CAR_Public/051025.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, October 25, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 211


                            Headlines

ADVANCED MAGNESIUM: IN Residents to Get January Fire Settlement
ALLOS THERAPEUTICS: CO Court Dismisses Remaining Securities Suit
AMERIGROUP CORPORATION: Faces Securities Fraud Suits in E.D. VA
CATHOLIC CHURCH: Attorneys Re-File Sex Abuse Lawsuit in Kentucky
DANA CORPORATION: Shareholders File Securities Fraud Suits in OH

DOW CHEMICAL: Vows To Appeal Ruling Allowing MI Suit to Proceed
eBAY INC.: Agrees To Stop Stun Guns Sale To New York Residents
ELAN CORPORATION: No New Cases of Brain Disease in Tysabri Users
ENTERYX: Acid Reflux Drug Recalled Due To Injury, Death Hazard
HOME MADE: Recalls Tuna Salads Due to Listeria Contamination

INTERCALLNET INC.: SEC Sues Ex-Officers, Promoters For Fraud
LIPMAN ELECTRONIC: Shareholders File Securities Suits in E.D. NY
MERCK & CO.: Firm Files Vioxx Suit on behalf of Israeli Citizens
MERCK & CO.: Executive Says 1990 Studies Affirmed Vioxx Safety
NEW YORK: SUNY-Oneonta Racial Profiling Case Goes to Trial Soon

NISSAN MOTOR: Recalls 33,042 2004-05 Quest Due to Injury Hazard
NORBOURG FINANCIAL: Plaintiff's Counsel Widen Scopes of Lawsuit
OPTIMA BUS: Recalls 166 Various 2004-05 Buses For Crash Hazard
PETCO ANIMAL: Shareholders Revise Arguments, Consolidate Suits
REFCO INC.: Shalov Stone Expands Securities Fraud Investigation

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: To Pay $300M To Settle Antitrust Charges
SAVIENT PHARMACEUTICALS: Plaintiffs Lodge 2nd Amended Complaint
SOUTH AFRICA: Physicist Asserts Climate Change Victims Could Sue
SPECTRUM BRANDS: Shareholders File Securities Suits in N.D. GA
TEMPUR-PEDIC INTERNATIONAL: Faces Securities Lawsuits in E.D. KY

THOROUGHBRED INDUSTRIAL: Airgas-Mid Files Suit Air Gas Cylinders
TOYOTA MOTOR: Recalls 7,203 2006 Tacoma Pickups For Crash Hazard
WASHINGTON: Judge Allows Indigent-Defense Complaint to Progress

                  New Securities Fraud Cases

DANA CORPORATION: Spector Roseman Lodges Securities Suit in OH
DANA CORPORATION: Zwerling Schachter Files Securities Suit in OH
MERCURY INTERACTIVE: Scott + Scott Extends Suit's Class Period
PIXAR STUDIOS: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CA
REFCO INC.: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY

                          *********


ADVANCED MAGNESIUM: IN Residents to Get January Fire Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Residents forced from their homes in January by a magnesium fire
at an Anderson, Indiana recycling plant will receive about $200
each under a settlement with the company, The Associated Press
reports.

The two class action lawsuits filed against Advanced Magnesium
Alloys Corporation were settled recently for one million
dollars, which was the amount of liability insurance the company
carried.

The magnesium fire, which began on January 14 and lasted for
days, led to the evacuation of some of the 5,000 people who live
in Anderson's downtown area. Magnesium will burn and can even
explode on contact with water and must be extinguished with sand
or other material, an earlier Class Action Reporter story
(January 20, 2005) reports.

Under the settlement, residents forced from their homes will
receive about 200 dollars each, while businesses that were
forced to close will receive 1,000 dollars. Meanwhile, the
attorneys who filed the lawsuits will receive one third of the
one million-dollar settlement, plus expenses.


ALLOS THERAPEUTICS: CO Court Dismisses Remaining Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Colorado
dismissed the securities class action filed against Allos
Therapeutics, Inc. (Nasdaq: ALTH) and one of its officers with
prejudice.

In an opinion dated October 20, 2005, the United States District
Court for the District of Colorado concluded that the
plaintiff's complaint failed to meet the legal pleading
requirements applicable to its alleged claims. The plaintiff has
30 days to determine whether it will appeal the decision to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

"We are extremely pleased with the result," said Marc H.
Graboyes, Vice President, General Counsel of Allos. "We have
always believed that the plaintiff's case lacked merit, and we
are gratified that the court agreed. We are excited to put this
behind us and continue moving forward with our on-going clinical
trials and product development efforts."

For more details, contact Jennifer Neiman, Manager, Corporate
Communications of Allos Therapeutics, Inc., Phone:
1-720-540-5227, E-mail: jneiman@allos.com, Web site:
http://www.allos.com.


AMERIGROUP CORPORATION: Faces Securities Fraud Suits in E.D. VA
---------------------------------------------------------------
AMERIGROUP Corporation faces several securities class actions
filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
securities from April 27,2005 to September 28,2005.

The complaints charge AMERIGROUP and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  AMERIGROUP operates as a multi-state managed healthcare
company focused on serving people who receive healthcare
benefits through publicly sponsored programs, such as Medicaid,
State Children's Health Insurance Program and FamilyCare.

Specifically, the complaints allege that during the Class
Period, defendants caused AMERIGROUP's shares to trade at
artificially inflated levels by issuing a series of materially
false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
financial statements, business and prospects, specifically by
failing to account for at least $23 million in medical costs
incurred in prior quarters but not included in the results for
those quarters. This caused the Company's stock to trade as high
as $49.30 per share during the Class Period. Defendants took
advantage of this artificial inflation, selling 170,712 shares
of their AMERIGROUP stock for proceeds of $6.1 million.

The complaints further allege that on or around September 28,
2005, after the market closed, the Company issued a press
release announcing that "it expects to report a third quarter
2005 loss of $0.06 to $0.08 per diluted share, as compared to
current consensus earnings estimate of $0.48 per diluted share.
As a result, the Company will not meet its 2005 annual earnings
guidance of $1.73 to $1.78 per diluted share. The third quarter
results will include additional estimated medical costs related
to services performed in prior periods, primarily the first and
second quarters of 2005, of approximately $23 million, or $0.26
per diluted share. . . . Third quarter earnings per diluted
share, excluding the impact of the prior period development, are
estimated to be $0.18 to $0.20 as compared to current consensus
earnings estimate of $0.48 per diluted share."

On this news, AMERIGROUP's stock fell $14.70 per share to as low
as $19.21 per share before closing at $19.81 per share on volume
of 8.4 million shares, more than 12 times the daily average.

The first identified complaint in the litigation is styled "Jose
Nieves, et al. v. AMERIGROUP Corporation, et al." filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia.  The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

     (1) Abbey Gardy, LLP, 212 East 39th Street, New York, NY,
         10016, Phone: 212.889.3700, E-mail: info@abbeygardy.com

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

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

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

     (5) Finkelstein, Thompson & Loughran, 1050 30th Street, NW,
         Washington, DC, 20007, Phone: 202.337.8000, Fax:
         202.337.8090, E-mail: contact@ftllaw.com

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

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

     (8) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San
         Diego), 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA,
         92101, Phone: 619.231.1058, Fax: 619.231.7423,

     (9) 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

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

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


CATHOLIC CHURCH: Attorneys Re-File Sex Abuse Lawsuit in Kentucky
----------------------------------------------------------------
Claims for dozens of plaintiffs who allege they were sexually
abused at Catholic orphanages and schools in Kentucky were
recently re-filed by attorneys just as a judge rejected an
appeal for class action status, The Louisville Courier-Journal
reports.

