CAR_Public/051005.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, October 5, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 197

                            Headlines

ALLIANCE CAPITAL: NY Court Mulls Securities Fraud Suit Dismissal
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Continues To Face AZ Consumer Fraud Lawsuit
AMERICAN EXPRESS: MN Court Dismisses Claim in Mutual Fund Suit
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Mutual Fund Lawsuit
AXA ADVISORS: NY Court Yet To Rule on Securities Suit Dismissal

AXA EQUITABLE: NY Court Refuses To Dismiss Shareholder Lawsuit
AXA EQUITABLE: Asks MD Court To Dismiss Market Timing Lawsuit
AXA NETWORK: Plaintiffs Appeal Summary Judgment in IL ERISA Suit
CALIFORNIA: Certification Sought For Lawsuit V. "Dr. Phil" Diet
CINTAS CORPORATION: EEOC Moves To Intervene in CA Race Bias Suit

CINTAS CORPORATION: CA Court Orders Arbitration For ERISA Suit
CINTAS CORPORATION: Faces Racial Bias Lawsuits in Various Courts
CINTAS CORPORATION: Faces Admin Proceedings V. Race, Gender Bias
COMMUNITY BANCSHARES: Inks Settlement For All Claims in AL Suit
EQUITABLE LIFE: Limited Discovery Proceeds in NY ERISA Lawsuit

FISCHER IMAGING: CO Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit
GAINSCO INC.: Faces Amended Securities Fraud Lawsuit in S.D. FL
GUIDANT CORPORATION: Law Firm Lodges Suit Over Faulty Devices
INPUT/OUTPUT INC.: Shareholders Launch Fraud Suits in S.D. Texas
LIGAND PHARMACEUTICALS: CA Court Dismisses Consolidated Suits

MERCK & CO.: Law Firm Files Suit on Behalf of German Vioxx Users
METSO PAPER USA: Wants Contamination Suit Moved to Federal Court
MORTON'S RESTAURANT: Asks MA Court To Junk FLSA Violations Suit
MORTON'S RESTAURANT: CA Court Dismisses Most Claims in Wage Suit
OFF-ROAD TECHNOLOGY: Recalls 83 Tire Carriers For Crash Hazard

PEMCO AVIATION: Seeks Writ of Certiorari in AL Race Bias Lawsuit
POWERLINX INC.: To Distribute Shares in FL Stock Suit Settlement
SBC COMMUNICATIONS: Appeals Court Reinstates Antitrust Lawsuit
SKYTERRA COMMUNICATIONS: Reaches Settlement For CA Overtime Suit
TOYOTA MOTOR: Working To Settle CA Race Discrimination Lawsuits

TOYOTA MOTOR: NJ High Court Allows Appeal of Suit Certification
TREDIT TIRE: Recalls 44 Chromium Plated Wheels For Crash Hazard
UNITED STATES: Court Nominee Involved in Settling Claims V. Firm
VALLEY INDUSTRIES: Recalls 498 Trailer Hitches For Crash Hazard
VANS INC.: Securities Settlement Hearing Set October 31, 2005

VIRGINIA: Three More Women Files Affidavits V. Roanoke Sheriff
WESTERN RECREATIONAL: Recalls 44 Trailers Due to Crash Hazard


               Meetings, Conferences & Seminars


* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences

                 New Securities Fraud Cases   


AMERICAN ITALIAN: Goldman Scarlato Lodges Securities Suit in MO
HUTCHINSON TECHNOLOGY: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Suit in MN
RENAISSANCERE HOLDINGS: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Fraud Suit in NY
SPECTRUM BRANDS: Dyer & Shuman Schedules Lead Plaintiff Deadline
SPECTRUM BRANDS: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges WI Securities Suit

WORLD HEALTH: Mager & Goldstein Files Securities Suit in W.D. PA


                         *********


ALLIANCE CAPITAL: NY Court Mulls Securities Fraud Suit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York has yet to rule on Alliance Capital Management LP's
motion to dismiss the consolidated securities class action filed
against it, styled "Aucoin, et al. v. Alliance Capital
Management L.P., et al."  The suit also names as defendants:

     (1) Alliance Capital Management Holding L.P.,

     (2) Alliance Capital Management Corporation,

     (3) AXA Financial Corporation,

     (4) Alliance Bernstein Investment Research and Management,
         Inc. (ABIRM),

     (5) certain current and former directors of the
         AllianceBernstein Funds, and

     (6) unnamed Doe defendants

The first suit filed names the AllianceBernstein Funds as
nominal defendants. The Complaint was filed by an alleged
shareholder of the AllianceBernstein Growth & Income Fund.  The
Aucoin Complaint alleges, among other things:

     (i) that certain of the defendants improperly authorized
         the payment of excessive commissions and other fees
         from AllianceBernstein Fund assets to broker-dealers in
         exchange for preferential marketing services,

    (ii) that certain of the defendants misrepresented and
         omitted from registration statements and other reports
         material facts concerning such payments, and

   (iii) that certain defendants caused such conduct as control
         persons of other defendants.

The Complaint asserts claims for violation of Sections 34(b),
36(b) and 48(a) of the Investment Company Act, Sections 206 and
215 of the Advisers Act, breach of common law fiduciary duties,
and aiding and abetting breaches of common law fiduciary duties.
Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of compensatory damages
and punitive damages, rescission of their contracts with
Alliance Capital, including recovery of all fees paid to
Alliance Capital pursuant to such contracts, an accounting of
all AllianceBernstein Fund-related fees, commissions and soft
dollar payments, and restitution of all unlawfully or
discriminatorily obtained fees and expenses.

Since June 22, 2004, nine additional lawsuits making factual
allegations substantially similar to those in the first suit
were filed against the Company and certain other defendants. All
nine of the lawsuits were brought as class actions filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, assert claims substantially identical to the Aucoin
Complaint, and are brought on behalf of shareholders of
AllianceBernstein Funds.

On February 2, 2005, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
class action complaint that asserts claims substantially similar
to the lawsuits referenced above.  On April 14, 2005, defendants
moved to dismiss the Aucoin Consolidated Amended Complaint.  
That motion is pending.

The suit is styled "In re: AllianceBernstein Mutual Funds
Excessive Fee Litigation, case no. 1:04-cv-04885-SWK," filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York, under Judge Shirley Wohl Kram.  Representing the
Company are Mark Holland and Mark Adam Kirsch of Clifford Chance
US, LLP (NYC), 31 West 52nd Street, New York, NY 10019-6131,
Phone: (212)-878-8432, Fax: (212)-878-8375, E-mail:
mark.holland@cliffordchance.com or
mark.kirsch@cliffordchance.com.  Representing the plaintiffs are
Jerome M. Congress, Kim Elaine Levy, Janine Lee Pollack, Michael
Robert Reese, Steven Schulman, Peter Edward Seidman of Milberg
Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (NYC), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New
York, NY 10119, Phone: 212-594-5300, Fax: 212-868-1229, E-mail:
klevy@milberg.com, jpollack@milbergweiss.com,
mreese@milberg.com, sschulman@milbergweiss.com; and Marshall N.
Perkins and Charles J. Piven, The World Trade Center-Baltimore
401 East Pratt Street, Baltimore, MD 21202, Phone:
(410) 332-0030.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Continues To Face AZ Consumer Fraud Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
American Express Financial Corporation continues to face a class
action filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Arizona, styled "Haritos et al. v. American Express
Financial Corporation and IDS Life Insurance Company," after the
court refused to dismiss the lawsuit.

The suit is filed by plaintiffs who purport to represent a class
of all persons that have purchased financial plans from AEFA
advisors from November 1997 through July 2004. Plaintiffs allege
that the sale of the plans violates the Investment Advisers Act
of 1940 (the "IAA"). The suit seeks an unspecified amount of
damages, rescission of the investment advisor plans and
restitution of monies paid for such plans.  

In June 2004, the Court denied the Company's motion to dismiss
the action as a matter of law. In February 2005, the Court
denied the Company's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' Second
Amended Complaint.

The suit is styled "Haritos, et al v. American Express Fin, et
al, case no. 02-CV-2255," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Arizona (Phoenix Division), under Judge Paul G.
Rosenblatt.  Representing plaintiff John Haritos are:

     (1) Robert C. Moilanen, Carolyn G. Anderson, Anne T. Regan,
         Zimmerman Reed PLLP, 651 Nicollet Mall, Ste 501,
         Minneapolis, MN 55402, Phone: (612)341-0400

     (2) Barry Grant Reed, Hart Lawrence Robinovitch, Zimmerman
         Reed PLLP, 14646 N Kierland Blvd, Ste 145 Scottsdale,
         AZ 85254-2762, Phone: (480)348-6400

     (3) Jon E. Drucker, Moss Gropen, Law Offices of Jon E
         Drucker, 8306 Wilshire Blvd, #638 Beverly Hills, CA
         90211, Phone: (323)931-6363

Representing the Company are:

     (i) Eric Mogilnicki, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr
         LLP, 2445 M St NW, Washington, DC 20037-1420, Phone:
         (202)663-6000

    (ii) Robert S Stern, Esq, James P Maniscalco, Joseph T Hahn,
         Morrison & Foerster LLP, 555 W 5th St, Ste 3500, Los
         Angeles, CA 90013-1024, Phone: (213)892-5200

   (iii) Peter K Vigeland, David W Bowker, Wilmer Cutler
         Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP, 399 Park Ave, 31st Floor,
         New York, NY 10022, Phone: (212)230-8800

    (iv) William J Maledon, Esq, Jeffrey Bryan Molinar, Osborn
         Maledon PA, PO Box 36379, Phoenix, AZ 85067-6379,
         Phone: (602)640-9000


AMERICAN EXPRESS: MN Court Dismisses Claim in Mutual Fund Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota
dismissed one claim, but retained the other claims in the class
action filed against American Express Financial Corporation,
styled "JOHN E. GALLUS ET AL. V. AMERICAN EXPRESS FINANCIAL
CORP. AND AMERICAN EXPRESS FINANCIAL ADVISORS, INC."

The suit was initially filed in the United States District court
for the District of Arizona. The plaintiffs allege that they are
investors in several "AXP" mutual funds and they purport to
bring the action derivatively on behalf of those funds under the
Investment Company Act of 1940. The plaintiffs allege that fees
allegedly paid to the defendants by the funds for investment
advisory and administrative services are excessive. The
plaintiffs seek remedies including restitution and rescission of
investment advisory and distribution agreements.

The plaintiffs voluntarily agreed to transfer this case to the
United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. In
March 2005, the Court dismissed one count of the complaint that
fund directors breached their fiduciary duties. The Court denied
the motion to dismiss the remaining counts, but granted
plaintiffs only limited discovery after which time the Company
will be permitted to renew its motion to dismiss.

The suit is styled "Gallus et al v American Express Financial
Corporation, et al., case no. 0:04-cv-04498-DWF-JSM," filed in
the United States District Court in Minnesota under Judge
Donovan W. Frank.  Representing the Company are Chanel R. Dalal,
John D. Donovan, Robert A. Skinner of Ropes & Gray LLP, One
International Place, Boston, MA 02110-2624, Phone: 617-951-7675,
E-mail: cdalal@ropesgray.com, jdonovan@ropesgray.com,
rskinner@ropesgray.com; and Robert L. Schnell, Jr., Faegre &
Benson LLP - Mpls, 90 S 7th St Ste 2200, Mpls, MN 55402-3901,
Phone: 612-766-7000, Fax: 6127661600, E-mail:
rschnell@faegre.com.  Representing the plaintiffs are:  

     (1) James C. Bradley, Michael J. Brickman, Nina H. Fields
         of Richardson Patrick Westbrook & Brickman -
         Charleston, 174 E Bay St, Charleston, SC 29401, Phone:
         843-727-6603, E-mail: jbradley@rpwb.com,
         mbrickman@rpwb.com, nfields@rpwb.com  

     (2) Guy M. Burns, Jonathan S. Coleman, Becky Ferrell-Anton,
         Audrey B. Rauchway of Johnson Pope Bokor Ruppell &
         Burns, LLP, 403 E Madison St Ste 400, Tampa, FL 33602,
         Phone: 813-225-2500, Fax: 813-223-7118, E-mail:
         guyb@jpfirm.com, jonathanc@jpfirm.com,
         beckyf@jpfirm.com, audreyr@jpfirm.com

     (3) Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Tana Lin, Erin M. Riley, Lynn
         Lincoln Sarko, Michael D. Woerner, Keller Rohrback,
         1201 3rd Ave Ste 3200, Seattle, WA 98101, Phone: (206)
         224-7566, E-mail: mwoerner@kellerrohrback.com,
         gcappio@kellerrohrback.com, tlin@kellerrohrback.com,
         eriley@kellerrohrback.com, lsarko@kellerrohrback.com  


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Mutual Fund Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
American Express Financial, Inc. asked the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York to dismiss
the consolidated securities class action filed against it,
American Express Financial Corporation and American Express
Financial Advisors, styled "In re American Express Financial
Advisors Securities Litigation."  The suit also names as
defendants James M. Cracchiolo in his capacity as President and
CEO of American Express Financial and Chairman and CEO of
American Express Advisors.  Certain of the Company's mutual
funds are also named as nominal defendants.


     (1) Naresh Chand v. American Express Company, American
         Express Financial Corporation and American Express
         Financial Advisors, Inc.;

     (2) Elizabeth Flenner v. American Express Company et al.
         (March 2004);

     (3) John B. Perkins v. American Express Company et al.
         (March 2004);

     (4) Kathie Kerr v. American Express Company et al. (April
         2004); and

     (5) Leonard D. Caldwell, Gale D. Caldwell and Richard T.
         Allen v. American Express Company et al. (April 2004)

The plaintiffs allege violations of certain federal securities
laws and/or state statutory and common law. The plaintiffs,
among other things, allege that the Company's financial plans
are used as a means to recommend mutual funds that pay
"undisclosed kickbacks." The class period at issue is March 10,
1999 through February 9, 2004.  Plaintiffs seek to represent one
class consisting of all of the Company's clients who purchased
the preferred mutual funds during the relevant period and
another class comprised of those of the Company's clients who
also purchased financial plans during the relevant period.  For
their damages, plaintiffs seek restitution of the "undisclosed
kickbacks" and the fees paid for the financial plans.

In addition, two lawsuits making similar allegations (based
solely on state causes of actions) were filed in the Supreme
Court of the State of New York and styled "Beer v. American
Express Company and American Express Financial Advisors" and
"You v. American Express Company and American Express Financial
Advisors."  The Company removed these two actions to the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Plaintiffs have moved to remand the cases to state court. The
Court's decision on the remand motion is pending.

The suit is styled "In Re American Express Financial Advisors
Securities Litigation, case no. 1:04-cv-01773-DAB," filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, under Judge Deborah A. Batts.  Representing the plaintiffs
is Michael Robert Reese of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP
(NYC), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY 10119, Phone:
212-631-8696, Fax: 212-629-0307, E-mail: mreese@milberg.com.  
Representing the Company is Peter Kristian Vigeland of Wilmer,
Cutler & Pickering (NYC), 399 Park Avenue, 30th Floor, New York,
NY 10022, Phone: 212-230-8800, Fax: 212-230-8888, E-mail:
Peter.Vigeland@wilmer.com.


AXA ADVISORS: NY Court Yet To Rule on Securities Suit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York has yet to rule on AXA Advisors LLC's motion to dismiss the
class action, styled "SHAM MALHOTRA, ET AL. V. THE EQUITABLE
LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES, AXA ADVISORS, LLC
AND EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTORS, INC."

The action, initially filed in the Supreme Court of the State of
New York, County of Nassau, was brought by two individuals who
purchased AXA Equitable deferred annuity products. The action
purports to be on behalf of a class consisting of all persons
who purchased an individual deferred annuity contract or who
received a certificate to a group deferred annuity contract,
sold by one of the defendants, which was used to fund a
contributory retirement plan or arrangement qualified for
favorable income tax treatment; excluded from the class are
officers, directors and agents of the defendants.  The complaint
alleges that the defendants engaged in fraudulent and deceptive
practices in connection with the marketing and sale of deferred
annuity products to fund tax-qualified contributory retirement
plans. The complaint asserts claims for:

     (1) deceptive business acts and practices in violation of
         the New York General Business Law (the "GBL");

     (2) use of misrepresentations and misleading statements in
         violation of the New York Insurance Law;

     (3) false or misleading advertising in violation of the
         GBL;
    
     (4) fraud, fraudulent concealment and deceit; negligent
         misrepresentation;
    
     (5) negligence;

     (6) unjust enrichment and imposition of a constructive
         trust;

     (7) declaratory and injunctive relief; and

     (8) reformation of the annuity contracts

The complaint seeks injunctive and declaratory relief, an
unspecified amount of compensatory and punitive damages,
restitution for all members of the class, and an award of
attorneys' fees, costs and expenses.  In October 2000, the
defendants removed the action to the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York, and thereafter filed
a motion to dismiss.  Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the
case to state court.

In September 2001, the District Court issued a decision granting
defendants' motion to dismiss and denying plaintiffs' motion to
remand, and judgment was entered in favor of the defendants. In
October 2001, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking leave to reopen
the case for the purpose of filing an amended complaint. In
addition, plaintiffs filed a new complaint in the District
Court, alleging a similar class and similar facts.

The new complaint asserted causes of action for violations of
Federal securities laws in addition to the state law causes of
action asserted in the previous complaint. In January 2002,
plaintiffs amended their new complaint in response to
defendants' motion to dismiss and, subsequently, in March 2002,
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. In
March 2003, the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York granted plaintiffs' motion, filed October
2001, seeking leave to reopen their original case for the
purpose of filing an amended complaint and accepted plaintiffs'
proposed amended complaint, appointed the named plaintiffs as
lead plaintiffs and their counsel as lead counsel for the
putative class, consolidated plaintiffs' original action with
their second action, which was filed in October 2001, and ruled
that the court would apply AXA Equitable's motion to dismiss the
amended complaint in the second action to the plaintiffs'
amended complaint from the original action.

In April 2003, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint
alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange
Act"). The action purports to be on behalf of a class consisting
of all persons who on or after October 3, 1997 purchased an
individual variable deferred annuity contract, received a
certificate to a group variable deferred annuity contract or
made an additional investment through such a contract, which
contract was used to fund a contributory retirement plan or
arrangement qualified for favorable income tax treatment. In May
2003, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second
amended complaint.  In February 2004, the District Court issued
a decision withdrawing without prejudice defendants' motion to
dismiss the second amended complaint with leave to re-file
because the parties did not comply with the court's Individual
Motion Practices. In March 2004, defendants filed a renewed
motion to dismiss the second amended complaint.

The suit is styled "SHAM MALHOTRA, ET AL. V. THE EQUITABLE LIFE
ASSURANCE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES, AXA ADVISORS, LLC AND
EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTORS, INC., case no. 2:01-cv-06970-ADS," filed
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
New York, under Judge Arthur D. Spatt.  Representing the
plaintiffs are Janine Lee Pollack of Milberg Weiss Bershad &
Schulman LLP, One Pennsylvania Plaza, 48th Floor New York, NY
10119-0165 Phone: 212- 594-5300 Fax: 212-273-4388 E-mail:
jpollack@milbergweiss.com; and Ronald A. Uitz of Uitz &
Associates, 1717 K Street, N.W. Suite 600 Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (212) 296-5280.


AXA EQUITABLE: NY Court Refuses To Dismiss Shareholder Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York denied AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company's (formerly the
Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States) motion to
dismiss the putative class action complaint entitled "ECKERT V.
THE EQUITABLE LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES."

The complaint asserts a single claim for relief under Section
47(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended based on
the Company's alleged failure to register as an investment
company. According to the complaint, the Company was required to
register as an investment company because it was allegedly
issuing securities in the form of variable insurance products
and allegedly investing its assets primarily in other
securities. The plaintiff purports to act on behalf of all
persons who purchased or made an investment in variable
insurance products from the Company on or after May 7, 1998.  
The complaint seeks declaratory judgment permitting putative
class members to elect to void their variable insurance
contracts; restitution of all fees and penalties paid by the
putative class members on the variable insurance products,
disgorgement of all revenues received by AXA Equitable on those
products, and an injunction against the payment of any dividends
by AXA Equitable to the Holding Company.

In June 2003, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint. In June 2004, plaintiff, in connection with a
settlement of a proceeding entitled "ECKERT V. AXA ADVISORS,
LLC, ET. AL.," which was filed with the National Association of
Securities Dealers, Inc., released his putative class action
claim against the Company. In June 2004, plaintiff's counsel
filed a motion for withdrawal of plaintiff from the putative
class action lawsuit and intervention by another member of the
putative class as plaintiff. In March 2005, the Court granted
the motion to intervene by another member of the putative class
and denied the Company's motion to dismiss without prejudice to
re-file the motion after the new complaint is filed.

In ECKERT, in April 2005, one of the plaintiffs was granted the
right to intervene and filed a complaint entitled "Cerra v. The
Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States" in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York with the same allegations as in ECKERT. The defendants
moved to dismiss plaintiff's complaint in May 2005.  In August
2005, the case was settled on an individual basis.

The suit is styled "Eckert v. The Equitable Life Assurance
Society of the United States, case no. 2:03-cv-02183-ADS," filed
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
New York, under Judge Arthur D. Spatt.  Representing the
plaintiffs are Michael C. Spencer and Brian C. Kerr of Milberg
Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP, One Pennsylvania Plaza, 48th Floor
New York, NY 10119, Phone: (212) 594-9450, Fax: (212) 273-4395,
E-mail: mspencer@milbergweiss.com or bkerr@milbergweiss.com.  
Representing the Company is Charles C. Platt, Wilmer, Cutler,
Pickering, Hale and Dorr LLP, 399 Park Avenue, New York, NY
10022, Phone: 212-230-8860, E-mail:
charles.platt@wilmerhale.com.


AXA EQUITABLE: Asks MD Court To Dismiss Market Timing Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company (formerly The Equitable
Life Assurance Society of the United States) asked the United
States District Court for the District of Maryland to dismiss
the class action filed against it, styled "MATTHEW WIGGENHORN V.
EQUITABLE LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES."

In April 2004, a purported nationwide class action lawsuit was
filed in the Circuit Court for Madison County, Illinois,
alleging that the Company uses stale prices for the foreign
securities within the investment divisions of its variable
insurance products. The complaint further alleges that the
Company's use of stale pricing diluted the returns of the
purported class. The complaint also alleges that the Company
breached its fiduciary duty to the class by allowing market
timing in general within its variable insurance products,
thereby diluting the returns of the class. The lawsuit asserts
causes of action for negligence, gross negligence, breach of
contract, and breach of fiduciary duty and seeks unspecified
compensatory and punitive damages, plus prejudgment interest,
attorneys' fees and costs.

In June 2004, the Company removed the case to Federal court and
in July 2004 filed a motion to dismiss. In July 2004, plaintiff
filed a motion to remand the action to state court. In August
2004, the court stayed the action pending a decision by the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in a case filed against
Putnam Funds et al. (to which the Company is not a party)
regarding removal pursuant to the Securities Litigation Uniform
Standards Act under similar circumstances. In February 2005, the
Baltimore Federal court entered a Conditional Transfer Order,
conditionally transferring the case to Federal court in
Baltimore, Maryland, where the majority of so-called market
timing cases against various fund families have been
transferred.

In WIGGENHORN, in April 2005, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit ruled in favor of Putnam Funds in the case in
which AXA Financial is not a party. Based upon this decision, in
April 2005, AXA Equitable filed a motion to either grant or to
set a briefing on its motion to dismiss. In June 2005, this case
was transferred by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation to the U.S. District Court in Maryland, where other
market-timing litigation is pending. In June 2005, plaintiff
filed an amended complaint. In July 2005, the Company filed a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint.

The suit is styled "Wiggenhorn v. Equitable Life Assurance
Society of the United States et al., case no. 1:05-cv-01674-
JFM," filed in the United States District Court for the District
of Maryland, under Judge J. Frederick Motz.  Representing the
Company is Margaret J. Schneider of Mayer Brown Rowe and Maw, 71
S Wacker Dr, Chicago, IL 60606, Phone: 13127820600, Fax:
13127017711, E-mail: mschneider@mayerbrownrowe.com.  
Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Francis Joseph Balint, Jr., Andrew Steven Friedman,
         Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman and Balint PC, 2901 N
         Central Ave Ste 1000, Phoenix, AZ 85012, Phone:
         16027765903, Fax: 16022741199, E-mail: fbalint@bffb.com
         or afriedman@bffb.com

     (2) Eugene Yevgeny Barash, Stephen Tillery and George A.
         Zelcs, Korein Tillery, 701 Market St Ste 300, St.
         Louis, MO 63108, Phone: 13142414844, Fax: 13142413525,
         E-mail: ebarash@koreintillery.com or
         gzelcs@koreintillery.com  

     (3) Timothy G. Blood, William J. Doyle, John J. Stoia, Jr.,
         Milberg Weiss, 401 B St Ste 1700, San Diego, CA 92101-
         3311, Phone: 16192311058, fax: 16192317423

     (4) Amelia F Burroughs of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller
         Rudman and Robbins LLP, 401 B St Ste 1600, San Diego,
         CA 92101, Phone: 16192311058, Fax: 16192317423, E-mail:
         ameliab@lerachlaw.com  

     (5) Robert L. King, Swedlow and King, 701 Market St Ste
         350, St. Louis, MO 63101, Phone: 13146214002, Fax:
         13146212586, E-mail: king@swedlowking.com  


AXA NETWORK: Plaintiffs Appeal Summary Judgment in IL ERISA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois' ruling granting summary judgment
in favor of AXA Network, LLC, and the AXA Equitable Life
Insurance Company (formerly The Equitable Life Assurance Society
of the United States) in the class action filed against them,
styled "BERGER ET AL. V. AXA NETWORK, LLC AND THE EQUITABLE LIFE
ASSURANCE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES."

Two former agents filed the suit on behalf of themselves and
other similarly situated present, former and retired agents who,
according to the complaint, "were discharged by Equitable Life
from `statutory employee status' after January 1, 1999, because
of Equitable Life's adoption of a new policy stating that in any
given year, those who failed to meet specified sales goals
during the preceding year would not be treated as `statutory
employees,' or remain subject to discharge from `statutory
employee' status based on the policy applied by Equitable Life."

The complaint alleges that AXA Equitable improperly "terminated"
the agents' full-time life insurance salesman statutory employee
status in or after 1999 by requiring attainment of minimum
production credit levels for 1998, thereby making the agents
ineligible for benefits and "requiring" them to pay Self-
Employment Contribution Act taxes. The former agents, who assert
claims for violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act (ERISA) and 26 U.S.C. 3121, and breach of contract, seek
declaratory and injunctive relief, plus restoration of benefits
and an adjustment of their benefit plan contributions and
payroll tax withholdings.

In March 2003, AXA Equitable filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint. In July 2003, the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois granted in part and denied in
part AXA Equitable's motion to dismiss the complaint, dismissing
plaintiffs' claims for violation of 26 U.S.C. 3121 and breach of
contract. AXA Equitable has answered plaintiffs' remaining claim
for violation of ERISA. In July 2003, plaintiffs filed a motion
for class certification. In November 2003, AXA Equitable filed
its opposition to the motion for class certification. In March
2004, the District Court entered an order certifying a class
consisting of "[a]ll present, former and retired Equitable
agents who lost eligibility for benefits under any Equitable
ERISA plan during any period on or after January 1, 1999 because
of the application of the policy adopted by Equitable of using
compliance with specified sales goals as the test of who was a
"full time life insurance salesman" and thereby eligible for
benefits under any such plan, or remain subject to losing such
benefits in the future because of the potential application to
them of that policy." Discovery has concluded and the parties
have filed cross motions for summary judgment. The case has been
removed from the trial calendar pending a decision on these
motions.

In May 2005, the Court granted the Company's motion for summary
judgment and dismissed the remaining claim of violation of
ERISA.  In May 2005, the plaintiffs filed an appeal to the 7th
Circuit Court of Appeals.

The suit is styled "Berger, et al v. AXA Network LLC, et al,"
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, under Judge Elaine E. Bucklo.  
Representing the Company are Wilber H. Boies and Kristin Lynn
Comer of McDermott, Will & Emery LLP, 227 West Monroe Street,
#4400, Chicago, IL 60606-5096, Phone: (312) 372-2000, E-mail:
bboies@mwe.com or kcomer@mwe.com.  Representing the Company is
George Freeman Galland, Jr. of Miner Barnhill & Galland, 14 West
Erie Street, Chicago, IL 60610, Phone: (312) 751-1170, E-mail:
ggalland@lawmbg.com.


CALIFORNIA: Certification Sought For Lawsuit V. "Dr. Phil" Diet
---------------------------------------------------------------
Three unhappy customers who are suing TV psychologist "Dr. Phil"
McGraw over his now discontinued "Shape Up!" diet plan are
seeking national class action status for their case, so that it
can include thousands of potential plaintiffs, The San Diego
Union Tribune reports.  According to individuals familiar with
the case, a judge could rule on the request for class action
status as early next year.

The suit, filed last year in California Superior Court, alleges
that Dr. McGraw defrauded fans with his yearlong venture into
the diet supplement business.  Court records show that "Shape
Up!" shakes, bars and multivitamins made by Irving, Texas-based
CSA Nutraceuticals were sold in supermarkets, Target, Wal-Mart
and elsewhere. The plan called for 22 pills daily at $120 a
month. The "Shape Up!" campaign stated that the supplements
reduced cravings for carbohydrates and helped dieters change
their behavior to take control of their weight.

The suit alleges that Dr. McGraw made false and misleading
assertions about the supplements, including claims that the
products would cause weight loss by promoting metabolism of fat
and reducing carbohydrate cravings and appetite swings. Thus,
the plaintiffs are claiming in their suit that they lost money,
not weight and they want their money back as well as damages.  
The pill's label states that it "contains scientifically
researched levels of ingredients that can help you change your
behavior to take control of your weight."  Plaintiffs' attorney
Henry Rossbacher told The San Diego Union Tribune, "Well, that's
nonsense. We don't think there were any real clinical trials of
these products and no real testing."

Mr. McGraw jumped into the lucrative weight-loss market in mid-
2003 with a campaign that included advice books, a prime time
special with Katie Couric on obesity and dieting, and his "Shape
Up! with Dr. Phil McGraw" products. After a Federal Trade
Commission investigation into false-advertising concerns was
initiated, CSA Nutraceuticals agreed to stop making the
supplements early last year.


CINTAS CORPORATION: EEOC Moves To Intervene in CA Race Bias Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Council (EEOC)
filed a motion to intervene in the class action filed against
Cintas Corporation in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, San Francisco, styled "Robert
Ramirez, et al., v. Cintas Corporation."

The case was brought on behalf of all past and present female,
African-American and Hispanic employees of the Company and its
subsidiaries.  The complaint alleges that the Company has
engaged in a pattern and practice of discriminating against
women and minorities in recruitment, hiring, promotions,
transfers, job assignments and pay.  The complaint seeks
injunctive relief, compensatory damages, punitive damages and
attorneys' fees, among other things.

The court ordered arbitration as to three of the ten named
plaintiffs.  On April 27, 2005, the United States Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed a motion to
intervene in order to participate in this lawsuit.  No filings
or determination has been made in regard to the lawsuit as to
class certification.  

The suit is styled "Ramirez et al v. Cintas Corporation, case
no. 3:04-cv-00281-JSW," filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, under Judge
Jeffrey S. White.  Representing the plaintiffs is Paul Strauss
of Miner Barnhill & Galland, 14 W. Erie Street, Chicago, IL
60610, Phone: 312-751-1170, E-mail: pstrauss@lawmbg.com.  
Representing the Company is Rachael Rowe, 6800 Cintas Blvd.,
Cincinnati, OH 45262, Phone: 513-754-3640


CINTAS CORPORATION: CA Court Orders Arbitration For ERISA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court, Northern District of
California, Oakland Division ordered arbitration for all
potential plaintiffs except for those that fall into one of
four narrowly defined exceptions in the class action filed
against Cintas Corporation, styled "Paul Veliz, et al., v.
Cintas Corporation."

The suit alleges that the Company violated certain federal and
state wage and hour laws applicable to its service sales
representatives, whom the Company considers exempt employees,
and asserting additional related Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA) claims.  The plaintiffs are seeking
unspecified monetary damages, injunctive relief or both.

The court ordered arbitration for all potential plaintiffs
except for those that fall into one of four narrowly defined
exceptions.  As a result, the Company believes that a majority
of the potential plaintiffs will be required to arbitrate their
claims.  No determination has been made by the court or an
arbitrator regarding class certification.  

The suit is styled "Veliz et al v. Cintas Corporation et al.,
case no. 4:03-cv-01180-SBA," filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, under Judge Saundra
Brown Armstrong.  Representing the plaintiffs are Scott A.
Kronland of Altshuler, Berzon et al., 177 Post Street, Suite
300, San Francisco, CA 94108, Phone: 415-421-7151, Fax:
415-362-8064, E-mail: skronland@altshulerberzon.com; and Helen
I. Zeldes, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP,
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone:
619-231-1058, Fax: 619-231-7423.  Representing the Company is
Cheryl A. Hipp of Squire Sanders & Dempsey LLP, 4900 Key Tower,
127 Public Square, Cleveland, OH 44114, Phone: 516-479-8365


CINTAS CORPORATION: Faces Racial Bias Lawsuits in Various Courts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cintas Corporation faces several related proceedings, all
alleging racial discrimination, and seeking similar relief
damages and fees are pending.  The proceedings include:

     (1) an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission charge filed
         on April 17, 2000, by Mirna Serrano with the EEOC
         Detroit District office on behalf of female service
         sales representative job applicants at all Cintas
         locations in Michigan

     (2) a class action styled "Mirna E. Serrano, et al., v.
         Cintas Corporation," filed on May 10, 2004, in the
         United States District Court for the Eastern District
         of Michigan, Southern Division on behalf of the same
         female service sales representative job applicants in
         the EEOC charge,

     (3) an administrative action filed on December 15, 2004, by
         James Morgan with the EEOC Washington, D.C. office and
         the California Department of Fair Employment and
         Housing alleging racial discrimination in compensation
         and training opportunities

     (4) a class action lawsuit, styled "Larry Houston, et al.,
         v. Cintas Corporation," filed on August 3, 2005, in the
         United States District Court for the Northern District
         of California on behalf of African-American managers
         alleging racial discrimination.


CINTAS CORPORATION: Faces Admin Proceedings V. Race, Gender Bias
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cintas Corporation faces several similar administrative
proceedings, alleging gender and race discrimination in various
courts, namely:

     (1) two charges filed on November 30, 2004, by an Equal
         Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Commissioner
         with the EEOC Systemic Litigation Unit alleging failure
         to hire and assign females to production job positions,
         and, failing to hire females, African-Americans and
         Hispanics into the Management Trainee program,

     (2) a charge filed on January 24, 2005, by Jennifer Fargo
         on behalf of herself and a similarly situated class
         with the Augusta Human Relations Commission and the
         EEOC Detroit District office alleging gender and equal
         pay discrimination against female sales representatives
         and sales associates,

     (3) a charge filed on March 23, 2005, by Clifton Cooper on
         behalf of himself and a similarly situated class with
         the EEOC Systemic Litigation Unit alleging
         discriminatory pay and treatment due to race,

     (4) a charge filed on March 28, 2005, by Lorelei Reynolds
         on behalf of herself and a similarly situated class
         with the EEOC Birmingham District alleging
         discriminatory pay and treatment due to race and
         gender,

     (5) a charge filed on April 25, 2005, by Melissa Schulz on
         behalf of herself and a similarly situated class with
         the EEOC Systemic Litigation Unit and the Oregon Bureau
         of Labor and Industries, Civil Rights Division alleging
         discriminatory pay and treatment due to race and
         gender,

     (6) a charge filed on May 6, 2005, by Anthony Jones on
         behalf of himself and a similarly situated class with
         the EEOC Systemic Litigation Unit alleging
         discriminatory pay and treatment due to race and

     (7) a charge filed on June 10, 2005, by Mattie Cooper on
         behalf of herself and a similarly situated class with
         the EEOC Systemic Litigation Unit alleging
         discriminatory pay and treatment due to race and gender


COMMUNITY BANCSHARES: Inks Settlement For All Claims in AL Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Community Bancshares, Inc. reached a settlement for all the
remaining claims in the class action filed against it and
Community Bank in Alabama State Court, styled "William Alston,
Murphy Howard, and Jason Tittle v. Community Bancshares,
Community Bank, Holsombeck Motors, Inc., Lee Brown d/b/a Alabama
Bond & Investigation a/k/a ABI Recovery, Chris Holmes d/b/a
Alabama Bond & Investigation a/k/a ABI Recovery, Regina
Holsombeck, Kennon "Ken" Patterson, Sr., Hodge Patterson, James
Timothy "Tim" Hodge, Ernie Stephens, and the State of Alabama
Department of Revenue."

On October 11, 2002, the plaintiffs filed a class action against
the defendants alleging that the Company and others conspired or
used extortionate methods to effect a lending scheme of
"churning phantom loans," and that profits from the scheme were
used to secure an interest in and/or to invest in an enterprise
that affects interstate commerce.  The plaintiffs specifically
allege that Community Bank used various methods to get
uneducated customers with fair to poor credit to sign numerous
"phantom loans" when the customers only intended to sign for one
loan.  Claims include racketeering activity within the meaning
of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act of
1970, conspiracy, spoliation, conversion, negligence,
wantonness, outrage, and civil conspiracy.

On February 17, 2004, an amended complaint was filed in this
lending acts litigation. The amended complaint, which completely
replaces the original complaint, omits class action and
racketeering claims and alleges violations of the Truth in
Lending Act and Regulation Z of the Federal Reserve Board in
addition to conversion, negligence, outrage, suppression, fraud
and misrepresentation, trespass, conspiracy and failure to
provide notice before disposition of collateral for loans.

On April 2, 2004, eighty-one individuals, most of whom were
formerly members of the purported class in the lending acts
litigation filed by Mr. Alston, filed suit against Community
Bancshares, Community Bank and a former Community Bank employee
in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama. This suit
claims that the defendants injured the plaintiffs, primarily in
connection with lending at Community Bank's office in Double
Springs, Alabama, by wrongfully taking property, committing
fraud, furnishing inaccurate information to credit reporting
agencies, negligently hiring, training and supervising
employees, negligently handling customer accounts, altering loan
documents and failing to honor oral and written contracts with
the plaintiffs.

On February 2, 2005, the Company and Community Bank settled the
claims of Mr. Alston and Mr. Howard for amounts which are not
material to the financial statements of Community Bancshares.

On March 29, 2005, Community Bancshares and Community Bank
settled the claims of Mr. Tittle for an amount which is not
material to the financial statements of Community Bancshares.  
On May 25, 2005, Community Bancshares and Community Bank agreed
to a settlement of all other claims in this lawsuit.


EQUITABLE LIFE: Limited Discovery Proceeds in NY ERISA Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs re-filed cross motions for summary judgment after the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York refused their earlier cross motions for summary judgment in
the putative class action filed against The Equitable Life
Assurance Society of the United States' (now known as AXA
Equitable Life Insurance Company) Retirement Plan entitled
"STEFANIE HIRT, ET AL. V. THE EQUITABLE RETIREMENT PLAN FOR
EMPLOYEES, MANAGERS AND AGENTS, ET AL." in the District Court
for the Southern District of New York.

The suit was filed in August 2001 against The Equitable
Retirement Plan for Employees, Managers and Agents (the
"Retirement Plan") and The Officers Committee on Benefit Plans
of Equitable Life, as Plan Administrator. The action was brought
by five participants in the Retirement Plan and purports to be
on behalf of "all Plan participants, whether active or retired,
their beneficiaries and Estates, whose accrued benefits or
pension benefits are based on the Plan's Cash Balance Formula."

The complaint challenges the change, effective January 1, 1989,
in the pension benefit formula from a final average pay formula
to a cash balance formula. Plaintiffs allege that the change to
the cash balance formula violates the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA) by reducing the rate of accruals based on
age, failing to comply with ERISA's notice requirements and
improperly applying the formula to retroactively reduce accrued
benefits. The relief sought includes a declaration that the cash
balance plan violates ERISA, an order enjoining the enforcement
of the cash balance formula, reformation and damages.

Defendants answered the complaint in October 2001. In April
2002, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking to certify a class of
"all Plan participants, whether active or retired, their
beneficiaries and Estates, whose accrued benefits or pension
benefits are based on the Plan's Cash Balance Formula." Also in
April 2002, plaintiffs agreed to dismiss with prejudice their
claim that the change to the cash balance formula violates ERISA
by improperly applying the formula to retroactively reduce
accrued benefits. That claim has been dismissed.

In March 2003, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint elaborating
on the remaining claims in the original complaint and adding
additional class and individual claims alleging that the
adoption and announcement of the cash balance formula and the
subsequent announcement of changes in the application of the
cash balance formula failed to comply with ERISA. The parties
agreed that the new individual claims of the five named
plaintiffs regarding the delivery of announcements to them would
be excluded from the class certification. In April 2003,
defendants filed an answer to the amended complaint.

By order dated May 2003, the District Court, as requested by the
parties, certified the case as a class action, including a sub-
class of all current and former Plan participants, whether
active, inactive or retired, their beneficiaries or estates, who
were subject to a 1991 change in application of the cash balance
formula. In July 2003, defendants filed a motion for summary
judgment on the grounds that plaintiffs' claims are barred by
applicable statutes of limitations. In October 2003, the
District Court denied that motion. In July 2004, the parties
filed cross motions for summary judgment asking the court to
find in their respective favors on plaintiffs' claim that the
cash balance formula of the retirement plan violates ERISA's age
discrimination provisions and the notice of plan amendment
distributed by AXA Equitable violated ERISA's notice rules.  
Following a hearing on the motions, the court ordered a limited
amount of additional discovery to be conducted followed by a
subsequent hearing.

In April 2005, the Court denied the cross motions for summary
judgment without prejudice. In July 2005, the parties re-filed
cross motions for summary judgment, and an evidentiary hearing
was held in August 2005 on one of the claims.

The suit is styled "STEFANIE HIRT, ET AL. V. THE EQUITABLE
RETIREMENT PLAN FOR EMPLOYEES, MANAGERS AND AGENTS, ET AL., case
no. 1:01-cv-07920-AKH," filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, under Judge Alvin
K. Hellerstein.  Plaintiffs are represented by Edgar Pauk of Law
Offices of Edgar Pauk, Esq, 144 East 44th Street, Suite 600 New
York, NY 10017 Phone: (212) 983-4000 Fax: 212 808-9808 E-mail:
pauk@tiac.net.  The Company is represented by Wilber H. Boies,
Nancy G. Ross, Terri L. Ross, McDermott, Will & Emery, 227 W.
Monroe Street Suite # 4700 Chicago, IL 60606-5096 E-mail:
tross@mwe.com.   


FISCHER IMAGING: CO Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Colorado
dismissed the consolidated securities class action filed against
Fischer Imaging Corporation, and three of its former officers
and directors.

On April 10, 2003 and on June 3, 2003, The Sorkin, LLC and James
K. Harbert filed punitive class action lawsuits against the
Company and three of the Company's former officers and
directors, Morgan Nields, Gerald Knudson and Louis Rivelli, on
behalf of purchasers of shares of the Company's common stock
during the period February 14, 2001 to April 1, 2003 and allege
that, among other things, during the putative class period, the
Company and the individual defendants made materially false
statements in violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act,
Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Exchange Act, and Section 20(a)
of the Exchange Act. The complaints seek unspecified
compensatory damages and other relief.

On August 7, 2003, the Company, Mr. Nields and Mr. Knudson moved
to dismiss all claims asserted by The Sorkin, LLC and Harbert.
On August 18, 2003, Mr. Rivelli moved to dismiss all claims
asserted in those lawsuits. On October 20, 2003, Mr. Harbert
moved to dismiss his lawsuit, which the court subsequently
granted. On October 21, 2003, the Sorkin, LLC and Mr. Harbert
filed an amended class action complaint.  The amended complaint
contains the same claims for relief against the Company and Mr.
Nields and Mr. Rivelli, but does not assert any claims against
Mr. Knudson.  In addition, the amended complaint seeks to
recover unspecified compensatory damages and other relief on
behalf of purchasers of shares of its common stock during the
period February 14, 2001 to July 17, 2003.

The Company, Mr. Nields and Mr. Rivelli have filed motions to
dismiss all claims asserted in the amended complaint.  In
September 2004 the Company entered into an agreement in
principle to settle this litigation with plaintiffs' attorneys
and the Company's director and officer liability insurance
provider, Chubb Insurance Company. This settlement proposal was
submitted to the U.S. District Court for approval, and on March
4, 2005 the federal District Court Judge declined to approve the
proposal.  On May 6, 2005 the District Court heard arguments
related to the motions to dismiss filed by the Company, Mr.
Nields and Mr. Rivelli. On June 21, 2005 the court dismissed the
claims asserted in the lawsuit without prejudice.

The suit is styled "Sorkin LLC, The v. Fischer Imaging Corp, et
al., case no. 03-cv-00631-RPM," filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Colorado, under Judge Richard
P. Matsch.  Representing the Company are Jonathon David Bergman
and Thomas P. Johnson, Davis, Graham & Stubbs LLP-Colorado,
United States District Court Box 03, 1550 Seventeenth Street
#500, Denver, CO 80202 U.S.A, Phone: 303-892-9400, Fax:
303-893-1379, E-mail: jon.bergman@dgslaw.com or
tom.johnson@dgslaw.com.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Andrew L. Barroway, David Kessler, Eric L. Zagar of
         Schiffrin & Barroway, L.L.P., 3 Bala Plaza East, #400,
         Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 U.S.A., Phone: 610-667-7706, Fax:
         610-667-7056

     (2) Ian D. Berg, Stuart Lane Berman, Darren John Check,
         Sean M. Handler, Kay Sickles, Schiffrin & Barroway,
         L.L.P. 3 Bala Plaza East, #400, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004,
         U.S.A., Phone: 610-667-7706, Fax: 610-667-7056, E-mail:
         iberg@sbclasslaw.com, ecf_filings@sbclasslaw.com,
         ksickles@sbclasslaw.com  

     (3) Bradley David Chapman, Patrick D. Vellone, Allen &
         Vellone, P.C., 1600 Stout Street, #1100, Denver, CO
         80202 U.S.A, Phone: 303-539-4499, fax: 303-893-8332, E-
         mail: bchapman@allen-vellone.com or
         pvellone@allen-vellone.com   

     (4) Jacob A. Goldberg of Jacob A. Goldberg, LLC, P.O. Box
         30132, Elkins Park, PA 19027, U.S.A., Phone: 215-782-
         8235, Fax: 215-782-8236, E-mail:
         jacobagoldberg@comcast.net  


GAINSCO INC.: Faces Amended Securities Fraud Lawsuit in S.D. FL
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gainsco, Inc. and two executive officers, one of whom is also a
director, are named as defendants in a putative class action
proceeding initially filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida.

In the proceeding, which is a consolidation of two previously
separately pending actions filed at approximately the same time
and involving essentially the same facts and claims, the
plaintiffs allege violations of the Federal securities laws in
connection with alleged non-disclosures and deceptive
disclosures in press releases and filings with the Securities
and Exchange Commission regarding the Company's acquisition,
operation and divestiture of a former Tri-State, Ltd.
subsidiary, a South Dakota company selling nonstandard personal
auto insurance.  The second amended complaint does not specify
the amount of damages the plaintiffs seek.


GUIDANT CORPORATION: Law Firm Lodges Suit Over Faulty Devices
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Viles & Beckman, LLC, initiated a class action
product liability lawsuit against Guidant Corporation, one of
America's largest manufacturers of medical devices. The
complaint states that Guidant Corp. learned well in advance of
the recall that their devices were faulty, but delayed
notification to physicians and the general public hoping that
future models would correct any flaws. Subsequently, two cases
of death associated with Guidant's recalled pacemakers have
already been reported to the FDA.

On June 17th, 2005, Guidant Corporation announced that it would
recall nearly 50,000 Implantable Cardiac Defibrillators
distributed worldwide due to faulty insulation in the wiring.
Defibrillators, which are largely used by people who suffer from
life-threatening arrhythmia or an irregular heartbeat, are
designed to emit a life-saving electrical shock to the heart to
restore normal rhythm. Faulty insulation in the wiring of the
defibrillator has the potential to cause short circuits and
prevent the device from shocking the heart during a cardiac
event.

The following defibrillator devices were affected by the recall:

     (1) PRIZM 2 DR, Model 1861 (manufactured on or before
         April, 2002)

     (2) CONTAK RENEWAL, Model H135 (manufactured on or before
         August 26, 2004)

     (3) CONTAK RENEWAL 2, Model H155 (manufactured on or before
         August 26, 2004

On July 19, 2005, Guidant Corp. announced a second recall
affecting approximately 28,000 patients worldwide.

Pacemakers are also implantable devices that are designed to
electrically stimulate the heart. The difference is that
pacemakers emit electrical shocks to the heart causing it to
contract and pump blood when the heart's electrical system is
dysfunctional, whereas defibrillators shock the heart when an
irregular heartbeat is sensed. The flaw resides in the hermetic
seal on some Guidant pacemaker devices, whereby moisture can
seep in and potentially cause damage to the device. There has
been at least one death thought to be attributed with this
product failure. Guidant has also identified that some of their
pacemakers may have a defective magnetic switch, which may be
stuck in the closed position, hindering the pacemaker from
delivering an electric charge when needed.

The following Guidant pacemaker devices, manufactured between
November 25, 1997 and October 26, 2000, were affected by the
recall:

     (i) PULSAR MAX Models 1170, 1171, 1270

    (ii) PULSAR Models 0470, 0870, 0970, 0972, 1172, 1272

   (iii) DISCOVERY Models 1174, 1175, 1273, 1274, 1275

    (iv) MERIDIAN Models 0476, 0976, 1176, 1276

     (v) PULSAR MAX II Models 1180, 1181, 1280

    (vi) DISCOVERY II Models 0481, 0981, 1184, 1186, 1187, 1283,
         1284, 1285, 1286

   (vii) CONTAK TR Model 1241

  (viii) VIRTUS PLUS II Models 1380, 1480

    (ix) INTELIS II Models 1483, 1484, 1485, 1384, 1385, 1349,
         1499

Potentially 78,000 persons may now require surgery to replace
defibrillators and pacemaker devices produced and subsequently
recalled by Guidant Corp. Some Guidant devices that were not
recalled may be subject to a memory error which can also lead to
malfunction of the device.

Incorporated in 1994, Guidant quickly became the leading medical
device supplier in the United States, earning over 3.8 billion
dollars in the past 11 years. Its medical devices were hailed as
some of the most dependable machines ever produced, until 2002
when they received some unfortunate news regarding a potential
problem with its Ventak Prizm 2 DR (model 1861), indicating that
faulty insulation in some of its wires could lead the device to
short circuit. Apparently, Guidant was sure this flaw would be
corrected in future models, and waited until May 2005 to notify
doctors of this potential malfunction. The Contak Renewal
(models H135 and H155) made prior to 2004 are also subject to
this flaw.

Designated as a Class I recall by the Federal Drug
Administration (FDA), Guidant's products may fail to deliver the
lifesaving shock during the time when patients would need it
most. Class I is the most serious category in the recall system
used by the FDA; it identifies a "reasonable probability that
the malfunctioning device will cause serious adverse health
consequences or death." (www.fda.org/)

Signs of a failing product may include sudden faintness, a loss
of consciousness, shortness of breath, dizziness,
lightheadedness, prolonged fast heart rate, and heart failure or
death.

For more details, contact Viles & Beckman, LLC, 2075 West First
St., Fort Myers, FL 33901, Phone: 239-334-3933,
Fax: 239-334-7105, E-mail: info@vilesandbeckman.com.



INPUT/OUTPUT INC.: Shareholders Launch Fraud Suits in S.D. Texas
----------------------------------------------------------------
Input/Output Inc. faces several securities class actions filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Texas, Houston Division, alleging violations of federal
securities laws.  The suits also name as defendants its
chief executive officer, its chief financial officer and the
president of GX Technologies Corporation, which the Company
acquired in June 2004.

The first suit, filed on January 12, 2005, is styled "Harold
Read, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Input/Output, Inc, Robert P. Peebler, J. Michael
Kirksey, and Michael K. Lambert."  The suit alleges violations
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The action was filed
purportedly on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common
stock who purchased shares during the period from May 10, 2004
through January 4, 2005. The complaint seeks damages in an
unspecified amount plus costs and attorneys' fees. The complaint
alleges misrepresentations and omissions in public announcements
and filings concerning the Company's business, sales and
products.

On February 4 and 10, 2005, and March 15, 2005, three
similar lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas, Houston Division. The three
complaints are styled:

     (1) Matt Brody, individually and on behalf of all others

         similarly situated v. Input/Output, Inc, Robert P.
         Peebler and J. Michael Kirksey,

     (2) Giovanni Arca vs. Input/Output, Inc., Robert P.
         Peebler, J. Michael Kirksey, and Michael K. Lambert,
         and

     (3) Schneur Grossberger, individually and on behalf of all
         others similarly situated v. Input/Output, Inc., Robert
         P. Peebler, J. Michael Kirksey, and Michael K. Lambert

These suits contain factual allegations similar to those in the
Read complaint. The Brody complaint was voluntarily dismissed
by the plaintiff in that case on April 28, 2005.  The defendants
have not been served with process in any of the remaining
putative class action cases.  No discovery has been conducted by
the parties in any of the cases, and discovery will be stayed
should the defendants file a motion to dismiss until there is a
ruling on that motion.


LIGAND PHARMACEUTICALS: CA Court Dismisses Consolidated Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
California granted Ligand Pharmaceuticals Incorporated's (Pink
Sheets: LGND) motion to dismiss the consolidated federal
securities class action litigation against it.

The complaints were originally filed in August 2004 and alleged
violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10(b)(5). However the Court did grant the
plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint within 30 days
that addresses the deficiencies described in the order.

The company stated though that the ruling does not apply to the
related shareholder derivative litigation in the California
state courts, which was previously filed, also in August 2004.
This litigation is currently in discovery phase. The company had
previously filed a demurrer to the consolidated complaint in
these cases, similar to a motion to dismiss, which was denied in
June 2005.

For more details, contact Abe Wischnia, Senior Director of
Investor Relations and Corporate Communications or Paul V.
Maier, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of
Ligand Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Phone: 858-550-7850 or
858-550-7573, Web site: http://www.ligand.com.  


MERCK & CO.: Law Firm Files Suit on Behalf of German Vioxx Users
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kenneth B. Moll & Associates, Ltd., in
association with the leading German law firm handling Vioxx
cases, the Law Offices of Andreas Schulz, filed the first class
action lawsuit on behalf of all citizens of Germany who
allegedly died or were seriously injured by the pain medication
Vioxx.

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

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

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


METSO PAPER USA: Wants Contamination Suit Moved to Federal Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Citing jurisdictional issues, Metso Paper USA filed a petition
to have a class action lawsuit involving groundwater
contamination moved from Lackawanna County Court to federal
court, The Scranton Times reports.

The suit, which is one of two class actions involving the Ivy
Industrial Park tenant, was filed on September 2 by homeowner
James J. Black charging the company with negligence and
violating the Hazardous Sites Cleanup Act. Mr. Black's
Philadelphia law firm filed the suit in county court.

The suit claims that the contamination diminishes property
values and heaps on costs for environmental testing and
monitoring. Mr. Black's well levels, according to the suit, were
10.9 parts per billion each of TCE and PCE, both above the 5
parts per billion drinking standard. Mr. Black, whose address is
listed as RR 2, Box 289, Olyphant, lives less than a mile from
the industrial park, an earlier Class Action Reporter story
(September 16, 2005) reports.

Attorneys for Metso Paper filed the notice of removal asking
that the case shift to U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Pennsylvania. In their filing, the attorneys argued
that the company is headquartered in Norcross, Georgia and that
federal court has jurisdiction in an action involving a
Pennsylvania resident, an out-of-state company and a class
action case where potential damages exceed $5 million.

The notice was filed by the Scranton law firm Myers, Brier &
Kelly, which is listed as counsel for the company, along with
Georgia law firm Smith, Gambrell & Russell.

In January, the company asked permission from the state to enter
its voluntary land-recycling program after identifying elevated
levels of two common industrial solvents in on-site groundwater
monitoring wells. Levels of trichloroethylene (TCE) and
tetrachloroethylene (PCE) above the federal drinking water
standard were subsequently discovered in at least 30 residential
wells near the industrial park, an earlier Class Action Reporter
story (September 16, 2005) reports.

So far, contamination has been found more than a mile from the
industrial park and in more than 50 commercial and residential
wells with the state identifying Metso and park tenant Sandvik
as parties potentially responsible for the release.

Four days after Mr. Black's suit was filed, Joseph P. Cumming, a
Carbondale Road homeowner filed a second, separate lawsuit over
the contamination. His class action suit claims Metso and park
tenants Sandvik Inc. and Sandvik Extruded Tube, Inc., knowingly
contaminated the area with TCE and PCE, an earlier Class Action
Reporter story (September 16, 2005) reports.


MORTON'S RESTAURANT: Asks MA Court To Junk FLSA Violations Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Morton's Restaurant Group, Inc. asked the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts to dismiss the
nationwide class action filed against it, alleging violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

In May 2005, a former employee of the Company's Boston
restaurant filed the suit, alleging that the tip out violates
the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Company moved to dismiss the
complaint and compel arbitration.  

While the motion was pending, the plaintiff filed a nationwide
collective action demand for arbitration with the American
Arbitration Association.  The demand for arbitration alleges the
same facts as the lawsuit filed in federal court.  
The motion to dismiss is still pending in federal court.


MORTON'S RESTAURANT: CA Court Dismisses Most Claims in Wage Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
California federal court dismissed all claims against Morton's
Restaurant Group, Inc., except the Sacramento Morton's
steakhouse claim, in the class action filed against the Company,
asserting individual, representative and class claims against
the Sacramento Morton's steakhouse and several other Morton's
steakhouses.

The plaintiffs asserted claims based on the Company's alleged
failure to provide them with meal and rest periods, and for
unlawful tip sharing and unfair competition.  The plaintiffs
seek restitution of tips, meal and break period compensation and
attorneys' fees. Dismissals with prejudice for all defendants,
except the Sacramento Morton's steakhouse, were granted.  The
claims against the Sacramento Morton's steakhouse have been
moved to arbitration.


OFF-ROAD TECHNOLOGY: Recalls 83 Tire Carriers For Crash Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
Off-Road Technology in cooperation with the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration's Office of Defects Investigation
(ODI) is voluntarily recalling about 83 units of OT-206, OT-3200
and OT-403 swing-out tire carriers due to crash hazard. NHTSA
CAMPAIGN ID Number: 05E061000.

According to the ODI, certain of the swing-out tire carriers,
which are sold as an aftermarket accessory for use on certain
jeep and hummer H2 vehicles, the pivot shaft bolts can break
near the base of the pivot shafts allowing the swing-out tire
assembly to completely separate from the vehicle. Should the
carrier separate while the vehicle is in use a crash could
occur.

The manufacturer has not yet determined a remedy. The recall is
expected to begin on October 28, 2005.

For more details, Off-Road Technology, Phone: 1-800-818-6821,
and NHTSA Auto Safety Hotline: 1-888-327-4236 or (TTY)
1-800-424-9153, Web site: http://www.safecar.gov.


PEMCO AVIATION: Seeks Writ of Certiorari in AL Race Bias Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Supreme Court has yet to accept Pemco Aviation
Group, Inc.'s petition for a writ of certiorari related to a
class action filed against it and Pemco Aeroplex, its subsidiary
in the United States District Court, Northern District of
Alabama.

The suit, initially filed in December 1999, seeks declaratory,
injunctive relief and other compensatory and punitive damages
based upon alleged unlawful employment practices of race
discrimination and racial harassment by the Company's managers,
supervisors, and other employees.  The complaint sought damages
in the amount of $75 million.

On July 27, 2000 the Court determined that the group would not
be certified as a class since the plaintiffs withdrew their
request for class certification.  The Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC) subsequently entered the case
purporting a parallel class action.  The Court denied
consolidation of the cases for trial purposes but provided for
consolidated discovery. On June 28, 2002, a jury determined that
there was no hostile work environment in the original case and
granted verdicts for the Company with regard to all 22
plaintiffs.

Nine plaintiffs elected to settle with the Company prior to the
trial. On December 13, 2002 the Court granted the Company
summary judgment in the EEOC case.  That judgment was appealed
to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals by the EEOC.  The panel
reinstated the case to federal district court.  On October 27,
2004, the Company petitioned the 11th Circuit to rehear the case
en banc. The petition was denied on December 23, 2004. The
Company filed a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari with the
United States Supreme Court on March 23, 2005 and the government
has filed its brief in response. The U.S. Supreme Court has not
released its decision as to whether it will accept the case.


POWERLINX INC.: To Distribute Shares in FL Stock Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Powerlinx, Inc. is waiting to distribute shares as part of the
settlement of a consolidated class action filed against it and
Richard McBride, the Company's former chief executive officer,
in the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Florida.

On December 17, 2002, the Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval
of Settlement and the Amended Stipulation of Settlement was
filed and approved by the residing justice.  In the settlement,  
the Company will issue 6,000,000 shares of common stock to the
class participants.  There were no significant amendments to the
nature or terms of the Stipulation.  The actual liability, based
on the value of the Company's stock as December 17, 2002, was
$300,000 plus an estimated $125,000 in legal fees.

On May 2, 2003, the court, through issuance of its Order and
Final Judgment, approved the settlement.  The Company is
awaiting instructions from the plaintiff for the issuance of the
shares.


SBC COMMUNICATIONS: Appeals Court Reinstates Antitrust Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated an antitrust
lawsuit that accuses San Antonio-based SBC Communications Inc.,
Verizon Communications Inc. and other telecommunications
companies of conspiring not to compete with one another, The San
Antonio Express-News reports.

The class action suit was filed on behalf of consumers who claim
local phone companies have pushed up prices by conspiring
against newer providers in violation of the Telecommunications
Act of 1996.

The court though didn't address the merits of the case, ruling
only that the plaintiffs made a sufficient case to go forward.
In their ruling the court specifically stated that SBC, Verizon,
Qwest Communications International Inc., BellSouth Corporation
and Verizon's Bell Atlantic must defend against the suit, which
a lower court previously dismissed.


SKYTERRA COMMUNICATIONS: Reaches Settlement For CA Overtime Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Skyterra Communications, Inc. reached a settlement of a class
action filed against it, its discontinued services subsidiary
Rare Medium, Inc. and certain other former subsidiaries merged
into Rare Medium, Inc., styled "Joe Robuck, individually and on
behalf of all similarly situated individuals v. Rare Medium
Group, Inc., Rare Medium L.A., Inc., Rare Medium, Inc., and Rare
Medium Dallas, Inc., Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No.
BC300310."

In August 2003, a former California employee of Rare Medium
filed the putative class action and putative representative
action asserting that:

     (i) certain payments were purportedly due and went unpaid
         for overtime for employees with five job titles;

    (ii) certain related violations of California's overtime
         statute were committed when these employees were not
         paid such allegedly due and unpaid overtime at the time
         of their termination; and

   (iii) certain related alleged violations of California's
         unfair competition statute were committed.

Plaintiff seeks to recover for himself and all of the putative
class, alleged unpaid overtime, waiting time penalties (which
can be up to 30 days' pay for each person not paid all wages due
at the time of termination), interest, attorneys' fees, costs
and disgorgement of profits garnered as a result of the alleged
failure to pay overtime.

In February 2005, the Company reached an agreement in principle
with the plaintiff's counsel pursuant to which the class action
will be dismissed without prejudice. As part of the agreement,
the Company will receive releases from certain individuals in
exchange for an immaterial settlement payment to each of the
individuals. The effectiveness of a settlement agreement will be
subject to court approval.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Working To Settle CA Race Discrimination Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Toyota Motor Credit Corporation reached an agreement of the
principal terms of a settlement of the class actions filed
against it in California federal and state courts, alleging race
discrimination in relation to its pricing practices.

An alleged class action in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, styled "Baltimore v. Toyota
Motor Credit Corporation," filed in November 2000 claims that
the Company's pricing practices discriminate against African-
Americans and Hispanics. Two additional cases pending in the
state courts in California, (styled "Herra v. Toyota Motor
Credit Corporation" and "Gonzales v. Toyota Motor Credit
Corporation") filed in the Superior Court of California Alameda
County in April 2003 and in the Superior Court of the State of
California in August 2003, respectively, contain similar
allegations claiming discrimination against minorities.

The cases have been brought by various individuals. Injunctive
relief is being sought in all three cases and the cases also
include a claim for actual damages in an unspecified amount. The
parties have conducted a series of mediation sessions and have
reached agreement on the principal terms of a settlement.
However, continued settlement discussions are ongoing and a
final resolution is subject to execution of a settlement
agreement.


TOYOTA MOTOR: NJ High Court Allows Appeal of Suit Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
The New Jersey Supreme Court allowed Toyota Motor Insurance
Services (TMIS) to appeal a lower court ruling granting class
certification to the lawsuit filed against the Company, styled
"Jorge v. Toyota Motor Insurance Services," filed in November
2002.

The suit claims that the TMIS Gold Plan Vehicle Service
Agreement (VSA) is unconscionable on its face and violates the
New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. In September 2004, the case was
certified as a class action consisting of all New Jersey
consumers who purchased a TMIS Gold Plan VSA. The plaintiffs are
seeking injunctive relief as well as actual damages and treble
damages in an unspecified amount. In May 2005, the New Jersey
Supreme Court issued a ruling granting TMIS' motion for leave to
appeal the trial court's denial of TMIS' motion for summary
judgment. The case has been remanded to the Appellate Division
for reconsideration on the merits.


TREDIT TIRE: Recalls 44 Chromium Plated Wheels For Crash Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tredit Tire & Wheel Co Inc. in cooperation with the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Office of Defects
Investigation (ODI) is voluntarily recalling about 44 units of
JCA CHINA / JC16X6655CR, JCA CHINA / JC16X6865CR and JCA CHINA /
JC16X6865CRHD wheels due to crash hazard. NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID
Number: 05E063000.

According to the ODI, certain JCA China 16" Chromium plated
wheel, either 6 lug or 8 lug that contain the rim stamp of "JG"
or "HW," has a center that could separate from the rim due to
poor weld quality and insufficient press fir between the rim and
the disc. Should the wheel break while the vehicle is in use, a
crash could occur, possibly resulting in serious injury or
death.

As a remedy, Tredit Tire will notify its customers and replace
the wheels free of charge. The recall is expected to begin on
September 29, 2005.  

For more details, Tredit Tire, Phone: 1-866-443-9907, and NHTSA
Auto Safety Hotline: 1-888-327-4236 or (TTY) 1-800-424-9153, Web
site: http://www.safecar.gov.


UNITED STATES: Court Nominee Involved in Settling Claims V. Firm
----------------------------------------------------------------
Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers was a leading figure at a
Texas law firm that paid millions to settle claims against
clients involved in failed investment schemes, The Associated
Press reports.

Though there was no evidence that Ms. Miers knew about the
actions of a partner that led to one of the lawsuits, an
attorney close to one of the cases blamed her for not instilling
more integrity in the firm's attorneys.

The firm Locke Liddell and Sapp, LLC, represented some of the
state's biggest corporations and most famous residents,
including George W. Bush.

Ms. Miers was co-managing director in 2000 when the firm found
itself on the receiving end of class action lawsuits over two of
its clients, Brian Russell Stearns and former U-T placekicker
Russell Erxleben. The investors claimed that Mr. Erxleben and
Mr. Stearns used money from new investors to pay off old ones
until the schemes unraveled. In addition, the investors claimed
that they were cheated in part because Locke Liddell helped make
the operations look legitimate.


VALLEY INDUSTRIES: Recalls 498 Trailer Hitches For Crash Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
Valley Industries in cooperation with the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration's Office of Defects Investigation
(ODI) is voluntarily recalling about 498 units of HITCH-CLASS
III RECEIVER / 82850 and NISSAN / XTERRA trailer hitches due to
crash hazard. NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID Number: 05E062000.

According to the ODI, certain trailer hitches with P/N 82850
that were manufactured between March and September 2005, which
were sold for use as replacement equipment for 2005 Nissan
Xterra passenger vehicles have the tendency to break while in
use due to insufficient weld strength. This could result in the
trailer or item in tow to be released partially or wholly from
the vehicle, possibly resulting in a crash.

As a remedy, Valley Industries will notify its customers and
replace the trailer hitches free of charge. The recall is
expected to begin on October 14, 2005.  

For more details, Valley Industries, Phone: 209-368-8881, and
NHTSA Auto Safety Hotline: 1-888-327-4236 or (TTY) 1-800-424-
9153, Web site: http://www.safecar.gov.


VANS INC.: Securities Settlement Hearing Set October 31, 2005
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California, Western Division will hold a fairness hearing for
the proposed $4.6 million settlement in the matter, In re Vans,
Inc. Securities Litigation, Master Files No. CV-04-0431-AHM
(CTx) on behalf of all persons who purchased the Company's
common stock during the period March 24, 1999 through May 23,
2002.

The hearing will he held on October 31, 2005, at 11:00 a.m.,
before the Honorable A. Howard Matz, at the Spring Street
Courthouse, 312 North Spring St., Los Angeles, CA 90012.

For more details, contact Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman &
Robbins, LLP, 401 B St., Suite 1500, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone:
(800) 449-4900.


VIRGINIA: Three More Women Files Affidavits V. Roanoke Sheriff
--------------------------------------------------------------
Former deputy Rhonda G. Johnson, one-time job candidate Erin M.
Bachinsky and former medication aide Tamara D. Speight are
accusing Roanoke Sheriff George McMillan of sexual harassment,
thus bringing the total number in support of a possible class
action lawsuit to seven, The Roanoke Times reports.  All three
women filed affidavits in federal court claiming that the
sheriff touched them inappropriately or made comments that were
out of line.

Even with the affidavits, Elizabeth Dillon, who is Sheriff
McMillan's attorney, questioned the character of two of the
women, saying that Ms. Johnson is facing a felony charge and Ms.
Speight was just released from the very jail where she used to
work.  Ms. Dillion told The Roanoke Times that anyone can file a
lawsuit or declaration but it is difficult to prevail. She added
that she believes the class action is "completely untimely."

Former Roanoke sheriff's deputy Lespia J. King filed a lawsuit
against Sheriff McMillan and his office in August 16, alleging
gender discrimination, sexual harassment, and assault and
battery. She began working for the department in August 2000,
but the complaint covers a period of time between January 2003
and her resignation in March 2004, according to court records,
an earlier Class Action Reporter story (September 21, 2005)
reports.

On September 16, Ms. King's attorney, Terry Grimes, filed a
motion to grant class action status for the case. Three former
employees, Jennifer Donovan, Malinda Bland and Kristen Darnell,
filed affidavits in support of that motion.

According to Ms. Speight, one of the three most recent women to
file affidavits in support of the case, she was riding in a jail
elevator with Sheriff McMillan one evening when he stared at her
chest and said, "I bet you drive my inmates wild with that perky
chest of yours." Ms. Speight goes on to say that she told the
sheriff that was not her intention and was so upset by the
incident that she quit her job.

Court records show that Ms. Speight was charged with grand
larceny in 2002 but pleaded guilty to petit larceny and served
20 days in jail with 11 months and 10 days suspended. She was
arrested on a probation violation early this year and served six
months in jail.

Meanwhile, Ms. Bachinsky claims that during an interview for
communications officer at the jail in 2002, the sheriff asked
mostly personal questions of her. She recounted how the sheriff,
"told me that I would become closer to him than his wife, and
that I would be like his mistress," a statement also alleged by
former public information officer Jennifer Donovan.

Ms. Bachinsky also claims that Sheriff McMillan told her she
would travel to nice locations with him on business trips, and
"I would have to pack my bathing suit." As she left, according
to her, the sheriff tried to hug her, but she stepped away and
he ended up patting her shoulder instead. Ms. Bachinsky
affidavits states that she was not hired at that time but was
later offered a job, which she declined.

Ms. Johnson, who was also one of the latest to have filed
affidavits in support of the suit states that she worked as a
deputy from September 2000 until August 2005, when she was
fired. She claims that the sheriff often hugged her, said she
had a "nice a--" and once put his hand on her thigh. Her
accusations also extend to other male supervisors saying that a
captain accused her of having sex in his office in the
courthouse and a sergeant grabbed her arm so hard it bruised. In
her affidavit, Ms. Johnson also stated that the harassment drove
her to make a failed suicide attempt with her service revolver
in late August. She was admitted for psychiatric treatment and
found out she had been fired while undergoing treatment.

Ms. Johnson was eventually charged with discharging a firearm in
an occupied dwelling, a felony, but Mr. Grimes says that charge
stemmed from her suicide attempt.

Mr. Grimes told The Roanoke Times that Ms. King and the other
six women are probably the only ones who will file documents in
court in this case, but he is in contact with many more who may
testify.

Though a federal judge has yet to rule on the motion for class
action certification, Washington and Lee law professor Mark
Grunewald told The Roanoke Times that the judge may not rule on
such an issue for months. He added that there is no inherent
reason a sexual harassment case cannot be brought as a class
action, but a judge will have to consider, among other things,
whether the women's claims are common enough to establish a
pattern of illegal behavior.


WESTERN RECREATIONAL: Recalls 44 Trailers Due to Crash Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------
Western Recreational Vehicles, Inc. in cooperation with the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Office of
Defects Investigation (ODI) is voluntarily recalling about 44
units of 2006 WESTERN RV / ALPENLITE trailers due to crash
hazard. NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID Number: 05V435000.

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

As a remedy, Western RV is working with Tredit Tire to notify
its customers and replace the wheels. The recall is expected to
begin on October 2005.  

For more details, Western RV, Phone: 1-866-567-4133, and NHTSA
Auto Safety Hotline: 1-888-327-4236 or (TTY) 1-800-424-9153, Web
site: http://www.safecar.gov.



                  Meetings, Conferences & Seminars



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

November 9, 2005
C-8/PFOA SCIENCE, RISKS & LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Four Seasons Resort, Santa Barbara, CA
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

December 5-6, 2005
ADVANCED NATIONAL FORUM ON ENVIRONMENTAL INSURANCE COVERAGE AND
CLAIMS
American Conferences
The Waldorf Astoria, New York, NY
Contact: http://www.americanconference.com;877-927-1563

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

October 01-31, 2005
HBA PRESENTS: AUTOMOBILE LITIGATION: DISPUTES AMONG
CONSUMERS, DEALERS, FINANCE COMPANIES AND FLOORPLANNERS
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

October 01-31, 2005
CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION DEFECT
LIABILITY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

October 01-31, 2005
HBA PRESENTS: ETHICS IN PERSONAL INJURY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

October 01-31, 2005
IN-HOUSE COUNSEL AND WRONGFUL DISCHARGE CLAIMS:
CONFLICT WITH CONFIDENTIALITY?
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

October 01-31, 2005
BAYLOR LAW SCHOOL PRESENTS: 2004 GENERAL PRACTICE INSTITUTE --
FAMILY LAW, DISCIPLINARY SYSTEM, CIVIL LITIGATION, INSURANCE
& CONSUMER LAW UPDATES
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

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

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

October 06, 2005
CATASTROPHIC LOSS TELECONFERENCE: HURRICANE KATRINA
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

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

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

October 25, 2005
ASBESTOS RELATED DISEASES TELECONFERENCE:
LUNGS 101, UNDERSTANDING PULMONOLOGY AND ANALYSIS OF
MESOTHELIOMA
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

October 26, 2005
WORKPLACE MISCONDUCT LITIGATION
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

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

November 02, 2005
VIOXX(R) THE ERNST JURORS SPEAK
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


                 New Securities Fraud Cases   


AMERICAN ITALIAN: Goldman Scarlato Lodges Securities Suit in MO
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C., initiated a
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Missouri, on behalf of persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of American
Italian Pasta Company ("Pasta" or the "Company") (NYSE:PLB)
between October 4, 2000 and August 9, 2005, inclusive, (the
"Class Period"). The lawsuit was filed against Pasta and Timothy
S. Webster, David B. Potter, Jerry H. Dear, Warren B.
Schmidgall, George D. Shadid and Horst W. Schroeder
("Defendants"). The Deadline to move for Lead Plaintiff is
October 11, 2005.

The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. Specifically, the complaint alleges that
The Company failed to disclose or misrepresented that the
Company failed to properly expense $6.6 million in promotional
allowances and deduction receivables, that the Company failed to
take timely write-downs for spare parts inventory, that the
Company maintained inadequate reserves for slow moving, damaged,
and discontinued inventories, the Company failed to record $1.9
million in certain fixed asset retirements, and that as a result
the Company's financials were not prepared in accordance with
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP").

On August 9, 2005, after the market closed, Pasta announced a
$60.7 million charge and an SEC inquiry into the Company's
results. Specifically, the Company stated the SEC was
investigating it for unspecified restatements and for
transactions in the Company's stock by outsiders in late 2004
and early 2005, for which the Company had received inquiries
from the New York Stock Exchange and the Philadelphia Stock
Exchange. In addition, the Audit Committee of Pasta is
conducting an internal investigation of certain accounting
procedures.

For more details, contact Brian D. Penny, Esq. of The Law Firm
of Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C., Phone: 888-753-2796, E-mail:
penny@gsk-law.com.


HUTCHINSON TECHNOLOGY: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Suit in MN
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP, initiated
a class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the securities of Hutchinson Technology, Inc.
("Hutchinson" or the "Company") (NasdaqNM: HTCH), between
October 4, 2004 and August 29, 2005, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The action, case no. 05-CV-2095, is pending before the Honorable
Michael J. Davis in the United States District Court for the
District of Minnesota against defendants Hutchinson, Wayne M.
Fortun (President and CEO), John A. Ingleman (CFO and Vice
President), and Jeffrey W. Green (Chairman). According to the
complaint, defendants violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5, by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period.

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

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

For more details, contact Samuel H. Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld
of Lerach Coughlin, Phone: 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, E-mail:
wsl@lerachlaw.com, Web site: http://www.milbergweiss.com.


RENAISSANCERE HOLDINGS: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Fraud Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
LLP ("Lerach Coughlin") initiated a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York on behalf of purchasers of RenaissanceRe Holdings Ltd.
("RenaissanceRe" or the "Company") (NYSE: RNR) common stock
during the period between January 24, 2002 and July 25, 2005
(the "Class Period").

The complaint charges RenaissanceRe and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. RenaissanceRe, through its subsidiaries, provides
reinsurance and insurance worldwide.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
Defendants issued numerous positive statements and filed
quarterly and annual reports with the Securities and Exchange
Commission ("SEC"), which described the Company's increasing
financial performance. As alleged in the complaint, these
statements were materially false and misleading because they
failed to disclose and misrepresented the following adverse
facts, among others:

     (1) that the Company was materially overstating its
         financial results by engaging in improper accounting
         practices. According to the complaint, the Company has
         admitted that its prior financial reports are
         materially false and misleading as it announced that it
         is going to restate its results for the years ended
         December 31, 2001, 2002 and 2003;

     (2) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls and
         was therefore unable to ascertain its true financial
         condition;

     (3) that the Company's Chairman and CEO, along with a
         former senior officer, would be subject to civil
         penalties in connection with the restatement of the
         previous financial periods; and

     (4) that as a result of the foregoing, the values of the
         Company's net income and earnings were materially false
         at all relevant times.

Then, on July 25, 2005, the Company issued a press release
announcing that defendant James N. Stanard, the Company's CEO
and Chairman, received a Wells Notice from the staff of the SEC
in connection with the SEC's ongoing investigation into the
restatement of the Company's financial statements. Upon this
shocking news, shares of the Company's stock fell $4.25 per
share, or almost 10%, to close at $42.98 per share on unusually
heavy trading volume.

For more details, contact Samuel H. Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld
of Lerach Coughlin, Phone: 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, E-mail:
wsl@lerachlaw.com, Web site:
http://www.lerachlaw.com/cases/renaissancere/.


SPECTRUM BRANDS: Dyer & Shuman Schedules Lead Plaintiff Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Dyer & Shuman, LLP, is encouraging all persons
who purchased the common stock of Spectrum Brands, Inc. (NYSE:
SPC) between January 4, 2005 and September 6, 2005 ("Class
Members") to contact Kip B. Shuman of Dyer & Shuman, LLP at
1-800-711-6483 or via email at KShuman@DyerShuman.com, or their
counsel of choice, concerning their rights and interests as
potential class members in the shareholder class action recently
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia against Spectrum Brands and certain of its
officers and directors.

The firm reminds investors that they have until November 28,
2005 to file for lead plaintiff in the case.

For more details, contact Kip B. Shuman of Dyer & Shuman, LLP,
Phone: 1-800-711-6483, E-mail: KShuman@DyerShuman.com, Web site:
http://www.dyershuman.com.


SPECTRUM BRANDS: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges WI Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Wisconsin on behalf of all securities
purchasers of Spectrum Brands, Inc. (F/K/A "Rayovac
Corporation"/(NYSE: ROV)) ("Spectrum" or the "Company") (NYSE:
SPC) ("Spectrum" or the "Company") between January 4, 2005, and
September 6, 2005 inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Spectrum, David A. Jones, and Randall J.
Steward with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed
to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse
facts, which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded
by them:

     (1) that defendants had materially overstated the demand
         for the Company's core battery products;

     (2) that the Company inflated its earnings prior and post
         the United and Tetra acquisitions by stuffing its
         distribution channels with an excess supply of
         batteries;

     (3) that the integration of the acquisitions failed to
         effectively contribute to the Company's positive
         financial results;

     (4) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls; and
    
     (5) that the Company's financial results were in violation
         of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP").

On July 28, 2005, Spectrum issued disappointing third quarter
results. On this news, shares of Spectrum fell $5.77 per share,
or 15.04 percent, on July 28, 2005, to close at $32.60 per
share. On September 7, 2005, Spectrum lowered its expectations
for fourth quarter and fiscal 2006 financial results. On this
news, shares of Spectrum fell $3.87 per share, or 13.29 percent,
on September 7, 2005, to close at $25.25 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.


WORLD HEALTH: Mager & Goldstein Files Securities Suit in W.D. PA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Mager & Goldstein, LLP, initiated a class action
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania on behalf of all purchasers of securities of World
Health Alternatives, Inc. ("World Health" or the
"Company")(OTCBB:WHAIE) between June 26, 2003 and August 18,
2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that World Health, certain of its
officers, and its former auditor violated the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing materially false and misleading
statements during the Class Period which resulted in
artificially inflating the value of World Health stock.
Specifically, defendants misrepresented and failed to disclose
that:

     (1) there were discrepancies in the amount of the Company's
         outstanding shares;

     (2) convertible debt and warrant agreements connected with
         the Company's preferred stock were not properly
         accounted for;

     (3) there was underpayment by defendants of certain tax
         liabilities exceeding $4 million;

     (4) the Company's misstatements to its lenders resulted in
         $6.5 million in excess funding under the Company's loan
         arrangements; and

     (5) the Company was unable to determine its actual
         financial condition due to the lack of proper internal
         controls.

Because of the above activities, World Health had terminated its
outside auditor, Daszkal Bolton LLP, and CEO Richard E. McDonald
had resigned. The Company announced that it would be restating
its prior financial statements in light of the above
revelations, and investors were warned not to rely on the
information. The market reacted to this news and on August 19,
2005, the price of World Health common stock tumbled 86%,
trading as low as $.25 per share after closing at $1.85 per
share on August 18, 2005.

For more details, contact Jayne Arnold Goldstein of Mager &
Goldstein, LLP, 2825 University Drive, Suite 350 Coral Springs,
FL 33065, Phone: 954-341-0844 or 866-274-8258, Fax:
954-341-0855, E-mail: jgoldstein@mwg-law.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  * * *