CAR_Public/050930.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Friday, September 30, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 194

                            Headlines

ACE LTD.: Seeks To Have PA, NY Securities Lawsuits Consolidated
ACE LTD.: Named As Defendant in NJ Insurance Antitrust Lawsuit
AMERADA HESS: FL Woman Launches Suit Over $75 Debit Card Hold
ASCENDANT SOLUTIONS: Court Hears Appeal of Certification Denial
BACKWEB TECHNOLOGIES: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Suit Settlement

BUFFALO MEAT: Recalls 890 lbs Sausage For Listeria Contamination
CHINA: Attorneys Urge Authorities to Release Abortion Activist
CNL HOTELS: Asks FL Court To Dismiss Consolidated Investor Suit
CUTTING EDGE: FTC Launches Suit For Do Not Call Rule Violations
DELTATHREE INC.: NY Court Preliminarily Approves Suit Settlement

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Judge Rules City's Tax Assessments Illegal
DOBSON COMMUNICATIONS: OK Court Consolidates Securities Lawsuits
EN POINTE: CA Court Grants Certification To Securities Lawsuit
FEDEX CORPORATION: CA Judge Certifies Racial Discrimination Suit
FLANDERS PROVISION: Recalls Patties Due to E. Coli Contamination

GLOBIX CORPORATION: NY Court Rejects Settlement Fee Award Appeal
GUIDANT CORPORATION: ME Resident Leads Suit Over Defibrillators
ILLINOIS: Court Affirms St. Clair County's Dismissal of Lawsuit
IMPSAT FIBER: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Stock Suit Settlement
KEYSTONE RV: Recalls 834 2005-06 Trailers Due to Crash Hazard

LOUISIANA: Statewide Suit Challenges Court Fees in Civil Matters
NEW YORK: Appeals Court Reinstates IPO Lawsuits V. Major Banks
PENNSYLVANIA: Judge Dismisses Uninsured Patient's Suit V. HMOs
PENTON MEDIA: Reaches Settlement For GA TCPA Violations Lawsuit
PERINI CORPORATION: Court Approves Settlement of Holders' Suit

PFIZER INC.: Advocacy Group Lodges MA Suit Over Lipitor Claims
PRG PACKING: Recalls Frankfurters Due To Listeria Contamination
PROTECTION ONE: Settles Nashville Burglar Claims For Arbitration
SIMON PROPERTY: Faces Consumer Suits Over Bank-Issued Gift Cards
STONEPATH GROUP: PA Court Dismisses Neer Derivative, Fraud Suit

SUNNYBROOK RV: Recalls 429 2005 Trailers Due to Crash Hazard
SUPERIOR MORTGAGE: Forges FTC Consumer Privacy Suit Settlement
TACO BELL: Civil Suit Over NH Branch Hepatitis A Finding Closed
TENFOLD CORPORATION: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Suit Settlement
TRANSMETA CORPORATION: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Stock Suit

TURNSTONE SYSTEMS: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Lawsuit Settlement
UNITED LIBERTY: OH Court Holds Suit Settlement Fairness Hearing
VERIZON WIRELESS: V710 Settlement Hearing Set January 17, 2006

                       Asbestos Alert

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Corning To Contribute 25M Shares to Trust
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Machine Cleaner's Exposure Leads to Death
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Specter Persists on US$140B Trust Fund Bill
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Compensation Eyed for JPN Asbestos Victims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: JAV Seeks European Unity to Fight Asbestos

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Aussie Court Awards NZ Contractor AUD320T
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Fund Could Reach Almost US$600 Billion
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: James Hardie May Face New Pacific Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: FL Judge's Case Dismissal Ruled Faulty
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Firms Give Meager Payouts to Dying Victims

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Federal-Mogul Settles With UK Affiliates
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Amaca to Appeal Australian Court Judgment
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NZ Worker's Payout "Paves the Way", Lawyer
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kubota Corp Hands JPY210 Mil Compensation
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PNM, Subsidiary Confront 21 Injury Lawsuits

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Wolseley Liability Increases to GBP31.7 Mil
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lawyer Files 153 Injury Suits in IL Court
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Relief Trust Triples Victims' Compensation
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: UK Duo Fined GBP4.5T for Unlawful Disposal
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: JPN Govt. to Force Firms for Compensation

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Federal-Mogul to Pay T&N Fund GBP250 Mil
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Recent Ruling Encourages NZ Asbestos Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ameron Corp.'s Injury Claims Down to 9,855
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Letter Recipients "Not As Sick," W.R. Grace
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: WR Grace Seeks to Move Trial From Montana

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace to Fund US$250M for MT Victims, Bill
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ABB Ltd. Closer to Asbestos Plan Resolution
ASBESTOS ALERT: Businessman to pay $100T for Abatement Violation
ASBESTOS ALERT: Florida Developer Confronts Abatement Violations

                  New Securities Fraud Cases

ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Wechsler Harwood Lodges OH Securities Suit
ARBINET-THEXCHANGE: Stull Stull Lodges Securities NJ Fraud Suit
ATI TECHNOLOGIES: Scott + Scott Files Securities Suit in E.D. PA
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in MA
DHB INDUSTRIES: Spector Roseman Lodges NY Securities Fraud Suit

HOST AMERICA: Murray Frank Sets October Lead Plaintiff Deadline
PATTERSON COMPANIES: Murray Frank Lodges Securities Suit in MA
SPECTRUM BRANDS: Brian M. Felgoise Lodges Securities Suit in GA
SPECTRUM BRANDS: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Suit in GA


                            *********


ACE LTD.: Seeks To Have PA, NY Securities Lawsuits Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------------
ACE Ltd. is seeking the consolidation of four putative
securities class actions filed in the United States District
Courts for the Southern District of New York and the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, styled:

     (1) John Mahaney, Jr. v. ACE Limited, et al., (Case No. 04
         CV 07696, filed in the United States District Court for
         the Southern District of New York on October 18, 2004);

     (2) Steven Burda v. ACE Limited, et al. (Case No. 04 CV
         833; filed in the United States District Court for the
         Southern District of New York, on October 21, 2004);

     (3) Thomas E. Barton v. ACE Limited, et al.; (Case No. 04
         CV 8683; filed on the United States District Court for
         the Southern District of New York on November 1, 2004);
         and

     (4) Friends of Ariel Center for Policy Research v. ACE
         Limited, et al. (Case No. 04 CV 04907; filed in the
         United States District Court for the Eastern District
         of Pennsylvania on October 19, 2004).

Evan G. Greenberg, ACE's President and Chief Executive Officer,
Brian Duperreault, ACE's Chairman and former Chief Executive
Officer, and Philip V. Bancroft, ACE's Chief Financial Officer
were also named as defendants in each of these suits.  In
addition, Dominic J. Frederico, ACE's former Vice Chairman and
former President and Chief Operating Officer, and Christopher Z.
Marshall, ACE's former Chief Financial Officer, were named as
defendants in the "Burda" action.  On January 3, 2005, the
"Burda" and "Barton" actions were consolidated for all purposes
into the "Mahaney" action.  In December 2004, the defendants
filed a motion with the JPML seeking consolidation of the cases
for pretrial purposes in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
That motion is currently pending, and no plaintiffs have yet
filed a brief stating a position on consolidation and transfer.

The plaintiffs in these cases assert claims solely under Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act
(control person liability). The plaintiffs allege that ACE's
public statements and securities filings should have revealed
that insurers, including certain ACE entities, and brokers
conspired to increase premiums and allocate customers through
the use of "B" quotes and contingent commissions and that ACE's
revenue and earnings were inflated by premiums which it may have
to forfeit by fines or judgments.


ACE LTD.: Named As Defendant in NJ Insurance Antitrust Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
ACE Ltd., ACE INA Holdings, Inc. and ACE USA face a consolidated
insurance policyholder class action filed in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey.

Ten federal putative nationwide class actions were initially
filed, namely:

     (1) Bayou Steel Corporation v. ACE INA Holdings, et al.,
         (Case No. 04 CV 5391 filed in the United States
         District Court for the Eastern District Pennsylvania on
         November 18, 2004);

     (2) Eagle Creek, Inc. v. ACE INA Holdings, et al. (Case No.
         04 CV 5255, filed in the United States District Court
         for the Eastern District, Pennsylvania on November 10,
         2004);

     (3) Stephen Lewis vs. Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc., et
         al. (Case No. 04 CV 7847; filed in the United States
         District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
         on December 6, 2004);

     (4) Opticare Health Systems, Inc. v. Marsh & McLennan
         Companies, Inc., et al. (Case No. 04 CV 06954; filed in
         the United States District Court for the Southern
         District of New York on October 19, 2004);

     (5) Diane Preuss v. March & McLennan Companies, et al.,
         (Case No. 04 CV 78553; filed in the United States
         District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on
         December 6, 2004);

     (6) Redwood Oil Company v. Marsh & McLennan
         Companies, Inc.  (Case No. 05 C 0390; filed in the
         United States District Court for the Northern District
         of Illinois on filed January 21, 2005);

     (7) Shell Vacations LLC v. Marsh & McLennan Companies,
         Inc., et al. (Case No. 05 C 0270; filed in the United
         States District Court for the Northern District of
         Illinois on January 14, 2005);

     (8) Edward Macuish v. Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc., et
         al. (Case No. 2005 CV 00440; filed in the United States
         District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on
         January 25, 2005 and later dismissed);

     (9) Edward Macuish v. Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc., et
         al. (Case No. 2005 CV 00440; filed in the United States
         District Court for the District of New Jersey, on March
         21, 2005);

    (10) David Boros v. Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc., et al.
         (Case No. C050543EDL; filed in the United States
         District Court for the Northern District of California,
         on February 4, 2005), and

    (10) Robert Mulcahy v. Arthur J. Gallagher & Co., et al.,
         (Case No. 2005 CV 01064; filed in the United States
         District Court for the District of New Jersey, on
         February 23, 2005)

    (11) Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District
         vs. Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc., et.al. (Case No.
         05-1214, filed in the United States District Court for
         the District of New Jersey on February 23, 2005)

    (12) The Prococcianti Group vs. Marsh & McLennan Companies,
         Inc., et. al. (Case No. 05-1368, filed in the United
         States District Court for the District of New Jersey on
         March 7, 2005);

    (13) Palm Tree Computers Systems, Inc. et al. v. ACE USA et
         al.(Case No. 6:05-cv-418-ACC-JGG)(filed on February 16,
         2005) (Case originally filed in the Eighteenth Judicial
         Circuit in and for Seminole County, Florida. AIG and
         The Hartford removed case. Motion to remand pending);

    (14) Cellect LLC et al. v. Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc.
         et al. (Case No. 05-2255; filed April 27, 2005 in the
         United States District Court for the District of New
         Jersey);

    (15) New England Regional Council of Carpenters et al. v.
         Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. (Case No. 05-2256;
         filed in the United States District Court in New Jersey
         on April 27, 2005);

    (16) Bensley Construction, Inc. et al. v. Marsh & McLennan
         Companies, Inc. (Case No. 2005-00277;) (filed in the
         United States District Court in Massachusetts on May
         20, 2005) (Case removed from state court. Motion to
         remand is pending)

In each of these cases, the plaintiff has sued a number of other
insurance entities in addition to the ACE entities.  The
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) consolidated
these cases, as well as other putative class actions in which no
ACE entity is named as a party in the District of New Jersey.

On August 1, 2005, Plaintiffs filed two consolidated amended
complaints - one concerning commercial insurance and the other
concerning employee benefit plans. In the commercial insurance
complaint, the plaintiffs named ACE Limited, ACE INA Holdings,
Inc., ACE USA, Inc., ACE American Insurance Co., Illinois Union
Insurance Co., and Indemnity Insurance Co. of North America.
They allege that insurers, including certain ACE entities, and
brokers conspired to increase premiums and allocate customers
through the use of "B" quotes and contingent commissions.

In addition, the complaints allege that the broker defendants
received additional income by improperly placing their clients'
business with insurers through related wholesale entities that
act as intermediaries between the broker and insurer. Plaintiffs
also allege that broker defendants tied the purchase of primary
insurance with the placement of such coverage with reinsurance
carriers through the broker defendants' reinsurance broker
subsidiaries. In the commercial insurance consolidated
complaint, plaintiffs assert the following causes of action
against ACE: Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organization Act (RICO), federal antitrust law, state antitrust
law, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust
enrichment.

In the employee benefits complaint, the plaintiffs named ACE
Limited, ACE USA, and Insurance Company of North America. They
allege that insurers, including certain ACE entities, and
brokers conspired to increase premiums and allocate customers
through the use of "B" quotes and contingent commissions. In
addition, the complaints allege that the broker defendants
received additional income by improperly placing their clients'
business with insurers through related wholesale entities that
act as intermediaries between the broker and insurer. Plaintiffs
also allege that defendants improperly charged communication
fees, which plaintiffs claim are also known as "enrollment fees"
or "service/administrative fees."  Plaintiffs also allege that
insurers transferred their insureds' business, with who they had
direct contracts with and no broker involvement, to insurance
brokers in exchange for the insurance brokers steering
additional business to the insurers.  Plaintiffs also allege
that broker defendants tied the purchase of primary insurance
with the placement of such coverage with reinsurance carriers
through the broker defendants' reinsurance broker subsidiaries.
In the employee benefits consolidated complaint, plaintiffs
assert the following causes of action against ACE: Federal
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO),
federal antitrust law, state antitrust law, Employee Retirement
Income Security Act (ERISA), aiding and abetting breach of
fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment. In both cases, the
plaintiffs have sought unspecified compensatory damages and
reimbursement of expenses, including legal fees.

ACE USA and ACE INA have also been named in a state court class
action, styled "Palm Tree Computer Systems, Inc. et al. v. ACE
USA et al. Case No. 05-CA-373-16-W," filed in the Circuit Court,
Seminole County, Florida on February 5, 2005.  The allegations
are similar to the allegations in the federal class actions
identified above. Plaintiffs allege causes of action under every
state's consumer statute and state common law (breach of
fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment).  The complaint states
that "neither the Plaintiff nor any member of the Class has
suffered damages exceeding $74,999.00 each, even when trebled.
In no event will Plaintiff or any member of the Class accept
damages in excess of $74,999.00 for each class member."

Illinois Union Insurance Company, an ACE subsidiary, has been
named in a state court class action, styled "Van Emden
Management Corporation v. Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 05-0066A," filed in the Superior Court of
Massachusetts on January 13, 2005).  The allegations are similar
to the allegations in the federal class actions identified
above.  Plaintiffs assert causes of action under Massachusetts'
antitrust statute and Massachusetts' consumer protection
statute. Plaintiffs also assert a conspiracy cause of action and
seek an injunction. Plaintiff has sought unspecified
compensatory damages and reimbursement of expenses, including
legal fees.

ACE American Insurance Co., an ACE subsidiary, has been named in
a state court lawsuit, styled "Office Depot, Inc. v. Marsh &
McLennan Companies, Inc. et al., Case No. 502005CA004396" filed
in the Circuit Court of the 15th Judicial Circuit in Palm Beach
County Florida on June 22, 2005.  The allegations are similar to
the allegations in the federal class actions identified above.
Plaintiffs assert the following causes of action against ACE
American Insurance Co.: conspiracy and concerted action to aid
and abet Marsh's breaches of fiduciary duties, conspiracy and
concerted action to aid and abet Marsh's fraud, antitrust
violation under Florida law, deceptive and unfair trade
practices, unjust enrichment, civil RICO under Florida law,
commercial bribery, and punitive damages. Plaintiff has sought
unspecified compensatory damages and reimbursement of expenses,
including legal fees.

The OptiCare suit is styled "In Re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust
Litigation, case no. 2:05-cv-01168-FSH," filed in the United
States District Court in New Jersey, under Judge Faith S.
Hochberg.  Representing the Company is Vineet Bhatia, Johnny W.
Carter, Michael P. Geiser, H. Lee Godfrey, Neal S. Manne,
Jeffrey R. Seely, SUSMAN GODFREY LLP, 1000 Louisiana St., Suite
5100, Houston TX 77002 Phone: 713-653-7855.  Representing the
plaintiffs are Joseph P. Guglielmo and Edith M. Kallas, MILBERG
WEISS BERSHAD & SCHULMAN LLP (NYC) One Pennsylvania Plaza, New
York NY 10119 Phone: 212-594-5300; and Mark C. Rifkin, WOLF
HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP, 270 Madison Avenue, New
York, NY 10016 Phone: 212 545-4600 E-mail: rifkin@whafh.com.