The lawsuit in question was filed against the Sisters of Charity
of Nazareth, the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Louisville and
its Catholic Charities agency, the Louisville Courier-Journal
reports.  In that ruling, Judge Denise Clayton stated that the
plaintiffs' claims did not fit the criteria for a class action
suit. In addition, she also ruled that each plaintiff had to
file a separate lawsuit.

Since last week, as a direct result of Judge Clayton's ruling,
attorneys have filed 47 new lawsuits against the nuns and the
archdiocese. Combined with a handful of cases that had already
been filed individually, 51 plaintiffs now have separate pending
lawsuits.  All but one of the plaintiffs in the current lawsuits
allege they were molested by a priest, several nuns and two lay
people at St. Vincent in Louisville and St. Thomas in Anchorage,
which later became the merged St. Thomas-St. Vincent Orphanage.


DANA CORPORATION: Shareholders File Securities Fraud Suits in OH
----------------------------------------------------------------
Several purported shareholder class action lawsuits have been
filed against Dana Corporation and certain of its executive
officers and directors alleging violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

Specifically, the Complaints allege that by the beginning of the
Class Period, the Company's profits were being negatively
impacted by an increase in the price of raw materials - steel,
in particular - which was disconcerting to investors. In order
to assure the market that the Company's business was performing
according to plan, and would continue to perform well even if
steel prices did not decline materially, defendants artificially
inflated Dana's net income through improper accounting and, in
addition, issued earnings guidance that lacked any reasonable
basis given the Company's true performance and prospects, which
were known to defendants but not the investing public.

In particular, defendants' Class Period representations
regarding Dana's historical financial performance and condition
and its expected 2005 earnings were materially false and
misleading because:

     (1) the Company had improperly accounted for price
         increases, which materially artificially inflated its
         second quarter of 2005 income;

     (2) the Individual Defendants' assurances, made in written
         certifications filed with the SEC, that the second
         quarter Form 10-Q was free from misstatements and
         fairly presented the Company's financial condition and
         results of operations was patently false;

     (3) the Company's apparent success was the result of
         improper accounting, did not reflect the reality of its
         business and deceived investors; and

     (4) in light of these facts, which were known to
         defendants, defendants' guidance lacked any rational
         basis and could not be met without a material drop in
         raw material prices, contrary to defendants' repeated
         assurances to the contrary.

The complaints further allege that on or around September 15,
2005, before the open of ordinary trading, Dana issued a press
release announcing that it would likely restate second quarter
2005 financial results and that it had dramatically lowered its
2005 earnings guidance, to $0.60 to $0.70 per share from $1.30
to $1.45, a more than 100% reduction. Because of the expected
earnings shortfall, the Company may have to write down its U.S.
deferred tax assets and may be in violation of covenants
contained in a loan agreement, according to the press release. A
main reason given for the halving of the 2005 guidance was high
steel costs, a factor that defendants repeatedly assured the
market was already considered, and accounted for, in the
guidance.

In reaction to this announcement, the price of Dana stock fell
dramatically, from $12.78 per share on September 14, 2005 to
$9.86 per share on September 15, 2005, a one-day drop of 22.8%
on unusually heavy trading volume.

The first identified complaint is styled "John Johnson, et al.
v. Dana Corporation, et al., case no. 05-CV-7388," filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio,
on behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities from March
23,2005 to September 14,2005.  Plaintiff firms in this
litigation are:

     (i) Abbey Gardy, LLP, 212 East 39th Street, New York, NY,
         10016, Phone: 212.889.3700, E-mail: info@abbeygardy.com

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

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

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

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

    (vi) Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A., World Trade
         Center-Baltimore,401 East Pratt Suite 2525, Baltimore,
         MD, 21202, phone: 410.332.0030, E-mail:
         pivenlaw@erols.com

   (vii) Lockridge, Grindal, Nauen P.L.L.P., Suite 301, 660
         Pennsylvania Avenue Southeast, Washington, DC, 20003-
         4335, Phone: 202.544.9840, Fax: 202.544.9850,

  (viii) 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

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

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

    (xi) Smith & Smith LLP, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112,
         Bensalem, PA, 19020, Phone: 215.638.4847, Fax:
         215.638.4867,

   (xii) Spector, Roseman & Kodroff (Philadelphia), 1818 Market
         Street; Suite 2500, Philadelphia, PA, 19103, Phone:
         215.496.0300, Fax: 215.496.6610, E-mail:
         classaction@srk-law.com

  (xiii) 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


DOW CHEMICAL: Vows To Appeal Ruling Allowing MI Suit to Proceed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Saginaw County Chief Circuit, Michigan Judge Leopold P. Borrello
ruled that residents claiming property damage because of
historic dioxin releases from Dow Chemical Co. could proceed
with a class action lawsuit, The Saginaw News reports.

Kathy Henry filed the suit along with her husband in March 2003
after the state uncovered contamination along the Tittabawassee
River. A tearful Mrs. Henry told The Saginaw News, "This is a
big weight off our shoulders. It validates what we have been
saying all along that there is something wrong here."

Dow officials though vowed to appeal the ruling, which will
allow up to 2,000 people to sue the company because of dioxin
contamination. They maintained that the court couldn't possibly
try the case as a class when the circumstances facing each
property owner are unique. According to spokesman Scot Wheeler,
"The individual differences among the plaintiffs with regard to
property overwhelming overtake the commonalties in this case. We
will certainly appeal."

The decision, which is only the second time in the last 20 years
that a Saginaw County judge has certified a class action
lawsuit, expands the case from 160-plus named plaintiffs to
about 2,000 property owners who live within the flood plain of
the Tittabawassee. Under state law, residents are included in
the lawsuit unless they opt out.

In his ruling Judge Borrello stated that the suit is best
handled on a group basis. He also said, "To deny a class action
in this case and allow the plaintiffs to pursue individual
claims would result in up to 2,000 individual claims being filed
in this court. Such a result would impede the convenient
administration of justice."


eBAY INC.: Agrees To Stop Stun Guns Sale To New York Residents
--------------------------------------------------------------
Online auction giant eBay Inc. will block the sale and shipment
of stun guns and other illegal weapons to New York residents
under an agreement with State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer,
the Associated Press reports.

New York is one of the seven states that banned Taser
International's controversial electronic stun devices.  Under
the agreement, New York residents who bid on an illegal weapon
will receive an electronic warning from eBay that the
transaction is illegal and that any purchase will be reported to
authorities.  The Company has also sent letters to stun-gun
sellers to warn them that the sale of such weapons in New York
is illegal and agreed to suspend retailers who violate New York
laws.

Attorney General Spitzer initiated a probe last year that
discovered that eBay users were easily able to buy stun guns
through the website.  Investigators, posing as ordinary
customers, bought 16 stun guns from 16 different sellers on
eBay.  The sellers, 14 of whom are from outside New York, are
believed to have sold more than 1,100 stun guns to New Yorkers
from September 2003 to August 2005, investigators said. Included
in the sales were a Taser International Inc. stun gun valued at
$57 (,47) and a $400 (,330) "Air Taser" that delivers a
50,000-volt disabling shock through darts connected by wires to
the weapon, the AP reports.

"You wouldn't want these used in either illegal activities or
horseplay," the Attorney General's spokesman Paul Larrabee told
the AP.  "Dangerous devices should not be in the hands of those
unable to properly use them and you certainly don't want them
used in any criminal activity."


ELAN CORPORATION: No New Cases of Brain Disease in Tysabri Users
----------------------------------------------------------------
No new cases of a rare brain disease was found among nearly
1,500 people who took the suspended drug Tysabri, developers
Elan Corporation PLC and Biogen Idec, Inc. told the Associated
Press.

On February 28, 2005, the two firms withdrew Tysabri, a drug
used to treat rheumatoid arthritis and Crohn's disease, after
just three weeks on the U.S. market.  Fears were raised that the
drug could cause progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy, or
PML, a usually fatal disease.  The Companies then confirmed that
two MS patients and one sufferer of Crohn's, an intestinal
disorder, had contracted PML.  The Crohn's patient and one of
the MS patients died.

