CAR_Public/051014.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Friday, October 14, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 204

                           Headlines

ASPEN TECHNOLOGY: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit in MA
AUTHENTIDATE HOLDINGS: Consolidation Sought For NY Stock Suits
AXA: Heirs to Share in $17 Mil Armenian Genocide Suit Settlement
CABLE & WIRELESS: Suit Settlement Hearing Set October 20, 2005
CANADA: Parent Sues Striking Teachers in Victoria For Negligence

COLORADO: Defense Attorney Says Rock Flats Story "Complicated"
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Arbitrator Favors FL Student Suit Dismissal
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: CA Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit
DEVRY INC.: Graduate Initiates Consumer Fraud Suit in CA Court
DEVRY INC.: IL Computer Information Systems Grads Launch Lawsuit

HLI OPERATING: Settlement Reached For Stock Suit V. Executives
KEYBANK: Judge Approves $4.5M Settlement With Scammed Investors
LOEWS CINEPLEX: CA Court Approves Gift Card Lawsuit Settlement
NATIONAL AUTO: Finalizes NY Investor, Derivative Suit Settlement
OKLAHOMA: Settlement Agreement Proposed in PikePass Complaint

OREGON: Few Catholic Parishioners Opt Out of Property Lawsuit
SCIENCE APPLICATIONS: Employees File Labor Violations Suit in CA
SCO GROUP: NY Court Preliminarily Approves Stock Suit Settlement
SOUTH CAROLINA: Settlement Proposed in Myrtle Property Tax Case
STRATOS INTERNATIONAL: NY Court Preliminarily Approves Suit Pact

ST. JUDE: Court Reverses Certification For Silzone Valve Suits
TOYS "R" US: Plaintiffs Voluntarily Dismiss DE Investors Lawsuit
VIRBAC CORPORATION: Reaches Settlement For TX Securities Lawsuit

                        Asbestos Alert

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: RPM Notes Lower Asbestos Payments in 1Q06
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CBS Corp. Defends Personal Injury Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: UK Union Helps Ex-Shipyard Worker Win Claim
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: RPM Posts 8% Lower Profits for 1st Qtr 2006
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Nature Park Inspection May Hint GBP20T Fine

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Monsanto Dismissed in Injury Suit, MS Court
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: UK Worker Begins GBP200,000 Lawsuit v. AMEC
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: JPN Mesothelioma Fatalities up 953 from 500
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: AGII Determines to Add $4M to A&E Reserves
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Nissan Apologizes for Asbestos Use in Parts

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Japan Govt. Sees 85T Asbestos-Linked Deaths
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: UK Thieves Urged to be Checked for Exposure
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: S&P Puts Nationwide on Negative CreditWatch
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Navigators Group Reports on A&E Liabilities
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Equitas Not to Grant NAVG Recovery Demand

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Allegheny and Affiliates Defend 857 Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dec. 14 Target for CGM Reorganization Plan
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CSR, Insurers Asbestos Resolution Delayed
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: GA Judges' Rulings Split on Asbestos Suits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Early Detection for Asbestos-Linked Cancer

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Parents Fume Over School Asbestos Abatement
ASBESTOS ALERT: Calif. Carpenter Awarded US$2.8 Million by Jury
ASBESTOS ALERT: Dismissal Move Granted Against 2 Firms, NY Court

                  New Securities Fraud Cases

AMERIGROUP CORPORATION: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Suit in VA
ANDRX CORPORATION: Charles J. Piven Files Securities Suit in FL
BARRIER THERAPEUTICS: Abraham Fruchter Lodges Fraud Suit in NJ
BARRIER THERAPEUTICS: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Suit in NJ
LIPMAN ENGINEERING: Charles J. Piven Files Securities Suit in NY

LIPMAN ELECTRONIC: Pomerantz Haudek Lodges Securities Suit in NY
LIPMAN ELECTRONIC: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Suit in NY
REFCO INC.: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
REFCO INC.: Pomerantz Haudek Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
REFCO INC.: Sarraf Gentile Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY

REFCO INC.: Scott + Scott Files Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
REFCO INC.: Wechsler Harwood Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
SMITH BARNEY: Stull Stull Files Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY


                            *********


ASPEN TECHNOLOGY: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit in MA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Aspen Technology, Inc. and certain of its officers and directors
face a consolidated securities class action filed in the United
States District Court of Massachusetts, captioned "Aspen
Technology, Inc. Securities Litigation, case no. 1:04-cv-12375-
JLT."

Two suits were initially filed, namely "Fener v. Aspen
Technology, Inc., et. al., Civil Action No. 04-12375 (filed
November 9, 2004)" and "Stockmaster v. Aspen Technology, Inc.,
et. al., Civil Action No. 04-12387 (filed November 10, 2004)."  
The suits allege, among other things, that the Company violated
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder in connection with various statements about its
financial condition for fiscal years 2000 through 2004.  The
time for the defendants to move, answer or otherwise respond to
the complaints has been extended to sixty days following the
filing of a consolidated amended complaint.

On February 2, 2005, the Court consolidated the cases under the
caption "Aspen Technology, Inc. Securities Litigation, Civil
Action No. 04-12375 (D. Mass.)," and appointed The Operating
Engineers and Construction Industry and Miscellaneous Pension
Fund (Local 66) and City of Roseville Employees' Retirement
System as lead plaintiff, purporting to represent a putative
class of persons who purchased the Company's common stock
between January 25, 2000 and October 29, 2004.  No consolidated
amended complaint has been filed and no class has been
certified.

The suit is styled "Aspen Technology, Inc. Securities
Litigation, case no. 1:04-cv-12375-JLT," filed in the United
States District Court in Massachusetts, under Judge Joseph L.
Tauro.  Representing the Company is Thomas J. Dougherty of
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP One Beacon Street
Boston, MA 02108 Phone: 617-573-4800 Fax: 617-573-4822, E-mail:
dougherty@skadden.com.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Mario Alba, Jr., David A. Rosenfeld, Samuel Rudman of
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP 200
         Broadhollow Road Suite 406 Melville, NY 11747 Phone:
         631-367-7100 Fax: 631-367-1173;

     (2) Theodore M. Hess-Mahan, Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP 53
         State Street Boston, MA 02108 Phone: 617-439-3939 Fax:
         617-439-0134 E-mail: ted@shulaw.com


AUTHENTIDATE HOLDINGS: Consolidation Sought For NY Stock Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs are seeking the consolidation of six purported
shareholder class actions were filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York against
Authentidate Holding Corporation and certain of its current and
former officers and directors.

Plaintiffs in these actions allege that defendants violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Sections 11, 12(a), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.
The securities law claims are based on the allegation that the
Company failed to disclose that the USPS could cancel its August
2002 contract with it if the Company did not meet certain
performance metrics, and when it disclosed in 2005 that the USPS
could cancel its contract because the Company had not met those
performance metrics, the market price of its stock declined. The
class action complaints seek unspecified monetary damages.

Certain plaintiffs and purported shareholders have filed motions
seeking to consolidate the class actions and to be appointed as
lead plaintiff under the Private Securities Litigation Reform
Act.  A hearing on these motions was scheduled for October 5,
2005. A response to the complaints is not due until after the
court has ruled on plaintiffs' motions and an amended
consolidated complaint has been filed; the date for filing any
such consolidated pleadings has not yet been set by the court.

The first identified complaint in this litigation is styled "Eli
Friedman, et al. v. AuthentiDate Holding Corp., et al.," filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York.  The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

     (1) Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, One Pennsylvania Plaza,
         Suite 1910, New York, NY, 10119, Phone: 212.279.5050,
         Fax: 212.279.3655, E-mail:
         JFruchter@FruchterTwersky.com

     (2) Alfred G. Yates, Jr., 429 Forbes Avenue, Pittsburgh,
         PA, 15219, Phone: 412.391.5164,

     (3) 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

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

     (5) Dyer & Shuman, LLP, 801 E. 17th Avenue, Denver, CO,
         80218-1417, Phone: 303.861.3003, Fax: 800.711.6483, E-
         mail: info@dyershuman.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
         (Melville), 200 Broadhollow, Suite 406, Melville, NY,
         11747, Phone: 631.367.7100, Fax: 631.367.1173, E-mail:
         info@lerachlaw.com

     (8) Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (New York), One
         Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor, New York, NY, 10119,
         Phone: 212.594.5300, Fax: 212.868.1229, E-mail:
         info@milbergweiss.com

     (9) Roy Jacobs & Associates, 350 Fifth Avenue Suite 3000,
         New York, NY, 10118, E-mail: classattorney@pipeline.com

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

    (11) Smith & Smith LLP, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112,
         Bensalem, PA, 19020, Phone: (866)759-2275, E-mail:
         howardsmithlaw@hotmail.com

    (12) Wechsler Harwood LLP, 488 Madison Avenue 8th Floor, New
         York, NY, 10022, Phone: 212.935.7400, E-mail:
         info@whhf.com


AXA: Heirs to Share in $17 Mil Armenian Genocide Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Descendants of victims of the 1915 Armenian Genocide will share
a $17 million settlement in a class action lawsuit brought
against French insurance giant AXA for unpaid life insurance
benefits, according to the law firm of Kabateck Brown Kellner,
LLP.

The class includes Armenians living in the United States and
abroad who are descendants and heirs of policyholders who
perished in what is considered the first genocide of the 20th
century. The settlement, subject to court approval, will be
administered in France, which was one of the first countries to
recognize the Armenian Genocide. AXA is headquartered in France
and does business in the United States through various
subsidiaries.

Under the terms of the $17 million settlement, AXA will donate a
minimum of $3 million to various France-based Armenian
charitable organizations and will contribute $11 million towards
a fund designed to pay, under procedures to be determined later,
valid claims of heirs of policyholders and beneficiaries of
policies issued by AXA Group subsidiaries that did business in
the Turkish Ottoman Empire prior to 1915. Certain of these
policyholders and beneficiaries were among the 1.5 million
Armenians who perished and were unable to obtain their insurance
proceeds in the ensuing chaos.

The suit is the second of its kind. Class Counsel Vartkes
Yeghiayan, Brian S. Kabateck and Mark J. Geragos, who are all of
Armenian descent, are internationally representing Armenian
descendants in similar cases. Earlier this year in another class
action (Martin Marootian, et al. v. New York Life Insurance
Company), New York Life agreed to pay $20 million to descendants
of Armenian policyholders killed during the genocide. Attorneys
representing the class against AXA also represented class
members in the New York Life case.

Class Counsel praised the efforts of U.S. District Court Judges
Christina Snyder and Dickran Tevrizian for their assistance in
fostering the dialogue that ultimately led to the settlement and
also praised AXA for dealing in a transparent and responsible
manner in bringing this matter to a successful conclusion.

"This is an example where dead men can't speak but they can file
lawsuits," said Vartkes Yeghiayan of Yeghiayan & Associates. "It
writes another chapter about persistence and hope. The
resolution of the case helps the healing process."

"The AXA and New York Life settlements are important building
blocks not only toward seeking financial recovery for the losses
resulting from the Armenian Genocide but also in our ultimate
goal, which is for Turkey and the U.S. to officially acknowledge
the genocide," said Mr. Geragos of Geragos & Geragos. "These
cases are historical because they are the only cases ever
brought on behalf of genocide survivors."

"My grandparents lost their entire families in the genocide. Our
continued legal efforts to bring attention to the terrible
events of 90 years ago honor their memories," said Mr. Kabateck
of Kabateck Brown Kellner. "Today, AXA made the right decision
by agreeing to establish a claims fund for the heirs of those
killed in the Armenian Genocide."

An announcement will be made shortly on when and how individuals
can file claims under this settlement.

The cases are, Kyurkjian, et al. v. AXA, Case No: CV 02-01750
and Ouzounian, et al., v. AXA, Case No: CV 05-02596, U.S.
District Court, Central District of California.

For more details, contact Brian S. Kabateck of Kabateck Brown
Kellner, LLP, Phone: 213-217-5000, E-mail: bsk@kbklawyers.com or
Diane Zakian Rumbaugh of Rumbaugh Public Relations, Phone:
805-493-2877, E-mail: rumbaugh@earthlink.net.


CABLE & WIRELESS: Suit Settlement Hearing Set October 20, 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts will hold a fairness hearing for the proposed
settlement in the matter: Powers Law Offices, P.C. v. Cable &
Wireless USA, Inc. on behalf of all individuals who paid a Cable
& Wireless USA, Inc. Presubscribed Interexchange Carrier Charge
at any time from August 13, 1999 through July 31, 2001.

The hearing will be held on October 20, 2005, at 11:00 a.m.,
before the Honorable Edward F. Harrington, U.S. District Judge,
John Joseph Moakley U.S. Courthouse, 1 Courthouse Way, Suite
2300, Boston, MA 02210.  

For more details, contact Girard Gibbs & De Bartolomeo, LLP, 601
California St., Suite 1400, San Francisco, CA 94108, Phone:
415-981-4800, Fax: 415-981-4846, E-mail: mail@girardgibbs.com;
and Stueve Siegel Hanson Woody, LLP, 330 West 47th St., Suite
250, Kansas City, MO 64112, Phone: (816) 714-7100 or
(800) 714-0360, Fax: (816) 714-7101, Web site:
http://www.sshwlaw.com/index.php?cid=contact.


CANADA: Parent Sues Striking Teachers in Victoria For Negligence
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit that alleges negligence by striking
teachers, their union and their union president was launched in
Victoria, The Vancouver Sun reports.

In a recently filed statement of claim, the suit, whose lone
plaintiff is Jacqueline Grant, accuses teachers, their union and
Jinny Sims, their leader of going on strike despite legislation
and legal decisions that declare their actions as being illegal.  
The statement of claim contends that their negligence includes
the failure to instruct union members to return to work and a
lack of effort to maintain essential service levels.

Denis Berntsen, the plaintiff's attorney told The Vancouver Sun
that he had advised his client not to speak publicly about the
suit though he did say that the suit is really about enforcing a
principle. "It's a matter of not having two levels of society --
one that doesn't have to follow the law and one that does," he
said.  Mr. Berntsen also told The Vancouver Sun that a class
action suit works by allowing many individuals to pursue a claim
through one lawsuit.