AMERADA HESS: FL Woman Launches Suit Over $75 Debit Card Hold
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Staack, Simms & Hernandez initiated a lawsuit
against Amerada Hess Corporation and AmSouth Bank in federal
court in Tampa on behalf of AmSouth customer Denise Grillasca,
who bought $10 worth of gas September 1 at a Largo Hess station
and ended up with a $75 hold on her checking account that wasn't
removed until September 8, The St. Petersburg Times reports.

According to court documents, Ms. Grillasca did not know about
the hold until she was turned down when she tried to withdraw
cash from her account at an ATM.  The suit seeks class action
status on behalf of all Floridians who bought Hess gas with a
debit card and were not informed that their bank accounts would
have a hold for more than the amount of purchase.

Holds can occur at pay-at-the-pump gas stations because
customers must swipe their cards before they pump the gas. Many
gas companies ask for a $1 preauthorization from the bank, which
is a way of assuring the account is valid.  However, with gas
prices rising, some companies are asking for bigger
authorizations, with Hess' $75 request being the most notable.
When the bank gives the go-ahead, it's on the hook for the
amount of the authorization, so many banks use holds to protect
themselves. Customers are denied use of the money on hold during
the time it takes for each transaction to clear, usually one or
two business days.

The lawsuit alleges that the holds amount to deceptive and
unfair trade practices, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of
contract and conversion of funds. It also alleges that by
failing to tell Ms. Grillasca about the hold, Hess tricked her
into buying gas from the company.

The suit is styled, "Grillasca v. Amerada Hess Corporation et
al., Case No. 8:05-cv-01736-EAK-TGW," filed in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Florida, under Judge
Elizabeth A. Kovachevich. Reprsenting the Plaintiff/s are Ginger
Ann DeGroff and Cameron D. Moyer of Staack, Simms & Hernandez,
P.A., 900 Drew St., Suite 100, Clearwater, FL 33755, Phone:
(727) 441-2635, Fax: (727) 461-4836 (fax), E-mail:
ginger@staack-firm.com and cameron@staack-firm.com.



ASCENDANT SOLUTIONS: Court Hears Appeal of Certification Denial
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has yet to rule
on plaintiffs' appeal of a lower court ruling refusing to grant
class certification to the consolidated lawsuit filed against
Ascendant Solutions, Inc., certain of its directors and a
limited partnership of which a director is a partner.

Between January 23, 2001 and February 21, 2001, five putative
class action lawsuits were filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Texas.  The five lawsuits
assert causes of action under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, for an unspecified
amount of damages on behalf of a putative class of individuals
who purchased our common stock between various periods ranging
from November 11, 1999 to January 24, 2000.  The lawsuits claim
that the Company and the individual defendants made
misstatements and omissions concerning its products and
customers.

In April 2001, the Court consolidated the lawsuits, and on
July 26, 2002, plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint
(CAC).  The Company filed a motion to dismiss the suit on or
about September 9, 2002. On July 22, 2003, the Court granted in
part and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss.  On
September 2, 2003, defendants filed an answer to the suit.
Plaintiffs then commenced discovery. On September 12, 2003,
plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, and on
February 17, 2004, the Company filed its opposition. On July 1,
2004, the Court denied plaintiffs' motion for certification.  On
September 8, 2004, the Fifth Circuit granted plaintiffs'
petition for permission to appeal the denial of class
certification.  Briefing on the appeal is complete but the Fifth
Circuit has not yet ruled on plaintiff's s appeal.


BACKWEB TECHNOLOGIES: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against BackWeb
Technologies, Inc., six of its officers and directors, and
various underwriters for its initial public offering, styled "In
re BackWeb Technologies Ltd. Initial Public Offering Securities
Litigation, Case No. 01-CV-10000."

Similar cases have been filed alleging violations of the federal
securities laws in the initial public offerings of more than 300
other companies, and these cases have been coordinated for
pretrial proceedings as "In re Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92." A consolidated amended
complaint filed in the BackWeb case asserts that the prospectus
from the Company's June 8, 1999 initial public offering failed
to disclose certain alleged improper actions by the underwriters
for the offering, including the receipt of excessive brokerage
commissions and agreements with customers regarding aftermarket
purchases of shares of the Company's stock.  The complaint
alleges violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act
of 1933, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  On July 15, 2002, an omnibus motion to
dismiss was filed in the coordinated litigation on behalf of
defendants, including the Company, on common pleadings issues.
In October 2002, the Court dismissed all six individual
defendants from the litigation without prejudice, pursuant to a
stipulation.  On February 19, 2003, the Court denied the motion
to dismiss with respect to the claims against the Company. No
trial date has yet been set.

A proposal has been made for the settlement and for the release
of claims against the issuer defendants, including BackWeb, has
been submitted to the Court. We have agreed to the proposal. The
settlement is subject to a number of conditions, including
approval by the proposed settling parties and the court.

The suit is styled "In re BackWeb Technologies Ltd. Initial
Public Offering Securities Litigation, Case No. 01-CV-10000,"
filed in relation to "IN RE INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERING SECURITIES
LITIGATION, Master File No. 21 MC 92 (SAS)," both pending in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, under Judge Shira N. Scheindlin.  The plaintiff firms in
this litigation are:

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Products subject to recall include:

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

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

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

The products were produced on September 7 and were distributed
to restaurants and distribution centers in New Jersey and New
York.  The problem was discovered through FSIS microbiological
sampling. FSIS has received no reports of illnesses associated
with consumption of these products.

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

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

Consumers with food safety questions can call the toll-free USDA
Meat and Poultry Hotline at (888) 674-6854. The hotline is
available in English and Spanish and can presently be reached 24
hours a day.


CHINA: Attorneys Urge Authorities to Release Abortion Activist
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese lawyers are risking their own freedom by pressing for
the release of Chen Guangcheng, 34, a blind activist against
forced abortions, who was detained by local officials in the
eastern Chinese city of Linyi, The LifeNews.com reports.

The lawyers recently issued an open letter to authorities, which
call for the release Mr. Chen, who has been under house arrest
for the last month after exposing the brutal forced abortion and
sterilization tactics of population control officials in Linyi,
a city of about 10 million people that is located 400 miles
southeast of Beijing.

The letter came at a time when Mr. Chen may be charged with
passing on government secrets because of an interview he
conducted with Time magazine about the scandal. In that
interview Mr. Chen stated that 7,000 area people were sterilized
against their will and others were forced to endure late-term
abortions.

That same interview made the human rights abuses an
international sensation. In addition it also provided U.S.
President George Bush another reason to cut off taxpayer funding
to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), which supports
and even participates in the China's population programs.

A report by the London Guardian newspaper revealed that Mr.
Chen's friends say that police are surrounding his house. They
also told the newspaper that authorities have cut off his phone
lines to prevent him from contacting anyone, set up roadblocks
leading to his house and posted guards at train stations to
watch for people who may try to help him escape.

American attorney Jerome Cohen, who teaches in Beijing, told The
London Financial Times, "Mr. Chen is not permitted to show his
face at the door to his courtyard." Mr. Cohen, who was able to
talk to Mr. Chen before his phone was cut off, also told the
Financial Times that Mr. Chen sounded "very desperate." He
added, "The preferred outcome is the central government will
wake up and call off the hound dogs down there. He's certainly
not free and his family has been threatened."

Though some of Mr. Chen's supporters have staged hunger protests
the situation has gone largely unreported in China's official
media.  When asked for comment by the Financial Times, one local
family planning official said of Mr. Chen's situation, "It's
none of your business."

Currently, Mr. Chen is still being held captive despite the
arrest of some of the population control officials involved in
the scandal.

Just recently, China's National Population and Family Planning
Commission, the cabinet-level ministry, which manages population
growth in China, said it had received "successive complaints"
about the sterilizations and abortions in Linyi. "Some persons
concerned in a few counties and townships of Linyi did commit
practices that violated law and infringed upon legitimate rights
and interests of citizens while conducting family planning
work," the commission said in a statement.

Yu Xuejun, NPFPC spokesman, even said, "Initial investigation
indicates illegal family planning practices that violate
people's legal rights and interests do exist." He also stated,
"Those who are responsible have been dismissed from duty. Some
are under investigation, some in detention. Further measures
will be taken by government departments concerned according to
legal competence and procedure."

Before he was arrested, Mr. Chen Guangcheng had recorded
testimony from men and women in communities in and around Linyi,
China, who have experienced forced abortions and sterilizations,
as well as had family members captured and tortured after they
tried to hide or run from authorities. After gathering
testimony, Mr. Chen planned to bring a class action lawsuit to
challenge the government's use of such coercive measures to
enforce its one-child-per-family policy, which for a long time
was regarded as "off-limits to public debate," an earlier Class
Action Reporter story (September 1, 2005) reports.


CNL HOTELS: Asks FL Court To Dismiss Consolidated Investor Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
CNL Hotels & Resorts, Inc. asked the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Florida to dismiss the
consolidated amended securities class action filed against it,
CNL Real Estate Advisors, LLC (Advisor), certain of their
affiliates and certain of their directors and officers.

On August 16, 2004, a shareholder filed a complaint on behalf of
two separate classes, those persons who purchased Company shares
during the class period pursuant to certain registration
statements and those persons who received and were entitled to
vote on the Proxy Statement dated May 7, 2004, as amended. The
complaint alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2)and 15 of
the Securities Act and Section 14(a), including Rule 14a-9
hereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, based upon,
among other things, allegations that:

     (1) the defendants used improper accounting practices to
         materially inflate Company earnings to support the
         payment of distributions and bolster its share price;

     (2) conflicts of interest and self-dealing by the
         defendants resulted in excessive fees being paid to the
         Advisor, overpayment for certain Properties which the
         Company acquired and the proposed Merger between the
         Company and its Advisor;

     (3) the proxy statement and certain registration statements
         and prospectuses contained materially false and
         misleading statements; and

     (4) the individual defendants and our Advisor breached
         their fiduciary duties to the members of the class.

The complaint seeks, among other things, certification of the
class action, unspecified monetary damages, rescissory damages,
to nullify the various shareholder approvals obtained at the
2004 annual meeting, payment of reasonable attorneys' fees and
experts' fees, and an injunction enjoining the postponed
underwritten offering and listing until the court approves
certain actions, including the nomination and election of new
independent Directors and retention of a new financial advisor.

On September 8, 2004, a second putative class action complaint
was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida containing allegations that are
substantially similar to those contained in the class action
lawsuit filed on August 16, 2004.  On November 10, 2004, the two
complaints were consolidated and lead plaintiffs were assigned
for each of the two purported classes. On December 23, 2004, the
plaintiffs served a corrected, consolidated and amended
complaint asserting substantially the same claims and
allegations.

On February 11, 2005, the Company and the other defendants filed
separate motions to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint.
On May 9, 2005, the court dismissed all causes of action against
the Company's operating partnerships, CNL Hospitality Partners,
L.P., and RFS Partnership, L.P., and against the Advisor, CNL
Financial Group, Inc., and other advisor related entities. The
court sustained the sufficiency of the pleading relating to the
Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 claims against the Company and the
individual defendants, but instructed plaintiffs to re-plead to
specifically identify in the particular registration statements
the alleged misstatements or omissions attributable to each
defendant. The court deferred consideration of the Section 14
(a) and 20(a) claims in light of the Company's April 8, 2005
disclosure relating to the possible amendment of the Existing
Merger Agreement.  Finally, the court dismissed completely the
breach of fiduciary duty claims finding they were derivative and
belonged to the Company.

On May 31, 2005, plaintiffs filed a Consolidated First Amended
Class Action Complaint, which eliminated one of the named co-
plaintiffs and certain previously named defendants, including
CNL Hospitality Partners, L.P., RFS Partnership, L.P., CNL
Financial Group, Inc., CNL Real Estate Group, Inc. and Five
Arrows Realty Securities II, LLC, and adds CNL Securities
Corporation as a defendant for alleged violations of Sections
12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act and Section 14(a) of the
Exchange Act. The Consolidated First Amended Class Action
Complaint continues to assert claims pursuant to Sections 11,
12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act and Section 14(a),
including Rule 14a-9 hereunder, and Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act. Further, the breach of fiduciary duty claim is
expressly asserted as derivative.  On July 22, 2005, the Company
and the other defendants filed separate motions to dismiss the
Consolidated First Amended Class Action Complaint.  Plaintiffs
filed an opposition to the motions

The suit is styled "Campbell v. CNL Hotels & Resorts Inc. et
al., case no. 6:04-cv-01231-GAP-KRS," filed in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Florida, under Judge
Gregory A. Presnell.  Representing the defendants are Mark
Herman Budoff, Kenneth A. Lapatine, Toby S. Soli, Greenberg
Traurig LLP, MetLife Building, 200 Park Ave., 15th Floor, New
York, NY 10166, Phone: 212/801-9200, Fax: 212/801-6400, E-mail:
budoffm@gtlaw.com, lapatinek@gtlaw.com, solit@gtlaw.com; and
David B. King and Thomas A. Zehnder, King, Blackwell, Downs &
Zehnder, P.A., 25 E. Pine St., P.O. Box 1631, Orlando, FL 32801-
1631, Phone: 407/422-2472, Fax: 407-648-0161, E-mail:
dking@kbdlaw.com or tzehnder@kbdlaw.com.  Representing the
plaintiffs are:

     (1) Nicholas E. Chimicles, Kimberly Marie Donaldson,
         Chimicles & Tikellis LLP, One Haverford Centre, 361
         West Lancaster Ave., Haverford, PA 19041, Phone:
         215/642-8500, E-mail: nick@chimicles.com or
         kimdonaldson@chimicles.com

     (2) Beth Hoffman, Lawrence A. Sucharow, Goodkind Labaton
         Rudoff & Sucharow LLP, 100 Park Ave., New York, NY
         10017, E-mail: bhoffman@glrslaw.com or
         lsucharow@glrslaw.com

     (3) Lawrence P. Kolker, Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman &
         Herz, 270 Madison Ave., New York, NY 10016, Phone:
         212/545-4600, E-mail: kolker@whafh.com

     (4) George E. Ridge, Cooper, Ridge & Lantinberg, P.A., 200
         W. Forsyth St., Suite 1200, Jacksonville, FL 32202-
         1069, Phone: 904/353-6555, Fax: 904-353-7550, E-mail:
         gridge@attorneyjax.com


CUTTING EDGE: FTC Launches Suit For Do Not Call Rule Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Two companies and their owner, who sold travel services, are
barred from violating the Federal Trade Commission's Do Not Call
(DNC) Rule after being charged with calling numbers on the
National DNC Registry. In the complaint and stipulated final
order announced today, the FTC alleged the Arizona-based
defendants called hundreds of thousands of telephone numbers on
the Registry. To settle the charges, the defendants not only are
prohibited from calling consumers whose numbers are on the
Registry, but also will pay $5,000 in civil penalties. There are
currently more than 105 million numbers on the National DNC
Registry.

The defendants in the complaint and settlement announced today,
Cutting Edge Travel, LLC; Cutting Edge Marketing, LLC; and
Jeffrey Cope, sold vacation packages and other travel-related
services to consumers through outbound telemarketing calls. Both
companies are owned by Cope and located in Tempe, Arizona.
Cutting Edge Travel is the telemarketing arm of Cutting Edge
Marketing.

In its complaint, the FTC alleged the defendants violated the
provisions of the Telemarketing Sales Rule that relate to the
National DNC Registry. Following the provisions' implementation
on October 17, 2003, the defendants allegedly called hundreds of
thousands of numbers listed on the Registry.

As part of the settlement, the defendants are barred from
placing a telemarketing call to a number listed on the Registry,
unless that consumer provides them with express written
authorization, or they have an established business relationship
with that consumer and the consumer has not made an entity-
specific DNC request. Both of these exceptions are standard to
the DNC Rule. The settlement also contains a suspended judgment
of $345,000. Based on the defendants' ability to pay, the
adjusted amount is $5,000. If it is found that they
misrepresented their financial status, they will be responsible
for the full amount.

The Commission vote authorizing the staff to refer the complaint
and proposed stipulated judgment to the Department of Justice
for filing was 4-0. The complaint and proposed judgment were
filed at the FTC's request by the Department of Justice in U.S.
District Court for the District of Arizona on September 22,
2005. The proposed judgement is subject to court approval.

Copies of the complaint and stipulated final 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 J. Katz or Jackie Dizdul, Office of Public Affairs by
Phone: 202-326-2161 or 202-326-2472 or contact Linda K. Badger
or Matthew D. Gold, FTC's Western Region, San Francisco by
Phone: 415-848-5100 or visit the Website:
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2005/09/cuttingedge.htm.


