CAR_Public/051019.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Wednesday, October 19, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 207


                            Headlines


ADELPHIA COMMUNICATIONS: PA Court Dismisses Stock Suit in Part
AUSTRALIA: Pedophile Victims Reject Church's Compensation Offer
BAROODY IMPORTS: Recalls Dried Apricots For Undeclared Sulfites
BURLINGTON COAT: Reaches Settlement For CA Overtime Wage Lawsuit
CALIFORNIA: Pontiff Says Settlements Are Crucial For Recognition

CALIFORNIA: Kurds Launch Suit V. Saddam Hussein, "Chemical Ali"
CARGILL INC.: Asks FL Court To Dismiss Water Pollution Lawsuit
CARNIVAL CORPORATION: Passengers File Consumer Fraud Suit in FL
CARNIVAL CORPORATION: FL Court Dismisses Overtime Wage Lawsuit
DRYVIT SYSTEMS: TN Court Declares EIFS Lawsuit Settlement Final

FLORIDA: Thousands Stake Claim to Cemetery Deal, Attorney Says
GENCORP INC.: Continues To Face Vinyl Chloride Toxic Tort Suits
HOME MADE BRANDS: Recalls Tuna Salads For Listeria Contamination
LES ENTERPRISES: Recalls 221 Buses Due to FMVSS221 Noncompliance
LIBERATE TECHNOLOGIES: Expedited Proceedings Nixed in DE Lawsuit

LOUISIANA: Local Charities Receive $50,000 From MEDCO Settlement
MORGAN STANLEY: Reaches Settlement for CA Overtime Wage Lawsuit
MORGAN STANLEY: Asks CA Court To Strike Portions of Wage Lawsuit
MORGAN STANLEY: NJ, NY Employees Launch Wage, Hour Litigation
MORGAN STANLEY: Appeals Court Reverses Antitrust Suit Dismissal

NATION OF ISLAM: Leader Comments on Katrina Response, Urges Suit
PALM INC.: NY Court Preliminarily Approves Stock Suit Settlement
PALM INC.: CA Consumers File Fraud Suits V. Treo 600, 650 PDAs
RBS GLOBAL: Named as Third-Party Defendant in Contamination Suit
REFCO INC.: Prominent Attorney To Initiate Suit For Investor Fraud

REWARDS NETWORK: Judge Grants Certification To Restaurants' Suit
RMS TITANIC: FL Court Certifies Investors Fiduciary Duty Lawsuit
SPECTRUM SETTLEMENT: Teams With Save the Children to Raise $7.5M
TALARIAN CORPORATION: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Suit Settlement
TASER INTERNATIONAL: Former IL Police Chief Disputes Suit Claims

TIBCO SOFTWARE: Shareholders File Securities Fraud Suits in CA
TIBCO SOFTWARE: NY Court Preliminarily Approves Suit Settlement
TIPPINGPOINT TECHNOLOGIES: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Settlement
UNITED KINGDOM: U.S.-Style Legal Fees Could Spark More Lawsuits
UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI: Agreement Reached in 1998 Tuition Suit


                  Meetings, Conferences & Seminars



* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences

                 New Securities Fraud Cases


ANDRX CORPORATION: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in FL
BARRIER THERAPEUTICS: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in NJ
BARRIER THERAPEUTICS: Schiffrin & Barroway Files NJ Fraud Suit
IMMUCOR INC.: Lockridge Grindal Files Securities Suit in N.D. GA
REFCO INC.: Roy Jacobs & Associates Lodges Securities Suit in NY

TAG-IT PACIFIC: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Fraud Suit in CA
TAG-IT PACIFIC: Wolf Popper Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CA
WORLD HEALTH: Wechsler Harwood Files Securities Fraud Suit in PA


                            *********




ADELPHIA COMMUNICATIONS: PA Court Dismisses Stock Suit in Part
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court in Pennsylvania dismissed in part the
consolidated securities class action filed against Adelphia Communications
Corporation's former officers and directors, its former auditors, lawyers,
and financial institutions who worked with the Company, alleging violations
of federal securities laws.

Beginning on April 2, 2002, various groups of plaintiffs filed more than 30
class action complaints, purportedly on behalf of certain of the Company's
shareholders and bondholders or classes thereof in federal court in
Pennsylvania.  Several non-class action lawsuits were brought on behalf of
individuals or small groups of security holders in federal courts in
Pennsylvania, New York, South Carolina and New Jersey, and in state courts
in New York, Pennsylvania, California and Texas.

Seven derivative suits were also filed in federal and state courts in
Pennsylvania, and four derivative suits were filed in state court in
Delaware. On May 6, 2002, a notice and proposed order of dismissal without
prejudice was filed by the plaintiff in one of these four Delaware
derivative actions. The remaining three Delaware derivative actions were
consolidated on May 22, 2002.  On February 10, 2004, the parties stipulated
and agreed to the dismissal of these consolidated actions with prejudice.

The complaints, which named as defendants the Company, certain former
officers and directors of the Company and, in some cases, the Company's
former auditors, lawyers, as well as financial institutions who worked with
the Company, generally allege that, among other improper statements and
omissions, defendants misled investors regarding the Company's liabilities
and earnings in the Company's public filings. The majority of these actions
assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC
Rule 10b-5. Certain bondholder actions assert claims for violation of
Section 11 and/or Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933. Certain of
the state court actions allege various state law claims.

On July 23, 2003, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPMDL)
issued an order transferring numerous civil actions to the District Court
for consolidated or coordinated pre-trial proceedings (the "MDL
Proceedings").  On September 15, 2003, proposed lead plaintiffs and proposed
co-lead counsel in the consolidated class action were appointed in the MDL
Proceedings. On December 22, 2003, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated
class action complaint.  Motions to dismiss have been filed by various
defendants. On May 27, 2005 and August 16, 2005, the
District Court granted in part and denied in part some of the pending
motions and provided the plaintiffs limited ability to re-plead the
dismissed claims.

As a result of the filing of the Chapter 11 Cases and the protections of the
automatic stay, the Company is not named as a defendant in the amended
complaint, but is a non-party. The consolidated class action complaint seeks
monetary damages of an unspecified amount, rescission and reasonable costs
and expenses and such other and future relief as the court may deem just and
proper. The individual actions against the Company also seek damages of an
unspecified amount.


AUSTRALIA: Pedophile Victims Reject Church's Compensation Offer
---------------------------------------------------------------
Approximately 37 victims of pedophile Adelaide church leader Robert
Brandenburg formally rejected an offer of compensation from the Anglican
Church, The ABC Regional Online reports.  The victims filed a class action,
which was later settled between $25,000 and $75,000 depending on their level
of suffering.

Now that victims have responded, attorney Peter Humphries told ABC Regional
Online that talks will continue with the church and matters would be
prepared for trial. He also told ABC Regional Online, "They (victims) have
all rejected the suggested compensation scheme. Some of them have expressed
quite severe disappointment, frustration and the like that in varying terms
they've all been explicit that they're not attracted to the offer."


BAROODY IMPORTS: Recalls Dried Apricots For Undeclared Sulfites
---------------------------------------------------------------
Baroody Imports, Inc., 1500 B Main Ave., Clifton, NJ, 07011 is recalling
Baroody Dried Apricots because it may contain undeclared sulfites. People
who have severe sensitivity to sulfites run the risk of serious or
life-threatening allergic reactions if they consume this product.  The
recalled Baroody Dried Apricots, 400 gr. clear plastic containers, un-coded,
were sold in New York and New Jersey.

The recall was initiated after routine sampling of the product by New York
State Department of Agriculture and Markets food inspectors and subsequent
analysis by Department food laboratory personnel revealed the presence of
undeclared sulfites in Baroody Dried Apricots in packages that did not
declare sulfites on the label. The consumption of 10 milligrams of sulfites
per serving as been reported to elicit severe reactions in some asthmatics.
Anaphylactic shock could occur in certain sulfite sensitive individuals upon
ingesting 10 milligrams or more of sulfites.  No illnesses have been
reported to date in connection with this problem.

Consumers who have purchased Baroody Dried Apricots should return it to the
place of purchase. Consumers with questions may contact the company at
1-973-340-4832.


BURLINGTON COAT: Reaches Settlement For CA Overtime Wage Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Corporation reached a settlement for the
class action filed against it in the Superior Court of California for the
County of Alameda, styled "Lewis v. Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse
Corporation."

The plaintiff, a former employee, filed this putative class action on behalf
of himself and certain current and former management-level employees at the
Company's California stores.  The plaintiff alleges that the Company
violated a California state law by classifying these employees as "exempt"
managerial/executive employees for purposes of the payment of overtime
compensation and failing to pay them the overtime premium required for
non-exempt employees.  The lawsuit also claims that the Company failed to
provide employees with meal and rest periods required under California law.
In his complaint, the plaintiff sought certification as a class, damages and
penalties in unspecified amounts, statutory damages, restitution,
disgorgement, injunctive and declaratory relief, and costs of litigation,
including attorney fees.

