---

            C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Thursday, September 29, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 193

                          Headlines

AEGIS COMMUNICATIONS: Reaches Settlement for TX Shareholder Suit
AIG SUNAMERICA: Market-Timing Lawsuit Moved To MD Federal Court
AMERICAN MERCHANT: Settles FTC Franchise Rule Violations Lawsuit
CALIFORNIA PIZZA: Reaches Settlement For CA Overtime Wage Suit
CINTAS CORPORATION: Ordered to Pay Wages For Violating Ordinance

CONAGRA FOODS: CA Court Approves Securities Lawsuit Settlement
CONAGRA FOODS: Shareholders Launch Stock Fraud Suits in NE, NY
CONAGRA FOODS: Faces Lawsuits For ERISA Violations in NE Court
CORNERSTONE PROPANE: SEC Launches Civil Suit V. Former Officers
DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: CA Court Orders Stock Suits Consolidated

DOUBLETREE RV: Recalls 142 2005 Mobile Suites Due to Crash Risk
EL POLLO: Customers Commence ADA Violations Lawsuit in C.D. CA
EMERSON RADIO: NJ Court Yet To Rule on Securities Suit Dismissal
ERIE FAMILY: Plaintiffs Working For Final PA Lawsuit Settlement
FAB INDUSTRIES: Reaches Preliminary Settlement For DE Fraud Suit

FIRST CENTURY: Named in CT Interchange Fee Antitrust Litigation
FLORIDA: Federal Judge Approves HMO Settlements With Physicians
FLORIDA: U.S. Government Apology Part of "Gold Train" Settlement
GLOBAL WEB: Court Orders Halt To Illegal Spam Operations, Fraud
HOLOCAUST LITIGATION: Gov't Apology Part of "Gold Train" Pact

H&H TRAILER: Recalls Trailers Due to Crash Hazard, Faulty Tires
JOHN Q. HAMMONS: Asks DE Court To Dismiss Investor Fraud Suits
LAZARD LTD.: Shareholders Launch Fraud, Derivative Suits in NY
LENDINGTREE INC.: SEC Launches Insider Trading Complaint in NC
MAYTAG CORPORATION: Recalls Washing Machines Due to Malfunction

MICROFINANCIAL INC.: Plaintiffs File Amended Consumer Suit in MA
MICROFINANCIAL INC.: Asks MA Court To Dismiss Securities Lawsuit
MICROFINANCIAL INC.: AL Court Approves Consumer Suit Settlement
NUVASIVE INC.: CA Court Orders Master Complaint in Fraud Lawsuit
OHIO: Bengals Fans Seek Certification For Ticket Dispute Lawsuit

PERKINELMER INC.: Plaintiffs Seek Certification For MA Lawsuit
PINNACLE MARKETING: Settles Cortislim Consumer Fraud Litigation
QC HOLDINGS: NC Customers Lodge Payday Loans Consumer Fraud Suit
RESIDENTIAL FINANCE: Loan Officers Launch FL Wage, Overtime Suit
SAMSON RESOURCES: WY Court Refuses Summary Judgment For Lawsuit

SPECTRUM SETTLEMENT: Motion Files Over Adding More Class Members
STATE FARM: IL High Court Denies Petition to Rehear Avery Case
TELEPHONE PROTECTION: Settles TSR, FTC Act Violations Complaint
TRAVELERS PROPERTY: CT Court Mulls Lawsuit Certification Appeal
TREEHOUSE FOODS: Receives $1.1M Share in Corn Syrup Settlement

TRIPLE-S INC.: Asks FL Court To Dismiss Physician Fraud Lawsuit
TRIPLE-S INC.: Asks FL Court To Dismiss Physicians Fraud Lawsuit
TRIPLE-S MANAGEMENT: Discovery Proceeds in RICO Violations Suit
VASO ACTIVE: Reaches Settlements in Class, Derivative Complaints
VERIZON WIRELESS: CA Court Gives Approves V710 Bluetooth Deal

W.C. WOOD: Recalls 112T Freezers, Refrigerators For Shock Hazard

                 New Securities Fraud Cases

ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Securities Suit in OH
DHB INDUSTRIES: Paskowitz & Associates Lodges Fraud Suit in NY
HOST AMERICA: Wechsler Harwood Files Securities Fraud Suit in CT
SPECTRUM BRANDS: Chitwood Harley Lodges Securities Suit in GA
SPECTRUM BRANDS: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Fraud Suit in GA

SPECTRUM BRANDS: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Suit in N.D. GA
SYMBOL TECHNOLOGIES: Glancy Binkow Sets Lead Plaintiff Deadline
WORLD HEALTH: Murray Frank Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in PA

                           *********


AEGIS COMMUNICATIONS: Reaches Settlement for TX Shareholder Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court of Dallas County, Texas approved the
settlement of the class action filed against Aegis
Communications Group, Inc., related to the then-proposed
acquisition of the Company by AllServe Systems PLC.

On July 18, 2003, two of the Company's public stockholders, John
Beggi and Steven Stremke, filed the suits, alleging, among other
things, that the then-proposed acquisition of the Company by
AllServe was unfair to the Company's public stockholders and
that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to its
public stockholders in connection with the then-proposed
acquisition. The plaintiffs are seeking a class action in each
complaint and are seeking to enjoin the transaction with
AllServe.  The petitions were consolidated into one action. In
February 2005, the parties executed a settlement agreement that,
upon the court's approval on April 13, 2005, has resulted in the
dismissal of all pending claims.


AIG SUNAMERICA: Market-Timing Lawsuit Moved To MD Federal Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action filed against AIG SunAmerica Life Assurance
Company styled "Nitika Mehta, as Trustee of the N.D.
Mehta Living Trust vs. AIG SunAmerica Life Assurance Company,
Case 04L0199," has been transferred to the United States
District Court for the District of Maryland.

The lawsuit, originally filed in the Circuit Court, Twentieth
Judicial District in St. Clair County, Illinois, alleges certain
improprieties in conjunction with alleged market timing
activities.  The probability of any particular outcome cannot be
reasonably estimated at this time, the Company said in a
disclosure to the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission.

The action has been transferred to and is currently pending in
the United States District Court for the District of Maryland,
Case No. 04-md-15863, as part of a Multi-District Litigation
proceeding.


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

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

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

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

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

Copies of the complaint and stipulated order are available from
the FTC's Web site at http://www.ftc.govand also from the FTC's  
Consumer Response Center, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue,
N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580. The FTC works for the consumer to
prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices in
the marketplace and to provide information to help consumers
spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or
Spanish (bilingual counselors are available to take complaints),
or to get free information on any of 150 consumer topics, call
toll-free, 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357), or use the complaint
form at http://www.ftc.gov.The FTC enters Internet,  
telemarketing, identity theft, and other fraud-related
complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database
available to hundreds of civil and criminal law enforcement
agencies in the U.S. and abroad.  For more details, contact
Mitchell Katz, Office of Public Affairs by Phone: 202-326-2161
or contact Michael Davis, Bureau of Consumer Protection by
Phone: 202-326-2458, or visit the Website:
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2005/09/bizzopflop.htm.


CALIFORNIA PIZZA: Reaches Settlement For CA Overtime Wage Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
California Pizza Kitchen, Inc. asked the California Superior
Court in Orange County to grant final approval to the settlement
of the overtime wage class action filed against it.  

One of the Company's former servers filed the suit in October
2003.  The plaintiff alleges that the Company failed to give its
food servers, bussers, runners and bartenders rest and meal
breaks as required by California law.  Under the California
Labor Code, an employer must pay each employee one additional
hour of pay at the employee's regular rate of compensation for
each workday that the required meal or rest period is not
provided. The plaintiff also alleges that additional penalties
are owed as a consequence of the Company's resulting failure to
pay all wages due at the time of termination of employment and
under theories characterizing these alleged breaches as unfair
business practices.

If the plaintiff were able to achieve class certification and
prevail on the merits of the case, the Company could potentially
be liable for significant amounts.  The Company said in a
regulatory filing that it believes that all of its employees
were provided with the opportunity to take all required meal and
rest breaks.  The Company participated in formal mediation and
have exchanged information on an informal basis and engaged in
numerous meetings and telephone conferences with opposing
counsel in furtherance of settlement.

In order to avoid the uncertainty of litigation, to avoid
further disruption in the workplace and to curtail legal
expenses, the Company agreed to a settlement that received
preliminary approval from the Court on June 29, 2005. The
settlement contains a maximum pay-out of $1.3 million to all
non-exempt employees who worked in any of the Company's
restaurants located in California between October 1, 2000 and
December 1, 2004.  Class Notices were sent out to class members
on or about July 15, 2005.  The Court held the final Fairness
Hearing on September 16, 2005.  Following an Order of Final
Approval from the Court, the agreed upon sums will be paid out,
and the case will be considered fully and finally settled.


CINTAS CORPORATION: Ordered to Pay Wages For Violating Ordinance
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rental uniform company Cintas was ordered to pay more than
$800,000 in back wages for violating the city's living-wage
ordinance, The Associated Press reports.

Alameda Superior Court Judge Steven Brick denied claims by the
company that the ordinance was unconstitutional and ordered the
company to pay $805,243, plus $300,000 in interest.  After
ruling was handed down, Nelva Hernandez, 45, of San Leandro, one
of two women who sued Cintas in 2003 told The Associated Press,
"For me, it's a victory." Ms. Hernandez along with Francisa
Amaral, 35, who work at Cintas' San Leandro laundry plant, filed
the class action lawsuit.

In the suit, the pair alleged that they were receiving $7.10 and
$8.20 per hour, respectively, without health coverage.  The
city's living-wage ordinance companies are required to pay their
workers a minimum wage of $9.26 per hour plus health insurance,
or $10.71 per hour for those who don't get health benefits.

Cintas spokeswoman Pam Lowe told The Associated Press that the
company is currently reviewing the ruling.


CONAGRA FOODS: CA Court Approves Securities Lawsuit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for Nebraska granted final
approval to the settlement of the securities class action filed
against ConAgra Foods, Inc. and certain of its executive
officers, styled "Gebhardt v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., et. al., Case
No. 810CV427."

The suit alleges violations of the federal securities laws in
connection with the events resulting in the Company's June 2001
restatement of its financial statements. The complaint sought a
declaration that the action was maintainable as a class action
and that the plaintiff was a proper class representative,
unspecified compensatory damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and
any other relief deemed proper by the court.

The company reached an agreement, which received final approval
by the court on May 24, 2005, to settle the lawsuit for $14
million. The settlement, which is largely covered by insurance,
is without admission of liability or wrongdoing.

The suit is styled "Gebhardt, et al v. Conagra Foods, et al.,
case no. 4:01-cv-00427-RGK-DLP," filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Nebraska, under Judge Richard
G. Kopf.  Representing the Company are Patrick E. Brookhouser,
Jr., Edward G. Warin and Leo A. Knowles, MCGRATH, NORTH LAW
FIRM, 1601 Dodge Street, Suite 3700, First National Tower,
Omaha, NE 68102-1627, Phone: (402) 341-3070, Fax:
(402) 341-0216, E-mail: pbrookhouser@mnmk.com,
lknowles@mnmk.com, ewarin@mnmk.com; and John A. Valentine and
Andrew B. Weissman, WILMER, CUTLER LAW FIRM, 2445 M Street,
N.W., Washington, DC 20037-1420, Phone: (202) 663-6277, Fax:
202-663-6363.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) David Paul Bleistein, Efrat Levy, Robert Rosen, ROSEN
         LAW FIRM - CALIFORNIA, 300 South Grand Avenue, Suite
         2700, Los Angeles, CA 90071-3137, Phone: (213) 362-1000

     (2) Sanford P. Dumain, Lori G. Feldman, Ann M. Lipton,
         MILBERG, WEISS LAW FIRM - NEW YORK, One Pennsylvania
         Plaza, 49th Floor, New York, NY 10119-0165, Phone:
         (212) 594-5300, Fax: (212) 868-1229, E-mail:
         lfeldman@milberg.com or alipton@milberg.com  

     (3) Paul J. Geller, LERACH, COUGHLIN LAW FIRM - FLORIDA,
         197 South Federal Highway, Suite 200, Boca Raton, FL
         33432, Phone: (561) 750-3000, Fax: (561) 750-3364
  
     (4) David Kessler, Michael K. Yarnoff, Marc A. Topaz,
         SCHIFFRIN, BARROWAY LAW FIRM, 280 King of Prussia Road,
         Radnor, PA 19087, Phone: (610) 822-2226, Fax: (610)
         667-7056, E-mail: DKessler@sbclasslaw.com or
         mtopaz@sbclasslaw.com

     (5) Thomas M. White, WHITE, WULFF LAW FIRM, 209 South 19th
         Street, Suite 300, Omaha, NE 68102-1705, Phone: (402)
         346-5700, Fax: (402) 346-5999, E-mail:
         TWhite@WhiteWulff.com   

     (6) Alfred G. Yates, Jr., 429 Forbes Avenue, 519 Allegheny
         Building, Pittsburgh, PA 15219-1649


CONAGRA FOODS: Shareholders Launch Stock Fraud Suits in NE, NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
ConAgra Foods, Inc. and its chief executive officer face three
class actions filed in Nebraska and New York federal courts,
alleging violations of federal securities laws.

