CAR_Public/051020.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, October 20, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 208


                          Headlines

AG EDWARDS: Continues To Face Employees' Wage Lawsuit in S.D. CA
AUDIOVOX CORPORATION: Wireless Telephone Suit Dismissal Reversed
AUDIOVOX CORPORATION: Asks DE Court To Dismiss Derivative Suit
BAXTER HEALTHCARE: U.S. Marshals Seize Defective Infusion Pumps
BEAR STEARNS: CA Court Approves Revised Stock Lawsuit Settlement

BEAR STEARNS: Faces Consolidated Amended Securities Suit in DE
CANADA: Taxpayers Group Coordinates Suit V. Striking Teachers
CANADIAN PACIFIC: Wrongful Death Suit Over ND Derailment Settled
CHEMTURA CORPORATION: Rescinds Parts of Rubber, EPDM Settlement
COPART INC.: Faces Consumer Fraud Lawsuit V. Storage Liens in GA

DYNAMEX INC.: Drivers Commence Overtime Wage Lawsuit in N.D. IL
DYNAMEX INC.: CA Former, Present Drivers File Overtime Wage Suit
ELI LILLY: FDA Warns V. Strattera, Link to Suicidal Behavior
HOMELAND SECURITY: Undocumented Aliens File CA Suit Over U-Visas
HUMANA INC.: Reaches Agreement to Settle Physicians' Suit in FL

IDAHO: Twin Falls Teachers Group go to Court Over Pay Dispute
IDT CORPORATION: Net2Phone Shareholders File Lawsuits in DE, NJ
IDT CORPORATION: Parties Enter Mediation For NJ Consumer Lawsuit
KANA SOFTWARE: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Stock Suit Settlement
LEHMAN BROTHERS: NY Court Approves $62.7M Stock Suit Settlement

LES ENTERPRISES: Recalls 295 Buses Due to FMVSS221 Noncompliance
LOUISIANA: Residents File Suit Over Pump Operators' Evacuation
MCCLATCHY CO.: Star Tribune's Circulation Figures Are Accurate
MERIX CORPORATION: OR Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit
MYFREEMEDICINE.COM: Barred From Making Deceptive Trade Claims

PACIFIC HERBAL: Court Issues TRO For Consumer Fraud, Spam Mail
POSSIS MEDICAL: Shareholders Launch Securities Fraud Suits in MN
RED HAT: Final Fairness Hearing Set April 24, 2006 in S.D. NY
RED HAT: Plaintiffs Asks NC Court To Dismiss Securities Lawsuit
SHURGARD STORAGE: CA Court Limits Class in Consumer Fraud Suit

SHURGARD STORAGE: CA Court Mulls Overtime Wage Suit Settlement
SHURGARD STORAGE: Shareholders Lodge Stock Fraud Suit in W.D. WA
STIHL INC.: Recalls 6,230 Backpack Blowers Due to Injury Hazard
TARGET CORPORATION: Recalls Pencils, Sharpeners For Injury Risk
]UBS FINANCIAL: Ex-Workers File Racial Discrimination Suit in NY

WORKSTREAM INC.: Shareholders Launch Securities Suit in S.D. NY
WORLDCOM INC.: NYC Pension Funds Settle Fraud Lawsuit For $78.9M

                 New Securities Fraud Cases

ANDRX CORPORATION: Federman & Sherwood Lodges Fraud Suit in FL
BARRIER THERAPEUTICS: Federman & Sherwood Files Fraud Suit in NJ
MERCURY INTERACTIVE: Scott + Scott Extends Suit's Class Period
TAG-IT PACIFIC: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CA
TAG-IT PACIFC: Federman & Sherwood Lodges Securities Suit in CA


                        *********

AG EDWARDS: Continues To Face Employees' Wage Lawsuit in S.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
AG Edwards, Inc. continues to face a class action filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
California on behalf of all financial consultants and trainees
who worked for the Company in California after June 30, 2000.

The action, among other relief, seeks overtime pay for financial
consultants, including trainees, on the basis that the financial
consultants should be classified as non-exempt employees under
California law, restitution of amounts that were deducted from
commissions owed to financial consultants to repay advances made
in prior months, payment for meal rest breaks to which financial
consultants are claimed to be entitled, and reimbursement for
certain alleged business-related expenses paid by financial
consultants.

Several other financial services firms have been sued in
California in similar actions, the Company said in a disclosure
to the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The suit is styled "Mitchell v. AG Edwards and Sons, et al.,
case no. 3:02cv2218," filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California (San Diego), under Judge
Barry Ted Moskowitz.  Representing the plaintiffs is Joshua D.
Gruenberg of Larabee and Gruenberg, 2169 First Avenue, San
Diego, CA 92101, Phone: (619)230-1234.  Representing the Company
is Daryl Steven Landy of Steefel Levitt and Weiss, One
Embarcadero Center, Suite 3000, San Francisco, CA 94111-3600,
Phone: (415)788-0900.


AUDIOVOX CORPORATION: Wireless Telephone Suit Dismissal Reversed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the
dismissal of the consolidated class action filed against
Audiovox Corporation and other suppliers, manufacturers and
distributors of hand-held wireless telephones.  The suit alleges
damages relating to exposure to radio frequency radiation from
hand-held wireless telephones.

The consolidated suit was transferred to a Multi-District
Litigation Panel before the United States District Court of the
District of Maryland.  On March 5, 2003, Judge Catherine C.
Blake of the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland granted the defendants' consolidated motion to dismiss
these complaints.

On March 16, 2005, the appeals court reversed the ruling on the
grounds of federal pre-emption.  The Fourth Circuit remanded the
actions to each of their respective state courts, except for the
Naquin litigation which was remanded to the local Federal Court.
Defendants intend to file a petition for certiorari with the
U.S. Supreme Court.

The suit is styled "In re Wireless Telephone Radio Frequency
Emissions Products Liability Litigation, case no. 1:01-md-01421-
CCB," filed in the United States District Court in Maryland,
under Judge Catherine C. Blake.

Representing the plaintiffs is Mayer Morganroth, Morganroth and
Morganroth PLLC, 3000 Town Cntr Ste 1500, Southfield, MI 48075,
Phone: 1-248-355-3084, Fax: 1-248-355-3017, E-mail:
jgurfinkel@morganrothlaw.com.  Representing the Company is Mark
H. Kolman, Dickstein Shapiro Morin and Oshinsky LLP, 2101 L St
NW, Washington, DC 20037, Phone: 1-202-828-2280, Fax:
1-202-887-0689, E-mail: kolmanm@dsmo.com.


AUDIOVOX CORPORATION: Asks DE Court To Dismiss Derivative Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, New Castle
County has yet to rule on Audiovox Corporation's motion to
dismiss the consolidated derivative and class action filed
against it, Audiovox Communications Corporation (ACC) and the
Company's directors, styled "In re Audiovox Corporation
Derivative Litigation."

During the fourth quarter of 2004, several purported derivative
and class actions were filed.  On January 10, 2005, Vice
Chancellor Steven Lamb of the Court of Chancery granted an order
permitting the filing of a Consolidated Complaint by several
shareholders of Audiovox Corporation derivatively on behalf of
the Company.  The complaint seeks rescission of agreements;
amendments to long-term incentive awards; and severance payments
pursuant to which the Company and ACC executives were paid from
the net proceeds of the sale of certain assets of ACC to
UTStarcom, Inc.  The suit also seeks disgorgement to ACC of $16
million paid to Philip Christopher pursuant to a Personally Held
Intangibles Purchase Agreement in connection with the UTStarcom
Transaction and disgorgement to the Company of $4 million paid
to Philip Christopher as compensation for termination of his
Employment Agreement and Award Agreement with ACC.  The suit
also seeks disgorgement to ACC of $1,916,477 paid to John Shalam
pursuant to an Award Agreement with ACC, and recovery by ACC of
$5 million in severance payments distributed by Philip
Christopher to ACC's former employees.  ACC is sued as a nominal
defendant only.


BAXTER HEALTHCARE: U.S. Marshals Seize Defective Infusion Pumps
---------------------------------------------------------------
At the request of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA),
on October 12, 2005, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois issued a warrant for seizure of three types
of infusion pumps manufactured by Baxter Healthcare Corporation
because FDA inspections revealed that the firm has continually
failed to follow medical device manufacturing requirements.
The seized products are:

     (1) SYNDEO PCA Syringe Pumps,

     (2) Colleague Volumetric Infusion Pumps, and

     (3) Colleague CX Volumetric Infusion Pumps

Baxter has distributed these products worldwide. Infusion pumps
are electronic devices intended to control delivery of solutions
and medications to patients. Pump shutdown could result in
serious injuries or death to critically ill patients who depend
on continuous infusion medications and/or life-sustaining
medications.