The Company filed an answer denying the claims and asserting various
affirmative defenses on December 22, 2004. On July 22, 2005, the Company
entered into an agreement with the plaintiffs to settle this claim.  The
settlement is subject to court approval.


CALIFORNIA: Pontiff Says Settlements Are Crucial For Recognition
----------------------------------------------------------------
Two recent insurance settlements for descendants of Armenians killed 90
years ago by the Turkish Ottoman Empire are a first step toward
international recognition that the carnage was an act of genocide, according
to the Armenian pontiff Catholicos Aram I, The Associated Press reports.

In a recent interview with The Associated Press, the Armenian pontiff, who
is on a two-week visit to Southern California, home to the largest Armenian
community outside the southwestern Asian country, said that the financial
settlements could help prod Turkey and Turkish allies to declare the killing
of up to 1.5 million Armenians in eastern Turkey as an act of genocide. He
specifically pointed out, "The settlements will be helpful in raising
awareness. If we are committed to preventing future genocide in the world,
the world must recognize the genocide that has happened."

Though Turkey acknowledges that large numbers of Armenians died between 1915
and 1923, the county maintains that the totals have been exaggerated and
that the deaths occurred in the civil unrest during the collapse of the
Ottoman Empire. Currently, as it seeks membership in the European Union,
Turkey is facing increasing pressure to fully acknowledge the event.
France, Russia and many other countries have declared the killings as an act
of genocide, but Turkish allies including the United States and neighboring
Azerbaijan have not.

The settlement mentioned by Aram I includes a recent one by French life
insurance company, AXA, wherein it agreed to pay $17 million to settle a
class action lawsuit filed by descendants of Armenians killed, splitting the
money between about 5,000 people and charities. That settlement came after
New York Life Insurance Co. and heirs of some 2,400 policyholders agreed
last year to a $20 million settlement, believed to be the first in
connection with the disputed event.  Aram I's trip is his third to
California since being elected in 1995 as head of the Great House of
Cilicia, the Lebanon-based branch of the Armenian Apostolic Church.


CALIFORNIA: Kurds Launch Suit V. Saddam Hussein, "Chemical Ali"
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit filed in a San Diego federal court is seeking
compensation for Kurds that were subjected to genocidal attacks in Iraq in
the 1980s, The North County Times reports.

Hassen Ali Abdullah and Khalida Ali, identified in the lawsuit as San Diego
County residents who were among the Kurds living in northern Iraq from 1987
to 1989, are asking the court to award an unspecified amount of money in
damages from the former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein and one of his former
senior general's known as "Chemical Ali," Al Hassan al-Majid.  The suit
states that some of the money would be used to establish a fund to pay the
costs of treating the health effects from being exposed to chemical,
radiological and biological weapons and to monitor the medical condition of
affected Kurds in the future.

Reached by phone at his El Cajon home recently, Hassen Ali Abdullah declined
to be interviewed by The North County Times, saying that he does not speak
English well and did not want any misunderstandings.  His attorney, Debra
Scheufler, who represents Khalida Ali as well, told The North County Times
that she and other attorneys working on the case are not providing any more
information beyond what is contained in eight-page lawsuit filed on October
14 in U.S. District Court in San Diego.

The suit is styled, "Abdullah, et al v. Hassan, et al, Case No. 05-CV-1948,"
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
California, under Judge Roger T. Benitez with referral to Magistrate Judge
William McCurine, Jr. Representing Plaintiff/s is Debra Cyrene Scheufler of
The Law Office of Debra C. Scheufler, 1901 First Ave., Suite 132, San Diego,
CA 92101, Phone: (619) 557-0434 or (619) 557-0439.


CARGILL INC.: Asks FL Court To Dismiss Water Pollution Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cargill Inc. asked the Circuit Court Thirteenth Judicial Circuit for
Hillsborough County, Florida to dismiss the class action filed against it,
arising out of the sudden release of phosphoric acid process wastewater from
the Riverview, Florida Gypstack.

The suit contains four counts, including statutory strict liability, common
law strict liability, common law public nuisance, and negligence. The strict
liability counts relate to the discharge of pollutants or hazardous
substances.  Plaintiffs seek class certification and an award of damages,
attorneys' fees and costs on behalf of a class of unknown size comprising
"all fishermen and those persons engaged in the commercial catch and sale of
fish, bait, and related products in the Tampa Bay area who lost income and
suffered damages because of the pollution, contamination and discharge of
hazardous substances by the defendant."


CARNIVAL CORPORATION: Passengers File Consumer Fraud Suit in FL
---------------------------------------------------------------
Carnival Corporation faces a class action lawsuit filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Florida alleging breach of the
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and a violation of The
Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.

The suit relates to profits made by Carnival Cruise Lines on shore
excursions provided by third party shore excursion operators.  The suit
seeks certification as a class action on behalf of all Carnival Cruise Line
passengers from May 5, 2001 to the present who have taken shore excursions,
and seeks payment of damages and injunctive relief.


CARNIVAL CORPORATION: FL Court Dismisses Overtime Wage Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida in
Miami dismissed the lawsuit filed against Carnival Corporation on behalf of
some current and former crewmembers alleging that Carnival Cruise Lines
failed to pay the plaintiffs' overtime and minimum wages.

The suit seeks as much as millions of dollars in back pay, penalty wages and
interest for current and former crewmembers. The suit alleges that the
crewmembers typically worked 12- and 14-hour days, but were not paid for
work in excess of 10 hours a day or 70 hours per week.  The six crew members
from Nicaragua, Romania, Bulgaria and India work onboard four Carnival
Cruise Lines ships as waiters, galley stewards and cabin attendants, an
earlier Class Action Reporter story (April 11,2005) reports.

On August 5, 2005, the Court dismissed the lawsuit. The plaintiffs filed an
appeal to the Eleventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on August 18, 2005,
which is currently pending.


DRYVIT SYSTEMS: TN Court Declares EIFS Lawsuit Settlement Final
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Jefferson County State Court in Tennessee dismissed all appeals related
to the settlement of the class action filed against Dryvit Systems, Inc.
over its exterior insulated finish systems (EIFS) products, making the
settlement final.

The Company was initially named in numerous EIFS-related lawsuits.  As of
February 28, 2005, the Company was a defendant or co-defendant in
approximately 200 single family residential EIFS cases, the majority of
which are pending in the southeastern region of the country.  The Company is
also defending EIFS lawsuits involving commercial structures, townhouses and
condominiums. The vast majority of the Company's EIFS lawsuits seek monetary
relief for water intrusion related property damages, although some claims in
certain lawsuits allege personal injuries from exposure to mold.

The Company is a defendant in an attempted state class action filed on
November 14, 2000 in Jefferson County, Tennessee styled "Bobby R. Posey, et
al. v. Dryvit Systems, Inc." (formerly styled "William J. Humphrey, et al.
v. Dryvit Systems, Inc.") (Case No. 17,715-IV).  A preliminary approval
order was entered on April 8, 2002 in the "Posey" case for a proposed
nationwide class action settlement covering, "All Persons who, as of June 5,
2002, own a one- or two-family residential dwelling or townhouse in any
State other than North Carolina clad, in whole or in part, with Dryvit EIFS
installed after January 1, 1989, except persons who prior to June 5, 2002,
have settled with the Company, providing a release of claims relating to
Dryvit EIFS; or have not obtained a judgment against Settling Defendant for
a Dryvit EIFS claim, or had a judgment entered against them on such a claim
in Settling Defendants' favor; and any employees of Dryvit."  Nationwide
notice to all eligible class members began on or about June 13, 2002.  Any
person who wished to be excluded from the "Posey" settlement was provided an
opportunity to individually "opt out" and thus not be bound by the final
Posey order.

A fairness hearing was held to determine whether the proposed settlement is
fair, reasonable and adequate and an order and judgment granting final
approval of the settlement was entered on January 14, 2003. Notices of
appeal were filed by persons seeking to challenge certain provisions of the
proposed settlement including challenging the trial court's denial of
certain builders and one homeowner's right to appear at the fairness hearing
and intervene in the underlying action. On
March 22, 2004, the Tennessee Court of Appeals dismissed the homeowner's
appeal but ruled that the builders should be allowed to intervene to
determine their rights and obligations, if any, under the proposed national
settlement.

