CAR_Public/051003.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, October 3, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 195

                          Headlines

A & S COLLECTION: VT Attorney General Files Consumer Fraud Suit
ALABAMA: Judge Orders Resumption of Payment For Indigent Defense
AMERICAN SEAFOODS: Plaintiffs Appeal Summary Judgment in Lawsuit
ARCHIPELAGO HOLDINGS: Dropped From NY Suit Against NYSE Merger
BOOKHAM TECHNOLOGY: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Suit Settlement

CALIFORNIA: Suit Alleges That Marina del Rey Land "Undervalued"
CANADA: Quebec City Residents Consider Lawsuit Over Flooding
COGENT COMMUNICATIONS: Shareholders File Fraud Suits in DC Court
CROWLEY MARITIME: DE Court Yet To Rule On Stock Suit Dismissal
DIAMOND TRIUMPH: PA Consumers Launch Unfair Trade Practices Suit

DRYVIT SYSTEMS: Continues To Pay Class in EIFS Suit Settlement
FASTCLICK INC.: Consumers Launch Fraud Lawsuit V. Spyware in IL
FIRST ADVANTAGE: Subsidiary Faces Consumer Fraud Lawsuit in NY
FIRST ADVANTAGE: Subsidiaries Face Consumer Fraud Lawsuit in CA
FIRST ADVANTAGE: Unit Faces Consumer Fraud Lawsuit in CA Court

FLORIDA: Court Upholds Certification For Pinellas County Lawsuit
FLORIDA: Jacksonville $75M Ash Settlement Approved Amid Protests
GEOPHARMA INC.: NY Court Yet To Rule On Stock Lawsuit Dismissal
GLENVIEW CAR: EEOC Sues Over Sexual Harassment of Male Workers
HARLEY-DAVIDSON: Recalls 460 Motorcycles Due to Crash Hazard

HARLEY-DAVIDSON: Recalls 2,393 Motorcycles Due to Crash Hazard
HARLEY-DAVIDSON: Recalls 12,398 Motorcycles Due to Fire Hazard
INFORTE CORPORATION: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Suit Settlement
INTERMIX MEDIA: CA Court Mulls Stock Lawsuit Settlement Approval
KIA MOTORS: Recalls 73,641 Spectra Vehicles Due to Injury Hazard

LIQUIDMETAL TECHNOLOGIES: FL Court Mulls Stock Lawsuit Dismissal
MASSACHUSETTS: Ticket Reselling Companies Named in Consumer Suit
MIVA INC.: Faces Internet Gambling, Unfair Trade Lawsuit in CA
MIVA INC.: FL Court Orders Securities Fraud Suits Consolidated
MIVA INC.: Appeals Remand of Consumer Lawsuit To AR State Court

OCCAM NETWORKS: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Stock Suit Settlement
OHIO: Judge Rules V. Former Coroner in Body Organs Disposal Case
PARADIGM MEDICAL: Completes Settlement of Federal, State Suits
PUERTO RICO: Appeals Certification Of PR Consumer Fraud Lawsuit
ROCKLINE INDUSTRIES: Denies Workers' Suit's English Only Claims

SEWING SYSTEMS: IL Attorney General Files Suit Over Unpaid Wages
SINOFRESH HEALTHCARE: Shareholders Launch Securities Suit in FL
SONIC CORPORATION: EEOC Sues NM Outlet Over Two Pregnancy Cases
SPEAR & JACKSON: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in S.D. FL
TRINSIC COMMUNICATIONS: Consumer Suit Remanded to IL State Court

TRINSIC INC.: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Stock Suit Settlement
UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI: Release of Patient Records Triggers Suit
WHOLESOME FOODS: Recalls Country Hams For Listeria Contamination
WORKSTREAM INC.: Shareholders Launch Securities Fraud Suit in NY

                 New Securities Fraud Cases

AMERICAN ITALIAN: Baron & Budd Sets Lead Plaintiff Deadline
DHB INDUSTRIES: Abbey Gardy Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
HUTCHINSON TECHNOLOGY: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Fraud Suit in MN
MANNATECH INC.: Glancy Binkow Schedules Lead Plaintiff Deadline
PRESTIGE HOLDINGS: Roy Jacobs Schedules Lead Plaintiff Deadline


                        *********


A & S COLLECTION: VT Attorney General Files Consumer Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vermont Attorney General William H. Sorrell reports that his
office initiated a Consumer Fraud Complaint against A & S
Collection Associates, Inc., of Williamstown, Vermont, for
illegally processing checks for two Canadian telemarketing
companies. The suit also names the two telemarketers-9145-6467
Quebec, Inc., doing business as Callcom Financial, and 4269365
Canada, Inc., doing business as CAS Professionals.

According to the Complaint, filed in the Washington Superior
Court, A & S printed 1500 unsigned checks (called "demand
drafts") totaling over $415,000 on behalf of the Canadian
companies and deposited the checks in an account at the
Chittenden Bank. The demand drafts-typically for $200 to $300-
were drawn on the bank accounts of consumers all over the United
States. As of the time of filing, half of the checks had been
returned, some for lack of authorization by the consumer and
some for other reasons.

The Attorney General's Complaint alleges that the two
telemarketers engaged in unfair and deceptive business practices
in violation of the Vermont Consumer Fraud Act. It also alleges
that A & S violated the law by processing the telemarketers'
demand drafts and by making use of the drafts for their own
benefit. Among other things, the Complaint states that A & S
violated a provision of the Act that prohibits the use of demand
drafts on behalf of telemarketers unless the consumer whose bank
account is to be charged has consented in writing.

According to the Attorney General's Complaint, Callcom claimed
to offer consumers assistance in obtaining government grants,
but it is very difficult, if not impossible, to offer a service
that will result in substantial numbers of people actually
receiving a grant. For its part, CAS Professionals claimed to
offer "fraud security" services, including a telephone number
that consumers could call to find out if a particular
telemarketer is legitimate. According to the Complaint, this
service was telemarketed to consumers who had been past victims
of telemarketing fraud, and whose names appeared on lists of
past victims (called "sucker lists") purchased by CAS.

Both telemarketers obtained bank account information from
consumers-all that was needed were the "code" numbers at the
bottom of the consumers' checks-and sent the data to A & S,
which printed demand drafts using those numbers. Demand drafts
clear through the banking system like personal checks, despite
the lack of the account holder's signature.

In a further development in the case, on September 16, 2005,
Superior Judge Helen Toor approved a trustee process order
(freeze) on $256,000 in A & S funds being held by the Chittenden
Bank pending the outcome of the lawsuit. Up to $206,000 of that
amount can be used by the bank to pay refunds to consumers. The
Attorney General is seeking a permanent ban on practices that
violate the Consumer Fraud Act, full refunds to all consumers
whose bank accounts were charged using demand drafts deposited
on behalf of the Canadian Defendants, and civil penalties of up
to $10,000 per violation.

The Attorney General advises Vermonters to monitor their bank
statements for unauthorized items, and to promptly ask their
bank for a credit in the event they find one.


ALABAMA: Judge Orders Resumption of Payment For Indigent Defense
----------------------------------------------------------------
Running contrary to Alabama Attorney General Troy King's
advisory opinion that a revised Alabama law does not call for
such compensation, Circuit Judge Truman Hobbs, Jr. ordered the
state to resume paying overhead costs for nearly 2,000 criminal
defense attorneys who represent the poor, The Associated Press
reports.

The circuit judge's ruling in a class action lawsuit filed in
June specifically said that state Comptroller Robert Childree
must immediately resume payments for overhead expenses, such as
insurance, office supplies and bar dues to the attorneys. In
total the payments would amount to about $14 million of the
overall $45 million spent on indigent defense annually.

The decision is retroactive to February 1, when Mr. King
released his advisory opinion. Mr. King's advisory opinion
pointed out that language providing the overhead compensation
had been changed in a 1999 amendment to the state's indigent
defense law, with the new language not providing reimbursements
for overhead pay.

Previously the law stipulated that the state should pay any
expenses incurred "in such defense." The amendment said payments
should be made for any expenses incurred "in the defense of his
or her client." Mr. King contends that specific overhead
expenses are not incurred from representing individual clients
and don't have to be reimbursed.  Additionally, that same
amendment also increased the hourly pay for indigent cases from
$50 to $60 for time in court and $30 to $40 for the time outside
of court.

Overhead compensation makes up about a third of what the
attorneys get to represent indigent clients, losing that
prompted some lawyers to threaten to drop their indigent cases
due to financial strains.

According to Mr. King's spokesman, Chris Bence, the attorney
general respects Judge Hobbs' decision, but declined to comment
further. Mr. Childree, who requested Mr. King's advisory
opinion, also declined to comment, saying he had not reviewed
the Montgomery judge's ruling yet.

In his ruling, Judge Hobbs pointed out that Mr. King's advisory
opinion ignored a 2001 opinion by then-Attorney General Bill
Pryor, who found that attorneys could be reimbursed for overhead
expenses even if they worked from home.  In addition, Judge
Hobbs also pointed out that Mr. King's opinion left out a 2002
decision by the 22nd Judicial Circuit in Covington County, which
ordered Mr. Childree to reinstate the pay to the indigent
defense lawyers in that county. He noted in his ruling that the
state never appealed that decision, and Mr. Childree "most
curiously" continued to pay overhead compensation to the dozen
criminal defense attorneys in the single-county circuit while
denying it to the rest of the attorneys in the state.

Joe van Heest, president of the Alabama Criminal Defense Lawyers
Association explains, "You can't treat people in one county
different from others."

In the suit, both sides agreed in preliminary arguments that the
judge's order would apply to all circuits in the state. Though
the agreement still leaves room for the state to appeal that
decision was not immediately announced.  During the summer's
legislative special session, the criminal lawyers group tried to
get a measure passed in the legislative special session to
reinstate overhead compensation and though the Senate passed
that bill opponents who said the state couldn't afford the
payments kept the bill from getting a vote in the House on the
last day of the session.


AMERICAN SEAFOODS: Plaintiffs Appeal Summary Judgment in Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has yet to rule
on plaintiffs' appeal of the United States District Court for
the Western District of Washington's decision granting summary
judgment for the class action filed against American Seafoods
Group LLC.

On October 19, 2001, a complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Washington and the
Superior Court of Washington for King County.  An amended
complaint was filed in both courts on January 15, 2002.  The
amended complaint was filed against the Company by a former
vessel crew member on behalf of himself and a class of over 500
seamen, although neither the United States District Court nor
the Superior Court certified this action as a class action.  On
June 13, 2002, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the complaint
filed in the Superior Court.

The complaint filed alleges that the Company breached its
contract with the plaintiffs by underestimating the value of the
catch in computing the plaintiff's s wages.  The plaintiff
demanded an accounting of their crew shares pursuant to federal
statutory law.  In addition, the plaintiff requested relief
under a Washington statute that would render the Company liable
for twice the amount of wages withheld, as well as judgment
against the Company for compensatory and exemplary damages, plus
interest, attorneys' fees and costs, among other things.

The plaintiff also alleged that the Company fraudulently
concealed the underestimation of product values, thereby
preventing the discovery of their cause of action.  The conduct
allegedly took place prior to January 28, 2000, the date the
Company's business was acquired American Seafoods, L.P., the
Company's indirect parent (ASLP).

On September 25, 2003, the court entered an order granting the
Company's motion for summary judgment and dismissing the
entirety of plaintiff's claims with prejudice and with costs.  
The plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of this order
that was denied by the court.  The plaintiff then appealed the
District Court decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Oral arguments occurred on June 7, 2005, and a decision is
pending.

The suit is styled "Flores, et al v. American Seafoods Co, et
al., case no. 2:01-cv-01684-TSZ," filed in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Washington, under
Judge Thomas S. Zilly.  

