CAR_Public/051004.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Tuesday, October 4, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 196

                            Headlines

ADVANCE AMERICA: NC Court Allows Limited Discovery in Fraud Suit
ADVANCE AMERICA: GA Court Stays Consumers' Payday Loans Lawsuit
ADVANCE AMERICA: Reaches Settlement For TN Consumer Fraud Suit
ADVANCE AMERICA: FL Court Stays Lawsuits For Fraud, Unfair Trade
ALLEGHENY ENERGY: Pays Over $15 Mil to Settle Consolidated Suits

AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Forges Settlement For Suits v. Marquee Merger
AMERICAN MULTI-CINEMA: Faces Individual Overtime Claims in CA
ASG CONSOLIDATED: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of WA Wage Lawsuit
AT CROSS: RI Court Preliminarily OKs Securities Suit Settlement
BAYVIEW CREMATORY: NH Resident Sues Over Mishandling of Remains

BLUE RIDGE: TN Residents Launch Injury Lawsuit V. Canton Mill
CALIFORNIA: Judge Allows Strip Search Suit V. County to Proceed
CANADA: Another Quebec Woman Launches Suit V. 3 Tobacco Giants
CANADA: Justice Refuses to Grant Injunction V. Rideau Regional
CANADA: Lawyer Files Residential School Suit on Behalf of Metis

EL PASO: KS Court Hears Motions To Certify 2nd Antitrust Suit
EL PASO: NY Court Refuses To Dismiss Consolidated MTBE Lawsuit
GOLF HOST: Plaintiffs Appeal Summary Judgment in Property Suit
INTERNATIONAL PAPER: $3.7 Mil Settlement With Workers Approved
MERCK & CO.: German Patients Join U.S. Suit Over Recalled Vioxx

MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Firm to Start Paying Suing "Permatemps"
NTS-PROPERTIES ASSOCIATES: CA Appeals Court Upholds Settlement
NORTEL NETWORKS: Firm in Negotiations to Settle Securities Suits
NTS-PROPERTIES ASSOCIATES: 2 Plaintiffs Drop Claims in KY Suit
OHIO: Woman Faces Imprisonment For Conspiring to Defraud USDA

STEVENS-HENAGER: EEOC Lodges Gender Discrimination Suit in Utah
T-NETIX INC.: CA Court Refuses To Certify Consumer Fraud Lawsuit
T-NETIX INC.: Consumer Fraud Lawsuit Launched in WA State Court
TELAXIS COMMUNICATIONS: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Settlement

                  New Securities Fraud Cases

ARBINET-THEXCHANGE: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Fraud Suit in NJ
ATI TECHNOLOGIES: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in PA
DHB INDUSTRIES: Klafter & Olsen Files Securities Suit in E.D. NY
PATTERSON COMPANIES: Murray Frank Lodges Securities Suit in CO
RED ROBIN: Murray Frank Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in CO

TXU CORPORATION: Law Firms Commence Securities Fraud Suit in TX

                         *********


ADVANCE AMERICA: NC Court Allows Limited Discovery in Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The General Court of Justice for the Superior Court Division for
New Hanover County, North Carolina allowed limited discovery on
issues of arbitration, personal jurisdiction and class
certification for the class action filed against Advance
America, Cash Advance Centers, Inc.  The suit also names as
defendants the Company's subsidiary that operates in North
Carolina and William M. Webster, IV, its Chief Executive
Officer.

On July 27, 2004, John Kucan, Welsie Torrence and Terry Coates,
each of whom is a customer of Republic Bank & Trust Company, the
lending bank for whom we process, market and service payday cash
advances in North Carolina.  The plaintiffs are alleging, among
other things, that the Company, and not the lending bank, are
the "true lender" and are therefore offering usurious payday
cash advances in violation of numerous consumer protection
statutes.  

The suit alleges, among other things, that the relationship
between its subsidiary that operates in North Carolina and
Republic is a "rent a charter" relationship and therefore the
bank is not the "true lender" on the payday cash advances. The
lawsuit also claims that the payday cash advances are made,
administered and collected in violation of numerous North
Carolina consumer protection laws.  The lawsuit seeks an
injunction barring the Company from continuing to do business in
North Carolina, the return of the principal amount of the payday
cash advances made to the plaintiff class since August 2001, the
return of any interest or fees associated with those advances,
treble damages, attorneys' fees and other unspecified costs.  
The case is in its preliminary stages.

Thus far the only substantive motions the Company has filed are
motions to dismiss or stay proceedings and compel arbitration.
On November 19, 2004, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking class
certification.  On November 16, 2004, North Carolina Superior
Court Judge Ernest Fulwood denied the Company's motion to have
the case designated as a complex business case and assign it to
the North Carolina Business Court and instead granted the
plaintiffs' motion to designate the case as exceptional and
assign it to a specific Superior Court judge. The ruling does
not express any opinion on the merits of the case.

Plaintiffs' counsel indicated at the hearing held prior to the
ruling, and in papers filed in support of their motion for class
certification (which has not yet been fully briefed or set for a
hearing), that the distributions to the Company's stockholders
of substantially all of the net income earned by the Company in
the form of cash dividends may be the subject of a fraudulent
conveyance claim.  At the hearing, plaintiffs' counsel indicated
that they might seek injunctive relief to return such payments
or to hold them in escrow pending a judgment in this lawsuit.
Plaintiffs' complaint contains a fraudulent conveyance claim but
seeks no specific relief with respect to that claim.  

On December 1, 2004, North Carolina Supreme Court Chief Justice
I. Beverly Lake, Jr. signed a commission appointing Special
Superior Judge D. Jack Hooks, Jr. to hear the case.  On March
10, 2005, Judge Hooks heard arguments on motions to stay
discovery pending a decision on its fitness for arbitration. On
May 11, 2005, issued a ruling allowing limited discovery on the
issues of arbitration, personal jurisdiction and class
certification and then stated his intent to set a date to hear
these motions together.

In September 2004, Republic filed an action in federal court in
North Carolina against the three plaintiffs who have sued the
Company, seeking a declaratory judgment that all disputes their
customers have shall be submitted to arbitration and an
injunction preventing the plaintiffs from pursuing disputes in a
non-arbitral forum. A motion to dismiss Republic's lawsuit was
granted on February 10, 2005, on grounds that Republic lacks
standing.  On February 18, 2005, Republic filed a motion to
alter or amend the judgment and for reconsideration, which was
denied. Republic has filed an appeal of these orders to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.


ADVANCE AMERICA: GA Court Stays Consumers' Payday Loans Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Georgia
stayed the class action filed against Advance America, Cash
Advance Centers, Inc., pending the United States Eleventh
Circuit's ruling in a related case.

On August 6, 2004, Tahisha King and James E. Strong, who are
customers of BankWest, Inc., the lending bank for whom we
processed, marketed and serviced payday cash advances in
Georgia, filed a putative class action lawsuit in the State
Court of Cobb County, Georgia against the Company, its
subsidiary in Georgia, William M. Webster, IV and several of its
unnamed officers, directors, owners and "stakeholders."  The
suit alleges many different causes of action, most notably that
the Company has been making illegal payday loans in Georgia in
violation of Georgia's usury law, the Georgia Industrial Loan
Act and Georgia's Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act.

The complaint alleges that BankWest is not the "true lender" on
the loans that the Company processes, market and service for
BankWest in Georgia and that the Company is the "de facto"
lender. The complaint seeks compensatory damages, attorneys'
fees, punitive damages and the trebling of any compensatory
damages.

The Company has removed the case to federal court and filed an
answer denying the allegations and asserting the defense of
arbitration as well as other defenses. The plaintiffs filed a
motion in September 2004 to remand the case to Georgia State
court to which the Company has responded.  In September 2004,
the Company filed a declaratory judgment action in federal court
in Georgia against the Georgia class action plaintiffs seeking a
declaratory judgment that all disputes relating to the loans by
BankWest shall be submitted to arbitration and plaintiffs shall
be prohibited from pursuing loan related disputes in a non-
arbitral forum.  A hearing was held on December 14, 2004. While
no formal opinion was issued, the court indicated it was likely
to place the cases on hold until the Eleventh Circuit issues its
ruling in BankWest vs. Baker, which challenges the
constitutionality of Georgia's payday cash advance law and
Jenkins vs. First American, which involves the enforceability of
an arbitration clause similar to the one at issue in our Georgia
case.  On February 18, 2005, the Eleventh Circuit held in the
Jenkins case that the arbitration ruling was enforceable and
binding on the plaintiffs.  On March 24, 2005, the court issued
a formal opinion indicating that it was staying the case until
the Eleventh Circuit issued its decision in BankWest v. Baker.
After the Eleventh Circuit issued its ruling upholding the
District Court's order in "BankWest vs. Baker," the court in the
King and Strong case issued a scheduling order asking that
briefs be filed with the court by August 10, 2005, regarding the
Eleventh Circuit's opinion. The court has yet to schedule a
hearing with respect to these briefs.