During the pendency of the foregoing issues, the court allowed claims to be
processed under the proposed Posey settlement. In mid-September 2004 the
court entered a stay order which effectively suspended any further
processing of claims pending the outcome of the next court hearing.  The
stay was lifted on January 4, 2005 and claims processing has resumed. As of
March 25, 2005, approximately 7,178 total claims have been filed as of the
claim filing deadline. Of these 7,178 claims, approximately 4,306 claims
have been rejected or closed for various reasons under the terms of the
settlement. An additional 153 claims are under review for potential filing
deficiencies.  The approximately 2,719 remaining claims are at various
stages of review and processing under the terms of the proposed settlement
and it is possible that some of these claims will be rejected or closed
without payment.  As of February 28, 2005, approximately 433 homeowner
claims have been paid a total of approximately $4.6 million.  Additional
payments have and will continue to be made in connection with the ongoing
administration of the claims, inspection costs, third party warranties and
class counsel attorneys' fees.

After a series of appeals challenging various aspects of the proposed
"Posey" settlement, on September 15, 2005, a final order was entered
dismissing with prejudice all pending appeals.

As of August 31, 2005, approximately 7,188 total claims had been filed as of
the June 5, 2004 claim filing deadline. Of these 7,188 claims, approximately
4,399 claims have been rejected or closed for various reasons under the
terms of the settlement. Approximately 2,001 of the remaining claims are at
various stages of review and processing under the terms of the proposed
settlement and it is possible that some of these claims will be rejected or
closed without payment.  As of August 31, 2005, a total of 788 claims have
been paid for a total of approximately  $7.76 million. Additional payments
have and will continue to be made in connection with the ongoing
administration of the claims, inspection costs, third party warranties and
class counsel attorneys' fees under the terms of the settlement agreement.


FLORIDA: Thousands Stake Claim to Cemetery Deal, Attorney Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Approximately 9,000 people are staking a claim to a $100 million settlement
against two Menorah Gardens cemeteries accused of desecrating graves and
mishandling burials, according to an attorney involved in the case, The Palm
Beach Post reports.

Ervin Gonzalez, a lawyer who sued Menorah Gardens, told The Palm Beach Post
that families had until the end of September to make claims, and lawyers
guessed that 5,000 to 30,000 families would do so. He also said that the
claimants would share about $40 million, the amount remaining after payments
to lawyers, whistle-blowers and about a dozen families who sued separately.
Other attorneys though told The Palm Beach Post that claimants would receive
a wide range of compensation based on their individual cases.  He told The
Palm Beach Post that an examiner assigned to the case as a result of the
December 2003 settlement will inspect the sites at the two cemeteries, and
eligible claims will be submitted to the court.

Wrongdoing allegations against the Menorah Gardens cemeteries first surfaced
in December 2001. The cemeteries in Broward and Palm Beach counties, owned
by the world's largest funeral services company, had been accused of burying
people in the wrong places, breaking open vaults to squeeze in other remains
and, in some instances, tossing bones into the woods.  The parent company,
Houston-based Service Corporation International, maintains that local
managers were to blame for mishandling burials and the company acted quickly
in response to the allegations.

A panel composed of local rabbis, cemetery specialists and engineers has
been working with the examiner and the attorney general's office to make
sure the affected plots were repaired. Mr. Gonzalez told The Palm Beach Post
that a religious reconsecration of the two predominantly Jewish cemeteries
is expected around mid-2006.  Seventy-two families who filed a separate suit
in April 2002 in Palm Beach County and opted out of the Broward County class
action settled in October 2004.


GENCORP INC.: Continues To Face Vinyl Chloride Toxic Tort Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gencorp, Inc. continues to face toxic tort suits, involving alleged exposure
to vinyl chloride (VC), which is now listed as a known carcinogen by several
governmental agencies.

Between the early 1950s and 1985, the Company produced polyvinyl chloride
(PVC) resin at its former Ashtabula, Ohio facility. PVC is one of the most
common forms of plastic currently on the market.  VC is a building block
compound of PVC.  The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
has strictly regulated workplace exposure to VC since 1974.

Since the mid-1990s, the Company has been named in 46 toxic tort cases
involving alleged exposure to VC. With the exception of two cases brought by
families of former Ashtabula employees, the Company is alleged to be a
"supplier/manufacturer" of PVC and/or a civil co-conspirator with other VC
and PVC manufacturers. Plaintiffs generally allege that the Company
suppressed information about the carcinogenic risk of VC to industry
workers, and placed VC or PVC into commerce without sufficient warnings. A
few of these cases allege VC exposure through various aerosol consumer
products, in that VC had been used as an aerosol propellant during the
1960s. Defendants in these
"aerosol" cases include numerous consumer product manufacturers, as well as
the more than 30 chemical manufacturers. The Company used VC internally, but
never supplied VC for aerosol or any other use.

Of the total 47 cases that have been filed, 23 have been settled or
dismissed on terms favorable to the Company, including the cases where the
Company was the employer. An additional eight cases have been dismissed but
such cases may be re-filed in different jurisdictions. The 16 pending cases
involve employees at VC or PVC facilities owned or operated by others, or
allege aerosol exposure. One of the pending cases is a class action seeking
a medical monitoring program for former employees at a PVC facility in New
Jersey. The complaints in each of these cases assert that the Company's
involvement in the alleged conspiracy stems from the Company's membership in
trade associations.


HOME MADE BRANDS: Recalls Tuna Salads For Listeria Contamination
----------------------------------------------------------------
Home Made Brand Foods Inc., 2 Opportunity Way, Newburyport, MA 01950 is
recalling Classic Tuna Salad, expiration date 10/16/05, due to Listeria
contamination.

Listeria is a common organism found in nature. It can cause serious
complications for pregnant women, such as stillbirth. Other problems can
manifest in people with compromised immune systems. Listeria can also cause
serious flu-like symptoms in healthy individuals.  The problem was
discovered after routine sampling by New York State Department of
Agriculture and Markets Food Inspectors and subsequent analysis of the
product by Food Laboratory personnel found the product to be positive for
Listeria monocytogenes.  As a result of the above findings, Home Made Brand
Foods Inc. is voluntarily recalling all tuna salad products with expiration
dates of 10/16/05 - 11/07/05.

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

Consumers who have purchased Classic Tuna Salad should not consume it, but
should return it to the place of purchase. Consumers with questions may
contact the company at (978) 462-3663 Ext. 327.


LES ENTERPRISES: Recalls 221 Buses Due to FMVSS221 Noncompliance
----------------------------------------------------------------
Les Enterprises M.CORBEIL in cooperation with the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration's Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) is voluntarily
recalling about 245 units of  2004 CORBEIL / MINIBUS school buses due to
crash hazard.

According to the company, certain of the buses manufactured between April 26
and May 21, 2004, an inadequate quantity of Magnolia Green/Epoxy Glue was
used to seal the ceiling joints, which fails to comply with the requirements
of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 221, School Bus Body Joint
Strength.  In the event of a vehicle crash, the longitudinal roof joint
could have less strength as required by FMVSS221, increasing the risk of
injury.

As a remedy, Corbeil will notify its customers and repair the buses by
adding additional epoxy glue and screws to enforce the ceiling joints free
of charge.  For more details, contact Corbeil, Phone: 450-439-3577 OR the
NHTSA Auto Safety Hotline: 1-888-327-4236 or 1-800-424-9153, Web site:
http://www.safecar.gov.


LIBERATE TECHNOLOGIES: Expedited Proceedings Nixed in DE Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware denied plaintiff's motion for
expedited proceedings in the class action filed against Liberate
Technologies, Inc. and certain of its officers and directors, alleging the
defendants breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the
Reverse/Forward Stock Split proposed by the Company.

On September 19, 2005, Leslie J. Lee filed the suit on behalf of a putative
class of all stockholders owning fewer than 250,000 shares of Company common
stock. The complaint seeks preliminary and permanent injunctive relief
against the Reverse/Forward Stock Split, declaratory relief, rescission of
the Reverse/Forward Stock Split (if necessary), rescissory and/or
compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and expenses.

On September 19, 2005, Plaintiff filed a motion for expedited proceedings
and a motion for preliminary injunction. On September 27, 2005, the Company
filed a letter in opposition to Plaintiff's motion for expedited
proceedings. On October 6, 2005, the court heard oral argument on the motion
and, at the conclusion of the argument, denied plaintiff's motion for
expedited proceedings and declined to schedule a hearing on plaintiff's
motion for a preliminary injunction.


LOUISIANA: Local Charities Receive $50,000 From MEDCO Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
State Attorney General Charles Foti recently presented a $50,000 check to
the Northwest Louisiana Interfaith Pharmacy that came from a settlement of a
class action lawsuit filed against MEDCO Health Solutions, The Shreveport
Times reports.  In addition to the pharmacy, Mr. Foti will also be
presenting a similar check to the Martin Luther King Health Center on
Sprague Street in Shreveport.

More than 20 states alleged that MEDCO, the world's largest pharmaceutical
benefits company, encouraged prescribers to switch patients to different
drugs, but did not pass the savings on to the patients or their health
plans.  Louisiana's share of the settlement was $526,765, which Mr. Foti is
distributing to charities that help the poor, elderly and disabled access
medication they could not otherwise afford.  Mr. Foti said as he handed out
the money, "In these times of adversity, the free clinics have risen to the
occasion, and nowhere is that more spectacular than in Shreveport."

