is now known as Duquesne Light Holdings,
Inc.

The Court will hold the hearing at 2:30 p.m. on Friday, October
7, 2005 at the United States District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania, U.S. Post Office and Courthouse,
Seventh Avenue and Grant Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15219.

The suit is styled, In re DQE, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Master File No. 01-1851 (WLS), which is pending in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.
Richard H. Weiss, Esq. of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP,
One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY 10119-0165, Phone:
212-594-5300; James E. Tullman, Weiss & Lurie, 551 Fifth Avenue,
Suite 1600, New York, NY 10176, Phone: (212) 682-3025 or
1-800-437-7918, Fax: 212-682-3010, E-mail: wyinfo@wyca.com; and
J. Allen Carney of Cauley Bowman Carney & Williams, PLLC, 11311
Arcade Drive, Little Rock, AR 72212, Phone: (501) 312-8500 or
(888) 551-9944, Fax: (501) 312-8505, are representing the
Plaintiff/s. Joseph N. Sacca, Esq. of Skadden, Arps, Slate,
Meagher & Flom, LLP, Four Times Square, New York, NY 10036,
Phone: 212-735-2358, Fax: 917-777-2358, E-mail:
jsacca@skadden.com, represents the Defendant.


DRUGSTORE.COM: Parties Submit Revised Settlement To NY Court
------------------------------------------------------------
Parties submit revised settlement documents for the consolidated
securities class action filed against drugstore.com, Inc., its
underwriters and certain of its present and former officers and
directors to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

On and after July 6, 2001, eight stockholder class action
lawsuits were filed in connection with our July 27, 1999 initial
public offering and March 15, 2000 secondary offering (together,
the Offerings). The complaints against the Company have been
consolidated into a single action and a Consolidated Amended
Complaint, which is now the operative complaint, was filed on
April 19, 2002.  The suit purports to be a class action filed on
behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock during the
period July 28, 1999 to December 6, 2000.  In general, the
complaint alleges that the prospectuses through which the
Company conducted the Offerings were materially false and
misleading for failure to disclose, among other things, that:

     (1) the underwriters of the Offerings allegedly had
         solicited and received excessive and undisclosed
         commissions from certain investors in exchange for
         which the underwriters allocated to those investors
         material portions of the restricted number of shares
         issued in connection with the Offerings and

     (2) the underwriters allegedly entered into agreements with
         customers whereby the underwriters agreed to allocate
         drugstore.com shares to customers in the Offerings in
         exchange for which customers agreed to purchase
         additional drugstore.com shares in the after-market at
         predetermined prices.

The complaint asserts violations of various sections of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended. The action seeks damages in an
unspecified amount and other relief.  The action is being
coordinated with approximately 300 other nearly identical
actions filed against other companies or their former officers
and directors.

On July 15, 2002, the Company moved to dismiss all claims
against it and the Individual Defendants.  On October 9, 2002,
the Court dismissed the Individual Defendants from the case
without prejudice based on stipulations of dismissal filed by
the plaintiffs and the Individual Defendants.  On February 19,
2003, the Court denied the motion to dismiss the complaint
against the Company.

The Company has approved a settlement agreement and related
agreements, which set forth the terms of a settlement between
the Company, the plaintiff class and the vast majority of the
other issuer defendants or, in the case of bankrupt issuers,
their directors and officers. Among other provisions, the
settlement agreement provides for a release of the Company and
the Individual Defendants for the conduct alleged in the action
to be wrongful.  The Company would agree to undertake certain
responsibilities, including agreeing to assign away, not assert,
or release certain potential claims it may have against its
underwriters.  The settlement agreement also provides a
guaranteed recovery of $1 billion to the plaintiffs for the
cases relating to all of the approximately 300 issuers.  To the
extent that the underwriter defendants settle all of the cases
for at least $1 billion, no payment will be required under the
issuers' settlement agreement.  To the extent that the
underwriter defendants settle for less than $1 billion, the
issuers are required to make up the difference.

On February 15, 2005, the court granted preliminary approval of
the settlement agreement, subject to certain modifications
consistent with its opinion. The court ruled that the issuer
defendants and the plaintiffs must submit a revised settlement
agreement that provides for a mutual bar of all contribution
claims by the settling and non-settling parties and does not bar
the parties from pursuing other claims.  The issuers and
plaintiffs have submitted to the Court a revised settlement
agreement consistent with the Court's opinion.  The revised
settlement agreement has been approved by all of the issuer
defendants that are not in bankruptcy.  The underwriter
defendants will have an opportunity to object to the revised
settlement agreement. There is no assurance that the Court will
grant final approval to the settlement.

The suit is styled "In Re drugstore.com, Inc. Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation," filed in relation to "IN RE
INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERING SECURITIES LITIGATION, Master File No.
21 MC 92 (SAS)," both pending in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, under Judge Shira
N. Scheindlin.  The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

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

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

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

    (iv) Sirota & Sirota, LLP, 110 Wall Street 21st Floor, New
         York, NY, 10005, Phone: 888.759.2990, Fax:
         212.425.9093, E-mail: Info@SirotaLaw.com

     (v) 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

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


DRUGSTORE.COM: Asks WA Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
drugstore.com, Inc. asked the United States District Court for
the Western District of Washington to dismiss the consolidated
securities class action filed against it and certain of its
present and former officers.

On and after June 25, 2004, several putative class actions were
filed for alleged violations of the federal securities laws.  
The suits purport to have been filed on behalf of purchasers of
the Company's common stock between January 14, 2004 and June 10,
2004.  The complaints generally allege that the defendants made
false and misleading statements about our prospects for fiscal
year 2004 and failed to disclose, among other things a negative
impact on the Company's gross margins from the integration of
our acquisition of Vision Direct and from our free 3-day
shipping promotion, and a negative impact on its sales growth
arising from cancellations of certain expired prescriptions.

On October 8, 2004, the Court issued an order consolidating the
individual actions.  On November 1, 2004, the court appointed
lead plaintiffs and lead plaintiffs' counsel.  On January 11,
2005, the Consolidated Amended Complaint was filed by the lead
plaintiffs. On March 15, 2005, the defendants moved to dismiss
the complaint. Briefing on this motion is complete, and the
parties are waiting for the Court to set a date for
oral argument.

The suits are consolidated under "Frederick J. Elliot v.
Drugstore.com, Inc., et al.," Case No. CO$-1474RSM, pending
under Judge Ricardo Martinez.   


DYNEGY INC.: TX Court Approves Shareholder Fraud Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Texas approved the settlement for the securities class action
filed against Dynegy, Inc., on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's publicly traded securities from January 2000 to July
2002 seeking unspecified compensatory damages and other relief.

The lawsuit as filed principally alleged that the Company and
certain of its current and former officers and directors
violated the federal securities laws in connection with our
disclosures, including accounting disclosures, regarding Project
Alpha (a structured natural gas transaction entered into by the
Company in April 2001), round-trip trading, the submission of
false trade reports to publications that calculate natural gas
index prices, the alleged manipulation of the California power
market and the restatement of the Company's financial statements
for 1999-2001. The Regents of the University of California are
lead plaintiff and Lerach Coughlin Stoia & Robbins, LLP is class
counsel.

The plaintiff filed an amended complaint in January 2004 and, in
March 2004, the Company filed motions to dismiss.  Briefing on
the Company's motions was completed in June 2004. The judge
entered an order on the Company's motion in October 2004
dismissing all claims brought by the plaintiff under the
Securities Act of 1933, except those relating to the Company's
March 2001 note offering and December 2001 common stock
offering, and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, except those
dealing with Project Alpha and two alleged round-trip trades.  
Further, the judge scheduled the trial to commence in May 2005.
Also in October 2004, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed its
claim under the Securities Act of 1933 relating to our March
2001 note offering.  The parties filed motions on the class
certification issue throughout the fourth quarter 2004.

In December 2004, the court issued an order identifying the
class period for the Exchange Act claims as June 21, 2001
through July 22, 2002, and the class period for the Securities
Act claims to begin December 20, 2001.  

In July 2005, the court approved the comprehensive settlement
agreement reached by the parties to the class action litigation
in April 2005, which provided for an aggregate settlement
payment by Dynegy, Inc. and Dynegy Holdings, Inc. of $468
million, comprised of a $150 million cash payment funded by
insurance proceeds, a $250 million cash payment by the Company
and the issuance by Dynegy, Inc. to the plaintiffs of $68
million in its Class A common stock, consisting of 17,578,781
shares based on a calculation using a volume weighted average
stock price for the 20 trading days ending April 15, 2005.
Dynegy Holdings was required to make two payments totaling $250
million during 2005, consisting of an initial payment of $175
million, which it paid in May 2005, followed by a second payment
of $75 million plus interest upon court approval, which the
Company paid in July 2005.  As required by the settlement, the
Company intends to issue the shares of Class A common stock
promptly following expiration of the appeal period which
occurred on August 8, 2005.

The resignation of two members of the Dynegy board of directors
who are defendants in the litigation, with the vacancies
resulting from such resignations to be filled by two new
directors from a list of at least five qualified candidates
submitted by the lead plaintiff. Dynegy will also nominate such
directors for election at Dynegy's next meeting of shareholders
at which directors are elected.

In addition, the Company is a nominal defendant in several
derivative lawsuits brought by shareholders on the Company's
behalf against certain of its former officers and current and
former directors whose claims are similar to those described
above.  These lawsuits have been consolidated into two groups -
one pending in federal court and the other pending in state
court.  A hearing on the Company's motion to dismiss the federal
derivative claim was held in February 2005, at which time the
judge indicated his intent to stay or dismiss this matter
pending the resolution of the shareholder litigation described
above.  Subsequently, in February 2005, the plaintiffs
voluntarily dismissed this lawsuit.  Discovery in the state
derivative matter is ongoing.

The suit is styled ". The Regents of the University of
California v. Dynegy, Inc., et al, case no. 4:02-cv-02374,"
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Texas, under Judge Sim Lake.  Representing the
plaintiffs is Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller et al, 9601 Wilshire
Bld, Ste 510 Los Angeles, CA 90210 Phone: 310-859-3100.


DYNEGY INC.: Seeks Transfer of ERISA Fraud Lawsuit To TX Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dynegy, Inc. is seeking to transfer the class action filed in
against it the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois by three Illinois Power employees and
participants in the Illinois Power Company Incentive Savings
Plan For Employees Covered Under a Collective Bargaining
Agreement, which the Company refers to as the Illinois Power
401(k) Plan, to the Southern District of Texas.

The suit purports to represent all Illinois Power employees who
held the Company's common stock through the Illinois Power
401(k) Plan during the period from February 2000 through
September 2004.  The suit also names as defendants Illinois
Power, Dynegy Midwest Generation, Inc. (DMG) and several
individual defendants.

The complaint alleges violations of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act (ERISA) in connection with the Illinois
Power 401(k) Plan, including claims that certain of the
Company's former and current officers (who are past and present
members of its Benefit Plans Committee) breached their fiduciary
duties to the plan's participants and beneficiaries in
connection with the plan's investment in Dynegy common stock in
a manner similar to that alleged in the complaint filed with
respect to the ERISA litigation the Company settled in December
2004 described above.  The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages for
the losses to the plan, as well as attorney's fees and other
costs.

The suit is styled "Lively, et al. v. Dynegy, Inc., et al., case
no. 3:05-cv-00063-MJR," filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, under Judge Michael
J. Reagan.  Representing the defendants is Charles L. Joley,
Donovan, Rose et al., Generally Admitted 8 East Washington
Street Belleville, IL 62220 Phone: 618-235-2020 Fax:
618-235-9632, E-mail: cjoley@ilmoattorneys.com.  Representing
the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Matthew B. Leppert, James I. Singer, Schuchat, Cook et
         al. 1221 Locust Street 2nd Floor St. Louis, MO 63103-
         2364 Phone: 314-621-2626, Fax: 314-621-2378, E-mail:
         MBL@SCHUCHATCW.COM, JIS@SCHUCHATCW.COM;

     (2) Jeffrey Lewis, Teresa S. Renaker, Lewis, Feinberg et
         al., 1330 Broadway Suite 1800 Oakland, CA 94612 Phone:
         510-839-6824 Fax: 510-839-7839, E-mail:
         jlewis@lewisfeinberg.com or trenaker@lewisfeinberg.com


FAIRPOINT COMMUNICATIONS: Shareholders File Fraud Lawsuit in NC
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fairpoint Communications, Inc. faces a purported class action
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
North Carolina, alleging violations of the federal securities
laws.

Robert Lowinger initially filed the suit on June 6, 2005 in the
General Court of Justice, Superior Court Division, of the State
of North Carolina on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated persons against the Company, the Company's Chairman and
Chief Executive Officer, certain of the Company's current and
former directors and certain of the Company's stockholders. The
complaint alleges violations of Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) and
liability under Section 15 of the Securities Act, and alleges
that the Company's registration statement on Form S-1 (which was
declared effective by the SEC on February 3, 2005) and the
related prospectus dated February 3, 2005, each relating to the
offering, contained certain material misstatements and omitted
certain material information necessary to be included relating
to the Company's broadband products and access line trends.

The plaintiff, who has been a plaintiff in several prior
securities cases, seeks rescission rights and unspecified
damages on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the
common stock "issued pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's
IPO during the period from February 3, 2005 through March 21,
2005."  The Company has removed the action to Federal Court but
the plaintiff has filed a motion to remand the action to the
North Carolina State Court.


FLORIDA: Judge Grants Certification To Residents' Canker Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks to a Circuit Judge William McIver's decision to approve a
canker-related class action lawsuit that could go to trial
within the next year or two, thousands of Lee County residents
could get more cash for their chopped citrus trees, according to
attorneys for both sides, The News-Press reports.  

In his ruling, Judge McIver wrote that it makes more sense to
have one large class action suit than potentially thousands of
individual suits clogging up the courts.  The suit, filed by
seven Cape Coral residents, claims that the state does not pay
people enough for their chopped trees.

One of the plaintiffs, Dee Klockow, who hadn't heard about the
decision until recently told The News-Press, "I am absolutely
elated," adding that, "This gives me confidence in the legal
system." Ms. Klockow, who lost five citrus trees in early 2003,
reiterated that she did not file the lawsuit for personal gain.
She told The News-Press, "This is for everybody. This is for the
whole county." She also adds, "It doesn't matter if we only get
10 cents. That's not the point."

Originally, Lee residents got a $100 Wal-Mart voucher for their
first tree chopped by state chain-saw crews, plus $55 for every
tree after that.  However, the state agriculture department
recently ran out of money for the voucher program, thus leaving
about 7,000 county residents without vouchers. There is still
about $5.3 million left in the cash program though.  The
plaintiffs' attorney, Robert Gilbert, wants the Florida
Department of Agriculture to pay an average of $750-$1,000 for
each tree.

The class action lawsuit only covers healthy, "canker-exposed"
trees that stand near canker-infected trees. State crews chop
down those trees, also, to stop the spread of canker. The
contagious bacterial disease first appeared in southeast Cape
Coral in 2002. Since then, crews have cut more than 32,000 trees
in Cape Coral, Pine Island and Fort Myers. Most of those are
healthy residential citrus trees.  With the class certification,
Lee residents at about 12,000 homes and businesses automatically
become part of the lawsuit.

Some of them though are not thrilled at the prospect. "I think
it would be nice if we could get some extra money," echoes
Gloria Jokie, 65, of North Fort Myers. "But this (canker
eradication) is something that has to be done. It's not the
state's fault that canker came." Mrs. Jokie, who lost three
healthy citrus trees in February called the plaintiffs whiners
who should have let things be. She told The News-Press, "Get
over it. They don't owe you anything."

Though canker doesn't hurt humans, it does lead to blemished
fruit, weakened trees and premature fruit drop. It's also
considered a serious threat to Florida's $9 billion citrus
industry.


HOMETOWN AUTO: Faces NJ Suit For Registration Fee Overcharging
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hometown Auto Retailers, Inc. d/b/a Muller Toyota, Inc. has been
named as one of 1,667 defendants in a complaint filed by Maryann
Cerbo, et. al. in the Superior Court of New Jersey in Bergen
County.  

The action has been brought on behalf of about 111 named
plaintiffs and, purportedly on behalf of a class of individuals
and companies who have purchased or leased a motor vehicle from
the defendants.  Plaintiffs contend that the defendants:

     (1) overcharged for registration and/or title fees;

     (2) failed to properly itemize documentary costs and  
         governmental costs;

     (3) charged grossly excessive documentary fees not
         reasonably related to costs; and

     (4) failed to disclose that the defendants are not required
         to perform certain documentary services.  

It appears from the complaint that plaintiffs have attempted to
name as defendants all franchised automobile dealers in the
State of New Jersey, as well as a large assortment of other
persons and entities.  There are no allegations that the Company
ever performed any services for any of the plaintiffs.  The
complaint makes certain class action allegations and alleges
violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act as well as
common law fraud.  The Court has dismissed the portions of the
complaint alleging violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud
Act, common law fraud and conspiracy to commit common law fraud.  


HOMETOWN AUTO: Shareholder Launch Securities Fraud Lawsuit in DE
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hometown Auto Retailers, Inc. faces a class action filed in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware.  The suit also names
as defendants its directors:

     (1) Corey E. Shaker,  

     (2) William C. Muller, Jr.,

     (3) Joseph Shaker,  

     (4) Bernard J. Dzinski, Jr.,  

     (5) Steven A. Fournier,  

     (6) H. Dennis Lauzon and

     (7) Timothy C. Moynihan.  

Plaintiffs Steven N. Bronson, Louis J. Meade and Leonard Hagan
purport to bring the action individually, derivatively and as a
class action on behalf of the public stockholders of the
Company's Class A shares.  The Plaintiffs allege in their
complaint that the directors and controlling stockholders have
breached their fiduciary duties to the Company and the Class A
stockholders, have failed to seek a transaction that would
maximize value for Hometown and all it stockholders, and have
initiated a transaction that is not fair to the Company and its
public stockholders.  The plaintiffs seek equitable and monetary
relief, including, rescission of the Exchange Agreement, a
preliminary and permanent injunction the Exchange Agreement
transactions, a declaration that the defendants have breached
their fiduciary duties, a constructive trust on any assets
transferred pursuant to the Exchange Agreement transactions,
damages for the injury suffered by plaintiffs and the Class as a
result of defendants' breach of fiduciary duties, certification
of the action as a class action,  and an order requiring
defendants to pay attorneys' fees and expenses to plaintiffs.


IBASIS INC.: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Investor Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against iBasis, Inc.,
certain of its officers, directors, former officers and
directors, and the investment banking firms that underwrote its
November 10,1999 initial public offering of the common stock and
its March 9, 2000 secondary offering of the common stock.

Beginning July 11, 2001, several suits were filed on behalf of
persons who purchased the common stock during different time
periods, all beginning on or after November 10, 1999 and ending
on or before December 6, 2000.  The complaints are similar to
each other and to hundreds of other complaints filed against
other issuers and their underwriters, and allege violations of
the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 primarily based on the assertion that there was undisclosed
compensation received by the Company's underwriters in
connection with its public offerings and that there were
understandings with customers to make purchases in the
aftermarket.  The plaintiffs have sought an undetermined amount
of monetary damages in relation to these claims.

On September 4, 2001, the cases against the Company were
consolidated.  On October 9, 2002, the individual defendants
were dismissed from the litigation by stipulation and without
prejudice.  On June 11, 2004, the Company and the individual
defendants, as well as many other issuers named as defendants in
the class action proceeding, entered into an agreement-in-
principle to settle this matter, and on June 14, 2004, this
settlement was presented to the court.  A motion for preliminary
approval of the settlement was filed and is pending.  Once the
court preliminarily approves the settlement and notice has been
mailed, there will be an objection period, followed by a hearing
for final approval of the settlement.

Pursuant to the terms of the proposed settlement, in exchange
for a termination and release of all claims against the Company
and the individual defendants and certain protections against
third-party claims, the Company will assign to the plaintiffs
certain claims it may have as an issuer against the
underwriters, and its insurance carriers, along with the
insurance carriers of the other issuers, will ensure a floor of
$1 billion for any underwriter-plaintiff settlement.  

The suit is styled "In re iBasis, Inc. Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation, 01 Civ. 10120 (Sas)," filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
under Judge Shira A. Scheindlin.  The plaintiff firms in this
litigation are:

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

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

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

     (4) Sirota & Sirota, LLP, 110 Wall Street 21st Floor, New
         York, NY, 10005, Phone: 888.759.2990, Fax:
         212.425.9093, E-mail: Info@SirotaLaw.com

     (5) 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

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


LOUISIANA: Resident Sues Orleans Levee District Over Breaches
-------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit initiated against the Orleans Levee District alleges
that the breaches in the levees along the 17th Street and London
Avenue canals during Hurricane Katrina were the result of poor
design, faulty construction, or both, The 2theadvocate.com
reports.

The failure of the flood protection system resulted in the
flooding of thousands of homes in New Orleans, including the one
owned by Kelvin Slaton, who filed the suit. Court records show
that floodwaters chased Mr. Slaton to the attic of his home and
then to the roof, where the U.S. Coast Guard eventually rescued
him.

Mr. Slaton's lawsuit maintains that the levee should have been
able to withstand a storm surge greater than 14 feet and
hurricane winds up to 130 mph. Instead, a 500-foot breach in the
17th Street levee allowed waters from Lake Pontchartrain to flow
into New Orleans.

According to the suit, Hurricane Katrina made landfall about 20
miles east of New Orleans and by the time it reached Lake
Pontchartrain, the winds were 95 mph and the storm surge was
less than 13 feet. "In fact, the levee system failed after the
passage of Hurricane Katrina," the suit contends.  The suit
further claims that the levee system was flawed partially
because the levee walls were not interlocked and because there
was no top railing or similar system to bind the walls together.

Mr. Slaton is asking that his suit be granted class action
status, since there are others who suffered damages as a result
of the same problems alleged in the lawsuit. In addition, Mr.
Slaton, who is being represented by being represented by
Neblett, Beard and Arsenault of Alexandria; the Pendley Law Firm
of Plaquemine; and Baton Rouge attorney Philip Bohrer, is also
seeking damages and attorney fees.  Though no hearing date was
scheduled, the case has been assigned to state District Judge
Don Johnson. It was the second filed in East Baton Rouge Parish
in connection with Hurricane Katrina.


MAGMA DESIGN: Shareholders Initiate Securities Fraud Suit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Magma Design Automation, Inc. faces a shareholder class action
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, styled "The Cornelia I. Crowell GST
Trust vs. Magma Design Automation, Inc., Rajeev Madhavan,
Gregory C. Walker and Roy E. Jewell., case No. C 05 02394."

The complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose
information regarding the risk of the Company infringing
intellectual property rights of Synopsys, Inc., in violation of
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 thereunder, and prays for unspecified damages.

The Company is currently unable to assess the possible range or
extent of damages and/or other relief, if any, that could be
awarded to the shareholder class; therefore, no contingent
liability has been recorded on the Company's condensed
consolidated balance sheet as of July 3, 2005.