"This case demonstrates that the FDA will take the necessary
steps to protect America 's public health," said Margaret O'K.
Glavin, FDA Associate Commissioner for Regulatory Affairs.
"Today's notification shows our commitment to informing the
public about important safety issues."

Four thousand SYNDEO and Colleague infusion pumps were seized by
the U.S. Marshals Service from Baxter's warehouse in Buffalo
Grove, Ill., and 135 SYNDEO pumps from a distributor's warehouse
in Waukegan, Ill. No products were seized from healthcare
facilities or individual users, and there are no plans to do so.
Healthcare facilities can continue to use pumps in their
possession, guided by instructions Baxter provided previously,
but should recognize the types of problems that could occur and
have a backup plan in place, especially in situations where the
pump is part of a life-saving function. More detailed
recommendations for users of specific pump models are available
on Baxter's web site: http://www.Baxter.com.

Baxter was previously issued Warning Letters outlining the
violations and was given an opportunity to correct the
violations, but failed to take appropriate actions. On February
25, March 15, July 6, and July 20, 2005, Baxter notified the
public of the potential health hazard associated with these
products.

The FDA alleges that none of the seized infusion pumps were
manufactured under the proper controls and that the Colleague
pumps have a design defect that may cause the pumps to stop and
shut down during infusion therapy. Further, FDA believes Baxter
failed to inform FDA of the Colleague infusion pump failures, in
violation of the Medical Device Reporting regulation of the
Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act).  The FDA
believes that the seizure will help ensure that pumps in the
warehouses are not distributed until the problems are corrected
and they can be safely used.


BEAR STEARNS: CA Court Approves Revised Stock Lawsuit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California granted preliminary approval to the revised
settlement of the consolidated securities class action filed
against Bear Stearns Companies, Inc. and McKesson Corporation,
relating to the merger between McKesson Corporation ("McKesson")
and HBO & Company ("HBOC") resulting in an entity called
McKesson HBOC, Inc. ("McKesson HBOC").

Beginning on June 29, 1999, 53 purported class actions were
commenced in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California. These actions were subsequently
consolidated, and the plaintiffs proceeded to file a series of
amended complaints. On February 15, 2002, plaintiffs filed their
third amended consolidated complaint, which alleges that Bear
Stearns violated Sections 10(b) and 14(a) of the Exchange Act in
connection with allegedly false and misleading disclosures
contained in a joint proxy statement/prospectus that was issued
with respect to the McKesson/HBOC merger.

Plaintiffs purport to represent a class consisting of all
persons who either acquired publicly traded securities of HBOC
between January 20, 1997 and January 12, 1999, or acquired
publicly traded securities of McKesson or McKesson HBOC between
October 18, 1998 and April 27, 1999, and who held McKesson
securities on November 27, 1998 and January 22, 1999.  Named
defendants include McKesson HBOC, certain present and former
directors and/or officers of McKesson HBOC, McKesson and/or
HBOC, Bear Stearns and Arthur Andersen LLP. Compensatory damages
in an unspecified amount are sought.

On January 12, 2005, McKesson HBOC announced that it had reached
a settlement with the plaintiff class, which settlement must be
approved by the Court.  Bear Stearns's engagement letter with
McKesson in connection with the merger of McKesson and HBOC
provides that McKesson cannot settle any litigation without Bear
Stearns's written consent unless McKesson obtains an
unconditional written release for Bear Stearns and, under
certain circumstances, is required to provide indemnification to
Bear Stearns.

In his order, Judge Ronald M. Whyte denied "without prejudice"
the motion for preliminary approval of the settlement.  The
order expressed the court's objection to two non-monetary
provisions of the settlement.  The Company and the Lead
Plaintiff in the action have submitted a revised settlement
agreement that both sides believe fully addresses the court's
objections.

On July 12, 2005, the plaintiffs and McKesson HBOC submitted a
revised proposed settlement, purporting to address the issues
identified by the Court in its order denying preliminary
approval, to which the Company objected. The revised proposed
settlement provides, among other things, that the Company's
rights under its engagement letter are preserved for future
resolution.  McKesson HBOC's claims in connection with the
engagement letter are also preserved.  On September 8, 2005, the
Court granted preliminary approval of the revised proposed
settlement. The Court has not established a schedule with
respect to its consideration of the final approval of the
settlement.

The suit is styled "Hess et al v. McKesson HBOC, Inc. et al.,
case no. 5:01-cv-20301," filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, under Judge
Ronald M. Whyte.  Representing the plaintiffs is David C. Anson,
Anson Lammers, P.C., The Foothills Corporate Center, 3430 East
Sunrise Drive, Suite 170, Tucson, AZ 85718, Phone: 520-577-2383,
Fax: 520-577-1924.  Representing the Company is Michael K.
Kennedy of Gallagher & Kennedy, P.A., 2575 East Camelback Road,
Phoenix, AZ 85016-9225, Phone: 602-530-8000, Fax: 602-530-8500.


BEAR STEARNS: Faces Consolidated Amended Securities Suit in DE
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bear Stearns Companies, Inc. faces a consolidated amended class
action filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery on behalf of
shareholders of Prime Hospitality Corporation.  The suit also
names as defendants the directors of Prime, the Blackstone Group
and certain affiliates of Blackstone.

As amended, the complaint alleges that the Company acted as a
financial advisor to Prime in connection with the sale of Prime
to Blackstone, and that the Company aided and abetted a breach
of fiduciary duty by the directors of Prime in connection with
that transaction. The amended complaint seeks from defendants
compensatory damages in an unspecified amount, as well as
various forms of equitable relief, including, but not limited
to, rescissory damages, the imposition of a constructive trust
and an accounting.


CANADA: Taxpayers Group Coordinates Suit V. Striking Teachers
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Taxpayers Federation is coordinating a class action
lawsuit against the B.C. Teachers' Federation over its illegal
strike, The Broadcast News reports.

The 38,000 members of the B.C. Teachers' Federation walked off
the job on October 7, 2005.   Citing that 600,000 students have
been shut out of their classrooms, parents are scrambling to
find care and the union continues to defy the law, the
federation stated that B.C. public schools are "being held
hostage by a government union."  The federation's B.C. director,
Sara McIntyre, told Broadcast News that it's time taxpayers
stood up to the union's bullying tactics and sued to recover
their costs.

The suit alleges negligence by the striking teachers, their
union and their union president. In a recently filed statement
of claim, the suit, whose lone plaintiff is Jacqueline Grant,
accuses teachers, their union and Jinny Sims, their leader of
going on strike despite legislation and legal decisions that
declare their actions as being illegal, an earlier Class Action
Reporter story (October 14, 2005) reports.  The statement of
claim also contends that their negligence includes the failure
to instruct union members to return to work and a lack of effort
to maintain essential service levels, an earlier Class Action
Reporter story (October 14, 2005) reports.

Though no money amounts have been named in the suit yet, Denis
Berntsen, the plaintiff's attorney, estimates that the strike is
costing B.C. parents $12.5 million each day, which is
essentially based on a rough estimate of $50 per day for the
250,000 students (out of 600,000 or so) whose parents are
affected financially by the strike. Those effects could be
anything from the need to take time off work to fees for
childcare, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (October 14,
2005) reports.

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


CANADIAN PACIFIC: Wrongful Death Suit Over ND Derailment Settled
----------------------------------------------------------------
A wrongful death lawsuit brought by the family of John
Grabinger, stemming from the Canadian Pacific Railway derailment
near Minot on January 18, 2002, was settled out of court in
Minneapolis, according to attorneys in the case, The Associated
Press reports.

Mr. Grabinger, 38, died after becoming lost in the heavy ammonia
cloud that formed over the Mouse River valley following the
derailment.

Fargo attorney Mike Miller of the Solberg Law Firm told The
Associated Press that the settlement was good for the Grabinger
family, especially since they were spared the rigors of a full-
blown jury trial. He pointed out, "The family didn't need to go
through that, especially Grabinger's widow, MeLea, who was
injured by the toxic cloud . If the settlement was a good one,
and I have reason to believe it was, then it was good for the
family."

The Fargo attorney also told The Associated Press that he has no
idea what the railroad is planning to do next and what bearing
the settlement will have on the class action lawsuit his firm is
handling on behalf of about 900 plaintiffs as well as other
cases being pursued against the railroad.  He added that the
class action suit is scheduled to go to court in January 2006.
He said, "I'm not sure if there will be a class-action
settlement or not. We're not assuming that at this point,"
according to Mr. Miller, adding that his firm is gearing up to
go to trial, if necessary.

In a related development, a judge in Minneapolis has ruled
against the railroad's motion to dismiss the lawsuits against
it. A ruling in federal court where the North Dakota cases will
be tried is still pending though.

Mr. Miller told The Associated Press, "We've just filed our
arguments on that matter in the federal court in Bismarck,"
which will be decided by Chief Judge Daniel Hovland.