Lawyers for the plaintiffs are Bradley H. Bagshaw, Scott Edward
Collins of HELSELL FETTERMAN LLP, P.O. Box 21846, Seattle WA
98111-3846, Phone: 206-292-1144, Fax: 340-0902, E-mail:
bbagshaw@helsell.com or scollins@helsell.com.  Lawyers for the
defendants are:

     (1) Christopher S. McNulty and John David Stahl, MUNDT
         MACGREGOR LLP, 999 3rd Ave Ste 4200, Seattle WA 98104-
         4082, Phone: 206-624-5950, Fax: FAX 624-5469, E-mail:
         cmcnulty@mundtmac.com or jdstahl@mundtmac.com

     (2) Jay H. Zulauf, HALL ZANZIG ZULAUF CLAFLIN MCEACHERN,
         1200 5th Ave, Ste 1414, Seattle WA 98101, Phone: 206-
         292-5900, Fax: 292-5901, E-mail: jzulauf@hallzan.com


ARCHIPELAGO HOLDINGS: Dropped From NY Suit Against NYSE Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Archipelago Holdings, Inc. has been dismissed as a defendant in
the class action field against it, the New York Stock Exchange,
Inc. and various other defendants including Goldman Sachs Group,
Inc., in the Supreme Court of the States of New York.

On May 13, 2005, William Tipton Caldwell, JR., Morton B.
Joselson and John F. Horn filed the suit in connection with the
proposed merger of the NYSE and the Company announced on April
20, 2005.  Each of the plaintiffs is an owner of a seat on the
New York Stock Exchange.  In their complaint, the plaintiffs
alleged breach of fiduciary duties against all defendants except
Archipelago Holdings and Goldman Sachs; and aiding and abetting
a breach of fiduciary duty against Archipelago Holdings and
Goldman Sachs.  


BOOKHAM TECHNOLOGY: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York preliminarily approved the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against Bookham
Technology plc, Goldman, Sachs & Co. and FleetBoston Robertson
Stephens, Inc., two of the underwriters of the Company's initial
public offering in April 2000, and Andrew G. Rickman, Stephen J.
Cockrell and David Simpson, each of whom was an officer and/or
director at the time of the initial public offering.

On November 7, 2001, a Class Action Complaint was filed against
the Company and others in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York.  On April 19, 2002,
plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint.  The Amended Complaints
assert claims under certain provisions of the securities laws of
the United States.  They allege, among other things, that the
prospectuses for the Company's and New Focus, Inc.'s initial
public offerings were materially false and misleading in
describing the compensation to be earned by the underwriters in
connection with the offerings, and in not disclosing certain
alleged arrangements among the underwriters and initial
purchasers of ordinary shares, in the case of the Company, or
common stock, in the case of New Focus, from the underwriters.
The Amended Complaints seek unspecified damages (or in the
alternative rescission for those class members who no longer
hold ordinary shares, in the case of the Company or common
stock, in the case of New Focus), costs, attorneys' fees,
experts' fees, interest and other expenses.

In October 2002, the individual defendants were dismissed,
without prejudice, from the action.  In July 2002, all
defendants filed Motions to Dismiss the Amended Complaints. The
motion was denied as to the Company and New Focus in February
2003. Special committees of the board of directors authorized
the companies to negotiate a settlement of pending claims
substantially consistent with a memorandum of understanding
negotiated among class plaintiffs, all issuer defendants and
their insurers.

Plaintiffs and most of the issuer defendants and their insurers
have entered into a stipulation of settlement for the claims
against the issuer defendants, including the Company.  Under the
stipulation of settlement, the plaintiff will dismiss and
release all claims against participating defendants in exchange
for a payment guaranty by the insurance companies collectively
responsible for insuring the issuers in the related cases, and
the assignment or surrender to the plaintiffs of certain claims
the issuer defendants may have against the underwriters.  On
February 15, 2005, the Court issued an Opinion and Order
preliminarily approving the settlement providing that the
defendants and plaintiffs agree to a modification narrowing the
scope of the bar order set forth in the original settlement
agreement.


CALIFORNIA: Suit Alleges That Marina del Rey Land "Undervalued"
---------------------------------------------------------------
A taxpayer class action lawsuit launched in Los Angeles Superior
Court on behalf of plaintiffs that represented by attorney
Richard Fine that include: Coalition To Save the Marina, Inc.,
Marina Tenants Association, Inc., and John Rizzo, an individual,
is claiming that land in Marina del Rey has been routinely
undervalued has been filed, The Marina del Rey Argonaut reports.

The suit, whose defendants include the Los Angeles County, ASN
Marina LLC (ASN Archstone), Oakwood Marina del Rey, LLC, County
Beaches and Harbors Department director Stan Wisniewski as an
individual, and Does 1-10, alleges that certain Marina lessees
have been unjustly enriched at the expense of the county and
taxpayers, and that lessee campaign contributions and payments
to lobbyists to influence the Board of Supervisors may have
created a climate under which no price control existed due to a
concert of action between the county and the lessees.

Responding to allegations in the lawsuit that Los Angeles County
Supervisor Don Knabe is receiving $41,000 toward his campaign
for Marina del Rey lessees, David Summers, Mr. Knabe's press
secretary told The Marina del Rey Argonaut that Mr. Knabe's
staff has not yet received a copy of the lawsuit, and that Mr.
Knabe has not been named in the suit as a defendant.

Mr. Summers added that to his knowledge, no documentation is
provided to back up this claim. According to him, "This is
preposterous on the surface. It's the job of the county and the
county assessor to determine the exact value of property."

Meanwhile, Roger Moliere, chief of asset management for the Los
Angeles County Department of Beaches and Harbors, in response to
the allegation also told The Marina del Rey Argonaut that he has
not seen the lawsuit, and that it would be up to county counsel
to respond after reviewing the documents. He pointed out that
any negotiations between the county and lessees always include a
third-party appraisal.

Specifically, the lawsuit alleging that as far back as 1995,
according to campaign contribution reports, campaign
contributions from lessees in Marina del Rey to the campaigns of
the members of the Los Angeles Board of Supervisors were
approximately $600,000 during a certain period.

Mr. Fine even claims that since 2000, these reports show that
lessees in Marina del Rey have spent more than $763,000 in
lobbying, which includes approximately $663,000 to supervisors
and making campaign contributions to the various board members
of approximately $100,000 with more than $41,000 going to Don
Knabe, whose supervisorial district includes Marina del Rey.

The class action allegations consist of all persons or entities
that rented an apartment at Oakwood Apartments within the last
four years.

The lawsuit requests that the court:

     (1) order that the county set prices at Marina del Rey as
         required under an existing government code;

     (2) order that ASN Marina, LLC (ASN Archstone) be
         prohibited from recouping any monies paid to Oakwood
         through rent charged to tenants at Oakwood Apartments
         in an alleged violation of the amended and restated
         lease between the county and ASN Archstone;

     (3) order that ASN Archstone be prohibited from changing or
         signing any leases containing any prices for "new
         rents" and voiding leases already signed containing
         "new rents";

     (4) declare that Section 16 of the county master lease
         between the county and lessees dealing with controlled
         prices has been violated;

     (5) declare the lease void;

     (6) find that the county has made a gift of public funds to
         a private company of the leasehold interest by not
         "controlling prices";

     (7) declare that Oakwood Marina del Rey, LLC and ASN
         Archstone have been unjustly enriched;

     (8) order damages from Oakwood and ASN Archstone for unjust
         enrichment for paying the county too little per square
         foot rental and percentage rental;

     (9) allow a writ of mandamus requiring the county to set
         rates under the lease;

    (10) prohibit the county from giving the leasehold interest
         to private parties;

    (11) order defendants to cease their alleged unlawful
         conduct; and

    (12) appoint a trustee and require the county to operate
         under the lease under the sole supervision of the
         trustee.

A fifth cause of action relating to alleged unjust enrichment
against ASN Archstone and Oakwood alleges that the lessee's 73
percent return on gross income and 51 percent annual "return on
investment" under the lease demonstrate that the rents are too
high and the lessees are being unjustly enriched.

With regards to this, the suit alleges, "The amount of damage is
presently unknown but is estimated to be approximately $10
million."

The sixth cause of action for damages alleges that the lessee's
73 percent of return on gross income and 51 percent annual
"return on investment" under the lease demonstrate that the land
is undervalued at $3,180,498, and that the county isn't
receiving its fair share of monies under the lease, unjustly
enriching the lessees."

Thus, the lawsuit alleges, "The amount of damages to the county
and the taxpayers is presently unknown but is estimated at
approximately $25 million over the last ten years."

The lessee's investment pursuant to the lease - capital outlay -
is shown to be approximately $12,762,039 for the buildings,
according to the county assessor as of December 31st, 2003,
prior to the lease assignment, according to the suit. The land,
which is owned by the county, was valued at $3,180,498, the
lawsuit states.

The suit contends that had the return on investment been limited
to ten percent per year on every lease in Marina del Rey, the
prices to the public would be significantly lower. It pointed
out that to achieve a ten percent per year return on investment,
the lessee would have to pay the county another $4 million per
year and/or reduce the rents by that amount or do both annually.
The lessee currently pays the county 8.5 percent of its gross
receipts with a minimum base rent of ten cents per square foot.

Mr. Fine is claiming that the "land value" under the lease is
approximately $279,000 per acre or $6.40 per square foot for the
11.4 acres or 496,584 square feet, while comparable land,
according to reports on the "Affordable Housing Policy and
Analysis" and "Marina del Rey land use value under alternative
uses" prepared for the county on June 17th, 2002, evaluation was
$62 per square foot.

He adds, "The extra funds that should have been paid, over $60
million per year, could have fixed the financial problems at
King-Drew Medical Center, aided emergency operations, provided
staff to the sheriff and to prisons, and assisted health and
welfare and road building."


CANADA: Quebec City Residents Consider Lawsuit Over Flooding
------------------------------------------------------------
Quebec City residents who were affected by the recent flooding
from the Lorette River are considering a class action suit
against the city, The Montreal Gazette reports.  According to
attorney Pierre Gingras, a resident of L'Ancienne-Lorette, he
has asked people affected by the flooding to send to him letters
that they sent to the city holding them responsible for damage
to their homes or businesses.  

Many residents and businesspeople in the Hamel Blvd. industrial
park in Quebec City that were affected by the flooding
criticized not only the city for being lax about it, but also
firefighters and police officers.  About 100 people from the
area met and demanded that municipal authorities act quickly on
the dossier. At that very meeting a committee of residents
affected by the flooding in the industrial sector was formed.


COGENT COMMUNICATIONS: Shareholders File Fraud Suits in DC Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cogent Communications Group, Inc., its Chief Executive Officer,
and its Chief Financial Officer face several class actions filed
in the United States District Court for the District of
Columbia, alleging violations of federal securities laws.

On August 3, 2005 a class action complaint was filed on behalf
of purchasers of the Company's common stock during the period
from February 14, 2005 (the date the Company filed a
registration statement on Form S-1 for its public offering)
through June 7, 2005 (the date of pricing of Company common
stock in connection with the Public Offering).  Another similar
suit was filed on August 9,2005.

The complaints allege that the registration statement (including
amendments), press releases, and Form 10-K issued during the
class period were false and misleading because the Company and
the named officers allegedly intended to sell the stock at a
materially reduced price from the stock's then-current trading
price.


CROWLEY MARITIME: DE Court Yet To Rule On Stock Suit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware has yet to rule
on Crowley Maritime Corporation's motion to dismiss the class
action and derivative complaint filed against it and its board
of directors, alleging breaches of the fiduciary duties owed by
the director defendants to the Company and its stockholders.

Among other things, the complaint alleges that the defendants
have pursued a corporate policy of entrenching the Company's
controlling stockholder, Thomas B. Crowley, Jr., and certain
members of the Crowley family by allegedly expending corporate
funds improperly.  The plaintiffs seek damages and other relief.

On February 25, 2005, the Company and the director defendants
filed a motion with the Delaware Court of Chancery seeking
dismissal of the lawsuit. On February 25, 2005, the Company and
the director defendants filed a motion with the Court seeking
dismissal of the lawsuit.  On April 6, 2005, the plaintiffs
filed with the Court an answering brief in opposition to this
motion. On May 6, 2005, the Company and the director defendants
filed a further brief with the Court.


DIAMOND TRIUMPH: PA Consumers Launch Unfair Trade Practices Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Diamond Triumph Auto Glass, Inc. continues to face a class
action filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County,
Pennsylvania.  Delbert Rice and Kenneth E. Springfield, Jr.,
filed the suit on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated (the "Plaintiffs").