MERCK & CO.: Firm Lodges Vioxx Suit on Behalf of South Africans
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kenneth B. Moll & Associates, Ltd. filed the
first class action lawsuit on behalf of all citizens of South
Africa who died or were seriously injured by the pain medication
Vioxx.

The suit accuses United States pharmaceutical giant Merck & Co.
of failing to properly research the known risks of Vioxx and
warn South African consumers of potentially fatal side effects.
"Vioxx should never have been marketed in the first place," said
Kenneth B. Moll, whose firm filed the first worldwide class
action regarding Vioxx last fall.

On September 30, 2004, Merck withdrew Vioxx from all worldwide
markets after studies showed a three-fold risk of heart attack
and stroke. "Merck's decision to withdraw Vioxx from the market
came years after the company first learned of the health risks,"
said Mr. Moll. "Countless individuals in South Africa and around
the world have suffered severe and fatal injuries which could
have been avoided if Merck had acted responsibly." On August 19,
2005, a Texas jury awarded $253.5 million to a widow of a man
who died after taking Vioxx. "The verdict clearly shows Merck's
culpability in their decision to put profits ahead of the safety
of their consumers," said Mr. Moll.

For more details, contact Tiffany Donnelly of Kenneth B. Moll &
Associates, Ltd., Phone: 312-558-6444, Fax: 312-558-1112, Web
site: http://www.kbmoll.com.


MY OVERHEAD: Locklear Lodges Fourth Suit Over Unsolicited Faxes
---------------------------------------------------------------
Locklear Electric of Wood River is suing My Overhead Corporation
of Tallmadge, Ohio, in its fourth class action lawsuit in
Madison County Circuit Court this year, alleging that
unsolicited faxes it received unfairly used its paper, toner ink
and electricity, The Madison County Record reports.

According to Locklear's September 26 filing, My Overhead
Corporation sent an advertisement via fax on May 18, without
obtaining "prior express invitation or permission."   
Represented by Lanny Darr of Schrempf, Blaine, Kelly & Darr of
Alton, Locklear alleges the unsolicited fax violates the Federal
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (FTCPA) and Illinois Consumer
Fraud Act, which provides that it is unlawful for any person to
use a fax machine to send an unsolicited advertisement.  
Locklear claims that My Overhead "willfully" sent or caused to
be sent unsolicited fax advertisements, and therefore is liable
for $1,500 in damages for each separate unsolicited fax sent. It
is thus seeking an injunction to prohibit and prevent future
violations. To keep the case in state court and thus comply with
the Class Action Fairness Act, the suit claims that "the
aggregate of the class is less than $5 million" and no member of
the class is seeking damages in excess of $75,000.  

Previously, Locklear initiated similar class action complaints
against National Association of Preferred Providers on February
23, which was just five days after President George W. Bush
signed the Class Action Fairness Act into law, against
Inprovenet on April 18, and Kensington Lighting Corporation of
Greensburg, Pennsylvania on August 10.


NETGEAR INC.: Consumers Launch Two Fraud Lawsuits in CA Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
NETGEAR, Inc. faces two class actions filed in the Superior
Court of California, county of Santa Clara, on behalf of all
persons or entities in the United States who purchased the
Company's wireless products other than for resale.

In June 2004, a lawsuit, entitled "Zilberman v. NETGEAR, Civil
Action CV021230," was filed, alleging that the Company made
false representations concerning the data transfer speeds of its
wireless products when used in typical operating circumstances,
and is requesting injunctive relief, payment of restitution and
reasonable attorney fees.  Limited discovery is currently under
way and no trial date has been set.

In February 2005, a lawsuit, entitled "McGrew v. NETGEAR," was
filed in the same court, making the same allegations and
purports to represent the same class of persons and entities as
the Zilberman suit.  


NEW YORK: Retail Groups File Antitrust Case V. Major U.S. Banks
---------------------------------------------------------------
Four major merchant associations initiated an antitrust, class
action lawsuit alleging that Visa, MasterCard, Bank of America,
Citibank, Bank One, Chase Manhattan Bank, J.P. Morgan, Chase,
Fleet Bank, Capital One, and other banks are engaging in
collusive practices by setting credit card interchange fees at
supracompetitive levels.

The suit's plaintiffs, the National Association of Convenience
Stores (NACS), the National Association of Chain Drug Stores
(NACDS), the National Community Pharmacists Association (NCPA)
and the National Cooperative Grocers Association (NCGA) --
represent hundreds of thousands of drug stores, convenience
stores and food stores across the United States that accept Visa
and MasterCard as a form of payment.

In the United States, interchange is the largest component of
credit card fees and has a significant impact on American
consumers, who are affected by interchange rates that are among
the highest in the world. Interchange rates cost the average
American household approximately $232 a year in 2004.

When consumers purchase goods or services with a credit card,
the payment is processed through the merchant's bank and the
bank that issued the consumer the credit card. The issuing bank
charges the merchant's bank a fee to process the transaction.
The merchant's bank then adds its own fee for processing the
transaction, and passes on both of these fees -- collectively
known as interchange -- to the merchant.

"The credit card interchange system serves as a hidden tax, both
on merchants and consumers, and raises the costs of all products
regardless of the form of tender," said Hank Armour, CEO of the
National Association of Convenience Stores. "And these credit
card interchange fees have rapidly increased over the past
several years, despite efforts by individual convenience stores
to control these costs or make the competitive market work."

Interchange fees are meant to cover the cost of processing a
credit card transaction and the risk taken by the issuing bank
that the credit will not be repaid. However, the plaintiffs say
that both fraud costs and the cost of processing are steadily
decreasing, while U.S. interchange rates continue to increase.
Interchange fees are substantially higher in the United States
than almost any other industrialized country. Other countries
have taken action to address the market problem created by these
monopolies. Recent changes in Australia and countries in Europe,
for example, have decreased rates from about 0.95 percent to
about 0.55 percent.

"Credit card interchange fees are the third-largest expense for
many chain drug stores after rent and the cost of labor," said
Craig Fuller, CEO of the National Association of Chain Drug
Stores. "These costs have skyrocketed over the past years even
though the costs of credit card transactions for the banks have
fallen. NACDS weighed many options in dealing with this issue
and decided to seek litigation only after careful deliberations,
with the ultimate recognition that it was necessary for the
long-term reform of the system," added Mr. Fuller.

The suit's plaintiffs added they would seek damages and
injunctive relief to stop the alleged anticompetitive practices
of banks and credit card companies.

"We are not seeking some form of temporary relief; we are
looking for long-term reform of the credit card interchange fee
system," said John Rector, General Counsel of the National
Community Pharmacists Association. "The current system
discriminates against small, independent businesspersons, and
there is no basis for that discrimination. We ultimately seek a
competitive and fair interchange fee system. Interchange is much
higher in the United States than any other country, and there is
no legitimate basis for that."

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York by Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi, LLP.

The suit is styled, National Association of Convenience Stores
et al v. Visa U.S.A., Inc. et al, Case No. 1:05-cv-04521-JG-RLM,
which was filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York, with the Honorable John Gleeson,
presiding. Neal A. Deyoung of Koskoff Koskoff & Bieder, 350
Fairfield Ave., P.O. Box 1661, Bridgeport, CT 06604, Phone:
203-336-4421, Fax: 203-368-3244, E-mail: ndeyoung@koskoff.com.

For more details, contact Michelle McKenna of NACDS, Phone:
+1-703-837-4234; Jeff Lenard of NACS, Phone: +1-703-518-4272; or
John Rector of NCPA, Phone: +1-703-683-6375.


ONVIA.COM: Asks NY Court To Approve Securities Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against Onvia.com,
Inc., former executive officers Glenn S. Ballman and Mark T.
Calvert, and its lead underwriter, Credit Suisse First Boston
(CSFB).

The suit was filed on behalf of all persons who acquired
securities of Onvia between March 1, 2000 and December 6, 2000.  
The complaint charged defendants with violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder) and Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, for issuing a Registration Statement and
Prospectus that contained material misrepresentations and/or
omissions.  The complaint alleged that the Registration
Statement and Prospectus were false and misleading because they
failed to disclose:

     (1) the agreements between CSFB and certain investors to
         provide them with significant amounts of restricted
         Onvia shares in the initial public offering (IPO) in
         exchange for excessive and undisclosed commissions; and

     (2) the agreements between CSFB and certain customers under
         which the underwriters would allocate shares in the IPO
         to those customers in exchange for the customers'
         agreement to purchase Onvia shares in the after-market
         at predetermined prices.

The complaint sought an undisclosed amount of damages, as well
as attorney fees.  On October 9, 2002, an order of dismissal
without prejudice was entered, dismissing former officers Glenn
S. Ballman and Mark T. Calvert.  In June 2003, Onvia, along with
most of the companies named as defendants in this litigation,
accepted a settlement proposal negotiated among plaintiffs,
underwriters and issuers.  The major points of the settlement
are:

     (i) insurers will provide a $1 billion guaranty payable to
         plaintiffs;

    (ii) companies will assign excess compensation claims
         against underwriters to plaintiffs;

   (iii) companies will agree not to assert pricing claims
         or claims for indemnification against the underwriters;

    (iv) companies and their officers and directors will be
         released from any further litigation relating to these
         claims; and

     (v) companies will agree to cooperate in any document
         discovery.

The final settlement agreement must be negotiated and approved
by the court.  If the final settlement is approved, the Company
will be released from any future liability under this lawsuit.   

The suit is styled "In re Onvia.com, Inc. Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation," related " In re Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, Master File No. 21 MC 92 (SAS),"
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York under Judge Shira A. Scheindlin.  The
plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

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

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

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

     (4) Sirota & Sirota, LLP, 110 Wall Street 21st Floor, New
         York, NY, 10005, Phone: 888.759.2990, Fax:
         212.425.9093, E-mail: Info@SirotaLaw.com

     (5) 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

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


SANDISK CORPORATION: Court Mulls Investor Suit Dismissal Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Second Circuit Court of Appeals has yet to
decide on plaintiffs' appeal of the dismissal of the securities
class action filed against Sandisk Corporation, in its role as a
shareholder and director of Tower Semiconductor, Ltd.

The suit was originally filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of United
States holders of ordinary shares of Tower as of the close of
business on April 1, 2002.  The suit, captioned "Philippe de
Vries, Julia Frances Dunbar De Vries Trust, et al., v. Tower
Semiconductor Ltd., et al., Civil Case No. 03 CV 4999," was
filed against Tower and certain of its shareholders and
directors, including the Company and Eli Harari, the Company's
President and CEO and a Tower board member.

The suit asserts claims arising under Sections 14(a) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule
14a-9 promulgated there under. The lawsuit alleges that Tower
and certain of its directors made false and misleading
statements in a proxy solicitation to Tower shareholders
regarding a proposed amendment to a contract between Tower and
certain of its shareholders, including the Company.  The
plaintiffs are seeking unspecified damages and attorneys' and
experts' fees and expenses.

On August 19, 2004, the judge granted the Company and the other
defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety with
prejudice.  On September 29, 2004, plaintiffs appealed the
dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.  
The appeal will likely be decided sometime in 2005.

The suit is styled "De Vries, et al v. Tower Semiconductor, et
al., case no. 1:03-cv-04999-KMW," filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, under
Judge Kimba M. Wood.  Representing the Company are Jeffrey S.
Abraham and Lawrence Donald Levit of Abraham Fruchter & Twersky
LLP, One Penn Plaza, Suite 1910, New York, NY 10119, Phone:
(212)-279-5050, Fax: (212)-279-3655, E-mail: llevit@aftlaw.com.  
Representing the Company is Daniel Lucas Cantor and Michael R.
Patrick of O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Seven Times Square, New York,
NY 10036, Phone: 212-326-2000, Fax: 212-326-2061, E-mail:
dcantor@omm.com.


SANDISK CORPORATION: Faces Consumer Fraud Lawsuit in CA Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sandisk Corporation and a number of other manufacturers of
flash memory products face a consumer class action in the
Superior Court of the State of California for the City and
County of San Francisco captioned Willem Vroegh et al. v. Dane
Electric Corp. USA, et al.

The suit alleges false advertising, unfair business practices,
breach of contract, fraud, deceit, misrepresentation and
violation of the California Consumers Legal Remedy Act.  The
lawsuit purports to be on behalf of a class of purchasers of
flash memory products and claims that the defendants overstated
the size of the memory storage capabilities of such products.  
The lawsuit seeks restitution, injunction and damages in an
unspecified amount.


TASER INTERNATIONAL: Shareholders Launch Securities Suit in AZ
--------------------------------------------------------------
TASER International, Inc. and certain of its officers and
directors face a consolidated class action filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Arizona, alleging
violations of federal securities law.

On January 10, 2005, a securities class action lawsuit was filed
in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona
against the Company and certain of its officers and directors,
captioned "Malasky v. TASER International, Inc., et al., Case
No. 2:05 CV 115."  Since then, numerous other securities class
action lawsuits were filed against the Company and certain of
its officers and directors.  The majority of these lawsuits were
filed in the District of Arizona.  Four actions were filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York and one in the Eastern District of Michigan. The New
York and Michigan actions were transferred to the District of
Arizona.  The cases were recently consolidated, and the court
has appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel. Pursuant to an
order entered by the court, defendants need not respond to any
of the complaints originally filed in these actions. The lead
plaintiff will file an amended consolidated complaint, to which
Defendants will respond.

These actions are filed on behalf of the purchasers of the
Company's stock in various class periods, beginning as early as
May 29, 2003 and ending as late as January 14, 2005. The
complaints allege, among other things, violations of Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder, and seek unspecified
monetary damages and other relief against all defendants. The
complaints allege generally that the Company and the individual
defendants made false or misleading public statements regarding,
among other things, the safety of the Company's products and the
Company's ability to meet its sales goals, including the
validity of a $1.5 million sales order with one of the Company's
distributors in the fourth quarter of 2004.


TASER INTERNATIONAL: Faces Personal Injury, Wrongful Death Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
TASER International, Inc. was named as a defendant in 35
lawsuits in which the plaintiffs alleged either wrongful death
or personal injury in situations in which the TASER device was
used (or present) by law enforcement officers or during training
exercises.

Three of the cases are firearms-related death cases and not
death allegedly caused by Taser device. One case is a class
action - presently believed to be a class of one. One case has
been dismissed by summary judgment order, two cases have been
dismissed with prejudice, another case was dismissed without
prejudice but has been refiled, and the balance of the cases are
pending.

In each of these lawsuits, the plaintiff is seeking monetary
damages from the Company. In one case the plaintiff is seeking
injunctive relief in addition to monetary damages. Cases are
being submitted for the defense of each of these lawsuits to the
Company's insurance carriers as the Company maintained during
these periods and continue to maintain product liability
insurance coverage with varying limits and deductibles.

The suits are:

     (1) Del-Ostia, filed in March 2004 in the United States
         District Court for the Southern District of Florida,
         Wrongful death lawsuit - dismissed with prejudice

     (2) Alvarado, filed in April 2003 in the California
         Superior Court, wrongful death lawsuit  - now in
         discovery phase

     (3) City of Madera, filed in June 2003 in California
         Superior Court, wrongful death suit - dismissed by
         summary judgment

     (4) Borden, filed in September 2004 in the United States
         District Court for the Southern District of Indiana,
         wrongful death suit - discovery phase

     (5) Thompson, filed in September 2004, in Michigan Circuit
         Court, wrongful death suit - discovery phase

     (6) Pierson, filed in November 2004 in the United States
         District Court for the Central District of California,
         wrongful death suit - discovery phase

     (7) Glowczenski, filed in October 2004 in the United States
         District Court for the Eastern District of New York,
         wrongful death suit - stayed

     (8) LeBlanc, filed in December 2004 in the United States
         District Court for the Central District of California,
         wrongful death suit - discovery phase

     (9) Elsholtz, filed in December 2004 in Texas District
         Court, wrongful death suit - discovery phase

    (10) Kerchoff, filed in June 2004 in the United States
         District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan,
         training injury suit - dismissed, then re-filed
  
    (11) Powers, filed in November 2003 in Arizona Superior
         Court, training injury suit - trial set for November
         2005

    (12) Cook, filed in August 2004 in the Nevada District
         Court, Training Injury suit - Discovery Phase

    (13) Stevens, filed in October 2004 in the Ohio Court Common
         Pleas, training injury suit - discovery phase

    (14) Eckenroth, filed on November 2004 in the Arizona
         Superior Court, training injury suit - Discovery Phase

    (15) Lipa, filed on February 2005 in Michigan Circuit Court,
         Training Injury suit - Discovery Phase

    (16) Dimiceli, filed on March 2005 in Florida Circuit
         Court, Training Injury suit - Discovery Phase

    (17) Cosby, filed in August 2004 in the United States
         District Court for the Southern District New York,
         Injury During Arrest - summary judgment motion being
         filed

    (18) Blair, filed March 2005 in the United States District
         Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, Injury
         During Detention - summary judgment motion filed,
         awaiting ruling

    (19) Madrigal, filed in May 2005 in the Arizona Superior
         Court, Wrongful Death suit - Dismissed with Prejudice

    (20) Washington, filed in May 2005 in the United States
         District Court for the Eastern District of California,
         Wrongful Death suit - Discovery Phase

    (21) Clark, filed in May 2005 in the United States District
         Court for the Northern District of Texas, Wrongful
         Death suit - Discovery Phase

    (22) Collins, filed May 2005 in Arizona Superior Court,
         Training Injury suit - discovery phase

    (23) Allen, filed in May 2005 in Arizona Superior Court,
         Training Injury suit - discovery phase

    (24) Sanders, filed in May 2005 in the United States
         District Court for the Eastern District of California,
         Wrongful Death - discovery

    (25) Fleming, filed in May 2005 in the United States
         District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana,
         Wrongful Death suit - discovery

    (26) Woolfolk, filed in June 2005 in the United States
         District Court for the Middle District of Florida,
         Wrongful Death suit - complaint served

    (27) J.J. & J.B., filed in July 2005 in Florida Circuit
         Court, 2 Training Injuries - Complaint Served

    (28) Lewis, filed in July 2005 in the United States District
         Court in Tallahassee, Florida, Injury During Arrest -
         Complaint Served

    (29) Village Of Dolton, filed in August 2005, in the United
         States District Court Northern District of IL, class
         action - complaint served

    (30) Lash, filed in August 2005 in the United States
         District Court Eastern District, Missouri, Injury
         During Arrest - Complaint Served

    (31) Howard, filed in August 2005 in Arizona Superior Court,
         Training Injury suit - Complaint Served

    (32) Wagner, filed in August 2005 in Arizona Superior Court,
         Training Injury suit - Complaint Served

    (33) Gerdon, filed in August 2005 in Arizona Superior Court,
         Training Injury suit - Complaint Served

    (34) Gallant, filed in August 2005 in Arizona Superior
         Court, Training Injury suit - Complaint Served

    (35) Nowell, filed in August 2005 in the United States
         District Court, Northern District, Texas, Wrongful
         Death suit -  Complaint Served


THEGLOBE.COM: Parties Submit Revised Suit Settlement To NY Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Parties submitted a revised settlement for the consolidated
securities class action filed against TheGlobe.com, Inc.,
certain of its current and former officers and directors and
several investment banks that were the underwriters of the
Company's initial public offering to the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

On and after August 3, 2001 and as of the date of this filing,
six putative shareholder class action lawsuits were filed on
behalf of purchasers of the stock of the Company during the
period from November 12, 1998 through December 6, 2000.  
Plaintiffs allege that the underwriter defendants agreed to
allocate stock in the Company's initial public offering to
certain investors in exchange for excessive and undisclosed
commissions and agreements by those investors to make additional
purchases of stock in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices.  
Plaintiffs allege that the Prospectus for the Company's initial
public offering was false and misleading and in violation of the
securities laws because it did not disclose these arrangements.  

On December 5, 2001, an amended complaint was filed in one of
the actions, alleging the same conduct described above in
connection with the Company's November 23, 1998 initial public
offering and its May 19, 1999 secondary offering. A Consolidated
Amended Complaint, which is now the operative complaint, was
filed in the Southern District of New York on April 19, 2002.  
The action seeks damages in an unspecified amount.  

On February 19, 2003, a motion to dismiss all claims against the
Company was denied by the Court.  On October 13, 2004, the Court
certified a class in six of the approximately 300 other nearly
identical actions and noted that the decision is intended to
provide strong guidance to all parties regarding class
certification in the remaining cases.  Plaintiffs have not yet
moved to certify a class in theglobe.com case.

The Company has approved a settlement agreement and related
agreements which set forth the terms of a settlement between the
Company, the Individual Defendants, the plaintiff class and the
vast majority of the other approximately 300 issuer defendants.
Among other provisions, the settlement provides for a release of
the Company and the Individual Defendants for the conduct
alleged in the action to be wrongful.  The Company would agree
to undertake certain responsibilities, including agreeing to
assign away, not assert, or release certain potential claims the
Company may have against its underwriters.  The settlement
agreement also provides a guaranteed recovery of $1 billion to
plaintiffs for the cases relating to all of the approximately
300 issuers.  To the extent that the underwriter defendants
settle all of the cases for at least $1 billion, no payment will
be required under the issuers' settlement agreement.  To the
extent that the underwriter defendants settle for less than $1
billion, the issuers are required to make up the difference.  

On February 15, 2005, the court granted preliminary approval of
the settlement agreement, subject to certain modifications
consistent with its opinion.  Judge Shira Scheindlin ruled that
the issuer defendants and the plaintiffs must submit a revised
settlement agreement which provides for a mutual bar of all
contribution claims by the settling and non-settling parties and
does not bar the parties from pursuing other claims.  The
issuers and plaintiffs have submitted to the Court a revised
settlement agreement consistent with the Court's opinion.  The
revised settlement agreement has been approved by all of the
issuer defendants who are not in bankruptcy. The underwriter
defendants will have an opportunity to object to the revised
settlement agreement.  There is no assurance that the Court will
grant final approval to the settlement.  

The suit is styled "In Re TheGlobe.com, Inc. Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation," filed in relation to "IN RE
INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERING SECURITIES LITIGATION, Master File No.
21 MC 92 (SAS)," both pending in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, under Judge Shira
N. Scheindlin.  The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

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

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

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

     (4) Sirota & Sirota, LLP, 110 Wall Street 21st Floor, New
         York, NY, 10005, Phone: 888.759.2990, Fax:
         212.425.9093, E-mail: Info@SirotaLaw.com

     (5) 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

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


VI TECHNOLOGIES: Reaches Settlement For Overtime Wage Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
VI Technologies, Inc. reached a settlement for the class action
filed against it in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York.

On February 1, 2005, a former employee of the Melville plasma
processing plant which was divested to Precision
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Precision) in August 2001, filed the suit
alleging that the Company underpaid overtime pay to this
employee while he was employed by the Company in its Melville
plant.  On February 18, 2005, the Company filed a motion to
dismiss the claim and, based on a review of the employee's
payroll records, believe that any overtime pay due to this
employee would have been less than $1,000. On April 5, 2005, the
court conditionally denied the Company's motion to dismiss and
granted the employee thirty days to file an amended complaint
that more clearly specified the defendants responsible to pay
him the overtime he alleged he was owed and the relevant time
periods.