DELTATHREE INC.: NY Court Preliminarily Approves Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against Deltathree,
Inc. and certain of its former officers and directors.

Several suits were initially filed, arising out of its initial
public offering in November 1999 (IPO).  Various underwriters of
the IPO also are named as defendants in the actions. The
complaints allege, among other things, that the registration
statement and prospectus filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission for purposes of the IPO were false and misleading
because they failed to disclose that the underwriters allegedly
solicited and received commissions from certain investors in
exchange for allocating to them shares of Company stock in
connection with the IPO and entered into agreements with their
customers to allocate such stock to those customers in exchange
for the customers agreeing to purchase additional shares in the
aftermarket at predetermined prices.

On August 8, 2001, the court ordered that these actions, along
with hundreds of IPO allocation cases against other issuers, be
transferred to Judge Shira Scheindlin for coordinated pre-trial
proceedings. In July 2002, omnibus motions to dismiss the
complaints based on common legal issues were filed on behalf of
all issuers and underwriters. On February 19, 2003, the Court
issued an opinion granting in part and denying in part those
motions to dismiss.  The complaint against the Company was not
dismissed as a matter of law.  Final settlement documentation is
in the process of being approved.  Under the terms of the
proposed settlement agreement, the Company is not conceding any
liability and it will not bear any expenses associated with the
settlement, other than legal fees it may incur.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Judge Rules City's Tax Assessments Illegal
----------------------------------------------------------------
D.C. Superior Court judge, Eugene N. Hamilton ruled that city
officials "knowingly, intentionally and deliberately" violated
the law when they changed the rules for assessing residential
property for tax purposes, The Common Denominator reports.

The court's former chief judge concluded that lawyer Peter S.
Craig and other Cleveland Park homeowners who filed the class
action complaint to appeal their 2002 residential property tax
assessments "fully established the material allegations of their
petition."

Court records show that significant increases in the assessed
values of their homes, resulting in considerably higher tax
bills, prompted the homeowners to question the basis for the new
assessments. Ultimately, the city's use of a "trending" process
to assess homes located within designated neighborhoods, rather
than considering individual characteristics of properties as
required by D.C. law, led to the court challenge.

Judge Hamilton scheduled a hearing for November 28 at which the
petitioners and city lawyers will present their arguments for
"appropriate relief, in the form of equitable relief, refunds or
damages, or otherwise" to compensate property owners who were
wronged in the assessment process.

Mr. Craig told The Common Denominator, "We will be urging that
the taxes assessed in tax year 2002 be voided to the extent that
they exceeded the prior year."  Additionally, Mr. Craig told The
Common Denominator that the Office of the Chief Financial
Officer has estimated such a refund could cost the city $44
million. He also said that the cost "would be substantially
higher" if the judge's ruling were extended to properties in
Triennial Groups 1 and 2 for tax year 2003, when a similar
assessment process was used.

The Office of Tax and Revenue has just ignored its statutory
instructions and has been freewheeling for years," according to
Mr. Craig.

Maryann Young, a spokeswoman for the CFO declined comment on the
cost of a potential tax refund, but she did say that city
officials "likely will appeal" the court's ruling. She pointed
out, "I know they still use 'trending'" as part of the
assessment process.  The ruling applies to residential
properties located in areas of the city designated as part of
Triennial Group 1, one of three property groupings that the city
created to stagger assessments of residential real estate every
three years for tax purposes. In 2002, the city began changing
over to a system of annual property assessments.

Triennial Group 1 includes Anacostia, Barry Farms, Brentwood,
Central, Cleveland Park, Columbia Heights, Congress Heights,
Eckington, Forest Hills, Fort Dupont Park, Garfield, Hillcrest,
Kalorama, Le Droit Park, Marshall Heights, Massachusetts Avenue
Heights, Mount Pleasant, Observatory Circle, Randle Heights,
Trinidad and Woodley.


DOBSON COMMUNICATIONS: OK Court Consolidates Securities Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Oklahoma ordered consolidated the securities class actions filed
against Dobson Communications Corporation and certain of its
officers and directors.

The suits allege violations of the federal securities laws and
seek unspecified damages, purportedly on behalf of a class of
purchasers of the Company's publicly traded securities in the
period between May 19, 2003 and August 9, 2004.  In particular,
the lawsuits allege that the Company concealed significant
decreases in revenues and failed to disclose certain facts about
our business, including:

     (1) that the Company's rate of growth in roaming minutes
         was substantially declining, and that it had
         experienced negative growth in October 2003;

     (2) that AT&T Wireless, its largest roaming customer, had
         notified the Company that it wanted to dispose of its
         equity interest in the Company that it had held since
         its initial public offering, significantly decreasing
         their interest in purchasing roaming capacity from the
         Company;

     (3) that Bank of America intended to dispose of its
         substantial equity interest in the Company as soon as
         AT&T Wireless disposed of its equity interest in the
         Company;

     (4) that the Company had been missing sales quotas and
         losing market share throughout the relevant period; and

     (5) that the Company lacked the internal controls required
         to report meaningful financial results.

The suits are pending in the United States District Court for
the Western District of Oklahoma.  The first identified
complaint in the litigation is styled "Anthony Viscuso, et al.
v. Dobson Communications, Inc., et al."  The plaintiff firms in
this litigation are:

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

    (ii) Federman & Sherwood 120 North Robinson, Suite 2720,
         Oklahoma City, OK, 73102, Phone: 405-235-1560, E-mail:
         wfederman@aol.com;

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

    (iv) Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP 275 Madison Ave 34th Flr,
         New York, NY, 10016 Phone: 212.682.1818, Fax:
         212.682.1892, E-mail: email@rabinlaw.com

     (v) Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP 275 Madison Ave 34th Flr,
         New York, NY, 10016 Phone: 212.682.1818, Fax:
         212.682.1892, E-mail: email@rabinlaw.com

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

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



EN POINTE: CA Court Grants Certification To Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
California granted class certification for the securities class
action filed against En Pointe Technologies, Inc., five of its
directors, one current officer, and certain former officers
along with seven unrelated parties.

The suit alleges that the defendants made misrepresentations
regarding the Company and that the individual defendants
improperly benefited from the sales of shares of the Company's
common stock and seeking a recovery by our stockholders of the
damages sustained as a result of such activities.  The suit is
styled "In Re En Pointe Technologies Securities Litigation,
United States District Court, Southern District of California
Case No. 01CV0205L (CGA))."

In an amended complaint, the plaintiffs limited their claims the
Company and its Chief Executive Officer.  In response to a
motion to dismiss, the Court further limited plaintiffs' claims
to allegations of market manipulation and insider trading.  The
En Pointe defendants have answered the amended and limited
complaint.


FEDEX CORPORATION: CA Judge Certifies Racial Discrimination Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Susan Illston certified a class action
discrimination lawsuit against Memphis, Tennessee-based FedEx
Corporation, The Associated Press reports.  The suit alleges In
that the Company paid thousands of current and former minority
employees less than their white counterparts, skipped them for
promotions and gave minorities poor work evaluations,

The suit encompasses an estimated 10,000 current and former
hourly workers and about 1,000 low-level management employees in
Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana,
Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, Wyoming and parts
of Texas.  Filed by eight current and former employees back in
2003, the suit seeks millions of dollars in damages and an end
to the company's alleged discriminatory practices.

James Finberg, an attorney representing the class, told The
Associated Press that FedEx normally promotes from within, yet
three times the number of package handlers and loaders are
minorities compared to drivers, who earn more. Twice the number
of minorities fails promotional tests than do whites, Mr.
Finberg added. In addition, according to him, "FedEx knows that
black and Hispanics fail at a much higher rate, but yet has not
changed the test."

Despite the class certification, Jim McCluskey, a FedEx
spokesman, told The Associated Press that the delivery and
business services company was considering appealing the ruling,
which the company called a "procedural decision" that does not
address the case's merits. Mr. McCluskey also told The
Associated press, "We are confident that when the merits of the
case are considered, it will be shown that the plaintiffs were
not treated differently because of their race or ethnicity."

In court documents, FedEx contended that promotions were based
on "objective" factors, not race, that include time of service,
passing a basic skills test, previous performance evaluations
and whether the employee has been disciplined. The Company even
pointed out that it's statistical analysis reveals that
minorities receive higher evaluations on average than whites in
many job categories, and showed that minorities received higher
wages than whites in many jobs.

By certifying the class, Judge Illston essentially ruled that it
would be up to a jury to decide the conflicting data. No trial
though has been set for the case.

The suit is styled, "Caldwell et al. v. Fedex Corporation et
al., Case No. 3:03-cv-02878," filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, under
Judge Susan Illston. Representing the Plaintiff/s are:

     (1) John L. Burris of The Law Offices of John L. Burris,
         7677 Oakport St., Suite 1120, Oakland, CA 94621, Phone:
         510 839-5200, Fax: 510-839-3882, E-mail:
         burris@pacbell.net;

     (2) Michael S. Davis of The Law Offices of Michael S.
         Davis, 345 Hill St., San Francisco, CA 94114, Phone:
         (415) 282-4315, Fax: (415) 358-5576, E-mail:
         msdlegal@comcast.net;

     (3) James M. Finberg, Lexi Joy Hazam, Chimene I. Keitner or
         Bill Lann Lee of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein,
         LLP, 275 Battery St., Suite 3000, San Francisco, CA
         94111-3339, Phone: 415-956-1000, Fax: 415-956-1008, E-
         mail: JFinberg@lchb.com, lhazam@lchb.com,
         ckeitner@lchb.com or blee@lchb.com;

     (4) Sheryl Ivonne Harris of Schneider & Wallace, 1700
         California St., Suite 340, San Francisco, CA 94109,
         Phone: 415-440-3440, Fax: 415-440-3640 (fax), E-mail:
         sharris@schneiderwallace.com;

     (5) Todd M. Schneider or Guy B. Wallace of Schneider
         McCormac & Wallace, 180 Montgomery St., Suite 2000, San
         Francisco, CA 94109, Phone: 415-421-7100, Fax: 415-421-
         7105, E-mail: tschneider@schneiderwallace.com or
         gwallace@schneiderwallace.com;

     (6) Waukeen Q. McCoy of The Law Offices of Waukeen Q.
         McCoy, 703 Market St., Suite 1407, San Francisco, CA
         94103, Phone: 415-675-7705, Fax: 415-675-2530, E-mail:
         wqm@waukeenmccoy.com; and

     (7) Kay McKenzie Parker of LAW OFFICES OF KAY McKENZIE
         PARKER, 703 Market St., Suite 1401, San Francisco, CA
         94103, Phone: 415-227-9622, Fax: 415-227-4522, E-mail:
         kaymparker@earthlink.net.

Representing the Defendant/s are:

     (1) Sandra Colene Isom of Federal Express Corporation, 3620
         Hacks Cross Road, Building B, 3rd Floor, Memphis, TN
         38125, Phone: 901/434-8526, Fax: 901-434-9271, E-mail:
         scisom@fedex.com;

     (2) Kamili Williams Dawson, Gilmore F. Diekmann, Jr. or
         Francis J. Ortman, III of Seyfarth Shaw, 560 Mission
         St., Suite 3100, San Francisco, CA 94105, Phone: 415-
         397-2823, Fax: 415-397-8549, E-mail:
         kdawson@seyfarth.com, gdiekmann@sf.seyfarth.com or
         fortman@sf.seyfarth.com;

     (3) Tom A. Jerman of O'Melveny & Myers, LLP, 275 Battery
         St., 26th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94111-3344, Phone:
         415-984-8700, Fax: 415-984-8701; George A. Riley of
         O'Melveny & Myers, 275 Battery St., Suite 2600, San
         Francisco, CA 94111-3305, Phone: 415/984-8741, E-mail:
         griley@omm.com; and

     (4) David J. Reis of Howard Rice Nemerovski Canady Falk &
         Rabkin, Three Embarcadero Center, 7th Floor, San
         Francisco, CA 94111-4024, Phone: 415-434-1600, Fax:
         415-217-5910, E-mail: dreis@howardrice.com.


FLANDERS PROVISION: Recalls Patties Due to E. Coli Contamination
----------------------------------------------------------------
Flanders Provision Co., Inc., a Waycross, Ga., establishment, is
voluntarily recalling approximately 184,000 pounds of frozen
ground beef patties that may be contaminated with E. coli
O157:H7, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and
Inspection Service announced today.

The products subject to recall include two- and five-pound
packages of "FLANDERS QUARTER POUND BEEF PATTIES" - Packages
contain the production code,"05176;" and Five-pound packages of
"SAVER'S CHOICE QUARTER POUND BEEF PATTIES." Packages contain
the production code, "05176."  All of the products bear the
establishment number "EST. 9145" inside the USDA seal of
inspection.  The products were distributed to retail stores
nationwide.

FSIS was notified by the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC) of the epidemiological investigation results
that linked the product to a human illness. E. coli O157:H7 is a
potentially deadly bacteria that can cause bloody diarrhea and
dehydration. The very young, seniors and persons with weak
immune systems are the most susceptible to foodborne illness.

Media and consumers with questions about the recall should
contact Flanders Vice-President Steve Stipe at (912) 283-5191.
Consumers with food safety questions can call the toll-free USDA
Meat and Poultry Hotline at (888) 674-6854. The hotline is
available in English and Spanish and can be reached from 10 a.m.
to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food
safety messages are available 24 hours a day. "Ask Karen" is the
FSIS virtual representative available 24 hours a day to answer
your questions at
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/Food_Safety_Education/Ask_Karen/.


GLOBIX CORPORATION: NY Court Rejects Settlement Fee Award Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York refused several plaintiffs' law firms' plea for
reconsideration of the fee award in the settlement of a class
action lawsuit filed against Globix Corporation, entitled "In re
Globix Corp Securities Litigation, No. 02-CV-00082."  The court
approved the settlement in January 2005

This lawsuit named as defendants its former officers Marc Bell,
Peter Herzig (who remains a director of Globix) and Brian Reach.
The suit asserts claims under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased
Company securities between November 16, 2000 and December 27,
2001.  The lawsuit alleged that the defendants had failed to
disclose the true state of the company's financial condition
during this period.

Under the settlement, which remains subject to appeal, the
company has agreed to pay $3,500,000 (all of which would be
covered by insurance) to settle all claims against it. A motion
for reconsideration of the fee award has been filed by those
plaintiffs' law firms whose fees were not included in the
settlement.

On June 25, 2002, the Company entered into a Stipulation and
Order with the lead plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit.  The
Stipulation and Order provides that 229,452 shares of the
Company's common stock and $1,968,000 in aggregate principal
amount of the 11% senior notes will be held in escrow pending
the outcome of the class action lawsuit.

Under the settlement, the Company paid $3,500,000 (all of which
was covered by insurance) to settle all claims against it. A
motion for reconsideration of the fee award filed by those
plaintiffs' law firms whose fees were not included in the
settlement was rejected by the court in February 2005.  This
decision has not been appealed within the applicable time frame
allowing the judgment to become final.


GUIDANT CORPORATION: ME Resident Leads Suit Over Defibrillators
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit filed by a Portland woman in U.S.
District Court in Maine alleges that Guidant Corporation
continues to sell defective heart defibrillators after it
discovered that they could malfunction, The Associated Press
reports.

According to Cindy Lowry's suit, the device that was inserted
into her chest more than three years ago has never failed, but
she lives in constant fear that it might. "Not only can they not
fix it, they can't test it to see if it is defective," she said,
adding that her only recourse is to undergo a second surgery to
implant a different device.

Ms. Lowry's attorney, Greg Hansel, told The Associated Press
that there could be more than 20,000 potential plaintiffs in the
lawsuit, which seeks compensatory, and punitive damages as well
as class action status.

Court records show that Ms. Lowry was 52 when she was diagnosed
with ventricular tachycardia, a condition that can hinder the
heart's ability to pump enough blood. Her doctor recommended a
defibrillator, which monitors irregularities in heart rhythms
and, when necessary, delivers a series of electrical shocks to
jolt the heart into beating normally.

Two months before Ms. Lowry received the VENTAK PRIZM 2 DR Model
1861, Guidant identified a flaw in the device's lead wires that
could cause a short-circuit. In April 2002, the same month of
her surgery, Guidant made a manufacturing change in the device,
but did not notify doctors or patients of the change or the flaw
in the original device.

Thus, the lawsuit alleges that the company continued to sell
potentially defective devices and did not disclose the potential
danger until it learned that the New York Times was publishing a
story about the device's role in the death of a patient.