On June 21, 2005, a purported class action, styled "Berlien v.
ConAgra Foods, Inc., et. al., Case No. 805CV292" was filed in
United States District Court for Nebraska, and on June 30, 2005,
a purported class action, styled "Calvacca v. ConAgra Foods,
Inc., et. al., Case No. 805CV00318" was filed in the same court.
On July 26, 2005, a purported class action, styled "Woods v.
ConAgra Foods, Inc., et. al., Case No. 6707," was filed in
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York. Each lawsuit.

The lawsuits allege violations of the federal securities laws in
connection with the events resulting in the Company's April
2005 restatement of its financial statements and related
matters.  Each complaint seeks a declaration that the action is
maintainable as a class action and that the plaintiff is a
proper class representative, unspecified compensatory damages,
reasonable attorneys' fees and any other relief deemed
proper by the court.


CONAGRA FOODS: Faces Lawsuits For ERISA Violations in NE Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
ConAgra Foods, Inc. faces several purported class actions filed
in the United States District Court for the District of
Nebraska, styled "Rantala v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., et. al., Case
No. 805CV349," and "Bright v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., et. al., Case
No. 805CV348."

The lawsuits are against the company and its directors and its
employee benefits committee on behalf of participants in the
company's employee retirement income savings plans. The lawsuits
allege violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
(ERISA) in connection with the events resulting in the company's
April 2005 restatement of its financial statements and related
matters. Each complaint seeks unspecified amount of damages,
injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and other equitable monetary
relief.


CORNERSTONE PROPANE: SEC Launches Civil Suit V. Former Officers
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed civil charges
against five individuals formerly associated with Cornerstone
Propane Partners, L.P.: former chief executive officer, Keith G.
Baxter; former chief financial officer, Ronald J. Goedde; former
vice president of finance and acting chief financial officer,
Richard D. Nye; former controller, Robert E. Ellington; and
former divisional chief financial officer, Anthony W. O'Dell.
During the time period referenced in the Commission's complaint,
Cornerstone was headquartered in Watsonville, California, and
sold retail propane and traded other wholesale energy
commodities.  The Commission's complaint, filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California,
alleges that these five individuals were responsible for
Cornerstone's reporting of materially false financial results in
Commission filings and press releases for the period June 2000
through September 2001.

The Commission's complaint alleges that, during Cornerstone's
2000 and 2001 fiscal years, the defendants caused Cornerstone to
file financial statements that were materially inaccurate and
unreliable in light of Cornerstone's failure to properly track
its assets and liabilities.  The complaint further alleges that
the defendants failed to make other required disclosures in
Cornerstone's filings, and that they concealed Cornerstone's
fundamental accounting errors from the company's outside
auditors.  According to the complaint, Cornerstone eventually
wrote off $9.8 million of unsubstantiated balances at fiscal    
year-end 2001 as a result of its accounting errors, but Baxter
and Nye mischaracterized the nature of this adjustment in order
to hide the company's past accounting failures from investors.

The Commission's complaint charges Mr. Baxter, Mr. Goedde and
Mr. Nye with violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities and
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.  The complaint
further charges all defendants with violations of Section
13(b)(5) of the Exchange Act and Rules 13b2-1, and 13b2-2
thereunder, and with aiding and abetting Cornerstone's
violations of Sections 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A), and 13(b)(2)(B) of
the Exchange Act and Rules 12b-20, 13a-1, and 13a-13 thereunder.  
The Commission's complaint seeks permanent injunctions,
disgorgement with prejudgment interest, civil penalties, and
officer and director bars.

Mr. Ellington and Mr. O'Dell, without admitting or denying the
allegations in the Commission's complaint, each consented to an
entry of a final judgment permanently enjoining them from
violating or aiding and abetting violations of the provisions
they allegedly violated, imposing a $25,000 civil penalty
against Ellington and waiving the imposition of a civil penalty
against O'Dell based upon his sworn financial statements and
other documents submitted to the Commission.  The action is
styled, SEC v. Keith G. Baxter, Ronald J. Goedde, Richard D.
Nye, Robert E. Ellington and Anthony W. O'Dell, United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, Civil
Action No. C05-3843, PVT (LR-19391).


DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: CA Court Orders Stock Suits Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California ordered consolidated the securities class actions
filed against Dreamworks Animation SKG, Inc. between June 1 and
August 1, 2005, alleging violations of federal securities laws.  
The suit also names as defendants several of the Company's
officers and directors.

Seven of these lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California and are pending before a
single judge; the eighth was filed in the Superior Court of the
State of California. The lawsuits generally assert that the
Company and certain of its officers and directors made alleged
material misstatements and omissions in certain press releases,
SEC filings and other public statements, including in connection
with the Company's initial public offering in October 2004, and
seek to recover damages on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
securities during the purported class period (which varies by
lawsuit, but encompasses the period from October 28, 2004 to May
10, 2005).

In July 2005, one of these lawsuits was amended to add
additional causes of action under the federal securities laws
and additional officer and director defendants, and to extend
the purported class period to an ending date of July 11, 2005;
that complaint has since been voluntarily dismissed. The federal
cases have been consolidated and a lead plaintiff will be
appointed to file a consolidated and amended class action
complaint.


DOUBLETREE RV: Recalls 142 2005 Mobile Suites Due to Crash Risk
---------------------------------------------------------------
Doubletree RV in cooperation with the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration's Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) is
voluntarily recalling about 142 units of 2005 Double Tree /
Mobile Suites due to crash risk. NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID Number:
05V425000.

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

As a remedy, Doubletree is working with Tredit Tire to notify
owners and have the wheels replaced.  

For more details, Doubletree, Phone: 574-457-6472, and NHTSA
Auto Safety Hotline: 1-888-327-4236 or (TTY) 1-800-424-9153, Web
site: http://www.safecar.gov.


EL POLLO: Customers Commence ADA Violations Lawsuit in C.D. CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
El Pollo Loco, Inc. faces a class action filed in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California,
alleging violations of the Americans With Disabilities Act of
1990 (ADA).

The American Disability Institute, a non-profit Pennsylvania
corporation, Orlando Hardy, Jr. and Joann Montes filed the suit
on June 14,2005 on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, alleging violations of the ADA, the Unruh Civil Rights
Act in California and the California Disabled Persons Act.  The
suit alleges the Company denied plaintiffs full and equal access
and accommodations to its facilities.  Plaintiffs requested
remedies include certification of the class, injunctive relief,
statutory damages and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.

The suit is styled "American Disability Institute et al v. El
Pollo Loco Inc., case no. 2:05-cv-04305-MMM-SS," filed in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California, under Judge Margaret M. Morrow.  Representing the
plaintiffs is Thomas D Mauriello of Thomas D Mauriello Law
Offices, 100 Pine St, Ste 3200, San Francisco, CA 94911, Phone:
415-677-1238.  Representing the Company is Scott J. Ferrell and
Gregory S. Taylor of Call Jensen & Ferrell, 610 Newport Center
Drive, Suite 700, Newport Beach, CA 92660, Phone: 949-717-3000,
E-mail: sferrell@calljensen.com or gtaylor@calljensen.com.


EMERSON RADIO: NJ Court Yet To Rule on Securities Suit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
has yet to rule on Emerson Radio Corporation's motion seeking
the dismissal of the consolidated securities class action filed
against it, Geoffrey Jurick, Kenneth Corby and John Raab.

Between September 4, 2003 and October 30, 2003, several putative
class action lawsuits were filed on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's publicly traded securities between January 29, 2003
and August 12, 2003.  On December 17, 2003, the Court entered a
Joint Stipulation and Order consolidating these putative class
actions under the caption "In Re Emerson Radio Corp. Securities
Litigation, 03cv4201 (JLL)."  Further to that Stipulation and
Order, lead plaintiff was appointed and co-lead counsel and co-
liaison counsel were approved by the Court in the Consolidated
Action. Consistent with the Stipulation and Order, the
plaintiffs filed an Amended Consolidated Complaint (the "Amended
Complaint") that, among other things, added Jerome Farnum, one
of Emerson's directors, as an individual defendant in the
litigation.

Generally, the Amended Complaint alleges that the Company and
the Individual Defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
there under, by issuing certain positive statements during the
Class Period regarding the Company's ability to replace lost
revenues attributable to the Hello Kitty(R) license and omitting
to disclose that the Company suffered allegedly soured
relationships with its largest retail customers.  The Amended
Complaint further alleges that these statements were materially
false and misleading when made because the Company allegedly
misrepresented and omitted certain adverse facts which then
existed and disclosure of which was necessary to make the
statements not false and misleading.

The Company and the individual defendants moved to dismiss the
Complaint in its entirety for failure to state a claim.  The
motion to dismiss was fully briefed and was submitted to the
Court on October 15, 2004.  The Court's decision on the motion
is pending.

The suit is styled "PELONE, et al v. EMERSON RADIO CORP., et al,
case no. 2:03-cv-04201-JLL-RJH," filed in the United States
District Court in New Jersey, under Judge Jose L. Linares.  
Representing the Company is Steven M. Hecht of LOWENSTEIN
SANDLER PC, 65 Livingston Avenue, Roseland NJ 07068-1791, Phone:
(973) 597-2500, E-mail: shecht@lowenstein.com.  Representing the
plaintiffs are Joseph J. DePalma, LITE, DEPALMA, GREENBERG &
RIVAS, LLC, Two Gateway Center, 12th Floor, Newark NJ 07102-5003
Phone: (973) 623-3000, E-mail: jdepalma@ldgrlaw.com; and Andrew
Robert Jacobs, EPSTEIN FITZSIMMONS BROWN GIOIA JACOBS & SPROULS,
245 Green Village Road, PO Box 901, Chatham Township NJ 07928-
0901, Phone: (973) 593-4900, E-mail: ajacobs@epsteinfitz.com.


ERIE FAMILY: Plaintiffs Working For Final PA Lawsuit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Parties continue to work towards a finalized settlement
agreement for the civil class action filed against Erie Family
Life Insurance Company in the Court of Common Pleas of
Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania.

The Company issued a life insurance policy to the plaintiff. The
class action alleges that the Company charged and collected
annual premium for the first year, but did not provide 365 days
of insurance coverage. The complaint alleges that the policy
forms and applications used by the Company do not disclose "that
a portion of the first premium will cover a period of time
during which the Company does not provide insurance coverage."

The Complaint contains four counts. In Count I, Plaintiff
alleges that the conduct of the Company violated the
Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law.
Count II of the Complaint alleges a cause of action for breach
of contract. Count III alleges that the Company breached its
duty of good faith and fair dealing. In Count IV of the
Complaint, Plaintiff asserts a cause of action for unjust
enrichment and/or restitution.  The Company answered the
Complaint and denied liability on all counts.

In early 2004, the parties reached an agreement to settle this
lawsuit. Under the Settlement Agreement, the Company agreed to
provide supplemental life insurance coverage to qualifying class
members in an amount equal to 4.62% of the face value of the
underlying policy for a period of 180 days.  On April 30, 2004,
Plaintiff filed a Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement
Agreement. After the filing of the Motion for Preliminary
Approval, Plaintiff and the Company agreed the Company would pay
attorneys' fees in an amount up to $150,000, and to reimburse
certain litigation costs and expenses in an amount up to
$15,000.

The Court preliminarily reviewed the proposed settlement. As a
result of conferences with the Court, the parties engaged in
further settlement negotiations. The parties entered into an
Amended and Re-Stated Class Action Settlement Agreement. On
March 11, 2005, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Preliminary
Approval of the Amended and Re-Stated Class Action Settlement
Agreement.

The Settlement Agreement provides qualifying class members the
option of choosing the supplemental life insurance coverage,
discussed above, or a cash payment.  Qualifying class members
who select the cash payment option shall receive a maximum of
one cash payment of $10.67 for each policy, irrespective of
number of purchasers and/or owners of the policy. If a
qualifying class member does not submit a cash payment selection
form within the timeframe set forth in the Settlement Agreement,
the qualifying class member shall automatically receive the
supplemental life insurance coverage. The Company agrees to pay
attorneys' fees in an amount up to $150,000, and will reimburse
administrative costs and expenses in an amount up to $14,000.

The Court preliminarily reviewed the proposed settlement. As a
result of conferences with the Court, the parties have engaged
in further settlement negotiations. A new Settlement Agreement
has not been finalized or executed. If and when a new Settlement
Agreement is finalized, it will be submitted to the Court for
approval.


FAB INDUSTRIES: Reaches Preliminary Settlement For DE Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fab Industries, Inc. reached a stipulation of settlement for the
class action filed against it and certain of its officers and
directors in the Delaware Court of Chancery.