As a result, several injury suits were filed against both
companies, asserting claims for strict product liability,
medical monitoring and concert of action arising out of the
manufacture, marketing, distribution and sale of TYSABRI.
Several shareholder suits were also filed against Biogen Idec,
on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's publicly-traded
securities between February 18, 2004 and February 25, 2005.
These suits have been coordinated in the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts.

The companies said 88 percent of the approximately 1,500 people
who took Tysabri in clinical trials to treat rheumatoid
arthritis and Crohn's, an intestinal disorder, underwent MRI
scans and neurological examinations for signs of PML, but no new
cases were confirmed, AP reports.

Earlier, both firms announced their application to the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration to resume selling Tysabri with a revised
label and a plan to address patient risks.  "The companies also
recently submitted a similar data package to the European
Medicines Agency," Elan and Biogen said, according to AP.

Analysts said they expected U.S. and European regulators to
advance their own safety evaluations of Tysabri soon, with a
potential restricted return to the market several months, rather
than years, away, AP reports.


ENTERYX: Acid Reflux Drug Recalled Due To Injury, Death Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Food and Drugs Administration (FDA) warned
against the use of Enteryx to treat acid reflux disease, after
it was connected to serious health problems and, in at least one
case, a death, the Associated Press reports.

Enteryx is injected as a liquid that solidifies into a spongy
material that cannot be removed.  When it is injected properly,
it strengthens the lower esophagus, helping prevent stomach acid
from entering it and causing pain.

The FDA did not provide specific numbers on the number of
problems that have been discovered.  Reportedly, many of the
problems have occurred when the drug was injected imprecisely,
missing its intended destination and passing through the wall of
the esophagus, sometimes entering other internal organs or the
bloodstream, risking blockage of blood vessels, the Food and
Drug Administration said, according to AP.  Doctors have not
always immediately detected a faulty injection.


Manufacturer Boston Scientific Corporation issued a recall on
September 23 but blamed the problems entirely on faulty
injection technique.  The Company also advised people who have
received an Enteryx injection in the last 30 days to see their
doctor for a follow-up, but the FDA said some problems
associated with the injection have occurred as much as seven
weeks later.

The FDA also cited at least two instances in which Enteryx was
injected properly but patients still developed problems.  The
death was blamed on Enteryx being injected into the wall of the
aorta.  The FDA said people who received the injection and are
suffering from chest, stomach or side pain, flu-like symptoms,
including fever, cough or shortness of breath, or fainting
spells should contact their doctor immediately, AP reports.


HOME MADE: Recalls Tuna Salads Due to Listeria Contamination
------------------------------------------------------------
Home Made Brand Foods Inc., 2 Opportunity Way, Newburyport MA
01950 is voluntarily recalling Home Made Brand Tuna Salad, in 5
lb. units with an expiration date of 10/16/05, because it has
the potential to be contaminated with Listeria monocytogeness,
an organism which can cause serious and sometimes fatal
infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and
others with weakened immune systems. Although healthy
individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms such as high
fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and
diarrhea, Listeria infection can cause miscarriages and
stillbirths among pregnant women.

Approximately 398 five-pound units were distributed through two
distributors in MA, ME and NY for sale at retail stores and deli
counters.

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.
voluntarily withdrew all tuna salad products in 5 lb., 10 lb.
and 12 oz. units with expiration dates between 10/16/05 and
11/07/05 distributed under the brand names: Home Made Brand
Foods; P & C Food Markets, Inc.; and Weis Markets labels.
Subsequently, samples submitted to a private lab found the
voluntarily withdrawn products negative for Listeria
monocytogenes.

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

Consumers who have purchased the 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.


INTERCALLNET INC.: SEC Sues Ex-Officers, Promoters For Fraud
------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed a settled civil
action in Federal District Court against Scott Gershon, the
founder and former Chief Executive Officer of Intercallnet,
Inc., Paul Cifaldi, the company's former Chief Operating
Officer, and stock promoters Neil Silver and Robert Davis for
engaging in a fraudulent scheme to sell unregistered
Intercallnet securities.

The Commission's complaint alleges that from March through
December 2000, Mr. Gershon, Mr. Cifaldi, Mr. Silver and Mr.
Davis participated in the fraudulent scheme in the following
manner.  Silver and Davis falsely represented themselves as
licensed brokers and sold the stock in exchange for undisclosed
commissions from Mr. Gershon, disguised on the company's books
as payments for the acquisition of assets.  Invoices from
fictitious companies Silver and Davis controlled were then
created and backdated to reflect the purported purchases.  Mr.
Cifaldi marked the fraudulent invoices "approved" for payment.
Intercallnet's periodic reports filed with the Commission from
April 2001 through November 2002 included financial statements,
which falsely characterized the stock promotion commissions as
payments for assets.

Mr. Gershon, without admitting or denying the allegations in the
complaint, consented to the entry of a final judgment
permanently enjoining him from violating Sections 5 and 17(a) of
the Securities Act and Sections 10(b) and 13(b)(5) of the
Exchange Act and Rules 10b-5, 13b2-1 and 13b2-2 thereunder, and
aiding and abetting violations of Sections 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A),
13(b)(2)(B) and 15(a) of the Exchange Act and Rules 12b-20, 13a-
1, and 13a-13 thereunder; permanently barring him from serving
as an officer or director of any public company; and ordering
him to pay disgorgement of $66,000 plus pre-judgment interest of
$11,819.95 and a civil money penalty of $100,000.

Mr. Cifaldi, without admitting or denying the allegations in the
complaint, consented to the entry of a final judgment
permanently enjoining him from violating Sections 5 and 17(a) of
the Securities Act and Sections 10(b) and 13(b)(5) of the
Exchange Act and Rules 10b-5, 13b2-1 and 13b2-2 thereunder,
and aiding and abetting violations of Sections 13(a),
13(b)(2)(A), 13(b)(2)(B) and 15(a) of the Exchange Act and Rules
12b-20, 13a-1, and 13a-13 thereunder; permanently barring him
from serving as an officer or director of any public company;
and ordering him to pay disgorgement of $45,736 plus pre-
judgment interest of $8,190.86.  Based on Mr. Cifaldi's Sworn
Statement of Financial Condition and other documentation, the
Commission waived the payment of disgorgement and prejudgment
interest and did not seek a penalty.

Mr. Silver, without admitting or denying the allegations in the
complaint, consented to the entry of a final judgment
permanently enjoining him from violating Sections 5 and 17(a) of
the Securities Act and Sections 10(b) and 15(a) of the Exchange
Act and Exchange Act Rule 10b-5; and ordering him to pay
disgorgement of $831,971, plus pre-judgment interest of
$153,051.28 and a civil money penalty of $50,000.

Mr. Davis, without admitting or denying the allegations in the
complaint, consented to the entry of a final judgment
permanently enjoining him from violating Sections 5 and 17(a) of
the Securities Act and Sections 10(b) and 15(a) of the Exchange
Act and Exchange Act Rule 10b-5; and ordering him to pay
disgorgement of $183,367, plus pre-judgment interest of
$32,839.19 and a civil money penalty of $50,000.

In a related settled administrative proceeding, Mr. Silver and
Mr. Davis, consented, without admitting or denying the
Commission's findings, to entry of a Commission order pursuant
to Exchange Act Section 15(b)(6) permanently barring each from
associating with a broker or dealer.  The Commission's Order, to
be issued upon entry of the permanent injunction by the federal
district court, finds that Mr. Silver and Mr. Davis were not
licensed to sell securities and acted as unregistered broker-
dealers in promoting the sale of unregistered Intercallnet
securities.