The Grabinger case was the second to be settled out of court
with the first being the one by Henry and Linda Juntunen and
their son, Joey, of Minot, which was settled just last week.
Details of that settlement were not released, either.

The National Transportation Safety Board blamed the derailment
on a faulty track repair. The NTSB report said 31 of the 112
eastbound train derailed shortly after 1:30 a.m. Five of the
derailed cars carried anhydrous ammonia. Figures vary on the
amount of the gas, used as a farm fertilizer that escaped.  Some
sources though said that the amount was in the neighborhood of
300,000 gallons. Another contended the figure was closed to
221,000 gallons.

Canadian Pacific Railway officials, however, only issued a terse
statement following the NTSB report and have not commented on
any of the lawsuit activity to date.

Individual lawsuits against CP Rail were filed in state court in
Minnesota, where the Calgary, Alberta-based railroad has its
U.S. headquarters. Others are represented in a separate federal
court action in North Dakota.


CHEMTURA CORPORATION: Rescinds Parts of Rubber, EPDM Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chemtura Corporation (NYSE:CEM) rescinded those parts of a
Global Settlement Agreement covering rubber chemicals and EPDM
that were intended to resolve consolidated direct purchaser
class action lawsuits pending in the United States District
Courts in the Northern District of California and the District
of Connecticut.

As announced last January, the Company reserved the right to
rescind all or part of the Global Settlement Agreement based on
the number of members of the applicable classes who exercised
their opt out rights. As a result of opt outs in rubber
chemicals and EPDM, the Company is currently negotiating
settlements directly with the largest claimants in those
actions. Chemtura does not intend to adjust the reserves
previously established with respect to these lawsuits at this
time.

Under the Global Settlement Agreement, Chemtura agreed to pay a
total of $97 million, consisting of $62 million with respect to
rubber chemicals, $30 million with respect to EPDM and $5
million with respect to nitrile rubber. The nitrile rubber
portion of the Global Settlement Agreement has been approved by
the United States District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania.

Aside from the decision to rescind parts of the Global
Settlement Agreement, Chemtura also revealed that it reached
agreements with class claimants in Canada covering direct and
indirect purchasers of EPDM for approximately USD $3.9 million
and is working toward a resolution of similar claims with
respect to rubber chemicals, urethanes and urethane chemicals.
These Agreements will be subject to court approval and notice to
class members, with opt out options for potential class members
and a recovery by the Company of a portion of the settlement
funds with respect to members of the classes who choose to opt
out of the settlements.

Chemtura cannot predict the outcome of these class actions. It
will continue to seek cost-effective resolutions of these claims
and others pending or hereafter asserted against Chemtura or any
of its subsidiaries however, the resolution of such claims could
have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial
condition, results of operations and prospects.

Chemtura Corporation, with pro forma 2004 sales of $3.7 billion,
is a global manufacturer and marketer of specialty chemicals,
crop protection and pool, spa and home care products.
Headquartered in Middlebury, Connecticut, the company has 7,300
employees around the world. Additional information concerning
Chemtura is available at.

For more details, contact Bill Kuser, Phone: 203-573-2213 OR
Mary Ann Dunnell, Phone: 203-573-3034, Web site:
http://www.chemtura.com.


COPART INC.: Faces Consumer Fraud Lawsuit V. Storage Liens in GA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Copart, Inc. faces a class action filed in the State Court for
the County of Chatham, Georgia, alleging a class action for
unreasonable amounts claimed for storage liens by Copart, and
related claims.

On September 16, 2005, Richard M. Gray filed suit, seeking
relief including class certification, damages, fees, costs and
expenses.  The Company cannot yet predict if this suit will
affect their finances or general operations, it stated in a
disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission.


DYNAMEX INC.: Drivers Commence Overtime Wage Lawsuit in N.D. IL
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dynamex, Inc. faces a purported class action filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division, by a former Company driver on behalf of
himself and other past or present Company drivers.  The suit
alleges that the Company's drivers are employees of the Company,
rather than independent contractors, and as a consequence, are
entitled to overtime compensation and other benefits under
federal and state wage and hour laws.

The suit is styled "McClure v. Dynamex, Inc., case no. 1:05-cv-
00711," filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, under Judge Wayne R. Andersen.
The Company is represented by Joseph R. Marconi of Johnson &
Bell, Ltd., 55 East Monroe Street, Suite 4100, Chicago, IL
60603, Phone: (312) 372-0770, E-mail: marconij@jbltd.com.  The
plaintiffs are represented by John William Billhorn of Billhorn
Law Firm, 515 N. State Street, Suite 2200, Chicago, IL 60610,
Phone: (312) 464-1450, E-mail: jbillhorn@billhornlaw.com.


DYNAMEX INC.: CA Former, Present Drivers File Overtime Wage Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dynamex, Inc. faces a class action filed in the Superior Court
of California, Los Angeles County by a former Company driver,
alleging that the Company unlawfully misclassified its
California drivers as independent contractors, rather than
employees.

The suit asserts, as a consequence, entitlement on behalf of the
purported class claimants to overtime compensation and other
benefits under California wage and hour laws, reimbursement of
certain operating expenses, and various insurance and other
benefits and the obligation of the Company to pay employer
payroll taxes under federal and state law.


ELI LILLY: FDA Warns V. Strattera, Link to Suicidal Behavior
------------------------------------------------------------
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a Public Health
Advisory to alert physicians of reports of suicidal thinking in
children and adolescents associated with Strattera, a drug
approved to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder
(ADHD). FDA has also directed Eli Lilly and Company,
manufacturer of Strattera, to develop a Medication Guide for
patients and caregivers.

FDA is advising health care providers and caregivers that
children and adolescents being treated with Strattera should be
closely monitored for clinical worsening, as well as agitation,
irritability, suicidal thinking or behaviors, and unusual
changes in behavior, especially during the initial few months of
therapy or when the dose is changed (either increased or
decreased). Patients and caregivers who have concerns or
questions about these symptoms should contact their healthcare
provider.

"FDA's action today is another example of the agency acting
swiftly to alert the public to significant drug safety
information needed to use a drug in a safe manner," said Dr.
Steven Galson, Director for the Center for Drug Evaluation and
Research, FDA.

The actions follow a review and analysis of 11 clinical trials
conducted in children with ADHD and one trial in children with
enuresis (bedwetting) that identified an increased risk of
suicidal thinking for Strattera. There was one suicide attempt
by a patient who received Strattera among the approximately
2,200 patients in the trial. As part of a larger evaluation of
psychiatric drugs and suicidality, FDA had requested that the
manufacturer conduct a review of its database and clinical
trials, which included more than 2200 patients--1350 patients
receiving Strattera (atomoxetine) and 851 receiving a placebo.
The analysis showed that 0.4% of children treated with Strattera
reported suicidal thinking compared to no cases in children
treated with the placebo.

Strattera, manufactured by Eli Lilly, has been on the market
since 2002 and has been used in more than two million patients.
Health care professionals are encouraged to report any
unexpected adverse events associated with Strattera directly to
Eli Lilly, Indianapolis, Ind. at 1-800-LillyRx or to the FDA
MedWatch program at 1-800-FDA-1088; by FAX at 1-800-FDA-0178; by
mail to MedWatch, Food and Drug Administration, HFD-410, 5600
Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD, 20857-9787; or online:
http://www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htm.


HOMELAND SECURITY: Undocumented Aliens File CA Suit Over U-Visas
----------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys for undocumented immigrants who were victims of
violent crimes filed a federal lawsuit against the Department of
Homeland Security for failing to issue protective visas that
Congress created through a 2000 law, The Associated Press
reports.

That law approved visas for victims of violent crimes who
cooperate with law enforcement investigations or prosecution of
crimes.  Those same visas allowed them to remain in the United
States and apply for permanent residency after three years. But,
regulations that detail how to apply for the U-visa were never
published nor were any issued.

Peter Schey of the L.A.-based Center for Human Rights and
Constitutional Law, one of three groups that filed the suit told
The Associated Press, "Congress enacted the law with the dual
goal of making communities safer ... and as a humane gesture to
those immigrants who cooperate with law enforcement agents,"
adding that, "How can the government expect immigrants to comply
with the law when it is not complying with its own laws?"  The
suit was filed on behalf of nine immigrants from California,
Texas and Arizona, including several children.

Homeland Security's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
declined to comment on the suit.  USCIS spokesman Chris Bentley
told The Associated Press, "We're looking at taking our time to
ensure that the final regulations we put out are concise and
clear and complete."

Regulations for a similar visa created under the same law, which
allows victims of human trafficking to remain in the United
States, were issued in 2002. Mr. Schey though pointed out that
there is no excuse for the government to take this long on the
U-visa.

