CAR_Public/051010.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Monday, October 10, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 200

                         Headlines

ADJMI APPAREL: Recalls Pullover/Pant Sets Due to Choking Hazard
ALABAMA: Judge Sacks Racial Profiling Suit V. Alabaster Police
ANGELCITI ENTERTAINMENT: Faces CA Suit V. Online Gambling Ads
ANNTAYLOR RETAIL: To Seek Consolidation of CA Overtime Lawsuits
A.O. SMITH: Recalls Propane Gas Water Heaters Due to Fire Hazard

ARDENT HEALTH: Retail Pharmacies Launch Fraud Suit in NM Court
AXEDA SYSTEMS: PA Court Approves Securities Lawsuit Settlement
BEVERLY ENTERPRISES: Pays $18.9M to Settle Bradley, Saline Suits
BIG 5: Officers Face Shareholder Fraud, Derivative Litigation
CERNER CORPORATION: MO Appeals Court Upholds Dismissal Ruling

CHICO'S FAS: CA Court Preliminarily OKs Wardrobing Lawsuit Pact
CHICO'S FAS: Discovery Proceeds in Privacy Lawsuit in CA Court
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Lawsuit Seeks Warning Labels on Milk Sold
DYNEX CAPITAL: Shareholders File Stock Fraud Lawsuit in S.D. NY
FLOWERS FOODS: Receives $1.4M in High Fructose Corn Syrup Pact

GLS CAPITAL: PA Court Delays Certification Hearing For Tax Suit
GOODY'S FAMILY: Court Refuses Petition For Certiorari in Lawsuit
HOME PRODUCTS: IL Court Dismisses Lawsuit, Fees Ruling Appealed
ILLINOIS: Attorney General's Office Sues Over Illegal Dumping
IPALCO ENTERPRISES: IN Court Nixes ERISA Suit Summary Judgment

IPALCO ENTERPRISES: IN Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit
LEGACY HEALTH: OR Judge Certifies Uninsured Patients' Lawsuit
LIBERATE TECHNOLOGIES: Stockholder Launches Fiduciary Suit in DE
LOUISIANA: Attorney General Sues Campground For Price Gouging
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Workers Sue Over Minimum Wage Violations

MAY DEPARTMENT: Investor Fraud Suit Remanded To MO State Court
MEDIEVAL TIMES: Ex-"Knight" Sues For Worker' Compensation Claims
NEW YORK: Court Certifies Class in Natural Gas Commodity Lawsuit
NII-JII ENTERTAINMENT: Judge OKs Deal For Kenosha Casino Project
OM GROUP: OH Court Preliminarily Approves Securities Fraud Suit

RITE AID: SEC Settles Fraud Charges V. Former Company Attorney
SBARRO INC.: FL Consumers File Suit V. Bottled Water Sales Taxes
SIGHT RESOURCE: SEC Charges CFO, CEO with Securities Violations
SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS: Lawsuit Filed Over Transmission Tower Use
UNITED CURRENCY: SEC Obtains Final Judgments V. Adam Swickle

VERMONT TEDDY: Amended Complaint Filed in NY V. Proposed Merger
VIRBAC CORPORATION: Reaches Settlement For TX Securities Lawsuit
WAL-MART STORES: Recalls Candle Gift Sets For Fire, Burn Hazard


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Brodsky & Smith Files Securities Suit in OH
AMERIGROUP CORPORATION: Brian M. Felgoise Files Securities in VA
AMERIGROUP CORPORATION: Finkelstein Thompson Lodges Suit in VA
AMERIGROUP CORPORATION: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in VA
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Scott + Scott Lodges Securities Suit in MA

DANA CORPORATION: Brian M. Felgoise Lodges Securities Suit in OH
DANA CORPORATION: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Suit in OH
DANA CORPORATION: Goldman Scarlato Lodges Securities Suit in OH
SPECTRUM BRANDS: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in GA

                           *********

ADJMI APPAREL: Recalls Pullover/Pant Sets Due to Choking Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC), Adjmi Apparel Group, of New York, NY (Adjmi is an
authorized licensee of children's apparel products of Reebok, of
Canton, MA) is voluntarily recalling about 61,000 units of
Reebok Children's Fleece Quarter-Zip Pullover/Pant Sets.

According to the companies, the zipper slider and pull on the
fleece pullovers can detach, posing a choking hazard to young
children. Reebok has received two reports from consumers of
zipper sliders/pulls that have detached. No injuries have been
reported.

Only Reebok fleece pullover/pant sets with navy blue quarter-zip
zippers are being recalled. The fleece pullover/pant sets were
sold in navy blue/red and navy blue/pink in sizes up to
children's size 7. "Reebok" is printed across the front of the
pullover. The pullovers have a hood that can be folded under the
collar. Some of the recalled pullovers were sold with matching
mittens. The style numbers were printed on the store tag only
and end in: 1816, 2816, 3816, 1816N, 2816N, 1814, 2814, 4814,
and 5814.

Manufactured in Taiwan and China, the sets were sold exclusively
at Gordmans, Mervyns, JC Penney, Kohl's, The Bon, Fred Meyer,
Ross, DD's, Edisons, Macy's, AJ Wright, and Reebok Corporate
Headquarters retail store in Canton, Mass. from September 2004
through February 2005 for between $17 and $36.

Remedy: Consumers should immediately take the recalled product
away from young children and contact Adjmi to receive a
replacement product.

Consumer Contact: For more information or to receive
instructions on receiving a replacement product, contact Adjmi
at (800) 873-5570 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through
Friday, or visit http://www.Reebok.com.


ALABAMA: Judge Sacks Racial Profiling Suit V. Alabaster Police
--------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge dismissed a class action lawsuit that accused
the Alabaster Police Department of racial profiling, The
Associated Press reports.

City Administrator Tony Rivera told The Associated Press that a
city attorney had notified officials about the ruling. He
commented that the city "should be glad to not have it hanging
over our heads."

Filed by Alabaster resident Kevin Mixon three years ago, the
lawsuit accused police of harassing blacks and Hispanics solely
because of their race or ethnicity. The suit, which sought
millions of dollars in damages and injunctions against the city
and police department, was filed on behalf of all others who
contended they had been victims of racial profiling.

Previously, U.S. District Judge Sharon Blackburn dismissed some
of the lawsuit's claims though she did leave standing the claim
that the alleged racial profiling was a result of policy set by
Police Chief Stanley Oliver and ex-Chief Larry Rollan.  In an
order signed September 30, U.S. Magistrate Harwell G. Davis
dismissed that final remaining claim in the case, a day after
Mixon's lawyers and the city filed a joint stipulation of
dismissal.

The suit is styled, "Mixon v. City of Alabaster, et al, Case No.
2:02-cv-00407-HGD," filed in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama, under Judge Harwell G.
Davis III. Representing the Plaintiff/s are, Jason L. Wollitz,
P.O. Box 159, Pelham, AL 35124, Phone: 426-6770, Fax: 426-6207,
E-mail: jasonwollitz@hotmail.com; and Jason L. Yearout of
YEAROUT & TRAYLOR, 800 Shades Creek Parkway, Suite 500,
Birmingham, AL 35209, Phone: 414-8160, E-mail:
USCourts@yearout.net. Representing the Defendant/s is Natalie
Daugherty of PORTER PORTER & HASSINGER PC, 215 Richard Arrington
Jr. Boulevard North, Suite 1000, P.O. Box 128, Birmingham, AL
35201-0128, Phone: 205-322-1744, Fax: 205-322-1750.


ANGELCITI ENTERTAINMENT: Faces CA Suit V. Online Gambling Ads
-------------------------------------------------------------
Angelciti Entertainment faces a class action filed in the
Superior Court of the State of California, for accepting and
placing advertising for on-line gambling companies.  The suit
also names numerous other online content companies like Google,
Yahoo and Overture, as defendants.

The suit seeks relief based upon the fact that these companies
aided and abetted illegal activities under California law by
accepting advertising fees and otherwise promoting such
activities. The action is brought as a Private Attorney General
Action seeking disgorgement of the advertising fees earned by
such companies for the advertising, plus penalties.  The listed
plaintiffs included a gambler, who claims to have lost more than
$100,000, Indian Tribes of California, who claimed they lost
gambling revenues they would have otherwise earned, and the
State of California, that lost taxation and other revenues they
would have earned had such gambling activities occurred at the
Indian Gambling locations in the State of California.

The suit is styled "Mario Cisneros et al, v. Yahoo! Inc., et al,
case no. CGC-04-433518," filed in the California Superior Court
in San Francisco County, under Judge Richard A. Kramer.
Representing the plaintiffs are Kathrein R. Reed and Ira P.
Rothken.  


ANNTAYLOR RETAIL: To Seek Consolidation of CA Overtime Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
AnnTaylor Retail, Inc. to ask the California Superior Court for
Los Angeles County to consolidated two similar class actions
filed against it, alleging violations of the state's overtime
law.

On February 15, 2005, two former managers of the Company's
California stores filed a purported class action in Los Angeles
County Superior Court alleging that the Company misclassified
its store managers and assistant store managers as exempt from
California overtime wage and hour laws, thereby depriving them
of overtime pay.  On May 5, 2005, a second purported class
action was filed, although not yet served, against the Company
in San Francisco County Superior Court by a former manager of
one of the Company's stores in California alleging violations of
California labor laws with respect to overtime pay as well as
adequate meal and rest periods.

These actions are similar to numerous suits filed against
retailers and others with operations in California.  The class
members in both actions seek recovery in an unstated dollar
amount of unpaid wages, statutory penalties, attorneys' fees and
costs and injunctive relief.


A.O. SMITH: Recalls Propane Gas Water Heaters Due to Fire Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC), A.O. Smith Water Products Co., of Ashland City, TN is
voluntarily recalling about 5,000 units of 75-Gallon Propane Gas
Water Heaters.

According to the company, the water heaters can accumulate soot
on the burners, posing a fire hazard.

The recall involves 75-gallon propane gas water heaters. The
heaters have the name "A.O. Smith," "Reliance," "Apollo,"
"State," or "Maytag" on the side of the unit. The model number
is located on the rating plate. Only units with the model
numbers listed below and manufactured between January 2004 and
July 2005 are included in the recall.

Brand Name = Model Number
Reliance = 675CRRS, 675CRRSD, S7576PE
Apollo = A675CQRSL, A675CRRSL, A675CRRSLCGAD
A. O. Smith = BT-80-271, FCG-75-271, PCG-75-271
Maytag = HRP11275Q
State = GS675CRRS, GS675CRRSD, SBS7576PE, SBS7576PED,
SBS7576PECGA, SBS7576PECGAD

If your unit has one of the model numbers listed above, locate
the serial number on the rating plate to determine if it was
manufactured between January 2004 and July 2005. The serial
numbers of units manufactured between January 2004 and July 2005
are listed below.

Month/Date of Manufacture = Serial Number Begins With:
Jan-04 = MA04 or AA04 or A04
Feb-04 = MB04 or AB04 of B04
Mar-04 = MC04 or AC04 or C04
Apr-04 = MD04 or AD04 or D04
May-04 = ME04 or AE04 or E04
Jun-04 = MF04 or AF04 or F04
Jul-04 = G04
Aug-04 = H04
Sep-04 = J04
Oct-04 = K04
Nov-04 = L04
Dec-04 = M04
Jan-05 = A05
Feb-05 = B05
Mar-05 = C05
Apr-05 = D05
May-05 = E05
Jun-05 = F05
Jul-05 = G05

Manufactured in United States the water heaters were installed
by independent contractors and plumbers nationwide from January
2004 through July 2005 for between $460 and $1,130.

Remedy: Contact A. O. Smith to arrange for installation of free
repair.

Consumer Contact: Contact A.O. Smith toll-free at (866) 880-4661
between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. Monday through Friday or visit
http://www.hotwater.com.


ARDENT HEALTH: Retail Pharmacies Launch Fraud Suit in NM Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ardent Health Services, Inc. faces a class action lawsuit
whereby certain retail pharmacies that participate in the State
of New Mexico Medicaid program are seeking to recover alleged
underpayments of prescriptions and dispensing fees.

While the Company believes that the amount accrued at December
31, 2004 is adequate to provide for settlement of this matter,
the ultimate outcome of this lawsuit could have a material
effect on its business, financial condition or results of
operations, the Company stated in a regulatory filing.


AXEDA SYSTEMS: PA Court Approves Securities Lawsuit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania granted final approval to the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against Axeda
Systems, Inc. (formerly RAVISENT Technologies, Inc.) and certain
of its officers and directors in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, styled "In re
RAVISENT Technologies, Inc. Securities Litigation Civil Action
No. 00-CV-1014."

The suit was filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
common stock from July 15, 1999 through April 27, 2000.  This
complaint alleges violations of the federal securities laws,
specifically Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  

On July 3, 2000, the Company and the other defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the consolidated and amended class action
complaint.  On July 13, 2004, the Court denied the motion, and
the discovery stay was lifted. On September 24, 2004 the
defendants filed a stipulation with the court, suspending motion
and discovery deadlines pending negotiation of the settlement
documents.  On October 23, 2004, the parties through their
respective counsel executed a memorandum of understanding to
settle the class action for $7,000.  On December 15, 2004, the
parties filed with the Court a Stipulation and Agreement of
Settlement to settle the class action for $7,000. The Court
issued a Preliminary Approval Order on December 21, 2004.  A
fairness hearing was held on April 6, 2005.  On April 18, 2005,
the Court issued its Order and Final Judgment approving the
settlement.

The suit is styled "FINK v. WILDE, et al, 2:00-cv-01014-RBS,"
filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, under Judge R. Barclay Surrick.

Lawyers for the defendants are:

     (1) Alexander D. Bono, James Reynolds, BLANK ROME COMISKY &
         McCAULEY, LLP, One Logan Square, Philadelphia, PA
         19103-6998, Phone: 215-569-5617, Fax: 215-832-5617, E-
         mail: bono@blankrome.com or reynolds@blankrome.com,

     (2) Edward Han, Elizabeth E. Karnes, Holly H. Tambling,
         BROBECK, PHLEGER & HARRISON LLP, 2000 University
         Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94303 Phone: 650-331-8000

     (3) Meredith N. Landy, O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP, 2765 Sand
         Hill Road, Menlo Park, CA 94025, Phone: 650-473-2600

Lawyers for the plaintiffs are:

     (i) Marc Topaz, SCHIFFRIN AND CRAIG, Three Bala Plaza East,
         Suite 400, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, Phone: 610-667-7706,
         Fax: 610-667-7056

    (ii) Eric J. Belfi, MURRAY, FRANK & SAILER, LLP, 275 Madison
         Avenue, Suite 801, New York, NY 10016, Phone: 212-682-
         1818
  
   (iii) Bruce G. Murphy, 265 Llwyd's Lane, Vero Beach, FL
         32963, Phone: 561-231-4202

    (iv) Michael T. Fantini, BERGER AND MONTAGUE, P.C., 1622
         Locust St., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Phone: 215-875-
         0710, Fax: 215-875-5804

     (v) Robert P. Frutkin, Deborah R. Gross, Susan R. Gross,
         LAW OFFICES BERNARD M. GROSS PC, 1515 Locust St., 2nd
         Floor, Philadelphia, PA 19102, Phone: 215-561-3600,
         Fax: 215-561-3000, E-mail: rpf@bernardmgross.com or
         debbie@bernardmgross.com or susang@bernardmgross.com

    (vi) Robert M. Roseman, SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF, 1818
         Market St., Suite 2500, Philadelphia, PA 19103 by
         Phone: 215-496-0300, Fax: 215-496-6611, E-mail:
         rroseman@srk-law.com

   (vii) Stuart H. Savett, 1735 Market St., 3200 Mellon Bk Ctr.,
         Philadelphia, PA 19103-7503, Phone: 215-575-7279, Fax:
         215-575-7200


BEVERLY ENTERPRISES: Pays $18.9M to Settle Bradley, Saline Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Beverly Enterprises Inc. agreed to pay nearly $19 million to
settle two class action lawsuits after the company put up a $20
million bond because of a judge's frustrations with the
company's conduct, The Arkansas Democrat Gazette reports.

Plaintiffs' attorneys Jack Wagoner and Gene Ludwig, both of
Little Rock told The Arkansas Democrat Gazette that about 800
residents of Beverly's nursing homes in Bradley and Saline
counties would share in the $18.9 million settlement.  A hearing
will be held January 6, 2006 in Bradley County Circuit Court to
approve the settlement of the lawsuits in Saline and Bradley
counties.  According to plaintiffs' attorneys, a portion of the
settlement also will be returned to the government to cover
Medicare / Medicaid payments during the four-year period the
lawsuits cover.

Consolidated last month into one suit in Bradley County, the
suits allege wrongful care in two Beverly facilities over a
period that began in December 1998 and ended in June 2004.
In a press statement regarding the deal, Beverly said, "While we
are confident that Beverly ultimately would have prevailed in
these cases, the defense process would have taken years and cost
the company far more than the settlement amount. Given the sale
process in which Beverly is involved, we felt it was in
everyone's best interest to put these matters behind us and get
on with the business of providing care to our residents."

Saline County Circuit Judge Grisham Phillips ordered Beverly to
post a $20 million bond in July after he became frustrated with
the company. Judge Phillips threatened Beverly executives in
June with jail after he found the company in contempt for
failing to release e-mail messages and other electronic data.

Bradley County Circuit Judge Robert Bynum Gibson granted the
class action status and a default judgment against Beverly in
June after he said the company had practiced a shell game
throughout the discovery process. The company turned over a
partial list of former residents' names, while defendants were
able to find additional names by researching area obituary
announcements.

Beverly was ordered in both cases to pay a total of $58,525 in
attorney fees for failing to release information during the
discovery period, in which the defendant and plaintiff exchange
information relevant to the case. Beverly appealed the bond
order to the Arkansas Supreme Court, which denied the appeal and
ordered Beverly on August 8 to post the bond.

Fort Smith-based Beverly, the nation's No. 2 nursing home chain,
is being sold to an investor group called North American Senior
Care Inc.


BIG 5: Officers Face Shareholder Fraud, Derivative Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Big 5 Sporting Goods Corporation was served with a complaint,
entitled William Childers v. Sandra N. Bane, et al., Case No.
BC337945, which alleges breach of fiduciary duty, violation of
the Company's bylaws and unjust enrichment by certain executive
officers.

The complaint, which was filed in the California Superior Court
in the County of Los Angeles, was brought both as a purported
stockholder class action and as a purported derivative action on
behalf of the Company against all of the members of the
Company's board of directors and certain executive officers. It
alleges that the Company's directors breached their fiduciary
duties and violated the Company's bylaws by, among other things,
failing to hold an annual stockholders' meeting on a timely
basis and allegedly ignoring certain unspecified internal
control problems, and that certain executive officers were
unjustly enriched by their receipt of certain compensation
items.

The complaint seeks an order requiring that an annual meeting of
our stockholders be held, an award of unspecified damages in
favor of the Company and against the individual defendants and
an award of attorneys' fees.


CERNER CORPORATION: MO Appeals Court Upholds Dismissal Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court's decision
that dismissed a class action lawsuit against Cerner Corporation
as being too general, The Associated Press reports.

In 2003, a group of investors sued the Company, claiming the
Kansas City-based developer of medical records software used
conference calls and securities filings in the second half of
2002 and early 2003 to paint a misleadingly rosy picture of the
company's future and inflate its stock price.  In April of that
same year, Cerner officials announced that they expected lower
than estimated revenue and earnings, which caused stock share
prices to drop from $32.09 to $17.44 in one day.

U.S. District Judge Dean Whipple threw out the suit last summer.
The federal appeals court agreed with Judge Whipple's reasoning
that the plaintiffs didn't provide enough information on how the
company's statements were false and how corporate executives
personally benefited from those statements.


CHICO'S FAS: CA Court Preliminarily OKs Wardrobing Lawsuit Pact
---------------------------------------------------------------
The State of California, County of San Francisco granted
preliminary approval to the settlement of the class action filed
against Chico's FAS, Inc., styled "Charissa Villanueva v.
Chico's FAS, Inc.

The Complaint alleges that the Company, in violation of
California law, has in place a mandatory uniform policy that
requires its employees to purchase and wear Chico's clothing and
accessories as a condition of employment.  

It is the Company's position that no such mandatory uniform
policy exists. Although the Company believed it had strong
defenses to the allegations in this case, the Company agreed to
participate in a voluntary private mediation on November 10,
2004.  A settlement was reached at the mediation, and the
parties are in the process of preparing and finalizing the
settlement documents. The settlement must be approved by the
Court at both a preliminary and a final approval hearing before
it becomes final. On July 27, 2005, the Court gave its
preliminary approval to the settlement and, as a result, the
class members will be notified of the settlement and given the
opportunity to partake in or opt out of the settlement. The
settlement is still subject to the Court's final approval.


CHICO'S FAS: Discovery Proceeds in Privacy Lawsuit in CA Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in the putative class action suit filed
against Chico's FAS, Inc. in the Superior Court for the State of
California, County of Los Angeles, styled "Marie Nguyen v.
Chico's FAS, Inc."

The Complaint alleges that the Company, in violation of
California law, requested or required its customers to provide
personal information as part of a credit card transaction.  In a
SEC filing, the Company said that it believes "no contract,
express or implied, existed between the Company and the
plaintiff and that the Company did not engage in any fraudulent
Conduct."  The Company has filed an answer denying the material
allegations of the Complaint and the parties are now engaged in
the discovery process. Based on testimony and information that
has been obtained in the discovery process, the Company is
asserting certain counterclaims against the plaintiff. No trial
date has been set.


DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Lawsuit Seeks Warning Labels on Milk Sold
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ten Washington, D.C.-area residents launched a class action
lawsuit against milk suppliers and retailers, asking that
labels, which warn consumers of the effects of lactose
intolerance, be required on milk sold in the area, The
Associated Press reports.

In the suit, which is being financed by the Washington-based
Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, an advocate of a
vegan diet, the 10 plaintiffs claim that they have suffered
cramps, diarrhea and other gastrointestinal problems from
consuming milk.  Among the plaintiffs recruited by the
Physicians Committee are seven African-Americans, who tend to
have higher rates of lactose intolerance, which is the inability
to fully digest lactose, the sugar found in milk. Additionally,
the group also includes a 7-year-old African-American boy.  The
lawsuit names as defendants the Giant and Safeway supermarket
chains; Horizon Organic; Dean Foods; Nestle Holdings; Farmland
Dairies; Shenandoah's Pride; Stonyfield Farm; and Cloverland
Farms Dairy.

Milton Mills, a black physician who is lead plaintiff in the
suit, told The Associated Press, "Lactose intolerance is very
prevalent in persons of color. As a physician, I see people who
are dealing with conditions related to their inability to digest
lactose. They're led to believe they need to include dairy for
health benefits. That is not true."

Dr. Mills, 47, said that when he was in his early 20s, he got
sick every afternoon after consuming frozen yogurt. He thought
he might be seriously ill, until his mother told him he just had
a problem digesting milk.

Susan Ruland, vice president for communications at the
International Dairy Foods Association, ridiculed the suit,
saying, "It's just another attempt on the part of an animal
rights group to attack dairy and milk products." She also told
The Associated Press, "They're trying a new strategy of suing
people right and left. It's unfortunate to see that when it has
to do with an issue of nutrition."

Dr. Mills, who serves as the Physician Committee's associate
director of preventive medicine, told The Associated Press that
his focus has been exclusively on human health. He added,
"Obviously, I don't want to see people beat up animals, but
animal rights is not my motivation for being involved." Dr.
Mills also said he became a vegetarian at the age of 16 because
he was convinced that was a healthier way to eat.

Ms. Ruland acknowledged that minority groups have higher rates
of lactose intolerance, but she pointed out that often a person
could overcome the problem by gradually increasing dairy
consumption. She contends that it's a worthwhile goal, due to
the healthy ingredients found in milk such as calcium, protein
and Vitamin D.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of all people who buy milk in
Washington, D.C. It seeks a required label such as: "Warning -
If you experience diarrhea or stomach cramps after consuming
milk, you may be lactose intolerant. Check with your physician."
It also asks for no more than $100,000 in total damages for the
10 plaintiffs.


DYNEX CAPITAL: Shareholders File Stock Fraud Lawsuit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dynex Capital, Inc. asked the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York to dismiss the amended class
action filed against it, its subsidiary MERIT Securities
Corporation, Stephen J. Benedetti and Thomas H. Potts by the
Teamsters Local 445 Freight Division Pension Fund.  

The lawsuit purports to be a class action on behalf of
purchasers of MERIT Series 13 securitization financing bonds,
which are collateralized by manufactured housing loans.  The
allegations include federal securities laws violations in
connection with the issuance in August 1999 by MERIT Securities
Corporation of the Company's MERIT Series 13 bonds. The suit
also alleges fraud and negligent misrepresentations in
connection with MERIT Series 13.

On May 31, 2005, the Teamsters filed an amended class action
complaint. The amended complaint dropped all state common law
claims but added federal securities claims related to the MERIT
Series 12 securitization financing bonds. The Company filed a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint on July 15, 2005 to
which Teamsters filed a response with the District Court on
August 15, 2005.

The suit is styled "Teamsters Local 445 Freight Division Pension
Fund et al v. Dynex Capital, Inc. et al., case no. 1:05-cv-
01897-HB," filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, under Judge Harold Baer.  
Representing the Company are Monica Shelton Call, Eric Harrison
Feiler, Edward Joseph Fuhr, Terence James Rasmussen and Joseph
John Saltarelli of Hunton & Williams, LLP(Richmond VA), 951 east
Byrd Street, Richmond, VA 23219, Phone: (804)-788-8632, Fax:
(804)-788-8218, E-mail: trasmussen@hunton.com or
jsaltarelli@hunton.com.   Representing the plaintiffs are Joel
P. Laitman, Christopher Lometti and Samuel P. Sporn, Schoengold
& Sporn, P.C., 19 Fulton Street, Suite 406, New York, NY 10038,
Phone: 212-964-0046, Fax: 212-267-8137, E-mail:
chris@spornlaw.com.  


FLOWERS FOODS: Receives $1.4M in High Fructose Corn Syrup Pact
--------------------------------------------------------------
Flowers Foods, Inc. received approximately $1.4 million related
to the settlement of a class action lawsuit concerning price-
fixing in the sale of high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) purchased
by the Company during the years 1991 to 1995.

The suit, styled "In re: High Fructose Corn Syrup Antitrust
Litigation Master File No. 95-1477," filed in the United States
District Court for the Central District of Illinois," relates to
purchases of high fructose corn syrup made by the Company and
others.  About 20 corn syrup buyers initially filed the suit in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
Illinois against several corn processors, alleging that they
violated antitrust laws from 1988 to 1995 by conspiring to
artificially inflate the price of high fructose corn syrup.  
About 2,000 plaintiffs joined the suit, including Coca-Cola Co.,
PepsiCo Inc., Kraft Foods Inc. and Quaker Oats, an earlier Class
Action Reporter story (July 30,2004) states.

In July 2004, the parties in the suit forged a $531 million
settlement for the suit.  The settlement amount was allocated to
each class action recipient based on the proportion of its
purchases of high fructose corn syrup from these suppliers
during the period 1991 through 1995 to the total of such
purchases by all class action recipients.  

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

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

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

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


GLS CAPITAL: PA Court Delays Certification Hearing For Tax Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Class certification hearing for the lawsuit filed against GLS
Capital, Inc., and the County of Allegheny, Pennsylvania has
been delayed and is expected to be rescheduled.

Plaintiffs were two local businesses seeking status to represent
as a class, delinquent taxpayers in Allegheny County whose
delinquent tax liens had been assigned to the Company.
Plaintiffs challenged the right of Allegheny County and the
Company to collect certain interest, costs and expenses related
to delinquent property tax receivables in Allegheny County, and
whether the County had the right to assign the delinquent
property tax receivables to the Company and therefore employ
procedures for collection enjoyed by Allegheny County under
state statute.  This lawsuit was related to the purchase by the
Company of delinquent property tax receivables from Allegheny
County in 1997, 1998, and 1999.  

In July 2001, the Commonwealth Court issued a ruling that
addressed, among other things:

     (1) the right of the Company to charge to the delinquent
         taxpayer a rate of interest of 12% per annum versus 10%
         per annum on the collection of its delinquent property
         tax receivables,  

     (2) the charging of a full month's interest on a partial
         month's delinquency;  

     (3) the charging of attorney's fees to the delinquent
         taxpayer for the collection of such tax receivables,
         and

     (4) the charging to the delinquent taxpayer of certain
         other fees and costs.  

The Commonwealth Court in its opinion remanded for further
consideration to the lower trial court items (1), (2) and (4)
above, and ruled that neither Allegheny County nor the Company
had the right to charge attorney's fees to the delinquent
taxpayer related to the collection of such tax receivables.  The
Commonwealth Court further ruled that Allegheny County could
assign its rights in the delinquent property tax receivables to
the Company, and that plaintiffs could maintain equitable class
in the action.  

In October 2001, the Company, along with Allegheny County, filed
an Application for Extraordinary Jurisdiction with the Supreme
Court of Pennsylvania, Western District appealing certain
aspects of the Commonwealth Court's ruling. In March 2003, the
Supreme Court issued its opinion as follows:  

     (i) the Supreme Court determined that the Company can
         charge delinquent taxpayers a rate of 12% per annum;  

    (ii) the Supreme Court  remanded back to the lower trial
         court the charging of a full month's interest on a
         partial month's delinquency;  

   (iii) the Supreme Court revised the Commonwealth Court's  
         ruling regarding recouping attorney fees for collection
         of the receivables indicating that the recoupment of
         fees requires a judicial review of collection
         procedures used in each case; and

    (iv) the Supreme Court upheld the Commonwealth Court's
         ruling that GLS can charge certain fees and costs,
         while remanding back to the lower trial court for
         consideration the facts of each individual case.  

Finally, the Supreme Court remanded to the lower trial court to
determine if the remaining claims can be resolved as a class
action.  In August 2003, the Pennsylvania legislature enacted a
law amending and clarifying certain provisions of the
Pennsylvania statute governing GLS' right to the collection of
certain interest, costs and expenses. The law is retroactive to
1996, and amends and clarifies that as to items (ii)-(iv) noted
above by the Supreme Court, that the Company can charge a full
month's interest on a partial month's delinquency, that the
Company can charge the taxpayer for legal fees, and that it can
charge certain fees and costs to the taxpayer at redemption.
Subsequent to the enactment of the law, challenges to the
retroactivity provisions of the law were filed in separate
cases, which did not include the Company as a defendant.  

The lower trial court had set the hearing on the class-action
status for late April 2005, but the hearing was delayed until no
earlier than June 2005.  The lower trial court has again reset
the hearing on the class-action status until no earlier than
September 2005.


GOODY'S FAMILY: Court Refuses Petition For Certiorari in Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Supreme Court denied plaintiffs' petition for
writ of certiorari relating to the dismissal of a class action
filed against Goody's Family Clothing, Inc. and Robert M.
Goodfriend, its chairman of the board and chief executive
officer.

Twenty named plaintiffs filed the suit in February 1999,
generally alleging that the Company discriminated against a
class of African-American employees at its retail stores through
the use of discriminatory selection and compensation procedures
and by maintaining unequal terms and conditions of employment.  
The plaintiffs further alleged that the Company maintained a
racially hostile working environment.

On February 28, 2003, a proposed Consent Decree was filed with
the District Court for its preliminary approval. The proposed
Consent Decree sets forth the proposed settlement of the class
action race discrimination lawsuit. Ultimately, class action
certification was sought in the lawsuit only with respect to
alleged discrimination in promotion to management positions and
the proposed Consent Decree is limited to such claims.

Generally, the proposed settlement provides for a payment by the
Company in the aggregate amount of $3.2 million to the class
members (including the named plaintiffs) and their counsel, as
well as the Company's implementation of certain policies,
practices and procedures regarding, among other things, training
of employees. The Company's employer liability insurance
underwriter has funded $3.1 million of such payment to a third-
party administrator.  The proposed Consent Decree explicitly
provides that it is not an admission of liability by the Company
and the Company continues to deny all of the allegations.

On April 30, 2003, the District Court granted preliminary
approval of the proposed Consent Decree, and a hearing was held
on June 30, 2003, regarding the adequacy and fairness of the
proposed settlement. On March 3, 2004, the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Georgia issued an
Order granting final approval of the Consent Decree.

On February 23, 2004, a purported class member filed an appeal
with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit,
alleging, among other things, misconduct on the part of the
District Court and the plaintiff's/appellant's counsel; the
Eleventh Circuit dismissed this appeal on March 5, 2004. On
March 12, 2004, a Motion to set aside the dismissal was filed
with the Eleventh Circuit. On May 28, 2004, the Eleventh Circuit
dismissed all appeals regarding this matter. In August 2004, a
purported class member filed a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari
with the United States Supreme Court regarding the Eleventh
Circuit's dismissal of all appeals on this matter; on January
20, 2005, the United States Supreme Court denied the Petition
for a Writ of Certiorari.  Pursuant to the terms of the March 3,
2004 Order, the District Court will maintain jurisdiction of
this matter until July 2006 to monitor the parties' compliance
with the Consent Decree.


HOME PRODUCTS: IL Court Dismisses Lawsuit, Fees Ruling Appealed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the Chancery Division of the Circuit Court
of Cook County, Illinois' ruling denying their petition for
attorneys' fees in the suit filed against Home Products
International, Inc.  The Court also dismissed the suit, which
the plaintiffs did not appeal.

On June 2, 2004, the Company executed an Agreement and Plan of
Merger, by and between the Company and JRT Acquisition, as
amended by that certain First Amendment to the Agreement and
Plan of Merger, dated October 11, 2004.  Pursuant to the terms
of the JRT Agreement, JRT, an entity formed by James R. Tennant,
who at the time was the Company's Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer, to merge with and into the Company, and each
outstanding share of the Company's common stock was to be
exchanged for the right to receive $1.50 in cash.

The complaint purports to be filed by a stockholder and alleges
that in entering into the JRT Agreement, the Company's board of
directors breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty, due care,
independence, good faith and fair dealing.  The complaint, which
includes a request for a declaration that the action be
maintained as a class action, seeks, among other relief,
injunctive relief enjoining the transaction from being
consummated.

On May 5, 2005, the Illinois Circuit Court dismissed the suit,
declaring it moot.  The Circuit Court's May 5, 2005 Order also
denied plaintiffs petition for attorneys' fees. On June 2, 2005,
plaintiffs filed an appeal from the Circuit Court's denial of
their petition for attorneys' fees only.  Plaintiffs did not
appeal the portion of the May 5, 2005 Order that dismissed the
complaint. The appeal is pending in the Illinois Appellate Court
for the First District.

The suit is styled "Daniel Slattery v. Home Products
International, Inc., case no. 2004-CH-09064," filed in the
Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois under Judge David R.
Donnersberger.  Representing the plaintiffs is LASKY & RIFKIND
P.C., Mail: 351 W. Hubbard #406, Chicago IL 60610, Phone: (312)
634-0057.  Representing the Company is KATTEN MUCHIN ZAVIS
ROSEN, Mail: 525 W. Monroe # 1600, Chicago IL, 60661 Phone:
(312) 902-5200.


ILLINOIS: Attorney General's Office Sues Over Illegal Dumping
-------------------------------------------------------------
Attorney General Lisa Madigan's office filed a lawsuit against a
waste hauling company for allegedly dumping more than 300 loads
of waste material at an unpermitted landfill in Harvey. Ms.
Madigan's office already has taken action against the landfill's
owner and operator.

Ms. Madigan's lawsuit alleges that between December 2002 and May
2003, Premier Waste & Recycling, Inc., dumped 308 loads of waste
at an unlicensed landfill located at 15600 Commercial St., in
Harvey. The landfill, owned by Dresher, Inc., and operated by
Willie H. Carter, has never had the proper Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) permit for the treatment,
storage or disposal of waste.

Ms. Madigan's lawsuit , filed before the Illinois Pollution
Control Board (IPCB), charges Premier Waste & Recycling with
violations of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act for open
dumping of waste and waste disposal at an improper site.

"Waste hauling companies will not avoid prosecution for their
role in illegal dumping. While the owners and operators of
unlicensed dumping sites are prosecuted more frequently,
whenever it can be determined which waste hauling companies
illegally dumped debris, we also will seek to hold that company
responsible," Ms. Madigan said.

In June 2005, a court found that Carter violated the Illinois
Environmental Protection Act by operating an illegal waste
disposal business. The court also found that Dresher, Inc.,
allowed the illegal waste disposal business to operate on its
property. The court ordered Carter and Dresher, Inc., to clean
up the property. The unpermitted landfill, located only 500 feet
from a residential area, contained a pile of debris that was
roughly the size of a three-story building, approximately 30
feet high by 300 feet long by 200 feet wide.

Ms. Madigan's lawsuit asks the court to order Premier Waste &
Recycling to cease and desist from any future violations of the
Illinois environmental protection laws. The lawsuit also asks
the court to assess a civil penalty of $50,000 per violation and
additional penalties of $10,000 for each day of violation.
Assistant Attorney General Christopher Grant is handling the
case for Madigan's Environmental Bureau.

For more details, contact Melissa Merz, Phone: 312-814-3118 or
877-844-5461, E-mail: mmerz@atg.state.il.u.


IPALCO ENTERPRISES: IN Court Nixes ERISA Suit Summary Judgment
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Indiana denied both IPALCO Enterprises, Inc.'s and plaintiffs'
motion for summary judgment in the class action filed against
the Company and certain of its former officers and directors,
alleging violations of the Employment Retirement Income Security
Act (ERISA).

The suit makes allegations regarding matters arising from the
acquisition of the Company by AES Corporation. The suit, filed
in March 2002, alleges breach of fiduciary duties with respect
to shares held in the Company's subsidiary Indianapolis Power
and Light Co.'s (k) thrift plan. The Company filed a motion for
summary judgment suit in October 2003, as did the plaintiffs. On
August 11, 2005, an Order was entered denying both motions for
summary judgment. The Order indicates that the court will meet
with counsel in the near future to schedule a bench trial
addressed to the fiduciary duty issues.

The suit is styled "NELSON et al v. IPALCO ENTERPRISES, INC. et
al., case no. 1:02-cv-00477-DFH-TAB," filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, under Judge
David Frank Hamilton.  Representing the plaintiffs is Steve W.
Berman, John R. Price, Nicholas Styant-Browne, Andrew M. Volk,
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP, 1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900,
Seattle, WA 98101, Phone: (206) 623-7292, Fax: (206) 623-0594,
E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com, john@johnpricelaw.com,
nick@hagens-berman.com, andrew@hbsslaw.com.  


IPALCO ENTERPRISES: IN Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Indiana dismissed the consolidated securities class action filed
against IPALCO Enterprises, Inc. and certain of its former
officers.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of all persons who exchanged
their shares of IPALCO common stock for shares of AES common
stock.  The complaint alleged violations of Section 11 of the
Securities Act; Sections 10(b), 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act and Rules 10b-5 and 14a-9.

On November 17, 2004, the court entered an order dismissing the
claims against the former IPALCO officers and, on July 7, 2005,
dismissed all claims against all remaining defendants.  The
plaintiffs' right to file an appeal expired on August 8, 2005.

The suit is styled "STAFFORD et al v. BAKKE, case no. 1:02-cv-
01132-LJM-WTL," filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Indiana, under Judge Larry J. McKinney.  
Representing the plaintiffs is Richard E. Shevitz, COHEN & MALAD
LLP, One Indiana Square, Suite 1400, Indianapolis, IN 46204,
Phone: (317) 636-6481, Fax: (317) 636-2593, E-mail:
rshevitz@cohenandmalad.com.  Representing the Company are James
H. Ham, III and Paul A. Wolfla, BAKER & DANIELS, 300 North
Meridian Street, Suite 2700, Indianapolis, IN 46204, Phone:
(317) 237-1256, Fax: (317) 237-1000, E-mail: jhham@bakerd.com or
paul.wolfla@bakerd.com.  


LEGACY HEALTH: OR Judge Certifies Uninsured Patients' Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Court Judge Richard Baldwin certified a class action
lawsuit filed on behalf of thousands of uninsured patients of
Legacy Health System ("Legacy").

The lawsuit accuses Legacy of consistently overcharging its
poorest and most vulnerable patients -- the uninsured -- by
billing them the highest rates without their knowledge. These
prices far exceed the amounts that Legacy requires its insured
patients to pay for the same exact services.  Filed in Multnomah
County Circuit Court of Oregon, the suit is part of nationwide
litigation against nonprofit hospitals for price gouging and
price discrimination against the uninsured commenced by Richard
Scruggs and attorneys around the country in June 2004.

John Phillips, the lead attorney for the plaintiffs, responded
to Judge Baldwin's ruling by stating, "We are gratified that
Judge Baldwin recognized that class certification is appropriate
in this case. We will continue to vigorously pursue this lawsuit
in order to obtain justice for thousands of uninsured Legacy
patients whom we contend Legacy unfairly overcharged and are
owed refunds or reductions in their bills."

Legacy is one of the two largest non-profit healthcare systems
in Oregon. The defendant hospitals in the case are Legacy Good
Samaritan Hospital and Legacy Emanuel Hospital in Portland and
Legacy Mount Hood Medical Center in Gresham.

The attorneys representing the plaintiffs are John Phillips and
Matthew Geyman of Phillips Law Group, PLLC in Seattle,
Washington, (206) 484-0016 and (206) 382-1168; Michael Williams
and Brian Campf of Williams Love O'Leary Craine & Powers, P.C.
in Portland, Oregon, (503) 849-9899; and Richard Scruggs and Sid
Backstrom of the Scruggs Law Firm, P.A. in Oxford, Mississippi,
(662) 281-1212.

For more details, visit http://www.nfplitigation.com.

LIBERATE TECHNOLOGIES: Stockholder Launches Fiduciary Suit in DE
----------------------------------------------------------------
Leslie J. Lee, a Liberate Technologies stockholder launched a
class action complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware, alleging that the Company and certain officers and
directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with a
1-for-250,000 reverse stock split proposed by Liberate.

Ms. Lee purports to bring the action individually and on behalf
of a putative class of all stockholders owning fewer than
250,000 shares of Liberate common stock.

Filed on September 19, 2005, the complaint seeks preliminary and
permanent injunctive relief against the Stock Split, declaratory
relief, rescission of the Stock Split, rescissory and/or
compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and expenses.

Additionally, on the day she filed the suit, Ms. Lee also filed
a motion for expedited proceedings and a motion for preliminary
injunction.


LOUISIANA: Attorney General Sues Campground For Price Gouging
-------------------------------------------------------------
Attorney General Charles C. Foti, Jr. stated that his office
initiated a lawsuit against Natalbany Creek Campground in Amite,
Louisiana.

The campground allegedly increased its daily rates and then
tripled the price for campsites during the states of emergency
and disaster, which is a direct violation of the Price Gouging
Statute, La. R.S. 29:732. The company also allegedly eliminated
the policy of renting campsites by the day and had police escort
evacuees off the property for not paying the inflated new
prices.

"I have said in the past I will aggressively pursue those who
try to take advantage of citizens who are hit hardest by the
hurricane disasters and I meant what I said. Price gouging will
not be tolerated in Louisiana," stated Attorney General Foti.

The campground is located at 30218 Highway 16 West in Amite,
Louisiana. A number of evacuees from Hurricane Katrina were
staying at the campground and RV park on September 12, 2005,
when the owners allegedly decided to eliminate daily rates and
rent only on a monthly basis at a rate of $900 per month plus
hotel and sales taxes.

"By evicting desperate evacuees and by continuing to demand
unjustifiably high prices, when such consumers have little to no
alternatives, these people are in violation of the spirit of
Executive Order KBB05-24, entitled Emergency Occupation of Hotel
and Motel Rooms," added Attorney General Foti.

There are both criminal and civil penalties for violations of
the price gouging statute. A civil court may order a civil fine
of $500 for each violation and restitution for the consumer. A
criminal court may order a $500 fine for each violation or six
months in jail.

For more information, contact the Public Information Department
at (225) 326-6780.


MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Workers Sue Over Minimum Wage Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Four hotel workers initiated a lawsuit seeking class action
status in San Francisco Superior Court against Marriott
International Inc. for allegedly failing to comply with the
city's minimum wage law, The Bay City News reports.

The suit, which is the third to be filed in San Francisco,
accuses the world's largest hotel operator of a "steadfast,
systemic refusal" to pay the city's minimum wage, now at $8.62
per hour, and also of failing to post required notices
announcing the minimum.

In another of the lawsuits, three present and former sales
executives who are in their early 60s sued the hotel chain in
federal court in the city for age discrimination. The suit was
an amended version of a complaint filed last year in state
court.  The other lawsuit against Marriott was by two golfers
who use wheelchairs. They had sued Marriott in federal court in
San Francisco in a bid to require the company to provide
accessible golf carts at the 80 golf courses it manages
nationwide.

Joseph Aubrey and Pamfilo Apostol of San Francisco, and
Francisco Serrano and Svitlana Yakushenko of San Mateo County
filed the minimum wage lawsuit. All are present or former room
service and catering servers at the Marriott Courtyard San
Francisco Downtown, at 299 Second St.

The workers allege that they were paid between $7.67 and $7.92
per year in 2004, when the city's minimum wage was $8.50, and
between $7.92 and $8.23 this year, when the minimum wage rose to
$8.62.  The suit seeks to be certified as a class action on
behalf of all workers who did not receive the minimum wage and
did not work under a collective bargaining agreement that
expressly waived the minimum wage.  In addition, the suit asks
for an injunction that will require the hotel chain to pay the
minimum wage, and an award of back pay and punitive damages for
the workers.

The city's minimum wage law, which placed the minimum above the
state and federal standards, was passed by San Francisco voters
in November 2003 and went into effect in February 2004.  Court
records show that Marriott representatives told the workers last
year that their hourly wages were being negotiated by a labor
union, Unite Here Local 2, and were not subject to the city's
minimum wage law.  However, the suit argues Marriott and Local 2
have never signed a collective bargaining agreement for the
Marriott Courtyard.

On the subject of the federal age discrimination lawsuit,
Marriott spokesman John Wolf noted that the case was originally
filed in state court a year ago and told The Bay City News,
"It's ongoing and we believe it has no merit."

Another company spokesman, Tom Marder, told The Bay City News
that though he could not comment specifically on the golfers'
lawsuit he said, "As a matter of policy and practice, we strive
to comply with all laws and regulations governing accessibility
to public accommodations."

The Washington, D.C.-based Company manages 2,700 hotels and
lodgings in 66 counties and had revenue of $10 billion last
year.


MAY DEPARTMENT: Investor Fraud Suit Remanded To MO State Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri remanded the shareholder class action filed against May
Department Stores Co. to the Circuit Court of St. Louis,
Missouri.

On March 1, 2005, Edward Decristofaro, an alleged Company
shareowner, filed a purported class action lawsuit on behalf of
all Company shareowners in the Circuit Court of St. Louis,
Missouri, against the Company and all of the members of its
board of directors.  The complaint generally alleges that the
directors of the Company breached their fiduciary duties of
loyalty, due care, good faith and candor to Company shareowners
in connection with the proposed merger.  

On April 1, 2005, the defendants removed the lawsuit to the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri and filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit pursuant to
the Securities Litigation Standards Act of 1998.  On April 22,
2005, the plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the lawsuit to the
Circuit Court of St. Louis, Missouri and opposition to the
defendants' motion to dismiss.  On June 28, 2005, plaintiffs'
motion to remand the lawsuit back to the Circuit Court of St.
Louis, Missouri was granted.  

The suit is styled "Decristofaro v. May Department Stores
Company, The et al., case no. 4:05-cv-00526-DJS," filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri, under Judge Donald J. Stohr.  Representing the
plaintiffs are Stuart A. Davidson and Jonathan M. Stein of
LERACH AND COUGHLIN, 197 S. Federal Highway, Suite 200, Boca
Raton, FL 33432, Phone: 561-750-3000, Fax: 561-750-3364, E-mail:
sdavidson@lerachlaw.com or jstein@lerachlaw.com; and James J.
Rosemergy of DAVID DANIS LAW FIRM, P.C., 8235 Forsyth Suite
1100, St. Louis, MO 63105, Phone: 314-725-7700, Fax:
314-721-0905, E-mail: jrosemergy@careydanis.com.  Representing
the Company are Samuel Kadet and Peter Morrison of SKADDEN AND
ARPS, Four Times Square, New York, NY 10036-6522, Phone:
212-735-2570, Fax: 917-777-2570, E-mail: skadet@skadden.com or
pmorriso@skadden.com; and Thomas C. Walsh of BRYAN CAVE LLP, 211
N. Broadway, Suite 3600, St. Louis, MO 63102-2750, Phone:
314-259-2000 Fax: 314-259-2020 or E-mail: tcwalsh@bryancave.com.


MEDIEVAL TIMES: Ex-"Knight" Sues For Worker' Compensation Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
A former employee performing as a jousting "knight" at a
Medieval Times dinner theater in Illinois initiated a federal
class action lawsuit, alleging that he was discriminated against
for filing and receiving workers' compensation benefits, The
Chicago Tribune reports.

In his lawsuit, Garrett Bonham, 29, seeks more than $75,000 for
injuries sustained in his ten years of employment as a
performing knight at the Schaumburg, Illinois branch of Medieval
Times. Though filed as a class action lawsuit on behalf of other
former employees, the suit has yet to be certified.

Mr. Bonham alleges that Medieval Times managers circulated a
memo in April 2003 indicating the company's concern with the
increasing cost of workers' compensation claims. In addition, he
also alleges that managers threatened employees with firing if
they filed such claims. He stated in his suit that he received
workers' compensation settlements for previous injuries.

Court records show that when performing as knights, the
plaintiff wore armor costumes of cotton and polyester and used
real swords and lances in their jousting competitions. In his
suit, Mr. Bonham alleges that he was "required to engage in
dangerous activities such as physical battles, jousting matches,
and riding horses in an enclosed space at full gallop speeds of
up to 35 miles per hour."

Medieval Times operates eight dinner theaters throughout the
U.S. and Canada.

The suit is styled, "Bonham v. Medieval Knights, LLC, Case No.
1:05-cv-05566," filed in the United States District Court for
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, under Judge James F. Holderman. Representing the
Plaintiff is Ted A. Donner of Donner & Co. Law Offices, LLC,
1131 Wheaton Oaks Court, Wheaton, IL 60187, Phone: 630-588-7131,
E-mail: tdonner@donnerco.com.


NEW YORK: Court Certifies Class in Natural Gas Commodity Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff, LLP, reports that the Court in In re
Natural Gas Commodity Litigation, File No. 03-CV-6186, in the
Southern District of New York, issued a decision certifying a
class of futures traders who were harmed by defendants'
manipulation of the price of natural gas futures contracts
traded on the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) from January
1, 2000 to December 31, 2002. Labaton Sucharow is co-lead
counsel for plaintiffs in this action. Potential class members
will receive notice of their rights through a notice program to
be approved by the Court.

Plaintiffs allege that over twenty defendants, among them the
largest energy companies in the United States, including El Paso
Merchant Energy L.P., Reliant Energy Services Inc., AEP Energy
Services, Inc., Aquila Energy Marketing Corp., Dynegy Marketing
and Trade, CMS, Coral Energy Resources, LP, Williams Companies,
Inc., and E-Prime, Inc., manipulated the price of natural gas by
engaging in false reports of the price and volume of their
trades to sources that publish indices of natural gas prices,
which caused damages to futures traders and others, who rely on
the indices for accurate information about the market. In
addition, Plaintiffs allege that several of these defendants
engaged in wash trading, churning, and other market gaming
strategies, which created the illusion of false liquidity in the
market, and further manipulated the price of natural gas.

Judge Victor Marrero of the Southern District of New York had
previously issued a decision denying defendants' motions to
dismiss the action. In its class certification decision, the
Court concluded that Plaintiffs had satisfied the requirements
for class certification, including the provision of a
methodology for proving damages to Plaintiffs and the class. The
court's certification of a class for a three-year period is
unprecedented in the history of commodity manipulation class
actions.

Plaintiffs continue to actively litigate their damages claims
through discovery. This decision significantly improves the
prospects for obtaining a substantial monetary recovery for
those injured by defendants' alleged manipulation of the natural
gas futures market.

For more details, contact Bernard Persky of Labaton Sucharow &
Rudoff, LLP, Phone: (212) 907-0868, E-mail: bpersky@labaton.com.


NII-JII ENTERTAINMENT: Judge OKs Deal For Kenosha Casino Project
----------------------------------------------------------------
Investors in a company that planned to develop a casino at
Dairyland Greyhound Park in Kenosha, Wisconsin will recover
losses under a $7.75 million settlement approved by a judge,
according to a lawyer for the plaintiffs, The Janesville Gazette
reports.

Racine County Circuit Judge Gerald Ptacek recently approved the
settlement, which both parties in the case had reached the last
September 13.

Attorney George Kersten told The Janesville Gazette that the
settlement of the class action suit against NII-JII
Entertainment LLC would provide funds for a group of about 60
individuals and other entities to recoup their principal
investment costs.

Filed in 2001, the suit was an attempt by investors to recover
losses from investing in NII-JII, which was formed in the late
1990s for the proposed project to develop a casino for the
Menominee tribe at Dairyland. The proposal never won government
approval and was withdrawn in 2001.

Last May, a jury awarded about $242 million in damages to the
plaintiffs and to NII-JII in a finding against NII-JII
principals and defendants Robert Boyle, Morgan Murphy Jr. and
Morgan Murphy III, all of Chicago. In that verdict the jury
found the Murphys and Mr. Boyle concealed links of Morgan Murphy
Jr. to two convicted Chicago crime figures.

The defendants had indicated that if Judge Ptacek did not
approve the settlement before October 17, the date the new
federal bankruptcy code goes into effect, they would file for
bankruptcy, jeopardizing the ability of plaintiffs to receive
compensation.

Retired state Appeals Judge Gordon Myse served as mediator for
the settlement talks. He told Janesville Gazette that the
mediation was "difficult, contentious and protracted."

Upon approving the settlement, Judge Ptacek congratulated
attorneys on both sides for resolving the dispute. He noted, "If
there is complex litigation, by all means this is it."


OM GROUP: OH Court Preliminarily Approves Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Ohio, Eastern Division granted preliminary approval to the
settlement for the consolidated securities class action filed
against OM Group, Inc.

In November 2002, the Company received notice that two
shareholder class action lawsuits, styled "Sheth v. OM Group,
Inc., et al., case no. 1:02CV2163, and "Rischitelli v. OM Group,
Inc., et al., case No. 1:02CV2189," were filed against the
Company related to a decline in the Company's stock price after
its third quarter 2002 earnings announcement.  The lawsuits
allege virtually identical claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5
against the Company, its former Chief Executive Officer and
Chairman, its former Chief Financial Officer and the members of
the Board of Directors. Plaintiffs seek damages in an
unspecified amount to compensate persons who purchased the
Company's stock at various dates between November 2001 and
October 2002 at allegedly inflated market prices.  In July 2004,
these class action lawsuits were amended to include 1999 through
2001 and to add the Company's independent auditors, Ernst &
Young LLP, as a defendant.  

In November 2002, the Company also received notice that
shareholder derivative lawsuit, styled "Cropper, et al. v. Lee
R. Brodeur, et al. case No. 1-03-0021," was filed in the same
court against the members of the Company's Board of Directors.
Derivative plaintiffs allege the directors breached their
fiduciary duties to the Company in connection with a decline in
the Company's stock price after its third quarter 2002 earnings
announcement by failing to institute sufficient financial
controls to ensure that the Company and its employees complied
with generally accepted accounting principles by writing down
the value of the Company's cobalt inventory on or before
December 31, 2001.  Derivative plaintiffs seek a number of
changes to the Company's accounting, financial and management
structures and unspecified damages from the directors to
compensate the Company for costs incurred in, among other
things, defending the aforementioned securities lawsuits.  In
July 2004, the derivative plaintiffs amended these lawsuits to
include conduct allegedly related to the Company's decision to
restate its earnings for the period 1999-2003.

The Company has been engaged in mediation sessions with the
plaintiffs regarding the shareholder class action and
shareholder derivative lawsuits. The Company anticipates these
lawsuits will be resolved during 2005. The Company and the lead
plaintiff of the shareholder class action lawsuits have entered
into an "Agreement to Settle Class Action" (Agreement) dated
March 7, 2005, which is an agreement in principle that outlines
the general terms of a proposed settlement of these lawsuits
subject to the satisfaction of various conditions and execution
of a definitive agreement.

Based on the Agreement and the Company's consideration of the
shareholder derivative lawsuits described above, the Company has
reserved $84.5 million at December 31, 2003 for the settlement
of these cases, which is proposed to be payable $76.0 million in
cash and $8.5 million in common stock. Insurance proceeds are
expected to be available for contribution to the resolution of
the cases but the Company does not expect these lawsuits to be
resolved within the limits of applicable insurance.  

The Company and lead plaintiff of these lawsuits have entered
into a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated June 6,
2005, which Agreement was preliminary approved on June 24, 2005
by the United States District Court hearing the case. The
settlement is to be payable $74 million in cash and $8.5 million
in common stock of the Company.

The consolidated suit is styled "In Re: OM Group Inc. Securities
Litigation, case no. 02-CV-02163," filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, under Judge
Donald C. Nugent.  Representing the plaintiffs are Bernstein
Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP (New York, NY), 1285 Avenue of
the Americas, 33rd Floor, New York, NY, 10019 Phone:
212.554.1400, Fax: 212.554.1444, E-mail: blbg@blbglaw.com; and
Climaco, Lefkowitz, Peca, Wilcox & Garofoli Co. L.P.A.,
Cleveland, OH, Phone: 216.621.8484, E-mail:
cmjani@climacolaw.com.


RITE AID: SEC Settles Fraud Charges V. Former Company Attorney
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission reached a settlement with
Franklin C. Brown, the former chief legal officer of Rite Aid
Corporation, the nationwide drugstore chain based in Harrisburg,
Pennsylvania.

On June 21, 2002, the Commission filed accounting fraud charges
in federal district court in the Middle District of Pennsylvania
against Mr. Brown, Martin L. Grass, Rite Aid's former CEO and
Frank M. Bergonzi, Rite Aid's former CFO.  On September 30,
2005, the Hon. Sylvia H. Rambo signed a final judgment against
Mr. Brown, to which Mr. Brown consented without admitting or
denying the allegations in the Commission's complaint.  

The Commission's case had been stayed pending the outcome of
related criminal actions filed by the United States Attorney for
the Middle District of Pennsylvania against Mr. Brown and
others. In October 2003, Brown was convicted in the related
criminal proceedings for his conduct at Rite Aid.  In October
2004, Mr. Brown was sentenced to ten years in prison and ordered
to pay a $20,000 fine.
     
In its civil action, the Commission alleged that Mr. Brown, Mr.
Grass and Mr. Bergonzi conducted a wide-ranging accounting fraud
scheme that resulted in the significant inflation of Rite Aid's
net income in every quarter from May 1997 to May 1999.  The
Commission also charged Mr. Brown and Mr. Grass with concealing
certain related party transactions that enriched Mr. Grass at
shareholder expense, and it charged Mr. Grass with fabricating
Board committee minutes in order to support a false statement he
made in connection with obtaining a loan critical to keeping
Rite Aid in business.  After the discovery of improper and
unsubstantiated accounting transactions, in July and October
2000 Rite Aid restated cumulative pretax income by a massive
$2.3 billion dollars and cumulative net income by $1.6 billion
dollars.  Rite Aid's restatement was, at the time, the largest
financial restatement ever by a public company.  The
Commission's subsequent investigation into the reasons for the
restatement culminated in its charges against Brown and his
fellow executives.
     
The final judgment bars Mr. Brown from acting as an officer or
director of a public company.  In addition, Mr. Brown is
permanently enjoined from future violations of the antifraud,
reporting, books and records, internal controls, proxy, and
other provisions of the Securities Act of 1933 and the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, specifically Section 17(a) of
the Securities Act, Sections 10(b) and 13(b)(5) of the Exchange
Act, and Rules 10b-5, 13b2-1, and 13b2-2 thereunder, and, as a
controlling person pursuant to Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act, Sections 13(a), 13(b)(2), and 14(a) of the Exchange Act and
Rules 12b-20, 13a-1, 13a-11, and 14a-9(a).  The judgment further
provides that the Commission's claim for disgorgement of ill-
gotten gains and prejudgment interest will be waived due to
Brown's inability to pay, and that no civil penalty will be
imposed in view of Brown's personal financial condition. The
suit is styled, SEC v. Frank M. Bergonzi, Martin L. Grass, and
Franklin C. Brown, No. 1:CV02-1084, M.D.Pa. (LR-19409).


SBARRO INC.: FL Consumers File Suit V. Bottled Water Sales Taxes
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sbarro, Inc. and over 100 other defendants face two separate
purported class actions alleging virtually identical claims, one
action was filed in the Circuit Court of the State of Florida in
Hillsbury County and the other action was filed in United States
District Court for the Middle District of Florida.  

All of the other named defendants are well-recognized quick
service and/or casual dining entities.  The suits allege that
defendants violated various Florida State and Federal Statutes
by charging sales tax on the retail sales of natural bottled
waters.  


SIGHT RESOURCE: SEC Charges CFO, CEO with Securities Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission instituted settled
administrative and cease-and-desist proceedings against the
former CFO, Duane Kimble, and former CEO, Carene Kunkler, of
Sight Resource Corporation, a Cincinnati, Ohio-based distributor
and retailer of eyewear. In its order, the SEC found that Mr.
Kimble and Ms. Kunkler violated, directly or indirectly, certain
reporting, record keeping, and internal controls provisions of
the federal securities laws, and Mr. Kimble engaged in
securities fraud.  In a settled civil action filed in United
States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, the SEC
is seeking civil penalties against Mr. Kimble and Ms. Kunkler.
     
According to the SEC, during Sight Resource's 2002 fiscal year,
Kimble made, and directed other Sight Resource accounting
personnel to make, journal entries with inadequate
documentation.  The entries had the effect of improving the
appearance of the company's financial condition. The entries,
coupled with other accounting errors, also permitted, on two
occasions, Sight Resource to satisfy its bank loan debt
covenants, which prescribed, on a quarterly basis, a maximum
allowable net loss. If Sight Resource had breached its debt
covenants, it could have been charged penalties and possibly a
higher interest rate by the lender.
     
The SEC's order also found that on March 28, 2003, and April 14,
2003, Sight Resource filed Forms 12b-25 and 8-K that gave false
and misleading explanations of why Sight Resource was unable to
file its 2002 Form 10-K on time. The Forms 12b-25 and 8-K were
reviewed prior to filing by Mr. Kimble and Ms. Kunkler, and
signed by Kimble.  Moreover, according to the SEC, Mr. Kimble
and Ms. Kunkler failed to establish adequate internal controls
at Sight Resource and, on November 18, 2002, filed false and
misleading Sarbanes-Oxley Act certifications relating to the
company's disclosure controls.
     
Without admitting or denying the findings in the SEC's order, or
the allegations in the SEC's complaint, Mr. Kimble and Ms.
Kunkler have agreed to cease and desist from committing or
causing violations of Section 13(b)(5) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 13a-14 thereunder, and from
causing violations of Sections 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A), and
13(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act and Rules 12b-20, 12b-25, 13a-11
and 13a-13 thereunder. They have also consented to pay civil
money penalties.

Furthermore, Mr. Kimble has agreed to cease and desist from
committing or causing violations of Section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act and Rules 10b-5, 13b2-1, and 13b2-2 thereunder; and
consented to the institution of proceedings, under Rule   
102(e)(1)(iii) of the Commission's Rules of Practice, based on
his willful violations of the federal securities laws, denying
him the privilege of appearing or practicing before the
Commission as an accountant, with the right to apply for
reinstatement in three years.  


SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS: Lawsuit Filed Over Transmission Tower Use
----------------------------------------------------------------
The newly launched commercial and consumer litigation department
of the law Williams Bailey Law Firm, L.L.P., which will focus on
contract disputes, business torts and consumer class actions,
initiated a class action lawsuit against Sprint Communications
Company L.P. on behalf of thousands of landowners in Texas.

Filed in federal district court in Kansas, the worldwide
headquarters for Sprint, the suit contends that easement laws
permit electricity providers to build transmissions towers on
private property exclusively for the transmission of electrical
power. However, without the consent of property owners, Sprint
has used these existing towers to erect their own cellular phone
antennae.

"The law is very clear: the easement extends only to the
transmission and distribution of electricity," said Armi
Easterby, Williams Bailey attorney and leader of the new
department. "Sprint signed a deal with Texas energy companies
without permission from landowners. We plan to vindicate the
property rights of all affected Texans in this matter."

The suit is styled, "Gates v. Sprint Communications Company,
L.P. et al, Case No. 2:05-cv-02340-CM-JPO," filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Kansas, under Judge
Carlos Murguia. Representing the Plaintiff/s are:

     (1) Harry G. Potter, III of Williams Bailey, LLP -- Austin,
         1717 W. 6th Street, Suite 430, Austin, TX 78703-4778,
         Phone: 512-320-8181, Fax: 512-320-0437 (fax), E-mail:
         hpotter@abanet.org;

     (2) E. Armistead Easterby or G. Erick Rosemond of Williams
         Bailey, LLP -- Houston, 8441 Gulf Freeway, Suite 600,
         Houston, TX 77017-5051, Phone: 713-230-2200, Fax: 713-
         643-6226, E-mail: aeasterby@williamsbailey.com or
         erosemond@williamsbailey.com; and

     (3) Charles F. Speer of Speer Law Firm, 104 W. 9th, Ste.
         305, Kansas City, MO 64105, Phone: 816-472-3650, Fax:
         816-421-2150, E-mail: cspeer@speerlawfirm.com.


UNITED CURRENCY: SEC Obtains Final Judgments V. Adam Swickle
------------------------------------------------------------
On September 23, 2005, and August 3, 2005, the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York entered
final judgments by default against United Currency Group, Inc.
(UCG) and Adam Swickle. The final judgments permanently enjoin
the defendants from violating Section 17(a) of the Securities
Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.  In addition, the final
judgment entered against Mr. Swickle orders him to pay
disgorgement of $483,989 plus prejudgment interest of
$107,841.84, and imposes a civil monetary penalty of $120,000.

The Commission's complaint alleged that defendants Mr. Swickle
and UCG conducted a fraudulent offering of UCG securities.  
Specifically, beginning in May 2001 and continuing through
December 2002, Mr. Swickle solicited investments in UCG through
an unregistered offering of securities.  In connection with the
offering, Mr. Swickle circulated private placement memoranda to
prospective investors that contained material
misrepresentations, and omitted material facts, about the
identity of UCG's officers and directors, Mr. Swickle's
background, and UCG's and Mr. Swickle's use of corporate funds.  
In addition, Mr. Swickle made oral misrepresentations to
potential investors about UCG's plans to conduct an initial
public offering and about the price levels that UCG stock would
achieve once it became publicly traded.

Defendant UCG failed to respond to the Commission's complaint,
and defendant Mr. Swickle failed to defend the action.  
Accordingly, the Commission sought the entry of the final
judgments against the defendants based on their defaults.  See
LR-18471. The action is styled, SEC v. United Currency Group,
Inc. et al., 03 CV 9161, S.D.N.Y. (LR-19411).


VERMONT TEDDY: Amended Complaint Filed in NY V. Proposed Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholders of The Vermont Teddy Bear Co., Inc. (TVBC) filed an
amended and consolidated class action complaint in the in the
Commercial Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New
York, County of Nassau that challenges that proposed merger
transaction with Hibernation Holding Company, Inc., a Delaware
corporation, and Hibernation Company, Inc., a Delaware
corporation and wholly-owned subsidiary of Hibernation Holding
Company, Inc.

On June 14, 2005, VTBC was served with a summons and complaint
in each of two separate legal actions commenced in the Supreme
Court of the State of New York, County of Nassau, one is an
action brought by Keith Griffin of Long Island, New York, which
was filed on June 3, 2005 and the other is an action brought by
Robert Totero of Sun City Center, Florida, which was filed June
8, 2005.

By a court order entered on September 7, 2005, the actions were
consolidated. The court order stated that an amended and
consolidated class action complaint be filed and served as soon
as practicable after consolidation.

Thus, the plaintiffs filed the amended and consolidated class
action complaint on September 19, 2005, which alleges that the
named plaintiffs are shareholders of VTBC, who are suing on
behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated parties.

The amended complaint seeks to challenge the proposed merger
transaction reported by VTBC in its Current Report on Form 8-K
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on May
17, 2005 and as described in VTBC's definitive Proxy Statement
on Form 14A filed with the SEC on September 2, 2005. It names as
defendants VTBC and each individual member of VTBC's board of
directors, as well as the Buyer and affiliated entities.

Specifically, the amended complaint alleges that the defendants
breached their fiduciary duties to shareholders by, among other
things, failing to maximize shareholder value with respect to
the proposed merger transaction and failing to disclose material
information regarding the proposed merger.

The complaint seeks certification as a class action, with the
named plaintiffs to be certified as class representatives, and
also seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, enjoining the
proposed merger transaction, as well as unspecified compensatory
damages, attorneys' fees, costs of the litigation, and other
unspecified relief.

Currently, VTBC has not responded to the amended complaint
though its time to do so has not expired yet, since the
plaintiffs served discovery requests on or about September 9,
2005. A pretrial conference with the court is scheduled for
October 24, 2005.

The plaintiffs and the defendants though in the litigation have
engaged in negotiations that have led to a settlement agreement.
The terms of such a settlement are reflected in a memorandum of
understanding, which was signed on September 20, 2005. The
memorandum of understanding provides for the negotiation of a
formal stipulation of cash settlement and, ultimately, court
consideration of the proposed settlement based on the additional
disclosures in the Company's supplement to the proxy statement
and other customary terms, including, but not limited to, a
release of all defendants from all claims that were or could
have been asserted in the action or otherwise arise out of or
relate to the transaction contemplated by the Merger Agreement,
and the contents of the proxy statement and related matters and  
a denial of any wrongdoing or liability on the part of all
defendants.


VIRBAC CORPORATION: Reaches Settlement For TX Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Virbac Corporation reached a settlement for the consolidated
securities class action filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division
against it and certain of its officers and directors.

On December 15, 2003, Martine Williams, a Company stockholder,
filed a putative securities class action lawsuit against the
Company and:

     (1) Virbac S.A. (VBSA),

     (2) Thomas L. Bell (the Company's former President, Chief
         Executive Officer and member of the Company's Board of
         Directors),

     (3) Joseph A. Rougraff (the Company's former Vice
         President, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary), and

     (4) Pascal Boissy (the Chairman of the Board of Directors)

The complaint asserted claims against the Company and the
individual defendants based on securities fraud under Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and
Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act and claims against VBSA and the
individual defendants based on "control person" liability under
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  

On May 19, 2004, the "Williams v. Virbac et al." lawsuit was
consolidated with a separate lawsuit filed by John Otley, which
contained virtually identical allegations to those claimed by
Martine Williams, and the court appointed lead counsel for the
plaintiffs.  On September 10, 2004, plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended class action complaint, asserting claims
against the Company and the individual defendants based on
securities fraud under Section 10(b) under the Exchange Act and
Rule 10b-5, and asserting claims against VBSA and the individual
defendants for violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act as
alleged "control persons" of the Company.

Plaintiffs generally allege in the Amended Complaint that the
defendants caused the Company to recognize and record revenue
that it had not earned; that the Company thereupon issued
financial statements, press releases and other public statements
that were false and materially misleading; that these false and
misleading statements operated as a "fraud on the market,"
inflating the price of the Company's publicly traded stock; and
that when accurate information about the Company's actual
revenue and earnings emerged, the price of the Company's Common
Stock sharply declined, allegedly damaging plaintiffs.  
Plaintiffs seek to recover monetary compensation for all damages
sustained as a result of the defendants' alleged wrongdoing, in
an amount to be determined at trial (including pre-judgment and
post-judgment interest thereon), costs and expenses incurred in
connection with the lawsuit (including attorneys' fees and
expert witnesses' fees), and such other and further relief as
the court may deem just and proper.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on
December 10, 2004, as did defendants Bell and Rougraff.  
Defendants VBSA and Boissy filed a joint motion to dismiss on
December 14, 2004.  On February 11, 2005, plaintiffs filed a
consolidated opposition against all defendants' motions to
dismiss. On March 11, 2005, the Company, Mr. Bell, and Mr.
Rougraff each filed separate replies to plaintiffs' consolidated
opposition.  Defendants VBSA and Boissy filed a joint reply on
March 11, 2005.

In May 2005, the parties agreed to submit to mediation in an
effort to resolve the action. On May 23, 2005, the Court stayed
the action to allow the parties to mediate. On June 27, 2005,
the parties engaged in a mediation session and reached a
settlement in principle. The Court has extended the stay until
September 9, 2005, to allow the parties to finalize the
settlement documents and submit them to the Court for approval.
Assuming that the settlement is finalized and approved by the
Court, the Company anticipates that the settlement amount will
be fully funded by existing insurance.


WAL-MART STORES: Recalls Candle Gift Sets For Fire, Burn Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC), Wal-Mart Stores Inc., of Bentonville, AR and Dan Dee
International Ltd., of Jersey City, NJ are voluntarily recalling
about 48,000 units of Holiday TimeT Candle Gift Sets.

According to the company, the decorative covering on the candles
can ignite, posing a fire and burn hazard. Wal-Mart has received
six reports of the candles catching fire including two incidents
that resulted in approximately $6,200 in property damage.
Another incident resulted in minor property damage. No injuries
have been reported.

One recalled candle gift set includes three birch bark-covered
candles. Each candle measures 3 inches wide but vary in height
from 3 to 6 inches. The candles are displayed on a stand with
pinecones, cinnamon sticks and red berries. The second recalled
candle gift set includes a display stand with three pyramid-
shaped candles varying in height from 8 to 12 inches. The
candles are either blue with a silver glitter criss-cross
pattern or red with a gold glitter criss-cross pattern. Both
candle sets were sold under the Holiday TimeT brand name written
on the box.

Manufactured in China, the sets were sold at all Wal-Mart stores
nationwide from September 2004 through January 2005 for about
$10.

Remedy: Consumers should immediately stop using the candles and
return them to Wal-Mart for a full refund.

Consumer Contact: For additional information, contact Dan Dee
International at (800) 477-8697 between 8:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m.
ET Monday through Friday, or visit Wal-Mart's Web site at
http://www.walmartstores.com.



                New Securities Fraud Cases



ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Brodsky & Smith Files Securities Suit in OH
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC, initiated a securities
class action lawsuit on behalf of shareholders who purchased the
common stock and other securities of Abercrombie & Fitch Co.
(NYSE: ANF) ("Abercrombie" or the "Company") between June 2,
2005 and August 16, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The
class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period,
thereby artificially inflating the price of Abercrombie
securities. No class has yet been certified in the above action.

For more details, contact Evan J. Smith, Esq. or Marc L.
Ackerman, Esq. of Brodsky & Smith, LLC, Two Bala Plaza, Suite
602, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, Phone: 877-LEGAL-90, E-mail:
clients@brodsky-smith.com.


AMERIGROUP CORPORATION: Brian M. Felgoise Files Securities in VA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C., filed a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who acquired AMERIGROUP
Corporation (NYSE: AGP) securities between April 27, 2005 and
September 28, 2005, inclusive (the Class Period).

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

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

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


AMERIGROUP CORPORATION: Finkelstein Thompson Lodges Suit in VA
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Finkelstein, Thompson & Loughran initiated a
lawsuit seeking class action status in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on behalf of
purchasers of AMERIGROUP Corporation ("AMERIGROUP") common stock
during the period between April 27, 2005 and September 28, 2005
(the "Class Period"). Finkelstein, Thompson & Loughran is
investigating similar claims at this time and welcomes inquiries
from potential class members concerning their rights and
interests in this matter.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
caused AMERIGROUP's shares to trade at artificially inflated
levels by issuing a series of materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's financial statements,
business and prospects, specifically by failing to account for
at least $23 million in medical costs incurred in prior quarters
but not included in the results for those quarters. This caused
the Company's stock to trade as high as $49.30 per share during
the Class Period. Defendants took advantage of this artificial
inflation, selling 170,712 shares of their AMERIGROUP stock for
proceeds of $6.1 million.

Thereafter, on September 28, 2005, after the market closed, the
Company issued a press release announcing that "it expects to
report a third quarter 2005 loss of $0.06 to $0.08 per diluted
share, as compared to current consensus earnings estimate of
$0.48 per diluted share. As a result, the Company will not meet
its 2005 annual earnings guidance of $1.73 to $1.78 per diluted
share. The third quarter results will include additional
estimated medical costs related to services performed in prior
periods, primarily the first and second quarters of 2005, of
approximately $23 million, or $0.26 per diluted share .... Third
quarter earnings per diluted share, excluding the impact of the
prior period development, are estimated to be $0.18 to $0.20 as
compared to current consensus earnings estimate of $0.48 per
diluted share."

On this news, AMERIGROUP's stock fell $14.70 per share to as low
as $19.21 per share before closing at $19.81 per share on volume
of 8.4 million shares, more than 12 times the daily average.
This was a one-day decline of over 40%.

For more details, contact Benjamin J. Weir of Finkelstein,
Thompson & Loughran's Washington, DC office, Phone:
(877) 337-1050 or +1-202-337-8000, E-mail: contact@ftllaw.com.


AMERIGROUP CORPORATION: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in VA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia on behalf of purchasers of AMERIGROUP
Corporation (NYSE: AGP) common stock during the period between
April 27, 2005 and September 28, 2005 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges AMERIGROUP and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. AMERIGROUP operates as a multi-state managed healthcare
company focused on serving people who receive healthcare
benefits through publicly sponsored programs, such as Medicaid,
State Children's Health Insurance Program and FamilyCare.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
caused AMERIGROUP's shares to trade at artificially inflated
levels by issuing a series of materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's financial statements,
business and prospects, specifically by failing to account for
at least $23 million in medical costs incurred in prior quarters
but not included in the results for those quarters. This caused
the Company's stock to trade as high as $49.30 per share during
the Class Period. Defendants took advantage of this artificial
inflation, selling 170,712 shares of their AMERIGROUP stock for
proceeds of $6.1 million.

Then on September 28, 2005, after the market closed, the Company
issued a press release announcing that "it expects to report a
third quarter 2005 loss of $0.06 to $0.08 per diluted share, as
compared to current consensus earnings estimate of $0.48 per
diluted share. As a result, the Company will not meet its 2005
annual earnings guidance of $1.73 to $1.78 per diluted share.
The third quarter results will include additional estimated
medical costs related to services performed in prior periods,
primarily the first and second quarters of 2005, of
approximately $23 million, or $0.26 per diluted share. . . .
Third quarter earnings per diluted share, excluding the impact
of the prior period development, are estimated to be $0.18 to
$0.20 as compared to current consensus earnings estimate of
$0.48 per diluted share."

On this news, AMERIGROUP's stock fell $14.70 per share to as low
as $19.21 per share before closing at $19.81 per share on volume
of 8.4 million shares, more than 12 times the daily average.

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


BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Scott + Scott Lodges Securities Suit in MA
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Scott + Scott, LLC, initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts (Case Number 05-cv-11912-JLT) against Boston
Scientific Corporation ("Boston Scientific") (NYSE: BSX). Boston
Scientific securities purchasers between March 31, 2003 and
August 23, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period") are putative
class members.

The complaint filed on September 21, 2005, alleges that during
the Class Period, Boston Scientific and certain individual
defendants violated provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, causing its stock to trade at artificially inflated
levels. The complaint alleges that Boston Scientific provided
highly explicit false and misleading assurances of the Company's
ability to satisfy FDA regulations governing its medical device
product quality, as well as affirmative representations as to
the Company's knowledge and expertise regarding design,
development, marketing approval and sales of its medical
devices. The complaint further alleges that there was over $400
million worth of shares sold through insider trading.

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

In addition to the securities fraud allegations, on September
21, 2005, Boston Scientific agreed to pay $750 million to its
former partner in a settlement that ended a bitter contract
dispute over the sale of heart stents. The agreement dissolved a
10-year relationship between Boston Scientific and Medinol, a
small Israeli firm. On September 26, 2005, it was announced that
Medinol plans to bring a patent infringement action pursuing
future royalties on next-generation Boston Scientific stent
products. "It's going to cover the Liberte and other products of
theirs that we say infringe on our intellectual property," said
Medinol's attorney Rory Millson.

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


DANA CORPORATION: Brian M. Felgoise Lodges Securities Suit in OH
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C., filed a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who acquired Dana
Corporation (NYSE: DCN) securities between March 23, 2005 and
September 14, 2005, inclusive (the Class Period).

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

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

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


DANA CORPORATION: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Suit in OH
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A., filed a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of Dana
Corporation (NYSE: DCN) between March 23, 2005 and September 14,
2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio against defendant Dana Corporation and
one or more of its officers and/or directors. The action charges
that defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a
series of materially false and misleading statements to the
market throughout the Class Period, which statements had the
effect of artificially inflating the market price of the
Company's securities. No class has yet been certified in the
above action.

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


DANA CORPORATION: Goldman Scarlato Lodges Securities Suit in OH
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C., initiated a
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio, on behalf of persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of Dana
Corporation ("Dana" or the "Company") (NYSE:DCN) between March
23, 2005 and September 14, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").
The lawsuit was filed against Dana and Michael J. Burns and
Robert C. Richter ("Defendants").

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
during the Class Period, the Company made representations
regarding the Company's historical financial performance and
condition that were materially false and misleading. These
statements were false and misleading because:

     (1) the Company had improperly accounted for price
         increases, inflating income in the second quarter of
         2005;

     (2) the Company's purported financial success was the
         result of improper accounting; and

     (3) as a result the Company's guidance lacked any
         reasonable basis and could not be met without a
         significant drop in raw material prices.

On September 15, 2005, before the market opened, the Company
issued a press release announcing that it would restate second
quarter results and that it was dramatically reducing guidance
for 2005, to $0.60 - $0.70 per share from $1.30 - $1.45. In
addition, the Company commented that it may be in violation of
certain loan covenants, and that it might have to write down the
value of certain U.S. deferred tax assets. In reaction to the
announcement, Dana's stock price fell dramatically, declining
from $12.78 per share on September 14, 2005 to $9.86 per share
on September 15, 2005, a decline of approximately 23%.

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


SPECTRUM BRANDS: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in GA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia on behalf of all persons who purchased the
publicly traded securities of Spectrum Brands, Inc. (NYSE:SPC)
between January 4, 2005 and September 6, 2005 (the ``Class
Period'').

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

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



                            *********


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  * * *