With the suit's filling, the next phase in the case will be for
the teachers to file a statement of defense and after that, a
Supreme Court hearing must be held to determine if the lawsuit
can be certified as a class action. If that happens, people with
claims must be notified, possibly through media ads, so they can
submit a claim.  Though no money amounts have been named in the
suit yet, Mr. Berntsen estimates the strike is costing B.C.
parents $12.5 million each day, which is essentially based on a
rough estimate of $50 per day for the 250,000 students (out of
600,000 or so) whose parents are affected financially by the
strike. Those effects could be anything from the need to take
time off work to fees for childcare.

Debra Swain, president of the Greater Victoria Teachers
Association, told The Vancouver Sun that she couldn't comment on
the lawsuit because the BCTF had not been served with any papers
and federation lawyers haven't had a chance to look at it.

"But I certainly can say that as educators we are sorry that
parents have been impacted by our job action and by our
political protest," Mr. Swain said. She continues, "We're not in
this action only for ourselves, but also for our students, and
it's just unfortunate that parents are impacted and students are
impacted. However, we feel very strongly that even though there
will be some short-term pain, there will be long-term gains and
we're doing this to benefit not only ourselves as educators but
also our students."

Kim Howland, president of the B.C. Confederation of Parent
Advisory Councils, said the organization hadn't heard anything
about the class action suit and didn't have a statement
prepared.


COLORADO: Defense Attorney Says Rock Flats Story "Complicated"
--------------------------------------------------------------
At recent hearing on a $500 million class action lawsuit over
the former Rocky Flats nuclear weapons plant in Colorado, a
lawyer for the companies told a federal jury that the true story
of plant isn't the easy stuff of Hollywood movies but the
complicated saga of two companies working on weapons crucial to
the national defense, The Rocky Mountain News reports.

David Bernick, an attorney for defendants Dow Chemical Co. and
Rockwell International Corporation specifically told the jury of
the 37 years that the two companies operated the nuclear weapons
plant 16 miles northwest of downtown Denver, "Nobody's going to
say that a perfect job was done at Rocky Flats."  However, Mr.
Bernick said that the story presented by plaintiffs' attorneys
of "government secrecy, hazardous materials, uncaring
corporations, innocent victims" isn't accurate.

Mr. Bernick pointed out to the jury that releases of radioactive
plutonium from the Rocky Flats site amounted to half the size of
a dime, spread over a 16-square-mile neighborhood, and exposed
neighborhood residents to a radiation dose of less than .2
millirem. One millirem is about the radiation dose anyone gets
from a chest x-ray or a flight from Denver to Los Angeles.  
According to Mr. Bernick, a radiation dose of .2 millirem
translates to a cancer risk of .8 cases in one million people.
He explained to the jury that by contrast the risk of cancer
from exposure to second-hand smoke is about one case in a
thousand people.

The trial, expected to last nearly to Christmas, will not be in
session resume October 14, 2005 before Colorado U.S. District
Judge John Kane.  The plant made plutonium triggers for nuclear
weapons. The property owners, who are the named plaintiffs in
the case, say Dow, which operated Rocky Flats from the 1950s
through 1975, and Rockwell, which took over in 1975 and operated
the plant until it was shut down in 1989, improperly stored or
otherwise mishandled plutonium-laced waste, resulting in
contamination of soil and groundwater. The plaintiffs claim that
large fires at the plant and windstorms and other natural events
helped to spread the waste outside the plant's boundaries. That
contamination, plus what the property owners said was a stigma
attached to houses near the plant, resulted in plummeting
property values, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (October
11, 2005) reports.

The suit is styled, "Cook, et al v. Rockwell Intl. Corp., Case
No. 1:90-cv-00181-JLK," filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Colorado, under Judge John L. Kane.
Representing the Plaintiff/s are:

     (1) Gary B. Blum of Silver & DeBoskey, P.C., 1801 York St.,
         Denver, CO 80206, U.S.A, Phone: 303-399-3000, Fax: 303-
         399-2650, E-mail: blumg@s-d.com;

     (2) Stanley M. Chesley of Waite, Schneider, Bayless &
         Chesley Co., L.P.A., 1513 Fourth and Vine Tower, One
         West Fourth St., Cincinnati, OH 45202, U.S.A, Phone:
         513-621-0268;

     (3) Merrill Gene Davidoff, Jennifer E. MacNaughton, Peter
         B. Nordberg, Ellen T. Noteware, Bernadette M. Rappold,
         Stanley B. Siegel and David F. Sorensen of Berger &
         Montague, P.C., 1622 Locust St., Philadelphia, PA
         19103, U.S.A, Phone: 215-875-3084, 215-875-3000 and
         215-875-3051, Fax: 215-875-4671, 215-875-4604 and 215-
         875-5707, E-mail: mdavidoff@bm.net,
         jmacnaughton@bm.net, pnordberg@bm.net,
         enoteware@bm.net and dsorensen@bm.net;

     (4) Bruce H. DeBoskey of Silver & Deboskey, P.C., 1801 York
         St. #700, Denver, CO 80206-5607, U.S.A, Phone: 303-399
         -3000;

     (5) Kenneth A. Jacobsen of Jacobsen Law Offices, LLC, 12
         Orchard Lane, Wallingford, PA 19086, U.S.A., Phone:
         610-566-7930, Fax: 610-566-7940;

     (6) David Evans Kreutzer of Colorado Department of Law,  
         1525 Sherman St., 5th Floor, Denver, CO 80203, U.S.A,
         Phone: 303-866-5667, Fax: 303-866-3558, E-mail:
         david.kreutzer@state.co.us;

     (7) Louise M. Roselle of Waite, Schneider, Bayless &
         Chesley Co., L.P.A., 1513 Fourth and Vine Tower, One
         West Fourth St., Cincinnati, OH 45202, U.S.A, Phone:
         513-621-0267, Fax: 513-381-2375, E-mail:
         louiseroselle@wsbclaw.com;

     (8) Clisham, Satriana & Biscan, LLC, 1512 Larimer St., #400
         Denver, CO 80202, U.S.A, Phone: 303-468-5403, Fax: 303-
         942-7290, E-mail: satrianad@csbattorneys.com;

     (9) Holly Brons Shook of Silver & DeBoskey, P.C., 1801 York
         St., Denver, CO 80206, U.S.A, Phone: 303-399-3000, Fax:
         303-399-2650, E-mail: shookh@s-d.com;

    (10) Ronald Simon of Simon & Associates, 1707 N. St., N.W.
         Washington, DC 20036, U.S.A, Phone: 202-429-0094, Fax:
         202-429-0075, E-mail: ron@1707law.com; and

    (11) John David Stoner of Chimicles & Tikellis, L.L.P., 361
         West Lancaster Ave., One Haverford Centre, Haverford,
         PA 19041-0100, U.S.A

Representing the Defendant/s are:

     (i) Joseph John Bronesky and Christopher Lane of Sherman &
         Howard, L.L.C.- 17th St., Denver, CO, United States
         District Court Box 12, 633 Seventeenth St., #3000
         Denver, CO 80202, U.S.A, Phone: 303-299-8450 and 303-
         299-8422, Fax: 303-298-0949 and 303-298-0940, E-mail:
         jbronesk@sah.com and clane@sah.com;

    (ii) Wendy S. White, Timothy P. Brooks, Patrick M. Hanlon,
         Amy Horton, Franklin D. Kramer and Edward J. Naughton  
         Of Goodwin Procter, LLP-DC, 1800 Massachusetts Ave.,
         N.W. #800, Washington, DC 20036, U.S.A, Phone:  202-
         828-2000, Fax: 828-2000;

   (iii) Michael K. Isenman of Goodwin Procter, LLP-DC, 901 New
         York Ave., NW #700, Washington, DC 20001, U.S.A, Phone:
         202-346-4000, Fax: 202-346-4444, E-mail:
         misenman@goodwinprocter.com;

    (iv) Lester C. Houtz of Bartlit, Beck, Herman, Palenchar &
         Scott-Colorado, 1899 Wynkoop St., #800 Denver, CO
         80202, U.S.A., Phone: 303-592-3177, Fax: 303-3140, E-
         mail: lester.houtz@bartlit-beck.com;

     (v) Douglas J. Kurtenbach, S. Jonathan Silverman, Mark S.
         Lillie and David M. Bernick of Kirkland & Ellis, LLP-
         Illinois, 200 East, Randolph Drive, #5400 Chicago, IL
         60601, U.S.A, Phone: 312-861-2225, 312-861-2089 and
         312-861-2248, Fax: 861-2200, 312-660-0452 and 312-861-
         2200, E-mail: mlillie@kirkland.com and
         dbernick@kirkland.com;

    (vi) Douglas M. Poland of LaFollette, Godfrey & Kahn, P.O.
         Box 2719, One East Main St., Madison, WI 53703-2719,
         U.S.A, Phone: 608-257-3911, Fax: 608-257-0609, E-mail:
         dpoland@gklaw.com; and

   (vii) Louis W. Pribila of Dow Chemical Company, 2030 Dow
         Center, Midland, MI 48674, U.S.A, Phone: 517-638-9511,
         Fax: 638-9410.


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Arbitrator Favors FL Student Suit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
An arbitrator ruled in favor of Corinthian Colleges, Inc.'s
motion to dismiss the class action filed against it in Florida
State Court, styled "Satz v. Rhodes Colleges, Inc., Corinthian
Colleges, Inc. and Florida Metropolitan University."  

Other motions to compel arbitration are pending in similar
suits, styled:

     (1) Travis v. Rhodes Colleges, Inc., Corinthian Colleges,
         Inc., and Florida Metropolitan University, and

     (2) Jennifer Baker et al. v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc. and
         Florida Metropolitan University, Inc.

     (3) Alan Alvarez, et al. v. Rhodes Colleges, Inc.,
         Corinthian Colleges, Inc., and Florida Metropolitan
         University, Inc.

The Baker complaint names nine plaintiffs while the Alvarez
first amended and supplemental complaint names ninety-nine
plaintiffs. Additionally, the court in the Alvarez case recently
granted the plaintiffs motion to add an additional seven
plaintiffs to the first amended and supplemental complaint.
The named plaintiffs in these lawsuits are current and former
students in the Company's Florida Metropolitan University (FMU)
campuses in Florida and online.  The plaintiffs allege that FMU
concealed the fact that it is not accredited by the Commission
on Colleges of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools
(SACS) and that FMU credits are not transferable to other
institutions.  Plaintiffs seek certification of the lawsuits as
a class action and recovery of compensatory damages and
attorneys' fees under Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices Act for themselves and all similarly situated people.  
The Alvarez plaintiffs seek damages on behalf of themselves
under common law and Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices Act.

The arbitrator in the Satz case found for the Company on all
counts in a July 5, 2005 award on the Company's motion to
dismiss. The arbitrator also found that Mr. Satz breached his
agreement with FMU by filing in court rather than seeking
arbitration and is therefore responsible to pay FMU's damages
associated with compelling the action to arbitration. Mr. Satz
has filed a motion for reconsideration which is currently
pending. The Company believes the other complaints are likewise
without merit and will vigorously defend itself, Rhodes
Colleges, Inc., and FMU against these allegations. The Company
has filed motions to compel arbitration in Travis, Baker and
Alvarez suits.


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: CA Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California dismissed the consolidated securities class action
filed against Corinthian Colleges, Inc. and certain of its
current and former executive officers, David Moore, Dennis Beal,
Paul St. Pierre and Anthony Digiovanni.

Since July 8, 2004, various putative class action lawsuits were
filed by certain alleged purchasers of the Company's common
stock on behalf of all persons who acquired shares of the
Company's common stock during a specified class period from
August 27, 2003 through either June 23, 2004 or July 30, 2004,
depending on the complaint.

The complaints allege that, in violation of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by the SEC, the defendants made certain material
misrepresentations and failed to disclose certain material facts
about the condition of the Company's business and prospects
during the putative class period, causing the respective
plaintiffs to purchase the Company's common stock at
artificially inflated prices.  The plaintiffs further claim that
Messrs. Moore, Beal, St. Pierre and Digiovanni are liable under
Section 20(a) of the Act.  The plaintiffs seek unspecified
amounts in damages, interest, and costs, as well as other
relief.

On November 5, 2004, a lead plaintiff was chosen and these cases
are now consolidated into one action.  A consolidated and
amended complaint was filed in February 2005.  On September 6,
2005, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss, without
prejudice. The Company expects the lead plaintiff to file a
second consolidated amended complaint.

The consolidated suit is styled "Conway Investment Club v.
Corinthian Colleges Inc et al., case no. 2:04-cv-05025-R-CW,"
filed in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California, under Judge Manuel L. Real.  The
plaintiff firms in the litigation are:

     (1) Barrack, Rodos & Bacine (Main office, Philadelphia),
         3300 Two Commerce Square, 2001 Market Street,
         Philadelphia, PA, 19103, Phone: 215.963.0600, Fax:
         215.963.0838, E-mail: info@barrack.com

     (2) 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

     (3) Lim, Ruger & Kim, LLP, 1055 West Seventh Street, Suite
         2800, Los Angeles, CA, 90017, Phone: 213-955-9500, Fax:
         213-955-9511, E-mail: info@lrklawyers.com

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

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

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


DEVRY INC.: Graduate Initiates Consumer Fraud Suit in CA Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
DeVry, Inc. and DeVry Universtiy, Inc. faces an amended class
action filed in the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Los Angeles, on behalf of all students enrolled in the
post-baccalaureate degree program in Information Technology.  

In January 2002, Royal Gardner, a graduate of one of DeVry
University's Los Angeles-area campuses, filed a class-action
complaint, alleging that the program offered by DeVry did not
conform to the program as it was presented in the advertising
and other marketing materials.  In March 2003, the complaint was
dismissed by the court with limited right to amend and re-file.  
The complaint was subsequently amended and re-filed.

During the first quarter of the Company's fiscal year 2004, a
new complaint was filed in the same court by Gavino Teanio with
the same general allegations and by the same plaintiffs'
attorneys.  This subsequent action has been stayed pending the
outcome of the Gardner matter.  Discovery continues in the
Gardner matter, but there is no determinable date at which this
matter may be brought to conclusion.


DEVRY INC.: IL Computer Information Systems Grads Launch Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
DeVry, Inc. and DeVry University faces a class action filed in
the Circuit Court for Cook County, Illinois, alleging that DeVry
graduates do not have appropriate skills for employment in the
computer information systems field.  

In November 2000, Afshin Zarinebaf, Ali Mousavi and another
graduate of one of DeVry University's Chicago-area campuses
filed a class-action complaint.  The complaint was subsequently
dismissed by the court, but was amended and re-filed to include
as a plaintiff Mark Macenas, a then-current student in another
curriculum from a second Chicago-area campus.  Discovery
continues, and a hearing to determine class-action certification
has been held, though the court has not yet announced its
ruling.

The suit is styled "Zahrinebaf v. DeVry, case no. 2000-CH-
15965," filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois,
under Judge Aaron Jaffe.  Representing the plaintiffs is
HOROWITZ HOROWITZ & ASSOCIATES, 25 E. Washington #900, Chicago,
IL 60602, Phone: (312) 372-8822.  Representing the Company is
SCHOPF & WEISS, 312 W. Randolph #300, Chicago IL 60606 Phone:
(312) 701-9300.


HLI OPERATING: Settlement Reached For Stock Suit V. Executives
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan granted final approval to the $7.2 million settlement
for the consolidated securities class action filed against
certain of HLI Operating Company, Inc.'s officers and directors.

On May 3, 2002, a group of purported purchasers of the Company's
Old Senior Notes and Old Senior Subordinated Notes commenced a
putative class action lawsuit against thirteen of the Company's
former directors and officers (but not the Company) and KPMG
LLP, the Company's independent registered public accounting
firm, in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan.  The complaint seeks damages for an
alleged class of persons who purchased the Company's bonds
between June 3, 1999 and September 5, 2001 and claim to have
been injured because they relied on the Company's allegedly
materially false and misleading financial statements.

On June 27, 2002, the plaintiffs filed an amended class action
complaint adding CIBC World Markets Corporation and Credit
Suisse First Boston Corporation, underwriters for certain bonds
issued by the Company, as defendants, but these parties were
subsequently dismissed from the action. The claims in this
action were not discharged upon the effectiveness of the Plan of
Reorganization because they were not against the Company.

Additionally, before the date the Company commenced its
Chapter 11 Bankruptcy case, four other putative class actions
were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Michigan against the Company and certain of the Company's
directors and officers on behalf of an alleged class of
purchasers of the Company's common stock from June 3, 1999 to
December 13, 2001, based on similar allegations of securities
fraud. On May 10, 2002, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated and
amended class action complaint seeking damages against the
officers and directors (but not the Company) and KPMG. Pursuant
to the Company's Plan of Reorganization, the Company purchased
directors' and officers' liability insurance to cover then-
current and former directors and officers and agreed to
indemnify certain of the Company former directors against
certain liabilities, including those matters described above, up
to an aggregate of $10 million in excess of the directors' and
Officers' liability insurance coverage to or for the benefit of
these indemnities.

The parties to these actions have agreed to a settlement, which
includes payment by certain defendants, including the former
directors, of $7.2 million and on May 10, 2005, the court issued
an order preliminarily approving this settlement. A final
fairness hearing on the settlement was held on July 20, 2005 and
the approval of the settlement was made final.


KEYBANK: Judge Approves $4.5M Settlement With Scammed Investors
---------------------------------------------------------------
Summit County Common Pleas Judge Judith Hunter gave her final
approval to a $4.5 million settlement by KeyBank to hundreds of
investors who were bilked out of millions of dollars through
KeyBank accounts, according to court bailiff Ken Masich, The
Associated Press reports.

Under the settlement, which had been approved on a preliminary
basis in June, each of 531 investors will receive about 8
percent of what they claim they are owed, before attorney and
other fees are deducted. The settlement also stipulates that
attorneys will receive one-third of the money.

Investors learned in 1999 that they had been duped by an alleged
financial shell game run by financial adviser Eric Bartoli. He
created the Cyprus Fund and promised high yields in conservative
stocks. Mr. Bartoli and his directors raised more than $65
million between 1995 and 1999, with early investors paid with
money collected from later clients.  Mr. Bartoli, who was
charged in 2003, still remains at large. Other directors were
convicted of tax fraud and selling unregistered securities.

Court records show that two years ago Tina Hollinger of
Massillon, who lost $205,000 in the Cyprus Fund, filed a class
action suit against KeyBank and its Cleveland-based parent
KeyCorp (NYSE: KEY). Ms. Hollinger's suit claimed that the
Cyprus Fund opened accounts at a KeyBank branch in Canton in
1996 and bank employees never raised questions when told the
fund was an offshore company, had no federal tax identification
number and millions of dollars would be flowing through
accounts.

Thomas A. Tucker Ronzetti, a Miami attorney representing
investors in the class action suit, told The Associated Press
that he was gratified by the outcome saying, "We are pleased
that the dispute was resolved for the benefit of all class
members."


LOEWS CINEPLEX: CA Court Approves Gift Card Lawsuit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The California Superior Court for San Francisco preliminarily
approved the settlement of the class action filed against Loews
Cineplex Entertainment Corporation, alleging illegal sale in
California of gift certificates with expiration dates under
California Civil Code Section 1749.5 (a strict liability statute
which expressly prohibits such sales), California Civil Code
Section 1750 et seq. and California's Business and Professions
Code Section 17200 et seq.

The Company sold various types of advance sale discount movie
tickets with expirations dates to California business customers
that, in turn, have either re-sold or given away such movie
tickets to employees or valued customers.  On December 15, 2003,
Daniel C. Weaver filed the suit, alleging that such corporate
discount tickets constituted gift certificates subject to
California's prohibition on selling gift certificates that
contain an expiration date.  The Weaver case was filed as both a
class action and as a private attorney general action on behalf
of the general public, and sought declaratory relief, injunctive
relief, disgorgement and restitution related to sales of such
alleged gift certificates during the putative class period.

The Company has reached agreement to settle this case, and the
Court has preliminarily approved the class action settlement
agreement. The Company anticipates obtaining the Court's final
approval of the class action settlement in November 2005.


NATIONAL AUTO: Finalizes NY Investor, Derivative Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement of a derivative and class action filed against
National Auto Credit, Inc. in the Supreme Court of the State of
New York for New York County, styled "Robert Zadra, et al v,
James A. McNamara, et al (Index. No. 01-604859)," is deemed
final.  The suit also names as defendants certain of the
Company's directors.

On July 31, 2001, NAC received a derivative complaint filed by
Academy Capital Management, Inc., a shareholder of NAC, with the
Court of Chancery of Delaware.  The company was named as a
nominal defendant, and named as defendants James J. McNamara,
John A. Gleason, William S. Marshall, Henry Y.L. Toh, Donald
Jasensky, Peter T. Zackaroff, Mallory Factor, and Thomas F.
Carney, Jr.

The Academy Complaint principally seeks:

     (1) a declaration that the Director Defendants breached
         their fiduciary duties to NAC,

     (2) a judgment voiding an employment agreement with James
         J. McNamara and rescinding a stock exchange agreement
         in which NAC acquired ZoomLot Corporation,

     (3) a judgment voiding the grant of stock options and the
         award of director fees allegedly related thereto,

     (4) an order directing the Director Defendants to account
         for alleged damages sustained and profits obtained by
         the Director Defendants as a result of the alleged
         various acts complained of,

     (5) the imposition of a constructive trust over monies or
         other benefits received by the Director Defendants and

     (6) an award of costs and expenses

On August 16, 2001, NAC received a complaint filed by Levy
Markovich ("Markovich"), a shareholder of NAC, with the Delaware
Chancery Court on or about August 16, 2001, against James J.
McNamara, John A. Gleason, William S. Marshall, Henry Y. L. Toh,
Donald Jasensky, Peter T. Zackaroff, Mallory Factor, and Thomas
F. Carney, Jr. and NAC as a nominal defendant.

The Markovich Complaint principally seeks:

     (i) a declaration that the Director Defendants have
         breached their fiduciary duties to NAC,

    (ii) a judgment voiding an employment agreement with James
         J. McNamara and rescinding a stock exchange agreement
         in which NAC acquired ZoomLot Corporation,

   (iii) a judgment voiding the grant of options and the award
         of directors fees allegedly related thereto,

    (iv) an order directing the Director Defendants to account
         for alleged damages sustained and alleged profits
         obtained by the Director Defendants as a result of the
         alleged various acts complained of,

     (v) the imposition of a constructive trust over monies or
         other benefits received by the directors, and

    (vi) an award of costs and expenses

On August 31, 2001, NAC received a complaint filed by Harbor
Finance Partners ("Harbor"), a shareholder of NAC, with the
Delaware Chancery Court on or about August 31, 2001, against
Thomas F. Carney, Jr., Mallory Factor, John A. Gleason, Donald
Jasensky, William S. Marshall, James J. McNamara, Henry Y. L.
Toh, Peter T. Zackaroff, Ernest C. Garcia, and ZoomLot
Corporation as Defendants and NAC as a nominal defendant.  The
Harbor Complaint principally seeks:

     (a) a judgment requiring the Director Defendants to
         promptly schedule an annual meeting of shareholders
         within thirty (30) days of the date of the Harbor
         Complaint;

     (b) a judgment declaring that the Director Defendants
         breached their fiduciary duties to NAC and wasted its
         assets;

     (c) an injunction preventing payment of monies and benefits
         to James J. McNamara under his employment agreement
         with NAC and requiring Mr. McNamara to repay the
         amounts already paid to him thereunder;

     (d) a judgment rescinding the agreement by NAC to purchase
         ZoomLot and refunding the amounts it paid;

     (e) a judgment rescinding the award of monies and options
         to the directors on December 15, 2000 and requiring the
         directors to repay the amounts they received allegedly
         related thereto;

     (f) a judgment requiring the defendants to indemnify NAC
         for alleged losses attributable to their alleged
         actions; and

     (g) a judgment awarding interest, attorney's fees, and
         other costs, in an amount to be determined

On October 12, 2001, NAC received a derivative complaint filed
by Robert Zadra, a shareholder of NAC, with the Supreme Court of
the State of New York on or about October 12, 2001 against James
J. McNamara, John A. Gleason, William S. Marshall, Henry Y. L.
Toh, Donald Jasensky, Peter T. Zackaroff, Mallory Factor, Thomas
F. Carney, Jr., and NAC as Defendants.  On May 29, 2002 the
complaint was amended to include class action allegations (the
"Zadra Amended Complaint").

The Zadra Amended Complaint contains allegations similar to
those in the Delaware actions concerning the Board's approval of
the employment agreement with James McNamara, option grants and
past and future compensation to the Director Defendants, and the
ZoomLot transaction.  The Amended Complaint seeks a declaration
that as a result of approving these transactions the Director
Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to NAC; a judgment
enjoining defendants from proceeding with or exercising the
option agreements; rescission of the option grants to
defendants, if exercised; an order directing the Director
Defendants to account for alleged profits and losses obtained by
the Director Defendants as a result of the alleged various acts
complained of; awarding compensatory damages to NAC and the
class, together with prejudgment interest, and an award of costs
and expenses.

By order of the Delaware Chancery Court on November 12, 2001,
the Academy, Markovich and Harbor Complaints were consolidated
under the title "In re National Auto Credit, Inc. Shareholders
Litigation," Civil Action No. 19028 NC (Delaware Chancery Court)
("Delaware Consolidated Action") and the Academy Complaint was
deemed the operative complaint.

The parties in the New York action thereafter engaged in
settlement negotiations and the parties entered into a
stipulation of settlement in December 2002, proposing to settle
all class and derivative claims.  In January 2003, the New York
Supreme Court entered an order which, among other things,
conditionally certified a class of shareholders for settlement
purposes, approved the form of notice of the proposed
settlement, and scheduled a hearing to approve the settlement.
Notice of the proposed settlement was given to the shareholders
of the Company and members of the class as per the court's order
in January and February 2003. Hearings on the proposed
settlement were held on May 13, 2003 and October 15, 2003. One
of the Plaintiffs in the Delaware Consolidated Action, and
several other shareholders, appeared and objected to the terms
of the settlement, but all of these objections were denied by
the New York Supreme Court, which, after hearing all the
evidence, found that the settlement was fair, reasonable and in
the best interests of the Company, the class and the Company's
shareholders, and approved the terms of the proposed settlement
in a written Order and Judgment entered January 8, 2004 ("the
January 2004 Order").

Under the terms of the New York Settlement Stipulation, the
Company agreed (subject to certain terms and conditions) to,
among other things:

     (1) adopt or implement certain corporate governance
         procedures or policies,

     (2) issue to a class of NAC shareholders who had
         continuously held NAC Common Stock from December 14,
         2000 through December 24, 2002 up to one million
         warrants (one warrant per 8.23 shares of Common
         Stock), with each warrant having a five year term and
         being exercisable for shares of NAC Common Stock at a
         price of $1.55 per share,

     (3) cancel 50% of certain stock options granted on December
         15, 2000, and

     (4) make certain payments for legal fees for counsel to the
         plaintiffs in the New York Action.

In addition, the New York Settlement Stipulation created for the
benefit of the Company a Settlement Fund in the amount of $2.5
million which has been funded by an insurance policy. The legal
fees for counsel to the plaintiffs in the New York Action are
not to exceed 25% of the Settlement Fund.

In order to facilitate the settlement and dismissal of a
separate derivative action entitled "In re National Auto Credit,
Inc, Shareholders Litigation (Index No. 19028 NC)" (hereinafter
referred to as the "Delaware Action"), which had been commenced
in the Chancery Court for the State of Delaware (the "Delaware
Court") against the Company, as well as the New York Action, on
April 22, 2005, the Company entered into a Stock Purchase
Agreement ("Agreement") with Academy Capital Management, Inc.,
Diamond A. Partners, L.P., Diamond A. Investors, L.P., Ridglea
Investor Services, Inc. and William S. Banowsky (hereinafter
referred to collectively as the "Selling Stockholders").

The Selling Stockholders had also raised objections to the
settlement of the New York Action. The New York Court rejected
the objections raised by the Selling Stockholders and approved
as fair and in the best interests of the Company and its
shareholders the proposed settlement of the New York Action as
set forth in the New York Settlement Stipulation. The Selling
Stockholders then filed an appeal (the "Appeal") to such
determination by the New York Court.

Pursuant to the terms of the Agreement, the Selling Stockholders
agreed, among other things, to do the following:

     (i) enter into a stipulation (to be filed with the New
         York Court) pursuant to which they will irrevocably
         withdraw, with prejudice, any objections they had
         asserted or might have asserted with respect to the
         settlement of the New York Action, stipulate to the
         entry of an order dismissing the New York Action and
         agree to the dismissal of the Appeal.

    (ii) enter into a stipulation (to be filed with the
         Appellate Division, First Department, of the Supreme
         Court of the State of New York) providing for the
         dismissal of the Appeal.