Gail Pendleton, a Boston-based immigration attorney and co-chair
of National Network to End Violence Against Immigrant Women,
told The Associated Press that she believes the delay is
emblematic of the nation's ambivalence over immigration. She
also said, "Undocumented immigrants are being blamed for all the
ills of our society, so there is a lot of pressure on the agency
on the enforcement side, but you also have a Congress that
understands the overarching need to help victims of crimes and
help the criminal system to get at the perpetrators."

Under the 2000 law, people who apply for the U-Visa can obtain
"deferred action" status, which offers some protection and
allows them to work. They cannot leave the country though, and
it's not clear whether time under the deferred status will count
toward permanent residency.  A significant number of immigrants
who are already in deportation proceedings are not receiving the
deferred action, according to Ms. Pendleton.

USCIS has done little to publicize the visas, meaning many
immigrants don't know they can apply. Mr. Schey even points out,
"Many police officers and Immigration and Customs Enforcement
officers are also unaware because there are no forms, no
information. Immigrants come in to report a case and then
they're driven right over to ICE."


HUMANA INC.: Reaches Agreement to Settle Physicians' Suit in FL
---------------------------------------------------------------
Humana, Inc. and representatives of hundreds of thousands of
physicians, state and local medical societies agreed to settle
the national class action lawsuit pending in the federal court
for the Southern District of Florida before U.S. District Judge
Federico Moreno. The preliminary approval hearing will take
place on October 19 in Miami, Florida.

Similar to earlier settlements with Aetna, Cigna, Prudential and
HealthNet, approval of this settlement will provide a mechanism
by which physicians can obtain compensation in connection with
the claims brought in the lawsuits. Humana will establish a
settlement fund from which physicians can seek compensation.

"Humana should be commended for joining the growing list of
health insurance companies that have settled with the nation's
physicians. As in previous settlements, the agreed upon landmark
business practice changes will result in a more efficient health
care system for all concerned and redirect precious resources to
the care of patients. Thousands of physicians and their
professional associations and representatives have worked long
and hard for this agreement. We look forward to final judicial
approval and implementation of this agreement," noted lead co-
counsel for the physicians, Archie Lamb.

Humana shall be required to implement important changes to its
business practices, which will result in significant savings to
physicians in overhead costs and time spent contesting claims.
The expected final judicial approval of the settlement agreement
shall extinguish liability for lawsuits filed against Humana
over the last decade by physicians and physician groups.

"Although we, of course, believe that the business practices
changes required by the settlement agreement will far exceed the
$75 million estimate noted by Humana, what is truly important is
the implementation of the changes and the benefit in time and
energy savings to physicians as they seek to improve and save
the lives of millions of Americans," concluded Mr. Lamb.

For more details, contact Audrey Mullen of Advocacy Ink, Phone:
+1-703-548-1160 or +1-202-270-2772 (mobile), Fax:
+1-703-548-1006; and Archie Lamb, David Fawal and Christopher
Cantrell of The Lamb Firm, 2017 2nd Ave., North Birmingham, AL
35203, Phone: (205) 324-4644 or (800) 324-4425,
Fax: (205) 324-4649, E-mail: Alamb@ArchieLamb.com,
Dfawal@ArchieLamb.com and Ccantrell@ArchieLamb.com, Web site:
http://www.archielamb.com/.


IDAHO: Twin Falls Teachers Group go to Court Over Pay Dispute
-------------------------------------------------------------
The dispute over teacher pay between Twin Falls Education
Association and their school district is now headed to an Idaho
court, NewsChannel 7 reports.

Previously, the teachers group filed a class action lawsuit
against the school board and superintendents alleging that the
district engaged in bad faith bargaining. The teachers also
claims that the district failed to provide accurate information
at the bargaining table or pay teachers appropriate wages.


IDT CORPORATION: Net2Phone Shareholders File Lawsuits in DE, NJ
---------------------------------------------------------------
IDT Corporation faces several class actions filed after it
announced on June 28, 2005 its intention to commence a tender
offer for all outstanding shares of common stock of Net2Phone,
Inc. not owned by the Company or its affiliates.  The suit also
names as defendants Net2Phone, and all directors of Net2Phone.

The six suits were filed on behalf of all public common
stockholders of Net2Phone.  Five of these actions were filed in
the Court of Chancery, New Castle County, in Delaware and the
sixth was filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery
Division, Essex County. In these actions, plaintiffs allege,
among other things, that the Company, as the controlling
shareholder of Net2Phone, are improperly denying Net2Phone's
public stockholders the opportunity to obtain fair value for
their equity interests and seek to enjoin the Company from
acquiring all the shares of Net2Phone common stock, alleging
that the proposed consideration offered by us is inadequate.
Plaintiffs also seek damages in the event the transaction is
consummated.


IDT CORPORATION: Parties Enter Mediation For NJ Consumer Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the consumer class action filed against IDT
Corporation in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Essex County,
entered court-ordered, non-binding mediation.

On September 19, 2003, Irene Kieves served the suit, which The
alleges a violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act in
connection with Universal Service Fund surcharges imposed on the
Company's long distance customers.  The plaintiff is seeking
certification of a class consisting of all persons who
subscribed to IDT long distance service and paid any Universal
Service Fund surcharge associated with such service at any time
since January 1, 1998. The damages sought have not yet been
quantified.  On November 10, 2003, the Company filed its answer
to the complaint and asserted a counterclaim for breach of
contract.


KANA SOFTWARE: NY Court Preliminarily OKs 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 KANA
Software, Inc., certain of its current and former officers and
the underwriters for its initial public offering:

     (1) Goldman Sachs & Co.,

     (2) Lehman Bros,

     (3) Hambrecht & Quist LLC,

     (4) Wit Soundview Capital Corporation.

The suit is similar to hundreds of other cases, filed in the
same court, alleging violations of various securities laws by
more than 300 issuers of stock and the underwriters for such
issuers.

The suit against the Company was filed on behalf of a class of
plaintiffs who purchased the Company's stock between September
21, 1999 and December 6, 2000 in connection with its initial
public offering.  Specifically, the complaints allege that the
underwriter defendants engaged in a scheme concerning sales of
the Company's and other issuers' securities in the initial
public offering and in the aftermarket.

In July 2003, the Company decided to join in a settlement
negotiated by representatives of a coalition of issuers named as
defendants in this action and their insurers.  Although the
Company believes that the plaintiffs' claims have no merit, it
has decided to accept the settlement proposal to avoid the cost
and distraction of continued litigation.  Because the settlement
will be funded entirely by KANA's insurers, the Company does not
believe that the settlement will have any effect on its
financial condition, results of operation or cash flows.  The
proposed settlement agreement is subject to final approval by
the court.

The suit is styled "In Re Kana Software, Inc. Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, Case No. 01 Civ. 6822 (Sas),"
related " In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation,
Master File No. 21 MC 92 (SAS)," filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge
Shira A. Scheindlin.  The plaintiff firms in this litigation
are:

     (i) 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

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

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

    (iv) 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

     (v) 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

    (vi) 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


LEHMAN BROTHERS: NY Court Approves $62.7M Stock Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted final approval to the $62.7 million settlement
proposed by Lehman Brothers, Inc. to resolve the consolidated
securities class action filed against it, WorldCom, Inc.,
certain of its officers and directors, and several other
WorldCom former auditors on behalf of individuals and entities
who purchased or acquired publicly traded securities of WorldCom
between April 29, 1999 and June 25, 2002.

The suit, styled "In Re: Worldcom, Inc. Securities Litigation,"
asserts claims against the Company under Sections 11 and
12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, in
connection with certain bond offerings in which it served as
underwriter, and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
under Section 10(b), alleging that it participated in the
preparation and/or issuance of misleading WorldCom registration
statements and disseminated misleading research reports
concerning WorldCom stock.

In 2003, the district court denied the Company's motion to
dismiss the consolidated class action complaint and granted the
plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  Pursuant to an
order entered May 28, 2003, the District Court consolidated
approximately seventy-eight individual actions with the class
action for pretrial proceedings. The claims asserted in these
individual actions are substantially similar to the claims
alleged in the class action and assert state and federal
securities law claims based on the Company's research reports
concerning WorldCom and/or its role as an underwriter in
WorldCom offerings. Plaintiffs in certain of these actions filed
motions to remand their cases to state court.  The District
Court denied these motions and its rulings were upheld on
appeal.

Numerous other actions asserting claims against the Company in
connection with its research reports about WorldCom and/or its
role as an investment banker for WorldCom are pending in other
federal and state courts around the country. These actions have
been remanded to various state courts, are pending in other
federal courts, or have been conditionally transferred to the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York to be consolidated with the class action.  In addition to
the court suits, actions asserting claims against Lehman
Brothers and certain of its affiliates relating to its WorldCom
research reports are pending in numerous arbitrations around the
country. These actions assert claims that are substantially
similar to the claims asserted in the class action.