On October 19, the Commission issued an administrative order in
a related matter pursuant to Exchange Act Section 12(j)
instituting an administrative proceeding to determine whether or
not the registration of Intercallnet's securities should be
revoked or suspended for failure to file required periodic
reports with the Commission. The action is styled, SEC v. Scott
Gershon, Paul Cifaldi, Neil Silver and Robert Davis, Civil
Action No. 1:05 CV 02051, D.D.C., RWR (LR-19439; AAER-2339).


LIPMAN ELECTRONIC: Shareholders File Securities Suits in E.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lipman Electronic Engineering, Ltd. faces several securities
class actions filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's securities from October 4,2004 to September 27,2005.

The Complaints charge the Company and certain of the Company's
executive officers with violations of federal securities laws.
Among other things, plaintiff claims that defendants' material
omissions and dissemination of materially false and misleading
statements caused Lipman's stock price to become artificially
inflated, inflicting damages on investors.  The company
maintains its principal corporate offices at Rosh Haayin,
Israel, and engages in the development, manufacture, marketing
and sale of electronic payment systems and solutions worldwide.

The Complaints allege that defendants issued public statements
which fraudulently created a false impression concerning the
Company's business operations and prospects following the
acquisition of Dione, Plc ("Dione"), a United Kingdom-based
supplier of "smart card" payment systems. Defendants claimed
that the Dione acquisition would add to Lipman's earnings within
one year and "provide important new customer relationships that
would add critical mass to our U.K. presences."

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

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

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

The first identified complaint in this litigation is styled
"Eisenberg O. Management & Consulting, Ltd., et al. v. Lipman
Electronic Engineering, Ltd., et al.," filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.  The
plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

     (1) Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP (NY), 1501 Broadway, Suite
         1416, New York, NY, 10036, Phone: (917) 510-000, Fax:
         (646) 366-089, E-mail: info@glancylaw.com

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

     (3) Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP, 100 Park
         Avenue, 26th Floor, New York, NY, 10017-5516, Phone:
         212.661.1100, Fax: 212.661.8665, E-mail:
         info@pomerantzlaw.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


MERCK & CO.: Firm Files Vioxx Suit on behalf of Israeli Citizens
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kenneth B. Moll & Associates, Ltd. filed the
first class action lawsuit on behalf of all citizens of Israel
who allegedly died or were seriously injured by the pain
medication Vioxx.

The suit accuses United States pharmaceutical giant Merck & Co.
of failing to properly research the known risks of Vioxx and
warn Israeli consumers of potentially fatal side effects. "Vioxx
should never have been marketed in the first place," said
Kenneth B. Moll, whose firm filed the first worldwide class
action regarding Vioxx last fall.

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

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


MERCK & CO.: Executive Says 1990 Studies Affirmed Vioxx Safety
--------------------------------------------------------------
A Merck & Co. researcher asserted that many studies in the late
1990s proved that the company's controversial painkiller Vioxx
was safe, the Associated Press reports.

Researcher and Executive Vice President of Clinical Pharmacology
Dr. Barry Gertz testified in the second personal injury trial
against the pharmaceutical giant, held in Idaho.  The suit was
filed on behalf of Frederick "Mike" Humeston, 60, an Idaho
postal worker.  Mr. Humeston, who used Vioxx intermittently for
two months, blames the drug for his September 2001 heart attack.

Mr. Humeston is one of about 6,500 former Vioxx users suing
Merck over the drug, which the company pulled off the market in
September 2004 after long-term use was linked to increased risk
of heart attacks and strokes.  In August 2005, a Texas jury
found the company liable in a Vioxx user's death and ordered it
to pay the plaintiffs $253 million in damages.

The Company contends that Mr. Humeston's job stress and health
risks, not Vioxx, caused his heart attack, AP reports.  In his
testimony, Dr. Gertz said that the Company performed three
studies on dogs and one on rabbits to determine whether Vioxx
reduced prostacyclin, a naturally occurring chemical in the body
that helps prevents blood clots and opens blood vessels.  Dr.
Gertz's testimony bolstered Merck's argument that the company
performed subsequent studies to see if Vioxx reduced
prostacyclin and could cause heart attacks, and found that it
did not.

An internal Merck study that ended in 1997 suggested Vioxx could
cause a reduction in prostacyclin in the urine.  Mr. Humeston's
lawyers have pointed to that study as proof Merck knew its
blockbuster pain reliever could lead to heart attacks.

Mr. Humeston's lawyer Chris Seeger suggested in his cross-
examination that "all that testimony about bunny hearts and
dogs" had little bearing on how the medicine could affect
humans, AP reports.

With the jury out of the courtroom, the attorneys squabbled
before Judge Carol E. Higbee about Dr. Gertz's mention of the
fact that the drug had been withdrawn from the market. The
subject came up in opening arguments, and Judge Higbee ordered
it off-limits because she says it would distract from the key
question of whether Merck thought Vioxx was safe in 2001.

In a blow to the company, Judge Higbee said Thursday she
wouldn't allow discussion of the withdrawal, but she would
permit testimony that Merck stopped certain studies in 2004
because Vioxx had then been shown to double the risk of heart
attacks after 18 months of use, AP reports.


NEW YORK: SUNY-Oneonta Racial Profiling Case Goes to Trial Soon
---------------------------------------------------------------
A case of alleged racial profiling involving black students and
residents in Oneonta will go to trial soon in New York's Court
of Claims, after 13 years of legal setbacks, The Press & Sun-
Bulletin reports.

Though the plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages, the case, a
class action suit to be more precise, is about more than money,
according to their attorney, Scott Fein. He told The Press &
Sun-Bulletin, "These people are lawyers and doctors and
professionals now. It's not about money. They have persisted
because they don't want to ever see this happen again. This is
about making changes in policy and programs."

The case started when a 77-year-old woman said she was attacked
in her home near the State University of New York campus in
Oneonta in September 1992. The woman identified her assailant as
a black male who may have cut himself.

At the request of state police, Oneonta State school
administrators produced a list of black, male students. Police
then systematically questioned nearly 100 students and examined
their hands and arms for wounds. Authorities also made so-called
"street sweeps" in the city, stopping another 200 black men and
at least one woman. No arrest was ever made though.

The Oneonta State official who turned over the list of names was
temporarily demoted. Former Gov. Mario Cuomo, the state police
and Oneonta State officials have all apologized for the
searches, but that was hardly sufficient, according to Mr. Fein,
who told The Press & Sun-Bulletin, " This is what they did in
the deep South pre-civil rights. It's intimidation. It's
discrimination."

After the searches, a group of students, townspeople and others
sued in federal court in 1993 claiming local police, state
police, the city, state and college unconstitutionally targeted
them.

In 1995, a federal judge dismissed their claim. Later, The 2nd
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York agreed in part, ruling
that the searches did not violate the Constitution's "equal
protection" guarantee. The appeals court though did not address
the plaintiffs' claim that police violated their Fourth
Amendment protections against unreasonable searches or stops.
In 2001, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the case. In the
meantime, the case slowly progressed through state courts.

The state Court of Claims initially said it did not have the
authority to consider claims for monetary damages against the
state based on alleged constitutional violations. However, in
1996, the state's highest court, the Court of Appeals, ruled
that New Yorkers could seek monetary damages if state government
violated their constitutional rights.

That ruling upheld the students' claim of alleged state
constitutional violations of being discriminated against because
of their race and against illegal searches by police. In
addition, the court also found that the students might have a
valid claim against the state for failure to properly train its
personnel. Thus, the Court of Claims was ordered to reconsider
the students' case on those points.  Following the incident, the
school took steps to increase sensitivity at the college,
including training for faculty and staff, increased minority
hiring, increased funding for minority programs and counselors
for students.

Mr. Fein told The Press & Sun-Bulletin that some of the 60
plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit want to use the money to
fund scholarships and multicultural programming at SUNY-Oneonta.