On November 10, 2003, a class action complaint was filed,
asserting claims based on the management buy-out proposal at a
price allegedly lower than the cash value and book value of the
Company's shares which was an allegedly interested transaction,
the amendment to its chief executive officer Samson Bitensky's
employment contract, and the Company's failure to file a
certificate of dissolution with the Delaware Secretary of State.
The complaint alleges such actions constitute violations of
defendants' fiduciary duties, as well as the provisions of the
Delaware General Corporation Law.  The complaint does not seek a
specific amount of damages, and seeks to enjoin defendants from
effectuating the planned management buyout.  The Company served
an answer to the complaint on December 11, 2003.  On each of
November 21 and November 26, 2003, additional class action
lawsuits were initiated against the Company in Delaware Chancery
Court, asserting substantially the same allegations as those
described above.

The Company believes that each of the claims described above is
without merit. Further, certain of the claims described above
have been rendered moot by the withdrawal of the preliminary
offer by the management-led buyout group to acquire the Company.

By petition dated September 9, 2004, plaintiff requested that
all of its claims be dismissed because they have been rendered
moot by the withdrawal of the management buy-out and there is no
current plan to effectuate a sale of the Company's assets.
Plaintiff also petitioned the Court for an award of reasonable
attorney's fees in the amount of $300,000 and attorney's
expenses of $13,794.05 (the "Fee Petition") because plaintiff's
claim conferred a benefit on the Company's public stockholders
by preventing the consummation of the proposed management buy-
out and preserving the value of the public stockholders'
investment in the Company's stock. The Company opposed the
petition.

On December 29, 2004 the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware denied the Fee Petition. The Court concluded that the
Fee Petition should be denied as plaintiff's claims either were
not meritorious when filed or, to the extent that they were,
they are not yet moot.

Following that decision, plaintiff moved for summary judgment on
its claims relating to the Company's alleged failure to timely
file a certificate of dissolution and seeking a declaration that
the plan of dissolution (the "Plan") is invalid for failure to
require a shareholder vote before the sale of all of the
Company's assets. The motions were fully briefed and argued
before the Court on April 12, 2005. On May 2, 2005, the court
issued its opinion holding that the Plan is valid in its
entirety and that the Company has not violated Delaware law by
not yet filing its certificate of dissolution.  The court stated
that the Company may negotiate and agree to a sale before the
certificate of dissolution is filed, but that the sale cannot be
consummated until the certificate of dissolution has become
effective. The court concluded that once the dissolution becomes
effective, the Company may consummate a sale of its assets
without a shareholder vote.

The closing on the asset sale is subject to the Trust, as
successor to the Company, reaching final settlement of its
previously disclosed shareholder litigation. The Company and the
plaintiffs have entered into a Stipulation of Settlement
pursuant to which the shareholder litigation will be dismissed
if the court approves such settlement. A settlement hearing has
been scheduled for September 21, 2005. At the settlement
hearing, the court will, among other things, determine whether
or not to approve the settlement of the shareholder litigation.


FIRST CENTURY: Named in CT Interchange Fee Antitrust Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
First Century Bankshares, Inc. and its subsidiary, First Century
Bank, N.A., were named as defendants in the putative class
action, styled "Photos, Etc. Corporation v. Providian Financial
Corporation et al.," filed in the United States District Court
for the District Court of Connecticut on behalf of retailers in
several states.  

The suit, which also names VISA, Master Card and various other
defendants, alleges anti-trust violations including price
fixing, collusion and conspiracy in the setting of interchange
fees and the "tying" of products and services.


FLORIDA: Federal Judge Approves HMO Settlements With Physicians
---------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Court Judge Federico Moreno approved an estimated
$167 million in settlements by two managed health care
companies, Health Net Inc. and Prudential Financial Services, in
a massive class action lawsuit by hundreds of thousands of
doctors nationwide, The Associated Press reports.  The
settlements bring the number of agreements approved by Judge
Moreno to four in the class action lawsuit by doctors and
medical societies against 10 of the nation's largest HMOs.

Under the settlement, Health Net will pay $40 million to active
and retired doctors and on top of that it will also spend an
estimated $80 million to improve its processing of doctors' bill
submissions.  Meanwhile, Prudential under its settlement will
pay $22.2 million to improve managed care and will ensure that
other companies follow through on their settlements.  
Additionally both Health Net and Prudential will pay $20 million
and $5 million in doctors' attorney fees, respectively.

Previously, WellPoint Health Networks Inc. and Anthem Inc. have
reached tentative settlements in the same litigation. Since the
legal actions began in 2000 Prudential has been sold to Aetna
and Anthem has merged with WellPoint.

Harley Tropin, a lead attorney for the doctors told The
Associated Press, "These latest settlements are significant in
the changes that will be made in the treatment and payment to
doctors similar to those agreed to by CIGNA and Aetna."  
Mr. Tropin also told The Associated Press that the trial is
scheduled in January for the four remaining management
companies, Coventry Health Care Inc., UnitedHealth Group Inc.,
Humana Inc. and Pacificare Health Systems Inc., but negotiations
to reach settlements are still ongoing.

Suits against the 10 HMOs were combined into a single class
action lawsuit and assigned by a panel of federal judges to
Judge Moreno of Florida.


FLORIDA: U.S. Government Apology Part of "Gold Train" Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
As part of a recently approved $25.5 million settlement,
Hungarian Holocaust survivors whose possessions were plundered
by the Nazis and later seized by American soldiers will finally
get what has eluded them for 60 years: an apology from the U.S.
government, The Miami Herald reports.

The apology settlement stems from a class action lawsuit by
Hungarian Jews who lost art, jewels and other items when
American Soldiers seized the 40-car German "Gold Train" in
Austria in 1945 at the end of World War II.

Instead of returning the property to its owners, U.S. officials
auctioned much of it to pay for refugee relief efforts. A
presidential commission though later found that American
generals kept some of the luxurious items.

At a recent hearing in a Miami federal court, Justice Department
attorneys did not specify what the apology would say, or even
which branch of the government would issue it. The apology
though, according to the attorneys, will be released 10 days
after U.S. District Judge Patricia Seitz signs the papers
formally ending the class action lawsuit and approving the
agreement with about 60,000 survivors who lost their belongings,
which includes about 475 Hungarian Jews in Miami-Dade County.

Sam Dubbin, who was among several lawyers who filed the suit for
the survivors in 2001 told The Miami Herald, "The
acknowledgement is definitely an important part of the case. The
case was never about money primarily. The case is about
accountability."

For those who initiated the lawsuit, the end brought relief. "It
was like carrying a burden," David Mermelstein of Kendall and
president of the Coalition of Holocaust Survivors in South
Florida, tells The Miami Herald. "We felt terrible that we had
to sue the United States of America. We love our country," he
adds.

Though the money from the settlement wont go to individual
victims, it will instead go to social services organizations
worldwide to benefit Jews who lived in Hungary at the end of the
war.

A panel of experts devised a population-based formula allotting
42.5 percent of the settlement to organizations in Israel, 22.7
percent in Hungary, 20.1 percent to the United States, and the
rest to other countries.

Mr. Dubbin also told The Miami Herald, "The majority of these
people are in their 80s and 90s," adding that, "This is going to
be a lot of help to a lot of people."

Despite formal protests to the settlement terms by about 350
survivors, who objected primarily to the lack of personal claims
and the division among countries, in the end, Judge Seitz
approved the settlement formula.

Among those who urged the judge to approve the settlement was
U.S. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Miami, who lobbied presidential
advisor Karl Rove to get the Bush administration to settle the
case.


GLOBAL WEB: Court Orders Halt To Illegal Spam Operations, Fraud
---------------------------------------------------------------
A U.S. district court judge has ordered a permanent halt to an
operation that used illegal spam to make bogus claims for human
growth hormone products that contained no human growth hormone
and diet patches that did not provide the miraculous results
they claimed. Judge Marvin E. Aspen ruled that the operators
were violating federal laws and ordered them to pay a total of
$2.2 million - the entire amount of their ill-gotten gain.

In April 2004, the FTC filed legal charges against Global Web
Promotions Pty Ltd., an Australian company that the FTC alleges
is responsible for massive amounts of spam in the United States.
Global Web claimed its human growth hormone products "HGH" and
"Natural HGH" could "maintain [a user's] appearance and current
biological age for the next 10 to 20 years." Experts cited by
the FTC disputed the claims, and the FTC alleged the claims were
false. The products do not contain growth hormone of any sort,
according to papers filed with the court. The operation also
promoted a diet patch it sold, claiming it could result in
weight loss of as much as six pounds per week. The FTC alleged
the claims were unsubstantiated. The diet patch was sold for
$80.90 and the HGH products cost $74.95.

In addition to making the deceptive and unsubstantiated claims,
which the FTC alleged violate the FTC Act, the FTC also alleged
that Global Web and its principals forged headers on e-mail to
make it appear that they came from an innocent third parties - a
practice known as spoofing. Undeliverable e-mail is returned to
the innocent victims, often flooding their servers and
interfering with normal operations. Spoofing violates the CAN-
SPAM Act.

At the request of the FTC, the judge ordered a temporary halt to
the claims and issued orders to the U.S. companies filling the
orders for the patches and HGH products to stop filling Global
Web's orders in the United States. The court also temporarily
froze assets located in the United States.

The FTC charged Global Web Promotions Pty Ltd., Michael John
Anthony Van Essen, and Lance Thomas Atkinson with violations of
the FTC Act and the CAN-SPAM Act. In addition to barring the
false claims in its final judgment, the court concluded that the
defendants made $490,280 selling the bogus diet patches and HGH
products, and earned $1,709,982.74 sending illegal spam for
affiliates that also made deceptive claims for dietary
supplements. The court ordered the defendants to give up
$2,200,262 - the total of their ill-gotten gains.

The Global Web Promotions Pty case was brought with the
assistance of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission
and the New Zealand Commerce Commission.

Copies of the complaint and default judgment are available from
the FTC's Web site at http://www.ftc.govand also from the FTC's  
Consumer Response Center, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue,
N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580. The FTC works for the consumer to
prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices in
the marketplace and to provide information to help consumers
spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or
Spanish (bilingual counselors are available to take complaints),
or to get free information on any of 150 consumer topics, call
toll-free, 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357), or use the complaint
form at http://www.ftc.gov.The FTC enters Internet,  
telemarketing, identity theft, and other fraud-related
complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database
available to hundreds of civil and criminal law enforcement
agencies in the U.S. and abroad.  For more details, contact
Claudia Bourne Farrell, Office of Public Affairs by Phone:
202-326-2181 or contact Steven M. Wernikoff, FTC Midwest Region
by Phone: 312-960-5630 or visit the Website:
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2005/09/globalpromotions.htm.


HOLOCAUST LITIGATION: Gov't Apology Part of "Gold Train" Pact
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hungarian Holocaust survivors whose possessions were plundered
by the Nazis and later seized by American soldiers will finally
get what has eluded them for 60 years: an apology from the U.S.
government, as part of a recently approved $25.5 million
settlement, The Miami Herald reports.

The apology settlement stems from a class action lawsuit by
Hungarian Jews who lost art, jewels and other items when
American Soldiers seized the 40-car German "Gold Train" in
Austria in 1945 at the end of World War II.  Instead of
returning the property to its owners, U.S. officials auctioned
much of it to pay for refugee relief efforts. A presidential
commission though later found that American generals kept some
of the luxurious items.

At a recent hearing in a Miami federal court, Justice Department
attorneys did not specify what the apology would say, or even
which branch of the government would issue it. The apology
though, according to the attorneys, will be released 10 days
after U.S. District Judge Patricia Seitz signs the papers
formally ending the class action lawsuit and approving the
agreement with about 60,000 survivors who lost their belongings,
which includes about 475 Hungarian Jews in Miami-Dade County.

Sam Dubbin, who was among several lawyers who filed the suit for
the survivors in 2001 told The Miami Herald, "The
acknowledgement is definitely an important part of the case. The
case was never about money primarily. The case is about
accountability."

For those who initiated the lawsuit, the end brought relief. "It
was like carrying a burden," David Mermelstein of Kendall and
president of the Coalition of Holocaust Survivors in South
Florida, tells The Miami Herald. "We felt terrible that we had
to sue the United States of America. We love our country," he
adds.

Though the money from the settlement wont go to individual
victims, it will instead go to social services organizations
worldwide to benefit Jews who lived in Hungary at the end of the
war.  A panel of experts devised a population-based formula
allotting 42.5 percent of the settlement to organizations in
Israel, 22.7 percent in Hungary, 20.1 percent to the United
States, and the rest to other countries.

Mr. Dubbin also told The Miami Herald, "The majority of these
people are in their 80s and 90s," adding that, "This is going to
be a lot of help to a lot of people."

Despite formal protests to the settlement terms by about 350
survivors, who objected primarily to the lack of personal claims
and the division among countries, in the end, Judge Seitz
approved the settlement formula.  Among those who urged the
judge to approve the settlement was U.S. Rep. Ileana Ros-
Lehtinen, R-Miami, who lobbied presidential advisor Karl Rove to
get the Bush administration to settle the case.