In June 2005, Guidant initiated a recall for Model 1861
manufactured on or before April 16, 2002. In a letter, the
company advised patients not to have their devices replaced if
there is no sign of failure "because our analysis indicates the
failure rate will be low."


ILLINOIS: Court Affirms St. Clair County's Dismissal of Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Fifth District Appellate Court upheld a St. Clair County
Circuit Court decision to dismiss a class action suit over the
constitutionality of interest earned on client funds, The
Madison County Record reports.

Court records revealed that plaintiffs Gregory T. Wieland and
Michael Gallagher sued the Lawyers Trust Fund (LTF) of Illinois
and Illinois Supreme Court Justices in 2002 alleging that Rule
1.15(d) of the Rules of Professional Conduct was
unconstitutional.

Newly appointed Appellate Justice Stephen L. Spomer authored the
court's opinion, which was reached on September 15. In it he
wrote, "...The circuit court was not in error when it dismissed
the plaintiffs' complaint."

Mr. Wieland and Mr. Gallagher claimed the "taking of private
property for public use without just compensation" violated the
Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as applied to the
states by the Fourteenth Amendment.

According to the appellate decision that was released on
September, "In particular, the plaintiffs claimed that the
mandate of Rule 1.15(d) that a lawyer place client funds into a
pooled trust account, with the LTF named as the beneficiary of
any interest income, whenever the lawyer deems the possession of
those funds to be 'nominal or short-term', resulted in a taking
of the interest on their funds without just compensation."

The lower court's decision to dismiss the case was based on a
U.S. Supreme Court ruling, Brown v. Legal Foundation of
Washington, which held that interest on lawyers' trust accounts
(IOLTA) does not violate the Fifth Amendment.

St. Clair County Circuit Judge Michael J. O'Malley dismissed the
case after defendants argued, among other things, that the
justices are entitled to "sovereign immunity."

In its own ruling with Justices James K. Donovan and Terrence J.
Hopkins concurring, Justice Spomer wrote, "We find no meaningful
difference in the language of the Washington rule and the
language of the Illinois rule." He further wrote, "The just
compensation due a client under the terms of the Illinois rule
is zero. Therefore, there has been no violation of the just
compensation clause of the Fifth Amendment."


IMPSAT FIBER: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Stock Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted preliminary approval to the consolidated
securities class action filed against Impsat Fiber Networks,
Inc., certain individuals who were then its officers and
directors, and the underwriters to our initial public offering.

This lawsuit alleged on behalf of a proposed class of all
shareholders that the Company and its underwriters violated
various provisions of the securities laws in connection with an
initial public offering in February 2000.

Various plaintiffs filed similar actions asserting virtually
identical allegations against more than 40 investment banks and
250 other companies.  All of these "IPO allocation" Securities
class actions currently pending in the Southern District of New
York are assigned to Judge Shira A. Scheindlin for coordinated
pretrial proceedings.  The issuer defendants in the coordinated
proceedings, including the Company, filed omnibus motions to
dismiss the actions. In October 2002, the Company's directors
and officers were dismissed without prejudice pursuant to a
tolling agreement. In February 2003, the court issued a ruling
denying the motion to dismiss with respect to the claims against
the Company.

In June 2004, a stipulation of settlement, for the release of
claims against the issuer defendants, including the Company, in
exchange for a contingent payment to be made by the issuer
defendants' insurance carriers and an assignment of certain
claims, was submitted to the Court for approval.  Pursuant to
the Plan, the plaintiffs in the IPO Class Action received in
connection with their claims the assignment of any insurance
proceeds that the Company receives in connection with the
litigation, but otherwise the claims of the plaintiffs against
it or any of its other assets have been discharged as part of
the Plan. In February 2005, further to plaintiffs' motion, the
Court granted preliminary approval for a proposed settlement of
the IPO Class Action. The settlement is subject to certain final
determinations and a fairness hearing.

The suit is styled "IN RE IMPSAT FIBER NETWORKS, INC. INITIAL
PUBLIC OFFERING SECURITIES LITIGATION," filed in relation to "IN
RE INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERING SECURITIES LITIGATION, Master File
No. 21 MC 92 (SAS)," both pending in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, under Judge Shira
N. Scheindlin.  The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

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

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

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

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

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

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

KEYSTONE RV: Recalls 834 2005-06 Trailers Due to Crash Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------
Keystone RV, Comapny in cooperation with the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration's Office of Defects Investigation
(ODI) is voluntarily recalling about 834 units of 2005-06
Cougar, 2005-06 Mountaineer, 2005-06 Sprinter, 2005-06 Tail-
Gator trailers due to crash hazard. NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID Number:
05V424000.

According to the ODI, on certain travel trailers and 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. As a consequence, the center of the wheel
could separate from the rim. The wheel may wobble and cause a
vibration of 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, Keystone is working with Tredit Tire to notify
owners and have the wheel replaced.

For more details, Keystone, Phone: 866-425-4369, and NHTSA Auto
Safety Hotline: 1-888-327-4236 or (TTY) 1-800-424-9153, Web
site: http://www.safecar.gov.


LOUISIANA: Statewide Suit Challenges Court Fees in Civil Matters
----------------------------------------------------------------
The extra fees that Louisiana courts charges in civil matters
are illegal, according to a statewide class action lawsuit filed
in Baton Rouge federal court, The 2theadvocate.com reports.

The suit contends that state district clerks in every parish for
the past decade have levied varying filing charges in civil
cases above what Louisiana law allows.  The attorneys behind the
suit are seeking to bar clerks from charging fees above the
"statutory minimum," and order reimbursement of all court fees
"charged unlawfully."

Eulis Simien, one of the Baton Rouge lawyers who filed the suit
told 2theadvocate.com, "Part of the problem is that state
statute dictates each fee, but people get charged varying
amounts above and beyond that in varying clerks' offices." He
added, "The Louisiana Legislature sets the fee, and it's not
appropriate for the clerks to raise the fee without the
authority of the Legislature to get it changed."

The Louisiana Revised Statutes set fees for 77 clerical tasks
ranging from 50 cents per 100 words to record a confession of
judgment to $18 to probate a will. Additionally, a part of the
statute grants "the clerks of several district courts" the
authority to collect additional fees up to 10 percent of those
specified in the law.

One of the defendants named in the suit is the Louisiana Clerk
of Courts Association, whose attorney, Randy Zinna of Baton
Rouge, only told 2theadvocate.com that he would comment on the
allegations after he's reviewed the lawsuit.  Mr. Simien told
2theadvocate.com that the suit was inspired bby the favorable
ruling in a similar lawsuit was filed in November 2003 in Lake
Charles federal court, which claimed that those excess fees
deprive people of their property and limit their access to the
courts.

In that case, Karen Robinson Woodard contends the Calcasieu
Parish clerk of court in Lake Charles charges litigants $10 to
file a subpoena duces tecum, for which the state set a $3.30
fee. She also cited a $5 women's-shelter fee she argues the
Louisiana Supreme Court declared illegal in 1997.

At first, U.S. District Judge James Trimble Jr. dismissed Ms.
Woodard's claim back in June 2004, saying the matter should be
considered in state court. In his five-page ruling, though, the
judge noted that he found "no statutory authority for the fees,"
and that Calcasieu Parish officials "provide no explanation for
charging litigants fees in excess of, or unauthorized by,
Louisiana law."  However, a three-judge panel of the 5th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that portion of Judge
Trimble's decision in July.

U.S. Circuit Judge Carl Stewart, who was assigned the case,
wrote that Ms. Woodard's "well-pleaded allegation established
that she was deprived of a property right without due process of
law." With that ruling, the Lake Charles case is now moving
toward trial.


NEW YORK: Appeals Court Reinstates IPO Lawsuits V. Major Banks
--------------------------------------------------------------
A federal appeals court revived two class action lawsuits that
accused investment banks of engaging in price fixing as they
took technology stocks public during the Internet boom after a
judge earlier tossed them out, The Associated Press reports.

Additionally, the suits accused the banks of illegal "tie-ins,"
which requires investors to purchase shares of less attractive
stocks to get in on some of the hot new technology issues.
Defendants in the lawsuits included leading Wall Street banks
such as Bear Stearns, Credit Suisse Group, Lehman Brothers Inc.,
Morgan Stanley and Merrill Lynch & Co.

In its 68-page decision, The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
stated that U.S. District Judge William H. Pauley went too far
when he ruled in November 2003 that the lawsuits could not
proceed as antitrust claims and must be left to federal
securities regulators to decide.

According to the appeals court, "Defendants simply cannot
identify any power or provision of the securities laws that will
be mooted or even significantly curtailed by applying the
antitrust laws to the conduct alleged in plaintiffs'
complaints."

The court noted that the plaintiffs "allege an epic Wall Street
conspiracy," saying in lawsuits filed in 2001 that the banks
conspired to drive up the prices of initial public offerings by
requiring investors to buy the stocks at higher prices than
their issue price, a process called laddering.

On that count, the appeals court ruled, "Plaintiffs tell a
compelling story and are not the first to tell it." It further
said, "The heart of the alleged anticompetitive behavior finds
no shelter in the securities laws."


PENNSYLVANIA: Judge Dismisses Uninsured Patient's Suit V. HMOs
--------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Lawrence F. Stengel in Philadelphia
dismissed a class action lawsuit against Albert Einstein
Healthcare Network and the Jefferson Health System, which
alleged the systems' Philadelphia medical centers were charging
excessive fees to uninsured patients, The Philadelphia Business
Journal reports.

Part of a national wave of lawsuits filed across the country
last year against nonprofit hospitals, the lawsuit, also charged
the medical centers with using improper bill-collection tactics.

Mississippi attorney Richard Scruggs, who successfully sued the
tobacco industry, led the action, filing lawsuits against about
300 hospitals.

In dismissing the lawsuit against Jefferson and Einstein, Judge
Stengel cited that a hospital's nonprofit status does not
require it to provide free or discounted care to those without
health insurance.

"We are very pleased with this decision," said David F. Simon,
senior vice president and general counsel for the Jefferson
Health System, which is the parent organization for Thomas
Jefferson University Hospital and the Einstein Healthcare
Network. It is also the parent organization for the Frankford
Health Care System, Main Line Health and Magee Rehabilitation
Hospital. He also told The Philadelphia Business Journal, "All
Jefferson Health System members have a comprehensive charity-
care policy under which we provided over $100 million in charity
care last year."


PENTON MEDIA: Reaches Settlement For GA TCPA Violations Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Penton Media, Inc. reached a settlement for the class action
filed in the Richmond County, Georgia Superior Court against it,
alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(TCPA).

Allison & Associates, Inc. filed the suit on November 3, 2003,
under TCPA, which prohibits the transmission of unsolicited fax
advertisements.  The lawsuit is a punitive class action that
seeks to represent a class of plaintiffs comprised of all
individuals and entities who, during the period November 3,
1999, through the present, received one or more facsimiles sent
by or on behalf of the Company advertising the commercial
availability of its products or services and who did not give
their prior expressed permission or invitation to receive such
faxes.

The statutory penalty for a single violation of the TCPA is
$500, although the penalty can increase to $1,500 per violation
if the Company is found to have willfully or knowingly violated
these laws.  The Company is complying with the Court's order for
discovery.  A hearing on class certification was held on May 3,
2005.  In June 2005, the two parties settled the case for $0.05
million in cash, which was paid entirely with insurance
proceeds. The Richmond County, Georgia, Superior Court dismissed
the case on June 30, 2005.


PERINI CORPORATION: Court Approves Settlement of Holders' Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Perini Corporation (NYSE:PCR) reports that the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts approved the
previously announced settlement of the class action lawsuit
filed by holders of Perini's $2.125 Depositary Convertible
Exchangeable Preferred Shares (the "Depositary Shares"). The
settlement will become final on October 24, 2005 assuming no
appeals are filed by that date.

Under the terms of the settlement, Perini will issue in exchange
for all of the Depositary Shares submitted in the settlement
consideration per share of $19.00 in cash and one share of
Perini common stock. In addition, Frederick Doppelt will resign
from Perini's Board of Directors. Perini has been advised by
EquiServe Trust Company, N.A., the class administrator for the
settlement that 374,185 Depositary Shares will be participating
in the settlement and 185,088 Depository Shares have opted out
of the settlement and will remain outstanding.

For more details, contact Michael Ciskey of Perini Corporation,
Phone: 508-628-2295, Web site: http://www.perini.comor Crocker
Coulson of CCG Investor Relations, Phone: 310-477-9800.


PFIZER INC.: Advocacy Group Lodges MA Suit Over Lipitor Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hub health-care advocates, Community Catalyst organized a class
action lawsuit against Pfizer Inc. (NYSE: PFE), accusing the New
York-based pharmaceutical giant of lying to many women and
seniors when it said taking Lipitor would reduce their risk of
having a heart attack, The Boston Herald reports.

Filed in the U.S. District Court in Boston, the suit alleged
that the company's best-selling drug was not merely ripping off
customers but might even be putting them in danger.  The case
cited a recent study of 2,000 women, which found that those who
took Lipitor developed 10 percent more heart attacks than the
women who took the placebo.

According to Community Catalyst, "Pfizer engaged in a massive
campaign to convince both doctors and patients that Lipitor is a
beneficial treatment for nearly everyone with elevated
cholesterol, even though no studies have shown it to be
effective for those women over 65 years of age who do not
already have heart disease or diabetes."

Helping inspire the suit was work by Dr. John Abramson, clinical
instructor of ambulatory care at Harvard Medical School, author
of "Overdosed America," and a medical columnist for the Boston
Sunday Herald. In his book, Dr. Abramson wrote, "Millions of
women and seniors are spending huge sums to take Lipitor every
day despite a lack of proof that it's doing anything beneficial
for them, and may actually be harming the elderly."

Court documents revealed that Pfizer sold nearly $11 billion
worth of Lipitor last year and 74 percent of those taking such
cholesterol-reducing drugs had no prior history of coronary
heart disease.  The Liptor case, whose lead attorney will be
Steve Berman, of the law firm Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, is
the 23rd class action suit against a big pharmaceutical company
that Community Catalyst's Prescription Access Litigation Project
brought since it was set up four years ago.


PRG PACKING: Recalls Frankfurters Due To Listeria Contamination
---------------------------------------------------------------
PRG Packing Corp., a Bronx, N.Y., firm, is voluntarily recalling
approximately 23,040 pounds of chicken frankfurters that may be
contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service announced
today.

The product subject to recall is 16 ounce packages of "SWEET
MEADOW FARMS BRAND, CHICKEN FRANKFURTERS." Each package bears
the sell by date "101905."  The packages bear the establishment
number "P-5281" inside the USDA seal of inspection. All shipping
containers bear the packaging date "AUG. 19 2005" and the
product code "08230."  The frankfurters were distributed to
wholesale establishments in New Jersey and New York.

The problem was discovered through microbiological sampling done
by the New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets.
FSIS has received no reports of illnesses associated with
consumption of the product.

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

Consumers with questions about the recall should contact company
General Manager Junio Branagan at (718) 328-0059. Media with
questions about the recall should contact company President
Guillermo Gonzalez at (718)-328-0059.  Consumers with food
safety questions can call the toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry
Hotline at (888) 674-6854. The hotline is available in English
and Spanish and can presently be reached 24 hours a day.


PROTECTION ONE: Settles Nashville Burglar Claims For Arbitration
----------------------------------------------------------------
Protection One, Inc. agreed to settle all of Nashville Burglar
Alarm LLC claims for arbitration, alleging breach of contract,
misrepresentation, breach of implied covenant of good faith,
violation of consumer protection statues and franchise law
violations.

Nashville Burglar, a former dealer, filed the demand for
arbitration on May 10, 2004, against the Company with the
American Arbitration Association (AAA).  Nashville Burglar
Alarm, along with five other former dealers, was an original
plaintiff in a putative class action lawsuit filed against the
Company in May 1999, in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Kentucky, styled "Total Security Solutions,
Inc., et al. v. Protection One Alarm Monitoring, Inc., Civil
Action No. 3:99CV-326-H). In that matter, the court granted the
Company's motion to stay the proceeding pending the individual
plaintiffs' pursuit of arbitration as required by the terms of
their dealer agreements, and AAA refused plaintiffs' motion to
require that all of the claims of the plaintiffs be heard
collectively.