Plaintiffs allege, among other things, the Company violated
certain sections of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and
Consumer Protection Law and common law. Plaintiffs allege that
this alleged conduct has caused monetary damages to Plaintiffs.
Among other things, Plaintiffs are seeking damages in an amount
to be determined at trial.


DRYVIT SYSTEMS: Continues To Pay Class in EIFS Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dryvit Systems, Inc. continues to pay claims in the settlement
of a class action filed against it in Jefferson County Superior
Court in Tennessee, styled "Bobby R. Posey, et al. v. Dryvit
Systems, Inc." (formerly styled "William J. Humphrey, et al. v.
Dryvit Systems, Inc., Case No. 17,715-IV")

As previously reported, a preliminary approval order was entered
on April 8, 2002 in the Posey case for a proposed nationwide
class action settlement covering, "All Persons who, as of June
5, 2002, own a one- or two-family residential dwelling or
townhouse in any State other than North Carolina clad, in whole
or in part, with Dryvit exterior insulated finishing systems
(EIFS) installed after January 1, 1989, except persons who prior
to June 5, 2002, have settled with Dryvit, providing a release
of claims relating to Dryvit EIFS; or have not obtained a
judgment against Settling Defendant for a Dryvit EIFS claim, or
had a judgment entered against them on such a claim in Settling
Defendants' favor; and any employees of Dryvit.

Nationwide notice to all eligible class members began on or
about June 13, 2002. Any person who wished to be excluded from
the "Posey" settlement was provided an opportunity to
individually "opt out" and thus not be bound by the final
"Posey" order.

A fairness hearing was held to determine whether the proposed
settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate and an order and
judgment granting final approval of the settlement was entered
on January 14, 2003. Notices of appeal were filed by persons
seeking to challenge certain provisions of the proposed
settlement including challenging the trial court's denial of
certain builders' and one homeowner' right to appear at the
fairness hearing and intervene in the underlying action.
After a series of appeals the judge reaffirmed the
reasonableness, adequacy, and fairness of the national
settlement class in all respects and found that the objecting
parties had suffered no formal legal prejudice as a result of
the settlement.

During the pendency of the foregoing appeals, the court has
allowed claims to be processed under the proposed "Posey"
settlement. The claims submission deadline was June 5, 2004. As
of May 31, 2005, approximately 7,187 total claims have been
filed as of the claim filing deadline. Of these 7,187 claims,
approximately 4,398 claims have been rejected or closed for
various reasons under the terms of the settlement. The
approximately 2,789 remaining claims are at various stages of
review and processing under the terms of the proposed settlement
and it is possible that some of these claims will be rejected or
closed without payment. As of July 12, 2005, approximately 658
of the 2,789 remaining homeowner claims have been paid for a
total of approximately $6.27 million.  Additional payments have
and will continue to be made in connection with the ongoing
administration of the settlement including, inspection costs,
third party warranties and class counsel attorneys' fees.  


FASTCLICK INC.: Consumers Launch Fraud Lawsuit V. Spyware in IL
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fastclick, Inc. faces a consumer class action filed in Illinois
State Court, seeking damages for violations of the Illinois
Consumer Fraud Act.

The suit alleges that a marketing software for tracking web
users and sending them pop up ads and which is bundled with
other free downloadable software such as for video games
violates the Consumer Act.  The suit further alleges trespass to
personal property, unjust enrichment, negligence and computer
tampering.  


FIRST ADVANTAGE: Subsidiary Faces Consumer Fraud Lawsuit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
One of First Advantage Corporation's subsidiaries faces a
consumer fraud class action filed in the United States District
Court for the District of New York.

The plaintiffs allege that the Company's subsidiary, directly
and through its agents, violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act,
New York's Fair Credit Reporting Act and New York's Deceptive
Practices Act by failing to use reasonable procedures to ensure
the maximum possible accuracy when issuing tenant reports.  The
action seeks injunctive and declaratory relief, compensatory,
punitive and statutory damages, plus attorneys' fees and costs.


FIRST ADVANTAGE: Subsidiaries Face Consumer Fraud Lawsuit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Two of First Advantage Corporation's subsidiaries are defendants
in separate class action lawsuits that are pending in state
court in California.

The plaintiffs in both cases allege that the Company's
subsidiaries, directly and through their agents, violated the
California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act and California
Business and Professions Code by failing to use reasonable
procedures to ensure the maximum possible accuracy when issuing
tenant reports.  The actions seek injunctive relief, an
accounting, restitution, statutory damages, interest, punitive
damages and attorneys' fees and costs.


FIRST ADVANTAGE: Unit Faces Consumer Fraud Lawsuit in CA Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of First Advantage Corporation faces class action
lawsuit that is pending in state court in California.

The plaintiff in this case alleges that the subsidiary violated
the California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act by failing
to use reasonable procedures to ensure the maximum possible
accuracy when issuing a background report and, in particular, by
failing to provide a written disclaimer on the background report
regarding its accuracy. The action seeks statutory damages,
actual damages, and attorney's fees.


FLORIDA: Court Upholds Certification For Pinellas County Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Lakeland-based 2nd District Court of Appeal upheld a lower
court's ruling granting class action status to a lawsuit
alleging that Pinellas County schools are failing to adequately
educate black students, The Tampa Tribune reports.  In a
unanimous ruling, the appeals court ruled that the lawsuit could
indeed represent all 20,000 black students enrolled in Pinellas
County's public schools.

Filed in October 2000 at Pinellas-Pasco Circuit Court on behalf
of William Crowley and his son Akwete Osoka, who was then a
second-grader at Sawgrass Lake Elementary School, the suit
contends that the school district has done little to close a
wide achievement gap between black and white students and has
violated the equal protection clause of the state constitution.

Previously, school district attorneys argued against class
action status, saying each child's performance may be based on
individual circumstances. However, Pinellas-Pasco Circuit Judge
James Case disagreed and ruled that the suit challenged the
system's overall ability to provide a "high quality" education
to black students, "not how that system has dealt with a
particular student on an individual basis," an earlier Class
Action Reporter story (July 6, 2004) reports.

At the most recent hearing before the three-judge panel Guy
Burns, a Tampa attorney representing the plaintiffs, argued that
the courts must force the school system to develop programs to
reverse its educational failures.  School board attorneys though
argued that the lower court failed to consider the different
ways in which individual black students learn, and that an array
of societal problems, not race, contributes to similar
achievement gaps in urban school systems nationwide.


FLORIDA: Jacksonville $75M Ash Settlement Approved Amid Protests
----------------------------------------------------------------
The city of Jacksonville, Florida agreed to divide a $75 million
settlement of a class action lawsuit filed on behalf of 5,000
people living near six contaminated ash sites, despite
protesters picketing outside the Duval County Courthouse, The
News4Jax.com reports.

Filed in 2003, the suit claimed that city polluted neighborhoods
surrounding four former dump sites, as wells as areas
surrounding three old incinerators. It also claimed that
plaintiffs were exposed to pollutants, thus causing health
problems. Reports indicated that contaminants in the incinerator
ash, included: arsenic, lead and mercury, an earlier Class
Action Reporter story (September 8, 2005) reports.

Attorneys for both the city and plaintiffs are seeking jointly
to recover the balance of the $75 million from insurance
companies that covered the city over much of the roughly 40-year
period that the incinerators and ash dump sites were active, an
earlier Class Action Reporter story (September 8, 2005) reports.  
At a recent hearing, the city agreed to divide the $75 million
payout to about 5,000 clients with the amount varying from
$4,000 to $14,000 per person, depending upon how long each lived
on the sites.

Ayesha Covington was one of several protesters who are concerned
that the settlement, which the Jacksonville City Council
approved last September 1, will not protect the children who
live near the ash sites from receiving proper medical care in
the event they become ill down the road.  At the picket line,
Ms. Covington held a sign as a message to lawyers on both sides
that inked the deal, which read, "What is your life worth?"

Ms. Covington told The News4Jax.com, "We understand that you
sold us out. We understand that this is not a fair settlement.
We are not here to necessarily prevent it from going through,
but we want them to understand that we will not continue to
allow you to mistreat African-Americans in this city and then
get away with it."

Though that may sit well with the recipients of the settlement,
lawyers did admit in court that the children have not been
tested for contamination. According to Wayne Alford, attorney
for the affected families, "Each child's claim will depend on
how long they lived on a particular piece of property. Did they
go to a school where the property is contaminated? And we think
that is a fair way to do that."

Attorneys for both sides admitted that individuals could still
file suit on their own, but warned that any future settlement
would be difficult.


GEOPHARMA INC.: NY Court Yet To Rule On Stock Lawsuit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York has yet to rule on Geopharma, Inc.'s motion to dismiss
the consolidated securities class action filed against it and
certain of its officers.

In December 2004 and January 2005, five securities class action
lawsuits were filed, alleging violations of federal securities
laws in connection with certain press releases issued by the
Company relating to Belcher Pharmaceuticals' planned
introduction of Mucotrol.  The suits were styled:

     (1) Mat eVentures v. Kotha Sekharam and GeoPharma, Inc.
         (SDNY 04 Civ. 9463);

     (2) Moshayedi v. GeoPharma, Inc., Jugal Taneja, Mihir
         Taneja, and Kotha Sekharam (SDNY 04 Civ. 9736);

     (3) Sarno v. Mihir Taneja, Kotha Sekharam, and GeoPharma,
         Inc. (SDNY 04 Civ. 9975);

     (4) Farwell v. Kotha Sekharam and GeoPharma, Inc. (SDNY 05
         Civ. 188); and

     (5) Taylor v. Kotha Sekharam and GeoPharma, Inc. (SDNY 05
         Civ. 258)

Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, seek unspecified damages allegedly suffered in
connection with their respective purchases and sales of the
Company's securities during the Class period. On March 9, 2005
the Court consolidated the actions and appointed lead plaintiff
and lead counsel.  On April 18, 2005 plaintiffs filed a
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint. On June 6, 2005
defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the action. Plaintiffs'
Opposition papers are due to be filed by July 8, 2005, and
defendants' Reply papers are due to be filed by July 25, 2005.

The suit is styled "In Re: Geopharma, Inc. Securities
Litigation, case no. 1:04-cv-09463-SAS," filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
under Judge Shira A. Scheindlin.  Representing the plaintiffs
are Samuel Howard Rudman of Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia, Geller,
Rudman & Robbins, LLP, 200 Broadhollow Road, Ste. 406, Melville,
NY 11747, Phone: 631-367-7100, Fax: 631-367-1173, E-mail:
srudman@lerachlaw.com; and Roy Laurence Jacobs of Roy Jacobs &
Associates, 60 East 42nd Street 46th Floor, New York, NY 10165,
Phone: 212-867-1156, Fax: 212-504-8343, E-mail:
rljacobs@pipeline.com.  Representing the Company is Robert Allen
Scher of Foley & Lardner, LLP, 90 Park Avenue, New York, NY
10016, Phone: (212) 682-7474, Fax: (212) 687-2329, E-mail:
rscher@foley.com.   


GLENVIEW CAR: EEOC Sues Over Sexual Harassment of Male Workers
--------------------------------------------------------------
A Glenview carwash operator has sexually harassed male employees
over the last seven years, in some cases kissing or groping them
and making unwanted sexual advances, according to a class action
lawsuit launched by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission, The Chicago Tribune reports.

EEOC officials filed the suit in federal court in Chicago on
behalf of three current or former male employees of Glenview Car
Wash, which is located at 1820 Waukegan Rd.

Court records show that the employees filed complaints with the
EEOC in 2003. After an investigation, it decided to go forward
with the case.

John Rowe, director of the EEOC's Chicago District office told
The Chicago Tribune, "Our investigation indicated that the top
guy at the Glenview Car Wash assaulted his employees by grabbing
their genitals, fondling their buttocks, kissing them and
following them into the restroom." He added, "He propositioned
them for sex and offered them money for sexually grabbing their
co-workers and for forcing them into his office."

The top manager at the carwash though is not named as a
defendant in the lawsuit, since such cases are aimed at the
employer.

EEOC's suit, which was assigned to U.S. District Judge Ronald
Guzman, alleges that the three men were sexually harassed and
forced to work in a hostile environment. The harassment "was, if
not literally every day, nearly every day," according to Ethan
Cohen, an EEOC attorney. The suit is thus seeking back pay and
other damages.

In addition, the EEOC is asking to bring the case as a class
action on behalf of other male employees. Mr. Cohen told The
Chicago Tribune that investigators have talked to six other
employees who may become part of the class.

EEOC officials told The Chicago Tribune that the carwash workers
were Hispanic immigrants who badly needed the low-wage jobs and
were afraid to complain for fear of being fired.

The case is one of only a few class action complaints that the
EEOC's Chicago office has filed in cases of same-sex harassment.

In 1998, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that sexual harassment
laws apply to same-sex conduct, but the area is still a
relatively new one, Mr. Cohen said. He also said that EEOC
officials chose to file the suit in part to help establish the
law regarding same-sex harassment. According to him, "We have
multiple victims here. The sexual harassment we've heard about .
. . is pretty egregious. It's not just comments or horseplay. .
. . The law needs to be developed through these types of cases."

The suit is styled, "U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission v. Glenview Car Wash, Case No. 1:05-cv-05568," filed
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, under Judge Ronald A. Guzman. Representing the
Defendant is Bradley J. Wartman of Peter Andjelkovich &
Associates, 39 South LaSalle St., Suite 200, Chicago, IL 60603,
Phone: (312) 782-6517. Representing the Plaintiff/s are John C.
Hendrickson and Ethan Cohen of United States Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission, 500 West Madison St., Suite 2800,
Chicago, IL 60661, Phone (312) 353-8551 and (312) 353-7568 Fax:
(312) 353-8555, E-mail: john.hendrickson@eeoc.gov and
ethan.cohen@eeoc.gov.  


HARLEY-DAVIDSON: Recalls 460 Motorcycles Due to Crash Hazard
------------------------------------------------------------
Harley Davidson Motor Company in cooperation with the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Office of Defects
Investigation (ODI) is voluntarily recalling about 460 units of
2005 FLHTCSE2 and 2006 FLHTCUSE motorcycles due to crash hazard.
NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID Number: 05V428000.

According to the ODI, certain motorcycles may have front brake
lines, which could leak due to a manufacturing defect. Should
this component fail when in use on the motorcycle, all
functionality of the front brake system would be lost without
warning, increasing the risk of a crash.

As a remedy, dealers will inspect the front brake line and
replace if the braze is not visible. The recall is expected to
begin during October 2005.  

For more details, Harley-Davidson, Phone: 414-343-4056, and
NHTSA Auto Safety Hotline: 1-888-327-4236 or (TTY)
1-800-424-9153, Web site: http://www.safecar.gov.


HARLEY-DAVIDSON: Recalls 2,393 Motorcycles Due to Crash Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
Harley Davidson Motor Company in cooperation with the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Office of Defects
Investigation (ODI) is voluntarily recalling about 2,393 units
of 2006 FLHX and 2006 FLHXI motorcycles due to crash hazard.
NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID Number: 05V427000.

According to the ODI, certain motorcycles were built with
mirrors that were improperly located on the inner fairing. In
this condition, it is not possible to adjust the mirrors
properly, thereby not allowing the rider to have the appropriate
rearward field vision, increasing the risk of a crash.

As a remedy, the dealer at the option of the owner will replace
the inner fairing with a new inner that has the mirror mounting
holes properly positioned; Drill another hole and have the
mirrors repositioned. This method will cause the original hole
to be exposed outside of the mirror base, which is cosmetically
undesirable. The exposed hole would be covered with a decal; or
Drill another hole and have the mirrors repositioned, then, at a
later date, have the mirrors replaced with new mirrors that have
a larger base, which will cover the original mounting hole. The
recall is expected to begin during October 2005.

For more details, Harley-Davidson, Phone: 414-343-4056, and
NHTSA Auto Safety Hotline: 1-888-327-4236 or (TTY)
1-800-424-9153, Web site: http://www.safecar.gov.


HARLEY-DAVIDSON: Recalls 12,398 Motorcycles Due to Fire Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
Harley Davidson Motor Company in cooperation with the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Office of Defects
Investigation (ODI) is voluntarily recalling about 12,398 units
of 2004 FXDI, 2004 FXDLI, 2004 FXDP, 2004 FXDWGI and 2004 FXDXI
motorcycles due to fire hazard. NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID Number:
05V430000.

According to the ODI, on certain motorcycles, the throttle
cables come into contact with the tunnel portion of the fuel
tank. In this condition, the cables could eventually wear
through the tank, causing a fuel leak. Fuel leakage, in presence
of an ignition source, could result in a fire.

As a remedy, dealers will inspect the cable and tank, reposition
the cable and, if necessary, repair or replace the tank and/or
cables. The recall is expected to begin during October 2005.

For more details, Harley-Davidson, Phone: 414-343-4056, and
NHTSA Auto Safety Hotline: 1-888-327-4236 or (TTY)
1-800-424-9153, Web site: http://www.safecar.gov.


INFORTE 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
consolidated securities class action filed against InForte
Corporation and former officers Philip S. Bligh, Stephen C.P.
Mack and Nick Padgett.

The suit, styled "Mary C. Best v. Inforte Corp.; Goldman, Sachs
& Co.; Salomon Smith Barney, Inc.; Philip S. Bligh; Stephen
C.P. Mack and Nick Padgett, Case No. 01 CV 10836," is among more
than 300 putative class actions against certain issuers, their
officers and directors, and underwriters with respect to such
issuers' initial public offerings, coordinated as "In re Initial
Public Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92 (SAS)."

An amended class action complaint was filed in the Case on April
19, 2002. The amended complaint in the Case alleges violations
of federal securities laws in connection with the Company's
initial public offering occurring in February 2000 and seeks
certification of a class of purchasers of Company stock,
unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' and expert witness
fees and other costs. The amended complaint does not allege any
claims relating to any alleged misrepresentations or omissions
with respect to the Company's business.  

The individual defendants (Messrs. Bligh, Mack and Padgett) have
been dismissed from the case without prejudice pursuant to a
stipulated dismissal and a tolling agreement.  The Company moved
to dismiss the plaintiff's case.  On February 19, 2002, the
Court granted this motion in part, denied it in part and ordered
that discovery in the case may commence.  The Court dismissed
with prejudice the plaintiff's purported claim against the
Company under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, but left in place the plaintiff's claim under Section 11
of the Securities Act of 1933.

The Company has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (the
MOU), along with most of the other defendant issuers in the
Multiple IPO Litigation, whereby such issuers and their officers
and directors (including the Company and Messrs. Bligh, Mack and
Padgett) will be dismissed with prejudice from the Multiple IPO
Litigation, subject to the satisfaction of certain conditions.
Under the terms of the MOU, neither the Company nor any of its
formerly named individual defendants admit any basis for
liability with respect to the claims in the Case. The MOU
provides that insurers for Inforte and the other defendant
issuers participating in the settlement will pay approximately
$1 billion to settle the Multiple IPO Litigation, except that no
such payment will occur until claims against the underwriters
are resolved and such payment will be paid only if the recovery
against the underwriters for such claims is less than $1 billion
and then only to the extent of any shortfall.  

Under the terms of the MOU, neither the Company nor any of its
named directors will pay any amount of the settlement. The MOU
further provided that participating defendant issuers will
assign certain claims they may have against the defendant
underwriters in connection with the Multiple IPO Litigation. The
MOU is subject to the satisfaction of certain conditions,
including, among others, approval of the Court.

In an order dated February 15, 2005, the Court certified
settlement classes and class representatives and granted
preliminary approval to the settlement contemplated by the MOU
with certain modifications, including that the "bar order," or
claims that would be barred by the settlement, be modified
consistent with the Court's opinion. The Court has ordered the
parties to submit a revised settlement stipulation consistent
with its opinion and has also scheduled a further hearing to
determine the form, substance and program of notices to class
members and to determine the fairness of the settlement.

The suit is styled "IN RE INFORTE CORPORATION INITIAL PUBLIC
OFFERING SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 01 CV 10836" 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


INTERMIX MEDIA: CA Court Mulls Stock Lawsuit Settlement Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California held arguments for the approval of the the settlement
of the consolidated securities class action filed against
Intermix Media, Inc. (formerly eUniverse, Inc.), several of its
current and former officers and/or employees and its former
auditor on September 19,2005.

The suit arose out of the Company's restatement of quarterly
financial results for fiscal year 2003 and includes allegations
of, among other things, intentionally false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business prospects, financial
condition and performance.

On June 9, 2004, the Court granted the Company's and other
defendants' motions to dismiss the lawsuit and plaintiffs were
permitted to file an amended complaint.  On July 15, 2004, the
Securities Litigation was stayed in order to allow the parties
to pursue a mediated settlement of the claims asserted in the
matter.  As a result of the mediation, in November of 2004 lead
plaintiff and the Company reached an agreement in principle to
settle the lawsuit for $5.5 million in cash, which the Company's
insurance carriers have agreed to fund.  One of the Company's
insurance carriers, from whom the Company expects that
approximately $1.5 million of the settlement will be paid, has
reserved the right to seek reimbursement from the Company should
the carrier dispute that it was obligated to provide coverage
for the lawsuit.  The parties entered into a Stipulation of
Settlement in January 2005 pursuant to which the parties propose
to settle the Securities Litigation for $5.5 million in cash
paid by the Company's insurance carriers. The Court has recently
preliminarily approved the settlement and formal notice of the
settlement has been mailed to class members.  

The suit is styled "In Re: eUniverse Inc. Securities Litigation,
case no. 03-CV-3272," filed in the United States District Court
for the Central District of California, under Judge George H.
King.  Representing the plaintiffs was Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer,
LLP (New York, NY), 805 Third Avenue, 22nd Floor, New York, NY,
10022, Phone: 212.687.1980, Fax: 212.687.7714, E-mail:
info@kaplanfox.com.  Representing the Company are Joseph H.
Park, Richard R. Mainland, and Robert W. Fischer, Fulbright &
Jaworski, 865 S Figueroa St, 29TH FL, Los Angeles, CA 90017-2576
USA, Phone: 213-892-9200.


KIA MOTORS: Recalls 73,641 Spectra Vehicles Due to Injury Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kia Motors America, Inc. in cooperation with the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Office of Defects
Investigation (ODI) is voluntarily recalling about 73,641 units
of 2004-05 LD Spectra vehicles due to crash hazard. NHTSA
CAMPAIGN ID Number: 05V431000.

According to the ODI, on certain vehicles equipped with an
advanced air bag feature, the occupant classification system
(OCS) installed in the right front seat of the vehicle may
misclassify a child restraint seat (CRS) as an adult. This may
occur if the CRS is installed after an adult has been seated in
the right front seat. If there has not been a "key on" "key off"
cycle with the right front passenger seat empty prior to
installation of the CRS. The possibility of misclassification of
a CRS as an adult may allow the right front airbag or side
impact airbag to deploy in a crash and could result in injury to
the right front occupant.

As a remedy, dealers will reprogram the vehicle's OCS electronic
Control Unit (ECU) to remove the feature that may cause the CRS
to be recognized as an adult. The recall is expected to begin
during late October 2005.

For more details, Kia Motors, Phone: 1-800-333-4542, and NHTSA
Auto Safety Hotline: 1-888-327-4236 or (TTY) 1-800-424-9153, Web
site: http://www.safecar.gov.


LIQUIDMETAL TECHNOLOGIES: FL Court Mulls Stock Lawsuit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of
Florida, Tampa Division has yet to rule on Liquidmetal
Technologies, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the consolidated
securities class action filed against it and certain of its
present and former officers and directors.

Nine suits were initially filed in the United States District
Courts for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, and
the Central District of California, Southern Division, alleging
violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933
and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  In August 2004,
four complaints were consolidated in the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Florida under the caption
"Primavera Investors v. Liquidmetal Technologies, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 8:04-CV-919-T-23EAJ."  John Lee, Chris Cowley, Dwight
Mamanteo, Scott Purcell and Mark Rabold, were appointed co-lead
Plaintiffs.  In September 2004, the other five complaints filed
in the Central District of California were transferred to the
Middle District of Florida for consolidation with the "Primavera
Investors" action.

The Lead Plaintiffs served their Consolidated Amended Class
Action Complaint on January 12, 2005.  The Amended Complaint
alleges that the Prospectus issued in connection with the
Company's initial public offering in May 2002 contained material
misrepresentations and omissions regarding the Company's
historical financial condition and regarding a personal stock
transaction by the Company's chief executive officer.  The Lead
Plaintiffs further generally allege that during the proposed
Class Period of May 21, 2002, through May 13, 2004, the
defendants engaged in improper revenue recognition with respect
to certain of the Company's business transactions, failed to
maintain adequate internal controls, and knowingly disclosed
unrealistic but favorable information about market demand for
and commercial viability of the Company's products to
artificially inflate the value of the Company's stock.  The
Amended Complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages and
other relief.  

The Company filed a Motion to Dismiss on March 29, 2005.  
Plaintiffs' response to our Motion to Dismiss was filed on June
3, 2005.  The Company cannot anticipate when the Court will rule
on the Motion to Dismiss.

The suit is styled "Primavera Investors v. Liquidmetal Tech., et
al., 8:04-cv-00919-SDM-EAJ," filed in the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Florida, under Judge Steven D.
Merryday.  

Lawyers for the defendants are:

     (1) Michael L. Chapman and Tracy A. Nichols, Holland &
         Knight, LLP, 100 N. Tampa St., Suite 4100, P.O. Box
         1288, Tampa, FL 33601-1288, Phone: 813/227-8500, Fax:
         813/229-0134, E-mail: michael.chapman@hklaw.com or
         tracy.nichols@hklaw.com

     (2) Tiffani G. Lee, Holland & Knight LLP, 701 Brickell
         Ave., Suite 3000, P.O. Box 015441, Miami, FL 33131-
         5441, Phone: 305/374-8500 ext: 7725, Fax: 305/789-7799
         (fax), E-mail: tiffani.lee@hklaw.com

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) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins (D.C.),
         1100 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 730, Washington,
         DC, 20036, Phone: 202.822.6762, Fax: 202.828.8528, E-
         mail: info@lerachlaw.com

    (iv) Marc S. Henzel, 210 West Washington Square, Third
         Floor, Philadelphia, PA, 19106, Phone: 215.625.9999,
         Fax: 215.440.9475, E-mail: Mhenzel182@aol.com

     (v) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP (Boca Raton,
         FL) 5355 Town Center Road - Suite 900, Boca Raton, FL,
         33486, Phone: 561.361.5000, Fax: 561.367.8400

    (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

  (viii) The Brualdi Law Firm, 29 Broadway - Suite 1515, New
         York, NY, 10006, Phone: 212.952.0602, Fax:
         212.952.0608,

    (ix) 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

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


MASSACHUSETTS: Ticket Reselling Companies Named in Consumer Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
At least 16 companies are gouging Massachusetts consumers by
reselling tickets to concerts and sporting events in violation
of the state's anti-scalping law, according to a lawsuit filed
in Suffolk Superior Court, The Boston Globe reports.

The suit, which seeks class action status, alleges that licensed
ticket agents routinely violate the state law that bars the
resale of tickets for more than $2 above face value plus any
legitimate service charges.

David Kurzman of Sharon, who is the lead plaintiff in the suit,
stated that he purchased two Red Sox tickets to a game against
the New York Yankees for $375 apiece from Ace Ticket Worldwide,
a $335 markup over the face value of $40.

David G. Thomas, Mr. Kurzman's attorney, told The Boston Globe
that Ace clearly violated the anti-scalping law, noting that the
firm, which has offices in Boston and Brookline, charged his
client a separate $37.50 handling fee and a $17.50 shipping fee
for the two tickets.

According to the lawsuit, which is seeking to recoup alleged
improper mark-ups for tickets as well as attorney's fees, Ace
also included a note with the tickets telling Mr. Kurzman to lie
about where he obtained the tickets if someone asks. That note
in part stated, "Your tickets are part of a season ticket
holder's package. If you are asked where the tickets came from,
please say they were a gift or that someone gave them to you."

The lawsuit is basically a private sector attempt to enforce a
law that has been ignored by state officials. The Massachusetts
Public Safety Office, which licenses ticket resellers in
Massachusetts, said that it has never disciplined a company for
overcharging for its tickets. Katy Ford, a spokeswoman for the
office previously described the anti-scalping law as a "mess"
and added, "no one is complying with the letter of the law."

Ms. Ford told The Boston Globe that Commissioner Thomas G.
Gatzunis plans next month to gather all parties with an interest
in the law to discuss whether it needs to redrafted or even
discarded.

Ace and many other ticket resellers say on their websites that
their prices are high because they pay a lot to buy tickets from
season ticket holders. However, Mr. Kurzman's suit points to a
1988 court decision that bars ticket resellers from including
the cost of buying a ticket in their cost of doing business.
That appeals court decision stated, "If the licensee's service
charge could include the gouging by his vendor, the public would
be no more protected than if the licensee himself had inflated
the price."

Most of the named defendants in the ticket lawsuit include Ace,
Best for Less Ticket Agency, Best Tickets, North End Ticket
Agency, and Ringside Ticket Agency. In addition, two out-of-
state resellers were included: StubHub.com of San Francisco,
California, which has a ticket fulfillment center near Fenway
Park, and Seacoast Ticket Agency in Portsmouth, New Hampshire.


MIVA INC.: Faces Internet Gambling, Unfair Trade Lawsuit in CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Miva, Inc. (formerly Findwhat.com, Inc.) continues to face a
putative class action lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of
the State of California, County of San Francisco, by two
individuals, Mario Cisneros and Michael Voight, "on behalf of
themselves, all other similarly situated, and/or for the general
public."  The suit also names other internet search sites and
service providers.

The complaint alleges that acceptance of advertising for
Internet gambling violates several California laws and
constitutes an unfair business practice. The complaint seeks
unspecified amounts of restitution and disgorgement as well as
an injunction preventing the Company from accepting paid
advertising for online gambling.  Three of the Company's
industry partners, each of which is a co-defendant in the
lawsuit, have asserted indemnification claims against the
Company for costs incurred as a result of such claims arising
from transactions with the Company.

The suit is styled "Mario Cisneros et al, v. Yahoo! Inc., et al,
case no. CGC-04-433518," filed in the California Superior Court
in San Francisco County, under Judge Richard A. Kramer.
Representing the plaintiffs are Kathrein R. Reed and Ira P.
Rothken.  Lawyers for the Company are David T. Biderman, Robert
Harvey Binzel, Janet L. Cullum, Charles H. Dick, Jr., Albert
Gidari, Richard Jay Idell, Matthew P. Kanny, David H. Kramer,
Thomas P. Laffey, Ryan M. Malone, Laurence F. Pulgram, John C.
Rawls, David O. Stewart.  


MIVA INC.: FL Court Orders Securities Fraud Suits Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of
Florida ordered consolidated the securities class actions filed
against Miva, Inc. (formerly Findwhat.com, Inc. and certain of
its officers and directors.

Beginning on May 6, 2005, five putative securities fraud class
action lawsuits were filed, alleging that the Company and the
individual defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that the individual defendants also
violated Section 20(a) of the Act as "control persons" of
MIVA. Plaintiffs purport to bring these claims on behalf of a
class of our investors who purchased Company stock between
January 5, 2004 and May 4, 2005.

Plaintiffs allege generally that, during the putative class
period, the Company made misleading statements and omitted
material information regarding the goodwill associated with a
recent acquisition and certain material weaknesses in its
internal controls. Plaintiffs assert that the Company and the
individual defendants made these misstatements and omissions in
order to keep its stock price high to allow certain individual
defendants to sell stock at an artificially inflated price.
Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and other relief.

On June 13 and July 7, 2005, the Company and the other
defendants moved to dismiss each of these complaints for failure
to comply with the mandatory pleading requirements of the Reform
Act and also served answers to the complaints. In response to
the motions to dismiss, Plaintiffs requested leave to file a
consolidated amended complaint. On July 27, 2005, the Court
consolidated all of the outstanding lawsuits under the case
style "In re MIVA, Inc. Securities Litigation," selected lead
plaintiff and lead counsel for the consolidated cases, and
granted Plaintiffs leave to file a consolidated amended
complaint, which is due on or before August 16, 2005.  The
Company and the other defendants would then have until September
6, 2005, to file an answer and/or a motion to dismiss.

The suit is styled "Zucco Partners, LLC v. Findwhat.com et al.,
case no. 2:05-cv-00201-JES-DNF," filed in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Florida, under Judge
John E. Steele.  Representing the plaintiffs are Chris A. Barker
of Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A., 300 W. Platt St., Suite 150,
Tampa, FL 33606, Phone: 813/489-1001, Fax: 813/489-1008, E-mail:
cbarker@barkerrodemsandcook.com; and Christopher S. Polaszek of
Milberg, Weiss, Bershad & Schulman LLP, 5200 Town Center Circle,
Suite 600, Tower One, Boca Raton, FL 33486-1018, Phone:
561-361-5000, Fax: 561-367-8400, E-mail:
cpolaszek@milbergweiss.com.  Representing the Company is Joseph
G. Foster, Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur, P.A., 5801 Pelican
Bay Blvd., Suite 300, Naples, FL 34108, Phone: 239/593-2900,
Fax: 239/593-2990, E-mail: jfoster@porterwright.com.


MIVA INC.: Appeals Remand of Consumer Lawsuit To AR State Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Miva, Inc. (formerly Findwhat.com, Inc.) appealed the United
States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas'
ruling ordering the remand of a putative class filed against it
and others in is sector, alleging breach of contract, unjust
enrichment, and civil conspiracy, to state court.

Lane's Gifts and Collectibles, LLC, U.S. Citizens for Fair
Credit Card Terms, Inc., Savings 4 Merchants, Inc., and Max
Caulfield d/b/a Caulfield Investigations, filed the suit in
Miller County Circuit Court in Arkansas on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, against eleven search
engines, web publishers, or performance marketing companies as
defendants, including the Company.  The plaintiffs' claims are
predicated on the allegation that the plaintiffs have been
charged for clicks on their advertisements that were not made by
bona fide customers. The lawsuit is brought on behalf of a
putative class of individuals that "were overcharged for (pay
per click) advertising," and seeks monetary damages,
restitution, prejudgment interest, attorneys' fees, and other
remedies.  

The Company was served in March 2005, and the case was removed
by certain of our co-defendants to the United States District
Court for the Western District of Arkansas, Texarkana Division,
on March 31, 2005. Two plaintiffs - Savings 4 Merchants and U.S.
Citizens for Fair Credit Card Terms, Inc. - voluntarily
dismissed themselves from the case, without prejudice, on April
4, 2005.

An Order remanding the case was entered on July 11, 2005, and
the case is stayed while that Order is on appeal to the Eighth
Circuit. The Company has not assessed the validity of the claims
or the amount of potential damages beyond those facts necessary
to file its Motion to Dismiss.

The suit is styled "Lane's Gifts LLC, et al v. Yahoo! Inc., et
al., case no. 4:05-cv-04027-HFB," filed in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, under Judge
Harry F. Barnes.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) John C. Goodson, Keil & Goodson, P.O. Box 618,
         Texarkana, AR 75504, Phone: (870) 772-4113, Fax: (870)
         773-2967, E-mail: jcgoodson@kglawfirm.com  

     (2) Stephen F. Malouf, Law Offices of Stephen F. Malouf,
         P.C., 3506 Cedar Springs Road, Dallas, TX 75219, Phone:
         (214) 969-7373

     (3) James M. Pratt, Jr., P.A., 144 Washington NW, Post
         Office Box 938, Camden, AR 71701, Phone: 870-836-7328,
         Fax: 870-837-2405, E-mail: jamiepratt@cablelynx.com

Representing the Company are L. Wren Autrey and Ned A. Stewart,
Autrey Autrey & Stewart, 501 East Sixth St., P.O. Box 960,
Texarkana, AR 75504, Phone: 870-773-5684, Fax: 870-773-2900, E-
mail: lwautrey@cs.com; and Richard Hays. Rick Holcomb and David
J. Stewart, Alston & Bird, One Atlantic Center, 1201 West
Peachtree St., Atlanta, GA 30309-3424, Phone: (404) 881-7000


OCCAM NETWORKS: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Stock 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 Occam
Networks, Inc. (formerly Accelerated Networks, Inc.), certain of
its then officers and directors and several investment banks
that were underwriters of the Company's initial public offering.

In June 2001, three putative stockholder class action lawsuits
were filed, and later consolidated, in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.  The Court
appointed a lead plaintiff on April 16, 2002, and plaintiffs
filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint on April 19,
2002.

The Complaint was filed on behalf of investors who purchased the
Company's stock between June 22, 2000 and December 6, 2000 and
alleged violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the 1933 Act and
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the 1934 Act against
one or both of the Company and the individual defendants. The
claims were based on allegations that the underwriter defendants
agreed to allocate stock in the Company's initial public
offering to certain investors in exchange for excessive and
undisclosed commissions and agreements by those investors to
make additional purchases in the aftermarket at pre-determined
prices. Plaintiffs alleged that the prospectus for the Company's
initial public offering was false and misleading in violation of
the securities laws because it did not disclose these
arrangements.

These lawsuits are part of the massive "IPO allocation"
litigation involving the conduct of underwriters in allocating
shares of successful initial public offerings.  Over three
hundred other companies have been named in more than one
thousand similar lawsuits that have been filed by some of the
same plaintiffs' law firms.  In October 2002, the plaintiffs
voluntarily dismissed the individual defendants without
prejudice.  On February 19, 2003 a motion to dismiss filed by
the issuer defendants was heard and the court dismissed the
10(b), 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 claims against the Company.  

On July 31, 2003, the Company agreed, together with over three
hundred other companies similarly situated, to settle with the
Plaintiffs. A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), along with a
separate agreement and a performance bond of $1 billion issued
by the insurers for these companies is a guarantee, allocated
pro rata amongst all issuer companies, to the plaintiffs as part
of an overall recovery against all defendants including the
underwriter defendants who are not a signatory to the MOU. Any
recovery by the plaintiffs against the underwriter defendants
reduces amount to be paid by the issuer companies. The
settlement documents are in process and it is anticipated that
the Company will execute the settlement documents in 2005.  This
settlement will require approval of the members of the class of
plaintiffs and the court.

The suit is styled "In re Accelerated 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


OHIO: Judge Rules V. Former Coroner in Body Organs Disposal Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
In taking out brains and other organs during autopsies without
family permission, then-Hamilton County Coroner Carl Parrott Jr.
violated those families' rights and is liable, according to a
judge's ruling, The Cincinnati Enquirer reports.

In her ruling, Judge Sandra Beckwith stated that the families
have a property interest in their relative's body parts. She
thus ruled that the coroner's office violated those rights when
it disposed of the brains without prior notice.

Mr. Parrott, who lost his attempt last fall for re-election
largely as a result of photographer Thomas Condon taking
pictures of bodies inside the morgue, argued that he had the
right to conduct autopsies and harvest organs, something which
according to him, was standard operating procedure.

However, the judge cited that Mr. Parrot should have notified
the families of what was being done and asked if they wanted the
organs back for burial or cremation.

Kathy Haines sued Mr. Parrott after she discovered the coroner
took an organ from a relative's body and didn't return it.
Later, her federal suit was declared a class action and has
hundreds in the class.

John Metz told The Cincinnati Enquirer that the class is
"several hundred to several thousand" and will change how
coroners conduct this practice across the country. He added,
"This has national implications."

The suit is styled, "Hainey, et al. v. Parrott, et al., Case No.
1:02-cv-00733-SSB-TSB," filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio, under Sandra S.
Beckwith. Representing the Plaintiff/s is John Henry Metz, 4400
Carew Tower, 441 Vine St., Cincinnati, OH 45202-3016, Phone:
513-241-8844, E-mail: metzlegal@aol.com. Representing the
Defendant/s are Stephen Kinnear Shaw and David Todd Stevenson of
Hamilton County Prosecutor, Civil Unit, 230 E. Ninth St., Suite
4000, Cincinnati, OH 45202-2151, Phone: 513-946-3120, E-mail:
sshaw@prosecutor.hamilton-co.org and
dstevens@prosecutor.hamilton-co.org.


PARADIGM MEDICAL: Completes Settlement of Federal, State Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Paradigm Medical Industries, Inc. reports on the completion of
the settlement of federal and state court class action lawsuits
that were filed against the Company and its former executive
officers, Thomas P. Motter, Mark M. Miehle, and John W. Hemmer.

On February 22, 2005, the Company executed written settlement
agreements to settle the federal and state court class action
lawsuits. As a condition to the settlement agreements, the
courts in such lawsuits must have entered orders granting final
approval of the settlements reached in those respective actions,
and such orders must have become final and non-appealable.

On August 26, 2005, the federal court entered the order and
final judgment granting final approval of the settlement
agreement reached on February 22, 2005 in the federal court
class action lawsuit, dismissing the complaint filed in the
lawsuit with prejudice as against the Company and its former
executive officers. In addition, the court permanently enjoined
class members in the lawsuit and their successors and assigns
from instituting any other actions against the Company and its
former executive officers that had been or could have been
asserted by the class members against the Company and its former
executive officers in the federal court class action lawsuit.

Following the entry of the order and final judgment in the
federal court class action lawsuit, there has been a 30-day
period to appeal the order and final judgment. The 30-day period
has now lapsed and no appeal was made of the order and final
judgment. Consequently, the order and final judgment entered by
the federal court is non-appealable.

Under the terms of settlement of the federal court class action
lawsuit, U.S. Fire Insurance Company, which issued a Directors
and Officers Liability and Company Reimbursement Policy to
Paradigm Medical for the period from July 10, 2002 to July 10,
2003, agreed to pay the sum of $1,507,500 in cash to the class
members that purchased securities of the Company during the
period between April 17, 2002 and November 4, 2002.

On August 23, 2005, the state court entered a final judgment and
order of dismissal with prejudice, granting final approval of
the terms of settlement reached on February 23, 2005 in the
state court class action lawsuit, dismissing the state class
action lawsuit and all claims contained therein against the
Company and its former executive officers, and enjoining the
class members in the lawsuit from prosecuting the settled claims
against the Company and its former executive officers.

Following the entry of the final judgment and order of dismissal
with prejudice in the state court class action lawsuit, there
has been a 30-day period to appeal the final judgment and order.
The 30-day period has now lapsed and no appeal was made of the
final judgment and order. Consequently, the final judgment and
order entered by the state court is now non-appealable.

Under the terms of settlement of the state court class action
lawsuit, U.S. Fire agreed to pay the sum of $625,000 in cash to
the class members that purchased shares of Series E Convertible
preferred stock on or about July 11, 2001.

Paradigm Medical Industries, Inc., currently develops,
manufactures and markets surgical and diagnostic high-tech,
proprietary equipment and consumable products for the medical
industry. The Company's corporate offices are located at 2355
South 1070 West, Salt Lake City, Utah 84119. Call (801) 977-8970
or visit us at.

This press release contains statements that, if not verifiable
historic fact, may be viewed as forward-looking statements that
could predict future events or outcomes with respect to Paradigm
and its business. The predictions embodied in these statements
will involve risk and uncertainties and, accordingly, actual
results may differ significantly from the results discussed or
implied in such forward-looking statements.


For more details, contact John Y. Yoon, CEO of Paradigm Medical
Industries, Inc., Phone: 801-977-8970, Web site:
http://www.paradigm-medical.com.


PUERTO RICO: Appeals Certification Of PR Consumer Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Puerto Rico Telephone Company (PRTC) asked the Puerto Rico
Appeals Court to review the class certification granted to the
lawsuit filed against Telecommunicaciones de Puerto Rico, Inc.,
who holds 100% stock in PRTC.

On November 17, 2003, six residential subscribers and eight
business service subscribers filed a class action with the
Superior Court of Puerto Rico under the Puerto Rico
Telecommunications Act of 1996 and the Puerto Rico Class Action
Act of 1971. The plaintiffs have claimed that the Company's
charges for touchtone service are not based on cost, and
therefore violate of the Act.  The plaintiffs have requested
that the Superior Court:

     (1) issue an order certifying the case as a class action,

     (2) designate the plaintiffs as representative of the
         class,

     (3) find that the charges are illegal, and

     (4) order the Company to reimburse every subscriber for
         excess payments made since September 1996.

On December 30, 2003, PRTC filed its answer to the complaint and
requested dismissal on the grounds that the claim is not a
legitimate class action suit.  On February 17, 2004, the
plaintiffs filed their first set of interrogatories and request
for admissions to initiate discovery.  A status conference was
held on April 30, 2004 and the Superior Court ruled that at this
stage of the proceedings the discovery process would be
addressed, but not limited to the determination of the class.

On June 28, 2004, a second hearing was held. During this hearing
PRTC was ordered to submit responses to the plaintiffs' request
for admissions and to their first and second sets of
interrogatories.  PRTC submitted its responses to the
plaintiffs' request for admissions and to their first and second
sets of interrogatories on July 6 and July 16, 2004,
respectively.  However, these responses were limited to the
issue of class certifications, and the interrogatories and
requests for admissions relating to the merits of the case were
objected and a protective order was requested.  The Superior
Court denied PRTC's requests and ordered full responses. On July
16, 2004, PRTC filed a writ of certiorari with the Puerto Rico
Court of Appeals seeking reversal of the Superior Court's order
allowing discovery concerning the merits of the case before the
class certification issue is resolved.

On October 13, 2004, plaintiffs filed a motion opposing PRTC's
writ of certiorari. A determination is pending before the Court
of Appeals.  On October 8, 2004, plaintiffs filed with the
Superior Court a motion requesting the dismissal and
substitution of one of the plaintiffs.  The PR Court of Appeals
denied PRTC's writ of certiorari requesting the reversal of a
Superior Court order allowing unlimited discovery. PRTC had
intended to limit discovery to the class certification issue.  
On November 15, 2004, the Superior Court held an evidentiary
hearing in order to determine if this case will be certified as
a class action. Even though the Court has not yet reached a
determination, at the hearing, the Judge ordered PRTC to comply
with the plaintiffs' merits discovery requests and PRTC has now
done so and PRTC has now done so.  

On May 9, 2005, the Court issued a Resolution and Order
certifying the class. On May 25, 2005, PRTC filed
reconsideration to the Court's determination of the class
certification and a hearing was scheduled for June 20, 2005.  
After said hearing, the Court denied PRTC's reconsideration
request. Notwithstanding, during the hearing the Court allowed
the intervention (amicus curiae) of Puerto Rico Electric Power
Authority and the Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority.

On July 7, 2005, PRTC filed a reply to plaintiff’s
opposition to a motion for summary judgment filed earlier by
PRTC and, on July 28, 2005, PRTC filed a certiorari petition
requesting the P.R. Appeals Court to overturn the Court's
decision to certify the class.  


ROCKLINE INDUSTRIES: Denies Workers' Suit's English Only Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rockline Industries denied allegations in a lawsuit seeking
class action status that it discriminated against Hispanics by
implementing a "no Spanish" rule, The Springdale Morning News
reports.

Gladys Alas, Maria Carmen Babb, Norberto Dublan and Isabel Lugo
filed the suit in an Arkansas federal court claiming that a rule
against using Spanish at work, including the break room,
discriminated against them because of their country of origin.

The suit alleges that for a period of time, training and tests
for promotions were only done in English. All four claim that
they have a limited ability to communicate in any language other
than Spanish in either a written or verbal form.

In addition, the suit alleges that employees lost pay and were
disciplined, demoted, transferred or fired if they were unable
to complete the English-only training and testing required for
promotions. Training and testing were later allowed in Spanish,
according to the suit.

According to the suit, Ms. Alas and Mr. Dublan allege that they
were fired after failing to pass tests, while Ms. Babb and Ms.
Lugo are still working at Rockline, but they were damaged by the
English-only practice.

Rockline admits it has an English in the workplace rule but says
training for its High Performance Operating Team Program was
provided in Spanish and employees were not demoted because of
failure to pass English-only tests. Employees were expected to
achieve a minimum level of certification.

The suit seeks class certification on behalf of an estimated 264
workers of Hispanic origin, which Rockline opposes by arguing
that the claims vary widely and don't pose a common question of
law.

The suit is styled, "Alas et al v. Rockline Industries, Inc.,
Case No. 5:05-cv-05154-JLH," filed in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Arkansas, under Judge Jimm
Larry Hendren. Representing the Defendant is Paul A. Gilker of
Gilker & Jones, 9222 North Highway 71, Mountainburg, AR 72946,
Phone: (479) 369-4294, Fax: (479) 369-2032, E-mail:
pgilker@aol.com. Representing the Plaintiff/s is Charles M.
Kester of The Kester Law Firm, P.O. Box 184, Fayetteville, AR
72702, Phone: 479-582-4600, Fax: 479-571-1671, E-mail:
cmkester@nwark.com.


SEWING SYSTEMS: IL Attorney General Files Suit Over Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Attorney General Lisa Madigan and Illinois Department of Labor
(IDOL) Director Art Ludwig filed a lawsuit against the owner of
a Chicago sewing factory for failing to pay more than $104,000
in wages to 80 employees for work they completed during a 10-
month period.

Filed in Cook County Circuit Court, the suit charges Jerry
Franczak, individually and doing business as Sewing Systems,
with violations of the Illinois Minimum Wage Law. Mr. Franczak
operates the Sewing Systems factory, located in the 4100 block
of West Belmont Avenue in Chicago, where employees produce
uniforms.

A joint investigation by the Ms. Madigan's office and the IDOL
revealed that Mr. Franczak had failed to pay adequate minimum
wage and overtime compensation to his workers. According to an
IDOL report, between July 1, 2003, and April 30, 2004, Mr.
Franczak underpaid 80 workers a total of $104,933.91 in wages.
Individual workers are owed as much as $5,188.85 in wages.

"Illinois law provides protections for workers to ensure they
are being paid adequate wages for their services. It is
unacceptable for an employer to underpay his workers. My office,
working with the Illinois Department of Labor, will continue to
enforce Illinois' minimum wage laws by filing lawsuits when
necessary to recover unpaid wages," Ms. Madigan said.

"The new minimum wage law championed by Governor Blagojevich
benefits nearly half a million workers in this state who rely on
fair wages to pay their bills and raise their families.

Through the joint effort of the Illinois Department of Labor and
the Attorney General's office, we will continue to protect
underrepresented workers from violators and will strictly
enforce this law," said Illinois Department of Labor Director
Art Ludwig.

During the time of Sewing System's underpayments, Illinois'
minimum wage increased from the federal rate of $5.15 an hour to
$5.50 an hour as of Jan.1, 2004 for individuals 18 years and
older. As of Jan. 1, 2005, the minimum wage increased to $6.50
per hour. Employers also are required to pay time and a half for
each hour worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

Assistant Attorney General Raymond G. Garza is handling the case
for Ms. Madigan's General Law Bureau.


SINOFRESH HEALTHCARE: Shareholders Launch Securities Suit in FL
---------------------------------------------------------------
SinoFresh HealthCare, Inc. and several of its directors face an
amended class action filed in the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, styled
"Hawkins et al. v. Charles Fust, et al., case no. 04-CV-95-FTM-
29 SPC."  The suit specifically names as defendants:

     (1) Charles Fust,

     (2) Stacey Maloney - Fust,

     (3) P. Robert DuPont, and

     (4) Russell R. Lee, III (the Company's former CFO)

The suit, filed by shareholders and former directors, accuses
Company chairman and chief executive Charles Fust of, among
other charges, using company funds to buy an engagement ring for
his wife, Stacey Maloney-Fust, also a company director, an
earlier Class Action Reporter story (February 25,2004) states.

The suit also charges Mr. Fust with failing to transfer some
patents for the oral and nasal sprays he invented to the
company's name.  It also alleges that he did not fully disclose
to board members a conflict of interest regarding the Company's
headquarters, a property owned by Mr. Fust and Robert DuPont,
another company director.

The complaint alleges that it is a class action suit claiming
federal securities law violations, breach of fiduciary duty,
rescission of certain acts and contracts of the Company, and an
accounting and constructive trust, being brought by the lead
plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and all persons in a class
(other than the defendants) who purchased Company's publicly
traded shares between January 1, 2003 and February 19, 2004;
however, the lawsuit was not certified as a class action suit.

An amended complaint was filed on March 3, 2004 which merely
changed allegations directed toward the location where the
action may be heard and noted that the Company is a Florida
corporation. This legal proceeding was moved to the U.S.
District Court located in Tampa, Florida.  The plaintiffs
include Stephen Bannon and David Otto, directors of the Company,
as well as other purported shareholders of the Company.

The suit is styled "Hawkins, et al v. Fust, et al, case no.
2:04-cv-00095-JES," filed in the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida, under Judge John E. Steele.  
Representing the plaintiffs is David B. Haber of Law Office of
David B. Haber, P.A., Mail: 1 S.E. 3rd Ave., Suite 1820 Miami,
FL 33131 Phone: 305/379-2400 Fax: 305/379-1106.  Representing
the Company and the defendants is David S. Oliver of Greenberg
Traurig, P.A., Mail: 450 S. Orange Ave., Suite 650 P.O. Box 4923
Orlando, FL 32802-4923 Phone: 407/420-1000 Fax: 407/420-5909 E-
mail: oliverd@gtlaw.com.


SONIC CORPORATION: EEOC Sues NM Outlet Over Two Pregnancy Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission initiated a class
action lawsuit against an Albuquerque Sonic drive-in restaurant,
which alleges that a woman was fired after her boss learned she
was pregnant and another woman was passed over for a job because
of her pregnancy, The Albuquerque Tribune reports.

Both alleged instances cited in the lawsuit, which was filed in
U.S. District Court in Albuquerque, occurred at the Sonic
Corporation outlet at 825 Eubank Blvd. N.E. in 2004.

According to Mary Jo O'Neill, a regional attorney with the EEOC,
Chelsea Correa Sink, who was four months' pregnant, was fired on
her first day of work as a carhop at the Sonic. At first, Ms.
O'Neill said, Mr. Correa Sink was told she would be placed in a
different position. Ms. O'Neill told The Albuquerque Tribune,
"He said she couldn't do carhop work because she might fall and
hurt herself. He told her she could work exclusively behind the
counter and told her to go home and call him later about it.
When she did, she was basically told she couldn't work." She
adds, "They just assumed she was going to hurt herself, and so
they fired her."

In the other instance, Crystal Berumen applied for a job when
she was six months' pregnant but was not hired, Ms. O'Neill
said. EEOC sought her out to join the lawsuit.

In both instances, the employer's concern is understandable,
according to Ms. O'Neill, "but it's still illegal."

The lawsuit claims that Sonic violated the Pregnancy
Discrimination Act, which according to the EEOC's Web site
states that an employer cannot refuse to hire a woman because of
her pregnancy-related condition, as long as she is able to
perform the major functions of her job.

Ms. O'Neill explained to The Albuquerque Tribune, "It's just a
thou-shalt-not-discriminate section" of the Civil Rights Act.
She added, "There'[re] no exceptions in the statute."


SPEAR & JACKSON: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in S.D. FL
--------------------------------------------------------------
Spear & Jackson, Inc. faces a consolidated securities class
action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
publicly traded securities during the period between July 14,
2003 and April 15, 2004.  The suit also names as defendants
Sherb & Co LLP, the Company's outside auditor, and certain of
the Company's directors and officers, including Dennis Crowley,
its chief executive officer and William Fletcher, chief
financial officer.

The complaint charges the Company and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  SJCK manufactures and distributes tools, garden tools,
metrology equipment, woodworking tools and magnetic equipment.

The suit is styled Lee, et al v. Spear & Jackson, et al, case
no. 04-CV-80375, filed in the U.S. District Court Southern
District of Florida (W.Palm Beach), under Judge Donald M.
Middlebrooks. Representing the Company is Allan Michael Lerner,
2888 E Oakland Park Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33306, Phone:
954-563-8111.  Lawyers for the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Paul Jeffrey Geller, Jack Reise, Robert Jeffrey
         Robbins, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins,
         197 S Federal Highway, Suite 200, Boca Raton, FL 33432,
         Phone: 561-750-3000

     (2) Samuel H. Rudman, Cauley Geller Bowman & Rudman, 200
         Broadhollow Road, Melville, NY 11747

     (3) Kenneth J. Vianale, Vianale & Vianale, 5355 Town Center
         Road, Suite 801, Boca Raton, FL 33486, Phone: 561-391-
         4900


TRINSIC COMMUNICATIONS: Consumer Suit Remanded to IL State Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The consumer fraud class action filed against Trinsic
Communications, Inc. (formerly known as Z-Tel Communications,
Inc.) has been remanded to the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois, Illinois County Department, Chancery Division.

The suit was initially filed in the state court, styled "Susan
Schad, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
v. Z-Tel Communications, Inc., In the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois, Illinois County Department, Chancery
Division, case no. C.A. No. 04CH07882."  Susan Schad, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, filed a class
action lawsuit against the Company, alleging that it has engaged
in a pattern and practice of deceiving consumers into paying
amounts in excess of their monthly rates by deceptively labeling
certain line-item charges as government-mandated taxes or fees
when in fact they were not. The complaint seeks to certify a
class of plaintiffs consisting of all persons or entities who
contracted with the Company for telecommunications services and
were billed for particular taxes or regulatory fees.  The
complaint asserts a claim under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Businesses Practices Act and seeks unspecified
damages, attorneys' fees and court costs.

On June 22, 2004, the Company filed a notice of removal in the
state circuit court action, removing the case to the United
States District court for the Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division, C.A. No. 4 C 4187, styled "Susan Schad, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. Z-Tel
Communications, Inc., case no. C.A. No. 4 C 4187."

On July 26, 2004, Plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case to
the state circuit court.  On January 12, 2005, the federal court
granted the motion and remanded the case to the state court.

The suit is styled "Susan Schad, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, v. Z-Tel Communications, Inc., In the
Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Illinois County
Department, Chancery Division, case no. C.A. No. 04CH07882,"
filed under Judge Richard J. Billik, Jr.  Representing the
plaintiffs is MILLER FAUCHER CHERTOW, 30 N LaSalle St. 3630,
Chicago IL 60602, Phone: (312) 782-4485.  Representing the
Company is PRETZEL & STOUFFER, 1 S. Wacker Dr #2500, Chicago,
IL, 60606, Phone: (312) 346-1973.


TRINSIC INC.: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Stock 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 Z-Tel
Technologies, Inc. (now known as Trinsic Inc.), certain of its
current and former directors and officers and firms engaged in
the underwriting of the Company's initial public offering of
stock (IPO).

During June and July 2001, three separate class action lawsuits
were filed, along with approximately 310 other similar lawsuits
filed against other issuers arising out of initial public
offering allocations.  The suits have been assigned to a Judge
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York for pretrial coordination.

The lawsuits against the Company have been consolidated into a
single action.  A consolidated amended complaint was filed on
April 20, 2002.  A Second Corrected Amended Complaint, which is
the operative complaint, was filed on July 12, 2002.

The Amended Complaint is based on the allegations that the
Company's registration statement on Form S-1, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in connection with the
IPO, contained untrue statements of material fact and omitted to
state facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading
by failing to disclose that the underwriters allegedly had
received additional, excessive and undisclosed commissions from,
and allegedly had entered into unlawful tie-in and other
arrangements with, certain customers to whom they allocated
shares in the IPO.  The plaintiffs in the Amended Complaint
assert claims against the Company and the directors and officers
pursuant to Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated by the SEC there under.  

The plaintiffs in the Amended Complaint assert claims against
the directors and officers pursuant to Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated by
the SEC thereunder.  The plaintiffs seek an undisclosed amount
of damages, as well as pre-judgment and post-judgment interest,
costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees, experts' fees and
other costs and disbursements.  Initial discovery has begun.  
The Company believes it is entitled to indemnification from our
Underwriters.

A settlement has been reached by the respective lawyers for the
plaintiffs, the issuers and insurers of the issuers.  The
principal terms of the proposed settlement are:

     (1) a release of all claims against the issuers and their
         officers and directors,

     (2) the assignment by the issuers to the plaintiffs of
         certain claims the issuers may have against the
         Underwriters and

     (3) an undertaking by the insurers to ensure the plaintiffs
         receive not less than $1 billion in connection with
         claims against the Underwriters.

Hence, under the terms of the settlement the Company's financial
obligations will likely be covered by insurance.  The Company's
board of directors has approved the settlement.  To be binding,
the settlement must be executed by the parties and thereafter
submitted to and approved by the court.  The settlement will not
be binding upon any plaintiffs electing to opt-out of the
settlement.  The court has given preliminary approval of the
settlement subject to certain modifications. A revised
settlement agreement has been submitted to the court. To be
binding, the settlement must be executed by the parties and
thereafter submitted to and approved by the court.

The suit is styled "In Re Z-Tel Technologies, Inc. Initial
Public Offering Securities Litigation, Case No. 01 Civ. 5074
(Sas)," related " In re Initial Public Offering Securities
Litigation, Master File No. 21 MC 92 (SAS)," filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
under Judge Shira A. Scheindlin.  The plaintiff firms in this
litigation are:

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

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

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

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

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

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


UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI: Release of Patient Records Triggers Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
After releasing confidential medical records for hundreds of
patients to a Cape Girardeau company it hired to solicit
business, a University of Missouri hospital is facing a class
action lawsuit that was filed on behalf of approximately 800
patients with liver diseases, including hepatitis C, The
Associated Press reports.

Filed earlier this year, the suit alleges that patient records
were turned over by University Hospital's internal medicine
chairman to Pharmacy I.V. Associates of Cape Girardeau and
Dexter, which does business as home health care provider Option
Care.

In addition, the suit also alleges that after obtaining the
records, an Option Care nurse then called the patients in an
effort to sell them costly antiviral drugs and keep them from
leaving the hospital network to follow their provider, Paul
King, a gastroenterologist who left the university in late 2004
to open a private practice in Columbia.

According to Dr. King, who is not part of the suit, "The
University didn't really have a (treatment) plan. Rather than
develop one, they attempted to just pass the responsibility on
to a third party. It was an attempt to see the patients ... stay
in the university system."

Such a release of patient medical records, according to legal
experts, would likely violate federal privacy laws under the
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or HIPAA.
Before the suit was filed in June, university officials stated
that they were investigating whether such a violation had
occurred, but as of the moment, a University Hospital
spokeswoman was not able to provide an immediate update on that
inquiry.

Asked for comment regarding the suit, Kevin Dellsperger, the
internal medicine chairman who is named as a defendant along
with the hospital, Option Care and University of Missouri
curators, declined to do so. However, Joy Doll, the Cape
Girardeau nurse who contacted Dr. King's patients using a list
provided by the hospital, told The Associated press that the
suit is without merit. Ms. Doll, who is also a defendant pointed
out, "There were absolutely no services solicited. This was
about patient safety."

Legal representatives for the defendants are asking a Boone
County Circuit Court judge to dismiss the lawsuit on the grounds
that the patients suffered no monetary damage and that the
doctor-patient privilege "does not create an independent duty
for defendants to not release confidential medical information
to third parties." A hearing for that motion is set for October
24.


WHOLESOME FOODS: Recalls Country Hams For Listeria Contamination
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wholesome Foods, Inc., an Edinburg, Va., firm, is voluntarily
recalling approximately 165 pounds of cooked country hams 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 Cryovac wrapped packages of
"Ole Fashioned Sugar Cured Country Ham, THE OLD DOMINION BRAND
FINE MEATS, Premium Fully Cooked Country Ham."  The packages
bear the establishment number "EST. 7906" inside the USDA seal
of inspection. All cases bear the product code "207" and the
packaging date "7/27/2005."  The hams were produced on July 26
and were distributed to retail establishments in Rockingham
County, Virginia.

The problem was discovered through company microbiological
sampling. 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 and media with questions about the recall should
contact HACCP Coordinator Dianne Miller at (540) 984-8219.  
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.


WORKSTREAM INC.: Shareholders Launch Securities Fraud Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Workstream, Inc., its Chief Executive Officer and its former
Chief Financial Officer face a securities class action filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of our
common shares during the period from January 14, 2005 to and
including April 14, 2005.

The suit alleges, among other things that the Company provided
the market misleading guidance as to its anticipated revenues
for the quarter ended February 28, 2005, and failed to correct
this guidance on a timely basis. The action claims violations of
Section 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, as well as Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act, and seeks compensatory damages in an unspecified amount as
well as the award of reasonable costs and expenses, including
counsel and expert fees and costs.

The suit is styled "Schottenfeld Qualified Associates LP et al
v. Workstream, Inc. et al., case no. 7:05-cv-07092-CLB," filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York, under Judge Charles L. Brieant.  Representing the
plaintiffs are Ronen Sarraf of Sarraf Gentile, LLP, 485 Seventh
Avenue, New York, NY 10018, Phone: (212) 868-3610, Fax:
(212)918-7967, E-mail: ronen@sarrafgentile.com; and Ralph M.
Stone, Shalov Stone & Bonner LLP, 485 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1000
New York, NY 10018, Phone: (212) 239-4340, Fax: (212) 239-4310,
E-mail: rstone@lawssb.com.


                New Securities Fraud Cases

AMERICAN ITALIAN: Baron & Budd Sets Lead Plaintiff Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Baron & Budd, P.C., reminds all interested
parties that there are only 12 more days until the October 11,
2005 deadline to file for appointment of Lead Plaintiff in the
pending class action lawsuit against American Italian Pasta
Company (NYSE:PLB)("AIPC" or the "Company") that was brought on
behalf of all purchasers of the securities of AIPC between
October 4, 2000 and August 9, 2005, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

On August 12, 2005, the first complaint was filed against AIPC
alleging violations of the Federal securities laws. This suit
arose from the Company's August 9, 2005 announcement that it was
delaying the release of its financial results for the full
fiscal year and for the third fiscal quarter ended July 1, 2005,
and that the Company was also delaying the filing of its third
quarter Form 10-Q with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC). In addition, the Company stated that its Audit Committee
was conducting an internal investigation of certain accounting
procedures and practices. Lastly, the Company also outlined
impairment charges to the amount of $60.7 million and a SEC
inquiry.

On this news, AIPC shares fell $7.66, or 36.58 percent, to close
at $13.28 per share on volume of 4.7 million shares.

For more details, contact Randall K. Pulliam, Esq. or Max Jodry
of Baron & Budd, P.C., Phone: (800) 222-2766, E-mail:
info@baronbudd.com, Web site: http://www.baronandbudd.com/.


DHB INDUSTRIES: Abbey Gardy Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Abbey Gardy, LLP, commenced a Class Action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York (Civil Action No. 05-4330) on behalf of a
class (the "Class") of all persons who purchased or acquired
securities of DHB Industries, Inc. ("DHB" or the
"Company")(AMEX:DHB) between April 21, 2004 and August 29, 2005
inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing a
series of material misrepresentations to the market during the
Class Period thereby artificially inflating the price of DHB
securities. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that during
the Class Period, DHB insiders sold approximately 194 million of
the their own shares at prices artificially inflated by
defendants' false and misleading statements about the Company's
bullet resistant body armor products.

For more details, contact Susan Lee or Nancy Kaboolian, Esq. of
Abbey Gardy, LLP, 212 East 39th St., New York, NY 10016, Phone:
(212) 889-3700 or (800) 889-3701, E-mail: slee@abbeygardy.com.


HUTCHINSON TECHNOLOGY: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Fraud Suit in MN
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel filed a class action lawsuit
was filed in the United States District Court for the District
of Minnesota on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired the securities of Hutchinson Technology, Inc.
(NasdaqNM: HTCH), between October 4, 2004 and August 29, 2005,
inclusive seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The action, is pending before the Honorable Michael J. Davis in
the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota
against defendants Hutchinson, Wayne M. Fortun (President and
CEO), John A. Ingleman (CFO and Vice President), and Jeffrey W.
Green (Chairman). According to the complaint, defendants
violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule
10b-5, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the
market during the Class Period.

The complaint alleges that Hutchinson designs, manufactures, and
supplies suspension assemblies that hold magnetic read-write
heads at microscopic distances above disks in disk drives.
According to the Company, the smaller the distance between a
read-write head and the surface of a disk, the greater the
storage capacity of a disk drive. During the Class Period,
Hutchinson presented itself as a company that successfully
manufactured and marketed suspension assemblies, and a company
that was consistently beating guidance issued by defendants. As
a result of the defendants' positive statements, the price of
Hutchinson common stock was artificially inflated during the
Class Period. Defendants took advantage of the artificial
inflation by selling their personally-held shares of Hutchinson
stock for more than $12.1 million in proceeds. Unbeknownst to
investors, defendants' statements were materially false and
misleading because defendants overstated the demand for the
Company's products, defendants failed to disclose that a shift
in the mix of products toward new, low-yielding products was
negatively impacting the Company's business and prospects, and
defendants failed to disclose that they had not implemented an
adequate system of internal controls. As a result of the
foregoing, defendants' statements that Hutchinson was operating
according to plan, and their guidance lacked any reasonable
basis in fact.

On August 30, 2005, before the market opened, Hutchinson issued
a press release announcing lowered guidance for the fourth
quarter 2005. The Company stated that earnings would be $0.05
per share, compared to previous guidance of $0.65, and that the
Company's gross margins would fall as low as 19%, significantly
lower than the Company's previous estimate of as high as 30%. In
reaction to this news, the price of Hutchinson stock fell $5.35
per share, or 17%, from its closing price of $31.51 on August
29, 2005, to $26.16 on August 30, 2005.

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


MANNATECH INC.: Glancy Binkow Schedules Lead Plaintiff Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP, which is
representing shareholders of Mannatech, Inc., states that there
are only 28 days remaining to move to be a lead plaintiff in the
shareholder lawsuit. All persons and institutions who purchased
securities of Mannatech, Inc. ("Mannatech" or the "Company")
(Nasdaq:MTEX) between August 10, 2004 and May 8, 2005, inclusive
(the "Class Period"), may move the Court not later than October
17, 2005, to serve as lead plaintiff; however, you must meet
certain legal requirements.

The Complaint charges Mannatech and Samuel L. Caster with
violations of federal securities laws. Plaintiff claims
defendants issued false or misleading statements concerning the
Company's business and operations, which caused Mannatech's
stock price to become artificially inflated, inflicting damages
on investors. Mannatech operates in the field of
"glyconutrients" and designs and develops proprietary
nutritional supplements, topical products and weight management
products, sold primarily by purportedly independent sales
associates and members through a network-marketing system --
commonly known as "multilevel marketing." The Complaint alleges
Mannatech failed to adequately supervise and/or monitor the
conduct of its associates, including those who maintain websites
that prominently display misleading testimonials and/or falsely
suggest that Mannatech products are effective in the treatment
and prevention of certain specific diseases. The Complaint
alleges that, unbeknownst to public investors, the true facts
which defendants knew and/or recklessly disregarded and failed
to disclose to the investing public during the Class Period,
included:

     (1) that the Company's internal controls were inadequate,
         and failed in several key aspects, resulting in
         inadequate monitoring and supervision of the Company's
         associates;

     (2) as a consequence of defendants' failure to supervise,
         Mannatech associates made false and unfounded claims
         concerning the efficacy of the Company's products; and

     (3) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' statements
         with respect to Mannatech's operations, performance and
         prospects were lacking in any reasonable basis when
         made.

On May 9, 2005, an article published in Barron's revealed the
misleading nature of claims made on certain Mannatech
associates' websites. This news shocked the market, causing the
price of Mannatech shares to plummet more than 26 percent in one
day, thereby damaging investors. The next day, May 10, 2005,
Mannatech shares fell an additional 19 percent as a result of
this news.

For more details, contact Lionel Z. Glancy or Michael Goldberg
of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP, Phone: (310) 201-9150 or
(888) 773-9224, E-mail: info@glancylaw.com, Web site:
http://www.glancylaw.com.


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

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

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

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

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


                            *********


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  * * *