H&H TRAILER: Recalls Trailers Due to Crash Hazard, Faulty Tires
---------------------------------------------------------------
H&H Trailer Company in cooperation with the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration's Office of Defects Investigation
(ODI) is voluntarily recalling about 6 units of H&H / Trailers
due to crash hazard. NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID Number: 05V420000.

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

As a remedy, H&H is working with Tredit Tire to notify owners
and have the wheels replaced. The recall is expected to begin on
September 28, 2005.

For more details, contact H&H, Phone: 712-589-3100, and NHTSA
Auto Safety Hotline: 1-888-327-4236 or (TTY) 1-800-424-9153, Web
site: http://www.safecar.gov.


JOHN Q. HAMMONS: Asks DE Court To Dismiss Investor Fraud Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
John Q. Hammons Hotels, Inc. asked the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware in and for New Castle County to dismiss the
two class action lawsuits were filed against it and its board of
directors, styled "Jolly Roger Fund L.P. and Jolly Roger
Offshore Fund, Ltd. vs. John Q. Hammons Hotels Inc., et al,"
filed October 19, 2004, and "Garco Investments LLP v. John Q.
Hammons Hotels, Inc., et al," filed October 20, 2004.

Both actions sought injunctive relief to prevent a proposed
transaction pursuant to which Barcelo Crestline Corporation
would acquire the Company. Plaintiffs alleged that the proposed
transaction was unfair to the Company's shareholders because the
consideration offered was too low.  

The Chancery Court consolidated the two lawsuits. Subsequently,
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that seeks injunctive
relief if we fail to treat bidders equally. On May 6, 2005, the
Company filed a motion to dismiss.


LAZARD LTD.: Shareholders Launch Fraud, Derivative Suits in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lazard Ltd. and Goldman Sachs & Co., the lead underwriter of its
equity public offering of its Class A Common Stock, as well as
several members of its management and board of directors, face
several putative class action lawsuits and a putative
stockholder derivative lawsuit filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, and in a
putative class action lawsuit and a putative stockholder
derivative lawsuit filed in the Supreme Court of the State of
New York.

The defendants have moved to remove the putative class action
lawsuit filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York to
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.  
The putative class action lawsuits purport to have been filed on
behalf of persons who purchased Company securities of in
connection with the equity public offering or in the open
market. The putative class actions allege various violations of
the federal securities laws and seek, inter alia, compensatory
damages, rescission or rescissory damages and other unspecified
equitable, injunctive or other relief. The putative derivative
actions purport to be brought on behalf of the Company against
its directors and Goldman Sachs & Co. and allege, among other
things, that the directors breached their fiduciary duties to
the Company in connection with matters related to the equity
public offering and seek compensatory damages, punitive damages
and other unspecified equitable or other relief.


LENDINGTREE INC.: SEC Launches Insider Trading Complaint in NC
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed an insider trading
complaint in the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina against Brian G. Paquette, the former
Vice President of Product Management at LendingTree, Inc., and
William G. Lawrence, a LendingTree employee.  LendingTree is a
financial services company based in Charlotte, North Carolina.
The Commission's complaint alleges that shortly before the May
5, 2003, public announcement that LendingTree was being acquired
by USA Interactive at a substantial premium to LendingTree
shareholders, Paquette improperly provided material nonpublic
information concerning the pending acquisition to Mr. Lawrence
and to a close friend and business associate outside the
company.  

The complaint alleges that both Mr. Lawrence and Mr. Paquette's
second tippee then purchased shares of LendingTree while in
possession of this material nonpublic information.  The
complaint further alleges that after the announcement, the price
of LendingTree stock soared, and Lawrence and the second tippee
sold their shares realizing unlawful profits of $2,109 and
$12,420, respectively.

Without admitting or denying the allegations in the complaint,
Mr. Paquette and Mr. Lawrence consented to the entry of final
judgments against them that permanently enjoin them from future
violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.  The final judgments also
require Paquette to pay a $29,058 civil penalty, which is equal
to two times the trading profits of his tippees, and require
Lawrence to disgorge his illegal trading profits of $2,109, plus
prejudgment interest, and pay a two-time civil penalty of
$4,218.

In a related criminal case, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the
Western District of North Carolina announced today that Paquette
has agreed to plead guilty to a felony obstruction of justice
charge, for providing false testimony in the Commission's
investigation.  The Commission wishes to thank the U.S.
Attorney's Office for its assistance in connection with this
matter.

The Commission previously has filed other insider trading cases
arising from this investigation.  See SEC v. Ricks, Woody, and
Mead, No. 3:04CV576, W.D.N.C. Nov. 22, 2004, LR-18983; SEC v.
Talbot, No. CV 04-4556, C.D., Cal. June 24, 2004, LR-18762; and
SEC v. Bartlett, No. 3:03CV463, W.D.N.C., Sept. 24, 2003.
The Commission's investigation continues.  [SEC v. Brian G.
Paquette and William G. Lawrence, Civil Action No. 3:05CV412,
W.D.N.C.]  (LR-19993).


MAYTAG CORPORATION: Recalls Washing Machines Due to Malfunction
---------------------------------------------------------------
In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC), Maytag Corporation, of Newton, Iowa and Samsung
Electronics Co. Ltd., of South Korea is voluntarily recalling
about 5,000 units of Maytag Front-Loading Washing Machines.

According to the companies, if the front-load washer is operated
at maximum load capacity the spinner could malfunction and break
apart, posing a safety risk to consumers.

The recall involves white Maytag front-load washers with model
number MAH9700 and a serial number from 10188468GA through
11683946GJ. The model and serial numbers are located inside the
door opening and below the rubber boot. Manufactured in South
Korea, the washing machines were sold at all major department
and appliance stores nationwide from April 2005 through May 2005
for about $1,300.

Remedy: Consumers should use care not to exceed the listed
capacity of their machines, and should contact Maytag for a free
in-home service call to replace the washer's control board.

Consumer Contact: Consumers can contact Maytag at (800) 462-9267
anytime, or visit the company's Web site: http://www.maytag.com.


MICROFINANCIAL INC.: Plaintiffs File Amended Consumer Suit in MA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs asked the Cambridge District Court in Massachusetts
for leave to file an amended nationwide consumer class action
against MicroFinancial, Inc., Leasecomm Corporation and one of
Leasecomm's dealers.

In March 2003, a purported class action was filed in Superior
Court in Massachusetts against Leasecomm and one of its dealers.
The class sought to be certified is a nationwide class
(excluding certain residents of the State of Texas) who signed
identical or substantially similar lease agreements with
Leasecomm covering the same product.  After the Company had
filed a motion to dismiss, but before the motion to dismiss was
heard by the Court, plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint.  The
Amended Complaint asserted claims against the Company for
declaratory relief, absence of consideration, unconscionability,
and violation of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 93A, Section
11.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint.  
The Court allowed the Company's motion to dismiss the Amended
Complaint in March 2004. In May 2004, a purported class action
on behalf of the same named plaintiffs and asserting the same
claims was filed.  The Company has filed a Motion to Dismiss the
Complaint, which was heard in August 2004, and denied by the
District Court.  On September 16, 2004, the Company filed an
Answer and Counterclaims to the Amended Complaint denying the
plaintiffs' allegations.  On March 2, 2005, the plaintiffs filed
a motion for leave to file an amended complaint.  In plaintiffs'
proposed amended complaint plaintiffs seek to add a claim for
usury against the Company.  On April 26, 2005, the Court allowed
the plaintiffs motion to amend the complaint. On July 1, 2005,
the Company filed an Answer, Affirmative Defenses and
Counterclaims to the Amended Complaint denying the plaintiff's
allegations.


MICROFINANCIAL INC.: Asks MA Court To Dismiss Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
MicroFinancial, Inc. asked the United States District Court for
the District of Massachusetts to dismiss the amended securities
class action filed against it on behalf of all persons who
purchased Company securities between February 5, 1999 and
October 30, 2002.

In October 2003, the Company was served with a purported class
action complaint alleging violations of the federal securities
laws.  The complaint asserts that during this period the Company
made a series of materially false or misleading statements about
the Company's business, prospects and operations, including with
respect to certain lease provisions, the Company's course of
dealings with its vendor/dealers, and the Company's reserves for
credit losses.

In April 2004, an Amended Class Action Complaint was filed which
added additional defendants and expanded upon the prior
allegations with respect to the Company. The Company has filed a
Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint, which is awaiting
decision by the Court.


MICROFINANCIAL INC.: AL Court Approves Consumer Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Alabama Superior Court in Bullock County approved the
settlement of the class action filed against MicroFinancial,
Inc.  The suit filed on August 22, 2002 by plaintiff Aaron Cobb,
also names as defendants Leasecomm Corporation and Galaxy Mall,
Inc.  The suit alleges:

     (1) breach of contract;

     (2) Fraud, Suppression and Deceit;

     (3) Unjust Enrichment;

     (4) Conspiracy;

     (5) Conversion;

     (6) Theft by Deception; and

     (7) violation of Alabama Usury Laws

The Complaint was filed on behalf of Aaron Cobb individually,
and on behalf of a class of persons and entities similarly
situated in the State of Alabama.  More specifically, the
Plaintiff purports to represent a class of persons and small
business in the State of Alabama who allegedly were induced to
purchase services and/or goods from any of the Defendants named
in the Complaint.

On March 31, 2003 the trial court entered an Order denying the
Company's Motion to Dismiss. An appeal of the Order was filed
with the Alabama Supreme Court on May 12, 2003.  On February 20,
2004, the Alabama Supreme Court overruled the Company's
application for rehearing.  On February 24, 2004, Plaintiff
filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint in which Plaintiff
added Electronic Commerce International (ECI) as an additional
party defendant. No new allegations were asserted against the
Company in the Amended Complaint. On March 31, 2004 the Company
filed an answer to the Amended Complaint denying the Plaintiff's
allegations. The Company also filed an additional motion to
enforce a forum selection clause, which, if successful, would
have caused the case to be dismissed with leave to re-file in
Massachusetts.  Galaxy Mall filed a similar motion. The motions
were scheduled to be heard in September 2004, however, the
parties have reached an agreement on settlement terms.  On April
14, 2005, the Court entered an Order Granting Preliminary
Approval of the proposed class settlement. Notice of the
settlement was distributed to all the class members in
accordance with the Court's instructions. Upon expiration of the
notice period, the parties sought and the court granted a Final
Order approving the settlement on July 7, 2005. This Order will
not become final until the 42-day appeal period has expired. The
settlement, approved in its current form, will not have a
material adverse effect on the Company.


NUVASIVE INC.: CA Court Orders Master Complaint in Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los
Angeles ordered the adoption of a master complaint for all class
actions filed against NuVasive, Inc., on behalf of a putative
class of families of decedents who donated their bodies to the
University of California in Los Angeles' (UCLA) medical school
for research and training purposes as part of UCLA's willed body
program.

On April 11, 2005, a class action lawsuit was filed in the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los
Angeles, titled "Beverly Holmes, Kenneth Pesso, Joanne Streek,
and Robert A. McDonough, on behalf of themselves and other
similarly situated plaintiffs v. Regents of the University of
California, The David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Ernest
V. Nelson, Henry G. Reid, Johnson & Johnson, NuVasive, Inc. and
does 1-1,000." The complaint alleges that the head of UCLA's
donor program, Henry G. Reid, and a third party, Ernest V.
Nelson, improperly sold some of the donated cadavers to the
Company and other defendants.  Plaintiffs allege the
following causes of action against all defendants:

     (1) breach of fiduciary duty,

     (2) negligence,

     (3) fraud,

     (4) negligent misrepresentation,

     (5) negligent infliction of emotional distress,

     (6) intentional infliction of emotional distress,

     (7) intentional interference with human remains,

     (8) negligent interference with human remains,

     (9) violation of California Business and Professions Code
         Section 17200 and

    (10) injunctive and declaratory relief

On May 5, 2005, the case was deemed complex and ordered to the
courtroom of Judge Carolyn B. Kuhl along with other actions
filed by unaffiliated families of decedents who donated their
remains to UCLA through its willed body program.

In addition, on June 23, 2005, the plaintiffs in a lawsuit
titled "Margaret Brown-Hurst, Linda C. James, Eric V. James, Jan
James, Dawn M. James and Emma James v. Regents of the University
of California; Henry Reid, Ernst V. Nelson and Albennie E.
Nelson, dba Empire Anatomical Services; Johnson & Johnson, a
corporation; Dupuy Mitek, Inc., a corporation, fka Mitek, Inc.,"
filed an amendment naming the Company as a Doe defendant. The
lawsuit generally involves the same kinds of factual allegations
and legal theories as the other related lawsuits, and was
consolidated in Judge Kuhl's chambers.

A status conference was held on July 13, 2005, at which time an
order was issued governing preliminary discovery, the adoption
of a Master Complaint for all related class action and
specifying a briefing schedule for the parties to file motions
challenging the Master Complaint.  The court will hear argument
on the defendents' challenges to the plaintiffs' complaint on
November 17, 2005.