ADVANCE AMERICA: Reaches Settlement For TN Consumer Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Advance America, Cash Advance Centers, Inc. faces a lawsuit
brought on behalf of a putative class of persons by a former
customer, Lois Bennett, in Tennessee State Court.

Ms. Bennett, on behalf of herself and others, alleges that the
Company's subsidiary, McKenzie Check Advance LLC, violated the
terms of a class action settlement order by wrongfully
collecting fees and advances from the class members during a
period of time when collections were allegedly prohibited.

The Tennessee Court of Appeals reversed the findings of the
trial judge in the Company's favor and remanded the case for
further findings of fact.  The suit seeks unspecified damages,
and the Company could be required to refund fees and advances
collected and to pay other monetary penalties.  The Sellers
settled the lawsuit in April 2005 and paid all amounts required
under the settlement agreement.


ADVANCE AMERICA: FL Court Stays Lawsuits For Fraud, Unfair Trade
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of Palm Beach County, Florida statyed the two
class actions filed against Advance America, Cash Advance
Centers, Inc. and certain of its officers, directors and
employees.

Three of its former customers, Gerald and Wendy Betts and
Donna Reuter, filed the suits in Florida.  The first putative
class action was filed by Ms. Betts and Ms. Reuter in February
2001 in the Circuit Court of Palm Beach County against the
Company's subsidiary, McKenzie Check Advance of Florida, LLC and
certain other parties.  The first lawsuit alleges that the
Company engaged in unfair and deceptive trade practices and
violated the Florida criminal usury statute, the Florida
Consumer Finance Act, and Florida's Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act.

The Company successfully moved to have Ms. Reuter's case sent to
arbitration and were awarded summary judgment as to Ms. Betts'
claims.  The arbitration order in Ms. Reuter's case is currently
on appeal to the Florida Supreme Court and the summary judgment
order in Ms. Betts' case was reversed on August 11, 2004 by
Florida's Fourth District Court of Appeals.  The Company is
appealing the Fourth District Court of Appeals' ruling.

The suit seeks unspecified damages, and the Company could be
required to refund fees and/or interest collected, refund the
principal amount of payday cash advances, pay multiple damages
and pay other monetary penalties.  The Company expects to
receive an order in the near future reversing the arbitration
order as to Ms. Reuter based on another Florida Supreme Court
decision on arbitration entitled Cardegna v. Buckeye Check
Cashing, Inc., the Company said in a regulatory filing.

A second Florida lawsuit was filed in August 2004 in the Circuit
Court of Palm Beach County by Mr. Betts and Ms. Reuter against
the Company, its subsidiary in Florida and officers and
directors of the subsidiary. The allegations are nearly
identical to those alleged in their first lawsuit discussed in
the preceding paragraph.  The Company has filed motions to
dismiss, to stay the proceedings pending determination of
dispositive actions by the Florida Supreme Court, and to compel
arbitration. These motions have not been fully briefed or set
for hearing yet.  The parties jointly moved for a stay of the
proceedings in light of the appeal of the original Betts and
Rueter case against the Company pending before the Florida
Supreme Court, which stay was granted on July 28, 2005.  


ALLEGHENY ENERGY: Pays Over $15 Mil to Settle Consolidated Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Allegheny Energy will pay more than $15 million to settle a
class action stemming from its 2001 purchase of troubled Merrill
Lynch & Co. subsidiary Global Energy Markets (GEM), The
Hagerstown Morning Herald reports.

According to company filings with the Securities and Exchange
Commission and court documents, the 14 consolidated class action
suits, brought before the U.S. District Court of Maryland by
Allegheny shareholders, are tied to a string of events that led
to Allegheny's financial decline, the collapse and bankruptcy of
Enron Corp., and Moody's Investors Service's 2002 decision to
downgrade Allegheny's credit to junk status, a rating which the
company has yet to recover from.  In addition the SEC filing
indicated that Allegheny, through its insurance carrier would
also pay an additional $450,000 to settle a separate, but
related class action filed after the initial suit.

In both class action suits, shareholders are claiming that
Allegheny misled them about the financial health of GEM, and
those statements caused them to buy shares that fell
considerably in value once news about GEM's problems surfaced.

Deborah Gross, a Philadelphia lawyer representing some of the
shareholders, confirmed the settlement, but noted only that, "We
still have a number of terms to work out."

Allegheny spokesman Allen Staggers told The Hagerstown Morning
Herald that the company will not comment on the settlement until
it is approved by the courts and the potentially thousands of
shareholders who bought Allegheny stock from April 23, 2002, to
October 8, 2002, under what they claim to be false statements
about GEM's revenues and financial outlook.

Allegheny bought GEM, which according to news accounts and court
documents was rife with problems tied to questionable business
practices, as part of an ambitious effort to position itself as
a major player in the national energy marketplace.  After buying
the company, Allegheny sued Merrill Lynch for the $490 million
it had paid for GEM, alleging Merrill Lynch withheld information
about the company's revenues and financial practices. Among
those practices is an allegation GEM artificially inflated its
revenues by engaging in wash transactions, deals in which it
would sell and buy holdings from other companies, including
Enron, for the same monetary amounts.

In July, a federal judge with the U.S. Court of Appeals in the
Southern District of New York dismissed Allegheny's suit and
ruled in favor of a counter suit by Merrill Lynch requiring
Allegheny to pay $115 million plus interest unpaid as part of
the GEM sale. Allegheny has said it will appeal the ruling, but
Mr. Staggers said the company has not yet filed that appeal.

Allegheny's stock fell from $12.85 per share on September 25,
2002, when Allegheny filed its suit against Merrill Lynch, to
$3.80 per share on October 8, 2002.  Though the exact number of
shareholders is not disclosed, court filings indicate Allegheny
had about 126 million shares outstanding on October 21, 2002 and
that, "... Plaintiffs believe that there are not less than
thousands of Class members."



AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Forges Settlement For Suits v. Marquee Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Chancery of the State of the Delaware has yet to
approve the settlement of the consolidated shareholder class
actions filed against AMC Entertainment, Inc., related to its
merger with Marquee Holdings, Inc.

On July 22, 2004, two lawsuits purporting to be class actions
were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware,
one naming the Company, the Company's directors, Apollo
Management and certain entities affiliated with Apollo as
defendants and the other naming the Company, the Company's
directors, Apollo Management and Marquee Holdings as defendants.  
Those actions were consolidated on August 17, 2004.  The
plaintiffs in the consolidated action filed an amended complaint
in the Chancery Court on October 22, 2004 and moved for
expedited proceedings on October 29, 2004.

On July 23, 2004, three more lawsuits purporting to be class
actions were filed in the Circuit Court of Jackson County,
Missouri, each naming the Company and the Company's directors as
defendants.  These lawsuits were consolidated on September 27,
2004.  The plaintiffs in the consolidated action filed an
amended complaint in the Circuit Court of Jackson County on
October 29, 2004.  The Company filed a motion to stay the case
in deference to the prior-filed Delaware action and separate
motion to dismiss the case in the alternative on November 1,
2004.

In both the Delaware action and the Missouri action, the
plaintiffs generally allege that the individual defendants
breached their fiduciary duties by agreeing to the Merger, that
the transaction is unfair to the minority stockholders of the
Company, that the merger consideration is inadequate and that
the defendants pursued their own interests at the expense of the
stockholders.  The lawsuits seek, among other things, to recover
unspecified damages and costs and to enjoin or rescind the
Merger and related transactions.