The company proposed to settle the charges against it for $62.7
million, and the settlement received final court approval in
September 2005.

The suit is styled "In Re: Worldcom, Inc. Securities & "ERISA"
Litigation, case no. 1:02-md-01487-DLC," filed in the United
Staes District Court for the Southern District of New York under
Judge Denise L. Cote.  Representing the plaintiffs is Edwin J.
Mills of Stull Stull & Brody, 6 East 45th Street, 5th Floor, New
York, NY 10017, Phone: (212)-687-7230, Fax: (212)-490-2022, E-
mail: ssbny@aol.com.


LES ENTERPRISES: Recalls 295 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 295 units of
2004 CORBEIL / MINIBUS school buses due to crash hazard.

According to the company, certain of the buses manufactured
between May 3 and June 4, 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.

Corbeil has not yet provided the agency with a remedy or
notification schedule.

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.


LOUISIANA: Residents File Suit Over Pump Operators' Evacuation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jefferson Parish residents initiated a lawsuit against the
parish and its president, Aaron Broussard claiming that their
east bank homes become flooded, after drainage pump operators
were sent out of town before Hurricane Katrina hit, The
Associated Press reports.

The suit claims that Mr. Broussard and the parish "owed a duty
to operate the drainage pumps" and "breached that duty by
failing to man and operate" them. Filed in state count in
Gretna, the suit's plaintiffs are seeking class action status,
unspecified damages and a jury to decide the case.

The case was assigned to Judge Henry Sullivan and names only two
plaintiffs, Zoe Aldige of Metairie, and Chicago Properties
Interests, a Metairie company.

Parish officials have said that 200 pump operators were
evacuated to Washington Parish on August 28th, the day before
the storm, and returned the following day at 7 pm. Mr. Broussard
also maintains that leaving the operators at their stations
during a Category Four or Five hurricane amounts to a "death
sentence."  However, the plaintiffs in the lawsuit argued that
the evacuation violates parish policy that requires that pump
operators remain at their posts and that the pumps be operated
under weather conditions such as those Katrina presented.


MCCLATCHY CO.: Star Tribune's Circulation Figures Are Accurate
--------------------------------------------------------------
Newspaper publisher McClatchy Co. said that it reported accurate
circulation figures for the Star Tribune newspaper in
Minneapolis, the company's largest, according to a recently
completed investigation launched in response to a lawsuit, The
Associated Press reports.

McClatchy, which owns several daily papers including the
Sacramento Bee and News & Observer in Raleigh, North Carolina,
also said that it has completed an extensive investigation of
the Star Tribune's circulation numbers and is confident that
they are accurate.

Four advertisers who claim that Minnesota's largest newspaper
inflated its circulation numbers so it could charge more for ads
are suing McClatchy and the Star Tribune.  The lawsuit, which
seeks class action status, alleges the Star Tribune required
distributors to dump unsold papers and failed to report returned
papers accurately. It includes allegations by an unnamed Star
Tribune distributor who also works for one of the plaintiffs,
Masterson Personnel, Inc. That allegation stated that in
December 2003, a Star Tribune circulation worker told the
distributor to order extra 2,500 papers per week, saying the
distributor would be reimbursed later for the papers. The
distributor bought extra papers for three weeks, for a total of
7,500 papers, the lawsuit alleges, an earlier Class Action
Reporter story (June 30, 2005) reports.

According to the lawsuit, that extra order was "because
circulation numbers for the Star Tribune were down and needed to
be increased before the end of December 2003. The representative
stated that the distributor could give the extra papers away,
sell them, or simply could throw them away." The suit though did
not specify how much plaintiffs believe the Star Tribune
overstated circulation, an earlier Class Action Reporter story
(June 30, 2005) reports.

Other plaintiffs aside from Masterson are Alternative Staffing,
Inc., Vision Staffing Solutions, Inc., and Purchasing
Professionals, Inc., who are all are employment agencies, an
earlier Class Action Reporter story (June 30, 2005) reports.

McClatchy said that it hired law firm Seyfarth Shaw to lead the
investigation, which also included two McClatchy executives from
other newspapers and three internal auditors.  In a press
statement Keith Moyer, publisher and president of the Star
Tribune, "We have consistently maintained that our reported
circulation numbers are sound. We will continue to vigorously
defend our good reputation."


MERIX CORPORATION: OR Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Oregon has
dismissed the consolidated securities class action filed against
Merix Corporation and certain of its executive officers and
directors, styled "In re Merix Securities Litigation, Lead Case
No. CV 04-826-MO."

Four similar suits were initially filed.  A lead plaintiff was
appointed, who filed a consolidated and amended class action
complaint on November 15, 2004. In the consolidated and amended
complaint, lead plaintiff alleges that the defendants violated
the federal securities laws by making certain allegedly false
and misleading statements. The lead plaintiff seeks unspecified
damages on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the
Company's securities during the period from October 14, 2003,
through May 13, 2004.

On February 25, 2005, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss
the amended and consolidated complaint, which is pending.  On
September 15, 2005, the court granted that motion without
prejudice and gave plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint.

The suit is styled "Central Laborers Pension Fund v. Merix
Corporation et al., case no. 3:04-cv-00826-MO," filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Oregon, under
Michael W. Mosman.  Representing the Company are Richard L.
Baum, Ronald L. Berenstain, Perkins Coie, LLP, 1120 NW Couch
Street, 10th Floor, Portland, OR 97209-4128, Phone:
(503) 727-2021, Fax: (503) 727-2222, E-mail:
baumr@perkinscoie.com or RBerenstain@perkinscoie.com.
Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Stuart L. Berman, Gregory M. Castaldo, Darren J. Check,
         Sean M. Handler, Andrew L. Zivitz, Schiffrin &
         Barroway, LLP, Three Bala Plaza East, Suite 400, Bala
         Cynwyd, PA 19004, Phone: (610) 667-7706, Fax: (610)
         667-7056, E-mail: sberman@sbclasslaw.com,
         dcheck@sbclasslaw.com, shandler@sbclasslaw.com,
         azivitz@sbclasslaw.com

     (2) Gary M. Berne, David F. Rees, Stoll Stoll Berne Lokting
         & Shlachter, PC, 209 S.W. Oak Street, Fifth Floor,
         Portland, OR 97204, Phone: (503) 227-1600, Fax: (503)
         227-6840, E-mail: gberne@ssbls.com or drees@ssbls.com

     (3) Lori G. Feldman, Steven G. Schulman, Milberg Weiss
         Bershad & Schulman, LLP, 1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite
         2550, Seattle, WA 98154, Phone: (206) 839-0730, Fax:
         (206) 839-0728, E-mail: lfeldman@milbergweiss.com


MYFREEMEDICINE.COM: Barred From Making Deceptive Trade Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
A company that lured low-income consumers with no insurance into
spending $199 with false claims that they would receive free
prescription medication has been barred from making the
deceptive claims by a U.S. District Court at the request of the
Federal Trade Commission.  The Court also froze the defendants'
assets to preserve them for consumer redress.

According to the FTC complaint, defendants, MyFreeMedicine.com,
LLC ("MFM") and its principal Geoffrey Hasler, target low income
consumers who spend more than $100 a month for medications.
These consumers might qualify to receive free prescription
medicine through one or more of the many patient assistance
programs - PAPs - operated by pharmaceutical companies. The PAPs
impose varying eligibility requirements on consumers and not all
drugs are available through these programs. Those that are may
only be available some of the time, or in certain doses.
The defendants' television and radio ads urge consumers who are
not covered by insurance to call a toll-free number to find out
if they are "eligible" to receive free prescription medications.
Defendants' sales reps routinely told consumers that they were
eligible to receive free prescription medication and that their
medications are available through their program. The sales reps
also told consumers that the company deals directly with
pharmaceutical companies and the federal government to obtain
free prescription medications for consumers, and that the
company would provide the medication directly to the consumers
or to their doctors. In fact, consumers did not get medications
from MFM. The company simply provided them with PAP application
forms that must be submitted to the pharmaceutical companies.
After paying $199.95 for a six-month enrollment in defendants'
program, many consumers learned that they were not eligible to
receive their prescription medications for free from a PAP, or
that their prescriptions were not available from a PAP.

Contrary to claims on their Web site and in telephone
conversations with consumers, the defendants have routinely
denied requests for refunds from consumers who were not able to
obtain their medications through their program.
The agency charged the defendants, based in Louisville, KY, with
violations of the FTC Act. The complaint was filed in U.S.
District Court for the District of Washington in Seattle. A
hearing to extend the temporary ban is scheduled for October 21,
2005.

Copies of the complaint are available from the FTC's Web site at
http://www.ftc.govand also from the FTC's Consumer Response
Center, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington,
D.C. 20580. The FTC works for the consumer to prevent
fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices in the
marketplace and to provide information to help consumers spot,
stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish
(bilingual counselors are available to take complaints), or to
get free information on any of 150 consumer topics, call toll-
free, 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357), or use the complaint form
at http://www.ftc.gov.The FTC enters Internet, telemarketing,
identity theft, and other fraud-related complaints into Consumer
Sentinel, a secure, online database available to hundreds of
civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and
abroad.  For more details, contact Claudia Bourne Farrell,
Office of Public Affairs by Phone: 202-326-2181 or
Charles Harwood or Eleanor Durham, FTC Northwest Region by
Phone: 206-220-4480 or 206-220-4476 or visit the Website:
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2005/10/myfreemed.htm.


PACIFIC HERBAL: Court Issues TRO For Consumer Fraud, Spam Mail
--------------------------------------------------------------
At the request of the Federal Trade Commission, a federal court
issued a temporary restraining order against marketers of oral
sprays that supposedly contain human growth hormone (HGH) to
stop them from making alleged false and deceptive claims and
from sending illegal spam. The temporary restraining order also
freezes the defendants' assets. The FTC charged that the sprays,
marketed on dozens of Web sites and through spam, do not cause
weight loss, reverse the aging process, or prevent or treat
diseases as advertised.

The FTC alleged in a complaint that the sprays do not contain
HGH or cause the body to produce it. The complaint charged that
the defendants made false and deceptive product claims,
misrepresented the security of their online ordering pages, and
sent hundreds of thousands of illegal spam messages advertising
the sprays.  The defendants are Pacific Herbal Sciences, Inc.
and its president, John A. Brackett, Jr., and Natural Health
Product, Inc. and New Star Marketing Group, Inc. and their
president, Lei Lu, also known as Lei Li, also doing business as
IE Marketing, Inc.

According to the FTC complaint, the advertisements for "HGH
Revolution" and "Natural Rejuvenator HGH-R" made incredible
claims such as "LOSE WEIGHT WHILE YOU SLEEP without DIETING or
EXERCISE;" "Experience up to an 82% IMPROVEMENT in body fat loss
while erasing 10 YEARS in 10 WEEKS!"  The marketing pitches for
the sprays referred to clinical studies and prestigious
publications to give credibility to their claims.

In its complaint, the FTC alleged the defendants made false
claims about their products, lacked substantiation for those
claims, and falsely stated that scientific studies validate
their claims. Specifically, the defendants' ads made false or
misleading claims that the sprays:

     (1) contained HGH or increased the body's production of
         HGH;

     (2) caused users to lose weight, without dieting or
         exercise;

     (3) would turn back or slow the aging process, including
         increasing strength and energy, restoring the size of
         "bodily organs that shrink with age," and improving
         memory; and

     (4) would prevent, treat, or cure diseases and medical
         conditions, such as strengthening the immune system,
         lowering blood pressure, lowering cholesterol,
         increasing bone density, improving vision, quickening
         healing from injuries, acting as an antidepressant, and
         stabilizing mood swings.

The defendants also claimed their Web site ordering pages were
secure, saying, "NOTE: To ensure your personal privacy, all of
the information that you submit to us after this point will be
secured using SSL encryption technology." The FTC charged that
the Web sites were not, in fact, encrypted, and consumer
information transmitted was not secure.

The FTC alleged that the defendants drove traffic to their Web
sites through spam, sent by marketers they paid. Consumers
forwarded more than 200,000 of these e-mails to the FTC in 18
months. The FTC's complaint contends that much of the
defendants' email violated the CAN-SPAM Act by using falsified
headers and deceptive subject headings; leaving out an Internet-
based mechanism to opt-out of receiving future e-mails; and
omitting required information, including the sender's physical
postal address, identification of the e-mail as an advertisement
or solicitation, and an opportunity to decline receiving further
e-mails from the sender.

The FTC is seeking a permanent ban on the defendants' false and
misleading claims and illegal spam, as well as money back for
consumers.

Copies of the complaint are available from the FTC's Web site at
http://www.ftc.govand also from the FTC's Consumer Response
Center, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington,
D.C. 20580. The FTC works for the consumer to prevent
fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices in the
marketplace and to provide information to help consumers spot,
stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish
(bilingual counselors are available to take complaints), or to
get free information on any of 150 consumer topics, call toll-
free, 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357), or use the complaint form
at http://www.ftc.gov.The FTC enters Internet, telemarketing,
identity theft, and other fraud-related complaints into Consumer
Sentinel, a secure, online database available to hundreds of
civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and
abroad.  For more details, contact Jackie Dizdul, Office of
Public Affairs by Phone: 202-326-2472 or contact Maxine Stansell
or Robert Schroeder, FTC's Northwest Region by Phone:
206-220-4474 or 206-220-4477 or visit the Website:
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2005/10/pacherbal.htm.


POSSIS MEDICAL: Shareholders Launch Securities Fraud Suits in MN
----------------------------------------------------------------
Possis Medical, Inc. faces several securities class actions
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Minnesota, alleging that the Company and certain named
individual officers violated federal securities laws.

The suits were filed on behalf of purchasers of Possis Medical,
Inc. ("Possis") (NASDAQ:POSS) common stock during the period
between September 25, 2002 and August 24, 2004 (the "Class
Period"). The complaints charge the Company and certain of its
officers and directors with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaints allege that during the Class Period, defendants
made false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
business and prospects, including about the capabilities and
safety of its primary product, the AngioJet system. As a result
of defendants' false statements, Possis stock traded at inflated
levels during the Class Period, whereby the Company's top
officers and directors arranged for the sale of more than $1.2
million worth of Company shares.


RED HAT: Final Fairness Hearing Set April 24,2006 in S.D. NY
------------------------------------------------------------
Final fairness hearing for the settlement of the consolidated
securities class action filed against Red Hat, Inc., certain of
its officers and directors and the underwriters of the Company's
initial public offering is set for April 24,2006 in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Several purported class action suits were initially filed,
arising out of the Company's initial public offering and
secondary offering.  On August 8, 2001, Chief Judge Michael
Mukasey of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York issued an order that transferred all of the so-called
IPO allocation actions, including the complaints involving the
Company, to one judge for coordinated pre-trial proceedings. The
court has consolidated the actions into a single action.

The plaintiffs contend that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing registration statements and
prospectuses that contained materially false and misleading
information and failed to disclose material information.
Plaintiffs also challenge certain IPO allocation practices by
underwriters and the lack of disclosure thereof in initial
public offering documents.

On April 19, 2002, plaintiffs filed amended complaints in each
of the 300 consolidated actions, including the Red Hat action.
The relief sought consists of unspecified damages. No discovery
has occurred to date.  The Company, among other issuers, the
plaintiffs, and the insurers have agreed, in concept, to a
proposed settlement whereby the Company would be released from
this litigation without further payment from the Company. That
proposed settlement has been submitted to the court for its
consideration and the court has accepted the proposed settlement
subject to certain amendments.  A fairness hearing on the
proposed settlement has been scheduled for April 24, 2006.

The suit is styled "In Re Red Hat, Inc. Initial Public Offering,
Case No. 01 Civ. 2712 (Sas)," related to "In re IPO Allocation
Securities Litigation, 21-MC-92," pending in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, under
Judge Shira A. Scheindlin.  The plaintiff firms in this
litigation are:

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

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

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

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

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

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


RED HAT: Plaintiffs Asks NC Court To Dismiss Securities Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Red Hat, Inc. asked the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of North Carolina to dismiss a consolidated
securities class action against it and several of its present
and former officers.

As of November 30, 2004, 14 class action lawsuits had been filed
against the Company and several of its present and former
officers on behalf of investors who purchased the Company's
securities during various periods from June 19, 2001 through
July 13, 2004.  In each of the actions, plaintiffs seek to
represent a class of purchasers of the Company's common stock
during some or all of the period from June 19, 2001 through July
13, 2004.

All of the claims arose in connection with the Company's
announcement on July 13, 2004 that it would restate certain of
its financial statements.  One or more of the plaintiffs assert
that certain present and former officers and the Company
variously violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder by issuing the
financial statements that the Company subsequently restated.

One or more of the plaintiffs seek unspecified damages,
interest, costs, attorneys' and experts' fees, an accounting of
certain profits obtained by the Individual Defendants from
trading in Red Hat common stock; disgorgement by the Company's
Chief Executive and former Chief Financial Officer of certain
compensation and profits from trading in the Company's common
stock, pursuant to Section 304 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, and other relief.

As of September 8, 2004, all of these class action lawsuits have
been consolidated into a single action referenced as "Civil
Action No. 5:04-CV-473BR" and titled "In re Red Hat, Inc.
Securities Litigation."  Lead counsel and lead plaintiff in the
case have now been designated, and on May 6, 2005, the
plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated class action complaint.

On July 29, 2005, the Company, on behalf of itself and the
Individual Defendants, filed a motion to dismiss the action for
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Also
on that date PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, also a defendant, filed
a separate motion to dismiss.

The suit is styled "In re Red Hat, Inc. Securities Litigation
(Borsellino v. Red Hat, Inc., et al.)," case no. 04-CV-473,
filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, under Judge W. Earl Britt.

Counsel for the plaintiff are William Webb and Rufus Edmisten of
The Edmisten & Webb Law Firm, P.O. Box 1509, Raleigh NC 27602,
Phone: 919-831-8700 by E-mail: woodywebb@wwedmisten.com and
rufus@rufusedmisten.com.  Representing the Company are: Pressly
M. Millen and Christopher Jones of Womble, Carlyle, Sandridge &
Rice, PO Box 831 Raleigh NC 27602 Phone: 919-755-2135 or E-mail:
pmillen@wcsr.com, cjones@wcsr.com.


SHURGARD STORAGE: CA Court Limits Class in Consumer Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of California for Orange County limited the
class in the lawsuit filed against Shurgard Storage Centers,
Inc., styled "Gary Drake v. Shurgard Storage Centers, Inc. et al
(Case No. 02CC00152)."

The complaint alleged that the Company misrepresents the size of
its storage units, seeks class action status and seeks damages,
injunctive relief and declaratory relief against the Company
under California statutory and common law relating to consumer
protection, unfair competition, fraud and deceit and negligent
misrepresentation.

The Court recently ruled that the class of potential members in
this lawsuit is limited to California customers of the Company.
No class has yet been certified.  In a filing with the
Securities and Exchange Commission, the Company said that it
does not currently believe that the outcome of this litigation
will have a material adverse effect on its financial position,
results of operations or cash flows.


SHURGARD STORAGE: CA Court Mulls Overtime Wage Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California has yet to decide on approval of the settlement for
the class action filed against Shurgard Storage Centers, Inc. in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California styled as "Patricia Scura et al. v. Shurgard Storage
Centers, Inc. (Case No. C 02-5246-WDB)."

The complaint alleges that the Company required its hourly store
employees to perform work before and after their scheduled work
times and failed to pay overtime compensation for work performed
before and after hours and during meal periods. The lawsuit
seeks class action status and seeks damages, injunctive relief
and a declaratory judgment against the Company under the federal
Fair Labor Standards Act and California statutory wage and hour
laws and laws relating to unlawful and unfair business
practices.

In December 2004, the Company reached a tentative agreement to
settle this lawsuit. The basis terms of the proposed agreement
are reflected in a Memorandum of Understanding, which was
incorporated into a definitive settlement agreement that was
submitted for approval by the District Court.  The District
Court established October 7, 2005, as the date for final
approval of the settlement agreement. Any class member who
objects to the settlement agreement must file objections on or
before September 23, 2005.

The suit is styled "Scura et al v. Shurgard Storage Centers,
Inc., case no. 3:02-cv-05246," filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, under
Judge Charles R. Breyer.  Representing the plaintiffs are J.E.B.
Pickett and Matthew Rigetti of Righetti Wynne, 456 Montgomery
Street Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: 415 983 0900 E-
mail: jebp@righettilaw.com, or matt@righettilaw.com.
Representing the Company is Clemens H. Barnes and James D.
DeRoche of Perkins Coie LLP, 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4800
Seattle, WA 98101-3099 Phone: 206-359-3861 E-mail:
jderoche@perkinscoie.com.


SHURGARD STORAGE: Shareholders Lodge Stock Fraud Suit in W.D. WA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shurgard Storage Centers, Inc. continues to face a securities
class actions filed in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington.

On January 19, 2005, David Gross filed a purported class action
suit styled as "David Gross v. Shurgard Storage Centers, Inc.,
Charles K. Barbo, and Harrell L. Beck. (Case No. CV05-0098)."
The suit alleges violations of federal securities law.  Mr.
Gross claimed that the Company made material misleading
misstatements and omissions relating to the Company's financial
statements in various public statements and filings, which Mr.
Gross alleges led to the artificial inflation of our stock
price.  On March 9, 2005, the Company received a copy of a
Notice of Dismissal without Prejudice filed by the law firms
that had represented the plaintiffs.

On March 15, 2005, the law firms in the Gross matter filed a
class action suit in U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington styled as "Stephen Zak, et al. v.
Shurgard Storage Centers, Inc., Charles K. Barbo, and Harrell
Beck (Case No. CV05-0417C)."  The suit alleges violations of
federal securities law and makes substantially similar claims to
those in the Gross complaint above.  The suit seeks unspecified
damages including attorneys' fees and costs.

The remaining suit is styled "Zak v. Shurgard Storage Centers
Inc et al., case no. 2:05-cv-00417-JCC," filed in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Washington,
under Judge John C. Coughenour.  Representing the Company is
Stellman Keehnel, DLA PIPER RUDNICK GRAY CARY US LLP, 701 Fifth
Avenue, Ste 7000, Seattle WA 98104-7044 Phone: 206-839-4800 E-
mail: stellman.keehnel@dlapiper.com.  Representing the
plaintiffs is Steve W. Berman, HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
1301 5th Ave. Ste 2900, Seattle WA 98101 Phone: 206-623-7292 E-
mail: steve@hagens-berman.com


STIHL INC.: Recalls 6,230 Backpack Blowers Due to Injury Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC), Stihl Inc. of Virginia Beach, Virginia is voluntarily
recalling about 6,230 BR 500 and BR 550 Backpack Blowers.

According to the Company, the fan wheel on these backpack
blowers could break, resulting in pieces of plastic flying out
of the blower housing. This poses a risk of injury to the user
or a bystander. Stihl has received five reports of the fan wheel
breaking. No injuries have been reported.

These backpack blowers have serial numbers ranging from
264264925 through 264740832, which are located on top of the
engine's cylinder on the fin. The spark plug boot can be removed
to view the serial number from the exterior of the blower.

Manufactured in the U.S.A., the backpack blowers were sold at
all authorized Stihl dealers nationwide from January 2005
through May 2005 for about $450.

As a remedy, consumers should stop using these blowers
immediately and return them to an authorized Stihl dealer for a
free repair.

Consumer Contact: Contact Stihl at (800) 610-6677 between 7 a.m.
and 8 p.m. ET Monday through Friday or visit Stihl's Web site at
http://www.stihlusa.com.


TARGET CORPORATION: Recalls Pencils, Sharpeners For Injury Risk
---------------------------------------------------------------
In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC), Target Corporation, of Minneapolis, Minnesota is
voluntarily recalling about 176,000 Jumbo Pencils with
Sharpeners.

The sharpener's razor blade is exposed when the cover is
removed. Also, the pencil sharpener hole is large enough to
allow a finger to fit inside. This poses a laceration hazard to
children and adults. Target has received 17 reports involving
the pencil sharpeners, including 12 children and adults who
received cuts to their fingers from the sharpener's razor blade.

The jumbo pencil has a red eraser on the end and comes with a
pencil sharpener. Pencils are either short, 8 inches long and
one inch wide, or long, 15 inches long and inch wide. The
pencils are blue, red or striped. The sharpeners are pink or
blue and come in a clear plastic pouch. Model number 70505 is
printed on the pouch.

Manufactured in China, the pencils and sharpeners were sold at
all Target Stores nationwide from July 2005 through August 2005
for about $1.

As a remedy, consumers should take the recalled jumbo pencil
with sharpeners away from children immediately and return them
to the nearest Target store for a GiftCard of $1 plus applicable
state tax.

Consumer Contact: For additional information, contact Target at
(800) 440-0680 between 7 a.m. and 6 p.m. CT Monday through
Friday, or log onto the firm's Web site: http://www.Target.com.


]UBS FINANCIAL: Ex-Workers File Racial Discrimination Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
Three African Americans, who were former employees of UBS
Financial Services, Inc. ("UBSFS"), filed a class action lawsuit
against the company in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York alleging racial discrimination in
hiring, promotion and other employment practices.

The suit was filed on behalf of all African Americans who were,
are, or will be employed, or who sought employment at UBSFS, as
brokers, non-broker officers, and other professional positions.
The lawsuit seeks to put an end to years of racial
discrimination at UBSFS.

The Complaint charges that UBSFS consistently fails to hire
qualified African Americans for its professional positions,
segregates African Americans within its workforce, assigns
African Americans to lower-ranking positions with lower
compensation than Caucasian employees, denies them opportunities
for promotion and advancement provided to similarly situated
Caucasian employees, and denies African American employees
resources, support and professional opportunities provided to
their Caucasian co-workers. According to the lawsuit, these
practices stem from stereotypes about the ability of African
Americans to operate within UBSFS's system and the securities
industry in general.