OHIO: Bengals Fans Seek Certification For Ticket Dispute Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
An attorney representing several Cincinnati Bengals fans that
are claming the team improperly refused to allow them to cancel
their season tickets asked a judge to award their lawsuit class
action status, The Associated Press reports.

Janet Abaray specifically asked Judge Ruehlman at a recent
hearing to allow anyone who purchased tickets based on a 1997
brochure to join the lawsuit.

The ticket dispute involves fans who bought seat licenses sold
to raise money for construction of the new Paul Brown Stadium,
which had opened in 2000, based on the brochure, which allowed
buyers to lock in prices for six, eight or 10 years. Fans signed
an agreement acknowledging they gave up their seat license if
they stopped buying tickets.  However, a second document that
arrived with the seat assignments stated that the fans were
obligated to keep buying tickets through the full term of the
license, and that disputes must go to arbitration.

The fans eventually sued the team after it sent them letters
threatening to turn their cases over to collections agencies,
which they said could jeopardize their credit ratings. The
Bengals were trying to collect a total of $5.8 million,
according to Ms. Abaray. She pointed out, "This is not a trivial
amount of money. The Bengals are strong-arming people to collect
the money."

The Ohio Supreme Court refused in April to hear an appeal of a
decision by the 1st Ohio District Court of Appeals, which said
Ruehlman erred when he upheld the Bengals' position that the
dispute had to go to arbitration. The decision allowed the
lawsuit to go forward.

Eric Combs though, the lawyer representing the Bengals, told
Judge Ruehlman at the recent hearing that when the plaintiffs
picked a time period, they were agreeing to buy tickets for that
long, which was reflected in the prices. He contends, "Those who
picked shorter terms had to pay more."  After haring each side
arguments, Judge Ruehlman told both parties he would issue a
decision October 7.


PERKINELMER INC.: Plaintiffs Seek Certification For MA Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs asked the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts to grant class certification to the
lawsuit filed against PerkinElmer, Inc. and certain of its
senior officers.

In papers dated July 1, 2002, Kevin Hatch filed a purported
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts, Civil Action No. 02-11314 GAO,
against the Company and certain of its senior officers, on
behalf of himself and purchasers of the Company's common stock
between July 15, 2001 and April 11, 2002.

The lawsuit seeks an unspecified amount of damages and claims
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of, and Rule 10b-5 under,
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, alleging various statements
made during the putative class period by PerkinElmer and its
management were misleading with respect to our prospects and
future operating results.

At least eleven virtually identical lawsuits subsequently have
been filed in the United States District Court for the District
of Massachusetts against PerkinElmer.  The court granted the
plaintiffs' motion to consolidate these matters, and on January
13, 2003, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.

On February 25, 2003, the Company and the other defendants filed
a motion to dismiss the lawsuit.  The motion was opposed by the
plaintiffs, and oral arguments concerning the motion took place
on May 5, 2003.  On September 30, 2003, the Court issued a
memorandum and order denying the motion to dismiss.  On October
10, 2003, the Company and the other defendants filed a motion
for reconsideration or, in the alternative, for an order
allowing immediate appeal of several issues of law to the
appellate court.  The Court denied this motion in September
2004. In June 2005, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification, and in July 2005, the defendants filed a motion
for summary judgment, both of which are pending before the
Court. The case is currently in discovery relating to class
certification, and plaintiffs are seeking discovery from the
defendants and non-parties.  A hearing on pending motions is
scheduled during September 2005.


PINNACLE MARKETING: Settles Cortislim Consumer Fraud Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Three defendants will give up $4.5 million in cash and other
assets to settle Federal Trade Commission charges stemming from
their roles in the marketing of CortiSlim and CortiStress,
dietary supplements promoted for weight loss and disease
prevention, respectively. The surrendered assets will include an
investment partnership and related charitable foundation, a
boat, a truck, and a variety of real estate interests. As part
of the settlement, the defendants cannot seek a cash refund of
state or federal taxes for 2003, 2004, or 2005 that were paid
prior to the settlement. In its complaint, the FTC alleged that
the defendants made false or unsubstantiated product claims and
used deceptively formatted infomercials in pitching the dietary
supplements.

The defendants in the settlement announced today, California-
based Pinnacle Marketing Concepts, Inc. ("Pinnacle") and its
president, Thomas F. Cheng, and Utah-based Shawn M. Talbott,
cannot make benefit or efficacy claims for any dietary
supplement, food, drug, cosmetic, or device unless the claims
are truthful and substantiated. Litigation continues against the
four defendants who have not settled.

In September 2004, the Commission filed a complaint against
Window Rock Enterprises, Inc.; Stephen F. Cheng; Infinity
Advertising, Inc.; Gregory S. Cynaumon; and Shawn M. Talbott.
The Commission later amended its complaint to add Pinnacle and
Thomas F. Cheng as additional defendants. The FTC alleges that
advertising claims about CortiSlim's ability to, among other
things, cause rapid, substantial, and permanent weight loss in
all users were false or unsubstantiated, as were claims about
CortiStress's ability to reduce the risk of, or prevent,
osteoporosis, obesity, diabetes, Alzheimer's disease, cancer,
and cardiovascular disease. The FTC also alleges that CortiSlim
and CortiStress infomercials were deceptively formatted to
appear as talk shows rather than advertisements. The advertising
campaign for CortiSlim ran nationwide, including ads on
broadcast and cable television, radio, print media, and the
Internet.

The FTC announced two separate stipulated final agreements and
orders for permanent injunction today, one with Pinnacle and its
president, Thomas Cheng, who the FTC alleges participated in the
marketing of Cortislim and CortiStress; and one with Talbott,
who the FTC alleges formulated the two products and participated
in the advertising. Both orders prohibit the making of certain
claims about CortiSlim and CortiStress and require competent and
reliable scientific evidence to support any other claims made
about the products. The orders also bar misrepresentations of
any tests or studies and prohibit claims about the performance,
effects on weight, or other health benefits of any dietary
supplement, food, drug, cosmetic, or device unless the claims
are true, not misleading, and substantiated by competent and
reliable scientific evidence. Finally, both orders prohibit the
use of deceptively formatted television and radio advertisements
and require the use of "paid advertisement" disclosures for
television ads longer than 15 minutes and for radio ads longer
than five minutes.

The settlement with Pinnacle and Thomas Cheng requires them to
give up $3.4 million in assets: $700,000 cash; the net proceeds
from an investment partnership and related charitable
foundation; a $215,000 boat; a $40,000 truck; and a $450,000
property lien. If they are later found to have misrepresented
their financial status, the two defendants would be liable for a
$23.8 million judgment.

The settlement with Talbott requires him to give up $1.12
million in assets: $225,000 cash; $350,000 from equity in
property in Centerville, Massachusetts, or title to the
property; $38,700 from the sale of a timeshare in Hawaii or
title to the timeshare; and cash equal to 80 percent of the
current market value of a property in Lisbon, Ohio, or title to
the property. If Talbott is later found to have misrepresented
his financial status, he would be liable for a $3.5 million
judgment.

Under the agreements, the defendants also assign to the FTC all
claims they might have against the other defendants in this
case, and they will not use their settlement with the Commission
as a basis for seeking a cash refund of income taxes that they
reported as paid. In addition, the agreements include standard
record-keeping provisions and require the defendants to
distribute copies of the orders to certain entities and
individuals.

The Commission vote to authorize staff to file the stipulated
final orders was 4-0. The stipulated final orders for permanent
injunction were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on September 20, 2005.

Copies of the stipulated final orders are available from the
FTC's Web site at http://www.ftc.govand also from the FTC's  
Consumer Response Center, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue,
N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580. The FTC works for the consumer to
prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices in
the marketplace and to provide information to help consumers
spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or
Spanish (bilingual counselors are available to take complaints),
or to get free information on any of 150 consumer topics, call
toll-free, 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357), or use the complaint
form at http://www.ftc.gov.The FTC enters Internet,  
telemarketing, identity theft, and other fraud-related
complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database
available to hundreds of civil and criminal law enforcement
agencies in the U.S. and abroad.


QC HOLDINGS: NC Customers Lodge Payday Loans Consumer Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
QC Holdings, Inc., two of its subsidiaries, including the
subsidiary doing business in North Carolina and Mr. Don Early,
the Company's Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer,
face a class action filed in North Carolina state court,
alleging violations of various North Carolina laws.

Two customers of County Bank of Rehoboth Beach, Delaware (County
Bank), a third-party financial institution for whom the Company
provides certain services in connection with the bank's
origination of short-term consumer loans in North Carolina,
filed the suit, alleging that the Company violated various North
Carolina laws in connection with payday loans made by the bank
to the two plaintiffs through the Company's retail locations in
North Carolina. The lawsuit alleges that the Company made the
loans to the plaintiffs in violation of various state statutes,
and that even if the Company is not viewed as the "actual
lenders or makers" of the loans, the Company's services to
County Bank violated various North Carolina statutes.

Plaintiffs are seeking certification as a class, unspecified
monetary damages, and treble damages and attorneys fees under
specified North Carolina statutes.  Plaintiffs have not sued
County Bank in this matter and have specifically stated in the
complaint that plaintiffs do not challenge the right of out-of-
state banks to enter into loans with North Carolina residents at
such rates as the bank's home state may permit, all as
authorized by North Carolina and federal law.


RESIDENTIAL FINANCE: Loan Officers Launch FL Wage, Overtime Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Four loan officers filed a class action under Florida's new
Minimum Wage Amendment to the Constitution for unpaid minimum
wage and a collective action against Residential Finance
Corporation, and its two principal officers Michael Isaacs and
David Stein, for failure to pay minimum wage and overtime
compensation. Plaintiffs are represented by Burr & Smith, LLP,
in Tampa, Florida. Sam J. Smith stated, "This may be the first
class action filed under Florida's new minimum wage
constitutional provision."

Residential Finance has branch offices in: Arizona, Florida,
Ohio, and South Carolina, with its headquarters are located in
Columbus, Ohio. Dimitry Shamootin, Ken Fisher, Gregg Garofolo
and Andrew Martin, the plaintiffs who filed the lawsuit, worked
in the Tampa office of Residential Finance.

Plaintiffs, who are represented by the law firm of Burr & Smith,
LLP, seek to have their claims certified as a class action under
Florida's minimum wage law and as a collective action under the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA,") (a type of class action in
which individuals employed in similar job positions are provided
with an opportunity to pursue overtime pay claims by opting into
a lawsuit filed by representative plaintiffs.) In order to
participate in the FLSA lawsuit, loan officers, who worked for
Residential Finance during the past three years, must file an
FLSA consent to join form, which may be obtained from
plaintiffs' counsel.

Sam J. Smith stated, "the financial services industry continues
to ignore the fact that loan officers who perform inside sales
and are paid solely on a commission basis are entitled to
minimum wage and overtime compensation for hours worked over
forty. These loan officers will also be able to recover
liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs."

For more details, contact Sam Smith of Burr & Smith, LLP, Phone:
+1-813-253-2010, Web site: http://www.burrandsmithlaw.com.


SAMSON RESOURCES: WY Court Refuses Summary Judgment For Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court of Sweetwater County, Wyoming refused to
grant summary judgment in Samson Resources Company's favor in
the class action filed against it, styled "Robert W. Scott,
Individually and as Managing Member of R.W. Scott Investments,
LLC v. Samson Resources Company, Case No. C-01-385."

The lawsuit seeks class action certification and alleges that
the Company deducted from its payments to royalty and overriding
royalty owners certain charges which were improper under the
Wyoming royalty payment statutes.  A number of these royalty and
overriding royalty payments burdened the interests of the
Geodyne Energy Income Limited Partnership II-C and Geodyne
Energy Income Limited Partnership II-D (II-C and II-D
Partnerships).  

In February 2003, the Company made a supplemental payment to the
royalty and overriding royalty interest owners who were
potential class members of amounts which were then thought to
have been improperly deducted plus statutory interest thereon.
The applicable portions of these payments, $2,548.31 and
$26,768.96, respectively, were recouped from the II-C and II-D
Partnerships in the first quarter of 2003. The lawsuit also
alleges that Samson's check stubs did not fully comply with the
Wyoming Royalty Payment Act.  

On May 13, 2005 the trial court certified this lawsuit as a
class action and denied the Company's motion for summary
judgment. On June 25, 2005 the Wyoming Supreme Court denied the
Company's request for it to review these decisions.


SPECTRUM SETTLEMENT: Motion Files Over Adding More Class Members
----------------------------------------------------------------
Constantine Cannon, lead counsel in the $3 billion anti-trust
case against Visa and MasterCard, filed a motion against
Spectrum Settlement Recovery, LLC, a San Francisco-based company
that helps eligible class members recover their share of class
action settlements.

Constantine, which had asked for more than $600 million in legal
fees for its efforts on the VISA/MasterCard case and was
ultimately awarded over $200 million, sought to prevent Spectrum
from acting as an agent for merchants seeking to recover from
the settlement fund. Spectrum's team has represented tens of
thousands of individuals and small businesses, as well as over
20% of the Fortune 500, in various class action settlements.