NISSAN MOTOR: Recalls 33,042 2004-05 Quest Due to Injury Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nissan North America, Inc. in cooperation with the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Office of Defects
Investigation (ODI) is voluntarily recalling about 33,042 units
of 2004-05 NISSAN / QUEST mini vans due to crash hazard. NHTSA
CAMPAIGN ID Number: 05V480000.

According to the ODI, on certain mini vans equipped with a
folding third row rear seat, when the third row seat is raised
from its stowed position, it engages striker brackets, one on
each side of the seat cushion. The foldaway striker loop is
welded to a mounting bracket. The striker may become detached
from its mounting bracket due to a broken weld at the point of
attachment to the bracket. If the third row seat striker weld
fails, the striker could separate from the mounting bracket.
Striker separation could affect the risk of injury in certain
type crashes.

As a remedy, dealers will replace the third row seat striker
brackets. The recall is expected to begin on December 15, 2005.

For more details, contact Nissan, Phone: 1-800-647-7261 OR the
NHTSA Auto Safety Hotline: 1-888-327-4236 or 1-800-424-9153, Web
site: http://www.safecar.gov.


NORBOURG FINANCIAL: Plaintiff's Counsel Widen Scopes of Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lauzon Blanger, counsel for Mr. Maurice Ct, a citizen of St.
Ferdinand who launched a class action on August 26, 2005
following a search at Norbourg Financial Group, filed a series
of amendments in Superior Court, which are aimed at widening the
scope of the class action against many additional parties.

Among these parties, it is important to note the Caisse de dpt
et placement du Qubec against which Mr. Ct alleges, among
other things, that, "The CDP, by omitting to proceed with due
diligence before selling partnerships and funds to Norbourg
Financial Group, breached its duty to act reasonably and
diligently and let its commercial interests take priority over
the interests of the investors whose portfolios it held."

On December 21, 2003, the Caisse gave up its 21 Evolution mutual
funds by assigning them to Norbourg Gestion d'actifs, entirely
controlled by Vincent Lacroix for a total sale price of US$6M.
Mr. Ct has also directed his action against the securities
depository, The Northern Trust Company Canada, namely because
the importance of the amounts that Mr. Lacroix asked it to
transfer to non in trust corporate accounts and the frequency of
such transfers should have provoked immediate questions on the
company's behalf.

Finally, the amended procedure is aimed at 11 representatives of
group RSPs and a portfolio manager whom Mr. Ct reproaches of
having placed themselves in a situation of conflict of interests
in receiving personal financial advantages in exchange for the
transfer of the assets of their clients in the Norbourg and
Evolution funds.

"This is a very important step in the process aimed at obtaining
compensation on behalf of the investors that we represent,"
declared Mtre Yves Lauzon.

The amount of the claim is increased to $130M following
information obtained from the administrator Ernst & Young in its
provisional report dated September 26, 2005.  For more details,
contact Anna Vetere, Director of member services, Lauzon
Blanger, S.E.N.C.R.L., Phone: (514) 287-1000 or 1-800-287-8587,
E-mail: serviceauxmembres@lauzonbelanger.qc.ca, Web site:
http://www.lauzonbelanger.qc.ca/.


OPTIMA BUS: Recalls 166 Various 2004-05 Buses For Crash Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
Optima Bus Corporation in cooperation with the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration's Office of Defects Investigation
(ODI) is voluntarily recalling about 166 units of 2004-05 OPTIMA
/ AH-28, 2004-05 OPTIMA / ISB02, 2004-05 OPTIMA / OPUS 29, 2004-
05 OPTIMA / OPUS 34 buses due to crash hazard. NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID
Number: 05V481000.

According to the ODI, on certain transit buses equipped with
Arvinmeritor tie rod assemblies, the tie rod rubber boot seal
will degrade over time. The tie rod assembly could break loose
from the tie rod resulting in steering loss and a crash could
occur without prior warning.

As a remedy, dealers will inspect and replace degraded tie rod
assemblies. The manufacturer has not yet provided an owner
notification schedule.

For more details, contact Optima Bus, Phone: 316-779-7700 OR the
NHTSA Auto Safety Hotline: 1-888-327-4236 or 1-800-424-9153, Web
site: http://www.safecar.gov.


PETCO ANIMAL: Shareholders Revise Arguments, Consolidate Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Citing information from seven former employees, a shareholder
lawsuit against PETCO Animal Supplies, Inc. (NASDAQ: PETC)
alleges that accounting errors disclosed by the pet supplies
retailer this year were instead part of a deliberate scheme to
inflate the company's financial results, The San Diego Union
Tribune reports.

The San Diego-based Company delayed the filing of its fiscal
2004 financial statement with government regulators in April,
saying it had found that certain invoices were not processed in
a timely manner.  However, recent arguments in the case take a
far harsher view of PETCO's disclosures, alleging that some
managers were instructed to hold back invoices so profits would
appear better than they really were.

Daniel S. Drosman, a lawyer with the San Diego law firm of
Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, told The San
Diego Union Tribune, "These were intentional accounting
improprieties that management knew about and perpetrated."

The new allegations were included in revised arguments filed in
San Diego federal court. That 128-page filing consolidates four
shareholder suits filed against Petco this year.  According to
individuals familiar with the matter, the revised allegations
reflect the increasingly strict standards for making detailed
and specific allegations of corporate misconduct at the outset
of securities fraud suits filed on behalf of shareholders.
Following new securities laws passed in 1995, federal courts
have required such details before allowing cases to proceed.

The initial lawsuit brought by Lerach Coughlin was filed on
April 18 just three days after Petco said its financial
statement would be delayed.

Mr. Drosman told The San Diego Union Tribune, "Our investigation
at that time was very preliminary. We didn't have any
confidential witness information in the original complaint."
Though the revised suit does not identify the seven former PETCO
employees by name, they are described by their job titles and
responsibilities.

The suit alleges that Petco's top executives began to impose
extreme budgeting pressures on midlevel managers in 2004. Among
other things, they required operational divisions of the company
to accept unrealistic budgets that were far below actual
operating costs. It further alleges, "In order to meet quarterly
expectations given these unrealistic budgets, defendants
instructed Petco employees to hold back the recording of
incurred expenses and liabilities."

In the second half of 2004, according to the suit, PETCO
reported net earnings that were overstated because the results
did not reflect more than $3.1 million worth of unrecorded
freight and fuel invoices incurred at distribution centers.
PETCO was later "forced to reveal that it had failed to accrue
$5.6 million in expenses during 2004," the lawsuit alleges.

After delaying its 2004 financial results to investigate its
accounting errors, Petco lowered its profit in fiscal 2004 to
$82.4 million, or $1.41 per diluted share, from $83.7 million,
or $1.43 a share.

Additionally, the suit also alleges that PETCO inflated its
forecasts of 5 percent to 6 percent growth in same-store sales,
a measure closely watched by financial analysts as an indicator
of a retailer's financial health. It contends that by issuing
false and misleading statements about it's financial operations
PETCO's stock was artificially inflated from August 2004 through
August 2005.

The period includes a secondary stock offering in October 2004
that enabled PETCO's two investment groups, Texas Pacific Group
and Leonard Green & Partners, to sell all of their remaining
shares of PETCO common stock. The two firms were PETCO's largest
and controlling shareholders.

The suit was filed on behalf of Plumbers and Pipefitters Local
51 Pension Fund. It names PETCO Animal Supplies; Texas Pacific
and Leonard Green; senior executives including chief executive
James M. Myers, Chief Financial Officer Rodney Carter and
President Bruce Hall; and PETCO's executive chairman, Brian
Devine, and other directors.


REFCO INC.: Shalov Stone Expands Securities Fraud Investigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Shalov Stone & Bonner, LLP, which recently filed
a securities class action on behalf of purchasers of Refco, Inc.
(NYSE: RFX) securities, is expanding its investigation into the
alleged securities fraud at Refco to include Bawag P.S.K. Group
(and related parties), Austria's fourth-largest bank group. If
you purchased Refco stock or bonds (CUSIP No. 75866HAC1), you
are encouraged to contact Shalov Stone & Bonner LLP to discuss
your legal rights at no cost to you.

Earlier this month, just eight weeks after its initial public
offering, Refco announced that Phillip R. Bennett, its Chief
Executive Officer and controlling shareholder, was being placed
on a leave of absence and that the company had discovered --
ostensibly through an internal review -- a receivable of $430
million owed by Bennett to the company. The company also
announced that, based on the undisclosed related party
transactions, its prior financial statements should not be
relied upon.

On October 5, 2005, Bennett asked Bawag for a EUR 350 million
($419 million) loan, and offered his thirty-four percent stake
in Refco as collateral, according to Guenter Weninger, Bawag's
Supervisory Board Chairman. Days later Bawag agreed to lend the
money, which was then used to pay down the wrongfully concealed
$430 million receivable. Austria's deputy chancellor, Hubert
Gorbach, has recently called for Bawag to be officially
investigated and promised "consequences for the management."
Additionally, Austrian financial watchdog group FMA has launched
a probe into Bawag's involvement with Refco.

For more details, contact Thomas G. Ciarlone, Jr., Shalov Stone
& Bonner, LLP, Phone: (212) 239-4340, Fax: (212) 239-4310, E-
mail: tciarlone@lawssb.com, Web site: http://www.lawssb.com.


SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: To Pay $300M To Settle Antitrust Charges
-------------------------------------------------------------
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., the world's largest maker of
memory chips for computers and other gadgets, and its U.S.
subsidiary, Samsung Semiconductor Inc. will pay a $300 million
fine to settle accusations it secretly conspired with industry
rivals to fix prices and cheat customers, federal officials said
Thursday, according to the AP.

The Company's guilty plea ended a three-year probe by the
Justice Department into charges that the Company conspired with
other firms in e-mails, telephone calls and face-to-face
meetings to fix prices of memory chips, used in digital
recorders, personal computers, printers, video recorders, mobile
phones and many other electronics, between April 1999 and June
2002.

Earlier, the Justice Department also investigated Samsung's top
competitor Hynix which pleaded guilty this year to price-fixing
and paid a $185 million fine.  Last September, rival Infineon
Technologies AG of Germany agreed to a $160 million (,133.56
million) fine.  Another competitor, Micron Technology Inc. of
Boise, Idaho, has been cooperating with prosecutors and was not
expected to face charges.  The government said victims of the
price-fixing were:

     (1) Dell Inc.,

     (2) Compaq Computer Corporation,

     (3) Hewlett-Packard Co.,

     (4) Apple Computer Inc.,

     (5) International Business Machines Corporation and

     (6) Gateway Inc.


The Justice Department's acting antitrust chief, Thomas O.
Barnett, told AP seven Samsung employees are not legally
protected from further prosecution under the plea agreement, an
indication they may individually face criminal charges.  "That's
a decision for us to make moving forward," Barnett said. He
added that prosecuting executives in price-fixing cases - not
just the companies where they work - is an important deterrent
against similar crimes.

The guilty plea by South Korea-based Samsung Electronics Co.
Ltd. and was announced at Justice Department headquarters. The
court papers are expected to be filed within 30 days in U.S.
District Court in San Francisco.

Samsung said in a statement the company "strongly supports fair
competition and ethical practices and forbids anticompetitive
behavior."  A spokeswoman, Chris Goodhart, declined to identify
the seven employees or say whether they still worked for
Samsung, the AP reports.


SAVIENT PHARMACEUTICALS: Plaintiffs Lodge 2nd Amended Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
Savient Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ: SVNTE), a specialty
pharmaceutical company dedicated to developing, manufacturing
and marketing novel therapeutic products that address unmet
medical needs, stated that the plaintiffs in the Consolidated
Amended Class Action lawsuit, filed on December 20, 2002 against
the Company and three of its former officers, have filed a
Second Amended Complaint.

As previously announced by the Company on August 15, 2005, the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
dismissed, without prejudice and with leave to file an amended
Consolidated Complaint, the previous Consolidated Amended Class
Action lawsuit which was filed against Bio-Technology General
Corporation (BTG), now known as Savient Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
The Court's August 2005 decision was based, in part, on the
failure of the complaint by the plaintiffs, investors who
purchased shares of BTG during the Class Period of April 19,
1999 through August 2, 2002, to set forth particularized facts
that give rise to a strong inference that the defendants acted
with scienter (the required state of mind), had a motive to
commit fraud upon the subject investors or acted with conscious
disregard of the truth or recklessness.

The Company intends to continue its vigorous defense against
plaintiffs' allegations in this matter.

For more details, contact Jenene Thomas of Savient
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Phone: 732-565-4716, E-mail:
jdthomas@savientpharma.com, Francesca DeMartino of The Ruth
Group Investors, Phone: 646-536-7024, E-mail:
fdemartino@theruthgroup.com or Janine McCargo, Phone:
646-536-7033, E-mail: jmccargo@theruthgroup.com.


SOUTH AFRICA: Physicist Asserts Climate Change Victims Could Sue
----------------------------------------------------------------
The effects of climate change are becoming so obvious that
victims could sue for damages in a court of law, a British
climate expert said this week at a climate change conference
north of Johannesburg, South Africa, sabcnews.com reports.

According to Oxford physicist Myles Allen, the heating effect of
greenhouse gases increased the risk of dying during a recent
heat wave in Europe by more than half, which was all that was
required for courts to allocate blame and damages to respondents
charged with having caused an injury.

"Over the coming decade, both the cost and the inevitability of
climate change will become clearer, fuelling demands for
compensation for flooding and droughts, heat wave damages and
deaths, threats to water supplies, coastal erosion and
hurricanes," he said, sabcnews.com reports.

Mr. Allen urged developing countries to look carefully at the
current Kyoto arrangements.  Earlier this year, the Kyoto
Protocol was ratified.  Under the agreement, first world
signatories are committed to drastically reducing their carbon
dioxide emissions, or alternatively invest in sustainable,
carbon-efficient development in the third world.  Theoretically
this gives developing countries opportunities for funding and
development, something that India and South America have eagerly
exploited.

Mr. Allen said that this gave developing countries a strong
bargaining position in global debates.  He urged developing
countries to ask themselves whether they were being bought off
with ineffectual development aid.  "The risk, even if remote, of
a successful class action damages suit would have far more
impact than any conceivable follow-up to the Kyoto Protocol,"
Mr. Allen said, according to sabcnews.com.

The South African government is now taking climate change
seriously. It was obvious from the impressive array of officials
and dignitaries who spoke during the conference, sabcnews.com
reports.  Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka, the deputy president,
Marthinus van Schalkwyk, the minister of environmental affairs,
Mosibudi Mangena, the minister of science and technology,
Buyelwa Sonjica, the minister of water affairs and forestry
Thoko Didiza, the minister of land affairs and Vali Moosa, the
former environment minister, all spoke of the serious impact
that increasing carbon dioxide and temperatures could have on
South Africa and the continent.


SPECTRUM BRANDS: Shareholders File Securities Suits in N.D. GA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Spectrum Brands, Inc. faces several securities class actions
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
securities from January 4,2005 to September 6,2005.

The complaints alleges the Company and certain of its former
officers and directors violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5, by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period.
Specifically, the complaints allege that throughout the Class
Period, defendants were well aware that the Company's growth
model depended upon strong and consistent sales of its core
battery products, while at the same time acquiring and
integrating diversified brands.  Accordingly, throughout the
Class Period, defendants consistently represented:

     (1) that the Company was growing through acquisitions and
         diversifying revenues while maintaining sales of
         existing products and leveraging existing brands;

     (2) that the combination of Rayovac and United presented a
         "compelling value proposition";

     (3) that management of the Company had an outstanding track
         record for successfully integrating acquired brands
         "while maintaining marketplace momentum" of its legacy
         brands;

     (4) that defendants were able to drive revenue growth of
         its core brands by cross selling its legacy products to
         accounts acquired through acquisitions;

     (5) that the representations and warranties contained in
         the United Merger Agreement were true and accurate at
         all relevant times;

     (6) that the Company was achieving "record" sales during
         the Class Period with double-digit increases in battery
         sales, "exceptional performance" across the board and
         with integrations proceeding according to plan; and

     (7) that by the end of the Class Period the integration of
         United was substantially complete and also proceeding
         according to plan.

The representations concerning defendants' ability to acquire
and integrate diverse brands such as United and Tetra, while
maintaining robust sales of its core battery products, were
either patently untrue, or Defendants recklessly disregarded the
Company's true operational and financial condition. Unbeknownst
to investors, throughout the Class Period, the Company suffered
from a host of undisclosed adverse factors that negatively
impacted its business and caused it to report financial results
that were materially less than the market expectations
defendants had caused and cultivated.

The complaints further allege that it was only at the end of the
Class Period that investors ultimately learned that the Company
was operating far below expectations and realized that Spectrum
Brands had significantly inflated sales of its battery products
during the 1st and 2nd quarter of 2005. Accordingly, on July 28,
2005, when defendants reported results for the 3rd fiscal
quarter of 2005, the price of Spectrum Brands stock declined
over $8.00, falling over 20% to closing at $30.10 per share.

The bad news, however, was not over. On September 7, 2005, prior
to the market opening, defendants revealed that earnings for the
fourth quarter ending September 30, 2005 would be "substantially
lower" than the guidance previously reported. Defendants
attributed the shortfall to weak sales and "high (retail)
inventory levels." The unexpected news prompted additional
analyst downgrades. Analyst William Schmitz noted that "(a)fter
two earning warnings in six weeks, we believe already low
investor faith in this roll-up is likely to dissipate." In
response to the September 7, 2005 news, the stock dropped
another 13% on volumes of 4.26 million. In total, the stock lost
31% of its value in response to the disclosures.

A similar, purported class action complaint was also filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin
against Spectrum Brands, Inc. and certain of its officers.

The first identified complaint in the litigation is styled
"Sushil Kumar Jain, et al. v. Spectrum Brands, Inc., et al.,
case no. 05-CV-2494," filed in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia.  The plaintiff firms in
this litigation are:

     (1) Bruce G. Murphy, 265 Llwyds Lane, Vero Beach La, FL,
         32963, Phone: 561.231.4202,

     (2) Chitwood Harley Harnes LLP, 2300 Promenade II; 1230
         Peachtree Street, N.E., Atlanta, GA, 30309, Phone:
         (888) 873-3999, Fax: (404) 876-4476, E-mail:
          attorney@chitwoodlaw.com

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

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

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

     (6) 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

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

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


TEMPUR-PEDIC INTERNATIONAL: Faces Securities Lawsuits in E.D. KY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholders launched securities fraud class actions against
Tempur-Pedic International, Inc. in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, on behalf of
purchasers of the Company's securities from April 22,2005 to
September 19,2005.

The Complaints allege that by the beginning of the Class Period
investors became concerned that well-heeled competitors, such as
Sealy, Serta and Simmons, were making significant inroads into
the visco-elastic market that could challenge Tempur-Pedic's
dominance or, at the very least, erode its profits if it was
forced to slash prices in order to compete.  Defendants allayed
these concerns by misrepresenting that its business was not
suffering from the effects of competition and would continue to
grow strongly. Well into the Class Period, defendants reiterated
aggressive sales and earnings guidance for 2005, even after the
Company had begun to experience a slowdown.

Defendants' Class Period representations were materially false
and misleading when made because they failed to disclose that:

     (1) demand for Tempur-Pedic's products was slowing as
         competitors were gaining a foothold in the visco-
         elastic market;

     (2) defendants' repeated express assurances that the
         competition was not having a materially negative, or
         any, impact on the Company, even in response to express
         concerns raised by analysts, were untrue and provided
         false comfort to investors while inflating the price of
         Tempur-Pedic stock so insiders could sell their shares;
         and

     (3) in light of increasing competition that was already
         having a noticeable effect on the Company's business,
         defendants' guidance, reiterated on July 21, 2005,
         lacked any reasonable basis.

Defendants were motivated to commit the wrongdoing alleged
herein in order to sell their personally held Tempur-Pedic stock
at artificially inflated prices. During the Class Period,
insiders and entities associated with insiders, sold a total of
5,620,591 shares of Tempur-Pedic common stock at artificially
inflated prices, for proceeds of $131,910,207. Of that amount,
$124,550,000 was sold by TA Associates, a controlling
shareholder that has two nominee directors on Tempur-Pedic's
board of directors.

The Complaints further allege that on or around September 19,
2005, Tempur-Pedic issued lower guidance for 2005, which it
attributed to a number of factors, including competition that it
had said was not and would not have a negative impact, at least
not one large enough to cause it to lower its 2005 guidance,
which was reiterated less than a month before this announcement.

In response to this announcement, the price of Tempur-Pedic
common stock plummeted, falling 28.5% in one day, to $11.70 per
share on July 20, 2005 from $16.38 per share on July 19, 2005,
on unusually heavy trading volume.

The first identified suit is styled "Kevin J. Grillo, et al. v.
Tempur-Pedic International, Inc., et al.," filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky,
under Judge Karl S. Forester.  Plaintiff firms in this
litigation are:

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

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

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

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

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

    (vi) Smith & Smith LLP, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112,
         Bensalem, PA, 19020, Phone: 215.638.4847, Fax:
         215.638.4867,


THOROUGHBRED INDUSTRIAL: Airgas-Mid Files Suit Air Gas Cylinders
---------------------------------------------------------------
Airgas-Mid America initiated a lawsuit seeking class action
status against its competitors, claiming that its air gas
cylinders were illegally obtained and refilled, The Associated
Press reports.

The Bowling Green, Kentucky-based Company filed the suit in
Warren Circuit Court against Lexington-based Thoroughbred
Industrial Cylinder Exchange and its parent company, Scott-Gross
Co., claiming that the company and others yet unknown illegally
relabeled and sold Airgas-Mid America canisters after refilling
them.

Mike Owsley, one of the company's attorneys in Bowling Green,
told The Associated Press, "(Airgas-Mid America) had suspicions
about it for a long time, but only obtained concrete evidence of
it in the last few weeks."

According to the suit, Thoroughbred got the cylinders through
its exchange system, which allows customers to bring in empty
air gas cylinders and trade for newly refilled ones at retail
locations like Tractor Supply Company and Rural King, both of
which were also named as defendants. Other retailers
participating in the Thoroughbred exchange program, which have
yet to be identified, are included in the list of defendants as
"John Does."

The complaint is asking a judge to certify the lawsuit as a
class action for it to proceed with 700 yet to be identified
plaintiffs that are companies like Airgas-Mid America with
similar offerings.

In the suit, Airgas-Mid America claims that both Thoroughbred
and Scott-Gross knew what they were doing was illegal and tried
to disguise markings from other companies on the cylinders.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Recalls 7,203 2006 Tacoma Pickups For Crash Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
Toyota Motor North America, Inc. in cooperation with the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Office of
Defects Investigation (ODI) is voluntarily recalling about 7,203
units of 2006 TOYOTA / TACOMA pickup trucks due to crash hazard.
NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID Number: 05V482000.

According to the ODI, certain pickup trucks fail to conform to
the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No.
110, "Tire Selection and Rims." The vehicles' tire and loading
information label (placard) on the driver's side B-Pillar
incorrectly indicates the rear auxiliary seating accommodations
as designed seating positions, and includes them in the total
for designated seating capacity.

As remedy, owners will be provided with correct tire and loading
information labels to affix over the original label. If an owner
so desires, a dealer can install the label for them. The
manufacturer has not yet provided an owner notification schedule
for this recall.

For more details, contact Toyota, Phone: 1-800-331-4331 OR the
NHTSA Auto Safety Hotline: 1-888-327-4236 or 1-800-424-9153, Web
site: http://www.safecar.gov.


WASHINGTON: Judge Allows Indigent-Defense Complaint to Progress
---------------------------------------------------------------
Citing that indigents charged with a crime in Grant County in
the State of Washington have reason to fear that they will not
be adequately represented, Kittitas County Superior Court Judge
Michael Cooper ruled that a class action lawsuit against the
county should go to trial, The Associated Press reports.

The judge essentially denied the county's request to dismiss the
case, which was filed last year by the American Civil Liberties
Union and Columbia Legal Services.

The ACLU is requesting a court order requiring the county to
offer adequate defense for people who can't afford an attorney.
The case is scheduled for trial next month.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

DANA CORPORATION: Spector Roseman Lodges Securities Suit in OH
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C., initiated a
securities class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Ohio, on behalf of purchasers
of the common stock of Dana Corporation ("Dana" or the
"Company") (NYSE:DCN) between March 23, 2005 through September
14, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading
statements contained in press releases and filings with the
Securities and Exchange Commission during the Class Period.
Specifically, the Complaint alleges that on September 15, 2005,
Dana announced that it would restate its second quarter 2005
financial results and lowered its 2005 earnings guidance from
$1.30-$1.45 per share, to $0.60-$0.70 per share. On this news,
Dana stock fell from a close of $12.78 per share on September
14, 2005, to close at $9.86 per share on September 15, 2005. On
October 10, 2005, the Company announced that it will restate its
financial results for fiscal 2004 and the first half of fiscal
2005 because it failed to properly account for issues involving
customer pricing and transactions with suppliers in Dana's
commercial vehicle business. The Company further stated that it
will also delay the release of its third-quarter earnings
results, originally scheduled for October 19, and that it will
write off U.S. deferred tax assets, which, as of June 30,
totaled about $740 million.

For more details, contact Robert M. Roseman, Phone:
888-844-5862, E-mail: classaction@srk-law.com, Web site:
http://www.srk-law.com.


DANA CORPORATION: Zwerling Schachter Files Securities Suit in OH
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP, initiated a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio on behalf of all persons and entities
who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded common
stock of Dana Corporation ("Dana" or the "Company") (NYSE: DCN)
during the period from February 11, 2004 through October 10,
2005 (the "Class Period"). The deadline to move the Court
seeking to be appointed lead plaintiff is December 5, 2005.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Section 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. Defendants' Class Period representations
regarding Dana's historical financial performance and its
expected 2004 and 2005 earnings were materially false and
misleading because:

     (1) the Company had improperly accounted for price
         increases and improperly accounted for certain items
         involving customer pricing transactions with suppliers
         in its commercial vehicle business which artificially
         inflated revenue and earnings for the full year 2004
         and the first two quarters of 2005;

     (2) the Company's apparent financial success was the result
         of improper accounting and material weaknesses in its
         internal controls, which did not reflect the true
         nature of its business; and

     (3) contrary to defendants' repeated assurances,
         defendants' earnings guidance was not based on any
         reasonable assessment of the Company's business and was
         only achievable through the manipulation of the
         Company's financial statements.

On September 15, 2005, before the market opened, Dana announced
that it would likely restate its second quarter 2005 financial
results and that it had dramatically lowered its 2005 earnings
guidance, to $0.60 to $0.70 per share from $1.30 to $1.45 per
share. In addition, the Company cited higher steel costs as a
factor in the significantly reduced guidance, a factor that
defendants repeatedly assured investors was already considered,
and accounted for, in the guidance. Dana stock fell
dramatically, from $12.78 per share on September 14, 2005 to
$9.86 per share on September 15, 2005.

On October 10, 2005, Dana further announced that it would
restate its earnings for its entire fiscal year 2004 and for the
first two quarters of 2005. Dana also withdrew its profit
forecast for 2005. On that news, Dana stock fell $3.15 or 34
percent to close at $6.04 a share.

For more details, contact Shaye J. Fuchs, Esq. or Jayne Nykolyn
of Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP, Phone: 1-800-721-3900,
E-mail: sfuchs@zsz.com or jnykolyn@zsz.com, Web site:
http://www.zsz.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.


PIXAR STUDIOS: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP, initiated
a class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the securities of Pixar Animation Studios (or
the "Company") (Nasdaq: PIXR), between January 18, 2005 and June
30, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act").

The action, Civil Action number C-05-4290JSW, is pending before
the Honorable Jeffrey S. White, in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California against defendants
Pixar, Steve P. Jobs (Chairman and CEO), Edwin E. Catmull
(President), and Simon T. Bax (CFO and Executive VP). According
to the complaint, defendants violated sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5, by issuing a series of
material misrepresentations to the market during the Class
Period.

The complaint alleges that Pixar creates, develops, and produces
animated films and related products. During the Class Period,
the Company had a co-production agreement with The Walt Disney
Company ("Disney") for the development and production of
animated feature-length theatrical motion pictures. Defendants
claimed that one such film, The Incredibles, was a "Box-Office
smash hit" and would also be successful in the home video
market. According to the complaint, defendants stated, among
other things, that during the Class Period, sales of The
Incredibles home videos, including DVDs and VHS, would enable
the Company to produce earnings of at least $0.15 per share by
the second fiscal quarter of 2005. Unbeknownst to investors,
however, defendants' statements were materially false and
misleading because defendants knew, or recklessly disregarded,
that recent trends in the home video market indicated a slow
down in the sales of new home video releases and therefore,
increased returns of unsold copies from retailers that would
negatively impact the Company's earnings. In fact, according to
an article published in The Wall Street Journal, a new DVD
release would realize approximately 50-70% of its total sales in
its first week, compared to 33% and a steady increase in sales
thereafter five years ago. Defendants' response to the change in
sales trends of home videos was to flood the market with units
of The Incredibles home video, far in excess of what retailers
could sell, prior to and during the first weeks of release to
maximize sales. Defendants knew or recklessly disregarded,
however, that this strategy would result in a disproportionate
number of early sales followed by a disproportionate number of
product returns, but failed to make the necessary adjustments to
account therefor. As a result of defendants' wrongful and
illegal scheme, the price of Pixar securities became
artificially inflated during the Class Period and enabled
Company insiders, including defendants Bax and Catmull, to sell
hundreds of thousands of shares of their personally held Pixar
stock for over $27.1 million in proceeds.

On June 30, 2005, the last day of the Class Period, the Company
issued a press release lowering its second quarter 2005 earnings
guidance to $0.10 per diluted share from $0.15, the difference
of approximately $6 million in net income, as a result of
disappointing sales of The Incredibles home video units and an
increase in the Company's reserves for returns. As a result of
this news, the price of Pixar common stock fell more than $9.00
per share to $43.00 from the prior day's close of almost $52.00
per share, representing a one-day decline of over 17% on very
heavy trading volume. On August 26, 2005, defendants announced
that the SEC had commenced an investigation of Pixar in
connection with reported sales of The Incredibles DVD and that
the SEC had "requested information leading up to the filmmaker's
report earlier this month of lower second-quarter earnings." In
reaction to this news, Pixar shares fell an additional $1.01 per
share to close at below $42.00.

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


REFCO INC.: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A., filed a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of Refco, Inc.
(NYSE: RFX) between August 11, 2005 and October 13, 2005,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

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

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

                            *********


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  * * *