At receiving the check, the pharmacy's Executive Director, Janet Martin,
said, "It's overwhelming," adding, "I had no idea -- I wasn't expecting more
than $10,000."  Ms. Martin told The Shreveport Times that the money is
particularly helpful now, since the two hurricanes hit Louisiana, the number
of clients has almost doubled. According to her, for every dollar the
pharmacy takes in they can provide $6 in medication to clients. "Louisiana
is getting a bargain," she said.


MORGAN STANLEY: Reaches Settlement for CA Overtime Wage Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Morgan Stanley reached an agreement in principle to resolve the class action
filed against it and other financial services firms in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California, alleging that
certain present and former employees in California are entitled to overtime
pay and other wages and that certain deductions from employees compensation
are improper under state law.

The suit, filed on July 12, 2004 and captioned "Garett v. Morgan Stanley
& Co., Inc., and Morgan Stanley DW Inc.," was filed in California
Superior Court in San Diego. On September 14, 2004, defendants filed their
answer, and on September 15, 2004, defendants removed the action to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California. On July 18, 2005,
plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint in that court. The complaint
seeks damages in an unspecified amount and other relief on behalf of certain
present and former employees in California.

On September 20, 2005, the Company entered into an agreement in principle to
resolve the matter, which agreement is, among other things, subject to court
approval.


MORGAN STANLEY: Asks CA Court To Strike Portions of Wage Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co. asked the California Superior Court in Los
Angeles to strike portions of the first amended class action filed against
it, styled "Taylor v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co."  The suit alleges
that certain present and former employees in California and nationwide are
entitled to reimbursement for expenses and payment of outstanding
compensation.

On May 10, 2005, plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint that added
Morgan Stanley DW Inc. as a defendant and modified the earlier allegations.
On June 13, 2005, defendants filed a demurrer and request to strike portions
of the first amended complaint.


MORGAN STANLEY: NJ, NY Employees Launch Wage, Hour Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Morgan Stanley faces wage and hour complaints in New Jersey and New York
courts, filed on behalf of its current and former employees in the two
states.

On September 1, 2005, a purported class action, captioned "Steinberg v.
Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc. and Morgan Stanley
DW, Inc.," was filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division,
Bergen County.  The complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount and
other relief on behalf of certain present and former employees in New
Jersey.

On September 9, 2005, a purported class action, captioned "Gasman v. Morgan
Stanley," was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York.  The complaint seeks damages and other relief on behalf of certain
present and former employees in New York.

On September 23, 2005, a purported class action, captioned, "Roles v. Morgan
Stanley et al.," was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York. The complaint seeks damages and other relief on behalf
of certain present and former employees in New York and nationwide.


MORGAN STANLEY: Appeals Court Reverses Antitrust Suit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the
district court's dismissal of the class action filed against Morgan Stanley,
Credit Suisse First Boston LLC (CSFB LLC), Donald Lufkin & Jenrette
Securities Corporation (DLJSC) and other brokerage firms, styled "In re
Initial Public Offering Antitrust Litigation."

Since November 1998, several lawsuits have been filed, alleging that the
defendant broker-dealers conspired to fix the "fee" paid for underwriting
certain IPO securities by setting the underwriters' fee or "spread" at 7%,
in violation of the federal antitrust laws.  The lawsuits purport to be
class actions brought on behalf of classes of persons and entities that
purchased and issued securities in those initial public offerings (IPOs).
In February 1999, the district court consolidated the various cases in a
single litigation, captioned "In re Public Offering Fee Antitrust
Litigation."  On April 29, 1999, the defendant underwriters filed a motion
to dismiss the complaint as a matter of law.

Meanwhile, beginning in August 2000, several other complaints were filed on
behalf of issuers of stock in IPOs containing the same allegations of an
industry-wide conspiracy to fix IPO underwriting fees.  By order, dated
April 10, 2001, the district court consolidated the issuer complaints.

On February 14, 2001, the district court dismissed the purchaser plaintiffs'
claims on the ground that those plaintiffs lacked legal standing to assert
antitrust claims. By order, dated December 13, 2002, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated the district court's decision and
remanded the action to the district court for consideration of the
additional grounds for dismissal asserted in the motion to dismiss.  On July
6, 2001, the issuer plaintiffs filed a consolidated issuer complaint, naming
numerous defendants, including CSFB LLC and Credit Suisse First Boston,
Inc., under the caption "In re Issuer Plaintiff Initial Public Offering Fee
Antitrust Litigation."  On September 28, 2001, the defendants moved to
dismiss the consolidated issuer complaint.  On September 25, 2002, the
district court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss and defendants
sought leave to file an interlocutory appeal of that decision. On January
17, 2003, the district court issued an order deferring a ruling on the
defendants' motion until the district court reached a decision, upon remand,
of the motion to dismiss the consolidated purchaser complaint.

On March 26, 2003, defendants filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds of
implied immunity in both the consolidated issuer and consolidated purchaser
cases. The district court denied that motion in an order, dated June 26,
2003.  In September 2004, the plaintiffs in both the consolidated issuer and
consolidated purchaser cases filed motions for class certification.

In September 2004, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a
third amended complaint, and the Company filed a motion to dismiss this case
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b).  In November 2004, the Company asked the
court to dismiss the suit.  In March 2005, the Court dismissed the case with
prejudice. In June 2005 plaintiffs filed an appeal of the dismissal with the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

The purchaser litigation is styled "IN RE INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERING ANTITRUST
LITIGATION, case no. 1:01-cv-02014-WHP," filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, under Judge William H. Pauley
III.  Representing the plaintiffs is Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman &
Herz, L.L.P., 270 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 545-4600.


NATION OF ISLAM: Leader Comments on Katrina Response, Urges Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In a speech to mark the 10th anniversary of the Million Man March, the
leader of Nation of Islam, Louis Farrakhan told followers gathered at the
National Mall in Washington, D.C., that black people should unite and file a
class action lawsuit for the "criminal neglect" perpetrated by the U.S.
government during the Hurricane Katrina disaster, The NewsMax.com reports.
Citing that the four hurricanes that struck Florida last year didn't result
in anything like the 1,000-plus storm deaths in New Orleans, Mr. Farrakhan
asked the crowd at his Millions More March: "What happened to the federal
government's response to the suffering victims of Katrina?"

The seventy-two year old black leader also told the gathered crowd, "I
believe that we can charge the government with criminal neglect of the
people of New Orleans." He added, "I believe that if we can't sue the
federal government, we need to look into it - we can sue Homeland Security
and FEMA for criminal neglect. I think we need to look into a class action
suit on behalf of the citizens of New Orleans who have lost everything."  In
addition to commenting on the U.S. government's response during the
Hurricane Katrina disaster, Mr. Farrakhan urged people of color in America
to form their own quasi-governmental ministries to see that their needs are
addressed, and reiterated his call for slavery reparations to make amends
for the U.S.'s "wickedness." He told the crowd, "We want America to
acknowledge her wickedness to the indigenous peoples of this hemisphere.
Acknowledge the wickedness of slavery and the transatlantic slave trade.
Acknowledge what you did in robbing our fathers of their names, their
language, their culture, their religion, their God and turning them upside
down and inside out."

He also said that African-Americans shouldn't pay taxes unless they're
treated more justly by the government, explaining: "If you're going to take
our tax dollars then we demand of you the same justice that you give white
people. We demand it, we deserve it - or we shut it down."


PALM INC.: NY Court Preliminarily Approves Stock Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the consolidated
securities class action filed against Palm, Inc., certain of the
underwriters for the Company's initial public offering and several of its
officers, styled "In re Palm, Inc. Initial Public Offering Securities
Litigation, Case No. 01 CV 5613."

The suit asserts that the prospectus from Palm's March 2, 2000 initial
public offering failed to disclose certain alleged actions by the
underwriters for the offering.  The suit alleges claims against the Company
and the officers under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended.  The suit also alleges claims under Section 10(b) and Section 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

Similar complaints were filed against Handspring in August and September
2001 in regard to Handspring's June 2000 initial public offering.  Other
actions have been filed making similar allegations regarding the initial
public offerings of more than 300 other companies.  All of these various
consolidated cases have been coordinated for pretrial purposes as "In re
Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 21-MC-92."

An amended consolidated complaint was filed in April 2002.  The claims
against the individual defendants have been dismissed without prejudice
pursuant to an agreement with plaintiffs.  The Court denied the Company's
motion to dismiss.  Special committees of both Palm's and Handspring's
respective Boards of Directors recently approved a tentative settlement
proposal from plaintiffs, which includes a guaranteed recovery to be paid by
the issuer defendants' insurance carriers and an assignment of certain
claims against the issuers, including palmOne and Handspring, may have
against the underwriters.  There is no guarantee that the settlement will
become final however, as it is subject to a number of conditions, including
Court approval.