Despite notoriously low levels of participation by class members
in class actions, Constantine sought to restrain Spectrum's
efforts to bring in more small and medium sized companies to the
table. Since all $3 billion will be distributed, Wal-Mart, the
nation's largest retailer and the company that originally hired
Constantine, stands to gain the most from a low filing rate.

Judge John Gleeson of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York wasted no time and on September 12, without
even waiting for Spectrum's response, issued an order directing
Constantine to " ... abide by (Spectrum's customers')
instructions, including instructions as to where to send the
claims forms." The Court also rejected Constantine's request
that its issues be dealt with immediately.

The judge's order is consistent with other federal courts, which
have held that class members are entitled to employ third-party
claims services as they see fit.

"This attempted distraction will in no way affect Spectrum's
aggressive pursuit of our customers' full recoveries," says
Howard Yellen, CEO of Spectrum. "If anything, it will only cause
us to redouble our efforts."

Businesses that accepted VISA or MasterCard credit and debit
cards between October 1992 and June 2003 are eligible to recover
money from the $3 billion settlement fund. The settlement stems
from a class action suit that alleged the charge card companies
violated anti-trust laws and overcharged on transaction
processing fees.

Eligible businesses must file a claim before the deadline in
order to recover money. The final deadline for accepting the
Claims Administrator's recovery estimate is November 28,
according to the website of The Garden City Group, the Claims
Administrator in the case. However, businesses that receive a
pre-printed claim form in the mail only have until October 29 to
challenge that estimate in writing.

Spectrum is helping businesses navigate through this complex
process. "One of our clients, a large company with over 100
million dollars per year in revenue, received seven claim forms
from the Administrator, all of them blank, offering no recovery.
Missing data is a big problem for smaller businesses too. With
Spectrum's help, these merchants should get the significant
recoveries they are entitled to," says Mr. Yellen.

Rick Lawrance, President of the California Lodging Industry
Association, believes Spectrum plays a vital role in the class
action settlement process. "Spectrum is looking after the
interests of small and medium size businesses," he says. "This
legal skirmishing just shows that they're very effective at what
they do." Spectrum represents a number of CLIA members in the
VISA/MasterCard settlement.

Spectrum Settlement Recovery is the nation's largest claim
filing and fund recovery service for commercial and securities
class-action settlements. Spectrum offers a complete solution
for filing and managing settlement claims.

For more details, contact Craig Wolfson of Spectrum Settlement
Recovery, LLC, Phone: 415-392-5900, ext. 245, Web site:
http://www.spectrumsettlement.com.  


STATE FARM: IL High Court Denies Petition to Rehear Avery Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Illinois Supreme Court denied a petition to rehear the
overturned class action lawsuit "Avery vs. State Farm", which
alleged that the use of aftermarket collision-repair parts
amounted to fraud by automobile insurers, The BestWire reports.

In a prepared statement, David Snyder, vice president and
assistant general counsel with the American Insurance
Association, said, "The supreme court's decision to deny a
rehearing in this case is a major win for consumers because the
court's ruling will foster price competition in automotive
repair costs."

Filed in 1997 against State Farm, which had specified that
repairs be made using aftermarket crash parts, or generic sheet-
metal components of vehicles, such as fenders, hoods and door
panels, instead of parts from the insured vehicle's original
manufacturer, or OEM parts, the suit contended that the use of
aftermarket parts was a breach of contract and fraud.

In the original 1999 decision, a jury awarded the plaintiffs
$1.2 billion in damages. An appellate court lowered that award
to $1 billion but let the decision stand.

However, in a stunning reversal, the Illinois Supreme Court,
which had agreed to hear the case back in 2002, ruled that,
"There was no contract." Thus, on August 18, 2005, the Illinois
Supreme Court overturned the unprecedented $1.05 billion class
action judgment entered against State Farm Automobile, an
earlier Class Action Reporter story (August 25, 2005) reports.

In addition, the state's highest court found that the use of
aftermarket parts didn't breach the company's contract with
policyholders, nor did it violate the state's Consumer Fraud
Act. The court also found the class action was certified
improperly.

Mr. Snyder also stated, "The court has recognized that, under
Illinois law, use of like kind and quality, competitively priced
aftermarket repair parts is recognized by the insurance code and
not categorically prohibited."


TELEPHONE PROTECTION: Settles TSR, FTC Act Violations Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
Concluding a case against several defendants who deceptively
claimed they could register consumers on the Federal
Communications Commission's (FCC) Do Not Call (DNC) Registry to
prevent telemarketing calls - before the Registry even existed -
the Federal Trade Commission announced a stipulated final court
order and separate default judgment against the remaining two
defendants in the case.

The FTC's original complaint charged defendants Telephone
Protection Agency (TPA) and Alex McKaughn, Robert Thompson, and
Rebecca Phillips with violating both the FTC Act and the
Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR) through their allegedly deceptive
conduct. The court order announced today bans McKaughn from all
telemarketing activities and prohibits him from making
misrepresentations similar to those alleged in the complaint.
The default judgment against Thompson - TPA's vice president -
bans him from telemarketing and contains terms prohibiting
marketing misrepresentations. The default judgment also includes
a monetary judgment of more than $672,000, the amount of
consumer harm the defendants allegedly caused. The FTC's claims
against TPA and Phillips were settled previously.

According to the FTC's complaint, the defendants cold-called
consumers offering to list them on the FCC do not call list. At
the time the calls were made, however, the FCC did not have a do
not call list in place, and the defendants had no way of listing
consumers, who were charged as much as $99.95 for their first
year of "service."

Starting in November 2001, the defendants cold-called consumers
and promoted a service that supposedly would stop unwanted
telemarketing calls and protect the consumer's personal
financial information. In many instances, the defendants billed
consumers' credit cards or debited their bank accounts even
though the consumers never agreed to buy the service.

In addition, some consumers received a package of written
materials from the defendants containing a number of
misrepresentations. For example, the defendants represented that
they would register customers with "the FCC's National NO CALL
List" and "provide a monthly list to companies nationwide" of
their customers' "demand for privacy." Both claims were false,
the FTC alleged, as the FCC did not have a do not call list in
place at the time, and the defendants did not provide a monthly
list to companies nationwide to protect consumers' privacy.

Based on their alleged unauthorized billing and
misrepresentations to consumers, the complaint charged the
defendants with violating the FTC Act and the TSR.

The stipulated final order bans defendant McKaughn from all
telemarketing activities. It further prohibits him from
misrepresenting the nature of any telemarketing reduction or
privacy protection services he may offer in the future through
any means besides telemarketing, and prohibits him from billing
consumers without first getting their express written
authorization to do so after providing clear and conspicuous
cost disclosures. While the order does not contain a monetary
penalty, based on McKaughn's inability to pay, it provides the
FTC the right to reopen the matter if he is found to have
misrepresented his financial condition. In such a case, he would
be liable for $672,717.85 in consumer harm alleged in this
matter.

The default judgment against defendant Thompson also contains a
permanent ban on telemarketing or helping anyone else engaged in
telemarketing activities. It prohibits Thompson from making the
misrepresentations alleged in the complaint, including the
following:

     (1) that consumers will receive fewer telemarketing calls,
         or none at all, as a result of the defendant's products
         or services;

     (2) that he can register consumers with, or enroll them in
         any federal, state, or local registry to prevent them
         from receiving calls from telemarketers, including the
         FTC's National Do Not Call Registry;

     (3) that he will protect or enhance a consumer's privacy or
         the confidentiality of his or her personal financial
         information by any means;

     (4) that he will reduce, prevent, or halt unsolicited
         marketing offers from reaching consumers, including
         telemarketing calls, spam, and regular mail; and

     (5) that consumers will receive any type of device that
         will allow them to reduce or eliminate unwanted
         telemarketing calls.

Finally, the judgment contains provisions to ensure Thompson
does not bill consumers without their authorization, and
requires him to pay $672,717.85.

The Commission vote authorizing the staff to file the stipulated
final order and judgment against defendant McKaughn was 4-0. The
order was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina on August 2, 2005 and has been signed
by the judge. The default judgment against defendant Thompson
was filed in the U.S. District Court of the Western District of
North Carolina on August 19, 2005 and also has been approved by
the court.

Copies of the stipulated final order and default judgment are
available from the FTC's Web site at http://www.ftc.govand also  
from the FTC's Consumer Response Center, Room 130, 600
Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20580. The FTC works
for the consumer to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair
business practices in the marketplace and to provide information
to help consumers spot, stop and avoid them. To file a
complaint, or to get free information on any of 150 consumer
topics, call toll-free, 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357), or use
the complaint form at http://www.ftc.gov.The FTC enters  
Internet, telemarketing, identity theft, and other fraud-related
complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database
available to hundreds of civil and criminal law enforcement
agencies in the U.S. and abroad.  For more details, contact
Mitchell Katz, Office of Public Affairs by Phone: 202-326-2161
or Russell S. Deitch or Craig Tregillus, Bureau of Consumer
Protection by Phone: 202-326-2585 or 202-326-2970 or visit the
Website: http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2005/09/tpa.htm


TRAVELERS PROPERTY: CT Court Mulls Lawsuit Certification Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Connecticut Superior Court has yet to rule on Travelers
Property Casualty Corporation's appeal of class certification
granted to a lawsuit filed in August 1999, styled "Lisa
Macomber, et al. vs. Travelers Property Casualty Corporation, et
al."  The suit also names as defendants Travelers Life and
Annuity Corporation (TLAC), Travelers Equity Sales, Inc. and
certain former affiliates.

The amended complaint alleges the Company, a former affiliate,
purchased structured settlement annuities from TLAC and spent
less on the purchase of those structured settlement annuities
than agreed with claimants; and that commissions paid to brokers
of structured settlement annuities, were paid, in part, to the
Company. The amended complaint was dismissed and, following an
appeal by the plaintiff in September 2002, the Connecticut
Supreme Court reversed the dismissal of several of the
plaintiff's claims. On May 26, 2004, the Connecticut Superior
Court certified a nationwide class action involving the
following claims: violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade
Practice Statute, unjust enrichment and civil conspiracy. On
June 15, 2004, the defendants appealed the Connecticut Superior
Court's May 26, 2004 class certification order.


TREEHOUSE FOODS: Receives $1.1M Share in Corn Syrup Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
TreeHouse Foods, Inc. received approximately $1.1 million in
June 2005 from the settlement of its claim in a class action
lawsuit known as "In re: High Fructose Corn Syrup Antitrust
Litigation Master File No. 95-1477," filed in the United States
District Court for the Central District of Illinois.

The lawsuit related to purchases of high fructose corn syrup
made by the Company and others.  About 20 corn syrup buyers
initially filed the suit in the United States District Court for
the Central District of Illinois against several corn
processors, alleging that they violated antitrust laws from 1988
to 1995 by conspiring to artificially inflate the price of high
fructose corn syrup.  About 2,000 plaintiffs joined the suit,
including Coca-Cola Co., PepsiCo Inc., Kraft Foods Inc. and
Quaker Oats, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (July
30,2004) states.

In July 2004, the parties in the suit forged a $531 million
settlement for the suit.  The settlement amount was allocated to
each class action recipient based on the proportion of its
purchases of high fructose corn syrup from these suppliers
during the period 1991 through 1995 to the total of such
purchases by all class action recipients.  The amount received
by the Company to date represents approximately 90% of the
expected recovery and payment of the remaining balance is
subject to final resolution of all claims.

The suit is styled "In Re High Fructose Corn Syrup Antitrust
Litigation, Master File No. 95-1477," filed in the United States
District court for the Central District of Illinois, Peoria
Division.  Representing the plaintiffs were:

     (1) Mr. Michael J. Freed of Much Shelist Freed Denenberg
         Ament Bell & Rubenstein, P.C., 200 N. LaSalle Street,
         Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60601-1095

     (2) Mr. Robert N. Kaplan, Kaplan, Kilsheimer & Fox, LLP
         805 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10022

     (3) Mr. H. Laddie Montague, Jr., Berger & Montague, P.C.
         1622 Locust Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103-6365


TRIPLE-S INC.: Asks FL Court To Dismiss Physician Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Triple-S, Inc. Asked the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, Miami District to dismiss a
putative class action suit filed by Kenneth A. Thomas, M.D. and
Michael Kutell, M.D., on behalf of themselves and all other
similarly situated and the Connecticut State Medical Society
against the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association  (BCBSA) and
multiple other insurance companies, including the Company.

The individual Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of
themselves and a class of similarly situated physicians seeking
redress for alleged illegal acts of the defendants which are
alleged to have resulted in a loss of plaintiff's property and a
detriment to their business, and for declaratory and injunctive
relief to end those practices and prevent further losses.

Plaintiffs alleged that the defendants, on their own and as part
of a common scheme, systematically deny, delay and diminish the
payments due to doctors so that they are not paid in a timely
manner for the covered, medically necessary services they
render.  The class action complaint alleges that the Company's
health care plans are the agents of BCBSA licensed entities, and
as such have committed the acts alleged above and acted within
the scope of their agency, with the consent, permission,
authorization and knowledge of the others, and in furtherance of
both their interest and the interests of other defendants.

On June 18, 2004, the Plaintiffs moved to amend the complaint to
include the Colegio de Medicos Cirujanos de Puerto Rico (a
compulsory association grouping all physicians in Puerto Rico),
Marissel Velazquez, MD, and Andres Melendez, MD, as plaintiffs
against the Company.


TRIPLE-S INC.: Asks FL Court To Dismiss Physicians Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Triple-S, Inc. asked the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, Miami Division to dismiss the
putative class action filed by Jeffrey Solomon, MD, and Orlando
Armstrong, MD, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly
situated and the American Podiatric Medical Association, Florida
Chiropractic Association, California Podiatric Medical
Association, Florida Podiatric Medical Association, Texas
Podiatric Medical Association, and Independent Chiropractic
Physicians, against the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association
(BCBSA) and multiple other insurance companies, including the
Company, all members of the BCBSA.

The individual Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of
themselves and a class of similarly situated physicians seeking
redress for alleged illegal acts of the defendants which are
alleged to have resulted in a loss of Plaintiff's property and a
detriment to their business, and for declaratory and injunctive
relief to end those practices and prevent further losses.  
Plaintiffs alleged that the defendants, on their own and as part
of a common scheme, systematically deny, delay and diminish the
payment due to the doctors so that they are not paid in a timely
manner for the covered, medically necessary services they
render.

The class action complaint alleges that the Company's health
care plans are the agents of BCBSA licensed entities, and as
such have committed the acts alleged above and acted within the
scope of their agency, with the consent, permission,
authorization and knowledge of the others, and in furtherance of
both their interest and the interests of other defendants.  On
June 25, 2004, the Plaintiff amended the complaint but the
allegations against the Company did not vary.


TRIPLE-S MANAGEMENT: Discovery Proceeds in RICO Violations Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in the class action filed against
Triple-S Management Corporation (TSM), certain of its present
and former directors, certain of Triple-S, Inc.'s (TSI) present
and former directors and others in the United States District
Court for the District of Puerto Rico.

On September 4, 2003, Jose Sanchez and others filed a putative
class action complaint, alleging violations under the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, better known as the
RICO Act. The suit, among other allegations, alleges a scheme to
defraud the plaintiffs by acquiring control of TSI through
illegally capitalizing TSI and later converting it to a for-
profit corporation and depriving the stockholders of their
ownership rights.  The plaintiffs base their later allegations
on the supposed decisions of TSI's board of directors and
stockholders, allegedly made in 1979, to operate with certain
restrictions in order to turn TSI into a charitable corporation,
basically forever.

On March 4, 2005 the Court issued an Opinion and Order. In this
Opinion and Order, of the twelve counts included in the
complaint, eight counts were dismissed for failing to assert an
actionable injury; six of them for lack of standing and two for
failing to plead with sufficient particularity in compliance
with the Rules. All shareholder allegations, including those
described above, were dismissed in the Opinion and Order. The
remaining four counts were found standing, in a limited way, in
the Opinion and Order. Finally, the Court ordered that by March
24, 2005 one of the counts left standing be replead to conform
to the Rules and that by March 28, 2005 a proposed schedule for
discovery and other submissions be filed.  The count was amended
and accepted by the Court, the discovery schedule was submitted
and the parties are conducting discovery.

The suit is styled "Sanchez, et al v. Triple-S Management, et
al., case no. 3:03-cv-01967-JAF," filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, under Judge Jose
A. Fuste.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Robert G. Blakey, 1341 East Wayne Street North, South
         Bend, IN 46615, Phone: 219-239-5717

     (2) Paul H. Hulsey, Marco Tulio Torres-Moncada of
         Hulsey Litigation Group, L.L.C., Charleston Harbor, 2
         Wharfside 3, Charleston, SC 29401, Phone: 843-723-5303,
         Fax: 843-723-5307, E-mail:
         phulsey@hulseylitigationgroup.com

     (3) Eric M. Quetglas-Jordan, Quetglas Law Office, PO Box
         16606, San Juan, PR 00908-6606, Phone: 787-722-7745,
         Fax: 787-725-3970, E-mail: quetglaslaw@hotmail.com

Representing the Company are Seth B. Kosto and Gael Mahony, 10
St. James Avenue, Boston, MA 02114, Phone: 617-523-2700, Fax:
617-523-6850.


VASO ACTIVE: Reaches Settlements in Class, Derivative Complaints
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vaso Active Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Vaso Active") (VAPH.pk) of
Danvers, Massachusetts reports that on September 21 and 22,
2005, respectively it and certain of its officers and directors,
entered into Agreements to settle the previously reported
consolidated securities class action ("Class Action Agreement"),
and derivative lawsuits based on the class action allegations
("Derivative Action Agreement"), and filed appropriate papers
with the Court seeking dismissal of the actions. The parties to
the Agreements are now seeking the Court's preliminary approval
of the settlements, following, which joint notices of the
settlements and claim forms will be sent to appropriate
shareholders. Following fairness hearings on the settlements,
which have not yet been scheduled, the Court still must decide
whether to give final approval of the settlements.

Under the terms of the Class Action Agreement, Vaso Active,
disclaiming any liability, within 10 business days of
preliminary approval of the settlement by the Court, will pay
into escrow for the benefit of the putative class $1,100,000 in
cash and $750,000 face amount of 2-year 5% subordinated callable
notes convertible at $1.75 per share (with full dilution
protection). Vaso Active's insurance carrier has agreed to pay
the $1,100,000 cash payment in exchange for a release of its
liability under its insurance policy with the company. In
consideration of Vaso Active's payment, the parties will fully
and finally release and discharge all claims against each other.

Under the terms of the Derivative Action Agreement, Vaso Active
and its named officers and directors agree, while disclaiming
any liability, to institute or maintain previously instituted
corporate governance changes including, among others:

     (1) Having at least one-half of the Board of Directors and
         two-thirds of all Committees of Vaso Active comprised
         of "independent directors" under American Stock
         Exchange standards of independence;

     (2) Continuing to maintain a corporate governance
         committee;

     (3) Changes to the composition and policies and procedures
         of existing committees of the Board;

     (4) Review and approval of related party transactions by
         the appropriate committees.

Vaso Active agreed to pay to plaintiffs' counsel in the
derivative suits a total of $25,000 in cash and $110,000 face
amount of 2-year 5% subordinated callable notes convertible at
$1.75 per share within 30 business days of final approval by the
Court of the Derivative Action Agreement. In consideration of
the corporate governance changes and this payment, the parties
will fully and finally release and discharge all claims against
each other.

"This is a significant step forward for the Company. We now can
concentrate our efforts and resources, including the funds
recently raised in our previously-announced securities offering,
on building value for our shareholders." said Joseph Frattaroli,
President and CFO of Vaso Active.

For more details, contact Matt Carter of Vaso Active
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Phone: 978-750-1991 Ext. 28, E-mail:
mcarter@vasoactive.us.


VERIZON WIRELESS: CA Court Gives Approves V710 Bluetooth Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of California in Los Angeles issued an order
preliminarily approving the settlement of the Motorola V710
Bluetooth Lawsuit.

The Plaintiffs claim that Verizon Wireless did not accurately
disclose that certain Bluetooth features were not supported by
the Motorola V710 handset available with Verizon Wireless
cellular service. Verizon Wireless though contended that its
marketing materials were not deceptive and accurately informed
customers of the Bluetooth profiles available for the Motorola
V710 cellular handset available with Verizon Wireless service.

The suit is styled, Opperman, et al. v. Cellco Partnership d/b/a
Verizon Wireless, Case No. BC 326764, Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of Los Angeles. Robert I.
Harwood of Wechsler & Harwood; David P. Mayer of David P. Mayer
& Associates Co. LPA; John R. Climaco of Climaco Lefkowitz;
Behram V. Parekh of Yourman Alxander & Parekh, LLP; and Michael
L. Kelly of Kirtland & Packard, LLP, are representing the
Plaintiff/s.  Richard E. Drooyan of Munger Tolles & Olson, LLP,
is representing the Defendant.

For more details, contact Verizon Wireless Motorola V710,
Settlement Administrator, P.O. Box 3775, Portland, OR 97208-
3775; and Richard E. Drooyan of Munger Tolles & Olson, LLP, 335
South Grand Ave., 35th Floor, Los Nageles, CA 90071-1560, Phone:
(213) 683-9100, Fax: (213) 687-3702 or visit,
http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/footer/legalNotices/v710.jsp.   


W.C. WOOD: Recalls 112T Freezers, Refrigerators For Shock Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC), W.C. Wood Company Inc., of Ottawa, Ohio is voluntarily
recalling about 112,000 units of Automatic Defrost Upright
Freezers and All-Refrigerators.

According to the company, the defrost heater coil can become
exposed inside the units, which poses a potential shock hazard
to consumers. In some cases the exposed heater wire can also
melt, or burn the unit's interior plastic food liner. W.C. Woods
has received 45 reports of incidents of the defrost heater coil
becoming exposed. Nine of those incidents resulted in an
electrical short. The others melted and burned the unit's
interior plastic liner. No injuries have been reported.

The recalled single door freezers and refrigerators are 15, 17
and 20-cubic foot Automatic Defrost Upright Freezers and 17-
cubic foot Automatic Defrost All-Refrigerators that can be
converted into freezers. They were sold under the brand names
Amana, Crosley, Danby, Maytag, Whirlpool and Wood's, which is
written on the front of the unit. The manufacturer label with
the model number and date of manufacture is located on the
inside of the cabinet. A list of model numbers and dates of
manufacture included in the recall is listed below.

Brand = Model Numbers = Date of Manufacture

Amana = AFU1567*, AFU1767*, AFU2067* = ^
Crosley = FFCR17*, WCF15*, WCF17*, WCF20* = ^
Danby = DUF1700*, DFF1708* = ^
Maytag = MQU1556*, MQU2057* = ^
Whirlpool = EV150NXM*, EV170NYL*, EV171NYM*, EV200NXK*,
            EV201NXM*, EL7ATRRK*, EL7ATRRM*, EL7JWKLM*,
            EL7JWKRM* = ^
Wood's = F15*, F17*, F20*, F42*, F47*, F55*, WFF15*, WFF17*,
         WFF20*, RFA17*, RFC17*, R47F* = ^

Legend:
* - there are additional letters or numbers following the model
    numbers above.

^ - 200209 (September 2002) through 200402 (February 2004).

Manufactured in Canada and the United States, the freezers and
refrigerators were sold at home improvement and appliance stores
from September 2002 through February 2005 for between $400 and
$1,000.

Remedy: Consumers should contact W.C. Wood Co. to arrange for a
free in-home repair.

Consumer Contact: Contact W.C. Wood toll-free at (866) 493-3314
or visit the firm's Web site: http://www.freezer-repair.com.


                 New Securities Fraud Cases

ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Securities Suit in OH
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio on behalf of all purchasers of Abercrombie &
Fitch Co. ("Abercrombie" or the "Company") (NYSE:ANF) securities
between June 2, 2005 and August 16, 2005, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

The complaint charges defendants with violations of federal
securities laws by, among other things, issuing a series of
materially false and misleading press releases concerning
Abercrombie's financial results and business prospects.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that Abercrombie misled
investors by touting its monthly and quarterly sales results,
while at the same time failing to disclose that the Company's
margins, a material indicator of its true financial condition,
would be lower than expected in its 2005 second fiscal quarter,
as compared to the second quarter of 2004. As a result, the
price of the Company's common stock was artificially inflated
throughout the Class Period, allowing Abercrombie's Chairman and
CEO to sell more than 1.6 million shares of Abercrombie common
stock reaping $118 million in profits. Following the revelation
of this undisclosed information, Abercrombie's common stock
plummeted, resulting in substantial losses to shareholders.

For more details, contact Anthony Vozzolo, Esq. or Beth A.
Keller, Esq. of Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, 320 East 39th St., New
York, NY 10016, Phone: (877) 247-4292 or (212) 983-9330, Fax:
(212) 983-9331, E-mail: Avozzolo@faruqilaw.com or
Bkeller@faruqilaw.com, Web site: http://www.faruqilaw.com.


DHB INDUSTRIES: Paskowitz & Associates Lodges Fraud Suit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Paskowitz & Associates commenced a class
action in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York against DHB Industries, Inc. (Amex: DHB -
News) and certain individual defendants. The alleged class
consists of purchasers of DHB securities between April 21, 2004
and August 29, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint 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-party 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 Laurence Paskowitz, Esq. of Paskowitz
& Associates, Phone: 800-705-9529.


HOST AMERICA: Wechsler Harwood Files Securities Fraud Suit in CT
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Wechsler Harwood, LLP filed a Federal Securities
fraud class action suit on behalf of all purchasers of the
publicly traded securities of Host America Corporation ("Host
America" or the "Company") (Pink Sheets:CAFE) acquiring the
stock between July 12, 2005 and July 22, 2005, both dates
inclusive (the "Class Period").