Among other facts, the Complaint cites the creation by UBSFS of
two so-called "diversity" branches based on a "separate but
unequal" model, staffed nearly entirely of minority brokers and
focused nearly entirely on obtaining business from minority
clientele. UBSFS failed to provide these segregated branch
offices with proper support and they were eventually closed.
Most of the minority brokers, who worked there, including two of
the plaintiffs, were eventually terminated. The Complaint also
cites company-wide racially disparate staffing statistics,
including the nearly total absence of African Americans in
branch office management positions. The lawsuit seeks injunctive
relief to end UBSFS's discriminatory practices as well as
compensatory and punitive damages.

The lawsuit is brought by attorneys Stephen A. Whinston, Carey
R. D'Avino, Shanon J. Carson and Selim Ablo of the law firm of
Berger & Montague, P.C., a national leader in representing
plaintiffs in class action and civil rights cases, and Bruce E.
Gerstein and Brett Cebulash of Garwin, Gerstein & Fisher, L.L.P.

For more details, contact Stephen A. Whinston, Esq., Selim Ablo,
Esq. and Shanon J. Carson, Esq. of Berger & Montague, P.C.,
Phone: (215) 875-3097, (215) 875-3075 and (215) 875-4656, E-
mail: swhinston@bm.net, sablo@bm.net and scarson@bm.net, Web
sites: http://www.bergermontague.comand
http://www.ubsfsdiscrimination.com.


WORKSTREAM INC.: Shareholders Launch Securities Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
Workstream, Inc., its Chief Executive Officer and its former
Chief Financial Officer faces a securities class action filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York.

The action, brought on behalf of a purported class of purchasers
of the Company's common shares during the period from January
14, 2005 to and including April 14, 2005, alleges, among other
things, that management provided the market misleading guidance
as to anticipated revenues for the quarter ended February 28,
2005, and failed to correct this guidance on a timely basis. The
action claims violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities and
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, as well as
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and seeks compensatory
damages in an unspecified amount as well as the award of
reasonable costs and expenses, including counsel and expert fees
and costs.

The suit is styled "Schottenfeld Qualified Associates LP et al
v. Workstream, Inc. et al., case no. 7:05-cv-07092-CLB," filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York, under Judge Charles L. Brieant.  Representing the
plaintiffs are Ronen Sarraf of Sarraf Gentile, LLP, 485 Seventh
Avenue, New York, NY 10018, Phone: (212) 868-3610, Fax:
(212)918-7967, E-mail: ronen@sarrafgentile.com and Ralph M.
Stone of Shalov Stone & Bonner LLP, 485 Seventh Avenue, Suite
1000, New York, NY 10018, Phone: (212) 239-4340, Fax:
(212) 239-4310, E-mail: rstone@lawssb.com.


WORLDCOM INC.: NYC Pension Funds Settle Fraud Lawsuit For $78.9M
----------------------------------------------------------------
New York City's five public pension funds reached a $78.9
million settlement of a securities fraud lawsuit stemming from
the collapse of WorldCom Inc., Reuters reports.

The agreement comes after the funds, which were betting that
they could win a better recovery by pursuing their own legal
action, pulled out of wider settlement negotiations that
resulted in a $6.1 billion recovery for other WorldCom
investors.  In a press statement, Michael Cardozo, the city's
corporation counsel, said, "This settlement fully validates the
decision of the funds' trustees to opt out of the class action
to pursue an individual case."

WorldCom filed for bankruptcy in 2002 after an $11 billion
accounting fraud that triggered billions of dollars in investor
losses.  According to Bruce Stanton, a senior attorney in the
pensions division at the New York City Law Department, the city
pension funds lost more than $200 million on their WorldCom
stock and bond investments about $130 million of which was
considered directly related to the fraud at the
telecommunications company.

The funds told Reuters that the settlement is about three times
bigger than what they would have gotten as part of the wider
class action case brought by New York State Comptroller Alan
Hevesi against a group of banks and other defendants. A
Manhattan federal judge recently approved the $6.1 billion
settlement stemming from that case.

However, Sean Coffey, a lawyer for the plaintiffs in the class
action, questioned the pension funds' contentions that they
fared better by opting out of the lawsuit. He told Reuters, "I
would be very skeptical of any claim that an individual
plaintiff did better than a class member given the
representations that had been made to the federal court about
the individual plaintiff's damages, and the significant
disparity in attorneys fees," which totaled about 5.5 percent of
the $6.1 billion settlement or roughly $363 million in the class
action case.

The New York City pension funds, which represent more than
600,000 active and retired city teachers, police, firefighters
and other public employees, told Reuters that they are paying
about 15 percent of their settlement in attorneys' fees or
around $11.8 million.

Mr. Stanton explains to Reuters that it's typical to pay a
higher amount in an individual case compared with a larger class
action where the overall dollar amount of attorneys' fees is
much higher.

The settling defendants include Citigroup, J.P. Morgan Chase &
Co., Bank of America Corporation, Deutsche Bank AG, ABN AMRO and
Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., all of which underwrote WorldCom
bond offerings, according to the city pension funds. Others
involved in the settlement include Jack Grubman, a former Wall
Street analyst, ex-directors at WorldCom and the company's
former auditors, Arthur Andersen LLP.


                 New Securities Fraud Cases

ANDRX CORPORATION: Federman & Sherwood Lodges Fraud Suit in FL
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Federman & Sherwood initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida against Andrx Corporation (Nasdaq: ADRX).

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of
material misrepresentations to the market which had the effect
of artificially inflating the market price. The class period is
from March 09, 2005 through September 05, 2005.

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


BARRIER THERAPEUTICS: Federman & Sherwood Files Fraud Suit in NJ
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Federman & Sherwood initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey against Barrier Therapeutics, Inc. (Nasdaq: BTRX).

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of
material misrepresentations to the market which had the effect
of artificially inflating the market price. The class period is
from April 29, 2004 through June 29, 2005.

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


MERCURY INTERACTIVE: Scott + Scott Extends Suit's Class Period
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Scott + Scott, LLC, which initiated the first
securities fraud class action in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California against Mercury
Interactive Corporation ("Mercury" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:
MERQE) and individual defendants on August 21, 2005, extended
the Class Period on behalf of Mercury Interactive securities
purchasers to now include the period from October 22, 2003,
through October 4, 2005, inclusive.

The suit was originally brought on behalf of all shareholders
who purchased or acquired MercInteractive securities from
December 1, 2004 until July 5, 2005. The case is also brought on
behalf of those purchasing notes convertible to shares of
Company stock, pursuant to the Company's 0 Coupon Senior
Convertible Notes (due 2008 offering).

MercInteractive, an enterprise software company, provides
software and services to the business technology optimization
(BTO) marketplace. Its BTO offerings, known as Mercury
Optimization Centers, consist of integrated software, services,
and practices that enable companies to use a center of approach
to govern the priorities, processes, and people of information
technology (IT); deliver and manage applications; and integrate
IT strategy and execution. MercInteractive offers products and
services in three product lines: IT governance, application
delivery, and application management. The company's IT
governance offerings are used to prioritize and automate IT
business processes from demand through production. Its
application delivery offerings enable customers to optimize
custom-built and prepackaged software applications before they
go into production. MercInteractive's application management
offerings enable customers to optimize business availability and
problem resolution, as well as to proactively manage and
automate the repair of production problems. In addition, the
company provides a range of professional and educational
services, as well as customer support offerings that enable
partners and customers to implement, customize, manage, and
extend its BTO offerings. MercInteractive offers its products
and services primarily through its direct sales organization, as
well as through inside corporate sales professionals worldwide.
The company has strategic alliances principally with Oracle, SAP
AG, Siebel Systems, and Accentor. Mercury Interactive
Corporation was founded in 1989 and is headquartered in Mountain
View, California.

As late as April 28, 2005, Defendants increased their previous
2005 annual guidance, serving to affirm prior statements that
the company was continuing in a positive direction. Unbeknownst
to investors, it is alleged that Defendants concealed auditing
expenses during the class period.

For more details, contact Neil Rothstein or Amy K. Saba of Scott
+ Scott, LLC, Phone: 1-800-332-2259, +1-619-251-0887 or
1-800-332-2259, ext. 26, E-mail: nrothstein@scott-scott.com or
asaba@scott-scott.com, Web site: http://www.scott-scott.com.


TAG-IT PACIFIC: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of Tag-It
Pacific, Inc. (AMEX: TAG) between November 14, 2003 and August
12, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

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

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


TAG-IT PACIFC: Federman & Sherwood Lodges Securities Suit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Federman & Sherwood initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California against Tag-It Pacific, Inc. (Amex: TAG).

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of
material misrepresentations to the market which had the effect
of artificially inflating the market price. The class period is
from November 14, 2003 through August 12, 2005.

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




                            *********


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 2004.  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  * * *