Since that time, two of the original plaintiffs in the Total
Security Solutions case (not including Nashville Burglar Alarm)
were settled by the mutual agreement of the parties. In
addition, on May 13, 2005, Nashville Burglar Alarm and the
Company mutually agreed to settle all claims and disputes
between them. The remaining original plaintiffs in the Total
Security Solutions case have not pursued claims in arbitration.

Two other dealers (not plaintiffs in the original Total Security
Solutions litigation) filed similar claims in arbitration
against the Company: Beachwood Security and Ira Beer, who is the
owner of both Security Response Network, Inc. and Homesafe
Security, Inc. Discovery is ongoing in the Beer matter, and the
Beachwood matter was dismissed by AAA.


SIMON PROPERTY: Faces Consumer Suits Over Bank-Issued Gift Cards
----------------------------------------------------------------
Simon Property Group, LP and its affiliate SPGGC, Inc. face
litigation, alleging consumer fraud related to the sale of co-
branded, bank-issued gift cards.

On November 15, 2004, the Attorneys General of Massachusetts,
New Hampshire and Connecticut filed complaints in their
respective state Superior Courts against the two defendants,
alleging that the sale of co-branded, bank-issued gift cards
sold in certain of its Portfolio Properties violated gift
certificate statutes and consumer protection laws in those
states. Each of these suits seeks injunctive relief, unspecified
civil penalties and disgorgement of any fees determined to be
improperly charged to consumers.

In addition, the Company is a defendant in three other
proceedings relating to the gift card program. Each of the three
proceedings has been brought by a private plaintiff as a
purported class action and alleges violation of state consumer
protection laws, state abandoned property and contract laws or
state statutes regarding gift certificates or gift cards and
seeks a variety of remedies including unspecified damages and
injunctive relief.


STONEPATH GROUP: PA Court Dismisses Neer Derivative, Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Stonepath Group (AMEX: STG), a global logistics services
organization, reports on the dismissal of Ronald Jeffrey Neer v.
Dennis L. Pelino, et al., a derivative class action lawsuit
filed on October 12, 2004 in the United States District Court in
Philadelphia against certain of the Company's present and former
directors and officers.

The lawsuit was one of several filed after Stonepath announced
last fall that it would restate its financial statements for
prior periods. It alleged various breaches of state corporate
law and a violation of Section 304 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002.

In dismissing the complaint in the derivative action, the Court
determined that the plaintiff did not have the right to bring a
private cause of action under Section 304 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 and declined to exercise jurisdiction over the other
claims.

If the plaintiff chooses to proceed, he could either appeal the
district court's ruling to the United States Court of Appeal for
the Third Circuit or re-file a derivative lawsuit in state
court.

The dismissal of this action does not affect the other actions
which are consolidated in In re Stonepath Group, Inc. Securities
Litigation, pending in the United States Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania. Stonepath has also filed a motion to
dismiss that consolidated action.

"We believed from the beginning that this case had no foundation
and we are extremely pleased to have won our motion to dismiss,"
stated Dennis L. Pelino, Chairman of Stonepath.

For more details, contact John Brine of Stonepath Group, Phone:
212-254-8280, Web site: www.stonepath.com.


SUNNYBROOK RV: Recalls 429 2005 Trailers Due to Crash Hazard
------------------------------------------------------------
Sunnybrook RV, Inc. in cooperation with the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration's Office of Defects Investigation
(ODI) is voluntarily recalling about 429 units of 2005 MOBILE
SCOUT / 2750, MOBILE SCOUT / 27FKS, 2005 MOBILE SCOUT / 28RKFS,
2005 MOBILE SCOUT / 28RLKS, 2005 MOBILE SCOUT / 29DBS, 2005
MOBILE SCOUT / 29RBS, 2005 MOBILE SCOUT / 3050, 2005 MOBILE
SCOUT / 30FKS, 2005 MOBILE SCOUT / 30RKFS, 2005 MOBILE SCOUT /
3150, 2005 MOBILE SCOUT / 319SUT, 2005 MOBILE SCOUT / 31BWFS,
2005 MOBILE SCOUT / 31BWKS, 2005 MOBILE SCOUT / 32BWKS, 2005
MOBILE SCOUT / 3310, 2005 MOBILE SCOUT / 33BWS, 2005 MOBILE
SCOUT / 33FKS, 2005 MOBILE SCOUT / 349SUT, 2005 MOBILE SCOUT /
34BWFS, 2005 MOBILE SCOUT / 34BWKS, 2005 MOBILE SCOUT / 35BWS,
2005 MOBILE SCOUT / 3610, 2005 MOBILE SCOUT / 36BWKS, 2005
MOBILE SCOUT / 38BWOS, 2005 MOBILE SCOUT / 391KSUT, 2005 MOBILE
SCOUT / 39SUT, 2005 MOBILE SCOUT / 412SUT, 2005 MOBILE SCOUT /
434SUT, 2005 SUNNYBROOK / 2750, 2005 SUNNYBROOK / 27FKS,
2005 SUNNYBROOK / 28RKFS, 2005 SUNNYBROOK / 28RLKS, 2005
SUNNYBROOK / 29DBS, 2005 SUNNYBROOK / 29RBS, 2005 SUNNYBROOK /
3050, 2005 SUNNYBROOK / 30FKS, 2005 SUNNYBROOK / 30RKFS, 2005
SUNNYBROOK / 3150, 2005 SUNNYBROOK / 319SUT, 2005 SUNNYBROOK /
31BWFS, 2005 SUNNYBROOK / 31BWKS, 2005 SUNNYBROOK / 32BWKS, 2005
SUNNYBROOK / 3310, 2005 SUNNYBROOK / 33BWS, 2005 SUNNYBROOK /
33FKS, 2005 SUNNYBROOK / 349SUT, 2005 SUNNYBROOK / 34BWFS, 2005
SUNNYBROOK / 34BWKS, 2005 SUNNYBROOK / 35BWS, 2005 SUNNYBROOK /
3610, 2005 SUNNYBROOK / 36BWKS, 2005 SUNNYBROOK / 38BWOS, 2005
SUNNYBROOK / 391KSUT, 2005 SUNNYBROOK / 39SUT, 2005 SUNNYBROOK /
412SUT and 2005 SUNNYBROOK / 434SUT trailers due to crash
hazard. NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID Number: 05V423000.

According to the ODI, on certain towable, non-motorized, travel
trailers and 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. As a
consequence, the center wheel could separate from the rim. The
wheel may also 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, Sunnybrook is working with Tredit Tire to notify
owners and have wheels replaced. The recall is expected to begin
on September 30, 2005.

For more details, Sunnybrook, Phone: 574-825-5250, and NHTSA
Auto Safety Hotline: 1-888-327-4236 or (TTY) 1-800-424-9153, Web
site: http://www.safecar.gov.


SUPERIOR MORTGAGE: Forges FTC Consumer Privacy Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Superior Mortgage Corporation, a lender with 40 branch offices
in 10 states and multiple Web sites, has agreed to settle
Federal Trade Commission charges that it violated federal law by
failing to provide reasonable security for sensitive customer
data and falsely claiming that it encrypted data submitted
online. The settlement bars future deceptive claims and requires
the company to establish data security procedures that will be
reviewed by independent third-party auditors for 10 years.

The FTC's Safeguards Rule, enacted under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley
Act, requires financial institutions, including lenders like
Superior, to implement reasonable policies and procedures to
ensure the security and confidentiality of sensitive customer
information. Superior maintained customers' Social Security
numbers, credit histories, and credit card numbers, among other
sensitive information. The FTC complaint alleges that Superior
violated the Safeguards Rule because it:

     (1) Failed to assess risks to its customer information
         until more than a year after the Safeguards Rule took
         effect;

     (2) Failed to implement appropriate password policies to
         limit access to company systems and documents
         containing sensitive customer information;

     (3) Did not encrypt or otherwise protect sensitive customer
         information before sending it by e-mail; and

     (4) Failed to ensure that its service providers were
         providing appropriate security for customer information
         and addressing known security risks in a timely manner.

The FTC also alleged that despite Superior's claims that
sensitive personal information collected at its www.supmort.com
Web site was encrypted using secure socket layer technology, the
information was only encrypted while it was being transmitted
between a visitor's web browser and the Web site's server. Once
the information was received at the Web site, it was decrypted
and e-mailed to Superior's headquarters and branch offices in
clear, readable text. The agency alleged that these claims were
deceptive and violated the FTC Act.

The settlement bars Superior from misrepresenting the extent to
which it maintains and protects the privacy, confidentiality, or
security of any personal information collected from or about
consumers, and prohibits violations of the Safeguards Rule. The
settlement also requires that Superior hire an independent,
third-party auditor to assess its security procedures every two
years for the next 10 years, and to certify that these
procedures meet or exceed the protections required by the
Safeguards Rule. The settlement also contains certain record
keeping requirements to allow the FTC to monitor compliance.

Superior Mortgage Corp. is based in Tuckerton, New Jersey. It
has offices in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Florida, Virginia,
Maryland, North Carolina, Connecticut, Indiana, and Delaware.

The Commission vote to accept the consent agreement was 4-0. The
FTC will publish an announcement regarding the agreement in the
Federal Register shortly. The agreement will be subject to
public comment for 30 days, beginning today and continuing
through October 27, 2005 after which the Commission will decide
whether to make it final. Comments should be addressed to the
FTC, Office of the Secretary, Room H-135, 600 Pennsylvania
Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20580. The FTC requests that any
comment filed in paper form near the end of the public comment
period be sent by courier or overnight service, if possible,
because U.S. postal mail in the Washington area and at the
Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security
precautions.

Copies of the complaint and consent agreement, and an analysis
to aid public comment, 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
Jessica Rich, Bureau of Consumer Protection, by Phone: 202-326-
3224, or visit the Website:
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2005/09/superior.htm.


TACO BELL: Civil Suit Over NH Branch Hepatitis A Finding Closed
---------------------------------------------------------------
A civil lawsuit launched by a Taco Bell Corporation customer
last year, which alleges that she and her family became ill
after eating at a Taco Bell in Derry, New Hampshire ended
recently and is now considered closed, The Telegraph Online
reports.

The customer, Wendy Evans claimed that after she and her family
ate a meal at the Derry Taco Bell on February 7, 2004, and again
February 21, 2004, they became ill. According to her suit, the
first visit made the family very ill within 30 minutes, although
when she visited a doctor, he told her it could have been the
flu.

Court documents revealed that on February 25, 2004, an employee
at the Derry Taco Bell was diagnosed with hepatitis A. The
state's public health department then made the diagnosis public
two days later and at the same time asked customers to get
tested for the disease if they had eaten there during a specific
time period in February. Ms. Evans and her family were tested,
but they were negative for exposure to hepatitis A, according to
court documents.

In filing the civil suit, Ms. Evans was trying to obtain class
certification on behalf of all people who ate at the Derry Taco
Bell during February 2004, which U.S. District Court Judge
Joseph DiClerico Jr. denied.

Judge DiClerico though did grant Taco Bell Corporation's request
for summary judgment, which essentially means the case had to
proceed on the facts available. Thus, Judge DiClerico ruled that
Evans' lawyer had not shown a direct connection through evidence
to the Taco Bell food and the numerous symptoms the Evans
suffered from.

Judge DiClerico also denied a request by Taco Bell that the
court sanction Ms. Evans, which would have included making her
pay for Company's court costs.

The suit is styled, "Evans v. Taco Bell Corporation, Case No.
1:04-cv-00103-JD," filed in United States District Court for the
District of New Hampshire, under Judge Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.
Representing the Plaintiff/s is Peter E. Hutchins of Wiggin &
Nourie, PA, 670 N Commercial St., Ste. 305, P.O. Box 808,
Manchester, NH 03105-0808, Phone: 603-669-2211, E-mail:
phutchins@wiggin-nourie.com. Reprsenting the Defendant/s are
Andrew W. Serell of Rath Young & Pignatelli, PA, One Capital
Plaza, P.O. Box 1500, Concord, NH 03302-1500, Phone: 603-226-
2600, E-mail: aws@rathlaw.com; and Bruce G. Tucker of Tucker Law
Office, 55 Hammarlund Way, Middletown, RI 02842, Phone:
401-843-8400, E-mail: btucker@legalmgt.com.


TENFOLD CORPORATION: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the
securities class action filed against Tenfold Corporation,
certain of its officers and directors and the underwriters of
its initial public offering.

The suit alleges violations of federal securities laws pursuant
to Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act 1934 on the basis of an alleged
failure to disclose the underwriters' alleged compensation and
manipulative practices.

Similar complaints have been filed against over 300 other
issuers that have had initial public offerings since 1998.  The
individual officer and director defendants entered into tolling
agreements and, pursuant to a Court Order dated October 9, 2002,
were dismissed from the litigation without prejudice.  On
February 19, 2003, the Court granted a Motion to Dismiss the
Rule 10b-5 claims against 116 defendants, including the Company.

On June 27, 2003, the Company's Board of Directors approved a
proposed partial settlement with the plaintiffs in this matter.
In June 2004, a settlement agreement was submitted to the Court
for preliminary approval.  The settlement would provide, among
other things, a release of TenFold and of the individual
defendants for the alleged wrongful conduct in the Amended
Complaint.

The Company agreed to undertake other responsibilities under the
partial settlement, including agreeing to assign away, not
assert, or release certain potential claims we may have against
the Company's underwriters.  The underwriters filed a memorandum
with the Court opposing preliminary approval of the settlement.
Any direct financial impact of the proposed settlement is
expected to be borne by our insurers.  The Company agreed to
approve the settlement subject to a number of conditions,
including the participation of a substantial number of
other issuer defendants in the proposed settlement, the consent
of our insurers to the settlement, and the completion of
acceptable final settlement documentation.  Furthermore, the
settlement is subject to a hearing on fairness and approval by
the Court overseeing the litigation.
Although the Company and the individual defendants believe that
the complaints are without merit and deny any liability, but
because they also wish to avoid the continuing waste of
management time and expense of litigation, they accepted
plaintiffs' proposal to settle all claims that might have been
brought in this action.  The Company and the individual
Transmeta defendants expect that their share of the global
settlement will be fully funded by their director and officer
liability insurance.  Although the Company and the Transmeta
defendants have approved the settlement in principle, it remains
subject to several procedural conditions, as well as formal
approval by the Court.  It is possible that the parties may not
reach a final written settlement agreement or that the Court may
decline to approve the settlement in whole or part.

The suit is styled "In re Tenfold Corporation Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation," related to "In re Initial
Public Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92 (SAS)
(S.D.N.Y.)," filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York under Judge Shira Scheindlin.  The
plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

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

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

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

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

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

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



TRANSMETA CORPORATION: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Stock Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against Transmeta
Corporation, certain of its directors and officers, and certain
of the underwriters for its initial public offering to the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.  The suit is styled "In re Transmeta Corporation Initial
Public Offering Securities Litigation, Case No. 01 CV 6492."

The complaints allege that the prospectus issued in connection
with the Company's initial public offering on November 7, 2000
failed to disclose certain alleged actions by the underwriters
for that offering, and alleges claims against the Company and
several of its officers and directors under Sections 11 and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and under Sections
10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended.

Similar actions have been filed against more than 300 other
companies that issued stock in connection with other initial
public offerings during 1999-2000.  Those cases have been
coordinated for pretrial purposes as "In re Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, Master File No. 21 MC 92 (SAS)."

In July 2002, the Company joined in a coordinated motion to
dismiss filed on behalf of multiple issuers and other
defendants.  In February 2003, the Court granted in part and
denied in part the coordinated motion to dismiss, and issued an
order regarding the pleading of amended complaints.  Plaintiffs
subsequently proposed a settlement offer to all issuer
defendants, which settlement would provide for payments by
issuers' insurance carriers if plaintiffs fail to recover a
certain amount from underwriter defendants.

Although the Company and the individual defendants believe that
the complaints are without merit and deny any liability, but
because they also wish to avoid the continuing waste of
management time and expense of litigation, they accepted
plaintiffs' proposal to settle all claims that might have been
brought in this action.  The Company and the individual
Transmeta defendants expect that their share of the global
settlement will be fully funded by their director and officer
liability insurance.  Although the Company and the Transmeta
defendants have approved the settlement in principle, it remains
subject to several procedural conditions, as well as formal
approval by the Court.  It is possible that the parties may not
reach a final written settlement agreement or that the Court may
decline to approve the settlement in whole or part.

The suit is styled "In re Transmeta Corporation Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, Case No. 01 CV 6492 (SAS)
(S.D.N.Y.)," related to "In re Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92 (SAS) (S.D.N.Y.)," filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York under Judge Shira Scheindlin.  The plaintiff firms in this
litigation are:

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

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

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

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

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

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


TURNSTONE SYSTEMS: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Lawsuit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against Turnstone
Systems, Inc., certain of its current and former officers and
directors, and the underwriters of its initial public offering
of stock as well as its secondary offering of stock.