On May 5, 2005, the employee filed his amended complaint in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York against the Company and Precision. The amended complaint
included federal and state overtime claims, as well as an
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) claim. The
employee also alleged that the Company insufficiently funded his
401(k) account. On May 10, 2005, the employee filed a second
amended complaint in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York against the Company and Precision.
The second amended complaint contained the same claims as the
amended complaint.  In June 2005, the suit was discontinued with
prejudice.

The Company has reached agreement to settle the suit. The terms
of the settlement are confidential and its amount is not
material to the financial statements.


VI TECHNOLOGIES: Employees File Overtime Suit in NY State Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
VI Technologies, Inc. asked New York Superior Court to dismiss a
class action filed against it, alleging violations of overtime
wage laws.  

A former employee of the Company's Melville plant filed the suit
in February 2005.  Vitex divested the Melville plant to
Precision Pharmaceuticals, Inc. in August 2001. Precision is
also a party to the suit.  The suit is a class action in which
the lead plaintiff, representing the class, claims the Company
underpaid overtime to employees of the processing plant. The
complaint alleges an amount in excess of $125,000 in unpaid
overtime plus the costs of the action and reasonable attorney's
fees due from the two defendants.

On February 23, 2005, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
class action allegations of the complaint. That motion is
currently pending before the court.  The Company is in the
process of analyzing employee payroll records for the period in
question, which, based on the statute of limitations, it
believes to be from approximately February 1999 to August 2001,
and the Company intends to contest the claim vigorously.


VIISAGE TECHNOLOGY: Plaintiff Seek Consolidation of MA Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs asked the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts to consolidated eight securities class
actions filed in March and April 2005 against Viisage
Technology, Inc., Bernard C. Bailey, William K. Aulet and Denis
K. Berube and other members of the Company's Board of Directors.

A motion has been filed by the so-called Turnberry Group
to consolidate these lawsuits into one action under the case
name: "Darquea v. Viisage Technology, Inc. et al., Civil Action
No. 05-10438-MLW." This motion also seeks to have the Turnberry
Group designated as lead plaintiff and its counsel designated as
lead counsel.

The suits allege violations of the federal securities laws by
the Company and certain of its officers and directors arising
out of purported misrepresentations in the guidance that the
Company provided on its anticipated financial results for fiscal
2004 following the release of its 2004 second and third quarter
results, which allegedly artificially inflated the price of the
Company's stock during the period May 3, 2004 through March 2,
2005.

The first identified complaint in the litigation is styled
"Ernesto Darquea, et al. v. Viisage Technology, Inc., et al.,
case no. 05-CV-10438," filed in the United States District Court
for the District of Massachusetts.  The plaintiff firms in this
litigation are:

     (1) Baron & Budd, P.C., 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100,
         Dallas, TX, 75219, Phone: 800-946-9646, E-mail:
         info@baronbudd.com  

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

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

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

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

     (6) Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP (New York, NY), 805 Third
         Avenue, 22nd Floor, New York, NY, 10022, Phone:
         212.687.1980, Fax: 212.687.7714, E-mail:
         info@kaplanfox.com

     (7) Klafter & Olson LLP, 2121 K St., NW Suite 800,
         Washington, DC, 20037, Phone: 202.261.3553, Fax:
         202.261.3533, E-mail: info@klafterolsen.com

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

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

    (10) Paskowitz & Associates, Phone: 800.705.9529, E-mail:
         classattorney@aol.com

    (11) Roy Jacobs & Associates, 350 Fifth Avenue Suite 3000,
         New York, NY, 10118, E-mail: classattorney@pipeline.com

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

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

    (14) Seeger Weiss LLP (New York Old Address), 40 Wall
         Street. The Trump Building, New York, NY, 10005, Phone:
         212.584.0700, E-mail: info@seegerweiss.com

    (15) Shapiro, Haber & Urmy LLP, 75 State Street, Boston, MA,
         02109, Phone: 617.439.3939, Fax: 617.439.0134, E-mail:
         info@shulaw.com

    (16) Wechsler Harwood LLP, 488 Madison Avenue 8th Floor, New
         York, NY, 10022, Phone: 212.935.7400, E-mail:
         info@whhf.com


WAL-MART STORES: Quebec Court Delays Ruling on Employee's Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Quebec's Superior Court delayed ruling on whether a former Wal-
Mart employee can go ahead with a class action lawsuit on behalf
of 190 workers who lost their jobs when the retail giant shut
their unionized outlet, The Canadian Press reports.

Workers at the Saguenay, Quebec store became the first Wal-Mart
employees to unionize since a Windsor, Ontario outlet was
briefly accredited in the 1990s. The Arkansas-based retailer
though closed the Quebec store before the workers could obtain a
collective agreement.

The class action lawsuit calls for Wal-Mart to pay up to $20,000
in compensation to each of the store's workers for damages
resulting from the store's closure.

Attorneys representing Wal-Mart argued at a recent hearing that
the Quebec Superior Court did not have the jurisdiction to hear
the case pointing out that it should be up to province's labour
relations board to deal with the lawsuit because it relates to
elements in the Quebec Labour Code.

According to Alexandre Buswell, one of Wal-Mart's attorneys in
the case, "The essence of the litigation surrounds the right to
unionize and the rights and obligations of the employees." He
contends that the labour board had already dealt with complaints
stemming from the decision to close the outlet.

In its September 16 decision, the board ruled that Wal-Mart
didn't prove that the unionized store was in financial trouble
when it closed last spring.

The union had argued the closure of the Saguenay store, 250
kilometers north of Quebec City, was designed to intimidate
other workers who might want to unionize.

Attorneys representing the employee who filed the lawsuit told
the court at a recent hearing that the class action lawsuit
wasn't being filed under the province's labour code, but under
its charter of rights and freedoms as well as its civil code.

The judge is expected to rule on Wal-Mart's request in the
coming days.


WELLS REAL: Plaintiffs To Appeal GA Investor Lawsuit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs seek opportunity to appeal the dismissal of a class
action filed against Wells Real Estate Investment, Inc.'s
president and director Leo. F. Wells III in the Superior Court
of Gwinnett County, Georgia.

A suit styled "Hendry et al. v. Leo F. Wells, III et al., Civil
Action No. 04-A-2791 2," was initially filed.  The Court granted
the plaintiffs' motion to permit voluntary dismissal of this
suit, and it was subsequently dismissed without prejudice.  In
November 2004, the same plaintiffs filed a second putative class
action complaint against, among others, Mr. Wells, Wells Capital
and Wells Management, styled "Hendry et al. v. Leo F. Wells, III
et al., Civil Action No. 04A-13051 6."

On January 28, 2005, the defendants filed motions for summary
judgment and motions to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims.  
Pursuant to orders entered July 1, 2005, the Court granted the
defendants' motions to dismiss and for summary judgment on all
counts in the complaint. Thus, this action has now been
dismissed, subject to the plaintiffs' right to file a notice of
appeal within the required time period.  On August 3, 2005, the
plaintiffs filed a motion requesting the Court to re-enter the
orders to give the plaintiffs an opportunity to file a motion
for reconsideration or notice of appeal.

The suit is styled "HENDRY VS WELLS ET AL, case no. 04-A-13051-
6," filed in the Gwinnett Superior Court, Georgia, under Judge
Ronnie K. Batchelor.  Lawyers Merle Arnold, William Droze, Kevin
Maxim, J. Kirk Quillian, Daniel Reinhardt, Donald Swift and
Thomas Tate represent defendants Leo F. Wells, Wells Capital
Inc., Wells Management Co., Inc. and Wells Real Estate Fund I.  
Lawyer Vincent Gresham represents plaintiffs Karen Beneda,
Robert Beneda, James Hendry and William Mullin.


VERDISYS INC.: Reaches Settlement For TX Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Verdisys, Inc. (now known as Blast Energy Services, Inc.)
reached a settlement for the consolidated securities class
action filed against it in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas.

The lawsuit alleged that the Company and its former CEO, Dan
Williams, and its former CFO, Andrew Wilson, violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  The lawsuits alleged that the
defendants had made material misstatements about the Company's
financial results.  More specifically, the Complaints alleged
that the defendants had failed to disclose and indicate:

     (1) that the Company had materially overstated our net
         income and earnings per share;

     (2) that the Company prematurely recognized revenue from
         contracts between it, Edge and Energy 2000 NGC, Inc. in
         violation of GAAP and its own revenue recognition
         policy;

     (3) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls and
         was therefore unable to ascertain the true financial
         condition of the company; and

     (4) that as a result of recognizing revenue prematurely,
         its financial results were inflated at all relevant
         times.

Under terms of the agreement, the Company will issue to the
class 1,150,000 shares of common stock and pay up to $55,000 in
legal and administrative fees for the plaintiffs.

The suit is styled "Harper v. Verdisys Inc, et al, case no.
4:04-cv-01297," filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Texas, under Judge Sim Lake.  
Representing the Company is Michael T. Larkin of Adams and Reese
1221 McKinney Ste 4400 Houston, TX 77010 Phone: 713-308-0166
Fax: 713-652-5152 E-mail: michael.larkin@arlaw.com.  
Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (i) Thomas E. Bilek, 1000 Louisiana Suite 1302 Houston, TX
         77002 Phone: 713-227-7720 Fax: 713-227-9404 E-mail:
         tbilek@hb-legal.com

    
    (ii) Samuel H. Rudman, Cauley Geller et al, 200 Broadhollow
         Rd Melville, NY 11747 Phone: 631-267-7100

   (iii) Jules Brody, Stull Stull & Brody, Six East 45th Street
         New York, NY 10017 Phone: 21/687-7230

    (iv) Joseph H Weiss, Weiss and Yourman 551 Fifth Ave
         Ste 1600 New York, NY 10176 Phone: 212-682-3025 Fax:
         212-682-3010


ZIPREALTY INC.: Reaches Settlement For CA Employee Agents' Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ziprealty, Inc. reached a settlement for the a class action
filed in Superior Court of the State of California, County of
San Diego, Central Division, styled "Sullivan, et al v.
ZipRealty case number GIC851801.  Two former employee agents for
the Company filed the suit, alleging, among other things, that
the Company's s expense allowance policies violate California
law.

The Company has reached an agreement in principle to settle this
claim in exchange for the Company's payment of $4,164,000. That
agreement is expected to include a full release from any further
liability on this issue and is subject to the execution of a
definitive settlement agreement and court approval.



               Meetings, Conferences & Seminars




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


                New Securities Fraud Cases


ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Suit in OH
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Stull, Stull & Brody initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio on behalf of persons who purchased or acquired
the securities of Abercrombie & Fitch Co. ("Abercrombie" or the
"Company") (NYSE:ANF) between May 17, 2005 and August 16, 2005
inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period thereby
artificially inflating the price of Abercrombie securities. The
Complaint names as defendants Abercrombie, Michael S. Jeffries,
Robert Singer and Michael W. Kramer. The Complaint alleges that
Abercrombie

     (1) carried out a scheme to deceive the investing public;

     (2) made untrue statements of material fact and/or omitted
         to state material facts necessary to make the
         statements not misleading; and

     (3) engaged in acts, practices and a course of business
         which operated as a fraud and deceit upon purchasers of
         the Company's securities in an effort to maintain
         artificially high market prices for Abercrombie
         securities.

More specifically, the Complaint alleges that during the class
period, Abercrombie made positive public announcements about its
monthly and quarterly sales results while, at the same time they
did not reveal that the Company's margins, a material indicator
of the Company's true financial condition, would be lower in its
2005 second fiscal quarter. In July 2005, Abercrombie's Chairman
and CEO sold more than 1.6 million shares of Abercrombie common
stock reaping $118 million in profits based on negative,
material Company information known to him, but unknown to
Plaintiff and the Class. Following the revelation of the
material, undisclosed information, Abercrombie's common stock
price plummeted, resulting in substantial losses to
shareholders.

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


ARBINET-THEXCHANGE: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Fraud Suit in NJ
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey on behalf of all securities purchasers of
Arbinet-thexchange, Inc. (Nasdaq: ARBX) ("Arbinet" or the
"Company") who bought pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's
Initial Public Offering ("IPO") on or about December 16, 2004
and between December 16, 2004, and June 21, 2005 inclusive (the
"Class Period").

The complaint charges Arbinet-thexchange, Inc., J. Curt
Hockemeier and John J. Roberts with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. More specifically, the Complaint alleges
that the Company failed to disclose and misrepresented the
following material adverse facts known to defendants or
recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) that Arbinet was experiencing a shorter than average
         call duration and a mix shift to wireless calls from
         wired calls, which led to a decrease in the average
         number of minutes the Company transacted on the
         exchange;

     (2) that the Company due to credit problems was forced to
         suspend trading for two of its largest customers;

     (3) that the Company's international offerings were not
         adequately differentiated from its competitors, thereby
         jeopardizing Arbinet's ability to grow abroad; and

     (4) that a result of the foregoing, the defendant's
         positive statements about the Company's condition and
         progress lacked in all reasonable basis.

On June 21, 2005, Arbinet lowered its guidance for both the
second quarter and all of 2005. On this news, shares of Arbinet
fell $4.00 per share, or 34.78 percent, on June 22, 2005, to
close at $7.50 per share.

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


DHB INDUSTRIES: Kirby McInerney Files Securities Suit in E.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP, initiated a class
action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of all
purchasers of DHB Industries, Inc. ("DHB" or the "Company")
(AMEX:DHB) securities during the period from April 21, 2004
through August 29, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The action charges DHB and certain of its senior officers with
violations of Sections10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The alleged
violations stem from the dissemination of false and misleading
statements, which had the effect -- during the Class Period --
of artificially inflating the price of DHB's shares.

Investors allege that during the Class Period, the Company
issued numerous statements concerning the quality of the
Company's bulletproof vests. Recently, DHB announced it would
stop manufacturing and selling certain of its vests due to their
being decertified by a government agency and took a write-off.
On August 30, 2005, DHB announced that it would take a charge of
up to $60 million in the third quarter to discontinue production
of certain bullet-proof vests because of safety concerns.
Following this announcement, on August 30, 2005, shares of DHB
fell $1.56 per share, or 23.42 percent, to close at $5.10 per
share on unusually heavy trading volume.

For more details, contact Pamela Kulsrud or Vivian Lee of Kirby
McInerney & Squire, LLP, 830 Third Ave., 10th Floor, New York,
NY 10022, Pone: (212) 317-2300 or (888) 529-4787, E-Mail:
vlee@kmslaw.com, Web site: http://www.kmslaw.com.


DHB INDUSTRIES: Scott + Scott Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Scott + Scott, LLC, initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York against DHB Industries, Inc. (Amex: DHB)
and individual defendants. Purchasers of DHB securities between
April 21, 2004 and August 29, 2005, inclusive (the "Class
Period") are members of the purported class. DHB designs,
develops, manufactures and markets protective armor through its
subsidiaries, Point Blank Body Armor, Inc. and Protective
Apparel Corporation of America.

The complaint filed on September 9, 2005 by Scott + Scott
alleges that during the Class Period, DHB and certain individual
defendants, including CEO David Brooks, violated the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by making false statements or failing to
disclose adverse facts known to them about DHB. Defendants'
fraudulent scheme, it is alleged:

     (1) deceived the investing public regarding DHB's prospects
         and business;

     (2) artificially inflated the prices of DHB's publicly
         traded securities; and

     (3) caused members of the Class to purchase DHB's publicly
         traded securities at inflated prices.

It is also alleged that while DHB's securities were artificially
inflated, insiders sold over $220 million of common stock.

A September 8, 2005 article about DHB appearing in The Motley
Fool and authored by Seth Jayson states: "Now that (DHB) has
cratered to one-fourth its former high price, I don't see any
insider buying. Instead, I see insiders granting themselves a
giant pile of warrants, including a ludicrous 1.5 million to
(CEO David) Brooks at a $1 strike price, vesting immediately --
with another 750,000 vesting each year until 2010 ... Mix in
overly generous housing and personal benefits and a slew of
creepy related-part transactions that enrich family members, and
you can only come to the conclusion that Brooks believes that
what's his is his, and what's yours is his too."

For more details, contact Neil Rothstein or Amy K. Saba of Scott
+ Scott, LLC, Phone: 800-332-2259, ext. 22 or 619-251-0887 or
800-332-2259, ext. 26, E-mail: nrothstein@scott-scott.com or
asaba@scott-scott.com, Web site: http://www.scott-scott.com.  


UBS-AG: Stull Stull Files Suit in NY Over American 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 American 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 American mutual funds and their respective symbols are as
follows:

American Funds Amcap 529A               (NASDAQ: CAFAX)
American Funds Amcap 529B               (NASDAQ: CAFBX)
American Funds Amcap 529C               (NASDAQ: CAFCX)
American Funds Amcap 529E               (NASDAQ: CAFEX)
American Funds Amcap 529F               (NASDAQ: CAFFX)
American Funds Amcap A                  (NASDAQ: AMCPX)
American Funds Amcap B                  (NASDAQ: AMPBX)
American Funds Amcap C                  (NASDAQ: AMPCX)
American Funds Amcap F                  (NASDAQ: AMPFX)
American Funds Amcap R1                 (NASDAQ: RAFAX)
American Funds Amcap R2                 (NASDAQ: RAFBX)
American Funds Amcap R3                 (NASDAQ: RAFCX)
American Funds Amcap R4                 (NASDAQ: RAFEX)
American Funds Amcap R5                 (NASDAQ: RAFFX)
American Funds American Balanced 529A   (NASDAQ: CLBAX)
American Funds American Balanced 529B   (NASDAQ: CLBBX)
American Funds American Balanced 529C   (NASDAQ: CLBCX)
American Funds American Balanced 529E   (NASDAQ: CLBEX)
American Funds American Balanced 529F   (NASDAQ: CLBFX)
American Funds American Balanced A      (NASDAQ: ABALX)
American Funds American Balanced B      (NASDAQ: BALBX)
American Funds American Balanced C      (NASDAQ: BALCX)
American Funds American Balanced F      (NASDAQ: BALFX)
American Funds American Balanced R1     (NASDAQ: RLBAX)
American Funds American Balanced R2     (NASDAQ: RLBBX)
American Funds American Balanced R3     (NASDAQ: RLBCX)
American Funds American Balanced R4     (NASDAQ: RLBEX)
American Funds American Balanced R5     (NASDAQ: RLBFX)
American Funds American Hi Inc Tr 529A  (NASDAQ: CITAX)
American Funds American Hi Inc Tr 529B  (NASDAQ: CITBX)
American Funds American Hi Inc Tr 529C  (NASDAQ: CITCX)
American Funds American Hi Inc Tr 529E  (NASDAQ: CITEX)
American Funds American Hi Inc Tr 529F  (NASDAQ: CITFX)
American Funds American Hi Inc Tr A     (NASDAQ: AHITX)
American Funds American Hi Inc Tr B     (NASDAQ: AHTBX)
American Funds American Hi Inc Tr C     (NASDAQ: AHTCX)
American Funds American Hi Inc Tr F     (NASDAQ: AHTFX)
American Funds American Hi Inc Tr R1    (NASDAQ: RITAX)
American Funds American Hi Inc Tr R2    (NASDAQ: RITBX)
American Funds American Hi Inc Tr R3    (NASDAQ: RITCX)
American Funds American Hi Inc Tr R4    (NASDAQ: RITEX)
American Funds American Hi Inc Tr R5    (NASDAQ: RITFX)
American Funds American Mutual 529A     (NASDAQ: CMLAX)
American Funds American Mutual 529B     (NASDAQ: CMLBX)
American Funds American Mutual 529C     (NASDAQ: CMLCX)
American Funds American Mutual 529E     (NASDAQ: CMLEX)
American Funds American Mutual 529F     (NASDAQ: CMLFX)
American Funds American Mutual A        (NASDAQ: AMRMX)
American Funds American Mutual B        (NASDAQ: AMFBX)
American Funds American Mutual C        (NASDAQ: AMFCX)
American Funds American Mutual F        (NASDAQ: AMFFX)
American Funds American Mutual R1       (NASDAQ: RMFAX)
American Funds American Mutual R2       (NASDAQ: RMFBX)
American Funds American Mutual R3       (NASDAQ: RMFCX)
American Funds American Mutual R4       (NASDAQ: RMFEX)
American Funds American Mutual R5       (NASDAQ: RMFFX)
American Funds Bond Fund of Amer 529A   (NASDAQ: CFAAX)
American Funds Bond Fund of Amer 529B   (NASDAQ: CFABX)
American Funds Bond Fund of Amer 529C   (NASDAQ: CFACX)
American Funds Bond Fund of Amer 529E   (NASDAQ: CFAEX)
American Funds Bond Fund of Amer 529F   (NASDAQ: CFAFX)
American Funds Bond Fund of Amer A      (NASDAQ: ABNDX)
American Funds Bond Fund of Amer B      (NASDAQ: BFABX)
American Funds Bond Fund of Amer C      (NASDAQ: BFACX)
American Funds Bond Fund of Amer F      (NASDAQ: BFAFX)
American Funds Bond Fund of Amer R1     (NASDAQ: RBFAX)
American Funds Bond Fund of Amer R2     (NASDAQ: RBFBX)
American Funds Bond Fund of Amer R3     (NASDAQ: RBFCX)
American Funds Bond Fund of Amer R4     (NASDAQ: RBFEX)
American Funds Bond Fund of Amer R5     (NASDAQ: RBFFX)
American Funds Capital Inc Bldr 529A    (NASDAQ: CIRAX)
American Funds Capital Inc Bldr 529B    (NASDAQ: CIRBX)
American Funds Capital Inc Bldr 529C    (NASDAQ: CIRCX)
American Funds Capital Inc Bldr 529E    (NASDAQ: CIREX)
American Funds Capital Inc Bldr 529F    (NASDAQ: CIRFX)
American Funds Capital Inc Bldr A       (NASDAQ: CAIBX)
American Funds Capital Inc Bldr B       (NASDAQ: CIBBX)
American Funds Capital Inc Bldr C       (NASDAQ: CIBCX)
American Funds Capital Inc Bldr F       (NASDAQ: CIBFX)
American Funds Capital Inc Bldr R1      (NASDAQ: RIRAX)
American Funds Capital Inc Bldr R2      (NASDAQ: RIRBX)
American Funds Capital Inc Bldr R3      (NASDAQ: RIRCX)
American Funds Capital Inc Bldr R4      (NASDAQ: RIREX)
American Funds Capital Inc Bldr R5      (NASDAQ: RIRFX)
American Funds Capital World Bd 529A    (NASDAQ: CCWAX)
American Funds Capital World Bd 529B    (NASDAQ: CCWBX)
American Funds Capital World Bd 529C    (NASDAQ: CCWCX)
American Funds Capital World Bd 529E    (NASDAQ: CCWEX)
American Funds Capital World Bd 529F    (NASDAQ: CCWFX)
American Funds Capital World Bd A       (NASDAQ: CWBFX)
American Funds Capital World Bd B       (NASDAQ: WBFBX)
American Funds Capital World Bd C       (NASDAQ: CWBCX)
American Funds Capital World Bd F       (NASDAQ: WBFFX)
American Funds Capital World Bd R1      (NASDAQ: RCWAX)
American Funds Capital World Bd R2      (NASDAQ: RCWBX)
American Funds Capital World Bd R3      (NASDAQ: RCWCX)
American Funds Capital World Bd R4      (NASDAQ: RCWEX)
American Funds Capital World Bd R5      (NASDAQ: RCWFX)
American Funds Capital World G/I 529A   (NASDAQ: CWIAX)
American Funds Capital World G/I 529B   (NASDAQ: CWIBX)
American Funds Capital World G/I 529C   (NASDAQ: CWICX)
American Funds Capital World G/I 529E   (NASDAQ: CWIEX)
American Funds Capital World G/I 529F   (NASDAQ: CWIFX)
American Funds Capital World G/I A      (NASDAQ: CWGIX)
American Funds Capital World G/I B      (NASDAQ: CWGBX)
American Funds Capital World G/I C      (NASDAQ: CWGCX)
American Funds Capital World G/I F      (NASDAQ: CWGFX)
American Funds Capital World G/I R1     (NASDAQ: RWIAX)
American Funds Capital World G/I R2     (NASDAQ: RWIBX)
American Funds Capital World G/I R3     (NASDAQ: RWICX)
American Funds Capital World G/I R4     (NASDAQ: RWIEX)
American Funds Capital World G/I R5     (NASDAQ: RWIFX)
American Funds EuroPacific Gr 529A      (NASDAQ: CEUAX)
American Funds EuroPacific Gr 529B      (NASDAQ: CEUBX)
American Funds EuroPacific Gr 529C      (NASDAQ: CEUCX)
American Funds EuroPacific Gr 529E      (NASDAQ: CEUEX)
American Funds EuroPacific Gr 529F      (NASDAQ: CEUFX)
American Funds EuroPacific Gr A         (NASDAQ: AEPGX)
American Funds EuroPacific Gr B         (NASDAQ: AEGBX)
American Funds EuroPacific Gr C         (NASDAQ: AEPCX)
American Funds EuroPacific Gr F         (NASDAQ: AEGFX)
American Funds EuroPacific Gr R1        (NASDAQ: RERAX)
American Funds EuroPacific Gr R2        (NASDAQ: RERBX)
American Funds EuroPacific Gr R3        (NASDAQ: RERCX)
American Funds EuroPacific Gr R4        (NASDAQ: REREX)
American Funds EuroPacific Gr R5        (NASDAQ: RERFX)
American Funds Fundamental Invs 529A    (NASDAQ: CFNAX)
American Funds Fundamental Invs 529B    (NASDAQ: CFNBX)
American Funds Fundamental Invs 529C    (NASDAQ: CFNCX)
American Funds Fundamental Invs 529E    (NASDAQ: CFNEX)
American Funds Fundamental Invs 529F    (NASDAQ: CFNFX)
American Funds Fundamental Invs A       (NASDAQ: ANCFX)
American Funds Fundamental Invs B       (NASDAQ: AFIBX)
American Funds Fundamental Invs C       (NASDAQ: AFICX)
American Funds Fundamental Invs F       (NASDAQ: AFIFX)
American Funds Fundamental Invs R1      (NASDAQ: RFNAX)
American Funds Fundamental Invs R2      (NASDAQ: RFNBX)
American Funds Fundamental Invs R3      (NASDAQ: RFNCX)
American Funds Fundamental Invs R4      (NASDAQ: RFNEX)
American Funds Fundamental Invs R5      (NASDAQ: RFNFX)
American Funds Grth Fund of Amer 529A   (NASDAQ: CGFAX)
American Funds Grth Fund of Amer 529B   (NASDAQ: CGFBX)
American Funds Grth Fund of Amer 529C   (NASDAQ: CGFCX)
American Funds Grth Fund of Amer 529E   (NASDAQ: CGFEX)
American Funds Grth Fund of Amer 529F   (NASDAQ: CGFFX)
American Funds Grth Fund of Amer A      (NASDAQ: AGTHX)
American Funds Grth Fund of Amer B      (NASDAQ: AGRBX)
American Funds Grth Fund of Amer C      (NASDAQ: GFACX)
American Funds Grth Fund of Amer F      (NASDAQ: GFAFX)
American Funds Grth Fund of Amer R1     (NASDAQ: RGAAX)
American Funds Grth Fund of Amer R2     (NASDAQ: RGABX)
American Funds Grth Fund of Amer R3     (NASDAQ: RGACX)
American Funds Grth Fund of Amer R4     (NASDAQ: RGAEX)
American Funds Grth Fund of Amer R5     (NASDAQ: RGAFX)
American Funds High-Inc Muni Bond A     (NASDAQ: AMHIX)
American Funds High-Inc Muni Bond B     (NASDAQ: ABHMX)
American Funds High-Inc Muni Bond C     (NASDAQ: AHICX)
American Funds High-Inc Muni Bond F     (NASDAQ: ABHFX)
American Funds Inc Fund of Amer 529A    (NASDAQ: CIMAX)
American Funds Inc Fund of Amer 529B    (NASDAQ: CIMBX)
American Funds Inc Fund of Amer 529C    (NASDAQ: CIMCX)
American Funds Inc Fund of Amer 529E    (NASDAQ: CIMEX)
American Funds Inc Fund of Amer 529F    (NASDAQ: CIMFX)
American Funds Inc Fund of Amer A       (NASDAQ: AMECX)
American Funds Inc Fund of Amer B       (NASDAQ: IFABX)
American Funds Inc Fund of Amer C       (NASDAQ: IFACX)
American Funds Inc Fund of Amer F       (NASDAQ: IFAFX)
American Funds Inc Fund of Amer R1      (NASDAQ: RIDAX)
American Funds Inc Fund of Amer R2      (NASDAQ: RIDBX)
American Funds Inc Fund of Amer R3      (NASDAQ: RIDCX)
American Funds Inc Fund of Amer R4      (NASDAQ: RIDEX)
American Funds Inc Fund of Amer R5      (NASDAQ: RIDFX)
American Funds Intm Bd Fd of Amer A     (NASDAQ: AIBAX)
American Funds Intm Bd Fd of Amer B     (NASDAQ: IBFBX)
American Funds Intm Bd Fd of Amer C     (NASDAQ: IBFCX)
American Funds Intm Bd Fd of Amer F     (NASDAQ: IBFFX)
American Funds IntmBd Fd of Amer 529A   (NASDAQ: CBOAX)
American Funds IntmBd Fd of Amer 529B   (NASDAQ: CBOBX)
American Funds IntmBd Fd of Amer 529C   (NASDAQ: CBOCX)
American Funds IntmBd Fd of Amer 529E   (NASDAQ: CBOEX)
American Funds IntmBd Fd of Amer 529F   (NASDAQ: CBOFX)
American Funds IntmBd Fd of Amer R1     (NASDAQ: RBOAX)
American Funds IntmBd Fd of Amer R2     (NASDAQ: RBOBX)
American Funds IntmBd Fd of Amer R3     (NASDAQ: RBOCX)
American Funds IntmBd Fd of Amer R4     (NASDAQ: RBOEX)
American Funds IntmBd Fd of Amer R5     (NASDAQ: RBOFX)
American Funds Invmt Co of Amer 529A    (NASDAQ: CICAX)
American Funds Invmt Co of Amer 529B    (NASDAQ: CICBX)
American Funds Invmt Co of Amer 529C    (NASDAQ: CICCX)
American Funds Invmt Co of Amer 529E    (NASDAQ: CICEX)
American Funds Invmt Co of Amer 529F    (NASDAQ: CICFX)
American Funds Invmt Co of Amer A       (NASDAQ: AIVSX)
American Funds Invmt Co of Amer B       (NASDAQ: AICBX)
American Funds Invmt Co of Amer C       (NASDAQ: AICCX)
American Funds Invmt Co of Amer F       (NASDAQ: AICFX)
American Funds Invmt Co of Amer R1      (NASDAQ: RICAX)
American Funds Invmt Co of Amer R2      (NASDAQ: RICBX)
American Funds Invmt Co of Amer R3      (NASDAQ: RICCX)
American Funds Invmt Co of Amer R4      (NASDAQ: RICEX)
American Funds Invmt Co of Amer R5      (NASDAQ: RICFX)
American Funds Ltd-Term Tax-Ex Bd R5    (NASDAQ: RTXFX)
American Funds Ltd-Term Tx-Ex Bd A      (NASDAQ: LTEBX)
American Funds Ltd-Term Tx-Ex Bd B      (NASDAQ: LTXBX)
American Funds Ltd-Term Tx-Ex Bd C      (NASDAQ: LTXCX)
American Funds Ltd-Term Tx-Ex Bd F      (NASDAQ: LTXFX)
American Funds New Economy 529A         (NASDAQ: CNGAX)
American Funds New Economy 529B         (NASDAQ: CNGBX)
American Funds New Economy 529C         (NASDAQ: CNGCX)
American Funds New Economy 529E         (NASDAQ: CNGEX)
American Funds New Economy 529F         (NASDAQ: CNGFX)
American Funds New Economy A            (NASDAQ: ANEFX)
American Funds New Economy B            (NASDAQ: ANFBX)
American Funds New Economy C            (NASDAQ: ANFCX)
American Funds New Economy F            (NASDAQ: ANFFX)
American Funds New Economy R1           (NASDAQ: RNGAX)
American Funds New Economy R2           (NASDAQ: RNGBX)
American Funds New Economy R3           (NASDAQ: RNGCX)
American Funds New Economy R4           (NASDAQ: RNGEX)
American Funds New Economy R5           (NASDAQ: RNGFX)
American Funds New Perspective 529A     (NASDAQ: CNPAX)
American Funds New Perspective 529B     (NASDAQ: CNPBX)
American Funds New Perspective 529C     (NASDAQ: CNPCX)
American Funds New Perspective 529E     (NASDAQ: CNPEX)
American Funds New Perspective 529F     (NASDAQ: CNPFX)
American Funds New Perspective A        (NASDAQ: ANWPX)
American Funds New Perspective B        (NASDAQ: NPFBX)
American Funds New Perspective C        (NASDAQ: NPFCX)
American Funds New Perspective F        (NASDAQ: NPFFX)
American Funds New Perspective R1       (NASDAQ: RNPAX)
American Funds New Perspective R2       (NASDAQ: RNPBX)
American Funds New Perspective R3       (NASDAQ: RNPCX)
American Funds New Perspective R4       (NASDAQ: RNPEX)
American Funds New Perspective R5       (NASDAQ: RNPFX)
American Funds New World 529A           (NASDAQ: CNWAX)
American Funds New World 529B           (NASDAQ: CNWBX)
American Funds New World 529C           (NASDAQ: CNWCX)
American Funds New World 529E           (NASDAQ: CNWEX)
American Funds New World 529F           (NASDAQ: CNWFX)
American Funds New World A              (NASDAQ: NEWFX)
American Funds New World B              (NASDAQ: NEWBX)
American Funds New World C              (NASDAQ: NEWCX)
American Funds New World F              (NASDAQ: NWFFX)
American Funds New World R1             (NASDAQ: RNWAX)
American Funds New World R2             (NASDAQ: RNWBX)
American Funds New World R3             (NASDAQ: RNWCX)
American Funds New World R4             (NASDAQ: RNWEX)
American Funds New World R5             (NASDAQ: RNWFX)
American Funds Smallcap World 529A      (NASDAQ: CSPAX)
American Funds Smallcap World 529B      (NASDAQ: CSPBX)
American Funds Smallcap World 529C      (NASDAQ: CSPCX)
American Funds Smallcap World 529E      (NASDAQ: CSPEX)
American Funds Smallcap World 529F      (NASDAQ: CSPFX)
American Funds Smallcap World A         (NASDAQ: SMCWX)
American Funds Smallcap World B         (NASDAQ: SCWBX)
American Funds Smallcap World C         (NASDAQ: SCWCX)
American Funds Smallcap World F         (NASDAQ: SCWFX)
American Funds Smallcap World R1        (NASDAQ: RSLAX)
American Funds Smallcap World R2        (NASDAQ: RSLBX)
American Funds Smallcap World R3        (NASDAQ: RSLCX)
American Funds Smallcap World R4        (NASDAQ: RSLEX)
American Funds Smallcap World R5        (NASDAQ: RSLFX)
American Funds Tax-Exempt Bond A        (NASDAQ: AFTEX)
American Funds Tax-Exempt Bond B        (NASDAQ: TEBFX)
American Funds Tax-Exempt Bond C        (NASDAQ: TEBCX)
American Funds Tax-Exempt Bond F        (NASDAQ: AFTFX)
American Funds Tax-Exempt Bond R5       (NASDAQ: RTAFX)
American Funds Tax-Exempt Fund CA A     (NASDAQ: TAFTX)
American Funds Tax-Exempt Fund CA B     (NASDAQ: TECBX)
American Funds Tax-Exempt Fund CA C     (NASDAQ: TECCX)
American Funds Tax-Exempt Fund CA F     (NASDAQ: TECFX)
American Funds Tax-Exempt Fund CA R5    (NASDAQ: RTCFX)
American Funds Tax-Exempt Fund MD A     (NASDAQ: TMMDX)
American Funds Tax-Exempt Fund MD B     (NASDAQ: TEMBX)
American Funds Tax-Exempt Fund MD C     (NASDAQ: TEMCX)
American Funds Tax-Exempt Fund MD F     (NASDAQ: TMDFX)
American Funds Tax-Exempt Fund MD R5    (NASDAQ: RTMFX)
American Funds Tax-Exempt Fund VA A     (NASDAQ: TFVAX)
American Funds Tax-Exempt Fund VA B     (NASDAQ: TEVBX)
American Funds Tax-Exempt Fund VA C     (NASDAQ: TEVCX)
American Funds Tax-Exempt Fund VA F     (NASDAQ: TEVFX)
American Funds Tax-Exempt Fund VA R5    (NASDAQ: RTVFX)
American Funds US Government Sec 529A   (NASDAQ: CGTAX)
American Funds US Government Sec 529B   (NASDAQ: CGTBX)
American Funds US Government Sec 529C   (NASDAQ: CGTCX)
American Funds US Government Sec 529E   (NASDAQ: CGTEX)
American Funds US Government Sec 529F   (NASDAQ: CGTFX)
American Funds US Government Sec A      (NASDAQ: AMUSX)
American Funds US Government Sec B      (NASDAQ: UGSBX)
American Funds US Government Sec C      (NASDAQ: UGSCX)
American Funds US Government Sec F      (NASDAQ: UGSFX)
American Funds US Government Sec R1     (NASDAQ: RGVAX)
American Funds US Government Sec R2     (NASDAQ: RGVBX)
American Funds US Government Sec R3     (NASDAQ: RGVCX)
American Funds US Government Sec R4     (NASDAQ: RGVEX)
American Funds US Government Sec R5     (NASDAQ: RGVFX)
American Funds Washington Mutual 529A   (NASDAQ: CWMAX)
American Funds Washington Mutual 529B   (NASDAQ: CWMBX)
American Funds Washington Mutual 529C   (NASDAQ: CWMCX)
American Funds Washington Mutual 529E   (NASDAQ: CWMEX)
American Funds Washington Mutual 529F   (NASDAQ: CWMFX)
American Funds Washington Mutual A      (NASDAQ: AWSHX)
American Funds Washington Mutual B      (NASDAQ: WSHBX)
American Funds Washington Mutual C      (NASDAQ: WSHCX)
American Funds Washington Mutual F      (NASDAQ: WSHFX)
American Funds Washington Mutual R1     (NASDAQ: RWMAX)
American Funds Washington Mutual R2     (NASDAQ: RWMBX)
American Funds Washington Mutual R3     (NASDAQ: RWMCX)
American Funds Washington Mutual R4     (NASDAQ: RWMEX)
American Funds Washington Mutual R5     (NASDAQ: RWMFX)

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 defendants' undisclosed sales practices created an
insurmountable conflict of interest by providing substantial
monetary incentives to sell Shelf-Space Funds to their clients,
even though such investments were not in the clients' best
interest. UBS' failure to disclose the incentives constituted
violations of federal securities laws.

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

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

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


UBS-AG: Stull Stull Lodges NY Fraud Suit Over Davis 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 Davis 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 Davis mutual funds and their respective symbols are as
follows:

Davis Appreciation & Income Fund (NASDAQ: RPFCX), (NASDAQ:
DCSBX), (NASDAQ: DCSCX), (NASDAQ: DCSYX)
Davis Financial Fund (NASDAQ: RPFGX), (NASDAQ: DFIBX), (NASDAQ:
DFFCX),
(NASDAQ: DVFYX)
Davis Government Bond Fund (NASDAQ: RFBAX), (NASDAQ: VRPFX),
(NASDAQ: DGVCX), (NASDAQ: DGVYX)
Davis NY Venture Fund (NASDAQ: NYVTX), (NASDAQ: NYVBX), (NASDAQ:
NYVCX),
(NASDAQ: DNVYX)
Davis Opportunity Fund (NASDAQ: RPEAX), (NASDAQ: RPFEX),
(NASDAQ: DGOCX),
(NASDAQ: DGOYX)
Davis Real Estate Fund (NASDAQ: RPFRX), (NASDAQ: DREBX),
(NASDAQ: DRECX),
(NASDAQ: DREYX)

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 defendants' undisclosed sales practices created an
insurmountable conflict of interest by providing substantial
monetary incentives to sell Shelf-Space Funds to their clients,
even though such investments were not in the clients' best
interest. UBS' failure to disclose the incentives constituted
violations of federal securities laws.

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

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

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


UBS-AG: Stull Stull Lodges Suit in NY Over Dreyfus 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 Dreyfus 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 Dreyfus mutual funds and their respective symbols are as
follows:

Dreyfus A Bonds Plus             (NASDAQ: DRBDX)
Dreyfus Appreciation             (NASDAQ: DGAGX)
Dreyfus Balanced Fund, Inc.      (NASDAQ: DRBAX)
Dreyfus Basic S&P 500 Stock IndeX)      (NASDAQ: DSPIX)
Dreyfus Basic US Mortgage Securities    (NASDAQ: DIGFX)
Dreyfus Bond Market IndeX) Basic        (NASDAQ: DBIRX)
Dreyfus Bond Market IndeX) Inv          (NASDAQ: DBMIX)
Dreyfus CA Intermediate Muni Bond        (NASDAQ: DCIMX)
Dreyfus California Municipal Income Inc. (NASDAQ: X)DCGX)
Dreyfus CT Intermediate Muni Bond        (NASDAQ: DCTIX)
Dreyfus Disciplined Stock                (NASDAQ: DDSTX)
Dreyfus Emerging Leaders                 (NASDAQ: DRELX)
Dreyfus FL Intermediate Muni Bond        (NASDAQ: DFLIX)
Dreyfus Founders Balanced A     (NASDAQ: FRIDX)
Dreyfus Founders Balanced B     (NASDAQ: FRIBX)
Dreyfus Founders Balanced C     (NASDAQ: FRICX)
Dreyfus Founders Balanced F     (NASDAQ: FRINX)
Dreyfus Founders Balanced R     (NASDAQ: FRIRX)
Dreyfus Founders Balanced T     (NASDAQ: FRIUX)
Dreyfus Founders Discovery A    (NASDAQ: FDIDX)
Dreyfus Founders Discovery B    (NASDAQ: FDIEX)
Dreyfus Founders Discovery C    (NASDAQ: FDICX)
Dreyfus Founders Discovery F    (NASDAQ: FDISX)
Dreyfus Founders Discovery R    (NASDAQ: FDIRX)
Dreyfus Founders Discovery T    (NASDAQ: FDITX)
Dreyfus Founders Equity Growth A        (NASDAQ: FRMAX)
Dreyfus Founders Equity Growth B        (NASDAQ: FRMEX)
Dreyfus Founders Equity Growth C        (NASDAQ: FRMDX)
Dreyfus Founders Equity Growth F        (NASDAQ: FRMUX)
Dreyfus Founders Equity Growth R        (NASDAQ: FRMRX)
Dreyfus Founders Equity Growth T        (NASDAQ: FRMVX)
Dreyfus Founders Government Secs F      (NASDAQ: FGVSX)
Dreyfus Founders Growth A       (NASDAQ: FRGDX)
Dreyfus Founders Growth B       (NASDAQ: FRGEX)
Dreyfus Founders Growth C       (NASDAQ: FRGFX)
Dreyfus Founders Growth F       (NASDAQ: FRGRX)
Dreyfus Founders Growth R       (NASDAQ: FRGYX)
Dreyfus Founders Growth T       (NASDAQ: FRGZX)
Dreyfus Founders International Eq A     (NASDAQ: FOIAX)
Dreyfus Founders International Eq B     (NASDAQ: FOIDX)
Dreyfus Founders International Eq C     (NASDAQ: FOICX)
Dreyfus Founders International Eq F     (NASDAQ: FOIEX)
Dreyfus Founders International Eq R     (NASDAQ: FOIRX)
Dreyfus Founders International Eq T     (NASDAQ: FOIUX)
Dreyfus Founders Mid-Cap Growth A       (NASDAQ: FRSDX)
Dreyfus Founders Mid-Cap Growth B       (NASDAQ: FRSFX)
Dreyfus Founders Mid-Cap Growth C       (NASDAQ: FRSCX)
Dreyfus Founders Mid-Cap Growth F       (NASDAQ: FRSPX)
Dreyfus Founders Mid-Cap Growth R       (NASDAQ: FRSRX)
Dreyfus Founders Mid-Cap Growth T       (NASDAQ: FRSVX)
Dreyfus Founders Passport A     (NASDAQ: FPSAX)
Dreyfus Founders Passport B     (NASDAQ: FPSBX)
Dreyfus Founders Passport C     (NASDAQ: FPSCX)
Dreyfus Founders Passport F     (NASDAQ: FPSSX)
Dreyfus Founders Passport R     (NASDAQ: FPSRX)
Dreyfus Founders Passport T     (NASDAQ: FPSTX)
Dreyfus Founders Worldwide Growth A     (NASDAQ: FWWAX)
Dreyfus Founders Worldwide Growth B     (NASDAQ: FWWBX)
Dreyfus Founders Worldwide Growth C     (NASDAQ: FWWCX)
Dreyfus Founders Worldwide Growth F     (NASDAQ: FWWGX)
Dreyfus Founders Worldwide Growth R     (NASDAQ: FWWRX)
Dreyfus Founders Worldwide Growth T     (NASDAQ: FWWTX)
Dreyfus General California Muni         (NASDAQ: GCABX)
Dreyfus General Municipal Bond          (NASDAQ: GMBDX)
Dreyfus GNMA                            (NASDAQ: DRGMX)
Dreyfus Growth & Income                 (NASDAQ: DGRIX)
Dreyfus Growth Opportunity              (NASDAQ: DREQX)
Dreyfus High Yield Strategies Fund      (NASDAQ: X)DHFX)
Dreyfus Inflation-Adjusted Sec Instl    (NASDAQ: DIASX)
Dreyfus Inflation-Adjusted Sec Inv      (NASDAQ: DIAVX)
Dreyfus Instl Yield Advantage Inst      (NASDAQ: DIYAX)
Dreyfus Instl Yield Advantage Inv       (NASDAQ: DYAIX)
Dreyfus Insured Municipal Bond          (NASDAQ: DTBDX)
Dreyfus Intermediate Municipal Bond     (NASDAQ: DITEX)
Dreyfus Intermediate-Term Inc Instl     (NASDAQ: DITIX)
Dreyfus Intermediate-Term Inc Inv       (NASDAQ: DRITX)
Dreyfus Intl Stock Index                (NASDAQ: DIISX)
Dreyfus LifeTime Growth & Income Inv    (NASDAQ: DGIIX)
Dreyfus LifeTime Growth & Income R      (NASDAQ: DGIRX)
Dreyfus LifeTime Growth Inv     (NASDAQ: DLGIX)
Dreyfus LifeTime Growth R       (NASDAQ: DLGRX)
Dreyfus LifeTime Income Inv     (NASDAQ: DLIIX)
Dreyfus LifeTime Income R       (NASDAQ: DLIRX)
Dreyfus MA Intermediate Muni Bond       (NASDAQ: DMAIX)
Dreyfus Massachusetts Tax Exemp         (NASDAQ: DMEBX)
Dreyfus MidCap Index    (NASDAQ: PESPX)
Dreyfus Midcap Value    (NASDAQ: DMCVX)
Dreyfus Municipal Bond  (NASDAQ: DRTAX)
Dreyfus Municipal Income Inc.           (NASDAQ: XDMFX)
Dreyfus New York Municipal Income Inc.  (NASDAQ: XDNMX)
Dreyfus NJ Intermediate Muni Bond       (NASDAQ: DNJIX)
Dreyfus NY Tax-Exempt Bond      (NASDAQ: DRNYX)
Dreyfus NY Tax-Exempt Interm Bond       (NASDAQ: DRNIX)
Dreyfus PA Intermediate Muni Bond       (NASDAQ: DPABX)
Dreyfus Premier Alpha Growth A  (NASDAQ: DPWAX)
Dreyfus Premier Alpha Growth B  (NASDAQ: BSFBX)
Dreyfus Premier Alpha Growth C  (NASDAQ: BSFCX)
Dreyfus Premier Alpha Growth R  (NASDAQ: DPARX)
Dreyfus Premier Alpha Growth T  (NASDAQ: BSFAX)
Dreyfus Premier Balanced A      (NASDAQ: PRBAX)
Dreyfus Premier Balanced B      (NASDAQ: PRBBX)
Dreyfus Premier Balanced C      (NASDAQ: DPBCX)
Dreyfus Premier Balanced Opportunity A  (NASDAQ: DBOAX)
Dreyfus Premier Balanced Opportunity B  (NASDAQ: DBOBX)
Dreyfus Premier Balanced Opportunity C  (NASDAQ: DBOCX)
Dreyfus Premier Balanced Opportunity J  (NASDAQ: THPBX)
Dreyfus Premier Balanced Opportunity R  (NASDAQ: DBORX)
Dreyfus Premier Balanced Opportunity T  (NASDAQ: DBOTX)
Dreyfus Premier Balanced Opportunity Z  (NASDAQ: DBOZX)
Dreyfus Premier Balanced R      (NASDAQ: PDBLX)
Dreyfus Premier Balanced T      (NASDAQ: DBFTX)
Dreyfus Premier Blue Chip A     (NASDAQ: DBCAX)
Dreyfus Premier Blue Chip B     (NASDAQ: DBCBX)
Dreyfus Premier Blue Chip C     (NASDAQ: DBUCX)
Dreyfus Premier Blue Chip J     (NASDAQ: TPBCX)
Dreyfus Premier Blue Chip R     (NASDAQ: DBCRX)
Dreyfus Premier Blue Chip T     (NASDAQ: DBCTX)
Dreyfus Premier CA Tax Exempt Bond A    (NASDAQ: DCAAX)
Dreyfus Premier CA Tax Exempt Bond B    (NASDAQ: DCABX)
Dreyfus Premier CA Tax Exempt Bond C    (NASDAQ: DCACX)
Dreyfus Premier CA Tax Exempt Bond Z    (NASDAQ: DRCAX)
Dreyfus Premier California Muni (NASDAQ: DPACX)
Dreyfus Premier California Muni (NASDAQ: PRCAX)
Dreyfus Premier California Muni (NASDAQ: PRCBX)
Dreyfus Premier Core Bond A     (NASDAQ: DSINX)
Dreyfus Premier Core Bond B     (NASDAQ: DRCBX)
Dreyfus Premier Core Bond C     (NASDAQ: DRCCX)
Dreyfus Premier Core Bond R     (NASDAQ: DRCRX)
Dreyfus Premier Core Equity A   (NASDAQ: DLTSX)
Dreyfus Premier Core Equity B   (NASDAQ: DPEBX)
Dreyfus Premier Core Equity C   (NASDAQ: DPECX)
Dreyfus Premier Core Equity R   (NASDAQ: DPERX)
Dreyfus Premier Core Equity T   (NASDAQ: DCETX)
Dreyfus Premier Core Value A    (NASDAQ: DCVIX)
Dreyfus Premier Core Value B    (NASDAQ: DBCVX)
Dreyfus Premier Core Value C    (NASDAQ: DCVCX)
Dreyfus Premier Core Value Instl        (NASDAQ: DCVFX)
Dreyfus Premier Core Value R    (NASDAQ: DTCRX)
Dreyfus Premier Core Value T    (NASDAQ: DCVTX)
Dreyfus Premier Corporate Bond A        (NASDAQ: DCBAX)

Dreyfus Premier Corporate Bond B        (NASDAQ: DCBBX)
Dreyfus Premier Corporate Bond C        (NASDAQ: DCBCX)
Dreyfus Premier Corporate Bond R        (NASDAQ: DCBRX)
Dreyfus Premier Emerging Markets A      (NASDAQ: DRFMX)
Dreyfus Premier Emerging Markets B      (NASDAQ: DBPEX)
Dreyfus Premier Emerging Markets C      (NASDAQ: DCPEX)
Dreyfus Premier Emerging Markets R      (NASDAQ: DRPEX)
Dreyfus Premier Emerging Markets T      (NASDAQ: DTPEX)
Dreyfus Premier Enterprise A    (NASDAQ: DPMGX)
Dreyfus Premier Enterprise B    (NASDAQ: DMCGX)
Dreyfus Premier Enterprise C    (NASDAQ: DMCCX)
Dreyfus Premier Enterprise T    (NASDAQ: DMCTX)
Dreyfus Premier Financial Services A    (NASDAQ: DFSFX)
Dreyfus Premier Financial Services B    (NASDAQ: DFSBX)
Dreyfus Premier Financial Services C    (NASDAQ: DFVCX)
Dreyfus Premier Financial Services R    (NASDAQ: DFVRX)
Dreyfus Premier Financial Services T    (NASDAQ: DFVTX)
Dreyfus Premier Future Leaders A        (NASDAQ: DFLAX)
Dreyfus Premier Future Leaders B        (NASDAQ: DFLBX)
Dreyfus Premier Future Leaders C        (NASDAQ: DPFCX)
Dreyfus Premier Future Leaders R        (NASDAQ: DFLRX)
Dreyfus Premier Future Leaders T        (NASDAQ: DFLTX)
Dreyfus Premier GNMA A  (NASDAQ: PSGNX)
Dreyfus Premier GNMA B  (NASDAQ: PGMBX)
Dreyfus Premier GNMA C  (NASDAQ: DPGCX)
Dreyfus Premier Greater China A (NASDAQ: DPCAX)
Dreyfus Premier Greater China B (NASDAQ: DPCBX)
Dreyfus Premier Greater China C (NASDAQ: DPCCX)
Dreyfus Premier Greater China R (NASDAQ: DPCRX)
Dreyfus Premier Greater China T (NASDAQ: DPCTX)
Dreyfus Premier Growth & Income A       (NASDAQ: PEGAX)
Dreyfus Premier Growth & Income B       (NASDAQ: PEGBX)
Dreyfus Premier Growth & Income C       (NASDAQ: DGICX)
Dreyfus Premier Growth & Income R       (NASDAQ: DRERX)
Dreyfus Premier Growth & Income T       (NASDAQ: DGITX)
Dreyfus Premier Health Care A   (NASDAQ: DHCAX)
Dreyfus Premier Health Care B   (NASDAQ: DHCBX)
Dreyfus Premier Health Care C   (NASDAQ: DHCCX)
Dreyfus Premier Health Care R   (NASDAQ: DHCRX)
Dreyfus Premier Health Care T   (NASDAQ: DHCTX)
Dreyfus Premier High Income A   (NASDAQ: DIMAX)
Dreyfus Premier High Income B   (NASDAQ: DIMBX)
Dreyfus Premier High Income C   (NASDAQ: DIMCX)
Dreyfus Premier High Income R   (NASDAQ: DIMRX)
Dreyfus Premier International Eq A      (NASDAQ: DIEAX)
Dreyfus Premier International Eq B      (NASDAQ: DIEBX)
Dreyfus Premier International Eq C      (NASDAQ: DIECX)
Dreyfus Premier International Eq R      (NASDAQ: DIERX)
Dreyfus Premier International Eq T      (NASDAQ: DIETX)
Dreyfus Premier International Gr A      (NASDAQ: DRGLX)
Dreyfus Premier International Gr B      (NASDAQ: DGLBX)
Dreyfus Premier International Gr C      (NASDAQ: DIGCX)
Dreyfus Premier International Gr R      (NASDAQ: DIGRX)
Dreyfus Premier International Gr T      (NASDAQ: DPITX)
Dreyfus Premier International Opp A     (NASDAQ: DPAVX)
Dreyfus Premier International Opp B     (NASDAQ: DPBVX)
Dreyfus Premier International Opp C     (NASDAQ: DPCVX)
Dreyfus Premier International Opp R     (NASDAQ: DPRVX)
Dreyfus Premier International Opp T     (NASDAQ: DPVTX)
Dreyfus Premier International Sm-Cp A   (NASDAQ: DSMAX)
Dreyfus Premier International Sm-Cp B   (NASDAQ: DSMBX)
Dreyfus Premier International Sm-Cp C   (NASDAQ: DSMCX)
Dreyfus Premier International Sm-Cp R   (NASDAQ: DSMRX)
Dreyfus Premier International Sm-Cp T   (NASDAQ: DSMTX)
Dreyfus Premier International Value A   (NASDAQ: DVLAX)
Dreyfus Premier International Value B   (NASDAQ: DIBVX)
Dreyfus Premier International Value C   (NASDAQ: DICVX)
Dreyfus Premier International Value R   (NASDAQ: DIRVX)
Dreyfus Premier International Value T   (NASDAQ: DITVX)
Dreyfus Premier Japan Fund Class A      (NASDAQ: DPJAX)
Dreyfus Premier Japan Fund Class B      (NASDAQ: DPJBX)
Dreyfus Premier Japan Fund Class C      (NASDAQ: DPJCX)
Dreyfus Premier Japan Fund Class R      (NASDAQ: DPJRX)
Dreyfus Premier Japan Fund Class T      (NASDAQ: DPJTX)
Dreyfus Premier Intrinsic Value A       (NASDAQ: DPVAX)
Dreyfus Premier Intrinsic Value B       (NASDAQ: BLCBX)
Dreyfus Premier Intrinsic Value C       (NASDAQ: BLCCX)
Dreyfus Premier Intrinsic Value R       (NASDAQ: BSLYX)
Dreyfus Premier Intrinsic Value T       (NASDAQ: BLCAX)
Dreyfus Premier Large Company Stock A   (NASDAQ: DRDEX)
Dreyfus Premier Large Company Stock B   (NASDAQ: DRLBX)
Dreyfus Premier Large Company Stock C   (NASDAQ: DLCCX)
Dreyfus Premier Large Company Stock R   (NASDAQ: DEIRX)
Dreyfus Premier Large Company Stock T   (NASDAQ: DLSTX)
Dreyfus Premier Limited-Term Income A   (NASDAQ: DPIAX)
Dreyfus Premier Limited-Term Income B   (NASDAQ: DPIBX)
Dreyfus Premier Limited-Term Income C   (NASDAQ: DPICX)
Dreyfus Premier Limited-Term Income R   (NASDAQ: PLTIX)
Dreyfus Premier Ltd-Term High Yld A     (NASDAQ: DPLTX)
Dreyfus Premier Ltd-Term High Yld B     (NASDAQ: DLTBX)
Dreyfus Premier Ltd-Term High Yld C     (NASDAQ: PTHIX)
Dreyfus Premier Ltd-Term High Yld R     (NASDAQ: DLHRX)
Dreyfus Premier Managed Income A        (NASDAQ: PMNIX)
Dreyfus Premier Managed Income B        (NASDAQ: DTMBX)
Dreyfus Premier Managed Income C        (NASDAQ: DTMCX)
Dreyfus Premier Managed Income R        (NASDAQ: DTMRX)
Dreyfus Premier Midcap Stock A  (NASDAQ: DPMAX)
Dreyfus Premier Midcap Stock B  (NASDAQ: DMSBX)
Dreyfus Premier Midcap Stock C  (NASDAQ: DMSCX)
Dreyfus Premier Midcap Stock R  (NASDAQ: DDMRX)
Dreyfus Premier Midcap Stock T  (NASDAQ: DMSTX)
Dreyfus Premier MidCap Value A  (NASDAQ: DMVPX)
Dreyfus Premier MidCap Value B  (NASDAQ: DMVBX)
Dreyfus Premier MidCap Value C  (NASDAQ: DMVCX)
Dreyfus Premier MidCap Value R  (NASDAQ: DMVRX)
Dreyfus Premier MidCap Value T  (NASDAQ: DMVTX)
Dreyfus Premier Municipal Bond A        (NASDAQ: PTEBX)
Dreyfus Premier Municipal Bond B        (NASDAQ: PMUBX)
Dreyfus Premier Municipal Bond C        (NASDAQ: DMBCX)
Dreyfus Premier Municipal Bond Z        (NASDAQ: DMBZX)
Dreyfus Premier Natural Leaders A       (NASDAQ: DNLAX)
Dreyfus Premier Natural Leaders B       (NASDAQ: DLDBX)
Dreyfus Premier Natural Leaders C       (NASDAQ: DLDCX)
Dreyfus Premier Natural Leaders R       (NASDAQ: DLDRX)
Dreyfus Premier Natural Leaders T       (NASDAQ: DLDTX)
Dreyfus Premier New Leaders A   (NASDAQ: DNLDX)
Dreyfus Premier New Leaders B   (NASDAQ: DNLBX)
Dreyfus Premier New Leaders C   (NASDAQ: DNLCX)
Dreyfus Premier New Leaders R   (NASDAQ: DNLRX)
Dreyfus Premier New Leaders T   (NASDAQ: DNLTX)
Dreyfus Premier NJ Municipal Bond A     (NASDAQ: DRNJX)
Dreyfus Premier NJ Municipal Bond B     (NASDAQ: DBNJX)
Dreyfus Premier NJ Municipal Bond C     (NASDAQ: DCNJX)
Dreyfus Premier NY Municipal Bond A     (NASDAQ: PSNYX)
Dreyfus Premier NY Municipal Bond B     (NASDAQ: PRNBX)
Dreyfus Premier NY Municipal Bond C     (NASDAQ: PNYCX)
Dreyfus Premier Consumer Fd Cl A        (NASDAQ: DCOAX)
Dreyfus Premier Consumer Fd Cl B        (NASDAQ: DCOBX)
Dreyfus Premier Consumer Fd Cl C        (NASDAQ: DCOCX)
Dreyfus Premier Consumer Fd Cl R        (NASDAQ: DCORX)
Dreyfus Premier Consumer Fd Cl T        (NASDAQ: DCOTX)
Dreyfus Prem NexTech Fd Cl T    (NASDAQ: DPNTX)
Dreyfus Premier S&P Stars A     (NASDAQ: DPPAX)
Dreyfus Premier S&P Stars B     (NASDAQ: BSPBX)
Dreyfus Premier S&P Stars C     (NASDAQ: BSPCX)
Dreyfus Premier S&P Stars Opp A (NASDAQ: DPOAX)
Dreyfus Premier S&P Stars Opp B (NASDAQ: BSOBX)
Dreyfus Premier S&P Stars Opp C (NASDAQ: BSOCX)
Dreyfus Premier S&P Stars Opp R (NASDAQ: DSORX)
Dreyfus Premier S&P Stars Opp T (NASDAQ: BSOAX)
Dreyfus Premier S&P Stars R     (NASDAQ: BSSPX)
Dreyfus Premier S&P Stars T     (NASDAQ: BSPAX)
Dreyfus Premier Sel Intm Muni Bond A    (NASDAQ: DPASX)
Dreyfus Premier Sel Intm Muni Bond B    (NASDAQ: DPBSX)

Dreyfus Premier Sel Intm Muni Bond C    (NASDAQ: DPCSX)
Dreyfus Premier Sel Intm Muni Bond Z    (NASDAQ: DBIMX)
Dreyfus Premier Sel Mid-Cap Growth A    (NASDAQ: DASMX)
Dreyfus Premier Sel Mid-Cap Growth B    (NASDAQ: DBSMX)
Dreyfus Premier Sel Mid-Cap Growth C    (NASDAQ: DCSMX)
Dreyfus Premier Sel Mid-Cap Growth R    (NASDAQ: DRSMX)
Dreyfus Premier Sel Mid-Cap Growth T    (NASDAQ: DMGTX)
Dreyfus Premier Sel Municipal Bond A    (NASDAQ: DMUAX)
Dreyfus Premier Sel Municipal Bond B    (NASDAQ: DMUBX)
Dreyfus Premier Sel Municipal Bond C    (NASDAQ: DMUCX)
Dreyfus Premier Sel Municipal Bond Z    (NASDAQ: DRMBX)
Dreyfus Premier Select Growth Fund - Class A    (NASDAQ: DASGX)
Dreyfus Premier Select Growth Fund - Class B    (NASDAQ: DBSGX)
Dreyfus Premier Select Growth Fund - Class C    (NASDAQ: DCSGX)
Dreyfus Premier Select Growth Fund - Class R    (NASDAQ: DRSGX)
Dreyfus Premier Select Growth Fund - Class T    (NASDAQ: DGRTX)
Dreyfus Premier Select A        (NASDAQ: DSLAX)
Dreyfus Premier Select B        (NASDAQ: DSLBX)
Dreyfus Premier Select C        (NASDAQ: DSLCX)
Dreyfus Premier Select J        (NASDAQ: THPSX)
Dreyfus Premier Select R        (NASDAQ: DSLRX)
Dreyfus Premier Select T        (NASDAQ: DSLTX)
Dreyfus Premier Short Term Income A     (NASDAQ: DSHAX)
Dreyfus Premier Short Term Income B     (NASDAQ: DSHBX)
Dreyfus Premier Short Term Income D     (NASDAQ: DSTIX)
Dreyfus Premier Short Term Income P     (NASDAQ: DSHPX)
Dreyfus Premier Sht-Intm Muni Bond A    (NASDAQ: DSBAX)
Dreyfus Premier Sht-Intm Muni Bond B    (NASDAQ: DSBBX)
Dreyfus Premier Sht-Intm Muni Bond D    (NASDAQ: DSIBX)
Dreyfus Premier Sht-Intm Muni Bond P    (NASDAQ: DSBPX)
Dreyfus Premier Small Cap Equity A      (NASDAQ: DSEAX)
Dreyfus Premier Small Cap Equity B      (NASDAQ: DSEBX)
Dreyfus Premier Small Cap Equity C      (NASDAQ: DSECX)
Dreyfus Premier Small Cap Equity R      (NASDAQ: DSERX)
Dreyfus Premier Small Cap Equity T      (NASDAQ: DSETX)
Dreyfus Premier Small Cap Value A       (NASDAQ: DSVAX)
Dreyfus Premier Small Cap Value B       (NASDAQ: DSVBX)
Dreyfus Premier Small Cap Value C       (NASDAQ: DSVCX)
Dreyfus Premier Small Cap Value R       (NASDAQ: DSVRX)
Dreyfus Premier Small Cap Value T       (NASDAQ: DSVTX)
Dreyfus Premier Small Company Gr A      (NASDAQ: DSGAX)
Dreyfus Premier Small Company Gr B      (NASDAQ: DSGBX)
Dreyfus Premier Small Company Gr C      (NASDAQ: DSGCX)
Dreyfus Premier Small Company Gr R      (NASDAQ: DSGRX)
Dreyfus Premier Small Company Gr T      (NASDAQ: DSGTX)
Dreyfus Premier State Muni Bond CT A    (NASDAQ: PSCTX)
Dreyfus Premier State Muni Bond CT B    (NASDAQ: PMCBX)
Dreyfus Premier State Muni Bond CT C    (NASDAQ: PMCCX)
Dreyfus Premier State Muni Bond FL A    (NASDAQ: PSFLX)
Dreyfus Premier State Muni Bond FL B    (NASDAQ: PSFBX)
Dreyfus Premier State Muni Bond FL C    (NASDAQ: PSFCX)
Dreyfus Premier State Muni Bond MA A    (NASDAQ: PSMAX)
Dreyfus Premier State Muni Bond MA B    (NASDAQ: PBMAX)
Dreyfus Premier State Muni Bond MA C    (NASDAQ: PCMAX)
Dreyfus Premier State Muni Bond MA Z    (NASDAQ: PMAZX)
Dreyfus Premier State Muni Bond MD A    (NASDAQ: PSMDX)
Dreyfus Premier State Muni Bond MD B    (NASDAQ: PMDBX)
Dreyfus Premier State Muni Bond MD C    (NASDAQ: PMDCX)
Dreyfus Premier State Muni Bond MI A    (NASDAQ: PSMIX)
Dreyfus Premier State Muni Bond MI B    (NASDAQ: PMIBX)
Dreyfus Premier State Muni Bond MI C    (NASDAQ: PCMIX)
Dreyfus Premier State Muni Bond MN A    (NASDAQ: PSMNX)
Dreyfus Premier State Muni Bond MN B    (NASDAQ: PMMNX)
Dreyfus Premier State Muni Bond MN C    (NASDAQ: PMNCX)
Dreyfus Premier State Muni Bond NC A    (NASDAQ: PSNOX)
Dreyfus Premier State Muni Bond NC B    (NASDAQ: PMNBX)
Dreyfus Premier State Muni Bond NC C    (NASDAQ: PNCCX)
Dreyfus Premier State Muni Bond OH A    (NASDAQ: PSOHX)
Dreyfus Premier State Muni Bond OH B    (NASDAQ: POHBX)
Dreyfus Premier State Muni Bond OH C    (NASDAQ: POHCX)
Dreyfus Premier State Muni Bond PA A    (NASDAQ: PTPAX)
Dreyfus Premier State Muni Bond PA B    (NASDAQ: PPABX)
Dreyfus Premier State Muni Bond PA C    (NASDAQ: PPACX)
Dreyfus Premier State Muni Bond TX) A   (NASDAQ: PTXBX)
Dreyfus Premier State Muni Bond TX) B   (NASDAQ: PSTBX)
Dreyfus Premier State Muni Bond TX) C   (NASDAQ: PTXCX)
Dreyfus Premier State Muni Bond VA A    (NASDAQ: PSVAX)
Dreyfus Premier State Muni Bond VA B    (NASDAQ: PVABX)
Dreyfus Premier State Muni Bond VA C    (NASDAQ: PVACX)
Dreyfus Premier Strategic Value A       (NASDAQ: DAGVX)
Dreyfus Premier Strategic Value B       (NASDAQ: DBGVX)
Dreyfus Premier Strategic Value C       (NASDAQ: DCGVX)
Dreyfus Premier Strategic Value R       (NASDAQ: DRGVX)
Dreyfus Premier Strategic Value T       (NASDAQ: DTGVX)
Dreyfus Premier Structured Lg Cp Val A  (NASDAQ: DLVAX)
Dreyfus Premier Structured Lg Cp Val B  (NASDAQ: DLVBX)
Dreyfus Premier Structured Lg Cp Val C  (NASDAQ: DLVCX)
Dreyfus Premier Structured Lg Cp Val R  (NASDAQ: DLVRX)
Dreyfus Premier Structured Lg Cp Val T  (NASDAQ: DLVTX)
Dreyfus Premier Structured Midcap A     (NASDAQ: DPSAX)
Dreyfus Premier Structured Midcap B     (NASDAQ: DPSBX)
Dreyfus Premier Structured Midcap C     (NASDAQ: DPSCX)
Dreyfus Premier Structured Midcap R     (NASDAQ: DPSRX)
Dreyfus Premier Structured Midcap T     (NASDAQ: DPSTX)
Dreyfus Premier Tax-Managed Growth A    (NASDAQ: DTMGX)
Dreyfus Premier Tax-Managed Growth B    (NASDAQ: DPTMX)
Dreyfus Premier Tax-Managed Growth C    (NASDAQ: DPTAX)
Dreyfus Premier Tax-Managed Growth R    (NASDAQ: DPTRX)
Dreyfus Premier Tax-Managed Growth T    (NASDAQ: DPMTX)
Dreyfus Premier Technology Growth A     (NASDAQ: DTGRX)
Dreyfus Premier Technology Growth B     (NASDAQ: DTGBX)
Dreyfus Premier Technology Growth C     (NASDAQ: DTGCX)
Dreyfus Premier Technology Growth R     (NASDAQ: DGVRX)
Dreyfus Premier Technology Growth T     (NASDAQ: DPTGX)
Dreyfus Premier Third Century A (NASDAQ: DTCAX)
Dreyfus Premier Third Century B (NASDAQ: DTCBX)
Dreyfus Premier Third Century C (NASDAQ: DTCCX)
Dreyfus Premier Third Century R (NASDAQ: DRTCX)
Dreyfus Premier Third Century T (NASDAQ: DTCTX)
Dreyfus Premier Third Century Z (NASDAQ: DRTHX)
Dreyfus Premier Value A (NASDAQ: DRSIX)
Dreyfus Premier Value B (NASDAQ: DSTBX)
Dreyfus Premier Value C (NASDAQ: DPVCX)
Dreyfus Premier Value R (NASDAQ: DPVRX)
Dreyfus Premier Value T (NASDAQ: DTPVX)
Dreyfus Premier Worldwide Growth A      (NASDAQ: PGROX)
Dreyfus Premier Worldwide Growth B      (NASDAQ: PGWBX)
Dreyfus Premier Worldwide Growth C      (NASDAQ: PGRCX)
Dreyfus Premier Worldwide Growth R      (NASDAQ: DPWRX)
Dreyfus Premier Worldwide Growth T      (NASDAQ: DPWTX)
Dreyfus Premier Yield Advantage A       (NASDAQ: DPYAX)
Dreyfus Premier Yield Advantage B       (NASDAQ: DPYBX)
Dreyfus Premier Yield Advantage D       (NASDAQ: DYADX)
Dreyfus Premier Yield Advantage P       (NASDAQ: DPYPX)
Dreyfus Premier Yield Advantage S       (NASDAQ: DPYSX)
Dreyfus S&P 500 Index                   (NASDAQ: PEOPX)
Dreyfus Short-Intermediate Government   (NASDAQ: DSIGX)
Dreyfus Small Cap Stock Index   (NASDAQ: DISSX)
Dreyfus Small Company Value     (NASDAQ: DSCVX)
Dreyfus Strategic Municipal Bond Fund Inc.      (NASDAQ: XDSMX)
Dreyfus Strategic Municipals Inc.               (NASDAQ: XLEOX)
Dreyfus U.S. Treasury Intrm-Term                (NASDAQ: DRGIX)
Dreyfus U.S. Treasury Long-Term                 (NASDAQ: DRGBX)

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 defendants' undisclosed sales practices created an
insurmountable conflict of interest by providing substantial
monetary incentives to sell Shelf-Space Funds to their clients,
even though such investments were not in the clients' best
interest. UBS' failure to disclose the incentives constituted
violations of federal securities laws.

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

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

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


UBS-AG: Stull Stull Lodges NY Suit Over Eaton Vance 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 Eaton Vance 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 Eaton Vance mutual funds and their respective symbols are as
follows:

Eaton Vance AL Municipals A             (NASDAQ: ETALX)
Eaton Vance AL Municipals B             (NASDAQ: EVALX)
Eaton Vance AR Municipals A             (NASDAQ: ETARX)
Eaton Vance AR Municipals B             (NASDAQ: EVARX)
Eaton Vance Asian Small Companies A     (NASDAQ: EVASX)
Eaton Vance Asian Small Companies B     (NASDAQ: EBASX)
Eaton Vance AZ Municipals A             (NASDAQ: ETAZX)
Eaton Vance AZ Municipals B             (NASDAQ: EVAZX)
Eaton Vance Balanced A                  (NASDAQ: EVIFX)
Eaton Vance Balanced B                  (NASDAQ: EMIFX)
Eaton Vance Balanced C                  (NASDAQ: ECIFX)
Eaton Vance CA Ltd Maturity Munis A     (NASDAQ: EXCAX)
Eaton Vance CA Ltd Maturity Munis B     (NASDAQ: ELCAX)
Eaton Vance CA Municipals A     (NASDAQ: EACAX)
Eaton Vance CA Municipals B     (NASDAQ: EVCAX)
Eaton Vance CA Municipals C     (NASDAQ: ECCAX)
Eaton Vance CO Municipals A     (NASDAQ: ETCOX)
Eaton Vance CO Municipals B     (NASDAQ: EVCLX)
Eaton Vance CT Municipals A     (NASDAQ: ETCTX)
Eaton Vance CT Municipals B     (NASDAQ: EVCTX)
Eaton Vance Diversified Income A        (NASDAQ: EADDX)
Eaton Vance Diversified Income B        (NASDAQ: EBDDX)
Eaton Vance Emerging Markets A  (NASDAQ: ETEMX)
Eaton Vance Emerging Markets B  (NASDAQ: EMEMX)
Eaton Vance Equity Research A   (NASDAQ: EAERX)
Eaton Vance FL Insured Municipals A     (NASDAQ: EAFIX)
Eaton Vance FL Insured Municipals B     (NASDAQ: EBFIX)
Eaton Vance FL Ltd Maturity Munis A     (NASDAQ: EXFLX)
Eaton Vance FL Ltd Maturity Munis B     (NASDAQ: ELFLX)
Eaton Vance FL Ltd Maturity Munis C     (NASDAQ: EZFLX)
Eaton Vance FL Municipals A     (NASDAQ: ETFLX)
Eaton Vance FL Municipals B     (NASDAQ: EVFLX)
Eaton Vance Floating Rate A     (NASDAQ: EVBLX)
Eaton Vance Floating Rate Adv   (NASDAQ: EABLX)
Eaton Vance Floating Rate B     (NASDAQ: EBBLX)
Eaton Vance Floating Rate C     (NASDAQ: ECBLX)
Eaton Vance Floating Rate I     (NASDAQ: EIBLX)
Eaton Vance Floating-Rate & Hi Inc A    (NASDAQ: EVFHX)
Eaton Vance Floating-Rate & Hi Inc Adv  (NASDAQ: EAFHX)
Eaton Vance Floating-Rate & Hi Inc B    (NASDAQ: EBFHX)
Eaton Vance Floating-Rate & Hi Inc C    (NASDAQ: ECFHX)
Eaton Vance Floating-Rate & Hi Inc Inst (NASDAQ: EIFHX)
Eaton Vance GA Municipals A     (NASDAQ: ETGAX)
Eaton Vance GA Municipals B     (NASDAQ: EVGAX)
Eaton Vance Global Growth A     (NASDAQ: ETIAX)
Eaton Vance Global Growth B     (NASDAQ: EMIAX)
Eaton Vance Global Growth C     (NASDAQ: ECIAX)
Eaton Vance Government Obligations A    (NASDAQ: EVGOX)
Eaton Vance Government Obligations B    (NASDAQ: EMGOX)
Eaton Vance Government Obligations C    (NASDAQ: ECGOX)
Eaton Vance Greater China Growth A      (NASDAQ: EVCGX)
Eaton Vance Greater China Growth B      (NASDAQ: EMCGX)
Eaton Vance Greater China Growth C      (NASDAQ: ECCGX)
Eaton Vance Greater India A     (NASDAQ: ETGIX)
Eaton Vance Greater India B     (NASDAQ: EMGIX)
Eaton Vance Growth A    (NASDAQ: EVGFX)
Eaton Vance Growth B    (NASDAQ: EMGFX)
Eaton Vance Growth C    (NASDAQ: ECGFX)
Eaton Vance HI Municipals A     (NASDAQ: ETHWX)
Eaton Vance HI Municipals B     (NASDAQ: EVHWX)
Eaton Vance High-Income A       (NASDAQ: ETHIX)
Eaton Vance High-Income B       (NASDAQ: EVHIX)
Eaton Vance High-Income C       (NASDAQ: ECHIX)
Eaton Vance High-Yield Municipals A     (NASDAQ: ETHYX)
Eaton Vance High-Yield Municipals B     (NASDAQ: EVHYX)
Eaton Vance High-Yield Municipals C     (NASDAQ: ECHYX)
Eaton Vance Income Fund of Boston A     (NASDAQ: EVIBX)
Eaton Vance Income Fund of Boston B     (NASDAQ: EBIBX)
Eaton Vance Income Fund of Boston C     (NASDAQ: ECIBX)
Eaton Vance Income Fund of Boston I     (NASDAQ: EIBIX)
Eaton Vance Income Fund of Boston R     (NASDAQ: ERIBX)
Eaton Vance KS Municipals A     (NASDAQ: ETKSX)
Eaton Vance KS Municipals B     (NASDAQ: EVKSX)
Eaton Vance KY Municipals A     (NASDAQ: ETKYX)
Eaton Vance KY Municipals B     (NASDAQ: EVKYX)
Eaton Vance LA Municipals A     (NASDAQ: ETLAX)
Eaton Vance LA Municipals B     (NASDAQ: EVLAX)
Eaton Vance Large-Cap Core A    (NASDAQ: EALCX)
Eaton Vance Large-Cap Core B    (NASDAQ: EBLCX)
Eaton Vance Large-Cap Core C    (NASDAQ: ECLCX)
Eaton Vance Large-Cap Value A   (NASDAQ: EHSTX)
Eaton Vance Large-Cap Value B   (NASDAQ: EMSTX)
Eaton Vance Large-Cap Value C   (NASDAQ: ECSTX)
Eaton Vance Large-Cap Value I   (NASDAQ: EILVX)
Eaton Vance Large-Cap Value R   (NASDAQ: ERSTX)
Eaton Vance Low Duration A      (NASDAQ: EALDX)
Eaton Vance Low Duration B      (NASDAQ: EBLDX)
Eaton Vance Low Duration C      (NASDAQ: ECLDX)
Eaton Vance MA Ltd Maturity Munis A     (NASDAQ: EXMAX)
Eaton Vance MA Ltd Maturity Munis B     (NASDAQ: ELMAX)
Eaton Vance MA Ltd Maturity Munis C     (NASDAQ: EZMAX)
Eaton Vance MA Municipals A     (NASDAQ: ETMAX)
Eaton Vance MA Municipals B     (NASDAQ: EVMAX)
Eaton Vance MD Municipals A     (NASDAQ: ETMDX)
Eaton Vance MD Municipals B     (NASDAQ: EVMYX)
Eaton Vance MI Municipals A     (NASDAQ: ETMIX)
Eaton Vance MI Municipals B     (NASDAQ: EVMIX)
Eaton Vance MN Municipals A     (NASDAQ: ETMNX)
Eaton Vance MN Municipals B     (NASDAQ: EVMNX)
Eaton Vance MO Municipals A     (NASDAQ: ETMOX)
Eaton Vance MO Municipals B     (NASDAQ: EVMOX)
Eaton Vance MS Municipals A     (NASDAQ: ETMSX)
Eaton Vance MS Municipals B     (NASDAQ: EVMSX)
Eaton Vance Municipal Bond A    (NASDAQ: ETMBX)
Eaton Vance Municipal Bond B    (NASDAQ: EBMBX)
Eaton Vance Municipal Bond I    (NASDAQ: EVMBX)
Eaton Vance National Ltd Mat Munis A    (NASDAQ: EXNAX)
Eaton Vance National Ltd Mat Munis B    (NASDAQ: ELNAX)
Eaton Vance National Ltd Mat Munis C    (NASDAQ: EZNAX)
Eaton Vance National Municipals A       (NASDAQ: EANAX)
Eaton Vance National Municipals B       (NASDAQ: EVHMX)
Eaton Vance National Municipals C       (NASDAQ: ECHMX)
Eaton Vance National Municipals I       (NASDAQ: EIHMX)
Eaton Vance NC Municipals A     (NASDAQ: ETNCX)
Eaton Vance NC Municipals B     (NASDAQ: EVNCX)
Eaton Vance NJ Ltd Maturity Munis A     (NASDAQ: EXNJX)
Eaton Vance NJ Ltd Maturity Munis B     (NASDAQ: ELNJX)
Eaton Vance NJ Municipals A     (NASDAQ: ETNJX)
Eaton Vance NJ Municipals B     (NASDAQ: EVNJX)
Eaton Vance NY Ltd Maturity Munis A     (NASDAQ: EXNYX)
Eaton Vance NY Ltd Maturity Munis B     (NASDAQ: ELNYX)
Eaton Vance NY Ltd Maturity Munis C     (NASDAQ: EZNYX)
Eaton Vance NY Municipals A     (NASDAQ: ETNYX)
Eaton Vance NY Municipals B     (NASDAQ: EVNYX)
Eaton Vance NY Municipals C     (NASDAQ: ECNYX)
Eaton Vance OH Ltd Maturity Munis A     (NASDAQ: EXOHX)
Eaton Vance OH Ltd Maturity Munis B     (NASDAQ: ELOHX)
Eaton Vance OH Municipals A     (NASDAQ: ETOHX)
Eaton Vance OH Municipals B     (NASDAQ: EVOHX)
Eaton Vance OR Municipals A     (NASDAQ: ETORX)
Eaton Vance OR Municipals B     (NASDAQ: EVORX)
Eaton Vance PA Ltd Maturity Munis A     (NASDAQ: EXPNX)
Eaton Vance PA Ltd Maturity Munis B     (NASDAQ: ELPNX)
Eaton Vance PA Ltd Maturity Munis C     (NASDAQ: EZPNX)
Eaton Vance PA Municipals A     (NASDAQ: ETPAX)
Eaton Vance PA Municipals B     (NASDAQ: EVPAX)
Eaton Vance RI Municipals A     (NASDAQ: ETRIX)
Eaton Vance RI Municipals B     (NASDAQ: EVRIX)
Eaton Vance SC Municipals A     (NASDAQ: EASCX)
Eaton Vance SC Municipals B     (NASDAQ: EVSCX)
Eaton Vance Small-Cap Growth A  (NASDAQ: ETEGX)

Eaton Vance Small-Cap Growth B  (NASDAQ: EBSMX)
Eaton Vance Small-Cap Growth C  (NASDAQ: ECSMX)
Eaton Vance Small-Cap Value A   (NASDAQ: EAVSX)
Eaton Vance Small-Cap Value B   (NASDAQ: EBVSX)
Eaton Vance Small-Cap Value C   (NASDAQ: ECVSX)
Eaton Vance Special Equities A  (NASDAQ: EVSEX)
Eaton Vance Special Equities B  (NASDAQ: EMSEX)
Eaton Vance Special Equities C  (NASDAQ: ECSEX)
Eaton Vance Strategic Income A  (NASDAQ: ETSIX)
Eaton Vance Strategic Income B  (NASDAQ: EVSGX)
Eaton Vance Strategic Income C  (NASDAQ: ECSIX)
Eaton Vance Tax-Managed Dividend Inc A  (NASDAQ: EADIX)
Eaton Vance Tax-Managed Dividend Inc B  (NASDAQ: EBDIX)
Eaton Vance Tax-Managed Dividend Inc C  (NASDAQ: ECDIX)
Eaton Vance Tax-Managed Emg Mkts I      (NASDAQ: EITEX)
Eaton Vance Tax-Mgd Eq Asset Alloc A    (NASDAQ: EAEAX)
Eaton Vance Tax-Mgd Eq Asset Alloc B    (NASDAQ: EBEAX)
Eaton Vance Tax-Mgd Eq Asset Alloc C    (NASDAQ: ECEAX)
Eaton Vance Tax-Mgd Growth 1.0          (NASDAQ: CAPEX)
Eaton Vance Tax-Mgd Growth 1.1 A        (NASDAQ: ETTGX)
Eaton Vance Tax-Mgd Growth 1.1 B        (NASDAQ: EMTGX)
Eaton Vance Tax-Mgd Growth 1.1 C        (NASDAQ: ECTGX)
Eaton Vance Tax-Mgd Growth 1.1 I        (NASDAQ: EITMX)
Eaton Vance Tax-Mgd Growth 1.2 A        (NASDAQ: EXTGX)
Eaton Vance Tax-Mgd Growth 1.2 B        (NASDAQ: EYTGX)
Eaton Vance Tax-Mgd Growth 1.2 C        (NASDAQ: EZTGX)
Eaton Vance Tax-Mgd Growth 1.2 I        (NASDAQ: EITGX)
Eaton Vance Tax-Mgd Intl Equity A       (NASDAQ: ETIGX)
Eaton Vance Tax-Mgd Intl Equity B       (NASDAQ: EMIGX)
Eaton Vance Tax-Mgd Intl Equity C       (NASDAQ: ECIGX)
Eaton Vance Tax-Mgd Mid-Cap Core A      (NASDAQ: EXMCX)
Eaton Vance Tax-Mgd Mid-Cap Core B      (NASDAQ: EBMCX)
Eaton Vance Tax-Mgd Mid-Cap Core C      (NASDAQ: ECMCX)
Eaton Vance Tax-Mgd Multi-Cap Opp A     (NASDAQ: EACPX)
Eaton Vance Tax-Mgd Multi-Cap Opp B     (NASDAQ: EBCPX)
Eaton Vance Tax-Mgd Multi-Cap Opp C     (NASDAQ: ECCPX)
Eaton Vance Tax-Mgd Sm-Cap Gr 1.1 A     (NASDAQ: ETMGX)
Eaton Vance Tax-Mgd Sm-Cap Gr 1.1 B     (NASDAQ: EMMGX)
Eaton Vance Tax-Mgd Sm-Cap Gr 1.1 C     (NASDAQ: ECMGX)
Eaton Vance Tax-Mgd Sm-Cap Gr 1.2 A     (NASDAQ: EXMGX)
Eaton Vance Tax-Mgd Sm-Cap Gr 1.2 B     (NASDAQ: EYMGX)
Eaton Vance Tax-Mgd Sm-Cap Gr 1.2 C     (NASDAQ: EZMGX)
Eaton Vance Tax-Mgd Small-Cap Value A   (NASDAQ: ESVAX)
Eaton Vance Tax-Mgd Small-Cap Value B   (NASDAQ: ESVBX)
Eaton Vance Tax-Mgd Small-Cap Value C   (NASDAQ: ESVCX)
Eaton Vance Tax-Mgd Value A     (NASDAQ: EATVX)
Eaton Vance Tax-Mgd Value B     (NASDAQ: EBTVX)
Eaton Vance Tax-Mgd Value C     (NASDAQ: ECTVX)
Eaton Vance TN Municipals A     (NASDAQ: ETTNX)
Eaton Vance TN Municipals B     (NASDAQ: EVTNX)
Eaton Vance Utilities A (NASDAQ: EVTMX)
Eaton Vance Utilities B (NASDAQ: EMTMX)
Eaton Vance Utilities C (NASDAQ: ECTMX)
Eaton Vance VA Municipals A     (NASDAQ: ETVAX)
Eaton Vance VA Municipals B     (NASDAQ: EVVAX)
Eaton Vance Worldwide Health Sci A      (NASDAQ: ETHSX)
Eaton Vance Worldwide Health Sci B      (NASDAQ: EMHSX)
Eaton Vance Worldwide Health Sci C      (NASDAQ: ECHSX)
Eaton Vance Worldwide Health Sci R      (NASDAQ: ERHSX)
Eaton Vance WV Municipals A     (NASDAQ: ETWVX)
Eaton Vance WV Municipals B     (NASDAQ: EVWVX)
EV Atlanta Capital Intermediate Bond I  (NASDAQ: EIINX)
EV Atlanta Capital Large-Cap Growth A   (NASDAQ: EAALX)
EV Atlanta Capital Large-Cap Growth I   (NASDAQ: EILGX)
EV Atlanta Capital Small-Cap A  (NASDAQ: EAASX)
EV Atlanta Capital Small-Cap I  (NASDAQ: EISMX)

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 defendants' undisclosed sales practices created an
insurmountable conflict of interest by providing substantial
monetary incentives to sell Shelf-Space Funds to their clients,
even though such investments were not in the clients' best
interest. UBS' failure to disclose the incentives constituted
violations of federal securities laws.

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

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

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


UBS-AG: Stull Stull Files Suit in NY Over Fidelity 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 Fidelity 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 Fidelity mutual funds and their respective symbols are as
follows:

Fidelity Municipal Income               (NASDAQ: FHIGX)
Fidelity                                (NASDAQ: FFIDX)
Fidelity Advisor Intl Sm Cap Opp B      (NASDAQ: FOPBX)
Fidelity Advisor Intl Sm Cap Opp C      (NASDAQ: FOPCX)
Fidelity Advisor Intl Sm Cap Opp I      (NASDAQ: FOPIX)
Fidelity Advisor Intl Sm Cap Opp T      (NASDAQ: FOPTX)
Fidelity Aggressive Growth              (NASDAQ: FDEGX)
Fidelity Aggressive Intl                (NASDAQ: FIVFX)
Fidelity Arizona Municipal Income       (NASDAQ: FSAZX)
Fidelity Asset Manager                  (NASDAQ: FASMX)
Fidelity Asset Manager: Aggressive      (NASDAQ: FAMRX)
Fidelity Asset Manager: Growth          (NASDAQ: FASGX)
Fidelity Asset Manager: Income          (NASDAQ: FASIX)
Fidelity Balanced                       (NASDAQ: FBALX)
Fidelity Blue Chip Growth               (NASDAQ: FBGRX)
Fidelity Blue Chip Value Fund           (NASDAQ: FBCVX)
Fidelity California Municipal Income    (NASDAQ: FCTFX)
Fidelity Canada                         (NASDAQ: FICDX)
Fidelity Capital & Income               (NASDAQ: FAGIX)
Fidelity Capital Appreciation           (NASDAQ: FDCAX)
Fidelity China Region                   (NASDAQ: FHKCX)
Fidelity Congress Street                (NASDAQ: CNGRX)
Fidelity Connecticut Municipal Income   (NASDAQ: FICNX)
Fidelity Contrafund                     (NASDAQ: FCNTX)
Fidelity Convertible Securities         (NASDAQ: FCVSX)
Fidelity Disciplined Equity             (NASDAQ: FDEQX)
Fidelity Discovery Fund                 (NASDAQ: FDSVX)
Fidelity Diversified International      (NASDAQ: FDIVX)
Fidelity Dividend Growth                (NASDAQ: FDGFX)
Fidelity Emerging Markets               (NASDAQ: FEMKX)
Fidelity Equity-Income                  (NASDAQ: FEQIX)
Fidelity Equity-Income II               (NASDAQ: FEQTX)
Fidelity Europe                         (NASDAQ: FIEUX)
Fidelity Europe Capital Appreciation    (NASDAQ: FECAX)
Fidelity Exchange                       (NASDAQ: FDLEX)
Fidelity Export & Multinational         (NASDAQ: FEXPX)
Fidelity Fifty                          (NASDAQ: FFTYX)
Fidelity Floating Rate High Income      (NASDAQ: FFRHX)
Fidelity Florida Municipal Income       (NASDAQ: FFLIX)
Fidelity Focused Stock                  (NASDAQ: FTQGX)
Fidelity Four-in-One Index              (NASDAQ: FFNOX)
Fidelity Freedom 2000   (NASDAQ: FFFBX)
Fidelity Freedom 2005   (NASDAQ: FFFVX)
Fidelity Freedom 2010   (NASDAQ: FFFCX)
Fidelity Freedom 2015   (NASDAQ: FFVFX)
Fidelity Freedom 2020   (NASDAQ: FFFDX)
Fidelity Freedom 2025   (NASDAQ: FFTWX)
Fidelity Freedom 2030   (NASDAQ: FFFEX)
Fidelity Freedom 2035   (NASDAQ: FFTHX)
Fidelity Freedom 2040   (NASDAQ: FFFFX)
Fidelity Freedom Income (NASDAQ: FFFAX)
Fidelity Ginnie Mae     (NASDAQ: FGMNX)
Fidelity Global Balanced        (NASDAQ: FGBLX)
Fidelity Government Income      (NASDAQ: FGOVX)
Fidelity Growth & Income        (NASDAQ: FGRIX)
Fidelity Growth & Income II     (NASDAQ: FGRTX)
Fidelity Growth Company (NASDAQ: FDGRX)
Fidelity High Income    (NASDAQ: SPHIX)
Fidelity Independence   (NASDAQ: FDFFX)
Fidelity Inflation-Protected Bond       (NASDAQ: FINPX)
Fidelity Instl Short-Interm Govt        (NASDAQ: FFXSX)
Fidelity Intermediate Bond              (NASDAQ: FTHRX)
Fidelity Intermediate Government        (NASDAQ: FSTGX)
Fidelity Intermediate Municipal Income  (NASDAQ: FLTMX)
Fidelity International Discovery        (NASDAQ: FIGRX)
Fidelity International Small Cap        (NASDAQ: FISMX)
Fidelity International Small Cap Opp    (NASDAQ: FSCOX)
Fidelity Investment Grade Bond          (NASDAQ: FBNDX)
Fidelity Japan                          (NASDAQ: FJPNX)
Fidelity Japan Smaller Companies        (NASDAQ: FJSCX)
Fidelity Large Cap Growth       (NASDAQ: FSLGX)
Fidelity Large Cap Stock        (NASDAQ: FLCSX)
Fidelity Large Cap Value        (NASDAQ: FSLVX)
Fidelity Latin America          (NASDAQ: FLATX)
Fidelity Leveraged Company Stock        (NASDAQ: FLVCX)
Fidelity Low-Priced Stock               (NASDAQ: FLPSX)
Fidelity Magellan                       (NASDAQ: FMAGX)
Fidelity Maryland Municipal Income      (NASDAQ: SMDMX)
Fidelity Massachusetts Municipal Income (NASDAQ: FDMMX)
Fidelity Michigan Municipal Income      (NASDAQ: FMHTX)
Fidelity Mid Cap Growth (NASDAQ: FSMGX)
Fidelity Mid Cap Value  (NASDAQ: FSMVX)
Fidelity Mid-Cap Stock  (NASDAQ: FMCSX)
Fidelity Minnesota Municipal Income     (NASDAQ: FIMIX)
Fidelity Mortgage Secs                  (NASDAQ: FMSFX)
Fidelity Nasdaq Composite Index         (NASDAQ: FNCMX)
Fidelity New Jersey Municipal Income    (NASDAQ: FNJHX)
Fidelity New Markets Income             (NASDAQ: FNMIX)
Fidelity New Millennium                 (NASDAQ: FMILX)
Fidelity New York Municipal Income      (NASDAQ: FTFMX)
Fidelity Nordic                 (NASDAQ: FNORX)
Fidelity Ohio Municipal Income  (NASDAQ: FOHFX)
Fidelity OTC                    (NASDAQ: FOCPX)
Fidelity Overseas               (NASDAQ: FOSFX)
Fidelity Pacific Basin          (NASDAQ: FPBFX)
Fidelity Pennsylvania Municipal Income  (NASDAQ: FPXTX)
Fidelity Puritan                        (NASDAQ: FPURX)
Fidelity Real Estate Income     (NASDAQ: FRIFX)
Fidelity Real Estate Investment (NASDAQ: FRESX)
Fidelity Select Air Transportation      (NASDAQ: FSAIX)
Fidelity Select Automotive              (NASDAQ: FSAVX)
Fidelity Select Banking                 (NASDAQ: FSRBX)
Fidelity Select Biotechnology           (NASDAQ: FBIOX)
Fidelity Select Brokerage & Investmnt   (NASDAQ: FSLBX)
Fidelity Select Business Serv&Outsrcg   (NASDAQ: FBSOX)
Fidelity Select Chemicals       (NASDAQ: FSCHX)
Fidelity Select Computers       (NASDAQ: FDCPX)
Fidelity Select Construction&Housing    (NASDAQ: FSHOX)
Fidelity Select Consumer Industries     (NASDAQ: FSCPX)
Fidelity Select Cyclical Industries     (NASDAQ: FCYIX)
Fidelity Select Defense & Aerospace     (NASDAQ: FSDAX)
Fidelity Select Developing Comm (NASDAQ: FSDCX)
Fidelity Select Electronics     (NASDAQ: FSELX)
Fidelity Select Energy          (NASDAQ: FSENX)
Fidelity Select Energy Service  (NASDAQ: FSESX)
Fidelity Select Environmental   (NASDAQ: FSLEX)
Fidelity Select Financial Services      (NASDAQ: FIDSX)
Fidelity Select Food & Agriculture      (NASDAQ: FDFAX)
Fidelity Select Gold            (NASDAQ: FSAGX)
Fidelity Select Health Care     (NASDAQ: FSPHX)
Fidelity Select Home Finance    (NASDAQ: FSVLX)
Fidelity Select Industrial Equipment    (NASDAQ: FSCGX)
Fidelity Select Industrial Materials    (NASDAQ: FSDPX)
Fidelity Select Insurance       (NASDAQ: FSPCX)
Fidelity Select Leisure         (NASDAQ: FDLSX)
Fidelity Select Medical Delivery        (NASDAQ: FSHCX)
Fidelity Select Medical Equip/Systems   (NASDAQ: FSMEX)
Fidelity Select Multimedia      (NASDAQ: FBMPX)
Fidelity Select Natural Gas     (NASDAQ: FSNGX)
Fidelity Select Natural Resources       (NASDAQ: FNARX)
Fidelity Select Network & Infrastruct   (NASDAQ: FNINX)
Fidelity Select Paper & Forest Prod     (NASDAQ: FSPFX)
Fidelity Select Pharmaceuticals (NASDAQ: FPHAX)
Fidelity Select Retailing       (NASDAQ: FSRPX)
Fidelity Select Software & Comp (NASDAQ: FSCSX)
Fidelity Select Technology      (NASDAQ: FSPTX)
Fidelity Select Telecommunications      (NASDAQ: FSTCX)
Fidelity Select Transportation          (NASDAQ: FSRFX)
Fidelity Select Utilities Growth        (NASDAQ: FSUTX)
Fidelity Select Wireless                (NASDAQ: FWRLX)
Fidelity Short-Intermediate Muni Income (NASDAQ: FSTFX)
Fidelity Short-Term Bond        (NASDAQ: FSHBX)
Fidelity Small Cap Growth       (NASDAQ: FCPGX)
Fidelity Small Cap Independence (NASDAQ: FDSCX)
Fidelity Small Cap Retirement   (NASDAQ: FSCRX)
Fidelity Small Cap Stock        (NASDAQ: FSLCX)
Fidelity Small Cap Value        (NASDAQ: FCPVX)
Fidelity Southeast Asia         (NASDAQ: FSEAX)
Fidelity Spartan 500 Index      (NASDAQ: FSMKX)
Fidelity Spartan Extended Mkt Index     (NASDAQ: FSEMX)
Fidelity Spartan Government Income      (NASDAQ: SPGVX)
Fidelity Spartan International Index    (NASDAQ: FSIIX)
Fidelity Spartan Investment Gr Bond     (NASDAQ: FSIBX)
Fidelity Spartan Total Market Index     (NASDAQ: FSTMX)
Fidelity Spartan U.S. Equity Index      (NASDAQ: FUSEX)
Fidelity Stock Selector                 (NASDAQ: FDSSX)
Fidelity Strategic Dividend & Income    (NASDAQ: FSDIX)
Fidelity Strategic Income               (NASDAQ: FSICX)
Fidelity Tax-Free Bond                  (NASDAQ: FTABX)
Fidelity Tax-Managed Stock              (NASDAQ: FTXMX)
Fidelity Total Bond                     (NASDAQ: FTBFX)
Fidelity Trend                          (NASDAQ: FTRNX)
Fidelity U.S. Bond Index        (NASDAQ: FBIDX)
Fidelity Ultra-Short Bond       (NASDAQ: FUSFX)
Fidelity Utilities              (NASDAQ: FIUIX)
Fidelity Value                  (NASDAQ: FDVLX)
Fidelity Value Discovery        (NASDAQ: FVDFX)
Fidelity Value Strategies       (NASDAQ: FSLSX)
Fidelity Worldwide              (NASDAQ: FWWFX)

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 defendants' undisclosed sales practices created an
insurmountable conflict of interest by providing substantial
monetary incentives to sell Shelf-Space Funds to their clients,
even though such investments were not in the clients' best
interest. UBS' failure to disclose the incentives constituted
violations of federal securities laws.

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

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

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


UBS-AG: Stull Stull Lodges Suit in NY Over Franklin 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 Franklin 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 Franklin mutual funds and their respective symbols are as
follows:

Franklin AGE High Income Fund (NASDAQ: AGEFX), (NASDAQ: FAHAX),
(NASDAQ: FHIBX), (NASDAQ: FRAIX), (NASDAQ: FAHRX)
Franklin Adjustable U.S. Government Securities Fund (NASDAQ:
FISAX),
(NASDAQ: FCSCX)
Franklin Aggressive Growth Fund (NASDAQ: FGRAX), (NASDAQ:
FRAAX), (NASDAQ: FKABX), (NASDAQ: FKACX), (NASDAQ: FKARX)
Franklin Alabama Tax-Free Income Fund (NASDAQ: FRALX), (NASDAQ:
FALEX)
Franklin Arizona Tax-Free Income Fund (NASDAQ: FTAZX), (NASDAQ:
FBAZX),
(NASDAQ: FAZIX)
Franklin Balance Sheet Investment Fund (NASDAQ: FRBSX), (NASDAQ:
FBSAX),
(NASDAQ: FBSBX), (NASDAQ: FCBSX), (NASDAQ: FBSRX)
Franklin Biotechnology Discovery Fund (NASDAQ: FBDIX)
Franklin Blue Chip Fund (NASDAQ: FKBCX), (NASDAQ: FKBBX),
(NASDAQ: FBCCX),
(NASDAQ: FBCRX)
Franklin California High Yield Municipal Fund (NASDAQ: FCAMX),
(NASDAQ: FBCAX), (NASDAQ: FCAHX)
Franklin California Insured Tax-Free Income Fund (NASDAQ:
FRCIX), (NASDAQ: FRCBX), (NASDAQ: FRCAX)
Franklin California Intermediate-Term Tax-Free Income Fund
(NASDAQ: FKCIX)
Franklin California Limited Term Tax-Free Income Fund
Franklin California Tax-Exempt Money Fund (NASDAQ: FCLXX)
Franklin California Tax-Free Income Fund (NASDAQ: FKTFX),
(NASDAQ: FCAVX),
(NASDAQ: FCABX), (NASDAQ: FRCTX)
Franklin Capital Growth Fund (NASDAQ: FKREX), (NASDAQ: FEACX),
(NASDAQ: FKEQX), (NASDAQ: FREQX), (NASDAQ: FKIRX)
Franklin Colorado Tax-Free Income Fund (NASDAQ: FRCOX), (NASDAQ:
FCOIX)
Franklin Connecticut Tax-Free Income Fund (NASDAQ: FXCTX),
(NASDAQ: FCTIX)
Franklin Convertible Securities Fund (NASDAQ: FISCX), (NASDAQ:
FROTX)
Franklin Double Tax-Free Income Fund (NASDAQ: FPRTX), (NASDAQ:
FPRIX)
Franklin DynaTech Fund (NASDAQ: FKDNX), (NASDAQ: FDNBX),
(NASDAQ: FDYNX)
Franklin Equity Income Fund (NASDAQ: FISEX), (NASDAQ: FBEIX),
(NASDAQ: FRETX), (NASDAQ: FREIX)
Franklin Federal Intermediate-Term Tax-Free Income Fund (NASDAQ:
FKITX)
Franklin Federal Limited Term Tax-Free Income Fund (NASDAQ:
FFTFX)
Franklin Federal Money Fund (NASDAQ: FMNXX)
Franklin Federal Tax-Free Income Fund (NASDAQ: FKTIX), (NASDAQ:
FAFTX),
(NASDAQ: FFTBX), (NASDAQ: FRFTX)
Franklin Flex Cap Growth Fund (NASDAQ: FKCGX), (NASDAQ: FKCBX),
(NASDAQ: FCIIX), (NASDAQ: FRCGX)
Franklin Floating Rate Daily Access Fund (NASDAQ: FAFRX),
(NASDAQ: FBFRX),
(NASDAQ: FCFRX)
Franklin Floating Rate Trust (NASDAQ: XFFLX)
Franklin Florida Insured Tax-Free Income Fund (NASDAQ: FFLTX)
Franklin Florida Tax-Free Income Fund (NASDAQ: FRFLX), (NASDAQ:
FRFBX),
(NASDAQ: FRFIX)
Franklin Georgia Tax-Free Income Fund (NASDAQ: FTGAX), (NASDAQ:
FGAIX)
Franklin Global Aggressive Growth Fund
Franklin Global Communications Fund (NASDAQ: FRGUX)
Franklin Global Growth Fund
Franklin Global Health Care Fund (NASDAQ: FKGHX), (NASDAQ:
FGHBX), (NASDAQ: FGIIX)
Franklin Gold and Precious Metals Fund (NASDAQ: FKRCX), (NASDAQ:
FGADX),
(NASDAQ: FAGPX), (NASDAQ: FRGOX)
Franklin Growth Fund (NASDAQ: FKGRX), (NASDAQ: FCGAX), (NASDAQ:
FKGBX),
(NASDAQ: FRGSX), (NASDAQ: FGSRX)
Franklin High Yield Tax-Free Income Fund (NASDAQ: FRHIX),
(NASDAQ: FYIBX),
(NASDAQ: FHYIX)
Franklin Income Fund (NASDAQ: FKINX), (NASDAQ: FRIAX), (NASDAQ:
FBICX),
(NASDAQ: FICBX), (NASDAQ: FCISX), (NASDAQ: FISRX)
Franklin Insured Tax-Free Income Fund (NASDAQ: FTFIX), (NASDAQ:
FBITX),
(NASDAQ: FRITX)
Franklin Kentucky Tax-Free Income Fund (NASDAQ: FRKYX)
Franklin Large Cap Growth Fund (NASDAQ: FKGAX), (NASDAQ: FRGAX),
(NASDAQ: FKGCX), (NASDAQ: FRLGX)
Franklin Large Cap Value Fund (NASDAQ: FLVAX), (NASDAQ: FBLCX),
(NASDAQ: FLCVX), (NASDAQ: FLCRX)
Franklin Louisiana Tax-Free Income Fund (NASDAQ: FKLAX),
(NASDAQ: FLAIX)
Franklin Maryland Tax-Free Income Fund (NASDAQ: FMDTX), (NASDAQ:
FMDIX)
Franklin Massachusetts Insured Tax-Free Income Fund (NASDAQ:
FMISX),
(NASDAQ: FMAIX)
Franklin Michigan Insured Tax-Free Income Fund (NASDAQ: FTTMX),
(NASDAQ: FBMIX), (NASDAQ: FRMTX)
Franklin MicroCap Value Fund (NASDAQ: FRMCX)
Franklin Minnesota Insured Tax-Free Income Fund (NASDAQ: FMINX),
(NASDAQ: FMNIX)
Franklin Missouri Tax-Free Income Fund (NASDAQ: FRMOX), (NASDAQ:
FMOIX)
Franklin Money Fund (NASDAQ: FMFXX)
Franklin Natural Resources Fund (NASDAQ: FRNRX), (NASDAQ: FNRAX)
Franklin New Jersey Tax-Free Income Fund (NASDAQ: FRNJX),
(NASDAQ: FNJBX),
(NASDAQ: FNIIX)
Franklin New York Insured Tax-Free Income Fund (NASDAQ: FRNYX),
(NASDAQ: FNYKX)
Franklin New York Intermediate-Term Tax-Free Income Fund
(NASDAQ: FKNIX)
Franklin New York Limited Term Tax-Free Income Fund
Franklin New York Tax-Exempt Money Fund (NASDAQ: FRNXX)
Franklin New York Tax-Free Income Fund (NASDAQ: FNYTX), (NASDAQ:
FNYAX),
(NASDAQ: FTFBX), (NASDAQ: FNYIX)
Franklin North Carolina Tax-Free Income Fund (NASDAQ: FXNCX),
(NASDAQ: FNCIX)
Franklin Ohio Insured Tax-Free Income Fund (NASDAQ: FTOIX),
(NASDAQ: FBOIX), (NASDAQ: FOITX)
Franklin Oregon Tax-Free Income Fund (NASDAQ: FRORX), (NASDAQ:
FORIX)
Franklin Pennsylvania Tax-Free Income Fund (NASDAQ: FRPAX),
(NASDAQ: FBPTX), (NASDAQ: FRPTX)
Franklin Real Estate Securities Fund (NASDAQ: FREEX), (NASDAQ:
FRLAX),
(NASDAQ: FBREX), (NASDAQ: FRRSX)
Franklin Rising Dividends Fund (NASDAQ: FRDPX), (NASDAQ: FRDBX),
(NASDAQ: FRDTX), (NASDAQ: FRDRX)
Franklin Short-Intermediate U.S. Government Securities Fund
(NASDAQ: FRGVX), (NASDAQ: FSUAX)
Franklin Small Cap Growth Fund II (NASDAQ: FSGRX), (NASDAQ:
FSSAX),
(NASDAQ: FBSGX), (NASDAQ: FCSGX), (NASDAQ: FSSRX)
Franklin Small Cap Value Fund (NASDAQ: FRVLX), (NASDAQ: FVADX),
(NASDAQ: FBVAX), (NASDAQ: FRVFX), (NASDAQ: FVFRX)
Franklin Small-Mid Cap Growth Fund (NASDAQ: FRSGX), (NASDAQ:
FSGAX),
(NASDAQ: FBSMX), (NASDAQ: FRSIX), (NASDAQ: FSMRX)
Franklin Strategic Income Fund (NASDAQ: FRSTX), (NASDAQ: FKSAX),
(NASDAQ: FKSBX), (NASDAQ: FSGCX), (NASDAQ: FKSRX)
Franklin Strategic Mortgage Portfolio (NASDAQ: FSMIX)
Franklin Tax-Exempt Money Fund (NASDAQ: FTMXX)
Franklin Technology Fund (NASDAQ: FTCAX), (NASDAQ: FRTCX),
(NASDAQ: FFTCX),
(NASDAQ: FTERX)
Franklin Templeton Conservative Target Fund (NASDAQ: FTCIX),
(NASDAQ: FTCCX), (NASDAQ: FTCRX)
Franklin Templeton CoreFolio Allocation Fund (NASDAQ: FTCOX)
Franklin Templeton Founding Funds Allocation Fund (NASDAQ:
FFALX), (NASDAQ: FFABX), (NASDAQ: FFACX)
Franklin Templeton Growth Target Fund (NASDAQ: FGTIX), (NASDAQ:
FTGTX),
(NASDAQ: FGTRX)
Franklin Templeton Hard Currency Fund (NASDAQ: ICPHX)
Franklin Templeton Moderate Target Fund (NASDAQ: FMTIX),
(NASDAQ: FTMTX),
(NASDAQ: FTMRX)
Franklin Templeton Money Fund (NASDAQ: FMBXX), (NASDAQ: FRIXX),
(NASDAQ: FMRXX)
Franklin Tennessee Municipal Bond Fund (NASDAQ: FRTIX)
Franklin Texas Tax-Free Income Fund (NASDAQ: FTXTX), (NASDAQ:
FTXIX)
Franklin Total Return Fund (NASDAQ: FKBAX), (NASDAQ: FBDAX),
(NASDAQ: FBTLX), (NASDAQ: FCTLX), (NASDAQ: FTRRX)
Franklin U.S. Government Securities Fund (NASDAQ: FKUSX),
(NASDAQ: FUSAX),
(NASDAQ: FUGBX), (NASDAQ: FRUGX), (NASDAQ: FUSRX)
Franklin U.S. Long-Short Fund (NASDAQ: FUSLX)
Franklin Utilities Fund (NASDAQ: FKUTX), (NASDAQ: FRUAX),
(NASDAQ: FRUBX),
(NASDAQ: FRUSX), (NASDAQ: FRURX)
Franklin Virginia Tax-Free Income Fund (NASDAQ: FRVAX), (NASDAQ:
FVAIX)
Templeton China World Fund (NASDAQ: TCWAX), (NASDAQ: TACWX)
Templeton Developing Markets Trust (NASDAQ: TEDMX), (NASDAQ:
TDADX),
(NASDAQ: TDMBX), (NASDAQ: TDMTX), (NASDAQ: TDMRX)
Templeton Foreign Fund (NASDAQ: TEMFX), (NASDAQ: TFFAX),
(NASDAQ: TFRBX),
(NASDAQ: TEFTX), (NASDAQ: TEFRX)
Templeton Foreign Smaller Companies Fund (NASDAQ: FINEX),
(NASDAQ: FTFAX),
(NASDAQ: FCFSX)
Templeton Global Bond Fund (NASDAQ: TPINX), (NASDAQ: TGBAX),
(NASDAQ: TEGBX)
Templeton Global Long-Short Fund (NASDAQ: TLSAX), (NASDAQ:
TLSBX)
Templeton Global Opportunities Trust (NASDAQ: TEGOX), (NASDAQ:
TEGPX)
Templeton Global Smaller Companies Fund), (NASDAQ:  Inc.
(NASDAQ: TEMGX),
(NASDAQ:  TGSAX. TESGX)
Templeton Growth Fund), (NASDAQ:  Inc. (NASDAQ: TEPLX), (NASDAQ:
TGADX),
(NASDAQ: TMGBX), (NASDAQ: TEGTX), (NASDAQ: TEGRX)
Templeton International (Ex EM) Fund (NASDAQ: TEGEX), (NASDAQ:
TGEFX)
Templeton Latin America Fund (NASDAQ: TELAX), (NASDAQ: TLAAX),
(NASDAQ: TLAIX)
Templeton Pacific Growth Fund (NASDAQ: FKPGX), (NASDAQ: FPGCX)
Templeton World Fund (NASDAQ: TEMWX), (NASDAQ: TWDBX), (NASDAQ:
TEWTX)
Mutual Beacon Fund (NASDAQ: TEBIX), (NASDAQ: TEBBX), (NASDAQ:
TEMEX),
(NASDAQ: BEGRX)
Mutual Discovery Fund (NASDAQ: TEDIX), (NASDAQ: TEDBX), (NASDAQ:
TEDSX),
(NASDAQ: TEDRX), (NASDAQ: MDISX)
Mutual European Fund (NASDAQ: TEMIX), (NASDAQ: TEUBX), (NASDAQ:
TEURX),
(NASDAQ: MEURX)
Mutual Financial Services Fund (NASDAQ: TFSIX), (NASDAQ: TBFSX),
(NASDAQ: TMFSX), (NASDAQ: TEFAX)
Mutual Qualified Fund (NASDAQ: TEQIX), (NASDAQ: TEBQX), (NASDAQ:
TEMQX),
(NASDAQ: MQIFX)
Mutual Recovery Fund (NASDAQ: FMRVX)
Mutual Shares Fund (NASDAQ: TESIX), (NASDAQ: FMUBX), (NASDAQ:
TEMTX),
(NASDAQ: TESRX), (NASDAQ: MUTHX)