On November 23, 2004, the parties in this litigation entered
into a Memorandum of Understanding providing for the settlement
of both the Missouri action and Delaware action.  Pursuant to
the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding, the parties
agreed, among other things, that:

     (1) Marquee would waive Section 6.4(a)(C) of the merger
         agreement to permit the Company to provide non-public
         information to potential interested parties in response
         to any bona fide unsolicited written acquisition
         proposals by such parties (which it did),

     (2) the Company would make certain disclosures requested by
         the plaintiff in the proxy statement and the related
         Schedule 13E-3 in connection with the special meeting
         to approve the Merger (which it did) and

     (3) the Company would pay, on behalf of the defendants,
         fees and expenses of plaintiffs' counsel of
         approximately $1.7 million (which such amounts the
         Company believes are covered by its existing directors
         and officers insurance policy).

In reaching this settlement, the Company confirmed to the
plaintiffs that Lazard and Goldman Sachs had each been provided
with the financial information included in the Company's
earnings press release, issued on the same date as the
announcement of the merger agreement.  The Memorandum of
Understanding also provided for the dismissal of the Missouri
action and the Delaware action with prejudice and release of all
related claims against the Company, the other defendants and
their respective affiliates.  The settlement as provided for in
the Memorandum of Understanding is contingent upon, among other
things, approval by the court.


AMERICAN MULTI-CINEMA: Faces Individual Overtime Claims in CA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Only individual claims remain in the two overtime wage lawsuits
filed against American Multi-Cinema, Inc. after the Orange
County, California Superior court refused to grant class
certification to the two suits.  The court has yet to rule on
these claims.

The first suit is styled "Conrad Grant v. American Multi-Cinema,
Inc. and DOES 1 to 100, case no. 03CC00429."  On September 26,
2003, plaintiff filed this suit as a purported class action on
behalf of himself and other current and former "senior
managers," "salary operations managers" and persons holding
similar positions who claim that they were improperly classified
by the Company as exempt employees over the prior four years.  
On April 28, 2004, William Baer and additional plaintiffs filed
a related case titled "William Baer and Anisnara Hamlzonek v.
American Multi-Cinema, Inc. and DOES 1 to 100, case no.
04CC00507."  

On December 9, 2004, the Baer Court denied plaintiffs' motion
for class certification, and on January 7, 2005, the Grant Court
granted defendants' motion to strike the class allegations.  In
both the Baer and Grant proceedings, individual wage and hour
claims against the Company remain to be litigated.


ASG CONSOLIDATED: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of WA Wage Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington's ruling dismissing the class
action filed against ASG Consolidated 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 crewmember 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 wages. The plaintiff demanded
an accounting of the 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 by 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.


AT CROSS: RI Court Preliminarily OKs Securities Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Rhode
Island granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the
securities class action filed against AT Cross Company, certain
of its officers and directors and others.

On April 21, 2000, the Company, certain officers and directors
of the Company and others were named as defendants in an action
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Rhode Island.  The suit, which is brought by a purchaser of the
Company's Class A common stock, alleges that the defendants
violated Federal securities laws by making material
misstatements and omissions in the Company's public filings and
statements relating to the Company's former Pen Computing Group
business.  The suit seeks class action status including all
purchasers of the Company's Class A common stock between
September 17, 1997 and April 22, 1999.  The damages sought are
unspecified.

On June 30, 2000, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss the
action in the United States District Court in Rhode Island.  The
United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island
granted the Company's Motion to Dismiss in June 2001.  In July
2001, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the First Circuit Court
of Appeals.  The appeal was before the First Circuit Court of
Appeals.  An oral argument was held February 8, 2002.

On March 20, 2002, the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
issued a judgment affirming the dismissal of all claims asserted
against the W. Russell Boss Jr. Trust A, W. Russell Boss Jr.
Trust B and W. Russell Boss Jr. Trust C and reversing the
District Court's dismissal of the Section 10(b) and 20(a) claims
asserted against the Company and the named individual
defendants.  The Court of Appeals' ruling was limited to a
finding that the plaintiff's complaint had satisfied the
pleading requirements of the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995; the Court did not opine on the merits of
plaintiff's claims.  

On January 8, 2004, the District Court heard oral argument on
defendants' motion for summary judgment.  On July 21, 2004, the
Court issued its Memorandum and Order partially granting
defendants' motion for summary judgment and narrowing the class
period to encompass only purchases made between July 16, 1998
and April 22, 1999.  Due to the revised class period, the
plaintiff's two proposed class representatives no longer had
standing to assert claims on behalf of the proposed class.  The
Court, however, allowed the plaintiff class an opportunity to
recruit new class representatives and new class representatives
have been allowed.

The parties have since reached settlement in this case, and in
July 2005 the court granted preliminary approval of the
agreement to settle the securities class action litigation.  
Under the terms of the proposed settlement, the class action
litigation will be dismissed in exchange for an aggregate cash
payment of $1.5 million.  The settlement payment will be funded
entirely by the Company's insurance carriers and will therefore
have no impact to the Company's consolidated financial position
or results of operations.  The settlement remains subject to the
satisfaction of various conditions, including final approval by
the United States District Court for the District of Rhode
Island following notice to members of the class.


BAYVIEW CREMATORY: NH Resident Sues Over Mishandling of Remains
---------------------------------------------------------------
John Carlson of Seabrook, New Hampshire filed another class
action lawsuit against Bayview Crematory and its former owner,
Derek Wallace, The Rockingham News reports.

Mr. Carlson is among the 19 plaintiffs who filed the action in
U.S. District Court in Boston on September 20. His suit names
Bayview, Mr. Wallace, Mr. Wallace's mother and stepfather Linda
and Larry Stokes, the American Cremation Society and various
funeral homes as defendants.

The suit charges funeral home directors with being motivated by
"greed" to use the discounted services of Bayview, "well-known
throughout the industry as a shoddy operator," turning a
"willful blind eye" to the actions of the crematory.

Mr. Wallace, 34, of Salisbury, Massachusetts, is the former
owner of Bayview, who had allegedly sold the crematory to his
stepfather Larry Stokes, of Salisbury, because of a
Massachusetts law barring him from owning both a crematory and a
funeral home. On the other hand, Mr. Wallace's mother Linda
Stokes owns the New Zealand Road property on which the business
sits, according to business records in Seabrook.  Mr. Wallace
owned the Hart-Wallace Funeral Home in Lawrence, Massachusetts
and co-owned Simplicity Burial and Cremation Services in
Salisbury, which Paul Keenen of Keenan Real Estate reportedly
has listed as for sale. Both funeral homes are listed as
defendants in the complaint.

Mr. Wallace has been indicted by the Rockingham County grand
jury on theft charges, for taking money from clients. According
to records released by state police, some families who pre-paid
Mr. Wallace for funeral services were charged a higher price at
the time of the funeral.

State police closed Bayview in February, after allegedly finding
the crematory had operated for at least six years without having
been inspected by the state.


BLUE RIDGE: TN Residents Launch Injury Lawsuit V. Canton Mill
-------------------------------------------------------------
Blue Ridge Paper Products, Inc. faces a class action filed in
the Circuit Court for Cocke County, Tennessee, on behalf of
approximately 300 residents owning property adjoining the Pigeon
River upon which the Canton mill is located, and into which the
Company has a permit to discharge.

The plaintiffs are seeking damages for private nuisance in the
period commencing June 1, 1999, and thereafter until present.  
The plaintiffs in this action allege that the discharge of
colored water from the Canton mill has resulted in a diminution
of property value, but does not contain any allegation relating
to health or safety matters.  The demand for damages
is limited to a maximum of $74 (exclusive of interest and costs)
per individual landowner.  


CALIFORNIA: Judge Allows Strip Search Suit V. County to Proceed
---------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer ruled that a class action
lawsuit challenging strip searches in San Francisco jails could
proceed on several key claims on behalf of an estimated 20,000
people who contend they were illegally searched, The Bay City
News reports.

In a ruling issued recently in San Francisco, the judge turned
down a bid by the Sheriff's Department for dismissal of several
claims.  The case concerns people who have been arrested and
jailed but have not yet been arraigned.

Judge Breyer's ruling stated that the department's former policy
of automatically searching people who were considered likely to
stay in the jail system for more than 24 hours was
unconstitutional. Also, the judge's ruling pointed out that a
federal appeals court has ruled on several occasions that such
searches must be based on some kind of suspicion of drugs,
weapons or violence.  In addition, Judge Breyer wrote, "The
court concludes that the department's former policy requiring
strip searches of all detainees classified for housing in the
general jail population without any consideration of the crime
charged or any other individualized factors was
unconstitutional."

The judge also said a policy of automatically searching all
arrestees who were put in padded safety cells was
unconstitutional. On this regard, he wrote that jails face "real
and profound threats" from the smuggling of weapons and drugs
into jails. He said though, "Standing against these valid safety
concerns are the fundamental privacy interests that are
infringed by the extreme intrusiveness of a strip search."

Jeffrey Schwarzschild, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, told The Bay
City News that the next step in the case would be either
preparations for a trial or possible settlement discussions. He
estimates that there are more than 24,000 people in the class of
people who were designated for the general jail population and
more than 1,100 who were placed in padded safety cells.  Mr.
Schwarzschild also told The Bay City News that the ruling
allowing the class claims could result in "a lot of liability"
for San Francisco. He declined though to estimate a figure for
financial damages and instead said, "You can't deny 24,000
people their civil rights."

Nine individual plaintiffs originally filed the lawsuit in 2003.
In June 2004, Judge Breyer certified the case as a class action
though he declined to issue a preliminary injunction concerning
future searches. The judge cited that there was no proof of any
threat of imminent harm under the sheriff's new policy.

The suit is styled, "Bull et al v. City and County of San
Francisco et al, Case No. 3:03-cv-01840," filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California,
under Judge Charles R. Breyer. Representing the Plaintiff/s are:
Mark E. Merin, Esq. and Jeffrey I. Schwarzschild of the Law
Office of Mark E. Merin, 2001 P St., Suite 100, Sacramento, CA
95814, Phone: 916-443-6911, Fax: 916-447-8336, E-mail:
mark@markmerin.com and jeff@markmerin.com; and Andrew C.
Schwartz of Casper Meadows & Schwartz, 2121 North California
Boulevard, Suite 1020, Walnut Creek, CA 94596, Phone:
925-947-1147, Fax: 925-947-1131, E-mail: schwartz@cmslaw.com.
Representing the Defendant/s are: Robert A. Bonta of San
Francisco City Attorney, 1390 Market St., Sixth Floor, San
Francisco, CA 94102, Phone: 415-554-4268, Fax: 415-554-3837, E-
mail: robert.bonta@sfgov.org; and Ingrid M. Evans of Renne Sloan
Holtzman & Sakai, LLP, 50 California St., Suite 2100, San
Francisco, CA 94111, Phone: 415-678-3810, Fax: 415-678-3838, E-
mail: ievans@publiclawgroup.com.



CANADA: Another Quebec Woman Launches Suit V. 3 Tobacco Giants
--------------------------------------------------------------
A Quebec woman launched a class action lawsuit against Canada's
three tobacco giants on behalf of nearly 1.8 million smokers in
the province, The Canadian Press reports.

The lawsuit, which is seeking $17.8 billion in damages, was
filed in Quebec Superior Court. It targets Imperial Tobacco
Canada, Rothmans Benson and Hedges and JTI MacDonald.  The suit
follows from a February decision by a Quebec Superior Court
judge that upheld Cecilia Letourneau's right to go ahead with
her giant class action suit against the cigarette manufacturers.

The suit is not related to a recent Supreme Court decision that
gives the British Columbia government the right to sue tobacco
companies to cover health-care costs related to smoking.

Ms. Letourneau's lawsuit claims that she, along with every other
smoker in Quebec, had been misled about the dependency caused by
the nicotine in cigarettes. It was filed on behalf of all
Quebecers over the age of 15 who smoked every day in September
1998, when Ms. Letourneau first sought permission from Superior
Court to go ahead with her lawsuit.


CANADA: Justice Refuses to Grant Injunction V. Rideau Regional
--------------------------------------------------------------
Justice Smith of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruled
against granting an interim injunction for residents who do not
want to be moved out of the Rideau Regional Center and referred
the case to the Divisional Court for judicial review.  Planning
will continue with families, ministry staff, health
professionals and community agencies to help residents who are
prepared to move into community settings.

"We are pleased that Judge Smith has allowed us to continue to
plan," said Minister of Community and Social Services, Sandra
Pupatello. "We are committed to improving the lives of people
with a developmental disability by supporting them in the
community."

The government will continue to vigorously advocate for the
principle of more inclusive community living for people with a
developmental disability.

"We feel confident in our position and we are going to continue
to move forward," Ms. Pupatello said. "We are pleased that the
court saw the need to have this matter resolved expeditiously."

This case involves a request by some families of residents at
Rideau Regional Center for an interim injunction to prevent
their move into the community until a class action is certified
and the matter is heard before the court.

For more details, contact Stephanie Nadalin, Minister's Office,
Phone: (416) 325-5219 and Paul Doig, Ministry of Community and
Social Services, Phone: (416) 325-5187, Web site:
http://www.mcss.gov.on.ca.


CANADA: Lawyer Files Residential School Suit on Behalf of Metis
---------------------------------------------------------------
Attorney Tony Merchant launched a class action lawsuit in
Regina's Court of Queen's Bench against the federal government
on behalf of Metis and non-status native people who attended
residential schools in Canada, The CBC News reports.

According to Mr. Merchant, who told CBC News that similar suits
were also filed in Ontario, Quebec and the Federal Court of
Canada, his firm has estimated that there are about 5,400
Canadian Metis still alive who went to residential schools.

Mr. Merchant's firm, which is experienced with residential
school class action suits, told CBC News that this suit may be
tough, because unlike some status Indians, Metis and non-status
natives were not forced to attend residential schools. He added,
"They voluntarily went to the school. They may not have paid
anything, but they voluntarily went. It's a tougher test than
somebody who was forced to go because they were Indian."

However, Mr. Merchant was quick to point out thought that his
firm thinks it has a shot, because of recent legal developments
that give greater recognition to Metis rights. He told CBC News,
"We think there's an emerging potential area for Metis people to
develop through the law in much the same way that, starting 20
and 25 years ago, rights for First Nations people were
developed."

According to Statistics Canada, there are about 86,000 people
alive today who attended residential schools, which were
operated from 1928 onwards throughout much of Canada.

The federal government says that of the 15,000 claimants who
have filed federal lawsuits, just under 3,000 have had their
claims resolved.


EL PASO: KS Court Hears Motions To Certify 2nd Antitrust Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court of Stevens County, Kansas briefed plaintiffs'
motions for class certification of the second class action filed
against a number of El Paso Corporation's subsidiaries and other
natural gas companies, styled "Will Price, et al. v. Gas
Pipelines and Their Predecessors, et al."

The suit was originally filed in 1999, alleging that the
defendants mis-measured natural gas volumes and heating content
of natural gas on non-federal and non-Native American lands.  
The plaintiffs seek to recover royalties that they contend they
should have received had the volume and heating value of natural
gas produced from their properties been differently measured,
analyzed, calculated and reported, together with prejudgment and
postjudgment interest, punitive damages, treble damages,
attorneys' fees, costs and expenses, and future injunctive
relief to require the defendants to adopt allegedly appropriate
gas measurement practices.  No monetary relief has been
specified in this case.

Plaintiffs' motion for class certification of a nationwide class
of natural gas working interest owners and natural gas royalty
owners was denied in April 2003.  Plaintiffs were granted leave
to file a Fourth Amended Petition, which narrows the proposed
class to royalty owners in wells in Kansas, Wyoming and Colorado
and removes claims as to heating content. A second class action
has since been filed as to the heating content claims. The
plaintiffs have filed motions for class certification in both
proceedings and the defendants have filed briefs in opposition
thereto.


EL PASO: NY Court Refuses To Dismiss Consolidated MTBE Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York refused to dismiss the consolidated class action filed
against El Paso Corporation, its subsidiaries and other gas
companies, styled "In re MTBE Litigation."

In compliance with the 1990 amendments to the Clean
Air Act, the Company used the gasoline additive methyl tertiary-
butyl ether MTBE) in some of its gasoline, and also produced,
bought, sold and distributed MTBE. A number of lawsuits have
been filed throughout the U.S. regarding MTBE's s potential
impact on water supplies. The Company and some of its
subsidiaries are among the defendants in over 60 such lawsuits.

As a result of a ruling issued on March 16, 2004, these suits
have been consolidated for pre-trial purposes in multi-district
litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York. The plaintiffs, certain state attorneys general and
various water districts, seek remediation of their groundwater,
prevention of future contamination, a variety of compensatory
damages, punitive damages, attorney's fees, and court costs. The
plaintiff states of California and New Hampshire have filed an
appeal to the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals challenging the
removal of the cases from state to federal court. That appeal is
pending.  In April 2005, the judge denied a motion by defendants
to dismiss the lawsuits. In that opinion the Court recognized,
for certain states, a potential commingled product market share
basis for collective liability.