On November 9, 2001, Arthur Mendoza filed a securities class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of a class of
individuals who purchased common stock in the Company's initial
public offering and its secondary stock offering between January
31 and December 6, 2000. The complaint alleges generally that
the prospectuses under which such securities were sold contained
false and misleading statements with respect to discounts and
commissions received by the underwriters.

The case has been coordinated for pre-trial purposes with over
300 cases raising the same or similar issues and also currently
pending in the Southern District of New York. On April 18, 2002,
Michael Szymanowski was appointed lead plaintiff in the action.
On April 22, 2002, an amended complaint was filed. On July 1,
2002, the underwriter defendants filed an omnibus motion to
dismiss. On July 15, 2002, the Company, collectively with the
other issuer defendants, also filed an omnibus motion to
dismiss. The lead plaintiff filed an opposition to the
underwriters' motion to dismiss on August 15, 2002 and to the
issuers' motion to dismiss on August 27, 2002.  The
underwriters' reply to the opposition was filed on September 13,
2002, and the Company's reply to the opposition was filed on
September 27, 2002.  On February 19, 2003, the court issued an
order denying the motions to dismiss with respect to
substantially all of the plaintiffs' claims, including those
against the Company.

In February 2005, the court granted preliminary approval for a
proposed settlement and release of claims against the issuer
defendants, including the Company.  The settlement is still
subject to a number of conditions, including final court
approval.

The suit is styled "IN RE TURNSTONE SYSTEMS, INC. INITIAL PUBLIC
OFFERING SECURITIES LITIGATION," filed in relation to "IN RE
INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERING SECURITIES LITIGATION, Master File No.
21 MC 92 (SAS)," both pending in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, under Judge Shira
N. Scheindlin.  The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

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

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

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

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

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

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


UNITED LIBERTY: OH Court Holds Suit Settlement Fairness Hearing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ohio Superior Court held a fairness hearing on September 26,2005
for the settlement of the class action filed against United
Liberty life Insurance Company.

Two policyholders filed the suit in 2000, referring to a class
of life insurance policies, including related certificates of
participation, that United Liberty issued over a period of years
ending around 1971 (known as "Five Star Policies").  It alleged
that the Company's dividend payments on these policies from 1993
through 1999 were less than the amounts required by the
certificates of participation.  It did not specify the amount of
the alleged underpayment but implied a maximum of about
$850,000.  The plaintiffs also alleged that United Liberty is
liable to pay punitive damages, also in an unspecified amount,
for breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing
to the plaintiffs in relation to the dividends.  The action has
been certified as a class action on behalf of all policyholders
who were Ohio residents and whose policies were still in force
in 1993.

As a result of a provisional settlement agreement dated October
8, 2004, that would apply to all holders of the Five Star
Policies wherever they reside, the Company has recognized an
obligation for future payments to the policyholders and their
attorneys totaling $825,000.  The terms of the settlement
agreement are subject to the approval of the court in which the
action is pending.  The court scheduled a hearing on the issue
of approval for September 26, 2005, following notice to members
of the class who will be afforded the opportunity to argue in
support of or opposition to the settlement agreement.


VERIZON WIRELESS: V710 Settlement Hearing Set January 17, 2006
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Los Angeles will hold a fairness hearing for the proposed
settlement in the matter: Opperman, et al. v. Cellco Partnership
d/b/a Verizon Wireless, Case No. BC 326764, on behalf of all
present and former customers of Verizon Wireless who activated
Verizon Wireless cellular service for a Motorola V710 cellular
handset on or before January 31, 2005.

The will be held on January 17, 2006 at Los Angeles Superior
Court, Department 24, 111 N. Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012.

For more details, contact Robert I. Harwood of Wechsler &
Harwood, 488 Madison Ave., 8th Floor, New York, NY 10022, Phone:
1-877-935-7400 or (212) 935-7400, Fax: (212) 753-3630 OR Michael
L. Kelly of Kirtland & Packard, LLP, 2361 Rosecrans Ave., Fourth
Floor, El Segundo, CA 90245, Phone: 310-536-1000, Fax:
310-536-1001.



                          Asbestos Alert


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Corning To Contribute 25M Shares to Trust
--------------------------------------------------------------
As part of Corning Inc.'s (NYSE: GLW) asbestos settlement
arrangement to be absorbed into the Pittsburgh Corning
Corporation plan of reorganization, Corning will contribute, if
the reorganization plan becomes effective, 25 million shares of
Corning common stock to a trust.

This portion of the asbestos liability requires adjustment based
upon movements in Corning's common stock price prior to
contribution of the shares to the trust. In the 2005-third
quarter, Corning will record a charge or credit for the change
in its common stock price as of September 30, 2005 compared to
US$16.62, the common stock price at June 30, 2005.

Once known mainly for its kitchenware and lab products, the
Corning, NY-based Company now derives 40% of its sales from
optical fiber and cable products and communications network
equipment made by its telecommunications unit. Other major
business segments include display technologies, environmental
technologies, and life sciences.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Machine Cleaner's Exposure Leads to Death
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Evesham Journal reports that Vitor Batista-Pedro, a 59-year-
old Portuguese man from South Littleton, died on January 26 of
malignant mesothelioma due to asbestos exposure while spending
seven years cleaning machines at an asbestos factory in
Portugal, Gloucestershire coroner Alan Crickmore says.

Mr. Crickmore said, "This is a case where there are all the
classical signs that the malignant mesothelioma has developed
because of an exposure to asbestos in the industrial workplace."

The inquest heard that Mr. Batista-Pedro had been for histology
test results but Birmingham medics failed to tell him he
contracted mesothelioma. He was found to have 182,418 asbestos
fibers per gram of dry lung tissue.

"This represents a significant exposure to asbestos," Dr. Keith
McCarthy, a pathologist, said. He said the cause of death was
pulmonary embolism caused by deep vein thrombosis due to
malignant mesothelioma.

Mr. Crickmore recorded a verdict of death by industrial disease.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Specter Persists on US$140B Trust Fund Bill
----------------------------------------------------------------
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, a PA
Republican, continues to make a pitch to act quickly on the
US$140 billion Asbestos Compensation Trust bill, The Wall Street
Journal reports.

Sen. Specter and bill co-author Sen. Patrick Leahy, a VT
Democrat, steered the asbestos bill through their Committee
earlier this year but still have to bring it to the full Senate
for a vote. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a TN Republican,
said the legislation would come to the Senate floor sometime in
autumn.

The legislation would create a US$140 billion, industry-funded
trust to indemnify work-related asbestos injuries. Most have
given the measure slim chances for Senate passage, but Sen.
Specter's adamant pursuit left analysts unable to entirely rule
out the possibility.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Compensation Eyed for JPN Asbestos Victims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Officials of Japan's Environment Ministry and the Ministry of
Health, Labor and Welfare say that the Government and companies
that had used asbestos will organize a fund to help finance the
medical expenses of asbestos victims, the Asahi Shimbun reports.

The fund will cover the medical costs of those with lung cancer,
mesothelioma, and other asbestos-exposure diseases. It also will
pay consolation money to families of those who have died from
such diseases and cover funeral costs.

The bills stipulate that enrolment for the fund can come from
anyone who thinks that his or her disease was caused by
asbestos. Family members of workers at factories that used
asbestos or those who live near those plants can also apply. The
estimated number of people eligible for the payments, however,
remains unknown, as does the size of the fund.

The Government intends to submit the bills to next year's
ordinary Diet session, which is expected to start in January. If
the bills are passed, the Government will begin accepting
applications in autumn at the earliest.

According to the Officials, the fund will be implemented in the
Government-affiliated Environmental Restoration and Conservation
Agency, which deals with compensation issues for victims of
pollution. Those not recognized as asbestos victims can appeal
to a state-affiliated examination committee that accepts
complaints from environmental pollution victims.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: JAV Seeks European Unity to Fight Asbestos
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fiona Sterritt of Justice for Asbestos Victims, a Northern
Ireland victims group says that European sufferers of asbestos
related diseases need to come together in a bid to tackle the
deadly killer, The Belfast Telegraph reports.

Ms. Sterritt spoke in front of a two-day European conference in
Brussels, Belgium that is being addressed by European Commission
representatives, MEPs and health professionals who are hoping to
come to some agreement about tackling cancer and lung disease
caused by asbestos.

The conference was organized by a group of European
Parliamentarians and Sinn Fein MEP Bairbre de Brun. She said
research shows over 8,000 people in Europe were expected to die
every year from 2015 due to asbestos.

Asbestos-caused lung cancer claims 80 to 100 lives every year in
Northern Ireland with many cases contracted during the 1950s and
1960s by people working in the Belfast shipyard.

Established in March 2002 by asbestos-diseases victims and their
families, Justice for Asbestos Victims aims to improve the
quality of local services and information available in regards
to asbestos. For further information on JAV, contact Fiona
Sterritt, Company Secretary: (028) 9078 3923.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Aussie Court Awards NZ Contractor AUD320T
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bernard Frost, a New Zealand insulation contractor diagnosed
with asbestosis in 2000 receives AUD320,000 compensation in the
Australian courts, the Sunday Star Times reports.

The 60-year-old Mr. Frost worked with building products
manufacturer James Hardie NV's insulation products in Cambridge,
NZ between 1963 and 1966.

Graeme Little, Mr. Frost's Sydney lawyer, said the AUD320,000
payout was better compensation than Mr. Frost's entitlements
under New Zealand law. Mr. Little added the payout could pave
the way for thousands of New Zealanders to sue Australian
asbestos suppliers.

Formerly, New Zealanders with asbestos-related diseases have
been eligible for compensation only if they were exposed to
asbestos in Australia. Workers contracting asbestos-related
diseases, which usually emerge decades after exposure, have been
prevented from suing by the no-fault ACC system.

Amaca Pty Ltd, a former Hardie subsidiary, admitted to the Dust
Diseases Tribunal in New South Wales that it had supplied
asbestos products to New Zealand without safety warnings despite
knowing they were dangerous. It had also not warned users of its
atmospheric testing results, which had demonstrated "grossly
elevated levels of asbestos dust above the then known scientific
standards". Its products were exported to New Zealand, where
trades people using the products were exposed to the deadly
fibers.

Between 2000 and 4000 New Zealanders are forecast to die from
asbestos-related diseases by 2030. More than 16,000 people have
been listed on New Zealand's voluntary national asbestos
exposure register since it was established in 1992.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Fund Could Reach Almost US$600 Billion
-----------------------------------------------------------
A study by economic consultants Bates White warns that the
Fairness in Asbestos Injury Resolution Act, a fund designed to
compensate asbestos victims could inflate to almost US$600
billion (GBP338 billion), The Independent reports.

The FAIR Act aims to set up a government and industry-financed
pool from which compensation will be paid to employees who have
suffered from asbestos-related diseases.

A Bill is currently going through the US Congress. Should the
Bill pass, Equitas, the company set up to cover Lloyd's of
London's asbestos and environment liabilities from pre-1992,
will face the biggest charge in the UK.

The Congressional Budget Office's original estimates set the
fund at US$140 billion.  However, Bates White claimed that the
figure was a gross underestimation. It argued that the fund
could face claims between US$301 billion and US$561 billion as
people traditionally barred from launching asbestos lawsuits
through the courts apply for entitlements.

Bates White said the CBO had not taken into account the fact
that entitlements would now be created for many individuals who
were suffering from lung and other cancers but are currently
prohibited, for legal reasons, for making claims through the
courts.

From the beginning, the FAIR Act has been controversial and the
latest research was carried out on behalf of the American
Legislative Exchange Council, an association of conservative
politicians. ALEC is lobbying for state-level action to deal
with asbestos claims, rather than a central fund.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: James Hardie May Face New Pacific Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
After a landmark Australian court ruling awarding a New Zealand
insulation contractor AUD320,000 for exposure to James Hardie
Industries NV (NYSE: JHX) products, the Company could face a
fresh wave of asbestos disease claims all over the Pacific, The
Australian reports.

Lawyers also brought conspiracy charges in court against the
Company for allegedly sending blue asbestos from its South
African subsidiary to New Zealand when it knew the product to be
lethal that it stopped using it in Australia.

While many New Zealanders have developed diseases from Hardie's
asbestos products, including those made in Auckland, those
claims have been met by the statutory scheme administered by New
Zealand's Accident Compensation Commission. According to New
Zealand law, victims cannot sue under common law if their injury
is covered by the ACC, which provides a pension to asbestos
sufferers of just NZD40 (AUD36) a week.

Justice James Curtis of the NSW Dust Diseases Tribunal ruled
that because the asbestos insulation that injured Mr. Frost was
made in NSW, and it could not be used safely, Hardie was liable
under Australian law.

The lawyer who handled the case, Graeme Little, said he had a
raft of New Zealand cases that would push through following
Justice Curtis' judgment.

The moves could complicate the AUD1.7 billion compensation deal
James Hardie Industries NV is negotiating with the NSW
Government to indemnify thousands of Australians who will die or
be crippled by the asbestos products it made until 1987.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: FL Judge's Case Dismissal Ruled Faulty
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Palm Beach County Fourth District Court of Appeal ruled that
Circuit Judge Timothy McCarthy made a mistake when he told 63-
year-old Roy Fox, who is seeking damages for asbestos-related
lung disease, to take his case back to his home state of
Alabama, The Palm Beach Post reports.

David Jagolinzer, Mr. Fox's attorney, said the ruling could mean
that the County Court system could again become home to hundreds
of asbestos cases that Judge McCarthy threw out because he said
local taxpayers shouldn't have to shoulder the costs of lawsuits
filed by people who have no connection to the area.

The Court found that Judge McCarthy should not have removed Mr.
Fox's suit because Union Carbide and other corporate giants
didn't follow the rules. According to law, they had 60 days to
ask Judge McCarthy to throw out the suit because it was filed in
the wrong jurisdiction. It was almost five months before they
made the request, the Court said.

The ruling also seems to favor those involved in hundreds of
other cases that Judge McCarthy himself threw out because the
victims didn't live in the county, their injuries didn't occur
here and the corporate giants they are suing don't have offices
here.

Mr. Jagolinzer said within the next several months he intends to
challenge the law as unconstitutional because it imposes new
rules on asbestos victims retroactively.

Before Judge McCarthy took over the special asbestos division in
2002, there were 3,200 cases. Now, there are about 500 cases.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Firms Give Meager Payouts to Dying Victims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Large corporations are offering dying asbestos victims
insufficient compensation amounts, The Evening Chronicle
reports.

Washington Chemical Co.'s employees have been fighting for
indemnity from the former insulation factory's U.S. parent
company Federal-Mogul Corp for more than 10 years. However, they
will only receive 24 pence for every GBP1 they are claiming,
which means a mesothelioma sufferer entitled to compensation
worth GBP100,000 will receive only GBP24,000.

Lawyers have been battling out a scheme to ensure victims can
benefit. Until now the two sides could not settle and at one
stage Federal-Mogul offered to pay just 17 pence for GBP1. Now
the firm has offered to pay GBP33 million in settlement to UK
victims who were exposed to asbestos at the factory before 1969.

Colin Gunn, a 65-year-old grandfather diagnosed with asbestosis,
worked at Washington Chemical Factory from 1964 1966 making pipe
lagging. His wife Maureen, who spoke on Mr. Gunn's behalf, said
it was good news that Federal-Mogul had at last offered a
compensation level that had been accepted by the claimants'
committee.

More than 1,220 UK claims are held against Federal-Mogul. More
than half of these were brought since the Company went into
administration in the UK in 2001. It is believed about 300
people across the UK have died since the Company froze
compensation claims.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Federal-Mogul Settles With UK Affiliates
-------------------------------------------------------------
Federal-Mogul Corp (OTC: FDMLQ) and some of its constituencies
in its Chapter 11 proceedings reach a settlement with the
administrators of the Company's UK affiliates, Forbes.com
reports.

The agreement provides for Federal-Mogul to retain the
businesses and other assets of its UK affiliates in exchange for
monetary amounts and reserves that will be used by the
Administrators to provide a distribution to UK creditors.

Filed with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Delaware, the agreement
is subject to approval and determination by the UK and US
Courts.

Federal-Mogul Chairman, President and CEO Jos‚ Maria Alapont
said the agreement represents a major step toward the
fulfillment of the Company's intention to emerge reorganized in
a manner that separates the Company's operating potential from
its asbestos liabilities.