The action, entitled, Reeves v. Host America Corporation, et
al., Case No. 05-CV-(not yet assigned), is pending in the United
States District Court for the District of Connecticut, and names
as defendants, the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and
President, Geoffrey W. Ramsey, and its Chief Financial Officer,
David J. Murphy.

The Complaint charges defendants with violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder. More specifically, the complaint
alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants made
materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's purported agreement with Wal-Mart stores to install
its LightMaster Plus lighting system in ten Wal-Mart stores as a
"first-phase roll-out." The Complaint alleges that the Company
failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material
adverse facts, which were known to defendants or recklessly
disregarded by them:

     (1) that the Company's relationship with Wal-Mart was
         limited to a test installation;

     (2) that Host America had no agreement for any subsequent
         installations in other Wal-Mart stores; and

     (3) as a result, defendants had no basis for stating that
         the test installation was a "first-phase roll-out" or
         that "the next phase will involve a significant number
         of stores."

In fact, defendants lacked any basis for stating that the Wal-
Mart test installation was a "major event for our company." Such
test installations in the past had resulted in no future
customer relationship and no actual purchases of the LightMaster
Plus by the party solicited for the test demonstration.

These false and misleading statements caused Host America's
stock price to skyrocket from a close of $3.12 per share on July
11, 2005, to an intra-day high of $16.88 per share on July 19,
2005, only one week later. Then, on July 22, 2005, the
Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") halted trading in the
Company's shares amid concerns that the Company's July 12 press
release regarding its Wal-Mart test installation had been
"misleading." Prior to the halt in trading, Host America
insiders sold millions of dollars worth of their Host America
shares at artificially inflated prices.

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


SPECTRUM BRANDS: Chitwood Harley Lodges Securities Suit in GA
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Chitwood Harley Harnes, LLP, filed a securities
fraud class action complaint in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia against Spectrum Brands,
Inc. ("Spectrum" or the "Company"), David A. Jones and Randall
J. Steward on behalf of persons who purchased Spectrum common
stock (NYSE: SPC) between January 4, 2005 through and including
September 6, 2005 (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange
Act"), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. During the Class
Period, the complaint claims that Defendants misrepresented
that:

     (1) the Company was growing through acquisitions and
         diversifying revenues while maintaining sales of
         existing products and leveraging existing brands;

     (2) the combination of Rayovac and United presented a
         "compelling value proposition;"

     (3) management of the Company had an outstanding track
         record for successfully integrating acquired brands
         "while maintaining marketplace momentum" of its legacy
         brands;

     (4) defendants were able to drive revenue growth of its
         core brands by cross selling its legacy products to
         accounts acquired through acquisitions;

     (5) the representations and warranties contained in the
         United Merger Agreement were true and accurate;

     (6) the Company was achieving "record" sales during the
         Class Period with double digit increases in battery
         sales, "exceptional performance" across the board and
         with integrations proceeding according to plan; and

     (7) the integration of United was substantially complete
         and also proceeding according to plan.

The nature of Defendants' fraud began to come to light, on July
28, 2005, the Complaint charges, when Defendants reported
results for the 3rd fiscal quarter of 2005, and investors first
learned that the Company could not maintain double-digit year-
over-year growth in the sales of its core battery products but,
rather, that battery sales were actually less than the prior
year. At the same time, Defendants belatedly revealed that, as a
result of the material decline in its core battery products, it
could not meet its guidance for either fiscal 2005 or 2006.
These sudden and shocking disclosures had an immediate impact on
the price of Spectrum Brands stock, which declined over $8.00
that day, falling over 20%, and closing at $30.10 per share.
Then, on September 7, 2005, prior to the market opening,
Defendants revealed that earnings for the fourth quarter ending
September 30, 2005 would be "substantially lower" than the
guidance previously reported. Defendants attributed the
shortfall to weak sales and "high (retail) inventory levels."
The unexpected news prompted additional analyst downgrades. In
response to the September 7, 2005 news, the stock dropped
another 13% on volumes of 4.26 million. In total, the stock lost
31% of its value in response to the disclosures.

The Complaint explains Defendants' motivations, showing that the
misrepresentations and failure to disclose the conditions that
were adversely affecting Spectrum Brands throughout the Class
Period:

     (i) enabled defendants to acquire United using at least
         13.75 million shares of Company stock and using
         hundreds of millions of dollars raised through the sale
         of debt securities;

    (ii) enabled defendants to register for sale with the SEC,
         more than $500 million of mixed securities;

   (iii) enabled Company insiders to sell millions of dollars of
         their privately held Spectrum Brands stock; and

    (iv) caused plaintiff and other members of the Class to
         purchase Spectrum Brands common stock at artificially
         inflated prices.

For more details, contact James M. Evangelista or Meryl W.
Edelstein of Chitwood Harley Harnes, LLP, Phone: 888-873-3999,
ext. 6871 or 888-873-3999, ext. 6881, E-mail:
jevangelista@chitwoodlaw.com or medelstein@chitwoodlaw.com, Web
site: http://www.chitwoodlaw.com.  


SPECTRUM BRANDS: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Fraud Suit in GA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP, initiated
a class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the securities of Spectrum Brands, Inc.
("Spectrum Brands" or the "Company").

The action is pending in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Georgia against the Company, and
certain of its former officers and directors. According to the
complaint, defendants violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5, by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period,
defendants were well aware that the Company's growth model
depended upon strong and consistent sales of its core battery
products, while at the same time acquiring and integrating
diversified brands. Accordingly, throughout the Class Period,
defendants consistently represented

     (1) that the Company was growing through acquisitions and
         diversifying revenues while maintaining sales of
         existing products and leveraging existing brands;

     (2) that the combination of Rayovac and United presented a
         "compelling value proposition";

     (3) that management of the Company had an outstanding track
         record for successfully integrating acquired brands
         "while maintaining marketplace momentum" of its legacy
         brands;

     (4) that defendants were able to drive revenue growth of
         its core brands by cross selling its legacy products to
         accounts acquired through acquisitions;

     (5) that the representations and warranties contained in
         the United Merger Agreement were true and accurate at
         all relevant times;

     (6) that the Company was achieving "record" sales during
         the Class Period with double-digit increases in battery
         sales, "exceptional performance" across the board and
         with integrations proceeding according to plan; and

     (7) that by the end of the Class Period the integration of
         United was substantially complete and also proceeding
         according to plan.

The representations concerning defendants' ability to acquire
and integrate diverse brands such as United and Tetra, while
maintaining robust sales of its core battery products, were
either patently untrue, or Defendants recklessly disregarded the
Company's true operational and financial condition. Unbeknownst
to investors, throughout the Class Period, the Company suffered
from a host of undisclosed adverse factors that negatively
impacted its business and caused it to report financial results
that were materially less than the market expectations
defendants had caused and cultivated.

It was only at the end of the Class Period that investors
ultimately learned that the Company was operating far below
expectations and realized that Spectrum Brands had significantly
inflated sales of its battery products during the 1st and 2nd
quarter of 2005. Accordingly, on July 28, 2005, when defendants
reported results for the 3rd fiscal quarter of 2005, the price
of Spectrum Brands stock declined over $8.00, falling over 20%
to closing at $30.10 per share.

The bad news, however, was not over. On September 7, 2005, prior
to the market opening, defendants revealed that earnings for the
fourth quarter ending September 30, 2005 would be "substantially
lower" than the guidance previously reported. Defendants
attributed the shortfall to weak sales and "high (retail)
inventory levels." The unexpected news prompted additional
analyst downgrades. Analyst William Schmitz noted that "(a)fter
two earning warnings in six weeks, we believe already low
investor faith in this roll-up is likely to dissipate." In
response to the September 7, 2005 news, the stock dropped
another 13% on volumes of 4.26 million. In total, the stock lost
31% of its value in response to the disclosures.

For more details, contact Steven G. Schulman of Milberg Weiss
Bershad & Schulman, LLP, One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th fl. New
York, NY 10119-0165, Phone: (800) 320-5081, E-mail:
sfeerick@milbergweiss.com, Web site:
http://www.milbergweiss.com;and Maya Saxena or Joseph White of  
Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP, 5200 Town Center Circle,
Suite 600, Boca Raton, FL 33486, E-mail:
msaxena@milbergweiss.com or jwhite@milbergweiss.com.


SPECTRUM BRANDS: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Suit in N.D. GA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C., filed a lawsuit seeking
class action status filed in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia on behalf of all persons
who purchased the publicly traded securities of Spectrum Brands,
Inc. (NYSE:SPC) ("Spectrum Brands") between January 4, 2005 and
September 6, 2005 (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that Spectrum Brands violated federal
securities laws by issuing false or misleading public
statements. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that Spectrum
Brands made certain positive statements about its business and
predicted favorable financial results which, given the downturn
in its core battery business, were false or misleading when such
statements were made. On July 28, 2005, Spectrum Brands reported
disappointing financial results for 3Q05 and revealed that, as a
result of a material decline in its core battery products, it
could not meet its guidance for either fiscal 2005 or 2006. On
September 7, 2005, Spectrum Brands revealed that earnings for
the fourth quarter ending September 30, 2005 would be
"substantially lower," attributing the shortfall to weak sales
and "high (retail) inventory levels." On this news, Spectrum
Brands stock closed at $25.25 per share on September 7, 2005,
down from a close of $29.12 per share on September 6, 2005 and a
close of $38.37 per share on July 27, 2005.

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


SYMBOL TECHNOLOGIES: Glancy Binkow Sets Lead Plaintiff Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP, which is
representing shareholders of Symbol Technologies, Inc., reminds
interested parties that they have until October 17, 2005 to move
to be a lead plaintiff in the shareholder lawsuit. The suit was
brought on behalf of all persons and institutions that purchased
securities of Symbol Technologies, Inc. ("Symbol Technologies"
or the "Company") (NYSE:SBL) between May 10, 2004 and August 1,
2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint charges Symbol Technologies and certain of the
Company's executive officers with violations of federal
securities laws. Symbol Technologies engages in the design,
development, manufacture and service of products and systems
used in enterprise mobility solutions. The Complaint alleges
that, following major accounting scandals between 1998 and 2003,
the Company settled government and private litigation and, as
set forth in the Complaint, promised a "new" Symbol Technologies
-- one which, in the two years prior to the start of the Class
Period, had "implemented various initiatives intended to
materially improve its internal controls and procedures, address
the systems and personnel issues raised in the course of the
restatement and help ensure a corporate culture that emphasizes
integrity, honesty and accurate financial reporting." The
Company announced that "These initiatives address Symbol's
control environment, organization, staffing, policies,
procedures, documentation and information systems."

Contrary to these reassurances, the Company's internal controls
and financial systems were inadequate and inaccurate. During the
Class Period, Symbol Technologies was required to:

     (1) revise financial statements for the first three
         quarters of 2004;

     (2) revise financial projections for much of fiscal 2005
         by understating expenses requiring massive charges
         against earnings; and

     (3) acknowledge, finally, that its financial and internal
         controls were defective and inadequate for the purpose
         of providing any meaningful and accurate financial
         projections.

Additionally, the Complaint alleges defendants failed to
disclose that demand for Symbol Technologies products was
materially declining such that its earnings guidance was lacking
a reasonable basis and therefore materially false and
misleading.

As the true information concerning the Company was revealed to
the market, the share-price inflation caused by Defendants'
misrepresentations was removed and the price of Symbol
Technologies common stock fell nearly 50% from its Class Period
high.

For more details, contact Michael Goldberg, Esq. of Glancy
Binkow & Goldberg LLP, 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311, Los
Angeles, CA 90067, Phone: (310) 201-9150 or (888) 773-9224, E-
mail: info@glancylaw.com, Web site: http://www.glancylaw.com.  


WORLD HEALTH: Murray Frank Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in PA
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP, initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania on behalf of shareholders who
purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of World Health
Alternatives, Inc. ("World Health" or the "Company") (Pink
Sheets:WHAI) between June 26, 2003, and August 18, 2005,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges World Health, Richard E. McDonald, John C.
Sercu, Marc D. Roup, and Daszkal Bolton LLP 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 the Company's financial statements were not
         prepared in accordance with GAAP and in accordance with
         the federal securities laws and SEC regulations
         concerning fair reporting;

     (2) that the Company had violated GAAP policies through
         artificially inflating its operating results and, in
         particular, by misrepresenting the Company's earnings
         per share, understating its tax liability and thus
         overstating its net income; and

     (3) that the Company's internal controls were significantly
         lacking.

As a result of this activity, the Company had terminated its
outside auditor, Daszkal Bolton LLP, and Defendant McDonald had
resigned as CEO. The Company retained outside counsel and the
Board of Directors had retained special counsel to assist it
with its investigation. The Company would be restating its prior
financial statements due to the material misstatements outlined
above and has warned investors not to rely on the information
contained therein. The Company's restatement announcement
shocked the market and the price of its common stock plummeted
an astonishing 86% on August 19, 2005, trading as low as $0.25
per share after closing on August 18, 2005 at $1.85 per share.
Trading on a volume 15 times greater than its average, on August
19, 2005, 32 million shares changed hands.

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



                            *********


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  * * *