CAR_Public/051018.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Tuesday, October 18, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 206

                        Headlines

ADOBE SYSTEMS: Plaintiffs Include Class Claims in Amended Suit
CHATTEM INC.: CA Consumers File Fraud Suit V. BULLFROG Products
CHATTEM INC.: CA Consumers File Fraud Suit V. DEXATRIM Natural
CHATTEM INC.: Working to Resolve DEXATRIM PPA Injury Litigation
CONCORD CAMERA: FL Court Certifies Lawsuit For Securities Fraud

CONCORD CAMERA: Discovery Proceeds in FL Securities Fraud Suits
DARDEN RESTAURANTS: CA Court Approves Settlement For Wage Suits
DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Working To Resolve CA Overtime Wage Lawsuits
DOLLAR FINANCIAL: Working To Settle CA Overtime Wage Litigation
DOLLAR FINANCIAL: Canadian Consumers File Payday Loans Lawsuits

DOLLAR FINANCIAL: Attorneys Launch Antitrust Lawsuit in S.D. NY
FEDEX CORPORATION: CA Court Certifies Workers' Overtime Lawsuit
GOODY'S FAMILY: Third Complaint Filed in TN Over Proposed Merger
GOREMOTE INTERNET: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Stock Lawsuit Pact
HENRETTY'S PRIME: Recalls 0.25 lb Crab Cakes For Undeclared Eggs

HEWLETT-PACKARD: Recalls Battery Packs Due to Burn, Fire Hazard
HOMETOWN BUFFET: Former Managers Launch CA Overtime Wage Lawsuit
INTUIT INC.: Reaches Settlement For CA Consumer Fraud Lawsuit
INTUIT INC.: Forges Settlement for CA QuickBooks Customers' Suit
LOWES HOME: Files Motion to Dismiss Suit V. Remington Chainsaws

MBNA CORPORATION: Customers Launch Illegal Conspiracy Suit in NY
MEDIANEWS GROUP: Agrees To Participate in NY Copyright Suit Pact
MERCK & CO.: Kenneth Moll Lodges Vioxx Suit For Polish Citizens
OPLINK COMMUNICATIONS: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Settlement
PHILIP MORRIS: OR Judge Denies Certification For "Lights" Suit

PIP/USA INC.: Asks IL Court To Dismiss Consumer Fraud Lawsuit
PIP/USA INC.: Discovery Proceeds in Suit, 18 Plaintiffs Dropped
POLY IMPLANTS: Reaches Settlement For CA Consumer Antitrust Suit
REFCO INC.: Shalov Stone Launches Securities Litigation Web Site
TASER INTERNATIONAL: IL Police Chief Defends Record of Stun-Guns

UNIFI INC.: Reaches Settlement For NC Cotton Antitrust Lawsuit
UNITED KINGDOM: Court Dismisses Railtrack Shareholders' Lawsuit
WOOD RIVER: SEC Files Emergency Action V. Firm, John H. Whittier
YUM! BRANDS: Class Size in CA FLSA Violations Lawsuit Shrinks

                 New Securities Fraud Cases

AMERIGROUP CORPORATION: Abbey Gardy Lodges Securities Suit in VA
AMERIGROUP CORPORATION: Milberg Weiss Lodges Fraud Suit in VA
DANA CORPORATION: Abbey Gardy Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in OH
DANA CORPORATION: Federman & Sherwood Lodges Fraud Suit in OH
REFCO INC.: Abraham Fruchter Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY

REFCO INC.: Berman DeValerio Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
REFCO INC.: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
REFCO INC.: Paskowitz & Associates Lodges Securities Suit in NY
REFCO INC.: Pomerantz Haudek Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
REFCO INC.: Wolf Popper Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY

TEMPUR-PEDIC INTERNATIONAL: Schiffrin Barroway Files Suit in KY


                         *********


ADOBE SYSTEMS: Plaintiffs Include Class Claims in Amended Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs included class action claims in his shareholder
derivative action filed against Adobe Systems, Inc.'s directors
and the Company (as a nominal defendant) in the Superior Court
of the State of California for the County of Santa Clara, styled
"Steve Staehr, Derivatively on Behalf of Adobe Systems
Incorporated v. Bruce R. Chizen, et. al."

The complaint alleges that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties of loyalty and due care and caused the Company
to waste corporate assets by failing to renegotiate or terminate
the acquisition agreement with Macromedia following the
announcement by Macromedia that it would restate its financial
results for the fiscal years ended March 31, 1999 through 2004
and by failing to conduct sufficient due diligence prior to
entering into the acquisition agreement.  The complaint seeks,
among other things, unspecified monetary damages, attorneys'
fees and certain forms of equitable relief, including
preliminarily and permanently enjoining the consummation of the
acquisition.

On August 18, 2005, Plaintiff amended his complaint to add a
purported class action. The Company has obligations under
certain circumstances to hold harmless and indemnify each of the
defendant directors against judgments, fines, settlements and
expenses related to claims against such directors and otherwise
to the fullest extent permitted under Delaware law and its
bylaws and certificate of incorporation. Such obligations may
apply to this lawsuit.


CHATTEM INC.: CA Consumers File Fraud Suit V. BULLFROG Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chattem, Inc. faces a putative class action suit filed in the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County,
seeking certification of classes consisting of residents of the
United States, or residents of the State of California, who have
purchased the Company's BULLFROG sun care products during the
past four years.

The lawsuit seeks injunctive relief and compensatory damages
under the California Business and Professions Code against the
Company arising out of alleged deceptive, untrue or misleading
advertising, and breach of warranty, in connection with the
manufacturing, labeling, advertising, promotion and sale of
BULLFROG products.  The plaintiff has stipulated that the amount
in controversy with respect to plaintiff's individual claim and
each member of the proposed class does not exceed $75.


CHATTEM INC.: CA Consumers File Fraud Suit V. DEXATRIM Natural
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chattem, Inc. faces a putative class action suit filed in the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los,
seeking injunctive relief, compensatory damages and attorney
fees under the California Business and Professions Code, arising
out of alleged deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising and
breach of express warranty in connection with the manufacturing,
labeling, advertising, promotion and sale of certain DEXATRIM
Natural products.

The lawsuit seeks certification of a class consisting of all
persons who purchased DEXATRIM Natural in California during the
four-year period prior to the filing of the lawsuit up to the
date of any judgment obtained. The plaintiff has stipulated that
the amount in controversy with respect to each individual claim
and each member of the proposed class in the action does not
exceed $75.


CHATTEM INC.: Working to Resolve DEXATRIM PPA Injury Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chattem Inc. is working to resolve a number of lawsuits alleging
that the plaintiffs were injured as a result of ingestion of
products containing phenylpropanolamine ("PPA"), which was an
active ingredient in most of the Company's DEXATRIM products
until November 2000.

The lawsuits filed in federal court were transferred to the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington before United States District Judge Barbara Jacobs
Rothstein (IN RE PHENYLPROPANOLAMINE ("PPA") PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION, MDL NO. 1407). The remaining lawsuits were filed in
state court in a number of different states.

On April 13, 2004, the Company entered into a class action
settlement agreement with representatives of the plaintiffs'
settlement class, which provided for a national class action
settlement of all DEXATRIM PPA claims. On November 12, 2004,
Judge Barbara J. Rothstein of the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington entered a final order and
judgment certifying the class and granting approval of the
DEXATRIM PPA settlement. After the final judgment was entered,
two parties who had objected to the settlement filed appeals
challenging and seeking to set aside the final judgment. Both of
these appeals have now been dismissed.

The DEXATRIM PPA settlement includes claims against the Company
involving alleged injuries by DEXATRIM products containing PPA
in which the alleged injury occurred after December 21, 1998,
the date the Company acquired the DEXATRIM brand. In accordance
with the terms of the class action settlement agreement, the
Company previously published notice of the settlement and
details as to the manner in which claims could be submitted. The
deadline for submission of claims was July 7, 2004. A total of
391 claims were certified by the court as timely submitted. Of
these 391 claims, 173 alleged stroke as an injury and 218
alleged other non-stroke injuries. Of the 391 total claims, only
371 claimants actually had alleged injuries that occurred after
December 21, 1998 and continued to pursue their claims in the
settlement. The remaining claimants have either withdrawn their
claims or cannot be located. A total of 14 claimants with
alleged injuries that occurred after December 21, 1998 elected
to opt out of the class settlement. Subsequently, the Company
has settled eight of the opt out claims. The six remaining opt
out claimants may pursue claims for damages against the Company
in separate lawsuits.  As of September 29, 2005, three of the
six remaining opt out claimants have filed lawsuits against the
Company that it is continuing to defend.

The Company previously reached an agreement with Kemper
Indemnity Insurance Company ("Kemper") to settle its lawsuit
that sought to rescind its policy for $50,000 of excess coverage
for product liability claims. After giving effect to the
settlement with Kemper, the Company has available for the claims
against it related to the PPA litigation, through its first
three layers of insurance coverage, approximately $60,885 of the
$77,000 of product liability coverage provided by these
insurance policies. The $60,885 of available coverage consists
of $37,500 of insurance under the Kemper policy and
approximately $23,385 under policies with two other insurance
companies. In accordance with the terms of the class action
settlement agreement, this $60,885 of coverage has been funded
into a settlement trust.

In addition, on July 14, 2004, the Company entered into a
settlement agreement with Sidmak Laboratories, Inc. ("Sidmak"),
the manufacturer of DEXATRIM products containing PPA, pursuant
to which Sidmak has contributed $10,000 into the settlement
trust.  The Company also entered into a settlement agreement
with Interstate Fire & Casualty Company ("Interstate") with
regard to its $25,000 of coverage in excess of the insurance
funds available in the settlement trust.

During the third quarter of fiscal 2005, the Company resolved
substantially all of the claims submitted in the DEXATRIM PPA
settlement and now estimate that the total cost of the DEXATRIM
settlement will be approximately $56,000. As indicated above, a
total of $70,885 has been funded into a settlement trust by our
insurers and Sidmak and is available to pay claims in the
settlement. Any funds remaining in the settlement trust after
all claims and expenses of the trust have been paid will be
distributed as approved by the court in accordance with the
class action settlement agreement and its settlement agreements
with each of Kemper and Sidmak.  The Company currently expects
that after all claims and expenses of the settlement trust have
been paid, it could recover up to approximately $8,500 from the
settlement trust. If realized, this potential recovery is
estimated to occur in the fourth quarter of 2005 or the first
quarter of fiscal 2006.

The Company is also named as a defendant in approximately 206
lawsuits relating to DEXATRIM containing PPA which involve
alleged injuries by DEXATRIM products containing PPA
manufactured and sold prior to its acquisition of DEXATRIM on
December 21, 1998. In these lawsuits, the Company is being
defended on the basis of indemnification obligations assumed by
The DELACO Company ("DELACO"), successor by merger to the
Thompson Medical Company, Inc., which owned the brand prior to
December 21, 1998. On February 12, 2004, DELACO filed a Chapter
11 bankruptcy petition in the United States Bankruptcy Court for
the Southern District of New York.  Accordingly, it is uncertain
whether DELACO will be able to indemnify the Company for claims
arising from products manufactured and sold prior to its
acquisition of DEXATRIM on December 21, 1998. However, DELACO is
seeking to resolve all DEXATRIM cases with injury dates prior to
December 21, 1998 as part of a liquidating Chapter 11 bankruptcy
plan.

The Company's product liability insurance, as described above,
would not apply to claims arising from products manufactured and
sold prior to its acquisition of DEXATRIM. If the DELACO
bankruptcy plan does not resolve these cases as the Company
expects, it will also seek to defend ourselves in these lawsuits
on the basis that the Company did not manufacture and sell
products containing PPA prior to December 21, 1998. In the
approximately 206 cases that have been filed against the Company
for products manufactured and sold prior to December 21, 1998,
approximately half of the plaintiffs are in cases filed in
states that the Company believes do not under current law impose
liability upon a successor. The remaining plaintiffs are in
cases filed in states that may in some circumstances permit
liability against a successor.


CONCORD CAMERA: FL Court Certifies Lawsuit For Securities Fraud
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida granted class certification to the consolidated
securities lawsuit filed against Concord Camera Corporation and
certain of its officers.

In July 2002, individuals purporting to be shareholders of the
Company filed the suit.  On August 20, 2002, the Company filed a
motion to dismiss the complaint and in December 2002, the court
granted the Company's motion and dismissed the complaint.  In
January 2003, an amended class action complaint was filed adding
certain of the Company's current and former directors as
defendants.  The lead plaintiffs in the Amended Complaint sought
to act as representatives of a class consisting of all persons
who purchased the Company's Common Stock issued pursuant to the
Company's September 26, 2000 secondary offering (the "Secondary
Offering") or during the period from September 26, 2000 through
June 22, 2001, inclusive.

On April 18, 2003, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
Amended Complaint and on August 27, 2004, the court dismissed
all claims against the defendants related to the Secondary
Offering and dismissed all claims against the defendants related
to allegations of misconduct occurring before February 2001 or
after April 2001 (the period February 2001 through April 2001
hereinafter referred to as the "Shortened Class Period").  The
allegations remaining in the Amended Complaint are centered
around claims that the Company failed to disclose, in periodic
reports it filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
("SEC") and in press releases it made to the public during the
Shortened Class Period regarding its operations and financial
results, that a large portion of its accounts receivable was
represented by a delinquent and uncollectible balance due from
then customer, KB Gear Interactive, Inc. ("KB Gear"), and claims
that such failures artificially inflated the price of the Common
Stock.  The Amended Complaint seeks unspecified damages,
interest, attorneys' fees, costs of suit and unspecified other
and further relief from the court.

On September 8, 2005, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion
for class certification and certified as plaintiffs all persons
who purchased the Common Stock between January 18, 2001 and June
22, 2001, inclusive, and who were allegedly damaged thereby (the
period January 18, 2001 through June 22, 2001 hereinafter
referred to as the "Class Period").  Trial is set to commence on
November 13,2006.

The suit is styled "Berger, et al. v. Concord Camera Corp., et
al.," filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida, under Judge Patricia Seitz.  The plaintiff
firms in this litigation are:

     (1) Cauley Geller Bowman Coates & Rudman LLP (Little Rock,
         AR), P.O. Box 25438, Little Rock, AR, 72221-5438,
         Phone: 501.312.8500, Fax: 501.312.8505,

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

     (3) Leo W. Desmond, 2161 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, Suite
         204, West Palm Beach, FL, 33409, Phone: 561.712.8000,
         E-mail: stocklaw@bellsouth.net

     (4) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP (Boca Raton,
         FL), 5355 Town Center Road - Suite 900, Boca Raton, FL,
         33486, Phone: 561.361.5000, Fax: 561.367.8400,

     (5) Emerson Poynter LLP, P.O. Box 164810, Little Rock, AR,
         72216-4810, Phone: 800.663.981, E-mail:
         tanya@emersonfirm.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


CONCORD CAMERA: Discovery Proceeds in FL Securities Fraud Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in the litigation filed against Concord
Camera Corporation and certain of its officers in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Florida by
individuals purporting to be shareholders of the Company.  If
not dismissed by the court, the Company expects these cases to
be consolidated into one case.

The plaintiffs in these class actions seek to act as
representatives of a class consisting of all persons who
purchased the Company's Common Stock during either the period
from August 14, 2003 through May 10, 2004, inclusive, or the
period from August 14, 2003 through October 4, 2004, inclusive
(the "Class Period"), and who were allegedly damaged thereby.

The allegations in the complaints are centered around claims
that the Company failed to disclose, in periodic reports it
filed with the SEC and in press releases it made to the public
during the Class Period regarding its operations and financial
results, the full extent of the Company's excess, obsolete and
otherwise impaired inventory, and claims that such failures
artificially inflated the price of the Common Stock.  The
complaints seek unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees,
costs of suit and unspecified other and further relief from the
court.

The first identified complaint in the litigation is styled
"Martin Brustein, et al. v. Concord Camera Corporation, et al.,
case no. 04-CV-61159," filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida, under Judge Andrea M.
Simonton.  The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

     (1) Berger & Montague, P.C., 1622 Locust Street,
         Philadelphia, PA, 19103, Phone: 800.424.6690, Fax:
         215.875.4604, E-mail: investorprotect@bm.net;

     (2) 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;

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

     (4) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd,
         PA, 19004, Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax: 610.667.7056, E-
         mail: info@sbclasslaw.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) Vianale & Vianale LLP, The Plaza - Suite 801, 5355 Town
         Center Road, Boca Raton, FL, 33486, Phone:
         561.391.4900, Fax: 561.368.9274, E-mail:
         info@vianalelaw.com


DARDEN RESTAURANTS: CA Court Approves Settlement For Wage Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of Orange County, California approved the
settlement of the two class actions filed against Darden
Restaurants, Inc., alleging violations of the state's wage and
hour laws.

In March 2002 and March 2003, three current and former hourly
restaurant employees filed two purported class actions against
the Company, alleging violations of California labor laws with
respect to providing meal and rest breaks.  Although the Company
continues to believe it provided the required meal and rest
breaks to its employees, to avoid potentially costly and
protracted litigation, the Company agreed during the second
quarter of fiscal 2005 to settle both lawsuits and a similar
case filed in Sacramento County, for approximately $9.5 million.
Terms of the settlement, which do not include any admission of
liability by the Company, received preliminary judicial
approval, and claims administration is underway.

In August 2003, three former employees in Washington filed a
similar purported class action in Washington State Superior
Court in Spokane County, alleging violations of Washington labor
laws with respect to providing rest breaks.  The Court stayed
the action and ordered the plaintiffs into the Company's
mandatory arbitration program; the plaintiffs' motion for
reconsideration was not granted, and their appeal of the denial
of reconsideration was also not granted.


DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Working To Resolve CA Overtime Wage Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Darden Restaurants, Inc. is working to resolve five purported
class actions filed against it in the Superior Courts of
California (two each in Los Angeles County and Orange County,
and one in Sacramento County), alleging that the Company
improperly classified its current and former service managers,
beverage and hospitality managers and culinary managers as
exempt employees under California labor laws.  The plaintiffs
seek unpaid overtime wages and penalties.

Two of the cases have been removed to arbitration under the
Company's mandatory arbitration program, one has been stayed to
allow consideration of judicial coordination with the other
cases, one is proceeding as an individual claim, and one remains
a purported class action litigation matter.


DOLLAR FINANCIAL: Working To Settle CA Overtime Wage Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Financial Group, Inc. is working for the settlement of
four class actions filed against it by the same law firm,
alleging violations of California's wage-and-hour laws. The

The named plaintiffs are the Company's former employees Vernell
Woods (commenced August 22, 2000), Juan Castillo (commenced May
1, 2003), Stanley Chin (commenced May 7, 2003) and Kenneth
Williams (commenced June 3, 2003). Each of these suits seeks an
unspecified amount of damages and other relief in connection
with allegations that the Company misclassified California store
(Woods) and area (Castillo) managers as "exempt" from a state
law requiring the payment of overtime compensation, that the
Company failed to provide non-management employees with meal and
rest breaks required under state law (Chin) and that the Company
computed bonuses payable to its store managers using an
impermissible profit-sharing formula (Williams).  All of these
cases, except "Woods," are pending in the California state
Superior Courts.

The Company compelled arbitration of Woods' claims, where the
arbitrator has certified a class of current and former store
managers and set trial for March 2006. The court in the
"Williams" case granted class certification in February 2005.
The court in the "Chin" case denied class certification in April
2005.  There is no class determination in the "Castillo" case.

In January 2003, without admitting liability, the Company sought
to settle the "Woods" case, which it believes to be the most
significant of these suits, by offering each class member an
amount intended in good faith to settle his or her claim.  These
settlement offers have been accepted by class members who worked
in the aggregate 92% of all weeks worked by the class during the
relevant period.  The Company recorded a charge of $2.8 million
related to this matter during fiscal 2003. Woods' counsel is
presently disputing through arbitration the validity of the
settlements accepted by the individual class members.


DOLLAR FINANCIAL: Canadian Consumers File Payday Loans Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Financial Group, Inc. and its Canadian subsidiary is
working to resolve several class actions filed by customers who
were allegedly subjected to usurious charges in payday loan
transactions.

On August 19, 2003 a former customer in Ontario, Canada,
Margaret Smith, commenced an action against the Company and the
Company's Canadian subsidiary on behalf of a purported class of
Canadian borrowers (except those residing in British Columbia).
The action, which is pending in the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice, alleges violations of a Canadian federal law
proscribing usury and seeks restitution and damages in an
unspecified amount, including punitive damages.

On February 1 and 2, 2005, the Company brought a motion to stay
the action against it on jurisdictional grounds and the
Company's Canadian subsidiary brought a motion to stay the
action against it based on its arbitration clause.
The court recently denied these motions.  The Company has
appealed the dismissal of its jurisdiction motion.  Its Canadian
subsidiary has also appealed the dismissal of its motion to stay
and Smith has brought a motion to quash its appeal. These
appeals and the motion to quash are pending.

On October 21, 2003, another former customer, Kenneth D.
Mortillaro, commenced a similar action against the Company's
Canadian subsidiary, but this action has since been stayed on
consent because it is a duplicate action.  On November 6, 2003,
we learned of substantially similar claims asserted on behalf of
a purported class of Alberta borrowers by Gareth Young, a former
customer of the Company's Canadian subsidiary.  The "Young"
action is pending in the Court of Queens Bench of Alberta and
seeks damages and other relief.  The Company is named as a
defendant in this action but it has not been served with the
statement of claim to date. Like the plaintiff in the
"MacKinnon" action referred to below, Mortillaro, Smith and
Young have signed agreements to arbitrate all disputes with the
Company.

On March 1, 2005, Mr. MacKinnon's application for class
certification of his action was dismissed.  As a result, the
Company's Canadian subsidiary renewed its application for a stay
of this action based on its arbitration clause but that motion
has been adjourned pending the outcome of the various
proceedings described below.

Mr. MacKinnon appealed the dismissal of his certification
motion. This appeal is pending.  He also brought a series of
motions seeking to have the motions judge reconsider her
decision. On June 16, 2005, the motions judge ordered that
MacKinnon could proceed with his claims against the Company's
Canadian subsidiary in a newly constituted action, and could
reapply for certification of his action as a class proceeding
rather than proceeding with his appeal.  On July 21, 2005, the
Company's Canadian subsidiary was granted leave to appeal that
decision.  That appeal is now pending.  Mr. MacKinnon brought a
further motion in which he asked the motions judge to vary her
certification motion order to state that his certification
motion was not dismissed but adjourned to permit him to re-apply
for certification. On June 16, 2005, the motions judge dismissed
this motion as unnecessary because she granted Mr. MacKinnon's
first motion.  Mr. MacKinnon has brought a cross-appeal of this
dismissal. This cross-appeal is pending. Each of these appeals
and cross-appeals will be argued together.

On April 15, 2005 the solicitor acting for Mr. MacKinnon
commenced a further identical proposed class action against the
Company's Canadian subsidiary on behalf of another former
customer, Louise Parsons.  The solicitor has indicated to the
court that this second action will not proceed pending the
appeals and cross-appeals described above and so the motions
judge court held that an order staying the action was not
necessary.

Similar class actions have been commenced against the Company's
Canadian subsidiary in Manitoba, New Brunswick Nova Scotia and
Newfoundland.  The Company is named as a defendant in the
actions commenced in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland but has not
been served with the statements of claim in these actions to
date.  The claims in these additional actions are substantially
similar to those of the Ontario actions referred to above.


DOLLAR FINANCIAL: Attorneys Launch Antitrust Lawsuit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Financial Group, Inc. and We The People Forms and Service
Centers USA, Inc. (WTP) face a class action filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
alleging that the defendants unlawfully restrained competition
in the market for bankruptcy services through the Company's
advertising and other practices.  The Company has acquired WTP's
assets.

Sally S. Attia and two other attorneys filed the suit on August
11,2005, on behalf of a nationwide class of all U.S. bankruptcy
attorneys, seeking class-action status, damages in an
indeterminate amount (including punitive and treble damages
under the Sherman and Clayton Acts) and other relief.

On August 12, 2005, the court denied plaintiffs' request for
expedited or "ex parte" injunctive relief.  The Company's motion
to dismiss this action is presently scheduled to be submitted on
October 7, 2005.

The suit is styled "Attia et al v. Dollar Financial Corp. et
al., case no. 1:05-cv-07133-KMW," filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, under
Judge Kimba M. Wood.  Representing the Company is Christopher R.
Neufeld and Kelechi O. Onyeobia, PC, Law Offices of Kelechi O.
Onyeobia, P.C., 39 East Broadway, Suite 608, New York, NY 10002,
Phone: (646)-660-1964, Fax: (212)-962-1822, E-mail:
crn@dealershipnetwork.com.  Representing the Company is Hilary
B. Miller of the Law Office of Hilary B. Miller, 112 Parsonage
Road, Greenwich, CT 06830, Phone: (203) 399-1320, Fax:
(914) 206-3727, E-mail: hilary@miller.net.


FEDEX CORPORATION: CA Court Certifies Workers' Overtime Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the class action filed against FedEx Corporation,
styled "Foster et al, v. FedEx Corporation," is set for April
2006 in California State Court.

The suit alleges violations of California's s wage-and-hour
laws.  The plaintiffs in these lawsuits are employees of FedEx
operating companies who allege, among other things, that they
were forced to work "off the clock" and were not provided work
breaks or other benefits.  The plaintiffs generally seek
unspecified monetary damages and injunctive relief.  The suit
was filed on behalf of a class of all hourly FedEx Express
employees in California from October 15, 1998 to present.

The court issued a ruling on December 13, 2004 granting class
certification on all issues.  The ruling, however, does not
address whether the Company will ultimately be held liable.


GOODY'S FAMILY: Third Complaint Filed in TN Over Proposed Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Goody's Family Clothing, Inc. (Nasdaq: GDYS) faces a third
complaint was filed in connection with its previously announced
Agreement and Plan of Merger with certain affiliates of Sun
Capital Partners, IV.

The complaint, which names both Goody's and its directors as
defendants, was also brought in Tennessee state court and is
seeking, among other things, certification as a class action,
injunctive relief or, in the alternative, rescission of the
proposed transaction, if it has then been consummated, and
unspecified damages.

The complaint generally alleges that the defendants breached
their fiduciary duties by accepting an inadequate offer, by
failing to address other acquisition proposals, by taking steps
to discourage other acquisition proposals, including an
excessive termination fee, and generally failing to maximize
shareholder value. No interim injunctive relief has yet been
sought.

The Company also reports that the plaintiff in one of the two
complaints filed earlier had sought a temporary restraining
order this morning against the consummation of the transaction
with Sun Capital. The Chancery Court for Knox County, Tennessee,
granted the Company's motion for continuance of the initial
hearing on this matter until October 26, 2005, relying upon
representations from counsel to the Company at the hearing that
the transaction will not be consummated before that date.

Goody's, headquartered in Knoxville, Tennessee, is a retailer of
moderately priced family apparel, and with the temporary closure
of five stores due to hurricane damage, currently operates 369
stores in the 20 states of Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia,
Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, South
Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and West Virginia.

For more details, contact Regis Hebbeler, Senior Vice President
of Goody's Family Clothing, Inc., Phone: +1-865-966-2000.


GOREMOTE INTERNET: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Stock Lawsuit Pact
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against GoRemote
Internet Communications, Inc. (formerly GRIC Communications,
Inc.) and certain of its officers and directors, styled "In re
GoRemote Internet Communications, Inc. Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation, No. 01 Civ 6771 (SAS)."  The suit has
been consolidated with more than three hundred substantially
identical proceedings as "In re Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation, Master File No. 21 MC 92 (SAS)."

The Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint for Violation of
the Federal Securities Laws was filed on April 19, 2002, and
alleges claims against certain of the Company's officers and
against CIBC World Markets Corporation, Prudential Securities
Incorporated, DB Alex. Brown, as successor to Deutsche Bank, and
U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray Inc., underwriters of the Company's
December 14, 1999 initial public offering ("underwriter
defendants"), under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933, as amended, and under Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

Citing several press articles, the Consolidated Complaint
alleges that the underwriter defendants used improper methods in
allocating shares in initial public offerings, and claim the
underwriter defendants entered into improper commission
agreements regarding aftermarket trading in the Company's common
stock purportedly issued pursuant to the registration statement
for the initial public offering.  The Consolidated Complaint
also alleges market manipulation claims against the underwriter
defendants based on the activities of their respective analysts,
who were allegedly compromised by conflicts of interest.  The
plaintiffs in the Consolidated Complaint seek damages as
measured under Section 11 and Section 10(b) of the Securities
Act of 1933, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and
reasonable attorneys' and expert witnesses' fees and other
costs; no specific amount is claimed in the plaintiffs' prayer
in the Consolidated Complaint.

By Order of the Court, no responsive pleading is yet due,
although motions to dismiss on global issues affecting all of
the issuers have been filed.  In October 2002, certain of the
Company's officers and directors who had been named as
defendants in the "In re Initial Public Offering Securities
Litigation" were dismissed without prejudice upon order of the
presiding judge.  In February 2003, the presiding judge
dismissed the Section 10(b) claims against the Company and its
named officers and directors with prejudice.

From September 2002 through June 2003, the Company participated
in settlement negotiations with a committee of issuers'
litigation counsel, plaintiffs' executive committee and
representatives of various insurance companies (the "Insurers").
The Company's Insurers were actively involved in the settlement
negotiations, and strongly supported a settlement proposal
presented to the Company for consideration in early June 2003.
The settlement proposed by the plaintiffs would be paid for by
the Insurers and would dispose of all remaining claims against
the Company.

After careful consideration, the Company decided to approve the
settlement proposal in July 2003. Although the Company believes
that plaintiffs' claims are without merit, it has decided to
accept the settlement proposal (which does not admit wrongdoing)
to avoid the cost and distraction of continued litigation.
Because the settlement will be funded entirely by its Insurers,
the Company does not believe that the settlement will have any
effect on its financial condition, results of operations or cash
flows, the Company said in a disclosure to the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

The settlement was presented to the Court for approval in June
2004.  The Court preliminarily approved most of the settlement
in February 2005, but requested a few minor modifications be
made to its terms.  The parties are currently negotiating these
modifications and intend to present the revised settlement
agreement to the Court shortly.

The suit is styled ""In re GoRemote Internet Communications,
Inc. Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, No. 01 Civ
6771 (SAS)" related to "In re Initial Public Offering Securities
Litigation, Master File No. 21 MC 92 (SAS)," filed 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


HENRETTY'S PRIME: Recalls 0.25 lb Crab Cakes For Undeclared Eggs
----------------------------------------------------------------
Henretty's Prime Meats of Hockessin, Delaware is recalling
packages containing two 0.25 lb Crab Cakes, because they contain
undeclared Eggs. People who have an allergy or severe
sensitivity to Eggs run the risk of serious or life-threatening
allergic reaction if they consume these products.

The crab cakes were distributed through the retail store Hermans
Quality Meat Shop located at 64 East Cleveland Avenue, Newark
Delaware.

The crab cakes can be identified because they are packaged in
yellow/orange styrofoam trays (two 0.25 lb crab cakes per tray),
and the tray is shrink wrapped and the firms label is affixed to
the packaging which reads "HENRETTY'S WORLD FAMOUS JUMBO CRAB
CAKES" followed by the cooking instructions "Preheat Oven to 400
Bake for 20 minutes Remove Enjoy" No expiration date is
indicated or manufacturing codes used. No ingredient statement
is on the shrink-wrapped package. No illnesses have been
reported to date.

The recall was initiated after it was discovered that the crab
cakes containing eggs were distributed in packaging that did not
reveal the presence of eggs. Subsequent investigation indicates
the problem was caused by a temporary breakdown in the company's
production and packaging processes.

Consumers that have purchased "HENRETTY'S WORLD FAMOUS JUMBO
CRAB CAKES" are urged to return it place of purchase or
Henretty's Prime Meats at the address above. Consumers with
questions may contact Henretty's Prime Meats at (302) 239-4915.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Recalls Battery Packs Due to Burn, Fire Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC), Hewlett-Packard Company, of Palo Alto, California is
voluntarily recalling about 135,000 HP and Compaq Notebook
Computer Battery Packs worldwide, including about 85,000 in the
U.S.

According to the Company, an internal short can cause the
battery cells to overheat and melt or char the plastic case,
posing a burn and fire hazard. HP has received 16 reports of
batteries overheating, including four in the U.S. No injuries
have been reported. Four cases of minor property damage were
reported, including one in the U.S.

The recalled lithium ion rechargeable battery packs are used
with various HP and Compaq notebook computers (see list below).
The recalled battery packs are a subset of those manufactured
March 2004 through September 2004, and will have a bar code
label starting with GC, IA, L0 or L1.

Hewlett-Packard and Compaq Notebook Models that may contain a
recalled battery pack include:

     (1) HP Pavilion = dx4000, dx5000, zd8100, ze4100,
         ze4100/xt1xx, 4200, ze4200, ze4300, ze4400, ze4500,
         ze4600, ze4700, ze4800, ze5155, ze5200, ze5300, ze5400,
         ze5500, ze5600, zv5000, zv5200, zx5000 and zx5200;

     (2) HP Compaq = nc6000, nc8000, nw8000, nx5000, nx6130,
         nx9005, nx9008, nx9010, nx9100, nx9105, 9000 and 9005;

     (3) Compaq Presario = 1100, 2100, 2500, R3000, R3200,
         X1000, X4000, X5000 and X6100; and

     (4) Compaq Evo = n1010v and n1050v.

Manufactured in China and Taiwan, the battery packs were sold at
national and regional computer and electronics stores, online
stores, hp.com and hpshopping.com from March 2004 through May
2005 for between $1,000 and $3,000. The battery packs also were
sold separately for between $100 and $130.

As a remedy, consumers should stop using the recalled batteries
immediately and contact HP to arrange for a free replacement
battery by visiting the Battery Replacement program Web site or
by calling HP. After removing the recalled battery for their
notebook computer, consumers should plug in the AC adapter to
power the notebook until a replacement battery arrives.

Consumer Contact: For additional information, visit the HP
Battery Replacement program Web site at
http://www.hp.com/support/BatteryReplacementor contact HP at
(888) 404-7398 between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. CT Monday through
Friday. Media Contact: Mike Hockey at (281) 927-9379.


HOMETOWN BUFFET: Former Managers Launch CA Overtime Wage Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
HomeTown Buffet, Inc. faces a class action filed in the
California Superior Court in San Francisco County, alleging
violations of the state's labor laws.

Two former restaurant managers filed the suit on November 2004
on behalf of all others similarly situated, alleging that the
Company violated California wage and hour laws by failing to pay
all of its California managers and assistant managers overtime,
and for making deductions from bonus compensation based on the
company's workers' compensation costs. The plaintiffs seek
compensatory damages, penalties, restitution of unpaid overtime
and deductions, pre-judgment interest, costs of suit and
reasonable attorneys' fees.  The complaint does not make a
specific monetary demand.


INTUIT INC.: Reaches Settlement For CA Consumer Fraud Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs reached a settlement for the consumer class action
filed against Intuit, Inc. in the Superior Court of California,
County of Santa Clara, alleging violations of the state's
consumer fraud law.  The suit is styled "Intuit/Quicken
Sunsetting Litigation, Master File No. 1-04-CV-016394, Superior
Court of California, County of Santa Clara (Anthony Flannery v.
Intuit Inc., et al, Civil No. 1-04-CV-016394 and Daniel J. Mason
v. Intuit Inc., et al, Civil No. 1-04-CV-018345)."

On March 19, 2004, plaintiff Anthony Flannery, on his behalf and
on behalf of a class of persons allegedly similarly situated,
filed a complaint against the Company, alleging that its
retirement of certain services and live technical support
associated with its Quicken 1998, Quicken 1999 and Quicken 2000
products constituted a breach of express and implied warranties
and violated sections 17200 and 17500 of the California Business
and Professions Code, as well as the Consumer Legal Remedies
Act.  The complaint sought certification as a class action, as
well as unspecified compensatory and punitive damages,
disgorgement of profits, restitution, injunctive relief and
attorneys' fees from the Company.

On April 21, 2004, plaintiff Daniel Mason, on his behalf and on
behalf of a class of persons allegedly similarly situated, filed
a complaint against the Company, making allegations virtually
identical to those of Anthony Flannery.  On July 14, 2004, the
Court consolidated the two cases pursuant to stipulation of the
parties.

On July 29, 2004, plaintiffs filed a consolidated First Amended
Complaint.  On October 8, 2004, the Company responded to
plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint by filing demurrers. By
Order dated November 12, 2004, the Court sustained the demurrers
and dismissed all counts of the First Amended Complaint, holding
that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which relief
could be granted.  The Court allowed plaintiffs to file a Second
Amended Complaint, which was served on the Company.  The Company
filed a demurrer to this latest pleading and on April27, 2005
the Court sustained the demurrers, dismissed all counts of the
Second Amended Complaint and denied plaintiffs the right to
further amend their complaint.  On June 1, 2005, the Court
entered its final judgment.  Plaintiffs have the right to appeal
the Court's ruling.  Although plaintiffs had the right to appeal
the Court's ruling, plaintiffs signed a settlement agreement
effective June 17, 2005 where they waived their right to appeal
any Judgment or Order in this action. This case is now
concluded.

The suit is styled "In Re Intuit/Quicken Sunsetting Litigation
(Flannery V. Intuit, Inc.), styled "1-04-CV-016394."
Representing the plaintiffs are Todd M. Schneider, Sarah Colby
and Joshua Konecky of Schneider & Wallace, 180 Montgomery
Street, Suite 2000, San Francisco, Ca 94109 and Laurence D. King
and Lori Brody of Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, 11601 Wilshire
Blvd., Suite 300, Los Angeles, Ca 90025.  Representing the
Company are Claude M. Stern, Thomas Wallerstein, of Quinn
Emanuel Urquhart Et Al, 555 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 560,
Redwood Shores, Ca 94065-2139


INTUIT INC.: Forges Settlement for CA QuickBooks Customers' Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Intuit Inc. reached a settlement for the consumer class action
filed against it in the Superior Court of California, County of
Santa Clara, styled "Cynthia Belotti v. Intuit Inc., et al,
Civil No. 1-04-CV-020277."

On May 24, 2004, plaintiff Cynthia Belotti, on her behalf and on
behalf of a class of persons allegedly similarly situated, filed
a complaint against the Company in Santa Clara Superior Court,
alleging that the Company's retirement of certain add-on
business services and live technical support associated with its
QuickBooks 2001and QuickBooks 2002 products constituted a breach
of express and implied warranties and violated sections 17200
and 17500 of the California Business and Professions Code. The
complaint sought certification as a class action, as well as
damages, disgorgement of profits, restitution, injunctive relief
and attorney's fees.

On July 13, 2004, plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint that
added Ental Precision Machining, Inc., as plaintiff; plaintiffs'
counsel has also dismissed without prejudice all claims on
behalf of Cynthia Belotti. On October 8, 2004, the Company
responded to plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint by filing
demurrers. By Order dated November 12, 2004, the Court sustained
the demurrers and dismissed all counts of the First Amended
Complaint, holding that plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon
which relief could be granted. The Court allowed plaintiffs to
file a Second Amended Complaint, which was served on the
Company.  The Company filed a demurrer to this latest pleading
and on April 27, 2005 the Court sustained the demurrers,
dismissed all counts of the Second Amended Complaint and denied
plaintiffs the right to further amend the complaint.  On June 1,
2005, the Court entered its final judgment.  Although plaintiff
had the right to appeal the Court's ruling, plaintiff signed a
settlement agreement effective June 17, 2005 where it waived its
right to appeal any Judgment or Order in this action. This case
is now concluded.

The suit is styled "Cynthia Belotti v. Intuit Inc., et al, Civil
No. 1-04-CV-020277."  Representing the plaintiffs are Todd M.
Schneider, Sarah Colby and Joshua Konecky of Schneider &
Wallace, 180 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000, San Francisco, Ca
94109 and Laurence D. King and Lori Brody of Kaplan Fox &
Kilsheimer LLP, 11601 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 300, Los Angeles, Ca
90025.  Representing the Company are Claude M. Stern, Thomas
Wallerstein, of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Et Al, 555 Twin Dolphin
Drive, Suite 560, Redwood Shores, Ca 94065-2139


LOWES HOME: Files Motion to Dismiss Suit V. Remington Chainsaws
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lowes Home Center filed a motion to dismiss a class action case
that alleges the retailer deceptively advertised Remington
chainsaws of having greater horsepower output than less
expensive models, The Madison County Record reports.

Filed by Sammy McNeil in St. Clair County on February 16, the
suit claims that Lowes advertised the Desa Lawn and Garden
products as having "Peak HP." Represented by Bradley Lakin,
Richard Burke and Dennis Barton of the Lakin Law Firm in Wood
River and Paul Weiss, William Sweetnam, and Tod Lewis of Freed &
Weiss of Chicago, the suit's class is seeking damages less than
$75,000 each.  The suit states, "Lowes knowingly used the phrase
"Peak HP" as a deceptive artifice to induce consumers to
purchase the products without informing consumers that "peak HP"
is not an indication of the products operational horsepower,
their definition of "peak HP" and that the products were not
designed to produce operational horsepower equivalent to the
"peak HP" advertised."

Mr. McNeil, who purchased a Desa 16 inch bar, 3.5 Peak HP
Remington Chain Saw from a Lowes store in Fairview Heights in
2004, claims that the alleged fraudulent misrepresentations and
acts of the operational horsepower induced customers to purchase
the Desa Lawn and Garden products.  In the suit, Mr. McNeil and
the class claim that they were damaged because the alleged
fraudulent representations caused them to purchase the products
that had no greater operational horsepower than less expensive
equipment when they could have purchased similar equipment at a
lower cost. It states, "Defendant's unlawful, unfair and
deceptive practices are widespread and continue in nature, and
class members suffered damage by not receiving what they
bargained and purchased."

Represented by Gordon Broom, Troy Bozarth and Sarah Rodeman of
Burroughs, Hepler, Broom, MacDonald, Hebrank & True of
Edwardsville, Lowes argues in its motion to dismiss that there
has been no misrepresentation and that it had no duty to
disclose the commonly understood meaning of "Peak HP." The
Company specifically pointed out in its motion, "Plaintiff has
failed to state a cause of action for common law fraud, either
under a theory of fraudulent misrepresentation or the fraudulent
concealment."

In addition, Lowes, which claims that Desa prepares the
advertisements, packaging and promotional materials for its
products, argued in its motion that in sustaining a claim for
fraudulent concealment a plaintiff must also plead facts
demonstrating that "the innocent party could not have discovered
the truth through a reasonable inquiry or inspection and relied
upon the silence as a representation that the fact did not
exist." On this regard, the Company contends, "Plaintiff cannot
state a cause of action for violation of the Illinois Consumer
Fraud Act because Lowes has committed no deceptive act."


MBNA CORPORATION: Customers Launch Illegal Conspiracy Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
MBNA Corporation faces a class action filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging
that several of the nation's largest credit card issuers
illegally conspired to compel their customers to submit disputes
to an arbitrator rather than a court.

MBNA America Bank, National Association (MBNA), MBNA Corporation
and MBNA (Delaware) Bank N.A. are among the defendants named in
the lawsuit.  MBNA and its affiliates deny the claims made in
the lawsuit and intend to defend the matter vigorously, the
Company said in a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

The suit is styled "Connecticut Food Association, Inc. et al v.
Visa U.S.A., Inc. et al, case no 1:05-cv-07456-DAB," filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York, under Judge Deborah A. Batts.  Representing the
plaintiffs is Charles S. Hellman of Drubner, Hartley & O'Connor,
LLC, 2 Penn Plaza, Suite 1500, New York, NY 10119, Phone:
(212)292-5665, Fax: (212)629-4568.


MEDIANEWS GROUP: Agrees To Participate in NY Copyright Suit Pact
----------------------------------------------------------------
MediaNews Group, Inc. agreed to participate in the settlement of
a class action filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, styled "In re Literary Works in
Electronic Databases Copyright Litigation, MDL No. 1379,
Consolidated Case No. 00 Civ. 8049 GBD (S.D.N.Y. 2000)."

A series of class action lawsuits were filed against entities
involved in the electronic display of articles ("Database
Entities") that had previously appeared in newspapers and
magazines (collectively, "Media Entities") and had been authored
by individuals who were not employees of the Media Entities.
These lawsuits alleged that the Database Entities' electronic
display infringed upon the copyrights owned by the freelance
authors. The Company had licensed articles from its various
newspapers to one or more of the Database Entities. Although
the Company is not a party to this litigation, various Media
Entities have asserted claims for indemnification against the
Company in respect of their potential liability in this
litigation.

In 2004, the Database Entities negotiated a settlement of these
consolidated actions, and the Company agreed to participate in
the settlement process. The settlement provides for a claims
settlement process in which a claims administrator would
determine the responsibility of the participants taking into
account such factors as the availability of defenses, the
existence of a copyright registration, the date on which the
relevant article was originally published, the amount received
by the author of the freelance article for the original
publication and the total amount of claims that are compensated.
Settlement under the agreement is not expected to have a
material impact on the financial condition of the Company.


MERCK & CO.: Kenneth Moll Lodges Vioxx Suit For Polish Citizens
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kenneth B. Moll & Associates, LTD. initiated the
first class action lawsuit on behalf of all citizens of Poland
who allegedly died or were seriously injured by the pain
medication Vioxx. The suit accuses United States pharmaceutical
giant Merck & Co. of failing to properly research the known
risks of Vioxx and warn Polish consumers of potentially fatal
side effects. "Vioxx should never have been marketed in the
first place," said Kenneth B. Moll, whose firm filed the first
worldwide class action regarding Vioxx last fall.

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

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


OPLINK COMMUNICATIONS: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted preliminary approval for the settlement of the
securities class action filed against Oplink Communications,
Inc. and certain of its officers and directors, styled "In re
Oplink Communications, Inc. Initial Public Offering Securities
Litigation, Case No.01-CV-9904."

In the amended complaint, the plaintiffs allege that the
Company, certain of the Company's officers and directors and the
underwriters of the Company's initial public offering, or IPO,
violated section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 based on
allegations that the Company's registration statement and
prospectus failed to disclose material facts regarding the
compensation to be received by, and the stock allocation
practices of, the IPO underwriters.

The complaint also contains a claim for violation of section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on
allegations that this omission constituted a deceit on
investors.  The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and
other relief.

Similar complaints were filed by plaintiffs (the "Plaintiffs")
against hundreds of other public companies (the "Issuers") that
went public in the late 1990s.  On August 8, 2001, the IPO
Lawsuits were consolidated for pretrial purposes before United
States Judge Shira Scheindlin of the Southern District of New
York.

On July 15, 2002, the Company joined in a global motion to
dismiss the IPO Lawsuits filed by all of the Issuers (among
others).  On October 9, 2002, the Court entered an order
dismissing the Company's named officers and directors from the
IPO Lawsuits without prejudice, pursuant to an agreement tolling
the statute of limitations with respect to these officers and
directors until September 30, 2003.

On February 19, 2003, the Court issued a decision denying the
motion to dismiss the Section 11 claims against the Company and
almost all of the Issuers, and granting the motion to dismiss
the Section 10(b) claim against the Company. The Section 10(b)
claim was dismissed without leave to amend.

In June 2003, Issuers and Plaintiffs reached a tentative
settlement agreement and entered a memorandum of understanding,
providing for, among other things, a dismissal with prejudice
and full release of the Issuers and their officers and directors
from all further liability resulting from Plaintiffs' claims,
and the assignment to Plaintiffs of certain potential claims
that the Issuers may have against the underwriters.  In
addition, the tentative settlement guarantees that, in the event
that the Plaintiffs recover less than $1 billion in settlement
or judgment against the underwriter defendants in the IPO
Lawsuits, the Plaintiffs would be entitled to payment by each
participating Issuer's insurer of a pro rata share of any
shortfall in the Plaintiff's guaranteed recovery.  In such
event, the Company's obligation would be limited to
reimbursement of the Company's insurer up to the amount
remaining under the deductible of the Company's insurance
policy.  In September 2003, in connection with the tentative
settlement, the Company's officers and directors who had
entered tolling agreements with the Plaintiffs agreed to extend
those agreements so that they would not expire prior to any
settlement being finalized.

In June 2004, the Company executed a settlement agreement with
the Plaintiffs pursuant to the terms of a memorandum of
understanding.  The settlement is subject to a number of
conditions, including action by the Court certifying a class
action for settlement purposes and formally approving the
settlement.  The underwriters have opposed both the
certification of the class and the judicial approval of the
settlement.  On February 15, 2005, the Court issued a decision
certifying a class action for settlement purposes and granting
preliminary approval of the settlement subject to modification
of certain bar orders contemplated by the settlement. In
addition, the settlement is still subject to statutory notice
requirements as well as final judicial approval.

The suit is styled "In re Oplink Communications, Inc. Initial
Public Offering Securities Litigation, Case No. 01-CV-9904
(Sas)," filed 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, newyork@whafh.com



PHILIP MORRIS: OR Judge Denies Certification For "Lights" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Janice Wilson of the Circuit Court for the County of
Multnomah in Oregon declined to grant class action status to a
lawsuit against Philip Morris USA, brought by a group of
Marlboro Lights smokers, citing that large number of individual
issues that would need to be considered in the case, The
Associated Press reports.

Marilyn Pearson and Laura Grandin alleged in their suit that
Philip Morris, a Richmond, Virginia unit of Altria Group Inc.,
violated state laws by misleading smokers into believing
Marlboro Lights delivered less tar and nicotine than full-tar
cigarettes when the company knew the cigarettes did not.

In her opinion Judge Wilson said, "In my view the scales are
tipped by the fact that not only do the individual issues
predominate over the common ones, they do so overwhelmingly."
Thus, the judge concluded that the case does not meet the
qualifications for class certification.  In addition, Judge
Wilson cited that the evidence presented to the court showed
smokers may receive different amounts of tar and nicotine from
different cigarettes in the same pack, depending upon a number
of variables. On this regard, Judge Wilson thus concluded that
each member of the class would need to prove whether the
Marlboro Lights he or she smoked delivered lowered tar and
nicotine.

Jim Coon, an attorney at Swanson Thomas & Coon, who is
representing the plaintiffs, told The Associated Press that he
was disappointed in the court's decision and would look to
appeal the ruling adding that, "We believe the plaintiffs were
affected in the same way." He explains that the group purchased
the cigarettes expecting that the cigarettes were inherently
lower in tar and nicotine, not possibly lower in these
substances.

The case in Oregon is similar to a number of other lawsuits
filed in courts throughout the country. But so far, the record
for these cases has been a hit or miss affair, with some courts
granting class status to lawsuits and others rejecting it.

In response to the Oregon court's decision, William Ohlemeyer,
Philip Morris USA vice president and associate general counsel,
stated, "The court in its opinion stated, as Philip Morris USA
has asserted in its lights cases, 'the common questions of fact
do not predominate over the questions affecting only individual
members.'"


PIP/USA INC.: Asks IL Court To Dismiss Consumer Fraud Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action against
PIP/USA, Inc., in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois,
Chancery alleging violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act.
Five suits were initially filed, styled:

     (1) Peggy Williams v. PIP/USA, Inc., Case No. 03 CH 9654,

     (2) Jessica Fischer Schnebel, et al. v. PIP/USA, Inc.,
         Case No. 03CH07239,

     (3) Dawn Marie Cooper, et al. v. PIP/USA, Inc., Case No.
         03CH11316,

     (4) Miriam Furman, et al. v. PIP/USA, Inc., Case No.
         03CH10832 and

     (5) Karen S. Witt, et al. v. PIP/USA, Inc., Case No.
         03CH12928

Counsel for Jessica Fischer Schnebel, et al. v. PIP/USA, Inc.
amended her complaint to include plaintiffs from the other four
cases, and each of the others has been voluntarily dismissed.
The consolidated amended complaint contains counts alleging
product liability, breach of the implied warranties of
merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose, violation
of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act and third-party beneficiary
status.  Unspecified monetary damages, exemplary damages and
attorneys fees and costs are sought.  The Company and
PIP.America filed motions to dismiss the suit, the motion
remains pending.  Discovery is underway.  The plaintiffs have
not sought to date to certify any putative class.


PIP/USA INC.: Discovery Proceeds in Suit, 18 Plaintiffs Dropped
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in the class action filed against
PIP/USA, Inc. in the District Court of Harris County, Texas,
styled "Marsha Dicken, et al. v. PIP/USA, Inc., et al., Case No.
2003-05588."

Plaintiffs purport to sue on behalf of themselves and an alleged
class of persons allegedly similarly situated for alleged strict
liability, breach of express warranty, breach of implied
warranties, violation of Section 402B of the Restatement
(Second) of Torts, negligence, misrepresentations, and violation
of Texas' Deceptive Trade Practices Act with respect to implant
products.  Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount in alleged
compensatory damages, additional statutory damages, interest,
attorneys' fees and costs.

The lawsuit is in the discovery phase and no hearing has been
held, or order entered, concerning class certification.  The
Company's distributor has filed motions seeking to dismiss
certain claims in a summary judgment proceeding.  The court has
specified that a trial date will be set shortly after the
pretrial conference.

The Plaintiffs have since given up the class action allegations
of the petition and the Court entered an Order on August 10,
2005, striking eighteen plaintiffs from the lawsuit. The lawsuit
is in the discovery phase.  The Company's distributor, PIP
America, has settled the lawsuit against it.  PIP.America had,
prior to settling, tendered this case to Poly Implant
Prostheses, S.A., for defense and indemnity.


POLY IMPLANTS: Reaches Settlement For CA Consumer Antitrust Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Poly Implants Protheses, S.A. reached a settlement for the class
action filed against it in the Superior Court of San Luis,
Obispo County, California, styled "Salinas I. Landers, et al. v.
Poly Implants Protheses, S.A., et al., Case No. CV
030377."

Plaintiffs purport to sue on behalf of themselves and an alleged
class of persons allegedly similarly situated for unspecific
monetary damages, exemplary damages, attorneys' fees and costs
and injunctive relief for alleged breach of express warranty and
alleged violations of California's Song-Beverly Consumer
Warranty Act and Unfair Competition Law.

The Company filed a demurrer to the action, which was denied by
the Court.  The Company has now filed an answer to the
complaint, and written discovery is in the initial stages.  At
the case management hearing on May 5, 2004, the court scheduled
a date to hear arguments for and against class certification.
This action has been settled and a dismissal of the action by
the court is expected shortly.


REFCO INC.: Shalov Stone Launches Securities Litigation Web Site
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Shalov Stone & Bonner, LLP, which filed a class
action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of Refco, Inc. (NYSE:
RFX) securities in the period between August 10, 2005, and
October 7, 2005, recently developed and launched a website
dedicated exclusively to the Refco securities litigation. Refco
investors are invited to visit the new website at:
http://www.refcoclassaction.com.

Shalov Stone & Bonner, LLP, is actively investigating potential
shareholder and bondholder claims against Refco, its key
executive officers, the company's principal outside auditor, and
the lead underwriters for Refco's recent initial public
offering, and has prepared a complaint that we encourage you to
review. Purchasers of Refco stock and bonds (due on August 1,
2012, with an interest rate of 9%; CUSIP No. 75866HAC1) are
invited to view the complaint at the www.refcoclassaction.com
website.

For more details, contact Thomas G. Ciarlone, Jr. of Shalov
Stone & Bonner LLP, 485 Seventh Ave., Suite 1000, New York, NY
10018, Phone: (212) 239-4340, E-mail: tciarlone@lawssb.com, Web
site: http://www.lawssb.com.


TASER INTERNATIONAL: IL Police Chief Defends Record of Stun-Guns
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ronald Burge, the former police chief for the village of Dolton,
a suburb in Chicago, Illinois, which initiated a potential class
action lawsuit against stun-gun maker Taser International Inc.
is disputing that he never ordered his department to pull the
weapons amid safety concerns, The Associated Press reports.

In an October 5 affidavit related to the lawsuit, Mr. Burge, who
was a strong advocate for the weapons, said, "I never received
any complaints or negative comment from a Dolton police officer
or citizen of Dolton regarding the lack of safety, danger, or
harm caused by the use of a Taser."

The lawsuit, which still needs court approval to become a class
action case, was filed in U.S. District Court in Chicago in
July. It alleges that Taser International misled police
departments across the country about the safety of its stun guns
and left them with weapons that are too dangerous to use on the
street without added safety provisions.

The case is the first known lawsuit by a city or police
department challenging Taser's statements about the science and
safety of the stun guns.

The suit is styled, "Village of Dolton v. Taser International
Inc., Case No. 1:05-cv-04126," filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, under
Judge James F. Holderman. Representing the Plaintiff/s is John
K. Vrdolyak of Edward R. Vrdolyak, Ltd., 741 North Dearborn St.,
Chicago, IL 60610, Phone: (312) 482-8200. Representing the
Defendant is David Thomas Ballard of Barnes & Thornburg, One
North Wacker Drive, Suite 4400, Chicago, IL 60606, Phone:
312-357-1313, E-mail: dballard@btlaw.com.


UNIFI INC.: Reaches Settlement For NC Cotton Antitrust Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of
North Carolina, Greensboro Division dismissed the consolidated
class action filed against Unifi, Inc. and certain of its
officers and directors, styled "In Re Cotton Yarn Antitrust
Litigation."  The suit is related to its transactions with
Parkdale America, LLC, (PAL) a producer of cotton and synthetic
yarns for sale to the textile and apparel industries primarily
within North America.

On January 14, 2005 with the consent of the plaintiffs, the
Judge in the case signed a "Notice and Order of Dismissal
Without Prejudice and Stipulation for Tolling of Statute of
Limitations and Tolling Agreement."  The Dismissal provides,
among other things, that:

    (1) the claims against the Company in the litigation are
        dismissed without prejudice;

    (2) the applicable statute of limitations with respect to
        the claims of the plaintiffs shall be tolled during the
        pendency of the litigation;

    (3) if the plaintiffs' counsel elect to rename the Company
        as a defendant in the litigation, for purposes of the
        statute of limitations, the refiling shall relate back
        to the date of the filing of the initial complaint in
        the litigation; and

    (4) the Company agrees to provide discovery in the
        litigation as though it was a party to the litigation,
        including responding to interrogatories, requests for
        production of documents, and notices of deposition.

Effective August 16, 2005, Parkdale Mills, Inc. and PAL signed a
Settlement Agreement with the "Class Representatives" and "Class
Members" (hereinafter collectively referred to as the
"Settlement Class") in the Consolidated Action agreeing to
settle this litigation. Under the terms of the Settlement
Agreement, Parkdale Mills, Inc., PAL and their "joint venture
partners (with particular reference to Unifi, Inc.)" are
released upon final Court approval of the settlement. This
settlement must be approved by the Court before it is effective.
It is believed that it will take quite some time before the
settlement is finally approved. Until the Settlement Agreement
is finally approved by the Court, the Company remains unable to
determine the level of damages for which PAL may be liable or
the impact of such liability on the Company, which impact could
be material.  On September 7, 2005, the Company and Parkdale
Mills, Inc. signed an Amendment to the PAL Operating Agreement
that provides that the burden of any portion of the settlement
amount contemplated in the Settlement Agreement that is to be
borne by PAL will be allocated to and borne by Parkdale Mills,
Inc. as a Member of PAL.

The suit is styled "In re Cotton Yarn Antitrust, Litigation,
MDL-1622," filed in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of North Carolina, Greensboro Division, under
Judge James A. Beaty, Jr.


UNITED KINGDOM: Court Dismisses Railtrack Shareholders' Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Britain's High Court rejected the claims of about 49,000
shareholders of former rail operator Railtrack Plc that former
Transport Minister Stephen Byers and other civil servants
secretly plotted to force Railtrack into bankruptcy to
"renationalize" the country's railways, Bloomberg reports.

In a decision that dismissed an almost three-year legal battle
to win compensation from the British government for the
company's collapse in 2001, Justice John Lindsay said that the
Railtrack was headed for a financial "crisis." He pointed out in
the decision that, "There were plainly ample and sound policy
reasons for the government wishing to be rid of Railtrack and
for the railway assets to be passed into the control of others."

Despite the ruling, Britain's largest-ever class action-style
lawsuit may not end criticism of the government's handling of
Railtrack, since Mr. Byers, now a Labour party member of
parliament, testified that he told an "untruth" to a House of
Commons committee probing events leading up to the bankruptcy.
Also, letters by other officials submitted as evidence called
Railtrack's shareholders "grannies" and said the rail regulator
was a "wild card."

In a press statement, Alan Duncan, Shadow Secretary of State for
Transport for the opposition Conservative Party said, "The
government may have won in court, but the questions in
Parliament are only just beginning." He also said, "The
proceedings in court have flushed out a catalogue of
contemptible conduct which displays corruption and deceit at the
heart of this government."

Geoffrey Weir, the lead shareholder in the case, told Bloomberg
that investors were deeply disappointed and called the ruling a
"whitewash." He added, "The judgment gives the government carte
blanche to act as they please in future, without fear of
judicial scrutiny." He did say though that, "We now look to
Parliament to investigate why Mr. Byers lied to it, and why he
feels that there are many reasons why a minister may wish to do
so."

In addition, Mr. Weir pointed out that the shareholders are
meeting with their lawyers to determine whether to appeal. The
group told Bloomberg that it has raised around $5.3 million (3
million pounds) from members and supporters to date to fund the
legal action. Under U.K. law, the group is liable to pay the
government's costs in the case, which were capped at 2.3 million
pounds before the trial.

The U.K. government has denied all wrongdoing over Railtrack and
said the judgment "totally vindicated" its decision to put the
company into administration. In a statement after the ruling,
current U.K. Transport Secretary Alistair Darling said, "The
judge found that the government acted entirely properly in the
face of growing concern over Railtrack's financial position and
management."

Railtrack, which debuted on the London Stock Exchange in 1996,
operated around 2,500 rail stations and 10,000 miles of track
when Mr. Byers asked the High Court to put the company into
administration, citing poor performance and a projected 1.7
billion-pound funding gap.

The company's shares had plunged in the wake of a train
derailment in Hatfield, north of London, a year earlier in which
four people died. That accident, the second major railway
accident in two years, rocked public confidence and exposed the
poor state of the railways, sending costs soaring and forcing
the imposition of widespread speed restrictions and other safety
measures.

In a recent interview on Sky News, Mr. Byers said, "All of my
conduct has been above board," adding that his decision not to
extend more money to Railtrack was the right one. "I took a
tough decision to say no. That was the right decision."

Additionally, Justice Lindsay also rejected the shareholders'
claim that Mr. Byers was a "proven liar" who deceived senior
Railtrack executives and members of Parliament in his bid to
take back the railways. He stated in his decision, "I do not
find Mr. Byers generally to have been an untruthful witness. He
accepted to me that he had then told an untruth, but that of
itself does not brand him a liar."

The shareholders are suing the government for the difference
between the average price of Railtrack shares and the money they
were offered when the government bought the business to pass on
to Network Rail. The shareholder, who are seeking compensation
for Railtrack's slide into administration in 2001, are
specifically accusing the government of "misfeasance of
justice", or acting in bad faith.

The case is Geoffrey Rutherford Weir and ors. v. The Secretary
of State for Transport HC03CO4185.


WOOD RIVER: SEC Files Emergency Action V. Firm, John H. Whittier
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange filed an emergency action against
John H. Whittier, Wood River Capital Management, LLC, Wood River
Associates, LLC, Wood River Partners, L.P and Wood River
Partners Offshore, Ltd. The SEC's complaint alleges that the
defendants repeatedly made material misrepresentations regarding
the oversight and diversification of two hedge funds managed by
Mr. Whittier--Wood River Partners, L.P. and Wood River Partners
Offshore Ltd.

Simultaneous with the filing of the Commission's complaint,
Defendant Whittier consented to preliminary injunctions against
future violations, an asset freeze as to the Wood River
entities, an accounting and a partial asset freeze from
Whittier, restraint from destruction of evidence, and the
appointment of a receiver for the Wood River entities.

The Commission alleged that the defendants violated Section
17(a) of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C.  77q(a); Sections 10(b),
13(d), 16(a) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C.  78j(b), 78m(d),
and 78p(a), and Rules 10b-5, 13d-1, 13d-2, 16a-2 and 16a-3, 17
C.F.R.  240.10b-5, 240.13d-1, 240.13d-2, 240.16a-2, and
240.16a-3.  The complaint also alleges that Defendants Wood
River Capital Management, LLC, Wood River Associates, LLC and
John H. Whittier violated Sections 206(1) and (2) of the
Investment Advisers Act of 1940, 15 U.S.C.  80b-6(1) and (2).

For permanent relief, the Commission requested injunctions
against future violations, disgorgement, prejudgment interest
and civil penalties. The action is styled, SEC v. Wood River
Capital Management, LLC, et al., U.S. District Court for
Southern District of New York, Civil Action No. 05-CV-8713, NRB,
(LR-19428).


YUM! BRANDS: Class Size in CA FLSA Violations Lawsuit Shrinks
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit, which claims some Pizza Hut units
improperly classified managers and denied them overtime pay,
will have just 88 eligible members if the case goes to trial,
according to a regulatory filing by its parent company, Yum!
Brands, The Pizza Marketplace.com reports.

The lawsuit, Coldiron v. Pizza Hut, Inc., which was filed August
13, 2003, in a California U.S. District Court, alleges
restaurant general manager Ann Coldiron and other current and
former Pizza Hut RGMs were improperly classified as exempt
employees under the U.S. Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiffs in
the suit, who are seeking unpaid wages, plus penalties, claim
that their duties included non-managerial tasks for which they
should have been paid overtime.

Plaintiffs' lawyers claimed potentially thousands of Pizza Hut
RGMs could participate in the class, but no more than several
hundred ever joined the litigation. In June, Pizza Hut lawyers
moved to have much of that group disqualified from participating
in the suit. The court granted the motion, and that pared the
eligible class to 88 members.

Pizza Hut contends it did not violate any FLSA regulations and
wants the suit dismissed, according to the regulatory filing.

The suit is styled, "Coldiron v. Pizza Hut, Inc., Case No. CV
03-5865 TJH (MCx)," filed in the United States District Court
for the Central District of California, under Judge Terry J.
Hatter, with referral to Judge James W. McMahon. Representing
the Plaintiff/s are: Justian Jusuf, Rex Hwang and Gregory G.
Petersen of Castle Petersen & Krause, 4675 MacArthur Court,
Suite 1250, Newport Beach, CA 92660, Phone: 949-417-5631 or
949-417-5600, E-mail: justian@cpk-law.com. Representing the
Defendant are:

     (1) George A McNamee, III, Ellen Laguerta Uy and Paula
         Maxine Weber of Pillsbury Winthrop, 725 S Figueroa St.,
         Ste. 2800, Los Angeles, CA 90017-5406, Phone: 213-488-
         7100;

     (2) Layn R Phillips, Henry Shields, Jr., Bruce A. Wessel
         and Andra Barmash Greene of Irell & Manella, 1800
         Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900, Los Angeles, CA 90067-
         4276, Phone: 310-277-1010, Fax: 310-203-7199, E-mail:
         lphillips@irell.com, hshields@irell.com and
         bwessel@irell.com; and

     (3) Richard S. Ruben of Pillsbury Winthrop, 650 Town Center
         Dr, 7th Fl., Costa Mesa, CA 92626-7122, Phone: 714-436-
         6800, Fax: 714-436-2800.


                New Securities Fraud Cases

AMERIGROUP CORPORATION: Abbey Gardy Lodges Securities Suit in VA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Abbey Gardy, LLP, commenced a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia (Case No. 2:05-cv-601) on behalf of a class
(the "Class") of all persons who purchased or acquired
securities of Amerigroup Corporation ("Amerigroup" or the
"Company")(NYSE:AGP) between April 27, 2005 and September 28,
2005 inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period thereby
artificially inflating the price of Amerigroup securities. The
Complaint names as defendants Amerigroup, Jeffrey L. McWaters,
James G. Carlson, Stanley F. Baldwin, E. Paul Dunn, Jr. and
Kathleen K. Toth. The Complaint alleges that Amerigroup:

     (1) carried out a scheme to deceive the investing public;

     (2) made untrue statements of material fact and/or omitted
         to state material facts necessary to make the
         statements not misleading; and

     (3) engaged in acts, practices, and a course of business
         which operated as a fraud and deceit upon the
         purchasers of the Company's securities in an effort to
         maintain artificially high market prices for Amerigroup
         securities.

More specifically, the Complaint alleges that during the Class
Period, Amerigroup had falsely reported its financial results in
its press releases and Form 10-Q for its first and second
quarters of 2005 by improperly accounting for medical costs. The
Company has now admitted to its failure to accrue costs of at
least $6 million in the first quarter and $17 million in the
second quarter for a total of $23 million.

On September 28, 2005, after the market closed, Amerigroup
announced its preliminary estimated third quarter financial
results and that the Company "expects to report a third quarter
2005 loss of $0.06 to $0.08 per diluted share, as compared to
current consensus earnings estimate of $0.48 per diluted share.
As a result the Company will not meet its 2005 annual earnings
guidance of $1.73 to $1.78 per diluted share." News of this
shocked the market; Amerigroup's stock fell from $33.91 per
share to $19.81 per share on volume of 8.4 million shares.

For more details, contact Susan Lee or Nancy Kaboolian, Esq. of
Abbey Gardy, LLP, 212 East 39th St., New York, NY 10016, Phone:
(212) 889-3700 or (800) 889-3701, E-mail: slee@abbeygardy.com.


AMERIGROUP CORPORATION: Milberg Weiss Lodges Fraud Suit in VA
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP, initiated
a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities
of AMERIGROUP Corporation ("AMERIGROUP" or the "Company") (NYSE:
AGP) between April 27, 2005 and September 28, 2005, inclusive
(the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The action is pending in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Virginia against defendants AMERIGROUP,
Jeffrey L. McWaters (CEO and Chair), James G. Carlson (COO),
Stanley F. Baldwin (Exec. VP), E. Paul Dunn, Jr. (CFO) and
Kathleen K. Toth (Chief Accounting Officer).

The complaint alleges that defendants issued or caused to be
issued materially false and misleading statements that deceived
the investing public as to the Company's financial condition and
prospects. Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants
failed to account for at least $23 million in medical costs
incurred but not reported (IBNR) in the first two quarters of
2005. As a result of defendants' failure to adequately disclose
the Company's true costs, the Company's shares traded at
artificially inflated prices, as high as $49.30. During the
Class Period, defendants availed themselves of this artificial
inflation to sell 170,712 shares of their AMERIGROUP stock for
proceeds of $6.1 million.

The truth began to emerge on September 28, 2005, after the close
of the market. On that date, the Company disclosed that it
expected to report a third quarter 2005 loss of $0.06 to $0.08
per diluted share, as compared to the then-current consensus
earnings estimate of $0.48 per diluted share and that, as a
result, the Company would not meet its 2005 annual earnings
guidance of $1.73 to $1.78 per diluted share. On this news,
AMERIGROUP's stock fell $14.70 per share from $33.91 per share,
to as low as $19.21 per share before closing at $19.81 per share
on volume of 8.4 million shares, more than 12 times the daily
average.

For more details, contact 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.


DANA CORPORATION: Abbey Gardy Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in OH
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Abbey Gardy, LLP, filed a class action lawsuit
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Ohio on behalf of a Class (the "Class") of all persons who
purchased or acquired securities of Dana Corporation ("Dana" or
the Company") (NYSE: DCN) between March 23, 2005 and September
14, 2005 inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period thereby
artificially inflating the price of Dana securities. The
Complaint names as defendants Dana, Michael J. Burns and Robert
C. Richter. The Complaint alleges that Dana

     (1) carried out a scheme to deceive the investing public;

     (2) made untrue statements of material fact and/or omitted
         to state material facts necessary to make the
         statements not misleading;

     (3) artificially inflated the Company's net income through
         improper accounting; and

     (4) issued earnings guidance that lacked any reasonable
         basis given the Company's true performance and
         prospects, which were unknown to the investing public.

More specifically, the Complaint alleges that during the Class
Period, Dana had significantly overstated its 2005 full-year
earnings outlook and would likely restate its second quarter
2005 financial results.

On September 15, 2005, Dana announced that it has revised its
2005 full- year earnings outlook to a range of $90 million to
$105 million, or approximately $0.60 to $0.70 per share, from
its previously announced range of $196 million to $219 million,
or $1.30 to $1.45 per share. In reaction to this announcement,
the price of Dana stock fell dramatically from $12.78 to $9.86.

For more details, contact Susan Lee or Nancy Kaboolian, Esq. of
Abbey Gardy, LLP, 212 East 39th St., New York, NY 10016, Phone:
(212) 889-3700 or (800) 889-3701, E-mail: slee@abbeygardy.com.


DANA CORPORATION: Federman & Sherwood Lodges Fraud Suit in OH
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Federman & Sherwood initiated a class action
lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio against Dana Corporation (NYSE: DCN).

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of
material misrepresentations to the market which had the effect
of artificially inflating the market price. The class period is
from March 23, 2005 through September 14, 2005.

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


REFCO INC.: Abraham Fruchter Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Abraham Fruchter & Twersky, 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.

For more details, contact Jack G. Fruchter, Esq. or Ximena
Skovron, Esq. of Abraham Fruchter & Twersky, LLP, Phone:
(212) 279-5050 or (800) 440-8986, Fax: (212) 279-3655, E-mail:
jfruchter@aftlaw.com or xskovron@aftlaw.com.


REFCO INC.: Berman DeValerio Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo)
filed a class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York against Refco, Inc. ("Refco" or the
"Company") (NYSE: RFX), alleging that the Company issued
materially false and misleading financial statements in
connection to its August 11, 2005 initial public offering
("IPO"). The lawsuit seeks damages for violations of federal
securities laws on behalf of all investors who purchased Refco
common stock between August 11, 2005 and October 7, 2005,
inclusive.

The lawsuit claims that defendants violated Sections 11 and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. Sections 77k and 77o.

According to the complaint, on October 10, 2005, Refco disclosed
that an internal company review had uncovered a $430 million
receivable owed to the Company by an entity controlled by
Refco's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Phillip R.
Bennett. The receivable was not shown as a related party
transaction in the Company's prior period financial statements
or its Registration Statement and Prospectus filed in connection
with Refco's August 11, 2005 IPO.

Refco further disclosed that the Company's financial results for
fiscal years 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005 and the first quarter of
fiscal 2006, which began on March 1, 2005, "should no longer be
relied upon."

Bennett, who took an indefinite leave of absence at the request
of Refco's Board of Directors when the news broke on October 10,
2005, was arrested the next day and charged with securities
fraud by the United States Attorney. The Securities and Exchange
Commission is also conducting an inquiry into the matter.

Following Refco's October 10, 2005 announcement, the Company's
stock plummeted $12.96, or 45%, closing that day at $15.60 and
wiping out more than $1 billion in market capitalization.
Trading in Refco's stock was halted for most of Tuesday, October
11, 2005, and when trading resumed the stock continued to fall,
closing at $13.85. The stock plunged another 22% on October 12,
2005, the day Bennett's arrest was announced, losing $3.00 per
share to close at $10.85. On October 13, 2005, trading was again
suspended after the stock dropped an additional 27% to $7.90 in
pre-market activity. The shares, which were priced in the IPO at
$22 per share, hit an intra-day high on September 7, 2005 of
$30.55.

For more details, contact Bryan A. Wood, Esq. or Joseph C.
Merschman, Esq. of Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt &
Pucillo, One Liberty Square, Boston, MA, Phone: (800) 516-9926,
E-mail: law@bermanesq.com, Web site:
http://www.bermanesq.com/pdf/refco-cplt.pdf.


REFCO INC.: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Fraud 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 Refco, Inc.
(NYSE: RFX) between August 11, 2005 and October 10, 2005,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern 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.


REFCO INC.: Paskowitz & Associates Lodges Securities Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Paskowitz & Associates commenced a class action
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York against Refco, Inc. ("Refco" or the "Company") (NYSE:
RFX--News), certain individual defendants, and the lead
underwriters of Refco's August 2005 initial public offering. The
alleged class consists of all purchasers of Refco securities
between August 11, 2005 and October 7, 2005, inclusive (the
"Class Period"). Motions for appointment to the Lead Plaintiff
position must be filed no later than December 12, 2005.

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. Trading in
Refco shares was halted on October 13, 2005, after they had
fallen to a price of $7.90 per share.

For more details, contact Laurence Paskowitz, Esq. of Paskowitz
& Associates, Phone: 1-800-705-9529, E-mail:
classattorney@aol.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, on behalf of investors who
purchased the common stock of Refco, Inc. ("Refco" or "Company")
(NYSE:RFX) between August 11, 2005 and October 7, 2005 ("Class
Period"). Refco has now conceded that the Registration Statement
that was issued in connection with its August 11, 2005 initial
public offering ("IPO") contained false financials and failed to
disclose a $430 million debt owed to it by a company controlled
by its CEO, Chairman and controlling shareholder, Philip R.
Bennett. Defendants are Refco, Bennett, Gerald M. Sherer
(Refco's CFO), certain underwriters, and Refco's outside
auditors, Grant Thornton LLP. Plaintiff seeks remedies under
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On October 10, 2005, just nine weeks after the IPO, Refco
disclosed that defendant Bennett owed Refco $430 million and was
being placed on a leave of absence. Refco revealed 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." Significantly, 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 conceded that the
uncollectible receivable arose as "far back as at least 1998."
On October 12, 2004, defendant Bennett was arrested after being
charged with one count of securities fraud. On October 13, 2005,
it was reported that a subsidiary of Refco, Refco Capital
Markets Ltd., which provides clearing services to offshore hedge
funds, was experiencing a cash crisis and would not allow its
customers to withdraw their money for 15 days. The moratorium
appears to have been prompted by an exodus of client accounts.

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


REFCO INC.: Wolf Popper Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Wolf Popper, LLP, initiated a securities fraud
lawsuit against Refco, Inc. ("Refco") (NYSE: "RFX") and certain
of its officers and directors, on behalf of a class (the
"Class") consisting of all persons or entities that purchased
the common stock of Refco on the open market during the period
August 11, 2005 through October 7, 2005, inclusive (the "Class
Period"); or purchased Refco common stock issued and/or
traceable to the Company's Registration Statement/Prospectus
dated August 10, 2005 and declared effective by the SEC on or
around August 11, 2005. The action was filed in the United
States District Court, Southern District of New York.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
caused Refco to issue a Registration Statement/Prospectus,
touting the Company's exceptionally high derivative trading
volume and strong financial statements. However, unbeknownst to
the market, Refco hid from its investors the Company's true
financial condition. The Company materially misstated its
accounts receivables by hiding $430 million in bad debt unlikely
to be repaid. Using financial sleight of hand, the Company made
it appear that a legitimate business customer, a hedge-fund
company called Liberty Corner, owed Refco $430 million, when in
fact, a company controlled by Refco's Chief Executive Officer
and Chairman of the Board owed the Company the $430 million.
This was accomplished by making loans to Liberty Corner, which
turned around and lent the money to an entity controlled by
Refco's Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board.

On October 10, 2005, only two months after the Company's initial
public offering, the Company announced that its financial
statements included in its Registration Statement/Prospectus
could no longer be relied on because of the previously
undisclosed $430 million related party receivable. The Company
also stated that it would delay the filing of its quarterly
report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ending August 31,
2005. Furthermore, the Company announced that its Chief
Executive Officer, Chairman, and controlling shareholder,
Phillip R. Bennet, was taking a leave of absence at the request
of Refco's Board of Directors.

On this news, Refco's share price plummeted 45% to $15.60 from
the prior days closing of $28.56.

On October 12, 2005, Refco's Chief Executive Officer and
Chairman of the Board was arrested and charged with securities
fraud by the U.S. Attorney's Office for paying Liberty Corner to
help him hide the money he owed Refco. In addition, on October
13, 2005, Refco announced it would halt activities at its non-
regulated Capital Markets because its liquidity was no longer
sufficient to continue operations. After these announcements,
Refco's share price plummeted again, falling to a close of $7.90
on October 13, 2005.

Wolf Popper LLP has extensive experience representing
shareholders in class actions and has successfully recovered
billions of dollars for defrauded shareholders.

Class members who desire to be appointed a lead plaintiff in
this action must file a motion with the Court no later than
December 12, 2005. Class members who are interested in serving
as a lead plaintiff in this action, or other persons who have
questions or information regarding the prosecution of this
action, are urged to call or write:

For more details, contact James Kelly-Kowlowitz, Esq. or Emily
DeMuro, Investor Relations of Wolf Popper, LLP, 845 Third Ave.,
New York, NY 10022, Phone: 212-759-4600, 877-370-7703 or
1-212-451-9610, Fax: 212-486-2093 or 877-370-7704, E-mail:
Jkelly@wolfpopper.com or edemuro@wolfpopper.com, Web site:
http://www.wolfpopper.com.


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

The complaint charges Tempur-Pedic, Dale E. Williams, Robert B.
Trussell, JR., H. Thomas Bryant and P. Andrews Mclane with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. More
specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed to
disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts
which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by
them:

     (1) that contrary to defendants' express representations
         the demand for Tempur-Pedic's expensive visco-elastic
         mattresses slowed;

     (2) that the Company faced increased competition in its
         niche sector in the form of cheaper offerings from
         Sealy, Simmons Bedding, and Serta International; and

     (3) that as a consequence of the foregoing defendants'
         encouraging statements about Tempur-Pedic's business
         prospects and market position lacked in any reasonable
         basis.

On September 19, 2005, Tempur-Pedic lowered its financial
guidance for fiscal 2005. On this news, shares of Tempur-Pedic
common stock fell $4.68 per share, or 28.5 percent, on September
19, 2004, to close at $11.70 per share.

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



                            *********


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  * * *