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 defendants' undisclosed sales practices created an
insurmountable conflict of interest by providing substantial
monetary incentives to sell Shelf-Space Funds to their clients,
even though such investments were not in the clients' best
interest. UBS' failure to disclose the incentives constituted
violations of federal securities laws.

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

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

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


UBS-AG: Stull Stull Files NY Suit Over Oppenheimer 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 Oppenheimer 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 Oppenheimer mutual funds and their respective symbols are as
follows:

Oppenheimer AMT-Free NY Municipal B     (NASDAQ: ONYBX)
Oppenheimer AMT-Free Municipals A       (NASDAQ: OPTAX)
Oppenheimer AMT-Free Municipals B       (NASDAQ: OTFBX)
Oppenheimer AMT-Free Municipals C       (NASDAQ: OMFCX)
Oppenheimer AMT-Free NY Municipal A     (NASDAQ: OPNYX)
Oppenheimer AMT-Free NY Municipal C     (NASDAQ: ONYCX)
Oppenheimer Balanced A                  (NASDAQ: OPASX)
Oppenheimer Balanced B                  (NASDAQ: OASBX)
Oppenheimer Balanced C                  (NASDAQ: OASCX)
Oppenheimer Balanced N                  (NASDAQ: OASNX)
Oppenheimer CA Municipal A              (NASDAQ: OPCAX)
Oppenheimer CA Municipal B              (NASDAQ: OCABX)
Oppenheimer CA Municipal C              (NASDAQ: OCACX)
Oppenheimer Capital Appreciation A      (NASDAQ: OPTFX)
Oppenheimer Capital Appreciation B      (NASDAQ: OTGBX)
Oppenheimer Capital Appreciation C      (NASDAQ: OTFCX)
Oppenheimer Capital Appreciation N      (NASDAQ: OTCNX)
Oppenheimer Capital Appreciation Y      (NASDAQ: OTCYX)
Oppenheimer Capital Income A            (NASDAQ: OPPEX)
Oppenheimer Capital Income B            (NASDAQ: OPEBX)
Oppenheimer Capital Income C            (NASDAQ: OPECX)
Oppenheimer Capital Income N            (NASDAQ: OCINX)
Oppenheimer Champion Income A           (NASDAQ: OPCHX)
Oppenheimer Champion Income B           (NASDAQ: OCHBX)
Oppenheimer Champion Income C           (NASDAQ: OCHCX)
Oppenheimer Champion Income N           (NASDAQ: OCHNX)
Oppenheimer Convertible Securities A    (NASDAQ: RCVAX)
Oppenheimer Convertible Securities B    (NASDAQ: RCVBX)
Oppenheimer Convertible Securities C    (NASDAQ: RCVCX)
Oppenheimer Convertible Securities M    (NASDAQ: RCVGX)
Oppenheimer Convertible Securities N    (NASDAQ: RCVNX)
Oppenheimer Core Bond A                 (NASDAQ: OPIGX)
Oppenheimer Core Bond B                 (NASDAQ: OIGBX)
Oppenheimer Core Bond C                 (NASDAQ: OPBCX)
Oppenheimer Core Bond N                 (NASDAQ: OPBNX)
Oppenheimer Core Bond Y                 (NASDAQ: OPBYX)
Oppenheimer Developing Markets A        (NASDAQ: ODMAX)
Oppenheimer Developing Markets B        (NASDAQ: ODVBX)
Oppenheimer Developing Markets C        (NASDAQ: ODVCX)
Oppenheimer Developing Markets N        (NASDAQ: ODVNX)
Oppenheimer Disciplined Allocation A    (NASDAQ: CNMTX)
Oppenheimer Disciplined Allocation B    (NASDAQ: CDABX)
Oppenheimer Disciplined Allocation C    (NASDAQ: CDACX)
Oppenheimer Disciplined Allocation N    (NASDAQ: CDANX)
Oppenheimer Discovery A                 (NASDAQ: OPOCX)
Oppenheimer Discovery B                 (NASDAQ: ODIBX)
Oppenheimer Discovery C                 (NASDAQ: ODICX)
Oppenheimer Discovery N                 (NASDAQ: ODINX)
Oppenheimer Discovery Y                 (NASDAQ: ODIYX)
Oppenheimer Emerging Growth A           (NASDAQ: OEGAX)
Oppenheimer Emerging Growth B           (NASDAQ: OEGBX)
Oppenheimer Emerging Growth C           (NASDAQ: OEGCX)
Oppenheimer Emerging Growth N           (NASDAQ: OEGNX)
Oppenheimer Emerging Growth Y           (NASDAQ: OEGYX)
Oppenheimer Emerging Technologies A     (NASDAQ: OETAX)
Oppenheimer Emerging Technologies B     (NASDAQ: OETBX)
Oppenheimer Emerging Technologies C     (NASDAQ: OETCX)
Oppenheimer Emerging Technologies N     (NASDAQ: OETNX)
Oppenheimer Emerging Technologies Y     (NASDAQ: OETYX)
Oppenheimer Enterprise A        (NASDAQ: OENAX)
Oppenheimer Enterprise B        (NASDAQ: OENBX)
Oppenheimer Enterprise C        (NASDAQ: OENCX)
Oppenheimer Enterprise N        (NASDAQ: OENNX)
Oppenheimer Enterprise Y        (NASDAQ: OENYX)
Oppenheimer Equity A    (NASDAQ: OEQAX)
Oppenheimer Equity B    (NASDAQ: OEQBX)
Oppenheimer Equity C    (NASDAQ: OEQCX)
Oppenheimer Equity N    (NASDAQ: OEQNX)
Oppenheimer Equity Y    (NASDAQ: OEQYX)
Oppenheimer Global A    (NASDAQ: OPPAX)
Oppenheimer Global B    (NASDAQ: OGLBX)
Oppenheimer Global C    (NASDAQ: OGLCX)
Oppenheimer Global N    (NASDAQ: OGLNX)
Oppenheimer Global Opportunities A      (NASDAQ: OPGIX)
Oppenheimer Global Opportunities B      (NASDAQ: OGGIX)
Oppenheimer Global Opportunities C      (NASDAQ: OGICX)
Oppenheimer Global Opportunities N      (NASDAQ: OGINX)
Oppenheimer Global Opportunities Y      (NASDAQ: OGIYX)
Oppenheimer Global Y    (NASDAQ: OGLYX)
Oppenheimer Gold & Special Minerals A   (NASDAQ: OPGSX)
Oppenheimer Gold & Special Minerals B   (NASDAQ: OGMBX)
Oppenheimer Gold & Special Minerals C   (NASDAQ: OGMCX)
Oppenheimer Gold & Special Minerals N   (NASDAQ: OGMNX)
Oppenheimer Growth A    (NASDAQ: OPPSX)
Oppenheimer Growth B    (NASDAQ: OPSBX)
Oppenheimer Growth C    (NASDAQ: OGRCX)
Oppenheimer Growth N    (NASDAQ: OGRNX)
Oppenheimer Growth Y    (NASDAQ: OGRYX)
Oppenheimer High-Yield A        (NASDAQ: OPPHX)
Oppenheimer High-Yield B        (NASDAQ: OHYBX)
Oppenheimer High-Yield C        (NASDAQ: OHYCX)
Oppenheimer High-Yield N        (NASDAQ: OHYNX)
Oppenheimer High-Yield Y        (NASDAQ: OHYYX)
Oppenheimer International Bond A        (NASDAQ: OIBAX)
Oppenheimer International Bond B        (NASDAQ: OIBBX)
Oppenheimer International Bond C        (NASDAQ: OIBCX)
Oppenheimer International Bond N        (NASDAQ: OIBNX)
Oppenheimer International Bond Y        (NASDAQ: OIBYX)
Oppenheimer International Growth A      (NASDAQ: OIGAX)
Oppenheimer International Growth B      (NASDAQ: IGRWX)
Oppenheimer International Growth C      (NASDAQ: OIGCX)
Oppenheimer International Growth N      (NASDAQ: OIGNX)
Oppenheimer International Small Co A    (NASDAQ: OSMAX)
Oppenheimer International Small Co B    (NASDAQ: OSMBX)
Oppenheimer International Small Co C    (NASDAQ: OSMCX)
Oppenheimer International Small Co N    (NASDAQ: OSMNX)
Oppenheimer International Value A       (NASDAQ: OIVAX)
Oppenheimer International Value B       (NASDAQ: OIVBX)
Oppenheimer International Value C       (NASDAQ: OIVCX)
Oppenheimer Limited Term CA Muni A      (NASDAQ: OLCAX)
Oppenheimer Limited Term CA Muni B      (NASDAQ: OLCBX)
Oppenheimer Limited Term CA Muni C      (NASDAQ: OLCCX)
Oppenheimer Limited Term Municipal A    (NASDAQ: OPITX)
Oppenheimer Limited Term Municipal B    (NASDAQ: OIMBX)
Oppenheimer Limited Term Municipal C    (NASDAQ: OITCX)
Oppenheimer Limited Term NY Municipal A (NASDAQ: LTNYX)
Oppenheimer Limited Term NY Municipal B (NASDAQ: LTBBX)
Oppenheimer Limited Term NY Municipal C (NASDAQ: LTNCX)
Oppenheimer Limited-Term Government A   (NASDAQ: OPGVX)
Oppenheimer Limited-Term Government B   (NASDAQ: OGSBX)
Oppenheimer Limited-Term Government C   (NASDAQ: OLTCX)
Oppenheimer Limited-Term Government N   (NASDAQ: OLTNX)
Oppenheimer Limited-Term Government Y   (NASDAQ: OLTYX)
Oppenheimer Main St Opportunity A       (NASDAQ: OMSOX)
Oppenheimer Main St Opportunity B       (NASDAQ: OMOBX)
Oppenheimer Main St Opportunity C       (NASDAQ: OMSCX)
Oppenheimer Main St Opportunity N       (NASDAQ: OMSNX)
Oppenheimer Main St Opportunity Y       (NASDAQ: OMSYX)
Oppenheimer Main St Small Cap A (NASDAQ: OPMSX)
Oppenheimer Main St Small Cap B (NASDAQ: OPMBX)
Oppenheimer Main St Small Cap C (NASDAQ: OPMCX)
Oppenheimer Main St Small Cap N (NASDAQ: OPMNX)
Oppenheimer Main St Small Cap Y (NASDAQ: OPMYX)
Oppenheimer Main Street A       (NASDAQ: MSIGX)
Oppenheimer Main Street B       (NASDAQ: OMSBX)
Oppenheimer Main Street C       (NASDAQ: MIGCX)
Oppenheimer Main Street N       (NASDAQ: OMGNX)
Oppenheimer Main Street Y       (NASDAQ: MIGYX)
Oppenheimer MidCap A    (NASDAQ: OMDAX)
Oppenheimer MidCap B    (NASDAQ: OMDBX)
Oppenheimer MidCap C    (NASDAQ: OMDCX)
Oppenheimer MidCap N    (NASDAQ: OMDNX)
Oppenheimer MidCap Y    (NASDAQ: OMDYX)
Oppenheimer NJ Municipal A      (NASDAQ: ONJAX)
Oppenheimer NJ Municipal B      (NASDAQ: ONJBX)
Oppenheimer NJ Municipal C      (NASDAQ: ONJCX)
Oppenheimer PA Municipal A      (NASDAQ: OPATX)
Oppenheimer PA Municipal B      (NASDAQ: OPABX)
Oppenheimer PA Municipal C      (NASDAQ: OPACX)
Oppenheimer Port Series Active Alloc A  (NASDAQ: OAAAX)
Oppenheimer Port Series Active Alloc B  (NASDAQ: OAABX)
Oppenheimer Port Series Active Alloc C  (NASDAQ: OAACX)
Oppenheimer Port Series Active Alloc N  (NASDAQ: OAANX)
Oppenheimer Port Series Active Alloc Y  (NASDAQ: OAAYX)
Oppenheimer Port Series Agg Inv A       (NASDAQ: OAAIX)
Oppenheimer Port Series Agg Inv B       (NASDAQ: OBAIX)
Oppenheimer Port Series Agg Inv C       (NASDAQ: OCAIX)
Oppenheimer Port Series Agg Inv N       (NASDAQ: ONAIX)
Oppenheimer Port Series Agg Inv Y       (NASDAQ: OYAIX)
Oppenheimer Port Series Conserv Inv A   (NASDAQ: OACIX)
Oppenheimer Port Series Conserv Inv B   (NASDAQ: OBCIX)
Oppenheimer Port Series Conserv Inv C   (NASDAQ: OCCIX)
Oppenheimer Port Series Conserv Inv N   (NASDAQ: ONCIX)
Oppenheimer Port Series Conserv Inv Y   (NASDAQ: OYCIX)
Oppenheimer Port Series Moderate Inv A  (NASDAQ: OAMIX)
Oppenheimer Port Series Moderate Inv B  (NASDAQ: OBMIX)
Oppenheimer Port Series Moderate Inv C  (NASDAQ: OCMIX)
Oppenheimer Port Series Moderate Inv N  (NASDAQ: ONMIX)
Oppenheimer Port Series Moderate Inv Y  (NASDAQ: OYMIX)
Oppenheimer Principal Prot Main St A    (NASDAQ: OAPPX)
Oppenheimer Principal Prot Main St B    (NASDAQ: OBPPX)
Oppenheimer Principal Prot Main St C    (NASDAQ: OCPPX)
Oppenheimer Principal Prot Main St II A (NASDAQ: OAPMX)
Oppenheimer Principal Prot Main St II B (NASDAQ: OBPMX)
Oppenheimer Principal Prot Main St II C (NASDAQ: OCPMX)
Oppenheimer Principal Prot Main St III A        (NASDAQ: OAPRX)
Oppenheimer Principal Prot Main St III B        (NASDAQ: OBPRX)
Oppenheimer Principal Prot Main St III C        (NASDAQ: OCPRX)
Oppenheimer Principal Prot Main St III N        (NASDAQ: ONPRX)
Oppenheimer Principal Prot Main St N            (NASDAQ: ONPPX)
Oppenheimer Quest Balanced A    (NASDAQ: QVGIX)
Oppenheimer Quest Balanced B    (NASDAQ: QGRBX)
Oppenheimer Quest Balanced C    (NASDAQ: QGRCX)
Oppenheimer Quest Balanced N    (NASDAQ: QGRNX)
Oppenheimer Quest Balanced Y    (NASDAQ: QGRYX)
Oppenheimer Quest Capital Value A       (NASDAQ: QCVAX)
Oppenheimer Quest Capital Value B       (NASDAQ: QCVBX)
Oppenheimer Quest Capital Value C       (NASDAQ: QCVCX)
Oppenheimer Quest Capital Value N       (NASDAQ: QCVNX)
Oppenheimer Quest International Value A (NASDAQ: QIVAX)
Oppenheimer Quest International Value B (NASDAQ: QIVBX)
Oppenheimer Quest International Value C (NASDAQ: QIVCX)
Oppenheimer Quest International Value N (NASDAQ: QIVNX)
Oppenheimer Quest Opportunity Value A   (NASDAQ: QVOPX)
Oppenheimer Quest Opportunity Value B   (NASDAQ: QOPBX)
Oppenheimer Quest Opportunity Value C   (NASDAQ: QOPCX)
Oppenheimer Quest Opportunity Value N   (NASDAQ: QOPNX)
Oppenheimer Quest Opportunity Value Y   (NASDAQ: QOPYX)
Oppenheimer Quest Value A       (NASDAQ: QFVFX)
Oppenheimer Quest Value B       (NASDAQ: QFVBX)
Oppenheimer Quest Value C       (NASDAQ: QFVCX)
Oppenheimer Quest Value N       (NASDAQ: QFVNX)
Oppenheimer Quest Value Y       (NASDAQ: QFVYX)
Oppenheimer Real Asset A        (NASDAQ: QRAAX)
Oppenheimer Real Asset B        (NASDAQ: QRABX)
Oppenheimer Real Asset C        (NASDAQ: QRACX)
Oppenheimer Real Asset N        (NASDAQ: QRANX)
Oppenheimer Real Asset Y        (NASDAQ: QRAYX)
Oppenheimer Real Estate A       (NASDAQ: OREAX)
Oppenheimer Real Estate B       (NASDAQ: OREBX)
Oppenheimer Real Estate C       (NASDAQ: ORECX)
Oppenheimer Real Estate N       (NASDAQ: ORENX)
Oppenheimer Real Estate Y       (NASDAQ: OREYX)
Oppenheimer Rochester National Muni A   (NASDAQ: ORNAX)
Oppenheimer Rochester National Muni B   (NASDAQ: ORNBX)
Oppenheimer Rochester National Muni C   (NASDAQ: ORNCX)
Oppenheimer Select Value A      (NASDAQ: OSVAX)
Oppenheimer Select Value B      (NASDAQ: OSVBX)
Oppenheimer Select Value C      (NASDAQ: OSCVX)
Oppenheimer Select Value N      (NASDAQ: OSVNX)
Oppenheimer Select Value Y      (NASDAQ: OSVYX)
Oppenheimer Senior Floating Rate A      (NASDAQ: XOSAX)
Oppenheimer Senior Floating Rate B      (NASDAQ: XOSBX)
Oppenheimer Senior Floating Rate C      (NASDAQ: XOSCX)
Oppenheimer Small & Mid Cap Value A     (NASDAQ: QVSCX)
Oppenheimer Small & Mid Cap Value B     (NASDAQ: QSCBX)
Oppenheimer Small & Mid Cap Value C     (NASDAQ: QSCCX)
Oppenheimer Small & Mid Cap Value N     (NASDAQ: QSCNX)
Oppenheimer Strat Income A      (NASDAQ: OPSIX)
Oppenheimer Strat Income B      (NASDAQ: OPSGX)
Oppenheimer Strat Income C      (NASDAQ: OSICX)
Oppenheimer Strat Income N      (NASDAQ: OSINX)
Oppenheimer Strat Income Y      (NASDAQ: OSIYX)
Oppenheimer Total Return Bond A (NASDAQ: OTRAX)
Oppenheimer Total Return Bond B (NASDAQ: OTRBX)
Oppenheimer Total Return Bond C (NASDAQ: OTRCX)
Oppenheimer Total Return Bond N (NASDAQ: OTRNX)
Oppenheimer U.S. Government A   (NASDAQ: OUSGX)
Oppenheimer U.S. Government B   (NASDAQ: UGTBX)
Oppenheimer U.S. Government C   (NASDAQ: OUSCX)
Oppenheimer U.S. Government N   (NASDAQ: OUSNX)
Oppenheimer U.S. Government Y   (NASDAQ: OUSYX)
Oppenheimer Value A     (NASDAQ: CGRWX)
Oppenheimer Value B     (NASDAQ: CGRBX)
Oppenheimer Value C     (NASDAQ: CGRCX)
Oppenheimer Value N     (NASDAQ: CGRNX)
Oppenheimer Value Y     (NASDAQ: CGRYX)
Rochester Fund Municipals A     (NASDAQ: RMUNX)
Rochester Fund Municipals B     (NASDAQ: RMUBX)
Rochester Fund Municipals C     (NASDAQ: RMUCX)
Rochester Fund Municipals Y     (NASDAQ: RMUYX)

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 defendants' undisclosed sales practices created an
insurmountable conflict of interest by providing substantial
monetary incentives to sell Shelf-Space Funds to their clients,
even though such investments were not in the clients' best
interest. UBS' failure to disclose the incentives constituted
violations of federal securities laws.

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

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

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