   (iii) enter into a stipulation (to be filed in the Delaware
         Court), pursuant to which they will agree to the
         dismissal of the Delaware Action with prejudice.

The Selling Stockholders have executed and delivered to the
Company and the Company has filed with the applicable New York
Court and Delaware Court each of the stipulations referred to
above. Effective May 5, 2005, the New York Court entered a Final
Order and Judgment in which it approved the Stipulation of
Dismissal of Objections, finding the terms set forth therein
fair, reasonable and adequate, and dismissed the New York Action
and the objections to the New York Settlement with prejudice.
Effective May, 13, 2005, the Appellate Division, First
Department, of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
granted the dismissal of the Appeal.  Effective May 18, 2005,
the Delaware Court granted an Order and Judgment Dismissing
Action with Prejudice the Delaware Action.  As a consequence of
each of the above actions by the respective courts, settlement
of the New York Action and the Delaware Action, the settlement
has received preliminary confirmation as of May 2005 and
management estimates final confirmation by the end of June 2005.

Pursuant to the Agreement, the Company agreed (subject to
certain terms and conditions set forth in the Agreement) to
purchase from the Selling Shareholders their 1,562,500 shares of
Company Common Stock at a price of $0.6732 per share (or a total
purchase price of $1,051,875) and to contribute $100,000 to
cover a portion of the legal fees incurred by the Selling
Shareholders.  The Company's obligation to purchase such shares
is conditioned upon (as well as certain other conditions) an
order or judgment having been entered by the New York Court in
the New York Action, dismissing the New York Action with
prejudice, which order or judgment shall not be subject to
appeal or the time to appeal such order or judgment shall have
lapsed, and an order or judgment having been entered by the
Delaware Court in the Delaware Action, dismissing the Delaware
Action with prejudice, which order or judgment shall not be
subject to appeal or the time to appeal such order or judgment
shall have lapsed.

As acknowledged by the Selling Shareholders in the Agreement,
the Company was willing to enter into the Agreement, settle the
New York Action and the Delaware Action and consummate the other
transactions contemplated by the Agreement in order to terminate
prolonged and expensive litigation and the Company's entry into
the Agreement would not constitute or be deemed to constitute or
evidence any improper or illegal conduct by or on behalf of the
Company (or any of its directors, officers, employees and other
agents or representatives) or any other wrong doing by the
Company (or any of its directors, officers, employees and other
agents or representatives). The Agreement was approved by the
disinterested and independent members of the Company's Board of
Directors.  Management currently anticipates that the final
confirmed settlement of the New York Action and the Delaware
Action, as described above, will be completed by June 30, 2005.


OKLAHOMA: Settlement Agreement Proposed in PikePass Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------------
Some PikePass customers will receive a credit averaging about
$11, according to a proposed settlement of a class action
lawsuit, which claims that customers were overcharged, The
Associated Press reports.  

The 2002 lawsuit alleged that customers were over billed because
of incorrect readings by the electronic toll-collection system.  
A PikePass is a prepaid account that automatically deducts tolls
as a customer enters or exits at certain locations on the
state's ten toll roads.

Final approval of the settlement is scheduled for a December 9,
2005 hearing in Oklahoma County District Court. It involves
transactions between January 1st, 1991, and September 15th,
2005.


OREGON: Few Catholic Parishioners Opt Out of Property Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Most of the 400,000 Catholic parishioners living in Western
Oregon lodged no objection to being part of a class action
lawsuit over whether hundreds of millions of dollars in parish
assets can be used to pay claims made by victims of alleged
priest sex abuse, The Associated Press reports.

Court records show that all parishes and parishioners within the
Archdiocese of Portland were named in July as a defendant class
in the property lawsuit, which aims to determining who owns
about $550 million worth of parish churches, schools,
cemeteries, cash and investments - the archdiocese, or the
individual parishes.

Individuals familiar with the matter explain that if a judge
eventually finds that the property belongs to the individual
parishes, it would greatly reduce the amount of money available
to pay victims' claims.  The committee representing the sex-
abuse claimants vehemently insists that the property belongs to
the archdiocese.  However, whatever is the outcome of the
dispute, individual parishioners won't have to pay the
archdiocese's debts, since their status as defendants simply
gives them an opportunity to have their say in the case.

Douglas R. Pahl, a lawyer for the parishioners and the 124
parishes in Western Oregon, told U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Elizabeth
Perris that only about 280 parishioners objected to being named
as defendants in the suit.  The archdiocese declared bankruptcy
in July 2004 in the face of mounting sex-abuse lawsuits.


SCIENCE APPLICATIONS: Employees File Labor Violations Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Science Applications International Corporation faces a class
action filed in the California Superior Court for the County of
San Diego, styled "Gracian v. SAIC."

A former employee filed the suit on March 4, 2005 on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated.  The suit alleged that
the Company improperly required exempt salaried and professional
employees in the State of California to utilize their paid leave
balances for partial day absences. The plaintiffs contend that
the Company's policy violates California law and seeks, among
other things, the unpaid vacation balance allegedly owed to
plaintiffs, overtime compensation, penalties, interest, punitive
damages and attorney fees.  The Company is analyzing the lawsuit
and the underlying issues.

On May 31, 2005, the California Labor Commissioner issued a
memorandum to the California Division of Labor Standards
Enforcement Staff that interprets California law in a way that
supports the Company's legal positions in this case.  The May
31, 2005 memorandum removes a prior California Labor
Commissioner opinion letter that interpreted California law in a
way that had supported the plaintiffs' legal position.

A California Court of Appeals, in another matter, published an
opinion on July 21, 2005, which supports the Company's position
regarding charging comprehensive leave balances for partial day
absences, although this opinion will not become final until 60
days after initial publication, the Company stated in a
disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission. If the
decision does not become final, it would have no precedential
force.  Plaintiffs' counsel may argue that the Court of Appeals
decision is wrongly decided and continue to pursue the case.


SCO GROUP: NY Court Preliminarily Approves Stock Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York against SCO
Group, Inc., certain of its officers and directors, and the
underwriters of the Company's initial public offering.

The consolidated complaint alleges certain improprieties
regarding the circumstances surrounding the underwriters'
conduct during the Company's initial public offering and the
failure to disclose such conduct in the registration statement
in violation of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.

The consolidated complaint also alleges that, whether or not the
Company's officers or directors were aware of the underwriters'
conduct, the Company and those officers and directors have
statutory liability under the securities laws for issuing a
registration statement in connection with the Company's initial
public offering that failed to disclose that conduct.  The
consolidated complaint also alleges claims solely against the
underwriters under the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

Over 300 other issuers, and their underwriters and officers and
directors, have been sued in similar cases pending in the same
court.  In September 2002, the plaintiffs agreed to dismiss the
individual defendants, but may elect to bring the individual
defendants back into the case at a later date.

The plaintiffs, issuers and the insurance companies have
negotiated a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the intent
of settling the dispute between the plaintiffs and the issuers.  
The Company has executed the MOU and has been advised that
almost all (if not all) of the issuers have elected to proceed
under the MOU.  The settlement agreement was then submitted to
the court for approval.  If the settlement agreement is approved
by the court, and if no cross-claims, counterclaims or third-
party claims are later asserted, this action will be dismissed
with respect to its directors and the Company.

The suit is styled "IN RE SCO GROUP INC. INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERING
SECURITIES LITIGATION," filed in relation to "IN RE INITIAL
PUBLIC OFFERING SECURITIES LITIGATION, Master File No. 21 MC 92
(SAS)," both pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, under Judge Shira N. Scheindlin.  
The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

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

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

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

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

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

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


SOUTH CAROLINA: Settlement Proposed in Myrtle Property Tax Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Under a proposed $2.76 million settlement reached in a six-year-
old class action lawsuit, Myrtle Beach residents would receive
vouchers and checks for overpayment of their 1999 property
taxes, The Associated Press reports.

The agreement, which till must be approved by Circuit Judge G.
Thomas Cooper, ends a case that reached the state Supreme Court
and has implications for how South Carolina's city and county
governments set property tax rates in reassessment years.

In January, the high court ruled that the city of Myrtle Beach
failed to follow state law in determining how much to charge in
property taxes after reassessing values in 1999. According to
court records, instead of rolling back tax rates using the
formula determined by the General Assembly, the city hired
auditors who determined a rate to collect about the same amount
in property taxes they had received the previous year.

With the high court's ruling, the case was eventually sent back
to Judge Cooper to determine how taxpayers should be compensated
for the overcharge. The Myrtle Beach City Council signed off on
the proposed settlement in September.

Under the proposed settlement, about $1.5 million would go to
current taxpayers in three yearly installments as vouchers,
which can be used as a tax credit or cashed in for property
owners who already have paid their taxes. In addition, the
agreement adds interest onto the 2006 and 2007 installments.

Attorney Charles B. Jordan, representing the city of Myrtle
Beach, told The Associated Press that the installment plan was
intended to reduce the financial burden of the settlement on
city finances.

About 3,000 taxpayers from the 1999-2000 tax year, representing
about one-fourth of the tax accounts to be refunded, no longer
live in the city, according to Nate Fata, an attorney
representing the plaintiffs.

The settlement stipulates that those nonresidents would receive
a check for the refund amount that would be sent to their last
known address with any refunds that could not be paid out
because the former residents could not be located would be
returned to current taxpayers with their 2006 installment.

Linda Angus, a former Horry County administrator, filed the suit
on behalf of herself as a city taxpayer in 1999 and earned class
action status for the lawsuit later. Under the settlement, she
would receive $10,000 as "class representative," while
plaintiffs' attorneys, Mr. Fata and L. Sidney Conner, would
receive $920,623 in fees plus $33,184 in costs.

Mr. Conner told Judge Cooper at a recent hearing for the
proposed settlement that the fees they are seeking might sound
high, but they had taken on the case in 1999 with considerable
risk. In addition, he noted that taxpayers would receive 100
percent of the overpayment with interest under the settlement
agreement. "It's been a very hard-fought battle," according to
him.


STRATOS INTERNATIONAL: NY Court Preliminarily Approves Suit Pact
----------------------------------------------------------------
Final fairness hearing for the settlement for the consolidated
securities class action filed against Stratos International,
Inc. (formerly Stratos Lightwave, Inc. and certain of its
directors and executive officers is set for April 24,2006 in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.

Several suits were initially filed.  The first of these
lawsuits, filed on July 25, 2001, is captioned "Kucera v.
Stratos Lightwave, Inc. et.al. No. 01 CV 6821."  Three other
similar lawsuits have also been filed against the Company and
certain of its directors and executive officers. The complaints
also name as defendants the underwriters for the Company's
initial public offering.  

The complaints are substantially identical to numerous other
complaints filed against other companies that went public during
the time of the Company's IPO.  The complaints generally allege,
among other things, that the registration statement and
prospectus from the Company's June 26, 2000 initial public
offering failed to disclose certain alleged actions by the
underwriters for the offering. The complaints charge the Company
and several of its directors and executive officers with
violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933,
as amended, and/or Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) to the
Security Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.  The complaints also
allege claims solely against the underwriting defendants under
Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.

In 2003, the Company agreed to a Memorandum of Understanding,
which reflects a settlement of these class actions as between
the purported class action plaintiffs, the Company and the
defendant officers and directors, and its liability insurer.
Under the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding, its
liability insurers will pay certain sums to the plaintiffs, with
the amount dependent upon the plaintiffs' recovery from the
underwriters in the IPO class actions as a whole.  The
plaintiffs will dismiss with prejudice their claims against the
Company and its officers and directors, and the Company will
assign to the plaintiffs certain claims that it may have against
the underwriters.  The plaintiffs have filed with the court a
motion for preliminary approval of the settlement, which, if
granted, will lead to the mailing of class-wide notices of the
settlement and a hearing date for approval of the settlement.
The issuers filed a statement joining in the plaintiffs' motion
for preliminary approval of the settlement. The underwriter
defendants opposed the motion.  On February 15, 2005, the Court
issued its ruling granting the plaintiffs' motion for
preliminary approval of the settlement with the issuers, subject
to certain changes to the bar order to be included as part of
the settlement and to the notice to the class, and the Court
recently approved the revisions made to the settlement and the
notice pursuant to its prior order. The settlement still remains
subject to final approval by the Court after notice of the
settlement is sent to the class and the class members and other
parties have an opportunity to have their objections, if any, to
the settlement heard at the final fairness hearing, which the
Court has scheduled for April 24, 2006.

The suit is styled "In Re Stratos Lightwave, Inc. Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, Case No. 01 Civ. 6821 (Sas)
(Ro)," filed in relation to "IN re IPO Securities Litigation,
21-MC-92 (Sas)," in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, under Judge Shira A. Scheindlin.  
The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

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

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

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

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

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

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


ST. JUDE: Court Reverses Certification For Silzone Valve Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals reversed a lower court ruling that
certified several class action lawsuits involving the Silzone
heart valve made by Little Canada-based St. Jude Medical Inc.,
The Minneapolis Star Tribune reports.

In its ruling, the Eighth Circuit appeals court stated that the
District Court erred in certifying a consumer protection class
that sought damages based on Minnesota's consumer protection
statutes. The court instead required the lower court to conduct
a conflicts-of-law analysis for each plaintiff class member
before applying Minnesota law.

In addition to the consumer case reversal, the appeals court's
ruling also reversed the District Court's certification of a
medical monitoring class involving the products with Silzone
coating.

St. Jude's Silzone valve, which was implanted in about 36,000
people worldwide, received Food and Drug Administration approval
for use domestically in 1998. It was later recalled in 2000.

The valve featured a silver coating on a cuff that was sewn to
the patient's body. The silver was thought to combat the
infection of cardiac tissue often associated with heart-valve
implants. However, the Silzone valves were prone to leak.


TOYS "R" US: Plaintiffs Voluntarily Dismiss DE Investors Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the consolidated class action
filed against Toys "R" Us, Inc. and certain of its officers and
directors in the Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware in
and for New Castle County, challenging the Agreement and Plan of
Merger, dated as of March 17, 2005 by and among the Company,
Global Toys Acquisition, LLC ("Parent") and Global Toys
Acquisition Merger Sub, Inc. ("Acquisition Sub").

On March 25 and 31, 2005 respectively, Iron Workers of Western
Pennsylvania Pension & Profit Plans and Jolly Roger Fund LP
filed two purported class action complaints.  On April 20, 2005,
these two lawsuits were consolidated.  On May 18, 2005,
Plaintiffs filed a consolidated First Amended Complaint, in
which plaintiffs named Parent and Acquisition Sub as additional
defendants.

The Complaint asserts on behalf of a purported class of
stockholders of the Company a claim against the Individual
Defendants for alleged breaches of fiduciary duties in
connection with the Merger Agreement.  The Complaint
additionally asserts a claim against Parent and Acquisition Sub
for aiding and abetting the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties
by the Individual Defendants in connection with the Merger
Agreement.  The Complaint seeks to enjoin the consummation of
the merger or, alternatively, to rescind it.  Plaintiffs also
seek an award of damages for the alleged wrongs asserted in the
Complaint.

On May 20, 2005, plaintiffs filed motions for expedited
proceedings and a preliminary injunction. The court granted
plaintiffs' motion to expedite discovery and scheduled a hearing
on their motion for a preliminary injunction on June 17, 2005.
On June 2nd and 3rd, 2005, the Company and the Individual
Defendants moved to dismiss the lawsuit brought by plaintiffs.  
On July 14, 2005, plaintiffs filed a notice of voluntary
dismissal, thereby dismissing the Complaint without prejudice.


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

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

     (1) Virbac S.A. (VBSA),

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In May 2005, the parties agreed to submit to mediation in an
effort to resolve the action. On May 23, 2005, the Court stayed
the action to allow the parties to mediate. On June 27, 2005,
the parties engaged in a mediation session and reached a
settlement in principle. The Court extended the stay to allow
the parties to finalize the settlement documents and submit them
to the Court for approval. The Company expects that the
settlement documents will be submitted to the Court by September
20, 2005. Assuming that the settlement is finalized and approved
by the Court, the Company anticipates that the settlement amount
will be fully funded by existing insurance.

The suit is styled "Williams v. Virbac Corporation et al., case
no. 4:03-cv-01461," filed in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas, under Judge Terry R. Means.  
Representing the plaintiffs are Theodore Carl Anderson, III of
Kilgore & Kilgore, 3109 Carlisle, Suite 200, Dallas, TX 75204,
Phone: 214/969-9099, Fax: 214/292-8758, E-mail:
tca@kilgorelaw.com; and Roger F. Claxton, Claxton & Hill, 3131
McKinney Ave., Suite 700 LB 103, Dallas, TX 75204-2471, Phone:
214/969-9029, Fax: 214/953-0583, E-mail:
claxtonhill@airmail.net.  Representing the Company are Robert L.
Carter, Jacquelyn F. Kidder, Lawrence R. Samuels of McGuireWoods
- Chicago, 77 W Wacker Dr, Suite 4100, Chicago, IL 60601, Phone:
312/558-1000; and Charles W. Schwartz, Skadden Arps Slate
Meagher & Flom - Houston, 1600 Smith Suite 4400, Houston, TX
77002, Phone: 713/655-5160, Fax: 888/329-2286, E-mail:
schwartz@skadden.com.



                         Asbestos Alert


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: RPM Notes Lower Asbestos Payments in 1Q06
--------------------------------------------------------------
RPM International Inc. (NYSE: RPM) declares in its 2006-1st
quarter report, the Company's after-tax asbestos-related
payments were US$10.5 million versus last year's US$11.9
million.

Before taxes, total asbestos-related payments of US$16.5 million
(US$12.0 million indemnity) compare with US$19.0 million
(US$14.3 million indemnity) last year.

Accordingly, the Company took an additional US$15.0 million pre-
tax asbestos charge in the 2006 first quarter. This first-
quarter charge brought RPM balance sheet reserves for asbestos
liability to US$99.7 million at August 31, 2005. RPM believes
this level sufficiently supports a conservatively estimated
valuation of existing claims in light of its more aggressive
defense strategy, which entails higher legal costs but
ultimately has resulted in lower resolution costs.  

Based in Medina, Ohio, RPM International Inc., which operates
nearly 75 factories worldwide, makes home repair favorites like
Rust-Oleum, Zinsser, and DAP. The Company is divided into two
units: industrial and consumer products. Industrial offerings
include products for waterproofing, corrosion resistance, floor
maintenance, and wall finishing. RPM's consumer items include
caulks and sealants, rust-preventative and general-purpose
paint, patch and repair products, and hobby paint.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CBS Corp. Defends Personal Injury Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
CBS Corp., a subsidiary of Viacom Inc. (NYSE: VIA), defends
lawsuits that claim various personal injuries related to
asbestos and other materials, which allegedly occurred as a
result of exposure caused by various products manufactured by
Westinghouse, a predecessor corporation, generally prior to the
early 1970s.

As of December 31, 2004, CBS had about 112,140 pending asbestos
claims, compared with about 112,280 as of December 31, 2003 and
about 103,800 as of December 31, 2002. Of the claims pending as
of December 31, 2004, about 82,370 were pending in state courts
and 27,180 were pending in federal courts and about 2,590 were
third-party claims.

During 2004, CBS received about 16,060 new claims and closed or
moved to an inactive docket about 16,200 claims. CBS reports
claims as closed when it becomes aware that a court has entered
a dismissal order or when CBS has reached agreement with the
claimants on the material terms of a settlement.

Filings include claims for individuals suffering from
mesothelioma, a rare cancer of which the risk of which is
allegedly increased primarily by exposure to asbestos; lung
cancer, a cancer that may be caused by various factors, one of
which is alleged to be asbestos exposure; other cancers, and
conditions that are substantially less serious, including claims
brought on behalf of individuals who are asymptomatic as to an
allegedly asbestos-related disease.

To date, CBS has not been liable for any third-party claims. CBS
Corp.'s total costs (recovery) for the years 2004 and 2003 for
settlement and defense of asbestos claims after insurance
recoveries and net of tax benefits were about US$58.4 million
and US$(8.7) million, respectively. If proceeds received in 2003
from an insurance commutation were excluded from CBS Corp.'s
total costs in 2003, CBS Corp.'s total costs after insurance
recoveries and net of tax benefits would have been US$56.6
million.

In the majority of asbestos lawsuits, the plaintiffs have not
identified which of CBS Corp.'s products is the basis of a
claim. Claims against CBS in which a product has been identified
principally relate to exposures allegedly caused by asbestos-
containing insulating material in turbines sold for power-
generation, industrial and marine use, or by asbestos-containing
grades of decorative micarta, a laminate used in commercial
ships.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: UK Union Helps Ex-Shipyard Worker Win Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
Former shipyard worker Joseph Cassidy wins substantial
compensation, with the advice of his union GMB, for an asbestos-
related disease after initially being told he did not have a
claim.

Tom Brennan, GMB Northern region secretary, said potential
claimants could receive a free legal service from the union
rather than turning to what he called "claims chasers" offering
to take on cases on a no-win, no-fee basis.

Mr. Cassidy, who worked in shipyards located in Tyne and Wear,
eventually received a full and final award from his former
employers in settlement of his claim.

Freeclaim IDC, a claims handling firm, initially told Mr.
Cassidy that there was no evidence in his medical records to
prove he had any such disease and was told his condition was
more likely related to coal mining.

With GMB's help, Mr. Cassidy contacted Thompsons Solicitors, a
firm that conducted investigations and instructed a medical
expert to examine him. The medical expert confirmed that Mr.
Cassidy had developed pleural plaques and pleural thickening of
the lungs, caused by asbestos exposure.

The head of Thompsons national asbestos team Ian McFall said,
"Mr. Cassidy's case highlights the difference between trade
union legal services, which are prepared to investigate and
pursue difficult cases, and the inferior quality of some claims
firms who are only interested in straightforward cases."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: RPM Posts 8% Lower Profits for 1st Qtr 2006
----------------------------------------------------------------
Coatings and chemicals manufacturer RPM International Inc.
(NYSE: RPM) states that its 2006-1st quarter profits fell by 8%
on asbestos liability costs, despite a healthy sales growth for
the same period, Crain's Cleveland Business reports.

According to a Company statement, for the quarter ended Aug. 31,
the Medina, OH-based Company reported net income of US$50
million, or 40 cents a share, compared with earnings of US$54.5
million, or 44 cents a share, a year ago for the same fiscal
period.

With the exclusion of asbestos costs, RPM posted earnings of 47
cents a share, 1 cent lower than the consensus analysts'
expectation. The Company took pre-tax asbestos charges of
US$16.5 million in the quarter, according to the statement.

The statement further added that revenues grew 13% to US$747
million, helped by an 18% sales increase in the company's
industrial segment. The Company achieved the sales growth in
spite of higher raw materials costs.

CEO Frank Sullivan warned investors that the second quarter
would be "particularly challenging" for the company, partly as a
result of recent hurricanes off the Gulf Coast.

"Temporary disruptions to the operations of many of our consumer
segment customers and temporary closure of some of our
industrial companies' manufacturing and distribution will
negatively impact sales growth," Mr. Sullivan said.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Nature Park Inspection May Hint GBP20T Fine
----------------------------------------------------------------
Copeland Borough Council experts investigate an illegally dumped
asbestos pile at popular scenic spot Hodbarrow RSPB Nature
Reserve, located at Millom in Cumbria, UK that could bring a
fine of GBP20,000, the North-West Evening Mail reports.

The asbestos appears to have come from a building that is being
demolished. It is formed as roof tiles, which are white on one
side and slate gray on the other. The material is bound with
cement, which is normally asbestos' safest form. However,
because the tiles have been broken, the deadly fibers can still
be released.

The borough council will consult with the Environment Agency and
the RSPB to remove the material as soon as possible.

Asbestos fibers are 20 times thinner than a human hair and if
inhaled, they can cause lung cancer and asbestosis. In Britain
3,500 people die from asbestos-related diseases every year.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Monsanto Dismissed in Injury Suit, MS Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
On October 6, 2005, the Mississippi Supreme Court dismissed
Monsanto Co. (NYSE: MON) as a personal injury defendant in Adams
County, The Sun Herald reports.

Employees of International Paper Co. in Natchez, MS sued
Monsanto, which was among 270 defendants, for injuries allegedly
resulting from exposure to asbestos products. Some Monsanto
products were present at the IP plant. Monsanto argued, on
appeal, that there was no evidence that its products caused the
IP employees' illnesses.

The Supreme Court said the plaintiffs had no evidence that
showed that they had any exposure to an asbestos-containing
product attributable to Monsanto.

"In asbestos litigation in Mississippi, the proper test to be
used is the frequency, regularity, and proximity standard to
show product identification of the defendants actual products,
exposure of the plaintiffs to those products, and proximate
causation as to the injuries suffered by the plaintiffs,"
Justice George C. Carlson wrote for the Supreme Court.

In 2004, an Adams County judge refused to dismiss Monsanto as a
defendant.

The Mississippi court adopted what has become called the
"frequency, regularity, and proximity test" now used in many
states to determine if exposure to each defendant's product was
a substantial factor in causing the disease.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: UK Worker Begins GBP200,000 Lawsuit v. AMEC
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alan Shaw, a former joiner diagnosed with asbestos-related
mesothelioma, launches a GBP200,000 legal battle, with the help
of personal injury law firm Irwin Mitchell, against building and
construction firm, AMEC Plc (London: AMEC), the Evening
Chronicle reports.

Mr. Shaw, currently working as a warehouseman, exposed himself
to asbestos dust during the course of his work in the 1970s for
AMEC subsidiary Press Construction Ltd while helping to build a
warehouse for the North East Electricity Board on the Pattinson
industrial estate in Washington.

Fifty-seven-year-old Mr. Shaw recalled that his job was to fix
asbestos panels to the steel framework of the warehouse.  The
work involved a lot of cutting and drilling of asbestos.  He
also remembered that large amounts of dust would form in the air
and gather on clothes and skin.

Although still able to work, the condition gives Mr. Shaw
breathing problems and he is only able to walk short distances.

Mr. Shaw said, "I was initially told I could have radical
surgery to substantially extend my life expectancy but my
consultant is of the view that the surgery is experimental and
not proven to extend life. This may allow me to live for another
10 to 15 years."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: JPN Mesothelioma Fatalities up 953 from 500
----------------------------------------------------------------
According to statistics compiled by Japan's Ministry of Health,
Labor and Welfare, the number of people who died from asbestos-
related mesothelioma, almost doubled to a record 953 in 2004
from 500 in 1995, the Kyodo News reports.

The Government statistics showed 729 men and 224 women died from
mesothelioma in 2004, up by 74 men and by 1 woman from 2003.

In 24 of the country's 47 prefectures, the number of
mesothelioma deaths more than doubled in 2004 from 1995 when the
statistics were first tallied.

The statistics further showed that the highest 2004 death toll
was 99 recorded in Osaka, followed by 75 for Hyogo, 69 for
7Kanagawa, 68 for Tokyo and 55 for Hokkaido.

A total of 7,013 deaths from mesothelioma, 5,244 men and 1,769
women, have been recorded since 1995. Osaka had the largest
cumulative death toll with 714, followed by Tokyo with 545 and
Kanagawa with 519.

Until the early 1990s, Japan imported around 300,000 tons of
asbestos yearly for use in construction materials and other
applications. As the Government only banned the use of highly
toxic blue and brown asbestos in 1995, the number of deaths from
mesothelioma is expected to rise in the future.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: AGII Determines to Add $4M to A&E Reserves
---------------------------------------------------------------
Argonaut Group Inc. determines that it should increase by about
US$4.0 million its unallocated loss adjustment expense reserve
for Asbestos & Environmental reserves, according to a Company
report filed to the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company's A&E reserve takes into account costs associated
with settling future A&E claims and is primarily the expense of
maintaining its specialized A&E claims unit.

Argonaut has received A&E liability claims arising out of
general liability coverage primarily written in the 1970s and
into the mid-1980s. The Company has established a specialized
claims unit that investigates and adjusts all asbestos and
environmental claims.

In the third quarter of 2002, Argonaut increased its reserve for
losses and LAE by about US$7.0 million for certain policies
issued in one office subsequent to 1986 that did not contain
this exclusion. Moreover, there are significant additional
uncertainties in estimating the amount of its potential losses
from A&E claims.

The Company conducted a study of it's A&E reserves in the fourth
quarter of 2002 and the first quarter of 2003, and as a result
strengthened its asbestos reserves by US$52.8 million. The
decision to strengthen asbestos reserves was the result of an
evaluation and review of exposure to asbestos claims,
particularly in light of recent industry and litigation trends,
actual claims experience, and actuarial analysis by the
Company's consulting and internal actuaries.

San Antonio, Texas-based Argonaut Group Inc. (NASDAQ: AGII) is a
holding Company that underwrites specialty property & casualty
insurance products throughout the United States.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Nissan Apologizes for Asbestos Use in Parts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nissan Motor Co Ltd apologizes for falsely declaring in the
1990s that it had ceased using asbestos in its vehicles, in
light of the health fears currently engulfing the country.

"We had previously announced that parts containing asbestos in
our vehicles for the domestic market had all been replaced by
the end of 1994," the Company said in a statement. "We retract
the statement and sincerely apologize for the inaccurate
information."

Nissan said that it has found asbestos-containing parts
installed in 165,804 vehicles produced in Japan between 1995 and
1999 for the domestic market, adding the models were mostly
commercial vehicles such as the AD VAN, Caravan, and Atlas 10.

The Company said it had only recently become aware of the
potentially hazardous material after being informed by Tokyo-
based parts supplier Mahle Tennex Corp, noting the asbestos was
contained in a sealing part within air filters and oil coolers.

However, Nissan said it does not intend to recall the vehicles
as the asbestos posed no health risks and the sealing part in
which it was used was not on a government list of components in
which asbestos is banned.

Asbestos came under renewed public attention in Japan when
industrial machinery maker Kubota Corp announced 75 of its
employees had died and 18 were receiving treatment for asbestos-
related illnesses.

Tokyo-based Nissan Motor Co Ltd (NASDAQ: NSANY) is Japan's #2
auto manufacturer after Toyota and just ahead of Honda. In 1999,
French automaker Renault took a 37% stake in Nissan, and
installed president and CEO Carlos Ghosn who has since returned
the Company to profitability after years of losses. Renault now
owns almost 45% of Nissan.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Japan Govt. Sees 85T Asbestos-Linked Deaths
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sources from Japan's Environment Ministry say that the country's
asbestos-related deaths from lung cancer or mesothelioma could
reach 85,000, The Japan Times reports.

The Ministry estimated this figure as part of efforts to
determine the scope of financial resources needed for a new bill
aimed at providing relief for asbestos sufferers and will
discuss them with other government organs, the sources said.

Up to around 50,000 people would die from mesothelioma, a rare
form of cancer believed to be caused by asbestos exposure, and
about 35,000 would die from lung cancer, the Ministry estimated.

The Ministry assumed in calculating the mesothelioma figure,
that one person for every 170 tons of asbestos used would
develop the disease. However, as the total asbestos amount was
unknown, it determined from the total 9.6 million tons of
asbestos imported, that a little less than 60,000 would develop
mesothelioma and subtracted the roughly 10,000 people who have
already died from the disease.

For lung cancer, the Ministry took 70% of the projected
mesothelioma deaths, as the proportion between mesothelioma and
lung cancer among those whose illnesses were covered under the
workers' compensation insurance was 10 to seven.

Some people have expressed concern that the effects of extensive
asbestos use in the past could grow, with one researcher
estimating that about 103,000 people would die from asbestos-
related illnesses in the coming 40 years.

Until the early 1990s, the Government imported around 300,000
tons of asbestos for use in construction materials and other
applications in Japan. Since only the highly toxic blue and
brown asbestos were banned in 1995, the number of deaths from
mesothelioma is expected to grow.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: UK Thieves Urged to be Checked for Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------------
Possible exposure to asbestos should prompt thieves, who broke
into the fire-ravaged Rhyl High School in Wales, to seek medical
advice in case of asbestos exposure, the Rhyl Journal reports.

Used to be stored at the school's tuck shop, the drinks and
snacks that the thieves took were due to be destroyed after
being damaged in the blaze. The burglars ignored the asbestos
warning signs and broke through a seal.

Helen Tapley Denbighshire County's Corporate Health and Safety
Manager, said, "Whoever broke in was determined to get at the
sweets and cans of pop. They ignored the very clear warning
signs and then broke through a very tough sealed area to get at
them."

Denbighshire County Council health and safety officers are
anxious to speak to the offenders to inform them of the steps to
take as they had exposed themselves to an asbestos-contaminated
area.

An asbestos abatement specialist cleaned the areas where
asbestos was exposed by the fire. Anything that cannot be
cleaned was incinerated.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: S&P Puts Nationwide on Negative CreditWatch
----------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services put Nationwide Mutual
Insurance Co on a negative CreditWatch due to asbestos exposure
claims and Hurricanes Rita and Katrina, Columbus Business First
reports.

According to Standard & Poor's, asbestos claims are a long-term
drag on Nationwide's profits. The insurance Company has fewer
policyholders in the Gulf Coast than other insurers, but more
exposure to asbestos claims.

Standard & Poor's affirmed an A- credit rating for Nationwide
Financial with a stable outlook. The New York-based ratings
agency made its judgment last week, but Nationwide Financial
disclosed the actions in a Securities and Exchange Commission
filing just recently.

The CreditWatch does not affect Nationwide's subsidiaries or
Nationwide Financial Services Inc. (NYSE:NFS), a publicly-traded
company Nationwide controls. Nationwide holds 62.7% of
Nationwide Financial's shares and 94.4% of its voting power.

Columbus, OH-based Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company is a
leading US property & casualty insurer that, though still a
mutual firm, operates in part through publicly held insurance
subsidiary Nationwide Financial. The company sells its products
through such affiliates as ALLIED Group, Farmland Insurance,
GatesMcDonald, Scottsdale Insurance, and asset manager Gartmore.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Navigators Group Reports on A&E Liabilities
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Navigators Group Inc. (NASDAQ: NAVG) divulges in a report to
the Securities and Exchange Commission that its exposure to
asbestos and environmental liability principally stems from
marine liability insurance written on an occurrence basis during
the mid-1980s.

About US$31.8 million of the A&E reserves are recorded in marine
and US$1.4 million in others primarily related to run-off
aviation business. A&E net loss reserves at December 31, 2004
were $32.9 million.

The net loss reserve increase for 2003 also includes an increase
in reserves to US$33.2 million from US$1.5 million for A&E
exposures in the marine and run-off business as well as prior
year loss reserve strengthening of about US$22.2 million in its
specialty business related to the California contractors
liability business.

The Company's participation on such risks is in the excess
layers, which requires the underlying coverage to be exhausted
prior to coverage being triggered in its layer. In many
instances, Navigators is one of many insurers who participate in
the defense and ultimate settlement of these claims, and the
Company is generally a minor participant in the overall
insurance coverage and settlement.

The New York, NY-based Company writes specialty lines of
insurance and reinsurance to clients who are primarily involved
in the maritime industry. The Company's main insurance
subsidiaries, Navigators Insurance and NIC Insurance, write
ocean and marine insurance including hull, energy, liability,
and cargo insurance, as well as property insurance for onshore
energy concerns.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Equitas Not to Grant NAVG Recovery Demand
--------------------------------------------------------------
Equitas, a leading reinsurer participating on excess of loss
reinsurance agreements, informally advised The Navigators Group
Inc. (NASDAQ: NAVG) that Equitas does not intend to satisfy a
loss payment recovery demand that Navigators presented on June
1, 2005, in a report submitted to the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

The recovery is for the 2004 settlement of a class action suit
involving a large asbestos claim, which settlement is being paid
over seven years starting in June 2005. Equitas has not
indicated any dispute with respect to recoveries on related pro
rata reinsurance agreements.

Equitas also participates as a lead reinsurer in respect to
Navigators' two other large asbestos claims that involve class
action lawsuits. The Company believes it is likely that Equitas
will take a similar position when such claims are eventually
settled and presented to Equitas for payment.

The aggregate amount of excess of loss recoveries due from
Equitas on all three of these claims is about US$9 million, and
represents about 50% of the total excess of loss recoveries for
such claims. We have not been advised of any disputes by other
excess of loss reinsurers with respect to such asbestos claims.

The New York, NY-based Company has filed a demand for
arbitration against Equitas in New York with respect to the
Settled Claim in accordance with the applicable provisions of
the excess of loss reinsurance agreements. Navigators Group
believes that the refusal of Equitas to satisfy its payment
demand is without merit and it intends to vigorously pursue
collection of its reinsurance recoveries.

An allowance for doubtful recoveries is maintained for any
amounts considered to be uncollectible. At June 30, 2005, and at
December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002, the Company had allowances for
uncollectible reinsurance of US$32.2 million, US$32.4 million,
US$33.1 million and US$8.5 million, respectively.

The 2003 allowance included US$25.7 million for uncollectible
reinsurance as a result of loss reserves established for
asbestos exposures on marine and aviation business written
mostly prior to 1986. Charges for uncollectible reinsurance
amounts, all of which were recorded to incurred losses, were
US$0.6 million, US$2.0 million, US$27.6 million and US$1.6
million for the first six months of 2005 and for the years ended
December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002, respectively.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Allegheny and Affiliates Defend 857 Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Allegheny Energy Inc. (NYSE: AYE) and its subsidiaries defend in
pending asbestos litigation involving multiple plaintiffs and
defendants, according to a Company report submitted to the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

As of October 1, 2005, 857 asbestos cases were pending against
Allegheny. In addition, asbestos and other regulated substances
are, and may continue to be, present at Allegheny-owned
facilities where suitable alternative materials are not
available.

Allegheny's management believes that any remaining asbestos at
Allegheny-owned facilities is contained. The continued presence
of asbestos and other regulated substances at Allegheny-owned
facilities, however, could result in additional actions being
brought against Allegheny and its subsidiaries.

The Greensburg, PA-based Company's Allegheny Power unit provides
electricity to some 1.5 million customers in five states and
natural gas to more than 200,000 customers through regulated
utilities Monongahela Power, Potomac Edison, and West Penn
Power.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dec. 14 Target for CGM Reorganization Plan
---------------------------------------------------------------
The New Jersey Bankruptcy Court granted Congoleum Corp's (AMEX:
CGM) motion requesting that the voting deadline on its
Reorganization Plan be extended until December 14, 2005, the
Business Wire reports.

The Mercerville, NJ-based flooring materials manufacturer has
reached a new agreement in principle with representatives of
certain secured asbestos claimants concerning treatment of their
claims, and expects to prepare a revised plan and submit it to
the Court by October 24, 2005.

Congoleum announced that it has filed a motion seeking
Bankruptcy Court approval for a settlement agreement with Mt.
McKinley Insurance Company and Everest Reinsurance Company.
Under the terms of the settlement, Mt. McKinley and Everest will
pay US$21.5 million into an escrow account. The escrow agent
will transfer the funds to the trust for asbestos claimants to
be formed by Congoleum's plan once the plan goes effective and
the Court approves the payment.

Roger S. Marcus, Chairman of the Board, commented, "A
distribution priority issue arose among the asbestos claimants
and modifications are being finalized to resolve them. We
believe the proposed changes should allow us to move forward
with the support necessary for confirmation of our plan. We do
not expect a significant delay from these changes and remain
hopeful that we can emerge from bankruptcy in the spring of
2006."

Congoleum will file with the Securities and Exchange Commission
copies of the modified POR and disclosure statement as exhibits
to a Form 8-K when they are available. They will also be
available on the investor relations section of the Company's
website at www.congoleum.com.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CSR, Insurers Asbestos Resolution Delayed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The resolution to an extended asbestos dispute between CSR Ltd
(Pink Sheets: CSRLF) and more than 60 insurance companies in the
US has once again been stalled, the Herald Sun reports.

The Company sued the insurance companies to claim more than $200
million to cover its liabilities for US victims of the asbestos
products it used to manufacture. CSR claims the insurance
policies it took out decades ago cover it for its asbestos
liabilities. However, the insurers disagreed and have refused to
pay up.

CSR has been fighting the matter for a decade and was expecting
a final New Jersey Court hearing to take place in either
September or October. With no date set, the Company now faces
the prospect that the hearing could take place next year.

Based in Chatswood, New South Wales, Australia, CSR Ltd started
as a sugar refiner in 1855. The Company now makes building
materials such as plasterboard, cement fiber products, roof
tile, clay brick, and insulation. Sugar milling and refining
accounts for about 30% of the Company's sales. In 2003 CSR spun
off its Rinker Group Ltd building materials unit, along with the
US operation Rinker Materials.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: GA Judges' Rulings Split on Asbestos Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Various court judges in the US State of Georgia issued split
rulings on whether asbestos lawsuits can push through against
companies, including Georgia-Pacific Corp. and DaimlerChrysler,
The Atlanta-Journal Constitution reports.

A new State law, which went into effect last April and is
designed to curb asbestos suits brought by healthy plaintiffs
using dubious medical grounds for personal injury claims, is at
issue.

The judges were divided on plaintiffs' lawyers' requests to rule
the law unconstitutional because it placed an unfair burden on
their clients. The rulings prompted appeals, which could
ultimately go to the state Supreme Court, to decide whether
thousands of cases gathered in three Atlanta area courts will
move toward trials.

The new law states that a new lawsuit involving an asbestos or
silica claim must be accompanied by an affidavit from a doctor
who spends less than 10% of his or her time and earns less than
20% of his or her income from consulting in asbestos cases.

The new law, if upheld, "wipes the field of litigation clean of
all but the very strongest cases," State Court Judge Beverly
Collins wrote in an opinion that found the statute fatally
flawed. "Our legal system was not intended to be so one-sided."

Another 1,500 cases are before a State Court judge in Atlanta,
Henry Newkirk. He heard arguments on the issue Friday. State
Court and Superior Court judges in Georgia both hear trials of
major civil lawsuits.

Asbestos litigation has forced 77 companies into bankruptcy
since 1982. Georgia is one of four states to pass legislation to
discourage such lawsuits.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Early Detection for Asbestos-Linked Cancer
---------------------------------------------------------------
A study states that a research team, led by Harvey Pass of the
New York University School of Medicine, identified a protein
that could help in the early detection of mesothelioma, a rare
but fatal lung cancer caused by asbestos exposure, Reuters
reports.

The team found that blood levels of the protein osteopontin were
six times higher than normal among people with the tumor. The
protein may also help doctors gauge, which patients are at
highest risk for the cancer, so they can be closely monitored.

Reported in The New England Journal of Medicine, the discovery
could lead to a test for the disease, which is usually detected
at a stage when treatments are ineffective and patients only
live for another eight to 18 months.

Mesothelioma strikes 2,500 to 3,000 people in the US annually.
Most are among the 7.5 million US workers who have been exposed
to the asbestos used for fireproofing, insulation and
soundproofing. Only 5% of mesotheliomas are currently being
spotted early, and even those patients typically die within 34
months.

Pipe fitters, boilermakers, miners, electricians, firefighters,
foundry workers, shipbuilders, factory workers and construction
workers who use asbestos-laden materials are the most
vulnerable.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Parents Fume Over School Asbestos Abatement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Parents of students at Mitcham Primary School in Australia
express concern about their children's health after they found
out that asbestos sheets were removed while their children
participated in school holiday activities, The Advertiser
reports.

Debbie Mackrell, whose children participated in school
activities, knew nothing of the asbestos removal. "I had not
heard anything about asbestos at the school but if it was being
removed I am sure the school followed the appropriate procedures
to do it properly," she said.

The Department of Education said it had launched an
investigation. Spokeswoman Renae Murdoch said, "Department of
Education and Children's Services' asbestos management
Procedures state all asbestos removal work in schools is to be
undertaken when students, staff and visitors are not present."

Complete Building Services finished the abatement work on the
site located at Hillview Road in Kingswood.


ASBESTOS ALERT: Calif. Carpenter Awarded US$2.8 Million by Jury
---------------------------------------------------------------
A San Francisco jury rules that couple Harold and Neva Phelps be
compensated over US$2.8 million in damages due to Mr. Phelps'
workplace asbestos exposure.

Christopher E. Andreas of Brayton Purcell represented Mr.
Phelps. "The jury members were very touched by the Phelps'
predicament," Mr. Andreas commented.

Seventy-seven-year-old Mr. Phelps suffers from terminal
asbestosis, which is a painful scarring of the lungs. He is
dependant on oxygen 24 hours a day. At no point during his
career was he advised to wear any form of respiratory
protection.

Defendant Hamilton Materials, Inc. manufactured asbestos drywall
finishing materials that Mr. Phelps was exposed to during his
work as a carpenter and laborer while working in the US Navy and
US Army.

Mr. Phelps was likely first exposed to asbestos as a child when
he delivered lunch to his father at work in a locomotive
roundhouse. He was later exposed to asbestos during his years in
the US Navy and the US Army, and while working as a mechanic
replacing automotive brakes, clutches and engines.

The trial was presided over by the Honorable Judge James
McBride. The jury determined that Hamilton Materials products
were defectively designed, that the Company had failed to
provide adequate warnings, and that it was negligent.


COMPANY PROFILE

Hamilton Materials, Inc.
345 West Meats Avenue
Orange, California 92865
Tel: 714.637.2770
Fax: 714.921.8974
Website: http://www.hamiltonmaterials.com/

Description:
Willis Hamilton, a professional applicator, founded Hamilton
Materials, Inc. in 1959. The Company is a leading manufacturer
of a wide range of Drywall Finishing Products and Texture
Materials.


ASBESTOS ALERT: Dismissal Move Granted Against 2 Firms, NY Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
On September 28, 2005, the Eastern District of the New York
District Court granted a dismissal move filed by Defendants ATC
Associates Inc and Safeway Environmental Corp in response to and
indemnification request filed by Plaintiffs Solow Building Co
LLC and Solovieff Realty Co LLC.

District Judge David Trager presided over Case No. 01-CV-0612
DGTCLP.

In 2001, the Plaintiffs first sued the defendants for allegedly
violating the Clean Air Act. They then requested indemnification
against potential future claims brought against plaintiffs by
people injured as a result of the Defendants' CAA violations. In
2003, the Defendants moved to dismiss the second claim for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction and Plaintiffs' failure to state
a claim. The Court granted their motion and the Plaintiffs'
second cause of action was dismissed.
                                       
Morgan Guaranty Trust Co, a tenant in the Solow Building owned
by the Plaintiffs, hired ATC to conduct air testing and
monitoring, and Safeway to do asbestos abatement work on its
rented floors, which Morgan was obligated under the lease to
demolish and renovate.

The Plaintiffs asserted that before working in late 1998,
defendants did not adequately inspect the area for asbestos.
Safeway also failed to appropriately wet the asbestos material.
During the work, Safeway attached duct tape or pressure-fitted
lumber directly to the asbestos material, which when removed
released asbestos into the air that resulted in fiber counts
outside the containment area that exceeded .01 fibers per cc.

The Defendants allegedly attempted to cover up Safeway's
improper actions. Safeway altered their work logs for the job by
changing the date when they removed certain tape from the
asbestos fireproofing. ATC attempted to hide from plaintiffs its
failure to seal batches of air-test samples.

The Defendants move to dismiss the Plaintiffs' declaratory
judgment cause of action on the basis that the Plaintiffs' claim
is not ripe for decision and the subject matter jurisdiction
over the claim is lacking.

The Plaintiffs argued that their claim is ripe because the
Defendants' actions created "a practical and probable likelihood
that injuries will arise and that defendants' liability will be
triggered." They claimed that they are entitled to
indemnification before any action has been commenced.
                                      
The Court ruled that even if the Plaintiffs were able to
establish that someone was exposed to asbestos, they failed to
show how they would be liable to that person. The Plaintiffs did
not hire the Defendants but Morgan did.
    
Attorneys Alan Vickery and Christopher M. Green of Boies,
Schiller & Flexner LLP, New York, NY, represented the
Plaintiffs.

Attorneys Brian O'Donnell, Dennis F. Kerrigan, and Ronald W.
Zdrojeski of Leboeuf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae LLP, Hartford, CT
with Richard Fama, Brian James-Jude Walsh, and Kristofer A.
Larson of Cozen & O'Connor, New York, NY, represented the
Defendants.


COMPANY PROFILE

ATC Group Services Inc.
600 W. Cummings Park, Ste. 5500
Woburn, MA 01801-6350
Phone: 781-932-9400
Fax: 781-932-6211
http://www.atc-enviro.com

Description:
ATC Group Services Inc., through main subsidiary ATC Associates
Inc., offers environmental consulting, testing, and remediation
services (including lead and asbestos management) to industrial,
health care, and government clients. The Company operates from
some 65 offices in more than 35 states in the US. ATC Associates
was founded in 1982.


COMPANY PROFILE

Safeway Environmental Corp
Tel: 800-742-4446 (Nationwide)
Tel: 718-794-4300 (Bronx)
Fax: 718-794-1411 (New York)
Email: info@safewayenv.com
Website: http://www.safewayenv.com/

Description:
Bronx, NY-based Safeway Environmental Corp is an Environmental
Construction Company with over 15 years of experience in
Construction, Demolition and Environmental Remediation. The
Company's projects include some of the largest Demolition and
Asbestos Abatement projects in New York City, including lead
abatement, microbial remediation and other environmental
projects.

                  New Securities Fraud Cases

AMERIGROUP CORPORATION: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Suit in VA
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia on behalf of all securities
purchasers of AMERIGROUP Corporation (NYSE: AGP) ("AMERIGROUP"
or the "Company") from April 27, 2005 through September 28,
2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges AMERIGROUP and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. The complaint alleges that defendants' Class Period
representations regarding AMERIGROUP's financial statements,
business, and prospects were materially false and misleading
when made. Specifically, the defendants failed to disclose:

     (1) that defendants lacked adequate internal controls;

     (2) that medical costs were substantially rising across the
         board and not just in certain markets;

     (3) that AMERIGROUP hid the rising medical costs from
         investors by materially underreporting said costs in an
         effort to mask a shortfall in earnings; and

     (3) that the defendants' actions of underreporting medical
         costs served to materially inflate AMERIGROUP's
         financial results, in violation of Generally Accepted
         Accounting Principles ("GAAP").

On September 28, 2005, after the close of the market, AMERIGROUP
announced that it expected to report a third quarter 2005 loss
of $0.06 to $0.08 per diluted share, as compared to current
consensus earnings estimate of $0.48 per diluted share. As a
result, the Company would not meet its 2005 annual earnings
guidance of $1.73 to $1.78 per diluted share. On news of this,
shares of AMERIGROUP, on September 29, 2005, plummeted $14.10
per share, or 41.58 percent, to close at $19.81 per share on
unusually heavy trading volume.

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


ANDRX CORPORATION: Charles J. Piven Files Securities Suit in FL
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A., filed a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of Andrx
Corporation (NASDAQ: ADRX) between March 9, 2005 and September
5, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida against defendants Andrx Corp. and
Thomas Rice, Chief Executive Officer of the Company. The action
charges that defendants violated federal securities laws by
issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements
to the market throughout the Class Period, which statements had
the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the
Company's securities. No class has yet been certified in the
above action.

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


BARRIER THERAPEUTICS: Abraham Fruchter Lodges Fraud Suit in NJ
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Abraham Fruchter & Twersky, LLP, 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 Jack G. Fruchter, Esq. or Ximena
Skovron, Esq. of Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP, One Penn
Plaza, Suite 2805, New York, NY 10119, Phone: 212-279-5050 or
800-440-8986, Fax: 212- 79-3655, E-mail: jfruchter@aftlaw.com or
xskovron@aftlaw.com.


BARRIER THERAPEUTICS: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Suit in NJ
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm initiated a class action in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of
purchasers of Barrier Therapeutics, Inc. ("Barrier")
(Nasdaq:BTRX) common stock during the period between April 29,
2004 and June 29, 2005 (the "Class Period"). Shareholders who
purchased Barrier stock in the Initial Public Offering ("IPO")
on April 29, 2004 and/or in its Secondary Offering on February
9, 2005 are also included in this class action.

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

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

For more details, contact Laurence Rosen, Esq. of The Rosen Law
Firm, P.A., Phone: (212) 686-1060 or 1-866-767-3653, Fax:
(212) 202-3827, E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com, Web site:
http://www.rosenlegal.com.  


LIPMAN ENGINEERING: Charles J. Piven Files Securities Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A., filed a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of Lipman
Electronic Engineering, Ltd. (NASDAQ: LPMA) (TASE: LPMA) and
certain of its officers and directors. The class action was
filed on behalf of public investors who purchased the common
stock of Lipman on either or both the Nasdaq National Market and
the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange during the period between October 4,
2004 through September 27, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York. The action charges that defendants
violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of
materially false and misleading statements to the market
throughout the Class Period, which statements had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price of the Company's
securities. No class has yet been certified in the above action.

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


LIPMAN ELECTRONIC: Pomerantz Haudek Lodges Securities Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross, LLP,
initiated a class action complaint in the United States District
Court, Eastern District of New York, against Lipman Electronic
Engineering, Ltd. ("Lipman" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:LPMA)
(TASE:LPMA) and certain of its officers and directors.

The class action was filed on behalf of public investors who
purchased the common stock of Lipman on either or both the
Nasdaq National Market and the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange during
the period of October 4, 2004 through September 27, 2005,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

Lipman Electronic Engineering is a corporation organized under
the laws of the State of Israel and headquartered in Rosh
Haayin, Israel. The Company develops, manufactures, markets and
sells electronic payment systems and software worldwide.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Lipman
issued public statements in press releases and to analysts 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 so-
called "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" when, in fact, at the time
of these statements, defendants knew or recklessly disregarded
the substantial difficulty the Company was facing in integrating
and exploiting the Dione acquisition.

Less than one year after completing the Dione acquisition, the
misleading nature of defendants' Class Period statements was
revealed on September 28, 2005, in a stunning admission by the
Company 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 the news of the Dione
unit's shockingly poor performance 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. Additionally during the Class
Period, defendants materially misleading statements and
omissions enabled the Company to complete a secondary offering
of 1,973,044 shares at $29.75 per share in May 2005.

For more details, contact Teresa Webb or Carolyn S. Moskowitz of
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross, LLP, Phone:
(888) 476-6529, E-mail: tlwebb@pomlaw.com or
csmoskowitz@pomlaw.com.


LIPMAN ELECTRONIC: Schatz & Nobel Lodges 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
Eastern District of New York on behalf of all persons who
purchased the publicly traded securities of Lipman Electronic
Engineering, Ltd. (Nasdaq:LPMA) ("Lipman") between October 4,
2004 and September 27, 2005 (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that Lipman violated federal securities
laws by making false or misleading public statements concerning
its acquisition of Dione, Plc. On September 28, 2005, Lipman
admitted that the "weaker than expected performance of Dione"
caused Lipman to lower its 2005 earnings guidance from $1.39 -
$1.42 per share, to $0.88 - $0.98 per share. Lipman also
announced that it had terminated the employment of Dione CEO
Shaun Gray and that it anticipated it would take a non-cash
impairment charge relating to goodwill and other intangible
assets in 2005. On this news, Lipman stock fell from a close of
$26.19 per share on September 27, 2005, to close at $20.48 per
share on September 28, 2005.

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


REFCO INC.: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP, initiated
a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities
of Refco Inc. ("Refco" or the "Company") (NYSE: RFX) between
August 11, 2005 and October 7, 2005, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), including purchasers of the Company's shares pursuant
or traceable to the Company's initial public offering (the
"Offering") on August 11, 2005. The action seeks to pursue
remedies under the Securities Act of 1933 ("Securities Act") and
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

Refco is a leading independent provider of execution and
clearing services for exchange-traded derivatives and a major
provider of prime brokerage services in the fixed income and
foreign exchange markets. The complaint alleges that Refco and
Refco insiders completed an initial public offering of Refco
common stock on August 11, 2005, selling 26.5 million shares at
$22 per share for proceeds of $583 million.

The complaint further alleges that, three months later, on
October 10, 2005, before trading opened, defendants revealed
that the Company had been carrying an undisclosed receivable
from its Chief Executive Officer, Defendant Phillip R. Bennett,
in the amount of $430 million, that Bennett was taking a leave
of absence, and that Company financial statements issued since
2002 could no longer be relied upon. The announcement stunned
the market, driving down the price of Refco shares by 44.4%,
from a closing price of $28.06 on October 7, 2005 (Friday) to a
low of $15.60 on October 10, 2005 (Monday). Trading in Refco
shares was halted on the morning of October 11, 2005 pending
additional news, and, after resumption of trading, closed at
$13.06, down 11.2% for the day.

On October 12, 2005, The Wall Street Journal reported that an
investment firm controlled by Bennett, had paid Liberty Corner,
a New Jersey hedge fund, to help him hide that he owed Refco
hundreds of millions of dollars, and that the SEC had launched
an investigation of the Company. Later that day, Bloomberg News
reported that Bennett had been arrested by federal authorities
on charges of securities fraud stemming from his failure to
disclose in public filings with the SEC the existence of
hundreds of millions of dollars in transactions between Refco
and a company he controlled.

The action is pending in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York against defendants Refco,
Phillip R. Bennett (former CEO), Gerald Sherer (CFO) and each
member of Refco's Board of Directors.

For more details, contact Steven G. Schulman, Peter E. Seidman
or Andrei V. Rado of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP, One
Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th fl., New York, NY 10119-0165, Phone:
(800) 320-5081, E-mail: sfeerick@milbergweiss.com, Web site:
http://www.milbergweiss.com.


REFCO INC.: Pomerantz Haudek Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross, LLP,
initiated a class action complaint in the United States District
Court, Southern District of New York, against Refco, Inc.
("Refco" or the "Company") (NYSE:RFX), two of its officers,
certain underwriters and the Company's outside auditor. The
class action was filed on behalf of public investors who
purchased the common stock of Refco during the period of August
11, 2005 and October 7, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"). It
includes those investors who purchased the common stock of Refco
pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's initial public
offering on August 11, 2005 ("IPO").

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. The company is headquartered in New York.

Refco went public via an initial public offering on August 11,
2005. Just nine weeks later, on October 10, 2005, Refco revealed
that defendant Phillip R. Bennett, its CEO and Chairman and
controlling shareholder, was being placed on a leave of absence
and that the company had made a related-party loan of $430
million to an entity controlled by Bennett. Refco disclosed that
the "receivable was the result of the assumption by an entity
controlled by Mr. Bennett of certain historical obligations owed
by unrelated third parties to the Company, which may have been
uncollectible." The Company also acknowledged that based on the
undisclosed related party transaction, its prior financial
statements for the fiscal years ending 2002 through 2005 and the
quarter ended May 31, 2005 should not be relied upon. On October
11, 2005, the Company issued another press release stating that
"the Company believes that the receivable consisted in major
part of uncollectible historical obligations owed by unrelated
third parties to the company, that arose as far back as at least
1998." The related party loan was not disclosed in the
Registration Statement.

As a result of the October 10 revelations, the Company's stock
price fell $12.96 per share, or over 45%, to close at $15.60 per
share on October 10, 2005. The IPO price was $22.00.

On October 12, 2005, federal prosecutors arrested Phillip R.
Bennett, charging him with one count of securities fraud.
According to the criminal complaint, Bennett "hid from investors
in the August 2005 initial public offering of stock in Refco the
existence of hundreds of millions of dollars of related party
transactions between Refco and a company controlled by Bennett,
including by causing Refco to file a false and fraudulent S-1
registration statement..."

For more details, contact Teresa Webb or Carolyn S. Moskowitz of
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross, LLP, Phone:
(888) 476-6529, E-mail: tlwebb@pomlaw.com or
csmoskowitz@pomlaw.com.


REFCO INC.: Sarraf Gentile Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm of Sarraf Gentile, LLP, initiated a securities
class action on behalf of those who acquired the securities of
Refco, Inc. ("Refco" or the "Company") (NYSE: RFX) from August
11, 2005 through October 7, 2005 (the "Class Period").

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York. The action charges that the
Company and certain officers and/or directors violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of materially false and
misleading statements to the market during the Class Period,
which statements had the effect of artificially inflating the
market price of the Company's securities. No class has yet been
certified in the above action.

For more details, contact Joseph Gentile, Esq. of SARRAF
GENTILE, LLP, 485 Seventh Ave., Suite 1005, New York, NY 10018,
Phone: 212-868-3610, Fax: 212-918-7967, Web site:
http://www.sarrafgentile.com.


REFCO INC.: Scott + Scott Files Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Scott + Scott, LLC, initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against Refco, Inc. ("Refco") (NYSE: RFX)
and certain of its officers and directors. Refco securities
purchasers between August 11, 2005 and October 10, 2005,
inclusive (the "Class Period") are putative class members. 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.

The complaint Scott+Scott filed today alleges that during the
Class Period, Refco and certain of its officers and directors
violated provisions of the Securities Act of 1933 and the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, causing investors to purchase
stock pursuant to registration statements containing materially
false and misleading statements. Specifically, the complaint
alleges that during the Class Period, defendants knew and
concealed deficient and defective internal operational controls
in existence at the Company for a period of several years before
the commencement of the Company's IPO and that the Company's
deficient and defective internal operational controls concealed
the true picture of the Company's financial progress and
business prospects, among other allegations.

According to the complaint, the truth began to be revealed on
October 10, 2005, when the Company delivered shocking and
devastating revelations of fraud, warning investors that
defendant Phillip R. Bennett, CEO, had been ordered to take a
leave of absence after discovering it was owed $430 million by
an entity controlled by Bennett. Moreover, the Company
determined that prior financial statements for the fiscal years
ending 2002 through 2005 and for May 2005 should not be relied
on. In response to these announcements, the price of the
Company's stock dramatically declined. Today, Refco's stock
price closed at $13.85, or 51.5% lower than last Friday's close
prior to the announcements.

For more details, contact Neil Rothstein of Scott + Scott, LLC,
Phone: 1-800-332-2259 or (cell) +1-619-251-0887, E-mail:
nrothstein@scott-scott.com.


REFCO INC.: Wechsler Harwood Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Wechsler Harwood, LLP, initiated a federal
securities fraud class action suit on behalf of all other
persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Refco,
Inc. ("Refco" or the "Company") (NYSE:RFX) common stock pursuant
or traceable to the Company's Initial Public Offering ("IPO") on
August 11, 2005, and on behalf of all other persons or entities
who purchased or otherwise acquired Refco common stock between
August 11, 2005 and October 10, 2005, both dates inclusive (the
"Class Period").

The action entitled, FrontPoint Financial Services Fund, LP. v.
Refco, Inc., et al., Case No. 05-Civ-8663 (DC)(RHM), is pending
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York seeks to pursue remedies under both the Securities Act
of 1933 (the "Securities Act") and the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and names as defendants, the
Company, certain of its senior officers and directors, as well
as its commercial/investment bankers/underwriters involved with
the Company's IPO.

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 stock undertook a
dramatic decline, plunging $12.96, or 45.4%, to close at $15.60,
on unprecedented volume of over 24.2 million shares. On October
12, the U.S. Attorney's Office in New York announced that it had
filed securities fraud charges against Bennett with in
connection with his hiding hundreds of millions of dollars from
investors who bought stock in Refco's IPO.

For more details, contact Jeffrey M. Norton, Esq. of Wechsler
Harwood, LLP, 488 Madison Avenue, 8th Floor, New York, NY 10022,
Phone: (877) 935-7400, E-mail: jmn@whesq.com.


SMITH BARNEY: Stull Stull Files Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Stull, Stull & Brody initiated an amended class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, against Smith Barney Fund
Management LLC ("Smith Barney") and Citigroup Global Markets,
Inc. ("Global Markets") on behalf of purchasers and holders of
Smith Barney mutual funds during the period between August 26,
2000 and August 26, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Smith Barney mutual funds and their respective symbols are
as follows:

Smith Barney Aggressive Growth Fund (Nasdaq: SHRAX, SAGBX,
SAGCX,
SAGYX)
Smith Barney All Cap Growth and Value Fund (Nasdaq: SPAAX,
SPBBX,
SPBLX)
Smith Barney Appreciation Fund (Nasdaq: SHAPX, SAPBX, SAPCX,
SAPYX)
Smith Barney Arizona Municipals Fund (Nasdaq: SLAZX, SAZBX,
SAZLX)
Smith Barney Balanced Portfolio (Nasdaq: SBBAX, SCBBX, SCBCX)
Smith Barney California Municipals Fund (Nasdaq: SHRCX, SCABX,
SCACX)
Smith Barney Classic Values Fund (Nasdaq: SCLAX, SCLBX, SCLLX)
Smith Barney Conservative Portfolio (Nasdaq: SBCPX, SBCBX,
SBCLX)
Smith Barney Diversified Large Cap Growth Fund (Nasdaq: CFLGX,
CLCBX,
SMDLX)
Smith Barney Diversified Strategic Income Fund (Nasdaq: SDSAX,
SLDSX,
SDSIX)
Smith Barney Dividend and Income Fund (Nasdaq: SUTAX, SLSUX,
SBBLX)
Smith Barney Financial Services Fund (Nasdaq: SBFAX, SBFBX,
SFSLX)
Smith Barney Florida Portfolio (Nasdaq: SBFLX, FLABX, SFLLX)
Smith Barney Fundamental Value Fund (Nasdaq: SHFVX, SFVBX,
SFBCX)
Smith Barney Georgia Portfolio (Nasdaq: SBGAX, SBRBX, SGALX)
Smith Barney Global All Cap Growth and Value Fund (Nasdaq:
SPGAX,
SPGGX, SPGLX)
Smith Barney Global Government Bond Portfolio (Nasdaq: SBGLCX,
SBGBX,
SGGLX)
Smith Barney Global Portfolio (Nasdaq: CAGAX, CAGBX, SGPLX)
Smith Barney Government Securities Fund (Nasdaq: SGVAX, HGVSX,
SGSLX)
Smith Barney Group Spectrum Fund (Nasdaq: SGSAX, SGSBX, SFTLX)
Smith Barney Growth Portfolio (Nasdaq: SGCRX, SGRBX, SCGCX)
Smith Barney Hansberger Global Value Fund (Nasdaq: SGLAX, SGLBX,
SGLCX)
Smith Barney Health Sciences Fund (Nasdaq: SBIAX, SBHBX, SBHLX)
Smith Barney High Growth Portfolio (Nasdaq: SCHAX, SCHBX, SCHCX)
Smith Barney High Income Fund (Nasdaq: SHIAX, SHIBX, SHICX)
Smith Barney Income Portfolio (Nasdaq: SCAAX, SCIAX, SCILX)
Smith Barney Intermediate Maturity CA Municipals Fund (Nasdaq:
ITCAX,
STDBX, SIMLX)
Smith Barney Intermediate Maturity NY Municipals Fund (Nasdaq:
IMNYX,
SNMBX, SINLX)
Smith Barney International All Cap Growth Portfolio (Nasdaq:
SBIEX,
SBIBX, SBICX)
Smith Barney International Large Cap Fund (Nasdaq: CFIPX, SILCX,
SILLX)
Smith Barney Investment Grade Bond Fund (Nasdaq: SIGAX, HBDIX,
SBILX)
Smith Barney Large Cap Core Fund (Nasdaq: GROAX, GROBX, SCPLX)
Smith Barney Large Cap Growth and Value Fund (Nasdaq: SPSAX,
SPSBX,
SPSLX)
Smith Barney Large Cap Value Fund (Nasdaq: SBCIX, SBCCX, SBGCX)
Smith Barney Large Capitalization Growth Fund (Nasdaq: SBLGX,
SBLBX,
SLCCX, SBLYX)
Smith Barney Limited term Portfolio (Nasdaq: SBLTX, STMBX,
SMLLX)
Smith Barney Managed Governments Fund (Nasdaq: SHMGX, MGVBX,
SMGLX)
Smith Barney Managed Municipals Fund (Nasdaq: SHMMX, SMMBX,
SMMCX)
Smith Barney Massachusetts Municipals Fund (Nasdaq: SLMMX,
SMABX,
SMALX)
Smith Barney Mid Cap Core Fund (Nasdaq: SBMAX, SBMDX, SBMLX,
SMBYX)
Smith Barney Municipal High Income Fund (Nasdaq: STXAX, SXMT,
SMHLX)
Smith Barney National Portfolio (Nasdaq: SBBNX, SBNBX, SBNLX)
Smith Barney New Jersey Municipals Fund (Nasdaq: SHNJX, SNJBX,
SNJLX)
Smith Barney New York Portfolio (Nasdaq: SBNYX, SMNBX, SBYLX)
Smith Barney Oregon Municipals  Fund (Nasdaq: SHORX, SORBX,
SORLX)
Smith Barney Pennsylvania Portfolio (Nasdaq: SBPAX, SBPBX,
SPALX)
Smith Barney S & P 500 Index Fund (Nasdaq: SBSPX)
Smith Barney SB Adjustable Rate Income Fund (Nasdaq: ARMZX,
ARMBX,
ARMGX)
Smith Barney SB Capital and Income Fund (Nasdaq: SOPAX, SOPTX,
SBPLX)
Smith Barney SB Convertible Fund (Nasdaq: SCRAX, SCVSX, SMCLX,
SCVYX)
Smith Barney SB Growth & Income Fund (Nasdaq: GRIAX, BRIBX,
SGAIX)
Smith Barney Short Duration Municipal Income Fund (Nasdaq:
SHDAX,
SHDBX, SHDLX)
Smith Barney Short-Term Investment Grade Bond Fund (Nasdaq:
SBSTX,
SHBBX, SSTLX)
Smith Barney Small Cap Core Fund (Nasdaq: SBDSX, SBDBX, SBDLX)
Smith Barney Small Cap Growth Fund (Nasdaq: SBSGX SBYBX, SBSLX)
Smith Barney Small Cap Growth Opportunities Fund (Nasdaq: CFSGX,
SMOBX, SGOLX)
Smith Barney Small Cap Value Fund (Nasdaq: SBVAX, SBVBX, SBVLX)
Smith Barney Social Awareness Fund (Nasdaq: SSIAX, SESIX, SESLX)
Smith Barney Technology Fund (Nasdaq: SBTAX, SBTBX, SBQLX)
Smith Barney Total Return Bond Fund (Nasdaq: TRBAX, TRBBX,
SBTLX)
Smith Barney U.S. Government Securities Fund (Nasdaq: SBCGX,
SBUBX,
SBULX)

The action is pending in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York against defendants Smith
Barney and Global Markets. The amended complaint alleges that
during the Class Period, Smith Barney served as investment
advisor to the Smith Barney mutual funds and in this capacity
recommended that the Smith Barney mutual funds contract with an
affiliate of Smith Barney to performer limited transfer agent
services while sub-contracting with the Smith Barney mutual
funds' existing transfer agent. The existing transfer agent
would perform almost all the same services it had previously
performed, but at a steep discount, permitting Smith Barney's
affiliate to keep the discount and thus gain a high profit while
performing only limited work. The amended complaint alleges that
this transaction was made in self-interest in order to permit
Smith Barney and its affiliates to profit at the expense of the
Smith Barney mutual funds and their shareholders.

For more details, contact James Lahm of Stull, Stull & Brody, 6
East 45th Street, New York, NY 10017, Phone: 1-800-337-4983,
Fax: 212/490-2022, E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com, Web site:
http://www.ssbny.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  * * *