The suit is styled "In re Palm, Inc. Initial Public Offering Securities
Litigation, Case No. 01 CV 5613," filed in relation to "IN RE INITIAL PUBLIC
OFFERING SECURITIES LITIGATION, Master File No. 21 MC 92 (SAS)," both
pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, under Judge Shira N. Scheindlin.  The plaintiff firms in this
litigation are:

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

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

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

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

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

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


PALM INC.: CA Consumers File Fraud Suits V. Treo 600, 650 PDAs
--------------------------------------------------------------
Palm, Inc. faces five consumer class actions filed in California state and
federal courts, on behalf of all purchasers of Palm Treo 600 and Treo 650
products

In September 2005, four purported consumer class action lawsuits were filed
against the Company, namely:

     (1) Moya v. Palm, filed in the U.S. District Court for the
         Northern District of California

     (2) Berliner v. Palm, filed in the U.S. District Court for
         the Northern District of California

     (3) Loew v. Palm, filed in the U.S. District Court for the
         Northern District of California

     (4) Palza v. Palm, filed in the Superior Court of
         California for Santa Clara County

All four complaints allege in substance that the Company made false or
misleading statements regarding the reliability of its Treo 600 and 650
products in violation of various California laws and breached its warranty
of these products. The complaints seek unspecified damages, restitution,
disgorgement of profits and injunctive relief.

In September 2005, a purported consumer class action lawsuit entitled "Gans
v. Palm" was filed against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of all purchasers of the Treo 650
product.  The complaint alleges that, in violation of various California
laws, the Company made false or misleading statements regarding automatic
email delivery to the Treo 650 product. The complaint seeks unspecified
damages, restitution, disgorgement of profits and injunctive relief.


RBS GLOBAL: Named as Third-Party Defendant in Contamination Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
RBS Global, Inc. was named as a third-party defendant in two separate class
action suits for alleged groundwater contamination in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, styled "Teresa and Al
LeClercq et
al v. Lockformer et al v. Arrow Gear Company et al." and "Mejdrech et al v.
Met-Coil Systems/The Lockformer Company v. Arrow Gear Company et al."

The original defendant, Lockformer Company, has settled with the LeClercq
plaintiffs for $10 million and with the Mejdrech plaintiffs for $12.5
million.  Lockformer is now seeking contribution under various theories of
alleged groundwater contamination in Lisle, Illinois from at least ten other
companies, including the Company.  The contribution claims for both suits
have been combined into one suit.

The outcome of this litigation cannot presently be determined; however, the
Company believes it has not contributed to the groundwater contamination and
have meritorious defenses to the suit, the Company said in a disclosure to
the Securities and Exchange Commission.


REFCO INC.: Prominent Attorney To Initiate Suit For Investor Fraud
--------------------------------------------------------------
Underwriters of Refco Inc.'s initial public offering will be sued in the
next few months as investors seek compensation for the meltdown of the
futures and commodities brokerage, a prominent class action attorney said,
Reuters reports.
Just recently several class action lawsuits were filed against Refco on
behalf of shareholders who watched their stock plummet more than 70 percent
as chief executive Phillip Bennett was charged with securities fraud.

However, Melvyn Weiss, senior partner at Milberg Weiss in New York, told
Reuters in a telephone interview that the banks who underwrote Refco's IPO
two moths ago, including Bank of America's Banc of America Securities,
Credit Suisse Group's Credit Suisse First Boston, and Goldman Sachs Group
Inc. are liable for firm's collapse just months after its $583 million
float. He also told Reuters, "They have certain defenses, but at least in
this situation, I feel very confident that they have tremendous exposure.
I've been following these cases for 40-some odd years, and I don't think
I've ever seen a public offering unravel as quickly as this one."

Milberg Weiss is one of at least a dozen firms that launched lawsuits
against Refco after the broker revealed a week ago that Mr. Bennett owned a
company owing Refco some $430 million and its financial statements could no
longer be relied upon. The law firms are jockeying for the position of lead
plaintiff, which will allow them to steer the case.  Mr. Weiss reiterates
that whether or not Milberg Weiss becomes the lead plaintiff, underwriters
will be added to the lawsuit against Refco. He even told Reuters, "If no one
does it, I will," adding that the underwriters should have done a better job
of completing their due diligence.

Court records show that last August, Refco said in its offering prospectus
that its auditors had found two significant deficiencies in the company's
internal controls, including a lack of a formalized procedure for closing
its books.   Investors shrugged off these warnings, and Refco's shares rose
25 percent on their first day of trading after being priced at $22 each. The
company's shares plummeted to $7.90 before trading of its shares was
suspended recently.

"Given that you had all of these red flags, it would seem to me that
underwriters had a heightened duty to investigate," Mr. Weiss told Reuters.

Currently, Refco's broker-dealer and prime brokerage business are no longer
open for business, but the company is trying to sell its futures unit.


REWARDS NETWORK: Judge Grants Certification To Restaurants' Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge granted class action status to a lawsuit filed by three
California restaurants against Rewards Network Inc., which is accused of
violating California's usury laws, The Crain's Chicago Business reports.

Filed in 2004 at U.S. District Court in Los Angeles, the suit alleges that
the Chicago-based marketing firm runs a "loan-sharking operation" disguised
as a dining loyalty program.  The lawsuit challenges Rewards Network's "Cash
Advance" program, in which the company buys credits for discounted meals
from restaurants that participate in the program. Rewards Network members
then cash in the credits when they dine at the restaurants.  The lawsuit
further alleges that the funds received by the restaurants are actually
loans with annual interest rates exceeding 100% in some cases. California
law prohibits non-licensed lenders from charging more than 10% a year.

A lawyer for the restaurants estimated that the October 11 ruling to certify
the case as a class action could add about 3,000 restaurants to the
complaint and result in damages exceeding $100 million.

Despite the ruling, Rewards Network, whose largest shareholder is
billionaire financier Sam Zell, stated in a recent Securities and Exchange
Commission filing that it, "believes that the complaint is without merit and
intends to vigorously defend against it. The ultimate cost to the
Corporation from this action is not possible to predict and may not be
determined for a number of years."

The suit is styled, "Bistro Executive Inc et al v. Rewards Network Inc et
al, Case No. 2:04-cv-04640-CBM-Mc," filed in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California, under Judge Consuelo B.
Marshall with referral to Judge James W. McMahon. Representing the
Plaintiff/s are: Daniel L. Brockett, Kenneth R. Chiate, James E. Doroshow,
John S. Purcell, and Chandra L. Gooding of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver &
Hedges, 865 S. Figueroa St., 10th Fl., Los Angeles, CA 90017-2543, Phone:
213-443-3000 or 213-624-7707, Fax: 213-443-3100 or 213-624-0643; and Anat
Levy of Anat Levy and Associates, 8840 Wilshire Boulevard, Third Floor,
Beverly Hills, CA 90211, Phone: 310-358-3138, E-mail: alevy96@aol.com.
Representing the Defendant/s are: Daniel A. Rozansky and Julia B. Strickland
of Stroock Stroock & Lavan, 2029 Century Park E, 18th Fl., Los Angeles, CA
90067-3086, Phone: 310-556-5800, Fax: 310-556-5959, E-mail:
lacalendar@stroock.com.


RMS TITANIC: FL Court Certifies Investors Fiduciary Duty Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida granted
class certification to the lawsuit filed against RMS Titanic, Inc. (now
known as Premier Exhibitions, Inc.), seeking to recover damages to the
plaintiffs and to all minority shareholders allegedly caused by alleged
breaches of fiduciary duties by some of the Company's directors and officers
in connection with an alleged hostile takeover in November 1999.

David Shuttle and Barbara Shuttle filed the suit on March 22, 2004.  On
March 1, 2005, the court issued an order granting the plaintiffs' motion to
certify this matter as a class action. The class is defined as all persons
who owned shares of RMS Titanic, Inc. as of November 26, 1999 but who were
not members of the group of shareholders who voted to remove previous
officers and directors from their positions with the company.

The suit is styled "Shuttle, et al v. Geller, et al, case no.
8:03-cv-02515-RAL," filed in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida, under Judge Richard A. Lazzara.  Representing the
Company are Victor Stephen Cohen and William J. Schifino, Jr. of Williams,
Schifino, Mangione & Steady, P.A., One Tampa City Ctr., Suite 2600, 201 N.
Franklin St., P.O. Box 380, Tampa, FL 33601, Phone: 813/221-2626, ext 237
Fax: 813/221-7335, E-mail: scohen@wsmslaw.com or wschifino@wsmslaw.com.
Representing the plaintiffs are Richard M. Bales, Jr. of Bales & Sommers,
PA, 601 Brickell Key Drive Suite 702, Miami, FL 33131, Phone: 305/372-1200,
Fax: 305-372-9008, E-mail: rbalesjr@attglobal.net; and Steven G. Storch of
Storch, Amini & Munves, P.C., 2 Grand Central Tower, 25th Floor
New York, NY 10017, Phone: 212/490-4100, E-mail: sstorch@samlegal.com.