GOLF HOST: Plaintiffs Appeal Summary Judgment in Property Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed a lower court ruling granting summary
judgment in favor of Golf Host Resorts, Inc. and its corporate
parent Golf Hosts, Inc. in the lawsuit filed against it, related
to various aspects of an arrangement the owner/borrower of the
resort entered with many of the persons who own condominium
units at the Innisbrook Resort whereby the condominiums owned by
these persons are placed in a pool and rented as hotel rooms to
guests of the arrangement.

Certain of the resort's condominium owners filed the suit over
The he condominium owners/plaintiffs are seeking to resolve
these issues, among others:

     (1) whether every condominium owner who is also a member of
         the Innisbrook Golf and Country Club has the right to
         participate in the lessor's rental pool, so long as
         there is a rental pool, by virtue of defendant's
         alleged marketing promises to all purchasers of
         condominiums at the Resort;

     (2) whether the condominium unit owners were coerced by
         economic pressure and duress to enter into the master
         lease agreement, or guaranteed lease agreement;

     (3) whether the guaranteed lease agreement is invalid by
         reason of such alleged coercion and economic duress
         and, if so, whether the condominium owners who entered
         into the guaranteed lease agreement are entitled to be
         reimbursed for the difference between the amount of
         income that was distributed to them under the
         guaranteed lease agreement and the amount of income
         that would have been distributed to them had they
         remained subject to the master lease agreement;

     (4) whether the unit owners who signed the guaranteed lease
         agreement have the right to return to the master lease
         agreement without penalty, and thereby be entitled to
         be reimbursed for the difference between the income
         that they received under the guaranteed lease agreement
         and the income they would have received under the
         master lease agreement; and

     (5) whether the defendant breached its contract with the
         unit owners by allowing members of the public upon the
         golf courses, thereby adversely affecting the "private
         golf course" concept of Innisbrook;

Deposition of class members and others, including depositions of
prior executives of Golf Host Resorts, Inc. have been taken and
additional discovery remains to be undertaken.  The previously
scheduled trial date of February 3, 2003 was postponed by the
Court and a new trial date has not yet been set.

In July 2003, the judge in the litigation against Golf Host
Resorts, Inc. reversed an earlier ruling and held that the case
could not proceed as a class action.  The judge also ruled that
the plaintiffs could not seek recovery from the individuals that
hold stock in Golf Host Resorts, Inc. and its affiliates
(rejecting plaintiffs' attempt to "pierce the corporate veil").

In October 2003, the judge ruled that the claims of the former
members of the class who were not named as plaintiffs in the
lawsuit were barred by the statute of limitations.  These
rulings leave approximately 80 individual plaintiffs in the
lawsuit.  Plaintiffs have appealed each of these rulings to the
court of appeals.  The court of appeals summarily affirmed the
lower court's ruling that the case could not proceed as a class
action and has affirmed the lower court's dismissal with
prejudice of the veil piercing case.  On June 15, 2004, counsel
for GHR reargued the motion for summary judgment to summarily
dismiss the claims of the remaining 80 individual Plaintiffs.  
On July 29, 2004, the court entered an order granting the
defendant's motion for summary judgment. The plaintiffs filed an
appeal of this ruling on October 26, 2004.  Briefing has been
completed in the appeal from the court's final judgment granting
the Company's motion for summary judgment.  Argument before the
appellate court was held on September 21, 2005.


INTERNATIONAL PAPER: $3.7 Mil Settlement With Workers Approved
--------------------------------------------------------------
A U.S. District Court judge in Cincinnati approved a $3.7
million preliminary settlement agreement between workers at
Hamilton's B Street Mill and International Paper, The Hamilton
Journal News reports.

Though the settlement may bring to a close a protracted class
action lawsuit, workers stand to get significantly less money
under the new settlement than they would have under an earlier
decision by the judge.

Workers' attorney Theresa Groh told The Hamilton Journal News
she's "very pleased" the two groups could reach an agreement to
end the litigation, which has dragged on for nearly five years.
If given final approval by the judge in November, her clients
will get a portion of their severance payments, while IP admits
no wrongdoing. She stated though, "Let's be clear. Both sides
still very much believe they're right."

The case dates back to 2000, when Champion International merged
with International Paper Co. In May of that same year, just
before the merger, the company issued a severance policy for
workers terminated as a result of the companies' reorganization.  
Court records revealed that after IP sold its B Street Mill to
SMART Papers in 2001, IP refused to pay severance benefits to
workers who accepted jobs with the new company, even those who
had accepted significant pay cuts. Shortly after, two of those
workers, Scott Dalesandro and Dianne Noonan started the class
action suit on behalf of 147 other former IP employees who had
taken jobs with SMART.

Representatives for IP contend that the severance benefits were
offered only to help those who were out of work because of the
transition, not to those who carried on at the mill working for
a new company.  However, in 2003, U.S. District Court Judge
Sandra Beckwith, ruled that the severance agreement only
stipulated that employees had to be terminated by IP as a result
of the company's reorganization. In a ruling earlier this year,
she ordered IP to pay its former employees $4.2 million in
severance payments, $323,532 for their attorneys' fees, $6,335
in costs and $628,823 in back interest for a total of $5.1
million.  The paper manufacturer, in turn, appealed the ruling
to the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, as did the workers,
asking for more money.   

Just recently, the two parties presented an alternative
settlement agreement to the local court. Under that alternate
agreement, International Paper agreed to pay the workers $3.7
million with no interest if the former employees would drop
their claims and end what both sides have called costly
litigation.  Under that new agreement, all plaintiffs' costs
would be deducted from the $3.7 million before payments are made
to the workers. Attorneys for the workers have asked for
$917,500 in fees, $25,000 for litigation costs and $20,000 in
incentive payments to Mr. Dalesandro and Ms. Noonan, leaving
$2.7 million for the severance payments.

If those payments are granted by the judge, workers would stand
to get about 64 percent of what they would have received under
Judge Beckwith's earlier ruling.  A fairness hearing has been
scheduled for November 16 at the U.S. District courthouse in
Cincinnati with notices explaining the settlement having been
already mailed to workers who are part of the class. Members of
the class who object to the settlement must file their
objections with the court before November 1.

The suit is styled, "Dalesandro, et al v. International Paper,
Case No. 1:01-cv-00109-SSB," filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio, under Judge Sandra S.
Beckwith. Representing the Plaintiff/s are Theresa L. Groh and
John Charles Murdock of Murdock Goldenberg Schneider & Groh,
LPA, 35 East Seventh St., Suite 600, Cincinnati, OH 45202-2015,
Phone: 513-345-8291, E-mail: tgroh@mgsglaw.com and
jmurdock@mgsglaw.com; and Myron Auer Wolf of Henderson, Deis &
Wolf - 1, 120 North Second St., Hamilton, OH 45011, Phone:
513-863-0664, Fax: 513-863-0664. Representing the Defendant/s
are:

     (1) Vincent J Miraglia of International Paper Company,
         Legal Department, 6400 Poplar Ave., Memphis, TN 38197,   
         Phone: 901/419-3901, E-mail:
         vmiraglia@mcguirewoods.com;

     (2) Grant Spencer Cowan of Frost Brown Todd LLC - 1, 2200
         PNC Center, 201 E 5th St., Cincinnati, OH 45202-4182,  
         Phone: 513-651-6800, Fax: 513-651-6745 (fax), E-mail:
         gcowan@fbtlaw.com; and

     (3) W. Carter Younger of McGuire Woods LLP - 1, One James
         Center, 901 E Cary St., Richmond, VA 23219, Phone: 804-
         775-4712, Fax: 804-775-4366.


MERCK & CO.: German Patients Join U.S. Suit Over Recalled Vioxx
---------------------------------------------------------------
Four German patients joined a U.S. class action lawsuit against
pharmaceutical giant Merck and Co over its controversial
arthritis painkiller Vioxx, The AFX News reports.

According to Germany's Bild am Sonntag, the first German
patients would add their names to the suit against Merck in
Chicago, which accuses the company of continuing to sell Vioxx
even after grave concerns about the drug arose.

Berlin attorney Andreas Schulz, who is representing 1,042 people
who claim to have suffered severe side effects from Vioxx, told
the newspaper, "Thousands of victims could have been avoided if
Merck had acted responsibly."

Whitehouse Station, New Jersey based Merck has been bombarded
with lawsuits around the world since it pulled the $2.5 billion-
a-year seller Vioxx from the market in September 30, 2004 after
an internal study found it doubled patients' risks of heart
attacks and strokes after 18 months. More than 20 mln people
took the drug worldwide before its withdrawal.


MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Firm to Start Paying Suing "Permatemps"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Microsoft Corporation is expected to begin paying up to $72
million to approximately 8,600 former contract workers who were
part of a 1992 class action lawsuit claiming they were denied
benefits, The Associated Press reports.

Hired during Microsoft's early growth spurt, the workers, also
known as "permatemps," won a $97 million settlement in 2001
after a court found they were improperly restricted from the
company stock-purchase plan. That multi-million dollar ruling
forced Microsoft to change its temporary-worker policies and
limit contract lengths.

The suit, which is styled Vizcaino v. Microsoft, was filed by
long-term temporary workers, who complained over their lack of
eligibility for a Microsoft program in which permanent employees
were able to buy company stock at a discount, an earlier Class
Action Reporter story (September 23, 2004) reports.

Since that verdict, there have been years of delays and
procedural haggling along with several of the original
plaintiffs suing because they thought their lawyers' $27 million
share was too much. The courts then had to review the cases of
individual plaintiffs who felt shorted. Further adding to the
delays was the IRS, who also had to determine how much to tax
the payouts.

Last week though a federal judge overseeing the case finally
approved a payout plan. According to Judith Bendich, one of the
plaintiffs' lawyers, checks are expected to be mailed starting
October 17.

Court records revealed that after legal fees, processing costs
and early payouts to a small group of plaintiffs along with
interest the money earned since 2001 there is still $72 million
left to distribute to the remaining class members. On average,
before payroll taxes, that is $8,429 for each class member.


NTS-PROPERTIES ASSOCIATES: CA Appeals Court Upholds Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeal for the State of California, First Appellate
District upheld the approval of the settlement of the class
action filed against NTS-Properties Associates and the general
partners of four public partnerships affiliated with it, styled
"Buchanan et al. v. NTS-Properties Associates et al."

The action was originally filed in the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of Contra Costa against the
general partners and several affiliated individuals and entities
in December 2001.  The settlement is subject to, among other
things, preparing and executing a settlement agreement to be
presented to the court for preliminary and final approval.

The proposed settlement would include releases for all of the
parties for any of the claims asserted in the Buchanan
litigation and the class action and derivative litigation filed
in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Kentucky and captioned
"Bohm et al. v. J.D. Nichols et al. (Case No. 03-CI- 01740)."

As part of the proposed settlement of the Buchanan and Bohm
litigation, the general partners have agreed to pursue a merger
of the partnerships along with other real estate entities
affiliated with the general partners into a newly-formed
partnership.  The general partners would seek to list the
limited partnership interests to be issued in the merger on a
national securities exchange.  

The merger will be subject to, among other things, approval by
holders of a majority of the limited partner interests in each
partnership, final approval of the court in which the Buchanan
litigation is pending and receipt by the general partners of an
opinion regarding the fairness of the merger to the limited
partners from a financial point of view.

An independent appraiser has been retained to appraise all of
the properties owned by the existing partnerships and affiliated
entities that would be owned after the merger by the new
partnership.  The appraisal will be used in establishing
exchange values, which will determine the number of interests
that will be issued to each existing partnership in the merger.  
The interests in the newly-formed partnership will be
subsequently distributed to the limited and general partners in
each existing partnership as though each partnership had been
liquidated.  The general partners have also retained a third
party to provide an opinion on the fairness of the merger to
limited partners from a financial point of view.

On May 6, 2004, the Superior Court of the State of California
for the County of Contra Costa granted its final approval of the
settlement agreement jointly filed by the general partners (the
"Former General Partners") of the Partnerships, along with
certain of their affiliates on December 5, 2003.  At the final
hearing, class members were given the opportunity to object to
the final approval of the settlement agreement, the entry of a
final judgment dismissing with prejudice the California
Litigation, or an application of an award for attorneys' fees
and expenses to plaintiffs' counsel.  The Superior Court's order
provided, among other things, that:

     (1) the settlement agreement, and all transactions
         contemplated thereby, including the merger of the
         Partnerships into the Company, were fair, reasonable
         and adequate, and in the best interests of the class of
         plaintiffs;

     (2) the plaintiffs' complaint and each and every cause of
         action and claim set forth therein is dismissed with
         prejudice; and

     (3) each class member who did not request to be excluded
         from the settlement released all known and unknown
         claims against the defendants, including those claims
         being pursued in a competing class action in Kentucky,

On June 11, 2004, several class members who objected to the
settlement agreement but whose objections were overruled by the
Superior Court, filed an appeal in the Court of Appeal of
the State of California, First Appellate District. On July 27,
2005, the Court of Appeal issued its decision affirming the
Superior Court's approval of the settlement, and rejecting the
objectors' arguments.


NORTEL NETWORKS: Firm in Negotiations to Settle Securities Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nortel Networks Corporation, the Canadian telecommunications-
equipment maker struggling to recover from an accounting
scandal, stated that it is negotiating a potential settlement of
two class action lawsuits alleging securities violations, The
Associated Press reports.

A judge had been appointed by the New York Southern District
Court to mediate the talks, which will be confidential, non-
binding and without prejudice to Nortel's and shareholders'
positions in the litigation. Any agreement would be subject to
court approval.

In 2001, after the company revised its fiscal-year guidance,
shareholders filed more than 25 lawsuits against the company,
alleging violations of U.S. and Canadian securities laws. Later
that year, a judge rolled the lawsuits into a single case.

Participants in Nortel's Long-term Investment Plan also sued the
company in 2001, charging that the company misrepresented or did
not disclose information to keep plan members from pulling
investments in the company. Similar suits followed, and the
plaintiffs consolidated their complaint into one lawsuit.


NTS-PROPERTIES ASSOCIATES: 2 Plaintiffs Drop Claims in KY Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Two plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their claims in the class
and derivative action filed against certain of NTS-Properties
Associates' Former General Partners and several individuals and
entities affiliated with NTS.

On February 27, 2003, two individuals filed a class and
derivative action in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County,
Kentucky captioned "Bohm, et al. v. J.D. Nichols, et al. (Case
No. 03-CI-01740."  The complaint was amended to include the
general partner of NTS-Properties III and the general partner of
NTS-Properties Plus Ltd. The plaintiffs are seeking, among other
things, compensatory and punitive damages in an unspecified
amount, an accounting, a declaratory judgment and injunctive
relief.

On March 2, 2004, the Former General Partners filed a motion to
dismiss the Kentucky Litigation. After the motion to dismiss was
briefed, the settlement agreement in the California Litigation
(discussed above) received final court approval. Thereby, the
Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Kentucky, instructed the
plaintiffs in the Kentucky Litigation to file an amended
complaint in light of the approved settlement of the California
Litigation. The plaintiffs' six opt-outs from the California
Litigation filed a corrected second amended complaint on August
11, 2004.

On February 9, 2005, the Circuit Court instructed the defendants
to file a responsive pleading only as to direct claims asserted
by the plaintiffs in the Corrected Second Amended Complaint. On
March 9, 2005, the Former General Partners, along with the other
defendants, filed motions to dismiss the "corrected" second
amended complaint.  On July 7, 2005, two of the plaintiffs in
the Kentucky Litigation voluntarily dismissed their claims
against the defendants. The Former General Partners believe that
these dismissals affect the value and scope of plaintiffs'
claims.  Accordingly, defendants remanded the hearing on the
motion to dismiss originally scheduled for July 15, 2005, in
order to properly advise the Court of the effect of the
voluntary dismissals.


OHIO: Woman Faces Imprisonment For Conspiring to Defraud USDA
-------------------------------------------------------------
An Ohio woman is facing up to 10 years in prison for conspiring
with two former Edward Waters College administrators in
Jacksonville to defraud the U.S. Department of Agriculture, The
Associated Press reports.

Court records show that Kimberly Woodruff pleaded guilty and
also faces up to $250,000 in fines and another $200,000 in
restitution for her role in the case.