The Company decided to separate its asbestos liabilities from
its true operating potential by voluntarily filing for financial
restructuring under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the
United States and Administration in the United Kingdom.

Headquartered in Southfield, MI, Federal-Mogul is a worldwide
supplier of automotive components, sub-systems, modules and
systems serving the world's original equipment manufacturers and
the aftermarket.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Amaca to Appeal Australian Court Judgment
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amaca Pty Ltd, a former James Hardie Industries NV subsidiary,
considers appealing a landmark judgment awarding NZ insulation
contractor Bernard Frost AUD320,000 (NZD356,000) for exposure to
Hardie's Australian-made asbestos products, The New Zealand
Herald reports.

Mr. Frost suffers from asbestosis, which was discovered in 2000.
Between 1963 and 1966, he worked as a lagger for a Cambridge
firm and was exposed to dust and fibers from asbestos-based
insulation products. The landmark aspect of Mr. Frost's case is
that he successfully claimed the asbestos-based products, which
he was exposed to, were made in NSW.

As mentioned in a related story of the September 30, 2005
edition of the Class Action Reporter, the NSW Dust Diseases
Tribunal awarded 60-year-old Mr. Frost, who now lives in
Queensland, his payout last month. He sued Amaca, formerly known
as James Hardie & Co, which is owned by an independent trust,
the Medical Research and Compensation Foundation.

Hardie has resisted claims from New Zealand, and Australian
courts have held that if New Zealanders contracted diseases from
Hardie asbestos-based products made in New Zealand then their
only recourse in common law is with the Accident Compensation
Corporation, which provides a payment of about NZD40 a week.

While most cases in Australia are decided on whether the
defendant company failed to warn users its product was
dangerous, in Mr. Frost's case Amaca agreed with his lawyers'
contention it was negligent in continuing to manufacture the
product.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NZ Worker's Payout "Paves the Way", Lawyer
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tanya Segelov, a partner in Sydney dust disease law firm Turner
Freeman, says that an asbestos compensation award of AUD320,000
(NZD356,000) to New Zealander Bernard Frost has paved way for
victims around the world, The New Zealand Herald reports.

The NSW Dust Diseases Tribunal ruled last month that Amaca Pty
Ltd, a former James Hardie Industries NV subsidiary, the
building products giant, must pay Mr. Frost compensation.

Ms. Segelov said the 60-year-old Mr. Frost, who was diagnosed
with asbestosis in 2000, worked with James Hardie products as an
insulation contractor in New Zealand between 1963 and 1966.

Ms. Segelov said that under New Zealand's Accident Compensation
Corporation scheme, people with asbestos-related diseases could
receive payouts only if they were in contact with asbestos in
Australia. She added that while the ruling was not necessarily a
prerogative for anyone to file a lawsuit over asbestos poisoning
in Australia, it gave a reason for others around the world to
make claims.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kubota Corp Hands JPY210 Mil Compensation
--------------------------------------------------------------
As of March 31, 2005, Kubota Corp (NYSE: KUB), a diversified
enterprise, made payments aggregating JPY210 million (US$1.96
million) to its current and former employees affected by
asbestos contamination, in a report submitted to the SEC.

During the years ended March 31, 2004 and 2003, the Company made
collective payments of JPY433 million and JPY142 million,
respectively.

The Company previously manufactured and sold asbestos-containing
products such as asbestos-pipes and building materials (roofing
and siding materials) from 1954 to 2001.

In April 2005, the Company was advised that some residents who
lived near the Company's plant once called "Kanzaki Plant" in
Amagasaki, Hyogo Prefecture suffered from mesothelioma, a form
of lung cancer and mainly caused by asbestos inhalation. In June
2005, the Company voluntarily decided to make consolation
payments to certain residents suffering from mesothelioma.

While the Company has not been involved in any lawsuits up to
the present time related to the asbestos-related health hazards
of employees (including former employees) who engaged in the
manufacturing of asbestos-containing products, and residents who
lived near the Company's plants at which asbestos-containing
products were produced, the Company may face lawsuits related to
this issue.

Osaka, Japan-based Kubota Corp, which dates to 1890, is Japan's
top maker of tractors and farm equipment. It also leads the
nation in the production of iron ductile pipe used in water-
supply systems. The Company makes industrial castings, PVC pipe,
building materials, waste-recycling plants, and agricultural and
industrial engines.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PNM, Subsidiary Confront 21 Injury Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
In 2003, PNM Resources, Inc. (NYSE: PNM) and its utility unit
Public Service Co of New Mexico (collectively the "Company")
were named as defendants in 21 personal injury lawsuits related
to alleged asbestos exposure that involve claims of individuals
or their descendants working for contractors, building or
working at power plants.

PNM has been dismissed with prejudice from all but three of the
cases.

Some of the claims relate to construction activities during the
1950's and 1960's, while other claims generally allege exposure
during the last 30 years. The Company has never manufactured,
sold or distributed products containing asbestos.

Albuquerque, NM-based PNM Resources, Inc. provides most of New
Mexico's electricity. It's utility unit, Public Service Company
of New Mexico, transmits and distributes electricity to more
than 412,000 residential, commercial, and industrial customers
in the state. It also distributes natural gas to more than
468,000 customers.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Wolseley Liability Increases to GBP31.7 Mil
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wolseley Plc (NYSE: WOS) declares its asbestos litigation
liabilities at GBP31.7 million, as of July 31, 2005, from
GBP27.9 million in 2004, according to a regulatory filing to the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Environmental and legal liabilities include known and potential
legal claims and environmental liabilities arising from past
events where it is probable that a payment will be made and the
amount of such payment can be reasonably estimated.

The liability has been determined as of 31 July 2005 by
independent professional actuarial advisors. The provision and
the related receivable have been stated on a discounted basis
using a long term US treasury rate of 4.5% (2004: 5%). The level
of insurance cover available significantly exceeds the expected
level of future claims and no profit or cash flow impact is
therefore expected to arise in the foreseeable future.

Running for more than 100 years, West Berkshire, UK-based
Wolseley Plc went from shearing sheep in Australia to building
some of the first automobiles in the UK to becoming the world's
largest distributor of heating and plumbing supplies. Nearly 60%
of the Company's sales are made by its North American
subsidiaries, including Ferguson Enterprises and Stock Building
Supply, formerly Carolina Holdings.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lawyer Files 153 Injury Suits in IL Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
On behalf of former State of Illinois workers, Robert Brooks
Ramsey, an attorney of Brent Coon & Associates in St. Louis,
Missouri, filed 139 asbestos and 14 silicosis lawsuits in the
Madison County Circuit Clerk's office, The Madison St. Clair
Record reports.

The asbestos plaintiffs, whose suits name 87 defendants, alleged
exposure to asbestos-containing products or machinery while they
worked for the state. Defendants include John Crane Inc,
Georgia-Pacific Corp, Kelly-Moore Paint Co Inc, General Electric
Co, Union Carbide Corp, Bondex International Inc, and Ford Motor
Co.

According to the plaintiffs, the asbestos products were
defective and were unreasonably dangerous in that: (1) products
contained asbestos as a constituent substance; (2) asbestos was
highly deleterious, poisonous and harmful to the health of the
plaintiffs; and (3) any warning or adequate warning advising of
the danger of exposure to asbestos did not accompany products.

The plaintiffs allege that defendants failed to timely and
adequately warn them about the dangers and health hazards of
exposure and failed to inform them about appropriate protective
apparel and equipment. The suits claim the defendants did not
properly design or market products for safe use under conditions
that were reasonably anticipated and failed to take reasonable
precautions to publish, adopt and enforce a safety plan or safe
method of handling such products.

In Madison County, the difference between an asbestos and
silicosis lawsuit has more to do with how the court manages its
docket. Asbestos cases are assigned to one judge who presides
all cases for expediency's sake.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Relief Trust Triples Victims' Compensation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Speaking at the Asbestos Relief Trust's annual general meeting
in Johannesburg, Chairman John Doidge says the compensation paid
out to asbestos victims was more than triple the sum paid out in
the trust's first year of operation.

Mr. Doidge said that in the past year, the Trust paid out
ZAR27.96 million and approved payment of ZAR9.3 million for
people who contracted asbestos-related diseases.

To date, the total paid out was ZAR44.5 million with a further
ZAR26 million approved for payment. By the end of 2005, the
trust would have paid out ZAR71 million. These payments were in
addition to compensation paid to mine workers by the
compensation commissioner.

In the Trust's first operating year, it had received 638 claims
and in the second year in excess of 5,600 claims. The bulk of
the claims had been submitted between January and June this
year, Mr. Doidge.

The claims volumes slowdown from the Kuruman area had allowed
the trustees to begin focusing on areas of recruitment in the
Eastern Cape, Swaziland and Lesotho. The trustees were active in
dealing with the community and had meetings with leaders in the
Kuruman district as well as Burgersfort and the area surrounding
the Msauli mine, Bathlaros and Heuningsvlei.

The Trust was organized after Gencor, Msauli, Griqualand
Exploration & Finance Company (Gefco) and UK multinational Cape
Plc agreed to pay a total of ZAR460 million as full and final
settlement, without admission of liability, for any damages
arising from asbestos-related diseases.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: UK Duo Fined GBP4.5T for Unlawful Disposal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Lisburn Magistrates Court fined Sydney and David Glenn, a
father and son duo, a total of GBP4,500 for illegally disposing
of asbestos at a new housing development in Drumbo Parish, in
the Northern Ireland part of Ulster province.

The Court fined David Glenn GBP1,500 on each of two counts of
illegal dumping, plus costs of GBP106. His father, Sydney Glenn,
was fined GBP750 each on the same charges, and was also ordered
to pay costs of GBP106.

Resident Magistrate George Conner described David Glenn as the
"principal offender" in the case, relating to the illegal
dumping of contaminated waste at Dow's Road, Drumbo between
November 27, 2003 and November 18, 2004.

A solicitor for the pair asserted an environmental report proved
the contaminated infill at the site was "not of significant
risk", and that the Glenns were victims of "fly-by-night"
dumpers. He added that the pair had employed environmental
specialists to remove the alleged asbestos chippings from the
site.

Mark Samuel, a Ballynahinch plant hire contractor, is also due
to appear at Lisburn Magistrates Court on October 27 relating to
the same incidents.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: JPN Govt. to Force Firms for Compensation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Japan's Government considers coercing companies that had made,
processed and used asbestos to shoulder the costs of healthcare
for victims of asbestos-related diseases, the Jiji Press English
News Service reports.

Sources said the Government has yet to present details, such as
the targeted industries and the sizes and ratios of the planned
levies. The Government intends to clarify the legal position
upon which it can seek compulsory contributions from relevant
companies.

The Government plans to pay for medical costs to those suffering
from asbestos-caused tumors or other diseases when they do not
have adequate insurance that covers work-related deaths and
injuries. This will include families of employees at plants
where asbestos was used and nearby residents. The Government
plans to give allowances to the families of those that have died
from asbestos-related diseases.

In some cases of asbestos-related illness, it is difficult to
determine the clear cause-effect relationship between company
and patient due partly to the latent period of tumors and other
diseases.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Federal-Mogul to Pay T&N Fund GBP250 Mil
-------------------------------------------------------------
Administrators state that Federal-Mogul Corp (OTC: FDMLQ), the
US parent company of Turner & Newall Ltd will pay about GBP250
million to its pension fund, an amount possibly well short of
liabilities estimated as high as GBP1.6 billion, Reuters
reports.

According to a source familiar with the situation, the T&N
pension fund liabilities range between less than GBP300 million
and GBP1.6 billion, depending on how they are calculated.

Federal-Mogul said it had reached an agreement with UK
administrators regarding the Pension Protection Fund. The Fund,
with around 37,000 constituents and created to guard retirement
benefits if firms go bust, said it backed the deal in principle
and would take over the T&N pension plan if a development in the
insolvency process occurred, allowing it to step in.

About GBP250 million is likely to go to the UK pension scheme
from a total payout to creditors of GBP375 million. The
remainder will go to trade creditors and UK-based claimants
involved in asbestos litigation, Simon Freakley, chief executive
and joint administrator of Federal-Mogul's UK companies, said.

Southfield, MI-based Federal-Mogul said it had agreed with its
UK administrators to let it retain the businesses and other
assets of its UK affiliates, in a related story in the September
30, 2005 Class Action Reporter edition.

The Company said the agreement represented a major step towards
emerging from bankruptcy court protection in a way that
separated its operating potential from asbestos liabilities that
forced it into the bankruptcy in 2001.

T&N went under administration and Federal-Mogul entered US
Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in to be shielded from huge
asbestos liability claims that largely stemmed from T&N, which
Federal-Mogul purchased in 1998.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Recent Ruling Encourages NZ Asbestos Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
A recent NSW Court ruling to compensate a New Zealand insulation
contractor, who used to work in a former James Hardie Industries
NV affiliate, the amount of NZD365,000 (AUD320,000) sparks hope
for a Pakuranga family that it will pave the way for other
asbestos victims in the country.

John Lehmann has been mired in a prolonged legal battle with the
Accident Compensation Corp since it withdrew an asbestos payout
issued to his late father, Ross Lehmann.

After speaking to Sydney solicitors, Mr. Lehmann said there are
possible grounds for New Zealanders to claim against Hardie in
Australia.

Ross Lehmann died of asbestos-related cancer in 2003, 40 years
after working as a fitter and welder in Penrose. His payout
appeal to ACC was accepted in early 2003, but he died soon after
being offered weekly compensation of $67.72 in November 2003. In
August 2004, courts compensated the deceased man's estate nearly
$100,000, which ACC appealed on the grounds of establishing the
legality of lump sum payouts.

The High Court ruled in favor of ACC's appeal, leaving Mr.
Lehmann and his mother in limbo as ACC determined if she should
return the payout. He said the corporation's investigations,
such as constantly questioning his mother on her assets, put
undue stress on her.

ACC spokesman Fraser Folster says there's "communication between
the family and the ACC board on issues Mr. Lehmann has discussed
publicly." He said the issues are being studied at board
meetings and ACC is within its rights to ask the Lehmanns to
account for the money.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ameron Corp.'s Injury Claims Down to 9,855
---------------------------------------------------------------
In its 2005-3rd quarter report to the Securities and Exchange
Commission, Ameron International Corp (NYSE: AMN) divulges that
as of August 28, 2005, it was a defendant in asbestos-related
cases involving 9,855 claimants, compared to 10,378 claimants as
of May 29, 2005.

These cases generally seek unspecified damages for asbestos-
related diseases based on alleged exposure to products
previously manufactured by the Company and others, and at this
time the Company is generally not aware of the extent of
injuries allegedly suffered by the individuals or the facts
supporting the claim that injuries were caused by the Company's
products.

For the quarter ended August 28, 2005, the Company listed 58 new
claimants, dismissals or settlements involving 581 claimants,
and no judgments.  Net costs and expenses incurred by the
Company during the quarter ended August 28, 2005 in connection
with asbestos-related claims were less than US$166.

Based upon the information available to it at this time, the
Company is not in a position to evaluate its potential exposure,
if any, as a result of such claims.  Hence, no amounts have been
accrued for loss contingencies related to these lawsuits.

The Pasadena, CA-based Company manufactures steel pipes,
fiberglass-composite pipes, and reinforced concrete pipes for a
variety of industrial uses, including chemical and petrochemical
processing, water transmission, and sewage collection. The firm
has production operations in the Americas, Asia, Australia, and
Europe.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Letter Recipients "Not As Sick," W.R. Grace
----------------------------------------------------------------
Addressing some 700 people in letters sent by health care
administrator HNA/Triveras, W.R. Grace Co (NYSE: GRA) tells
recipients from Libby, Montana they don't have asbestos disease
or may not be as sick as they thought, The Helena Independent
Record reports.

The Columbia, MD-based Company has denied having involvement
with the medical audit that resulted in the letters. Libby
residents, however, can't be blamed for wondering if WR Grace,
which is under bankruptcy protection, is avoiding its
obligations.

Dr. Alan Whitehouse of Libby's Center for Asbestos Related
Disease said the plan administrator appears to have used medical
guidelines developed for people exposed to a different type of
asbestos. Letters telling people in Libby they don't have
asbestosis are "nonsense," he said.

The letters, however nonsensical, still threaten to cut agreed-
upon medical care for sick people. Instead of merely distancing
itself from the so-called audit, WR Grace should quickly reject
it.