SPECTRUM SETTLEMENT: Teams With Save the Children to Raise $7.5M
----------------------------------------------------------------
Spectrum Settlement Recovery, LLC, a San Francisco-based company that helps
eligible class members recover their share of class action settlements, is
teaming up with Save the Children with a goal of raising $7.5 million. Under
the Spectrum program, businesses can donate their refunds from the $3
billion VISA/MasterCard class action settlement to Save the Children.  The
donations will assist Save the Children's overall global emergency relief
response to tragedies such as the hurricanes that hit the Gulf Coast Region
and the recent earthquake in South Asia, as well as their efforts to combat
poverty in rural America.

"The Gulf Coast hurricanes and the earthquake in Pakistan are just two
examples of catastrophic disruptions that necessitate an extraordinary
response from our organization and others," says Charlie MacCormack,
President & CEO of Save the Children. "We are excited about working with
Spectrum to provide businesses a new way to participate in our relief
efforts globally, as well as provide core support to our US programs, which
meet the pressing literacy & physical health needs of children in rural
America."

Save the Children is a not-for-profit charitable, tax-exempt organization
dedicated to creating real and lasting change for children in need in the
United States and around the world. Donations to Save the Children are tax
deductible to the extent allowed by law.

Motivating eligible class members to file claims in class-action settlements
is always difficult. On average, only 10% to 20% of eligible claimants file,
leaving billions of dollars on the table unclaimed or to be divided among
those who do file claims.  "We sincerely hope that many companies will file
claims and donate their refunds in the VISA/MasterCard case to Save the
Children, knowing that they are helping to alleviate suffering and hardship,
in this country and around the world," says Howard Yellen, CEO of Spectrum.
"This is an opportunity for businesses to do well by doing good."

In addition to making a cash donation, Spectrum is reducing its processing
fee for VISA/MasterCard settlement claims donated to Save the Children.

The VISA/MasterCard settlement is the nation's largest commercial class
action settlement to date. Over 5 million businesses are eligible for a
refund. The entire $3 billion fund will be distributed among only those who
file a claim.  Businesses that accepted VISA or MasterCard credit and debit
cards between October 1992 and June 2003 are eligible to a share of the
settlement money. The settlement stems from a class action suit that alleged
the charge card companies violated anti-trust laws and overcharged on
transaction processing fees.

In order to donate refunds to Save the Children under the program, eligible
businesses must file a settlement claim through Spectrum. The first deadline
for filing claims is November 28.  For more details, contact Craig Wolfson
of Spectrum Settlement Recovery, Phone: 415-392-5900 ext. 245, Web site:
http://www.spectrumsettlement.comor Meredith McWade of Save the Children,
Phone: 203-221-4251.


TALARIAN CORPORATION: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the consolidated
securities class action filed against Talarian Corporation, certain of its
underwriters, and certain of its former directors and officers.

The suit, styled "In re Talarian Corp. Initial Public Offering Securities
Litigation," claims that the purported improper underwriting activities were
not disclosed in the registration statement for the Company's IPO and seeks
unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class of persons who purchased
Company securities during the time period from July 20, 2000 to December 6,
2000.

A proposal to settle the claims against all of the issuers and individual
defendants in the coordinated litigation was conditionally accepted by the
Company and given conditional preliminary Court approval. The completion of
the settlement is subject to a number of conditions, including final Court
approval.

Under the settlement, the plaintiffs will dismiss and release all claims
against participating defendants in exchange for a contingent payment
guaranty by the insurance companies collectively responsible for insuring
the issuers in the action, and the assignment or surrender to the plaintiffs
of certain claims the issuer defendants may have against the underwriters.
Under the guaranty, the insurers will be required to pay an amount equal to
$1.0 billion less any amounts ultimately collected by the plaintiffs from
the underwriter defendants in all the cases.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


TASER INTERNATIONAL: Former IL Police Chief Disputes Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
TASER International, Inc. (Nasdaq: TASR) filed a declaration from Ronald
Burge, former Police Chief of the Village of Dolton, Illinois, which
disputes the claims made in a class action complaint filed by the Village of
Dolton against the Company.

The declaration of Ronald Burge, who was the chief of police during the
period alleged in the complaint, confirms that:

     (1) He never received any complaints or negative comments
         from a Dolton police officer or a citizen of Dolton
         regarding the lack of safety, alleged danger, or
         alleged harm caused by the use of a TASER device by a
         police officer.

     (2) He never experienced or was ever made aware of any
         adverse or dangerous effects that were caused by the
         use of a TASER device.

     (3) During the period in which the Dolton Police Officers
         used TASER devices, no injuries or deaths were ever
         reported that were related to the use of a TASER
         device.

     (4) He found TASER devices to be effective and safe law
         enforcement tools that are beneficial to the efficacy
         and safety of law officers.

     (5) At no time did he ever order that the Dolton Police
         Department suspend its use of TASER devices, nor was he
         involved in any way with the decision to suspend the
         use of TASER devices on May 19, 2005 and no explanation
         was ever given.

     (6) Regarding the subject of the performance and utility of
         TASER devices, he has only ever expressed that he
         believed that TASER devices are effective law
         enforcement tools.

The declaration of Chief Burge further confirms that many of the allegations
made in the complaint are false. Specifically, the complaint alleges that
Chief Burge ordered the suspension of TASER devices, but Chief Burge affirms
in his declaration that he supports the use of TASER devices and did not
suspend their use. Further, he states, "the allegation that TASER's
representations that TASER devices were safe and non-lethal 'were false and
misleading when made' is false in that, based on my personal knowledge and
experience, the TASER devices used by the Dolton Police Department were safe
and effective and did not cause any lethal injuries." He further confirms
that the allegation that the TASER devices "cause serious physical injury
and death" is false and affirms that the TASER devices used by the Dolton
Police Department were safe and effective and did not cause any lethal
injuries.

"TASER International has moved the court for dismissal of this complaint and
for sanctions for filing frivolous litigation based in part on the
declaration of former Police Chief Ron Burge," said Douglas Klint, General
Counsel for TASER International, Inc. "The Chief's declaration raises
several serious questions as to the motivations of the mayor in filing this
complaint, which blatantly lied about the involvement of the Chief and the
police department, and was filed by the same law firm that filed a
shareholder class-action suit against TASER International earlier this
year," continued Mr. Klint.

"It is important to note that this alleged 'class-action' complaint has only
one plaintiff, and the leadership of its police department was never
involved in the complaint and, in fact, disagreed with the complaint. The
experience of the Village of Dolton police department as reported by Chief
Burge is consistent with the experience of the vast majority of over 8,000
law enforcement agencies that have found the TASER device is among the
safest and most effective use of force tools available to today," concluded
Mr. Klint. Chief Burge's declaration is available at
http://www.TASER.com/chiefburge.pdf.


TIBCO SOFTWARE: Shareholders File Securities Fraud Suits in CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tibco Software, Inc. and several of its officers face three purported
securities class actions filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California.  The plaintiffs in such actions are seeking
to represent a class of purchasers of our common stock from September 21,
2004 through March 1, 2005.

The complaints generally allege that the Company made false or misleading
statements concerning its operating results, its business and internal
controls, and the integration of Staffware and seek unspecified monetary
damages.  The complaints charge the Company and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The first identified complaint in the litigation is styled "Lance Siegall,
et al. v. Tibco Software, Inc., et al., case no. 05-CV-02146," filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of California.  The
plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

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

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

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

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

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


TIBCO SOFTWARE: NY Court Preliminarily Approves Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the consolidated
securities class action filed against TIBCO Software, Inc., certain of its
directors and officers and certain investment bank underwriters.

The suit, styled "In re TIBCO Software Inc. Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation," alleges violations of federal securities
laws.  This is one of a number of cases challenging underwriting practices
in the initial public offerings (IPOs) of more than 300 companies, which
have been coordinated for pretrial proceedings as "In re Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation."

Plaintiffs generally allege that the underwriters engaged in undisclosed and
improper underwriting activities, namely the receipt of excessive brokerage
commissions and customer agreements regarding post-offering purchases of
stock in exchange for allocations of IPO shares. Plaintiffs also allege that
various investment bank securities analysts issued false and misleading
analyst reports. The complaint against the Company claims that the purported
improper underwriting activities were not disclosed in the registration
statements for the Company's IPO and secondary public offering and seeks
unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class of persons who purchased
Company securities or sold put options during the time period from July 13,
1999 to December 6, 2000.

A proposal to settle the claims against all of the issuers and individual
defendants in the coordinated litigation was conditionally accepted by the
Company and given conditional preliminary Court approval. The completion of
the settlement is subject to a number of conditions, including final Court
approval.

Under the settlement, the plaintiffs will dismiss and release all claims
against participating defendants in exchange for a contingent payment
guaranty by the insurance companies collectively responsible for insuring
the issuers in the action, and the assignment or surrender to the plaintiffs
of certain claims the issuer defendants may have against the underwriters.
Under the guaranty, the insurers will be required to pay an amount equal to
$1.0 billion less any amounts ultimately collected by the plaintiffs from
the underwriter defendants in all the cases.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


TIPPINGPOINT TECHNOLOGIES: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the consolidated
securities class action filed against TippingPoint Technologies, Inc., two
of its current and former officers and directors, as well as the managing
underwriters in its initial public offering.  The lawsuit, which is part of
a consolidated action that includes over 300 similar actions, is captioned
"In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, Brian Levey vs.
TippingPoint Technologies, Inc., et al., No. 01 CV 10976."

The principal allegation in the lawsuit is that the defendants participated
in a scheme to manipulate the initial public offering and subsequent market
price of the Company's stock by knowingly assisting the underwriters'
requirement that certain of their customers had to purchase stock in a
specific initial public offering as a condition to being allocated shares in
the initial public offerings of other companies. The purported plaintiff
class for the lawsuit is comprised of all persons who purchased Company
stock from March 17, 2000 through December 6,
2000. The suit seeks rescission of the purchase prices paid by purchasers of
shares of Company common stock.

On September 10, 2002, the Company's counsel and counsel for plaintiffs
entered into an agreement pursuant to which the plaintiffs dismissed,
without prejudice, the Company's former and current officers and directors
from the lawsuit. In May 2003, a memorandum of understanding was executed by
counsel for plaintiffs, issuer-defendants and their insurers setting forth
terms of a settlement that would result in the termination of all claims
brought by plaintiffs against the issuer-defendants and individual
defendants named in the lawsuit.

In August 2003, the Company's Board of Directors approved the settlement
terms described in the memorandum of understanding. In May 2004, the Company
signed a settlement agreement on behalf of itself and its current and former
directors and officers with the plaintiffs. This settlement agreement
formalizes the previously approved terms of the memorandum of understanding
and, subject to certain conditions, provides for the complete dismissal,
with prejudice, of all claims against the Company and its current and former
directors and officers.

Any direct financial impact of the settlement is expected to be borne by the
Company's insurers. The settlement is subject to numerous conditions,
including final approval by the court. There can be no assurance that such
conditions will be met or that the court will approve the terms of the
settlement agreement.  If the court rejects the settlement agreement, in
whole or in part, or the settlement does not occur for any other reason and
the litigation against the Company continues, the Company intends to defend
this action vigorously, and to the extent necessary, to seek indemnification
and/or contribution from the underwriters in its initial public offering
pursuant to its underwriting agreement with the underwriters.

On August 31, 2005, the court issued its preliminary approval of the
settlement terms. The settlement remains subject to numerous conditions,
including final approval by the court. There can be no assurance that such
conditions will be met. If the court rejects the settlement agreement, in
whole or in part, or the settlement does not occur for any other reason and
the litigation against the Company continues, it intends to defend this
action vigorously, and to the extent necessary, to seek indemnification
and/or contribution from the underwriters in its initial public offering
pursuant to its underwriting agreement with the underwriters. However, there
can be no assurance that indemnification or contribution will be available
to the Company or enforceable against the underwriters.

The suit is styled "In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation,
Brian Levey vs. TippingPoint Technologies, Inc., et al., No. 01 CV 10976,"
filed in relation to "IN RE INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERING SECURITIES LITIGATION,
Master File No. 21 MC 92 (SAS)," both pending in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, under Judge Shira N.
Scheindlin.  The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

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

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

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

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

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

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


UNITED KINGDOM: U.S.-Style Legal Fees Could Spark More Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
British businesses could face a big rise in class action lawsuits if the
Government adopts recommendations made by the Civil Justice Council in a
report on improving access to justice, The Telegraph.co.uk reports.

The council, which is chaired by Sir Anthony Clarke, the Master of the
Rolls, rules out an end to the "loser pays" principle on legal fees, but
says that contingency fees, where lawyers can share the winnings as they do
in the U.S., should be considered.  The council stated in its report,
"Consideration should be given to the introduction of contingency fees on a
regulated basis, particularly to assist access to justice in group actions
and other complex cases where no other method of funding is available."  The
council also recommended that third parties, such as insurance companies,
should be allowed to pay for cases.

Some attorneys though told Telegraph.co.uk that the Government is very
likely to come under pressure to include the measures proposed by the
council in its Compensation Bill, which is due to be debated next month.


UNIVERISTY OF MISSOURI: Agreement Reached in 1998 Tuition Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The University of Missouri (UM) System recently reached an agreement in a
case stemming from a class action lawsuit that accuses the university system
of charging in-state students "fees" amounting to tuition, which violates an
1872 state law mandating free education for state's homegrown at any of the
four campuses, The University News reports.

Douglas A. Sharp, Sandra K. Lynn and Frederick J. Eccher III initiated the
class action suit in January 1998, after the trio felt that the school
system was violating state law by charging in-state tuition to undergraduate
students for 15 years.

The university though argued that its "fees" for in-state undergraduates
were legal. However, in December 2002, St. Louis County Circuit Judge
Kenneth Romines ruled that the university violated state law between 1986
and 2001, when the 1872 statute was overturned by charging what amounted to
tuition for students ages 17 to 21. The 1872 law, the judge pointed out,
stated that all Missourians at least 16 years old "shall be admitted to all
the privileges and advantages of the various classes of all the departments
of the University of the State of Missouri without payment of tuition," an
earlier Class Action Reporter story (May 20, 2005) reports.

Bob Herman, the attorney behind the lawsuit, contended though that
undergraduates for decades were charged a nominal flat fee, no matter the
number of credit hours taken, however in 1986 it began charging an
"educational fee" by the credit hour, a change that Judge Romines ultimately
ruled a violation of the 1872 statute. Over time, Mr. Herman further
contends, that per-credit fee went from $20 to more than $150, an earlier
Class Action Reporter story (May 20, 2005) reports.

At the time of Judge Romines' ruling, the UM System feared a settlement
would cost them $450 million in reimbursement and possibly bankruptcy.

A new agreement though that was reached earlier this May and approved by
Judge Romines will set up a $10 million scholarship fund that is to be
distributed through $500 scholarships over a 25-year period. Starting in the
fall 2006 semester, 4,770 current and former students will receive these
scholarships.

Under that deal, the university system also tentatively agreed to pay $1
million to Mr. Herman, plus an additional $17,000 for out-of-pocket
expenses. Meanwhile, the three plaintiffs will share $27,000, with the
university agreeing to pay other unspecified administrative costs not to
exceeding $100,000, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (May 20, 2005)
reports.

Some 104,000 letters will be distributed to current and former students who
meet the eligibility requirements agreed upon within the settlement.

These qualifications apply to students who attended one of the four UM
campuses (Columbia, St. Louis, Kansas City or Rolla) from January 1995
through August 2001 and were 16-21 at the time. Interestingly, there is a
section in the agreement that says qualifying students' children and spouses
can also apply for the scholarships, however, priority will be given to the
students.

UM System officials say that if more than 4,770 apply during the first year
of distribution, a lottery will be used to determine who receives the
scholarships. Throughout the subsequent years, a lottery will determine all
of the recipients of the annual scholarships.

Joe Moore of the University of Missouri Media Relations told University News
that, "Since the judge made a final ruling two weeks ago, there will now be
a 40-day waiting period before it becomes official. After that, UM [System]
will begin another round of notifications to the eligible people alerting
them of the available scholarships."

Since this agreement almost bankrupted the UM System, Mr. Moore mentioned to
University News that they were pleased with the agreement specifically
saying, "We feel good about the settlement and feel that it will benefit
students who attend the university. We want to begin working with people
soon so they may take advantage of the scholarship opportunities."

Asked for comment on the settlement, one of the three plaintiffs in the
suit, Kelly Roberts, who previously attend the University of
Missouri-Columbia in 2001 and now attends the Kansas City campus, told
University News that she was relieved. She also said, "This scholarship is
quite a relief, even though it's not a lot of money. I wish that it was more
money to help pay off all of my education loans. However, I am grateful for
it."

According to university officials, before the year is out, students who meet
the qualifications will begin receiving letters notifying them they can
apply for the $500 scholarships.

In addition the officials also said that after 25 years, any remaining money
would be placed in the university's general scholarship fund.



                  Meetings, Conferences & Seminars



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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




                            New Securities Fraud Cases


ANDRX CORPORATION: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in FL
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, before
the Honorable William P. Dimitrouleas, on behalf of purchasers of Andrx
Corporation (NasdaqNM: ADRX) common stock during the class period between
March 9, 2005 and September 5, 2005 who have been damaged thereby.

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

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


BARRIER THERAPEUTICS: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in NJ
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of
purchasers of Barrier Therapeutics Inc. (NASDAQ: BTRX) common stock during
the period between April 29, 2004, and June 29, 2005, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

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

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

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

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

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

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


BARRIER THERAPEUTICS: Schiffrin & Barroway Files NJ Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, initiated a class action lawsuit
in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf
of all securities purchasers of Barrier Therapeutics (Nasdaq: BTRX)
("Barrier" or the "Company") between April 29, 2004 and June 29, 2005
inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Barrier, Geert Cauwenbergh, Anne M. Vanlent and
Charles T. Nomides 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 a single dose of Hyphanox was, in fact, inferior
         to a single dose of fluconazole/Diflucan;

     (2) that the Company's application to the FDA for approval
         of Zimycan was inherently insufficient because the
         Company used a different grade of petrolatum in the
         product it submitted to the FDA, than the grade it used
         in the pivotal clinical studies of Zimycan; and

     (3) that as a consequence of the foregoing, defendants'
         optimistic statements about Barrier's clinical-stage
         product advancements and the continued building of a
         commercial infrastructure lacked in any reasonable
         basis.

On May 25, 2005, Barrier announced that it received a Not Approvable Letter
From the FDA for Zimycan. On this news, shares of Barrier fell $1.63 per
share, or 9.57 percent, on May 26, 2005, to close at $15.40 per share. On
June 29, 2005, Barrier announced that its oral antifungal product candidate,
Hyphanox failed to reach the primary endpoint of therapeutic cure in its
Phase 3 trial. On this news, shares of Barrier fell $6.75 per share, or 45
percent, on June 30, 2005, to close at $7.93 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.


IMMUCOR INC.: Lockridge Grindal Files Securities Suit in N.D. GA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., initiated a securities
fraud class action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia against Immucor, Inc. ("Immucor" or the
"Company"), Dr. Gioacchino De Chirico, Steven C. Ramsey, and Edward L.
Gallup (the "Defendants") on behalf of persons who purchased Immucor common
stock (Nasdaq:BLUD) between January 7, 2005 and August 29, 2005 (the "Class
Period").

The Complaint filed alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by misrepresenting that Immucor's financial
statements and disclosures fairly and accurately reflected the Company's
results of operations as required by Generally Accepted Accounting
Principles ("GAAP") and the Exchange Act. The Complaint also charges that
Defendants' Sarbanes-Oxley certifications during the Class Period were false
and misleading, as the Company, knowingly or with severe recklessness,
lacked adequate internal controls and failed to keep proper books and
records in violation of their well publicized Code of Corporate Conduct.

Defendants' fraud began to come to light on August 26, 2005, when the
Company announced that the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC")
had launched a formal investigation into payments made by its Italian unit
and its president, Defendant De Chirico, to a physician connected with a
hospital with which the Company was doing business in October 2003. On
August 29, 2005, the Company revealed further that its Chief Financial
Officer had resigned, that it would be revising its previously issued
results for at least two quarters in order to account for a previously
unrecorded accrued bonus, and that its Form 10-K for fiscal year 2005 would
be further delayed due to additional accounting and auditing procedures the
Company claimed were necessary to properly reflect the accrued bonus and to
render the internal controls report required by Section 404 of Sarbanes
Oxley.

In response to this news, the price of Immucor common stock dropped from a
closing price of $28.61 on August 25, 2005, before the market learned of the
SEC's formal investigation, to a closing price of $24.00 per share on August
30, 2005. 6 million shares of Immucor common stock were traded on August 30,
2005 alone -- nearly ten times the average daily volume.

During the first six months of 2005, Immucor insiders sold approximately
186,000 shares of stock for proceeds of approximately $4,970,000. During
this time, Defendants led the market to believe that the internal control
issue involving the Italian subsidiary was "an isolated event" that was not
expected to lead to more than a $350,000 fine and increased investigation
expenses that had already been factored into the Company's bottom line. In
fact, however, the opposite was true -- Immucor's internal control problems,
as the market later learned, were not confined to its Italian subsidiary and
were not confined to this allegedly "isolated event."

For more details, contact Karen H. Riebel, Esq. of Lockridge Grindal Nauen,
P.L.L.P., 100 Washington Ave. South, Suite 2200, Minneapolis, MN  55401,
Phone: (612) 339-6900, E-mail: khriebel@locklaw.com, Web site:
http://www.locklaw.com.


REFCO INC.: Roy Jacobs & Associates Lodges Securities Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Roy Jacobs & Associates, initiated 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), certain individual
defendants, and the lead underwriters of Refco's August 2005 initial public
offering. Plaintiff intends to amend the Complaint to expand the Class
Period from August 11, 2005 through October 13, 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 Roy Jacobs, Esq. of Roy Jacobs & Associates,
Phone: (888) 884-4490, E-mail: classattorney@pipeline.com.


TAG-IT PACIFIC: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Fraud Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C., filed a lawsuit seeking class action
status has been filed in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on behalf of all persons who purchased the publicly
traded securities of Tag-It Pacific, Inc. (AMEX:TAG) ("Tag-It") between
November 14, 2003 and August 12, 2005 (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that Tag-It violated federal securities laws by making
false or misleading public statements. On August 15, 2005, Tag-It informed
investors that it was going to report a "significant operating loss" due to
an increase in reserves for accounts receivable and inventory. On August 22,
2005, Tag-It disclosed its reserve for doubtful accounts would increase by
$6.4 million and its reserves for inventory obsolescence would increase by
$1.55 million. On this news, Tag-It stock fell from a close of $2.32 per
share on August 12, 2005, to close at $1.37 per share on August 13, 2005.

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


TAG-IT PCAFIC: Wolf Popper Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CA
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Wolf Popper, LLP, initiated a securities fraud lawsuit
against Tag-It Pacific, Inc. ("Tag-It") (Amex: TAG) and certain of its
officers and directors, on behalf of all persons who purchased Tag-It
securities on the open market during the period November 14, 2003 through
August 12, 2005. The action was filed in the United States District Court,
Central District of California, Civil Action No: 05-7352.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants caused Tag-It
to issue numerous press releases and file quarterly and annual reports with
the SEC, materially misstating its financial condition, accounts receivable
and inventory, and falsely stating that the Company, notwithstanding the
loss of its largest customers, was expanding its customer base, continuing
sales growth, and improving gross margins. Unbeknownst to investors, as a
result of the loss of its largest customers in 2003, millions of dollars in
inventory became obsolete and millions of dollars in accounts receivable
became uncollectible.

On August 15, 2005, Tag-It stunned the market when it revealed its true
financial condition, informing investors that the Company was going to
report a "significant operating loss" due to an increase in reserves for
accounts receivable and inventory. On this news, Tag-It's share price
plummeted 41.38% to $1.36 from the prior days closing of $2.32. On August
22, 2005, the Company further disclosed that it was required to increase its
reserve for doubtful accounts by $6.4 million and increase its reserve for
inventory obsolescence by $1.55 million.

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.


WORLD HEALTH: Wechsler Harwood Files Securities Fraud Suit in PA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Wechsler Harwood, LLP, initiated a securities fraud class
action suit on behalf of individuals and entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired the publicly traded securities of World Health Alternatives, Inc.
("World Health Alternatives" or the "Company") (Pink Sheets:WHAI), acquiring
the stock between June 26, 2003 and August 18, 2005, both dates inclusive
(the "Class Period").

The action entitled, Hertel v. World Health Alternatives, Inc., et al., Case
No. (not yet assigned), is pending in the United States District Court for
the Western District of Pennsylvania and names as defendants, the Company,
certain of its senior officers and directors, as well as its independent
auditor, Daszkal Bolton LLP.

The complaint charges defendants with violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and 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 the defendants misstated the amount of the
         Company's outstanding shares;

     (2) that the defendants failed to properly account for
         convertible debt and warrant agreements;

     (3) that defendants underpaid tax liabilities in the amount
         of $4 million; and

     (4) that defendants' misstatements to the World Health
         Alternatives' lenders resulted in $6.5 million in
         excess funding under the loan agreements.

As a result of this activity, the Company had terminated its outside
auditor, Daszkal Bolton, and Defendant McDonald had resigned as CEO. The
Company retained outside counsel and the Board of Directors had retained
special counsel to assist it with its investigation. The Company would be
restating its prior financial statements due to the material misstatements
outlined above and has warned investors not to rely on the information
contained therein. The Company's restatement announcement shocked the market
and the price of its common stock plummeted an astonishing 86% on August 19,
2005, trading as low as $0.25 per share after closing on August 18, 2005 at
$1.85 per share. Trading on a volume 15 times greater than its average, on
August 19, 2005, 32 million shares changed hands.

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