Ms. Woodruff admits that she helped Emma Brooks and Daniel
Anekwu file fraudulent claims in a class action discrimination
case that the Agriculture Department settled with black farmers.
According to court records, Ms. Woodruff gave Ms. Brooks her
name and the names of her mother and son to file fraudulent
claims in the case. Ms. Woodruff also posed as Mr. Anekwu's wife
in another claim, the records indicated. The defendants are to
be sentenced on October 20.

The 1999 Pigford v. Glickman settlement was aimed at resolving
complaints from black farmers who said they had been
systemically denied government loans because of their race.


STEVENS-HENAGER: EEOC Lodges Gender Discrimination Suit in Utah
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission initiated
gender discrimination lawsuit against the Ogden campus of
Stevens-Henager College, claiming female employees were paid
less than their male counterparts or fired because of their
gender, The Associated Press reports.

According to the class action lawsuit, which was filed in U.S.
District Court in Salt Lake City, four female recruiters were
paid 6 to 33 percent less than male workers with less
experience. One of the women was fired.

Representatives though for Stevens-Henager College could not be
reached for comment regarding the allegations.

Mary O'Neill, regional attorney for the commission's Phoenix
office, which supervises Utah, told The Associated Press that
the EEOC hopes to make a point with the suit. She explains,
"This is not good business. We want women to know that it is
illegal for employers to do this, and we want employers to know
that this is not a good business practice. You need to pay
people equally for equal work."

Ms. O'Neill also told The Associated Press that the case is one
the first gender discrimination lawsuits in Utah in two years,
since none were filed in 2004 and only one was filed in 2003.

The suit is styled, "Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v.
Stevens-Henager College, Case No. 1:05-cv-00122-DAK," filed in
the United States District Court for the District of Utah, under
Judge Dale A. Kimball. Representing the Plaintiff is Carlie
Christensen of U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, E-mail:
Carlie.Christensen@usdoj.gov.


T-NETIX INC.: CA Court Refuses To Certify Consumer Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court for the State of California in and for the
County of Alameda refused class certification for the suit filed
against T-Netix, Inc., a subsidiary of Securus Technologies,
Inc., styled "Elena Condes, et al. v. Evercom Systems, Inc., SBC
Communications, Inc., Pacific Bell Telephone Company, et al."  

The suit alleges that plaintiffs were charged for collect calls
from a number of correctional facilities as a result of
systematic defects in the inmate calling platforms of all the
telecommunications provider defendants.  The plaintiffs the suit
sought class action certification against all named inmate
telecommunications providers, as defendants, with all recipients
of calls from inmate facilities, as members of the plaintiff
class.  Although class certification was recently denied in the
"Condes" litigation as to all defendants, the plaintiffs were
successful in their motion for reconsideration as to Evercom
Holdings, Inc., another Securus unit.  


T-NETIX INC.: Consumer Fraud Lawsuit Launched in WA State Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
T-Netix, Inc. faces a state case brought in June 2000 in the
Superior Court of Washington for King County, styled "Sandy
Judd, et al. v. American Telephone and Telegraph Company, et
al."

In this case, the complainant joined several inmate
telecommunications service providers as defendants, including
the Company.  The complaint includes a request for certification
by the court of plaintiffs' class action consisting of all
persons who have been billed for and paid for telephone calls
initiated by an inmate confined in a jail, prison, detention
center or other Washington correctional facility. The complaint
alleges violations of the Washington Consumer Protection Act and
requests an injunction under the Washington Consumer Protection
Act and common law to enjoin further violations.

The trial court dismissed all claims with prejudice against all
defendants except T-Netix and AT&T. The T-Netix and AT&T claims
have been referred to the Washington Utilities and
Transportation Commission while the trial court proceeding is in
abeyance.  The outcome cannot be determined at this time.


TELAXIS COMMUNICATIONS: NY Court Preliminarily OKs 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 Telaxis
Communications, Inc., the underwriters in the Company's initial
public offering and certain of its officers and directors.  

During the period from June 12 to September 13, 2001, four
purported securities class action lawsuits were filed against
Telaxis in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York, styled "Katz v. Telaxis Communications Corporation et
al.," "Kucera v. Telaxis Communications Corporation et al.,"
"Paquette v. Telaxis Communications Corporation et al.," and
"Inglis v. Telaxis Communications Corporation et al."

On April 19, 2002, the plaintiffs filed a single consolidated
amended complaint which supersedes the individual complaints
originally filed.  The amended complaint alleges, among other
things, violations of the registration and antifraud provisions
of the federal securities laws due to alleged statements in and
omissions from the Company's initial public offering
registration statement concerning the underwriters' alleged
activities in connection with the underwriting of the Company's
shares to the public. The amended complaint seeks, among other
things, unspecified damages and costs associated with the
litigation. These lawsuits have been assigned along with
approximately 1,000 other lawsuits making substantially similar
allegations against approximately 300 other publicly-traded
companies and their public offering underwriters to a single
federal judge in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York for consolidated pre-trial purposes.

On July 15, 2002, together with the other issuer defendants, the
Company filed a collective motion to dismiss the consolidated,
amended complaints against the issuers on various legal grounds
common to all or most of the issuer defendants.  The
underwriters also filed separate motions to dismiss the claims
against them.  In October 2002, the court approved a stipulation
dismissing without prejudice all claims against the Company
directors and officers who had been defendants in the
litigation. On February 19, 2003, the court issued its ruling on
the separate motions to dismiss filed by the issuer defendants
and the underwriter defendants. The court granted in part and
denied in part the issuer defendants' motions. The court
dismissed, with prejudice, all claims brought against the
Company under the anti-fraud provisions of the securities laws.
The court denied the motion to dismiss the claims brought under
the registration provisions of the securities laws (which do not
require that intent to defraud be pleaded) as to the Company and
as to substantially all of the other issuer defendants. The
court denied the underwriter defendants' motion to dismiss in
all respects.

In June 2003, the Company elected to participate in a proposed
settlement agreement with the plaintiffs in this litigation.  
The Company understands that a large majority of the other
issuer defendants have also elected to participate in this
proposed settlement. If ultimately approved by the court, this
proposed settlement would result in the dismissal, with
prejudice, of all claims in the litigation against the Company
and against the other issuer defendants who elect to participate
in the proposed settlement, together with the current or former
officers and directors of participating issuers who were named
as individual defendants.  The proposed settlement does not
provide for the resolution of any claims against the underwriter
defendants. The proposed settlement provides that the insurers
of the participating issuer defendants will guarantee that the
plaintiffs in the cases brought against the participating issuer
defendants will recover at least $1 billion. This means there
will be no monetary obligation to the plaintiffs if they recover
$1 billion or more from the underwriter defendants. In addition,
the Company and the other participating issuer defendants will
be required to assign to the plaintiffs certain claims that the
participating issuer defendants may have against the
underwriters of their IPOs.

The proposed settlement contemplates that any amounts necessary
to fund the guarantee contained in the settlement or settlement-
related expenses would come from participating issuers'
directors and officers liability insurance policy proceeds as
opposed to funds of the participating issuer defendants
themselves.  A participating issuer defendant could be required
to contribute to the costs of the settlement if that issuer's
insurance coverage were insufficient to pay that issuer's
allocable share of the settlement costs.  Therefore, the
potential exposure of each participating issuer defendant should
decrease as the number of participating issuer defendants
increases.

Consummation of the proposed settlement remains conditioned on,
among other things, receipt of both preliminary and final court
approval. Formal settlement documents were submitted to the
court in June 2004, together with a motion asking the court to
preliminarily approve the form of settlement. Certain
underwriters who were named as defendants in the settling cases,
and who are not parties to the proposed settlement, opposed
preliminary approval of the proposed settlement of those cases.
On February 15, 2005, the court issued an order preliminarily
approving the proposed settlement in all respects but one.  The
plaintiffs and the issuer defendants are in the process of
assessing whether to proceed with the proposed settlement, as
modified by the court.  If the plaintiffs and the issuer
defendants elect to proceed with the proposed settlement, as
modified by the court, they will submit revised settlement
documents to the court. The underwriter defendants may then have
an opportunity to object to the revised settlement documents. If
the court preliminarily approves the proposed settlement, notice
of the terms of the proposed settlement be sent to all proposed
class members and a hearing will be scheduled at which any
objections to the proposed settlement may be heard. Thereafter,
the court will determine whether to grant final approval to the
proposed settlement.

The suit is styled "IN RE TELAXIS COMMUNICATIONS, 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


                  New Securities Fraud Cases


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


DHB INDUSTRIES: Klafter & Olsen Files Securities Suit in E.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Klafter & Olsen, LLP, initiated a securities
fraud class action against DHB Industries, Inc. ("DHB") (Amex:
DHB) and certain of its officers in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York on behalf of investors who
purchased the publicly traded securities of DHB during the
period from April 21, 2004 through and including August 29, 2005
(the "Class Period").

DHB is a manufacturer and provider of bullet and projectile-
resistant garments, including fragmentation protective vests,
and related accessories. Its products are used domestically and
internationally by military, law enforcement, security and
corrections personnel, as well as other governmental agencies.

The claims concern materially false and misleading statements
made by defendants regarding DHB's business, prospects and
products. On August 30, 2005 DHB announced that it has
discontinued the use of Zylon(R) in its bullet resistant
products and ceased production of all Zylon(R)-containing bullet
resistant products on August 24, 2005. The Company also
announced that it will be implementing a replacement program to
assist its customers who presently have Zylon(R) body armor. The
cost of this replacement program is expected to cost "no more
than" $60 million -- an amount greater than DHB's trailing
annual earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and
amortizations (EBITDA). DHB took this unprecedented and costly
step following a determination by the National Institute of
Justice ("NIJ") that it would no longer approve the purchase of
bullet resistant products with Zylon(R) by law enforcement
agencies. In NIJ testing, 58% of the 103 used Zylon-containing
vests tested failed to stop at least one bullet in a six-shot
test, evidencing a rapid degrading of Zylon(R) fibers and a
reduction in the usable life of vests containing Zylon(R) by as
much as 50%.

During the Class Period, the CEO and other officers sold well
over $220 million worth of DHB stock at an artificially inflated
average price exceeding $19 per share. Upon the Company's
revelation that it was withdrawing its Zylon(R) products from
the market on August 30, 2005, DHB's shares fell $1.56 per
share, or 23.42 percent, to close at $5.10 per share on
unusually heavy trading volume. This action will seek to recover
damages due to the artificial inflation of DHB's stock price
caused by defendants' violations of the federal securities laws
on behalf of all purchasers of DHB publicly traded securities
during the Class Period.

For more details, contact Kurt B. Olsen of KLAFTER & OLSEN, LLP,
2121 K St., N.W., Suite 800, Washington, DC 20037, Phone:
202-261-3553, E-mail: http://www.klafterolsen.com.


PATTERSON COMPANIES: Murray Frank Lodges Securities Suit in CO
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP, initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of Minnesota on behalf of shareholders who purchased or
otherwise acquired the securities of Patterson Companies, Inc.
("Patterson" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:PDCO) between February
24, 2005 and May 25, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint charges Patterson and certain of the Company's
executive officers with violations of federal securities laws.
Patterson distributes dental, companion-pet veterinary and
rehabilitation supplies, and offers, among other things,
consumable dental supplies, infection control products and
dental accessories for dentists and other healthcare
professionals. The Complaint alleges defendants' Class Period
representations concerning Patterson's operations and
performance were materially false and misleading when made for
the following reasons:

     (1) demand for the Company's dental products, consumable
         dental supplies and printed office products had
         significantly declined;

     (2) due to a decline in overall sales, Patterson had
         offered incentives to its dental segment personnel to
         push sales, which resulted in higher expenses for the
         Company;

     (3) the Company's Canadian dental operations were
         experiencing a steep decline in equipment sales caused
         by severe operational difficulties within the dental
         supply division;

     (4) the Company experienced difficulties in integrating its
         multiple recent acquisitions; and

     (5) as a consequence of the foregoing, defendants' positive
         statements concerning Patterson's growth and progress
         were lacking in any reasonable basis when made.

On May 26, 2005, the Company reported that Patterson had missed
its fourth quarter 2005 earnings projections, and that it would
need to dramatically reduce its expectations for the first
quarter of 2006. This news shocked the market, causing the price
of Patterson shares to fall $7.50 per share, or 14.16 percent,
to close on May 26, 2005 at $45.46 per share.

For more details, contact Eric J. Belfi, Christopher Hinton or
Bradley Dyer of Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP, Phone:
(800) 497-8076 or (212) 682-1818, Fax: (212) 682-1892, E-mail:
info@murrayfrank.com.


RED ROBIN: Murray Frank Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in CO
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP, initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado on behalf of shareholders who purchased or
otherwise acquired the securities of Red Robin Gourmet Burgers,
Inc. ("Red Robin" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:RRGB) between
November 8, 2004 through August 11, 2005, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

The complaint charges Red Robin and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Red Robin, together with its subsidiaries, operates a
casual dining restaurant chain that serves gourmet burgers in
the United States and Canada.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
caused Red Robin's shares to trade at artificially inflated
levels by issuing a series of materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business and prospects and by
concealing improper self dealing by the Company's CEO. This
caused the Company's stock to trade as high as $62.38 per share.
Defendants took advantage of this inflation, selling or
otherwise disposing of 320,000 shares of their Red Robin stock
then valued at more than $17 million.

According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known by
each of the defendants but concealed from the investing public
during the Class Period, were as follows:

     (1) the Company lacked requisite internal controls and
         corporate governance procedures to safeguard the
         Company from abuse by the CEO of his position at the
         Company;

     (2) contrary to defendants' claims of fiscal 2005 growth
         and profitability, the Company was actually on track
         for lower results than represented;

     (3) the Company lacked the necessary personnel to issue
         accurate financial reports and projections; and

     (d) as a result of (a)-(c) above, the Company's projections
         for fiscal year 2005 were grossly inflated.

On August 11, 2005, Red Robin reported that Q2 2005 results
would be worse than expectations due to charges and adjustments
to various accounts and that its Chairman, President and CEO had
resigned in light of an investigation into his personal use of
Company assets. On this news, Red Robin's stock collapsed to as
low as $44.13 per share before closing at $45.55 per share on
volume of 9.8 million shares.

For more details, contact Eric J. Belfi, Christopher Hinton or
Bradley Dyer of Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP, Phone:
(800) 497-8076 or (212) 682-1818, Fax: (212) 682-1892, E-mail:
info@murrayfrank.com.


TXU CORPORATION: Law Firms Commence Securities Fraud Suit in TX
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Bonnett, Fairbourn, Friedman & Balint, P.C.,
along with Shockman Law Offices, P.C. and Dodge & Gillman, P.C.,
commenced a Class Action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Texas on behalf of a class
(the "Class") of all persons who sold certain securities of TXU
Corporation (NYSE: TXU) ("TXU" or the "Company") in the TXU
Tender Offer between September 15, 2004 and October 13, 2004
("the Tender Offer").

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b),
14(e) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and common law fiduciary duties,
by purchasing certain Corporate Units (NYSE: TXU PrC) and PRIDES
(NYSE: TXU PrD) (collectively, "the Convertible Securities")
without disclosing its plan to dramatically increase the
dividend payout on TXU common stock upon completion of the
Tender Offer. The complaint alleges that TXU in September 2004
made a self-tender offer to purchase the Convertible Securities
at a price linked to the value of its common stock, without
disclosing its plan to dramatically increase the common stock's
dividend payout immediately following completion of the Tender
Offer. Nine short days after the Tender Offer expired, TXU
adopted a 350% increase in its common stock dividend, resulting
in a 20% increase in the common stock price. To keep the common
stock price low during the Tender Offer pricing period, however,
TXU injected a false air of uncertainty into the market
concerning its plan to increase the dividend, which enabled it
to purchase the Convertible Securities from Plaintiffs and other
Class members at a substantial and artificial discount.

For more details, contact Andrew S. Friedman, Esq. or
Francis J. Balint Jr., Esq. of Bonnett, Fairbourn, Friedman &
Balint, P.C., 2901 N. Central Ave., Suite 1000, Phoenix, AZ
85012, Phone: 602-274-1100 or 800-847-9094, E-mail:
afriedman@bffb.com; Rosemary J. Shockman, Esq. of Shockman Law
Offices, P.C., 8170 N. 86th Place, Suite 102, Scottsdale, AZ
85258-4308, Phone: 480-596-1986, E-mail: rshock@aol.com; and
Michael C. Dodge, Esq. or David W. Dodge, Esq. of Dodge &
Gillman, P.C., One Lincoln Centre, Suite 910, Dallas, TX 75240,
Phone: 972-960-3248, E-mail: davidd@texasatty.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  * * *