Health authorities have blamed asbestos from the vermiculite
mine, which the Company operated near Libby until 1991, for the
deaths of about 200 residents and the illness of more than 800
people who are enrolled in a WR Grace funded medical plan.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: WR Grace Seeks to Move Trial From Montana
--------------------------------------------------------------
WR Grace & Co.'s (NYSE: GRA) lawyers and seven of its employees
request to transfer the asbestos case out of Montana, asserting
that the Company has been tagged as a "corporate serial
murderer" by prospective jurors, The Chicago Tribune reports.

The Company and its seven employees have pleaded not guilty.
Trial is set for September 2006. Court motions suggested
alternate sites such as Seattle, Denver, Salt Lake City, Boise
and Minneapolis.

The lawyers cited six years of primarily adverse publicity,
ending with reports of the defendants' indictment in April on
conspiracy and other charges for allegedly attempting to hide
from employees, their families and the public that ore mined
near Libby was tainted with a toxic form of asbestos.

US District Judge Donald Molloy, who is presiding over the case,
is aware of the intense interest in the case in Montana. It will
likely turn up as perhaps one of the most significant criminal
environmental prosecutions in history, and lawyers for the
Columbia, MD-based WR Grace & Co have come out fighting.

In legal papers filed with Judge Molloy filed on September 2, WR
Grace lawyers contend that the jury pool has been smeared,
particularly by representatives of the US attorney's office in
Missoula who have encouraged citizens in western Montana to seek
financial restitution under the Justice for All Act.

In requesting that the trial be moved, the lawyers said the
Company has been portrayed in the media "as the ultimate
villain, an outsider, a big eastern corporation exploiting the
people and environment of Montana. It is described as
concealing, lying, obstructing and killing for profit, with a
history of similar depredation elsewhere."

Edward Bronson, a professor emeritus of political science at
California State University in Chico, analyzed media accounts
for the defendants and concluded that the "coverage of this case
is among the most inflammatory I have ever encountered, full of
pathos and anger."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace to Fund US$250M for MT Victims, Bill
---------------------------------------------------------------
A bill, proposed by Montana Democrat Senator Max Baucus,
requires WR Grace & Co (NYSE: GRA), which runs under bankruptcy
protection, to place US$250 million in the Libby Asbestos
Medical Plan for victims before the Company is allowed to emerge
from bankruptcy proceedings, The Billings Gazette reports.

A US$2.75 million Court settlement between WR Grace and the US
Environmental Protection Agency funded the Plan, in which the
money is earmarked to help pay for healthcare needs not
otherwise covered through WR Grace.

Republican Congressman Denny Rehberg of Montana asked Health and
Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt to check WR Grace's
health care administrator HNA/Triveras. The administrator sent
letters to about 700 Libby residents, stating they no longer
have asbestos-related disease or may not be as sick as they
thought.

A bill passed by the Senate Judiciary Committee, but not yet
backed by the full Senate, includes a provision that would pay
sickened Libby residents up to US$1.1 million each for asbestos-
related diseases. The size of individual payments would depend
on the level of sickness. The highest payments would be for
people suffering mesothelioma, a rare form of cancer, but all
those sickened would get at least US$400,000.

The legislation would end asbestos liability lawsuits in
exchange for a multibillion-dollar compensation fund. Sen.
Baucus, the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, has
said he will withhold support for the bill unless Libby
residents are compensated.

About 200 deaths and many more cases of disease have been linked
to tremolite asbestos contamination in WR Grace's vermiculite
mine near Libby, which closed in 1990.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ABB Ltd. Closer to Asbestos Plan Resolution
----------------------------------------------------------------
ABB Ltd, the world's biggest maker of power transformers, states
that a US bankruptcy court hearing over its revised asbestos
plan has been concluded, moving the matter closer to resolution,
Bloomberg reports.

"ABB has advanced a further step for a final asbestos
resolution," the Company said. The Lummus pre-packaged plan has
received "overwhelming" voting support by claimants, the Company
added.

ABB further states that the judge has also asked ABB subsidiary
Combustion Engineering to submit a proposed confirmation order
within the next two weeks. The asbestos plan will then need to
be approved by a US district court.

ABB has paid about US$900 million since 1990 to settle thousands
of asbestos claims against US-based Lummus Global and Combustion
Engineering. If settlement plans are approved, it will pay
US$1.4 billion to US$1.5 billion more.

Norwalk, CT-based Combustion Engineering used asbestos to
insulate boilers made until the 1960s. ABB, whose factory
controls paint General Motors Corp.'s Hummer vehicles, bought
Combustion Engineering in 1990.

Zurich, Switzerland-based ABB Ltd., formerly called Asea Brown
Boveri, operates through two major divisions, power technologies
and automation technologies, which serves a broad base of
utility, industrial, and commercial customers. The Company has
undergone extensive restructuring to focus on these two core
units.


ASBESTOS ALERT: Businessman to pay $100T for Abatement Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gabriel Jeidel, a New York businessman who owns the Southland
Terrace Shopping Center in Louisville, Kentucky agrees to pay a
US$100,000 fine for violating asbestos removal regulations, The
Courier-Journal reports.

The Hogan Development Co, which manages the shopping center on
Seventh Street Road, also agreed to pay an additional US$20,000
fine for the same incident, Terri Phelps, Louisville Metro Air
Pollution District enforcement chief, said.

Tests inside the building revealed airborne asbestos fiber
concentrations that exceeded local and federal standards, the
District reported.

According to a District violation report, inspectors saw workers
without proper protective equipment removing loose asbestos from
a former JC Penney store and placing it in outdoor waste
containers. It's not clear whether anyone was harmed, Mr. Phelps
said, because most were temporary workers and were difficult to
find afterward.

Earlier this year, in a separate action involving different
regulations but in the same incident, Kentucky occupational
safety officials fined the Hogan firm US$1,500, said Mark York,
spokesman for the Kentucky Environmental and Public Protection
Cabinet.


COMPANY PROFILE

Southland Terrace Shopping Center
3971 7th Street
Louisville, KY 40216
502-447-3022


ASBESTOS ALERT: Florida Developer Confronts Abatement Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
A federal grand jury indicts Neil Kozokoff, a prominent
developer and Parkland Companies President, and Terry Dykes, a
Lake Worth, FL resident in the demolition and renovation
business, for alleged violations of the National Clean Air Act's
standards on asbestos removal, The Palm Beach Post reports.

Federal prosecutors said Mr. Kozokoff and Mr. Dykes failed to
give advanced written notice of their intent to remove asbestos
when renovating the old Northwood Hotel, now an apartment
building called the Northwood Town Center, at Northwood Road and
North Dixie Highway in 2000 and 2001, according to a US
Department of Justice news release.

The release added, the two men also "knowingly violated a number
of required procedures and work practice standards designed to
protect workers and the public in general" from asbestos
exposure.

Mayor Lois Frankel said she talked with Mr. Kozokoff about the
matter a long time ago and said the charges sounded "very
technical." She added that Mr. Kozokoff has meant a lot to the
rebirth of the north end of town, where luxury condominiums are
being built and new shops and restaurants are being opened after
years of the area being a black eye for the city.

Terri Murray, executive director of the nonprofit economic
development group Northwood Renaissance, said she hopes the
charges are "some kind of misunderstanding." The Northwood Hotel
project was pivotal to the area, she added.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases


ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Wechsler Harwood Lodges OH Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Wechsler Harwood, LLP, initiated a Federal
Securities fraud class action suit on behalf of all purchasers
of the common stock of Abercrombie & Fitch Company
("Abercrombie" or the "Company") (NYSE:ANF) acquiring the stock
between May 17, 2005 and August 3, 2005, both dates inclusive
(the "Class Period").

The action, entitled, Tayloe v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co., et al.,
Case No. 05-CV-(not yet assigned), is pending in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, and
names as defendants, the Company, its Chief Executive Officer
and Chairman, Michael S. Jeffries, its President and Chief
Operating Officer, Robert S. Singer, and its Senior Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer, Michael W. Kramer. A copy
of the complaint can be obtained from the Court or can be viewed
on Wechsler Harwood web site at: www.whesq.com.

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 touted the
apparent strength of Abercrombie's business, which caused the
Company's stock price to rise dramatically. Shortly after
positive statements were issued by the Company, Abercrombie's
Chairman and CEO sold substantial amounts of his personally held
Abercrombie stock. Defendant Jeffries's Class Period stock sales
were highly suspicious in both timing and amount. After
defendant Jeffries sold 2,027,574 shares of Abercrombie stock
for proceeds of $142,895,129, the Company announced, on August
4, 2005, weaker than expected sales for the month of July. Same
store sales were reportedly up 22% over July 2004. This figure
disappointed investors because, while the growth seemed
impressive, in July 2004, the Company reported a 9% decline from
July 2003, and July 2003 saw an 11% decline from July 2002.
Accordingly, in reality, the Company's July 2005 sales were less
than its sales from three years earlier. This announcement
caused the price of Abercrombie stock to fall dramatically, from
$70.03 per share on August 3, 2005 and to $65.36 per share on
August 4, 2005, on unusually heavy trading volume.

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.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


ATI TECHNOLOGIES: Scott + Scott Files Securities Suit in E.D. PA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Scott + Scott, LLC, initiated a securities class
action filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania against ATI Technologies, Inc. ("ATI")
(Nasdaq: ATYT) and individual defendants. ATI securities
purchasers between October 7, 2004 and June 23, 2005, inclusive
(the "Class Period"), are members of the putative class. ATI is
the world's second largest computer graphics chip maker and
engages in the design, manufacture and sale of 3D graphics and
digital media silicon solutions.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, ATI and
certain individual defendants violated the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 by making false and misleading statements about ATI,
causing its stock to trade at artificially inflated levels and
allowing insiders to sell over $54 million worth of their own
shares at artificially inflated prices. Specifically, the
complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, ATI falsely
reported strong financial results in press releases and SEC
filings. The truth began to emerge on June 6, 2005, when ATI
warned that its revenues for the third quarter 2005 would be
$530 million, 5% below the Company's guidance. The complaint
also alleges that during the Class Period, Chairman Kwok Yuen Ho
("Ho") was embroiled in an insider trading case with the Ontario
Securities Commission for April of 2000 stock sales of over $7
million. On April 11, 2005, ATI agreed to settle its own
liability for complicity in the insider trading suit by paying
$900,000 in fines and agreeing to corporate governance changes,
including insider trading prohibitions. Despite Ho's knowledge
that insider trading violates investor protection laws in the
United States, it is alleged, Ho again disposed of over $43
million worth of ATI stock during the Class Period.

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


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

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

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

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


DHB INDUSTRIES: Spector Roseman Lodges NY Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C., initiated a
securities class action lawsuit was commenced in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, on
behalf of purchasers of the common stock of DHB Industries, Inc.
("DHB" or the "Company") (AMEX:DHB) between April 29, 2004
through August 29, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that the defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading
statements contained in press releases and filings with the
Securities and Exchange Commission during the Class Period.
Specifically, the Complaint alleges defendants issued positive
statements regarding DHB's fast-growing business. However, they
failed to publicly disclose that a material portion of the
Company's bulletproof vests contained a material amount of Zylon
fibers whose effectiveness at stopping bullets degraded over
time and that serious concerns about their use in body armor was
growing in the law enforcement community. As a result of failing
to disclose this material information, the Defendant failed to
warn investors of the substantial risk that its Zylon products
posed to the Company's business.

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

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


For more details, contact Robert M. Roseman or Andrew Abramowitz
of Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C., Phone: at 888-844-5862, E-
mail at classaction@srk-law.com Web site:
http://www.srk-law.com.


HOST AMERICA: Murray Frank Sets October Lead Plaintiff Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP, reminds those who
invested in Host America Corporation ("Host America" or the
"Company") (Pink Sheets:CAFE); (Pink Sheets:CAFEW) between July
12, 2005 and July 22, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period") that
they have until October 7, 2005 to move for lead plaintiff
appointment in the class action lawsuit filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Connecticut.

After a significant independent investigation, Murray, Frank &
Sailer LLP filed the first of several class action lawsuits
against Host America on August 8, 2005 alleging that the July
12, 2005 Form 8-K and press release were false and misleading.

On July 12, 2005, the first day of the Class Period, Host
America filed a Form 8-K with the SEC, and issued a press
release titled "Host America's Energy Division Announces Wal-
Mart Transaction Ten Store First-Phase for LightMasterPlus."
Market reaction to this announcement, unlike reactions to
previous announcements in 2004 and 2005 regarding potential
contracts for installing LightMasterPlus, was drastic. Trading
volume increased from 41,000 trades on July 11, 2005, to
13,813,100 on July 12, 2005. Furthermore, the Company's stock,
which opened at $4.25 on July 12, 2005 prior to the
announcement, closed at $6.35, after reaching a high of $7.47.
Over the next eight trading days, volume reached a high of
approximately 32,569,600 shares on July 18, 2005, and the
Company's stock price reached a high of $16.88 on July 19, 2005.

The complaint alleges that the statements made in the July 12,
2005 Form 8-K and press release were false and misleading
because they misrepresented the nature of the "Wal-Mart
Transaction" as one whereby the Company had a firm commitment by
Wal-Mart to purchase the Company's LightMasterPlus for
installation in Wal-Mart stores. The true facts which were not
disclosed are that Wal-Mart was not a customer of the Company's
in connection to purchasing the LightMasterPlus and that the
"Wal-Mart Transaction" was limited to a test installation
unrelated to any commitment by Wal-Mart to install the
LightMasterPlus in any of its facilities on a permanent basis.
In fact, Wal-Mart had made no commitment to purchase or install
the LightMasterPlus outside of the test installation. 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." Moreover,
defendants lacked any basis for stating that the Wal-Mart test
installation was a "major event for our company." In fact, such
test installations in the past had resulted in no future
customer relationship and no actual purchases of the
LightMasterPlus by the party solicited for the test
demonstration.

On July 22, 2005, trading of Host America securities was halted,
pending SEC review. At the time trading was halted, Host America
stock was priced at $13.92 per share, down from $16.88 on July
19, 2005. On August 31, 2005, Host America issued a press
release updating investors about the ongoing investigation into
its July 12, 2005 notice. In the press release, Host America
informed investors that the Company "never had a written
agreement" or "any agreement for the installation of
LightMasterPlus(r)" with Wal-Mart and that nearly two months
after Host America's announcement on July 12, 2005, "neither
Host nor its wholly-owned energy management subsidiary R.S.
Services, Inc. has received from Wal-Mart a list of the 10
stores to be surveyed." In reaction to Host America's August 31,
2005, disclosure, the price of the Company's common stock closed
down $10.54 per share, or more than 73 percent, on the first day
it reopened for trading. On September 8, 2005, Host America
announced that it had received notice that the Nasdaq Listing
Qualification Panel had determined to delist the Company's
common stock and warrants from the Nasdaq Stock Market.

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/NewCases280.asp.


PATTERSON COMPANIES: Murray Frank Lodges Securities Suit in MA
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP, initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts on behalf of shareholders who
purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Patterson
Companies, Inc. ("Boston Scientific" or the "Company")
(NYSE:BSX) between March 31, 2003 through August 23, 2005,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

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

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

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.


SPECTRUM BRANDS: Brian M. Felgoise Lodges Securities Suit in GA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C., filed a securities
class action commenced on behalf of shareholders who acquired
Spectrum Brands, Inc. (NYSE: SPC) securities between January 4,
2005 and September 6, 2005, inclusive (the Class Period).

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia, against the company and certain
key officers and directors.

The action charges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing a series of materially false and
misleading statements to the market throughout the Class Period
which statements had the effect of artificially inflating the
market price of the Company's securities. No class has yet been
certified in the above action.

For more details, contact Brian M. Felgoise, Esq., 261 Old York
Road, Suite 423, Jenkintown, PA 19046, Phone: (215) 886-1900,
E--mail: FelgoiseLaw@verizon.net.


SPECTRUM BRANDS: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Suit in GA
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of Spectrum
Brands, Inc. (NYSE: SPC) between January 4, 2005 and September
6, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia against Spectrum Brands, Inc.,
David A. Jones and Randall J. Steward.

The action charges that defendants violated federal securities
laws by issuing a series of materially false and misleading
statements to the market throughout the Class Period which
statements had the effect of artificially inflating the market
price of the Company's securities. No class has yet been
certified in the above action.

For more details, contact The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven,
P.A., The World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt St.,
Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD 21202, Phone: 410-986-0036, E-mail:
hoffman@pivenlaw.com.


                            *********


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

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

                            *********


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

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

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

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

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

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

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *