CAR_Public/051013.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, October 13, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 203

                            Headlines

3CI COMPLETE: To Ask LA Court To Dismiss Fraud Lawsuit V. Execs
AIR FRANCE: Law Firms Join Forces in Flight 358 Passengers' Case
ANTHROPOLOGIE INC.: Overtime Wage Lawsuit Still Pending in CA
APPLERA CORPORATION: CT Court Certifies Investor Fraud Lawsuit
APPLERA CORPORATION: Faces Product Antitrust Lawsuit in DC Court

ARTHUR ANDERSEN: SEC Sues Ex-Auditors Over American Tissue Audit
AURORA PRODUCTS: Recalls Dried Apricots For Undeclared Sulfites
BARNES & NOBLE: Working to Settle CA Amended Overtime Wage Suit
BARR PHARMACEUTICALS: Working To Resolve Cipro Antitrust Suits
BARR PHARMACEUTICALS: Continues To Face PREMARIN Injury Lawsuits

CALIFORNIA: Children With Diabetes Sue School Districts, State
CARRIER ACCESS: Plaintiffs File Consolidated CO Securities Suit
CASUAL MALE: Reaches Settlement For CA Employees' Wage Lawsuit
DESIGN IDEAS: Recalls Chair, Bean Bag Sets Due to Injury Hazard
DILLARDS INC.: Plaintiffs File Second Amended Suit in S.D. Ohio

DOLLAR TREE: Plaintiffs Launch New CA Labor Law Violations Suit
DOLLAR TREE: Former Oregon Employees Lodge Overtime Wage Lawsuit
EASTMAN KODAK: Discrimination Suit Proceeds to Discovery Phase
EATON VANCE: NY Court Dismisses Mutual Funds Fraud Litigation
EASTMAN KODAK: Discrimination Suit Proceeds to Discovery Phase

FORTUNA SEA: Recalls Clam Meat Due to Salmonella Contamination
GENERAL MOTORS: High Court Refuses to Dismiss Air Bag Lawsuit
GENESCO INC.: Working For Settlement of CA Overtime Wage Suits
GOODY'S FAMILY: Shareholders Launch Suits V. Buyout Offer in TN
HEWLETT-PACKARD CO.: Appeals Certification of TX Consumer Suit

HEWLETT-PACKARD CO.: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.D. CA
HEWLETT-PACKARD: IL Court Refuses To Dismiss Consumer Lawsuits
HEWLETT-PACKARD CO.: 3 Consumer Fraud Suits Coordinated in CA
HEWLETT-PACKARD CO.: Temps Launch ERISA Violations Suit in Idaho
LIPMAN ELECTRONIC: Faces Purported Securities Lawsuit in Israel

MEN'S WEARHOUSE: Reaches Settlement For CA Overtime Wage Lawsuit
MERRILL LYNCH: High Court Refuses To Reinstate Blodget Lawsuit
METALS USA: Agrees to Settle Consolidated Suit Over Apollo Deal
MONITOR SUGAR: Settlement Checks For Odor Suit to be Mailed Soon
PATTERSON COMPANIES: Securities Suits Consolidated in MN Court

PETCO ANIMAL: Investors File Securities Fraud Suits in S.D. CA
ROSS STORES: CA Court Grants Certification To Overtime Wage Suit
SHARPER IMAGE: Shareholders Launch Securities Fraud Suits in CA
SHOPKO STORES: WI Court Allows Merger Despite Pending Lawsuits
TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Faces Three Fraud Suits V. GTA:San Andreas

TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Faces Personal Injury Lawsuit in AL Court
VIRGINIA: Court To Rule on Roanoke Sexual Harassment Lawsuit
WET SEAL: CA Court Dismisses Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

ANDRX CORPORATION: Bernard M. Gross Lodges Securities Suit in FL
BARRIER THERAPEUTICS: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Fraud Suit in NJ
BARRIER THERAPEUTICS: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Suit in NY
DANA CORPORATION: Smith & Smith Lodges KY Securities Fraud Suit
HUTCHINSON TECHNOLOGY: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Fraud Suit in MN

LIPMAN ELECTRONIC: Glancy Binkow Lodges Securities Suit in NY
REFCO INC.: Federman & Sherwood Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
REFCO INC.: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
REFCO INC.: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
TEMPUR-PEDIC INTERNATIONAL: Smith & Smith Files Fraud Suit in KY

                            *********

3CI COMPLETE: To Ask LA Court To Dismiss Fraud Lawsuit V. Execs
---------------------------------------------------------------
3CI Complete Compliance Corporation intends to ask the First
Judicial District Court in Caddo Parish, Louisiana to dismiss
the claims in the class action filed against its officers and
directors and Stericycle, Inc.

On June 20, 2002, Larry F. Robb, individually, on behalf of a
class comprised of the Company's minority stockholders, and
derivatively on behalf of the Company, filed cause no. 467704-A,
"Robb et al. v. Stericycle, Inc. et al."  In the Louisiana Suit,
the Louisiana Plaintiffs originally asserted numerous claims of
minority stockholder oppression, breach of fiduciary duty and
unjust enrichment against WSI, Stericycle, the four affiliates
of Stericycle who are or were directors of 3CI (the "Stericycle
Affiliates") and Otley L. Smith III, the Company's President and
Chief Executive Officer.

As of January 8, 2004, the Board expanded the authority of the
Special Committee to grant the Special Committee the exclusive
power and authority on behalf of the Company to:

     (1) make all inquiries, conduct all investigations and
         gather all information related to the Louisiana Suit,
         the 1995 Action and the 2003 Action, or any actions or
         proceedings related to any of the foregoing;

     (2) make or approve all decisions of the Company related to
         the Louisiana Suit, the 1995 Action and the 2003
         Action, including the Company's filing, amending,
         maintaining, prosecuting or settling of any legal
         proceedings related to such suits; and

     (3) exercise such other power and authority that may be
         exercised by the full Board with regard to the
         foregoing.

The Special Committee is composed of Stephen B. Koenigsberg and
Kevin J. McManus, who are the independent directors on the Board
not affiliated with Stericycle or WSI.  Robert M. Waller,
previously a member of the Special Committee, for personal
reasons, resigned from the Board on March 11, 2004.  The Special
Committee appointed legal counsel to assist it in its
investigation of the Louisiana Plaintiffs' allegations and to
gather all information related to the Louisiana Suit.

After conducting an investigation into the facts, arguments and
other matters that in its view are related to the issues raised
in the Louisiana Suit, the Special Committee has determined that
the claims against Stericycle, WSI and the Stericycle Affiliates
(the "Louisiana Defendants") in the Louisiana Suit have merit
and warrant prosecution by the Company.

On December 10, 2004, the Company, at the direction of the
Special Committee, and the Louisiana Plaintiffs filed a motion
with the Louisiana Court seeking leave to file a joint petition
(the "Joint Petition"), which was granted on December 14, 2004.
The Joint Petition amends and supersedes the Plaintiffs' First
Amended Petition filed with the Court on October 27, 2003.  
Pursuant to the Joint Petition, 3CI has realigned itself as a
plaintiff in the Louisiana Suit and joins on its own behalf in
the prosecution of the claims asserted by the Louisiana
Plaintiffs in the Louisiana Suit against Stericycle, WSI and the
Stericycle Affiliates, and Otley L. Smith III, 3CI's President
and Chief Executive Officer, previously named as a defendant in
the Louisiana Suit, has been non-suited.

The Louisiana Plaintiffs and the Company allege in the Joint
Petition that the Louisiana Defendants wrongfully:

     (i) diverted 3CI's cash and assets,

    (ii) manipulated and increased 3CI's debt to WSI,

   (iii) directly and indirectly increased Stericycle's and
         WSI's percentage ownership of 3CI,

    (iv) forced 3CI to declare significant cash dividends on its
         Preferred Stock payable to WSI,

     (v) usurped 3CI's corporate opportunities,

    (vi) misappropriated 3CI's customers,

   (vii) unfairly competed with 3CI, and

  (viii) operated 3CI with the goal of maximizing Stericycle's
         profitability and furthering Stericycle's integration
         plan.

In the Joint Petition, the Louisiana Plaintiffs and the Company
jointly pray for a judgment against the Louisiana Defendants for
actual damages and punitive damages; for forfeiture of all fees,
payments, warrants, Common Stock and all other forms of value
which Stericycle and WSI have received from the Company and its
minority stockholders; unwinding Stericycle's acquisition of the
Shepherd Parties' 3CI-related interests and disgorging all
benefits realized by Stericycle from that transaction; returning
to the Company all shares of Common Stock acquired by WSI
pursuant to warrants; declaring the Preferred Stock Dividends
null and void; requiring a buyout of the Company's minority
stockholders; establishing a constructive trust on all profits
or benefits realized by the Louisiana Defendants as the result
of the disputed transactions; disqualification of any Stericycle
director, officer or other representative from serving on the
Board; attorney's and expert witness fees; and pre- and post-
judgment interest.  The Louisiana Plaintiffs and the Company
also request injunctive relief in order to remove the current
Stericycle representatives from the Board, prohibit Stericycle
thereafter from electing any of its representatives to the Board
and require Stericycle and WSI to vote their Common Stock for
nominees to the Board who are nominated by the independent
directors on the Board.  The Court has set a trial date of
September 12, 2005 if the suit is tried before a jury, and a
trial date of October 4, 2005, if the suit is tried to the
judge.

In order to avoid any potential for confusion and conflict that
may arise if the Company and the Louisiana Plaintiffs separately
prosecuted such claims against Stericycle, WSI and the
Stericycle Affiliates, the Company, at the direction of the
Special Committee, has entered into an Agreement for Joint
Prosecution by and among the Company, the Louisiana Plaintiffs
and The Wynne Law Firm, legal counsel to the Louisiana
Plaintiffs in the Louisiana Suit (the "Joint Prosecution
Agreement").

Pursuant to the Joint Prosecution Agreement, the Company and the
Louisiana Plaintiffs have agreed to jointly prosecute the claims
asserted in the Louisiana Suit against Stericycle, WSI and the
Stericycle Affiliates and to seek monetary damages and equitable
remedies on behalf of both the Company and the Louisiana
Plaintiffs. The Joint Prosecution Agreement provides that two-
thirds of all services and other work performed in jointly
prosecuting these claims will be performed by the Louisiana
Plaintiffs and/or The Wynne Law Firm and one-third of such
services and other work will be performed by the Company.

In addition, the Joint Prosecution Agreement provides that two-
thirds of any monetary recoveries (as defined in the Joint
Prosecution Agreement) received by the Company and/or the
Louisiana Plaintiffs that are related to, or arise out of, the
claims asserted in the Louisiana Suit will be allocated to the
Louisiana Plaintiffs and one-third of any monetary recoveries
will be allocated to the Company.  Pursuant to the Joint
Prosecution Agreement, none of the Company (directly or through
its counsel), the Louisiana Plaintiffs or The Wynne Law Firm may
propose, accept or authorize a settlement or compromise of any
or all of the claims asserted in the Louisiana Suit without the
prior written consent of the other parties.

The Joint Prosecution Agreement will become effective on the
date that all of the following have occurred:     

     (a) the Louisiana Court certifies the Louisiana Plaintiffs'
         claims as a class action;

     (b) the Louisiana Court approves the Joint Prosecution
         Agreement; and

     (c) the Louisiana Court approves The Wynne Law Firm as
         counsel to the Louisiana Plaintiffs.

A two-day hearing on these matters was held on February 9 and
10, 2005.  At the conclusion of that hearing, the Court
granted class certification; approved The Wynne Law Firm as
class counsel and preliminarily approved the Joint Prosecution
Agreement, subject only to the right of any class member to
object, following notice.  The Court also ordered that the
Louisiana Plaintiffs' class representative cause written notice
to be given to the members of the class to inform them of their
membership in the class, their rights to exclude themselves from
such membership, their rights to object to the Joint Prosecution
Agreement and their other rights as members of the class.  On
April 21, 2005, the Court formally approved the Joint
Prosecution Agreement.  The Joint Prosecution Agreement became
effective on April 21, 2005.

The Company or the Louisiana Plaintiffs may terminate the Joint
Prosecution Agreement at any time if a material disagreement
arises between the Company and the Louisiana Plaintiffs with
respect to the claims asserted in the Louisiana Suit, or if
either party in good faith believes that its or their best
interests would conflict if the parties continued to jointly
prosecute all or any of the claims.  Notwithstanding the
termination of the Joint Prosecution Agreement, the Company's
and the Louisiana Plaintiffs' obligation pursuant to the Joint
Prosecution Agreement to share in any monetary recoveries
received shall continue in full force and effect.

On January 24, 2005, the Stericycle Affiliates filed Defendants'
Amended and Restated Answer, Affirmative Defenses, Third-Party
Petition, and Counterclaims (the "Counterclaim") against the
Company and Third-Party Defendants Otley L. Smith III; John R.
Weaver, a former Chief Financial Officer of the Company; Robert
M. Waller, a former director of the Company; Curtis W. Crane, a
former Chief Financial Officer of the Company; Charles D.
Crochet, a former director and Chief Executive Officer of the
Company; David J. Schoonmaker, a former director of the Company;
Stephen B. Koenigsberg; and Kevin J. McManus.

In the Counterclaim, the Stericycle Affiliates assert that the
Company and the Third-Party Defendants, based on their alleged
relationships with one another and/or participation in the
transactions at issue in the Joint Petition, are liable to the
Stericycle Affiliates in contribution for some or all of the
claims and damages asserted in the Joint Petition.

In addition, the Stericycle Affiliates allege that the members
of the Special Committee, individually, breached their fiduciary
duties to the Company by, among other things, failing to conduct
a thorough investigation and analysis of the Louisiana
Plaintiffs' claims prior to entering into the Joint Prosecution
Agreement.  Finally, the Stericycle Affiliates allege that the
members of the Special Committee facilitated or caused insider
trading of the Company's Common Stock by failing to investigate,
or causing an increase in, the share price and trading volume of
the Common Stock during the Fall of 2004.

On April 6, 2005 the Stericycle Affiliates filed a motion for
judgment on the pleadings, asserting that, with one exception,
the claims asserted in the Joint Petition belong to the Company
and that the class does not have standing to pursue those
claims.  A hearing on this motion was set for May 16, 2005.  

On April 21, 2005, a hearing was held on the Counterclaim.  The
Court found that the Stericycle Affiliates had failed to
properly state claims for contribution or indemnity against the
Company or the Third-Party Defendants.  The Court granted the
Stericycle Affiliates until May 6, 2005 to file an amended
Counterclaim repleading their claims.  In addition, the Court
stayed the claims asserted against the Special Committee Members
until further order of the Court terminating or modifying the
stay.

On May 6, 2005, the Stericycle Affiliates filed Defendants'
Amended Third-Party Petition and Counterclaims in which the
Stericycle Affiliates set forth the same contribution, indemnity
and breach of fiduciary duty claims as in the Counterclaim and
added a negligent misrepresentation claim against the Company
and the Third-Party Defendants. The Company intends to seek a
dismissal, or alternatively a stay, of these claims.

The Special Committee has been informed that the Stericycle
Affiliates strongly disagree with the claims stated in the Joint
Petition and that they believe such claims are without factual
or legal basis.  Further, the Stericycle Affiliates have
informed the Special Committee that they believe they have
fulfilled all of their duties as directors and will vigorously
defend the claims against them.


AIR FRANCE: Law Firms Join Forces in Flight 358 Passengers' Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firms pursuing class actions in the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice arising from the Air France Flight 358 crash at
Pearson International Airport decided to work together to
provide a united front against Air France and the other named
defendants.

Will Barristers: Morin & Miller along with co-counsel Motley
Rice LLC (Mt. Pleasant, South Carolina) and Camp Fiorante
Matthews, along with their co-counsel Harvey Strosberg Q.C. of
Sutts, Strosberg and Glynn Hotz joined forces to pursue a single
class action on behalf of all passengers on board Flight 358 and
their families.  The combined class action will be lead by J.J.
Camp, Q.C. and Joe Fiorante of Camp Fiorante Matthews and Paul
Miller of Will Barristers.

The firms intend to hold a meeting at the Toronto Marriott
Downtown, Eaton Centre (525 Bay Street, 416-597-9200) for all of
their clients and any other interested passengers on November 9,
2005 at 6:00 p.m. to provide an update on the progress of the
class action and to answer any questions that passengers and
their families may have.

Air France recently began making settlement offers to settle the
cases of those passengers and family members not represented by
counsel. Class counsel strongly recommends that passengers and
family members not accept any settlement offers without the
benefit of independent legal advice.

For more details, contact Paul S. Miller, Phone: (416) 360-1194;
JJ Camp/Joe Fiorante, Phone: (604) 689-5777; and Mary Schiavo
and Sally W. Comollo of Motley Rice, LLC, Phone: 1-800-768-4026
and 843-216-9121 or (mobile) 843-834-1612, E-mail:
SComollo@motleyrice.com, Web site: http://www.motleyrice.com.  


ANTHROPOLOGIE INC.: Overtime Wage Lawsuit Still Pending in CA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Anthropologie, Inc. faces a class action filed in the Superior
Court of California for Orange County, alleging violations of
the state's labor laws.

An employee filed the employment related suit seeking class
action status, unspecified monetary damages and equitable
relief.  The suit alleges that, under California law, the
plaintiff and certain other employees were misclassified as
employees exempt from overtime and seeks recovery of unpaid
wages, penalties and damages.


APPLERA CORPORATION: CT Court Certifies Investor Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut
granted class certification to the lawsuit filed against Applera
Corporation and some of its officers on behalf of purchasers of
Applera-Celera Genomics stock in the Company's follow-on public
offering of Applera-Celera Genomics stock completed on March 6,
2000.

In the offering, the Company sold an aggregate of approximately
4.4 million shares of Applera-Celera Genomics stock at a public
offering price of $225 per share. The lawsuit, which was
commenced with the filing of several complaints in April and May
2000, is pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut, and an amended consolidated complaint was filed on
August 21, 2001.

The consolidated complaint generally alleges that the prospectus
used in connection with the offering was inaccurate or
misleading because it failed to adequately disclose the alleged
opposition of the Human Genome Project and two of its
supporters, the governments of the United States and the United
Kingdom, to providing patent protection to the Company's
genomic-based products. Although Celera Genomics has never
sought, or intended to seek, a patent on the basic human genome
sequence data, the complaint also alleges that the Company did
not adequately disclose the risk that Celera Genomics would not
be able to patent this data. The consolidated complaint seeks
monetary damages, rescission, costs and expenses, and other
relief as the court deems proper.


APPLERA CORPORATION: Faces Product Antitrust Lawsuit in DC Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Applera Corporation and Hoffman-La Roche, Inc. faces a class
action filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia.  Molecular Diagnostics Laboratories filed
the suit, which alleges anticompetitive conduct in connection
with the sale of Taq DNA polymerase and PCR-related products.  

The anticompetitive conduct is alleged to arise from the
prosecution and enforcement of U.S. Patent No 4,889,818.  This
patent is assigned to Hoffmann-La Roche, with whom the Company
has a commercial relationship covering, among other things, this
patent and the sale of Taq DNA polymerase.   The complaint seeks
monetary damages, costs, expenses, injunctive relief, and other
relief as the court deems proper.   

This case is largely based on the same set of contentions
underlying a claim filed against the Company by Promega
Corporation in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Virginia.  The Promega claim was dismissed in August 2004
for, among other reasons, failure to state a claim upon which
relief could be granted.

The suit is styled "MOLECULAR DIAGNOSTICS LABORATORIES v.
HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE, INC. et al, case no. 1:04-cv-01649-HHK,"
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Columbia, under Judge Henry H. Kennedy.

Lawyers for the defendants are;

     (1) Joanne M. Guerrera, David J. Lender, John E. Scribner,
         David Nelson Southard, WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES, L.L.P.,
         1501 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20005, Phone: (202)
         682-7153 Fax: 202-857-0939 E-mail:
         david.southard@weil.com  

     (2) Heather Holden Brooks, Cathy Hoffman, Hadrian R. Katz,
         Amy Elizabeth Ralph-Mudge, Joseph M. Ruggiero, Asim
         Varma, ARNOLD & PORTER, LLP, 555 12th Street, NW
         Washington, DC 20004-1206, Phone: (202) 942-6309, Fax:
         (202) 942-5999, E-mail: holden_brooks@aporter.com,
         cathy_hoffman@aporter.com, katzha@aporter.com,
         amy_mudge@aporter.com and asim_varma@aporter.com

Lawyer for the plaintiffs are:

     (i) Paul Thomas Gallagher, Michael Hausfeld, Brian A.
         Ratner, COHEN, MILSTEIN, HAUSFELD & TOLL, P.L.L.C, 1100
         New York Avenue, NW West Tower, Suite 500, Washington,
         DC 20005-3934, Phone: (202) 408-4600, Fax: (202) 408-
         4699, E-mail: pgallagher@cmht.com, mhausfeld@cmht.com
         or bratner@cmht.com

    (ii) Scott E. Gant, William A. Isaacson, BOIES, SCHILLER &
         FLEXNER, 5301 Wisconsin Avenue, NW Suite 800,
         Washington, DC 20015, Phone: (202) 237-2727, E-mail:
         sgant@bsfllp.com or wisaacson@bsfllp.com  


ARTHUR ANDERSEN: SEC Sues Ex-Auditors Over American Tissue Audit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed a civil action in
federal district court against Fred Gold, a former partner at
Arthur Andersen, LLP, John D. Parson, a former Andersen audit
manager, and Brendon P. McDonald, a former Andersen experienced
senior accountant, for fraud in connection with Andersen's
fiscal year 2000 audit of American Tissue, Inc., a manufacturer
of tissue and paper products that filed for bankruptcy in 2001.  

The Commission previously filed a separate federal civil action
against American Tissue and three of its principal officers for
fraud. The action was styled, SEC v. American Tissue, Inc., et
al., Civil Action No. 03-1162 (E.D.N.Y., filed March 10, 2003),
Litigation Release No. 18022, Accounting and Auditing
Enforcement Release No. 1735. That action has been stayed
pending sentencing of the three officers in a related criminal
proceeding.

Without admitting or denying the allegations in the complaint,
Mr. Parson and Mr. McDonald have agreed to settlements with the
Commission that impose injunctions, civil penalties, and
suspensions from appearing or practicing before the Commission
as accountants.  Mr. Gold has not reached a settlement with the
Commission.

The Commission's complaint alleges that during its fiscal year
2000, American Tissue fraudulently inflated reported assets and
earnings by improperly capitalizing $15.6 million of previously
expensed supplies and overvaluing its finished goods inventory
by at least $12.5 million. Mr. Gold and Mr. Parson supervised,
reviewed and approved Andersen's audit of American Tissue's
fiscal year 2000 financial statements.  Mr. McDonald supervised
and participated in the audit.  The defendants failed to request
sufficient accounting documentation to verify the financial
information provided by the company or to conduct required
testing of American Tissue's finished goods inventory figures.  
Consequently, they knew or were reckless in not knowing that
American Tissue's finished goods inventory was overstated.  
Nevertheless, they issued an unqualified audit report on the
company's fiscal 2000 financial statements, failing to exercise
the due professional care and skepticism required by generally
accepted auditing standards.  All three defendants also knew, or
were reckless in not knowing, that supplies that American Tissue
used in its manufacturing processes had been improperly
classified as inventory instead of as expenses.

The Commission's complaint further alleges that, in July 2001,
when the defendants learned their fiscal 2000 American Tissue
audit had been selected for a peer review by another accounting
firm, they intentionally altered audit work papers in an attempt
to conceal the failures of their audit work.  In September 2001,
when the defendants learned that another accounting firm had
discovered that the company had overvalued inventory and would
have to restate financial results for fiscal 2000, they
destroyed documents and e-mails in a further attempt to conceal
their audit failures.

For all three defendants, the Commission's complaint seeks
permanent injunctions against violations of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and
against aiding and abetting violations of Section 15(d) of that
Act and Rules 12b-20 and 15d-1 thereunder and civil money
penalties.

Mr. Parson consented to entry of a final judgment that imposes
the injunction sought by the Commission and a civil money
penalty of $50,000. Mr. Parson also consented, without admitting
or denying the Commission's findings, to a suspension from
appearing or practicing before the Commission as an accountant
pursuant to Rule 102(e) of the Commission's Rules of Practice,
in a related administrative proceeding to be instituted once the
injunction against him is entered.
     
Mr. McDonald consented to entry of a final judgment that imposes
the injunction sought by the Commission and a civil money
penalty of $30,000. Mr. McDonald also consented, without
admitting or denying the Commission's findings, to a suspension
from appearing or practicing before the Commission as an
accountant pursuant to Rule 102(e) of the Commission's Rules of
Practice with a right to apply for reinstatement after five
years, in a related administrative proceeding to be instituted
once the injunction against him is entered.

The Commission acknowledges the assistance of the Office of the
United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York in
this matter. The action is styled, SEC v. Fred Gold, John D.
Parson and Brendon P. McDonald, Civil Action No. 05 CV 4713,
E.D.N.Y., JS] (LR - 19417; AAER-2332).


AURORA PRODUCTS: Recalls Dried Apricots For Undeclared Sulfites
---------------------------------------------------------------
Aurora Products, Inc., 400 Long Beach Blvd, Stratford, CT 06615,
is recalling Little Michael Dried Apricots because it may
contain undeclared sulfites. People who have severe sensitivity
to sulfites run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic
reactions if they consume this product.

The recalled dried apricots, packaged in 11 OZ. CLEAR PLASTIC
CONTAINERS with CODE DATE 082905, were sold to LITTLE M CORP.
located at 118 LEXINGTON AVE, NEW YORK, NY 10016. They were sold
under the Little Michael logo.

The recall was initiated after routine sampling by New York
State Department of Agriculture and Markets Food Inspectors and
subsequent analysis of the product by Food Laboratory personnel
revealed the presence of sulfites in packages of LITTLE MICHAEL
DRIED APRICOTS which did not declare sulfites on the label. The
consumption of 10 milligrams of sulfites per serving has been
reported to elicit severe reactions in some asthmatics.
Anaphylactic shock could occur in certain sulfite sensitive
individuals upon ingesting 10 milligrams or more of sulfites.

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
problem.

Consumers who have purchased LITTLE MICHAEL DRIED APRICOTS
should return it to the place of purchase. Consumers with
questions may contact the company at 800-898-1048.


BARNES & NOBLE: Working to Settle CA Amended Overtime Wage Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Barnes & Noble, Inc. is working to settle an amended overtime
wage class action filed against it in the Superior Court of
California, Orange County.

A company employee filed the suit on March 14, 2003, alleging
that the Company improperly classified the assistant store
managers, department managers and receiving managers working in
its California stores as salaried exempt employees. The
complaint alleges that these employees spent more than 50
percent of their time performing non-exempt work and should have
been classified as non-exempt employees. The complaint alleges
violations of the California Labor Code and California Business
and Professions Code and seeks relief, including overtime
compensation, prejudgment interest, penalties, attorneys' fees
and costs.  On November 18, 2004, an amended complaint was filed
alleging that the Company improperly classified the music
managers and caf, managers working in its California stores as
salaried exempt employees.  The parties are in the process of
negotiating the terms of a settlement that will lead to a full
and final resolution of this action if approved by the Court.


BARR PHARMACEUTICALS: Working To Resolve Cipro Antitrust Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Barr Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is working to resolve the litigation
pending against it, Bayer Corporation, The Rugby Group, Inc.,
alleging antitrust violations related to its antibiotic
Ciprofloxacin (Cipro).

Approximately 38 class action complaints were filed in state and
federal courts by direct and indirect purchasers of Cipro from
1997 to the present.  The complaints allege that the 1997 Bayer-
Barr patent litigation settlement agreement was anti-competitive
and violated federal antitrust laws and/or state antitrust and
consumer protection laws.  A prior investigation into the 1997
settlement by the Texas Attorney General's Office on behalf of a
group of state Attorneys General was closed without further
action in December 2001.

All of the federal complaints were consolidated in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York, which had
been designated to handle the multi-district Cipro litigation at
the federal level (the "MDL Case").  In May 2003, the District
Court ruled that the 1997 settlement did not constitute a per se
violation of the antitrust laws. At that time, the Court had
rejected two of plaintiffs' three legal theories. In March 2005,
the District Court granted summary judgment in the Company's
favor, again rejecting a challenge to the lawfulness of its 1997
settlement with Bayer. In granting summary judgment, the
District Court concluded that plaintiffs' remaining legal theory
was also insufficient as a matter of law. Plaintiffs are
expected to appeal the District Court's decision.

On March 31, 2005, the Court in the MDL case granted summary
judgment in the Company's favor and dismissed all of the federal
actions before it. On June 7, 2005, plaintiffs filed notices of
appeal to the United States Court of Appeals, but a briefing
schedule and argument date have not yet been set.

On September 19, 2003, the Circuit Court for the County of
Milwaukee dismissed the Wisconsin state class action for failure
to state a claim for relief under Wisconsin law. Plaintiffs
appealed, but the appeal has been stayed pending a decision by
the Wisconsin Supreme Court in another case involving similar
legal issues. On October 17, 2003, the Supreme Court of the
State of New York for New York County dismissed the consolidated
New York state class action for failure to state a claim upon
which relief could be granted and denied the plaintiffs' motion
for class certification. Plaintiffs have appealed that decision,
with briefing scheduled to occur in summer 2005. On April 13,
2005, the Superior Court of San Diego, California ordered a stay
of the California state class actions until after the resolution
of any appeal in the MDL case. On April 22, 2005, the District
Court of Johnson County, Kansas similarly stayed the action
before it, until after any appeal in the MDL case. The Florida
state class action remains at a very early stage, with no status
hearings, dispositive motions, pre-trial schedules, or a trial
date set as of yet.


BARR PHARMACEUTICALS: Continues To Face PREMARIN Injury Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Barr Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and other manufacturers continue to
face approximately 3,100 personal injury product liability cases
brought by plaintiffs claiming that they suffered injuries
resulting from the use of certain estrogen and progestin
medications prescribed to treat the symptoms of menopause.

The cases against the Company and its subsidiary Duramed involve
either or both of the Company's Cenestin product or the use of
its medroxyprogesterone acetate product, which typically has
been prescribed for use in conjunction with Premarin or other
hormone therapy products. All of these products remain approved
by the FDA and continue to be marketed and sold to customers.

While the Company has been named as defendants in these cases,
fewer than a third of the complaints actually allege the
plaintiffs took a product manufactured by the Company, and its
experience to date suggests that, even in these cases, a high
percentage of the plaintiffs will be unable to demonstrate
actual use of a Barr and/or Duramed product.

For that reason, by the end of June 30, 2005, nearly 1,500 of
the 3,100 cases had been dismissed and, based on discussions
with the Company's outside counsel, several hundred more are
expected to be dismissed in the near future, the Company said in
a regulatory filing.


CALIFORNIA: Children With Diabetes Sue School Districts, State
--------------------------------------------------------------
Four elementary school-age students, along with the American
Diabetes Association, filed an unprecedented civil rights
complaint in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California seeking class action relief against the California
Superintendent of Public Schools, the California Department of
Education, members of the California Board of Education, the San
Ramon Valley Unified School District, the Fremont Unified School
District, and their Superintendents and Boards of Trustees.

The suit asks the Court to compel public school officials to
comply with federal law by providing the assistance that
California students with diabetes require to manage their
diabetes during the school day.

The complaint alleges that the state and the local districts
violate Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (Section 504), the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and applicable federal
regulations in their failure to ensure the health and safety of
public school students with diabetes in Kindergarten through
12th Grade by providing insulin administration, blood glucose
monitoring, proper care in emergency situations, and other
appropriate diabetes care.

The plaintiffs are represented pro bono by a team of attorneys
in the Oakland and San Francisco offices of Reed Smith LLP, as
well as by attorneys with the Berkeley-based Disability Rights
Education and Defense Fund, Inc. (DREDF). Reed Smith attorneys
participating include James M. Wood, Kenneth J. Philpot, Michael
F. McCabe, Kurtis J. Kearl, Lisa C. Hamasaki, Tita Bell and
Kendra Jue. DREDF attorneys include Arlene Mayerson and Larisa
Cummings.

"Students with type 1 diabetes, and some students with type 2
diabetes, require insulin to survive," said Mr. Wood. "Without
access to regular and ongoing blood glucose testing and insulin
administration during the school day, these youngsters are at
risk of serious and possibly fatal health complications. We
intend to ensure that schools provide the services that are
necessary to protect these children's health and well-being. The
federal government is committed to the idea that no child will
be left behind in public schools. This lawsuit will ensure that
no child is locked out because schools will not provide
fundamental assurances that children with diabetes will be safe
in school."

"The California Department of Education, the San Ramon Valley
and Fremont districts and many other districts across the state
refuse to assign any school personnel to assist students with
the injection of insulin as prescribed by the students' doctors,
even though school personnel can be trained to do so and are
regularly trained and assigned these tasks in some schools,"
explained DREDF's Ms. Cummings.

DREDF has been representing children with diabetes in California
and across the nation for years. As DREDF attorney Arlene
Mayerson explained, "After several attempts to obtain relief
from the California Department of Education failed, DREDF had no
choice but to file a lawsuit. It is unacceptable and illegal for
the districts and the CDE to ignore their moral and legal
responsibilities to these children."

The complaint asks the Court to require the California
Department of Education and the school districts to establish
policy ensuring that districts will provide a sufficient number
of adequately trained school personnel to check students' blood
glucose levels, monitor students for symptoms of high and low
blood glucose, and assist with administering insulin or glucagon
or other treatment the children require.

"Diabetes must be managed 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. A
student with diabetes cannot take a break from diabetes when he
or she boards the school bus in the morning." said L. Hunter
Limbaugh, the Chair of the National Advocacy Committee at the
American Diabetes Association and a parent of a daughter who has
diabetes. "It's vital that all students with diabetes in
California and throughout the nation know they will be in a
medically safe environment that affords them the same
educational opportunities as other students. As is very clear
from the stories of the named plaintiffs in this lawsuit, many
students with diabetes in California are not safe at school.
They do not have access to the basic tools to manage their
diabetes. It is because this situation is intolerable for
students and their families that the American Diabetes
Association has joined this lawsuit."

For more details, contact Peter Greenley of Reed Smith, Phone:
+1-415-659-5669, Web site: http://www.reedsmith.com;Julia  
Epstein of DREDF, Phone: +1-510-644-2555 ext. 241; and Zach
Goldberg of ADA, Phone: +1-703-549-1500 ext. 2622.


CARRIER ACCESS: Plaintiffs File Consolidated CO Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Carrier Access Corporation and certain of its officers and
directors face a consolidated securities class action
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado.

Three securities suits were initially filed, styled:

     (1) Croker v. Carrier Access Corporation, et al., Case No.
         05-cv-1011-LTB;

     (2) Chisman v. Carrier Access Corporation, et al., Case No.
         05-cv-1078-REB, and

     (3) Sved v. Carrier Access Corporation, et al, Case No. 05-
         cv-1280-EWN,

The suits were filed on behalf of those who purchased the
Company's publicly traded securities between October 21, 2003
and May 20, 2005. Plaintiffs allege that defendants made false
and misleading statements, purport to assert claims for
violations of the federal securities laws, and seek unspecified
compensatory damages and other relief.  The complaints are based
upon allegations of wrongdoing in connection with the Company's
announcement of its intention to restate previously issued
financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2004 and
certain interim periods in each of the years ended December 31,
2004 and 2003.


CASUAL MALE: Reaches Settlement For CA Employees' Wage Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Casual Male Retail Group, Inc. reached a settlement for the
class action filed against it in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, alleging
violations of the state's labor laws.

In October 2003, a class action lawsuit was filed against the
Company in California Superior Court.  The complaint alleged,
among other things, that the Company failed to pay overtime
compensation and to provide meal and rest breaks to the
Company's California store managers for the period May 14, 2002
through the present.  

Subsequently, in a lawsuit filed in United States District
Court, Northern District of California, the case was expanded to
include all Casual Male managers nationwide. The lawsuit seeks
unpaid overtime, meal and rest period penalties, waiting time
penalties and injunctive relief under the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA) and the California Labor Code.

The California claims were consolidated into the federal court
action and the state court lawsuit was dismissed. No class has
been certified, and the parties conducted initial discovery and
entered mediation.  During the second quarter of fiscal 2005,
the Company reached agreement in principle to settle this
matter, subject to the execution of final documents and the
approval by the court.  The settlement is not expected to have a
material impact on the Company's financial condition or results
of operations.


DESIGN IDEAS: Recalls Chair, Bean Bag Sets Due to Injury Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC), Design Ideas Ltd., of Springfield, IL is voluntarily
recalling about 1,100 sets of Lily Chair and Lily Ottoman Bean
Bag Sets.

According to the company, the chair and ottoman do not have
locking zippers or warning labels. CPSC is aware of children who
have died from suffocation when they unzipped, inhaled and
ingested small pellets in similar bean bag furniture. There have
been no incidents or injuries reported.

The Lily chair and Lily ottoman were sold together as a bean bag
furniture set. The chair and ottoman sets were sold in
ivory/white (model 170001), ivory/blue (model 170003),
ivory/black (model 170004) and ivory/orange (model 170009).
Model numbers can be found on a label affixed to the bottom of
the furniture.

Manufactured in Thailand, the sets were sold at all specialty
gift and furniture stores nationwide sold the chair and ottoman
sets from January 2004 through July 2005 for about $170.

Consumers should stop using the chair and ottoman sets
immediately, keep them out of reach of young children and
contact Design Ideas to arrange to return the product for a full
refund.

Consumer Contact: For additional information, contact Design
Ideas at (800) 426-6394 between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m. ET Monday
through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.designideas.net.


DILLARDS INC.: Plaintiffs File Second Amended Suit in S.D. Ohio
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a second amended class action against Dillards,
Inc. in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio.  The suit also names as defendants the
Mercantile Stores Pension Plan and the Mercantile Stores Pension
Committee and was filed on behalf of a putative class of former
Plan participants.  

The complaint alleges that certain actions by the Plan and the
Committee violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974, as amended (ERISA), as a result of amendments made to
the Plan that allegedly were either improper and/or ineffective
and as a result of certain payments made to certain
beneficiaries of the Plan that allegedly were improperly
calculated and/or discriminatory on account of age.  The Second
Amended Complaint does not specify any liquidated amount of
damages sought and seeks recalculation of certain benefits paid
to putative class members.  No trial date has been set.

The suit is styled "Christnacht, et al v. Dillards Inc, et al,
case no. 1:00-cv-00488-SSB-JS," filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, under Judge
Sandra S. Beckwith.  The plaintiffs were represented by Stanley
Morris Chesley and Terrence Lee Goodman, Waite Schneider Bayless
& Chesley Co LPA 1513 Fourth & Vine Tower One West Fourth Street
Cincinnati, OH 45202 Phone: 513-621-0267 E-mail:
stanchesley@wsbclaw.cc, or terrygoodman@wsbclaw.com.  
Representing the Company are Michael Devanney Eagen and Gregory
Alan Harrison of Dinsmore & Shohl - 1, 1900 Chemed Center 255 E
5th Street, Cincinnati, OH 45202 Phone: 513-977-8200 E-mail:
michael.eagen@dinslaw.com or greg.harrison@dinslaw.com; and Gina
Marie Saelinger of Ulmer & Berne LLP, 600 Vine Street Suite 2800
Cincinnati, OH 45202 Phone: 513-977-8200 Fax: 513-977-8141 E-
mail: gsaelinger@ulmer.com.


DOLLAR TREE: Plaintiffs Launch New CA Labor Law Violations Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Former employees of Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. filed an amended
class action in California State Court, charging the Company
with not providing employees with sufficient meal breaks and
rest periods.

In 2003, the Company was served with a lawsuit in California
state court by a former employee who alleged that employees did
not properly receive sufficient meal breaks and paid rest
periods. He also alleged other wage and hourly violations.  The
suit requested that the California state court certify the case
as a class action.  This suit was dismissed with prejudice in
May 2005, and the dismissal has been appealed.  In May 2005 a
new suit alleging similar claims was filed.


DOLLAR TREE: Former Oregon Employees Lodge Overtime Wage Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. faces a class action filed in Oregon
Superior Court by its former employees, alleging that they did
not properly receive sufficient meal breaks and paid rest
periods.

The suit further alleges other wage and hour violations. The
plaintiffs have requested the Oregon state court to certify the
case as a class action, the Company revealed in a filing with
the Securities and Exchange Commission.


EASTMAN KODAK: Discrimination Suit Proceeds to Discovery Phase
--------------------------------------------------------------
After a federal judge declined to dismiss a complaint filed
against Rochester's largest employer by 10 African-American
workers and the group Employees Committed for Justice, the
discrimination suit against Eastman Kodak Co. will now move to
the next phase of the litigation, The Rochester Democrat and
Chronicle reports.

U.S. Magistrate Jonathan Feldman rejected Kodak's arguments that
the complaint, whose plaintiffs are seeking class action status
for it, was legally flawed and should be dismissed.

With Judge Feldman's rejection of the Company's arguments, the
case now moves to the discovery phase, when the parties exchange
information.

The suit is styled, "Davis v. Eastman Kodak Co., Case No. 6:04-
cv-06098-JWF," filed in the United States District Court for the
Western District of New York, under Judge Jonathan W. Feldman.
Representing the Plaintiff/s are: Judith Ann Biltekoff of Brown
& Kelly, LLP, 1500 Liberty Building, Buffalo, NY 14202, Phone:
716-854-2620, x 107, Fax: 716-854-0082, E-mail:
jbiltekoff@brownkelly.com; and William G. Bauer of Woods Oviatt
Gilman, LLP, 700 Crossroads Building, Two State St., Rochester,
NY 14614, Phone: (585) 987-2800, Fax: (585) 987-2911, E-mail:
wbauer@woodsoviatt.com. Representing the Defendant/s are:
Michael D. Thomas of Nixon Peabody, LLP, Two Embarcadero Center,
27th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94111, Phone: (415) 984-8200, Fax:
415-984-8300, E-mail: mthomas@nixonpeabody.com; and Judith E.
Harris of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP, 1701 Mark St.,
Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone: (215) 963-5028.


EATON VANCE: NY Court Dismisses Mutual Funds Fraud Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York dismissed the class action filed against Eaton Vance
Corporation, captioned In Re Eaton Vance Mutual Funds Fee
Litigation.  The suit was filed against Eaton Vance Corp.; Eaton
Vance Management; Boston Management and Research; Eaton Vance,
Inc.; Eaton Vance Distributors, Inc.; Lloyd George Investment
Management (Bermuda) Limited; Orbimed Advisors LLC; Lloyd George
Investment Management (B.V.I.) Limited; nine current or past
trustees of 81 Eaton Vance funds named as nominal defendants
(the "Funds"); and twelve current or past officers and portfolio
managers of the Funds.

The plaintiffs were seven alleged shareholders of four of the 81
Funds. The Lawsuit, a purported class action, alleged violations
of the Investment Company Act of 1940, the Investment Advisers
Act of 1940, New York law and the common law, and breaches of
fiduciary duties to the Funds and their shareholders.

On July 29, 2005, the Court issued an Opinion and Order
dismissing the Lawsuit in its entirety and rejecting the
plaintiffs' request to amend their complaint.

The suit is styled "In Re Eaton Vance Corporation Mutual Funds
Litigation, case no. 1:04-cv-01144-JGK," filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
under Judge John G. Koeltl.  Representing the plaintiffs is
Michael Robert Reese of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP
(NYC), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY 10119, Phone:
212-631-8696, Fax: 212-629-0307, Email: mreese@milberg.com.  
Representing the Company is Loren Schechter of Duane Morris,LLP
(NYC), 380 Lexington Avenue, New York, NY 10168, Phone:
(212) 692-1000, Fax: (212) 692-1020.


EASTMAN KODAK: Discrimination Suit Proceeds to Discovery Phase
--------------------------------------------------------------
After a federal judge declined to dismiss a complaint filed
against Rochester's largest employer by 10 African-American
workers and the group Employees Committed for Justice, the
discrimination suit against Eastman Kodak Co. will now move to
the next phase of the litigation, The Rochester Democrat and
Chronicle reports.

U.S. Magistrate Jonathan Feldman rejected Kodak's arguments that
the complaint, whose plaintiffs are seeking class action status
for it, was legally flawed and should be dismissed.

With Judge Feldman's rejection of the Company's arguments, the
case now moves to the discovery phase, when the parties exchange
information.

The suit is styled, "Davis v. Eastman Kodak Co., Case No. 6:04-
cv-06098-JWF," filed in the United States District Court for the
Western District of New York, under Judge Jonathan W. Feldman.
Representing the Plaintiff/s are: Judith Ann Biltekoff of Brown
& Kelly, LLP, 1500 Liberty Building, Buffalo, NY 14202, Phone:
716-854-2620, x 107, Fax: 716-854-0082, E-mail:
jbiltekoff@brownkelly.com; and William G. Bauer of Woods Oviatt
Gilman, LLP, 700 Crossroads Building, Two State St., Rochester,
NY 14614, Phone: (585) 987-2800, Fax: (585) 987-2911, E-mail:
wbauer@woodsoviatt.com. Representing the Defendant/s are:
Michael D. Thomas of Nixon Peabody, LLP, Two Embarcadero Center,
27th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94111, Phone: (415) 984-8200, Fax:
415-984-8300, E-mail: mthomas@nixonpeabody.com; and Judith E.
Harris of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP, 1701 Mark St.,
Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone: (215) 963-5028.


FORTUNA SEA: Recalls Clam Meat Due to Salmonella Contamination
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fortuna Sea Products, Inc. of Rosemead, CA is recalling frozen
cooked clam meat in one pound packages labeled as Ocean Pearl
Wild Caught, because it has the potential to be contaminated
with Salmonella, an organism that can cause serious and
sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly
people, and others with weakened immune systems. Healthy
individuals infected with Salmonella often experience fever,
diarrhea (which may be bloody), nausea, vomiting and abdominal
pain. In rare circumstances, infection with Salmonella can
result in the organism getting into the bloodstream and
producing more sever illnesses such as severe arterial
infections (i.e. infected aneurysms), endocarditis and
arthritis.

Fortuna Sea Products, Inc. sells frozen cooked clam meat to
distributors in Southern California and New York, New York area.
Consumers may have purchased or consumed the product through
retail or foodservice establishments such as supermarkets and
restaurants.

Fortuna Sea Products' frozen cooked clam meat can be identified
by the Ocean Pearl brand label. Clam meat is sold in 24 x 1 lb
retail pack in a master carton to distributors and may be
reselling to consumers in 1 lb retail plastic bag. This recall
is for Ocean Pearl brand frozen cooked clam meat with bar code 0
23998 12923 8 and Lot#C7397 stamped on master carton.

Through routine testing by FDA the presence of salmonella was
revealed. In the frozen cooked clam meat. No illnesses have been
reported associated with this recall.

Retail and foodservice establishments and whose customers who
have purchased Ocean Pearl brand frozen cooked clam meat with
bar code 0 23998 12923 8 and Lot#7397 stamped on master carton
should return the product to the distributors for a full refund.
Distributors and consumers with questions may contact Fortuna
Sea Products, Inc. directly at 626-572-4600.


GENERAL MOTORS: High Court Refuses to Dismiss Air Bag Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Corporation lost a U.S. Supreme Court appeal that
seeks to stop a lawsuit contending that 420,000 cars are
equipped with air bags that may deploy unnecessarily, Bloomberg
News reports.

The world's largest automaker lost their appeal after, the
justices, without comment, refused to disturb a lower court
ruling that lets a nationwide class action lawsuit go forward in
an Oklahoma state court. That suit concerns Chevrolet Malibu and
Oldsmobile Cutlass cars assembled at the Detroit-based
automaker's Oklahoma City plant from 1997 to 1999.

In their suit consumers claims that a software glitch that was
later corrected by GM makes their air bags prone to deploy
inadvertently, potentially causing serious injury or death. The
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration investigated the
issue in 1999 and decided no action was warranted.  A state
trial judge ruled that changing the software would cost about
$500 per car, or $210 million for the entire class. An Oklahoma
appeals court later upheld the ruling to let the case proceed as
a class action.

In court papers filed in Washington, General Motors argued that
Oklahoma courts were unconstitutionally "overriding the
regulatory decisions of sister states" by considering the legal
claims of consumers around the country.  Attorneys representing
the consumers urged the Supreme Court not to get involved,
pointing to a 2005 federal law that changed many of the rules
for future class actions suits.  Edward D. Robertson Jr. of
Jefferson City, Missouri, who is one of the consumers' attorneys
specifically argued that the law, "significantly diminishes the
importance of the issues presented in the petition."


GENESCO INC.: Working For Settlement of CA Overtime Wage Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Genesco, Inc. is working to settle two overtime class actions
filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, Los
Angeles County.

On October 22, 2004, the Company was named a defendant in a
putative class action filed in the Superior Court of the State
of California, Los Angeles, styled "Schreiner vs. Genesco Inc.,
et al.," alleging violations of California wages and hours laws,
and seeking damages of $40 million plus punitive damages.

On May 4, 2005, the Company and the plaintiffs reached an
agreement in principle to settle the action, subject to court
approval and other conditions.  In connection with the proposed
settlement, to provide for the settlement payment to the
plaintiff class and related expenses, the Company recognized a
charge of $2.6 million before taxes included in restructuring
and other, net in the accompanying Consolidated Statements of
Earnings for the first quarter of Fiscal 2006.

On May 25, 2005, a second putative class action, styled "Drake
vs. Genesco Inc., et al.," making allegations similar to those
in the Schreiner complaint on behalf of employees of the
Company's Johnston & Murphy division, was filed by a different
plaintiff in the California Superior Court, Los Angeles.  The
Drake action is stayed pending final resolution of the Schreiner
action.


GOODY'S FAMILY: Shareholders Launch Suits V. Buyout Offer in TN
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholders of Goody's Family Clothing are mounting challenges
to the $272.8 million buyout offer that the company agreed to
with an affiliate of private equity firm Sun Capital Partners,
The Knoxville News Sentinel reports.

The challenges are in the form of two lawsuits filed in Knox
County Chancery Court by Goody's stockholders, who are claiming
that the company failed to get the best offer for shareholders
when it accepted the Sun Capital affiliate's proposal of $8 per
share, even though another potential buyer, Prentice Capital
Management, said it will pay up to $9 per share for the company.

In the first suit filed, investor Alan Kahn claims that the
Knoxville-based clothing retailer, its CEO Bob Goodfriend, Chief
Financial Officer Ed Carlin and the board are not acting in
shareholders' best interests by taking the Sun Capital
affiliate's offer. His suit specifically stated, "After the
company received the higher offer from Prentice Capital
Management, the board of directors had a duty to become an
auctioneer and seek the highest possible offer for all
shareholders, not the offer that would benefit the Chairman and
CEO of the family the most."

Goody's Chairman and CEO Bob Goodfriend and members of his
family own about 42 percent of the company's stock and have
agreed to tender their shares to GFC Enterprises, according to
court records. As part of the deal, Goody's would have to pay a
break-up fee of $10.9 million to the Sun Capital affiliate and
reimburse for expenses up to an additional $3 million if the
retailer terminates the agreement under certain conditions.

Mr. Kahn, who is being represented by Nashville law firm Farris,
Mathews, Branan, Bobango & Hellen PLC, is asking Chancellor
Sharon Bell to certify the suit as class action, which would
thus include all other Goody's shareholders not affiliated with
the retail chain. In addition, he is also asking the court to
require Goody's to seek the best offer for shareholders.

The second suit, which was filed by investor Neil Stites, names
the company, Mr. Goodfriend and board member Irwin Lowenstein,
Cheryl Turnbull, Sam Furrow and Robert Koppel as defendants. It
too seeks class action certification. Mr. Stites' suit
specifically alleges, "The individual defendants have thus far
failed to announce active auction, open bidding or other
procedures best calculated to maximize shareholder value.
Instead of attempting to obtain the highest price reasonably
available for Goody's shareholders, the defendants have taken
actions in violation of applicable state law which will only
serve their own interests while inhibiting the maximization of
shareholder value."

The law firms of McCarthy and McCarthy of Knoxville, Barrett,
Johnston & Parsley of Nashville and Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller
Rudman & Robbins of San Diego, California, represent Mr. Stites
in the suit.


HEWLETT-PACKARD CO.: Appeals Certification of TX Consumer Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard Co. appealed the District Court of Jefferson
County, Texas' ruling granting class certification to a lawsuit,
alleging that the Company and Compaq Corporation sold computers
containing floppy disk controllers that fail to alert the user
to certain floppy disk controller errors.  The suit is styled
"Alvis v. HP."

Several similar suits are pending against the Company.  "Alvis"
is a nationwide defective product consumer class action that a
resident of Eastern Texas filed in the District Court of
Jefferson County, Texas in April 2001.  In February 2000, a
similar suit captioned "LaPray v. Compaq," was filed in the
District Court of Jefferson County, Texas.

The basic allegation is that the Company and Compaq sold
computers containing floppy disk controllers that fail to alert
the user to certain floppy disk controller errors. That failure
is alleged to result in data loss or data corruption.  The
complaints in "Alvis" and "LaPray" seek injunctive relief,
declaratory relief, unspecified damages and attorneys' fees.

In July 2001, a nationwide class was certified in the "LaPray"
case, which the Beaumont Court of Appeals affirmed in June 2002.  
In May 2004, the Texas Supreme Court reversed the certification
of the nationwide class in the "LaPray" case and remanded the
case to the trial court.  The trial court has not set a new
class certification hearing.  On March 29, 2005, the "Alvis"
court certified a Texas-wide class action for injunctive relief
only. On April 15, 2005, HP appealed the class certification
decision.  

On June 4, 2003, two suits, styled "Barrett v. HP" and "Grider
v. Compaq" was filed in the District Court of Cleveland County,
Oklahoma, with factual allegations similar to those in the first
two suits.  The complaints in "Barrett" and "Grider" seek, among
other things, specific performance, declaratory relief,
unspecified damages and attorneys' fees.

On December 22, 2003, the court entered an order staying both
the "Barrett" and "Grider" suits until the conclusions of the
"Alvis" and "LaPray" actions.  On July 28, 2004, the court
lifted the stay in "Grider" but took under advisement the
plaintiff's motion to lift the stay in "Barrett."  A class
certification hearing in "Grider" was held on May 25, 2005.  
On August 3, 2005, the court entered an order stating that it
was preliminarily granting plaintiffs' motion to certify a
nationwide class action; the parties are awaiting the opinion of
the court.

On November 5, 2004, "Scott v. HP" was filed in state court in
San Joaquin County, California, with factual allegations similar
to those in "LaPray" and on January 27, 2005, "Jurado v. HP" was
filed in state court in San Joaquin County, California, with
factual allegations similar to those in "Alvis."  The complaints
in Scott and Jurado seek a California-only class certification,
injunctive relief, unspecified damages (including punitive
damages), restitution, costs and attorneys' fees.  
On August 9, 2005, the plaintiffs in "Scott" filed a motion for
class certification. Although plaintiffs noticed the class
certification hearing for September 30, 2005, the parties have
asked the court to schedule the hearing on January 20, 2006.

In addition, the Civil Division of the Department of Justice,
the General Services Administration Office of Inspector General
and other Federal agencies are conducting an investigation of
allegations that HP and Compaq made or caused to be made false
claims for payment to the United States for computers known by
HP and Compaq to contain defective parts or otherwise to perform
in a defective manner relating to the same alleged floppy disk
controller errors. HP agreed with the Department of Justice to
extend the statute of limitations on its investigation until
December 6, 2005.  HP is cooperating fully with this
investigation.


HEWLETT-PACKARD CO.: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.D. CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard Company and its former Chairman and Chief
executive officer Carleton Fiornia faces a consolidated
securities class action currently filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California.

The suit, styled "Hanrahan v. Hewlett-Packard Company and
Carleton Fiorina," was filed on November 3, 2003, in the United
States District Court for the District of Connecticut on behalf
of a putative class of persons who sold common stock of the
Company during the period from September 4, 2001 through
November 5, 2001.  An amended complaint was filed on March 7,
2005.  The plaintiffs later sought the transfer of the suit to
California.

The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages and generally alleges that
the Company and Ms. Fiorina violated the federal securities laws
by making statements during this period which were misleading in
failing to disclose that Walter B. Hewlett would oppose the
proposed acquisition of Compaq by the Company prior to Mr.
Hewlett's disclosure of his opposition to the proposed
transaction.  

The suit is styled "Hanrahan v. Hewlett-Packard Co. et al., case
no. 3:05-cv-02047-CRB," filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, under Judge
Charles R. Breyer.  Representing the plaintiffs is Justin S.
Kudler, Schatz & Nobel, P.C., One Corporate Center, 20 Church
Street, Suite 1700, Hartford, CT 06103, Phone: 860-493-6292,
Fax: 860-493-6290, E-mail: jkudler@snlaw.net.  Representing the
Company are Thomas G. Rohback of LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae,
Goodwin Square, 225 Asylum St., Hartford, CT 06103, Phone:
860-293-3500, Fax: 860-293-3555, E-mail: trohback@llgm.com; and
Steven M. Schatz of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, 650 Page
Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050, Phone: 650/493-9300, Fax:
650-565-5100, E-mail: sschatz@wsgr.com.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: IL Court Refuses To Dismiss Consumer Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
The State Court of Madison County, Illinois refused to dismiss
two class actions filed against Hewlett-Packard Company, Compaq
Corporation and Intel Corporation, styled "Neubauer, et al. v.
Intel Corporation, Hewlett-Packard Company, et al., and
"Neubauer, et al. v. Compaq Computer Corporation."

The suits allege that the defendants misled the public by
suppressing and concealing the alleged material fact that
systems that use the Intel Pentium 4 processor are less powerful
and slower than systems using the Intel Pentium III processor
and processors made by a competitor of Intel.  The court in the
HP action has certified an Illinois class as to Intel but denied
a nationwide class, and proceedings have been stayed pending
resolution of plaintiffs' appeal of this decision. The
plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, restitution, attorneys'
fees and costs and certification of a nationwide class against
the Company and Compaq.  

In each action, the Company and Compaq have filed motions to
dismiss the cases, which the court has denied.  The class action
certification against Compaq has been stayed pending resolution
of plaintiffs' appeal in the "Neubauer v. HP" action.  The
Company has filed forum non-conveniens motions in both cases,
which are pending.

Another suit, styled "Skold, et al. v. Intel Corporation and
Hewlett-Packard Company," was initially filed in state court in
Alameda County, California to which the Company was joined on
June 14, 2004, based upon factual allegations similar to those
in the Neubauer suits.  On February 22, 2005, the parties
stipulated to transfer this case to state court in Santa Clara
County, California.  The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages,
restitution, attorneys' fees and cost and certification of
nationwide class.


HEWLETT-PACKARD CO.: 3 Consumer Fraud Suits Coordinated in CA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Three lawsuits filed against Hewlett-Packard Company, over the
Company's use of "smart chips" that allegedly signal to the
customer that certain inkjet printer cartridges need to be
replaced before they are really empty, and include an expiration
date that is allegedly not documented in marketing materials
provided to consumers, have been coordinated in a single
proceeding in Santa Clara Superior Court in California.

The first suit, styled "Tyler v. HP," was filed in state court
in Santa Clara, California on February 17, 2005, alleging that
the Company engaged in wrongful business practices (including
unfair competition, deceptive advertising, fraud and deceit,
breach of express and implied warranty, and breach of the
covenants of good faith and fair dealing).  Among other things,
plaintiffs alleged that the Company engineered "smart chip"
inkjet cartridges for use in certain inkjet printers to register
ink depletion prematurely and to render the cartridge unusable
through a built-in expiration date that is hidden, not
documented in marketing materials to consumers, or both.
Plaintiffs also contend that consumers received false ink
depletion warnings and that the design of the smart chip
cartridge limits the ability of consumers to use the cartridge
to its full capacity or to choose competitive products.

On February 17, 2005, and March 18, 2005, lawsuits captioned
"Obi v. HP" and "Weingart v. HP," respectively, were filed in
state court in Los Angeles, California with similar allegations.

The parties agreed to coordinate these cases, and, on May 25,
2005, the court granted the petition for coordination and
recommended that the matters be coordinated in state court in
Santa Clara, California. The "Tyler," "Obi," and "Weingart"
suits have been formally coordinated in a single proceeding in
state court in Santa Clara, California.

The suit, styled "Grabell v. HP," was filed in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey on March 18, 2005
and asserts causes of action under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud
Act and for unjust enrichment and breach of the implied covenant
of good faith and fair dealing.  The allegations in the
"Grabell" case are substantively identical to those in "Tyler"
and "Obi."  

"Just v. HP" is another federal class action lawsuit filed in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York on April 20, 2005 and asserts causes of action under the
New York General Business Law 349/350 and for unjust enrichment
and breach of the implied covenants of good faith and fair
dealing. The allegations in the "Just" case substantially
identical to the past four cases.

All of these actions are putative class actions which seek
certification of a statewide class, a nationwide class, or both,
"of purchasers of inkjet printers which use cartridges, that
contain a chip, or other device, which prematurely register that
the cartridge is empty or expired, and/or purchasers of HP
inkjet cartridges with such technology." The plaintiffs in all
of these cases also seek restitution, damages (including
enhanced damages), injunctive relief, interest, costs and
attorneys' fees.


HEWLETT-PACKARD CO.: Temps Launch ERISA Violations Suit in Idaho
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard Company faces a class action filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Idaho, styled "Miller
et al. v. Hewlett-Packard Company," on behalf of a putative
class of persons who were employed by third-party temporary
service agencies and who performed work at the Company's
facilities in the United States.

Plaintiffs claim that they were incorrectly classified as
contractors or contingent workers and, as a result, were
wrongfully denied employee benefits not covered by the
Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") and
benefits covered by ERISA.  Among the benefits enumerated are
benefits under the Company's Share Ownership Plan, service award
program, adoption assistance program, credit union, dependent
care reimbursement program, educational assistance program, time
off programs, flexible work arrangements and the 401(k) plan.

On May 22, 2005, plaintiffs filed their first amended complaint,
which added 13 additional named plaintiffs and a count under the
Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act ("WARN") in
anticipation of alleged reductions in force.  In addition, they
refined their class claims and defined the class to include
"those persons who have been, or now are, hired by the Company
through Agencies to work at HP facilities in the United States
of America from March 21, 2000 through the present who have been
deprived of the full benefit of 'employee' status by being
misclassified as 'contractors' or 'contingent workers' or
'temporary workers' or other mis-classification devices."
Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief, an injunction, retroactive
and prospective benefits and compensation, unspecified damages
and enhanced damages, interest, costs and attorneys' fees.

The suit is styled "Miller v. Hewlett Packard Co., case no.
1:05-cv-00111-BLW," filed in the United States District Court
for the District of Idaho, under Judge B. Lynn Winmill.  
Representing the plaintiffs are Robert C. Huntley, Christopher
F. Huntley, Steven L. Olsen, William H. Thomas, Daniel E.
Williams, HUNTLEY PARK, PO Box 2188, Boise, ID 83701-2188,
Phone: (208) 345-7800, Fax: 1-208-388-0234, E-mail:
rhuntley@huntleypark.com, chuntley@huntleypark.com,
solsen@huntleypark.com, wmthomas@huntleypark.com, and
danw@huntleypark.com.  Representing the Company are:

     (1) D. Ward Kallstrom, Robert J. Smith, MORGAN LEWIS &
         BOCKIUS LLP, One Market, Spear Street Tower, San
         Francisco, CA 94105, Phone: (415) 984-8200, Fax: (415)
         984-8200, E-mail: dwkallstrom@morganlewis.com  

     (2) Patricia M. Olsson, MOFFATT THOMAS BARRETT ROCK &
         FIELDS, PO Box 829, Boise, ID 83701, Phone: (208) 345-
         2000, Fax: 1-208-385-5384, E-mail: pmo@moffatt.com  

     (3) Kimberly R Sayers-Fay, STEVENS O'CONNELL LLP, 400
         Capitol Mall, Ste 1400, Sacramento, CA 95814-4498,
         Phone: 916-329-9111, Fax: 916-329-9110, E-mail:
         ksf@stevensandoconnell.com  


LIPMAN ELECTRONIC: Faces Purported Securities Lawsuit in Israel
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lipman Electronic Engineering Ltd. (Nasdaq, TASE: LPMA) was
named as a defendant in a purported securities lawsuit filed in
the Tel Aviv district court.

A motion has been filed by the plaintiff in this action seeking
the approval of a securities class action lawsuit against the
Company and Isaac Angel, the Company's President and CEO. The
lawsuit alleges violations of Israeli securities laws due to the
Company allegedly withholding material information.  


MEN'S WEARHOUSE: Reaches Settlement For CA Overtime Wage Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of California for the County of Orange
approved the settlement of the class action filed against The
Men's Wearhouse, Inc., alleging violations of the state's labor
laws.

The suit was brought as a purported class action and alleged
several causes of action, each based on the factual allegation
that in the State of California, the Company misclassified its
managers and assistant managers as exempt from the application
of certain California labor statutes.  Because of this alleged
misclassification, the suit alleged that the Company failed to
pay overtime compensation and provide the required rest periods
to such employees.  The suit sought, among other things,
declaratory and injunctive relief along with an accounting as to
alleged wages, premium pay, penalties, interest and restitution
allegedly due the class defendants.

MERRILL LYNCH: High Court Refuses To Reinstate Blodget Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court refused to reinstate a class action lawsuit
that accused Merrill Lynch and Henry M. Blodget of misleading
investors about Internet stocks, The Associated Press reports.  
The court was asked to use the case as a way to clarify the
standard for securities fraud claims

Investors involved in the suit, which is entitled "Lentell v.
Merrill Lynch & Co., 05-24," contend that Mr. Blodget and other
research analysts issued false rosy recommendations for 24/7
Real Media Inc. and Interliant Inc.   A federal court judge
threw out the lawsuit with the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
later upholding that decision, which eventually prompted
investors to ask the Supreme Court to intervene.

Court filings show approximately 140 such lawsuits were filed
after New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer investigated
investment recommendations by financial institutions, including
Merrill Lynch. In his investigations, Mr. Spitzer documented
internal communications that expressed negative views on
Internet stocks that the firm's analysts were then recommending
to the investing public.

Merrill Lynch agreed to pay $100 million in fines in 2002 to
settle a related investigation by state of New York after the
state attorney general's office found incriminating e-mails by
Mr. Blodget.


METALS USA: Agrees to Settle Consolidated Suit Over Apollo Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Metals USA, Inc. (NASDAQ: MUSA) agreed in principle to resolve a
consolidated class action lawsuit brought against it and each of
its directors in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware,
in and for New Castle County.

The class action is a consolidation of two lawsuits (Robert I.
Mawinney v. James E. Bolin, et al., C.A. No. 1367-N and Taam
Associates, Inc. v. James E. Bolin, et al., C.A. No. 1383-N)
related to the pending acquisition of the Company by affiliates
of Apollo Management, L.P ("Apollo").

Under the proposed settlement, among other things, the
plaintiffs' claims will be extinguished and Apollo will agree to
waive, under certain circumstances, its right to receive any
portion of the termination fee payable under the merger
agreement in excess of $13.6 million (representing a reduction
of approximately 20% of the termination fee). The Company
continues to deny that it has engaged in any wrongful acts and
is entering into this settlement solely for the purpose of
eliminating the burden and expense of future litigation.

The proposed settlement is subject to, among other things, final
approval of the Court and consummation of the pending
acquisition. As described in the Company's proxy statement for
its shareholder meeting to consider the Apollo transaction, the
consummation of the pending acquisition is subject to several
conditions precedent, including obtaining financing sufficient
to fund the transaction. No assurances can be made that such
conditions will be met or waivers to these conditions will be
obtained. Upon approval of the proposed settlement by the
Courts, plaintiff's attorneys are expected to apply for an award
of attorneys' fees and expenses.

For more details, contact Terry L. Freeman of Metals USA, Inc.,
Phone: 713-965-0990.


MONITOR SUGAR: Settlement Checks For Odor Suit to be Mailed Soon
----------------------------------------------------------------
Checks will be going out in the mail soon for the $1.75 million
that the former Monitor Sugar Co. paid to settle a class action
lawsuit, according to the lead attorney in the case, The Bay
City Times reports.

Steven D. Liddle told The Bay City News that 1,616 people will
get paid amounts ranging from $350 to $3,500, depending on how
involved they were in the action taken against the sugar company
over smells and dust pollution.  Mr. Liddle told The Bay City
News, "It's a good thing. More than 1,600 people are getting
paid for suffering years of abuse. The company has made
modifications to how they do things and they've reduced the
pollution problem. He goes on to say, "That's important, but
it's also important that people get paid for their damages."

Neighbors filed suit against the company in July 2003,
complaining about a stench from festering pockets in lime piles
on the Monitor Sugar plant that prevented them from enjoying
their property and dust that damaged their homes and vehicles.

The settlement was crafted during the merger of Monitor Sugar
and Michigan Sugar Co. into a single grower-owned cooperative
operating as Michigan Sugar.  Bay County Circuit Judge Lawrence
M. Bielawski approved the settlement in December. Aside from the
payments, the settlement called for the reduction of dust and
odors emanating from the plant at 2600 S. Euclid Ave.


PATTERSON COMPANIES: Securities Suits Consolidated in MN Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Patterson Companies, Inc. faces a consolidated securities class
action filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Minnesota, styled "In re Patterson Companies, Inc.
Securities Litigation, File No. 05cv1757 DSD/NMJ."

Four purported class action lawsuits were initially filed
against the Company and certain officers and directors, alleging
certain violations of the federal securities laws, on behalf of
shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities
of Patterson Companies, Inc. (former "Boston Scientific")
(NYSE:BSX) between March 31, 2003 through August 23, 2005,
inclusive.  The suits allege that during the Class Period,
Boston Scientific and certain individual defendants violated
provisions of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, causing
its stock to trade at artificially inflated levels.  The suits
also allege that Boston Scientific provided highly explicit
false and misleading assurances of the Company's ability to
satisfy FDA regulations governing its medical device product
quality, as well as affirmative representations as to the
Company's knowledge and expertise regarding design, development,
marketing approval, and sales of its medical devices. The
complaint further alleges over $400 million sold in insider
trading.

On August 31, 2005 the Court entered an order consolidating the
cases into a single action.  Because of the status of the
proceedings as well as the contingencies and uncertainties
associated with litigation, it is not possible to predict the
exposure that the Company will have, if any, in connection with
the claims.


PETCO ANIMAL: Investors File Securities Fraud Suits in S.D. CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Petco Animal Supplies, Inc. and certain of its officers face
several securities class actions filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California.

On April 18, 2005, the Company and two of its officers, James M.
Myers, its Chief Executive Officer, and Rodney Carter, its Chief
Financial Officer, were named as defendants in a purported class
action, alleging violations of Sections 10 and 20 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The named plaintiff, Plumbers
and Pipefitters Local 51 Pension Fund, purports to represent a
class of purchasers of our stock during the period November 18,
2004 to April 14, 2005, and alleges that during such period the
defendants misrepresented our financial position and that the
plaintiff and the purported class of purchasers during that
period were damaged by paying artificially and falsely inflated
prices for Company stock.  The complaint seeks unspecified
monetary damages.

On April 26, 2005, another class action was filed in the same
court with substantially similar allegations to those described
above.  The April 26 suit named Brian K. Devine, the Company's
Chairman, as an additional defendant.  The named plaintiffs in
the April 26 suit, Richard and Loretta Hochreiter, purport to
represent an identical class of investors as that identified in
the April 18 lawsuit.

On April 27, 2005, another class action was filed in the same
court with substantially similar allegations to those described
above, naming Roger Lieberman as its representative plaintiff.  
On May 5, 2005, an additional class action was filed, with
substantially similar allegations to those described above,
naming Mr. Myers, Mr. Carter and Mr. Devine as defendants.  The
May 5 complaint names Dikran Toroser as its representative
plaintiff.

In addition, certain law firms have announced that they are
seeking plaintiffs in order to file a class action lawsuit
against the Company based on unasserted claims similar to those
described above, the Company revealed in a disclosure to the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The first identified complaint in the litigation is styled
"Plumbers and Pipefitters Local 51 Pension Fund, et al. v. PETCO
Animal Supplies, Inc., et al.," filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California.  The
plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

     (1) Brodsky & Smith, LLC, 11 Bala Avenue, Suite 39, Bala
         Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610.668.7987, Fax:
         610.660.0450, E-mail: esmith@Brodsky-Smith.com

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

     (3) Dyer & Shuman, LLP, 801 E. 17th Avenue, Denver, CO,
         80218-1417, Phone: 303.861.3003, Fax: 800.711.6483, E-
         mail: info@dyershuman.com

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

     (5) Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP (LA), 1801 Ave. of the
         Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles, CA, 90067, Phone: (310)
         201-915, Fax: (310) 201-916, E-mail: info@glancylaw.com

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

     (7) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins (Los
         Angeles), 355 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 4170, Los Angeles,
         CA, 90071, Phone: 213.617.9007, Fax: 213.617.9185, E-
         mail: info@lerachlaw.com

     (8) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins (San
         Diego), 401 B Street, Suite 1700, San Diego, CA, 92101,
         Phone: 619.231.1058, Fax: 619.231.7423, E-mail:
         info@lerachlaw.com

     (9) Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP, 355 South Grand
         Avenue, Suite 4170, Los Angeles, CA, 90071, Phone:
         213.617.9007, Fax: 213.617.9185, E-mail:
         info@milbergweiss.com

    (10) Pomerantz,Haudek, Block, Grossman & Gross, 100 Park
         Avenue, 26th Floor, New York, NY, 10017-5516, Phone:
         212.661.1100,

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

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


ROSS STORES: CA Court Grants Certification To Overtime Wage Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Orange County Superior Court in California certified as a
class action a lawsuit filed against Ross Stores, Inc.,
concerning employee payroll and wage claims.

The Company's assistant store managers in California filed the
suit, alleging the Company classified them as "exempt managers"
under California Wage Orders.  

This is a procedural ruling and does not address the merits of
the case, the Company said in a disclosure to the Securities and
Exchange Commission.  In the opinion of management, resolution
of this matter is not expected to have a material adverse effect
on the Company's financial condition or results of operations.  


SHARPER IMAGE: Shareholders Launch Securities Fraud Suits in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed two securities class actions
filed against Sharper Image Corporation in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf
of purchasers of the Company's common stock during the period of
February 5, 2004 and August 4, 2004.

The complaints allege that during the Class Period, the Company
and certain of its officers and employee-directors made false
and misleading statements regarding the Company's business and
business prospects.

Although a number of lawsuits were announced, only two lawsuits
were filed. The first lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed on June
20, 2005 and the second was voluntarily dismissed on July 11,
2005.

The first identified suit is styled "Rosenbaum Capital, LLC, et
al. v. Sharper Image Corporation, et al.," filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California.  
The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

     (1) Baron & Budd, P.C., 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100,
         Dallas, TX, 75219, Phone: 800-946-9646, E-mail:
         info@baronbudd.com;

     (2) Brodsky & Smith, LLC, 11 Bala Avenue, Suite 39, Bala
         Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610.668.7987, Fax:
         610.660.0450, E-mail: esmith@Brodsky-Smith.com;

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

     (4) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbin (San
         Francisco), 100 Pine Street, Suite 2600, San Francisco,
         CA, 94111, Phone: 415.288.4545, Fax: 415.288.4534, E-
         mail: info@lerachlaw.com;

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

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


SHOPKO STORES: WI Court Allows Merger Despite Pending Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court for Brown County, Wisconsin allowed the merger
agreement allowing Shopko Stores, Inc. to be acquired by an
affiliate of Goldner Hawn to proceed despite a consolidated
class action challenging the merger.

Six putative class action lawsuits were initially filed and
later consolidated under the caption, "In re the Company
Shareholder Litigation, Case No. 05-CV-677."  The suit names as
defendants the Company, each member of the Company board of
directors and Goldner Hawn.  The consolidated complaint alleges,
among other things, that the Company and its directors breached
their fiduciary duties to the Company's shareholders by
negotiating the proposed merger at a price that the plaintiffs
allege to be inadequate, by supporting the merger rather than
effecting a recapitalization and by failing to disclose all
material information concerning the merger agreement, the
transactions contemplated thereby and the background of and
reasons for the merger.

In addition, the consolidated complaint alleges that Goldner
Hawn aided and abetted the directors' breach of their fiduciary
duties. The consolidated complaint seeks, among other relief,
rescission of the proposed merger, an injunction requiring
disclosure of all material information and preventing completion
of the proposed merger, and compensatory damages.

The litigation is proceeding, however, and on August 16, 2005
the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking a preliminary injunction.
The hearing on the motion was held on September 1 and September
2, 2005. Following oral argument, the court denied the
plaintiffs' motion, allowing the Company's shareholders to vote
on the proposed merger.


TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Faces Three Fraud Suits V. GTA:San Andreas
----------------------------------------------------------------
Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. and its subsidiary Rockstar
Games, Inc. face three class actions filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York and a
similar action filed in the United States District Court,
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging consumer fraud
relating to a "hidden" sex scene in the popular video game Grand
Theft Auto: San Andreas.

The plaintiffs, alleged purchasers of "Grand Theft Auto: San
Andreas," allege that the Company and Rockstar engaged in
consumer deception, false advertising and common law fraud and
were unjustly enriched as a result of the alleged failure of the
Company and Rockstar to disclose that the game contained
"hidden" content, which resulted in the game receiving an M
rating from the ESRB rather than an AO rating. The complaints
seek unspecified damages, declarations of various violations of
law and litigation costs.


TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Faces Personal Injury Lawsuit in AL Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. faces a lawsuit filed in the
Circuit Court of Fayette County, Alabama, by personal
representatives of the Estates of Arnold Strickland and Ace
Mealer.  The suit also named as defendants Sony, Wal-Mart,
GameStop and Devin Moore.

The suit alleges under Alabama manufacturers liability and
wrongful death statutes that the Company's video games designed,
manufactured, marketed and/or supplied to Mr. Moore resulted in
"copycat violence" that caused the death of Mr. Strickland and
Mr. Mealer. The suit seeks damages (including punitive damages)
against all of the defendants in excess of $600,000.

The Company believes that the claims are without merit and that
the action is similar to lawsuits brought and uniformly
dismissed by courts in other jurisdictions. The Company intends
to vigorously defend and seek a dismissal of this action, the
Company said in a regulatory filing.


VIRGINIA: Court To Rule on Roanoke Sexual Harassment Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
After hearing arguments on the plaintiff's motion on whether to
grant class action status to a sexual harassment case against
Roanoke Sheriff George McMillan and the defense's motion to
dismiss, U.S. District Judge Samuel Wilson said he would issue a
written opinion on both "in short order," The Roanoke Times
reports.

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

About a month after filing the suit, Ms. King filed a motion to
certify the case as a class action, and since that time, seven
more women have come forward with declarations to support the
motion.

The women who supported the motion were Jennifer Donovan,
Malinda Bland, Kristen Darnell, Rhonda G. Johnson, Erin M.
Bachinsky and Tamara D. Speight. The seventh additional woman, a
former health care contractor with the Roanoke City Jail named
Angela Linkous, filed a declaration supporting the motion
recently.

Sheriff McMillan's attorney, Elizabeth Dillon, argued at the
recent hearing that Ms. King's motion for class action was not
filed in time because it was filed more than 90 days after Ms.
King received a notice of right to sue from the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission.

Court records show that Ms. King's notice of right to sue was
dated June 8, 2005. She filed her original complaint August 16,
which was well within the mandatory 90-day time frame. However,
the motion to certify class was filed September 16, outside the
window, Ms. Dillon pointed out.

In addition, Ms. Dillon argued that Ms. King did not mention a
class complaint in her EEOC charge, and Sheriff McMillan
therefore had no notice of such a claim.

However, Ms. King's attorney, Terry Grimes, countered that under
the "single-filing rule," only the named plaintiff has to
exhaust the EEOC's administrative process. Because Ms. King
filed a complaint within the 90 days, Mr. Grimes believes other
women can jump on board after the deadline. Mr. Grimes also
pointed out that all the women who have come forward with
declarations supporting the class action motion claim to have
been harassed during the same time frame as Ms. King.

Mr. Grimes further argued that although Ms. King did not
specifically state in her EEOC charge that she would seek a
class action, she referenced the possibility of other victims
three times.

For example, according to Mr. Grimes, she (Ms. King) wrote:

     (1) "I deliberately wore an oversized blue turtleneck
         sweater to wear to the meeting to look 'unfeminine'
         because I knew from both rumor and experience that the
         sheriff was very 'hands on' with female employees."

     (2) "I heard several comments [at work] about how I got
         struck by the 'grope-a-lope,' a nickname the sheriff
         has earned through hugs that cross over into 'copping
         a feel.' "

     (3) "I believe that the department and the sheriff have
         treated other females similarly, all in violation of
         state and federal law."

Ms. Dillon also argued at the recent hearing for dismissal of
portions of Ms. King's complaint, since according to her, only
one alleged incident in March 2004 occurred within the allowed
300 days prior to Ms. King's filing an EEOC complaint and Ms.
King applied for a job with another agency before that incident,
so her constructive discharge claim is without merit.

"Constructive discharge" means that even if an employee quits,
he or she may have suffered wrongful termination because a poor
work environment left no other choice.

Mr. Grimes asked that the matter be taken under advisement and
that the plaintiff be allowed to conduct discovery to determine
how many victims exist.

Judge Wilson though asked how many alleged victims there could
possibly be considering the relatively small size of the
sheriff's department, which actually has between 200 and 300
employees.

Mr. Grimes responded that class action has been certified in
cases with just four victims, and he expects to find at least 30
victims in this case.

If class action is denied, Mr. Grimes told The Roanoke Times
after the hearing that he hopes the judge will grant a motion to
intervene, which requests that all women who have filed
declarations be allowed to join Ms. King as plaintiffs in the
case.

The suit is styled, "King v. McMillan, Case No. 7:05-cv-00521-
sgw," filed in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, under Judge Samuel G. Wilson. Representing
the Plaintiff/s is Terry Neill Grimes of TERRY N. GRIMES, PC,
320 ELM AVE., SW ROANOKE, VA 24016, Phone: 540-982-3711, Fax:
345-6572, E-mail: tgrimes@terryngrimes.com. Representing the
Defendant is Elizabeth Kay Dillon of GUYNN MEMMER & DILLON, PC,
P.O. BOX 20788, ROANOKE, VA 24018, Phone: 540-387-2320, Fax:
540-389-2350, E-mail: elizabeth.dillon@g-mpc.com.


WET SEAL: CA Court Dismisses Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California dismissed the consolidated securities class action
filed against Wet Seal, Inc. and certain of its present and
former directors and executives.

Between August 26, 2004 and October 12, 2004, six securities
class action lawsuits were filed on behalf of persons who
purchased the Company's common stock between January 7, 2003 and
August 19, 2004.  The complaints allege violations of Section
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 of the
Exchange Act, on the grounds that, among other things, the
Company failed to disclose and misrepresented material adverse
facts that were known to the defendants or disregarded by them.

On November 17, 2004, the Court consolidated the actions and
appointed lead plaintiffs and counsel. On January 29, 2005, the
lead plaintiffs filed their consolidated class action complaint
with the Court, which consolidated all of the previously
reported class actions.  The consolidated complaint alleges that
the defendants, including the Company, violated the federal
securities laws by making material misstatements of fact or
failing to disclose material facts during the class period, from
March 2003 to August 2004, concerning its prospects to stem
ongoing losses in its Wet Seal division and return that business
to profitability.  The consolidated complaint also alleges that
certain former directors and La Senza Corporation, a Canadian
company controlled by them, unlawfully utilized material non-
public information in connection with the sale of the Company's
common stock by La Senza. The consolidated complaint seeks class
certification, compensatory damages, interest, costs, attorney's
fees and injunctive relief.

The suit is styled "In Re: The Wet Seal, Inc. Securities
Litigation, case no. 04-CV-07159," filed in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California, under
Judge Gary A. Feess.  Representing the plaintiffs in this
litigation are:

     (1) Barrack, Rodos & Bacine (San Diego), 402 West Broadway,
         San Diego, CA, 92101, Phone: 619.230.0800, Fax:
         619.230.1874, E-mail: info@barrack.com

     (2) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins (San
         Diego), 401 B Street, Suite 1700, San Diego, CA, 92101,
         Phone: 619.231.1058, Fax: 619.231.7423, E-mail:
         info@lerachlaw.com


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


ANDRX CORPORATION: Bernard M. Gross Lodges Securities Suit in FL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C., initiated a class action
lawsuit, numbered 05-61640, in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida, before the Honorable
William P. Dimitrouleas, on behalf of purchasers of Andrx
Corporation ("ANDRX" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:ADRX) common
stock during the class period between March 9, 2005 and
September 5, 2005 who have been damaged thereby.

The action is pending against defendants Andrx Corporation and
Thomas Rice, Chief Executive Officer of the Company.

The Complaint charges defendants with violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Complaint alleges that
defendants were aware of and failed to disclose the fact that
their manufacturing facilities did not comply with all
applicable good manufacturing practices ("cGMP") regulations and
that Andrx was facing serious regulatory sanctions as a result
of its cGMP violations including a sanction that would preclude
the Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") approval of Andrx's
pending and future drug applications. On September 6, 2005,
defendants shocked the market when they announced that the FDA
had recently placed a halt on approving Andrx's drug
applications. In response to this press release, Andrx stock
dropped from a closing price of $17.94 on September 5, 2005 to
$14.89 on September 6, 2005 on heavy trading volume.

For more details, contact Susan R. Gross, Esq. or Deborah R.
Gross, Esq. of Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C., The Wanamaker
Bldg., 100 Penn Sq. East, Suite 450, Philadelphia, PA 19103,
Phone: 866-561-3600 or 215-561-3600, E-mail:
susang@bernardmgross.com or debbie@bernardmgross.com, Web site:
http://www.bernardmgross.com.


BARRIER THERAPEUTICS: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Fraud Suit in NJ
-------------------------------------------------------------  
The law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
LLP ("Lerach Coughlin") initiated a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on
behalf of purchasers of Barrier Therapeutics Inc. ("Barrier" or
the "Company") (NASDAQ:BTRX) common stock during the period
between April 29, 2004, and June 29, 2005, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

The complaint charges Barrier and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Barrier is a biopharmaceutical
company, engaged in the discovery, development, and
commercialization of pharmaceutical products in the field of
dermatology. The complaint alleges that Barrier made a series of
materially false and misleading statements concerning the
Company's business and products under development. In
particular, the Complaint alleges that these statements were
materially false and misleading because they failed to disclose
and misrepresented the following adverse facts:

     (1) that the Company had failed to perform its clinical
         trials in conformity with FDA guidelines as they had
         failed to disclose that they had secretly substituted
         the petroleum base within Zimycan, the effect of which
         was to substantially lessen the likelihood that the
         drug could achieve FDA approval;

     (2) that Hyphanox did not have a better safety or efficacy
         profile than fluconazole/Diflucan and, in fact, as
         investors ultimately learned, Hyphanox was
         significantly less effective than fluconazole/Diflucan;
         and

     (3) as a result of the foregoing, defendants lacked any
         reasonable basis for their positive statements about
         Barrier.

On June 29, 2005, Barrier shocked the market when it announced,
among other adverse facts, that the Company's drug trials failed
to demonstrate that Hyphanox worked as well as fluconazole. In
response to this announcement, the price of Barrier stock
plummeted over $6.75 per share - - a decline of over 45% - - to
below $8.00 per share on extremely heavy trading volume.

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


BARRIER THERAPEUTICS: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C., filed a lawsuit seeking
class action status in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey on behalf of all persons who purchased
the common stock of Barrier Therapeutics, Inc. (Nasdaq:BTRX)
("Barrier") between April 29, 2004, and June 29, 2005, inclusive
(the "Class Period"). Also included are those who purchased
Barrier pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's Initial
Public Offering ("IPO") on or about April 29, 2004 and/or in its
Secondary Offering on or about February 9, 2005.

The Complaint alleges that Barrier violated federal securities
laws by issuing a series of materially false and misleading
statements concerning the Company's business and products under
development. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose and
misrepresented the following adverse facts:

     (1) that the Company had failed to perform its clinical
         trials in conformity with FDA guidelines as they had
         failed to disclose that they had secretly substituted
         the petroleum base within Zimycan, the effect of which
         was to substantially lessen the likelihood that the
         drug could achieve FDA approval;

     (2) that Hyphanox did not have a better safety or efficacy
         profile than fluconazole/Diflucan and, in fact, as
         investors ultimately learned, Hyphanox was
         significantly less effective than fluconazole/Diflucan;
         and

     (3) as a result of the foregoing, defendants lacked any
         reasonable basis for their positive statements.

On June 29, 2005, Barrier announced, among other adverse facts,
that the Company's drug trials failed to demonstrate that
Hyphanox worked as well as fluconazole. On this news, the price
of Barrier stock plummeted over $6.75 per share, a decline of
over 45%, to close below $8.00 per share on June 30, 2005.

For more details, contact Wayne T. Boulton or Nancy A. Kulesa of
Schatz & Nobel, P.C., Phone: (800) 797-5499, E-mail:
sn06106@aol.com, Web site: http://www.snlaw.net.
          

DANA CORPORATION: Smith & Smith Lodges KY Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Smith & Smith, LLP, initiated a securities class
action lawsuit on behalf of shareholders who purchased
securities of Dana Corporation (the "Company")(NYSE:DCN),
between March 23, 2005 and September 14, 2005, inclusive (the
"Class Period"). The class action lawsuit was filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern 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
concerning the Company's financial performance and prospects,
thereby artificially inflating the price of Dana Corporation
securities. No class has yet been certified in the above action.

For more details, contact Howard Smith, Esq. of Smith & Smith
LLP, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, PA 19020, Phone:
(866) 759-2275, E-mail: howardsmithlaw@hotmail.com.  


HUTCHINSON TECHNOLOGY: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Fraud Suit in MN
--------------------------------------------------------------  
The law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
LLP ("Lerach Coughlin") initiated a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the District of Minnesota on
behalf of purchasers of Hutchinson Technology ("Hutchinson")
(NASDAQ:HTCH) common stock during the period between October 4,
2004 and August 29, 2005 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Hutchinson and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Hutchinson manufactures and sells suspension assemblies
for hard disk drives.

The complaint alleges that on October 4, 2004, the Company
announced it had significantly surpassed its own financial
projections for its fiscal year ending September 26, 2004. Based
upon the purported growing demand for Hutchinson's suspension
assemblies then being experienced, defendants increased the
Company's sales guidance for FY 2005. Thereafter, throughout the
Class Period Hutchinson reported quarter after quarter of
stellar financial results purportedly based upon this growing
demand for its assemblies. The complaint alleges that as a
result of defendants' positive but false statements,
Hutchinson's stock traded at inflated levels during the Class
Period, increasing to as high as $43 per share on June 3, 2005,
whereby the Company's top officers and directors sold $12.5
million worth of their own shares at inflated prices.

On July 21, 2005, the Company disclosed that it had missed its
third quarter 2005 earnings projections by 50%. The Company's
stock price fell by $4.91 per share, or 13%, in a single trading
session on very high volume. Then, on August 30, 2005,
defendants announced that they were reducing the Company's
fourth quarter 2005 sales guidance by as much as 15%; its fourth
quarter 2005 gross margin projections were being cut by as much
as 35% due to lower productivity; its fourth quarter 2005
earnings guidance was being reduced by more than 90%; and its
fourth quarter 2005 unit shipments would come in as much as 15%
short of the unit sales previously projected. On this news the
Company's stock price fell by $5.35 per share, or 17%, in a
single trading session, and several analysts downgraded
Hutchinson's stock rating.

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


LIPMAN ELECTRONIC: Glancy Binkow Lodges Securities Suit in NY
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP, filed a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York on behalf of a class (the "Class")
consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired securities of Lipman Electronic Engineering, Ltd.
("Lipman" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:TASE:)(TASE:LPMA) on the
Nasdaq National Market and/or Tel Aviv Stock Exchange between
October 4, 2004 and September 27, 2005, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

The Complaint charges Lipman and certain of the Company's
executive officers with violations of federal securities laws.
Among other things, plaintiff claims that defendants' material
omissions and dissemination of materially false and misleading
statements caused Lipman's stock price to become artificially
inflated, inflicting damages on investors. Lipman maintains its
principal corporate offices at Rosh Haayin, Israel, and engages
in the development, manufacture, marketing and sale of
electronic payment systems and solutions worldwide. The
Complaint alleges that defendants issued public statements which
fraudulently created a false impression concerning the Company's
business operations and prospects following the acquisition of
Dione, Plc ("Dione"), a United Kingdom-based supplier of "smart
card" payment systems. Defendants claimed that the Dione
acquisition would add to Lipman's earnings within one year and
"provide important new customer relationships that would add
critical mass to our U.K. presences."

During the Class Period, defendants touted the Dione
acquisition, claiming it would provide "important new customer
relationships" and enable the Company to penetrate new markets,
among other things. Defendants' public statements, however,
misled the public concerning Lipman's ability to leverage
purported "operational and technological synergies that exist
between the two companies." The Complaint alleges defendants
knew or recklessly disregarded and failed to disclosed that the
Dione acquisition would not provide an immediate boost to
Lipman's earnings or easily establish the Company's presence in
the United Kingdom and other European countries. Instead,
defendants' statements misled Lipman shareholders and
artificially inflated the Company's stock price. Additionally
during the Class Period, defendants' materially misleading
statements and omissions enabled to Company to complete a
secondary offering of 1,973,044 shares at $29.75 per share in
May 2005.

On September 28, 2005, less than one year after completing the
Dione acquisition, Lipman made a stunning admission that the
"weaker than expected performance of Dione" caused the Company
to slash its 2005 earnings estimates, from a previous forecast
of $1.39 to $1.42 per share, down to $0.88 to $0.98 per share.
The Company also announced that it had terminated the employment
of Dione CEO Shaun Gray and that the Company anticipated it
would take a non-cash impairment charge relating to goodwill and
other intangible assets in 2005.

Investor reaction was sharply negative to this news, causing
Lipman's share price to plunge nearly 22 percent following the
disclosure of the Company's inability to leverage the Dione
acquisition to expand Lipman's European market presence.

For more details, contact Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq., of Glancy
Binkow & Goldberg LLP, 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311, Los
Angeles, CA 90067, Phone: (310) 201-9150 or (888) 773-9224, E-
mail: info@glancylaw.com, Web site: http://www.glancylaw.com.


REFCO INC.: Federman & Sherwood Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Federman & Sherwood initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against Refco, Inc. (NYSE: RFX).

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of
material misrepresentations to the market which had the effect
of artificially inflating the market price. The class period is
from August 11, 2005 through October 7, 2005.

For more details, contact William B. Federman of FEDERMAN &
SHERWOOD, 120 N. Robinson, Suite 2720, Oklahoma City, OK 73102,
Phone: (405) 235-1560, Fax: (405) 239-2112, E-mail:
wfederman@aol.com, Web site: http://www.federmanlaw.com.


REFCO INC.: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------  
The law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
LLP ("Lerach Coughlin") initiated a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York on behalf of all those who purchased the common stock of
Refco, Inc. ("Refco" or the "Company") (NYSE:RFX) from August
11, 2005 to October 7, 2005, including those who purchased the
common stock of Refco pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's
initial public offering ("IPO") on or about August 11, 2005,
seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Act of 1933 (the
"Securities Act") and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act").

The complaint charges Refco and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Act and the Exchange
Act. Refco provides execution and clearing services for exchange
traded derivatives; and brokerage services in the fixed income
and foreign exchange markets in the United States, Bermuda, and
the United Kingdom.

Refco went public via an initial public offering in August 2005.
A mere three months later, on October 10, 2005, Refco announced
that Phillip R. Bennett, its Chief Executive Officer ("CEO") and
Chairman and controlling shareholder, was being placed on a
leave of absence and that the Company had discovered,
purportedly through an internal review, a receivable of $430
million owed by Bennett to the Company. The Company also
announced that based on the undisclosed related party
transaction, its prior financial statements should not be relied
upon.

According to the complaint, on or about August 10, 2005, Refco
filed with the SEC a Form S-1/A Registration Statement (the
"Registration Statement"), for the IPO. On or about August 11,
2005, the Prospectus (the "Prospectus") with respect to the IPO,
which forms part of the Registration Statement, became effective
and 26.5 million of Refco's common stock were sold to the
public, thereby raising approximately $583 million. According to
the complaint, the Prospectus issued in connection with the IPO
was materially false and misleading for several reasons. As
detailed in the complaint, Refco has now admitted that those
financial statements should no longer be relied upon and will
likely be restated. This amounts to an admission that those
financial statements were materially false and misleading when
issued. In a section entitled "Certain Relationships And Related
Transactions", the Prospectus purported to detail all of the
related party transactions concerning its business. The
Prospectus, however, failed to disclose the related-party loan
of $430 million to an entity controlled by Bennett.

In response to these announcements, the price of Refco common
stock declined precipitously falling from $28.56 per share to
$15.60 per share on extremely heavy trading volume.

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


REFCO INC.: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C., filed a lawsuit seeking
class action status in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons who
purchased the common stock of Refco, Inc. (NYSE:RFX) ("the
Company") between August 11, 2005 and October 7, 2005 (the
"Class Period"). Also included are all those who purchased the
common stock of Refco pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's
initial public offering ("IPO") on or about August 11, 2005.

The Complaint alleges Refco violated federal securities laws by
issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements
in the Registration Statement (the "Registration Statement") and
Prospectus (the "Prospectus") prepared and disseminated by
defendants in connection with the IPO. In the IPO, 26.5 million
shares of Refco's common stock were sold to the public, thereby
raising approximately $583 million. Refco has now admitted that
those financial statements should no longer be relied upon and
will likely be restated. In a section entitled "Certain
Relationships And Related Transactions", the Prospectus
purported to detail all of the related party transactions
concerning its business. The Prospectus, however, failed to
disclose the related-party loan of $430 million to an entity
controlled by Phillip R. Bennett, its Chief Executive Officer
and Chairman and controlling shareholder.

On October 10, 2005, Refco announced that Bennett, was being
placed on a leave of absence and that the Company had discovered
a receivable of $430 million owed by Bennett to the Company.
Refco also announced that based on the undisclosed related party
transaction, its prior financial statements should not be relied
upon. On this news, the price of Refco common stock declined
from $28.56 to $15.60 per share.

For more details, contact Wayne T. Boulton or Nancy A. Kulesa of
Schatz & Nobel, Phone: (800) 797-5499, E-mail: sn06106@aol.com,
Web site: http://www.snlaw.net.


TEMPUR-PEDIC INTERNATIONAL: Smith & Smith Files Fraud Suit in KY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Smith & Smith, LLP, initiated a securities class
action lawsuit on behalf of shareholders who purchased
securities of Tempur-Pedic International, Inc. ("Tempur-Pedic"
or the "Company") (NYSE:TPX), between April 22, 2005 and
September 19, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The class
action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Kentucky.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period
concerning the Company's financial performance and prospects,
thereby artificially inflating the price of Tempur-Pedic
securities. No class has yet been certified in the above action.

For more details, contact Howard Smith, Esq. of Smith & Smith
LLP, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, PA 19020, Phone:
(866) 759-2275, E-mail: howardsmithlaw@hotmail.com.  


                            *********


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

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

                            *********


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

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

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

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

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

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

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *